As to these additions, what is their character, and why were they added? The right answer to these questions was first given by Mr. Hart, who holds that they are “fragments of the Wisdom of a Scribe of the Pharisees, and contain tentative Greek renderings of many of the technical terms and watchwords of the Sect. As Jesus Ben-Sira dealt with the earlier Scriptures, so some unknown disciple dealt with his master’s composition. He received the deposit and added to it.”[358] Mr. Hart works out this theory on pp. 275-320 of his book; following his lead, we have studied the matter independently, and have found that the more it is studied, the more firmly is his theory substantiated. Before coming to deal in some detail with this subject, it will be well to put the question: Why should a Pharisee have felt it incumbent upon him to make these additions? The answer, proof for which will be offered in a moment, is that Ecclesiasticus in its original form represents the “Sadducæan”[359] standpoint, and at the close of the Maccabæan struggle, when Pharisaism appeared as an active movement and the Pharisees became the dominant party in Israel, it was no doubt considered essential that a book like Ecclesiasticus, which was greatly in vogue (for, as far as it went, it was orthodox) should bear on the face of it the marks of Pharisaic orthodoxy, and thus become a vehicle for the propagation of Pharisaism. We shall now first seek to show that Ecclesiasticus in its original form represented the traditional Sadducæan standpoint, and that the additions reflect the teaching of the Pharisees. We have already dealt with the specific doctrines of these two parties, so that what is now to be said should be read in the light of what has been written in Chapter VII. VI. THE “SADDUCÆAN” DOCTRINAL STANDPOINT IN ECCLESIASTICUS