SADDUCEE AND PHARISEE-THE ORIGIN

AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NAMES.'sa

BY T. W. MANSON, M.A., [Link]., D.D.
RYLANDS PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER.

IT will be convenient to begin with the name Sadducee and

with the only explanation of it which seems to command
any degree of confidence at the present time. The corn-
manly accepted view is that Za8Souraior (Rabb. '?!IPS) is derived
from the proper name pi$, $adok being the real or supposed
founder of the party. There are two theories concerning the
identity of this Sadok. On the one he is the $adok who was high-
priest in the reign of Solomon ; on the other he is the person
who actually founded the party or was an outstanding member
of it at some time in the Creek period. Unfortunately, unlike
the high-priest of Solomon's day, nothing is known about this
second S d o k except that his name has been preserved in the
party name, for the Rabbinic account of the origins of the
Sadducees and Boethosians may safely be dismissed as legendary.
This latter explanation certainly avoids one of the difficulties
attaching to the derivation from $adok, the high-priest of
Solomon's time ; but apart from this negative virtue it mustl
even though it is backed by the great authority of Ed. Meyer;
be deemed to explain ignotum per ignotius.
The difficulties in the way of the current theow are serious.
(i) There is the fact that the reigning high-priestly
in the period with which we are concerned were not descend4
'A lecture delivered in the John Rylands Library on the 10th of November*
1937.
' In collecting the materials for this paper I have had most generoy
from Mr. M. N. Tod. He is, of course, not responsible for my mnduslom.
a Ursprung und Anfange des Christenturns, ii. 291.
144
 SADDUCEE AND PHARISEE 145
from Sadok. The Hasmoneans belonged to the priestly course
of Jojarib, and traced their descent to Aaron through a different
line from the descendants of Sadok.'
(ii) The natural way to describe the descendants of Sadok
is not ~ ' p ~ buti jp i ? '32 ; and this is the form which is in fact
used in Ecclesiasticus (li, 12, Heb.) and the Damascus document
([Link],1.21; f.2b,1.3).'
(iii) The form z a 8 8 0 v ~ a i o spresupposes a doubled 7 in the
Hebrew or Aramaic original, and this is confirmed by the
Rabbinic 'R173, whereas in g i g the 7 is undoubled. Schiirer
(G.J.V.3 ii, 477 ff.) made a strong attempt to overcome this
objection by showing that in MSS. of the Septuagint the name
p i g is frequently rendered by Za88ovr and the like. Against
this it must be pointed out that we are concerned with the pro-
nunciation of the names among Jews, and that here the variant
readings of Christian copies of the Greek Bible do not really
help is.3 T h e Rabbis knew that Sadducee was pronounced
with a double 7 and that g i g was That is the vital fact.
Before going on to offer an explanation of the name Sadducee,
which seems to avoid these difficulties, it may be well to reiterate
one or two points which are well enough known but not always
well enough remembered in discussing the Sadducees.
(i) The Sadducees are not to be identified simply with the
whole body of the priesthood. Probably most, if not all,
Sadducees were priests ; but certainly not all, or even most,
of the priests were Sadducees. On the contrary many priests,
we know for certain, were Pharisees.'
(ii) In matters of religion the leading characteristic of the
Sadducees is a determined resistance to all innovations ; and,
I Macc. ii, 1 ; xiv, 29.
In Charles's division of the text : v, 7 ; vi, 2.
It is, for example, possible that the spelling Z h s 8 0 v ~is influenced by
reminiscences of Z h 8 8 o v ~ a ~ o s .
SOdid Josephus. With him Sadducee is Ca88ov~&os; but the high-
priest, $ado!, is not z d 8 8 o v ~ o sbut S 8 w ~ o (Ant.,
s viii, 11).
6 Josephus himself (Vita. 1 f., 12) ; Ijananiah DQT>T 1 10; R Jose, the
priest, a disciple of Johanan b. Zakkai. We may also note the presence of
Synagogue ritual in the Temple (Tamid, iv, 3 ; v, I).
10
146 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
while stubborn conservatism is a common enough ecclesiastica]
phenomenon, it is not the stuff of which new sects are made.
T h e matter has been well put by Meyer : ' So halten auch bei
den Juden die besitzenden Klassen in Staat und Kirche an den
alten Auschauungen fest und wollen von den Neuerungen
nichts wissen. Aber eben dadurch sind sie zur Stagnation und
schliesslich zum Absterben verurteilt ; es fehlt ihnen ein le-
bendiges, schopferisches Prinzip, sie kiinnen lediglich negieren."
(iii) While the religious position of the Sadducees has to
be defined in terms of the doctrines which they rejected, the
positive characteristics of the party belong to another sphere.
They are the wealthy (E;.rropo~) and the people of high social
standing ( ~ O T O70;s
L h f ~ d p ~ v )Their
.~ manners are stiff to
the point of rudeness, and that even. among themselves4 In
