[Literature.—Wellhausen,Die Pharisäer und Sadduzäer(1874); Cohen,Les Pharisiens(1877); Baneth,Ursprung der Sadokäer und Boethusäer(1882); Schürer, II, ii. pp. 1-43 (1897), German ed., II, pp. 447-489 (1907); Bertholet,Die Stellung der Israeliten zu den Fremden(1896); Elbogen,Die Religionsanschauungen der Pharisäer... (1904); M. Friedländer,Die religiösen Bewegungen..., pp. 22-113 (1905); O. Holtzmann,Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, pp. 200-214 (1906); Hölscher,Der Sadduzäismus(1906); Büchler,Der galiläische Am-ha-Ares des zweiten Jahrhunderts(1906); Chwolson,Das letzte Passamahl Christi... [Appendix] (1908); Hart,Ecclesiasticus..., pp. 272-320 (1909); Chwolson,Beiträge zur Entwickelungsgeschichte des Judentums, pp. 1-54 (1910); Schechter,Fragments of a Zadokite Work(vol. I of “Documents of Jewish Sectaries”) (1910); Oesterley and Box,The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, pp. 120-139 (1911); Herford,Pharisaism, its aim and its methods(1912); Leszynsky,Die Sadduzäer(1912); Charles, II, pp. 785-834 (1913); Lauterbach, “The Sadducees and Pharisees”: A Study of their respective attitudes towards the Law; inStudies in Jewish Literature, issued in honour of Prof. Kaufmann Kohler, pp. 176-198 (1913); this essay is a part of a larger work on the Sadducees and Pharisees which the writer has in preparation. See also Büchler’s article on Schechter’s book, mentioned above, inThe Jewish Quarterly Review, January, 1913, pp. 429-485.]
[Literature.—Wellhausen,Die Pharisäer und Sadduzäer(1874); Cohen,Les Pharisiens(1877); Baneth,Ursprung der Sadokäer und Boethusäer(1882); Schürer, II, ii. pp. 1-43 (1897), German ed., II, pp. 447-489 (1907); Bertholet,Die Stellung der Israeliten zu den Fremden(1896); Elbogen,Die Religionsanschauungen der Pharisäer... (1904); M. Friedländer,Die religiösen Bewegungen..., pp. 22-113 (1905); O. Holtzmann,Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, pp. 200-214 (1906); Hölscher,Der Sadduzäismus(1906); Büchler,Der galiläische Am-ha-Ares des zweiten Jahrhunderts(1906); Chwolson,Das letzte Passamahl Christi... [Appendix] (1908); Hart,Ecclesiasticus..., pp. 272-320 (1909); Chwolson,Beiträge zur Entwickelungsgeschichte des Judentums, pp. 1-54 (1910); Schechter,Fragments of a Zadokite Work(vol. I of “Documents of Jewish Sectaries”) (1910); Oesterley and Box,The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, pp. 120-139 (1911); Herford,Pharisaism, its aim and its methods(1912); Leszynsky,Die Sadduzäer(1912); Charles, II, pp. 785-834 (1913); Lauterbach, “The Sadducees and Pharisees”: A Study of their respective attitudes towards the Law; inStudies in Jewish Literature, issued in honour of Prof. Kaufmann Kohler, pp. 176-198 (1913); this essay is a part of a larger work on the Sadducees and Pharisees which the writer has in preparation. See also Büchler’s article on Schechter’s book, mentioned above, inThe Jewish Quarterly Review, January, 1913, pp. 429-485.]
It is usually held that the name Pharisee is derived from a root (p-r-sh) meaning to “separate,” and that the Pharisees took their name, or received it, in order to emphasizetheir separation from the common people. This is, on the face of it, difficult to accept when one remembers that the Pharisees were the champions of the oral Law, which was, in the first instance, based upon popular traditional custom. The inappropriateness of this explanation becomes glaring when it is considered that everything we know about the Pharisees shows us that so far from separating themselves from the people this is exactly what they did not do; they arose from the ranks of the people, and unlike the aristocratic Sadducees, were always among the people, as the Gospels show. If it be said that their “separateness” consisted not in keeping apart from the people, but that they were “separate” in the sense of their being so much holier, the reply is that in this case we should not expect their name to be derived from the rootp-r-sh, but from what would have been the far more appropriate oneq-d-sh, which means “separate” in the sense in which holiness brings this about.[153]But what is further a strong argument against this theory is the fact that it has absolutely no support from the sources. Josephus says, for example, that “while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace as their followers, the Pharisees have the multitude on their side.”[154]That certainly does not look like separation from the ordinary people. Further, Leszynsky has collected some interestingdatafrom the Mishna showing that in Pharisaic literature the term to “separate oneself” is used in a disparaging sense; in Niddah iv. 2, for example, this very term is used in reference to the Sadducees, whoare blamed as those who “separate themselves” from the congregation. Again, Hillel gives the command: “Separate not thyself from the congregation” (Aboth ii. 4). So that everything points to the theory which would explain the name Pharisee as “Separatist” as wrong. A more probable explanation is that already hinted at by Josephus, who says inBell. Jud., II, viii. 14 of the Pharisees that “they are those who seem to explain the laws with accuracy.” Here we may recall the passage, Nehemiah viii. 8, referred to in the preceding chapter, where it is said that the teachers of the Law “read in the book, in the Law of God, interpreting [from the rootp-r-sh] it; and they gave the sense, and caused (the people) to understand the reading.” Further, in Rabbinical literature this root,p-r-sh, from which the name Pharisee is derived, is constantly found used in the sense of to “explain,” “expound,” or “interpret,” in reference to Scripture which is explained in the interests of the oral Law. So that, while the rootp-r-shmeans both to “separate” and to “interpret,” all the evidence goes to show that as used in connection with the name Pharisee it has the sense of to “interpret” or “expound.” The term Pharisees may thus be said to mean “expounders” of the Scriptures in the interests of the oral Law; and this is just what the Pharisees werepar excellence. Their close association with the Scribes, as often alluded to in the Gospels, serves still further to support this view.
