Of the scribes and doctors. We may trace the origin of thefe doctors back to the time of Ezra (a), who is himself called a fcribe, which is a word of the fame import as that of doctor. The term feribe, is indeed of a more extensive fignification in holy scripture, because there were feveral forts of feribes. We find for inftance in Deuteronomy, according to the verfion of the feventy, fome officers named fcribes (b). But by this word are most commonly meant the Jewish doctors, and this is the fenfe which it generally bears in the New Teftament. Hence JESUS CHRIST faid of the fcribes as well as of the Pharifees, that they fate in Mofes's chair (c). It appears from the firft book of Maccabees (d), that there was, in the time of its author, a company of fcribes; and from the second, that there were feveral degrees of dignity and fubordination among them (e). Such a regulation as this was neceflary, after the gift of prophecy had ceafed among them, because the high-priests, having the greatest flrare of the adminiftration in their hands, could have no leifure or opportunity of applying themselves to explain the law, and instruct the people. The names that were given thefe doctors, were at firft very plain; for they were termed only feribes or interpreters of the law. But a little before our Saviour's time, they affected higher titles, as thofe of Rabban, and Rabbi, which, in their original fignification, imply greatness and multiplicity of learning; and that of Ab, or Abba, i. e. father, which they were extremely fond of. The word feribe was the title of an office, and not of a fect (f). We learn indeed from the gospel hiftory, that the greatest part of them fided with the Pharifees, and adhered to their opinions and tenets. But it is also probable, on the other hand, from feveral paffages of the New Teftament, that some of them were of the fect of the Sadducees. The profeffion of the scribes, as they were doctors, was to write copies of the law, to keep it correct (*), and to read and explain it to the people. In doing this, they did not all follow the fame method. For befides the allegorifts or fearchers before mentioned, fome ftuck to the literal fenfe of the law. Thefe are fupposed to have been the fame as are termed in the gospel, doctors of the law, or lawyers, and feemed to be diftinguished from the Pharifees and the reft of the fcribes. But in this there is no certainty, and it is manifeft on the contrary, from feveral paffages of feripture (g), that the doctors of the law were the feribes, and even fuch of them as received the traditions, as the Pharifees and most doctors at that time were wont to do. Lastly, fome made it their business to explain the traditions, which they called the oral law (†), that is, the (b) Deut. xx. 5, 9. reapparsis. law (*) This afterwards gave rife to the Mafforites, that is, thofe that criticized upon the letter of fcripture, upon the number of verfes, words, letters, and points; concerning which, fee Dr. Prideaux Connect. (g) Luke v. 17. vii. 30. xiv. 3. (†) This is what the Jews call the Cabala, i, e. the doctrine received by tra dition. law delivered by word of mouth; which, as they pretended, had been conveyed from Mofes down to them from generation to generation by the tradition of the elders. They had a great regard for these traditions, looked upon them as the key of the law, and giving them the preference even to the law itself. Hence this blafphemous maxim: The words of the feribes are more lovely than the words of the law of God. But it is evident from the frequent reproaches which JESUS CHRIST made to the fcribes and Pharifees upon this point, that under pretence of explaining the law by their traditions, they had actually made it of none effect (b). Which will be found undeniably true, by any one that will be at the pains of confulting the Thalmud (I). TH Of the Jewish Sects. HE laft article we have infifted upon, leads us naturally to give an account of the Jewish fects. The whole body of the Jewish nation may be divided into two general fects, the Caraïtes (*), and the Rabbanifts. The Caraïtes are thofe that adhere to the plain and literal fenfe of holy fcripture, rejecting all manner of traditions. They may properly be called textuary. The Rabbanifts, otherwife called the Cabalifts, or Thalmudifts, are thofe that, on the contrary, own and receive the oral or traditionary law. As there is no exprefs mention of the former in fcripture, all that we know of them is from fome of their writings, or from the Thalmudifts their adverfaries, or elfe from the relations of travellers. But if the name be not ancient, yet we may fafely venture to affirm, that the thing itself is of a very long ftanding. There are authors that pretend to difcover fome footsteps of them in the gospel; but, as we have already obferved, this is too groundlefs dition. It confifts of two parts, one of which contains the opinions, rites and ceremonies of the Jews; the other the myftical expofitions of the law. This Cabala is of a very ancient date, and was the occafion of most of the herefies among Chriftians. (b) Matth. xv. 2, 3, 6. Mark vii. 7, 8, 9. (1) The Thalmud is a collection