Chapter VI: Preface (5)

3. Such is the bare outline (and nothing more is needed for my immediate purpose) of the speculative views of Gnosticism. But it is obvious that these views must have exerted a powerful influence on the ethical systems of their advocates, and thus they would involve important practical consequences. If matter is the principle of evil, it is of infinite moment for a man to know how he can avoid its baneful influence and thus keep his higher nature unclogged and unsullied.

[Sidenote: Two opposite ethical rules.]

To this practical question two directly opposite answers were given[233]:

Footnote 233:

On this point see Clem. _Strom._ iii. 5 (p. 529) εἰς δύο διελόντες
πράγματα ἁπάσας τὰς αἱρέσεις ἀποκρινώμεθα αὐτοῖς· ἢ γάρ τοι ἀδιαφόρως
ζῆν διδάσκουσιν, ἢ τὸ ὑπέρτονον ἄγουσαι ἐγκράτειαν διὰ δυσσεβείας καὶ
φιλαπεχθημοσύνης καταγγέλλουσι, with the whole passage which follows.
As examples of the one extreme may be instanced the Carpocratians and
Cainites: of the other the Encratites.

[Sidenote: (i) Rigid asceticism.]

(i) On the one hand, it was contended that the desired end might best be attained by a rigorous abstinence. Thus communication with matter, if it could not be entirely avoided, might be reduced to a minimum. Its grosser defilements at all events would be escaped. The material part of man would be subdued and mortified, if it could not be annihilated; and the spirit, thus set free, would be sublimated, and rise to its proper level. Thus the ethics of Gnosticism pointed in the first instance to a strict _asceticism_.

[Sidenote: (ii) Unrestrained license.]

(ii) But obviously the results thus attained are very slight and inadequate. Matter is about us everywhere. We do but touch the skirts of the evil, when we endeavour to fence ourselves about by prohibitive ordinances, as for instance, when we enjoin a spare diet or forbid marriage. Some more comprehensive rule is wanted, which shall apply to every contingency and every moment of our lives. Arguing in this way, other Gnostic teachers arrived at an ethical rule directly opposed to the former. ‘Cultivate an entire indifference,’ they said, ‘to the world of sense. Do not give it a thought one way or the other, but follow your own impulses. The ascetic principle assigns a certain importance to matter. The ascetic fails in consequence to assert his own independence. The true rule of life is to treat matter as something alien to you, towards which you have no duties or obligations and which you can use or leave unused as you like[234].’ In this way the reaction from rigid asceticism led to the opposite extreme of unrestrained _licentiousness_, both alike springing from the same false conception of matter as the principle of evil.

Footnote 234:

See for instance the description of the Carpocratians in Iren. i. 25.
3 sq., ii. 32. 1 sq., Hippol. _Hær._ vii. 32, Epiphan. _Hær._ xxvii. 2
sq.; from which passages it appears that they justified their moral
profligacy on the principle that the highest perfection consists in
the most complete contempt of mundane things.

[Sidenote: Original independence of Gnosticism and its subsequent
connexion with Christianity.]

Gnosticism, as defined by these characteristic features, has obviously no necessary connexion with Christianity[235]. Christianity would naturally arouse it to unwonted activity, by leading men to dwell more earnestly on the nature and power of evil, and thus stimulating more systematic thought on the theological questions which had already arrested attention. After no long time Gnosticism would absorb into its system more or fewer Christian elements, or Christianity in some of its forms would receive a tinge from Gnosticism. But the thing itself had an independent root, and seems to have been prior in time. The probabilities of the case, and the scanty traditions of history, alike point to this independence of the two[236]. If so, it is a matter of little moment at what precise time the name ‘Gnostic’ was adopted, whether before or after contact with Christianity; for we are concerned only with the growth and direction of thought which the name represents[237].

Footnote 235:

It will be seen from the description in the text, that Gnosticism (as
I have defined it) presupposes only a belief in one God, the absolute
Being, as against the vulgar polytheism. All its _essential_ features,
as a speculative system, may be explained from this simple element of
belief, without any intervention of specially Christian or even Jewish
doctrine. Christianity added two new elements to it; (1) the idea of
_Redemption_, (2) the person of _Christ_. To explain the former, and
to find a place for the latter, henceforth become prominent questions
which press for solution; and Gnosticism in its several developments
undergoes various modifications in the endeavour to solve them.
Redemption must be set in some relation to the fundamental Gnostic
conception of the antagonism between God and matter; and Christ must
have some place found for Him in the fundamental Gnostic doctrine of
emanations.

If it be urged that there is no authority for the name ‘Gnostic’ as
applied to these pre-Christian theosophists, I am not concerned to
prove the contrary, as my main position is not affected thereby. The
term ‘Gnostic’ is here used, only because no other is so convenient,
or so appropriate. See note 239, p. 81.

Footnote 236:

This question will require closer investigation when I come to discuss
the genuineness of the Epistle to the Colossians. Meanwhile I content
myself with referring to Baur _Christliche Gnosis_ p. 29 sq. and
Lipsius _Gnosticismus_ p. 230 sq. Both these writers concede, and
indeed insist upon, the non-Christian basis of Gnosticism, at least so
far as I have maintained it in the text. Thus for instance Baur says
(p. 52), ‘Though Christian gnosis is the completion of gnosis, yet the
Christian element in gnosis is not so essential as that gnosis cannot
still be gnosis even without this element. But just as we can abstract
it from the Christian element, so can we also go still further and
regard even the Jewish as not strictly an essential element of
gnosis.’ In another work (_Die drei ersten Jahrhunderte_, p. 167, 1st
ed.) he expresses himself still more strongly to the same effect, but
the expressions are modified in the second edition.

Footnote 237:

We may perhaps gather from the notices which are preserved that,
though the substantive γνῶσις was used with more or less precision
even before contact with Christianity to designate the superior
illumination of these opinions, the adjective γνωστικοί was not
distinctly applied to those who maintained them till somewhat later.
Still it is possible that pre-Christian Gnostics already so designated
themselves. Hippolytus speaks of the Naassenes or Ophites as giving
themselves this name; _Hær._ v. 6 μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἐπεκάλεσαν ἑαυτοὺς
γνωστικοὺς, φάσκοντες μόνοι τὰ βάθη γινώσκειν; comp. §§ 8, 11. His
language seems to imply (though it is not explicit) that they were the
first to adopt the name. The Ophites were plainly among the earliest
Gnostic sects, as the heathen element is still predominant in their
teaching, and their Christianity seems to have been a later graft on
their pagan theosophy; but at what stage in their development they
adopted the name γνωστικοί does not appear. Irenæus (_Hær._ i. 25. 6)
speaks of the name as affected especially by the Carpocratians. For
the use of the substantive γνῶσις see 1 Cor. viii. 1, xiii. 2, 8, 1
Tim. vi. 20, and the note on Col. ii. 3: comp. Rev. ii. 24 ὄιτινες οὐκ
ἔγνωσαν τὰ βαθέα τοῦ Σατανᾶ, ὡς λέγουσιν (as explained by the passage
already quoted from Hippol. _Hær._ v. 6; see _Galatians_, p. 298, note
3).

