Commenting on the depiction of John the Baptist in the Gospel of John, Troels Engberg-Pedersen writes the following, showing that John consciously made an effort to ensure that there would be no ambiguity between OT Elijah and John the Baptist, clearly presenting the “Elijah” who was to come in fulfillment of Mal 4:5-6 as someone other than John the Baptist:
Mk 6.14-16 and
8.27-29 (on who Jesus is: the Baptist or Elijah redivivus,
or just ‘one of the prophets’?) have given John – in an entirely paradoxical,
but also in fact quite logical manner – his 1.20-21 and 25 (on who the Baptist
is not). This is again an exciting example of the transformation wrought
by John on Mark. Mark had twice told a story about who people took Jesus to be.
John transforms this into a story in which the Baptist himself says (in
response to a question who he is, 1.19) that he is neither the
Christ nor Elijah nor ‘the prophet’ (1.20-21, 25). John then uses
this statement by the Baptist to have his interlocutors ask the question that
is the single, basic, underlying question in his whole presentation of the
Baptist: if you are neither of the three figures, then why do you baptize?
(1.24). This crucial question is then answered – and again by the Baptist
himself- in 1.29-34 . . .Mk 9.11-13 (implicitly on the Baptist as Elijah
redivivus in relation to ‘the Son of Man’), which should (I believe) be
read together with Mk 12.35-37 (about Jesus as the ‘lord,’ not the ‘son,’
of even David), has given John – once again – 1.20-21 and 25 at the same time
as it marks one of the strongest differences between Mark and John, duly noted
by almost all commentators. While the Baptist in fact was, so Jesus implies in
Mark, ‘Elijah redivivus’, John has the Baptist himself explicitly deny
this. Why? Because in John, the Baptist is just a human being (cf.
1.6 and 5.33-34: ανθρωπος), though with divine knowledge .
. . (Troels Engberg-Pedersen, “John the Baptist in Mark and John: An Exercise
in Comparison,” in Eve-Marie Becker, Helen K. Bond, and Catrin H. Williams,
eds., John’s Transformation of Mark [London: T&T Clark, 2021], 141-42,
emphasis in original)
