Was John the Baptist an Essene from Qumran?

By John C. Hutchison

[John C. Hutchison is Associate Professor of Bible Exposition, Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, California.]

Similarities between John the Baptist and the Essenes have led many New Testament scholars to conclude that John’s obscure beginning had some connection with the Essene community at Qumran and that his separatist preaching was motivated by their ideology. Most scholars who propose a historical link are quick to point out that this view is only a hypothesis—and so they should. This article surveys similarities and differences between the teachings of John the Baptist and the Essenes and concludes that the evidence supports little or no historical connection between the two. In fact an appeal to the Essene motif to explain John’s behavior tends to “force” an imprecise historical analysis of both. A more satisfactory approach is to view John in the role of an Old Testament prophet, especially the eschatological prophet sent to introduce the Messiah and to prepare people for the coming kingdom. While some similarities may be seen between John and the Qumran Essenes, clear differences exist as well.

Similarities Between The Qumran Community And John The Baptist

The Dead Sea Scrolls provide much information about the separatist Qumran community near the Dead Sea and about second-temple Judaism. As Badia summarizes, “The Qumran community was composed of Jews who considered themselves as the elect remnant of Israel, who would emerge in the last days from the purging judgment of God. In order to prepare for this judgment, they advocated a renewal of the covenant of Moses by a strict repentance and a new obedience to the requirements of the covenant.”[1]

Though some have questioned the view that the community in Qumran consisted of Essenes, the community’s characteristics and writings closely match Essene ideology. Clearly the best supported theory about this community is that they were Essenes.[2] So for the purposes of this discussion the terms “Qumran community” and “Essenes” are used interchangeably.

Was John the Baptist associated with this group? Some writers affirm this quite dogmatically. For example Pate writes, “No other person in the New Testament is as likely a candidate for being connected with the Qumran community as John the Baptist.”[3] Others who recognize the lack of historical evidence for this view nevertheless posit the theory of Essene influence on John. “In none of the roughly 820 fragmentary or complete manuscripts from the eleven Qumran caves is there mention of the ancient Palestinian Jew about whom we have learned from the New Testament, John the Baptist…. The question, however, always rises: Could John have spent some of his youth as a candidate for membership in or as a member of the Essene community of Qumran? My answer to that question is yes, as a plausible hypothesis, one that I cannot prove, and one that cannot be disproved.”[4]

What factors, then, have led to the view that John the Baptist was associated with the Qumran community? Four have been proposed.

Geographical Proximity

John was born in about 4 B.C., six months before Jesus was born (Luke 1:36), and thus he lived during the time of the Qumran community before its destruction by the Romans in A.D. 68. He lived in the desert of Judea before beginning his ministry in the Jordan Valley (Matt. 3:1; Luke 1:80). The proximity of this location to Qumran, also in the wilderness at the northern end of the Dead Sea, has been used to support a number of theories about John’s early life. Because his parents Zechariah and Elizabeth were both advanced in years at the time of John’s birth (1:18, 36), some have speculated that they died when John was a child and that he was raised in the Qumran community. Fitzmyer, for example, holds this view.

The Gospel of Luke depicts John as a child born of elderly parents, “who lived out in the desert until the day that he was manifested to Israel” (1:80). Luke also says that a “message came from God to John, the son of Zechariah, in the desert” (3:2), and that message has to be understood as the turning point in his career, no matter what he had been doing before it. In my view, John then broke off from the Es-senes of Qumran, with whom he had been living for some time, to go forth and preach a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (3:3). Part of the reason for interpreting the Lucan text in this way is that John, though born into a priestly family, is never portrayed in any of the Gospels as serving in the Jerusalem Temple, as did his father Zechariah (Luke 1:5). After the death of his elderly parents, John might have been adopted by the Essenes, who according to Josephus were wont to take “other men’s children, while yet pliable and docile … and mold them according to their own ways.”[5]

