James Bishop

Who were the Sadducees During the Time of Jesus? 

The Sadducees were an aristocratic Jewish group, both priestly and lay, of the early Jewish era who continued to exist in some form until after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. 

Their beliefs are not articulated in much detail in the available sources, although it is clear that they did not observe the oral law and instead affirmed the sole authority of the written prescriptions of the Pentateuch. The Sadducees did not believe in the concept of the resurrection of the dead (Mark 12:18–27; Matt 22:23–33; Luke 20:27–40), since the doctrine is not found in the Pentateuch. 

Few sources can be used to learn many details about the Sadducees and are limited to references in Flavius Josephus (37-100 CE), the New Testament (49–95 CE), and later rabbinic literature. Another difficulty is that the historian does not have any source produced by someone who claimed to be a Sadducee, meaning that what is known of them comes from outsiders and often from those who were hostile to them.

In Antiquities of the Jews (93 CE), Josephus introduces the Sadducees during the reign of the Hasmonean king John Hyrcanus I (175–104 BCE) (13.293–298). Hyrcanus I, who Josephus claims was a Pharisee, fell out with them and sided with the Sadducees for the rest of his reign. This continued under Alexander Janneus (127–76 BCE), although one finds no other information about the Sadducees at this point, including in the reign of Alexandra Salome (141–67 BCE), during which the Pharisees became the dominant influence in her government. A large amount of time passed before they were mentioned again, just before the war with Rome. The high priest Ananus (d. 68 CE), who had James the brother of Jesus condemned, is said to have been one of the Sadducees (Ant. 20.199).

Several of Josephus’ descriptions indicate his anti-Sadducean and pro-Pharisaic views. In one passage, he writes: “Pharisees are friendly to one another, and are for the exercise of concord, and regard for the public; but the behavior 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.” (J.W. 2.166).

In the New Testament, the Sadducees appear to be the dominant group on the Sanhedrin, even though there are also Pharisees present on it, such as Gamaliel the Elder (fl. first century). Acts of the Apostles (c. 80–90 CE) associates the Sadducees with the high priest: “But the high priest rose up and all who were with him, that is, the party of the Sadducees” (5:17; also 4:1). Later, the Sanhedrin appears to be more evenly divided between Sadducees and Pharisees. In the gospels, they appear as opponents of Jesus, although the details are without much specificity. 

John the Baptist (d. c. 28–36 CE) labels the Sadducees a “brood of vipers,” as he does the Pharisees (Matt. 3:7). Also, along with the Pharisees, they try to trap Jesus (Matt. 22:34) and also test Jesus by asking him for a sign from heaven (Luke 16:1). In debates with the scribes recorded by the gospels (Mark 2:16–17; 7:5; Luke 7:36–50, etc.), some of this group consisted of Sadducees (Mark 12:18–27), perhaps indicating them to have a special expertise in the law or legal interpretations.

The Sadducees were known to exploit Jewish peasant families who fell on hard times. Very often, due to taxes and famine, production could not sustain the family’s livelihood, therefore forcing it into debt that could not be repaid. The family’s land was taken over by creditors, some of whom were wealthy Sadducees, who then exploited the former landowners as tenant farmers (Hatina 2008, 1087). 

References and Resources

Daube, David. 1990. “On Acts 23: Sadducees and Angels.” Journal of Biblical Literature 109(3): 493-497.

Grabbe, Lester L. 2008. “Sadducees.” In The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus, edited by Craig A. Evans, 1912–1917 London and New York: Routledge. (Apple Books pagination).

Hatina, Thomas A. 2008. “Households, Jewish.” In The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus, edited by Craig A. Evans, 971–986. London and New York: Routledge. (Apple Books pagination).

Viviano, B. T., and Taylor, Justin. 1992. “Sadducees, Angels, and Resurrection (Acts 23:8–9).” Journal of Biblical Literature 111(3):496–498.

7 comments

    • I read something by a Jesus mystical bothered me it’s a short comment it’s not a blog post it’s under 1500 words could I ask you to respond to it please but I want to ask you first before I post anything

      Reply

        • you’re out quote it Seeds of DavidO’Neill and gang like to make fun of the idea that the earliest Christians may have thought Jesus’s mortal body was literally manufactured directly from David’s sperm (as prophecy had to be taken to say to evade being falsified by history) simply because they think it’s weird. But in so doing they only illustrate how out of touch they are with what was considered weird in antiquity. The cosmic sperm hypothesis is actually ordinary in the context of the kinds of beliefs people then held. They also thus demonstrate their lazy incompetence in reading even the scholarship they intend to critique by never noticing what I’ve repeatedly said on the point: that mythicism does not require the cosmic sperm hypothesis. So they don’t listen to why it’s plausible; and they don’t listen to why it’s not even a necessary hypothesis. (See The Cosmic Seed of David and, for related treatment, Yes, Galatians 4 Is Allegory.)As I note in OHJ, Irenaeus documented many far weirder beliefs about Jesus’s cosmic birth, and Jewish lore already had precedents for it. But I should have also mentioned as precedent the Babylonian Talmud, Niddah folio 16, where we are told an angel takes up every “drop” of semen to heaven “and places it in the presence of the Holy One” and asks, “Sovereign of the universe, what shall be the fate of this drop? Shall it produce a strong man or a weak man, a wise man or a fool, a rich man or a poor man?”If Jews could so readily come up with this bizarre idea, then the idea that God could store one of those drops from David that the angel would thus have delivered for inspection—all to effect His secret plan to defeat Satan and fulfill an otherwise failed prophecy—cannot even be called strange. It’s no weirder than the “fact” that Paul relates without blush that God “stores” our future resurrection bodies for us up in heaven (in 2 Corinthians 5) or that God manufactured Eve’s body from Adam’s rib. Likewise, Zoroastrianism, which originated the entire idea of an eschatological messiah subsequently taken up by Judaism, embraced essentially the very same belief: that the messiah would be born from the sperm of the ancient Zoroaster stored for thousands of years in a sacred lake.But Paul could just as easily have meant Jesus came from the seed of David in whatever nonliteral, allegorical way he believed Gentiles came from the seed of Abraham. And either way, even the Gospels make clear that Jesus did not come from the “Seed of David” the usual way—they explicitly make clear Joseph never imparts that seed to Mary, yet both Matthew and Luke make explicitly clear their genealogy through David is only of Joseph (not Mary, contrary to Christian apologists who hope you don’t know how to read). They thus both depict God manufacturing Jesus’s body in Mary’s womb. What seed then did he use? And how did it derive from the belly of David? Whatever answer you give for them, would then apply to Paul. Either way, you don’t get “Jesus was a descendant of David.” And thus you can’t get to historicity this way.You can’t legitimately mock an idea if you ignore every fact that renders it plausible. And yet this is how they operate throughout the video: leaving out everyhing that makes an argument plausible or sound, and then make fun of it for lacking anything making it plausible or sound. You just aren’t going to learn the truth through this method. You’re better off ignoring their ignorant pronouncements and just reading OHJ or whatever is my most recent article on the point. Judge for yourself—with all the facts

          Reply

Let me know your thoughts!