035. Chapter 14 - The Baptism of John and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Chapter 14 - The Baptism of John and the Dead Sea Scrolls Greek Mystery Religions

Those who have undertaken to deny the divine origin of the gospel and to reduce it to a process of evolution in which man discovers rather than God reveals have sought desperately to destroy the claims of the New Testament that the baptism of John was a new ordinance which had been directly revealed to John by God. Their attacks have followed three different lines. One of these has been the effort to connect the baptism of John with the practices of the Greek mystery religions (cf. discussion on pp. 94-95). But the ministry of John and that of Jesus and the whole history of the early church stand out in solid contradiction to any connection whatsoever with pagan religions. John’s ministry was directed to the Jews. The same concentration of objective is seen in the ministry of Jesus, although there were occasional friendly contacts with Gentiles seeking Jesus’ assistance. The gospel was to be for all the world and every creature, but it was revealed directly from God to the divinely chosen messengers. It was not concocted in imitation of pagan ideas and practices. The absence of any proof to show that there was any contact whatsoever between the origin of the church of Christ and Greek mystery religions as well as the failure to show any significant similarity between any practices in the Greek mystery religions and the baptism of John has caused this line of attack to suffer a general collapse. But it is still advocated by some radical writers such as Karl Barth (cf. pp. 94-96).

Jewish Proselyte Baptism A second effort to discredit the divine origin of John’s baptism was based on the supposition that the Jews had begun to practice proselyte baptism in the period between the close of the Old Testament and the coming of John. John is supposed to have adopted a current Jewish practice of baptizing Gentiles as a ceremony inducting proselytes into the nation of Israel. This offered a means for unbelievers to deny the divine origin of John’s baptism, for the Jews did not even claim any divine inspiration for their leaders after the close of the Old Testament canon with Ezra. But the most painstaking search of the literature of the period has failed to show any such practice as proselyte baptism among the Jews until the third century a.d. The Jews of this later period found themselves in strong competition with the Christians. They saw what a profoundly impressive ordinance Christian baptism was. They began a countermove of practicing proselyte baptism into Israel. In our own times the controversy over baptism which has taken place over so many years has led to the most careful search of all available material. Alexander Campbell in the debate with Nathan Rice cited the fact that there is absolutely no trace in extant literature of any practice of proselyte baptism by the Jews until the third century a.d. In our own century this diligent search has continued, but no evidence has been found to substantiate any earlier practice by the Jews. Jewish scholars eager to undermine the claims of the Christian gospel to divine origin have been particularly zealous to search in their own literature for such evidence. But it has been fruitless. Jewish writers have published three monographs attempting to prove that John borrowed his baptism from the proselyte baptism being practiced by the Jews before his time.

Imitation of Christian Baptism

These writers rest their case on the same argument. They are unable to produce any evidence of Jewish proselyte baptism earlier than the third century a.d. But they declare that the fact the Jews practiced it at this date proves that the Christians borrowed it from the Jews because the Jews hated the Christians so much they would not have borrowed any practice from them; therefore the Christians must have borrowed it from the Jews some three centuries earlier. This attenuated argument is so feeble it hardly deserves discussion. The Jews hated the Egyptians who were grinding them into the mire of slavery, but where did the Jews get the golden calf they constructed at Mount Sinai except from the bull-god Apis of Egypt? Everywhere one turns in the Old Testament there is the evidence of Israel’s turning away from the law to pagan idolatry in spite of the fact of the Jews’ hatred of the Gentiles. In the second and third centuries a.d. we see the Jews imitating the Christians. The very effective use the Christians were making of the Septuagint caused the Jews to make a countermove in the production and promotion of the hostile translation of Aquila. In our own day the Y.M.H.A. is an imitation of the Y.M.C.A. No Such Ordinance in the Old Testament A doctrine of probabilities is offered by these Jewish scholars as an adequate contradiction of the known facts of history and the historic record of the New Testament. The fact that John was dubbed “the Baptist” or “the Baptizer” is clear evidence that here was something new and sensational in his ministry which set him apart from all around him or who preceded him. There is no such thing as baptism in the Old Testament. In the ceremonial cleansings the Jew was commanded t6 plunge himself in water, but this was entirely different from one person’s baptizing another and God’s making this a solemn, spiritual experience of surrender to God in which the forgiveness of sins was granted. The baptism of John was for the remission of sins (Matthew 3:6; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) in the same sense that the Old Testament sacrifices were for the forgiveness of sins. Complete forgiveness was not possible until Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Up to this time the sins were rolled back until the final forgiveness was possible. Christian baptism began with Pentecost and delineated the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, even as it was the completing step in the divine plan of salvation by which actual forgiveness of sins was to be achieved.

