[1] According to tradition there were four degrees of purity. 1. The
ordinary purity required of every worshipper in the temple (טהרת
חולין). 2. The higher degree of purity necessary for eating of the
heave-offering (טהרת תרומה). 3. The still higher degree requisite for
partaking of the sacrifices (טהרת הקודש). And 4. The degree of purity
required of those who sprinkle the water absolving from sin (טהרת
חטאת). Each degree of purity required a greater separation from the
impurities described in Leviticus xi, 24–xv, 28. These impure subjects
were termed the fathers of impurity; that which was touched by them was
designated the first generation of impurity; what was touched by this
again, was called the second generation of impurity; and so on. Now,
heave-offerings—the second degree of holiness—became impure when
touched by the third generation; the flesh of sacrifices—the third
degree of holiness—when coming in contact with the fourth generation;
and so on. These degrees of purity had even to be separated from each
other; because the lower degree was, in respect to the higher one,
regarded as impure, and any one who lived according to a higher degree
of purity became impure by touching one who lived according to a lower
degree, and could only regain his purity by lustrations (טבילה). The
first degree was obligatory upon every one, the other grades were
voluntary. Before partaking of the heave-offering, the washing of hands
was required; and before eating of the flesh of sacrifices, immersion
of the whole body was required—Comp. Babylonian Talmud, Tract Chagiga,
18 b.
[2] Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. iii, part ii, p. 583 ff.
[3] The figures before each point of comparison do not exit in the
original German; I have inserted them in the translation in order to
facilitate the references to these different points of comparison.
[4] Comp. Diog. Laert. de Vitis Philosophorum, lib. viii. Vit.
Pythagor. xii. It is true that Cicero represents Cotta as giving no
credit to this story, because, as he apprehends, Pythagoras never
offered animal sacrifices (De Natura Deorum, lib. iii. cap. xxxvi.),
but it is also related by Athenaeus (Deipnosoph. lib. x.), Plutarch and
others.
[5] An excellent account of the Pythagorean system is given by Zeller,
Geschichte der Philosophie. Erster Theil, Tübingen, 1856, pp. 206–365;
Grote, History of Greece, vol. iv. London, 1857, pp. 527–553; and
Mason, in Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and
Mythology, Article Pythagoras.
[6] R. Nathan, the Babylonian as he is called, was Vice-President of
the College in Palestine, under the Presidency of Simon III. b.
Gamaliel II. A.D. 140. The above-quoted work of which he is the reputed
author, as indicated by its title, אבות דרבי נתן i.e. the Aboth of R.
Nathan, is a compilation of the apothegms and moral sayings of the
Jewish fathers (אבות), interspersed with traditional explanations of
divers texts of Scripture, consisting of forty-one chapters. Both the
historian and moral philosopher will find this work an important
contribution to the literary and philosophical history of antiquity. It
is printed in the different editions of the Talmud, and has also been
published separately with various commentaries, in Venice, 1622:
Amsterdam, 1778, &c., &c.; and a Latin translation of it was published
by our learned countryman, Francis Taylor, under the title of R.
Nathanis Tractatus de Patribus, latine cum Notis. London, 1654, 4to.
Comp. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden. Berlin, 1832,
p.p. 108, 109; Fürst, Kultur- und Literaturgeschichte der Juden in
Asien. Leipzig, 1849, p. 16 ff; by the same author, Bibliotheca
Judaica, volume iii. Leipzig, 1863, p. 19 ff; Steinschneider, Catalogus
Libr. Hebr. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana col. 2,032 ff.
[7] For the passages embodying the sentiments of the Essenes, which
constitute the above comparisons, we must refer to the second part of
this Essay and the notes.
[8] Compare the account of Philo, p. 36; Pliny, p. 40; Josephus, p. 52;
in the second part of this Essay.
[9] This prophecy is given in full in the second part of this Essay, p.
50.
[10] Zeitschrift für die religiösen Interessen des Judenthums. Berlin,
1856, p. 449.
[11] Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Secten, vol. 1, Leipzig,
1857, p. 207.
[12] As Mr. Westcott, the writer of the article Essenes in Smith’s
Dictionary of the Bible, has misunderstood this passage and wrongly
represented Jost himself as deriving this name from חשאין the silent,
the mysterious, we give Jost’s own words:—“Uns will scheinen, dass
Josephus den Namen allerdings von חשא schweigen, geheimnissvoll sein,
ableitet; dahin führt seine Uebertragung des Wortes חשן in die
griechischen Buchstaben ἐσσην Ed. Hav. Ant. 1, 147, welches Wort die
LXX λογεῖον übersetzen. Da das Wort חשאין seinen Zeitgenossen sehr
geläufig war, so konnte er annehmen, dass man sich unter dem Namen der
Sekte einen angemessenen Begriff dachte und er keiner Erläuterung
bedürfe. Ja, es wäre möglich, dass er den Begriff aus חשן selbst
ableitet, und auf λογεῖον oder λογίον, als mit Weissagung begabte,
zurückführte. Vergleichte Gfrörer, Philo 1, 196.”
[13] Aboth di. R. Nathan, cap. xxxvi.
[14] Comp. Epiphan. Haeres. xix. lib. i. tom. ii. sect. 4, p. 120, ed.
Petav.
[15] Comp. Petite Variae Lectiones, c. xxviii. p. 2600.
[16] Josippon b. Gorion also called Gorionides, lived in Italy about
the middle of the tenth century. He is the compiler of the celebrated
Hebrew Chronicle called Josippon, or the Hebrew Josephus. His real
character and the value of his Chronicle are discussed under the
article Jossippon in Dr. Alexander’s edition of Kitto’s Cyclopædia of
Biblical Literature.
[17] De Rossi, also called Asarja min Ha-Adomim, was born at Mantua in
1513, and died 1577. For an account of this eminent Jewish scholar, who
may be regarded as the father of Biblical criticism at the time of the
Reformation, see Dr. Alexander’s edition of Kitto’s Cyclopædia of
Biblical Literature, Article Rossi.
[18] Salmas. Plinian. exercitat. in Solinum cap. xxxv. p. 432, edit.
Ultraject.
[19] Comp. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden. Dritter Band, Zweite Auflage,
Leipzig. 1863, p. 464, &c.; Frankel, Programm des jüdisch-theol.
Seminars von 1854.
[20] Comp. Philonis Opera, ed. Mangey. London, 1742, vol. ii pp.
457–45.
[21] Josephus, who also mentions this fact, distinctly says that their
not offering sacrifices in the temple is owing to the different degree
of holiness which they practised. (Vide infra p. 228.) From the
repeated declarations in the Bible, that a life of uniform obedience
and faithful service is far more acceptable to God than the cattle of a
thousand hills (1 Sam. xv. 22; Ps. xl. 7; l. 7–14; li. 17; Prov. xxxi.
3; Isa. i. 11, 17; lxv. 3; Jer. vii. 21–23; Hos. vi. 6; xiv. 3; Micah,
vi. 6–8), the Essenes could easily be reconciled to their abstaining
from offering animal sacrifices, and would be led to attach infinitely
greater importance to the presenting of their bodies a living
sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God. (Comp. also Rom. xii. 1). This
circumstance led Petitius to the conclusion that Herod, who was
friendly to the Essenes in consequence of the favorable prophecy about
him uttered by the Essene Menahem (vide infra p. 50), employed them to
translate the Prophets and the Psalms into Greek, and that they availed
themselves of the opportunity to introduce their tenets and rites into
this version, now called the Septuagint. Thus, for instance, when David
said “Sacrifice and burnt offering thou didst not desire, mine ears
hast thou opened” (Ps. xl. 6), the Essenes rendered it “Sacrifice and
burnt offering thou dost not desire, but a body hast thou prepared me,”
interpolating three of their tenets. 1. They made the Prophet speak
absolutely, as if God had entirely rejected sacrifices because they
would offer him none. 2. By dropping the words, “mine ears hast thou
opened,” they showed their disapprobation of slavery. (Comp. Exod.
xxi). And 3, by substituting “a body hast thou prepared me,” they
understood the college of devout Essenes, who met together as a body,
and whom God appointed instead of sacrifice. Comp. Basnage, History of
the Jews, English translation. London, 1708, p. 128.
[22] This is not the only reason why the Essenes withdrew from cities.
Their observance of the Levitical laws of purity which rendered them
impure when they came in contact with those who did not live according
to the same rules, was the principal cause of their living separately.
(Vide supra p. 7, note 1.) Philo, however, states the first reason
because the Greeks, for whom he wrote, understood it better than the
second, which is so peculiarly Jewish in its character.
[23] The same thing Christ urged on his disciples. Comp. Matth. vi.
19–21.
[24] This simple desire for the supply of our daily bread, and the
contentment of mind here spoken of, are also commended by our Saviour.
(Matth. vi. 11, 25–34.)
[25] Believing that all they that take the sword shall perish with the
sword, Comp. Matth. xxvi. 52.
[26] The Apostle Paul, too, admonished the Colossians to “beware lest
any man spoil you through philosophy.” (Col. ii. 8.)
[27] Thus also Christ, when he was asked which was the greatest
commandment in the law, declared, love to God and love to our
neighbour, and that on these two hang all the law and the prophets.
(Comp. Matth. xxii. 36–40.)
