II. Nature And Origin Of Essenism

II. NATURE AND ORIGIN OF ESSENISM
Full as are the descriptions of our authorities, especially Josephus, the question from what point of view these various phenomena are to be explained, and from what general views and motives they proceed, remains to this day undecided. Some (and they now form the majority) insist on explaining Essenism wholly from Judaism, regarding it either as virtually identical with Pharisaism, or at least deriving it (with all its divergences) from Chasidaic or Pharisaic Judaism. So especially the Jewish scholars Frankel, Jost, Grätz, Derenbourg, Geiger, and among Christian scholars, Ewald, Hausrath, Tideman, Lauer, Clemens, Reuss, and Kuenen. Ritschl advocates this standpoint in a peculiar manner. He regards Essenism as only a consistent carrying out of the idea of the universal priesthood (Exodus 19:6). He endeavours to explain all the single facts from one, viz. that the Essenes desired to be a nation of priests. Similarly Bestmann, only he does not see in Essenism the carrying out of the idea of the universal, but of the Aaronic priesthood. Lucius also esteems Essenism as a purely Jewish formation, and explains its origin from the exclusively “pious” having in the Maccabaean period renounced the Jerusalem temple-worship, because they regarded it as illegitimate. From this renunciation of the temple-worship, all the peculiarities of Essenism are to be explained. In another manner again did Hilgenfeld formerly derive Essenism purely from Judaism. He thought (in his work on Jewish Apocalypse, 1857, p. 243 sqq.), that the Essenes must be regarded as merely a school of Jewish apocalyptics. The object of their asceticism (as in Daniel 10:2-3; Enoch 83:2, 85:3, 4; Ezra 9:24-26, 12:51) was, he says, solely that of making themselves worthy and capable of receiving revelations. “It was the higher illumination, the reception of revelations especially by dream-visions, which they sought in this way to attain” (p. 253). Hilgenfeld, after defending this view in his Zeitschrift for 1858, p. 116 sqq., hinted already in that for 1860 at the possibility of Persian influence. Subsequently, in that for 1867, p. 97 sqq., he sought decidedly to prove, that not only Parseeism, but also Buddhism had exercised essential influence upon the formation of Essenism, to which view he adhered for a longer time (1868, p. 343 sqq.; 1871, p. 50 sqq.).[2007] In his more recent publications he again insists upon the Jewish foundation and admits only Parsee influences (Zeitsehr. 1882, p. 299; Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums, pp. 141-149); he thinks the Essenes were originally Rechabites, who settled in a place called Essa, westward of the Dead Sea (Zeitschr. 1882, pp. 268 sqq., 286 sqq.; Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums, pp. 100 sqq., 139 sqq.).[2008] Lightfoot also (St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon 1:2 nd ed. pp. 355-396) adopts the opinion of a virtual Jewish foundation, with secondary Parsee influence. Lipsius too declares the origin of Essenism to be chiefly Jewish; he however concedes the co-operation of foreign influences, only not on the part of Greek philosophy or Parseeism, and still less of Buddhism, but on that of Syro-Palestinian heathenism. The development of Essenism “took place entirely on Palestinian soil” (Bibellexikon, ii. 189, 190). While all the above-named regard Essenism as exclusively or chiefly a Jewish product, Lutterbeck, Zeller, Mangold and Holtzmann, following the precedent of Baur and Gfrörer, explain some more, some fewer, of the peculiarities which distinguish Essenism from traditional Judaism, by the influence of Pythagoreanism, with which Josephus (Antt. xv. 10. 4) had already compared Essenism. It was especially Zeller, who in his discussions with Ritschl sought, on the basis of his comprehensive acquaintance with Greek philosophy, to point out parallels with Pythagoreanism in nearly all points. Herzfeld occupied a medium position, by finding that in Essenism “a Judaism of quite peculiarly blended ultra-Pharisaic and Alexandrinian views appears in alliance with Pythagoreanism and with many rites of Egyptian priests” (iii. 369). Keim too is of opinion, that while all the peculiarities of Essenism might he derived from Judaism, the parallels between Pythagoreanism and Essenism are too numerous and striking to suffer us to dispute the influence of the former upon the latter (Gesch. Jesu, i. 300 sqq.).
