Chapter VII: Preface (6)

It has thus been shown _first_, that Essene Judaism was Gnostic in its character; and _secondly_, that this type of Jewish thought and practice had established itself in the Apostolic age in those parts of Asia Minor with which we are more directly concerned. It now remains to examine the heresy of the [Sidenote: Is the Colossian heresy Gnostic?] Colossian Church more nearly, and to see whether it deserves the name, which provisionally was given to it, of Gnostic Judaism. Its Judaism all will allow. Its claim to be regarded as Gnostic will require a closer scrutiny. And in conducting [Sidenote: Three notes of Gnosticism.] this examination, it will be convenient to take the three notes of Gnosticism which have been already laid down, and to enquire how far it satisfies these tests.

[Sidenote: 1. Intellectual exclusiveness.]

1. It has been pointed out that Gnosticism strove to establish, or rather to preserve, an _intellectual oligarchy_ in religion. It had its hidden wisdom, its exclusive mysteries, its privileged class.

Now I think it will be evident, that St Paul in this epistle [Sidenote: St Paul contends for the universality of the Gospel,] feels himself challenged to contend for the _universality_ of the Gospel. This indeed is a characteristic feature of the Apostle’s teaching at all times, and holds an equally prominent place in the epistles of an earlier date. But the point to be observed is, that the Apostle, in maintaining this doctrine, has changed the mode of his defence; and this fact suggests that there has been a change in the direction of the attack. It is no longer against national exclusiveness, but against intellectual exclusiveness, that he contends. His adversaries do not now plead ceremonial restrictions, or at least do not plead these alone: but they erect an artificial barrier of spiritual privilege, even more fatal to the universal claims of the Gospel, because more specious and more insidious. It is not now against Jew as such, but against the Jew become Gnostic, that he fights the battle of liberty. In other words; it is not against Christian Pharisaism but against Christian Essenism that he defends his position. Only in the light of such an antagonism can we understand the emphatic iteration with which he claims to ‘warn _every_ man and teach _every_ man in _every_ wisdom, that he may present [Sidenote: against the pretentions of an aristocracy of intellect.] _every_ man perfect in Christ Jesus[283].’ It will be remembered that ‘wisdom’ in Gnostic teaching was the exclusive possession of the few; it will not be forgotten that ‘perfection’ was the term especially applied in their language to this privileged minority, as contradistinguished from the common herd of believers; and thus it will be readily understood why St Paul should go on to say that this universality of the Gospel is the one object of his contention, to which all the energies of his life are directed, and having done so, should express his intense anxiety for the Churches of Colossæ and the neighbourhood, lest they should be led astray by a spurious wisdom to desert the true knowledge[284]. This danger also will enable us to appreciate a novel feature in another passage of the epistle. While dwelling on the obliteration of all distinctions in Christ, he repeats his earlier contrasts, ‘Greek and Jew,’ ‘circumcision and uncircumcision,’ ‘bondslave and free’; but to these he adds new words which at once give a wider scope and a more immediate application to the lesson. In Christ the existence of ‘barbarian’ and even ‘Scythian,’ the lowest type of barbarian, is extinguished[285]. As culture, civilisation, philosophy, knowledge, are no conditions of acceptance, so neither is their absence any disqualification in the believer. The aristocracy of intellectual discernment, which Gnosticism upheld in religion, is abhorrent to the first principles of the Gospel.

Footnote 283:

i. 28 νουθετούντες _πάντα_ ἄνθρωπον καὶ διδάσκοντες _πάντα_
ἄνθρωπον ἐν _πάσῃ_ σοφίᾳ ἵνα παραστήσωμεν _πάντα_ ἄνθρωπον
_τέλειον_ ἐν Χριστῷ κ.τ.λ. The reiteration has offended the
scribes; and the first πάντα ἄνθρωπον is omitted in some copies, the
second in others. For τέλειον see the note on the passage.

Footnote 284:

The connexion of the sentences should be carefully observed. After the
passage quoted in the last note comes the asseveration that this is
the one object of the Apostle’s preaching (i. 29) εἰς ὃ καὶ κοπιῶ
κ.τ.λ.; then the expression of concern on behalf of the Colossians
(ii. 1) θέλω γὰρ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα ἔχω _ὑπὲρ_ ὑμῶν
κ.τ.λ.; then the desire that they may be brought (ii. 2) εἰς
_πᾶν_ πλοῦτος τῆς _πληροφορίας_ τῆς συνέσεως, εἰς
_ἐπίγνωσιν_ τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ; then the definition of this
mystery (ii. 2, 3), Χριστοῦ ἐν ᾧ εἰσὶν _πάντες_ οἱ θησαυροὶ
κ.τ.λ.; then the warning against the false teachers (ii. 4) τοῦτο λέγω
ἵνα μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς παραλογίζηται κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 285:

Col. iii. 11 after περιτομὴ καὶ ἀκροβυστία the Apostle adds βάρβαρος,
Σκύθης. There is nothing corresponding to this in the parallel
passage, Gal. iii. 28.

[Sidenote: He contrasts the true wisdom with the false,]

Hence also must be explained the frequent occurrence of the words ‘wisdom’ (σοφία), ‘intelligence’ (σύνεσις), ‘knowledge’ (γνῶσις), ‘perfect knowledge’ (ἐπίγνωσις), in this epistle[286]. St Paul takes up the language of his opponents, and translates it into a higher sphere. The false teachers put forward a ‘philosophy,’ but it was only an empty deceit, only a plausible display of false-reasoning[287]. They pretended ‘wisdom,’ but it was merely the profession, not the reality[288]. Against these pretentions the Apostle sets the true wisdom of the Gospel. On its wealth, its fulness, its perfection, he is never tired of dwelling[289]. The true wisdom, he would argue, is essentially spiritual and yet essentially definite; while the false is argumentative, is speculative, [Sidenote: and dwells on the veritable mystery.] is vague and dreamy[290]. Again they had their rites of initiation. St Paul contrasts with these the one universal, comprehensive mystery[291], the knowledge of God in Christ. This mystery is complete in itself: it contains ‘all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge hidden’ in it[292]. Moreover it is offered to all without distinction: though once hidden, its revelation is unrestricted, except by the waywardness and disobedience of men. The esoteric spirit of Gnosticism finds no countenance in the Apostle’s teaching.

Footnote 286:

For σοφία see i. 9, 28, ii. 3, iii. 16, iv. 5; for σύνεσις i. 9, ii.
2; for γνῶσις ii. 3; for ἐπίγνωσις i. 9, 10, ii. 2, iii. 10.

Footnote 287:

ii. 4 πιθανολογία, ii. 8 κενὴ ἀπάτη.

Footnote 288:

ii. 23 λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας, where the μὲν suggests the contrast of
the suppressed clause.

