John Hyrcanus, the oldest surviving son of Simon, became the next Jewish ruler. So, imperceptibly a royal house had been created, and the princely honor came to Hyrcanus by hereditary succession. In just that way have all royal lines been created—starting with a great deliverer, like Judas Maccabee. But the title, King, came later. Hyrcanus had not only to rout the usurper Ptolemy before the rulership could become his, but had also to resist the siege of Antiochus VII., the next Syrian king, who would not yet renounce Judea without another struggle. Peace was at last reached by Hyrcanus agreeing to the payment of an indemnity and tribute for a few outlying towns.
This first repulse showed that the new kingdom was not very strong and that it owed its independence to Syrian weakness (due to the continued conflicts of rivals and pretenders), rather than to its own material power. But Syria's embarrassment was Judah's opportunity. After Antiochus had been slain in a Parthian conflict, John Hyrcanus, once secure, began a vigorous campaign to enlarge his boundaries. Very soon he had incorporated the old land of the Ten Tribes, now called Samaria. The complete conquest of the Samaritans was undertaken toward the end of his life. Their famous temple on Mount Gerizim was destroyed. Idumea (Edom) was also conquered and Judaism imposed on it by force. But that kind of conversion was always against the free and tolerant spirit of Judaism and against its very genius. We shall later see that it brought its own retribution and weakened the cause of Israel.
Pharisees and Sadducees.
Let us not forget that the rise of the Hasmoneans had come about in a measure through a conflict for religious integrity between the extreme pietists on the one hand, the Chassidim, and the worldly Hellenists on the other, with varied shades of opinion in between. These religious divergences had now crystallized into two schools that acquired the names Pharisees and Sadducees. It is hard to say just when these distinctions began. Perhaps they were always there; for we meet the two groups—conservative and progressive—under different names in all creeds and in nearly all eras. The division is naturally inherent in the human temperament. It marks broadly the two grand divisions into which all men become grouped in organized society.
Now let us consider in particular the distinctions that differentiated these two parties in the Jewish State. The Sadducees were largely composed of the priestly families; but the priestly caste was not necessarily the religious class. It corresponded rather to what we would call the aristocracy—we have seen that the High Priest was also a prince. In this party, too, were largely the military. They were faithful to the Mosaic Law, the Pentateuch, which they rigorously enforced, but gave slight allegiance to the later religious injunctions that came to be developed from the Law by the Scribes; in so far they were religiously unprogressive. Still in their attitude toward life in general, they did not approve of holding aloof from the world, but encouraged a mingling with it and entering into intimate commercial and political relations with other nations. They regarded it their patriotic duty to aggrandize the nation in every way and to make it a splendid power.
The name Sadducee is derived from Zadok, of the family of Aaron, the chief priest of the time of Solomon's Temple, who thus gave his name to the priestly house, "Sons of Zadok."
The Pharisees, while interpreting Biblical law more leniently in certain respects than the Sadducees, were determined supporters of all the mass of legal minutiæ that had been evolved from the Law proper and which had become a "Second Law." These rites and ceremonies that were added to the original Mosaic code (occasionally by a rather forced deduction) they considered equally binding with it. They called it the Oral Law to distinguish it from the Written Law, and the tradition was that it, too, was revealed to Moses.
In their political policy they equally diverged from the Sadducees, believing in standing somewhat apart from the peoples about them. They looked askance upon too intimate relations with the world at large; for they believed it their duty to subordinate all interests, national and commercial, to the religious, trusting the outcome rather to divine providence than to the judgment of their statesmen or the enterprise of energetic leaders.
Further, as against the priestly aristocracy, that wished to confine all ecclesiastical functions to the priestly order, the Pharisees were more democratic in that they desired to extend the privileges of priestly sanctification and holiness to all. Purifying ablutions, they claimed, were obligatory on the whole people. Their meals should also be consecrated, even as the repasts of the priests—so that all Israel should be a "Kingdom of priests and a holy nation." Hence, "Second Maccabees," the work of a Pharisee, declares, "Unto all are given the heritage, the kingdom, the priesthood and the sanctuary."
The chief characteristics of the Pharisees are expressed in their name: Pharash, the Law expounders; Pharash, the separatists—though the former is probably its true derivation.