St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon A...

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

(1) He sees a reference to the Essenes in the חבורא chăbūra or ‘Society,’ which is mentioned several times in talmudical writers[363]. The chāber (הבר) or ‘Associate’ is, he supposes, a member of this brotherhood. He is obliged to confess that the word cannot always have this sense, but still he considers this to be a common designation of the Essenes. The chaber was bound to observe certain rules of ceremonial purity, and a period of probation was imposed upon him before he was admitted. With this fact Frankel connects the passage in Mishna Chagigah ii. 5, 6, where several degrees of ceremonial purity are specified. Having done this, he considers that he has the explanation of the statement in Josephus (B.J. ii. 8. 7, 10), that the Essenes were divided into four different grades or orders according to the time of their continuance in the ascetic practices demanded by the sect.

But in the first place there is no reference direct or indirect to the chaber, or indeed to any organisation of any kind, in the passage of Chagigah. It simply contemplates different degrees of purification as qualifying for the performance of certain Levitical rites in an ascending scale. There is no indication that these lustrations are more than temporary and immediate in their application; and not the faintest hint is given of distinct orders of men, each separated from the other by formal barriers and each demanding a period of probation before admission from the order below, as was the case with the grades of the Essene brotherhood described by Josephus. Moreover the orders in Josephus are four in number[364], while the degrees of ceremonial purity in Chagigah are five. Frankel indeed is inclined to maintain that only four degrees are intended in Chagigah, though this interpretation is opposed to the plain sense of the passage. But, even if he should be obliged to grant that the number of degrees is five[365], he will not surrender the allusion to the Essenes, but meets the difficulty by supposing (it is a pure hypothesis) that there was a fifth and highest degree of purity among the Essenes, to which very few attained, and which, as I understand him, is not mentioned by Josephus on this account. But enough has already been said to show, that this passage in Chagigah can have no connexion with the Essenes and gives no countenance to Frankel’s views.

As this artificial combination has failed, we are compelled to fall back on the notices relating to the chaber, and to ask whether |the chaber and the Essene.| these suggest any connexion with the account of the Essenes in Josephus. And the facts oblige us to answer this question in the negative. Not only do they not suggest such a connexion, but they are wholly irreconcilable with the account in the Jewish historian. This association or confraternity (if indeed the term is applicable to an organisation so loose and so comprehensive) was maintained for the sake of securing a more accurate study and a better observance of the ceremonial law. Two grades of purity are mentioned in connexion with it, designated by different names and presenting some difficulties[366], into which it is not necessary to enter here. A chaber, it would appear, was one who had entered upon the second or higher stage. For this a period of a year’s probation was necessary. The chaber enrolled himself in the presence of three others who were already members of the association. This apparently was all the formality necessary: and in the case of a teacher even this was dispensed with, for being presumably acquainted with the law of things clean and unclean he was regarded as ex officio a chaber. The chaber was bound to keep himself from ceremonial defilements, and was thus distinguished from the [عam haarets or common people[367]; but he was under no external surveillance and decided for himself as to his own purity.

Moreover he was, or might be a married man: for the doctors disputed whether the wives and children of an associate were not themselves to be regarded as associates[368]. In one passage, Sanhedrin 41a, it is even assumed, as a matter of course, that a woman may be an associate (חברה). In another (Niddah 33b)[369] there is mention of a Sadducee and even of a Samaritan as a chaber. An organisation so flexible as this has obviously only the most superficial resemblances with the rigid rules of the Essene order; and in many points it presents a direct contrast to the characteristic tenets of that sect.

(2) Having discussed Frankel’s hypothesis respecting the chaber, I need hardly follow his speculations on the Bĕnē-hakkĕneseth, בני הכנסח, ‘sons of the congregation’ (Zabim iii. 2), in which expression probably few would discover the reference, which he finds, to the lowest of the Essene orders[370].

