2 Pet. ii. 10 sq., Jude 8.

Footnote 305:

Apoc. ii. 14, 20–22.

Footnote 306:

See the notes on Clem. Rom. _Ep._ ii. § 9.

[Sidenote: Asceticism of the Colossian heresy]

But the former and nobler extreme was the first impulse of the Gnostic.

To escape from the infection of evil by escaping from the domination of

matter was his chief anxiety. This appears very plainly in the Colossian

heresy. Though the prohibitions to which the Apostle alludes might be

explained in part by the ordinances of the Mosaic ritual, this

explanation will not cover all the facts. Thus for instance drinks are

mentioned as well as meats[307], though on the former the law of Moses

is silent. Thus again the rigorous denunciation, ‘Touch not, taste not,

handle not[308],’ seems to go very far beyond the Levitical enactments.

And moreover the _motive_ of these prohibitions [Sidenote: not explained

by its Judaism.] is Essene rather than Pharisaic, Gnostic rather than

Jewish. These severities of discipline were intended ‘to check

indulgence of the flesh[309].’ They professed to treat the body with

entire disregard, to ignore its cravings and to deny its wants. In

short; they betray a strong _ascetic_ tendency[310], of which normal

Judaism, as represented by the Pharisee, offers no explanation.

Footnote 307:

ii. 16.

Footnote 308:

ii. 21.

Footnote 309:

ii. 23.

Footnote 310:

Asceticism is of two kinds. There is the asceticism of dualism

(whether conscious or unconscious), which springs from a false

principle; and there is the asceticism of self-discipline, which is

the training of the Christian athlete (1 Cor. ix. 27). I need not say

that the remarks in the text apply only to the former.

[Sidenote: St Paul’s reply shows its Gnostic bearing.]

And St Paul’s answer points to the same inference. The difference will

appear more plainly, if we compare it with his treatment of Pharisaic

Judaism in the Galatian Church. This epistle offers nothing at all

corresponding to his language on that occasion; ‘If righteousness be by

law, then Christ died in vain’; ‘If ye be circumcised, Christ shall

profit you nothing’; ‘Christ is nullified for you, whosoever are

justified by law; ye are fallen from grace[311].’ The point of view in

fact is wholly changed. With these Essene or Gnostic Judaizers the

Mosaic law was neither the motive nor the standard, it was only the

starting point, of their austerities. Hence in replying the [Sidenote:

It is no longer the contrast of law and grace.] Apostle no longer deals

with law, as law; he no longer points the contrast of grace and works;

but he enters upon the _moral_ aspects of these ascetic practices. He

denounces them, as concentrating the thoughts on earthly and perishable

things[312]. He points out that they fail in their purpose, and are

found valueless against carnal indulgences[313]. In their place he

offers the true and only remedy against sin—the elevation of the inner

life in Christ, the transference of the affections into a higher

sphere[314], where the temptations of the flesh are powerless. Thus

dying with Christ, they will kill all their earthly members[315]. Thus

rising with Christ, they will be renewed in the image of God their

Creator[316].

Footnote 311:

Gal. ii. 21, v. 2, 4.

Footnote 312:

ii. 8, 20–22.

Footnote 313:

ii. 23 οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός: see the note on

these words.

Footnote 314:

iii. 1, 2.

Footnote 315:

iii. 3, 5.

Footnote 316:

iii. 10.

[Sidenote: The truth of the above result tested by]

In attempting to draw a complete portrait of the Colossian heresy from a

few features accidentally exhibited in St Paul’s epistle, it has been

necessary to supply certain links; and some assurance may not

unreasonably be required that this has not been done arbitrarily. Nor is

this security wanting. In all such cases the test will be twofold. The

result must be consistent with itself: and it must do no violence to the

historical conditions under which the phenomena arose.

[Sidenote: (1) Its inherent consistency and symmetry.]

1. In the present instance the former of these tests is fully satisfied.

The consistency and the symmetry of the result is its great

recommendation. The postulate of a Gnostic type brings the separate

parts of the representation into direct connexion. The speculative

opinions and the practical tendencies of the heresy thus explain, and

are explained by, each other. It is analogous to the hypothesis of the

comparative anatomist, who by referring the fossil remains to their

proper type restores the whole skeleton of some unknown animal from a

few bones belonging to different extremities of the body, and without

the intermediate and connecting parts. In the one case, as in the other,

the result is the justification of the postulate.

[Sidenote: (2) Its place in a historical sequence.]

2. And again; the historical conditions of the problem are carefully

observed. It has been shown already, that Judaism in the preceding age

had in one of its developments assumed a form which was the natural

precursor of the Colossian heresy. In order to complete the argument it

will be necessary to show that Christianity in the generation next

succeeding exhibited a perverted type, which was its natural outgrowth.

If this can be done, the Colossian heresy will take its proper place in

a regular historical sequence.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Continuance of this type of Judæo-Gnosticism in the

district.]

I have already pointed out, that the language of St John in the

Apocalypse, which was probably written within a few years of this

epistle, seems to imply the continuance in this district of the same

type of heresy which is here denounced by St Paul[317]. But the notices

in this book are not more definite than those of the Epistle to the

Colossians itself; and we are led to look outside the Canonical writings

for some more explicit evidence. Has early Christian history then

preserved any record of a distinctly Gnostic school existing on the

confines of the Apostolic age, which may be considered a legitimate

development of the phase of religious speculation that confronts us

here?

Footnote 317:

See above p. 41 sq.

[Sidenote: Heresy of Cerinthus.]

[Sidenote: His date and place.]

We find exactly the phenomenon which we are seeking in the heresy of

Cerinthus[318]. The time, the place, the circumstances, all agree. This

heresiarch is said to have been originally a native of Alexandria[319];

but proconsular Asia is allowed on all hands to have been the scene of

his activity as a teacher[320]. He lived and taught at the close of the

Apostolic age, that is, in the latest decade of the first century. Some

writers indeed make him an antagonist of St Peter and St Paul[321], but

their authority is not trustworthy, nor is this very early date at all

probable. But there can be no reasonable doubt that he was a

contemporary of St John, who was related by Polycarp to have denounced

him face to face on one memorable occasion[322], and is moreover said by

Irenæus to have written his Gospel with the direct object of confuting

his errors[323].

Footnote 318:

The relation of Cerinthus to the Colossian heresy is briefly indicated

by Neander _Planting of Christianity_ I. p. 325 sq. (Eng. Trans.). It

has been remarked by other writers also, both earlier and later. The

subject appeared to me to deserve a fuller investigation than it has

yet received.

Footnote 319:

Hippol. _Hær._ vii. 33 Αἰγυπτίων παιδείᾳ ἀσκηθείς, x. 21 ὁ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ

ἀσκηθείς, Theodoret. _Hær. Fab._ ii. 3 ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ πλεîστον διατρίψας

χρόνον.

Footnote 320:

Iren. i. 26. 1 ‘et Cerinthus autem quidam ... in Asia docuit,’

Epiphan. _Hær._ xxviii. 1 ἐγένετο δὲ οὗτος ὁ Κήρινθος ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ

διατρίβων, κἀκεῖσε τοῦ κηρύγματος τὴν ἀρχὴν πεποιημένος, Theodoret. 1.

c. ὕστερον εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν ἀφίκετο. The scene of his encounter with St

John in the bath is placed at Ephesus: see below, note 322.

Footnote 321:

Epiphanius (xxviii. 2 sq.) represents him as the ringleader of the

Judaizing opponents of the Apostles in the Acts and Epistles to the

Corinthians and Galatians. Philastrius (_Hær._ 36) takes the same

line.]

Footnote 322:

The well-known story of the encounter between St John and Cerinthus in

the bath is related by Irenæus (iii. 3. 4) on the authority of

Polycarp, who appears from the sequence of Irenæus’ narrative to have

told it at Rome, when he paid his visit to Anicetus; ὃς καὶ ἐπὶ

Ἀνικήτου ἐπιδημήσας τῄ Ῥώμῃ πολλοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν προειρημένων αἱρετικῶν

ἐπέστρεψεν ... καὶ εἰσὶν οἱ ἀκηκοότες αὐτοû ὅτι Ἰωάννης κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 323:

Iren. iii. II. 1.

[Sidenote: Cerinthus a link between Judaism and Gnosticism.]

‘Cerinthus,’ writes Neander, ‘is best entitled to be considered as the

intermediate link between the Judaizing and the Gnostic sects.’ ‘Even

among the ancients,’ he adds, ‘opposite reports respecting his doctrines

have been given from opposite points of view, according as the Gnostic

or the Judaizing element was exclusively insisted upon: and the dispute

on this point has been kept up even to modern times. In point of

chronology too Cerinthus may be regarded as representing the principle

in its transition from Judaism to Gnosticism[324].’

Footnote 324:

_Church History_ II. p. 42 (Bohn’s Trans.).

[Sidenote: Judaism still prominent in his system]

Of his Judaism no doubt has been or can be entertained. The gross

Chiliastic doctrine ascribed to him[325], even though it may have been

exaggerated in the representations of adverse writers, can only be

explained by a Jewish origin. His conception of the Person of Christ was

Ebionite, that is Judaic, in its main features[326]. He is said moreover

to have enforced the rite of circumcision and to have inculcated the

observance of sabbaths[327]. It is related also that the Cerinthians,

like the Ebionites, accepted the Gospel of St Matthew alone[328].’

Footnote 325:

See the _Dialogue of Caius and Proclus_ in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 28,

Dionysius of Alexandria, ib. vii. 25, Theodoret. l.c., Augustin.

_Hær._ 8.

Footnote 326:

See below p. 111.

Footnote 327:

Epiphan. _Hær._ xxviii. 4, 5, Philastr. _Hær._ 36, Augustin. l.c. The

statements of these writers would not carry much weight in themselves;

but in this instance they are rendered highly probable by the known

Judaism of Cerinthus.

Footnote 328:

Epiphan. _Hær._ xxviii. 5, xxx. 14, Philastr. _Hær._ 36.

[Sidenote: though Gnosticism is already aggressive.]

At the same time, it is said by an ancient writer that his adherence to

Judaism was only partial[329]. This limitation is doubtless correct. As

Gnostic principles asserted themselves more distinctly, pure Judaism

necessarily suffered. All or nearly all the early Gnostic heresies were

Judaic; and for a time a compromise was effected which involved more or

less concession on either side. But the ultimate incompatibility of the

two at length became evident, and a precarious alliance was exchanged

for an open antagonism. This final result however was not reached till

the middle of the second century: and meanwhile it was a question to

what extent Judaism was prepared to make concessions for the sake of

this new ally. Even the Jewish Essenes, as we have seen, departed from

the orthodox position in the matter of sacrifices; and if we possessed

fuller information, we should probably find that they made still larger

concessions than this. Of the Colossian heretics we can only form a

conjecture, but the angelology and angelolatry attributed to them point

to a further step in the same direction. As we pass from them to

Cerinthus we are [Sidenote: Gnostic element in his teaching.] no longer

left in doubt; for the Gnostic element has clearly gained the ascendant,

though it has not yet driven its rival out of the field. Two

characteristic features in his teaching especially deserve

consideration, both as evincing the tendency of his speculations and as

throwing back light on the notices in the Colossian Epistle.

Footnote 329:

Epiphan. _Hær._ xxviii. 1 προσέχειν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ ἀπὸ μέρους.

[Sidenote: 1. His Gnostic Cosmogony]

1. His cosmogony is essentially Gnostic. The great problem of creation

presented itself to him in the same aspect; and the solution which he

offered was generically the same. The world, he asserted, was not made

by the highest God, but by an angel or power far removed from, and

ignorant of, this supreme Being[330]. Other authorities describing his

system speak not of a single power, but of powers, as creating the

universe[331]; but all alike represent this demiurge, or these

demiurges, as ignorant of the absolute God. It is moreover stated that

he held the Mosaic law to have been given not by the supreme God

Himself, but by this angel, or one of these angels, who created the

world[332].

Footnote 330:

Iren. i. 26. 1 ‘Non a primo Deo factum esse mundum docuit, sed a

virtute quadam valde separata et distante ab ea principalitate quæ est

super universa, et ignorante eum qui est super omnia Deum’; Hippol.

_Hær._ vii. 33 ἔλεγεν οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦ πρώτου Θεοῦ γεγονέναι τὸν κόσμον,

ἀλλ’ ὑπὸ δυνάμέως τινος κεχωρισμένης τῆς ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα ἐξουσίας καὶ

ἀγνοοῦσης τὸν ὑπὲρ πάντα Θεόν, x. 21 ὑπὸ δυνάμεώς τινος ἀγγελικῆς,

πολὺ κεχωρισμένης καὶ διεστώσης τῆς ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα αὐθεντίας καὶ

ἀγνοουσης τὸν ὑπὲρ πάντα Θεόν.

Footnote 331:

Pseudo-Tertull. _Hær._ 3 ‘Carpocrates præterea hanc tulit sectam: Unam

esse dicit virtutem in superioribus principalem, ex hac prolatos

angelos atque virtutes, quos distantes longe a superioribus virtutibus

mundum istum in inferioribus partibus condidisse.... Post hunc

Cerinthus hæreticus erupit, similia docens. Nam et ipse mundum

institutum esse ab illis dicit’; Epiphan. _Hær._ xxviii. 1 ἕνα εἶναι

τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν τὸν κόσμον πεποιηκότων; Theodoret. H. F. ii. 3 ἕνα μὲν

εἶναι τὸν τῶν ὅλων Θεόν, οὐκ αὐτὸν δὲ εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου δημιουργόν,

ἀλλὰ δυνάμεις τινὰς κεχωρισμένας καὶ παντελῶς αὐτὸν ἀγνοούσας;

Augustin. _Hær._ 8. The one statement is quite reconcilable with the

other. Among those angels by whose instrumentality the world was

created, Cerinthus appears to have assigned a position of preeminence

to one, whom he regarded as the demiurge in a special sense and under

whom the others worked; see Neander _Church History_ II. p. 43.

Footnote 332:

Pseudo-Tertull. l.c.; Epiphan. _Hær._ xxviii. 4 τὸν δεδωκότα νόμον ἕνα

εἶναι τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν τὸν κόσμον πεποιηκότων.

[Sidenote: and consequent angelology.]

From these notices it is plain that angelology had an important place in

his speculations; and that he employed it to explain the existence of

evil supposed to be inherent in the physical world, as well as to

account for the imperfections of the old dispensation. The ‘remote

distance’ of his angelic demiurge from the supreme God can hardly be

explained except on the hypothesis of _successive_ generations of these

intermediate agencies. Thus his solution is thoroughly Gnostic. At the

same time, as contrasted with later and more sharply defined Gnostic

systems, the Judaic origin and complexion of his cosmogony is obvious.

His intermediate agencies still retain the name and the personality of

angels, and have not yet given way to those vague idealities which, as

emanations [Sidenote: Angels of earlier and æons of later Gnostics.] or

æons, took their place in later speculations. Thus his theory is linked

on to the angelology of later Judaism founded on the angelic appearances

recorded in the Old Testament narrative. And again: while later Gnostics

represent the demiurge and giver of the law as antagonistic to the

supreme and good God, Cerinthus does not go beyond postulating his

ignorance. He went as far as he could without breaking entirely with the

Old Testament and abandoning his Judaic standing-ground.

[Sidenote: Cerinthus a link between the Colossian heresy and later

Gnosticism.]

In these respects Cerinthus is the proper link between the incipient

gnosis of the Colossian heretics and the mature gnosis of the second

century. In the Colossian epistle we still breathe the atmosphere of

Jewish angelology, nor is there any trace of the _æon_ of later

Gnosticism[333]; while yet speculation is so far advanced that the

angels have an important function in explaining the mysteries of the

creation and government of the world. On the other hand it has not

reached the point at which we find it in Cerinthus. Gnostic conceptions

respecting the relation of the demiurgic agency to the supreme God would

appear to have passed through three stages. This relation was

represented first, as imperfect appreciation; next, as entire ignorance;

lastly, as direct antagonism. The second and third are the standing

points of Cerinthus and of the later Gnostic teachers respectively. The

first was probably the position of the Colossian false teachers. The

imperfections of the natural world, they would urge, were due to the

limited capacities of these angels to whom the demiurgic work was

committed, and to their imperfect sympathy with the supreme God; but at

the same time they might fitly receive worship as mediators between God

and man; and indeed humanity seemed in its weakness to need the

intervention of some such beings less remote from itself than the

highest heaven.

Footnote 333:

I am quite unable to see any reference to the Gnostic conception of an

_æon_ in the passages of the New Testament, which are sometimes quoted

in support of this view, e.g., by Baur Paulus p. 428, Burton

_Lectures_ p. 111 sq.

[Sidenote: 2. His Christology.]

2. Again the Christology of Cerinthus deserves attention from this point

of view. Here all our authorities are agreed. As a Judaizer Cerinthus

held with the Ebionites that Jesus was only the son of Joseph and Mary,

born in the natural way. As a Gnostic he maintained that the Christ

first descended in the form of a dove on the carpenter’s son at his

baptism; that He revealed to him the unknown Father, and worked miracles

through him: and that at length He took His flight and left him, so that

Jesus alone suffered and rose, while the Christ remained

impassible[334]. It would appear also, though this is not certain, that

he described this re-ascension of the Christ, as a return ‘to His own

_pleroma_[335].’

Footnote 334:

Iren. i. 26. 1, Hippol. _Hær._ vii. 33, x. 21, Epiphan. _Hær._ xxviii.

1, Theodoret. _H. F._ ii. 3. The arguments by which Lipsius

(_Gnosticismus_ pp. 245, 258, in Ersch u. Gruber; _Quellenkritik des

Epiphanios_ p. 118 sq.) attempts to show that Cerinthus did not

separate the Christ from Jesus, and that Irenæus (and subsequent

authors copying him) have wrongly attributed to this heretic the

theories of later Gnostics, seem insufficient to outweigh these direct

statements. It is more probable that the system of Cerinthus should

have admitted some foreign elements not very consistent with his

Judaic standing point, than that these writers should have been

misinformed. Inconsistency was a necessary condition of Judaic

Gnosticism. The point however is comparatively unimportant as

affecting my main purpose.

Footnote 335:

Irenæus (iii. 11. 1), after speaking of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans,

proceeds ‘non, quemadmodum illi dicunt, alterum quidem fabricatorem

(i.e. demiurgum), alium autem Patrem Domini: et alium quidem

fabricatoris filium, alterum vero de superioribus Christum, quem et

impassibilem perseverasse, descendentem in Jesum filium fabricatoris,

et iterum _revolasse in suum pleroma_.’ The doctrine is precisely that

which he has before ascribed to Cerinthus (i. 26. 1), but the mode of

statement may have been borrowed from the Nicolaitans or from some

later Gnostics. There is however no improbability in the supposition

that Cerinthus used the word pleroma in this way; see the detached

note on πλήρωμα below.

[Sidenote: Approach towards Cerinthian Christology in the Colossian

heresy.]

Now it is not clear from St Paul’s language what opinions the Colossian

heretics held respecting the person of our Lord; but we may safely

assume that he regarded them as inadequate and derogatory. The emphasis,

with which he asserts the eternal being and absolute sovereignty of

Christ, can hardly be explained in any other way. But individual

expressions tempt us to conjecture that the same ideas were already

floating in the air, which ultimately took form and consistency in the

tenets of Cerinthus. Thus, when he reiterates the statement that the

_whole_ pleroma abides _permanently_ in Christ[336], he would appear to

be tacitly refuting some opinion which maintained only mutable and

imperfect relations between the two. When again he speaks of the true

gospel first taught to the Colossians as the doctrine of ‘the Christ,

_even_ Jesus the Lord[337],’ his language might seem to be directed

against the tendency to separate the heavenly Christ from the earthly

Jesus, as though the connexion were only transient. When lastly he

dwells on the work of reconciliation, as wrought ‘through the blood of

Christ’s cross,’ ‘in the body of His flesh through death[338],’ we may

perhaps infer that he already discerned a disposition to put aside

Christ’s passion as a stumbling-block in the way of philosophical

religion. Thus regarded, the Apostle’s language gains force and point;

though no stress can be laid on explanations which are so largely

conjectural.

Footnote 336:

i. 19, ii. 9. See above p. 102, note 295. On the force of κατοικεῖν

see the note on the earlier of the two passages.

Footnote 337:

ii. 6 παρελάβετε τὸν Χριστόν, Ἰησοῦν τὸν Κύριον.

Footnote 338:

i. 20, 22.

[Sidenote: The Gnosticism of the Colossians being vague and

undeveloped.]

But if so, the very generality of his language shows that these

speculations were still vague and fluctuating. The difference which

separates these heretics from Cerinthus may be measured by the greater

precision and directness in the Apostolic counter-statement, as we turn

from the Epistle to the Colossians to the Gospel of St John. In this

interval, extending over nearly a quarter of a century, speculation had

taken a definite shape. The elements of Gnostic theory, which were

before held in solution, had meanwhile crystallized around the facts of

the Gospel. Yet still we seem justified, even at the earlier date, in

speaking of these general ideas as Gnostic, guarding ourselves at the

same time against misunderstanding with the twofold caution, that we

here employ the term to express the simplest and most elementary

conceptions of this tendency of thought, and that we do not postulate

its use as a distinct designation of any sect or sects at this early

date. Thus limited, the view that the writer of this epistle is

combating a Gnostic heresy seems free from all objections, while it

appears necessary to explain his language; and certainly it does not, as

is sometimes imagined, place any weapon in the hands of those who would

assail the early date and Apostolic authorship of the epistle.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_On some points connected with the Essenes._

I.

THE NAME ESSENE.

[Sidenote: Various forms of the name in Greek.]

The name is variously written in Greek;

1. Ἐσσηνός: Joseph. _Ant._ xiii. 5. 9, xiii. 10. 6, xv. 10. 5, xviii. 1.

2, 5, _B.J._ ii. 8. 2, 13, _Vit._ 2; Plin. _N.H._ v. 15. 17 (Essenus);

Dion Chrys. in Synes. _Dion_ 3; Hippol. _Hær._ ix. 18, 28 (MS ἐσηνός);

Epiphan. _Hær._ p. 28 sq, 127 (ed. Pet.).

2. Ἐσσαῖος: Philo II. pp. 457, 471, 632 (ed. Mang.); Hegesippus in

Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 22; Porphyr. _de Abstin._ iv. 11. So too Joseph.

_B.J._ ii. 7. 3, ii. 20. 4, iii. 2. 1; _Ant._ xv. 10. 4; though in the

immediate context of this last passage he writes Ἐσσηνός, if the

common texts may be trusted.

3. Ὀσσαῖος: Epiphan. _Hær._ pp. 40 sq., 125, 462. The common texts very

frequently make him write Ὀσσηνός, but see Dindorf’s notes, Epiphan.

_Op._ 1. pp. 380, 425. With Epiphanius the Essenes are a Samaritan,

the Ossæans a Judaic sect. He has evidently got his information from

two distinct sources, and does not see that the same persons are

intended.

4. Ιἐσσαῖος, Epiphan. _Hær._ p. 117. From the connexion the same sect

again seems to be meant: but owing to the form Epiphanius conjectures

(οἶμαι) that the name is derived from Jesse, the father of David.

[Sidenote: All etymologies to be rejected which derive the name.]

If any certain example could be produced where the name occurs in any

early Hebrew or Aramaic writing, the question of its derivation would

probably be settled; but in the absence of a single decisive instance a

wide field is opened for conjecture, and critics have not been backward

in availing themselves of the license. In discussing the claims of the

different etymologies proposed we may reject:

[Sidenote: (i) From the Greek;]

_First_: derivations from the Greek. Thus Philo connects the word with

ὅσιος ‘holy’: _Quod omn. prob._ 12, p. 457 Ἐσσαῖοι ... διαλέκτου

ἑλληνικῆς παρώνυμοι ὁσιότητος, § 13, p. 459 τῶν Ἐσσαίων ἢ ὁσίων,

_Fragm._ p. 632 καλοῦνται μὲν Ἐσσαῖοι, παρὰ τὴν ὁσιότητα, μοὶ δοκῶ

[δοκεῖ;], τῆς προσηγορίας ἀξιωθέντες. It is not quite clear whether

Philo is here playing with words after the manner of his master Plato,

or whether he holds a pre-established harmony to exist among different

languages by which similar sounds represent similar things, or whether

lastly he seriously means that the name was directly derived from the

Greek word ὅσιος. The last supposition is the least probable; but he

certainly does not reject this derivation ‘as incorrect’ (Ginsburg

_Essenes_ p. 27), nor can παρώνυμοι ὁσιότητος be rendered ‘from an

incorrect derivation from the Greek homonym _hosiotes_’ (ib. p. 32),

since the word παρώνυμος never involves the notion of _false_ etymology.

