III. The Supreme Sanhedrim In Jerusalem

III. THE SUPREME SANHEDRIM IN JERUSALEM
THE LITERATURE
Selden, De synedriis et praefecturis juridicis veterum Ebraeorum, lib. i.-iii., Londini 1650-1655 (comp. above, p. 132).
Meuschen, Novum Testamentum ex Talmudé et antiquitatibus Hebraeorum illustratum (Lips. 1736), pp. 1184-1199: Diatribe de נשיא seu directore Synedrii M. Hebraeorum.
Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus antiquilatum sacri codisis (1748), pp 550-600.
Hartmann, Die enge Verbindung des Alten Testaments mit dem Neuen (1831), pp. 166-225.
Winer, Realwörterb. ii. 551-554, art. “Synedrium.”
Sachs, Uber die Zeit der Entstehung des Synhedrin’s (Frankel’s Zetischr.für die religiösen Interessen des Judenth., 1845, pp. 301-312).
Saalschütz, Das mosaische Rechte, 2nd ed. 1853, i. 49 ff., ii. 598 ff. Also his Archäologie der Hebräer, vol. ii. 1856, pp. 249 ff., 271 ff., 429-458.
Levy, Die Präsidentur im Synedrium (Frankel’s Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissenseh. des Judenth. 1855, pp. 266-274, 301-307, 339-358).
Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. ii. (1855) pp. 380-396.
Jost, Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Secten, vol. i. (1857) pp. 120-128, 270-281. Comp. also pp. 403 ff., vol. ii. (1858) pp. 13 ff., 25 ff.
Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel (1857), p. 114 ff.
Keil, Handbuch der bibischen Archäologie (2nd ed. 1875), pp. 714-717.
Leyrer, art. “Synedrium,” in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. xv. (1862) pp. 315-325.
Langen, Das jüdische Synedrium und die römische Procuratur in Judäa (Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr. 1862, pp. 411-463).
Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, vol. iii. (3rd ed. 1878) pp. 110 ff., 683-685.
De Wette, Lehrbuch der hebräisch-jüdischen Archäologie (4th ed. 1864), pp. 204-206.
Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (3rd ed. 1864-1868), iv. 217 ff., v. 56, vi. 097 ff.
Kueuen, Over de samenstelling van het Sanhedrin (Verslagen en Mededeelingen der koninkl. Academie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde, Deel x., Amsterdam 1866, pp. 131-168). Comp. also, De Godsdienst van Israël, ii. (1870) pp. 512-515.
Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine (1867), pp. 83-94, 465-468.
Giusburg, art. “Sanhedrim,” in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature.
Hausrath, Neutestamentuche Zeitgeschichte, vol. i. (2nd ed. 1873) pp. 63-72.
Wieseler, Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien (1869), pp. 205-230.
Keim, Geschichte Jesu, iii. pp. 321 ff., 345 ff.
Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer (1874), pp. 26-43.
Holtzmann, art. “Synedrium,” in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, v. 446-451.
Hoffmann (D.), Der oberste Gerichtshof in der Stadt des Heiligthums (Progr. des Rabbiner-Seminares zu Berlin für 1877-1878). Also his Die Prüsidentur im Synedrium (Magazin für die Wissensch. des Judenth. v. Jahrg. 1878, pp. 94-99).
Reuss, Geschichte der heil. Schriften Alten Testaments (1881), secs, ccclxxvl., ccccxcv.
Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel und Talmud, part 2, 1883, art. “Synhedrion;” also the articles “Nassi” and “Abbethdin.”
Stapfer, Le Sanhédrin de Jérusalem au premier siècle (Revue de théologie et de philosophie [Lausanne], 1884, pp. 105-119).
1. Its history. There is no evidence to show that, previous to the Greek period, there existed at Jerusalem an aristocratic council claiming to exercise either supreme, or what was substantially supreme, authority and jurisdiction over the whole Jewish nation. It is true no doubt that Rabbinical exegesis has sought to identify the Sanhedrim of later times with the council of seventy elders that, at his own request, had once been granted to Moses to assist him with its advice (Numbers 11:16), and has, in consequence, assumed that this same council continued without interruption from the days of Moses down to Talmudic times. But during the first thousand years of this period we find practically no trace whatever of its existence. For the “elders” that are sometimes mentioned as being the representatives of the people (for example in 1 Kings 8:1; 1 Kings 20:7; 2 Kings 23:1; Ezekiel 14:1; Ezekiel 20:1) did not constitute a regularly organized court like the future Sanhedrim. Then again, the supreme court at Jerusalem, the existence of which is presupposed in the Deuteronomic legislation (Deuteronomy 17:8 ff; Deuteronomy 19:16 ff.), and the institution of which the author of Chronicles ascribes to Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 19:8), was merely a court of justice with functions of an exclusively judicial character, and not a council governing, or at all events substantially governing, the country as was the Sanhedrim of the Graeco-Roman age.[732] But further, it is, to say the least of it, uncertain whether any such court as that of the Sanhedrim existed even in the Persian era. No doubt, at that time, the municipal Council of Jerusalem formed the centre of the small Jewish commonwealth very much as it did at a subsequent period. And thus far we might be justified in understanding the “elders” of the Book of Ezra (Ezra 5:5; Ezra 5:9; Ezra 6:7; Ezra 6:14; Ezra 10:8), and the חוֹרִים and סְגָנִים of the Book of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 2:16; Nehemiah 4:8; Nehemiah 4:13; Nehemiah 5:7; Nehemiah 7:5), as corresponding somewhat to the future Sanhedrim. But judging from the whole way in which they are mentioned, it is more probable that the various order referred to are regarded in their individual capacity and not as con stituting an organized body. In any case the existence of a Jewish γερουσία earlier than the Greek period cannot be proved with any degree of certainty. The first occasion on which it is mentioned, and that under this designation, is in the time of Antiochus the Great (223-187 B.C.), so that it must, of course, have been in existence as early as the time of the Ptolemies.[733] Now seeing that, in its desire for reform everywhere and in everything, Hellenism had set itself to reorganize political institutions as well, we are bound to assume that, in all probability, it was just the new Greek rulers who would give to the Jewish γερουσία the form in which it was met with at the period now in question, whether that form were entirely an original one or whether it were simply a reorganization of a similar court that was already in existence under the Persian rule. From the circumstance of the designation γερουσία being applied to it, it is clear that, unlike the majority of Greek councils, this was not a democratic, but an aristocratic body.[734] This same circumstance would seem further to show that, so far as its original institution is concerned, this court dates back to an earlier period, and therefore to the time of the Persian rule. As we may well conceive, its powers would be of a tolerably large and extensive character. For the Hellenistic kings had conceded a great amount of internal freedom to municipal communities, and were on the whole satisfied if the taxes were duly paid and their own supremacy duly recognised. At the head of the Jewish commonwealth, and therefore of the γερουσία as well, stood the hereditary high priest. It was this latter, in conjunction with the γερουσία over which lie presided, that practically regulated the whole internal affairs of the nation.
[732]a Such certainly is the way Josephus conceives of the matter when, following the analogy of a later order of things, he speaks of the court of justice here referred to under the designation of ἡ γερουσ.α (Antt. iv. 8. 41).
[733] Antt. xii. 3. 3. For this whole matter, comp. Kuenen’s admirable dissertation in the Verslagen en Mededeelingen der koninkl. Akademie van Wetenschappen, l.c.
[734] A γερουσια is always an aristocratic body. The Council of Sparta is expressly described as such, and so too with regard to councils generally in the Doric States. See Westermann in Pauly’s Real-Enc. iii. 849 f.
After the Maccabaean insurrection the old high-priestly dynasty was superseded, its place being now supplied by the new Asmonaean line of high priests, which began with Simon, and which was likewise a hereditary one. Then again the old γερουσια must have been essentially revolutionized through its being purged of every element in it suspected of Greek sympathies and leanings. But the court itself still continued to exist and exercise its functions along with and under the Asmonaean princes and high priests; for even these latter could not venture to go so far as entirely to discard the old nobility of Jerusalem. Hence we find the γερουσία mentioned in the time of Judas (2Ma_1:10; 2Ma_4:44; 2Ma_11:27; the πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ of 1Ma_7:33 being also identically the same thing), of Jonathan (1Ma_12:6 : ἡ γερουσία τοῦ ἔθνους; ibid. 11:23: οἱ πρεσβύτεροι Ἰσραήλ; ibid. 12:35: οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ) and of Simon (1Ma_13:36; 1Ma_14:20; 1Ma_14:28).[735] Its existence is likewise presupposed in the Book of Judith, which probably belongs to the period now in question (Jdt_4:8; Jdt_11:14; Jdt_15:8). The assumption of the title of king on the part of the Asmonaean princes, and above all the autocratic rule of an Alexander Jannaeus, indicated no doubt an advance in the direction of a pure monarchy. But, for all that, the old γερουσία still continued to assert itself as much as ever. At least in the reign of Alexandra we find τῶν Ἰουδαίων οἱ πρεσβύτεροι expressly mentioned (Antt. xiii. 16. 5).[736]
[735] It is interesting in this connection to compare 1Ma_12:6 with 1Ma_14:20. The matter in hand is the correspondence between the Jews and the Spartans. In the former of those passages (1Ma_12:6 = Joseph. Antt. xiii. 5. 8) the Jews as the senders of the communication style themselves thus: Ἰωνάθαν ἀρχιερεὺς καὶ ἡ γερουσία τοῦ ἔθνους καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς καὶ ὁ λοιπὸς δῆμος τῶν Ἰουδαίων. In the reply of the Spartans the terms of the address (1Ma_14:20) are as follows: Σιμωνι ἱερεῖ μεγάλῳ καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις καὶ τοῖς ἱερεῦσι καὶ τῷ λοιπῷ τῶν Ἰουδαίων. Observe (1) that ἡ γερουσία and οἱ πρεσβύτεροι are identically the same; (2) that in both instances the classification is of a fourfold character. High priest, gerousia, priesta, people.
