Matthew NASB - Jesus Answers the Sadducees - On that - Bible Gateway
Then the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and testing Jesus asked that he . Whatever their relation to the Hasmonaeans, the Sadducees. The Sadducees were a prominent New Testament political - religious group It was the operation of the temple by the Sadducees that Jesus indirectly criticized . Answer: The Gospels refer often to the Sadducees and Pharisees, as Jesus was in almost constant conflict with them. The Sadducees and Pharisees comprised.
The party may have originally developed out of the conservative members of the aristocracy, the supporters of Onias III. Many priests belonged to the Sadducees according to Josephus, 11 but not all priests were Sadducees.
While it is probable that the members of the priestly aristocracy were Sadducees, many priests were Pharisees. It was the priests of the Pharisees who were sent to question John Jn. And according to Acts 23, both Sadducees and Pharisees made up the Sanhedrin because Paul rallied the members who were Pharisees to his side.
The Sadducees held more of the leadership positions, but most frequently had to submit to the demands of the Pharisees. This they did not wish to do; they preferred to be unconstrained by customs and deal with the written law only. Written laws left uninterpreted were vague, which would mean that they were free to decide what they meant. According to Yoma 1: According to Yoma 19b, one Sadducee explained that they complied because they were afraid of the Pharisees.
The descriptions from the literature paint the Sadducees as nasty and arrogant because they had power and competed with others for it; 14 they were called boorish, rude to their peers as aliens, and quick to dispute with the teachers of the path they follow.
The Sadducees had what has been called a conservative attitude toward Scripture--they restricted authority to the written law interpreted literally, and were not open to change.
But the question that is raised concerns how much of the Scripture they accepted as God's Word. We know from Josephus that they hated the traditions of the Pharisees, accepting only the written law. When Josephus says that they rejected all but the written law, he probably meant that they did not permit legal or doctrinal deductions from the prophets.
He most likely meant that they opposed unwritten traditions. According to the Talmud, in the debates the Sadducees were attacked from other books of the Bible and used them themselves in their arguments.
A Harmony of the Life of Jesus - The Sadducees
This strongly suggests that they viewed them as Scripture as well. The Pharisees had a large body of oral interpretation that had become binding.
It was this that the Sadducees opposed. But the idea that the Sadducees took the Scripture literally and rejected oral law is not accurate; all the Jewish groups began with the literal text and added their understanding of it to justify their way of life. And if the interpretations of the Pharisees were not binding, then others could decide for themselves what it meant. In this the Sadducees would not be viewed as conservatives by the Pharisees, for in their opinion the Sadducees were not safeguarding the traditional faith.
The Sadducees like all Jews believed that the Torah, the Law of Moses, was on a much higher plane than the rest of the Scriptures. Apocalyptic material, or any Greek syncretism, they rejected outright.
It may be that the Sadducees believed that only the Torah was canonical, or that the Torah was vastly more important than other Scripture, but there is simply no evidence for this.
What are the differences between the Sadducees and Pharisees?
However, their major complaint that the Pharisees extended the "canon" with their interpretations can be demonstrated. The Sadducees rightly rejected the oral law of the Pharisees, but perhaps because they wanted the freedom to follow their own. One of the areas of debate between the Sadducees and the Pharisees concerned the calendar. But the Pharisees ruled that "Sabbath" was the first day of Passover, whatever that day was, and so the feast of Weeks could actually come on any day.
According to Josephus, 23 the three major sects disagree on the human will: They were a religious party. Their supreme aim was to strictly follow both the written and oral law. They looked down upon the common people who did not have the slightest chance of fulfilling the complex requirements of the Law. However, the common people admired the Pharisees as representing the ideal followers of Judaism.
The Pharisees had such a hold on the common people that no governing power could afford to disregard them. However, not all Pharisees were bad. Many of them actually tried to promote true spirituality and piety. Some of them became members in the early church Acts 6: Paul used the title of Pharisee with great respect and as a title of honor Philippians 3: What Jesus condemned was their hypocrisy, as evidenced by their pride in their outward observance of the law but inward spiritual void, and their arrogant belief that they were more religious than the rest.
They in return accused Jesus of blasphemy Luke 5: Scribes - Their job was to study and expound the law. The Pharisees were a religious party, whereas the scribes held religious office. Most of the scribes belonged to the Pharisaic party, whereas not all Pharisees were scribes. Scribes claimed positions of first rank, sought public acclaim of the people and wore long and expensive robes. They were the strongest opponents of Jesus because He refused to be bound by the letter of the law John 5: They kept close watch over whatever He said and did Mark 2: Sadducees - Unlike the scribes and Pharisees, the Sadducees were a political party favorable to the Roman government.
They were priests of Jewish aristocratic class.
All Sadducees were priests, but not all priests were Sadducees. They accepted only the written law and rejected the traditions of the Pharisees. They denied bodily resurrection Mark Because of these theological differences, they did not have a cordial relationship with the Pharisees.
However, they joined with the Pharisees in confronting Jesus to show them a sign from heaven Matthew They also raised a question to Jesus about the resurrection Matthew Most of the criticism of Jesus was directed against the Pharisees, except on one occasion when He warned the disciples of the leaven of the Sadducees Matthew Herodians - The Herodians were neither a religious sect nor a political party.
They were Jews who supported the Herodian dynasty. They also joined with the Pharisees to oppose Jesus and attempted to trap Him by asking Him whether it was proper to pay tribute to Caesar Matthew Although there were many theological and political differences among these four groups and they hated each other strongly, they united in a common cause against Jesus.
Similarly, His only encounter with the Herodians was when they were incited by the Pharisees to raise the question about paying taxes to Caesar Matthew There is no mention of the Herodians acting by themselves to oppose Jesus.
But as mentioned above, His most scathing rebuke was reserved for the scribes and Pharisees.
Sadducees were the modern-day rationalists who did not see any need of God or the supernatural. Following a humanistic philosophy, they put man in the center of the universe as the master of his own destiny.
The Relationship Between Jesus & the Essenes
If anybody needed the convincing proof of God and His revelation, it would have been the Sadducees. Or, Jesus could have picked a fight with the Herodians. Like the present-day civil libertarians, they always argued for the separation of the state and organized religion.
Or, like the modern day politicians, they tried to solve all the social and moral problems by the involvement of the government. If anybody needed to be taught that only God can solve the social problems and take care of the need of the human heart, it would have been the Herodians. But the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal that those concepts were known and practiced well before Jesus was born and present the tantalizing possibility that Jesus may have studied with -- or even lived with -- the Essenes during the years between his early teens and his 30s, when there is no record of his whereabouts or activities.
Similarities and Differences The Essenes believed that they were the elect -- the chosen ones who would shepherd in a radical change in Judaism with the help of a messiah and a prophet.
They taught that there was virtue in poverty, that it was essential to honor God above worldly riches, that marriage was an unbreakable bond made before God and that divorce was prohibited. Immortality was accepted as truth by the Essenes but, although they religiously observed the sabbath, they did not participate in worship in the temple, considering the temple and its priests to be lax in spiritual discipline.
These ideas are all reflected in the New Testament. But Jesus also taught the doctrine of the resurrection of the body on the day of final judgment and habitually engaged with common people and the priests in the temple in lively debates about his ideas -- both approaches rejected by the Essenes. The Case for a Connection The gaps in knowledge about Jesus' life leave room for speculation about who he associated with and what dogma could have influenced his thinking.
The question of timing keeps that speculation alive.