Separatism From Jewish Society

A second factor that has been offered to support a connection between John and Qumran is that both John and the members of the Qumran community were ascetics, separatists from mainstream Judaism. Robinson notes that John “did not break with the desert and with the stress on asceticism, purification and separation from the evils of civilization which marked its discipline. Indeed the great difference between John and Jesus lay in the fact that John remained in the desert and that men must come out to him; he refused to go to them, to eat and drink with the rest, or to mix with publicans and sinners.”[6]

The separatism of the Essenes from the rest of Jewish culture in Palestine probably accounts for the fact that they are not mentioned in the Gospels. The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that some Jewish splinter movements challenged the practices of Jewish society during the first century A.D. As Badia explains, “The Qumranians were Jews who voluntarily separated from their contemporaries in Palestine to live an austere and ascetic life.”[7] Though not a proven fact, the most likely identification of these inhabitants of Qumran would seem to be Essenes. They believed that the religious establishment in Jerusalem and in the synagogues had compromised with Greek culture and Roman politics. So they separated themselves as the “righteous remnant.” However, John’s reasons for separatism differed.

Eschatological Message That Emphasized Isaiah 40:3

All three Synoptic Gospels refer to John the Baptist’s preaching as the fulfillment of Isaiah 40:3: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make ready the way of the Lord, make His paths straight!’ “ (Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4). The apostle John confirmed that John the Baptist made this claim himself (John 1:23). Thus one would not be surprised to find John the Baptist associated with the Qumran Essenes, since the same passage is quoted in their literature, as seen in this example from the Essenes’ Manual of Discipline: “And when there becomes the community in Israel according to these rules, they shall separate themselves from the midst of the habitation of perverse men to go into the wilderness to prepare there the way of Him [God], as it is written: ‘In the wilderness prepare the way of … [Yahweh]. Level in the wasteland a highway for our God.’ This is the study of the Law [which] He commanded by the hand of Moses, so as to do according to all that is revealed from time to time, and according to that which the prophets revealed through His holy spirit.”[8]

This common theme of the coming Day of the Lord accompanied by the wrath of God as a judgment on Israel’s sin is certainly at the heart of both of these movements. Neither John the Baptist nor the Essenes believed that entrance into the kingdom resulted from racial privilege, that is, by being a son of Abraham. Repentance and a contrite heart were demanded by both. This is clearly stated in John’s response to the Pharisees and Sadducees, who came to “join the crowd” and be baptized by him. “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, ‘You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, “We have Abraham for our father”; for I say to you, that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. The axe is already laid at the root of the tree; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire’ “ (Matt. 3:7–10).

Is this common theme of coming judgment and repentance a matter of John following the Essenes, or of both building on a prominent Old Testament theme?

Teaching About Repentance And Participation In A Water Ritual By All Followers

Perhaps the most discussed and controversial topic pertaining to John and the Qumran community is their “baptisms.” Some writers, like Fitzmyer, believe the water rituals practiced at Qumran were a prototype of John’s baptism.

Before discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, John’s baptism was often explained as a ritual washing derived from the baptism of proselytes among the Jews. That explanation, however, often raised more problems than it solved, mainly because there is so little evidence for the existence of proselyte baptism in the first century of the Christian era. John’s baptism, however, is now better explained as a development of the ritual washings of the Essene community…. When John preached his baptism, he spoke of it as a baptism of water, but referred to another, coming baptism of “spirit and fire” (Luke 3:16). The mention of water, fire, and spirit also has a remarkable parallel in the Essene Manual of Discipline…. Here one finds “water,” “holy spirit,” “Spirit of truth,” and “refining” as elements of God’s activity as He purges this community.[9]

Badia underlines the importance of water rituals within Qumran. “Perhaps the most distinctive development that took place within the Qumran community was the great emphasis the people placed on their ablutions, lustrations, or ‘baptisms.’ Judging from this, it seems that purification was of paramount consideration for the Qumranians … For the Qumranians, like many of their Jewish contemporaries, water became the principal method of purification…. Therefore, water could correct the state of impurity; after the ablutions, the person or object became pure once more. He remained in the pure state until impurity was contracted again.”[10]

Badia then mentions the archaeological evidence of a water supply system and elaborate cisterns at Qumran. However, it is not known whether most of the cisterns at Qumran were used for ritual baths; in a dry climate many were likely used only for water storage.[11] Ritual purification was one of the most important considerations of this Essene community, evidently following the laws recorded in Leviticus 11–17, Numbers 19, and Deuteronomy 14. They viewed leprosy, issues from human sexual organs, the dead bodies of certain animals, and especially human corpses as sources of ritual (and in some cases physical) contamination. When accompanied by repentance, the ritual baths and washings became for them a source of moral purification.