[28] Although the taking of oaths was discountenanced by the Jews
generally (Comp. Ecclus. xxiii 11, &c.; and especially Philo De decem
oraculis § 17, Opp. Tom. ii. p. 194, &c., ed. Mangey); and the
Pharisees took great care to abstain as much as possible from using
them (Comp. Shevuoth 39, b; Gittin 35, a; Bemidbar Rabba c. xxii); yet
the Essenes were the only order who laid it down as a principle not to
swear at all, but to say yea, yea, and nay, nay. So firmly and
conscientiously did they adhere to it that Herod, who on ascending the
throne had exacted an oath of allegiance from all the rest of the Jews,
was obliged to absolve the Essenes from it. (Comp. Joseph. Antiq. book
xv. chap. x. § 4). Christ too, laid it down as a principle for his
disciples not to swear at all, but to say yea, yea, and nay, nay.
(Comp. Matth. v. 38–37.)
[29] This community of goods was also adopted by the early Christians,
who, as we are told, “sold their possessions and goods, and parted them
to all as every man needed.”—(Comp. Acts, ii. 45, iv. 34, 35.)
[30] The account here given of the sufferings of the Essenes bears a
very striking resemblance to the description in the Epistle to the
Hebrews xi. 36–38; and it may be that the Apostle refers to this
extraordinary brotherhood.
[31] This fragment which Eusebius has preserved is given in Philo’s
Works, ed. Mangey, vol. ii., p. 622, seq.
[32] The tracing of this brotherhood to Moses is in accordance with the
practice which generally prevailed among the Jews of ascribing the
origin of every law, mystical doctrine or system, which came into vogue
in the course of time, either to Ezra, Moses, Noah or Adam. Thus we are
told in the Jerusalem Talmud (Pea, ii. 6), and the Midrash (Coheleth,
96 d.), that all the Scriptural learning which developed itself in
course of time, and everything which a Talmid Vatic might bring to
light, were revealed to Moses beforehand on Mount Sinai.
[33] This refers to juvenile members of the fraternity, as the Essenes
did adopt children, and trained them up to the practices of the order.
Vide infra p. 41.
[34] The four companies here mentioned most probably refer to the four
different classes into which the Essenes were divided, described more
minutely by Josephus. Vide infra, p. 47, note 45.
[35] So also the Apostle Paul recommends us not to be slothful in
business, but fervent in spirit, serving the Lord.—(Rom. xii, 11.)
[36] That is if he belongs to the class of Essenes who practised
celibacy; for there were those among them who had wives and families.
Vide infra p. 49.
[37] The Mosaic law regards conjugal intercourse as polluting, and
enjoins bathing after it (Levit. xv. 18.) Hence, when the children of
Israel had to sanctify themselves in the highest degree, so as to be
fit to receive the law from Mount Sinai, they were commanded not to
approach their wives (Exod. xix. 15). Hence, also, those who had the
charge of the shew-bread polluted the sacred loaves by going to their
wives (1 Sam. xxi. 4). And hence the remark of the Apostle Paul, that
in order to give themselves to fasting and prayer, man and wife may
keep aloof from each other by mutual consent (1 Cor. vii. 5). The same
laws obtained among all nations of antiquity. Thus, among the
Egyptians, Babylonians, Arabians, Greeks and Romans, both man and wife
had to bathe after connubial intercourse (Herod., i. 198). No one was
allowed to go after it to the temple without bathing (Herod., ii. 64;
Suet. Aug. xciv. 5; Pers. ii. 50, &c.); and the priests had to abstain
from approaching their wives when they were ministering in holy things
(Porphyrius, de Abstinentia, lib. ii. 50; iv. 7; Plutarch. Sympos. iii.
6; Tibul. lib. ii. Eleg. 1, 11, &c.; Ovid. Metam. x. 434, &c.) Now, as
the Essenes strove to be in a perpetual state of sanctification,
regarded their refectory as a sanctuary and their meals as sacraments,
and most anxiously avoided contact with every thing that defiled, they
had of necessity to extend these Mosaic laws, which enjoin abstinence
from connubial intercourse as a means of sanctification, and which
regard those who indulged in it as defiled, to the whole course of
their life; and they had therefore to be celibates. This extension of
the Mosaic law was moreover deemed desirable in consequence of the
general conviction which the Jews entertained, in common with other
nations, that no woman remains faithful to her husband, and that they
all defile the bed of marriage. Philo, in the passage before us, and
Josephus, as we shall see afterwards (vide infra p. 41, § 2), only give
the latter reason, to suit their Greek readers who could both
understand it better and sympathise with it more than with the former.
[38] This is simply a repetition of what the Essenes themselves said
about their origin, in accordance with a common practice among the
Jews.—Vide supra p. 36, note 14.
