Literature. — A. A. Sykes, Essay on the Nature of Sacrifice, London, 174S ; W. Magee, Scriptii.rai Doctrines of Atonement and Sacrifice, do., 1812; J. Davison, Origin and Intent of Pn'mitive 'Sacrifice, do., 1825 ; P. Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture, Edinbursth, 1845-47 ; A. Cave, Scriptvral Doctrine of Sacrifice and Atonement, new and revised ed., do., 1890; j. F. D. Maurice, Doctrine of Sacrifice, new ed., London, 1879 ; H. C. Trumbull, The Blood Covenant and its Bear- ings on Scripture, New York, 1885 ; A. Scott, Sacrifice : its Prophecy and Ftdfilment, London, 1894 ; W. Sanclay, Different Conceptions of Priesthood and Sacrifice, do., unm; G. B. Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, Kdinburgh, 1905, pt. i., chs. i., ii., v., vii., Theology of the NT, do., 181)9, pts. iii., V. ; G. Milligan, Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, do., 1899; T. V. Tymms, Christian Idea of Atonement, London, 1904, lects. v., vii. ; C. von Weizsacker, The Apostolic Age-, do., 1897 ; W. H. Ward. ' The NT Doctrine of the Relation of Christ's Death to the OT Sacrificial System,' in BiM. 6'rtc. Ixiv. [1894] 246 ff.; art. 'Sacrifice' in EBi bv G. F. Moore, and in HDB bv W. P. Paterson (both valuable) ; Comni. on Hebrews bv B. F. Westcott, London, 1SS9, F. Delitzsch, En^-. tr., Edinburgh, 1878-80, A. B. Davidson, do., 1882, A. B. Bruce, do., 1899 ; R. W. Dale, The Jewish Temple and the Christian Church^, London, 1880; H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutest. Theologie, Freiburg i. B., 1896-97. For more general reference to sacrifice ; J. H. Kurtz, Der alttest. OpfeicnUus, Mitau, 1862, Eng. tr., Edinburgh, 1863; J. We'llhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, Berlin, 1883, Eng. tr. with additions, Edinburgh, 1885 ; W. R. Smith, Rel. Scm., new ed., London, 1894, pp. 213-440 ; R. Smend, Lehrbuch der alttest. Religionsqeschichte'i, Freiburg i. B., 1899 ; H. Schultz, Alttest. Theologie', Gottingen, 1888, Eng. tr.2, Edinburgh, 1898, 'The Significance of Sacrifice in the Old Testament,' in AJTh iv. [1900] 257 9. ; E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture^, London, 1891 ; F. B Jevons, An Introduction to the History of Religion^, do., 1904, chs. xi., xii. ; D. G. Brinton, Religions of Primitive Peoples, New York, 1897 ; J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough-, London, 1900; J. Donaldson, Expiatory and Substitutionary Sacrifices of the Greeks, Edinburgh, 1875.
Frederic Platt. SACRILEGE.— See Robbers of Churches.
SADDUCEES.— The Sadducees were a Jewish sect or party best known by their opposition to the Pharisees.
1. SouFceB. — Our knowledge of the Sadducees, such as it is, is derived from tlie following sources : (a) Go.spels and Acts; (i) .losephus ; (c) Rabbinical writings, mainly Mislina, Tosefta, Sifre, Sifra, and Mechilta (these are all of comparatively late date, but their value is unquestionable as embodying earlier traditions. They record various disputes that took |)lace between Pharisees and Sadducees) ; (rf) Zadokite fragments (these are two fragments discovered C(uite recently in the Cairo Genizah. They deal with the beliefs and practices of a sect that lived in Damascus probably two centuries B.C. , and was clearly Sadducean). Some references to Sadducees are found in various Church Fathers, but they have no inde]iendent value. It has to be remarked of the evidence of Josephus that it almost seems that part of «liat he had to say regarding Pharisees and Sadducees has been lost. In Ant. XIII. v. 9, XVIII. i. 2, he refers to BJu., but there we find only a scanty reference to Pharisees and Sadducees, while his notice of the Essenes is full. Further, the tendency of Josephus to bring Jewish parties into line with Greek schools of philosophy detracts somewhat from the value of his account.
2. The name. — The explanation of the name ' Sadducee ' has long been a puzzle. Only two views need to be mentioned, (a) It has long been held that the name is derived from a certain priest Zadok. The difficulty has been to identify the Zadok in question. A linguistic difficulty has also been urged, to account for the form Zaddukim from Ziiduk. This, however, disappears when we find that in the LXX and in Josephus the name is spelt Zadilok. (b) The view in EBi supported by EBr^^ (see art. ' Sadducees ') is that the word represents the Persian zandik. In modern Persian zandik means a Zoroastrian, hence an infidel. It is argued that, just as the Greek iinKovpo^ was used by Jews as = ' infidel,' the Persian znndik was |>robably applied to this sect, who, from the standpoint of the Pliarisees were little better than infidels, and who further supported the introduction of foreign cus- toms. Further, in the Arabic NT ' .Sadducee ' is translated znndakiya. It must be admitted that this view is ingenious. Its difficulties are obvious, a chief one being that we cannot argue safely from modern Persian to an ante-Christian usage. Be- sides, if we are to admit that the Zadokite frag- ments are Sadducean in character and origin — and this cannot easily be denied — it is beyond doubt that in this case the old and widely held opinion is correct. (For full discussion see W. O. E. Oesterley, The Books of the Apocrypha, their Origin, Teaching, and Contents, London, 1914, p. 13'2f.)
3. Opposition to the Pharisees. — That the two parties were hostile is known to all. How precisely and concisely the diflerence is to be defined is a problem of great difficulty. Our knowledge of the Sadducees in particular is not extensive, .and a large portion of it comes from sources that certainly were not sympathetic. Geiger's view that the Sadducees were aristocratic while the Pharisees were democratic is true so far, but does not bring out the f.act that their difl'erences were notably theological or give any explanation of those di- vergences. J. R. Hanne's view that Pharisees and Sadducees carried on the old conflict of projihetism and priestism is attractive, but according to the NT it is the Pharisees who are blinded and en- slaved by that ceremonialism and externalism against which prophetism protested. Wellhausen's view that the Pharisees were essentially those de- voted to the Law on religious grounds while the Sadducees were essentially a political party has really little evidence in its favour, and all our authorities agree in representing the dift'erences between the two parties as to a great extent doc- trinal. (For reference to those views see A. Hil-