Re: orion-list Essenes and Jews/Judeans
- Original Message - From: Penner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 7:57 PM Subject: orion-list Essenes and Jews/Judeans To Dierk: I wrote (to Dave Hindley) that I did not see the relevance of the military supply you mentioned for determining Josephus' audience. You replied, The ancient Romans had seen the relevance pretty well. Could you explain the relevance to me, please? The increase of Roman troops at the Parthian frontier requires a direct diplomatic note by the Officium to avoid military over-reactions by the Parthians (outcome questionable, but normally disastrous for Rome). The tactical aims are to made known and, then, to be combined with a clear warning not to intervene, ie to keep the fresh renewed (64/5 CE) Euphrates treaties and not to become involved into to the internal affairs of Rome. Here Ktesiphon was doubtlessly called to take care of the Jewish population in her western satrapies and, thus, to avoid a remake of the Pacorus scenario (41/39 BC). Dierk For private reply, e-mail to Dierk van den Berg [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 TRAILER BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
orion-list Essenes and Jews/Judeans
To Dierk: I wrote (to Dave Hindley) that I did not see the relevance of the military supply you mentioned for determining Josephus' audience. You replied, The ancient Romans had seen the relevance pretty well. Could you explain the relevance to me, please? To George Brooks, who wrote: While your vigorous prose serves you well, If I wrote with more vigour than substance, I apologize. The reasons for my urgency are two: One, I am currently working on a paper on the differences among the sects according to Josephus (particularly the use of heimarmene in AJ 13.171-173). If I am making any serious errors of judgement about Josephus' audience, I would like to know it before I submit this paper. Two, (forgive my naïveté or arrogance, whichever it is) I was sincerely surprised that anyone would propagate on the respectable Orion list what seemed to me uninformed guesses about Josephus' audience. By uninformed I meant in conflict with yet not in dialog with current scholarly discussions. And certainly there were other high placed Jews who would enjoy a nice dinner with their Roman friends or patrons, and would *hear* the writings of Josephus read out to the assembled guests. And this would happen both in Rome and in the Syrian territories. Thank you for your corrective. My reply to Heb Basser reflects its influence. To Herb Basser, who wrote: I find it difficult to imagine Jos didnt have at least some jews in mind when he keeps writing apologies to hius brethren jews for saying things he does and tries to reassure themn he is not revelaing to much of things. Of course he expected Jews to read his work and addresses them in his work. Ok, maybe I overstated my case. I can see the sense in imagining that Josephus figured some Jews might hear his work when they were invited to a reading of Josephus' works put on by his friends who had copies made for themselves (something like what George Brooks described). This is different than imagining that Josephus was writing for a Jewish audience. Steve Mason writes in his intro. to AJ: That a fellow-Judean might read his work he leaves open as a possibility, at least for the rhetorical purpose of defending his arrangement of the laws (Ant. 4.197), but he assumes the posture of an insider relating his story to outsiders. Are there other passages in which Josephus addresses Jews? In the end, for the practical purposes of deciding what Josephus meant, we need to think of his primary audience. I still think it is not helpful to think of this primary audience as Jewish. I also feel frustrated that we are chasing a red herring (and may be getting off topic for the Orion list); In the quest to figure out why Josephus might say Essenes, being Judeans/Jews..., most respondents have addressed the question of who might be predisposed to think the Essenes were NOT Jews. I still think this was NOT a misconception Josephus was trying to correct, but I have had no feedback here. I base my view on the men-de construction in BJ 22.119 (here quoted without the relative clause): TRITON DE ESSHNOI KALOUNTAI, IOUDAIOI MEN GENOS ONTES, FILALLHLOI DE KAI TWN ALLWN PLEON. Is he not expressing a balance between being Judeans/Jews and being a tight-knit group? He is trying to anticipate or correct the misconception that their relative closeness implies a repudiation of their Jewishness or of all other Jews, is he not? 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] 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)
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] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion
