1857.—The comparatively few and unessential deviations from Judaism to be found in Essenism were, however, more than Herzfeld could tolerate, without characterising the innovators as heretics and smugglers of contraband opinions. Dissatisfied with the modern researches of Frankel and Graetz on this subject, this learned historian, and chief Rabbi of Brunswick, returned to the old notion of De Rossi, that the Essenes of Josephus and Philo are identical with the Baithusians mentioned in the Talmud. Still he thinks that De Rossi’s [[79]]opinion “must be better proved than he had done it,” and therefore remarks—“first of all, seeing that the prefixed בית denotes school or sect in the appellations Beth-Shammai, Beth-Hillel; that בית הכותים in Tosifta Helem ii. b, and בי כותאי in Chullin 6 a, denotes the sect or the land of Cuttim; and then that בית סין stands twice Tosifta Succa, cap. iii., and Tosifta Menachoth cap. x. for Baithusians, can it mean anything else than house or sect of Essenes? When אסי physician became the name of a sect, an Essene could not so well be called אסי without ambiguity; he was therefore described as one of בית אסי.”[97] Thus much for the origin of the name, and now let us hear Dr. Herzfeld’s theory about the brotherhood itself. It is simply this[98]—“A Jew, who became acquainted with the allegorical exegesis prevalent among the Alexandrian Jews, and with its mother the Greek wisdom, but who, like Pythagoras, Plato and Herodotus, had also found [[80]]an opportunity to learn some things from Egyptian priests, conceived and carried out the plan, eclectically to form from it and from Judaism a speculative and ascetic system, as well as to organise, according to its model, a sect from the Jewish ascetics.”[99] This Alexandrianized Palestinian Jew founded the order of the Essenes in Palestine about 230 B.C.
1857.—Another effort was made in this year to explain the origin of this mysterious brotherhood. Professor Hilgenfeld of Jena, who maintains their genuine Jewish origin, starts the notion that the Essenes belonged to the Apocalytical school, and that they must be regarded as the successors of the ancient prophets, and as constituting the prophetic school. It is only when we view them from this stand point that their precepts and practices can be understood, and that the high antiquity ascribed to them by Josephus (Antiq. xviii. 1, 2) and Pliny (Hist. Nat. v. 17), can be comprehended. This he moreover assures us gives the clue to the explanation of their name. The Hebrew prophets were also called חזים seers, which, being in the Aramaic pronunciation חזין, easily gave rise through Greek change of vowels to the name Ἐσσαῖου, Ἐσσηνοί. Hilgenfeld manifests an almost inexcusable ignorance of the labours of Frankel and Graetz on the Essenes.[100]
1860.—A necessarily brief but interesting article on the Essenes, written by the able Mr. Westcott, appeared in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. The writer wisely availed himself of the labours of Frankel and Jost, and properly traced the origin of the brotherhood to the Chassidim. His fear, however, lest any shining virtues in the Essenes might be thought by some to pale some of the brightness of the Sun of Righteousness, prevented him from appreciating the true [[81]]character of this order, as well as from seeing that they paved the way to Christianity.
1863.—Graetz again, in the second edition of the third volume of his History of the Jews, in which he has an additional chapter on the Rise and Progress of Christianity, goes to the other extreme, and maintains that “Jesus simply appropriated to himself the essential features of Essenism,”[101] and that primitive Christianity was nothing but an offshoot from Essenism.
1862.—Of the article on the Essenes in Dr. Alexander’s valuable edition of Kitto’s Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, being written by me, I can do no more than say that it embodies the substance of this Essay.
1863.—The description of the Essenes in the new edition of Dean Milman’s History of the Jews, gives a very imperfect idea both of the development and morality of this brotherhood.[102] The learned Dean seems to be wholly unacquainted with the researches of Frankel and Graetz on this subject. He, however, rightly rejects the notion that Essenism had its origin in Pythagorism.
1847.—After the above was printed, I found a notice of the Essenes in Hirschfeld’s work on the Hagadic Exegesis, in which he submits that the name Essene may be derived from the Greek ἦθος manners, morality, virtue, that though the Essenes had several things in common with the Therapeutae, yet there was a great difference between the two sects, and that the former rested more on the Bible and on Judaism. Still he affirms that “some Neo-Platonic, Pythagorean and Persian ideas found their way among the Essenes, [[82]]and brought with them some practices and institutions which this brotherhood mixed up with the Jewish views of religion, and amongst which are to be classed their extension of the laws of purification, &c.” Hirschfeld, moreover, maintains that, “like the Alexandrians, but only from a different standpoint, the Essenes aimed to reconcile religion with science.” As this opinion has already been discussed in this Essay, it is needless to repeat the objections against it.[103]
[1] According to tradition there were four degrees of purity. 1. The ordinary purity required of every worshipper in the temple (טהרת חולין). 2. The higher degree of purity necessary for eating of the heave-offering (טהרת תרומה). 3. The still higher degree requisite for partaking of the sacrifices (טהרת הקודש). And 4. The degree of purity required of those who sprinkle the water absolving from sin (טהרת חטאת). Each degree of purity required a greater separation from the impurities described in Leviticus xi, 24 – xv, 28 . These impure subjects were termed the fathers of impurity; that which was touched by them was designated the first generation of impurity; what was touched by this again, was called the second generation of impurity; and so on. Now, heave-offerings—the second degree of holiness—became impure when touched by the third generation; the flesh of sacrifices—the third degree of holiness—when coming in contact with the fourth generation; and so on. These degrees of purity had even to be separated from each other; because the lower degree was, in respect to the higher one, regarded as impure, and any one who lived according to a higher degree of purity became impure by touching one who lived according to a lower degree, and could only regain his purity by lustrations (טבילה). The first degree was obligatory upon every one, the other grades were voluntary. Before partaking of the heave-offering, the washing of hands was required; and before eating of the flesh of sacrifices, immersion of the whole body was required—Comp. Babylonian Talmud, Tract Chagiga, 18 b. [↑]