Contemporary Research and Debated Issues on John the Baptist

Introduction

The new forms of biblical exegesis (e.g., rhetorical and narrative criticism) that have been developed in the last few decades, in addition to the dominant early tools of historical-critical methods (e.g., Formgeschichte and Redaktiongeschichte), have furnished scholars with an alternative number of approaches with which to conduct their investigations. In the last century, these older and newer methods have been productively applied to the New Testament (NT) research, in particular to the so-called quests for the historical Jesus and other important NT figures. Arguably, among these notable personages, none has been so significant and relevant for different areas of biblical studies as the investigations about John the Baptist. Works concerning his influence in the early Christian community as well as other issues—such as, for example, Second Temple Judaism, Qumran, and purification rituals—have occupied the attention of critical scholars since, most notably, Martin Dibelius (1911; lesser-known works on John the Baptist, but prior to Dibelius’s are those of Cumming [1850], Duncan [1860], Reynolds [1874], Schlatters [1880], Sillevis-Smitt [1908], and Meyer [1911]). Since then, studies about the Baptist have flourished and continued to elicit the attention of many NT critics.

The results of the most recent investigations, however, are often absent or ignored by scholars who, while not making John the Baptist the focus of their research, allude to him as an important component of their work. This omission results in the repetition of decades-old conclusions that do not account for the findings, more nuanced views of recent investigations, and emerging consensuses concerning different aspects of the Baptist’s life and ministry.

Given the importance of John for many areas of biblical studies—in particular, for the research on the historical Jesus, first-century Judaism, and early Christianity—this article reviews some of these most recent works on the Baptist. This review will consider primarily specialized works on John, including some journal articles and book chapters, as well as notable historical Jesus investigations that have dealt at some length with the Baptist. To frame the current discussion, it will begin with a brief summary of research in the last century and the beginning of the current one; a necessary prelude to understanding the historical trajectory of the investigation and the most important issues raised. Afterward, an overview of the most significant works dealing with the Baptist in the last decade will be presented. This summary will be followed by an analysis of how these more recent investigations have addressed some crucial issues related to John, specifically his sources, relationship with Jesus, message, role as Elijah, baptism, death, portrayal in the Fourth Gospel, and messianic expectations.

Brief Forschungsbericht: John the Baptist During the Past Century

Questions regarding John the Baptist’s characterization, preaching, baptism, and relationship to Jesus have been the subject of numerous academic studies since the last century as a corollary to historical Jesus research. During the initial decades, studies such as those by Dibelius (1911), Goguel (1928), Lohmeyer (1932), and Kraeling (1951) established both the lines of consensus as well as the areas for further research. As a whole, this early period of investigation emphasized almost exclusively the Baptist’s eschatological message of repentance as one focused on judgment and punishment of the wicked (Dibelius 1911: 133-34; Kraeling 1951: 63-64), interpreting his baptism (Lohmeyer 1932: 145-51) or desert abode (Kraeling 1951: 15-27) as a protest against the Temple, questioned the credibility of Josephus’s characterization of John (Goguel 1928: 15-33), highlighted the antithetical nature of John’s and Jesus’ messages (Dibelius 1911: 139; Goguel 1928: 257-71), underscored the antagonism between the followers of John and Jesus, and noted the ‘Christianization’ of the sources and stories about the Baptist (Goguel 1928: 104-105; Kraeling 1951: 172-81).

Some of these prevailing views began reexamining in the second half of the twentieth century as more scholars turned their attention to John and increased their interest in other aspects of his life and ministry. Some of these early reevaluations came from works of critics such as Wink (1968: 107-13), who considered the emphasis on the polemical or apologetic element against the followers of John to be exaggerated. He also criticized the interpretation of John’s baptism or his abode in the desert as rejecting the Temple establishment (1963: 35-41). Becker (1972: 105-106), similarly, offered a more nuanced analysis of the differences between the messages of John and Jesus (see also Ernst 1989: 290-300; 332-36). The previous opinion regarding the ‘Christianization’ or adaptation of the Baptist’s sources and stories remained invariable during this period, however (Lupieri 1988: 48-50; Ernst 1989: 37-38, 110-12, 182-85, 215-16). In the meantime, while John’s radical message of judgment devoid of any ethical concern continued to be reasserted by some (von Dobbeler 1988: 148-50; Lupieri 1988: 177-82), others like Webb (2006 [1991]: 355-59, esp. n.16), Meier (1994: 40-42), Kazmierski (1996: 32-41, 116), and Taylor (1997: 113-16) voiced growing concern over this narrow appraisal and expressed greater openness to the possibility of an ethical dimension in the preaching of John.

These more nuanced studies on the Baptist—aided by the rise of redaction criticism—contributed to viewing the relationship between John and Jesus not just in terms of absolute contrasts but as a manifestation of differences and similarities determined by the evangelists’ particular emphases. Hence, by the end of the last century the prevailing oppositional model began to be revised by a view that found greater similarities between the ministries of John and Jesus (e.g., Meier 1994: 176-77). The work of Backhaus (1991: 110-12) moved along similar refined lines and helped to qualify the sharp emphasis made until then on the polemical agenda of the evangelists against the followers of the Baptist.