The water ritual practiced by John the Baptist and the Essenes was a ceremony that used water, that was accompanied by the participant’s repentant heart, and that resulted in the symbolic purification and cleansing of the individual. However, in spite of the common elements, other factors show that John’s practice was not modeled after that of the Essenes.

Differences Between The Qumran Community And John The Baptist

Several significant inconsistencies between John’s message and the practices and the beliefs of the Essenes may be noted.

Geographical Proximity Does Not Necessarily Mean A Common Origin

Even those who say that John the Baptist was an Essene from Qumran or that he was greatly influenced by them admit that concrete evidence to prove this connection is lacking. In all the literature of Qumran, nothing is said about John the Baptist or Jesus, though some have proposed that the “Teacher of Righteousness” in the Dead Sea Scrolls is John the Baptist or Jesus Himself.[12] Though similarities between John and the Qumran community are to be acknowledged, one must question whether the influence in John’s life that led to these was in fact a result of living in their community. As noted above, some have theorized that John was “adopted” by the Qumran community as a child. But Pryke suggests caution on this point. “The suggested adoption by the sectarians [Qumran community] of the Baptist as a child is conjectural. His later history and views do not support it—rather the contrary. If he was trained as an Essene brother, he must have apostasized and revolted.”[13]

Proponents of the theory that after Zechariah’s and Elizabeth’s deaths John went to live in the wilderness point to Luke 1:80: “And the child continued to grow and to become strong in spirit, and he lived in the deserts until the day of his public appearance to Israel.” But this view misreads the verse, particularly the common Hebraic summary formula in which no chronology is indicated. Similar statements are made of Jesus (2:40, 52), Isaac (Gen. 21:8), Samson (Judg. 13:24–25), and Samuel (1 Sam. 2:21). In these verses, including Luke 1:80, a summary statement is made about the child’s growth into manhood, a period of time that bridges the years between the child’s birth and the beginning (or first significant story) of his later ministry. By this expression the historians summarized years that are not pertinent to the story, yet they connected the earlier events (often a promised birth) with the later fulfillment.

The clause in Luke 1:80, “and he lived in the deserts until the day of his public appearance to Israel,” is not intended to be a description of John’s entire childhood. The verse simply states that for some undesignated time he was in the wilderness just before he began his adult ministry. No length of time is specified—John could have lived in the wilderness for years or only a few months. The statement does not support the view, however, that he was raised from childhood in the wilderness.

John was active primarily along the Jordan Valley and in Samaria and Perea, and none of these environs suggest Qumran at the north end of the Dead Sea. Because of geographic proximity John may have known of the Qumran Essenes (and their beliefs), but to claim that his message originated there is theorizing beyond the evidence.

John’s Ascetic Behavior Was Not As Extreme And Separatistic As That Of The Essenes

While the Gospels emphasize John’s role as an apocalyptic preacher preparing the way for the Messiah, Josephus depicted him as a teacher of morality. This is probably due to John’s call for repentance, and specifically his rebuke of Herod Antipas for the divorce of his wife and marriage to Herodias, the wife of a brother, as noted by Josephus.[14] Though John preached righteousness and the need for repentance for sin, his life and ministry were not consumed by separation from the world like that of the Essenes. John, for example, wore a garment of camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist (Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6; cf. 2 Kings 1:8), undoubtedly to establish his identity as the coming “Elijah,” who would introduce the Day of the Lord (Mal. 4:5). But the Qumran Essenes were garbed in white priestly garments and would have been defiled by John’s choice of clothing. The separatism of the Qumran community led them to isolate themselves from society in order to avoid all physical contact with those whom the Law called unclean.[15] John’s ministry, however, embraced the masses, and he had no fear of ceremonial defilement by sinners and outcasts of society. The act of baptizing would have necessitated a willingness on John’s part to have regular contact with the common people. The Qumran community was essentially all male, but John made no distinction between male and female.

