(printed p. 245 — Book III)
Not a few deny that the Essenes were Rechabites, but Suidas asserted it when he said: “The Essees were the ancestors, or parents and authors, of Jonadab, son of the righteous Rechab.” They were not, as the Lutheran Wolphius translates, his descendants. For in that case they would have been the descendants of the Rechabites, not their ancestors. Yet this assertion, from whatever source Suidas drew it, seems, although not yet demonstrated, nevertheless probable.
For it has been proved above that the Essaeans already existed in the time of John Hyrcanus, and Josephus speaks of them not as though they had then been born, but as older and commonly known. It has also been proved that the Essaeans are the Asidaeans, of whom there is mention in the books of Maccabees. Therefore they either arose in those very times or already existed before. The former seems to be suggested by that opinion which says that because of the savagery and cruelty of Antiochus Epiphanes some Jews were scattered into the solitudes, and that from there they were called Aschidaeans. But although it is true that very many were driven into flight and desert places because of that tyranny, as is found in 1 Maccabees 1 and 2, nevertheless
[margin: Chapter IX begins. Suidas is discussed. The Essenes are connected with the Rechabites, but not as descendants in Wolphius’s sense.]
(printed p. 246)
that the name of the Aschidaeans arose from this has been denied above. Rather, therefore, it seems that they already existed before, and that most of those who had already hidden in the solitudes and observed the Sabbath and other ceremonies so carefully were Hessaeans.
As for when they began, or how, nothing more fitting can be said than that from the very time when the Jews entered the promised land from Egypt, they always existed, in a greater or lesser number and with some change or addition of certain institutions. They are the same as those who in Judges, chapter 1, are called Kenites, sprung from Moses’s father-in-law Jethro and from his son Hobab, about whom see Numbers 10. One or the other of these, or certainly one from them, was Rechab; I shall speak again about this below. Suidas calls him “the righteous,” in Hebrew chasid. His son Jonadab added certain things to the old discipline and produced that company or sect which is called the Rechabites in Jeremiah 35.
By family and origin they were indeed Kenites and Hessaeans, but with some change in their institutions and name, so that there were two kinds of Kenites and Essaeans. One was older, with the old institution and name. The other was more recent, namely the Rechabite kind. These things receive probability, first, because it is clear from Judges 1 and 4, but especially
[margin: Serarius proposes an ancient Kenite/Rechabite origin for the Essenes. Source page 271 ends mid-sentence.]
(printed p. 247)
from the last verse of 1 Chronicles 2, that the Kenites, descendants of Jethro, settled with the Israelites in the promised land and cultivated zeal for piety and virtue in an outstanding way. Our text there reads: “The clans also of the scribes dwelling in Jabez, singing and resounding, and remaining in tabernacles. These are the Kenites, who came from the heat of the father of the house of Rechab.”
Each point must be weighed. First, they are called scribes. Beza on Matthew 2:4, and Junius and Tremellius on 1 Chronicles 2, say that these men are called scribes because they were writers of private contracts and instruments, and indeed in such a way that Beza asserts that this is clear from the cited passage of Chronicles. Yet nothing is less true. From what particle is that clear? Rather, in Hebrew they are called sopherim, in Greek grammateis, and in Latin scribes, because they were skilled in divine matters and were lovers and students of the sacred books and laws, as was said above about the scribes. Genebrard, book 1 on Chronicles, folio 60: “They are called scribes or teachers in 1 Chronicles 2.”
Second, the Seventy also call them “dwelling in Jabez,” not in a city, but in solitary and wooded places of Jabesh, about which see 1 Samuel 31 and Josephus, book 7, chapter 19. Yet because the phrase in Hebrew can also signify those who sit with Jabez, the author of the Traditions explains this as though they had spent time with a certain man named Jabez, an outstanding teacher. And just as Paul sat at the feet of Gamaliel, so these men sat at his feet for the sake of learning. For in the same book, chapter 4, verses 9 and 10, Jabez is highly commended, because he both made a vow to God
[margin: Four points are noted in 1 Chronicles 2. The first two concern “scribes” and “dwelling in Jabez.”]