[2007] In a certain sense he had already a predecessor in Philo, who adduces as examples of asceticism first the Persian Magi, then the Indian Gymnosophists, and immediately after the Essenes (Quod omnis probut liber, § 11, 12, ed. Mang. ii. 456, 457: Ἐν Πέρσαις μὲν τὸ Μάγων,… Ἐν Ἰνδοῖς δὲ τὸ Γυμνοσοφιστῶν, … Ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἡ Παλαιστίνη [καὶ] Συρία καλοκἀγαθίας οὐκ ἄγονος κ.τ.λ.).
[2008] This place, Essa west of the Dead Sea, has been fabricated by Hilgenfeld purely ad hoc. He is himself only able to point out an Ἔσσα in Peraea, which is identical with Gerasa (Joseph. Antt. xiii. 15. 3, comp. with Bell. Jud. i. 4. 8). He thinks however that the name means “foundation,” and may therefore occur as the name of several places. But unfortunately this Ἔσσα in Peraea does not exist at all, since the reading must be Γέοασα, by reason of Bell. Jud. i. 4-8, and also the parallel passage, Antt. xiii. 15. 3. Comp. note 257, vol. i. p. 117.
It is not easy to find a way out of this labyrinth of views. The question will be simplified by first subjecting to an examination the peculiar hypotheses of Ritschl, Lucius, and Hilgenfeld. 1. The hypothesis of Ritschl is tempting, inasmuch as the Essenes certainly desire to exhibit, like the Israelitish priests, a condition of special purity and holiness. Hence the parallels between the two are very numerous. On the other hand however it leaves essential points unexplained, especially their rejection of animal sacrifices, marriage, the oath, and the anointing oil.[2009] It is impossible to deduce all these phenomena satisfactorily from a single standpoint. 2. And still less is this the case if the point is that chosen by Lucius. His attempt to explain all the singularities of the Essenes by their rupture with the illegitimate worship at Jerusalem may be designated a failure. For how should they have thus arrived at their rejection of marriage, oaths, slavery, trading, and their peculiarly puritanical tendency in general?[2010] In other respects too this starting-point is unfortunately chosen. For if the Essenes agreed, as Lucius admits, with the Pharisees in their legalistic tendencies, they had, at least after the time of Alexandra, no longer any reason for withdrawing from the temple-worship, since all sacred rites were then performed in a thoroughly correct manner. 3. The same objections as those against Ritschl and Lucius virtually apply to Hilgenfeld’s earlier view of the Essenes as a community of Apocalyptics. Here too several peculiarities are left unexplained.[2011] If Essenism in general can be regarded as a purely Jewish formation, it is certainly most simple to view it as a climax of the Pharisaic tendency, for its starting-point and many of its peculiarities are identical with those of the latter. Hence the question may be simplified to: Is JEssenism nothing more than a peculiar offshoot of Pharisaism, or did foreign and alien influences co-operate in its origin and development? And if the latter question be answered in the affirmative, what were these influences, Buddhism (as in Hilgenfeld’s earlier view), Parseeism (Hilgenfeld and Lightfoot), Syro-Palestinian heathenism (Lipsius), or lastly, the Orpheo-Pythagorean tendency of the Greeks (Zeller and others)?
[2009] Comp. Zeller, Theol. Jahrb. 1856, p. 413 sqq. Philosophie der Griechen, iii. 2. 315 sqq.
[2010] Against Lucius, see also my notice in the Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1881, 492-496.
[2011] Comp. Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen, iii. 2. 315 sqq.
