Pharisees against the Sadducees: The battle of religion that marked the Judaism of the Second Temple

“For the pharisees, the Law lived in the voice of the wise; for the sadducees, only in the lyrics of Moses.”

1. General context: why care about these fights

At the time of the Second Temple (approx. s. II. C. – 70 d. C.), the judaism of Judea was not monolithic. There were several groups (pharisees, sadducees, essenes, other movements), but the two factions with more weight in the religious and political power internal were the pharisees and sadducees.

The main sources to study their fights are:

• Flavius Josephus (Antiquities of the jews, jewish War), a pharisee who writes for an audience greco-roman.
• New Testament (especially the Gospels and Acts), which reflects the context of Jesus and the early church.
• Rabbinic literature, early (Mishnah, Tosefta) that retains echoes of ancient disputes halájicas.
• Qumran / Dead Sea Scrolls, which is sometimes described or assume positions “saducéas”.

All of these fonts are partial and polemicalbut even so, it is possible to reconstruct the main lines of the conflict.

2. Who were the pharisees and who were sadducees

2.1. Pharisees

• Movement experts in the Law (soferim, wise)with a strong basis in the common people in both urban and rural.
• Born and consolidated in time hasmonean (s. II–I a. C.), as a group, that combines rigor legal and at the same time a certain “popularity” in front of the elites of the priesthood.
• Its central feature: believe in the written Torah and in an “oral Torah”, a body of interpretations, customs, and decrees passed by the wise men (the“traditions of the fathers”).
• They believe in:
  • Resurrection of the dead.
  • Angels and spirits.
  • Life after death with reward and punishment.

After the destruction of the Temple in the year 70 ce. C., the current farisea is transformed into rabbinical judaism.

2.2. Sadducees

• Group linked to the priestly aristocracy and the families of high-ranking in Jerusalem, closely associated with the Temple and the high priesthood.
• They have their rise in the period hasmonean and herodiana: they appear as political allies of the rulers and, in many cases, as part of the majority of the Sanhedrin (although this varies by season).
• His feature doctrinal basics:
  • Rejection of the oral Torah farisea; only recognize the Written torah (the five books of Moses) as binding.
  • They deny the resurrection of the dead, the existence of angels and spiritsand do not hold an eschatology developed reward/punishment after death.

After the destruction of the Temple, disappear as a group because of its power and identity were completely linked to the worship of the Temple.

“The dispute between the pharisees and the sadducees was not because of details, but by who had the right to define the will of God.”

3. Axes doctrinal conflict

3.1. Writing vs. Oral tradition

This was probably the theoretical nucleus of the fights.

• Pharisees: divine revelation does not end in the letter written; there is a authoritative interpretation handed down orally, which regulates how to apply the Torah to daily life.
  • This “Torah in the mouth” will be later the base of the Mishnah and the Talmud.
• Sadducees:
  • Reject this oral tradition farisea and argue that only the Written torah is binding.
  • Any rule not be able to sustain themselves literally in the Torah of Moses is not binding.

Practical consequence:
Each time the pharisees imposed a standard that is based on the oral tradition (for example, certain requirements of purity, tithing, rules of Shabbat, calendar), the sadducees could consider it unlawful, or even an “innovation”.

This conflict is reflected in the Mishnah, where he is sometimes cited expressly “words of the sadducees” in opposition to the halachah farisea.

3.2. Resurrection, angels and life after death

The other major axis of conflict, very clear, as in Acts 23:8:

“The sadducees say there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit; but the pharisees acknowledge all these things.”

• Pharisees:
  • Believe in the immortality of the soul, the bodily resurrection future and a judgment of God, who rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked in the “world to come”.
  • Accept the existence of angels, spirits, and a spiritual world active in the story.
• Sadducees:
  • They deny the resurrection and any form of life at post-mortem developed; for them, the divine retribution occurs primarily in this life.
  • Deny or minimize the existence of angels and spirits, at least as understood by other jewish groups.