When transliterated from its Hebrew form the term “Sadducees” appears asZaddūkim; it has been held that this is derived from the Hebrew wordzaddik, “righteous.”[155]But this derivation is improbable, for no analogy exists for this change of aniintou; but, even apart from this,to explainZaddūkimas meaning the “righteous ones” has no support from fact; for the Sadducees were never regarded as particularly righteous by others, nor did they ever make such a claim themselves.
An interesting explanation, offered, however, “with great diffidence,” is that given by Cowley. He says: “In modern Persian the wordZindīkis used in the sense of Manichæan, or, in a general sense, for infidel, one who does not believe in the resurrection or in the omnipotence of God. It has been adopted in Arabic with the meaning of infidel, and also in Armenian. Masūdi (tenth century) says that the name arose in the time of Manes to denote his teaching, and explains that it is derived from the Zend, or explanation, of the Avesta. The original Avesta was the truly sacred book, and the person who followed only the commentary was called aZindīk, as one who rejected the word of God to follow worldly tradition, irreligious. But the term cannot have originated in the time of Manes (third centuryA.D.), for the Zend ‘commentary,’ whatever view be taken as to its date, was by then already becoming unintelligible. It must be much earlier, and have acquired the general sense of infidel very soon.... Makrīzī (fifteenth century), who borrows largely from Masūdi, confuses theZanādikahwith the Samaritans and Sadducees, and says that they deny the existence of angels, the resurrection, and the prophets after Moses, whence it has been suggested thatZanādikahis a corruption ofZaddūkim. The reverse, may, however, be the case. It is quite possible that the Persian word was used aboutB.C.200 in the sense of ‘Zoroastrian,’ and if so, it might be applied by opponents to a party in Judæa who sympathized with foreign ideas, and rejected beliefs which were beginning to be regarded as distinctively Jewish. It would thus have been used at first in a contemptuous sense, and, later, when the original meaning was forgotten, was, in the well-known Jewishmanner, transformed in such a way as to bear the interpretation ‘Sons of Zadok’ (Bĕni Zadōk) with a suggestion of ‘righteous’ (Zaddīkim).... It may be mentioned, though perhaps as a mere coincidence, thatZanādikahis used for Sadducees in Arabic translations of the New Testament.”[156]Interesting and most ingenious as this theory is, it does not seem to be a sufficiently natural explanation; moreover, in one important respect theZindīkpresented a marked contrast in principle to the Sadducee; for while theZindīkwas one who followed the Zend, or explanation of the Avesta, the truly sacred book, i.e. “who rejected the word of God to follow worldly tradition,” the Sadducee was just the reverse, for he clung to the word of God, and he rejected the authority of the oral tradition, i.e. the Pharisaic explanations and traditions.[157]And further, as we shall see later, the normal type of Sadducee was not necessarily worldly or irreligious.
A third view, and one which may be regarded as the correct one, is that the term Sadducees (Zaddūkim) takes its origin from the personal name Zadok. The sons of Zadok (Bĕni Zadōk) were the descendants of the high-priest Zadok, whose family had exercised the priestly functions from the time of David (1 Chron. v. 27-41, xv. 11, xvi. 30, 40)[158]right up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, when their rule came to an end[159]; but the party continued toexist. Most modern scholars accept this explanation, which has, indeed, now been placed beyond doubt by the evidence of theZadokite Fragments(see further§ iii. (e) of this chapter).[160]
So much, then, for the origin of the terms “Pharisees” and “Sadducees.” We turn next to consider the sources whence we derive our knowledge of these two parties and their special tenets.
