The Godfather
11.3 The Sanhedrin
11.3.1 Origin
857 The name ‘Sanhedrin’ is a Hebrew transliteration of the Greek word sunedrion, meaning ‘council’. Its origin is largely shrouded in uncertainty. Jewish traditions carry it back to the advisory body of seventy leading figures appointed to assist Moses (Nm 11:10–24), which would be reconstituted by Ezra after the exile. This view rests, however, rather on rabbinic interests than on facts. What seems certain is that this body was post-exilic and came into being as an assembly of prominent aristocrats.
11.3.2 Status and competence
858 During the Seleucid regime, the Sanhedrin appeared as a convocation of the ‘elders’ (heads of families—Greek: gerousia) representing the nation. According to Josephus, it was proclaimed as such by Antiochus III in 198 bc (Antiq. XII:138–44).
859 In the Maccabaean period there is mention of two groups of dignitaries: the archontes (rulers) and the elders. Presumably the ‘rulers’ were officials with special functions and the elders were the heads of the leading aristocratic families. Under the earlier Hasmonaeans this body continued to enjoy respect, but it fell into disfavour with the later members of that house, forfeiting much of its significance.
860 Herod I forced the two groups of leading Jews, the priestly aristocracy and the heads of families, into the background. As for the Sanhedrin, he had several of its prominent members put to death, while he deprived it of its jurisdiction and turned it into a puppet he could manipulate in his own legal processes in Jewish society. As a result of the antagonistic actions of both the later Hasmonaeans and Herod against the Jewish aristocracy, this class opposed the royal house in question, on the one hand, and, on the other, supported Rome.
861 The Romans, however, considerably restored the power of the Sanhedrin by transferring partial jurisdiction to it and allowing it to function as a kind of legislature for internal political matters, which had not previously been the case. This enabled the Sanhedrin to figure as the Jews’ parliament, government (executive authority) and supreme court of justice. But it was only in Judaea that it had formal authority, though its prestige extended to the whole of Jewry. An example of this was the payment of the temple tax by all Jews. Though in particular instances the Sanhedrin could operate outside Judaea, an action such as the one mentioned in Ac 9:2 is not known elsewhere in literature. Whether during Roman rule the Sanhedrin was competent to inflict the death penalty remains a most controversial question. According to the indications, at the time of Jesus’ trial it did not have the power to carry out an execution (see Jn 18:31, but cf. Ac 7:54-58). In any case, it could not put a Roman citizen to death. None the less, due to our New Testament (cf. i.a. Mt 5:22; Ac 4:11-22) and other sources, and especially to the tradition of Jesus’ trial and conviction (Mk 14:53-65par Mt 26:57-68; Lk 22:66–71), it is widely recognized that this Jewish Council had jurisdiction over many spheres of Jewish national life.
862 It would also seem that, despite its prominent role in Jewish national life in New Testament times, one of its constituents, the heads of families, no longer played as important a part in the Sanhedrin, effectively taking a back seat behind the priestly aristocracy and the scribes. In those changed times these two groups were evidently better equipped to deal with the issues which required attention. The Sanhedrin was thus no longer comparable to a senate; now it more nearly resembled a legislature. Yet, as representatives of the Jewish nobility, the heads of families continued to retain a certain significance, seeing that they still comprised part of the governing authority and also embodied the conservative Sadducean points of view.
11.3.3 Composition
863 Besides the high priest as its president, in the time of Jesus and the apostles the Sanhedrin in all probability consisted of seventy members (following Nm 11:16), composed of three groups: the ‘chief priests’ (the most prominent members of the priestly aristocracy; see e.g. Mk 14:53; 15:1; Ac 4:5), the elders (heads of families), and the scribes (mostly Pharisees).
864 While this threefold composition continued during the time of Jesus, there was a complete change after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in ad 70. The cult associated with the temple came to an abrupt end, and with it the priestly element disappeared from Jewish life. This meant that after ad 70 the Sanhedrin in Jamnia, which would oversee Jewish affairs, would no longer have anyone from the priestly aristocracy or a Sadducee among its members. The Pharisaic party alone would assume leadership and exercise authority in those matters which concerned Jewish life and religion.
