Is there a secret tradition that believes that John and not Jesus was the Messiah? Are the secret wars that lurk between the lines in the historical record the result of an age-old power struggle? Who was John the Baptist and who were his followers? More importantly, does his following exist to this day? Let's dig in and see if the truth isn't hiding in plain sight. The Gospel of Mark - generally believed to be the earliest of the four gospels in the New Testament- begins, not with Jesus, but with John, son of Zechariah and Elisabeth, better known as ‘John the Baptist’ :
Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight; John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem; And they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. And John was clothed with camel's hair, and had a leathern girdle about his loins, and did eat locusts and wild honey. And he preached, saying, There cometh after me he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit. - Mark 1:2-8 ASV
Despite what some Christians may believe, the author known as Mark was not a journalist, he was a propagandist in the truest sense of the word. He was seeking to propagate the Jesus cult. Not only was Mark competing with the multitude of Jewish, Pagan and Solar cults, he was competing with other Jesus factions. The problem Mark faced is that in their own time John the Baptist was a much more popular figure in Palestine than Jesus. So after John baptizes Jesus, he is dispensed with by Mark (and by his follower Matthew), until he is executed. On the other hand, the Gospel writer Luke seems to be aware that he is writing for a people that believed that John, and not Jesus, was the Messiah. Some believed that Luke was writing before the fall of Jerusalem and before the death of the Apostle Paul, and that a first draft might have been produced circa 64 AD.
Therefore the first chapter of Luke acknowledges the supremacy of John in his audience’s mind by telling his story first. Luke 1:5-25 tells the miraculous story of John’s birth to the Temple priest Zechariah and his barren wife, Elisabeth. The angelic announcement of the John’s activity is identical to Jesus’:
“And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. Luke 1:11-14 (ASV)
1 http://secretsun.blogspot.co.at/2010/05/john-baptist-secret-messiah-part-1.html
Luke then has Mary visit Elisabeth in order that the well-known figure of Elisabeth can bestow her blessings on the lesser-known Mary. Of course, Elisabeth is clearly subservient to Mary in Luke’s telling. Humorously, John’s subservience to Jesus apparently is prenatal:
And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. Luke 1:43-44 (ASV)
The first chapter ends with John’s birth and with Zechariah’s song of praise for the miraculous nativity, and John’s subservient role in relationship to the coming messiah.
Somehow overlooked by the so-called “Biblical Literalists” is that Zechariah’s view of the coming messiah (whom he does not name) is unmistakably and unambiguously Solar:
And you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High; for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him, to give his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven to shine on those living in darkness.
Luke 1: 76-79 (NIV)
Luke takes up the story of John the Baptist again in chapter 3, after establishing Jesus’ bona fides in chapter 2. Here, Luke must remind his audience of John’s messianic prophecy using John’s own words:
And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then? He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise. Then came also publicans (tax collectors) to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do? And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you. And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages. And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not; John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable. -Luke 3: 7-17 ASV
Luke’s account here ends with John being imprisoned (Luke 3:20). The last we hear of John in the Gospel of Luke is an offhand remark by Herod, referring to John’s execution. (Luke 9:7-8). Three vitally important facts come to light in the story of John’s ministry in Luke.
• First, John’s communistic teachings are remarkably similar to Jesus’, leading many scholars to believe that Jesus was one of John’s disciples.
• Next again note, as with Zecharias that John’s view of the coming Christ is Solar-John baptizes with water, but the Christ does so with fire. This brings to mind the baptism by fire Isis performed with Queen Astarte’s son to grant him immortality, as chronicled by Plutarch: “They relate that Isis nursed the child by giving it her finger to suck instead of her breast, and in the night she would burn away the mortal portions of its body." - Plutarch , “Isis and Osiris”, Moralia, 357B
• Most importantly, note that John does not identify Jesus as the coming messiah in the Book of Luke. This is remarkable for a Gospel story, and is in direct contradiction to the accounts of Matthew and John. It’s also vitally important here to note that Luke makes reference to John’s ministry being in the spirit and power of Elijah. (Lk 1:16)
Could it be that that John’s large following was very familiar with his messianic prophecies? Given the detailed account of John’s biography and actions in Luke’s Gospel, it's very likely that there were once written records of John’s life and works which Luke is quoting from, particularly in the third chapter. The fact that a Christian propagandist could resist the urge to insert Jesus’ name into Zechariah’s and John’s distinctly Solar prophecies is in itself evidence of a well-known corpus of Johannine literature in the First Century.
There is also a curious juxtaposition of events in Luke concerning Jesus’ baptism: John is imprisoned before Jesus is baptized:
But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias his brother Philip's wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done, Added yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison. Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. Luke 3: 19-22 ASV
Luke never says who Jesus is baptized by, nor does he make reference to John’s response to such a momentous divine event. Jesus is simply another adherent among many others. Was it known then that Jesus was actually baptized by one of John’s disciples? The chronology of John’s arrest and his conspicuous absence at Jesus’
Baptism is directly contradicted in Mark’s account, who has John imprisoned immediately following Jesus’
baptism:
And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him. Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God. - Mark 1:9-14 KJV
Yet, notice here that Jesus himself- and not John- witnessed Jesus’ epiphany. If John had witnessed it, it might have been mentioned in the extant Johannine literature. Mark makes
no mention of John’s obeisance to Jesus during Jesus’ baptism, nor does Mark name Jesus as John's coming messiah.