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Its alliance with Judaism before Christianity.]

If then Gnosticism was not an offspring of Christianity, but a direction of religious speculation which existed independently, we are at liberty to entertain the question whether it did not form an alliance with Judaism, contemporaneously with or prior to its alliance with Christianity. There is at least no obstacle which bars such an investigation at the outset. If this should prove to be the case, then we have a combination which prepares the way for the otherwise strange phenomena presented in the Epistle to the Colossians.

[Sidenote: The three sects of the Jews.]

Those, who have sought analogies to the three Jewish sects among the philosophical schools of Greece and Rome, have compared the Sadducees to the Epicureans, the Pharisees to the Stoics, and the Essenes to the Pythagoreans. Like all historical parallels, this comparison is open to misapprehension: but, carefully guarded, the illustration is pertinent and instructive.

[Sidenote: Sadduceeism, purely negative.]

With the Sadducees we have no concern here. Whatever respect may be due to their attitude in the earlier stages of their history, at the Christian era at least they have ceased to deserve our sympathy; for their position has become mainly _negative_. They take their stand on denials—the denial of the existence of angels, the denial of the resurrection of the dead, the denial of a progressive development in the Jewish Church. In these negative tendencies, in the materialistic teaching of the sect, and in the moral consequences to which it led, a very rough resemblance to the Epicureans will appear[238].

Footnote 238:

The name _Epicureans_ seems to be applied to them even in the Talmud;
see Eisenmenger’s _Entdecktes Judenthum_ i. pp. 95, 694 sq.; comp.
Keim _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_ i. p. 281.

[Sidenote: Phariseeism and Essenism compared.]

The two _positive_ sects were the Pharisees and the Essenes. Both alike were strict observers of the ritual law; but, while the Pharisee was essentially _practical_, the tendency of the Essene was to _mysticism_; while the Pharisee was a man of the world, the Essene was a member of a brotherhood. In this respect the Stoic and the Pythagorean were the nearest counterparts which the history of Greek philosophy and social life could offer. These analogies indeed are suggested by Josephus himself[239].

Footnote 239:

For the Pharisees see Vit. 2 παραπλήσιός ἐστι τῇ παρ’ Ἕλλησι Στωϊκῇ
λεγομένῃ: for the Essenes, _Ant._ xv. 10. 4 διαίτῃ χρώμενον τῇ παρ’
Ἕλλησιν ὑπὸ Πυθαγόρου καταδεδειγμένῃ.

[Sidenote: Elusive features of Essenism.]

While the portrait of the Pharisee is distinctly traced and easily recognised, this is not the case with the Essene. The Essene is the great enigma of Hebrew history. Admired alike by Jew, by Heathen, and by Christian, he yet remains a dim vague outline, on which the highest subtlety of successive critics has been employed to supply a substantial form and an adequate colouring. An ascetic mystical dreamy recluse, he seems too far removed from the hard experience of life to be capable of realisation.

[Sidenote: A sufficiently distinct portrait of the sect attainable.]

And yet by careful use of the existing materials the portrait of this sect may be so far restored, as to establish with a reasonable amount of probability the point with which alone we are here concerned. It will appear from the delineations of ancient writers, more especially of Philo and Josephus, that the characteristic feature of Essenism was a particular direction of mystic speculation, involving a rigid asceticism as its practical consequence. Following the definition of Gnosticism which has been already given, we may not unfitly call this tendency _Gnostic_.

[Sidenote: Main features of Essenism.]

Having anticipated the results in this statement, I shall now endeavour to develope the main features of Essenism; and, while doing so, I will ask my readers to bear in mind the portrait of the Colossian heresy in St Paul, and to mark the resemblances, as the enquiry proceeds[240].

Footnote 240:

The really important contemporary sources of information respecting
the Essenes are JOSEPHUS, _Bell. Jud._ ii. 8. 2–13, _Ant._ xiii. 5. 9,
xviii. 1. 5, _Vit._ 2 (with notices of individual Essenes _Bell. Jud._
i. 3. 5, ii. 7. 3, ii. 20. 4, iii. 2. 1, _Ant._ xiii. 11. 2, xv. 10.
4, 5); and PHILO, _Quod omnis probus liber_ § 12 sq. (II. p. 457 sq.),
_Apol. pro Jud._ (II. p. 632 sq., a fragment quoted by Eusebius _Præp.
Evang._ viii. 11 ). The account of the Therapeutes by the latter
writer, _de Vita Contemplativa_ (II. p. 471 sq.), must also be
consulted, as describing a closely allied sect. To these should be
added the short notice of PLINY, _N.H._ v. 15. 17, as expressing the
views of a Roman writer. His account, we may conjecture, was taken
from Alexander Polyhistor, a contemporary of Sulla, whom he mentions
in his prefatory elenchus as one of his authorities for this 5th book,
and who wrote a work _On the Jews_ (Clem. Alex. _Strom._ i. 21, p.
396, Euseb. _Præp. Ev._ ix. 17). Significant mention of the Essenes is
found also in the Christian HEGESIPPUS (Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 22) and in
the heathen DION CHRYSOSTOM (Synesius _Dion_ 3, p. 39). EPIPHANIUS
(_Hær._ pp. 28 sq., 40 sq.) discusses two separate sects, which he
calls _Essenes_ and _Ossæans_ respectively. These are doubtless
different names of the same persons. His account is, as usual,
confused and inaccurate, but has a certain value. All other
authorities are secondary. HIPPOLYTUS, _Hær._ ix. 18–28, follows
Josephus (_Bell. Jud._ ii. 8. 2 sq.) almost exclusively. PORPHYRY also
(_de Abstinentia_, iv. II sq.) copies this same passage of Josephus,
with a few unimportant exceptions probably taken from a lost work by
the same author, πρὸς τοὺς Ἑλληνας, which he mentions by name.
EUSEBIUS (_Præp. Evang._ viii. II sq., ix. 3) contents himself with
quoting Philo and Porphyry. SOLINUS (_Polyh._ xxxv. 9 sq.) merely
abstracts Pliny. TALMUDICAL and RABBINICAL passages, supposed to
contain references to the Essenes, are collected by Frankel in the
articles mentioned in a later paragraph; but the allusions are most
uncertain (see the appendix to this chapter). The authorities for the
history of the Essenes are the subject of an article by W. Clemens in
the _Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol._ 1869, p. 328 sq.

The attack on the genuineness of Philo’s treatise _De Vita
Contemplativa_ made by Grätz (III. p. 463 sq.) has been met by Zeller
(_Philosophie_, III. ii. p. 255 sq.), whose refutation is complete.
The attack of the same writer (III. p. 464) on the genuineness of the
treatise _Quod omnis probus liber_> Zeller considers too frivolous to
need refuting (_ib._ p. 235). A refutation will be found in the
above-mentioned article of W. Clemens (p. 340 sq.).

