Sanhedrin

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

The supreme council and court ofjustice among theJews. The nameSanhedrin is derived originally from the Greek wordsunédrion, which, variously modified, passed at an unknown period into the Aramaic vocabulary. Among the Greek-speakingJews,gerousía, "the assembly of the Ancients" was apparently the common name of the Sanhedrin, at least in the beginning; in post-Biblical Hebrew the appellationBeth-Din, "house of judgment", seems to have been quite popular.

History

An institution as renowned as the Sanhedrin was naturally given by Jewish tradition a most venerable and hallowed antiquity. Some Doctors, indeed, did not hesitate to recognize the Sanhedrin in the Council of the seventy Elders founded by Moses (Numbers 11:16); others pretended to discover the first traces of the Sanhedrin in the tribunal created by Josaphat (2 Chronicles 19:8): but neither of these institutions bears, in its composition or in its attributions, any resemblance to the Sanhedrin as weknow it. Nor should the origin of the Sanhedrin be sought in the Great Synagogue, of which tradition attributed the foundation to Esdras, and which it considered as the connecting link between the last of the Prophets and the first Scribes: for aside from the obscurity hovering over the functions of this once much-famed body, its very existence is, among modern scholars, the subject of the most seriousdoubts. Yet it may be that from the council of the nobles and chiefs and ancients, on which the ruling of the restored community devolved at the time of Nehemias and Esdras (Nehemiah 2:16;4:8, 13;5:7;7:5;Ezra 5:5, 9;6:7, 14;10:8), gradually developed and organized, sprang up the Sanhedrin. At any rate, the first undisputed mention we possess touching thegerousía ofJerusalem is connected with the reign of Antiochus the Great (223-187 ; Joseph. "Antiq.", XII, iii, 3). From that time on, we are able to follow the history of the Sanhedrin until its disappearance in the overthrow of the Jewish nation.

As under the Greek rulers theJews were allowed a large measure of self-government, many points of civil and religious administration fell to the lot of thehigh priests and thegerousía to settle. But when, after theMachabeanwars, both the royal andpriestly powers were invested in theperson of the Hasmonean kings, the authority of the Sanhedrin was naturally thrown in the background by that of the autocratic rulers. Still the Sanhedrin, where a majority ofPharisees held sway, continued to be "the house ofjustice of the Hasmoneans" ("Talm.", Aboda zara, 36^b;Sanh., 82^a). Acoup d'état of John Hyrcanus towards the end of his reign brought about a "Sadducean Sanhedrin" ("Antiq.", XVI, xi, 1;Sanh., 52^b;Megillat Taanith, 10), which lasted until Jannæus; but owing to the conflicts between the new assembly and Alexander, it was soon restored, to be again overthrown by thePharisaic reaction, under Alexandra. The intervention ofRome, occasioned by the strife between the sons of Alexandra, was momentarily fatal to the Sanhedrin in so far as the Roman proconsul Gabinius, by instituting similar assemblies atGadara,Jericho, Amathonte, and Sapphora, limited thejurisdiction of thegerousía ofJerusalem to the city and the neighbouring district (57 ). In 47, however, the appointment of Hyrcanus II as Ethnarch of theJews resulted in the restoring of the Sanhedrin's authority all over the land. One of the first acts of the now all-powerful assembly was to pass judgment uponHerod, the son of Antipater, accused of cruelty in his government ("Antiq.", XI, ix, 4). The revengeful prince was not likely to forget this insult. No sooner, indeed, had he established his power atJerusalem (37 ), than forty-five of his former judges, more or less connected with the party of Antigonus, wereput to death ("Antiq.", XV, i, 2). The Sanhedrin itself, however,Herod allowed to continue; but this new Sanhedrin, filled with his creatures, was henceforth utilized as a mere tool at his beck (as for instance in the case of the aged Hyrcanus). After the death ofHerod, the territorialjurisdiction of the assembly was curtailed again and reduced toJudea,Samaria, and Idumea, the "ethnarchy" allotted to Archelaus. But this condition of affairs was not to last; for after the deposition of the Ethnarch and the annexation ofJudea to the Roman province ofSyria ( 6), the Sanhedrin, under the control of the procurators, became the supreme authority of the Jewish people; only capital sentences pronounced by the assembly perhaps needed confirmation from the Roman officer before they could be carried into execution. Such was the state of things during the public life of the Saviour and the following thirty years (Matthew 26:57;Mark 14:55;15:1;Luke 22:66;John 11:47;Acts 4:15;5:21;6:12;22:30;23:1 sq.;24:20; "Antiq.", XX, 9:1; x; "Bell. Jud.", II, 15:6; "Vita", 12, 13, 38, 49, 70). Finally when the misgovernment of Albinus and Gessius Florus goaded the nation into rebellion, it was the Sanhedrin that first organized the struggle againstRome; but soon the Zealots, seizing the power inJerusalem, put the famous assembly out of the way. Despite a nominal resurrection first at Jamnia, immediately after the destruction of the Holy City, and later on atTiberias, the greatBeth-Din ofJerusalem did not really survive the ruin of the nation, and later Jewish authors are right when, speaking of the sad events connected with the fall ofJerusalem, they deplore the cessation of the Sanhedrin (Sota, ix, end;Echa Rabbathi on Lam., v, 15).

