Philologos | Bible Prophecy Research | BPR Reference Guide | About Us

Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul
Dissertation

ON SOME POINTS CONNECTED WITH THE ESSENES

J. B. Lightfoot
1875

I. The Name Essene
II. Origin and Affinity of the Essenes
III. Essenism and Christianity

I. The Name Essene.

The name is variously written in Greek: 

1. ’EsshnoV: Joseph. Ant. xiii. 5. 9, xiii. 10. 6, xv. 10. 5, xviii. 1. 2, 5, B. J. ii. 8. 2, 13, Vit. 2; Plin. N. H. v. 15. 17 (Essenus); Dion Chrys. in Synes. Dion 3; Hippol. Haer. ix. 18, 28 (MS eshnoV); Epiphan. Haer. p. 28 sq., 127 (ed. Pet.). 

2. ’EssaioV: Philo II. pp. 457, 471, 632 (ed. Mang.); Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. iv. 22; Porphyr. de Abstin. iv. II. So too Joseph. B. J.  ii. 7. 3, ii. 20. 4, iii. 2. 1; Ant. xv. 10. 4; though in the immediate context of this last passage he writes ’EsshnoV, if the common texts may be trusted. 

3. ’OssaioV: Epiphan. Haer. pp. 40 sq. 125, 462. The common texts very frequently make him write ’OsshnoV, but see Dindorf’s notes, Epiphan. Op. I. pp. 380, 425. With Epiphanius the Essenes are a Samaritan, the Ossæans a Judaic sect. He has evidently got his information from two distinct sources, and does not see that the same persons are intended. 

4. ’IessaioV, Epiphan. Haer. p. 117. From the connexion the same sect again seems to be meant: but owing to the form Epiphanius conjectures (oimai) that the name is derived from Jesse, the father of David.

If any certain example could be produced where the name occurs in any early Hebrew or Aramaic writing, the question of its derivation would probably be settled; but in the absence of a single decisive instance a wide field is opened for conjecture, and critics have not been backward in availing themselves of the license. In discussing the claims of the different etymologies proposed we may reject:

First: derivations from the Greek. Thus Philo connects the word with osioV ‘holy’: Quod omn. prob. 12, p. 457 ’Essaioi...dialektou ellhnikhV parwnumoi osiothtoV, § 13, p. 459 twn ’Essaiwn h osiwn, Fragm. p. 632 kalountai men ’Essaioi, para thn osiothta, moi dokw [dokei?], thV proshgoriaV aziwqenteV. It is not quite clear whether Philo is here playing with words after the manner of his master Plato, or whether he holds a pre-established harmony to exist among different languages by which similar sounds represent similar things, or whether lastly he seriously means that the name was directly derived from the Greek word osioV. The last supposition is the least probable; but he certainly does not reject this derivation ‘as incorrect’ (Ginsburg Essenes p. 27), nor can parwnumoi osiothtoV be rendered ‘from an incorrect derivation from the Greek homonym hosiotes’ (ib. p. 32), since the word parwnumoV never involves the notion of false etymology. The amount of truth which probably underlies Philo’s statement will be considered hereafter. Another Greek derivation is isoV, ‘companion, associate,’ suggested by Rapoport, Erech Millin p. 41. Several others again are suggested by Lowy, s.v. Essaer, e.g. esw from their esoteric doctrine, or aisa from their fatalism. All such may be rejected as instances of ingenious trifling, if indeed they deserve to be called ingenious.

Secondly: derivations from proper names whether of persons or of places. Thus the word has been derived from Jesse the father of David (Epiphan. l. c.), or from one y#y Isai, the disciple of R. Joshua ben Perachia who migrated to Egypt in the time of Alexander Jannæus (Low in Ben Chananja I. p. 352). Again it has been referred to the town Essa (a doubtful reading in Joseph. Ant. xiii. 15. 3) beyond the Jordan. And other similar derivations have been suggested.

Thirdly: etymologies from the Hebrew or Aramaic, which do not supply the right consonants, or do not supply them in the right order. Under this head several must be rejected:

rs) asar ‘to bind,’ Adler Volkslehrer VI. p. 50, referred to by Ginsburg Essenes p. 29.

dysx chasid ‘pious,’ which is represented by ’AsidaioV (1 Macc. ii. 42 (v. l.), vii. 15, 2 Macc. xiv. 6), and could not possibly assume the form ’EssaioV or ’EsshnoV. Yet this derivation appears in Josippon ben Gorion (iv. 6, 7, v. 24, pp. 274, 278, 451), who substitutes Chasidim in narratives where the Essenes are mentioned in the original of Josephus; and it has been adopted by many more recent writers.

)xs s’cha ‘to bathe,’ from which with an Aleph prefixed we might get y)xs) as’chai ‘bathers’ (a word however which does not occur): Gratz Gesch. der Juden III. pp. 82, 468.

(wnc tsannua ‘retired, modest,’ adopted by Frankel (Zeitschrift 1846, p. 449, Monatsschrift II. p. 32) after a suggestion by Low.

To this category must be assigned those etymologies which contain a z as the third consonant of the root; since the comparison of the parallel forms ’EssaioV and ’EsshnoV shows that in the latter word the n is only formative. On this ground we must reject:

Nysx chasin; see below under Ny#(.

Ncx chotsen ‘a fold’ of a garment, and so supposed to signify the perizwma or ‘apron,’ which was given to every neophyte among the Essenes (Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 5, 7): suggested by Jellinek Ben Chananja IV. p. 374.

Ny#( ashin ‘strong’: see Cohn in Frankel’s Monatsschrift VII. p. 271. This etymology is suggested to explain Epiphanius Haer. p. 40 touto de to genoV twn ’Osshnwn ermhneuetai dia thV ekdosewV tou onomatoV stibaron genoV (‘a sturdy race’). The name ‘Essene’ is so interpreted also in Makrisi (de Sacy, Chrestom. Arab. I. p. 114, 306); but, as he himself writes it with Elif and Ain, it is plain that he got this interpretation from some one else, probably from Epiphanius. The correct reading however in Epiphanius is ’Ossaiwn, not ’Osshnwn; and it would therefore appear that this father or his informant derived the word from the Hebrew root zz( rather than from the Aramiac N#(. the ’Ossaioi would then be the Myz(, and this is so far a possible derivation, that the n does not enter into the root. Another word suggested to explain the etymology of Epiphanius is the Hebrew and Aramaic Nysx chasin ‘powerful, strong’ (from Nsx);  but this is open to the same objections as Ny#(.

When all such derivations are eliminated as untenable or improbable, considerable uncertainty still remains. The 1^st and 3^rd radicals might be any of the gutturals ), h, x, (; and the Greek s, as the 2^nd radical, might represent any one of several Shemitic sibilants.

Thus we have the choice of the following etymologies, which have found more or less favour.

(1) )s) asa ‘to heal,’ whence )ys) asya, ‘a physician.’ The Essenes are supposed to be so called because Josephus states (B. J. ii. 8. 6) that they paid great attention to the qualities of herbs and minerals with a view to the healing of diseases (proV qerapeian paqwn). This etymology is supported likewise by an appeal to the name qerapeutai, which Philo gives to an allied sect in Egypt (de Vit. Cont. § I, II. p. 471). It seems highly improbable however, that the ordinary name of the Essenes should have been derived from a pursuit which was merely secondary and incidental; while the supposed analogy of the Therapeutæ rests on a wrong interpretation of the word. Philo indeed (l. c.), bent upon extracting from it as much moral significance as possible, says, qerapeutai kai qerapeutrideV kalountai, htoi par oson iatrikhn epaggellontai kreissona thV kata poleiV (h men gar swmata qerapeuei monon, ekeinh de kai yucaV k.t.l.) h par oson ek fusewV kai twn ierwn nomwn epaideuqhsan qerapeuein to on k.t.l.: but the latter meaning alone accords with the usage of the word; for qerapeuthV, used absolutely, signifies ‘a worshipper, devotee,’ not ‘a physician, healer.’ This etymology of ’EssaioV is ascribed, though wrongly, to Philo by Asaria de’Rossi (Meor Enayim 3, fol. 33 a) and has been very widely received. Among more recent writers, who have adopted or favoured it, are Bellermann (Ueber Essaer u. Therapeuten p. 7), Gfrorer (Philo II. p. 341), Dahne (Ersch u. Gruber, s.v.), Baur (Christl. Kirche der drei erst. Jahrh. p. 20), Herzfeld (Gesch. des Judenthums II. p. 371, 395, 397 sq.), Geiger (Urschrift p. 126), Derenbourg (L’Histoire et la Geographie de la Palestine pp. 170, 175, notes), Keim (Jesus von Nazara I. p. 284 sq.), and Hamburger (Real-Encyclopadie fur Bibel u. Talmud, s.v.). Several of these writers identify the Essenes with the Baithusians (Nyswtyb) of the Talmud, though in the Talmud the Baithusians are connected with the Sadducees. This identification was suggested by Asaria de’Rossi (l. c. fol. 33 b), who interprets ‘Baithusians’ as ‘the school of the Essenes’ ()ysy) tyb): while subsequent writers, going a step further, have explained it ‘the school of the physicians’ ()ys) tyb).

