Interesting and most ingenious as this theory is, it does not seem to be a sufficiently natural explanation; moreover, in one important respect the _Zindīk_ presented a marked contrast in principle to the Sadducee; for while the _Zindīk_ was one who followed the Zend, or explanation of the Avesta, the truly sacred book, i.e. “who rejected the word of God to follow worldly tradition,” the Sadducee was just the reverse, for he clung to the word of God, and he rejected the authority of the oral tradition, i.e. the Pharisaic explanations and traditions.[157] And further, as we shall see later, the normal type of Sadducee was not necessarily worldly or irreligious. A third view, and one which may be regarded as the correct one, is that the term Sadducees (_Zaddūkim_) takes its origin from the personal name Zadok. The sons of Zadok (_Bĕni Zadōk_) were the descendants of the high-priest Zadok, whose family had exercised the priestly functions from the time of David (1 Chron. v. 27-41, xv. 11, xvi. 30, 40)[158] right up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, when their rule came to an end[159]; but the party continued to exist. Most modern scholars accept this explanation, which has, indeed, now been placed beyond doubt by the evidence of the _Zadokite Fragments_ (see further § iii. (_e_) of this chapter).[160] So much, then, for the origin of the terms “Pharisees” and “Sadducees.” We turn next to consider the sources whence we derive our knowledge of these two parties and their special tenets. II. THE SOURCES (_a_) _Josephus._