Other divergences also have been enumera_St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon A revised text with introductions, notes and dissertations

for the most part involve any great principles, and refer only to

practical details in which much fluctuation was possible, they cannot

under any circumstances be taken as crucial tests, and I have not

thought it worth while to discuss them. But the antagonisms on which I

have dwelt will tell their own tale. In three respects more especially,

in the avoidance of marriage, in the abstention from the temple

sacrifices, and (if the view which I have adopted be correct) in the

outward reverence paid to the sun, we have seen that there is an

impassable gulf between the Essenes and the Pharisees. No known

influences within the sphere of Judaism proper will serve to account for

the position of the Essenes in these respects; and we are obliged to

look elsewhere for an explanation.

Footnote 408:

Herzfeld, II. p. 392 sq.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Frankel has failed in establishing his point.]

It was shown above that the investigations of Frankel and others failed

to discover in the talmudical writings a single reference to the

Essenes, which is at once direct and indisputable. It has now appeared

that they have also failed (and this is the really important point) in

showing that the ideas and practices generally considered characteristic

of the Essenes are recognised and incorporated in these representative

books of Jewish orthodoxy; and thus the hypothesis that Essenism was

merely a type, though an exaggerated type, of pure Judaism falls to the

ground.

[Sidenote: Affinities between Essenes and Pharisees confined to the

Judaic side.]

Some affinities indeed have been made out by Frankel and by those who

have anticipated or followed him. But these are exactly such as we might

have expected. Two distinct features combine to make up the portrait of

the Essene. The Judaic element is quite as prominent in this sect as the

non-Judaic. It could not be more strongly emphasized than in the

description given by Josephus himself. In everything therefore which

relates to the strictly Judaic side of their tenets and practices, we

should expect to discover not only affinities, but even close

affinities, in talmudic and rabbinic authorities. And this is exactly

what, as a matter of fact, we do find. The Essene rules respecting the

observance of the sabbath, the rites of lustration, and the like, have

often very exact parallels in the writings of more orthodox Judaism. But

I have not thought it necessary to dwell on these coincidences, because

they may well be taken for granted and my immediate purpose did not

require me to emphasize them.

[Sidenote: The divergence of the Essenes from the Pharisees gradual.]

And again; it must be remembered that the separation between Pharisee

and Essene cannot always have been so great as it appears in the

Apostolic age. Both sects apparently arose out of one great movement, of

which the motive was the avoidance of pollution[409]. The divergence

therefore must have been gradual. At the same time, it does not seem a

very profitable task to write a hypothetical history of the growth of

Essenism, where the data are wanting; and I shall therefore abstain from

the attempt. Frankel indeed has not been deterred by this difficulty;

but he has been obliged to assume his data by postulating that such and

such a person, of whom notices are preserved, was an Essene, and thence

inferring the character of Essenism at the period in question from his

recorded sayings or doings. But without attempting any such

reconstruction of history, we may fairly allow that there must have been

a gradual development; and consequently in the earlier stages of its

growth we should not expect to find that sharp antagonism between the

two sects, which the principles of the Essenes when fully matured would

involve. [Sidenote: Hence the possibility of their appearing in the

records of orthodox Judaism.] If therefore it should be shown that the

talmudical and rabbinical writings here and there preserve with approval

the sayings of certain Essenes, this fact would present no difficulty.

At present however no decisive example has been produced; and the

discoveries of Jellinek for instance[410], who traces the influence of

this sect in almost every page of _Pirke Aboth_, can only be regarded as

another illustration of the extravagance with which the whole subject

has been treated by a large section of modern Jewish writers. More to

the point is a notice of an earlier Essene preserved in Josephus

himself. We learn from this historian that one Judas, a member of the

sect, who had prophesied the death of Antigonus, saw this prince

‘passing by through the temple[411],’ when his prophecy was on the point

of fulfilment (about B.C. 110). At this moment Judas is represented as

sitting in the midst of his disciples, instructing them in the science

of prediction. The expression quoted would seem to imply that he was

actually teaching within the temple area. Thus he would appear not only

as mixing in the ordinary life of the Jews, but also as frequenting the

national sanctuary. But even supposing this to be the right explanation

of the passage, it will not present any serious difficulty. Even at a

later date, when (as we may suppose) the principles of the sect had

stiffened, the scruples of the Essene were directed, if I have rightly

interpreted the account of Josephus, rather against the sacrifices than

against the locality[412]. The temple itself, independently of its

accompaniments, would not suggest any offence to his conscience.

Footnote 409:

See above, p. 120.

Footnote 410:

_Orient_ 1849, pp. 489, 537, 553.

Footnote 411:

_B.J._ i. 3. 5 παριόντα διὰ τοῦ ἱεροῦ. In the parallel narrative,

_Ant._ xiii. II. 2, the expression is παριόντα τὸ ἱερόν, which does

not imply so much; but the less precise notice must be interpreted by

the more precise. Even then however it is not directly stated that

Judas himself was within the temple area.

Footnote 412:

See above, pp. 89, 134 sq.

[Sidenote: The approbation of Philo and Josephus is no evidence of

orthodoxy.]

Nor again, is it any obstacle to the view which is here maintained, that

the Essenes are regarded with so much sympathy by Philo and Josephus

themselves. Even though the purity of Judaism might have been somewhat

sullied in this sect by the admixture of foreign elements, this fact

would attract rather than repel an eclectic like Philo, and a

latitudinarian like Josephus. The former, as an Alexandrian, absorbed

into his system many and diverse elements of heathen philosophy,

Platonic, Stoic, and Pythagorean. The latter, though professedly a

Pharisee, lost no opportunity of ingratiating himself with his heathen

conquerors, and would not be unwilling to gratify their curiosity

respecting a society with whose fame, as we infer from the notice of

Pliny, they were already acquainted.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: What was the foreign element in Essenism?]

But if Essenism owed the features which distinguished it from Pharisaic

Judaism to an alien admixture, whence were these foreign influences

derived? From the philosophers of Greece or from the religious mystics

of the East? On this point recent writers are divided.

[Sidenote: Theory of Neopythagorean influence.]

Those who trace the distinctive characteristics of the sect to Greece,

regard it as an offshoot of the Neopythagorean School grafted on the

stem of Judaism. This solution is suggested by the statement of

Josephus, that ‘they practise the mode of life which among the Greeks

was introduced (καταδεδειγμένῃ) by Pythagoras[413].’ It is thought to be

confirmed by the strong resemblances which as a matter of fact are found

to exist between the institutions and practices of the two.

[Sidenote: Statement of the theory by Zeller.]

This theory, which is maintained also by other writers, as for instance

by Baur and Herzfeld, has found its ablest and most persistent advocate

in Zeller, who draws out the parallels with great force and precision.

‘The Essenes,’ he writes, ‘like the Pythagoreans, desire to attain a

higher sanctity by an ascetic life; and the abstentions, which they

impose on themselves for this end, are the same with both. They reject

animal food and bloody sacrifices; they avoid wine, warm baths, and oil

for anointing; they set a high value on celibate life: or, so far as

they allow marriage, they require that it be restricted to the one

object of procreating children. Both wear only white garments and

consider linen purer than wool. Washings and purifications are

prescribed by both, though for the Essenes they have a yet higher

significance as religious acts. Both prohibit oaths and (what is more)

on the same grounds. Both find their social ideal in those institutions,

which indeed the Essenes alone set themselves to realise—in a corporate

life with entire community of goods, in sharply defined orders of rank,

in the unconditional submission of all the members to their superiors,

in a society carefully barred from without, into which new members are

received only after a severe probation of several years, and from which

the unworthy are inexorably excluded. Both require a strict initiation,

both desire [Sidenote: Zeller’s theory.] to maintain a traditional

doctrine inviolable; both pay the highest respect to the men from whom

it was derived, as instruments of the deity: yet both also love

figurative clothing for their doctrines, and treat the old traditions as

symbols of deeper truths, which they must extract from them by means of

allegorical explanation. In order to prove the later form of teaching

original, newly-composed writings were unhesitatingly forged by the one

as by the other, and fathered upon illustrious names of the past. Both

parties pay honour to divine powers in the elements, both invoke the

rising sun, both seek to withdraw everything unclean from his sight, and

with this view give special directions, in which they agree as well with

each other as with older Greek superstition, in a remarkable way. For

both the belief in intermediate beings between God and the world has an

importance which is higher in proportion as their own conception of God

is purer; both appear not to have disdained magic; yet both regard the

gift of prophecy as the highest fruit of wisdom and piety, which they

pique themselves on possessing in their most distinguished members.

Finally, both agree (along with the dualistic character of their whole

conception of the world ...) in their tenets respecting the origin of

the soul, its relation to the body, and the life after death[414]....’

Footnote 413:

_Ant._ xv. 10. 4.

Footnote 414:

Zeller _Philosophie der Griechen_, Th. III. Abth. 2, p. 281.

[Sidenote: Absence of distinctive Pythagorean features in the Essenes.]

This array of coincidences is formidable, and thus skilfully marshalled

might appear at first sight invincible. But a closer examination

detracts from its value. In the first place the two distinctive

characteristics of the Pythagorean philosophy are wanting to the

Essenes. The Jewish sect did not believe in the transmigration of souls;

and the doctrine of numbers, at least so far as our information goes,

had no place in their system. Yet these constitute the very essence of

the Pythagorean teaching. In the next place several of the coincidences

are more apparent than real. Thus [Sidenote: The coincidences are in

some cases only apparent,] for instance the demons who in the

Pythagorean system held an intermediate place between the Supreme God

and man, and were the result of a compromise between polytheism and

philosophy, have no near relation to the angelology of the Essenes,

which arose out of a wholly different motive. Nor again can we find

distinct traces among the Pythagoreans of any such reverence for the sun

as is ascribed to the Essenes, the only notice which is adduced having

no prominence whatever in its own context, and referring to a rule which

would be dictated by natural decency and certainly was not peculiar to

the Pythagoreans[415]. When these imperfect and (for the purpose)

valueless resemblances have been subtracted, the only basis on which the

theory of a direct affiliation can rest is withdrawn. All the remaining

coincidences are unimportant. Thus the respect paid to founders is not

confined to any one sect or any one age. The reverence of the Essenes

for Moses, and the reverence of the Pythagoreans for Pythagoras, are

indications of a common humanity, but not of a common philosophy. And

again the forgery of supposititious documents is unhappily not the badge

of any one school. The Solomonian books of the Essenes, so far as we can

judge from the extant notices, were about as unlike the tracts ascribed

to Pythagoras and his disciples by the Neopythagoreans as two such

forgeries could well be. All or nearly all that remains in common to the

Greek school and the Jewish sect after these deductions is [Sidenote:

and in others do not suggest any historical connexion.] a certain

similarity in the type of life. But granted that two bodies of men each

held an esoteric teaching of their own, they would secure it

independently in a similar way, by a recognised process of initiation,

by a solemn form of oath, by a rigid distinction of orders. Granted

also, that they both maintained the excellence of an ascetic life, their

asceticism would naturally take the same form; they would avoid wine and

flesh; they would abstain from anointing themselves with oil; they would

depreciate, and perhaps altogether prohibit, marriage. Unless therefore

the historical conditions are themselves favourable to a direct and

immediate connexion between the Pythagoreans and the Essenes, this

theory of affiliation has little to recommend it.

Footnote 415:

Diog. Laert. viii. 17; see Zeller l.c. p. 282, note 5. The precept in

question occurs among a number of insignificant details, and has no

special prominence given to it. In the _Life of Apollonius_ by

Philostratus (e.g. vi. 10) considerable stress is laid on the worship

of the sun (Zeller l.c. p. 137, note 6); but the syncretism of this

late work detracts from its value as representing Pythagorean

doctrine.

[Sidenote: Twofold objection to this theory.]

And a closer examination must pronounce them to be most unfavourable.

Chronology and geography alike present serious obstacles to any solution

which derives the peculiarities of the Essenes from the Pythagoreans.

[Sidenote: (i) Chronological facts are adverse.]

