(printed p. 156 — Book II)
The Sadducees were truly heretics in the bad sense, even when the state of the old Synagogue still stood. For, as was established earlier, their doctrines were heretical and quite impious; and against them a judgment of condemnation had been issued from Moses’ chair. Regarding the number of sacred books, there had already been synodal decrees, partly made in the times of Ezra, partly afterward, as can be seen in Baba Bathra and
[margin: Chapter 19. Sadducees were heretics.]
(printed p. 157)
in Rabbi Moses of Kotzi, Elias, the third preface to the Masorah, and Genebrard, book 2 of the Chronology. Was not the resurrection of the dead most explicitly established against them in 2 Maccabees 12? Verse 43: “After making a collection, Judas sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem, that sacrifice might be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection; for unless he hoped that those who had fallen would rise again, it would seem superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.”
Was not the remuneration of merits in the future age most clearly asserted in the same place, verse 45, against those same men? “He considered,” Judas Maccabaeus, “that those who had accepted sleep with piety had an excellent grace laid up for them.”
Very often in Hebrew writings they are called minim, that is, heretics. Thus in Gorionides it is said that Hyrcanus came to Mount Garizim and captured the fortress of the hamminim, that is, of the heretics, and the haccouthim, that is, of the Samaritans, and destroyed that Garizim shrine which belonged to the lamminim, that is, to the heretics; and that he besieged Samaria, the city that was the mother and city of the laccouthim lamminim, the Samaritans and heretics.
Again afterward the same Gorionides says in the Compendium: “One of the king’s ministers hated the wise men,” that is, the Pharisees, “and there was in them riach minouth, that is, an odor of heresy,” or, as Latins say, they smelt of heresy. Elias says in the Tishbi: “The rabbis call the man in whom there is no knowledge or law min.”
(printed p. 158)
And Rambam, whose memory is blessed, wrote that this name falls on no one else except a Sadducee and a Baithosian. So he says.
Philastrius calls it not only a heresy, but also a pestiferous heresy. The sixth book of the Apostolic Constitutions, chapter 6, gives the Sadducees first place among the evil heresies. Hence there was rare, indeed almost no, conversation of Christ the Lord with them, except when they of their own accord harassed him once and again with questions; no gathering or meal with them, although he went to the Pharisees, and with them often ate and reclined at table, Luke 7:36, 11:37, and 14:1.
And today the Jews pursue with great hatred all those who are called Caraim for the reason mentioned above, and they do not wish to have any communion with them in prayers, marriages, or trade.
But why, you will ask, did the Sadducees remain in Jerusalem? Why did they deal with the priests and their rulers? Why did they come to councils and synedria? Why did they sacrifice in the temple of God? Because of this question, Abulensis, on Matthew 22, questions 129, 130, and 131, thought that the doctrines of the Sadducees were judged not to be contrary to the articles of faith, and to belong to opinions rather than to fixed dogmas.
But rather it must be said that they were tolerated because the Sadducees were powerful and were supported by the favor of the powerful, as is written by Gorionides, book 4, chapter 29, and by Flavius, book 18, chapter 2. Second,
[margin: Book 1, chapter 5; book 2, chapter 21. Objection. Response 1-2.]
(printed p. 159)
because in royal courts there were hidden heretics from their sect who were devoted to their advantages and interests, as the same Gorionides narrated a little earlier.
Third, their kings themselves also sometimes approved and embraced their teachings, as Hyrcanus did, concerning whom I have spoken above and shall speak again below.
Fourth, the tyrant Herod was, as is plain from his deeds and from Josephus, book 15, chapter 12, a great Machiavellian. For that reason he gladly fostered rival interests and parties as useful to his commonwealth and kingdom. He favored the Sadducees all the more willingly because at times, as we saw above, he was more angry with and hostile toward the Pharisees.
There was also the great tepidity and negligence, because of the many crimes by which they were defiled, of those who were Catholics and who held the chair of Moses, in matters that concerned the repression of heretics; especially since, as was said above, these heretics were very strong in wealth and clientele.
From this it is clear that the Lord did indeed say generally in Matthew 16 that one must beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, that is, their doctrine. But when that leaven is considered specifically, it must be understood in one way in the Pharisees and in another way in the Sadducees. My Drusius, on folio 16, calls the Sadducees heretics, but not the Pharisees, as was noted where I discussed them.
[margin: References to book 2, chapter 16, sections 27-28; chapter 16.]
(printed p. 160)