‘jewish doctrine takes three forms’ 129
A younger contemporary of Pliny, the Greek orator Dio Chrysostom,
who came from Bithynia in modern Turkey, is said by his biographer to
have praised the Essenes ‘who form an entire and prosperous city near
the Dead Sea, in the centre of Palestine, not far from Sodom’. It is prob-
ably significant, in view of the state- inspired antipathy towards Jews to
be found in much of the Roman empire following the suppression of
the Jewish revolt in 70 ce (see Chapter 9), that neither Pliny nor Dio
described these Essenes as Jews.^32
The name of the Essenes is given in variant forms in these texts. Both
Philo and Josephus haver between essaios and essen, and both versions
appear also in later writers such as Hegesippus, a Christian author of
the second century ce, apparently a converted Jew, who was cited by
Eusebius in the fourth century. Philo is puzzled by the name esseni, not-
ing that ‘although the word is not strictly speaking Greek, I think it may
be related to the word hosiotes [“holiness”]’. But the falseness of the
etymology, which leads him to gloss essaioi as hosioi (‘saints’) later in
the same treatise, is patent. More plausible would be a Semitic name
which could be adopted with pride as a self- description, perhaps related
to the Aramaic asya (‘healer’) or hasayya (‘pious’), but no suggested
etymology makes real sense of the essen form of the name, which is
the most common in Greek and the only form attested in Latin.^33
What was so special about these religious enthusiasts? All our sources
stress their lifestyle more than their specific doctrines – but since these
are all descriptions by outsiders, this may not reflect accurately the Ess-
enes’ own evaluation of themselves. Philo described an exclusively
masculine community engaged in agriculture and crafts when not occu-
pied in communal meals, accustomed to asceticism in clothing (which
they hold in common – ‘And not only do they have a common table, but
common clothes also’). Their wealth was held communally too: ‘None
of them can endure to possess anything of his own; neither house, slave,
field, nor flocks, nor anything which feeds and procures wealth. But
they set down everything in a heap in their midst, and enjoy in common
the resources of them all. They live together in brotherhoods, having
adopted the form of associations and the custom of eating in common.
They employ their whole activity for the common good.’
Philo gave a different version elsewhere of the same community of
goods and care:
Firstly, no house belongs to any one man; indeed, there is no house which
does not belong to them all, for as well as living in communities, their