Chapter 47

[146]This is in accordance with Ben-Sira’s identification of Wisdom with the Law, see xv. 1, xxxiv. 8, etc.

[147]It will be remembered that the Hebrews reckoned the historical books among the Prophets.

[148]Assidæans, also written Hasidæans, is merely the Græcized form of the HebrewChassidim; in the Authorized Version the word is rendered “saints.”

[149]Made high-priest by the Syrian king.

[150]One of the Syrian generals.

[151]Cp. 2 Maccabees xiv. 6.

[152]In the original constitution of the Sanhedrin this was probably not the case; for, as first constituted, the priestly aristocracy, i.e., the Sadducæan party, dominated the Sanhedrin. The Sadducees were, however, unable to resist the growing power of what came to be the popular party, and before the New Testament period began both Scribes and Pharisees were fully represented in the Sanhedrin.

[153]It is sometimes said that they were “separatists” in the sense that they desired Israel to be separate from all the world; but this ignores the fact that the Pharisees pursued an active missionarypropagandaamong the Gentiles, which is witnessed to, e.g., in Matthew xxiii. 15, where Christ says that the Pharisees “compass sea and land to make one proselyte.”

[154]Antiq., XIII, x. 6.

[155]This is the explanation given by some of the Church Fathers, e.g., Epiphanius,Haer.xiv., and Jerome,Comm. in Matth., xii. 23 (Schürer), as well as by some modern scholars.

[156]Encycl. Bibl., iv. 4236. The present writer, in conjunction with Mr. Box, was inclined to accept this interpretation (The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, p. 134), but further study of the subject has compelled them to revise their former view.

[157]See the words of Josephus,Antiq., XIII, x. 6, quoted below.

[158]Cp. Josephus,Antiq., XI, viii. 7; XII, ii. 5, iv. 1, 10.

[159]Antiochus made Menelaus, who was not of priestly family, high-priest; after him Alkimus filled the office (1 Macc. vii. 5, 9); though a priest he was not of the sons of Zadok (Josephus,Antiq., XII, ix. 7). On the death of Alkimus (1 Macc. ix. 54-57) the Hasmonæan high-priesthood began (1 Macc. xiv. 30, 35, 41 ff.; cp. Josephus,Antiq., XIII, ii. 3).

[160]Two objections have been raised against the view that the term Sadducees (Zaddūkim) takes its origin from the personal name Zadok. One is that the doubledinZaddūkimdoes not permit of its being derived from Zadok with only one; this objection would be serious were it not that in the Septuagint and in Josephus Zadok is spelled with two d’s. This objection, therefore, falls to the ground. The other is that there is nothing to show that the Sadducees were ever regarded as the sons of Zadok, nor that they themselves made such a claim. Thisargumentum e silentio, always precarious, is upset by the evidence of theZadokite Fragments. Hölscher’s contention (Op. cit., pp. 102 ff.) that the term “sons of Zadok” was one of reproach does not appear to us to be necessary.

[161]Vita, § 2, cp.Antiq., XVIII, i. 3.

[162]Antiq., XV, x. 4.

[163]Cp.Antiq., X, xi. 7 (towards the end), XIII, v. 9;Bell. Jud., II, viii. 14, where he speaks of these three as “the philosophic sects among the Jews.”

[164]Vita, § 2.

[165]Op. cit., p. 16.

[166]This was first pointed by Jost,Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte, ii. p. 93, referred to by Leszynsky, p. 25.

[167]Not to be confused with theTosaphôth, i.e. the “additions” made to Rashi’s Commentary on the Talmud by his disciples, who for this reason are known as theTosaphists.

[168]Other Rabbinical sources, of less importance, are given by Leszynsky,Op. cit., pp. 36 ff.

[169]See further, Hölscher,Op. cit., pp. 16 ff.; Leszynsky,Op. cit., pp. 36 ff.

[170]The name applied to a room adjoining the synagogue in which were stored disused manuscripts of the books of the Bible which had been used in public worship and had become worn out; heretical Hebrew books were also placed in theGenizah.

