[Literature.—In addition to the literature given at the head of the next chapter reference may be made to Schürer II, i. pp. 306-379, German ed., II, pp. 363-447; Lightley,Les Scribes, Étude sur leur origine chez les Israélites(1905). Also the articles “Scribes and Pharisees” (Prince) in theEncycl. Bibl., and “Scribes” (Eisenstein) in theJewish Encycl.]
[Literature.—In addition to the literature given at the head of the next chapter reference may be made to Schürer II, i. pp. 306-379, German ed., II, pp. 363-447; Lightley,Les Scribes, Étude sur leur origine chez les Israélites(1905). Also the articles “Scribes and Pharisees” (Prince) in theEncycl. Bibl., and “Scribes” (Eisenstein) in theJewish Encycl.]
It is important that we should try, as far as possible, to present the availabledataconcerning the Scribes in their chronological order; that would, of course, be desirable in any case, but it is doubly so when, as here, a clear statement of the development of the scribal class and its activities may be a help in understanding some of the difficult questions which will come before us in dealing with the Sadducees and Pharisees. We shall, therefore, state the evidence chronologically, as far as may be, making our deductions as we proceed.
First as to the use of the term “Scribe” =Sôphērin Hebrew, and is used in the sense of “secretary” or the like; in 2 Samuel viii. 17, e.g., among David’s officials are reckoned “Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, who were priests; and Seraiah, who was scribe” (cp. 2 Sam. xx. 25; 2 Kings xviii. 18, etc.). As a royal official he had various duties; he acted as treasurer, according to 2 Kings xii. 11, 2 Chronicles xxiv. 11, apparentlyin some military capacity, according to 2 Kings xxv. 19, Jeremiah lii. 25; in Psalm xlv. 2 aSôphēris clearly one who writes (“My tongue is the pen of a ready writer” [Sôphēr]); and, finally, in Esther iii. 12, viii. 9, he occupies the place of the Persian king’s secretary who writes out decrees. With one exception (Ps. xlv. 2), in all these passages the Scribe is spoken of as a royal official; they are, therefore, only important for us here as showing that the ideas of counting and writing are connected with the termSôphēr; and these are exactly the meanings conveyed by the root.
The three next passages, which give somedataregarding the office of the Scribe, have a special importance because they are pre-exilic—
Jeremiah viii. 8, 9: “How do ye say, We are wise, and the Law of the Lord is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the Scribes hath wrought falsely. The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken; lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord; and what manner of wisdom is in them?”
Jeremiah xviii. 18: “Then said they, Come and let us devise devices against Jeremiah; for the Law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet.”
Jeremiah xxxvi.: This chapter is too long to quote in full; it tells us of Baruch, the Scribe, who wrote down Jeremiah’s words “upon a roll of a book”; it also mentions Gemariah, the son of Shaphan, the Scribe, who had his chamber “in the upper court, at the entry of the new gate of the Lord’s house” (verse 10); further, mention is also made of Elishama the Scribe, who had his chamber in the king’s house (verse 12); Elishama was clearly a royal official.
From these passages we gather that Scribes were in existence before the Exile, that they claimed to be wise, and that they regarded themselves as authorities on the Lawof the Lord; they are censured by Jeremiah with having “wrought falsely,” and the context points to this as being connected with the “Law of the Lord”; what precisely is referred to is not easy to determine, but the point of importance for us is that the pre-exilic Scribes were occupied with the Law; if they come under the lash of Jeremiah they do not differ in this respect from the wise men, nor yet from the priests and the prophets (see viii. 10). In Jeremiah xxxvi. mention is made of Scribes in influential positions; but in addition to these there is Baruch, who belongs to a different category of Scribe, for he makes copies of what are clearly regarded as sacred writings (see verses 24, 25). From the meagre evidence we possess there is not much to be gathered; but we may perhaps be justified in saying that already in pre-exilic times the term “Scribes” was beginning to be used as a technical term in the limited sense of their being those whose special duty it was to make copies of the Law in the form in which it then existed. But in saying that the term “Scribes” was used in a technical sense already in this pre-exilic period we must very strongly emphasize that this is to be understood in an entirely different sense from that in which it was used as a technical term in post-exilic times. There is a world of difference between the Scribe who is the more or less officially accredited copier of the text of the Law or other Scriptures, and the Scribe who also interprets the Law, teaches it to the people, and in whom is vested the judicial power of enforcing its decrees. In each case “Scribe” may be used as a technical term while connoting two very different things.
