Job. ^ves many indications that the E. were very strict Jews (BJ ll. viii. 9). They revered the name of tlie lawgiver next after God, and punished with deatli one that blasphemed again.st Moses. Above all other Jews they observed the Sabbath, not only not cookin" on that day, and avoiding the lighting of a fire, out forbearing also to move a vessel, or even evacuate. In the Jewish war many died under torture at the hands of the Romans rather Ihiin blaspheme tlie lawgiver or eat unclean food. Many details supplied by Jcsephus prove how much importance they attached to ceremonial purity. We have seen how they bathed before each meal, and wore linen garments ; linen, of course, being prescribed because it was a vegetable substance, and not made of dead animal refuse, as would be a leathern or woollen tunic. That the waters of purification in their purer quality were denied to novices, proves that the water of the bath was ceremonially cleansed, and probably exorcised, liy immersion in it they were themselves rendered Ka.Oa.pol or pure before they sat down to meat, by contrast with the irepkio^oi, or persons of any other persuasion (liJ ll. viii. 10). Tliey were distin- guished ace. to their purity and seniority into four grades ; and a senior member was polluted by the very touch of a junior member, and had to wash after being so touchi'd, as if he had been jostled by Gentiles. So an Indian Brahman is polluted by the touch and even sight of a low-caste native. They did not anoint themselves with oil, regard- ing it a.s a defilement ; prob. because they could not easily get oil prepared by members of their own caste. Josephus elsewhere assures us that no Jew would anoint hiiii.self except with Jewish oil.
The same pursuit of ceremonial purity is to be noticed in regard to their meals. I'heir food and viands were scecially prepared by their priests (Ant. XVIII. i. 5); just as in s Hindoo pri.son the cook must be a lirahman, because any lower-ca-ste man may eat what a higher-ca-ste man has cooked, but not vice versA. In each city a special ollicer [KTfitiJ.wi') was appointed to supjily travelling E. with their ceremonially pure garments and food. La-stly, an E. expelled for his sins by a court of 100 members from the brotherhood was still so held by its oaths and customs that he cotild not eat of food provided by others, and in consccpierico VOL. I. — xn
starved to death. To the same concern for cere- monial purity must prob. be ascribed tlieir attitude of reserve towards the temple sacrifices. ' They send ollerings (a.vadi)ijjj.Ta) to the temple and per- form siiciitices with superiority of purificatory rites,* which they clauu to practise (Ant. xvili. i. 5). And being for this reason excluded from the common court of the temple, they perform their sacrifices by themselves.' t These words are ob- scure, and barely reconcilable with Philo's state- ment that the E. did not sacrifice animals (Philo, ii. 457 = Quod om. prob. lib. § 12). The oflerings sent, according to Jos., need not of course have been blood-oll'erings ; and as to the nature of the sacrifices (dvala.s) which they performed by them- selves, i.e. without the help of the temple priests, Jos. tells us nothing ; but we should certainly connect it with a practice, which he elsewhere attests, viz. that they elected their own priests for the making of their own food and eatables. This much is clear, that the ordinair lustrations of the temple were not good enough for an E. , and were incompatible with his notions of ceremonial purity. Presumably, they were excluded from the temple court for thus flouting the usual lustrations. Un- able to enter it, they sent offerings, but did not go themselves. At tlie same time ' they performed their sacrifices by themselves.' There seems to be some connexion between this statement and I'hilo's that they offered up the sacrifice of a devout and reverent mind. They could not possibly have offered up animal sacrifices save in the temple and in the ordinary way ; and Josephus' own statement elsewhere, that tlieir mode of life was I'ytha- gorean, is in favour of Philo's declaration that they did not sacrifice animals. It is natural to suppose that they regarded their common meals as of the nati.re of a sacrifice, just as Christians regard the eucharistic elements. Only thus can we explain the fact that they elected priests to prepare tliose meals ; for a priest implies a sacrifice to be offered.
Their abstention from marriage must also be set down to their desire for a levitical purity. For ace. to the Mosaic law sexual relations involved » defilement of the person, and the uncleanness lasted until the even (Lv 15'*).
Notwithstanding their attachment to the Mosaic law and striving after levitical purity, there were certainly many non - Jcwisli elements in their religious jiractices and beliefs. Thus they adored tiie sun, and |irayed to him to rise. In Appian and other writers we find the phrase, ' the god rose,' or ' the god set,' used instead of ' the sun rose,' or ' the s^in set' ; and Philo regarded the sun and stars as holy and divine natures.
The Esseue beliefs about the soul and a future life were also non-.Iewish. They believed that they received their souls back after death (/?./ lI. viii. 11), and so very cheerfully died for the faith. ' The body is corruptible, they taught ; and the matter of'^ which it is composed is not lasting. But souls are immortal, and last forever, and, pro- ceeding out of tlie most .subtle ether, are entangled in bodies as in prison-cells, being drawn down by some natural yearning. But when tliey are set free from the bonds of the flesh, as being now- released from a long bondage, they rejoice and mount upwards. And in agreement with the opinions of the Greeks they declare that there lies away across the ocean a liabitation for the good souls, in a region that is oppressed neither with storms of rain or snow, nor with intense heat ; a region ever refreshed by the gentle breathing of a breeze blowing from the ocean. But they allot to bad .souls a dark aniltempestuoas den full of never- ceasing piinishments.*