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