That the evidence to be derived from the writings of Josephus regarding the Pharisees and Sadducees is of great value is undeniable; but two facts must be borne in mind which show that this evidence has to be sifted before it can be relied upon. The first is this: Josephus does not write as a Jew with Jewish interests, but as a Greek from a Greek standpoint. A striking illustration of this is that to him the Jewish parties represent Greek schools of philosophy; thus, he compares the Pharisees with the Stoics,[161]the Essenes with the Pythagoræans,[162]and, although he does not directly say so, he evidently thought the Sadducæan point of view on some things closely connected withEpicuræanism.[163]In some ways Josephus was well equipped for giving information about Jewish parties, for he belonged to an aristocratic priestly family, he was related on the maternal side to the high-priest, was brought up as a Pharisee learned in the Law, and later became intimately acquainted with the teaching of the Sadducees and Essenes.[164]But this advantage is to some extent neutralized by his Hellenistic leaning as well as by the fact that war and politics interested him more than questions concerning Jewish religious culture. If his works are to be used with effect it is necessary to bring into the Greek scenery which he presents a Jewish colouring; one has constantly to be asking oneself, as Leszynsky humorously puts it, whether the shining armour of the warrior or the cloak of the philosopher may not, after all, contain a Rabbi.[165]
The second fact which somewhat detracts from the value of Josephus’ evidence is that in all probability that evidence is incomplete; for he says on two occasions in hisAntiquities(VIII, v. 9, XVIII, i. 2), when speaking of the Jewish parties, that this subject is dealt with in theJewish War, book the second; but on turning to this (II, viii. 14) we find a very scanty reference to the Pharisees and Sadducees, more scanty than the passing notices in theAntiquities; while the Essenes, the least important of the three bodies, are treated at considerable length. At the close of the chapter Josephus says: “This is what I had to say about the philosophic sects among the Jews.” One is forced to the conclusion that a considerable section has for some unknown reason been lost,[166]and that thereforethe evidence of Josephus on the subject of the Jewish parties is incomplete.
The earliest of these is the Mishna, which belongs to the second half of the second centuryA.D.; somewhat later is theTosephta,[167]i.e. a collection of “additions” to the Mishna; these additions consist of matter not incorporated in the Mishna, but they are taken from the same mass of floating traditional material of which the Mishna is made up. The three Midrashic works,Sifra(a commentary on Leviticus),Sifre(a commentary on Numbers and Deuteronomy), andMechilta(a commentary on Exodus), are also valuable sources.[168]Comparatively late as all these sources are—the earliest belongs to a time after the Sadducees and Pharisees had ceased to exist as parties—they are nevertheless of high importance because they all utilize traditional material belonging to earlier times, much of which most likely existed in written form; so that they contain many traditions dating back to the second centuryB.C.
The evidence contained in these sources consists in the main of records of controversies on various topics between Pharisees and Sadducees. It is in the highest degree improbable that these accounts should be fictitious, for by the time that they were incorporated in the Mishna the Pharisees had long triumphed over the Sadducees; there would, therefore, have been no point in making them up; they are evidently genuine records.[169]
This source is so familiar that it will be unnecessary to do more than merely mention it.
These are two fragments, discovered a few years ago by Schechter in the CairoGenizah.[170]They belong respectively to the eleventh and twelfth centuriesA.D., and deal with the religious beliefs and practices, as well as with details of the constitution, of a Jewish sect which existed in Damascus during the second centuryB.C.,[171]before the Maccabæan struggle. This sect possessed, in addition to the Old Testament, other sacred books; it had its special laws interpreting various commandments in Scripture; and it had, moreover, its own calendar. The sect looked upon itself as the remnant to which God had revealed “the hidden things in which all Israel erred.” The members of this sect had a special dislike for the Pharisees, against whom their polemics were directed. In the text of one of the manuscripts the Pharisees are denounced as transgressors of the Covenant; and various other accusations are brought against them, such as polygamy, and a wrong way of observing the dietary laws and the Levitical laws of purity. The Law, it is contended, was only discovered with the rise of Zadok. This antagonism to the Pharisees stamps the sect as representing some form of Sadducæanism, and this is further emphasized by the fact that the Messianicdoctrine taught agrees with that of the Sadducees against the Pharisaic teaching on the subject. The fragments raise a number of other questions which cannot be discussed here; the point of chief importance for us lies in the Sadducæan character of their contents.
These, then, are the sources from which we gain our information regarding the specific doctrines of the Sadducees and Pharisees, which we now proceed to consider.[172]
As the attitude of the Pharisees to the Law is so well known not many words need be devoted to describing it. All the sources agree that they were the championspar excellencenot so much of the written Law, but specifically of the oral Law, and that their energies were concentrated on the elaboration and minute observance of the latter. It is the attitude of the Sadducees to the Law with which we shall, therefore, mainly concern ourselves, for some other points of Sadducæan doctrine are closely connected with this.
We may begin by quoting the evidence of Josephus; he says inAntiquitiesXIII, x. 6: “The Pharisees have delivered to the people from the tradition of the fathers all manner of ordinances not contained in the laws of Moses; for which reason the sect of the Sadducees reject these ordinances; for they affirm that only such laws ought to be observed as are written, while those which are orally delivered from the tradition of the fathers are notbinding. And concerning these things great questionings and differences have arisen among them.”[173]
This piece of evidence may be frankly accepted, as far as it goes, not only because in itself it contains nothing intrinsically improbable, but also because it is borne out by the other sources. It shows us what was the fundamental cause of difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees, viz., as to whether anything besides the written Law was binding. What is particularly noticeable here is the fact that the Sadducees, not the Pharisees, were the real champions of the Law as such[174]; the Sadducees were the guardians of the Law in its purity, and desired to keep it free from accretions; the Pharisees were bent on attaching to the Law ordinances of which the Law itself knew nothing, and of making both equally authoritative and binding. But from this a very important thing results: as champions of the Law how can it be said, as is so often said, that the Sadducees, as a party, were worldly and lax as regards religious interests? In one passage, it is true, Josephus speaks of the opponents of the Pharisees as those who offend against the holy laws (Bell. Jud., I, v. 1), but the context shows that by these were meant the laws of the Pharisees, as distinct from the Law which was venerated by the Sadducees quite as much as by the Pharisees.
