| The Sanhedrin as a body claimed powers that lesser Jewish courts did not have. As such, they were the only ones who could try the king, extend the boundaries of the Temple and Jerusalem, and were the ones to whom all questions of law were finally put. It was presided over by an officer called the Nasi. After the time of Hillel the Elder (late 1st century BCE and early 1st century CE), the Nasi was almost invariably a descendant of Hillel. The second highest-ranking member of the Sanhedrin was called the Av Beit Din, or "Head of the Court" (literally, Beit Din = "house of law"), who presided over the Sanhedrin when it sat as a criminal court. The Sanhedrin met in a building known as the Hall of Hewn Stones (Lishkat Ha-Gazith), which has been placed by the Talmud and many scholars as built into the north wall of the Temple Mount, half inside the sanctuary and half outside, with doors providing access both to the Temple and to the outside. The name presumably arises to distinguish it from the buildings in the Temple complex used for ritual purposes, which had to be constructed of stones unhewn by any iron implements. In some cases, it was only necessary for a 23-member panel (functioning as a Lesser Sanhedrin) to convene. In general, the full panel of 71 judges was only convened on matters of national significance (e.g., a declaration of war) or in the event that the 23-member panel could not reach a conclusive verdict. Synedrium It is especially used of judicial or representative assemblies, and is the name by which that Jewish body is known which in its origin was the municipal council of Jerusalem, but acquired extended functions and no small authority and influence over the Jews at large (see 13. 424 seq.). In the Mishnah it is called "the sanhedrin," "the great sanhedrin," "the sanhedrin of seventy-one [members]" and "the great court of justice" (beth din haggadol). The oldest testimony to the existence and constitution of the synedrium of Jerusalem is probably to be found in the books of Chronicles: And also in Jerusalem, Jehoshaphat set up judges of the Levites and the priests and of the chiefs of the fathers' [houses] of Israel, for the judgment of the Lord and for quarrels, and they returned to Jerusalem. Clearly the priests, Levites, and hereditary heads of houses there spoken of as sitting at Jerusalem as a court of appeal from the local judicatories does not correspond with anything mentioned in the old history, and it is the practice of the chronicler to refer the institutions of his own time to an origin in ancient Israel. And just such an aristocratic council is what seems to be meant by the gerousia or senate of "elders" repeatedly mentioned in the history of the Jews, both under the Greeks from the time of Antiochus III the Great (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities 12:3) and under the Hasmonean high priests and princes. The high priest as the head of the state was doubtless also the head of the senate, which, according to Eastern usage, exercised both judicial and administrative or political functions (see 1 Maccabees 12:6, 14:20). The exact measure of its authority must have varied from time to time at first with the measure of autonomy left to the nation by its foreign lords and afterwards with the more or less autocratic power claimed by the native sovereigns. The original aristocratic constitution of the senate began to be modified under the later Hasmoneans by the inevitable introduction of representatives of the rising party of the Pharisees, and this new element gained strength under Herod the Great, the bitter enemy of the priestly aristocracy. In 57-55 BCE, Aulus Gabinius, proconsul of Syria, split the former Hasmonean Kingdom into Galilee, Samaria and Judea with 5 districts of sanhedrin (councils of law) Finally under the Roman procurators, (Iudaea Province), the synedrium was left under the presidency of the chief priest as the highest native tribunal, though without the power of life and death according to John 18:31, yet Acts 6:12 records them ordering the stoning of Saint Stephen and also James the Just according to Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1. The Jesus Seminar's Scholars Version translation notes for John 18:31: "it's illegal for us: The accuracy of this claim is doubtful." The aristocratic and Sadducean element now again preponderated, as appears from Josephus and from the New Testament, in which "chief priests" and "rulers" are synonymous expressions. But with these there sat also "scribes" or trained legal doctors of the Pharisees and other notables, who are simply called "elders" (Mark 15:1). The council chamber where the synedrium usually sat was between the Xystus and the Temple, probably on the Temple-hill, the Mishnah states that the meetings were held within the inner court. The meeting in the palace of the high priest which condemned Jesus was exceptional. The proceedings also on this occasion were highly irregular, if measured by the rules of procedure which, according to Jewish tradition, were laid down to secure order and a fair trial for the accused. Of the older literature of the subject it