Chapter X: Preface (9)

Still later than this, Hippolytus, while he gives a fairly intelligent, though brief, account of the Brahmins[449], says not a word about the Buddhists, though, if he had been acquainted with their teaching, he would assuredly have seen in them a fresh support to his theory of the affinity between Christian heresies and pre-existing heathen philosophies. [Sidenote: A Buddhist at Athens.]With one doubtful exception—an Indian fanatic attached to an embassy sent by king Porus to Augustus, who astonished the Greeks and Romans by burning himself alive at Athens[450]–there is apparently no notice in either heathen or Christian writers, which points to the presence of a Buddhist within the limits of the Roman Empire, till long after the Essenes had ceased to exist[451].

Footnote 449:

_Hær._ i. 24.

Footnote 450:

The chief authority is Nicolaus of Damascus in Strabo xv. i. 73 (p.
270). The incident is mentioned also in Dion Cass. liv. 9. Nicolaus
had met these ambassadors at Antioch, and gives an interesting account
of the motley company and their strange presents. This fanatic, who
was one of the number, immolated himself in the presence of an
astonished crowd, and perhaps of the emperor himself, at Athens. He
anointed himself and then leapt smiling on the pyre. The inscription
on his tomb was Ζαρμανοχηγὰς Ἰνδὸς ἀπὸ Βαργόσης κατὰ τὰ πάτρια Ἰνδῶν
ἔθη ἑαυτὸν ἀπαθανατίσας κεῖται. The tomb was visible at least as late
as the age of Plutarch, who recording the self-immolation of Calanus
before Alexander (_Vit. Alex._ 69) says, τοῦτο πολλοῖς ἔτεσιν ὕστερον
ἄλλος Ἰνδὸς ἐν Ἀθήναις Καίσαρί συνὼν ἐποίησε, καὶ δείκνυται μέχρι νῦν
τὸ μνημεῖον Ἰνδοῦ προσαγορευόμενον. Strabo also places the two
incidents in conjunction in another passage in which he refers to this
person, xv. 1. 4 (p. 686) ὁ κατακαύσας ἑαυτὸν Ἀθήνησι σοφιστὴς Ἰνδός,
καθάπερ καὶ ὁ Κάλανος κ.τ.λ.

The reasons for supposing this person to have been a Buddhist, rather
than a Brahmin, are: (1) The name Ζαρμανοχηγὰς (which appears with
some variations in the MSS of Strabo), being apparently the Indian
_sramanakarja_, i.e. ‘teacher of the ascetics,’ in other words, a
Buddhist priest; (2) The place Bargosa, i.e. Barygaza, where Buddhism
flourished in that age. See Priaulx p. 78 sq. In Dion Cassius it is
written Ζάρμαρος.

And have we not here an explanation of 1 Cor. xiii. 3, if ἵνα
καυθήσωμαι be the right reading? The passage, being written before the
fires of the Neronian persecution, requires explanation. Now it is
clear from Plutarch that the ‘Tomb of the Indian’ was one of the
sights shown to strangers at Athens: and the Apostle, who observed the
altar ==αγνωϲτωι θεωι==, was not likely to overlook the sepulchre
with the strange inscription ==εαυτον απαθανατιϲαϲ κειται==. Indeed
the incident would probably be pressed on his notice in his
discussions with Stoics and Epicureans, and he would be forced to
declare himself as to the value of these Indian self-immolations, when
he preached the doctrine of self-sacrifice. We may well imagine
therefore that the fate of this poor Buddhist fanatic was present to
his mind when he penned the words καὶ ἐὰν παραδῶ τὸ σῶμά μου ...
ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω, οὐδὲν ὠφελοῦμαι. Indeed it would furnish an almost
equally good illustration of the text, whether we read ἵν καυθήσωμαι
or ἵνα καυχήσωμαι. Dion Cassius (l.c.) suggests that the deed was done
ὑπὸ φιλοτιμίας or εἰς ἐπίδειζιν. How much attention these religious
suicides of the Indians attracted in the Apostolic age (doubtless
because the act of this Buddhist priest had brought the subject
vividly before men’s minds in the West), we may infer from the speech
which Josephus puts in the mouth of Eleazar (_B.J._ vii. 8. 7),
βλέψωμεν εἰς Ἰνδοὺς τοὺς σοφίαν ἀσκέιν ὑπισχνουμένους ... οἱ δὲ ...
_πυρὶ τὸ σῶμα παραδόντες_, ὅπως δὴ καὶ _καθαρωτάτην_
ἀποκρίνωσι τοῦ σώματος τὴν ψυχήν, ὑμνούμενοι τελευτῶσι ... ἆρ’ οὖν οὐκ
αἰδούμεθα χεῖρον Ἰνδῶν φρονοῦντες;

Footnote 451:

In the reign of Claudius an embassy arrived from Taprobane (Ceylon);
and from these ambassadors Pliny derived his information regarding the
island, _N.H._ vi. 24. Respecting their religion however he says only
two words ‘coli Herculem,’ by whom probably Rama is meant (Priaulx p.
116). From this and other statements it appears that they were Tamils
and not Singalese, and thus belonged to the non-Buddhist part of the
island; see Priaulx p. 91 sq.

[Sidenote: The alleged coincidences prove nothing.]

