Historical groupings in second temple Judaism : a comparative analysis on religious, social and political impact of Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes

Abstract

The Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes are three groups within the history of Second Temple Judaism that carry importance which cannot be ignored. They carry religious, social and political characteristics that are intertwined with the life of the intertestamental times as powerful determinators even prior to the emergence of Christianity. It is within this important context that the three groups are comparatively assessed, analysed and evaluated from religious, social and political perspectives. In the same vein, the comparative analysis will form a firm foundation for the three religious, social and political groups It is the comparative dimensions and their impact, wherein the causes of success or failure, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the three groups, will emerge. This emergence will reveal the fundamental reasons for the survival or death of the groups during the changing times. The traditional perspective is that the Sadducees and Essenes and all other groups/sects disappeared after 70 CE, leaving the Pharisees as the only surviving group. Scholars such as Shaye J.D. Cohen, Mathew J. Grey and Pieter J.J. Botha differ from that perspective. This thesis aims to navigate a narrow space which shows the strength of the Pharisees compared to that of the Sadducees and Essenes but does not necessarily agree that the Pharisees are the only ones in any form who survived the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. It shows the comparative dynamics before 70 CE which through religious, social and political strategies and tactics laid a solid foundation that gave the Pharisees an ideological advantage with the masses of the people, but it does not make the blanket statement that other groups automatically died due to the Temple destruction; rather, it simply shows that the Pharisees strategies and tactics gave them advantages over their contenders such as the Sadducees and Essenes. This thesis differs from the traditional view that only the Pharisees survived the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, and it differs from Shaye J.D. Cohen’s assertion that the Pharisees’ characteristics cannot be identified post 70 CE. However, that the difference between the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes was downplayed with the post–70 CE demise of Jewish sectarianism and variant views within the body of a larger rabbinic group were acknowledged and respected. Moreover, the thesis is also on the cutting edging edge, beyond the vigorous debate as to whether the Essenes and Sadducees (and all other groups or sects) perished around 70 CE or the Pharisees survived the destruction of the Second Temple intact. It is navigating within Second Temple Judaism, bringing to the surface the strengths that advantaged the Pharisees— whatever form Pharisaism may have taken—after 70 CE. It is a comparison which is advancing the importance of aligning with the ordinary masses of the people through the doctrine of oral and written law within the religious, social and political discourse of Second Temple Judaism and not beyond.