Composition

According to the testimony of the Mishna (Sanh., i, 6;Shebuoth, ii, 2), confirmed by a remark ofJosephus ("Bell. Jud.", II, xx, 5), the Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one members, president included. Jewish tradition appealed toNumbers 11:16, to justify this number; but whether the text of Num. had actually any influence on the determination of the composition of theBeth-Din, may be left undecided. The New-Testament writers seem to divide the members into three classes: the chiefpriests, the scribes, and the ancients; but it might be wrong to regard these three classes as forming a regularhierarchy, for in theNew Testament itself the word "ancients", or the phrase "the ancients of the people", is quite frequently equivalent to "members of the Sanhedrin", just as is inJosephus the wordbouleutaí "members of the council". They were styled "ancients" nodoubt in memory of the seventy "ancients" forming the assembly set up by Moses (Numbers 11), but also because the popular mind attached to the word a connotation of maturity of age and respectability (See in "Talm.",Bab., Sanh. 17^b, 88^a, also inSifra, 92, the moral andintellectual qualifications required for membership. Since theBeth-Din had to deal frequently with legal matters, it was natural that many of its members should be chosen from among men specially given to the study of the Law; this is why we so often hear of the scribes in the Sanhedrin. Most of those scribes, during the last forty years of the institution's existence, werePharisees, whereas the members belonging to thesacerdotal caste represented in the assembly the Sadduceanideas (Acts 4:1;5:17, 34;23:6; "Antiq.", XX, 9:1; "Bell. Jud.", II, 17:3; "Vita", 38, 39), but history shows that at other periods the Pharisean influence had been far from preponderating. According to what rules the members were appointed and the vacancies filled up, we are unable to state; it seems that various customs prevailed on this point at different periods; however, from what has been said above, it is clear that politics interfered more than once in the transaction. At any rate we are told (Sanh., iv, 4) that asemikah, orimposition of hands, took place at the formal installation of the new appointees; and there is every reason to believe that the appointment was for life.

Who was president of the Sanhedrin? The Bible andJosephus on the one hand, and the Talmud on the other, contain statements which may shed some light on the subject; unfortunately these statements appear to be at variance with each other and need careful handling. In I Mach., xiv, 44, we read that no meeting (sustrophéd) might be called in the land outside of thehigh priest's bidding; but it would be clearly illogical to infer from this that thehigh priest was appointed by Demetriusex officio president of the Sanhedrin. To conclude the same from the passage ofJosephus narratingHerod's arraignment before the Sanhedrin (Antiq., XIV, ix, 3-5) would likewise perhaps go beyond what is warranted by the text of the Jewish historian: for it may bedoubted whether in this occurrence Hyrcanus acted as the head of the Hasmoneanfamily or in his capacity ofhigh priest. At any rate there can be no hesitation about the last forty years of the Sanhedrin's existence: at the trial ofJesus,Caiphas, thehigh priest (John 11:49), was the head of theBeth-Din (Matthew 26:5;7); so also was Ananias at the trial ofSt. Paul (Acts 23:2), and we read in "Antiq.", XX, ix, I, about thehigh priest Ananus II summoning the Sanhedrin in 62. What then of the Rabbinical tradition speaking persistently ofHillel, and Simon his son, andGamaliel I his grandson, and the latter's son Simon, as holding the office ofNasi from 30 to 70 (Talm.,Bab. Shabbath, 15^a)? Of one of these men,Gamaliel, we find mention inActs 5:34; but even though he is said to have played a leading part in the circumstances referred to there, he is not spoken of as president of the assembly. Thetruth may be that during the first century not to speak of earlier times, thehigh priest was notex officio the head of the Sanhedrin, and it appears thatHillel actually obtained that dignity. But after the death ofHerod and the deposition of Archelaus, which occurred about the time ofHillel's demise, there was inaugurated a new order of things, and that is possibly whatJosephus means when, speaking of these events, he remarks that "the presidency over the people was then entrusted to thehigh priests" (Antiq., XX, x, end). It was natural that, in an assembly containing many scribes and called upon the decide many points of legislation, there should be, next to the Sadducean presidents, men perfectly conversant with all the intricacies of the Law. Gauged by the standard of later times, the consideration which must have attached to this position of trust led to the misconception of the actual rôle ofHillel's descendants in the Sanhedrin, and thus very likely arose the tradition recorded in the Talmud.

