Note 76 — THE ESSENES.

1513–1577.—Accordingly De Rossi occupies the first position. In his erudite work, called Meor Enajim, i.e., The Light of the Eyes, which is a Cyclopœdia of Biblical literature and criticism, this profound critic gives us a brief notice of this brotherhood, in which he maintains that the Essenes are identical with the Greek sect called Baithusians in the Talmud, and Therapeutae by Philo. His account is as follows: “It has often appeared to me strange that the Talmud should say nothing whatever about that sect which obtained a good report among the nations. I therefore examined the works of our sages, to ascertain whether I could find in them any distinction made between the Sadducees and the Baithusians. And it appeared to me that though both alike denied the traditional law (‏התורה שעל פה‎), yet the Baithusians are no where charged with the sin of denying, like the Sadducees, the immortality of the soul and future judgment. Moreover, I thought of the similarity of the names Baithusians and Essenes (‏ביתוסים איסיאי‎), and especially of the manner in which the ancients changed names. Now, owing to the word ‏בית‎ being so frequently found prefixed to names of schools and families, the appellation ‏ביתוסים‎ might easily have originated from a junction of the words ‏בית איסיאי‎. I also saw the passage in the Talmud, Sabbath, cap. viii, fol. 108, as quoted also in Sopherim, cap. i, which is as follows:—‘A Baithusian asked R. Joshuah whence do we know that phylacteries must not be written upon the skin of an unclean animal?’ To which he replied—‘It is written that the Lord’s law may be in thy mouth, ( Exod. xiii, 9 ) this signifies that phylacteries must be written upon the skin of an animal which thou canst take into thy mouth, i.e., eat.’ To this he said—‘This being the case, we must also not write the phylacteries upon the skin of an animal which died;’ [for an Israelite is as much forbidden to taste the flesh of it, as to eat an unclean animal.] Hereupon the Rabbi replied—‘I will tell thee a parable, to make the thing clear. Two men are condemned to death: the one the king kills, and the other is killed by the executioner: now, which of the two dost thou esteem higher? Surely the one whom the king himself has executed. So the animal which died, [i.e., which the King of Kings caused to die] must be preferred to the others.’ Whereupon the Baithusian said—‘Accordingly, we ought also to eat it.’ R. Joshuah replied—‘The Bible prohibits it ( Deut. xiv ), and dost thou want to eat it?’ The Baithusian then said—‘‏קלוס‎.’ This expression Rashi of blessed memory rightly says is Greek; i.e. ‘καλὸν.’ Hence it is to be inferred that the Baithusian was a Greek; and, indeed, we know from Philo and Josephus that the Essenes were also Greek Jews, living in Alexandria.… From all these things I easily quieted my mind, and concluded that the Baithusians are the same as the Essenes.’76 Now, from a careful perusal of the account given by Josephus of the Essenes, it will be seen that he never describes them as Greek Jews. Besides, this is utterly at variance with ancient tradition, as the Talmudic authorities most positively declare that the Baithusians and Sadducees were both alike in doctrine, that both derived their names from the founder of these sects, Baithos (‏ביתוס‎) and Zadok (‏צדיק‎), the disciples of Antigonus of Soho, and that they gave rise to these sects, through misinterpreting the following saying of their master77 which he had received from Simon the Just:—“Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of receiving a reward, but be ye like servants who serve their master without the view of receiving a reward,” recorded in Aboth. i. 3. Upon this Aboth d. R. Nathan (cap. v.) remarks, “Antigonus’ two disciples at first continued implicitly to teach this saying to their disciples, and these again to their disciples. At last, however, they began to ponder over it, and said—‘What did our fathers mean by this saying? Is a labourer to labour all day and not receive his wages in the evening? Now if our fathers had believed that there is another world, and a resurrection of the dead, they would not have spoken thus.’ Hence they dissented from the law, and from them originated the two sects, the Sadducees and the Baithusians, the Sadducees from Sadok and the Baithusians from Baithus. They used gold and silver vessels all the days of their life, not because they were proud, but because they said that the Pharisees themselves have a tradition that they afflict themselves in this world, and have nothing in the world to come.” From this we see that 1. The Baithusians, like the Sadducees, derived their appellation from the proper name of their founder, which is Baithus ‏ביתוס‎ so that the first part of the name ‏בית‎ cannot be separated from it. 2. Like the Sadducees, the Baithusians denied the immortality of the soul and the existence of angels, whereas the Essenes firmly believed in the immortality of the soul, and made the angels play a very important part in their creed. That the Sadducees and the Baithusians were considered to be identical, or, at all events, to hold similar doctrines is also evident from the fact that what is in one place of the Talmud ascribed to the former, is in another place ascribed to the latter. Thus, for instance, in Succa 48 b. the Sadducees are said to have questioned the necessity of bringing a libation of water on the Feast of Tabernacles; in Tosifta Succa cap. iii. it is ascribed to the Baithusians. In Maccoth, 5, b. Chagiga, 16 b. it is said that the Sadducees urged that a false witness should only then be executed if the individual whom he had falsely accused had already been executed; in Tosifta Sanhedrin, cap. vi. the same thing is ascribed to the Baithusians. According to Joma, 19 b. 53 a, the Sadducees would have it that the High Priest should put the incense on the fire outside the Sanctuary on the great Day of Atonement, in Tosifta Joma, cap. 1, and Jerusalem Joma, i. 5, this is also ascribed to the Baithusians. Comp. also 115, b., Megillath Taanith, cap. vi., with Tosifta Jadajim cap. ii. And 4. The Baithusians are constantly spoken of as heretics and false witnesses (comp. Jerusalem Rosh Ha-Shana, ii, 1; Babl. ibid. 226), which is utterly at variance with the high character given to the Essenes even by those who belonged to opposite sects.