I’m not sure how a documentary released in June of last year on John the Baptist escaped my attention until now, but it did. National Geographic’s “The Head of John the Baptist” explores claims regarding some recently discovered bones that some believe may be the remains/relics of John. It seems to be available in its entirety online. I have embedded a version I found here.
Also, another bit on John that slipped past me last year was an article from the Biblical Archaeology Society Staff on the Herodian Palace at Machaerus where it is said that John was beheaded. It is titled, “Machaerus: Beyond the Beheading of John the Baptist”. Unfortunately, the full article is for members only, so it may be a while before I can access it!
James McGrath has posted some thoughts on “John the Baptist and the Gnostics” examining the Mandean traditions related to John, which personally, I find quite fascinating. For one the Mandeans are a semitic people who have lived in Iran for centuries speaking a rare dialect of Aramaic. Also, the Mandeans exalt John over Jesus. My studies suggest that throughout the first century there remained a strong contingent of disciples following the ways of John. When we consider that the Book of Acts and the Gospel of John are two of the latest first century documents to be included in the New Testament we realize from passages like Acts 19:1-7 and John 1 that there remained needed apology for Jesus’ superiority to John as late as the 70s through the 90s (though the function of John’s identity in the Prologue is complex, especially when we consider there may have been an earlier, original opening to the Gospel that discussed John’s identity that was mixed with commentary of Jesus as Logos to form a new beginning to the Gospel).
Other than the Mandean tradition (which needs much further study) I have been trying to find mention of John in the writings of the early church. Most writings seem to be commenting on the Synoptic tradition. For example, Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho discusses John’s relationship to Elijah redivivus, his role as the forerunner of Jesus, and this tends to be the primary focus of early Christians. Yet there is one off-handed comment (in 80.29) that interest me. Justin lists several Jewish sects: Sadducees, Genistae, Meristae, Galileans, Hellenist, Pharisees, and then the one that strikes me, “Baptists”. In the Greek it is Baptiston (βαπτιστων). The version of Justin’s text that I am reading (see here) postulates that these Baptists are of Hegeaippus and Epiphanus. I am no expert on Justin, but I wonder if there remains a possible connection to a cult of John the Baptist? Any thoughts?
If John’s following was large enough to concern early Christians from the 30s to the 90s (at least) what happens in the second century? Do the Mandeans link back that far? Does Justin mention a surviving sect (if so, he gives little effort to denounce them like the Evangelists).
the archives near Emmaus 
Like you, I think there is a lot of both historical and theological (not to mention sociological) interest in John’s following, what became of it, how it related to (and often did NOT–as on separate tracts at least in N. Africa?) to Jesus-followers, etc. So I, for one, will welcome further posts re. this (can’t take the time to dig myself). Another angle comes to mind…. what did the Ebionites perhaps understand and believe re. John and ties of Jesus to him? From my little knowledge, we have NO direct Ebionite writings, and only minimal summaries or quoting of them in one or two early fathers (I think maybe Irenaeus and/or Epiphanius?).
I have read that their report of Paul’s early identity and background differs significantly from Luke’s, and somewhat from Paul’s own claims perhaps. I tend to accept the claims of those scholars who believe they can be traced either to the Jerusalem believers scattered to the east or, in general, to Palestinian Jesus-followers from very early, and that they were more than a minor splinter (“heretical”) group. If correct, any info from them should be weighed in seriously whether on Paul, John the Bapt., or whoever, as well as theological matters. Your thoughts?
I have aimed to read what I can about the Ebionites in this regard. It would be interesting to see if there is a tradition that connects them to John the Baptist in any way.
Thanks for posting on this! The possibility that the Mandaeans had some historical intersection with John the Baptist is a genuine one. In addition to the reference to “baptists” by Justin and hemerobaptists by Epiphanius and Hegesippus, Epiphanius also mentions Nasareans as a pre-Christian group, and there are several uses of Nazoreans in the New Testament which suggest that the term might have already existed (see in particular the reference to Paul in Acts as a “ringleader of the Nazoreans). That term is one that the Mandaeans have as part of their own tradition and use in reference to themselves – usually those with expertise in esoteric religious matters.
And so, while the later Christian authors could have been wrong, and Justin’s reference to “baptists” might merely have had the followers of John the Baptist in view, there is reason to think that there was a wider phenomenon beyond John.
Yet one has to do justice as well to the fact that John is the one who gets known as “the Baptizer” and so clearly he was doing something distinctive that distinguished him and his ritual from the other varieties of immersion around in the time (a point made well by Gerhard van der Heever in a paper he read at SBL in Chicago).
The bible has John anticipating Christ’s ministry, advising his disciples to follow Jesus instead, and predicting his own decrease as Christ increased.
It also has John being beheaded, and Christ’s fame growing to the point it reached its max for raising Lazarus from the dead (and Lazarus didn’t do to poorly for that little miracle either).