Further, from the second of the passages quoted above we see that three distinct classes are mentioned, viz., the priests, the wise men orChakamim, and the prophets. There can be no doubt that these three were in existence long before Scribes in the technical sense were heard of; with the prophets we are not concerned here, for theiractivity lay in a different sphere altogether; but we must try and get some clear ideas upon the subject of the relationship between the Scribes and the priests on the one hand, and the Scribes and theChakamimon the other.
Originally the priests alone were concerned with the Law; but the Law contained, broadly speaking, two elements, the ritual and the moral; the former of these was more especially the concern of the priests; but the latter had a wider interest, and many of theChakamimas well as the priests occupied themselves with it. When the Scribes arose—it is not possible to say precisely when this was, but it was before the Exile—they did not, as a body, restrict themselves to the study of one or other aspect of the Law, but, according to their bent, some gave more particular attention to the study of the ritual Law, others to the moral Law; so that among the types of scribe there appeared the priest-scribe, such as Ezra, and the wisdom-scribe, such as was Ben-Sira in later times. But theChakamim, as a class, still remained, no less than the priests, each occupying themselves with their particular study, as they had done before the Scribes came into existence. In course of time, and through Ezra’s influence, the power of the Scribes greatly increased, and they became the most influential leaders among the people; and by the time of the Maccabæan struggle their activities were wholly and exclusively absorbed in the study and teaching of the Law, both ritual and moral, written and oral. But we have anticipated, and must now turn to the evidence of the post-exilic books.
In Ezra vii. the following verses are important: “Ezra ... was a ready scribe in the Law of Moses, which the Lord, the God of Israel, had given” (verse 6). “Ezra had set his heart to seek the Law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgements” (verse 10). “... Ezra the priest, the scribe, even the scribe of thewords of the commandments of the Lord, and of His statutes to Israel....” “Ezra the priest, the scribe of the Law of the God of heaven” (verses 11, 12, 21). According to vii. 25, Artaxerxes gives the following instructions to Ezra: “And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God that is in thine hand, appoint magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God, and teach ye him that knoweth them not.”
The whole of Nehemiah viii.-x. is important for our present subject; we draw special attention to the following passages: “Ezra the scribe” is asked by the people to bring the book of the Law of Moses in order that it might be read to them; it then continues: “And Ezra the priest brought the Law before the congregation, both men and women, and all that could hear with understanding.... And he read therein before the broad place that was before the water-gate from early morning until mid-day, in the presence of the men and the women, and of those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the Law” (viii. 2, 3). In viii. 7-9, the names of thirteen men are enumerated who, together with the Levites, “caused the people to understand the Law. And they read in the book, in the Law of God, interpreting it; and they gave the sense, and caused (the people) to understand the reading. And Nehemiah, which was the Tirshatha,[142]and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the Levites that taught the people, said unto all the people, This day is holy unto the Lord your God; mourn not, nor weep.” Further, in viii. 13-15, it is said: “And on the second day were gathered together the heads of the fathers’ houses of all the people, the priests and the Levites, unto Ezra the scribe, even to give attention to the words of the Law. And they found written in the Law, howthat the Lord had commanded by Moses that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month ...”; then follows the account of how the people were to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles.
These passages show that whatever may have been the scribal activity before the Exile, an altogether new position was assigned to the Law and its observances by the scribe Ezra.[143]The Law now begins to be the central pre-occupation of the Scribes under the guidance of Ezra and Nehemiah, the former of whom is the scribepar excellence. The priests and Levites are associated with the scribe Ezra, and presumably with the scribes in general; but we know from later history that the study of the Law soon became the special concern of the Scribes almost to the exclusion of the priests. Noteworthy is the stress laid on teaching the Law to the people; and a new element of far-reaching importance seems to be adumbrated in Nehemiah viii. 8, where it is said that the teachers of Law “read in the book, in the Law of God, interpreting it; and they gave the sense, and caused (the people) to understand the reading.” It is interesting to note that the Hebrew root for “to interpret” here (p-r-sh) is the same as that from which the word Pharisee comes; we shall draw attention to this again later.
