Talk:Sadducees

message: Yoshia removed this historically documented factual text under the impression that it is POV.
:Sadduccees were members of a political sect of Judaism that came into existence from 175BCE after Yehoshua Ben-Shimon II (pop. Jason) bought the right to be high priest from Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Their influence lasted until around the collapse of the second temple in 70CE. They displaced the legitimate Zadokite priesthood and userped their name, but after Yehoshua Ben-Shimon II were not even genealogically qualified to be Highpriests. 
Since Karaites are said to descend from Sadducees I can see how this might be difficult to swallow, but I notice that Karaites do not actually claim this link themselves. The fact is that the Zadokites were forced from the temple from 175BCE onwards and those who called themselves sadducees in Jerusalem from that time until the temple was destroyed were in fact just politically powerful pretenders. Caiaphas included.Zestauferov 07:37, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. There has always been a requirement to be a priest - priestly descent. If they had not had the geneology, no one would have let them perform the rituals. My biggest objection to your edit is that it says that the Saducees were not Priests at all. I'll start a new section to this discussion page, and let's work on showing both views in a NPOV manner.--Josiah 02:25, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory Edit Dispute 

message: Doesn't the name "Zadokite" suggest that the party originates back to a time when the high priests weere Zadokites - that is, prior to the Hasmonean usurpation of the priesthood? john k 06:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  age and name 

message: I haven't time to work on this now but Meyer Waxman in History of Jewish Literature vol. 1  makes a strong case that Josephus is highly unreliable. Josepus was attempting to parallel the Saducees to the greek epicureans (for propoganda purposes). It's very possible that Saducees did believe in some form of afterlife.Wolf2191 17:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Waxman

message: I have removed the "probably" from the article. There is no probably about it. It is a popular position, but the Essenes were excluded from the temple and eschewed bloodline, making any Zadokite connection with the Essenes highly improbable. The fact that there were at least 800 scribal hands responsible for the copies of scrolls found at Qumran suggests that the scrolls were the product of somewhere that could support so many scribes, ie Jerusalem. It is safer not to assume an Essene connection with the DSS community. --  spincontrol 12:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  DSS community "probably" Essenes 

message: Wow! Someone knew exactly what he or she wanted to do on this page and exactly how to work Wikipedia to sort of game the system, but the person still does not want to identify him or herself. Let's see: person first made major edits from IP address 138.16.115.05. But, the bot saw that an unregistered user was making major changes on a page and simply reverted everything back! So, the user registered first as HBSamuels and redid all the major edits. Then the same user registered again as Katherineblessing and corrected a bunch of formatting errors that were left on the page after the major rewrite. And then, to cap it off, the user still logged in just from a different IP address (138.16.115.05) and did 2 more minor corrections (the second of which is still incorrect...). Now, this last correction from this last unidentified/unregistered user also precludes any editor of reverting the edits. So, someone that does not want to identify him or herself just did a major rewrite on this page, and for anyone interested in a due process of change here, the step by step option doesn't even exist any more. All that is left to the average editor is to go an look at each change that was made, one by one, and decide which version is better. The problem is that close to 50 major changes (I am estimating, guessing only here) were done, and going over them one by one is going to be a very long process, that could take a couple of hours at the least. Now, the changes that were made are serious, they are not vandalism. Looks like some scholar on the field studied the page carefully, and had the final product already written even before he or she came in and did the job in the manner described above. So, for me, the option left now is to study carefully all the major changes that were made, and decide if there is anything from the tens of lines of the old article that were obliterated that could still apply to the subject. I intend to do that sometime in the future, time allowing. I just wanted to record here what happened in case there are any admins around looking at it, and who would also have some insights or opinions on due change process in Wikipedia and on the 'system' that was used here today to accomplish a major rewrite of this page in one fell swoop, precluding even the possibility of asking the author to redo his changes step by step. warshytalk 20:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: One more note from a little spelling correction I just did to this major rewrite: from the new section of the supposed disputes with the Pharisees, which is written completely from a Talmudic perspective (i.e., a 'Pharisaic' perspective; certainly not from a Sadducee perspective, that would be very difficult to articulate anyhow...), my suspicion is that the objective of this major rewrite that was just accomplished is to ascertain that nothing currently left on the page may contradict the "correctness" of the religious Talmudic ruling on the subject. But with more time I may be able to say more on this... warshytalk 20:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major rewrite of page 