(printed p. 248)
and was heard by him. The text says: “Jabez was more illustrious than his brothers, and his mother called his name Jabez, saying, Because I bore him in pain. And Jabez called upon the God of Israel, saying: If in blessing you bless me and enlarge my borders, and if your hand is with me and you make me not be oppressed by evil. And God granted what he prayed for.” The same man is called by the same author of the Traditions a very pious and illustrious teacher, in Hebrew chasid.
Third, they are called “singing and resounding and remaining in tabernacles.” The Seventy retain almost the Hebrew names, as though they were Thirhathites, Shimeathites, and Suchathites. But since these are not found as proper names of either people or places, especially the first and second, the meaning carried by the force of the words must be taken. The Thirhathites, therefore, are singers, or those who cry out and rejoice, because they were especially occupied in prayers; they constantly sang praises and hymns to God, and uttered them with conspicuous jubilation and voice.
The Shimeathites are “resounders,” because they made others hear what they sang by the projection of the voice. Or else they themselves were “hearers,” because they never ceased hearing teachers and interpreters of the divine oracles, and because they obeyed most actively the precepts and institutions of the elders, as appears in Jeremiah 35:10, 14, and 18. The Suchathites are translated “those remaining in tabernacles,” because either they lived outside cities and villages in tents fixed somewhere, or
[margin: Jabez is praised. The names Thirhathites, Shimeathites, and Suchathites are interpreted by meaning.]
(printed p. 249)
in cities and villages they lived as though in tents, not in houses, as though in lodgings, not in settled homes; see Jeremiah 35:10-11. But what do these things signify except a holy, pious, and hidden way of life, separate from common custom? The author of the Hebrew Traditions says: “They are written as singing and resounding because they were constantly occupied in the law of God and the prophets.”
Fourth, “These are the Kenites, who came from the heat of the father of the house of Rechab”; or, as it is read in the Septuagint from the Hebrew, without the interpretation of the name which the Latin makes not badly: “who come from Chammath, father of the house of Rechab.” But who is this Chammath? In Jeremiah 35, the house, or family and company, of the Rechabites is mentioned several times. Its nearer father is Jonadab, about whom see 2 Kings 10:15; its more remote father is Rechab, who is the father of Jonadab. And indeed, because they are not called Jonadabites but Rechabites, Chammath seems to be Rechab himself.
But who is this Rechab? There are several Rechabs in Scripture, as in 2 Samuel 4:2, 6, and 9, and Ezra 2:3, 14. But nothing is said of our Rechab except that he is the father of Jonadab, in 2 Kings 10:15 and 23, and Jeremiah 35:4, 6, 8, 14, 16, and 19. And because that word means horseman or chariot, it is read in the Septuagint for chariot in Judges 1:19, as Saint Augustine, question 4, and Theodoret, question 5, note on that passage. Certainly not a few Hebrews and Latins think that he is Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, or Jethro’s son
[margin: The fourth point concerns the Kenites and Rechab. Chammath is identified with Rechab.]
(printed p. 250)
Hobab, who is called the father of Jonadab, not because he was Jonadab’s immediate parent, but in the manner of Scripture, because Jonadab was from his stock. Arias Montanus expressly hands this down in Judges 1 in these words: “That Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, had several names, as many others among the ancients also did, we know from frequent testimony. For in this place the name Keni is mentioned; in Jeremiah, however, the same man is called Rechab.”
Rabbi Solomon Jarchi, certainly, in Jeremiah 35, affirms that the Rechabites are from the sons of Jethro, who indeed was a man of God. Rabbi David Kimchi in the same place says: “Edom and Hobab are the sons of Rechab.” And this is the same opinion of all the sages among the Hebrews. Hence our Lyra, on the same chapter of Jeremiah, says: “The Hebrew and Latin doctors say that those Rechabites descended from Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses.” Theodoret, in the question already cited, says: “Divine Scripture everywhere mentions Rechab as a very pious man, eusebes, chasid, whose religion also flowed down to his descendants.”
