This post is sort of like chicken-scratch. I’ve noticed some things, so I am writing them down here in case anyone has any additional insights to share. I’ve noticed that in Luke-Acts there seems to be a greater effort to reconcile the disciples of Jesus and John than there is in Matthew, Mark, and especially John. For example, while there is no doubt that Luke wants to exalt Jesus, he is very careful to present Jesus as the natural successor of John, the one to whom John pointed others. Only Luke provides a narrative about John’s conception and birth paralleling him with Jesus in Luke 1:5-2:52. Both receive an annunciation. Both have unique births (to a barren woman, to a virgin girl). Both are circumcised and named.
In Luke 3:1-6 Jesus and John come together in a scene where the setting is “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar…” In other words, Jesus and John announce the Kingdom in the same political setting under Roman occupation.
In Luke 5:33-39—unlike Mark 2:18-22 and Matthew 9:14-17—the challenge to Jesus regarding his disciples not fasting comes from the Scribes and Pharisees alone.
Luke 7:18-30 parallels (follows?) Matthew 11:1-15 where John sends his disciples to double-check with Jesus regarding his messianic identity (which he confirms) and Jesus publicly praises John calling him the greatest person ever born. In Luke 16:16 Jesus marks John as the end of the old age and the beginning of the Kingdom of God.
In Luke 3:7-18 John says that the Coming One will baptize in “holy Spirit and fire.” In Acts 1:4-5 this has become the message of the resurrected Jesus: “…John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the holy Spirit not many days from now.” When Peter and the disciples decide to replace the apostate Judas their criteria is that the person must have been with Jesus since the beginning, since the days of John’s baptism (1:22).
Then, of course, in Acts 18:24-19:5 Luke presents Apollos’ maturation and that of the “disciples” in Ephesus as taking place when they build upon what they know of John’s message by transferring their allegiance to Jesus. The disciples get baptized unto Jesus (which probably explains, in part, why Luke is so emphatic about mentioning Jesus’ name in association with baptism). When the disciples do this they are baptized with the holy Spirit promised by John, but not until then. Implicit in the narrative of Acts 19:1-5 is the idea that John’s baptism is insufficient.
Scholars have noticed that Luke seems to “catholicize” in Acts, primarily through his portrait of Paul as the natural extension of Peter to the pagan world. I have come to believe that there is another lesser discussed group: those who had some sort of allegiance to John. In Acts 19:1-5 these people are “disciples,” and Luke always uses that word for disciples of Jesus (or Paul), so it is probable that like Apollos these people have some sense of Jesus’ importance, but they had partial knowledge. For Luke, one way to tidy things up was to encourage those who were loyal to John to go a step further by pledging allegiance to Jesus.
Thoughts?
the archives near Emmaus 
I’ve always been intrigued by the narrative in Acts 19 concerning John’s disciples. I often wonder what role immersive baptism truly plays in light of Jesus’ mission/commission to baptize with fire/Holy Spirit. I do not mean this is a PH manner, but I do mean it in a manner that might suggest we rethink what it means to be a disciple, and what it means to be baptized.
This is a well reasoned argument, and the evidence compelling. Certainly, orthodoxy has struggle with the efficacy of baptism (water vs spirit) with the debate at its zenith during the Reformation. The Roman Catholic church’s traditional (pre-Vatican 2) emphases on the ‘sacrament’ of baptism treated water baptism essentially indistinguishable from baptism of the Spirit. Since Vatican 2 the Roman Catholic church has softened this stance somewhat treating water baptism essentially as a symbol for baptism of the Spirit.
With respect to there being a greater effort to reconcile the disciples of Jesus and John than there is in Matthew, Mark, and and John. You may be right. This may be one of Luke’s goals which is why it appears to receive more attention. However, the difficulty in making this argument is determining whether it was intentional or not. Verses such as [Matthew 3:11] make it seem like no reconciliation is necessary. This could be just Matthew projecting his own assurance onto the matter – ‘Even John says Jesus is mightier, so what reconciliation is necessary’ type of thinking, or it could be that Matthew was not as sensitive as Luke to such a dynamic, or it could be that no issue existed save for a delayed propagation of John’s message that he was but a sign-post to Jesus. Resolving issues like these are going to be challenging methinks. It’s not clear how you can further chip away at these questions.
With respect to John asking Jesus for confirmation of his Messiah-ship, verses such as [Luke 1:41] and [John 1:27] make it seem like he already knew Jesus’ role, however John was still but a man. He was faced with persecution, held captive but a tyrant king and facing death. John may simply have had doubts. Jesus himself sought confirmation about his paschal role when He faced mortal death [Matt 26:39]. Nevertheless, seeking confirmation about these things is not evidence of failure or sin.
With respect to treatment in John’s gospel, I’m not convinced the church tradition that the Gospel attributed to John was actually written by ‘John’. Whoever wrote ‘John’ seems to have been well educated, well connected, more familiar with Jerusalem than Galilee. Indeed he was familiar enough with Jerusalem’s Pharisee crowd to recognize specific individuals and be privy to internal Temple discussions (suggests verses such as [John 11:45-52]). Also, he appears to have taken steps to hid his identity. So, this Gospel appears to have been more interested in documenting the theological significance of Jesus, than in recording a history about Him, or people close to Him.
