Sadducees and Pharisees Religious Parties in the Times of Jesus - Essay Example

Name Course Lecturer Date Sadducees and Pharisees were religious parties in the times of Jesus who always criticized Him and were also criticized by Him. Literature depicts Sadducees as conservatives or rather as old believers for they are said to have staunch believe in the Law of Moses, which they believed was authoritative (Segal). This party did not accept many doctrines held by others and even Jesus Himself. This included the fact that, they never bought the idea that Jesus resurrected from the dead. They also never believed in the existence of angles, spirit and the life after death, most importantly the punishments after death (Tcherikover). Additionally, they were more or less a political force which was a representation of priestly aristocracy and Israel’s power structure. In the contrary, Pharisees were a pure reflection of a common man and they believed in the authority of the Old Testament as well as every tradition of the elders. They believed in worshiping in the temple. Their concern revolved around the temple. It is worth noting that, through the way these two parties interpreted the law or rather understood the same, the Pharisees and Sadducees had substantial controversies and disagreements. In A.D. 70, the temple was destroyed and this brought about the dominance of Sadducee Judaism incapacitating the presence of Pharisaic Judaism (Finkelstein). This therefore leads to the notion that, there were substantial controversies that existed between these two parties. However, it is a point worth noting that, these differences were as a result of their diverse understanding and interpretation of the Law of Moses. This article discusses and analyzes the controversies that existed between these two parties and elaborates on the party which was in the right direction, in accordance to their beliefs and stand in regard to the Law. Sadducees and Pharisees differed in their outlooks on Jewish law. The Sadducees and Pharisees was a ruling class and had a high status in Israel. They comprised of a cluster of rulership that determined the public behavior among the Jewish. The two groups had many similarities but there were also important differences as well. Each group had its own significance in the society with major controversies between them. The themes of strict interpretation and progressiveness differentiate and offer a way to understand their differences. Though they worked closely and had links to Jewish religion, there were tentative and diverse philosophies that involved commonality and rejections of beliefs. Their arguments based on their beliefs were mutually exclusive making their relationship more confrontational than accommodative. One sect would reject the breadth of the other based on traditional notions. There are complexities seen with the first century Jews that cannot promote traditional generalization. In the approach to Judaism, the Sadducees were reluctant to traditional law while Pharisees were excessive tradition-bound group. The historical origins and subsequent manifestations of Jewish distinctive traditions brought about structures for application of rules. The rabbis replaced the priest and civic rulers who were a force loyal to the domestic government throughout the Jewish world p.152. Fraade argument was based on the thoughts of the first century world to illuminate what was going between the Sadducees and Pharisees p.38. The Torah was akin to both as it set a series of laws which necessitated interpretation. The work looks at the enormous body of scholar literature and academic efforts that examined Jewish sects (Baumgarten. It is a more critical analysis of various literary sources. Traditionally, scholars portrayed the Sadducees as a sect that was strict in interpreting the law and would accept nothing to be binding if it was not in line with literal language in the Torah. On the other extreme, the Pharisees are portrayed as a sect that was more progressive and accepted the whole body of traditional law. In turn, their ideology and beliefs defined their role in the century where they acted as custodian of oral Torah. Oral Torah involved the traditions that were developed alongside the written Torah but not formally written in the books (Baumgarten). Pharisees became the most significant group who interacted closely with the masses. In fact they were seen as spiritual fathers of Judaism. Mainly, they believed in oral law and that is one significant characteristic that distinguished them from Sadducees. Their arguments were that God had given Moses the written law at Sinai together with oral directions. They found out that much of the law was open to interpretation. Their belief was supported by reasoning that God gave Moses the knowledge of the meaning and application of the law (Schiffman). However, since Sadducees were involved in writing memoirs, much of Pharisees oral traditions were not codified in writing. Interpretation gave them an active role within the society; to pass Torah traditions and reframe laws in every setting. The Pharisees were obsessed with interpreting people’s action and kept a strict code of conduct that defines the Jews cultures and behaviors by then. The Pharisees relied on ancient tradition to offer them a ground to teach the gaps and ambiguities that existed in written texts. To them, the written texts would not be taken literally. That gave them a ground to claim massive influence in the Jewish society and was by far the custodian and consultants of the moral and religious codes of the day. The interpretations were based on conventions that had been passed or as it was supplemented by set of passed unwritten traditions. From the time of Moses, the unwritten traditions had been passed down in a similar mode from a teacher to the disciple. The Torah received by Moses was handled down to Joshua who passed it to the Elders and the elders to the Prophets and the prophets later handed it to the Great Assembly. From Pharisees perspectives, Jews were the people of Torah and had to take it in day-to-day actions and interactions. The life of a Jew was more inclined to the synagogue, the law schools and the house of study. Sadducees comprised of the elitists that were highly involved with priestly and caste relationship. They differed with Pharisees as they rejected the idea of oral law. For the sect, it was obsessed with literal interpretation of the written law. Anything that was not meant in Torah was unacceptable to them. The party was less involved with the masses and inclined to the great Sanhedrin which was a form of Jewish Supreme Court made of 71 members that were responsible in interpreting the religious and civil laws (Cohen 14). The group was the ruling class among the Jews and was of essence to the Pharisees as it could in judgment maters. Their roles may have led to that strictness to law as interpretation would have diluted the rules and open up viewpoints in interpretation. The Pharisees had not assumed the power to make judgments as the role was left to the Sanhedrin. The supreme council of the Jews would then determine cases that fell under their religious roles and could rely on the regional authorities to conclude legal actions. The Sadducees viewed the Jews as the people of the land of Israel and of the State. The differences on their viewpoint were more in emphasis than exclusion. In turn, they dominated the priesthood. Sadducees focused on rituals associated with Jewish temple. In addition, they were in control of most of political-related position among the Jews and interacted with the Roman government in keeping law and order according to the manners and traditions of the Jews (Brenner). The positions of the Sadducees as judges did not bring a close-relationship with the people. In turn, it created a hierarchy of roles where Sadducees being more inclined