Having given the ancient documents, all that now remains is that I
should give a brief sketch of the most important modern literature on
the Essenes. In doing this part of my task, as in the former, I shall
try as much as it is possible to follow the chronological order.
1513–1577.—Accordingly De Rossi occupies the first position. In his
erudite work, called Meor Enajim, i.e., The Light of the Eyes, which is
a Cyclopœdia of Biblical literature and criticism, this profound critic
gives us a brief notice of this brotherhood, in which he maintains that
the Essenes are identical with the Greek sect called Baithusians in the
Talmud, and Therapeutae by Philo. His account is as follows: “It has
often appeared to me strange that the Talmud should say nothing
whatever about that sect which obtained a good report among the
nations. I therefore examined the works of our sages, to ascertain
whether I could find in them any distinction made between the Sadducees
and the Baithusians. And it appeared to me that though both alike
denied the traditional law (התורה שעל פה), yet the Baithusians are no
where charged with the sin of denying, like the Sadducees, the
immortality of the soul and future judgment. Moreover, I thought of the
similarity of the names Baithusians and Essenes (ביתוסים איסיאי), and
especially of the manner in which the ancients changed names. Now,
owing to the word בית being so frequently found prefixed to names of
schools and families, the appellation ביתוסים might easily have
originated from a junction of the words בית איסיאי. I also saw the
passage in the Talmud, Sabbath, cap. viii, fol. 108, as quoted also in
Sopherim, cap. i, which is as follows:—‘A Baithusian asked R. Joshuah
whence do we know that phylacteries must not be written upon the skin
of an unclean animal?’ To which he replied—‘It is written that the
Lord’s law may be in thy mouth, (Exod. xiii, 9) this signifies that
phylacteries must be written upon the skin of an animal which thou
canst take into thy mouth, i.e., eat.’ To this he said—‘This being the
case, we must also not write the phylacteries upon the skin of an
animal which died;’ [for an Israelite is as much forbidden to taste the
flesh of it, as to eat an unclean animal.] Hereupon the Rabbi
replied—‘I will tell thee a parable, to make the thing clear. Two men
are condemned to death: the one the king kills, and the other is killed
by the executioner: now, which of the two dost thou esteem higher?
Surely the one whom the king himself has executed. So the animal which
died, [i.e., which the King of Kings caused to die] must be preferred
to the others.’ Whereupon the Baithusian said—‘Accordingly, we ought
also to eat it.’ R. Joshuah replied—‘The Bible prohibits it (Deut.
xiv), and dost thou want to eat it?’ The Baithusian then said—‘קלוס.’
This expression Rashi of blessed memory rightly says is Greek; i.e.
‘καλὸν.’ Hence it is to be inferred that the Baithusian was a Greek;
and, indeed, we know from Philo and Josephus that the Essenes were also
Greek Jews, living in Alexandria.... From all these things I easily
quieted my mind, and concluded that the Baithusians are the same as the
Essenes.’ [76] Now, from a careful perusal of the account given by
Josephus of the Essenes, it will be seen that he never describes them
as Greek Jews. Besides, this is utterly at variance with ancient
tradition, as the Talmudic authorities most positively declare that the
Baithusians and Sadducees were both alike in doctrine, that both
derived their names from the founder of these sects, Baithos (ביתוס)
and Zadok (צדיק), the disciples of Antigonus of Soho, and that they
gave rise to these sects, through misinterpreting the following saying
of their master [77] which he had received from Simon the Just:—“Be not
like servants who serve their master for the sake of receiving a
reward, but be ye like servants who serve their master without the view
of receiving a reward,” recorded in Aboth. i. 3. Upon this Aboth d. R.
Nathan (cap. v.) remarks, “Antigonus’ two disciples at first continued
implicitly to teach this saying to their disciples, and these again to
their disciples. At last, however, they began to ponder over it, and
said—‘What did our fathers mean by this saying? Is a labourer to labour
all day and not receive his wages in the evening? Now if our fathers
had believed that there is another world, and a resurrection of the
dead, they would not have spoken thus.’ Hence they dissented from the
law, and from them originated the two sects, the Sadducees and the
Baithusians, the Sadducees from Sadok and the Baithusians from Baithus.