Footnote 289:

e.g. i. 9, 28, iii. 16 ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ; ii. 2 τῆς πληροφορίας. For the
‘wealth’ of this knowledge compare i. 27, ii. 2, iii. 16; and see
above p. 44.

Footnote 290:

ii. 4, 18.

Footnote 291:

i. 26, 27, ii. 2, iv. 3.

Footnote 292:

ii. 2 ἐν ᾧ εἰσὶν πάντες οἱ θησαυροὶ τῆς σοφίας καὶ τῆς γνώσεως
ἀπόκρυφοι. For the meaning of ἀπόκρυφοι see above p. 90, and the note
on the passage.

[Sidenote: 2. Speculative tenets.
Cosmogony and theology.]

2. From the informing spirit of Gnosticism we turn to the speculative tenets—the cosmogony and the theology of the Gnostic.

And here too the affinities to Gnosticism reveal themselves in the Colossian heresy. We cannot fail to observe that the [Sidenote: St Paul attacks the doctrine of angelic mediators,] Apostle has in view the doctrine of intermediate agencies, regarded as instruments in the creation and government of the world. Though this tenet is not distinctly mentioned, it is tacitly assumed in the teaching which St Paul opposes to it. Against the philosophy of successive evolutions from the Divine nature, angelic mediators forming the successive links in the chain which binds the finite to the Infinite, he sets the doctrine [Sidenote: setting against it the doctrine of the Word Incarnate,] of the one Eternal Son, the Word of God begotten before the worlds[293]. The angelology of the heretics had a twofold bearing; it was intimately connected at once with cosmogony and with religion. Correspondingly St Paul represents the mediatorial function of Christ as twofold: it is exercised in the natural creation, and it is exercised in the spiritual creation. In both these spheres His initiative is absolute, His control is universal, His action is complete. By His agency the world of matter was created and is sustained. He is at once the beginning and the [Sidenote: as the reconciler of heaven and earth.] end of the material universe; ‘All things have been created through Him and unto Him.’ Nor is His office in the spiritual world less complete. In the Church, as in the Universe, He is sole, absolute, supreme; the primary source from which all life proceeds and the ultimate arbiter in whom all feuds are reconciled.

Footnote 293:

The two great Christological passages are i. 15–20, ii. 9–15. They
will be found to justify the statements in this and the following
paragraphs of the text. For the meaning of individual expressions see
the notes on the passages.

[Sidenote: His relations to (1) Deity; as God manifested.]

On the one hand, in relation to Deity, He is the visible image of the invisible God. He is not only the chief manifestation of the Divine nature: He exhausts the Godhead manifested. In Him resides the totality of the Divine powers and attributes. For this totality Gnostic teachers had a technical [Sidenote: The _pleroma_ resides in Him.] term, the _pleroma_ or _plenitude_[294]. From the pleroma they supposed that all those agencies issued, through which God has at any time exerted His power in creation, or manifested His will through revelation. These mediatorial beings would retain more or less of its influence, according as they claimed direct parentage from it or traced their descent through successive evolutions. But in all cases this pleroma was distributed, diluted, transformed and darkened by foreign admixture. They were only partial and blurred images, often deceptive caricatures, of their original, broken lights of the great central Light. It is not improbable that, like later speculators of the same school, they found a place somewhere or other in their genealogy of spiritual beings for the Christ. If so, St Paul’s language becomes doubly significant. But this hypothesis is not needed to explain its reference. In contrast to their doctrine, he asserts and repeats the assertion, that the pleroma abides absolutely and wholly in Christ as the Word of God[295]. The entire light is concentrated in Him.

Footnote 294:

See the detached note on πλήρωμα.

Footnote 295:

i. 19 ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι, ii. 9 ἐν αὐτῷ
κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς.

[Sidenote: (2) Created things; as absolute Lord.]

Hence it follows that, as regards created things, His supremacy must be absolute. In heaven as in earth, over things immaterial as over things material, He is king. Speculations on the nature of intermediate spiritual agencies—their names, their ranks, their offices—were rife in the schools of Judæo-Gnostic thought. ‘Thrones, dominations, princedoms, virtues, powers’–these formed part of the spiritual nomenclature which they had invented to describe different grades of angelic mediators. Without entering into these speculations, the Apostle asserts that Christ is Lord of all, the highest and the lowest, whatever rank they may hold and by whatever name they are called[296], for they are parts of creation and He is the source of creation. Through Him they became, and unto Him they tend.

Footnote 296:

See especially i. 16 εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε
ἐξουσίαι κ.τ.λ., compared with the parallel passage in Eph. i. 21
ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ εξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότητος καὶ
παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένου κ.τ.λ. Compare also ii. 10 ἡ κεφαλὴ πάσης
ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας, and ii. 15 ἀπεκδυσάμενος τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς
ἐξουσίας κ.τ.λ.

[Sidenote: Angelolatry is therefore condemned]

Hence the worship of angels, which the false teachers inculcated, was utterly wrong in principle. The motive of this angelolatry it is not difficult to imagine. There was a show of humility[297], for there was a confession of weakness, in this subservience to inferior mediatorial agencies. It was held feasible to grasp at the lower links of the chain which bound earth to heaven, when heaven itself seemed far beyond the reach of man. The successive grades of intermediate beings were as successive steps, by which man might mount the ladder leading up to the throne of God. This carefully woven web of sophistry the Apostle tears to shreds. The doctrine of the false teachers was based on confident assumptions respecting angelic beings of whom they could know nothing. It was moreover a denial of Christ’s twofold personality and His [Sidenote: as a denial of His perfect mediation.] mediatorial office. It follows from the true conception of Christ’s Person, that He and He alone can bridge over the chasm between earth and heaven; for He is at once the lowest and the highest. He raises up man to God, for He brings down God to man. Thus the chain is reduced to a single link, this link being the Word made flesh. As the _pleroma_ resides in Him, so is it communicated to us through Him[298]. To substitute allegiance to any other spiritual mediator is to sever the connexion of the limbs with the Head, which is the centre of life and the mainspring of all energy throughout the body[300].

Footnote 297:

ii. 18 θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 298:

ii. 10; comp. i. 9.

Footnote 300:

ii. 18.

[Sidenote: The Apostle’s practical inference.]

Hence follows the practical conclusion, that, whatever is done, must be done in the name of the Lord[301]. Wives must submit to their husbands ‘in the Lord’: children must obey their parents ‘in the Lord’: servants must work for the masters as working ‘unto the Lord[302].’ This iteration, ‘in the Lord,’ ‘unto the Lord,’ is not an irrelevant form of words; but arises as an immediate inference from the main idea which underlies the doctrinal portion of the epistle.

Footnote 301:

iii. 17.

Footnote 302:

iii. 18, 20, 23.