with the civil matters were close to the Empire and immediately answerable to it on Jewish affairs. The Pharisees followed in the hierarchy in what today may be referred to as the blue-collar roles. According to Cohen, the centre of power and authority in Jewish time before the final destruction of the Second Temple were gathered around two centers. The first was State authority that was exercised by the King with assistance from the Priestly Authority under which then Sadducees lied. The other crown belonged to the Pharisees or the Rabbinate that usurped authority of the King and the Sadducees during trouble period 23. As Fraade, observes, the Sadducees disappeared after the destruction of the temple and since their roles and writings were in the temple, nothing about them could be traced p.43. Their position had ended up in a loss and it is only through the Pharisees beliefs in oral and written laws that the Jewish culture and traditions remained up to today. Sadducees was an institution that was not connected with the people and thus it was not succeeded. However, the relevance of Pharisees and contribution on institution of religion and traditions meant a lot to the people and sustained the traditions taught by Pharisees as the moral and religious code in the lives of the Jews(Baumgarten. Pharisees had a lasting imprint in their culture and promoted to social and religious needs of the Jews. Their status also made them accessible to the common Jews and could mix with the people in different social contexts. To them, every action was judged by the prevailing rules and regulations and they had to be accessible to the community for that matter. Another major dispute that existed between Pharisees and Sadducees was in regard to how the high priests would carry the incense into the most holy place during the Day of Atonement (Brenner). Sadducees were for the point that, the offering ought to be prepared outside the holy of holies. In this regard, the High Priest was supposed to prepare the incense outside the curtain and while the smoke of the offering is coming up, they should carry it to the Holy of Holies and offer it there (Brenner). In the contrary, Pharisees believed that, the incense should not be prepared outside the holy of holies or in a censer. They believed that, the high priest should enter the holy of holies carrying the censer with hot coals in his right hand and a spoon full of incense on the other hand, and immediately he gets behind the curtain, he puts the incense on the coal and thus offer it in there. According to Pharisees, Lev 16:12-13, the high priest was supposed to put incense on the fire before the lord. This therefore means that, the Pharisees opinion is well elaborate even in the Law of Moses but the Sadducees was based on just claims that cannot be confirm through textual platforms. According to Jewish historian Josephus, there was yet another substantial controversy that existed between these two parties. Sadducees were for the notion that, man was a free moral agent and any prosperity attached to him was totally depending on him. In the contrary, Pharisees believed that man had an immortal soul and that there were rewards for doing good and punishment for evil doing (Brenner). None of the parties believed in what the other had to offer. It can be said that, Sadducees interpreted the law with a lot of seriousness, while Pharisees worked hard towards pleasing people by cultivating for penalties. It is a point worth noting that, Sadducees interpreted the law literary that they did not allow the rendering of conjugal rights for 40 days when the child is a male and 80 while it is female. They believed in exactly what the law said. There was another substantial controversy that was over the place of the libation. Le Monye studied Sadducees and came to a conclusion that, they believed that the libation should be poured at the base of alter and not at all should be poured upon the alter. This leads to the fact that, there were indeed different opinions on where the ritual is to be performed. But scholars suggest that, according to Num 15:7, the libation was supposed to be poured directly upon the alter. But according to Pharisees, the libation was supposed to be poured upon the later which was in contrary to the what Sadducees believed. They believed that it should be sprinkled upon the alter. This meant that, there was in no way a Sadducean priest would pour libation on the base of the alter but would do the same on the burning flames (Brenner). According to Sadducees, when water is spilt, then it is unclean through the act of pouring, Pharisees on the other hand opposed this notion stating that, this is not a clean fact about un-cleanliness. Additionally, according to T.Yadainc.2:, daughters were supposed to inherit only when there were no sons, according to the Jews Law. Pharisees if there were only one daughter, and then she is supposed to inherit with the sons of her grandfather. Saducees of the other hand state that, under the law, the daughter has the same claim as daughters son and is valid to share the dominion. This sums it all with the fact that, that Pharisees gave equal importance to the oral tradition and the written word of God. In the contrary, the Sadducees gave much importance to the written word of God. However even if the strived to preserve the authority written in the world of God, they cannot be said to be actually perfect in regard to their doctrinal views. On the other hand, the Pharisees cared more of the common man. They were more regarded by the common man more than the Sadducees. Though they were a few in numbers, they seemed to control the decision making and the Sanhedrin. This was most elaborate for they had much approval of many men. They accepted the word of God but also approved the oral traditions for they believed it was linked to Moses. However, the two parties seemed to differ in the most important aspects. This being the case, it is might be very misleading to follow anyone of them. This is attributed to the fact that, there are in no way the traditions can be held in the same regard as the scriptures as it was the case the Pharisees. At the same case, the relationship between man and God can be reduced or measured through legal aspects and rituals. The main reason for this conclusion is that fact that in regard to Christ, He taught compassion, friendliness, liberty for the oppressed and many other virtues. However, in according to the Pharisees, they kept aside the lower classes and only forged for their won good centrally to what Christ would have done. They wanted people converted to themselves, and this was out of their selfishness. As for the Sadducees, they incapacitated human free will. They dictated that man was at his own disposal. In the actual sense, this was contrary to whatever Christ was teaching. References Baumgarten. "AThe Flourishing of Jewish Sects in Maccabean Era:." Leiden. An Interpretation. (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Juadaism,V 55). New York: BillAcademic Publishers, 1997. Brenner, Michael. "A Short History of the Jews." Riemer, Trans.Jeremiah. Princeton: Princeton University Press, , 2012. Cohen, Stuart. The three crowns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print Finkelstein, L. The Pharisees. Volumes I,II. Philadelphia: . The Jewish Publication Society, , 1966. Fraade, Steven D. "Literary Composition and Oral Performance in Early Midrashim." Oral Tradition 14.1 (1999): 33-51. Schiffman, Lawrence. "Texts and Traditions: A Source Reader for the Study of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism." Ktav Publishers Inc., (1997). Segal, Alan F. Rebecca's Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World, , . Harvard University Press, 1986. Tcherikover, V. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Philadelphia:. The Jewish Publication society, 1959. Read More