(2) )zx chaza ‘to see,’ whence )yzx chazya ‘a seer,’ in reference to the prophetic powers which the Essenes claimed, as the result of ascetic contemplation: Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 12 eisi de en autoiV oi kai ta mellonta proginwskein upiscnountai k.t.l. For instances of such Essene prophets see Ant. xiii. II. 2, xv. 10. 5, B. J. i. 3. 5, ii. 7. 3. Suidas, s.v. ’Essaioi, says: qewria ta polla paramenousin, enqen kai ’Essaioi kalountai, touto dhlountoV, toutesti, qewrhtikoi. For this derivation, which was suggested by Baumgarten (see Bellermann p. 10) and is adopted by Hilgenfeld (Jud. Apocal. p. 278), there is something to be said: but )zx is rather oran than qewrein; and thus it must denote the result rather than the process, the vision which was the privilege of the few rather than the contemplation which was the duty of all. Indeed in a later paper (Zeitschr. xi, p. 346, 1868) Hilgenfeld expresses himself doubtfully about this derivation, feeling the difficulty of explaining the ss from the z. This is a real objection. In the transliteration of the LXX the z is persistently represented by z, and the c by s. The exceptions to this rule, where the manuscript authority is beyond question, are very few, and in every case they seem capable of explanation by peculiar circumstances. 

(3) h#( asah ‘to do,’ so that ’Essaioi would signify ‘the doers, the observers of the law,’ thus referring to the strictness of Essene practices: see Oppenheim in Frankel’s Monatsschrift vii. p. 272 sq. It has been suggested also that, as the Pharisees were especially designated the teachers, the Essenes were called the ‘doers’ by a sort of antithesis: see an article in Jost’s Annalen 1839, p. 145. Thus the Talmudic phrase h#(m y#n), interpreted ‘men of practice, of good deeds,’ is supposed to refer to the Essenes (see Frankel’s Zeitschrift III. p. 458, Monatsschrift II. p. 70). In some passages indeed (see Surenhuis Mishna III. p. 313) it may possibly mean ‘workers of miracles’ (as ergon John 5:20, 7:21, 10:25, etc.); but in this sense also it might be explained of the thaumaturgic powers claimed by the Essenes. On the use which has been made of a passage in the Aboth of R. Nathan c. 37, as supporting this derivation, I shall have to speak hereafter. Altogether this etymology has little or nothing to recommend it. 

I have reserved to the last the two derivations which seem to deserve most consideration. 

(4) [Syriac] chasi ([Syriac] ch’se) or [Syriac] chasyo, ‘pious,’ in Syriac. This derivation, which is also given by de Sacy (Chrestom. Arab. I. p. 347), is adopted by Ewald (Gesch. des V. Isr. IV. p. 484, ed. 3, 1864, VII. pp. 154, 477, ed. 2, 1859), who abandons in its favour another etymology (Nzx chazzan ‘watcher, worshipper’ = qerapeuthV) which he had suggested in an earlier edition of his fourth volume (p. 420). It is recommended by the fact that it resembles not only in sound, but in meaning, the Greek osioV, of which it is a common rendering in the Peshito (Acts 2:27, 13:35; Titus 1:8). Thus it explains the derivation given by Philo, and it also accounts for the tendency to write ’OssaioV for ’EssaioV in Greek. Ewald moreover points out how an Essenizing Sibylline poem (Orac. Sib. iv) dwells on the Greek equivalents, eusebhV, eusebih, etc. (vv. 26, 35, 42 sq., 148 sq., 162, 165 sq., 178 sq., ed. Alexandre), as if they had a special value for the writer: see Gesch. VII. p. 154, Sibyll. Bucher p. 46. Lipsius (Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexicon, s.v.) also considers this the most probable etymology. 

(5) )#x chasha (also h#x) Heb. ‘to be silent’; whence My)#x chashshaim ‘the silent ones,’ who meditate on mysteries. Jose (Gesch. d. Judenth. I. p. 207) believes that this was the derivation accepted by Josephus, since he elsewhere (Ant. iii. 7. 5, iii. 8. 9) writes out N#x, choshen ‘the high-priest’s breast-plate’ (Exo 28:15 sq.), esshn or esshnhV in Greek, and explains it shmainei touto kata thn ’Ellhnwn glwttan logeion (i.e. the ‘place of oracles’ or ‘of reason’: comp. Philo de Mon. ii. § 5, II. p. 226, kaleitai logeion etumwV, epeidh ta en ouranw panta logoiV kai analogiaiV dedhmiourghtai k.t.l.), as it is translated in the LXX. Even though modern critics should be right in connecting N#x with the Arab. [Arabic] ‘pulcher fuit, ornavit’ (see Gesen. Thes. p. 535, s.v.), the other derivation may have prevailed in Josephus’ time. We may illustrate this derivation by Josephus’ description of the Essenes, B. J.  ii. 8. 5 toiV ezwqen wV musthrion ti frikton h twn endon siwph katafainetai; and perhaps this will also explain the Greek equivalent qewrhtikoi, which Suidas gives for ’Essaioi. The use of the Hebrew word My)#x in Mishna Shekalim v. 6, though we need not suppose that the Essenes are there meant, will serve to show how it might be adopted as the name of the sect. On this word see Levy Chaldaisches Worterbuch p. 287. On the whole this seems the most probable etymology of any, though it has not found so much favour as the last. At all events the rules of transliteration are entirely satisfied, and this can hardly be said of the other derivations which come into competition with it. 

II. Origin and Affinities of the Essenes.

The subsequent history of this tendency to exclusiveness and isolation is wrapt in the same obscurity. At a somewhat later date it is exhibited in the Pharisees and the Essenes; but whether these were historically connected with the Chasidim as divergent offshoots of the original sect, or whether they represent independent developments of the same principle, we are without the proper data for deciding. The principle itself appears in the name of the Pharisees, which, as denoting ‘separation,’ points to the avoidance of all foreign and contaminating influences. On the other hand the meaning of the name Essene is uncertain, for the attempt to derive it directly from Chasidim must be abandoned; but the tendency of the sect is unmistakable. If with the Pharisees ceremonial purity was a principal aim, with the Essenes it was an absorbing passion. It was enforced and guarded moreover by a special organization. While the Pharisees were a sect, the Essenes were an order. Like the Pythagoreans in Magna Græcia and the Buddhists in India before them, like the Christian monks of the Egyptian and Syrian deserts after them, they were formed into a religious brotherhood, fenced about by minute and rigid rules, and carefully guarded from any contamination with the outer world.

Thus the sect may have arisen in the heart of Judaism. The idea of ceremonial purity was essentially Judaic. But still, when we turn to the representations of Philo and Josephus, it is impossible to overlook other traits which betoken foreign affinities. Whatever the Essenes may have been in their origin, at the Christian era at least and in the Apostolic age they no longer represented the current type of religious thought and practice among the Jews. This foreign element has been derived by some from the Pythagoreans, by others from the Syrians or Persians or even from the farther East; but, whether Greek or Oriental, its existence has until lately been almost universally allowed.

