The Sadducees

The Sadducees

By

Varo Borja

“Take heed and beware the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees” – Matthew 16:6, KJV

In this essay I will attempt to define what a Sadducee was, both in Jesus’ day, as well as the late years of the B.C. period. I will also try to relate some of the scripture in which they were mentioned, and give a brief account of this notorious sect’s existence, as well as a few of the reasons for its downfall.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the sect known as the Sadducees was organized into a coherent unit in the 2^nd century B.C., and the term “Sadducee” was originally connected with the old reference to righteousness, found in the term “tsaddiquim”. This has been discredited, however, for various reasons and most scholars now trace the origin of the word Sadducee to the obscure priest of Old Testament times known simply as “Zadok” (the term Sadducee taken from “Zadokite”). The best known “Zadok” in history was, according to the Pictorial Bible Dictionary, the Davidic High Priest from the book of Samuel (II Sam. 8:17), from whom all the high priests of the Jewish faith trace their lineage. This Zadok was descended from Aaron through the line of Eleazar (1 Chron. 24:3), and was instrumental in the return of the ark (II Sam. 15:24-29). According to the prophet Ezekiel, the sons of Zadok remained faithful to God when the Israelites went astray, so they would inherit the priesthood from that period on. Another source says that the Sadducees may have taken their name from a different Zadok. This particular Zadok taught obedience to God without thought of a future reward, and this philosophy was much in line with what the Sadducees believed.

The Jewish historian Josephus stated that the Sadducees were a sect made up of only the wealthiest Jews, and they “had not the people on their side” (see Pictorial Bible Dictionary pg. 741). The Sadducees were the first proponents of Hellenism in the region now known as Israel, and they were staunch supporters of Alexander the Great. They also supported Antiochus Epiphanes, and took no part in the Maccabean revolt that was organized and prosecuted by the Pharisees. The Sadducees, contrary to common knowledge, were not doctrinally in line with the Pharisees. The Pharisees supported a litany of age-old traditions and customs not found in canonical word of God, whereas the Sadducees only supported traditions that were based in scripture. Josephus said “The Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the Law of Moses; and it is for that reason that the Sadducees reject them, and say that 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 tradition of our forefathers (in this they were more in line with the teachings of Jesus than is sometimes supposed), and concerning these things it is that great differences have arisen between them (the Sadducees and the Pharisees)”.

Another belief inherent to the Sadducees was the denial of a resurrection of the body, personal immortality, and retribution in a future life (Pictorial Bible Dict. Pg. 741). Josephus said, “The doctrine of the Sadducees is this: that the soul dies with the body.” He also said “They also take away the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades”. In this ideology they were much in line with the Epicureans, who believed in the death of the soul with the body, and the enjoyment of earthly pleasures. This is one example of the Hellenistic aspect of the Sadducees. The New Testament states that the Sadducees denied the resurrection of the body (see Matt. 22:23, Mark 12:18, Luke 20:27, and Acts 4: 1,2) but it does not mention their belief in the absence of immortality and future retribution (see Pictorial Bible Dictionary, pg. 741).

The Sadducees also denied the existence of angels and demons. This is somewhat of a paradox, considering the Sadducees believed inherently in the Old Testament, but it might be explained in their disdain for the Pharisees, who held fantastic beliefs about angels and demons and their powers concerning mortal men.

Lastly, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Sadducees differed from the prevailing sects of the day on the very controversial matter of predestination and the human will. According to Josephus, the Sadducees “Take away fate, and say there is no such thing, and 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 causes of what is good, and receive what is evil from our own folly.” Most of Josephus’ writings about the Sadducees are scathing rebukes, but this one is interesting. He inherently states that the Sadducees, at least in idea, took responsibility for their own actions and held themselves up as the highest peak and the lowest nadir of what could be considered good and evil. The Sadducees must have, at least in part, gleaned this philosophy from the Stoic school of thought. The influence of Hellenism is very obvious in this regard as well.

