John the Baptist

[Ahanu]

When John was questioned about 'Who he was' he called himself the 'Voice' from Isaiah 40. You can infer from the gospels that whatever Isaiah 40 means, it got the 'Pharisees' upset with him. The thing to check is whether the Righteous Leader of the Essenes also said anything like that, and then you'd have a positive similarity between Essenes and the JBaptists. Did Essenes also refer to their righteous leader as the voice of Isaiah 40 ?

I would like to put the whole text for viewing here. In reply to the priests and Levites who questioned his identity, John said: "I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord'" (John 1:23; Isaiah 40:3). Both groups use this scripture too. What is the scholarly opinion on the community who held the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Scholars believe the book of Isaiah was one of the more revered writings of this sectarian community, which might have believed it was fulfilling the words of the prophet: "In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord (Isaiah 40:3

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/text..._Scrolls.shtml

By the way, the link also contains information saying that the composers of the Dead Sea Scrolls were not Essenes, so I'm unsure who the group is, but it could be the Essenes, I guess. However, besides the Jesus group, I know that other Jewish communities were using the same scriptures.

Another opinion is that this is the Essenes here.

Most scholars identify this community as a group of Essenes, a monastic sect of Jews described by the ancient writers Josephus, Philo, and Pliny the Elder.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/Dicti...gi?number=T185

Perhaps this is the Essenes. Going with that, they understood Isaiah 40:3 differently from the Baptist.
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt"><FONT size=2>The Qumran covenanters show that they were fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy by separating from the Jerusalem Jews and going out to the wilderness to prepare the way of the Lord through study of the Torah. In contrast, the Gospel passages see Isaiah 40:3 as describing John the Baptist in the wilderness calling his audience to prepare for the arrival of Jesus. In these two different, self defining uses of the same scriptural passage, the Qumran covenanters view the Isaiah passage as fulfilled in themselves, while the Evangelists present it as about to be fulfilled in John’s witness to Jesus the Messiah.

[Ahanu]

What I gather here is that the Essenes as a whole saw themselves as the ones "preparing the way of the Lord," not that the Teacher of Righteousness was "the Voice," while the Jesus group viewed the Baptist as the one taking on that role. Now, in regards to the teacher of righteousness, this is a description of the Essene view of him:

The key figure in the early history of the sect was the Teacher of Righteousness, an otherwise unnamed individual who gave the sect direction and focus in its early stages. The sect believed that God had revealed to the Teacher of Righteousness the mysteries concerning the Law. Thus, he alone could properly interpret the Law; other Jews misunderstood it. Led by the Teacher of Righteousness, who was himself a priest, the sect rejected the temple cult in Jerusalem as it was currently practiced and probably even the ruling priesthood as being illegitimate. Guided by Isaiah 40:3 ("In the desert prepare the way for the Lord" cf. Matt 3:3), the sect removed itself to the desert area by the Dead Sea to await the final war, from which, with God's help, they as the true Israel would emerge victorious and after which they would restore the sacrificial cult and proper priesthood to Jerusalem.

Dead Sea Scrolls - Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology

The Teacher of Righteiousness could be "the Voice," though. I was skimming through this link full of quotes from various scholars:

Preparing the Way

A "passage of the Community Rule (ix), mentions...that 'this is the time of the preparation of the Way in the wilderness'. This is specifically tied in exegesis to the Maskil's [the 'Teacher' or the Righteous Teacher] preparation of the Way by 'teaching the Miraculous Mysteries'."
- Robert Eisman and Michael Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered

At the moment I have to go, but I'll be looking more into it.

[Ahanu]

Did Essenes also refer to their righteous leader as the voice of Isaiah 40 ?

I have found an interesting theory. How about the Essenes were following the Teacher of Righteousness, the prophet, who is like Moses, yet there are two Messiah figures, being John and Jesus, who are to come after this prophet?

Most interesting is Column IX of the Community Rule. It read, "…there shall come the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel." Presented here is an idea of three figures (similar to Exodus17, I Samuel, and Zechariah 4, 6).

Hey, Dream, if you have the time, read the response to the second question in the link below, and then tell me what you think. After all, Jesus did see John as more than a prophet, and, if you continue to read what the student says in that link, he says that it is John that brings a new covenant. That one makes sense to me.

Essays on John the Baptizer

[Penguin]

John the baptist could also have been the "teacher of righteousness" Who says that all the dates are exactly correct of when this and that happened. The similarities between John and the essenes dialogue is convincing in my opinion.

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Penguin

John the baptist could also have been the "teacher of righteousness" Who says that all the dates are exactly correct of when this and that happened. The similarities between John and the essenes dialogue is convincing in my opinion.

I don't know much about the dates either. Actually we can read about the Essenes now from remnants of the 5 completely separate Dead Sea Scroll communities as well as writings of Josephus, Pliny the Elder, and somebody else....I think its Philo. The writings from one community, Qumran, have various dates *science&history-guessed*. The oldest Q-scrolls are said to be from around 300 BCE and the most recent 68 CE, (which is when the community center of Qumran fell to the Romans). This info comes from the booklet Scrolls From the Wilderness of the Dead Sea, circa 1965 courtesy of Her Majesty the Queen and His Majesty King Hussein of Jordan. Qumran has some clear (and little disputed) connections with the pre Christians or early Christians, because it has things like The Testament of Levi in it.

Knowing of this connection or this pre-christian culture doesn't change Christianity at all, however it can enrich the Christian experience. Millar Burrows writes in his 1955 book "The Dead Sea Scrolls": "Christians should have no reluctance to recognize the anticipations of Christianity in the Dead Sea Scrolls or in other Jewish writings, if or when they really exist. The gospel was given as the fulfillment of what was already revealed. God, who spoke in many and various ways to the fathers by the prophets, spoke more clearly and fully in his Son...." He goes on to talk about John the Baptist and Jesus, etc. I really don't want to say much more about it until I've read some more. There is no ISBN in this book, but its Library of Congress number is 55-9645.

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Ahanu

Hey, Dream, if you have the time, read the response to the second question in the link below, and then tell me what you think. After all, Jesus did see John as more than a prophet, and, if you continue to read what the student says in that link, he says that it is John that brings a new covenant. That one makes sense to me.

Essays on John the Baptizer

Absolutely John the Baptist was preaching the arrival of the new covenant. It is important to realize that the quote: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness..." is actually supposed to be a reference to an entire section in Isaiah, not just the soundbyte mentioned in the gospel. In those days if there had been chapter & verse numbers then the gospel authors could have given a verse range. There was not, so the method of reference was to give just enough of the passage for readers to find it in an Isaiah scroll. So we know that when Matthew records that John says he is the Voice calling in the wilderness, that he is referring not just to Isaiah 40:3 but to Isaiah 40:1-5 and possibly more of Isaiah as well as the section around Malachi 3:1. These sections talk about straightening the path and flattening the rough places. That means removing the obstacles to spiritual progress. I think one implication is that John opposed the temple's priests who had became a high place in the spiritual path. They were a bump in the road. This sounds very similar to the Qumran folks and their disagreement with Simon the Usurper.

The way these Essenes wrote, it is like they knew John the Baptist personally. Their star and scepter language affects not just Numbers 24:17 but has implications about the scepter and the lawgiver from Genesis 49:10. You and I as well as this student are missing in-depth understanding of the associated texts. We can only go part-way.

Moses and Aaron were a lawgiver and a staff bearer, because Moses who could not speak well received the Law and Aaron whom the people rejected was chosen by God as priest through the budding of his staff. I don't know why in the story Aaron's staff budded instead of Judah's, or how to read Genesis 49. I do know that king David (2nd King if Israel) of the tribe of Judah somehow took on some priestly duties (scepter) as well as the crown (law), and God partly accepted him in both roles! Show me in the Law where a non-Levite is supposed to do that. Show me how or why this is? The Qumran sect was working with this imagery when they talked about the star & scepter in their 10th column.

[soleil10]

John 1:21 (New International Version)
21They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?"
He said, "I am not."
"Are you the Prophet?"
He answered, "No."

We see in John 1:18-23 a very curious exchange.
John’s denial that he is the Elijah is a serious departure from
what we know to be true. Why would John say such a thing? If
he doesn’t know he is the Elijah. . .is it possible that Zachariah
lost the vision of what he had received? Or could it be that John
himself was having doubt?
What is of no doubt. . .this has created a serious problem for
Jesus ministry.
It was vitally important for John to make sure that everyone in
Israel knew that he was the Elijah. For the Jews, the appearance
of Elijah was the singular touchstone that declared that the
messiah would be soon be near. No Elijah means No Messiah.

[Dream]

...We see in John 1:18-23 a very curious exchange.
John’s denial that he is the Elijah is a serious departure from
what we know to be true. Why would John say such a thing? If
he doesn’t know he is the Elijah. . .is it possible that Zachariah
lost the vision of what he had received? Or could it be that John
himself was having doubt?...

True, John says he isn't Elijah. Jesus says that John both is and isn't. This is a mystery, just like the trinity. Both are part of Christianity.

Originally Posted by Matthew 11:12-14

From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John; and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come.

Jesus says John is 'If you are willing to accept it' the Elijah. Accept what, exactly? The whole shebang, Christianity and the gospel, of course. The violent pursuit of the kingdom ended with John the Baptist. Until John, it was to come through violence, but after John there was to be no violent pursuit of the renewal of the Kingdom of God. When the angel, Gabriel, prophecied about baby JohnB he said "and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared."(Luke 1:17)

This was a new kind of baptism. Anybody who reads the Tanach can tell you that a promise is a promise, and it is counterintuitive for the L-RD to say one thing and then say he didn't mean it literally. It is a mystery how John the Baptist could have been Elijah, but as Jesus explained he both wasn't and he was Elijah. There would be another Elijah later. This was a matter of acceptance, not of logic. (That's Sola Scriptura perspective and gives us some idea as to why Christians including Protestants still a traditional connection.)

Originally Posted by Matthew 17:10-12

And the disciples asked him, "Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?" He replied, "Elijah does come, and he is to restore all things; but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not know

Because of this it behooves every Christian to seek to bring the kingdom of God to earth not through violence, but by working to turn hearts and to prepare a people for the L-RD. This is why in Revelation, Jesus comes with a sword in his mouth, not in his hands. The weapons of Christian warfare are not physical.(2Cor10:4) In other words, physical weapons are not Christian and cannot be wielded in service to Jesus.

Christianity is to resist any person claiming to be the King of Israel before all the kingdoms of this world are already in humble service to God. It is to strive through non-physical means to prepare for God's rule instead of man's. There are two Elijahs, and the first has already come. The second 'True' Elijah comes later, but not until there is a population prepared for that to happen. Finally when Jesus returns, all of the kingdoms of this world will be under his feet but he will gives up control of the world, his crown, and the title of 'King' back to God to whom it rightfully belongs.(I Cor 15:24)