24. Ab. i. 3, 4
25. Zunz has well pointed out that, if in Ab. i. 4 the first `couple' is said to have `received from them' -
while only Antigonus is mentioned in the preceding Mishnah, it must imply Antigonus and his
unnamed disciples and followers. In general, I may take this opportunity of stating that, except for
special reasons, I shall not refer to previous writers on this subject, partly because it would necessitate
too many quotations, but chiefly because the line of argument I have taken differs from that of my
predecessors.
26. Ab. i. 2.
27. Ab. i. 3.
28. See Appendix IV.: `Political History of the Jews from the Reign of Alexander to the Accession of
Herod.'
We have seen that, during the period of severe domestic troubles, beginning with the
persecutions under the Seleucidę, which marked the mortal struggle between Judaism and
Grecianism, the `Great Assembly' had disappeared from the scene. The Sopherim had ceased
to be a party in power. They had become the Zeqenim , `Elders,' whose task was purely
ecclesiastical - the preservation of their religion, such as the dogmatic labours of their
predecessors had made it. Yet another period opened with the advent of the Maccabees. These
had been raised into power by the enthusiasm of the Chasidim, or `pious ones,' who formed
the nationalist party in the land, and who had gathered around the liberators of their faith and
country. But the later bearing of the Maccabees had alienated the nationalists. Henceforth they
sink out of view, or, rather, the extreme section of them merged in the extreme section of the
Pharisees, till fresh national calamities awakened a new nationalist party. Instead of the
Chasidim, we see now two religious parties within the Synagogue - the Pharisees and the
Sadducees. The latter originally represented a reaction from the Pharisees - the modern men,
who sympathised with the later tendencies of the Maccabees. Josephus places the origin of
these two schools in the time of Jonathan, the successor of Judas Maccabee,29 and with this
other Jewish notices agree. Jonathan accepted from the foreigner (the Syrian) the High-Priestly
dignity, and combined with it that of secular ruler. But this is not all. The earlier Maccabees
surrounded themselves with a governing eldership.30 31 On the coins of their reigns this is
designated as the Chebher, or eldership (association) of the Jews. Thus, theirs was what
Josephus designates as an aristocratic government,32 and of which he somewhat vaguely says,
that it lasted `from the Captivity until the descendants of the Asmoneans set up kingly
government.' In this aristocratic government the High-Priest would rather be the chief of a
representative ecclesiastical body of rulers. This state of things continued until the great breach
between Hyrcanus, the fourth from Judas Maccabee, and the Pharisaical party,33 which is
equally recorded by Josephus34 and the Talmud,35 with only variations of names and details. The
dispute apparently arose from the desire of the Pharisees, that Hycanus should be content with
the secular power, and resign the Pontificate. But it ended in the persecution, and removal from
power, of the Pharisees. Very significantly, Jewish tradition introduces again at this time those
purely ecclesiastical authorities which are designated as `the couples.'36 In accordance with this,
altered state of things, the name `Chebher' now disappears from the coins of the Maccabees,