It cannot be denied that very many, nay, most particulars may be explained from the Judaeo-Pharisaic basis. Two main features especially, the rigid legalism and the punctilious care for ceremonial cleanness, are genuinely Pharisaic. Their high regard for the great lawgiver Moses and for the Holy Scriptures, their strict, nay, rigorous Sabbath-keeping, place them completely on the soil of Judaism. Their non-observance of certain precepts of the law, those especially concerning animal sacrifices, may have been the result either of some case of necessity or of an allegorical interpretation of the laws in question. In any case, it is not inconsistent with their unconditional acknowledgment of the formal authority of the law. Then their punctilious care for purity is essentially Pharisaic. The value attributed to Levitical purity, and to the baths and lustrations by which this was restored when defilement had been incurred, is a characteristic of Pharisaism.[2012] Especially is the Essenian bathing before meals analogous to practices of Pharisaic Judaism, and is at most an increase of the Pharisaic custom.[2013] Bathing after the performance of natural functions was required at least of officiating priests.[2014] If then this was required by the Essenes of all the members of their association, it only shows that they desired to realize in themselves the highest degree of purity according to Jewish notions. We are also vividly reminded of Pharisaic views by the Essenian custom of bathing even after contact with a member of the order of a lower grade (i.e. a novice). For just what the unclean Am-haarez was to the Pharisees, was the novice not actually admitted into the society to the Essenes. Essenism then is in the first place merely Pharisaism in the superlative degree. From the effort to carry out completely the purity of life thus required may be explained also the Essenian separation, their organization in narrow and exclusive communities. If the Pharisee avoided as much as possible all intercourse with the unclean Am-haarez, the Essene completely separated himself from the multitude and formed exclusive societies, in which similarity of disposition and endeavour afforded the possibility of realizing the ideal of a life of absolute ceremonial cleanness. The common meals of these societies, the food for which was prepared by the priests, were a guarantee to the Essene that only clean food would be set before him. This close brotherly connection led to community of goods. The strict requirements made from members of the order made it necessary to admit new members into the society only after a long and strict novitiate. The purity and holiness which the Essenes strove to realize were indeed different, more exalted and special than those of the Pharisees. But almost all their peculiarities had at least their starting-point in Pharisaism. Their white raiment corresponded with the official dress of Israelitish priests, and therefore only shows, that the Essenes desired to manifest the highest degree of Jewish purity and holiness.[2015]… Their caution in bathing,[2016] and even their custom of not spitting forwards or to the right has its analogues in the Talmud.[2017] Their repudiation of marriage is indeed a matter quite heterogeneous to genuine Judaism.[2018] But even this may be explained from Jewish premises. For since the act of marriage as such made an individual unclean and necessitated a Levitical bath of purification,[2019] the effort to attain to the highest degree of purity might well lead to the entire repudiation of marriage. In all these points a surpassing of ordinary Judaism is apparent, and this is also the case in the strongly puritanical trait, by which the Essenian mode of life is characterized. They saw in many of the social customs and institutions, which the development of culture entailed, a perversion of the primitive and simple ways of life prescribed by nature. They thought therefore that they manifested true morality by a return to the simplicity of nature and of natural ordinances. Hence their rejection of slavery, oaths, anointing oil, and of luxury in general; hence their principle of living a simple life and allowing themselves only so much food and drink as nature required. It cannot be shown that they practised actual asceticism by fastings and mortifications, by abstinence from flesh and wine. It was only the exceeding what nature required that they condemned.[2020] Their rejection of trade is quite in accordance with this ethic radicalism; they desired a communistic state, in which each worked for the whole body, and none enriched himself at the expense of others.
[2012] Tertullian, De baptismo, c. 15: Ceterum Israel Judaeus quotidie lavat, quia quotidie inquinatur. When Hemerobaptists (= καθʼ ἡμέραν βαπτιζόμενοι) are mentioned by Epiphanius, haer. xvii., as a Jewish sect, we have but the fabrication of a special sectarian name from a characteristic peculiarity of all Jews.
