Sadducees and the Pharisees... what was the deal with their schism?

[Ari Ben-Canaan]

I am not sure if I have this straight.

-The Sadducees were a group which got in control of the Temple.  They did not believe in the Oral Law.

-The Pharisees, like Jews of our day, believe in the Oral Law.

How did two types of Jew manage to emerge if we all were one group at one point? -- Is this schism similar in how Reform and Reconstructionist Jews up and decided that they got to invalidate important parts of Judaism on whim?  What possible reason could the Sadducees have had to deny something which was as old as the written Torah?

Did the Sadducees and Pharisees both have Kohenim and Levites in their midst?
 
Were the Pharisees a group of Jews taken into captivity who were later freed, and then they went home to Israel only to find these Sadducees had taken up control of the Temple?

Were the Sadducees "real" Jews?

[muman613]

http://www.torah.org/qanda/seequanda.php?id=583

What beliefs did the Sadducees reject?

The Sadducees didn't accept the Oral Law; they also rejected many specific beliefs, including the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the dead, and the existence of angels. See Josephus, Antiquities 13:10, 18:1 and Wars 2:8.

http://www.templeinstitute.org/oral_tradition.htm

Historical Background: Pharisees and Sadducees

During the era of the Second Temple, the influence of apostasy began to make inroads in Israel. The mainstream Pharisees (who held fast to the Oral Tradition of Bible interpretation) were opposed by the cult of the Sadducees. The former upheld the performance of the commandments as they were received by Moses at Mount Sinai, and passed down through every subsequent generation by the people of Israel. The Sadducees did not accept the traditions of Sinai; by opposing the Oral Tradition, they rebelled against G-d Himself - for it was He, in His ultimate wisdom, who decreed that this process should keep the Torah alive and bind it steadfast to His people through every generation and circumstance.

Instead, the Sadducees cut themselves off from this body of tradition, and translated and interpreted the Bible in a very literal sense. Thus, a classic example of the difference between the two groups is their opposing interpretation of the famous verse "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand..." (Ex. 21:24). The Sadducees interpret this verse, which deals with payment for personal damages, in a literal sense. However, the Pharisees received a tradition from Moses that these words are meant idiomatically and not literally - that is, full monetary compensation must be made for the loss caused by these injuries.

The Sadducees also denied the belief that there will be a resurrection of the dead, since this important principle of Jewish faith is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, but only alluded to; like other interpretations of the Pharisees, it too is included in the Oral Tradition.

While the Pharisees could be considered the true guardians of authentic Judaism - for their influence has kept adherence to the true Biblical ways alive amongst the Jewish people to this very day - the Sadducees sought ways to undermine the former's influence, and to establish customs and practices of their own making. Because many of these men came from aristocratic families, there were periods when they succeeded in infiltrating the Sanhedrin, where they deliberately enacted legislation that changed the accepted customs which had been practiced for generations.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/greek_persecution/

To make matters worse, the schism between the Hellenized Jews and mainstream Jews is paralleled by another schism—between two factions of religious Jews.

It begins in the third century BCE when two students named—Zadok and Bysos—begin preaching a new form of Judaism, devoid of belief in the Divinity of the Oral Torah. There is little doubt that Greek thought played a significant role in creating this early break with mainstream Judaism. Their followers are called the Sadducees and Bysosim, though it is the Sadducees that go down in history. The mainstream observant Jews, who follow the Rabbis and keep Jewish law as it has always been practiced, are called ironically “Pharisees,” meaning “separatists,” to distinguish them from the others.

Since the Sadducees do not believe that the Oral Torah comes from God, they maintain that they are only obligated to keep the laws of the Written Torah, which they read literally. (This denial of the Oral Law will occur later in Jewish history with the Karaite schism in Babylon.) But so many of the laws of the Written Torah are incomprehensible without the Oral Torah. Their answer? Each man for himself; anyone can decide what it means and act accordingly.

The Sadducees find natural allies among the Hellenized Jews, as Rabbi Berel Wein explains:

    The Sadducees were always more acceptable in the eyes of the Hellenist Jews than their rabbinic foes. The alliance of the Hellenists and the Sadducees against traditional Judaism guaranteed constant turmoil in Jewish life throughout the time of the Second Temple and even thereafter. (Echoes of Glory, p. 38)

(We shall discuss the Sadducees in greater detail in future segments when we come to the Roman Empire and its domination of the Jews.)

This is how the ancient historian Josephus explains the beliefs of the Jews at this time:

    The Pharisees [who are considered most skillful in the exact explication of their laws and are the leading school] ascribe all to fate and to God and yet allow that to do what is right or to the contrary is principally the power of men, although fate does cooperate in every action. They say that all souls are imperishable but that the souls of good men only pass into other bodies while the souls of evil men are subject to eternal punishment.

    But the Sadducees are those that compose the second order and exclude fate entirely and suppose that God is not concerned with our doing or not doing what is evil. They say that to do what is good or what is evil is man’s own choice and that the choice of one or the other belongs to each person who may act as he pleases. They also exclude the belief in immortality of the soul and the punishment and rewards of the afterworld.

    Moreover, the Pharisees are friendly to one another and cultivate harmonious relations with the community, but the behavior of the Sadducees towards one another is to some degree boorish, and their conversation with those that of their own party is barbarous as if they were strangers to them.(5)

You can see how the Sadducees were influenced by Greek thought. They are part of the reason that the High Priesthood and the Temple service became so corrupt (as many of the priestly class, an upper class at that time, became Sadducees). And this is why the Talmud says that so many High Priests died during the service of Yom Kippur.

[Ari Ben-Canaan]

Thanks Muman, very interesting!

[MassuhDGoodName]

Based on the information you have provided, it would seem that the Pharisees were completely in accord with the ideology which provided the bedrock of traditional Judaism, there being no general disagreement between the beliefs and teachings of the Pharisees with those beliefs which were accepted by the earliest followers of Jesus -- Jewish concepts such as the resurrection of the dead, Judgement Day, Moshiach's arrival and rule over The World to Come, the permanent nature of the human soul, etc.

Yet, the New Testament from beginning to end blasts the Pharisees as being the very incarnation of hypocrisy, corruption, and evil whose teachings and practices had nothing in common with Torah!

The Sadducees get scant mention in the NT, but the Pharisees are denounced from beginning to end!

This leads me to conclude that there are troubling inconsistencies and inaccuracies found in the record book of Jewish history under Roman Occupation as found in the official New Testament canon.

Perhaps these accusations and libels were scripted in much later by Church Fathers with a 'political agenda' who knew nothing of Jews or Jewish history.

[Ari Ben-Canaan]

Based on the information you have provided, it would seem that the Pharisees were completely in accord with the ideology which provided the bedrock of traditional Judaism, there being no general disagreement between the beliefs and teachings of the Pharisees with those beliefs which were accepted by the earliest followers of Jesus -- Jewish concepts such as the resurrection of the dead, Judgement Day, Moshiach's arrival and rule over The World to Come, the permanent nature of the human soul, etc.

Yet, the New Testament from beginning to end blasts the Pharisees as being the very incarnation of hypocrisy, corruption, and evil whose teachings and practices had nothing in common with Torah!

The Sadducees get scant mention in the NT, but the Pharisees are denounced from beginning to end!

This leads me to conclude that there are troubling inconsistencies and inaccuracies found in the record book of Jewish history under Roman Occupation as found in the official New Testament canon.

Perhaps these accusations and libels were scripted in much later by Church Fathers with a 'political agenda' who knew nothing of Jews or Jewish history.

Well this is plum chocked full of antisemitic libel.

[muman613]

Based on the information you have provided, it would seem that the Pharisees were completely in accord with the ideology which provided the bedrock of traditional Judaism, there being no general disagreement between the beliefs and teachings of the Pharisees with those beliefs which were accepted by the earliest followers of Jesus -- Jewish concepts such as the resurrection of the dead, Judgement Day, Moshiach's arrival and rule over The World to Come, the permanent nature of the human soul, etc.

Yet, the New Testament from beginning to end blasts the Pharisees as being the very incarnation of hypocrisy, corruption, and evil whose teachings and practices had nothing in common with Torah!

The Sadducees get scant mention in the NT, but the Pharisees are denounced from beginning to end!

This leads me to conclude that there are troubling inconsistencies and inaccuracies found in the record book of Jewish history under Roman Occupation as found in the official New Testament canon.

Perhaps these accusations and libels were scripted in much later by Church Fathers with a 'political agenda' who knew nothing of Jews or Jewish history.

Well this is plum chocked full of antisemitic libel.

Yes, that Book is one of the prime sources of modern antisemitism..