This hypothesis of Grsltz has been analyzed by Zel- Icr, and the result is that the reasons adduced by the former are not sufficient and -acceptable at all. In resuming the question once more, and examining the argument of Griitz in order to establish the Christian character of the Therapeutaj, we do so because of its close connection with the essence and origin of the
sect — in this we differ with Zeller — and because there are some points to be proved against (Jriitz. The lat- ter has denied the existence of a Jewish sect of the Therapeutaj and consequently also the genuineness of the Philonic treatise llepi jiiov BtioptfTtKov, on the ground of the silence of Josephus and Pliny, who wrote so much about the Essenes; while they know nothing of the Therapeuta;, the alleged Egyptian branch of this sect. Against this. Zeller has argued that the silence of Josephus cannot be so remarkable, since the Thera- peutic were a branch of the Essenes restricted to Egypt alone, and because Josephus tells very little about the later affairs of the Jews in that country. But if, accord- ing to Zeller, the Therapeutaj were really an Egyptian branch of the Palestinian Essenes, or had some connec- tion with them, the Essenes in Palestine ought to have known something about it; and even if Pliny's silence could be explained because he only knows one Essenic colony living by the Dead Sea, it might be supposed — and in this Griitz is correct — that Josephus, who other- wise speaks very fully about the order, ought to have mentioned the Therapeutaj. The silence of Josephus can therefore only be explained from the very fact that the Therapeutaj had no connection whatever with the Essenes, but that they formed an independent sect within the Egyptian Judaism, the existence of which — since its number and activity were less important — was entirely unknown to Josephus. What Philo nar- rates concerning the female Therapeutaj ( ^epa—tv- rpic^fC)? Griitz also finds incredible, because Josephus marks it as one of the characteristics of the Essenes to avoid all contact with the opposite sex; hence he be- lieves that these female Therapeuts were nothing else than the sisters ( soi-ores subintrodiictce ) whom the Christian ascetics used to have about them for the sake of attaining, by constant temjitation, a higher virtue, but who, as is known, have been the cause of great scandals. Against this, Zeller remarks that in this respect the Egyptian Essenes or Therapeutaj might have had oth- er institutions than those of the Palestinians, since their principles on the worth of an unmarried state were in the main not affected; and this difference of view does not indicate such a great deviation from the principles of the order as the practice of one branch of the Palestin- ian Essenes who married. We agree with Griitz that, according to Josephus, the wives of the married Es- senes were not, like the female Therapeutaj, members of the order. But this actual deviation — that while the Essenes excluded women entirely from the common feasts and meetings, this was not the case among the Therapeutaj — is only another proof that Essenes and TherapeutiB are not, as Zeller believes, one and the same sect. This being the case, it must not be sup- posed, as (iratz believes, that the Therapeutae, not being Essenes, were Christians. Griitz overlooks the circum- stance that while the so-called sorares subintrodiictce lived in very close communication with the Christian ascetics, this cannot be said of the female Therapeutie. For can we safely infer, from the participation of women in the common feasts and meetings, that the Therapeutfe real- h' lived each with a female companion? Against such a hypothesis we have also the words of Philo, rag fxtv ovv t'S i)).itpaQ xiopig fjcacrroi juoi'oi'/tfi'ot nap' iavTolg iv toIq Xe^S'^'"'') HovauriipioiQ (pi\oao(poi<i7i, who emphasizes the fact repeatedly that they sought solitude and desired to be left to themselves in order not to be disturbed in their contemplative life (oi^;\jjp(Jv yap Kai Svaaptarov Tolg tpmxiav ti^ijXwKoai Kai /.UTa- daoKovaii' a'l ■ytirvifiadi;}. But, above all, we ask, where is the passage in this treatise which indicates, as Griitz tries to prove, that the Therapeutje, like the Christian ascetics, had aimed at a higher degree of perfection by living together with the female members? From the introductory words of the Philonic treatise, Griitz also infers that it cannot be genuine, since it connects it- self with the treatise Utpi rov Travra mrovcalov tlvai iXiv^ipov erroneously, as with a writing on the Es-
TIIERAPEUT^
340
THERAPEUT^