message: I think P.D. is correct here. My question, to anyone interested would be:
The problem is that the "Oral Law" is not 'oral' any more, but has also been written down. Not only written down, but for some, who argue that the "Oral Law" had already also been given to Moses on Sinai, but written in stone, as it were. So where do we go from here?
As per reactions to my last comment here, right above, not too many people are checking this spot anyhow. I still am, just in case... :P warshytalk 21:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  P.D.'s correction 

message: The name is a greek transliteration so shouldn't the greek be in the header as well as the hebrew?. Σαδδουκαῖος
--Teacherbrock (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are probably getting the Greek transliteration from Josephus. But the name itself is Hebrew, not Greek. Fact is you are calling it a transliteration, which is the correct classification here. If you want to include a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name, that should be OK, as long as you do it in a separate note and cite the proper sources correctly in the note. That is what I would recommend, in any case. Regards, warshytalk 12:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  greek name 

message: Re: As Opposed to the Jesus Movement. This section states that Matthew depicts the Sadducees as a "Brood of Vipers" and cites Matt.3:7.  It may be a small point but Matthew is describing a comment of John the Baptist, who does not appear to distinguish between the Sadducees or the Pharisees, calling them both a "Brood of Vipers". - In which case I'm not sure it's completely accurate or necessary to single the Sadducees out as the target of John's venom. Mannanan51 (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of Section 5.2 

message: Why would you otherwise revert a minor edit correcting BC/AD - and occasionally, inconsistently CE(!) - to BCE/CE? --120.148.210.64 (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this Wikipedia or Conservapedia? 

message: This is a quote from the article:
The Rabbis, who are traditionally seen as the descendants of the Pharisees, describe the similarities and differences between the two sects in Mishnah Yadaim. The Mishnah explains that the Sadducees state, “So too, regarding the Holy Scriptures, their impurity is according to (our) love for them. But the books of Homer, which are not beloved, do not defile the hands.”[21]
Please! This is so bad it's actually funny. The Mishna in Yadayim says the exact opposite: Rabbi Yohanan Ben Zakkai, the Pharisee, said this phrase to the Sadducees. I don't have the time or inclination to change this embarrassing mistake. Maybe some noble Wikipedian will do it. 68.198.65.141 (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sadducees and assimilation 

message: Hello everyone,
I found written in the Etymology section the following
"Flavius Josephus mentions in Antiquities of the Jews that "one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt".[5] Paul L. Maier suggests that the sect drew their name from the Sadduc mentioned by Josephus.[6]"
I find this to be highly unlikely as Josephus clearly explained that there were three sects among the Jews, the Sadducees being one of them; it was a fourth philosophy that became the fourth sect by the hand of this Judas. Therefore, the Sadduc that Judas took with him could not possibly have been the origin of the Sadducees. Besides, even Josephus noted about this fourth philosophy "These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord." It is well known and clearly explained in the writings of Josephus that the Pharisees and Sadducees differed greatly.
"But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. And since this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall speak no further about that matter; nor am I afraid that any thing I have said of them should be disbelieved, but rather fear, that what I have said is beneath the resolution they show when they undergo pain. And it was in Gessius Florus’s time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy."JacobLMetz (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: The comparison section is sourced to the Jewish Virtual Library and appears to be a rather direct copy/paste job. Furthermore, according to Perennial sources the JVL is generally considered unreliable. As such I'm going to cut this section. I'm gonna leave this comment over at Essenes and Pharisees too. IrishStephen (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison section 

message: Deuteronomy 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
So this is a clear statement of the existence of the position of the prophet. Then how they can deny Moses and deny the prophets before them ? 2A02:2F0F:E001:E900:1CC7:9F8:A2AF:D1EF (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moses wrote that there will be an upcoming prophet 

message: The page mentions both Mark and Matthew but omits the parallel passage in Luke 20:27-40. i.e. all 3 synoptic gospels contain this critique. I suggest edits along the lines of : "The New Testament, in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, ... The parallel pericopes of Mark 12, Matthew 22, and Luke 20, recount a dispute ..." With a consequence change in the references section.  My only hesitation is not being entirely sure if there was another reason for the omission for a polemical reason.
Text:
The New Testament, specifically the books of Mark and Matthew, describe anecdotes which hint at hostility between Jesus and the Sadducaic establishment. A pericope in Mark 12 and Matthew 22 recounts a dispute between Jesus and a Sadducee who challenged the resurrection of the dead by asking who the husband of a resurrected woman would be who had been married to each of seven brothers at one point. Jesus responds by saying that the resurrected "neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." He also insults them on their own terms as knowing neither the scriptures nor the power of God, presumably a claim that even though the Sadducee insisted on the written law, Jesus considered them to have gotten it wrong. Cjacooper (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Luke's pericope missing?