(i) The priority of time, if it can be pleaded on either side, must be

urged in favour of the Essenes. The Pythagoreans as a philosophical

school entirely disappear from history before the middle of the fourth

century before Christ. The last Pythagoreans were scholars of Philolaus

and Eurytus, the contemporaries of Socrates and Plato[416]. For nearly

two centuries after their extinction we hear [Sidenote: Disappearance of

the Pythagoreans.] nothing of them. Here and there persons like Diodorus

of Aspendus are satirised by the Attic poets of the middle comedy as

‘pythagorizers,’ in other words, as total abstainers and

vegetarians[417]; but the philosophy had wholly died or was fast dying

out. This is the universal testimony of ancient writers. It is not till

the first century before Christ, that we meet with any distinct traces

of a revival. In Alexander Polyhistor[418], a younger contemporary of

Sulla, for the first time we find references to certain writings, which

would seem to have emanated from this incipient Neopythagoreanism,

rather than from the elder school of Pythagoreans. And a little later

Cicero commends his friend Nigidius Figulus as one specially raised up

to revive the extinct philosophy[419]. But so slow or so chequered was

its progress, that a whole century after Seneca can still speak of the

[Sidenote: Priority of Essenism to Neopythagoreanism.] school as

practically defunct[420]. Yet long before this the Essenes formed a

compact, well-organized, numerous society with a peculiar system of

doctrine and a definite rule of life. We have seen that Pliny the elder

speaks of this celibate society as having existed ‘through thousands of

ages[421].’ This is a gross exaggeration, but it must at least be taken

to imply that in Pliny’s time the origin of the Essenes was lost in the

obscurity of the past, or at least seemed so to those who had not access

to special sources of information. If, as I have given reasons for

supposing[422], Pliny’s authority in this passage is the same Alexander

Polyhistor to whom I have just referred, and if this particular

statement, however exaggerated in expression, is derived from him, the

fact becomes still more significant. But on any showing the priority in

time is distinctly in favour of the Essenes as against the

Neopythagoreans.

Footnote 416:

Zeller l.c. p. 68 (comp. I. p. 242). While disputing Zeller’s

position, I have freely made use of his references. It is impossible

not to admire the mastery of detail and clearness of exposition in

this work, even when the conclusions seem questionable.

Footnote 417:

Athen. iv. p. 161, Diog. Laert. viii. 37. See the index to Meineke

_Fragm. Com._ s. vv. πυθαγορικός, etc. The words commonly used by

these satirists are πυθαγορίζειν, πυθαγοριστής, πυθαγορισμός. The

persons so satirized were probably in many cases not more Pythagoreans

than modern teetotallers are Rechabites.

Footnote 418:

Diog. Laert. viii. 24 sq.; see Zeller l.c. p. 74–78.

Footnote 419:

Cic. _Tim._ I ‘sic judico, post illos nobiles Pythagoreos quorum

disciplina _extincta est_ quodammodo, cum aliquot sæcula in Italia

Siciliaque viguisset, hunc exstitisse qui illam _renovaret_.’

Footnote 420:

Sen. _N.Q._ vii. 32 ‘Pythagorica illa invidiosa turbæ schola

præceptorem non invenit.’

Footnote 421:

_N.H._ v. 15. The passage is at which Josephus thinks it necessary to

insert an account of the Essenes as already flourishing (_Ant._ xiii.

5. 9), is prior to the revival of the Neopythagorean school. How much

earlier the Jewish sect arose, we are without data for determining.

Footnote 422:

See p. 83, note 240.

[Sidenote: The Essene tenets more developed than the Neopythagorean.]

And accordingly we find that what is only a tendency in the

Neopythagoreans is with the Essenes an avowed principle and a definite

rule of life. Such for instance is the case with celibacy, of which

Pliny says that it has existed as an institution among the Essenes _per

sæculorum millia_, and which is a chief corner-stone of their practical

system. The Pythagorean notices (whether truly or not, it is unimportant

for my purpose to enquire) speak of Pythagoras as having a wife and a

daughter[423]. Only at a late date do we find the attempt to represent

their founder in another light; and if virginity is ascribed to

Apollonius of Tyana, the great Pythagorean of the first Christian

century, in the fictitious biography of Philostratus[424], this

representation is plainly due to the general plan of the novelist, whose

hero is intended to rival the Founder of Christianity, and whose work is

saturated with Christian ideas. In fact virginity can never be said to

have been a Pythagorean principle, though it may have been an exalted

ideal of some not very early adherents of the school. And the same

remark applies to other resemblances between the Essene and

Neopythagorean teaching. The clearness of conception and the

definiteness of practice are in almost every instance on the side of the

Essenes; so that, looking to the comparative chronology of the two, it

will appear almost inconceivable that they can have derived their

principles from the Neopythagoreans.

Footnote 423:

Diog. Laert. viii. 42.

Footnote 424:

_Vit. Apoll._ i. 15 sq. At the same time Philostratus informs us that

the conduct of his hero in this respect had been differently

represented by others.

[Sidenote: (ii) Geographical difficulties in the theory.]

(ii) But the geographical difficulty also, which this theory of

affiliation involves, must be added to the chronological. The home of

the Essene sect is allowed on all hands to have been on the eastern

borders of Palestine, the shores of the Dead Sea, a region least of all

exposed to the influences of Greek philosophy. It is true that we find

near Alexandria a closely allied school of Jewish recluses, the

Therapeutes; and, as Alexandria may have been the home of

Neopythagoreanism, a possible link of connexion is here disclosed. But,

as Zeller himself has pointed out, it is not among the Therapeutes, but

among the Essenes, that the principles in question appear fully

developed and consistently carried out[425]; and therefore, if there be

a relation of paternity between Essene and Therapeute, the latter must

be derived from the former and not conversely. How then can we suppose

this influence of Neopythagoreanism brought to bear on a Jewish

community in the south-eastern border of Palestine? Zeller’s answer is

as follows[426]. Judæa was for more than a hundred and fifty years

before the Maccabean period under the sovereignty first of the Egyptian

and then of the Syrian Greeks. We know that at this time Hellenizing

influences did infuse themselves largely into Judaism: and what more

natural than that among these the Pythagorean philosophy and discipline

should have recommended itself to a section of the Jewish people? It may

be said in reply, that at all events the special locality of the Essenes

is the least favourable to such a solution: but, without pressing this

fact, Zeller’s hypothesis is open to two serious objections which

combined seem fatal to it, unsupported as it is by any historical

notice. First, this influence of Pythagoreanism is assumed to have taken

place at the very time when the Pythagorean school was practically

extinct: and secondly, it is supposed to have acted upon that very

section of the Jewish community, which was the most vigorous advocate of

national exclusiveness and the most averse to Hellenizing influences.

Footnote 425:

l.c. p. 288 sq.

Footnote 426:

l.c. p. 290 sq.

[Sidenote: The foreign element of Essenism to be sought in the East,]

It is not therefore to Greek but to Oriental influences that

considerations of time and place, as well as of internal character, lead

us to look for an explanation of the alien elements in Essene Judaism.

And have we not here also the account of any real coincidences which may

exist between Essenism and Neopythagoreanism? We should perhaps be

hardly more justified in tracing Neopythagoreanism directly to Essenism

than conversely (though, if we had no other alternative, this would

appear to be the more probable solution of the two): but were not both

alike due to substantially the same influences acting in different

degrees? [Sidenote: to which also Pythagoreanism may have been

indebted.]I think it will hardly be denied that the characteristic

features of Pythagoreanism, and especially of Neopythagoreanism, which

distinguish it from other schools of Greek philosophy, are much more

Oriental in type, than Hellenic. The asceticism, the magic, the

mysticism, of the sect all point in the same direction. And history

moreover contains indications that such was the case. There seems to be

sufficient ground for the statement that Pythagoras himself was indebted

to intercourse with the Egyptians, if not with more strictly Oriental

nations, for some leading ideas of his system. But, however this may be,

the fact that in the legendary accounts, which the Neopythagoreans

invented to do honour to the founder of the school, he is represented as

taking lessons from the Chaldeans, Persians, Brahmins, and others, may

be taken as an evidence that their own philosophy at all events was

partially derived from eastern sources[427].

Footnote 427:

See the references in Zeller I. p. 218 sq.; comp. III. 2, p. 67.

* * * * *

But, if the alien elements of Essenism were borrowed not so much from

Greek philosophy as from Oriental mysticism, to what nation or what

religion was it chiefly indebted? To this question it is difficult, with

our very imperfect knowledge of the East at the Christian era, to reply

with any confidence. [Sidenote: Resemblances to Parsism.]Yet there is

one system to which we naturally look, as furnishing the most probable

answer. The Medo-Persian religion supplies just those elements which

distinguish the tenets and practices of the Essenes from the normal type

of Judaism. [Sidenote: (i) Dualism.](1) First; we have here a very

definite form of dualism, which exercised the greatest influence on

subsequent Gnostic sects, and of which Manicheism, the most mature

development of dualistic doctrine in connexion with Christianity, was

the ultimate fruit. For though dualism may not represent the oldest

theology of the Zend-Avesta in its unadulterated form, yet long before

the era of which we are speaking it had become the fundamental principle

of the Persian religion. [Sidenote: (ii) Sun-worship.](2) Again; the

Zoroastrian symbolism of light, and consequent worship of the sun as the

fountain of light, will explain those anomalous notices of the Essenes

in which they are represented as paying reverence to this luminary[428].

[Sidenote: (iii) Angelolatry.](3) Moreover; the ‘worship of angels’ in

the Essene system has a striking parallel in the invocations of spirits,

which form a very prominent feature in the ritual of the Zend-Avesta.

And altogether their angelology is illustrated, and not improbably was

suggested, by the doctrine of intermediate beings concerned in the

government of nature and of man, such as the Amshaspands, which is an

integral part of the Zoroastrian system[429]. [Sidenote: (iv) Magic.](4)

And once more; the magic, which was so attractive to the Essene, may

have received its impulse from the priestly caste of Persia, to whose

world-wide fame this form of superstition is indebted for its name.

[Sidenote: (v) Striving after purity.](5) If to these parallels I

venture also to add the intense striving after purity, which is the

noblest feature in the Persian religion, I do so, not because the

Essenes might not have derived this impulse from a higher source, but

because this feature was very likely to recommend the Zoroastrian system

to their favourable notice, and because also the particular form which

the zeal for purity took among them was at all events congenial to the

teaching of the Zend-Avesta, and may not have been altogether free from

its influences.

Footnote 428:

Keim (_Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_ I.</sc> p. 303) refers to Tac.

Hist. iii. 24 ‘Undique clamor; et _orientem solem_ (ita in Syria mos

est) tertiani salutavere,’ as illustrating this Essene practice. The

commentators on Tacitus quote a similar notice of the Parthians in

Herodian iv. 15 _ἅμα δὲ ἡλίῳ ἀνίσχοντι ἐφάνη Ἀρτάβανος σὺν μεγίστῳ

πλήθει στρατοῦ· ἀσπασάμενοι δὲ τὸν ἤλιον, ὡς ἔθος αὐτοῖς, οἱ βάρβαροι

κ.τ.λ._

Footnote 429:

See e.g. _Vendidad_ Farg. xix; and the liturgical portions of the book

are largely taken up with invocations of these intermediate beings.

Some extracts are given in Davies’ _Colossians_ p. 146 sq.

[Sidenote: Other coincidences accidental.]

I have preferred dwelling on these broader resemblances, because they

are much more significant than any mere coincidence of details, which

may or may not have been accidental. Thus for instance the magi, like

the Essenes, wore white garments, and eschewed gold and ornaments; they

practised frequent lustrations; they avoided flesh, living on bread and

cheese or on herbs and fruits; they had different orders in their

society; and the like[430]. All these, as I have already remarked, may

be the independent out-growth of the same temper and direction of

conduct, and need not imply any direct historical connexion. Nor is

there any temptation to press such resemblances; for even without their

aid the general connexion seems to be sufficiently established[431].

Footnote 430:

Hilgenfeld (_Zeitschrift_ x. p. 99 sq.) finds coincidences even more

special than these. He is answered by Zeller (III. 2. p. 276), but

defends his position again (_Zeitschrift_ xi. p. 347 sq.), though with

no great success. Among other points of coincidence Hilgenfeld remarks

on the axe (Jos. _B.J._ ii. 8. 7) which was given to the novices among

the Essenes, and connects it with the ἀξινομαντεία (Plin. _N.H._

xxxvi. 19) of the magi. Zeller contents himself with replying that the

use of the axe among the Essenes for purposes of divination is a pure

conjecture, not resting on any known fact. He might have answered with

much more effect that Josephus elsewhere (§ 9) defines it as a spade

or shovel, and assigns to it a very different use. Hilgenfeld has

damaged his cause by laying stress on these accidental resemblances.

