After Greece came to power, Alexander appointed four generals over his kingdom, two on the eastern front (our concern is not with the two appointed over the two major western regions, Rome and Asia Minor): Selucid over Syria and Ptolemy over Egypt. Located between Egypt and Syria, Judea became political fair game. Though briefly controlled at first by Syria, Palestine was soon annexed by Ptolemy to Egypt. Under Egypt's succeeding Greek rulers, called Ptolemies, the Jewish people flourished and experienced freedom in their ceremonial and Temple life. Later, however, the Greek Selucids of Syria regained control over Judea and were not favorable to these Palestinian Jews, attempting to force Hellenization upon them. This, the Pharisees strongly resisted. When Antiochus IV came to power, and calling himself Epiphanes, meaning, "God manifest," after a supposed vision from Zeus (Greek mythological god), he systematically began a campaign to make the Jews one with all other peoples in the Greek populous and culture. Persecutions began: Jerusalem and its Temple were plundered and paganly refitted and populated by heathens; its citizens who were not fortunate to escape were brutally murdered; scripture was confiscated, burned, and its owners put to death; circumcision was prohibited and those mothers found guilty were executed and their babies hanged by the neck; and finally under threat of death, Jews were forced, city by city, to publicly renounce their religion, offer pagan swine sacrifices, and swear allegiance to the Greek culture and Antiochus (Josephus; Apocryphal writings: I & II Maccabees). This was another dark period in Jewish history. As the writer of the Maccabees said: "So Alexander reigned twelve years, and then died. And his servants [appointed kings over his realm] bare rule every one in his place [Selucid over Syria and Ptolemy over Egypt]. And after his death they all put crowns upon themselves; so did their sons after them many years: and evils were multiplied in the earth" (I Maccabee 1:7-9).

In June 168 B.C., the final blow to Jewish freedom was struck when this Syrio-Greek ruler halted Temple sacrifices and began his own pagan sacrifices upon brazen altars erected to the god Jupiter Olympius, himself even offering that most detestable of all animals to the Jew -- a sow (known to the Jew since as the Abomination of Desolation of Dan.9:27; 12:11. See I Mac.1:54; II Mac.6:2; Josephus, Antiq. 12.5.4; 12.7.6 - pp. 257, 260). This would not stand. When this renouncement was attempted at Modin, a revolt occurred under Mattathias (himself of the priestly order), and later successfully accomplished under his son (Judas, called Maccabee) with the retaking of Jerusalem and the rededication of the Temple on the 25th of Chislev 164 B.C. (our December -- since celebrated as the Feast of Dedication, or Hanukah). The Sadducees who had aligned previously with these Syrio-Greek rulers were ousted as leaders of the Great Assembly. Mattathias' sons (five -- of the family called Hashmon) were allowed to become High Priests and this priestly dynasty followed. The Maccabaean, or Hasmonaean, period began and independent Jewish rule was established under these priestly-king successors that would last until Rome came to power in 63 B.C.

As the years passed, a ruler named John Hyrcanus (himself a Hasmonaean descendant) who was more sympathetic to the Sadducees came to power. The Sadducees, who had continued to evolve politically in retirement, regained control of the ruling assembly and continued in favor through Rome's reign (beginning 63 B.C.) and appointments of Herodian (Idumean) kings and Roman procurators (Roman appointed ruling governors of Palestine) in Christ's day. The two Sadducees most known to us today through the New Testament, therefore, were the High Priests (and President of the ruling Council, the Sanhedrin) Annas and Caiaphas, his son-in-law who succeeded him. These are the two who ruled this Assembly (now called Sanhedrin) at Christ's death ( Jn.19:13), and later when Peter and John were arrested after Pentecost ( Acts 4:1,6; 5:17).

