The aim of Joel Marcus’ John the Baptist in History and Theology is to offer a historical portrait of John the Baptist. Ιn his reconstruction Marcus makes certain pre-decisions when he understands the synoptic gospels to be primarily credible sources. He considers especially relevant those New Testament passages that reflect in his opinion the controversy between the followers of John and Jesus, or as the case may be, between early Christianity and the “Baptist movement”. This controversy or “competition” — the central hypothesis of the book — is supposed to have its origins at the time of John’s ministry (27) and can be seen not only in texts from the 1st century but also in Pseudo-Clementine and Mandaean literature. Here, an interesting question is why, and in what contexts, has the tradition about John as a rival of Jesus been preserved in the Mandaean scriptures? However, to answer this question, we do not need to postulate some Christian stage of the Mandaeanism.
In the first step of the reconstruction (second chapter), Marcus offers a relatively unique approach in the context of modern research when he looks for roots of John’s teaching and practice at Qumran. His main argument is rather circumstantial; Marcus recognizes and stands upon characteristics of John and Qumran that he considers rare or unique in the context of Second Temple Judaism. Marcus finds them mainly in the importance of immersions in water and, above all, in their meaning (a total of twelve characteristics). His intention is to convince the reader that these similarities express a “genetic” dependence (John took them from his original qumranic environment) and not the shared general milieu (32). However, the practice of water immersion was widespread in Second Temple Judaism, and the archaeologically proven high number of miqvaʿot (ritual bathing pools) in Qumran hardly confirms any “genetic” link. It demonstrates, among other things, the extent to which ritual washing was part of the daily life of the Qumran community, which is in stark contrast to the supposed uniqueness and centrality of John’s ritual.
In general, I would find the argument more convincing if Marcus had shown the similarities in the constitutive characteristics of John’s baptism, such as his active role in the ritual and the social openness of the group to which he turned. Marcus admits the differences between John and Qumran (five in total). However, surprisingly, he does not fully come to terms with them in his argument and downplays them simply as differing opinions, due to which John left Qumran (34). Instead, he develops a thesis about John’s open attitude toward the Gentiles in the rest of the chapter.
According to the third chapter (The Elijah Role), one of the main reasons for John’s departure from Qumran may have been his growing self-confidence in his eschatological role. John’s clothing, diet, connection with Jordan, the eschatological focus of his sermons, and the belief in his role in the arrival of the “Stronger One” confirm that John consciously modeled himself according to the image of the prophet Elijah, whose re-arrival was associated with the final judgment of the world (59-60).
In the fourth chapter (Baptism), Marcus holds a more or less consensual view about John’s ritual performance (i.e., the ritual had a form of immersion and was carried out by John), although his understanding of ritual’s efficacy relies on a radical interpretation of the relationship between the three well-documented components of the ritual: repentance-immersion-forgiveness of sins. According to Marcus, the immersion was not just a symbol of repentance (as it seems from Josephus’ report), but actually led to the remission of sins, an effect that John himself associated with the bestowal of the Spirit. The essential finding of Marcus’ historical reconstruction thus reads: John was an imparter of salvation, not only his preparer (72). It is worth noting that in his innovative interpretation Marcus focuses on John in the context of the Second Temple Judaism. However, the plausibility of such approach is not necessarily dependent on the repeatedly recalled and, in my opinion, problematic connection of John with Qumran. Marcus repeatedly refers to the passage of the Community Rule (1QS 3:4–12). In my opinion this passage has in common with John above all the emphasis on inner purity (the practice of righteousness) as a prerequisite for ritual efficacy. In addition, the figurative (eschatological) passages 1QS 4: 20–25 can hardly be used as evidence for the concept of granting the Spirit as an effect of ritual action. The possibility that John was familiar with such conceptions cannot be ruled out, but there is no need to postulate his roots in Qumran, not least because 1QS was a text spread across the Essene communities.
The impartation of the Spirit to Jesus in the context of John’s ritual performance, documented by the Synoptic Gospels, is correctly highlighted by Marcus as an essential clue to the sacramental interpretation of John’s ritual. Chapter 5 deals with the relationship between the two protagonists. Marcus presents many arguments that question the gospels’ connections between John’s messianic expectations and Jesus and concludes that John had a special relationship with Jesus. This can be understood from the connection of John’s Old Testament model Elijah with prophet Elisha. It was a relationship of a teacher to the disciple who transcends his teacher because of his possession of the Spirit and his ability to perform miracles.
In the last chapter (Herod Antipas), Marcus is constructing, among other things, the image of John the Baptist as a politically explosive, potentially militant force that could unite Jews and Gentiles in the revolution against Herod Antipas.
The book is didactical in an exemplary way. The individual chapters represent principally cumulatively constructed arguments, and the appendices help keep the line of argument clear. Of John’s monographs published during the last three decades, John the Baptist in History and Theology probably gives the most space to the scientific imagination and paints John’s portrait with subtle nuances. For those interested in early Christianity and Second Temple Judaism it is a contribution that cannot be missed.
Jiří Gebelt is associate professor of religious studies at the Charles University in Prague.
Jiří Gebelt
Date Of Review:
April 5, 2022
