Chapter IX: Preface (8)

Footnote 395:

See above, p. 87, note 249.

Footnote 396:

See above, p. 83.

Footnote 397:

_Galatians_ p. 311 sq. See also below, p. 167.

Footnote 398:

See p. 136, note 391.

Footnote 399:

_Galatians_ p. 312, note 1. For another derivation see below, p. 167.

Footnote 400:

Celibacy however is not one of these: comp. Epiphan. _Hær._ xix. 1 (p.
40) ἀπεχθάνεται δὲ τῇ παρθενίᾳ, μισεῖ δὲ τὴν ἐγκράτειαν, ἀναγκάζει δὲ
γάμον. In this respect they departed from the original principles of
Essenism, alleging, as it would appear, a special revelation (ὡς δῆθεν
ἀποκαλύψεως) in justification. In like manner marriage is commended in
the Clementine Homilies.

[Sidenote: Doubtful bearing of this Sun-worship.]

In this heresy we have plainly the dregs of Essenism, which has only been corrupted from its earlier and nobler type by the admixture of a spurious Christianity. But how came the Essenes to be called Sampsæans? What was the original meaning of this outward reverence which they paid to the sun? Did they regard it merely as the symbol of Divine illumination, just as Philo frequently treats it as a type of God, the centre of all light (e.g. _de Somn._ i. 13 sq., I. p. 631 sq.), and even calls the heavenly bodies ‘visible and sensible gods’ (_de Mund. Op._ 7, I. p. 6)[401]? Or did they honour the light, as the pure ethereal element in contrast to gross terrestrial matter, according to a suggestion of a recent writer[402]? [Sidenote: The practice repugnant to Jewish orthodoxy.]Whatever may have been the motive of this reverence, it is strangely repugnant to the spirit of orthodox Judaism. In Ezek. viii. 16 it is denounced as an abomination, that men shall turn towards the east and worship the sun; and accordingly in _Berakhoth_ 7_a_, a saying of R. Meir is reported to the effect that God is angry when the sun appears and the kings of the East and the West prostrate themselves before this luminary[403]. We cannot fail therefore to recognise the action of some foreign influence in this Essene practice—whether Greek or Syrian or Persian, it will be time to consider hereafter.

Footnote 401:

The important place which the heavenly bodies held in the system of
Philo, who regarded them as animated beings, may be seen from
Gfrörer’s _Philo_ I. p. 349 sq.

Footnote 402:

_Keim_ I. p. 289.

Footnote 403:

See Wiesner Schol. zum _Babyl. Talm._ I. pp. 18, 20.

[Sidenote: (iii) The depreciation of marriage not accounted for.]

(iii) On the subject of marriage again, talmudical and rabbinical notices contribute nothing towards elucidating the practices of this sect. Least of all do they point to any affinity between the Essenes and the Pharisees. The nearest resemblance, which Frankel can produce, to any approximation in this respect is an injunction in Mishna _Kethuboth_ v. 8 respecting the duties of the husband in providing for the wife in case of his separating from her, and this he ascribes to Essene influences[404]; but this mishna does not express any approval of such a separation. The direction seems to be framed entirely in the interests of the wife: nor can I see that it is at all inconsistent, as Frankel urges, with Mishna _Kethuboth_ vii. 1 which allows her to claim a divorce under such circumstances. But however this may be, Essene and Pharisaic opinion stand generally in the sharpest contrast to each other with respect to marriage. The talmudic writings teem with passages implying not only the superior sanctity, but even the imperative duty, of marriage. The words ‘Be fruitful and multiply’ (Gen. i. 28) were regarded not merely as a promise, but as a command, which was binding on all. It is a maxim of the Talmud that ‘Any Jew who has not a wife is no man’ (אינו אדם,) _Yebamoth_ 63_a_. The fact indeed is so patent, that any accumulation of examples would be superfluous, and I shall content myself with referring to _Pesachim_ 113_a_, _b_, as fairly illustrating the doctrine of orthodox Judaism on this point[405]. As this question affects the whole framework not only of religious, but also of social life, the antagonism between the Essene and the Pharisee in a matter so vital could not be overlooked.

Footnote 404:

_Monatschr._ p. 37.

Footnote 405:

Justin Martyr more than once taunts the Jewish rabbis with their
reckless encouragement of polygamy. See _Dial._ 134, p. 363 D, τοῖς
ἀσυνέτοις καὶ τυφλοῖς διδασκάλοις ὑμῶν, ὁίτινες καὶ μέχρι νῦν καὶ
τέσσαρας καὶ πέντε ἔχειν ὑμᾶς γυναῖκας ἕκαστον συγχωροῦσι· καὶ ἐὰν
εὔμορφόν τις ἰδὼν ἐπιθυμήσῃ αὐτῆς κ.τ.λ., _ib._ 141, p. 371 A, B,
ὁποῖον πράττουσιν οἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους ὑμῶν ἄνθρωποι, κατὰ πᾶσαν γῆν ἔνθα
ἂν ἐπιδημήσωσιν ἢ προσπεμφθῶσιν ἀγόμενοι ὀνόματι γάμου γυναῖκας
κ.τ.λ., with Otto’s note on the first passage.

[Sidenote: (iv) The Essene practice of magic still a difficulty.]

(iv) Nor again is it probable that the magical rites and incantations which are so prominent in the practice of the Essenes would, as a rule, have been received with any favour by the Pharisaic Jew. In Mishna _Pesachim_ iv. 9 (comp. _Berakhoth_ 10_b_) it is mentioned with approval that Hezekiah put away a ‘book of healings’; where doubtless the author of the tradition had in view some volume of charms ascribed to Solomon, like those which apparently formed part of the esoteric literature of the Essenes[406]. In the same spirit in Mishna _Sanhedrin_ xi. 1 R. Akiba shuts out from the hope of eternal life any ‘who read profane or foreign (i.e. perhaps, apocryphal) books, and who mutter over a wound’ the words of Exod. xv. 26. On this point of difference however no great stress can be laid. Though the nobler teachers among the orthodox Jews set themselves steadfastly against the introduction of magic, they were unable to resist the inpouring tide of superstition. In the middle of the second century Justin Martyr alludes to exorcists and magicians among the Jews, as though they were neither few nor obscure[407]. Whether these were a remnant of Essene Judaism, or whether such practices had by this time spread throughout the whole body, it is impossible to say; but the fact of their existence prevents us from founding an argument on the use of magic, as an absolutely distinctive feature of Essenism.

Footnote 406:

See above, p. 91, note 261.

Footnote 407:

_Dial._ 85, p. 311 C, ἤδη μέντοι οἱ ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐπορκισταὶ τῇ τέχνῃ, ὥσπερ
καὶ τὰ ἔθνη, χρώμενοι ἐξορκίζουσι καὶ θυμιάμασι καὶ καταδέσμοις
χρῶνται.

[Sidenote: General result.]

Other divergences also have been enumerated[408]; but, as these do not for the most part involve any great principles, and refer only to practical details in which much fluctuation was possible, they cannot under any circumstances be taken as crucial tests, and I have not thought it worth while to discuss them. But the antagonisms on which I have dwelt will tell their own tale. In three respects more especially, in the avoidance of marriage, in the abstention from the temple sacrifices, and (if the view which I have adopted be correct) in the outward reverence paid to the sun, we have seen that there is an impassable gulf between the Essenes and the Pharisees. No known influences within the sphere of Judaism proper will serve to account for the position of the Essenes in these respects; and we are obliged to look elsewhere for an explanation.

Footnote 408:

Herzfeld, II. p. 392 sq.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Frankel has failed in establishing his point.]

It was shown above that the investigations of Frankel and others failed to discover in the talmudical writings a single reference to the Essenes, which is at once direct and indisputable. It has now appeared that they have also failed (and this is the really important point) in showing that the ideas and practices generally considered characteristic of the Essenes are recognised and incorporated in these representative books of Jewish orthodoxy; and thus the hypothesis that Essenism was merely a type, though an exaggerated type, of pure Judaism falls to the ground.

[Sidenote: Affinities between Essenes and Pharisees confined to the
Judaic side.]

Some affinities indeed have been made out by Frankel and by those who have anticipated or followed him. But these are exactly such as we might have expected. Two distinct features combine to make up the portrait of the Essene. The Judaic element is quite as prominent in this sect as the non-Judaic. It could not be more strongly emphasized than in the description given by Josephus himself. In everything therefore which relates to the strictly Judaic side of their tenets and practices, we should expect to discover not only affinities, but even close affinities, in talmudic and rabbinic authorities. And this is exactly what, as a matter of fact, we do find. The Essene rules respecting the observance of the sabbath, the rites of lustration, and the like, have often very exact parallels in the writings of more orthodox Judaism. But I have not thought it necessary to dwell on these coincidences, because they may well be taken for granted and my immediate purpose did not require me to emphasize them.

[Sidenote: The divergence of the Essenes from the Pharisees gradual.]

And again; it must be remembered that the separation between Pharisee and Essene cannot always have been so great as it appears in the Apostolic age. Both sects apparently arose out of one great movement, of which the motive was the avoidance of pollution[409]. The divergence therefore must have been gradual. At the same time, it does not seem a very profitable task to write a hypothetical history of the growth of Essenism, where the data are wanting; and I shall therefore abstain from the attempt. Frankel indeed has not been deterred by this difficulty; but he has been obliged to assume his data by postulating that such and such a person, of whom notices are preserved, was an Essene, and thence inferring the character of Essenism at the period in question from his recorded sayings or doings. But without attempting any such reconstruction of history, we may fairly allow that there must have been a gradual development; and consequently in the earlier stages of its growth we should not expect to find that sharp antagonism between the two sects, which the principles of the Essenes when fully matured would involve. [Sidenote: Hence the possibility of their appearing in the records of orthodox Judaism.] If therefore it should be shown that the talmudical and rabbinical writings here and there preserve with approval the sayings of certain Essenes, this fact would present no difficulty. At present however no decisive example has been produced; and the discoveries of Jellinek for instance[410], who traces the influence of this sect in almost every page of _Pirke Aboth_, can only be regarded as another illustration of the extravagance with which the whole subject has been treated by a large section of modern Jewish writers. More to the point is a notice of an earlier Essene preserved in Josephus himself. We learn from this historian that one Judas, a member of the sect, who had prophesied the death of Antigonus, saw this prince ‘passing by through the temple[411],’ when his prophecy was on the point of fulfilment (about B.C. 110). At this moment Judas is represented as sitting in the midst of his disciples, instructing them in the science of prediction. The expression quoted would seem to imply that he was actually teaching within the temple area. Thus he would appear not only as mixing in the ordinary life of the Jews, but also as frequenting the national sanctuary. But even supposing this to be the right explanation of the passage, it will not present any serious difficulty. Even at a later date, when (as we may suppose) the principles of the sect had stiffened, the scruples of the Essene were directed, if I have rightly interpreted the account of Josephus, rather against the sacrifices than against the locality[412]. The temple itself, independently of its accompaniments, would not suggest any offence to his conscience.

Footnote 409:

See above, p. 120.

Footnote 410:

_Orient_ 1849, pp. 489, 537, 553.

Footnote 411:

_B.J._ i. 3. 5 παριόντα διὰ τοῦ ἱεροῦ. In the parallel narrative,
_Ant._ xiii. II. 2, the expression is παριόντα τὸ ἱερόν, which does
not imply so much; but the less precise notice must be interpreted by
the more precise. Even then however it is not directly stated that
Judas himself was within the temple area.

Footnote 412:

See above, pp. 89, 134 sq.

[Sidenote: The approbation of Philo and Josephus is no evidence of
orthodoxy.]

Nor again, is it any obstacle to the view which is here maintained, that the Essenes are regarded with so much sympathy by Philo and Josephus themselves. Even though the purity of Judaism might have been somewhat sullied in this sect by the admixture of foreign elements, this fact would attract rather than repel an eclectic like Philo, and a latitudinarian like Josephus. The former, as an Alexandrian, absorbed into his system many and diverse elements of heathen philosophy, Platonic, Stoic, and Pythagorean. The latter, though professedly a Pharisee, lost no opportunity of ingratiating himself with his heathen conquerors, and would not be unwilling to gratify their curiosity respecting a society with whose fame, as we infer from the notice of Pliny, they were already acquainted.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: What was the foreign element in Essenism?]

But if Essenism owed the features which distinguished it from Pharisaic Judaism to an alien admixture, whence were these foreign influences derived? From the philosophers of Greece or from the religious mystics of the East? On this point recent writers are divided.

[Sidenote: Theory of Neopythagorean influence.]

Those who trace the distinctive characteristics of the sect to Greece, regard it as an offshoot of the Neopythagorean School grafted on the stem of Judaism. This solution is suggested by the statement of Josephus, that ‘they practise the mode of life which among the Greeks was introduced (καταδεδειγμένῃ) by Pythagoras[413].’ It is thought to be confirmed by the strong resemblances which as a matter of fact are found to exist between the institutions and practices of the two.

[Sidenote: Statement of the theory by Zeller.]

This theory, which is maintained also by other writers, as for instance by Baur and Herzfeld, has found its ablest and most persistent advocate in Zeller, who draws out the parallels with great force and precision. ‘The Essenes,’ he writes, ‘like the Pythagoreans, desire to attain a higher sanctity by an ascetic life; and the abstentions, which they impose on themselves for this end, are the same with both. They reject animal food and bloody sacrifices; they avoid wine, warm baths, and oil for anointing; they set a high value on celibate life: or, so far as they allow marriage, they require that it be restricted to the one object of procreating children. Both wear only white garments and consider linen purer than wool. Washings and purifications are prescribed by both, though for the Essenes they have a yet higher significance as religious acts. Both prohibit oaths and (what is more) on the same grounds. Both find their social ideal in those institutions, which indeed the Essenes alone set themselves to realise—in a corporate life with entire community of goods, in sharply defined orders of rank, in the unconditional submission of all the members to their superiors, in a society carefully barred from without, into which new members are received only after a severe probation of several years, and from which the unworthy are inexorably excluded. Both require a strict initiation, both desire [Sidenote: Zeller’s theory.] to maintain a traditional doctrine inviolable; both pay the highest respect to the men from whom it was derived, as instruments of the deity: yet both also love figurative clothing for their doctrines, and treat the old traditions as symbols of deeper truths, which they must extract from them by means of allegorical explanation. In order to prove the later form of teaching original, newly-composed writings were unhesitatingly forged by the one as by the other, and fathered upon illustrious names of the past. Both parties pay honour to divine powers in the elements, both invoke the rising sun, both seek to withdraw everything unclean from his sight, and with this view give special directions, in which they agree as well with each other as with older Greek superstition, in a remarkable way. For both the belief in intermediate beings between God and the world has an importance which is higher in proportion as their own conception of God is purer; both appear not to have disdained magic; yet both regard the gift of prophecy as the highest fruit of wisdom and piety, which they pique themselves on possessing in their most distinguished members. Finally, both agree (along with the dualistic character of their whole conception of the world ...) in their tenets respecting the origin of the soul, its relation to the body, and the life after death[414]....’

Footnote 413:

_Ant._ xv. 10. 4.

Footnote 414:

Zeller _Philosophie der Griechen_, Th. III. Abth. 2, p. 281.

[Sidenote: Absence of distinctive Pythagorean features in the Essenes.]

This array of coincidences is formidable, and thus skilfully marshalled might appear at first sight invincible. But a closer examination detracts from its value. In the first place the two distinctive characteristics of the Pythagorean philosophy are wanting to the Essenes. The Jewish sect did not believe in the transmigration of souls; and the doctrine of numbers, at least so far as our information goes, had no place in their system. Yet these constitute the very essence of the Pythagorean teaching. In the next place several of the coincidences are more apparent than real. Thus [Sidenote: The coincidences are in some cases only apparent,] for instance the demons who in the Pythagorean system held an intermediate place between the Supreme God and man, and were the result of a compromise between polytheism and philosophy, have no near relation to the angelology of the Essenes, which arose out of a wholly different motive. Nor again can we find distinct traces among the Pythagoreans of any such reverence for the sun as is ascribed to the Essenes, the only notice which is adduced having no prominence whatever in its own context, and referring to a rule which would be dictated by natural decency and certainly was not peculiar to the Pythagoreans[415]. When these imperfect and (for the purpose) valueless resemblances have been subtracted, the only basis on which the theory of a direct affiliation can rest is withdrawn. All the remaining coincidences are unimportant. Thus the respect paid to founders is not confined to any one sect or any one age. The reverence of the Essenes for Moses, and the reverence of the Pythagoreans for Pythagoras, are indications of a common humanity, but not of a common philosophy. And again the forgery of supposititious documents is unhappily not the badge of any one school. The Solomonian books of the Essenes, so far as we can judge from the extant notices, were about as unlike the tracts ascribed to Pythagoras and his disciples by the Neopythagoreans as two such forgeries could well be. All or nearly all that remains in common to the Greek school and the Jewish sect after these deductions is [Sidenote: and in others do not suggest any historical connexion.] a certain similarity in the type of life. But granted that two bodies of men each held an esoteric teaching of their own, they would secure it independently in a similar way, by a recognised process of initiation, by a solemn form of oath, by a rigid distinction of orders. Granted also, that they both maintained the excellence of an ascetic life, their asceticism would naturally take the same form; they would avoid wine and flesh; they would abstain from anointing themselves with oil; they would depreciate, and perhaps altogether prohibit, marriage. Unless therefore the historical conditions are themselves favourable to a direct and immediate connexion between the Pythagoreans and the Essenes, this theory of affiliation has little to recommend it.

Footnote 415:

Diog. Laert. viii. 17; see Zeller l.c. p. 282, note 5. The precept in
question occurs among a number of insignificant details, and has no
special prominence given to it. In the _Life of Apollonius_ by
Philostratus (e.g. vi. 10) considerable stress is laid on the worship
of the sun (Zeller l.c. p. 137, note 6); but the syncretism of this
late work detracts from its value as representing Pythagorean
doctrine.

[Sidenote: Twofold objection to this theory.]

And a closer examination must pronounce them to be most unfavourable. Chronology and geography alike present serious obstacles to any solution which derives the peculiarities of the Essenes from the Pythagoreans.

[Sidenote: (i) Chronological facts are adverse.]