Jurisdiction and procedure

We have seen above how thejurisdiction of the Sanhedrin varied in extension at different periods. At the time of the public life of the Saviour, only the eleven toparchies ofJudea werede jure subject to the Great Sanhedrin ofJerusalem; however,de facto theJews all the world over acknowledged its authority (as an instance of this, seeActs 9:2;22:5;26:12). As the supreme court ofjustice of the nation, the Sanhedrin was appealed to when the lower courts were unable to come to a decision (Sanh., vii, 1; xi, 2); moreover, it had the exclusive right of judgment in matters of special importance, as for instance the case of afalseprophet, accusations against thehigh priest, the sending out of an army in certain circumstances, the enlarging of the city ofJerusalem, or of the Temple courts, etc. (Sanh., i, 5; ii, 4; iii, 4); the few instances mentioned in theNew Testament exemplify the cases to which the competency of the Sanhedrin extended; in short, all religious matters and all civil matters not claimed by Roman authority were within its attributions; and the decisions issued by its judges were to be held inviolable (Sanh., xi, 2-4). Whether or not the Sanhedrin had been deprived, at the time ofJesus Christ, of theright to carry death-sentences into execution, is a much-disputed question. On the one hand, that such a curtailing of the Sanhedrin's power did actually take place seems implied in the cry of theJews: "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death" (John 18:31), in the statement ofJosephus (Ant., XX, ix, 1) and in those of the Talmud of Jer. (Sanh., 18^a, 24^b). Still we see inActs 7, St. Stephenput to death by the Sanhedrin; we read likewise in Talm. Jer. (Sanh., 24, 25) of an adulteress burnt at the stake and aheretic stoned; and these three facts occurred precisely during the last forty years of the Temple's existence, when the power of life and death is supposed to have been no longer in the Sanhedrin. Assuming the two facts recorded in Talm. Jer. to be historical, we might explain them away, just as the stoning of St. Stephen, and reconcile them with the curtailing of the Sanhedrin'srights by attributing them to outbursts of popular passion. Some scholars, however, deny that the Romans ever deprived the Sanhedrin of any part of its power: the Sanhedrin, they say, owing to the frequency of cases half-religious and half-political in nature, in order not to alienate the feelings of the people and at the same time not to incur the displeasure of the Roman authorities, practically surrendered into the hands of the latter theright to approve capital sentences; the cry of theJews: "it is not lawful for us toput any man to death", was therefore rather a flattery to theprocurator than the expression oftruth.

It should be noted, however, that of these views the former is more favourably received by scholars. At all events, criminal causes were tried before a commission of twenty-three members (in urgent cases any twenty-three members might do) assembled under the presidency of theAb Beth-Din; two other boards, also of twenty-three members each, studied the questions to be submitted to plenary meetings. These three sections had their separate places of meeting in the Temple buildings; the criminal section met originally in the famous "Hall of the Hewn Stone" (Mishna,Peah, ii, 6;Eduyoth, vii, 4) which was on the south side of the court (Middoth, v, 4) and served also for the sittings of the "Great Sanhedrin", or plenary meetings; about 30, that same section was transferred to another building closer to the outer wall; they had also another meeting place inproperty calledkhanyioth, "trade-halls", belonging to thefamily of Hanan (cf.John 18:13). The members of the Sanhedrin sat in a semicircle that they might see one another while deliberating (Mishna,Sanh., iv, 2; Tos.,Sanh., vii, 1). Two clerks stood before them, the one to the right and the other to the left, to take down the votes (Mishna,Sanh., iv, 2). The members stood up to speak, and on matters of civil or ceremonial law the voting began with the principal member of the assembly, whereas the younger members were the first to give their opinion in criminal affairs. For judgments of the latter description a quorum of at least twenty-three members was required: a majority of one vote sufficed for the acquittal; for a condemnation a majority of two votes wasnecessary, except when all the members of the court (seventy-one) were present (Mishna,Sanh., iv; Tos.,Sanh., vii).

Since in spite of the identity of names there is little in common between the old Great Sanhedrin ofJerusalem and theschools of Jamnia andTiberias, it is quite useless to dwell on the latter, as well as on theKalla assemblies of Babylon. But it will not be amiss to mention the fact that before the fall ofJerusalem there were, besides the Great Sanhedrin we have dealt with above, local courts ofjustice sometimes designated by the same name, in all the Jewish cities.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT