The Sadducees and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Abstract

by Fraser Walker

(Fraser Walker is a fourth-year undergraduate in the M.Theol. honours programme at the University of St. Andrews.--JRD)

During the Second Temple period the Sadducees were one of the main Jewish currents of thought. We have no texts that can conclusively be ascribed to them, thus we learn about them through references to them in the New Testament, the rabbinic literature and in the work of Josephus, a Jewish historian and soldier.

The theory, as proposed by two scholars named Joseph Baumgarten and Lawrence Schiffman, asserts that the Dead Sea Scrolls were either written by the Sadducees or written by a group that had formed from Sadducean roots. These scholars propose three main arguments in favour of their theory. Firstly, that in the Temple Scroll we see three instances where purity laws are closely in line with the views of the Sadducees as defined by the rabbinic literature. Secondly, the Halakhic letter or 4QMMT, as it is often called, is thought to be the foundation document of the sect and draws our attention to the fact that the sect broke away from the Jewish establishment over differences with regard to the laws. This parallels what is written in rabbinic works such as the Mishnah and the Talmud regarding the same issue. They believe that this proves that the Qumran sect were Sadducees. Thirdly, that the term "sons of Zadok" which appears in the scrolls is in fact a reference to the Sadducees, and that this can by seen through tracing a line back to Zadok the high priest in the time of David and Solomon.

In oppostion to the theory there are three primary scholars name James Vanderkam, Joseph Fitzmyer and Eyal Regev. Between them they deny any strong link between the Sadducees and the sect at Qumran. The first reason in support of this assertion is that there are only three instances in which the scrolls and the Sadducean view point converge. Secondly, Josephus describes where the three schools (Sadducee, Essene and Pharisee) stand with regard to the doctrine of fate. The Sadducean stance is furthest from the stance of acceptance as held by the Qumran sect. Thirdly, when turning to compare the Sadducean theory with that of the Essenes, the scholars note that evidence is much more forthcoming in suggestion of the Essenes with over twenty-seven instances of convergence.

Those who reject the Sadducean theory usually, but not invariably, accept the Essene theory which I tend to find more convincing too.

(c) 2001
Reproduction beyond fair use only on permission of the author.