Pharisees vs. Sadducees and Multiple Forms of Judaism

[SonofMonica]

I’ve only recently read on this site and elsewhere indications that Pharisees believed in the concepts of an afterlife and the soul whereas the Sadducees did not. I have also read that there were multiple forms of Judaism in Jesus’s day, and that it would not be proper to speak of Judaism at that time as one religion. I know there are multiple “denominations” (reform, orthodox, etc.) today. But can anyone point me to reputable resources on this topic–Catholic resources, scholarly resources, or other?

Thanks in advance.

SonofMonica

 

[bpbasilphx]

While in the United States, at least, Judaism is divided into at least 4 organized denominations: Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist, this was not really the case 2000 years ago, though Judaism was quite varigated at the time.

Except for a few dissident groups, such as the Samaritans and the Essenes, the Temple seemed to be the rallying point for Jews, both as a religion and as a people.

This is brought out by history. Even certain historical novels will reflect this.

 

[Crumpy]

There’s a rather interesting introduction to the history and belief of Judaism which I would like to recommend: The World of the Talmud, Morris Adler I found it at my local library and it is still in print and can be purchased online. It is worth reading.

There’s also a book called something like “What you should know about the Jews” by Rabbi Ekstein. This is the more recent of these two books, with more of a slant on your question, about differences among Jews.

Adler’s book has a good historical perspective on the Jews, but the focus is on the beliefs expressed in the Talmud. If you pick up this book, you might be wise to keep a little cheat sheet of the Hebrew words that you come across.

Torah = teaching or instruction, essentially refers to the first five books of the Bible, but may be used loosely for everything that is derived from the study of the Torah.
Talmud = study
Talmud Torah = study of the teaching

There’s a whole range of interesting materials available from the Jewish Publication Society. If you get on their email list, you will know when the sales are.

On the EWTN website, in the document library, there’s a “deep” paper from the Pontifical Biblical Commission entitled THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND THEIR SACRED SCRIPTURES
IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE. I’m just starting to get into reading this paper. Download it for free.

The Pharisees had a more liberal and flexible interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures; the Sadducees were the more fundamentalist sect. After the destruction of the temple around 70 A.D., the Sadducees eventually vanished, because they could not promote the literal aspects of temple worship anymore, for example.

 

[SonofMonica]

Fantastic! Thanks!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I’ve only recently read on this site and elsewhere indications that Pharisees believed in the concepts of an afterlife and the soul whereas the Sadducees did not. I have also read that there were multiple forms of Judaism in Jesus’s day, and that it would not be proper to speak of Judaism at that time as one religion. I know there are multiple “denominations” (reform, orthodox, etc.) today. But can anyone point me to reputable resources on this topic–Catholic resources, scholarly resources, or other?

Thanks in advance.

SonofMonica

There is actually a pretty cool place Scripture speaks on this, at least the two ‘forms/traditions’:
Acts 23:8 The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.
These are probably not the only differences, but some significant ones. How the Sadducees denied angles has always been a question I’ve had, especially since Genesis and such clearly mention them. Or were the Sadducees some sort of ‘liberal’ group that considered that stuff non-literal?

 

[SonofMonica]

There is actually a pretty cool place Scripture speaks on this, at least the two ‘forms/traditions’:
Acts 23:8 The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.
These are probably not the only differences, but some significant ones. How the Sadducees denied angles has always been a question I’ve had, especially since Genesis and such clearly mention them. Or were the Sadducees some sort of ‘liberal’ group that considered that stuff non-literal?

I think there’s an old saying, no matter where you go, there will always be SOME Episcopalians… No, but thank you for the verse. I had no idea it was there!

 

[bpbasilphx]

There is actually a pretty cool place Scripture speaks on this, at least the two ‘forms/traditions’:
Acts 23:8 The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.
These are probably not the only differences, but some significant ones. How the Sadducees denied angles has always been a question I’ve had, especially since Genesis and such clearly mention them. Or were the Sadducees some sort of ‘liberal’ group that considered that stuff non-literal?

