Chapter VIII: Preface (7)

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

[Sidenote: Foreign elements in Essenism.]

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

[Sidenote: Frankel’s theory well received,]

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

[Sidenote: but groundless and misleading.]

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

[Sidenote: His double derivation of the name.]

Frankel starts from the etymology of the name. He supposes that Ἐσσαῖος, Ἐσσηνός, represent two different Hebrew words, the former חסיד _chāsīd_, the latter צנוע _tsanūaع_, both clothed in suitable Greek dresses[339]. Wherever therefore either of these words occurs, there is, or there may be, a direct reference to the Essenes.

Footnote 339:

_Zeitschrift_ p. 449 ‘Für _Essäer_ liegt, wie schon von anderen Seiten
bemerkt wurde, das Hebr. חסיד, für _Essener_, nach einer Bemerkung des
Herrn L. Löw im _Orient_, das Hebr. צנוע nahe’; see also pp. 454, 455;
_Monatschrift_ p. 32.

[Sidenote: Fatal objections to it.]

It is not too much to say that these etymologies are impossible; and this for several reasons. (1) The two words Ἐσσαῖος, Ἐσσηνός, are plainly duplicate forms of the same Hebrew or Aramaic original, like Σαμψαῖος and Σαμψηνός (Epiphan. _Hær._ pp. 40, 47, 127; and even Σαμψίτης p. 46), Ναζωραῖος and Ναζαρηνός, Γιτταῖος and Γιττηνός (Steph. Byz. s.v., Hippol. _Hær._ vi. 7), with which we may compare Βοστραῖος and Βοστρηνός, Μελιταῖος and Μελιτηνός, and numberless other examples. (2) Again; when we consider either word singly, the derivation offered is attended with the most serious difficulties. There is no reason why in Ἐσσαῖος the _d_ should have disappeared from _chasid_, while it is hardly possible to conceive that tsanuaع should have taken such an incongruous form as Ἐσσηνός. (3) And lastly; the more important of the two words, _chasid_, had already a recognised Greek equivalent in Ἀσιδαῖος; and it seems highly improbable that a form so divergent as Ἐσσαῖος should have taken its place.

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

Indeed Frankel’s derivations are generally, if not universally, abandoned by later writers; and yet these same writers repeat his quotations and accept his results, as if the references were equally valid, though the name of the sect has disappeared. They seem to be satisfied with the stability of the edifice, even when the foundation is undermined. Thus for instance Grätz not only maintains after Frankel that the Essenes ‘were properly nothing more than stationary or, more strictly speaking, consistently logical (consequente) _Chasidim_,’ and ‘that therefore they were not so far removed from the Pharisees that they can be regarded as a separate sect,’ and ‘accepts entirely these results’ which, as he says, ‘rest on critical investigation’ (III. p. 463), but even boldly translates _chasiduth_ ‘the Essene mode of life’ (ib. 84), though he himself gives a wholly different derivation of the word ‘Essene,’ making it signify ‘washers’ or ‘baptists’ (see above, p. 116). And even those who do not go to this length of inconsistency, yet avail themselves freely of the passages where _chasid_ occurs, and interpret it of the Essenes, while distinctly repudiating the etymology[340].

Footnote 340:

e.g. Keim (p. 286) and Derenbourg (p. 166, 461 sq.), who both derive
Essene from אסיא ‘a physician.’

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

But, although Ἐσσαῖος or Ἐσσηνός is not a Greek form of _chasid_, it might still happen that this word was applied to them as an epithet, though not as a proper name. Only in this case the reference ought to be unmistakeable, before any conclusions are based upon it. But in fact, after going through all the passages which Frankel gives, it is impossible to feel satisfied that in a single instance there is a direct allusion to the Essenes. Sometimes the word seems to refer to the old sect of the _Chasidim_ or _Asidæans_, as for instance when Jose ben Joezer, who lived during the Maccabæan war, is called a _chasid_[341]. At all events this R. Jose is known to have been a married man, for he is stated to have disinherited his children (_Baba Bathra_ 133 _b_); and therefore he cannot have belonged to the stricter order of Essenes. Sometimes it is employed quite generally to denote pious observers of the ceremonial law, as for instance when it is said that with the death of certain famous teachers the Chasidim ceased[342]. In this latter sense the expression חסידים הראשונים, ‘the ancient or primitive Chasidim’ (_Monatschr._ pp. 31, 62), is perhaps used; for these primitive Chasidim again are mentioned as having wives and children[343], and it appears also that they were scrupulously exact in bringing their sacrificial offerings[344]. Thus it is impossible to identify them with the Essenes, as described by Josephus and Philo. Even in those passages of which most has been made, the reference is more than doubtful. Thus great stress is laid on the saying of R. Joshua ben Chananiah in Mishna _Sotah_ iii. 4, ‘The foolish _chasid_ and the clever villain (חסיד שוטה ורשע ערום), etc., are the ruin of the world.’ But the connexion points to a much more general meaning of _chasid_, and the rendering in Surenhuis, ‘Homo pius qui insipiens, improbus qui astutus,’ gives the correct antithesis. So we might say that there is no one more mischievous than the wrong-headed conscientious man. It is true that the Gemaras illustrate the expression by examples of those who allow an over-punctilious regard for external forms to stand in the way of deeds of mercy. And perhaps rightly. But there is no reference to any distinctive Essene practices in the illustrations given. Again; the saying in Mishna _Pirke Aboth_ v. 10, ‘He who says Mine is thine and thine is thine is [a] _chasid_ (שלי שלך ושלך שלך הסיד),’ is quoted by several writers as though it referred to the Essene community of goods[345]. But in the first place the idea of community of goods would require ‘Mine is thine and thine is mine’: and in the second place, the whole context, and especially the clause which immediately follows (and which these writers do not give), ‘He who says Thine is mine and mine is mine is wicked (רשע),’ show plainly that חסיד must be taken in its general sense ‘pious,’ and the whole expression implies not reciprocal interchange but individual self-denial.