(i) The priority of time, if it can be pleaded on either side, must be urged in favour of the Essenes. The Pythagoreans as a philosophical school entirely disappear from history before the middle of the fourth century before Christ. The last Pythagoreans were scholars of Philolaus and Eurytus, the contemporaries of Socrates and Plato[416]. For nearly two centuries after their extinction we hear [Sidenote: Disappearance of the Pythagoreans.] nothing of them. Here and there persons like Diodorus of Aspendus are satirised by the Attic poets of the middle comedy as ‘pythagorizers,’ in other words, as total abstainers and vegetarians[417]; but the philosophy had wholly died or was fast dying out. This is the universal testimony of ancient writers. It is not till the first century before Christ, that we meet with any distinct traces of a revival. In Alexander Polyhistor[418], a younger contemporary of Sulla, for the first time we find references to certain writings, which would seem to have emanated from this incipient Neopythagoreanism, rather than from the elder school of Pythagoreans. And a little later Cicero commends his friend Nigidius Figulus as one specially raised up to revive the extinct philosophy[419]. But so slow or so chequered was its progress, that a whole century after Seneca can still speak of the [Sidenote: Priority of Essenism to Neopythagoreanism.] school as practically defunct[420]. Yet long before this the Essenes formed a compact, well-organized, numerous society with a peculiar system of doctrine and a definite rule of life. We have seen that Pliny the elder speaks of this celibate society as having existed ‘through thousands of ages[421].’ This is a gross exaggeration, but it must at least be taken to imply that in Pliny’s time the origin of the Essenes was lost in the obscurity of the past, or at least seemed so to those who had not access to special sources of information. If, as I have given reasons for supposing[422], Pliny’s authority in this passage is the same Alexander Polyhistor to whom I have just referred, and if this particular statement, however exaggerated in expression, is derived from him, the fact becomes still more significant. But on any showing the priority in time is distinctly in favour of the Essenes as against the Neopythagoreans.

Footnote 416:

Zeller l.c. p. 68 (comp. I. p. 242). While disputing Zeller’s
position, I have freely made use of his references. It is impossible
not to admire the mastery of detail and clearness of exposition in
this work, even when the conclusions seem questionable.

Footnote 417:

Athen. iv. p. 161, Diog. Laert. viii. 37. See the index to Meineke
_Fragm. Com._ s. vv. πυθαγορικός, etc. The words commonly used by
these satirists are πυθαγορίζειν, πυθαγοριστής, πυθαγορισμός. The
persons so satirized were probably in many cases not more Pythagoreans
than modern teetotallers are Rechabites.

Footnote 418:

Diog. Laert. viii. 24 sq.; see Zeller l.c. p. 74–78.

Footnote 419:

Cic. _Tim._ I ‘sic judico, post illos nobiles Pythagoreos quorum
disciplina _extincta est_ quodammodo, cum aliquot sæcula in Italia
Siciliaque viguisset, hunc exstitisse qui illam _renovaret_.’

Footnote 420:

Sen. _N.Q._ vii. 32 ‘Pythagorica illa invidiosa turbæ schola
præceptorem non invenit.’

Footnote 421:

_N.H._ v. 15. The passage is at which Josephus thinks it necessary to
insert an account of the Essenes as already flourishing (_Ant._ xiii.
5. 9), is prior to the revival of the Neopythagorean school. How much
earlier the Jewish sect arose, we are without data for determining.

Footnote 422:

See p. 83, note 240.

[Sidenote: The Essene tenets more developed than the Neopythagorean.]

And accordingly we find that what is only a tendency in the Neopythagoreans is with the Essenes an avowed principle and a definite rule of life. Such for instance is the case with celibacy, of which Pliny says that it has existed as an institution among the Essenes _per sæculorum millia_, and which is a chief corner-stone of their practical system. The Pythagorean notices (whether truly or not, it is unimportant for my purpose to enquire) speak of Pythagoras as having a wife and a daughter[423]. Only at a late date do we find the attempt to represent their founder in another light; and if virginity is ascribed to Apollonius of Tyana, the great Pythagorean of the first Christian century, in the fictitious biography of Philostratus[424], this representation is plainly due to the general plan of the novelist, whose hero is intended to rival the Founder of Christianity, and whose work is saturated with Christian ideas. In fact virginity can never be said to have been a Pythagorean principle, though it may have been an exalted ideal of some not very early adherents of the school. And the same remark applies to other resemblances between the Essene and Neopythagorean teaching. The clearness of conception and the definiteness of practice are in almost every instance on the side of the Essenes; so that, looking to the comparative chronology of the two, it will appear almost inconceivable that they can have derived their principles from the Neopythagoreans.

Footnote 423:

Diog. Laert. viii. 42.

Footnote 424:

_Vit. Apoll._ i. 15 sq. At the same time Philostratus informs us that
the conduct of his hero in this respect had been differently
represented by others.

[Sidenote: (ii) Geographical difficulties in the theory.]

(ii) But the geographical difficulty also, which this theory of affiliation involves, must be added to the chronological. The home of the Essene sect is allowed on all hands to have been on the eastern borders of Palestine, the shores of the Dead Sea, a region least of all exposed to the influences of Greek philosophy. It is true that we find near Alexandria a closely allied school of Jewish recluses, the Therapeutes; and, as Alexandria may have been the home of Neopythagoreanism, a possible link of connexion is here disclosed. But, as Zeller himself has pointed out, it is not among the Therapeutes, but among the Essenes, that the principles in question appear fully developed and consistently carried out[425]; and therefore, if there be a relation of paternity between Essene and Therapeute, the latter must be derived from the former and not conversely. How then can we suppose this influence of Neopythagoreanism brought to bear on a Jewish community in the south-eastern border of Palestine? Zeller’s answer is as follows[426]. Judæa was for more than a hundred and fifty years before the Maccabean period under the sovereignty first of the Egyptian and then of the Syrian Greeks. We know that at this time Hellenizing influences did infuse themselves largely into Judaism: and what more natural than that among these the Pythagorean philosophy and discipline should have recommended itself to a section of the Jewish people? It may be said in reply, that at all events the special locality of the Essenes is the least favourable to such a solution: but, without pressing this fact, Zeller’s hypothesis is open to two serious objections which combined seem fatal to it, unsupported as it is by any historical notice. First, this influence of Pythagoreanism is assumed to have taken place at the very time when the Pythagorean school was practically extinct: and secondly, it is supposed to have acted upon that very section of the Jewish community, which was the most vigorous advocate of national exclusiveness and the most averse to Hellenizing influences.