865 We need to note that not all scholars these days accept that such a body actually existed or that its composition was along the lines traditionally postulated. They point out that the sources available to us do not present a harmonious record. Rabbinic literature, they contend, depicts the Council as an assembly of Torah scholars, with the leader of the Pharisees as its president. The Greek sources (Josephus, the gospels and Acts) portray an aristocratic council presided over by the high priest. These differences are sufficient to convince such scholars that we probably have to do with two councils or bodies, the one dealing with political, the other with religious matters, or that it may well have been that there was no particular, permanent body. Others, again, are of the opinion that the divergencies are to be attributed to the fact that the Sanhedrin’s nature and composition altered in course of time and due to circumstances. This seems to be the most attractive view, just as it appears completely acceptable that over a particular period, and certainly in the time of Jesus and the apostles, there was such a body with an august membership exercising considerable influence on Jewish affairs and with jurisdiction over them. But that does not alter the fact that there are scholars who contend that the existence of such a body cannot be demonstrated from the sources, or that, if it did exist, its nature and composition cannot be determined.
11.3.4 Functions
866 As already mentioned, the Sanhedrin was composed of seventy-one members (seventy, with the high priest as president), but that did not mean that the full Council met on every occasion. In fact, a plenary session occurred only seldom, seeing that most matters were dealt with by smaller committees or councils. There were, of course, occasions when a full sitting was required, as, for instance, in cases of capital crimes and apostasy (heretical teachers, seducers, false prophets, rebel sons, etc.).
867 As far as the Sanhedrin’s judicial processes were concerned, there were certain regulations which under normal circumstances had to be strictly observed. Among the more important of these were the following: No trial could take place at night or on the Sabbath or during a festival. Every charge of apostasy had to be confirmed by the evidence of at least two witnesses. Evidence supporting an accusation had to agree materially in every minute detail. Women were not accepted as witnesses. After sentence had been passed, not even the withdrawal of evidence could alter the situation. A trial on a capital charge, where the verdict of guilty was reached, could not commence and conclude on the same day. On the other hand, the president of the court had the right (known as the law of the moment/circumstances) in exceptional cases to ignore the relevant regulations, in order to bring a serious offence to a speedy and radical conclusion. In how far all these stipulations were in force already in the time of Jesus and were complied with or not during his trial (cf. Mk 14:53–15:1par), is uncertain.
11.3.5 The high priest as president
868 During the time of Jesus, the high priest himself was the aristocratic president of the Council, though the Romans restricted his power. In the period ad 6–36 the high priest’s vestments were kept in Fort Antonia, and the Romans reserved the right to appoint or depose him. This meant that in Jesus’ day, next to the procurator, the high priest was the most powerful man in the land.
869 The high priest had the following three responsibilities:
1. He represented all the Jews before God.
2. He had to represent the Roman administration among the cultic personnel.
3. He had to preside over all domestic matters in the jurisdiction and administration of Judaea.
870 The following officials assisted the high priest in the carrying out of his responsibilities:
1. The captain of the temple, who commanded the temple guard, and, as a member of the highest priestly aristocracy, was frequently himself a candidate for the high priesthood. Assisted by the temple guard, a kind of Jewish military police, he was responsible for maintaining order in the temple square.
2. Five or so additional aristocratic priests, whose chief task was to deal with mainly judicial matters as well as with cultic questions.
3. Three or four priests or laymen, who served as treasurers. They were responsible for administering the income deriving from sacrifices and the temple tax, as well as seeing to the wages of the priests and the temple workers.
871 This executive committee, consisting of about ten men, dealt with current issues relating to the cult, justice, and finance.
