Taken from Exploring the New Testament World by Albert A. Bell (Thomas Nelson Inc., 1998)

Sadducees

The Sadducees claimed their descent from David's high priest Zadok (2 Sam. 8.17; I Kings 2.35), or perhaps from the word meaning righteous. They were ultra-conservatives, recognizing only the authority of the Torah, refusing any notion not taught theirin.   They did not deny angels, which appear in the Torah, but they were cool to elaborate beliefs about angels and demons.Such beliefs flourished in the period after the Babylonian exile.  They rejected belief in the resurrection because they saw no evidence of it in the Torah.

In Mark 12:18-27, the Sadducees questions Jesus about the woman married to seven brothers; one could hear them snickering as they posed the problem; they probably regarded their question as reducing to absurdity the whole issue of resurrection. Jesus answers from the book of Moses, the only book they recognize, telling them the dead raised are like angels, who don't marry.  In Acts 4. 1-3, 5.17, the Pharisees attack the apostles of Jesus for preaching "that in Jesus there is resurrection of the dead."  Paul creates dissention between the Sadducees and Pharisees when whe voices his belief in the hope of the resurrection (Acts 23.6-8).

The Sadducees had little contact with the ordinary people of Judea and no concern with popularity.  They demonstrated a rather harsh spirit, being rude even among themselves.  They had the support of the rich but no following among the masses. They were aristocratic, high-priestly people, concerned almost exclusively with running the temple.  After the temple's destruction in 70 CE, the Sadducees disappeared from history, unable to adapt to the changed circumstances in which Judaism found itself.

Oxford Companion says the following about this failure to adapt:

In their development of an oral tradition of legal interpretation, the Pharisees and Sages were in one way doing no more than what had been done throughout Jewish history, that is, adapting their legal traditions to changing circumstance. Why should the Sadducees oppose this? Possibly because the written Law reinforced their control over the Temple; possibly too because the Pharisees were attempting to undermine that position by transferring some of the priestly rituals and practices away from Jerusalem to the towns and villages outside. Certainly the Sadducees were concerned principally to uphold the Temple and its sacrifices: for them it was the proper observance of Temple ritual that maintained the covenant relationship between Israel and God.

Rejection of belief in the resurrection again indicates a traditionalist stance. Jews had long believed that so long as Israel obeyed the Law then God would rule over them and reward the righteous and punish the wicked in this life. Belief in the resurrection, on the other hand, was linked to beliefs that the present age was in the grip of dark powers, so that in this life the righteous would suffer, although God would ultimately vindicate them. Those who had died would be raised so that they too could receive their due rewards (Daniel 12.2). To reject belief in the resurrection and, indeed, possibly also in demonic powers who controlled this world in the present age, was then also to reject the belief that this present age was radically corrupted; in fact, from the Sadducees’ point of view, those who argued the contrary view may have appeared to deny the continued existence of the covenant between God and Israel. This may also explain their denial of fate. They believed that Jews were free to influence their destiny; if they obeyed the Law and repented and made due restitution when they sinned, then all would be well. The darker views of the world associated with belief in the resurrection also entailed beliefs in the pervasiveness of the power of sin (see Romans 5.12–21, which may owe more than a little to Paul’s Pharisaic background, although such beliefs should not be thought of as specifically Pharisaic), such that men and women were no longer in control of their fate. It is such views that the Sadducees rejected.

This may suggest a further reason why the Sadducees disappeared after 70 ce. Not only was their position as the Temple aristocracy fundamentally destroyed; their belief that the maintenance of the Temple cult would suffice to stave off real disaster for Israel had also been proven false.

 

Pharisees/Scribes

Most knowledge about the Pharisees has to be based on information gleaned from Christians and Sadducees, their opponents. They weren't priests, and the term rabbi was not commonly used; they were teachers and interpreters of the Torah, a scholar class devoted to the Written and the Unwritten Law. Even their name is debated: perhaps a corruption of Persian, an allusion to the theological doctrines--resurrection, angels and demons--which they were accused of picking up from the East.  Another possible origin is Semitic, deriving the name from "heretic" or "separated ones." The term Pharisee was at first used in a derogatory way.  Another possible origin of the name is from the word meaning "to specify" or to "be exact." They were concerned with the fine points of the law. The name is used only once in the Talmud, with the Pharisees otherwise being called "sages" or "scribes."