[171]Büchler holds that this sect “lived in Damascus in the seventh or eighth centuryA.D.,” and that the manuscripts contain “a picture artificially drawn to reflect assumed conditions shortly before the destruction of the second Temple.” Interesting and learned as Büchler’s article is, the present writer is not convinced that Schechter’s main contentions have been weakened by it.

[172]Some of the Apocalyptic books may also be regarded as sources of information; but the evidence in these is largely of an indirect character; and as regards authorship differences of opinion exist; so we have thought it best to restrict ourselves to the sources mentioned. In dealing, however, with these Apocalyptic books inChapter X, we shall have occasion to refer to the evidence which in all likelihood may be adduced from them.

[173]See alsoAntiq., XVIII, i. 3, 4.

[174]For examples of their fanatical zeal for the Law seeAntiq., XIV, iv. 2 f.; the followers of Aristobulus there mentioned were of the Sadducæan party.

[175]See especially Matthew v. 17-20; and against the Pharisees Matthew xv. 1-20, xxiii. 4-26, Mark vii. 1-23, Luke xi. 37-54, etc.

[176]Op. cit., pp. 16-32. Hölscher’s conclusions differ from those of Leszynsky.

[177]Op. cit., pp. 36-141.

[178]Cp. Josephus,Antiq., XVIII, i. 4, where he says in reference to the Sadducees that “when they become magistrates, sometimes against their will and by force they follow the ideas of the Pharisees, for otherwise the people would not put up with them.”

[179]Lauterbach (Op. cit., p. 186 f.) would explain the matter a little differently, though the final result is much the same; he says that the Sadducees “laid down their own decisions and rules in a book called ‘Book of Decrees’ or ‘Decisions’ to guide them in deciding questions to which no answer could be found in the Mosaic Code. They did not deem it right or necessary to invent new rules of hermeneutics, or to develop methods of interpretation to enable them to force their laws and decisions into the meaning of the words of the Torah, so as to pass off their own rules and decisions as part of, or derived from, a Mosaic law, thus making them of equal authority with, and of the same binding character as, the written Law. For, in their opinion, no other laws could ever acquire the authority of the Laws of the Torah.... The Sadducees distinguished strictly between the absolutely binding written laws and their additional laws and decisions. The latter ... were authoritative only as long as they were considered necessary or feasible by the leaders and rulers of the community. For the same reason, they did not consider the decisions and practices instituted by their predecessors, the priests and teachers of former generations, which constituted thetraditional laws, of absolute authority like the written Law. Hence their peculiar attitude towards the traditional Law, and their objection to its authority. They did not deny the existence of these old traditional laws, for they themselves were the possessors and transmitters of the same. Nor did they reject them as spurious or as without any authority, for they recognized the right of former priests and teachers to enact such laws. They only refused to consider these traditional laws as of authority absolute and equal with the written Law contained in the Torah.” The result, therefore, so far as their controversy with the Pharisees on this point was concerned, was the same: traditional laws, by whomsoever put forth, whether based on the written Law or not, were not permanently binding nor of equal authority with the written Law; the Pharisees, on the other, since they contended that the oral Law was based upon the written Law, regarded both as of equal authority and permanently binding.

[180]Op. cit., p. 141.

[181]Matthew iii. 7.

[182]Matthew xvi. 1.

[183]Acts v. 1 ff.

[184]Antiq., XVIII, i. 3.

[185]Leszynsky,Op. cit., p. 18.

[186]See further the section onMessianic teaching, below.

[187]Cp. Leszynsky,Op. cit., p. 91. It is also worth mentioning here that in Ecclesiasticus, which certainly represents the Sadducæan standpoint, angels are referred to—see below,Chapter XII, § (g).

[188]With this compare the popular belief as reflected in Acts xii. 15, where it is said in reference to St. Peter, “It is his angel.”

[189]The descent of Zadok is traced from Eleazar, the elder son of Aaron, in 1 Chronicles vi. 4-15, 50-53, xxiv 6.

[190]There is an important passage in Ecclesiasticus (xlv. 23-25, Hebr.) which must be referred to here; in this passage Phinehas is set beside Moses and Aaron as “the third ... and he made atonement for the children of Israel. Therefore for him too, He [i.e. God] established an ordinance, a covenant of peace to maintain the sanctuary; that to him and to his seed should appertain the High-priesthood for ever.” Then reference is made to David and to Aaron; the mention of these here in a chronological list of Israel’s great ones is quite out of place, and therefore there must be some special purpose in referring to them; that purpose is plain enough, for in speaking of David it is said that “the inheritance of the king is his son’s alone,” while in speaking of Aaron it is said that “the inheritance of Aaron belongs to his seed.” A differentiation is thus made between the royal line and the priestly line; and as the royal line had ceased, and only the priestly one continued, and the High-priest (the descendant of the house of Zadok) was both ecclesiastical and political leader, it was from this line that the Messiah would be expected to come. In Ecclesiasticus (seepp. 334ff.) the Sadducæan standpoint is represented. See also 1 Maccabees ii. 54, “Phinehas our father ... obtained the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (cp. 4 Macc. xviii. 12).

[191]Schechter,Op. cit., pp. xii.-xiii.

[192]Of course, it is not to be supposed that the Sadducees and Pharisees actually kept the feasts at different periods; the quarrel did not emerge out of the domain of theory; actual difference in usage regarding such matters would have been quite out of the question.

[193]See Leszynsky,Op. cit., pp. 52 ff.

[194]Op. cit., p. 51.

[195]For further details about the Pharisees’ teaching reference may be made, in addition to the literature at the head of this chapter, to Schechter’sSome Aspects of Rabbinic Theology(1909) and Montefiore’s article on “Rabbinic Conceptions of Repentance” in theJewish Quarterly Review, XVI (January, 1904), pp. 209-257.

[196]See Josephus,Antiq., XIII, x. 5, 6; Schürer,Op. cit., I, i. pp. 286-290, German ed., I, pp. 270-273.

[197]Op. cit., p. 177.

[198]For details see Leszynsky,Op. cit., pp. 36 ff.

[199]With the Greek wordKanôn(Canon) compare the Hebrewqāneh, a “reed,” which is also used in the sense of a “measuring rod” (Ezek. xlii. 16-19; cp. Judith xiii. 6, where the Greek word is used for the “rail” of a bed). Originally the word in Greek meant a “carpenter’s rule,” and had nothing to do with the books of Scripture. In its technical sense it is Christian, being thus used for the first time, so far as is known, about the middle of the fourth centuryA.D.; the fifty-ninth canon of the council of Laodicæa (aboutA.D.360) speaks of “canonical books” as opposed to uncanonical. It is a still later usage, so far as our present knowledge goes, which applies the term Canon to the whole collection of biblical books. What the original idea was in using the expression in reference to the books of the Bible is uncertain, but probably it was that of “norm” or “rule” (cp. Gal. vi. 16; 2 Cor. x. 13); just as “canonical action” (1 Ep. of Clement vii. 2) was according to the Christian norm, so books judged by their contents, authorship, and history, were declared to be according to the Christian norm, and therefore “canonical”; cp. the expressions “rule (or canon) of truth,” “rule (or canon) of faith,” used in the early Church. It is probable that the adjective “canonical” preceded the use of the noun “Canon” in its technical sense.

[200]The Jews sometimes refer to the whole body of their canonical Scriptures under the name ofTenak, i.e. TNK, an abbreviation (with vowels inserted in order to make it pronounceable) formed by the initial letters of the names given to the three main divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures, viz.,Torah,Nebiim,Kethubim.

[201]In the authoritative lists of the canonical books the order varies somewhat; but the order given above is that of the printed Hebrew Bibles.

[202]In the earliest known Hebrew manuscripts they appear as one book; so, too, 1, 2 Kings.

[203]Cp. Robertson Smith,The Old Testament in the Jewish Church(2nd ed.), p. 149.