Footnote 341:

Mishna _Chagigah_ ii. 7; _Zeitschr._ p. 454, _Monatschr._ pp. 33, 62.
See Frankel’s own account of this R. Jose in an earlier volume,
_Monatschr._ I. p. 405 sq.

Footnote 342:

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

Footnote 343:

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

Footnote 344:

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

Footnote 345:

Thus Grätz (III. p. 81) speaking of the community of goods among the
Essenes writes, ‘From this view springs the proverb; Every Chassid
says; _Mine and thine belong to thee_ (not _me_)’ thus giving a turn
to the expression which in its original connexion it does not at all
justify. Of the existence of such a proverb I have found no traces. It
certainly is not suggested in the passage of _Pirke Aboth_. Later in
the volume (p. 467) Grätz tacitly alters the words to make them
express reciprocation or community of goods, substituting ‘Thine is
mine’ for ‘Thine is thine’ in the second clause; ‘The Chassid must
have no property of his own, but must treat it as belonging to the
Society (שלי שלך שלך שלי חסיד).’ At least, as he gives no reference, I
suppose that he refers to the same passage. In this loose way he
treats the whole subject. Keim (p. 294) quotes the passage correctly,
but refers it nevertheless to Essene communism.

[Sidenote: Possible connexion of
_chasid_ and _chasyo_
discussed.]

It might indeed be urged, though this is not Frankel’s plea, that supposing the true etymology of the word Ἐσσαῖος, Ἐσσηνός, to be the Syriac ܚܣܐ, ܚܣܝܐ, _ch’sē_, _chasyo_ (a possible derivation), _chasid_ might have been its Hebrew equivalent as being similar in sound and meaning, and perhaps ultimately connected in derivation, the exactly corresponding triliteral root חסא (comp. חום) not being in use in Hebrew[346]. But before we accept this explanation we have a right to demand some evidence which, if not demonstrative, is at least circumstantial, that _chasid_ is used of the Essenes: and this we have seen is not forthcoming. Moreover, if the Essenes had thus inherited the name of the _Chasidim_, we should have expected that its old Greek equivalent Ἀσιδαῖοι, which is still used later than the Maccabæan era, would also have gone with it; rather than that a new Greek word Ἐσσαῖος (or Ἐσσηνός) should have been invented to take its place. But indeed the Syriac Version of the Old Testament furnishes an argument against this convertibility of the Hebrew _chasid_ and the Syriac _chasyo_, which must be regarded as [Sidenote: Usage is unfavourable to this view.] almost decisive. The numerous passages in the Psalms, where the expressions ‘My _chasidim_,’ ‘His _chasidim_,’ occur (xxx. 5, xxxi. 24, xxxvii. 28, lii. 11, lxxix. 2, lxxxv. 9, xcvii. 10, cxvi. 15, cxxxii. 9, cxlix. 9: comp. xxxii. 6, cxlix. 1, 5) seem to have suggested the assumption of the name to the original Asidæans. But in such passages חסיד is commonly, if not universally, rendered in the Peshito not by ܚܣܐ, ܚܣܝܐ, but by a wholly different word ܙܕܝܩ _zadīk_. And again, in the Books of Maccabees the Syriac rendering for the name Ἀσιδαῖοι, _Chasidim_, is a word derived from another quite distinct root. These facts show that the Hebrew _chasid_ and the Syriac _chasyo_ were not practically equivalents, so that the one would suggest the other; and thus all presumption in favour of a connexion between Ἀσιδαῖος and Ἐσσαῖος is removed.

Footnote 346:

This is Hitzig’s view (_Geschichte des Volkes Israel_ p. 427). He
maintains that "they were called ‘_Hasidim_’ by the later Jews because
the Syrian _Essenes_ means exactly the same as ‘_Hasidim_.’"

[Sidenote: Frankel’s second derivation]

Frankel’s other derivation צנוע, _tsanūaع_, suggested as an equivalent to Ἐσσηνός, has found no favour with later writers, and indeed is too far removed from the Greek form to be tenable. [Sidenote: _tsanuaع_ considered.]

Nor do the passages quoted by him[347] require or suggest any allusion to this sect. Thus in Mishna _Demai_, vi. 6, we are told that the school of Hillel permits a certain license in a particular matter, but it is added, ‘The צנועי of the school of Hillel followed the precept of the school of Shammai.’ Here, as Frankel himself confesses, the Jerusalem Talmud knows nothing about Essenes, but explains the word by בשדי, i.e. ‘upright, worthy[348]’; while elsewhere, as he allows[349], it must have this general sense. Indeed the mention of the ‘school of Hillel’ here seems to exclude the Essenes. In its comprehensive meaning it will most naturally be taken also in the other passage quoted by Frankel, _Kiddushin_ 71 _a_, where it is stated that the pronunciation of the sacred name, which formerly was known to all, is now only to be divulged to the צנועים, i.e. the discreet, among the priests; and in fact it occurs in reference to the communication of the same mystery in the immediate context also, where it could not possibly be treated as a proper name; שצנוע ועניו ועומד בחצי ימיו, ‘who is _discreet_ and meek and has reached middle age,’ etc.

Footnote 347:

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

Footnote 348:

_Monatschr._ p. 32.

Footnote 349:

_Zeitschr._ p. 455.

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

Of other etymologies, which have been suggested, and through which it might be supposed the Essenes are mentioned by name in the Talmud, איסא, _asya_, ‘a physician,’ is the one which has found most favour. For the reasons given above (p. 117) this derivation seems highly improbable, and the passages quoted are quite insufficient to overcome the objections. Of these the strongest is in the Talm. Jerus. _Yoma_ iii. 7, where we are told that a certain physician

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

(אסי) offered to communicate the sacred name to R. Pinchas the son of Chama, and the latter refused on the ground that he ate of the tithes—this being regarded as a disqualification, apparently because it was inconsistent with the highest degree of ceremonial purity[350]. The same story is told with some modifications in Midrash _Qoheleth_ iii. 11[351]. Here Frankel, though himself (as we have seen) adopting a different derivation of the word ‘Essene,’ yet supposes that this particular physician belonged to the sect, on the sole ground that ceremonial purity is represented as a qualification for the initiation into the mystery of the Sacred Name. Löwy (l.c.) denies that the allusion to the tithes is rightly interpreted: but even supposing it to be correct, the passage is quite an inadequate basis either for Frankel’s conclusion that this particular physician was an Essene, or for the derivation of the word Essene which others maintain. Again, in the statement of Talm. Jerus. _Kethuboth_ ii. 3, that correct manuscripts were called books of אסי[352], the word _Asi_ is generally taken as a proper name. But even if this interpretation be false, there is absolutely nothing in the context which suggests any allusion to the Essenes[353]. In like manner the passage from _Sanhedrin_ 99 _b_, where a physician is mentioned[354], supports no such inference. Indeed, as this last passage relates to the family of the _Asi_, he obviously can have had no connexion with the celibate Essenes.

Footnote 350:

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

Footnote 351:

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

Footnote 352:

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

Footnote 353:

The oath taken by the Essenes (Joseph. _B.J._ ii. 8. 7) συντηρήσειν
... τὰ τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν βιβλία can have nothing to do with accuracy
in transcribing copies, as Herzfeld (II. pp. 398, 407) seems to think.
The natural meaning of συντηρεῖν, ‘to keep safe or close’ and so ‘not
to divulge’ (e.g. Polyb. xxxi. 6. 5 οὐκ ἐξέφαινε τὴν ἑαυτῆς γνώμην
ἀλλὰ συνετήρει παρ’ ἑαυτῇ), is also the meaning suggested here by the
context.

Footnote 354:

The passage is adduced in support of this derivation by Derenbourg p.
175.

[Sidenote: (2) _عasah_ ‘to do.’]

Hitherto our search for the name in the Talmud has been unsuccessful. One possibility however still remains. The talmudical writers speak of certain אנשי מעשה ‘men of deeds’; and if (as some suppose) the name Essene is derived from עשה, have we not here the mention which we are seeking? Frankel rejects the etymology, but presses the identification[355]. The expression, he urges, is often used in connexion with _chasidim_. It signifies ‘miracle workers,’ and therefore aptly describes the supernatural powers supposed to be exercised by the Essenes[356]. Thus we are informed in Mishna _Sotah_ ix. 15, that ‘When R. Chaninah ben Dosa died, the men of deeds ceased; when R. Jose Ketinta died, the chasidim ceased.’ In the Jerusalem Talmud however this mishna is read, ‘With the death of R. Chaninah ben Dosa and R. Jose Ketinta the chasidim ceased’; while the Gemara there explains R. Chaninah to have been one of the מעשה אנשי. Thus, Frankel concludes, ‘the identity of these with הסידים becomes still more plain.’ Now it seems clear that this expression אנשי מעשה in some places cannot refer to miraculous powers, but must mean ‘men of practical goodness,’ as for instance in _Succah_ 51_a_, 53_a_; and being a general term expressive of moral excellence, it is naturally connected with _chasidim_, which is likewise a general term expressive of piety and goodness. Nor is there any reason why it should not always be taken in this sense. It is true that stories are told elsewhere of this R. Chaninah, which ascribe miraculous powers to him[357], and hence there is a temptation to translate it ‘wonder-worker,’ as applied to him. But the reason is quite insufficient. Moreover it must be observed that R. Chaninah’s wife is a prominent person in the legends of his miracles reported in _Taanith_ 24 _b_; and thus we need hardly stop to discuss the possible meanings of אנשי מעשה, since his claims to being considered an Essene are barred at the outset by this fact[358].

Footnote 355:

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

Footnote 356:

See above, p. 118.

Footnote 357:

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

Footnote 358:

In this and similar cases it is unnecessary to consider whether the
persons mentioned might have belonged to those looser disciples of
Essenism, who married (see above, p. 85): because the identification
is meaningless unless they belonged to the strict order itself.

It has been asserted indeed by a recent author, that one very ancient Jewish writer distinctly adopts this derivation, and as distinctly states that the Essenes were a class of Pharisees[359]. If this were the case, Frankel’s theory, though not his etymology, would receive a striking confirmation: and it is therefore important to enquire on what foundation the assertion rests.

Footnote 359:

Ginsburg in Kitto’s _Cyclopædia_ s.v., I. p. 829: comp. _Essenes_ pp.
22, 28.

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

Dr Ginsburg’s authority for this statement is a passage from the _Aboth_ of Rabbi Nathan, c. 37, which, as he gives it, appears conclusive; ‘There are eight kinds of Pharisees ... and those Pharisees who live in celibacy are Essenes.’ But what are the facts of the case? _First_; This book was certainly not written by its reputed author, the R. Nathan who was vice-president under the younger Gamaliel about A. D. 140. It may possibly have been founded on an earlier treatise by that famous teacher, though even this is very doubtful: but in its present form it is a comparatively modern work. On this point all or almost all recent writers on Hebrew literature are agreed[360]. _Secondly_; Dr Ginsburg has taken the reading מחופתו עשאני, without even mentioning any alternative. Whether the words so read are capable of the meaning which he has assigned to them, may be highly questionable; but at all events this cannot have been the original reading, as the parallel passages, Babl. Sotah fol. 22_b_, Jerus. _Sotah_ v. 5, Jerus. _Berakhoth_ ix. 5, (quoted by Buxtorf and Levy, s.v. פריש), distinctly prove. In Babl. _Sotah_ l.c., the corresponding expression is מה הובתי ואעשנה ‘What is my duty, and I will do it,’ and the passage in Jerus. _Berakhoth_ l.c. is to the same effect. These parallels show that the reading מה הובתי ואעשנה must be taken also in _Aboth_ c. 37, so that the passage will be rendered, ‘The Pharisee _who says_, What is my duty, and I will do it.’ Thus the Essenes and celibacy disappear together. _Lastly_; Inasmuch as Dr Ginsburg himself takes a wholly different view of the name Essene, connecting it either with חצן ‘an apron,’ or with הסים ‘pious[361],’ it is difficult to see how he could translate עשאני ‘Essene’ (from עשא ‘to do’) in this passage, except on the supposition that R. Nathan was entirely ignorant of the orthography and derivation of the word Essene. Yet, if such ignorance were conceivable in so ancient a writer, his authority on this question would be absolutely worthless. But indeed Dr Ginsburg would appear to have adopted this reference to R. Nathan, with the reading of the passage and the interpretation of the name, from some other writer[362]. At all events it is quite inconsistent with his own opinion as expressed previously.

Footnote 360:

e.g. Geiger _Zeitschrift f. Jüdische Theologie_ VI. p. 20 sq.; Zunz
_Gottesdienstliche Vorträge_ p. 108 sq.: comp. Steinschneider _Catal.
Heb. Bibl. Bodl._ col. 2032 sq. These two last references are given by
Dr Ginsburg himself.

Footnote 361:

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

Footnote 362:

It is given by Landsberg in the _Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums_
1862, no. 33, p. 459, a reference pointed out to me by a friend.

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

Footnote 363:

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

[Sidenote: A passage in _Chagigah_ considered.]

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

Footnote 364:

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

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

Footnote 365:

_Zeitschr._ p. 452, note.

[Sidenote: Difference between]

As this artificial combination has failed, we are compelled to fall back on the notices relating to the chaber, and to ask whether [Sidenote: the chaber and the Essene.] these suggest any connexion with the account of the Essenes in Josephus. And the facts oblige us to answer this question in the negative. Not only do they not suggest such a connexion, but they are wholly irreconcilable with the account in the Jewish historian. This association or confraternity (if indeed the term is applicable to an organisation so loose and so comprehensive) was maintained for the sake of securing a more accurate study and a better observance of the ceremonial law. Two grades of purity are mentioned in connexion with it, designated by different names and presenting some difficulties[366], into which it is not necessary to enter here. A chaber, it would appear, was one who had entered upon the second or higher stage. For this a period of a year’s probation was necessary. The chaber enrolled himself in the presence of three others who were already members of the association. This apparently was all the formality necessary: and in the case of a teacher even this was dispensed with, for being presumably acquainted with the law of things clean and unclean he was regarded as _ex officio_ a chaber. The chaber was bound to keep himself from ceremonial defilements, and was thus distinguished from the _[عam haarets_ or common people[367]; but he was under no external surveillance and decided for himself as to his own purity. Moreover he was, or might be a married man: for the doctors disputed whether the wives and children of an associate were not themselves to be regarded as associates[368]. In one passage, _Sanhedrin_ 41_a_, it is even assumed, as a matter of course, that a woman may be an associate (חברה). In another (_Niddah_ 33_b_)[369] there is mention of a Sadducee and even of a Samaritan as a chaber. An organisation so flexible as this has obviously only the most superficial resemblances with the rigid rules of the Essene order; and in many points it presents a direct contrast to the characteristic tenets of that sect.

