DCHindley

Just like we (usually) elect lawyers to be judges over trials conducted by (other) lawyers ... they were already priests before being "elected" to carry out special functions.

Priestly families could be as poor as the poorest layman. They were only formally employed as priests 2 weeks a year, and then only if they had no bodily blemishes or infimities like blindness or deafness. Many of them were itinerant tinkers and stonemasons, like Andy Capp from the comics.

So you adopt their kids, bring them up to be the very epitome of priestliness, and then select the best of them to be stewards. It is no wonder that later researchers thought of them as a kind of religious order, although in the latter case those who become priests did so voluntarily.

DCH

spin

Do you see any signs of differentiation between priest and layman in the descriptions provided by Josephus? As I've indicated accepting poor children and election of official positions argues against any significance of bloodline.

Not just any Jewish child could be a priest.


spin

maryhelena

Indeed, we know much less about the Essenes than we thought! Rachel Elior thinks that Josephus invented them - and I'm going along with that idea. Much more about the Essenes and Rachel Elior on the thread: Essenes never existed, were a Josephan invention, claims Rachel Elior

As to wacky ideas - well, love to play that game myself...
Regards
maryhelena

maryhelena

Thanks, spin

I just wanted to clarify the Greek word here. As to electing a Jewish priest.....well, I'm now in the Rachel Elior camp i.e. no historical Essenes. Hence, the issue of the Essenes electing a priest simply becomes part and parcel of their mythical nature. A nature, that with the inclusion of priests, does add another element that seperates Josephus' Essenes from Philo' Essenes.

spin

The material in Josephus dealing with Essenes from the time of Herod is from an earlier source, Nicolaos of Damascus. Do you think that Josephus for example invented Menahem the Essene in AJ 15.373ff (15.10.5)? What about Simon the Essene in AJ 17.346f (17.13.3)? I'd need to see Elior deal with these figures. I'm not quick to say that people are inventive in ancient literature.


spin

maryhelena

I think Rachel Elior' new book is due out this month - so it will be interesting to see how she goes about the question of the Essenes. I've posted re Judas, Menahem, and Simon, the three Essene prophets, on another thread dealing with Rachel Elior' position -

post:

5860526
Essenes never existed, were a Josephan invention, claims Rachel Elior

Toto

Elior's book has been published in Hebrew. I don't know when an English translation is due. Elior herself has been posting and defending her theory on various blogs, especially drjimwest and ancienthebrewpoetry, where she responds to criticism.

See also unreasonablefaith - DSS shocker is a dud

maryhelena

Great, that Elior' book has been published - pity about the Hebrew though..

Now, all we need is to find some Hebrew speakers on this form - and living in Israel for easy of access to said book - and the debate over her exact position can begin......particularly as her argument re DDS does not necessarily require for the Essenes to have been an invention by Josephus.

Meanwhile I'll be posting a 'wacky' idea of mine later today over on the Rachel Elior thread - wacky the idea might well be - but I've just got to try it out........Elior' position re Josephus inventing the Essenes has put my mind in overdrive.....

spin

Mentioning them and adequately dealing with them are not, as you know, the same thing.


spin

Sarai

Some interesting discussion in my absence!

Regarding Spin and DCH’s discussion on priests--I have to agree with DCH on the possibility of priests being involved in Essenism, whatever Essenism may or may not have been. The days of the priesthood being a privileged caste were long gone by this time, and many in the lower priesthood lived in abject poverty. I don’t think we can think of the priesthood of this era as being a monolithic entity, anymore than we can think of “Judaism” of the era being a monolithic, one-size-fits-all, identity. It seems the priests’ philosophical inclinations were as variegated as the rest of the population, including Hellenists, Hillelians, Shammaites, Qumranians, and Sadducees, and probably some who just didn’t give a damn one way or the other. I’m sure I’ve left some out—shoot, it wouldn’t surprise me to find out there were UFO-abductionists amongst them!

Hi MaryHelena—Yes, I’ve been following the Rachel Echior discussion thread with interest. At this point, I’m not persuaded, but I have ordered her book and so will withhold judgment until I can read her argument in detail. It will probably be a few weeks before it arrives—the friend I asked to pick it up for me isn’t always the most reliable at follow-through. Not to mention it’s going to take me awhile to slog through the Hebrew!

Spin, I have another question for you. Do you know, has the etymology of the Greek term translated as “Essenes” been pinned down? I ask because it seems to me the simplest explanation for the lack of reference is that the sectarians known as “Essenes” didn’t call themselves Essenes. Perhaps being a small segment of the population, having withdrawn from society, and pursuing a lifestyle (if we believe Philo, Josephus, & Pliny) that obviously fascinated Judaeo-Hellenists and was most comparable to Hellenist philosophical schools, they simply failed to attract the attention of other Jews?

Warmly,
Sarai