To Ken Penner,
I appreciate your comments. And I'm supportive of your efforts
to "master" the topic for your paper.
When I write "a history" of something, my primary goal (at least when
I write *some* sections of the history), is to write what I think is
true,
or real. Sometimes, and I DO mean sometimes, I write something
targeted for a SPECIFIC audience. But generally, I tend to write
for the audience of "eternity". And frequently I get the sense that
this is how Josephus wrote.
Naturally, there are several self-serving sections of rhetoric in his
many writings. However, when he writes almost adoringly of the
Essenes, I get the sense that he is trying to tell their story
eternally....
not merely writing about these obscure people as part of a diabolical
plot to put more gold into his hands.
If examine this "Essenes born as Jews" in a "polarized" way, we can
say that the Essenes were JEWISH to the core, and he was trying to
make some reference about them to DISTINGUISH the Essenes from
the Pharisees and the Sadducees.
Or.... on the other side of the polarized threshold, we could examine
his phrase from the point of view that there was a well known pool
of NON-JEWISH (but not necessarily non-Hebrew) Essenes, and he
was focusing on the JEWISH part of the movement.
I suppose there are any number of ways of crafting "shades" of
either scenario. But let's just look at the extremes.
If you think that Essenes were CLEARLY Jewish and ONLY
Jewish, then I find Josephus' comments to be rather odd. Certainly
the Pharisees were just as interested in conversions as the Essenes...
perhaps MORE so. And yet he does not qualify the Essenes.
And by emphasizing the ADOPTION aspect of the Essenes, you
would think his whole point about how "born Jewish" the Essenes
would be would be weakened.
However, if we assume that the Essenes were a HEBREW phenomenon
(or perhaps a Samaritan phenomenon - and thus linked to other Hebrew
tribes, but *not* the House of Judah), then Josephus makes perfect sense
by distinguishing WHICH Essenes he is discussing.... he is discussing the
Jewish branch. And the non-Jewish branch may, in fact, be the OTHER
section of Essenes that practice marriage (?!).
The extra benefit of the latter view is that it agrees with one of the
church
fathers that makes the rather odd mention that the Essenes were one of
the
SAMARITAN sects. Since we don't know how old the source was for
this church father, it could very well be that he took his information
PRIOR
to the time of the Maccabees... when the Samaritan wing of the Essenes
may have been the "only" wing..... or later on, when the more populous
wing of the Essenes may still have been the non-Jewish factions.
Just some thoughts to think about....
George Brooks
Tampa, FL
For private reply, e-mail to George Brooks <[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)
