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 [[60]]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 [[61]]the following saying of their master[77] 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 [[62]]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.
1587–1643.—Our learned countryman, Dr. Thomas Godwyn occupies the next position. In his interesting and erudite volume, entitled Moses and Aaron: which was first published in London 1625, Godwyn devotes the twelfth chapter of the first book to the Essenes. The etymology of this name he takes to be the Syriac אסא to heal, to cure diseases, and submits that they were called Essenes = θεραπευται physicians, because they cultivated the study of medicine. His summary of their doctrines and practices is made from Josephus’ description of them as well as from Philo’s reputed account of the Therapeutae which has nothing to do with the Palestinian Essenes. Godwyn also gives a number of supposed parallels between the doctrines and practices of [[63]]Essenism and Pythagorism. He does not attempt to account for these resemblances, nor does he try to trace the origin of the brotherhood. He is, however, certain that they existed in the time of Judas Maccabæus and “continued until the day of our Saviour and after; for Philo and Josephus speak of them as living in their time.” He assigns the following reasons for their not being mentioned in the New Testament 1. Their being small in number. 2. “They were peaceable and quiet, not opposing any; and therefore not so liable to reproof as the Pharisees and Sadducees, who opposed each other, and both joined against Christ.” 3. They were passed over in silence in the New Testament just “as the Rechabites in the Old Testament, of whom there is mention only once and that obliquely, although their order continued about three hundred years, before this testimony was given of them by the Prophet Jeremiah.” And 4. “Though the name of the Essenes be not found in Scripture, yet we shall find in St. Paul’s Epistles many things reproved, which were taught in the school of the Essenes. Of this nature was that advice given unto Timothy:—‘Drink no longer water, but use a little wine.’ ( 1 Tim. v. 23 ). Again, ‘Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats is a doctrine of devils’ ( 1 Tim. iv. 3 ); but especially Colossians ii. , in many passages the Apostle seemeth directly to point at them, ‘Let no man condemn you in meat and drink’ (verse 16 ): ‘Let no man bear rule over you, by humbleness of mind and worshipping of angels’ (verse 18 ) ‘Why are ye subject to ordinances (τί δογματίζεσθε verse 20 )?’ The Apostle useth the word δόγματα which was applied by the Essenes to denote their ordinances aphorisms or constitutions. In the verse following he gives an instance of some particulars, ‘Touch not, taste not, handle not’ (ver. 21 ). Now the junior company of Essenes might not touch the seniors. And in their diet their taste was limited to bread, salt, water [[64]]and hyssop. And these ordinances they undertook διὰ πόθον σοφίας saith Philo, for the love of wisdom; but the Apostle concludeth (ver. 23 ) that these things had only λόγον σοφίας a show of wisdom. And whereas Philo termeth the religion of the Essenes by the name of θεράπεια which word signifieth religious worship; the Apostle termeth in the same verse εθιλεθρεκείαν voluntary religious worship or will worship; yea, where he termeth their doctrine πάτρων φιλοσοφιας a kind of philosophy received from their forefathers by tradition; St. Paul biddeth them beware of philosophy (ver. 8 ).” I have given this extract in full because succeeding writers have with more or less exactness based their opinion upon it. In animadverting upon it, I need only refer to the former part of this Essay, where it will be seen that some of the things here mentioned, are not peculiar to the Essenes, and others do not belong to them at all, whilst the last quotation from Philo describes the Therapeutae and not the Essenes.[78]
1628–1678.—Next in point of time is Theophilus Gale, who gives us a description of the Essenes in his famous work called The Court of the Gentiles, part ii. (Oxford, 1671), book ii. § 9, p. 146–156. As might be expected from this learned writer, who wrote this elaborate work to demonstrate that “the original of all human literature, both philology and philosophy, is from the Scriptures and the Jewish Church,” he endeavours to prove that Pythagoras took the whole of his philosophic system from the Essenes. “As for the origination of their name,” Gale tells us, “they were called חסדים i.e. according to the Greek καθαροὶ and according to our English dialect pure. Now the origination or rise of these Essenes I conceive (by the best conjectures I can make from antiquity), to be in or immediately after the Babylonian captivity (though some make them later), and the occasion of their separation [[65]]and consociation seems this. Many of the carnal Jews defiling themselves either by being too deeply plunged in worldly affairs, even to the neglect of their religion, or, which was worse, by sensual compliances with their idolatrous lords, thereby to secure their carnal interests, these חסדים or Essenes, to preserve themselves from these common pollutions, separated and retired themselves from the crowd of worldly affairs into an holy solitude, and private condition of life; where they entered into a strict confederation or consociation to lead together a collegiate devout life.”[79] He then gives an epitome of their doctrines and practices, and finally endeavours to shews that Pythagoras got his system from them. In doing this, Gale mixes up the Therapeutae with the Essenes, and follows largely the description of Godwyn.