Other investigations about John addressed additional issues, such as his relation to Qumran. Luke’s comment that John was in the ‘wilderness’ until his manifestation to Israel (1:80), along with other elements of the Baptist’s public ministry (e.g., association to Isa 40:3, diet, and eschatological message), grabbed the attention of some commentators, who posited the possibility that he may have lived among members of the Qumran community (Brownlee 1958: 33-53; Davies 1983: 569-71; Charlesworth 1999: 353-75). Meanwhile, other critics dismissed such prospects (Ernst 1989: 276-77; Stegemann 1994: 306-11; Taylor 1997: 15-48; Piñero 1999: 289-91). Moreover, and related to John’s possible association with Qumran, the location of his ministry became a matter of heightened attention (Scobie 1964: 41-43; Badia 1980: 1-6; Ernst 1989: 278-84; Taylor 1997: 42-48).

On the other hand, with the discovery and publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls, greater attention began to be paid to John’s baptism, its meaning, and its parallel with other ritual washings. Similarities were found between his immersion and the practices of the Qumran community (Webb 2006 [1991]: 133-62). As a result, investigating the origin and meaning of John’s baptism within the context of Second Temple Judaism and ritual purity practices attracted renewed scrutiny along with fresh proposals and ideas (Webb 2006 [1991]: 179-216; Taylor 1997: 49-100).

Furthermore, interest continued on a long-standing issue related to his baptism: if John’s immersion was ‘for the forgiveness of sins’ (Mk 1.4) and Jesus, as everyone knew, had been baptized by John, it begged the question of whether Jesus considered himself a sinner (Thomas 1935: 285-86; Scobie 1964: 146-48; Beasley-Murray 1967: 45-57; Ernst 1989: 337-39; Meier 1994: 106-16; Taylor 1997: 261-63).

Likewise, during this period, scholars also focused on explaining the Gospels’ references and allusions to an end-time Elijah figure, John’s characterization as Elijah (Robinson 1957-58: 263-81; Allison Jr. 1984: 256-28; Öhler, 1997; 1999: 461-76; Taylor 1997: 281-94).

By the end of the twentieth century, many important works had contributed to shaping the discussion about the Baptist, including Stowasser’s study (1992) on John’s characterization in the Fourth Gospel, Böhlemann’s research (1997) about the influence of John in the ethics of Luke, and Yamasaki’s (1998) use of audience-oriented criticism to examine the role of the Baptist in the Gospel of Matthew. Other marginal issues, such as John’s relationship with sinful women (Kilgallen 1985) and his perceived criticism of the Temple (Webb 2006 [1991]: 203-205; Taylor 1997: 29-32; Avemarie 1999: 395-410), were also addressed during this period. In addition, the subject of whether Jesus was a disciple of John in a narrow or broad sense became a topic of discussion (e.g., Meier 1994: 116-19).

Beginning of the Twenty-First Century

Despite the fact that by the end of the century, studies about the Baptist had reached a maturity and definition they did not have in previous decades, not all possible topics had been elucidated, nor had all the questions about him satisfactorily answered. Hence, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, a new host of studies about the Baptist continued to appear.

For example, Hartmann’s (2001) narrative study focused on the death of the Baptist and demonstrated how different biblical and extra-biblical texts contributed to distinct characterizations of his death. Likewise, C. Müller’s (2001) narrative analysis of the portrayal of the Baptist in Luke emphasized his sustained literary comparison (synkrisis) between John and Jesus in the infancy narrative and the prophetic characterization of the Baptist. U. Müller (2002), on the other hand, presented a short but well-informed presentation of the historical importance and influence of the Baptist at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and how Christians appropriated the traditions about the originally Jewish prophet and transformed him into a witness to Christ. Meanwhile, Murphy (2003) aimed to demonstrate how various methods of contemporary historical-critical research (e.g., editorial criticism and socio-scientific analysis) contribute to forming a more complete picture of Baptist’s historical context. For his part, Gibson (2004) discussed the church and biblical traditions related to John and described archaeological and ecclesiastical sites linked to him.

During this first decade, other studies also bore witness to the interest in the Baptist, such as Kelhoffer (2005), who investigated the Baptist’s diet of ‘grasshoppers and wild honey’ in its sociohistorical context and subsequent Christian interpretation. For her part, Rothschild (2005) examined the Baptist traditions in the Q source. In addition, Dapaah (2005), following recent trends, revisited the debate concerning the relationship between John and Jesus. Finally, Rindoš (2010) reviewed anew the issue regarding the characterization of John as Elijah, but with a focus on the Gospel of Luke.

Research Trends in Recent Years

At roughly the outset of the last decade, investigations concerning the Baptist continued to address several key issues. One of the most puzzling topics bearing upon the relationship between John and Jesus surfaced in the work of Martínez (2011), who, focusing on Luke, analyzed the longest pericope dealing with John and Jesus in the synoptics (Mt. 11.1-19 // Lk. 7.18-35). The author highlights the different nuances that John’s question has in both gospels: unlike Matthew, where it is most often construed as a disenchantment with Jesus’ compassionate ministry, in Luke, the inquiry is more naturally interpreted as an initial attempt to ascertain for the first time in the narrative who Jesus is (2011: 111, 175, 188-95). John’s apparent lack of knowledge contrasts with Jesus’ high regard for him, which denotes not only the Baptist’s importance in ushering in the dawn of a new eschatological era but also his subordination with respect to the announcement of the kingdom of God, Jesus’ ultimate concern (2011: 122-23, 178). Martínez argues that the form of the Sturmerspruch (Mt. 11.12-15 // Lk. 16.16) is better preserved in Luke, although the Matthean context presents a more accurate reflection of its original setting (2011: 135, 179-80). In the final section of pericope (Lk. 7.31-35), the contrast between John and Jesus is not interpreted as a gratuitous and absolute affirmation of their differences but as a rhetorically formulated indictment that, within the context, has in sight the religious leaders (i.e., ‘the people of this generation’) (2011: 165-67, 180-81).

