(c) The future life. — It is clear that the .Saddueees did not believe in the resurrection of the l)ody (Ac 2'i^). Did they believe in the immortality of the soul? According to Josephus, they did not.
' They take away the belief of the inmiortal duration of the soul and the punishments and rewards in Hades ' (BJ n. viii. 14).
Oesterley tries to show that in this point also Josephus is untrustworthy. .Io.sephus, he holds rightly enough, does not .separate the questions of re.surrection and immortality, and represents for his Greek readers, to whom resurrection was an unfamiliar idea, the denial of the one as a denial of the other. This is not improbable in itself, but it is difficult to explain away the agreement on this point between Josephus and Ac 23", ' The Saddueees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit.' Oesterley very properly connects this usage of 'angel ' with Ac 1'2'^, ' It is his angel.' And he argues that what is meant is that Saddueees did not believe that the deiiarted become angels or spirits {op. cit., p. 147 f. ). It is not obvious how he can conclude that probably the S.adducees believed in the immortality of the soul, after admitting tluat they did not believe in resurrection or in the departed becoming spirits. Probably on this point the Saddueees took Agnostic ground. Their supreme standard being the written Law, it is ditli- cult to see what el.se they could have done.
(rf) Attitude to foreign influences. — In strong contrast to the Pharisees (see art. PhaKISp;e.s), the Saddueees were sympathetic to foreign, especiallj' Hellenistic, culture. This contrast between the two parties is surprising. The Saddueees stood for the old truth against the innovations of tiie Pharisees. The latter were the party of progress. Yet it was the conservative Sadducee who em braced foreign culture with enthusiasm, and the progres- sive Pharisee who bitterly opposed it. In the history of the conflicts of political ami ecclesiiistical parties it is no unusual thing to find the opjionents apparently exchanging rOles. Often no better explanation can be given than that suggested by Oesterley in this ca.se, ' the innate illogic of human nature' {op. cit., p. 155).
(e) The Messiah. — The Saddueees held that Aaron and his family were the chosen of God from whom Messiah should proceed.
(/) The calendar. — Into this complicated subject we have no occa.sion to enter. It is sufficient to say that endless disputes were carried on between the two parties as to the correct dates of the feasts, arising from the fact that while the Pharisees reckoned by a lunar year, the Saddueees computed a solar year (see Oesterley, op. cit., p. 150 f.).
4. Position and influence. — In our i>eriod the
440
SADDUCEES
SAKT
Saililucees were in the position of an aiisto(Tacy. 'This doctrine is receiveil hut by a few, j-et Ijy tliose still of tlie greatest liigiiity ' (Jos. Ant. xviii. i. 4). Practically they may be identilied witli the Temple high-priestly caste, thout;h there were priests who were not Sadducees, and no doubt .Sadducees wlio were not priests. The majority of tlie Temple oHioial.s and their relatives constituted tlie main portion of tlie sect of the Sadducees (cf. W. Bousset, Die Meliijion des JudcntuHts im neu- trstnmcntlichen Zeitaller, Berlin, 1903, p. 164 f.). The hi^h priest and the whole Temple cnltiis still possessed considerable influence. But their power was waning. Various movements tended to diminish it. Essenes rejected the Temple rites almo.st entirely. Several late Jewish works speak depre- catingly of the present Temple compared with the former. The real religious leader was no longer the priest but the scribe. The facts that the Sadducees were harsh in punishing, and that the upkeep of the Temple was so expensive, tended to make the people favour the party who opposed the Sadducees (cf. Bousset, op. (-it., p. 87 f.). With the destruction of the Temple Sadduceeism dis- appeared.
As to the character of the sect our knowledge is too limited to enable any just estimate to be made. According to Josephus, they did not agree too well among themselves.
' The behaviour of the Sadducees one towards another ia in some degree wild, and tlieir conversation with those that are of their own partv is as barbarous as if they were strangers to thenr(BJ n. viii. 14).
Their unpatriotic conduct in Maccabtean times cannot be palliated, and there is reason to fear tliat worldliness and an eye to the main chance dulled the purity of their devotion to the Law. On the other hand, it is important to remember that the common notion that they were mere politicians and irreligious has absolutely no founda- tion in the authentic evidence we possess.
5. Attitude to Christianity. — Jesus Himself re- ferred very seldom to the Sadducees ; His polemic was directed against the Pharisees. In His protest against their making void the Law by their tradi- tions He was at one with the Sadducees. Yet it was from the Sadducees that the most bitter per- secution of Jud.'ean Christianity arose. We know the part played by the Sadducean Sanhedrin in the trial of Jesus. They continued to persecute His disciples (Ac 4''- 5" 23'"^-). Josephus informs us that they were responsible for the death of James, the brother of the Lord (Ant. XX. ix. 1). There can be little doubt as to the reason for this persecution. It began when Jesus interfered with the prerogatives of the Sanhedrin by expelling the money-changers from the Temple-court. Signifi- cant also is the stress laid upon His alleged threat to destroy the Temple. In the rise of a party adhering to Jesus they feared political consequences (Jn 11*'*). They were in power, and they meant to keep it, and anything that threatened to be a danger to their power or to the Temple cultus with which their power was bound up they strove to destroy. That any Sadducees became Christian we are not told. Many of the priests believed (Ac 6'), but that is indecisive, as many priests were not Sadducees. But one of the disciples was ' known unto the high priest' (Jn 18'*) ; a consider- able degree of intimacy is implied in this state- ment, and it is very improbable that a friend of the high priest would be anything but a Sadducee. There is a possibilitj', tlien, that the author of the Fourth Gospel was once a Sadducee. One would like to think that the two greatest of NT writers were of Pharisee and Sadducee origin respectively. Both sects had their good points, and both their grave errors. Christianity conserved what was