872 The most prominent men who served as high priests in the time of Jesus and the apostles were the following, who clearly reflect the enormous influence wielded by Annas I:
Annas (Ananus) I
ad
6–15
Caiaphas (son-in-law of Annas)
18–36
Jonathan (son of Annas)
36–37
Ananias (see Ac 23:2)
48–58
Annas (Ananus) II
62
11.4 Local authorities
873 The Sanhedrin, located in Jerusalem as the highest authority, was not the only body of its kind in the Jewish domains. Across the country there were also many local governing bodies or Sanhedrins. We read of these smaller councils in the New Testament (Mk 13:9par; Mt 5:22;10:17), but unfortunately have very little information about them. We do, however, know that villages with a population of not less than a hundred and twenty adult males were obliged to form a local Sanhedrin of twenty-three members. Such councils were competent to deal with managerial and judicial matters, and the ‘elders’ were prominent among their members. But even the smaller hamlets had their local Sanhedrins, each composed of seven members (Schürer). We also know that for purposes of control (tax, for instance) the Romans divided Judaea into some twelve toparchiae or districts, based around certain urban centres like Jerusalem, Joppa, Jamnia and Emmaus. We may accept that the Sanhedrin of such a centre would have exercised authority over the whole district. All weighty issues had, however, to be brought to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, though even its jurisdiction was not unlimited. Charges involving capital punishment had to be heard by the procurator, since he alone was empowered to inflict the death penalty.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL GUIDE
874
P. Billerbeck, KNTTM I, 257–9,835,1005,1026; II, 166,271; IV, 339–43
T.A. Burkill, Sanhedrin, IDB IV, 214–18
W. Dommershausen, Umwelt (§561), 54f
E. Ferguson, Backgrounds (§82), 533–6
W. Foerster, Zeitgeschichte (§356) I, 123–6
D. Goldblatt, Sanhedrin, ERE XIII, 60–3
H.G. Kippenberg & G.A. Wevers, Zeitgeschichte (§561), 44f
E. Lohse, sunedrion, ThW VII, 859–64
H. Mantel, Sanhedrin, IDB Suppl. Vol., 784–6
R.L. Niswonger, History (§856), 59f
B. Reicke, Era (§82), 115–27
S. Safrai, Jewish self-government, CRINT I/1, 377–419
E. Schürer, HJP II, 184–236
E. Stauffer, Jerusalem und Rom im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, DTb 331, Bern 1957, 67–73, 118f
CHAPTER 12
Groups in Jewish national life in the New Testament period
J.A. du Rand
12.1 Introduction
875 Jewish national life was not nearly as individualistic and fragmented as our modern society. Their religion played an integral and dominant part in their everyday political and social life. This was why various groups with specific religious convictions had a decisive function in Jewish society. Some groups—the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Zealots and the scribes, to name only a few—were institutions and organizations which, as such, also fulfilled a significant political and social role. We cannot, however, simply speak of religious parties or political groups in every instance, but rather of groupings with a religious basis which were prominent in the general social and political ordering of Jewish national life.
12.2 Priests and Levites
12.2.1 The priests and Levites as groups
876 After the exile, Jewish everyday life was influenced chiefly by the priests and the scribes. But in the first centuries after the exile it was especially the priests who organized society with the help of the Torah. They were the spiritual as well as the community leaders to such an extent that the Greek writer Hecataeus described Judaea as a country ruled by priests. Gradually, the exposition of the Torah was taken over by the scribes, so that they were more highly respected by the people. In this way, the scribes of later generations became the community’s leaders in spiritual matters. The priests themselves did not lose their basic position, since the Law stipulated that they alone could offer sacrifices. As the intermediaries between God and the people, their sacrificial function meant that they continued to play a key role.
877 The priestly ranks were closed since according to the laws in the Pentateuch it was only on the basis of natural descent that a man could belong to this group. From the reign of Josiah, temples outside Jerusalem had been illegal, which meant that sacrifices could be offered nowhere else but at the temple in Jerusalem. The most important priests thus lived together as a unit, sharing richly in the prosperity which resulted. During the last phase of the Second Temple period they were certainly the elite of Jewish society (Safrai).
878 The basic qualification for becoming a priest was evidence of natural descent from the house of Aaron, with the result that genealogies became public records. According to Lv 21:7f, a priest was subject to strict laws; for instance, he was allowed to marry only a virgin or a widow of Jewish descent, while the high priest could marry no one but a virgin (Lv 21:13–15). The intention was to confirm the priesthood as a sacral order.
879 A priest could take up his office only if he had no physical defects or deformities (see Lv 21:16–23) and was around twenty years old. Then, after a careful investigation of the candidate, and by authority of the Sanhedrin, he was consecrated.
880 In the time of Jesus there were so many priests that rosters had to be compiled for the carrying out of their duties. The priests were divided into twenty-four families or ‘courses’, who took it in turn to serve in the temple (cf. Lk 1:8).
881 The Levites must be distinguished from the priests. In the Mosaic legislation, they were not allowed to sacrifice. Their duties included the slaughter of the animals, the service of praise and the care of the temple courts (cf. Ezk 44:6–16). They were the priests’ assistants in maintaining the administration. Strictly speaking, they were associated with the priestly functions, but were not allowed at the altar and the inmost sanctuary.
882 As in the case of the priests, admittance to the Levite corps was through pedigree, but here it was descent from Levi which was the yardstick (see Ex 6:17-25; Nm 3:14–39).
