Peter Janku wrote,
"It seems as if in Josephus`time, there was a widely expanded opinion
contesting the Jewishness of Essenes."
I, too, got this impression, from the translation used by GFMoore,
"called Essenes, though by race they are Jews."
Thackeray's translation is also a bit misleading here. But looking at
the Greek men - de construction (correct me if I'm wrong), it seems that
the balanced contrast is between the Essenes being Judean and them
loving each other more than the others.
Therefore I would say Al Baumgarten was on the right track when he
wrote,
"I think one can show from Josephus' comments on the Essenes that they
treated other Jews (i.e. Jews who were not fellow Essenes) as if they
were not Jewish, boundary marking against them in much the same ways
that Jews regularly boundary marked against non-Jews. Judging from this
behavior of the Essenes one might conclude that they were not Jewish."
But Al continues,
"in the excursus on the sects Josephus makes a number of favorable
comments about the Essenes, hence he might have felt the need to
anticipate the disdain their behavior might have aroused by reminding
his reader that they were Jewish."
Here I disagree; just before this "being Judean by birth" statement,
Josephus already has already made his audience favourable to the Essenes
by his characteristic statement that they both "seem" (dokei) and
"really are" (dh) solemn. I see nothing in Josephus's description that
would evoke disdain for the Essenes; he presents their boundary-marking
in its positive light.
George Brooks then mentions the interesting statement in the Suda "that
Essenes came from the Arab
followers of Yahweh known as the Rechabites," and suggests,
"it would be easy to see why Jews of the time of Josephus might
wonder at the non-Jewish source of the Essenes..."
Is George implying that Josephus's audience consisted of Jews? Or does
he perhaps mean that the Greco-Roman world inherited this "wonder" from
Jews? Certainly Josephus' intended audience was not Judean!
Herb Basser writes,
"By saying that essenes are jews by birth all Josephus is saying
that they do not accept converts into their fold. ... There may indeed
have been
non-jewish groups using tghe term essene . there is no evidence jospehus
knows about them or is thinking of them. ... If Josephus' essnes did
not recognize other Jews as being
jewish they would have died out quite rapidly since they didnt produce
offspring of their own for the most part."
Here Herb is challenging Al's theory that Josephus is defending the
Essenes against accusations of excessive boundary-marking, to the point
that non-Essenes were considered non-Jews. First, I would argue that the
DSS community (Essene or not) did draw the boundary between saved and
unsaved along sectarian lines, but there was also another boundary a
little father out, the Jew-gentile boundary.
Yet in the context of this passage (BJ 2.119), there is no indication
that Josephus is connecting being Jewish not accepting converts. The
contrast or balance (men-de) is between being Judean and being attached
to one another. Josephus seems to me to be pro-convert (correct me if
I'm wrong), and he depicts the Essenes as the ideal Judean. I doubt that
he would try to imply Essenes did not accept gentile converts, even if
this were true.
George Brooks continues later, "His description of Bannus/Banus to any
Palestinian reader would
not have been perceived as anything other than connected with
the Biblical description of the Rechabite lifestyle ..." and 'The "blend
in" between Rechabite and Jewishness is quite
ripe with possible explanations for how Jews of the time perceived
the Essenes and people who lived like Essenes.'
George again is ignoring the fact that Josephus' audience was not
Judean; Josephus here (as always) is explaining Judeans to Greco-Romans
in language they would understand, and in ways that would answer
questions they had.
One of these questions seemed to me (as it did to Peter Janku) to be why
the Essenes are considered Jewish. I guessed that the Roman audience had
heard of Essenes from sources like Pliny's, but had not heard them
identified as Judean.
Now it seems to me, reading the Greek more closely, that Josephus is
saying that the Essenes do boundary-marking at two levels: they are
Jewish/Judeans, yes, but they also show a particular loyalty to those of
their own philosophy. Their loyalty is on two levels: ethnic and
doctrinal.
Josephus in BJ 2.119 wants to say the Essenes stick together, without
implying that they consider themselves non-Jewish.
Ken Penner, M.C.S. (Regent College), M.A. (McMaster)
Ph.D. Student, Religious Studies, Biblical Field (Early Judaism major)
McMaster University
Hamilton, Canada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For private reply, e-mail to "Penner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web
site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.
(PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