TheZadokite Fragmentscorroborate what has been said in so far that in them the Pentateuch, cited under the term Torah, is considered the main authority.
In the Gospels we have no direct evidence concerning the Sadducæan standpoint regarding the Law; but there are many indications regarding that of the Pharisees and their insistence on the oral traditions. These are, however,sufficiently well known not to require detailed mention here. One matter of special interest may be noted in passing, namely, that, so far as questions of the Law are concerned, Christ upholds the Sadducæan standpoint.[175]
The Rabbinical sources on this subject are of the highest importance; a detailed examination of them would require a special volume, but much valuable information has been gathered by Hölscher[176]and, in greater abundance, by Leszynsky.[177]Though the evidence is of a complicated character it fully bears out that of Josephus on this point. The Sadducees stood for the written Law, and this only; the Pharisees insisted upon the binding authority of the tradition of the fathers as well. That is the fundamental difference between them; the developments which either party saw itself compelled to countenance arose logically and irresistibly from this fundamental principle regarding the Law. But these developments were profoundly important. We will put the matter as succinctly as possible. The Sadducees stood for the written Law; but in the nature of things it constantly happened that new cases came up for decision for which the written Law provided no solution or guidance. The Sadducees were thus forced to put forth new ordinances; and in this they followed,nolens volens, the example of the Pharisees[178]; but, true to their fundamental principle, they saw to it that these new ordinances were based upon the written Law, so that they could claim that if changed conditions of life, or whateverother cause, necessitated the putting forth of new legal ordinances, these were at any rate developments of the written Law.[179]With the Pharisees it was different; they had always, in addition to the Law, championed the traditions of the fathers, i.e. the popular customs handed down from time immemorial; these had constantly been added to, whether based upon the written Law or not. Fromthe point of view of loyalty to the Law the Sadducæan position was unassailable, while that of the Pharisees was open to objection. The result was an intensive study of the letter of the Law (i.e. the Pentateuch), both by Pharisees and Sadducees; the former undertook this in order, by a method of interpretation peculiarly Pharisaic, to prove that the oral tradition was based on the written Law. They were forced to this by the more strictly legal attitude of the Sadducees; these latter, too, gave themselves to the minute study of the Pentateuch as never before, because, as the true guardians of the Law, they had to see whether in each individual case the Pharisaic contention was justified that such and such an ordinance of the oral tradition was based upon the written Law.
Thus endless discussions and acrimonious disputes arose between the two parties, which became further embittered by doctrinal disagreements. The Pharisees won the day ultimately, for they were able to show by subtle exegesis that the oral tradition was based upon the written Law. But, and this is the great point, the Sadducæan principle was thus victorious; as a party they went under; but the Pharisees, by adopting the Sadducæan principle that nothing is binding that cannot be shown to be in accordance with the written Law, implicitly acknowledged that the Sadducees had been right all along.
Leszynsky, in his masterly thesis on the subject, concludes the section on the evidence of Rabbinical sources with these words, which admirably sum up the matter: “The Pharisees conquered. True! And when with Rabbi Akiba the Pharisaic art of interpretation reached its zenith, and every letter of the Torah had been fitted into the Pharisaic system—then Sadducæanism came to an end. But they had only conquered by appropriating the principle of the enemy. From the party of tradition arose the party of the Torah as traditionally conceived. Rabbinical Judaismis in truth a synthesis of Pharisaism and Sadducæanism.”[180]See further below, § iv.
On this subject Josephus (Antiq., XIII, v. 9) tells us that while the Pharisees hold that some things in the world happen by the will of Providence, and that in other cases things lie in the power of men, the Sadducees, on the other hand, altogether deny the existence of Providence as an active force in the world; if, indeed, there is such a thing at all, they say, it does not concern itself with the affairs of men. Everything lies in the hand of men themselves, they alone are the cause if prosperity be their lot, while adversity is simply the result of their own foolishness. Again, in another passage (Bell. Jud., II, viii. 14) he tells us that, in contradistinction to the Pharisees, the Sadducees do not believe in Providence; they deny that God takes any interest in human affairs; good or evil is the lot of men according to their own free choice. This evidence of Josephus cannot be accepted so far as the Sadducees are concerned; we have seen that the written Law, or Pentateuch, was the supreme authority according to Sadducæan teaching; but in the Pentateuch the doctrine of God is such as to make it impossible to believe that what Josephus says really reflects Sadducæan belief here. What is said over and over again in the Pentateuch regarding the divine guidance of men and God’s incessant interposition in the affairs of the world of His creation impels one to affirm that Josephus is wrong in his contention that the Sadducees denied the existence of Providence. It is probable that the partisanship of the Pharisee Josephus has somewhat carried him away, and that he has, perhaps unconsciously, here misrepresented the Sadducæan position. This is the more probable in that, as we shall see presently, positive proof of such misrepresentation in another directionis forthcoming. When we turn to our other sources we find, in the first place, that in the Zadokite fragments the doctrine of God is in accordance with Old Testament teaching, and therefore in opposition to what Josephus says. In the second place, the evidence of the New Testament distinctly implies that the Sadducees did believe in the direct action of Providence in the affairs of men. Thus, we are told that when John the Baptist saw that many Pharisees and Sadducees were coming to his baptism, he said to them: “Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?”[181]If fear from the wrath to come was what induced the Sadducees, as well as the Pharisees, to come and be baptized, the fact proves that they believed in the divine interposition in the affairs of the world. Again, the same is implied in the words: “And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and tempting Him asked Him to show them a sign from heaven.”[182]And, once more, in the account of the discussion in the Sanhedrin as to what was to be done to St. Peter and the other apostles, who had been put in the public ward by the Sadducees,[183]Gamaliel concludes the discussion with a speech which ends with these words: “And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God”; it is then said: “And to him they agreed.” If there had been any real difference between the Pharisaic and Sadducæan doctrine of God this agreement would not have been recorded. We have an interesting example of what took place in the event of doctrinal disagreement in Acts xxiii. 1-10. We are, therefore, justified in concluding that on this subject the two parties agreed. So that theevidence of the New Testament is also against Josephus. The silence of the Rabbinical sources on this subject is of itself sufficient to prove Josephus wrong, for had there been any difference of belief on such a supremely important subject it is quite inconceivable that the Rabbis would have kept silence.
InBell. Jud., II, viii. 14, Josephus says that the Pharisees taught the incorruptibility of the soul, but that the Sadducees “did not believe in the immortal duration of the soul, and the rewards and punishments in Hades,” their belief being that “the souls die with the bodies.” In one respect here, as Leszynsky has pointed out, we are able to prove that Josephus has coloured his account; for Pharisaic Judaism taught not merely the incorruptibility of the soul, but also a doctrine of the resurrection of the body; but because this latter thought was strange to the Greeks he did not make mention of it. In his later work Josephus corrects himself in so far as to say that the Pharisees believed not only in the incorruptibility of the soul, but also in its continued life hereafter; his words are: “They (the Pharisees) also believe that souls have an immortal vigour in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and that the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again.”[184]According to these words there was no difference in this respect between the Pharisees and the Essenes; but even here Josephus cannot bring himself to declare the whole truth concerning the real Pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection. “It is probable,” says Leszynsky, “that this error immediately resulted in the rise of another, for sincethe Essenes had their belief in immortality, and the Pharisees that of the incorruptibility of the soul—or, as in the other account, the continued life of the soul hereafter—there remained nothing for the Sadducees but a denial pure and simple of the future life. He who, like Josephus, puts resurrection and immortality on precisely the same plane, necessarily imputes to him who denies the resurrection the view that the soul is perishable.... But both from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 90b) and from the New Testament (Matt. xxii. 23 ff.; Acts xxiii. 8, cp. iv. 1), we know that the Sadducees denied only the doctrine of the resurrection, for they required proof of this from the Torah which was not forthcoming. But of this un-Greek dogma Josephus would have nothing to say.”[185]The possibility that the Sadducees held the ancient Israelite conception of the existence of the soul in Sheol must, at any rate, be allowed; for we cannot accept the evidence of Josephus here unreservedly. If we had only the New Testament and the Talmud to go upon we should certainly not deny that the Sadducees believed in accordance with the ancient dogma of their race; yet these two sources are assuredly more reliable than Josephus. There is, moreover, nothing in the Zadokite fragments to support the evidence of Josephus.[186]We may, therefore, conclude that the Sadducees believed in the immortality of the soul, but not in any doctrine of the resurrection.
In Acts xxiii. 8 it is said that “the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit”; this is the only authority which we have on the latter point; it is not referred to either in Josephus’ works or in the Talmud, nor have theZadokite Fragmentsanything tosay about it. Now since the Sadducees regarded the written Law as their final authority, it would certainly have been strange if they had really denied the existence of angels, for one has but to recall such passages as Genesis xvi. 1 ff., xxviii. 10 ff., Numbers xx. 16, xxii. 22 ff., and others, to realize that the written Law distinctly teaches a doctrine of angels. One has, therefore, to recognize the possibility that what is said on this subject in Acts xxiii. 8 may be due to a mistaken inference derived from the Sadducæan disbelief in the resurrection, namely, that thedeparteddo not become angels or spirits[187]; this does not necessarily deny the existence of angelic beings who have never been in the flesh.[188]
One other specifically Sadducæan doctrine must be briefly mentioned, namely that of the Messiah. As against the Pharisees, who taught that the Messiah was to be of the seed of David, and who thus held the old prophetic belief of Isaiah and Jeremiah, the Sadducees, regarding the Pentateuchal Law as the supreme arbiter in all matters, and finding nothing there which spoke of the Messianic ruler as belonging to the house of David, held that Aaron and his seed were the chosen ones from whom the Messiah would ultimately proceed; it was with Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, that God had made an eternal covenant; and, therefore, as Ezekiel (xliv. 15 ff.) had prophesied, the sons of Zadok[189]were to be the rulers of the people, and the Messiah must be of priestly blood (cp. Exod. xix.6).[190]So that, as Leszynsky points out (p. 94), the very name of the Sadducæan party, i.e. the Zadokites (the descendants of Zadok) also had a place in the strife regarding the TorahversusTradition.
