Both sects diligently studied the Scripture, and inter- preted the same allegorically. Besides the Old Test., both had a high consideration for the writings of the older members of their order. They favored the abol- ishing of slavery; lived in a very simple manner, and were accustomed to appear at their religious exercises in white garments. More common traits cannot be proved, excepting, perhaps, the fact that both led an un- married life. But even this is no proof, because, accord- ing to Josephus, at least one part of the Essenes, though perhaps only the minority, married. It cainiot also be said that both agreed in leading a life entirely separated from the world. Of the Therapeutne, it is true, this can be said, but not of the Essenes, because, as Josephus tells us, they instructed the youth and took otherwise an active part in the weal and woe of their people, as thej' did, for instance, in the war against the Romans for the liberty of their country.
But more numerous and important are the differences which exist between the Therapeutaj and Essenes. We call attention to the following:
1. The Therapeutns led a monastic, secluded life, given eniirely to contemplation. The Essenes, according to the rules of their order, were obliged to work. Their labor was prescrilied and regulated by ofticers purposely ap- pointed. They cultiviited the fields, and were engaged in manual labors as well as in arts.
2. The Therapenise lived separated from each other lu cells, and only came toirether on the Sabbnih and on speciid occasi(')ii8. The Essenes, however, wherever they resided, had their common lodges, where they lived and dined together.
3. The Therapentie, upon entering the order, left every- thing; to their relatives and friends. The Essenes deliv- ered their properly to the order fur the beiietit of all.
4. The Therapeiitie did not eat before the selling of the sun ; the Essenes enjoyed two meals daily.
TIIERAPEUT^E
339
TIIERAPEUTJ5
5. The Essenes were divided into four cl;is.se.« or grade?, which were so inarlied that a member of the upper chiss liad to bathe himself wheu lie touclied auythiug l)eh)ng- ing to a lower class. The Therapeutse had no such dis- tinction. Of the Esseues we are told that the members of the higher degrees had the knowledge of mysteries, which was not communicated to the lower degrees; of the Therapeutse we know nothing of the kind.
(5. Each Esseue had to bathe hiniself daily ; such lustra- tions were not in use among the Therapeutoe.
7. Tlie Therapeutse revered the Temple at Jerusalem and the Levitical priesthood, and were not so far apart from orthodox Judaism. The Essenes, on the contrary, believed their lustrations and their mode of living to be of greater importance than the ordinances prescribed to the priests for the service of the Temple. They furnished no ofierin'zs to the Temple at Jerusalem, and thus became guilty of aijostatiziui; from an important part of the Mo- saic law. The Essenes were especially addicted to medi- cine and prophecy: we know nothing of these practices among the Therapeutse.
It is obvious that the differences between the two sects cannot consist in that the one was given to theory and the other to practice, because the supposition of a like ground-principle is not sufficient for explaining so many, and at the same time very important, differences. After all that we know of both these sects, the supposi- tion of a causal connection between the two must ap- pear very hazardous; for if there really were such a connection between them, and if both were essentially one and the same sect, it is surprising that Josephus has not recorded the fact. As little as we believe with Philo in a real connection between the Jewish Essenes, the seven wise men of Greece, and the Indian Gymnoso- phists, whom he compares in his book Quod Oiiinis Pru- bus Libey; just as little connection is there between the Essenes and Therapeutre, because Philo divided them into the theorists and practitioners. The Essenes did not originate from the propagation of Therapeutism in Palestine, because, as we know, Alexandrian religious philosophy did not find a fertile soil in Judaja, espe- cially at the time in which both these sects origi- nated. We cannot assume that the reverse should have taken place, otherwise the essential traits of Essenism would have been found again among the Therapeutaj. The stamp of both sects is so different that they cannot be identical; and in treating of the Therapeutte no re- gard is therefore to be paid to the Essenes.
III. T/ierapeufce and Christianify. — Assuming that the Essenes were onh' consistent Chasidim has led the .Jewish historian Griitz to make the assertion that Philo's treatise on the Therapeutaj. according to which they were hitherto regarded as an Egyptian offshoot of Palestinian Essenism, could not be genuine. Ac- cording to the same writer, it is not so much owing to the description of the Essenes by Josephus as to the book Yltpl [iiov Sewpj/rt/cou rj iketmv aptrwv that those not coinciding with the former's views have ar- rived at a false result regarding the essence and origin of the Essene sect. Griitz also asserts that a Jewish sect of the Therapeutaj never existed, but that they were Christians, ascetics of a heretic tendency, who sprang up by the dozen in the 2d and 3d centuries. The author of the book which has caused so much confusion is not Philo, but a Christian " who probably belonged either to the Encratico-gnosticorMontanistic party, and intended to write a panegyric on monasticism, the high antiq- uity of which Philo's authority was to confirm." This is the result at which Griitz arrives ; and although he takes it for granted that the attentive reader of the book Yltpl [5iov ^EwptjTiKov must at once adopt the correctness of his assertion, he has nevertheless tak- en the pains to make good his hypothesis at great length.