Of modern writings relating to the Essenes the following may be
especially mentioned; BELLERMANN _Ueber Essäer u. Therapeuten_, Berlin
1821; GFRÖRER _Philo_ II. p. 299 sq.; DÄHNE _Ersch u. Gruber’s
Encyklopädie_ s.v.; FRANKEL _Zeitschrift für die religiösen Interessen
des Judenthums_ 1846 p. 441 sq., _Monatschrift für Geschichte u.
Wissenschaft des Judenthums_ 1853 p. 30 sq., 61 sq.; BÖTTGER_Ueber den
Orden der Essäer_, Dresden 1849; EWALD _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_
IV. p. 420 sq., VII. p. 153 sq.; RITSCHL _Entstehung der
Altkatholischen Kirche_ p. 179 sq. (ed. 2, 1857), and _Theologische
Jahrbücher_ 1855, p. 315 sq.; JOST _Geschichte des Judenthums_ I. p.
207 sq.; GRAETZ _Geschichte der Juden_ III. p. 79 sq., 463 sq. (ed. 2,
1863); HILGENFELD _Jüdische Apocalyptik_ p. 245 sq., and _Zeitschr. f.
Wiss. Theol._ X. p. 97 sq., XI. p. 343 sq., XIV. p. 30 sq.; WESTCOTT
_Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible_ s.v.; GINSBURG _The Essenes_, London
1864, and in _Kitto’s Cyclopædia_ s.v.; DERENBOURG _L’Histoire et la
Géographie de la Palestine_ p. 166 sq., 460 sq.; KEIM _Geschichte Jesu
von Nazara_ I. p. 282 sq.; HAUSRATH _Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte_
I. p. 133 sq.; LIPSIUS _Schenkel’s Bibel Lexikon_ s.v.; HERZFELD
_Geschichte des Volkes Israel_ II. 368 sq., 388 sq., 509 sq. (ed. 2,
1863); ZELLER _Philosophie der Griechen_ III. 2. p. 234 sq. (ed. 2,
1868); LANGEN _Judenthum in Palästina_ p. 190 sq.; LÖWY
_Kritisch-talmudisches Lexicon_ s.v. (Wien 1863); WEISS _Zur
Geschichte der jüdischen Tradition_ p. 120 sq. (Wien).

The Judaic element is especially prominent in the life and teaching of the sect. The Essene was exceptionally rigorous in his observance of the Mosaic ritual. In his strict abstinence [Sidenote: Observance of the Mosaic law.] from work on the sabbath he far surpassed all the other Jews. He would not light a fire, would not move a vessel, would not perform even the most ordinary functions of life[241]. The whole day was given up to religious exercises and to exposition of the Scriptures[242]. His respect for the law extended also to the law-giver. After God, the name of Moses was held in the highest reverence. He who blasphemed his name was punished with death[243]. In all these points the Essene was an exaggeration, almost a caricature, of the Pharisee.

Footnote 241:

_B.J._ ii. 8. 9 φυλάσσονται ... ταῖς ἑβδόμασιν ἔργων ἐφάπτεσθαι
διαφορώτατα Ἰουδαίων ἁπάντων· οὐ μόνον γὰρ τροφὰς ἑαυτοῖς πρὸ ἡμέρας
μιᾶς παρασκευάζουσιν, ὡς μηδὲ πῦρ ἐναύοιεν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ
σκεῦός τι μετακινῆσαι θαρῥοῦσιν κ.τ.λ. Hippolytus (_Hær._ ix. 25) adds
that some of them do not so much as leave their beds on this day.

Footnote 242:

Philo _Quod omn. prob. lib._ § 12. Of the Therapeutes see Philo _Vit.
Cont._ § 3, 4.

Footnote 243:

_B.J._ l.c. § 9 σέβας δὲ μέγιστον παρ’ αὐτοῖς μετὰ τὸν Θεὸν τὸ ὄνομα
τοῦ νομοθέτου, κἂν βλασφημήσῃ τις εἰς τοῦτον (i.e. τὸν νομοθέτην),
κολάζεσθαι θανάτῳ: comp. § 10.

[Sidenote: External elements superadded.]

So far the Essene has not departed from the principles of normal Judaism; but here the divergence begins. In three main points we trace the working of influences, which must have been derived from external sources.

[Sidenote: 1. Rigid asceticism, in respect to]

1. To the legalism of the Pharisee, the Essene added an asceticism, which was peculiarly his own, and which in many respects contradicted the tenets of the other sect. The honourable, and even exaggerated, estimate of marriage, which was characteristic of the Jew, and of the Pharisee as the typical Jew, found no favour with the Essene[244]. [Sidenote: marriage,]Marriage was to him an abomination. Those Essenes who lived together as members of an order, and in whom the principles of the sect were carried to their logical consequences, eschewed it altogether. To secure the continuance of their brotherhood they adopted children, whom they brought up in the doctrines and practices of the community. There were others however who took a different view. They accepted marriage, as necessary for the preservation of the race. Yet even with them it seems to have been regarded only as an inevitable evil. They fenced it off by stringent rules, demanding a three years’ probation and enjoining various purificatory rites[245]. The conception of marriage, as quickening and educating the affections and thus exalting and refining human life, was wholly foreign to their minds. Woman was a mere instrument of temptation in their eyes, deceitful, faithless, selfish, jealous, misled and misleading by her passions.

Footnote 244:

_B.J._ l.c. § 2 γάμου μὲν ὑπεροψία παρ’ αὐτοῖς ... τὰς τῶν γυναίκων
ἀσελγείας φυλασσόμενοι καὶ μηδεμίαν τηρεῖν πεπεισμένοι τὴν πρὸς ἕνα
πίστιν, _Ant._ xviii. 1. 5; Philo _Fragm._ p. 633 γάμον παρῃτήσαντο
μετὰ τοῦ διαφερόντως ἀσκεῖν ἐγκράτειαν· Ἐσσαίων γὰρ οὐδεις ἄγεται
γυναῖκα, δίοτι φίλαυτον ἡ γυνὴ καὶ ζηλότυπον οὐ μετρίως καὶ δεινὸν
ἀνδρὸς ἤθη παρασαλεῦσαι, with more to the same purpose. This
peculiarity astonished the heathen Pliny, _N.H._ v. 15, ‘gens sola et
in toto orbe præter ceteros mira, sine ulla femina, venere
abdicata.... In diem ex æquo convenarum turba renascitur large
frequentantibus.... Ita per sæculorum millia (incredibile dictu) gens
æterna est, in qua nemo nascitur. Tam fœcunda illis aliorum vitæ
pœnitentia est.’

Footnote 245:

_B.J._ l.c. § 13. Josephus speaks of these as ἕτερον Ἐσσηνῶν τάγμα, ὃ
δίαιταν μὲν καὶ ἔθη καὶ νόμιμα τοῖς ἄλλοις ὁμοφρονοῦν, διεστὸς δὲ τῇ
κατὰ γάμον δόξῃ. We may suppose that they corresponded to the third
order of a Benedictine or Franciscan brotherhood; so that, living in
the world, they would observe the rule up to a certain point, but
would not be bound by vows of celibacy or subject to the more rigorous
discipline of the sect.