This omission is evidence that Mark and Luke were written earlier than Matthew and John, respectively, and were possibly circulated at a time when John’s teachings and reputation were still well known. It is believed early versions of Mark date from before the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Many Biblical scholars date Matthew during the late first century and John in the early second century 3 , that is after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE and the dispersal of the great bulk of the Jews. It is not until the non-synoptical Gospel of John that the potentially compromising baptism narrative is rewritten to have John bear witness to the epiphany:
These things were done in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man who is become before me: for he was before me. And I knew him not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, for this cause came I baptizing in water. And John bare witness, saying, I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven; and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit. And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God. - John 1:29-34 ASV
Why was none of this mentioned in Luke, who seems to be very familiar with the actual teachings of John? Might this be unwitting testimony that there was still lingering doubts as to John’s prophecy of this Jesus as the coming Christ? It also directly contradicts a passage in Luke, where even after Jesus’ baptism, John seems of unsure of Jesus’ divinity and from his prison cell sends a messenger to inquire whether or not he is the Christ:
And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to the Lord, saying, Art thou he that cometh, or look we for another? And when the men were come unto him, they said, John the Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that cometh, or look we for another? - Luke 7: 18-20 ASV
Again, in the Gospel of John there is no such uncertainty. But if Luke was writing for an audience familiar with the teachings of the Baptist, this issue would need to be addressed.
There may well have been an opinion amongst the Baptist’s still-extant following that the Nazarene was a false prophet in John’s eyes. It is highly likely that much of the Johannine literature was destroyed-perhaps during the seige of Jerusalem. Matthew essentially rewrites Mark’s account, adding a few editorial flourishes, most notably John’s protest that Jesus ought to be baptizing him. And the question remains, why would Jesus need to be baptized at all? He was, according to his disciples, without sin. John Dominic Crossan notes that Jesus’ propagandists were “clearly uneasy wth the idea of John baptizing Jesus’ because that seems to make John superior and Jesus sinful.” Hence Matthew and John would revert to what Crossan calls “theological damage control.” The legendary Jewish historian Josephus makes clear that John’s reputation among the Jews was such that the Roman onslaught and the destruction of the Temple was retribution from God, not for the execution of Jesus, but, for the execution of John.
Speaking here of John, Josephus writes:
And when others massed about him, for they were very greatly moved by his words, Herod, who feared that such strong influence over the people might carry to a revolt --for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise -- believed it much better to move now than later have it raise a rebellion and engage him in actions he would regret.
And so John, out of Herod's suspiciousness, was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fort previously mentioned, and there put to death; but it was the opinion of the Jews that out of retribution for John God willed the destruction of the army so as to afflict Herod.
Josephus obviously finds John to be much more noteworthy than Jesus. Josephus’ only reference to Jesus is a single paragraph (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 line 63), which most experts agree was embellished by an embarrassed Christian copyist. Was John thought to be the Christ by the pre-Diaspora Jews?
The most elaborate account of John’s execution takes place in the Gospel of Mark:
For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe. And when he heard him, he was much perplexed; and he heard him gladly. And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, and the high captains, and the chief men of Galilee; and when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced, she pleased Herod and them that sat at meat with him;
and the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee. And he sware unto her, Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom. And she went out, and said unto her mother, What shall I ask? And she said, The head of John the Baptizer. And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, I will that thou forthwith give me on a platter the head of John the Baptist. And the king was exceeding sorry; but for the sake of his oaths, and of them that sat at meat, he would not reject her. And straightway the king sent forth a soldier of his guard, and commanded to bring his head: and he went and
beheaded him in the prison, and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the damsel;
and the damsel gave it to her mother. Mark 6:20-29 ASV (see also Matthew 14:1-12)
What is remarkable about Mark and Matthew’s telling of the tale is that they do not name a vitally important character in the drama, ie., the girl who demands John’s head. She is simply referred to as “the daughter of Herodias.” To get this daughter’s name, we need to refer back to Josephus:
“Herodias was married to Herod, the son of Herod the Great by Mariamme the daughter of Simon the high priest. They had a daughter Salome, after whose birth Herodias, taking it into her head to flout the way of our fathers, married Herod the Tetrarch, her husband's brother by the same father, who was tetrarch of Galilee; to do this she parted from a living husband.”
So why did Mark and Matthew neglect to name Salome? In The Templar Revelation, Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince present a fascinating theory. Citing Hugh Schoenfeld, A.N.
Wilson and Barbara Theiering, Picknett and Prince posit that far from being the leader of a ragtag band of mystics, Jesus was the head of a faction of Jewish militants, one among many such as the Zealots, the Sicarii and the Maccabees. Furthermore, the death of the Baptist in Mark is followed by the “Feeding of the Five Thousand,” which the Good News Bible headlines as “Jesus Feeds Five Thousand Men.” A.N. Wilson posits that the Feeding of the Five-Thousand was an assembly of the various militant factions (Mark 6:40 makes mention to the fact that “the men sat down in ranks”), which Picknett and Prince further posit was called by Jesus as a peace summit in the aftermath of John’s death. This chronology of Jesus meeting with ranks of men lends credence to their theory. Similar events have been known to happens in times of wars, particularly amongst non-state actors, like gangs or partisan bands, following a death of a charismatic leader.
Picknett and Prince take it one step further and suggest that the factions may have believed that Jesus - or more accurately, the wealthy patrons of the Jesus cult such as Joseph of Arimathea - had a hand in John’s execution. After all, the Jesus movement would benefit greatly from John’s death, particularly if Jesus’ ministry was gaining wide acceptance amongst the Jews. And Jesus did have a disciple with a contact in Herod’s inner circle - Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward. And according to Biblical scholar
Picknett and Prince take it one step further and suggest that the factions may have believed that Jesus - or more accurately, the wealthy patrons of the Jesus cult such as Joseph of Arimathea - had a hand in John’s execution. After all, the Jesus movement would benefit greatly from John’s death, particularly if Jesus’ ministry was gaining wide acceptance amongst the Jews. And Jesus did have a disciple with a contact in Herod’s inner circle - Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward. And according to Biblical scholar