six (the 'Shechemite,' the 'stumbling,' the 'bleeding,' the 'mortar,' the 'I want to know what is incumbent on me,' and 'the Pharisee from fear') mark various kinds of unreality, and only one is 'the Pharisee from love.' [f Sot. 22 b; Jer. Ber. ix. 7.] Such an expression as 'the plague ofPharisaism' is not uncommon; and a silly pietist, a clever sinner, and a female Pharisee, are ranked among 'the troubles of life.' [g Sot. iii. 4.] 'Shall we then explaina verse according to the opinions of the Pharisees?' asks a Rabbi, in supreme contempt for the arrogance of the fraternity, [h Pes. 70 b.] 'It is as atradition among the pharisees [i Abhoth de R. Nathan 5.] to torment themselves in this world, and yet they will gain nothing by it in the next.' The Sadducees had some reason for the taunt, that 'the Pharisees would by-and-by subject the globe of the sun itself to their purifications,' [k Jer. Chag. 79 d; Tos. Chag. iii.] the more so that their assertions of purity were sometimes conjoined with Epicurean maxims, betokening a very different state of mind, such as, 'Make haste to eat and drink, for the world which we quit resembles a wedding feast;' or this: 'My son, if thou possess anything, enjoy thyself, for there is no pleasure in Hades, [1 Erub. 54 a. I give the latter clause, not as in our edition of the Talmud, but according to a more correct reading (Levy, Neuhebr. Worterb. vol. ii. p. 102).] and death grants no respite. But if thou sayest, What then would I leave to my sons and daughters? Who will thank thee for this appointment in Hades?' Maxims these to which, alas! too many of their recorded stories and deeds form a painful commentary. [2 It could serve no good purpose to give instances. They are readily accessible to those who have taste or curiosity in that direction.]
But it would be grossly unjust to identify Pharisaism, as a religious direction, with such embodiments of it or even with the official 'fraternity.' While it may be granted that the tendency and logical sequence of their views and practices were such, their system, as opposed to Sadduceeism, had very serious bearings: dogmatic, ritual, and legal. It is, however, erroneous to
suppose, either that their system represented traditionalism itself, or that Scribes and Pharisees are convertible terms, [3 So, erroneously, Wellhausen, in his treatise 'Pharisaer u. Sadduc.'; and partially, as it seems to me, even Schurer (Neutest. Zeitgesch.). In other respects also these two learned men seem too much under the influence of Geiger and Kuenen.] while the Sadducees represented the civil and political element. The Pharisees represented only the prevailing system of, no traditionalism itself; while the Sadducees also numbered among them many learned men. They were able to enter into controversy, often protracted and fierce, with their opponents, and they acted as members of the Sanhedrin, although they had diverging traditions of their own, and even, as it would appear, at one time a complete code of canon-law, [a Megill. Taan. Per. iv. ed. Warsh. p. 8 a.] [4 Wellhausen has carried his criticisms and doubts of the Hebrew Scholion on the Megill. Taan. (or 'Roll of Fasts') too far.] Moreover, the admitted fact, that when in office the Sadducees conformed to the principles and practices of the Pharisees, proves at least that they must have been acquainted with the ordinances of traditionalism. [5 Even such a book as the Meg. Taan. does not accuse them of absolute ignorance, but only of being unable to prove their dicta from Scripture (comp. Pereq x. p. 15 b, which may well mark the extreme of Anti-Sadduceeism).] Lastly, there were certain traditional ordinances on which both parties were at one. [b Sanh. 33 t Horay 4 a.] Thus it seems Sadduceeism was in a sense than a practical system, starting from simple and well-defined principles, but wide- reaching in its possible consequences. Perhaps it may best be described as a general reaction against the extremes of Pharisaism, springing from moderate and rationalistic tendencies; intended to secure a footing within the recognised bounds of Judaism; and seeking to defend its principles by a strict literalism of interpretation and application. If so, these interpretations would be intended rather for defensive than offensive purposes, and the great aim of the party would be after rational freedom, or, it might be, free rationality. Practically, the party would, of course, tend in broad, and often grossly unorthodox, directions.