This was not a difference abstract: conditioned the preaching, hope popular and the reception of the christian message primitive. The sadducees were opposed with force to the preaching of the apostles about the resurrection of Jesus because he claimed that which they denied.

3.3. Providence, free will and destiny

Josephus summarizes, in general lines:

• The pharisees combining the idea of divine providence with the free will: God rules the world, but the human decisions have.
• The sadducees tended to a more “liberal” in the sense that they put more weight in the human free will and less on the constant interventions of God.

The confrontation here is on how it is understood the government of God on the history and the sense of the laws: are they mere legal precepts, or part of a cosmic plan that culminates in the resurrection and judgment?

4. Differences halájicas concrete and discussions practices

The theology was translated into lawsuits specific legal. Some fields typical of dispute:

4.1. Ritual purity and Temple

• The sadduceesconnected to the priesthood, they defended readings strictly literal of the laws of purity of the Temple.
• The pharisees they developed a complex system of purity that stretched from the Temple to the table domesticelevating the everyday life to the level of service to God.

Classic example (alluded to in Qumran and the Mishnah Yad. 4:7):

• The dispute over the transmission of impurity through liquids and streams of water. The halachah rabbinic later attributed this position more “strict” to the sadducees, while the pharisees were defending another interpretation.

4.2. Calendar, sacrifices and worship

• It is likely that he would have differences on the calendar (when, exactly, to celebrate certain holidays and what method to use to determine the dates).
• Also on details of the sacrifices and priestly service: the position saducea, very priestly, could collide with interpretations fariseas based on oral tradition.

This created tensions not only theoretical, but on who's in charge really in the Temple and what group has the authority to fix the cult.

4.3. Civil and criminal law

By following only the written Torah:

• The sadducees tended to an application more literal of the law of retaliation (“an eye for an eye”), while the pharisees the played in the key of monetary compensation, based on interpretative tradition.
• Topics marriage, levirate, inheritances and legal testimonythe interpretations also differed, affecting judgments and judgments of concrete.

Mishnah and Tosefta preserve several controversies presented as “the sadducees say...” and the sages respond, which reflects a long history of litigation in-house legal.

“The people listened to the pharisees; the Temple was due to the sadducees.”

5. Social and political dimension of the conflict

The fights were not only about religious ideas; they were also disputes of power and social class.

5.1. Social Base

• Sadducees:
  • Priestly aristocracy, wealthy families, large property owners, close to the political power (Hasmonaeans first, then Herod, and the roman procurators).
• Pharisees:
  • Stratum scholars, scribes, teachers of the Lawwith a base among the common people, merchants, artisans, peasants, more observant.
  • Less economic power direct, but great moral and religious influence on the people.

5.2. Relationship with political power

During the hasmonean dynasty:

• Under some of the kings (as John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus), the sadducees enjoyed please officerwhile the pharisees could be persecuted or marginalized when criticising the government.
• With Salome Alexandrathe balance leans more towards the pharisees, who have great influence in the Sanhedrin and in the internal politics of Judea.

Low Herod and the romans:

• The high-priesthood remained almost always in the hands of families of trend saducéa, which ensured a control of the Temple, and good relationship with Rome.
• The pharisees maintained a position that is more ambiguous: they were not openly revolutionary block, but critical of the corruption and collaboration excessive with the foreign power. His influence grew in the synagogues and in the local life.

5.3. Attitude to hellenism and Rome

• The sadducees they were seen many times as more open to hellenistic culture, the luxury and the policy of engagement with the Empire.
• The pharisees defended a major separation and fidelity to the Lawresisting the hellenization moral and religious (though not all were antimundos).

This fueled tensions: for many pious jews, the sadducees represented an elite wealthy and too close to the foreign powerswhile the pharisees were seen as guardians of religious identity.

“In the Sanhedrin, sometimes God seemed to speak with two voices: that of the priest and the teacher.”

