vi. 10-14 the influence of Sanballat and Tobiah upon many of those

who lived in Jerusalem, and the existence of a party there opposed to Ezra, is plainly indicated; among those belonging to this party there are mentioned Shemaiah, the prophetess Noadiah, “and the rest of the prophets” (cp. also xiii. 4 ff.; Mal. ii. 10-16).

From all these indications it is not difficult to see that the elements for the formation of a distinct party in opposition to the _régime_ of Ezra and Nehemiah were present from the very beginning of the return from the Exile. For some considerable time, no doubt, the influence of Ezra succeeded in suppressing, though not in quenching, the opposition which he met with; but two diverging tendencies became rooted among sections of the people, and in course of time bore fruit in the formation of distinct parties.

The distinguishing notes of these two tendencies can be discerned without difficulty; on the one hand there were, as can be seen from the quotations given above, the members of the aristocracy, i.e., the high-priestly families, who were friendly disposed to those of semi-Israelite and even non-Israelite origin. They were, from the point of view of their adversaries, lax concerning the observance of the Law (see, e.g., Neh. xiii. 15 ff.), though not necessarily antagonistic to it, but only to the Ezra conception of it; they could, for example, show that their foreign marriages were not contrary to the Law, while Ezra’s requirements went beyond the Law. On the other hand, there was Ezra, and his followers, strongly adverse to any intercourse between Jews and non-Jews, and painfully scrupulous regarding the minute observance of the Law (see, e.g., Neh. x. 28 ff.).

Here, therefore, were the tendencies already in existence which, as time went on, continued to develop until they became the crystallized tenets of definitely opposed parties, whose watchwords were Universalism _versus_ Particularism, and whose attitude towards the Law differed in this respect, that the Universalists interpreted it in a limited sense, while the Particularists insisted on a laborious observance of it in all its minute details, which became greatly increased by their methods of interpretation.

The process of the development of these tendencies can be seen in some of the books of the Old Testament; for example, in the Book of Haggai (ii. 10 ff.) we have indications of the importance laid upon minute legal observances by the priests, with whom, as already pointed out, the Scribes were associated; in the Book of Jonah, on the other hand, universalism is throughout the dominant note.

(_b_) _The Apocrypha data._

The classical passage in the books of the Apocrypha concerning our present subject is Ecclesiasticus xxxix. 1-11, where the ideal scribe is described; in the passage which precedes this Ben-Sira insists upon the need of leisure for a scribe if he is to devote himself to the acquisition of true wisdom; he shows that the labourer and the artisan, while indispensable to society, are necessarily too much occupied with their callings to give any time to higher things. Then he continues:

1. Not so he that applieth himself to the fear of God, And to set his mind upon the Law of the Most High; Who searcheth out the wisdom of all the ancients, And is occupied with the prophets of old; 2. Who heedeth the discourses of men of renown, And entereth into the deep things of parables; 3. Searcheth out the hidden meaning of proverbs, And is conversant with the dark sayings of parables.... 6. If it seem good to God Most High, He shall be filled with the spirit of understanding. He himself poureth forth wise sayings in double measure, And giveth thanks unto the Lord in prayer. 7. He himself directeth counsel and knowledge, And setteth his mind on their secrets. 8. He himself declareth wise instruction, And glorieth in the Law of the Lord....

The first thing that must strike us here is that according to Ben-Sira there is no difference between a scribe and a wise man, the two are synonymous (verse 1).[146] The next thing to note is that Ben-Sira recognizes two sources of the scribe’s knowledge, the study of these is what constitutes the scribal activity; the first is described in verse 1, viz., the Law of the Most High, the wisdom of the ancients, and the prophets of old; that is to say, the Pentateuch, the Wisdom books, and the prophetical books.[147] The second is described in verses 2, 3, viz., discourses of men of renown, deep things of parables, hidden meaning of proverbs, and dark sayings of parables; it is difficult to see to what these things can refer unless it is to the discussions, proverbs and aphorisms of the kind which abound in Ben-Sira’s book. That they cannot refer to the oral Law is clear enough from the description itself; for the oral Law cannot be said to have consisted of discourses, hidden meaning of proverbs, or dark sayings of parables. Ben-Sira, though a scribe, has nothing to say about an oral Law, though he must have known of its existence; yet he has a great veneration for the Law, there are abundant indications of that in his book. We have, moreover, seen that there are strong grounds for believing that an oral Law was in existence long before the time of Ben-Sira (_circa_ B.C. 200), and the evidence of somewhat later times points in the same direction. We are, therefore, forced to the conclusion that Ben-Sira represents a type of scribe who venerated the Law as written, but repudiated the oral Law. Further, though Ben-Sira was a good Jew, the Hellenistic influences which are to be found in his book and his generally broader mental outlook make him in some respects the antithesis of Ezra. Ben-Sira thus seems to belong to those, of whom we have made mention above, whose tendency was in an universalistic direction and who could venerate the Law without feeling bound by the inferences which might be drawn from its interpretation.

The evidence of the Prologue to the Greek translation of Ecclesiasticus, some sixty years later, points also to a veneration of the Law, but without making any reference to the oral Law, although it is probable that scribes are in the mind of the writer of the Prologue when he speaks of “readers” and “lovers of learning who must be able to profit them which are without [i.e. the laity, most likely] both by speaking and writing.” The Prologue thus corroborates what we learn from the book itself.

Before coming to 1 Maccabees, which is the next book to give evidence on the subject of the Scribes, a word must be said about the _Assidæans_, or _Chassidim_.[148] By these are meant those “Pious” ones, frequently mentioned in some of the later Psalms (e.g., cxlix. 1-9, and elsewhere), who clung tenaciously to the Law, both written and oral, when, in the third century B.C. onwards, many of the Jews were becoming lax owing, largely, to Hellenistic influences. They were animated by a strong antipathy towards everyone who was Hellenistically inclined; they were legalists in the strictest sense of the word, and particularists. Although in existence beforehand, it was only during the Maccabæan struggle that they commenced to play an important _rôle_ in the political life of the nation. The importance of the _Chassidim_ for our present study is that they are identified with one type of the scribes in 1 Maccabees vii. 12, 13, viz.: “And there was gathered together unto Alcimus[149] and Bacchides[150] a company of scribes to seek for justice; and the _Chassidim_ were the first among the children of Israel that sought peace of them [i.e., of Alcimus and Bacchides].” The evidence of this book appears at first sight to be conflicting, for in the passage just cited they appear as the peaceful party, while in ii. 43, 44 they are described as warlike.[151] It is probable, however, that these descriptions both witness to the true facts of the case; for the natural inclination of these students and strict observers of the Law would clearly lie in the direction of peace; but as soon as they realized that the cherished object of their existence was imperilled, fighting became a necessity. It must be remembered that the _Chassidim_ and the Maccabees are in no sense to be identified; they were both champions of the Law, and both the enemies of Hellenistic Jews; but the Maccabees were patriots primarily, while the _Chassidim_ were legalists, and, provided they were left in peace to follow their legal studies and observances, it was of no great moment to them whether their nation was independent or a subject-race.

In the Book of Judith, although the Scribes are never mentioned, many details of what were really the results of their activity are to be found; but as these are spoken of in Part II in the account there given of the Book of Judith (§ iii.), we need not make any further reference to the subject here.

(_c_) _Some further particulars._

One or two other points regarding the Scribes may be briefly mentioned. As exponents of the Law and of the Scriptures generally the Scribes were as a matter of course greatly occupied with the Hebrew text of these; they thus became, quite apart from their other duties, such as making copies of the Scriptures, the guardians of the text of Scripture, and upon them devolved the further duty of the fixing and the preservation of the Biblical text. This very important function marks them out as the beginners of the textual criticism of the Old Testament.

A further practical duty which the study and exposition of the Law brought with it was that of administering it. The Scribe was a lawyer; in the Gospels the two terms are synonymous, for which reason they never occur together. It was as administrators of the Law that the Scribes were represented in the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem; here they sat as judges who assisted in the passing of sentences on those who had broken the Law.[152]

After definite parties had come into existence the Scribes belonged, in the main, to the Pharisaic party; but there was no reason against some of them being members of the Sadducæan party; this is, indeed, implied in such passages as Mark ii. 16; Luke v. 30; Acts xxiii. 9.

That which constituted the difference between the Scribes and the Pharisees was briefly this: the Scribes handed down the traditional, i.e. the oral, Law as well as the written Law, and explained it; the Pharisees carried out in actual practice what was thus prescribed. This, of course, does not mean to say that the Scribes did not also strictly observe the legal enactments; but that their special duties constituted them a class distinct from the Pharisees is clear from the way in which they are differentiated in the New Testament, for there we read of the “Scribes of the Pharisees” (Mark ii. 16; Acts xxiii. 9), and of “the Pharisees and their scribes” (Luke v. 30), showing clearly that the Scribes were distinct from the Pharisees.

The natural sequel to any account of the Scribes is a consideration of the Pharisees; with these, in conjunction with the Sadducees, we shall deal in the next chapter.

SUMMARY

From the Old Testament _data_ we gather that there were Scribes who were occupied with the written Law in pre-exilic times, though they arose long subsequently to the priests, the prophets, and the _Chakamim_, or wise men; but the pre-exilic scribe was of a very different kind from the scribe of later times. Ezra was not only the first scribe in the later sense of the word, but was also the inaugurator of the scribal system as generally understood.

An important point to notice in the activity of the Scribes in the earliest post-exilic period is that as teachers of the Law they interpreted it to the people.

From the commencement of the return from the Captivity differences arose between the returned exiles and those whom they found in Palestine on their return. These differences reveal the existence of two diverging tendencies among many of the people, the distinguishing notes of which were particularism and rigid legalism on the one hand, and universalism coupled with a less strict interpretation of legal requirements on the other. Ezra and those who followed him were the upholders of the former, the high-priestly party and their followers of the latter tendency. The process of development in either direction can be discerned in some of the later Old Testament books.

In the Apocrypha we learn from Ecclesiasticus that a type of scribe had arisen whose energies were directed towards the acquisition of wisdom which he was concerned to impart to others; this type of scribe, while venerating the Law, sympathized with the universalistic rather than with the particularistic attitude. Belonging to a slightly later time are the _Chassidim_, or “Pious ones,” who were strict legalists and of a particularistic tendency, though they were not patriots in the sense that the typical Maccabæans were. The _Chassidim_ are spoken of in connexion with the Scribes. We are, therefore, led to the conclusion that before the middle of the second century B.C. two types of scribe were in existence, the wisdom scribe, and the more particularly legal scribe. Concerning these latter, who are to be regarded as the Scribes in the strictly technical sense and who became closely associated with the Pharisaic party, the following further points may be noted: upon them devolved, in addition to other duties, the guardianship of the text of Scripture. They were, further, the administrators of the Law, and were represented in the Sanhedrin, and thus sat as judges and assisted in the passing of sentences on those who had broken the Law.