Was John the Baptist an Essene?

[Quid est Veritas?]

John the Baptist is an enigmatic figure, the Forerunner, the Voice in the wilderness. I have often seen it claimed nowadays that he was an Essene.

Now there is some evidence in its favour:
1. He baptised in water. The Essenes practised immersion as well. Both seem to have expected purity thereafter, a change in the person's life. John practised a Baptism of Repentance and forgiveness of Sins.
2. John was active at the River Jordan, while Pliny records that the Essenes lived around the Dead Sea. Thus geographically it fits as well.
3. John had a group of followers similar to an Essene sect.
4. John the Baptist spoke of the one to come after him. Essene groups seem to have had a lot of messianic content.
5. John practised severe asceticism in diet and lifestyle like many Essene groups.

Against it:
1. John the Baptist was a public figure and widely seen as a holy man, to such an extent that there was an outcry when he was killed and calamities that befell Herod Antipas blamed on his murder. Essenes were secretive and kept to themselves.
2. Josephus never calls John an Essene.
3. His followers do not seem to follow the strict hierarchy we see Essene groups adopt.
4. He is never explicitly called an Essene in the New Testament.

Ambigious evidence:
1. His father Zechariah was a temple priest. Essenes were largely opposed to the Temple service as corrupted. This can be taken either that he was of the Temple or that he rejected the veniality thereof that he saw from his father's life. There is an extra-biblical story that his parents were killed and he grew up an orphan in the wilderness. This can be interpreted either way.
2. Mandaean sects that revere him have some Essene tendencies, but this may simply be from Syncreticism.

This is a subject I would like some discussion on. I tend to discount the Essene connection myself, but there is a lot of evidence backing it up though.
If he was an Essene, then it would explain some Essene ideas that people pick up in early Christianity - which may derive from some of his former followers like Andrew. I have even seen people try to categorise Jesus as an Essene recently based on Messianism and connection to John, something I think holds little water, but I think this an important topic in understanding the mileau of the gospels.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Personally I'm not sure it is relevant to anything, nor do I believe for a hot second that John was interested in anything other than being the forerunner of Christ.

He lived in the wilderness and at locusts. That does not sound communal in any way, shape or form.

A second point is that Elizabeth and Mary were related and both came from the best families as far as faith in God. So no, no Essenes, ever.

This is just another rumor that draws people into thinking there was anything about John or his family that was not totally focused on God and used by God in the most awesome, dynamic way.

I do however see that some have tied 'not evidence' to this but the same type of happenings and could draw a line, but there is no line.

 

[2 know him]

John the Baptist is an enigmatic figure, the Forerunner, the Voice in the wilderness. I have often seen it claimed nowadays that he was an Essene.

Now there is some evidence in its favour:
1. He baptised in water. The Essenes practised immersion as well. Both seem to have expected purity thereafter, a change in the person's life. John practised a Baptism of Repentance and forgiveness of Sins.
2. John was active at the River Jordan, while Pliny records that the Essenes lived around the Dead Sea. Thus geographically it fits as well.
3. John had a group of followers similar to an Essene sect.
4. John the Baptist spoke of the one to come after him. Essene groups seem to have had a lot of messianic content.
5. John practised severe asceticism in diet and lifestyle like many Essene groups.

Against it:
1. John the Baptist was a public figure and widely seen as a holy man, to such an extent that there was an outcry when he was killed and calamities that befell Herod Antipas blamed on his murder. Essenes were secretive and kept to themselves.
2. Josephus never calls John an Essene.
3. His followers do not seem to follow the strict hierarchy we see Essene groups adopt.
4. He is never explicitly called an Essene in the New Testament.

Ambigious evidence:
1. His father Zechariah was a temple priest. Essenes were largely opposed to the Temple service as corrupted. This can be taken either that he was of the Temple or that he rejected the veniality thereof that he saw from his father's life. There is an extra-biblical story that his parents were killed and he grew up an orphan in the wilderness. This can be interpreted either way.
2. Mandaean sects that revere him have some Essene tendencies, but this may simply be from Syncreticism.

This is a subject I would like some discussion on. I tend to discount the Essene connection myself, but there is a lot of evidence backing it up though.
If he was an Essene, then it would explain some Essene ideas that people pick up in early Christianity - which may derive from some of his former followers like Andrew. I have even seen people try to categorise Jesus as an Essene recently based on Messianism and connection to John, something I think holds little water, but I think this an important topic in understanding the mileau of the gospels.

I don't believe a person can properly understand Jesus's version of Christianity without contemplating that teachings of the Essene. But strictly speaking no he wasn't: but true Christianity is partially derived from their beliefs.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I don't believe a person can properly understand Jesus's version of Christianity without contemplating that teachings of the Essene. But strictly speaking no he wasn't: but true Christianity is partially derived from their beliefs.

As I said there are reasons to say John wasn't an Essene, so I agree he likely wasn't, but you would partially derive Christianity from them. How can you then so emphatically deny that John was an Essene? Doesn't partial descent from the Essenes muddy the waters quite a bit?
I agree there are elements in Christianity that seem Essenic, like baptism and denial of temple offerings, but these are fairly ambiguous. Please elaborate on what "true Christian" teachings you would derive from the Essenes?

 

[2 know him]

As I said there are reasons to say John wasn't an Essene, so I agree he likely wasn't, but you would partially derive Christianity from them. How can you then so emphatically deny that John was an Essene? Doesn't partial descent from the Essenes muddy the waters quite a bit?
I agree there are elements in Christianity that seem Essenic, like baptism and denial of temple offerings, but these are fairly ambiguous. Please elaborate on what "true Christian" teachings you would derive from the Essenes?

From my understanding the Essenes were vegetarians and seeing John the Baptist ate locust, from what I understand that would have disqualified him from being one.

When one looks at Paul and today's churches versus Jesus and the Essenes belief systems one can see that Paul's belief system is pharisaical in nature, while Jesus's is Essene in nature; Paul intellectualized his beliefs as did the pharisees, while Jesus and the Essenes were more about the practice of their beliefs. Paul emphasized about the Christ and ideological dogma, while Jesus emphasis was upon the practice of his teachings in practical discipleship as was the Essenes. Through the Essenes we received baptism which is/was borrowed from the Essenes. The church practiced communism also practiced by the Essenes. I am convinced that if we look at the teachings of Christ no small part came from the Essenes beliefs and practices.

Does this muddy the waters? No more than the fact that the Christ was derived from David or Abraham. It doesn't muddy the waters: it gives clarity to them.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

From my understanding the Essenes were vegetarians and seeing John the Baptist ate locust, from what I understand that would have disqualified him from being one.

Neither Pliny nor Philo nor Josrphus mentions vegetarianism for the Essenes. They were ascetic though, like John the Baptist. The assumption of vegetarianism is a modern one based on reports of their compassion and reverence for life, but it has no actual support.

When one looks at Paul and today's churches versus Jesus and the Essenes belief systems one can see that Paul's belief system is pharisaical in nature, while Jesus's is Essene in nature; Paul intellectualized his beliefs as did the pharisees, while Jesus and the Essenes were more about the practice of their beliefs. Paul emphasized about the Christ and ideological dogma, while Jesus emphasis was upon the practice of his teachings in practical discipleship as was the Essenes. Through the Essenes we received baptism which is/was borrowed from the Essenes. The church practiced communism also practiced by the Essenes. I am convinced that if we look at the teachings of Christ no small part came from the Essenes beliefs and practices.

Does this muddy the waters? No more than the fact that the Christ was derived from David or Abraham. It doesn't muddy the waters: it gives clarity to them.

Paul was a Pharisee and continued to call himself thus after conversion. The fact that Paul was taken in by the other Apostles and his position in the later Church, clearly shows this is no impediment.

Jesus did not act like an Essene. According to all our ancient sources: They kept the Sabbath strictly, were obsessed with purity and kept rigid hierarchies. They opposed feasts and Temple sacrifice. They strictly interpreted the Law. Josephus explains their peculiarities in some detail.

Jesus ate with sinners and foreigners. He saved the adulteress from being stoned. He allowed his followers to pluck wheat on the Sabbath and healed on it. He went to the Temple and praised those giving alms there. He turned the water to wine at Cana. Very little of what Jesus did is Essene-like.

The early Church did baptise, but the Jews already practiced ritual mikveh immersions. Similarly the sending out of disciples in twos and the messianic content of Jesus's ministry is not specific to the Essenes either.

This just sounds like an attempt at Rejection of Paul's teachings by forcing an ill-fitting connection between Jesus and the Essenes. If anything, of the three/four schools of Second Temple Judaism, Jesus's teachings fits the Pharisees best, although not perfectly. Christianity is obviously a hybrid of them all as Jesus brought the Law into fulfillment.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

@2 know him a few quoted from Josephus illustrating these men's attitude, which I trust you will see the difference with Jesus. The Essenes were often saintly as you can see, but they would have judged Jesus just as the Pharisees did. The only reason they are absent from the gospels is likely because they kept to themselves, thinking the rest of the world to be corrupt and thus had little direct contact with Jesus or His followers initially. From the Jewish War.

"But for those that are caught in any heinous sins, they cast them out of their society; and he who is thus separated from them does often die after a miserable manner; for as he is bound by the oath he hath taken, and by the customs he hath been engaged in, he is not at liberty to partake of that food that he meets with elsewhere, but is forced to eat grass, and to famish his body with hunger, till he perish; for which reason they receive many of them again when they are at their last gasp, out of compassion to them, as thinking the miseries they have endured till they came to the very brink of death to be a sufficient punishment for the sins they had been guilty of"

"Now after the time of their preparatory trial is over, they are parted into four classes; and so far are the juniors inferior to the seniors, that if the seniors should be touched by the juniors, they must wash themselves, as if they had intermixed themselves with the company of a foreigner. They are long-lived also, insomuch that many of them live above a hundred years, by means of the simplicity of their diet; nay, as I think, by means of the regular course of life they observe also. They contemn the miseries of life, and are above pain, by the generosity of their mind. And as for death, if it will be for their glory, they esteem it better than living always; and indeed our war with the Romans gave abundant evidence what great souls they had in their trials, wherein, although they were tortured and distorted, burnt and torn to pieces, and went through all kinds of instruments of torment, that they might be forced either to blaspheme their legislator, or to eat what was forbidden them, yet could they not be made to do either of them, no, nor once to flatter their tormentors, or to shed a tear; but they smiled in their very pains, and laughed those to scorn who inflicted the torments upon them, and resigned up their souls with great alacrity, as expecting to receive them again."

"But now if any one hath a mind to come over to their sect, he is not immediately admitted, but he is prescribed the same method of living which they use for a year, while he continues excluded'; and they give him also a small hatchet, and the fore-mentioned girdle, and the white garment. And when he hath given evidence, during that time, that he can observe their continence, he approaches nearer to their way of living, and is made a partaker of the waters of purification; yet is he not even now admitted to live with them; for after this demonstration of his fortitude, his temper is tried two more years; and if he appear to be worthy, they then admit him into their society. And before he is allowed to touch their common food, he is obliged to take tremendous oaths, that, in the first place, he will exercise piety towards God, and then that he will observe justice towards men, and that he will do no harm to any one, either of his own accord, or by the command of others; that he will always hate the wicked, and be assistant to the righteous; that he will ever show fidelity to all men, and especially to those in authority, because no one obtains the government without God's assistance; and that if he be in authority, he will at no time whatever abuse his authority, nor endeavor to outshine his subjects either in his garments, or any other finery; that he will be perpetually a lover of truth, and propose to himself to reprove those that tell lies; that he will keep his hands clear from theft, and his soul from unlawful gains; and that he will neither conceal anything from those of his own sect, nor discover any of their doctrines to others, no, not though anyone should compel him so to do at the hazard of his life. Moreover, he swears to communicate their doctrines to no one any otherwise than as he received them himself; that he will abstain from robbery, and will equally preserve the books belonging to their sect, and the names of the angels [or messengers]. These are the oaths by which they secure their proselytes to themselves."

 

[2 know him]

Christianity is obviously a hybrid of them all as Jesus brought the Law into fulfillment.

Thank-you for the posts.

I was unaware of the Essene until recently and I see a number of similarities and differences between their teachings and Christ's and as different as their beliefs are from Christ's (and I see more differences than similarities) I see more differences in Paul than I do the Essene from Christ.

I know that the church today has embraced Paul and maybe if the church embraced Essene type principles regarding inclusion (I am not saying that they should) we wouldn't be having this discussion about Paul, but while Paul may have been embraced at the beginning, I believe revelations shows he wasn't at the end.

Here is an article of issues others make re Paul: Statements about Paul by Prominent Theologians and Bible Scholars I have a number of others I can add but suffice to say I don't embrace Paul and see his doctrine and ideology to be the main reason Jesus's commission of making disciples of all nations remains almost fully unfulfilled.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Thank-you for the posts.

I was unaware of the Essene until recently and I see a number of similarities and differences between their teachings and Christ's and as different as their beliefs are from Christ's (and I see more differences than similarities) I see more differences in Paul than I do the Essene from Christ.

I know that the church today has embraced Paul and maybe if the church embraced Essene type principles regarding inclusion (I am not saying that they should) we wouldn't be having this discussion about Paul, but while Paul may have been embraced at the beginning, I believe revelations shows he wasn't at the end.

Here is an article of issues others make re Paul: Statements about Paul by Prominent Theologians and Bible Scholars I have a number of others I can add but suffice to say I don't embrace Paul and see his doctrine and ideology to be the main reason Jesus's commission of making disciples of all nations remains almost fully unfulfilled.

THen did Christ mess up royally or what?

I man than Jesus didn't protect His Own Church, or the other apostles who stood behind Paul. THen the gates of hades did prevail according to the obvious falsehood of Paul you speak of.

Wow! Talk about blasting Christ with a huge turkey baster on the 4th of July.

God is less awesome to many. Less awesome to some. Maybe little to others.

 

[Erik Nelson]

might Manichean dualism of sons of light vs. dark have informed Essene dualism?

 

[Erik Nelson]

John the Baptist is an enigmatic figure, the Forerunner, the Voice in the wilderness. I have often seen it claimed nowadays that he was an Essene.

Now there is some evidence in its favour:
1. He baptised in water. The Essenes practised immersion as well. Both seem to have expected purity thereafter, a change in the person's life. John practised a Baptism of Repentance and forgiveness of Sins.
2. John was active at the River Jordan, while Pliny records that the Essenes lived around the Dead Sea. Thus geographically it fits as well.
3. John had a group of followers similar to an Essene sect.
4. John the Baptist spoke of the one to come after him. Essene groups seem to have had a lot of messianic content.
5. John practised severe asceticism in diet and lifestyle like many Essene groups.

Against it:
1. John the Baptist was a public figure and widely seen as a holy man, to such an extent that there was an outcry when he was killed and calamities that befell Herod Antipas blamed on his murder. Essenes were secretive and kept to themselves.
2. Josephus never calls John an Essene.
3. His followers do not seem to follow the strict hierarchy we see Essene groups adopt.
4. He is never explicitly called an Essene in the New Testament.

Ambigious evidence:
1. His father Zechariah was a temple priest. Essenes were largely opposed to the Temple service as corrupted. This can be taken either that he was of the Temple or that he rejected the veniality thereof that he saw from his father's life. There is an extra-biblical story that his parents were killed and he grew up an orphan in the wilderness. This can be interpreted either way.
2. Mandaean sects that revere him have some Essene tendencies, but this may simply be from Syncreticism.

This is a subject I would like some discussion on. I tend to discount the Essene connection myself, but there is a lot of evidence backing it up though.
If he was an Essene, then it would explain some Essene ideas that people pick up in early Christianity - which may derive from some of his former followers like Andrew. I have even seen people try to categorise Jesus as an Essene recently based on Messianism and connection to John, something I think holds little water, but I think this an important topic in understanding the mileau of the gospels.

isn't the traditional site of the upper room and last supper in the Essene quarter?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

isn't the traditional site of the upper room and last supper in the Essene quarter?

There is no Essene quarter, only a Gate of the Essenes in Josephus. There are no grounds to extend this to a significant part of Jerusalem, that I am aware of. The Essenes maintained small brotherhoods and according to Pliny and Philo, tended to eschew the cities for small towns and the countryside.

The Cenacle is anyway probably post-Hadrian based on its lower stones, and Josephus said they flattened most of Jerusalem in the 70 AD revolt. I doubt the site would be easily remembered or preserved.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

might Manichean dualism of sons of light vs. dark have informed Essene dualism?

Manichaenism post-dates the Essenes. Mani was a third century prophet, with some connection to the Elcaistes. The latter may have some relation or descent from the Essenes (though debatable), but not the other way around. Anyway, the Qumran sect has not been established as being Essenes beyond doubt, and the dichotomy of Light vs Darkness is a common near eastern trope.

 

[Erik Nelson]

There is no Essene quarter, only a Gate of the Essenes in Josephus. There are no grounds to extend this to a significant part of Jerusalem, that I am aware of. The Essenes maintained small brotherhoods and according to Pliny and Philo, tended to eschew the cities for small towns and the countryside.

The Cenacle is anyway probably post-Hadrian based on its lower stones, and Josephus said they flattened most of Jerusalem in the 70 AD revolt. I doubt the site would be easily remembered or preserved.

https://weekly.israelbiblecenter.com/jesus-and-essenes/

 

[Erik Nelson]

https://israelbiblecenter.com/courses/shadows-essenes-gospels/

 

[Erik Nelson]

Luke 16:8

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Luke 16:8

Except for the line "sons of Light", and assuming the Qumran sect are Essenes and applicable, there is nothing clearly indicative of Essenic practice here. They were, after all, a brotherhood of perhaps communal or corporate ownership. What are you trying to imply?

 

[Erik Nelson]

Except for the line "sons of Light", and assuming the Qumran sect are Essenes and applicable, there is nothing clearly indicative of Essenic practice here. They were, after all, a brotherhood of perhaps communal or corporate ownership. What are you trying to imply?

"sons of Light" = Qumran =? Essenes

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

"sons of Light" = Qumran =? Essenes

I realised the reference you were alluding to, but was asking what implication as to the parable you were trying to make.

 

[Erik Nelson]

I realised the reference you were alluding to, but was asking what implication as to the parable you were trying to make.

consistent with Essene connection