What does Sadducees mean in the Bible?

Greek / Hebrew Translation Occurance
σαδδουκαίων a religious party at the time of Christ among the Jews 8
σαδδουκαῖοι a religious party at the time of Christ among the Jews 5
σαδδουκαίους a religious party at the time of Christ among the Jews 1

Definitions Related to Sadducees

G4523


   1 a religious party at the time of Christ among the Jews, who denied that the oral law was a revelation of God to the Israelites, and who deemed the written law alone to be obligatory on the nation, as the divine authority.
   They denied the following doctrines:.
      1a resurrection of the body.
      1b immortality of the soul.
      1c existence of spirits and angels.
      1d divine predestination, affirmed free will.
      Additional Information: Sadducees = “the righteous”.
      

Frequency of Sadducees (original languages)

Frequency of Sadducees (English)

Dictionary

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible - Sadducees
SADDUCEES . Probably the name ‘Sadducee’ is derived from the name Zadok , a notable priest in the time of David and Solomon ( 2 Samuel 8:17 ; 2 Samuel 15:24 , 1 Kings 1:34 ). His descendants long played the leading part among the priests, so that Ezekiel regarded them as the only legitimate priests ( Ezekiel 40:46 ; Ezekiel 43:19 ; Ezekiel 44:15 ; Ezekiel 48:11 ). The name indicates the fact that is most decisive for the right understanding of the Sadducees. About the year 200 b.c., when party lines were beginning to be drawn, the name was chosen to point out the party of the priests. That is not saying that no priest could be a Pharisee or a Scribe. Neither is it saying that all the priests were Sadducees. In our Lord’s time many of the poor priests were Pharisees. But the higher priestly families and the priests as a body were Sadducees. With them were joined the majority of the aristocratic lay families of Judæa and Jerusalem. This fact gives us the key to their career. It is wrapped up in the history of the high priesthood. For two centuries after the Exile the high priesthood earned the right to the leadership of the Jewish nation. But in our Lord’s time its leadership lay far back in the past. Its moral greatness had been undermined on two sides. On one side it had lost touch with what was deepest in the being of the Jews. For the most part this was due to its aristocratic bias. The Levitical priesthood was a close corporation. No man not born a priest could become a priest. More and more, as the interests of the nation widened and deepened, the high priesthood failed to keep pace. Its alliance with the aristocratic families made things worse. The high priesthood and the people drifted apart. No great institution can do that and remain great.
From another side also the political the high priesthood was undermined. Owing to the mixture of Church and State the high priests were necessarily in politics all the time. Consequently the historical process, which ended by incorporating Palestine in the Roman Empire, sucked out of the high priesthood all the moralizing influences involved in the handling of large affairs. So, undermined on two sides, the high priesthood lost the right to lead. And the party built up around it the Sadducees became the party of those who cared more for their own well-being and for the maintenance of things as they were than for the Kingdom of God.
When we turn to the tenets of the Sadducees, it is still the contrast with the Pharisees that puts them in an Intelligible light. Pharisaism, with all its faults, was the heart and soul of the nation, the steward of its treasures the Holy Scriptures the trustee of its vitalizing hope. The Sadducees stood for the tenaciously conservative tendencies in the nation. They lay under the curse which rests upon all aristocracies, the inability to realize that the best things must grow. They denied the Pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection of the body ( Mark 12:18 , Matthew 22:23 , Luke 20:27 , Acts 23:8 ). The NT is a better guide in this field than Josephus, who affirms ( BJ II. viii. 14, Ant. XVIII. i. 4) that they denied the immortality of the soul. Josephus overstated things in his desire to make the Jewish parties look like the philosophical schools of Greece. The Sadducees did not deny the immortality of the soul. But they lingered in the past, the period when the belief in Immortality was vague, shadowy, and had not yet become a working motive for goodness. They did not accept the developed faith in immortality which was part and parcel of the Pharisaic teaching regarding the Kingdom of God. And this meant that their nation had outgrown them. The Sadducees also denied the Pharisaic doctrine regarding angels and ministering spirits ( Acts 23:8 ). Thereby they maintained a certain sobriety. They even emancipated themselves from a considerable amount of superstition hound up with Pharisaism. But they paid for it by a wholly disproportionate sacrifice of vital piety.
From this sketch we can see why our Lord had almost no dealings with the Sadducees during His ministry. His interests were with the common people. This brought Him into continual conflict with the Pharisees. It was not until His popularity seemed to threaten the peace of Jerusalem that the high priest, with the Sadducees at his back, was moved to decisive action. We can also see why the Apostolic Church, in her first years, had most to fear from the Sadducees (Acts 4:1-37 ; Acts 5:1-42 ). See also artt. Pharisees, Scribes.
Henry S. Nash.
Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words - Sadducees
* For SADDUCEES see under PHARISEES
Charles Buck Theological Dictionary - Sadducees
A famous sect among the Jews; so called, it is said, from their founder, Sadoc. It began in the time of Antigonus of Socho, president of the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, and teacher of the law in the principal divinity school of that city. Antigonus having often, in his lectures, inculcated to his scholars that they ought not to serve God in a servile manner, but only out of filial love and fear, two of his scholars, Sadoc, and Baithus, thence inferred that there were no rewards at all after this life; and, therefore, separating from the school of their master, they thought there was no resurrection nor future state, neither angel nor spirit. Matthew 22:23 . Acts 23:8 . They seem to agree greatly with the Epicureans; differing however in this, that, though they denied a future state, yet they allowed the power of God to create the world; whereas the followers of Epicurus denied it. It is said also, that they rejected the Bible, except the Pentateuch; denied predestination; and taught, thet God had made man absolute master of all his actions, without assistance to good, or restraint from evil.
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary - Sadducees
In New Testament times the two main parties within the Jewish religion were the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The beginnings of these two parties can be traced back to the second century BC, when Greek influence was having its effect on the Jewish people.
Origins
The influence of Greek ideas in Jewish affairs produced tension between those Jews who favoured it and those who resisted it. When conflict broke out between the two groups, the Greek ruler in Syria, Antiochus Epiphanes, used it as an excuse to invade Jerusalem and try to destroy the Jewish religion. (For details of this period of Jewish history see GREECE.) Under the leadership of a priestly family known as the Maccabees (or Hasmoneans) the Jews rebelled against Antiochus, and after three years of fighting regained religious freedom (165 BC).
When the Maccabees wanted to keep fighting and regain political freedom as well, the religiously strict Jews objected. They opposed the Maccabees’ political ambitions just as they had opposed the interference of Greek politics in Jewish affairs. These two factions were the forerunners of the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The former favoured political as well as religious freedom, whereas the latter were satisfied with religious freedom. The Maccabees carried on the war in spite of internal opposition, and after twenty years they won political independence (143 BC).
A clear division now existed among the Jews. The pro-political group consisted of powerful priests and wealthy leaders who were favoured by the Hasmonean rulers. The other group consisted largely of commoners who were politically powerless but favoured by most of the people. Later, a dispute concerning the Hasmonean ruler’s right to be high priest led to the open formation of the Sadducee and Pharisee parties. (The name ‘Sadducee’ possibly comes from Zadok, the priest of Solomon’s time whose descendants came to be regarded as the only legitimate priestly line; 1 Kings 1:38-39; Ezekiel 44:15-16; Ezekiel 48:11; see ZADOK.)
Religious power
Some of the Sadducees’ religious beliefs further emphasized the differences between the two parties. The Pharisees followed strictly the traditions handed down from their forefathers, but the Sadducees had little interest in the traditions. They were concerned only with the commandments actually written in the law of Moses. Also, they did not believe in the continued existence of the soul after death, the bodily resurrection of the dead, the directing will of God in the events of life, or the existence of angelic beings. These were all important beliefs for the Pharisees (Matthew 22:23; Acts 4:1-2; Acts 23:7-8).
In spite of their dislike for the Pharisees, the Sadducees readily joined with them to oppose Jesus (Matthew 16:1-4; Matthew 22:15; Matthew 22:23; Matthew 22:34). Jesus condemned them, along with the Pharisees, for their hypocrisy (Matthew 16:6; Matthew 16:12).
Most of the leading priests of New Testament times were Sadducees, and they enjoyed the support of the upper class Jews. The high priest, who was president of the Sanhedrin, was a Sadducee, and through him and his close associates the Sadducees exercised much power in the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:1-3; Acts 5:17-21; see SANHEDRIN).
The Sadducees were particularly hostile to the early Christians. This was chiefly for two reasons. Firstly, the apostles’ accusation of injustice on the part of the Sanhedrin was really an accusation against the ruling Sadducees (Acts 4:5-10; Acts 5:27-28). Secondly, the church’s rapid growth was based on the truth of the resurrection, which the Sadducees denied (Acts 4:1-2; Acts 4:10; Acts 4:17). The Sadducees had little following among the common people, and in fact were afraid of violence from them if they treated the Christians too harshly (Acts 4:2; Acts 4:17; Acts 4:21; Acts 5:17; Acts 5:26). Only when the Pharisees turned against the Christians were the Sadducees able to use the full power of the Sanhedrin against the Christians (Acts 6:12-15; Acts 7:58; Acts 8:1; cf. Philippians 3:5-6).
With the Romans’ destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70, the Sadducees lost the priestly base that had maintained them. The party soon died out.
Easton's Bible Dictionary - Sadducees
The origin of this Jewish sect cannot definitely be traced. It was probably the outcome of the influence of Grecian customs and philosophy during the period of Greek domination. The first time they are met with is in connection with John the Baptist's ministry. They came out to him when on the banks of the Jordan, and he said to them, "O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Matthew 3:7 .) The next time they are spoken of they are represented as coming to our Lord tempting him. He calls them "hypocrites" and "a wicked and adulterous generation" (Matthew 16:1-4 ; 22:23 ). The only reference to them in the Gospels of (Mark 12:18-27 ) and (Luke 20:27-38 ) is their attempting to ridicule the doctrine of the resurrection, which they denied, as they also denied the existence of angels. They are never mentioned in John's Gospel. There were many Sadducees among the "elders" of the Sanhedrin. They seem, indeed, to have been as numerous as the Pharisees (Acts 23:6 ). They showed their hatred of Jesus in taking part in his condemnation (Matthew 16:21 ; 26:1-3,59 ; Mark 8:31 ; 15:1 ; Luke 9:22 ; 22:66 ). They endeavoured to prohibit the apostles from preaching the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2:24,31,32 ; 4:1,2 ; 5:17,24-28 ). They were the deists or sceptics of that age. They do not appear as a separate sect after the destruction of Jerusalem.
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament - Sadducees (2)
SADDUCEES
1. Derivation and use of the name.—It seems impossible to attain certainty as to the derivation of the name ‘Sadducees’ (Σαδδουκαῖοι; צַדּוּקִים). Formerly it was supposed to be connected with the adjective ẓaddîk, ‘righteous’; but this derivation is now generally given up, for philological and other reasons. No explanation can be given of the change from i to u; and the Sadducees were never regarded, either by themselves or by others, as specially righteous. In more recent times the commonly accepted derivation is from the proper name Zadok; but neither is this without its difficulties. The doubling of the d is not well accounted for, and the problem as to which Zadok gave name to the party is one upon which there is considerable difference of opinion. Many hold that it was Zadok the priest, the contemporary of David and Solomon (2 Samuel 8:17; 2 Samuel 15:24, 1 Kings 1:8; 1 Kings 2:35 etc.), whose posterity officiated in the Temple down to the time of the Exile, and even formed the chief element of the post-exilic priesthood; but Kuenen says this conjecture is burdened with insurmountable difficulties’ (Religion of Israel, iii. p. 122). A Jewish legend states that it was a disciple of Antigonus of Socho, named Zadok; but this is almost universally admitted to have no historical foundation. To solve the difficulty, Kuenen and Montet postulate a Zadok, ‘perhaps a contemporary of Jonathan the Asmonaean’ (Kuenen, l.c.), from whom the name may have been derived; but this, again, is purely hypothetical. Yet another suggestion is offered by A. E. Cowley (art. ‘Sadducees’ in the EBi [1] ), that the word may have been of Persian origin, connected with zindîk, which is used in a general sense for ‘infidel.’ The suggestion is interesting, but is put forward ‘with great diffidence’ by its author.
But however uncertain the derivation may be, there is no dubiety about the application of the name ‘Sadducees.’ It is always used to designate the political party of the Jewish aristocratic priesthood from the time of the Maccabees to the final fall of the Jewish State. The chief authorities for its use are the NT, Josephus, and portions of the Mishna. It is important to note that, while any one, whatever his rank or station, could be a Pharisee, no one could be a Sadducee unless he belonged to one of the high-priestly or aristocratic families. It was not enough to be a priest. There was as great a distance between the higher and lower orders of the priesthood as between the aristocracy and the common people.
2. Outline of history.—From the beginning of the Grecian period of Jewish history, and even before that time, the whole conduct of political affairs was in the hands of the priestly aristocracy. Influenced by Hellenic culture, they sympathized to some extent with the policy of Antiochus Epiphanes which provoked the Maccabaean rebellion; and although, as a consequence, they fell into the background during the earlier period of Hasmonaean rule, they recovered their position in the time of John Hyrcanus, under whom we find them, now known as Sadducees, in direct antagonism to the Pharisees, or party of the scribes. These for a short time acceded to power under Alexandra, but immediately afterwards the Sadducees came again to the front. In the Roman period their power was considerably diminished, in this respect that while they were able to retain the high offices for themselves, they were compelled to adopt the policy of the Pharisees, who had an overwhelming influence with the people. The high priests at the head of the Sanhedrin were Sadducees, but they were always in a minority; though essentially a political party, they had apparently no independent existence apart from Jerusalem and its Temple, and with the fall of the Jewish State they disappear entirely from history.
3. Special characteristics.—The chief outstanding feature of the Sadducees was probably their conservatism. They stood by the established position, held by the old points of view, and rejected everything that partook of the nature of novelty. They were priests, but priests of aristocratic family, and, as such, their duties were political as well as religious. Brought into close contact with their Gentile rulers, their political interests tended to thrust the religious into the background. Their aim was the welfare of the State as a secular institution, rather than the purity of the nation as a religious community. As sober, practical statesmen, representative of moderate Jewish opinion, they entertained no extravagant notions of the coming high position or brilliant future of Israel. And being themselves in comfortable circumstances, they were satisfied with the present, and felt no special need of a future rectification in the interests of justice. The intellectual standpoint of the Sadducees seems to have been mainly negative. They were characterized chiefly by their denial of certain doctrines, and had no positive religious or theological system of their own. They stood in most things in direct opposition to the Pharisees, yet in an opposition which involved no fundamental principle, but into which they had been driven by their historical development.