of the Jewish doctrines and traditions. There are two of them; that of Jerufalem, which was compoted by Rabbi Judah, the fon of Simeon, about the year of Chrift 300, and that of Babylon publifhed about the year 500. Each of them confifts of two parts, one of which, called the Mifnah, is the text of the Thalmud, or traditions: and the other, named Gemara, is the fupplement or comment upon them. See Dr. Prideaux Con. P. I. B. 5. under the year 446. (*) The Hebrew word Cara fignifies to read, and Rabban a doctor that receives the traditionary law. It is supposed that the founder of this fect was a Jew, called Anan, who lived about the middle of t e eighth century. See Dupin. Hift. of the canon, &c. B. I. chap. x. fect. 4. groundless and uncertain to be relied on. To reconcile the different opinions of the learned upon this head, the feribes or Jewifh doctors may very fitly be divided into two claffes, namely, fuch as owned and received the traditions, and fided with the Pharifees; and thofe that adhered to the facred text, and were afterwards called Caraïtes. As thefe were not diftinct from the body of the Jewish nation, or the affembly of the doctors, it is no great wonder that they fhould not be mentioned in the New Teftament under the name of any particular fect. Besides, as they did not corrupt and alter the law of God by their traditions, as the fcribes and Pharifees did; JESUS CHRIST had therefore no occafion of mentioning them. When their adverfaries, the followers of oral traditions, in order to reprefent them as odious as poffible, confound them with the Sadducees, do they not in effect own that their antiquity is very great? In Origen (i), and Eufebius (k), we find the Jewish doctors divided in two claffes, one of which adhered to the text and letter of the law, and the other received the traditions of the elders. It is then very probable that the Caraïtes and traditionary fcribes are both of the fame antiquity, and that their difputes begun, when traditions came in vogue, that is, about a hundred years before the birth of Christ. The Caraïtes difagreed with the rest of the Jews in fome particulars, as in the keeping the fabbath, of the new moons, and other festivals; but the main difference between them confifted in thefe particulars: 1. In that, as hath been already obferved, they entirely rejected all traditions in general, and ftuck to the text of fcripture, that is, to the canonical books of the Old Teftament, explained in a literal fenfe. 2. In that they thought fcripture ought to be explained by itself, and by comparing one paffage with another, without having recourfe to the Cabala, or traditions. 3. They received the interpretations of the doctors, provided they were agreeable to the facred writings; but withal, left every one at liberty to examine thofe explanations, and either to embrace or reject them, as he thought fit. The charge of faducifm, which hath been brought by the Jews against the Caraïtes, is entirely groundless, fince it is evident from their writings, that they believed the immortality of the foul, and the refurrection. There are still at this day great numbers of Caraïtes difperfed in feveral parts of Europe, Afia, and Africa. Of the Sadducees. The most ancient fect among the Jews, was that of the Sadducees; so named from Sadoc, the founder of it, who lived above two hundred years before JESUS CHRIST (1). What the main points and most essential branches of their doctrine were, is evident from feripture, wherein we are told, that they did not believe there is any refurrection, neither angel nor spirit (m). The Jews imagine that Sadoc fell into thefe errors, by mifapplying the inftructions of Antigonus. his master, who taught, that men ought to practise virtue disinterestedly, (i) Origen in Matth. p. 218. Ed. Hol. (k) Eufeb. Præp. Evang. 1. 8. c. 10. and (1) Dr. Prideaux places the rife of this fect, An. 263. before Chrift. See Con. P. II. Anno 263. (m) Acts xxiii. 8. Matth, xxii. 23. Mark xii. 18. Luke xx. 27. and without any view to a reward. Jofephus afferts (»), that they denied the immortality of the foul; but he afcribes to them several other opinions, which there is no mention of in the facred writings: as, "that "they did not allow of any fatality at all in what cafe foever; but main"tained, that every man has it in his own power to make his condition "better or worse, according as he takes right or wrong measures." Which hath given fome perfons occafion to believe, that they denied a providence, but this hath been advanced without any folid proof; for as they profeffed to follow the law, they could not well entertain fuch an impious notion, even though they had received only the five books of Mofes, as fome authors have afferted, without any good grounds. Jofephus relates indeed that they rejected all traditions, and were perfuaded that only the written law was authoritative and binding; but he doth not fay that they rejected the prophets, and the other canonical books of Scripture. What hath given rife to this opinion, is, that JESUS CHRIST cites a paffage out of Exodus to prove the refurrection to the Sadducees (0), inftead of chufing fome