[204]Ab is the fifth month in the Jewish Calendar, and corresponds roughly to August; it is called the “Black Fast,” and commemorates the destruction of the first and second temples.

[205]So according to the Hebrew; the Greek is somewhat different.

[206]So according to Smend’s probable conjecture.

[207]Kanonisch und Apokryph, p. 20.

[208]See Ecclesiastes xii. 12.

[209]Ryle, for example, says that the expression by which Ben-Sira’s grandson “designates the third group certainly lacks definiteness. It does not warrant us to maintain that the ‘Writings’ or ‘Kethubim’ were all, in their completed form, known to the writer” (Op. cit., p. 119). And again (p. 121): “These writings, which are so well known to us, were probably only samples, though doubtless the choicest ones, of an abundant literature to which every Jew at the end of the third centuryB.C.had access.” On the other hand, Ryle believes that by aboutB.C.200 there was a definitely recognized Hebrew Canon of Scripture consisting of the Law and the Prophets (Op. cit., p. 113).

[210]This Rabbinical phrase for denoting canonicity is explained below, p. 175.

[211]This book was denied a place in the Canon by Melito of Sardis in the middle of the second centuryA.D., according to Eusebius,Hist. Eccl., iv. 26.

[212]Josephus reckons Ruth and Lamentations as belonging to Judges and Jeremiah respectively.

[213]The addition here of the words “as divine” does not, in all probability, belong to the original text.

[214]Op. cit., p. 164.

[215]For details see Hölscher,Op. cit., pp. 36 ff.

[216]Op. cit., pp. 165 ff.

[217]See further below,Chapter X.

[218]This was accounted for in later days by saying that when Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi died the Holy Spirit left Israel (Sanhedrin 11a); therefore (this is the inference) no inspired book can have been written in post-prophetic times, cp. Yoma 21b.

[219]For details of the evidence see Schürer II, i. pp. 366 ff. (German ed., II, pp. 432 ff., where the references are supplemented); Cheyne,Job and Solomon, pp. 280 ff.; Hölscher,Op. cit., pp. 32 ff.;Jewish Encycl., vii. 18.

[220]For details see Ryle,Op. cit., pp. 192-202.

[221]Vita, § 2.

[222]Thus Jochanan ben Zakkai (middle of first centuryA.D.) speaks of books which “defile the hands” (Jadaim iii. 2, 5; iv. 5, 6).

[223]See theAdditional Noteat the end of this chapter.

[224]Budde, in theEncycl. Bibl., i. 649; see further theAdditional Noteat the end of this chapter.

[225]Written, probably, aboutB.C.50.

[226]Hölscher,Op. cit., p. 6.

[227]Romans i. 2, cp. 2 Timothy iii. 15.

[228]See, among other passages, Leviticus vi. 27-30, xi. 32-40, xiv. 1 ff., XV. 1 ff., 24, xvi. 26, 28, xviii. 19; Numbers v. 1-3; Deuteronomy xxi. 10-14.

[229]Abundant material will be found in Frazer’sThe Golden Bough: Taboo and the Perils of the Soul(1911).

[230]The Religion of the Semites, p. 449 (1894); and see Jevons’Introduction to the History of Religion, pp. 59-95 (1904).

[231]Cases of death are on record; it was, of course, occasioned by fright, but savages would see only the result of the spirit’s anger. Instances of the infringement of custom would naturally be rare.

[232]See Leviticus xi. 32, Ezekiel xliv. 19, and cp. the idea of “holiness” in such passages, among many, as Exodus xix. 22, Deuteronomy xxiii. 18, where the Hebrew root is identical, though to us the ideas in either case are directly opposite.

[233]He is referring to the rules of ceremonial purity observed by divine kings, chiefs, and priests, as well as by homicides, mourners, women in childbed, girls at puberty, etc.

[234]Op. cit., p. 224.

[235]For example, in the case of a canonical book which “defiled” the hands the Talmud (Shabbath 14a) says it was taught that the hands became unclean by contact with the Holy Scriptures in order that they should not be touched by uncovered hands!

