On the very interesting posts in the Pliny discussion
a question for Robert Kraft:
I think you have given the first real argument that I have
seen that Pliny's meaning of 'infra' may not be entirely
ambiguous but solvable by attention to context. Pliny's
Esseni at high elevation 'from the west', away from the
Dead Sea, as being a reference to the higher elevation
of _Judea itself_ inland ... this is just brilliant.
On this matter of whether Pliny understands the
Esseni to be Jews, might it be that to Pliny's source the
Esseni are the only Jews known to the source,
as in equivalence or substitute term? Compare Philo
seeming to cite Essenes as the 'true Jews', i.e. a
subset representing the ideal state of the whole.
It is not far from Philo's language to someone still
further removed to speak of only 'the amazing Esseni'
as the ones who live 'west of the Dead Sea, higher
up from the coast' (i.e. in Judea).
Why would Pliny say Esseni instead of 'Jews' for the
people who live in the 'higher elevation west away
from the Dead Sea' (i.e. Judea) when he himself knows
of 'Jews' in 'Judea'? Would this not be explicable
as from a source (or a source of a source?) without
Pliny making paraphrases into more familiar language?
Especially if Pliny's source is Juba II as Gmirkin
argues--who might speak of 'Jews' and 'Judea' in
slightly different language (i.e. 'west and higher' from
the Dead Sea, and Esseni live there).
(Russ Gmirkin: can you shed light on this?)
That is: I am asking if in Pliny's source 'Esseni' is
the source's way of speaking of the only Judeans either
known to the source, or else the only Judeans worth
speaking about. If it was not for Gmirkin's convincing
chronological arguments, one could even propose
Pliny's source reflects hearsay in some other part of the
world picked up from Philo's glowing descriptions of the
Essenes of Judea! For as you have now argued very
well, Pliny's source's Esseni are located nowhere other
than Judea itself--just as Philo's and Josephus's Essenes.
They are the same Essenes of Judea; all three sources
are speaking of exactly the same thing (and Qumran is
not it).
That is, Pliny knows of 'Jews' and 'Judeans' but he is
copying from his source. To the source, the only
notable people worth mentioning in that higher
elevation west of the Dead Sea (i.e. Judea) were
the amazing Esseni. There are regions elsewhere
in Pliny where the only inhabitants are tribes of people
without heads, tribes where all the men run as fast
as gazelles, etc.--here there is <Judea> where there
are the amazing Esseni. The other inhabitants of these
respective regions, and in this case Judea, don't get
registered in the ancient Ripley's catalogue of
ethnographic wonders. These Esseni of Pliny's source
*are* how the Jews of Judea are appearing
in this catalogue of ethnographic wonders.
The point is: there is no notion here of non-Jewish
Esseni, or Esseni in any sense distinctive from Jews,
a marginal sect of Jews, or some group other than
Jewish. This is some ancient source (or source of
a source) adopted or copied by Pliny who thinks of the
inhabitants of Judea (whom *we* know to be Jews)
as Esseni. And the geographical location of these
Esseni in Pliny's source is, as you say--not Qumran,
not an archaeological site in the hills immediately
above En Gedi, not any site at all--but ... (drumroll)
... Judea itself.
Greg Doudna
For private reply, e-mail to "Greg Doudna" <[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.
