Stephen Goranson writes:
Pliny's source on Essenes, M. Agrippa, 15 BCE, wrote when Ein
Gedi (not Jerusalem!) was still ashes (from c. 40 BCE war)--please do not rely
on the Loeb translation that has misled many.
While it is true that Agrippa visited Judea and Jericho in 15 BCE, and wrote a treatise to accompany his world map, this treatise was not of the same genre as Pliny's source on the Essenes at Natural History 5.73. A study of the fragmenta of Agrippa's work show it to have been mainly restricted to distances, boundaries, and other matters related to cartography. One can refer here either to the fragmenta themselves, mainly found in Pliny, or to the substantial secondary literature on Agrippa's world map. What few ethnographical comments found among the fragmenta were lifted directly verbatim from various perigeses (or sailors' descriptions of coasts), which often contained brief descriptive vignettes regarding local sights or peoples. None of the ethnographical comments in Agrippas fragmenta were original to Agrippa. Agrippa's cartographical treatise was clearly assembled by staffers from Roman surveys and secondary sources.
Agrippa's cartographical treatise contain nothing like the purple prose in the section on the Essenes in Pliny. the latter is clearly of the genre of paradoxigraphical ethnography favored by peripatetic (Aristotelian) philosophers such as Nicolas of damascus, who is known to have written a book on Remarkable Customs which doubtless mentioned the Essenes (see Wacholder on this). The connections of Nicolas of Damascus with the date palm industry of the lower Jordan valley is well known. As Herod the Great's tutor and historian, he certainly wrote about Herod's favored sect, the Essenes. It is perfectly apparent that Nicolas of Damascus was the source (via Juba of Mauretania) on the excursus on the Essenes in Pliny.
The date of Pliny's source is clearly indicated by internal evidence. He writes, "Lying below the Essenes was formerly the town of Engeda, second only to Jerusalem in the fertility of its land and in its grove of palm-trees, but now likewise a heap of ashes." Here Jerusalem is clearly a mistake for Jericho. Taking as representative the comments of Stern, GLAJJ I,481, "As to Jerusalem, it could hardly be famous for the fertility of its land and its palm-groves, a description that would apply rather to Jericho. On the other hand, the reference to a heap of ruins does fit Jerusalem. It seems, therefore, that Pliny carelessly refers to the two cities in one sentence." Cross has a similar analysis. Both are correct in that Jerusalem must be a mistake for Jericho, but also try to make this refer to the fall of Jerusalem in the Jewish War, which raises more textual difficulties than it solves. Rather, Pliny here simply wrote Jerusalem rather than Jericho, and the historical reference is to the burning of part of the royal estates in Jericho in the disturbances of c. 4 BCE. Other chronological clues in the passage and surrounding text also point to this same date, which is fully consistent with Nicolas of Damascus as source (via Juba of Maurentainia, who also wrote about this same time).
These matters have all been thoroughly discussed on Orion. You have never adequately responded to my critique of your theory of Agrippan authorship, nor to my positive arguments on Pliny. That being the case, I don't see how you can report your theories on Agrippa as source on the Essenes as though it were an uncontroversial and uncontroverted fact.
Best regards,
Russell Gmirkin