The investigations of Frankel, published first in 1846 in his Zeitschrift, and continued in 1853 in his Monatsschrift, have given a different direction to current opinion. Frankel maintains that Essenism was a purely indigenous growth, that it is only Pharisaism in an exaggerated form, and that it has nothing distinctive and owes nothing, or next to nothing, to foreign influences. To establish this point, he disparages the representation of Philo and Josephus as coloured to suit the tastes of their heathen readers, while in their place he brings forward as authorities a number of passages from talmudical and rabbinical writings, in which he discovers references to this sect. In this view he is followed implicitly by some later writers, and has largely influenced the opinions of others; while nearly all speak of his investigations as throwing great light on the subject.

It is perhaps dangerous to dissent from a view which has found so much favour; but nevertheless I am obliged to confess my belief that, whatever value Frankel’s investigations may have as contributions to our knowledge of Jewish religious thought and practice, they throw little or no light on the Essenes specially; and that the blind acceptance of his results by later writers has greatly obscured the distinctive features of this sect. I cannot but think that any one, who will investigate Frankel’s references and test his results step by step, will arrive at the conclusion to which I myself have been led, that his talmudical researches have left our knowledge of this sect where it was before, and that we must still refer to Josephus and Philo for any precise information respecting them.

Frankel starts from the etymology of the name. He supposes the ’EssaioV, ’EsshnoV, represent two different Hebrew words, the former dysx chasid, the latter (wnc tsannua, both clothed in suitable Greek dresses. Wherever therefore either of these words occurs, there is, or there may be, a direct reference to the Essenes.

It is not too much to say that these etymologies are impossible; and this for several reasons. (1) The two words ’EssaioV, ’EsshnoV, are plainly duplicate forms of the same Hebrew or Aramaic original, like SamyaioV and SamyhnoV (Epiphan. Haer. pp. 40, 47, 127, and even SamyithV p. 46), NazwraioV and NazarhnoV, GittaioV and GitthnoV (Steph. Byz. s.v., Hippol. Haer. vi. 7), with which we may compare BostraioV and BostrhnoV, MelitaioV and MelithnoV, and numberless other examples. (2) Again; when we consider either word singly, the derivation offered is attended with the most serious difficulties. There is no reason why in ’EssaioV the d should have disappeared from chasid, while it is hardly possible to conceive that tsannua should have taken such an incongruous form as ’EsshnoV. (3) And lastly; the more important of the two words, chasid, had already a recognized Greek equivalent in ’AsidaioV; and it seems highly improbable that a form so divergent as ’EssaioV should have taken its place.

Indeed Frankel’s derivations are generally, if not universally, abandoned by later writers; and yet these same writers repeat his quotations and accept his results, as if the references were equally valid, though the name of the sect has disappeared. They seem to be satisfied with the stability of the edifice, even when the foundation is undermined. Thus for instance Gratz not only maintains after Frankel that the Essenes ‘were properly nothing more than stationary or, more strictly speaking, logically consistent (consequente) Chasidim,’ and ‘that therefore they were not so far removed from the Pharisees that they can be regarded as a separate sect,’ and ‘accepts entirely these results’ which, as he says, ‘rest on critical investigation’ (III. p. 463), but even boldly translates chasiduth ‘the Essene mode of life’ (ib. 84), though he himself gives a wholly different derivation of the word ‘Essene,’ making it signify ‘washers’ or ‘baptists.’ And even those who do not go to this length of inconsistency, yet avail themselves freely of the passages where chasid occurs, and interpret it of the Essenes, while distinctly repudiating the etymology.

But, although ’EssaioV or ’EsshnoV is not a Greek form of chasid, it might still happen that this word was applied to them as an epithet, though not as a proper name. Only in this case the reference ought to be unmistakable, before any conclusions are based upon it. But in fact, after going through all the passages, which Frankel gives, it is impossible to feel satisfied that in a single instance there is a direct allusion to the Essenes. Sometimes the word seems to refer to the old sect of the Chasidim or Asidæns, as for instance when Jose ben Joezer, who lived during the Maccabæn war, is called a chasid (Mishna Chagigah 2.7). At all events this R. Jose is known to have been a married man, for he is stated to have disinherited his children (Baba Bathra 133b); and therefore he cannot have belonged to the stricter order of Essenes. Sometimes it is employed quite generally to denote pious observers of the ceremonial law, as for instance when it is said that with the death of certain famous teachers the Chasidim ceased. In this latter sense the expression Mynw#)rh Mydysx, ‘the ancient or primitive Chasidim’ (Monattschr. pp. 31, 62), is perhaps used; for these primitive Chasidim again are mentioned as having wives and children (Niddah 38a), and it appears also that they were scrupulously exact in bringing their sacrificial offerings (Mishna Kerithuth 6.3, Nedarim 10a). Thus it is impossible to identify them with the Essenes, as described by Josephus and Philo. Even in those passages of which most has been made, the reference is more than doubtful. Thus great stress is laid on the saying of R. Joshua ben Chananiah in Mishna Sotah 3.4, ‘The foolish chasid and the clever villain (Mwr( (#rw h+w# dysx), etc., are the ruin of the world.’ But the connexion points to a much more general meaning of chasid, and the rendering in Surenhuis, ‘Homo pius qui insipiens, improbus qui astutus,’ gives the correct antithesis. So we might say that there is no one more mischievous than the wrong-headed conscientious man. It is true that the Gemaras illustrate the expression by examples of those who allow an over-punctilious regard for external forms to stand in the way of deeds of mercy. And perhaps rightly. But there is no reference to any distinctive Essene practices in the illustrations given. Again; the saying in Mishna Pirke Aboth 5.10, ‘He who says Mine is thine and thine is thine is [a] chasid (dysx Kl# kl#w Kl# yl#),’ is quoted by several writers as though it referred to the Essene community of goods.* But in the first place the idea of community of goods would require, ‘Mine is thine and thine is mine’: and in the second place, the whole context, and especially the clause which immediately follows (and which these writers do not give), ‘He who says Thine is mine and mine is mine is wicked ((#r),’ show plainly that dysx must be taken in its general sense ‘pious,’ and the whole expression implies not reciprocal interchange but individual self-denial.

* Thus Gratz (III p. 81) speaking of the community of goods among the Essenes writes, ‘From this view springs the proverb: Every Chassid says; Mine and thine belong to thee (not me)’ thus giving a turn to the expression which in its original connexion it does not at all justify. Of the existence of such a proverb I have found no traces. It certainly is not suggested in the passage of Pirke Aboth. Later in the volume (p. 467) Gratz tacitly alters the words to make them express, as he supposes, reciprocation or community of goods, substituting ‘Thine is mine’ for ‘Thine is thine’ in the second clause; ‘The Chassid must have no property of his own, but must treat it as belonging to the Society yl# dysx yl# Kl# Kl#).’ At least, as he gives no reference, I suppose that he refers to the same passage. This very expression ‘mine is thine and thine is mine’ does indeed occur previously in the same section, but it is applied as a formula of disparagement to the am haarets, who expect to receive again as much as they give. In this loose way Gratz treats the whole subject. Keim (p. 294) quotes the passage correctly, but refers it nevertheless to Essene communism. 

It might indeed be urged, though this is not Frankel’s plea, that supposing the true etymology of the word ’EssaioV, ’EsshnoV, to be the Syriac [Syriac] ch’se, chasyo (a possible derivation), chasid might have been its Hebrew equivalent as being similar in sound and meaning,a nd perhaps ultimately connected in derivation, the exactly corresponding trilateral root )sx (comp. swx) not being in use in Hebrew.* But before we accept this explanation we have a right to demand some evidence which, if not demonstrative, is at least circumstantial, that chasid is used of the Essenes; and this we have seen is not forthcoming. Moreover, if the Essenes had thus inherited the name of the Chasidim, we should have expected that its old Greek equivalent ’Asidaioi, which is still used later than the Maccabæn era, would also have gone with it; rather than that a new Greek word ’EssaioV (or ’EsshnoV) should have been invented to take its place. But indeed the Syriac Version of the Old Testament furnishes an argument against this convertibility of the Hebrew chasid and Syriac chasyo, which must be regarded as almost decisive. The numerous passages in the Psalms, where the expressions ‘My Chasidim,’ ‘His Chasidim,’ occur (30:5, 31:24, 37:28, 52:11, 79:2, 85:9, 97:10, 116:15, 132:9, 149:9: comp. 32:6, 149:1,5), seem to have suggested the assumption of the name to the original Asidæans. But in such passages dysx is commonly, if not universally, rendered in the Peshito not by [Syriac] ch’se, chasyo, but by a wholly different word [Syriac] zadik. And again, in the Books of Maccabees the Syriac rendering for the name ’Asidaioi, Chasidim, is a word derived from another quite distinct root. These facts show that the Hebrew chasid and the Syriac chasyo were not practically equivalents, so that the one would suggest the other; and thus all presumption in favour of a connection between ’AsidaioV and ’EssaioV is removed.