And, if so, the coincidences must be very precise, before we are justified in attributing any peculiarities of Essenism to Buddhist influences. This however is far from being the case. They both exhibit a well-organized monastic society: but the monasticism of the Buddhist priests, with its systematized mendicancy, has little [Sidenote: Monasticism.] in common with the monasticism of the Essene recluse, whose life was largely spent in manual labour. [Sidenote: Asceticism.]They both enjoin celibacy, both prohibit the use of flesh and of wine, both abstain from the slaughter of animals. But, as we have already seen, such resemblances prove nothing, for they may be explained by the independent development of the same religious principles. One coincidence, and one only, is noticed by Hilgenfeld, which at first sight seems more striking and might suggest a historical connexion. [Sidenote: Four orders and four steps.]He observes that the four orders of the Essene community are derived from the four steps of Buddhism. Against this it might fairly be argued that such coincidences of numbers are often purely accidental, and that in the present instance there is no more reason for connecting the four steps of Buddhism with the four orders of Essenism than there would be for connecting the ten precepts of Buddha with the Ten Commandments of Moses. But indeed a nearer examination will show that the two have nothing whatever in common except the number. The four steps or paths of Buddhism are not four grades of an external order, but four degrees of spiritual progress on the way to nirvana or annihilation, the ultimate goal of the Buddhist’s religious aspirations. They are wholly unconnected with the Buddhist monastic system, as an organization. A reference to the Buddhist notices collected in Hardy’s _Eastern Monachism_ (p. 280 sq.) will at once dispel any suspicion of a resemblance. A man may attain to the highest of these four stages of Buddhist illumination instantaneously. He does not need to have passed through the lower grades, but may even be a layman at the time. Some merit obtained in a previous state of existence may raise him _per saltum_ to the elevation of a rahat, when all earthly desires are crushed and no future birth stands between him and nirvana. [Sidenote: Buddhist influences seen first in Manicheism.]There remains therefore no coincidence which would suggest any historical connexion between Essenism and Buddhism. Indeed it is not till some centuries later, when Manicheism starts into being, that we find for the first time any traces of the influence of Buddhism on the religions of the West[452].

Footnote 452:

Even its influence on Manicheism however is disputed in a learned
article in the _Home and Foreign Review_ III. p. 143 sq. (1863), by Mr
P. Le Page Renouf (see _Academy_ 1873, p. 399).

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

3.
ESSENISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

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

It has become a common practice with a certain class of writers to call Essenism to their aid in accounting for any distinctive features of Christianity, which they are unable to explain in any other way. Wherever some external power is needed to solve a perplexity, here is the _deus ex machina_ whose aid they most readily invoke. Constant repetition is sure to produce its effect, and probably not a few persons, who want either the leisure or the opportunity to investigate the subject for themselves, have a lurking suspicion that the Founder of Christianity may have been an Essene, or at all events that Christianity was largely indebted to Essenism for its doctrinal and ethical teaching[453]. Indeed, when very confident and sweeping assertions are made, it is natural to presume that they rest on a substantial basis of fact. Thus for instance we are told by one writer that Christianity is ‘Essenism alloyed with foreign elements’[454]: while another, who however approaches the subject in a different spirit, says; ‘It will hardly be doubted that our Saviour Himself belonged to this holy brotherhood. This will especially be apparent, when we remember that _the whole Jewish community_ at the advent of Christ was divided into three parties, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes, and that _every Jew had to belong to one of these sects_. Jesus who in all things conformed to the Jewish law, and who was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, would therefore naturally associate Himself with that order of Judaism which was most congenial to his nature’.[455][Sidenote: tested by facts.]I purpose testing these strong assertions by an appeal to facts.

Footnote 453:

De Quincey’s attempt to prove that the Essenes were actually
Christians (_Works_ VI p. 270 sq., IX p. 253 sq.), who used the
machinery of an esoteric society to inculcate their doctrines ‘for
fear of the Jews,’ is conceived in a wholly different spirit from the
theories of the writers mentioned in the text; but it is even more
untenable and does not deserve serious refutation.

Footnote 454:

Grätz III p. 217.

Footnote 455:

Ginsburg _Essenes_ p. 24.

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

For the statements involved in those words of the last extract which I have underlined, no authority is given by the writer himself; nor have I been able to find confirmation of them in any quarter. On the contrary the frequent allusions which we find to the vulgar herd, the ιδιῶται, the _عam haarets_, who are distinguished from the disciples of the schools[456], suggest that a large proportion of the people was unattached to any sect. If it had been otherwise, we might reasonably presume that our Lord, as one who ‘in all things conformed to the Jewish law,’ would have preferred attaching Himself to the Pharisees who ‘sat in Moses’ seat’ and whose precepts He recommended His disciples to obey[457], rather than to the Essenes who in one important respect at least—the repudiation of the temple sacrifices—acted in flagrant violation of the Mosaic ordinances.

Footnote 456:

See above, p. 130.

Footnote 457:

Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.

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

This preliminary barrier being removed, we are free to investigate the evidence for their presumed connexion. And here we are met first with a negative argument, which obviously has great weight with many persons. Why, it is asked, does Jesus, who so unsparingly denounces the vices and the falsehoods of Pharisees and Sadducees, never once mention the Essenes by way of condemnation, or indeed mention them by name at all? Why, except that He himself belonged to this sect and looked favourably on their teaching? This question is best answered by another. How can we explain the fact, that throughout the enormous mass of talmudical and early rabbinical literature this sect is not once mentioned by name, and that even the supposed allusions to them, which have been discovered for the first time in the present century, turn out on investigation to be hypothetical and illusory? The difficulty is much greater in this latter instance; but the answer is the same in both cases. The silence is explained by the comparative insignificance of the sect, their small numbers and their retired habits. Their settlements were far removed from the great centres of political and religious life. Their recluse habits, as a rule, prevented them from interfering in the common business of the world. Philo and Josephus have given prominence to them, because their ascetic practices invested them with the character of philosophers and interested the Greeks and Romans in their history; but in the national life of the Jews they bore a very insignificant part[458]. If the Sadducees, who held the highest offices in the hierarchy, are only mentioned directly on three occasions in the Gospels[459], it can be no surprise that the Essenes are not named at all.

Footnote 458:

This fact is fully recognised by several recent writers, who will not
be suspected of any undue bias towards traditional views of Christian
history. Thus Lipsius writes (p. 190), ‘In the general development of
Jewish life Essenism occupies a far more subordinate place than is
commonly ascribed to it.’ And Keim expresses himself to the same
effect (I. p. 305). Derenbourg also, after using similar language,
adds this wise caution, ‘In any case, in the present state of our
acquaintance with the Essenes, which is so imperfect and has no chance
of being extended, the greatest prudence is required of science, if
she prefers to be true rather than adventurous, if she has at heart
rather to enlighten than to surprise’ (p. 461). Even Grätz in one
passage can write soberly on this subject: ‘The Essenes had throughout
no influence on political movements, from which they held aloof as far
as possible’ (III. p. 86).

Footnote 459:

These are (1) Matt. iii. 7; (2) Matt. xvi. 1 sq.; (3) Matt. xxii. 23
sq., Mark xii. 18, Luke xx. 27.