the administration of justice they are harsh and severe.' These
traits are all well known, and it is important to keep them in
mind. The positive qualities of the Sadducees are just those
most likely to be developed in a class that has had the responsi-
bilities and the opportunities of political leadership in a
of almost continuous political crisis.
These considerations suggest that it is probably a mistake
to look about for some historical person who may have laid down
the Sadducean programme or embodied the Sadducean ideal;
for there is no such ideal or programme. The Sadducees of
history are a body of practical men running the affairs of their
nation on what would nowadays be called common-sense lines,
making the best bargain they can for their people-and incident*
ally for themselves-in the existing circumstances. For ideals
and programmes we must look elsewhere, to the men who wrote
the Apocalypses, codified the Law and the Tradition, or founded
the community of the Essenes.
That being so we ought to look for the orisin of the partY
name in the sphere in which the Sadducees lived and workd
Ursprung und Anfiinge des Christenturns, ii, 293 f.
Jose~[Link].. xiii. 298.
bid., m i , 7 For the force of a'(lwpa here, we may compare MOW
menturn Ancyrmum, 34, 3 : a ' f ~ d p a~~ d ~ m ~v L T ~ V Ewhere ~ K ~
renders the Latin auctoritate.
'
Jose~hus,B.I., ii, 166. Ibid., Ant., xx, 199.
 SADDUCEE AND PHARISEE 147
-international politics. And in this sphere we come upon
what is at least a possible explanation.
In the bilingual tariff inscription of Palmyra l (A.D. 137),
Iine 1 I, we have mention of a body of officials who bear the name
.
pi770 T h e corresponding Iine (1 2) of the Greek version
gives as the equivalent ZYNdIK0Y.Z These Syndics appear along
with the Archons for the time being and the Ten ; and, along
with these persons, they are made responsible for the enforce-
ment of the provisions of the fiscal decree. The possibility
that the Z ~ ~ ~ O V derive
K ~ ~through
O L Fi776 from an original
U ~ V ~ L K O seems
C worth investigation. There are several con-
siderations which favour the hypothesis.
(i) It accounts satisfactorily for the doubled D, by assimila-
tion of the N. ParalIeIs can be found in Aramaic for Creek
loan-words ending in -0s) being provided with an Aramaic
termination a i (Heb. T ) . ~ An obvious difficulty is that the
Palmyrene inscription spells the word with a b, while the
Rabbinical literature uses a Y. But this difficulty is not in-
superable. For (a) there is evidence of the use of Y rather than
O for a in the transliteration of Creek words ; and (b) Y and D
appear as interchangeable equivalents of a in transliteration of
the same word in the same Aramaic dialect.' Further, even if
our supposed Aramaic transliteration of d u 8 ~ ~ phad s been
originally spelt with a 0, it is quite possible that popular ety-
mology would substitute the 5, once the derivation of the word
was forgotten.6 Indeed it would not be incredible that the
C.I.S. Aram. 3913 (Pt. 11, vol. iii, fasc. 1 (1926). pp. 33-73). T h e in-
scription is given also in Lidzbarski's Handbuch, pp. 463 ff. and (with com-
mentary) in C.A. Cooke, N.S.I.. No. 147. The relevant part is given in the
Appendix to Bevan's Commentary on Daniel.
a Dalman, Gram.: p. 185.
3E.g. mdpup, Aram. XPL)?, a a m v , h a m . FDF SF. . b-j ;
D , k903~9.
Tpoawrov, Aram. ~ ~ X Y Syr.
mp+wvla. Bibl. Aram. maam, Syr. j-J-3 ; AflaaC Chr. Pal.
Aram. dk\ and +. ; -l\iJ Arm. X ~ X N . ~ ~ Dand
X ,
KSUP-K ; examples in Mandaic, N~ldeke,Cram., p. 45.
'An instructive display of the workings of popular etymology is given
in The Folk and their Word-lore, by A. Smythe Palmer. We all know that
Jerusalem artichokes do not derive, in any sense, from Jerusalem ; but it may
be a surprise to learn that the word ' belfry ' has nothing to do with bells, and
that ' arbours ' did not originate from trees.
1 48 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
Sadducees themselves should have made the connection between
their name and the root j713.l
(ii) The hypothesis of a Greek origin of the name fits in
with the fact that in the sphere of political administration, both
military and civil, the infiltration of Greek terms is most marked.%
(iii) What we otherwise know about the functions of the
~ V S L Kagrees
O L very well with what we know or may reasonably
conjecture about the activities of the Sadducees.
The ~ V B L K O L appear in Athenian history in the fourth cen-
tury B.C. in connection with the annual ~TLXELPOTOVICL v 6 p v .
They are five in number, and their business is to defend the
existing laws against innovation or amendment. In the speeches
of Lysias they seem to be the persons appointed to look after
the interests of the State in judicial cases. Again the ot;vSt~or
are the representatives of the community in ihternational dis-
putes of a legal character. In the Imperial period there are
numerous references to ~ ~ ~ L K bothO L , of cities and of corporate