So far as regards minor coincidences, Zeller makes out as good a case

for his Pythagoreans, as Hilgenfeld for his magians.

Footnote 431:

Those who allow any foreign Oriental element in Essenism most commonly

ascribe it to Persia: e.g. among the more recent writers, Hilgenfeld

(l.c.) and Lipsius _Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexikon_ s.v. Essäer p. 189.

[Sidenote: The destruction of the Persian empire not adverse]

But it is said, that the history of Persia does not favour the

hypothesis of such an influence as is here assumed. The destruction of

the Persian empire by Alexander, argues Zeller[432], and the subsequent

erection of the Parthian domination on its ruins, must have been fatal

to the spread of Zoroastrianism. From the middle of the third century

before Christ, when the Parthian empire was established, till towards

the middle of the third century of our era, when the Persian monarchy

and religion were once more restored[433], its influence must have been

reduced within the narrowest limits. [Sidenote: but favourable to the

spread of Parsism.] But does analogy really suggest such an inference?

Does not the history of the Jews themselves show that the religious

influence of a people on the world at large may begin just where its

national life ends? The very dispersion of Zoroastrianism, consequent on

the fall of the empire, would impregnate the atmosphere far and wide;

and the germs of new religious developments would thus be implanted in

alien soils. For in tracing Essenism to Persian influences I have not

wished to imply that this Jewish sect consciously incorporated the

Zoroastrian philosophy and religion as such, but only that Zoroastrian

ideas were infused into its system by more or less direct contact. And,

as a matter of fact, it seems quite certain that Persian ideas were

widely spread during this very interval, when the Persian nationality

was eclipsed. [Sidenote: Indications of its influence during this

period.]It was then that Hermippus gave to the Greeks the most detailed

account of this religion which had ever been laid before them[434]. It

was then that its tenets suggested or moulded the speculations of the

various Gnostic sects. It was then that the worship of the Persian

Mithras spread throughout the Roman Empire. It was then, if not earlier,

that the magian system took root in Asia Minor, making for itself (as it

were) a second home in Cappadocia[435]. It was then, if not earlier,

that the Zoroastrian demonology stamped itself so deeply on the

apocryphal literature of the Jews themselves, which borrowed even the

names of evil spirits[436] from the Persians. There are indeed abundant

indications that Palestine was surrounded by Persian influences during

this period, when the Persian empire was in abeyance.

Footnote 432:

l.c. p. 275.

Footnote 433:

See Gibbon _Decline and Fall_ c. viii, Milman _History of

Christianity_ II. p. 247 sq. The latter speaks of this restoration of

Zoroastrianism, as ‘perhaps the only instance of the vigorous revival

of a Pagan religion.’ It was far purer and less Pagan than the system

which it superseded; and this may account for its renewed life.

Footnote 434:

See Müller _Fragm. Hist. Græc._ III. p. 53 sq. for this work of

Hermippus περὶ Μάγων. He flourished about B.C. 200. See Max Müller

_Lectures on the Science of Language_ 1st ser. p. 86.

Footnote 435:

Strabo xv. 3. 15 (p. 733) Ἐν δὲ τῇ Καππαδοκίᾳ (πολὺ γὰρ ἐκεῖ τὸ τῶν

Μάγων φῦλον, οἳ καὶ πύραιθοι καλοῦνται· πολλὰ δὲ καὶ τῶν Περσικῶν θεῶν

ἱερά) κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 436:

At least in one instance, Asmodeus (Tob. iii. 17); see M. Müller

_Chips from a German Workshop_ I. p. 148 sq. For the different dates

assigned to the book of Tobit see Dr Westcott’s article _Tobit_ in

Smith’s _Dictionary of the Bible_ p. 1525.

Thus we seem to have ample ground for the view that certain alien

features in Essene Judaism were derived from the Zoroastrian religion.

[Sidenote: Are Buddhist influences also perceptible?]But are we

justified in going a step further, and attributing other elements in

this eclectic system to the more distant East? The monasticism of the

Buddhist will naturally occur to our minds, as a precursor of the

cenobitic life among the Essenes; and Hilgenfeld accordingly has not

hesitated to ascribe this characteristic of Essenism directly to

Buddhist influences[437]. But at the outset we are obliged to ask

whether history gives any such indication of the presence of Buddhism in

the West as this hypothesis requires. Hilgenfeld answers this question

in the affirmative. [Sidenote: Supposed Buddhist establishment at

Alexandria.]He points triumphantly to the fact that as early as the

middle of the second century before Christ the Buddhist records speak of

their faith as flourishing in Alasanda the chief city of the land of

Yavana. The place intended, he conceives, can be none other than the

great Alexandria, the most famous of the many places bearing the

name[438]. [Sidenote: The authority misinterpreted] In this opinion

however he stands quite alone. Neither Köppen[439], who is his authority

for this statement, nor any other Indian scholar[440], so far as I am

aware, for a moment contemplates this identification. Yavana, or Yona,

was the common Indian name for the Græco-Bactrian kingdom and its

dependencies[441]; and to this region we naturally turn. The Alasanda or

Alasadda therefore, which is here mentioned, will be one of several

Eastern cities bearing the name of the great conqueror, most probably

_Alexandria ad Caucasum_. But indeed I hardly think that, if Hilgenfeld

had referred to the original authority for the statement, the great

Buddhist history _Mahawanso_, he would have ventured to lay any stress

at all on this notice, as supporting his theory. [Sidenote: and wholly

untrustworthy in itself.]The historian, or rather fabulist (for such he

is in this earlier part of his chronicle), is relating the foundation of

the Mahá thúpo, or great tope, at Ruanwelli by the king Dutthagámini in

the year B.C. 157. Beyond the fact that this tope was erected by this

king the rest is plainly legendary. All the materials for the

construction of the building, we are told, appeared spontaneously as by

miracle—the bricks, the metals, the precious stones. The dewos, or

demons, lent their aid in the erection. In fact

the fabric huge

Rose like an exhalation.

Priests gathered in enormous numbers from all the great Buddhist

monasteries to do honour to the festival of the foundation. One place

alone sent not less than 96,000. Among the rest it is mentioned that

‘Maha Dhammarakkito, théro (_i.e._ senior priest) of Yóna, accompanied

by 30,000 priests from the vicinity of Alasaddá, the capital of the Yóna

country, attended[442].’ It is obvious that no weight can be attached to

a statement occurring as part of a story of which the other details are

so manifestly false. An establishment of 30,000 Buddhist priests at

Alexandria would indeed be a phenomenon of which historians have shown a

strange neglect.

Footnote 437:

_Zeitschrift_ X. p. 103 sq.; comp. XI. p. 351. M. Renan also (_Langues

Sémitiques_ III. iv. 1, _Vie de Jésus_ p. 98) suggests that Buddhist

influences operated in Palestine.

Footnote 438:

X. p. 105 ‘was schon an sich, zumal in dieser Zeit, schwerlich

Alexandria ad Caucasum, sondern nur Alexandrien in Aegypten bedeuten

kann.’ Comp. XI. p. 351, where he repeats the same argument in reply

to Zeller. This is a very natural inference from a western point of

view; but, when we place ourselves in the position of a Buddhist

writer to whom Bactria was Greece, the relative proportions of things

are wholly changed.

Footnote 439:

_Die Religion des Buddha_ I. p. 193.

Footnote 440:

Comp. e.g. Weber _Die Verbindungen Indiens mit den Ländern im Westen_

p.675 in the _Allgem. Monatschr. f. Wissensch. u. Literatur_,

Braunschweig 1853; Lassen _Indische Alterthumskunde_ II. p. 236; Hardy

_Manual of Budhism_ p. 516.

Footnote 441:

For its geographical meaning in older Indian writers see Köppen _l.c._

Since then it has entirely departed from its original signification,

and Yavana is now a common term used by the Hindoos to designate the

Mohammedans. Thus the Greek name has come to be applied to a people

which of all others is most unlike the Greeks. This change of meaning

admirably illustrates the use of Ἑλλην among the Jews, which in like

manner, from being the name of an alien nation, became the name of an

alien religion, irrespective of nationality: see the note on Gal. ii.

Footnote 442:

_Mahawanso_ p. 171, Turnour’s translation.

[Sidenote: General ignorance of Buddhism in the West.]

Nor is the presence of any Buddhist establishment even on a much smaller

scale in this important centre of western civilization at all

reconcilable with the ignorance of this religion, which the Greeks and

Romans betray at a much later date[443]. For some centuries after the

Christian era we find that the information possessed by western writers

was most shadowy and confused; and in almost every instance we are able

to trace it to some other cause than the actual presence of Buddhists in

the Roman Empire[444]. [Sidenote: Strabo.]Thus Strabo, who wrote under

Augustus and Tiberius, apparently mentions the Buddhist priests, the

sramanas, under the designation _sarmanæ_, (Σαρμάνας)[445]; but he

avowedly obtains his information from Megasthenes, who travelled in

India somewhere about the year 300 B.C. and wrote a book on Indian

affairs. [Sidenote: Bardesanes.]Thus too Bardesanes at a much later date

gives an account of these Buddhist ascetics, without however naming the

founder of the religion; but he was indebted for his knowledge of them

to conversations with certain Indian ambassadors who visited Syria on

their way westward in the reign of one of the Antonines[446]. [Sidenote:

Clement of Alexandria.] Clement of Alexandria, writing in the latest

years of the second century or the earliest of the third, for the first

time[447] mentions Buddha by name; and even he betrays a strange

ignorance of this Eastern religion[448].

Footnote 443:

How for instance, if any such establishment had ever existed at

Alexandria, could Strabo have used the language which is quoted in the

next note?

Footnote 444:

Consistently with this view, we may allow that single Indians would

visit Alexandria from time to time for purposes of trade or for other

reasons, and not more than this is required by the rhetorical passage

in Dion Chrysost. Or. xxxii (p. 373) ὁρῶ γὰρ ἔγωγε οὐ μόνον Ἕλληνας

παρ’ ὑμῖν ... ἀλλὰ καὶ Βακτρίους καὶ Σκύθας καὶ Πέρσας καὶ Ἰνδῶν

τινάς. The qualifying τινας shows how very slight was the

communication between India and Alexandria. The mission of Pantænus

may have been suggested by the presence of such stray visitors. Jerome

(_Vir. Ill._ 36) says that he went ‘rogatus ab illius gentis legatis.’

It must remain doubtful however, whether some other region than

Hindostan, such as Æthiopia for instance, is not meant, when Pantænus

is said to have gone to India: see Cave’s _Lives of the Primitive

Fathers_ p. 188 sq.

How very slight the communication was between India and the West in

the early years of the Christian era, appears from this passage of

Strabo XV. 1. 4 (p. 686); καὶ οἱ νῦν δὲ ἐξ Αἰγύπτου πλέοντες ἐμπορικοὶ

τῷ Νείλῳ καὶ τῷ Ἀραβίῳ κόλπῳ μέχρι τῆς Ἰνδικῆς σπάνιοι μὲν καὶ

περιπεπλεύκασι μέχρι τοῦ Γάγγου, καὶ οὗτοι δ’ ἰδιῶται καὶ οὐδὲν πρὸς

ἱστορίαν τῶν τόπων χρῆσιμοι, after which he goes on to say that the

only instance of Indian travellers in the West was the embassy sent to

Augustus (see below p. 155), which came ἀφ’ ἑνὸς τόπου καὶ παρ’ ἑνὸς

βασιλέως.

The communications between India and the West are investigated by two

recent writers, Reinaud _Relations Politiques et Commerciales de

l’Empire Romain avec l’Asie Centrale_, Paris 1863, and Priaulx _The

Indian Travels of Apollonius of Tyana and the Indian Embassies to

Rome_, 1873. The latter work, which is very thorough and satisfactory,

would have saved me much labour of independent investigation, if I had

seen it in time.

Footnote 445:

Strabo XV. 1. 59, p. 712. In the MSS it is written Γαρμάνας, but this

must be an error either introduced by Strabo’s transcribers or found

in the copy of Megasthenes which this author used. This is plain not

only from the Indian word itself, but also from the parallel passage

in Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._ i. 15). From the coincidences of

language it is clear that Clement also derived his information from

Megasthenes, whose name he mentions just below. The fragments of

Megasthenes relating to the Indian philosophers will be found in

Müller _Fragm. Hist. Græc._ II. p. 437. They were previously edited by

Schwanbeck, _Megasthenis Indica_ (Bonnæ 1846).

For Σαρμᾶναι we also find the form Σαμαναῖοι in other writers; e.g.

Clem. Alex. l.c., Bardesanes in Porphyr. _de Abstin._ iv. 17, Orig.

_c. Cels._ i. 19 (I. p. 342). This divergence is explained by the fact

that the Pali word _sammana_ corresponds to the Sanskrit _sramana_.

See Schwanbeck, l.c. p. 17, quoted by Müller p. 437.

It should be borne in mind however, that several eminent Indian

scholars believe Megasthenes to have meant not Buddhists but Brahmins

by his Σαρμάνας. So for instance Lassen _Rhein. Mus._ 1833, p. 180

sq., _Ind. Alterth._ II. p. 700: and Prof. Max Müller (Pref. to

Rogers’s _Translation of Buddhaghosha’s Parables_, London 1870, p.

lii) says; ‘That Lassen is right in taking the Σαρμᾶναι, mentioned by

Megasthenes, for Brahmanic, not for Buddhist ascetics, might be proved

also by their dress. Dresses made of the bark of trees are not

Buddhistic.’ If this opinion be correct, the earlier notices of

Buddhism in Greek writers entirely disappear, and my position is

strengthened. But for the following reasons the other view appears to

me more probable: (1) The term _sramana_ is the common term for the

Buddhist ascetic, whereas it is very seldom used of the Brahmin.

(2) The Ζάρμανος (another form of _sramana_), mentioned below p. 156,

note 450, appears to have been a Buddhist. This view is taken even by

Lassen, _Ind. Alterth._ III. p. 60.

(3) The distinction of Βραχμᾶνες and Σαρμᾶναι in Megasthenes or the

writers following him corresponds to the distinction of Βραχμᾶνες and

Σαμαναῖοι in Bardesanes, Origen, and others; and, as Schwanbeck has

shown (l.c.), the account of the Σαρμᾶναι in Megasthenes for the most

part is a close parallel to the account of the Σαμαναῖοι in Bardesanes

(or at least in Porphyry’s report of Bardesanes). It seems more

probable therefore that Megasthenes has been guilty of confusion in

describing the dress of the Σαρμᾶναι, than that Brahmins are intended

by the term.

The Pali form, Σαμαναῖοι, as a designation of the Buddhists, first

occurs in Clement of Alexandria or Bardesanes, whichever may be the

earlier writer. It is generally ascribed to Alexander Polyhistor, who

flourished B.C. 80–60, because his authority is quoted by Cyril of

Alexandria (c. _Julian_. iv. p. 133) in the same context in which the

Σαμαναῖοι are mentioned. This inference is drawn by Schwanbeck, Max

Müller, Lassen, and others. An examination of Cyril’s language however

shows that the statement for which he quotes the authority of

Alexander Polyhistor does not extend to the mention of the Samanæi.

Indeed all the facts given in this passage of Cyril (including the

reference to Polyhistor) are taken from Clement of Alexandria

(_Strom._ i. 15; see the next note), whose account Cyril has abridged.

It is possible indeed that Clement himself derived the statement from

Polyhistor, but nothing in Clement’s own language points to this.

Footnote 446:

The narrative of Bardesanes is given by Porphyry _de Abst._ iv. 17.

The Buddhist ascetics are there called Σαμαναῖοι (see the last note).

The work of Bardesanes, recounting his conversations with these Indian

ambassadors, is quoted again by Porphyry in a fragment preserved by

Stobæus _Ecl._ iii. 56 (p. 141). In this last passage the embassy is

said to have arrived ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας τῆς Ἀντωνίνου τοῦ ἐξ Ἐμισῶν, by

which, if the words be correct, must be meant Elagabalus (A.D.

218–222), the spurious Antonine (see Hilgenfeld _Bardesanes_ p. 12

sq.). Other ancient authorities however place Bardesanes in the reign

of one of the older Antonines; and, as the context is somewhat

corrupt, we cannot feel quite certain about the date. Bardesanes gives

by far the most accurate account of the Buddhists to be found in any

ancient Greek writer; but even here the monstrous stories, which the

Indian ambassadors related to him, show how little trustworthy such

sources of information were.

Footnote 447:

Except possibly Arrian, _Ind._ viii. 1, who mentions an ancient Indian

king, Budyas (Βουδύας) by name; but what he relates of him is quite

inconsistent with the history of Buddha, and probably some one else is

intended.

Footnote 448:

In this passage (_Strom._ i. 15, p. 359) Clement apparently mentions

these same persons three times, supposing that he is describing three

different schools of Oriental philosophers. (1) He speaks of Σαμαναῖοι

Βάκτρων (comp. Cyrill. Alex. l.c.); (2) He distinguishes two classes

of Indian gymnosophists, whom he calls Σαρμᾶναι and Βραχμᾶναι. These

are Buddhists and Brahmins respectively (see p. 153, note 445); (3) He

says afterwards εἰσὶ δὲ τῶν Ἰνδῶν οἱ τοῖς Βοῦττα πειθόμενοι

παραγγέλμασιν, ὃν δι’ ὑπερβολὴν σεμνότητος εἰς [ὡς?] θεὸν τετιμήκασι.

Schwanbeck indeed maintains that Clement here intends to describe the

same persons whom he has just mentioned as Σαρμᾶναι; but this is not

the natural interpretation of his language, which must mean ‘There are

also among the Indians those who obey the precepts of Buddha.’

Probably Schwanbeck is right in identifying the Σαρμᾶναι with the

Buddhist ascetics, but Clement appears not to have known this. In fact

he has obtained his information from different sources, and so

repeated himself without being aware of it. Where he got the first

fact it is impossible to say. The second, as we saw, was derived from

Megasthenes. The third, relating to Buddha, came, as we may

conjecture, either from Pantænus (if indeed Hindostan is really meant

by the India of his missionary labours) or from some chance Indian

visitor at Alexandria.

In another passage (_Strom._ iii. 7, p. 539) Clement speaks of certain

Indian celibates and ascetics, who are called Σεμνοί. As he

distinguishes them from the gymnosophists, and mentions the pyramid as

a sacred building with them, the identification with the Buddhists can

hardly be doubted. Here therefore Σεμνοί is a Grecized form of

Σαμαναῖοι; and this modification of the word would occur naturally to

Clement, because σεμνοί, σεμνεῖον, were already used of the ascetic

life: e.g. Philo _de Vit. Cont._ 3 (p. 475 M) ἱερὸν ὃ καλεῖται

σεμνεῖον καὶ μοναστήριον ἐν ᾧ μονοῦμενοι τὰ τοῦ σεμνοῦ βίου μυστήρια

τελοῦνται.

[Sidenote: Hippolytus.]

Still later than this, Hippolytus, while he gives a fairly intelligent,

though brief, account of the Brahmins[449], says not a word about the

Buddhists, though, if he had been acquainted with their teaching, he

would assuredly have seen in them a fresh support to his theory of the

affinity between Christian heresies and pre-existing heathen

philosophies. [Sidenote: A Buddhist at Athens.]With one doubtful

exception—an Indian fanatic attached to an embassy sent by king Porus to

Augustus, who astonished the Greeks and Romans by burning himself alive

at Athens[450]–there is apparently no notice in either heathen or

Christian writers, which points to the presence of a Buddhist within the

limits of the Roman Empire, till long after the Essenes had ceased to

exist[451].

Footnote 449:

_Hær._ i. 24.

Footnote 450:

The chief authority is Nicolaus of Damascus in Strabo xv. i. 73 (p.

270). The incident is mentioned also in Dion Cass. liv. 9. Nicolaus

had met these ambassadors at Antioch, and gives an interesting account

of the motley company and their strange presents. This fanatic, who

was one of the number, immolated himself in the presence of an

astonished crowd, and perhaps of the emperor himself, at Athens. He

anointed himself and then leapt smiling on the pyre. The inscription

on his tomb was Ζαρμανοχηγὰς Ἰνδὸς ἀπὸ Βαργόσης κατὰ τὰ πάτρια Ἰνδῶν

ἔθη ἑαυτὸν ἀπαθανατίσας κεῖται. The tomb was visible at least as late

as the age of Plutarch, who recording the self-immolation of Calanus

before Alexander (_Vit. Alex._ 69) says, τοῦτο πολλοῖς ἔτεσιν ὕστερον

ἄλλος Ἰνδὸς ἐν Ἀθήναις Καίσαρί συνὼν ἐποίησε, καὶ δείκνυται μέχρι νῦν

τὸ μνημεῖον Ἰνδοῦ προσαγορευόμενον. Strabo also places the two

incidents in conjunction in another passage in which he refers to this

person, xv. 1. 4 (p. 686) ὁ κατακαύσας ἑαυτὸν Ἀθήνησι σοφιστὴς Ἰνδός,

καθάπερ καὶ ὁ Κάλανος κ.τ.λ.

The reasons for supposing this person to have been a Buddhist, rather

than a Brahmin, are: (1) The name Ζαρμανοχηγὰς (which appears with

some variations in the MSS of Strabo), being apparently the Indian

_sramanakarja_, i.e. ‘teacher of the ascetics,’ in other words, a

Buddhist priest; (2) The place Bargosa, i.e. Barygaza, where Buddhism

flourished in that age. See Priaulx p. 78 sq. In Dion Cassius it is

written Ζάρμαρος.

And have we not here an explanation of 1 Cor. xiii. 3, if ἵνα

καυθήσωμαι be the right reading? The passage, being written before the

fires of the Neronian persecution, requires explanation. Now it is

clear from Plutarch that the ‘Tomb of the Indian’ was one of the

sights shown to strangers at Athens: and the Apostle, who observed the

altar ==αγνωϲτωι θεωι==, was not likely to overlook the sepulchre

with the strange inscription ==εαυτον απαθανατιϲαϲ κειται==. Indeed

the incident would probably be pressed on his notice in his

discussions with Stoics and Epicureans, and he would be forced to

declare himself as to the value of these Indian self-immolations, when

he preached the doctrine of self-sacrifice. We may well imagine

therefore that the fate of this poor Buddhist fanatic was present to

his mind when he penned the words καὶ ἐὰν παραδῶ τὸ σῶμά μου ...

ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω, οὐδὲν ὠφελοῦμαι. Indeed it would furnish an almost

equally good illustration of the text, whether we read ἵν καυθήσωμαι

or ἵνα καυχήσωμαι. Dion Cassius (l.c.) suggests that the deed was done

ὑπὸ φιλοτιμίας or εἰς ἐπίδειζιν. How much attention these religious

suicides of the Indians attracted in the Apostolic age (doubtless

because the act of this Buddhist priest had brought the subject

vividly before men’s minds in the West), we may infer from the speech

which Josephus puts in the mouth of Eleazar (_B.J._ vii. 8. 7),

βλέψωμεν εἰς Ἰνδοὺς τοὺς σοφίαν ἀσκέιν ὑπισχνουμένους ... οἱ δὲ ...

_πυρὶ τὸ σῶμα παραδόντες_, ὅπως δὴ καὶ _καθαρωτάτην_

ἀποκρίνωσι τοῦ σώματος τὴν ψυχήν, ὑμνούμενοι τελευτῶσι ... ἆρ’ οὖν οὐκ

αἰδούμεθα χεῖρον Ἰνδῶν φρονοῦντες;

Footnote 451:

In the reign of Claudius an embassy arrived from Taprobane (Ceylon);

and from these ambassadors Pliny derived his information regarding the

island, _N.H._ vi. 24. Respecting their religion however he says only

two words ‘coli Herculem,’ by whom probably Rama is meant (Priaulx p.

116). From this and other statements it appears that they were Tamils

and not Singalese, and thus belonged to the non-Buddhist part of the

island; see Priaulx p. 91 sq.