1643–1724.—We then come to Dean Prideaux, who has a lengthy description of the Essenes in The Old and New Testaments Connected, part ii. book v., which first appeared in London, 1717. The chief value of Prideaux’s work on this subject consists in the fact, that he has given in English Philo and Josephus on the Essenes, as well as the short notice from Pliny. In his own remarks, which follow these extracts, he, in common with his predecessors, mixes up the Therapeutae with the Essenes, and tries to repel the Romanists who adopted the assertion of Eusebius (Hist. Ecclesiast. lib. ii. c. 17), that these Therapeutae or contemplative Essenes were Christian monks instituted by St. Mark. He also endeavours to expose the folly of the Deists, who infer, from the agreement between the Christian religion and the documents of the Essenes, that Christ and his followers were no other than a sect branched out from that of the Essenes. Among the accusations which the Dean brings against the Essenes for violating the law of God, is the charge that they “absolutely condemned servitude which the holy Scriptures of the [[66]]New Testament ( Philemon 9–21 ), as well as the Old, allow.”[80] Instead of blaming them for repudiating slavery, we believe that the civilized world in the present day will be unanimous in pronouncing it to have been one of the glorious features of Essenism, anticipating the spirit of Christianity and the philanthropy of the nineteenth century.
1653–1723.—Basnage gives a very lengthy account of the Essenes in his History of the Jews lib. ii. chaps. xii. xiii. Those who are acquainted with the writings of this learned Frenchman, know that he could not write on anything without bringing together a mass of useful information. He, however, mistook the character of the Essenes, as well as the value of the documents upon which he relies. Preferring Philo’s account to that of Josephus, though the latter lived amongst the Essenes, Basnage confounds the brotherhood with the Therapeutae, and hence asserts that “they borrowed several superstitions from the Egyptians, among whom they retired.” Through this, he is led to occupy by far the greater part of his description with the needless discussion of the question “Whether the Essenes from being Jews were converted to Christianity by St. Mark, and founded a monastic life.”[81]
1692–1762.—Dr. Jennings’ chapter on the Essenes is simply a commentary on Godwyn’s account. Jennings disputes some of the imaginary parallels between Essenism and Pythagorism exhibited by Godwyn, and inclines to the opinion “that the Essenes begun a little before the time of the Maccabees, when the faithful Jews were forced to fly from the cruel persecutions of their enemies into deserts and caves, and by living in those retreats, many of them being habituated to retirement, which thereby became most agreeable to them, they chose to continue it, even when they might have appeared upon the public [[67]]stage again, and accordingly formed themselves into recluses.” As to the difficulty to account for “the absolute silence of the evangelical history concerning the Essenes,” Jennings reiterates the remarks of Godwyn upon the subject.[82]
In 1821, appeared in Berlin, Bellermann’s valuable little volume on the Essenes and Therapeutae.[83] The author with characteristic German industry and perseverance, brought together in this monograph the ancient documents on the Essenes. His critical acumen, however, is not commensurate to his industry, and while his little volume will deservedly continue to be a useful manual for the student who wishes to acquaint himself with what Philo, Pliny, Josephus, Solinus, Porphyry, Epiphanius and Eusebius said upon this subject, it is to be questioned whether Bellermann’s conclusions will be shared by many. He is of opinion that “the Essenes and Baithusians are the same both in name and doctrine,” and that “the Essenes have four other names in history besides their proper name, viz.:—they are called, 1, Therapeutae by the Greek Alexandrians. 2. Hiketeans by Philo, in the superscription to the Treatise on contemplative life. 3. Ossenes or Ossens, by Epiphanius. And 4, Baithusians in the Talmud, and by several Rabbins. As this notion, which has been advanced by De Rossi three centuries and a half ago, has already been refuted, it would be needless to repeat the arguments here.