Footnote 425:

l.c. p. 288 sq.

Footnote 426:

l.c. p. 290 sq.

[Sidenote: The foreign element of Essenism to be sought in the East,]

It is not therefore to Greek but to Oriental influences that considerations of time and place, as well as of internal character, lead us to look for an explanation of the alien elements in Essene Judaism. And have we not here also the account of any real coincidences which may exist between Essenism and Neopythagoreanism? We should perhaps be hardly more justified in tracing Neopythagoreanism directly to Essenism than conversely (though, if we had no other alternative, this would appear to be the more probable solution of the two): but were not both alike due to substantially the same influences acting in different degrees? [Sidenote: to which also Pythagoreanism may have been indebted.]I think it will hardly be denied that the characteristic features of Pythagoreanism, and especially of Neopythagoreanism, which distinguish it from other schools of Greek philosophy, are much more Oriental in type, than Hellenic. The asceticism, the magic, the mysticism, of the sect all point in the same direction. And history moreover contains indications that such was the case. There seems to be sufficient ground for the statement that Pythagoras himself was indebted to intercourse with the Egyptians, if not with more strictly Oriental nations, for some leading ideas of his system. But, however this may be, the fact that in the legendary accounts, which the Neopythagoreans invented to do honour to the founder of the school, he is represented as taking lessons from the Chaldeans, Persians, Brahmins, and others, may be taken as an evidence that their own philosophy at all events was partially derived from eastern sources[427].

Footnote 427:

See the references in Zeller I. p. 218 sq.; comp. III. 2, p. 67.

* * * * *

But, if the alien elements of Essenism were borrowed not so much from Greek philosophy as from Oriental mysticism, to what nation or what religion was it chiefly indebted? To this question it is difficult, with our very imperfect knowledge of the East at the Christian era, to reply with any confidence. [Sidenote: Resemblances to Parsism.]Yet there is one system to which we naturally look, as furnishing the most probable answer. The Medo-Persian religion supplies just those elements which distinguish the tenets and practices of the Essenes from the normal type of Judaism. [Sidenote: (i) Dualism.](1) First; we have here a very definite form of dualism, which exercised the greatest influence on subsequent Gnostic sects, and of which Manicheism, the most mature development of dualistic doctrine in connexion with Christianity, was the ultimate fruit. For though dualism may not represent the oldest theology of the Zend-Avesta in its unadulterated form, yet long before the era of which we are speaking it had become the fundamental principle of the Persian religion. [Sidenote: (ii) Sun-worship.](2) Again; the Zoroastrian symbolism of light, and consequent worship of the sun as the fountain of light, will explain those anomalous notices of the Essenes in which they are represented as paying reverence to this luminary[428]. [Sidenote: (iii) Angelolatry.](3) Moreover; the ‘worship of angels’ in the Essene system has a striking parallel in the invocations of spirits, which form a very prominent feature in the ritual of the Zend-Avesta. And altogether their angelology is illustrated, and not improbably was suggested, by the doctrine of intermediate beings concerned in the government of nature and of man, such as the Amshaspands, which is an integral part of the Zoroastrian system[429]. [Sidenote: (iv) Magic.](4) And once more; the magic, which was so attractive to the Essene, may have received its impulse from the priestly caste of Persia, to whose world-wide fame this form of superstition is indebted for its name. [Sidenote: (v) Striving after purity.](5) If to these parallels I venture also to add the intense striving after purity, which is the noblest feature in the Persian religion, I do so, not because the Essenes might not have derived this impulse from a higher source, but because this feature was very likely to recommend the Zoroastrian system to their favourable notice, and because also the particular form which the zeal for purity took among them was at all events congenial to the teaching of the Zend-Avesta, and may not have been altogether free from its influences.

Footnote 428:

Keim (_Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_ I.</sc> p. 303) refers to Tac.
Hist. iii. 24 ‘Undique clamor; et _orientem solem_ (ita in Syria mos
est) tertiani salutavere,’ as illustrating this Essene practice. The
commentators on Tacitus quote a similar notice of the Parthians in
Herodian iv. 15 _ἅμα δὲ ἡλίῳ ἀνίσχοντι ἐφάνη Ἀρτάβανος σὺν μεγίστῳ
πλήθει στρατοῦ· ἀσπασάμενοι δὲ τὸν ἤλιον, ὡς ἔθος αὐτοῖς, οἱ βάρβαροι
κ.τ.λ._

Footnote 429:

See e.g. _Vendidad_ Farg. xix; and the liturgical portions of the book
are largely taken up with invocations of these intermediate beings.
Some extracts are given in Davies’ _Colossians_ p. 146 sq.

[Sidenote: Other coincidences accidental.]

I have preferred dwelling on these broader resemblances, because they are much more significant than any mere coincidence of details, which may or may not have been accidental. Thus for instance the magi, like the Essenes, wore white garments, and eschewed gold and ornaments; they practised frequent lustrations; they avoided flesh, living on bread and cheese or on herbs and fruits; they had different orders in their society; and the like[430]. All these, as I have already remarked, may be the independent out-growth of the same temper and direction of conduct, and need not imply any direct historical connexion. Nor is there any temptation to press such resemblances; for even without their aid the general connexion seems to be sufficiently established[431].

Footnote 430:

Hilgenfeld (_Zeitschrift_ x. p. 99 sq.) finds coincidences even more
special than these. He is answered by Zeller (III. 2. p. 276), but
defends his position again (_Zeitschrift_ xi. p. 347 sq.), though with
no great success. Among other points of coincidence Hilgenfeld remarks
on the axe (Jos. _B.J._ ii. 8. 7) which was given to the novices among
the Essenes, and connects it with the ἀξινομαντεία (Plin. _N.H._
xxxvi. 19) of the magi. Zeller contents himself with replying that the
use of the axe among the Essenes for purposes of divination is a pure
conjecture, not resting on any known fact. He might have answered with
much more effect that Josephus elsewhere (§ 9) defines it as a spade
or shovel, and assigns to it a very different use. Hilgenfeld has
damaged his cause by laying stress on these accidental resemblances.
So far as regards minor coincidences, Zeller makes out as good a case
for his Pythagoreans, as Hilgenfeld for his magians.

