This piece of evidence may be frankly accepted, as far as it goes, not only because in itself it contains nothing intrinsically improbable, but also because it is borne out by the other sources. It shows us what was the fundamental cause of difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees, viz., as to whether anything besides the written Law was binding. What is particularly noticeable here is the fact that the Sadducees, not the Pharisees, were the real champions of the Law as such[174]; the Sadducees were the guardians of the Law in its purity, and desired to keep it free from accretions; the Pharisees were bent on attaching to the Law ordinances of which the Law itself knew nothing, and of making both equally authoritative and binding. But from this a very important thing results: as champions of the Law how can it be said, as is so often said, that the Sadducees, as a party, were worldly and lax as regards religious interests? In one passage, it is true, Josephus speaks of the opponents of the Pharisees as those who offend against the holy laws (_Bell. Jud._, I, v. 1), but the context shows that by these were meant the laws of the Pharisees, as distinct from the Law which was venerated by the Sadducees quite as much as by the Pharisees. The _Zadokite Fragments_ corroborate what has been said in so far that in them the Pentateuch, cited under the term Torah, is considered the main authority. In the Gospels we have no direct evidence concerning the Sadducæan standpoint regarding the Law; but there are many indications regarding that of the Pharisees and their insistence on the oral traditions. These are, however, sufficiently well known not to require detailed mention here. One matter of special interest may be noted in passing, namely, that, so far as questions of the Law are concerned, Christ upholds the Sadducæan standpoint.[175]