The amount of truth which probably underlies Philo’s statement will be

considered hereafter. Another Greek derivation is ἴσος, ‘companion,

associate,’ suggested by Rapoport, _Erech Millin_ p. 41. Several others

again are suggested by Löwy, s.v. Essäer, e.g. ἔσω from their esoteric

doctrine, or αἶσα from their fatalism. All such may be rejected as

instances of ingenious trifling, if indeed they deserve to be called

ingenious.

[Sidenote: (ii) From names of persons or places;]

_Secondly_: derivations from proper names whether of persons or of

places. Thus the word has been derived from _Jesse_ the father of David

(Epiphan. l.c.), or from one ישי Isai, the disciple of R. Joshua ben

Perachia who migrated to Egypt in the time of Alexander Jannæus (Löw in

_Ben Chananja_ i. p. 352). Again it has been referred to the town _Essa_

(a doubtful reading in Joseph. _Ant._ xiii. 15. 3) beyond the Jordan.

And other similar derivations have been suggested.

[Sidenote: From Hebrew roots not supplying the right consonants,]

_Thirdly_: etymologies from the Hebrew or Aramaic, which do not supply

the right consonants, or do not supply them in the right order. Under

this head several must be rejected;

אסר _āsar_ ‘to bind,’ Adler _Volkslehrer_ VI. p. 50, referred to by

Ginsburg _Essenes_ p. 29.

חסיד _chāsīd_ ‘pious,’ which is represented by Ἀσιδαῖος (1 Macc. ii. 42

(v. l.), vii. 13, 2 Macc. xiv. 6), and could not possibly assume the

form Ἐσσαῖος or Ἐσσηνός. Yet this derivation appears in Josippon ben

Gorion (iv. 6, 7, v. 24, pp. 274, 278, 451), who substitutes

_Chasidim_ in narratives where the Essenes are mentioned in the

original of Josephus; and it has been adopted by many more recent

writers.

סחא _s’āch_ ‘to bathe,’ from which with an _Aleph_ prefixed we might get

אסהאי _as’chai_ ‘bathers’ (a word however which does not occur): Grätz

_Gesch. der Juden_ iii. pp. 82, 468.

צנוע _tsanūaع_ ‘retired, modest,’ adopted by Frankel (_Zeitschrift_

1846, p. 449, _Monatschrift_ II[. p. 32) after a suggestion by Löw.

[Sidenote: such as those which make _n_ part of the root.]

To this category must be assigned those etymologies which contain a ו as

the third consonant of the root; since the comparison of the parallel

forms Ἐσσαῖος and Ἐσσηνός shows that in the latter word the ν is only

formative. On this ground we must reject:

חסין _chāsīn_; see below under עשין.

חצן _chōtsen_ ‘a fold’ of a garment, and so supposed to signify the

περίζωμα or ‘apron’, which was given to every neophyte among the Essenes

(Joseph. _B.J._ ii. 8. 5, 7): suggested by Jellinek _Ben Chananja_ IV.

p. 374.

עשין _عāshīn_ ‘strong’: see Cohn in Frankel’s _Monatschrift_ VII. p.

271. This etymology is suggested to explain Epiphanius _Hær._ p. 40

τοῦτο δὲ τὸ γένος τῶν Ὀσσηνῶν ἑρμηνεύεται διὰ τῆς ἐκδόσεως τοῦ ὀνόματος

στιβαρὸν γένος (‘a sturdy race’). The name ‘Essene’ is so interpreted

also in Makrisi (de Sacy, _Chrestom. Arab._ I. p. 114, 306); but, as he

himself writes it with _Elif_ and not _Ain_, it is plain that he got

this interpretation from some one else, probably from Epiphanius. The

correct reading however in Epiphanius is Ὀσσαίων, not Ὀσσηνῶν; and it

would therefore appear that this father or his informant derived the

word from the Hebrew root עןו rather than from the Aramaic עשן. The

Ὀσσαῖοι would then be the עויס, and this is so far a possible

derivation, that the _n_ does not enter into the root. Another word

suggested to explain the etymology of Epiphanius is the Aramaic חסין

_chāsīn_ ‘powerful, strong’ (from הסן); but this is open to the same

objections as עשין.

[Sidenote: Other derivations considered:]

When all such derivations are eliminated as untenable or improbable,

considerable uncertainty still remains. The 1st and 3rd radicals might

be any of the gutturals א,ה,ח,ע; and the Greek ς, as the 2nd radical,

might represent any one of several Shemitic sibilants.

Thus we have the choice of the following etymologies, which have found

more or less favour.

[Sidenote: (1) אסיא ‘a physician’;]

(1) אסא _ăsā_ ‘to heal,’ whence אסיא _asyā_, ‘a physician.’ The Essenes

are supposed to be so called because Josephus states (_B.J._ ii. 8. 6)

that they paid great attention to the qualities of herbs and minerals

with a view to the healing of diseases (πρὸς θεραπείαν παθῶν). This

etymology is supported likewise by an appeal to the name θεραπευταί,

which Philo gives to an allied sect in Egypt (_de Vit. Cont._ § 1, II.

p. 471). It seems highly improbable however, that the ordinary name of

the Essenes should have been derived from a pursuit which was merely

secondary and incidental; while the supposed analogy of the Therapeutæ

rests on a wrong interpretation of the word. Philo indeed (l.c.), bent

upon extracting from it as much moral significance as possible, says,

θεραπευταὶ καὶ θεραπευτρίδες καλοῦνται, ἤτοι παρ’ ὅσον ἰατρικὴν

ἐπαγγέλλονται κρείσσονα τῆς κατὰ πόλεις ἡ μὲν γὰρ σώματα θεραπεύει

μόνον, ἐκείνη δὲ καὶ ψυχὰς κ.τ.λ.) ἢ παρ’ ὅσον ἐκ φύσεως καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν

νόμων ἐπαιδεύθησαν θεραπεύειν τὸ ὃν κ.τ.λ.: but the latter meaning alone

accords with the usage of the word; for θεραπευτής, used absolutely,

signifies ‘a worshipper, devotee,’ not ‘a physician, healer.’ This

etymology of Ἐσσαῖος is ascribed, though wrongly, to Philo by Asaria di

Rossi (_Meor Enayim_ 3, fol. 33 _a_) and has been very widely received.

Among more recent writers, who have adopted or favoured it, are

Bellermann (_Ueber Essäer u. Therapeuten_ p. 7), Gfrörer (_Philo_ II. p.

341), Dähne (_Ersch u. Gruber_, s.v.), Baur (_Christl. Kirche der drei

erst. Jahrh._ p. 20), Herzfeld (_Gesch. des Judenthums_ II. p. 371, 395,

397 sq.), Geiger (_Urschrift_ p. 126), Derenbourg (_L’Histoire et la

Géographie de la Palestine_ pp. 170, 175, notes), Keim (_Jesus von

Nazara_ I. p. 284 sq.), and Hamburger (_Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel u.

Talmud_, s.v.). Several of these writers identify the Essenes with the

Baithusians (ביהוסין) of the Talmud, though in the Talmud the

Baithusians are connected with the Sadducees. This identification was

suggested by di Rossi (l.c. fol. 33 _b_), who interprets ‘Baithusians’

as ‘the school of the Essenes’ (ביח איסיא): while subsequent writers,

going a step further, have explained it ‘the school of the physicians’

(ביח איסיא).

[Sidenote: (2) חזיא ‘a seer’;]

(2) חזא _chăzā_ ‘to see’, whence חזיא _chazyā_ ‘a seer’, in reference to

the prophetic powers which the Essenes claimed, as the result of ascetic

contemplation: Joseph. _B.J._ ii. 8. 12 εἰσὶ δὲ ἐν αὐτοῖς ὃι καὶ τὰ

μέλλοντα προγινώσκειν ὑπισχνοῦνται κ.τ.λ. For instances of such Essene

prophets see _Ant._ xiii. II. 2, xv. 10. 5, _B.J._ I. 3. 5, ii. 7. 3.

Suidas, s.v. Ἐσσαῖοι, says: θεωρίᾳ τὰ πολλὰ παραμένουσιν, ἔνθεν καὶ

Ἐσσαῖοι καλοῦνται, τοῦτο δηλοῦντος τοῦ ὀνόματος, τουτέστι, θεωρητικοί.

For this derivation, which was suggested by Baumgarten (see Bellermann

p. 10) and is adopted by Hilgenfeld (_Jüd. Apocal._ p. 278), there is

something to be said: but חזא is rather ὁρᾶν than θεωρεῖν; and thus it

must denote the result rather than the process, the _vision_ which was

the privilege of the few rather than the _contemplation_ which was the

duty of all. Indeed in a later paper (_Zeitschr_. XI. p. 346, 1868)

Hilgenfeld expresses himself doubtfully about this derivation, feeling

the difficulty of explaining the σς from the ז. This is a real

objection. In the transliteration of the LXX the ז is persistently

represented by ζ, and the צ by ς. The exceptions to this rule, where the

manuscript authority is beyond question, are very few, and in every case

they seem capable of explanation by peculiar circumstances.

[Sidenote: (3) עשה ‘to do’;]

(3) _عāsāh_ ‘to do,’ so that Ἐσσαῖοι would signify ‘the doers, the

observers of the law,’ thus referring to the strictness of Essene

practices: see Oppenheim in Frankel’s _Monatschrift_ VII. p. 272 sq. It

has been suggested also that, as the Pharisees were especially

designated the teachers, the Essenes were called the ‘doers’ by a sort

of antithesis: see an article in Jost’s _Annalen_ 1839, p. 145. Thus the

talmudic phrase אנשי מעשה, interpreted ‘men of practice, of good deeds,’

is supposed to refer to the Essenes (see Frankel’s _Zeitschrift_ III. p.

458, _Monatschrift_ II. p. 70). In some passages indeed (see Surenhuis

_Mishna_ III. p. 313) it may possibly mean ‘workers of miracles’ (as

ἔργον Joh. v. 20, vii. 21, x. 25, etc.); but in this sense also it might

be explained of the thaumaturgic powers claimed by the Essenes. (See

below, p. 126.) On the use which has been made of a passage in the

_Aboth_ of R. Nathan c. 37, as supporting this derivation, I shall have

to speak hereafter. Altogether this etymology has little or nothing to

recommend it.

I have reserved to the last the two derivations which seem to deserve

most consideration.

[Sidenote: (4) _chasyo_ ‘pious’;]

(4) ܚܤܝ _chasi_ (ܚܣܐ _ch’sē_) or ܚܣܝܐ _chasyo_, ‘pious,’ in Syriac. This

derivation, which is also given by de Sacy (_Chrestom. Arab._ I. p.

347), is adopted by Ewald (_Gesch. des V. Isr._ IV. p. 484, ed. 3, 1864,

VII. pp. 154, 477, ed. 2, 1859), who abandons in its favour another

etymology (הזן _chazzan_ ‘watcher, worshipper’ = θεραπευτής) which he

had suggested in an earlier edition of his fourth volume (p. 420). It is

recommended by the fact that it resembles not only in sound, but in

meaning, the Greek ὅσιος, of which it is a common rendering in the

Peshito (Acts ii. 27, xiii. 35, Tit. i. 8). Thus it explains the

derivation given by Philo (see above, p. 115), and it also accounts for

the tendency to write Ὀσσαῖος for Ἐσσαῖος in Greek. Ewald moreover

points out how an Essenizing Sibylline poem (_Orac. Sib._ iv; see above,

p. 96) dwells on the Greek equivalents, εὐσεβής, εὐσεβίη, etc. (vv. 26,

35, 42 sq., 148 sq., 162, 165 sq., 178 sq., ed. Alexandre), as if they

had a special value for the writer: see _Gesch._ VII. p. 154, _Sibyll.

Bücher_ p. 46. Lipsius (Schenkel’s _Bibel-Lexikon_, _s.v._) also

considers this the most probable etymology.

[Sidenote: (5) חשאים ‘silent ones.’]

(5) חשא _chāshā_ (also חשה) Heb., ‘to be silent’; whence חשאים

_chashshāīm_ ‘the silent ones,’ who meditate on mysteries. Jost (_Gesch.

d. Judenth._ I. p. 207) believes that this was the derivation accepted

by Josephus, since he elsewhere (_Ant._ iii. 7. 5, iii. 8. 9) writes out

חשן, _chōshen_ ‘the high-priest’s breast-plate’ (Exod. xxviii. 15 sq),

ἐσσήν or ἐσσήνης in Greek, and explains it σημαίνει, τοῦτο κατὰ τὴν

Ἑλλήνων γλῶτταν λογεῖον (i.e. the ‘place of oracles’ or ‘of reason’:

comp. Philo _de Mon._ ii. § 5, II. p. 226 καλεῖται λογεῖον ἐτύμως,

ἐπειδὴ τὰ ἐν οὐρανῷ πάντα λόγοις καὶ ἀναλογίαις δεδημιούργηται κ.τ.λ.),

as it is translated in the LXX. Even though modern critics should be

right in connecting חשן with the Arab. ﺣسن ‘pulcher fuit, ornavit’ (see

Gesen. _Thes._ p. 535, s.v.), the other derivation may have prevailed in

Josephus’ time. We may illustrate this derivation by Josephus’

description of the Essenes, _B.J._ ii. 8. 5 τοῖς ἔξωθεν ὡς μυστήριόν τι

φρικτὸν ἡ τῶν ἔνδον σιωπὴ καταφαίνεται; and perhaps this will also

explain the Greek equivalent θεωρητικοί, which Suidas gives for Ἐσσαῖοι.