others which occur in other parts of fcripture, and feem to contain more exprefs and pofitive arguments for that truth. But this cannot be reckoned any manner of proof, becaufe JESUS CHRIST may have had particular reafons for pitching upon that place, rather than any other. All that can be inferred from it, is, that though the Sadducees rejected the traditions of the Pharifees, they notwithflanding allowed of the mystical interpretations of fcripture, fince otherwife they could not have apprehended the force of JESUS CHRIST'S argument, which cannot well admit of any other fenfe than a mystical one. Perhaps not being used to this way of arguing, they were put to filence by it (p). However it be, we may from hence learn how great was the hatred of the Pharifees against the Sadducees, fince they immediately took council againft JESUS CHRIST, how they might put him to death, because he had filenced and convinced the latter, as if they had envied them for the knowledge of an article, which they themselves acknowledged and received. Another reafon may be affigned for this confultation, which is, that the Sadducees being highly in favour with the great and powerful, as Jofephus affures us (q), the Pharifees were afraid thefe fhould join with the people, who admired the doctrine of JESUS CHRIST. If we may believe the fame hiftorian, the Sadducees were extremely harth and ill natured (r.). But as he was a Pharifee, we cannot safely rely on the account he gives of the Sadducees; and perhaps what may be inferred from this roughness of theirs, which he charges them with, is, that they were ftricter in point of morality than the Pharifees, whofe religion confisted in mere outfide. And indeed we do not find that JESUS CHRIST ever upbraided them upon this account, for he only tells them they erred, not knowing the fcriptures, whereas he treats the Pharifees with the utmost feverity. Several reafons may be affigned (z) Jofeph. Antiq. xiii. 9. 18. xviii. 2. (p) Ibid. ver. 34. (7) Id. de Bell. Jud, 1. ii. c. 18. (0) Matt. xxii. 32, (1) Jof. Antiq. 1. xiii. c. 18. for for this different deportment of our Saviour towards thofe two fects. 1. There is this difference between error and vice, that error is only in the understanding, and often involuntary; whereas vice is in the will, and proceeds from a corrupt heart. 2. Of all vices, there are none of a more pernicious confequence, or more difficult to root up, than those which the Pharifees were infected with. Pride is the bane of all religion and piety; and hypocrify is one of the most dangerous kinds of Atheism. 3. The Sadducees were exact obfervers of the law, whereas the Pharifees adulterated it by their traditions. So that the doctrine of the Pharifees, was only a set of impious notions, concealed under a fhew and fpecious pretence of religion. The acknowledging of a refurrection, and the immortality of the foul, was indeed a great ftep towards the converfion of the Pharifees to chriftianity: But then, on the other hand, their traditions and vices were much greater obftacles to their embracing that bleffed religion, than the errors of the Sadducees could be. And thefe errors were not reckoned very dangerous among the Jews, fince the Sadducees were admitted to all places of truft and profit, and performed the divine fervice in the temple, as well as the reft. The high-priest Caiaphas was of that fect (s), as well as Ananus, who, according to Jofephus, caused St. James to be put to death (t). It is certain, that in the time of JESUS CHRIST the Sadducees were very numerous, and made a confiderable figure (u). But after the establishment of the gospel, and especially fince the refurrection of JESUS CHRIST, the error of the Sadducees was reckoned of a very pernicious confequence; for which reason St. Paul reproves fo fharply Hymeneus and Philetus for denying the refurrection (x), and infifts largely on the proof of it, as of a fundamental article of the Chriftian religion (y). Of the He rodians. It is fuppofed, with a great deal of probability, that the Herodians, of whom we find mention in the gospel (z), differed but little from the Sadducees. Accordingly, St. Mark (a) feems to call that the leaven of Herod, which JESUS CHRIST ftiles the leaven of the Sadducees (b), because the greatest part of them were of Herod's fide. There are fome who imagine, that it was a fect which professed to believe that Herod was the Mefliah. But this is very uncertain and improbable. What may moft fafely be depended upon, is, that the Herodians in general were a fet of people that were great sticklers for Herod, who like the generality of the grandees, was a Sadducee, and which confequently were in a different interest from that of the Pharifees. Thefe last notwithstanding joined with the Herodians, when they wanted to enfnare JESUS CHRIST. Jofephus fpeaks of Jews, that were friends and favourers of Herod (c). The Pharifees were fo called from a Hebrew Word (d) that fignifies feparated, or fet apart, becaufe they pretended to a greater degree of holiness and piety than the rest of the of the Pha Of fces. Jews, (t) Jof. Antiq. 1. xx. c. 8. (z) Mark xii. 13. (d) Pharas, to separate. |