5. So Professor Westcott, in his Commentary on the passage (Speaker's Comment., N.T.,
vol. ii. p. 18), where he notes that the expression in St. John viii. 3 is unauthentic.
6. Sanh. i. 5.
7. Of this the Sanhedrin must have been perfectly aware. Comp. St. Matt. iii. 7; St. Luke
iii. 15 &c.
And with this the character of the deputies agrees. 'Priests and Levites' - the colleagues of
John the Priest - would be selected for such an errand, rather than leading Rabbinic
authorities. The presence of the latter would, indeed, have given to the movement an
importance, if not a sanction, which the Sanhedrin could not ha ve wished. The only other
authority in Jerusalem from which such a deputation could have issued was the so-called
'Council of the Temple,' 'Judicature of the Priests,' or 'Elders of the Priesthood,'8 which
consisted of the fourteen chief officers of the Te mple. But although they may afterwards
have taken their full part in the condemnation of Jesus, ordinarily their duty was only
connected with the services of the Sanctuary, and not with criminal questions or doctrinal
investigations.9 It would be too much to suppose, that they would take the initiative in
such a matter on the ground that the Baptist was a member of the Priesthood. Finally, it
seems quite natural that such an informal inquiry, set on foot most probably by the
Sanhedrists, should have been entrusted exclusively to the Pharisaic party. It would in no
way have interested the Sadducees; and what members of that party had seen of John10
must have convinced them that his views and aims lay entirely beyond their horizon.
8. For ex. Yoma 1. 5.
9. Co mp. 'The Temple, its Ministry and Services,' p. 75. Dr. Geiger (Urschr. u.
Uebersetz. d. Bibel, pp. 113, 114) ascribes to them, however, a much wider jurisdiction.
Some of his inferences (such as at pp. 115, 116) seem to me historically unsupported.
10. St. Matt. iii. 7 &c.
The origin of the two great parties of Pharisees and Sadducees has already been traced.11
They mark, not sects, but mental directions, such as in their principles are natural and
universal, and, indeed, appear in connection with all metaphysical12 questions. They are
the different modes in which the human mind views supersensuous problems, and which
afterwards, when one -sidedly followed out, harden into diverging schools of tho ught. If
Pharisees and Sadducees were not 'sects' in the sense of separation from the unity of the
Jewish ecclesiastical community, neither were theirs 'heresies' in the conventional, but
only in the original sense of tendency, direction, or, at most, views, differing from those
commonly entertained.13 Our sources of information here are: the New Testament,
Josephus, and Rabbinic writings. The New Testament only marks, in broad outlines and
popularly, the peculiarities of each party; but from the absence of bias it may safely be
regarded14 as the most trustworthy authority on the matter. The inferences which we
derive from the statements of Josephus,15 though always to be qualified by our general
estimate of his animus,16 accord with those from the New Testament. In regard to
Rabbinic writings, we have to bear in mind the admittedly unhistorical character of most