Footnote 366:

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

Footnote 367:

The contempt with which a chaber would look down upon the vulgar herd,
the _عam haarets_, finds expression in the language of the Pharisees,
Joh. vii. 49 ὁ ὄχλος οὗτος ὁ μὴ γινώσκων τὸν νόμον ἐπάρατοί εἰσιν.
Again in Acts iv. 13, where the Apostles are described as ἰδιῶται, the
expression is equivalent to _عam haarets._ See the passages quoted in
Buxtorf, _Lex._ p. 1626.

Footnote 368:

All these particulars and others may be gathered from _Bekhoroth_ 30
_b_, Mishna _Demai_ ii. 2, 3, Jerus. _Demai_ ii. 3, v. 1, Tosifta
_Demai_ 2, _Aboth R. Nathan_ c. 41.

Footnote 369:

See Herzfeld II. p. 386.

[Sidenote: (2) The _Bene hakkeneseth_.]

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

Footnote 370:

_Monatschr._ p. 35.

[Sidenote: (3) The ‘holy congregation at Jerusalem’]

(3) But mention is also made of a ‘holy congregation’ or ‘assembly’ (עדה קדישה קהלא קדישא) ‘in Jerusalem’; and, following Rapoport, Frankel sees in this expression also an allusion to the Essenes[371]. The grounds for this identification are, that in one passage (_Berakhoth_ 9_b_) they are mentioned in connexion with prayer at day break, and in another (Midrash _Qoheleth_ ix. 9) two persons are stated to belong to this ‘holy congregation,’ because they divided their day into three parts, devoting one-third to learning, another to prayer, and another to work. The first notice would suit the Essenes very well, though the practice mentioned was not so distinctively Essene as to afford any safe ground for this hypothesis. Of the second it should be observed, that no such division of the day is recorded of the Essenes, and indeed both Josephus (_B.J._ ii. 8. 5) and Philo (_Fragm._ p. 633) describe them as working from morning till night with the single interruption of their mid-day meal[372]. But in fact the identification is beset with other and more serious difficulties. For this ‘holy congregation’ at Jerusalem is mentioned long [Sidenote: not an Essene community.] after the second destruction of the city under Hadrian[373], when on Frankel’s own showing[374] the Essene society had in all probability ceased to exist. And again certain members of it, e.g. Jose ben Meshullam (Mishna _Bekhoroth_ iii. 3, vi. 1), are represented as uttering precepts respecting animals fit for sacrifice, though we have it on the authority of Josephus and Philo that the Essenes avoided the temple sacrifices altogether. The probability therefore seems to be that this ‘holy congregation’ was an assemblage of devout Jews who were drawn to the neighbourhood of the sanctuary after the destruction of the nation, and whose practices were regarded with peculiar reverence by the later Jews[375].

Footnote 371:

_Zeitschr._ pp. 458, 461, _Monatschr._ pp. 32, 36.

Footnote 372:

It is added however in Midrash _Qoheleth_ ix. 9 ‘Some say that they
(the holy congregation) devoted the whole of the winter to studying
the Scriptures and the summer to work.’

Footnote 373:

_Monatschr._ p. 32.

Footnote 374:

_Ib._ p. 70.

Footnote 375:

See Derenbourg p. 175.

[Sidenote: (4) The _Vethikin_.]

(4) Neither can we with Frankel[376] discern any reference to the Essenes in those ותיקיו _Vethikin_, ‘pious’ or ‘learned’ men (whatever may be the exact sense of the word), who are mentioned in _Berakhoth_ 9_b_ as praying before sunrise; because the word itself seems quite general, and the practice, though enforced among the Essenes, as we know from Josephus (_B.J._ ii. 8. 5), would be common to all devout and earnest Jews. If we are not justified in saying that these ותיקיו were not Essenes, we have no sufficient grounds for maintaining that they were.

Footnote 376:

_Monatschr._ p. 32.

[Sidenote: (5) The ‘primitive elders.’]

(5) Nor again can we find any such reference in the זקנים or ‘primitive elders[377].’ It may readily be granted that this term is used synonymously, or nearly so, with הראשונים הסידים ‘the primitive chasidim’; but, as we failed to see anything more than a general expression in the one, so we are naturally led to take the other in the same sense. The passages where the expression occurs (e.g. _Shabbath_ 64_b_) simply refer to the stricter observances of early times, and do not indicate any reference to a particular society or body of men.

Footnote 377:

_Monatschr._ pp. 32, 68.

[Sidenote: (6) The ‘morning bathers.’]

(6) Again Frankel finds another reference to this sect in the טבלי שחרית _Tōblē-shachărīth_, or ‘morning-bathers,’ mentioned in Tosifta _Yadayim_ c. 2[378]. The identity of these with the ἡμεροβαπτισταὶ of Greek writers seems highly probable. The latter however, though they may have had some affinities with Essene practices and tenets, are nevertheless distinguished from this sect wherever they are mentioned[379]. But the point to be observed is that, even though we should identify these Toble-shacharith with the Essenes, the passage in Tosifta _Yadayim_, so far from favouring, runs directly counter to Frankel’s view which regards the Essenes as only a branch of Pharisees: for the two are here represented as in direct antagonism. The Toble-shacharith say, ‘We grieve over you, Pharisees, because you pronounce the (sacred) Name in the morning without having bathed.’ The Pharisees retort, ‘We grieve over you, Toble-shacharith, because you pronounce the Name from this body in which is impurity.’

