Do the Sadduccees deserve to be seen in a more favorable light?

by True North 20 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • True North
    True North

    Does anyone remember the old joke about the Sadduccees, that they didn't believe in the resurrection and that's why they were "sad-you-see"?

    I think that on the whole, the Sadduccees get pretty bad press from both Jews and Christians and I've often thought that maybe they don't entirely deserve it. I know that they are said to have been "the establishment", collaborating with the Romans and trying to keep a lid on the trouble being stirred up by the Pharisees, the zealots, and the assorted messianic movements in order to preserve their own privileges and status. OK, that doesn't sound so good -- especially to someone like me who was young in the 60s.

    On the other hand, I'm guessing that they did support the standard set of civic and moral virtues and, although they were just "imperfect men" (where have we heard that before?), they did this in spite of the fact that they weren't trying to gain some reward or avoid some punishment in the afterlife or resurrection (because they didn't believe in an afterlife or resurrection). Isn't there something to be said for acting reasonably decently (at least by the standards of the day) most of the time for no other reason than that it makes sense or is the right thing to do as opposed to adhering to some moral code in order to get an eternal reward (and avoid an eternal punishment). I mean, if someone doesn't do something because they think they'll be killed or tortured if they do, or they do something because they think they'll get a big reward if they do so, how does that make their behavior virtuous? Of course, it could be argued that the Sadduccees were simply looking to gain Roman favors and avoid Roman punishments but, if so, that seems to make them more like the Pharisees and Christians than different.

    As for trying to keep a lid on trouble, was that such a bad thing? Hadn't the Romans already cut the Jews a deal that was better than what many of the conquered peoples in the Empire had (and that was certainly better than the conditions the Maccabees had revolted against back in the days of "Greek" rule). As things turned out after 70 C.E., which course of action would have been better for the Jews, that of the cooperative Sadducees or that of the rebellious Pharisees and zealots?

  • ignorance is strength
    ignorance is strength

    Heres the "problem" with the Sadduccees:

    They didn't believe in the resurrection. For them, the here and now was all that there was and you should care for yourself and stay out of sin to avoid punishment from God. Lets say someone was blind, a Sadduccee would conclude that he must have been a terrible sinner to deserve such punishment.

    I would have more to say, but its late :)

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Ecclesiastes is thought to be an early Sadducee writing. It's views on death and its finality are those of the Sadducees, tho it lacks the Epicurean spirit the Sadducees were to have and which was condemned in the Gospels, 1 Enoch, and other writings.

  • True North
    True North
    tho it lacks the Epicurean spirit the Sadducees were to have...

    Leolaia,

    How did the Sadducees have an Epicurean spirit? I understand that Epicurus did not believe in an afterlife but that he also thought that the gods were not involved in this life either and were, therefore, pretty much irrelevant.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    http://www.epicurus.net/history.html

    Epicureanism and the Judeans

    In the Talmudic Mishnah, one of the authoritative documents of Rabbinical Judaism, there is a remarkable statement in the tractate Sanhedrin that defines the Jewish religion in relation to Epicureanism:

    "All Israel has a share in the world to come, as Isaiah said: And all of your people who are righteous will merit eternity and inherit the land. And these are the people who do not merit the world to come: The ones who say that there is no resurrection of the dead, and those who deny the Torah is from the heavens, and Epicureans ('Apikorsim')."

    Modern Jews use "apikoros" as a generic term for an unbeliever, but the authors of the Talmud were clearly singling out followers of Epicurus. In effect, this statement is saying that all of Israel will enjoy eternal life except those who get corrupted by Epicurus or certain characteristic Epicurean beliefs (namely, Epicurean denials of an after-life and of divine providence). This peculiar hostility towards Epicureanism is all the more remarkable for the fact that this particular statement was later taken to be the basis for speculation about the meaning of Jewishness among Rabbis of the Middle Ages, the most famous of whom, Moses Maimonides, explicitly continued the Jewish tradition of denouncing Epicureanism late in the 12 th century A.D.

    Antiochus IV

    The origins of this anti-Epicurean element of Jewish thought can be traced to the 2 nd century B.C., when the Seleucid monarch Antiochus IV Epiphanes embarked on a military campaign against Egypt in an attempt to conquer his Ptolemaic rival. Judea had the misfortune to be located between the Seleucid heartland of Syria and Ptolemaic Egypt, and the Judeans were divided into pro-Seleucid and pro-Ptolemaic factions. At this time, the hereditary Zadokite priesthood had been deeply influenced by Greek culture, adopting doctrines that tended to discount the conservative oral tradition and deny some of the more superstitious beliefs then current, notably the belief in bodily resurrection. At the time of Antiochus's campaign, the Zadokite high priest was a pro-Ptolemaic partisan.

    Antiochus, anxious to secure Judea in connection with his Egyptian expedition and to create a more culturally-unified empire, had the Zadokite high priest removed and founded a Greek-style Gymnasium in Jerusalem. Antiochus was sympathetic to Epicureanism (albeit not acting in accord with Epicurus's injunctions to avoid politics), so his attempt at a forced hellenization of Judea was closely linked to Epicureanism in the minds of the Judean patriots. Another factor was that Epicureans were prominent in the hellenized cities of Galilee, creating a rivalry between Epicureanism and the traditional religion among the northern Judeans. Antiochus's provocations brought about a strong nationalistic reaction, which exploded into violence when a rumor of Antiochus's death reached Judea. While the rumor was false, nonetheless the Hasmonean leader Judas Maccabeus was ultimately successful in his revolt against the Seleucids.