Finally, on the issue of differences between Jesus’ baptism and John’s, Peter appears to have had an interpretation of baptism too [1 Peter 3:21]. Since John’ ‘water’ baptism pre-dated Christ, and Peter’s portrayal of baptism focus’d on the old covenant symbol of water (flood), I suspect that Peter’s view of baptism may have originated with John, but later interpreted by Christ.
@Tyler:
It is curious that the early Church continued to administer water baptism. One might think that John’s words would differentiate to the point where water baptism would have been ditched, but this didn’t happen. In the Gospels Jesus’ disciples begin baptizing in water like John’s disciples. We know from the Pauline epistles that this was a common practice in the Pauline Churches. There may be an attempt in John 3 to move toward synthesizing the baptisms, but this effort didn’t convince the broader Church. That said, baptism by Spirit was the most important way to designate one as a disciple of Christ.
@Andrew:
It seems that Mt. is aware of the problem. Assuming Markan Priority he expands Mark’s baptism story quite a bit to make sure that there is no confusion as to whether Jesus or John is greater. In John it is quite astonishing to consider that the Johnannine Prologue is mixed with a narrative about John, i.e., Jesus’ exaltation as the eternal Logos of God is placed in juxtaposition with John, the witness (notice he isn’t called the Baptist here).
Oddly, the later a Gospel the more concern there is with John. He is not mentioned in Paul’s epistles at all. He is an assumed figure in Mark. Matthew has some more explaining to do. Luke-Acts spends much energy on what may be an appeal to active disciples of John. The Fourth Gospel goes as far as to exalt Jesus as the eternal Logos in order to minimize John. If Acts and John are our oldest of these documents that the intensity strengthens.
Thoughts? Yes, lots Brian, but too little time. You’re making good and important observations. I esp. like your implication, in your 9:58 a.m. comment, that maybe John “followership” either grew or somehow John’s significance or influence appeared stronger later in the 1st century. The main comment I have about that is that, unfortunately we may never have much more data to trace John’s following and his specific teachings. What I DO think is pretty clear, some of which you are discussing in the post itself, is that Luke is a rhetorical, literary master, and more importantly, that he is purposely linking several elements of early John/Jesus following and other elements of early “Christianity” (better “Chrisitianities” or “sects” I believe) in order to give the picture of and move along the concept of a unified Christian faith in the first 4 to 5 decades after Jesus. The parallelisms you note are significant, being both a Hebrew practice and one apparently used much broader in the lit of the day (I’m assuming Luke was not Jewish, though he could have been.)
@Brian, alright – I can accept that.
Re: your comments “The Fourth Gospel goes as far as to exalt Jesus as the eternal Logos in order to minimize John.”
I assume this is the bit around [John 3:30] where the verse acts as a fulcrum for establishing ‘a correct theological view of the Messiah’ as something more than a mere descendant of David absolutely worthy of worship “He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all.”
This passage seems to convey rhetorical force to establish this theology of worship. Yehshua (Jesus) as anointed (Christ) is worthy of worship. Although it increases the prestige of Christ at the expense of John, is there anything beyond mere rhetoric that suggests either that John the Baptists did not speak these words, or that the John/Jesus relationship begged explanation for the contemporary audience?
I suppose your argument is also compelling that multiple gospels all making some effort to address the issue of the Jesus/John relationship (even if in different ways) suggests there was more to this than mere theology.
@Andrew:
I’m thinking more specifically on John 1 where the Johannine Prologue seems to have been added later to begin the Gospel with an exaltation of Jesus as the Logos. Some Johannine scholars propose that the Gospel began with the data about John the Baptist. This (if correct) would indicate that at stage 1 the primary concern was John and then at a later redaction Jesus was exalted even further to stress the point.
I think Luke 7.18-30 was John more or less forcing his reluctant disciples to go with Jesus. He made them see for themselves what Jesus taught and did. I don’t think Jesus would have praised John so highly — he ranked highest of living men only one “notch” below those in heaven — had John doubted Jesus.
@Rick:
I don’t doubt that John has his doubts. There is nothing incompatible with both doubting and trying to trust someone at the same time. Assuming John did declare Jesus to be the Coming One as the Evangelists say he did: how much did he know about the Coming One? How full was his knowledge? He said the one coming would baptize with holy Spirit and fire and the way the Gospels preserve his message there seems to be a sense of judgment attached. The fire purifies the nation, yet evil men like Herod remained in power while John sat in a prison. I am not surprised that John wondered about Jesus since Jesus was doing nothing to bring judgment on wicked people. This is why Jesus blessed all those who do not take offense at him.
Since we still have folks who worship John in southern Iraq(Mandeans), it seems to me your view that Luke felt he needed to urge some of John’s disciples to “get with the program” makes excellent logic. Although I think John made a strong “get with the program effort” himself in chapters 1&3.