883 Initially, the Levites were strictly differentiated from the temple singers, the gatekeepers and the temple servants, who at first were slaves. Subsequently, however, they took over these functions, particularly those of the temple singers and the temple guards or police. The Levites were also divided into serving ‘courses’ or groups, each with its own ‘head’ (cf. 1 Chr 15:4–12).
884 Very few Levites returned from exile with Zerubbabel and Joshua, but many Levite families had remained behind in Judah, unlike the priests who had been taken away. The Levites consisted of two groups: the temple singers and musicians (representing the Levitical upper stratum) and the humbler temple servants who were the gatekeepers or guards, as well as those engaged in such work as cleaning the temple and its vessels.
12.2.2 Various offices and duties
885 The great variety of duties and functions demanded a well-ordered structure of offices. As we have already noted, there were twenty-four service groups among the priests and the Levites, each with its own head and structure.
886 a. The high priest (Greek: archiereus) headed up the whole structure. He acted in a religious and political capacity. As president of the Sanhedrin he exercised control over civil life, and as the religious leader he officiated in the cultic. According to Lv 16, on the Day of Atonement (the occasion when he entered the Most Holy Place) and at the feasts of the New Moon and the New Year he had to offer the sacrifices as the representative of the nation, on whose behalf he appeared before God (cf. Ex 30:10). He had to comply strictly with the purification laws and with the marriage regulations in the Torah.
887 For the Jews, the eight articles of his vestments were a symbol of their religion: a coat of fine linen, white breeches, a turban and a girdle, as well as a breastplate, the white shoulder-pieces, a mantle and a mitre. We may, then, readily understand why Archelaus guarded these robes in Fort Antonia; they had such symbolic value for the Jews that they could easily be used during revolts. They were made available only on feast days.
888 Originally the high priesthood was determined strictly according to descent and was an office for life. The authority of the high priestly office was, however, undermined by various factors: The Syrian rulers, for instance, farmed out the office to the highest bidder (see §768–9). In the Maccabaean period it was illegitimately conferred on Jonathan and then on others (§§773,777–80). The house of Herod also broke these rules of succession by installing Hasmonaean high priests. The burgeoning influence of the Pharisees also chipped at the foundations of the high priest’s authority.
889 b. The following offices in the hierarchy were subordinate to the high priest:
890 The captain of the temple (see Ac 4:1; 5:24) (Hebrew: sāgān) was the high priest’s assistant and stood at his right hand. On the Day of Atonement he could act on the high priest’s behalf. He supervised the cultic and the officiating priests. He was also the head of the temple police, who arrested the apostles (Ac 5:24,26).
891 c. Next in rank were the directors of the twenty-four weekly serving groups (courses), and under them the hundred and fifty-six directors of the daily courses. The members of these groups lived outside Jerusalem, officiating in the temple for one week in every twenty-four, as well as during the three festal weeks. The head of the weekly course was responsible for the ritual of purification of lepers and of women after childbirth (see Lk 2:24). The head of the daily course had the daily sacrifice as his responsibility, as instructed by the captain of the temple.
892 d. Other senior priests were the seven temple overseers and the three temple treasurers (Jeremias). The overseers held the keys to the gates of the inner court and maintained order, while the treasurers were responsible for the temple’s financial affairs, which included the income derived from the sale of sacrificial animals, the maintenance of the vessels used in the daily services, and the administration of the temple tax. The overseers and treasurers had to open and close the temple, align the platform on which the Levitical singers and musicians would stand, provide the loaves for the grain offering and ensure the supply of salt for the sacrifices. The policing of the temple under the supervision of the captain of the temple was principally entrusted to the Levites, financial matters to the priests.
893 e. Next on the ladder of authority were the ordinary priests and Levites. Against the priestly aristocracy, there stood the majority of the priests. Theirs was an essentially closed community on the basis of descent from Aaron. In the time of Jesus, each of the twenty-four weekly courses of priests was responsible for a week’s service in the temple (see Lk 1:8). In addition to the daily morning and evening sacrifices, they had to work much harder on the Sabbath and on feast days. On the Sabbath, two extra lambs had to be sacrificed, the censers for the incense filled, and the fresh shewbread placed on the table—not to mention the sacrifices on behalf of private people.
894 In the course of a twenty-four-week cycle some seven thousand two hundred priests did duty. There were also about nine thousand six hundred Levites (singers, musicians, and doorkeepers). It was thus a considerable number of men who made up the temple’s personnel. According to calculations, a priest and a Levite each served for a week from Sabbath to Sabbath twice in the year; for the rest of the time they had to engage in manual work such as carpentry.
