SADDUCEES, the name of a party which was opposed to the Pharisees down to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 7o. The Sadducees have been represented, not so much an organized party, as the lax and wordly-minded aristocrats, who were primari ly interested in maintaining their own privileged position ; who favoured Greco-Roman culture. Their attitude towards religious questions was purely negative; indeed, they were not a religious party at all. This view, championed by G. HOlscher, is not sup ported by the early sources. Both in Josephus and the N.T. Sadduceeism is represented as associated with certain definite religious positions; they represented the conservative tendency in matters of religion.
The most probable explanation of the name Sadducees is that proposed by A. Geiger, viz., that it is equivalent to "Zadokites," i.e., "the adherents of the Sons of Zadok." The latter were a priestly family who claimed descent from Zadok, who was head of the priesthood in the days of Solomon (cf. i Kings i. 34; and ii. 35) ; Ezekiel (xliv. 10-15) selected this family as worthy of being invested with the control of the Temple ; and in fact mem bers of this family formed the Temple hierarchy down to the time of Ben Sira (cf. Sirach. li. 12, Hebrew text). Later this priestly line became tainted with Hellenisrn, and ultimately the high priesthood was usurped by others. After the disappearance of the legitimate high priest of the house of Zadok the title "Zado kites" may well have been assumed by conservative elements in the priesthood, to preserve the earlier traditions of their order.
Unfortunately, we possess no statement from the Sadducean side of their beliefs and principles, unless the "Zadokite" work discovered by Schechter represents, as is possible, the views of a section of the party. There are many controversial references in the Rabbinical literature to the Sadducees on points connected with the interpretation of the law. The main principle that divided the two parties was concerned with the written Torah (the Penta teuch). The supremacy of the law was common ground to both parties, but whereas the Pharisees assigned to the oral tradition a place of authority side by side with the written law, and determin ing its interpretation, the Sadducees refused to accept any ordi nance as binding, unless it was based directly on the written word.
The rest of Scripture (the Prophets and the Hagiographa) they regarded as mere Kabbalah "tradition." The Pharisaic device of harmonizing apparent contradictions between the Law and the Prophets by exegetical expedients was not accepted by the Sad ducees, who refused to sanction doctrines and practices which could not be based on the written law. Thus the doctrine of a Davidic Messiah was rejected because it was considered that the prophetic teaching on this subject was in conflict with the Torah.
R. Leszynsky suggests that the Sadducees, or a section of them, .accepted the hope of a priestly Messiah (cf. Ex. xix. 6), from which passage it might be inferred that a priestly line was destined to possess the Kingdom. There was also the example of the Priest King Melchizedek, which might easily suggest "Zadok King," or "Sadducean King." According to Acts xxiii. 8, the Sadducees denied the existence of angels and spirits, as well as the doctrine of the resurrection. This probably means that they did not accept the fully developed angelology of later times, while in the latter case the point of controversy was not whether the resurrection was true, but whether it could be proved from the Pentateuch. Another interesting point of difference is concerned with the date of Pente cost. The Sadducean hierarchy had its stronghold in the Temple, and it was only during the last 1 o or 20 years of the Temple's existence that the Pharisees finally got control. With the destruc tion of the Temple in A.D. 7o their power as an organized party disappeared.
See R. Leszynsky, Die Sadduziier, (1912) ; Art. "Sadducees," E.R.E. where further literature is cited. Cf. also Burkitt "Jesus and the `Pharisees' " in J. Th. S. xxviii., 392-397. (G. H. B.)