The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The ... - josephprestonkirk

446 DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND THE NEW TESTAMENT
On the whole, the similarities are remarkable, and in addition, the
image of the Baptizer as depicted by Josephus (Ant. 18.116–119) seems to
strengthen the relation between John and Essenism. 143 But it is unclear
why John is presented in Essene terms without being called an Essene.
Should the Baptizer be presented as a pious and just personality, despite
his political prophecy? Or can we simply assume that Josephus knew the
facts: Had John really “at one time been an Essene, but by the time of his
public preaching had separated himself from the sect, and could no
longer with accuracy be called an Essene?” 144 However, the accuracy of
Josephus’s accounts is a much-disputed matter, 145 and we must always
consider his interests as an interpreter of Jewish history. One could
assume, then, that his depiction of the Baptizer is inspired by apologetic
interests. In the short episodes on the Essene prophets Judas, Menachem,
and Simon, 146 Josephus wants to conceal the aspect of political prophecy
by stressing the piety and virtue of these prophets and of the group to
which they belonged, the Essenes. Similarly, in his presentation of the
Baptizer, he stresses justice and piety as part of his preaching, depicting
him as a “good man” (Ant. 18.116), even though he was put to death by
Herod Antipas. 147 Thus, if Josephus presents John in Essene terms, this
is in good accord with his apologetic interests and should not be taken as
an accurate description of the historical reality. Whether John ever had
been an Essene or not cannot be deduced from the terms used by Josephus.
The striking similarities mentioned above have caused many scholars
to assume that the preacher in the desert had once been an Essene before
he was expelled or separated himself from the community. Recently,
James H. Charlesworth has formulated a more precise hypothesis why
143. As Lichtenberger demonstrates, Josephus presents the Baptizer as an Essene,
even if he does not call him an Essene; see Lichtenberger, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and
John the Baptist,” 340–46, who mentions parallels between Josephus’s note of the
Baptizer and his reports on the Essenes concerning purification rites, the contents of
his preaching, and his political prophecy.
144. Cf. ibid., 346.
145. Cf. most recently the argument by Roland Bergmeier, Die Essener-Berichte des
Flavius Josephus: Quellenstudien zu den Essenertexten im Werk des jüdischen Historiographen
(Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993). I do not think that Bergmeier’s reconstruction of
sources can be established. It must be considered, however, that Josephus’s accounts
show a strong tendency of interpretation (which indeed is not uniform), so that his
accounts cannot be read uncritically, as if they were historically accurate. Cf. the discussion
in Frey, “Zur historischen Auswertung der antiken Essenerberichte,” 23–56.
146. Cf. the notes on Judas (J.W. 1.78–80; Ant. 13.311–13), Menachem (Ant.
15.373–79), and Simon (J.W. 2.113; Ant. 17.345–48).
147. Cf. Robert L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet (JSNTSup 62; Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1991), 38.