(3) But mention is also made of a ‘holy congregation’ or ‘assembly’ (עדה קדישה קהלא קדישא) ‘in Jerusalem’; and, following Rapoport, Frankel sees in this expression also an allusion to the Essenes[371]. The grounds for this identification are, that in one passage (Berakhoth 9b) they are mentioned in connexion with prayer at day break, and in another (Midrash Qoheleth ix. 9) two persons are stated to belong to this ‘holy congregation,’ because they divided their day into three parts, devoting one-third to learning, another to prayer, and another to work. The first notice would suit the Essenes very well, though the practice mentioned was not so distinctively Essene as to afford any safe ground for this hypothesis. Of the second it should be observed, that no such division of the day is recorded of the Essenes, and indeed both Josephus (B.J. ii. 8. 5) and Philo (Fragm. p. 633) describe them as working from morning till night with the single interruption of their mid-day meal[372]. But in fact the identification is beset with other and more serious difficulties. For this ‘holy congregation’ at Jerusalem is mentioned long |not an Essene community.| after the second destruction of the city under Hadrian[373], when on Frankel’s own showing[374] the Essene society had in all probability ceased to exist. And again certain members of it, e.g. Jose ben Meshullam (Mishna Bekhoroth iii. 3, vi. 1), are represented as uttering precepts respecting animals fit for sacrifice, though we have it on the authority of Josephus and Philo that the Essenes avoided the temple sacrifices altogether.

The probability therefore seems to be that this ‘holy congregation’ was an assemblage of devout Jews who were drawn to the neighbourhood of the sanctuary after the destruction of the nation, and whose practices were regarded with peculiar reverence by the later Jews[375].

(4) Neither can we with Frankel[376] discern any reference to the Essenes in those ותיקיו Vethikin, ‘pious’ or ‘learned’ men (whatever may be the exact sense of the word), who are mentioned in Berakhoth 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 ותיקיו were not Essenes, we have no sufficient grounds for maintaining that they were.

(5) Nor again can we find any such reference in the זקנים or ‘primitive elders[377].’ It may readily be granted that this term is used synonymously, or nearly so, with הראשונים הסידים ‘the primitive chasidim’; but, as we failed to see anything more than a general expression in the one, so we are naturally led to take the other in the same sense. The passages where the expression occurs (e.g. Shabbath 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 טבלי שחרית Tōblē-shachărīth, or ‘morning-bathers,’ mentioned in Tosifta Yadayim c. 2[378]. The identity of these with the ἡμεροβαπτισταὶ of Greek writers seems highly probable. The latter however, though they may have had some affinities with Essene practices and tenets, are nevertheless distinguished from this sect wherever they are mentioned[379]. But the point to be observed is that, even though we should identify these Toble-shacharith with the Essenes, the passage in Tosifta Yadayim, so far from favouring, runs directly counter to Frankel’s view which regards the Essenes as only a branch of Pharisees: for the two are here represented as in direct antagonism. The Toble-shacharith say, ‘We grieve over you, Pharisees, because you pronounce the (sacred) Name in the morning without having bathed.’ The Pharisees retort, ‘We grieve over you, Toble-shacharith, because you pronounce the Name from this body in which is impurity.’

(7) In connexion with the Toble-shacharith we may consider another name, Banāīm (בנאים), in which also Frankel discovers an allusion to the Essenes[380]. In Mishna Mikvaoth ix. 6 the word is opposed to בור bōr, ‘an ignorant or stupid person’; and this points to its proper meaning ‘the builders,’ i.e. the edifiers or teachers, according to the common metaphor in Biblical language. The word is discussed in Shabbath 114 and explained to mean ‘learned.’ But, because in Mikvaoth it is mentioned in connexion with ceremonial purity, and because in Josephus the Essenes are stated to have carried an ‘axe and shovel’ (B.J. ii. 8. 7, 9), and because moreover the Jewish historian in another place (Vit. 2) mentions having spent some time with one Banus a dweller in the wilderness, who lived on vegetables and fruits and bathed often day and night for the sake of purity, and who is generally considered to have been an Essene; therefore Frankel holds these Banaim to have been Essenes. This is a specimen of the misplaced ingenuity which distinguishes Frankel’s learned speculations on the Essenes. Josephus does |Josephus misinterpreted.| not mention an ‘axe and shovel,’ but an axe only (§ 7 ἀξινάριον), which he afterwards defines more accurately as a spade (§ 9 τῇ σκαλίδι, τοιοῦτον γάρ ἐστι τὸ διδόμενον ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ἀξινίδιον τοῖς νεοσυστάτοις) and which, as he distinctly states, was given them for the purpose of burying impurities out of sight (comp. Deut. xxiii. 12–14). Thus it has no connexion whatever with any ‘building’ implement.

