§ 5. The Time of the Maccabees The most important sources for the beginning of this period, the time of the true struggle for freedom, are the books of the Maccabees, the first of which, the only one that can lay claim to perfect credibility, leads us down to the time of John Hyrcanus. From these two books, on which we possess an excellent monograph by Wernsdorf, 1749, Josephus has drawn; perhaps also from a fourth book of the Maccabees, containing the life of John Hyrcanus, which is said to have been seen as late as the sixteenth century. For the remaining time we have only Josephus and the scattered accounts of heathen authors. The whole period comprises 125 years, of which sixty years passed away under the ethnarchy of the Maccabees, forty-two under their kingship, and twenty-three under the ethnarchy of Hyrcanus, under whom the supremacy was only nominally with the race of the Maccabees.
Those who form the centre of Jewish history at this period bear a twofold name—the Hasmonians and the Maccabees. Many, in imitation of Josephus, have derived the former designation from an individual of this name. But there can be no doubt that the name is the Hebrew השמנים, optimates, Psalms 68:32, and a title of honour which was conferred on the family. The name of Maccabee was first borne by Judas alone, as the bravest of the brethren, and is probably derived from מקב, hammer, the hammerer; comp. Jeremiah 23:29, where the word of God, of which Judas was an instrument, is compared to a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces. It then passed over to the whole race of heroes, especially in the Christian Church, and was even employed in a still wider sense, being applied to all those who resembled them in zeal for the defence of the true religion.
It is not our intention here to enter into the details of the struggles which led to the release of the Jews. For these we must refer to the first book of the Maccabees. The principal, almost the only, personages who attract our attention at this time are Mattathias the son of John, a priest of the tribe of Joarib, who first rose against the heathen persecutors in the hill city Modin, and soon collected the Chasidim about him, but died only a year afterwards; and three of his five sons, Judas, Jonathan, and Simon, who successively came to be leaders of the nation, and all died in the service of their country.
It is quite evident that these men, and the Chasidim under their leadership, manifest a truly heroic spirit; yet we must not overlook the fact that the final success of their undertaking, the emancipation, is attributable just as much to the state of the Syrian kingdom at that time, as to this spirit of heroism. One change of government followed another. In many cases the various pretenders made every effort to attach the Jews to their interest. It is very remarkable how often, just when matters had come to the worst, a change of this kind in the Syrian kingdom rescued the Jews from the threatened destruction. This concurrence of what the world calls chance was not sufficiently considered by the Jews, when, trusting to their success in the time of the Maccabees, they afterwards rebelled against the Romish power. The destruction which they met at the hands of this power may be regarded as the natural consequence of their success against the Syrians. It was at the same time a righteous judgment on them, because they had not shown their gratitude in the right way for the salvation which God had granted them at that time. Hence, in this case, the salvation was changed into destruction. In the first twenty-three years of this period, under Judas, who stood for six years at the head of affairs, and Jonathan, who held the reins for seventeen years, the condition of the nation was on the whole a melancholy one, glorious victories alternating with defeats,—matters having frequently gone so far that all hope was apparently lost, the country being laid waste by hostile armies, who raged cruelly against the Chasidim. The six years of Judas, in which Antiochus Epiphanes died a miserable death, were especially wretched. We find one bright spot in the restoration of the worship of God in Jerusalem, after the heathen abominations had been done away and the temple had been purified. It was an event which gave occasion for the founding of a yearly feast, the Encaenia, which, according to 1Ma 4:59 Macc. 4:59, was kept for eight days, beginning on the twenty-fifth of Casleu or December. From John 10:22 we learn that this feast, the only one besides the feast of Purim that was introduced after the Mosaic time, was still observed at the time of Christ. It was called also λυχνοκαΐα, the feast of candles, because lights were then kindled everywhere, as a sign that God would allow the light of His salvation to appear in the darkness of the misery. A happier time began under Simon, who was distinguished alike for bravery and wisdom, and who accomplished the work of emancipation in the first year of his primacy. From this time the Syrian kings themselves had dealings with the Jews, as with their φίλοις συμμάχοις, and the nation remained in possession of freedom, until the unfortunate disputes of Hyrcanus and Aristobulus regarding the supremacy led to interference on the part of the Romans, which resulted in a new servitude of the Jews.
According to Josephus, xii. chap. 17 and 19, Judas already held the office of high priest, having been raised to this dignity by the people; but from 1Ma 9:54-55, it follows that Judas died before Alcimus, the ungodly high priest; and Josephus contradicts himself, for in xx. chap. 8, he says that after the death of Alcimus the nation was seven years without a high priest. The correct view is that Jonathan only attained to the dignity of a general, as well as that of a high priest, six years before his death; comp. 1Ma 10:20 Macc. 10:20. In all probability the nomination was first made by the nation, and the actual appointment by Alexander Balas, the Syrian king.