John’s reason for ministering in the wilderness differed from that of the Qumran Essenes. It would be inappropriate to consider him an ascetic.[16] The Essenes isolated themselves for ascetic and apocalyptic reasons, believing society would defile them, but John simply wanted to be separate from the religious establishment and fulfill his prophetic role as predicted in Isaiah 40. He welcomed contact with the masses, but the wilderness was an effective place for his prophetic voice to be heard.

John’s Prophetic Witness (And The Significance Of Isaiah 40:3 In His Ministry) Differs From The Apocalyptic Teaching Of Qumran

As already noted, messianic expectation, repentance of sin, and the use of Isaiah 40:3 characterized the teachings of both John and the Essenes. “However, as noted above, parallels do not themselves justify us assuming any direct influence between groups within Second Temple Judaism. Use of a scriptural text in itself cannot be seen as meaningful. It is the differences in interpretation that will mark individuals and groups as distinct, not the mere use of scriptural texts. The Hebrew scriptures were the property of all groups, and each made use of this resource in varying ways.”[17]

Taylor points out an important difference between the New Testament use of Isaiah 40:3 and that found in the Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran. As noted, the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4) followed the Septuagint in depicting John as a voice calling in the wilderness. In the Qumran writings, however, especially the Community Rule (8.13-16 and 9.19-20), the voice is impersonal and not in the wilderness, and it exhorts the people to prepare in the wilderness the way of the Lord.[18] The Gospel writers (and John himself; John 1:23) claimed that the Baptist was the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prediction of a voice crying in the wilderness, but the Qumran community used the verse to speak of their preparing for Messiah and especially to justify their living in the desert. In the Judean wilderness they studied and practiced the Law,[19] and they engaged in repeated bathing rituals and sought to lead lives separate from corrupt society.

Was John’s calling and mission shaped by exposure to Qumran teaching, or did it come as a direct call from God, begun with the revelation given to his parents Zechariah and Elizabeth? The latter certainly makes more sense. The angel Gabriel had announced John’s birth to Zechariah. “It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:17). Later Zechariah, filled by the Holy Spirit, prophesied, “And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go on before the Lord to prepare His ways” (v. 76). Both the words of Gabriel and Spirit-filled Zechariah related John’s future mission to significant Old Testament messianic prophecies, most notably Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 4:5–6. It seems most natural to assume that John’s personal knowledge of his mission (John 1:23) and the Gospel statements relating his prophetic role to Isaiah 40:3 come from these direct revelations from God through Gabriel and Zechariah, and not through exposure to the Qumran community.

In addition “the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness” (Luke 3:2) before he began his preaching ministry. This identifies John’s call and ministry in the same way earlier prophets were called directly by God to bring Israel to repentance in times of apostasy. Why would one need to resort to a strictly sociological explanation of John’s association with an obscure sect of Judaism when the Scriptures give ample evidence of God’s direct call on his life from his conception to the beginning of his ministry? “If he [John] was trained as an Essene brother, he must have apostasized and revolted. Their joint use of Isaiah 40:3 is suggestive, but it seems based on a common theme of Messianic eschatology, which associated the desert with Messianic claimants and presenters.”[20] The sociological explanation of influence through the Essenes seems necessary, though forced, only if the accuracy of the biblical account is denied.

John’s Baptism Differed Significantly From The Water Purification Rites Of The Qumran Essenes

The similarities of water rituals to John’s baptism have already been noted. But one must be cautious in suggesting that John’s baptism, one of the most visible aspects of his ministry, came from the water lustrations at Qumran.