[736] Similarly in Tyre and Sidon, for example, there was a council associated with the king in the direction of affairs. See Movers, Die Phönizier, ii. 1 (1849), pp. 529-542. Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerl. Verfassung, ii. 117.
It is true that, when a new order of things was introduced by Pompey, the monarchy was abolished. But the high priest still retained the προστασία τοῦ ἔθνους (Antt. xx. 10), and therefore it may be presumed that meanwhile the position of the γερουσία would remain essentially the same as before.[737] The existing arrangements however were rather more seriously disturbed by Gabinius (57-55 B.C.), when he divided the whole of the Jewish territory into five σύνοδοι (Bell. Jud. i. 8. 5) or συνέδρια (Antt. xiv. 5. 4).[738] Now, seeing that of those five synedria three were allotted to Judaea proper (viz. those of Jerusalem, Gazara and Jericho) it follows that the jurisdiction of the council of Jerusalem, if it really retained anything of its previous character at all, would extend only to something like a third part of the province. But probably that measure meant rather more than a mere limiting of jurisdiction. For the five συνέδρια established by Gabinius were not municipal councils, but—as indeed we might have supposed from the fact that Josephus uses the term σύνοδοι as a synonymous expression—genuine Roman conventus juridici, “districts for judicial purposes,” into which the Romans were in the habit of dividing every province.[739] And, that being the case, the measure in question must have been neither more nor less than a stricter application to Judaea of the Roman system of provincial government. As things now stood the council of Jerusalem no longer exercised sole jurisdiction within the circuit to which it belonged, but only in conjunction with the other communities within this same district. The arrangements of Gabinius however continued to subsist only somewhere about ten years. For they were in turn superseded by the new system of things introduced by Caesar (47 B.C.). This latter reappointed Hyrcanus II. to his former office of ἐθνάρχης of the Jews (see above, § 13); while it is distinctly evident from a circumstance that occurred about that time, that the jurisdiction of the council of Jerusalem once more extended to Galilee as well. The circumstance in question was the occasion on which Herod when a youth was required to appear before the συνέδριον at Jerusalem to answer for his doings in Galilee (Antt. xiv. 9. 3-5). Here for the first time, as frequently afterwards, the council of Jerusalem was designated by the term συνέδριον. As it is unusual elsewhere to find this expression applied to civic councils, such a use, in this instance, is somewhat strange, but probably it is to be explained by the fact that the council of Jerusalem was conceived of as being above all a court of justice (בֵּית דִּין). For it is in this sense that συνέδριον is specially used in later Greek.[740]
[737] In the Psalms of Solomon, which for the most part were composed in the time of Pompey, the author is in the habit of apostrophizing as follows any public person or party that he happens to dislike: ἱνατὶ σὺ κάθησαι βέβηλε ἐν συνεδρίῳ (Psalms 4:1). Now, as it is clear from the context that by the term συνέδριον we are to understand a court, it is quite possible that it is our γερουσία that is here referred to. But, owing to the ambiguous nature of the expression itself and the impossibility of fixing with greater precision the date of the composition of the psalm, there is historically but little to be gleaned from this passage. Any light that is to be thrown upon it must be derived from what we already know regarding the existing order of things.
[738] On this comp. above, § 13.
[739] Comp. Marquardt’s Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. (1881), p. 501. Kuhn (Die städt. u. bürgerl. Verf. ii. 336, 367) also regards the Synedria of Gabinius as identical with the conventus juridici of the Romans.
[740] Hesychius, Lex. (see word), defines συνέδριον precisely by the term δικαστήριον (a court of justice). In the Sept. version of Proverbs 22:10 συνέδριον is given as the rendering of דִּין. Comp. also Psalms of Solomon 4:1. In the New Testament again συνέδρια mean simply “courts of justice” (Matthew 10:17; Mark 13:9); similarly in the Mishna (see, in particular, Sanhedrin i. 5, סנהדריות לשבטים = courts for the tribes, and i. 6, סנהדרין קטנה = an inferior court of justice). Hence Steph. in his Thes. (see word) correctly observes: praecipue ita vocatur consessus judicum. It is true that, in itself, συνέδριον is a very comprehensive term and may be applied to every “assembly” and every corporate body, even to the Roman senate, for example (see in general, Stephanus, Thes., under word, and Westermann in Pauly’s Enc. vi. 2. 1535). It is but comparatively seldom however that it is used to denote civic councils, which as every one knows are mostly designated by the terms βουλή and γερουσία. It is more frequently employed to denote representative assemblies, composed of deputies from various constituencies. And so we have, for example, the συνέδριον of the Phoenicians which was usually convened in Tripolis (Diodor. xvi. 41), the κοινὸν συνέδριον of ancient Lycia, which was composed of representatives from twenty-three different towns (Strabo, xiv. 3. 3, p. 664 f.), and the συνέδριον κοινόν of the province of Asia (Aristides, Orat. xxvi., ed. Dindorf, vol. i. p. 531). Hence it is too that σύνεδροι and βουλευταί are mentioned separately as constituting two different orders of officials (see inscription at Balbura in Pisidia as given in Le Bas et Waddington’s Inscr. vol. iii. n. 1221). Moreover, the senatores of the four Macedonian districts, who, according to Livy, were called σύνεδροι (Liv. xlv. 32: pronuntiatum, quod ad statum Macedoniae pertinebat, senatores, quos synedros vocant, legendos esse, quorum consilio respublica administraretur), were not municipal councillors, but deputies representing an entire regio (see Marquardt’s Staatsverwaltung, i. [1881] p. 317). Now as the term in question was first heard of in Judaea in the time of Gabinius, and was thereafter currently applied to the council of Jerusalem as well, one might be inclined to suppose that it had been introduced in this quarted in connection with the Gabinian measures of reform, and that its use was still retained even after a new order of things had been established (as I have myself held, Riehm’s Wörterb. p. 1596). But in presence of the fact, that elsewhere too, even in Hebrew itself, the term is generally used in the sense of a “court of justice,” this explanation, I fear, must be abandoned as more ingenious than otherwise.
Herod the Great inaugurated his reign by ordering the whole of the members of the Sanhedrim to be put to death (Antt. xiv. 9. 4: πάντας ἀπέκτεινε τοὺς ἐν τῷ συνεδρίῳ). Whether the πάντας here is to be understood quite literally may be left an open question. For, acoording to another passage, Herod is represented as as having ordered the forty-five most prominent personages belonging to the party of Antigonus to be put to death (Antt. xv. 1. 2: ἀπέκτεινε δὲ τεσσαράκοντα πέντε τοὺς πρώτους ἐκ τῆς αἱρέσεως Ἀντιγόνου). In any case the object of this proceeding was either to get rid entirely of the old nobility, who had been somewhat hostile to his claims, or at all events so to intimidate them as to ensure their acquiescence in the rule of the new sovereign. It was of those then that were disposed to be tractable—among whom also were a good many Pharisees, who saw in Herod’s despotic sway a well-merited judgment of heaven—that the new Sanhedrim was now composed. For there is express evidence that such an institution existed in the time of Herod also, inasmuch as one can hardly understand that the “assembly” (συνέδριον) before which this monarch successfully prosecuted his charge against the aged Hyrcanus could be taken as referring to any other court than our Sanhedrim (Antt. xv. 6. 2, fin.).[741]
[741] Comp. besides, Wieseler’s Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien, p. 215 f.