Naaman was commanded to dip himself seven times in the Jordan River in order to be cleansed of his leprosy. But this was in no way parallel to the ordinance John initiated. The sensation which John’s baptism caused at the capital led the Sanhedrin to send out a delegation to challenge John’s right to initiate such a practice as baptism. The climax of the argument which ensued at the Jordan is seen in the question, “Why then baptizeth thou, if thou art not the Christ, neither Elijah, neither the prophet?” (John 1:25). John’s answers to their questions rested on three foundations: (1) His direct claim to divine inspiration and specific revelation from God, “I am the voice.” He declared that he was the fulfillment of the prediction in the Old Testament that God would inspire a messenger and send him forth in the desert to prepare the way for the Christ. (2) The Old Testament prophecies, whose divine inspiration had been declared, approved, and accepted, are the solid proof of his claims, even as he uses the very language they had declared. (3) The Christ, who is about to appear, will furnish the final proof of the truth of John’s claim to be acting directly in obedience to the revealed will of God. All of this is set aside and denied if John merely adopted a practice already a current custom. The Essenes The third line of attack has been to associate John with the Essenes. This also is a very old attack. It was vying for favor among the radicals back at the turn of the century. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls merely brought this theory back into the limelight: the theory that the Essenes had been practicing baptism before the time of John and that John borrowed the practice from them. Various attempts had been made for a long time to find some connection with the Essenes and to make out that the gospel is some sort of development of the Essenes’ teaching and practice. Among the documents found in the cave at Ain Feska was a manual which evidently was one of the documents of the Essenes. A general description of this sect has already been given on pp. 45-50. The testimony of Josephus and Philo shows that this curious sect was concentrated in the wilderness west of the Dead Sea, although little colonies were found outside of towns in various parts of Palestine. Josephus claims special, intimate knowledge of the Essenes because he went to live among them for a time in order to secure firsthand information. The Dead Sea Scrolls

There has been violent argument among the scholars as to who put the scrolls in the cave at Ain Feska. There has been the theory that this was a library which belonged to the Essenes and that its extent shows that here was a great center of learning in Palestine. John the Baptist has been pictured as going to school here to the Essenes in his youth. Even Zacharias has been described as studying here under the instruction of the Essenes. Those advocating this theory declare that since the Essenes claimed to be the true teachers of Israel and to offer the true religion Zacharias naturally would have been enrolled in their school. One might as well argue that since the Pharisees claimed to be the teachers of the truth in Israel, Zacharias would have enrolled under them for study. But the New Testament is very emphatic that the baptism of John was from God and not from men.

John’s Miraculous Inspiration The Gospel of Luke opens with the account of the direct revelation to Zacharias by the angel Gabriel in the temple. A most significant part of that revelation was the prediction that John “shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” We are told by those who seek to show that John learned from Essene teachers and adopted their baptism, “If Moses was trained by pagan teachers in Egypt in all the arts and sciences of Egyptians, why not John by the Essenes?” But the Old Testament records that Moses received this early training when he was growing up in Pharaoh’s court. On the contrary, Luke gives direct guidance by the Holy Spirit as the source of John’s message and authority (Luke 1:15). As to his youth Luke declares, “And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his showing unto Israel” (Luke 1:80). Now if the truth of the matter is that he was studying under the Essenes at Qumran during these years and secured the practice of baptism from them, what sort of deceiver is Luke? Furthermore the Pentateuch certainly does not leave room for anyone to advance the theory that the Passover was a feast of the Egyptians which was taken over and revamped by Moses.

Fantastic Claims The extreme advocates of the dependence of Christianity upon the Essenes, notably, A. Dupont-Sommer, have published a great amount of discussion claiming that they have discovered in the Qumran manual the secret of Jesus’ teaching. There is reference to a teacher in the Essene colony. They say this must have been the great man of the ages from whom Jesus learned His wisdom. On the contrary, every community has a teacher and that the manual should refer to the teacher in the midst who is leading them is most natural. Dr. Millar Burrows, whose volumes, The Dead Sea Scrolls (1950) and More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls (1955), are standard works in the field, was in charge of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem at the time the first of the scrolls came to the attention of the scholars. He ridicules the many fantastic theories which various archaeologists say they are able to prove from the findings (see section “Wild Theories”). Burrows says: Not only John the Baptist but even Jesus himself has sometimes been thought to have been an Essene. This is quite out of the question, as all competent historians now recognize (The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 329). Many scholars hastened to point out that Dupont-Sommer’s interpretation of the Habakkuk Commentary produced closer parallels with Christian faith and practice at some points than could be substantiated by exact exegesis. His statement that the teacher of righteousness was God’s Elect and the Messiah, for example, is not borne out by the text of the commentary or any of the scrolls. As we have seen, the term ‘elect’ probably refers to the community, and there is no indication that the teacher of righteousness was believed to be the Messiah or the Redeemer of the world.