And again, it is true that Banus has frequently been regarded as an Essene, but there is absolutely no ground for this supposition. On the contrary the narrative of Josephus in his Life seems to |Another derivation of Banaim.| exclude it, as I shall have occasion to show hereafter[381]. I should add that Sachs interprets Banaim ‘the bathers,’ regarding the explanation in Shabbath l.c. as a ‘later accommodation[382].’ This seems to me very improbable; but, if it were conceded, the Banaim would then apparently be connected not with the Essenes, but with the Hemerobaptists.

From the preceding investigation it will have appeared how little Frankel has succeeded in establishing his thesis that ‘the talmudical sources are acquainted with the Essenes and make mention of them constantly[383].’ We have seen not only that no instance of the name Essene has been produced, but that all those passages which are supposed to refer to them under other designations, or to describe their practices or tenets, fail us on closer examination. In no case can we feel sure that there is any direct reference to this sect, while in most cases such reference seems to be excluded by the language or the attendant circumstances[384]. Thus we are |Philo and Josephus our main authorities.| obliged to fall back upon the representations of Philo and Josephus. Their accounts are penned by eye-witnesses. They are direct and explicit, if not so precise or so full as we could have wished. The writers obviously consider that they are describing a distinct and exceptional phenomenon. And it would be a reversal of all established rules of historical criticism to desert the solid standing-ground of contemporary history for the artificial combinations and shadowy hypotheses, which Frankel would substitute in its place.

But here we are confronted with Frankel’s depreciation of these ancient writers, which has been echoed by several later critics. They were interested, it is argued, in making their accounts attractive to their heathen contemporaries, and they coloured them highly for this purpose[385]. We may readily allow that they would not be uninfluenced by such a motive, but the concession does not touch the main points at issue. This aim might have led Josephus, for example, to throw into bold relief the coincidences between the Essenes and Pythagoreans; it might even have induced him to give a semi-pagan tinge to the Essene doctrine of the future state of the blessed (B.J. ii. 8. 11). But it entirely fails to explain those peculiarities of the sect, which marked them off by a sharp line from orthodox Judaism, and which fully justify the term ‘separatists’ as applied to them by a recent writer. In three main features especially the portrait of the Essenes retains its distinctive character unaffected by this consideration.

(i) How, for instance, could this principle of accommodation have led both Philo and Josephus to lay so much stress on their divergence from Judaic orthodoxy in the matter of sacrifices? Yet this is perhaps the most crucial note of heresy which is recorded of the Essenes. What was the law to the orthodox Pharisee without the sacrifices, the temple-worship, the hierarchy? Yet the Essene declined to take any part in the sacrifices; he had priests of his own independently of the Levitical priesthood. On Frankel’s hypothesis that Essenism is merely an exaggeration of pure Pharisaism, no explanation of this abnormal phenomenon can be given. Frankel does indeed attempt to meet the case by some speculations respecting the red-heifer[386], which are so obviously inadequate that they have not been repeated by later writers and may safely be passed over in silence here. On this point indeed the language of Josephus is not |The notices of Josephus and Philo considered.| quite explicit. He says (Ant. xviii. 1. 5) that, though they send offerings (ἀναθῆματα) to the temple, they perform no sacrifices, and he assigns as the reason their greater strictness as regards ceremonial purity (διαφορότητι ἁγνειῶν ἃς νομίζοιεν), adding that ‘for this reason being excluded from the common sanctuary (τεμενίσματος) they perform their sacrifices by themselves (ἐφ’ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσι).’

Frankel therefore supposes that their only reason for abstaining from the temple sacrifices was that according to their severe notions the temple itself was profaned and therefore unfit for sacrificial worship. But if so, why should it not vitiate the offerings, as well as the sacrifices, and make them also unlawful? And indeed, where Josephus is vague, Philo is explicit. Philo (II. p. 457) distinctly states that the Essenes being more scrupulous than any in the worship of God (ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα θεραπευταὶ θεοῦ) do not sacrifice animals (οὐ ζῶα καταθύοντες), but hold it right to dedicate their own hearts as a worthy offering (ἀλλ’ ἱεροπρεπεῖς τὰς ἑαυτῶν διανοίας κατασκευάζειν ἀξιοῦντες). Thus the greater strictness, which Josephus ascribes to them, consists in the abstention from shedding blood, as a pollution in itself. And, when he speaks of their substituting private sacrifices, his own qualifications show that he does not mean the word to be taken literally. Their simple meals are their sacrifices; their refectory is their sanctuary; their president is their priest[387]. It should be added also that, though we once hear of an Essene apparently within the temple precincts (B.J. i. 3. 5, Ant. xiii. II. 2)[388], no mention is ever made of one offering sacrifices. Thus it is clear that with the Essene it was the sacrifices which polluted the temple, and not the |Their statements confirmed by the doctrine of Christian Essenes.| temple which polluted the sacrifices.

