From all that we have learned about the Sadducees and the school of thought which they represent, it must be clear that at one time they constituted a powerful and influential element among the Jews, with definite principles and doctrines which they championed. The question, therefore, suggests itself as to whether any literary remains emanating from their circles have come down to us. It is generally acknowledged that Ecclesiasticus is “Sadducæan” in character, so that the Sadducees and their pre-Maccabæan representatives were evidently not without their scholars and writers; we should, therefore, naturally look for other examples of Sadducæan literary activity. We have become accustomed to be told that any book in which the Law is extolled is necessarily Pharisaic; but in view of what we have seen to be the Sadducæan attitude towards the Law, something more than the upholding of the Law is required in a book in order to establish its Pharisaic authorship; unless it is clear that the _Pharisaic conception_ of the Law is in the mind of the writer, the book could just as well be Sadducæan, so far as this particular point is concerned. But the doctrine concerning the Law is, of course, not the only criterion whereby the character, whether Sadducæan or Pharisaic, of a book is to be judged; when we come to consider the authorship of the uncanonical books, the Pseudepigrapha as well as the Apocrypha, we shall have to take into consideration all the doctrines to which reference has been made above; and it may be that in some cases we shall find that there are reasons for considering a book to be Sadducæan which is usually supposed to be Pharisaic. If this is so, then our sources for the Sadducees may be increased. But since this is a very disputed matter, we have thought it best not to include among the sources given above books which we shall show reasons for regarding as Sadducæan. SUMMARY The term “Pharisee” means not “Separatist,” but “Expounder” of the Scriptures in the interests of the oral Law. The term “Sadducees” is derived from the personal name Zadok, who was high-priest in the time of David. The sources of our knowledge of the Pharisees and Sadducees are: Josephus, Rabbinical writings, the New Testament, and the _Zadokite Fragments_. The doctrines regarding which the Pharisees and Sadducees differed were: the Law, which the Sadducees regarded as binding only in so far as the written Law was concerned, while the Pharisees claimed the same for the oral Law. The Sadducees came to recognize the need of making new legal ordinances, but only such as were based upon the written Law. The oral tradition of the Pharisees had arisen independently of the written Law; but the Pharisees were ultimately forced to accept the Sadducæan principle, and by subtle exegesis showed that the oral tradition was actually based upon the written Law. Thus, though the Sadducees ceased to exist as a party, their principle won the day.