.png)
By: Caleb
Introduction
The identity and beliefs of the Sadducees have played an illusive role in both historical and New Testament Studies, and while many have something to say few do more then repeat anything more that a probable theory. Theories are all that is available, but when repeated enough, they can begin to be said will certainty. No small number of scholars say something akin to: “were the party of the Jerusalem aristocracy and the high priesthood… [and that] none but the members of the High Priestly and aristocratic families of Jerusalem could be Sadducees.”[1] This is often tied with accusations of syncretism with Greek philosophy and/or an eagerness to hellenise and work with their foreign overlords.[2] The following will argue that such a caricature needs to be tempered, however, ultimately there is not enough evidence to go beyond a mere sketch of the group.
Origins
The origin of the Sadducean party is shrouded in uncertainty, even their name’s etymology is unknown. The soon to be recurring limitation will be come obvious, that being no documents from the group have survived to this day. Meaning that all information on the Sadducees comes from their religious rivals, bias sources at best. This leaves theories with little certainty.
There are many proposed explanations for the title “Sadducee” (Hb. Tsadduqim) but there appears to be little scholarly consensus. One favoured by many is the name’s possible derivation from Zadok (Hb. Tsadoq), which would somehow tie the group to God’s regulation of the priesthood to Zadok and his descendants.[3] Another popular preposed derivation is the adjective “just/righteous” (Hb. Tsaddiq). Making things worse, it seems unlikely that a traditionalistic/conservative group would name themselves, proving themselves sectarians and not merely orthodox. Additionally, any original title could have been given in a positive or sarcastic intent. Many other theories exist, such as a possible Pharisaical quip connected to “desolation” (Hb. Tsadu), but such theories plentiful and disproportionately baseless.[4] Finally, most seem to acknowledge that the name’s origin gives little to no additional insight into the 1st century Sadducean sect.[5], [6]
The confusion and theories built on thin evidence not only apply to the name/title by also to the historical events that lead to the Sadducees rise. Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews (93-94AD) is the earliest extrabiblical record of the group, where he simply states that “at this time [2nd century BC] there were three sects among the Jews” (13.5.9).[7] Josephus further ties the Sadducees to the aristocracy, including the priesthood, as he records high priest John Hyrcanus’ reign (134-104BC) and his shifting allegiance to the Sadducees (Anti. 13.10.5-13.5.7). This association is even stated explicitly when Josephus states “while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich… the Pharisees have the multitudes on their side” (Anti. 13.10.6).[8]
Another proposed theory brings the alternative Jewish temple in Leontopolis, Lower Egypt. This temple, and its priesthood, trace their origins to Onias IV, the son of High Priest Onias III. Onias III’s own brother supposedly bribed Antiochus IV for the position of High Priest (2nd Macc. 4.7-26), and in a twisted scene of irony another man, Menelaus (a Benjaminite), offered a higher tribute one year. High Priest Menelaus failed to uphold his financial promises to the king and ended up using some of the temple vessels as a bribe. Onias III proclaimed Meneluas’ actions widely, which in turn led him to arrange a treacherus death for Onias III (2nd Macc. 4.30-34). Onias IV, and many others fleeing Antiochus IV’s oppression, ran to Egypt and built a Jewish colony there, temple included. Josephus then seems to record Herod the Great replacing a High Priest with a priest from Egypt named Simon (Anti. 15.9.3).[9] Note that this could be a restoration of Zadokite priesthood, but there does not seem to be any way to prove it. While it is a fancifully theory it is best to acknowledge that it rests on few provable facts and a thin throughline. At best it ought to be held tentatively.[10]
Source Material Depictions
As previously mentioned, all source materials are from religious rivals. These would include the New Testament, the works or Josephus, and the collection of early Rabbinic writings. Each of the previous ought to be looked at in turn and their specific content on the Sadducees extracted.