According to the Pictorial Bible Dictionary, the Sadducees are mentioned in the New Testament only about a dozen times (Matt. 3:7; 16: 1,6, 11; 22:23,24; Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27; Acts 4:1; 5:17; 23:6-8 respectively), but when mention is made of chief priests the NT is virtually talking of the same group of people. However, according to the Companion to Classical Civilization, “Some overlap between these groups is certain, but some influential priests (including high priests) were not Sadducees, and there is no reason to doubt that some Sadducees were not priests”. The priest Gamaliel was one of these exceptions. He was a Pharisee, and more compassionate toward the Christians than most.

To quote the Pictorial Bible Dictionary, “They (the Sadducees) seem mostly to have ignored Jesus, at least in the early part of his ministry. Jesus directed his criticism against the Pharisees, although once he warned his disciples against the ‘leaven of the Sadducees’ (Matt. 16: 6,11). With the Pharisees, they asked Jesus to show them a sign from heaven (Matt. 16:1). They resented his cleansing of the temple (Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15, Luke 19:45), and were filled with indignation at his claim of the Messianic title, “Son of David” (Matt. 21:15). They tried to discredit him in the eyes of the people and get him in trouble with the Roman power by their questions to his authority (Matt. 21:23), as to the resurrection (Matt. 22:23), and as to the lawfulness of paying tribute to Caesar (Luke 20:22). They joined the scribes and the Pharisees in their attempt to destroy him (Mark 11:18; Luke 19:47). They sat in the Sanhedrin, which condemned him, and the chief priest who presided (Caiaphas) was a member of their party. In their opposition they were most influenced by their fear that a Messianic movement led by him would bring political ruin (John 11:49).

In short, a Sadducee was a type of Jewish patrician, or Tory. Foremost in their minds was power, and the preservation of the status quo. They gleaned most of their prestige from their alliance with the Roman government, which was the real power in the region. According to the Book of Acts and the writings of Josephus, the Sadducees harassed and made captive some prominent leaders of the early church, including Peter and John. Also, according to Josephus, the Sadducees were responsible for the death of the Apostle James, the brother of Jesus Christ. According to the Pictorial Bible Dictionary and other sources that I’ve consulted, the Sadducees disappeared after the Jewish revolt in A.D. 70 and the consequent destruction of the Temple.

In conclusion, it seems to me that the Sadducees existed as a sort of mediary between the Jews and, first, the legions of Alexander the Great, then those of Antiochus Epiphanes, and then the Romans. They existed as a sort of despised theocracy, totally dependent on the pleasure of whoever the conquering nation was at the time. Although their principles were admirable and based somewhat in truth, they were despised for their reluctance to relinquish the crusts of power from the table of the Romans, and for their elitist mentality. In modern times, they could be compared somewhat to the old moneyed elite who, with very little virtue and exclusive membership privileges, dictate to the rest of mankind how he should behave, without giving any substance as to what he should believe. The Pharisees were, in my opinion, a more virtuous sect based wholly on their disdain for the treachery of alliance with the Roman government and their more strenuous observance of the laws of God. However, the Sadducees did have, in my opinion, one redeeming virtue. This was their doctrine that the “traditions” of the Pharisees were bunk and that a Jew should only adhere to what is written in the word of God. Perhaps this is why Jesus was not so unkind to the Sadducees as he was to the Pharisees. The Sadducees, for the most part, claimed to hold sway only over the realm of the material (they denied an afterlife, and didn’t believe in spirits), while the Pharisees claimed to hold sway over the realm of the spiritual, as well as the material. Perhaps in this the Sadducees committed the lesser sin of the two.

Bibliography

The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization. Edited by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth. Oxford University Press, 1998. Oxford and New York.

The Holy Bible, King James Version. Ronald King Murray, Lord Advocate. Edinburgh, 1975.

The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Edited by Merril C. Tenney. Zondervan Publishing House, 1963. Grand Rapids, Michigan.

The Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13323a.htm

Info on Flavius Josephus. (as a source for links): http://josephus.yorku.ca/links-texts.htm