After Herod’s death Arclielaus obtained only a portion of his father’s kingdom, viz. the provinces of Judaea and Samaria. Nor can there be any doubt that, in consequence of this, the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrim was at the same time restricted to Judaea proper (comp. above, p. 142). This continued to be the state of matters in the time of the procurators as well. But, under their administration, the internal government of the country was to a greater extent in the hands of the Sanhedrim than it had been during the reign of Herod and Archelaus. Josephus distinctly intimates as much when he informs us that, ever since the death of Herod and Archelaus, the form of government was that of an aristocracy under the supreme direction of the high priests.[742] And accordingly he regards the aristocratic council of Jerusalem as being now the true governing body in contradistinction to the previous monarchical rule of the Idumaean princes. So too in the time of Christ and the apostles the συνέδριον at Jerusalem is frequently mentioned as being the supreme Jewish court, above all, as being the supreme Jewish court of justice (Matthew 5:22; Matthew 26:59; Mark 14:55; Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66; John 11:47; Acts 4:15; Acts 5:21 ff; Acts 6:12 ff; Acts 22:30; Acts 23:1 ff; Acts 24:20). Sometimes again the terms πρεσβυτέριον (Luke 22:66; Acts 22:5) and γερουσία (Acts 5:21) are substituted for συνέδριον.[743] A member of this court, viz. Joseph of Arimathea, is described in Mark 15:43, Luke 23:50, as a βουλευτής. Josephus calls the supreme court of Jerusalem a συνέδριον[744] or a βουλή,[745] or he comprehends the court and people under the common designation of τὸ κοινόν.[746] While in the Mishna again the supreme court of justice is called בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל[747] or סַנְהֶדְרִין גְּדוֹלָה,[748] likewise סַנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁל שׁבעיםְֶ יָאחד,[749] or merely סַנְהֶדְרִין.[750] There can be no question that, after the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 A.D., the Sanhedrim was abolished, so far at least as its existing form was concerned. The comparatively large amount of self-government that had hitherto been granted to the Jewish people could no longer be conceded to them after such a serious rebellion as had taken place. Hitherto, apart from the short episode in the time of Gabinius, the Roman system of provincial government had not been strictly carried out in Judaea (see above, § 17‌e), but now that Palestine was reduced to the position of a dependent Roman province, it was no longer exempted from the ordinary system of Roman provincial administration.[751] From all this it followed, as matter of course, that a Jewish council, invested with such extensive powers as this one had hitherto exercised, could not possibly continue any longer. It is true, no doubt, that the Jewish people lost no time in again creating for themselves a new centre in the so-called court of justice (בֵּית דִּין) at Jabne.[752] But this court was something essentially different from the old Sanhedrim, inasmuch as it was not a legislative body, but a judicial tribunal, the decisions of which had at first nothing more than a merely theoretical importance. And although this court also came ere long to acquire great power over the Jewish people through exercising over them a real jurisdiction that was partly conceded and partly usurped,[753] still Rabbinical Judaism has evidently never been able to get rid of the feeling that the old “Sanhedrim” had now become a thing of the past.[754]
[742] Antt. xx. 10, fin.: μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων τελευτὴν ἀριστοκρατία μὲν ἦν ἡ πολιτεία, τὴν δὲ προστασίαν τοῦ ἔθνους οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς ἐπεπίστευντο. Now, as throughout the whole section it is high priests strictly so called that are in view (and of whom only one was in office at a time), it follows that the word ἀρχιερεῖς is to be taken as the categorical plural, so that the meaning would be: the προστασία τοῦ ἔθνους was in the hands of the high priest for the time being.
[743] A singular feature about the last-mentioned passage (Acts 5:21) is the use of such a form of designation as: τὸ συνέδριον καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γερουσίαν τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ. Now, seeing that there can be no question as to the identity of the two conceptions συνέδριον and γερουσία, only one or other of two things is possible, either the καί is to be taken as explanatory, or we must assume that the author of the Acts erroneously supposed that the συνέδριον was of a less comprehensive character than the γερουσία (“the Sanhedrim and all the elders of the people together”). The latter is the more natural alternative.
[744] Thus, in addition to the passages already mentioned (Antt. xiv. 9. 3-5, xv. 6. 2, fin.), we might refer further to Antt. xx. 9. 1; Vita, 12, the terms of the latter passage being: τὸ συνέδριον τῶν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν. It may be questioned whether it is also the supreme Sanhedrim that is intended in Antt. xx. 9. 6; comp. Wieseler’s Beiträge, p. 217.
[745] Bell. Jud. ii. 15. 6: τούς τε ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ τὴν βουλήν. Bell. Jud. ii. 16. 2: Ἰουδαίων οἵ τε ἀρχιερεῖς ἅμα τοῖς δυνατοῖς καὶ ἡ βουλή; Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 1. οἵ τε ἄρχοντες καὶ οἱ βουλευταί. Comp. Antt. xx. 1. 2; Bell. Jud. v. 13. 1. The place of meeting is called βουλή in Bell. Jud. v. 4. 2, and βουλευτήριον in Bell. Jud. vi. 6. 3.
[746] Vita, 12, 13, 38, 49, 52, 60, 65, 70.
[747] Sota i. 4, ix. 1; Gittin vi. 7; Sanhedrin xi. 2. 4; Horajath i. 5, fin. In most of the passages the expression שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם is added.
[748] Sanhedrin i. 6; Middoth v. 4 Just as the term סנהדרין is borrowed from the Greek, so on the Palmyra inscriptions we find the words בולא ודמוס = ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆμος.
[749] Shebuoth ii. 2.
[750]a Sota ix. 11; Kiddushin iv. 5; Sanhedrin iv. 3 The term סנהדרין (in a variety of senses) is also of frequent occurrence, especially in the later Targums. See Buxtorf’s Lex. col. 1513f. Levy’s Chald. Wörterb. under word.
[751] For the separation of Palestine from Syria and its elevation to the rank of an independent province, consult Kuhn, Die städt. u. bürgerl. Verf. ii. 183 f. Marquardt’s Staatsverwaltung, i. (2nd ed. 1881) p. 419 ff.
[752] On this court at Jabne, see especially Rosh hashana ii. 8, 9, iv. 1, 2. Sanhedrin xi. 4; also Bechoroth iv. 5, vi. 8; Kelim v. 4; Para vii. 6. At a later period (in the third and fourth centuries) this centre of Rabbinical Judaism was located at Tiberias.
[753] Origen, Epist. ad Africanum, sec. xiv. (Opp. ed. Lommatzsch, vol. xvii.): Καὶ νῦν γοῦν Ῥωμαίων βασιλευόντων καὶ Ἰουδαίων τὸ δίδραχμον αὐτοῖς τελούντων, ὅσα συγχωροῦντος Καίσαρος ὁ ἐθνάρχης παρʼ αὐτοῖς δύναται, ὡς μηδὲν διαφέρειν βασιλεύοντος τοῦ ἔθνους, ἴσμεν οἱ πεπειραμένοι. Γίνεται δὲ καὶ κριτήρια λεληθότως κατὰ τὸν νόμον, καὶ καταδικάζονταί τινες τὴν ἐπὶ τῷ θανάτῳ, οὔτε μετὰ τῆς πάντη εἰς τοῦτο παρʼῥησίας, οὔτε μετὰ τοῦ γανθάνειν τὸν βασιλεύοντα. Καὶ τοῦτο ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ τοῦ ἔθνους πολὺν διατρίψαντες χρόνον μεμαθήκαμεν καὶ πεπληροφορήμεθα.
[754] Sota ix. 11: “Ever since the Sanhedrim was extinguished (משבטלה סנהדרין) there has been no such thing as singing at the festive board, for it is written in Isaiah 24:9 : ‘They shall not drink wine with a song,’ ” etc.
2. Its composition. In accordance with the analogy of the later Rabbinical courts of justice, Jewish tradition conceives of the supreme Sanhedrim as having been merely a collegiate body composed of scribes. This is what, down to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, it certainly never was. On the contrary, it is certain, from the concurrent testimony of Josephus and the New Testament, that, till the very last, the head of the sacerdotal aristocracy continued to preside over the Sanhedrim. And so we see that all the vicissitudes of time had not been able to efface that original fundamental character of this court in virtue of which it was to be regarded not as an association of learned men, but as a body representative of the nobility. But, of course, it was not to be expected that the power of Pharisaism should continue to grow as it did without ultimately exerting some influence upon the composition of the Sanhedrim. The more the Pharisees grew in importance the more did the priestly aristocracy become convinced that they too would have to be allowed to have their representatives in the Sanhedrim. The first step in this direction would probably be taken some time during the reign of Alexandra, and the matter would doubtless receive no inconsiderable impetus in the time of Herod. For this monarch’s high-handed treatment of the old nobility could not possibly have failed to promote the interests of Pharisaism. The Sanhedrim of the Roman period then would thus seem to have been made up of two factors: that of the priestly nobility, with its Sadducaean sympathies on the one hand, and that of the Pharisaic doctors on the other. It is moreover in the light of this fact that the various matters recorded in the traditions will require to be viewed. According to the Mishna the number of members amounted to seventy-one, clearly taking as its model the council of elders in the time of Moses (Numbers 11:16).[755] From the two statements of Josephus, the one in Antt. xiv. 9. 4 (where we are told that Herod, on his accession to the throne, put to death all the members of the Sanhedrim), and the other in Antt. xv. 1. 2 (where again we are informed that he put to death the forty-five most prominent members of the party of Antigonus), one might be disposed to infer that the number of members was forty-five. But the πάντας in the first of those statements is assuredly not intended to be taken literally. On the other hand, we have a great deal that tends to bear out the view that the number of members amounted to seventy-one. When Josephus was planning the rising in Galilee he appointed seventy elders to take charge of the administration of this province.[756] In like manner the zealots in Jerusalem, after suppressing the existing authorities, established a tribunal composed of seventy members.