John the Baptist and
the baptism of Christ

     Mark's gospel gives every indication of being the first one written, and thus we find the simplest version of the story of John the Baptist and the baptism of Christ in this work (it normally being the case that editing and theological extrapolation are characteristics of religions as they develop over a period of time and move further away from what would be called pure historical fact and begin to incorporate both urban legends and mythological components). A comparison of the two synoptics, Matthew and Mark, reveals that in many places in the gospel of Matthew the gospel repeats almost verbatim (though often with small but significant changes) what is in Mark's gospel, and although Matthew freely rearranges material, often Matthew will pick up and follow Mark's earlier arrangement (although with some breaks in the flow as Matthew edits in additional material not found in Mark's original account).

     Matthew's editing of Mark's gospel does not stop at simply adding new material. Matthew often rearranges Mark's material, changing the original meaning the writings had in their places in Mark's gospel in the process. Matthew also makes editorial revisions in Mark's material for theological reasons. This sort of thing becomes evident when you consider the revisions Matthew made to Mark's story of John the Baptist and the baptism of Christ.

     Matthew's gospel shows evidence of the beginnings of the development of a 'high Christology' and the resulting inclusion of non-historical details which are theological (not historical) in their origins. The revisions that Matthew made can then be seen to be polemical in nature (and not simply 'added details' to Mark's 'equally historical' account).

     Mark relates a simple story to introduce the figure of John the Baptist. "John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." (Mark chapter 1 verse 4) He alludes to the Elijah tradition by suggesting that John was dressed in camel's hair and ate locusts and wild honey. Mark then delivers a garbled version of a prophecy which he claims comes from Isaiah. "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face," comes not from Isaiah but is a literal quote of Exodus chapter 23 verse 20 in the Greek Septuagint, and this is followed by a quote from Malachi chapter 3 verse 1, 'who shall prepare your way' (to bring the quote into line with the quote from Exodus Mark changes the pronoun 'my' in Malachi to read 'your way') and then this is finally followed by a literal quote from the Greek Septuagint of Isaiah chapter 40 verse 3, 'the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight' (note that once again Mark makes a change to the passage from 'make straight the path of our God' to 'makes his paths straight'.)

     Mark then follows this with the simplest version of the baptism story found in all the gospels. "In those days Yeshua came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased." (Mark chapter 1 verse 9)

     Matthew makes two editorial revisions to the story. The first revision is made for theological reasons. John protests that he is unworthy to baptize the Christ, but finally consents to do so after being given permission to do so merely for appearances sake. In Mark's account we are told simply that Yeshua was baptized, and just previous to this we were told that John baptized people for the repentance of their sins and this just does not sit well with the higher Christology that begins to emerge in the church as evidenced in Matthew's edited version of the account.

"Then Yashua came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" But Yeshua answered him, "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented." (Matthew chapter 3 verse 13)

     Luke did a lot of editing and revision himself, both of Matthew's account and the gospel of Mark, and apparently he was not as embarrassed by the baptism story as Matthew was and so Luke disposes of Matthew's addition and simply follows Mark's simplified account of the Baptism. (Luke chapter 3 verse 21)

     Next Matthew makes a rather unusual small change to Mark's gospel (when considered within the total context of the finished work). One of the main features of Mark's account is the 'messianic secret'. No one was to know that Yeshua was the messiah, and he constantly ordered people 'not to make him known', and even his disciples are portrayed as mystified by such sayings as 'rise from the dead.' (The 'dim witted disciple' is one of the characteristic features of Mark's account that is notably edited out of Matthew's versions of many parables.) In Mark's dove scene, Yeshua is directly addressed ('you are my son') which suggests that only Yeshua was heard what was being said, while in Matthew's version this becomes a general address that could have been heard by anyone.

"And when Yeshua was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."" (Matthew chapter 3 verse 16)

     This small editorial change in Matthew's gospel seems very peculiar when you consider how the revised story of John the Baptist unfolds in later chapters. We can assume that John, and everyone else present must have heard the voice announcing 'this is my son.' This theme is picked up in the gospel of John (where an even more polemical, high theological, mythological version of the story of John the Baptist appears). In John's gospel the line about John the Baptist being unworthy to 'tie the sandals of Yeshua' is repeated and this is followed by some polemical theology intended to downplay the importance of John the Baptist (in other words the polemic was addressed to a certain social situation and to those remaining followers of John the Baptist during that day and the embarrassment the church felt about being reminded by John's disciples that their man baptized 'your messiah'. What you read in John is pure theological polemic.) John tells his disciples that he saw the 'Spirit descend like a dove' on the chosen Messiah. In other words, in agreement with the slight change made in Matthew's account John would have heard the voice as well and recognized the Messiah instantly. John's gospel then relates the story of the calling of the disciples, even insisting that they became disciples of Christ at the insistence of John the Baptist (once again the story is polemical and is directed towards converting or downplaying the importance of a small remaining religious faction who still followed the baptist during the time the polemic was composed. Even more peculiar is the insistence in the gospel of John that the baptist was not Elijah ).