Scribes existed in Judaism probably since the time of Ezra.   Ezra, it will be recalled, led the people of Israel back to a strict observance of the Law after their return from the Babylonian exile in 538 BCE. Scribes were copyists of the Law and regarded themselves as preservers and protectors rather than interpreters.   These scribes were known as soferim. By the late second century BCE, sofer had taken on the sense of one who "seeks out wisdom of all the ancients." By this time, sofer had also come to include interpretation: an intellectual, not a scribe; a scholar, not a copyist.  The Greeks still translated the word as grammateus.

The Pharisees are in the New Testament, "those skilled in the law,"and "teachers of the law." The Pharisees were considered the most authoritative in their explanations of the Law and were esteemed as a leading sect.   Jesus said they "sit on Moses' seat" (Matthew 23.2-3), and he urged people to follow their teaching. Part of the negative reputation of the Pharisees may come from the Herodians; since the Pharisees opposed Herod bitterly, his followers are less than objective in reporting about them.

The Pharisees were liberals.  They accepted the books of the prophets, as well as the Torah, as authoritative Scripture. Still, they were not ready to canonize the Writings.  The Pharisees also stressed a continuing oral interpretation of the Scriptures as conditions changed or new insights were achieved.  The body of oral law eventually became known as the Mishnah. The Pharisees welcomed new rituals, including the celebration of the Hanukkah, established in 164 BCE to commemorate the cleaning of the temple from defilement under King Antiochus IV Epiphanes; also, the Purim, the joyous re-enactment of the Jews' rescue by Esther.  The practice of baptizing proselytes is pharisaic, as is much of the Jewish doctrine about angels, demons, theMessiah, and bodily resurrection.

Both the Sadducees and Pharisees developed out of the Maccabean period (160s BCE). The Pharisees seem to have come from a group known as the Hasidim or the "Pure Ones."  The term is used, also, of a Jewish mystic group who refused to break the Law by fighting on the Sabbath.  Not many survived the war; those remaining liberalized their beliefs somewhat. 

The Pharisees themselves were divided in their own day.  The Hillel group took a lenient view of the Law and conciliatory stance in most controversies, whether with Gentiles or Jews.  Hillel formulated the negative golden rule: do not do unto others what you would not have them do onto you.  Gamaliel, who advised the Sanhedrine, posed the rule, consider carefully what you propose to do to these men; he was a follower of Hillel, who was a minority at the time. Paul was a student of Gamaliel. The second group was led by Shammai, who advocated a stricter interpretation of the Mosaic Law in opposition to the Roman government; he was less tolerant of Gentiles. His party won control of the Sanhedrin during Jesus' lifetime.  Only after 70 did the moderate views of Hillel become dominant. After 70 CE,  the terms Pharisee and scribe drop out of common usage, to be replaced by "rabbi." After the destruction of the temple, all Jews became concerned with survival of the faith.  The Pharisaic movement may be seen largely as an attempt to free Judaism from the domineering priesthood and the restrictions of the temple or as an attempt to provide an alternative mode of Judaism.

Oxford Companion says the following about the history of these people:

The Pharisees’ origin lie in the period of the Maccabean revolt (166–159 bce), where we hear of the emergence of a group of Jews zealous for the Law, the Hasideans (1 Maccabees 2.42), who opposed the way in which the high priests were accommodating to the intrusion of Hellenistic ways into Judaism. This renewal movement spawned not only the Pharisees but also the Essenes. It is likely that the Pharisees saw the establishment of the Hasmonean monarchy (140 bce) as an opportunity for national renewal and the restoration of true observance of the Law. Certainly, unlike the Essenes, they remained in Jerusalem after the usurpation of the high priesthood by the Hasmoneans (152 bce). They probably shared the popular enthusiasm for the successful campaign for Jewish independence, recorded in 1 Maccabees 14.27–49, when a great synagogue of the Jews conferred the kingship and the high priesthood on Simon. Interestingly there is no sanction for such a synagogue, or assembly, in the Pentateuch, and this may have been justified by the oral tradition of the elders that the Pharisees cultivated. The Pharisees thus have their origins in a popular movement based on scribal traditions for interpreting the Law. They legitimated the Hasmonean monarchy by allowing it to control the Temple and subsequently sought to influence the monarchy both at court and in the Sanhedrin, the council in Jerusalem that was the continuation of the great synagogue. In this they were by no means always successful, falling foul of John Hyrcanus (134–104) and Alexander Jannaeus (103–76) but being restored to favor by Salome Alexandra (76–67). As their authority at the royal court diminished they sought to influence the people through the local courts and synagogues where they enjoyed considerable success. They were not a uniform movement; over the years different schools of interpretation of the Law grew up around different teachers, notably Hillel and Shammai. After the First Jewish Revolt (66–70 ce) they emerged as the leaders, under Jonathan ben Zakkai, of the academy at Jamnia, which laid the foundation of rabbinic Judaism.

The Herodians This group was considerably political in its influence.  They were a party favoring the restoration of one of Herod's descendents to the throne.  Herod's sons were Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee during Jesus' lifetime, and Philip, ruling Ituraea and Trachonitis (east of Galilee). The Pharisees seemed to have initiated contact with the Herodians in an attempt to gain political allies in their campaign against Jesus.  Herod Antipas was deeply concerned about Jesus due to his connection with John the Baptis, whom he beheaded (Mark 6.16). Luke is the only Gospel to relate that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod Antipas during the deliberations over his fate. 

Herod's grandson Agrippa I was made king of Judea in 41 by his friend, the emperor Claudius.  Agrippa died in 44, and the province reverted to being governed by a Roman prefect.  Agrippa II eventually ruled over northern territories, including Galilee, but Judea remained under direct Roman control.

Essenes

The Essenes were devout individuals who lived in sequestered groups or towns.  Their theology was heavily apocalyptic, and their lifestyle was self-disciplined and ascetic.  John the Baptis had strong overtones of Essene thought in his preaching and appearance.  Some also think that Jesus' forty days in the wilderness (Mark 1.12-13) might have been spent at an Essene community or that he had been in previous contact with such a group and was accustomed to spending time alone in the desert.

Oxford Companions describes the Essenes as follows:

 

References to the Essenes occur in a number of ancient sources: in Josephus (War 2.8.119–61; Ant. 13.5.171–2; 15.10.371–9; 18.1.11, 18–22), Philo (Quod omnis probus 12–13 [75–91]; Hypothetica, in Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica 11.1–18), and Pliny the Elder (Natural History 5.15.73). What Josephus and Philo describe is a quite widespread group in Palestine living in communities in towns or villages and distinguished by their love for each other, their simplicity of life, and their strict adherence to the Law. Pliny by contrast describes a community living in the desert by the Dead Sea. Josephus also describes their strict examination of initiates, their ritual baths and meals, their strict observance of the Sabbath, their common ownership of property, and a number of other customs.

It is widely accepted that the Essenes referred to by these ancient authors were part of the same movement whose library and the ruins of whose buildings were discovered at Khirbet Qumran on the Dead Sea in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The name Essenes itself is obscure and does not occur in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is said by Philo to refer to their holiness; another view suggests that the name reflects their reputation as healers.

The origins of the Essenes are not clear but probably lie in the group of Hasideans, who sought to renew the Law at the time of the Maccabean revolt (166–59 bce; see 1 Maccabees 2.42). It was not, however, until twenty years later, according to the Damascus Document (I.10–11), that they emerged as a separate group under the leadership of the Teacher of Righteousness. The occasion of this split within the movement was probably the usurpation of the high priesthood by the Maccabean king, Jonathan (152 bce). The buildings at Qumran date from this time. They were occupied, possibly with a short interruption after an earthquake in 31 bce, until their destruction in the First Jewish Revolt in 68 ce.

The Essene communities were tightly structured. Each group had a leader who controlled membership, administered the common goods and property, and ruled in matters of law (see CD 13–14; 1QS 6; the leader of the community is spoken of both as a priest and a guardian, but it is not always clear whether this refers to one or two persons). The community at Qumran had a council into which members were admitted only after long schooling in the ways of the community (1QS 6–9). Ultimate authority in the community lay with the priests (1QS 6.8). The community saw itself as administering the true understanding of the Law that had been entrusted by revelation to the Teacher of Righteousness (CD 3.13–15). Only the men of the community possessed such an understanding, and as such they, and only they, were the true men of the covenant of God and Israel. They were the "sons of light"; all others, including all other Jews, were "sons of darkness" (1QS 3.13–4.26).