sencs. The words in question are, Effffai'wj' rrept ?ta- \t\^ii(;, 01 rov Trpa/c-iKov t'^iiXujaav Kai fifTToi'ijaai' l3ioi' M' uTraaiv, k. r.X. Griitz thinks that Philo could not possibly say that he "wrote a treatise" on the Es- SL-nes ( Eani'uix)!' iri-pi r(aXf;^S£i(,), when the passage in (luestiun only occupies the twelfth part of the treatise, antl he only mentions this sect as one of the many. But against this it must be argued that SuiXiyirr^ai ire/ui Tti'ot; does not mean ''to write a treatise," but to "speak on something," and this, as Zeller remarks, Philo has evidently done concerning the Essenes. More- over, such an association of tojiics is not comical at all, as (iriitz thinks, because l)y this two Jewish sects which have at le;ist some traits in common were brought into connection. But the main point for the spuriousness of the treatise on the Therapeuta* and for its being written by a Christian, Griitz thinks to lie in the fact that Christians — so Eusebius (/list. Eccles. ii, 17) and others after him — recognised the Tlierapeuta^ as "flesh of their own tlesh." The holy cells of the Thera- peutic are called monasteries. It is evident, argues Griitz, that we have here the beginning of the monastic cells, which existed even before Anthony of Thebes, the founder of monasticism. But even if we admit that the entire mode of living of the Therapeutaj is similar to that of the later Christian monks, we are not at all justified to infer that the Therapeutic were Chris- 1i<ui iiitmk.-i. Why — and herein we agree with Griitz — should there not have been in Egypt, the fatherland and the proper home of monasticism, ascetics even be- fore Anthony of Thebes? And why should this not have been possible within the pale of Judaism? And are the Palestinian Essenes not a similar phenomenon? To impress on the Therapeuta? the Christian character because of the word poi'aTTt'ipun', which the Christian moidis used for their cell, is not reasonable, because, as Zeller reminds us, the expressions poTaar)]pioi' and aenvdov were only used by the Therapeutis for a part, and not, as did the Christian monks, for the whole, of the dvvelling. The supposition seems to be that the Therapeutie, or rather Philo himself, formed the words poranTi)piov and atpviiov, and that Chris- tian moid\S borrowed this nomenclature from their Jewish predecessors. That Philo, who was the first to use these ex|iressions, has also formed the same appears from the fact that he himself explains them when say- ing, tj' iKciaTij Si oiKicf idTiv npuv o KaXdroi otpviloi' Km poi'CKTTiiptov, tv li) i.tovovpa'01 TU Toi' otpvov jSiov (ivy-i'ipia TtKoiiiTcu. The TherapeutiP, Griitz goes on to argue, had not only a common feast, but after the feast they had a kind of Lord's supper (TravciyetyTarov ffir/ov), consisting of unleavened bread, of which all did not partake, but only the better ones. Griitz evi- dently believes that we have here the difference be- tween the missa cutechumenorum and the mhisa Jitkli- um. From the latter, which consisted in the celebration of the Lord's supper and in a kind of liturgy, those who were not yet baptized, togetlier with those who were excommunicated, were excluded; for, he asks, is this not Christian ? But this question we must also answer in the negative. (Jriitz, as Zeller remarks, has over- looked the fact that the so-called Lord's supper did not take place after the common meal, but it was this com- mon meal itself. At this supper not indeovmed, but leaveiiefl, bread was eaten ( dpro^ tLvpajph'og fitra Trpo(To\l/>)paToc, aXtor oif ('(KTitiTroc ariipipiK-ai Ci alSio Ti'ig c'n'aKH^h'r]g i>> n^ uyitp Trpovaoi ifpatj TpmrtZrjg) out of reverence for the unleavened showbread in the Temple at Jerusalem. But, above all, (iriitz has erred in asserting that this supper was a prerogative of the better ones. Now the words 'ivn t(piom irpovofxiav o\ KptiTTOViQ do not refer to the Therapeuta", but to the Jewish priests, to whom alone the Therapeutae conceded the use of unleavened bread as a special prerogative. This unquestionably follows from the words of Philo: OTav Si tKaaTog (ianipavr]Tai tui' v/^irov, oi vim T))r npo fiiKpov Xex^iirrav Tpairt'Cav tioKo^i^ovatr, k<p' in
TO Trai'ayftTTarov aiTim' i^vfuopivoQ ptru Trponoi^)]- /larof iiXCjv oit; vacauTZOQ dimpl-^nKTai Ci' a'Cw rj/f (iraK'st^tj'jjr *'' Tiij uyitp npoinup iipac rpaTTiC}](; ' im yap TavTr\(; tiniv dproi Kai liXus ai'fi< j'/Ot'c/iarof, d^v- Hoi niv 01 dproi, o/uytif Ci Kdi o'l tVXff- UpofftJKiiv yap 111', TU pit' uTiXolinraTa Kai ilXiKpiviaTUTa ry KpaTioTij Twv \ipwv aTTOi'f)xi]ii)Voi pepici, XnTovpyiag cl^Xoj', roi'f Si oXXoDt; tu fiiv opota ^j/Xori', dvExe- aBai Si Tuiv dpTojv, 'iva i'\it)<n TTpovopiav o'l KpuTTO- nq. That the Therapeuta' were Cliristians, Griitz also finds in the fact that the presl)yters among them occu- pied the first position; and that they were not presby- ters because of their age, but because of their strict ob- servance of the Thera])eutic life (TrpitrjiiiTspovg yap oil TToXi'ETtTf Kai TToXaiovQ I'opi'Covmv ciXXd 'in ko- piSjj I'iove TTctiSag tdv oi/^f rj/f Trpoaipimwc ipacr^HJ- aiv, nXXu Tovg tK irpior^t^ j'lXiKiag iri]l3)}ffai'Tac Kcii ivaKpanai-TaQ Tip ^tu)pi)riKip pipei ^iXodo^iac;, o St) KoXXtffTor Kai 3f((ir«r()i' toTi). We have thus, Griitz argues, the presbyters, or tTrifTK-OTrof, of the Christian congregations, who held one and the same office in the ante-Nicene time. But this conclusion is the less justi- fiable, since the office of presbyters was not exactly a Christian institution, but existed even before the Christian sera, and was adopted by the Church from Judaism. Even among the Essenes we find such a distinction of rank, and yet Griitz would be the last to call them Cliristians, although he firmly believes that Christ belonged to the Essenes. The argument which Griitz takes i'rom the vigils, so common among the Therapeutfe, for the sake of making them Christians is also of no avail, because fasting was something pe- culiar to Judaism and was adopted by the Church ; and as to the vigils, such nocturnal services existed before the Christian sera. It is therefore not necessary to think, as does Griitz, following Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. ii, 17), of Christian rites before Easter Sunday. From the liturgy, the metrical hymns, and typical mode of explaining the prophets, according to (iriitz, other ar- guments for the Christian character of the TherapeutEe might be made. But even these alleged Christian traits are purely .Jewish. Of the hymns of the Thera- peutie, Philo expressly states that they were formed after the hymn of Moses and Miriam ( Exod. xv ) ; and as to the allegorical interpretation, it was used among the Alexandrian Jews before the Christian sera, and even before Philo. But as to what Griitz under- stands of the liturgy of the Therapeuta and of its Chris- tian character, he has not fully entered upon this point, nor can anything of the kind be deduced from Philo's statement. Griitz refers to Eusebius, and to those after him who regarded tlie Therapentse as Christians, but this proof is the least satisfactory. Eusebius regards the treatise Y\ipi fiiox' ^t(inpi]TiKoii as Philonian, and makes the Jewish philosopher a disciple of John Mark, who accompanied Paul on his first mission- ary tour, and afterwards labored at Alexandria, Ac- cording to Eusebius, the Therapeuta> existed as Chris- tians ill the 1st century. The opinion of Ciriitz that the Therapeutaj were a Christian monastic sect of the 2d or 3d century of the Christian a^ra has there- fore no support in Eusebius. While, however, later Christian writers, with the exception of Photius (My- rinhibhm sive Bihliuthecn [Rothomagi, 1053], ed. Dav. Halschelius, p. 27.5), identify Thera]>eut» with monks, and while the writings falsely ascribed to Diony- sius Areopagita use both expressions synonymously, Scaliger has called attention to the fact that the designation of Therapeuta; for monks depends solely upon the interpretation of Eusebius (Scaliger, Z)c L'mtii- (httione Temporvm, vi, 252). With the exception of (iriitz, no writer has regarded the ThprajieutK as a Christian heretical sect, and he himself is yet unde- cided in what series of heretical sects, which sprang up by the dozen within the Church in the 2d and 3d centuries, he should place therti. According to Griitz, the author of the treatise probably belonged to the En-