Mark 1:4-8 -- John the Baptist in Bible Studies

In the last entry, regarding Mark 1:1, Thylacine asked, "Would saying he's the messiah not suggest He's the son of God?" I don't think that's necessarily the case. My understanding is that the Jews were expecting Messiah to be just a human, like their prophets and judges in the Old Testament, albeit a human who was specially inspired and empowered by God. Also, if Mark was writing to the Romans, the word "Messiah" might not have meant anything to them anyway. One commentary says Mark used the word, as well as some others, knowing it'd be misunderstood, so he could reinterpret it in the rest of the gospel.

Mark 1:4-8 describes John the Baptist. John seemed to have two major points in his preaching: 1) Repent and be baptized to be forgiven of sins, and 2) Someone greater is coming who will baptize with "the Holy Spirit" instead of water. What's striking to me is just how similar the first one is to what Christians say today. I tend to think of repentance and forgiveness of sins as a very Christian idea, yet here, before Christ appeared on the scene, John was telling people what church leaders today are still telling people. Yet Christians believe that forgiveness of sins depends on the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. John the Baptist was definitely pointing the way to Jesus, but would what he says have made any sense at all to the Jews of the time? What did Jews believe about sin, repentance and baptism before John the Baptist?

One commentary says that while Jews did perform ceremonial washings, baptism was reserved for Gentiles who were converting to Judaism. For a Jew to be baptized was equivalent to giving up the spiritual advantage they had as a Jew, or at least admitting that they did not have that advantage because of their sins. Just as a Gentile needed to wash away their old Gentile life to become a Jew, so the Jews who were baptized by John sought to wash away their old lives to become better Jews, to prepare themselves for the Messiah's coming.

Mark 1:6 may be the first example of those "vivid details that are unnecessary to the flow of the narrative." That verse says, "John wore clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey." In verses 4 and 5, Mark writes about what John was saying and doing; then he interrupts the narrative in verse 6 to talk about John's clothes and his diet; then in verses 7 and 8, he goes back to talking about what John was saying and doing.

Who would've been the eyewitness(es) that 1:6 may suggest? Possibly Peter, although probably not. In the book of Acts, when the apostles are deciding who should replace Judas, Peter stands up and says that it should be someone who has "been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us." Does this mean Peter was present at John's baptism of Jesus? Would Peter hold Judas' replacement to a standard that he himself didn't meet? That sounds like a jerk move, but then the gospels don't exactly make Peter look like the most diplomatic of people. All four gospels portray the calling of the apostles, including Peter, as happening after John's baptism of Jesus. On the other hand, John 1:35-41 says that Peter's brother Andrew was one of John's disciples, and when Andrew became convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, the first person he told was Peter. It makes sense then that Peter may have been interested in John and his message, even if he kept his day job as a fisherman. At the very least, the detail in Mark 1:6 would be a third-hand account, from Andrew to Peter to Mark.

Open Questions:
1) What did Jews believe about the Messiah and Messianic prophecies before Jesus and John the Baptist?
2) What did Jews believe about sin, repentance and baptism before John the Baptist?