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

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH 15
within the Enoch groups. She contends that the “notion that there was a
‘Baptist Movement’—to which the Essenes and John belonged—out of line
with ‘mainstream Judaism’ rests on outdated presuppositions regarding
Second Temple Judaism.” 44 Her unsupported conclusion can scarcely be
taken seriously; she neither mentions nor discusses the texts on which
such a “Baptist Movement” is based (e.g., Sibylline Oracles 4, Apocalypse of
Adam, Odes of Solomon, 4 Baruch, Book Elchasai, and Gospel of John), and
she seems ignorant of the arguments that gnostic Sethianism derives from
a Jewish baptismal background. 45
Taylor is convinced that “a basis for linking John and the Essenes”
(= the Qumranites) demands that the “parallels between John and
the Essenes” must “be unique and explicable only in terms of direct
relationship.” 46 This methodology is too wooden, fails to recognize the
fluidity between the concepts “direct” and “indirect,” and ignores all possible
relationships except the one that would make the Baptizer a member
of the Qumran Community. Despite the vast number of scholars
who have indicated some relationship, but not “direct relationship” or
identity, between the Baptizer and the Qumranites, Taylor seems to
choose a model for connection from positivistic historicism and remains
blind to possible indirect influence or the hypothesis that the Baptizer had
once been a Qumranite but left the Yah[ad.
Does Taylor represent a consensus, or does her position denote a challenge
to a consensus? Should we imagine that her conclusion is valid?
She says that the Baptizer “should probably not be seen as having any
direct relationship with the Essenes, least of all the isolated group at
Qumran, whether prior to or during his own prophetic activity by the
river Jordan.” 47 It is clear that she reiterates what some scholars have concluded,
that there has been so far no reason to postulate a connection
between the Baptizer and the Qumranites. 48 Her conclusion is supported
44. Ibid., 48.
45. See Hans-Martin Schenke, “The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic
Sethianism,” in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism (ed. B. Layton; SHR 41; New York: Brill,
1981), 588–616; and Jean-Marie Sevrin, Le dossier baptismal séthien (Quebec: Les
Presses de l’Université Laval, 1986), esp. 284–94.
46. Taylor, The Immerser, 16.
47. Ibid., 48.
48. See, e.g., the following who deny a connection: Harold H. Rowley, “The
Baptism of John and the Qumran Sect,” in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of
Thomas Walter Manson, 1893–1958 (ed. A. J. B. Higgins; Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1959), 218–29; Edmund F. Sutcliffe, “Baptism and Baptismal Rites
at Qumran,” HeyJ 1 (1960): 179–88; Josef Ernst, Johannes der Täufer (BZNW 53;
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989), 325–30; Bruce D. Chilton, Judaic Approaches to the
Gospels (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 17–22; John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (ABRL;