bodies. In the case of these latter the syndics are generally

permanent officials. In the case of cities they are usually a p
pointed ad hoc to represent their city in a case before the Emperor
or his deputy.
Further light is thrown on the office of the dv8rrcos by
the Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine periods. According
to Seidl he has three main duties : (a) to give legal advice to the
PouA~jand the assembly of his community ; (b) to represent
them in dealings with the Roman authorities ; and (c) to look
after the fiscal interests of the community as against private
Later in this paper it will be argued that the Pharisaic explanation of the
name Pharisee by means of the root W 1 3 is a piece of false etymology. Another
example of the same kind of thing is the word D1713%K, Klli)lDK,Creek
, (as 1 prefer to think) E)TLKOV~OS.
' f i ~ ~ o 6 p c i o s or n i s word is later con.
nected with the root T ~ D ' to, be uncontrolled ' or ' licentious ' (Levy, N.H.W.B.I
i, 143a).
a See the collection in Schiirer, G. J.V.", ii, 59 f.
The information here summarised is drawn mainly from the articles on
~ V ~ L K O by S , Kahrstedt and Seidl, in Pauly-Wissowa (11, R., IV, 2 cols. 1331-3)*
and by Chapot in Daremberg and Saglio. Cf. also Liebenam, ~tiidteve~al~u@
im Romischen Kaiserreiche, pp. 303 f. ; Le Bas-Waddington, Voyage Archhh+W
iii. 2, pp. 286 f. ; J. [Link], Essai sur Z'Histoire Politique et E c o n o m i P
Pahyre, p. 44.
 SADDUCEE AND PHARISEE 149
individuals. Often, perhaps usually, the is also a
~ V ~ L K O S

~ovhevnis.
It is worth noting that the H 5 p l D of the Palmyrene inscrip-
tion appear as exercising the third of these functions ; and
Fdvrier conjectures that they may also have had the task of
obtaining Roman approval for the fiscal changes before they
were put into force, i.e. they may also have exercised the second
function of representing the Palmyrene community in its rela-
tions with the Roman authorities.' How far does this descrip-
tion tally with the history of the ruling class in Judaea?
We are accustomed to think of the rise to power of the
Hasmonaeans in terms of armed rebellion against the Seleucid
empire ; and this is a true view-up to the death of Judas
Maccabaeus. After that the story is a different one. ' When
Judas led them, they confronted a single central government,
and won what they won by the sword from the royaI forces.
But from now the Seleucid house was with rare intervals
represented by rival claimants, and the gains of the Jews were
concessions from one or other of the kings, whose quarrels the
astute Hasmonaean politicians knew how to turn to their own
advantage.' It is they who treat with successive overlords as
the representatives of the Jewish community.
Further, for the greater part of this period they are the official
interpreters of the law. It is true that later the Pharisees ob-
tained a voice in the Jewish courts ; but that was a concession
only grudgingly granted when the Pharisees had got the support
of a large body of public opinion behind them.
Again the system of direct taxation in the Jewish community
One other example of the word ~ V ~ L K OisS perhaps worth mentioning.
though the interpretation of the evidence is matter of dispute. In the Publica-
tions of an American Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1899-1900, Pt. III,
P. 303, W. K. Prentice publishes an insc6ption (No. 383) found at Mushennef :
OEOAWPOYCYN
AIKOY NOMA
AWN
and suggests that OI;VSLKOS
is the title of an Arab sheikh recognised in some degret
vassal of the Roman Empire. This suggestion is rejected by Chapot ; and
I am content merely to note the existence of the inscription.
a E. R. Bevan, Jerusalem under the High Priests, p. 100.
 150 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
was intimately bound up with the Temple and the priesthood.
It was therefore inevitable that the Sadducees, established in
the upper ranks of the priesthood, should exercise control of
the fiscal svstem.
In the three essential points the activities of the Sadducees
agree with the description of the ~ V ~ L K O L .It is perhaps worth
adding that their character as stubborn opponents of any in.
novation reminds one of the function of the original ~thenian
&~LKOL.

