Note 4 — THE ESSENES.

(1) Asceticism is not foreign to Judaism. We meet with individuals who voluntarily imposed upon themselves ascetic life to be able, as they thought, to give themselves more entirely to the service of God by mortifying the lusts of the flesh, at a very early period of Biblical history; and we need only to refer to the regulations about Nazarites ( Numb. vi. 1–21 ), to the case of Manoah and his wife ( Judg. xiii .), to the life of Elijah ( 1 Kings xviii.–xix. ) to the practices of the Rechabites throughout the Scriptures, of persons abstaining from the good things of this world, to see how the Essenes, without ( Jer. xxxv. 2 , &c.), and to the numerous instances which occur copying the Pythagoreans or any other heathen fraternity, would naturally conclude that asceticism is conducive to a devotional life. (2) As to the repudiation of animal sacrifice, animal food, wine, &c, to which Zeller refers in the second point of comparison, I submit that the Essenes did not repudiate animal sacrifices, but that they could not offer them on account of the different view which they had about holiness, as Josephus most distinctly declares (vide infra p. 52), that neither Philo nor Josephus says a word about their objecting to eat animal flesh or drink wine, and that their celibacy arose from an extension of a law contained in the Pentateuch. Besides, it is not quite so certain that the Pythagoreans did not offer animal sacrifices; Diogenes Laertius and others positively state that Pythagoras himself sacrificed a hecatomb upon his discovering what is called the Pythagoric theorem, i.e. that, in a right angled triangle, the square of the hypothenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the sides.4 (4) The fourth comparison about simplicity of life is involved in the first. (5) The statement in the fifth comparison, that the Essenes refrain from warm baths, is purely imaginary; (6, 7) whilst the white garments and the purifications mentioned in the sixth and seventh parallels are strictly Jewish and Biblical. As symbolic of purity the priests were required to clothe themselves in white linen ( Exod. xxviii. 39–42 ; Levit. vi. 10 ; xvi. 4 ), and the saints in heaven, washed and cleansed from all impurity, are to be clad in white garments ( 4 Esdras ii. 39–45 ; Enoch lxi. 18 ; Rev. iii. 4 ; vi. 11 ; vii. 9, 14 ; xix. 8 ); soiled garments are regarded as emblematic of impurity ( Zech. iii. 3 , &c.) Inseparably connected therewith are the frequent purifications or washings enjoined on the priests before entering into the presence of God to perform religious acts ( Levit. xvi. 4 ; 2 Chron. xxx. 19 ), and on the people generally after coming in contact with anything impure ( Levit. xi. 25, 40 ; xv. 5–24 ). The white garments and the frequent purifications of the Essenes, who strove to live after the highest degree of Levitical purity, were therefore in perfect harmony with exaggerated Judaism. (8) As to the assertion in comparison 8 that the Pythagoreans prohibited oaths, it is well known that they did use oaths on important occasions, and that they held it to be most sacred to swear by the number four, which they represented by ten dots in the form of a triangle, so that each side consisted of four dots, as follows:—