* This is Hitzig’s view (Geschichte des Volkes Israel p. 427). He maintains that “they were called ‘Hasidim’ by the later Jews because the Syrian Essenes means exactly the same as ‘Hasidim.’”

 Frankel’s other derivation (wnc, tsannua, suggested as an equivalent to ’EsshnoV, has found no favour with later writers, and indeed is too far removed from the Greek form to be tenable. Nor do the passages quoted by him require or suggest any allusion to this sect. Thus in Mishna Demai, 6.6, we are told that the school of Hillel permits a certain license in a particular matter, but it is added, ‘The y(wnc of the school of Hillel followed the precept of the school of Shammai.’ Here, as Frankel himself confesses, the Jerusalem Talmud knows nothing about Essenes, but explains the word by yr#k, i.e. ‘upright, worthy’; while elsewhere, as he allows, it must have this general sense. Indeed the mention of the ‘school of Hillel’ here seems to exclude the Essenes. In its comprehensive meaning it will most naturally be taken also in the other passage quoted by Frankel, Kiddushin 71a, where it is stated that the pronunciation of the sacred name, which formerly was known to all, is now only to be divulged to the My(wnc, i.e. the discreet, among the priests; and in fact it occurs in reference to the communication of the same mystery in the immediate context also, where it could not possibly be treated as a proper name; wymy ycxb rmw(w wyn(w (wnc#, ‘who is discreet and meek and has reached middle age,’ etc.

Of other etymologies, which have been suggested, and through which it might be supposed the Essenes are mentioned by name in the Talmud, )ys), asya, ‘a physician,’ is the one which has found most favour. For the reasons given above this derivation seems highly improbable, and the passages quoted are quite insufficient to overcome the objections. Of these the strongest is in the Talm. Jerus. Yoma 3.7, where we are told that a certain physician (ys)) offered to communicate the sacred name to R. Pinchas the son of Chama, and the latter refused on the ground that he ate of the tithes—this being regarded as a disqualification, apparently because it was inconsistent with the highest degree of ceremonial purity. The same story is told with some modifications in Midrash Qoheleth 3.11. Here Frankel, though himself (as we have seen) adopting a different derivation of the word ‘Essene,’ yet supposes that this particular physician belonged to the sect, on the sole ground that ceremonial purity is represented as a qualification for the initiation into the mystery of the Sacred Name. Lowy (l.c.) denies that the allusion to the tithes is rightly interpreted: but even supposing it to be correct, the passage is quite an inadequate basis either for Frankel’s conclusion that this particular physician was an Essene, or for the derivation of the word Essene which others maintain. Again, in the statement of Talm. Jerus. Kethuboth 2.3, that correct manuscripts were called books of ys), the word Asi is generally taken as a proper name. But even if this interpretation be false, there is absolutely nothing in the context which suggests any allusion to the Essenes. In like manner the passage from Sanhedrin 99b, where a physician is mentioned, supports no such inference. Indeed, as this last passage relates to the family of the Asi, he obviously can have had no connexion with the celibate Essenes.

Hitherto our search for the name in the Talmud has been unsuccessful. One possibility however still remains. The talmudical writers speak of certain h#(m y#n) ‘men of deeds’; and if (as some suppose) the name Essene is derived from h#( have we not here the mention which we are seeking? Frankel rejects the etymology, but presses the identification. The expression, he urges, is often used in connexion with Chasidim. It signifies ‘miracle workers,’ and therefore aptly describes the supernatural powers supposed to be exercised by the Essenes. Thus we are informed in Mishna Sotah 9.15, that ‘When R. Chaninah ben Dosa died, the men of deeds ceased; when R. Jose Ketinta died, the Chasidim ceased.’ In the Jerusalem Talmud however this mishna is read, ‘With the death of R. Chaninah ben Dosa and R. Jose Ketinta the Chasidim ceased’; while the Gemara there explains R. Chaninah to have been one of the y#n) h#(m. Thus, Frankel concludes, ‘the identity of these with Mydysx becomes still more plain.’ Now it seems clear that this expression h#(m y#n) in some places cannot refer to miraculous powers, but must mean ‘men of practical goodness,’ as for instance in Succah 51a, 53a; and being a general term expressive of moral excellence, it is naturally connected with Chasidim, which is likewise a general term expressive of piety and goodness. Nor is there any reason why it should not always be taken in this sense. It is true that stories are told elsewhere of this R. Chaninah, which ascribe miraculous powers to him (Taanith 24b; Yoma 53b), and hence there is a temptation to translate it ‘wonder-worker,’ as applied to him. But the reason is quite insufficient. Moreover it must be observed that R. Chaninah’s wife is a prominent person in the legends of his miracles reported in Taanith 24b; and thus we need hardly stop to discuss the possible meanings of h#(m y#n), since his claims to being considered an Essene are barred at the outset by this fact.*

* In this and similar cases it is unnecessary to consider whether the persons mentioned might have belonged to those looser disciples of Essenism, who married: because the identification is meaningless unless the strict order were intended.

It has been asserted indeed by a recent author, that one very ancient Jewish writer distinctly adopts this derivation, and as distinctly states that the Essenes were a class of Pharisees. If this were the case, Frankel’s theory, though not his etymology, would receive a striking confirmation: and it is therefore important to enquire on what foundation the assertion rests.

Dr. Ginsburg’s authority for this statement is a passage from the Aboth of Rabbi Nathan, c. 37, which, as he gives it, appears conclusive; ‘There are eight kinds of Pharisees…and those Pharisees who live in celibacy are Essenes.’ But what are the facts of the case? First; This book was certainly not written by its reputed author, the R. Nathan who was vice-president under the younger Gamaliel about AD 140. It may possibly have been founded on an earlier treatise by that famous teacher, though even this is very doubtful: but in its present form it is a comparatively modern work. On this point all or almost all recent writers on Hebrew literature are agreed. Secondly; Dr. Ginsburg has taken the reading yn)#( wtpwxm, without even mentioning any alternative. Whether the words so read are capable of the meaning which he has assigned to them, may be highly questionable; but at all events this cannot have been the original reading, as the parallel passages, Babl. Sotah fol. 22b, Jerus. Sotah 5.5, Jerus. Berakhoth 9.5, (quoted by Buxtorf and Levy, s.v. #yrp), distinctly prove. In Babl. Sotah l.c., the corresponding expression is hn#()w ytbwx hm ‘What is my duty, and I will do it,’ and the passage in Jerus. Berakhoth l.c. is to the same effect. These parallels show that the reading hn#()w ytbwx hm must be taken also in Aboth c. 37, so that the passage will be rendered, ‘The Pharisee who says, What is my duty, and I will do it.’ Thus the Essenes and celibacy disappear together. Lastly; Inasmuch as Dr. Ginsburg himself takes a wholly different view of the name Essene, connecting it either with Ncx ‘an apron,’ or with )ysx ‘pious,’ it is difficult to see how he could translate yn)#( ‘Essene’ (from )#( ‘to do’) in this passage, except on the supposition that R. Nathan was entirely ignorant of the orthography and derivation of the word Essene. Yet, if such ignorance were conceivable in so ancient a writer, his authority on this question would be absolutely worthless. But indeed Dr. Ginsburg would appear to have adopted this reference to R. Nathan, with the reading of the passage and the interpretation of the name, from some other writer. At all events it is quite inconsistent with his own opinion as expressed previously.

