The possibility that John the Baptist is a later reversal of roles is, to me, is near certain. John
alone seems to recognize a tradition in which John does not baptize Jesus. Observe from John
When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away. So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.
The blood and water that issued forth from Jesus is the blood of the New Covenant, and the new baptism. It is from this baptism that Paul remarks in Romans
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
This is antithetical to a baptism through John the Baptist, as it's a baptism through the death
of Jesus that is invoked.
But what was this baptism exactly? Beneath the veiled innuendos, I believe that it was being anointed with the sperm of the Christ.
Think, the cross is itself a strong symbolism of a phallus, and the piercing of Christ upon the cross is a symbolic act of circumcision. Paul himself may be inferring this himself with his complaints of his "thorn of my flesh
" being an allusion to his circumcision.
This is the act that Jesus ministered upon the youth in Secret Mark
: the holy anointing that allowed him to receive the new life.