[Sidenote: meats and drinks,]

But their ascetic tendencies did not stop here. The Pharisee was very careful to observe the distinction of meats lawful and unlawful, as laid down by the Mosaic code, and even rendered these ordinances vexatious by minute definitions of his own. But the Essene went far beyond him. He drank no wine, he did not touch animal food. His meal consisted of a piece of bread and a single mess of vegetables. Even this simple fare was prepared for him by special officers consecrated for the purpose, that it might be free from all contamination[246]. Nay, so stringent were the rules of the order on this point, that when an Essene was excommunicated, he often died of starvation, being bound by his oath not to take food prepared by defiled hands, and thus being reduced to eat the very grass of the field[247].

Footnote 246:

_B.J._ l.c. § 5; see Philo’s account of the Therapeutes, _Vit. Cont._
§ 4 σιτοῦνται δὲ πολυτελὲς οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ ἄρτον εὐτελῆ· καὶ ὄψον ἅλες,
οὓς οἱ ἀβροδιαιτότατοι παραρτύουσιν ὑσσώπῳ· ποτὸν ὕδωρ ναματιαῖον
αὐτοῖς ἐστιν; and again more to the same effect in § 9: and compare
the Essene story of St James in Hegesippus (Euseb. _H.E._ ii. 23)
οἶνον καὶ σίκερα οὐκ ἔπιεν, οὐδὲ ἔμψυχον ἔφαγε. Their abstention from
animal food accounts for Porphyry’s giving them so prominent a place
in his treatise: see Zeller, p. 243.

Footnote 247:

_B.J._ l.c. § 8.

[Sidenote: and oil for anointing.]

Again, in hot climates oil for anointing the body is almost a necessary of life. From this too the Essenes strictly abstained. Even if they were accidentally smeared, they were careful at once to wash themselves, holding the mere touch to be a contamination[248].

Footnote 248:

_B.J._ l.c. § 3 κηλῖδα δὲ ὑπολαμβάνουσι τὸ ἔλαιον κ.τ.λ.; Hegesippus
l.c. ἔλαιον οὐκ ἠλείψατο.

[Sidenote: Underlying principle of this asceticism.]

From these facts it seems clear that Essene abstinence was something more than the mere exaggeration of Pharisaic principles. The rigour of the Pharisee was based on his obligation of obedience to an absolute external law. The Essene introduced a new principle. He condemned in any form the gratification of the natural cravings, nor would he consent to regard it as moral or immoral only according to the motive which suggested it or the consequences which flowed from it. It was in itself an absolute evil. He sought to disengage himself, as far as possible, from the conditions of physical life. In short, in the asceticism of the Essene we seem to see the germ of that Gnostic dualism which regards matter as the principle, or at least the abode, of evil.

[Sidenote: 2. Speculative tenets.]

2. And, when we come to investigate the speculative tenets of the sect, we shall find that the Essenes have diverged appreciably from the common type of Jewish orthodoxy.

[Sidenote: (i) Tendency to sun-worship.]

(i) Attention was directed above to their respect for Moses and the Mosaic law, which they shared in common with the Pharisee. But there was another side to their theological teaching. Though our information is somewhat defective, still in the scanty notices which are preserved we find sufficient indications that they had absorbed some foreign elements of religious thought into their system. Thus at day-break they addressed certain prayers, which had been handed down from their forefathers, to the Sun, ‘as if entreating him to rise[249].’ They were careful also to conceal and bury all polluting substances, so as not ‘to insult the rays of the god[250].’ We cannot indeed suppose that they regarded the sun as more than a symbol of the unseen power who gives light and life; but their outward demonstrations of reverence were sufficiently prominent to attach to them, or to a sect derived from them, the epithet of ‘Sun-worshippers[251],’ and some connexion with the characteristic feature of Parsee devotion at once suggests itself. The practice at all events stands in strong contrast to the denunciations of worship paid to the ‘hosts of heaven’ in the Hebrew prophets.

Footnote 249:

_B.J._ l.c. § 5 πρός γε μὴν τὸ θεῖον ἰδίως εὐσεβεῖς· πρὶν γὰρ ἀνασχεῖν
τὸν ἥλιον οὐδὲν φθέγγονται τῶν βεβήλων, πατρίους δεώω τινας εἰς αὐτὸν
εὐχάς, ὥσπερ ἱκετεύοντες ἀνατεῖλαι. Compare what Philo says of the
Therapeutes, _Vit. Cont._ § 3 ἡλίου μὲν ἀνίσχοντος εὐημερίαν
αἰτούμενοι τὴν ὄντως εὐημερίαν, φωτὸς οὐρανίου την δίανοιαν αὐτῶν
ἀναπλησθῆναι, and _ib._ § 11. On the attempt of Frankel (_Zeitschr._
p. 458) to resolve this worship, which Josephus states to be offered
to the sun (εἰς αὐτόν), into the ordinary prayers of the Pharisaic Jew
at day-break, see the appendix to this chapter.

Footnote 250:

_B.J._ l.c. § 9 ὡς μὴ τὰς αὐγὰς ὑβρίζοιεν τοῦ θεοῦ. There can be no
doubt, I think, that by τοῦ θεοῦ is meant the ‘sun-god’; comp. Eur.
_Heracl._ 749 θεοῦ φαεσίμβροτοι αὐγαί, _Alc._ 722 τὸ φέγγος τοῦτο τοῦ
θεοῦ, Appian _Præf._ 9 δυομένου τοῦ θεοῦ, _Lib._ 113 τοῦ θεοῦ περὶ
δείλην ἑσπέραν ὄντος, _Civ._ iv. 79 δύνοντος ἄρτι τοῦ θεοῦ: comp.
Herod. ii. 24. Dr Ginsburg has obliterated this very important touch
by translating τὰς αὐγὰς τοῦ θεοῦ ‘the Divine rays’ (_Essenes_ p. 47).
It is a significant fact that Hippolytus (_Hær._ ix. 25) omits the
words τοῦ θεοῦ, evidently regarding them as a stumbling-block. How
Josephus expressed himself in the original Hebrew of the _Bellum
Judaicum_, it is vain to speculate: but the Greek translation was
authorised, if not made, by him.

Footnote 251:

Epiphan. _Hær._ xix. 2, xx. 3 Ὀσσηνοὶ δὲ μετέστησαν ἀπὸ Ἰουδαϊσμοῦ εἰς
τὴν τῶν Σαμψαίων αἵρεσιν, liii. 1, 2 Σαμψαῖοι γὰρ ἑρμηνεύονται
Ἡλιακοί, from the Hebrew שמש ‘the sun.’ The historical connexion of
the Sampsæans with the Essenes is evident from these passages: though
it is difficult to say what their precise relations to each other
were. See the appendix.

[Sidenote: (ii) Resurrection of the body denied.]

(ii) Nor again is it an insignificant fact that, while the Pharisee maintained the resurrection of the body as a cardinal article of his faith, the Essene restricted himself to a belief in the immortality of the soul. The soul, he maintained, was confined in the flesh, as in a prison-house. Only when disengaged from these fetters would it be truly free. Then it would soar aloft, rejoicing in its newly attained liberty[252]. This doctrine accords with the fundamental conception of the malignity of matter. To those who held this conception a resurrection of the body would be repulsive, as involving a perpetuation of evil.

