(printed p. 232 — Book III)
Three matters must here be weighed in the balance. First, whence the name of the Hasidaeans comes. Second, whether in the times of the Maccabees it was the common name of all the pious. Third, whether the Hessaeans and the Hasidaeans are the same.
As to the first, my commentary on the Harmony of the Maccabees, folio 705, taught that the Hasidaeans were called from chasid, or from hasid. I also showed there, folio 707, and here above against Drusius, that they are rightly called and written Asidaeans. Indeed, it was also shown at length that the final letter is sometimes cut off in chasid by the Syrians’ usual apocope. Since Junius admits this in chapter 5 on Ephesians, how did he dare in chapter 4 to wish to change chesioutha into chesidutha, with all the books protesting against him, even those Heidelberg books which he says he followed?
But against a certain great teacher in Israel, who, when I published that commentary, had not yet come before my eyes, Drusius writes thus on folio 12: Someone changes the writing of Hasidaeans and writes Aschidaeans, first against the trustworthiness of all the codices,
[margin: The origin of the name Hasidaeans. Serarius links it to chasid or hasid and criticizes Junius.]
(printed p. 233)
and then against Hebrew history. For in that history they are called chesidim. These are good arguments. But who is that “someone”? Does Drusius spare his name because it does not occur to him? That is indeed what he says about the corrupter of Vatablus on folio 11. But since he copied that man’s words, he had the book before his eyes. I am persuaded by Drusius’s prudence in the use of time that the man was not of such importance to him that he would memorize him. Or had the name perhaps fallen from his memory after he had read it long ago? Yet he remembered the name of Lyra, so that he could write on folio 13 that Lyra was plainly being foolish, a name much further removed from daily use. How, then, would forgetfulness have seized him about the name of this man, which was more recent and more familiar?
Let Oedipus play Davus. The man whom Drusius rightly and well rebukes, and whose name he deliberately suppresses, is numbered among the Innovators, a chick of Calvin, a white hen of Holland, Francis Junius, already named above in his notes on 1 Maccabees, chapter 2, number 12. Truth compelled Drusius to pluck him; fellowship persuaded him not to name him.
But what was Junius’s reason there for writing Asidaeans so ineptly and corruptly? The etymon which that interpreter assigned to the word had to corrupt the writing, says Drusius, from the Chaldean verb אשד, meaning “he poured out.” And, as error draws error, Junius says that the name is not that of any people, but properly designates those who, for the sake of religion, were scattered here and there so that they would not be forced by the king’s tyranny to some wickedness.
[margin: Junius is identified and criticized for a false etymology and spelling.]
(printed p. 234)
Had Junius really written such things? And are they at all probable? To pass over what Masius says in Joshua, chapter 10, about that verb of pouring out, my Drusius gives this judgment on those things of Junius, and he begins rightly: All these things can be denied as easily as they are said. It is not enough to say something unless you also prove what you say, for etymology is deceptive. Many today admire dreams of this sort, who despise solid learning. Nor is this surprising, since even truth among them has no value.
The received writing and our opinion are supported by the passage which is found in 1 Maccabees 7:16-17: “And he seized from them sixty men and killed them on one day, according to the word that is written: The flesh of your saints and their blood they poured out around Jerusalem, and there was no one to bury them.” In these words there seems surely to be an allusion to the name of the Hasidaeans. Indeed, in the Greek text it is “the flesh of your holy ones.” And in the Hebrew at David it is hasidecha, whose absolute singular is hasid. By the ancient explanation, that means “holy.”
Nevertheless, not every holy and pious man in whatever manner is called chasid by the Hebrews, but one who is outstandingly merciful, holy, and pious, or who strives more intensely after mercy, holiness, and piety. For Drusius goes on to say, from the Hebrew David, what those who misuse Luke 10:36 to deny works of supererogation will hear unwillingly: Chasid is distinguished from tsadik, or the just man, in such a way that chasid is one who does more than he is commanded to do, while tsadik
[margin: Drusius rightly rejects Junius. Chasid is distinguished from tsadik.]
(printed p. 235)
is one who carries out God’s commands. He writes this from the Midrash on Psalm 103:17. In the Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 16, folio 13, column 4 of the Bomberg edition, Rabbi Alexander says: Everyone who hears an insult or curse directed against him and remains silent is called chasid, or pious, as David did in 2 Samuel 16:10-11. Elsewhere it is: And he is silent in judgment. Likewise, the chasid, or pious man, is one who enters, hears, and does. He enters the temple, hears the word of God, and does what is taught there; that is, he lives according to its prescription. In chapter 3 of Pirke Avoth, a certain rabbi says: Lo ham baarets chasid. The common man is not a chasid, or pious.
But this in Drusius is ridiculous: if chasid means one who does more than he is bound to do by law, then, he says, it is better rendered by the recent interpreters as “kind” than as “pious” or “holy.” Why so, I ask? My slight knowledge, says Drusius in this little book, folio 22, is wholly occupied with grammar and history. I leave the doctrines of faith to be handled by others more learned than I. Yet it belongs to the grammarian to explain why chasid is better translated “kind” than “pious” or “holy.” The Septuagint interpreters do not believe this, for they translate chesidim as holy ones, as you yourself note at length. Are the saints therefore to be called “kind” rather than pious and holy? In Psalm 78 should it be better said, “the flesh of your kind ones,” than “the flesh of your saints, and they poured out their blood around Jerusalem”? And in Psalm 148, would it be better to say, “God will exalt the horn of his people; a hymn for all his kind ones”?
[margin: Rabbinic examples of chasid. Serarius rejects translating it merely as “kind.”]
(printed p. 236)
Among the Hebrews the stork, as this Latin name also preserves in Aben Ezra’s Hebrew, is named chasidah, or, as it is written by the Septuagint in Jeremiah 8:7, asida, because, as Saint Ambrose says in book 5 of the Hexaemeron, chapter 16, and book 6, chapter 4, it is called by Roman usage a pious bird. It is of such great piety that Saint Epiphanius, in the Physiologus, chapter 24, proposes it for imitation. From it also arose the proverb antipelargein, to repay the stork’s care.
The memorable Delphic stork in Holland makes this more memorable. Returning from feeding, it saw flames threatening the nest and certain death for its young. It tried in every way to rescue them, already rather grown but still unable to fly, from the flames by its own small means. At last, when all help was despaired of and, as it were, the final word had been spoken, it spread its wings and settled headlong into the nest. Covering the young with its whole body, it seemed to lie over them, all hope of life set aside, ready of its own will to die with its dearest pledges. Cornelius Musso, clear in poetry and piety, handed this down to memory, and from him Hadrianus Junius in his Batavia, with these verses:
White stork, hated by the noisy frogs, had seen her pledges pressed by burning fire. Should she rescue her own and face open dangers? Piety urges from one side; love of life forbids from the other. Generous piety ended this struggle, and wished one urn and one death-goddess for mother and young.
Therefore, since chasid signifies holy and pious, the recent interpreters of the Bible are praised too readily and set above the old interpreter by the Innovators.
[margin: The stork as an emblem of piety; chasidah. Cornelius Musso and Hadrianus Junius are cited.]
(printed p. 237)
I, with Pindar, with the Chaldean Targum on Song of Songs 7:9 and 8:2, or rather with those whom Christ the Lord praises in Luke 5:39, shall say: the old wine is better.
Furthermore, this very name chasid can be taken in two ways. It can be taken generally for anyone, in whatever nation, order, or discipline, who has devoted himself more zealously to mercy, which, as was said above, was excellent among the Essenes, and to piety and religion. In this way it is often taken in the Scriptures, as we saw a little earlier. Or it can be taken specially for a certain company of some men who, having entered into a society among themselves, pursue religion and piety more diligently by a particular form of life. Drusius acknowledges on folios 16, 58, and 62 that the Hessaeans and Hasidaeans are of this sort.
But from this arises the second of the questions which I proposed: in the books of Maccabees, when Chesidim or Hasidaeans occur, is that word to be taken in the broader meaning, or in this narrower one? Drusius affirms the broader meaning on folios 34 and 62. Those whom Josephus calls a nation or people in book 12, chapter 16, he says, in my judgment are not the Hessaeans, but in general signify all the pious whom we have said are called chesidim in Hebrew history and Asidaeans in the books of Maccabees; he opposes to them the impious followers of Alcimus. And so that he not seem to put this forward merely as a probable opinion, he adds: I set this down as certain for myself, while I leave the rest doubtful and ambiguous.
[margin: The old interpretation is preferred. The second question: whether Hasidaeans in Maccabees means all pious people or a particular society.]
(printed p. 238)
And on folio 34 he says: So it seems to me. If it is otherwise, then I am indeed in great error.
But it is otherwise, my Drusius. Therefore you are indeed in great error. I prove my assumption. For in 1 Maccabees 7:13, whether we follow the Latin or the Greek text, it is clearly signified that the Asidaeans are not universally all the pious Israelites who were then at Jerusalem, but only certain men, to whom this name was then proper above others.
The Latin says: “And there came together to Alcimus and Bacchides a congregation of scribes, to seek the things that were just.” Behold, this multitude of scribes was, speaking generally, pious, retaining the true worship of God, and not impious and apostate, as not a few of the Jews were, concerning whom the same chapter speaks. And yet, after mention of those pious men, something new is immediately added: “And first the Asidaeans, who were among the sons of Israel, sought peace from them,” whether the Asidaeans were also scribes, but different ones, or were not. Either can be said, as I suggested on folio 706 in the Maccabees.
The Greek agrees, except that it speaks about the Asidaeans in this way: “The first were the Asidaeans among Israel, and they sought peace from them.” Thus, when it had told of the scribes, it adds others, who then were of still greater authority among the Jews, who sought peace from the impious Alcimus and Bacchides; and these are called Asidaeans. For by adding the simple particle “and,”
[margin: Serarius argues from 1 Maccabees 7:13 that Asidaeans were a distinct group, not all pious Israelites. Source page 263 ends mid-sentence.]
(printed p. 239)
Drusius himself translates it on folio 29: “And the first Asidaeans were from the sons of Israel.” Similarly, in 2 Maccabees 14:6, when that same wicked apostate Alcimus wishes to stir up King Demetrius against the Jews who retained the law of Moses, the true religion of God, and the priesthood, he does what all the worst men are accustomed to do. He takes care that those who, within the whole kind of pious Israelites, were most zealous for piety, and who took their name from it in a special and particular way, should be as suspect and hateful as possible to the king, and that the king should pour out his anger and rage against them as much as possible.
Speaking to the king, he said: “Those of the Jews who are called Asidaeans, over whom Judas Maccabeus presides, nourish wars and stir up seditions, and do not allow the kingdom to be quiet.” In Greek it is clearer: those who are called Asidaeans among the Jews. If in these passages we put and understand pious people in general, will not both the speech and the meaning become cold and fall flat?
Then again, why did the Greeks and Latins here retain the name of Asidaeans? Why did they not, as elsewhere so often, and indeed in that very book 1, chapter 7, verse 17, translate it as saints, pious people, or merciful people? Why would they have retained an unknown and barbarous word, if it had not been a proper and common name in a certain fellowship of the pious, and retained it first of all in these books? Why did all give the word an initial capital letter, and why did Drusius himself do so through almost the whole little book, and especially on the page already cited, 49?
[margin: Asidaeans in 2 Maccabees 14:6. The retained proper name supports a distinct group.]
(printed p. 240)
Add to this that, because the matter is so clear, there is and has so far been complete agreement among all about it. For although not a few dispute about the etymology of the word and about the institution of the Asidaeans, all confess that there was some certain institution, sect, and family of certain pious men.
But because Drusius says on folio 33, “I do not care for the Catholic Genebrard,” although now I shall not praise him, even though he speaks very clearly in book 2 of Chronicles, folio 99, nor any other Catholic, I shall cite only some of those Innovators who are more to Drusius’s taste. In the first place among them let the Junius already cited hold the place, when he writes Aschidaeans throughout in those books and wishes them to be certain people who had been scattered here and there for the sake of religion. Joseph Scaliger, in book 6 On the Correction of Times, folio 503, after he had treated the Essenes, says: “Thus in the books of Maccabees there was a not dissimilar kind of Jews called Asidaeans.”
Lake Leman is the fountain of Calvinian wisdom. From it the new translation of the Bible, especially the French one, was thought for some years to flow pure. Yet the lake theologians and ministers themselves corrected it in the year 1588, and in that corrected version they translate “the Asidaeans,” so that it is a proper name. Luther, in his German version, uses a word which is otherwise common; but so that he may restrict it to a certain kind of good men, he writes it with a capital letter, saying in 1 Maccabees 2 and 7, “the Pious.”
[margin: Serarius cites Protestant witnesses, including Junius, Scaliger, the corrected French Bible, and Luther.]
(printed p. 241)
And with a certain force supplied by the German articles, he says in 2 Maccabees 14, “the Jews who call themselves the Pious.” But if chesidim or Hasidaeans are taken restrictively in 1 Maccabees 7, as has already been sufficiently established, the same must certainly be held about the hosioi in Josephus, book 12, chapter 6, where he narrates the same history. And there he opposes both these hosioi in particular and all the holy ones in general to the impious and the exiles. Drusius, however, slyly concealed the words “the holy ones” in Josephus and mentioned only the hosioi, so that the impious might seem to be opposed to them in general, and thus all the pious might be understood in general. But now that my assumption has been sufficiently proved, a very true conclusion is drawn from it against Drusius’s great error.