[Sidenote: The alleged coincidences prove nothing.]

And, if so, the coincidences must be very precise, before we are

justified in attributing any peculiarities of Essenism to Buddhist

influences. This however is far from being the case. They both exhibit a

well-organized monastic society: but the monasticism of the Buddhist

priests, with its systematized mendicancy, has little [Sidenote:

Monasticism.] in common with the monasticism of the Essene recluse,

whose life was largely spent in manual labour. [Sidenote:

Asceticism.]They both enjoin celibacy, both prohibit the use of flesh

and of wine, both abstain from the slaughter of animals. But, as we have

already seen, such resemblances prove nothing, for they may be explained

by the independent development of the same religious principles. One

coincidence, and one only, is noticed by Hilgenfeld, which at first

sight seems more striking and might suggest a historical connexion.

[Sidenote: Four orders and four steps.]He observes that the four orders

of the Essene community are derived from the four steps of Buddhism.

Against this it might fairly be argued that such coincidences of numbers

are often purely accidental, and that in the present instance there is

no more reason for connecting the four steps of Buddhism with the four

orders of Essenism than there would be for connecting the ten precepts

of Buddha with the Ten Commandments of Moses. But indeed a nearer

examination will show that the two have nothing whatever in common

except the number. The four steps or paths of Buddhism are not four

grades of an external order, but four degrees of spiritual progress on

the way to nirvana or annihilation, the ultimate goal of the Buddhist’s

religious aspirations. They are wholly unconnected with the Buddhist

monastic system, as an organization. A reference to the Buddhist notices

collected in Hardy’s _Eastern Monachism_ (p. 280 sq.) will at once

dispel any suspicion of a resemblance. A man may attain to the highest

of these four stages of Buddhist illumination instantaneously. He does

not need to have passed through the lower grades, but may even be a

layman at the time. Some merit obtained in a previous state of existence

may raise him _per saltum_ to the elevation of a rahat, when all earthly

desires are crushed and no future birth stands between him and nirvana.

[Sidenote: Buddhist influences seen first in Manicheism.]There remains

therefore no coincidence which would suggest any historical connexion

between Essenism and Buddhism. Indeed it is not till some centuries

later, when Manicheism starts into being, that we find for the first

time any traces of the influence of Buddhism on the religions of the

West[452].

Footnote 452:

Even its influence on Manicheism however is disputed in a learned

article in the _Home and Foreign Review_ III. p. 143 sq. (1863), by Mr

P. Le Page Renouf (see _Academy_ 1873, p. 399).

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

ESSENISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

[Sidenote: The theory which explains Christianity as an outgrowth of

Essenism,]

It has become a common practice with a certain class of writers to

call Essenism to their aid in accounting for any distinctive features

of Christianity, which they are unable to explain in any other way.

Wherever some external power is needed to solve a perplexity, here is

the _deus ex machina_ whose aid they most readily invoke. Constant

repetition is sure to produce its effect, and probably not a few

persons, who want either the leisure or the opportunity to investigate

the subject for themselves, have a lurking suspicion that the Founder

of Christianity may have been an Essene, or at all events that

Christianity was largely indebted to Essenism for its doctrinal and

ethical teaching[453]. Indeed, when very confident and sweeping

assertions are made, it is natural to presume that they rest on a

substantial basis of fact. Thus for instance we are told by one writer

that Christianity is ‘Essenism alloyed with foreign elements’[454]:

while another, who however approaches the subject in a different

spirit, says; ‘It will hardly be doubted that our Saviour Himself

belonged to this holy brotherhood. This will especially be apparent,

when we remember that _the whole Jewish community_ at the advent of

Christ was divided into three parties, the Pharisees, the Sadducees,

and the Essenes, and that _every Jew had to belong to one of these

sects_. Jesus who in all things conformed to the Jewish law, and who

was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, would

therefore naturally associate Himself with that order of Judaism which

was most congenial to his nature’.[455][Sidenote: tested by facts.]I

purpose testing these strong assertions by an appeal to facts.

Footnote 453:

De Quincey’s attempt to prove that the Essenes were actually

Christians (_Works_ VI p. 270 sq., IX p. 253 sq.), who used the

machinery of an esoteric society to inculcate their doctrines ‘for

fear of the Jews,’ is conceived in a wholly different spirit from the

theories of the writers mentioned in the text; but it is even more

untenable and does not deserve serious refutation.

Footnote 454:

Grätz III p. 217.

Footnote 455:

Ginsburg _Essenes_ p. 24.

[Sidenote: Our Lord need not have belonged to any sect.]

For the statements involved in those words of the last extract which I

have underlined, no authority is given by the writer himself; nor have I

been able to find confirmation of them in any quarter. On the contrary

the frequent allusions which we find to the vulgar herd, the ιδιῶται,

the _عam haarets_, who are distinguished from the disciples of the

schools[456], suggest that a large proportion of the people was

unattached to any sect. If it had been otherwise, we might reasonably

presume that our Lord, as one who ‘in all things conformed to the Jewish

law,’ would have preferred attaching Himself to the Pharisees who ‘sat

in Moses’ seat’ and whose precepts He recommended His disciples to

obey[457], rather than to the Essenes who in one important respect at

least—the repudiation of the temple sacrifices—acted in flagrant

violation of the Mosaic ordinances.

Footnote 456:

See above, p. 130.

Footnote 457:

Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.

[Sidenote: The argument from the silence of the New Testament answered.]

This preliminary barrier being removed, we are free to investigate the

evidence for their presumed connexion. And here we are met first with a

negative argument, which obviously has great weight with many persons.

Why, it is asked, does Jesus, who so unsparingly denounces the vices and

the falsehoods of Pharisees and Sadducees, never once mention the

Essenes by way of condemnation, or indeed mention them by name at all?

Why, except that He himself belonged to this sect and looked favourably

on their teaching? This question is best answered by another. How can we

explain the fact, that throughout the enormous mass of talmudical and

early rabbinical literature this sect is not once mentioned by name, and

that even the supposed allusions to them, which have been discovered for

the first time in the present century, turn out on investigation to be

hypothetical and illusory? The difficulty is much greater in this latter

instance; but the answer is the same in both cases. The silence is

explained by the comparative insignificance of the sect, their small

numbers and their retired habits. Their settlements were far removed

from the great centres of political and religious life. Their recluse

habits, as a rule, prevented them from interfering in the common

business of the world. Philo and Josephus have given prominence to them,

because their ascetic practices invested them with the character of

philosophers and interested the Greeks and Romans in their history; but

in the national life of the Jews they bore a very insignificant

part[458]. If the Sadducees, who held the highest offices in the

hierarchy, are only mentioned directly on three occasions in the

Gospels[459], it can be no surprise that the Essenes are not named at

all.

Footnote 458:

This fact is fully recognised by several recent writers, who will not

be suspected of any undue bias towards traditional views of Christian

history. Thus Lipsius writes (p. 190), ‘In the general development of

Jewish life Essenism occupies a far more subordinate place than is

commonly ascribed to it.’ And Keim expresses himself to the same

effect (I. p. 305). Derenbourg also, after using similar language,

adds this wise caution, ‘In any case, in the present state of our

acquaintance with the Essenes, which is so imperfect and has no chance

of being extended, the greatest prudence is required of science, if

she prefers to be true rather than adventurous, if she has at heart

rather to enlighten than to surprise’ (p. 461). Even Grätz in one

passage can write soberly on this subject: ‘The Essenes had throughout

no influence on political movements, from which they held aloof as far

as possible’ (III. p. 86).

Footnote 459:

These are (1) Matt. iii. 7; (2) Matt. xvi. 1 sq.; (3) Matt. xxii. 23

sq., Mark xii. 18, Luke xx. 27.

[Sidenote: The positive arguments for a connexion may be twofold.]

As no stress therefore can be laid on the argument for silence, any

hypothesis of connexion between Essenism and Christianity must make good

its claims by establishing one or both of these two points: _first_,

that there is direct historical evidence of close intercourse between

the two; and _secondly_, that the resemblances of doctrine and practice

are so striking as to oblige, or at least to warrant, the belief in such

a connexion. If both these lines of argument fail, the case must be

considered to have broken down.

[Sidenote: 1. Absence of direct historical evidence of a connexion.]

1. On the former point it must be premised that the Gospel narrative

does not suggest any hint of a connexion. Indeed its general tenor is

directly adverse to such a supposition. From first to last Jesus and his

disciples move about freely, taking part in the common business, even in

the common recreations, of Jewish life. The recluse ascetic brotherhood,

which was gathered about the shores of the Dead Sea, does not once

appear above the Evangelists’ horizon. Of this close society, as such,

there is not the faintest indication. [Sidenote: Two individual cases

alleged.] But two individuals have been singled out, as holding an

important place either in the Evangelical narrative or in the Apostolic

Church, who, it is contended, form direct and personal links of

communication with this sect. These are John the Baptist and James the

Lord’s brother. The one is the forerunner of the Gospel, the first

herald of the Kingdom; the other is the most prominent figure in the

early Church of Jerusalem.

[Sidenote: (i) John the Baptist]

(i) John the Baptist was an ascetic. His abode was the desert; his

clothing was rough; his food was spare; he baptized his penitents.

Therefore, it is argued, he was an Essene. Between the premisses and the

conclusion however there is a broad gulf, which cannot very easily be

bridged over. [Sidenote: not an Essene.]The solitary independent life,

which John led, presents a type wholly different from the cenobitic

establishments of the Essenes, who had common property, common meals,

common hours of labour and of prayer. It may even be questioned whether

his food of locusts would have been permitted by the Essenes, if they

really ate nothing which had life (ἔμψυχον[460]). And again; his baptism

as narrated by the Evangelists, and their lustrations as described in

Josephus, have nothing in common except the use of water for a religious

purpose. When therefore we are told confidently that ‘his manner of life

was altogether after the Essene pattern[461],’ and that ‘he without

doubt baptized his converts into the Essene order,’ we know what value

to attach to this bold assertion. If positive statements are allowable,

it would be more true to fact to say that he could not possibly have

been an Essene. The rule of his life was _isolation_; the principle of

theirs, _community_[462].

Footnote 460:

See above p. 86.

Footnote 461:

Grätz III. p. 220.

Footnote 462:

τὸ κοινωνητικόν, Joseph. _B.J._ ii. 8. 3. See also Philo _Fragm._ 632

ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινωφελοῦς, and the context.

[Sidenote: External resemblances to John in Banus,]

In this mode of life John was not singular. It would appear that not a

few devout Jews at this time retired from the world and buried

themselves in the wilderness, that they might devote themselves

unmolested to ascetic discipline and religious meditation. One such

instance at all events we have in Banus the master of Josephus, with

whom the Jewish historian, when a youth, spent three years in the

desert. This anchorite was clothed in garments made of bark or of

leaves; his food was the natural produce of the earth; he bathed day and

night in cold water for purposes of purification. To the careless

observer doubtless John and Banus would appear to be men of the same

stamp. In their outward mode of life there was perhaps not very much

difference[463]. The consciousness of a divine mission, the gift of a

prophetic insight, in John was the real and all-important distinction

between the two. [Sidenote: who was not an Essene.]But here also the

same mistake is made; and we not uncommonly find Banus described as an

Essene. It is not too much to say however, that the whole tenor of

Josephus’ narrative is opposed to this supposition[464]. He says that

when sixteen years old he desired to acquire a knowledge of the three

sects of the Jews before making his choice of one; that accordingly he

went through (διῆλθον) all the three at the cost of much rough

discipline and toil; that he was not satisfied with the experience thus

gained, and hearing of this Banus he attached himself to him as his

zealous disciple (ζηλωτὴς ἐγενόμην αὐτοῦ); that having remained three

years with him he returned to Jerusalem; and that then, being nineteen

years old, he gave in his adhesion to the sect of the Pharisees. Thus

there is no more reason for connecting this Banus with the Essenes than

with the Pharisees. The only natural interpretation of the narrative is

that he did not belong to any of the three sects, but represented a

distinct type of religious life, of which Josephus was anxious to gain

experience. And his hermit life seems to demand this solution, which the

sequence of the narrative suggests.

Footnote 463:

Ewald (VI. p. 649) regards this Banus as representing an extravagant

development of the school of John, and thus supplying a link between

the real teaching of the Baptist and the doctrine of the

Hemerobaptists professing to be derived from him.

Footnote 464:

The passage is so important that I give it in full; Joseph. _Vit._ 2

περὶ ἑκκαίδεκα δὲ ἔτη γενόμενος ἐβουλήθην τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν αἱρέσεων

ἐμπειρίαν λαβεῖν. τρεῖς δ’ εἰσὶν αὗται· Φαρισαίων μὲν ἡ πρώτη, καὶ

Σαδδουκαίων ἡ δευτέρα, τρίτη δὲ ἡ Ἐσσηνῶν, καθὼς πολλάκις εἴπαμεν.

οὕτως γὰρ ᾠόμην αἱρήσεσθαι τὴν ἀρίστην, εἰ πάσας καταμάθοιμι.

σκληραγωγήσας γοῦν ἐμαυτὸν καὶ πολλὰ πονηθεὶς τὰς τρεῖς διῆλθον. καὶ

μηδὲ τὴν ἐντεῦθεν ἐμπειρίαν ἱκανὴν ἐμαυτῷ νομίσας εἶναι, πυθόμενός

τινα Βανοῦν ὄνομα κατὰ τὴν ἐρημίαν διατρίβειν, ἐσθῆτι μὲν ἀπὸ δένδρων

χρώμενον, τροφὴν δὲ τὴν αὐτομάτως φυομένην προσφερόμενον, ψυχρῷ δὲ

ὕδατι τὴν ἡμέραν καὶ τὴν νύκτα πολλάκις λουόμενον πρὸς ἁγνείαν,

ζηλωτὴς ἐγενόμην αὐτοῦ. καὶ διατρίψας παρ’ αὐτῷ ἐνιαυτοὺς τρεῖς καὶ

τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν τελειώσας εἰς τὴν πόλιν ὑπέστρεφον. ἐννεακαίδεκα δ’ ἔτη

ἔχων ἠρξάμην τε πολιτεύεσθαι τῇ Φαρισαίων αἱρέσει κατακολουθῶν κ.τ.λ.

[Sidenote: General result.]

Of John himself therefore no traits are handed down which suggest that

he was a member of the Essene community. He was an ascetic, and the

Essenes were ascetics; but this is plainly an inadequate basis for any

such inference. Nor indeed is the relation of his asceticism to theirs a

question of much moment for the matter in hand; since this was the very

point in which Christ’s mode of life was so essentially different from

John’s as to provoke criticism and to point a contrast[465]. But the

later history of his real or supposed disciples has, or may seem to

have, some bearing on this investigation. [Sidenote: The

Hemerobaptists.]Towards the close of the first and the beginning of the

second century we meet with a body of sectarians called in Greek

_Hemerobaptists_[466], in Hebrew _Toble-shacharith_[467], ‘day’ or

‘morning bathers.’ What were their relations to John the Baptist on the

one hand, and to the Essenes on the other? Owing to the scantiness of

our information the whole subject is wrapped in obscurity, and any

restoration of their history must be more or less hypothetical; but it

will be possible at all events to suggest an account which is not

improbable in itself, and which does no violence to the extant notices

of the sect.

Footnote 465:

Matt. ix. 14 sq., xi. 17 sq., Mark ii. 18 sq., Luke v. 33, vii. 31 sq.

Footnote 466:

The word ἡμεροβαπτισταὶ is generally taken to mean ‘daily-bathers,’

and this meaning is suggested by Apost. Const. vi. 6 οἵτινες, καθ’

(εκάστην ἡμέραν ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται, οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, _ib._ 23 ἀντὶ

καθημερινοῦ ἓν μόνον δοῦς βάπτισμα, Epiphan. _Hær._ xvii. 1 (p. 37) εἰ

μή τι ἄπα καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν βαπτίζοιτό τις ἐν ὕδατι. But, if the

word is intended as a translation of _Toble-shacharith_ ‘morning

bathers,’ as it seems to be, it must signify rather ‘day-bathers’; and

this is more in accordance with the analogy of other compounds from

ἡμέρα, as ἡμερόβιος, ἡμεροδρόμος, ἡμεροσκόπος, etc.

Josephus (_B.J._ ii. 8. 5) represents the Essenes as bathing, not at

dawn, but at the fifth hour, just before their meal. This is hardly

consistent either with the name of the _Toble-shacharith_, or with the

Talmudical anecdote of them quoted above p. 132. Of Banus he reports

(_Vit._ 2) that he ‘bathed often day and night in cold water.’

Footnote 467:

See above p. 132.

[Sidenote: (_a_) Their relation to John the Baptist.]

(_a_) We must not hastily conclude, when we meet with certain persons at

Ephesus about the years A.D. 53, 54, who are described as ‘knowing only

the baptism of John,’ or as having been ‘baptized unto John’s

baptism[468],’ that we have here some early representatives of the

Hemerobaptist sect. [Sidenote: John’s disciples at Ephesus.]These were

Christians, though imperfectly informed Christians. Of Apollos, who was

more fully instructed by Aquila and Priscilla, this is stated in the

most explicit terms[469]. Of the rest, who owed their fuller knowledge

of the Gospel to St Paul, the same appears to be implied, though the

language is not free from ambiguity[470]. But these notices have an

important bearing on our subject; for they show how profoundly the

effect of John’s preaching was felt in districts as remote as

proconsular Asia, even after a lapse of a quarter of a century. With

these disciples it was the initial impulse towards Christianity; but to

others it represented a widely different form of belief and practice.

[Sidenote: Professed followers at a later date.]The Gospel of St John

was written, according to all tradition, at Ephesus in the later years

of the first century. Again and again the Evangelist impresses on his

readers, either directly by his own comments or indirectly by the course

of the narrative, the transient and subordinate character of John’s

ministry. He was not the light, says the Evangelist, but came to bear

witness of the light[471]. He was not the sun in the heavens: he was

only the waning lamp, which shines when kindled from without and burns

itself away in shining. His light might well gladden the Jews while it

lasted, but this was only ‘for a season[472].’ John himself lost no

opportunity of bearing his testimony to the loftier claims of

Jesus[473]. From such notices it is plain that in the interval between

the preaching of St Paul and the Gospel of St John the memory of the

Baptist at Ephesus had assumed a new attitude towards Christianity. His

name is no longer the sign of imperfect appreciation, but the watchword

of direct antagonism. John had been set up as a rival Messiah to Jesus.

In other words, this Gospel indicates the spread of Hemerobaptist

principles, if not the presence of a Hemerobaptist community, in

proconsular Asia, when it was written. In two respects these

Hemerobaptists distorted the facts of history. [Sidenote: The facts of

history distorted by them.]They perverted John’s teaching, and they

misrepresented his office. His baptism was no more a single rite, once

performed and initiating an amendment of life; it was a daily recurrence

atoning for sin and sanctifying the person[474]. He himself was no

longer the forerunner of the Messiah; he was the very Messiah[475].

[Sidenote: Spread of Hemerobaptist principles.]In the latter half of the

first century, it would seem, there was a great movement among large

numbers of the Jews in favour of frequent baptism, as the one

purificatory rite essential to salvation. Of this superstition we have

had an instance already in the anchorite Banus to whom Josephus attached

himself as a disciple. Its presence in the western districts of Asia

Minor is shown by a Sibylline poem, dating about A.D. 80, which I have

already had occasion to quote[476]. Some years earlier these sectarians

are mentioned by name as opposing James the Lord’s brother and the

Twelve at Jerusalem[477]. Nor is there any reason for questioning their

existence as a sect in Palestine during the later years of the Apostolic

age, though the source from which our information comes is legendary,

and the story itself a fabrication. But when or how they first connected

themselves with the name of John the Baptist, and whether this

assumption was made by all alike or only by one section of them, we do

not know. Such a connexion, however false to history, was obvious and

natural; nor would it be difficult to accumulate parallels to this false

appropriation of an honoured name. Baptism was the fundamental article

of their creed; and John was the Baptist of world-wide fame. [Sidenote:

A wrong use made of John’s name.]Nothing more than this was needed for

the choice of an eponym. From St John’s Gospel it seems clear that this

appropriation was already contemplated, if not completed, at Ephesus

before the first century had drawn to a close. In the second century the

assumption is recognised as a characteristic of these Hemerobaptists, or

Baptists, as they are once called[478], alike by those who allow and

those who deny its justice[479]. Even in our age the name of ‘John’s

disciples’ has been given, though wrongly given, to an obscure sect in

Babylonia, the Mandeans, whose doctrine and practice have some

affinities to the older sect, and of whom perhaps they are the

collateral, if not the direct, descendants[480].

Footnote 468:

The former expression is used of Apollos, Acts xviii. 24; the latter

of ‘certain disciples,’ Acts xix. 1.

Footnote 469:

This appears from the whole narrative, but is distinctly stated in

ver. 25, as correctly read, ἐδίδασκεν ἀκριβῶς τὰ περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, not

τοῦ κυρίου as in the received text.

Footnote 470:

The πιστεῦσαντες in xix. 1 is slightly ambiguous, and some expressions

in the passage might suggest the opposite: but μαθητὰς seems decisive,

for the word would not be used absolutely except of Christian

disciples; comp. vi. 1, 2, 7, ix. 10, 19, 26, 38, and frequently.

Footnote 471:

John i. 8.

Footnote 472:

John v. 35 ἐκεῖνος ἧν ὁ λύχνος ὁ καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων κ.τ.λ. The word

καίειν is not only ‘to burn,’ but not unfrequently also ‘to kindle, to

set on fire,’ as e.g. Xen. _Anab._ iv. 4. 12 οἱ ἄλλοι ἀναστάντες πῦρ

ἔκαιον, so that ὁ καιόμενος may mean either ‘which burns away’ or

‘which is lighted.’ With the former meaning it would denote the

_transitoriness_, with the latter the _derivative character_, of

John’s ministry. There seems no reason for excluding either idea here.

Thus the whole expression would mean ‘the lamp which is kindled and

burns away, and (only so) gives light.’ For an example of two verbs or

participles joined together, where the second describes a result

conditional upon the first, see 1 Pet. ii. 20 εἰ ἁμαρτάνοντες καὶ

κολαφιζόμενοι ὑπομενεῖτε ... εἰ ἀγαθοποιοῦντες καὶ πάσχοντες

ὑπομενεῖτε, 1 Thess. iv. 1 πῶς δεῖ περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀρέσκειν Θεῷ.

Footnote 473:

See John i. 15–34, iii. 23–30, v. 33 sq.: comp. x. 41, 42. This aspect

of St John’s Gospel has been brought out by Ewald _Jahrb. der Bibl.

Wissensch._ III. p. 156 sq.; see also _Geschichte_ VII. p. 152 sq.,

_die Johanneischen Schriften_ p. 13. There is perhaps an allusion to

these ‘disciples of John’ in 1 Joh. v. 6 οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλ’

ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ ἅιματι· καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα κ.τ.λ.; comp. Acts i. 5,

xi. 16, xix. 4.

Footnote 474:

_Apost. Const._ vi. 6; comp. § 23. See p. 162, note 2.

Footnote 475:

_Clem. Recogn._ i. 54 ‘ex discipulis Johannis, qui ... magistrum suum

veluti Christum praedicarunt,’ _ib._ § 60 ‘Ecce unus ex discipulis

Johannis adfirmabat Christum Johannem fuisse, et non Jesum; in tantum,

inquit, ut et ipse Jesus omnibus hominibus et prophetis majorem esse

pronuntiaverit Johannem etc.’; see also § 63.

Footnote 476:

See above p. 96.

Footnote 477:

_Clem. Recogn._ l.c. This portion of the Clementine Recognitions is

apparently taken from an older Judaizing romance, the _Ascents of

James_ (see _Galatians_ pp. 316, 349). Hegesippus also (in Euseb.

_H.E._ iv. 22) mentions the Hemerobaptists in his list of Jewish

sects; and it is not improbable that this list was given as an

introduction to his account of the labours and martyrdom of St James

(see Euseb. _H.E._ ii. 23). If so, it was probably derived from the

same source as the notice in the Recognitions.

Footnote 478:

They are called Baptists by Justin Mart. _Dial._ 10, p. 307 A. He

mentions them among other Jewish sects, without however alluding to

John.

