Freethought & Rationalism Archive

squiz · 10-11-2007, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

I am just curious how this is known about the Essenes.

The Essenes didn't maintain lineage at all according to what can be read about them in Josephus. They were celibates who filled their ranks from the children of others.

spin

What about this quote?

Quote:

13. Moreover, there is another order of Essens, (8) who agree with the rest as to their way of living, and customs, and laws, but differ from them in the point of marriage, as thinking that by not marrying they cut off the principal part of human life, which is the prospect of succession; nay, rather, that if all men should be of the same opinion, the whole race of mankind would fail. However, they try their spouses for three years; and if they find that they have their natural purgations thrice, as trials that they are likely to be fruitful, they then actually marry them. But they do not use to accompany with their wives when they are with child, as a demonstration that they do not many out of regard to pleasure, but for the sake of posterity. Now the women go into the baths with some of their garments on, as the men do with somewhat girded about them. And these are the customs of this order of Essens.
Josephus War II 8:13

This group of Essenes at least seem to have been interested in succession.

BTW, this example is quite in keeping with the topic title which takes the piss out of how groups can splinter into a myriad of mutually contemptuous groups.

spin · 10-11-2007, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The Essenes didn't maintain lineage at all according to what can be read about them in Josephus. They were celibates who filled their ranks from the children of others.

What about this quote?

Quote:

13. Moreover, there is another order of Essens, (8) who agree with the rest as to their way of living, and customs, and laws, but differ from them in the point of marriage, as thinking that by not marrying they cut off the principal part of human life, which is the prospect of succession; nay, rather, that if all men should be of the same opinion, the whole race of mankind would fail. However, they try their spouses for three years; and if they find that they have their natural purgations thrice, as trials that they are likely to be fruitful, they then actually marry them. But they do not use to accompany with their wives when they are with child, as a demonstration that they do not many out of regard to pleasure, but for the sake of posterity. Now the women go into the baths with some of their garments on, as the men do with somewhat girded about them. And these are the customs of this order of Essens.
Josephus War II 8:13

This group of Essenes at least seem to have been interested in succession.

This is the escape clause that the religious studies types who believe a priori that Qumran was Essene parade. But do you get any idea from what Josephus writes that the Essenes were in any way connected with the priesthood? Obviously no.

Josephus spends most of his narrative efforts on the main body of celibate Essenes (Philo only knows this type) and throws in these at the end. The bulk of his text points to the fact that the Essenes didn't accept lineage.

By tagging this part about Essenes who marry on at the end he doesn't get to show how the women of those who marry would fit into the community of celibate males. "[T]hey (the Essenes) wish to protect themselves from wantonness, being persuaded that none of the sex keeps her plighted troth to one man." BJ 2.8.2 (2.121).

spin

squiz · 10-11-2007, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

What about this quote?

This group of Essenes at least seem to have been interested in succession.

This is the escape clause that the religious studies types who believe a priori that Qumran was Essene parade. But do you get any idea from what Josephus writes that the Essenes were in any way connected with the priesthood? Obviously no.

Josephus spends most of his narrative efforts on the main body of celibate Essenes (Philo only knows this type) and throws in these at the end. The bulk of his text points to the fact that the Essenes didn't accept lineage.

By tagging this part about Essenes who marry on at the end he doesn't get to show how the women of those who marry would fit into the community of celibate males. "[T]hey (the Essenes) wish to protect themselves from wantonness, being persuaded that none of the sex keeps her plighted troth to one man." BJ 2.8.2 (2.121).

spin

Well I hope I am not one of those religious studies type (whatever that is)

I for one am quite aware of the controversy surrounding the Essenes and the DSS community and Qumran and am usually careful not to needlessly equate them with each other - especially on a forum like this where you will get your head chopped off very quickly if you stick it out.

Nevertheless, whether it was tacked on the end or not, there does appear to have been a distinct sect of Essenes whom he describes as very reluctantly marrying (or at least procreating) in order to ensure "succession". He also very explains that the women and men dressed for their ritual bathing (as opposed to the normal Essenes, I wonder?) This in itself says nothing about their being related to the priesthood, although it does appear to rule out their lack of being interested in succession as an argument in the case of this particular group.

spin · 10-11-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This is the escape clause that the religious studies types who believe a priori that Qumran was Essene parade. But do you get any idea from what Josephus writes that the Essenes were in any way connected with the priesthood? Obviously no.

Josephus spends most of his narrative efforts on the main body of celibate Essenes (Philo only knows this type) and throws in these at the end. The bulk of his text points to the fact that the Essenes didn't accept lineage.

By tagging this part about Essenes who marry on at the end he doesn't get to show how the women of those who marry would fit into the community of celibate males. "[T]hey (the Essenes) wish to protect themselves from wantonness, being persuaded that none of the sex keeps her plighted troth to one man." BJ 2.8.2 (2.121).

Well I hope I am not one of those religious studies type (whatever that is)

Hey, I don't know. I just know from experience that it is true for them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

I for one am quite aware of the controversy surrounding the Essenes and the DSS community and Qumran and am usually careful not to needlessly equate them with each other - especially on a forum like this where you will get your head chopped off very quickly if you stick it out.

Nevertheless, whether it was tacked on the end or not, there does appear to have been a distinct sect of Essenes whom he describes as very reluctantly marrying (or at least procreating) in order to ensure "succession".

Of the species as the text soon clarifies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

He also very explains that the women and men dressed for their ritual bathing (as opposed to the normal Essenes, I wonder?) This in itself says nothing about their being related to the priesthood, although it does appear to rule out their lack of being interested in succession as an argument in the case of this particular group.

These marrying types are obviously not mainstream Essenes as the text demonstrates, so we don't make generalizations from them.

We know from AJ 18.1.5 (18.19) that the Essenes are excluded from the precincts of the temple where those who perform rites frequent, ie they can't be priests.

spin

jules? · 10-12-2007, 05:28 PM

Intellectually this is rather exciting stuff, question 1/ Essene = Qumran yeas/no, i dont want to look stupid but what am i missing?
2/ so were sons of Zardok Epicurians who lived it up and kept in with the Romans, or something else?
3/ Rabbis= home grown non temple priests or did some support the temple or was the Temple a coalition of politics

4/ do we simply have to much contradictory information that makes definition a pointless subject?
thanks
jules

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-12-2007, 05:28 PM	#25
jules? Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: mind the time rift, cardiff, wales Posts: 645	Intellectually this is rather exciting stuff, question 1/ Essene = Qumran yeas/no, i dont want to look stupid but what am i missing? 2/ so were sons of Zardok Epicurians who lived it up and kept in with the Romans, or something else? 3/ Rabbis= home grown non temple priests or did some support the temple or was the Temple a coalition of politics 4/ do we simply have to much contradictory information that makes definition a pointless subject? thanks jules

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.