Footnote 252:

_B.J._ l.c. § 11 καὶ γὰρ ἕρρωται παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἥδε ἡ δόξα, φθαρτὰ μὲν
εἶναι τὰ σώματα καὶ τὴν ὕλην οὐ μόνιμον αὐτοῖς, τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς ἀθανάτους
ἀεὶ διαμένειν ... ἐπειδὰν δὲ ἀνεθῶσι τῶν κατὰ σάρκα δεσμῶν, οἷα δὴ
μακρᾶς δουλείας ἀπηλλαγμένας, τότε χαίρειν καὶ μετεῶρους φέρεσθαι
κ.τ.λ. To this doctrine the teaching of the Pharisees stands in direct
contrast; _ib._ § 13: comp. also _Ant._ xviii. 1. 3, 5.

Nothing can be more explicit than the language of Josephus. On the
other hand Hippolytus (_Hær._ ix. 27) says of them ὁμολογοῦσι γὰρ καὶ
τὴν σάρκα ἀναστήσεσθαι καὶ ἔσεσθαι ἀθάνατον ὃν τρόπον ἤδη ἀθάνατός
ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή κ.τ.λ.; but his authority is worthless on this point, as
he can have had no personal knowledge of the facts: see Zeller p. 251,
note 2. Hilgenfeld takes a different view; _Zeitschr._ XIV. p. 49.

[Sidenote: (iii) Prohibition of sacrifices.]

(iii) But they also separated themselves from the religious belief of the orthodox Jew in another respect, which would provoke more notice. While they sent gifts to the temple at Jerusalem, they refused to offer sacrifices there[253]. It would appear that the slaughter of animals was altogether forbidden by their creed[254]. It is certain that they were afraid of contracting some ceremonial impurity by offering victims in the temple. Meanwhile they had sacrifices, bloodless sacrifices, of their own. They regarded their simple meals with their accompanying prayers and thanksgiving, not only as devotional but even as sacrificial rites. Those who prepared and presided over these meals were their consecrated priests[255].

Footnote 253:

_Ant._ xviii. 1. 5 εἰς δὲ τὸ ἱερὸν ἀναθήματά τε στέλλοντες θυσίας οὐκ
ἐπιτελοῦσι διαφορότητι ἁγνειῶν, ἃς νομίζοιεν, καὶ δι’ αὐτὸ εἰργόμενοι
τοῦ κοινοῦ τεμενίσματος ἐφ’ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσι. So Philo
_Quod omn. prob. lib._ § 12 describes them as οὐ ζῷα καταθύοντες ἀλλ’
ἱεροπρεπεῖς τὰς ἑαυτῶν διανοίας κατασκευάζειν ἀξιοῦντες.

Footnote 254:

The following considerations show that their abstention should
probably be explained in this way: (1) Though the language of Josephus
may be ambiguous, that of Philo is unequivocal on this point; (2)
Their abstention from the temple-sacrifices cannot be considered apart
from the fact that they ate no animal food: see above p. 86, note 246.
(3) The Christianized Essenes, or Ebionites, though strong Judaizers
in many respects, yet distinctly protested against the sacrifice of
animals; see Clem. _Hom._ iii. 45, 52, and comp. Ritschl p. 224. On
this subject see also Zeller p. 242 sq., and the appendix to this
chapter.

Footnote 255:

_Ant._ xviii. 1. 5 ἱερεῖς τε [χειροτονοῦσι] διὰ ποίησιν σίτου τε καὶ
βρωμάτων, _B.J._ ii. 8. 5 προκατεύχεται δὲ ὁ ἱερεὺς τῆς τροφῆς κ.τ.λ.;
see Ritschl p. 181.

[Sidenote: (iv) Esoteric doctrine of angels.]

(iv) In what other respects they may have departed from, or added to, the normal creed of Judaism, we do not know. But it is expressly stated that, when a novice after passing through the probationary stages was admitted to the full privileges of the order, the oath of admission bound him ‘to conceal nothing from the members of the sect, and to report nothing concerning them to others, even though threatened with death; not to communicate any of their doctrines to anyone otherwise than as he himself had received them; but to abstain from robbery, and in like manner to guard carefully the books of their sect, and _the names of the angels_[256].’ It may be reasonably supposed that more lurks under this last expression than meets the ear. This esoteric doctrine, relating to angelic beings, may have been another link which attached Essenism to the religion of Zoroaster[257]. At all events we seem to be justified in connecting it with the self-imposed service and worshipping of angels at Colossæ: and we may well suspect that we have here a germ which was developed into the Gnostic doctrine of æons or emanations.

Footnote 256:

_B.J._ l.c. § 7 ὅρκους αὐτοῖς ὄμνυσι φρικώδεις ... μήτε κρύψειν τι
τοὺς αἱρετιστὰς μήτε ἑτέροις αὐτῶν τι μηνύσειν, καὶ ἂν μέχρι θανάτου
τὶς βιάζηται. πρὸς τούτοις ὀμνύουσι μηδενὶ μὲν μεταδοῦναι τῶν δογμάτων
ἑτέρως ἢ ὡς αὐτὸς μετέλαβεν· ἀφέξεσθαι δὲ λῃστείας καὶ συντηρήσειν
ὁμοίως τὰ τε τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν βιβλία καὶ τὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων ὀνόματα.
With this notice should be compared the Ebionite διαμαρτυρία, or
protest of initiation, prefixed to the _Clementine Homilies_, which
shows how closely the Christian Essenes followed the practice of their
Jewish predecessors in this respect. See Zeller p. 254.

Footnote 257:

See below, in the appendix.

[Sidenote: (v) Speculations on God and Creation.]

(v) If so, it is not unconnected with another notice relating to Essene peculiarities. The Gnostic doctrine of intermediate beings between God and the world, as we have seen, was intimately connected with speculations respecting creation. Now we are specially informed that the Essenes, while leaving physical studies in general to speculative idlers (μετεωρολέσχαις), as being beyond the reach of human nature, yet excepted from their general condemnation that philosophy which treats of the existence of God and the generation of the universe[258].

Footnote 258:

Philo _Omn. prob. lib._ § 12 (p. 458) τὸ δὲ φυσικὸν ὡς μεῖζον ἢ κατὰ
ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν μετεωρολέσχαις ἀπολιπόντες, πλὴν ὅσον αὐτοῦ περὶ
ὑπάρξεως Θεοῦ καὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς γενέσεως φιλοσοφεῖται.

[Sidenote: (vi) Magical charms.]

(vi) Mention has been made incidentally of certain secret books peculiar to the sect. The existence of such an apocryphal literature was a sure token of some abnormal development in doctrine[259]. In the passage quoted it is mentioned in relation to some form of angelology. Elsewhere their skill in prediction, for which they were especially famous, is connected with the perusal of certain ‘sacred books,’ which however are not described[260]. But more especially, we are told that the Essenes studied with extraordinary diligence the writings of the ancients, selecting those especially which could be turned to profit for soul and body, and that from these they learnt the qualities of roots and the properties of stones[261]. This expression, as illustrated by other notices, points clearly to the study of occult sciences, and recalls the alliance with the practice of magical arts, which was a distinguishing feature of Gnosticism, and is condemned by Christian teachers even in the heresies of the Apostolic age.