Footnote 431:

Those who allow any foreign Oriental element in Essenism most commonly
ascribe it to Persia: e.g. among the more recent writers, Hilgenfeld
(l.c.) and Lipsius _Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexikon_ s.v. Essäer p. 189.

[Sidenote: The destruction of the Persian empire not adverse]

But it is said, that the history of Persia does not favour the hypothesis of such an influence as is here assumed. The destruction of the Persian empire by Alexander, argues Zeller[432], and the subsequent erection of the Parthian domination on its ruins, must have been fatal to the spread of Zoroastrianism. From the middle of the third century before Christ, when the Parthian empire was established, till towards the middle of the third century of our era, when the Persian monarchy and religion were once more restored[433], its influence must have been reduced within the narrowest limits. [Sidenote: but favourable to the spread of Parsism.] But does analogy really suggest such an inference? Does not the history of the Jews themselves show that the religious influence of a people on the world at large may begin just where its national life ends? The very dispersion of Zoroastrianism, consequent on the fall of the empire, would impregnate the atmosphere far and wide; and the germs of new religious developments would thus be implanted in alien soils. For in tracing Essenism to Persian influences I have not wished to imply that this Jewish sect consciously incorporated the Zoroastrian philosophy and religion as such, but only that Zoroastrian ideas were infused into its system by more or less direct contact. And, as a matter of fact, it seems quite certain that Persian ideas were widely spread during this very interval, when the Persian nationality was eclipsed. [Sidenote: Indications of its influence during this period.]It was then that Hermippus gave to the Greeks the most detailed account of this religion which had ever been laid before them[434]. It was then that its tenets suggested or moulded the speculations of the various Gnostic sects. It was then that the worship of the Persian Mithras spread throughout the Roman Empire. It was then, if not earlier, that the magian system took root in Asia Minor, making for itself (as it were) a second home in Cappadocia[435]. It was then, if not earlier, that the Zoroastrian demonology stamped itself so deeply on the apocryphal literature of the Jews themselves, which borrowed even the names of evil spirits[436] from the Persians. There are indeed abundant indications that Palestine was surrounded by Persian influences during this period, when the Persian empire was in abeyance.

Footnote 432:

l.c. p. 275.

Footnote 433:

See Gibbon _Decline and Fall_ c. viii, Milman _History of
Christianity_ II. p. 247 sq. The latter speaks of this restoration of
Zoroastrianism, as ‘perhaps the only instance of the vigorous revival
of a Pagan religion.’ It was far purer and less Pagan than the system
which it superseded; and this may account for its renewed life.

Footnote 434:

See Müller _Fragm. Hist. Græc._ III. p. 53 sq. for this work of
Hermippus περὶ Μάγων. He flourished about B.C. 200. See Max Müller
_Lectures on the Science of Language_ 1st ser. p. 86.

Footnote 435:

Strabo xv. 3. 15 (p. 733) Ἐν δὲ τῇ Καππαδοκίᾳ (πολὺ γὰρ ἐκεῖ τὸ τῶν
Μάγων φῦλον, οἳ καὶ πύραιθοι καλοῦνται· πολλὰ δὲ καὶ τῶν Περσικῶν θεῶν
ἱερά) κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 436:

At least in one instance, Asmodeus (Tob. iii. 17); see M. Müller
_Chips from a German Workshop_ I. p. 148 sq. For the different dates
assigned to the book of Tobit see Dr Westcott’s article _Tobit_ in
Smith’s _Dictionary of the Bible_ p. 1525.

Thus we seem to have ample ground for the view that certain alien features in Essene Judaism were derived from the Zoroastrian religion. [Sidenote: Are Buddhist influences also perceptible?]But are we justified in going a step further, and attributing other elements in this eclectic system to the more distant East? The monasticism of the Buddhist will naturally occur to our minds, as a precursor of the cenobitic life among the Essenes; and Hilgenfeld accordingly has not hesitated to ascribe this characteristic of Essenism directly to Buddhist influences[437]. But at the outset we are obliged to ask whether history gives any such indication of the presence of Buddhism in the West as this hypothesis requires. Hilgenfeld answers this question in the affirmative. [Sidenote: Supposed Buddhist establishment at Alexandria.]He points triumphantly to the fact that as early as the middle of the second century before Christ the Buddhist records speak of their faith as flourishing in Alasanda the chief city of the land of Yavana. The place intended, he conceives, can be none other than the great Alexandria, the most famous of the many places bearing the name[438]. [Sidenote: The authority misinterpreted] In this opinion however he stands quite alone. Neither Köppen[439], who is his authority for this statement, nor any other Indian scholar[440], so far as I am aware, for a moment contemplates this identification. Yavana, or Yona, was the common Indian name for the Græco-Bactrian kingdom and its dependencies[441]; and to this region we naturally turn. The Alasanda or Alasadda therefore, which is here mentioned, will be one of several Eastern cities bearing the name of the great conqueror, most probably _Alexandria ad Caucasum_. But indeed I hardly think that, if Hilgenfeld had referred to the original authority for the statement, the great Buddhist history _Mahawanso_, he would have ventured to lay any stress at all on this notice, as supporting his theory. [Sidenote: and wholly untrustworthy in itself.]The historian, or rather fabulist (for such he is in this earlier part of his chronicle), is relating the foundation of the Mahá thúpo, or great tope, at Ruanwelli by the king Dutthagámini in the year B.C. 157. Beyond the fact that this tope was erected by this king the rest is plainly legendary. All the materials for the construction of the building, we are told, appeared spontaneously as by miracle—the bricks, the metals, the precious stones. The dewos, or demons, lent their aid in the erection. In fact

the fabric huge
Rose like an exhalation.

Priests gathered in enormous numbers from all the great Buddhist monasteries to do honour to the festival of the foundation. One place alone sent not less than 96,000. Among the rest it is mentioned that ‘Maha Dhammarakkito, théro (_i.e._ senior priest) of Yóna, accompanied by 30,000 priests from the vicinity of Alasaddá, the capital of the Yóna country, attended[442].’ It is obvious that no weight can be attached to a statement occurring as part of a story of which the other details are so manifestly false. An establishment of 30,000 Buddhist priests at Alexandria would indeed be a phenomenon of which historians have shown a strange neglect.