**Actually, the Saducees considered themselves the true conservatives, believing in the pure docrine of the Torah, which says nothing about angels or spirits or resurrection.

They believed the Pharisees picked up such contaminating doctrines from the Babylonians and Persians duirng the Exile.**

 

[Catholic_Dude]

**Actually, the Saducees considered themselves the true conservatives, believing in the pure docrine of the Torah, which says nothing about angels or spirits or resurrection.

They believed the Pharisees picked up such contaminating doctrines from the Babylonians and Persians duirng the Exile.**

Genesis plainly mentions angels, so are you saying they considered the Torah had been tampered with?

 

[WisdomProphet]

The Pharisees had a more liberal and flexible interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures; the Sadducees were the more fundamentalist sect. After the destruction of the temple around 70 A.D., the Sadducees eventually vanished, because they could not promote the literal aspects of temple worship anymore, for example.

It was my understanding that the Pharisees were the Rabbis, the teachers, and the Sadducees were the priests of the temple. If this is true, then the Sadducees were desendants of Aaron and the Levite tribe. Does that mean the Levites too vanished after the destruction of the temple?

 

[patrick457]

There is actually a pretty cool place Scripture speaks on this, at least the two ‘forms/traditions’:
Acts 23:8 The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.
These are probably not the only differences, but some significant ones. How the Sadducees denied angles has always been a question I’ve had, especially since Genesis and such clearly mention them. Or were the Sadducees some sort of ‘liberal’ group that considered that stuff non-literal?

Not really. The Sadducees, surprisingly, were THE conservatives when it came to matters of religion.

The Pharisees were politically conservative while being religiously liberal - they allowed for new ways and developments in Jewish thinking, trying to find ways in which Judaism can still survive and be ‘relevant’ in the changing world (adapting traditional Jewish life to new circumstances), welcoming ideas which came into fruition only in the post-exilic period such as the resurrection of the dead. The Pharisees stood for a post-prophetic idea of Judaism: emphasizing the synagogues more than the Temple, the rabbi (and the average layman) more than the priests, and prayer more than the sacrifices. This flexibility is probably what helped the Pharisaic beliefs survive the times and turn into the present rabbinic Judaism.

The politically liberal Sadducees, meanwhile, were actually religiously conservative and traditional to the point of being fundamentalistic - this is to be expected, as upper classes in many traditional societies tended to have a ‘conservative reflex’, and many, if not most of the upper classes in Jewish society, such as the Jewish priesthood and the aristocrats, belonged to the group.

They held an ancient, pre-Prophetic form of Judaism as held and transmitted by the hereditary priesthood which as mentioned centered itself on the Tabernacle/Temple, the kohanim (priests), and the korbanot (sacrifices), and insisted on a very strict, literalistic, by-the-letter interpretation of the Torah - that Josephus once called them “heartless” than any other Jews “when they sit in judgment”. All laws and doctrines must have a basis in the Torah; if they can’t see them there, ta-ta.

IMHO, they seem to have regarded things as being set in stone and criticized any ‘newfangled’ ideas/interpretations which do not agree with theirs, as they did to the Pharisees for their ideas of say, the resurrection or the ‘Oral Torah’, and their holding tradition to be a living, continuing process. In fact, it is even said that they opposed any attempted reforms in the sacrificial functions of the Temple!

Their placing great importance on the Temple and its priesthood were such that they were willing to collaborate with whoever had the upper hand at the time - maybe it was all in the name of preserving the Temple’s cult and keeping the status quo which has them at the top. It was also probably one of the reasons as to why the Sadducees became virtually extinct after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

 

[patrick457]

It was my understanding that the Pharisees were the Rabbis, the teachers, and the Sadducees were the priests of the temple.

Correct.

If this is true, then the Sadducees were desendants of Aaron and the Levite tribe. Does that mean the Levites too vanished after the destruction of the temple?