is enough to cite Selden, De synedriis. The most important critical discussion is that of Kuenen in the Verslagen, etc., of the Amsterdam Academy (1866), p. 131 seq. A good summary is given by Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, 4th ed., 23. See also GA Smith, Jerusalem (1907), volume 1, chapter 9. This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain. Early Christianity Main Article: Early Christianity In the Gospels Main Article: The Gospels The Sanhedrin is mentioned frequently in the Gospels. According to the Gospels, the council conspired to have Jesus killed by paying one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, thirty pieces of silver in exchange for delivery of Jesus into their hands. When the Sanhedrin was unable to provide evidence that Jesus had committed a capital crime, the Gospels state that witnesses came forward and accused the Nazarene of blasphemy — a capital crime under Mosaic law. But, because the Sanhedrin was not of Roman authority, it could not condemn criminals to death, according to John 18:31, but this claim is disputed by some. Circa 30 CE, the Gospels continues, Jesus was brought before the Roman governor of Iudaea Province, Pontius Pilate, for decision. The Christian account says that Pilate disagreed with the Sanhedrin's decision, and found no fault — but that the crowd demanded crucifixion. Pilate, it is speculated, gave in because he was concerned about his career and about revolt — and conveyed the death sentence of crucifixion on Jesus. For more information on this subject, see Jesus' Roman Trial. It should be noted, however, that the New Testament also claims certain members of the Sanhedrin as followers of Jesus. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea are two such men that are named in the Gospels. The Christian accounts of the Sanhedrin, and role the council played in the crucifixion of Jesus, is a sensitive issue. See also Christianity and anti-Semitism. A Sanhedrin also appears in Acts 4-7 and Acts 22:30-23:24, perhaps the one led by Gamaliel. Opposition to Christian historical accounts Although the New Testament's account of the Sanhedrin's involvement in Jesus' crucifixion is detailed, the factual accuracy is disputed. Some scholars believe that these passages present a caricature of the Pharisees and were not written during Jesus' lifetime but rather some time after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE - a time when it had become clear that most Jews did not consider Jesus to be the Messiah. Also, this was a time Christians sought most new converts from among the Gentiles - thus adding to the likelihood that the New Testament's account would be more sympathetic to Romans than to the Jews. Furthermore, it was only after 70 that Phariseeism emerged as the dominant form of Judaism. Some claim that the New Testament portrays the Sanhedrin as a corrupt group of Pharisees, although it was predominantly made up of Sadducees at the time. This does agree with the New Testament where the Sanhedrin's leadership - Annas and Caiaphas were Sadducees. The Gospels also consistently make a distinction between the Pharisees and "the elders," "the teachers of the law," and "the rulers of the people". The opposition continues by saying that in order for the Christian leaders of the time to present Christianity as the legitimate heir to the Hebrew Scriptures, they had to devalue Rabbinic Judaism. In addition to the New Testament, other Christian writings relate that the Apostles Peter, John, Stephen, and Paul were all brought before the Sanhedrin for the blasphemous crime--from the Jewish perspective--of spreading their Gospel. However, the Gospels exist, and do give an account of events that happened well before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, although most scholars consider them to have been penned after the Temple was destroyed (however, see Gospel of Mark and Gospel of Matthew for views on earlier historical dating). Those scholars may believe them to have been based on earlier sources, rather than giving a first-person account; though the Gospels are not entirely dismissed, they are presumed to be biased rather than factual. However, Streeter and others of the Tuebingen school hold that Christian New Testament writings which discuss the Sanhedrin actually may date much earlier than previously thought, so supporters claim that the NT accounts quite possibly are more accurate that thought heretofore. The Dissolution of the Classical Sanhedrin During the period when it stood on the Temple Mount, the Sanhedrin achieved its quintessential position, legislating on all aspects of Jewish religious and political life within the parameters laid down by Biblical and Rabbinic tradition. After the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 CE, the Sanhedrin was re-established with reduced authority, although it was still universally recognized as the ultimate authority in religious matters. This authority was reinforced by the official sanction of the imperial Roman government and legislation. The Sanhedrin was re-established in Yavneh [70-80 CE]. From there it was moved