THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
other hand, where the matter turns on particular scribes, the text mentions " certain of the scribes " (Matt. ix. 3, xii. 38, etc.)- Only where the scribes are named in conjunction with the Pharisees is the general expression used for the former with reference to individuals (Mark ii. 16; Luke v. 30, etc.). On the contrary, " the scribes," without other qualification, is never used of individuals, but everywhere only of the entire category (Matt. vii. 29, xvii. 10, etc.). / Hence the scribes are conceived as a class; the Pharisees as a compact party, such as is represented even in the case of" individual members. Occasionally in the addresses of Jesus to the scribes and Pharisees there is to be remarked the distinctive reference to the learned legal science of the former and the prescriptive manner of life advanced by the latter. So the scribes appear as theorists in contrast with the Pharisees as practitioners. For the most part, however, the two were likely to be united in one and the same person. This close affinity between Pharisees and scribes crops out alike in Josephus, in the New Testament, and in the Talmud. Where Josephus speaks of Jewish scribes, he generally implies that they are adherents of the Pharisaic school (War, I., xxxiii. 2-3, II., xvii. 8; Ant., XVII., vi. 2). Conversely, where he brings the Pharisees into his narrative, he assumes that they make disciples and give instruction in the law, hence are scribes (Ant., XIII., x. 6). Again, certain scribes well known and eminent in Talmudic sources, he designates as Pharisees (Ant., XV., i. 1, x. 4; Life, xxxviii.). In the New Testament, the scribes and Pharisees are now grouped together in the discourses of Jesus (Matt. v. 20, xxiii. 2 sqq.; cf. Luke vii. 30), and are introduced as acting in common (Matt. xii. 38, and elsewhere). Moreover, the two designations often vary in parallel passages, as well as in the relation of the same Gospel. Lastly, the post-Maccabean scribes of the Mishna speak of one another as the "Learned" (hakamim) ; whereas in the controversial objections of the Sadducees they are termed " Pharisees " (Judaim, iv. 6, 7, 8) and advocate Pharisaic views. From all this it is to be assumed that the Pharisees were composed of the leading scribes and their following, and were the practical exponents of the theoretical knowledge of the law. On the contrary, the Sadducees, like the Hellenists of the pre-Maccabean era, had their nucleus in the Jewish aristocracy. Those magnates (" mighty Josephus, Ant., XIII., vi. 2; cf. War, I., v. 3), who as counselors of Alexander Jannams were by him endowed with the highest honors, but were thrust aside by Queen Salome Alexandra, were undoubtedly Sadducees. For their persecution took place under the Pharisees' rule of terror. In his general depiction of the Sadducees, Josephus says expressly that they had only the rich on their side, but not the common people (Ant., XHL, x. 6), that this doctrine won but few, but they the first in dignity (Ant., XVIII., i. 4). And in the Psalms of Solomon, wherein the joy of the Pharisaic circles over the downfall of the Sadducees in the year 69 b.c. finds distinct vent, the latter are described as eye-serving courtiers and un-
ones
6. Sadducees as Aristocrats.
just judges (iv. 1-10, ii. 3-5). Hence the Sadducees' aristocratic character is distinctive and proper. But if Josephus (Life, i.) designates the priests in general as the nobility of the Jewish people, at all events this does not apply in a social connection. And it is erroneous (Geiger, Hausrath, Montet) to suppose that the Sadducees represented the interests of the priesthood on a preponderant scale; there lay no intrinsic objection in the nature of Pharisaism to the priesthood as such, and there appear to have been not a few priestly Pharisees (cf. Josephus, Life, i.-ii., xxxix.; Mishna Eduyoth, ii. 6-7, viii. 2; Aboth, ii. 8, iii. 2; Shekalim, iv. 4, vi. 1). It was rather the high-priestly families that" offset the rest of the priesthood in the manner of a distinctive aristocracy. Under the Maccabean Simon, the adherents thereof effected their reception into the senate; while in the time of Pompey, they sat and voted in the sanhedrim (Ps. of Sol., iv. 2), which had grown out of the earlier senate, and represented a remnant of political independence, while their influence here was limited by the unaristocratic assessors of the scribes' class, yet in a certain measure it was secured by the fact that the high priests, who now constantly belonged to their circles, held the presidency in the sanhedrim. These " chief priests," as the officiating and former high priests, together with their kindred, are called in the New Testament (Schurer, in TSK, 1872, pp. 614 sqq.), are therefore at once the most important element of the Jewish aristocracy, and the proper nucleus of the Sadducean party. Josephus mentions only incidentally of Ananus that he belonged to the Sadducees (Ant., XX., ix. 1). In the Psalms of Solomon the Sadducee members of the sanhedrim appear as unworthy directors of the temple worship (i. 8, ii. 1-5, viii. 12). In Acts the Sadducees are expressly designated as those empowered with dispensing penal correction (iv. 1-3), as also the high priest's party (v. 17). Certain reminders of the Sadducaic complexion of the high priest's retinue occur in talmudic sources (cf. Geiger, ut sup., pp. 109sqq.).
In keeping with this class distinction between Pharisees and Sadducees is the national attitude of the two parties. One may not think of the. Sadducees as the national and patriotic 7. Relation party; of\the Pharisees, on the conof Pharisees trary, as aj*. unattached, inlernktiohal to Jewish society. ^To the Pharisees might betteij Nationalism, be applied the term " national '"; "ffiev were more frequently the ppposers oi the oppressors of the people. It is to the Pharisees that Rabbi Hillel's word applies: " Do not separate thyself from the congregation " (Pirke Aboth, ii. 4); and they desired that the benefits of the theocracy should benefit all, without exception (II Mace. ii. 17). Hence the Pharisees had not only the women on their side (Josephus, Ant., XVII., ii. 4), but the masses generally (Ant., XIII., x. 6). Yet on another side one may not perceive in them the healthy citizenship, the true kernel of the people, the truly national party. As a faction of the scribes, they pursued only distinctively religious aims. It was merely in a religious connection that they desired the welfare of the people and