there was no resurrection, but only that it could not be proved from the Thorah, or Law.

From this there was, of course, but a short step to the entire denial of the doctrine; and

no doubt it was taken by the vast majority of the party. But here also it was again their

principle of strict literality, which underlay even the most extreme of their errors.

This principle was indeed absolutely necessary to their very existence. We have traced

the Pharisees not only to a definite period, but to a special event; and we have been able

perfectly to explain their name as "the separated." Not that we presume they gave it to

themselves, for no sect or party ever takes a name; they all pretend to require no

distinctive title, because they alone genuinely and faithfully represent the truth itself.

But when they were called Pharisees, the "Chaberim," no doubt, took kindly to the

popular designation. It was to them--to use an illustration--what the name "Puritans"

was to a far different and opposite party in the Church. But the name "Sadducee" is

involved in quite as much obscurity as the origin of the party. Let us try to cast some

fresh light upon both--only premising that the common derivations of their name,

whether from the high-priest Zadok, or from a Rabbi called Zadok, whose fundamental

principle of not seeking reward in religion they were thought to have misunderstood and

misapplied, or from the Hebrew word "zaddikim" --the righteous--are all unsatisfactory,

and yet may all contain elements of truth.

There can be no question that the "sect" of the Sadducees originated in a reaction

against the Pharisees. If the latter added to the law their own glosses, interpretations,

and traditions, the Sadducee took his stand upon the bare letter of the law. He would

have none of their additions and supererogations; he would not be righteous overmuch.

Suffice it for him to have to practise "zedakah," "righteousness." We can understand

how this shibboleth of theirs became, in the mouth of the people, the byname of a

party--some using it ironically, some approvingly. By -and-by the party no doubt took

as kindly to the name as the Pharisees did to theirs. Thus far, then, we agree with those

who derive the title of Sadducees from "zaddikim." But why the grammatically -

unaccountable change from "zaddikim" to "zaddukim?" May it not be that the simple

but significant alteration of a letter had, after a not uncommon fashion, originated with

their opponents, as if they would have said: "You are 'zaddikim?' Nay, rather, 'zaddukim'"

from the Aramaean word "zadu" (wasting or desolation)--meaning, you are not

upholders but destroyers of righteousness? This origin of the name would in no way be

inconsistent with the later attempts of the party to trace up their history either to the

high-priest Zadok, or to one of the fathers of Jewish traditionalism, whose motto they

ostentatiously adopted. History records not a few similar instances of attempts to trace

up the origin of a religious party. Be this as it may, we can understand how the

adherents of Sadducean opinions belonged chiefly to the rich, luxurious, and

aristocratic party, including the wealthy families of priests; while, according to the

testimony of Josephus, which is corroborated by the New Testament, the mass of the

people, and especially the women, venerated and supported the Pharisaical party. Thus

the "order" of the "Chaberim" gradually became a popular party, like the Ultramontanes.

Finally, as from the nature of i Pharisaism was dependent upon traditional lore, it

t

became not only the prevailing direction of Jewish theological study, but the "Chaber"

by-and-by merged into the Rabbi, the "sage," or "disciple of the sages"; while the non-

"chaber," or "am ha-aretz," became the designation for ignorance of traditional lore, and

neglect of its ordinances. This was specially the case when the dissolution of the Jewish

commonwealth rendered the obligations of the "fraternity" necessarily impossible.

Under such altered circ umstances the old historical Pharisee would often be no small

plague to the leaders of the party, as is frequently the case with the original adherents

and sticklers of a sect in which the irresistible progress of time has necessarily produced

The course of our investigations has shown, that neither Pharisees nor Sadducees were

a sect, in the sense of separating from Temple or Synagogue; and also that the Jewish

people as such were not divided between Pharisees and Sadducees. The small number

of professed Pharisees (six thousand) at the time of Herod, the representations of the