This all suggests John’s ministry became Christ’s.
Are there credible reasons for believing either the biblical record is wrong, or for believing some part of John’s following remained unpersuaded by Christ? Personally I find John charismatic and all but nothing compared to Christ.
Just a couple data points in relation to your question, Andrew: For one, the passage I believe cited by Brian from Acts re. Apollos and his being baptized only into the “baptism of John” and needing to be instructed more accurately in “the Way of God” tho he DID (according to the passage) teach “…accurately the things concerning Jesus…” I won’t detail the puzzling points about this IF the Gospel explanations are the full story. But read it carefully (18:24 – 19:7). Thinking it through, it sure implies if not proving, that John had sophisticated, educated followers who also apparently knew about Jesus (whose public ministry was likely less than one year, no more than 3 and either overlapping, according to the Gospels, or at least close to the time of John’s). But they apparently had NOT heard about the points you cite, which supposedly were made plain via public pronouncements by John himself.
Another key datapoint is Josephus’ remarks about John, which I don’t think are suspected of being later insertions or edited by others later as are his Jesus comments, for more than suspected interpreter bias or minor reasons (textual inconsistencies pointing pretty clearly to tampering early on, e.g.). Josephus doesn’t seem to have reason to deny or disguise a John-Jesus connection yet in his couple hundred words (or so, I forget how many) on John, John’s role and function is quite different than in the Gospels, with no mention of being the “way-preparer” for Jesus, etc, or any connection whatever. If John’s following or influence was handed off to, or much smaller than Jesus’, and short-lived, either Josephus had motive for distorting the picture or some things may well be fabricated in the Gospels.
James
I have been reading Joan Taylor’s work on John and I have begun to notice that John does seem to have been doing something somewhat unique as you stated. John’s baptism doesn’t seem to correlate one-for-one with various mikveh rituals, whether at the temple, Qumran, or a local village. Those “baptisms” seems to be repeatable, but in the Gospels John’s baptism seems to be apocalyptic. Do you think that is a fair juxtaposition?
FWIW, a group of Mandeans has arrived here in San Antonio in recent months. A person in my church has been working with them since they are refuges from Iran where apparently they were quit mistreated. I have considered visiting them. I am hesitant because I don’t want them to feel like some lab experiment as this American comes to chat with them after they’ve been relocated from a dangerous situation, but after reading the NT documents, noticing that John seems to be a “problem”, and then hearing that a sect came to adopt a view of John that is far higher than I had imagined, I’ve become interested in learning more about them and their origins.
Andrew
For one, I think if we limit our compare and contrast of Jesus and John to the Gospels John is going to look insignificant because this was part of the Evangelists’ agenda. Now I am not saying it was wrong of them to exalt Christ and downplay John, per se, but this doesn’t mean that John wasn’t a big deal. In fact, the Evangelists’ efforts in all four canonical Gospels and the Book of Acts to argue for Jesus’ superiority over John from one degree (Mark being the least interested) to another (John making the largest claims) shows that John was a big deal. The end of Acts 18 and the beginning of Acts 19 signify to me that as late as the composition of the Book of Acts Luke felt obligated to include a narrative where Jesus is exalted over John as the Spirit-Giver. The latest would be the Prologue of the Gospel of John where Jesus’ exaltation as the Logos is intertwined with the declaration that John the Baptist was something less, even ignoring the story of John baptizing Jesus, and emphasizing John’s role as the voice in the wilderness rather than as the baptizer.
Howard
You are correct. The end of Acts 18 and the beginning of Acts 19 tells us a lot. There are disciples associated with John and his teachings far, far from the area around the Jordan River who in the case of Apollos seem to know a bit about Jesus and in the case of the disciples in Acts 19 it is unclear. What is clear is that the disciples in Acts 19 don’t know about the “holy spirit”, which likely doesn’t mean they didn’t know of a Hebraic concept of the holy spirit, but rather that they didn’t know about the events at Pentecost that in Luke’s mind validate Jesus’ role as Christ.
Likewise, Josephus’ depiction of John shows that John has a reputation of his own outside of how Christians connected him to Jesus. This is interesting to me.
Is your church a Baptist church? If so, your friend might want to make sure there are no misunderstandings! 🙂
I think that if you have the time to also genuinely make friends and help these Mandaeans settle in, they will probably be quite happy to talk to you about their culture and tradition. Unless there is a priest among them, however, you are liable to find that they can give informed answers about the earlier history and texts of their own tradition about as accurately as the average Christian can. 🙂
I worship with a Mennonite congregation, so thankfully there will be no confusion! One of the members of our church has been helping them settle into their new homes here in the United States, so I’ve thought about becoming involved. I hope there is a priest who can discuss their traditions with me. As I said, I find it very interesting that there is a sect that exalts John as they do, especially since the early church seemed a bit worried that something like this might be happening.