But, though we have not succeeded in finding any direct mention of this sect by name in the Talmud, and all the identifications of the word Essene with diverse expressions occurring there have failed us on examination, it might still happen that allusions to them were so frequent as to leave no doubt about the persons meant. Their organization or their practices or their tenets might be precisely described, though their name was suppressed. Such allusions Frankel finds scattered up and down the Talmud in great profusion.

(1) He sees a reference to the Essenes in the )rwbx chabura or ‘Society,’ which is mentioned several times in talmudical writers. The chaber (rbx) or ‘Associate’ is, he supposes, a member of this brotherhood. He is obliged to confess that the word cannot always have this sense, but still he considers this to be a common designation of the Essenes. The chaber was bound to observe certain rules of ceremonial purity, and a period of probation was imposed upon him before he was admitted. With this fact Frankel connects the passage in Mishna Chagigah 2.5,6, where several degrees of ceremonial purity are specified. Having done this, he considers that he has the explanation of the statement in Josephus (B. J. ii. 8. 7, 10), that the Essenes were divided into four different grades or orders according to the time of their continuance in the ascetic practices demanded by the sect.

But in the first place there is no reference direct or indirect to the chaber, or indeed to any organization of any kind, in the passage of Chagigah. It simply contemplates different degrees of purification as qualifying for the performance of certain Levitical rites in an ascending scale. There is no indication that these lustrations are more than temporary and immediate in their application; and not the faintest hint is given of distinct orders of men, each separated from the other by formal barriers and each demanding a period of probation before admission from the order below, as was the case with the grades of the Essene brotherhood described by Josephus. Moreover the orders in Josephus are four in number,* while the degrees of ceremonial purity in Chagigah are five. Frankel indeed is inclined to maintain that only four degrees are intended in Chagigah, though this interpretation is opposed to the plain sense of the passage. But, even if he should be obliged to grant that the number of degrees is five, he will not surrender the allusion to the Essenes, but meets the difficulty by supposing (it is a pure hypothesis) that there was a fifth and highest degree of purity among the Essenes, to which very few attained, and which, as I understand him, is not mentioned by Josephus on this account. But enough has already been said to show, that this passage in Chagigah can have no connexion with the Essenes and gives no countenance to Frankel’s views.

* As the notices in Josephus (B. J. ii. 8) relating to this point have been frequently misunderstood, it may be well once for all to explain his meaning. The grades of the Essene order are mentioned in two separate notices, apparently, though not really, discordant. (1) In § 10 he says that they are ‘divided into four sections according to the duration of their discipline,’ adding that the older members are considered to be defiled by contact with the younger, i.e. each superior grade by contact with the inferior. So far his meaning is clear. (2) In § 8 he states that one who is anxious to become a member of the sect undergoes a year’s probation, submitting to discipline but ‘remaining outside.’ Then, ‘after he has given evidence of his perseverance, his character is tested for two years more; and, if found worthy, he is accordingly admitted into the society.’ A comparison with the other passage shows that these two years comprise the period spent in the second and third grades, each extending over a year. After passing through these three stages in three successive years, he enters upon the fourth and highest grade, thus becoming a perfect member.

It is stated by Dr. Ginsburg (Essenes p. 12 sq., comp. Kitto’s Cyclopaedia s.v. p. 828) that the Essenes passed through eight stages ‘from the beginning of the noviciate to the achievement of the highest spiritual state,’ this last stage qualifying them, like Elias, to be forerunners of the Messiah. But it is a pure hypothesis that the Talmudical notices thus combined have anything to do with the Essenes; and, as I shall have occasion to point out afterwards, there is no ground for ascribing to this sect any Messianic expectations whatever.  

As this artificial combination has failed, we are compelled to fall back on the notices relating to the chaber, and to ask whether these suggest any connexion with the account of the Essenes in Josephus. And the facts oblige us to answer this question in the negative. Not only do they not suggest such a connexion, but they are wholly irreconcilable with the account in the Jewish historian. This association or confraternity (if indeed the term is applicable to an organization so loose and so comprehensive) was maintained for the sake of securing a more accurate study and a better observance of the ceremonial law. Two grades of purity are mentioned in connexion with it, designated by different names and presenting some difficulties,* into which it is not necessary to enter here. A chaber, it would appear, was one who had entered upon the second or higher stage. For this a period of a year’s probation was necessary. The chaber enrolled himself in the presence of three others who were already members of the association. This apparently was all the formality necessary: and in the case of a teacher even this was dispensed with, for being presumably acquainted with the law of things clean and unclean he was regarded as ex officio a chaber. The chaber was bound to keep himself from ceremonial defilements, and was thus distinguished from the am haarets or common people**; but he was under no external surveillance and decided for himself as to his own purity. Moreover he was, or might be a married man: for the doctors disputed whether the wives and children of an associate were not themselves to be regarded as associates.*** In one passage, Sanhedrin 41a, it is even assumed, as a matter of course, that a woman may be an associate (hrbx). In another (Niddah 33b) there is mention of a Sadducee and even of a Samaritan as a chaber. An organization so flexible as this has obviously only the most superficial resemblances with the rigid rules of the Essene order; and in many points it presents a direct contrast to the characteristic tenets of that sect.

* The entrance into the lower grade was described as ‘taking Mypnk’ or ‘wings.’ The meaning of this expression has been the subject of much discussion; see e.g. Herzfeld II. p. 390 sq., Frankel Monatsschr. p. 33 sq.

** The contempt with which a chaber would look down upon the vulgar herd, the am haarets, finds expression in the language of the Pharisees, John 7:49  o ocloV outoV o mh ginwskwn ton nomon eparatoi eisin. Again in Acts 4:13, where the Apostles are described as iowtai, the expression is equivalent to am haarets. See the passages quoted in Buxtorf, Lex. p. 1626.

*** All these particulars and others may be gathered from Bekhoroth 30b, Mishna Demai 2.3, Jerus. Demai 2.3, 5.1, Tosifta Demai 2, Aboth R. Nathan c. 41. 

(2) Having discussed Frankel’s hypothesis respecting the chaber, I need hardly follow his speculations on the Bene-hakkeneseth, tsnkh ynb, ‘sons of the congregation’ (Zabim 3.2), in which expression probably few would discover the reference, which he finds, to the lowest of the Essene orders.

(3) But mention is also made of a ‘holy congregation’ or ‘assembly’ ()#ydq )lhq, h#ydq hd() ‘in Jerusalem’; and, following Rapoport, Frankel sees in this expression also an allusion to the Essenes. The grounds for this identification are, that in one passage (Berakhoth 9b) they are mentioned in connexion with prayer at daybreak, and in another (Midrash Qoheleth 9.9) two persons are stated to belong to this ‘holy congregation,’ because they divided their day into three parts, devoting one-third to learning, another to prayer, and another to work. The first notice would suit the Essenes very well, though the practice mentioned was not so distinctively Essene as to afford any safe ground for this hypothesis. Of the second it should be observed, that no such division of the day is recorded of the Essenes, and indeed both Josephus (B. J. ii. 8. 5) and Philo (Fragm. p. 633) describe them as working from morning till night with the single interruption of their mid-day meal.* But in fact the identification is beset with other and more serious difficulties. For this ‘holy congregation’ at Jerusalem is mentioned long after the second destruction of the city under Hadrian (Monatsschr. p. 32), when on Frankel’s own showing (ibid p. 70) the Essene society had in all probability ceased to exist. And again certain members of it, e.g. Jose ben Meshullam (Mishna Bekhoroth 3.3, 6.1), are represented as uttering precepts respecting animals fit for sacrifice, though we have it on the authority of Josephus and Philo that the Essenes avoided the temple sacrifices altogether. The probability therefore seems to be that this ‘holy congregation’ was an assemblage of devout Jews who were drawn to the neighbourhood of the sanctuary after the destruction of the nation, and whose practices were regarded with peculiar reverence by the later Jews.

* It is added however in Midrash Qoheleth 9.9 ‘Some say that they (the holy congregation) devoted the whole of the winter to studying the Scriptures and the summer to work.’ 

