4 E.g., Dodd, Tradition, 274; Stauffer, Jesus, 65; Lane, Mark, 52; Kraeling, John the Baptist, 55 (summarizing the position of Lohmeyer [1932] and K. Grobel [1941]); Freyne, “Servant Community,” 111.
6 Crossan contends that Jesus beginning a ministry distinct from John the Baptist suggests that Jesus must have rejected John’s apocalypticism (Historical Jesus, 230-38). Yet the very purpose of training advanced disciples was for them to be teachers as well; they did not have to await the mentor’s death to begin ministry! More scholars recognize Jesus’ continuity with John (below).
7 E.g., Meyer, “Judgment”; Michaels, Servant, 1-24; Chilton, “Announcement”; Sanders, Figure, 94; Taylor, Immerser, 314 (summarizing her argument in that section); Webb, “Relationship,” especially 214-29; Ehrman, Prophet, 185; Allison, “Continuity”; Dapaah, Relationship. For Jesus remaining pro-John, see also Spencer, Profiles, 54-58; France, “Jesus the Baptist?” 105-7 (France contending that even the subsequent groups remained on good terms).
8 Webb, “Relationship,” 229. For a survey of “historical John” research, see Webb, “Relationship,” 179-86.
11 E.g., Abrahams, Studies 1, 30-35 (contrast the inauthentic Slavic additions in Josephus LCL 3:644-45). Robert Webb (“Josephus on John”; idem, Baptizer, 39-41, 87), persuasively argues that Josephus’ account is mostly accurate, though shaped by his perspective.
12 See also discussion of competition in Keener, John, 388-91, and the (often more extensive) sources cited there.
13 See Meier, “John in Josephus,” 234; cf. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 146 n. 31.
14 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 39; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 101. For the Jordan’s possible theological significance (evoking redemptive history), see e.g., Webb, “Relationship,” 189. The particular site is uncertain (Hoppe, “Baptized”).
15 Hos 2:14-15; 11:5-11; Is 40:3; later interpreters properly understood such passages as applicable to the time of Israel’s restoration (e.g., Ps. Sol. 11:1).
16 Cf. Theissen, Sociology, 48-50. For revelation and purification there, cf. discussion in Najman, “Wilderness.”
17 Acts 21:38; Matt 24:26; Jos. Ant. 20.189; War 2.259, 261-62; cf. Beasley-Murray, Mark Thirteen, 84. Apart from new exodus connotations, this was the only place for such large and potentially politically subversive movements (cf. Ant. 18.118) to safely gather.
18 As in Jn 1:23, the Baptist may have employed this text to convey his own sense of mission (Robinson, Studies, 13).
19 1QS 8.13-14; cf. Brownlee, “Comparison,” 71; Brown, “Scrolls,” 4; Evans, “Typologies,” 50-52. In their case, this applied especially to their knowledge of the law (1QS 8.15-16). Some argue for the relevance of Is 40:3 to revolutionary movements in the wilderness (cf. Schwartz, “Voice”), though others contend that the new exodus paradigm (cf. Longenecker, “Wilderness”) was more influential.
20 1QS 8.13-14; 9.19-20; Bruce, “Qumran and Christianity,” 177; Witherington, Christology, 36; cf. Scobie, “John the Baptist,” 68; Minde, “Absonderung”; Evans, “Typologies,” 52 (noting other wilderness prophets).
21 Josephus also portrays the Essenes as ascetics (War 2.120) and evidence suggests that he baptized near them (see Jeremias, Theology, 43). But if John was ever an Essene (Betz, “Essene”), it was not during his public ministry — Essenes did not accept those who differed from them in any respects (see Pryke, “John”). Against some who have produced wild theories relating the Essenes to Christianity (e.g., Trudinger, “Gospel”; Thiering, Hypothesis), most scholars recognize both similarities and differences (Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, 72, 75).