[2013] Ev. Mark 7:3-4 : οἱ γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐὰν μὴ πυγμῇ νίψωνται τὰς χεῖρας οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν … καὶ ἀπʼ ἀγορᾶς ἐὰν μὴ ῥαντίσωνται (al. βαπτίσωνται) οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν. Comp. also Matthew 15:2; Luke 11:38. Chagigah ii. 5: “For the partaking of Chullin (profane food), tithe and heave, the hands must be washed (properly poured upon); for the eating of holy things they must first be dipped” (the latter precept applies only to those who partake of “holy” food, i.e. food proceeding from sacrifices). Comp. also p. 111. Bathing the whole body before eating cannot be shown to be a general precept in Rabbinic literature. The interpretation of the New Testament passages is questionable.
[2014] Joma iii. 2. Comp. concerning the cleanuess required of the priests, vol. i. p. 278.
[2015] According to Berachoth 61b, it was forbidden to perform the functions of nature towards the east or the west (it was allowed only towards the north or the south) to prevent exposure towards the temple.
[2016] According to Mishna, Berachoth iii. 5, if any one happened to be bathing at the time for praying the Shema, and had not time to rise up and clothe himself, he must at least cover himself with water. Bab. Berachoth 24b requires of any one unclothed before praying the Shema to wind the Tallith round his neck or his heart, that the upper parts of his body may not see the shame. See Herzfeld, iii. 389. Comp. also Lucius, p. 68.
[2017] According to Jer. Berachoth iii. 5, it was forbidden to spit forwards or to the right at prayer; see Herzfeld, iii. 387. This custom is observed to this very day.
[2018] Comp. on the debitum tori, Jebamoth vi. 6: “No one must withdraw from the duty of propagation, unless he has children already, according to the school of Shammai two sons, according to that of Hillel at least a son and daughter.” Also Kethuboth v. 6, 7; Gittin iv. 5; Edujoth i. 13, iv. 10.
[2019] Joseph. Apion. ii. 24: καὶ μετὰ τὴν νόμιμον συνουσίαν ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικὸς ἀπολούσασθαι κελεύει ὁ νόμος. Comp. Exodus 19:15; Leviticus 15:16-18; Deuteronomy 23:11-12.
[2020] The prohibition of the use of anointing oil during the stricter kinds of fasts by Pharisaic Judaism (Taanith i 6; Joma viii. 1; comp. Daniel 10:3; Matthew 6:17) does not therefore fall under quite the same point of view. It was to be a total abst nence.
If the bounds of ordinary Judaism are exceeded by the traits already depicted, this is still more the case in the extremely striking fact of the repudiation of animal sacrifices. That the point of view set up by Lucius in explanation of this fact does not load to the goal, has been already remarked.[2021] The sole point of contact for it, on Jewish ground, seems to me, on the contrary, to be the contention of many of the prophets against the over-estimation of sacrifice. As the prophets insist, that God does not take pleasure in sacrifices, but in purity of intention, so, according to the Eesenian view, not the slaughter of beasts, but the sanctification of the body is true worship.
[2021] Comp. also Theol. L’teraturzcitung, 1881, p. 494.
This also is based upon a certain amount of moral radicalism. But the rejection of animal sacrifices involves a complete breach with Judaism proper, which is not done away with by the fact, that the Essenes used to send gifts of incense to the temple at Jerusalem. A still stranger phenomenon presented on Jewish soil is their peculiar conduct with respect to the sun. It is quite impossible that their εὐχὴ εἰς τὸν ἥλιον can be only the Jewish Shema repeated before sunrise;[2022] on the contrary, they turned towards the sun while praying, because they saw in it the representative of the Divine light. This is proved especially by the circumstance, that in doing their needs they carefully avoided uncovering themselves towards the sun. The information too of Epiphanius, that the Ossaians (who are certainly identical with the Essenes) had united with the Sampsitae, i.e. adorers of the sun, leads to the conclusion, that they were in real earnest in their religious estimation of the sun.[2023] However this may be, the very turning to the sun in prayer was contrary to Jewish customs and notions, which on the contrary required the turning to the temple, and expressly repudiated the direction towards the sun as heathenish.[2024]
[2022] So most Jewish scholars, also Derenbourg, p. 169, note 3. Comp. on saying the Shema before sunrise, Berachoth i. 2, and on the Shema in general, p. 83 sq.
[2023] See Epiphanius, haer. xx. 3: καὶ Ὀσσαίων τὸ λεῖμμα οὐκέτι ἰουδαΐζον, ἀλλὰ συναφθὲν Σαμψίταις τοῖς κατὰ διαδοχὴν ἐν τῷ πέραν τῆς νεκρᾶς θαλάσσης ὑπερκειμένοις. Comp. also Epiphan. haer. xix. 2, liii. 1-2. Light-foot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, etc., 2nd ed. pp. 88, 374 sq. The identity of the Essence and Ossaians is scarcely doubtful, though Epiphanius treats them as two different sects, haer. x. and xix. (Lightfoot, p. 83). He correctly explains (haer. liii. 2) the name Σαμψαῖοι by Ἡλιακοί (from שמש, the sun).
[2024] See especially Ezekiel 8:16 sqq. According to Sukka v. 4, two priests used to blow with trumpets in the morning at cock-crowing at the feast of Tabernacles, first of all at the door which led from the court of the men to the court of the women, then at the eastern door of exit from the latter; hereupon they turned towards the west (i.e. towards the temple) and said, with reference to Ezek. viii. 16: “Our fathers, who were in this place, turned their backs to the temple of God and their faces to the east and worshipped the sun towards the east. But we turn our eyes to God.” When it is said in the Wisdom of Solomon, that we ought to prevent the sun with thanksgiving to God, and to pray to God πρὸς ἀνατσλὴν φωτός, πρός has not a local but a temporal meaning: “towards sunrise,” like Luke 24:29, πρὸς ἑσπέραν; comp. Grimm, Exeget. Handb. zu Sap. Sal. xvi. 28. The matter too adduced by Lucius (pp. 61, 69 sq., note 125) to explain Essenian customs from a Jewish standpoint is not convincing. Its irrelevance is well pointed out by Lightfoot (pp. 374-376), who conjectures that the Sampsitae are merely an offshoot of the Essenes.
Thus are we more and more driven to the view, that foreign influences co-operated in the formation of Essenism. And this becomes undoubted, if the account given of its Anthropology by Josephus is even in the main trustworthy. For if it really taught the pre-existence of the soul and regarded the body as only the soul’s prison, this is of itself a proof of the influence of foreign philosophemes. Thus the question concerning the origin of Essenism is changed into the question concerning the trustworthiness of Josephus. This is not indeed utterly above suspicion, and we have already seen (above, p. 16 sq.), that he has given a Greek tinge to the teaching of the Pharisees and clothed their Jewish doctrine in a Greek garment. But we also saw that all that he says of them is in substance true, and that it is only the form which is derived from without. If then only one sentence which he says concerning the anthropology of the Essenes is true, it is certain that their doctrine of man is dualistic, i.e. non-Jewish. And there is the less ground for doubting this, since from this point of view many of their peculiarities, especially their efforts after purity, surpassing as they did even those of Phariseeism, are most simply and naturally explained.