[757] This then would seem to have been regarded as the normal number of members required to constitute a supreme court of justice among the Jews. Consequently the traditions of the Mishna too are in themselves perfectly probable. As to the mode in which vacancies were filled up we know in reality absolutely nothing. But, judging from the aristocratic character of this body, we may venture to presume that there was not a new set of members every year, and those elected by the voice of the people, as in the case of the democratic councils in the Hellenistic communes, but that they held office for a longer period, nay perhaps for life, and that new members were appointed either by the existing members themselves or by the supreme political authorities (Herod and the Romans). The supplying of vacancies through co-optation is also presupposed in the Mishna, in so far as, after its own peculiar way no doubt, it regards the amount of Rabbinical learning possessed by the candidate as the sole test of his eligibility.[758] In any case we may well believe that the one requirement of legal Judaism, that none but Israelites of pure blood should be eligible for the office of judge in a criminal court, would also be insisted on in the case of the supreme Sanhedrim.[759] New members were formally admitted to take their seats through the ceremony of the laying on of hands (סְמִיכָה).[760] With regard to the different orders to which the members of the Sanhedrim belonged we have trustworthy information on that point in the concurrent testimony of the New Testament and Josephus. Both authorities are agreed in this, that the ἀρχιερεῖς in the literal sense of the word were the leading personages among them. In almost every instance in which the New Testament enumerates the different orders we find that the ἀρχιερεῖς are mentioned first.[761] Sometimes οἱ ἄρχοντες is substituted for this latter as being an inter-changeable expression.[762] This is also the case in Josephus, above all, who designates the supreme authorities in Jerusalem either by conjoining the ἀρχιερεῖς with the δυνατοῖς, the γνωρίμοις and the βουλῇ,[763] or by substituting ἄρχοντες for ἀρχιερεῖς,[764] but never by coupling the two together at the same time. On the other hand, the ἀρχιερεῖς often stand alone as being the leading personages in the Sanhedrim.[765] And however difficult it may now be further to determine the exact significance of this term (on this see below, under No. iv.), there can, at all events, be no doubt whatever that it is the most prominent representatives of the priesthood that are here in view. We are therefore to understand that it was always this class that played a leading part in the conduct of affairs. But it is certain that, along with them, the γραμματεῖς, the professional lawyers, also exercised considerable influence in the Sanhedrim. Such other members as did not belong to one or other of the two special classes just referred to were known simply as πρεσβύτεροι, under which general designation both priests and laymen alike might be included (for the two categories in question, see the passages in the New Testament quoted in note [766] Now, as the ἀρχιερεῖς belonged chiefly if not exclusively to the party of the Sadducees, while the γραμματεῖς, on the other hand, adhered not less strongly to the sect of the Pharisees,[767] it follows from all that we have just been saying that Sadducees and Pharisees alike had seats in the Sanhedrim (especially during the Romano-Herodian period with regard to which alone can we be said to have any precise information). This is further corroborated by the express testimony of the New Testament and Josephus.[768] During the period in question the greatest amount of influence was already practically in the hands of the Pharisees, with whose demands the Sadducees were obliged, however reluctantly, to comply, “as otherwise the people would not have tolerated them.”[769] This remark of Josephus gives us a deep insight into the actual position of matters, from which it would seem, that though formally under the leadership of the Sadducaean high priests, the Sanhedrim was by this time practically under the predominant influence of Pharisaism.[770]
[755] Sanhedrin i. 6: “The supreme Sanhedrim consisted of seventy-one members.” “The Sanhedrim of seventy-one” is also mentioned in Sheboth i. 2. In several other passages we read of seventy-two elders (Sebachim i. 3; Jadajim iii. 5, iv. 2). But, as a rule, these are foreign to the matter in hand. (In all the three passages last referred to R. Simon ben Asai appeals to traditions, which he professes to have received “from the mouth of the seventy-two elders on the day on which they ordained R. Eleasar ben Asariah as head of the school.” Here then the matter in view is not the supreme Sanhedrim, but the academy of Jewish scholars in the second century of our era. Comp. besides, Selden, De synedriis, ii. 4. 10.) Just as little have we to do here with the supposed seventy-two translators of the Old Testament (six from each of the twelve tribes); see Pseudo-Aristeas, ed. M. Schmidt in Merx’s Archiv, i. 262 f.
[756] Bell. Jud. ii. 20. 5. When Kuenen (Verslagen en Mededcelingen, x. 161) seeks to invalidate the appeal to this passage by pointing to the discrepancy between it and what is said in Vita, 14, he may be met with the reply that this latter passage has been purposely tampered with. The fact of Josephus having organized the rising in Galilee through the appointment of the seventy elders, has been so distorted in Vita, 14, as to make it appear that, under the pretext of friendship, he took the most distinguished of the Galilaeans “to the number of somewhere about seventy” and kept them as hostages, and allowed the judgments he pronounced to be regulated by their decisions.
[757] Bell. Jud. iv. 5. 4. Comp. in general, Hody, De bibliorum textibus originalibus, pp. 126-128.
[758] Sanhedrin iv. 4: “In front of them sat three rows of learned disciples (תלמידי חכמים); each of them had his own special place. Should it be necessary to promote one of them to the office of judge, one of those in the foremost row was selected. His place was then supplied by one from the second row, while one from the third was in turn, advanced to the second. This being done, some one was then chosen from the congregation to supply the vacancy thus created in the third row. But the person so appointed did not step directly into the place occupied by the one last promoted from the third row, but into the place that beseemed one who was only newly admitted.”
[759] That the Sanhedrim was composed exclusively of Jews is simply a matter of course. But the Mishna specially insists on evidence of pure blood in the case of the criminal judge. Sanhedrin iv. 2: “Any one is qualified to act as a judge in civil causes. But none were competent to deal with criminal cases but priests, Levites, and Israelites whose daughters it would be lawful for priests to marry” (i.e. those who can furnish documentary evidence of their legitimate Israelitish origin, Derenbourg, p. 453: les Israélites pourvus des conditions nécessaires pour contracter mariage avec le sacerdoce, not as Geiger, Urschrift, p. 114, erroneously renders it: those who have become allied by marriage to the stock of the priesthood). From this then it would appear that the Mishna presupposes that, in the case of every member of the Sanhedrim, his legitimate Israelitish descent is an admitted fact requiring no further confirmation (Kiddushin iv. 5), As this is a point in which the tendencies of the priesthood and Pharisaism coincided, it is, to say the least of it, probable that it was also given effect to in practice.
[760] The verb סָמַךְ (to lay on the hands) is already to be met with in the Mishna in the sense of to install any one as a judge (Sanhedrin iv. 4). This ceremony is therefore, comparatively speaking, a very ancient one, seeing that it was also observed at a very early period in the Christian Church. Of course the act of laying on of the hands was not to be understood as conferring any special charisma, but (as in the case of the victim in the Old Testament) as indicating that something was being transferred to the individual in question, that an office, a place of authority, was being committed to him on the part of the person by whom the ceremony was performed. On the later Rabbinical סְמִיכָה, see Buxtorf’s Lex. Chald. col. 1498 f. Selden, De synedriis, ii. 7. Vitringa, De synagoga vetere, p. 836 ff. Carpzov’s Apparatus, p. 577 f. Jo. Chrph. Wolf, Curae philol. in Nov. Test., note on Acts 6:6, and the literature quoted there (being in general expositors’ notes on Acts 6:6). Hamburger, Real-Encycl. für Bibel und Talmud, part ii. art. “Ordinirung.”
[761] The following are the formulae that are to be met with:—I. ἀρχιερεῖς, γραμματεῖς and πρεσβύτεροι (or with the two latter in reverse order), Matt. 28:41; Mark 11:27; Mark 14:43; Mark 14:53; Mark 15:1.—II. ἀρχιερεῖς and γραμματεῖς, Matthew 2:4; Matthew 20:18; Matthew 21:15; Mark 10:33; Mark 11:18; Mark 14:1; Mark 15:31; Luke 22:2; Luke 22:66; Luke 23:10.—III. ἀρχιερεῖς and πρεσβύτεροι, Matthew 21:23; Matthew 26:3; Matthew 26:47; Matthew 27:1; Matthew 27:3; Matthew 27:12; Matthew 27:20; Matthew 28:11-12; Acts 4:23; Acts 23:14; Acts 25:15.—IV. οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ τὸ συνέδριον ὅλον, Matthew 26:59; Mark 14:55; Acts 22:30. As a rule then, the ἀρχιερεῖς occupy the foremost place. The instances in which they are not mentioned first (Matthew 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22; Luke 20:19), or are omitted altogether (Matthew 26:57; Acts 6:12), are extremely rare.
[762] See in particular, Acts 9:5; Acts 9:8 (ἄρχοντες, πρεσθύτεροι and γραμματεῖς) compared with Acts 4:23 (ἀρχιερεῖς and πρεσβύτεροι). Of course there are a couple of instances in which both οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες occur together (Luke 23:13; Luke 24:20).
[763] Bell. Jud. ii. 14. 8: οἵ τε ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ δυνατοὶ τό τε γνωριμώτατον τῆς πόλεως. Bell. Jud. ii. 15. 2: οἱ δυνατοὶ σὺν τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσι. Bell. Jud. ii. 15. 3: τούς τε ἀρχιερεῖς σὺν τοῖς γνωρίμοις. Bell. Jud. ii. 15. 6: τούς τε ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ τὴν βουλήν. Bell. Jud. ii. 16. 2: οἵ τε ἀρχιερεῖς ἄμα τοῖς δυνατοῖς καὶ ἡ βουλή. Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 2: τῶν τε ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν γνωρίμων. Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 3: οἱ δυνατοὶ τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσιν καὶ τοῖς τῶν Φαρισαίων γνωρίμοις. Bell. Jud. ii 17. 5: οἱ δυνατοὶ σὺν τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσι. Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 6: τῶν δυνατῶν καὶ τῶν ἀρχιερέων.
[764] Bell. Jud. ii. 16. 1: οἱ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων ἄρχοντες. Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 1: οἵ τε ἄρχοντες καὶ οἱ βουλευταί. Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 1: τοὺς ἄρχοντας ἅμα τοῖς δυνατοῖς. Bell. Jud. ii. 21. 7: οἱ δυνατοὶ καὶ τῶν ἀρχόντων τινές
[765] For example, Bell. Jud. ii. 15. 3, 4, 16. 3, v. 1. 5, vi. 9. 3.