Therefore from this man’s singular piety and religion, which the already cited Suidas and Theodoret mark in their Greek articles, flowed the names of the Chasidaeans, Hessaeans, and Rechabites. This name is used in Jeremiah and the books of Kings; the others are used in Maccabees and then in the histories. Now Pliny, book 5 of the Natural History, chapter 17, says: “Through thousands of ages the nation of the Essenes is eternal.” Solinus, chapter 36: “Through an immense space of ages, incredible to say, it is an eternal nation,
[margin: Rechab is connected with Jethro and Hobab. Pliny and Solinus are introduced as witnesses to the antiquity of the Essenes.]
(printed p. 251)
though births have ceased.” Drusius rejects these witnesses on folio 61, but he merely rejects them and supplies absolutely no reason. Others also reject them, but in such a way that they object to the silence of others, and especially of the Hebrews, about these matters. They excuse Pliny himself, as though, because he knew that the Jewish people was most ancient, he thought the sect of the Essenes to be coeval with them.
But since Pliny, and Solinus who followed him closely, agrees beautifully, in the manner I have explained, with Scripture and with Christian and Jewish doctors, we should rather rejoice in the truth, which has even profane and Gentile writers as witnesses. For from whatever source Pliny received other things about the institutions of the Essenes so truly and so congruently with Josephus, is it not fitting to believe that from the same source he also received information about their antiquity and their institution as distinct from the whole Jewish nation?
Moreover, since we see that the posterity of those men came through a long series of many years down to King Zedekiah, why should we not reckon that the same posterity was afterward still preserved and propagated by God down to the Maccabees, and from them down to Christ the Lord? This is especially so since the Lord himself says in Jeremiah 35:19: “There shall not fail a man from the stock of Jonadab son of Rechab standing in my sight all days,” that is, serving and obeying me piously and religiously.
What of the fact that at the death of Saint James the Apostle, who was also called the Just, a priest, his patron, stood near him as a Rechabite, as Eusebius, book 2 of the History, chapter 23, reports from Hegesippus, book 5?
[margin: Pliny and Solinus are defended. Jeremiah 35:19 and the death of James are cited.]
(printed p. 252)
This does not mean that he sprang from Rechab by family and blood. For how could someone who was not a Levite and not from the stock of Aaron have been a priest at Jerusalem? Rather, it means that he had joined himself to the discipline and sect of the Rechabites, so that, just as he could be called a Rechabite, he could also be called an Essene.
What of the fact that it also seems likely that Saint James himself, because he excelled in the same discipline before he was an apostle, and much more afterward, was for that reason once called “the Just” by excellence, that is, chasid, as Eusebius reports in the same place? For certainly those things which the most weighty writers have handed down about the virginity, abstinence, constancy in prayer, and highest authority among the Jews of this most holy apostle, as I touched on briefly in the little book On the Apostles, fit the customs of the Essaeans very well.
But let this be as it pleases each person. To me, certainly, Josephus seems to testify not obscurely to their very ancient origin when he says in book 18, chapter 2: “It is worth admiring above all those who make virtue their concern, because justice, which has never belonged to any Greeks or barbarians, not even for a short time, came to them from of old in this practice and has not been prevented from remaining.” Rufinus has so far very absurdly stolen these words from readers who love truth; but a new interpreter has restored them a little, when he translated: “Their justice also is wonderful, by which they far surpass all Greeks and barbarians
[margin: The Rechabite priest at James’s death is explained by discipline, not blood. James himself may be understood as linked by discipline to the Essenes.]
(printed p. 253)
by many centuries, having long been worn in its continual pursuits.” But Josephus says this almost word for word: “It is indeed worthy to admire them above all who study virtue; for the just, or justice, which never happened to any Greeks or barbarians, not even to the smallest degree, came to them from ancient times, because they were not prevented or hindered from being formed in that way of life.”