The leading difference between the two parties is to be found in this, that the Sadducees held by the written Law, and rejected the Pharisaic tradition. It is not, however, correct to say that the Sadducees acknowledged only the Pentateuch and rejected the rest of the OT. Kuenen even maintains that they accepted the Oral Tradition, ‘in so far as this was already established when they constituted themselves a party’ (Rel. of Israel, iii. p. 144). Schürer says that they agreed with the Pharisees on some—perhaps many—particulars of the tradition, but ‘only denied its obligation, and reserved the right of private opinion’ (HJP [2] ii. ii. 38). A number of minor differences are recorded in Rabbinical literature, of which full accounts will be found in Schürer, or in art. ‘Sadducees’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible . The Sadducees are stated to have been more severe in penal legislation, adhering more strictly to the letter of the Law; and in questions of ritual, while admitting the principle of Levitical purification, they ridiculed the Pharisees for the absurdities of their traditional regulations. It has been maintained that the attitude of the Sadducees was largely determined by their desire to magnify the importance of the priesthood; but Schürer denies that any such motive can be traced. Probably they felt that the Pharisees vitiated the Law by their self-contradictions, and that only by an adherence to what was definite and authentic could the system be conserved according to which alone God could be rightly worshipped.
The distinctive Sadducean doctrines are usually classed under three heads:—(1) They denied the resurrection, personal immortality, and retribution in a future life. So far they merely stood by the old Hebrew position, and from their materialistic and worldly point of view they felt no need of a future life to compensate for the inequalities of the present. In the same spirit they also renounced the entire Messianic hope, at least in the form then current. (2) They denied the existence of angels and spirits. This was scarcely the position of the OT, but their worldly common sense and general culture were bound to prejudice them against the fantastic products of the Pharisaic imagination in the wild extravagances of its angelology and demonology. (3) They denied foreordination and the supremacy of fate, and upheld the freedom of the human will, maintaining ‘that good and evil are at the choice of man, who can do the one or the other at his discretion.’ This is quite in keeping with the rest of their views. They felt no special need of a Divine Providence to order their life, and claimed that whatever they possessed was due to their own efforts. Generally it may be said that, after the manner of an aristocracy, they resented any attempt to impose on them an excess of legal strictness, and that ‘advanced religious views were, on the one hand, superfluous to their worldly-mindedness, and, on the other, inadmissible by their higher culture and enlightenment’ (HJP [2] ii. ii. 41). Yet the distance between them and the Pharisees was not so great as it might appear. Politically at least there was no insuperable barrier. The two could sit together in the Sanhedrin, and could combine to make common cause against Jesus and to plan His destruction.
4. Relations to Jesus.—The Sadducees are not often mentioned by name in the Gospels, but it has to be remembered that, when mention is made of the chief priests, practically the same persons are referred to. Jesus did not come into the same constant antagonism with the Sadducees as with the Pharisees. For the most part they seem to have ignored Him, at least in the early part of His ministry. They joined with the Pharisees in asking Him to show them a sign from heaven (Matthew 16:1), and shortly afterwards He warned His disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, meaning probably, so far as the Sadducees were concerned, their utterly secular spirit. They resented His action in the cleansing of the Temple, and along with the scribes and elders they demanded His authority (Mark 11:27 f.), and from this time forward sought to destroy Him (Mark 11:18). They thought to inveigle Him with the Roman power by asking whether it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar (Luke 20:22), and they attempted to discredit His teaching by presenting to Him the problem of the woman who had been married to seven brethren, and asking whose wife she should be in the resurrection; but they only brought upon themselves discomfiture, and the reproof that they knew neither the Scriptures nor the power of God (Matthew 22:23 ||). They sat in the Sanhedrin which condemned Him, and with the others mocked Him upon the cross. Their opposition to Christian doctrine did not cease with the death of Jesus. There is no record of any Sadducee being admitted into the Christian Church, and before long they were merely a memory, hazy and indistinct.
Literature.—See under Pharisees and Scribes.
Joseph Mitchell.
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament - Sadducees
The Sadducees were a Jewish sect or party best known by their opposition to the Pharisees.
1. Sources.-Our knowledge of the Sadducees, such as it is, is derived from the following sources: (a) Gospels and Acts; (b) Josephus; (c) Rabbinical writings, mainly Mishna, Tosefta, Sifre, Sifra, and Mechilta (these are all of comparatively late date, but their value is unquestionable as embodying earlier traditions. They record various disputes that took place between Pharisees and Sadducees); (d) Zadokite fragments (these are two fragments discovered quite recently in the Cairo Genizah. They deal with the beliefs and practices of a sect that lived in Damascus probably two centuries b.c., and was clearly Sadducean). Some references to Sadducees are found in various Church Fathers, but they have no independent value. It has to be remarked of the evidence of Josephus that it almost seems that part of what he had to say regarding Pharisees and Sadducees has been lost. In Ant. XIII. v. 9, XVIII. i. 2, he refers to Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) ii., but there we find only a scanty reference to Pharisees and Sadducees, while his notice of the Essenes is full. Further, the tendency of Josephus to bring Jewish parties into line with Greek schools of philosophy detracts somewhat from the value of his account.
2. The name.-The explanation of the name ‘Sadducee’ has long been a puzzle. Only two views need to be mentioned. (a) It has long been held that the name is derived from a certain priest Zadok. The difficulty has been to identify the Zadok in question. A linguistic difficulty has also been urged, to account for the form Zaddúkîm from Zadok. This, however, disappears when we find that in the Septuagint and in Josephus the name is spelt Zaddok. (b) The view in Encyclopaedia Biblica supported by Encyclopaedia Britannica 11 (see article ‘Sadducees’) is that the word represents the Persian zandik. In modern Persian zandik means a Zoroastrian, hence an infidel. It is argued that, just as the Greek ἐπικοῦρος was used by Jews as = ‘infidel,’ the Persian zandik was probably applied to this sect, who, from the standpoint of the Pharisees were little better than infidels, and who further supported the introduction of foreign customs. Further, in the Arabic NT ‘Sadducee’ is translated zandakiya. It must be admitted that this view is ingenious. Its difficulties are obvious, a chief one being that we cannot argue safely from modern Persian to an ante-Christian usage. Besides, if we are to admit that the Zadokite fragments are Sadducean in character and origin-and this cannot easily be denied-it is beyond doubt that in this case the old and widely held opinion is correct. (For full discussion see W. O. E. Cesterley, The Books of the Apocrypha, their Origin, Teaching, and Contents, London, 1914, p. 132f.)
3. Opposition to the Pharisees.-That the two parties were hostile is known to all. How precisely and concisely the difference is to be defined is a problem of great difficulty. Our knowledge of the Sadducees in particular is not extensive, and a large portion of it comes from sources that certainly were not sympathetic. Geiger’s view that the Sadducees were aristocratic while the Pharisees were democratic is true so far, but does not bring out the fact that their differences were notably theological or give any explanation of those divergences. J. R. Hanne’s view that Pharisees and Sadducees carried on the old conflict of prophetism and priestism is attractive, but according to the NT it is the Pharisees who are blinded and enslaved by that ceremonialism and externalism against which prophetism protested. Wellhausen’s view that the Pharisees were essentially those devoted to the Law on religious grounds while the Sadducees were essentially a political party has really little evidence in its favour, and all our authorities agree in representing the differences between the two parties as to a great extent doctrinal. (For reference to those views see A. Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums, Leipzig, 1884, p. 86 f.) Instead of attempting the ambitious task of expressing the differences in any one phrase, we shall do better simply to set down what is known of them as they existed.
(a) Standard of faith and practice.-The fundamental difference between Pharisees and Sadducees was that relating to the supreme arbiter of all disputes. What is the standard? What the final court of appeal? The Sadducees held that it was contained only in the written Law. The Pharisees held that the oral traditions were as authoritative at least as the written Law.
‘The Pharisees have delivered to the people from the tradition of the fathers all manner of ordinances not contained in the laws of Moses; for which reason the sect of the Sadducees reject these ordinances; for they affirm that only such laws ought to be observed as are written, while those which are orally delivered from the tradition of the fathers are not binding. And concerning these things great questionings have arisen among them’ (Jos. Ant. xiii. x. 6).
All other sources fully bear out the accuracy of this statement, which in a sense is the most important that we have. In its light everything else must be read and where necessary corrected. It explains the negations or Agnosticism of the Sadducean creed: no doctrine that was not clearly taught in the written Law possessed for them validity or certainty. It explains why they were more rigid than the Pharisees in enforcing the penal law (Ant. XIV. iv. 2 f.). It would be misleading to call the Sadducees the Protestants of Judaism, but there is some similarity between their divergence from the Pharisees and the divergence of Protestants from Roman Catholics on the question of authority. In both cases we have an appeal to the written Word alone, as against an appeal to the Word plus traditions, precedents, and ecclesiastical judgments. For the latter the Pharisees claimed the same sort of infallibility as the Roman Church attaches to ex cathedra pronouncements by the pope.
How did this conflict eventuate? In reality there was a clear victory for neither. Pharisaism and Sadduceeism in their long discussions affected each other. On the one hand, the complexities of life convinced the Sadducees that cases had to be met for which there was no definite guidance in the written Word, and popular feeling compelled them to fall in with the procedure of the Pharisees (Ant. XVIII. i. 4). Still, we may take it, they strove to make all new regulations in harmony with the Word. On the other hand, their insistence on the supreme authority of the Word led to an intensive study of the Word by the Pharisees, who were concerned to show, just as a Roman Catholic is, that the oral tradition was really based upon the Word. Hence the Pharisees won, but only by doing full justice to the Sadducean position.
‘The Pharisees won the day ultimately, for they were able to show by subtle exegesis that the oral tradition was based upon the written Law. But, and this is the great point, the Sadducaean principle was thus victorious; as a party they went under; but the Pharisees, by adopting the Sadducaean principle that nothing is binding that cannot be shown to be in accordance with the written Law, implicitly acknowledged that the Sadducees had been right all along’ (Cesterley, op. cit., p. 143).
(b) Providence.-According to Josephus, the Sadducees did not believe in Providence.
While the Pharisees, he tells us, hold that some things in the world happen by the will of Providence, and that other things lie in the power of men, ‘the Sadducees take away Providence, 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’ (Ant. XIII. v. 9). ‘The Sadducees take away Providence entirely, and suppose that God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil; and they say that to act what is good, or what is evil, is at men’s own choice, and that the one or the other belongs so to every one, that they may act as they please’ (Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. viii. 14).
We cannot admit that this is an accurate account of Sadducean belief. Josephus is here straining the position of the Sadducees into correspondence with the Epicureans and sceptical individualists of Greece. If the Sadducees were the stalwart supporters of the written Word, they could not have held such a view of God and the world. Further, if Josephus is accurate here, passages such as Matthew 3:7; Matthew 16:1, Acts 5:39 f. become unintelligible. There it is implied that Sadducees believe in wrath to come, in signs from heaven, in the danger of fighting against God. Again, while Rabbinical writings contain no evidence of any dispute with the Pharisees on this topic-a silence which is very significant-the Zadokite fragments show the Sadducean doctrine of God to be in harmony with OT teaching (see Cesterley, op. cit., p. 145f.). We conclude that on this topic there was no essential difference between Pharisees and Sadducees. It follows that the popular idea of Sadducees as irreligious and rationalist is as baseless as the idea that all Pharisees were whited sepulchres.
(c) The future life.-It is clear that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the body (Acts 23:8). Did they believe in the immortality of the soul? According to Josephus, they did not.
‘They take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul and the punishments and rewards in Hades’ (Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. viii. 14).
Cesterley tries to show that in this point also Josephus is untrustworthy. Josephus, he holds rightly enough, does not separate the questions of resurrection and immortality, and represents for his Greek readers, to whom resurrection was an unfamiliar idea, the denial of the one as a denial of the other. This is not improbable in itself, but it is difficult to explain away the agreement on this point between Josephus and Acts 23:8, ‘The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit.’ Cesterley very properly connects this usage of ‘angel’ with Acts 12:15, ‘It is his angel.’ And he argues that what is meant is that Sadducees did not believe that the departed become angels or spirits (op. cit., p. 147 f.). It is not obvious how he can conclude that probably the Sadducees believed in the immortality of the soul, after admitting that they did not believe in resurrection or in the departed becoming spirits. Probably on this point the Sadducees took Agnostic ground. Their supreme standard being the written Law, it is difficult to see what else they could have done.
(d) Attitude to foreign influences.-In strong contrast to the Pharisees (see article Pharisees), the Sadducees were sympathetic to foreign, especially Hellenistic, culture. This contrast between the two parties is surprising. The Sadducees stood for the old truth against the innovations of the Pharisees. The latter were the party of progress. Yet it was the conservative Sadducee who embraced foreign culture with enthusiasm, and the progressive Pharisee who bitterly opposed it. In the history of the conflicts of political and ecclesiastical parties it is no unusual thing to find the opponents apparently exchanging rôles. Often no better explanation can be given than that suggested by Cesterley in this case, ‘the innate illogic of human nature’ (op. cit., p. 155).
(e) The Messiah.-The Sadducees held that Aaron and his family were the chosen of God from whom Messiah should proceed.
(f) The calendar.-Into this complicated subject we have no occasion to enter. It is sufficient to say that endless disputes were carried on between the two parties as to the correct dates of the feasts, arising from the fact that while the Pharisees reckoned by a lunar year, the Sadducees computed a solar year (see Cesterley, op. cit., p. 150 f.).
4. Position and influence.-In our period the Sadducees were in the position of an aristocracy. ‘This doctrine is received but by a few, yet by those still of the greatest dignity’ (Jos. Ant. XVIII. i. 4). Practically they may be identified with the Temple high-priestly caste, though there were priests who were not Sadducees, and no doubt Sadducees who were not priests. The majority of the Temple officials and their relatives constituted the main portion of the sect of the Sadducees (cf. W. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, Berlin, 1903, p. 164 f.). The high priest and the whole Temple cultus still possessed considerable influence. But their power was waning. Various movements tended to diminish it. Essenes rejected the Temple rites almost entirely. Several late Jewish works speak deprecatingly of the present Temple compared with the former. The real religious leader was no longer the priest but the scribe. The facts that the Sadducees were harsh in punishing, and that the upkeep of the Temple was so expensive, tended to make the people favour the party who opposed the Sadducees (cf. Bousset, op. cit., p. 87 f.). With the destruction of the Temple Sadduceeism disappeared.
As to the character of the sect our knowledge is too limited to enable any just estimate to be made. According to Josephus, they did not agree too well among themselves.
‘The behaviour of the Sadducees one towards another is in some degree wild, and their conversation with those that are of their own party is as barbarous as if they were strangers to them’ (Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. viii. 14).
Their unpatriotic conduct in Maccabaean times cannot be palliated, and there is reason to fear that worldliness and an eye to the main chance dulled the purity of their devotion to the Law. On the other hand, it is important to remember that the common notion that they were mere politicians and irreligious has absolutely no foundation in the authentic evidence we possess.
5. Attitude to Christianity.-Jesus Himself referred very seldom to the Sadducees; His polemic was directed against the Pharisees. In His protest against their making void the Law by their traditions He was at one with the Sadducees. Yet it was from the Sadducees that the most bitter persecution of Judaea n Christianity arose. We know the part played by the Sadducean Sanhedrin in the trial of Jesus. They continued to persecute His disciples (Acts 4:1 ff; Acts 5:17; Acts 23:1 ff.). Josephus informs us that they were responsible for the death of James, the brother of the Lord (Ant. XX. ix. 1). There can be little doubt as to the reason for this persecution. It began when Jesus interfered with the prerogatives of the Sanhedrin by expelling the money-changers from the Temple-court. Significant also is the stress laid upon His alleged threat to destroy the Temple. In the rise of a party adhering to Jesus they feared political consequences (John 11:47 ff.). They were in power, and they meant to keep it, and anything that threatened to be a danger to their power or to the Temple cultus with which their power was bound up they strove to destroy. That any Sadducees became Christian we are not told. Many of the priests believed (Acts 6:7), but that is indecisive, as many priests were not Sadducees. But one of the disciples was ‘known unto the high priest’ (John 18:15); a considerable degree of intimacy is implied in this statement, and it is very improbable that a friend of the high priest would be anything but a Sadducee. There is a possibility, then, that the author of the Fourth Gospel was once a Sadducee. One would like to think that the two greatest of NT writers were of Pharisee and Sadducee origin respectively. Both sects had their good points, and both their grave errors. Christianity conserved what was good in both, and offered a higher unity in which their differences were transcended.
Literature.-See under Pharisees.
W. D. Niven.
Holman Bible Dictionary - Sadducees
(ssad' dyoo ceess) A religious group which formed during the period between the Testaments when the Maccabees ruled Judah. They took their name from one of David's copriests, Zadok, and claimed descent from him. Their name meant “righteous ones.” See Jewish Parties.
Mike Mitchell
Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology - Sadducees
Jewish group mentioned in three different contexts in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 12:18 ; [1]; Matthew 3:7 ; 16:1-12 ) and six in Acts (4:1; 5:17; 23:6-8). They always appear as inquisitors or opponents of John the Baptist, Jesus, or the early Christians. Acts 23:8 defines the Sadducees theologically, saying that, in contrast to the Pharisees, they hold there "is no resurrection, and neither angels nor spirits." The Sadducean rejection of the resurrection is the point at issue in Mark 12:18 and parallels. Additional information about them, primarily through the Jewish historian, Josephus, and the rabbinic writings, is scanty and hostile. Rabbinic writings sometimes interchange the term "Sadducee" with "Samaritans" (here meaning "opponents") and "Boethuians." The latter is probably from their connection with the house of Boethus, from which came several high priests during the New Testament period.
It should be noted that the "Herodians" (Matthew 22:16 ; Mark 3:6 ; 12:13 ) are sometimes assumed to be Sadducees. Their name identifies them as members of household-court of the Herods or supporters of the dynasty. It may be assumed that the Sadducees generally supported Herod and his reigning descendants (although Herod executed forty-five of them at the beginning of his reign), but there is no evidence for equating the Herodians and Sadducees.
The name "Sadducee" is closely associated with attempts to determine the origin of this group. Suggestions include linking it with an Old Testament priestly family (Zadok), the Hebrew word for "just" or "righteous" (sdq ) or "fiscal officials" (Gk. syndikoi ). There are problems with etymologies and all other attempts to identify their origin.
Josephus lists the Sadducees as one of the three sects/groups of Jewish "philosophy" (Ant 18.1.2 [2]; cf. 13.5.9 [3]). His first historical reference says John Hyrcanus (135-105 b.c.) came under their influence after his break with the Pharisees. Josephus describes them as argumentative (Ant 18.1.4 [4]), "boorish" and "rude" to both each other and aliens (War 2.9.14 [5]), few in number but including "men of the highest standing" (Ant 18.1.4 [2]). They have "the confidence of the wealthy" but not the populace (Ant 13.1.4 [7]). When exercising their office the Sadducees were forced by public opinion to follow "the formulas of the Pharisees" (Ant 18.1.4 [2]). Evidently they were more severe in administering punishments than Pharisees (Ant 13.10.6 [7]). Like the New Testament, Josephus mentions the Sadducean rejection of the resurrection (War 2.9.14 [10]); and twice says they rejected "Fate" (predestination) to dissociate God from evil and to assert the human free choice of good or evil (War 2.9.14 [10]; Ant 18.1.4 [12]).
Josephus says, "The Pharisees had passed on certain regulations handed down by former generations and not recorded in the Laws of Moses, rejected by the Sadducean group, who hold only those regulations should be considered valid which were written down (in Scripture)" (Ant 13.10.6 [13]; cf. Ant 18.1.4 [4]). This points toward a major feature of Sadduceanism: rejection of the Pharisaic Oral Law, or "the traditions of the elders." In the centuries after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (586 b.c.), the Pharisees compiled and transmitted orally a body of traditional interpretations, adaptations, and additions to Scripture that they believed to be of divine origin. These included ways of applying the Law to various situations—expansion and prescriptions regarding a wide range of levitical ceremonies and regulations. These traditions also included certain theological points, such as resurrection and angels and spirits, which, although not particularly emphasized in the Old Testament, were prominent during the intertestamental period. Although the Sadducees rejected the Pharisaic Oral Law they certainly had their own traditions, interpretations, and procedures.
In Acts 5:17 those with the high priest are identified as "the party of the Sadducees." Josephus depicts the Sadducees as closely associated with the priestly Hasmonean rulers. By the time of the New Testament they appear to be the majority in the Sanhedrin, over which the high priest presided.
Religiously, the Sadducees were literal in handling the Old Testament Law and resisted the "new" ideas and traditions of the Pharisees. Politically and socially, they were open to rapprochement with Hellenistic (Greek) culture and the Roman political system. The Sadducees were essentially secularists, a result of their exclusion of God ("Fate") from human affairs and their conviction that humans can expect nothing beyond this life. In general it seems the Sadducees supported those interpretations and procedures that enhanced the prestige, power, and financial benefit of the priestly temple cult and the aristocracy.
Jesus and the early Christians posed a threat to the Sadducees (John 11:47-50 ). Jesus' proclamation of the reality of the spiritual realm, his denunciation of the Jewish religion as then practiced, and his wide popular support could have endangered the already precarious position of the Sadducees. Furthermore, Jesus and his followers supported some of the positions of the Pharisees. The Sadducees found particularly objectionable the Christian proclamation that in Jesus the resurrection is a present reality (Acts 4:2 ).
The Sadducees were inseparably bound to the external political, social, and especially the temple-centered institutions of Judaism. With the destruction of the Jewish state and temple in a.d. 70, they passed into the pages of history.
J. Julius Scott, Jr.
See also Pharisees
Bibliography . E. E. Ellis, NTS 10 (1963-64): 274ff.; L. L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian ; A. J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees in Palestinian Society ; E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ ; M. Simon, The Jewish Sects at the Time of Jesus ; S. Zeitlin, The Sadducees and the Pharisees .
The Hawker's Poor Man's Concordance And Dictionary - Sadducees
These were a sect among the Jews, but possessing nothing of the principles of Abraham, but rather a class of Epicureans: They were rigid to a degree for the law, because, denying any future state of reward or punishment, angel or spirit, they made the chief good to consist in an attention to the observance of order in this life.
It is worthy remark, and indeed it is the only reason for noticing characters of this kind at all in a work of this nature, how our blessed Lord was opposed off the one hand and on the other by those fashionable sects which abounded in his day. The "Scribes and Pharisees, the Sadducees and Samaritans," all arose in opposition to the cross. This should be remembered by the faithful and humble follower of the Lord Jesus in the present day, when at any time the privileges of his faith and conversation in Jesus is opposed or called in question. Sweetly the Holy Ghost persuades to this when he saith, "Consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds." (Hebrews 12:3)
Fausset's Bible Dictionary - Sadducees
Matthew 3:7; Matthew 16:1; Matthew 16:6; Matthew 16:11-12; Deuteronomy 7:12-157; Matthew 22:34; Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27; Acts 4:1; Acts 5:17; Acts 23:6-8. Matthew (as distinguished from Mark) does not usually explain Jewish usages, taking for granted that his readers are familiar with them. His deviating from his wont to explain "the S. say there is no resurrection" is cleared up by what Josephus (Ant. 18:1, section 4) states "the doctrine of the Sadducees is that the soul and body perish together; the law is all that they are concerned to, observe; this doctrine however has not many followers, but those of the highest rank, ... almost nothing of public business falls into their hands." See also his B. J., ii. 8, section 14. Thus the Jews might easily be ill informed as to the dogmas of a sect, small in numbers, raised above those masses to whom Matthew addresses himself, and to whom therefore his information would not have been superfluous.
Another undesigned coincidence, confirming the sacred writers accuracy, is that the opposition to Christ in the Gospels is almost exclusively on the part of the Pharisees (Matthew 23:29; Matthew 23:32; John 11:57; Matthew 22:31-32) and His denunciations are mainly against these; but in Acts on the part of the Sadducees (Acts 4:1; Deuteronomy 28:1-12; Acts 23:6; Acts 23:8). Why so? Because the resurrection of the dead (the doctrine denied by the Sadducees), which was scarcely understood during the Gospels' period (Mark 9:10), became the leading doctrine of Christianity in connection with the apostles' witness for Christ's resurrection at the time described in Acts 1:22; Acts 2:32; Acts 3:12; Acts 4:2 (Greek "preached in the person of Jesus the resurrection from the dead"), Acts 4:10; Acts 5:31; Acts 10:40; and was therefore bitterly opposed by the Sadducees.
John never mentions them, and no writing of theirs has come down to us. They denied the oral and upheld the written law. Rabbi Nathan (first mentioned in the Aruch, a rabbiical dictionary, A.D. 1105) states that Antigonus of Socho (mentioned in the Mishna, Avoth 1, as having received the oral law from Simon the Just, last of the great synagogue). had two disciples, who in turn taught disciples his saying "be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of reward, but serve without view of reward"; and that the disciples reasoned, "if our fathers had known that there is another world, and a resurrection of the dead, they would not have spoken thus"; so they separated themselves from the law (and denied there is another world and a resurrection); "so there arose two sects, the Zadokites from Zadok, and Baithusians from Baithos." But this does not justify the modern notion that Zadok himself misinterpreted Antigonus' saying; still the Sadducees might claim this Zadok as their head.
But the Zadok from whom the Sadducees are named may be rather the famous Zadok who superseded Abiathar under Solomon (1 Kings 2:35); "the house of Zadok," "the sons of Zadok," "the seed of Zadok" are named with preeminent honour in 2 Chronicles 31:10; Ezekiel 40:46; Ezekiel 42:19; Ezekiel 44:15; Ezekiel 48:11; so they became a kind of sacerdotal aristocracy, including the high priests' families; compare Mishna, Sanhed. iv. 2, which ordains that only priests, Levites, and Israelites whose daughters might marry priests, were "clean" so as to be judges in capital trials; also Acts 5:17, "the high-priest, and all that were with him, which is the sect of the Sadducees." Besides their reasonable denial of an oral law, which the Pharisees maintained was transmitted by Moses, the Sadducees denied the resurrection because it is not explicitly stated in Moses' Pentateuch, the legislator's sanctions of the law being primarily temporal rewards and punishments (Exodus 20:12; Exodus 23:25-26; 1618418272_60; Acts 5:17; Deuteronomy 28:15-68).
Christ (John 18:3; Luke 20:37) however shows that even Exodus 3:6; Exodus 3:16 suffices to prove the resurrection; and Hebrew 11 quotes the patriarchs as examples of a faith which looked beyond the present for eternal rewards. Job (Job 19:26), Isaiah (Isaiah 26:19), Daniel (Daniel 12:2), and David (Psalm 16; Psalm 17) express the same faith, the germ of which is in the Pentateuch (See RESURRECTION.) The Pharisees, though wrong in maintaining oral tradition as obligatory, yet preserved in respect to the resurrection the faith of the fathers. In Acts 23:8 "the Sadducees" are said to disbelieve in "angel or spirit"; but angels are often introduced in the Pentateuch, which the Sadducees admitted (Genesis 16:7; Genesis 19:1; Genesis 22:11; Genesis 28:12; Exodus 23:20; Numbers 22:23); and Josephus and the Mishna do not mention their disbelief of angels.
Probably it is only their disbelief of angelic communications to men in their time, such as the Pharisees suggested (Acts 23:9) may have been made to Paul, that the Sadducees denied. Josephus states, "the Pharisees say that some things are the work of fate (he should have said God's providence; he uses the Roman mode of expression), but others in our own power to be or not to be; the Essenes, that fate rules all things. The Sadducees make all things in the power of ourselves as the causes of our good things, and meeting with evils through our own inconsiderateness" (Ant. 18:1, section 3; B. J. 2:8, section 14).
The Sadducees, though giving paramount authority to Moses' Pentateuch, did not as Epiphanius asserts (Haer. 14) reject the other Scriptures; for Josephus would certainly have mentioned it were it so. After the fall of Jerusalem the Sadducees doctrine disappeared, the afflicted Jews instinctively turning for consolation from the sad present to the bright hope of an eternal future life. The Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Herodians of Jesus' day represent the three schools antagonistic to vital Christianity in our days: infidelity; superstition, spiritualism and spiritual pride; worldly compromise. This "leaven" (see Leviticus 2:11; 1 Corinthians 5:8) Jesus warns against; called "doctrine" in Matthew 16:12, "hypocrisy" in Luke 12:1, "the leaven of Herod" Mark 8:15; Antichrist's antitrinity, the three frogs out of the mouth of the dragon, the false prophet, and the beast (Revelation 16:13-14).
Morrish Bible Dictionary - Sadducees
Next to the Pharisees, the Sadducees were the most prominent sect of the Jews. The Pharisees made proselytes, but the Sadducees were much more exclusive, and therefore remained fewer in number. They did not believe in the resurrection, nor in angels, nor in spirits: they held that the soul perished with the body. Matthew 22:23 ; Acts 4:1,2 ; Acts 23:8 . Though strict in regard to the written law of Moses, they repudiated the traditions of the elders, or what is called the oral law. They believed that God punished a man's sins duringhis life, and that man's will was free, and he had power to restrain his passions. In consequence of this they were severe judges. The Lord Jesus warned His disciples against their doctrines, and denounced them as the 'offspring of vipers.' The tenets of the modern rationalists have much in common with the Sadducees.
Hitchcock's Bible Names - Sadducees
Followers of Sadoc
Watson's Biblical & Theological Dictionary - Sadducees
a sect among the Jews. It is said that the principles of the Sadducees were derived from Antigonus Sochaeus, president of the sanhedrim, about B.C. 250, who, rejecting the traditionary doctrines of the scribes, taught that man ought to serve God out of pure love, and not from hope of reward, or fear of punishment; and that they derived their name from Sadoc, one of his followers, who, mistaking or perverting this doctrine, maintained that there was no future state of rewards and punishments. Whatever foundation there may be for this account of the origin of the sect, it is certain, that in the time of our Saviour the Sadducees denied the resurrection of the dead, Acts 23:8 , and the existence of angels and spirits, or souls of departed men; though, as Mr. Hume observes, it is not easy to comprehend how they could at the same time admit the authority of the law of Moses. They carried their ideas of human freedom so far as to assert that men were absolutely masters of their own actions, and at full liberty to do either good or evil. Josephus even says that they denied the essential difference between good and evil; and, though they believed that God created and preserved the world, they seem to have denied his particular providence. These tenets, which resemble the Epicurean philosophy, led, as might be expected, to great profligacy of life; and we find the licentious wickedness of the Sadducees frequently condemned in the New Testament; yet they professed themselves obliged to observe the Mosaic law, because of the temporal rewards and punishments annexed to such observance; and hence they were always severe in their punishment of any crimes which tended to disturb the public tranquillity. The Sadducees rejected all tradition, and some authors have contended that they admitted only the books of Moses; but there seems no ground for that opinion, either in the Scriptures or in any ancient writer. Even Josephus, who was himself a Pharisee, and took every opportunity of reproaching the Sadducees, does not mention that they rejected any part of the Scriptures; he only says that "The Pharisees have delivered to the people many institutions as received from the fathers, which are not written in the law of Moses. For this reason the Sadducees reject these things, asserting that those things are binding which are written, but that the things received by tradition from the fathers are not to be observed." Beside, it is generally believed that the Sadducees expected the Messiah with great impatience, which seems to imply their belief in the prophecies, though they misinterpreted their meaning. Confining all their hopes to this present world, enjoying its riches, and devoting themselves to its pleasures, they might well be particularly anxious that their lot of life should be cast in the splendid reign of this expected temporal king, with the hope of sharing in his conquests and glory; but this expectation was so contrary to the lowly appearance of our Saviour, that they joined their inveterate enemies, the Pharisees, in persecuting him and his religion. Josephus says, that the Sadducees were able to draw over to them the rich only, the people not following them; and he elsewhere mentions that this sect spread chiefly among the young. The Sadducees were far less numerous than the Pharisees, but they were in general persons of greater opulence and dignity. The council before whom our Saviour and St. Paul were carried consisted partly of Pharisees and partly of Sadducees.
People's Dictionary of the Bible - Sadducees
Sadducees (săd'du-seez). One of the Jewish sects of which we read in the New Testament. They were in sharp opposition to the Pharisees, but ready to work with them against the person and teaching of Jesus. Their origin is involved in some obscurity; probably sprung from Zadok. See Bissell's Biblical Antiquities. The tenets of the Sadducees may be gathered from the notices we have of them in the New Testament, illustrated by the account given by Josephus, Antiq. lib. xiii. 5, 19, 10, § 6, lib. xviii. 1, § 4. They disregarded the traditions and unwritten laws which the Pharisees prized so highly, and professed to take the Scriptures as the sole authoritative guide of religion. They denied the existence of angels and spirits, and maintained that there was no resurrection, Matthew 22:23; Acts 23:8, the soul according to them dying with the body; hence they denied a future state of reward or punishment. It was their maxim therefore that actions to be virtuous must not be done in hope of recompense. Another principle of their belief was the absolute freedom of man's will, so that he had full power of himself to do good or evil as he chose; and then only could his actions have a moral value. But this view was pushed so far as almost entirely to exclude the divine interposition in the government of the world. The Sadducees were not so numerous as the Pharisees; nor were their tenets so acceptable to the people. Yet many of their body were men of wealth and influence. They were found in the supreme council; and in the time of Christ and the apostles a Sadducee filled the office of high priest. Acts 4:1; Acts 5:17; Acts 23:6. Their party had, moreover, a political complexion: they were austere, it may be added, in their habits, and severe in the administration of justice. After the first century of the Christian era they disappear from history.
1910 New Catholic Dictionary - Sadducees
A Jewish sect, contemporary with Jesus Christ. Their nature is made known to us solely by the New Testament, the Talmud, and Flavius Josephus. Saint Matthew (22) relates, "Now on that day there came to him Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection." Acts (23), "For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both." This doctrinal divergence generated a deadly hatred between the two sects; yet they conspired against Jesus. Flavius Josephus (Antig., 18), "But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this: that souls die with the bodies, nor do they regard the observation of anything besides what the law enjoins them; for they think it an instance of virtue to dispute with those doctors of philosophy whom they frequent. Their doctrine is received but by a few, yet by those of the greatest dignity."
American Tract Society Bible Dictionary - Sadducees
This name was applied in the time of Jesus to a portion or sect of the Jews, who were usually at variance with the other leading sect, namely, the Pharisees, but united with them in opposing Jesus and accomplishing his death, Matthew 16:1-12 ; Luke 20:27 . The name would seem to be derived from a Hebrew word signifying the just; but the Talmudists affirm that it comes from a certain Sadoc, or Sadducus, who was the founder of the sect, and lived about three centuries before the Christian era. The Sadducees disregarded all the traditions and unwritten laws which the Pharisees prized so highly, and professed to consider the Scriptures as the only source and rule of the Jewish religion. They rejected the demonology of the Pharisees; denied the existence of angles and spirits; considered the soul as dying with the body, and of course admitted no future state of rewards and punishments, Matthew 22:23 . While, moreover, the Pharisees believed that all events and actions were directed by an overruling providence or fate, the Sadducees considered them all as depending on the will and agency of man. The tenets of these freethinking philosophers were not, in general, so acceptable to the people as those of the Pharisees; yet many of the highest rank adopted them, and practiced great severity of manners and of life. Many members of the Sanhedrin were Sadducees, Acts 23:6-9 ; and so was the high priest in the time of Christ seems to have added bitterness to their hatred of Christianity, Acts 4:1 ; 5:17 .

Sentence search

Sadducees - * For Sadducees see under PHARISEES ...
Sadducism - ) The tenets of the Sadducees
Sadducize - ) To adopt the principles of the Sadducees
Sadducaic - ) Pertaining to, or like, the Sadducees; as, Sadducaic reasonings
Sadducees - Acts 23:8 defines the Sadducees theologically, saying that, in contrast to the Pharisees, they hold there "is no resurrection, and neither angels nor spirits. ...
It should be noted that the "Herodians" (Matthew 22:16 ; Mark 3:6 ; 12:13 ) are sometimes assumed to be Sadducees. It may be assumed that the Sadducees generally supported Herod and his reigning descendants (although Herod executed forty-five of them at the beginning of his reign), but there is no evidence for equating the Herodians and Sadducees. ...
Josephus lists the Sadducees as one of the three sects/groups of Jewish "philosophy" (Ant 18. When exercising their office the Sadducees were forced by public opinion to follow "the formulas of the Pharisees" (Ant 18. Although the Sadducees rejected the Pharisaic Oral Law they certainly had their own traditions, interpretations, and procedures. ...
In Acts 5:17 those with the high priest are identified as "the party of the Sadducees. " Josephus depicts the Sadducees as closely associated with the priestly Hasmonean rulers. ...
Religiously, the Sadducees were literal in handling the Old Testament Law and resisted the "new" ideas and traditions of the Pharisees. The Sadducees were essentially secularists, a result of their exclusion of God ("Fate") from human affairs and their conviction that humans can expect nothing beyond this life. In general it seems the Sadducees supported those interpretations and procedures that enhanced the prestige, power, and financial benefit of the priestly temple cult and the aristocracy. ...
Jesus and the early Christians posed a threat to the Sadducees (John 11:47-50 ). Jesus' proclamation of the reality of the spiritual realm, his denunciation of the Jewish religion as then practiced, and his wide popular support could have endangered the already precarious position of the Sadducees. The Sadducees found particularly objectionable the Christian proclamation that in Jesus the resurrection is a present reality (Acts 4:2 ). ...
The Sadducees were inseparably bound to the external political, social, and especially the temple-centered institutions of Judaism. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees in Palestinian Society ; E. Zeitlin, The Sadducees and the Pharisees
Sadducees - In New Testament times the two main parties within the Jewish religion were the Sadducees and the Pharisees. These two factions were the forerunners of the Sadducees and the Pharisees. )...
Religious power...
Some of the Sadducees’ religious beliefs further emphasized the differences between the two parties. The Pharisees followed strictly the traditions handed down from their forefathers, but the Sadducees had little interest in the traditions. ...
In spite of their dislike for the Pharisees, the Sadducees readily joined with them to oppose Jesus (Matthew 16:1-4; Matthew 22:15; Matthew 22:23; Matthew 22:34). ...
Most of the leading priests of New Testament times were Sadducees, and they enjoyed the support of the upper class Jews. The high priest, who was president of the Sanhedrin, was a Sadducee, and through him and his close associates the Sadducees exercised much power in the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:1-3; Acts 5:17-21; see SANHEDRIN). ...
The Sadducees were particularly hostile to the early Christians. Firstly, the apostles’ accusation of injustice on the part of the Sanhedrin was really an accusation against the ruling Sadducees (Acts 4:5-10; Acts 5:27-28). Secondly, the church’s rapid growth was based on the truth of the resurrection, which the Sadducees denied (Acts 4:1-2; Acts 4:10; Acts 4:17). The Sadducees had little following among the common people, and in fact were afraid of violence from them if they treated the Christians too harshly (Acts 4:2; Acts 4:17; Acts 4:21; Acts 5:17; Acts 5:26). Only when the Pharisees turned against the Christians were the Sadducees able to use the full power of the Sanhedrin against the Christians (Acts 6:12-15; Acts 7:58; Acts 8:1; cf. ...
With the Romans’ destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70, the Sadducees lost the priestly base that had maintained them
Sadducees - The Sadducees were a Jewish sect or party best known by their opposition to the Pharisees. -Our knowledge of the Sadducees, such as it is, is derived from the following sources: (a) Gospels and Acts; (b) Josephus; (c) Rabbinical writings, mainly Mishna, Tosefta, Sifre, Sifra, and Mechilta (these are all of comparatively late date, but their value is unquestionable as embodying earlier traditions. They record various disputes that took place between Pharisees and Sadducees); (d) Zadokite fragments (these are two fragments discovered quite recently in the Cairo Genizah. Some references to Sadducees are found in various Church Fathers, but they have no independent value. It has to be remarked of the evidence of Josephus that it almost seems that part of what he had to say regarding Pharisees and Sadducees has been lost. , but there we find only a scanty reference to Pharisees and Sadducees, while his notice of the Essenes is full. (b) The view in Encyclopaedia Biblica supported by Encyclopaedia Britannica 11 (see article ‘Sadducees’) is that the word represents the Persian zandik. Our knowledge of the Sadducees in particular is not extensive, and a large portion of it comes from sources that certainly were not sympathetic. Geiger’s view that the Sadducees were aristocratic while the Pharisees were democratic is true so far, but does not bring out the fact that their differences were notably theological or give any explanation of those divergences. Hanne’s view that Pharisees and Sadducees carried on the old conflict of prophetism and priestism is attractive, but according to the NT it is the Pharisees who are blinded and enslaved by that ceremonialism and externalism against which prophetism protested. Wellhausen’s view that the Pharisees were essentially those devoted to the Law on religious grounds while the Sadducees were essentially a political party has really little evidence in its favour, and all our authorities agree in representing the differences between the two parties as to a great extent doctrinal. -The fundamental difference between Pharisees and Sadducees was that relating to the supreme arbiter of all disputes. What is the standard? What the final court of appeal? The Sadducees held that it was contained only in the written Law. ...
‘The Pharisees have delivered to the people from the tradition of the fathers all manner of ordinances not contained in the laws of Moses; for which reason the sect of the Sadducees reject these ordinances; for they affirm that only such laws ought to be observed as are written, while those which are orally delivered from the tradition of the fathers are not binding. It would be misleading to call the Sadducees the Protestants of Judaism, but there is some similarity between their divergence from the Pharisees and the divergence of Protestants from Roman Catholics on the question of authority. On the one hand, the complexities of life convinced the Sadducees that cases had to be met for which there was no definite guidance in the written Word, and popular feeling compelled them to fall in with the procedure of the Pharisees (Ant. But, and this is the great point, the Sadducaean principle was thus victorious; as a party they went under; but the Pharisees, by adopting the Sadducaean principle that nothing is binding that cannot be shown to be in accordance with the written Law, implicitly acknowledged that the Sadducees had been right all along’ (Cesterley, op. -According to Josephus, the Sadducees did not believe in Providence. ...
While the Pharisees, he tells us, hold that some things in the world happen by the will of Providence, and that other things lie in the power of men, ‘the Sadducees take away Providence, 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’ (Ant. ‘The Sadducees take away Providence entirely, and suppose that God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil; and they say that to act what is good, or what is evil, is at men’s own choice, and that the one or the other belongs so to every one, that they may act as they please’ (Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. Josephus is here straining the position of the Sadducees into correspondence with the Epicureans and sceptical individualists of Greece. If the Sadducees were the stalwart supporters of the written Word, they could not have held such a view of God and the world. There it is implied that Sadducees believe in wrath to come, in signs from heaven, in the danger of fighting against God. We conclude that on this topic there was no essential difference between Pharisees and Sadducees. It follows that the popular idea of Sadducees as irreligious and rationalist is as baseless as the idea that all Pharisees were whited sepulchres. -It is clear that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the body (Acts 23:8). This is not improbable in itself, but it is difficult to explain away the agreement on this point between Josephus and Acts 23:8, ‘The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit. ’ And he argues that what is meant is that Sadducees did not believe that the departed become angels or spirits (op. It is not obvious how he can conclude that probably the Sadducees believed in the immortality of the soul, after admitting that they did not believe in resurrection or in the departed becoming spirits. Probably on this point the Sadducees took Agnostic ground. -In strong contrast to the Pharisees (see article Pharisees), the Sadducees were sympathetic to foreign, especially Hellenistic, culture. The Sadducees stood for the old truth against the innovations of the Pharisees. -The Sadducees held that Aaron and his family were the chosen of God from whom Messiah should proceed. It is sufficient to say that endless disputes were carried on between the two parties as to the correct dates of the feasts, arising from the fact that while the Pharisees reckoned by a lunar year, the Sadducees computed a solar year (see Cesterley, op. -In our period the Sadducees were in the position of an aristocracy. Practically they may be identified with the Temple high-priestly caste, though there were priests who were not Sadducees, and no doubt Sadducees who were not priests. The majority of the Temple officials and their relatives constituted the main portion of the sect of the Sadducees (cf. The facts that the Sadducees were harsh in punishing, and that the upkeep of the Temple was so expensive, tended to make the people favour the party who opposed the Sadducees (cf. ...
‘The behaviour of the Sadducees one towards another is in some degree wild, and their conversation with those that are of their own party is as barbarous as if they were strangers to them’ (Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. -Jesus Himself referred very seldom to the Sadducees; His polemic was directed against the Pharisees. In His protest against their making void the Law by their traditions He was at one with the Sadducees. Yet it was from the Sadducees that the most bitter persecution of Judaea n Christianity arose. That any Sadducees became Christian we are not told. Many of the priests believed (Acts 6:7), but that is indecisive, as many priests were not Sadducees
Sadducees - It is said that the principles of the Sadducees were derived from Antigonus Sochaeus, president of the sanhedrim, about B. Whatever foundation there may be for this account of the origin of the sect, it is certain, that in the time of our Saviour the Sadducees denied the resurrection of the dead, Acts 23:8 , and the existence of angels and spirits, or souls of departed men; though, as Mr. These tenets, which resemble the Epicurean philosophy, led, as might be expected, to great profligacy of life; and we find the licentious wickedness of the Sadducees frequently condemned in the New Testament; yet they professed themselves obliged to observe the Mosaic law, because of the temporal rewards and punishments annexed to such observance; and hence they were always severe in their punishment of any crimes which tended to disturb the public tranquillity. The Sadducees rejected all tradition, and some authors have contended that they admitted only the books of Moses; but there seems no ground for that opinion, either in the Scriptures or in any ancient writer. Even Josephus, who was himself a Pharisee, and took every opportunity of reproaching the Sadducees, does not mention that they rejected any part of the Scriptures; he only says that "The Pharisees have delivered to the people many institutions as received from the fathers, which are not written in the law of Moses. For this reason the Sadducees reject these things, asserting that those things are binding which are written, but that the things received by tradition from the fathers are not to be observed. " Beside, it is generally believed that the Sadducees expected the Messiah with great impatience, which seems to imply their belief in the prophecies, though they misinterpreted their meaning. Josephus says, that the Sadducees were able to draw over to them the rich only, the people not following them; and he elsewhere mentions that this sect spread chiefly among the young. The Sadducees were far less numerous than the Pharisees, but they were in general persons of greater opulence and dignity. Paul were carried consisted partly of Pharisees and partly of Sadducees
Sadducees - Next to the Pharisees, the Sadducees were the most prominent sect of the Jews. The Pharisees made proselytes, but the Sadducees were much more exclusive, and therefore remained fewer in number. ' The tenets of the modern rationalists have much in common with the Sadducees
Sadducees - Saint Matthew (22) relates, "Now on that day there came to him Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection. " Acts (23), "For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both. , 18), "But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this: that souls die with the bodies, nor do they regard the observation of anything besides what the law enjoins them; for they think it an instance of virtue to dispute with those doctors of philosophy whom they frequent
Sadducees - Sadducees . The name indicates the fact that is most decisive for the right understanding of the Sadducees. Neither is it saying that all the priests were Sadducees. But the higher priestly families and the priests as a body were Sadducees. And the party built up around it the Sadducees became the party of those who cared more for their own well-being and for the maintenance of things as they were than for the Kingdom of God. ...
When we turn to the tenets of the Sadducees, it is still the contrast with the Pharisees that puts them in an Intelligible light. The Sadducees stood for the tenaciously conservative tendencies in the nation. The Sadducees did not deny the immortality of the soul. The Sadducees also denied the Pharisaic doctrine regarding angels and ministering spirits ( Acts 23:8 ). ...
From this sketch we can see why our Lord had almost no dealings with the Sadducees during His ministry. It was not until His popularity seemed to threaten the peace of Jerusalem that the high priest, with the Sadducees at his back, was moved to decisive action. We can also see why the Apostolic Church, in her first years, had most to fear from the Sadducees (Acts 4:1-37 ; Acts 5:1-42 )
Pharisees - The Pharisees were one of the two main parties within Judaism in New Testament times, the other being the Sadducees. The Sadducees came mainly from the wealthy upper classes. (For fuller details concerning the origins of the two parties see Sadducees. )...
Lawkeeping...
Once the Sadducees had gained priestly power, they furthered their own interests by emphasizing the need to keep the temple rituals. They even cooperated with the Sadducees (the priests) to get rid of him (John 11:47-53; John 18:3). Although the Sadducees had the chief positions in the Sanhedrin (the Jewish Council that condemned Jesus), many Pharisees were Sanhedrin members. ...
Other beliefs and practices...
While lawkeeping was the Pharisees’ main concern, other distinctive beliefs added to the tension in their relationship with the Sadducees. The Pharisees, for example, believed in the continued existence of the soul after death, the resurrection of the body and the existence of angelic beings, whereas the Sadducees did not (Matthew 22:23; Acts 23:8). Although the Sadducees angrily opposed the Christians, the Pharisees seem to have regarded the Christians as sincerely religious Jews with orthodox beliefs and practices (Acts 2:46-47; Acts 4:1-2; Acts 5:12; Acts 5:17; Acts 5:25-28). ...
Another belief of the Pharisees, also in contrast to the beliefs of the Sadducees, was that all events were under the control of God, and no person had independent right to interfere with what God had decreed. ...
After the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in AD 70, the Sadducees and the smaller Jewish parties died out
Sad'Ducees - (Matthew 16:1,4,6 ) Christ never assailed the Sadducees with the same bitter denunciations which he uttered against the Pharisees. 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. This explanation elucidates at once (Acts 5:17 ) The leading tenet of the Sadducees was the negation of the leading tenet of their opponents. As the Pharisees asserted so the Sadducees denied, that the Israelites were in possession of an oral law transmitted to them by Moses, [1] In opposition to the Pharisees, they maintained that the written law alone was obligatory on the nation, as of divine authority. The second distinguishing doctrine of the Sadducees was the denial of man's resurrection after death . In connection with the disbelief of a resurrection by the Sadducees, they likewise denied there was "angel or spirit," ( Acts 23:8 ) and also the doctrines of future punishment and future rewards. Josephus states that the Sadducees believed in the freedom of the will , which the Pharisees denied. Some of the early Christian writers attribute to the Sadducees the rejection of all the sacred Scriptures except the Pentateuch ; a statement, however, that is now generally admitted to have been founded on a misconception of the truth, and it seems to have arisen from a confusion of the Sadducees with the Samaritans. An important fact in the history of the Sadducees is their rapid disappearance from history after the first century, and the subsequent predominance among the Jews of the opinions of the Pharisees. In their hour of darkness and anguish they naturally turned to the consolations and hopes of a future state; and the doctrine of the Sadducees, that there was nothing beyond the present life, would have appeared to them cold, heartless and hateful
Sadducees - 18:1, section 4) states "the doctrine of the Sadducees is that the soul and body perish together; the law is all that they are concerned to, observe; this doctrine however has not many followers, but those of the highest rank, . ...
Another undesigned coincidence, confirming the sacred writers accuracy, is that the opposition to Christ in the Gospels is almost exclusively on the part of the Pharisees (Matthew 23:29; Exodus 23:25-26; John 11:57; John 18:3) and His denunciations are mainly against these; but in Acts on the part of the Sadducees (Acts 4:1; Acts 5:17; Acts 23:6; Acts 23:8). Why so? Because the resurrection of the dead (the doctrine denied by the Sadducees), which was scarcely understood during the Gospels' period (Mark 9:10), became the leading doctrine of Christianity in connection with the apostles' witness for Christ's resurrection at the time described in Acts 1:22; Acts 2:32; Acts 3:12; Acts 4:2 (Greek "preached in the person of Jesus the resurrection from the dead"), Acts 4:10; Acts 5:31; Acts 10:40; and was therefore bitterly opposed by the Sadducees. " But this does not justify the modern notion that Zadok himself misinterpreted Antigonus' saying; still the Sadducees might claim this Zadok as their head. ...
But the Zadok from whom the Sadducees are named may be rather the famous Zadok who superseded Abiathar under Solomon (1 Kings 2:35); "the house of Zadok," "the sons of Zadok," "the seed of Zadok" are named with preeminent honour in 2 Chronicles 31:10; Ezekiel 40:46; Ezekiel 42:19; Ezekiel 44:15; Ezekiel 48:11; so they became a kind of sacerdotal aristocracy, including the high priests' families; compare Mishna, Sanhed. 2, which ordains that only priests, Levites, and Israelites whose daughters might marry priests, were "clean" so as to be judges in capital trials; also Acts 5:17, "the high-priest, and all that were with him, which is the sect of the Sadducees. " Besides their reasonable denial of an oral law, which the Pharisees maintained was transmitted by Moses, the Sadducees denied the resurrection because it is not explicitly stated in Moses' Pentateuch, the legislator's sanctions of the law being primarily temporal rewards and punishments (Exodus 20:12; Matthew 23:32; Deuteronomy 7:12-15; Deuteronomy 28:1-12; Deuteronomy 28:15-68). In Acts 23:8 "the Sadducees" are said to disbelieve in "angel or spirit"; but angels are often introduced in the Pentateuch, which the Sadducees admitted (Genesis 16:7; Genesis 19:1; Genesis 22:11; Genesis 28:12; Exodus 23:20; Numbers 22:23); and Josephus and the Mishna do not mention their disbelief of angels. ...
Probably it is only their disbelief of angelic communications to men in their time, such as the Pharisees suggested (Acts 23:9) may have been made to Paul, that the Sadducees denied. The Sadducees make all things in the power of ourselves as the causes of our good things, and meeting with evils through our own inconsiderateness" ( Sadducees, though giving paramount authority to Moses' Pentateuch, did not as Epiphanius asserts (Haer. After the fall of Jerusalem the Sadducees doctrine disappeared, the afflicted Jews instinctively turning for consolation from the sad present to the bright hope of an eternal future life. The Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Herodians of Jesus' day represent the three schools antagonistic to vital Christianity in our days: infidelity; superstition, spiritualism and spiritual pride; worldly compromise
Sanhedrin - The Sanhedrin was a council of 71 individuals, around the time of Christ that was comprised of Pharisees and Sadducees who governed the Jewish nation while under the rule of Rome
Sadducee - The Sadducees were generally on the upper class, often in a priestly line, and the Pharisees in the middle class, usually merchants and tradesmen. The Sadducees accepted only the Torah, the first five books of the old Testament, as authoritative
Sadducees (2) - SADDUCEES...
1. —It seems impossible to attain certainty as to the derivation of the name ‘Sadducees’ (Σαδδουκαῖοι; צַדּוּקִים). No explanation can be given of the change from i to u; and the Sadducees were never regarded, either by themselves or by others, as specially righteous. ‘Sadducees’ in the EBi
But however uncertain the derivation may be, there is no dubiety about the application of the name ‘Sadducees. Influenced by Hellenic culture, they sympathized to some extent with the policy of Antiochus Epiphanes which provoked the Maccabaean rebellion; and although, as a consequence, they fell into the background during the earlier period of Hasmonaean rule, they recovered their position in the time of John Hyrcanus, under whom we find them, now known as Sadducees, in direct antagonism to the Pharisees, or party of the scribes. These for a short time acceded to power under Alexandra, but immediately afterwards the Sadducees came again to the front. The high priests at the head of the Sanhedrin were Sadducees, but they were always in a minority; though essentially a political party, they had apparently no independent existence apart from Jerusalem and its Temple, and with the fall of the Jewish State they disappear entirely from history. —The chief outstanding feature of the Sadducees was probably their conservatism. The intellectual standpoint of the Sadducees seems to have been mainly negative. ...
The leading difference between the two parties is to be found in this, that the Sadducees held by the written Law, and rejected the Pharisaic tradition. It is not, however, correct to say that the Sadducees acknowledged only the Pentateuch and rejected the rest of the OT. ‘Sadducees’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible . The Sadducees are stated to have been more severe in penal legislation, adhering more strictly to the letter of the Law; and in questions of ritual, while admitting the principle of Levitical purification, they ridiculed the Pharisees for the absurdities of their traditional regulations. It has been maintained that the attitude of the Sadducees was largely determined by their desire to magnify the importance of the priesthood; but Schürer denies that any such motive can be traced. —The Sadducees are not often mentioned by name in the Gospels, but it has to be remembered that, when mention is made of the chief priests, practically the same persons are referred to. Jesus did not come into the same constant antagonism with the Sadducees as with the Pharisees. They joined with the Pharisees in asking Him to show them a sign from heaven (
Matthew 16:1), and shortly afterwards He warned His disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, meaning probably, so far as the Sadducees were concerned, their utterly secular spirit
Shimon ben shetach - Later, during Alexander Jannaeus's reign, he became the head of the Sanhedrin, and succeeded in ousting the Sadducees from the Sanhedrin
Simeon ben shetach, rabbi - Later, during Alexander Jannaeus's reign, he became the head of the Sanhedrin, and succeeded in ousting the Sadducees from the Sanhedrin
Herodians - They were at one with the Sadducees in holding the duty of submission to Rome, and of supporting the Herods on the throne
Sadducees - The Sadducees disregarded all the traditions and unwritten laws which the Pharisees prized so highly, and professed to consider the Scriptures as the only source and rule of the Jewish religion. While, moreover, the Pharisees believed that all events and actions were directed by an overruling providence or fate, the Sadducees considered them all as depending on the will and agency of man. Many members of the Sanhedrin were Sadducees, Acts 23:6-9 ; and so was the high priest in the time of Christ seems to have added bitterness to their hatred of Christianity, Acts 4:1 ; 5:17
Epicureans - They have been called the "Sadducees" of Greek paganism
Sect - ), meaning properly "a choice," then "a chosen manner of life," and then "a religious party," as the "sect" of the Sadducees (Acts 5:17 ), of the Pharisees (15:5), the Nazarenes, i
Sadducees - Sadducees (săd'du-seez). The tenets of the Sadducees may be gathered from the notices we have of them in the New Testament, illustrated by the account given by Josephus, Antiq. The Sadducees were not so numerous as the Pharisees; nor were their tenets so acceptable to the people
Herodians - In scepticism they sided with the Sadducees, but were strongly opposed to the Pharisees
Zadok - The Sadducees, who formed the priestly party that later became powerful in Israel, possibly took their name from Zadok (see Sadducees)
Pharisees - The "Pharisees" and Sadducees appear as distinct parties in the latter half of the 2nd cent. The immediate progenitors of the two parties were, respectively, the Hasideans and the Hellenizers; the latter, the antecedents of the Sadducees, aimed at removing Judaism from its narrowness and sharing in the advantages of Greek life and culture. The opposition of both "Pharisees" and Sadducees (still mutually antagonistic, Acts 23:6-10 ) against the new "sect" continued unabated during apostolic times
Allegory - Allegories are interpreted at times by their author; thus Our Lord bids: "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees," as a reference to their teaching (Matthew 16)
Pharisees - The other two sects were the Essenes and the Sadducees. On the first notice of them in the New Testament (Matthew 3:7 ), they are ranked by our Lord with the Sadducees as a "generation of vipers
Pharisee - They considered the entire old Testament to be authoritative, unlike the Sadducees who only accepted the first five books
Judaism - The principal sects among the Jews were the Pharisees, who placed religion in external ceremony; the Sadducees, who were remarkable for their incredulity; and the Essenes, who were distinguished for their austere sanctity
Sect - Among the jews, the principal sects were the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes
Philosophy - ...
As there arose, under the influence of philosophy, several sects among the Greeks, as the Academics, the Peripatetics, and the Stoics, so also there arose among the Jews several sects, as the Essenes, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees. The Pharisees had some resemblance to the Stoics, the Sadducees to the Epicureans, the Essenes to the Academics. The Pharisees were proud, vain, and boasting, like the Stoics; the Sadducees, who denied the immortality of the soul, and the existence of spirits, freed themselves at once, like the Epicureans, from all solicitude about futurity: the Essenes were more moderate, more simple and religious, and therefore approached nearer to the Academics
Pharisees - " The chief sects among the Jews during Christ's ministry were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. See Sadducees
Leaven - Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees
Ananias - As was typical of high priests who belonged to the aristocratic Jewish group known as the Sadducees, he was quite concerned to appease Roman authorities and representatives. See Sadducees ; Sanhedrin
Herodians - It is further probable that they were chiefly of the sect of the Sadducees; because the leaven of Herod is also denominated the leaven of the Sadducees
Jewish Parties in the New Testament - We read of Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians. ), where Josephus refers to Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. ...
Sadducees The Sadducees were the aristocrats of the time. The Sadducees were materialistic in their outlook. They may have begun at about the same time as the Pharisees and Sadducees
Hassideans - From the former sprang the Samaritans, Sadducees, and Caraites: from the latter, the Pharisees and the Essenes; which see
Immortality, - The Lord, when showing the Sadducees that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, added "for all live unto [1] him (Luke 20:38 ), though as to the body they may have died
Ecclesiastes - Ecclesiastes, according to a modern author, is a dialogue, in which a man of piety disputes with a libertine who favoured the opinion of the Sadducees
Sect - Among the Jews, there were four sects, distinguished by their practices and opinions, yet united in communion with each other and with the body of their nation: namely, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes, and the Herodians
Levirate Law - ...
For the statement of a problem regarding the resurrection, propounded to Jesus (Matthew 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-27, Luke 20:27-38), the Levirate law was used by the Sadducees, who are described by the Synoptists as saying that there is no resurrection, and by Josephus (Ant. ]'>[4] and suggested the problem set forth by the Sadducees, who evidently sought by the authority of Moses to discredit a doctrine held by the Pharisees and taught by Jesus. ...
The problem propounded by the Sadducees may be thus stated:—The Levirate law was enacted by Moses, and there was a case of seven brothers who in obedience to it married, one after the other, the same woman, who herself died after the death of the last of the seven. In the resurrection, since they all had her, whose wife shall she be of the seven? Jesus in His answer to the Sadducees did not discuss the justice or injustice of the Levirate law, or examine the purpose of Moses in decreeing it; but, asserting that they had erred, not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God, He showed them that in the resurrection men neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven; and then He proceeded to declare that belief in immortality is involved in our consciousness of the being of God
Gamaliel - He was a Pharisse, and therefore the opponent of the party of the Sadducees
Redness of the Sky - —When the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 16:1 f
Heresy, Heretic - ' The same Greek word is translated 'sect' and is applied to the sects among the Jews, as the Sadducees and the Pharisees
Sadducees - The "Scribes and Pharisees, the Sadducees and Samaritans," all arose in opposition to the cross
Caiaphas - He was of the sect of the Sadducees (Acts 5:17 ), and was a member of the council when he gave his opinion that Jesus should be put to death "for the people, and that the whole nation perish not" (John 11:50 )
Heresy - " The Pharisees, Acts 15:5; Acts 26:5, and the Sadducees, Acts 5:17, as well as the Nazarenes, Acts 24:5; Acts 24:12; Acts 24:14, were denominated heresies
Resurrection of the Dead - When our Saviour appeared in Judea, the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead was received as a principal article of religion by the whole Jewish nation except the Sadducees. "The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit," Acts 23:8
Builders - They were the scribes, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Herodians
Heresy - The Sadducees and Pharisees were sects within Judaism (Acts 5:17; Acts 15:5)
Leaven - Matthew records that Jesus' response to the questioning of the Pharisees and Sadducees included some symbolic discussion about weather and a reference to "the sign of Jonah" (v. Then, in the following discussion with his disciples after they have reached the other side, Jesus warns against the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. 12) that the disciples finally understood that Jesus was referring to the teaching (didache [3]) of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The way Matthew presents the whole scene, with the explicit use of teaching in verse 12, seems to focus the meaning of leaven in his Gospel on the attitude of the rejection of Jesus by the Pharisees and Sadducees
Hemerobaptists - Epiphanius, who mentions this as the fourth heresy among the Jews, observes, that in other points these heretics had much the same opinion as the Scribes and Pharisees; only that they denied the resurrection of the dead, in common with the Sadducees, and retained a few other of the improprieties of these last
Ab - On the twenty-first, or, according to Scaliger, the twenty-second day, was a feast called Xylophoria, from their laying up the necessary wood in the temple: and on the twenty-fourth, a feast in commemoration of the abolishing of a law by the Asmoneans, or Maccabees, which had been introduced by the Sadducees, and which enacted, that both sons and daughters should alike inherit the estate of their parents
Caraites - The rabbinists have been accustomed to call them Sadducees; but they believed in the inspiration of the Scriptures, the resurrection of the dead, and the final judgment
Resurrection of Body - In ancient times the resurrection was denied especially by the Sadducees, the Gnostics, the Maniehreans, and tbe medieval Albigenses and Waldenses, and is still violently attacked hy atheists, materialists, and rationalists. Our Lord accused the Sadducees of ignorance because they denied the resurrection of the dead
Herodians - Hardouin will have the Herodians and Sadducees to have been the same; nor is it at all improbable that the Herodians were chiefly of the sect of the Sadducees; since that which is called by St. Matthew styled "the leaven of the Sadducees
Pharisees - He points out that the Pharisees were the popular party; that one of their precepts was, ‘Separate not thyself from the congregation,’ and that they reproached the Sadducees as the separatists. Almost up to this point, indeed, they might be regarded as a people’s party, the champions of popular rights against the aristocratic Sadducees. Against the Sadducees they represented a living faith, and their theology was simply orthodox Jewish doctrine. But such was their influence with the people that the ruling Sadducees were largely amenable to their advice (Jos. Passionately devoted to the Law as they were, they interpreted and applied it in a more tolerant, generous sense than the Sadducees (Ant. If the Church was henceforth free from serious Jewish persecution, and the distraction of Judaizing propaganda, the Pharisees were free of their conflict with the Sadducees, who disappeared with Temple and priesthood. Works on the Pharisees and Sadducees are numerous
Spirit - It is said, in Acts 23:8 , that the Sadducees denied the existence of angels and spirits
Resurrection - Job may perhaps have learnt it (Job 19:25-27 ), and when the Lord rebuked the Sadducees He taught that resurrection could be gathered inferentially from God speaking of Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob long after they were dead. Martha spoke of the resurrection as a matter of common orthodox belief, John 11:24 ; which is also implied in its being said that the Sadducees did not believe in it
Pharisees - ...
The Pharisees, contrary to the opinion of the Sadducees, held a resurrection from the dead, and the existence of angels and spirits, Acts 23:8 . Hence the Sadducees, who believed in no resurrection, and supposed our Saviour to teach it as a Pharisee, very shrewdly urged the difficulty of disposing of the woman who had in this world been the wife of seven husbands. With the Essenes they held absolute predestination, and with the Sadducees free will; but how they reconciled these seemingly incompatible doctrines is no where sufficiently explained
Sadducees - There were many Sadducees among the "elders" of the Sanhedrin
Heresy - Josephus, a Jewish historian of the first century from whom we learn much of what we know about the Judaism of New Testament times, used the word to refer to the various Jewish parties (or schools of thought) such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. In Acts 5:17 , Acts 15:5 ; and Acts 26:5 , where it refers to the Pharisees and Sadducees, it simply means party or sect
Scribe - While doubtless the majority were Pharisees, the Sadducees had their scribes also (implied in Acts 23:9). Probably we should regard them as Sadducees
Herodians - ...
Thus on the side of maintaining the Jewish polity they coincided with the Pharisees; on the side of their lax and scarcely orthodox views and means for maintaining it, they had common ground with the Sadducees. Hence what is termed "the leaven of Herod" (Mark 8:15) is "the leaven of the Sadducees" (Matthew 16:6)
Sect - The same temple, and the same synagogues, were attended alike by Pharisees and by Sadducees: nay, there were often of both denominations in the Sanhedrim, and even in the priesthood
Leaven - In Matthew 16:6-12 leaven is applied to the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees
Leaven - the corrupt doctrine) of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees," ( Matthew 16:6 ) and St
Psalms of Solomon - -a period of bitter feud between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and of the invasion of Judah by the Romans under Pompey. Main ideas...
(1) Pharisees and Sadducees. -The chief interest of these Psalms is that they reveal the temper and ideals of those two parties which in the period of the formation of the NT played so conspicuous a part in Jewish life: the author is a Pharisee, and the opponents whom he denounces are Sadducees. The Psalms indeed run back two or three generations before the separation of the Christian Church from the Jewish religion, but we can trace in them much that was still characteristic of the two parties later...
The Sadducees are to the writer ‘the unrighteous’ (ἄδικοι), ‘sinners’ (ἁμαρτωλοί), ‘transgressors’ (παράνομοι), ‘the profane’ (βέβηλοι), the ‘men-pleasers’ (ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι). The use of these terms and the charges brought against the Sadducees of insolence, self-reliance, disregard of God, and gross sensual sins may largely represent the generalizations, exaggerations, or inventions of a political or religious opponent. But in charging them with profanation of the sanctuary and its sacrifices he implies that somewhat intimate association of the priesthood with the Sadducees which is conspicuous later. ), he implies a readiness in that party to acquiesce in an existing polity, even though it was inconsistent with the Messianic promises, which seems natural enough in the ancestors of the Sadducees of the 1st cent. As a matter of fact, though ‘righteous’ and ‘sinners’ alike must have suffered greatly from the necessary results of Pompey’s attack on and capture of Jerusalem, it was the party of the Sadducees, the adherents of Aristobulus, who with his children were taken captive, that suffered most. like the Sadducees they assert man’s freedom, but at the same time they differ from the Sadducees by asserting and indeed emphasizing the Divine knowledge and control of human action: ‘Man and his portion lie before Thee in the balance: he cannot add to, so as to enlarge, what has been prescribed by Thee’ (5:6)
Pharisees - The Pharisees, as contrasted with the Sadducees (wh. And so, when John the Baptist, the first prophet for many centuries, came on the field, he put himself in mortal opposition to the Pharisees, no less than to the Sadducees ( Matthew 3:7 f. And our Lord, embodying the moral essence of Prophetism, found His most dangerous opponents, until the end of His ministry, not in the Sadducees or the Essenes or the Zealots, but in the Pharisees. Sadducees and Scribes
Signs - When Christ was on earth He wrought miracles, wonders, and signs, but the Pharisees and Sadducees demanded of Him 'a sign from heaven,' Matthew 16:1 , and it is added that they did this 'tempting Him
Pharisees (2) - The Reformers under Ezra and Nehemiah were forerunners of the Pharisees, as the priestly court party under Zerubbabel foreshadowed the Sadducees. Differences between Pharisees and Sadducees. These the Sadducees for the most part rejected. (2) The Pharisees had an elaborate doctrine of immortality, resurrection, angels, demons, heaven, hell, intermediate state, and Messianic Kingdom, about all of which the Sadducees were agnostic. Paul did,—while the Sadducees held the Greek doctrine of absolute free-will. The Sadducees had no such interest. (6) The Pharisees differed from the Sadducees by the wide distance between the Synagogue, the centre of the one party, and the Temple, the stronghold of the other. The Pharisees even prescribed rules for the priestly Sadducees in the Temple (Ant. (7) The Pharisees formed a fraternity with peculiar vows, which separated them from the heathen, the common people, and the Sadducees. In opposition to Sadducees and common men, the Pharisees developed a new conception of piety; it was something that could be learned, and they were its teachers. He rebuked them for their anti-scriptural traditions, as He did the Sadducees for ignorance of the word of God (Mark 7:9). But, while opposing Pharisaic superstition, He did not favour the agnosticism and rationalism of the Sadducees. It was less reasonable than certain views of the Sadducees, and lacked the mystic freedom from sacerdotalism of the Essenes
Captain of the Temple - It was the policy of the Sadducees to avoid disturbance, and to give no excuse for the intervention of the Roman power
Sanhedrin - See Sadducees
Scribes - Paul sat (Acts 22:3 ), and who spoke, with noble feeling, against the persecuting zeal of the Sadducees ( Acts 5:34 ff. Pharisees and Sadducees
Resurrection - Christ from Exodus 3:6; Exodus 3:16 proves the resurrection and charges the Sadducees with ignorance of Scripture and of God's "power" (Mark 12:24) as the root of their "error. (See Sadducees
Pharisees - The Sadducees succeeded to the latter, the Pharisees to the former (1 Maccabees 1:13-15; 1 Maccabees 1:41-49; 1 Maccabees 1:62-63; 1 Maccabees 2:42; 1 Maccabees 7:13-17; 2 Maccabees 14:6-38). ...