One or two passages of later date must also be noted, for they are not without interest, and shed further light on our subject:
1 Chronicles ii. 55: Among various genealogical enumerations occurs that of “the families of scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, theSucathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab.” From this we gather, first, that the scribal office was inherited, and from Jeremiah xxxvi. 10-12 we may assume that this was also the case in pre-exilic times, for both Michaiah, and his father Gemariah, who was the son of Shaphan the scribe, seem to be closely associated with the scribes, and were presumably themselves scribes. Another point to be noted from the passage quoted is that some families of the scribes were connected with the house of Rechab; now the Rechabites were ascetics (see Jer. xxxv. 6-10), and it is possible that when, in later days, the Pharisees made a point of practising asceticism,[144]they were following an early tradition in principle though the actual practices had become different with the changed conditions of life.
2 Chronicles xxxiv. 13: This passage is referred to because it says that some of the Levites were scribes, which again implies association with the priests.
Daniel v. 26-28: Here we have an example of text and interpretation which, so far as the principle is concerned, is according to the scribal method.
We have now to examine some Old Testament evidence of another kind, and as this is calculated to throw light on the subsequent history of the scribal movement and its developments it deserves careful consideration.
From a number of indications to be found in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah it is evident that from the very commencement of the settlement of the exiles in Palestine differences arose between them and the Israelites whom they found there on their return. There seem to have been several causes for these differences; but what largely lay at the bottom of them was the contention of the returned exiles that they alone represented the true Israelites; those who had been left in the land had become mixedwith the heathen[145]by living among them and intermarrying with them, and were therefore not regarded as true Israelites. But more than this; it would seem that among the exiles themselves there were some who belonged to the priesthood, but that this was denied by the leaders among the exiles; this is gathered from Ezra ii. 61-63, where the enumeration of some priestly families is given concerning whom it is said: “These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found; therefore were they deemed polluted and put from the priesthood. And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim.” Among the exiled people, too, were some who “could not show their fathers’ houses and their seed, whether they were of Israel” (Ezra ii. 39). Thus both those who had been living in Palestine, and some of those who returned with the exiles, had a grievance. This was greatly aggravated when Zerubbabel refused the help of any but those whom he considered true Israelites in the building of the temple (Ezra iv. 1-5): “... Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building....” (cp. Neh. ii. 19, iv. 1 ff.).
A more far-reaching cause of division was that of marriage with foreigners, especially with Samaritans, who were with justice regarded as heathen by the bulk of the returned exiles; in Ezra ix. 1, 2, we read: “... the princes drew near unto me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands.... For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the peoples of the lands. Yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath beenchief in this trespass” (cp. Neh. xiii. 23, 24). That, as indicated in these last words, it was the aristocracy, i.e. the high-priestly families, who were most forward in contracting foreign alliances and who were in favour of intercourse with non-Jews generally, is shown further by such passages as Nehemiah vi. 17-19: “Moreover, in those days the nobles of Judah sent many letters unto Tobiah, and the letters of Tobiah came unto them. For there were many in Judah sworn unto him, because he was the son-in-law of Shechaniah the son of Arah; and his son Johanan had taken the daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah to wife. Also they spake of his good deeds before me and reported my words to him.” And again Nehemiah xiii. 28: “And one of the sons of Joiada, son of Eliashib the high-priest, was son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite.” Very significant, too, is the long passage Ezra x. 18-44; this contains a list of those who had married strange wives; first are mentioned the sons of the priests, among these a few had put away their wives (verses 18, 19), but the list, as it continues, mentions those priests who did not do so (verses 20-22); then follow the names of Levites, singers, and porters, then of Israelites, who “had taken strange wives; and some of them had wives by whom they had children” (verse 44). The attempts of Ezra and Nehemiah to stop these alliances and to put an end to the intercourse between the Jews and those whom they regarded as heathen were thus not wholly successful; and this is further borne out by several passages which reveal the resistance offered, e.g. Ezra x. 15: “But Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahaziah the son of Tikvah stood up against this matter; and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them.” Again, in Nehemiah vi. 10-14 the influence of Sanballat and Tobiah upon many of those who lived in Jerusalem, and the existence of a party there opposed to Ezra, is plainly indicated; among those belonging to this party there are mentioned Shemaiah,the prophetess Noadiah, “and the rest of the prophets” (cp. also xiii. 4 ff.; Mal. ii. 10-16).
