(2 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading...QUESTION:
I was wondering how big of an influence you think the Essenes had on Jesus and his teachings, and if there’s any evidence that he and John The Baptist were students of that philosophy. Jesus’ apocalyptic teachings seem to align with them a lot.
RESPONSE:
Great question! When the Dead Sea Scrolls (= DSS) were discovered in 1947, it was quickly realized that this was a library of documents produced by the Jewish group known from other ancient authors (such as Josephus and Pliny the Elder) as the Essenes (this identification is debated among some scholars; but the solid majority of scholars agree today that the “Essene” hypothesis is right). The Essenes were known from antiquity for being a rigorously ascetic group. The DSS themselves were an entire library of writings. Some of them were copies of biblical books (Hebrew Bible) – significant because they were about a thousand years older than the oldest copy otherwise available. Others were previously unknown works: commentaries on biblical books, apocalyptic treatises, instructions for how the community was to be organized and run, books used for worship, and others.
FOR THE REST of my response, log in as a Member. If you can’t yet — then join today!
Bart,
Really liked your description of how the Essenes lived versus how Jesus lived.
Were there followers of John the Baptist still active after his death? If yes, are there any sources that you can point me to?
Thanks
Jerry
Yup! Acts 19 is the earliest reference.
Bart, I am a very big fan and have been reading your work for a long time now. I was just wondering if you would elaborate on your opinions of a couple scholars like John Marco Allegro and Hugh Schonfield. .. Possibly the belief in which Allegro held about the Fertility cults and the evoultion of beliefs, and Schoenfield’s theory about synergisms of reserpine and the ressurection. I have heard the neurologist Michael Persinger reference the Druids and the Essenes having access to thes “magical” synergisms. Just kind of one of those theories that I have always wanted your take on. It would be awesome to hear your brief thoughts on these radical ideas postulated by some well known scholars…
My brief thoughts: I’m not inclinied to their opinions at all, I’m sorry to say. They were both brilliant scholars, but something kind of happened to both of them, and they developed completely implausible views about the historical Jesus. (I don’t know about their other views.) I deal with Schonfield’s Passover Plot in my book Forged.
Thank you for your response.. I will grab my Forged book and revisit the portion you reference Schonfield. Do you have any opinion on what may have bounced them into the implausable views of the historical Jesus? Just curious if you have read Allegro’s Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth and his Sacred Mushroom and the Cross? Or are there works produced by him to radical to even postulate any truth or relevance in the theories they provide? Once again, I am flattered to have even had my comment responded to by you. It is an honor to hear even the briefest portion of your thoughts about these scholars!
I don’t know their biographies well enough to know what led to their flipping. But no, I don’t think either of their popular books has any historical credibility.
Dr. Ehrman – I’ve been searching all over for a sane approach to this question, Was Jesus an Essene? Thank you for this helpful post.
In my mind I’ve considered Jesus closer to the Pharaseen tradition, just because he seemed t be deeply involved in Pharaseic theachings. If so, he was for sure a rebellious Pharasee. If I have understood it correctly his discussions, theological disputes are with the Pharasees, or conserning Pharaseic doctrines. For me it seems that he is within a larger group of Pharaseic thinkers,,,perhaps and basically different from rebellious Zealots – nonviolence, different from the Saddusees – the incident in the temple and the incident with Jews (Saddusees) and Pilate, and different form the Essene ,,perhaps because of his outward missionary). It seems for me that he also quote early Mishnaic figures as the famous Hillel in particular (another claimed decendant of King David). Some of his teachings seems to me also be derived from the teaching of Hillel (including the Golden rule which Hillel claim is the entire Torah, the rest is all commentary)
Then, it seems that there are some references to Jesus in the Talmud, and in one of them, when he split with his teacher Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perahaya because of a misunderstanding and a disciplinary act from this Rabbi. Well, this might be a legend or a saga,,but this scripture (including Mishnah, Midrash and Mystisim) was in my mind particular accepted by the Pharasees. For me, this seems to relate Jesus close to the Pharasees than the other groups.