There are a few other matters which must be at least touched

upon before we leave the Syndics of the Jews.
First, and perhaps most important, are the Boethosians.
Like the Sadducees they are commonly thought to derive their
name from a person, that BoyOds, who is said by Josephus to
have been the father of Simon the highepriest. Simon was
appointed to that office by Herod the Great in order that he
might be of sufficient standing to be a suitable father-in-law
for the king.l The family of Boethus produced a number of
subsequent highLpriests ; and it is natural to suppose that this
dynasty with their associates are referred to under the name
of Boethosians. There are, however, some considerations that
make one doubtful.
(i) In one early and clear reference to the dynasty of Boethus
(b. Pes. 57a Abba Saul b. Batnith in the name of Abba Jose b.
banin) the name given is not ~ ~ i n - 3 as we should
but,
expect, QlW53n93.
(ii) If the Boethosians got their name from the Boethus
who was the ancestor of the high-priestly dynasty, it is curious
that Jewish legend should pass over the obvious and trace the
Boethosians back to a mythical disciple of Antigonus of Sokho+
(iii) Boqods is not only a proper name : it is also an ~fficiJ
term corresponding to the Latin adiutor.2 As a technical term
it appears in the Syriac a o J . 1 ~where it is the equivalent
of our word adiutant.l BoqOds is frequent in the ostraca for
Jos., Ant., XV, 320 ; cf. wii, 78,339 ; A,
3.
'Dittenberger, O.G.I.S.,
p. 215, n. 1.
526 ; Maquardt, &m. Stcrat~~er~llfng,
Seu. Ant. Vif., 43, 8, cited in Payne-Smith, Tha. Syr., SuPPl.44b-
 SADDUCEE AND PHARISEE 151
the ' assistants ' of the ~ p ~ ~ ~ oorp etax-collectors,s and less
frequently for other assistant 0fficers.l In a papyrus of the
time of Hadrian the Praefect is described as d 700 v o p pov8ds ~
-the heIper of the d i ~ t r i c t . ~
In the light of this we may at least entertain the possibility
that the Boethosians were originally the pov8ol TOY (RIV~IKWV, the
assistants of the men who administered the affairs of Judaea
in the last two centuries B.C. It is noteworthy that all that is
recorded of them in Rabbinical literature suggests that they
are just a group within the Sadducean party.8 Indeed in the
passages cited by Billerbeck the names Sadducee and Boethosian
could be freely interchanged without creating any c o n f u s i ~ n . ~
Further, it may be added that if this view of the origin of the
Boethosians is correct, it will at least explain why the account
in Aboth de R. Nathan (5) makes the rise of both Sadducees and
Boethosians take place at the same time, and that a time in the
second century B.c.'
It may also be permissible to cast a passing glance at another
party mentioned in our Jewish sources the r0171i7'3X, usually
translated 'the Epicureans.' The impression left by the ac-
counts of them is not that of a body of philosophers, but rather
that they were ' lewd fellows of the baser sort,' who made
rude remarks about the Law and shouted insults at
Rabbis.' I do not wish to indulge in too many rash hypotheses,
and merely note the fact that 2 ~ I ~ o v piso ~a technical term for
mercenary troops, and that foreign mercenaries were employed
by the Hasmonaeans from John Hyrcanus onward^.^
Lastly, it may be suggested that the interpretation of the name
Sadducee here proposed gains some support from the coins
Cf. Wilcken, Ostr., i, I7 I , 558,618 ; P. Fay, 34 a (A.D. 161) and the Editors'
note ; Mitteis-Wilcken, Papym&mde, i, 84 ; P. Oxy, 1469 lo (A.D. 298), /?.7 0 9
o ~ p a 7 y o v ^the
, ' assistant of the strategus.'
P. Cis., i, &.I1
Cf. Billerbeck. Kornm... iv.. 341.
Op. cit., iv, 345 ff.
-
Cf. Suidas (ed. Benhardy), ii, col. 961. &av nAelovrs p 0 ~ 8 o l~ a l
Myopor T@ .rrpdYtLar~ vap&ar, ~ V ~ L K K
O ~LO ~ ^ Y T ( U .

