Why did Sadducees not believe in Resurrection? Acts 23:8

[LittleLambofJesus]

Acts 23 is an interesting chapter in the NT where Paul used the division of the Pharisees and Sadducees concerning the resurrection to cause even more division among them.
My question is, why did the Sadducees not believe in a resurrection but the Pharisees did? Thanks

Acts 23:6 Knowing yet, the Paul, that the one part is of Sadducees, the yet different of Pharisees, he cried out in the sunhedrin, "Men! brethren! I a Pharisee am, son of Pharisees concerning hope and resurrection of dead-ones I-am being judged!"

Acts 23:8 for Sadducees indeed are saying no to be resurrection, neither/mhde <3366> messenger, neither/mhte <3383> spirit, but Pharisees/farisaioi <5330> yet are avowing both/amfotera <297> .

Textus Rec.) Acts 23:8 saddoukaioi men gar legousin mh einai anastasin mhde aggelon mhte pneuma farisaioi de omologousin ta amfotera

3366. mede may-deh' from 3361 and 1161; but not, not even; in a continued negation, nor:--neither, nor (yet), (no) not (once, so much as).
3383. mete may'-teh from 3361 and 5037; not too, i.e. (in continued negation) neither or nor; also, not even:--neither, (n-)or, so as much.
297. amphoteros am-fot'-er-os comparative of amphi (around); (in plural) both:--both.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3974

*snip*

The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead or the immortality of the soul, since these doctrines are not mentioned in the law of Moses. Neither did they believe in heaven or hell. They interpreted the law literally and tended to support strict justice as opposed to mercy toward the offender. Since Jesus supported all these things opposed by the Sadducees, Jesus did not fit within the Sadducean movement.

 

[MrPolo]

When I was in grade school, they said because they are "sad, you see"?

 

[cyberlizard]

they did not believe in it as it is not explicitly taught in the written Torah.


Steve

 

[Standing Up]

they did not believe in it as it is not explicitly taught in the written Torah.


Steve

They were the sola scriptura crowd, while the Pharisees were the scripture and oral tradtion crowd; in a nutshell, right?

After Temple destruction, the Sadducces' kinda disappeared, and the oral tradition (Mishna) began to dominate.

Kinda like the different Christian groups around today.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

They were the sola scriptura crowd, while the Pharisees were the scripture and oral tradtion crowd; in a nutshell, right? Kinda like the different Christian groups around today.

Except they have proof of the resurection.

 

[SummaScriptura]

The idea the Sadducees were some sort of super-conservative branch of Judaism is taking a few facts and blowing them way out of proportion.

They were very liberal in oh so many ways. Think of it this way...

Imagine you are a completely secularized Jew who wishes to be a priest because it is a position of power and wealth. You couldn't care less about most elements of the faith except where public opinion forces you to. You pay to get the job. You hate those Pharisees as rigid religious nuts who have rules for everything.

Yes, you will deny the resurrection and a plethora of other doctrines becasue you chaffe at people telling you what you must believe to be right. How dare they!

In fact, lets take this a bit further...

"I believe in Moses only, and certain traditions of the nation, take your other books and beliefs and go walk off a cliff! I paid good money to Rome for this job!!! You and your gullible ignorant followers can hope for pie-in-the-sky or new bodies or whatever. I know what counts is getting ahead in this life." ~ Signed, Annas

In this light then, it is a falsity to say the idea of resurrection was a late development. No. What was of late development was the denial of it. As early as Job, the resurrection was assumed.

 

[SummaScriptura]

When I was in grade school, they said because they are "sad, you see"?

And the others were not "fair, you see"?

 

[Standing Up]

The idea the Sadducees were some sort of super-conservative branch of Judaism is taking a few facts and blowing them way out of proportion.

They were very liberal in oh so many ways. Think of it this way...

Imagine you are a completely secularized Jew who wishes to be a priest because it is a position of power and wealth. You couldn't care less about most elements of the faith except where public opinion forces you to. You pay to get the job. You hate those Pharisees as rigid religious nuts who have rules for everything.

Yes, you will deny the resurrection and a plethora of other doctrines becasue you chaffe at people telling you what you must believe to be right. How dare they!

In fact, lets take this a bit further...

"I believe in Moses only, and certain traditions of the nation, take your other books and beliefs and go walk off a cliff! I paid good money to Rome for this job!!! You and your gullible ignorant followers can hope for pie-in-the-sky or new bodies or whatever. I know what counts is getting ahead in this life." ~ Signed, Annas

In this light then, it is a falsity to say the idea of resurrection was a late development. No. What was of late development was the denial of it. As early as Job, the resurrection was assumed.