The use of the Hebrew word חשאים in Mishna _Shekalim_ v. 6, though we

need not suppose that the Essenes are there meant, will serve to show

how it might be adopted as the name of the sect. On this word see Levy

_Chaldäisches Wörterbuch_ p. 287. On the whole this seems the most

probable etymology of any, though it has not found so much favour as the

last. At all events the rules of transliteration are entirely satisfied,

and this can hardly be said of the other derivations which come into

competition with it.

2.

ORIGIN AND AFFINITIES OF THE ESSENES.

[Sidenote: The principle of the restoration.]

The ruling principle of the Restoration under Ezra was the isolation of

the Jewish people from all influences of the surrounding nations. Only

by the rigorous application of this principle was it possible to guard

the nationality of the Hebrews, and thus to preserve the sacred deposit

of religious truth of which this nationality was the husk. Hence the

strictest attention was paid to the Levitical ordinances, and more

especially to those which aimed at ceremonial purity. The principle,

which was thus distinctly asserted at the period of the national

revival, gained force and concentration at a later date from the active

antagonism to which the patriotic Jews were driven by the religious and

political aggressions of the Syrian kings. During the Maccabæan wars we

read of a party or sect [Sidenote: Rise of the Asidæans.] called the

_Chasidim_ or _Asidæans_ (Ἀσιδαῖοι), the ‘pious’ or ‘devout,’ who

zealous in their observance of the ceremonial law stoutly resisted any

concession to the practices of Hellenism, and took their place in the

van of the struggle with their national enemies, the Antiochene monarchs

(1 Macc. ii. 42, vii. 13, 2 Macc. xiv. 6). But, though their names

appear now for the first time, they are not mentioned as a newly formed

party; and it is probable that they had their origin at a much earlier

date.

The subsequent history of this tendency to exclusiveness and isolation

is wrapt in the same obscurity. At a somewhat later date [Sidenote:

Pharisaism and Essenism traced to the same principle.] it is exhibited

in the _Pharisees_ and the _Essenes_; but whether these were

historically connected with the Chasidim as divergent offshoots of the

original sect, or whether they represent independent developments of the

same principle, we are without the proper data for deciding. The

principle itself appears in the name of the Pharisees, which, as

denoting ‘separation,’ points to the avoidance of all foreign and

contaminating influences. On the other hand the meaning of the name

_Essene_ is uncertain, for the attempt to derive it directly from

_Chasidim_ must be abandoned; but the tendency of the sect is

unmistakeable. If with the Pharisees ceremonial purity was a principal

aim, with the Essenes it was an absorbing passion. It was enforced and

guarded moreover by a special organization. While the Pharisees were a

sect, the Essenes were an order. Like the Pythagoreans in Magna Græcia

and the Buddhists in India before them, like the Christian monks of the

Egyptian and Syrian deserts after them, they were formed into a

religious brotherhood, fenced about by minute and rigid rules, and

carefully guarded from any contamination with the outer world.

[Sidenote: Foreign elements in Essenism.]

Thus the sect may have arisen in the heart of Judaism. The idea of

ceremonial purity was essentially Judaic. But still, when we turn to the

representations of Philo and Josephus, it is impossible to overlook

other traits which betoken foreign affinities. Whatever the Essenes may

have been in their origin, at the Christian era at least and in the

Apostolic age they no longer represented the current type of religious

thought and practice among the Jews. This foreign element has been

derived by some from the Pythagoreans, by others from the Syrians or

Persians or even from the farther East; but, whether Greek or Oriental,

its existence has until lately been almost universally allowed.

[Sidenote: Frankel’s theory well received,]

The investigations of Frankel, published first in 1846 in his

_Zeitschrift_, and continued in 1853 in his _Monatschrift_, have given a

different direction to current opinion. Frankel maintains that Essenism

was a purely indigenous growth, that it is only Pharisaism in an

exaggerated form, and that it has nothing distinctive and owes nothing,

or next to nothing, to foreign influences. To establish this point, he

disparages the representations of Philo and Josephus as coloured to suit

the tastes of their heathen readers, while in their place he brings

forward as authorities a number of passages from talmudical and

rabbinical writings, in which he discovers references to this sect. In

this view he is followed implicitly by some later writers, and has

largely influenced the opinions of others; while nearly all speak of his

investigations as throwing great light on the subject.

[Sidenote: but groundless and misleading.]

It is perhaps dangerous to dissent from a view which has found so much

favour; but nevertheless I am obliged to confess my belief that,

whatever value Frankel’s investigations may have as contributions to our

knowledge of Jewish religious thought and practice, they throw little or

no light on the Essenes specially; and that the blind acceptance of his

results by later writers has greatly obscured the distinctive features

of this sect. I cannot but think that any one, who will investigate

Frankel’s references and test his results step by step, will arrive at

the conclusion to which I myself have been led, that his talmudical

researches have left our knowledge of this sect where it was before, and

that we must still refer to Josephus and Philo for any precise

information respecting them.

[Sidenote: His double derivation of the name.]

Frankel starts from the etymology of the name. He supposes that Ἐσσαῖος,

Ἐσσηνός, represent two different Hebrew words, the former חסיד _chāsīd_,

the latter צנוע _tsanūaع_, both clothed in suitable Greek dresses[339].

Wherever therefore either of these words occurs, there is, or there may

be, a direct reference to the Essenes.

Footnote 339:

_Zeitschrift_ p. 449 ‘Für _Essäer_ liegt, wie schon von anderen Seiten

bemerkt wurde, das Hebr. חסיד, für _Essener_, nach einer Bemerkung des

Herrn L. Löw im _Orient_, das Hebr. צנוע nahe’; see also pp. 454, 455;

_Monatschrift_ p. 32.

[Sidenote: Fatal objections to it.]

It is not too much to say that these etymologies are impossible; and

this for several reasons. (1) The two words Ἐσσαῖος, Ἐσσηνός, are

plainly duplicate forms of the same Hebrew or Aramaic original, like

Σαμψαῖος and Σαμψηνός (Epiphan. _Hær._ pp. 40, 47, 127; and even

Σαμψίτης p. 46), Ναζωραῖος and Ναζαρηνός, Γιτταῖος and Γιττηνός (Steph.

Byz. s.v., Hippol. _Hær._ vi. 7), with which we may compare Βοστραῖος

and Βοστρηνός, Μελιταῖος and Μελιτηνός, and numberless other examples.

(2) Again; when we consider either word singly, the derivation offered

is attended with the most serious difficulties. There is no reason why

in Ἐσσαῖος the _d_ should have disappeared from _chasid_, while it is

hardly possible to conceive that tsanuaع should have taken such an

incongruous form as Ἐσσηνός. (3) And lastly; the more important of the

two words, _chasid_, had already a recognised Greek equivalent in

Ἀσιδαῖος; and it seems highly improbable that a form so divergent as

Ἐσσαῖος should have taken its place.

[Sidenote: Dependence of the theory on the derivation.]

Indeed Frankel’s derivations are generally, if not universally,

abandoned by later writers; and yet these same writers repeat his

quotations and accept his results, as if the references were equally

valid, though the name of the sect has disappeared. They seem to be

satisfied with the stability of the edifice, even when the foundation is

undermined. Thus for instance Grätz not only maintains after Frankel

that the Essenes ‘were properly nothing more than stationary or, more

strictly speaking, consistently logical (consequente) _Chasidim_,’ and

‘that therefore they were not so far removed from the Pharisees that

they can be regarded as a separate sect,’ and ‘accepts entirely these

results’ which, as he says, ‘rest on critical investigation’ (III. p.

463), but even boldly translates _chasiduth_ ‘the Essene mode of life’

(ib. 84), though he himself gives a wholly different derivation of the

word ‘Essene,’ making it signify ‘washers’ or ‘baptists’ (see above, p.

116). And even those who do not go to this length of inconsistency, yet

avail themselves freely of the passages where _chasid_ occurs, and

interpret it of the Essenes, while distinctly repudiating the

etymology[340].

Footnote 340:

e.g. Keim (p. 286) and Derenbourg (p. 166, 461 sq.), who both derive

Essene from אסיא ‘a physician.’

[Sidenote: The term _chasid_ not applied specially to the Essenes.]

But, although Ἐσσαῖος or Ἐσσηνός is not a Greek form of _chasid_, it

might still happen that this word was applied to them as an epithet,

though not as a proper name. Only in this case the reference ought to be

unmistakeable, before any conclusions are based upon it. But in fact,

after going through all the passages which Frankel gives, it is

impossible to feel satisfied that in a single instance there is a direct

allusion to the Essenes. Sometimes the word seems to refer to the old

sect of the _Chasidim_ or _Asidæans_, as for instance when Jose ben

Joezer, who lived during the Maccabæan war, is called a _chasid_[341].

At all events this R. Jose is known to have been a married man, for he

is stated to have disinherited his children (_Baba Bathra_ 133 _b_); and

therefore he cannot have belonged to the stricter order of Essenes.

Sometimes it is employed quite generally to denote pious observers of

the ceremonial law, as for instance when it is said that with the death

of certain famous teachers the Chasidim ceased[342]. In this latter

sense the expression חסידים הראשונים, ‘the ancient or primitive

Chasidim’ (_Monatschr._ pp. 31, 62), is perhaps used; for these

primitive Chasidim again are mentioned as having wives and

children[343], and it appears also that they were scrupulously exact in

bringing their sacrificial offerings[344]. Thus it is impossible to

identify them with the Essenes, as described by Josephus and Philo. Even

in those passages of which most has been made, the reference is more

than doubtful. Thus great stress is laid on the saying of R. Joshua ben

Chananiah in Mishna _Sotah_ iii. 4, ‘The foolish _chasid_ and the clever

villain (חסיד שוטה ורשע ערום), etc., are the ruin of the world.’ But the

connexion points to a much more general meaning of _chasid_, and the

rendering in Surenhuis, ‘Homo pius qui insipiens, improbus qui astutus,’

gives the correct antithesis. So we might say that there is no one more

mischievous than the wrong-headed conscientious man. It is true that the

Gemaras illustrate the expression by examples of those who allow an

over-punctilious regard for external forms to stand in the way of deeds

of mercy. And perhaps rightly. But there is no reference to any

distinctive Essene practices in the illustrations given. Again; the

saying in Mishna _Pirke Aboth_ v. 10, ‘He who says Mine is thine and

thine is thine is [a] _chasid_ (שלי שלך ושלך שלך הסיד),’ is quoted by

several writers as though it referred to the Essene community of

goods[345]. But in the first place the idea of community of goods would

require ‘Mine is thine and thine is mine’: and in the second place, the

whole context, and especially the clause which immediately follows (and

which these writers do not give), ‘He who says Thine is mine and mine is

mine is wicked (רשע),’ show plainly that חסיד must be taken in its

general sense ‘pious,’ and the whole expression implies not reciprocal

interchange but individual self-denial.

Footnote 341:

Mishna _Chagigah_ ii. 7; _Zeitschr._ p. 454, _Monatschr._ pp. 33, 62.

See Frankel’s own account of this R. Jose in an earlier volume,

_Monatschr._ I. p. 405 sq.

Footnote 342:

_Zeitschr._ p. 457, _Monatschr._ p. 69 sq.; see below, p. 126.

Footnote 343:

_Niddah_ 38 _a_; see Löwy s.v. Essäer.

Footnote 344:

Mishna _Kerithuth_ vi. 3, _Nedarim_ 10 a; see _Monatschr._ p. 65.

Footnote 345:

Thus Grätz (III. p. 81) speaking of the community of goods among the

Essenes writes, ‘From this view springs the proverb; Every Chassid

says; _Mine and thine belong to thee_ (not _me_)’ thus giving a turn

to the expression which in its original connexion it does not at all

justify. Of the existence of such a proverb I have found no traces. It

certainly is not suggested in the passage of _Pirke Aboth_. Later in

the volume (p. 467) Grätz tacitly alters the words to make them

express reciprocation or community of goods, substituting ‘Thine is

mine’ for ‘Thine is thine’ in the second clause; ‘The Chassid must

have no property of his own, but must treat it as belonging to the

Society (שלי שלך שלך שלי חסיד).’ At least, as he gives no reference, I

suppose that he refers to the same passage. In this loose way he

treats the whole subject. Keim (p. 294) quotes the passage correctly,

but refers it nevertheless to Essene communism.

[Sidenote: Possible connexion of

_chasid_ and _chasyo_

discussed.]

It might indeed be urged, though this is not Frankel’s plea, that

supposing the true etymology of the word Ἐσσαῖος, Ἐσσηνός, to be the

Syriac ܚܣܐ, ܚܣܝܐ, _ch’sē_, _chasyo_ (a possible derivation), _chasid_

might have been its Hebrew equivalent as being similar in sound and

meaning, and perhaps ultimately connected in derivation, the exactly

corresponding triliteral root חסא (comp. חום) not being in use in

Hebrew[346]. But before we accept this explanation we have a right to

demand some evidence which, if not demonstrative, is at least

circumstantial, that _chasid_ is used of the Essenes: and this we have

seen is not forthcoming. Moreover, if the Essenes had thus inherited the

name of the _Chasidim_, we should have expected that its old Greek

equivalent Ἀσιδαῖοι, which is still used later than the Maccabæan era,

would also have gone with it; rather than that a new Greek word Ἐσσαῖος

(or Ἐσσηνός) should have been invented to take its place. But indeed the

Syriac Version of the Old Testament furnishes an argument against this

convertibility of the Hebrew _chasid_ and the Syriac _chasyo_, which

must be regarded as [Sidenote: Usage is unfavourable to this view.]

almost decisive. The numerous passages in the Psalms, where the

expressions ‘My _chasidim_,’ ‘His _chasidim_,’ occur (xxx. 5, xxxi. 24,

xxxvii. 28, lii. 11, lxxix. 2, lxxxv. 9, xcvii. 10, cxvi. 15, cxxxii. 9,

cxlix. 9: comp. xxxii. 6, cxlix. 1, 5) seem to have suggested the

assumption of the name to the original Asidæans. But in such passages

חסיד is commonly, if not universally, rendered in the Peshito not by

ܚܣܐ, ܚܣܝܐ, but by a wholly different word ܙܕܝܩ _zadīk_. And again, in

the Books of Maccabees the Syriac rendering for the name Ἀσιδαῖοι,

_Chasidim_, is a word derived from another quite distinct root. These

facts show that the Hebrew _chasid_ and the Syriac _chasyo_ were not

practically equivalents, so that the one would suggest the other; and

thus all presumption in favour of a connexion between Ἀσιδαῖος and

Ἐσσαῖος is removed.

Footnote 346:

This is Hitzig’s view (_Geschichte des Volkes Israel_ p. 427). He

maintains that "they were called ‘_Hasidim_’ by the later Jews because

the Syrian _Essenes_ means exactly the same as ‘_Hasidim_.’"

[Sidenote: Frankel’s second derivation]

Frankel’s other derivation צנוע, _tsanūaع_, suggested as an equivalent

to Ἐσσηνός, has found no favour with later writers, and indeed is too

far removed from the Greek form to be tenable. [Sidenote: _tsanuaع_

considered.]

Nor do the passages quoted by him[347] require or suggest any allusion

to this sect. Thus in Mishna _Demai_, vi. 6, we are told that the school

of Hillel permits a certain license in a particular matter, but it is

added, ‘The צנועי of the school of Hillel followed the precept of the

school of Shammai.’ Here, as Frankel himself confesses, the Jerusalem

Talmud knows nothing about Essenes, but explains the word by בשדי, i.e.

‘upright, worthy[348]’; while elsewhere, as he allows[349], it must have

this general sense. Indeed the mention of the ‘school of Hillel’ here

seems to exclude the Essenes. In its comprehensive meaning it will most

naturally be taken also in the other passage quoted by Frankel,

_Kiddushin_ 71 _a_, where it is stated that the pronunciation of the

sacred name, which formerly was known to all, is now only to be divulged

to the צנועים, i.e. the discreet, among the priests; and in fact it

occurs in reference to the communication of the same mystery in the

immediate context also, where it could not possibly be treated as a

proper name; שצנוע ועניו ועומד בחצי ימיו, ‘who is _discreet_ and meek

and has reached middle age,’ etc.

Footnote 347:

_Zeitschr_. pp. 455, 457; _Monatschr._ p. 32.

Footnote 348:

_Monatschr._ p. 32.

Footnote 349:

_Zeitschr._ p. 455.

[Sidenote: Other supposed etymologies in the Talmud. (1) _Asya_ ‘a

physician,’]

Of other etymologies, which have been suggested, and through which it

might be supposed the Essenes are mentioned by name in the Talmud, איסא,

_asya_, ‘a physician,’ is the one which has found most favour. For the

reasons given above (p. 117) this derivation seems highly improbable,

and the passages quoted are quite insufficient to overcome the

objections. Of these the strongest is in the Talm. Jerus. _Yoma_ iii. 7,

where we are told that a certain physician

[Sidenote: not supported by the passages quoted in its behalf.]

(אסי) offered to communicate the sacred name to R. Pinchas the son of

Chama, and the latter refused on the ground that he ate of the

tithes—this being regarded as a disqualification, apparently because it

was inconsistent with the highest degree of ceremonial purity[350]. The

same story is told with some modifications in Midrash _Qoheleth_ iii.

11[351]. Here Frankel, though himself (as we have seen) adopting a

different derivation of the word ‘Essene,’ yet supposes that this

particular physician belonged to the sect, on the sole ground that

ceremonial purity is represented as a qualification for the initiation

into the mystery of the Sacred Name. Löwy (l.c.) denies that the

allusion to the tithes is rightly interpreted: but even supposing it to

be correct, the passage is quite an inadequate basis either for

Frankel’s conclusion that this particular physician was an Essene, or

for the derivation of the word Essene which others maintain. Again, in

the statement of Talm. Jerus. _Kethuboth_ ii. 3, that correct

manuscripts were called books of אסי[352], the word _Asi_ is generally

taken as a proper name. But even if this interpretation be false, there

is absolutely nothing in the context which suggests any allusion to the

Essenes[353]. In like manner the passage from _Sanhedrin_ 99 _b_, where

a physician is mentioned[354], supports no such inference. Indeed, as

this last passage relates to the family of the _Asi_, he obviously can

have had no connexion with the celibate Essenes.

Footnote 350:

Frankel _Monatschr._ p. 71: comp. Derenbourg p. 170 sq.

Footnote 351:

See Löwy _Krit.-Talm. Lex._ s.v. Essäer.

Footnote 352:

Urged in favour of this derivation by Herzfeld II. p. 398.

Footnote 353:

The oath taken by the Essenes (Joseph. _B.J._ ii. 8. 7) συντηρήσειν

... τὰ τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν βιβλία can have nothing to do with accuracy

in transcribing copies, as Herzfeld (II. pp. 398, 407) seems to think.

The natural meaning of συντηρεῖν, ‘to keep safe or close’ and so ‘not

to divulge’ (e.g. Polyb. xxxi. 6. 5 οὐκ ἐξέφαινε τὴν ἑαυτῆς γνώμην

ἀλλὰ συνετήρει παρ’ ἑαυτῇ), is also the meaning suggested here by the

context.

Footnote 354:

The passage is adduced in support of this derivation by Derenbourg p.

175.

[Sidenote: (2) _عasah_ ‘to do.’]

Hitherto our search for the name in the Talmud has been unsuccessful.

One possibility however still remains. The talmudical writers speak of

certain אנשי מעשה ‘men of deeds’; and if (as some suppose) the name

Essene is derived from עשה, have we not here the mention which we are

seeking? Frankel rejects the etymology, but presses the

identification[355]. The expression, he urges, is often used in

connexion with _chasidim_. It signifies ‘miracle workers,’ and therefore

aptly describes the supernatural powers supposed to be exercised by the

Essenes[356]. Thus we are informed in Mishna _Sotah_ ix. 15, that ‘When

R. Chaninah ben Dosa died, the men of deeds ceased; when R. Jose Ketinta

died, the chasidim ceased.’ In the Jerusalem Talmud however this mishna

is read, ‘With the death of R. Chaninah ben Dosa and R. Jose Ketinta the

chasidim ceased’; while the Gemara there explains R. Chaninah to have

been one of the מעשה אנשי. Thus, Frankel concludes, ‘the identity of

these with הסידים becomes still more plain.’ Now it seems clear that

this expression אנשי מעשה in some places cannot refer to miraculous

powers, but must mean ‘men of practical goodness,’ as for instance in

_Succah_ 51_a_, 53_a_; and being a general term expressive of moral

excellence, it is naturally connected with _chasidim_, which is likewise

a general term expressive of piety and goodness. Nor is there any reason

why it should not always be taken in this sense. It is true that stories

are told elsewhere of this R. Chaninah, which ascribe miraculous powers

to him[357], and hence there is a temptation to translate it

‘wonder-worker,’ as applied to him. But the reason is quite

insufficient. Moreover it must be observed that R. Chaninah’s wife is a

prominent person in the legends of his miracles reported in _Taanith_ 24

_b_; and thus we need hardly stop to discuss the possible meanings of

אנשי מעשה, since his claims to being considered an Essene are barred at

the outset by this fact[358].

Footnote 355:

See _Zeitschr._ p 438, _Monatschr._ pp. 68–70.

Footnote 356:

See above, p. 118.

Footnote 357:

_Taanith_ 24_b_, _Yoma_ 53_b_; see Surenhuis _Mishna_ III. p. 313.

Footnote 358:

In this and similar cases it is unnecessary to consider whether the

persons mentioned might have belonged to those looser disciples of

Essenism, who married (see above, p. 85): because the identification

is meaningless unless they belonged to the strict order itself.

It has been asserted indeed by a recent author, that one very ancient

Jewish writer distinctly adopts this derivation, and as distinctly

states that the Essenes were a class of Pharisees[359]. If this were the

case, Frankel’s theory, though not his etymology, would receive a

striking confirmation: and it is therefore important to enquire on what

foundation the assertion rests.

Footnote 359:

Ginsburg in Kitto’s _Cyclopædia_ s.v., I. p. 829: comp. _Essenes_ pp.

22, 28.

[Sidenote: The authority for this derivation traced to an error.]

Dr Ginsburg’s authority for this statement is a passage from the _Aboth_

of Rabbi Nathan, c. 37, which, as he gives it, appears conclusive;

‘There are eight kinds of Pharisees ... and those Pharisees who live in

celibacy are Essenes.’ But what are the facts of the case? _First_; This

book was certainly not written by its reputed author, the R. Nathan who

was vice-president under the younger Gamaliel about A. D. 140. It may

possibly have been founded on an earlier treatise by that famous

teacher, though even this is very doubtful: but in its present form it

is a comparatively modern work. On this point all or almost all recent

writers on Hebrew literature are agreed[360]. _Secondly_; Dr Ginsburg

has taken the reading מחופתו עשאני, without even mentioning any

alternative. Whether the words so read are capable of the meaning which

he has assigned to them, may be highly questionable; but at all events

this cannot have been the original reading, as the parallel passages,

Babl. Sotah fol. 22_b_, Jerus. _Sotah_ v. 5, Jerus. _Berakhoth_ ix. 5,

(quoted by Buxtorf and Levy, s.v. פריש), distinctly prove. In Babl.

_Sotah_ l.c., the corresponding expression is מה הובתי ואעשנה ‘What is

my duty, and I will do it,’ and the passage in Jerus. _Berakhoth_ l.c.

is to the same effect. These parallels show that the reading מה הובתי

ואעשנה must be taken also in _Aboth_ c. 37, so that the passage will be

rendered, ‘The Pharisee _who says_, What is my duty, and I will do it.’

Thus the Essenes and celibacy disappear together. _Lastly_; Inasmuch as

Dr Ginsburg himself takes a wholly different view of the name Essene,

connecting it either with חצן ‘an apron,’ or with הסים ‘pious[361],’ it

is difficult to see how he could translate עשאני ‘Essene’ (from עשא ‘to

do’) in this passage, except on the supposition that R. Nathan was

entirely ignorant of the orthography and derivation of the word Essene.

Yet, if such ignorance were conceivable in so ancient a writer, his

authority on this question would be absolutely worthless. But indeed Dr

Ginsburg would appear to have adopted this reference to R. Nathan, with

the reading of the passage and the interpretation of the name, from some

other writer[362]. At all events it is quite inconsistent with his own

opinion as expressed previously.

Footnote 360:

e.g. Geiger _Zeitschrift f. Jüdische Theologie_ VI. p. 20 sq.; Zunz

_Gottesdienstliche Vorträge_ p. 108 sq.: comp. Steinschneider _Catal.

Heb. Bibl. Bodl._ col. 2032 sq. These two last references are given by

Dr Ginsburg himself.

Footnote 361:

_Essenes_ p. 30; comp. _Kitto’s Cyclopædia_, s.v. Essenes.

Footnote 362:

It is given by Landsberg in the _Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums_

1862, no. 33, p. 459, a reference pointed out to me by a friend.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Are the Essenes alluded to, though not named, in the Talmud?]

But, though we have not succeeded in finding any direct mention of this

sect by name in the Talmud, and all the identifications of the word

Essene with diverse expressions occurring there have failed us on

examination, it might still happen that allusions to them were so

frequent as to leave no doubt about the persons meant. Their

organisation or their practices or their tenets might be precisely

described, though their name was suppressed. Such allusions Frankel

finds scattered up and down the Talmud in great profusion.

[Sidenote: (1) The _chaber_ or Associate.]

(1) He sees a reference to the Essenes in the חבורא _chăbūra_ or

‘Society,’ which is mentioned several times in talmudical writers[363].

The _chāber_ (הבר) or ‘Associate’ is, he supposes, a member of this

brotherhood. He is obliged to confess that the word cannot always have

this sense, but still he considers this to be a common designation of

the Essenes. The chaber was bound to observe certain rules of ceremonial

purity, and a period of probation was imposed upon him before he was

admitted. With this fact Frankel connects the passage in Mishna

_Chagigah_ ii. 5, 6, where several degrees of ceremonial purity are

specified. Having done this, he considers that he has the explanation of

the statement in Josephus (_B.J._ ii. 8. 7, 10), that the Essenes were

divided into four different grades or orders according to the time of

their continuance in the ascetic practices demanded by the sect.

Footnote 363:

_Zeitschr_. p. 450 sq., _Monatschr._ pp. 31, 70.

[Sidenote: A passage in _Chagigah_ considered.]

But in the first place there is no reference direct or indirect to the

chaber, or indeed to any organisation of any kind, in the passage of

_Chagigah_. It simply contemplates different degrees of purification as

qualifying for the performance of certain Levitical rites in an

ascending scale. There is no indication that these lustrations are more

than temporary and immediate in their application; and not the faintest

hint is given of distinct orders of men, each separated from the other

by formal barriers and each demanding a period of probation before

admission from the order below, as was the case with the grades of the

Essene brotherhood described by Josephus. Moreover the orders in

Josephus are four in number[364], while the degrees of ceremonial purity

in _Chagigah_ are five. Frankel indeed is inclined to maintain that only

four degrees are intended in _Chagigah_, though this interpretation is

opposed to the plain sense of the passage. But, even if he should be

obliged to grant that the number of degrees is five[365], he will not

surrender the allusion to the Essenes, but meets the difficulty by

supposing (it is a pure hypothesis) that there was a fifth and highest

degree of purity among the Essenes, to which very few attained, and

which, as I understand him, is not mentioned by Josephus on this

account. But enough has already been said to show, that this passage in

_Chagigah_ can have no connexion with the Essenes and gives no

countenance to Frankel’s views.

Footnote 364:

As the notices in Josephus (_B.J._ ii. 8) relating to this point have

been frequently misunderstood, it may be well once for all to explain

his meaning. The grades of the Essene order are mentioned in two

separate notices, apparently, though not really, discordant. (1) In §

10 he says that they are ‘divided into four sections according to the

duration of their discipline’ (διῄρηνται κατὰ χρόνον τῆς ἀσκήσεως εἰς

μοίρας τέσσαρας), adding that the older members are considered to be

defiled by contact with the younger, i.e. each superior grade by

contact with the inferior. So far his meaning is clear. (2) In § 8 he

states that one who is anxious to become a member of the sect

undergoes a year’s probation, submitting to discipline but ‘remaining

outside.’ Then, ‘after he has given evidence of his perseverance (μετὰ

τὴν τῆς καρτερίας ἐπίδειξιν), his character is tested for two years

more; and, if found worthy, he is accordingly admitted into the

society.’ A comparison with the other passage shows that these two

years comprise the period spent in the second and third grades, each

extending over a year. After passing through these three stages in

three successive years, he enters upon the fourth and highest grade,

thus becoming a perfect member.

It is stated by Dr Ginsburg (_Essenes_ p. 12 sq., comp. Kitto’s

_Cyclopædia_ s.v. p. 828) that the Essenes passed through eight stages

‘from the beginning of the noviciate to the achievement of the highest

spiritual state,’ this last stage qualifying them, like Elias, to be

forerunners of the Messiah. But it is a pure hypothesis that the

Talmudical notices thus combined have anything to do with the Essenes;

and, as I shall have occasion to point out afterwards, there is no

ground for ascribing to this sect any Messianic expectations whatever.

Footnote 365:

_Zeitschr._ p. 452, note.

[Sidenote: Difference between]

As this artificial combination has failed, we are compelled to fall back

on the notices relating to the chaber, and to ask whether [Sidenote: the

chaber and the Essene.] these suggest any connexion with the account of

the Essenes in Josephus. And the facts oblige us to answer this question

in the negative. Not only do they not suggest such a connexion, but they

are wholly irreconcilable with the account in the Jewish historian. This

association or confraternity (if indeed the term is applicable to an

organisation so loose and so comprehensive) was maintained for the sake

of securing a more accurate study and a better observance of the

ceremonial law. Two grades of purity are mentioned in connexion with it,

designated by different names and presenting some difficulties[366],

into which it is not necessary to enter here. A chaber, it would appear,

was one who had entered upon the second or higher stage. For this a

period of a year’s probation was necessary. The chaber enrolled himself

in the presence of three others who were already members of the

association. This apparently was all the formality necessary: and in the

case of a teacher even this was dispensed with, for being presumably

acquainted with the law of things clean and unclean he was regarded as

_ex officio_ a chaber. The chaber was bound to keep himself from

ceremonial defilements, and was thus distinguished from the _[عam

haarets_ or common people[367]; but he was under no external

surveillance and decided for himself as to his own purity. Moreover he

was, or might be a married man: for the doctors disputed whether the

wives and children of an associate were not themselves to be regarded as

associates[368]. In one passage, _Sanhedrin_ 41_a_, it is even assumed,

as a matter of course, that a woman may be an associate (חברה). In

another (_Niddah_ 33_b_)[369] there is mention of a Sadducee and even of

a Samaritan as a chaber. An organisation so flexible as this has

obviously only the most superficial resemblances with the rigid rules of

the Essene order; and in many points it presents a direct contrast to

the characteristic tenets of that sect.

Footnote 366:

The entrance into lower grade was described as ‘taking בנפים’ or

‘wings.’ The meaning of this expression has been the subject of much

discussion; see e.g. Herzfeld II. p. 390 sq., Frankel _Monatschr._ p.

33 sq.

Footnote 367:

The contempt with which a chaber would look down upon the vulgar herd,

the _عam haarets_, finds expression in the language of the Pharisees,

Joh. vii. 49 ὁ ὄχλος οὗτος ὁ μὴ γινώσκων τὸν νόμον ἐπάρατοί εἰσιν.

Again in Acts iv. 13, where the Apostles are described as ἰδιῶται, the

expression is equivalent to _عam haarets._ See the passages quoted in

Buxtorf, _Lex._ p. 1626.

Footnote 368:

All these particulars and others may be gathered from _Bekhoroth_ 30

_b_, Mishna _Demai_ ii. 2, 3, Jerus. _Demai_ ii. 3, v. 1, Tosifta

_Demai_ 2, _Aboth R. Nathan_ c. 41.

Footnote 369:

See Herzfeld II. p. 386.

[Sidenote: (2) The _Bene hakkeneseth_.]

(2) Having discussed Frankel’s hypothesis respecting the chaber, I need

hardly follow his speculations on the _Bĕnē-hakkĕneseth_, בני הכנסח,

‘sons of the congregation’ (_Zabim_ iii. 2), in which expression

probably few would discover the reference, which he finds, to the lowest

of the Essene orders[370].

Footnote 370:

_Monatschr._ p. 35.

[Sidenote: (3) The ‘holy congregation at Jerusalem’]

(3) But mention is also made of a ‘holy congregation’ or ‘assembly’ (עדה

קדישה קהלא קדישא) ‘in Jerusalem’; and, following Rapoport, Frankel sees

in this expression also an allusion to the Essenes[371]. The grounds for

this identification are, that in one passage (_Berakhoth_ 9_b_) they are

mentioned in connexion with prayer at day break, and in another (Midrash

_Qoheleth_ ix. 9) two persons are stated to belong to this ‘holy

congregation,’ because they divided their day into three parts, devoting

one-third to learning, another to prayer, and another to work. The first

notice would suit the Essenes very well, though the practice mentioned

was not so distinctively Essene as to afford any safe ground for this

hypothesis. Of the second it should be observed, that no such division

of the day is recorded of the Essenes, and indeed both Josephus (_B.J._

ii. 8. 5) and Philo (_Fragm._ p. 633) describe them as working from

morning till night with the single interruption of their mid-day

meal[372]. But in fact the identification is beset with other and more

serious difficulties. For this ‘holy congregation’ at Jerusalem is

mentioned long [Sidenote: not an Essene community.] after the second

destruction of the city under Hadrian[373], when on Frankel’s own

showing[374] the Essene society had in all probability ceased to exist.

And again certain members of it, e.g. Jose ben Meshullam (Mishna

_Bekhoroth_ iii. 3, vi. 1), are represented as uttering precepts

respecting animals fit for sacrifice, though we have it on the authority

of Josephus and Philo that the Essenes avoided the temple sacrifices

altogether. The probability therefore seems to be that this ‘holy

congregation’ was an assemblage of devout Jews who were drawn to the

neighbourhood of the sanctuary after the destruction of the nation, and

whose practices were regarded with peculiar reverence by the later

Jews[375].

Footnote 371:

_Zeitschr._ pp. 458, 461, _Monatschr._ pp. 32, 36.

Footnote 372:

It is added however in Midrash _Qoheleth_ ix. 9 ‘Some say that they

(the holy congregation) devoted the whole of the winter to studying

the Scriptures and the summer to work.’

Footnote 373:

_Monatschr._ p. 32.

Footnote 374:

_Ib._ p. 70.

Footnote 375:

See Derenbourg p. 175.

[Sidenote: (4) The _Vethikin_.]

(4) Neither can we with Frankel[376] discern any reference to the

Essenes in those ותיקיו _Vethikin_, ‘pious’ or ‘learned’ men (whatever

may be the exact sense of the word), who are mentioned in _Berakhoth_

9_b_ as praying before sunrise; because the word itself seems quite

general, and the practice, though enforced among the Essenes, as we know

from Josephus (_B.J._ ii. 8. 5), would be common to all devout and

earnest Jews. If we are not justified in saying that these ותיקיו were

not Essenes, we have no sufficient grounds for maintaining that they

were.

Footnote 376:

_Monatschr._ p. 32.

[Sidenote: (5) The ‘primitive elders.’]

(5) Nor again can we find any such reference in the זקנים or ‘primitive

elders[377].’ It may readily be granted that this term is used

synonymously, or nearly so, with הראשונים הסידים ‘the primitive

chasidim’; but, as we failed to see anything more than a general

expression in the one, so we are naturally led to take the other in the

same sense. The passages where the expression occurs (e.g. _Shabbath_

64_b_) simply refer to the stricter observances of early times, and do

not indicate any reference to a particular society or body of men.

Footnote 377:

_Monatschr._ pp. 32, 68.

[Sidenote: (6) The ‘morning bathers.’]

(6) Again Frankel finds another reference to this sect in the טבלי שחרית

_Tōblē-shachărīth_, or ‘morning-bathers,’ mentioned in Tosifta _Yadayim_

c. 2[378]. The identity of these with the ἡμεροβαπτισταὶ of Greek

writers seems highly probable. The latter however, though they may have

had some affinities with Essene practices and tenets, are nevertheless

distinguished from this sect wherever they are mentioned[379]. But the

point to be observed is that, even though we should identify these

Toble-shacharith with the Essenes, the passage in Tosifta _Yadayim_, so

far from favouring, runs directly counter to Frankel’s view which

regards the Essenes as only a branch of Pharisees: for the two are here

represented as in direct antagonism. The Toble-shacharith say, ‘We

grieve over you, Pharisees, because you pronounce the (sacred) Name in

the morning without having bathed.’ The Pharisees retort, ‘We grieve

over you, Toble-shacharith, because you pronounce the Name from this

body in which is impurity.’

Footnote 378:

_Ib._ p. 67.

Footnote 379:

See below, p. 166.

[Sidenote: (7) The _Banaim_.]

(7) In connexion with the Toble-shacharith we may consider another name,

_Banāīm_ (בנאים), in which also Frankel discovers an allusion to the

Essenes[380]. In Mishna _Mikvaoth_ ix. 6 the word is opposed to בור

_bōr_, ‘an ignorant or stupid person’; and this points to its proper

meaning ‘the builders,’ i.e. the edifiers or teachers, according to the

common metaphor in Biblical language. The word is discussed in

_Shabbath_ 114 and explained to mean ‘learned.’ But, because in

_Mikvaoth_ it is mentioned in connexion with ceremonial purity, and

because in Josephus the Essenes are stated to have carried an ‘axe and

shovel’ (_B.J._ ii. 8. 7, 9), and because moreover the Jewish historian

in another place (_Vit._ 2) mentions having spent some time with one

Banus a dweller in the wilderness, who lived on vegetables and fruits

and bathed often day and night for the sake of purity, and who is

generally considered to have been an Essene; therefore Frankel holds

these Banaim to have been Essenes. This is a specimen of the misplaced

ingenuity which distinguishes Frankel’s learned speculations on the

Essenes. Josephus does [Sidenote: Josephus misinterpreted.] not mention

an ‘axe _and_ shovel,’ but an axe only (§ 7 ἀξινάριον), which he

afterwards defines more accurately as a spade (§ 9 τῇ σκαλίδι, τοιοῦτον

γάρ ἐστι τὸ διδόμενον ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ἀξινίδιον τοῖς νεοσυστάτοις) and which,

as he distinctly states, was given them for the purpose of burying

impurities out of sight (comp. Deut. xxiii. 12–14). Thus it has no

connexion whatever with any ‘building’ implement. And again, it is true

that Banus has frequently been regarded as an Essene, but there is

absolutely no ground for this supposition. On the contrary the narrative

of Josephus in his _Life_ seems to [Sidenote: Another derivation of

Banaim.] exclude it, as I shall have occasion to show hereafter[381]. I

should add that Sachs interprets Banaim ‘the bathers,’ regarding the

explanation in _Shabbath_ l.c. as a ‘later accommodation[382].’ This

seems to me very improbable; but, if it were conceded, the Banaim would

then apparently be connected not with the Essenes, but with the

Hemerobaptists.

Footnote 380:

_Zeitschr._ p. 455.

Footnote 381:

See below, p. 161.

Footnote 382:

_Beiträge_ II. p. 199. In this derivation he is followed by Graetz

(III. p. 82, 468) and Derenbourg (p. 166).

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Results of this investigation.]

From the preceding investigation it will have appeared how little

Frankel has succeeded in establishing his thesis that ‘the talmudical

sources are acquainted with the Essenes and make mention of them

constantly[383].’ We have seen not only that no instance of the name

Essene has been produced, but that all those passages which are supposed

to refer to them under other designations, or to describe their

practices or tenets, fail us on closer examination. In no case can we

feel sure that there is any direct reference to this sect, while in most

cases such reference seems to be excluded by the language or the

attendant circumstances[384]. Thus we are [Sidenote: Philo and Josephus

our main authorities.] obliged to fall back upon the representations of

Philo and Josephus. Their accounts are penned by eye-witnesses. They are

direct and explicit, if not so precise or so full as we could have

wished. The writers obviously consider that they are describing a

distinct and exceptional phenomenon. And it would be a reversal of all

established rules of historical criticism to desert the solid

standing-ground of contemporary history for the artificial combinations

and shadowy hypotheses, which Frankel would substitute in its place.

Footnote 383:

_Monatschr._ p. 31.

Footnote 384:

‘The attempt to point out the Essenes in our patristic (i.e.

rabbinical) literature,’ says Herzfeld truly (II. p. 397), ‘has led to

a splendid hypothesis-hunt (_einer stattlichen Hypothesenjagd_).’

[Sidenote: Frankel’s depreciation of them is unreasonable, and explains

nothing.]

But here we are confronted with Frankel’s depreciation of these ancient

writers, which has been echoed by several later critics. They were

interested, it is argued, in making their accounts attractive to their

heathen contemporaries, and they coloured them highly for this

purpose[385]. We may readily allow that they would not be uninfluenced

by such a motive, but the concession does not touch the main points at

issue. This aim might have led Josephus, for example, to throw into bold

relief the coincidences between the Essenes and Pythagoreans; it might

even have induced him to give a semi-pagan tinge to the Essene doctrine

of the future state of the blessed (_B.J._ ii. 8. 11). But it entirely

fails to explain those peculiarities of the sect, which marked them off

by a sharp line from orthodox Judaism, and which fully justify the term

‘separatists’ as applied to them by a recent writer. In three main

features especially the portrait of the Essenes retains its distinctive

character unaffected by this consideration.

Footnote 385:

_Monatschr._ p. 31.

[Sidenote: (i) The avoidance of sacrifices is not accounted for.]

(i) How, for instance, could this principle of accommodation have led

both Philo and Josephus to lay so much stress on their divergence from

Judaic orthodoxy in the matter of sacrifices? Yet this is perhaps the

most crucial note of heresy which is recorded of the Essenes. What was

the law to the orthodox Pharisee without the sacrifices, the

temple-worship, the hierarchy? Yet the Essene declined to take any part

in the sacrifices; he had priests of his own independently of the

Levitical priesthood. On Frankel’s hypothesis that Essenism is merely an

exaggeration of pure Pharisaism, no explanation of this abnormal

phenomenon can be given. Frankel does indeed attempt to meet the case by

some speculations respecting the red-heifer[386], which are so obviously

inadequate that they have not been repeated by later writers and may

safely be passed over in silence here. On this point indeed the language

of Josephus is not [Sidenote: The notices of Josephus and Philo

considered.] quite explicit. He says (Ant. xviii. 1. 5) that, though

they send offerings (ἀναθῆματα) to the temple, they perform no

sacrifices, and he assigns as the reason their greater strictness as

regards ceremonial purity (διαφορότητι ἁγνειῶν ἃς νομίζοιεν), adding

that ‘for this reason being excluded from the common sanctuary

(τεμενίσματος) they perform their sacrifices by themselves (ἐφ’ αὑτῶν

τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσι).’ Frankel therefore supposes that their only

reason for abstaining from the temple sacrifices was that according to

their severe notions the temple itself was profaned and therefore unfit

for sacrificial worship. But if so, why should it not vitiate the

offerings, as well as the sacrifices, and make them also unlawful? And

indeed, where Josephus is vague, Philo is explicit. Philo (II. p. 457)

distinctly states that the Essenes being more scrupulous than any in the

worship of God (ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα θεραπευταὶ θεοῦ) do not sacrifice

animals (οὐ ζῶα καταθύοντες), but hold it right to dedicate their own

hearts as a worthy offering (ἀλλ’ ἱεροπρεπεῖς τὰς ἑαυτῶν διανοίας

κατασκευάζειν ἀξιοῦντες). Thus the greater strictness, which Josephus

ascribes to them, consists in the abstention from shedding blood, as a

pollution in itself. And, when he speaks of their substituting private

sacrifices, his own qualifications show that he does not mean the word

to be taken literally. Their simple meals are their sacrifices; their

refectory is their sanctuary; their president is their priest[387]. It

should be added also that, though we once hear of an Essene apparently

within the temple precincts (_B.J._ i. 3. 5, _Ant._ xiii. II. 2)[388],

no mention is ever made of one offering sacrifices. Thus it is clear

that with the Essene it was the sacrifices which polluted the temple,

and not the [Sidenote: Their statements confirmed by the doctrine of

Christian Essenes.] temple which polluted the sacrifices. And this view

is further recommended by the fact that it alone will explain the

position of their descendants, the Christianized Essenes, who condemned

the slaughter of victims on grounds very different from those alleged in

the Epistle to the Hebrews, not because they have been superseded by the

Atonement, but because they are in their very nature repulsive to God;

not because they have ceased to be right, but because they never were

right from the beginning.

Footnote 386:

_Monatschr._ p. 64.

Footnote 387:

_B.J._ ii. 8. 5 καθάπερ εἰς ἅγιόν τι τέμενος παραγίνονται τὸ

δειπνητήριον: see also the passages quoted above p. 89, note 255.

Footnote 388:

See below, p. 142.

It may be said indeed, that such a view could not be maintained without

impugning the authority, or at least disputing the integrity, of the Old

Testament writings. The sacrificial system is so bound up with the

Mosaic law, that it can only be rejected by the most arbitrary excision.

This violent process however, uncritical as it is, was very likely to

have been adopted by the Essenes[389]. As a matter of fact, it did

recommend itself to those Judaizing Christians who reproduced many of

the Essene tenets, and who both theologically and historically may be

regarded as the lineal [Sidenote: The Clementine Homilies justify this

doctrine by arbitrary excision of the Scriptures.] descendants of this

Judaic sect[390]. Thus in the _Clementine Homilies_, an Ebionite work

which exhibits many Essene features, the chief spokesman St Peter is

represented as laying great stress on the duty of distinguishing the

true and the false elements in the current Scriptures (ii. 38, 51, iii.

4, 5, 10, 42, 47, 49, 50, comp. xviii. 19). The saying traditionally

ascribed to our Lord, ‘Show yourselves approved money-changers’ (γίνεσθε

τραπεζῖται δόκιμοι), is more than once quoted by the Apostle as

enforcing this duty (ii. 51, iii. 50, xviii. 20). Among these false

elements he places all those passages which represent God as enjoining

sacrifices (iii. 45, xviii. 19). It is plain, so he argues, that God did

not desire sacrifices, for did He not kill those who lusted after the

taste of flesh in the wilderness? and, if the slaughter of animals was

thus displeasing to Him, how could He possibly have commanded victims to

be offered to Himself (iii. 45)? It is equally clear from other

considerations that this was no part of God’s genuine law. For instance,

Christ declared that He came to fulfil every tittle of the Law; yet

Christ abolished sacrifices (iii. 51). And again, the saying ‘I will

have mercy and not sacrifice’ is a condemnation of this practice (iii.

56). The true prophet ‘hates sacrifices, bloodshed, libations’; he

‘extinguishes the fire of altars’ (iii. 26). The frenzy of the lying

soothsayer is a mere intoxication produced by the reeking fumes of

sacrifice (iii. 13). When in the immediate context of these

denunciations we find it reckoned among the highest achievements of man

‘to know the _names of angels_, to drive away demons, to endeavour to

heal diseases by charms (φαρμακίαις), [Sidenote: Essene features in this

work.] and to find incantations (ἐπαοιδάς) against venomous serpents

(iii. 36)’; when again St Peter is made to condemn as false those

scriptures which speak of God swearing, and to set against them Christ’s

command ‘Let your yea be yea’ (iii. 55); we feel how thoroughly this

strange production of Ebionite Christianity is saturated with Essene

ideas[391].

Footnote 389:

Herzfeld (II. p. 403) is unable to reconcile any rejection of the Old

Testament Scriptures with the reverence paid to Moses by the Essenes

(_B.J._ ii. 8. 9, 10). The Christian Essenes however did combine both

these incongruous tenets by the expedient which is explained in the

text. Herzfeld himself suggests that allegorical interpretation may

have been employed to justify this abstention from the temple

sacrifices.

Footnote 390:

See _Galatians_, p. 310 sq.

