I understand that Sadducees were upper-class wealthy men who made up the Jewish aristocracy. Pharisees came from all economic classes but were distinguished by their rigid adherence to behaviour as interpreted from the Torah. They were prominent during the time of Jesus, but when did these two groups first arise, and which came first? Perhaps the Old Testament can shed light on this; for example do they go back to the time of Moses, or perhaps to the time of Zadok the priest? What is the origin of the Pharisees and Sadducees?

We read in Matt 16: 6-12 (NRSVCE): >Jesus said to them, “Watch out, and beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” They said to one another, “It is because we have brought no bread.” And becoming aware of it, Jesus said, “You of little faith, why are you talking about having no bread? ........... Then they understood that he had not told them to beware of the yeast of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. In the days of Jesus when dry yeast was not in vogue, people preserved a small portion of leavened dough, for use on a subsequent occasion. This is clear from the Parable of the Yeast in Mtt 13:33: > He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened.” If the woman needed one measure of yeast for three measures of flour, it would not have been in the form of dry yeast we have these days, but of leavened dough set apart from previous baking. Now, leavening was considered good because it gave taste and softness to the bread and increased its shelf life. There were two options available to the breadmaker: he/she could refresh the leaven day after day by preserving the leavened dough of the most recent baking. Alternatively, one could preserve a large portion of leavened dough from the first day of baking say, Sunday and use small portions of it for leavening the flour through the full week. That would make the leaven too sour for want of renovation, but it would still act as a leavening agent. The Pharisees and Sadducees clearly showed scrupulous adherence to the Old Law which Jesus wanted to supplement with the New Law. Jesus' way of referring to the yeast, was meant to expose the confrontation. In the literal sense, he was referring to the fermented dough that had been kept too long, but it was still being used as a leavening agent. My question therefore is: Did Jesus have in mind the tradition of preserving of leavening agent, while speaking of the Pharisees' Yeast? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

Matthew 3 and Luke 3 recount the emergence of John the Baptist and the beginning of his ministry. When the Pharisees and Sadducees come to receive his baptism, he calls them out as a "brood of vipers", with the implication that he denies them the water baptism. The account in Luke 3 proceeds to say, "What should we do then?" the crowd asked, and John gives them teachings and examples on repentance, but we do not know whether or not "the crowd" included some of these Pharisees and Sadducees, and my own inference is that it did not. Why did John call ***them*** a "brood of vipers"? Now, I understand the application of this title to these two groups overall, so I don't require an explanation of its meaning. But *why specifically in this instance when they came to be baptized*? Some may say it was to "flex" their position, show off to the people, and receive "praise" and honour from them in doing so. Or some could say that they did it to receive more blessing, and more of God's "approval". But neither of these reasons seem characteristic of them to me. Their general mindset was that they thought: 1. John was a lunatic and/or heretic, and 2. They were God's chosen group, and were already blessed and anointed to be in the positions they were in. So going to receive baptism from John just to "show off" to the people doesn't make sense in that mindset. In fact, it would seem to do the opposite: it would probably confuse the people to see these highly religious people want to receive something from a guy they considered crazy and blasphemous. So it makes me think that those who went to him were genuine in heart to receive it. But if they were, then why did John call them "brood of vipers" and deny them the baptism? I guess the implication of these passages is that they *were* doing it for selfish reasons, but if so, I can't for the life of me think what those reasons might be. So my real question is, for those Ps and Ss that went to John at the Jordan: * If they *did* have a "brood of vipers" heart, then why did they go to John in the first place? What did they have to gain by doing so? * If they went with genuine hearts to receive baptism, then why did John call them out (and possibly deny them the baptism)?

The Bible mentions a few things about the sadducees' beliefs, such as in Acts 23:8, but doesn't reveal much detail. Are there any documents aside from the Bible from the first century AD (or first few centuries) which document what the sadducees believed?

Jesus often encountered "Pharisees" and "Sadducees". For example, >34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the **Sadducees**, the **Pharisees** got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” (Matthew 22:34-36) From a Christian perspective, **Who were they and how did they differ?**

In Matthew 22, after basically frustrating the Pharisees and the Saduccees by answering some really tricky questions, Jesus finally turns the tables on them and asks this question: > 41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied. 43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, 44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’[e] 45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” The response is silence, and apparent victory: > 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions. What I understand is this - Jesus is pointing out that the Messiah is both David's son and David's Lord. I get that its a good theological point. But why does it silence his critics?