From all these indications it is not difficult to see that the elements for the formation of a distinct party in opposition to therégimeof Ezra and Nehemiah were present from the very beginning of the return from the Exile. For some considerable time, no doubt, the influence of Ezra succeeded in suppressing, though not in quenching, the opposition which he met with; but two diverging tendencies became rooted among sections of the people, and in course of time bore fruit in the formation of distinct parties.
The distinguishing notes of these two tendencies can be discerned without difficulty; on the one hand there were, as can be seen from the quotations given above, the members of the aristocracy, i.e., the high-priestly families, who were friendly disposed to those of semi-Israelite and even non-Israelite origin. They were, from the point of view of their adversaries, lax concerning the observance of the Law (see, e.g., Neh. xiii. 15 ff.), though not necessarily antagonistic to it, but only to the Ezra conception of it; they could, for example, show that their foreign marriages were not contrary to the Law, while Ezra’s requirements went beyond the Law. On the other hand, there was Ezra, and his followers, strongly adverse to any intercourse between Jews and non-Jews, and painfully scrupulous regarding the minute observance of the Law (see, e.g., Neh. x. 28 ff.).
Here, therefore, were the tendencies already in existence which, as time went on, continued to develop until they became the crystallized tenets of definitely opposed parties, whose watchwords were UniversalismversusParticularism, and whose attitude towards the Law differed in this respect, that the Universalists interpreted it in a limited sense, while the Particularists insisted on a laborious observance of it in all its minute details, which became greatly increased by their methods of interpretation.
The process of the development of these tendencies can be seen in some of the books of the Old Testament; for example, in the Book of Haggai (ii. 10 ff.) we have indications of the importance laid upon minute legal observances by the priests, with whom, as already pointed out, the Scribes were associated; in the Book of Jonah, on the other hand, universalism is throughout the dominant note.
The classical passage in the books of the Apocrypha concerning our present subject is Ecclesiasticus xxxix. 1-11, where the ideal scribe is described; in the passage which precedes this Ben-Sira insists upon the need of leisure for a scribe if he is to devote himself to the acquisition of true wisdom; he shows that the labourer and the artisan, while indispensable to society, are necessarily too much occupied with their callings to give any time to higher things. Then he continues:
1. Not so he that applieth himself to the fear of God,And to set his mind upon the Law of the Most High;Who searcheth out the wisdom of all the ancients,And is occupied with the prophets of old;2. Who heedeth the discourses of men of renown,And entereth into the deep things of parables;3. Searcheth out the hidden meaning of proverbs,And is conversant with the dark sayings of parables....6. If it seem good to God Most High,He shall be filled with the spirit of understanding.He himself poureth forth wise sayings in double measure,And giveth thanks unto the Lord in prayer.7. He himself directeth counsel and knowledge,And setteth his mind on their secrets.8. He himself declareth wise instruction,And glorieth in the Law of the Lord....
1. Not so he that applieth himself to the fear of God,And to set his mind upon the Law of the Most High;Who searcheth out the wisdom of all the ancients,And is occupied with the prophets of old;2. Who heedeth the discourses of men of renown,And entereth into the deep things of parables;3. Searcheth out the hidden meaning of proverbs,And is conversant with the dark sayings of parables....6. If it seem good to God Most High,He shall be filled with the spirit of understanding.He himself poureth forth wise sayings in double measure,And giveth thanks unto the Lord in prayer.7. He himself directeth counsel and knowledge,And setteth his mind on their secrets.8. He himself declareth wise instruction,And glorieth in the Law of the Lord....