In theZadokite Fragmentsthe teaching concerning the Messiah is important; there is frequent reference to a “Teacher” who is called the “Only Teacher,” or the “Only One,” and is identical with “the Lawgiver who interprets the Law.” There is a period intervening before the first appearance of this Teacher, who was the Founder of the Sect, and his second appearance, which is to be at “the end of the days.” Now this Teacher is identified with the Messiah, “the Anointed One from Aaron and Israel, whose advent is expected by the Sect, through whom He made them to know His holy spirit, and in whose rise the Sect saw the fulfilment of the prophecy,there shall come a star out of Jacob. Apparently this Anointed One was rejected by the great bulk of the nation who ‘spokerebellion’ against Him. What must be especially noted is that the Messiah of the Sect is a priest, a descendant from Aaron and Israel. Of a Messiah descending from Judah there is no mention in our text. Indeed, ‘after the completing of the end ... one shall not join the house of Judah,’ whilst the princes of Judah, the removers of the bound, will be visited by the wrath of God. Among these princes, King David is also included, who is held in slight estimation by the Sect. As a contrast to and substitute for David and his dynasty, the Sect put up Zadok, and his descendants, the sons of Zadok.”[191]There is nothing which so stamps the character of these fragments as just this doctrine of the Messiah.
This is a somewhat intricate subject; but the main point is that the Sadducees held that time must be measured on the basis of a solar year; they thus opposed the Pharisaic mode of reckoning which was on the basis of the lunar year. The Pharisees followed the ancient Hebrew tradition; but the unsatisfactory character of this mode of reckoning time must have been realized in early times; and the Pharisees, in getting over the obvious difficulties by inserting a thirteenth month in the spring whenever necessary, were following the oral Tradition. This was sufficient for the opposition of the Sadducees who sought to reform the Calendar by measuring time on the basis of the solar year. The Sadducees and Pharisees accordingly accused each other of observing feasts at a wrong time,[192]or of wishing to.
Of the ordinary sources only the Rabbinical contain echoes, and these but slight, of the controversy whichexisted between the Sadducees and Pharisees on this subject[193]; but the Book of Jubilees, the Book of 1 Enoch and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs give indications of it; and in theZadokite Fragmentsthere are also references to the subject; Schechter says in his introduction: “Another point of supreme importance separating them [i.e. the members of the Zadokite sect] both from Jew as well as Samaritan is the regulation of the calendar. The Sect looks upon itself as the remnant unto which God revealed ‘the hidden things in which all Israel erred: His Holy Sabbaths and His glorious festivals, the testimony of His righteousness and the ways of His truth and the desires of His will which a man shall do and live by them.’ It need hardly be pointed out that this passage is a mere paraphrase of the passage in the Book of Jubilees: ‘And all the children of Israel will forget, and will not find the path of the years, and will forget the new moons, and seasons, and Sabbaths, and they will go wrong as to all the order of the years’ (vi. 34 ff.). The ‘hidden things’ are, in the Book of Jubilees, disclosed to the Sect by a special revelation (vi. 3), but the calendar ofthis pseudepigraphicwork differs in the most important essentials both from that of the Pharisees and from that of the Samaritans” (p. xvi.). In the Book of Jubilees the solar year is accepted.
That this controversy must have been of an acute character is obvious, and at first one may wonder that the ordinary sources do not refer to it. But in the New Testament one would not expect any reference to it; and Josephus is mainly concerned with doctrinal points when speaking about the Sadducees. As to the slight mention of the subject in Rabbinical Literature Leszynsky explains it by saying that “it would almost seem as though the Rabbis wished by their silence to kill this the most dangerous ofall questions which menaced Judaism; they did not wish to raise up again the spirit of doubt to quell which had cost them so much trouble.”[194]
On the other hand, we have definite witness to the existence of the quarrel in some of the pseudepigraphic books, as hinted above, and theZadokite Fragments, as we have just seen, offer strong evidence in regard to it.
There is, of course, a great deal more that might be said on the whole subject of the Pharisees and Sadducees, especially about the Pharisees; but our main purpose has been to set forth the chief differences of doctrine between the two; and we have laid more stress on the Sadducæan position because this has not, as a rule, received the same attention as the Pharisaic.[195]
It is of importance to recognize that, with one exception, viz. theZadokite Fragments, the main sources which give us information about the Sadducees come from the hands of adversaries. Josephus was a Pharisee, or at all events he claimed to be; the New Testament writers, for obvious reasons, had little sympathy with the Sadducees; the Rabbis were the spiritual descendants of the bitterest enemies of the Sadducees. But even so, some of the adverse impressions about the Sadducees widely current do not receive much support from the sources. For example, it is often assumed that the Sadducees were lax in regard to the Law, that they were sceptics and irreligious generally; but this is not borne out by the evidence when usedwith discrimination. Josephus nowhere says that the Sadducees were irreligious or antagonistic to the Law; nor does the New Testament represent them to have been so. Neither do the acrimonious discussions between the Sadducees and Pharisees on legal questions preserved in Rabbinical writings give the impression that the former were indifferent to the Law. No doubt the Pharisees looked upon the Sadducees as irreligious, but not because of their attitude to the Law; to the Pharisees anyone who repudiated the binding character of their conception of the Law would come under condemnation; but we have no right to brand as irreligious those who in their loyalty to the written Law denounced Pharisaic accretions to the same as of subordinate authority. That there were some Sadducees who were worldly and irreligious is likely enough to have been the case; but to characterize the Sadducees as such, as the worldly, irreligious party, is to fall into the same kind of error as those who say that the Pharisees were all hypocrites.
Again, it is of course true that the Sadducees were always on the side of the suzerain power; the high-priestly party in the time of the Seleucidæ, as well as during the Roman dominion, held to the ruling power; but to say that for this reason the Sadducees were wholly occupied with politics, and that they were merely a political party, is an exaggeration. Their position necessitated a certain amount of intercourse with the ruling power; but this did not involve the exclusion of every other occupation, nor must we suppose that all Sadducees were concerned even with aminimumof political business. A Sadducee was notipso factoa politician, but those who were at the head of affairs, and who were, therefore, necessarily politicians, happened to belong to the Sadducæan party. It was precisely the same thing with the Pharisees at one time, viz., at the beginning of the reign of John Hyrcanus (B.C.135-104), when theywere in close touch with the ruling power (in the person of the high-priest), and were necessarily to some extent occupied with politics[196]; yet nobody would say that at that time the Pharisees as a body were wholly given up to politics.
The Sadducees, to touch upon another point, were, like the sons of Zadok of pre-Maccabæan times, the friends of Hellenistic culture; the Sadducæan party was the party of enlightenment. At first sight this strikes one as incongruous, since the Sadducees were, as against the Pharisees, conservatives in religious belief and practice. They refused, for example, as we have seen, to accept the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, which the Pharisees, being as they claimed the party of religious progress, both welcomed and taught. But the converse is true, too; it is strange that the Pharisees who were the national party, bigoted and narrow in their outlook, should have been ready to accept teaching which was of non-Jewish origin. The same incongruousness is to be seen in the respective attitude of Sadducees and Pharisees towards the Law. As Lauterbach truly says, the former “were conservative and narrow in their views and strongly opposed to changes and innovations. The Pharisees, on the other hand, were the younger party, broader and more liberal in their views, of progressive tendencies and not averse to innovations. Accordingly, we should expect that the Sadducees, whose priestly ancestors and predecessors had always been the official teachers of the people, the custodians of the Law, and presumably also of such tradition as there was, and who themselves were very conservative, the natural advocates of traditional ways and views, would seek to uphold the authority of tradition and the binding character of its Laws. On the other hand, we should expect the Pharisees,being the younger, more progressive and liberal party, which applied new methods of interpretation and developed new theories, to deny the authority of tradition and reject its laws. But, instead, we are led to believe that in their attitude towards the authority of the traditional laws the two parties had changedrôles. For the conservative Sadducees are said to have opposed the authority of tradition and the binding character of its teachings, while the Pharisees, who in many points departed from traditional ways and favoured new views, are represented as the advocates of tradition and of the authority of its laws.”[197]Lauterbach’s explanation of the difficulty that the disputes between the Pharisees and Sadducees were not so much about the contents of tradition, but merely about its authority, no doubt holds good in part, but only in part, for the records of the disputes which have come down to us are much concerned with thecontentsof tradition.[198]We doubt whether the full explanation of the incongruity is in its essence really other than this: the innate illogic of human nature. Is any party ever logical and true to its tenets for long; above all, a religious party? Would any party be really honest if it were? New conditions alter the outlook; new truths tend to displace old landmarks; and the consequent new ways of thinking will impel honest men sometimes to modify their most cherished beliefs. The conditions brought about through the Maccabæan struggle, and the gradual triumph of some specifically Hellenistictraits, above all of religious syncretism, will account almost wholly for what appears to be thevolte faceof both Sadducees and Pharisees. While one can well understand that the Sadducees, as represented by their spiritual forbears in pre-Maccabæan times, belonging as they did to the priestly aristocracy, and generally to the more cultured classes, shouldbe friendly inclined towards the mental refinement and enlightenment such as Hellenism offered, there can be no doubt that before the outbreak of the Maccabæan struggle, their over-anxiety in this direction involved them in deplorable disloyalty both to their nation, and to their religious principles. We may grant that many belonging to this school of thought honestly believed that the more fully the people came under the sway of Hellenistic influence the more beneficial it would be for all concerned, yet there is no getting away from the fact that their behaviour as recorded in 1 Maccabees was unpatriotic, and by acquiescing in the abrogation of the Law, or rather in the attempt to abrogate it, they acted clean contrary to their fundamental principles. Indeed, it is so difficult to understand their action that we are perhaps justified in believing that the support accorded to Antiochus Epiphanes in his attempt to stamp out Judaism came only from an extreme section of the Hellenistically inclined party. For when all is said and done, they were Jews, and, as a body, venerated the Law, as such, like other Jews, and worshipped the same God as other Jews; so that with all their partiality for Greek culture they held firmly, as the sources prove, to what was specifically Jewish in spite of internal quarrels, bitter as these proverbially are.
