by
Damien F. Mackey
“[Otto] Betz rightly concludes that the Herodians
mentioned in Mark are the Essene Scrolls authors”.
I: “Herodians”
Marvin
Vining, author of the controversial book, Jesus the Wicked Priest. How
Christianity was born of an Essene Schism (2008), considered an insight
into the subject by Otto Betz to have been crucial for his own biblical
identification of the enigmatic Essenes. And I, in similar fashion, owe it
entirely to Marvin Vining for his having fully identified the Essenes, who would
probably otherwise have continued to remain a complete mystery to me.
Vining’s
important chapter 2, “Identifying the Essenes in the New Testament”, will break
completely new ground as far as I am concerned. In # 13 of that chapter,
“Herodians”: A Minor New Testament Name for the Essenes”, he writes, leading up
to Betz (p. 28):
Many
scholars have contributed to the identification of the Essenes in the New
Testament. C. Daniel once uncovered a key historical reference to the Essenes
that unraveled a great many mysteries. … He found that Josephus recorded the
story of an Essene named Manaemos (Ant. 15.371-79). When Herod the Great
was still a school boy, long before he took the throne, Manaemos predicted that
Herod would become king.
{Further on I shall give my re-interpretation of
this story}
This
supposed prediction by Manaemos found favour with King Herod, as Vining tells
continuing Josephus.
“And”,
Josephus writes, “from that moment on [Herod] continued to hold the Essenes in
honor” (Ant 154.379). The Essenes became Herod’s favorite sect, on whom
he would often bestow special favors. For example, Herod excused them from an
oath of loyalty (Ant 15.371). It is reasonable, then, to conclude that
the common people would have nicknamed the Essenes the “Herodians”.
That
the Essenes were the “Herodians” already opens up for us a whole new vista.
Thus
Vining continues (pp. 28-29):
….
We now
have good reason to believe the Essenes were called Herodians. How does that
help us? The Gospels of Mark and Matthew contain references to the Herodians
(Mk 3:6; 8:14-21; Mk 12:13 // Mt 22:16), and these passages answer a great many
open questions.
Otto Betz
(a leading Dead Sea Scrolls scholar with whom I had the honor of corresponding
before he died) commented that New Testament scholarship has always had
difficulty identifying the Herodians, for it was assumed that they must have
been political delegates of King Herod. … But who: Herod the Great? Herod
Antipas? Herod’s dynasty? None of these interpretations ever made sense. The
Herodians we find in the Gospels appear to be a priestly sect in league with
the Pharisees against Jesus. The Herodians’ interests were not merely political
but religious in nature, primarily so. Like the Pharisees they were
concerned with what Jesus had to say about the Torah and the prophets.
The new identification of
the “Herodians”, as Essenes (and there is more to come, see II:), will
marvellously enable Marvin Vining to explain one of Jesus’s seemingly most
obscure parables, “The feeding of the multitudes” (Mark 8:14-21). P. 29”:
“[Jesus] phrased a warning to the disciples in what seems to my generation’s
eyes just about the most esoteric parable that Jesus ever gave”. Vining, after
recounting this parable, will proceed on p. 30 to tell of how the meaning of
this parable had long “baffled” him, with no commentator on it being helpful.
“Only when I read the fine work of Yigael Yadin, who published the Temple
Scroll found in Cave 11, did I finally discover the accurate interpretation.
Here follows Vining’s account of it:
Yadin
found a passage in the Temple Scroll that dealt with rituals accompanying the
Feast of Milluim, a time of ordination, a dedication of the priesthood during
the first seven days of the month of Nisan (Ex 29; Ez 43:18-27).
According
to the Temple Scroll, the Essenes had modified the Torah’s procedure for
cleansing of the altar during the Feat of Milluim (11Q19 XV, 9-14; cf. Ex 29;
Ez 43:18-27). Instead of offering up twelve baskets of bread for each of the
twelve weeks of the Holy Presence in the Temple, as did the Pharisees, the
Essenes altered their ritual. On each of the seven days of celebration, the
Essenes gathered a basket of bread together with a ram, as a waive offering.
