Sadducees
The antagonism between the Sadducees and the Pharisees in New Testament times was so pronounced as to suggest that the former sect originated in a reaction from the strictness of the latter. More probably, however, both sprung from the desire on the part of the most faithful among the Jews to preserve the purity of the national religion when threatened by heathen oppressors. Josephus, in his first mention of the Sadducees, in the history of John Hyrcanua (Ant. xiii. 10, 6), simply says that their "notions are quite contrary to those of the Pharisees". A current Jewish tradition ascribes their origin and their name to one Zadok, disciple of Antigonus (b.c. 200—170), who, it is said, taught that virtue was to be cultivated for its own sake, without calculation of oonsequencea or hope of future recompence. An ennobling thought, although afterwards perverted to the denial of the recompence itself. The best scholars, however, reject the tradition. This Zadok is quite unknown to the earlier Talmudic writers, and it would be contrary to analogy to denominate a Jewish sect by the name of its founder, however distinguished.
The likeliest account of the matter is to be found in etymology, and the word "Tsaddik", righteous, there can be little doubt, explains the name. From the Chasidim, or "Assidaaans", there was gradually evolved a class of men who insisted chiefly upon morality, as the Pharisees did upon exact observance; and in course of time the "Moralists" and "Separatists" grew into distinct and antagonistic clasees. The Sadducees (or a division of them ) are also called in the Talmud Boethusians, either from Boëthos, father of Simon, and grandfather of Herod's wife, the second Mariamne, or from the Greek word euthue {straight) Hebraised; also Karaites, or Readers (Heb. Arara), from their adherence to the written law. But it is uncertain whether this last appellation is not of later origin than New Testament times, and the Karaite Jews still exist in large numbers as a distinct sect, chiefly in Austria, Ruseia, and Turkey.
The origin of the Sadducees is the key to much of their history. Schools of morality ara sure to decline from the simplicity of their primitive principles. So Epicurus taught that in virtue only was true pleasure, and the Epicurean became a mere pleasure-seeker. Zeno maintained that self-restraint was the highest excellence, and the Stoic trampled on human instincts and affections. So the Sadducees began with the supreme obligation of morality, and ended as mere rationalistic moralists, while from their rejection of oral supplements to the Mosaic Law, they proceeded to the denial of any doctrine not there plainly and literally taught, as that of a life after death. Possibly also, as above intimated, their Boepthucism on this last point was but an exaggeration of the view that God was not to be served for the sake of the reward of eternity. The disbelief in a future state led to the inference that there were "neither angels nor spirits", although it is difficult to see how this tenet could be reconciled with the literal interpretation of the Pentateuch. It is possible that by "angel" the Sadducees intended only the unombodied human soul (Acts xii. 15 :comp. Matt. xiv. 26: Luke xxiv. 87).
The opinions of the Sadducees seem to have prevailed chiefly or solely among the upper classes. They are able, says Josephus, to persuade none but the rich"; "but the Pharisees have the multitude on their side" {Ant. xiii. 10, sec. 6). In the days of the Apostles the very high-priest and his party were "of the sect of the Sadducees" (Acts iv. 1: v. 17). Herod Antipas professed concurrence in their tenets, although conscience proved mightier than scepticism when he feared that in Jesus, John the Baptist had risen from the dead (Mark vi. 14-10). The Baptist had included the Sadducees with the Pharisees as a "generation" or brood "of vipers" (Matt. iii. 7), a poisonous and dangerous race. Sadducees as well as Pharisees sought to entrap our Jesus by captious questionings (Matt. xvi. 1 ; xxii. 23), and Jesus warned His disciples against the "leaven" or pervasive mischievous principles of both (Matt. xvi. 6, 11).
Generally, indeed, wherever the religious formalist appears, the religious sceptic is not far off. Still, on the whole, the Sadducees were less prominent than the Pharisees in their antagonism to Jesus, nor do they appear, like the latter, to have taken active measures against his life. (See John vii, 82; xi. 47). They are not once mentioned by St. John. Perhaps, holding the opinions they did, the question of the Messiahship did not interest them; and it was rather with superciliousness than with anger that they regarded Divine claims. But when the resurrection was proclaimed, they were roused to anger; and accordingly their only recorded persecuting measures were directed against the Apostles who preached that Christ had risen (Acts iv. 1—3). This fact is a striking example of the "undesigned coincidence " between the Acts and the Gospel history. It may be added, that no writings of the Sadducees have come down to modern times.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
