godesky2002b Subversion Incarnate Asceticism as Political Resistance in Roman Judea, 6 – 66 CE

7/29/2019 godesky2002b Subversion Incarnate Asceticism as Political Resistance in Roman Judea, 6 66 CE

1/34

SUBVERSION INCARNATE:

Asceticism as Political Resistance inRoman Judea, 6 66 CE

by Jason Godesky

Abstract

While nationalism and colonialism are often conceptualized as strictly modern

phenomena, the conflict between Roman culture and Jewish values which took place in

the Roman colony of Judea led to the rise of a Jewish identity which might be considered

nationalist. Resistance to the Romans centered around Shaye Cohens triad of Temple,

Torah and Scripture. The emphasis each of these places on the body led to a great deal

of somaticized subversion, particularly taking the form of asceticsm. This paper begins

with a synopsis of the historical events leading up to Judeas domination by the Romans,

and argues that the conflict between Jerusalem and Rome sprang from fundamentally

oppositional views of society. After an overview of the place the body takes in Roman

and Jewish thought, the paper deals with the place of eschatology, healings, celibacy, and

food in first-century Jewish asceticism, and how it was an attack on Roman civilization

and sometimes, on the founding principles of civilization itself.


2/34

Introduction

Nationalism is usually conceived of as a purely modern phenomenon

(Anderson 1999). This is, by and large, a view I cannot argue against. However, first-

century Roman Judea would seem to offer a counter-example, of a nationalism in

antiquity. Like most modern nationalisms, it arose from a cultural conflict with a

foreign, dominating power in a colonial context. Since the native power prior to Roman

conquest was a theocracy, religion became a pivotal factor in the formation of this

nationalism. Judas of Galilees battle-cry was No ruler but God, (Josephus,BJ, 2.8.1)

a nationalistic statement, couched in religious terminology.

This era of classical Judaism was extremely formative (Schiffman 1991). Prior to

the Babylonian Exile, Judaism had been a state religion like most others in antiquity,

save for the exceptionally liberal social policies of the Hebrew prophets (Crossan 1989).

More monolatrous than monotheistic, the change occurred during the Babylonian and

Assyrian eras, when the monolatrous Hebrews melted easily into the conquerors

populations, leaving only those monotheistic Jews who would not be assimilated so

easily. The Persians hegemonic imperial policies led to the elevation of the Torah to a

central place for the first time (cf. Nehemiah 7-8).

The sects which developed under the Maccabees and after were so varied that

some specialists have taken to referring to Judaisms, in the plural. Each of these sects

believed itself to be the true Israel. Two of thesePharisaic Judaism and the Jesus


3/34

Movementwent on to become the Judaism and Christianity we know today. Much of

the strife which has marked their relationship can be traced back directly to the

antagonistic stance which all the Jewish sects took towards each other in this period.

These sects were divided primarily along the lines of Shaye Cohens triad of Temple,

Torah and Scripture. Josephus attempts to cast the sects as equivalent to Greek schools

of philosophy, and in so doing, makes the primary argument about the place of fate

however, this seems to be an instance of Josephan apologetics to a classical audience.

Each of the sects, in its own way, was a response to Greek influence, and later,

Roman domination. Ultimately, each was a differing nationalist response to foreign

control, cast in religious terms. In the ancient world in general, and the Jewish theocracy

in particular, religion cannot be separated from politics, and statements on one are always

comments on the other.

This paper is not meant as another treatment of the sects, however. Rather, this

paper explores the ways in which first-century Judaism used the body as a form of

subversion, defying Roman culture and sometimes, the very founding principles of

civilization itself. As mentioned before, the sects were divided along the lines of

Temple, Torah and Scripture. In all three of these, the body plays a pivotal role, and as

such, the body became the medium through which oppressed first-century Jews could

deliver an entire symbolic discourse on the exploitation they were subjected to. Also as

previously mentioned, this era was extremely formative for two of the worlds most

influential modern religions. Yet, the importance and relevance of this political

discourse to these religions foundations is rarely acknowledged. The force of these


4/34

political movements is still felt today in the political realm, from such religio-political

organizations as the Christian Coalition, and even the state of Israel. This, I think, bears

witness not only to the power of the symbolic discourse first-century Judaism

somaticized, but to its continuing importance today.

Historical Background

Before discussing the politically and culturally subversive nature of Jewish

asceticism in the first century, it is important to provide a historical backdrop of first-

century Judea. This history is extremely critical to a proper understanding of the nature

of the conflict in question.

When the Persian Empire fell to Alexander the Great, there seemed to be little

difference between one or the other, save in which direction taxes and tribute went. It is

not surprising, therefore, to read accounts of Alexanders welcome into Jerusalem

(Josephus,Antiq. 4.2.1; Babylonian Talmud Yoma 69a). However, Alexander was a far

different ruler than the Persians. The Persians ruled a hegemonic empire, content to

allow native culture to continue, so long as tribute was forthcoming and the said natives

did not revolt against Persian rule. However, Alexanders Hellenistic empire took a more

territorial approach. Alexander dreamed of a world united in Greek culture and thought,

and as such, pursued the establishment ofpoleis in Judea. One of the flashpoints of this

conflict of culture came over the nudity of the participants in sports at the gymnasium on


5/34

the Jewish side, and in the resulting exposure of the brutality of circumcision on the

Greek side.

After the death of Alexander, Judea was directly on the border between the

Ptolemies and the Seleucids. Ruled for exactly 100 years by the Ptolemies, the Seleucids

captured Judea in 201 BCE. The Jews themselves showed little preference for either

one, since both granted autonomous internal rule by the enigmatic Gerousia, or Council

of Elders, which may have been the predecessor of the Roman Sanhedrin.