The fundamental dogmatic differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees concerned: the rule of faith and practice; the 'after death;' the existence of angels and spirits; and free will and pre-destination. In regard to the first of these points, it has already been stated that the Sadducees did not lay down the principle of absolute rejection of all traditions as such, but that they were opposed to traditionalism as represented and carried out by the Pharisees. When put down by sheer weight of authority, they would probably carry the controversy further, and retort on their opponents by an appeal to Scripture as against their traditions, perhaps ultimately even by an attack on traditionalism; but always as represented by the Pharisees. [1 Some traditional explanation of the Law of Moses was absolutely necessary, if it was to be applied to existing circumstances. It would be a great historical inaccuracy to imagine that the Sadducees rejected the whole (St.Matt. xv. 2) from Ezra downwards.] A careful examination of the statements of Josephus on this subject will show that they convey no more than this. [2 This is the meaning of Ant. xiii. 10. 6, and clearly implied in xviii. 1,3,4, and War ii. 8. 14.] The Pharisaic view of this aspect of the controversy appears, perhaps, most satisfactorily because indirectly, in certain sayings of the Mishnah, which attribute all national calamities to those persons, whom they adjudge to eternal perdition, who interpret Scripture 'not as does the Halakhah,' or established Pharisaic rule, [a Ab.iii. 11; v 8.] In this respect, then, the commonly received idea concerning the Pharisees and Sadducees will require to be seriously modified. As regards the practice of the Pharisees, as distinguished from that of the Sadducees, we may safely treat the statements of Josephus as the exaggerated representations of a partisan, who wishes to place his party in the best light. It is,
indeed, true that the Pharisees, 'interpreting the legal ordinances with rigour,' [b Jos. War i. 5.2.] [3 M. Derenbourg (Hist, de la Palest., p. 122, note) rightly remarks, that the Rabbinic equivalent for Josephus' is heaviness, and that the Pharisees were the or 'makers heavy.' What a commentary this on the charge of Jesus about 'the heavy burdens' of the Pharisees! St. Paul uses the same term as Josephus to describe the Pharisaic system, where our A. V. renders 'the perfect manner' (Acts xxii. 3). Comp. also Acts xxvi. 5: .] imposed on themselves the necessity of much self-denial, especially in regard to food, [c Ant. xviii. 1.3.] but that their practice was under the guidance of reason, as Josephus asserts, is one of those bold mis-statements with which he has too often to be credited. His vindication of their special reverence for age and authority [a Ant. xviii. 1.3.] must refer to the honours paid by the party to 'the Elders,' not to the old. And that there was sufficient ground for Sadducean opposition to Pharisaic traditionalism, alike in principle and in practice, will appear from the following quotation, to which we add, by way of explanation, that the wearing of phylacteries was deemed by that party of Scriptural obligation, and that the phylactery for the head was to consist (according to tradition) of four compartments. 'Against the words of the Scribes is more punishable than against the words of Scripture. He who says, No phylacteries, so as to transgress the words of Scripture, is not guilty (free); five compartments, to add to the words of the Scribes, he is guilty.' [b Sanh. xi. 3.] [1 The subject is discussed at length in Jer. Ber. i. 7 (p. 3 b), where the superiority of the Scribe over the Prophet is shown (1) from Mic. ii. 6 (without the words in italics), the one class being the Prophets ('prophesy not'), the other the Scribes ('prophesy'); (2) from the fact that the Prophets needed the attestation of miracles. (Duet. xiii. 2), but not the Scribes (Deut. xvii. 11).]
The second doctrinal difference between Pharisees and Sadducees concerned the 'after death.' According to the New Testament, [c St. Matt xxii. 23, and parallel passages; Acts iv. 1, 2; xxiii. 8.] the Sadducees denied the resurrection of the dead, while Josephus, going further, imputes to them denial of reward or punishment after death, [d War ii. 8. 14.] and even the doctrine that the soul perishes with the body, [e Ant. xviii 1. 4.] The latter statement may be dismissed as among those inferences which theological controversialists are too fond of imputing to their opponents. This is fully borne out by the account of a later work, to the effect, that by successive misunderstandings of the saying of Antigonus of Socho, that men were to serve God without regard to reward, his later pupils had arrived at the inference that there was no other world, which, however, might only refer to the Pharisaic ideal of 'the world to come,' not to the denial of the immortality of the soul, and no resurrection of the dead. We may therefore credit Josephus with merely reporting the common inference of his party. But it is otherwise in regard to their denial of the resurrection of the dead. Not only Josephus, but the New Testament and Rabbinic writings attest this. The Mishnah expressly states [g Ber ix. 5.] that the formula 'from age to age,' or rather 'from world to world,' had been introduced as a protest against the opposite theory; while the Talmud, which records disputations between Gamaliel and the Sadducees [2 This is admitted even by Geiger (Urschr. u. Uebers. p. 130, note), though in the passage above referred to he would emendate: 'Scribes of the Samaritans.' The passage, however, implies that these were Sadducean Scribes, and that they were both willing and able to enter into theological controversy with their opponents.] on the subject of the resurrection, expressly imputes thedenial of this doctrine to the 'Scribes of the Sadducees.' In fairness it is perhaps only right to add that, in the discussion, the Sadducees seem only to have actually denied that there was proof for this doctrine in the Pentateuch, and that they ultimately professed themselves convinced by the reasoning of Gamaliel. [1 Rabbi Gamaliel's proof was taken from Deut. i. 8: 'Which Jehovah sware unto your fathers to
give unto them.' It is not said 'unto you,' but unto 'them,' which implies the resurrection of the dead. The argument is kindred in character, but far inferior in solemnity and weight, to that employed by our Lord, St. Matt.