[Sidenote: 3. Moral results of Gnostic doctrine.]

3. It has been shown that the speculative tenets of Gnosticism might lead (and as a matter of fact we know that they did lead) to either of two practical extremes, to rigid asceticism or to unbridled license. The latter alternative appears to some extent in the heresy of the Pastoral Epistles[303], and still more plainly in those of the Catholic Epistles[304] and the Apocalypse[305]. It is constantly urged by Catholic writers as a reproach against later Gnostic sects[306].

Footnote 303:

At least in 2 Tim. iii. 1–7, where, though the most monstrous
developments of the evil were still future, the Apostle’s language
implies that it had already begun. On the other hand in the picture of
the heresy in 1 Tim. iv. 2 the ascetic tendency still predominates.

Footnote 304:

2 Pet. ii. 10 sq., Jude 8.

Footnote 305:

Apoc. ii. 14, 20–22.

Footnote 306:

See the notes on Clem. Rom. _Ep._ ii. § 9.

[Sidenote: Asceticism of the Colossian heresy]

But the former and nobler extreme was the first impulse of the Gnostic. To escape from the infection of evil by escaping from the domination of matter was his chief anxiety. This appears very plainly in the Colossian heresy. Though the prohibitions to which the Apostle alludes might be explained in part by the ordinances of the Mosaic ritual, this explanation will not cover all the facts. Thus for instance drinks are mentioned as well as meats[307], though on the former the law of Moses is silent. Thus again the rigorous denunciation, ‘Touch not, taste not, handle not[308],’ seems to go very far beyond the Levitical enactments. And moreover the _motive_ of these prohibitions [Sidenote: not explained by its Judaism.] is Essene rather than Pharisaic, Gnostic rather than Jewish. These severities of discipline were intended ‘to check indulgence of the flesh[309].’ They professed to treat the body with entire disregard, to ignore its cravings and to deny its wants. In short; they betray a strong _ascetic_ tendency[310], of which normal Judaism, as represented by the Pharisee, offers no explanation.

Footnote 307:

ii. 16.

Footnote 308:

ii. 21.

Footnote 309:

ii. 23.

Footnote 310:

Asceticism is of two kinds. There is the asceticism of dualism
(whether conscious or unconscious), which springs from a false
principle; and there is the asceticism of self-discipline, which is
the training of the Christian athlete (1 Cor. ix. 27). I need not say
that the remarks in the text apply only to the former.

[Sidenote: St Paul’s reply shows its Gnostic bearing.]

And St Paul’s answer points to the same inference. The difference will appear more plainly, if we compare it with his treatment of Pharisaic Judaism in the Galatian Church. This epistle offers nothing at all corresponding to his language on that occasion; ‘If righteousness be by law, then Christ died in vain’; ‘If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing’; ‘Christ is nullified for you, whosoever are justified by law; ye are fallen from grace[311].’ The point of view in fact is wholly changed. With these Essene or Gnostic Judaizers the Mosaic law was neither the motive nor the standard, it was only the starting point, of their austerities. Hence in replying the [Sidenote: It is no longer the contrast of law and grace.] Apostle no longer deals with law, as law; he no longer points the contrast of grace and works; but he enters upon the _moral_ aspects of these ascetic practices. He denounces them, as concentrating the thoughts on earthly and perishable things[312]. He points out that they fail in their purpose, and are found valueless against carnal indulgences[313]. In their place he offers the true and only remedy against sin—the elevation of the inner life in Christ, the transference of the affections into a higher sphere[314], where the temptations of the flesh are powerless. Thus dying with Christ, they will kill all their earthly members[315]. Thus rising with Christ, they will be renewed in the image of God their Creator[316].

Footnote 311:

Gal. ii. 21, v. 2, 4.

Footnote 312:

ii. 8, 20–22.

Footnote 313:

ii. 23 οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός: see the note on
these words.

Footnote 314:

iii. 1, 2.

Footnote 315:

iii. 3, 5.

Footnote 316:

iii. 10.

[Sidenote: The truth of the above result tested by]

In attempting to draw a complete portrait of the Colossian heresy from a few features accidentally exhibited in St Paul’s epistle, it has been necessary to supply certain links; and some assurance may not unreasonably be required that this has not been done arbitrarily. Nor is this security wanting. In all such cases the test will be twofold. The result must be consistent with itself: and it must do no violence to the historical conditions under which the phenomena arose.

[Sidenote: (1) Its inherent consistency and symmetry.]

1. In the present instance the former of these tests is fully satisfied. The consistency and the symmetry of the result is its great recommendation. The postulate of a Gnostic type brings the separate parts of the representation into direct connexion. The speculative opinions and the practical tendencies of the heresy thus explain, and are explained by, each other. It is analogous to the hypothesis of the comparative anatomist, who by referring the fossil remains to their proper type restores the whole skeleton of some unknown animal from a few bones belonging to different extremities of the body, and without the intermediate and connecting parts. In the one case, as in the other, the result is the justification of the postulate.

[Sidenote: (2) Its place in a historical sequence.]

2. And again; the historical conditions of the problem are carefully observed. It has been shown already, that Judaism in the preceding age had in one of its developments assumed a form which was the natural precursor of the Colossian heresy. In order to complete the argument it will be necessary to show that Christianity in the generation next succeeding exhibited a perverted type, which was its natural outgrowth. If this can be done, the Colossian heresy will take its proper place in a regular historical sequence.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Continuance of this type of Judæo-Gnosticism in the
district.]

I have already pointed out, that the language of St John in the Apocalypse, which was probably written within a few years of this epistle, seems to imply the continuance in this district of the same type of heresy which is here denounced by St Paul[317]. But the notices in this book are not more definite than those of the Epistle to the Colossians itself; and we are led to look outside the Canonical writings for some more explicit evidence. Has early Christian history then preserved any record of a distinctly Gnostic school existing on the confines of the Apostolic age, which may be considered a legitimate development of the phase of religious speculation that confronts us here?

Footnote 317:

See above p. 41 sq.

[Sidenote: Heresy of Cerinthus.]

[Sidenote: His date and place.]

We find exactly the phenomenon which we are seeking in the heresy of Cerinthus[318]. The time, the place, the circumstances, all agree. This heresiarch is said to have been originally a native of Alexandria[319]; but proconsular Asia is allowed on all hands to have been the scene of his activity as a teacher[320]. He lived and taught at the close of the Apostolic age, that is, in the latest decade of the first century. Some writers indeed make him an antagonist of St Peter and St Paul[321], but their authority is not trustworthy, nor is this very early date at all probable. But there can be no reasonable doubt that he was a contemporary of St John, who was related by Polycarp to have denounced him face to face on one memorable occasion[322], and is moreover said by Irenæus to have written his Gospel with the direct object of confuting his errors[323].