The trouble began during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Antiochus, at war

with the Ptolemies as always, suspected the Jewish High Priest Onias of collusion with

the Ptolemies. Acting completely within the normal realm of classical operation,

Antiochus removed Onias; Onias brother, the much more Hellenized Jason, purchased

the office from Antiochus, and was installed in his place. However, while all of this was

standard procedure in the classical world, it was sacrilege in Judaism, where the High

Priest was appointed not by any ruler, but by hereditary descent. While Onias sought

refuge in Egypt (suggesting Antiochus fears of betrayal may not have been entirely

foundless), Jason sought to make Jerusalem itself a Greekpolis, buying a charter and

constructing a gymnasium. But in 171 BCE, the office of High Priest was purchased by

Menelaus, who was not only not related to the Zadokite line, but may not have been a

priest at all. Fighting broke out in Jerusalem between Menelaus and Jason, finally

ending with Menelaus victory thanks to the intervention of Antiochus. However, when

rumors reached Judea that Antiochus had died in Egypt warring against the Ptolemies,

Jason rose up in revolt against Menelaus. But Antiochus had not, in fact, died. When he


6/34

returned to Judea, he crushed Jasons revolt, and, seeing that Judeasitting strategically

on his most contested bordercould be lost to revolt at any time, built a fortress in

Jerusalem called the Akra.

Given that Antiochus measures taken against Judaism occur so soon after these

incidents, it is entirely reasonable to see this as a response to revolt, and an attempt to

eliminate what most of have seemed then to be the most treacherous element in his

empire. The sacrificial cult was banned, and a cult of Zeus was installed in the Temple.

Naturally, this was an intolerable situation for religious Jews. The Hasidim, who

share with the modern Hasidic movement only their use of the Hebrew word for pure,

began a revolt. This led to an explosion of latent hostilities between the rich, Hellenized

urbanites and the poor, less Hellenized peasants in a conflict aimed more directly at the

upper classes than the Seleucids. This popular movement, however, was quickly co-

opted by the Hasmonean family, who laid dubious claims on a priestly heritage. Under

the leadership of Judas Maccabee, the Jews took Jerusalem from the Seleucids.

However, even though the aims of the revolt had been accomplished at that point, Judas

went on to conquer Galilee and Idumea, forcibly converting the inhabitants to Judaism.

His brothers continued the power-grab under guide of religious freedom fighters, with his

brother Simon being named ethnarch of the Jews by the Seleucids themselves.

The Hasidim are thought to be the forerunners of both the Pharisees and the

Essenes (Jones 1985); the Sadducees name supposedly is derived from Zadok, the

Davidic progenitor of the High Priestly line deposed by Antiochus. Thus, the three


7/34

primary sects emerged out of the Hasmonean conflict. The Talmud preserves records of

the criticisms leveled against the Hasmoneans (cf. Babylonian Talmud Qiddushin 66a).

Though the Hasmoneans were of neither the Davidic nor Zadokite lines, and thus had a

legitimate claim to neither, they assumed the titles of both king and high priest. The

precedence had been set for the deposition and appointment of high priests regardless of

their lineage. As ideas of the Temples failure began to spread, the proper role of the

Temple became a sectarian flashpoint. In the eyes of many contemporary Jews, the

Templethe House of God and the center of the universe (Crossan 1991)had become

corrupt, and thus, invalid. Thus, the idea of Temple needed to be cast in new terms.

The conflict between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus for the Hasmonean throne drew

Pompey to Jerusalem in 63 BCE on the side of Hyrcanus, who became a Roman client-

king. However, Hyrcanus ineptitude drew the Romans attention to the Idumean

Antipater, whose family had been forcibly converted during Judas Maccabees invasion.

Nonetheless, he was not seen as truly Jewish, a problem which would plague him and

even more his successors. In 43 BCE, Antipater was poisoned, and three years later, the

Parthians invaded, using Aristobulus son Antigonus as their client-king and figurehead.

Three years after that, Antipaters son Herod returned to Judea at the head of a Roman

army, and was installed as the Roman client-king of Judea.

Herod was extraordinarily paranoid, and politically capable. He managed to

successfully shift his fortunes from Mark Antony to Augustus as the tides of Roman

imperium changed. A network of spies and at times utter brutality kept him in firm grip

of the country. Knowing that his legitimacy was dubious in the eyes of his people, he


8/34

married the Hasmonean princess Mariamnewhom he eventually murdered in his

paranoiaand undertook the massive project of building the Second Temple. He also

built the city of Caesarea, which quickly became the most important gentile city in

Judea. Herod eventually died in 4 BCEprobably of cardio-renal failure (Kokkinos

2002).

On his death, his kingdom was supposed to be divided among his sons. But the

ineptitude of Archelaus led to his removal by the Romans in 6 CE. The Romans moved

to put in place a directly controlled province under a procurator. The first step in this

process was the conducting of a census. However, 2 Samuel 24 tells the story of how

David took a census of his army, and for his presumption a famine befell Judea and

seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beersheba died. (2 Sam. 24:15). By

counting the people, David presumed ownershipsomething which could only belong to

God. And if not even the sacrosanct King David could have such hubris, how much less

the gentile Romans? So it was that Judas the Galilean, along with a Pharisee named

Zadok, sparked a violent revolt against Rome, which destroyed several cities before it

was crushed. Josephus credits this revolt with the beginning of the Zealot movement, but

most likely, the Zealot movement proper did not truly begin until 66 CE, as a

confederation of bandits.