Alcimus, however, did not belong to the family in which the high-priesthood had remained for centuries; and when this office now passed over to the Maccabees, they lost all expectation of regaining the dignity. A descendant of this family, Onias, sought to indemnify himself for what had been lost, and, with the permission of Philometer, the Egyptian king, built a temple in the district of Heliopolis, where the worship of God was performed by priests according to the Mosaic ritual. This temple was only closed under Vespasian. At first sight, there is something very strange in this circumstance. We cannot understand how Onias could have had such presumption, in the face of the strict ordinances of the Pentateuch with regard to the unity of the sanctuary, and the later declarations of God respecting the exclusive choice of Zion. We have a presentiment beforehand that Onias had some other authority by which he thought he could defend himself against this, which was actually the case. Doubtless he appealed to the passage, Isaiah 19:18-21, where the prophet foretells the future conversion of Egypt to the true God, and the erection of altars there to His name. It is quite evident that the passage could not really serve as a justification of his undertaking. It refers not to a sanctuary for Jews, but for converted Egyptians. We must not forget, however, that his undertaking did not by any means receive the approval of the nation, but in all probability his temple was only recognised and visited by a small schismatic party. Josephus expressly condemns his undertaking: οὐκ έξ ὑγιούς γνώμης ταῦτα ἔμπαττεν, he says, de Bell.Jude 1:1. vii. chap. 10, § 3. Nor must we neglect to point out that this attempt to effect what God had reserved to Himself to accomplish in the Messianic time, is by no means a solitary one. The circumcision which John Hyrcanus forcibly imposed on the Edomites belongs to the same category, and the restoration of the temple attempted by Herod, which latter was occasioned by the prophecy of Haggai. But when the true fulfilment began, these apparent fulfilments were revealed in all their meagreness.
Judas had received the dignity of a general, and Jonathan that of a general and high priest, only as a personal thing; but Simon received from the nation and the council the formal and solemn assurance of the hereditary primacy as well as the high-priesthood. In 1Ma 14:35 Macc. 14:35 ff. we have the decree of the council and nation. It was engraved on tables of brass, and hung up on the wall of the sanctuary. From this alone we see that the position of the Maccabee princes was a very difficult one, and subsequent history confirms the view. The decree is based on the presupposition that the power was properly only with the nation and the council, the power of the prince being merely a potestas delegata,—the prince and high priest appointed purely by favour of the people, and the people purely by the favour of God. With absolute power the nation decides what dignities are to be united in the prince, and what insignia he is to bear. A power which has originated in this way cannot be independent even after its establishment; and every attempt to make it so—and there can be no lack of such attempts, at least in an oriental state—must entail severe conflicts. There was a stronger motive to opposition at this time, since the priestly-pharisaic party at the head of the nation must soon become cognizant of the evils caused by the formerly unheard of union of the high-priestly dignity and the highest civil power. This union had been the result first of the necessity of the times, and afterwards of gratitude; when the necessity was over and the gratitude extinct, many scruples arose. Thus, immediately after the happy termination of the external struggle, and even during it, the foundation was laid for an internal conflict, equally injurious to the nation and the rulers. The determination contained in 1Ma 14:41, that Simon should be their governor and high priest for ever, ἀναστῆναι προφήτην πιστόν, is remarkable. The Maccabee time, notwithstanding all its zeal for the law, was yet conscious of having been forsaken by the Spirit. It had no prophets to make known the hidden decrees of God; comp. 1Ma 9:27, which is in perfect agreement with the fact that in the sole authentic source, the first book of the Maccabees, we find nothing in what occurred like a miraculous intervention on the part of God, but everything seems rather to depend on natural ground, while the second book of the Maccabees strenuously endeavours to destroy this character. It was hoped, however, that this state, so little in unison with the idea of a people of God, would be only temporary; that in the future God would enter into closer and more immediate connection with His people. In this expectation only a provisional character was given to the most important determinations. Here there was a special reason for giving prominence to the thought, and pointing to the possibility, that the decree might at a future time be reversed by divine authority. The kingdom had been given and confirmed to the race of David by a series of prophetic oracles; that it should permanently be taken away from this race was inconceivable. From it the Messiah was to proceed at a future time, who, according to Psalms 110 and the prophecies of Zechariah, should combine the dignity of high priest and king. Hence, when the kingly and the high-priestly dignity were transferred to a race not proceeding from David, it could only be done with the consciousness that it was a momentary concession to the force of circumstances, which called loudly for such a measure, but that the elevation could have only a temporary character, and this race, as an intermediate one, would, at a future time determined by God, have to yield again to the only legitimate one. In all probability the firm constitution and the consolidation of the supreme tribunal at Jerusalem, composed of seventy members and a president, which bore the name συνέδριον, סנהדרין, took place in the time of the struggle for freedom against the Syrians. This Greek name itself is an argument against those who attribute its origin to a far earlier date. It was not merely the highest judicial court, but also legislated for the whole religious community. The less definitely the boundaries of this and the princely power were marked out, the more readily must quarrels arise; and nothing was more probable than that the pharisaic-priestly party, who were always supreme in this council, should make it a means of concentrated opposition against the princely power.