From all that we have learned about the Sadducees and the school of thought which they represent, it must be clear that at one time they constituted a powerful and influential element among the Jews, with definite principles and doctrines which they championed. The question, therefore, suggests itself as to whether any literary remains emanating from their circles have come down to us. It is generally acknowledged that Ecclesiasticus is “Sadducæan” in character, so that the Sadducees and their pre-Maccabæan representatives were evidently not without their scholars and writers; we should, therefore, naturally lookfor other examples of Sadducæan literary activity. We have become accustomed to be told that any book in which the Law is extolled is necessarily Pharisaic; but in view of what we have seen to be the Sadducæan attitude towards the Law, something more than the upholding of the Law is required in a book in order to establish its Pharisaic authorship; unless it is clear that thePharisaic conceptionof the Law is in the mind of the writer, the book could just as well be Sadducæan, so far as this particular point is concerned. But the doctrine concerning the Law is, of course, not the only criterion whereby the character, whether Sadducæan or Pharisaic, of a book is to be judged; when we come to consider the authorship of the uncanonical books, the Pseudepigrapha as well as the Apocrypha, we shall have to take into consideration all the doctrines to which reference has been made above; and it may be that in some cases we shall find that there are reasons for considering a book to be Sadducæan which is usually supposed to be Pharisaic. If this is so, then our sources for the Sadducees may be increased. But since this is a very disputed matter, we have thought it best not to include among the sources given above books which we shall show reasons for regarding as Sadducæan.
The term “Pharisee” means not “Separatist,” but “Expounder” of the Scriptures in the interests of the oral Law. The term “Sadducees” is derived from the personal name Zadok, who was high-priest in the time of David.
The sources of our knowledge of the Pharisees and Sadducees are: Josephus, Rabbinical writings, the New Testament, and theZadokite Fragments. The doctrines regarding which the Pharisees and Sadducees differed were: the Law, which the Sadducees regarded as binding onlyin so far as the written Law was concerned, while the Pharisees claimed the same for the oral Law. The Sadducees came to recognize the need of making new legal ordinances, but only such as were based upon the written Law. The oral tradition of the Pharisees had arisen independently of the written Law; but the Pharisees were ultimately forced to accept the Sadducæan principle, and by subtle exegesis showed that the oral tradition was actually based upon the written Law. Thus, though the Sadducees ceased to exist as a party, their principle won the day.
Secondly, as regards the doctrine of Providence, there is every reason to distrust the evidence of Josephus, who contends that the Sadducees denied the existence of Providence; this is not borne out by the other sources, and is in itself highly improbable.
The real difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees on the subject of the life hereafter was that while the former believed in the resurrection of the body, the latter denied this, and believed only in the immortality of the soul.
Regarding the alleged Sadducæan disbelief in angels and spirits, which is stated in only one of the sources, the New Testament, one must recognize the possibility that what is said on this subject in Acts xxiii. 8 may be due to a mistaken inference derived from the Sadducæan disbelief in the resurrection of the body, namely, that thedeparteddo not become angels or spirits. In view of the Sadducæan belief in the Pentateuch, where angels are often spoken of, it is improbable that they denied the existence of these.
A fundamental difference of belief between Pharisees and Sadducees was that regarding the Messiah; while the Pharisees held that the Messiah was to be of the seed of David, the Sadducees maintained that Aaron and his seed, to which the sons of Zadok belonged, were the chosen ones from whom the Messiah would ultimately proceed. Lastly, differences of opinion existed among the two partiesregarding the Calendar; these centred in the fact that while the Sadducees measured time on the basis of the solar year, the Pharisaic method of reckoning was on the basis of the lunar year. The result of this was that each party accused the other of false teaching regarding the time at which the feasts ought to be kept.
Among some subsidiary considerations concerning the Sadducees it was pointed out that to speak of them as sceptics and irreligious, as a body, is to do them an injustice; equally unjust is it to regard them as having been mainly occupied with politics. On the other hand, the exaggerated pro-Hellenic tendencies of those who came to be known as the Sadducæan party after the Maccabæan struggle, involved them in disloyalty to their race and to their religious principles. It is probable that those who were guilty of this constituted only an extreme section of those favourable to Hellenistic influence.
The way in which the Sadducees and Pharisees to some extent changedrôles, so far as their attitude to the Law was concerned, can be explained on natural lines.
The literary remains of the Sadducees are perhaps more than we have been accustomed to suppose; further reference is made to this subject inChapter X.