1825.—Neander, whose first instalment of his gigantic Church History appeared in 1825, now began to grapple with this mysterious brotherhood. In the introductory chapter of this history, in which a description is given of the religious condition of the world at the advent of Christ, he gives a very [[68]]brief but very pregnant sketch of the Essenes. With that deep penetration, which was one of the chief characteristics of this sagacious critic, he repudiates the notion that the Essenes originated under foreign influences, and maintains that “it is a gross error to infer from the resemblance of certain religious phenomena the relationship of which is to be traced to a common inward cause, inherent in the nature of the human mind, that they have an external origin, having been copied from the other.” Hence, he submits that Essenism arose out of the deeper religious meaning of the Old Testament, that it afterwards adopted some of the old Oriental, Parsee, and Chaldean notions, and that it had no Alexandrian elements. Neander moreover most justly cautions against the accounts of Philo and Josephus, saying that they clothed the opinions of the Essenes in a garb peculiarly Grecian, which we might rightly consider as not originally belonging to them.[84]
1829.—The difficulty which perplexed Christian writers, arising from the fact that the Essenes are not mentioned in the New Testament, did not affect Jewish writers, although it is true that this name is also not to be found in the ancient Jewish writings. For if it be granted that this appellation is a corruption of an Aramaic word, the Essenes must be looked for in the Talmud and Midrashim, which are chiefly written in Aramaic, under their original designation whatever that might be. The clue to it must, of course, be the identity of the features ascribed to them by Philo and Josephus and those ascribed in the ancient Jewish volumes to any order of Judaism. To this task Rappaport, the corypheus of Jewish critics, betook himself. Knowing that the Essenes were no distinct sect, in the strict sense of the word, but simply an order of Judaism, and that there never was a rupture between them and the rest of the Jewish community, Rappaport most [[69]]justly does not expect that they would be spoken of under a fixed denominational name. He therefore rejects De Rossi’s notion that the Baithusians, so frequently denounced in the Talmud and Midrashim, are the Essenes described by Philo and Josephus, and sought to identify them by their peculiar practices, expecting to find that they would be spoken of by different names. He soon found that what Philo and Josephus describe as peculiarities of the Essenes tallies with what the Mishna, the Talmud, and the Midrashim record of the Chassidim (חסדים), and that they are most probably the so-called old believers (ותיקין), who are also described in the Talmud as the holy community in Jerusalem (קהלא קדישא דבירושלים). He rightly recognised in them an intensified form of Pharisaism, and remarks that what is said in the Mishna about the moderation observed in eating and drinking, the great humility, endurance under sufferings, zeal for everything that is holy, community of goods, &c, refers to this holy community, or the Essenes. He also quotes the following remark from the Midrash Coheleth, on Eccles. ix, 9 , about this holy community; “Rabi repeated from the traditions of the holy community (עדה קדושה) ‘acquire a trade in connection with the study of the Scriptures, &c.’—[Query] ‘Why are they called holy community?’ [Reply] ‘Because they divided the day into three divisions—devoting one-third to the study of the Scriptures, another to prayer, and the third to work. Some say that they devoted the whole of the winter to studying the Scriptures and the summer to work.’ ” He, too, was the first who pointed out that the prayer which Josephus tells us the Essenes offered up at the rising of the sun, is the national hymn of praise, which still constitutes a part of the Jewish daily service, and is as follows:—
He in mercy causes His light to shine upon the earth and upon the inhabitants thereof; and in His goodness unfailingly renews every day the work of creation. How numerous are Thy works, O Lord! Thou hast made them all in wisdom; the earth is full of Thy possessions. [[70]]O King, Thou only art the exalted one from everlasting, the praised and glorified and extolled since the days of yore! Lord of the universe, in Thy great mercy have mercy upon us! Lord our might, fortress of our strength, shield of our salvation, defend us! O Lord, be Thou praised, Thou great in wisdom, who hast ordained and created the rays of the sun: the Infinitely Good has formed a glorious testimony for His name. He surrounded His majesty with luminaries. The chiefs of His heavenly hosts are holy beings; they glorify the Almighty; they continually declare the glory of God and his holiness. Blessed be the Lord our God, for the excellency of the works of Thy hands, and for the shining luminaries which Thou hast. They shall glorify Thee for ever.
God, the Lord of all created things, is praised and blessed in the mouths of all the living. His power and goodness fill the universe; wisdom and intelligence are round about Him. He exalts himself above the angels, and beams in glory upon his chariot-throne. Interceding goodness and rectitude are before His throne, loving-kindness and mercy before his majesty. Benign are the luminaries which our God has created. He has formed them in wisdom, intelligence, and understanding; He has endowed them with power and strength, to bear rule in the midst of the world. Filled with splendour and brightness, their glory illuminates all the world; rejoicing in rising and joyous in setting they perform with awe the will of their Creator. They give praise and glory to His name, joy and song to the memory of His kingdom. He called the sun, and light rose; He saw and shaped the form of the moon. Praise Him all ye heavenly hosts; ascribe glory and majesty to Him ye seraphim, ophanim, and holy angels.