inferiority of the forces under Judas' command.15 The prospect was becoming hopeless,

when troubles at home recalled the Syrian army, and led to a treaty of peace in which the

Jews acknowledged Syrian supremacy, but were secured liberty of conscience and

But the truce was of short duration. As we have seen there were already in Palestine two

parties - that which, from its character and aims, may generally be designated as the

Grecian, and the Chasidim (Assideans ). There can be little doubt that the latter name

originally in the designation Chasidim , applied to the pious in Israel in such passages as

Ps. xxx. 5 (4 in our A.V.); xxxi. 23 (A.V.24; xxxvii. 28). Jewish tradition distinguishes

between the 'earlier' and the 'later' Chasidim (Ber. v. 1 and 32 b ; Men. 40 b ). The

descriptions of the former are of so late a date, that the characteristics of the party are

given in accordance with views and practices which belong to a much further

development of Rabbinical piety. Their fundamental views may, however, be gathered

from the four opening sentences of the Mishnic Tractate 'Abhoth,'16 of which the last are

ascribed to Jose the son of Joezer, and Jose the son of Jochanan, who, as we know, still

belonged to the 'earlier Chasidim.' These flourished about 140 b.c., and later. This date

throws considerable light upon the relation between the 'earlier' and 'later' Chasidim, and

the origin of the sects of the Pharisees and Saducees. Comparing the sentences of the

earlier Cha sidim (Ab. i. 2-4) with those which follow, we notice a marked simplicity

about them, while the others either indicate a rapid development of Rabbinism, or are

echoes of the political relations subsisting, or else seems to allude to present difficulties

or controversies. We infer that the 'earlier' Chasidim represented the 'pious' in Israel - of

course, according to the then standpoint - who, in opposition to the Grecian party, rallied

around Judas Maccabee and his successor, Jonathan. The assumption of the High-Priestly

dignity by Jonathan the Maccabee, on the nomination of the Syrian king (about 152), was

a step which the ultraorthodox party never forgave the Asmonæans. From that period,

therefore, we date the alienation of the Chasidim - or rather the cessation of the 'earlier'

Chasidim. Henceforth, the party, as such, degenerated, or, to speak more correctly, ran

into extreme religious views, which made them the most advanced section of the

Pharisees.17 The latter and the Saducees henceforth represented the people in its twofold

religious direction. With this view agrees the statement of Josephus (Ant. xiii.5. 9), who

first mentions the existence of Pharisees and Saducees in the time of Jonathan, and even

the confused notice in Aboth de Rabbi Nathan 5, which ascribes the origin of the

Saducees to the first or second generation of Zadok's disciples, himself a disciple of

Antigonus of Socho, which would bring the date to nearly the same time as Josephus.