Again, the same author says that they are very similar to the Dacians in very many of their customs. But it has already been said above that among the Getae, Dacians, and Pythagoreans there flourished very many things which seem to belong to the Essenes, and that these were received by Pythagoras from the Jews. In this way the family of the Essenes is earlier and older than Pythagoras himself. Pythagoras, however, lived at the time of the Jews’ return from Babylon and for some time thereafter, and flourished down to the seventieth Olympiad.
But lest this disputation of mine be too tasteless for Drusius, I shall sprinkle in something pleasing to him, some new salt. Peter Martyr, on 2 Kings 10, when he asks why Jonadab gave his sons those commands found in Jeremiah 35 about abstinence from wine, lack of estates, cultivation of solitudes, and other similar matters, himself answers, among other things, this: “That pastoral art belonged to the Rechabites from their fathers, indeed from their grandfathers. For Jethro, Moses’s father-in-law, had flocks, and he sent his daughters to feed and guard them. Therefore they did not wish
[margin: Josephus is translated more closely. Peter Martyr is introduced among Protestant witnesses.]
(printed p. 254)
to degenerate from their ancestors.” And more fully on Judges 1: “God is shown to have adorned the Kenites in no common way in his commonwealth, and that with three chief gifts. For they excelled in zeal and knowledge of the law. Then they were illustrious by a notable victory. Finally, they lived with praised and approved morals.
“Concerning their zeal for the law, with which they burned, the first book of Chronicles, chapter 2 near the end, is witness for them. There they are mentioned with the family of Jabez, that is, of Othniel, and are said to have been scribes. From this it appears that the tradition of the Hebrews is not to be despised, namely that in the doctrine of the law they were disciples of Othniel. For they are reckoned in his family, and it is very common for disciples to be treated in the place of sons. Jerome also, in the Questions on Chronicles, embraces this opinion, which, as has been said, seems to rest on the Scriptures. Nor do I think that mention of them is made here among the deeds of Othniel for any other reason than that they always lived very closely joined with his family. They are indeed counted with the tribe of Judah, although they were not of Israelite stock. Therefore they too, among the others, bore a type of the calling of the nations.
“The second splendid ornament in their commonwealth was the beautiful victory which is reported in chapter 4 of this book of Judges. For Jael, wife of Heber the Kenite, killed Sisera, commander of Jabin king of Canaan, and by the hand of a woman of this family God willed to grant great salvation to the Israelites. Finally, that they were well-mannered and observant of their fathers’ commands is shown by the family of Jonadab
[margin: Peter Martyr on the Kenites: knowledge of the law, victory through Jael, and obedience to ancestral commands. Source page 279 ends mid-sentence.]
(printed p. 255)
of Jonadab son of Rechab declared. They did not drink wine, which was at that time the institution of the Nazaraeans; and, with a remarkable contempt for earthly things, they did not live in houses but dwelt in tents and practiced the shepherd’s art, which is very simple. Hence they are very highly praised by Jeremiah the prophet and are adorned before the Jews with a most ample promise, because they showed more observance and obedience to Rechab their parent than was shown by the Hebrews themselves to God, though that people continually boasted of that father and those holy ancestors.
Therefore we acknowledge that what Paul taught to the Romans is most true: those truly have Abraham as father who press on in the footsteps of his faith. These men were not Jews by nature, but by will and faith they became proselytes, and in piety and holiness they surpassed very many who were Jews by nature.
And on Judges 4 he says: It is not surprising that the family of the Kenites lived in tents, since the Rechabites who sprang from them had no fixed dwellings. Fagius, or Munster, on the same chapter of Judges 1, says: From these Kenites the Rechabites at last descended. Pellican, Munster’s teacher, on Judges 4, says: The posterity of Jethro was venerated by all, since he was also of special honesty, and from him came the Rechabites.
These are Innovators for Drusius. But for Catholics, besides Suidas, praised at the beginning of the chapter, I also bring forward Saint Nilus as a witness, at the beginning of the Asceticus, when he says: The Jews who instituted such a way of living sprang from Jonadab, and all
[margin: Protestant and Catholic witnesses on the Rechabite origin. Saint Nilus is introduced.]