895 The gulf between the ‘chief priests’ or the priestly aristocracy and the great majority of ordinary priests was already discernible in the time of Jesus (cf. Ac 4:1).
896 According to tradition, the priests were mainly descended from Aaron, as a preferential group of descendants of Levi, while the high priests traced their line back to Zadok. While the Levites were in theory descendants of Levi, they were always regarded as a lower order of priests, constituting a kind of secondary spiritual order (clerus minor). Consequently they were not permitted to offer sacrifices; in fact they were forbidden access to the altar.
897 In the temple there were four senior Levites: the director of music, the director of singers, as well as the chief doorkeeper and the director of the temple assistants. The upper stratum of Levites comprised the musicians and temple singers who operated at the morning and afternoon services and on feast days. The Levites of lower status functioned as doorkeepers and temple police; these were the temple assistants, who discharged all kinds of humble and additional duties such as helping to dress the priests, preparing the Book of the Law for reading and cleaning the temple. The temple police are familiar to us from the New Testament. The band sent to arrest Jesus consisted of Levitical temple police (see Mk 14:43; Mt 26:27; Jn 18:3,12). They were also the Sanhedrin’s security force (Jn 7:32, 45f; see also Ac 21:30).
898 Between the more highly regarded temple musicians and singers and the lowlier temple servants there was a deep social gulf. In ad 64 a class struggle broke out between the two groups.
899 It is very likely that Barnabas, a leading figure in the early Church and a companion of Paul, was a Levite (see Ac 9:27; 11:22; 12:25; 13:1; 14:12; 15:2; 1 Cor 9:6; Gl 2:1; Col 4:10).
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL GUIDE
900
P. Billerbeck, KNTTM I, 2,404,853; II, 33f,45,54ff,63,66ff,69,77,89,182, 569,628,794f; III, 4,714,716,806; IV, 150,239,243
A. Edersheim, The temple, its ministry and services as they were in the time of Christ, London 1874; Peabody Mass. 1994
E. Ferguson, Backgrounds (§82), 527–33
J. Jeremias, Jerusalem (§82), 147–221
J. Maier, Zwischen den Testamenten (§734), 256f
S. Safrai, The priesthood and priestly divisions, CRINT I/2, 580–612
E. Schürer, HJP II, 237–313
12.3 The Sadducees
901 According to Josephus (Bell. Jud. II:119; Antiq. XIII:171; XVIII:11; Vit. 10), the Sadducees were an important group in Jewish life at the beginning of the first Christian century. The other sources which mention them are the New Testament and the Mishnah. All the details about them come, however, from their opponents, and thus have a negative taint.
12.3.1 Name and sources
902 We have no final clue as to the origin of the name ‘Sadducees’. Some hold that it is derived from the personal name Zadok. During Solomon’s reign, a certain Zadok displaced Abiathar as high priest (1 Ki 2:35). The post-exilic and pre-Maccabaean high priests traced their pedigree back to the so-called Zadokite high priesthood as evidence of their legitimacy. The Sadducees’ connection with the priestly aristocracy renders the derivation from the name Zadok a distinct possibility. Ezekiel reserved the priestly office exclusively for the descendants of Zadok (Ezk 40:45f; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11). And in the New Testament the high priests and their party are sometimes called Sadducees (Ac 4:1f; 5:17). Josephus identified the Sadducees with the priestly aristocratic families (see Antiq. XIII:298; XVIII:17; XX:199; Vit. 1–2).
903 A ninth century rabbinic legend mentions a certain Zadok, disciple of Antigonus Soko as the father of the Sadducees. But this reference is historically too late to be regarded as trustworthy. Even the possibility of a hypothetical Zadok in the time of the Hasmonaean Jonathan has been shown to be unfounded (see Jos. Antiq. XIX:297).
904 Others, again, are of the opinion that the name Sadducees is derived from the Hebrew adjective ṣaddı̂q, meaning ‘righteous’, and related to ṣādaq, ‘to do right’. This would link up with the Sadducees’ strongly legalistic approach. As to the precise origin of the name we can, however, merely speculate.
12.3.2 Origin and history
905 The historian, Josephus, first mentions the Sadducees in connection with the activities of the Maccabaean Jonathan (Antiq. XIII:71) and then more prominently during the reign of John Hyrcanus (135/134–104 bc) (Antiq. XIII:293–6), with the implication that they were already an established group.
906 There are various theories as to the possible origin of the Sadducees. Some maintain that they were mainly a political party which came to power under John Hyrcanus (Levine). Bammel contends that the name Sadducee was used first by a group of priests imported from Egypt and Babylon by Herod to counter the Hasmonaean influence. In Finkelstein’s opinion, the Sadducees originated as a rural aristocratic body in opposition to the urban Pharisees. Baumbach supports the view that they were mostly Zadokite priests who remained in Jerusalem and did not emigrate to Egypt or join the Qumran community.
907 No matter how diverse these theories, we have to trace the origin of the Sadducees back to the priestly aristocracy. This group probably arose as a consequence of the Maccabaean revolt, the rising which overturned the priestly order the programme of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 bc) had so thoroughly Hellenized (see I Mac. 2:44-48; 7:5). This necessitated the creation of a new priestly succession: Simon Maccabaeus and his successors (see I Mac. 14:41). It was from this succession that the priestly group of Sadducees developed, as the men in authority like John Hyrcanus, Aristobulus and Jannaeus created more and more esteem for Hellenism by their example. From around the year 120 bc, when John Hyrcanus broke with the Pharisees and favoured the Sadducees as a group, they flourished until c. 78 bc, when Salome Alexandra began to side with the Pharisees. When Herod the Great assumed power in 37 bc, the Sadducees were again degraded, losing their majority in the Sanhedrin, though the high priest would still be a Sadducee (as in the case of Caiaphas). During Jesus’ earthly life the aristocratic Sadducees, though a minority in the Sanhedrin, would still be the influential party since its president, the high priest, was one of them. With the destruction of the temple in ad 70, however, the Sadducees disappeared from the scene.
12.3.3 Characteristics of the Sadducees
a. Aristocratic roots
908 The Sadducees’ most outstanding feature was that they stemmed from the aristocracy, so that they were influential and people of eminence. Their antecedents also linked them with the priesthood. Josephus repeatedly states that the high priestly families were Sadducees (see Antiq. XX:199). Not that the Sadducees were exclusively a priestly party! A general pattern developed in which the Sadducees represented a clerical aristocratic authority in contrast to the Pharisees who gained their authority chiefly through study. Through their links with the high priests and the wealthy aristocrats, as well as through the official positions these associations brought them, the Sadducees exerted a great influence on Jewish national life.
b. Priestly connections
909 The Sadducees were probably related to the Zadokite order of priests, who had carried out the functions of the priesthood in the temple since the days of Solomon. This priestly order became particularly influential during and after the Deuteronomic reforms, when it had been laid down that the sacrifices in Jerusalem would henceforth be offered according to the Law. The Zadokite priesthood also formed the core of the post-exilic priesthood. The Sadducees emerged from that kind of priestly orientation. We must, however, stress again that the priesthood in itself was not restricted exclusively to the Sadducees, but included a group of Pharisees as well. Josephus, for instance, was both a priest and a Pharisee see (Vit. 12). For all that, the Sadducees’ priestly orientation was generally typical of them as a group.
c. The Torah
910 The Sadducees regarded the written Torah as binding. Through the centuries they rejected human interpretations of it. They did not consider the so-called traditions of the fathers as obligatory, so that no one was compelled to accept them. That did not mean that the prophetic writings were totally rejected, but rather that only the Torah was regarded as canonical in the strict sense of the word (Schürer, Le Moyne).
d. Interpretation of legal aspects
911 According to Josephus (see Antiq. XX:199), the Sadducees were less lenient than the Pharisees in the interpretation of punitive legislation. This must be attributed to their strict adherence to the letter of the Law, whereas the Pharisees did all in their power to interpret the Law so as to apply it to altered circumstances. On the other hand, seeing that the Sadducees did not accept the interpretative traditions of the fathers or regard them as binding, in certain respects they were more supple than the Pharisees, more especially concerning the ritual and purification laws. The Sadducees strictly observed the priestly ritual laws of purification, but not the everyday, humanly interpreted Pharisaic traditions, particular those concerning the Sabbath.
e. Political role
912 Under Herod and the Roman authorities, the Sadducees further expanded the political strategy which they had learned from the Hasmonaeans. The high priest, president of the Sanhedrin, who had a decisive political role in Jewish national life, was appointed from among the Sadducees. Under the Romans they attempted to calm the rebels among their Jewish compatriots. Nor did they resist the so-called non-Jewish authorities as did the Pharisees and the Zealots. Yet it was in vain that they tried to prevent the armed uprising against Rome in ad 66–70.
f. Secular
913 The Sadducees were secularly predisposed. This was due to the fact that they restricted human existence and history to this life, and did not subject it to fate. In so doing they saw to it that they acquired power and position and prospered financially.
