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.40 A careful examination of the statements of Josephus on

this subject will show that they convey no more than this.41 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 cala mities to those persons,

whom they adjudge to eternal perdition, who interpret Scripture 'not as does the

Halakhah,' or established Pharisaic rule.42 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. I t is, indeed, true that the

Pharisees, 'interpreting the legal ordinances with rigour,'43 44 imposed on themselves the

necessity of much self-denial, especially in regard to food,45 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 authority46 must refer to the honours paid by the party to 'the Elders,' not to the

old. And that there was sufficie nt 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 ob ligation, 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.'47 48