� 26. Pharisees And Sadducees

§ 26. PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES
THE LITERATURE
For the older literature, see Carpzov, Apparatus hist.-crit. pp. 173, 204, and Daniel, art. “Pharisäer,” in Ersch and Gruber’s Encyclopädie, § 3, vol. xxii. p. 18.
Triglandius, Trium scriptorum illustrium de tribus Judaeorum sectis syntagma, in quo Serarii, Drusii, Scaligeri opuscula quae eo pertinent cum aliis junctim exhibentur. 2 vols. Delphis 1703.
Ugolini, Trihaeresium sive dissertatio de tribus sectis Judaeorum (Thesaurus anliquitatum sacrarum, tom. xxii.; and other dissertations therein).
Joh. Gottlob Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus antiquitatum sacri codicis (1748), pp. 173-215.
Grossmann, De Judaeorum disciplina arcana. Part i.-ii. Lips. 1833-1834. The same, De philosophia Sadducaeorum. Part i.-iv. Lips. 1836-1838. The same, De Pharisaeismo Judaeorum Alexandrino. Part i.-iii. Lips. 1846-1850. The same, De collegio Pharisaeorum. Lips. 1851.
Daniel, art. “Pharisäer,” in Ersch and Gruber, Allgemeine Encyklop. der Wissensch. und Künste, § 3, vol. xxii. (1846) pp. 17-34.
Winer, Realwörterb. ii. 244-248 (Pharisäer), and 352-356 (Sadducäer).
Lutterbeck, Die neutestamentlichen Lehrbegriffe, i. (1852) pp. 157-222.
Reuss in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. xi. 1859, pp. 496-509 (Pharisäer), and xiii. 1860, pp. 289-297 (Sadducäer).
Müller (Alois), Pharisäer und Sadducäer oder Judaismus und Mosaismus. Eine historisch-philosophische Untersuchung als Beitrag zur Religions-geschichte Vorderasiens (Report of the Session of the Viennese Academy, phil.-hist. class, vol. xxxiv. 1860, pp. 95-164).
Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, iv. 357 sqq., 476 sqq.
De Wette, Lehrb. der hebr.-jüdischen Archäologie (4th ed.), pp. 413-417.
Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, iii. 356 sqq., 382 sqq.
Jost, Gesch. des Judenthums und seiner Secten, i. 197 sqq., 216 sqq.
Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, pp. 101-158. The same, Sadducäer und Pharisäer (Jud. Zeitschr. vol. ii. 1868, pp. 11-54. Also printed separately). The same, Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte, Part i. (2nd ed. 1865) p. 86 sqq.
Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, vol. iii. (3rd ed. 1878) pp. 91 sqq., 647-657 (note 10).
Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 75-78, 119-144, 452-456.
Hanne, Die Pharisäer und Sadducäer als politische Parteien (Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1867, pp. 131-179, 239-263).
Keim, Geschichte Jesu, i. 250-282.
Holtzmann in Weber and Holtzmann, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, ii. 124-135.
Hausrath in d. Prot. Kirchenzeitung, 1862, Nr. 44. The same, Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. i. 117-132. The same in Schenkel’s Bibellexikon, iv. 518-529.
Ginsburg, arts. “Pharisees” and “Sadducees,” in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature.
Twisleton, the same article in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible.
Kuenen, De godsdienst van Israel, ii. 338-371, 456 sqq. The same, Theol. Tijdschrift, 1875, pp. 632-650 (advertisement of Wellhausen’s work).
Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer. Eine Untersuchung zur inneren jüdischen Geschichte. Greifswald 1874.
Cohen, Les Pharisiens. 2 vols. Paris 1877.
Weber, System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie. Leipzig 1880.
Reuss, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Alten Testaments (1881), § 396, 546, 548-554.
Baneth, Ueber den Ursprung der Sadokäer und Boethosäer (Magazin für die Wissensch. des Judenth. Jahrg. ix. 1882, pp. 1-37, 61-95. Also separately as a Leipsic doctorial dissertation).
Hamburger, Real-Enc. für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii. (1888) pp. 1038-1059 (art. “Sadducäer,” etc. Comp. also the articles: “Amhaarez,” “Chaber,” “Chassidim,” “Zaddikim”).