There is nothing unique or new in the hostility of the priests to the teacher of righteousness — or in his martyrdom, if that is actually implied by the Habakkuk — “for so persecuted they the prophets.” It is true that both Jesus and the teacher pronounced judgment on Jerusalem; so did many of the prophets. The assertion that the teacher of righteousness was expected to return and judge the world depends upon questionable interpretations of passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Damascus Document. The covenanters expected a Messiah, as all Jews did; indeed, they expected two Messiahs. They expected also a prophet, as other Jews did. That they looked for the return of the teacher of righteousness himself has not been demonstrated (The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 330). For myself I must go farther and confess that after studying the Dead Sea Scrolls for seven years, I do not find my understanding of the New Testament substantially affected. Its Jewish background is clearer and better understood, but its meaning has neither been changed nor significantly clarified. Perhaps I simply cannot see what is before my eyes. When visiting archaeological excavations, I have sometimes been unable, with the utmost good will, to see things pointed out by the excavators. It is true that a trained eye can often see what is invisible to the uninitiated. It is also true that scholars, being human, sometimes fail to distinguish between trained perception and uncritical imagination (The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 343).

Burrows cites the following from the Catholic scholar:

J. Bonsirven, eminent authority of post-biblical Judaism, accused the Sorbonne professor (Dupont-Sommer) of sowing Christianity all through the Dead Sea Scrolls and then being amazed to find it there (ibid., p. 51). The curious flight of the imagination that Jesus was an Essene is matched by a recent book, We Jews and Jesus (1965), by a Jewish writer, Dr. Samuel Sandmel. His position, as he seeks to assail Jesus from an opposite angle, is that Jesus was a Pharisee. He represents that Jesus was such an obscure and insignificant person, He never even came to the attention of the Jewish people until later centuries, when Christianity became the prevailing religion in the Roman Empire. This needs to be put alongside the standard position of the Orthodox Jews that such a person as Jesus of Nazareth never lived. All history is to be denied and rewritten in one sweep of these two theories. The position of Dr. Sandmel is that since the Talmud does not mention such a great man as Philo, the philosopher of Alexandria, then it is not surprising that it does not discuss such an obscure and unimportant person as Jesus of Nazareth. The strange thing is that persons with a desire to be considered scholarly would publish abroad such inaccurate statements. A discussion of the references to Jesus in the Talmud has been offered in the section “The Talmud.” The argument for Jesus’ having been a Pharisee is that He held to the same two central tenets which the Pharisees advocated: (1) certainty of the life after death; (2) a strong reverence for the Old Testament Scriptures. But neither of these originated with the Pharisees; they are an integral part of the Old Testament itself. And the central proposition of the Pharisees, as Jesus pointed out many times, was their reverence for their own traditions, which they set above the Word of God. The exclusiveness and separatism of the Pharisees was the very opposite of all that Jesus was and did. The conflict between Jesus and these haughty, self-righteous leaders was constant and fierce. The argument that Jesus certainly was not a Sadducee or an Essene and therefore He must have been a Pharisee has as its transparent objective the denial that He is the Son of God. The farfetched imagination which seeks to make John an Essene and holds that he secured his baptism from them is set forth to deny the divine inspiration which the New Testament writers, and John, and Jesus declare to be John’s source of truth and authority.

Essenes vs. Zealots

There is bitter warfare among the radical scholars as to the nature and significance of the scrolls found at Qumran. The majority think the settlement was Essene, but some very vigorous opponents argue that it was a military center of the Zealots. This places it at exactly the opposite extreme from the ascetic, pacifist Essenes. The discovery at Masada in 1963 of a document similar to the Qumran manual furnished more fuel for the controversy. Masada, on the western side of the Dead Sea, was the last-stand fortification of the Jews. After the disastrous defeat by the Romans in the Fall of Jerusalem in a.d. 70, the remnant of the fighting Jews fled to this stronghold at Masada where they were annihilated. The presence of this new document at Masada is hailed by some as additional proof that Qumran was Zealot, while the opposing scholars respond that there must have been a fighting Essene in the last stand at Masada. The Apostate Essenes: Sun Worship The Essenes were an apostate sect which rejected many of the central teachings of the Old Testament. There is no evidence that the Essenes ever practiced baptism. They had the ceremonial cleansings of the Old Testament. They had an exotic ceremony in which with a sacred implement they dug a shallow trench in the earth, crawled into it, and covered their body with dirt, after which they took a bath. This was evidently a part of their worship of the sun, for Josephus says: “...that they may not affront the divine rays of light” (Wars II:VIII:9). The most distinctive doctrine and practice of the Essenes was this pagan worship of the sun, Zoroastrianism from Persia.

