The Pharisees and Sadducees
[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; in _Studies 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, in _The Jewish Quarterly Review_, January, 1913,
pp. 429-485.]
I. THE MEANING OF THE TERMS “PHARISEES” AND “SADDUCEES”
(_a_) _Pharisees._
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 emphasize their 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 root _p-r-sh_, but from what would have been the far more
appropriate one _q-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
interesting _data_ from 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, who are 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 in _Bell. 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 root _p-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 root _p-r-sh_ means
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 were _par excellence_.
Their close association with the Scribes, as often alluded to in the
Gospels, serves still further to support this view.
(_b_) _Sadducees._
When transliterated from its Hebrew form the term “Sadducees” appears
as _Zaddūkim_; it has been held that this is derived from the Hebrew
word _zaddik_, “righteous.”[155] But this derivation is improbable,
for no analogy exists for this change of an _i_ into _u_; but, even
apart from this, to explain _Zaddūkim_ as 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
word _Zindīk_ is 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 a _Zindīk_, 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
century A.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 the _Zanādikah_ with 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 that
_Zanādikah_ is a corruption of _Zaddūkim_. The reverse, may, however,
be the case. It is quite possible that the Persian word was used
about B.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 Jewish manner, 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, that _Zanādikah_ is
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 the _Zindīk_ presented a marked contrast in principle to the
Sadducee; for while the _Zindīk_ was 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 to exist.
Most modern scholars accept this explanation, which has, indeed, now
been placed beyond doubt by the evidence of the _Zadokite 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.
II. THE SOURCES
(_a_) _Josephus._
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 with Epicuræanism.[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 his _Antiquities_ (VIII, v. 9, XVIII, i.
2), when speaking of the Jewish parties, that this subject is dealt
with in the _Jewish 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 the _Antiquities_;
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
therefore the evidence of Josephus on the subject of the Jewish
parties is incomplete.
(_b_) _Rabbinical Sources._
The earliest of these is the Mishna, which belongs to the second half
of the second century A.D.; somewhat later is the _Tosephta_,[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), and
_Mechilta_ (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 century B.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]
(_c_) _The New Testament._
This source is so familiar that it will be unnecessary to do more
than merely mention it.
(_d_) _The Zadokite Fragments._
These are two fragments, discovered a few years ago by Schechter in
the Cairo _Genizah_.[170] They belong respectively to the eleventh
and twelfth centuries A.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 century B.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 Messianic doctrine 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]
III. THE DOCTRINES OF THE PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES
(_a_) _The Doctrine of the Law._
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 champions _par excellence_ not 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 in
_Antiquities_ XIII, 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 not binding.
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.
The _Zadokite Fragments_ corroborate 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 whatever other 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. From the 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 Judaism is in truth a synthesis of Pharisaism
and Sadducæanism.”[180] See further below, § iv.
(_b_) _The Doctrine of God._
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 direction is 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 the evidence
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.
(_c_) _The Doctrine of the Future Life._
In _Bell. 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 since the 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 90_b_) 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.
(_d_) _The Sadducæan attitude regarding Belief in the existence of
Angels and Spirits._
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 the _Zadokite Fragments_
anything to say 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 the
_departed_ do not become angels or spirits[187]; this does not
necessarily deny the existence of angelic beings who have never been
in the flesh.[188]
(_e_) _The Doctrine of the Messiah._
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 Torah _versus_ Tradition.
In the _Zadokite Fragments_ the 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 ‘spoke rebellion’ 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.
(_f_) _The Sadducees and the Jewish Calendar._
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 which existed 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 the _Zadokite Fragments_ there 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 of this pseudepigraphic work 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 of all 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
the _Zadokite 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]
IV. SOME SUBSIDIARY CONSIDERATIONS
It is of importance to recognize that, with one exception, viz. the
_Zadokite 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 used
with 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 a _minimum_ of
political business. A Sadducee was not _ipso facto_ a 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
they were 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 changed _rôles_. 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 the
_contents_ of 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 Hellenistic
_traits_, above all of religious syncretism, will account almost
wholly for what appears to be the _volte face_ of 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, should be 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 look for 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 the _Pharisaic conception_ of 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.
SUMMARY
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 the _Zadokite
Fragments_. The doctrines regarding which the Pharisees and Sadducees
differed were: the Law, which the Sadducees regarded as binding only
in 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 the
_departed_ do 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 parties regarding
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 changed
_rôles_, 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
in Chapter X.