6. The fights as they appear in the sources

6.1. In the New Testament

1. Discussion about resurrection
   • The sadducees ask Jesus about the levirate and the resurrection (Mt 22, Mc 12, Lc 20), precisely at the point at which opposed doctrinally to the pharisees.
   • Jesus responds using texts of the Torah, which is significant: he discusses with them in the field of Writing writtenthat was the only thing that they accepted.
2. Acts 23: Paul and the Sanhedrin
   • Paul, knowing that the Sanhedrin is divided between the pharisees and the sadducees, declares: “I am a pharisee, son of pharisees; for the hope of the resurrection of the dead I am on trial today.”
   • This lights up a fight internal between both sides, to the point of divide completely the assembly.
3. Reaction to the preaching of the resurrection
   • Facts stresses that the the sadducees were opposed especially to the preaching of the resurrection of Jesusbecause collided head-on with his doctrine.

6.2. In Josephus

Josephus describes the pharisees and sadducees not only as religious groups, but as “parties” political who were competing for influence in the court hasmonean and in the opinion of the people.

• Pharisees:
  • Popular, viewed as more godly and closer to the peoplealthough severe and demanding.
• Sadducees:
  • Hard elites, which showed very little condescension towards the common people and depended on the support of power.

The fights, according to Josephus, included:

• Disputes appointments priestly.
• Disputes fiscal policy and the relationship with the neighboring kingdoms and Rome.
• Disputes over how to manage crisis, religious and political (for example, reactions to prophets, agitators, etc).

7. Deep nature of their “fights”

If you synthesize it, discussions and fights between the pharisees and sadducees in the Second Temple were happening simultaneously on several levels:

1. Level hermeneutic (who interprets the Torah)
   • Pharisees: the authority is in the string of the wise, and their oral tradition.
   • Sadducees: the authority is in the letter written and in the institution priestly.
2. The doctrinal level–eschatological
   • Pharisees: resurrection, angels, world to come, final judgment.
   • Sadducees: orientation more “earthly” and legalisticwithout eschatology strong.
3. Social level
   • Pharisees: middle-class religious, teachers of the Law, close to the synagogue and to the people.
   • Sadducees: elite priestly and aristocratic, centered on the Temple and the power.
4. Political level
   • Dispute:
     • Influence on the Sanhedrin.
     • Effective Control of the Temple.
     • Definition policy towards foreign powers.
5. Level symbolic-religious
   • For many jews, the fight resulted in:
     • Who represents truth the God's will?
     • What the priest aristocrat in the Temple, or the wise pharisee who teaches in the synagogue and on the street?

8. Final destination of each group and the result of the dispute

With the destruction of the Temple in the year 70 ce. C.:

• The sadducees lost its reason for being: no Temple, no sacrifices or high priesthood in functions, your power crumbles and they disappear from the historical map as an organized group.
• The pharisees, in contrasthaving its centre in the Torah and the interpretative tradition, could function without a Temple.
  • His heirs, the rabbis, reconstruct judaism on:
    • The Written torah and oral.
    • The synagogue.
    • The life of mitzvot in the home and the community.

In this sense, we can say that:

• The fights pharisees–the sadducees were, in the background, a fight for the future of judaism after the Temple.
• The current farisea is that which was finally imposed and defined the form of judaism until today.

“Who controls the interpretation of the Law, controls the hearts of the people.”

9. Synthesis

For having in the head a map, and fast:

1. Text vs. Tradition
   • Pharisees: written Torah + Oral torah.
   • Sadducees: single Written torah.
2. Beyond death
   • Pharisees: resurrection, angels, spirits, world to come.
   • Sadducees: they deny the resurrection, angels and spirits; retribution, in essence, in this life.
3. Social Base
   • Pharisees: movement of the wise, popular support.
   • Sadducees: priestly aristocracylinked to the Temple and to power.
4. Policy
   • Pharisees: influence on the people and on occasion on the Sanhedrin, sometimes in tension with the power.
   • Sadducees: natural allies of kings hasmonaeans and Herod Rome.
5. Historical outcome
   • Sadducees disappear with the Temple.
   • Pharisees give rise to rabbinic judaism.