"And they asked him (John the Baptist), "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the prophet?" And he answered, "No."" (John chapter 1 verse 21)

     This polemic directly contradicts both Matthew and Mark, and the change was made for reasons peculiar to the gospel of John and the social situation present at the time the work was composed, as mentioned above. Mark alludes to the Elijah tradition, both in describing the camels hair coat and the eating of locusts and honey and then, without being specific about the identity of 'Elijah' insists, for polemical reasons once again, that Elijah did in fact come (people were expecting Elijah, and asking if Yeshua was the Messiah, where then was Elijah). Mark then goes on to state that 'they did to Elijah whatever they pleased, as is written of him. This is not included in the prophecy in Malachi and is more than likely a reference back to the Elijah story (he was badly treated, and forced to flee for his life).

"And he said to them, "Elijah does come first to restore all things; and how is it written of the Son of man, that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt? But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him."" (Mark chapter 9 verse 12)

     Matthew makes explicit reference to John the Baptist being Elijah, not being satisfied with Mark's 'timid' allusions and in sharp disagreement with the polemical rejection of John as Elijah found in the gospel of John.

"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John; and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear." (Matthew chapter 11 verse 12)

     (Apparently the author of the gospel of John did not have 'ears to hear'.) After being quite insistent that he was not Elijah after all, John the Baptist continues on in the gospel of John version of the account as follows, and being fully aware that he is in the presence of the Messiah it is said that the baptist was actually responsible for Yeshua getting his first disciples.

"He (John) said, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said." Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. They asked him, "Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?" John answered them, "I baptize with water; but among you stands one whom you do not know, even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie." This took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. The next day he saw Yeshua coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.’ I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel." And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God." The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples; and he looked at Yeshua as he walked, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!" The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Yeshua. Yeshua turned, and saw them following, and said to them, "What do you seek?" And they said to him, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?" He said to them, "Come and see." They came and saw where he was staying; and they stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour. One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which means Christ). He brought him to Yeshua. Yeshua looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter). (John chapter 1 verse 23)

     In Luke's gospel salvation is summarized as 'repentance, which results in the forgiveness of any sins, followed by living a life of moderation and showing self control.' (Acts chapter 3 verse 19, Acts chapter 24 verse 25) Now in Mark's gospel, Yeshua is no God, he is not even good, and you are saved by 'keeping the commandments'. In both cases this is 'low Christology'. (See the essay 'Was Jesus Christ God?') In Matthew's higher Christology the Christ becomes an object of 'worship' (in other words a god-type figure, the word 'worship' of Christ being used a number of times in Matthew's account). However Matthew's Christology pales in comparison to the High Theology of the gospel of John, and thus in this version there is no baptism of Christ whatsoever and John the baptist is given the task of delivering polemic to reduce his stature, graciously consenting to pale into insignificance and even have his job of baptizing taken over by Yeshua (this is pure polemic, as any comparison between the numerous contradictions between the account in the gospel of John and any one of the synoptic gospels indicates.)

     Mark and Luke are both unembarrassed by the baptism story, but Matthew is obviously disturbed by the implications of John, who baptized sinners, actually baptizing the Messiah and in the gospel of John the baptist is actually swept under the rug so to speak.

"And they came to John, and said to him, "Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you bore witness, here he is, baptizing, and all are going to him." John answered, "No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven. You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him. He who has the bride is the bridegroom; the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice; therefore this joy of mine is now full. He must increase, but I must decrease." ... the Pharisees had heard that Yeshua was making and baptizing more disciples than John ..." (John chapter 3 verse 26, chapter 4 verse 1)

     Now all this having been said, it seems very peculiar that Matthew would edit Mark's version of the dove story to read, 'this is my son' (something the baptist would have heard, and understood, in agreement with the version of the tale in the gospel of John) instead of keeping Mark's 'messianic secret' ('you are my son'). In disagreement with the account given in the gospel of John in a later chapter the Matthew account will have John the Baptist inquiring from prison as to whether or not Yeshua was the Messiah (he simply didn't know, and as I said, Mark's version would have made more sense in Matthew's gospel, if we assume that the dove and the voice were 'secrets' that only Yeshua could hear). John's account (see above) goes so far as to insist that John the Baptist knew all about it from the beginning (pointing out that all his took place 'before John was put in prison') and so to have John the Baptist, in Matthew's account, inquiring from prison as to whether or not Yeshua was the Messiah, is peculiar, especially when one considers how Matthew went out of his way to make these small editorial changes to the baptism account in the first place (John knows that Yeshua was the Messiah during the baptism, even insisting that he not baptize him, and finally having to be forced to do so). Like I said, this is quite strange and it leads me to believe that the story of the baptism was a later interpolation by the church fathers (or the Matthew community) and that, in high Christological form, Matthew's gospel, like John's gospel, was absent a baptismal story in its original form. (For more on editing in the Matthew gospel, see index to commentaries on Matthew's gospel.)