They used gold and silver vessels all the days of their life, not
because they were proud, but because they said that the Pharisees
themselves have a tradition that they afflict themselves in this world,
and have nothing in the world to come.” From this we see that 1. The
Baithusians, like the Sadducees, derived their appellation from the
proper name of their founder, which is Baithus ביתוס so that the
first part of the name בית cannot be separated from it. 2. Like the
Sadducees, the Baithusians denied the immortality of the soul and the
existence of angels, whereas the Essenes firmly believed in the
immortality of the soul, and made the angels play a very important part
in their creed. That the Sadducees and the Baithusians were considered
to be identical, or, at all events, to hold similar doctrines is also
evident from the fact that what is in one place of the Talmud ascribed
to the former, is in another place ascribed to the latter. Thus, for
instance, in Succa 48 b. the Sadducees are said to have questioned the
necessity of bringing a libation of water on the Feast of Tabernacles;
in Tosifta Succa cap. iii. it is ascribed to the Baithusians. In
Maccoth, 5, b. Chagiga, 16 b. it is said that the Sadducees urged that
a false witness should only then be executed if the individual whom he
had falsely accused had already been executed; in Tosifta Sanhedrin,
cap. vi. the same thing is ascribed to the Baithusians. According to
Joma, 19 b. 53 a, the Sadducees would have it that the High Priest
should put the incense on the fire outside the Sanctuary on the great
Day of Atonement, in Tosifta Joma, cap. 1, and Jerusalem Joma, i. 5,
this is also ascribed to the Baithusians. Comp. also 115, b., Megillath
Taanith, cap. vi., with Tosifta Jadajim cap. ii. And 4. The Baithusians
are constantly spoken of as heretics and false witnesses (comp.
Jerusalem Rosh Ha-Shana, ii, 1; Babl. ibid. 226), which is utterly at
variance with the high character given to the Essenes even by those who
belonged to opposite sects.
1587–1643.—Our learned countryman, Dr. Thomas Godwyn occupies the next
position. In his interesting and erudite volume, entitled Moses and
Aaron: which was first published in London 1625, Godwyn devotes the
twelfth chapter of the first book to the Essenes. The etymology of this
name he takes to be the Syriac אסא to heal, to cure diseases, and
submits that they were called Essenes = θεραπευται physicians, because
they cultivated the study of medicine. His summary of their doctrines
and practices is made from Josephus’ description of them as well as
from Philo’s reputed account of the Therapeutae which has nothing to do
with the Palestinian Essenes. Godwyn also gives a number of supposed
parallels between the doctrines and practices of Essenism and
Pythagorism. He does not attempt to account for these resemblances, nor
does he try to trace the origin of the brotherhood. He is, however,
certain that they existed in the time of Judas Maccabæus and “continued
until the day of our Saviour and after; for Philo and Josephus speak of
them as living in their time.” He assigns the following reasons for
their not being mentioned in the New Testament 1. Their being small in
number. 2. “They were peaceable and quiet, not opposing any; and
therefore not so liable to reproof as the Pharisees and Sadducees, who
opposed each other, and both joined against Christ.” 3. They were
passed over in silence in the New Testament just “as the Rechabites in
the Old Testament, of whom there is mention only once and that
obliquely, although their order continued about three hundred years,
before this testimony was given of them by the Prophet Jeremiah.” And
4. “Though the name of the Essenes be not found in Scripture, yet we
shall find in St. Paul’s Epistles many things reproved, which were
taught in the school of the Essenes. Of this nature was that advice
given unto Timothy:—‘Drink no longer water, but use a little wine.’ (1
Tim. v. 23). Again, ‘Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain
from meats is a doctrine of devils’ (1 Tim. iv. 3); but especially
Colossians ii., in many passages the Apostle seemeth directly to point
at them, ‘Let no man condemn you in meat and drink’ (verse 16): ‘Let no
man bear rule over you, by humbleness of mind and worshipping of
angels’ (verse 18) ‘Why are ye subject to ordinances (τί δογματίζεσθε
verse 20)?’ The Apostle useth the word δόγματα which was applied by the
Essenes to denote their ordinances aphorisms or constitutions. In the
verse following he gives an instance of some particulars, ‘Touch not,
taste not, handle not’ (ver. 21). Now the junior company of Essenes
might not touch the seniors. And in their diet their taste was limited
to bread, salt, water and hyssop. And these ordinances they undertook
διὰ πόθον σοφίας saith Philo, for the love of wisdom; but the Apostle
concludeth (ver. 23) that these things had only λόγον σοφίας a show of
wisdom. And whereas Philo termeth the religion of the Essenes by the
name of θεράπεια which word signifieth religious worship; the Apostle
termeth in the same verse εθιλεθρεκείαν voluntary religious worship or
will worship; yea, where he termeth their doctrine πάτρων φιλοσοφιας a
kind of philosophy received from their forefathers by tradition; St.
Paul biddeth them beware of philosophy (ver. 8).” I have given this
extract in full because succeeding writers have with more or less
exactness based their opinion upon it. In animadverting upon it, I need
only refer to the former part of this Essay, where it will be seen that
some of the things here mentioned, are not peculiar to the Essenes, and
others do not belong to them at all, whilst the last quotation from
Philo describes the Therapeutae and not the Essenes. [78]
1628–1678.—Next in point of time is Theophilus Gale, who gives us a
description of the Essenes in his famous work called The Court of the
Gentiles, part ii. (Oxford, 1671), book ii. § 9, p. 146–156. As might
be expected from this learned writer, who wrote this elaborate work to
demonstrate that “the original of all human literature, both philology
and philosophy, is from the Scriptures and the Jewish Church,” he
endeavours to prove that Pythagoras took the whole of his philosophic
system from the Essenes. “As for the origination of their name,” Gale
tells us, “they were called חסדים i.e. according to the Greek καθαροὶ
and according to our English dialect pure. Now the origination or rise
of these Essenes I conceive (by the best conjectures I can make from
antiquity), to be in or immediately after the Babylonian captivity
(though some make them later), and the occasion of their separation and
consociation seems this. Many of the carnal Jews defiling themselves
either by being too deeply plunged in worldly affairs, even to the
neglect of their religion, or, which was worse, by sensual compliances
with their idolatrous lords, thereby to secure their carnal interests,
these חסדים or Essenes, to preserve themselves from these common
pollutions, separated and retired themselves from the crowd of worldly
affairs into an holy solitude, and private condition of life; where
they entered into a strict confederation or consociation to lead
together a collegiate devout life.” [79] He then gives an epitome of
their doctrines and practices, and finally endeavours to shews that
Pythagoras got his system from them. In doing this, Gale mixes up the
Therapeutae with the Essenes, and follows largely the description of
Godwyn.
1643–1724.—We then come to Dean Prideaux, who has a lengthy description
of the Essenes in The Old and New Testaments Connected, part ii. book
v., which first appeared in London, 1717. The chief value of Prideaux’s
work on this subject consists in the fact, that he has given in English
Philo and Josephus on the Essenes, as well as the short notice from
Pliny. In his own remarks, which follow these extracts, he, in common
with his predecessors, mixes up the Therapeutae with the Essenes, and
tries to repel the Romanists who adopted the assertion of Eusebius
(Hist. Ecclesiast. lib. ii. c. 17), that these Therapeutae or
contemplative Essenes were Christian monks instituted by St. Mark. He
also endeavours to expose the folly of the Deists, who infer, from the
agreement between the Christian religion and the documents of the
Essenes, that Christ and his followers were no other than a sect
branched out from that of the Essenes. Among the accusations which the
Dean brings against the Essenes for violating the law of God, is the
charge that they “absolutely condemned servitude which the holy
Scriptures of the New Testament (Philemon 9–21), as well as the Old,
allow.” [80] Instead of blaming them for repudiating slavery, we
believe that the civilized world in the present day will be unanimous
in pronouncing it to have been one of the glorious features of
Essenism, anticipating the spirit of Christianity and the philanthropy
of the nineteenth century.
1653–1723.—Basnage gives a very lengthy account of the Essenes in his
History of the Jews lib. ii. chaps. xii. xiii. Those who are acquainted
with the writings of this learned Frenchman, know that he could not
write on anything without bringing together a mass of useful
information. He, however, mistook the character of the Essenes, as well
as the value of the documents upon which he relies. Preferring Philo’s
account to that of Josephus, though the latter lived amongst the
Essenes, Basnage confounds the brotherhood with the Therapeutae, and
hence asserts that “they borrowed several superstitions from the
Egyptians, among whom they retired.” Through this, he is led to occupy
by far the greater part of his description with the needless discussion
of the question “Whether the Essenes from being Jews were converted to
Christianity by St. Mark, and founded a monastic life.” [81]
1692–1762.—Dr. Jennings’ chapter on the Essenes is simply a commentary
on Godwyn’s account. Jennings disputes some of the imaginary parallels
between Essenism and Pythagorism exhibited by Godwyn, and inclines to
the opinion “that the Essenes begun a little before the time of the
Maccabees, when the faithful Jews were forced to fly from the cruel
persecutions of their enemies into deserts and caves, and by living in
those retreats, many of them being habituated to retirement, which
thereby became most agreeable to them, they chose to continue it, even
when they might have appeared upon the public stage again, and
accordingly formed themselves into recluses.” As to the difficulty to
account for “the absolute silence of the evangelical history concerning
the Essenes,” Jennings reiterates the remarks of Godwyn upon the
subject. [82]
In 1821, appeared in Berlin, Bellermann’s valuable little volume on the
Essenes and Therapeutae. [83] The author with characteristic German
industry and perseverance, brought together in this monograph the
ancient documents on the Essenes. His critical acumen, however, is not
commensurate to his industry, and while his little volume will
deservedly continue to be a useful manual for the student who wishes to
acquaint himself with what Philo, Pliny, Josephus, Solinus, Porphyry,
Epiphanius and Eusebius said upon this subject, it is to be questioned
whether Bellermann’s conclusions will be shared by many. He is of
opinion that “the Essenes and Baithusians are the same both in name and
doctrine,” and that “the Essenes have four other names in history
besides their proper name, viz.:—they are called, 1, Therapeutae by the
Greek Alexandrians. 2. Hiketeans by Philo, in the superscription to the
Treatise on contemplative life. 3. Ossenes or Ossens, by Epiphanius.
And 4, Baithusians in the Talmud, and by several Rabbins. As this
notion, which has been advanced by De Rossi three centuries and a half
ago, has already been refuted, it would be needless to repeat the
arguments here.
1825.—Neander, whose first instalment of his gigantic Church History
appeared in 1825, now began to grapple with this mysterious
brotherhood. In the introductory chapter of this history, in which a
description is given of the religious condition of the world at the
advent of Christ, he gives a very brief but very pregnant sketch of the
Essenes. With that deep penetration, which was one of the chief
characteristics of this sagacious critic, he repudiates the notion that
the Essenes originated under foreign influences, and maintains that “it
is a gross error to infer from the resemblance of certain religious
phenomena the relationship of which is to be traced to a common inward
cause, inherent in the nature of the human mind, that they have an
external origin, having been copied from the other.” Hence, he submits
that Essenism arose out of the deeper religious meaning of the Old
Testament, that it afterwards adopted some of the old Oriental, Parsee,
and Chaldean notions, and that it had no Alexandrian elements. Neander
moreover most justly cautions against the accounts of Philo and
Josephus, saying that they clothed the opinions of the Essenes in a
garb peculiarly Grecian, which we might rightly consider as not
originally belonging to them. [84]
1829.—The difficulty which perplexed Christian writers, arising from
the fact that the Essenes are not mentioned in the New Testament, did
not affect Jewish writers, although it is true that this name is also
not to be found in the ancient Jewish writings. For if it be granted
that this appellation is a corruption of an Aramaic word, the Essenes
must be looked for in the Talmud and Midrashim, which are chiefly
written in Aramaic, under their original designation whatever that
might be. The clue to it must, of course, be the identity of the
features ascribed to them by Philo and Josephus and those ascribed in
the ancient Jewish volumes to any order of Judaism. To this task
Rappaport, the corypheus of Jewish critics, betook himself. Knowing
that the Essenes were no distinct sect, in the strict sense of the
word, but simply an order of Judaism, and that there never was a
rupture between them and the rest of the Jewish community, Rappaport
most justly does not expect that they would be spoken of under a fixed
denominational name. He therefore rejects De Rossi’s notion that the
Baithusians, so frequently denounced in the Talmud and Midrashim, are
the Essenes described by Philo and Josephus, and sought to identify
them by their peculiar practices, expecting to find that they would be
spoken of by different names. He soon found that what Philo and
Josephus describe as peculiarities of the Essenes tallies with what the
Mishna, the Talmud, and the Midrashim record of the Chassidim
(חסדים), and that they are most probably the so-called old believers
(ותיקין), who are also described in the Talmud as the holy community
in Jerusalem (קהלא קדישא דבירושלים). He rightly recognised in them an
intensified form of Pharisaism, and remarks that what is said in the
Mishna about the moderation observed in eating and drinking, the great
humility, endurance under sufferings, zeal for everything that is holy,
community of goods, &c, refers to this holy community, or the Essenes.
He also quotes the following remark from the Midrash Coheleth, on
Eccles. ix, 9, about this holy community; “Rabi repeated from the
traditions of the holy community (עדה קדושה) ‘acquire a trade in
connection with the study of the Scriptures, &c.’—[Query] ‘Why are they
called holy community?’ [Reply] ‘Because they divided the day into
three divisions—devoting one-third to the study of the Scriptures,
another to prayer, and the third to work. Some say that they devoted
the whole of the winter to studying the Scriptures and the summer to
work.’” He, too, was the first who pointed out that the prayer which
Josephus tells us the Essenes offered up at the rising of the sun, is
the national hymn of praise, which still constitutes a part of the
Jewish daily service, and is as follows:—
He in mercy causes His light to shine upon the earth and upon the
inhabitants thereof; and in His goodness unfailingly renews every
day the work of creation. How numerous are Thy works, O Lord! Thou
hast made them all in wisdom; the earth is full of Thy possessions.
O King, Thou only art the exalted one from everlasting, the praised
and glorified and extolled since the days of yore! Lord of the
universe, in Thy great mercy have mercy upon us! Lord our might,
fortress of our strength, shield of our salvation, defend us! O
Lord, be Thou praised, Thou great in wisdom, who hast ordained and
created the rays of the sun: the Infinitely Good has formed a
glorious testimony for His name. He surrounded His majesty with
luminaries. The chiefs of His heavenly hosts are holy beings; they
glorify the Almighty; they continually declare the glory of God and
his holiness. Blessed be the Lord our God, for the excellency of
the works of Thy hands, and for the shining luminaries which Thou
hast. They shall glorify Thee for ever.
God, the Lord of all created things, is praised and blessed in the
mouths of all the living. His power and goodness fill the universe;
wisdom and intelligence are round about Him. He exalts himself
above the angels, and beams in glory upon his chariot-throne.
Interceding goodness and rectitude are before His throne,
loving-kindness and mercy before his majesty. Benign are the
luminaries which our God has created. He has formed them in wisdom,
intelligence, and understanding; He has endowed them with power and
strength, to bear rule in the midst of the world. Filled with
splendour and brightness, their glory illuminates all the world;
rejoicing in rising and joyous in setting they perform with awe the
will of their Creator. They give praise and glory to His name, joy
and song to the memory of His kingdom. He called the sun, and light
rose; He saw and shaped the form of the moon. Praise Him all ye
heavenly hosts; ascribe glory and majesty to Him ye seraphim,
ophanim, and holy angels.
These, as Rappaport rightly remarks, are some of the remains of the
ancient prayer used by the Essenes. It will be seen that these hymns of
praise contain not only thanksgiving for the renewal of the light, to
which Josephus refers, but they also refer to the mysterious cosmogony
(מעשה בראשית) and theosophy (מעשה מרכבה), as well as to the angels
which played such an important part among this brotherhood. [85]
1835.—The difficulty of reading Rabbinical Hebrew in which Rappaport’s
profound remarks are written, must have prevented Gfrörer from seeing
what this erudite Jewish critic had written on the Essenes; for,
although the second edition of vol. i. part 11 of his Critical History
of Primitive Christianity, containing an account of the Essenes,
appeared in 1835, yet he positively states “that the Essenes and the
Therapeutae are the same sect and hold the same views” (p. 299).
According to him, the development of Essenism is as follows. In the
third century before Christ, the Jews in Alexandria formed societies
according to the Pythagorean model, and thus originated the sect called
the Therapeutae, from these Egyptian Therapeutae again Essenism
developed itself in Palestine about 130 B.C. Hence Essenism is the
channel through which the Alexandrian theosophy was first transplanted
into Palestinian soil. The reason why the Essenes kept their doctrines
secret is that the Palestinian priests were hostile to this foreign
importation, and persecuted those who received this contraband.
Accordingly, the relationship of Pythagorism, Therapeutism and
Essenism, to use Gfrörer’s own figure, is that of grandmother, mother
and daughter. “So perfect is the agreement between the Therapeutae and
the Essenes, that it even extends to their names. For the word Ἐσσαῖνς
according to the most correct etymology, is derived from the
Syro-Chaldaic verb אסא which denotes to cure, to nurse, and hence is
nothing but a literal translation of θεραπευτὴς.” [86]
1843.—Similar in spirit is the elaborate article on the Essenes in
Ersch und Gruber’s Cyclopœdia, written by Dähne, who maintains that
“Essenism is the produce of the Jewish-Alexandrian philosophy, and that
it is only when viewed from this stand-point that the deviations from
the rest of their Jewish co-religionists, and their peculiar
institutions, doctrines, and precepts appear in the clearest light.” It
is not surprising that holding such an opinion Dähne should feel
perplexed to account for the existence of this thoroughly
Jewish-Alexandrian order, as he makes the Essenes to be, in the very
heart of Palestine. All that he can say upon this subject is, that they
somehow got there in the middle of the second century before Christ.
The affiliation of Essenism to the Jewish-Alexandrian philosophy brings
it into most intimate relationship with Therapeutism, and necessarily
devolves upon Dähne to define this family connection which he does in
the following manner. [87] “The difference between the Therapeutae and
the Essenes, both of whom are followers of the Jewish-Alexandrian moral
philosophy, is that the former devoted themselves entirely to a
contemplative life, whilst the latter gave themselves more especially
to a practical life. Hence though both rest upon the same foundation,
the Therapeutae gave themselves up absolutely to the highest aim of
man, as they marked it out, the contemplation of God; whilst the
Essenes to some extent voluntarily lingered in the outer court of the
Holy of Holies, placed themselves intentionally for the good of the
brethren in more frequent contact with the world than the requirements
of nature demanded, thereby generously, but certainly
unphilosophically, temporarily retarding their own highest perfection
and happiness.” Like De Rossi, Bellermann, Gfrörer and others, Dähne
derives the name from the Chaldee אסא to heal, and says “accordingly
the term Essenes denotes spiritual physicians, or men who strive in the
highest sense to lead back the spirit to its natural (i.e. truly
divine) character and activity.” [88]
1846.—A new epoch began in the history of the Essenes with the
investigation of Frankel on this subject, which appeared in his
Zeitschrift für die religiözen Interesse des Judenthums, 1846. Taking
up the idea of Rappaport, that the Essenes must be looked for in the
body of the Jews and not as a separate sect, Frankel refers to the fact
that, whilst the Assideans = Chassidim are referred to in 1 Macc. ii.
24; 2 Macc. xiv. 6, &c., the Perushim = Pharisees are never mentioned,
to show that no such marked and denominational divisions existed at
first in the community, and rightly remarks, that it “is only after a
longer development that sects appear in their separation, and sharply
defined features, when that which originally formed a united whole is
now divided and parted into various branches. And even this partition
and separation only shew themselves to the analysing mind, and
especially when the analysis is conducted after a foreign fashion, as
Josephus has done it, who reduced the Jewish sects into Greek schools,
and made the Essenes correspond to the Pythagoreans. But in reality
even these divisions flow one into another, and do not stand in
opposition to one another, but are simply to be distinguished by their
different shades of colour, and by the greater stringency or laxity
with which the same rules are regarded, so that they do not form
separate sects, but some individuals keep to these rules with greater
anxiety, whilst others, though considering them as binding, do not
regard them as having such a wide application. Now in early times there
were only Essenes = Chassidim (חסדים), the name of Perush = Pharisee
(פרוש) was not as yet known; it was only afterwards when in
succeeding periods some became more rigid in their manner of life and
views of religion, that the name Pharisees (פרושים) appears to denote
the less strict Jews, whilst the others were in a special degree
denominated by the old, respectable appellation Chassidim = Essenes
(חסדים).” This, Frankel corroborates by showing most clearly that
many of the vital principles which Josephus describes as peculiar to
Essenism, are at the very basis of Pharisaism, and that the Essenes are
frequently mentioned in the Mishna, Talmud, and Midrashim by the names
חסדים הראשונים the original Assideans = Chassidim, חברים the
associates, ותיקין those who have enfeebled their bodies through much
study; דבירושלים the retired ones; צנועין קהלא קדישא the holy
congregation in Jerusalem; טובלי שחרית hemerobaptists. Frankel
concluded his essay with the promise to return to this subject on some
future occasion. [89]
1847.—Within twelve months of the publication of Frankel’s elaborate
Essay, an article appeared in the American Quarterly entitled The
Biblical Repository. As there was not sufficient time for this German
production to become known in the New World, Mr. Hall, the writer of
the article, could not avail himself of it, and was therefore obliged
to derive his information from the writings of Dr. Neander. But though
Mr. Hall has thrown no light on the Essenes, yet his reflections upon
their moral character and their connection with Christianity are so
just, sensible and candid, that we subjoin them to show that good
Christians may honestly acknowledge the good in Essenism without
detracting from Christianity.
“Let us give the Essene credit for all that he was as a worshipper
of the true God, and as a man striving after moral purity in a
corrupt age. The Gospel that breathed new life into the higher
nature of man, can afford to allow all his virtues. We know that
the Spirit of Christ opens the eye to the excellencies of others.
Truth rejoices in truth, and as all truth is from the same source,
the lustre of one development can never be increased by hiding the
glory of another. We would not enhance the necessity of our Lord’s
appearance by depreciating the moral condition of mankind at that
period. Those ascetic Jews deserve well of mankind for the light
they gave out in a dark age. We admire the humanity and justice of
their principles; their disapproval of war and slavery in the midst
of a world lying in wickedness, and the noble example of industry,
frugality and moderation in the things of this life they set before
all. We honour their honest endeavours to combine the vita
contemplativa and the vita activa,—to escape the bondage of the
senses, to maintain the supremacy of the spirit, and to unite
themselves with the Highest. But in all these respects, they are
only the true children of monotheism, the legitimate offspring of
the Jewish theocracy. They could have sprung up nowhere else. In
the phenomenon of the Essenes let us therefore adore the provident
wisdom of Jehovah, and recognize the secret working of his love in
carrying forward the great, eternal economy of salvation. They
exerted an influence on their age which helped to pave the way for
the Christ. Conscience spoke, and was spoken to, through them; and
the dying sense of virtue was kept alive. Thus were they stars
which emitted an humble though useful light before, but grew pale
and became invisible after, the coming of the Sun of
Righteousness.” [90]
1852.—Though Ewald published the second edition of the fourth volume of
his Jewish History in 1852, when Frankel’s Essay had been six years
before the literary world, yet he manifests total ignorance of it in
his account of the Essenes, contained in this volume. Still, this
profound and merciless critic, without having access to the Jewish
information gathered from the Talmud and Midrashim, saw that Essenism
was no Greek plant transplanted into Palestine, but like Pharisaism
grew out of the Chassidim. He remarks that “people who left the great
community in order to lead a specially holy life, with the permission
and under the direction of the law, were to be found in Israel from the
remotest times, yet in its first form there were only the Nazarites, of
whom each one lived for himself; and in the second, the Rechabites
combined themselves already into a larger union; but now the whole
conscience of the people itself, as it were, departed into solitude
with numerous Essenes. For it cannot be denied that they, proceeding
from the Chassidim, represent the direct and legitimate development of
Judaism in the form which became the ruling one since Ezra.” “Their new
features and endeavours merely consisted in their intensely earnest and
rigorous application of the demands of the law, as understood and
interpreted since Ezra. Finding that the rigorous and logical
application of these laws was impossible in the great community,
especially in that community as regulated by the Pharisees, they
preferred to congregate and live in solitude.” [91] Very unfortunate is
Ewald’s derivation of Essene from the Rabbinic חזן servant (of God),
and the assertion that this name was given to them because it was their
only desire to be θεραπευταὶ θεοῦ.
1853.—Nearly seven years had now elapsed since Frankel published his
masterly Essay on the Essenes, and promised to return to this subject
at some future time. True to his promise, he now gave another elaborate
treatise, in which he substantiated, by numerous quotations from the
Talmud, his former conclusions, that the Essenes are the offspring of
Judaism, that they are nothing but stationary, or more correctly
speaking consequential Chassidim, that they were therefore not so far
distant from the Pharisees as to be regarded as a separate sect, but,
on the contrary, that they formed a branch of Pharisaism. [92]
1856.—So convincing was Frankel’s Treatise, that Graetz, who published
the third volume of his masterly History of the Jews in 1856, in which
he gives an elaborate account of this brotherhood, remarks: [93] “I
completely accept these results about this sect being based upon
critical investigation, and shall only add a few supplementary points
by way of illustration.” [94] The additions consist of a very able
analysis of Philo’s reputed Treatise entitled De Vita Contemplativa,
showing that it is spurious, and of an attempt to show that the Essenes
were perpetual Nazarites (נזירי עולם). His remarks are as
follow—“There were great masses of Nazarites in the post-exile period
(Tosifta Nasir, c. iv.; Babbi Berachoth, 48 a; 1 Macc. ii. 49; Joseph.
Antiq. xviii. vi.), but they were of a different character to those of
the Biblical period; they were Nazarites for the whole life (Nasir 4
a.) The Mishna presupposed their existence; the magical in Nazaritism,
which was connected with the growing of the hair in the Nazarites of
the Bible, gradually recedes into the back ground or loses its
significance altogether; whereas the Levitical, the guarding against
defilement, appears more and more in the foreground among the life-long
Nazarites. The Essenes then were such Nazarites as represented in
private life the highest priestly consecration. The connection between
the Nazarites and Essenes has already been indicated in obscure
passages in the Talmud, that one consecrated himself to be a perpetual
Nazarite if he simply wished to be a Nazarite in order that he might be
able to preserve the secrets of disgraceful family circumstances.
(Tosifta Nasir, b. i. 6; Kidushim 71 a.) [95]
1857.—The learned historian Jost, who published the first volume of his
History of Judaism in 1857, was also perfectly convinced by the results
of Frankel’s researches, and made them the basis of his excellent
description of the Essenes, in which he maintains that they grew out of
Pharisaism or from the ancient Chassidim. “The Essenes,” he submits,
“are exactly the same that the other Rabbis wished to be who
endeavoured to practise the Levitical law of purity, as leading to
higher consecration. They have neither another creed nor another law,
but simply institutions peculiar to this brotherhood, and endeavour to
reach the highest consecration by their manner of life, in defining the
different stages, according to preliminary exercises and certain years
of preparation. Their views and tenets are therefore also to be found
in the utterances of the learned and the Rabbis who did not enter their
order, so that they did not look upon the Essenes as opponents or
apostates, but, on the contrary, as holding the same opinions with
increased claims and some fewer enjoyments, whom many out of their own
midst joined, and who were called Chassidim or Zenuim.” [96]
1857.—The comparatively few and unessential deviations from Judaism to
be found in Essenism were, however, more than Herzfeld could tolerate,
without characterising the innovators as heretics and smugglers of
contraband opinions. Dissatisfied with the modern researches of Frankel
and Graetz on this subject, this learned historian, and chief Rabbi of
Brunswick, returned to the old notion of De Rossi, that the Essenes of
Josephus and Philo are identical with the Baithusians mentioned in the
Talmud. Still he thinks that De Rossi’s opinion “must be better proved
than he had done it,” and therefore remarks—“first of all, seeing that
the prefixed בית denotes school or sect in the appellations
Beth-Shammai, Beth-Hillel; that בית הכותים in Tosifta Helem ii. b,
and בי כותאי in Chullin 6 a, denotes the sect or the land of Cuttim;
and then that בית סין stands twice Tosifta Succa, cap. iii., and
Tosifta Menachoth cap. x. for Baithusians, can it mean anything else
than house or sect of Essenes? When אסי physician became the name of
a sect, an Essene could not so well be called אסי without ambiguity;
he was therefore described as one of בית אסי.” [97] Thus much for the
origin of the name, and now let us hear Dr. Herzfeld’s theory about the
brotherhood itself. It is simply this [98]—“A Jew, who became
acquainted with the allegorical exegesis prevalent among the
Alexandrian Jews, and with its mother the Greek wisdom, but who, like
Pythagoras, Plato and Herodotus, had also found an opportunity to learn
some things from Egyptian priests, conceived and carried out the plan,
eclectically to form from it and from Judaism a speculative and ascetic
system, as well as to organise, according to its model, a sect from the
Jewish ascetics.” [99] This Alexandrianized Palestinian Jew founded the
order of the Essenes in Palestine about 230 B.C.
1857.—Another effort was made in this year to explain the origin of
this mysterious brotherhood. Professor Hilgenfeld of Jena, who
maintains their genuine Jewish origin, starts the notion that the
Essenes belonged to the Apocalytical school, and that they must be
regarded as the successors of the ancient prophets, and as constituting
the prophetic school. It is only when we view them from this stand
point that their precepts and practices can be understood, and that the
high antiquity ascribed to them by Josephus (Antiq. xviii. 1, 2) and
Pliny (Hist. Nat. v. 17), can be comprehended. This he moreover assures
us gives the clue to the explanation of their name. The Hebrew prophets
were also called חזים seers, which, being in the Aramaic
pronunciation חזין, easily gave rise through Greek change of vowels
to the name Ἐσσαῖου, Ἐσσηνοί. Hilgenfeld manifests an almost
inexcusable ignorance of the labours of Frankel and Graetz on the
Essenes. [100]
1860.—A necessarily brief but interesting article on the Essenes,
written by the able Mr. Westcott, appeared in Smith’s Dictionary of the
Bible. The writer wisely availed himself of the labours of Frankel and
Jost, and properly traced the origin of the brotherhood to the
Chassidim. His fear, however, lest any shining virtues in the Essenes
might be thought by some to pale some of the brightness of the Sun of
Righteousness, prevented him from appreciating the true character of
this order, as well as from seeing that they paved the way to
Christianity.
1863.—Graetz again, in the second edition of the third volume of his
History of the Jews, in which he has an additional chapter on the Rise
and Progress of Christianity, goes to the other extreme, and maintains
that “Jesus simply appropriated to himself the essential features of
Essenism,” [101] and that primitive Christianity was nothing but an
offshoot from Essenism.
1862.—Of the article on the Essenes in Dr. Alexander’s valuable edition
of Kitto’s Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, being written by me, I
can do no more than say that it embodies the substance of this Essay.
1863.—The description of the Essenes in the new edition of Dean
Milman’s History of the Jews, gives a very imperfect idea both of the
development and morality of this brotherhood. [102] The learned Dean
seems to be wholly unacquainted with the researches of Frankel and
Graetz on this subject. He, however, rightly rejects the notion that
Essenism had its origin in Pythagorism.
1847.—After the above was printed, I found a notice of the Essenes in
Hirschfeld’s work on the Hagadic Exegesis, in which he submits that the
name Essene may be derived from the Greek ἦθος manners, morality,
virtue, that though the Essenes had several things in common with the
Therapeutae, yet there was a great difference between the two sects,
and that the former rested more on the Bible and on Judaism. Still he
affirms that “some Neo-Platonic, Pythagorean and Persian ideas found
their way among the Essenes, and brought with them some practices and
institutions which this brotherhood mixed up with the Jewish views of
religion, and amongst which are to be classed their extension of the
laws of purification, &c.” Hirschfeld, moreover, maintains that, “like
the Alexandrians, but only from a different standpoint, the Essenes
aimed to reconcile religion with science.” As this opinion has already
been discussed in this Essay, it is needless to repeat the objections
against it. [103]