For his part, Dennert (2015) seeks to shed new light on the characterization of the Baptist in the Gospel of Matthew. After analyzing key passages dealing with the Baptist, Dennert argues that by the oppositional standing shared by John and Jesus against their detractors, the author of the Gospel demonstrates to the hearers the trustworthiness of John and Jesus’ alignment with the Baptist’s views. John appears as a prophet like Elijah who must be accepted despite religious opposition (2015: 132). Paying particular attention to the Jewish setting of the Gospel, Dennert highlights the similarities between the ministries of John and Jesus (2015: 175-79). He concludes that Matthew presents Jesus as a continuation and culmination of John’s ministry, whose popularity and prestige as a humble and teachable character are rhetorically used to encourage Jews to align themselves with the community of those who confess Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s eschatological promises (2015: 257-60).

Another example of recent scholarship on the Baptist is the work of Marcus (2018), who begins his presentation of John with a thesis that has enjoyed widespread support for the better part of the twentieth century: the polemic theory or ‘competition hypothesis’. Marcus affirms that during the ministries of John and Jesus a rivalry arose between their followers (2018: 11-26). Marcus posits that John was a member of the Qumran community who became convinced of his importance in God’s eschatological-salvific plan. He conjectures that John probably left the sect when he entered into conflict with the Teacher of Righteousness after John developed a sense of his own eschatological role as an Elijah-like figure (2018: 27-61). Attracted by the Baptist’s ministry, Jesus became a disciple of John, who later recognized Jesus’ special status among his followers. However, when a rivalry ensued, Jesus departed and developed his own baptismal ministry (2018: 81-97). John’s fiery, eschatological convictions led him to denounce Herod Antipas’s marriage to Herodias, an action that Herod interpreted as a politically explosive accusation that could lead to an insurrection. It was this event, which Marcus associates with the Baptist’s militant tendencies, that resulted in his arrest and execution (2018: 98-112). Marcus asserts that the tradition’s characterization of John involved a process of theological reflection that diminished his historical significance in favor of Jesus, a development epitomized by the last words of the Baptist in the Fourth Gospel: ‘He [Jesus] must increase, but I must decrease’ (Jn. 3.30). Once this process is acknowledged, John’s historical importance is restored, and the NT reader gains significant hermeneutical insight into the story of Jesus (2018: 114-15).

Almost simultaneously, but independent of Marcus’ work (2018), Martínez’s second book on the Baptist appeared (2019). In this volume, he explained the historical and theological development of John’s portrayal in the sources, using as foil John’s self-description in the Fourth Gospel as the ‘bride of the bridegroom’ (3.29), much like Marcus and with a similar approach. Martínez acknowledges that John’s origins remain largely ‘under a mantle of mystery’ (2019: 47). He concedes that John’s priestly lineage may be among the infancy account’s reliable remembrances, while other plausible aspects of the narrative, such as his abode in the desert and his connection with Qumran community, though possibilities, cannot be affirmed (2019: 58-101). Besides the conventional view restricting John’s preaching to a message of judgment and condemnation, Martínez argues that John’s announcements may have also contemplated moral and salvific dimensions (2019: 117-18, 128-33). He finds the ministry of Jesus more in continuity than in contrast with the Baptist and highlights the similarities, even as he recognizes the differences between both figures (Martínez, 2019: 209-26). Martínez believes that the accounts of John’s death in Josephus and Mark are not irreconcilable and ascribes the greatest blame for the Baptist’s demise to Herodias (2019: 243-73). He concludes that John’s bridegroom metaphor and final aphorism used by the author of the Fourth Gospel (3.29-30) sum up the historical importance of the Baptist in the early Christian community and his theological development (2019: 307-20).

Nir’s (2019) monograph on John the Baptist is yet another recent study on the historical figure. Nir seeks to understand the Baptist in relation to the theological aims of the sources that chronicle his ministry. To that extent, the overriding argument of Nir is that the traditions of the Baptist have to be interpreted, bearing in mind that the experiences of the early Christian movement have substantially influenced them. All the data about John have to be read against the background of Christian theology and Christology (Nir, 2019: 28). Nir, accordingly, seeks to remind scholars of the difficulties they face when trying to peel away too hastily or over-optimistically layers of tradition to reach more secure historical nuggets. She concludes that in all first-century sources, John is portrayed ‘not as a Jewish prophet, apocalypticist or ascetic but as a Christian’ (2019: 258). Nir emphasizes the substitutional efficacy of John’s baptism vis-à-vis the Temple’s sacrificial system (2019: 51-52, 60, 64) and argues that a Christian or Jewish Christian interpolation into Josephus’s work seeks to correct the Pauline view of baptism (i.e., the effects of repentance on purification) (2019: 65-70). She rejects the reliability of the sources regarding the Baptist’s portrayal as Elijah (2019: 96-98) and considers that John’s diverse geographic locations in the gospels (the wilderness, the Jordan River, Bethany across the Jordan, and Aenon) are primarily influenced by each evangelists’ theological aims (2019: 126). Likewise, the different aspects of the Baptist’s message (e.g., ‘repentance’, ‘kingdom of heaven’, and ‘the coming one’) ‘are all interpreted in a Christian sense’ (2019: 165). She agrees that in the Fourth Gospel, the Baptist functions as a reliable witness but disputes the widespread scholarly view that in this Gospel, the traditions about John serve as an apologetic aim to dispute the Baptist’s disciples’ claim that he was the messiah instead of Jesus (2019: 183-87). She concludes that John ‘is filtered through a Christian prism’ and is, thus, worthy of the title ‘the first Christian believer’ (2019: 258-71).

