party, or to some of its supposed peculiarities. But on none of these principles can the
origin of the name of Sadducees from Tsadoq be accounted for. Lastly, on the
supposition mentioned, the Sadducees must have given the name to their party, since it
cannot be imagined that the Pharisees would have connected their opponents with the
honoured name of the High-Priest Tsadoq.
102. In the Ab. de R. Nath. c. 5.
103. Tseduqim and Tsadduqim mark different transliterations of the name Sadducees.
104. This theory, defended with ingenuity by Geiger, had been of late adopted by most
writers, and even by Schürer. But not a few of the statements hazarded by Dr. Geiger
seem to me to have no historical foundation, and the passages quoted in support either do
not convey such meaning, or else are of no authority.
105. So Dr. Löw, as quoted in Dr. Ginsburg's article.
If it is highly improbable that the Sadducees, who, of course, professed to be the right
interpreters of Scripture, would choose any party- name, thereby stamping themselves as
sectaries, this derivation of their name is also contrary to historical analogy. For even the
name Pharisees, 'Perushim,' 'separated ones,' was not taken by the party itself, but given
to it by their opponents.106 107 From 1 Macc. ii. 42; vii. 13; 2 Macc. xiv. 6, it appears that
originally they had taken the sacred name of Chasidim, or 'the pious.'108 This, no doubt,
on the ground that they were truly those who, according to the directions of Ezra,109 had
separated themselves (become nibhdalim ) 'from the filthiness of the heathen' (all heathen
defilement) by carrying out the traditional ordinances.110 In fact, Ezra marked the
beginning of the 'later,' in contradistinction to the 'earlier,' or Scripture-Chasidim.111 If we
are correct in supposing that their opponents had called them Perushim , instead of the
Scriptural designation of Nibhdalim , the inference is at hand, that, while the 'Pharisees'
would arrogate to themselves the Scriptural name of Chasidim , or 'the pious,' their
opponents would retort that they were satisfied to be Tsaddiqim ,112 or 'righteous.' Thus
the name of Tsaddiqim would become that of the par ty opposing the Pharisees, that is, of
the Sadducees. There is, indeed, an admitted linguistic difficulty in the change of the
sound i into u (Tsaddiqim into Tsadduqim ), but may it not have been that this was
accomplished, not grammatically, but by popular witticism? Such mode of giving a 'by-
name' to a party or government is, at least, not irrational, nor is it uncommon.113 Some
wit might have suggested: Read not Tsaddiqim , the 'righteous,' but Tsadduqim (from
Tsadu, ω≅δχαφ ), 'desolation,' 'destruction.' W hether or not this suggestion approve itself
to critics, the derivation of Sadducees from Tsaddiqim is certainly that which offers most
probability.114
106. Yad. iv. 6 &c.
107. The argument as against the derivation of the term Sadducee would, of course, hold
equally good, even if each party had assumed, not received from the other, its
characteristic name.
108. Ps. xxx. 4; xxxi. 23; xxxvii. 28.
109. vi. 21; ix. 1; x. 11; Neh. ix. 2.