The New Testament – The Sadducees are only brought up a hand full of times in the New Testament: two times in conjunction with the Pharisees and another four on their own. Their defining features are their opposition to a resurrection (Matt. 22.23-28; Mark 12.18-23; Luke 20.27-33; Acts 23.6-10) and opposition to the apostle’s preaching (Acts 4.1-4, 5.17-21).[11] This opposition seems to be headed up by the high priestly family (Acts 4.5-6), yet some in the priesthood are likely not Sadducees and others even start to have faith in Christ (Acts 6.7).[12] John the Baptist calls them out alongside the Pharisees for their lack of honest repentance and ignorance of the impending judgement. Jesus also criticized the group alongside the Pharisees when they seek a sign from God, that he might ‘prove’ himself (Matt. 16.1-12). Jesus rebukes them and turns to warn his disciples of their yeast (impurity/wickedness).[13] Most scholars seem to agree with Anthony Saldarini, concluding that “the relatively few references… in New Testament generally agree with the view of them found in Josephus,” however, it is important to note that biblical text only brings up the group when they are necessary to the narrative and otherwise it is completely disinterested.[14]
Josephus – Josephus sets the group among his “sects of [Jewish] philosophies” (Anti. 18.1.2), but several clarifiers ought to be noted on the idea of a Sadducean sect.[15] Both Alfred Edersheim and Anthony Salderini take issue with the flippancy people have when using the term for either the Sadducees or Pharisees.[16], [17] The argument is that the word “sect” most commonly refers to a group of individuals in seeming protest and/or rebellion against the traditional stance. Because these two ‘sects’, Sadducees and Pharisees, are probably the byproducts of a long series of social and theological developments, the previously mentioned generic understanding of ‘sect’ does not really fit.[18]
Josephus mostly presents their negative beliefs, that being the things they did not believe, the point where they disagreed with the Pharisees. He states that “they take away fate…[and]…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” (Anti. 13.5.9).[19] He further clarifies stating “God is not concerned in our doing or not doing evil… [and they] take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades” (Wars. 2.8.14).[20], [21] Naturally this explains their denial of general resurrection and Jesus’ specific resurrection. Beyond the any social causes for these differences, Josephus point to a/the linchpin of their theological framework, and defining feature, that they “say that we [the Jews] are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what derived from the tradition of our forefathers” (Anti. 13.10.6).[22], [23] Behaviorally, Josephus points out that the “the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich” (Anti.13.10.6), and that “their conversation with those that are of their own party is as barbarous as if they were strangers” (Wars. 2.8.14).[24], [25]
Some comments on the quality and reliability of Josephus report need to be made. Anthony Salderini correctly points out that “he describes the Sadducees as a group only in contrast to the Pharisees and Essence… [and because] Josephus blends history to suit his purposes, his descriptions of the Sadducees cannot be taken as face value.”[26] Additionally, because of the limited number and incomplete descriptions of the group, some comment that Josephus “does not appear to have extensive knowledge of the Sadducees.”[27], [28] Nevertheless, Josephus’ comments are more numerous and insightful then those in the New Testament and likely less bias than the those found in Rabbinic literature.[29]
Rabbinic Literature – There are two things worth noting when researching the Sadducees in the Rabbinic collection: (1) the insertion of the name in later edits, and (2) the confusion and conflation between a group called the Boethusians, with many alternative spellings, and the Sadducees. The first issue(s) occurs where the original document said something akin to ‘heretics’ and/or ‘gentiles’ but the title Sadducees inserted instead, as such these sections dismissed. The second issues, the Boethusians, is far more complicated and occurs mostly in the Tosefta with only one reference in the Mishinah.[30] The writers use the term synonymously for the Sadducees; however, this would seem to be misleading.[31]
In all Rabbinic documents the Sadducees/Boethusians are viewed extremely negatively and are presented as incorrect and inferior to the teachings of the Pharisees and later Rabbis. Both the Jerusalem (ca. 400AD) and Babylonian Talmuds (ca. 500AD) present a view that verges gatekeeping the Sadducees from legitimate Judaism.[32], [33] Additional details in Sadducean thought are brought up in the Mishnah (ca. 200AD) and Tosefta (ca. 250AD) over ritual purity and observation of the Sabbath.[34] These disagreements “are typical... and concern limited points of behavior and interpretation, some public and some private,” and are therefore of little consequence to this study.[35], [36] Despite the vastness of Rabbinic literature, “no fundamental disagreements over hermeneutic principles for interpreting Scripture or the relationship of customary interpretation to the written canon appear, nor does a comprehensive picture of the Sadducean position emerge from these few disputes.”[37] As such, the details provided in the rabbinic collection are interesting, but not any more useful than the information from the New Testament and Josephus.
Function in the 1st Century
Aside from the authority from the priesthood, the Sadducean party also had substantial power in the Sanhedrin. While the exact origins of the council are unknown; and there seem to be two main theories: (1) was primarily formed in the Hasmonean era, or (2) “in the postexilic period, when those who reorganized Israel without a king made the ancient ruling families the basis of authority.”[38], [39] Regardless, by the time of the first century much power/authority of the Sanhedrin had been stripped away, mostly at the hands of Herod the Great, killing many of the members as a symbol of control (Antiquities 14.9.4).[40], [41] At some point between 76–67BC there was a massive shift in the membership as “scribes of Pharisee persuasion entered the council.”[42] Rome kept the council intact, having the veto on the High Priest’s position, but limited its power and jurisdiction.