An additional current study on the Baptist, but this time from the perspective of Mark’s Gospel, is the work of Galdeano (2019), who explores the narrative characterization of John. She tries to demonstrate how the author of the Gospel, through a clear narrative strategy, uses John to achieve his own Christological aims. Galdeano highlights that starting with the prologue, the Gospel frames and authoritatively establishes John as the subordinated precursor of Jesus within the context of salvation history. She argues that this provides the hermeneutical key to understanding the Baptist’s role within the Gospel, as it defines the origin of his mission and its content: to be in function of someone else (i.e., Jesus) (2019: 64). The scene of Jesus’ baptism outlines an essential difference between him and John and, thus, the Baptist’s subordinate role (2019: 77). She further argues that the juxtaposition of the ministries of the Baptist and Jesus highlights John’s inferiority and the difference between both characters (2019: 87-90). Galdeano compares the account of the passion and the resurrection of Jesus (2019: 14-16) with the death of the Baptist (6:17-29) and argues that the comparison demonstrates the essential difference between the two, as well as the superiority of Jesus’ mission (2019: 203-207). She concludes that John is a secondary but ‘dense’ character whose main function is to help in understanding Jesus as someone inscribed within the promises and interventions of God for his people (2019: 217-34).

The work of Maturana (2020) constitutes one more contribution to the new studies devoted to the Baptist. This author considers the major critical issues in John’s life, with plenty of pastoral reflections along the way. After a standard historical contextualization of John’s cultural, political, and religious milieu, Maturana underscores Luke’s theological perspective in the infancy narrative. While he does not rule out the possibility that the Baptist may have been the son of a priest, he dismisses the opinion he could have belonged to the Essenes, which he identifies with the Qumran community (2020: 112-16, 156-58, 452-54). Maturana discusses the Baptist’s characterization as Elijah along with his ascetic practices (2020: 169-224) and concludes that, although his contemporaries may have cast him in the role of the Old Testament (OT) prophet, he did not intentionally shape his ministry to emulate him (2020: 210). He also views John’s lifestyle and message as not a confrontation with the authorities and the Temple institution but a not-so-subtle critique and dismissal of both (2020: 217, 229, 320-21). He not only highlights the eschatological and apocalyptic content of the Baptist’s message with the immediacy of God’s destructive and imminent judgment but also acknowledges the inclusive and salvific aspects of his preaching, including the proclamation of the kingdom of heaven (2020: 231-61). In dealing with John’s baptism, its antecedents, historical origins within the context of other purification rituals, how it was administered, and its meaning, Maturana believes that it was not understood as a means to obtain forgiveness but rather as a sign of conversion that enabled (a future) forgiveness of sins (2020: 302-33). He analyzes the causes of John’s arrest and, after considering the historical reminiscences and literary embellishments of the account (2020: 505-13), agrees with most scholars that these must have had political (i.e., Herod Antipas’ fear of an uprising) as well as religious (i.e., the Baptist’s denunciation of Herod’s marriage to Herodias) motivations (2020: 491-92). For Maturana, the portrayal of the relationship between John and Jesus as diametrically opposed needs to be revised (2020: 523), as he sees their ministries more in continuity than in contrast (2020: 544-89). He argues that Jesus was a disciple of John, decisively influenced by his ministry (2020: 523-36), and rejects the interpretation of Jesus’ separation from John as a ‘hard break’ or a rejection of his former mentor’s core ideas (2020: 543-44).

The settings of John the Baptist are the subject of Rotman’s work (2020), who focuses on the geography and location of his ministry for his characterization through a narrative-critical approach. This revised dissertation begins with a Forschungsbericht of relevant research and methodological considerations related to previous Baptist studies (2020: 1-20). It focuses on ‘thematized space’, an approach that explores the symbolic significance of geographic settings in the reader’s interpretation of the texts (2020: 20-31). The author rehearses the geographical realities of the Jordan Valley, highlighting its natural diversity, thriving commercial and agricultural activities, as well as its manifold textual traditions related to Sodom, Elijah, and Ezekiel (2020: 37-65). Rotman’s work examines the significance of the geographical location of the Baptist in all four gospels as well as in Q and Josephus. He highlights how Mark uses the description of John’s geographical ministry in service of his portrayal of the Baptist as a forerunner of Jesus, although subordinated to him (2020: 95). In Q, John’s wilderness setting reflects the ambiguity with which he is characterized in the source and the place where the kingdom of God is not to be found (2020: 118). For his part, Matthew’s emphasis on the Baptist’s Judaean ministry helps the author’s parallel presentation of John and Jesus and paradigmatically foreshadows the hostility of the region against Jesus (2020: 138-39). Luke, on the other hand, with his presentation of John in the wilderness, contributes to his portrayal as a prophet that announces the dawn of salvation history (2020: 165-66), while the Fourth Gospel’s naming of Bethany and Aenon functions in service of John’s characterization as a witness to Jesus (2020:199). Finally, in Josephus, the execution of the Baptist in Machaerus conveys to the audience that the lawlessness exercised and exemplified by Herod will be met by divine retribution (2020: 228). Rotman also addresses special issues related to each text examined and offers an overview of the Baptist’s works. The bulk of the study, nonetheless, is devoted to analyzing the unique ways each writing uses the setting of the Baptist for its theological purpose.

Shedd’s investigation (2021), on the other hand, is centered on the account of John’s death. This study, which differs substantially in aim and method from Hartmann’s (2001) contribution, does not treat usual questions of interpretation regarding John’s beheading, like mining a particular Gospel for possible sources or specific exegetical issues. Rather, the book deals with the question of how John’s beheading mediates meaning in its present actualization (2021: 14). Shedd applies a social memory approach to examine how violent deaths, such as John’s beheading, function as means of communication, in particular among Christian and Jews in the second and third centuries (2021: 25-56). In his analysis of beheadings in the ancient world, the author emphasizes the ignominious character of such executions and their symbolic capacity to communicate the degradation of a victim along three lines of cultural discourse: namely, the dishonor of the victim, the impediment to bodily resurrection, and the public spectacle of violence (2021: 57-82). He shows, however, that these symbolic forms of degradation could, and in effect were, commemoratively contested and reinterpreted through a variety of strategies meant to present the victim of such heinous acts as superior to them. Shedd contends that through the narrative connections of Mk. 6.17-19 to the rest of the Gospel, Mark does precisely this by keying the death of John to Jesus to present both as innocent victims unjustly executed (2021: 83-127). The potential downside of such commemorative reconfiguration, the author notes, is making the moral coloration of unjust processes (in the case of John the Baptist the Herodian court) emblematic of contemporary social frameworks: an anti-Jewish discourse in the case of Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho and Origen’s Commentary on Matthew (2021: 129-63). Shedd concludes that the memory of John’s severed head influenced localized expressions of the so-called ‘parting of the ways’, and he offers heuristic suggestions of how to combat perpetuating anti-Jewishness by contemplating the ethics of reading ancient texts (2021: 165-73).

The work of Federico Adinolfi (2021) represents, moreover, an additional contribution to the studies of the Baptist. The author delves into the figure of John in an attempt to provide a historical profile treating topics such as his radical lifestyle, relationship with the Essenes, baptism for purification, message of justice, prophetic characteristics, relationship to Jesus, and influence on him. After assessing contemporary research, Adinolfi examines the sources for reconstructing the historical John (2021: 15-26). He anchors the portrait of John on his priestly lineage, exercising a rite of purification that was inserted into the practices of the Judaism of his time. He was neither a ‘heretic’ nor a hostile detractor of the Temple and its cult (2021: 27-38). The Baptist did not act in the middle of the desert in only one place but in different places, and his priestly legacy was not incompatible with his itinerant ministry (2021: 39-59). Like many other recent critics, he rejects suggesting that the Baptist was an Essene (2021: 61-86). John preached a message of repentance focused on social justice that contrasted with the justice of the Mosaic Law. His ministry was characterized by an emblematic immersion practice and a message that summoned the people of the covenant to purify internally and externally to await God’s imminent coming (2021: 87-104).

In his view, the Baptist’s moral and social teaching defines him as a teacher of justice who invites the people to observe the Law and pay attention to the poor and sinners (2021: 105-111). John is an eschatological prophet, not only of condemnation but also of salvation (2021: 113-138). In his treatment of the relationship between John and Jesus, the author finds no radical differences, traces of hostility, or opposition, nor evidence that a rupture ever occurred between them, but rather a continuity that places Jesus among the first disciples of John (2021: 139-49). Against the widespread opinion that Jesus’ ministry developed in opposition to the Baptist’s, Adinolfi argues, on the contrary, that Jesus’ mission and preaching constituted, to a large extent, an extension of that of John. Furthermore, Jesus’ baptismal experience led him to adhere to John, become his collaborator, and continue his work until the Baptist’s death (2021: 151-73).

Finally, Wilkinson’s (2022) recent study on John caps the present survey of investigations on this historical figure. Wilkinson begins her work by explaining the meaning of ‘wilderness’, its geographical characteristics, and historical and general religious significance for Israel. She suggests that John tried to seize on the people’s historical perception of the desert and its symbolism to advance his eschatological message (2022: 13-42). For the author, John’s baptism was unique in its administration and purpose and, most of all, linked to the Baptist’s uncompromised call to repentance and bearing fruits of justice in preparation for God’s imminent judgment. John’s immersion, which Wilkinson understands as a protest against the Temple, served as an alternative to their sacrifices, mediated forgiveness, and functioned as an initiation rite for a loosely organized ‘remnant’ sectarian movement (2022: 43-69).