For the passage from Aboth de R. Nathan see Billerbeck, iv, 343.
'Jos.,
8
Cf., for example, p. Sanh.. x, 27d.
Ant., xiii, 249, 374 ; B.I., i, 88.
152 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
of the Hasmonaeans, on what seems to be the most probable
interpretation of the superscriptions. On coins of John Hyrcanus,
Aristobulus I, Alexander Jannaeus, and Antigonus we get the
phrases P171;(';I Tan or P171;I';I 13n WX'1.l The second
phrase makes it fairly clear that 73n is a collective noun ; and
two interpretations of the word seem possible : either it means
the whole community of the Jews, or it means a smaller group
within the community, the ruling body or executive of the people.
The former view appears to be most in favour with scholars;
but there are two considerations which incline one to prefer
the latter.
(i) In the tariff inscription of Marseilles we find that the
regulations there made are made by the authority of the two
P~33rt' and certain other persons described as P I ~ X' their I col-
leagues.' These colleagues must be councillors or senators
of some kind.
(ii) Professor A. R. S. Kennedy suggests that 1211on the
Jewish coins = r6 K O W ~ V . H e goes on to show that in Josephus'
v i t a ' the ~ o r v d vmust have been a body with funaions re-
sembling those of an executive of the Sqps, and that the former
is to be taken as synonymous with oE r i j v ' I E p w o A v P c ~ ~T~GTOL,
v
by which expression, at the first mention of his appointment
as governor-general of Galilee (5 9), Josephus designates the
nominating body, which in all succeeding references he names
76 K O L V ~ Vr i j v ' I E P o ~ A v C C ~ r Q v . ~
One is accordingly inclined to see in the 1211 of the Jewish
coins the collective term for all those men who managed the
affairs of the Jewish people in those troublesome times, and to
regard P1'll;I1;I 'lln as the Hebrew equivalent of ot ~ V ~ L 72~
K O ~

