In considering first in what respects Josephus’ account of the teaching of the Sadducees is reflected in Ecclesiasticus it must be borne in mind that the book in its original form was written before the distinctive doctrines of Pharisaism had become formulated, and therefore before anything in the nature of antagonism between Sadducæan and Pharisaic teaching had arisen; “it is not to be supposed that the two parties were from the first sharply divided, still less that they acquired distinctive names. It is historically more probable that the divergence increased gradually, and was intensified, and at last definitely realized in the religious revival of Maccabæan times.”[360] The evidence which Josephus gives is late; in his time the opposition between the two parties had fully developed, and, as so often happens between opposing parties, their respective tenets tended to become exaggerated. Of this there is naturally no sign in Ecclesiasticus. Cowley rightly points out, in speaking of the Sadducees during the period that succeeded the Maccabæan struggle, that “in their political relations they show a sympathy with foreign influences which was strongly reprobated by the nationalistic Pharisees. Thus we find them accused, perhaps justly, of tolerating Greek religious practices, and even of adopting them. This is the less surprising if it be considered that the Judaism which they professed can have had (to use a modern phrase) no religious hold on them. It was rather the machinery by which a certain political system was worked, and when circumstances changed it could be adapted to new conditions.”[361] So that when we speak of the Sadducæan doctrinal standpoint in Ecclesiasticus it will be understood that this is somewhat different from that which was developed more than a century later owing largely to opposition to Pharisaic teaching. Ben-Sira represents traditional Judaism of a high type,[362] and in so far is to be regarded as standing for conservative Sadducæanism; but in many respects, and especially in that which regarded devotional religion, which is such a prominent feature in Ecclesiasticus, Pharisaism was identical with the best that traditional Judaism offered; so that, from this point of view, it may be said that Ben-Sira also represented “Pharisaism,” though to use this term in speaking of the time of Ben-Sira would, of course, be an anachronism.