Footnote 437:

_Zeitschrift_ X. p. 103 sq.; comp. XI. p. 351. M. Renan also (_Langues
Sémitiques_ III. iv. 1, _Vie de Jésus_ p. 98) suggests that Buddhist
influences operated in Palestine.

Footnote 438:

X. p. 105 ‘was schon an sich, zumal in dieser Zeit, schwerlich
Alexandria ad Caucasum, sondern nur Alexandrien in Aegypten bedeuten
kann.’ Comp. XI. p. 351, where he repeats the same argument in reply
to Zeller. This is a very natural inference from a western point of
view; but, when we place ourselves in the position of a Buddhist
writer to whom Bactria was Greece, the relative proportions of things
are wholly changed.

Footnote 439:

_Die Religion des Buddha_ I. p. 193.

Footnote 440:

Comp. e.g. Weber _Die Verbindungen Indiens mit den Ländern im Westen_
p.675 in the _Allgem. Monatschr. f. Wissensch. u. Literatur_,
Braunschweig 1853; Lassen _Indische Alterthumskunde_ II. p. 236; Hardy
_Manual of Budhism_ p. 516.

Footnote 441:

For its geographical meaning in older Indian writers see Köppen _l.c._
Since then it has entirely departed from its original signification,
and Yavana is now a common term used by the Hindoos to designate the
Mohammedans. Thus the Greek name has come to be applied to a people
which of all others is most unlike the Greeks. This change of meaning
admirably illustrates the use of Ἑλλην among the Jews, which in like
manner, from being the name of an alien nation, became the name of an
alien religion, irrespective of nationality: see the note on Gal. ii.
3.

Footnote 442:

_Mahawanso_ p. 171, Turnour’s translation.

[Sidenote: General ignorance of Buddhism in the West.]

Nor is the presence of any Buddhist establishment even on a much smaller scale in this important centre of western civilization at all reconcilable with the ignorance of this religion, which the Greeks and Romans betray at a much later date[443]. For some centuries after the Christian era we find that the information possessed by western writers was most shadowy and confused; and in almost every instance we are able to trace it to some other cause than the actual presence of Buddhists in the Roman Empire[444]. [Sidenote: Strabo.]Thus Strabo, who wrote under Augustus and Tiberius, apparently mentions the Buddhist priests, the sramanas, under the designation _sarmanæ_, (Σαρμάνας)[445]; but he avowedly obtains his information from Megasthenes, who travelled in India somewhere about the year 300 B.C. and wrote a book on Indian affairs. [Sidenote: Bardesanes.]Thus too Bardesanes at a much later date gives an account of these Buddhist ascetics, without however naming the founder of the religion; but he was indebted for his knowledge of them to conversations with certain Indian ambassadors who visited Syria on their way westward in the reign of one of the Antonines[446]. [Sidenote: Clement of Alexandria.] Clement of Alexandria, writing in the latest years of the second century or the earliest of the third, for the first time[447] mentions Buddha by name; and even he betrays a strange ignorance of this Eastern religion[448].

Footnote 443:

How for instance, if any such establishment had ever existed at
Alexandria, could Strabo have used the language which is quoted in the
next note?

Footnote 444:

Consistently with this view, we may allow that single Indians would
visit Alexandria from time to time for purposes of trade or for other
reasons, and not more than this is required by the rhetorical passage
in Dion Chrysost. Or. xxxii (p. 373) ὁρῶ γὰρ ἔγωγε οὐ μόνον Ἕλληνας
παρ’ ὑμῖν ... ἀλλὰ καὶ Βακτρίους καὶ Σκύθας καὶ Πέρσας καὶ Ἰνδῶν
τινάς. The qualifying τινας shows how very slight was the
communication between India and Alexandria. The mission of Pantænus
may have been suggested by the presence of such stray visitors. Jerome
(_Vir. Ill._ 36) says that he went ‘rogatus ab illius gentis legatis.’
It must remain doubtful however, whether some other region than
Hindostan, such as Æthiopia for instance, is not meant, when Pantænus
is said to have gone to India: see Cave’s _Lives of the Primitive
Fathers_ p. 188 sq.

How very slight the communication was between India and the West in
the early years of the Christian era, appears from this passage of
Strabo XV. 1. 4 (p. 686); καὶ οἱ νῦν δὲ ἐξ Αἰγύπτου πλέοντες ἐμπορικοὶ
τῷ Νείλῳ καὶ τῷ Ἀραβίῳ κόλπῳ μέχρι τῆς Ἰνδικῆς σπάνιοι μὲν καὶ
περιπεπλεύκασι μέχρι τοῦ Γάγγου, καὶ οὗτοι δ’ ἰδιῶται καὶ οὐδὲν πρὸς
ἱστορίαν τῶν τόπων χρῆσιμοι, after which he goes on to say that the
only instance of Indian travellers in the West was the embassy sent to
Augustus (see below p. 155), which came ἀφ’ ἑνὸς τόπου καὶ παρ’ ἑνὸς
βασιλέως.

The communications between India and the West are investigated by two
recent writers, Reinaud _Relations Politiques et Commerciales de
l’Empire Romain avec l’Asie Centrale_, Paris 1863, and Priaulx _The
Indian Travels of Apollonius of Tyana and the Indian Embassies to
Rome_, 1873. The latter work, which is very thorough and satisfactory,
would have saved me much labour of independent investigation, if I had
seen it in time.

Footnote 445:

Strabo XV. 1. 59, p. 712. In the MSS it is written Γαρμάνας, but this
must be an error either introduced by Strabo’s transcribers or found
in the copy of Megasthenes which this author used. This is plain not
only from the Indian word itself, but also from the parallel passage
in Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._ i. 15). From the coincidences of
language it is clear that Clement also derived his information from
Megasthenes, whose name he mentions just below. The fragments of
Megasthenes relating to the Indian philosophers will be found in
Müller _Fragm. Hist. Græc._ II. p. 437. They were previously edited by
Schwanbeck, _Megasthenis Indica_ (Bonnæ 1846).

For Σαρμᾶναι we also find the form Σαμαναῖοι in other writers; e.g.
Clem. Alex. l.c., Bardesanes in Porphyr. _de Abstin._ iv. 17, Orig.
_c. Cels._ i. 19 (I. p. 342). This divergence is explained by the fact
that the Pali word _sammana_ corresponds to the Sanskrit _sramana_.
See Schwanbeck, l.c. p. 17, quoted by Müller p. 437.