I’ll just repeat what I said in a thread a while ago which posed this very same question:

1.) Note that according to Josephus, the Sadducees were mainly a group/sect within the Jewish priesthood, with some non-priestly members (perhaps through family connections), mainly wealthy upper-class aristocrats. The Sadducees were the priestly aristocracy, comprised of a few families of leading priests. And we are not even sure if ALL leading priests belonged to the party - in fact, there is some substantial evidence in Josephus that some priests belonged to the Pharisees.

In talking about ordinary priests and Levites therefore, we are by no means automatically talking about the Sadducees (since there were some Sadducees who were not priests).

2.) In the 1st century, only those descended from Aaron may become kohanim/priests, while the positions of kohanim gedolim (chief/high priests) were filled in with descendants of Zadok. Other Levites who were not in this category were relegated to the lowest strata of the Temple hierarchy, doing menial tasks such as gatekeeping, patrolling, singing and playing the Temple instruments, and maintenance! It is estimated that there were 10,000 Levites in all enrolled in Temple service, divided like the priests into twenty-four sections, each serving for a week. At that time, these Levites were removed from all contact with the altar and the daily sacrifices: they were in an inferior position compared to the priests. In fact, in many practical regulations relating to the Temple, the Levites were usually discriminated against (the Levites actually fought for the right to wear fine linen in-work at the end of the Second Temple period!). It was not until Agrippa II convened a council that matters were settled upon in favor of the Levites.

Note, however, that while the Temple is technically run by Levites (Aaron and Zadok were from the tribe of Levi), not all Levites were kohanim or chose to follow the traditional role of their tribe, instead pursuing other jobs.

It would seem that not all Levites or priests were wiped out in the sense of mass slaughter and decimation. After all, there are still some descendants of priests and Levites around, a number of whom enjoy privileged positions and obligations in modern Judaism.

 

[patrick457]

Genesis plainly mentions angels, so are you saying they considered the Torah had been tampered with?

Luke’s mention of “angels” is actually quite a puzzle, and many explanations were devised for it. Yep, the Torah does mention the Malak YHWH (“messenger/angel of YHWH”) quite a number of times. It might be safe to say that the Sadducees probably believed in them, or at least in a rudimentary and primitive form. Now, Luke’s comment can be interpreted either as:

1.) The Sadducees opposed later ‘developments’ on the Torah’s idea of the malak YHWH and the elaborate angelology of following periods, such as the multiplication of angels and spirits in the popular belief of later Judaism (in many cases, the Torah refers to an “angel” in the singular, though sometimes we hear of two) and the idea that angels were the guardians of nations and individuals and were responsible for their fate.

2.) Luke’s comment about the angels should be read in relation to the former clause about the resurrection. In this case, the words could be interpreted as them denying the belief common at that time that at the resurrection, the righteous shall become “like unto the angels” (cf. 2 Baruch 51:10):

And Jesus, answering, said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God; for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as angels [of God] in heaven.”

Matthew 22:29-30

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Luke’s mention of “angels” is actually quite a puzzle, and many explanations were devised for it. Yep, the Torah does mention the Malak YHWH (“messenger/angel of YHWH”) quite a number of times. It might be safe to say that the Sadducees probably believed in them, or at least in a rudimentary and primitive form. Now, Luke’s comment can be interpreted either as:

1.) The Sadducees opposed later ‘developments’ on the Torah’s idea of the malak YHWH and the elaborate angelology of following periods, such as the multiplication of angels and spirits in the popular belief of later Judaism (in many cases, the Torah refers to an “angel” in the singular, though sometimes we hear of two) and the idea that angels were the guardians of nations and individuals and were responsible for their fate.

2.) Luke’s comment about the angels should be read in relation to the former clause about the resurrection. In this case, the words could be interpreted as them denying the belief common at that time that at the resurrection, the righteous shall become “like unto the angels” (cf. 2 Baruch 51:10):
And Jesus, answering, said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God; for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as angels [of God] in heaven.”

Matthew 22:29-30

Good answer!

 

[patrick457]

Good answer!

You’re welcome.