     Mark relates the following of the imprisonment of John the Baptist.

"For Herod had sent and seized John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife; because he had married her." (Mark chapter 6 verse 17)

     Matthew uses the opportunity to insist that John the Baptist was 'greater than any human being who ever lived' (while, strangely, being 'the least in the Kingdom of Heaven') and also to insist that John was in fact Elijah, both of which contradict the account given in the gospel of John (the strange insistence that while John was the greatest human being ever born, 'he was lower than anyone in the Kingdom of Heaven' sounds suspiciously like another editorial interpolation by the church fathers who were well aware of all these inconsistencies and not averse to doing a little 'editing' (also known as harmonization), as manuscript evidence from the fourth century gives the clearest testimony. Let us just say that someone was at work editing Matthew's gospel, and it contains many strange inconsistencies as a result.)

"And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God." The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples; and he looked at Yeshua as he walked, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!" ... John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people came and were baptized. For John had not yet been put in prison." (John chapter 1 verse 32, John chapter 3 verse 23)

"Now when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples and said to him, "Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?" And Yeshua answered them, "Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is he who takes no offense at me." As they went away, Yeshua began to speak to the crowds concerning John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to behold? A reed shaken by the wind? Why then did you go out? To see a man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, those who wear soft raiment are in kings' houses. Why then did you go out? To see a prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.' Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John; and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. "But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not mourn.' For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon'; the Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds." (Matthew chapter 11 verse 2)

     Matthew also makes a few additions to Mark's account of the Baptist, as well as some curious deletions. For example, in Matthew's gospel the main villains are the Pharisees. Certainly this element in present in Mark's gospel (for example in Mark chapter 7 the Pharisees are condemned for 'nullifying the prophets' so as to teach 'human commandments', such as the clean and unclean regulations of the Torah, a story picked up by Matthew in Matthew chapter 15). However some of Matthew's additional material that does not appear in Mark's gospel is also aimed squarely at the Pharisees, and even some of Mark's parables are reinterpreted to become attacks on the scribes and pharisees in Matthew's gospel. For example, in Mark chapter 4 we find the parable of the seeds that were sown, some of them on rocks, others to be eaten by birds, and some that yielded a crop. In the 13th Chapter of Matthew the book is in the process of closely following the outline of Mark's gospel, with a few interpolations of new material by Matthew. Matthew adds a second parable of seeds, this time weeds which were sown into the field by an enemy 'while everyone was sleeping.' This is then followed by an explicit reference to the religious scribes, so that in Matthew's account it is suggested (unlike in Mark's original version) that those who had the seeds burned by the sun or chewed up by birds or those who were the 'weeds in the field' which angels would 'gather into bundles and burn' were also the scribes and pharisees.

"So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth. "Have you understood all this?" They said to him, "Yes." And he said to them, "Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old." (Matthew chapter 13 verse 49)

     In the parable of the Roman Centurion it is similarly stated that the religious Jews would be cast out to 'weep and grind their teeth'. In keeping with this theme found in the Gospel of Matthew, even the story of John the Baptist is expanded upon to include an attack upon the religious Jews and the pharisees. The additional material Matthew adds on to Mark's account reads,

"But when he (John the Baptist) saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit that befits repentance, and do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father'; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."" (Matthew chapter 3 verse 7)

     A final example of editing in Matthew's account of the stories of the Baptist can be found in comparing Matthew's abbreviated account of the dance of Herodius and the beheading of John. What is interesting here is what Matthew chose to omit, and what Matthew choose to add to the story. In chapter 14 Matthew tells us that "(Herod) wanted to put (John the baptist) to death, but he feared the people, because they held him to be a prophet." This conflicts directly with Mark's account of the same story, in chapter 6, we are told on the contrary that, "Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe. When he heard him, he was much perplexed; and yet he heard him gladly," and that in fact it was his wife, "Herodias (who) had a grudge against him (John the Baptist), and wanted to kill him." But she could not because Herod, as just mentioned, would not allow it. Mark's account of the tale ends with the disciples of John laying his body in a tomb, and Matthew's account the tale ends with John's disciples 'coming to tell Yeshua about it' (which sounds polemical in a similar way as what you read in the gospel of John about the baptist is pure polemic). (You can compare the two accounts by consulting the synoptics compared in parallel columns, Mark Chapter 6 or from the other perspective Matthew chapter 14.)

     What an analysis of the differences that emerge between the gospel accounts of the story of the John the Baptist and the baptism of Christ reveals is that gospels are not primary historical documents, but rather they are a curious form of first century writing. They are polemical and intended to address certain social situations contemporary with the time of the compositions and also to 'evangelize' to a certain theological point of view. They are propaganda documents for different early churches and not historical documents.