The Sanhedrin’s and High Priest’s actions in the trial of Jesus could also be helped explained. Jesus already had negative interactions with the Sadducees (Matt. 22.23-32; Mark 12.18-27), and it was clear that his position on key issues, authoritative scripture, fate, the resurrection, etc., was more akin to that of the Pharisees. Jesus’ kingdom announcements, playing with the people’s messianic expectations (greatest example being the crowd’s reaction during the triumphal entry), and crowds growing desire for his kingship (explicitly in John 6.15), further compounds this cause of Sadducean worry. This would actually feed into the often-presented Sadducean caricature. Jesus would be seen as dangerous grassroots movement that at any time was going to turn nationalistic. Such a threat could not be politically played with and desired a complete restricting of the Jewish ruling class. As such, when the majority of the Pharisees disapproved of him, and the crowds became disillusioned by false expectations, the “problem” was seemingly delt with.
Decline
Record of the Sadducean sect begins to be muddled in the first Jewish–Roman war. Ananias, son of the previous Ananias, brother-in-law of Caiaphas, and acting High Priest during Paul’s trial, was a leader of the revolutionary forces but was killed by infighting; he appears to be the last-named Sadducee of importance (Anti. 20.9.1).[43] Shortly after the temple is destroyed and Jerusalem raised. Between the Jewish in-fighting and Roman scorched earth policy, not a shred of the delicate social-political structure that secured the party was left. Indeed, most scholars conclude their sections on the sect by pointing out that with the destruction of the Temple and city the central power of the classical Jewish religion was broken.[44] The Pharisees were already morphing into an early rabbinic tradition which had less of a reliance on the temple and put high importance on the synagogues. As such, by the time of the 2nd century, the Sadducean sect was then only spoken in the past tense.
A Tempered View
The issue with the simple and often endlessly repeated caricature of the Sadducees is that the majority of the evidence does point to something resembling it. Seemingly they are heavily tied to the temple priesthood and the aristocracy through the Sanhedrin, giving the group an aura an elitist upper class. Additionally, their seemingly more ‘materialistic worldview’ denial of the soul, afterlife, and resurrection, could lead one to see them as ‘progressive syncretises’. However, the evidence merely suggests that most Sadducees were leaders, in the priesthood or Sanhedrin, not that all leaders were Sadducees.[45] As for their ‘materialistic worldview’, it was “the traditional Biblical view… [and the] ideas of resurrection, immortality, and afterlife entered Judaism in the second century B.C.E.”[46] If anything, the Sadducees are the conservative minded on these issues. Finally, the rebellious actions of Ananias, who is a named Sadducee, is at least something against the idea that the group merely wised to work with foreign oppressors. There are arguments which dampen the confident caricature, and most would be wise to heed them.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is possible that in the eagerness of defining and categorizing some scholars have made more definitive claims then the evidence really supports. Unfortunately, there is not enough to work out any sort of definitive or exhaustive description of either the Sadducees origin, beliefs, or membership. It would be best if scholars acknowledged that findings might lean one way or another and conclusions must be held tentatively.
[1] Charles F. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1961), 115. [2] M. G. Easton, Illustrated Bible Dictionary and Treasury of Biblical History, Biography, Geography, Doctrine, and Literature (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1893), 593. [3] Zadok and his descendants being the lineage anointed by David to be the temple priest (1st Kgs. 1.32-39). With the return from exile and the rebuilding of the temple Joshua, son of Jehozadak, a descendent of Zadokite lineage, is anointed as the high priest (Hag. 1.1; 1st Chr. 6.15; as per Ez. 44.15-16, 48.11-12). Things begin to become hazy in the 2nd century B.C. due to actions of Antiochus IV, Menelaus, and the subsequent Maccabean revolt/Hasmonean dynasty, and any sherd of a 2nd century B.C. origin, or older, seems to solely depend on Josephus. [4] Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. 1 (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1896), 324. [5] Anthony J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2001), 225-226. [6] A. Andrew Das, “Sadducees,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), Electronic Source No Page Number. [7] Flavius Josephus, Josephus the Complete Works, trans. William Whiston (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 415. [8] Josephus, Josephus the Complete Works, 426. [9] Josephus, Josephus the Complete Works, 502. [10] Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach, 225-256. [11]Acts 23.8 also sates “the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit…” Eckhard Schnabel argues that this denial is a further clarification of the first. He states “that the Sadducees did not deny the existence of angels and spirits per se. Rather, since they denied the resurrection of the dead (on the day of the future resurrection, which is also the day of judgment), they denied the existence of an interim state between death and the day of resurrection during which the people who have died exist as angels or spirits, the latter being more or less synonymous.” - Eckhard J. Schnabel, Acts, Expanded Digital Edition., Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), Ac 23:7–8, electronic source no page number. [12] Several priests in the New Testament are either explicitly or passively tied to the Sadducean sect. The New Testament records three High Priests (Caiaphus, Annas, and Ananias), however, it is important to note that the position