[39] This representation of the three Jewish sects as different
philosophical schools, and the supposed resemblance of the Essenes to
the Pythagoreans, which he mentions afterwards, (vide infra Antiq. xv.
10; § 4, p. 50) and which have misled modern writers, are nothing but a
desire on the part of Josephus to make the divers teachings of his
co-religionists correspond to the different systems of Greek
philosophy. It is this anxiety to shew the Gentiles, for whom he wrote,
how much the Jews resemble them both in doctrine and practice, which
detracts from the merits of Josephus’ history.
[40] This love for the brotherhood, which the Essenes possessed to so
extraordinary a degree, was also urged by the Evangelists and Apostles
on the early Christians (comp. John xiv. 17; Rom. xiii. 8; 1 Tim. iv.
9; 1 Peter i. 28; xi. 17; 1 John iii. 23; iv. 7, 11; v. 2).
[41] This does not contradict Philo’s remark (vide supra p. 37), as
Herzfeld supposes, (Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. ii. p. 375);
since the two statements refer to two different things. The former
affirms that they do not receive children into the noviciate, whilst
the latter speaks of their adopting and educating them, which is a
distinct thing from becoming a novice.
[42] Vide supra, p. 39, note 19.
[43] So our Lord urged on the young man, who lived so exemplary a life
in the performance of God’s law, and whom he loved, that unless he gave
up his property he could not follow him (comp. Matth. xix. 21; Mark x.
21; Luke xviii. 22), and commanded his disciples to sell all their
possessions and distribute the money among the poor (comp. Luke xii.
33.)
[44] Ointment being a luxury (comp. Eccl. ix. 8; Dan. x. 2), the
Essenes regarded the use of it as extravagance, and contrary to the
simplicity of their manner of life.
[45] The manner in which Christ commanded his disciples to depart on
their journey (Mark vi. 8–10) is the same which these pious Essenes are
here said to have adopted. This also explains the injunction given by
our Saviour to his disciples in Luke xxii. 36, about taking arms with
them, which has so greatly perplexed commentators who were unacquainted
with the customs of the Essenes.
[46] The Pharisees, too, had a steward in every place to supply the
needy with clothing and food. (Comp. Pea viii. 7; Baba Bathra 8 a;
Sabbath 118.)
[47] Comp. also Luke x. 4, &c.
[48] Some translate it “they offer prayer (εἰς τὸν ἥλιον) to the sun.”
But it is utterly inconceivable that the Essenes, who were such
thorough Jews, and so exemplary for their adoration of the Holy One of
Israel, would be guilty of idolatry by worshipping the sun. Besides,
the prayer in question is described as one transmitted by the fathers.
And can it be imagined that there existed among the Jews a national
prayer to this luminary in direct violation of the first commandment,
and of what is so expressly forbidden in Deut. iv. 10? The prayer
therefore here spoken of is the well known national morning hymn of
praise (המאיר לארץ) for the return of the light of the day, which
still forms a part or the Jewish service to the present day. Comp.
Berachoth 9 b; Rappaport in the Bikure Ha-Ittim, vol. x., Vienna 1829,
p. 115, and infra p. 69.
[49] This practice of bathing before meals was also common among the
Pharisees (comp. Chagiga, 18, b), and as the Essenes covered themselves
with their aprons so the Pharisees put on their Talith during their
baptisms. (Comp. Berachoth 24, b.)
[50] The Pharisees, too, regarded the refectory as a sanctuary, and
compared its table to the altar in the temple, because the altar in the
temple is represented as the table of the Lord (Ezekiel xli, 22).
Hence, R. Jochanan and R. Eleazar remark—“As long as the temple stood
the altar atoned for the sins of Israel, but now it is man’s table
which atones for his sins.” (Talmud Berachoth, 55a). Hence the Chaldee
paraphrase of Ezekiel xii. 22, and the remarks of Rashi and Kimchi on
this passage, which cannot be understood unless this traditional
interpretation is borne in mind. Comp. also Aboth iii, 3.
[51] This was also the practice of the Pharisees, and is to the present
day the custom among the orthodox Jews.
[52] This paragraph almost embodies the sentiments uttered by our
Saviour in Matth. chap. v.
[53] These ancient books on magical cures and exorcisms were the
reputed works of Solomon, who, according to the Talmud as well as the
Byzantine and Arabian writers, composed treatises on miraculous cures
and driving out evil spirits. (Comp. Pesachim 56 a; Fabricius, Codex
pseudepigraphus Vet. Test. p. 1042, &c.; Weil, Biblische Legenden der
Muselmänner, p. 225–279). Josephus tells us elsewhere that some of
these Solomonic productions still existed in his own days, and that he
had actually seen demons driven out and people cured by their aid.
(Comp. Antiq. book viii. chap. ii. § 5.) This account most strikingly
illustrates what Christ says in Matth. xii. 27.
[54] This custom has its origin in the extension of a Mosaic law. The
hosts of the Lord are commanded in Deut. xxiii 13, 15, to have spades
among the martial instruments in order to bury therewith their
excrements without the camp, and thus to keep themselves pure from
every pollution, and to be a holy camp, because the Holy One of Israel
dwells in the midst thereof. Now as the Essenes strove to be, in a
pre-eminent sense, the spiritual hosts of the Lord, every one of them
was obliged to have this spade in order to guard their sacred camp from
defilement. For this reason the apron was also given to cover their
nakedness in their numerous baptisms, and thus to keep their thoughts
from dwelling upon anything which might lead to impurity; whilst the
white garment was the symbol of their holiness. This, however, was not
peculiar to the Essenes, as the Talmud tells us that when any one
applied to become a member of the Pharisaic order (חבר), he had to
pass through a noviciate of twelve months, at the expiration of which
he received a sort of garment called כנפים, and having duly qualified
himself in this stage, he was afterwards admitted to the holier
lustrations (מקבלין לכנסּים ואחר כד מקבלין לטהרות). (Comp. Tosifta
Demai e. 11; Jerusalem Demai ii. 3; Babylonian Becharoth 30, 6).
[55] This was the only occasion on which the Essenes were permitted to
take an oath.
[56] This does not refer to governments generally, as Gfrörer will have
it (Philo und die jüdisch-alexandrinische Theosophie, vol. ii, p. 333,
&c.), but to the office of overseer or steward among the brotherhood,
as is evident from the immediately following statement, which most
unquestionably pledges every Essene to retain his simplicity of
character if he should ever attain to any official position or
stewardship in the order.
[57] This is not peculiar to the Essenes. The Pharisees, too, would not
indiscriminately propound the mysteries of the cosmogony and the
theosophy, which, according to them, are contained in the history of
the Creation and in the vision of Ezekiel, except to those who were
regularly initiated in the order. Comp. Mishna Chagiga, ii, 1.
[58] This evidently refers to the secrets of the Tetragrammaton, and
the angelology which played so important a part among the Jewish
mystics from time immemorial. Comp. Wisdom of Solomon vii. 20; Mishna
Chagiga, ii, 1.
[59] The reason why he ate herbs and not bread, or the simple dish
which the order generally took, is that, being bound by an oath to
observe the practices of the brotherhood, he could only accept meals
from those who lived according to the highest degree of purity (על
טהרת חטאת), and who, as a matter of course, kept their meals according
to this degree. But as such a mode of life was of very uncommon
occurrence, the excommunicated Essene was obliged to live on herbs or
vegetables which he had to pluck himself; for, according to the Talmud,
plants are only then considered unclean when they are cut off and water
is poured upon them (משהוכשרו לקבל טומאה משנתלשו). As for Josephus’
saying that he died a miserable death, and that he could only eat grass
(ποιηφάγων), this is simply another instance of his exaggerating and
colouring his subject.
[60] The Pharisees, too, regarded ten persons as constituting a
complete number for divine worship, held the assembling of such a
number as sacred, and would not spit in their presence. (Comp.
Berâchoth 51 a; Jerusalem Berachoth iii. 5; Aboth iii. 6.)
[61] This is not peculiar to the Essenes; for the Pharisees, too, would
not remove a vessel on the Sabbath (comp. Tosifta Succa, iii); and the
orthodox Jews, to the present day, will not even carry a handkerchief
on the Sabbath; they tie it round the body to serve as a girdle, so
that it might not be said that they carry the weight of even so small a
thing on the sacred day. Comp. also Mark xi, 16.
[62] Neither is this peculiar to the Essenes; for not only did the
Pharisees of old do the same (comp. Ioma 28, a); but the orthodox Jews
of the present day wash after performing the duties of nature.
[63] This division of the brotherhood into four classes, as well as the
impurity contracted by the higher class when touching one who belonged
to a lower class of purity, also existed among the Pharisees. (Vide
supra, p. 7, note 1.)
[64] Philo, too, speaks of this fact. (Vide supra p. 36.)
[65] This is another instance of the anxiety of Josephus to make the
different phases of Judaism harmonise with the Greek mode of thinking.
[66] It is evident that Josephus, as an orthodox and pious Jew, cannot
mean by εἱμαρμένη the Fatum of the Stoics, which was above the deities;
but intends to convey thereby the idea of eternal counsels and
predestination spoken of in the Bible. Indeed, elsewhere Josephus tells
us distinctly that “the doctrine of the Essenes delights to leave all
things to God” (vide infra p. 52); so that that which is in the one
case ascribed to fate, is in the other ascribed to God.
[67] No more regard is to be paid to this remark, that the Essenes are
like the Pythagoreans, than to the assertion which Josephus makes
afterwards that they are related in their manner of life to the
Polistae, (vide infra p. 53), as his aim was to shew how much the
Jewish sects resembled the Greek systems of philosophy. Comp. p. 41,
note 21.
[68] The fact that Menahem saw Herod in Jerusalem, and that the Essene
Judah, as Josephus tells us elsewhere (comp. Jewish War, book i. chap.
iii. § 5; Antiq. book xiii. chap. xi. § 2), foretold in the temple the
death of Antigones, clearly shows that the Essenes did not at first
form a separate community, but lived together with the rest of their
Jewish brethren.
[69] Pliny, whom Solinus copies, simply says that the Essenes live in
the society of palm-trees (socia palmarum), to form an antithesis with
the appellation a solitary community (sola gens); and this is perfectly
correct. But Solinus’ alteration of it into “palm-berries are their
food” (palmis victitant) is incorrect, inasmuch as they lived from the
cultivation of the land, bees, &c.
[70] This is simply a reiteration of what Pliny says about the
antiquity of the Essenes.
[71] This work of Josephus, addressed to the Greeks, is no longer
extant.
[72] This is simply imaginary; the real reason for it was, that they
could not dig on the Sabbath the hole that was requisite for it
without, as they thought, violating the sanctity of the day, as to do
so was considered a labour.
[73] This unjust remark about the Essenes, whose exemplary virtues and
self-denying life elicited the unqualified admiration of Jews, Greeks,
and Romans, is just what might be expected from the bigoted persecutor
of heretics, amongst whom he put no less a person than St. Chrysostom.
[74] This name may be derived from the Hebrew Shemesh (שמש) sun, and
was most probably given to the Essenes, because of the erroneous notion
that they worshipped the sun.
[75] The whole of this account is worse than useless, inasmuch as it
not only gives us no information whatever about this interesting order,
but is positively misleading.
[76] Comp. Meor Enajim, edit. Mantua. 1547, fol. 88 b.
[77] אנטיגנוס איש סוכו קבל משמעון הצדיק הוא היה אמר אל תהיו כעבדים
המשמשים את הרב על מנת לקבל פרס אלא היו כעברים המשמשים את הרב שלא על מנת
לקבל פרס ויהי מורא שמיס עליכם כדי שיהיה שכרכם כפול: לעתיד לבא: אנטיגנוס
איש סוכו היו לו שני תלמידים שהיו שונין בדבריו שונין היו לתלמידים
ותלמידים לתלמידיהם עמרו ודקדקו אחריהן ואמרו מה ראו אבותינו לומר אפשר
שיעשה פועל מלאכה כל היום ולא יטול שכרו ערבית אלא אילו יודעין אבותינו
שיש העולם (אחר) ויש תחיית המתים לא היו אומרים כך עמדו ופירשו מי התורה
ונפרצו מהם שתי פרצות צדוקים וביתוסין צדוקים על שום צדוק ביתוסין על שום
ביתוס שהיה משתמש בכלי זהב וכלי כסף כל ימיו לא היתה דעתו גסה עליו אלא
צדוקים אומרים מסורה בית פרושים שהן מצערין עצמן בעולם הזה ובעולם הבא אין
להם כלום
[78] Comp. Moses and Aaron: Civil and Ecclesiastical Rites used by the
Ancient Hebrews, eighth edition (London, 1672), book i, chap, xii, p.
50–59.
[79] The Court of the Gentiles. Pt. ii of “Philosophy,” Oxford, 1671,
p. 147, &c.
[80] The Old and New Testaments Connected, seventeenth editions, vol.
iii. London, 1815, part ii, book v, p. 406–431.
[81] The History of the Jews, from Jesus Christ to the present day.
London, 1708, p. 125–137.
[82] Jewish Antiquities; or a Course of Lectures on the two first books
of Godwyn’s Moses and Aaron, ninth edition. London, 1837, book i.,
chap. xii, p. 281–287.
[83] Geschichtliche Nachrichten aus dem Alterthume über Essäer und
Therapeuten. Berlin, 1821.
[84] General History of the Christian Religion and Church, English
Translation, Clark’s Theological Library, vol. i, Edinburgh, 1851, p.
58–66.
[85] Rappaport, in the Hebrew Annual, entitled Bikure Ha-Ittim, vol. x,
Vienna, 1829, p. 118 ff.
[86] Comp. Kritische Geschichte des Urchristenthums. 1 Theil Philo und
die jüdish-alexandrianische Theosophie, 11 Abtheilung. Stuttgart, 1835.
p. 299–356.
[87] Diese Trennung nun aber unter ben Anhängern der
jüdisch-alexandrinischen Religionsphilosophie selbst in solche, welche
sich ausschliesslich dem beschaulichen und in Andere, welche sich
vorzugsweise dem praktischen Leben widmeten, ist es eben, welche sich
in unserem fraglichen Doppelorden auch äusserlich repräsentirte,
sodass, wenn schon beide ganz auf derselben philosophischen Unterlage
ruhten, die Therapeuten sich möglichst ausschliesslich und unmittelbar
dem höchsten von ihnen angestrebten menschlichen Lebensziele, der
Anschauung Gottes selbst, hingaben, während die Essäer gewissermassen
freiwillig in dem Vorhofe zum Allerheiligsten zögernd, sich absichtlich
und zum Besten der Brüder häufiger in Berührung setzten mit dem
Sinnlichen, als es die Naturnothwendigkeit foderte und so ihre eigene
höchste Vollkommenheit und Seligkeit zwar grossmuthig, aber gewiss auch
unphilosophisch genug augenblicklich noch verkümmerten.
[88] Comp. Ersch und Gruber’s Allgemeine Encyklopädie, section i. vol.
xxxviii, p. 173–192.
[89] Comp. Frankel, Zeitschrift für die religiösen Interessen des
Judenthums, vol. iii. Berlin, 1846, p. 441–461.
[90] Comp. The Biblical Repository and Classical Review. New York,
1847, p. 162–173.
[91] Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Vierter Band. Göttingen, 1852, p.
419–428.
[92] Comp. Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums,
Zweiter Jahrgang. Leipzig, 1853, p. 30–40; 61–73.
[93] Ich nehme diese auf kritischer Forschung, beruhenden Resultate
über diese Secte vollständig an und werde nur noch einige Pünkte
nachträglich beleuchten.
[94] Die Eigenthümlichkeiten der Essäer lassen sich nicht genügend aus
dem Wesen der im Talmud vorkommenden חסידים oder חסידים הראשנים und
der in der Makkabäerzeit auftretenden “Assidäer” erklären; man muss
auch auf das nasiräische Wesen Rücksicht nehmen. Nasiräer gab es in der
nachexilischen Zeit eine grosse Menge (Tosifta Nasir c. iv. Babli
Berachot 48 a. 1 Makkab. ii, 49. Jos. Alterth. xviii, 6, 1). Aber sie
trugen zugleich einen andern Charakter, als die der biblischen Zeit:
sie waren Nasiräer fürs ganze Leben נזיר עולם (Nasir 4 a). Die
Mischna setzt das Vorhandensein solcher ohne Weiteres voraus, und das
Magische an dem Nasiräerthum, das sich bei den biblischen Nasiräern an
den Haarwuchs knüpfte, tritt immer mehr zurück, oder hat vielmehr gar
keine Bedeutung mehr. נזיר עולם הכביד שערו מיקל בשער (das.). Hingegen
tritt bei den lebenslänglichen Nasiräern das Levitische, die Hut vor
Verunreinigung, immer mehr in den Vordergrund (das.). Die Essäer werden
also solche Nasiräer gewesen sein, welche in ihrem Privatleben die
höchste priesterliche Weihe darstellen wollten. Den Zusammenhang
zwischen Nasiräern and Essäern deutet schon eine dunkle talmudische
Stelle an, dass Jemand sich dadurch schon dem vollständigen Nasireat
weiht, wenn er auch nur insofern Nasiräer sein will, um die Geheimnisse
entehrender Familienverhältnisse bewahren zu können: הריני נזיר אם לא
אגלה משפחות הרי זו נזיר ולא יגלה משפחות (Tosifta Nasir c. 1 b
Kiduschim 71 a). Die Erklärung dieser Stelle durch den Essenismus hat
schon Edeles (מהרש״א) in seinem Agadacommentar z. St. geahnt. Diesen
Zusammenhang zwischen Nasiräerthum und Essenismus haben Epiphanius und
die arabischen Schriftsteller Makrisi und Abulfarag’ geahnt; wenn auch
Epiphanius die Ναζαραῖοι von den Ὀσσηνοί unterscheidet, so sind die
Eigenheiten, die er von den Erstern berichtet, doch ganz essäisch.