John did not identify the ‘Coming One’ but expected this figure to baptize in the ‘Holy Spirit and fire’. She concludes that of all the possible figures associated with the eschaton none other than God better fulfilled John’s expectation (2022: 70-96). For Wilkinson, Jesus became a disciple of John, stayed with him for a while, modeled his message after him (including the proclamation of the kingdom of God), and undertook a parallel ministry of baptism assigned to him by John himself. Jesus embarked on a ministry of baptism in Judaea, and John undertook the more difficult task of ministering to the Samaritans without rivalry, opposition, or competition among them (2022: 97-120). Although Jesus did not alter the main focus of his ministry, he adopted a new missionary style that incorporated healings and exorcisms and a new sense of urgency regarding the nearness of the kingdom of God, which marked the main difference between him and John (2022: 121-41).

The blame for John’s beheading falls squarely on Herod and his political expediency, not on the intrigues of Herodias, as suggested by the sources (2022: 142-60). Wilkinson argues that the evangelists transformed John into the forerunner of Christ and witness par excellence (Fourth Gospel), accommodating his baptism, portrayal as Elijah redivivus, and testimony to their theological aim (2022: 161-90). Wilkinson concludes her study by examining some extra-biblical traditions and patristic writers’ comments about John’s descent into the underworld to show how quarrels over his forerunner status continued during the first few centuries of Christianity, forming a ‘concealment tradition’ (2022: 191-203). Finally, she comments on the cult and canonization process of the Baptist in early Christianity, the establishment and commemoration of his feasts, including the nativity, death, legends, iconography, patronage of monastic movements, place of his relics, and other pagan customs and traditions associated to him (2022: 204-60).

Recent Articles on John the Baptist

Besides these book-length studies on the Baptist, several articles have addressed different aspects of John’s life and ministry, whether in journals or as chapters of a book. One is Karakolis’s analysis (2010) of the Christological meaning of John’s death in the Gospel of Mark. The author finds that from a narrative and a Christological point of view, Mark presents the death of the Baptist as resolutely pointing toward Jesus’ passion. For her part, Rothschild’s investigation (2011) focuses on the reliability of John’s account in Josephus. Although many critics still uphold the fundamental accuracy of his information despite its well-known rhetorical and apologetic limitations, Rothschild concludes that Josephus’s Antiquitates judaicae is a multi-author and multi-source composition, which renders it impossible to determine the extent of Christian tampering, coherence, and overall reliability.

Verheyden’s article (2011) also contributed to the study of the Baptist by analyzing Luke’s use of the traditions about John and Jesus in the infancy narrative. He concludes that Luke is solely responsible for weaving the parallelism between both characters, a composition he created by compounding a legend about the Baptist and several stories on the birth of Jesus. Meanwhile, Nir (2012) examined again the reliability of Josephus's account of John. She argues that the passage constitutes an interpolation or adaptation by a writer representing an early Christian or Jewish-Christian sect. In doing so, Nir focuses on how the text describes John’s baptism and its distinguishing characteristics as well as the similarities it shares with immersions common to those movements. The author concludes that the description of John’s baptism in Josephus was not written by him but was rather interpolated or adapted by a Christian or Jewish-Christian hand.

Around the same time, Ferda (2012), focusing on the interpretation of Isa. 40 in the Second Temple period, aims to illuminate the ministry of John. According to him, John’s baptism and message signaled, as did Jesus’ eschatological restoration ministry, the ingathering of the exiles. Ferda contends that four major elements in John’s ministry (i.e., the call to repentance, baptism of purification, desert location with Exodus imagery, and Messianic expectations) cohere with the ingathering expectations of the exiles in the Hebrew Bible and post-biblical Jewish literature. Those elements, in connection with a proper reading of Isa. 40, provide an interpretive framework for John’s activities, indicating that his baptism was not just a symbol of the coming judgment but also of Israel’s restoration.

Concerning John’s influence on Jesus, Taylor and Adinolfi (2012) have tried to show how narrative criticism could be useful for historical knowledge. The authors argued that Mark continuously presents Jesus near bodies of water suitable for immersions and in settings of wilderness and crowds. Mark’s consistent narrative presentation of Jesus in such settings and as an immerser in the Holy Spirit both conceal and discretely reveal his knowledge of Jesus’ baptizing activity and his indebtedness to the influence of John. Mark used the concept of ‘immersion in the Holy Spirit’ applied to the cleansing actions of Jesus as a means of obtaining forgiveness and healing. These activities of Jesus, which were coherent with the same purity logic that governed water immersions (i.e., the dichotomy of outer/bodily/ritual purity and inner/moral/heart), advanced John’s initiative of purification and served as means of attaining, in anticipation of baptism, inner purity for those affected by chronic ailments—that those not ill obtained through repentance and forgiveness. However, this inner purification did not render the immersion for ritual purity obsolete. After repentance and inner cleansing, baptisms were still necessary for ritual purity, and that’s why, despite Mark’s attempts to ignore Jesus’ immersion ministry, his constant portrayal of him near water settings as well as other narrative hints (Mk 1.17; 6.14-15; 8.28) indicate that during his mission Jesus continued baptizing for some time.