Footnote 318:

The relation of Cerinthus to the Colossian heresy is briefly indicated
by Neander _Planting of Christianity_ I. p. 325 sq. (Eng. Trans.). It
has been remarked by other writers also, both earlier and later. The
subject appeared to me to deserve a fuller investigation than it has
yet received.

Footnote 319:

Hippol. _Hær._ vii. 33 Αἰγυπτίων παιδείᾳ ἀσκηθείς, x. 21 ὁ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ
ἀσκηθείς, Theodoret. _Hær. Fab._ ii. 3 ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ πλεîστον διατρίψας
χρόνον.

Footnote 320:

Iren. i. 26. 1 ‘et Cerinthus autem quidam ... in Asia docuit,’
Epiphan. _Hær._ xxviii. 1 ἐγένετο δὲ οὗτος ὁ Κήρινθος ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ
διατρίβων, κἀκεῖσε τοῦ κηρύγματος τὴν ἀρχὴν πεποιημένος, Theodoret. 1.
c. ὕστερον εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν ἀφίκετο. The scene of his encounter with St
John in the bath is placed at Ephesus: see below, note 322.

Footnote 321:

Epiphanius (xxviii. 2 sq.) represents him as the ringleader of the
Judaizing opponents of the Apostles in the Acts and Epistles to the
Corinthians and Galatians. Philastrius (_Hær._ 36) takes the same
line.]

Footnote 322:

The well-known story of the encounter between St John and Cerinthus in
the bath is related by Irenæus (iii. 3. 4) on the authority of
Polycarp, who appears from the sequence of Irenæus’ narrative to have
told it at Rome, when he paid his visit to Anicetus; ὃς καὶ ἐπὶ
Ἀνικήτου ἐπιδημήσας τῄ Ῥώμῃ πολλοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν προειρημένων αἱρετικῶν
ἐπέστρεψεν ... καὶ εἰσὶν οἱ ἀκηκοότες αὐτοû ὅτι Ἰωάννης κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 323:

Iren. iii. II. 1.

[Sidenote: Cerinthus a link between Judaism and Gnosticism.]

‘Cerinthus,’ writes Neander, ‘is best entitled to be considered as the intermediate link between the Judaizing and the Gnostic sects.’ ‘Even among the ancients,’ he adds, ‘opposite reports respecting his doctrines have been given from opposite points of view, according as the Gnostic or the Judaizing element was exclusively insisted upon: and the dispute on this point has been kept up even to modern times. In point of chronology too Cerinthus may be regarded as representing the principle in its transition from Judaism to Gnosticism[324].’

Footnote 324:

_Church History_ II. p. 42 (Bohn’s Trans.).

[Sidenote: Judaism still prominent in his system]

Of his Judaism no doubt has been or can be entertained. The gross Chiliastic doctrine ascribed to him[325], even though it may have been exaggerated in the representations of adverse writers, can only be explained by a Jewish origin. His conception of the Person of Christ was Ebionite, that is Judaic, in its main features[326]. He is said moreover to have enforced the rite of circumcision and to have inculcated the observance of sabbaths[327]. It is related also that the Cerinthians, like the Ebionites, accepted the Gospel of St Matthew alone[328].’

Footnote 325:

See the _Dialogue of Caius and Proclus_ in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 28,
Dionysius of Alexandria, ib. vii. 25, Theodoret. l.c., Augustin.
_Hær._ 8.

Footnote 326:

See below p. 111.

Footnote 327:

Epiphan. _Hær._ xxviii. 4, 5, Philastr. _Hær._ 36, Augustin. l.c. The
statements of these writers would not carry much weight in themselves;
but in this instance they are rendered highly probable by the known
Judaism of Cerinthus.

Footnote 328:

Epiphan. _Hær._ xxviii. 5, xxx. 14, Philastr. _Hær._ 36.

[Sidenote: though Gnosticism is already aggressive.]

At the same time, it is said by an ancient writer that his adherence to Judaism was only partial[329]. This limitation is doubtless correct. As Gnostic principles asserted themselves more distinctly, pure Judaism necessarily suffered. All or nearly all the early Gnostic heresies were Judaic; and for a time a compromise was effected which involved more or less concession on either side. But the ultimate incompatibility of the two at length became evident, and a precarious alliance was exchanged for an open antagonism. This final result however was not reached till the middle of the second century: and meanwhile it was a question to what extent Judaism was prepared to make concessions for the sake of this new ally. Even the Jewish Essenes, as we have seen, departed from the orthodox position in the matter of sacrifices; and if we possessed fuller information, we should probably find that they made still larger concessions than this. Of the Colossian heretics we can only form a conjecture, but the angelology and angelolatry attributed to them point to a further step in the same direction. As we pass from them to Cerinthus we are [Sidenote: Gnostic element in his teaching.] no longer left in doubt; for the Gnostic element has clearly gained the ascendant, though it has not yet driven its rival out of the field. Two characteristic features in his teaching especially deserve consideration, both as evincing the tendency of his speculations and as throwing back light on the notices in the Colossian Epistle.

Footnote 329:

Epiphan. _Hær._ xxviii. 1 προσέχειν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ ἀπὸ μέρους.

[Sidenote: 1. His Gnostic Cosmogony]

1. His cosmogony is essentially Gnostic. The great problem of creation presented itself to him in the same aspect; and the solution which he offered was generically the same. The world, he asserted, was not made by the highest God, but by an angel or power far removed from, and ignorant of, this supreme Being[330]. Other authorities describing his system speak not of a single power, but of powers, as creating the universe[331]; but all alike represent this demiurge, or these demiurges, as ignorant of the absolute God. It is moreover stated that he held the Mosaic law to have been given not by the supreme God Himself, but by this angel, or one of these angels, who created the world[332].

Footnote 330:

Iren. i. 26. 1 ‘Non a primo Deo factum esse mundum docuit, sed a
virtute quadam valde separata et distante ab ea principalitate quæ est
super universa, et ignorante eum qui est super omnia Deum’; Hippol.
_Hær._ vii. 33 ἔλεγεν οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦ πρώτου Θεοῦ γεγονέναι τὸν κόσμον,
ἀλλ’ ὑπὸ δυνάμέως τινος κεχωρισμένης τῆς ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα ἐξουσίας καὶ
ἀγνοοῦσης τὸν ὑπὲρ πάντα Θεόν, x. 21 ὑπὸ δυνάμεώς τινος ἀγγελικῆς,
πολὺ κεχωρισμένης καὶ διεστώσης τῆς ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα αὐθεντίας καὶ
ἀγνοουσης τὸν ὑπὲρ πάντα Θεόν.