Footnote 479:

By the author of the _Recognitions_ (l.c.) who denies the claim; and

by the author of the _Homilies_ (see below p. 166, note 482), who

allows it.

Footnote 480:

These Mandeans are a rapidly diminishing sect living in the region

about the Tigris and the Euphrates, south of Bagdad. Our most exact

knowledge of them is derived from Petermann (_Herzog’s

Real-Encyklopädie_ s. vv. Mendäer, Zabier, and _Deutsche Zeitschrift_

1854 p. 181 sq. 1856 p. 331 sq., 342 sq., 363 sq., 386 sq.) who has

had personal intercourse with them; and from Chwolson (_die Ssabier u.

der Ssabismus_ I. p. 100 sq.) who has investigated the Arabic

authorities for their earlier history. The names by which they are

known are (1) _Mendeans_, or more properly _Mandeans_, מנדייא

_Mandāyē_, contracted from מנדא דחייא _Mandā dĕchāyē_ ‘the word of

life.’ This is their own name among themselves, and points to their

Gnostic pretentions. (2) _Sabeans, Tsabiyun_, possibly from the root

צבע ‘to dip’ on account of their frequent lustrations (Chwolson I. p.

110; but see _Galatians_ p. 312), though this is not the derivation of

the word which they themselves adopt, and other etymologies have found

favour with some recent writers (see Petermann _Herzog’s Real-Encykl_.

Suppl. XVIII. p. 342 s.v. Zabier). This is the name by which they are

known in the Koran and in Arabic writers, and by which they call

themselves when speaking to others. (3) _Nasoreans_, נצורייא

_Nātsōrāyē_. This term is at present confined to those among them who

are distinguished in knowledge or in business. (4) ‘Christians of St

John, or Disciples of St John’ (i.e. the Baptist). This name is not

known among themselves, and was incorrectly given to them by European

travellers and missionaries. At the same time John the Baptist has a

very prominent place in their theological system, as the one true

prophet. On the other hand they are not Christians in any sense.

These Mandeans, the true Sabeans, must not be confused with the false

Sabeans, polytheists and star-worshippers, whose locality is Northern

Mesopotamia. Chwolson (I. p. 139 sq.) has shown that these last

adopted the name in the 9th century to escape persecution from the

Mohammedans, because in the Koran the Sabeans, as monotheists, are

ranged with the Jews and Christians, and viewed in a more favourable

light than polytheists. The name however has generally been applied in

modern times to the false rather than to the true Sabeans.

[Sidenote: (_b_) Their relation to the Essenes.]

(_b_) Of the connexion between this sect and John the Baptist we have

been able to give a probable, though necessarily hypothetical account.

But when we attempt to determine its relation to the Essenes, we find

ourselves entangled in a hopeless mesh of perplexities. The notices are

so confused, the affinities so subtle, the ramifications so numerous,

that it becomes a desperate task to distinguish and classify these

abnormal Jewish and Judaizing heresies. [Sidenote: They were at first

distinct, if not antagonistic.] One fact however seems clear that,

whatever affinities they may have had originally, and whatever relations

they may have contracted afterwards with one another, the

Hemerobaptists, properly speaking, were not Essenes. The Sibylline poem

which may be regarded as in some respects a Hemerobaptist manifesto

contains, as we saw, many traits inconsistent with pure Essenism[481].

In two several accounts, the memoirs of Hegesippus and the Apostolic

Constitutions, the Hemerobaptists are expressly distinguished from the

Essenes[482]. In an early production of Judaic Christianity, whose

Judaism has a strong Essene tinge, the Clementine Homilies, they and

their eponym are condemned in the strongest language. The system of

syzygies, or pairs of opposites, is a favourite doctrine of this work,

and in these John stands contrasted to Jesus, as Simon Magus to Simon

Peter, as the false to the true; for according to this author’s

philosophy of history the manifestation of the false always precedes the

manifestation of the true[483]. And again, Epiphanius speaks of them as

agreeing substantially in their doctrines, not with the Essenes, but

with the Scribes and Pharisees[484]. His authority on such a point may

be worth very little; but connected with other notices, it should not be

passed over in silence. Yet, whatever may have been their differences,

the Hemerobaptists and the Essenes had one point of direct contact,

their belief in the moral efficacy of lustrations. When the temple and

polity were destroyed, the shock vibrated through the whole fabric of

Judaism, loosening and breaking up existing societies, and preparing the

way for new combinations. [Sidenote: But after the destruction of the

Temple]More especially the cessation of the sacrificial rites must have

produced a profound effect equally on those who, like the Essenes, had

condemned them already, and on those who, as possibly was the case with

the Hemerobaptists, had hitherto remained true to the orthodox ritual.

[Sidenote: there may have been a fusion.]One grave obstacle to friendly

overtures was thus removed; and a fusion, more or less complete, may

have been the consequence. At all events the relations of the Jewish

sects must have been materially affected by this great national crisis,

as indeed we know to have been the case. In the confusion which follows,

it is impossible to attain any clear view of their history. At the

beginning of the second century however this pseudo-baptist movement

received a fresh impulse from the pretended revelation of Elchesai,

which came from the farther East[485]. Henceforth Elchesai is the

prominent name in the history of those Jewish and Judaizing sects whose

proper home is east of the Jordan[486], and who appear to have

reproduced, with various modifications derived from Christian and

Heathen sources, the Gnostic theology and the pseudo-baptist ritual of

their Essene predecessors. It is still preserved in the records of the

only extant people who have any claim to be regarded as the religious

heirs of the Essenes. Elchesai is regarded as the founder of the sect of

Mandeans[487].

Footnote 481:

See p. 96 sq.

Footnote 482:

Hegesipp. in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 22, _Apost. Const._ vi. 6. So also the

Pseudo-Hieronymus in the _Indiculus de Hæresibus_ (_Corp. Hæres._ I.

p. 283, ed. Oehler).

Footnote 483:

Clem. Hom. ii. 23 Ἰωάννης τις ἐγένετο ἡμεροβαπτιστής, ὃς καὶ τοῦ

κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ κατὰ τὸν τῆς συζυγίας λόγον ἐγένετο πρόοδος. It is

then stated that, as Christ had twelve leading disciples, so John had

thirty. This, it is argued, was a providential dispensation—the one

number represents the solar, the other the lunar period; and so they

illustrate another point in this writer’s theory, that in the syzygies

the true and the false are the male and female principle respectively.

Among these 30 disciples he places Simon Magus. With this the doctrine

of the Mandeans stands in direct opposition. They too have their

syzygies, but John with them represents the true principle.

Footnote 484:

_Hær._ xvii. 1 (p. 37) ἴσα τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων φρονοῦσα. But

he adds that they resemble the Sadducees ‘not only in the matter of

the resurrection of the dead, but also in their unbelief and in the

other points.’

Footnote 485:

See _Galatians_ p. 311 sq. on this Book of Elchesai.

Footnote 486:

See above p. 137.

Footnote 487:

See Chwolson I. p. 112 sq., II. p. 543 sq. The Arabic writer En-Nedim,

who lived towards the close of the tenth century, says that the

founder of the Sabeans (i.e. Mandeans) was _El-chasaich_ (الحسيح) the

doctrine of two coordinate principles, the male and female. This

notice, as far as it goes, agrees with the account of Elchesai or

Elxai in Hippolytus (_Hær._ ix. 13 sq.) and Epiphanius (_Hær._ xix. 1

sq.). But the derivation of the name Elchesai given by Epiphanius

(_Hær._ xix. 2) δύναμις κεκαλυμμένη (חיל כסי) is different and

probably correct (see _Galatians_ p. 312).

[Sidenote: (ii) James the Lord’s Brother]

(ii) But, if great weight has been attached to the supposed connexion of

John the Baptist with the Essenes, the case of James the Lord’s brother

has been alleged with still more confidence. Here, it is said, we have

an indisputable Essene connected by the closest family ties with the

Founder of Christianity. [Sidenote: invested with Essene

characteristics.]James is reported to have been holy from his birth; to

have drunk no wine nor strong drink; to have eaten no flesh; to have

allowed no razor to touch his head, no oil to anoint his body; to have

abstained from using the bath; and lastly to have worn no wool, but only

fine linen[488]. Here we have a description of Nazarite practices at

least and (must it not be granted) of Essene tendencies also.

But what is our authority for this description? The writer, from whom

the account is immediately taken, is the Jewish-Christian historian

Hegesippus, who flourished about A.D. 170. He cannot therefore have been

an eye-witness of the facts which he relates. [Sidenote: But the account

comes from untrustworthy sources.]And his whole narrative betrays its

legendary character. Thus his account of James’s death, which follows

immediately on this description, is highly improbable and melodramatic

in itself, and directly contradicts the contemporary notice of Josephus

in its main facts[489]. From whatever source therefore Hegesippus may

have derived his information, it is wholly untrustworthy. Nor can we

doubt that he was indebted to one of those romances with which the

Judaizing Christians of Essene tendencies loved to gratify the natural

curiosity of their disciples respecting the first founders of the

Church[490]. In like manner Essene portraits are elsewhere preserved of

the Apostles Peter[491] and Matthew[492], which represent them as living

on a spare diet of herbs and berries. I believe also that I have

elsewhere pointed out the true source of this description in Hegesippus,

and that it is taken from the ‘Ascents of James[493],’ a Judæo-Christian

work stamped, as we happen to know, with the most distinctive Essene

features[494]. But if we turn from these religious novels of Judaic

Christianity to earlier and more trustworthy sources of information—to

the Gospels or the Acts or the Epistles of St Paul—we fail to discover

the faintest traces of Essenism in James. [Sidenote: No Essene features

in the true portraits of James or of the earliest disciples.]‘The

historical James,’ says a recent writer, ‘shows Pharisaic but not Essene

sympathies[495].’ This is true of James, as it is true of the early

disciples in the mother Church of Jerusalem generally. The

temple-ritual, the daily-sacrifices, suggested no scruples to them. The

only distinction of meats, which they recognised, was the distinction of

animals clean and unclean as laid down by the Mosaic law. The only

sacrificial victims, which they abhorred, were victims offered to idols.

They took their part in the religious offices, and mixed freely in the

common life, of their fellow-Israelites, distinguished from them only in

this, that to their Hebrew inheritance they superadded the knowledge of

a higher truth and the joy of a better hope. It was altogether within

the sphere of orthodox Judaism that the Jewish element in the Christian

brotherhood found its scope. Essene peculiarities are the objects

neither of sympathy nor of antipathy. In the history of the infant

Church for the first quarter of a century Essenism is as though it were

not.

Footnote 488:

Hegesippus in Euseb. _H.E._ ii. 23.

Footnote 489:

See _Galatians_ p. 348 sq.

Footnote 490:

See _Galatians_ p. 311.

Footnote 491:

_Clem. Hom._ xii. 6, where St Peter is made to say ἄρτῳ μόνῳ καὶ

ἐλαίαις χρῶμαι, καὶ σπανίως λαχάνοις; comp. xv. 7 ὕδατος μόνου καὶ

ἄρτου.

Footnote 492:

Clem. Alex. _Pædag._ ii. 1 (p. 174) σπερμάτων καὶ ἀκροδρύων καὶ

λαχάνων ἄνευ κρεῶν μετελα.μβανεν.

Footnote 493:

See _Galatians_ p. 349, note.

Footnote 494:

Epiphanius (_Hær._ xxx. 16) mentions two points especially, in which

the character of this work is shown: (1) It represented James as

condemning the sacrifices and the fire on the altar (see above pp.

134–136): (2) It published the most unfounded calumnies against St

Paul.

Footnote 495:

Lipsius, _Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexicon_, p. 191.

[Sidenote: Essene influences visible before the close of the Apostolic

age.]