But first, it is important once more to emphasize the distinctive character of John’s action. As their buildings and their documents testify, the covenanters of Qumran centered their entire life in rites of moral purification. Nevertheless, we look in vain in their writings for the equivalent of a single baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Corresponding, no doubt, to the different eschatological situation in which he saw himself standing, John was calling the people to something for which Qumran offered no parallel. His summons was not to a community life marked henceforth by constant rites of cleansing, but to a final purification of the nation against the imminent coming of the mighty one. There is a difference here that must not be obscured and which resulted in John’s giving to the rite of baptism an isolation and a prominence which made him unique.[21]

John’ baptism, unlike that of the Qumran Essene community, was performed once in a person’s lifetime—it was an initiatory event into the remnant of believers preparing for Messiah’s coming. The Qumran washing ceremony, however, was intended to provide Levitical purity for daily life and was therefore repeated often. “The important issue here is not whether there were lustrations and water purifications in the Jewish community; that there were is clear. Rather, the issue is whether there is evidence of the Jews of the Second Temple period practicing an initiatory, unrepeated rite for entrance into the community…. Unless one recognizes the distinction between a simple religious lustration (e.g., washing hands to effect ceremonial cleanness or even a ceremonial bath) and an initiatory, unrepeated baptism (e.g., Christian baptism), then one cannot speak of ‘entrance’ rites.”[22]

A second and related disparity between John and the Essenes is the setting and qualifications for their “baptisms.” When a man was accepted into the Qumran community, he was in a probationary period for one year and could not participate in the water purification ceremony until his life was closely observed and he was approved by a trustworthy member of the community: his “purity” ceremony was private.[23] John, in contrast, publicly called all Jews, both men and women, and, assuming they were repentant, they came immediately to be baptized publicly in the Jordan River. Pryke summarizes this difference.

John’s Baptismal rite was initiation into a remnant of the cleansed Israelites. The Qumran community was a rival claimant to that title. But the internal evidence and the archaeological remains suggest that their washings were part of a whole life of purity which was withdrawn and privately celebrated apart from the nation, which they regarded as unclean and damned. Their initiation was not through immersion, but began with a solemn oath privately and irrevocably undertaken within the community. John the Baptist, unlike them, went out of his way to warn all the Israelites of their impending danger in the coming doom…. Most of the evidence points to the Baptist standing in the main stream of Judaism: his connection with the sectarians during his ministry is impossible, and the rite he administered is quite different in character from theirs.[24]

Conclusion

John the Baptist is often identified with and interpreted through the ideology of the Essene separatists at Qumran for the following reasons. First, despite being the son of a priest, John’s ministry was located in the wilderness, near the Jordan River just north of Qumran. Second, his preaching and call to the Jews was clearly separate from mainstream Judaism, and intentionally so; the Dead Sea Scrolls identify the Qumran community also as one of the Jewish separatist groups that believed the priesthood in Jerusalem had departed from the distinctives of the Law of Moses. Third, John brought an eschatological message, emphasizing the need for repentance in expectation of the coming Messiah (Isa. 40:3). In Qumran literature this same verse is cited to call people to join the “righteous remnant” of their community and through obedience to the Law to prepare the way of the Lord. Fourth, John required those who repented to be baptized, and their baptism symbolized their repentance and their identification with his preaching. The Qumran community was also known for bathing rituals, which pictured cleansing from sin and repentance.

However, significant disparities existed between John the Baptist and the Qumran community. First, certainly John’s ministry was located in the same “wilderness” as Qumran, but that term is a general one and he likely spent most of his time north of the Essenes along the Jordan Valley. The greatest question about geographical location is whether John was raised by the Qumran community and came out of it when he began his ministry. The theory that John was adopted as a child into the community is based at most on a misinterpretation of Luke 1:80. The first part of the verse is simply a summary statement of John’s childhood and youth, and the statement “he lived in the deserts until the day of his public appearance to Israel” has no time indicators. There is nothing here to prove that he lived in the Essene community. Since he is not mentioned in any of the Qumran literature, one would need significant proof that he was a product of their teaching.