It should be noted here that from the Idumeans, or Edomites (descendants of Esau, twin brother of Jacob -- progenitor of the 12 tribes of Israel) merged with the Jews under John Hyrcanus' rule, would come the Herod's of Christ's time. Briefly, in 125 B.C., after earlier (128 B.C.) destroying the Samaritan temple at Mt. Gerizim to the north, a campaign was launched against the Edomites to the south, conquering and merging its remnants with the Judean religion through circumcision, though never actually mixing through marriage and subsequently by blood. When Rome came to power in 63 B.C., Antipater, from this Idumean people, was appointed governor by Julius Caesar over Judea. In 40 B.C., he was assassinated and Antigonus the Maccabee was appointed ruler by the Parthians. Late in that year, Antipater's son, Herod the Great, was appointed the new king of Judea by the Roman senate, finally recapturing Jerusalem in 37 B.C. and establishing his complete Judean rule. Since the Sadducees were in control of the Temple and the ruling Council, and Herod considered Jewish through circumcision (though not by blood), again a working relationship developed between this new ruler and the Jewish authorities. Considering himself a Jew and now their king, Herod much desired to be accepted by the Jewish people. He undertook the lavish rebuilding of their Temple that had experienced its ravages at the hands of earlier dark times under Syrio-Greek rule, and eventually it was completed just prior to being destroyed by Rome in A.D. 70 in their suppression of the Jewish wars. (Even Christ's disciples were enamored by its size and splendor - Mt.24:1.) Subsequently, it has been referred to as Herod's Temple when Jerusalem's Temple history is discussed. It was this desire for continuing rule and acceptance by the Jewish people that was partly behind Herod's response to what appeared to him as a threat to his throne when the Jewish messiah was born, hence his actions to dispose of him -- he would remain king of the Jews at all costs. Augustus (early church writer) is reported to have said that it was "better to be Herod's sow than his son for his sow had a better chance of survival" (Robertson, p. 21). However, since not of Davidic lineage, this was not to be that kingdom which would usher in independent Jewish rule or the prophesied worldwide millennial reign.

As previously mentioned, varying views developed during and after Babylonian captivity toward scripture and subsequent interpretations which partly led to the formation of these individual groups or parties within the Judean religion. While the developing Pharisees held to all of the Old Testament Canon (including the writings of the prophets) as sacred and as authoritative as the first five books of Moses, called the Torah, or the Law, and therefore was as worthy of study and application, the Sadducees did not ascribe to such a view. To them, only the Law, or Torah (the works of Moses), was binding. As a result, they rejected the rabbinical interpretations for application of ceremonial life beyond that of Scripture (though they did produce writings themselves for further explanation of difficult texts). Since little emphasis was placed upon prophetic literature, unlike the Pharisees, the Sadducees did not hold to a view of an apocalyptic fulfillment of Jewish history, therefore, no expected messiah. With this limited knowledge and view (or conservative interpretation of scripture) of the complete Old Testament writings, they did not see even in Moses' works and experiences what he himself saw and alluded to in his accounts with his experiences with God and his own prophecies. If it was not specifically spelled out, then it was not said to be so. Hence, to them, no resurrection. If no resurrection -- no after life. If no afterlife -- no rewards and punishments beyond this one for things done now; no spirit or soul to live on; no spirits period -- demons, angels, or otherwise. A man's life, as he chose to live it in the here and now, was all that mattered. He was not necessarily predisposed by God to live it one way or another, toward good or evil. Whichever he chose, he would deserve and should suffer its rewards and consequences now.

With these views, several things are more readily understood: first how they could more easily adapt to an occupying force's culture when conquered, such as Greece and later Rome; secondly, why they were, on occasions, bitter enemies with the Pharisees, constantly engaged in debate, yet align together for a common cause against a threat to both's existence; thirdly, how they could reject out of hand Christ's (and subsequently the people's) claim that He was the expected Messiah; and lastly, why Christ condemned their obvious hypocrisy when they pretentiously engaged Him publicly concerning doctrines they flatly rejected.

As with the Pharisees, it is without question that this group was also partly responsible for Jesus' death for basically the same reasons. He had engaged them at a very young age (12 -- Lk.2:47) in successful scriptural debate in the courts of their hallowed halls and challenged their beliefs, activities, and practices from the outset of His adult public life, even His authoritative cleansing of their most cherished institution -- the Temple -- at the beginning and close of His ministry. This carpenter peasant from Nazareth, with no formal schooling from the masters of their academia in Mosaic law, would not live, having shamed them publicly and offended them privately with His superior knowledge and wisdom. He had won the masses and their power over them was about to be instantly negated when the people would crown Him king. They knew He knew their hollow hypocrisy as leaders and would, in all likelihood, replace them with men such as those He had gathered around Himself and personally trained. To them, these developments were seditious at its core and Rome would not tolerate such. This ill-equipped ragtag bunch of uneducated Galileans -- rabble-rousers some might call -- were perceived inadequate to stand against the mighty arm of the Roman emperor. All would be lost. The security of the nation was at stake. They must act on behalf of the people, was their unenlightened reasoning ( Jn.11:48). Though they were allowed by Rome to decide matters of life and death within the Jewish community, they were not allowed to condemn and execute anyone. This they would confer to do secretly and then enlist the aid of the Roman puppet to do their dirty work. And so they did.