2. His Christology.
2. Again the Christology of Cerinthus deserves attention from this point of view. Here all our authorities are agreed. As a Judaizer Cerinthus held with the Ebionites that Jesus was only the son of Joseph and Mary, born in the natural way. As a Gnostic he maintained that the Christ first descended in the form of a dove on the carpenter’s son at his baptism; that He revealed to him the unknown Father, and worked miracles through him: and that at length He took His flight and left him, so that Jesus alone suffered and rose, while the Christ remained impassible[334]. It would appear also, though this is not certain, that he described this re-ascension of the Christ, as a return ‘to His own pleroma[335].’
Approach towards Cerinthian Christology in the Colossian heresy.
Now it is not clear from St. Paul’s language what opinions the Colossian heretics held respecting the person of our Lord; but we may safely assume that he regarded them as inadequate and derogatory. The emphasis, with which he asserts the eternal being and absolute sovereignty of Christ, can hardly be explained in any other way. But individual expressions tempt us to conjecture that the same ideas were already floating in the air, which ultimately took form and consistency in the tenets of Cerinthus. Thus, when he reiterates the statement that the whole pleroma abides permanently in Christ[336], he would appear to be tacitly refuting some opinion which maintained only mutable and imperfect relations between the two. When again he speaks of the true gospel first taught to the Colossians as the doctrine of ‘the Christ, even Jesus the Lord[337],’ his language might seem to be directed against the tendency to separate the heavenly Christ from the earthly Jesus, as though the connexion were only transient. When lastly he dwells on the work of reconciliation, as wrought ‘through the blood of Christ’s cross,’ ‘in the body of His flesh through death[338],’ we may perhaps infer that he already discerned a disposition to put aside Christ’s passion as a stumbling-block in the way of philosophical religion. Thus regarded, the Apostle’s language gains force and point; though no stress can be laid on explanations which are so largely conjectural.
The Gnosticism of the Colossians being vague and undeveloped.
But if so, the very generality of his language shows that these speculations were still vague and fluctuating. The difference which separates these heretics from Cerinthus may be measured by the greater precision and directness in the Apostolic counter-statement, as we turn from the Epistle to the Colossians to the Gospel of St. John. In this interval, extending over nearly a quarter of a century, speculation had taken a definite shape. The elements of Gnostic theory, which were before held in solution, had meanwhile crystallized around the facts of the Gospel. Yet still we seem justified, even at the earlier date, in speaking of these general ideas as Gnostic, guarding ourselves at the same time against misunderstanding with the twofold caution, that we here employ the term to express the simplest and most elementary conceptions of this tendency of thought, and that we do not postulate its use as a distinct designation of any sect or sects at this early date. Thus limited, the view that the writer of this epistle is combating a Gnostic heresy seems free from all objections, while it appears necessary to explain his language; and certainly it does not, as is sometimes imagined, place any weapon in the hands of those who would assail the early date and Apostolic authorship of the epistle.
On some points connected with the Essenes.
I.
THE NAME ESSENE.
Various forms of the name in Greek.
The name is variously written in Greek;
1. Ἐσσηνός: Joseph. Ant. xiii. 5. 9, xiii. 10. 6, xv. 10. 5, xviii. 1. 2, 5, B.J. ii. 8. 2, 13, Vit. 2; Plin. N.H. v. 15. 17 (Essenus); Dion Chrys. in Synes. Dion 3; Hippol. Hær. ix. 18, 28 (MS ἐσηνός); Epiphan. Hær. p. 28 sq, 127 (ed. Pet.).
2. Ἐσσαῖος: Philo II. pp. 457, 471, 632 (ed. Mang.); Hegesippus in Euseb. H.E. iv. 22; Porphyr. de Abstin. iv. 11. So too Joseph. B.J. ii. 7. 3, ii. 20. 4, iii. 2. 1; Ant. xv. 10. 4; though in the immediate context of this last passage he writes Ἐσσηνός, if the common texts may be trusted.
3. Ὀσσαῖος: Epiphan. Hær. pp. 40 sq., 125, 462. The common texts very frequently make him write Ὀσσηνός, but see Dindorf’s notes, Epiphan. Op. 1. pp. 380, 425. With Epiphanius the Essenes are a Samaritan, the Ossæans a Judaic sect. He has evidently got his information from two distinct sources, and does not see that the same persons are intended.
4. Ιἐσσαῖος, Epiphan. Hær. p. 117. From the connexion the same sect again seems to be meant: but owing to the form Epiphanius conjectures (οἶμαι) that the name is derived from Jesse, the father of David.
All etymologies to be rejected which derive the name.
If any certain example could be produced where the name occurs in any early Hebrew or Aramaic writing, the question of its derivation would probably be settled; but in the absence of a single decisive instance a wide field is opened for conjecture, and critics have not been backward in availing themselves of the license. In discussing the claims of the different etymologies proposed we may reject:
(i) From the Greek;
First: derivations from the Greek. Thus Philo connects the word with ὅσιος ‘holy’: Quod omn. prob. 12, p. 457 Ἐσσαῖοι … διαλέκτου ἑλληνικῆς παρώνυμοι ὁσιότητος, § 13, p. 459 τῶν Ἐσσαίων ἢ ὁσίων, Fragm. p. 632 καλοῦνται μὲν Ἐσσαῖοι, παρὰ τὴν ὁσιότητα, μοὶ δοκῶ [δοκεῖ;], τῆς προσηγορίας ἀξιωθέντες. It is not quite clear whether Philo is here playing with words after the manner of his master Plato, or whether he holds a pre-established harmony to exist among different languages by which similar sounds represent similar things, or whether lastly he seriously means that the name was directly derived from the Greek word ὅσιος. The last supposition is the least probable; but he certainly does not reject this derivation ‘as incorrect’ (Ginsburg Essenes p. 27), nor can παρώνυμοι ὁσιότητος be rendered ‘from an incorrect derivation from the Greek homonym hosiotes’ (ib. p. 32), since the word παρώνυμος never involves the notion of false etymology. The amount of truth which probably underlies Philo’s statement will be considered hereafter. Another Greek derivation is ἴσος, ‘companion, associate,’ suggested by Rapoport, Erech Millin p. 41. Several others again are suggested by Löwy, s.v. Essäer, e.g. ἔσω from their esoteric doctrine, or αἶσα from their fatalism. All such may be rejected as instances of ingenious trifling, if indeed they deserve to be called ingenious.
(ii) From names of persons or places;
Secondly: derivations from proper names whether of persons or of places. Thus the word has been derived from Jesse the father of David (Epiphan. l.c.), or from one ישי Isai, the disciple of R. Joshua ben Perachia who migrated to Egypt in the time of Alexander Jannæus (Löw in Ben Chananja i. p. 352). Again it has been referred to the town Essa (a doubtful reading in Joseph. Ant. xiii. 15. 3) beyond the Jordan. And other similar derivations have been suggested.
From Hebrew roots not supplying the right consonants,
Thirdly: etymologies from