(printed p. 179 — Book III)
Since the first and fourth conjectures still have no patron, they should either be enlarged upon or, rather,
[margin: Plato, Definitions and Euthyphro; Josephus, Jewish War 2; conjecture 12.]
(printed p. 180)
passed over altogether in silence.
The sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth can have some small probability, partly from some affinity of words and partly from the dignity of their authors. The tenth, however, which I judged probable in the place cited, Drusius attempts to weaken. Before I speak, therefore, about the final derivations, I shall defend this one, not as the best and truest, but as not improbable. And I shall do so after quoting Drusius’s own words.
He says on page 52: “I shall continue to deserve well of Serrarius, who, just as he has read many things well, for he is certainly a learned man and a man of very wide reading, so also has digested some matters badly.”
I have long known, my Drusius, my own bad stomach; and, as I see, this is the point on which you wish to deserve well of me. Seneca says in book 3 On Benefits, chapter 9: “Who will estimate the value of having attended a sick man, when his health and safety depended on moments, of having taken hold of the right times for food, and of having refreshed his failing veins with wine?” “Value the physician,” says Ben Sira, “before he is necessary to you.” How much more, if he is already necessary! If he has run of his own accord, uncalled, to a sick man!
Now you, good physician of stomachs, are such a man for me. You come of your own accord to cure my indigestion. My stomach was weak; it was not digesting the foods it had taken; and behold, when I was not even dreaming of you, you fly in from the farthest borders of the Cauci and Batavi and wish to help my belly. What a service to me this is! Begin, then; show me how badly
[margin: The earlier nine conjectures are rejected. The tenth is not improbable. Seneca, On Benefits 3.9.]
(printed p. 181)
I have digested certain things.
Among them is this, that he writes that the Essaeans are also called Hassonim in Gorionides, “as if,” he says, “they were secondings, that is, those who were second after the Hasidaeans, or those who withdrew from the common life of others and carried themselves off into solitude, or finally Deuterotae.”
If the lord doctor had quoted my words, as the change of characters shows, the digestion would not seem so bad. For I had added proofs of each point and had explained some things a little differently, especially the third. Yet since he wished to prepare only some pill from my opinion for himself, I shall swallow this very thing and then consider what purgatives he offers.
First, then, he says: “The Deuterotae were Pharisees, which plainly makes against me.” But if he had brought forward my words whole, he could already have omitted this medicine of his. For all Pharisees were indeed Deuterotae, but not all Deuterotae were Pharisees. And therefore I said there that the deuterosis or Mishnah, from which the Essaeans could be called Deuterotae, was the secondary doctrine of divine things, not written by Moses, but communicated orally and handed down and propagated through the hands of the elders, the prophets, the Great House, and thereafter other wise men.
Otherwise, generally and first, I said that the Hassonim were called as it were “students.” Then, in order to explain the reason for the name, I showed that doctrine is sometimes called Mishnah, which the Greeks call deuterosis. Then if
[margin: Drusius’s four arguments; response to argument 1.]
(printed p. 182)
he says, “If the Hassai were second after the Hasidaeans, then there was a distinction between these names, and the Hassonim or Hessaeans were not altogether the same as the Hasidaeans,” I answer that I did not write that the Hessaeans were altogether the same as the Hasidaeans, but only the same in a qualified and corrected way.
These are my words: “The Asideans were the same as the Essenes, or certainly the former were some part of the latter, or the latter of the former.” By the latter manner of speaking it is indicated either that the Essenes were a sort of whole made up of several parts, one of which was the Asideans, or conversely that the Asideans were a whole of which one part was the Essenes.
Is this not to make some distinction between these names? And even if I had not spoken so cautiously and with such qualification, I nevertheless said later, on folio 714, from Josephus and Philo, what I shall repeat hereafter and what Drusius himself acknowledges in chapter 3 of his appendix: that there are two kinds of Essenes, so that some could be “seconding” or “second” after others.
Third, he says: “The passage which he adduces to prove this point is the only one. It is found in the Venetian codex, folio 78, column 2, but far otherwise than Serrarius cites it. For instead of Hassonim, there is in that codex, without any erasure, Hassarim, which means princes or chief men.” If I allowed my stomach to be accused here either of negligence or of scholarly weakness because it had badly digested that food from Gorionides, I would be worthy indeed for Drusius to conspire against my head with all my other members.