Footnote 378:

_Ib._ p. 67.

Footnote 379:

See below, p. 166.

[Sidenote: (7) The _Banaim_.]

(7) In connexion with the Toble-shacharith we may consider another name, _Banāīm_ (בנאים), in which also Frankel discovers an allusion to the Essenes[380]. In Mishna _Mikvaoth_ ix. 6 the word is opposed to בור _bōr_, ‘an ignorant or stupid person’; and this points to its proper meaning ‘the builders,’ i.e. the edifiers or teachers, according to the common metaphor in Biblical language. The word is discussed in _Shabbath_ 114 and explained to mean ‘learned.’ But, because in _Mikvaoth_ it is mentioned in connexion with ceremonial purity, and because in Josephus the Essenes are stated to have carried an ‘axe and shovel’ (_B.J._ ii. 8. 7, 9), and because moreover the Jewish historian in another place (_Vit._ 2) mentions having spent some time with one Banus a dweller in the wilderness, who lived on vegetables and fruits and bathed often day and night for the sake of purity, and who is generally considered to have been an Essene; therefore Frankel holds these Banaim to have been Essenes. This is a specimen of the misplaced ingenuity which distinguishes Frankel’s learned speculations on the Essenes. Josephus does [Sidenote: Josephus misinterpreted.] not mention an ‘axe _and_ shovel,’ but an axe only (§ 7 ἀξινάριον), which he afterwards defines more accurately as a spade (§ 9 τῇ σκαλίδι, τοιοῦτον γάρ ἐστι τὸ διδόμενον ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ἀξινίδιον τοῖς νεοσυστάτοις) and which, as he distinctly states, was given them for the purpose of burying impurities out of sight (comp. Deut. xxiii. 12–14). Thus it has no connexion whatever with any ‘building’ implement. And again, it is true that Banus has frequently been regarded as an Essene, but there is absolutely no ground for this supposition. On the contrary the narrative of Josephus in his _Life_ seems to [Sidenote: Another derivation of Banaim.] exclude it, as I shall have occasion to show hereafter[381]. I should add that Sachs interprets Banaim ‘the bathers,’ regarding the explanation in _Shabbath_ l.c. as a ‘later accommodation[382].’ This seems to me very improbable; but, if it were conceded, the Banaim would then apparently be connected not with the Essenes, but with the Hemerobaptists.

Footnote 380:

_Zeitschr._ p. 455.

Footnote 381:

See below, p. 161.

Footnote 382:

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

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Results of this investigation.]

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

Footnote 383:

_Monatschr._ p. 31.

Footnote 384:

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

[Sidenote: Frankel’s depreciation of them is unreasonable, and explains
nothing.]

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

Footnote 385:

_Monatschr._ p. 31.

[Sidenote: (i) The avoidance of sacrifices is not accounted for.]

(i) How, for instance, could this principle of accommodation have led both Philo and Josephus to lay so much stress on their divergence from Judaic orthodoxy in the matter of sacrifices? Yet this is perhaps the most crucial note of heresy which is recorded of the Essenes. What was the law to the orthodox Pharisee without the sacrifices, the temple-worship, the hierarchy? Yet the Essene declined to take any part in the sacrifices; he had priests of his own independently of the Levitical priesthood. On Frankel’s hypothesis that Essenism is merely an exaggeration of pure Pharisaism, no explanation of this abnormal phenomenon can be given. Frankel does indeed attempt to meet the case by some speculations respecting the red-heifer[386], which are so obviously inadequate that they have not been repeated by later writers and may safely be passed over in silence here. On this point indeed the language of Josephus is not [Sidenote: The notices of Josephus and Philo considered.] quite explicit. He says (Ant. xviii. 1. 5) that, though they send offerings (ἀναθῆματα) to the temple, they perform no sacrifices, and he assigns as the reason their greater strictness as regards ceremonial purity (διαφορότητι ἁγνειῶν ἃς νομίζοιεν), adding that ‘for this reason being excluded from the common sanctuary (τεμενίσματος) they perform their sacrifices by themselves (ἐφ’ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσι).’ Frankel therefore supposes that their only reason for abstaining from the temple sacrifices was that according to their severe notions the temple itself was profaned and therefore unfit for sacrificial worship. But if so, why should it not vitiate the offerings, as well as the sacrifices, and make them also unlawful? And indeed, where Josephus is vague, Philo is explicit. Philo (II. p. 457) distinctly states that the Essenes being more scrupulous than any in the worship of God (ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα θεραπευταὶ θεοῦ) do not sacrifice animals (οὐ ζῶα καταθύοντες), but hold it right to dedicate their own hearts as a worthy offering (ἀλλ’ ἱεροπρεπεῖς τὰς ἑαυτῶν διανοίας κατασκευάζειν ἀξιοῦντες). Thus the greater strictness, which Josephus ascribes to them, consists in the abstention from shedding blood, as a pollution in itself. And, when he speaks of their substituting private sacrifices, his own qualifications show that he does not mean the word to be taken literally. Their simple meals are their sacrifices; their refectory is their sanctuary; their president is their priest[387]. It should be added also that, though we once hear of an Essene apparently within the temple precincts (_B.J._ i. 3. 5, _Ant._ xiii. II. 2)[388], no mention is ever made of one offering sacrifices. Thus it is clear that with the Essene it was the sacrifices which polluted the temple, and not the [Sidenote: Their statements confirmed by the doctrine of Christian Essenes.] temple which polluted the sacrifices. And this view is further recommended by the fact that it alone will explain the position of their descendants, the Christianized Essenes, who condemned the slaughter of victims on grounds very different from those alleged in the Epistle to the Hebrews, not because they have been superseded by the Atonement, but because they are in their very nature repulsive to God; not because they have ceased to be right, but because they never were right from the beginning.

Footnote 386:

_Monatschr._ p. 64.

Footnote 387:

_B.J._ ii. 8. 5 καθάπερ εἰς ἅγιόν τι τέμενος παραγίνονται τὸ
δειπνητήριον: see also the passages quoted above p. 89, note 255.

Footnote 388:

See below, p. 142.

It may be said indeed, that such a view could not be maintained without impugning the authority, or at least disputing the integrity, of the Old Testament writings. The sacrificial system is so bound up with the Mosaic law, that it can only be rejected by the most arbitrary excision. This violent process however, uncritical as it is, was very likely to have been adopted by the Essenes[389]. As a matter of fact, it did recommend itself to those Judaizing Christians who reproduced many of the Essene tenets, and who both theologically and historically may be regarded as the lineal [Sidenote: The Clementine Homilies justify this doctrine by arbitrary excision of the Scriptures.] descendants of this Judaic sect[390]. Thus in the _Clementine Homilies_, an Ebionite work which exhibits many Essene features, the chief spokesman St Peter is represented as laying great stress on the duty of distinguishing the true and the false elements in the current Scriptures (ii. 38, 51, iii. 4, 5, 10, 42, 47, 49, 50, comp. xviii. 19). The saying traditionally ascribed to our Lord, ‘Show yourselves approved money-changers’ (γίνεσθε τραπεζῖται δόκιμοι), is more than once quoted by the Apostle as enforcing this duty (ii. 51, iii. 50, xviii. 20). Among these false elements he places all those passages which represent God as enjoining sacrifices (iii. 45, xviii. 19). It is plain, so he argues, that God did not desire sacrifices, for did He not kill those who lusted after the taste of flesh in the wilderness? and, if the slaughter of animals was thus displeasing to Him, how could He possibly have commanded victims to be offered to Himself (iii. 45)? It is equally clear from other considerations that this was no part of God’s genuine law. For instance, Christ declared that He came to fulfil every tittle of the Law; yet Christ abolished sacrifices (iii. 51). And again, the saying ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice’ is a condemnation of this practice (iii. 56). The true prophet ‘hates sacrifices, bloodshed, libations’; he ‘extinguishes the fire of altars’ (iii. 26). The frenzy of the lying soothsayer is a mere intoxication produced by the reeking fumes of sacrifice (iii. 13). When in the immediate context of these denunciations we find it reckoned among the highest achievements of man ‘to know the _names of angels_, to drive away demons, to endeavour to heal diseases by charms (φαρμακίαις), [Sidenote: Essene features in this work.] and to find incantations (ἐπαοιδάς) against venomous serpents (iii. 36)’; when again St Peter is made to condemn as false those scriptures which speak of God swearing, and to set against them Christ’s command ‘Let your yea be yea’ (iii. 55); we feel how thoroughly this strange production of Ebionite Christianity is saturated with Essene ideas[391].

Footnote 389:

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

Footnote 390:

See _Galatians_, p. 310 sq.

Footnote 391:

Epiphanius (_Hær._ xviii. I, p. 38) again describes, as the account
was handed down to him (ὡς ὁ εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐλθὼν περιέχει λόγος), the
tenets of a Jewish sect which he calls the Nasareans, αὐτὴν δὲ οὐ
παρεδέχετο τὴν πεντάτευχον, ἀλλὰ ὡμολόγει, μὲν τὸν Μωϋσέα, καὶ ὅτι
ἐδέξατο νομοθεσίαν ἐπίστευεν, οὐ ταύτην δέ φησιν, ἀλλ’ ἑτέραν. ὅθεν τὰ
μὲν πάντα φυλάττουσι τῶν Ἰουδαίωv Ἰουδαῖοι ὄντες, θυσίαν δὲ οὐκ ἔθυον
οὔτε ἐμψύχων μετεῖχον, ἀλλὰ θέμιτον ἦν παρ’ αὐτοῖς τὸ κρεῶν
μεταλαμβάνειν ἢ θυσιάζειν αὐτούς. ἔφασκον γὰρ πεπλάσθαι ταῦτα τὰ
βιβλία καὶ μηδὲν τούτων ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων γεγενῆσθαι. Here we have in
combination all the features which we are seeking. The cradle of this
sect is placed by him in Gilead and Bashan and ‘the regions beyond the
Jordan.’ He uses similar language also (xxx. 18, p. 142) in describing
the Ebionites, whom he places in much the same localities (naming Moab
also), and whose Essene features are unmistakeable: οὔτε γὰρ δέχονται
τὴν πεντάτευχον Μωϋσέως ὅλην ἀλλά τινα ῥήματα ἀποβάλλουσιν. ὅταν δὲ
αὐτοῖς εἴπῃς περὶ ἐμψύχων βρώσεως κ.τ.λ. These parallels will speak
for themselves.