1. Not so he that applieth himself to the fear of God,
And to set his mind upon the Law of the Most High;
Who searcheth out the wisdom of all the ancients,
And is occupied with the prophets of old;
2. Who heedeth the discourses of men of renown,
And entereth into the deep things of parables;
3. Searcheth out the hidden meaning of proverbs,
And is conversant with the dark sayings of parables....
6. If it seem good to God Most High,
He shall be filled with the spirit of understanding.
He himself poureth forth wise sayings in double measure,
And giveth thanks unto the Lord in prayer.
7. He himself directeth counsel and knowledge,
And setteth his mind on their secrets.
8. He himself declareth wise instruction,
And glorieth in the Law of the Lord....
The first thing that must strike us here is that according to Ben-Sira there is no difference between a scribe and a wise man, the two are synonymous (verse 1).[146]The nextthing to note is that Ben-Sira recognizes two sources of the scribe’s knowledge, the study of these is what constitutes the scribal activity; the first is described in verse 1, viz., the Law of the Most High, the wisdom of the ancients, and the prophets of old; that is to say, the Pentateuch, the Wisdom books, and the prophetical books.[147]The second is described in verses 2, 3, viz., discourses of men of renown, deep things of parables, hidden meaning of proverbs, and dark sayings of parables; it is difficult to see to what these things can refer unless it is to the discussions, proverbs and aphorisms of the kind which abound in Ben-Sira’s book. That they cannot refer to the oral Law is clear enough from the description itself; for the oral Law cannot be said to have consisted of discourses, hidden meaning of proverbs, or dark sayings of parables. Ben-Sira, though a scribe, has nothing to say about an oral Law, though he must have known of its existence; yet he has a great veneration for the Law, there are abundant indications of that in his book. We have, moreover, seenthat there arestrong grounds for believing that an oral Law was in existence long before the time of Ben-Sira (circaB.C.200), and the evidence of somewhat later times points in the same direction. We are, therefore, forced to the conclusion that Ben-Sira represents a type of scribe who venerated the Law as written, but repudiated the oral Law. Further, though Ben-Sira was a good Jew, the Hellenistic influences which are to be found in his book and his generally broader mental outlook make him in some respects the antithesis of Ezra. Ben-Sira thus seems to belong to those, of whom we have made mention above, whose tendency was in an universalistic direction and who could venerate the Law without feeling bound by the inferences which might be drawn from its interpretation.
The evidence of the Prologue to the Greek translation ofEcclesiasticus, some sixty years later, points also to a veneration of the Law, but without making any reference to the oral Law, although it is probable that scribes are in the mind of the writer of the Prologue when he speaks of “readers” and “lovers of learning who must be able to profit them which are without [i.e. the laity, most likely] both by speaking and writing.” The Prologue thus corroborates what we learn from the book itself.
Before coming to 1 Maccabees, which is the next book to give evidence on the subject of the Scribes, a word must be said about theAssidæans, orChassidim.[148]By these are meant those “Pious” ones, frequently mentioned in some of the later Psalms (e.g., cxlix. 1-9, and elsewhere), who clung tenaciously to the Law, both written and oral, when, in the third centuryB.C.onwards, many of the Jews were becoming lax owing, largely, to Hellenistic influences. They were animated by a strong antipathy towards everyone who was Hellenistically inclined; they were legalists in the strictest sense of the word, and particularists. Although in existence beforehand, it was only during the Maccabæan struggle that they commenced to play an importantrôlein the political life of the nation. The importance of theChassidimfor our present study is that they are identified with one type of the scribes in 1 Maccabees vii. 12, 13, viz.: “And there was gathered together unto Alcimus[149]and Bacchides[150]a company of scribes to seek for justice; and theChassidimwere the first among the children of Israel that sought peace of them [i.e., of Alcimus and Bacchides].” The evidence of this book appears at first sight to be conflicting, for in the passage just cited they appear as the peaceful party, while in ii. 43, 44 they are described as warlike.[151]It is probable, however,that these descriptions both witness to the true facts of the case; for the natural inclination of these students and strict observers of the Law would clearly lie in the direction of peace; but as soon as they realized that the cherished object of their existence was imperilled, fighting became a necessity. It must be remembered that theChassidimand the Maccabees are in no sense to be identified; they were both champions of the Law, and both the enemies of Hellenistic Jews; but the Maccabees were patriots primarily, while theChassidimwere legalists, and, provided they were left in peace to follow their legal studies and observances, it was of no great moment to them whether their nation was independent or a subject-race.
In the Book of Judith, although the Scribes are never mentioned, many details of what were really the results of their activity are to be found; but as these are spoken of in Part II in the account there given of the Book of Judith (§ iii.), we need not make any further reference to the subject here.
One or two other points regarding the Scribes may be briefly mentioned. As exponents of the Law and of the Scriptures generally the Scribes were as a matter of course greatly occupied with the Hebrew text of these; they thus became, quite apart from their other duties, such as making copies of the Scriptures, the guardians of the text of Scripture, and upon them devolved the further duty of the fixing and the preservation of the Biblical text. This very important function marks them out as the beginners of the textual criticism of the Old Testament.
A further practical duty which the study and exposition of the Law brought with it was that of administering it. The Scribe was a lawyer; in the Gospels the two terms are synonymous, for which reason they never occur together. It was as administrators of the Law that the Scribes wererepresented in the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem; here they sat as judges who assisted in the passing of sentences on those who had broken the Law.[152]
After definite parties had come into existence the Scribes belonged, in the main, to the Pharisaic party; but there was no reason against some of them being members of the Sadducæan party; this is, indeed, implied in such passages as Mark ii. 16; Luke v. 30; Acts xxiii. 9.
That which constituted the difference between the Scribes and the Pharisees was briefly this: the Scribes handed down the traditional, i.e. the oral, Law as well as the written Law, and explained it; the Pharisees carried out in actual practice what was thus prescribed. This, of course, does not mean to say that the Scribes did not also strictly observe the legal enactments; but that their special duties constituted them a class distinct from the Pharisees is clear from the way in which they are differentiated in the New Testament, for there we read of the “Scribes of the Pharisees” (Mark ii. 16; Acts xxiii. 9), and of “the Pharisees and their scribes” (Luke v. 30), showing clearly that the Scribes were distinct from the Pharisees.
The natural sequel to any account of the Scribes is a consideration of the Pharisees; with these, in conjunction with the Sadducees, we shall deal in the next chapter.
From the Old Testamentdatawe gather that there were Scribes who were occupied with the written Law in pre-exilic times, though they arose long subsequently to the priests, the prophets, and theChakamim, or wise men;but the pre-exilic scribe was of a very different kind from the scribe of later times. Ezra was not only the first scribe in the later sense of the word, but was also the inaugurator of the scribal system as generally understood.
An important point to notice in the activity of the Scribes in the earliest post-exilic period is that as teachers of the Law they interpreted it to the people.
From the commencement of the return from the Captivity differences arose between the returned exiles and those whom they found in Palestine on their return. These differences reveal the existence of two diverging tendencies among many of the people, the distinguishing notes of which were particularism and rigid legalism on the one hand, and universalism coupled with a less strict interpretation of legal requirements on the other. Ezra and those who followed him were the upholders of the former, the high-priestly party and their followers of the latter tendency. The process of development in either direction can be discerned in some of the later Old Testament books.
In the Apocrypha we learn from Ecclesiasticus that a type of scribe had arisen whose energies were directed towards the acquisition of wisdom which he was concerned to impart to others; this type of scribe, while venerating the Law, sympathized with the universalistic rather than with the particularistic attitude. Belonging to a slightly later time are theChassidim, or “Pious ones,” who were strict legalists and of a particularistic tendency, though they were not patriots in the sense that the typical Maccabæans were. TheChassidimare spoken of in connexion with the Scribes. We are, therefore, led to the conclusion that before the middle of the second centuryB.C.two types of scribe were in existence, the wisdom scribe, and the more particularly legal scribe. Concerning these latter, who are to be regarded as the Scribes in the strictly technical sense and who became closely associated with the Pharisaic party, the followingfurther points may be noted: upon them devolved, in addition to other duties, the guardianship of the text of Scripture. They were, further, the administrators of the Law, and were represented in the Sanhedrin, and thus sat as judges and assisted in the passing of sentences on those who had broken the Law.