[766] The following are the formulae that are to be met with:—I. ἀρχιερεῖς, γραμματεῖς and πρεσβύτεροι (or with the two latter in reverse order), Matt. 28:41; Mark 11:27; Mark 14:43; Mark 14:53; Mark 15:1.—II. ἀρχιερεῖς and γραμματεῖς, Matthew 2:4; Matthew 20:18; Matthew 21:15; Mark 10:33; Mark 11:18; Mark 14:1; Mark 15:31; Luke 22:2; Luke 22:66; Luke 23:10.—III. ἀρχιερεῖς and πρεσβύτεροι, Matthew 21:23; Matthew 26:3; Matthew 26:47; Matthew 27:1; Matthew 27:3; Matthew 27:12; Matthew 27:20; Matthew 28:11-12; Acts 4:23; Acts 23:14; Acts 25:15.—IV. οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ τὸ συνέδριον ὅλον, Matthew 26:59; Mark 14:55; Acts 22:30. As a rule then, the ἀρχιερεῖς occupy the foremost place. The instances in which they are not mentioned first (Matthew 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22; Luke 20:19), or are omitted altogether (Matthew 26:57; Acts 6:12), are extremely rare.
[767] Acts 5:17. Joseph. Antt. xx. 9. 1.
[768] The Sadduceee, Acts 4:1 ff; Acts 5:17; Acts 23:6; Joseph. Antt. xx. 9. 1. The Pharisees, Acts 5:34; Acts 23:6. Comp. Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 3; Vita, 38, 39.
[769] Antt. xviii. 1. 4: ὁπότε γὰρ ἐπʼ ἀρχὰς παρέλθοιεν, ἀκουσίως μὲν καὶ κατʼ ἀνάγκας, προσχωροῦσι δʼ οὖν οἷς ὁ Φαρισαῖος λέγει, διὰ τὸ μὴ ἂν ἄλλως ἀνεκτοὺς γενέσθαι τοῖς πλήθεσιν.
[770] From what is here said the combination of the ἀρχιερεῖς and Φαρισαῖοι, so frequently met with in the New Testament (Matthew 21:45; Matthew 27:62; John 7:32; John 7:45; John 11:47; John 11:57; John 18:3), is quite in keeping with the actual state of things. A similar collocation is also to be met with in Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 3: συνελθόντες οὖν οἱ δυνατοὶ τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσιν εἰς ταὐτὸ καὶ τοῖς τῶν Φαρισαίων γνωρίμοις. Comp. also, Vita, 38, 39.
There is a casual notice in Josephus which may perhaps be taken as pointing to the existence of an arrangement peculiar to the Hellenistico-Roman period. On one occasion when certain differences had arisen between the Jewish authorities and Festus the procurator about some alteration in the temple buildings, it appears that, with the concurrence of Festus, the Jews sent “the ten foremost persons among them and the high priest Ismael and the treasurer Helkias” as a deputation to Nero (Antt. xx. 8. 11: τοὺς πρώτους δέκα καὶ Ἰσμάηλον τὸν ἀρχιερέα καὶ Ἑλκίαν τὸν γαζοφύλακα). Now, if by the πρῶτοι δέκα here we are to understand not merely the ten most distinguished persons generally, but men holding a specific official position, then we are bound to assume that they were no other than the committee consisting of the δέκα πρῶτοι so often to be met with in the Hellenistic communes, and which can also be clearly shown to have had a place for example in the constitution established by Tiberias (see above, note [771] We are thus furnished with characteristic evidence of the extent to which Jewish and Hellenistico-Roman influences had become intertwined with each other in the organization of the Sanhedrim at the period in question.
[771] Vita, 13, 57; Bell. Jud. ii. 21. 9 = Vita, 33. See especially, Vita, 13: τοὺς τῆς βουλῆς πρώτους δέκα. Vita, 57: τοὺς δέκα πρώτους Τιβεριέων. On these δέκα πρῶτοι, so frequently occurring in the Hellenistic communities, see Kuhn, i. 55; Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverwaltung, i. 213 sq (1881); the Index to the Corp. Inscr. Graec. p. 35. They were not perhaps the oldest or the most respected members of the council, but a changing committee of it with definite official functions, as the frequently occurring formula δεκαπρωτεύσας shows (see Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 2639, 2929, 2930. Add. 2930b, 3490, 3491, 3496, 3498, 4289, 4415b. δεκαπρωτευκώς, n. 3418). Their chief office was the collection of taxes, for the due payment of which they were answerable with their private property, Digest. lib. iv. 1. 1: Munerum civilium quaedam sunt patrimonii, alia personarum. Patrimonii sunt munera rei vehicularis, item navicularis decemprimatus: ab istis enim periculo ipsorum exactiones solemnium celebrantur. Digest. lib. iv. 18. 26: Mixta munera decaprotiae et icosaprotiae, ut Herennius Modestinus.… decrevit: nam decaproti at icosaproti tributa exigentes et corporate ministerium gerunt et pro omnibus defunctorum (?) fiscalia detrimenta resarciunt. It is worthy of notice, that Josephus during his government of Galilee delivers to the decem primi at Tiberias valuables of King Agrippa, and makes them responsible for them, Vita, 13, 57.
As to who it was that acted as president of the Sanhedrim, this is a question in regard to which even Christian scholars down to most recent times and founding upon Jewish tradition, have entertained the most erroneous views conceivable. The later Jewish tradition, which as a rule regards the Sanhedrim in the light of a mere college of scribes, expressly presupposes that the heads of the Pharisaic schools were also the regular presidents of the Sanhedrim as well. Those heads of the schools are enumerated in the Mishna tractate Aboth c. i., and that with reference to earlier times, say from the middle of the second century B.C. till about the time of Christ, and are mentioned in pairs (see below, § 25); and it is asserted, though not in the tractate Aboth, yet in another passage in the Mishna, that the first of every pair had been Nasi (נָשִׂיא), while the second had been Ab-beth-din (אַב בֵּית דִּין), i.e. according to later usage in regard to those titles: president and vice-president of the Sanhedrim.[772] Further, the heads of the schools that come after the “pairs” just referred to, especially Gamaliel I. and his son Simon, are represented by the later traditions as having been presidents of the Sanhedrim. In all this however there is, of course, nothing that is of any historical value.[773] On the contrary, according to the unanimous testimony of Josephus and the New Testament, it was always the high priest that acted as the head and president of the Sanhedrim. Speaking generally, we may say that this is only what was to be expected from the nature of the case itself. Ever since the commencement of the Greek period the high priest had uniformly acted as head of the nation as well. In like manner the Asmonaeans had also been high priests and princes, nay even kings at one and the same time. With regard to the Roman period, we have the express testimony of Josephus to the effect that the high priests were also the political heads of the nation (Antt. xx. 10, fin.: τὴν προστασίαν τοῦ ἔθνους οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς ἐπεπίστευντο). In his theoretical descriptions of the Jewish constitution this historian invariably speaks of the high priest as having been the supreme judge (Apion, ii. 23: the high priest φυλάξει τοὺς νόμους, δικάσει περὶ τῶν ἀμφισβητουμένων, κολάσει τοὺς ἐλεγχθέντας ἐπʼ ἀδίκῳ; Antt. iv. 8. 14: Moses is said to have ordained that, if the local courts were unable to decide a case, the parties were to go to Jerusalem, καὶ συνελθόντες ὅ τε ἀρχιερεὺς καὶ ὁ προφήτης καὶ ἡ γερουσία τὸ δοκοῦν ἀποφαινέσθωσαν). Even from what is here stated we are required to assume that the high priest acted the part of president in the Sanhedrim. But, besides this, we have testimony of the most explicit kind to the same effect. In a document of so early a date as the national decree declaring the combined office of high priest and sovereign to be vested by right of inheritance in the family of Simon the Maccabaean, it was ordained that nobody was to be allowed “to contradict his (Simon’s) orders, or to convene an assembly in any part of the country without his knowledge or consent.”[774] In the few instances in which Josephus mentions the sittings of the Sanhedrim at all, we invariably find that the high priest occupied the position of president. Thus in the year 47 B.C. it was Hyrcanus II.,[775] and in the year 62 A.D. it was Ananos the younger.[776] Similarly in the New Testament, it is always the ἀρχιερεύς that appears as the presiding personage (Acts 5:17 ff; Acts 7:1; Acts 9:1-2; Acts 22:5; Acts 23:2; Acts 23:4; Acts 24:1).[777] Wherever names are mentioned we find that it is the high priest for the time being that officiates as president. Thus we have Caiaphas in the time of Christ (Matthew 26:3; Matthew 26:57), and Ananias in the time of the Apostle Paul (Acts 23:2; Acts 24:1), both of whom, as we learn from Josephus, were the high priests actually in office at the dates in question. The trial of Jesus before Annas (John 18.) cannot be regarded as in any way disproving this view. For there it was merely a question of private examination. As little can we lay any stress on the fact that Ananos (or Annas) the younger is represented as being at the head of affairs[778] in the time of the war, and that long after he had been deposed.[779] For the circumstance of his occupying that position then was due to the fact of a special decree of the people having been issued at the time at which the revolution broke out.[780] The only passage that might be urged in opposition to our view is Acts 4:6, where Annas (who was only an ex-high priest) is represented as being the president of the Sanhedrim. But this passage is very much in the same position as the parallel one, Luke 3:2. In both Annas is mentioned before Caiaphas in such a way as might lead one to suppose that the former was the high priest actually in office, though in point of fact this was certainly not the case. If therefore we are not at liberty to infer from Luke 3:2 that Annas was still in office as high priest, as little can we conclude from Acts 4:6 that he was president of the Sanhedrim, which would be incompatible with Matthew 26:57-66. We should prefer to explain the matter by saying that, in both cases, there is some inaccuracy about the narrative. That the persons who are mentioned in the Rabbinical traditions were not presidents of the Sanhedrim is further evident from the fact that, wherever those same individuals happen to be mentioned in the New Testament or by Josephus, they always appear merely as ordinary members of the court. Thus Shemaiah (Sameas) in the time of Hyrcanus II.,[781] Gamaliel I. in the time of the apostles (Acts 5:34, comp. ver. 27), and Simon ben Gamaliel in the time of the Jewish war.[782]
[772] Chagiga ii. 2: “Jose ben Joeser affirms that there should be no laying on of hands in the case of festival sacrifices, while Jose ben Jochanan says that it is quite permissible. Josua ben Perachja decided in the negative, Nittai (or Mattai) of Arbela in the affirmative. Juda ben Tabbai in the negative, Simon ben Schetach in the affirmative. Schemaja in the affirmative, Abtaljon in the negative. Hillel and Menachem were at one in their opinion; when Menachem withdrew and Schammai entered, Schammai pronounced in the negative, Hillel in the affirmative. Of those men the first of each pair was always a president and the second a supreme judge (הראשונים היו נשיאים ושנים להס אבית בית דין).”
[773] Comp. Kuenen as above, pp. 141-147; my article in the Stud. u. Krit. 1872, pp. 614-619. Wellhausen’s Pharisäer und Sadducäer, pp. 29-43. Of the works belonging to an earlier date we would mention, in particular, Meuschen, Nov. Test. ex Talmude illustratum, p. 1184 f., where the fact is already recognised that the high priest always acted as president of the Sanhedrim.
[774] 1Ma_14:44 : ἀντειπεῖν τοῖς ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ ῥηθησομένοις καὶ ἐπισυστρέψαι συστροφὴν ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ ἄνευ αὐτοῦ.
[775] Antt. xiv. 9. 3-5.
[776] Antt. xx. 9. 1.
[777] In answer to the strange view of Wieseler, that the president of the Sanhedrim merely as such, even though he were not a high priest, bore the title of ἀρχιερεύς, see Stud. u. Krit. 1872, pp. 623-631.
[778] Antt. xx. 9. 1.
[779] Bell. Jud. ii. 20. 3, 22. 1, iv. 3. 7-5. 2; Vita, 38, 39, 44, 60.
[780] Bell. Jud. ii. 20. 3.
[781] Antt. xiv. 9. 3-5.
[782] Vita, 38, 39.
The Jewish tradition in question is therefore at variance with the whole of the undoubted historical facts. Not only so, but it is itself only of a very late origin, and probably does not belong to so early a period as the age of the Mishna. The one solitary passage in the Mishna in which it occurs (Chagiga ii. 2) stands there in perfect isolation. Everywhere else in this work the heads of the schools above mentioned are spoken of simply as heads of schools and nothing more. Consequently it is extremely probable that the passage in question did not find its way into the text of the Mishna till some subsequent period.[783] Then again, it may be affirmed, unless we have been deceived on all hands, that the titles Nasi and Ab-beth-din as applied to the president and vice-president of the Sanhedrim are foreign as yet to the age of the Mishna. It is true both those terms are to be met with in this work.[784] But by Nasi it is always the actual prince of the nation, specially the king, that is meant, as indeed, is on one occasion expressly affirmed,[785] while the Ab-beth-din again, if we may judge from its literal import, can hardly have been intended to mean anything else than the president of the supreme court of justice (and therefore of the Sanhedrim). Besides this latter title, we sometimes meet with that of Rosh-beth-din, and with precisely the same meaning.[786] It was not till the post-Mishnic age that the titles Nasi and Ab-beth-din were, so to speak, reduced a step by being transferred to the president and vice-president respectively.[787] Finally, the so-called מוּפְלָא, who, on the strength of a few passages in the Talmud is also frequently mentioned by Jewish and Christian scholars as having been a special functionary of the court, was not so at all, but simply the most “prominent” of its ordinary members, i.e. the one who was most learned in the law.[788]
[783] Later interpolations in the text of the Mishna may also be detected elsewhere, for example at Aboth v. 21. Of course the passage Chagiga ii. 2 already occurs in the Jerusalem Talmud, and so must be older at least than this latter.
[784] נָשִׂיא, Taanith ii. 1; Nedarim v. 5; Horajoth ii. 5-7, iii. 1-3 and elsewhere. אַב בֵּית דִּין, Taanith ii. 1; Edujoth v. 6.
[785] Horajoth iii. 3.
[786] Rosh hashana ii. 7, iv. 4.
[787] The first Rabbinical president of the Sanhedrim to whom the title Nasi is applied is R. Judah, the redactor of the Mishna, at the end of the second century of our era (Aboth ii. 2). Of the Rabbins that occupied this position previous to R. Judah, there is not one that is known as yet under the designation of Nasi (apart from Chagiga ii. 2). We may assume therefore that the title did not come into use till toward the close of the Mishnic age.
[788] The expression מופלא של בית דין occurs only once in the Mishna, Horajoth i. 4. In that passage directions are given as to what is to be done in the event of the court having arrived at an erroneous decision in the absence of the מופלא של בית דין, i.e. the most distinguished, most eminent member of the collegium. For the meaning of מופלא, comp. Buxtorf’s Lex. col. 1729 f. Levy’s Neuhebr. Wörterb. under word.
As regards the time of Christ it may be held as certain, from all that has just been said, that the office of president was always occupied by the high priest for the time being, and that too in virtue of his being such.
3. Its jurisdiction. As regards the area over which the jurisdiction of the supreme Sanhedrim extended, it has been already remarked above (p. 142) that its civil authority was restricted, in the time of Christ, to the eleven toparchies of Judaea proper. And accordingly, for this reason, it had no judicial authority over Jesus Christ so long as He remained in Galilee. It was only as soon as He entered Judaea that He came directly under its jurisdiction. In a certain sense, no doubt, the Sanhedrim exercised such jurisdiction over every Jewish community in the world, and in that sense over Galilee as well. Its orders were regarded as binding throughout the entire domain of orthodox Judaism. It had power, for example, to issue warrants to the congregations (synagogues) in Damascus for the apprehension of the Christians in that quarter (Acts 9:2; Acts 22:5; Acts 26:12). At the same time however the extent to which the Jewish communities were willing to yield obedience to the orders of the Sanhedrim always depended on how far they were favourably disposed toward it. It was only within the limits of Judaea proper that it exercised any direct authority. There could not possibly be a more erroneous way of defining the extent of its jurisdiction as regards the kind of causes with which it was competent to deal than to say that it was the spiritual or theological tribunal in contradistinction to the civil judicatories of the Romans. On the contrary, it would be more correct to say that it formed, in contrast to the foreign authority of Rome, that supreme native court which here, as almost everywhere else, the Romans had allowed to continue as before, only imposing certain restrictions with regard to competency. To this tribunal then belonged all those judicial matters and all those measures of an administrative character which either could not be competently dealt with by the inferior local courts or which the Roman procurator had not specially reserved for himself. The Sanhedrim was, above all, the final court of appeal for questions connected with the Mosaic law, but not in the sense that it was open to any one to appeal to it against the decisions of the inferior courts, but ather in so far as it was called upon to intervene in every case in which the lower courts could not agree as to their judgment.[789] And when once it had given a decision in any case the judges of the local courts were, on pain of death, bound to acquiesce in it.[790] In the theoretical speculations of the scribes we find the following specially laid down as cases which are to belong to the jurisdiction of the supreme court of justice: “A tribe (charged with idolatry), or a false prophet, or a high priest is only to be tried before the court of the seventy-one. A voluntary war is only to be commenced after the decision of the court of the seventy-one has been given regarding it. There is to be no enlargement of the city (Jerusalem or the courts of the temple) till after the court of the seventy-one has decided the matter. Superior courts for the tribes are only to be instituted when sanctioned by the court of the seventy-one. A town that has been seduced into idolatry is only to be dealt with by the court of the seventy-one.”[791] Accordingly the high priest might be tried by the Sanhedrim,[792] though the king, on the other hand, was as little amenable to its authority as he was at liberty to become one of its members.[793] At the same time it is not difficult to perceive that all the regulations just referred to have the air of being of a purely theoretical character, that they do not represent the actual state of things, but merely the devout imaginations of the Mishnic doctors. The facts to be gleaned from the pages of the New Testament are of a somewhat more valuable character. We know, as matter of fact, that Jesus appeared before the Sanhedrim charged with blasphemy (Matthew 26:65; John 19:7), and that, before this same tribunal, Peter and John were brought up charged with being false prophets and deceivers of the people (Acts 4, 5), Stephen with being a blasphemer (Acts 6:13 ff.), and Paul with being guilty of transgressing the Mosaic law (Acts 23).[794]
[789] Antt. iv. 8. 14, fin.; Sanhedrin xi. 2 (see the passage as quoted above, p. 142).
[790] Sanhedrin xi. 2.
[791] Sanhedrin i. 5. Comp. Sanhedrin ii. 4: “If the king is disposed to enter upon an unprovoked war, he is at liberty to do so only after the decision of the council of the seventy-one has been given.”
[792] See also Sanhedrin i. 1.
[793] Sanhedrin ii. 2.
[794] The series of cases being the same as in Winer’s Realwörterb. ii. 552.
There is a special interest attaching to the question as to how far the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrim was limited by the authority of the Roman procurator.[795] We accordingly proceed to observe that, inasmuch as the Roman system of provincial government was not strictly carried out in the case of Judaea (see above, § 17‌c), as the simple fact of its being administered by means of a procurator plainly shows, the Sanhedrim was still left in the enjoyment of a comparatively high degree of independence. Not only did it exercise civil jurisdiction, and that according to Jewish law (which was only a matter of course, as otherwise a Jewish court of justice would have been simply inconceivable), but it also enjoyed a considerable amount of criminal jurisdiction as well. It had an independent authority in regard to police affairs, and consequently possessed the right of ordering arrests to be made by its own officers (Matthew 26:47; Mark 14:43; Acts 4:3; Acts 5:17-18).[796] It had also the power of finally disposing, on its own authority, of such cases as did not involve sentence of death (Acts 4:5-23; Acts 5:21-40). It was only in cases in which such sentence of death was pronounced that the judgment required to be ratified by the authority of the procurator. Not only is this expressly affirmed with regard to the Jews in the Gospel of John (18:31 ἡμῖν οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἀποκτεῖναι οὐδένα), but it follows as matter of certainty, from the account of the condemnation of Jesus as given by the Synoptists. Besides, a reminiscence of this fact has survived in the Jewish traditions.[797] But it is at the same time a fact worthy of note, that the procurator regulated his judgment in accordance with Jewish law; only on this assumption could Pilate have pronounced sentence of death in the case of Jesus. It is true the procurator was not compelled to have any regard to Jewish law in the matter at all, but still he was at liberty to do so, and as a rule he actually did so. There was one special offence in regard to which the Jews had been accorded the singular privilege of proceeding even against Roman citizens according to Jewish law. For if on any occasion one who was not a Jew happened to pass the barrier at the temple in Jerusalem, beyond which only Jews could go, and thus intrude into the inner court, he was punished with death, and that even though he were a Roman.[798] Of course, even in this latter case, it was necessary that the sentence of the Jewish court should be confirmed by the Roman procurator. For we can hardly venture to infer, from the terms used by Josephus in speaking of this matter, that in this special instance, though in this alone, the Jews had an absolute right to carry out the capital sentence on their own authority. Nor would we be justified in drawing any such inference from the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:5 ff.). This latter is rather to be regarded either as a case of excess of jurisdiction, or as an act of irregular mob-justice. Still, on the other hand, it would be a mistake to assume, as a statement in Josephus might seem to warrant us in doing, that the Sanhedrim was not at liberty to meet at all without the consent of the procurator.[799] But all that is meant by the statement in question is that the high priest had no right to hold a court of supreme jurisdiction in the absence and without the consent of the procurator. As little are we to assume that the Jewish authorities were required to hand over every offender in the first instance to the procurator. This they no doubt did if at any time it seemed to them to be expedient to do so,[800] but that does not necessarily imply that they were bound to do it. We see then that the Sanhedrim had been left in the enjoyment of a tolerably extensive jurisdiction, the most serious restriction to it being, of course, the fact that the Roman authorities could at any time take the initiative themselves, and proceed independently of the Jewish court, as they actually did in not a few instances, as, for example, when Paul was arrested. Further, it was in the power, not only of the procurator, but even of the tribune of the cohorts stationed in Jerusalem, to call the Sanhedrim together for the purpose of submitting to it any matter requiring to be investigated from the standpoint of Jewish law (Acts 20:30; comp. 23:15, 20, 28).
[795] On this point, comp. Bynaeus, De morte Jesu Christi, iii. 1. 9-14. Deyling, De Judaeorum jure gladii tempore Christi, ad John xviii. 31 (Observationes sacrae, part ii. 1737, pp. 414-428; also in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xxvi.). Iken, De jure vitae et necis tempore mortis Servatoris apud Judaeos non amplius superstite ad John xviii. 31 (in his Dissertatt. philol.-theol. ii. 517-572). A. Balth. v. Walther, Juristisch-historische Betrachtungen ueber die Geschichte vom Leiden und Sterben Jesu Christi, etc., Breslau 1777, pp. 142-168 (this latter work I know only through the quotation from it in Lücke’e Commentar ueber das Ev. Joh., ii. 736; for more of the earlier literature, see Wolf’s Curae philol in Nov. Test., note on John 18:31). Winer’s Realwörterb. ii. 553. Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. xv. 320-322. Döllinger’s Christenthum und Kirche in der Zeit der Grundlegung (2nd ed. 1868), pp. 466-460. Langen in the Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr. 1862, pp. 411-468. On the judicial arrangements in the Roman provinces generally see Geib, Geschichte des römischen Criminalprocesses (1842), pp. 471-486. Rudorff, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, vol. ii., especially pp. 12 and 345.
[796] According to Matthew 26:47, Mark 14:43, it was by the Jewish police that Jesus was arrested. It is only in the fourth Gospel that it seems to be implied that it was a Roman tribune (officer) with his cohort that apprehended Jesus (John 18:3; John 18:12).
[797] Jer. Sanhedrin i. 1 (fol. 18a) and vii. 2 (fol. 24b): “The right of pronouncing sentences of life or death was taken from Israel (ניטלו דיני נפשות מישראל) forty years before the destruction of the temple.” The date of the withdrawal here given is, of course, worthless, for it may be assumed as certain that this did not merely occur for the first time when Pilate was procurator, but that in fact no such right could be said to have belonged to the Jews ever since Judaea came to be under procurators at all.
[798] Bell. Jud. vi. 2. 4: Titus puts to the besieged the following question: Did we not grant you permission to put to death any one who went beyond the barrier, even though he were a Roman? (οὐχ ἡμεῖς δὲ τοὺς ὑπερβάντας ὑμῖν ἀναιρεῖν ἐπετρέψαμεν, κἄν Ῥωμαίων τις ᾖ;). On this comp. also § 24, below. The subjecting of Roman citizens to the laws of a foreign, city is an extraordinary concession, which, as a rule, was made only in the case of those communities which were recognised as liberae. See Khun, Die städtische und bürgerl. Verfassung, ii. 24. Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 75 f., and especially the decree of the Roman senate with reference to Chios passed in the year 674 A.U.C. = 80 B.C. (Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 2222): οἵ τε παρʼ αὐτοῖς ὄντες Ῥωμαῖοι τοῖς Χείων ὑπακούωσιν νόμοις. This concession then was accorded to the Jews, at least as far as the particular case in question was concerned.
[799] Antt. xx. 9. 1: οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν Ἀνάνῳ χωρὶς τῆς ἐκείνου γνώμης καθίσαι συνέδριον.
[800] In the time of Albinus, for example, the Jewish ἄρχοντες delivered to the procurator a certain lunatic, whose behaviour seemed to them to be of a dangerous character (Bell. Jud. vii. 5. 3, ed. Bekker, p. 104, lin, 6 ff.).
4. The time and place of meeting. The local courts usually sat on the second and fifth days of the week (Monday and Thursday).[801] Whether this was also the practice in the case of the supreme Sanhedrim we have no means of knowing. There were no courts held on festival days (יום טוב), much less on the Sabbath.[802] As in criminal cases a capital sentence could not be pronounced till the day following the trial, it was necessary to take care not to allow cases of this nature to be concluded on the evening preceding the Sabbath or any festival day.[803] Of course all those regulations were, in the first instance, of a purely theoretical character, and, as we know from what took place in the case of Jesus, were by no means strictly adhered to. The place in which the supreme Sanhedrim was in the habit of meeting (the βουλή) was situated, according to Josephus, Bell. Jud. v. 4. 2, close to the so-called Xystos, and that on the east side of it, in the direction of the temple mount. Now, seeing that, according to Bell. Jud. ii. 16. 3, there was nothing but a bridge between the Xystos and this latter, it is probable that the βουλή was to be found upon the temple mount itself, on the western side of the enclosing wall. In any case, it must have stood outside the upper part of the city, for, according to Bell. Jud. vi. 6. 3, we find that the Romans had destroyed the βουλευτήριον (= βουλή) before they had as yet got possession of the upper part of the city. The Mishna repeatedly mentions the לִשְׁכַּת הַנָּוִית as the place where the supreme Sanhedrim held its sittings.[804] Now, seeing that its statements cannot possibly refer to any other period than that of Josephus, and considering, more-over, that by the βουλή of this historian we are undoubtedly to understand the meeting-place of the supreme Sanhedrim, we must necessarily identify the לִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית with the βουλή of Josephus. It may be presumed therefore that the designation לשכת הגזית was not meant to imply (as has been commonly supposed) that the hall in question was built of hewn stones (גָּזִית = hewn stones),—which could hardly be regarded as a characteristic feature,—but that it stood beside the Xystos (גָּזִית = ξυστός, as in the Sept. 1 Chronicles 22:2; Amos 5:11). To distinguish it from the other לְשָׁכוֹת on the temple esplanade it was called, from its situation, “the hall beside the Xystos.” It is true that the Mishna represents it as having been within the inner court.[805] But, considering how untrustworthy and sometimes inaccurate are its statements elsewhere regarding the topography of the temple, the testimony of the Mishna cannot be supposed to invalidate the result arrived at above, especially as it happens to be corroborated by other circumstances besides.[806] We may regard as utterly useless here the later Talmudic statement, to the effect that, forty years before the destruction of the temple, the Sanhedrim had either removed or had been ejected (גלתה) from the lischkath hagasith, and that after that it held its sittings in the chanujoth (חנויות) or in a chanuth (חנות), a merchant’s shop.[807] This view must be completely dismissed, for the simple reason that no trace of it is as yet to be met with in the pages of the Mishna, which, on the contrary, obviously presupposes that the Sanhedrim still held its sittings in the lischkath hagasith on the very eve of the destruction of the temple. As it so happens that the forty years immediately preceding the destruction of the temple are also regarded as the period during which the Sanhedrim had ceased to have the right to pronounce a capital sentence (see above, note [808] it is probable that what the Talmudic statement in question means, is that during the period just referred to the Sanhedrim was no longer at liberty, or was no longer inclined, to hold its sittings in the usual official courthouse, but met in some obscure place, i.e. in “the merchant’s shops,” or, as the reading with the singular chanuth is perhaps to be preferred, in a “merchant’s shop.” For חָנוּת is the ordinary word for a shop with an arched roof, a merchant’s shop.[809] As in one instance it is stated that the Sanhedrim subsequently removed from the chanuth into Jerusalem,[810] probably we are to conceive of that building as having been outside the city proper. But all further conjectures on the part of scholars as to where it stood are superfluous, for the thing itself is in the main unhistorical.[811] Although on the occasion on which Jesus was condemned to death (Mark 14:53 ff.; Matthew 26:57 ff.) the Sanhedrim happened to meet in the palace of the high priest, we must regard this as an exception to the rule, rendered necessary by the simple fact of its having met during the night. For at night the gates of the temple mount were shut.[812]
[801] Kethuboth i. 1.