Second, though John intentionally separated from the Jewish religious establishment as did the Essenes of Qumran, so did many Jewish splinter movements of that time. The degree of separation is quite different, and John’s regular contact with the people who came out to be baptized by him would have been unacceptable in Qumran. His garb of camel’s hair and a leather belt contrasted with the white priestly garments at Qumran. John’s call to repentance did not lead people to the extreme asceticism and ritual of Qumran, but rather to contrition in preparation for the coming of Jesus Christ. John’s invitations to repent did not discriminate between men and women or levels of society. Like Jesus, he accepted all who came with a prepared heart.

Third, John preached preparation for the coming Messiah as did the Essenes, but he did so as the prophet whose task was to prepare the way, according to Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 4:5–6. Qumran literature also emphasizes Isaiah 40:3, but with a significantly different interpretation. “The way” for these Essenes was the ascetic life of keeping the Law, as taught in their community. John’s claims were much more personal, for he “prepared the way” for the immediate introduction of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus the Qumran message was seen by them as a return to the essence of the laws of Judaism whereas John’s message advanced beyond the message of Judaism to introduce people to Jesus Christ.

Fourth, the purpose of John’s baptism differed greatly from the water purification rituals in Qumran. In John’s water ritual the people were identifying with his message of repentance and the Messiah whom he would introduce. For John it was thus an initiatory event, symbolizing acceptance of a belief (repentance and spiritual preparation for the Messiah), and that is why it need not be repeated. Essene practices of ceremonial bathing were entirely different, for they required each participant to repeat them each time he again needed cleansing from defilement. The ritual baths at Qumran were used in an exclusive, private manner only by the proven followers, and the baths directed the participants back to obedience to the Law of Moses, as interpreted by the Essenes. The baptism of John pointed forward to Christ, and was later replaced by Christian baptism.

The lack of any specific historical evidence of a connection between John and the Qumran community, combined with the disparities outlined above, lead one to pursue other interpretations of John’s ministry. The Scriptures themselves explain John’s appearance in the wilderness, his separation from mainstream Judaism, his message of repentance, and his baptism. The Old Testament prophets were sovereignly called by God to be His spokesmen; and they sometimes mysteriously appeared in times of apostasy to call a righteous remnant in Israel to repentance and a life of righteousness. They often stood in conflict with the existing religious establishment, who were spiritually corrupt, and they called the people “out of” the ritual of that religious practice to righteous living (e.g., Isa. 1:11–17; Jer. 7:1–26; Mic. 6:6–8).

As noted, John was miraculously born, and both an angel and the Spirit-filled Zechariah predicted that he would fulfill the role of the great prophet of Isaiah 40:3, preparing the way for the Messiah. Jesus Himself said John was the expected “Elijah” (Mal. 4:5–6) who was to precede the Messiah. Thus the motif of a prophet, specifically of Elijah, is key to understanding and explaining much of the “mystery” in John’s ministry. In fact many of the common features between Qumran and John stem from the common apocalyptic, messianic expectation received from Old Testament prophecy. Certainly the Essene motif is a possible sociological explanation for some of John the Baptist’s behavior, but close scrutiny reveals apparent differences as well. Attempting to “force” John’s ministry into the model of Essene teaching potentially distorts an accurate historical understanding of both. It makes more sense to explain his behavior and ministry with another model, namely, as a prophet supernaturally called by God to serve as the forerunner of the Messiah.

