THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
gau, continuing them in a secret correspondence with Melanchthon to induce him and Prince George of Anhalt to accept a modified sacrificial theory of the mass; and he was also concerned in the deliberations between Maurice and Joachim II. and their theologians at Juterboch. The result was the first draft of the Leipsic Interim, which was submitted to the national diet in his presence.
In his own diocese Pflug refrained from disturbing the Lutherans, restoring Roman Catholic worship only in the chief church in Zeitz and the cathedral of Xaumburg, and even permitting Protestant services to be held in the latter. There was almost an entire dearth of Roman Catholic clergy, nor could he secure a sufficient number from other dioceses. He was accordingly forced to allow the married ministers whom Amsdorf had* placed in office to retain their positions, though without Roman Catholic ordination. In Nov., 1551, he was present for a short time at the Council of Trent. Even after the final success of the Protestants in 1552, he remained in undisturbed possession of his see, thanks to his popularity and moderation ; and after the abdication of Charles V., he urged the best interests of Germany in his Oratio de ordinanda republica Germanice (Cologne, 1562). In 1557 he presided at the religious conference at Worms, but was unable to prevent the Flacians from wrecking negotiations. To the last, however, he hoped that, when the Council of Trent reassembled, his moderate program would be successful in restoring religious peace. (G. Kawerau.)
Bibliography: The earlier biographies are superseded by that of A. Jansen, in Neue Mittheilungen aus dem Gebiet hislor.-antiq. Forschungen, x (1863), parts 1 and 2. Consult further: A. von Druffel, Briefe und Akten zur Geschichte des 16. J ahrhunderis, Munich, 1873 sqq.; L. Pastor, Die kirchlichen Reunionsbestrebungen, Freiburg, 1879; Sixtus Braun, Naumburger Annalen, pp. 280 sqq., Naumburg, 1892; Rosenfeld, in ZKG, xix (1S98), 155 sqq.; E. Hoffmann, Naumburg im Zeitalter der Reformation, Leipsic, 1901 ; J. Janssen, Hist, of the German People, vi. 147, 182-187, 248, 366, 396 sqq., St. Louis, 1903. Scattering notices of his activity will be found in many works dealing with the Reformation.
PHARAOH. See Egypt, I., 2, § 4.
PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES.
Importance; Sources of Knowledge (§ 1). Derivation of " Pharisee " (§ 2). Derivation of " Sadducee " (§ 3). Date of Origin (§ 4). Relations of Pharisees and Scribes (§ 5). Sadducees as Aristocrats (§ 6).
Relation of Pharisees to Jewish Nationalism (§ 7). Relation of Sadducees to Nationalism (§ 8). ^-Religious Characteristics (§ 9). Theological Differences (§ 10). I.caal and Dogmatic Differences (§ 11). Relation of Pharisaism to Religion (§ 12).
The great importance of a proper understanding of the two parties thus named for the history of the later Judaism and of primitive Christianity is not to be misconceived. The entire history of the Jews and of their literature from the Maccabean wars until the destruction of Jerusalem is dominated by this partizan antithesis. The history of Jesus himself and of the original Church are largely thereby conditioned, since it was particularly in conflict with the Pharisees that the doctrine, self-
witness, and whole active career of Jesus took shape
as they did, while over against a Pharisaism which
pushed its way even into Christianity the Apostle
Paul had to defend the right of his
i. Impor- mission to the gentiles, and the unitance; versality of Christian salvation. All
Sources of the more serious, then, that the sources Knowl- toward knowledge of those parties can edge. be utilized only under difficulties. The Old-Testament books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, Esther, and Daniel, are pertinent merely in relation to the preliminary history of the same. And only in sparing measure can even the Old-Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (qq.v.) be employed; among the latter, chiefly the Psalms of Solomon (see Pseudepigrapha, II., 1). In the Gospels and in Acts a few dogmatic differences are mentioned as between Pharisees and Sadducees; but this allows no certain deduction respecting the fundamental and distinctive character of either party. Even the invectives of Jesus against the Pharisees have had reference to outgrowths of their trend, and are not to influence a judgment of their actual essence. What data Acts and the Pauline epistles contain by way of defining the Pharisaical anti-Pauline Jewish Christians, warrant only slight a posteriori deductions regarding Pharisaism. /Doubtless the most valuable intelligence concerning the Pharisees and Sadducees is given by Josephus, whose data are appreciably colored (cf. Baumgarten, Jahrbucher filr deutsche Theologie, IX., 616 sqq.; Paret, in TSK, 1856, pp. 809 sqq.) by his own attenuated Pharisaism and by his effort to present Jewish conditions in the most favorable light before the Greek and Roman wes&7 Patristic data are strongly dependent on Josephus/ and are, furthermore, untrustworthy. The Jewish talmudic literature is of great significance in the study of Pharisaism since it is itself elicited by the Pharisaic spirit. Yet its anecdotal details about .the history of the Pharisees and Sadducees are almost wholly valueless, being conceived from the standpoint of the later Jewish scholasticism. Yet despite this dearth of sources, they still afford a fairly distinct portraiture of the two parties.
The names of the two parties throw some light on the origin and character of both parties. Touching the meaning of the name " Pharisee " there can exist no doubt. The Pharisees are certainly designated as the " separated " (cf. the 2. Deriva- Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan on tion of Deut. xxxiii. 16; Josh. iii. 5) — those " Pharisee." who by their prescriptive and ascetic sanctity hedged themselves apart from not only heathenism but also from the rest of Judaism. This explanation occurs even so early as in Suidas, in the Homilies of Clement (xi. 28), in Epiphanius (Hcer., xvi. 1), and Pseudo-Tertullian {fleer., i.). The same is borne out by the abstract Perishuth, in Talmudic writings, in the signification of abstemiousness or exclusive ascetic piety; and by the Talmudic use of the term Perischin, in the reproachful sense of separatists. From the latter use and the avoidance of the term Pharisees in the thoroughly Pharisaic II Maccabees, one may infer that the name arose in hostile circles.