And this view is further recommended by the fact that it alone will explain the position of their descendants, the Christianized Essenes, who condemned the slaughter of victims on grounds very different from those alleged in the Epistle to the Hebrews, not because they have been superseded by the Atonement, but because they are in their very nature repulsive to God; not because they have ceased to be right, but because they never were right from the beginning.

It may be said indeed, that such a view could not be maintained without impugning the authority, or at least disputing the integrity, of the Old Testament writings. The sacrificial system is so bound up with the Mosaic law, that it can only be rejected by the most arbitrary excision. This violent process however, uncritical as it is, was very likely to have been adopted by the Essenes[389]. As a matter of fact, it did recommend itself to those Judaizing Christians who reproduced many of the Essene tenets, and who both theologically and historically may be regarded as the lineal |The Clementine Homilies justify this doctrine by arbitrary excision of the Scriptures.| descendants of this Judaic sect[390]. Thus in the Clementine Homilies, an Ebionite work which exhibits many Essene features, the chief spokesman St Peter is represented as laying great stress on the duty of distinguishing the true and the false elements in the current Scriptures (ii. 38, 51, iii. 4, 5, 10, 42, 47, 49, 50, comp. xviii. 19). The saying traditionally ascribed to our Lord, ‘Show yourselves approved money-changers’ (γίνεσθε τραπεζῖται δόκιμοι), is more than once quoted by the Apostle as enforcing this duty (ii. 51, iii. 50, xviii. 20). Among these false elements he places all those passages which represent God as enjoining sacrifices (iii. 45, xviii. 19).

It is plain, so he argues, that God did not desire sacrifices, for did He not kill those who lusted after the taste of flesh in the wilderness? and, if the slaughter of animals was thus displeasing to Him, how could He possibly have commanded victims to be offered to Himself (iii. 45)? It is equally clear from other considerations that this was no part of God’s genuine law. For instance, Christ declared that He came to fulfil every tittle of the Law; yet Christ abolished sacrifices (iii. 51). And again, the saying ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice’ is a condemnation of this practice (iii. 56). The true prophet ‘hates sacrifices, bloodshed, libations’; he ‘extinguishes the fire of altars’ (iii. 26). The frenzy of the lying soothsayer is a mere intoxication produced by the reeking fumes of sacrifice (iii. 13). When in the immediate context of these denunciations we find it reckoned among the highest achievements of man ‘to know the names of angels, to drive away demons, to endeavour to heal diseases by charms (φαρμακίαις), |Essene features in this work.| and to find incantations (ἐπαοιδάς) against venomous serpents (iii. 36)’; when again St Peter is made to condemn as false those scriptures which speak of God swearing, and to set against them Christ’s command ‘Let your yea be yea’ (iii. 55); we feel how thoroughly this strange production of Ebionite Christianity is saturated with Essene ideas[391].

(ii) Nor again is Frankel successful in explaining the Essene prayers to the sun by rabbinical practices[392]. Following Rapoport, he supposes that Josephus and Philo refer to the beautiful hymn of praise for the creation of light and the return of day, which forms part of the morning-prayer of the Jews to the present time[393], and which seems to be enjoined in the Mishna itself[394]; and this view has been adopted by many subsequent writers. But the language of Josephus is not satisfied by this explanation. For he says plainly (B.J. ii. 8. 5) that they addressed prayers to the sun[395], and it is difficult to suppose that he has wantonly introduced a dash of paganism into his picture; nor indeed was there any adequate motive for his doing so. Similarly Philo relates of the Therapeutes (Vit. Cont. II, II. p. 485), that they ‘stand with their faces and their whole body towards the East, and when they see that the sun is risen, holding out their hands to heaven they pray for a happy day (εὐημερίαν) and for truth and for keen vision of reason (ὀξυωπίαν λογισμοῦ).’ And here again it is impossible to overlook the confirmation which these accounts receive from the history of certain Christian heretics deriving their descent from this Judaic sect. |The Sampsæans are an Essene sect,| Epiphanius (Hær. xix. 2, xx. 3, pp. 40 sq., 47) speaks of a sect called the Sampsæans or ‘Sun-worshippers[396],’ as existing in his own time in Peræa on the borders of Moab and on the shores of the Dead Sea. He describes them as a remnant of the Ossenes (i.e.