Footnote 331:

Pseudo-Tertull. _Hær._ 3 ‘Carpocrates præterea hanc tulit sectam: Unam
esse dicit virtutem in superioribus principalem, ex hac prolatos
angelos atque virtutes, quos distantes longe a superioribus virtutibus
mundum istum in inferioribus partibus condidisse.... Post hunc
Cerinthus hæreticus erupit, similia docens. Nam et ipse mundum
institutum esse ab illis dicit’; Epiphan. _Hær._ xxviii. 1 ἕνα εἶναι
τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν τὸν κόσμον πεποιηκότων; Theodoret. H. F. ii. 3 ἕνα μὲν
εἶναι τὸν τῶν ὅλων Θεόν, οὐκ αὐτὸν δὲ εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου δημιουργόν,
ἀλλὰ δυνάμεις τινὰς κεχωρισμένας καὶ παντελῶς αὐτὸν ἀγνοούσας;
Augustin. _Hær._ 8. The one statement is quite reconcilable with the
other. Among those angels by whose instrumentality the world was
created, Cerinthus appears to have assigned a position of preeminence
to one, whom he regarded as the demiurge in a special sense and under
whom the others worked; see Neander _Church History_ II. p. 43.

Footnote 332:

Pseudo-Tertull. l.c.; Epiphan. _Hær._ xxviii. 4 τὸν δεδωκότα νόμον ἕνα
εἶναι τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν τὸν κόσμον πεποιηκότων.

[Sidenote: and consequent angelology.]

From these notices it is plain that angelology had an important place in his speculations; and that he employed it to explain the existence of evil supposed to be inherent in the physical world, as well as to account for the imperfections of the old dispensation. The ‘remote distance’ of his angelic demiurge from the supreme God can hardly be explained except on the hypothesis of _successive_ generations of these intermediate agencies. Thus his solution is thoroughly Gnostic. At the same time, as contrasted with later and more sharply defined Gnostic systems, the Judaic origin and complexion of his cosmogony is obvious. His intermediate agencies still retain the name and the personality of angels, and have not yet given way to those vague idealities which, as emanations [Sidenote: Angels of earlier and æons of later Gnostics.] or æons, took their place in later speculations. Thus his theory is linked on to the angelology of later Judaism founded on the angelic appearances recorded in the Old Testament narrative. And again: while later Gnostics represent the demiurge and giver of the law as antagonistic to the supreme and good God, Cerinthus does not go beyond postulating his ignorance. He went as far as he could without breaking entirely with the Old Testament and abandoning his Judaic standing-ground.

[Sidenote: Cerinthus a link between the Colossian heresy and later
Gnosticism.]

In these respects Cerinthus is the proper link between the incipient gnosis of the Colossian heretics and the mature gnosis of the second century. In the Colossian epistle we still breathe the atmosphere of Jewish angelology, nor is there any trace of the _æon_ of later Gnosticism[333]; while yet speculation is so far advanced that the angels have an important function in explaining the mysteries of the creation and government of the world. On the other hand it has not reached the point at which we find it in Cerinthus. Gnostic conceptions respecting the relation of the demiurgic agency to the supreme God would appear to have passed through three stages. This relation was represented first, as imperfect appreciation; next, as entire ignorance; lastly, as direct antagonism. The second and third are the standing points of Cerinthus and of the later Gnostic teachers respectively. The first was probably the position of the Colossian false teachers. The imperfections of the natural world, they would urge, were due to the limited capacities of these angels to whom the demiurgic work was committed, and to their imperfect sympathy with the supreme God; but at the same time they might fitly receive worship as mediators between God and man; and indeed humanity seemed in its weakness to need the intervention of some such beings less remote from itself than the highest heaven.

Footnote 333:

I am quite unable to see any reference to the Gnostic conception of an
_æon_ in the passages of the New Testament, which are sometimes quoted
in support of this view, e.g., by Baur Paulus p. 428, Burton
_Lectures_ p. 111 sq.

[Sidenote: 2. His Christology.]

2. Again the Christology of Cerinthus deserves attention from this point of view. Here all our authorities are agreed. As a Judaizer Cerinthus held with the Ebionites that Jesus was only the son of Joseph and Mary, born in the natural way. As a Gnostic he maintained that the Christ first descended in the form of a dove on the carpenter’s son at his baptism; that He revealed to him the unknown Father, and worked miracles through him: and that at length He took His flight and left him, so that Jesus alone suffered and rose, while the Christ remained impassible[334]. It would appear also, though this is not certain, that he described this re-ascension of the Christ, as a return ‘to His own _pleroma_[335].’

Footnote 334:

Iren. i. 26. 1, Hippol. _Hær._ vii. 33, x. 21, Epiphan. _Hær._ xxviii.
1, Theodoret. _H. F._ ii. 3. The arguments by which Lipsius
(_Gnosticismus_ pp. 245, 258, in Ersch u. Gruber; _Quellenkritik des
Epiphanios_ p. 118 sq.) attempts to show that Cerinthus did not
separate the Christ from Jesus, and that Irenæus (and subsequent
authors copying him) have wrongly attributed to this heretic the
theories of later Gnostics, seem insufficient to outweigh these direct
statements. It is more probable that the system of Cerinthus should
have admitted some foreign elements not very consistent with his
Judaic standing point, than that these writers should have been
misinformed. Inconsistency was a necessary condition of Judaic
Gnosticism. The point however is comparatively unimportant as
affecting my main purpose.

Footnote 335:

Irenæus (iii. 11. 1), after speaking of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans,
proceeds ‘non, quemadmodum illi dicunt, alterum quidem fabricatorem
(i.e. demiurgum), alium autem Patrem Domini: et alium quidem
fabricatoris filium, alterum vero de superioribus Christum, quem et
impassibilem perseverasse, descendentem in Jesum filium fabricatoris,
et iterum _revolasse in suum pleroma_.’ The doctrine is precisely that
which he has before ascribed to Cerinthus (i. 26. 1), but the mode of
statement may have been borrowed from the Nicolaitans or from some
later Gnostics. There is however no improbability in the supposition
that Cerinthus used the word pleroma in this way; see the detached
note on πλήρωμα below.

[Sidenote: Approach towards Cerinthian Christology in the Colossian
heresy.]

Now it is not clear from St Paul’s language what opinions the Colossian heretics held respecting the person of our Lord; but we may safely assume that he regarded them as inadequate and derogatory. The emphasis, with which he asserts the eternal being and absolute sovereignty of Christ, can hardly be explained in any other way. But individual expressions tempt us to conjecture that the same ideas were already floating in the air, which ultimately took form and consistency in the tenets of Cerinthus. Thus, when he reiterates the statement that the _whole_ pleroma abides _permanently_ in Christ[336], he would appear to be tacitly refuting some opinion which maintained only mutable and imperfect relations between the two. When again he speaks of the true gospel first taught to the Colossians as the doctrine of ‘the Christ, _even_ Jesus the Lord[337],’ his language might seem to be directed against the tendency to separate the heavenly Christ from the earthly Jesus, as though the connexion were only transient. When lastly he dwells on the work of reconciliation, as wrought ‘through the blood of Christ’s cross,’ ‘in the body of His flesh through death[338],’ we may perhaps infer that he already discerned a disposition to put aside Christ’s passion as a stumbling-block in the way of philosophical religion. Thus regarded, the Apostle’s language gains force and point; though no stress can be laid on explanations which are so largely conjectural.

Footnote 336:

i. 19, ii. 9. See above p. 102, note 295. On the force of κατοικεῖν
see the note on the earlier of the two passages.

Footnote 337:

ii. 6 παρελάβετε τὸν Χριστόν, Ἰησοῦν τὸν Κύριον.

Footnote 338:

i. 20, 22.

[Sidenote: The Gnosticism of the Colossians being vague and
undeveloped.]

But if so, the very generality of his language shows that these speculations were still vague and fluctuating. The difference which separates these heretics from Cerinthus may be measured by the greater precision and directness in the Apostolic counter-statement, as we turn from the Epistle to the Colossians to the Gospel of St John. In this interval, extending over nearly a quarter of a century, speculation had taken a definite shape. The elements of Gnostic theory, which were before held in solution, had meanwhile crystallized around the facts of the Gospel. Yet still we seem justified, even at the earlier date, in speaking of these general ideas as Gnostic, guarding ourselves at the same time against misunderstanding with the twofold caution, that we here employ the term to express the simplest and most elementary conceptions of this tendency of thought, and that we do not postulate its use as a distinct designation of any sect or sects at this early date. Thus limited, the view that the writer of this epistle is combating a Gnostic heresy seems free from all objections, while it appears necessary to explain his language; and certainly it does not, as is sometimes imagined, place any weapon in the hands of those who would assail the early date and Apostolic authorship of the epistle.

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

_On some points connected with the Essenes._

I.
THE NAME ESSENE.

[Sidenote: Various forms of the name in Greek.]

The name is variously written in Greek;

1. Ἐσσηνός: Joseph. _Ant._ xiii. 5. 9, xiii. 10. 6, xv. 10. 5, xviii. 1.
2, 5, _B.J._ ii. 8. 2, 13, _Vit._ 2; Plin. _N.H._ v. 15. 17 (Essenus);
Dion Chrys. in Synes. _Dion_ 3; Hippol. _Hær._ ix. 18, 28 (MS ἐσηνός);
Epiphan. _Hær._ p. 28 sq, 127 (ed. Pet.).

2. Ἐσσαῖος: Philo II. pp. 457, 471, 632 (ed. Mang.); Hegesippus in
Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 22; Porphyr. _de Abstin._ iv. 11. So too Joseph.
_B.J._ ii. 7. 3, ii. 20. 4, iii. 2. 1; _Ant._ xv. 10. 4; though in the
immediate context of this last passage he writes Ἐσσηνός, if the
common texts may be trusted.

3. Ὀσσαῖος: Epiphan. _Hær._ pp. 40 sq., 125, 462. The common texts very
frequently make him write Ὀσσηνός, but see Dindorf’s notes, Epiphan.
_Op._ 1. pp. 380, 425. With Epiphanius the Essenes are a Samaritan,
the Ossæans a Judaic sect. He has evidently got his information from
two distinct sources, and does not see that the same persons are
intended.

4. Ιἐσσαῖος, Epiphan. _Hær._ p. 117. From the connexion the same sect
again seems to be meant: but owing to the form Epiphanius conjectures
(οἶμαι) that the name is derived from Jesse, the father of David.

[Sidenote: All etymologies to be rejected which derive the name.]

If any certain example could be produced where the name occurs in any early Hebrew or Aramaic writing, the question of its derivation would probably be settled; but in the absence of a single decisive instance a wide field is opened for conjecture, and critics have not been backward in availing themselves of the license. In discussing the claims of the different etymologies proposed we may reject:

[Sidenote: (i) From the Greek;]

_First_: derivations from the Greek. Thus Philo connects the word with ὅσιος ‘holy’: _Quod omn. prob._ 12, p. 457 Ἐσσαῖοι ... διαλέκτου ἑλληνικῆς παρώνυμοι ὁσιότητος, § 13, p. 459 τῶν Ἐσσαίων ἢ ὁσίων, _Fragm._ p. 632 καλοῦνται μὲν Ἐσσαῖοι, παρὰ τὴν ὁσιότητα, μοὶ δοκῶ [δοκεῖ;], τῆς προσηγορίας ἀξιωθέντες. It is not quite clear whether Philo is here playing with words after the manner of his master Plato, or whether he holds a pre-established harmony to exist among different languages by which similar sounds represent similar things, or whether lastly he seriously means that the name was directly derived from the Greek word ὅσιος. The last supposition is the least probable; but he certainly does not reject this derivation ‘as incorrect’ (Ginsburg _Essenes_ p. 27), nor can παρώνυμοι ὁσιότητος be rendered ‘from an incorrect derivation from the Greek homonym _hosiotes_’ (ib. p. 32), since the word παρώνυμος never involves the notion of _false_ etymology. The amount of truth which probably underlies Philo’s statement will be considered hereafter. Another Greek derivation is ἴσος, ‘companion, associate,’ suggested by Rapoport, _Erech Millin_ p. 41. Several others again are suggested by Löwy, s.v. Essäer, e.g. ἔσω from their esoteric doctrine, or αἶσα from their fatalism. All such may be rejected as instances of ingenious trifling, if indeed they deserve to be called ingenious.

[Sidenote: (ii) From names of persons or places;]

_Secondly_: derivations from proper names whether of persons or of places. Thus the word has been derived from _Jesse_ the father of David (Epiphan. l.c.), or from one ישי Isai, the disciple of R. Joshua ben Perachia who migrated to Egypt in the time of Alexander Jannæus (Löw in _Ben Chananja_ i. p. 352). Again it has been referred to the town _Essa_ (a doubtful reading in Joseph. _Ant._ xiii. 15. 3) beyond the Jordan. And other similar derivations have been suggested.

[Sidenote: From Hebrew roots not supplying the right consonants,]

_Thirdly_: etymologies from the Hebrew or Aramaic, which do not supply the right consonants, or do not supply them in the right order. Under this head several must be rejected;

אסר _āsar_ ‘to bind,’ Adler _Volkslehrer_ VI. p. 50, referred to by
Ginsburg _Essenes_ p. 29.

חסיד _chāsīd_ ‘pious,’ which is represented by Ἀσιδαῖος (1 Macc. ii. 42
(v. l.), vii. 13, 2 Macc. xiv. 6), and could not possibly assume the
form Ἐσσαῖος or Ἐσσηνός. Yet this derivation appears in Josippon ben
Gorion (iv. 6, 7, v. 24, pp. 274, 278, 451), who substitutes
_Chasidim_ in narratives where the Essenes are mentioned in the
original of Josephus; and it has been adopted by many more recent
writers.

סחא _s’āch_ ‘to bathe,’ from which with an _Aleph_ prefixed we might get
אסהאי _as’chai_ ‘bathers’ (a word however which does not occur): Grätz
_Gesch. der Juden_ iii. pp. 82, 468.

צנוע _tsanūaع_ ‘retired, modest,’ adopted by Frankel (_Zeitschrift_
1846, p. 449, _Monatschrift_ II[. p. 32) after a suggestion by Löw.

[Sidenote: such as those which make _n_ part of the root.]

To this category must be assigned those etymologies which contain a ו as the third consonant of the root; since the comparison of the parallel forms Ἐσσαῖος and Ἐσσηνός shows that in the latter word the ν is only formative. On this ground we must reject:

חסין _chāsīn_; see below under עשין.

חצן _chōtsen_ ‘a fold’ of a garment, and so supposed to signify the περίζωμα or ‘apron’, which was given to every neophyte among the Essenes (Joseph. _B.J._ ii. 8. 5, 7): suggested by Jellinek _Ben Chananja_ IV. p. 374.

עשין _عāshīn_ ‘strong’: see Cohn in Frankel’s _Monatschrift_ VII. p. 271. This etymology is suggested to explain Epiphanius _Hær._ p. 40 τοῦτο δὲ τὸ γένος τῶν Ὀσσηνῶν ἑρμηνεύεται διὰ τῆς ἐκδόσεως τοῦ ὀνόματος στιβαρὸν γένος (‘a sturdy race’). The name ‘Essene’ is so interpreted also in Makrisi (de Sacy, _Chrestom. Arab._ I. p. 114, 306); but, as he himself writes it with _Elif_ and not _Ain_, it is plain that he got this interpretation from some one else, probably from Epiphanius. The correct reading however in Epiphanius is Ὀσσαίων, not Ὀσσηνῶν; and it would therefore appear that this father or his informant derived the word from the Hebrew root עןו rather than from the Aramaic עשן. The Ὀσσαῖοι would then be the עויס, and this is so far a possible derivation, that the _n_ does not enter into the root. Another word suggested to explain the etymology of Epiphanius is the Aramaic חסין _chāsīn_ ‘powerful, strong’ (from הסן); but this is open to the same objections as עשין.

[Sidenote: Other derivations considered:]

When all such derivations are eliminated as untenable or improbable, considerable uncertainty still remains. The 1st and 3rd radicals might be any of the gutturals א,ה,ח,ע; and the Greek ς, as the 2nd radical, might represent any one of several Shemitic sibilants.

Thus we have the choice of the following etymologies, which have found more or less favour.

[Sidenote: (1) אסיא ‘a physician’;]

(1) אסא _ăsā_ ‘to heal,’ whence אסיא _asyā_, ‘a physician.’ The Essenes are supposed to be so called because Josephus states (_B.J._ ii. 8. 6) that they paid great attention to the qualities of herbs and minerals with a view to the healing of diseases (πρὸς θεραπείαν παθῶν). This etymology is supported likewise by an appeal to the name θεραπευταί, which Philo gives to an allied sect in Egypt (_de Vit. Cont._ § 1, II. p. 471). It seems highly improbable however, that the ordinary name of the Essenes should have been derived from a pursuit which was merely secondary and incidental; while the supposed analogy of the Therapeutæ rests on a wrong interpretation of the word. Philo indeed (l.c.), bent upon extracting from it as much moral significance as possible, says, θεραπευταὶ καὶ θεραπευτρίδες καλοῦνται, ἤτοι παρ’ ὅσον ἰατρικὴν ἐπαγγέλλονται κρείσσονα τῆς κατὰ πόλεις ἡ μὲν γὰρ σώματα θεραπεύει μόνον, ἐκείνη δὲ καὶ ψυχὰς κ.τ.λ.) ἢ παρ’ ὅσον ἐκ φύσεως καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν νόμων ἐπαιδεύθησαν θεραπεύειν τὸ ὃν κ.τ.λ.: but the latter meaning alone accords with the usage of the word; for θεραπευτής, used absolutely, signifies ‘a worshipper, devotee,’ not ‘a physician, healer.’ This etymology of Ἐσσαῖος is ascribed, though wrongly, to Philo by Asaria di Rossi (_Meor Enayim_ 3, fol. 33 _a_) and has been very widely received. Among more recent writers, who have adopted or favoured it, are Bellermann (_Ueber Essäer u. Therapeuten_ p. 7), Gfrörer (_Philo_ II. p. 341), Dähne (_Ersch u. Gruber_, s.v.), Baur (_Christl. Kirche der drei erst. Jahrh._ p. 20), Herzfeld (_Gesch. des Judenthums_ II. p. 371, 395, 397 sq.), Geiger (_Urschrift_ p. 126), Derenbourg (_L’Histoire et la Géographie de la Palestine_ pp. 170, 175, notes), Keim (_Jesus von Nazara_ I. p. 284 sq.), and Hamburger (_Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel u. Talmud_, s.v.). Several of these writers identify the Essenes with the Baithusians (ביהוסין) of the Talmud, though in the Talmud the Baithusians are connected with the Sadducees. This identification was suggested by di Rossi (l.c. fol. 33 _b_), who interprets ‘Baithusians’ as ‘the school of the Essenes’ (ביח איסיא): while subsequent writers, going a step further, have explained it ‘the school of the physicians’ (ביח איסיא).

[Sidenote: (2) חזיא ‘a seer’;]

(2) חזא _chăzā_ ‘to see’, whence חזיא _chazyā_ ‘a seer’, in reference to the prophetic powers which the Essenes claimed, as the result of ascetic contemplation: Joseph. _B.J._ ii. 8. 12 εἰσὶ δὲ ἐν αὐτοῖς ὃι καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα προγινώσκειν ὑπισχνοῦνται κ.τ.λ. For instances of such Essene prophets see _Ant._ xiii. II. 2, xv. 10. 5, _B.J._ I. 3. 5, ii. 7. 3. Suidas, s.v. Ἐσσαῖοι, says: θεωρίᾳ τὰ πολλὰ παραμένουσιν, ἔνθεν καὶ Ἐσσαῖοι καλοῦνται, τοῦτο δηλοῦντος τοῦ ὀνόματος, τουτέστι, θεωρητικοί. For this derivation, which was suggested by Baumgarten (see Bellermann p. 10) and is adopted by Hilgenfeld (_Jüd. Apocal._ p. 278), there is something to be said: but חזא is rather ὁρᾶν than θεωρεῖν; and thus it must denote the result rather than the process, the _vision_ which was the privilege of the few rather than the _contemplation_ which was the duty of all. Indeed in a later paper (_Zeitschr_. XI. p. 346, 1868) Hilgenfeld expresses himself doubtfully about this derivation, feeling the difficulty of explaining the σς from the ז. This is a real objection. In the transliteration of the LXX the ז is persistently represented by ζ, and the צ by ς. The exceptions to this rule, where the manuscript authority is beyond question, are very few, and in every case they seem capable of explanation by peculiar circumstances.

[Sidenote: (3) עשה ‘to do’;]

(3) _عāsāh_ ‘to do,’ so that Ἐσσαῖοι would signify ‘the doers, the observers of the law,’ thus referring to the strictness of Essene practices: see Oppenheim in Frankel’s _Monatschrift_ VII. p. 272 sq. It has been suggested also that, as the Pharisees were especially designated the teachers, the Essenes were called the ‘doers’ by a sort of antithesis: see an article in Jost’s _Annalen_ 1839, p. 145. Thus the talmudic phrase אנשי מעשה, interpreted ‘men of practice, of good deeds,’ is supposed to refer to the Essenes (see Frankel’s _Zeitschrift_ III. p. 458, _Monatschrift_ II. p. 70). In some passages indeed (see Surenhuis _Mishna_ III. p. 313) it may possibly mean ‘workers of miracles’ (as ἔργον Joh. v. 20, vii. 21, x. 25, etc.); but in this sense also it might be explained of the thaumaturgic powers claimed by the Essenes. (See below, p. 126.) On the use which has been made of a passage in the _Aboth_ of R. Nathan c. 37, as supporting this derivation, I shall have to speak hereafter. Altogether this etymology has little or nothing to recommend it.

I have reserved to the last the two derivations which seem to deserve most consideration.

[Sidenote: (4) _chasyo_ ‘pious’;]

(4) ܚܤܝ _chasi_ (ܚܣܐ _ch’sē_) or ܚܣܝܐ _chasyo_, ‘pious,’ in Syriac. This derivation, which is also given by de Sacy (_Chrestom. Arab._ I. p. 347), is adopted by Ewald (_Gesch. des V. Isr._ IV. p. 484, ed. 3, 1864, VII. pp. 154, 477, ed. 2, 1859), who abandons in its favour another etymology (הזן _chazzan_ ‘watcher, worshipper’ = θεραπευτής) which he had suggested in an earlier edition of his fourth volume (p. 420). It is recommended by the fact that it resembles not only in sound, but in meaning, the Greek ὅσιος, of which it is a common rendering in the Peshito (Acts ii. 27, xiii. 35, Tit. i. 8). Thus it explains the derivation given by Philo (see above, p. 115), and it also accounts for the tendency to write Ὀσσαῖος for Ἐσσαῖος in Greek. Ewald moreover points out how an Essenizing Sibylline poem (_Orac. Sib._ iv; see above, p. 96) dwells on the Greek equivalents, εὐσεβής, εὐσεβίη, etc. (vv. 26, 35, 42 sq., 148 sq., 162, 165 sq., 178 sq., ed. Alexandre), as if they had a special value for the writer: see _Gesch._ VII. p. 154, _Sibyll. Bücher_ p. 46. Lipsius (Schenkel’s _Bibel-Lexikon_, _s.v._) also considers this the most probable etymology.

[Sidenote: (5) חשאים ‘silent ones.’]

(5) חשא _chāshā_ (also חשה) Heb., ‘to be silent’; whence חשאים _chashshāīm_ ‘the silent ones,’ who meditate on mysteries. Jost (_Gesch. d. Judenth._ I. p. 207) believes that this was the derivation accepted by Josephus, since he elsewhere (_Ant._ iii. 7. 5, iii. 8. 9) writes out חשן, _chōshen_ ‘the high-priest’s breast-plate’ (Exod. xxviii. 15 sq), ἐσσήν or ἐσσήνης in Greek, and explains it σημαίνει, τοῦτο κατὰ τὴν Ἑλλήνων γλῶτταν λογεῖον (i.e. the ‘place of oracles’ or ‘of reason’: comp. Philo _de Mon._ ii. § 5, II. p. 226 καλεῖται λογεῖον ἐτύμως, ἐπειδὴ τὰ ἐν οὐρανῷ πάντα λόγοις καὶ ἀναλογίαις δεδημιούργηται κ.τ.λ.), as it is translated in the LXX. Even though modern critics should be right in connecting חשן with the Arab. ﺣسن ‘pulcher fuit, ornavit’ (see Gesen. _Thes._ p. 535, s.v.), the other derivation may have prevailed in Josephus’ time. We may illustrate this derivation by Josephus’ description of the Essenes, _B.J._ ii. 8. 5 τοῖς ἔξωθεν ὡς μυστήριόν τι φρικτὸν ἡ τῶν ἔνδον σιωπὴ καταφαίνεται; and perhaps this will also explain the Greek equivalent θεωρητικοί, which Suidas gives for Ἐσσαῖοι. The use of the Hebrew word חשאים in Mishna _Shekalim_ v. 6, though we need not suppose that the Essenes are there meant, will serve to show how it might be adopted as the name of the sect. On this word see Levy _Chaldäisches Wörterbuch_ p. 287. On the whole this seems the most probable etymology of any, though it has not found so much favour as the last. At all events the rules of transliteration are entirely satisfied, and this can hardly be said of the other derivations which come into competition with it.

2.
ORIGIN AND AFFINITIES OF THE ESSENES.

[Sidenote: The principle of the restoration.]

The ruling principle of the Restoration under Ezra was the isolation of the Jewish people from all influences of the surrounding nations. Only by the rigorous application of this principle was it possible to guard the nationality of the Hebrews, and thus to preserve the sacred deposit of religious truth of which this nationality was the husk. Hence the strictest attention was paid to the Levitical ordinances, and more especially to those which aimed at ceremonial purity. The principle, which was thus distinctly asserted at the period of the national revival, gained force and concentration at a later date from the active antagonism to which the patriotic Jews were driven by the religious and political aggressions of the Syrian kings. During the Maccabæan wars we read of a party or sect [Sidenote: Rise of the Asidæans.] called the _Chasidim_ or _Asidæans_ (Ἀσιδαῖοι), the ‘pious’ or ‘devout,’ who zealous in their observance of the ceremonial law stoutly resisted any concession to the practices of Hellenism, and took their place in the van of the struggle with their national enemies, the Antiochene monarchs (1 Macc. ii. 42, vii. 13, 2 Macc. xiv. 6). But, though their names appear now for the first time, they are not mentioned as a newly formed party; and it is probable that they had their origin at a much earlier date.