Thus when Jesus warned the disciples to “beware the leaven of the Pharisees and
the Herodians”, and then, in that corresponding order, reminded them of the
number of baskets gathered after his two feedings, (a sympathetic association:
Pharisees = twelve baskets, Herodians = seven baskets), he was referring to the
respective rituals of each for the Feast of Milluim.
Jesus saw
himself as the “bread of life” (Jn 6:33-35), who, as God’s Son, could offer
eternal life.
He was
both the single sacrificial lamb and loaf of bread the disciples needed (Mk
8:14), by whom they and the multitude had all just been consecrated priests of
the new era. The miraculous feeding of the multitudes was an ordination from
God. ….
II: Scribes
On pp. 32-33, Marvin
Vining will write of what he describes as “the
cornerstone for this entire restoration”:
In James
H. Charlesworth’s Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls … a chapter written by
Otto Betz offers an additional correlation between the Essenes and Herodians by
bringing forth another passage in which they are mentioned, Mark 3:6. In so
doing, Betz confronts me with a stunning revelation that appears in chapter 7
(section 73).
That one
piece of scholarship is the cornerstone for this entire restoration, as you
will eventually see. For now it is enough that we confirm that the Essenes were
called Herodians in the Gospels, where they are in league with the Pharisees
against Jesus. This is easily done, for Mark records that Jesus antagonized two
Jewish sects in the synagogue, the “Pharisees and Herodians” (3:1-6). The
latter sect, the Herodians, were singled out for their extremely rigid
observance of Sabbath laws, a characteristic trait of the Essenes (War
2:143-49). Betz mentions a parallel situation to this incident found in Matthew
... where Jesus cited and ridiculed a statute peculiar to the Scrolls, the
prohibition against rescuing an animal fallen into a pit on the Sabbath (Mt
12:11; cf. CD XI, 13-14). Betz rightly concludes that the Herodians mentioned
in Mark are the Essene Scrolls authors. With this knowledge, we are immediately
able to assess Jesus’s relation with the Essenes.
We are
given solid biblical evidence that Jesus directed much of his preaching against
the Essenes, just as he did his other well-known spiritual enemies, the
Pharisees. Clearly the Essenes/Herodians were opposed to Jesus, as we expected
to find given their vast differences in doctrine. But this is just the
beginning.
Though now entirely
confident that the Herodians of the Gospels were the Essenes, Vining must yet
come to terms with the meagre references to the Herodians as opposed to the
historically well-known Essenes.
He commences on p. 33:
The
Herodians are very seldom mentioned in the Gospels, so seldom that it seems
unreasonable to believe they were the popular Essenes that Josephus, Philo, and
other historians record. Could the Herodians have been a derogatory nickname
the Gospel writers used only on occasion? It seems so.
This opens the way (his #
14 “A Door is Opened”) for Marvin Vining to identify the Essenes by the name by
which they are more frequently known in the Scriptures:
A parallel
citation to Betz’s synagogue incident, Mark 3:1-6, is found in Luke 6:6-11. The
two groups in league against Jesus are not called Pharisees and Herodians,
as in Mark’s version; Luke calls them Pharisees and scribes (Mk 3:6 //
Lk 6:7). A little faith that the citations are indeed parallel, that they refer
to the same event and persons, and we have just uncovered an unbelievably
valuable prooftext. The Essenes/Herodians must have been the same New Testament
group as the scribes. What a door has just opened!
Now that the biblical
identity of the Essenes has been fully established, this may be a good
opportunity to return to Josephus’s tale (considered in I:) of Herod
‘the Great’ and Manaemos. According to my reconstruction of this Herod, he was
a Phrygian. Hence it is somewhat unlikely that he would have had contact with
an Essene when Herod “was still a school boy”.
There may, however, be a
different underpinning to this story.