    After the Hasmoneans consolidated their power, a rather delicate situation developed with respect to the priesthood. The hereditary successors to the priesthood had had their legitimacy fatally undermined by their hellenizing tendencies and their close association with the foreign Ptolemaic monarchy. The party of the "separatists" (the Pharisees), prevented the Zadokite legitimists (the Sadducees) from reassuming control of the temple in Jerusalem, while some of the Sadducees set up a rival temple in the Egyptian city of Leontopolis.

    To further complicate matters, Judea later became a client state of Rome, and the Romans installed their own Jewish rulers and Sadducee priests. Not only were they opposed by the Pharisees, other anti-foreign religious factions arose during the late Hasmonean period (early 1 rst century B.C.) to challenge the Pharisees and the Sadducees and the Samaritans (a regional offshoot of Judaism whose followers had established their own center of worship on Mount Gezzerim), their adherents questioning the necessity for temple ritual and priestly authority altogether. One of these dissident groups called themselves the "keepers" (Nazarim) of divine wisdom. These Nazarim, or Nazarenes, taught that righteousness towards others along with frequent rituals of baptism and anointment and a ritual eucharist for the dead was sufficient to place oneself in accord with God without the traditional temple ceremonies. After the Roman conquest of Judea, the Nazarene cults became one of the focal points of resistance to Roman and Herodian rule, as both the Pharisees and Sadducees were co-opted by the Herodian monarchy that had been installed by the Romans.

    Spoils from the Jerusalem Temple

    The historical significance of these intricacies of ancient Judean politics is that the Pharisees are the direct ancestors of modern Rabbinical Judaism, while the Nazarene movement spawned two religions that have survived to modern times, the Mandaean and the Christian. The founding of these two Nazarene religions was attributed to John the Baptist and Jesus, respectively.

    The Talmud is derived from the Pharisaic oral tradition, so the Talmud passage quoted above can be explained as a Pharisaic attack on the Sadducees by comparing some of the distinctive Sadducee beliefs to those of the hated Seleucid defiler of the Temple. It seems that the Sadducees could never quite live down the charge of having sold out to the Seleucids and the Romans, as they disappeared shortly after the Romans destroyed the Jerusalem Temple in 70 A.D. and the genealogical records for proving their Zadokite ancestry (the last remaining basis for Sadducee legitimacy) along with it. Today, the memory of the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus survives in the Jewish celebration of Hanukkah, and the legacy of the factional conflicts of the Hasmonean period lives on in the separate religions of the Jews, Mandaeans, and Christians and in the Talmudic denunciation of Epicureanism.

  • Maverick
    Maverick

    You should ask Alan F he's our resident Sadduccees. Maverick

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos
    It's [Qoheleth's] views on death and its finality are those of the Sadducees, tho it lacks the Epicurean spirit the Sadducees were to have and which was condemned in the Gospels, 1 Enoch, and other writings.

    Does it?

    There is nothing better for mortals than to eat and drink, and find enjoyment in their toil. Ecc 2.24
    I know that there is nothing better for them than to be happy and enjoy themselves as long as they live; moreover, it is God's gift that all should eat and drink and take pleasure in all their toil. 3.12f.
    This is what I have seen to be good: it is fitting to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of the life God gives us; for this is our lot. Likewise all to whom God gives wealth and possessions and whom he enables to enjoy them, and to accept their lot and find enjoyment in their toil--this is the gift of God. For they will scarcely brood over the days of their lives, because God keeps them occupied with the joy of their hearts. 5.18ff.
    In my vain life I have seen everything; there are righteous people who perish in their righteousness, and there are wicked people who prolong their life in their evildoing. Do not be too righteous, and do not act too wise; why should you destroy yourself? Do not be too wicked, and do not be a fool; why should you die before your time? 7.15ff.
    So I commend enjoyment, for there is nothing better for people under the sun than to eat, and drink, and enjoy themselves, for this will go with them in their toil through the days of life that God gives them under the sun. 8.15
    Go, eat your bread with enjoyment, and drink your wine with a merry heart; for God has long ago approved what you do. Let your garments always be white; do not let oil be lacking on your head. Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that are given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun. Whatever your hand finds to do, do with your might; for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going. 9.7ff.
    Rejoice, young man, while you are young, and let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth. Follow the inclination of your heart and the desire of your eyes, but know that for all these things God will bring you into judgment. 11.9

    I also wonder if there is not a Sadducee influence in (the early state of) GJohn: angels, demons and resurrection appear only as metaphors... and the Beloved disciple is an acquaintance of the High Priest...

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Romans destroyed the Jerusalem Temple in 70 A.D. and the genealogical records for proving their Zadokite ancestry (the last remaining basis for Sadducee legitimacy) along with it.

    According to the Jewish Encyclopedia Herod 1 had apparently destroyed the genealogical records in the Temple decades before 70 to hide his own mixed heritage. The Essenes were obsessed with the Zadokite priesthood as well and separated themselves from what they deemed an apostate priesthood in Jerusalem. It could be said that the Saducees were obsessed with religious maters and viewed political issues as a matter of expedience, while the Pharisees were more accomodating in religious matters with a focus on political separateness. Because the Romans were not threatened by religious zealotry if the Saduccees had managed to prevail things may have been very different for the Jews.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    I stand corrected, Narkissos. I just consulted the Jewish Encyclopedia, and it says the passages that give a contrary impression are likely interpolations.

  • English Patient
    English Patient
    I just consulted the Jewish Encyclopedia

    Big mistake. If I wanted the true facts, the Jewish encyclopedia would be the last place I looked.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit