SANHEDRIN
445
SANHEDRIN
"the house of justice of the Hasmoneans" ("Talm. ",
Aboda zara, 36b; Sank., 82a). A coup d'etat of John
Hyrcanus towards the end of his reign brought about
a "Sadducean Sanhedrin" ("Antiq.", XVI, xi, 1;
Sank., 52b; Megillat Taanith, 10), which lasted until
JanniEus; but owing to the conflicts between the new
assembly and Alexander, it was soon restored, to be
again overthrown by the Pharisaic reaction under
Alexandra. The intervention of Rome, 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 at Gadara, Jericho, Amathonte, and Sap-
phora, limited the jurisdiction of the yepowla of Jeru-
salem to the city and the neighbouring district
(57 B.C.). In 47, however, the appointment of
Hyrcanus II as Ethnarch of the Jews 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 upon Herod, the
son of Antipater, accused of cruelty in his govern-
ment ("Antiq.", XI, ix, 4). The revengeful prince was
not likely to forget this insult. No sooner, indeed,
had he established his power at Jerusalem (37 b.c),
than forty-five of his former judges, more or less
connected with the party of Antigonus, were put
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
of Herod, the territorial jurisdiction of the assembly
was curtailed again and reduced to Judea, 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
of Judea to the Roman province of Syria (.\.D. 6),
the Sanhedrin, under the contol 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 (Matt., xxvi,
57; Mark, xiv, 55; xv, 1; Luke, xxii, 66; John, xi, 47;
Acts, iv, 15; v, 21; vi, 12; xxii, 30; xxiii, 1 sq.; xxiv, 20;
"Antiq.", XX, ix,l;x; "Bell. Jud.", II, xv,6; "Vita",
12, 13, 38, 49, 70). Finally when the misgovemment
of Albinus and Gessius Flonis goaded the nation
into rebellion, it was the Sanhedrin that first organ-
ized the struggle against Rome; but soon the Zealots,
seizing the power in Jerusalem, put the famous assem-
bly out of the way. Despite a nominal resurrection
first at Jamnia, immediately after the destruction
of the Holy City, and later on at Tiberias, the great
Beth-Din of Jerusalem 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 of Jerusalem, they deplore the cessation
of the Sanhedrin {Sota, ix, end; Echa Rabbathi on
Lam., V, 15).
Composition. — According to the testimony of the Mishna (Sank., i, 6; Shcbuoth, ii, 2), confirmed by a remark of Josephus ("Bell. Jud.", II, xx, 5), the Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one members, presi- dent included. Jewish tradition appealed to Num., xi, 16, to justify this number; but whether the text of Num. had actually any influence on the determina- tion of the composition of the Beth-Din, may be left undecided. The New-Testament writers seem to divide the members into three classes : the chief priests, the scribes, and the ancients; but it might be wrong to regard these three classes as forming a regular hierarchy, for in the New Testament itself the word " ancients ", or the phrase " the ancientsof the people ", is quit<; frequently equivalent to "members of the Sanhedrin", just as is in Josephus the word ^ovXevral
"members of the council". They were styled
"ancients" no doubt in memory of the seventy
"ancients" forming the assembly set up by Moses
(Num., xi), but also because the popular mind attached
to the word a connotation of maturity of age and
respectabiUty (See in "Talm.", Bab., Saiih. 17b 88a,
also in Sifre, 92, the moral and intellectual qualifica-
tions required for membership). Since the Beth-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 these scribes, during the
last forty years of the institution's existence, were
Pharisees, whereas the members belonging to the
sacerdotal caste represented in the assembly the Sad-
ducean ideas (Acts, iv, 1; v, 17, 34; xxiii, 6; "Antiq."
XX, ix, 1; "Bell. Jud.", II, xvii, 3; "Vita", 38, 39),
but history shows that at other periods the Pharisean
influence had been far from preponderating. Ac-
cording 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 difTerent 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 a semikoh, or imposition 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 and Josephus on the one hand, and the Talmud on the other, contain statements which maj^ 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 {<Tv<TTpo<pT]5) might be called in the land outside of the high priest's bidding: but it would be clearly illogical to infer from this that the high priest was appointed by Demetrius ex officio president of the Sanhedrin. To conclude the same from the passage of Josephus narrating Herod'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 be doubted whether in this occurrence Hyrcanus acted as the head of the Hasmonean family or in his capacity of high priest. At any rate there can be no hesita- tion about the last forty years of the Sanhedrin's existence: at the trial of Jesus, Caiphas, the high priest (John, xi, 49), was the head of the Beth-Din (Matt., xxvi, 57); so also was Ananias at the trial of St. Paul (Acts, xxiii, 2), and we read in "Antiq.", XX, ix, 1, about the high priest Ananus II summoning the Sanhedrin in a.d. 62. What then of the Rabbinical tradition speaking persistently of Hillel, and Simon his son, and Gamaliel I his grandson, and the latter's son Simon, as holding the office of Nasi from 30 B.C. to A.D. 70 (Talm., Bab. Shabbath, 15^)? Of one of these men, Gamaliel, we find mention in Acts, V, 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 as- sembly. The truth may be that during the first century B.C., not to speak of earlier times, the high priest was not ex officio the head of the Sanhedrin, and it appears that Hillel actually obtained that dignity. But after the death of Herod and the de- position of Archelaus, which occurred about the time of Hillel's demise, there was inaugurated a new order of things, and that is possibly what Josephus means when, speaking of these events, he remarks that "the presidency over the people was then entrusted to the high priests" (Antiq., XX, x, end). It was natural that, in an assembly containing many scribes and called upon to decide many points of legislation, there should be, next to the Sadducean presidents, men