[margin: Response to arguments 2-3.]
(printed p. 183)
For the Basel edition, which I cited, expressly has Hassonim for Essenes, and twice in that same chapter which I have already indicated above. What else does a good stomach do but digest the food that is offered to it? The Basel Hebrew text of Gorionides set Hassonim before it; it digested these. The Basel Latin text gave Essenes for Hassonim; it digested these too.
From Drusius’s associates, the innovators of our age, Sebastian Munster wrote most plainly in the notes on that chapter: “Hassonim, Essenes, or, as certain Hebrews call them, chesidim hasidei, that is, pious.” This entire thing the same stomach took in and digested very well. What blame is there in it? What fault?
But the Venetian codex has it far otherwise, namely Hassarim instead of Hassonim. I believe it; but I have never seen that codex. What depravity of stomach is it if it does not digest hens, pullets, and partridges that are never set before it? It digested the barley or bean bread which the Basel men, perhaps while belching, gave it. It could not exert its digestive power on the Venetian fine loaf and sweet cake, which it lacked. Therefore the digester is not to be accused; rather, one must regret that his hunger was not satisfied with better food, and that he did not have such wealth that he could buy every edition of every book. Drusius would rightly answer me in just this way if I blamed him because
[margin: Hosea 3:2.]
(printed p. 184)
he says on folio 33, “I do not have Munster’s Gorionides,” or because he reads Hassarim and not Hassonim, when his own Venetian edition gives the former, not the latter, just as, conversely, my Basel edition gives not Hassarim but Hassonim.
Yet he objects in the preface of his little book, though not in the chapter cited, with what is almost a fourth argument: “The word Hassonim is put in a bad sense at Proverbs 24:21. For the sonim are certainly men who attempt revolutions.”
As though it were not extremely common among the Hebrews for words to be polysemous and neutral. In the same book of Proverbs, chapter 8, verse 14, is not gaon taken in a bad sense for arrogance and pride? And yet afterward it became a most honorable title, as Elias, Genebrard, and Scaliger explain; so much so that, as we saw above, the man who went over to the Sadducees did so because he could not become Gaon. We also saw above that schoneh is taken in a good sense. And the word kadosh, that mark of sanctity which Drusius writes is an epithet of priests, is it not applied in Deuteronomy 23:17 to the foulest prostitutes and catamites?
But since from this point the variation of reading in these books is understood, and each reading can in some way be tolerated, this can now be brought into question: to which reading in this matter should one rather adhere, the Basel or the Venetian? On this point I seem already to have made a certain prejudgment, since I compared the Basel reading with a piece of barley or bean bread, and the Venetian with a fine loaf, sweet cake, partridges, and the like. But
[margin: Folio 33. Book 3, question 1, commentary on section 10. Folio 15. Is the reading of Gorionides in the Basel edition more corrupt than the Venetian?]
(printed p. 185)
I did this to show that even if it were granted that the Venetian reading is much better, I am not for that reason near to blame, since I examined and weighed what I was permitted to read.
Now, since I believe Drusius about that Venetian reading, and since I see that the Cracow edition on folio 67 agrees with it, while my own very common edition is the Basel one, let us set aside, I hope, all the dispute about digestion and ask which reading is better in this particular business.
Drusius indeed at once gives first place to his own reading, and quite confidently. “No one even a little humane,” he says, “will deny that this reading is genuine. For I think, indeed I do not doubt, that the passage should be translated into Latin in this way: Therefore the king,” by which he understands Herod the Great, “did not force them,” that is, the Pharisees, “to an oath. Rather, he honored the chiefs of the Hasidaeans and the wise men with great honor, and also the prince Manahem, the colleague of Samai. For Manahem, if anyone else besides, was a just and wise man in those days.” The Hebrew words are then given:
לכן לא הביאם המלך בשבועה וגם השרים אשר לחסידים
והחכמים כבד בכבוד גדול וגם השר
מנחם החבר לשמאי כי מנחם אחר זולתו
איש צדיק וחכם היה בימים ההם.
“Serrarius cites these words from book 5, chapter 23, and translates them into Latin in this way: And also the Hachonim who belonged to the Hasidaeans (לחסידים) Herod did not force to the oath because of Manahem the Hachone, who belonged to the Hasidaeans (לחסידים), since Manahem himself was a just and wise man in those days. Let those who understand these things and
[margin: Drusius’s Venetian reading and Serrarius’s Basel reading are compared.]
(printed p. 186)
also have judgment now judge.”
I most gladly agree to the same judges; and the more numerous they are, the sharper in judgment and the more attentive to the case, the more certain will be the victory for me, or rather for truth.
For it is agreed that Gorionides reports the same narrative which Flavius had reported in book 15, chapter 13: how Herod built and preserved a very beautiful temple to Caesar at the springs of the Jordan and at Paneas, from which it was also named Caesarea Paneas; and how from this arose various remarks and indignations among the Jews, because that tyrant was doing these things against God’s law. In order to suppress these, while he did certain other things, he also wished everyone to swear fidelity to him.
When many refused to do this, among them the Pharisees and the Essenes, he inflicted very grave punishments on the others. But he released from this necessity of swearing the Pharisees who were disciples of Pollio and Sameas, mentioned above, and their associates, because of Pollio. At the same time he also released the Essaeans, but for a different reason: because, on account of the proven virtue of Manaemus the Essene and his power of foreknowing and predicting future events, confirmed by experience, Herod thought something greater and more august about them than mortal nature bears.
And so that the judges may more easily compare the two Josephuses with one another here and may more certainly pass judgment about the variant reading of Gorionides, and afterward also about the distinction between the Pharisees and the Essenes,
[margin: Reference back to book 1. Josephus, Antiquities 15.13.]
(printed p. 187)
I shall recite the part of Flavius’s narrative which concerns the Pharisees and Essenes. In sense it says:
Herod tried to persuade those around Pollio the Pharisee and Sameas, and most of those who spent time with them, to swear. They did not consent, yet they were not punished like those who refused, but were released from this necessity out of respect for Pollio. Those among us called Essenes, who always used a way of life like that shown among the Greeks by Pythagoras, were also released. I shall speak more clearly about them elsewhere. As for the Essenes, from what causes he honored them, thinking something greater about them than is worthy to say of mortal nature, it will not be inappropriate to this history to declare, since it will show what opinion there was about them. One of the Essenes, named Manaemus, was a man otherwise testified to for virtue and nobility of character, and he had from God foreknowledge of things to come.
This is Flavius Josephus. Let the wise and fair judges note only these two things in his words.
First, nowhere in these words is there the term “princes” or “chief men,” which in Hebrew is Hassarim and which Drusius wants.
Second, on the contrary, the Essenes, whom with other interpreters I called Hassonim, are very significantly named several times here. Therefore the Basel Gorionides comes nearer to this Josephus than the Venetian.
Then, the Venetian says that the elders who belonged to the Pharisees of Hillel and Sammei were not compelled to the oath, and in the same phrase it adds that the Essenes, or Hassonim, who belonged to the Hasidaeans, were not compelled.
Third, the Basel
[margin: Josephus quotation on Herod, the Pharisees, and the Essenes.]
(printed p. 188)
Gorionides first says of the Pharisees: “The king did not bring them to the oath.” Then, similarly, concerning the Essenes he plainly and directly adds: “And also the Essenes (Hassonim) who belonged to the Hasidaeans, he did not bring to the oath because of Manahem the Essene (haffeneh), who belonged to the Hasidaeans, because Manahem was a just and wise man in those days.”
But the Venetian, while it first sets down the clause about the Pharisees correctly, in the later words, at least as the Hebrew cited from it by Drusius sounds, confuses matters by saying: “And also the princes who belonged to the Hasidaeans, and the wise men themselves, he honored with great honor, and also Manahem, the companion of Schamai, because Manahem, another besides him, was a just and wise man in those days.”
What need was there in the second clause, when he is dealing with the Hasidaeans, to insert the wise men themselves, whom the same Venetian and Drusius with him, on folio 41, had said in book 4, chapter 29, were Pharisees, when these had already been treated in the first clause? Then where does that Manahem, companion of Samai, come from? For Josephus Flavius certainly names only an Essene, and Drusius on folio 18 admits that this is the same man whom that Venetian Gorionides says is another.
Moreover, what connection is there in saying, “He honored the princes and wise men of the Essenes, and Samai’s companion Manahem, because there was another Manahem”? Why, because there was another, did he honor that former Manahem? And that companion of Samai was either a Pharisee or an Essene. If a Pharisee, why is he named individually before so many other companions of Hillel and Samai?
(printed p. 189)
If he had to be named individually, why was he not previously listed with Hillel and Samai, but now named out of order? Why also does the same Gorionides assign elders to the Pharisees, not to the Essenes, and princes to the latter, not to the former?
From these points anyone will rightly conclude that this passage seems more correct in the German edition than in the Italian. In addition, our German edition is earlier and older than the Venetian, since the former appeared in 1541 and the latter in 1544, as Drusius himself reports on folio 36.
It also counts in its favor that, among the innovators, not only Munster but also Bonaventure Cornelius Bertram, in chapter 19 of his book On the Jewish Polity, approves and explains it. It also counts in its favor that the same Drusius, on the same folio 36, testifies that in one small section of the one chapter which he cited there are two corruptions. It also counts in its favor that the same Drusius, when he had cited the Hebrew words from his Venetian Gorionides, pleasantly, or rather, with his kind permission and for the sake of truth, deceitfully, in order to show that my translation differs from them, adds: “These are the words Serrarius cites and translates into Latin in this way.” But how did I cite and translate the words, when I had never read, seen, or possessed the Venetian type of Gorionides? The words I cited and translated came from the Basel codex.
Finally, it also counts in its favor that, in translating the few words under dispute from the Venetian exemplar, the same Drusius committed, I think not from ignorance but by design, a threefold
[margin: “Drusius twists a few words of the Venetian Gorionides.”]
(printed p. 190)
fraud.
The first is when he translates, “Rather, the chiefs of the Hasidaeans,” although the Hebrew in the Venetian has, “And also the chiefs, who belonged to the Hasidaeans.” For that phrase “and also” clearly distinguishes the Hasidaeans from the Pharisees, who had been mentioned before, against Drusius himself.
The second is when he translates, “Manahem, if anyone else”; for, as I have already noted above, the Venetian Hebrew says, “because Manahem was another.”
The third is when he adds “besides,” although the same Hebrew says “besides him.”
So now let what Drusius asked for take place: let those who understand these things and also have judgment judge. Yet, so that Drusius may not be saddened by too severe a letter from the judges, I wish to concede certain things to him voluntarily.
First, because of the disagreement of these editions, I am willing to withdraw from this etymology of the Essenes and rather embrace the one which was explained above in the twelfth place.
First, because whichever of the proposed readings is more sincere, the notation seems less certain when its foundation has not been fixed and fastened in a firm, certain, and universally approved reading.
Second, because this is the true and genuine opinion of Philo and Eusebius in the places already indicated, as was concluded above.
Third, because the same notation was also committed to writing by Saint Chrysostom in homily 44 on the Acts of the Apostles, by Theophylact and Oecumenius on chapter 22 of the same Acts, and by others.
Fourth, it seems very likely that the Greek word hosios came from the same Syriac source,
[margin: Of the conjectures set out in chapter 1, the twelfth seems most probable. Source page 215 ends mid-sentence.]
(printed p. 191)
as several other words also came from it.
I further concede to Drusius that I have not fully and sufficiently digested some of the things I have read. The first of these is the praise which he assigns to me, both because I know how scanty my equipment is, and because he declares that I have read many things well, yet have badly digested certain others. It does not seem to me that one has read many things well if he digests badly what he has read.
Nor do I digest how the distinction of the Essenes from the Pharisees is not gathered from the cited words of the Josephuses. But more on that later.
Third, I do not digest this: although I had brought forward three causes, and indeed with the disjunctive particle “or,” by which the Essenes might seem able to be called Hassonim, he rejects them all, and yet he is moved by no argument, not even a slight one of the kind with which he rejects the other two, against the second. But at last let the Essaeans come from the Hebrew chesid, from which comes the Syriac chesi or hesi, that is, holy and pious.