Jewish Sects: Sadducees
by Fred A. Shewmaker
Origin, Influence, and Theological Outlook
via Truth Magazine, XVI: 10, pp. 6-8 January 13, 1972
The Sadducees were second in importance to the Pharisees of the five Jewish Sects. They are mentioned in the Bible far more than the remaining three sects. This sect emerged after the return from Babylonian captivity. With the return, "this sacerdotal aristocracy, and especially the 'priests of the seed of Zadok, ' the 'sons of Zadok,' or, which comes to the same thing, 'the Zadokites' were Sadducees, naturally continues to form the center of the newly formed state, and to be the time-honored guardians both of God's sacred heritage and their holy religion. The high-priests were also the chief functionaries of state."1 The high priest was now in power not only as the religious leader but also as the political leader. Pfeiffer calls the Sadducees "A Jewish religious sect of the latter half of the second Temple period, formed about 200 B.C. as the party of high Preacher Needed priests and aristocratic families."2
Concerning the time following John Hyrcanus's break with the Pharisees as a result of Eleazar's insult (see article II of this series), F. F. Bruce wrote, "For the next fifty years, then the Sadducees retained control of the Sanhedrin, which served as the council of the rulers of the Hasmonaean dynasty, and lent their support to the dynasty."3 The son of Hyreanus followed him in power and was a patron of the Sadducees while treating the Pharisees with violence and death.
There is a controversy regarding the origin of the name "Sadducees." Peloubet wrote, "The origin of their name is involved in great difficulties, but the most satisfactory conjecture is that the Sadducees or Zadokites were originally identical with the sons of Zadok and constituted what may be termed a kind of sacerdotal aristocracy, this Zadok being the priest who declared in favor of Solomon when Abiathar took the part of Adonijah, I Kings 1:33-45."4 Without going into the controversy here, I would accept this appraisal, noting only that the use of the name Sadducees is from the post-exile period.
The Sadducees were organized as "a priestly oligarchy."5 They controlled the temple, were in charge of its administration and carried out its rituals.
Proselyting was not a part of the Sadducees' activity. "The Sadducean party was closed. None but the High Priestly and aristocratic families of Jerusalem could be Sadducees."6 This exclusiveness apparently accounts for the fact that the Sadducees were never at any time a large party.
"Not a single undoubted writing of an acknowledged Sadducee has come down to us, so that for acquaintance with their opinions we are mainly dependent on their antagonists."7 One such antagonist was Josephus. He represents the Sadducees as saying "we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the traditions of our forefathers."8 "They represented the conservative position in religious matters, and so questioned the validity of oral tradition."9 "Not only were the Sadducees opposed to innovations in and departures from the written Law, but they denounced any reform in the functions of the temple."10 Although the Sadducees misinterpreted and misapplied the written law, at times, their refusal "to recognize any precept as binding unless found in the Torah"11 (law) was the right and proper attitude toward the word of God.
"The Sadducees supported zealously every government, which, in turn, was enough to set the people against them."12 Even though they remained aloof and were unpopular with the people, Pfeiffer observes, "The party was the most influential in the political and economic life of Palestine."13 Through the years, they had been able to hold many of the seats in the Sanhedrin. Many of them were wealthy and a large number were of priestly descent and as a result their influence "fully balanced that of their more popular rivals."14
Those who are not conservative in their outlook usually find it challenging to view objectively the positions taken by those who are conservative. Those who have written about the Sadducees have, for the most part, been unable to treat their subject with absolute fairness. Consider the following statement: "Theologically, the Sadducees must be described with a series of negatives."15
Yet, the same author in another book wrote, "They acted severely in cases involving the death penalty. The Mosaic principle of Lex Tallonis was interpreted literally."16 Thus, the first statement of this author is not completely accurate. The latter statement gives us a specific example of a positive position taken by the Sadducees. They believed in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. This might be repulsive to those who stand opposed to capital punishment and for a soft approach to any violation of law. However, the theology of the Sadducees at this point cannot be correctly termed a negative theology. The only way that one might label this as negative theology would be to say that here, the Sadducees stand opposed to crime. But the fact is that, on this point, they were for law enforcement.
We could cite another statement by the same author and show that the Sadducees were positively for "the Written Iaw" and maintaining unchanged "the functions of the temple." We should learn the lesson from all this: Many times, the classification of another's position as negative or positive may easily be affected by the position from which the classifier views the other's position.
Footnotes
- McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, (Grand Rapids: 1970), Vol. IX, p. 240.
- Charles F. Pfeiffer, The Biblical World, (Grand Rapids: 1966), p. 326.
- F. F. Bruce, Israel and the Nations, (Grand Rapids: 1963), p. 171.
- F. N. Peloubet, Bible Dictionary, (Athens, Ala.: 1947), p. 576.
- "Thomson," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids: 1957), p. 2660.
- Charles F. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, (Grand Rapids: 1963), p. 115.
- McClintock d Strong, Ibid., p. 235.
- F. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, (London~ 1842), p. 360 (B. X111, Ch. X, See. 6.
- Pfeiffer, Biblical World, P. 326.
- Ibid., p. 327.
- Ibid.
- Cunningham Geikie, The Life and Words of Christ, (New York &London: 1920), Vol. II, p. 214.
- Pfeiffer, Ibid.
- I.S.B.E., p. 2659.
- Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, p. 115.
- Pfeiffer, Biblical World, p. 327.
Doctrine and End
via Truth Magazine, XVI: 11, pp. 5-7 January 20, 1972
I hesitate to use the word superstitious, but it is probably the best single word that can be used to describe the Pharisaic concept of the providence of God. The Sadducees in no way shared such a view. Josephus wrote, "They take away fate, and say there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal; but they suppose that all our actions are in our own power so that we are ourselves the cause of what is good, and receive what is evil from our own folly."1 They "seemed to have believed that God is not concerned with human affairs."2 They "rejected the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, the immortality of the soul, and the existence of angels and ministering Spirits."3 With these tenets of their doctrine before us, let us examine each one separately.
Since all allow that the Sadducees believed in the Pentateuch, it becomes very difficult to think that they totally rejected the very idea of angels. I do not seek to ignore or reject any of Acts 23. My effort here is to understand this passage in the light of the fact that the Sadducees accepted, yea honored, the Pentateuch. The Hebrew equivalent of the Greek word translated "angel" in Acts 23:8 appears over 20 times in the Pentateuch. In "Jewish Sects: Pharisees," it was pointed out that the Pharisaic concept of the function of angels and ministering spirits was erroneous. Acts 23, in the light of the reverence the Sadducees had for the Pentateuch, appears to be a consideration of the differences that existed between the Pharisees and the Sadducees regarding the function of angels and ministering spirits rather than a statement that one believed that such existed. In contrast, the other did not believe that such existed. The function attributed to them by the Pharisees is shown to be that of constantly directing the actions of men (Acts 23:9). After much study and consideration, I am forced to conclude and cautiously suggest that it was this function which the Pharisees attributed to angels and ministering spirits that Luke had under consideration when he wrote, "The Sadducees say that there is no angel, nor spirit" (Acts 23:8).
I firmly believe that angels exist and function occasionally to direct certain men's actions (both during the historical period recorded in the Pentateuch and during the life of the apostles). Still, I am ready to contend with those today who would and sometimes do say, "But if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God" (Acts 23:9). It seems entirely possible that this is the position held by the Sadducees in their day even though angels and ministering spirits still functioned occasionally to direct a man's actions. While the Pharisees credited the angels and ministering spirits with too much activity in directing the actions of men, the Sadducees rejected their activity in this area altogether. Thus, without qualifications, I cannot accept Pfeiffer's statement that the Sadducees "rejected the existence of angels and ministering spirits."
Regarding the resurrection of the body, Josephus wrote, "They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades."4 "The doctrine of the Sadducees is this: that souls die with the bodies."5
However, it must be remembered that Josephus was himself a Pharisee and -may have failed to be completely objective in his writings concerning the Sadducees. "It cannot be supposed that if the Sadducees had actually denied the immortality of the soul, so vital a point would be passed over in silence by the Talmudic doctors, when unimportant differences are minutely specified."6 Geikie wrote, "As to world to come, they left it doubtful, maintaining... that it could not be proved from the Books of Moses."7 Jesus took away this contention of the Sadducees when he answered their question about the woman who had been wife to seven husbands -- "In the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the Seven:" (Mau. 22:28).
Jesus answered their question by saying, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, or the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage . . ." (Matthew 22:29-30). I do not know where this information is to be found in the Old Testament. Jesus did not say that this information was in the Scriptures. He merely answered the question that, to the minds of the Sadducees, posed a dilemma if there is to be a resurrection. With this answer, Jesus told them that the supposed problem they posed was nonexistent. Thus, their question carried no weight as an argument against the resurrection. The error of the Sadducees resulting from their "not knowing the scriptures" is related to the fact that the Scriptures touch on the matter of the resurrection. Jesus said, "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Matthew 22:31-32). The Sadducees had overlooked its application to the resurrection. They, no doubt, knew the words recorded in what we call Exodus 3-6, but knowing the words was not the same as knowing the meaning.
When Jesus was tried and crucified, it was the Sadducees who took the lead in opposing him and demanding that he be crucified. While studying this series of articles, I read that the Sadducees were not once mentioned in the gospel of John. It may be just as well that I failed to make a note so that I could document that statement because it is not altogether accurate. Indeed, the word Sadducee(s) is not found in John's gospel. However, it was shown in "Jewish Sects: Some Terms Considered" that the term "chief priest" has reference to those connected with the party of the Sadducees. The party is referred to in John by the designation chief priests ten times. This designation appears five times in chapters 18 and 19, which record the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, our Lord.
The Sadducees were the chief antagonists of the early church (Acts 4 and 5).
With the destruction of the Temple in A.D 70, the activities of the Sadducees ended.
Footnotes
- F. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, (London: 1842), p. 360 (B. XIII, Ch. X, Sec. 6).
- Charles F. Pfeiffer, The Biblical World, (Grand Rapids: 1966), p. 327.
- Ibid, p. 326.
- F. Josephus, Wars of the Jews, (London: 1842), p. 617 (B. 11, Ch. V111, See. 14).
- F. Josephus, Antiquities, p. 484 (B. XVIII, Ch. 1, See. 4).
- McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, (Grand Rapids: 1970), Vol. IX, p. 236.
- Cunningham Geikie, The Life and Work of Christ, (New York & London: 1920), Vol. 1, p. 213.