SADDUCEES. — Members of a Judaic political-religious party of the time of Christ. The name Σαβδοπούζα seems to derive from the proper name Sadoc ([v.]; Heb. Ṣādhōq), transcribed by the Septuagint as Σαβδοῦα (ten times). By appropriating this title, the s. seem to have boasted of descending from the high priest Sadoc; according to others, from a party leader of the same name.
According to St. Epiphanius (Haer., 14; PG 41, 240) and St. Jerome (In Mt., 3, 23; PL 26, 163), the name derives from the Heb. Ṣaddīq “just.” In rabbinic writings the s. (ṣaddīqim) are sometimes called Boethuseans, Boethos (v.), founder of a priestly family. Although Flavius Josephus attributes very ancient origins to the s., Pharisees (v.), Essenes (v.) (Antiq. Ind., XVIII, 1, 2), and although the “sons of Sadoc” (Σαβδοῦα) are already mentioned in Ez. 40, 46; 44, 15; 48, 11 as priests in the new Temple (cf. Heb. Eccli. 51, 12), the s. enter history as a party, or sect, only at the time of the Maccabees (v.), in opposition to the Pharisees, and disappear with the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70). Among the causes that are said to have favored the rise and development of the party are listed love of Hellenism (J. Klausner), opposition to the Pharisaic usurpation of the religious teaching proper to the priests (J. Bonsirven), and the insufficiency of the Pharisees’ political predominance at the time of John Hyrcanus (M.-J. Lagrange).
Few in number but powerful, especially in the political sphere, since they constituted the nation’s wealthy priestly aristocracy, the s. supported the Hasmoneans John Hyrcanus (135–104 B.C., after he passed over to their sect), Alexander Jannaeus (103–76), and Aristobulus II (67–63). At the time of Christ and the Apostles they occupied the foremost positions among the “high priests” of the Sanhedrin.
The doctrine of the s. emerges clearly through its contrast with that of the Pharisees. No writings of the s. have survived, however, from which it might be obtained directly. The s. accepted only Sacred Scripture (according to some, only the Pentateuch) and rejected “the traditions of the fathers” emphasized by the Pharisees. They admitted “neither the resurrection (cf. Mc. 12, 28; Lc. 20, 27), nor angel, nor spirits” (Act. 23, 8), apart from God. According to Flavius Josephus, they also denied “the survival of the soul, as well as punishment and rewards down there in Hades” (Bell. Ind., II, 8, 14). Even from the “case” of the woman who had successively married seven husbands, put to Jesus by the s. (Mt. 22, 29-33 and parallels), it seems that they denied not only the resurrection of bodies but also the immortality of souls. While the Essenes were fatalists and the Pharisees followed a middle path in reconciling divine action with human freedom, the s. “flatly deny fate (εὐαγγέλτος) and exclude the possibility that God does or regards anything evil” (Fl. Josephus, ibid., II, 8, 14). In criminal law the s., who applied the Mosaic Law rigorously, were more severe than the Pharisees, especially in imposing the punishment of retaliation (Fl. Josephus, Antiq. Ind., XIII, 10, 6). In the liturgy the s. differed from the Pharisees on many points, including the day on which the first sheaf was to be offered in the Temple. According to Lev. 23, 11 and the s., this had to be the feria prima (Sunday) following the Sabbath of the Paschal octave, whereas the Pharisees understood that Sabbath to mean the Jewish feast of Passover itself (15 nīśān), and offered the sheaf on 16 nīśān, whatever day of the week that might be; the difference Pentecost (v.), which was to be celebrated on the 50th day from the presentation of the sheaf. For the s. this always fell on the first day of the week, whereas for the Pharisees it could fall on any day between the 5th and 7th of the month nīśān. These calendar divergences sometimes led the different parties to alter by one day the beginning of the lunar months (especially nīśān); it seems that for this reason the accusers of Jesus (s.) had not yet eaten the Paschal lamb, which Jesus and the Pharisees had already consumed the previous evening (cf. Io. 18, 28). Other liturgical differences concerned the rites to be performed on the Day of Atonement and the hour of the slaughter of the Paschal lamb, which according to Ex. 12, 6 and the s. was to take place “between the two evenings,” that is, after sunset, during twilight, whereas the Pharisees anticipated it to the 9th hour (approximately the present 3 p.m.).
John the Baptist stigmatized Pharisees and s. as “a brood of vipers” (Mt. 3, 7). The parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lc. 16, 19-31) presents the type of the s. Enemies of one another, Pharisees and s. competed in putting captious questions to Jesus (Mt. 16, 1, and cf. 23, 29-33), while they agreed in desiring his death. Whatever the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles relate concerning the trials of Jesus and of the Apostles (Peter, John, Paul), and of the deacon Stephen before the Sanhedrin, concerns especially the s., who held its highest offices.
The so-called “Ṣādhōqite document” does not concern the s., but a faction of Pharisees.