Josephus says, “Before sunrise they speak not a word about profane matters, but offer up certain prayers, which they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising” (Wars II:VIII:5).

Philo says that they “stand with faces and their whole body towards the East, and when they see that the sun is rising, holding out their hands to heaven they pray for a happy day” (Vita, Cont.II, II, p. 485). The Encyclopaedia Britannica declares, “The most singular feature, perhaps, was their reverence for the sun.” “Above all, they offered prayers to the sun, after the manner denounced in Ezekiel 8:16” (Article, “Essenes”).

J. B. Lightfoot, in his famous essay on the Essenes in his commentary on Colossians (pp. 349-419), declares that Josephus “says plainly that they addressed prayers to the sun, and it is difficult to suppose that he has wantonly introduced a dash of paganism into his picture; nor indeed was there any adequate motive for his doing so.” Lightfoot also points out that Epiphanius calls them “Sun worshippers” (Haer., XIX, 2 XX. 3). It may be added that the fact of Josephus’ having lived among the Essenes and observed most carefully their practice gives added weight to his testimony. The Gospel vs. Essene Apostate Doctrines

There is not a single item of evidence to connect John, Jesus, or the apostles with this apostate sect of Jews. There is not in the gospel of Christ a single distinctive doctrine of the Essenes. Observe how they repudiate the Old Testament in their teaching and practices. The central religious proposition of the Old Testament was sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. The Essenes rejected and denounced the sacrifice of animals. Witness John’s testimony in contrast: “Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, John 1:36). The Essenes repudiated the central social proposition of the Old Testament, marriage and the home. The only method they had of perpetuating their sect was proselyting, since they forbade the marriage relation. This is seized by radicals who suggest that their custom of securing young orphan boys to train for recruits in their sect would have led them to lay hold upon this lonely boy in the desert, whose father and mother are now dead. But there is a God and He had a purpose in John. No one was able to seize John till his ministry was complete. The fact that John remained unmarried is cited by the Essene theorists. But John did not oppose or condemn marriage (Luke 3:10-14). The scene of Jesus at the marriage feast at Cana and His continual use of a wedding feast as a symbol of heaven is sufficient refutation of any similarity in position. The Essenes rejected the central economic proposition of the Old Testament, the right to private property. They had everything in common and were communists in doctrine and practice. John and Jesus constantly recognized the right to private property and stewardship — responsibility to God for one’s possessions. The action of the Jerusalem church at the beginning was not communism. Peter made it very plain at the condemnation of Ananias and Sapphira that the property they owned had been theirs to keep or use as they deemed best. They were not compelled to give it up. There was nothing wrong in the possession of the private property. It was because they had lied to the Holy Spirit as to what they had given, that their lives were forfeit. This practice was not repeated in the other early churches. God permitted the Jerusalem church to put all of its possessions into liquid form so that when the storm of persecution fell upon the Christians and scattered them, they had the financial means for travel. There was no loot for the persecutors: no houses, lands, or other such property to be seized and confiscated. The Pools at Qumran

What is the sum total of evidence for the Essenes’ having practiced baptism? There is only the fact that artificial pools have been excavated at Qumran. The National Geographic Magazine published impressive colored pictures of Essenes baptizing one another in these pools trying to prove that John borrowed his baptism from the Essenes. These imaginary photographs were à la the theory of evolution — Pithecanthropus Erectus pattern, so as to make the uninformed think there was solid basis for the pictures and the theory. They suppressed the information that every city and village in Palestine, not situated by a perennial stream or spring, had pools. The six months’ dry season compelled it. The Critical Challenge In the Great Day of Questions at Jerusalem when Jesus met the Pharisees and Sadducees in final combat and made His last appeal to the nation, He staked His deity upon the proposition that the baptism of John was from God and not from men (Matthew 21:23-27). The piece of imagination that John borrowed his baptism from the Essenes supposes the scholars in Jerusalem were so stupid that they did not think to answer, “The baptism of John was from men. He went to school to the Essenes at Qumran and learned it there.” The Pharisees and Sadducees did not say this, because they could not. The people would have known instantly that it was false. They feared the people. The absence of any mention of the Essenes in the Gospel accounts is somewhat remarkable, but the reasons are obvious. They were a small group, and, being isolated from the nation, had slight influence upon its life. They did not undertake to combat the ministry of Jesus — a constantly recurring situation as far as the Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, and Herodians were concerned. They were so far off in their fanatical apostasy they did not offer much prospect for evangelism. There is no record of Jesus’ carrying on a ministry in the wilderness of Judaea or in any of their small groups. John preached nearby, but there is no indication that the Essenes came out of their isolation to hear him.