[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

orion Hippolytus; bibliography; etc.

	The discussions of Hippolytus and of Hegesippus remind me that we
could really use a revised handbook on accounts of Essenes. A. Adam and Ch.
Burchard, Antike Berichte ueber die Essener (Berlin, 1972) is quite an
excellent book, in my opinion, but a lot has happened since 1972. G. Vermes
and M. Goodman, The Essenes According to the Classical Sources (1989)
includes English translations, which is handy, but, besides being out of
print, it has some substantial shortcomings. It has much less, in terms of
texts and bibliography, than Adam/Burchard (and omits many important
passages). And there are numerous errors. For example: page 26 gives wrong
numbers for Philo's Apologia in Eusebius (it should be Prep. ev. 8.11.1-8);
p. 35 n.2 "Simon" should be "Judas"; p. 60-1 intro on Hegesippus tells us
the author seemed uninterested in "discussing" Jews though the translation
begins "The author further discusses..."; p. 70 n.12 on Porphyry and
Slavonic text of Eusebius should refer to Slavonic Josephus and Eusebius
Prep.ev.; p. 77 line 14 on the page unjustifiably translates
"therapeutae"--the word then in question--as "healers" (rather than keeping
"therapeutae" and allowing the reader to see that the one later aside on
healers is not the definition used in this text); p. 103 Essaioi is
misspelled and N. Golb's 1980 article is not in PAAJR but Proc.Am.Phil.Soc.
	Many scholars concluded that Josephus War 2 on Essenes used a
written source, but differ on whom: an unknown Jew or gentile or a lost
work of Philo or Nicolaus, etc. M. Marcovich in his 1989 edition of
Hippolytus Refutatio omnium haeresium described the account as a
"Christianized" version of Josephus, though elsewhere he writes that
Hippolytus carefully copies his sources and that this one manuscript is
particularly corrupt (see also Burchard in JJS 1977). Morton Smith (HUCA
1958) had argued in detail that Josephus and Hippolytus shared a common
source; but in Eretz Israel 1982 he changed his mind (see also R.
Bergmeier, Die Essener-Berichte des Flavius Josephus, 1993, 23 n9). Albert
Baumgartem (HUCA 1984) proposed that Hippolytus used a revision of
Josephus, one that was more pro-Pharisee than Josephus. D. Williams (JSJ
1994) claimed that stylometric analysis shows that Josephus himself wrote
the War 2 account, but his analysis, even if reliable, appears to allow the
possibility that Josephus merely reworded or paraphrased his source. Emile
Puech (La croyance des esseniens en la vie future, 1993) averred that
Hippolytus more faithfully represents the source than Josephus, in
particular on resurrection. It is possible that Philo and Josephus shared
some source(s), on Essenes and otherwise. For instance, some scholars
suggest Philo Apology and Josephus Contra Apion book 2 share a source. And
Jerome and Porphyry seem to suggest that book 2 of Contra Apion/Against the
Greeks concerns Essenes. And Porphyry has a text on Essenes which resembles
Josephus War 2, but differs also, for instance, Porphyry spelling Essaioi
where Josephus War 2 has Essenoi.
	So there's more to do.
Stephen Goranson