Thanks to Al Baumgarten, George Brooks, Herb Brasser, Russel Gmirkin, Dierk
van den Berg , Ken Penner, Barbara Leger for the overwhelming reaction and
comments on the question I raised. I am persuaded that Al Baumgarten`s
concept of boundary marking as he called it touches the essence of the
passage and also of the problem of second Temple Judaism: the very notion of
pharisees/perushim/ (as separated) says a lot about this major tendency in
the Judaism of the time. This trend seems to be due to a redefinition of the
people of Israel during the first postexilic period, in the time of the
confrontation with the samaritans on the rebuilding of the Temple. Lack of
time prevents me to answer in full to all the questions and ideas produced
by the discussion of this topic. There are some aspects though that I feel
should be addressed immediately.
To Russel: One message I think has been lost in cyberspace (which I send
right after the first - but my computer, and me have enormous difficulties
reading the list) was the problem of Josephus`s source. I pointed out that
Roland Bergmeiers book on this - quoted several times by Dierk van den
Berg as the best text on the matter - maintains that the relvant passage in
Josephus bell. comes form the "hellenistic Jewish source he is supposed to
have used in common with Philo. If this were so, why didn`t Philo seem to be
aware of the perception of Essenes as not being Jewish? He either wasn`t
aware of the problem, or else, it popped up only later, when Josephus
started writing his books.
Anyhow, if ( a big if) they both shared a common source on Essenes (which
is not necessary: the parallels are explainable against Bergmeier, by the
similar Greek audience of the two Jewish-hellenistic writers) than it is
probable that Josephus` need to point out that Essenes were Jewish by birth
comes from his own pen and corresponds to the awareness of a problem which
had appeared between the time of Philo and his own. Ergo, it is as natural
to assert, that conversions da taken in the meantime such proportions, that
Essenes could no longer be percieved automatically as Jewish.
My personal opinion on the public Josephus had in mind is due to a somehow
psychoanalytical approach. His overdimensioned, gonflated ego had certainly
recieved a big blow after changing sides, So big, that he might subiacently
have had in mind a hellenized Jewish, possibly Pharisaic,
readership/audience: All his books are apologetic by nature, and some of the
contents are certainly pleas pro domo.This could also explain why he called
himself a Pharisee, whereas the bulk and the tendency of his discription of
the 3, than 4 schools of thought is evidently biased in favor of Essenes,
which makes him really, if anything, an Essene.
To Dierk:due to the imprecision of the terms and names involved you can`t
know for sure wether some essenes at least didn`t come under the lex sicarii
et veneficis
To George Brooks and David West: the Rechabite connection, raised also by
Eisenmann is extremely interesting, as it raises desert associations very
much present in the biblical traditions. It also raises arab and idumean
associations - and the idumeans had been converted by force to Judaism.
To Herb: associations are not only including, but as with the haverim/am
haaretz relationship very much exlcusive as well.Hence the natural reaction
of counterexclusions. See the "anathemas" of the Chassidim mentioned by
Barbara, even against orthodox (but, say, sionist) Jews.
Peter Janku
dear Sir, Thanks for the comments on the question you raised. I am convinced
that your arguments make sens. I also feel that boundary marking as you
called it tpuches the essence of the problem of second Temple Judaism: the
very notion of perushim
To Al Baumgarten, George Brooks, Herb Brasser, Dierk, Ken, Barbara and the
list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 11:02 AM
Subject: orion V2001 #17
>
> orion Wednesday, July 4 2001 Volume 2001 : Number
017
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 09:36:07 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Herbert Basser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: orion-list RE: Are Essens Jewish
>
> George: There is reason-- it is true they are Jews by birth and not
> converts-- priests are also jews by birth and not converts-- josephus
> tells us that it would not be lawful for a priest to marry someone who was
> not from a noble family-- while pharisees accpeted converts readily, it
> may well be that saducees did not and that essenes did not
>
> all that i'm pointing out is that "Jews by birth" need not mean their were
> others who were not jewish." or even as it would today-- they converted
> out of the faith-- to say-- well abie is a jew by birth-- today could
> mean-- but he no longer iodentifies as one,-- bit I dount that is
> josephus' meaning at all either. What does Paul mean by "born under the
> law"-- i mean the most plausible meaning and not the strange concoctioons
> gaston and some others have twisted it to mean.-- Does it not mean he was
> born a Jew-- did anyone doubt it--
>
>
> herb basser
> For private reply, e-mail to Herbert Basser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 16:57:13 +0200
> From: "Albert I. Baumgarten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: orion-list refernce and afterthought
>
> 1. For a discussion of the place of boundary marking in Jewish groups of
> antiquity see my article in Judaism 47 (1998) 387-404.
> 2. I think Josephus felt the need to note that the Essenes were Jews
> because their boundary marking against other (non-Essene) Jews was much
> more extreme than that of the other groups he discussed. Other groups
> also treated Jews who were not members of their group as if they were
> aliens (see Josephus' concluding remark on the Sadducees, War 2.166, or
> his comment on the Sicarii, War 7.254-255), but none of the other groups
> he described in War 2 were as extreme as the Essenes. For the present
> discussion I note two instances of the extreme nature of the Essenes,
> both based on comments in War 2: (1) If Essenes immersed after contact
> with an Essene of lower grade, as if after contact with an alien (War
> 2.150), then one can guess what Essenes might have done after contact
> with a non-Essene Jew. (2) Ordinary Jews were excluded from the Essene
> meal, even when the Essenes provided the food. The model for this
> provision was the exclusion of non-Jews from the Temple (War 2.129).
>
> Al Baumgarten
>
>
> For private reply, e-mail to "Albert I. Baumgarten"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> - ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 10:21:51 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Herbert Basser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: orion-list refernce and afterthought
>
> SInce Liueberman diosucees essenes in terms of voluntary assoications like
> the bekiey or nekiey hadaat grouops who would not eat with others outside
> of their group and the haver would not share with the am haaretz why do
> you think the analogy is best held to gentiles who could noit enter
> certain parts of the Temple but could certainly ofer sacrifices.
> I did rerasd your article and there is merit in some of the things you say
> but I do not see why it must be that essens treated otgher Jews as
> non-jews, ther practises you mention held for various associations-- btw--
> the term haver-- really dos work for association, and in antiquity as
> other times-- voluntary associations were commonplace.
>
>
> herb basser
> For private reply, e-mail to Herbert Basser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> - ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 17:04:14 +0200
> From: "Dierk van den Berg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_orion-list_RE:_Are_Essens_Jewish=C5?=
>
> That's beyond me, for boundary marking is quite normal under dualistic
> presuppositions, internal as well as external. Cp. the DSS.
> Therefore, please explain your idea on the basis of JosBell and JosAnt,
> simply to avoid a classical 'hot air' or 'argument from silence' reproach.
> Perhaps we've indeed missed something decisive.
> Thx in advance.
>
> Dierk
>
>
> Al 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. I think this
> > explains Josephus' comment and puts it into a comprehensible context.
>
> For private reply, e-mail to "Dierk van den Berg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> - ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 10:12:52 -0500
> From: "David West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: orion-list Re: orion V2001 #16
>
> I am replying to the Digest form of this list so my comments are a day
behind.
>
> I just wanted to point out that the Suda mention of the Essaioi can be
found on-line at
> http://www.stoa.org/sol-bin/findentry.pl?keywords=epsilon+3123
>
> It is a short entry and this is it:
>
> Essaioi: Ioudaioi, asketai, Pharisaion kai grammateon ten askesin ex
epimetrou dianestekotes, progonoi Ionadab, huiou Rhichab tou dikaiou.
philalleloi kai ton allon eulabeis pleion: hoi ten men hedonen hos kakian
apostrephontai, ten de sophrosunen kai enkrateian kai to me tois pathesin
hupopiptein areten hupolambanousi. kai gamos men par' autois huperoratai,
allotrious de paidas neous eti proslambanomenoi kai didaskontes hos
sungeneis hegountai kai tois ethesin heauton entupousi. kai pan aischron
apoballontai kai pasan allen areten exaskousin. hoi epimelountai tes ethikes
lexeos, theoriai de ta polla paramenousin. enthen kai Essaioi kalountai,
touto delountos tou onomatos, toutesti theoretikoi. hoti Essaioi huperteroi
sphodra kai lian huperkeimenoi ton Pharisaion kata ten politeian.
>
> David West
> Tulsa Oklahoma
>
> For private reply, e-mail to "David West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> - ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 11:16:01 EDT
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20orion-list=20RE:=20Are=20Essens=20Jewish=C5?=
>
> It seems to me that Josephus' statement that the Essenes are Jewish
> simply indicates that he lifted his material on the Essenes from a source
> intended for a non-Jewish audience, one for which it would be necessary to
> explain that Essenes are a branch of Jews.
>
> Best regards,
> Russell Gmirkin
> For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> - ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 17:40:08 +0200
> From: "Dierk van den Berg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: orion-list refernce and afterthought
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Albert I. Baumgarten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Orion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 4:57 PM
> Subject: orion-list refernce and afterthought
>
>
> > 1. For a discussion of the place of boundary marking in Jewish groups of
> > antiquity see my article in Judaism 47 (1998) 387-404.
> > 2. I think Josephus felt the need to note that the Essenes were Jews
> > because their boundary marking against other (non-Essene) Jews was much
> > more extreme than that of the other groups he discussed.
>
> Different from the extreme 'assassins' (e.g. urban guerrilla), the Essenes
> didn't came under the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (81 BC).
>
> > Other groups
> > also treated Jews who were not members of their group as if they were
> > aliens (see Josephus' concluding remark on the Sadducees, War 2.166, or
> > his comment on the Sicarii, War 7.254-255), but none of the other groups
> > he described in War 2 were as extreme as the Essenes.
>
> Different from the historical Sicarii, the 'literary' Essenes didn't favor
> forced circumcisions. And that's really extreme, I think.
>
> > For the present
> > discussion I note two instances of the extreme nature of the Essenes,
> > both based on comments in War 2: (1) If Essenes immersed after contact
> > with an Essene of lower grade, as if after contact with an alien (War
> > 2.150), then one can guess what Essenes might have done after contact
> > with a non-Essene Jew.
>
> Probably the same.
>
> > (2) Ordinary Jews were excluded from the Essene
> > meal, even when the Essenes provided the food. The model for this
> > provision was the exclusion of non-Jews from the Temple (War 2.129).
>
> I guess if the matrix is 1QS vi.2 - the common meal of the rbjm acc. to
the
> tkwn.
>
> > Al Baumgarten
>
> Tot ziens,
> Dierk
>
> For private reply, e-mail to "Dierk van den Berg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> - ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:48:31 -0500
> From: "Penner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: orion-list Essenes and Jews/Judeans
>
> 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]>
> - ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 16:00:47 -0400
> From: Barbara Leger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: orion-list RE: Are Essens =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jewish=C5?=
>
> I always thought that the Essenes were non-Levitical Jews, which could
make
> them "non-Jews" to other intolerant sects of Judaism who follow Levitical/
> Mosaic law...important but I doubt the only belief system/priesthood of
> Judaism in ancient times.
>
> This reminds me of what I experienced growing up in New York amongst the
> Chasidim. Just because they disdained those of us who did not practice as
> they
> did, did not make us any less Jewish...only in their own eyes. Certainly
my
> own
> grandparents were from the Ukraine and were Orthodox Jews, and belonged to
> organizations which helped to make Israel an independent state. Sadly,
this
> was
> not acknowledged by my neighbors and we were put on the defense by their
> judgment. We were every bit as Jewish as they were...born Jews as well.
>
> If I am misunderstanding the discussion, please correct me.
>
> Barb Leger
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that Josephus' statement that the Essenes are Jewish
> > simply indicates that he lifted his material on the Essenes from a
source
> > intended for a non-Jewish audience, one for which it would be necessary
to
> > explain that Essenes are a branch of Jews.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Russell Gmirkin
> > For private reply, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For private reply, e-mail to Barbara Leger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> - ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of orion V2001 #17
> **********************
>
>
For private reply, e-mail to "Peter Janku" <[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)
