It is ‘generally believed’, yes, but this ‘general belief’ has, as I mentioned, gone into some questioning recently. Josephus was once cited as proof for this idea, but what he actually says is (
Antiquities 13.297 [10.6]):
περὶ μέντοι τούτων αὖθις ἐροῦμεν. νῦν δὲ δηλῶσαι βούλομαι, ὅτι νόμιμά τινα παρέδοσαν τῷ δήμῳ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ἐκ πατέρων διαδοχῆς, ἅπερ οὐκ ἀναγέγραπται ἐν τοῖς Μωυσέως νόμοις, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ταῦτα τὸ Σαδδουκαίων γένος ἐκβάλλει, λέγον ἐκεῖνα δεῖν ἡγεῖσθαι νόμιμα τὰ γεγραμμένα, τὰ δ᾽ ἐκ παραδόσεως τῶν πατέρων μὴ τηρεῖν.
What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers.
It doesn’t say anything about canons of Scripture, but Sadducees rejecting Pharisaic traditions.
Some later Church Fathers (Hippolytus,
Refutation of all Heresies 9.24; Origen,
Contra Celsum 1.49; St. Jerome,
Commentary on Matthew 22:31f.) did claim that the Sadducees accepted only the Torah as canonical, but this is a matter contemporary sources - that is, the New Testament or even Josephus - does not say anything (though admittedly, this is an argument from silence), and as a consequence, there are folks who advise against uncritical use of these sources.
I quote from
The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation by Stephen B. Chapman:
The evidence that the Sadducees did not accept the prophetic books has long rested upon meager references by Origen and Jerome (Origen, Against Celsus, 1.49; Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, on 22:31), the nature of which might just as well indicate a later confusion (second or third century A.D.) of the Sadducees with the Samaritans (For references, LeMoyne, Sadducéen, 142-44. Cf. Sundberg, Church 77-78. The confusion may have arisen from the actual fusion of these two groups in this period).
Building on the work of J. Maier (J. Maier, Auseinandersetzung), Carr has concluded that despite this possible confusion, and the complete absence of any confirmatory evidence in the writings of Josephus, early Mishnaic regulations indicate that priestly circles including the Sadducees ‘revered the Torah alone.’ (Carr, Canonization, 36 n. 39. Carr terms this absence ‘conspicuous’, but explains it away as the consequence of Josephus’ own goal of presenting a unified Judaism with a single canon.
Contra Carr, it would seem a rather weak point for Josephus to make if it was so patently untrue.)
However, it is clear in Josephus’ work that the issue of contention between the Pharisees and the Sadducees did not have to do with a different scriptural canon, but with the authority of oral law, which the Pharisees championed. (Josephus, Antiquities 18.16; cf. Antiquities 13.297. Carr admits this point (Canonization, 36 n. 39), which then provides another example of interpreting ‘the law’ too narrowly. Cf. the sound judgments of Beckwith, Formation, 74; and Bruce, Canon, 40-41.)
Thus, to argue that Josephus overlooked the disagreement between the two groups over the scriptural canon is also to argue that he created a controversy over the oral law where none existed, and that he retreated from his effort to present a unified Judaism in one instance, but not in the other. Surely it is more likely that Josephus simply meant what he said.
Jesus’ debated with the Sadducees concerning the resurrection and the afterlife is also cited as proof, since Jesus quotes from the Torah. However, one could argue Jesus using Exodus at this point does not seem to automatically mean they solely rely upon the Torah if we look at the history of Biblical interpretation: after all, later Jewish (Deuteronomy 32:39; cf. Talmud, Tractate
Pesachim 68a;
Sifre Deuteronomy 306) and Christian tradition used passages from the Pentateuch in support of the resurrection. Also note Jesus’ words: he does not criticize them for an ignorance of ‘Moses’ or the ‘Law’, but their misunderstanding of “
the Scriptures [and] the power of God.” His answer possesses force not because it is from pentateuchal tradition, and
therefore authoritative, but because it uses Scripture to ground a belief in resurrection in God’s own
self, and thus makes resurrection an essenial tenet of a ‘Scriptural’ faith.