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

As no stress therefore can be laid on the argument for silence, any hypothesis of connexion between Essenism and Christianity must make good its claims by establishing one or both of these two points: _first_, that there is direct historical evidence of close intercourse between the two; and _secondly_, that the resemblances of doctrine and practice are so striking as to oblige, or at least to warrant, the belief in such a connexion. If both these lines of argument fail, the case must be considered to have broken down.

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

1. On the former point it must be premised that the Gospel narrative does not suggest any hint of a connexion. Indeed its general tenor is directly adverse to such a supposition. From first to last Jesus and his disciples move about freely, taking part in the common business, even in the common recreations, of Jewish life. The recluse ascetic brotherhood, which was gathered about the shores of the Dead Sea, does not once appear above the Evangelists’ horizon. Of this close society, as such, there is not the faintest indication. [Sidenote: Two individual cases alleged.] But two individuals have been singled out, as holding an important place either in the Evangelical narrative or in the Apostolic Church, who, it is contended, form direct and personal links of communication with this sect. These are John the Baptist and James the Lord’s brother. The one is the forerunner of the Gospel, the first herald of the Kingdom; the other is the most prominent figure in the early Church of Jerusalem.

[Sidenote: (i) John the Baptist]

(i) John the Baptist was an ascetic. His abode was the desert; his clothing was rough; his food was spare; he baptized his penitents. Therefore, it is argued, he was an Essene. Between the premisses and the conclusion however there is a broad gulf, which cannot very easily be bridged over. [Sidenote: not an Essene.]The solitary independent life, which John led, presents a type wholly different from the cenobitic establishments of the Essenes, who had common property, common meals, common hours of labour and of prayer. It may even be questioned whether his food of locusts would have been permitted by the Essenes, if they really ate nothing which had life (ἔμψυχον[460]). And again; his baptism as narrated by the Evangelists, and their lustrations as described in Josephus, have nothing in common except the use of water for a religious purpose. When therefore we are told confidently that ‘his manner of life was altogether after the Essene pattern[461],’ and that ‘he without doubt baptized his converts into the Essene order,’ we know what value to attach to this bold assertion. If positive statements are allowable, it would be more true to fact to say that he could not possibly have been an Essene. The rule of his life was _isolation_; the principle of theirs, _community_[462].

Footnote 460:

See above p. 86.

Footnote 461:

Grätz III. p. 220.

Footnote 462:

τὸ κοινωνητικόν, Joseph. _B.J._ ii. 8. 3. See also Philo _Fragm._ 632
ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινωφελοῦς, and the context.

[Sidenote: External resemblances to John in Banus,]

In this mode of life John was not singular. It would appear that not a few devout Jews at this time retired from the world and buried themselves in the wilderness, that they might devote themselves unmolested to ascetic discipline and religious meditation. One such instance at all events we have in Banus the master of Josephus, with whom the Jewish historian, when a youth, spent three years in the desert. This anchorite was clothed in garments made of bark or of leaves; his food was the natural produce of the earth; he bathed day and night in cold water for purposes of purification. To the careless observer doubtless John and Banus would appear to be men of the same stamp. In their outward mode of life there was perhaps not very much difference[463]. The consciousness of a divine mission, the gift of a prophetic insight, in John was the real and all-important distinction between the two. [Sidenote: who was not an Essene.]But here also the same mistake is made; and we not uncommonly find Banus described as an Essene. It is not too much to say however, that the whole tenor of Josephus’ narrative is opposed to this supposition[464]. He says that when sixteen years old he desired to acquire a knowledge of the three sects of the Jews before making his choice of one; that accordingly he went through (διῆλθον) all the three at the cost of much rough discipline and toil; that he was not satisfied with the experience thus gained, and hearing of this Banus he attached himself to him as his zealous disciple (ζηλωτὴς ἐγενόμην αὐτοῦ); that having remained three years with him he returned to Jerusalem; and that then, being nineteen years old, he gave in his adhesion to the sect of the Pharisees. Thus there is no more reason for connecting this Banus with the Essenes than with the Pharisees. The only natural interpretation of the narrative is that he did not belong to any of the three sects, but represented a distinct type of religious life, of which Josephus was anxious to gain experience. And his hermit life seems to demand this solution, which the sequence of the narrative suggests.

Footnote 463:

Ewald (VI. p. 649) regards this Banus as representing an extravagant
development of the school of John, and thus supplying a link between
the real teaching of the Baptist and the doctrine of the
Hemerobaptists professing to be derived from him.

Footnote 464:

The passage is so important that I give it in full; Joseph. _Vit._ 2
περὶ ἑκκαίδεκα δὲ ἔτη γενόμενος ἐβουλήθην τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν αἱρέσεων
ἐμπειρίαν λαβεῖν. τρεῖς δ’ εἰσὶν αὗται· Φαρισαίων μὲν ἡ πρώτη, καὶ
Σαδδουκαίων ἡ δευτέρα, τρίτη δὲ ἡ Ἐσσηνῶν, καθὼς πολλάκις εἴπαμεν.
οὕτως γὰρ ᾠόμην αἱρήσεσθαι τὴν ἀρίστην, εἰ πάσας καταμάθοιμι.
σκληραγωγήσας γοῦν ἐμαυτὸν καὶ πολλὰ πονηθεὶς τὰς τρεῖς διῆλθον. καὶ
μηδὲ τὴν ἐντεῦθεν ἐμπειρίαν ἱκανὴν ἐμαυτῷ νομίσας εἶναι, πυθόμενός
τινα Βανοῦν ὄνομα κατὰ τὴν ἐρημίαν διατρίβειν, ἐσθῆτι μὲν ἀπὸ δένδρων
χρώμενον, τροφὴν δὲ τὴν αὐτομάτως φυομένην προσφερόμενον, ψυχρῷ δὲ
ὕδατι τὴν ἡμέραν καὶ τὴν νύκτα πολλάκις λουόμενον πρὸς ἁγνείαν,
ζηλωτὴς ἐγενόμην αὐτοῦ. καὶ διατρίψας παρ’ αὐτῷ ἐνιαυτοὺς τρεῖς καὶ
τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν τελειώσας εἰς τὴν πόλιν ὑπέστρεφον. ἐννεακαίδεκα δ’ ἔτη
ἔχων ἠρξάμην τε πολιτεύεσθαι τῇ Φαρισαίων αἱρέσει κατακολουθῶν κ.τ.λ.

[Sidenote: General result.]

Of John himself therefore no traits are handed down which suggest that he was a member of the Essene community. He was an ascetic, and the Essenes were ascetics; but this is plainly an inadequate basis for any such inference. Nor indeed is the relation of his asceticism to theirs a question of much moment for the matter in hand; since this was the very point in which Christ’s mode of life was so essentially different from John’s as to provoke criticism and to point a contrast[465]. But the later history of his real or supposed disciples has, or may seem to have, some bearing on this investigation. [Sidenote: The Hemerobaptists.]Towards the close of the first and the beginning of the second century we meet with a body of sectarians called in Greek _Hemerobaptists_[466], in Hebrew _Toble-shacharith_[467], ‘day’ or ‘morning bathers.’ What were their relations to John the Baptist on the one hand, and to the Essenes on the other? Owing to the scantiness of our information the whole subject is wrapped in obscurity, and any restoration of their history must be more or less hypothetical; but it will be possible at all events to suggest an account which is not improbable in itself, and which does no violence to the extant notices of the sect.

Footnote 465:

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

Footnote 466:

The word ἡμεροβαπτισταὶ is generally taken to mean ‘daily-bathers,’
and this meaning is suggested by Apost. Const. vi. 6 οἵτινες, καθ’
(εκάστην ἡμέραν ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται, οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, _ib._ 23 ἀντὶ
καθημερινοῦ ἓν μόνον δοῦς βάπτισμα, Epiphan. _Hær._ xvii. 1 (p. 37) εἰ
μή τι ἄπα καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν βαπτίζοιτό τις ἐν ὕδατι. But, if the
word is intended as a translation of _Toble-shacharith_ ‘morning
bathers,’ as it seems to be, it must signify rather ‘day-bathers’; and
this is more in accordance with the analogy of other compounds from
ἡμέρα, as ἡμερόβιος, ἡμεροδρόμος, ἡμεροσκόπος, etc.

Josephus (_B.J._ ii. 8. 5) represents the Essenes as bathing, not at
dawn, but at the fifth hour, just before their meal. This is hardly
consistent either with the name of the _Toble-shacharith_, or with the
Talmudical anecdote of them quoted above p. 132. Of Banus he reports
(_Vit._ 2) that he ‘bathed often day and night in cold water.’

Footnote 467:

See above p. 132.

[Sidenote: (_a_) Their relation to John the Baptist.]

(_a_) We must not hastily conclude, when we meet with certain persons at Ephesus about the years A.D. 53, 54, who are described as ‘knowing only the baptism of John,’ or as having been ‘baptized unto John’s baptism[468],’ that we have here some early representatives of the Hemerobaptist sect. [Sidenote: John’s disciples at Ephesus.]These were Christians, though imperfectly informed Christians. Of Apollos, who was more fully instructed by Aquila and Priscilla, this is stated in the most explicit terms[469]. Of the rest, who owed their fuller knowledge of the Gospel to St Paul, the same appears to be implied, though the language is not free from ambiguity[470]. But these notices have an important bearing on our subject; for they show how profoundly the effect of John’s preaching was felt in districts as remote as proconsular Asia, even after a lapse of a quarter of a century. With these disciples it was the initial impulse towards Christianity; but to others it represented a widely different form of belief and practice. [Sidenote: Professed followers at a later date.]The Gospel of St John was written, according to all tradition, at Ephesus in the later years of the first century. Again and again the Evangelist impresses on his readers, either directly by his own comments or indirectly by the course of the narrative, the transient and subordinate character of John’s ministry. He was not the light, says the Evangelist, but came to bear witness of the light[471]. He was not the sun in the heavens: he was only the waning lamp, which shines when kindled from without and burns itself away in shining. His light might well gladden the Jews while it lasted, but this was only ‘for a season[472].’ John himself lost no opportunity of bearing his testimony to the loftier claims of Jesus[473]. From such notices it is plain that in the interval between the preaching of St Paul and the Gospel of St John the memory of the Baptist at Ephesus had assumed a new attitude towards Christianity. His name is no longer the sign of imperfect appreciation, but the watchword of direct antagonism. John had been set up as a rival Messiah to Jesus. In other words, this Gospel indicates the spread of Hemerobaptist principles, if not the presence of a Hemerobaptist community, in proconsular Asia, when it was written. In two respects these Hemerobaptists distorted the facts of history. [Sidenote: The facts of history distorted by them.]They perverted John’s teaching, and they misrepresented his office. His baptism was no more a single rite, once performed and initiating an amendment of life; it was a daily recurrence atoning for sin and sanctifying the person[474]. He himself was no longer the forerunner of the Messiah; he was the very Messiah[475]. [Sidenote: Spread of Hemerobaptist principles.]In the latter half of the first century, it would seem, there was a great movement among large numbers of the Jews in favour of frequent baptism, as the one purificatory rite essential to salvation. Of this superstition we have had an instance already in the anchorite Banus to whom Josephus attached himself as a disciple. Its presence in the western districts of Asia Minor is shown by a Sibylline poem, dating about A.D. 80, which I have already had occasion to quote[476]. Some years earlier these sectarians are mentioned by name as opposing James the Lord’s brother and the Twelve at Jerusalem[477]. Nor is there any reason for questioning their existence as a sect in Palestine during the later years of the Apostolic age, though the source from which our information comes is legendary, and the story itself a fabrication. But when or how they first connected themselves with the name of John the Baptist, and whether this assumption was made by all alike or only by one section of them, we do not know. Such a connexion, however false to history, was obvious and natural; nor would it be difficult to accumulate parallels to this false appropriation of an honoured name. Baptism was the fundamental article of their creed; and John was the Baptist of world-wide fame. [Sidenote: A wrong use made of John’s name.]Nothing more than this was needed for the choice of an eponym. From St John’s Gospel it seems clear that this appropriation was already contemplated, if not completed, at Ephesus before the first century had drawn to a close. In the second century the assumption is recognised as a characteristic of these Hemerobaptists, or Baptists, as they are once called[478], alike by those who allow and those who deny its justice[479]. Even in our age the name of ‘John’s disciples’ has been given, though wrongly given, to an obscure sect in Babylonia, the Mandeans, whose doctrine and practice have some affinities to the older sect, and of whom perhaps they are the collateral, if not the direct, descendants[480].

Footnote 468:

The former expression is used of Apollos, Acts xviii. 24; the latter
of ‘certain disciples,’ Acts xix. 1.

Footnote 469:

This appears from the whole narrative, but is distinctly stated in
ver. 25, as correctly read, ἐδίδασκεν ἀκριβῶς τὰ περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, not
τοῦ κυρίου as in the received text.

Footnote 470:

The πιστεῦσαντες in xix. 1 is slightly ambiguous, and some expressions
in the passage might suggest the opposite: but μαθητὰς seems decisive,
for the word would not be used absolutely except of Christian
disciples; comp. vi. 1, 2, 7, ix. 10, 19, 26, 38, and frequently.

Footnote 471:

John i. 8.

Footnote 472:

John v. 35 ἐκεῖνος ἧν ὁ λύχνος ὁ καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων κ.τ.λ. The word
καίειν is not only ‘to burn,’ but not unfrequently also ‘to kindle, to
set on fire,’ as e.g. Xen. _Anab._ iv. 4. 12 οἱ ἄλλοι ἀναστάντες πῦρ
ἔκαιον, so that ὁ καιόμενος may mean either ‘which burns away’ or
‘which is lighted.’ With the former meaning it would denote the
_transitoriness_, with the latter the _derivative character_, of
John’s ministry. There seems no reason for excluding either idea here.
Thus the whole expression would mean ‘the lamp which is kindled and
burns away, and (only so) gives light.’ For an example of two verbs or
participles joined together, where the second describes a result
conditional upon the first, see 1 Pet. ii. 20 εἰ ἁμαρτάνοντες καὶ
κολαφιζόμενοι ὑπομενεῖτε ... εἰ ἀγαθοποιοῦντες καὶ πάσχοντες
ὑπομενεῖτε, 1 Thess. iv. 1 πῶς δεῖ περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀρέσκειν Θεῷ.

Footnote 473:

See John i. 15–34, iii. 23–30, v. 33 sq.: comp. x. 41, 42. This aspect
of St John’s Gospel has been brought out by Ewald _Jahrb. der Bibl.
Wissensch._ III. p. 156 sq.; see also _Geschichte_ VII. p. 152 sq.,
_die Johanneischen Schriften_ p. 13. There is perhaps an allusion to
these ‘disciples of John’ in 1 Joh. v. 6 οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλ’
ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ ἅιματι· καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα κ.τ.λ.; comp. Acts i. 5,
xi. 16, xix. 4.

Footnote 474:

_Apost. Const._ vi. 6; comp. § 23. See p. 162, note 2.

Footnote 475:

_Clem. Recogn._ i. 54 ‘ex discipulis Johannis, qui ... magistrum suum
veluti Christum praedicarunt,’ _ib._ § 60 ‘Ecce unus ex discipulis
Johannis adfirmabat Christum Johannem fuisse, et non Jesum; in tantum,
inquit, ut et ipse Jesus omnibus hominibus et prophetis majorem esse
pronuntiaverit Johannem etc.’; see also § 63.

Footnote 476:

See above p. 96.

Footnote 477:

_Clem. Recogn._ l.c. This portion of the Clementine Recognitions is
apparently taken from an older Judaizing romance, the _Ascents of
James_ (see _Galatians_ pp. 316, 349). Hegesippus also (in Euseb.
_H.E._ iv. 22) mentions the Hemerobaptists in his list of Jewish
sects; and it is not improbable that this list was given as an
introduction to his account of the labours and martyrdom of St James
(see Euseb. _H.E._ ii. 23). If so, it was probably derived from the
same source as the notice in the Recognitions.

Footnote 478:

They are called Baptists by Justin Mart. _Dial._ 10, p. 307 A. He
mentions them among other Jewish sects, without however alluding to
John.

Footnote 479:

By the author of the _Recognitions_ (l.c.) who denies the claim; and
by the author of the _Homilies_ (see below p. 166, note 482), who
allows it.

Footnote 480:

These Mandeans are a rapidly diminishing sect living in the region
about the Tigris and the Euphrates, south of Bagdad. Our most exact
knowledge of them is derived from Petermann (_Herzog’s
Real-Encyklopädie_ s. vv. Mendäer, Zabier, and _Deutsche Zeitschrift_
1854 p. 181 sq. 1856 p. 331 sq., 342 sq., 363 sq., 386 sq.) who has
had personal intercourse with them; and from Chwolson (_die Ssabier u.
der Ssabismus_ I. p. 100 sq.) who has investigated the Arabic
authorities for their earlier history. The names by which they are
known are (1) _Mendeans_, or more properly _Mandeans_, מנדייא
_Mandāyē_, contracted from מנדא דחייא _Mandā dĕchāyē_ ‘the word of
life.’ This is their own name among themselves, and points to their
Gnostic pretentions. (2) _Sabeans, Tsabiyun_, possibly from the root
צבע ‘to dip’ on account of their frequent lustrations (Chwolson I. p.
110; but see _Galatians_ p. 312), though this is not the derivation of
the word which they themselves adopt, and other etymologies have found
favour with some recent writers (see Petermann _Herzog’s Real-Encykl_.
Suppl. XVIII. p. 342 s.v. Zabier). This is the name by which they are
known in the Koran and in Arabic writers, and by which they call
themselves when speaking to others. (3) _Nasoreans_, נצורייא
_Nātsōrāyē_. This term is at present confined to those among them who
are distinguished in knowledge or in business. (4) ‘Christians of St
John, or Disciples of St John’ (i.e. the Baptist). This name is not
known among themselves, and was incorrectly given to them by European
travellers and missionaries. At the same time John the Baptist has a
very prominent place in their theological system, as the one true
prophet. On the other hand they are not Christians in any sense.

These Mandeans, the true Sabeans, must not be confused with the false
Sabeans, polytheists and star-worshippers, whose locality is Northern
Mesopotamia. Chwolson (I. p. 139 sq.) has shown that these last
adopted the name in the 9th century to escape persecution from the
Mohammedans, because in the Koran the Sabeans, as monotheists, are
ranged with the Jews and Christians, and viewed in a more favourable
light than polytheists. The name however has generally been applied in
modern times to the false rather than to the true Sabeans.

[Sidenote: (_b_) Their relation to the Essenes.]

(_b_) Of the connexion between this sect and John the Baptist we have been able to give a probable, though necessarily hypothetical account. But when we attempt to determine its relation to the Essenes, we find ourselves entangled in a hopeless mesh of perplexities. The notices are so confused, the affinities so subtle, the ramifications so numerous, that it becomes a desperate task to distinguish and classify these abnormal Jewish and Judaizing heresies. [Sidenote: They were at first distinct, if not antagonistic.] One fact however seems clear that, whatever affinities they may have had originally, and whatever relations they may have contracted afterwards with one another, the Hemerobaptists, properly speaking, were not Essenes. The Sibylline poem which may be regarded as in some respects a Hemerobaptist manifesto contains, as we saw, many traits inconsistent with pure Essenism[481]. In two several accounts, the memoirs of Hegesippus and the Apostolic Constitutions, the Hemerobaptists are expressly distinguished from the Essenes[482]. In an early production of Judaic Christianity, whose Judaism has a strong Essene tinge, the Clementine Homilies, they and their eponym are condemned in the strongest language. The system of syzygies, or pairs of opposites, is a favourite doctrine of this work, and in these John stands contrasted to Jesus, as Simon Magus to Simon Peter, as the false to the true; for according to this author’s philosophy of history the manifestation of the false always precedes the manifestation of the true[483]. And again, Epiphanius speaks of them as agreeing substantially in their doctrines, not with the Essenes, but with the Scribes and Pharisees[484]. His authority on such a point may be worth very little; but connected with other notices, it should not be passed over in silence. Yet, whatever may have been their differences, the Hemerobaptists and the Essenes had one point of direct contact, their belief in the moral efficacy of lustrations. When the temple and polity were destroyed, the shock vibrated through the whole fabric of Judaism, loosening and breaking up existing societies, and preparing the way for new combinations. [Sidenote: But after the destruction of the Temple]More especially the cessation of the sacrificial rites must have produced a profound effect equally on those who, like the Essenes, had condemned them already, and on those who, as possibly was the case with the Hemerobaptists, had hitherto remained true to the orthodox ritual. [Sidenote: there may have been a fusion.]One grave obstacle to friendly overtures was thus removed; and a fusion, more or less complete, may have been the consequence. At all events the relations of the Jewish sects must have been materially affected by this great national crisis, as indeed we know to have been the case. In the confusion which follows, it is impossible to attain any clear view of their history. At the beginning of the second century however this pseudo-baptist movement received a fresh impulse from the pretended revelation of Elchesai, which came from the farther East[485]. Henceforth Elchesai is the prominent name in the history of those Jewish and Judaizing sects whose proper home is east of the Jordan[486], and who appear to have reproduced, with various modifications derived from Christian and Heathen sources, the Gnostic theology and the pseudo-baptist ritual of their Essene predecessors. It is still preserved in the records of the only extant people who have any claim to be regarded as the religious heirs of the Essenes. Elchesai is regarded as the founder of the sect of Mandeans[487].

Footnote 481:

See p. 96 sq.

Footnote 482:

Hegesipp. in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 22, _Apost. Const._ vi. 6. So also the
Pseudo-Hieronymus in the _Indiculus de Hæresibus_ (_Corp. Hæres._ I.
p. 283, ed. Oehler).

Footnote 483:

Clem. Hom. ii. 23 Ἰωάννης τις ἐγένετο ἡμεροβαπτιστής, ὃς καὶ τοῦ
κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ κατὰ τὸν τῆς συζυγίας λόγον ἐγένετο πρόοδος. It is
then stated that, as Christ had twelve leading disciples, so John had
thirty. This, it is argued, was a providential dispensation—the one
number represents the solar, the other the lunar period; and so they
illustrate another point in this writer’s theory, that in the syzygies
the true and the false are the male and female principle respectively.
Among these 30 disciples he places Simon Magus. With this the doctrine
of the Mandeans stands in direct opposition. They too have their
syzygies, but John with them represents the true principle.

Footnote 484:

_Hær._ xvii. 1 (p. 37) ἴσα τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων φρονοῦσα. But
he adds that they resemble the Sadducees ‘not only in the matter of
the resurrection of the dead, but also in their unbelief and in the
other points.’

Footnote 485:

See _Galatians_ p. 311 sq. on this Book of Elchesai.

Footnote 486:

See above p. 137.

Footnote 487:

See Chwolson I. p. 112 sq., II. p. 543 sq. The Arabic writer En-Nedim,
who lived towards the close of the tenth century, says that the
founder of the Sabeans (i.e. Mandeans) was _El-chasaich_ (الحسيح) the
doctrine of two coordinate principles, the male and female. This
notice, as far as it goes, agrees with the account of Elchesai or
Elxai in Hippolytus (_Hær._ ix. 13 sq.) and Epiphanius (_Hær._ xix. 1
sq.). But the derivation of the name Elchesai given by Epiphanius
(_Hær._ xix. 2) δύναμις κεκαλυμμένη (חיל כסי) is different and
probably correct (see _Galatians_ p. 312).

[Sidenote: (ii) James the Lord’s Brother]

(ii) But, if great weight has been attached to the supposed connexion of John the Baptist with the Essenes, the case of James the Lord’s brother has been alleged with still more confidence. Here, it is said, we have an indisputable Essene connected by the closest family ties with the Founder of Christianity. [Sidenote: invested with Essene characteristics.]James is reported to have been holy from his birth; to have drunk no wine nor strong drink; to have eaten no flesh; to have allowed no razor to touch his head, no oil to anoint his body; to have abstained from using the bath; and lastly to have worn no wool, but only fine linen[488]. Here we have a description of Nazarite practices at least and (must it not be granted) of Essene tendencies also.

But what is our authority for this description? The writer, from whom the account is immediately taken, is the Jewish-Christian historian Hegesippus, who flourished about A.D. 170. He cannot therefore have been an eye-witness of the facts which he relates. [Sidenote: But the account comes from untrustworthy sources.]And his whole narrative betrays its legendary character. Thus his account of James’s death, which follows immediately on this description, is highly improbable and melodramatic in itself, and directly contradicts the contemporary notice of Josephus in its main facts[489]. From whatever source therefore Hegesippus may have derived his information, it is wholly untrustworthy. Nor can we doubt that he was indebted to one of those romances with which the Judaizing Christians of Essene tendencies loved to gratify the natural curiosity of their disciples respecting the first founders of the Church[490]. In like manner Essene portraits are elsewhere preserved of the Apostles Peter[491] and Matthew[492], which represent them as living on a spare diet of herbs and berries. I believe also that I have elsewhere pointed out the true source of this description in Hegesippus, and that it is taken from the ‘Ascents of James[493],’ a Judæo-Christian work stamped, as we happen to know, with the most distinctive Essene features[494]. But if we turn from these religious novels of Judaic Christianity to earlier and more trustworthy sources of information—to the Gospels or the Acts or the Epistles of St Paul—we fail to discover the faintest traces of Essenism in James. [Sidenote: No Essene features in the true portraits of James or of the earliest disciples.]‘The historical James,’ says a recent writer, ‘shows Pharisaic but not Essene sympathies[495].’ This is true of James, as it is true of the early disciples in the mother Church of Jerusalem generally. The temple-ritual, the daily-sacrifices, suggested no scruples to them. The only distinction of meats, which they recognised, was the distinction of animals clean and unclean as laid down by the Mosaic law. The only sacrificial victims, which they abhorred, were victims offered to idols. They took their part in the religious offices, and mixed freely in the common life, of their fellow-Israelites, distinguished from them only in this, that to their Hebrew inheritance they superadded the knowledge of a higher truth and the joy of a better hope. It was altogether within the sphere of orthodox Judaism that the Jewish element in the Christian brotherhood found its scope. Essene peculiarities are the objects neither of sympathy nor of antipathy. In the history of the infant Church for the first quarter of a century Essenism is as though it were not.

Footnote 488:

Hegesippus in Euseb. _H.E._ ii. 23.

Footnote 489:

See _Galatians_ p. 348 sq.

Footnote 490:

See _Galatians_ p. 311.

Footnote 491:

_Clem. Hom._ xii. 6, where St Peter is made to say ἄρτῳ μόνῳ καὶ
ἐλαίαις χρῶμαι, καὶ σπανίως λαχάνοις; comp. xv. 7 ὕδατος μόνου καὶ
ἄρτου.

Footnote 492:

Clem. Alex. _Pædag._ ii. 1 (p. 174) σπερμάτων καὶ ἀκροδρύων καὶ
λαχάνων ἄνευ κρεῶν μετελα.μβανεν.

Footnote 493:

See _Galatians_ p. 349, note.

Footnote 494:

Epiphanius (_Hær._ xxx. 16) mentions two points especially, in which
the character of this work is shown: (1) It represented James as
condemning the sacrifices and the fire on the altar (see above pp.
134–136): (2) It published the most unfounded calumnies against St
Paul.

Footnote 495:

Lipsius, _Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexicon_, p. 191.

[Sidenote: Essene influences visible before the close of the Apostolic
age.]

But a time came, when all this was changed. Even as early as the year 58, when St Paul wrote to the Romans, we detect practices in the Christian community of the metropolis, which may possibly have been due to Essene influences[496]. Five or six years later, the heretical teaching which threatened the integrity of the Gospel at Colossæ shows that this type of Judaism was already strong enough within the Church to exert a dangerous influence on its doctrinal purity. Then came the great convulsion—the overthrow of the Jewish polity and nation. This was the turning-point in the relations between Essenism and Christianity, at least in Palestine. [Sidenote: Consequences of the Jewish war.]The Essenes were extreme sufferers in the Roman war of extermination. It seems probable that their organization was entirely broken up. Thus cast adrift, they were free to enter into other combinations, while the shock of the recent catastrophe would naturally turn their thoughts into new channels. At the same time the nearer proximity of the Christians, who had migrated to Peræa during the war, would bring them into close contact with the new faith and subject them to its influences, as they had never been subjected before[497]. But, whatever may be the explanation, the fact seems certain, that after the destruction of Jerusalem the Christian body was largely reinforced from their ranks. The Judaizing tendencies among the Hebrew Christians, which hitherto had been wholly Pharisaic, are henceforth largely Essene.

Footnote 496:

Rom. xiv. 2, 21.

Footnote 497:

See _Galatians_ p. 310 sq.

[Sidenote: 2. Do the resemblances favour the theory of a connexion?]

2. If then history fails to reveal any such external connexion with Essenism in Christ and His Apostles as to justify the opinion that Essene influences contributed largely to the characteristic features of the Gospel, such a view, if tenable at all, must find its support in some striking coincidence between the doctrines and practices of the Essenes and those which its Founder stamped upon Christianity. This indeed is the really important point; for without it the external connexion, even if proved, would be valueless. The question is not whether Christianity arose amid such and such circumstances, but how far it was created and moulded by those circumstances.

[Sidenote: (i) Observance of the sabbath.]

(i) Now one point which especially strikes us in the Jewish historian’s account of the Essenes, is their strict observance of certain points in the Mosaic ceremonial law, more especially the ultra-Pharisaic rigour with which they kept the sabbath. How far their conduct in this respect was consistent with the teaching and practice of Christ may be seen from the passages quoted in the parallel columns which follow:

‘Jesus went on the sabbath-day through the corn fields; and his disciples began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat[498].... But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, ‘Behold, thy disciples do that which it is not lawful to do upon the sabbath-day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did.... The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is Lord even of the sabbath-day....’

‘It is lawful to do well on the sabbath-days’ (Matt. xii. 1–12; Mark ii. 23.-iii. 6; Luke vi. 1–11, xiv. 1–6. See also a similar incident in Luke xiii. 10–17). ‘The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured; It is the sabbath-day; it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. But he answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed and walk.... Therefore the Jews did persecute Jesus and sought to slay him, because he did these things on the sabbath-day. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work, etc. (John v. 10–18; comp. vii. 22, 23).’ ‘And it was the sabbath-day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.... Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath-day (John ix. 14, 16).’

‘And they avoid ... touching any work (ἐφάπτεσθαι ἔργων) on the sabbath-day more scrupulously than any of the Jews (διαφορώτατα Ἰουδαίων ἁπάντων); for they do not venture so much as to move a vessel[499], nor to perform the most necessary offices of life (_B.J._ ii. 8. 9).’

Footnote 498:

Grätz (III. p. 233) considers this narrative an interpolation
made from a Pauline point of view (‘eine paulinistische
Tendenz-interpolation’). This theory of interpolation,
interposing wherever the evidence is unfavourable, cuts up all
argument by the roots. In this instance however Grätz is
consistently carrying out a principle, which he broadly lays
down elsewhere. He regards it as the great merit of Baur and his
school, that they explained the origin of the Gospels by the
conflict of two opposing camps, the Ebionite and the Pauline.
‘By this master-key,’ he adds, ‘criticism was first put in a
position to test what is historical in the Gospels, and what
bears the stamp of a polemical tendency (was einen tendentiösen
polemischen Charakter hat). Indeed by this means the element of
trustworthy history in the Gospels melts down to a minimum’
(III. p. 224). In other words the judgment is not to be
pronounced upon the evidence, but the evidence must be mutilated
to suit the judgment. The method is not new. The sectarians of
the second century, whether Judaic or anti-Judaic, had severally
their ‘master-key.’ The master-key of Marcion was a conflict
also—the antagonism of the Old and New Testaments. Under his
hands the historical element in the New Testament dissolved
rapidly. The master-key of the anti-Marcionite writer of the
Clementine Homilies was likewise a conflict, though of another
kind—the conflict of fire and water, of the sacrificial and the
baptismal systems. Wherever sacrifice was mentioned with
approval, there was a ‘Tendenz-interpolation’ (see above p.
136). In this manner again the genuine element in the Old
Testament melted down to a minimum.

Footnote 499:

Grätz however (III. p. 228) sees a coincidence between Christ’s
teaching and Essenism in this notice. Not to do him injustice, I will
translate his own words (correcting however several misprints in the
Greek): ‘For the connexion of Jesus with the Essenes compare moreover
Mark xi. 16 καὶ οὐκ ἤφιεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἵνα τις διενέγκῃ σκεῦος διὰ τοῦ
ἱεροῦ with Josephus _B.J._ ii. 8. 9 ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ σκεῦός τι μετακινῆσαι
θαρροῦσιν οἵ Ἐσσαῖοἰ.’ He does not explain what this notice, which
refers solely to the scrupulous observance of the sabbath, has to do
with the profanation of the temple, with which the passage in the
Gospel is alone concerned. I have seen Grätz’s history described as a
‘masterly’ work. The first requisites in a historian are accuracy in
stating facts and sobriety in drawing inferences. Without these, it is
difficult to see what claims a history can have to this honourable
epithet: and in those portions of his work, which I have consulted, I
have not found either.

[Sidenote: (ii) Lustrations and other ceremonial observances.]

(ii) But there were other points of ceremonial observance, in which the Essenes superadded to the law. Of these the most remarkable was their practice of constant lustrations. In this respect the Pharisee was sufficiently minute and scrupulous in his observances; but with the Essene these ablutions were the predominant feature of his religious ritual. Here again it will be instructive to compare the practice of Christ and His disciples with the practice of the Essenes.

‘And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled (that is to say, unwashen) hands; for the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft (πυγμῇ), eat not...The Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders.... But he answered ... Ye hypocrites, laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men....’

‘Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth the man.... Let them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind....’

‘To eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man (Matt. xv. 1–20, Mark vii. 1–23).’

‘So they wash their whole body (ἀπολούονται τὸ σῶμα) in cold water; and after this purification (ἁγνείαν) ... being clean (καθαροὶ) they come to the refectory (to dine).... And when they have returned (from their day’s work) they sup in like manner (_B.J._ ii. 8. 5).’

‘After a year’s probation (the novice) is admitted to closer intercourse (πρόσεισιν ἔγγιον τῇ διαίτῃ), and the lustral waters in which he participates have a higher degree of purity (καὶ καθαρωτέρων τῶν πρὸς ἁγνείαν ὑδάτων μεταλαμβάνει, § 7).’

‘It is a custom to wash after it, as if polluted by it (§ 9).’

‘And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner (τοῦ ἀρίστου). And the Lord said unto him: Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter.... Ye fools ... behold all things are clean unto you (Luke xi. 38–41).’

‘Racked and dislocated, burnt and crushed, and subjected to every instrument of torture ... to make them eat strange food (τι τῶν ἀσυνήθων) ... they were not induced to submit (§ 10).’

‘Exercising themselves in ... divers lustrations (διαφόροις ἁγνείαις ... ἐμπαιδοτριβούμενοι, § 12).’

[Sidenote: Avoidance of strangers.]

Connected with this idea of external purity is the avoidance of contact with strangers, as persons who would communicate ceremonial defilement. And here too the Essene went much beyond the Pharisee. The Pharisee avoided Gentiles or aliens, or those whose profession or character placed them in the category of ‘sinners’; but the Essene shrunk even from the probationers and inferior grades of his own exclusive community. Here again we may profitably compare the sayings and doings of Christ with the principles of this sect.

‘And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with the publicans and sinners they said unto the disciples, Why eateth your Master with the publicans and the sinners....’ (Mark ii. 15 sq.; Matth. ix. 10 sq., Luke v. 30 sq.)

‘They say ... a friend of publicans and sinners (Matth. xi. 19).’

‘The Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them (Luke xv. 2).’

‘They all murmured saying that he was gone to be a guest with a man that is a sinner (Luke xix. 7).’

‘Behold, a woman in the city that was a sinner ... began to wash his feet with her tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head and kissed his feet.... Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself saying, This man, if he had been a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him; for she is a sinner (Luke vii. 37 sq.).’

‘And after this purification they assemble in a private room, where no person of a different belief (τῶν ἑτεροδόξων, i.e. not an Essene) is permitted to enter; and (so) being by themselves and clean (αὐτοὶ καθαροὶ) they present themselves at the refectory (δειπνητήριον), as if it were a sacred precinct (§ 5).’

‘And they are divided into four grades according to the time passed under the discipline: and the juniors are regarded as so far inferior to the seniors, that, if they touch them, the latter wash their bodies clean (ἀπολούεσθαι), as if they had come in contact with a foreigner (καθάπερ ἀλλοφύλῳ συμφυρέντας, § 10).’

In all these minute scruples relating to ceremonial observances, the denunciations which are hurled against the Pharisees in the Gospels would apply with tenfold force to the Essenes.