[236]Hölscher,Op. cit., p. 60.

[237]Moore, in theJewish Encycl., II, 2a.

[238]Hölscher mentions, with references, a “book of cures,” a Targum which was forbidden, and heretical books,Op. cit., p. 62.

[239]Hölscher,Op. cit., p. 63.

[240]Ecclesiasticusis often quoted in the Talmud.

[241]Cp., further, Buhl,Kanon und Text des Alten Testaments(Engl. Transl.), p. 26.

[242]See further below.

[243]James, in theEncycl. Biblica, i. 249.

[244]James,Op. cit., says that this book “may be as old as the first centuryA.D.”; but according to Hölscher and the editors of the papyrus (Leeman and Dieterich) it belongs to the third or fourth centuryA.D.

[245]Moore,Op. cit., ii. p. 1a.

[246]Hölscher,Op. cit., p. 47.

[247]Ibid.

[248]Charles’ edition.

[249]Charles’ edition.

[250]Box’s edition.

[251]For this idea cp. also the Assumption of Moses i. 16-18 (see below,Chapter X (f)), where Moses is commanded to anoint certain books with cedar oil and hide them in earthenware vessels, these are to be secreted in a spot which had been created from the beginning of the world for this very purpose.

[252]Lest, in course of time, the number of these soiled copies should unduly increase, lest also, in case of persecution arising, they should run the risk of being desecrated, it was thought well that after the lapse of a certain time these rolls should be done away with; they were, therefore, sometimes burned, or thrown down a well, or in some cases placed in the grave of some respected Rabbi; more frequently, however, they were buried in a grave of their own in the cemetery.

[253]Studies in Judaism(Second Series), p. 2.

[254]Jewish Encycl., V, 612a.

[255]For references see Hölscher,Op. cit., pp. 48, 49, see also p. 64.

[256]See below,Chapter X.

[257]See Zunz,Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, pp. 165-179 (1892).

[258]Harnack,Privater Gebrauch heiliger Schriften in der alten Kirche, p. 72 (1912).

[259]For the private use in the early Church of biblical as well as other books see Harnack’s book just mentioned.

[260]But even these might only be read “as one reads a letter,” not studied (Hölscher,Op. cit., p. 45).

[261]Sanhedrin x. 1 (Strack’s edition, 1910).

[262]Cp. Mark iv. 11; 1 Cor. v. 12, 13; Col. iv. 5; 1 Thess. iv. 12.

[263]Hölscher,Op. cit., p. 46. TheMinim(“heretics”) are very often mentioned in Jewish writings; Herford says that the term “in some cases certainly denotes Christians” (Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, p. 99).

[264]Shabbath c. 16 (Jerusalem Talmud), quoted by Hölscher.

[265]Barton,The Book of Ecclesiastes(The International Critical Commentary), pp. 197-199.

[266]Cp. Ezra iv. 7.

[267]Zunz,Op. cit., p. 9; Strack,Einleitung in den Talmud, p. 14 (1908).

[268]The term “Midrash,” which occurs in the Bible (2 Chron. xiii. 22, xxiv. 17) denotes “exposition” or “exegesis,” especially of an edifying and moralizing character; see further Oesterley and Box,Op. cit., pp. 77-100.

[269]Strack,Op. cit., pp. 13, 14.

[270]“Such topics as astronomy and astrology, medicine and magic, theosophy and mysticism, and similar subjects, falling mostly under the heading of folklore, pass as a rule also under the name of Haggadah” (Schechter).

[271]Under this term is embraced all that belongs to the strictly legal or ritual element in Scripture, or that can be deduced therefrom, including discussions of such points. But, as Schechter says, “the term extends also to the usages, customs, ordinances and decrees for which there is little or no authority in the Scriptures.”

[272]In 1904, 1906-1908.

[273]See above,pp. 50ff.

[274]This was in Jerusalem; cp., in later days, the “School of Tyrannus” in Ephesus (Acts xix. 9).

Back to Index Next