Ebenso hat Makrisi die Essäer in drei Secten zerspalten, in die Täufer
(מנטהרון = ἡμεροβαπτισταί), die Essäer (אסאניון) und in die
Nasiräer (מתחשפון) (in de Sacy Chrestomathie Arabe Ausgabe von 1806,
arabischer Theil 172 und tome ii, 218). Das arabische Makkabäerbuch
bezeichnet die Essäer durch Chassidäer (c. xxv); in Josippon fehlen an
der Stelle, wo er von den drei Secten spricht, gerade die Essäer (iv,
6, Breithaupt) Die Identität von Nasiräern, Essäern und Assidäern wird
also von vielen Seiten bestätigt. Auch aus Josephus’ Angabe, die Essäer
hätten eigne Bücher gehabt (jüd. Kr. ii, 8, 7), lässt sich ihre
Identität mit den Assidäern erweisen. Im Talmud (Jeruschalmi Barachot,
Ende) wird aus einem Buchs der Chassidäer der Satz mitgetheilt:
“Verlässt du sie einen Tag, so verlässt sie dich zwei Tage”: כתוב בספר
חסידים אם תעובה יום יומים תעובך
[95] Geschichte der Juden, vol. iv. Leipzig, 1856, p. 96–106; 518–528.
[96] Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Secten, vol. 1. Leipzig,
1857, p. 207–215.
[97] Die Essäer waren die Baitusim, wie schon R. Asarja de’ Rossi
vermuthet hat; es muss dies nur besser begründet werden, als von ihm
geschehen ist. Ich bemerke zu dem Ende erstens, dass wie das
vorgesetzte בית auch in den Benennungen Bet-Schammaj, Bet-Hillel
Schule oder Fraction bedeutet, so Tosifta Kelim ii, 6 בית הכותים,
Chulin 6, a בי כותאי für die Sekte oder das Land der Cutim vorkommt;
sodann dass Tosifta Succa, K. iii zweimal und Tosifta Menachot K. z.
für Baitusim בית סין stehet: kann dies wohl etwas Anderes als Haus,
Sekte der Essener bedeuten? Als אסי (Arzt) Sektenname wurde, konnte
man den Essäer nicht gut mehr schlechthin אסי nennen, ohne undeutlich
zu werden, man umschrieb ihn daher wohl als Einen vom בית אסי,
bildete danach auch mit Zugrundelegung der Form Essener, das
nachgewiesene בית סין and zog dann Jenes zusammen, um den einzelnen
Essäer zu bezeichnen, gab aber dieser Form den u-Laut, entweder nachdem
man das syrische Wort אסי zuweilen nach syrischer Weise ôsseh, also
dunkel ausgesprochen hatte, woher die Aussprache Ossener bei Epiphanius
herrühren mag, oder was mir noch wahrscheinlicher ist, indem man dem
Worte Peruschim conform Zedukim und Baitusim bildete.
[98] Nach allem diesen scheint es, dass ein Jude, welcher mit der unter
den alexandrinischen Juden aufblühenden allegorischen Exegese und mit
deren Erzeugerin, der griechischen Weisheit, bekannt geworden war,
daneben aber auch Gelegenheit gefunden hatte, von ägyptischen Priestern
Manches zu lernen, wie Pythagoras selbst, Platon und Herodot, den Plan
gefasst und ausgeführt habe, eklektisch hieraus und aus dem Judenthume
ein speculatives und asketisches System sowie nach demselben aus
judäischen Asketen eine Sekte zu bilden. Dass es an Solchen nicht
gefehlt habe, verbürgt das Vorkommen von Nasiräern, z. B. nach Tosifta
Nasir K. iv unter Schimon dem Gerechten, ferner 1 Mack. iii, 49, und
von ihrer 300 auf einmal unter Schimon ben Schatach nach Nasir jer. v,
3. Dass er aber nicht mit jüdischen Asketen in Ägypten diesen Versuch
machte, geschah vielleicht, weil es damals dort noch an solchen Asketen
fehlte, oder weil er selbst aus Judäa gebürtig sein mochte.
[99] Geschichte des Volkes Israel von Vollendung des Zweiten Tempels
bis zur Einsetzung des Mackabäers Schimon zum hohen Priester und
Fürsten, Zweiter Band. Nordhausen, 1857, p. 368–377; 387–409.
[100] Die jüdische Apokalyptik in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung.
Jena, 1857, p. 245–278.
[101] Geschichte der Juden, Dritter Band Zweite Auflage. Leipzig, 1863,
p. 216–252.
[102] The History of the Jews from the earliest period down to modern
times. London, 1863, vol. ii. p. 110–115.
[103] “Sie lieferte zwar nicht wissenschaftliche Resultate, aber ihr
Leben deutet sattsam darauf hin, dass ihre Bestrebungen darauf
gerichtet waren, wie in Alexandrien, nur von einem andern Standpunct
ans, die Religion und die Wissenschaft zu versöhnen.” Der Geist der
ersten Schriftauslegungen order: Die hagadische Exegese. Berlin, 1847,
p. 114, &c.