A therapeuták kontemplatív kegyessége

Abstract

Summary The spiritual heritage of Philo of Alexandria had been undertaken by Christianity and bequeathed to us. Eusebius of Caesaria (died in 340) had also contributed to it. He considered the therapeutai to be the monks of early Christianity and connected them to the community which – according to the tradition transmitted by him – was founded by Mark in Alexandria. Their ascetical way of life reminded him of the Old Testament prophets and their lack of property and their concern to philosophy reminded him of the early Christians. However he noticed that they promoted Jewish practices. Epiphanius (c. 315–403) adopted Eusebius’ view. He expressed his opinion that the Therapeutai originally had been called >Iessai/oi which in his view had the meaning of healers or worshippers. In De vita contemplativa (DVC) he affirms that it refers to the Essenes (Panarion XXIX. 4,9–10; 5,1). Jerome (died in 420), father of the church agrees with Eusebius’ supposition and later Mikhael of Syria, the Monophysite patriarch of Antioch follows the same line. Eusebius’ view on the Therapeute devotion defined its range for centuries. His view was nor revised until the Age of Reformation. The followers of Reformation criticized monastic order as well. The Roman Catholic Church replied by sustaining that monasticism grew out of the early Christian tradition trying to verify this tradition by the Therapeutai’s devotion based on Eusebius’ interpretation. Martinus Chemnicius and Joseph Justus Scaliger got to the conclusion that the Therapeutai’s devotion movement has to be considered a Jewish sect. Roman Catholic scholars turned against this view and its supporters and during the dispute that lasted for about three and a half centuries the critical view grew stronger. Some of the scholars even doubted Philo’s authorship (H. Grätz, Paul Ernst Lucius, E. Schürer, A. Hilgenfeld, Eduard Zeller, Abraham Kuenen, I.M. Jost, T.K. Cheyne, J. Drummond and R.F. Littledale). The study of the Therapeute issue got to a decisive turn with the publication of F. C. Conybeare’s book in 1895. It is a response to P.E. Lucius’ critical study, as Lucius relied on Eusebius’ view and on the studies that carried further his interpretation. The research work carried on by Conybeare, M. L. Massebieau and P. Wendland conclusively proved that DVC was written by Philo about 30 AD; its language, vocabulary and style are characteristic to Philo and the ideas developed here are to found in other writings of his. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls new possibilities have been opened for drawing a parallel between the Essene and Therapeute movements of devotion. Philo might have been in direct connection with the Therapeutai who dwelt in the neighbourhood of Alexandria and it seems that he belonged more or less to their community (De specialibus legibus III, 1–6). The subjectivism of DVC informs us on Philo’s being on brotherly terms with the Therapeutai dwelling by Mareotis-Lake. The description of the Therapeutai’s habitation, houses common sacred places gives the same factual impression as Philo’s writings on the Essenes. Consequently Philo’s work is based on his personal experience and we have to view the activity of the Therapeute community historically. Nevertheless it is impossible for us to draw a historical picture of the existence of the Therapeute community relying on his account. He does not inform on the time, reasons and circumstances of its appearance. He acknowledges nothing but the fact that in the first decade of the 1st century there lived a restricted number of Therapeutai in Egypt. Referring to the su/sthma word which occurs in 75. §, Conybeare observes that the Therapeute community could function as sodalitas for which state authorization was necessary. So the Therapeute community may have been recognized either under Augustus’ or Tiberius’ reign (Conybeare, 297–299). In so far as it is reliable, the community must have shown a certain level of organization at the turn of our era. DVC is part of Quod omnis probus liber sit written on the Essenes of Palestine. It is striking however that the latter is a very short account. Hence we can deduce that the writing on the Essenes alluded to in DVC may have got lost. This work and DVC is supposed to have described Jewish “philosophy” for the Greek and Roman educated reader having tried to prove that the Jews did have their own philosophy and philosophical schools as well. F. C. Conybeare got to the conclusion that the subtitle of DVC Peri\ a>retw~n to\ te/tarton (On Virtues. Book Four) hints at a series of books by Philo (Apologia) on virtues, namely on the order of God’s virtues (active force). In so far as DVC had been returned earlier it may have been enclosed later by Philo on the occasion of his legation to Gaius. The series of writings issued in this way may have been formed of the following books: 1. Legatio ad Gaium; 2. In Flaccum; 3. Quod omnis probus liber sit (which may have got occasionally into the series – B. Motzo); 4. De vita contemplativa (Conybeare). Scientists certainly agree that DVC and Quod omnis probus liber sit on the Essenes belong together. The two books were included in Apologia (L. Cohn, P. Wendland, L. Massebieau, N. Smirnov, F. Daumas), or in the lengthier Ioudai/wn (V. L. Ivanizki). The addition to Greek title (Peri\ bi/ou cewrhtikou~) of the DVC (h& i