Footnote 259:

The word _Apocrypha_ was used originally to designate the secret books
which contained the esoteric doctrine of a sect. The secondary sense
‘spurious’ was derived from the general character of these writings,
which were heretical, generally Gnostic, forgeries. See Prof.
Plumptre’s article _Apocrypha_ in Smith’s _Dictionary of the Bible_,
and the note on ἀπόκρυφοι below, ii. 3.

Footnote 260:

_B.J._ ii. 8. 12 εἰσὶ δὲ ἐν αὐτοῖς οἳ καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα προγινώσκειν
ὑπισχνοῦνται, βίβλοις ἱεραῖς καὶ διαφόροις ἁγνείαις καὶ προφητῶν
ἀποφθέγμασιν ἐμπαιδοτριβούμενοι· σπάνιον δὲ, εἴποτε, ἐν ταῖς
προαγορεύσεσιν ἀστοχήσουσιν. Dr Ginsburg (p. 49) translates βίβλοις
ἱεραῖς ‘_the_ sacred Scripture,’ and προφητῶν ἀποφθέγμασιν ‘_the_
sayings of _the_ prophets’; but as the definite articles are wanting,
the expressions cannot be so rendered, nor does there seem to be any
reference to the Canonical writings.

We learn from an anecdote in _Ant._ xiii. II. 2, that the teachers of
this sect communicated the art of prediction to their disciples by
instruction. We may therefore conjecture that with the Essenes this
acquisition was connected with magic or astrology. At all events it is
not treated as a direct inspiration.

Footnote 261:

_B.J._ ii. 8. 6 σπουδάζουσι δὲ ἐκτόπως περὶ τὰ τῶν παλαιῶν
συγγράμματα, μάλιστα τὰ πρὸς ὠφέλειαν ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἐκλέγοντες·
ἔνθεν αὐτοῖς πρὸς θεραπείαν παθῶν ῥίζαι τε ἀλεξιτήριοι καὶ λίθων
ἰδιότητες ἀνερευνῶνται. This passage might seem at first sight to
refer simply to the _medicinal_ qualities of vegetable and mineral
substances; but a comparison with another notice in Josephus invests
it with a different meaning. In _Ant._ viii. 2. 5 he states that
Solomon, having received by divine inspiration the art of defeating
demons for the advantage and healing of man (εἰς ὠφέλειαν καὶ
θεραπείαν τοῖς ἀνθρῶποις), composed and left behind him charms
(ἐπῳδάς) by which diseases were allayed, and diverse kinds of
exorcisms (τρόπους ἐξορκώσεων) by which demons were cast out. ‘This
mode of healing,’ he adds, ‘is very powerful even to the present day’;
and he then relates how, as he was credibly informed (ἱστόρησα), one
of his countrymen, Eleazar by name, had healed several persons
possessed by demons in the presence of Vespasian and his sons and a
number of officers and common soldiers. This he did by applying to the
nose of the possessed his ring, which had concealed in it one of the
_roots_ which Solomon had directed to be used, and thus drawing out
the demon through the nostrils of the person smelling it. At the same
time he adjured the evil spirit not to return, ‘making mention of
Solomon and repeating the charms composed by him.’ On one occasion
this Eleazar gave ocular proof that the demon was exorcized; and thus,
adds Josephus, σαφὴς ἡ Σολομῶνος καθίστατο σύνεσις καὶ σοφία. On these
books relating to the occult arts and ascribed to Solomon see
Fabricius _Cod. Pseud. Vet. Test._ I. p. 1036 sq., where many curious
notices are gathered together. Comp. especially Origen, _In Matth.
Comm._ xxxv. § 110 (III. p. 910), Pseudo-Just. _Quæst._ 55.

This interpretation explains all the expressions in the passage. The
λίθων ἰδιότητες naturally points to the use of charms or amulets, as
may be seen e.g. from the treatise, Damigeron _de Lapidibus_, printed
in the _Spicil. Solemn._ III. p. 324 sq.: comp. King _Antique Gems_
Sect. IV, _Gnostics and their Remains_. The reference to ‘the books of
the ancients’ thus finds an adequate explanation. On the other hand
the only expression which seemed to militate against this view,
ἀλεξιτήριοι ῥίζαι, is justified by the story in the _Antiquities_. It
should be added also that Hippolytus (_Hær._ ix. 22) paraphrases the
language of Josephus so as to give it this sense; πάνυ δὲ
_περιέργως_ ἔχουσι περὶ βοτάνας καὶ λίθους, _περιεργότεροι_
ὄντες πρὸς τὰς τούτων ἐνεργείας, φάσκοντες μὴ μάτην ταῦτα γενονέναι.
The sense which περίεργος (‘curiosus’) bears in Acts xix. 19 and
elsewhere, referring to magical arts, illustrates its use here.

Thus these Essenes were dealers in charms, rather than physicians. And
yet it is quite possible that along with this practice of the occult
sciences they studied the healing art in its nobler forms. The works
of Alexander of Tralles, an eminent ancient physician, constantly
recommend the use of such charms, of which some obviously come from a
Jewish source and not improbably may have been taken from these
Solomonian books to which Josephus refers. A number of passages from
this and other writers, specifying charms of various kinds, are given
in Becker and Marquardt _Rom. Alterth._ IV. p. 116 sq. See also
Spencer’s note on Orig. _c. Cels._ p. 17 sq.

[Sidenote: 3. Exclusive spirit of Essenism.]

3. But the notice to which I have just alluded suggests a broader affinity with Gnosticism. Not only did the theological speculations of the Essenes take a Gnostic turn, but they guarded their peculiar tenets with Gnostic reserve. They too had their esoteric doctrine which they looked upon as the exclusive possession of the privileged few; their ‘mysteries’ which it was a grievous offence to communicate to the uninitiated. This doctrine was contained, as we have seen, in an apocryphal literature. Their whole organisation was arranged so as to prevent the divulgence of its secrets to those without. The long period of noviciate, the careful rites of initiation, the distinction of the several orders[262] in the community, the solemn oaths by which they bound their members, were so many safeguards against a betrayal of this precious deposit, which they held to be restricted to the inmost circle of the brotherhood.

Footnote 262:

See especially _B.J._ ii. 8. 7, 10.

[Sidenote: The three notes of Gnosticism found in the Essenes.]

In selecting these details I have not attempted to give a finished portrait of Essenism. From this point of view the delineation would be imperfect and misleading: for I have left out of sight the nobler features of the sect, their courageous endurance, their simple piety, their brotherly love. My object was solely to call attention to those features which distinguish it from the normal type of Judaism, and seem to justify the attribution of Gnostic influences. And here it has been seen that the three characteristics, which were singled out above as distinctive of Gnosticism, reappear in the Essenes; though it has been convenient to consider them in the reversed order. This Jewish sect exhibits the same exclusiveness in the communication of its doctrines. Its theological speculations take the same direction, dwelling on the mysteries of creation, regarding matter as the abode of evil, and postulating certain intermediate spiritual agencies as necessary links of communication between heaven and earth. And lastly, its speculative opinions involve the same ethical conclusions, and lead in like manner to a rigid asceticism. If the notices relating to these points do not always explain themselves, yet read in the light of the heresies of the Apostolic age and in that of subsequent Judæo-Gnostic Christianity, their bearing seems to be distinct enough; so that we should not be far wrong, if we were to designate Essenism as Gnostic Judaism[263].