to Usha under the presidency of Gamliel II ben Shimon II [80-116 CE]. Afterwards it was conveyed back to Yavneh, and again back to Usha. It was moved to Shefaram under the presidency of Shimon III ben Gamliel II [140-163 CE], and to Beth Shearim and Sephoris, under the presidency of Yehudah I [163-193 CE]. Finally it was moved to Tiberias, under the presidency of Gamliel III ben Yehudav I [193-220 CE], where it became more of a consistory, but still retained, under the presidency of Yehudah II ben-Shimon III [220-270 CE], the power of excommunication. During the presidency of Gamliel IV ben Yehudav II, due to persecution of an increasingly Christianized Rome it dropped the name Sanhedrin, and its authoritative decisions were subsequently issued under the name of Beth HaMidrash. As a reaction to Julian's pro-Jewish stance, Theodosius forbade the Sanhedrin to assemble and declared ordination illegal. (Roman law declared capital punishment for any Rabbi who received ordination and complete destruction of the town where the ordination occurred). Because the Jewish Calendar is based on witnesses' testimony, and that had become far to dangerous to collect, Hillel II recommended a mathematical Calendar that was adopted at a clandestine, and maybe last, meeting [358 CE]. This marked the last universal decision made by that body. Gamliel V [400-425 CE] was the last president. With the death of this patriarch, who was executed by Theodosius II for erecting new synagogues contrary to the imperial decree, the title Nasi, the last remains of the ancient Sanhedrin, became illegal to be used after 425 CE. There are records of what may have been of attempts to reform the Sanhedrin in Arabia, in Jerusalem under the Calif 'Umar, and in Babylon (Iraq, see also: Iraq Maps), but none of these attempts were given any attention by Rabbinic authorities and little information is available about them. Subsequent attempts to revive the Sanhedrin Within Judaism, the Sanhedrin is seen the last institution which commanded universal authority among the Jewish people in the long chain of tradition from Moses until the present day. Since it's disbanding after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, there have been several attempts to re-establish this body either as a self-governing body, or as a puppet of a sovereign government. Napoleon Bonaparte's "Grand Sanhedrin" The "Grand Sanhedrin" was a Jewish high court convened by Napoleon I to give legal sanction to the principles expressed by the Assembly of Notables in answer to the twelve questions submitted to it by the government (see Jew. Encyc. v. 468, s.v. France). On October 6, 1806, the Assembly of Notables issued a proclamation to all the Jewish communities of Europe, inviting them to send delegates to the sanhedrin, to convene on October 20. This proclamation, written in Hebrew, French, German, and Italian, speaks in extravagant terms of the importance of this revived institution and of the greatness of its imperial protector. While the action of Napoleon aroused in many Jews of Germany the hope that, influenced by it, their governments also would grant them the rights of citizenship, others looked upon it as a political contrivance. When in the war against Prussia (1806-7) the emperor invaded Poland and the Jews rendered great services to his army, he remarked, laughing, "The sanhedrin is at least useful to me." David Friedländer and his friends in Berlin described it as a spectacle that Napoleon offered to the Parisians. Attempts to re-establish the Sanhedrin in Israel Since the dissolution of the Sanherin in 358 CE, there has been no universally recognized authority within Jewish law. Maimonides (1135–1204) was one of the greatest scholars of the middle ages, and is arguably one of the most widely accepted scholars among the Jewish people since the closing of the Talmud in 500 CE. Influenced by the rationalist school of thought and generally showing a preference for a natural (as opposed to miraculous) redemption for the Jewish people, Maimonides proposed a rationalist solution for achieving the goal of re-establishing the highest court in Jewish tradition and reinvesting it with the same authority it had in former years. There have been several attempts to implement Maimonides' recommendations, the latest being in modern times. There have been rabbinical attempts to renew Semicha and re-establish a Sanhedrin by Rabbi Beirav in 1538, Rabbi Yisroel Shklover in 1830, Rabbi Aharon Mendel haCohen in 1901, Rabbi Zvi Kovsker in 1940 and Rabbi Yehudah Leib Maimon in 1949. In October 2004 (Tishrei 5765), a group of rabbis claiming to represent varied communities in Israel undertook a ceremony in Tiberias, where the original Sanhedrin was disbanded, which they claim re-establishes the body according to the proposal of Maimonides and halakhic ruling of Rabbi Yosef Karo. The attempt has been subject to a great deal of debate within different Jewish communities. References - Lexicon Results for sunedrion (Strong's 4892, from a presumed derivative of a compound of G4862 and the base of G1476)
- Mark 14:53-65, Matthew 26:57-68, Luke 22:63-71, John 18:12-24.
