The problem with John the Baptist is that we know so little about him. There are the briefest of reports of his preaching in the Gospels, and the accounts of his death in the Gospels and Josephus. A lot of scholars have argued for links between John and the Essenes; this is largely on the assumption that the Qumran community were Essenes (if they weren't, then we don't know much about the Essenes either; if they were, then we do). As I understand it, John's use of baptism, location in the desert, and preaching of a coming Messiah are characteristically Essene. Moreover, his eating of only wild food would be consistent with someone who had once been an Essene but was no longer, as a member of that community would previously have vowed to eat no prepared food except what was blessed by the community's leader. The Dead Sea Scrolls do mention locust-eating, which seems a particular link to John. But these are all open to question. In particular, it's worth noting that Mark doesn't specify that John ate only locusts and honey, merely that he did eat them; it's Matthew who restricts John's diet to these items. So one might suspect that this is an embellishment by Matthew. Moreover, locusts were a common food source; Leviticus 11 classifies them as clean (though Deuteronomy 14 disagrees), they were commonly eaten by the poor (and still are), and indeed Assyrian royalty regarded them as a delicacy. So John's diet wasn't quite as distinctive as it may appear.
Basically, it looks to me like the best one can say is that the portrayal of John is consistent with his having been an Essene, but I don't think one can be much more definite than that.
Basically, it looks to me like the best one can say is that the portrayal of John is consistent with his having been an Essene, but I don't think one can be much more definite than that.