Interesting stuff. Nice catch with Job.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It is simplistic to stereotype the Sadduccees as sola scriptura and the Pharisees as liberals, but the reality is that like many conservative Christian denominations both held very high views of scripture. Both also played into the culture of the period. One, strangely enough, fed the early Christian movement although its founder spent a great deal of His earthly ministry attacking its proponents. The sack of Jerusalem by the Roman Emperor Titus in A.D. 70 led to the eventual eclipse of one by the other as it was largely discredited.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Yes, and then modern Judaism developed after the destruction of the Temple and bears little resemblance to any form of Biblical Judaism. This is why it always bothers me when people say "Judeo-Christian".

Also, I heard a sermon online recently regarding "Christian" seders, which apparently some Protestants and even some Catholics have gotten involved in. The priest rightly denounced it as superstition (false worship of God) and blasphemous. Judaizers have always been troublesome in the Church, the first Council was concerned with them (Acts 15), and St. Paul denounced them (Gal 4:9-11).

Regarding the Sadducees, they only accepted the Pentauch as Scripture and not the rest of the Torah or the Talmud (oral tradition). Since the resurrection doesn't appear explicitly until Ezekiel (ch 37), they didn't believe in it. St. Luke (Acts 23:8) also says they didn't believe in angels, though it is not entirely clear what is meant by that since angels are mentioned many times in the Pentauch. They were legalists who denied symbolic interpretations of the Scripture (e.g. "eye for an eye" means literally "carve out the offender's eye"), the ongoing intimate relationship of God with the world and the immortality of the soul (thus any notion of punishment or reward in the afterlife).

So yes, they were "sad, you see..."

 

[epiktetos]

Acts 23 is an interesting chapter in the NT where Paul used the division of the Pharisees and Sadducees concerning the resurrection to cause even more division among them.
My question is, why did the Sadducees not believe in a resurrection but the Pharisees did? Thanks

Acts 23:6 Knowing yet, the Paul, that the one part is of Sadducees, the yet different of Pharisees, he cried out in the sunhedrin, "Men! brethren! I a Pharisee am, son of Pharisees concerning hope and resurrection of dead-ones I-am being judged!"

Acts 23:8 for Sadducees indeed are saying no to be resurrection, neither/mhde <3366> messenger, neither/mhte <3383> spirit, but Pharisees/farisaioi <5330> yet are avowing both/amfotera <297> .

Textus Rec.) Acts 23:8 saddoukaioi men gar legousin mh einai anastasin mhde aggelon mhte pneuma farisaioi de omologousin ta amfotera

3366. mede may-deh' from 3361 and 1161; but not, not even; in a continued negation, nor:--neither, nor (yet), (no) not (once, so much as).
3383. mete may'-teh from 3361 and 5037; not too, i.e. (in continued negation) neither or nor; also, not even:--neither, (n-)or, so as much.
297. amphoteros am-fot'-er-os comparative of amphi (around); (in plural) both:--both.

The Sadducees | Bible.org - Largest Bible Study Site

*snip*

The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead or the immortality of the soul, since these doctrines are not mentioned in the law of Moses. Neither did they believe in heaven or hell. They interpreted the law literally and tended to support strict justice as opposed to mercy toward the offender. Since Jesus supported all these things opposed by the Sadducees, Jesus did not fit within the Sadducean movement.

In discussions about them, I've compared the Sadducees of the
ancient times as the Unitarians and Liberals of modern Christianity.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Yes, and then modern Judaism developed after the destruction of the Temple and bears little resemblance to any form of Biblical Judaism. This is why it always bothers me when people say "Judeo-Christian".

Christians and Jews share many commonalities, like Moses, the 10 commandments, the Psalms, David, Solomon, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah... those elements we share, are Judeo-Christian elements.

Also, I heard a sermon online recently regarding "Christian" seders, which apparently some Protestants and even some Catholics have gotten involved in. The priest rightly denounced it as superstition (false worship of God) and blasphemous. Judaizers have always been troublesome in the Church, the first Council was concerned with them (Acts 15), and St. Paul denounced them (Gal 4:9-11).

You and apparently your priest, are mistaking Judaizing with being Jewish. If Jews who believe in Jesus continue in Jewish customs that is not Judaizing. According to the Bible Judaizing is a form of Christianity which says you cannot be saved by faith in Jesus alone, you must follow the law of Moses. I have had decades of communion with Jews for Jesus and know Moishe Rosen personally. Of all the Jews who trust Christ whom I know and have known for these 38 years, I have never known an individual who judaizes. I have attended Seders and Shabbats. No Judaizers were in attendence. It was a blessing. I felt no compulsion to make such my norm.

Regarding the Sadducees, they only accepted the Pentauch as Scripture and not the rest of the Torah or the Talmud (oral tradition).</snip>

They accepted all of the Torah.

Apparently they did not, accept the rest of the Tanakh beyond the Torah.

Since the Talmud did not come about until centuries after the Sadducees were defunct, I guess you could rightly say they did not accept the Talmud! They did not accept the American Constitution either, for that matter.

 

[Korah]

We seem to be getting gradually closer to the right terms.
The Sadduccees acknowledged only the Torah, the Pentateuch. These five books of Moses do not teach life after death. So that would have been the Fundamentalist position of Jesus's day.
The Tanach (the Jewish Old Testament) had long been written by this time, so we would not call this "oral tradition". Here life after death can be found, as taught by the Pharisees.
What was still unwritten was gathered together later by the Pharisees as the Talmud, comprised of Mishna and Gemara.

 

[SummaScriptura]

We seem to be getting gradually closer to the right terms.
The Sadduccees acknowledged only the Torah, the Pentateuch. These five books of Moses do not teach life after death. So that would have been the Fundamentalist position of Jesus's day.
The Tanach (the Jewish Old Testament) had long been written by this time, so we would not call this "oral tradition". Here life after death can be found, as taught by the Pharisees.
What was still unwritten was gathered together later by the Pharisees as the Talmud, comprised of Mishna and Gemara.

You seem to equate "Fundamentalist" with a narrower acceptance of core beliefs. That is a tremendous oversimplification. The Pharisees were far more dogmatic and rigid in their application of Scripture than were the Sadducees. By the time of Christ the Aaronic priesthood had long since ended. Also, the office of high priest was held by a single individual for one year and that at the appointment of Rome. How can the Sadducees be seen as Fundamentalist? Their following Moses as regards these aspects of the priesthood was very liberal indeed. No, the Pharisees were the rigorists regarding the application of the Law and that is how I view them as being more Fundamentalist. However, it is probably best to toss out the very term "Fundamentalist" regarding Judaism in the 1st century, as it has anachronistic baggage that comes with it.
not there.

 

[SummaScriptura]

We seem to be getting gradually closer to the right terms.
The Sadduccees acknowledged only the Torah, the Pentateuch.</snip>

It should be noted that the idea the Sadduccees accepted only the five books of Moses is not supported by much early testimony to that fact. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the ONLY testimony to this is to be found in Josephus and Josephus cannot be accepted as a inerrant source.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It should be noted that the idea the Sadduccees accepted only the five books of Moses is not supported by much early testimony to that fact. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the ONLY testimony to this is to be found in Josephus and Josephus cannot be accepted as a inerrant source.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7033640/
Is Josephus considered a reliable Historian?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

We seem to be getting gradually closer to the right terms.
The Sadduccees acknowledged only the Torah, the Pentateuch. These five books of Moses do not teach life after death. So that would have been the Fundamentalist position of Jesus's day.
The Tanach (the Jewish Old Testament) had long been written by this time, so we would not call this "oral tradition". Here life after death can be found, as taught by the Pharisees.
What was still unwritten was gathered together later by the Pharisees as the Talmud, comprised of Mishna and Gemara.

Didn't all the Jews/Israelites in the time of Jesus [and even up to today] acknowledge the 1st 5 books of the OT/OC

The Talmud

A search for Talmud at Google will turn up hundreds of thousands of hits, a depressing number of which are to anti-Semitic sites. However, to our knowledge this is the first extensive English translation of the Talmud to be posted on the Internet.

The Talmud is a vast collection of Jewish laws and traditions. Despite the dry subject matter the Talmud makes interesting reading because it is infused with vigorous intellectual debate, humor and deep wisdom. As the saying goes, 'you don't have to be Jewish' to appreciate this text. If you put in the hard work required to read the Talmud, your mind will get a world-class workout. The process of studying the Talmud has been compared with the practice of Zen Buddhist Koan meditation, and for good reason

 

[RibI]

The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead or the immortality of the soul, since these doctrines are not mentioned in the law of Moses. Neither did they believe in heaven or hell. They interpreted the law literally and tended to support strict justice as opposed to mercy toward the offender. Since Jesus supported all these things opposed by the Sadducees, Jesus did not fit within the Sadducean movement.

Not so, Jesus only disagreed on the resurrection issue and the application of mercy.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Not so, Jesus only disagreed on the resurrection issue and the application of mercy.

But ya have to admit, neither Jesus or John the Baptist had too much sympathy of them

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Bump....interesting thread