An undesigned coincidence confirming genuineness is the fact that throughout the Gospels hostility to Christianity shows itself mainly from the Pharisees; but throughout Acts from the Sadducees. The Pharisees therefore regarded Christians in this as their allies against the Sadducees, and so the less opposed Christianity (John 11:57; John 18:3; Isaiah 65:17-22; Acts 5:17; Acts 23:6-9). 18:1, section 3, 13:10, section 5) says the Pharisees lived frugally, like the Stoics, and hence had so much weight with the multitude that if they said aught against the king or the high-priest it was immediately believed, whereas the Sadducees could gain only the rich. The Sadducees, the wealthy aristocrats, originally in political and practical dealings with the Syrians relied more on worldly prudence, the Pharisees more insisted on considerations of legal righteousness, leaving events to God
Dositheus (1), Leader of Jewish Sect - 54) the Recognitions represent Dositheus as the founder of the sect of the Sadducees, a sect which, according to their account, had its commencement only in the days of John the Baptist. Hippolytus seems to have adopted the account of the Recognitions as to the origin of the sect of the Sadducees and to have also charged Dositheus with rejecting the inspiration of the prophets. They are said to have admitted the resurrection of the body the denial of which is represented as an addition made by the Sadducees to the original teaching of Dositheus. Several critics who have wished to accept all the statements of the above-mentioned authorities, and who have felt the difficulty of making the founder of the sect of the Sadducees contemporary with John the Baptist, have adopted the solution that there must have been two Dosithei, both founders of Samaritan sects
Opposition - ...
The Sadducees, with the leading priestly families at their head, had a special grudge against Jesus, on account of His cleansing of the Temple and condemnation of the traffic carried on in its courts,—a traffic in which they had a direct interest
Dead, the - The tenets of the Sadducees, denying the resurrection, future retribution, and indeed any continuance of personal being after death, constituted a sectarian opinion from the standpoint of later Judaism. The Sadducees, it is true, seemed to adhere to the older teaching of the OT, wherein for the most part nothing is allowed concerning the dead (rěphâ’ìm) but a thin, shadowy existence in Sheol. In His dealing with the Sadducees and their catch-question on this subject (Mark 12:18-27 and parallels), He teaches that the dead are really alive and in a state of consciousness. Jesus in His encounter with the Sadducees uses the language of His time, and speaks of the resurrection as a transition and crisis awaiting the dead (Mark 12:25, Matthew 22:30)
Sanhedrin - In New Testament times it consisted of scribes, elders, priests and other respected citizens, and included both Pharisees and Sadducees
Essenes (2) - ...
Josephus introduces the Essenes as one of the three ‘sects of philosophy’ which were influential amongst the Jews, the others being the Sadducees and the Pharisees; but from the descriptions given of their practices and organization, they seem to have corresponded more closely to a monastic order than to a sect or a religious party. The indications of incipient dualism which may be found in their abstinence from marriage and in other ascetic practices, find a parallel in their doctrine of immortality, wherein they agreed with the Pharisees against the Sadducees as to the immortality of the soul, but differed from the Pharisees in denying the resurrection of the body
Heresy - Thus it is applied to the parties of the Pharisees and Sadducees ( Acts 5:17 , Acts 15:5 , Acts 26:5 ), precisely as in Jos
Persecution - ...
This persecution came first from the Sadducees (Acts 4:1-3; Acts 5:17; Acts 5:27-28), then from the Pharisees, whose fiery leader was the young Saul of Tarsus (Acts 7:58-60; Acts 8:1-3; Acts 9:4; Galatians 1:13; Philippians 3:6)
Dives - The interpretation which best suits all the facts of the case is that the rich man is a typical instance of the religious leaders of the people, Pharisees and Sadducees, and that Lazarus is a representative of the despised publicans, or of the neglected ‘common people. ’ If this is the primary significance of Dives and Lazarus, then we can see, as stated above, that interpretation 4 is not lightly to be set aside; for if Pharisees and Sadducees despised and neglected those of their own nation, much more would they contemptuously overlook ‘sinners of the Gentiles
John the Baptist - He denounced the Sadducees and Pharisees as a "generation of vipers," and warned them of the folly of trusting to external privileges (Luke 3:8 )
Searching - The priests, who were mostly Sadducees, ‘searched’ for passages that would serve a casual purpose (Mark 12:18 ff
Leaven - Jesus saw the Pharisees, the Sadducees and Herod as evil influences that spread through Israel as leaven spreads through a lump of dough
Jews in the New Testament - Whereas the former names Jesus' enemies as scribes and Pharisees, high priests and Sadducees, the Gospel of John simply uses the general term “Jews. See Israel ; Hebrews ; Pharisees ; Sadducees
Temptation - “The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting (peirazo ) desired him that he would show them a sign from heaven” (Matthew 16:1 )
Air - That he had authority over the evil spirits whose abode is in the air was the general Jewish belief, except among the Sadducees
Frontlets - ...
The Sadducees wore them on the palm, the Pharisees above the elbow
Metempsychosis - This he professed as a Pharisee, and for this profession the partisans of the sect vindicated him against the Sadducees, Acts 23:7-9
Angel - Indeed, the ancient Sadducees are represented as denying all spirits; and yet the Samaritans, and Caraites, who are reputed Sadducees, openly allowed them: witness Abusaid, the author of an Arabic version of the Pentateuch; and Aaron, a Caraite Jew, in his comment on the Pentateuch; both extant in manuscript in the king of France's library. ...
Though the Jews, in general, believed the existence of angels, there was a sect among them, namely, the Sadducees, who denied the existence of all spirits whatever, God only excepted, Acts 23:8
Pharisees - They were the most numerous, distinguished, and popular sect among the Jews; the time when they first appeared is not known, but it is supposed to have been not long after the institution of the Sadducees, if, indeed, the two sects did not gradually spring up together. These odious features in the character of the Pharisees caused them to be reprehended by our Saviour with the utmost severity, even more so than the Sadducees; who, although they had departed widely from the genuine principles of religion, yet did not impose on mankind by a pretended sanctity, or devote themselves with insatiate greediness to the acquisition of honours and riches
Scribes - ...
Most of the scribes belonged to the party of the Pharisees (one of two major groups within Judaism; see PHARISEES; Sadducees), and are often linked with them in the biblical narratives (Matthew 5:20; Matthew 12:38; Matthew 15:1; Matthew 23:2; Acts 5:34; Acts 22:3)
Heresy - Pharisees and Sadducees were sects in Judaism, not withdrawn from it
False Witness - The Sadducees were less severe than the Pharisees in the interpretation of Deuteronomy 19:16 f
Spirit - It is said, Acts 23:8 , that the Sadducees denied the existence of angels and spirits
Prudence - That would rouse the Pharisees, who regarded His claim as blasphemous, and the Sadducees, who might tremble for the peace and order of the city. And when at last Pharisees and Sadducees were united against Him, He uttered in the public hearing His invectives against the hypocrisy of scribes and Pharisees
Ignorance (2) - Of the Jews the most culpable were the leaders—the Sadducees, because they were ignorant of the resurrection and the future life, truths inculcated by Moses himself (Matthew 22:29); and the Pharisees and scribes, those blind leaders of the blind, who led their unwary followers into a pit (Matthew 15:14)
Bread, Bread of Presence - In Matthew 16:5-12 , leaven represents the doctrine of the Sadducees and Pharisees
Herod - He also appears to have been a follower, or at least a favorer, of the sect of the Sadducees, Mark 8:15
John the Baptist - ...
To the Pharisees and the Sadducees he was especially severe, calling them a 'generation of vipers' ( Matthew 3:7 ), but in Luke the multitude are so designated, for all must flee from the wrath to come, and bring forth fruits meet for repentance
Scribes - ...
The Sadducees maintained, against tradition, the sufficiency of the letter of the law. The Sadducees taunt was "these Pharisees would purify the sun itself
Jews, Judaism - They conflicted with the Sadducees who believed in the Torah only, rejecting the interpre tation of the rabbis of the Pharisees. In that period various currents of thought in Judaism resulted in the development of the oral law, the writing of the Apocrypha, and the fragmentation into factions such as the Sadducees, Pharisees, and the Dead Sea Scroll sect. David Rightmire...
See also Apocrypha ; Dead Sea Scrolls ; Israel ; Pharisees ; Sadducees ...
Bibliography
Torah - The Sadducees, in fact, accepted only the Torah as inspired Scripture
Assumption of Moses - Destructive and impious men (Sadducees) shall rule-treacherous, hypocritical, gluttons, oppressing the poor, and lawless. 7, which describes the Sadducees who were contemporaries of the author. The Sadducees are attacked, and in 7:3, 6 there is a play on their name and their claim to be just (צדיקים and צדוקים). 1 Corinthians 12:11-13,6 we have a play on the name Sadducees (צדוקים)...
‘dicentes se esse justos (צדיקים)’...
which is possible only in Hebrew
Resurrection - Opposition by the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, gave Jesus the opportunity to assert His own thought on the matter (Mark 12:18-27 ; Matthew 22:23-33 ; Luke 20:27-38 ; compare Deuteronomy 25:5-10 )
Leaven - ...
The fermentation produced by leaven was regarded as a species of putrefaction, and this, together with the tendency of leaven to spread, explains the figure in which ‘the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees’ stands for their corrupt teaching (Matthew 16:6; Matthew 16:11, Mark 8:15), or, as St
Phar'Isees, - " The chief sects among the Jews were the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes, who may be described respectively as the Formalists, the Freethinkers and the Puritans
Leaven - ...
The fermentation produced by leaven was regarded as a species of putrefaction, and this, together with the tendency of leaven to spread, explains the figure in which ‘the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees’ stands for their corrupt teaching (Matthew 16:6; Matthew 16:11, Mark 8:15), or, as St
Angels (2) - At all events, it is a fact that the portion of the OT known to criticism as the Priests’ Code is silent on the subject of angels; and it is also noteworthy that the Sadducees, who were the descendants of the high-priestly families, protested in the time of our Lord against some, if not all, of the popular notions respecting angels (Acts 23:8). ’ These words were spoken by our Lord in response to the doubts of the Sadducees on the subject of the resurrection. Thus skilfully did Jesus give a double-edged reply to the teachings of the Sadducees (Acts 23:8)
Prayer - The ill-will of priests and Sadducees only drove them to more earnest prayer for grace to speak God’s word ‘with all boldness’ (Acts 4:24-30). And the Sadducees who controlled the Temple services did not believe in any resurrection, so we cannot suppose that they would have approved of such prayers
Tradition - This principle was explicitly taught in the schools of both Hillel and Shammai, and was accepted by the Pharisees generally, while the conservative Sadducees rejected the claims of tradition in toto (Jos
Chief Priests - They belonged to the party of the Sadducees (Acts 5:17; Josephus Ant
Nation (2) - More than that, their doctrinal shortcomings received some countenance in high places; for the Sadducees say only what is written is to be esteemed as legal … the tradition of the fathers needs not to be observed’ (Josephus Ant. Their rivals, the Sadducees, had no influence beyond the aristocratic circles at Jerusalem, in the Hellenized cities, and perhaps in Samaritan villages; and though they had a large place in the Sanhedrin, they had to comply with Pharisaic watchwords
Spirit - ...
One of the perennial points of conflict between the Sadducees and the Pharisees was over whether there are angels and spirits
Marriage (ii.) - ...
The Sadducees, in their query which gave rise to this teaching of Jesus, raised the question of the levirate marriage
Cosmopolitanism - It is noteworthy that the ground of marriage fidelity is carried back from Moses to the Creation (Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:6), and the Sadducees are referred, on the subject of the resurrection, to God’s language to the pre-Mosaic patriarchs (Mark 12:18, Luke 20:37); still Christ regards as final a combination of Deuteronomy 6:4 and Leviticus 19:18 (Mark 12:28 ff
Corinthians - They were not even of the orthodox Jews, but those who adhered to the doctrines of the Sadducees; and though they were even now converted to Christianity, while they spoke zealously in favour of the law, they were undermining the hopes of the pious, and exciting doubts against the resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15:35 ; so that Paul, from regard to the teachers, whose disciples they professed to be, was obliged to refute them from the testimony of James and Cephas, 1 Corinthians 15:5 ; 1 Corinthians 15:7
Philosophy - Thus arose contentions, which gave occasion for the various sects of Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes
Pentateuch - They have been received as divinely inspired by every Jewish sect, even by the Sadducees, who questioned the divinity of the remaining works of the Old Testament
Scribes - But it is extremely probable that there were also Scribes who were Sadducees, for the Sadducees also adhered to the written Law, and doubtless had their Scribes to interpret it
Advent (2) - Scribes and Pharisees on the one hand, and Sadducees on the other, stood in mutual antagonism, striving for ascendency as leaders of national religious feeling,—the scribes and Pharisees combining to enforce the mass of stringent precepts which the former had elaborated to supplement the original written word; the Sadducees entirely rejecting those precepts, and contending that the Law as written was sufficient, and that the observance of the temple ordinances, its worship and sacrifices, was the central element in religion
Resurrection - A minority of Jews, the Sadducees, refused to believe in a resurrection of any sort (1 Corinthians 15:20-262)
Tradition (2) - The Sadducees took exception to the prevalent state of mind (Josephus Ant
Jew - They are divided into orthodox and liberal or reform Jews, who differ from each other as the Pharisees and Sadducees of old
Resurrection - The common Jewish belief in the time of Jesus finds expression in the words of Martha concerning her brother Lazarus ( John 11:24 ), while this formed one of the deep lines of religious cleavage between the Pharisees and the Sadducees ( Acts 23:6 ff. The most conspicuous, perhaps, of these is that Incorporated in the Lukan narrative of His controversy with the Sadducees ( Luke 20:35 f. In the Lukan version of Jesus’ argument with the Sadducees we may understand a reference to the idea of the resurrection of all men based on the truth that ‘all live unto him’ ( Luke 20:38 , cf
Man (2) - The official class—the Sadducees and priests—also felt that new wine like this would burst the old skins, and that a new society might arise, in which they themselves might be anywhere save at the top. And from the moment Jesus set foot in Jerusalem, the priests and Sadducees, as the ruling official party, set themselves to work, not to confute Him, but to compass His death (Matthew 21:23; Matthew 26:3-4, Luke 19:47-48; Luke 19:20; Luke 19:22)
Arnobius - 76); he confuses the Pharisees with the Sadducees (iii
John the Baptist - All classes, Pharisees, Sadducees, the people, publicans, and soldiers, flocked to him from every quarter, Jerusalem, Judea, and the, region round Jordan (Matthew 3:5; Luke 3)
Nativity of Christ - While the Pharisees undermined religion, on the one hand, by their vain traditions and wretched interpretations of the law, the Sadducees denied the immortality of the soul, and overturned the doctrine of future rewards and punishments; so that between them the knowledge and power of true religion were entirely destroyed
Pharisees - ...