The years between 6 and 66 CE reflect Tacitus assertion that, Under Tiberius,

all was quiet. However, there were strong tensions brewing just below the surface. The

Romans failed to find any cohesive policy towards their administration of the Judean

province (Thiessen 1992), alternating between client-kings of dubious legitimacy and


9/34

procurators of varying degrees of brutality. While the client-kings were of the Herodian

line, and thus, seen as a foreign oppressor of their own kind, the procurators were totally

dependant on the governor of Syria for any military support for their measures. The Jews

knew this, often taking matters directly to his superior in Damascus. With only a small

force to control a region on the brink of revolt, the procurators often resorted to utter

brutality to maintain control, as Josephus so often describes. The most continuous form

of government throughout the Roman period was the theocracy, based in the Greater

Sanhedrin. A number of lesser Sanhedrins governed the villages, answering to the

Temples Greater Sanhedrin. This theocracy oversaw the day-to-day running of affairs

in Roman Judea as a limited form of self-rule answering to whatever government the

empire had in place at the time, whether it be the Herodian client-king, or the procurator.

A string of corrupt and outright ruthless governors, ever higher taxes, and

dispossession final led to lower-class priests stopping their sacrifices to the emperor,

sparking a civil war which spread quickly from Jerusalem to the Judean countryside. A

provisional government was installed, only to be overthrown by the Zealots when they

took Jerusalem. With the infighting of the various factions among the rebels, the Roman

armies under Vespasian and his son Titus (who went on each to become emperors in

turn) managed to wipe out the revolt in ten years of bloody fighting. It was undoubtedly

one of the most pivotal events in Jewish history. The Temple was destroyed, and with it,

the Sadducees. The Essenes were wiped out. The only survivors were those whose

beliefs were not centered on any place, and made no promises of an imminent eschaton:

the Pharisees, who went on to become the tannaim and the rabbis who put together the

Talmud.


10/34

Asceticism & the Body in Jewish & Roman Culture

James Francis gives an excellent explanation for the uneasiness that existed

between ascetics and the Roman Empire in the introduction to his work on second

century pagan asceticism, Subversive Virtue (1995):

The heart of the issue is that rigorous asceticism was deviant, and

deviance was dangerous. Strident, and often obstreperous,

practitioners of physical asceticism were deemed suspect by the

political, social, and cultural authorities of the age, and such

apprehension put the practice of physical asceticism under a cloud

of suspicion generally. This mistrust of ascetics stemmed from

their being perceived as radicals expressing discontent with the

status quo, advocating norms and values antithetical to the

accepted and political order, and claiming a personal authority

independent of the traditional controls of their society and culture.

Put simply, they were seen as a threat to the continued and

peaceful existence of the Roman Empire. The conflict between

asceticism and authority hinged on social and cultural issues. The

second century is pivotal in the transformation of the civic person

of ancient society who located authority externally, in various

social institutions, into the person of late antiquity who searched


11/34

within for otherworldly authority. (Perkins 1992) This study

demonstrates that those involved in this transformation were

themselves conscious of its reality. Both ascetics and authorities

in the period were aware of the nature and significance of the

issues involved. The former deliberately sought this transfer of

authority; the latter vigorously opposed it. (Francis 1995, xiii-xiv)

Crossan argues that asceticism is a form of world-negation, a form of

eschatology (Crossan 1989). As such, it is quite political, and quite subversive, in that it

denies the power of the state by denying the world the state controls. At the same time,

the state maintained an uneasy relationship with the ascetics who, despite their

subversiveness (or perhaps, because of it) enjoyed great popularity. At the same time

that he outlawed celibacy for certain groups, Augustus could support the Vestal Virgins,

and maintain a cohesive policy. The Vestal Virgins were not examples to be followed;

rather, they reinforced the imperial policies of promoting procreation by providing an

anomalous exception (Brown 1988). Centuries later, the Empire coopted the more

dangerous Christian brands of asceticism through state-sponsored monasteries, and

reaching the same point of view: ascetics monks reinforced the status quo, rather than

challenge it, by providing an exception, not an example (Francis 1995).

Rome was a commercializing agrarian empire (Crossan 1989), meaning that it

was an ancient state which traded land as the primary basis of the economy. Trade and

capitalism was seen with ambivalence at best, and was legitimate only as a means to

acquire land (Crossan 1991, 50-58). This brought it into direct conflict with the


12/34

traditional agrarian society of ancient Judea, with its emphasis on social justice, and the

divine birthright of the family plot of land (Crossan 1989, 177-238). Where Roman

society emphasized power and dominance, somaticized in the sexual view of the viras

the impenetrable penetrator (Walters 1997), the Torahs sabbatical laws established

social justice and equity for slaves and the indebted (Crossan 1989) and banned the very

sexual displays of dominance, such as rape, which was crucial to the Roman idea of

manliness.

The two cultures did share many things in common. As one would expect, many

of these were somaticized. Both societies held an ethnocentric view of their own

superiority. In Judaism, circumcision was used to mark off a Jew as a member of this

superior kingdom of priests and a holy nation. (Exodus 19:6). To the Romans, this was

brutality and self-mutilation, showing the Jews barbarism. However, just as

circumcision identified a Jew, the body of the Roman virthe shortly cropped hair, the

clean-shaven face and above all, the togaannounced to the world that here was a

member of the superior Roman race. In both cultures, society was conceptualized as

being familial. Jews saw themselves as the descendants of the patriarch Abrahamthe

importance of this view in first century Judaism is supported by the frequent use of the

term child(ren) of Abraham in the Christian New Testament to mean Jews. This

family might have a Davidic king, appointed by God, but ultimately, God was the only

legitimate head of this family. This contrasted with the Roman Empire, which was also

seen as a family. However, this family was not formed by descent, but by metaphor.

The empire was a macrocosm of the Roman family, with the emperor taking the position

of thepater familias, with absolute power. Where the Romanpater familias was an


13/34

absolute monarch in miniature, numerous laws in the Torah governing the proper

treatment of children, women and slaves bound the head of the Jewish household. Again,

at the macrocosmic level, Jewish kings were always, at best, a sort of earthly secretary

for divine rule; the Roman emperors held absolute power, and were often deified

themselves by the Senate.

