5. Finally, the sacrifices of the OT do not cover in analogy the Avhole of the Saviour's work. The Epistle to the HebreAvs employs the priesthood of Christ, as Avell as His sacrifice, to set forth all He is to us. Moses and Joshua and Aaron and Mel- chizedek were imperfect anticipations of Christ, besides the sacrifices. In Is 53 the prophet is com- pelled to go beyond his sacrificial parable, and to say, ' By his stripes Ave are healed,' ' He shall see of the travail of his soul.' The lamb could give its life, but it needs a human representative of the Saviour to show His priestly sympathy and re- sponsibility and sufferings. And this being so, no doubt the decided preference of Scripture and of Christian feeling for dAvelling rather on the sacri- fices than on the men avIio Avere anticipations of Christ, is because it is so supremely important that Christ should be seen to stand alone among men, no one near Him. A prophet may be a man of God, but Christ is the Lamb of God that taketh aAvay the sin of the world, — that to God may be all the glory of man's redemption. See also the preceding article.
Literature. — P. Fairbairn, Typology ; A. B. Davidson, The- ology of the OT, and the same writer's Com. on the Epistle to the Hebrews ; Bp. Westcott, Hebrews ; Denney, Death of Christ ; art. ' Sacrifice ' in Hastings' DB (by W. P. Paterson) and in Encyc. Brit.s (by W. R. Smith).
T. Gregory. SADDUCEES. — 1. Derivation and use of the name. — It seems impossible to attain certainty as to the derivation of the name ' Sadducees ' (Zaddov-
I
SADDUCEES:
SADDUCEES
549
Kaioi ; D'pi^s). Formerly it was supposed to be con- nected witli the adjective zaddik, 'righteous' ; but this derivation is now generally given up, for philo- logical and other reasons. No explanation can be given of the change from i io u; and the Sadducees were never regarded, either by themselves or by otiiers, as specially righteous. In more recent times the commonly accejjted derivation is from the proper name Zaduk ; but neither is tliis without its difficulties. The doubling of the d is not well accounted for, and the problem as to which Zadok gave name to the party is one upon which there is considerable difference of opinion. Many hold that it was Zatlok the priest, the contemporary of David and Solomon (2 S S^' W\ 1 K 1^ 2^^ etc.), whose posterity officiated in the Temple down to the time of the Lxile, and even formed the chief element of the post-exilic priesthood ; but Kuenen says this conjecture is ' burdened with insurmountable diffi- culties ' (Religion of Israel, iii. p. 122). A Jewish legend states that it was a disciple of Antigonus of Socho, named Zadok ; but this is almost universally admitted to have no historical foundation. To solve the difficulty, Kuenen and Montet postulate a Zadok, ' perhaps a contemporary of Jonathan the Asmona^an ' (Kuenen, I.e.), from whom the name may have been derived ; but this, again, is purely hypothetical. Yet another suggestion is ofllered by A. E. Cowley (art. 'Sadducees' in the EBi), that the word may have been of Persian origin, connected with zindik, Avhich is used in a general sense for 'infidel.' The suggestion is interesting, but is put forward ' with great diffidence ' by its author.
But however uncertain the derivation may be, there is no dubiety about the application of the name 'Sadducees.' It is always used to designate the political l)arty of the Jewish aristocratic priest- hood from the time of the Maccabees to the final fall of the Jewish State. The chief authorities for its use are the NT, Josephus, and portions of the Mishna. It is important to note that, while any one, whatever his rank or station, could be a Pharisee, no one could be a Sadducee unless he belonged to one of the high-priestly or aristocratic families. It was not enough to be a priest. There was as great a distance between the higher and lower orders of the priesthood as between the aristocracy and the common people.
2. Outline of history. — From the beginning of the Grecian period of Jewish history, and even before that time, the whole conduct of political aflairs was in the hands of the priestly aristocracy. Influenced by Hellenic culture, they sympathized to some extent with the policy of Antiochus Epi- phanes which provoked the Maccabajan rebellion ; and although, as a consequence, they fell into tiie background during the earlier period of Hasmona'an rule, tiiey recovered their position in the time of Joim Hyrcanus, imdei' whom we find them, now known as Sadducees, in direct antagonism to the Pharisees, or party of the scrites. These for a sliort time acceded to power under Alexandra, but inmiediately afterwards the Sadducees came again to tiie front. In the Roman period their power was considerably diminished, in this respect that while they were aV)le to retain tlie high offices for tiiemselves, they were compelled to adopt tiie policy of the Piiarisees, who had an overwhelming influ- ence with the people. The high priests at the head of the Sanhedrin were Sadducees, but they were always in a minority; tiiough essentiallj' a political party, they had apparently no independent exist- ence apart from Jerusalem and its Temple, and with the fall of tiie Jewish State they disappear entirely from history.