Footnote 391:

Epiphanius (_Hær._ xviii. I, p. 38) again describes, as the account

was handed down to him (ὡς ὁ εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐλθὼν περιέχει λόγος), the

tenets of a Jewish sect which he calls the Nasareans, αὐτὴν δὲ οὐ

παρεδέχετο τὴν πεντάτευχον, ἀλλὰ ὡμολόγει, μὲν τὸν Μωϋσέα, καὶ ὅτι

ἐδέξατο νομοθεσίαν ἐπίστευεν, οὐ ταύτην δέ φησιν, ἀλλ’ ἑτέραν. ὅθεν τὰ

μὲν πάντα φυλάττουσι τῶν Ἰουδαίωv Ἰουδαῖοι ὄντες, θυσίαν δὲ οὐκ ἔθυον

οὔτε ἐμψύχων μετεῖχον, ἀλλὰ θέμιτον ἦν παρ’ αὐτοῖς τὸ κρεῶν

μεταλαμβάνειν ἢ θυσιάζειν αὐτούς. ἔφασκον γὰρ πεπλάσθαι ταῦτα τὰ

βιβλία καὶ μηδὲν τούτων ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων γεγενῆσθαι. Here we have in

combination all the features which we are seeking. The cradle of this

sect is placed by him in Gilead and Bashan and ‘the regions beyond the

Jordan.’ He uses similar language also (xxx. 18, p. 142) in describing

the Ebionites, whom he places in much the same localities (naming Moab

also), and whose Essene features are unmistakeable: οὔτε γὰρ δέχονται

τὴν πεντάτευχον Μωϋσέως ὅλην ἀλλά τινα ῥήματα ἀποβάλλουσιν. ὅταν δὲ

αὐτοῖς εἴπῃς περὶ ἐμψύχων βρώσεως κ.τ.λ. These parallels will speak

for themselves.

[Sidenote: (ii) The Essene worship of the Sun cannot be explained away.]

(ii) Nor again is Frankel successful in explaining the Essene prayers to

the sun by rabbinical practices[392]. Following Rapoport, he supposes

that Josephus and Philo refer to the beautiful hymn of praise for the

creation of light and the return of day, which forms part of the

morning-prayer of the Jews to the present time[393], and which seems to

be enjoined in the Mishna itself[394]; and this view has been adopted by

many subsequent writers. But the language of Josephus is not satisfied

by this explanation. For he says plainly (_B.J._ ii. 8. 5) that they

addressed prayers to the sun[395], and it is difficult to suppose that

he has wantonly introduced a dash of paganism into his picture; nor

indeed was there any adequate motive for his doing so. Similarly Philo

relates of the Therapeutes (_Vit. Cont._ II, II. p. 485), that they

‘stand with their faces and their whole body towards the East, and when

they see that the sun is risen, holding out their hands to heaven they

pray for a happy day (εὐημερίαν) and for truth and for keen vision of

reason (ὀξυωπίαν λογισμοῦ).’ And here again it is impossible to overlook

the confirmation which these accounts receive from the history of

certain Christian heretics deriving their descent from this Judaic sect.

[Sidenote: The Sampsæans are an Essene sect,] Epiphanius (_Hær._ xix. 2,

xx. 3, pp. 40 sq., 47) speaks of a sect called the Sampsæans or

‘Sun-worshippers[396],’ as existing in his own time in Peræa on the

borders of Moab and on the shores of the Dead Sea. He describes them as

a remnant of the Ossenes (i.e. Essenes), who have accepted a spurious

form of Christianity and are neither Jews nor Christians. This debased

Christianity which they adopted is embodied, he tells us, in the

pretended revelation of the Book of Elchasai, and dates from the time of

Trajan[397]. Elsewhere (xxx. 3, p. 127) he seems to use the terms

Sampsæan, Ossene, and Elchasaite as synonymous (παρὰ τοῖς Σαμψηνοῖς καὶ

Ὀσσηνοῖς καὶ Ἐλκεσσαίοις καλουμένοις). Now we happen to know something

of this book of Elchasai, not only from Epiphanius himself (xix. 1 sq.,

p. 40 sq., xxx. 17, p. 141), but also from Hippolytus [Sidenote: as

appears from their sacred book of Elchesai.] (_Hær._ ix. 13 sq.) who

describes it at considerable length. From these accounts it appears that

the principal feature in the book was the injunction of frequent

bathings for the remission of sins (Hipp. _Hær._ ix. 13, 15 sq.). We are

likewise told that it ‘anathematizes immolations and sacrifices (θυσίας

καὶ (ιερουργίας) as being alien to God and certainly not offered to God

by tradition from (ἐκ) the fathers and the law,’ while at the same time

it ‘says that men ought to pray there at Jerusalem, where the altar was

and the sacrifices (were offered), prohibiting the eating of flesh which

exists among the Jews, and the rest (of their customs), and the altar

and the fire, as being alien to God’ (Epiphan. xix. 3, p. 42).

Notwithstanding, [Sidenote: Its Essene peculiarities.] we are informed

that the sect retained the rite of circumcision, the observance of the

sabbath, and other practices of the Mosaic law (Hipp. _Hær._ ix. 14;

Epiph. _Hær._ xix. 5, p. 43, comp. xxx. 17, p. 141). This inconsistency

is explained by a further notice in Epiphanius (l.c.) that they treated

the Scriptures in the same way as the Nasaræans[398]; that is, they

submitted them to a process of arbitrary excision, as recommended in the

Clementine Homilies, and thus rejected as falsifications all statements

which did not square with their own theory. Hippolytus also speaks of

the Elchasaites as studying astrology and magic, and as practising

charms and incantations on the sick and the demoniacs (§ 14). Moreover

in two formularies, one of expiation, another of purification, which

this father has extracted from the book, invocation is made to ‘the holy

spirits and the angels of prayer’ (§ 15, comp. Epiph. xix. 1). It should

be added that the word Elchasai probably signifies the ‘hidden

power’[399]; while the book itself directed that its mysteries should be

guarded as precious pearls, and should not be communicated to the world

at large, but only to the faithful few (Hipp. ix. 15, 17). It is hardly

necessary to call attention to the number of Essene features which are

here combined[400]. I would only remark that the value of the notice is

not at all diminished, but rather enhanced, by the uncritical character

of Epiphanius’ work; for this very fact prevents us from ascribing the

coincidences, which here reveal themselves, to this father’s own

invention.

Footnote 392:

_Zeitschr._ p. 458.

Footnote 393:

See Ginsburg _Essenes_ p. 69 sq.

Footnote 394:

_Berakhoth_ i. 4; see Derenbourg, p. 169 sq.

Footnote 395:

See above, p. 87, note 249.

Footnote 396:

See above, p. 83.

Footnote 397:

_Galatians_ p. 311 sq. See also below, p. 167.

Footnote 398:

See p. 136, note 391.

Footnote 399:

_Galatians_ p. 312, note 1. For another derivation see below, p. 167.

Footnote 400:

Celibacy however is not one of these: comp. Epiphan. _Hær._ xix. 1 (p.

40) ἀπεχθάνεται δὲ τῇ παρθενίᾳ, μισεῖ δὲ τὴν ἐγκράτειαν, ἀναγκάζει δὲ

γάμον. In this respect they departed from the original principles of

Essenism, alleging, as it would appear, a special revelation (ὡς δῆθεν

ἀποκαλύψεως) in justification. In like manner marriage is commended in

the Clementine Homilies.

[Sidenote: Doubtful bearing of this Sun-worship.]

In this heresy we have plainly the dregs of Essenism, which has only

been corrupted from its earlier and nobler type by the admixture of a

spurious Christianity. But how came the Essenes to be called Sampsæans?

What was the original meaning of this outward reverence which they paid

to the sun? Did they regard it merely as the symbol of Divine

illumination, just as Philo frequently treats it as a type of God, the

centre of all light (e.g. _de Somn._ i. 13 sq., I. p. 631 sq.), and even

calls the heavenly bodies ‘visible and sensible gods’ (_de Mund. Op._ 7,

I. p. 6)[401]? Or did they honour the light, as the pure ethereal

element in contrast to gross terrestrial matter, according to a

suggestion of a recent writer[402]? [Sidenote: The practice repugnant to

Jewish orthodoxy.]Whatever may have been the motive of this reverence,

it is strangely repugnant to the spirit of orthodox Judaism. In Ezek.

viii. 16 it is denounced as an abomination, that men shall turn towards

the east and worship the sun; and accordingly in _Berakhoth_ 7_a_, a

saying of R. Meir is reported to the effect that God is angry when the

sun appears and the kings of the East and the West prostrate themselves

before this luminary[403]. We cannot fail therefore to recognise the

action of some foreign influence in this Essene practice—whether Greek

or Syrian or Persian, it will be time to consider hereafter.

Footnote 401:

The important place which the heavenly bodies held in the system of

Philo, who regarded them as animated beings, may be seen from

Gfrörer’s _Philo_ I. p. 349 sq.

Footnote 402:

_Keim_ I. p. 289.

Footnote 403:

See Wiesner Schol. zum _Babyl. Talm._ I. pp. 18, 20.

[Sidenote: (iii) The depreciation of marriage not accounted for.]

(iii) On the subject of marriage again, talmudical and rabbinical

notices contribute nothing towards elucidating the practices of this

sect. Least of all do they point to any affinity between the Essenes and

the Pharisees. The nearest resemblance, which Frankel can produce, to

any approximation in this respect is an injunction in Mishna _Kethuboth_

v. 8 respecting the duties of the husband in providing for the wife in

case of his separating from her, and this he ascribes to Essene

influences[404]; but this mishna does not express any approval of such a

separation. The direction seems to be framed entirely in the interests

of the wife: nor can I see that it is at all inconsistent, as Frankel

urges, with Mishna _Kethuboth_ vii. 1 which allows her to claim a

divorce under such circumstances. But however this may be, Essene and

Pharisaic opinion stand generally in the sharpest contrast to each other

with respect to marriage. The talmudic writings teem with passages

implying not only the superior sanctity, but even the imperative duty,

of marriage. The words ‘Be fruitful and multiply’ (Gen. i. 28) were

regarded not merely as a promise, but as a command, which was binding on

all. It is a maxim of the Talmud that ‘Any Jew who has not a wife is no

man’ (אינו אדם,) _Yebamoth_ 63_a_. The fact indeed is so patent, that

any accumulation of examples would be superfluous, and I shall content

myself with referring to _Pesachim_ 113_a_, _b_, as fairly illustrating

the doctrine of orthodox Judaism on this point[405]. As this question

affects the whole framework not only of religious, but also of social

life, the antagonism between the Essene and the Pharisee in a matter so

vital could not be overlooked.

Footnote 404:

_Monatschr._ p. 37.

Footnote 405:

Justin Martyr more than once taunts the Jewish rabbis with their

reckless encouragement of polygamy. See _Dial._ 134, p. 363 D, τοῖς

ἀσυνέτοις καὶ τυφλοῖς διδασκάλοις ὑμῶν, ὁίτινες καὶ μέχρι νῦν καὶ

τέσσαρας καὶ πέντε ἔχειν ὑμᾶς γυναῖκας ἕκαστον συγχωροῦσι· καὶ ἐὰν

εὔμορφόν τις ἰδὼν ἐπιθυμήσῃ αὐτῆς κ.τ.λ., _ib._ 141, p. 371 A, B,

ὁποῖον πράττουσιν οἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους ὑμῶν ἄνθρωποι, κατὰ πᾶσαν γῆν ἔνθα

ἂν ἐπιδημήσωσιν ἢ προσπεμφθῶσιν ἀγόμενοι ὀνόματι γάμου γυναῖκας

κ.τ.λ., with Otto’s note on the first passage.

[Sidenote: (iv) The Essene practice of magic still a difficulty.]

(iv) Nor again is it probable that the magical rites and incantations

which are so prominent in the practice of the Essenes would, as a rule,

have been received with any favour by the Pharisaic Jew. In Mishna

_Pesachim_ iv. 9 (comp. _Berakhoth_ 10_b_) it is mentioned with approval

that Hezekiah put away a ‘book of healings’; where doubtless the author

of the tradition had in view some volume of charms ascribed to Solomon,

like those which apparently formed part of the esoteric literature of

the Essenes[406]. In the same spirit in Mishna _Sanhedrin_ xi. 1 R.

Akiba shuts out from the hope of eternal life any ‘who read profane or

foreign (i.e. perhaps, apocryphal) books, and who mutter over a wound’

the words of Exod. xv. 26. On this point of difference however no great

stress can be laid. Though the nobler teachers among the orthodox Jews

set themselves steadfastly against the introduction of magic, they were

unable to resist the inpouring tide of superstition. In the middle of

the second century Justin Martyr alludes to exorcists and magicians

among the Jews, as though they were neither few nor obscure[407].

Whether these were a remnant of Essene Judaism, or whether such

practices had by this time spread throughout the whole body, it is

impossible to say; but the fact of their existence prevents us from

founding an argument on the use of magic, as an absolutely distinctive

feature of Essenism.

Footnote 406:

See above, p. 91, note 261.

Footnote 407:

_Dial._ 85, p. 311 C, ἤδη μέντοι οἱ ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐπορκισταὶ τῇ τέχνῃ, ὥσπερ

καὶ τὰ ἔθνη, χρώμενοι ἐξορκίζουσι καὶ θυμιάμασι καὶ καταδέσμοις

χρῶνται.

[Sidenote: General result.]