It calls to mind the
account in Matthew 2 of the encounter between King Herod and the Magi, seeking
the “infant king of the Jews”. It is notable, now, that King Herod enquired of
the scribes, that is, the Essenes (2:4): “[King Herod] called together all the
chief priests and the scribes of the people, and enquired of them where the
Christ was to be born”.
Here we have the key
elements of Matthew’s account: King Herod; a boy who would be king; and the
Essene scribes, who were very Messianic in their outlook.
The Essene scribes would
immediately have been able to inform Herod that the Christ was to be born (v.
5): “At Bethlehem in Judaea”, based on the prophet Micah (5:1). Perhaps
Manaemos was one of their number, who stepped forward at the critical moment to
provide the king with this biblical information.
Whether King Herod
rewarded with favours the scribes for their assistance in this most pressing
matter, we cannot say at this stage.
Marvin Vining will go on
to develop this identification wonderfully and convincingly.
This is a must read.
There are other parts of
his book, albeit interesting, that I would not endorse – and with some of which
I would vehemently disagree.
III: Meaning of the
name, “Essenes”
In his # 16 “Etymology:
the Essenes are “the Pious”,” pp. 37-39, Vining arrives at what is probably the
true origin and meaning of whom we call “Essenes”:
… we must
seek the etymology for the name Essenes in … the historical writings.
The
English Essenes comes from the Latin Essenei, which was used by
Pliny the Elder. In the Greek, the order is called Essaioi by Philo, and
Essenoi by Josephus and an early Church father, Hippolytus. Epiphanius,
also an early church father, described two divisions of Essenes, the Nazareans
… in the north and the Osseaens in the south (Proem I 3.1-5;
19.1.1-3).
Scholars
have determined that these writers are all referring to the same group by
examining their common doctrine, location, and similar characteristics.
But the
etymology still remains an enigma, for the name Essenes held no
intrinsic meaning in Latin of Greek.
It seems
reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the name had meaning in the original
Semitic, which has probably come to us as a transliteration, such as Sadducees,
meaning descendants of the Zadokite priests. If we are lucky, a word will pass
meaningfully from one language and alphabet to another.
…
Why create
confusion where none exists? If we place some faith, as we must, in the
scholastic integrity of those who have gone before us, we see that Josephus and
Philo were trying to translate as best they could from the original Semitic.
….
Clearly
the Essenes derived their name from and were known as the “holy” or the
“sanctified”. Within the same word-field, it is not difficult to imagine that
they were known as the “pious”, sometimes translated in the Bible as the
“faithful ones” or “saints” (I Sam 2:9a; Ps 30:4a). It is the last derivation
that finally allows us to translate back into the Semitic.
The work
has already been done. Nearly a hundred years ago, an excellent scholar named
Ginsburg collected more than twenty possible derivations from various scholars
and concluded that the most logical was the Aramaic hsa, whose plural is
hysn, the equivalent of the Hebrew hasid, usually translated as
“the pious”. … Several nineteenth-century scholars had independently arrived at
this conclusion – most notably Emil Schürer – and it is still the
reigning view. The only apparent weakness of the derivation is that hysn,
the plural of hsa, never occurs in Palestinian Aramaic, but only in
Syrian Aramaic, the first Yiddish, the Jewish language of the Persian exile.
Yet … this is hardly a
weakness. It only stands to reason that the Essenes originally drew their name
from Syrian Aramaic, for it is during the Persian exile that they first
emerged.
Professor
Shmuel Safrai, who will reject the view that the Hasidim were Essenes, rightly,
at least, distinguishes between the Hasidim and the Pharisees, considering them
to be two different types of sages.
From the
composite portrait of the Hasidim that he has sketched, the professor will conclude
that this portrait was very much like that of Jesus found in the Gospels.
But, naturally,
we should expect likenesses amongst Jesus, the Pharisees, and the Essene
Scribes, based as they all were upon Moses and the Torah, and the prophets.
They were
all throughgoing Jews, nurtured in Yahwistic Judaïsm.
Spiritually
speaking, though, there were chasmic differences, with Jesus considering the typical
Scribe or Pharisee to be a hypocrite, and most worthy of condemnation.
Aaron Chin
has written well on this subject:
Why did Jesus rebuke the scribes and Pharisees so
harshly in Matthew 23:13–36?
By Aaron ChinDecember 21, 2023Bible Questions
….
In Matthew 23:13-36, Jesus launches into a scathing
denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, delivering seven woes against them
for their hypocrisy and false practices. This harsh rebuke from Jesus has
puzzled many readers over the years. Why did Jesus speak so strongly against
the religious leaders of His day? A closer examination of the text provides
some answers.
The Identity of the Scribes and Pharisees
The scribes were experts in the Law of Moses and would
transcribe copies, teach it to others, and offer authoritative interpretations
(Matthew 23:2). The Pharisees were a religious party known for strictly
observing the Law and oral traditions. They sought ritual purity and separation
from anything unclean. Though having good intentions to honor God, over time
the Pharisees had developed a complex set of oral laws and traditions that went
far beyond Scripture (Matthew 15:1-9). By Jesus’ day, their rigorous man-made
rules had become a burden on the people (Matthew 23:4).
The scribes and Pharisees were the religious elites
holding places of influence as teachers, interpreters of the Law, and exemplars
of Jewish piety. They considered themselves to be experts on the Scriptures and
enjoyed great respect and honor from the people (Matthew 23:6-7). However,
Jesus asserted they did not practice what they preached (Matthew 23:3). They
imposed heavy burdens on others that they themselves would not carry (Matthew
23:4).
The Legitimate Authority of the Scribes and Pharisees
Jesus begins His critique by affirming the legitimate
position of religious authority held by the scribes and Pharisees. They sit on
Moses’ seat as authoritative interpreters and teachers of the Law (Matthew
23:2). Jesus’ Jewish audience would have understood this as an acknowledgement
that these leaders held an office of religious importance.
However, Jesus immediately undercuts their authority
by accusing them of not practicing what they teach (Matthew 23:3). Their
hypocrisy invalidated any legitimate claim to act as spiritual leaders of God’s
people. They lacked integrity between their words and actions.
Examples of Hypocrisy and False Religion
Jesus highlights numerous examples of how the scribes
and Pharisees demonstrated hypocritical practices and false religion:
- They taught heavy
burdens but did not lift a finger to help (Matthew 23:4).
- Their works were
done to be noticed by others (Matthew 23:5).
- They loved places of
honor and respectful greetings (Matthew 23:6-7).
- They claimed exalted
titles for themselves (Matthew 23:8-10).
- They exploited
widows and deprived the needy (Matthew 23:14).
- They pursued
converts for personal gain (Matthew 23:15).
- They employed
deceptive oaths and technical loopholes (Matthew 23:16-22).
- They neglected
justice, mercy and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23-24).
- They maintained
outward piety but inwardly were greedy and self-indulgent (Matthew
23:25-26).
- They appeared
righteous but were spiritually dead (Matthew 23:27-28).
In each example, Jesus exposed their hypocrisy –
pretending to be righteous teachers while inwardly lacking true obedience and
love for God. Their teaching burdens others but requires nothing of themselves.
They desire recognition and status. They pray impressive prayers but devour
widow’s houses (Matthew 23:14). They make oaths swearing by the temple or altar
but then justify breaking them on technicalities. They tithe spices but neglect
justice and mercy. They keep up impressive outward appearances but inwardly
remain morally decayed.
Results of the False Religion of the Scribes and
Pharisees
Because of their position, the scribes and Pharisees
exhibited a false form of religion that misled many others. Jesus indicted them
for several far-reaching consequences of their hypocrisy:
- They failed to enter
the kingdom and hindered others (Matthew 23:13).
- They won converts
who became twice as much sons of hell (Matthew 23:15).
- They taught it was
acceptable to swear oaths by the temple, altar, or heaven (Matthew
23:16-22).
- They neglected
justice, mercy, faithfulness and the weightier matters of the law (Matthew
23:23-24).
- They cleansed the
outside of dishes while leaving the inside full of greed and
self-indulgence (Matthew 23:25-26).
Because of the position of the scribes and Pharisees,
their hypocrisy had dramatic effects misleading many in Israel away from true
righteousness. Their converts learned false religion. They promoted superficial
outward religion while neglecting inward transformation. By Jesus’ estimation,
the teachers of Israel had profoundly failed in their assigned task as
shepherds of God’s people. Their hypocrisy brought judgment upon themselves and
hindered many others from entering the kingdom.
Jesus’ Righteous Anger and Sorrow
As the promised Messiah and Son of God, Jesus
uncompromisingly denounced the false religion and moral compromise exhibited by
those claiming spiritual authority in Israel. His harsh language (“woes”
declare impending judgment) reminds readers of OT prophets like Isaiah and
Jeremiah who similarly rebuked the failures of religious leaders.
However, Jesus’ anger came from a profound sense of
sorrow and grief for those He denounced. Soon after this pronouncement of woes,
Jesus weeps over the city of Jerusalem that has killed the prophets and will
also reject Him (Matthew 23:37-39). Jesus longed to gather Israel under His
protective care as a hen gathers her chicks, but they refused (Matthew 23:37).
Both His anger toward the hypocrites and sorrow for
their wayward condition reflect Jesus’ deep investment in the spiritual
wellbeing of His people. His harsh words aimed to shock them into awareness and
repentance if possible.
A Warning to All Religious Leaders
While directed specifically toward the scribes and
Pharisees, Jesus’ warnings serve as a sobering admonition to any who would take
up spiritual leadership over God’s people. The temptations toward hypocrisy,
greed, desire for status, and compromise faced by the scribes and Pharisees are
not unique to first-century Judaism. Religious leaders in any generation can
easily fall into similar patterns – professing godliness while failing to live
it out, exploiting others for personal gain, desiring recognition and praise
from people, and justifying moral compromise out of expediency.
Jesus’ stern rebuke challenges spiritual leaders to
search their own hearts. It is an urgent call for personal integrity before
assuming responsibility to teach others about God. The woes pronounced on the
scribes and Pharisees serve as a warning for leaders in every generation
concerning the eternal consequences of living hypocritically and misleading
others. Our outward profession and teaching about God must match an inner
reality of authentic faith and obedience.
Jesus as the True Shepherd
After excoriating Israel’s failed spiritual leaders,
Jesus presents Himself as the one true Shepherd who will faithfully care for
God’s people (John 10:1-18). The scribes and Pharisees proved to be blind
guides who neglected and misled their sheep. In contrast, Jesus is the good
Shepherd who lays down His life for the sheep and leads them to abundant
pasture. He comes to fulfill the messianic promise of a coming Davidic Shepherd
over God’s people (Ezekiel 34:23).
Jesus’ harsh judgment reflects His desire to alert
God’s people to false leaders and turn them to the care of the one faithful
Shepherd. Removing pretenders from their illegitimate spiritual authority over
Israel enabled Jesus to assume His rightful messianic role. The woes of Matthew
23 set the stage for Jesus alone to shepherd God’s people going forward.
Conclusion
In Matthew 23, Jesus delivers a scorching critique of
Israel’s religious leaders, the scribes and Pharisees. He excoriates them for
hypocritical practices and false religion that mislead others. Jesus pronounced
seven woes upon them for failing as spiritual shepherds of God’s people.
However, this harsh judgment came both from Jesus’ anger over their deception
and His sorrow for all those negatively affected. His alarming condemnation
served to warn all religious leaders concerning pretense, compromise, and abuse
of authority. Ultimately, it served to present Jesus as the Messiah who alone
could faithfully shepherd God’s people into righteousness, justice, and mercy.
