difference, though its existence shows how far party-spirit could lead the Pharisees. No ceremony was surrounded with greater care to prevent defilement than that of preparing the ashes of the Red Heifer. [3 Comp. 'The Temple, its Ministry and Services,' pp. 309, 312. The rubrics are in the Mishnic tractate Parab, and in Tos. Par.] What seem the original ordinances, [a Parah iii,; Tos. Par. 3.] directed that, for seven days previous to the burning of the Red Heifer, the priest was to be kept in separation in the Temple, sprinkled with the ashes of all sin-offerings, and kept from the touch of his brother-priests, with even greater rigour than the High-Priest in his preparation for the Day of Atonement. The Sadducees insisted that, as 'till sundown' was the rule in all purification, the priest must be in cleanliness till then, before burning the Red Heifer. But, apparently for the sake of opposition, and in contravention to their own principles, the Pharisees would actually 'defile' the priest on his way to the place of burning, and then immediately make him take a bath of purification which had been prepared, so as to show that the Sadducees were in error, [b Parah iii. 7.] [1 The Mishnic passage is difficult, but I believe I have given the sense correctly.] In the same spirit, the Sadducees seem to have prohibited the use of anything made from animals which were either interdicted as food, or by reason of their not having been properly slaughtered; while the
Pharisees allowed it, and, in the case of Levitically clean animals which had died or been torn, even made their skin into parchment, which might be used for sacred purposes, [c Shabb. 108 a.]
These may seem trifling distinctions, but they sufficed to kindle the passions. Even greater importance attached to differences on ritual questions, although the controversy here was purely theoretical. For, the Sadducees, when in office, always conformed to the prevailing Pharisaic practices. Thus the Sadducees would have interpreted Lev. xxiii. 11, 15, 16, as meaning that the wave-sheaf (or, rather, the Omer) was to be offered on 'the morrow after the weekly Sabbath', that is, on the Sunday in Easter week, which would have brought the Feast of Pentacost always on a Sunday; [d Vv. 15, 16.] while the Pharisees understood the term 'Sabbath' of the festive Paschal day. [e Men. x. 3; 65 a; Chag. ii. 4.][2 This difference, which is more intricate than appears at first sight, requires a longer discussion than can be given in this place.] Connected with this were disputes about the examination of the witnesses who testified to the appearance of the new moon, and whom the Pharisees accused of having been suborned by their opponents, [f Rosh haSh. i. 7; ii. 1; Tos. Rosh haSh. ed. Z. i. 15.]
The Sadducean objection to pouring the water of libation upon the altar on the Feast of Tabernacles, led to riot and bloody reprisals on the only occasion on which it seems to have been carried into practice, [g Sukk. 48 b; comp. Jos. Ant. xiii 13. 5.] [3 For details about the observances on this festival I must refer to 'The Temple, its Ministry and Services.'] Similarly, the Sadducees objected to the beating off the willow-branches after the procession round the altar on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, if it were a Sabbath, [a Sukk. 43 b; and in the Jerus. Talm. and Tos. Sukk. iii. 1.] Again, the Sadducees would have had the High-Priest, on the Day of Atonement, kindle the incense before entering the Most Holy Place; the Pharisees after he had entered the Sanctuary, [b Jer. Yoma i. 5; Yoma 19 b; 53 a.] Lastly, the Pharisees contended that the cost of the daily Sacrifices should be discharged from the general Temple treasury, while the Sadducees would have paid it from free-will offerings. Other differences, which seem not so well established, need not here be discussed.
Among the divergences on juridical questions, reference has already been made to that in regard to marriage with the 'betrothed,' or else actually espoused widow of a deceased, childless brother. Josephus, indeed, charges the Sadducees with extreme severity in criminal matters; [c Specially Ant. xx. 9.] but this must refer to the fact that the ingenuity or punctiliousness of the Pharisees would afford to most offenders a loophole of escape. On the other hand, such of the diverging juridical principles of the Sadducees, as are attested on trustworthy authority, [1 Other differences, which rest merely on the authority of the Hebrew Commentary on 'The Roll of Fasts,' I have discarded as unsupported by historical evidence. I am sorry to have in this respect, and on some other aspect of the question, to differ from the learned Article on 'The Sadducees,' in Kitto's Bibl. Encycl.] seem more in accordance with justice than those of the Pharisees. They concerned (besides the Levirate marriage) chiefly three points. According to the Sadducees, the punishment [d Decreed in Deut. xix. 21.] againstfalse witnesses was only to be executed if the innocent person, condemned on their testimony, had actually suffered punishment, while the Pharisees held that this was to be done if the sentence had been actually pronounced, although not carried out. [e Makk. i. 6.] Again, according to Jewish law, only ason, but not a daughter, inherited the father's property. From this the Pharisees argued, that if, at the time of his father's decease, that son were dead, leaving only a daughter, this granddaughter would (as representative of the son) be the heir, while
the daughter would be excluded. On the other hand, the Sadducees held that, in such a case, daughter and granddaughter should share alike, [f Baba B. 115 b; Tos. Yad.ii. 20.] Lastly, the Sadducees argued that if, according to Exodus xxi. 28,29, a man was responsible for damage done by his cattle, he was equally, if not more, responsible for damage done by his slave, while the Pharisees refused to recognise any responsibility on the latter score, [g Yad. iv. 7 and Tos. Yad.] [2 Geiger, and even Derenbourg, see in these things deep political allusions, these things deep political allusions, which, as it seems to me, have no other existence than in the ingenuity of these writers.
For the sake of completeness it has been necessary to enter into details, which may not posses a general interest. This, however, will be marked, that, with the exception of dogmatic differences, the controversy turned on questions of'canon-law.' Josephus tells us that the Pharisees commanded the masses, [a Ant. xiii. 10. 6.] and especially the female world, [b Ant. xvii. 2. 4.] while the Sadducees attached to their ranks only a minority, and that belonging to the highest class. The leading priests in Jerusalem formed, of course, part of that highest class of society; and from the New Testament and Josephus we learn that the High-Priestly families belonged to the Sadducean party, [c Acts v. 17; Ant. xx. 9.)] But to conclude from this, [1 So Wellhausen, u. s.] either that the Sadducees represented the civil and political aspect of society, and the Pharisees the religious; or, that the Sadducees were the priest-party, [2 So Geiger, u. s.] in opposition to the popular and democratic Pharisees, are inferences not only unsupported, but opposed to historical facts. For, not a few of the Pharisaic leaders were actually priests, [d Sheqal. iv. 4; vi. 1; Eduy. viii. 2; Ab. ii. B &c] while the Pharisaic ordinances make more than ample recognition of the privileges and rights of the Priesthood. This would certainly not have been the case if, as some have maintained, Sadducean and priest-party had been convertible terms. Even as regards the deputation to the Baptist of'Priests and Levites' from Jerusalem, we are expressely told that they 'were of the Pharisees.' [e St. John i. 24.]
This bold hypothesis seems, indeed, to have been invented chiefly for the sake of another, still more unhistorical. The derivation of the name 'Sadducee' has always been in dispite. According to a Jewish legend of about the seventh century of our era, [fin the Ab. de R. Nath. c. 5.] the name was derived from one Tsadoq (Zadok), [3 Tseduqim and Tsadduqim mark different transliterations of the name Sadducees.] a disciple of Antigonus of Socho, whoseprinciple of not serving God for reward had been gradually misinterpreted into Sadduceeism. But, apart from the objection that in such case the party should rather have taken the name of Antigonites, the story itself receives no support either from Josephus or from early Jewish writings. Accordingly modern critics have adopted another hypothesis, which seems at least equally untenable. On the supposition that the Sadducees were the 'priest-party,' the name of the sect is derived from Zadok (Tsadoq), the Fligh-Priest in the time of Solomon. [4 This theory, defended with ingenuity by Geiger, had been of late adopted by most writers, and even by Schurer. But not a few of the statements hazarded by Dr. Geiger seem to me to have no historical foundation, and the passages quoted in support either do not convey such meaning, or else are of no authority.] But the objections to this are insuperable. Not to speak of the linguistic difficulty of deriving Tsadduqim (Zaddukim, Sadducees) from Tsadoq (Zadok), [5 So Dr. Low, as quoted in Dr. Ginsburg's article.] neither Josephus nor the Rabbis know anything of such a connection between Tsadoq and the Sadducees, of which, indeed, the rationale would be difficult to perceive. Besides, is it likely that a party would have gone back so many centuries for a name, which had no connection with their
distinctive principles? The name of a party is, if self-chosen (which is rarely the case), derived from its founder or place of origin, or else from what it claims as distinctive principles or practices. Opponents might either pervert such a name, or else give a designation, generally opprobrious, which would express their own relation to the party, or to some of its supposed peculiarities. But on none of these principles can the origin of the name of Sadducees from Tsadoq be accounted for. Lastly, on the supposition mentioned, the Sadducees must have given the name to their party, since it cannot be imagined that the Pharisees would have connected their opponents with the honoured name of the High-Priest Tsadoq.
If it is highly improbable that the Sadducees, who, of course, professed to be the right interpreters of Scripture, would choose any party-name, thereby stamping themselves as sectaries, this derivation of their name is also contrary to historical analogy. For even the name Pharisees, 'Perushim,' 'separated ones,' was not taken by the