The Gehenna and heaven of Judaism preceding the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE seems to have nothing in common with the Christian dogma. I cannot reconcile this disparity with the sayings of Jesus in the gospels. Jesus said the kingdom of heaven was within and the Christian theologians have their followers sitting around to die a physical death before they reach this Valhalla. Do you have any comments on this seeming conundrum?
Jesus does not say that the kingdom is within people; the verse is only in Luke 17 and it says that the kingdom is “among” people while he is still with them. But as to Gehenna and afterlife: I discuss the matter at length in my book Heaven and hell, about how the ideas of afterlife developed out of their Jewish roots.
Have you considered the angle that Jesus may have been a revolutionary essene? This would explain his outward orientation instead of inward. I mean he fits right in with being a disciple of John the Baptist and has an very essene worldview. A good amount of his followers were also followers of John the Baptist. Most of the points he makes, eating with tax collectors and sinners, doing things on the Sabbath, not obsessing over ritual purity. All of these seems strangely specifically targeted towards the essenes, which means he is very familiar and actively critiquing them.
I am wondering if he could basically be what Luther was to Catholicism. As in Luther was a catholic and started a revolution inside Catholicism.
Like on the surface it doesn’t fit but if he’s a counterculture within a essenism, it fits pretty well
Yes, I’ve thought a lot about it and written about it. I don’t think John the Baptist was an Essene; if he was, his theology and practices changed once he left their group. So too Jesus: his approach to “sinners” and “purity” were almost the opposite of the Essenese, at least the ones we know of. Most people who attack particular religious groups were not actually one-time members of them. (E.g., opponents of Mormons MAY be former Mormons, but more often they are, say, Baptists who have never set foot in a Mormon gathering).
Thanks for the response, I’ll have to track down your writings on it for more clarification
The Theological/escatological DNA seems pretty much a match, and they share all that zorastrian dualism influence coming through the essenes, but the behavioral DNA seems inverted.
Under this idea, Jesus flips the script on it and instead of others contaminating your holiness, your holiness heals the contamination of others. Instead of guarding that holiness in seclusion, bringing that holiness to the people. I’m sure this would have felt messianic in that context. I had been thinking of John as a sort of 50% jesus, where he broke customs with the essenes and started spreading it to the people, but they still had to come out to him in the wilderness so it was semi-secluded. I had envisioned jesus as taking that start john had and turning it up to max.
I realize a lot of this is speculation, but it’s an idea that does seem to harmonize a lot of things.
>Most people who attack particular religious groups were not actually one-time members of them.
This is absolutely true, but the best critiques always come from insiders because they know it inside and out.
I’d say a lot of religious groups today are severely criticized by outsiders. My view is that if soeone wants to argue that Jesus or John was, say, an Essene or a Pharisee (some people have argued that for Jesus; on similar grounds: he argues principally against them on technical issues which shows he knows them inside out) or anything else, it’s just a matter of making a compelling case given what we know both about Jesus and the groups he may have been associated with, in light of broader Jewish beliefs and practices, those held by Jews who were not associated with any particular group, for example. To that end, it’s important to remember that the vast majority of Jews did not belong to any group at all. Josephus tells us that the Pharisees in his day were the largest sectd, and that they numbered about 4000. That was in a world of something like 4 million Jews. (!) THese Jewish groups (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, “Fourth Philosophy”) were not like Christian denominations where nearly everone belongs to one (CAtholic, Greek Orthodox, Baptist, Presbyterians, etc.) but more like the local Rotary Club or Chamber of Commerce, where very few people actually do.
These are all very good points.
I suppose I was doing a sort of tracing of the evolution and spread of certain philosophies and worldviews and trying to account for the world view he seems steeped in but with the inversion and targeted criticism of certain principles. I realize there’s not a lot of historical evidence for the idea, and various figures may or may not have been card carrying members of the various groups. I was using the association more loosely. Maybe historical evidence will emerge at some point that helps trace any linkage of these things in a less speculative way
Thank you for your engagement with the idea, and all the books you’ve written and lectures and debates. I have learned a lot from your work!