(printed p. 256)
who come to them in order to live in the same manner they lead into the same institutions. They dwell perpetually in tents. They abstain from wine and from all delicate foods. Content with a thin diet, they afflict the body. Therefore they take great care for morals and are constantly occupied in contemplation; from this they are called Hessaeans.
Nothing remains, then, except to strengthen the probability of this opinion also by dissolving the objections raised against it. Six are listed by a very great man of this age for the sake of investigating the truth.
The first objection: If so noble and almost divine a way of life flourished among the Jewish Essenes so many ages ago, what is the reason that no mention of it is found in either the Old or the New Testament?
But it has already been said that mention is made of them, though under other names. This is rather the wonder: since Jonadab existed almost three hundred years before Jeremiah’s testimony about the Rechabites, as the chronology shows from Jonadab down to Zedekiah, nevertheless no mention was ever made anywhere of so noble an institution, nor was its origin described. But Jeremiah, as though doing something else, finally opened it up, and briefly.
The second objection: The institution of the Essenes and the Rechabites was different and plainly distinct. For the Rechabites, as is recorded in the sacred letters, were accustomed to seek a livelihood only from what the earth bore of itself, without any cultivation of fields; but, on the contrary,
[margin: First and second objections against identifying Essenes with Rechabites.]
(printed p. 257)
Philo, in the book entitled That Every Good Man Is Free, and Josephus testify that all the Essenes were accustomed to cultivate fields and seek their livelihood from them. Moreover, Jerome, writing to Paulinus, testifies that the same Rechabites, in the time of Zedekiah, when the Babylonians were besieging Jerusalem, were compelled to retreat within the city and thus to depart from their institution; and certainly no further mention of them is found in the divine Scriptures.
Those things indicate that there were several forms of Kenites and Essenes. To all of them, indeed, and always, it was common to cultivate zeal for piety and virtue especially. But many things were once free, by which their descendants afterward bound themselves voluntarily, as in the matters just objected; others did not. Thus a very great part of them once married and devoted themselves to children, though some nevertheless, either for their whole lives, as Elijah, Elisha, and Jeremiah did, or for fixed periods which they defined for themselves, as the Hebrews teach about many Levites, guarded continence. Afterward, however, especially after the childbirth of the Blessed Virgin and after Christ Jesus, the Virgin and the greatest teacher of virginity, the larger part rejected all sexual intercourse; the others kept the old custom of marriage. Hence Josephus also indicated to us above that there were two kinds of Essenes.
The third objection: It is a matter plainly worthy of admiration that, although in the Gospel there is mention of all the other sects of the Jews, namely
[margin: Second objection answered by distinguishing several forms of Kenites and Essenes. Third objection begins.]
(printed p. 258)
of the Pharisees, Sadducees, Galileans, and Herodians, yet all memory of the Essenes, whose way of life and institution could seem more worthy of admiration than the others, remains wholly wrapped in silence. Drusius on folio 59, though hesitantly, brings forward one cause: that under Herod, son of the elder Herod, there were no longer any Essenes. “I doubt,” he says, “whether there were Essenes even under the second Herod. The reason for doubting is that in the New Testament, where there is frequent mention of the Pharisees and Sadducees, there is deep silence about the Essenes; not even their name appears in those books. What shall we think the cause to be? If there is another cause besides those I have stated, I confess I do not know it. I shall gladly hear the more learned.”
But that they did exist even after the second Herod, Josephus is a witness, book 2, The Jewish War, chapter 12, to say nothing yet of Philo; and Drusius himself acknowledged this on folio 32. Therefore the cause of this Gospel silence is rather that the Essenes who were at Jerusalem opposed Christ the Lord in no matter, laid no snares for him either by word or deed, and were bound by no more serious vices that could give scandal.
Thus Abulensis on Matthew 3, question 63, says: “Nothing is said in the Gospels about the Essenes and about those who followed the sect of Judas the Galilean, though much is very wisely said about the Pharisees and Sadducees. The reason is that these are introduced insofar as they opposed Christ, and he himself rebuked them for many things, especially the Pharisees. Nothing is said about the sect of the Hessaeans because they were good men, and perhaps it never happened that they opposed Christ or came together with him for anything.”
[margin: Gospel silence about the Essenes is answered; Abulensis is cited.]
(printed p. 259)
The fourth objection: Why did the same Josephus, in those two very explicit books in which he strove with all his powers to attack and refute the slanders gathered by Apion against the Jews, and at the same time very gloriously brings into the open whatever noble or worthy thing he could hunt out about his race from any ancient writers, even from the most hidden places, nevertheless keep silent about the most celebrated institution of the Essenes, when their training-place was so famous and open at Alexandria, where Apion was accustomed to live? Certainly, by that one example of the way of life of the Jewish Essenes, he could sufficiently refute the shameless man’s lies gathered against the Jews and beat back his barking insolence.
But I in turn first ask: why is it that the same Josephus in those same books against Apion is utterly silent about the institution of the Rechabites? Second, Saint Jerome, in book 2 Against Jovinian, speaks about those books as though explicit mention of the Essenes had at some time been made in them, when he says: “Josephus, in the two volumes against Apion, describes three doctrines of the Jews, the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.” Third, not even now is he wholly silent in those books about the Rechabites and Essenes, since he reports that Pythagoras and his disciple Zalmoxis learned not a few things from them, although he calls them Jews in general, as though the praise which belonged to certain men belonged to all; this was explained earlier.
The fifth objection: If you consult the pagan writers who lived before Christ
[margin: Josephus’s silence in Against Apion is discussed. Fifth objection begins.]
(printed p. 260)
and pursued the most praiseworthy customs of various peoples, you will find that they praised the Gymnosophists and Brahmans, and any others who excelled in life and morals in the world, even if they were set in the most remote regions. But concerning the Essenes, who would easily surpass all the aforesaid and were set almost before the eyes of all in the middle of the earth, you will find that they did not say even a word. Let Pompeius Trogus first be an example, and his epitomator Justin, who, when treating the origin and customs of the Jews, does not even mention the Essenes. Further, Strabo, the most distinguished of the cosmographers, who by his profession followed with the greatest exactness the known situation of the world, provinces, cities, and places, and also the customs of peoples, when he treats the Jews and their origin and customs, reports utterly nothing about the Essenes, who by their renown could not have been obscure. Likewise Aristeas, in the commentary which he wrote about the seventy-two interpreters, when he reviews the institutions of the Jews with the highest praise, made absolutely no mention of the Essenes.
But that very long argument is more easily dispatched, because there is deep silence among those Gentile writers about very many and very great Jewish matters. Which of Trogus, Strabo, or Aristeas mentioned the Rechabites, the prophets, or so many and such great kings, victories, and miracles? At times one or another tastes a few things; no one pursues all Jewish matters. How great a thing
[margin: Pagan silence about the Essenes is answered by broader pagan silence about Jewish matters.]
(printed p. 261)
was the standing still of the sun in the time of Joshua? How great was its turning back at Hezekiah’s prayer? And yet where and by whom among the ancients is anything said about these things?
The sixth objection: There is no memory of the Essenes in Josephus older than the time of Herod the Great.
But this has already been weakened often above. For the prediction of Judas the Essene is reported by Josephus, book 13, chapter 19, in the time of Aristobulus, son of John Hyrcanus. In that place, because the new interpreter omitted “Essene” in his text, unless it is a printer’s error, he is hardly excusable. For in Greek it is present. Again in book 1, The Jewish War, chapter 3, the same Judas is called an Essene. And it should always be noted that this man is called “the Essene” because others were Essenes only by profession, or choice, and doctrine, not by birth, but by sect, as was said above about the Rechabite priest. And in this sense they too were called sons of Rechab, because in doctrine he was their father.