But what foreign influences have we then to consider? No less than four different factors have been proposed, viz. Buddhism, Parseeism, Syrian heathenism, and Pythagoreanism. Each of these factors may in fact have exerted an influence upon intellectual life in Palestine during the last centuries before Christ; and for this very reason an answer to the above question must remain an uncertain one. Buddhism seems the most far-fetched. But when we consider, that an acquaintance with India had already been opened to the Western nations by the victories of Alexander the Great, that afterwards Megasthenes, in the time of Seleucus I. Nicator, i.e. about 300 B.C., furnished, on the ground of his own observations during a prolonged sojourn in India, a thorough description of the country and its inhabitants,[2025] and that a regular commercial intercourse with India by way of the Red Sea probably existed during the Graeco-Roman period,[2026] when also the striking parallel in some instances between Buddhism and Essenism is considered, the possibility at least of an actual connection cannot be disputed. It is true, that the still very scanty intercourse between India and the West in pre-Christian times makes this connection improbable.[2027] It is more obvious to think of Parseeism or Pythagoreanism; for the points of contact with Syrian heathenism are but very general, and affect at most only individual details. In Parseeism, on the other hand, we find a whole series of the characteristic peculiarities of the Essenes: the lustrations, the white garments (for the Magi), the adoration of the sun, the repudiation of animal sacrifices proper (i.e. the presentation of the flesh to the Deity), and especially their angelology and magic. Since too ordinary Judaism seems to have been affected by Parseeism (see vol. i. p. 350), the assumption of Parsee influence is a very obvious one, since it would be only somewhat stronger in Essenism than in the latter.[2028] But other points again are not at all Parseeistic, especially celibacy and the entire anthropology.[2029] Hence all things considered, the hypothesis adopted especially by Zeller, that the peculiarities of Essenism are to be explained from Pythagorean influences, has the largest amount of probability in its favour. For Pythagoreanism, of all the hitherto named tendencies, shows the greater number of parallels with Essenism. It shares its aspirations for bodily purity and sanctity, its lustrations, its simple habits of life apart from all sensual enjoyments, its high estimation (if not exactly its requirement) of celibacy, its white garments, repudiation of oaths, and especially its rejection of bloody sacrifices, also the invocation of the sun and the scrupulosity with which all that was unclean (such as human excrements) was hidden from it;[2030] and lastly, the dualistic view of the relation of soul and body. All these belong equally to the ideal of both the Essenes and Pythagoreans.[2031] If an actual connection between the two is by reason of this far-reaching accordance, to say the least, very probable, this probability is increased by the fact, that a new light is thus cast upon even those peculiarities of Essenism, which may be explained from a Jewish foundation. They thus become, not the result of a spontaneous development, but of a fertilization of Judaism by new factors. These latter exercised a power of attraction over Judaism, because they found therein a series of points of contact for their own elective affinity.
[2025] See the extensive fragments of Megasthenes in Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. ii. 397-439. Comp. also concerning him Pauly’s Real-Enc. iv. 1721. Nicolai, Griech. Literaturgesch. ii. 170 sq. The work of Megasthenes seems to have been for a long time the main source of information concerning India. Strabo however availed himself also of other authors of the retinue of Alexander the Great as authorities (e.g. Aristobulus, Nearchus, Oncsikritus). For other Ἰνδικά, see Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. iv. 688b below; Nicolai, Griech. Literaturgesch. ii. 170 sq. That certain chief points were matters of general knowledge is seen from Philo, Quod omnis probus liber, § 11. Josephus, Bell. Jud. vii. 8. 7 (ed, Bekker, p. 160, lin. 20 sqq.). Lassen in his Indische Altertumskunde, vol. ii. (2nd ed. 1874) pp. 626-751, gives a history of Greek acquaintance with India. Comp. the careful discussion in Lightfoot’s St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, etc., pp. 390-396, and the two works cited by him, viz. Reinand, Relations Politiques et Commerciales de l’empire romain avec l’Asie centrale, Paris 1863; and Priaulx, The Indian Travels of Apollonius of Tyana and the Indian Embassies to Rome, 1873.