[802] Beza (or Jom tob), v. 2. Comp. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. xiii. 203 (art. “Sabbath”). Bleek’s Beiträge zur Evangelien-Kritik (1846), p. 141 ff.; Wieseler’s Chronologische Synopse, p. 361 ff. Kirchner, Die jüdische Passahfeier und Jesu letztes Mahl (Program. for the Gymnasium at Duisburg, 1870), p. 57 ff.
[803] Sanhedrin iv. 1, fin.
[804] Sanhedrin xi. 2; Middoth v. 4. Comp. Pea ii. 6; Edujoth vii. 4.
[805] See Middoth v. 4 in particular; also Sanhedrin xi. 2. In the Babylonian Gemara, Joma xx.a, it is stated somewhat more circumstantially that the לשכת הגזית stood one half within, and the other half without the court (see the passage, for example, in Buxtorf’s Lex. Chald. under גזית). Pea ii. 6 and Edujoth vii. 4 cannot be said to furnish any data for enabling us to determine the site of the building; as little have we any in Tamid ii. fin., iv. fin. For although, according to the two last-mentioned passages, the priests were in the habit of betaking themselves to the לשכת הגזית during the intervals between the various parts of the service, for the purpose of casting the lots and of repeating the schma, it does not necessarily follow from this that the building was situated within the court.
[806] In the tractate Joma i. 1 mention is made of a לשכת פרהדרין (as we ought to read with Cod. de Rossi 138, instead of the לשכת פלהדרין of the printed editions), by which we are undoubtedly to understand the place in which the supreme Sanhedrim met (פרהדרין = πάρεὸροι); and it is, to say the least of it, most in harmony with the context (comp. i. 5) to regard it as having been outside the court. But the truth is, it is in itself somewhat unlikely that any portion of the inner court would be used for purposes other than those connected with the temple services.
[807] Shabbath xv.a; Rosh hashana xxxi.a; Sanhedrin xii.a; Aboda sara viii.b In the edition of the Talmud now before me (Amsterdam 1644 ff.) it is only in the first-mentioned passage (Shabbath xv.a) that the plural chanujoth occurs, the singular chanuth being used in the other three instances. See besides the passages in Selden’s De synedriis, ii. 15. 7-8; Wagenseil’s note on Sota ix. 11 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna, iii. 297); Levy’s Neuhebr. Wörterb. ii. 80 (see under חנות).
[808] Chagiga ii. 2: “Jose ben Joeser affirms that there should be no laying on of hands in the case of festival sacrifices, while Jose ben Jochanan says that it is quite permissible. Josua ben Perachja decided in the negative, Nittai (or Mattai) of Arbela in the affirmative. Juda ben Tabbai in the negative, Simon ben Schetach in the affirmative. Schemaja in the affirmative, Abtaljon in the negative. Hillel and Menachem were at one in their opinion; when Menachem withdrew and Schammai entered, Schammai pronounced in the negative, Hillel in the affirmative. Of those men the first of each pair was always a president and the second a supreme judge (הראשונים היו נשיאים ושנים להס אבית בית דין).”
[809] For example, see Baba kamma ii. 2, vi. 6; Baba mezia ii. 4, iv. 11; Baba bathra ii. 8. For the plural חנויות, see Taanith i. 6; Baba mezia viii. 6; Aboda sara i. 4; Tohoroth vi. 3. The shopkeeper or dealer was called חַנְוָנִי.
[810] Rosh hashana xxxi.a
[811] The above explanation of the origin of the unhistorical statement in question now appears to me to be the most probable of any. For another see Stud. u. Krit. 1878, p. 625. Even so early as in the Talmud we find nothing but a fluctuating indecision as to the motives which led the Sanhedrim to remove from the usual place of meeting; see Aboda sara viii.b, or the German translation in Ferd. Christian Ewald, Aboda Sarah, oder der Götzendienst (2nd ed. 1868), pp. 62-64.
[812] Middoth i. 1. We have no evidence of any other meeting of the Sanhedrim ever having been held in the high priest’s palace. For in Luke 22:54 ff. and John 18:13 ff., what we have to do with is simply a preliminary investigation before the high priest. And as for the statement with regard to the place of meeting in Matthew 26:3, it is only to be regarded as a subsequent addition on the part of the evangelist, comp. Mark 14:1; Luke 22:2. For a fuller discussion of the question as to where the supreme Sanhedrim held its sittings, see my article in the Stud. u. Krit. 1878, pp. 608-626. See also, at p. 608 of the same, the earlier literature of the subject, in which however no decisive results have been reached owing to the uncritical way in which it has dealt with the sources.
5. Judicial procedure. This, according to the account of it given in the Mishna, was as follows.[813] The members of the court sat in a semicircle (כַּחֲצִי גּוֹרֶן עֲגוּלָה, literally, like the half of a circular threshing-floor), in order that they might be able to see each other. In front of them stood the two clerks of the court, one on the right hand and the other on the left, whose duty it was to record the votes of those who were in favour of acquittal on the one hand, and of those who were in favour of a sentence of condemnation on the other.[814] There also sat in front of them three rows of the disciples of the learned men, each of whom had his own special seat assigned him.[815] The prisoner at the bar was always required to appear in a humble attitude and dressed in mourning.[816] In cases involving a capital sentence, special forms were prescribed for conducting the trial and pronouncing the sentence. On such occasions it was the practice always to hear the reasons in favour of acquittal in the first place, which being done, those in favour of a conviction might next be stated.[817] When any one had once spoken in favour of the accused he was not at liberty afterwards to say anything unfavourable to him, though the converse was permissible.[818] Those of the student disciples who happened to be present were also allowed to speak, though only in favour of and not against the prisoner, while on other occasions not involving a capital sentence they could do either the one or the other as they thought proper.[819] A sentence of acquittal might be pronounced on the same day as that of the trial, whereas a sentence of condemnation could not be pronounced till the following day.[820] The voting, in the course of which each individual stood up in his turn,[821] began “at the side,” מִן הַצַּר, i.e. with the youngest member of the court, whereas on other occasions it was the practice to commence with the most distinguished member.[822] For a sentence of acquittal a simple majority was sufficient, while for one of condemnation again a majority of two was required.[823] If therefore twelve of the twenty-three judges necessary to form a quorum voted for acquittal and eleven for a conviction, then the prisoner was discharged; but if, on the other hand, twelve were for a conviction and eleven for acquittal, then in that case the number of the judges had to be increased by the addition of two to their number, which was repeated if necessary until either an acquittal was secured or the majority requisite for a conviction was obtained. But, of course, they had to restrict themselves to the maximum number of seventy-one.[824]
[813] On the forms of judicial procedure in the Old Testament, see Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Gericht;” Oehler’s art. “Gericht und Gerichtsverwaltung bei den Hebräern,” in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. vol. v. pp. 57-61. Saalschütz, Das Mosaische Recht, ii. 593 ff. Keil, Handbuch der biblischen Archäologie (2nd ed. 1875), sec. 150, Köhler, Lehrbuch der biblischen Geschichte, i. 359 ff.
[814] Sanhedrin iv. 3. There is also one instance in Josephus in which ὁ γραμματεὺς τῆς βουλῆς is mentioned, Bell. Jud. v. 13. 1.
[815] Sanhedrin iv. 4.
[816] Joseph. Antt. xiv. 9. 4. Comp. Sacharja 3. 3.
[817] Sanhedrin iv. 1.
[818] Sanhedrin iv. 1, v. 5.
[819] Sanhedrin iv. 1, v. 4.
[820] Sanhedrin iv. 1, v. 5. On this ground many have sought to account for the alleged twofold meeting of the Sanhedrim when Jesus was condemned to death.
[821] Sanhedrin v. 5.
[822] Sanhedrin iv. 2.
[823] Sanhedrin iv. 1.
[824] Sanhedrin v. 5.