'IovSalwv, just as later in Josephus the KO~VC is the equivalent

of ol rQv ' I ~ ~ ~ u o A ~T~GTOL. ~rijv

'The essential facts are in Schiirer, G.J.V* I, 268 ff., 275, 284 f.. 355;
more fully in C. F. Hill's Catalogue of the British Museum Collection, Palesine
volume (1 914).
'C.I.S., I, 165 ; Cooke, N.S.I., No. 42 ; Lagrange,,ftudessur les ReliBom
Skmitiques, Appendix.
The phrasing of the Marseilles inscription reminds one of the official
titles in the Aramaic letters in Ezra iv, 9, 17, 23 ; v, 3, 6 ; vi, 6, 13.
'H.D.B., iii, 425.
 SADDUCEE AND PHARISEE 153
The conclusion which I should draw from this discussion
is this : the Sadducees were originally the body of leading men
in the Jewish nation, who under the leadership of the Has-
monaeans formed an executive and administrative council.
This council appears in Judith and Macc. I, I I, I I I as the yepow&,
on Jewish coins as tJ'11;1';1 7>n, and at a later date as the
T ~ T X D . One name for its members was udvsc~os, and from
this Creek word came an Aramaic form 'K370. When the
origin of the name had been forgotten, it Gas explained by
false etymology as derived from the root PYX, just as ' Epi-
curean ' was connected with the root YpD and ' Pharisee ' with
the root W79. The Aramaic form explains the new Creek
~ ~ ~ O L J K ~and
~ O Sthe
, popular etymology the Rabbinic Hebrew
' 1 . It is, I think, likely that the connection with the root
plrr was made by the Sadducees themselves.'
We turn now to the name Pharisee, and begin with the
opposition between the Pharisees and Sadducees. The differ-
ences between the two parties are recorded in Josephus and
in the Rabbinical literature : there is also information on some
points of difference given in the New Testament. The material
is collected by Schiirer and Billerbeck,' and it has recently
been carefully discussed by Finkelstein and L a u t e r b a ~ h . ~
In the light of their treatment it is probably a mistake to describe
any of the matters in dispute between Pharisees and Sadducees
as unimportant. But there are issues that emerge as having
' In this connection I should draw attention to Lk. xG. 14 f. I cannot
help thinking that ot @apruaio~in v. 14 is a mistake. It is the Sadducees who
are ~LhcipYvPot, are proud (76 Zv &[Link] 3$qhdv) and scornful
( ~ ~ E ~ va6rdv). ~ ~ LAnd ~ ifo the v saying was originally addressed to the
Sadducees, the phrase t;p~?s 2u-r~ o t ~ L K ~ I O ~ ?ga~706s Y ~ E S becomes highly
significant : ' you are the people who call themselves ~ P ' 1 3.*t This conjecture.
which I worked out in some detail in The Mission and Message of Jesus, pp. 587
f., gains some support from the recently published Creek text of the last chapters
of Enoch (Studies and Documents, VIII). There, in Enoch, cii, 10, we read :
~ E T Eo h , o t ~ L K ~ L O ~[ ~
?Y~ u~ TE ISo d~?s~, o l aZYkv~roa 3 7 ~ v3 K ~ ~ U U [ T P O ] + ~
This passage is held by Charles to be addressed by the author of the
book to the Sadducees.
C.J.V.," ii. 449 ff. Kommentar. iv, 344 ff.
Haroard Theological Reoiew, xxii (1 929). 185-261.
Hebrew Union College Annual. VI (1929). 69-139.
154 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
been generally felt to be of critical importance. They are
marked by the fact that in each case the Pharisees put forward
a positive doctrine which the Sadducees simply reject.
(i) The Pharisees believe in a divine purpose in historn,
The course of events is overruled by divine providence in ac.
cordance with Cod's plan. Josephus translates this doctrine
for his Centile readers into : ~ l p z p p i Tq E at OEG rpoucimow~na'vm.
The Sadducees deny this.
(ii) The Pharisees believe in a future life where men are
rewarded or punished according to their behaviour in this,'
The Sadducees hold fast to the old doctrine of Sheol and reject
this innovatiom8
(iii) The Pharisees have a developed angelology and demon-
ology, which the Sadducees r e j e ~ t . ~
(iv) The Pharisees recognise as the supreme authority in
religion the Scripture plus Tradition. The Sadducees recognise
Scripture only.
The last of the four points is not directly important for our
purpose. It is sufficient to say that it gives the fundamental
position taken by the Sadducees in rejecting the characteristic
teaching of the Pharisees : sound Biblical doctrine and no
beliefs for which there is not clear warrant in Holy Writ.
With regard to the other three points we must go further.
B.J., ii, 162. .
a In Josephus this doctrine becorn-ain for the benefit of Gentile readen
-the immortality of the soul and its reincarnation in another body (!bid.,
163). But behind the sophisticated terminology the Pharisaic doctrine of the
resurrection is plain enough.
In this the Sadducees hold fast to Scripture and reject tradition. For
Sheol is the doctrine of the Old Testament. In holding fast to the 'Biblid'
doctrine the Sadducees show themselves true Semites. We may recall the
derision with which Mohammed's teaching about resurrection and judgment
was received by the Arabs in the early stages of his prophetic career. [Link]
Life of Mohammad (1923), pp. 78, 97. The Sadducean belief in Sheol is trans.
formed, and in some measure misrepresented by Josephus (B.J., ii,165 ; ht.*
xviii, 16).
* Acts xxiii, 8. This is the only testimonim for this article of Sadducfean
disbelief. Cf. Mmre, Judem,i, 68 ; Meyer, op. di.,ii, 297. It is mllkh
that the Sadducees denied outright the existence of angels and demons;
such beings are mentioned in Scripture. What they rejected was the devdod
doctrine of the two kingdoms with their hierarchies of good and evil spirits.
 SADDUCEE AND PHARISEE 155
The second and third are best disposed of in the careful words - '

of G.F. Mcore.'
' The eschatology of Judaism has an unmistakable affinity
to that of the Zoroastrian religion in the separation of the souls
of righteous and wicked at death, and their happy or miserable
lot between death and the resurrection, and in the doctrine of
a general resurrection and the last judgment with its issues.
The resemblances are so striking that many scholars are con-
vinced that this whole system of ideas was appropriated by the
Jews from the Zoroastrians, as well as that Jewish angelology
and demonology were developed under Babylonian and Persian
influence.'
The first point, providence and free-will, demands a closer
examination. And it is important to see clearly what it is that
the Sadducees are concerned to deny. Josephus says : a
' The Sadducees, the second of the orders, do away with
Fate altogether, and remove Cod beyond, not merely the com-
mission, but the very sight (+op2v), of evil. They maintain
that man has the free choice of good or evil, and that it rests
with each man's will whether he follows the one or the other.'
It does not seem to me that the Sadducees are here attempt-
ing to deny Providence altogether and to remove Cod from all
contact with the world after the manner of Epicureanism. It
is the problem of evil with which they are concerned. They
would allow that God is the cause of the good things that
happen in the world. They could do no other, for Scripture
asserted it plainly enough. What they would not allow was
that Cod was in any sense the cause of evil, either by direct
action or by to1eration.S They maintained that good and evil
are matters of free human choice and, we may suppose, that
man in choosing chooses the consequences that will follow from
his decision. In other words the Sadducees, in dealing with
the problem of evil, are still maintaining the positions adopted
'Judaism, ii. 394. 2 B.J,, ii. 164 f. (Thackeray's translation).
This I take to be the meaning of d+op2v. It is not mere ' seeing,' but
' looking upon ' in the pregnant sense in which the word is used of .Cod in the
W(X--looking upon with approval or toleration, seeing things as lnduded in
his own purpose.
156 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
by Job's comforters. At the same time they are rejectin*
another solution of the problem which explained evil by means
of the demons and their prince. It was involved in this ex.
planation that God had either created these evil forces or, at
least, tolerated their existence ; and this meant that the theology
based on the explanation was dualistic, even if the dualism was
qualified by the-fact that the toleration of evil was only for the
time being.
But here again we cannot but notice the resemblances
between the doctrine rejected by the Sadducees and the doctrines
of Zoroastrianism.
The result is that with regard to the most characteristic
doctrines of the Pharisees the captious Sadducean critic could
say with no little plausibility : ' This is not the religion of
Israel as set forth in our Scriptures ; it is the religion of Persia.'
And that, I suggest, is what they did say. The word @apmaas
is the Graecised form of the Aramaic i 1. $. ~- 1Persian
9 ; and it
was applied to the innovators in theology in much the same
way that the term ' Romaniser ' is used in theological cond
troversy in our own day. T h e name stuck,l and at a later date
was furnished with an edifying etymology. It was explained
that it was really connected with the root D13, and meant that
those who bore it were separated from all that is abominable
in Cod's sight. So we get the final form of the name in Rabbinic
Hebrew-qD~g with its clear indication of the Hebrm passive
participle.
Philologically the equation Qapcaaros = ;IXD19 does not
seem to present any difficulties. Hebrew or Aramaic D may
be transliterated by r or 4 : and 4 is rather the more frequent
of the two. Quite often a and 4 occur as alternative rendering
in the same word. For example Hebrew hD!5 appms in
Creek dress as r h a , # b ~ or , and the proper name
;1'nn3 is rendered by na8a;os and @[Link].
Further, the* termination -aios is perfectly normal. The
It is to be noted that the Pharisees in the early period do not use thenme
of themselves. It does not appear, for example. in Ps. Sol.. Tesf.
or the Creek portion of ~ n o c h .
' Thackeray. Grammar, i, 32.
 SADDUCEE AND PHARISEE 157
vast majority of words in -a%s listed in Hatch and Redpath,
vol. iii. are gentilic names corresponding to Hebrew words
with the ending (= Aram. a$;-). The real difficulty is
to account for the ending -ares on the common explanation of
Oap~craasas derived from an Aramaic Passive Participle X ~ ? D .
I cannot find any word ending in -ares in Hatch and ~ e d p i t h
derived from an Aramaic Passive Participle. The nearest
analogy would be 'Au~8a;os(= Heb. TF)?), NaSr~pa%s(= Heb.
7 , and NaO~vato~(= Heb. aynl). In that case @apaproa;os
would presuppose a Hebrew word !P7? ; but the extant Hebrew
equivalent of @upmaas is 'BY?, and there would have been
no need to produce this word if there had been a word t@?s
already in existence.
It may be objected to our explanation of the term Pharisee
that, if it were correct, one would have expected that ;1KDlf)
would have been translated by nE'par)s or ~ C ~ L instead
K ~ S of

