What's the calibre of your canon?

[Valletta]

Fair enough. There isn't a whole lot about them definitively, especially since our known references are mostly from the Pharisees (and small handful in the NT). You just had previously made a pretty conclusive statement about their view on the canon when the evidence is that they disagreed with Pharisee "oral law" - Pharisee particular legal rulings about the law, not that there was a canonical dispute. In fact, I'm not aware of evidence of a canonical dispute between Pharisees and Sadduccees unless someone else knows of one, and if they do they're welcome to share it and I'll change my mind on the Sadducees view of the canon.

The Sadducees believed only the Torah was Holy Scripture.

 

[Yekcidmij]

The Sadducees believed only the Torah was Holy Scripture.

Based on what? Please give the primary source. Just restating your position in a matter that's in dispute isn't very useful. I know of a couple of references in Josephus, a small few in the NT, and some references in Rabbinical literature. Hippolytus has a reference too that's interesting to argue about.

I don't think those references support your view.

 

[Erose]

Fair enough. There isn't a whole lot about them definitively, especially since our known references are mostly from the Pharisees (and small handful in the NT). You just had previously made a pretty conclusive statement about their view on the canon when the evidence is that they disagreed with Pharisee "oral law" - Pharisee particular legal rulings about the law, not that there was a canonical dispute. In fact, I'm not aware of evidence of a canonical dispute between Pharisees and Sadduccees unless someone else knows of one, and if they do they're welcome to share it and I'll change my mind on the Sadducees view of the canon.

The passages concerning them from the Britannica and World History state what I claimed that they only accepted the Torah.

Sadducees

Sadducee | Description, Doctrines, & Facts | Britannica

Sadducee, member of a Jewish priestly sect that flourished for about two centuries before the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem in 70 ce. The Sadducees were the party of high priests, aristocratic families, and merchants—the wealthier elements of the population.

www.britannica.com

Here is another one, from a Jewish source: Pharisees, Sadducees & Essenes

 

[Jonaitis]

Reformers mean nothing if they are wrong. They should have confirmed what is true rather than making up meta-dogmas like Sola Scriptura.

As if these words mean anything in relation to my comment.

 

[Yekcidmij]

The passages concerning them from the Britannica and World History state what I claimed that they only accepted the Torah.

Sadducees

Sadducee | Description, Doctrines, & Facts | Britannica

Sadducee, member of a Jewish priestly sect that flourished for about two centuries before the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem in 70 ce. The Sadducees were the party of high priests, aristocratic families, and merchants—the wealthier elements of the population.

www.britannica.com

Here is another one, from a Jewish source: Pharisees, Sadducees & Essenes

Encyclopedia Britannica isn't a primary source - your link doesn't even list the primary sources. Again, the primary sources I'm aware of (Josephus, the NT, Rabbinical literature) do not support that view and it shouldn't be accepted without further explanation.

Your link doesn't present an argument in favor of it's position, but if its author could, it looks like they would base it on the Sadduccee denial of the existence of the soul, resurrection, and angels. But there is no reason to believe that this was due to anything other than a different interpretation on the matter. The Pharisees took certain passages more individually and literally. For example, Ezek 37, which clearly talks in terms of resurrection could be taken to be talking about the restoration of Israel following exile. This could be the same with other resurrection passages - Pharisees took it to be literal and individual (as did Jesus), while the Sadducees apparently did not.

Or take another example on the existence of angels. If the Sadducee rejection of angels were also to be taken as rejection of books that mention angels (rather than simply a different interpretation on the issue), why would they accept the Torah itself which mentions angels (Gen 19:1, Gen 15, Gen 28.....)? In the case of angels, it's clear there was a difference in interpretation of the texts, not a rejection of texts. There's no reason to believe this wasn't the same on other doctrinal differences (resurrection, souls, afterlife) and just as they disputed with Pharisees over other interpretative matters dealing with Pharisee halakah.

Hippolytus also mentions a different take by some Samaritan sects on resurrection in general (Against Heresies 9:29). These sects he mentions apparently took resurrection texts to be talking about leaving children on the earth after we die. This is also the debatable passage I mentioned previously since he mentions Sadducees in this part. The point here though is that it's quite possible, even likely, that the Sadducees were interpreting passages differently, not that they rejected texts that mention the issue in question.

Again, there is no evidence of a dispute between Pharisees and Sadducees over scripture. There is evidence of doctrinal disputes, halakic disputes, differences in interpretation, and a rejection of Pharisee oral law as binding. But there is no warrant for taking these disputes as indicating a rejection of scripture. An analogy would be when Protestants tell you that you reject scripture, but you would counter with a different interpretation rather than a rejection. That's what's happening here between Sadducees and Pharisees.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Can you cite your source, your primary source, on the Sadduccees views on the canon? The two references from Joseephus can, and probably should be read as the Sadducees rejecting Pharisee halakah, not a rejection of Pharisee canon. The other ref's in the Mishnah and Talmud look to be arguments with Pharisee halakah, not arguments about the canon.