BTW, for those who wonder why the church continued to baptize, I think it’s for the same cause John did baptize and Jesus insisted He be baptized. It’s my view baptism does not necessarily = what I was always taught( symbols for the death,burial,resurrection).
Considering the role of the chaotic waters in the OT text as symbolic of chaos/evil, especially Israel crossing the Reed Sea/Jordan River, I have come to believe that baptism represents Christ, the only faithful Israelite, coming out from the chaotic waters victoriously as eschatological Israel on behalf of/for all ethnic Israel and as such, for all humanity, by the power of Yahweh.
It is to our era what circumcision was to their’s. Public declaration about which team we choose to be on.
Patrick, I go further than that on baptism. I take [Rom 6:4] and [Col 2:12] at face value (meaning strongly) and so treat ‘resurrection’ and baptism as synonyms (prophetically).
The bodily resurrection, yes I recognize it but – Meh! God can create bodies from dirt. It’s the Imago Dei God came to salvage and that resurrection commences with baptism (spirit symbolized by water).
So speaking of eschatological resurrection, I’d argue resurrection is happening all around us, we just fail to see it. Were Christ to return today, and gather his flock, our eyes would be opened and we’d see radiant Israelites gathered, married in perfect covenant to the bridegroom, and we’d ask ourselves “How did we miss this? We watched it happen before our eyes, and yet still failed to notice!”
We have eyes but cannot see …
@Patrick:
Indeed, the Mandaeans are a very interesting group because they exalt John so highly. James McGrath has studies them quite a bit and he think their traditions may shed light on early John-veneration. They are a group I want to study. FWIW, many of the recent wars in the Middle East have resulted in Mandaean refugees coming to the US. I heard there are some here in San Antonio.
Andrew,
I think Christian baptism represents Jesus’ eschatological resurrection( and thus our’s), but, to me it is tied into the textual “chaotic/evil” waters of the text and His dying, then living through them victoriously and I see it as metaphorical, not literal.
Although I do think we literally “died and are resurrected with Christ” as well. Best I can figure on that is God is seeing us in the future. He is there ya know, God is in the past, present and future.
Brian,
There was much veneration of John. Josephus wrote way more of John’s celebrity than Jesus’ for example. You can see in John 1 and 3 that the author there goes out of his way to remonstrate, John is not deserving of veneration, only Christ deserves it and as you pointed out, Luke makes a strong case there.
There was a real fear folks would worship John back then with the authors and time has shown it was a wise fear.
Additional thought.
In John 1:19-28 you can see the religious leaders asking John 3 questions. Based on some extra biblical literature(DSS), it seems many 2cd temple Jews were expecting 3 separate Messiahs, prophet, priest and king.
They were fairly certain John was one of them I think. It makes no logic they would have traveled out there to ask John these questions if he was not already a major league personality in the region and the idea had traveled all the way to the sannhedrin.
Others have argued the same thing you observe Patrick, based upon similar observations (and other evidence such as showing intimate familiarity with Jerusalem and environs by specifically naming local landmarks [John 5:2] ).
Notice that ascribing the Gospel of John, to John is tradition only. There’s no evidence John wrote this Gospel. Therefore ‘who is treated as one of them‘ (the religious leaders) is the author of that Gospel itself and not necessarily John.
If the tradition is correct it was, in fact “John” who wrote the Gospel, than yes – it was John who was treated as one of them. However, if someone else wrote the Gospel (such as Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Lazarus, or someone other, than it was the author of the Gospel instead who was intimately familiar with Jerusalem’s powerful.
Brian,
I still don’t buy the argument that John doubted Jesus. The tenacious attachment of John’s disciples to him must have concerned him that they did not see the whole picture of Jesus as he (always) did. They HAD to see for themselves.
As far as Jesus not judging, didn’t Herod wonder aloud that Jesus criticisms of him were “John redivivus”?
@Rick:
That’s fine, but I don’t think your reading of John’s questioning make as much sense of those narratives as the proposal that John sitting in prison begins to wonder why the one who was going to bring “holy Spirit and fire” allows wicked rulers to continue to do wicked things. John predicted an eschatological judge. Jesus wasn’t doing this.
@Patrick:
I think you may be right. I wish we had more data, but the Baptist Movement after John’s death is intriguing, especially when understood through the polemics of early Christians trying to explain who Jesus was in relation to John.
I may have recommended this book before, but was just re-reading part of it (mainly ch. 5) and was prompted to remind you, Brian, and other readers, that it is highly pertinent to this John-Jesus discussion, and specifically as per Josephus: “Josephus and the New Testament” by Steve Mason (1992). Though no longer recent, I don’t know of a close parallel to this careful, helpful work. Ch. 5 relates almost entirely and the later chapter (7?) on Luke and Josephus is a detailed and very interesting analysis of the relationship and possibility (probability I’d say, to Mason) of Luke having known and utilized Josephus, which also becomes a peripheral issue on dating Luke/Acts, though by no means a definitive one. But his analysis on Josephus vis-a-vis the Gospels on John is excellent.