- The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 1:1) arrives at the number twenty-three based on an exegetical derivation: It must be possible for a "community" to vote for both conviction and exoneration (Numbers 35:24-5). The minimum size of a "community" is 10 (Numbers 14:27; i.e. the 10 spies). One more is required to achieve a majority (11–10), but a simple majority cannot convict (Exodus 23:2), and so an additional judge is required (12–10). Finally, a court should not have an even number of judges to prevent deadlocks; thus 23.
- In general usage, "The Sanhedrin" without qualifier normally refers to the Great Sanhedrin.
- Numbers 27:23
- Babylonian Talmud: Sanhedrin 13b-14a
- Commentary on Mishnah Sota, chapter 9, Mishnah 11.
- Tosofoth Yom Tov and the Maharal.
- Wanderings: Chaim Potok's History of the Jews, Chaim Potok, Knopf, New York, p. 191.
- Wanderings: Chaim Potok's History of the Jews, Chaim Potok, Knopf, New York, p. 191.
- "Sanhedrin". CUNY. http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/economic/friedman/sanhedrin.htm.
- Babylonian Talmud: Sanhedrin 2a.
- See also Council of Jamnia.
- Mishnayot Beitzah, chapter 5 Mishnah 2. This can also be found in the Talmud, tractate Beitzah, daf 36b.
- Jewish Encyclopedia: Sanhedrin: "The Great Sanhedrin is designated in the Talmudic sources as "Sanhedrin Gedolah hayoshebet be-lishkat ha-gazit" = "the Great Sanhedrin which sits in the hall of hewn stone"(Sifra, Wayiḳra, ed. Weiss, 19a). The mention of "sanhedrin" without the epithet "gedolah" (Yer. Sanh. i. 19c) seems to presuppose another body than the Great Sanhedrin that met in the hall of hewn stone. For neither Josephus nor the Gospels in speaking of the Sanhedrin report any of its decisions or discussions referring to the priests or to the Temple service, or touching in any way upon the religious law, but they refer to the Sanhedrin exclusively in matters connected with legal procedure, verdicts, and decrees of a political nature; whereas the Sanhedrin in the hall of hewn stone dealt, according to the Talmudic sources, with questions relating to the Temple, the priesthood, the sacrifices, and matters of a kindred nature. Adolf Büchler assumes indeed that there were in Jerusalem two magistracies, which were entirely different in character and functions and which officiated side by side at the same time. That to which the Gospels and Josephus refer was the highest political authority, and at the same time the supreme court; this alone was empowered to deal with criminal cases and to impose the sentence of capital punishment. The other, sitting in the hall of hewn stone, was the highest court dealing with the religious law, being in charge also of the religious instruction of the people (Sanh. xi. 2–4)."
- The Persian conquest of Jerusalem in 614 compared with Islamic conquest of 638
- Sefer Yuchsin, cf. Yarchei Kallah, Rabbi Nassan describes "the seventy judges who comprise the Sanhedrin".
- The dissolution of the Sanhedrin, in terms of its power to give binding universal decisions, is usually dated to 358 when Hillel II's Jewish Calendar was adopted. This marked the last universally accepted decision made by that body.
|