I frequently hear the
Sadducees of the New Testament described as the “liberals of Jesus’ day.” Maybe it’s because conservatives grow tired
of being compared to the “legalistic” Pharisees, and want a way to strike
back. Jesus had harsh words for the
Sadducees too, and if they can get a jab in at the
liberal/progressive/socialists, it’s all well and good. Here
are two descriptions of the Sadducees that I pulled from a very quick search on
the internet, illustrative of the kind of attitude many today have toward the
Sadducees described in the New Testament.
The Sadducees were the liberals of Jesus' day. Most of the priests were
Sadducees. They were of the elite class of the day. They often applied
Hellenism to their lives. Sadducees didn't believe in an afterlife, didn't
believe in a resurrection, and didn't believe in the existence of angels.
The Sadducees were the secular branch of Judaism. They did not believe in a resurrection or an
afterlife; they were the closest things to secular humanists or atheists in
their day. And thanks to the Romans the
Sadducees largely controlled the lucrative Temple and the money and political
clout that went along with it.
Don't wanna be a Sadducee
Don't wanna be a Sadducee
Don't wanna be a Sadducee
'Cause they're so sad you see
Don't wanna be a Sadducee
But it’s not a very
accurate comparison. It is true that
they rejected a belief in the afterlife and in angels and demons – but they
didn’t reject these because they were “liberals.” In fact, we might be more accurate in saying
that they were the more conservative[ii]
of the leading Jewish parties – as they opposed the relatively recent
theological innovations and additions of the Pharisees. They drew their faith from the Torah, the books of Moses, and rejected
the ‘oral law’ additions created by the pharisaical rabbis. The Jewish historian Josephus tells us that
they also rejected a fatalistic attitude, and believed that humans have free
will to do good or to do evil. They
weren’t necessarily more (or less) Hellenistic (influenced by Greek culture)
than other Jewish groups. And it’s certainly
not at all true to say that they were the “secular branch of Judaism.”
We know relatively little about the historical Sadducees – and the bulk of that comes from the writings of people who disliked and opposed them, so we have to read it with a cautious eye. The Sadducees came into existence as a political / theological force during the time of the Maccabees -about the same time as the Pharisees. But where the Pharisees were largely from low and middle class (terms that don’t necessarily mean the same today as they meant then…) and from rural areas, the Sadducees were aristocratic, wealthy land owners, and associated with the priests and Temple in Jerusalem. They seem to have dropped out of existence with the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.
If you’ll look back through the book of Luke, you’ll see that we’ve only just now encountered the Sadducees – after Jesus has entered Jerusalem. Thus far he’s spent most of his time in Galilee – where he would have encountered the Pharisees, and thus far his major opponents have been the Pharisees. But now that he’s finally reached Jerusalem (after a 10 chapter journey – Luke 9: 51 – 19: 41) and now that he’s intruded into the territory of the Sadducees (his clearing out of the Temple would certainly have attracted their notice and their ire) we will begin seeing the Sadducees more frequently and the Pharisees less so… (Though, this is working from the assumption that the phrase “teachers of the law and chief priests” is meant to indicate the Sadducees. If that’s not the case then we only see them only this one time in Luke 20: 27 - 38.)[iii]
We know relatively little about the historical Sadducees – and the bulk of that comes from the writings of people who disliked and opposed them, so we have to read it with a cautious eye. The Sadducees came into existence as a political / theological force during the time of the Maccabees -about the same time as the Pharisees. But where the Pharisees were largely from low and middle class (terms that don’t necessarily mean the same today as they meant then…) and from rural areas, the Sadducees were aristocratic, wealthy land owners, and associated with the priests and Temple in Jerusalem. They seem to have dropped out of existence with the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.
If you’ll look back through the book of Luke, you’ll see that we’ve only just now encountered the Sadducees – after Jesus has entered Jerusalem. Thus far he’s spent most of his time in Galilee – where he would have encountered the Pharisees, and thus far his major opponents have been the Pharisees. But now that he’s finally reached Jerusalem (after a 10 chapter journey – Luke 9: 51 – 19: 41) and now that he’s intruded into the territory of the Sadducees (his clearing out of the Temple would certainly have attracted their notice and their ire) we will begin seeing the Sadducees more frequently and the Pharisees less so… (Though, this is working from the assumption that the phrase “teachers of the law and chief priests” is meant to indicate the Sadducees. If that’s not the case then we only see them only this one time in Luke 20: 27 - 38.)[iii]
[i]
Words and Music – Brian M. Howard - http://www.butterflysong.com/index.cfm?pageID=32
[ii]
Keeping in mind, of course, the words “conservative” and “liberal” are
relative…
[iii]
Matthew has the Pharisees and Sadducees linked much closer and appearing
together throughout his gospel. Mark has
them only in this one story as well, and they do not appear at all in John’s
gospel.
No comments:
Post a Comment