had a moderate turnover, relatively. The point of interest for this study is found in Act’s comments in 4.5-6 and 5.17. Acts 4.5-6 states that “Annas the High Priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family,” and then only in the next chapter ascribes the High Priest to the party of the Sadducees. While some fail to comment on this connection, this would at least indicate that the entire “high-priestly family” was Sadducean sympathizers if not members themselves. The only other named member of the priesthood and/or Sanhedrin, whose sectoral allegiance is immediately unknown (both Nicodemus and Gamaliel are known Pharisees), is the priest Zachariah. His membership in the “division of Abijah” (Luke 1.5) only indicates his place within the cycle of serving priests. His prophecy following the birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1.67-79) might provide a little more insight. John D. Barry points out the four main themes in the prophecy: (1) the blessedness of God for redeeming His people and bringing about salvation, (2) the fulfillment of prophecy through the house of David, (3) God’s remembrance of His covenant with His people and that God’s people will be saved from their enemies, and (4) God’s actions will create the ability for His people to live holy and righteous lives, serving God without fear. While points 1, 3, and 4 give no real evidence, the second point is built on an interesting implication. The restoration of the Davidic lineage, mixed with salvific messiah themes, would indicate that Zachariah not only held respect for the O.T. works outside of the Torah but also had parts of divinely backed prophecy. Zachariah should then be thought leaning Pharisee, but there is no way to know with even limited certainty. Finally, while it is not impossible for a Sadducean priesthood to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, it would be more reasonable to assume that if “a great many of the priesthood became obedient to the faith” (Acts 6.7) their initial theological standing was not as hostile to the idea as Sadducean would have been. - John D. Barry, “Zechariah, Father of John the Baptist,” The Lexham Bible Dictionary. [13] Grant R. Osborne, Matthew, vol. 1, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 617–618. [14] Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach, 300-301. [15] Josephus, Josephus the Complete Works, 452 – 453. [16] Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach, 299. [17] Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. 1, 310. [18] Both authors go on to give further clarifications, and why the term might still be used on both groups. For the purpose of this paper the previous clarification will suffice. [19] Josephus, Josephus the Complete Works, 416. [20] Josephus, Josephus the Complete Works, 729. [21] Interestingly enough, Josephus also depicts them as “stern in their administration of justice” but also characteristics them as amoral thinkers. The incompatibility reeks of Josephus bias. - Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach, 300. [22] Josephus, Josephus the Complete Works, 426. [23] “Concerning the Sadducean views of scripture. Some early church fathers “said that the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch and not the other OT books… However, that they were not opposed to other OT books as a whole (though it is doubtful whether they accepted books such as Daniel with its clear statement of the resurrection of the dead), but rather that they opposed the legal regulations introduced by the Pharisees and were saying that only the OT Law should be considered mandatory. In this, as in their stand against belief in angels and in life after death, they appear to have regarded the Pharisees as innovators and themselves as conservatives.” - Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, “Sadducees,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 1880–1881. [24] Josephus, Josephus the Complete Works, 426. [25] Josephus, Josephus the Complete Works, 729. [26] Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach, 299. [27] Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach, 300. [28] A. Andrew Das, “Sadducees,” The Lexham Bible Dictionary. [29] Salderini like wise takes a more skeptical few on Rabbinic literature. See: Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach pages 199-200. [30] Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach, 301. [31] The Boethusians supposedly appear during the reign of king Herod, and while they “were gradually understood to be the same group… in the first century these groups were most likely separate.” - Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach, 227. [32] A. Andrew Das, “Sadducees,” The Lexham Bible Dictionary. [33] Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach, 301. [34] A. Andrew Das, “Sadducees,” The Lexham Bible Dictionary. [35] Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach, 301. [36] These Sadducean positions which led to the recoded disagreements seem to be confirmed by the Qumran Temple Scroll. [37] Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach, 301. [38] Joel B. Green and Lee M. McDonald, eds., The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017), 269. [39] Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, “Sanhedrin,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, 1903. [40] Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, “Sanhedrin,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, 1903. [41] Josephus, Josephus the Complete Works, 452 – 453. [42] Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, “Sanhedrin,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, 1903. [43] Josephus, Josephus the Complete Works, 645. [44] Gideon Bohak, The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, ed. R. J. Zwi Werblowsky and Geoffrey Wigoder (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997), 600. [45] Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach, 298. [46] Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach, 304.
Comments