Sarai

Thank you so much for the Pliny quote, Andrew. I presume that Esseni in Latin is just a transliteration of the Greek: Is that correct?

DCH: You come up with the most interesting contributions! I've printed the article you linked to, but have not yet had time to truly read it, only glancingly peruse. I promise to give it proper attention this evening and post again tomorrow.

Warmly,
Sarai

spin

In the pecking order priests are generally from a social strata closer to the top, while Pharisees tend to be further down the scale. This means that though some Pharisees were priests, more will have been Levites and most were neither. Such a distribution should be discernible from the various references to rabbis in the full range of early rabbinic literature.

When it comes to the picture we have of the Essenes, they are at the bottom end of the scale. It's not strange that they eschew bloodline and elect officials. They wear the one piece of clothing until it drops off. They lived a communal life, sharing their possessions with others at the bottom.

It's always easier to side with Bet Hillel, isn't it?

Much of the priesthood were wiped out by Pompey during the defense of the temple.Some were killed still praying at the altar. Priests. Herod had to go to Mesopotamia for one high priest, then to a family that had returned from Egypt. I doubt that Bet Shammai had the opportunity to commune much with priests. Nothing I remember in what they said in rabbinic literature suggests any priestly connection, though I must admit I only remember them talked about by the rabbis in regard to conflicts with Bet Hillel.

I just think they were generally though not always more conservative and strict.


spin

spin

Though numerous forms of the name have come down to us, the Latin of Pliny is a transliteration of the commonest form: Greek esshnoi (h = eta) = Latin Esseni.


spin

maryhelena

Thanks, Sarai
At this stage I suppose it would be to notice if there is anything else in Rachel Elior' reasoning that has not been covered by her recent responses to her critics - the online responses that are quoted in the Is Josephus an Invention thread. Also to notice if her position on the Essenes is just a side issue, so to speak, or something she has made central to her view on the DSS.
Regards
maryhelena

Sarai

Hi DCH—
I read the article and you weren’t kidding about Goransen’s passion, were you? He is certainly adamant in his position. IMHO, I don’t find his argument completely convincing, though I think it is stronger than some of the other arguments for alternate etymologies that have been offered. I’m just not yet convinced that the word Essene derives from a Hebrew term, or if so, that Osei (Doer) is any likelier to be the source word than some of the other semiticisms proposed. I think for now, my brain is just going to have to accept the “mystery”.
Hi Spin. I agree that in the hierarchy priests were closer to the top, but I also think a significant distinction must be made between the high-priestly families and the lower priesthood. I also think that there was a mighty divide between the “hierarchy” of Jerusalem and the “hierarchy” of the am ha’aretz. I suspect the average villager held his local priest in higher regard than the resident priests of Jerusalem, whether high priestly or lower.
I’m not quite sanguine at accepting the testimony of Philo, Pliny, and Josephus on Essenes as evidence on the nature of the community, since none of them experienced the group firsthand. If they are ever able to demonstrate a sure connection between Qumran and Essenes, then I would accept the description in the scrolls as authoritative. Until then, or until they happen onto an archaeological site with an “Essene-ville” plaque over the gate, I’ll withhold judgment on who, and what, the Essenes were.
Indeed, and the Patriarchy took GREAT pains to make certain that was the case! (Which makes me doubly suspicious!)
The connection in the rabbinic literature between Bet Shammai and the priesthood runs thus: Bet Shammai was associated with the Zealots (who were associated with the lower priesthood) during the run-up to the first Revolt. Now this may have just been polemics to discredit the House of Shammai…or there may well be more to it. It’s that possibility that I find most intriguing.
True, that is how they are most often portrayed. But what I find interesting is that the stances of Bet Shammai are usually more straightforward and easily understood. They don’t require an “expert” (a.k.a. a rabbi) to understand. In some cases, it does mean that their position was more strict, but in other’s theirs is the more lenient position. As I said, I tend to follow the money, it makes sense to me that Bet Hillel and the Patriarchy would be interested in securing their “indispensability” to the new “Jewishness” they were creating.
Hi MaryHelena—I’ll be happy to do so for you. I haven’t had to write a book report in a number of years, but I’ll give it a shot!
I have to sign off for now, my friends—I have a Passover to celebrate this evening! Chag Sameach!!!:wave:

