92. Baba B. 115 b; Tos. Yad. ii. 20.
93. Yad. iv. 7 and Tos. Yad.
94. Geiger, and even Derenbourg , see in thes e 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,95 and especially the female world,96 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 Sadduce an party.97 But to conclude from this,98 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,99 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,100 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 expressly told that they 'were
of the Pharisees.'101
95. Ant. xiii. 10. 6.
96. Ant. xvii. 2. 4.
97. Acts v. 17; Ant. xx. 9. 1.
98. So
Wellhausen, u. s.
99. So Geiger, u. s.
100. Sheqal. iv. 4; vi. 1; Eduy. viii. 2; Ab. ii. B &c.
101. 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 dispute.
According to a Jewish legend of about the seventh century of our era,102 the name was
derived from one Tsadoq (Zadok),103 a disciple of Antigonus of Socho, whose principle
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 'p riest-party,' the
name of the sect is derived from Zadok (Tsadoq), the High-Priest in the time of
Solomon.104 But the objections to this are insuperable. Not to speak of the linguistic
difficulty of deriving Tsadduqim (Zaddukim, Sadducees) from Tsadoq (Zadok),105 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