158. Sanh. x 1.
159. In Sanh. 100 b they are explained as 'the writings of the Sadducees,' and by another
Rabbi as 'the Book of Sirach' (Ecclus. in the Apocrypha). Hamburger, as sometimes,
makes assertions on this point which cannot be supported (Real-Wörterb. ii. p. 70). Jer.
Sanh. 28 a explains, 'Such as the books of Ben Sirach and of Ben La'nah' - the latter
apparently also an Apocryphal book, for which the Midr. Kohel. (ed. Warsh. iii. p. 106 b)
has 'the book of Ben Tagla' 'La'nah' and 'Tagla' could scarcely be symbolic names. On the
other hand, I cannot agree with Fürst (Kanon d. A.T. p. 99), who identifies them with
Apollonius of Tyana and Empedocles. Dr. Neubauer suggests that Ben La'nah may be a
corruption of Sibylline Oracles.
160. In Sanh. x. 1.
161. Meg. 24 b.
162. The 'Epicureans,' or 'freethinkers,' are explained to be such as speak contemptuously
of the Scriptures, or of the Rabbis (Jer. Sanh. 27 d ). In Sanh. 38 b a distinction is made
between 'stranger' (heathen) Epicureans, and Israelitish Epicureans. With the latter it is
unwise to enter into argument.
163. Both in the Jer. and Bab. Talm. it is conjoined with 'spitting,' which was a mode of
healing, usual at the time. The Talmud forbids the magical formula, only in connection
with this 'spitting' - and then for the curious reason that the Divine Name is not to be
recorded while 'spitting.' But, while in the Bab. Talm. the prohibition bears against such
'spitting' before pronouncing the formula, in the Jer. Talm. it is after uttering it.
164. Sanh. 101 a; Jer. Sanh. p. 28 b.
165. Bishop Lightfoot has shown that the Essene cures were magical (u. s. pp. 91 &c. and
p. 377).
On one point, at least, our inquiry into the three 'parties' can leave no doubt. The Essenes
could never have been drawn either to the person, or the preaching of John the Baptist.
Similarly, the Sadducees would, after they knew its real character and goal, turn
contemptuously from a movement which would awaken no sympathy in them, and could
only become of interest when it threatened to endanger their class by awakening popular
enthusiasm, and so rous ing the suspicions of the Romans. To the Pharisees there were
questions of dogmatic, ritual, and even national importance involved, which made the
barest possibility of what John announced a question of supreme moment. And, although
we judge that the report which the earliest Pharisaic hearers of John166 brought to
Jerusalem - no doubt, detailed and accurate - and which led to the despatch of the
deputation, would entirely predispose them against the Baptist, yet it behooved them, as
leaders of public opinion, to take such cognisance of it, as would not only finally
determine their own relation to the movement, but enable them effectually to direct that
of others also.
166. St. Matt. iii. 7.