This bold hypothesis seems, indeed, to have been invented chiefly for the sake of another, still more unhistorical. The derivation of the name Sadducee' has always been in dispite. According to a Jewish legend of about the seventh century of our era, [1581] the name was derived from one Tsadoq (Zadok), [1582] a disciple of Antigonus of Socho, whose principle of not serving God for reward had been gradually misinterpreted into Sadduceeism. But, apart from the objection that in such case the party should rather have taken the name of Antigonites, the story itself receives no support either from Josephus or from early Jewish writings. Accordingly modern critics have adopted another hypothesis, which seems at least equally untenable. On the supposition that the Sadducees were the priest-party,' the name of the sect is derived from Zadok (Tsadoq), the High-Priest in the time of Solomon. [1583] But the objections to this are insuperable. Not to speak of the linguistic difficulty of deriving Tsadduqim (Zaddukim, Sadducees) from Tsadoq (Zadok), [1584] neither Josephus nor the Rabbis know anything of such a connection between Tsadoq and the Sadducees, of which, indeed, the rationale would be difficult to perceive. Besides, is it likely that a party would have gone back so many centuries for a name, which had no connection with their distinctive principles? The name of a party is, if self-chosen (which is rarely the case), derived from its founder or place of origin, or else from what it claims as distinctive principles or practices. Opponents might either pervert such a name, or else give a designation, generally opprobrious, which would express their own relation to the 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.
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. [1585] [1586] 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.' [1587] This, no doubt, on the ground that they were truly those who, according to the directions of Ezra, [1588] had separated themselves (become nibhdalim) from the filthiness of the heathen' (all heathen defilement) by carrying out the traditional ordinances. [1589] In fact, Ezra marked the beginning of the later,' in contradistinction to the earlier,' or Scripture-Chasidim. [1590] 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, [1591] or righteous.' Thus the name of Tsaddiqim would become that of the party 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. [1592] Some wit might have suggested: Read not Tsaddiqim, the righteous,' but Tsadduqim (from Tsadu, {hebrew}), desolation,' destruction.' Whether or not this suggestion approve itself to critics, the derivation of Sadducees from Tsaddiqim is certainly that which offers most probability. [1593]