(4) Neither can we with Frankel (Monatsschr. p. 32) discern any reference to the Essenes in those Nyqytw Vathikin, ‘pious’ or ‘learned’ men (whatever may be the exact sense of the word), who are mentioned in Bearkhoth 9b as praying before sunrise; because the word itself seems quite general, and the practice, though enforced among the Essenes, as we know from Josephus (B. J. ii. 8. 5), would be common to all devout and earnest Jews. If we are not justified in saying that these Nyqytw were not Essenes, we have no sufficient grounds for maintaining that they were.

(5) Nor again can we find any such reference in the Mynqz Mynw#)rh or ‘primitive elders’ (Monatsschr. pp. 32, 68). It may readily be granted that this term is used synonymously, or nearly so, with Mynw#)rh Mydysx ‘the primitive chasidim’; but, as we failed to see anything more than a general expression in the one, so we are naturally led to take the other in the same sense. The passages where the expression occurs (e.g. Shabbath 64b) simply refer to the stricter observances of early times, and do not indicate any reference to a particular society or body of men.

(6) Again Frankel finds another reference to this sect in the tyrx# ylb+ Toble-shacharith, or ‘morning-bathers,’ mentioned in Tosifta Yadayim c.2. (Monatsschr. p. 67). The identity of these with the hmerobaptistai of Greek writers seems highly probable. The latter however, though they may have had some affinities with Essene practices and tenets, are nevertheless distinguished from this sect wherever they are mentioned. But the point to be observed is that, even though we should identify these Toble-shacharith with the Essenes, the passage in Tosifta Yadayim, so far from favouring, is distinctly adverse to Frankel’s view which regards the Essenes as only a branch of Pharisees: for the two are here represented as in direct antagonism. The Toble-shacharith say, ‘We grieve over you, Pharisees, because you pronounce the (sacred) Name in the morning without having bathed.’ The Pharisees retort, ‘We grieve over you, Toble-shacharith, because you pronounce the Name from this body in which is impurity.’

(7) In connexion with the Toble-shacharith we may consider another name, Banaim (My)nb), in which also Frankel discovers an allusion to the Essenes (Zeitschr. p. 455). In Mishna Mikvaoth 9.6 the word is opposed to rwb bor, ‘an ignorant or stupid person’; and this points to its proper meaning ‘the builders,’ i.e. the edifiers or teachers, according to the common metaphor in Biblical language. The word is discussed in Shabbath 114 and explained to mean ‘learned.’ But, because in Mikvaoth it is mentioned in connexion with ceremonial purity, and because in Josephus the Essenes are stated to have carried an ‘axe and shovel’ (B. J. ii. 8. 7, 9), and because moreover the Jewish historian in another place (Vit. 2) mentions having spent some time with one Banus a dweller in the wilderness, who lived on vegetables and fruits and bathed often day and night for the sake of purity, and who is generally considered to have been an Essene; therefore Frankel holds these Banaim to have been Essenes. This is a specimen of the misplaced ingenuity which distinguishes Frankel’s learned speculations on the Essenes.  Josephus does not mention an ‘axe and shovel,’ but an axe only (§ 7 azinarion), which he afterwards defines more accurately as a spade (§ 9  th skalioi, toiouton gar esti to didomenon up autwn azinidion toiV neosustatoiV) and which, as he distinctly states, was given them for the purpose of burying impurities out of sight (comp. Deut 23:12-14). Thus it has no connexion whatever with any ‘building’ implement. And again, it is true that Banus has frequently been regarded as an Essene, but there is absolutely no ground for this supposition. On the contrary the narrative of Josephus in his Life seems to exclude it, as I shall have occasion to show hereafter. I should add that Sachs interprets Banaim ‘the bathers,’ regarding the explanation in Shabbath l.c. as a ‘later accommodation.’* This seems to me very improbable; but, if it were conceded, the Banaim would then apparently be connected not with the Essenes, but with the Hemerobaptists.

* Beitrage II. p. 199. In this derivation he is followed by Graetz (III. p. 82, 468) and Derenbourg (p. 166). 

From the preceding investigation it will have appeared how little Frankel has succeeded in establishing his thesis that ‘the talmudical sources are acquainted with the Essenes and make mention of them constantly’ (Monatsschr. p. 31). We have seen not only that no instance of the name Essene has been produced, but that all those passages which are supposed to refer to them under other designations, or to describe their practices or tenets, fail us on closer examination. In no case can we feel sure that there is any direct reference to this sect, while in most cases such reference seems to be excluded by the language or the attendant circumstances.* Thus we are obliged to fall back upon the representations of Philo and Josephus. Their accounts are penned by eye-witnesses. They are direct and explicit, if not so precise or so full as we could have wished. The writers obviously consider that they are describing a distinct and exceptional phenomenon. And it would be a reversal of all established rules of historical criticism to desert the solid standing-ground of contemporary history for the artificial combinations and shadowy hypotheses which Frankel would substitute in its place.

* ‘The attempt to point out the Essenes in our patristic (i.e. rabbinical) literature,’ says Herzfeld truly (II. p. 397), ‘has led to a splendid hypothesis-hunt (einer stattlichen Hypothesenjagd).’ 

But here we are confronted with Frankel’s depreciation of these ancient writers, which has been echoed by several later critics. They were interested, it is argued, in making their accounts attractive to their heathen contemporaries, and they coloured them highly for this purpose (Monatsschr. p. 31). We may readily allow that they would not be uninfluenced by such a motive, but the concession does not touch the main points at issue. This aim might have led Josephus, for example, to throw into bold relief the coincidences between the Essenes and Pythagoreans; it might even have induced him to give a semi-pagan tinge to the Essene doctrine of the future state of the blessed (B. J. ii. 8. 11). But it entirely fails to explain those peculiarities of the sect which marked them off by a sharp line from orthodox Judaism, and which fully justify the term ‘separatists’ as applied to them by a recent writer. In three main features especially the portrait of the Essenes retains its distinctive character unaffected by this consideration.

(i) How, for instance, could this principle of accommodation have led both Philo and Josephus to lay so much stress on their divergence from Judaic orthodoxy in the matter of sacrifices? Yet this is perhaps the most crucial note of heresy which is recorded of the Essenes. What was the law to the orthodox Pharisee without the sacrifices, the temple-worship, the hierarchy? Yet the Essene declined to take any part in the sacrifices; he had priests of his own independently of the Levitical priesthood. On Frankel’s hypothesis that Essenism is merely an exaggeration of pure Pharisaism, no explanation of this abnormal phenomenon can be given. Frankel does indeed attempt to meet the case by some speculations respecting the red heifer  (Monatsschr. 64), which are so obviously inadequate that they have not been repeated by later writers and may safely be passed over in silence here. On this point indeed the language of Josephus is not quite explicit. He says (Ant. xviii. 1. 5) that, though they send offerings (anaqhmata) to the temple, they perform no sacrifices, and he assigns as the reason their greater strictness as regards ceremonial purity (diaforothti agneiwn aV nomizoien), adding that ‘for this reason being excluded from the common sanctuary (temenismatoV) they perform their sacrifices by themselves (ef autwn taV qusiaV epitelousi).’ Frankel therefore supposes that their only reason for abstaining from the temple sacrifices was that according to their severe notions the temple itself was profaned and therefore unfit for sacrificial worship. But if so, why should it not vitiate the offerings, as well as the sacrifices, and make them also unlawful? And indeed, where Josephus is vague, Philo is explicit. Phil (II. p. 457) distinctly states that the Essenes being more scrupulous than any in the worship of God (en toiV malista qerapeutai Qeou) do not sacrifice animals (ou zwa kataquonteV), but hold it right to dedicate their own hearts as a worthy offering (all ieroprepeiV taV eautwn dianoiaV kataskeuazeiV  aziounteV). Thus the greater strictness, which Josephus ascribes to them, consists in the abstention from shedding blood, as a pollution in itself. And, when he speaks of their substituting private sacrifices, his own qualifications show that he does not mean the word to be taken literally. Their simple meals are their sacrifices; their refectory is their sanctuary; their president is their priest. It should be added also that, though we once hear of an Essene apparently within the temple precincts (B. J. i. 3. 5, Ant. xiii. 11. 2), no mention is ever made of one offering sacrifices. Thus it is clear that with the Essene it was the sacrifices which polluted the temple, and not the temple which polluted the sacrifices. And this view is further recommended by the fact that it alone will explain the position of their descendants, the Christianized Essenes, who condemned the slaughter of victims on grounds very different from those alleged in the Epistle to the Hebrews, not because they have been superseded by the Atonement, but because they are in their very nature repulsive to God; not because they have ceased to be right, but because they never were right from the beginning.