12.3.4 Doctrine and influence
914 a. According to the evidence of the New Testament, supported by Josephus, the Sadducees denied the resurrection of the body (Mk 12:8-27par; Ac 4:1f; 23:8; Jos. Antiq. XVIII 1:3f; Bell. Jud II 8:14). Consequently, they also denied future punishment as part of the judgement. They believed that the spirit, along with the body, did not survive death; as far as human destiny was concerned, there was nothing beyond this life.
915 b. According to Ac 23:8, they denied the existence of angels and demons. They also denied fate (Jos. Bell. Jud II 8:14). They could find no support for such doctrines in the Torah.
916 c. The Sadducees exerted their influence mainly through the aristocracy and the priesthood. To a considerable extent they also controlled the priesthood. Jesus’ preaching posed a threat to their political and religious position (see Jn 11:47). His emphasis on the spiritual realm and the other-worldly destination where ‘moth and rust’ could not operate still further undermined the Sadducees’ already dwindling authority. Christianity agrees with more of the Pharisees’ doctrines (such as the resurrection of the body) than with those of the Sadducees. For the Sadducees it would have been an abomination that the resurrection was not merely presented as a future prospect (Pharisees), but in addition, according to the Christians, as present reality in Jesus’ resurrection (see Ac 4:2).
917 The Sadducees’ influence was channelled through the high priest. In the decades prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, their public political role diminished to such an extent that they were compelled to yield to Pharisaic pressure (see Jos. Antiq. XVIII:17), until as a group they disappeared along with the destruction of the temple.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL GUIDE
918
E. Bammel, Sadducäer und Sadokiden, EThL (1979), 107–15
G. Baumbach, Der sadduzaïsche Konservatismus, in: J. Maier & J. Schreiner (Herausg.), Literatur (§734), 201–13
E.E. Ellis, Jesus, the Sadducees and Qumran, NTS 10(1963/64), 274–86
E. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 486f
L. Finkelstein, The Pharisees. The sociological background of their faith, Philadelphia 31966
J. le Moyne, Les Sadducéens, Paris 1972
L. Levine, The political conflict between Pharisees and Sadducees in the Hasmonaean period, in: A. Oppenheimer (ed.), Jerusalem in the Second Temple period: Abraham Schalit memorial volume, Jerusalem 1980, 70–84
J. Maier, Zwischen den Testamenten (§734), 257–9
T.W. Manson, Sadducees and Pharisees. The origin and significance of the names, BJRL 22(1938), 144–59
H. Mulder, De Sadduceën. Deconfessionalisering in bijbelse tijden, Amsterdam 1973
B. Reicke, Era (§82), 172–6
A.J. Saldarini, Pharisees, scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian society, Edinburgh 1988
E. Schürer, HJP II, 404–14
O. Schwankl, Die Sadduzäerfrage, BBB 66, Königstein 1986
A.C. Sundberg, Sadducees, IDB IV, 160–3
M. Wilcox, Jesus in Jewish environment, ANRW II/25, 161–4[1]
Annas.
Jewish high priest from a.d. 7 to a.d. 15. Appointed by Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, Annas was put out of office by Valerius Gratus, procurator of Judea. Annas was succeeded by three minor figures before the post was assumed by his son-in-law Caiaphas (Jn 18:13, 24). The tenure of Caiaphas extended from a.d. 18 to a.d. 36; thus he was high priest at the time of Jesus’ public ministry.
Evidently Annas’s power and influence remained considerable even after his removal from that office. Like an American Supreme Court justice, the high priest held a lifetime appointment. Deposition of a high priest by the pagan Romans would have been strongly resented by the Jews. Consequently, Annas may still have been referred to as high priest among the populace, as a sort of high priest emeritus. Such a practice, evidenced in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, tends to clear up those references in the NT to Annas as high priest during the same chronological period as Caiaphas (Lk 3:2; Jn 18:19, 22–24; Acts 4:6).