Footnote 263:

I have said nothing of the Cabbala, as a development of Jewish thought
illustrating the Colossian heresy: because the books containing the
Cabbalistic speculations are comparatively recent, and if they contain
ancient elements, it seems impossible to separate these from later
additions or to assign to them even an approximate date. The
Cabbalistic doctrine however will serve to show to what extent Judaism
may be developed in the direction of speculative mysticism.

[Sidenote: How widely were the Essenes dispersed?]

But the Essenes of whom historical notices are preserved were inhabitants of the Holy Land. Their monasteries were situated on the shores of the Dead Sea. We are told indeed, that the sect was not confined to any one place, and that members of the order were found in great numbers in divers cities and villages[264]. But Judæa in one notice, Palestine and Syria in another, are especially named as the localities of the Essene settlements[265]. Have we any reason to suppose that they were represented among the Jews of the Dispersion? In Egypt indeed we find ourselves confronted with a similar ascetic sect, the Therapeutes, who may perhaps have had an independent origin, but who nevertheless exhibit substantially the same type of Jewish thought and practice[266]. But the Dispersion of Egypt, it may be argued, was exceptional; and we might expect to find here organisations and developments of Judaism hardly less marked and various than in the mother country. [Sidenote: Do they appear in Asia Minor?] What ground have we for assuming the existence of this type in Asia Minor? Do we meet with any traces of it in the cities of the Lycus, or in proconsular Asia generally, which would justify the opinion that it might make its influence felt in the Christian communities of that district?

Footnote 264:

Philo _Fragm._ p. 632 οἰκοῦσι δὲ πολλὰς μὲν πόλεις τῆς Ἰουδαίας,
πολλὰς δὲ κώμας, καὶ μεγάλους καὶ πολυανθρώπους ὁμίλους; Joseph.
_B.J._ ii. 8. 4 μία δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτῶν πόλις, ἀλλ’ ἐν ἑκάστῃ
κατοικοῦσι πολλοί. On the notices of the settlements and dispersion of
the Essenes see Zeller p. 239.

Footnote 265:

Philo names _Judæa_ in _Fragm._ p. 632; _Palestine_ and _Syria_ in
_Quod omn. prob. lib._ 12 p. 457. Their chief settlements were in the
neighbourhood of the Dead Sea. This fact is mentioned by the heathen
writers Pliny (_N.H._ v. 15) and Dion Chrysostom (Synesius _Dio_ 3).
The name of the ‘Essene gate’ at Jerusalem (_B.J._ v. 4. 2) seems to
point to some establishment of the order close to the walls of that
city.

Footnote 266:

They are only known to us from Philo’s treatise _de Vita
Contemplativa_. Their settlements were on the shores of the Mareotic
lake near Alexandria. Unlike the Essenes, they were not gathered
together in convents as members of a fraternity, but lived apart as
anchorites, though in the same neighbourhood. In other respects their
tenets and practices are very similar to those of the Essenes.

[Sidenote: How the term _Essene_ is to be understood.]

Now it has been shown that the colonies of the Jews in this neighbourhood were populous and influential[267]; and it might be argued with great probability that among these large numbers Essene Judaism could not be unrepresented. But indeed throughout this investigation, when I speak of the Judaism in the Colossian Church as Essene, I do not assume a precise identity of origin, but only an essential affinity of type, with the Essenes of the mother country. As a matter of history, it may or may not have sprung from the colonies on the shores of the Dead Sea; but as this can neither be proved nor disproved, so also it is immaterial to my main [Sidenote: Probabilities of the case.] purpose. All along its frontier, wherever Judaism became enamoured of and was wedded to Oriental mysticism, the same union would produce substantially the same results. In a country where Phrygia, Persia, Syria, all in turn had moulded religious thought, it would be strange indeed if Judaism entirely escaped these influences. Nor, as a matter of fact, are indications wanting to show that it was not unaffected [Sidenote: Direct indications.] by them. If the traces are few, they are at least as numerous and as clear as with our defective information on the whole subject we have any right to expect in this particular instance.

Footnote 267:

See above, p. 19 sq.

[Sidenote: St Paul at Ephesus A.D. 54–57.]

When St Paul visits Ephesus, he comes in contact with certain strolling Jews, exorcists, who attempt to cast out evil spirits[268]. Connecting this fact with the notices of Josephus, from which we infer that exorcisms of this kind were especially [Sidenote: Exorcisms and] practised by the Essenes[269], we seem to have an indication of their presence in the capital of proconsular Asia. If so, it is a significant fact that in their exorcisms they employed the name of our Lord: for then we must regard this as the earliest notice of those overtures of alliance on the part of Essenism, which involved such important consequences in the subsequent history of the Church[270]. It is also worth observing, that the next incident in St Luke’s narrative is the burning [Sidenote: magical books.] of their magical books by those whom St Paul converted on this occasion[271]. As Jews are especially mentioned among these converts, and as books of charms are ascribed to the Essenes by Josephus, the two incidents, standing in this close connexion, throw great light on the type of Judaism which thus appears at Ephesus[272].

Footnote 268:

Acts xix. 13 τῶν περιερχομένων Ἰουδαίων ἐξορκιστῶν.

Footnote 269:

See above p. 91, note 261.

Footnote 270:

On the later contact of Essenism with Christianity, see the appendix,
and _Galatians_ p. 310 sq.

Footnote 271:

There is doubtless a reference to the charms called Ἐφέσια γράμματα in
this passage: see Wetstein ad loc., and the references in Becker and
Marquardt _Röm. Alterth._ IV. p. 123 sq. But this supposition does not
exclude the Jews from a share in these magical arts, while the context
points to some such participation.

Footnote 272:

I can only regard it as an accidental coincidence that the epulones of
the Ephesian Artemis were called _Essenes_, Pausan. viii. 13. 1 τοὺς
τῇ Ἀρτέμιδι ἱστιάτορας τῇ Ἐφεσίᾳ γινομένους, καλουμένους δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν
πολιτῶν Ἐσσῆνας: see Guhl _Ephesiaca_ 106 sq. The _Etymol. Magn._ has
Ἐσσήν: ὁ βασιλεὺς κατὰ Ἐφεσίους, and adds several absurd derivations
of the word. In the sense of ‘a king’ it is used by Callimachus _Hymn.
Jov. 66_ οὔ σε θεῶν ἐσσῆνα πάλιν θέσαν. It is probably not a Greek
word, as other terms connected with the worship of the Ephesian
Artemis (e.g. μεγάβυζος, a Persian word) point to an oriental or at
least a non-Greek origin; and some have derived it from the Aramaic
הסין _chasin_ ‘strong’ or ‘powerful.’ But there is no sufficient
ground for connecting it directly with the name of the sect Ἐσσηνοί or
Ἐσσαῖοι, as some writers are disposed to do (e.g. Spanheim on
_Callim._ l.c., Creuzer _Symbolik_ IV. pp. 347, 349); though this view
is favoured by the fact that certain ascetic practices were enjoined
on these pagan ‘Essenes.’