Montet, Essai sur les origines des partis saducéen et pharisien et leur histoire jusqu’à la naissance de Jésus-Christ. Paris 1883 (comp. Theol. Litztg. 1883, p. 169).
Sieffert, art. “Sadducäer” and “Pharisäer,” in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 2nd ed. xiii. 1884, pp. 210-244.
The Testimony of Josephus.
Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14: Φαρισαῖοι μὲν οἱ δοκοῦντες μετʼ ἀκριβείας ἐξηγεῖσθαι τὰ νόμιμα καὶ τὴν πρώτην ἀπάγοντες ἅρεσιν, εἱμαρμένῃ τε καὶ θεῷ προσάπτουσι πάντα, καὶ τὸ μὲν πράττειν τὰ δίκαια καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὸ πλεῖστον ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις κεῖσθαι, βοηθεῖν δὲ εἰς ἕκστον καὶ τὴν εἱμαρμένην· ψυχὴν δὲ πᾶσαν μὲν ἄφθαρτον, μεταβαίνειν δὲ εἰς ἕτερον σῶμα τὴν τῶν ἀγαθῶν μόνην, τὴν δὲ τῶν φαύλων ἀϊδίῳ τιμωρίᾳ κολάζεσθαι. Σαδδουκαῖοι δὲ, τὸ δεύτερον τάγμα, τὴν μὲν εἱμαρμένην παντάπασιν ἀναιροῦσι, καὶ τὸν θεὸν ἔξω τοῦ δρᾶν τι κακὸν ἢ ἐφορᾶν τίθενται, φασὶ δὲ ἐπʼ ἀνθρώπων ἐκλογῇ τό τε καλὸν καὶ τὸ κακὸν προκεῖσθαι, καὶ τὸ κατὰ γνώμην ἑκάστῳ τούτων ἑκατέρῳ προσιέναι. Ψυχῆς δὲ τὴν διαμονὴν καὶ τὰς καθʼ Ἅιδου τιμωρίας καὶ τιμὰς ἀναιροῦσι. Καὶ Φαρισαῖοι μὲν φιλάλληλοί τε καὶ τὴν εἰς τὸ κοινὸν ὁμόνοιαν ἀσκοῦντες, Σαδδουκαίων δὲ καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους τὸ ἦθος ἀγριώτερον, αἵ τε ἐπιμιξίαι πρὸς τοὺς ὁμοίους ἀπηνεῖς ὡς πρὸς ἀλλοτρίους.
Antt. xiii. 5. 9: Κατὰ δὲ τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον τρεῖς αἱρέσεις τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἦσαν, αἳ περὶ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων πραγμάτων διαφόρως ὑπελάμβανον· ὧν ἡ μὲν Φαρισαίων ἐλέγετο, ἡ δὲ Σαδδουκαίων, ἡ τρίτη δὲ Ἐσσηνῶν. Οἱ μὲν οὖν Φαρισαῖοι τινὰ καὶ οὐ πάντα τῆς εἱμαρμένης εἶναι λέγουσιν ἔργον, τινὰ δʼ ἐφʼ ἑαυτοῖς ὑπάρχειν, συμβαίνειν τε καὶ μὴ γίνεσθαι. Τὸ δὲ τῶν Ἐσσηνῶν γένος πάντων τὴν εἱμαρμένην κυρίαν ἀποφαίνεται, καὶ μηδὲν ὃ μὴ κατʼ ἐκείνης ψῆφον ἀνθρώποις ἀπαντᾷ. Σαδδουκαῖοι δὲ τὴν μὲν εἱμαρμένην ἀναιροῦσιν, οὐδὲν εἶναι ταύτην ἀξιοῦντες, οὐδὲ κατʼ αὐτὴν τὰ ἀνθρώπινα τέλος λαμβάνειν, ἅπαντα δʼ ἐφʼ ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς τίθενται, ὡς καὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν αἰτίους ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς γινομένους καὶ τὰ χείρω παρὰ ἡμετέραν ἀβουλίαν λαμβάνοντας.
Antt. xiii. 10. 5: [Οἱ Φαρισαῖοι] τοσαύτην ἔχουσι τὴν ἰσχὺν παρὰ τῷ πλήθει ὡς καὶ κατὰ βασιλέως τι λέγοντες καὶ κατʼ ἀρχιερέως εὐθὺς πιστεύεσθαι.
Antt. xiii. 10. 6: Ἄλλως τε καὶ φύσει πρὸς τὰς κολάσεις ἐπιεικῶς ἔχουσιν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι.
Ibid.: Νόμιμα πολλά τινα παρέδοσαν τῷ δήμῳ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ἐκ πατέρων διαδοχῆς, ἅπερ οὐκ ἀναγέγραπται ἐν τοῖς Μωϋσέως νόμοις, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ταῦτα τὸ Σαδδουκαίων γένος ἐκβάλλει, λέγον ἐκεῖνα δεῖν ἡγεῖσθαι νόμιμα τὰ γεγραμμένα, τὰ δʼ ἐκ παραδόσεως τῶν πατέρων μὴ τηρεῖν. Καὶ περὶ τούτων ζητήσεις αὐτοῖς καὶ διαφορὰς γενέσθαι συνέβαινε μεγάλας, τῶν μὲν Σαδδουκαίων τοὺς εὐπόρους μόνον πειθόντων, τὸ δὲ δημοτικὸν οὐχ ἑπόμενον αὐτοῖς ἐχόντων, τῶν δὲ Φαρισαίων τὸ πλῆθος σύμμαχον ἐχόντων.
Antt. xvii. 2. 4: Ἦ γὰρ μόριόν τι Ἰουδαϊκῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπʼ ἐξακριβώσει μέγα φρονοῦν τοῦ πατρίου νόμου, αὐτοῖς Χαίρειν τὸ θεῖον προσποιουμένω, οἷς ὑπῆκτο ἡ γυναικωνῖτις· Φαρισαῖοι καλοῦνται, βασιλεῦσι δυνάμενοι μάλιστα ἀντιπράσσειν, προμηθεῖς, κἀκ τοῦ προύπτου εἰς τὸ πολεμεῖν τε καὶ βλάπτειν ἐπηρμένοι.[1429]
[1429] These words of hostility to the Pharisees are evidently not the production of Josephus, but copied by him from Nikolaus Damascenus (comp. Derenbourg, p. 123, note). They are the more valuable as a corrective to the flatteringly coloured representation of Josephus.
Antt. xviii. 1, 2: Ἰουδαίοις φιλοσοφίαι τρεῖς ἦσαν ἐκ τοῦ πάνυ ἀρχαίου τῶν πατρίων, ἥ τε τῶν Ἐσσηνῶν καὶ ἡ τῶν Σαδδουκαίων· τρίτην δὲ ἐφιλοσόφουν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι λεγόμενοι. Καὶ τυγχάνει μέντοι περὶ αὐτῶν ἡμῖν εἰρημένα ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ βίβλῳ τοῦ Ἰουδαϊκοῦ πολέμου, μνησθήσομαι δὲ ὅμως καὶ νῦν αὐτῶν ἐπʼ ὀλίγον.
§ 3: Οἵ τε γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι τὴν δίαιταν ἐξευτελίζουσιν, οὐδὲν εἰς τὸ μαλακώτερον ἐνδιδόντες, ὧν τε ὁ λόγος κρίνας παρέδωκεν ἀγαθῶν, ἕπονται τῇ ἡγεμονίᾳ, περιμάχητον ἡγούμενοι τὴν φυλακὴν ὧν ὑπαγορεύειν ἠθέλησε. Τιμῆς γε τοῖς ἡλικίᾳ προήκουσι παραχωροῦσιν, οὐδὲν ἐπʼ ἀντιλέξει τῶν εἰσηγηθέντων ταῦτα θράσει ἐπαιρόμενοι. Πράσσεσθαί τε εἱμαρμένῃ τὰ πάντα ἀξιοῦντες, οὐδὲ τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου τὸ βουλόμενον τῆς ἐπʼ αὐτοῖς ὁρμῆς ἀφαιροῦνται, δοκῆσαν τῷ θεῷ κρᾶσιν γενέσθαι καὶ τῷ ἐκείνης βουλευτηρίῳ καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὸ θελῆσαν προσχωρεῖν μετʼ ἀρετῆς ἢ κακίας. Ἀθάνατόν τε ἰσχὺν ταῖς ψυχαῖς πίστις αὐτοῖς εἶναι, καὶ ὑπὸ χθονὸς δικαιώσεις τε καὶ τιμὰς αἷς ἀρετῆς ἢ κακίας ἐπιτήδευσις ἐν τῷ βίῳ γέγονε, καὶ ταῖς μὲν εἱργμὸν ἀϊδιον προτίθεσθαι, ταῖς δὲ ῥᾳστώνην τοῦ ἀναβιοῦν. Καὶ διʼ αὐτὰ τοῖς τε δήμοις πιθανώτατοι τυγχάνουσι, καὶ ὁπόσα θεῖα εὐχῶν τε ἔχεται καὶ ἱερῶν ποιήσεως ἐξηγήσει τῇ ἐκείνων τυγχάνουσι πρασσόμενα. Εἰς τοσόνδε ἀρετῆς αὐτοῖς αἱ πόλεις ἐμαρτύρησαν ἐπιτηδεύσει τοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσι κρείσσονος ἔν τε τῇ διαίτῃ τοῦ βίου καὶ λόγοις.
§ 4: Σαδδουκαίοις δὲ τὰς ψυχὰς ὁ λόγος συναφανίζει τοῖς σώμασι, φυλακῆς δὲ οὐδαμῶν τινῶν μεταποίησις αὐτοῖς ἢ τῶν νόμων· πρὸς γὰρ τοὺς διδασκάλους σοφίας ἣν μετίασιν, ἀμφιλογεῖν ἀρετὴν ἀριθμοῦσιν. Εἰς ὀλίγους τε ἄνδρας οὗτος ὁ λόγος ἀφίκετο, τοὺς μέντοι πρώτους τοῖς ἀξιώμασι, πράσσεταί τε ὑπʼ αὐτῶν οὐδὲν ὡς εἰπεῖν· ὁπότε γὰρ ἐπʼ ἀρχὰς παρέλθοιεν, ἀκουσίως μὲν καὶ κατʼ ἀνάγκας, προσχωροῦσι δʼ οὖν οἷς ὁ Φαρισαῖος λέγει, διὰ τὸ μὴ ἂν ἄλλως ἀνεκτοὺς γενέσθαι τοῖς πλήθεσιν.
Antt. xx. 9. 1: αἵρεσιν δὲ μετῄει τὴν Σαδδουκαίων οἵπερ εἰσὶ περὶ τὰς κρίσεις ὠμοὶ παρὰ πάντας τοὺς Ἰουδαίους, καθὼς ἤδη δεδηλώκαμεν.
Vita, 2, fin.: ἠρξάμην πολιτεύεσθαι τῇ Φαρισαίων αἱρέσει κατακολουθῶν, ἣ παραπλήσιός ἐστι τῇ παρʼ Ἕλλησι Στωικῇ λεγομένῃ.
Vita, 38: τῆς δὲ Φαρισαίων αἱρέσεως, οἳ περὶ τὰ πάτρια νόμιμα δοκοῦσι τῶν ἄλλων ἀκριβείᾳ διαφέρειν.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE MISHNA.
(a) On Perushim and Zaddukim.
Jadajim iv. 6: “The Zaddukim said to the Perushim: We must blame you, Perushim, for maintaining that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, while antagonistic books (ספרי המירם or perhaps ספרי המירס = the books of Homer) do not defile the hands. To this Rabban Johanan ben Sakkai replied: Is this then the only thing of the kind, for which the Perushim can be reproached? They also say: The bones of an ass are clean, and those of the high priest Johanan unclean. To which they replied: Bones are declared unclean according to the proportion of affection, lest perhaps some one should make spoons of the bones of his father or his mother. Hereupon he replied: So too is it with the Holy Scriptures only a proof of affection, when it is declared that they defile the hands, while antagonistic books (the books of Homer) are not loved, and therefore contact with them does not defile.”
Ibid. iv. 7: “The Zaddukim said also: We must blame you, Perushim, for declaring what is poured into an unclean vessel to be clean. The Perushim replied: We must blame you, Zaddukim, for declaring a channel coming out of a burying-place to be clean. The Zaddukim also said: We must blame you, Perushim, for saying: If my ox or my ass does harm, I owe compensation; and if my man-servant or my maid-servant does harm, I am free. If I must pay compensation for an ox or an ass, to whom I have no legal obligations, why should I not owe compensation for what my manservant and maid-servant do, to whom I have legal obligations? They replied: That which applies to an ox and an ass, which have no reason, cannot apply to a man-servant or maid-servant, who has reason. For else they might, if I make them angry, set fire to the field of another, and force me to pay expenses.”
Ibid. iv. 8: “A Galilaean heretic[1430] once said: I blame you, Perushim, for writing in a writing of divorcement the name of the governor with that of Moses. The Perushim answered: We must blame thee, Galilaean heretic, for nevertheless writing the name of the governor and the name of God upon one page, and besides this the former above and the latter below. For it is written in the Bible (Exodus 5:2): Pharaoh said: Who is Jahveh, that I should obey Him and let Israel go?”
[1430] According to the best authorities (Cod. de Rossi 138, Cambridge MS., editio princeps of the Mishna, 1492), the reading here and further on should be צדוקי גלילי instead of מין גלילי.
Chagiga ii. 7: “The garments of Am-haarez are Midras (מִדְרָס, that is, defiled by pressure) for Perushim; those of the Perushim are Midras for those who eat the heave; those of the latter are Midras for those who eat holy things; and those of the latter are Midras for those who sprinkle the water of purification.”[1431]
[1431] On the meaning of Am-haarez (עם הארץ), see farther on. “Those who eat the heave” are the priests and those belonging to them, “those who eat the holy things” are the ministering priests. Each subsequent category stands a degree higher in holiness and purity than the preceding one, on which account the garments of the preceding are unclean and unlawful for them; comp. in illustration, Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb. s.v. מדרס (iii. 33 sq.), and the translation in the Mishna published under Jost’s direction.
Sota iii. 4: “R. Joshua used to say: A foolish saint, a wise sinner, a Pharisaic woman (אִשָּׁה פְרוּשָׁה) and the sufferings of Perushim destroy the world.”[1432]
[1432] The meaning seems to be, that the world cannot continue with a combination of irreconcilable contrasts. Expositors indeed explain it differently. See Surenhusius’ Mishna, iii. 218 sqq.
Erubin vi. 2: “Rabban Gamaliel relates: A Zadduki once lived with us in a Maboi (a street fenced off for the purpose of freer Sabbath intercourse) in Jerusalem. Then my father said: Bring quickly all your goods into the Maboi, before the Zadduki can bring anything there, and make it unlawful for you. R. Judah quotes the saying differently: Do quickly what you have to do in the Maboi before the Zadduki brings anything there, and makes it unlawful for you.”[1433]
[1433] The explanation of the difficult Mishna is doubtful, and the difficulty is increased by the uncertainty of the reading in the last sentence (see the note in Jost’s Mishna, and the commentary in Surenhusius, ii. 108 sq.). At all events however Gamaliel means, according to the first reported form of his speech, to say, that his father placed the Zadduki on a level with another (rigidly legal) Israelite. For when several Israelites jointly deposited anything before the beginning of the Sabbath in a space fenced off, on which their houses abutted, they thereby made this space their private tenement, within which it was lawful even on the Sabbath to carry in and out. Those however who had taken no part in such depositing were excluded from this privilege.
Makkoth i. 6: “False witnesses are only to be executed, when sentence has been passed upon one found guilty through them. The Zaddukim say: Only when he has been already executed; because it is said (Deuteronomy 19:21), life for life. But the learned hare refuted this, because it is said (Deuteronomy 19:19) you shall do to him as he thought to do to his brother. His brother therefore still exists.”
In Para iii. 3 the ordinary printed text has only צדוקים. Better authorities have מינים.[1434]
[1434] So Cod. de Rossi 138, the Cambridge MS., and the editio princeps of the Mishna (Naples 1492).
Para iii. 7: “The priests who burned the red heifer, were purposely declared unclean on account of the Zaddukim, that they might not assert, that the heifer was prepared by such only as had become clean through the setting of the sun.”
Nidda iv. 2: “The daughters of the Zaddukim are, if they walk in the ways of their fathers, equal to Samaritan women. If they walk openly in the ways of Israel, they are equal to Ieraelitish women. R. Joses says: They are all looked upon as Israelitish women, unless it is proved that they walk in the ways of their fathers.”
(b) On Chaber and Am-haarez.
Demai ii. 3: “He who takes upon himself to be a Chaber (חָבֵר) sells neither fresh nor dry fruits to the Am-haarez (עַם הָאָרֶץ), buys from them no fresh, does not enter their houses as a guest, nor receive them as guests within his walls. R. Judah says: He must also breed no small cattle,[1435] not be frivolous in oaths and jokes, not defile himself with the dead, must on the other hand wait in the school-house. He was however answered: All this does not amount to the main thing.”
[1435] Because shepherds do not spare their neighbour’s field.
Demai vi. 6: “If a Chaber and an Am-haarez inherit from their father, who was an Am-haarez, the former may say: Do thou take the wheat in this place and I will take the wheat in that place, thou the wine of this, I of that place. But he may not say to him: Do thou take wheat and I barley; thou the moist, I the dry.”[1436]
[1436] This is in the interest of the correct tithing of all the different crops by the Chaber.
Demai vi. 12: “If an Am-haarez says to a Chaber: Buy me a bundle of vegetables, buy me a loaf, the latter may buy without special remark and is free from the duty of tithing. But if he added: I buy this for myself and that for my friend, and they get mixed, he must tithe all, even if the latter were a hundred (i.e. a hundred times as great as his own”).
Shebiith v. 9 = Gittin v. 9: “One woman may lend to another, who is suspected about shebiith (the eating of the fruits of the seventh year), A flour sieve, a corn sieve, a hand mill and a stove, but may not help her to gather or to grind. The wife of a Chaber may lend the wife of an Am-haarez a flour sieve and a corn sieve, and may also help her to gather, to grind and to winnow. But. when once water has been poured on the flour she may no longer handle it with her,[1437] for one must not assist the transgressor. Besides, this latter has been only allowed for the sake of peace, just as one may in the seventh year wish success to the labour of the Gentiles, but not to that of an Israelite, etc.”
[1437] The reason of this is found in the laws concerning clean and unclean. See the commentary.
Bikkurim iii. 12: “R. Judah says: A priest may make a present of the first-fruits only to a Chaber.”
Tohoroth vii. 4: “If the wife of a Chaber has left the wife of an Am-haarez grinding at the mill in her house, the house is unclean if the mill stops; but if it goes on grinding, only that is unclean which the woman could reach by stretching out her hand. If there are two such women there, all is, according to R. Meir, unclean, because while the one is grinding, the other can touch everything, but according to the learned, only that which each could touch by stretching out her hand.”
Tohoroth viii. 5: “If the wife of an Am-haarez enters the house of a Chaber to fetch out his son, his daughter, or his cattle, the house remains clean, because she has no permission to stay there.”
The priests and scribes were the two influential factors which determined the inner development of Israel after the captivity. In Ezra’s time they were still virtually identical. From the commencement of the Greek period they were more and more separated, and about the period of the Maccabaean conflict two parties sharply contrasted with each other were developed from them. The Sadducean party proceeded from the ranks of the priests, the party of the Pharisees from the scribes. We know these two parties from the testimony especially of the New Testament and Josephus as two circles in hostile opposition to each other. But we shut out beforehand the comprehension of their nature, if we view the contrast between the two as one really the result of opinion. The Pharisees were by nature the rigidly legal, the Sadducees in the first instance only the aristocrats, who certainly were driven by the historical development into that opposition to Pharisaic legality, which however formed no fundamental element of their nature. Hence we gain but a distorted image by opposing the differences between them to each other point by point. On the contrary, the characteristic feature of the Pharisees arises from their legal tendency, that of the Sadducees from their social position.[1438]
[1438] The above expressed thought, that the contrast between the two was not one of opinion, was first precisely formulated by Wellhausen.