being transliterated by @apaproaas. The answer to that is that,

by the time that a Creek equivalent of ;1XD79came to be required,
the origin of the name was already forgotten. (How many
Englishmen, who use the word ' Tory * in ordinary conversa-
tion, know its original meaning and derivation?) The word
had become a label, and the only thing to be done with it was to
transliterate it.
And it may be added that the transliteration tends to confirm
our hypothesis. Why is 4 used in preference to .rr? I think
the answer is to be found in the Creek versions of Daniel.'
In the story of Belshazzar's feast the writing on the wall
is given in Aramaic (v. 25) :
y q p r 3 ~ HIPs ~5
In the version of Theodotion (v. 25) the inscription is trans-
literated
Mavq EKE^ &ZP€s
In v. 28 of the Aramaic the inscription is thus explained :

' I am indebted to Mr. Tod for the reminder that this point wan worth
investigation.
158 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
This is rendered by Theodotion :

With this we may compare the passage which appears at the

beginning of ch. v in the LXX :
& ah- +j~ K T :2tqheov S d ~ m h o&el
~ h v e p d ~ ~~v a2rE'Yp$av
l
705 7 O ~~K O VaG705
0 1 ~ 0 2ml700 K O V L ~ ~ T OKS~ T & ~ W L7 0 0 ht;povs May
t r r
#apes e e ~ r h .Z
~ 8~L q EPCW)VE& ahijv pavq ~ ~ ~ ~ O C L ? / T4( aL Cp ,~ si[ijPa,
~EKE&
A T~T~L.
The fact that the Aramaic gives the two forms rD79 md
070 is a clear indication that in the mind of the writer (or, more
probably, of a subsequent editor or glossator) there was a double
~ o r d - ~ l ainvolving
y both the verb D>g ' to divide * and the
noun 0 3 '~the Persian land or nation.' Now the pronunciation
of the word written on the wall is given in both Creek versions
as Qaprs. If, then, there was to be a play on the word D?$ (or
'91)). ' Persia (or ' Persian 3, it seems likely that D?? and
-91) will have been pronounced in such a way that 4 would be
the most natural transliteration for the initial 3. In that case
a a p l a a i o s preserves the Palestinian pronunciation of ;1$511?,

and the (b is satisfactoriIy accounted for.

If the theories put forward in this paper are sound, they
bring into prominence certain points which are highly significant.
The Sadducees appear more definitely than ever as a political
order. Their influence on the development of the Jewish faith
is seen to be negligible. In theology they are the representatives
of an ossified orthodoxy with no guiding principle except ~d
semper, puod ubique, p o d ob omnibus. Consequently when the
Jewish state ceased to exist as a political entity and the Templev
the centre of the traditional ritual, was destroyed, the Sadduces
simply faded out of the picture.
The living branch of Judaism was the Pharisaic. The
Pharisees were doubtless orthodox in the sense of holding to
the old ways and the central doctrines of the religion of Israel;
but they were also receptive to new ideas. I am not concerned
to decide the question whether their characteristic docmna
 SADDUCEE AND PHARISEE 159
were derived from Persia or were the development-under
Persian influence--of ideas already implicit in Hebrew religion.
The point is that the new ideas were developed, and developed
by the Pharisees. They were the upholders of ' tradition ' ;
but the ?zapal6oo~sof the Pharisees was a living growing thing,
and the future of Judaism as a religion lay with them. And
finally their characteristic doctrines-the doctrines which, on
my view, earned them their nick-name-became the background
for the earliest Christian theology: