cheenc03a.pdf

SADDUCEES
been later that the progressive school began to develop
tradition. In the Mishna tractate Ad#th, after the
canonical authorities, the firrt link in the chain of
tradition (nhpn niub) is the 'Great Synngogue." and
the firrt personal name in that of Simon the Just (probably
early in the 3rd cent. B.c.). No doubt the first
steps had been taken before his time ; but it seems that
historical record did not go farther back. We shall
~erhsor . . not br far xvrone - in olacine . - the actual beginning~
of the new teaching about 3oo B.c., and this
agrees very well with the conclusion which has been
drawn from other evidence. that after the time of Alexallder
the Great Judaism became powerfully affectrd by
that Persian influence to which may be traced the
increasing popularity of the doctrine of a future life with
reivnrds and punishments. 'The rise of the liberal
party. or school of theological development, implies the
formation of a conrervative opposition. It is not to be
supposed that the t\vo parties were from the first sharply
divided, still less that they acquired distinctive names.
If is hirforically more probable that the divergence
increased gradually, and was intensified, and at last
definitely realired in the religious revival of Maccabean
timer. As to the firrt use of the name to indicate
differences consciouriy felt, it does not occur in the OT
or in Ecclue., and. in iam, the earliest documents which
mention Sadduceesare theGorpeIs (but notln. ) There
is, however, no reason to reject the testimony uf
Josephus that the name was used in the Maccakan
period. and if it was then ~vellLertablirhed, we may
assume that it war insed, if not eenerallv. at least
. . , , .. ,
an inexact, though convenient. view whicjl is due to the
colouring of the historian. Under the earlier Maccab;eanr,
as would be expected, they are not much in
evidence: but rrith the Harmonaeans they again come
into prominence. John Hyrcanus definitely allied him.
self with them. Alexander Jannzus, as being himself
high priest. was supported by them (cp Suhkoh, 486).
and his war "lay be regarded as a contest between the
Pharisaic and the Sadducean parties. In their political
relations they ;how a sympathy with foreign inlltlencer
which was strongly reprobated by the nationalistic
Pharisees. Thus we find then, accused, perhaps justly.
oi tolerating Greek religious practices, and even of
adopting them. This is the lerr surprising if it be considered
that the Judairrn which they professed can have
had (to use a modern phrase) no religious hold on them.
It war rather the machinery by which a certain political
system was worked, and when circumstances changed,
it could be adapted to the new conditions. In the
Roman period their influence diminished again. The
party, always in a minority, was not likely to be largely
recruited. They apparently had no existence outside
Jerusalem with the temple and its ritual, the centre of
religious and political life. With the fall of Jerusalem
they disappear from history, and a century later the
Mishna knows of them oniy . by . tradition. (See, further,
P~Anrs~es, 85 17-10).
It would seem that Sadduceeirm is to be rightly
regarded nr negative. Wherever reference is made to
it, the suggestion is that certain views are
4,
negative, rejected.
This naturally follorr from
what has been said above. Phariseeism
represents the tendency which u1tim;~tely resulted in
modern Judaism. It was at once exclusive in that it
strenuously opposed all dealings with the foreigner, and
popular in that it provided for the spiritual needs of the
people. The doctrines which we find the Sadducees
rejecting are precisely those which had been deduced
1 The nhhinical accounts of the great synrgogue are irrrcon.
eilahle with thc received chronology. If Ezra's date could he
put a century later, as ha bbe~n suggerfed, many difficulties
would be removed.
SADDUCEES
from the law and the prophets to suit the requirements
of the time. If Judaism was to continue .& a living
svstem. , . it became necessarv to ndaot it to altered conditions
not contemplated by the law of Moses, and
hence arose the whole body of oral-tradition (iy2# n ~ m
a). At a time, too, when theological speculation was
widely cultivated, it war equally natural that Judaism
should be affected by the striving after those spiritual
hoper which at all times have been, rightly or wrongly,
the most cherished source of conrfort in human suffering.
Hence arose the doctrines of a future life with
rewards and punishments compensating for the apparent
incompatibility between virtue and happiness in this
life. How keenly this problem appealed to the Jerirh
mind is evident from the Psalms (r.5, Ps. 73). Perhaps
to no people has it appealed, for various reasons,
mare poignantly. Natuially, however, it was to the
poor, the weak, and their rympathisers, that the need
fm a future rectification in the cause of iusticr was most
apparent. It is, therefore, only what would be expected
when we find that those uhd reject such comfd.rtable
words are a relativelv sn~all nartv . , of the well-to-do irobr ,
rhbpour pdvov ( ~ b v ~ w ) Whilst, . however, it appearr
to have been generally the case that Sadducean views
were held by the aristocratic (ie., primarily, the priestly)
party. we murt beware. as suggested above, of regarding
aristocrat, priest, and Sadducee as convertible terms
Many of the priests were Pharisees. as we see, c.f, from
the names of doctors quoted in the Mishna with the
title .priest' (,a>). etc.. and, moreover, the separation
between the higher and the lower classes of priests was
as great as between the aristocratic party and the common
people. Nor again war the difference betneen Pharisees
and Sadducees politically insuperable. They could sit
together on the Sanhedlin (Acfr236). and priests and
Pharisees could combine in a common cause (Jn. 732
) That the Sadducees were, however, in an oligarchical
minority is evident from the fact that they seem
to have found it advisable to conform at timer to the
more popular Pharisaic practice-r.5, Y8md 196,
'although we are Sadducees we are afraid of the
Pharisees' (ownlln p ]:n,.rn )>N j,p,im b 3 k), where
the whole passage r oas a strong anti-Sadducean feeling.'
Cp also Jor. Ant. raiii. 14.
Taking then the view that Sadducean opinions were
held mainly by members oi the dominant aristocratic
6, Data, "lass, we havenow to consider thoseopinionr
~n detail. The data furnished by the NT.
though clear. are meagre. The account in Jorephur is
fuller (see especially Ant. xviii. 1 1-1, B/ii. 81,). His
statements are, however, coloured partly by his own
strong Pharisaic prejndire, and still more by u desire to
express himself in terms of Greek philosophy. It murt
beremembered that phiiosophicalnotionr whichappealed
to the Greek mind were entirely foreign to the methods
of thought underlying Sadducean belief or disbelief.
In this respect Jew and Greek start from diKerent
premises, representing a racial distinction. Roughly
speaking, the one founds his faith on the will of God
and the revelation bound up with it, the 0th- deduces
his scheme of the universe from a metaphysical conception
of the necessary conditions of being.
The distinctive Sadducean views may be classed (as
by Schtirer) under three heads: (I) they denied the
resurrection, personal immortality, and retribution in a
future life ; (2) they denied angels, spirits, and demons :
(3) they denied fate (ripapfitu?), and postulated freedom
of action for every man to choose good or evil, and
work out his own happiness or the reverse.
I. U'ith regard to the first point, Sadducceism undoubtedly
represents theald Jelvish standpoint. whatever
doctrines may be inferred from the Torah, it is
1 'TI . ... ,I,. (I ..lh ir 1 , !I. ?#r ijn,,c:ntr.., thou.:L
'1:.1n,,1,. l.f.8." ,.. .,rc I , i. Ic ,m,l' ,,I, ., .,.,c.l. I,..
c;;,..: r.,.. ,. ,, L*,.,.8e!,,,,.,. ,.,I,,,:,,. a,,,.,,, ,,, ,,.,,
ret:?~?,., 3 ,WE ,:.,J...,: .,,