I would refer to Origen. And that the Sadducees eventually merged with the Samaritans who we know had a shorter canon.

Point being the canon isn't necessarily settled before the passion of Jesus and the birth of the Church at Pentecost. The Alexandrian Jews had a different canon and the Essenes had their own things going on.

A generation ago people liked to hypothesize about a 'Council of Jamnia' in 70 AD that fixed the books the Jewish authorities considered canon. Today we are more careful, as no evidence for an actual 'Council of Jamnia' has been found. By whatever process the Jewish authorities excluded any and every mention of Jesus. They should have at least known about a gospel or two and some of the epistles. And they should have included these if they were guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Erose]

Encyclopedia Britannica isn't a primary source - your link doesn't even list the primary sources. Again, the primary sources I'm aware of (Josephus, the NT, Rabbinical literature) do not support that view and it shouldn't be accepted without further explanation.

Your link doesn't present an argument in favor of it's position, but if its author could, it looks like they would base it on the Sadduccee denial of the existence of the soul, resurrection, and angels. But there is no reason to believe that this was due to anything other than a different interpretation on the matter. The Pharisees took certain passages more individually and literally. For example, Ezek 37, which clearly talks in terms of resurrection could be taken to be talking about the restoration of Israel following exile. This could be the same with other resurrection passages - Pharisees took it to be literal and individual (as did Jesus), while the Sadducees apparently did not.

Or take another example on the existence of angels. If the Sadducee rejection of angels were also to be taken as rejection of books that mention angels (rather than simply a different interpretation on the issue), why would they accept the Torah itself which mentions angels (Gen 19:1, Gen 15, Gen 28.....)? In the case of angels, it's clear there was a difference in interpretation of the texts, not a rejection of texts. There's no reason to believe this wasn't the same on other doctrinal differences (resurrection, souls, afterlife) and just as they disputed with Pharisees over other interpretative matters dealing with Pharisee halakah.

Again, there is no evidence of a dispute between Pharisees and Sadducees over scripture. There is evidence of doctrinal disputes. halakic disputes, differences in interpretation, and a rejection of Pharisee oral law as binding. But there is no warrant for taking these disputes as indicating a rejection of scripture. An analogy would be when Protestants tell you that you reject scripture, but you would counter with a different interpretation rather than a rejection. That's what's happening here between Sadducees and Pharisees.

Look, I don't have access to the primary sources for these articles, and all I can say is that from what I have learned on this matter (primarily from Protestant and Evangelical scholars I might add) is that this is a popular understanding of Biblical historical scholars. I know of no Biblical historical scholar that believes that the Sadducees accepted anything authoritative that wasn't written by Moses. Research it for yourself, and see if you can find one. I cannot convince you if you do not want to be.

By the way here is another Jewish source that also says what I have been saying: SADDUCEES - JewishEncyclopedia.com

 

[Yekcidmij]

I would refer to Origen. And that the Sadducees eventually merged with the Samaritans who we know had a shorter canon.

Beckwith takes that view too that after AD 70 (or AD 135) what was left of the Sadducees "merged" with the Samaritans. I think this merge theory is a long shot as the differences between Samaritan and Sadducee Torah (as well as legal and interpretative traditions) were significant and "merging" would be as impossible then as it would be for Jews and Samaritans to "merge" today. It looks to me like Origen (and Hippolytus) are talking about a Samaritan sect (Hippolytus even locates them in Samaria) and that this group is not necessarily the same or even continuous with the Sadduccees in Jerusalem/Judea of the 2nd temple period. More likely the sect Hippolytus and Origen mention are Dosithean or something similar (Pseudo-Tertullian 1).

 

[chevyontheriver]

Beckwith takes that view too that after AD 70 (or AD 135) what was left of the Sadducees "merged" with the Samaritans. I think this merge theory is a long shot as the differences between Samaritan and Sadducee Torah (as well as legal and interpretative traditions) were significant and "merging" would be as impossible then as it would be for Jews and Samaritans to "merge" today. It looks to me like Origen (and Hippolytus) are talking about a Samaritan sect (Hippolytus even locates them in Samaria) and that this group is not necessarily the same or even continuous with the Sadduccees in Jerusalem/Judea of the 2nd temple period. More likely the sect Hippolytus and Orgen mention are Dosithean or something similar (Pseudo-Tertullian 1).

You opinion is noted.