superior to the Sadducees. That many of them, such as Nicodemus, Gamaliel, and others,1 were well disposed and open to conviction, is abundantly proved from the history of Christ, and by the remarkable contrast which existed between the schools of Hillel and Shammai.

To the strict orthodoxy and unhesitating belief of the Pharisees in the merit and efficacy of exterior works of devotion, the Sadducees opposed a critical and ultra-liberal spirit. Their name is derived from the Hebrew P Zedec. According to the legend of the Talmud, however, they date their origin from a certain Zadoc, who lived about 240 B. c. Their aim seems to have been to restore the Mosaic law to its original purity. They acknowledged all the books of the Old Testament, because they were in harmony with the Pentateuch, but rejected tradition, and attributed no value to ceremonies. Ostensibly indifferent in their religious belief, loving a life of ease and Epicurean luxury, they disregarded the higher aspirations of their nature, and considered God as a Being who quietly observes the course of human affairs without much caring what particular direction events may take. They also denied the immortality of the soul, and, as a consequence, rejected the doctrine of future reward and punishment and the resurrection of the body. It is also quite certain that they denied the existence of angels and all other spirits, but particularly Satan.3 The Sadducees, as might be anticipated from the nature of their teachings, exerted little or no influence upon a people so wedded to their traditions, nor did the bigoted spirit with which they, professing the widest liberty of thought, pursued all those who dared to differ from them, contribute to their popularity. The dangerous tendency of their religious opinions would have precluded the

1 The Talmud legend thus relates the origin of the sects: Zadoc, one of the disciples of Antigonus Socho, interpreted the tenet of his master: that virtue must be practiced without reference to reward: as denying a future state of retribution, and, consequently, future life itself. Cf. Grossman, de philosophia Sadducaeorum, Lps. 1836; and Winer in his bibl. Cyclopedia, s. v. "Sadduceans. Döllinger, Paganism, p. 745–748.

2 Matt. xxii. 23; Mark xii. 18; Luke xx. 27; Jos. Ant. xviii, 1, 4. 3 Acts xxiii. 8.

possibility of any good coming of their influence had it been more powerful than it really was.

About the middle of the second century before Christ, a number of Jews, equally dissatisfied with the teachings of each of these sects, and their influence upon public opinion, formed themselves into a third party, known as the Essenians,1 who, embracing an ascetical life, and combining the Mosaic. law with the philosophy of the Orphic-pythagorean school, gave rise to a religion resembling in many respects that of the Jews of Alexandria. According to Josephus Flavius, about four thousand of these withdrew to the western shore of the Dead Sea, where they settled and led a retired and mortified life. They sought to be liberated from the prison of the body, and by practicing all manner of good works, by fasting and a rigorous and inflexible discipline, to so bring the senses under control that they might free themselves from the bondage of the body, "that prison-house of the soul," and lead an entirely spiritual and supernatural life. They also renounced marriage, and Pliny calls them an "eternal people," because there was no new generation to take the place of that which was passing away. They had a great regard for truth, and never permitted an oath to be taken among themselves, except upon the entrance of a member into the community, when it was surrounded with every circumstance calculated to inspire dread.

Their chief employment was to till the fields, breed cattle, practice trades, and study medicine; to the last of which their name, derived from the Chaldean word DN (he cured), signifying a healer, may with great probability be etymologically traced. It would seem that their acquaintance with medicine and the secrets of nature led them to claim a supernatural knowledge, and as a matter of fact they did pretend that the gift of prophecy was their special prerogative.

Their spiritual life and religious tenets have many points

3 Philo calls them Eocato; Josephus Flavius, Ecoñvo. Conf. above 29, note, and Luiterbeck, 1. c. vol. I., p. 270–314. Freibg. Eccl. Cyclopedia, vol. III., p. 715 sq.

in common with those of the Therapeutai, of Egypt. Philo, however, calls the Essenians лрazτzoi, and the Therapeutai dewpyrol, because the latter led only a contemplative life, while the former united both the contemplative and the active. According to the same author, who is very partial to both sects, and believes them to have been true models of practical wisdom, they rejected all sacrifice and professed to adore in spirit and in truth; but Josephus contradicts this assertion and says that they regarded sacrifice as holy, provided only it were offered after their own fashion. They religiously observed the Sabbath, possessed all things in common, and, in direct contradiction to the most prominent doctrine of their sect, were scrupulously attentive to a great number of empty formalities and outward practices, among which may be mentioned the distinction of the four degrees, abstinence from everything impure, lustrations, etc. Their devotions were at once mystical and Mosaic, contemplative and slavish, and savored of the most intense Phariseeism. Everything was regulated by the rigorous exactions of law; to render aid and show mercy, were, according to Josephus Flavius, the only two acts left entirely to their own discretion. Their reverence for the sun was so great that they would not speak on profane subjects before sunrise. The attempt, therefore, to identify the Essenians with Christianity, of which they did not possess a single essential element, was a most decided mistake. The most that can be asserted is that the kindred sect of the Therapeutai may have had a certain influence upon the mode of life adopted in Christian monasteries. It seems quite clear that none of these sects could have exerted a lasting influence upon the religious bias of the people. The Pharisees, besides being hypocritical, crushed out all genuine piety of soul, by incumbering their religious belief with an extravagant ceremonial, and relying implicitly upon the efficacy of trivial works of external devotion. The Sadducees, on the other hand, harassed by perpetual doubt and yielding to indifferentism, were utterly inadequate to the task of imparting to the people the doctrines of efficacious faith; while the Essenians, shut up in their monasteries, could not make their influence felt upon the outer world.