The clearest New Testament statement of Pharisaic distinctives is Acts 23:8 : "The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels, nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all
Slave, Slavery (2) - An early tradition recounts a controversy between Pharisees and Sadducees, assumed to have taken place in or about our period, as to the incidence of the responsibility for an injury done by a slave (Yadayim, iv
Sanhedrin (2) - According to the Mishnic literature, on the other hand, it was a court of Rabbis, presided over by the leading Rabbi of the time, in which the priestly element as such does not appear, while the Sadducees are mentioned only as heretics to be refuted. 5–6) relates a story which tells how Hyrcanus broke with the Pharisees, to whom he had hitherto been attached, and went over to the Sadducees
Temple - the head of the Temple police (στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ) and the Sadducees (Acts 4:1); and, if their freedom of speech was somewhat curtailed, this was not because of their attitude to the Temple and its services, which was evidently quite correct, but simply because they were said to be exciting the multitude and disturbing the peace
Appreciation (of Christ) - Inspite of all the enmity written there; remembering that there were those who saw in Him an ally of Beelzebub (Matthew 12:24), working with the devil’s aid; that some called Him ‘a gluttonous man, a wine-bibber, friend of publicans and sinners’ (Matthew 11:19); that lawyers, and Pharisees, and Sadducees were ever watching to trip Him (Matthew 22:15), and plotting with Herodians (Matthew 22:16) to destroy Him; that the Galilaean cities, which should have known Him best,—Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum (Matthew 11:21; Matthew 11:23), and even Nazareth,—rejected Him (Luke 4:28 f
Philosophy - At any rate we may date from this time the twofold division of Jewish speculation, The Sadducees appear as the supporters of human freedom in its widest scope; the Pharisees of a religious Stoicism
Marriage - In later times we have the Sadducees’ question in Mark 12:19 ||. ‘son’), and the school both of Shammai and of the Sadducees apparently confined the law to the case of a betrothed, not a wedded, wife
Government - This powerful religious combination was augmented subsequently by the rise of the Sadducees and Pharisees, who exercised an important influence over Jewish life when Palestine was occupied by the Romans. ...
The concept of a Sanhedrin or "council" may have been Sadducean originally, since the Sadducees were a priestly aristocracy
Son, Sonship - It has to be pointed out, however, that this is part of an expansion of our Lord’s reply to the Sadducees quite peculiar to Lk
Debt, Debtor (2) - The Sadducees, whose love of money was whetted by enjoyment of the Temple dues, were not the men to show mercy to a debtor, nor were the Pharisees behind them, more Puritanic in zeal, and rigidly enforcing the letter of their writs
Abraham - Mark bear emphatic testimony to this belief, in their narrative of the incident of our Lord’s solution of the dilemma presented by the Sadducees with their tale of the seven brothers
Abraham - Mark bear emphatic testimony to this belief, in their narrative of the incident of our Lord’s solution of the dilemma presented by the Sadducees with their tale of the seven brothers
Peace (2) - uses it to describe how Jesus put the Sadducees to silence (Matthew 22:34); and in the parable of the Wedding Garment it is used (Matthew 22:12) to express the speechless condition to which the intruder was reduced when challenged by the king (cf
Caesarea Philippi - Returning to Galilee, He feeds the four thousand, refuses the request of the Pharisees and Sadducees for a sign from heaven, with its evident Messianic implication, warns His disciples against the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (so Matthew 16:6; Mark 8:15 has ‘Pharisees and Herod’), heals a blind man near Bethsaida (Mark 8:22 ff
Anger (2) - ...
(c) In the answer of Jesus to the Sadducees in Mark 12:24 ff. The Sadducees had tried to degrade it and make it ridiculous, and the indignation of Jesus is unmistakable
Mark, the Gospel According to - Mark's explanations of Jewish customs and names (Jordan is called a "river"; the Pharisees' fasting and customs, Mark 1:5; Mark 2:18; Mark 7:1-4; the Sadducees' tenets, Mark 12:18; the Passover described, Mark 14:1; Mark 14:12) which Jews would not need, and the absence of appeals by himself to Old Testament prophecy, also of the genealogy and of the term nomos , the Mosaic "law," show he wrote for Gentiles not for Jews
Matthew, Gospel According to - After a ministry marked by acts like these, He had been put to death by the Romans at the instigation of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The sayings of the Baptist are so arranged as to form a sermon of denunciation of the Pharisees and Sadducees
Providence of God - The Sadducees take away fate, denying there is such a thing, affirming that the events of human life are not subject to it
Silence - Jesus silenced the Sadducees when they propounded to Him knotty points of theology (Matthew 22:34), and suffered not the demons to speak (Mark 1:34)
Family (Jesus) - This is implied in the answer to the Sadducees (Mark 12:18-27)
Devil - In these various passages of Scripture, and many others which might be added, the existence of the devil is expressly stated; but if, as our modern Sadducees affirm, nothing more is intended in them than a personification of the abstract quality of evil, the Bible, and especially the New Testament, must be eminently calculated to mislead us in matters which intimately concern our eternal interests
Samaria, Samaritans - It is discussed in the Talmud as to whether they are to be classed with the Sadducees in belief, and the Jews seem to have had some ground for thinking so, for they are represented as saying that ‘no resurrection is recorded in the Law’ (Bab. It is to be remarked, however, that Arabic writers in the Middle Ages tell us of Samaritan sects professing the distinctive beliefs of both Pharisees and Sadducees, so that the opinions of both parties must have been held by individuals at an earlier date
Jesus Christ - This type was represented by the Sadducees in their general outlook men of the world, in their doctrine sceptics with an ostensible basis of conservatism, who filled the priestly offices, controlled the Sanhedrin, and endeavoured to maintain correct relations with their Roman masters. It can also well be believed that, as Josephus tells us, they professed an aristocratic dislike to public business, which they nevertheless dominated; and that they humoured the multitude by an occasional show of religious zeal (see Sadducees)
Jews - There are still some of the Sadducees in Africa, and in several other places; but they are few in number: at least there are but very few who declare openly for these opinions. They declare they are no Sadducees, but acknowledge the spirituality and immortality of the soul
Persecution - According to the Gospels, Jesus Christ was conscious of a growing premonition as to the issue of the conflict between Himself on the one hand and the Pharisees and Sadducees on the other, the representatives of the democracy and the aristocracy of Judaea . , whilst the Sadducees were the priestly caste, and were willing to put up with Roman domination as long as they were left in undisturbed possession of priestly prerogatives, and especially of the revenues of the Temple
Divination - Rationalists like the Sadducees denied the existence of ἄγγελοι and πνεύματα (Acts 23:8); many of the more educated viewed the existence of the minor supernatural beings with more or less scepticism; but the mass of people lived in the belief and the fear of these divine beings
Lazarus - We leave out of this chapter heaven itself also as much as if we were all Sadducees
Resurrection - At the time when our Saviour appeared in Judea, the resurrection from the dead was received as one of the principal articles of the Jewish religion by the whole body of the nation, the Sadducees excepted, Matthew 22:23 ; Luke 20:28 ; Mark 12:18 ; John 11:23-24 ; Acts 23:6 ; Acts 23:8
Providence - ’ From Josephus we learn that Rabbinical Judaism was much occupied with the mysteries of Divine providence in its relation to human freedom; and that, as against the Sadducees who held an exaggerated view of liberty, and the Essenes who maintained a doctrine of absolute fate, the Pharisees kept to the middle path represented by the OT teaching, affirming the freedom and responsibility of man on the one hand, and the Divine providence and omnipotence on the other (Ant
Woe - 53a), is more probably a description of the Sadducees (Charles, Encyc
Matthew, the Gospel of - Jesus warned the people about the examples of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 23:1-38 )
Essenes - Those who believe so must hold the common, but quite wrong, opinion that all Jews were Pharisees, Sadducees, or Essenes, and that all showing asceticism were Essenes, James might be an ascetic without being an Essene, as one may to-day be an abstainer without being a Good Templar
the Ethiopian Eunuch - Only, I fear, with all his ability, and with all his insight, and with all his seriousness of mind, the eunuch's furlough came to an end before he had well begun to see daylight on the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the Essenes and the Herodians, the Zelots and the Publicans, the devotees of Moses, and the disciples of Jesus Christ
Inspiration - ...
Also He confutes the Sadducees and proves the resurrection of the body from words which otherwise we should scarcely have regarded as proving it (Matthew 22:32), "I am (not I was) the God of Abraham" (namely, the man in his integrity, body, soul, and spirit)
Rome, Romans - The more intellectually enlightened among the Jews—the Sadducees, for instance—welcomed the Roman rule as they welcomed the Greek civilization and culture which it brought with it; but the great mass of the people were in a state of unreasoning opposition to it
Eschatology - The Sadducees disbelieved in any immortality whatsoever
Resurrection - ) believed in a resurrection (Acts 23:8 ) whereas, the Sadducees did not (Matthew 22:23 ; Acts 23:8 )
the Pharisee - Compared with the Sadducees, for instance, the Pharisees were men of a high religious character
Angels - Yet some of the Jews rejected all belief in them, and this sharply divided the Pharisees from the Sadducees, who said ‘that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit’; the Pharisees confessed both (Acts 23:8)
Heresy - Thus we read of the sect or heresy of the Sadducees, of the Pharisees, of the Nazarenes, &c
Political Conditions - The Sadducees were a priestly nobility, tenacious of the prestige of their own order, but tolerant of any system of government that did not threaten their prosperity
Matthew, the Gospel According to - Passion week: entry into Jerusalem; opposition to Him by Herodians, Sadducees, Pharisees; silences them all; denunciation of the Pharisees (Matthew 21-23_
Maccabees - ’ His long reign was marked by a break with the Pharisees, who, as successors of ‘the Pious,’ had been the traditional party of the government, and the establishment of friendship with the Sadducees, thereby fixing the high priesthood as one of the perquisites of that party
Individual - ...
That our Lord entered upon this heritage and accepted the estimate of each individual which we indicate by calling him an immortal soul, and that on the ground of the OT conception of the blessedness of the man whom God hears, appears from His argument with the Sadducees (Matthew 22:32, Mark 12:27, Luke 20:38), and is a postulate of His whole teaching
Language of Christ - ’...
That a Palestinian Jew such as Josephus, who was of a distinguished priestly family, who received a careful rabbinic education and studied in the various schools of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, should not only characterize Aramaic as ‘the language of our own country,’ but should write his first book in that language, is in itself conclusive proof that Aramaic had not then been materially driven from its position as the vernacular of Palestine
Temple - "And as they spake unto the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them," Acts 4:1 ; Acts 3:11 ; John 18:12
Unity (2) - It still denotes any party or faction within a single communion, as of the Sadducees (Acts 5:17), of the Pharisees (Acts 15:5, Acts 26:5), or of Christians considered as a school of Judaism (Acts 24:5; Acts 24:14, Acts 28:22)
Athenagoras - 10); and it is worthy of notice that, in the passage cited above from Justin, angels as well as the Word are described by the persons whom that writer is condemning as temporary appearances; as if it were the Sadducees, or some similar Jewish sect, of which he is speaking
Herod - " In comparing Mark 8:15 with Matthew 16:6 we find "the leaven of Herod" is "the leaven of the Sadducees," i
Immortality (2) - ...
It is doubtful whether even the reputed scepticism of the Sadducees (Matthew 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-27, Luke 20:27-40) is any real exception to this
Acts of the Apostles (2) - Hence also the Pharisees, who believe in the resurrection of the dead, appear as the party favourable to Christianity; whereas the Sadducees, who say that ‘there is no resurrection,’ are its enemies (Acts 23:8)
Trial of Jesus - † John the Baptist - The very leaders of the nation themselves, the Pharisees and Sadducees, must bring forth fruit worthy of repentance if they are to escape from the wrath to come (Luke 1:56)
Old Testament (i. Christ as Fulfilment of) - For Pharisees and Sadducees the OT was a finality
Science (2) - The political ambitions of the Herodians, the compromising worldliness of the Sadducees, the formalism and pride of the Pharisees, and the carnal carelessness of the generality, alike met with His denunciation and appeal
Messiah - Judas of Gamala and a Pharisee named Zaduc organized a fourth sect coordinate with the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, and incited the people to revolt, because of the census then established
Josephus - 2-14 [14]), which he seeks to divest of all political significance, and to represent as the exact counterparts of the philosophic schools of Greece (Pharisees = Stoics; Sadducees = Epicureans; and Essenes = Pythagoreans): an affinity which he tries to establish by introducing quite irrelevant considerations, such as their attitude to the problems of free-will and fate-thus misleading even modern investigators-while, as a matter of fact, the unphilosophical and non-Hellenic character of the sects reveals itself at every point
Mental Characteristics - But more often He went straight to the centre of the matter in hand with a simple directness which made all qualifications needless: His dealing with the Sadducees’ puzzle (Mark 12:18-27) is a striking instance
Old Testament (ii. Christ as Student And Interpreter of). - In John’s Gospel there is a reference (2 Chronicles 3:14) to the brazen serpent raised by Moses in the wilderness, and in His controversy with the Sadducees our Lord shows His acquaintance with the passage in the life of Moses that relates the revelation at the burning bush (Mark 12:26)
Clementine Literature - the priests, the Sadducees, the Samaritans, the Scribes and Pharisees, and the disciples of John
Palestine - The Sadducees, who in some respects read skilfully the signs of their times, did all they could to encourage trade in Syria, and to break down the Pharisaic restrictions which hampered it; and in this Jesus was their powerful ally