It should be borne in mind however, that several eminent Indian
scholars believe Megasthenes to have meant not Buddhists but Brahmins
by his Σαρμάνας. So for instance Lassen _Rhein. Mus._ 1833, p. 180
sq., _Ind. Alterth._ II. p. 700: and Prof. Max Müller (Pref. to
Rogers’s _Translation of Buddhaghosha’s Parables_, London 1870, p.
lii) says; ‘That Lassen is right in taking the Σαρμᾶναι, mentioned by
Megasthenes, for Brahmanic, not for Buddhist ascetics, might be proved
also by their dress. Dresses made of the bark of trees are not
Buddhistic.’ If this opinion be correct, the earlier notices of
Buddhism in Greek writers entirely disappear, and my position is
strengthened. But for the following reasons the other view appears to
me more probable: (1) The term _sramana_ is the common term for the
Buddhist ascetic, whereas it is very seldom used of the Brahmin.

(2) The Ζάρμανος (another form of _sramana_), mentioned below p. 156,
note 450, appears to have been a Buddhist. This view is taken even by
Lassen, _Ind. Alterth._ III. p. 60.

(3) The distinction of Βραχμᾶνες and Σαρμᾶναι in Megasthenes or the
writers following him corresponds to the distinction of Βραχμᾶνες and
Σαμαναῖοι in Bardesanes, Origen, and others; and, as Schwanbeck has
shown (l.c.), the account of the Σαρμᾶναι in Megasthenes for the most
part is a close parallel to the account of the Σαμαναῖοι in Bardesanes
(or at least in Porphyry’s report of Bardesanes). It seems more
probable therefore that Megasthenes has been guilty of confusion in
describing the dress of the Σαρμᾶναι, than that Brahmins are intended
by the term.

The Pali form, Σαμαναῖοι, as a designation of the Buddhists, first
occurs in Clement of Alexandria or Bardesanes, whichever may be the
earlier writer. It is generally ascribed to Alexander Polyhistor, who
flourished B.C. 80–60, because his authority is quoted by Cyril of
Alexandria (c. _Julian_. iv. p. 133) in the same context in which the
Σαμαναῖοι are mentioned. This inference is drawn by Schwanbeck, Max
Müller, Lassen, and others. An examination of Cyril’s language however
shows that the statement for which he quotes the authority of
Alexander Polyhistor does not extend to the mention of the Samanæi.
Indeed all the facts given in this passage of Cyril (including the
reference to Polyhistor) are taken from Clement of Alexandria
(_Strom._ i. 15; see the next note), whose account Cyril has abridged.
It is possible indeed that Clement himself derived the statement from
Polyhistor, but nothing in Clement’s own language points to this.

Footnote 446:

The narrative of Bardesanes is given by Porphyry _de Abst._ iv. 17.
The Buddhist ascetics are there called Σαμαναῖοι (see the last note).
The work of Bardesanes, recounting his conversations with these Indian
ambassadors, is quoted again by Porphyry in a fragment preserved by
Stobæus _Ecl._ iii. 56 (p. 141). In this last passage the embassy is
said to have arrived ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας τῆς Ἀντωνίνου τοῦ ἐξ Ἐμισῶν, by
which, if the words be correct, must be meant Elagabalus (A.D.
218–222), the spurious Antonine (see Hilgenfeld _Bardesanes_ p. 12
sq.). Other ancient authorities however place Bardesanes in the reign
of one of the older Antonines; and, as the context is somewhat
corrupt, we cannot feel quite certain about the date. Bardesanes gives
by far the most accurate account of the Buddhists to be found in any
ancient Greek writer; but even here the monstrous stories, which the
Indian ambassadors related to him, show how little trustworthy such
sources of information were.

Footnote 447:

Except possibly Arrian, _Ind._ viii. 1, who mentions an ancient Indian
king, Budyas (Βουδύας) by name; but what he relates of him is quite
inconsistent with the history of Buddha, and probably some one else is
intended.

Footnote 448:

In this passage (_Strom._ i. 15, p. 359) Clement apparently mentions
these same persons three times, supposing that he is describing three
different schools of Oriental philosophers. (1) He speaks of Σαμαναῖοι
Βάκτρων (comp. Cyrill. Alex. l.c.); (2) He distinguishes two classes
of Indian gymnosophists, whom he calls Σαρμᾶναι and Βραχμᾶναι. These
are Buddhists and Brahmins respectively (see p. 153, note 445); (3) He
says afterwards εἰσὶ δὲ τῶν Ἰνδῶν οἱ τοῖς Βοῦττα πειθόμενοι
παραγγέλμασιν, ὃν δι’ ὑπερβολὴν σεμνότητος εἰς [ὡς?] θεὸν τετιμήκασι.
Schwanbeck indeed maintains that Clement here intends to describe the
same persons whom he has just mentioned as Σαρμᾶναι; but this is not
the natural interpretation of his language, which must mean ‘There are
also among the Indians those who obey the precepts of Buddha.’
Probably Schwanbeck is right in identifying the Σαρμᾶναι with the
Buddhist ascetics, but Clement appears not to have known this. In fact
he has obtained his information from different sources, and so
repeated himself without being aware of it. Where he got the first
fact it is impossible to say. The second, as we saw, was derived from
Megasthenes. The third, relating to Buddha, came, as we may
conjecture, either from Pantænus (if indeed Hindostan is really meant
by the India of his missionary labours) or from some chance Indian
visitor at Alexandria.

In another passage (_Strom._ iii. 7, p. 539) Clement speaks of certain
Indian celibates and ascetics, who are called Σεμνοί. As he
distinguishes them from the gymnosophists, and mentions the pyramid as
a sacred building with them, the identification with the Buddhists can
hardly be doubted. Here therefore Σεμνοί is a Grecized form of
Σαμαναῖοι; and this modification of the word would occur naturally to
Clement, because σεμνοί, σεμνεῖον, were already used of the ascetic
life: e.g. Philo _de Vit. Cont._ 3 (p. 475 M) ἱερὸν ὃ καλεῖται
σεμνεῖον καὶ μοναστήριον ἐν ᾧ μονοῦμενοι τὰ τοῦ σεμνοῦ βίου μυστήρια
τελοῦνται.

[Sidenote: Hippolytus.]