We see, then, a pattern: on each count, Rome promotes the division of society

into classes based on power and dominance, where Judaism acknowledges the reality of

these divisions, but attempts to mitigate and undermine them at all turns. The differences

between Rome and Judaism were not by any means slight. That a means of peacefully

reconciling these mutually exclusive viewpoints might have been found seems doubtful.

However, Rome was far more powerful, and Judaism was in a very compromised

position relative to the empire. Aggressive resistance to Rome was suicidal; yet, it was

taken up, causing the utter decimation of Judea. However, the revolutionariesor

bandits as Josephus refers to themwere actually far less dangerous than those

individuals who used asceticism in a symbolic discourse. While armed insurrection

could quickly and easily be crushed by Romes military superiority, its culture was

vulnerable to ideological assault, especially in the form of Eastern mystery cults.

When placed within the potent framework of the dissident ascetic, the somaticized

protest of the ascetic was a powerful, and feared, attack on an otherwise unstoppable

empire.


14/34

First Century Judaisms & Asceticism

The turmoil of the Hasmonean era created three groups, what Josephus calls

schools and are often referred to today as sects. Two more developed under the

Roman domination which followed the end of the Second Commonwealth. These

divisions cause some serious questions about the nature of Judaism in the first century.

Was there any normative form of Judaism? What was the most popular form of

Judaism? Some have even taken to referring to Judaisms in the plural, due to the

divergence of these groups. For our current purposes, we will look briefly at these

groups, and especially at how their stances reflect Romano-Jewish conceptions of the

body, and how they shaped first century Jewish asceticism.

The Pharisees

Of the primary sects we know of, that which would be most recognizable to

modern Jews would be the Pharisees. The later rabbis who wrote the Talmud are

generally understood to have emerged from the Pharisees (Baeck 1947), although

equivocation on this point may be necessary (Neusner 1973). I agree with Saldarini

(2001) that the Pharisees should be seen primarily as a political, rather than a religious,

group. While the two are impossible to disentangle in the first-century Jewish theocracy,

as already asserted, the common view of the Pharisees as religious men without political

ambition is deeply flawed. The Pharisees were a major political force under the

Hasmoneans, and though that influence waned under Herod and the Romans (Neusner

1973), their importance in Judean politics in that era should not be discounted (Saldarini

2001).


15/34

The Pharisees were a political interest group, who wished to see their views

reflected in the official policy of the Judean theocracy. It is possible that the Talmuds

doctrine of the oral Torah was originally held, in some embryonic form, by the

Pharisees. The Pharisees views seem to owe greatly to Hellenism: they believed in an

afterlife, angels and demons, and many other ideas that are distinctively monotheistic

today, but can barely be found in the Hebrew Bible. The Pharisees seem to have been

the more popular group, even though the Sadducees probably represented the more

widely-held ideas (Saldarini 2001). The Pharisees seem to have come primarily from

artisan classes (Schiffman 1991), though their exact resources are unknown (Saldarini

2001).

In terms of asceticism, the Pharisees I feel can best be seen as a group making a

mild form of asceticism commonplace. If the Talmud is any indicationand there are

problems with this (Saldarini 2001) despite how often it is donethe Pharisees took the

laws pertaining to ritual purity and the Temple, and expanded them. Whereas in the

Torah ritual purity is solely the concern of the priests, the Pharisees adapted those laws to

apply to everyone. So, we have the Talmud filled with laws concerning what cooking

utensils can and cannot be used, ritual cleansing, and other minutiae of ritual purity

which the Torah prescribes only for the priestly class. What the Torah prescribed for the

Temple, the Pharisees prescribed anywhere and everywhere, for everyone. While not

denying the primacy of the Temple, the Pharisees in this way shifted the locus of power

from the Sadducees monopoly by making all places valid for the worship of God. This


16/34

shift is precisely what allowed the Pharisees to survive the Great Revolt, and led directly

to the Talmuds emphasis on creating sacred space wherever one happened to be.

Ultimately, however, the Pharisees advocated a rather insipid and mild form of

asceticism. They seem to have been primarily concerned with purity. Their political

aspirations kept them from the use of asceticism, which attacked the system they wished

to control. Thus, while they struggled with the Sadducees for control of that system, they

could unite with their erstwhile enemies in support of that system, against the more

radical ascetics who threatened its existence.

The Sadducees

The Sadducees are generally seen as the Temple aristocracy, and the ruling class

in the Judean theocracy. Their form of Judaism was traditional, based on the Hebrew

Bible, and relatively unaffected by the inroads of Hellenism, unlike the doctrines of the

Pharisees. There was no afterlife, no resurrection, no angels, no demons, only God. The

Temple was the only valid place of worship. This is the view one finds in the Hebrew

Bible, and it is likely this view was held by most Jews in first-century Judea (Saldarini

2001). However, the Sadducees were the aristocracy of the traditional Jewish religion,

and as such, greatly unpopular. So, while the average Jew might agree with the

Sadducees beliefs, he was far more likely to support the Pharisee (Saldarini 2001). As

the established priestly aristocracy, the Sadducees were completely set against ascetics

and their ideals. The mild asceticism of ritual purity set forth in the Torah was restricted

to the priestly classes alone, thus nullifying its subversion. In summary, the Sadducees

were the targets of ascetic subversion, not its instigators.


17/34

The Essenes

The most blatantly and rigorously ascetic of the Jewish sects in the Second

Temple period were the Essenes. The classical accounts of them are colored in

Hellenistic expectations of asceticism, making them very difficult to pin down exactly

(Crossan 1989). Scholars have puzzled over the contradictions between the male,

celibate community found at Qumran, and the descriptions given by Josephus and Philo

of thousands of Essenes, living in cities and towns, marrying only for procreation.

