[440] nomiks, the legis Divinae peritus, St. Matt. xxii. 35; St. Luke vii. 30; x.25; xi. 45; xiv. 3.
[441] Not 45 a, as apud Derenbourg. Similarly, his rendering littéralement, "citerne vide"' seems to me erroneous.
[442] Ab. ii. 8.
[443] Ber. 45 b 2; Ab. ii. 5; Bemid. R. 3.
[444] Jos. Ant. xvii. 6. 2.
[445] nomodids kalos, St. Luke v. 17; Acts v. 34; comp. also 1 Tim. i. 7.
[446] St. Matt. ii. 4; xx. 18; xxi. 15; xxvi. 57; xxvii. 41; St. Mark xiv.1.43;xv. 1; St. Luke xxii. 2, 66; xxiii. 10; Acts iv. 5.
[447] The distinction between Pharisees' and Scribes,' is marked in may passages in the N.T., for example, St. Matt. xxiii. passim; St. Luke vii. 30; xiv. 3; and especially in St. Luke xi. 43, comp. with v. 46. The words Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,' in ver. 44, are, according to all evidence, spurious.
[448] Siphré or Numb. p 25 b.
[449] Siphré on Deut. p. 105 a.
[450] Ezra vii.6, 10, 11, 12.
[451] {hebrew}
[452] Nedar. iv. 8.
[453] In Ned. iv. 3 this is the actual division. Of course, in another sense the Midrash might be considered as the source of both the Halakhah and the Haggadah.
[454] Neh. xiii.
[455] Very strange and ungrounded conjectures on this subject have been hazarded, which need not here find a place. Comp. for ex. the two articles of Grätz in Frankel's Montsschrift for 1857, pp. 31 etc. 61 etc., the main positions of which have, however, been adopted by some learned English writers.
[456] The Talmudic notices are often inconsistent. The number as given in them amounts to abut 120. But the modern doubts (of Kuenen and others) against the institution itself cannot be sustained.
[457] Ezra x. 14; Neh. v. 7.
[458] Ab. i. 1.
[459] In the beginning of the third century b.c.
[460] Ab. i. 3, 4
[461] Zunz has well pointed out that, if in Ab. i. 4 the first couple' is said to have received from them' - while only Antigonus is mentioned in the preceding Mishnah, it must imply Antigonus and his unnamed disciples and followers. In general, I may take this opportunity of stating that, except for special reasons, I shall not refer to previous writers on this subject, partly because it would necessitate too many quotations, but chiefly because the line of argument I have taken differs from that of my predecessors.
[462] Ab. i. 2.
[463] Ab. i. 3.
[464] See Appendix IV.: Political History of the Jews from the Reign of Alexander to the Accession of Herod.'
[465] 160-143 b.c.
[466] The Gerousa, 1 Macc. xii. 6; xiii. 36; xiv. 28; Jos. Ant. xiii. 4. 9; 5. 8.
[467] At the same time some kind of ruling lerousa existed earlier than at this period, if we may judge from Jos. Ant. xii 3.3. But he uses the term somewhat vaguely, applying it even to the time of Jaddua (Antiq. xi. 8. 2).
[468] Ant. xi. 4. 8.
[469] Even Ber. 48 a furnishes evidence of this enmity.' This, of course, is an inference from the whole history and relation there indicated. On the hostile relations between the Pharisaical party and the Maccabees see Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. p. 367. Comp. Jer. Taan. iv. 5.
[470] Ant. xiii. 10. 5. 6.
[471] Kidd 66 a.
[472] Jer. Maas Sheni v. end, p. 56 d Jer. Sot. ix. p. 24 a.
[473] geroussia
[474] {hebrew}Sanh 82 a; Ab. Z. 36 b.
[475] Derenbourg takes a different view, and identifies the tribunal of the Asmoneans with the Sanhedrin. This seems to me, historically, impossible. But his opinion to that effect (u. s. p. 87) is apparently contradicted at p. 93.
[476] sundrion. {hebrew} in the N.T also once gerousa, Acts v. 21 and twice presbutrion St. Luke xxii. 66; Acts xxii 5.