2

We shall close this sketch of the religious dissensions among the Jews by briefly referring to the hatred and animosity which existed between them and the Samaritans.1 These latter derive their name from Samaria, the former capital of Israel. The origin of their religious schism dates from the time of Salmanassar, when the Jews who had been suffered to remain at home intermarried with the Babylonians, Cutheans, and other colonists sent by the conqueror to replace those who had been led away captives. The descendants of these two races were always thoroughly despised by their more orthodox brethren. Although professing to be Israelites by descent, they were Pagans at heart. Conscious of their apostasy, they desired to return to strict monotheism and to aid in the building of the temple, from which, by reason of their idolatry, they had been excluded.3

This much desired religious reform took place about the year 332 B. C., when Manasseh, an excommunicated priest, adopting the Samaritan interpretation of Deuteronomy xxvi. 4, built, with the consent of Alexander the Great, a temple on Mount Garizim, and established a Levitical priesthood, after the form presented in the Pentateuch. His liturgy, however, must have differed essentially from that followed in the temple of Jerusalem, since, contrary to the practice of the Jews, the Samaritans rejected all the books of Scripture, except the Pentateuch, and maintained that God should be adored only on Mount Garizim. They accepted, but in a wider sense, the theocratic belief in a Providence, a future state, and the coming of the Messiah. (77-Hashshaheb-i. e. Conversor.5)

4

1Sylv. de Sacy, mémoires sur l'état actuel des Samaritains. Paris, 1812. Gesenius, de Pentateuchi Samar. origine, indole et auctore. Hallae, 1822. Ejusd. carm. Samar. e codd. Lond. et Goth. Lps. 1824. (Sieffert) Progr. de temp. schismatis eccl. Judaeos inter et Samar. oborti. Regiomont. 1828. 4to. Herzog's Encyclopedia, pt. XIII., p. 359–391. Grimm, the Samaritans and their position in the world's history. Munich, 1854.

22 Kings xvii. 24 sq. Conf. 2 Chron. xxxi. 1 sq.

32 Kings xvii. 29 sq.

4 John iv. 19 sq.

5 Friederich, dissensionum de Christologia Samaritanorum liber. Lps. 1821, p. 11-87. Conf. Reusch, Introd. into the Old Testament. Freiburg, 1870, p. 208: "The names of the Deity are paraphrased in the Samaritan version of the

The Jews and Samaritans, in speaking of each other, were unsparing in words of reproach and opprobium.' They mutually charged each other with idolatry and like crimes, denied to each other the rights of hospitality,2 and refused all intercourse, and, when traveling, each kept at a distance from the territory of his neighbor. The teaching and example* of Christ were a pointed condemnation of such conduct.

3

§ 31. Direct and Indirect Preparation for the Coming of Christ in the Fullness of Time.

The influence of the Pharisees, notwithstanding their outward forms of law, had destroyed all true religion among the Jews and begotten an intense spirit of fanaticism. Religion had come to be regarded as consisting entirely in external forms. The skepticism of the Sadducees, whose influence, however, was not great, had caused considerable discontent among the people. These religious troubles, which were greatly aggravated by the excessive severity of Roman rule, created a desire among them for some amelioration of both their religious and political condition. But, in proportion as the religious difficulties of the Jews increased, the more were they disposed to interpret in a worldly and carnal sense the prophecies concerning the Messiah, the most glorious that had ever been delivered to them. They looked forward to His coming as to that of a great and mighty ruler and conquering hero. Only a few among them, of whom the noble characters of the New Testament, Zachary, Elizabeth, Simeon, Anne, Mary, and the rest, are representatives, hoped in a Messiah who would deliver them from error and sin.

6

At the close of the period at which we have just arrived,

Pentateuch, anthropomorphisms and other offensive expressions avoided; in other respects, the translation is literal."

1 Sir. 1. 28; John viii. 48.

2 Luke ix. 53.

3 Luke x. 25-37.

4 John iv. 4 sq.; Luke ix. 52.

5+Langen, Judaism in Palestine at the time of Christ. Freiburg, 1866, p.

391-461.

6 Luke i. and ii.