Boccaccini suggests that the less rigorous, dispersed group was the mainstream Essene

movement (1998), and that its beliefs are reflected in the Enochic literature, while the

group at Qumran was a more radical off-shoot of the larger Essene movement. We may

be looking at other sub-groups of the Essene movement in the Theraputae described by

Philo (Vermes & Goodman 1989), possibly even in the Zealots andsicarii (Jones 1985),

and perhaps in the Baptist (Crossan 1991) and Jesus movements that grew into

Christianity. Whereas the Pharisees and Sadducees were established groups vying for

power, and thus more fearful of asceticisms subversiveness than anything else, the

Essene movement was formed in protest to the Hasmonean seizure of both crown and

Temple. As such, their movement is the most subversive of the various forms of Judaism

to be found in the first century.

The mainstream Essene sect, what Boccaccini refers to as Enochic, was the

most moderate of the groups we will consider under the Essene heading. If Boccaccini is

correct in identifying this group with the Enochic literature, then they may have been the

bravest, most radical protestors of all. The Enochic literature makes clear a world view


18/34

where the material world is ruled by fallen angels; those who are in power, obtain their

power from the forces of evil. The power of these fallen angels is too great to be

overcome by human means; it will be broken by God, or Gods messiah, at the eschaton.

Until then, the Essenes lived a life of withdrawal, while in the midst of the material

world. The mainstream Essene sect lived not in one town only, but in every town

several of them form a colony. (Josephus,BJ2.124) They restricted sexual activity to

procreation only; thus, sex during menstruation or pregnancy was punishable.

Enjoyment of sex was not permitted. All property was held in common by the group.

Josephus records that they bathed in cold water every morning, that they viewed slavery

as unnatural, that their meals are sufficient only for subsistence and no more, and that

they refuse to swear oaths. The Essenes would not engage in the production of any

weapons of war, or tools that could be used for war, because, in 1 Enoch, the art of

creating these implements was given by the fallen angel Azazel (Boccaccini 1998). The

rejection of oaths also is found in the Enochic literaturethe fallen angels begin their

enterprise with an oath. Oaths were what kept the ancient world together; oaths bound

the client to his patron, and it was this patronage system which governed all of the

ancient worlds social relationships. One who refused to swear an oath in the ancient

world was making a very clear rejection of the entire socio-political structure of ancient

civilization in general. By continuing to live in the world, but setting themselves apart

with their white robes and peculiar habits, the Essenes were a constant, unambiguous

critique against those who held authority. The various groups which formed out of this

movement only intensified that embodied protest.


19/34

It has been suggested that the Theraputae described by Philo may be related to the

Essenes. The Theraputae, whose rigorous lives in Egypt Philo marvels at, seem to be

stricter ascetics than the mainstream Essenes. Whereas the Essenes, even the

Qumranites we will look at next, ate meat and drank wine (albeit meagerly), these were

forbidden by the Theraputae. Philo marveled at the strict fasts the Theraputae would

undertake, and the duration for which they would maintain those fasts. (Vermes and

Goodman 1989)

The Dead Sea Scrolls make it clear that the Qumran community saw itself as an

alternative Temple (Schiffman 1991). They saw the Temple as having never been truly

purified after Antiochus seizure, its pollution only being intensified by Hasmonean,

Herodian and Roman corruption. The Qumran community intensified the ascetic

standards of Enochic Essenism. Whereas mainstream Essenes discourged sex, the

Qumranites were strict celibates. Although adjacent cemeteries have yielded skeletons

of females and children, these may be graves for non-Qumranite Essenes. The main

cemetery, though, has been found to be strictly adult males. While the mainstream

Essenes sought to protest the power of the fallen angels reflected in both Jerusalem and

Rome, the Qumranites saw that evil to be so overpowering and pervasive, that retreat

was the only option. The Sons of Light and Sons of Darkness from the Dead Sea

Scrolls make explicit the hatred of the evil, material world which was implicit in the

Enochic literature. The rites of the Qumranite Essenes were set up as a second Temple,

complete with priests and sacrifices. Since the Temple was the center of Judean power,

the local authority through which Rome controlled the province, the existence of an

alternative Temple was nothing short of an act of rebellion, not unlike modern militia


20/34

groups in Montana or Texas withdrawing into remote, isolated areas and declaring their

independence from the United States.

Taking their revolt to the next step were the Zealots. Josephus identifies these as

a fourth school of first-century Judaism, but Hippolytus identifies the Zealots and the

sub-group of thesicarii as a sect of the Essenes (Jones 1985). While Josephus traces the

Zealots back to Judas the Galileans revolt in 6 CE, many scholars today question

whether they predate the Great Revolt as any organized group. Thesicarii were the most

hardened group within the Zealot group, often considered the terrorists of first-century

Judea. Josephus records how they would carry daggershence their nameand murder

people in large crowds, managing to slip away in the confusion. In Hippolytus, these

murders are reserved for Gentiles found discussing the Law, who refuse to convert to

Judaism. It is telling that in one of the references Josephus makes to the Essenes outside

his full description, is in his mention of John the Essene, one of the leaders of the Great

Revolt, in Joppa.

Perhaps most contentious of all is the suggestion that the early Christian

movement may have sprung from the Essenes. The Gospels description of John the

Baptist fits well with Josephus description of Essenes expelled from their community

(Crossan 1991). The Jesus movement, also, shares many things in common with the

Essenes. The dualistic view of heaven and hell, angels and demons, fits well with

Enochic and Qumranite literature. The positions the gospels assign to Jesus on marriage

(Matthew 19:12), the Temple (Mark 13:2), the rejection of oaths (Matthew 5:33-37), and

the importance of the Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-20) accord perfectly with mainstream


21/34

Essenic thought. If, however, this is an Essenic movement, it must have been an offshoot

from its earliest days, given the attitudes on fasting (the Jesus Seminar concluded that the

gospels reticent allowance of fasting was an attempt to mitigate the historical Jesus

forbidding fasting altogether), and the general lack of the strict hierarchy found in the

Essene community. While all sources agree on the strictness of Essene hierarchy, the

presence of any such hierarchy in early Christianity can only be assumed. While

wandering charismatics may have held some authority out of respect (Thiessen 1977),

even this was mitigated early on (Crossan 1989).

Now that we have seen how these three schools relate to asceticism, we can

turn our attention finally to the various ascetic acts themselves, how these constituted a

threat to Roman civilization, how the elites of that civilization recognized them as such,

and the conduct and resolution of the resulting symbolic conflict between the ascetics and

authority.

Celibacy

One of the most potent forms of resistance the ascetics of first century Judaism

employed was celibacy. As previously mentioned, celibacy was seen as a threat not only

to the Roman Empire, but to civilization itself. In The Body and Society, Peter Brown

cites an example of this from the Pauline missions:


22/34

On the southern coast of Turkey, in the middle of the fifth

century A.D., a Christian priest of the shrine of Saint Thecla at

Seleucia (now Meryemlik, near Silifke) decided to write an

improved version of the legend of the virgin saint. He presented

Thamyris, the rejected fianc of Thecla, arraigning Saint Paul

before the local governor for having preached perpetual virginity

in the city, and, with virginity, the abandonment of marriage:

This man has introduced a new teaching, bizarre and disruptive

of the human race. He denigrates marriage: yes, marriage, which

you might say is the beginning, root and fountainhead of our

nature. From it spring fathers, mothers, children and families.

Cities, villages and cultivation have appeared because of it.

Agriculture, the sailing of the seas and all the skills of this state

courts, the army, the High Command, philosophy, rhetoric, the

whole humming swarm of rhetorsdepend on it. What is more,

from marriage come the temples and sanctuaries of our land,

sacrifice, rituals, initiations, prayers and solemn days of

intercession.

We should not dismiss Thamyris' speech out of hand, as no more

than a magniloquent glimpse of the obvious. Our book is set in a

society that was more helplessly exposed to death than is even the

most afflicted underdeveloped country in the modern world.


23/34

Citizens of the Roman Empire at its height, in the second century

A.D., were born into the world with an average life expectancy of

less than twenty-five years. Death fell savagely on the young.

Those who survived childhood remained at risk. Only four out of

every hundred men, and fewer women, lived beyond the age of

fifty. It was a population grazed thin by death. In such a

situation, only the privileged or the eccentric few could enjoy the

freedom to do what they pleased with their sexual drives.

Unexacting in so many ways in sexual matters, the ancient city

expected its citizens to expend a requisite proportion of their

energy begetting and rearing legitimate children to replace the

dead. Whether through conscious legislation, such as that of

Emperor Augustus, which penalized bachelors and rewarded

families for producing children, or simply through the

unquestioned weight of habit, young men and women were

discreetly mobilized to use their bodies for reproduction. The

pressure on the young women was inexorable. For the population

of the Roman Empire to remain even stationary, it appears that

each woman would have had to have produced an average of five

children. Young girls were recruited early for their task. The

median age of Roman girls at marriage may have been as low as

fourteen. In North Africa, nearly 95 percent of the women

recorded on gravestones had been married, over half of those

before the age of twenty-three. (Brown 1988)


24/34

However, these arguments aside, there was further reason to be concerned by

celibates. Sex in the classical world was not seen to have so much to do with love, as

with reinforcing the social classes and divides of society. The virwas the impenetrable

penetrator. He could without stigma engage in intercourse with women, girls, boys, or

slavesthe only group not allowed was otherviri. To do so would be a profound breach

of the social divisions sex was meant to reinforce. (Walters 1997)

Celibacy in first-century Judaism especially was linked to esoteric or secret

wisdom. The early Church found this Gnostic tradition as troublesome as the

established forms of Judaism in the first century. Personal, or hidden, wisdom had

legitimacy, as it came from God. However, it could not be controlled or dictated by

proper authorities, being personal. It was for precisely these reasons that Constantine

would make it a heresy three centuries later. The classical world was founded on the

principle of patronage; a divine revelation, a direct personal relationship with God,

undermined the entire patronage system by eliminating the need for any intermediary.

The Temple was meant to mediate between man and Godif an individual could

approach God directly, then there was no purpose for the Temple, or the priestly

aristocracy based on it. Similarly, ones political and economic patrons mediated through

the long, complicated webs of patronage from the lowliest slave to the emperor. With so

much of the rhetoric in the classical world drawing analogies between religion and state,

if an individual could have a personal relationship with God, could not one also, like the

Cynics, find freedom from the patrons and masters one was forced to serve, by ignoring

them? (Downing 1998)


25/34

In the context of first-century Judaism, the early Christian Gospel of Thomas

presents celibacy as a means of bringing about its social radicalism. (Crossan 1989) In

treating this, Crossan discusses the general place of celibacy in first-century Judaism in

his discussion of Thomas: Finally, it is quite possible to derive celibate asceticism from

the type of Jewish speculations about wisdoms role in Genesis 1-3 that was seen above.

You could even claim that celibate asceticism was an imperative hidden within those

texts and that esoteric or secret wisdom was involved. (Crossan 1989) Patterson writes

that the Thomas Christians found in celibacy an asceticism that offers a real, present

challenge to the world. It calls into question the ways of the world, its standards, its

goals, its notion of what is meaningful in life. Thomas Christianitys social radicalism,

as a form of asceticism, has precisely this effect. (1993)

Though presented here in terms of a particular form of Christianity, these are

ideas found throughout first-century Judaism, including Philos Theraputae, and at least

one group of the Essenes. Celibacy, then, undermined the fundamental tenets of classical

civilization in that the celibate jeopardized the perpetuation of the civilized populace, and

abstained from one of the most important somatic forms of reinforcing social divisions.

In Judaism in particular, it was the physical representation of a personal revelation,

which defied authority by undermining the patronage system on which classical

civilization was founded. Moreover, this symbolism was not lost on classical Judaism, as

Constantines concerns over Gnosticism, and the quote from Browns book show.


26/34

Fasting & Food

Despite the emphasis on asceticism in first-century Judaism, there is little

evidence for complete fasting. The Essenes are recorded to have eaten moderately, but

their communal meals were very important to the life of the community. However, food

does play an essential part in the reinforcement of Mediterranean culture in general, and

was manipulated to political ends by first century Judaism.

Fasting of this mitigated sort was well known to the classical world. Francis

writes:

The Cynics did not disparagemuch less abstain fromfood,

drink, and sex. Rather, they abstained only from the pursuit of ever

more refined and extravagant pleasure to satisfy the desire for

them. By gratifying instinct immediately, simply, and naturally,

the Cynic ceased to be in thrall to desire and its ever-increasing

demands. (Francis 1995)

Freedom was the Cynics highest goaland not only spiritual freedom from

desire, but also political freedom from the state, as is shown by Diogenes own disregard

for Alexander the Great in the apocryphal story of their meeting. Philo and Josephus

ascribe similar motivations to the Essenes, and many of the most famous Cynics emerged

from Galilee and the Gentile areas of Judea, so we know that first-century Judaism must

have known of the Cynics and their ideas. If this is so, then it may be tenuously


27/34

advanced that Essene food regulationswhich were quite importantwere formed for

similar reasons to the Cynics. That is, a means of attaining spiritual freedom from desire.

If this is to be tied with the Cynics, it is entirely possible that it had a similar political

background, as well.

More prominent, however, is the use of commensality, and its socio-political

subtexts. It is well established in the anthropology of food that commensalitywho one

eats with, under what conditions, etc.is a prime means of establishing, maintaining,

and reinforcing the rankings, classes and divisions of hierarchical society. Classical

civilization was even more strict concerning this than most cultures. (Crossan 1991) In

Roman society, the meal was a major affair which centered around the splendor of the

pater familias. Many of the Jewish holidayslike Passovercentered on a meal which

reinforced familial belonging, while simultaneously enacting ones identity with the

Jewish nation as a larger family.

It is significant, then, that the Essenes placed such stress on their communal

meals. The Essenes were creating an alternative society. The mainstream, Enochic

Essene movement was creating an alternate society within classical civilization itself.

The Qumran community was creating an alternate Temple in the desert. The

Thermaputae were an alternate society in the Diaspora. If we consider Christianity an

Essene movement, then we may speak of the egalitarian communities of the first

century as alternative, also. (Atkins 1991) It is interesting, then, that we find in the Dead

Sea Scrolls such detailed prescriptions for the consumption of the communal meal.

There was a thorough, set order based on the strict Qumranic hierarchy. The Qumran


28/34

Essenes were challenging the Temple, the other Jewish groups, and even classical

civilization itself, by establishing an alternative community in the desert. Their pure

hierarchy was set up in contrast to the fallen hierarchy of their opponents, and, like the

classical and Jewish meal, the Qumranic meal reinforced and embodied that alternative

community.

If we consider the Jesus Movement to be a form of Essenism, then the use of

commensality for socio-political purposes becomes even more profound. As Crossan

discusses at length (1991), the open commensality recorded in the gospels is one of the

few actions which we may confidently trace back to the historical Jesus. It was an

unabashed, directed, and conscious attack on the hierarchical patronage system which

normal commensality reinforced. By eating with anyone, the followers of the Jesus

Movement disregardedand in so doing, delegitimizedthe basic social divisions of

classical civilization, and with it, the patronage system which was the bedrock of the

ancient world.

We see, then, that first century Jewish ascetics could fast and oppose classical

civilization at its most basic level or, as was more common, challenge it with eating and

food. Temperance in eating and drinking was taken as a program of spiritual freedom, to

correlate with a political freedom that comes from disregard for secular authority. The

state, in this view, becomes irrelevant because it is ignored. The Qumran Essenes used

communal meals in contrast to the communal meals of the larger society, to establish

their alternative community. The Jesus Movement may have been the most insidious of

all in their use of food for political subversion, attacking the most fundamental ideas of


29/34

civilization itself through a policy of open commensality, in total disregard to the social

divisions which define civilization.

Abandonment of Family

Many of the Essene movements called for the abandonment of ones family. This

was, perhaps, the most obviously subversive ascetic act the classical world recognized.

Philo records that the Theraputae abandoned their families. The gospels are filled with

injunctions to abandon ones family in pursuit of the Kingdom of God. The severing

of familial ties cut one off from the kinship relations which governed the patronage

system of the ancient world. As an ascetic, abandonment of the world could not be

made more complete than a renunciation of ones family. This is precisely what several

of the Essenic groups demanded.

As mentioned above, both the Roman Empire and the Jewish nation presented

themselves as extended families. So, in the patriarchal society wherein the gospels

describe Jesus as having said, do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one

Father, and he is in heaven, this is very much the same as the battle-cry ascribed to

Judas the Galilean, the putative founder of the Zealots, No Lord but God. The

renunciation of family, then, was an extremely powerful display of rebellion in Judea

before the Revolt. With so many dispossessed peasants (Thiessen 1992), rejection of

family may not have been a choice, but such codification turned reality into rebellion.


30/34

Conclusion

Asceticism was a major form of resistance in first-century Judaism. It allowed

for non-violent rebellion against Roman domination and commercialization (Crossan

1989, Thiessen 1977). In so doing, it often struck to the most basic tenets of civilization

itselfdivisions of society into classes, the legitimacy of intermediaries of any sort, and

the idea of absolute freedom both internal and external.