[Sidenote: (ii) The Essene worship of the Sun cannot be explained away.]

(ii) Nor again is Frankel successful in explaining the Essene prayers to the sun by rabbinical practices[392]. Following Rapoport, he supposes that Josephus and Philo refer to the beautiful hymn of praise for the creation of light and the return of day, which forms part of the morning-prayer of the Jews to the present time[393], and which seems to be enjoined in the Mishna itself[394]; and this view has been adopted by many subsequent writers. But the language of Josephus is not satisfied by this explanation. For he says plainly (_B.J._ ii. 8. 5) that they addressed prayers to the sun[395], and it is difficult to suppose that he has wantonly introduced a dash of paganism into his picture; nor indeed was there any adequate motive for his doing so. Similarly Philo relates of the Therapeutes (_Vit. Cont._ II, II. p. 485), that they ‘stand with their faces and their whole body towards the East, and when they see that the sun is risen, holding out their hands to heaven they pray for a happy day (εὐημερίαν) and for truth and for keen vision of reason (ὀξυωπίαν λογισμοῦ).’ And here again it is impossible to overlook the confirmation which these accounts receive from the history of certain Christian heretics deriving their descent from this Judaic sect. [Sidenote: The Sampsæans are an Essene sect,] Epiphanius (_Hær._ xix. 2, xx. 3, pp. 40 sq., 47) speaks of a sect called the Sampsæans or ‘Sun-worshippers[396],’ as existing in his own time in Peræa on the borders of Moab and on the shores of the Dead Sea. He describes them as a remnant of the Ossenes (i.e. Essenes), who have accepted a spurious form of Christianity and are neither Jews nor Christians. This debased Christianity which they adopted is embodied, he tells us, in the pretended revelation of the Book of Elchasai, and dates from the time of Trajan[397]. Elsewhere (xxx. 3, p. 127) he seems to use the terms Sampsæan, Ossene, and Elchasaite as synonymous (παρὰ τοῖς Σαμψηνοῖς καὶ Ὀσσηνοῖς καὶ Ἐλκεσσαίοις καλουμένοις). Now we happen to know something of this book of Elchasai, not only from Epiphanius himself (xix. 1 sq., p. 40 sq., xxx. 17, p. 141), but also from Hippolytus [Sidenote: as appears from their sacred book of Elchesai.] (_Hær._ ix. 13 sq.) who describes it at considerable length. From these accounts it appears that the principal feature in the book was the injunction of frequent bathings for the remission of sins (Hipp. _Hær._ ix. 13, 15 sq.). We are likewise told that it ‘anathematizes immolations and sacrifices (θυσίας καὶ (ιερουργίας) as being alien to God and certainly not offered to God by tradition from (ἐκ) the fathers and the law,’ while at the same time it ‘says that men ought to pray there at Jerusalem, where the altar was and the sacrifices (were offered), prohibiting the eating of flesh which exists among the Jews, and the rest (of their customs), and the altar and the fire, as being alien to God’ (Epiphan. xix. 3, p. 42). Notwithstanding, [Sidenote: Its Essene peculiarities.] we are informed that the sect retained the rite of circumcision, the observance of the sabbath, and other practices of the Mosaic law (Hipp. _Hær._ ix. 14; Epiph. _Hær._ xix. 5, p. 43, comp. xxx. 17, p. 141). This inconsistency is explained by a further notice in Epiphanius (l.c.) that they treated the Scriptures in the same way as the Nasaræans[398]; that is, they submitted them to a process of arbitrary excision, as recommended in the Clementine Homilies, and thus rejected as falsifications all statements which did not square with their own theory. Hippolytus also speaks of the Elchasaites as studying astrology and magic, and as practising charms and incantations on the sick and the demoniacs (§ 14). Moreover in two formularies, one of expiation, another of purification, which this father has extracted from the book, invocation is made to ‘the holy spirits and the angels of prayer’ (§ 15, comp. Epiph. xix. 1). It should be added that the word Elchasai probably signifies the ‘hidden power’[399]; while the book itself directed that its mysteries should be guarded as precious pearls, and should not be communicated to the world at large, but only to the faithful few (Hipp. ix. 15, 17). It is hardly necessary to call attention to the number of Essene features which are here combined[400]. I would only remark that the value of the notice is not at all diminished, but rather enhanced, by the uncritical character of Epiphanius’ work; for this very fact prevents us from ascribing the coincidences, which here reveal themselves, to this father’s own invention.

Footnote 392:

_Zeitschr._ p. 458.

Footnote 393:

See Ginsburg _Essenes_ p. 69 sq.

Footnote 394:

_Berakhoth_ i. 4; see Derenbourg, p. 169 sq.