But a time came, when all this was changed. Even as early as the year

58, when St Paul wrote to the Romans, we detect practices in the

Christian community of the metropolis, which may possibly have been due

to Essene influences[496]. Five or six years later, the heretical

teaching which threatened the integrity of the Gospel at Colossæ shows

that this type of Judaism was already strong enough within the Church to

exert a dangerous influence on its doctrinal purity. Then came the great

convulsion—the overthrow of the Jewish polity and nation. This was the

turning-point in the relations between Essenism and Christianity, at

least in Palestine. [Sidenote: Consequences of the Jewish war.]The

Essenes were extreme sufferers in the Roman war of extermination. It

seems probable that their organization was entirely broken up. Thus cast

adrift, they were free to enter into other combinations, while the shock

of the recent catastrophe would naturally turn their thoughts into new

channels. At the same time the nearer proximity of the Christians, who

had migrated to Peræa during the war, would bring them into close

contact with the new faith and subject them to its influences, as they

had never been subjected before[497]. But, whatever may be the

explanation, the fact seems certain, that after the destruction of

Jerusalem the Christian body was largely reinforced from their ranks.

The Judaizing tendencies among the Hebrew Christians, which hitherto had

been wholly Pharisaic, are henceforth largely Essene.

Footnote 496:

Rom. xiv. 2, 21.

Footnote 497:

See _Galatians_ p. 310 sq.

[Sidenote: 2. Do the resemblances favour the theory of a connexion?]

2. If then history fails to reveal any such external connexion with

Essenism in Christ and His Apostles as to justify the opinion that

Essene influences contributed largely to the characteristic features of

the Gospel, such a view, if tenable at all, must find its support in

some striking coincidence between the doctrines and practices of the

Essenes and those which its Founder stamped upon Christianity. This

indeed is the really important point; for without it the external

connexion, even if proved, would be valueless. The question is not

whether Christianity arose amid such and such circumstances, but how far

it was created and moulded by those circumstances.

[Sidenote: (i) Observance of the sabbath.]

(i) Now one point which especially strikes us in the Jewish historian’s

account of the Essenes, is their strict observance of certain points in

the Mosaic ceremonial law, more especially the ultra-Pharisaic rigour

with which they kept the sabbath. How far their conduct in this respect

was consistent with the teaching and practice of Christ may be seen from

the passages quoted in the parallel columns which follow:

‘Jesus went on the sabbath-day through the corn fields; and his

disciples began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat[498].... But when

the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, ‘Behold, thy disciples do that

which it is not lawful to do upon the sabbath-day. But he said unto

them, Have ye not read what David did.... The sabbath was made for man,

and not man for the sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is Lord even of

the sabbath-day....’

‘It is lawful to do well on the sabbath-days’ (Matt. xii. 1–12; Mark ii.

23.-iii. 6; Luke vi. 1–11, xiv. 1–6. See also a similar incident in Luke

xiii. 10–17). ‘The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured; It is

the sabbath-day; it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. But he

answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy

bed and walk.... Therefore the Jews did persecute Jesus and sought to

slay him, because he did these things on the sabbath-day. But Jesus

answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work, etc. (John v.

10–18; comp. vii. 22, 23).’ ‘And it was the sabbath-day when Jesus made

the clay, and opened his eyes.... Therefore said some of the Pharisees,

This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath-day (John ix.

14, 16).’

‘And they avoid ... touching any work (ἐφάπτεσθαι ἔργων) on the

sabbath-day more scrupulously than any of the Jews (διαφορώτατα Ἰουδαίων

ἁπάντων); for they do not venture so much as to move a vessel[499], nor

to perform the most necessary offices of life (_B.J._ ii. 8. 9).’

Footnote 498:

Grätz (III. p. 233) considers this narrative an interpolation

made from a Pauline point of view (‘eine paulinistische

Tendenz-interpolation’). This theory of interpolation,

interposing wherever the evidence is unfavourable, cuts up all

argument by the roots. In this instance however Grätz is

consistently carrying out a principle, which he broadly lays

down elsewhere. He regards it as the great merit of Baur and his

school, that they explained the origin of the Gospels by the

conflict of two opposing camps, the Ebionite and the Pauline.

‘By this master-key,’ he adds, ‘criticism was first put in a

position to test what is historical in the Gospels, and what

bears the stamp of a polemical tendency (was einen tendentiösen

polemischen Charakter hat). Indeed by this means the element of

trustworthy history in the Gospels melts down to a minimum’

(III. p. 224). In other words the judgment is not to be

pronounced upon the evidence, but the evidence must be mutilated

to suit the judgment. The method is not new. The sectarians of

the second century, whether Judaic or anti-Judaic, had severally

their ‘master-key.’ The master-key of Marcion was a conflict

also—the antagonism of the Old and New Testaments. Under his

hands the historical element in the New Testament dissolved

rapidly. The master-key of the anti-Marcionite writer of the

Clementine Homilies was likewise a conflict, though of another

kind—the conflict of fire and water, of the sacrificial and the

baptismal systems. Wherever sacrifice was mentioned with

approval, there was a ‘Tendenz-interpolation’ (see above p.

136). In this manner again the genuine element in the Old

Testament melted down to a minimum.

Footnote 499:

Grätz however (III. p. 228) sees a coincidence between Christ’s

teaching and Essenism in this notice. Not to do him injustice, I will

translate his own words (correcting however several misprints in the

Greek): ‘For the connexion of Jesus with the Essenes compare moreover

Mark xi. 16 καὶ οὐκ ἤφιεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἵνα τις διενέγκῃ σκεῦος διὰ τοῦ

ἱεροῦ with Josephus _B.J._ ii. 8. 9 ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ σκεῦός τι μετακινῆσαι

θαρροῦσιν οἵ Ἐσσαῖοἰ.’ He does not explain what this notice, which

refers solely to the scrupulous observance of the sabbath, has to do

with the profanation of the temple, with which the passage in the

Gospel is alone concerned. I have seen Grätz’s history described as a

‘masterly’ work. The first requisites in a historian are accuracy in

stating facts and sobriety in drawing inferences. Without these, it is

difficult to see what claims a history can have to this honourable

epithet: and in those portions of his work, which I have consulted, I

have not found either.

[Sidenote: (ii) Lustrations and other ceremonial observances.]

(ii) But there were other points of ceremonial observance, in which the

Essenes superadded to the law. Of these the most remarkable was their

practice of constant lustrations. In this respect the Pharisee was

sufficiently minute and scrupulous in his observances; but with the

Essene these ablutions were the predominant feature of his religious

ritual. Here again it will be instructive to compare the practice of

Christ and His disciples with the practice of the Essenes.

‘And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled (that is

to say, unwashen) hands; for the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they

wash their hands oft (πυγμῇ), eat not...The Pharisees and scribes asked

him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the

elders.... But he answered ... Ye hypocrites, laying aside the

commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men....’

‘Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man; but that which

cometh out of the mouth, this defileth the man.... Let them alone, they

be blind leaders of the blind....’

‘To eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man (Matt. xv. 1–20, Mark

vii. 1–23).’

‘So they wash their whole body (ἀπολούονται τὸ σῶμα) in cold water; and

after this purification (ἁγνείαν) ... being clean (καθαροὶ) they come to

the refectory (to dine).... And when they have returned (from their

day’s work) they sup in like manner (_B.J._ ii. 8. 5).’

‘After a year’s probation (the novice) is admitted to closer intercourse

(πρόσεισιν ἔγγιον τῇ διαίτῃ), and the lustral waters in which he

participates have a higher degree of purity (καὶ καθαρωτέρων τῶν πρὸς

ἁγνείαν ὑδάτων μεταλαμβάνει, § 7).’

‘It is a custom to wash after it, as if polluted by it (§ 9).’

‘And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed

before dinner (τοῦ ἀρίστου). And the Lord said unto him: Now do ye

Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter.... Ye fools

... behold all things are clean unto you (Luke xi. 38–41).’

‘Racked and dislocated, burnt and crushed, and subjected to every

instrument of torture ... to make them eat strange food (τι τῶν

ἀσυνήθων) ... they were not induced to submit (§ 10).’

‘Exercising themselves in ... divers lustrations (διαφόροις ἁγνείαις ...

ἐμπαιδοτριβούμενοι, § 12).’

[Sidenote: Avoidance of strangers.]

Connected with this idea of external purity is the avoidance of contact

with strangers, as persons who would communicate ceremonial defilement.

And here too the Essene went much beyond the Pharisee. The Pharisee

avoided Gentiles or aliens, or those whose profession or character

placed them in the category of ‘sinners’; but the Essene shrunk even

from the probationers and inferior grades of his own exclusive

community. Here again we may profitably compare the sayings and doings

of Christ with the principles of this sect.

‘And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with the publicans and

sinners they said unto the disciples, Why eateth your Master with the

publicans and the sinners....’ (Mark ii. 15 sq.; Matth. ix. 10 sq., Luke

v. 30 sq.)

‘They say ... a friend of publicans and sinners (Matth. xi. 19).’

‘The Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth

sinners and eateth with them (Luke xv. 2).’

‘They all murmured saying that he was gone to be a guest with a man that

is a sinner (Luke xix. 7).’

‘Behold, a woman in the city that was a sinner ... began to wash his

feet with her tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head and

kissed his feet.... Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it,

he spake within himself saying, This man, if he had been a prophet,

would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him;

for she is a sinner (Luke vii. 37 sq.).’

‘And after this purification they assemble in a private room, where no

person of a different belief (τῶν ἑτεροδόξων, i.e. not an Essene) is

permitted to enter; and (so) being by themselves and clean (αὐτοὶ

καθαροὶ) they present themselves at the refectory (δειπνητήριον), as if

it were a sacred precinct (§ 5).’

‘And they are divided into four grades according to the time passed

under the discipline: and the juniors are regarded as so far inferior to

the seniors, that, if they touch them, the latter wash their bodies

clean (ἀπολούεσθαι), as if they had come in contact with a foreigner

(καθάπερ ἀλλοφύλῳ συμφυρέντας, § 10).’

In all these minute scruples relating to ceremonial observances, the

denunciations which are hurled against the Pharisees in the Gospels

would apply with tenfold force to the Essenes.

[Sidenote: (iii) Asceticism.]

(iii) If the lustrations of the Essenes far outstripped the enactments

of the Mosaic law, so also did their asceticism. I have given reasons

above for believing that this asceticism was founded on a false

principle, which postulates the malignity of matter and is wholly

inconsistent with the teaching of the Gospel[500]. But without pressing

this point, of which no absolutely demonstrative proof can be given, it

will be sufficient to call attention to the trenchant contrast in

practice which Essene habits present to the life of Christ. He who ‘came

eating and drinking’ and was denounced in consequence as ‘a glutton and

a wine-bibber’[501], [Sidenote: Eating and drinking.]He whose first

exercise of power is recorded to have been the multiplication of wine at

a festive entertainment, and whose last meal was attended with the

drinking of wine and the eating of flesh, could only have excited the

pity, if not the indignation, of these rigid abstainers. And again,

attention should be directed to another kind of abstinence, where the

contrast is all the more speaking, because the matter is so trivial and

the scruple so minute.

Footnote 500:

See above p. 87.

Footnote 501:

Matt. xi. 19, Luke vii. 34.

‘My head with oil thou didst not anoint (Luke vii. 46).’

‘Thou, when thou fastest, anoint thy head (Matt. vi. 17).’

‘And they consider oil a pollution (κηλῖδα), and though one is smeared

involuntarily, he rubs his body clean (σμήχεται τὸ σῶμα, § 3).’

And yet it has been stated that ‘the Saviour of the world ... showed

what is required for a holy life in the Sermon on the Mount by a

description of the Essenes[502].’

Footnote 502:

Ginsburg _Essenes_ p. 14.

[Sidenote: Celibacy.]

But much stress has been laid on the celibacy of the Essenes; and our

Lord’s saying in Matt. xix. 12 is quoted to establish an identity of

doctrine. Yet there is nothing special in the language there used. Nor

is there any close affinity between the stern invectives against

marriage which Josephus and Philo attribute to the Essene, and the

gentle concession ‘He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.’

The best comment on our Lord’s meaning here is the advice of St

Paul[503], who was educated not in the Essene, but in the Pharisaic

school. Moreover this saying must be balanced by the general tenour of

the Gospel narrative. When we find Christ discussing the relations of

man and wife, gracing the marriage festival by His presence, again and

again employing wedding banquets and wedded life as apt symbols of the

highest theological truths, without a word of disparagement or rebuke,

we see plainly that we are confronted with a spirit very different from

the narrow rigour of the Essenes.

Footnote 503:

St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon A revised text with introductions, notes and dissertations · 第 26 / 241 题

Other divergences also have been enumerated[408]; but, as these do not