The third question now remains: are the Hessaeans Hasidaeans? Drusius teaches three things about the Hasidaeans in his little book, insofar as they pertain here. First, that in the books of Maccabees they are all the pious and holy in general. Second, that these same people, both in those books and in Joseph Gorionides, book 4, chapter 29, are Pharisees. For on folio 5 he says: “The Pharisees were anciently called the wise men of Israel and Hasidaeans.” On folio 28: “Gorionides there mentions only two sects, one of the Sadducees, the other of the Hasidaeans, or Pharisees.” On folio 34: “In that passage of Gorionides, as also in the books of Maccabees, Pharisees are signified; or, if this name is more recent, the wise men of Israel.”
[margin: Whether the Hessaeans are Hasidaeans. Drusius’s three claims are introduced.]
(printed p. 242)
And he had written this long ago in that question 47 on account of which this little book of his exists. Third, he now admits what I proved in the Maccabees: that the Hasidaeans were Essenes, and a peculiar sect distinct from the Sadducees and Pharisees, but one which first arose after the times of the Maccabees. Thus he says on folio 5: “From the Pharisees arose the Hessaeans, whom the author of the book Juchasin calls Nazaraeans, and Gorionides, the compiler of the Hebrew history, also calls Hasidaeans.” On folio 31: “If the Pharisees at that time were called Hasidaeans, why later were the Hessaeans called by that name? It is well known that a general name is sometimes restricted to a particular species.” On folio 34: “Even if it is true that the Hessaeans are called Hasidaeans, nevertheless in that passage, as also in the books of Maccabees, Pharisees are signified.” And on folio 62: “Many from the Pharisees withdrew into solitudes and desert places, and there founded the third sect of the Jews; they were particularly called Hasidaeans.”
But of these three claims, the first has just now been shattered. The second was weakened above, in the explanation of that passage of Gorionides which alone caused Drusius to sound the trumpet against the whole fleet of authors. And surely in 1 Maccabees 7 it would be more allowable to include the Pharisees under the name of scribes than under the name of Asidaeans, as is understood from the things discussed earlier about the scribes. The third is false only insofar as he wishes the Hessaeans, who are also Hasidaeans, to have arisen only after the times of the Maccabees. But this has been refuted from Flavius Josephus already in the first chapters. Therefore
[margin: Serarius rejects Drusius’s claims. Source page 267 ends mid-sentence.]
(printed p. 243)
nothing now remains except to set up this conclusion: the Hasidaeans existed when the Maccabees existed. And they were neither pious and holy people in general, nor Pharisees in particular, much less Sadducees. Therefore they were Essenes, since it is also certain from Josephus that the Essenes existed then, and since nothing has been handed down to memory by Josephus or by other writers about any fourth sect of Jews which flourished in the same times.
To make it stand so much more firmly that the Hessaeans and Hasidaeans are the same, I add, although it is not necessary, the very origin and meaning of the names, which, as is clear from the preceding chapters, is wholly the same in both; and likewise the testimony of two Innovators. One of them is Munster on book 4, chapter 6 of Gorionides, already mentioned above in another place. The other is Bonaventure Cornelius Bertram, whom Beza praises as his colleague on Galatians 2, number 7. In his book On the Jewish Polity, chapter 19, Bertram says: “Among the heresies or sects of the Jews, the first place is deservedly given to the Essees or Essenes. For I think they are those who in 1 Maccabees 7:13 are called Asidaeans and are called the first and chief of the Jews. That the Essees or Essenes are Asidaeans is argued from the fact that in Joseph son of Gorion, writing in Hebrew, those who are called Essees or Essenes by others, and especially by Josephus when he describes the same histories in Greek, are called chasidim, that is, kind or pious.”
These are his words. I would move more quickly from him to other matters, unless there were one point by which Drusius wishes to persuade us that the Pharisees were
[margin: The Hasidaeans are identified with the Essenes. Munster and Bertram are cited. Source page 268 ends mid-sentence.]
(printed p. 244)
Hasidaeans, and which I thought it wrong to pass over in silence, since it has not yet been explained elsewhere as the others have. What need is there of many words? he says on folio 34. Hyrcanus himself, in Gorionides, book 4, chapter 29, is called chasid by the Pharisees while he was still their disciple, that is, a Hasidaean or pious man.
But he is so called according to the general meaning which belongs to this name, just as in the same place he is also called tsadik. Therefore in that passage Drusius badly translates the word as “Hasidaean,” and he does not well write “Pious” with a somewhat large capital.