[2026] Comp. especially the Periplus maris Erythraei mentioned above, pp. 87 and 44, and the literature cited in the preceding note. In the time of Augustus political embassies also came from India to Rome (Monumentum Ancyranum, v. 50, 51, and Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti, 1883, p. 132 sq. Strabo, xv. 1. 4, p. 686, and xv. 1. 73, p. 719. Dio Cass. liv. 9. Sueton. Aug. 21. Orosius, vi. 21. 19).
[2027] See, on the other hand, Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen, iii. 2. 323. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, etc., pp. 390-396. The attempts recently made to point out Indian influences in other departments also are questionable, nay, more than questionable. This applies especially to Seydel, Das Evangelium von Jesu in seinen Verhältnissen zu Buddha-Sage und Buddha-Lehre, Leipzig 1882 (on the other hand, Theol. Literaturxeitung, 1882, p. 415 sqq.). The same, Die Buddha-Legende und das Leben Jesu nach den Evangelien, Leipzig 1884 (on the other hand, Theol. Litztg. 1884, p. 185 sqq.). On Pythagoras, Schroeder, Pythagoras und die Inder, Leipzig 1884 (on the other hand, A. W. in the Lit. Centralbl. 1884, No. 45).
[2028] See Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. für wissenschafd. Theol. 1867, p. 99 sqq. The same, Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthitms, p. 141 sqq. Lightfoot, p. 387 sqq.
[2029] See Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen, iii. 2. 320 sqq.
[2030] That the adoration of the sun formed part of the Pythagorean ideal is seen especially from the biography of Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus (comp. Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen, iii. 2, p. 155, note 1). The effort too to avoid the sight of what was unclean is genuinely Pythagorean. Comp. Zeller, Theol. Jahrb. 1856, p. 425. Mangold, Irrlehrer der Pastoralbriefe, p. 52.
[2031] See the proofs in Zeller, Theol. Jahrb. 1856, p. 401 sqq.; Philosophie der Griechen, iii. 2, p. 325 sqq.
Such an influence of Pythagoreanism upon a Jewish circle, leading to the formation of this separate sect upon Jewish soil, is historically easy of explanation. Essenism is met with at the earliest about the middle of the second century before Christ. But Pythagoreanism, if not as a settled school of philosophy, still as a view of life and a practice of morals, is far more ancient. As then Greek culture must have had a powerful influence upon Palestine since the time of Alexander the Great,—it was not repressed until the Maccabaean rising,—it is only natural, if we find actual proof of this influence of Hellenism in the circle of the Essenes. Thus Essenism would be a separation from the soil of Judaism proper, which was perhaps effected in the second century before Christ, under Greek influences, with the view of realizing an ideal akin to Pythagoreanism, but with an adherence to its Jewish foundation.[2032]
[2032] The question whether the Therapeutae were offshoots of the Essenes or vice versa (answered by Zeller at first in the former, but subsequently in the latter sense) must now be left undiscussed, since the only work which gives us any information concerning the Therapeutae, viz. Philo, De vita contemplativa (Mang. ii 471-486), is certainly spurious, and the Therapeutae very probably merely Christian monks. See below, § 34.1.
One thing alone prevents our establishing this result with certainty, and this is the enigmatical form of Pythagoreanism itself. Just those peculiarities, which it has in common with Essenism, are themselves not genuinely Greek, but very probably of Oriental origin. May not then their coincidence be explained by the fact, that each of the two has independently drawn from a common Oriental source? This would again lead to a derivation of Essenism mainly from Parsee influences. The possibility of this cannot be denied. But possibly both Parsee and Pythagorean influences were in operation. The different currents of culture frequently cross each other on the soil of Western Asia in so chequered and manifold a manner that it is impossible to answer such questions with certainty. Two things however may be established as the result of our investigation: (1) That Essenism is first and mainly a Jewish formation; and (2) that in its non-Jewish features it has most affinity with the Pythagorean tendency of the Greeks.