It is probable that the constitution of the synagogue also received its fuller development during the struggle for religion and freedom; its beginnings date back to the earliest times, and are as old as the Mosaic law. In proportion as the zeal for the religion of the fathers increased, it was thought necessary to erect synagogues in every place where the Mosaic law was taught. According to the statement of the Jews, there were more than four hundred synagogues in Jerusalem alone; and from the gospel history we learn that in Galilee there were synagogues even in the smaller places. The Jews maintain that synagogues were erected in every place where there were ten men of distinction and wealth who had leisure to attend divine service daily. At the time of the Syrian oppression, we are told, it became the custom to read sections from the prophets as well as from the law. For at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes the reading of the Mosaic law had been forbidden, and instead of it selections were made from the prophets, called Haphtharas. These were afterwards retained along with the Parashas. But the correctness of this Jewish statement may well be doubted. The selection of passages from the prophets as well as from the law is so natural, that we can scarcely believe it could have been occasioned by a cause so purely external. Respecting the constitution of the synagogues we have a classic work by Vitringa, de Synagoga, lib. iii.
Simon was treacherously assassinated by his son-in-law Ptolemy, after a reign of only eight years, a time of great prosperity for the nation. Coins with his stamp are still in existence. They bear the name שמעוןנשיאישראל, together with the first, second, etc., year of the redemption of Israel. The genuineness of these coins was triumphantly proved in the contest between Tychsen and the Spanish scholar Bayer (principal work, de Numis Hebr. Samaritanis, Valentia, 1781, 4to); compare the full account of this dispute in Hartmann’s Oluf Gerhard Tychsen, ii. 2, pp. 295-495.
Ptolemy’s plot to slay John Hyrcanus also, the heir to the throne, was unsuccessful, and the latter succeeded to the dignity of his father, which he held for twenty-nine years. His reign also was beneficial to the nation. He knew how to make himself feared by the surrounding nations. He took possession of Sichem, and destroyed the temple on Gerizim, which was never rebuilt; and at the time of Christ the Samaritans had no longer any temple,—a fact which is often overlooked. Yet the mountain still served them for a sanctuary. He then conquered the Idumeans, and compelled them to be circumcised,—not, as many affirm, to adopt the rite for the second time. The assumption that they had formerly been circumcised, and that the rite had only been discontinued from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, is quite untenable. We have already indicated the motive by which he was led. He had the prophecies of the future conversion of the heathen before his eyes, and intended, as far as was possible to his limited understanding, to accomplish it by force. From this time the Idumeans were reckoned as Jews. But the deed bore bitter fruit for the Jews. It led to the supremacy of the family of Herod the Idumean.
It is of special importance to note that it was under Hyrcanus that the Pharisees and Sadducees first appeared prominently in history. Josephus states that hitherto Hyrcanus had always advocated the principles of the Pharisees, and had shown favour to this party. But it now happened that one of this party publicly called upon him, in a hateful and dishonourable manner, to renounce the dignity of high priest; and the way in which the heads of the party behaved on this occasion led Hyrcanus to suspect that the individual was only the organ of the whole party, and that the mode alone in which he asserted the party-feeling was peculiar to him. That Hyrcanus was not deceived in this opinion, we have already shown. The union of the highest civil with the highest spiritual power must have appeared highly hazardous to the Pharisees. From a high priest who was at the same time prince they could not expect such unconditional devotion to the strictest ecclesiastical maxims; and if he were to act in opposition to these principles, their defenders would be without protection and centre. Hyrcanus now went over to the side of the Sadducees. This is the place to treat somewhat more fully of the three principal sects of the Jews, of which the two former especially play so important a part in the following history. First with regard to the Pharisees, there can be no doubt as to the meaning of their name. פְרִישׁ, as the Pharisees are called in Aramaean, viz. in the Syrian translation of the New Testament, is the participle Pail of the verb פרש, to separate, corresponding to the Hebrew participle Paul. Separatists, this was the name adopted by the members of this party, because they were distinguished by an especially strict observance of the law, particularly of the ceremonial parts, from the great mass of the nation, who were more lax and careless in this respect, and probably still more because they anxiously avoided all nearer contact with them, fearing lest they should be contaminated with their uncleanness. Elias Levita, in his dictionary Tisbi, says: “These are they who are separated from the ways of this world, like the Nazarites; “so also Suidas, Φαρισαῖοι, οἱ ἑρμηνευόμενοι ἀφωρισμένοι, παρὰ τὸ μερίζειν καὶ ἀφορίζειν ἑαυτοὺς τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων; and the author of the Talmudic dictionary Aruch, “A Pharisee is one who separates himself from all uncleanness and from all unclean food, and from the common people, עםהארץ, who pay no particular attention to the distinction of meats.” That the name is characteristic of the thing, when thus interpreted, appears from passages such as Luke 18:11, Mark 7:7.
Respecting the origin of the Pharisees there are many different opinions. According to Josephus, Ant. l. xviii. chap. 1, § 2, the three sects of the Jews were known from very early times, ἐκ τοῦ πάνυ ἀρχαίου. He first mentions them in the history of Jonathan the Maccabee, when in his latter years he made a covenant with the Romans and Spartans. At that time, he says, Ant. xiii. 5, 9, there were three sects among the Jews, without meaning that they first originated at that time. Their first important appearance occurs in the time of Hyrcanus. We get a middle course between the different views, by distinguishing between Pharisaism as a tendency and as a party. As a tendency, Pharisaism was very old,—in its most general outlines almost coeval with the giving of the law. Even in the times previous to the exile, we find not only the openly godless, heathenizing disposition, but also another, which sought by external piety to conceal the inner estrangement from God, or godlessness, not only from others, but also from itself and from God. The prophets declaim against them in many passages; for example, Isaiah in Isaiah 1 and Isaiah 66, and the author of Psalms 1. After the return from the captivity, this form of godlessness became the prevailing one, and remained so until the influence of the Greek supremacy raised the other, the heathenizing tendency, to new importance. As a party, however, Pharisaism is young. In this respect its roots only lie in the time of the Maccabees. It owes its origin to the machinations of the heathenizing party to destroy the paternal religion. In consequence of this, all those who remained true to the religion of their fathers—the Chasidim of the books of the Maccabees—formed a close union among themselves. But when the continuance of their religion was secured, those among them who differed internally separated into the two parties of Pharisees and Essenes, of whom the former were by far the more important in number and influence. From this time the Pharisees, though possessing no external bond of union, yet formed a kind of order, whose members were so well known that they could be counted, and who, after the manner of the Jesuits, made every effort to acquire and retain supremacy in the state for the Israelitish-religious principle, according to their conception of it, and for themselves as its representatives. With this object in view, they placed themselves in the closest contact with the masses, and, relying on their support, thought they could set at defiance those rulers who placed themselves in opposition to their interest. The necessary presupposition of the continuance of this party was that heathenism possessed an influence with respect to Israel both internal and external. If this influence had disappeared, the party, as such, would also have disappeared, and only the spirit could have remained in existence. Moreover, by the fact that the Pharisees formed themselves into a party, Pharisaism as a tendency was considerably modified. All its lines were more sharply drawn; the more distinctly and prominently the Pharisees appeared in public as representatives of the Israelitish-religious principle, the more they sought to legitimize themselves in this capacity by the strictest, and at the same time the most public, fulfilment of the commandments. At the same time a number of most unworthy members joined the party, who could not have participated in the tendency, because this had reference only to the satisfaction of personal religious wants, while the party offered abundant satisfaction to ambition and other passions. The gross hypocrisy which sounded a trumpet before it, etc., must have been greatly encouraged by the circumstance that Pharisaism as a party never lost sight of its position with respect to the people, always striving to impose upon them and to gain glory in their eyes, knowing well that without the assistance of the nation it was powerless.
If we now proceed to inquire into the main peculiarities of Pharisaism, we must first of all designate it a form of Israelitish piety which refused to acknowledge the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit, and therefore regeneration. That this characteristic was present even in the noblest Pharisees, we learn from our Lord Himself, when He says to Nicodemus, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God;” and “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
All piety without regeneration seeks a substitute in order to silence the demands of the conscience, at least in some measure. The Pharisees found this substitute in the observance of the external Mosaic commands, especially of those which treat of legal purity and impurity. In all these matters, that could be performed while the heart was still unregenerate, they were most scrupulous. The better of them, however, were not content with observing the mere externalities of the Mosaic law, but strove to fulfil it in its whole extent; and the impossibility of reaching this goal from their standpoint involved them in conflicts such as those which Paul, the former Pharisee, describes in Romans 7 from his own experience. But this was not the rule. On the contrary, superficiality and perversion of the Mosaic law belong to the characteristics of the party, just as we invariably find a tendency in those minds which recognise neither forgiveness nor the Holy Ghost, to deaden the law, in order to escape from its accusations. From the polemic which our Lord directs against them in the Sermon on the Mount, we learn that they placed sin only in the sphere of action, in striking contrast to the Mosaic law, and made its banishment from this sphere their sole aim. But even with respect to action they had divers expedients for allowing free scope to the sinful inclination that was kept down by the law. Thus Matthew 15:4 ff. shows how, by their doctrine of the collision of duties, they paralyzed the command regarding the reverence due to parents, to which Moses assigned so high a place. How great the blindness of Pharisaism was respecting the true sense of the law, is shown by the answer of the Pharisee youth when our Lord referred him to the ten commandments: πάντα ταῦτα ἐφύλαξα· τί ἔτι ὑστερῶ; They thought they could not only fulfil the law, but could do even more than the law required. Thus D. Kimchi, on Psalms 103:7, defines the חסליד as one who does more than is commanded. What they took away on one side they added to the other. The so-called oral law was fostered and cherished by the Pharisees, and its validity formed a great subject of dispute between them and the Sadducees. They were well satisfied with the exchange. It is true that every oral law imposed a number of burdensome obligations, but it did not invade the life of the natural man, and the idea of obtaining merit with God indemnified them for sacrifices and deprivations.
Again, self-righteousness is a peculiar characteristic of Pharisaism, and is found wherever religiousness exists without forgiveness and the Holy Spirit. Their doctrine of the powers of the human will was subservient to this selfrighteousness. If not entirely Pelagian, it was more than semi-Pelagian. The doctrine of the Pharisees respecting the providence of God, of His influence and His co-operation in the actions of men, and of the freedom of the human will, are mentioned by Josephus in three passages, Antiq. xiii. 5. 9, and xviii. 1. 3, and De Bell. Jud. ii. 7. In all these passages he makes use of the word εἱμαρμένη, fate, but in a different sense from that of the Greeks,—not in the sense of a blind fatality, but of an influence exercised by God on human affairs. The expressions of Josephus are not quite clear, and want doctrinal accuracy. He does not sufficiently discriminate between the actions and the destinies of men. This much, however, is clear, that with reference to the former question, the Pharisees, after the manner of the rationalists, only attributed an uncertain co-operation to God, and regarded virtue as well as vice as properly the work of man, allowing only supervision, punishment, and reward to God, while the Sadducees denied Him even this. From this it is self-evident how superficial their knowledge was with reference to human sinfulness. They are characterized by all the faults invariably connected with self-righteousness, by want of love generally, and especially towards their fallen brethren (Matthew 9:11), by carnal aims, and many other defects. The remaining doctrines said to be peculiar to them were common to them with all those who adhered to the religion of their fathers. Thus, for example, the doctrine of the resurrection, whose denial, however, was characteristic of the Sadducees. They would only have been peculiar with respect to the doctrine of the resurrection if they had taught the transmigration of souls. But this idea is based only on an intentional ambiguity, which Josephus employs for the eyes of his Greek readers. He says, De Bell. Jud. ii. 7. 14, the Pharisees maintain that souls pass into another body, μεταβαίνειν εἰ ἕτερον σῶμα, but only the souls of the pious; those of the ungodly are appointed to everlasting punishment. The words are so placed that they may be understood of resurrection with a glorified body, in harmony with the doctrine of the Old Testament. In 1 Corinthians 15 the resurrection-body is described by Paul as different from the present body. But Josephus has avoided expressing himself more definitely, because the doctrine of the resurrection of the body was offensive to the heathen philosophers, and to those educated in their schools; comp. Acts 17:32 and 1 Corinthians 15. From Acts 23:8 and Luke 20:39, it is certain that the Pharisees did not teach the transmigration of souls, but the resurrection in the biblical sense. And there can be no doubt that their further ideas of eternal life were regulated by their moral condition, just as with us. The ordinary Pharisees, having their treasure upon earth, conceived of eternal life as analogous to this. Their carnal ideas were ridiculed by the Sadducees, and generally employed as the foundation for attacks against the doctrine of the resurrection; comp. Matthew 22:24 ff. In Matthew 23:15 the striving of Pharisaism to make proselytes appears to be peculiar to it. This it has in common with every self-made piety. Indifferentism is entirely free from it. So also is the true faith which is the work of the Holy Spirit, though for a very different reason. This faith knows from experience that nothing can be artificial in the sphere of religion, but everything must be given from above. The mere form of religion, which is all that proselytism can produce, is nothing in itself. The Pharisees were not, like the Essenes, a close corporation under rulers, but only a party. As such, however, they held closely together, and this very union, increased by the powerful opposition against which they had to contend, formed their greatest strength. A kind of free organization had formed itself among them, but only by the force of habit. The youth were very respectful towards their elders, and dared not contradict them. In Josephus the heads of the party are termed οἱ κρῶτοι τῶν Φαρισαίων, to distinguish them from the rest who in the New Testament are called μαθηταὶ τῶν Φαρισαίων: comp. Matthew 22:16. It is scarcely necessary to state that many adhered outwardly to the party of the Pharisees only on political grounds. The Pharisees were held in high esteem by the nation, and for this reason their influence in public affairs was very great. They owed this partly to their actual piety, partly to the appearance of godliness which they displayed. Not only did they make it their systematic object to gain this esteem, but they also knew how to take advantage of it. This relation towards the nation was very injurious to Pharisaism. It must have served as a strong encouragement to hypocrisy, to which there is already a tendency in every self-made piety. In all that they did, they considered the nation more than God. In the New Testament we not unfrequently find Pharisees and scribes spoken of in connection. The scribes were the literati of the nation. Many teachers, as well” as judges and officials, went out from their midst. Since the Pharisees were the ruling party, and enjoyed the favour of the people, it was natural that most of the scribes should attach themselves to their interest. The Sadducees were conscious that as scribes—teachers or officials—they must occupy an untenable position; moreover, constant occupation with Scripture and the propositions connected with it was distasteful to them. Yet the Sadducees were not entirely excluded from public offices. Thus the Sanhedrim in Jerusalem consisted principally of Pharisees, learned γραμματεῖς and unlearned; yet, according to Acts 23:6 ff., there were also assessors of the party of the Sadducees, and, according to Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 1, Ananus the high priest himself was a Sadducee: the Sadducees, however, were obliged to embrace Pharisaism when they held public offices.
According to the statement of the Jews, the Sadducees took their name from a certain Zadok; but the accounts are too late, and the analogy of the Pharisees and Essenes speaks against the derivation from an individual. The most probable view is, that it is a title of honour which they themselves adopted. They called themselves צדיקים or צָדוֹקִים, the righteous, in contradistinction from the חסידים and the פרישים, the pious and the separated, taking righteousness not in its comprehensive Israelitish, but in its limited Grecian sense. No reliance can be placed on the fable that they derived their wisdom from an individual. If we consider what the books of the Maccabees relate respecting the open apostasy to heathenism in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes; if we consider that a tendency of this kind could not have disappeared so soon, least of all when it was so greatly favoured by outward relations; there can be no doubt respecting the origin of Sadduceeism. They are nothing more than the same heathen, godless party in Israelitish clothing. The Israelitish element which characterizes them seems to be mere accommodation. There is nothing that would lead us to infer that they had any closer internal sympathy with the Israelitish principle. So far, at least, as the great mass was concerned, they remained internally at the standpoint of the ἀσεβεῖς of the books of the Maccabees. It is a mistake to try to identify them with the Karaites, a Jewish sect which does not appear until the eighth century after Christ. This attempt has originated in purely Jewish ground. Their rejection of the oral law was the result of a true recognition of the written law; while the Sadducees in their heart recognised the written law just as little as the oral one, and only took up the standpoint of belief in the word for the more effective refutation of their opponents, just as many among us when they want to attack the creeds. It has frequently been asserted that the Sadducees, like the Samaritans, acknowledged only the Pentateuch. The correct view, however, is that the Sadducees externally acknowledged the whole canon, though internally they acknowledged the five books of Moses just as little as the rest. When our Lord, in Matthew 22:31-32, refutes the Sadducee denial of the resurrection from the writings of Moses, although the other books offered far more convincing arguments, He does this only because they had drawn their argument from these writings, and because the Mosaic writings were the most important for every Jew. And when Josephus, Antiq. xii. 10, says that the Sadducees held only to what had been written by Moses, he does not place the Pentateuch in opposition to the other books, but rather contrasts the written and the oral law. The Sadducees boldly advocated such doctrines as they could with any plausibility bring into harmony with the writings of the Old Testament; where this was not possible, they kept them to themselves. What they openly defended, however, sufficiently proves that they had lost the substance of the divine teaching. The doctrine which they most confidently contested was that of the resurrection. Here, so far as the Pentateuch was concerned, they could easily embarrass their opponents. The plainer passages in Isaiah, Ezekiel, and especially in Daniel, they probably explained away by giving them a figurative meaning. According to Acts 23:8, they also denied the existence of angels. Josephus makes no mention of this; but the denial of this doctrine stands in the closest connection with the denial of the resurrection. The denial of the resurrection was with them a result of their materialism. The soul exists only in and by virtue of its connection with the present body. Hence they must also deny the existence of angels as incorporeal beings. Doubtless they did not come into direct opposition with the Pentateuch, but professed to acknowledge what was there said of the appearance of angels, and then proceeded to explain that these were only divine intelligences,—a view which gains plausibility by the way in which Holy Scripture speaks of angels. According to Acts 23:8, they taught that there was no spirit, πνεῦμα. The same thing necessarily follows from what Josephus says of them in his Antiq. xviii. 1. 4, that in the opinion of the Sadducees the soul ceased at the same time with the body; so also, de Bell. Jud. ii. 7, the Sadducees deny the resurrection of the soul and retribution in the lower world. As materialists, they could neither accept the doctrine of the resurrection nor the doctrine of angels, nor yet the doctrine of God, though they did not venture to deny the last.
It must have been difficult for them to bring the denial of the divine providence into harmony with Holy Scripture. Yet Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5, § 9, so distinctly states their denial of this doctrine, that they must have propounded it openly: “They maintain that everything proceeds from us, that we acquire what is good, and draw down evil upon ourselves by wicked actions;” comp. de Bell. Jud. ii. 8. Probably they here availed themselves, like rationalism, of an accommodation or condescension.
Josephus, De Bell. Jud. ii. 8, states that even in their intercourse with one another they were excessively rude and uncourteous. This is only what must be expected à priori. Their tendency was so egotistic throughout, they were so completely wanting in all spirituality, that they were not even able to organize themselves into a true party. According to Josephus, the most distinguished and the wealthy belonged to the sect of the Sadducees. This may be explained from the fact that these, by their position, were brought into closer connection with heathen society and culture.
Finally, the Essenes. That these are of far less importance than the two other parties, already appears from the circumstance that they are not mentioned in the New Testament. This shows that they had no importance for the sum-total of national life, but were a mere sect. Among the various derivations of the name, only two deserve consideration. According to one of these, the name comes from the Syriac אסא, to heal. Some of the defenders of this view take the healing in its ordinary sense, appealing to Josephus, according to whom the Essenes occupied themselves with the preparation of medicines, probably boasting, like so many theosophs, of a deeper insight into nature. Against this view, however, we have the fact that this activity was very partial, and was practised only by a few individuals. Others, on the contrary, understand the אסא spiritually, as those who are intent on the practice of virtue, worshippers of God. But, spiritually taken, the name could only denote the physician of souls, the spiritual physician for others; and this name seems unsuitable. It would be a strange thing in any case for a sect to call itself after the conversion of others, and, moreover, the tendency of the Essenes was not in this direction; they did not enter into connection with others, but separated themselves as much as possible from the world. According to the other derivation, the name of the Essenes had its origin in חסידים—Esseni softened from Esdeni. We have already shown that in the time of the Maccabees the Essenes were connected with the Chasidim. From the Chasidim arose the Pharisees and the Essenes; and while the Pharisees adopted a new name more distinctively characteristic, the general name of חסידים continued with the Essenes. Respecting the origin of the Essenes, it is a problem not yet solved whether they sprang up only on Jewish ground, or arose through heathen influence, by means of the Alexandrian-Jewish philosophy of religion. The latter view has been advocated especially by Dähne. But the traces of heathen influence are by no means so certain. Only two doctrines can with any great probability be reckoned as such: firstly, the doctrine of the body as the prison of the soul,—comp. Josephus, De Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 11, according to whom they taught immortality but no resurrection, while on Israelitish soil both are united; and, secondly, their existence as an order, and their adoption of mysteries, which is very remote from the Israelitish standpoint, and vividly recalls heathen analogies, especially Pythagorism. According to Philo and Josephus (the latter alone serves as an historical source; Philo idealizes too much), the Essenes amounted to about 4000, and were scattered throughout the whole land; and when the elder Pliny names a district beside the Dead Sea as their exact place of abode, we can only take this to mean that they had an important settlement there. From the Therapeutae in Egypt, who were essentially the same sect, they were distinguished only by the fact, that while the former devoted the whole day to contemplation, these occupied a part of it in manual labour, and did not altogether withdraw from human society; they did not all forswear matrimony, nor did they entirely renounce riches, but had only community of goods. On superficial consideration, the Essenes must appear to be worthy of great honour, as Christians before the time of Christ, so that many, indeed, have derived Christianity from Essenism. But, on deeper consideration, the matter assumes quite a different aspect. A spirit of piety cannot be denied. How superior they were to the Pharisees and Sadducees in this respect, appears from their doctrine that everything is under the supervision of God, or under the εἱμαρμένη (Josephus, Ant. xviii. 2), by which we are not to understand a blind fate, but the will of God, in opposition to the godless assumption of Pharisaism, which ascribed all action to man, and of Sadduceeism, which ascribed both action and passivity to man. But on the other hand there are also dark shadows. First, we find a large residuum of bare externality, which contrasts strangely with the false spiritualism shown in the doctrine of the resurrection. They regarded the use of oil, which belongs to oriental custom, as unworthy, and considered it honourable to wear a white garment, not putting it off until it was quite worn out; they observed the Sabbath with scrupulous accuracy; so also the washing before meat; they not only avoided all the heathen, but within the sect itself the members of a higher grade avoided all contact with those of a lower: comp. Josephus, de Bell. Jud. ii. 8, § 4. Essenism was a developed separatism; and its strict retirement from the world is quite at variance with Christianity, which announces itself as leaven that is to leaven the whole lump, whose aim it is to overcome the whole world, and to be of service to it. Our Lord says, “Go forth, and teach all nations.” Essenism destroyed even the relations towards one’s own nation. The Essenes looked upon it as unlawful to present offerings in the temple, fearing lest they should contaminate themselves by association with the worldly crowd who were less rigorous in their ablutions. According to Josephus, they presented sacrifices in their private dwelling-houses; while, according to Philo, they offered only spiritual sacrifice, which is the more probable. In thus isolating themselves so completely from church-life, they not only cut themselves off from all comprehensive activity, but also shut themselves out from a number of wholesome influences, their heart became contracted, and their views more and more one-sided. Essenism had not merely the faults of a sect, but also those of an order. The greatest slavery was formally sanctioned; the saying, “Thou shalt be no man’s servant,” was quite disregarded; and blind submission to the ruling power prevailed. Even when they wished to do good to a relative, they were obliged to ask permission from the rulers first. Theosophic trading in secrets also prevailed among them. On their inauguration they were obliged to take an oath—at other times they were not allowed to swear—and, among other things, to swear that they would tell to none the angel-names imparted to them. Then they had secret books. With all this it was not easy for the Essenes to become Christians after the manner of Christ. In one aspect Essenism was less accessible to Christianity than Pharisaism, because the latter did not shut itself up in the same way.
It is commonly supposed that every Jew belonged to one of the three sects named. But the very germ of the nation, the ἐκλογὴ, stood outside these sects, having only a more or less intimate connection with the Pharisees, because the latter represented themselves as defenders of the nationality and the faith. These people, the Israelites without guile, were the quiet of the land; and if we had only Josephus, who confines himself to the noisy element, we should scarcely suspect their existence. But in the New Testament we encounter their lovely forms, Zacharias, Simeon, Joseph, Nathanael, Elisabeth, Hannah, the three Marys, etc. We learn what a treasure of hungering after salvation and childlike surrender still had a place in the nation, from the example of the apostles in the first days of their relation to Christ, and the attachment with which the ὄχλοι met Christ. Perhaps there never was a deeper religious life in the nation than at this time, in which we are everywhere met by traces of the greatest moral confusion. But when Christianity attracted that genuine Israelitish element to itself, the nation became a shell without a kernel. Authors such as Josephus and the heathen were in their place, but the destruction of the nation was near at hand, and the eagles were gathering about the carcase.
John Hyrcanus was succeeded in the year 105 B.C. by his corrupt son Aristobulus, who signalized the beginning of his reign by several infamous acts. He assumed the title of king, but died after a reign of only one year. His brother Alexander Jannaeus succeeded him on the throne. We are far more interested in the internal conflicts which raged violently under this king, than in the wars which he carried on against his neighbours. In the year 94 the hatred of the people, which his father had brought upon himself and his family by going over to the sect of the Sadducees, broke forth. For a moment the rebellion was suppressed by Alexander, who instituted a great massacre by his hired soldiers among the rebels; but a defeat which the king suffered in the following year, in a war against the Arabs, gave occasion for a new insurrection, which became a violent struggle against the king, and lasted for six years. Finally peace was restored by the most inhuman cruelties against the rebels. After several campaigns, Alexander died in the year 77, in the twenty-seventh year of his reign. By his means the territory of the Jews had been considerably augmented. After his death his widow Alexandra assumed the reins of government, and was able to retain her position by showing favour to the Pharisees, and making them the ruling party,—a course of action to which she had been advised by her dying husband. Her eight years’ reign was peaceful. After her death, which took place in the year 69, her younger son Aristobulus took possession of the throne, having defeated his elder brother Hyrcanus, who was supported by the Pharisees. Hyrcanus remained quiet for some years; but in the year 64, at the instigation of Antipas or Antipater, the father of Herod the Great, a distinguished Idumean, he concluded a treaty with Aretas, the king of the neighbouring Arabs, and, accompanied by Antipas, fled to him for refuge. According to Josephus, Antipas was the original name of Herod’s father, most appropriate for a contentious Idumean, an Idumean bandit, and he assumed the name of Antipater afterwards as his official title. Aretas now accompanied Hyrcanus back to Judea with a large army; Aristobulus was defeated, Judea taken. But when all appeared to be lost, the king, who had taken refuge in the temple, purchased the help of the Roman general Scaurus, who was then at Damascus. Owing to his threats, Aretas was obliged to retreat, but was overtaken by Aristobulus, and suffered a great defeat. Aristobulus then sent an embassy to Pompey, who had arrived at Damascus, to demand his recognition of him as king, while Hyrcanus turned to Pompey through Antipater. Pompey summoned both brothers to Damascus, without, however, giving any decision. Aristobulus, foreseeing that the result would be unfavourable to him, turned back and made preparations for war. Irritated by this, Pompey invaded Judea. Aristobulus surrendered and was put in chains, while Jerusalem was conquered and made the scene of a great massacre. This happened in the year 63 B.C. Pompey threw down the walls, but left the treasure of the temple and the sacred vessels untouched, and commanded the restoration of divine worship. Hyrcanus was appointed prince and high priest, a dignity in which he was afterwards confirmed by Julius Caesar, who appointed Antipater to be his ἐπίτροπος. Yet the country lost its independence and became tributary to the Romans. It is remarkable that here also the first interference of the Romans in Jewish affairs, to which the Maccabees had incautiously approached very near, originated with the Jews themselves. The end was already contained in the beginning. The Romish thirst for power could not rest until the nation had been brought into complete subjection; and the Jewish national pride, which rested on a pseudo-religious basis, and was increased by memories from the time of the Maccabees, could not submit to such subjection. If matters were to come to open warfare, there could be no doubt as to the result. The enemy with whom the Jews had now to deal was very different from their former enemy, as only blind fanaticism can fail to see. The hard disposition of the Romans gave just as little hope of a mild lot for the conquered as of a tender sparing of their sensibility before the war. Hence we can already foresee the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the nation, and history has little more to do than to answer the question: When will this come to pass?