[Sidenote: Sibylline Oracle A.D. 80.]

Somewhat later we have another notice which bears in the same direction. The Sibylline Oracle, which forms the fourth book in the existing collection, is discovered by internal evidence to have been written about A.D. 80[273]. It is plainly a product of Judaism, but its Judaism does not belong to the normal Pharisaic type. With Essenism it rejects sacrifices, even regarding the shedding of blood as a pollution[274], and with Essenism also it inculcates the duty of frequent washings[275]. Yet from other indications we are led to the conclusion, that this poem was not written in the interests of Essenism properly so called, but represents some allied though independent development of Judaism. In some respects at all events its language seems quite inconsistent with the purer type of Essenism[276]. But its general tendency is clear: and of its locality there can hardly be a doubt. The affairs of Asia Minor occupy a disproportionate space in the poet’s description of the past and vision of the future. The cities of the Mæander and its neighbourhood, among these Laodicea, are mentioned with emphasis[277].

Footnote 273:

Its date is fixed by the following allusions. The temple at Jerusalem
has been destroyed by Titus (vv. 122 sq.), and the cities of Campania
have been overwhelmed in fire and ashes (vv. 127 sq.). Nero has
disappeared and his disappearance has been followed by bloody contests
in Rome (vv. 116 sq.); but his return is still expected (vv. 134 sq.).

Footnote 274:

See vv. 27–30 οἳ νηοὺς μὲν ἅπαντας ἀποστρέψουσιν ἰδόντες, καὶ βωμοὺς,
εἰκαῖα λίθων ἱδρύματα κωφῶν ἅιμασιν ἐμψύχων μεμιασμένα καὶ θυσίῃσι
τετραπόδων κ.τ.λ. In an earlier passage vv. 8 sq. it is said of God,
οὔτε γὰρ οἴκον ἔχει ναῷ λίθον ἱδρυθέντα κωφότατον νωδόν τε, βροτῶν
πολυαλγέα λώβην.

Footnote 275:

ver. 160 ἐν ποταμοῖς λούσασθε ὅλον δέμας αἐνάοισι. Another point of
contact with the Essenes is the great stress on prayers before meals,
ver. 26 εὐλογέοντες πρὶν πιέειν φαγέειν τε. Ewald (_Sibyll. Bücher_ p.
46) points also to the prominence of the words εὐσεβεῖν, εὐσεβής,
εὐσεβία (vv. 26, 35, 42, 45, 133, 148, 151, 162, 165, 181, 183) to
designate the elect of God, as tending in the same direction. The
force of this latter argument will depend mainly on the derivation
which is given to the name _Essene_. See the appendix.

Footnote 276:

Thus for instance, Ewald (l.c., p. 47) points to the tacit approval of
marriage in ver. 33. I hardly think however that this passage, which
merely condemns adultery, can be taken to imply so much. More
irreconcilable with pure Essenism is the belief in the resurrection of
the body and the future life on earth, which is maintained in vv. 176
sq.; though Hilgenfeld (_Zeitschr._ XIV. p. 49) does not recognise the
difficulty. See above p. 88. This Sibylline writer was perhaps rather
a Hemerobaptist than an Essene. On the relation of the Hemerobaptists
and Essenes see the appendix. Alexandre, _Orac. Sibyll._ (II. p. 323),
says of this Sibylline Oracle, ‘Ipse liber haud dubie Christianus
est,’ but there is nothing distinctly Christian in its teaching.

Footnote 277:

vv. 106 sq., 145 sq.; see above p. 40, note 131. It begins κλῦθι λεὼς
Ἀσίης μεγαλαυχέος Εὐρώπης τε.

[Sidenote: Phrygia and Asia congenial to this type of religion.]

And certainly the moral and intellectual atmosphere would not be unfavourable to the growth of such a plant. The same district, which in speculative philosophy had produced a Thales and a Heraclitus[278], had developed in popular religion the worship of the Phrygian Cybele and Sabazius and of the Ephesian Artemis[279]. Cosmological speculation, mystic theosophy, religious fanaticism, all had their home here. Associated with Judaism or with Christianity the natural temperament and the intellectual bias of the people would take a new direction; but the old type would not be altogether obliterated. Phrygia reared the hybrid monstrosities of Ophitism[280]. She was the mother of Montanist enthusiasm[281], and the foster-mother of Novatian rigorism[282]. The syncretist, the mystic, the devotee, the puritan, would find a congenial climate in these regions of Asia Minor.

Footnote 278:

The exceptional activity of the forces of nature in these districts of
Asia Minor may have directed the speculations of the Ionic school
towards physics, and more especially towards cosmogony. In Heraclitus
there is also a strong mystical element. But besides such broader
affinities, I venture to call attention to special dicta of the two
philosophers mentioned in the text, which curiously recall the tenets
of the Judæo-Gnostic teachers. Thales declared (Diog. Laert. i. 27)
τὸν κόσμον ἔμψυχον καὶ δαιμόνων πλήρη, or, as reported by Aristotle
(_de An._ i. 5, p. 411), πάντα πλήρη θεῶν εἰ^ναι. In a recorded
saying of Heraclitus we have the very language of a Gnostic teacher;
Clem. Alex. _Strom._ v. 13, p. 699, _τὰ μὲν τῆς γνώσιος βάθη
κρύπτειν_ ἀπιστίη ἀγαθή, καθ’ Ἡηράκλειτον· ἀπιστίη γὰρ διαφυγγάνει
τὸ μὴ γινώσκεσθαι. See above pp. 77, 92.

Footnote 279:

For the characteristic features of Phrygian religious worship see
Steiger _Kolosser_ p. 70 sq.

Footnote 280:

The prominence, which the Phrygian mysteries and Phrygian rites held
in the syncretism of the Ophites, is clear from the account of
Hippolytus _Hær._ v. 7 sq. Indeed Phrygia appears to have been the
proper home of Ophitism. Yet the admixture of Judaic elements is not
less obvious, as their name _Naassene_, derived from the Hebrew word
for a serpent, shows.

Footnote 281:

The name, by which the Montanists were commonly known in the early
ages, was the sect of the ‘Phrygians’; Clem. _Strom._ vii. 17, p. 900
αἱ δὲ [τῶν αἱρεσέων] ἀπὸ ἔθνους [προσαγορεύονται], ὡς ἡ τῶν Φρυγῶν
(comp. Eus. _H.E._ iv. 27, v. 16, Hipp. _Hær._ viii. 19, x. 25). From
οἱ (or ἡ) κατὰ Φρυγάς (Eus. _H.E._ ii. 25, v. 16, 18, vi. 20) comes
the solœcistic Latin name _Cataphryges_.

Footnote 282:

Socrates (iv. 28) accounts for the spread of Novatianism in Phrygia by
the σωφροσύνη of the Phrygian temper. If so, it is a striking
testimony to the power of Christianity, that under its influence the
religious enthusiasm of the Phrygians should have taken this
direction, and that they should have exchanged the fanatical orgiasm
of their heathen worship for the rigid puritanism of the Novatianist.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Previous results summed up.]