Warmly,
Sarai

DCHindley

Looking a little closer at the Greek, here's what I am getting:

Ant 18:19

A) But (when people) encounter (Essenes bringing) votive offerings into the temple,

B) they complete their sacrifices according to (the) different purity rituals that they practice,

C) and they are barred from the impure precincts of the temple on account of (the) impurity.

D) They are performing (their sacrifices) by themselves (or at their own times).

E) But aside from this they otherwise observe a better way of life

F) dedicated to agriculture, at which they all toil.

Wm Whiston translated this as follows (I've put into brackets emendations he and others have made to the text - the "not" in B and "men" in E):

A) and when they send what they have dedicated to God into the temple,

B) they do (not) offer sacrifices, because they have more pure lustrations of their own;

C) on which account they are excluded from the common court of the temple,

D) but offer their sacrifices themselves;

E) yet is their course of life better (than that of other men);

F) and they entirely give themselves over to husbandry.

DCH

spin

stellw followed by things (here "votive gifts") means "to dispatch/send". See 2nd significance supplied by L&S.

And where's the causal connection di' auto at the start of your C)? The Essenes are barred from the temple because of their purity rituals.


spin

DCHindley

I cannot locate this reference you mention. The problem is that stellw normally means "to set in order" or "to furnish/equip," or "despatch on as journey," or "fetch, bring or carry" in the middle voice (which this is not), or finally "take in (sail)" or "contract/withhold". It doesn't make any sense in this passage. The Greek text in BibleWorks is based on the public domain 1890 Niese edition, and the morphological tagging is the result of a collaboration between Dr. Jean-Noel Aletti and Dr. A. Gieniusz of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, and Michael Bushell of BibleWorks. BW's source offers the root word as peripiptw (the present active nominative masculine plural participle would be peripiptontes), but I do not know if Niese suggested this as an emendation or if it comes from the morphological analysis, or it is some sort of variant. Peripiptw refers to "coming onto a situation accidentally and becoming innocently involved" per Friberg's lexicon, and hence my translation (such as it is).

BW's morphological analysis attributes all these words to the accusative case, which would normally refer to the object of the clause, although it is hard to differentiate the accusative case from the nominative case as they usually share the same forms. Anyway, the personal pronoun auto ("he/she/it") is singular and everything else is in the plural except the adjective koinou ("common/unclean/unholy"), and the noun it modifies temenismatos ("temple precinct"), so I reason that what "it" is that "bars" them from the temple precinct is not (di = "on account of") the different rites (plural) or the temple precincts itself (why? he's there to bring an offering!), but its uncleanness. I am not sure whether the reference is to the common practice of the many (being wrong in date or form something) or a wrong date/rite temporarily pollutes the temple courts. At any rate, they make their seasonal offerings all by themselves (ef autwn "at the time of themselves"), presumably when no one else is making them. That suggests a calendar issue.

DCH

IamJoseph

How ancient?

I think this refers to a Hebrew group which followed the Mosaic laws very strictly and exclusively, and did not accept the acceptence of the Jews in the Temple, who became overwhelmed by Rome's dictates. Thus they felt the temple observances were now not legitimate anymore, and performed their sacrifices elsewhere.

Josephus has to be one of the greatest historical documents, and much can be learnt from it, despite that he had to cow tow to the Romans. An interesting stat is that he first wrote his works in Hebrew, then translated it to the Greek. Which begs the question why the Gospels was not in Hebrew! :constern01:

IamJoseph

It was Titus, son of Vespasian, if your talking 70 CE.

Yes, this was 70 CE. This factor also make me question the Gospels' message about the Priests, who were in fact brave and the utmost beleievers, and sacrificed themselves for their faith without any hesitation.