Notes

1. Leonard F. Badia, The Qumran Baptism and John the Baptist’s Baptism (Baltimore: University Press of America, 1980), 1.
2. C. Marvin Pate summarizes the history of debate regarding the identity of the community that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls (Communities of the Last Days: The Dead Sea Scrolls, the New Testament and the Story of Israel [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000], 54–78). The two most prominent theories about these pro-Zadokite priests who had separated from Jerusalem after the early Maccabean movement is that they were either Essenes or Sadducees. While the predominant view of scholars in the history of Qumran research has been the Essene identity, J. M. Baumgarten (“The Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies about Purity and the Qumran Texts,” Journal of Jewish Studies 31 [1980]: 157-70) and more recently Lawrence Schiffman (Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their True Meaning for Judaism and Christianity [New York: Doubleday, 1995]) have defended the Sadducean view. Pate, joining scholars like Badia (The Qumran Baptism and John the Baptist’s Baptism) to champion the Essene viewpoint, provides a well-reasoned argument based on sociological, archaeological, and historical evidence that the Essenes wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls and inhabited ancient Qumran. Pate’s historical material cites two of the most ancient historical references to the Essenes: Josephus (The Jewish Wars 2.8.2–13) and Pliny the Elder (Natural History 5:15, sect. 7). In addition to these, further references to the Essenes in the classical writers include Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 18.1.2, 5 (sections 11, 18–22), Philo, Every Good Man Is Free 12–13 (sections 75–91); The Contemplative Life 1–11 (sections 1–90), and Hyppolytus of Rome, Refutation of All Heresies 9.18-28.
3. Pate, Communities of the Last Days, 81. See also Hans Burgmann, “John the Baptist was an Essene!” in Mogilany 1989: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Jean Carmignac, Part I: General Research on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Qumran and the New Testament, the Present State of Qumranology, ed. Zdzislaw J. Kapera (Krakow: Enigma, 1993), 131–37.
4. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 18–19; see also Pate, Communities of the Last Days, 81.
5. Fitzmyer, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins, 19. Fitzmyer’s quotation from Josephus is from The Jewish Wars 2.8.2.
6. John A. T. Robinson, “The Baptism of John and the Qumran Community,” Harvard Theological Review 50 (1957): 177.
7. Badia, The Qumran Baptism and John the Baptist’s Baptism, 25.
8. Manual of Discipline, Qumran Cave I, column 8, lines 13–16, quoted in Neil Fujita, A Crack in the Jar: What Ancient Jewish Documents Tell Us about the New Testament (New York: Paulist, 1986), 118.
9. Fitzmyer, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins, 20. See also Derwood Smith, “Jewish Proselyte Baptism and the Baptism of John,” Restoration Quarterly 25 (1982): 13-32.
10. Badia, The Qumran Baptism and John the Baptist’s Baptism, 9.
11. Ibid., 10-11.
12. Barbara Thiering, The Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1992). The wide range of views about the Teacher of Righteousness is illustrated by Thiering, who postulates that John the Baptist is the Teacher of Righ-teousness in the Dead Sea Scrolls and that his main opponent was Jesus Christ, the Founder of Christianity! These conclusions are reached by redating the likely writing of the manuscripts much earlier, a conclusion that is not accepted by the vast majority of Dead Sea Scrolls scholars. See Pate, Communities of the Last Days, 82. Thiering’s view also discounts the New Testament evidence of a continuity between John the Baptist’s and Christ’s messages, not to mention Christ’s own evaluation of John (Matt. 11:11; Luke 7:28).
13. John Pryke, “John the Baptist and the Qumran Community,” Revue de Qumran 4 (April 1964): 495.
14. Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 122; the Josephus reference is to TheAntiquities of the Jews, 18:103, 113. See also Hermann Lichtenberger, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and John the Baptist: Reflections on Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, ed. Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 340–46; and John Meier, “John the Baptist in Josephus: Philology and Exegesis,” Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (summer 1992): 233.
15. Fujita, A Crack in the Jar, 116.
16. Steven L. Davies, “John the Baptist and Essene Kashruth,” New Testament Studies 29 (October 1983): 569.
17. Joan E. Taylor, “John the Baptist and the Essenes,” Journal of Jewish Studies 47 (fall 1996): 259-60.
18. Ibid., 261.
19. Otto Betz, “Was John the Baptist an Essene?” Bible Review 6 (December 1990): 22. See also William Farmer, ed., Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church: Essays in Honor of William R. Farmer (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987), 219–20.
20. Pryke, “John the Baptist and the Qumran Community,” 495.
21. Robinson, “The Baptism of John and the Qumran Community,” 181.
22. Scot McKnight, A Light among the Gentiles (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 82.
23. Taylor, “John the Baptist and the Essenes,” 278.
24. Pryke, “John the Baptist and the Qumran Community,” 495–96.