It may be said indeed, that such a view could not be maintained without impugning the authority, or at least disputing the integrity, of the Old Testament writings. The sacrificial system is so bound up with the Mosaic law, that it can only be rejected by the most arbitrary excision. This violent process however, uncritical as it is, was very likely to have been adopted by the Essenes.* As a matter of fact, it did recommend itself to those Judaizing Christians who reproduced many of the Essene tenets, and who both theologically and historically may be regarded as the lineal descendants of this Judaic sect. Thus in the Clementine Homilite, an Ebionite work which exhibits many Essene features, the chief spokesman St. Peter is represented as laying great stress on the duty of distinguishing the true and the false elements in the current Scriptures (ii. 38, 51, iii. 4, 5, 10, 42, 47, 49, 50, comp. xviii. 19). The saying traditionally ascribed to our Lord, ‘Show yourselves approved money-changers’ (givesqe trapezitai dokimoi), is more than once quoted by the Apostle as enforcing this duty (ii. 51, iii. 50, xviii. 20). Among these false elements he places all those passages which represent God as enjoining sacrifices (iii. 45, xviii. 19). It is plain, so he argues, that God did not desire sacrifices, for did He not kill those who lusted after the taste of flesh in the wilderness? and, if the slaughter of animals was thus displeasing to Him, how could He possibly have commanded victims to be offered to Himself (iii. 45)? It is equally clear from other considerations that this was no part of God’s genuine law. For instance, Christ declared that He came to fulfil every tittle of the Law; yet Christ abolished sacrifices (iii. 51). And again, the saying ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice’ is a condemnation of this practice (iii. 56). The true prophet ‘hates sacrifices, bloodshed, libations’; he ‘extinguishes the fire of altars’ (iii. 26). The frenzy of the lying soothsayer is a mere intoxication produced by the reeking fumes of sacrifice (iii. 13). When in the immediate context of these denunciations we find it reckoned among the highest achievements of man ‘to know the names of angels, to drive away demons, to endeavour to heal diseases by charms (farmakiaiV), and to find incantations (epaoidaV) against venomous serpents (iii. 36)’; when again St. Peter is made to condemn as false those scriptures which speak of God swearing, and to set against them Christ’s command ‘Let your yea be yea’ (iii. 55); we feel how thoroughly this strange production of Ebionite Christianity is saturated with Essene ideas.**

* Herzfeld (II. p. 403) is unable to reconcile any rejection of the Old Testament Scriptures with the reverence paid to Moses by the Essenes (B. J. ii. 8. 9, 10). The Christian Essenes however did combine both these incongruous tenets by the expedient which is explained in the text. Herzfeld himself suggests that allegorical interpretation may have been employed to justify this abstention from the temple sacrifices.

** Epiphanius (Hær. xviii. I. p. 38) again describes, as the account was handed down to him (wV o eiV hmaV elqwn periecei logoV), the tenets of a Jewish sect which he calls the Nasareans, authn de ou pareoeceto thn pentateucon, alla wmologei men ton Mwusea, kai oti edexato nomoqesian episteuen, ou tauthn de fhsin, all eteran. oqen ta men panta fulattousi twn Iiudaiwn Ioudaioi onteV, qusian de ouk equon oute emyucwn meteicon, alla aqemiton hn par autoiV to kpewn metalambanein h qusiazein autoiV. efaskon gar peplasqai tauta ta biblia kai mhden toutwn upo tw paterwn gegenhsqai. Here we have in combination all the features which we are seeking. The cradle of this sect is placed by him in Gilead and Bashan and ‘the regions beyond the Jordan.’ He uses similar language also (xxx. 18, p. 142) in describing the Ebionites, whom he places in much the same localities (naming Moab also), and whose Essene features are unmistakable: oute gar decohtai thn pentateucon MwusdewV dlhn alla tina rhmata apoballousin. otan de autoiV eiphV peri emyucwn brwsewV k.t.l. These parallels will speak for themselves. 

(ii) Nor again is Frankel successful in explaining the Essene prayers to the sun by rabbinical practices (Zeitschr. p. 458). Following Rapoport, he supposes that Josephus and Philo refer to the beautiful hymn of praise for the creation of light and the return of day, which forms part of the morning-prayer of the Jews to the present time, and which seems to be enjoined in the Mishna itself (Berakhoth i. 4); and this view has been adopted by many subsequent writers. But the language of Josephus is not satisfied by this explanation. For he says plainly (B. J. ii. 8. 5) that they addressed prayers to the sun, and it is difficult to suppose that he has wantonly introduced a dash of paganism into his picture; nor indeed was there any adequate motive for his doing so. Similarly Philo relates of the Therapeutes (Vit. Cont. II, II. p. 485), that they ‘stand with their faces and their whole body towards the East, and when they see that the sun is risen, holding out their hands to heaven they pray for a happy day (euhmerian) and for truth and for keen vision of reason (oxuwpian logismou).’ And here again it is impossible to overlook the confirmation which these accounts receive from the history of certain Christian heretics deriving their descent from this Judaic sect. Epiphanius (Hær. xix. 2, xx. 3, pp. 40 sq., 47) speaks of a sect called the Sampsæans or ‘Sun-worshippers,’ as existing in his own time in Peræa on the borders of Moab and on the shores of the Dead Sea. He describes them as a remnant of the Ossenes (i.e. Essenes), who have accepted a spurious form of Christianity and are neither Jews nor Christians. This debased Christianity which they adopted is embodied, he tells us, in the pretended revelation of the Book of Elchasai, and dates from the time of Trajan (Galatians p. 324 sq.). Elsewhere (xxx. 3, p. 127) he seems to use the terms Sampsæan, Ossene, and Elchasaite as synonymous (para toiV SamyhnoiV kai OsshnoiV kai ElkessaioiV kaloumenoiV). Now we happen to know something of this book of Elchasai, not only from Epiphanius himself (xix. I sq., p. 40 sq., xxx. 17, p. 141), but also from Hippolytus (Hær. ix. 13 sq.) who describes it at considerable length. From these accounts it appears that the principal feature in the book was the injunction of frequent bathings for the remission of sins (Hipp. Hær. ix. 13, 15, sq.). We are likewise told that it ‘anathematizes immolations and sacrifices (qusiaV kai ierourgiaV) as being alien to God and certainly not offered to God by tradition from (ek) the fathers and the law,’ while at the same time it ‘says that men ought to pray there at Jerusalem, where the altar was and the sacrifices (were offered), prohibiting the eating of flesh which exists among the Jews, and the rest (of their customs), and the altar and the fire, as being alien to God’ (Epiph. Hær. xix. 3, p. 42). Notwithstanding, we are informed that the sect retained the rite of circumcision, the observance of the Sabbath, and other practices of the Mosaic law (Hipp. Hær. ix. 14; Epiph. Hær. xix. 5, p. 43, comp. xxx. 17, p. 141). This inconsistency is explained by a further notice in Epiphanius (l.c.) that they treated the Scriptures in the same way as the Nasaræans; that is, they submitted them to a process of arbitrary excision, as recommended in the Clementine Homilies, and thus rejected as falsifications all statements which did not square with their own theory. Hippolytus also speaks of the Elchasaites as studying astrology and magic, and as practicing charms and incantations on the sick and the demoniacs (§ 14). Moreover in two formularies, one of expiation, another of purification, which this father has extracted from the book, invocation is made to ‘the holy spirits and the angels of prayer’ (§ 15, comp. Epiph. Hær. xix. 1). It should be added that the word Elchasai probably signifies the ‘hidden power’ (Galatians p. 325, note 1); while the book itself directed that its mysteries should be guarded as precious pearls, and should not be communicated to the world at large, but only to the faithful few (Hipp. Hær. ix. 15, 17). It is hardly necessary to call attention to the number of Essene features which are here combined.* I would only remark that the value of the notice is not at all diminished, but rather enhanced, by the uncritical character of Epiphanius’ work; for this very fact prevents us from ascribing the coincidences, which here reveal themselves, to this father’s own invention.

* Celibacy however is not one of these; comp. Epiphan. Hær xix. 1 (p. 40) mpecqanetai de th parqenia, misei de thn egkrateian, anagkazei de gamon. In this respect they departed from the original principles of Essenism, alleging, as it would appear, a special revelation (wV dhqen apokaluyewV) in justification. In like manner marriage is commended in the Clementine Homilies.

 In this heresy we have plainly the dregs of Essenism, which has only been corrupted from its earlier and nobler type by the admixture of a spurious Christianity. But how came the Essenes to be called Sampsæans? What was the original meaning of this outward reverence which they paid to the sun? Did they regard it merely as the symbol of Divine illumination, just as Philo frequently treats it as a type of God, the center of all light (e.g. de. Somn. i. 13 sq., I. p. 631 sq.), and even calls the heavenly bodies ‘visible and sensible gods’ (de Mund. Op. 7, I. p. 6)? Or did they honour the light, as the pure ethereal element in contrast to gross terrestrial matter, according to a suggestion of a recent writer (Keim I. p. 289)? Whatever may have been the motive of this reverence, it is strangely repugnant to the spirit of orthodox Judaism. In Ezekiel 8:16 it is denounced as an abomination, that men shall turn towards the east and worship the sun; and accordingly in Berakhoth 7a a saying of R. Meir is reported to the effect that God is angry when the sun appears and the kings of the East and the West prostrate themselves before this luminary. We cannot fail therefore to recognize the action of some foreign influence in this Essene practice—whether Greek or Syrian or Persian, it will be time to consider hereafter.

(iii) On the subject of marriage again, talmudical and rabbinical notices contribute nothing towards elucidating the practices of this sect. Least of all do they point to any affinity between the Essenes and the Pharisees. The nearest resemblance, which Frankel can produce, to any approximation in this respect is an injunction in Mishna Kethuboth 5.8 respecting the duties of the husband in providing for the wife in case of his separating from her, and this he ascribes to Essene influences (Monatsschr. p. 37); but this mishna does not express any approval of such a separation. The direction seems to be framed entirely in the interests of the wife: nor can I see that it is at all inconsistent, as Frankel urges, with Mishna Kethuboth 7.1 which allows her to claim a divorce under such circumstances. But however this may be, Essene and Pharisaic opinion stand generally in the sharpest contrast to each other with respect to marriage. The talmudic writings teem with passages implying not only the superior sanctity, but even the imperative duty, of marriage. The words ‘Be fruitful and multiply’ (Gen 1:28) were regarded not merely as a promise, but as a command which was binding on all. It is a maxim of the Talmud that ‘Any Jew who has not a wife is no man’ (Md) wny)), Yebamoth 63a. The fact indeed is so patent, that any accumulation of examples would be superfluous, and I shall content myself with referring to Pesachim 113a,b, as fairly illustrating the doctrine of orthodox Judaism on this point.* As this question affects the whole framework not only of religious, but also of social life, the antagonism between the Essene and the Pharisee in a matter so vital could not be overlooked.

* Justin Martyr more than once taunts the Jewish rabbis with their reckless encouragement of polygamy. See Dial. 134, p. 363 D.

 (iv) Nor again is it probable that the magical rites and incantations which are so prominent in the practice of the Essenes would, as a rule, have been received with any favour by the Pharisaic Jew. In Mishna Pesachim 4.9 (comp. Berakhoth 10b) it is mentioned with approval that Hezekiah put away a ‘book of healings’; where doubtless the author of the tradition had in view some volume of charms ascribed to Solomon, like those which apparently formed part of the esoteric literature of the Essenes. In the same spirit in Mishna Sanhedrin 11.1 R. Akiba shuts out from the hope of eternal life any ‘who read profane or foreign (i.e. perhaps, apocryphal) books, and who mutter over a wound’ the words of Exodus 15:26. On this point of difference however no great stress can be laid. Though the nobler teachers among the orthodox Jews set themselves steadfastly against the introduction of magic, they were unable to resist the inpouring tide of superstition. In the middle of the second century Justin Martyr alludes to exorcists and magicians among the Jews, as though they were neither few nor obscure (Dial. 85, p. 311 C). Whether these were a remnant of Essene Judaism, or whether such practices had by this time spread throughout the whole body, it is impossible to say; but the fact of their existence prevents us from founding an argument on the use of magic, as an absolutely distinctive feature of Essenism.

Other divergences also have been enumerated; but, as these do not 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.

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 recognized 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.

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.

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. 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. 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 ahs been produced; and the discoveries of Jellinek for instance (Orient 1849, pp. 489, 537, 553), 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 Antignous, saw this prince ‘passing by through the temple,’ when his prophecy was on the point of fulfillment (about BC 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. The temple itself, independently of its accompaniments, would not suggest any offence to his conscience.

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.

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.

Those who trace the distinctive characteristics of the sect to Greece, regard it is an offshoot of the Neophythagorean 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 (katadedigmenh) by Pythagoras’ (Ant. xv. 10. 4). 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.

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 realize—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 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…’ (Philosophie der Griechen Th. III. Abth. 2, p. 281).

This array of coincidences is formidable, and thus skillfully marshaled 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 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.* 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 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 recognized 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.

* 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 Apolloniusby 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.

 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.

(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.* For nearly two centuries after their extinction we hear nothing of them. Here and there persons like Diodorus of Aspendus are satirized by the Attic poets of the middle comedy as ‘pythagorizers,’ in other words, as total abstainers and vegetarians;** 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, 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. But so slow or so chequered was its progress, that a whole century after Seneca can still speak of the school as practically defunct. 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.’*** 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, 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.

* 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.

** Athen. iv. p. 161, Diog. Laert. viii. 37. See the index to Meineke Fragm. Com. s. vv. puqagorikoV, etc. The words commonly used by these satirists are puqagorizein, puqagoristhV, puqagorismoV. The persons so satirized were probably in many cases not more Pythagoreans than modern teetotalers are Rechabites.

*** N. H. v. 15. The point of time, 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. 

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 miilia, 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. 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, this representation is plainly due to the general plan of the novelist, whose hero is perhaps 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 at the comparative chronology of the two, it will appear almost inconceivable that they can have derived their principles from the Neopythagoreans.

(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; 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 southeastern border of Palestine? Zeller’s answer is as follows. Judæa was for more than a hundred and fifty years before the Maccabean period under the sovereignty first of the Eygptian 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.

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? 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.

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. 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. (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 matured development of dualist 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. (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. (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. (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. (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.

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 practiced 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.* 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 sufficient established.**

* 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 axinomanteia (Plin. N. H. xxvi. 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.

** 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. Essaer p. 189. 

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, 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,* its influence must have been reduced within the narrowest limits. 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. It was then that Hermippus gave to the Greeks the most detailed account of this religion which had ever been laid before them. 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.** 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*** 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.

* See Gibbon Decline and Fall c. vii, 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.

** Strabo xv. 3. 15 (p. 733) ’En de th Kappadokia (polu gar ekei to twn Magwn fulon, oi kai puraiqoi kalountai polla de kai twn Persikwn qewn iepa) k.t.l..

*** At least in one instance, Asmodeus (Tob. iii. 17); see M. Muller 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. 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. 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. He points confidently 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.* In this opinion however he stands quite alone. Neither Koppen (Die Religion des Buddha I. p. 193), who is his authority for this statement, nor any other Indian scholar, 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;** 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. The historian, or rather fabulist (for such he is in this earlier part of his chronicle), is relating the foundation of the Maha thupo, or great tope, at Ruanwelli by the king Dutthagamini in the year BC 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