The themes of strict interpretation and progressiveness differentiate and offer a way to understand their differences. Though they worked closely and had links to Jewish religion, there were tentative and diverse philosophies that involved commonality and rejections of beliefs. Their arguments based on their beliefs were mutually exclusive making their relationship more confrontational than accommodative. One sect would reject the breadth of the other based on traditional notions. There are complexities seen with the first century Jews that cannot promote traditional generalization.

In the approach to Judaism, the Sadducees were reluctant to traditional law while Pharisees were excessive tradition-bound group. The historical origins and subsequent manifestations of Jewish distinctive traditions brought about structures for application of rules. The rabbis replaced the priest and civic rulers who were a force loyal to the domestic government throughout the Jewish world p.152. Fraade argument was based on the thoughts of the first century world to illuminate what was going between the Sadducees and Pharisees p.38. The Torah was akin to both as it set a series of laws which necessitated interpretation.

The work looks at the enormous body of scholar literature and academic efforts that examined Jewish sects (Baumgarten. It is a more critical analysis of various literary sources. Traditionally, scholars portrayed the Sadducees as a sect that was strict in interpreting the law and would accept nothing to be binding if it was not in line with literal language in the Torah. On the other extreme, the Pharisees are portrayed as a sect that was more progressive and accepted the whole body of traditional law.

In turn, their ideology and beliefs defined their role in the century where they acted as custodian of oral Torah. Oral Torah involved the traditions that were developed alongside the written Torah but not formally written in the books (Baumgarten). Pharisees became the most significant group who interacted closely with the masses. In fact they were seen as spiritual fathers of Judaism. Mainly, they believed in oral law and that is one significant characteristic that distinguished them from Sadducees.

Their arguments were that God had given Moses the written law at Sinai together with oral directions. They found out that much of the law was open to interpretation. Their belief was supported by reasoning that God gave Moses the knowledge of the meaning and application of the law (Schiffman). However, since Sadducees were involved in writing memoirs, much of Pharisees oral traditions were not codified in writing. Interpretation gave them an active role within the society; to pass Torah traditions and reframe laws in every setting.

The Pharisees were obsessed with interpreting people’s action and kept a strict code of conduct that defines the Jews cultures and behaviors by then. The Pharisees relied on ancient tradition to offer them a ground to teach the gaps and ambiguities that existed in written texts. To them, the written texts would not be taken literally. That gave them a ground to claim massive influence in the Jewish society and was by far the custodian and consultants of the moral and religious codes of the day.

The interpretations were based on conventions that had been passed or as it was supplemented by set of passed unwritten traditions. From the time of Moses, the unwritten traditions had been passed down in a similar mode from a teacher to the disciple. The Torah received by Moses was handled down to Joshua who passed it to the Elders and the elders to the Prophets and the prophets later handed it to the Great Assembly. From Pharisees perspectives, Jews were the people of Torah and had to take it in day-to-day actions and interactions.

The life of a Jew was more inclined to the synagogue, the law schools and the house of study. Sadducees comprised of the elitists that were highly involved with priestly and caste relationship.

Read More