The fact that Annas conducted a private inquiry of Jesus after he was arrested (Jn 18:13, 19–24), but before he was taken to Caiaphas, is a strong indication that Annas was still a person of considerable stature among the Jewish religious leaders. Annas questioned Jesus “about his disciples and his teaching,” to which Jesus answered in a seemingly evasive and uncooperative way. OT law demanded the death penalty for those who tried to turn Israel to apostasy and idolatry (Dt 13:6–9). If Jesus was regarded by the authorities as a false prophet with such aims in view, it was legitimate that his words and his adherents be investigated. But Jewish law also required the testimony of witnesses both for and against the accused person prior to his own testimony. Only when the testimony of witnesses had been given and confirmed could the case be argued directly with the individual on trial. Thus Jesus’ reply that his teaching was “spoken openly to the world” was a challenge to his questioners to bring forth proper evidence. Jesus indicated that he expected them to follow proper legal procedure.
Annas is also mentioned in the NT account of an investigation of the apostles Peter and John. Interestingly, the penalty imposed on the apostles was far less severe than the one Jesus suffered (Acts 4:6–21).
[2]
According to Old Testament Law, the high priest was to serve until death. But when the Romans took over the nation of Israel, they made the high priesthood an appointed office. This way they could be certain of having a religious leader who would cooperate with their policies. Annas served as high priest from a.d.6 to a.d. 15, and five of his sons, as well as Caiaphas his son-in-law succeeded him. Caiaphas was high priest from a.d. 18–36, but Annas was still a power behind the throne (see Luke 3:2).
Both Annas and Caiaphas were Sadducees, which meant they did not believe in the resurrection, the spirit world, or the authority of any of the Old Testament except the five Books of Moses. It was the high priestly family that managed the “temple business’ which Jesus had overthrown twice during His ministry. Of course, these men were most happy to lay hands on their enemy. Caiaphas had already made it clear that he intended to sacrifice Jesus in order to save the nation (John 11:47–54).
The high priest hastily assembled the Sanhedrin, composed of the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes (Mark 14:53). While the men were gathering, Caiaphas and his assistants were seeking for witnesses to testify against the prisoner. They had already determined that He was guilty, but they wanted to go through the motions of a legal trial. [3]
Cleansing the temple (vv. 12–16). Jesus had opened His ministry with a similar act (John 2:13–25). Now, three years later, the temple was defiled again by the “religious business” of the leaders. They had turned the court of the Gentiles into a place where foreign Jews could exchange money and purchase sacrifices. What had begun as a service and convenience for visitors from other lands soon turned into a lucrative business. The dealers charged exorbitant prices and no one could compete with them or oppose them. Historians tell us that Annas, the former high priest, was the manager of this enterprise, assisted by his sons.
The purpose of the court of the Gentiles in the temple was to give the “outcasts” an opportunity to enter the temple and learn from Israel about the true God. But the presence of this “religious market” turned many sensitive Gentiles away from the witness of Israel. The court of the Gentiles was used for mercenary business, not missionary business. [4]
----
KNTTM Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, by (H.L. Strack) P. Billerbeck, München 21956
IDB The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, ed. by G.A. Buttrick et al., New York 1963
ERE Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. by J. Hastings, Edinburgh 190877
ThW Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament I-X, herausg. von G. Kittel, G. Friedrich, Stuttgart 1933ff
CRINT Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, gen. eds. M. de Jonge & S. Safrai, Assen 1974seqq
HJP The history of the Jewish People in the age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.A.D. 135) I-III; originally written in German by E. Schürer; new English edition rev. and ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar et al., Edinburgh 197387 (for more detail, see §§732,734)
DTb Dalph Taschenbücher, Bern usw.
EThL Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses
NTS New Testament Studies
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Manchester
BBB Bonner Biblische Beiträge, Bonn 1950ff
ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, herausg. von H. Temporini, W. Haase, Berlin 1972ff
[1]du Toit, A. (1998). The New Testament Milieu. Halfway House: Orion.
NT New Testament
OT Old Testament
[2]Elwell, W. A., & Beitzel, B. J. (1988). Baker encyclopedia of the Bible. Map on lining papers. (Page 115). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.
[3]Wiersbe, W. W. (1996, c1989). The Bible exposition commentary. "An exposition of the New Testament comprising the entire 'BE' series"--Jkt. (Mt 26:57). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.
[4]Wiersbe, W. W. (1996, c1989). The Bible exposition commentary. "An exposition of the New Testament comprising the entire 'BE' series"--Jkt. (Mt 21:12). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.