Having mentioned the Essenes (εσσαιων), who in all respects selected for their admiration and for their especial adoption the practical course of life, and who excel in all, or what perhaps may be a less unpopular and invidious thing to say, in most of its parts, I will now proceed, in the regular order of my subject, to speak of those who have embraced the speculative life, and I will say what appears to me to be desirable to be said on the subject, not drawing any fictitious statements from my own head for the sake of improving the appearance of that side of the question which nearly all poets and essayists are much accustomed to do in the scarcity of good actions to extol, but with the greatest simplicity adhering strictly to the truth itself, to which I know well that even the most eloquent men do not keep close in their speeches.
The basic idea here is that 'the Essenes' = the practical course of life, 'the Therapeutae' = the contemplative life. But few people have really thought about the implications of the material.
One person who has is Joan Taylor, Professor of Christian Origins and Second Temple Judaism at King's College London. In a recent paper on the subject, Taylor notes that while Philo identifies the first group as the ᾿Εσσαῖοι he doesn't seem to know why they have this name. She points to the embarrassment that Philo has in Quod Omnis Probus liber sit owing to the fact that in terms of the name 'Essaioi' the Stoics in Philo’s audience who might well have chortled at the understatement regarding the“imprecise” Greek etymology of the terminology. As Taylor notes "to get from ὁσιότηϛ, “holiness” or “piety,” to ᾿Εσσαῖοι, with only a sigma and an iota shared by both words, would have indicated some barbaric deformity, regardless of asimilarity in pronunciation: the true form would have been ὅσιοι, 'holy ones.'"
Indeed as she notes, Philo uses precisely this word later on, when he writes of “τὸν . . . τῶν Ἐσσαίων ἢ ὁσίων ὅ µιλον,” “the throng of the Essaioi or “holy ones” (Prob. 91). Philo seems to subvert negative reaction by stating his true opinion couched in ironic understatement. At first sight it is a very poor card to play rhetorically to introduce a perfect example of goodness with a note that Jews got their Greek wrong. But Philo cleverly uses precisely this point again towards the close of his description of the Essenes. He writes: “In such a way philosophy without over-exactness of Greek names turns out athletes of virtue” (Prob. 88).
Taylor rightly points to Philo subsequently "making a virtue out of his concession to the Jews” laxity of Greek language. In other words, he turns an apparent negative into a positive, accepting a lack of Greek exactness in the name of the group only to emphasise that substance is more important than mere superficiality of language. In the Hypothetica Philo does not even begin to go down this route. There he writes that the Essaioi are called (καλοῦνται) by this name “in my opinion” (παρὰ . . . µοι δοκῶ) because of their exceeding holiness (8.11.1). The point about inexact Greek is avoided, though it may be implied. His rhetorical strategy here is simply to pass over the problem in silence.
Taylor notes that Philo could have done the same in Probus but he chose to make the issue explicit, and address it defiantly in the face of potential critics. Philo clearly thought the name was garbled Greek, but here he was probably wrong. But Taylor makes a case for it being an appropriation from contemporary Aramaic as we see Syriac has borrowed the Greek word when it calls a holy person a hasya (emphatic). This is certainly one solution to the problem, but it must be noted that if Philo knew any Aramaic he would have presented the etymology as a definitive explanation as he does with respect to 'Simeon' deriving from 'hearing.' The fact that he hesitates and offers up his own etymology makes clear he is either ignorant of the origin of the name or creating a smokescreen in order to avoid the original meaning.
It is noteworthy that in De Vita Contemplativa Philo doesn't know why the Therapeutai (= Latin Therapeutae) are so-called either. He offers one of two possible explanations for the name - which is odd for a man who offers so many definitive but ultimately incorrect etymologies for appellations. So we go back again to the open words of the treatise:
Having mentioned the Essenes, who in all respects selected for their admiration and for their especial adoption the practical course of life, and who excel in all, or what perhaps may be a less unpopular and invidious thing to say, in most of its parts, I will now proceed, in the regular order of my subject, to speak of those who have embraced the speculative life, and I will say what appears to me to be desirable to be said on the subject, not drawing any fictitious statements from my own head for the sake of improving the appearance of that side of the question which nearly all poets and essayists are much accustomed to do in the scarcity of good actions to extol, but with the greatest simplicity adhering strictly to the truth itself, to which I know well that even the most eloquent men do not keep close in their speeches. Nevertheless we must make the endeavour and labour to attain to this virtue; for it is not right that the greatness of the virtue of the men should be a cause of silence to those who do not think it right that anything which is creditable should be suppressed in silence; but the deliberate intention of the philosopher is at once displayed from the appellation given to them; for with strict regard to etymology, they are called therapeutae and therapeutrides, either because they process an art of medicine (= to heal) more excellent than that in general use in cities (for that only heals bodies, but the other heals souls which are under the mastery of terrible and almost incurable diseases, which pleasures and appetites, fears and griefs, and covetousness, and follies, and injustice, and all the rest of the innumerable multitude of other passions and vices, have inflicted upon them), or else because they have been instructed by nature and the sacred laws to serve the living God (= to attend), who is superior to the good, and more simple than the one, and more ancient than the unit; with whom, however, who is there of those who profess piety that we can possibly compare?
One of the oldest and best established etymologies for the name Essaioi is that of 'the silent ones' (= Heb hashaim). In an old Armenian version of Philo's dictionary of Hebrew names "Essene" is explained as "in silence" (Philo, "De Vita Contemplativa," ed. Conybeare, p. 247). The contrast is clearly found in the description of the silence of their morning prayers and the Therapeutae who are emphasized as having lively choral prayers where the purpose was to penetrate the inner soul by means of 'hearing.'
With respect to these same Essaioi , we hear Josephus describes their austere meals in the following terms:
When they have taken their seats in silence, the baker serves out the loaves to them in order, and the cook sets before each one plate with a single course…they speak in turn, each making way for his neighbor. To persons outside the silence of those within appears like some awful mystery; it is in fact due to their invariable sobriety and to the limitation of their allotted portions of meat and drink to the demands of nature [War 2:130, 133]
The Therapeutae by contrast are said to be all about establishing a forum where divine truths can be heard. So it is that we hear Philo describe a unique 'after dinner entertainment'
and then some one looks out some passage in the sacred scriptures, or explains some difficulty which is proposed by some one else, without any thoughts of display on his own part, for he is not aiming at reputation for cleverness and eloquence, but is only desirous to see some points more accurately, and is content when he has thus seen them himself not to bear ill will to others, who, even if they did not perceive the truth with equal acuteness, have at all events an equal desire of learning. And he, indeed, follows a slower method of instruction, dwelling on and lingering over his explanations with repetitions, in order to imprint his conceptions deep in the minds of his hearers, for as the understanding of his hearers is not able to keep up with the interpretation of one who goes on fluently, without stopping to take breath, it gets behind-hand, and fails to comprehend what is said; but the hearers, fixing their eyes and attention upon the speaker, remain in one and the same position listening attentively, indicating their attention and comprehension by their nods and looks, and the praise which they are inclined to bestow on the speaker by the cheerfulness and gentle manner in which they follow him with their eyes and with the fore-finger of the right hand. And the young men who are standing around attend to this explanation no less than the guests themselves who are sitting at meat. And these explanations of the sacred scriptures are delivered by mystic expressions in allegories, for the whole of the law appears to these men to resemble a living animal, and its express commandments seem to be the body, and the invisible meaning concealed under and lying beneath the plain words resembles the soul, in which the rational soul begins most excellently to contemplate what belongs to itself, as in a mirror, beholding in these very words the exceeding beauty of the sentiments, and unfolding and explaining the symbols, and bringing the secret meaning naked to the light to all who are able by the light of a slight intimation to perceive what is unseen by what is visible. When, therefore, the president appears to have spoken at sufficient length, and to have carried out his intentions adequately, so that his explanation has gone on felicitously and fluently through his own acuteness, and the hearing of the others has been profitable, applause arises from them all as of men rejoicing together at what they have seen and heard; and then some one rising up sings a hymn which has been made in honour of God, either such as he has composed himself, or some ancient one of some old poet, for they have left behind them many poems and songs in trimetre iambics, and in psalms of thanksgiving and in hymns, and songs at the time of libation, and at the altar, and in regular order, and in choruses, admirably measured out in various and well diversified strophes. And after him then others also arise in their ranks, in becoming order, while every one else listens in decent silence, except when it is proper for them to take up the burden of the song, and to join in at the end; for then they all, both men and women, join in the hymn. [Vita Cont. 76 - 81]
It is this feature of the 'Therapeutai' which distinguishes them from the Essaioi - and the fact that Philo does not openly identify this juxtaposition between 'silent ones' and one's principally engaged in established 'divine hearing' is of not terribly significant. For we can arrive at the proper understanding by other means entirely.
We should go back to Taylor's recent study and note how consistent the term 'therapeutai' is in the writings of Philo and how it perfectly suits the juxtaposition just cited. For Philo - instead of identifying the Essaioi as being related to 'silence' gives the term ᾿Εσσαῖοι a Greek etymology. We see in Probus, the Essenes are worthy of a designation related to holiness “because with them they have become above all attendants of God (θεραπευταὶ θεοῦ) not by sacrificing animals, but by being worthy to render their minds holy (Prob. 75).
The term θεραπευταὶ θεοῦ is absolutely key in understanding the meaning of Philo here. In Philo’s writings this term repeatedly refers to cultic attendants of a deity, generally to priests and Levites in the Jerusalem Temple (Det . 160, Leg .3.135, Sacr. 13, 118–19, 127, cf. 120, Ebr. 126, Contempl. 11; Fug. 42, Mos . 2.135,149,274, cf. Mos. 2.67). Philo also uses the word ironically. When Gaius Caligula decks himself in theregalia of the Roman god Mars, Philo scoffs at how his minions had to be “the θεραπευταί of this new and unknown Mars” (Legat. 97). This language is by no means unique to Philo, though, interestingly, it is not paralleled in the LXX. In epigraphy, literature and papyri this terminology is attested as far back as Plato.
On the basis of this meaning of “[cultic] attendant”or “minister”—with a specific reference at times to priests and Levites—Philo can use the word θεραπευτήϛ symbolically to refer to someone who “attends” God by means of a good, ascetic, wise and devoted life, one which (using the double-entendre) “heals souls” (cf. Plant. 60; Ebr.69; Mut. 106; Congr. 105; Fug.91, Migr. 124, Sacr. 127, Contempl. 1; Spec. 1.309; Virt. 185–6; Praem. 43–4). This is the perfect explanation for why the 'Therapeutai' are distinguished from the Essaioi on the basis of 'hearing.' Their songs and proclamations further more brings divine attention to the souls of their hearers. They are not 'attendants' of God in the 'practical' manner of the Essaioi but instead work on the souls of their hearers through 'contemplation - hence the title of the present work De Vita Contemplativa.
Indeed there is one more step for us to take in terms of understanding the distinction between the 'practical life' of the Essaioi, and the contemplative life of the Therapeutai - viz. coming to terms with Philo's repeated explanation of that schema by means of the brotherly pairing of Levi and Simeon. As we shall demonstrate in our next post, the Levites were the epitome of the practical life and moreover the Simeonites, the virtue embodied by the Therapeutai. Moreover it will be plain to see that at the time of Philo's writing the Levites were an idealized typology. Already at the time of Ezra the Nethinim, the descendants of King David's slaves were working in the Temple (Ezra 8. 20) and shared with the Levites the subordinate work of the sanctuary (Ezra 7.24). One wonders now if already at the beginning of the Second Commonwealth there was no clear manner of identifying 'those of the tribe of Levi.'
Nethinim were given genealogies along with the Levites (Ezra 2. 40 et seq.) but the large majority of the names of the parents mentioned seem to be feminine in form or meaning. This suggest that the Nethinim could not trace back to any definite paternity; and this is confirmed by the fact that the lists are followed by the enumeration of those who could not "show their father's house." To this end we must imagine that rather than having 'Levites' per se there was a few powerful familial clans who dominated the priesthood and claimed to be descendants of Levi. Under them stood these Nethinim who are undoubtedly one and same with the Samaritan mention of the 'Dositheans' (= the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew term).
To this end it is safe to say that when Philo speaks about 'Levites' and 'Simeonites' (or 'Levi' and 'Simeon') he is in fact dealing again with idealized typologies which roughly conform to the sectarian divide between Essaioi and Therapeutai. But to understand this we must confront the Alexandrian writers allegorical interpretation of the two brothers.
