Search

This article compares Philo's portrayal of the lecture event among the Therapeutae with other reading and philosophical communities throughout the high Roman Empire. It shows how learning to listen properly plays an important role in constructing and defending one's masculinity in certain elite communities of that time. Philo constructs a portrayal of the Therapeutae that places them well within the social codes of lecture listening and proper masculine virtues of the time, describing the Therapeutae, especially their ideal masculinity vis-à-vis their lecture event, with imperial mimicry and resistance. Situating Philo's portrayal of the Therapeutae's lecture event within its historical context enhances our understanding Philo within the Roman Empire as well as his portrayal of the ethos of the Therapeutae. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The attribution of stringency to the Qumranites is prevalent in scholarly research. Indeed it is indisputable that the Sect generally adopts stringent positions, compared to rabbinic halakah. However, closer examination indicates that Qumranic law reflects simple, necessary inferences from Scripture itself, whereas the Tannaitic leniency represents a surprisingly revolutionary divergence from the plain meaning of Scripture. The paper surveys several cases in which the bold and exceptional nature of Tannaitic legislation cannot serve as a criterion for evaluating the stringency of Sectarian law. It goes on to review other instances, where the very same traditions formed the basis of Qumranic as well as rabbinic regulation, except that the latter restricted their scope. The third group of examples shows that it was precisely the unrefined, simple character of Qumranic law, in comparison with the conceptual sophistication of Tannaitic halakah, that occasionally led to the opposite result, in which the Tannaitic halakah was strict, and the Sectarian law lenient. In sum, the strictness of Qumranic law is not “objective” but relative. The understanding that sectarian law reflects a series of inductions not altogether removed from the simple sense of Scripture facilitates a more accurate appreciation of the depth of Tannaitic halakah's groundbreaking leniency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In two recent articles A. Shemesh has argued that the Qumran community viewed the act of sexual intercourse alone as affecting the marital bond. The present paper demonstrates that Jubilees, in its reformulation of the biblical narrative, maintains a position very similar, and possibly identical, to that proposed by Shemesh. On this fundamentally ontological view, the physical union itself is determinative in connection with both permitted and proscribed unions, as reflected in several aspects of Jubilees' narrative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A solid literary analysis of all the ancient texts referring to the Essenes leads to the conclusion that common sources are needed to explain the similarities between the different accounts of the group. So the correspondences between Philo's accounts and those of Josephus are best explained by the thesis of a common Hellenistic Jewish source on the Essaeans. Further, we have to pay attention to the fact that the longest account of the Essenes is a composite text, partly referring to a three-school description, i.e. the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. Whenever Josephus speaks of the Essenes as determined in B.J. 2.119-161 he uses references to this text. Some scholars believe that this Josephan text and Hippolytus, Haer. 9.18-28, go back to a common source, too. But the validity of this thesis cannot be proved. First of all, these two texts must not be reduced to the description of the Essenes. All in all (B.J. 2.119-166; Haer. 9.18.2-29.4) they are three-school descriptions and this in the same manner and sequence, with the same lacks, and often by the same words. The correspondences between Philo's accounts and those of Josephus are no longer present in Hippolytus' version. The additional and unparalleled features in Hippolytus' text are no older core material that was lost in the Josephus version but contributions of the Church Father himself which bear all signs of his apologetic interests, his style and his theology. So Josephus, B.J. 2.119-166, was the very source of Hippolytus. Contra E. Puech, the sayings of the Church Father cannot give evidence of the eschatology of the Qumran community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]