Essenes), who have accepted a spurious form of Christianity and are neither Jews nor Christians. This debased Christianity which they adopted is embodied, he tells us, in the pretended revelation of the Book of Elchasai, and dates from the time of Trajan[397]. Elsewhere (xxx. 3, p. 127) he seems to use the terms Sampsæan, Ossene, and Elchasaite as synonymous (παρὰ τοῖς Σαμψηνοῖς καὶ Ὀσσηνοῖς καὶ Ἐλκεσσαίοις καλουμένοις). Now we happen to know something of this book of Elchasai, not only from Epiphanius himself (xix. 1 sq., p. 40 sq., xxx. 17, p. 141), but also from Hippolytus |as appears from their sacred book of Elchesai.| (Hær. ix. 13 sq.) who describes it at considerable length. From these accounts it appears that the principal feature in the book was the injunction of frequent bathings for the remission of sins (Hipp. Hær. ix. 13, 15 sq.). We are likewise told that it ‘anathematizes immolations and sacrifices (θυσίας καὶ (ιερουργίας) as being alien to God and certainly not offered to God by tradition from (ἐκ) the fathers and the law,’ while at the same time it ‘says that men ought to pray there at Jerusalem, where the altar was and the sacrifices (were offered), prohibiting the eating of flesh which exists among the Jews, and the rest (of their customs), and the altar and the fire, as being alien to God’ (Epiphan. xix. 3, p. 42). Notwithstanding, |Its Essene peculiarities.| we are informed that the sect retained the rite of circumcision, the observance of the sabbath, and other practices of the Mosaic law (Hipp. Hær. ix. 14; Epiph.

Hær. xix. 5, p. 43, comp. xxx. 17, p. 141). This inconsistency is explained by a further notice in Epiphanius (l.c.) that they treated the Scriptures in the same way as the Nasaræans[398]; that is, they submitted them to a process of arbitrary excision, as recommended in the Clementine Homilies, and thus rejected as falsifications all statements which did not square with their own theory. Hippolytus also speaks of the Elchasaites as studying astrology and magic, and as practising charms and incantations on the sick and the demoniacs (§ 14). Moreover in two formularies, one of expiation, another of purification, which this father has extracted from the book, invocation is made to ‘the holy spirits and the angels of prayer’ (§ 15, comp. Epiph. xix. 1). It should be added that the word Elchasai probably signifies the ‘hidden power’[399]; while the book itself directed that its mysteries should be guarded as precious pearls, and should not be communicated to the world at large, but only to the faithful few (Hipp. ix. 15, 17). It is hardly necessary to call attention to the number of Essene features which are here combined[400]. I would only remark that the value of the notice is not at all diminished, but rather enhanced, by the uncritical character of Epiphanius’ work; for this very fact prevents us from ascribing the coincidences, which here reveal themselves, to this father’s own invention.

In this heresy we have plainly the dregs of Essenism, which has only been corrupted from its earlier and nobler type by the admixture of a spurious Christianity. But how came the Essenes to be called Sampsæans? What was the original meaning of this outward reverence which they paid to the sun? Did they regard it merely as the symbol of Divine illumination, just as Philo frequently treats it as a type of God, the centre of all light (e.g. de Somn. i. 13 sq., I. p. 631 sq.), and even calls the heavenly bodies ‘visible and sensible gods’ (de Mund. Op. 7, I. p. 6)[401]? Or did they honour the light, as the pure ethereal element in contrast to gross terrestrial matter, according to a suggestion of a recent writer[402]? |The practice repugnant to Jewish orthodoxy.|Whatever may have been the motive of this reverence, it is strangely repugnant to the spirit of orthodox Judaism. In Ezek. viii. 16 it is denounced as an abomination, that men shall turn towards the east and worship the sun; and accordingly in Berakhoth 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[403]. We cannot fail therefore to recognise the action of some foreign influence in this Essene practice—whether Greek or Syrian or Persian, it will be time to consider hereafter.