Comments on: Rachel Elior on the Essenes that never existed

By: David Flug

David Flug — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:12:20 +0000

The writers of the scrolls certainly were a disenfranchised bunch-maybe Sadducees. But Josephus would have to have a really good reason to invent the Essenes.

By: Alan Abbey

Alan Abbey — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:10:42 +0000

Re: The Gabriel’s Vision text. As you know, Prof. israel Knohl has expounded on that a great deal. Find some of his commentary on the Shalom Hartman Institute website, plus, his exclusive English-language translation of the stone’s text.

By: Etan

Etan — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:49:37 +0000

The only thing I don’t understand is that I have read the community rule, part of the dead sea scrolls. This seems to indicate that there was a sect of jews that were neither the pharisees nor the sedducees. It writes out a guideline for how the group is to conduct itself. It seems like there was no cohabitation allowed. There are several instances in this scroll that do not follow the pharisees or sedducees way of life. Who then were these people? It makes sense that they were essenes. Especially since josephus’ account of the essenes fits the description given in the community rule scroll of the dead sea scrolls.

By: jdub

jdub — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:29:52 +0000

So, Samson the Saducee Strangler came from Qumran? Works for me.

By: Susan T

Susan T — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 18:27:20 +0000

Prof. Elior is a leading scholar on various periods of Jewish Mysticism. Her book The Mystical Origins of Hasidism is the best book on Hasidism known to me. Her book Jewish Mysticism is the most isightful discussion on this issue that I have read and her work on early Jewish mysticism is the most original discussion that offers an explanation to the chariot tradition and its priestly context. See in The Cambridge History of Judaism vol .4 her article on Early forms of Jewish Mysticism.
I do not know about the Essenes but it seems that the texts of the scrolls are saturated with priestly issues and the authors do call themselves the priests children of Zadok, so Saducees is much more reasonable than Essenes.

By: Michael P.

Michael P. — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:58:30 +0000

She has also written about early Jewish mysticism and Heichalot literature, especially her book The Three Temples: On the Emergence of Jewish Mysticism.

By: Yehuda_R

Yehuda_R — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:18:39 +0000

What is Rachel Elior’s specialty? She has written books on chassidus also. Is she an expert in chassidus, Kabbala and the history of groups of bayis sheini?

By: Joe in Australia

Joe in Australia — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:50:00 +0000

Pliny wrote about a Jewish group called (something like) “The Essenes”, so to that extent Josephus probably wasn’t making them up. None the less, it’s hard to read his account without feeling that he worked hard to portray himself as an authority on everything Jewish. His audience had heard of the hereditary Jewish priests – why, Josephus was one of those. They knew of the Jewish rebellion – General Josephus was here to answer questions. And as for this mystical sect, the Essenes, described by Pliny – Josephus just happened to be one of the few initiates into their mysteries! The passage (in his Life, para 2) where he describes this is a bit of an eye-opener: he was “initiated” into all three groups over a period of three years, INCLUDING THREE YEARS AS AN ESSENE. Yes. Right.

Now, this doesn’t mean that the Scrolls were *not* written by some esoteric group of hermits. You may call them Essenes or what you will. It just means that the only significant anti-Pharisaical religious group we know of is the Sadducees. And the scrolls are pretty consistent with what we know of their doctrines, and – a point I’ve never seen anyone else make – we have never seen any other texts that can plausibly be described as Sadducean. But Sadducean texts must have been out there, because you don’t have a Jewish religious group without texts, even if it’s just their own version of the Tanach. So why not say that this is a Sadducean library or collection of libraries? Because of three doubtful things: that Qumran was a Jewish monastery, and that the monastics were Essenes, and that the monastics wrote or collected the Scrolls. But if any of these things is false then we have no prima facie reason to think of the Scrolls as Essene, and so why not suppose that they are Sadducean?

By: Michael P.

Michael P. — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:33:46 +0000

I do not think that the hiddush is the Sadducean connection, Lawrence Schiffman has also said that, but I am not aware of anyone else who claims that the Essenes were a figment of Josephus’s imagination.

By: מ

Fri, 13 Mar 2009 07:49:04 +0000

I do not know what the bruhaha is. L. Ginsberg wrote a book identifying them as Saducees years ago. Y. Sussman has been saying for years that they were written by Saducees. A. Goldberg as well has identified the scrolls as written by Saducees. This idea has been floating around the HU Talmud dept. for years. In all the courses where these texts were actually studies, thus has been the conclusion. It is not a hidush.