One of the most forcefully argued cases in recent years for the continuity between John and Jesus—in the long-debated issue of whether their ministries should be viewed in opposition or parallel with each other—has been offered by Bermejo-Rubio (2013). After considering the similarities between both figures and evaluating the alleged differences, Bermejo-Rubio concludes that there is no compelling evidence to infer that they stood in contrast or opposed each other. The author considers the prevailing scholarly tendency to present their relationship in terms of a stubborn contrast unwarranted and attributes it to deep-rooted religious and/or theological (apologetic) needs, not only in the early church but also in modern scholarship, which seeks to underscore the superiority of Christianity over Judaism.

In an article in a book that considers characters in the Fourth Gospel, Brown (2013) explores how the author uses John as a model who embodies exemplary attitudes toward Jesus. She demonstrates how the author can characterize this important God-sent witness, who incorporates the message of the prologue to direct disciples and readers toward the one who creates a new community of children of God. Also important for the study of the Baptist is the article of Witetschek (2014), who analyzes the question to Jesus as preserved in the double tradition (Mt. 11.2-6 par. Lk. 7.18-23) and, hence, in Q. This author attempts a reconstruction of Q 7.18-19 that may provide a setting for a meaningful narrative reading. After reviewing previous reconstructions, Witetschek concludes that neither Matthew nor Luke seems to have preserved the wording of the source, which had no reference to either ‘the works of Christ’ (Mt. 11.2) or about John being informed by his disciples ‘about all these things’ (Lk. 7.18). The author argues that the ‘minimalist’ reconstruction he proposes (i.e., nothing stood in Q in the place where Matthew and Luke made modifications) relates this pericope to the wider (narrative) framework and thus provides greater cohesion for the document as a whole.

In yet another book article, Webb (2016) reassesses the extent and the level of historical probability of the information regarding the Baptist in the Fourth Gospel. Webb notes that the author uses their relationship for his rhetorical purposes (John as ‘the testifier’ to Jesus), a situation that raises questions about the reliability of his historical portrayal. Despite his reservations, the author argues that this does not annul all possibilities of historical information about John. While Webb finds John’s portrayal as a prophet and baptizer credible, he considers his identification of Jesus as the ‘coming one’ unhistorical. He concludes that the historical data about the Baptist contributes to understanding Jesus’ baptism practices, complex relationship with John (including phases of development in Jesus’ ministry), and geographical movements.

From a broader perspective, Theissen (2017) also analyzes in a book article the relationship between John and Jesus, in his case, whether their ministries should be viewed as diametrically opposed or in continuity (rupture ou continuité). After discussing the reliability of the sources about the Baptist, he compares the ministries of John and Jesus in relation to five themes and motifs: baptism, life in the desert, eschatology, ethics, and politics. He argues that for some time, Jesus recognized the Baptist as a superior figure who baptized him for the forgiveness of sins and, during his ministry, pursued his ‘master’ (maître) in the use of similar images, hyperboles, symbolic actions, eschatology, and ethics. Theissen concludes that until the end, Jesus attributed an important role to the Baptist, in parallel with his ministry, even if he distanced himself from John on several points.

Taylor (2017) has also recently contributed to investigations about John with an article about places associated with his ministry. After analyzing the distinctive nuances in Q, the synoptics, and the Fourth Gospel, Taylor concludes that John roamed through a region during his ministry rather than staying fixedly at one place. She reviews the theological importance of the Jordan River and its physical properties now compared to antiquity. Taylor draws the general contours of John’s ministry near or around the ancient city of Galaga, discusses his attire, and the meaning of his baptism (i.e., a purification ritual as a sign of previous repentance). She also considers how baptism may have been administered by John (partially clothed vs. naked), the meaning and geographical characteristics of the wilderness around the region of Jordan, and its relative fertility. After explaining the importance of various sites associated with John (Makhadat Hajla, Bethany beyond the Jordan, Al-Maghtas, Aenon near Salim), Taylor concludes that John used the region of the Jordan, a historically and theologically significant location to amplify his message, not living as a desert hermit, but near settlements that can now be identified with some confidence in the general area of the Jordan River.

The ‘conflict’ theme between John and Jesus (as well as their followers) is the focus of a Festschrift article by Simon Claude Mimouni (2019) in which the author reviews and engages some past studies on the Baptist that have mined the sources for historically reliable data. Mimouni highlights the difficulty of reconstructing the trajectory of John due to the scarcity (Josephus) and partiality of the information in the canonical (gospels and Acts) and apocryphal (Mandaean and pseudo-Clementine literature) sources, and he weighs the patristic material about the Baptist into the fourth century. Mimouni notes that in contrast to the evangelists who exert themselves in making John the precursor of Jesus, the Mandaean and pseudo-Clementine sources depict him as his opponent—a reminiscence of which appears in the gospels, especially in the Gospel of John: information which he deems, in this respect, to be credible. Like others before him, Mimouni posits that the conflict between the disciples of John, a group that he argues possibly existed until their disappearance in the fourth century, and Jesus erupted after the deaths of their respective masters as a messianic dispute.

The discussion of the relationship between the Baptist and Jesus continued as an important theme and the subject of Ferda’s (2020) investigation. He, however, focuses his research not on the conceptual agreement or disagreement of their respective ‘theologies’ but on the public perception of their actions and how people understood them. Ferda argues that the current scholarly stalemate of the discussion concerning the relationship between John and Jesus mirrors the state of affairs during the first century (i.e., historical confusion about the relationship between John and Jesus). Furthermore, he posits that public perceptions were inconsistent, stemming from the fact that John did not publicly endorse Jesus historically, his popularity was independent from the Baptist, and the people’s familiarity with both figures varied. Relying on social identity theories, Ferda concludes that as Jesus’ movement spread and gained popularity, he constructed his own social identity appealing to John’s legacy and highlighting both similarities and differences between them.

The issue of the localities connected to John’s ministry has also been recently addressed by Gibson (2022). The author discusses the evidence associated with the traditional sites linked to John, including Bethabara/Bethany, Aenon/Salem, Qasr al-Yehud, Wadi al-Kharrar, and Al-Maghtas. Gibson argues that John chose the region of the lower Jordan Valley to conduct his activities not for its isolation but because of its theological and historical significance as a place of crossing and transition (Josh 2:7; Judg 7:24). He notes that the very few archeological remains belonging to the early Roman period that could be associated with the people who flocked to the area of John’s baptism (in contrast to the abundance of sites in the Byzantine period) is explained by the small size and temporary nature of those encampments, which were probably made of local mud-bricks and tents. While John’s baptism was rooted in the common Jewish practice of ritual purification, his was a rite of initiation effective only with prior inner repentance, a ceremony Gibson envisions as a two ‘event locations’, one on the bank of the river and the other as an immersion in the river waters. According to the author, John would have performed these rituals in a string of places that would have extended from Bethabara/Bethany to Aenon/Salem, a place he believes was south of Beth-shean.

Finally, in an article in the comprehensive historical Jesus research volume, The Jesus Handbook, Backhaus (2022, orig. German edn 2017) outlines the main features of John’s ministry and relationship to Jesus. In it, he discusses the sources and methods of research on the Baptizer, his baptism, prophetic perception and message, characterization as Elijah, messianic expectations, and death. Backhaus considers the Baptizer’s knowledge of Jesus questionable and posits that his movement maintained continuity with John’s in baptism, prayer, and fasting. He rejects a dramatic break of Jesus away from John. The author concludes that, rather than contrasting the messages of John (warning) and Jesus (joy), one should speak of a soteriological shift based on Jesus’ personal experience of a merciful Father—for John judgment is first and forgiveness second and for Jesus is the other way around.

Status Quaestionis of Some Issues Related to John the Baptist

In the following section, some of the most important issues that continue to be debated in the studies on the Baptist in the roughly last 20 years will be discussed. I have selected the most significant topics that have experienced the greatest shifts or changes of emphasis since the beginning of critical research on John or continue to be argued without broad or unanimous consensus. As was the case in the brief forschungsbericht, for space considerations, I have not traced the origin and trajectory of the issues discussed here, save for a sporadic observation. It must be emphasized, however, that contemporary debates are indebted, to a certain extent, to the works of scholars who have previously analyzed some of these issues, though perhaps in a different manner and depth, as the introductory history of investigations suggests.

For this discussion, I will consider the studies and articles that have just been summarized and some recent works that, while not focused on the Baptist per se, have dedicated special attention to him. It should be noted that since the studies cited here employed a variety of methods and approached the texts from different perspectives (i.e., historical and narrative), the summary of the debate will reflect the level at which each author framed his or her investigation without any implication or attempt to present here a coherent methodological synthesis.

Conclusion

This brief tour of the research on John the Baptist has revealed some points that need to be highlighted. First, the methods used for research on the Baptist have evolved from form and redaction criticisms to studies that make greater use of sociological and narrative approaches. While the former had helped highlight the situations of the communities and the authors’ perspectives on the use and redaction of the sources, the latter has shed light on the social, literary, and theological contexts within which the sources of these traditions should be interpreted.

Second, there is a consensus that not all traditions about John should be evaluated equally because some are more historically reliable while others stand out for their theological content. While previous discussions reflect the concerns of researchers about the data offered by the apocryphal writings, the Slavic version of Josephus, and the Mandaean traditions about John, recent studies have adopted a more critical and nuanced view of the NT data as well as Josephus’s account—although in the case of the latter further discussion is still required.

Third, the early history of research shows that certain broad agreements existed among commentators regarding various areas of John’s ministry, including the eschatological content of his preaching, the baptism of Jesus, and the existence of some controversy between his followers and the community of Jesus after the resurrection. However, as this review has shown, some of these early agreements have either been revised or are still the subject of discussion. For instance, a more nuanced view of John’s eschatological preaching (i.e., one with greater openness to accept ethical and salvific content) has gained greater acceptance among critics. On the other hand, the origin and meaning of his baptism, as well as the extent of the controversy between the followers of John and Jesus, continue to be debated.

Fourth, although there are still points to be clarified in the debate on the relationship between John and Jesus, there has been a tendency to conceive it more in continuity than opposition. Today, there seem to be fewer critics who maintain that there was a break between John and Jesus and more who choose to understand their ministries in terms of different emphases or soteriological shifts rather than in antagonism to each other.

In short, recent studies on John the Baptist have clarified several points regarding his origin, message, baptism, locale of ministry, relationship with Jesus, and death. However, as is to be expected, forthcoming investigations, such as that of James McGrath John of History, Baptist of Faith: The Quest for the Historical Baptizer, and Christmaker: A Life of John the Baptist—unfortunately not yet published to be included in this survey—will contribute to our understanding of the importance and relevance of this historical figure.