The Pharisees and Sadducees were both quite establishmentarian, and so, the

subversiveness of asceticism kept them from embracing it. However, the Essene

movement was aimed at creating an alternative societyalthough the nature of this

society was different in the visions of the various sub-groups of the Essene movement.

The breadth of the Essene movement is often underestimated, sometimes confined only

to the small community at Qumran, despite the descriptions of Philo and Josephus of a

very large movement spread across all the cities of Judea. The Essene movement may,

maximally, include the mainstream Enochic sect, the Qumran community, the Baptist

movement, the Jesus movement, and the Theraputae in Egypt. All of these groups had

very severe ascetical tendencies, as befits the basically subversive purpose of the Essenes

to create an alternate society.

An examination of the three principle components of first-century Jewish

asceticism reveal a consistent theme of subversiveness and political resistance. The

Roman Empire was in a completely dominant position; military resistance was suicide.


31/34

It was attempted, and ended in the destruction of the province, and nearly all of

Palestinian Judaism save for a handful of Pharisaic survivors who gave rise to the rabbis

of the Talmud. Asceticism allowed for first-century Jews to resist Roman rule, if only in

their own bodies. With so much of the world owing their religions to this time and place,

this context should be borne in mind. First century Judea was filled with conflict on

many levels, not least of these being an ideological conflict waged in the body of the

ascetic.


32/34

Bibliography

Anderson, Bernard. 1999. Imagined Communities. London: Verso.

Aronoff, Myron. 1981. Civil Religion in Israel. RAIN0, 44: 2-6

Atkins, Robert A. Jr. 1991. Egalitarian Community: Ethnography and Exegesis.Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Baeck, Leo. 1947. The Pharisees. New York: Stratford Press, Inc.

Beall, Todd. 1988. Josephus Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead SeaScrolls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Boccaccini, Gabriele. 1998. Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Waysbetween Qumran and Enochic Judaism. Grand Rapids: William B. EerdmansPublishing Company.

Boyarin, Daniel. 1991. Internal Opposition in Talmudic Literature: The Case of theMarried Monk. Representations 0, 36: 87-113.

Brown, Peter. 1988. The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation inEarly Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press.

Crossan, J. Dominic. 1989. The Birth of Christianity. San Francisco: Harper Collins.

Crossan, J. Dominic. 1991. The Historical Jesus. San Francisco: Harper Collins.

Cumming, Alan. 1973. Pauline Christianity and Greek Philosophy: A Study of theStatus of Women. Journal of the History of Ideas 34, 4: 517-528.

Davies, Christie. 1982. Sexual Taboos and Social Boundaries. American Journal ofSociology 87, 5: 1032-1063.

Downing, F. Gerald. 1998. Cynics, Paul and the Pauline Churches. London:Routledge.

Flusser, David. 1989. The Spiritual History of the Dead Sea Sect. Woodstock: JewishLights Publishing.

Francis, James. 1995. Subversive Virtue: Asceticism and Authority in the Second-Century Pagan World. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.


33/34

Frenkel, F.E. 1964. Sex Crime and its Socio-Historical Background. Journal of theHistory of Ideas 25, 3: 333-352.

Gruenwald, Ithamar. 1975. The Ancient Community at Qumran. RAIN0, 10: 5-6.

Horsley, Richard. 1989. Sociology of the Jesus Movement. New York: Crossroad

Jones, Allen. 1985. Essenes: The Elect of Israel and the Priests of Artemis. Lanham:University Press of America.

Kokkinos, Nikos. 2002. Herods Horrid Death. Biblical Archaeology Review.March/April 2002.

Maier, Emanuel. 1975. Torah as Movable Territory. Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers 65, 1: 18-23.

Malherbe, Abraham. 1977. Social Aspects of Early Christianity. Baton Rouge:

Louisiana State University Press.

Mazrui, Ali. 1965. Sacred Suicide. Transition 0, 21: 10-15.

Meier, John P. 1991. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Volume One:The Roots of the Problem and the Person. New York: Doubleday.

Meier, John P. 1991. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Volume Two:Mentor, Message, and Miracles. New York: Doubleday.

Neusner, Jacob. 1973. From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism.Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Newton, M.B. Ada L.K. Newton, Ernest S. Esterly III and Emanuel Maier. 1976. Torahas Movable Territory. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 66, 1:174-181.

Patterson, Stephen John. 1993. The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus. Foundations andFacets Reference Series. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press.

Perkins, J. The Self as Sufferer. Harvard Theological Review 85: 247.

Ploeg, J. van der. 1958. The Excavations at Qumran. London: Longmans, Green and

Company.

Robinson, John. 1952. The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology. London: SCM PressLtd.

Saldarini, Anthony. 2001. Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society.Livonia: Dove Booksellers.


34/34

Schiffman, Lawrence. 1991. From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple andRabbinic Judaism. Hoboken: KTAV Publishing House.

Schiffman, Lawrence. (ed.) 1991. Texts and Traditions: A Source Reader for the Studyof Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism. Hoboken: KTAV Publishing House.

Theissen, Gerd. 1977. Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity. Philadelphia:Fortress Press.

Theissen, Gerd. 1992. Social Reality and the Early Christians. Philadelphia: FortressPress.

Vermes, Geza and Martin D. Goodman. 1989. The Essenes according to the ClassicalSources. Sheffield: JSOT Press.

Walters, Jonathan. 1997. Invading the Roman Body: Manliness and Impenetrability inRoman Thought. Roman Sexualities, eds. Judith P. Hallett and Marilyn Skinner.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Whiston, William. (trans.) 1995. The Works of Josephus. New York: HendricksonPublishers.

Wimbush, Vincet. 1987. Paul: The Worldly Ascetic. Macon: Mercer University Press.

Documents

godesky2002b Subversion Incarnate Asceticism as Political Resistance in Roman Judea, 6 – 66 CE