c The Beginning of the Gospel
The conclusion just reached is all the more striking in view of the fact that the Baptist is remembered in all strands of the Gospel tradition as 'the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ' (Mark 1.1). Mark is most explicit: 1.2-8 makes it clear that it is John who marks or even constitutes that 'beginning'; just as, later, John's martyr-like death prefigures that of Jesus (6.14-29). But the fact that Q, by general consent, begins with the preaching of John (Matt. 17) carries the same implication.68 Matthew, although beginning with the birth narratives, amazingly has John preaching precisely the same message as Jesus: 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near' (Matt. 3.2 = 4.17; cf. 10.7); the gospel of Jesus did indeed begin with John! Luke also prefaces his account of John's ministry with birth narratives, but they themselves begin with the account
64. 'By a literary tour de force John is imprisoned before he baptizes Jesus' (Wink, John the Baptist 46). But he pushes too hard in arguing that Luke understood Jesus to have baptized himself (83 and n. 1).
65. For further reflection on the overlap between John's and Jesus' missions see J. Murphy-O'Connor, 'John the Baptist and Jesus: History and Hypotheses', NTS 36 (1990) 359-74.
66. Chilton develops the fanciful thesis that Jesus spent his teenage years as a disciple (talmid) of John who inducted him into the practice of merkabah mysticism (Rabbi Jesus 32-63).
67. See below §12.4e. Even so, it may be significant that the same accusation is recalled as levelled against both John and Jesus ('he has Beelzebul/an unclean spirit' — Mark 3.22, 30; 'he has a demon' — Matt. 11.18/Luke 7.33) despite the differences of their lifestyle.
68. Schröter deduces that the beginning with John was already part of the oral tradition prior to Mark and Q (Erinnerung 448-49).
of the birth of John (Luke 1.5-25, 57-80); John appears to be the inescapable preface to Jesus.69 And somewhat like Matthew, Luke describes John as 'preaching good news' (3.18 — euangelizesthai), the same verb used of Jesus' preaching (4.18, 43; etc.). The Fourth Evangelist likewise makes it clear that the story of Jesus cannot get under way without reference to John (John 1.6-8, 19-34), a point all the clearer if the prologue (John 1.1-18) was added after the Gospel had been drafted to begin with John the Baptist.70
In many ways most illuminating of all are the references in Acts. According to Acts 1.21-22 one of the key criteria in determining who could take Judas's place was whether that person had been in the company of the disciples 'during the whole time that the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John . . .'. 'The baptism of John', not just Jesus' baptism by John, marked the beginning of Jesus' mission. Similarly, Peter's speech in Acts 10.37 sums up Jesus' mission in terms of 'what happened [or 'the word that was performed'] throughout the whole of Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John proclaimed'.71
The concern to 'locate' Jesus by reference to John is also evident in the Q traditions utilised by Matthew and Luke.72 The particular claim that John should be recognized as Elijah returned (Matt. 11.14), forerunner of 'the great and terrible day of the Lord' (Mai. 4.5), is also implicit in Mark's use ofMal. 3.1 in his introduction to John (Mark 1.2, as also Matt. 11.10/Luke 7.27). The description of John as 'wearing camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist' may have been intended by Mark and Matthew to evoke the description of Elijah in 2 Kgs 1.8 (Mark 1.6/Matt. 3.4).73 The identification is clearer in their conclusion to the account of Jesus' transfiguration (Mark Luke achieves the
69. Brown considers the possibility that Luke 3.1-2 formed the original opening of the Gospel and that the infancy narrative was prefixed after both Luke and Acts had been completed (Birth 239-41).
70. Discussion in Schnackenburg, John 1.221-24.
71. For the syntactical problems of Luke's Greek in both texts see Barrett, Acts 101, 522-24. For the likelihood that Acts 10.34-43 includes echoes of very early Christian preaching see below, vol. 2.
72. Matt. 11.2-11, 16-19/Luke7.18-28, 31-35. The closeness of the parallel clearly indicates literary dependence, with editorial introductions, and Lukan elaboration at 7.20-21 and 29-30. But the link between Matt. 11.12-15 and Luke 16.16 is less easily explained in terms of literary dependence and may reflect oral transmission. The content of the passage is discussed more fully below (§ 12.5c).
73. But see also Meier, Marginal Jew2.46-49. In contrast L. Vaage uses such data to sweep John also into the Cynic net ('More than a Prophet, and Demon-Possessed: Q and the "Historical" John', in J. S. Kloppenborg, ed., Conflict and Invention [Valley Forge: Trinity, 1995] 181-202 [here 190-91]). Cf. Josephus' description of Bannus, 'who dwelt in the wilderness, wearing only such clothing as trees provided, feeding on such things as grew of themselves' (Life 11).
equivalent objective in his birth narrative (Luke 1.16-17).74 It was clearly important among the earliest Christian communities that John's widely recognized role as a prophet should be seen to accord with the significance attributed to Jesus. The tradition is related as from the perspective of Jesus and assumes his dominant role. But in apologetic terms an initial concern was probably that Jesus should benefit from the high regard in which John was more widely held in circles beyond that of Jesus' disciples.
The same concern is accentuated in the Fourth Gospel, where the subordination of John to Jesus is firmly marked: John was merely a witness, but a witness par excellence to Jesus. If some polemic is also evident in the Fourth Evangelist's treatment of John, against continuing circles of Baptist disciples,76 that simply confirms the weight of John's wider influence and the importance that must have been perceived from earliest days in Christian circles of being able to demonstrate how the relation between John and Jesus worked in favour of Jesus.
The point can be pressed a little more. In view of the later embarrassment regarding Jesus' relationship with John, it is impossible to think that the implied influence of John on Jesus entered the tradition at a late stage. That influence, at least in terms of Jesus' baptism by John and Jesus' emergence from the circle round John, must belong to bedrock historicity.
In contrast, we may note that the Jesus/John theme is almost wholly lacking in the Gospel of Thomas. The sole remnants are GTh 46 and 78:
Post a comment