45. Ant. xviii. 1. 3.
46. Ant. xviii. 1. 3.
47. Sanh. xi. 3.
48. 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 t he 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,49 the Sadducees denied the resurrection of the
dead, while Josephus, going further, imputes to them denial of reward or punishment
after death,50 and even the doctrine that the soul perishes with the body. 51 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,52 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
immortalit y 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
Testame nt and Rabbinic writings attest this. The Mishnah expressly states53 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 Sadducees54 on the subject of the resurrection, expressly
imputes the denial 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. 55 Still the
concurrent testimony of the New Testament and of Josephus leaves no doubt, that in this
instance their views had not been misrepresented. Whether or not their opposition to the
doctrine of the Resurrection arose in the first instance from, or was prompted by,
Rationalistic views, which they endeavoured to support by an appeal to the letter of the
Pentateuch, as the source of traditionalism, it deserves notice that in His controversy with
the Sadducees Christ appealed to the Pentateuch in proof of His teaching. 56
49. St. Matt xxii. 23, and parallel passages; Acts iv. 1, 2; xxiii. 8.
50. War ii. 8. 14.
51. Ant. xviii 1. 4.
52. Ab. d. R. Nath.5.
53. Ber ix. 5.
54. 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.
55. 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