Sand lizard (Hastings' Dictionary)

See Snail. •■SANHEDRIN — I. TIu» nninc and Its hUtory, II. Origin iinil history of the Institution, iii. IMnt-i- <if iiu-fllnj;. Iv. <'oiii]H>^ttion, anil qualltlcatlons for membor8hl[>. V. Till' [irfsldt-nt. vl. Fiiiictloiis utut procoduro. vll. halcfst histnry. LIUTuturv. i. The Name and its History.— ^nn/jciirjn (i.e. avviipiov) was the name applied to the highest court of justice and .supreme council at ■Iiriisalem, and in a wider sense also to lower courls of ju.siice. In the .

lewish tradition-literature this designation, borrowed from the Greek, alternates with the post- biblical Heb. jn n'a Aram. »y\ o. The Ilebrew- "Cutiunuht, IIWJ, bu Aramaic form t'l'^'','? (we find also the punctuation '"'77,'?) sprang from the Greek word, the a-spiration of the second vowel (from iSpa) becoming audible and being transcribed with n. The ending -loi' was pronounced as a monosyllable, with elision of the 0, its in other words with the same ending (cf. jo-'D = iraXcLTLov, i.e.

palatium). The word, how- ever, is found written also without n (.see Levy, WTirterb. z. den Tarijumim, ii. 17'>; ^tUW'B iii. o536). From jmnjo, which sounded like a Semitic plural, there was even formed a sing, form '^''.^JP, which is met with not infrecinently. Both forms were treated as feminines. From '"'.■;7?? was formeil the jilur. riN-nnjD.

Owing to the character of the ancient traditions embodied in the Talmudic literature, it cannot be gathered from these when the employment of the Greek word began. In the halachic tradition it makes its appearance as completely naturalized and belonging to the ancient vocabul.try of this tradition. The first historical statement in which .

Josephus employs the word cwiopiov has regard to the procedure of the Roman governor of Syria, (iabinius, who abrogated the constitution of the country of the Jews, and divided the latter into five districts, each with a syncdrion at its head {Ant. XIV. V. 4). One of these sijnedria had its seat at .Jerusalem, and was of exactly the same rank iis the others. But it is not likely that the name fir.st took root on this occasion (li.c. 57), and in coiLsecjuence of the action of Gabinius.

For if the term was fir.st employed in his decree degra<ling tlie .supreme council of Jerusalem, it would surely not have been retained when, a few years afterwards, the Sanhedrin at .lerusalem re- gained its dignity ; nor, if it had had so hateful an origin, would it have gained the popularity which is conspicuous in its employment in the national tradition, and especially in that connected with religious legisl.ation.

But a diri'ct proof of the earlier origin of our loan-word may be drawn from the Alexandrian translation of the ()T. In the LXX version of the Book of I^roverbs awdpiov is used pretty frequently : so in 1.5'" to rejjroduce -^ D in the sense of 'deliberative a.ssembly ' (cf. also ll" an<l ?)', , likewi.se Jer 15'"). In 2t)-'' '■nfiD is ren- dered by if (Tvvedploii. But .specially striking are the renderings of 22"> and 31-".

In the former of these passages the translator read f-i P'3 3-"i for [<T .-3-j"i, and rendered accordingly Srav yap KaOicrri iv cvfeSpitp, where, however, (rvpiSpiov is. as in the language of the Palestinian schools, eciuivalent to r"! •"''?. In the other passage the second half of the verse is rendered iji-ka in KaOljri iv uwdpltf nera Twv yfp6vT(ijv KaToiKuv T7}s yijs.

The addition iv avv(Spli)> is plainly occasioned by the mention of the 'ehlers' of the land, for the members of the Sanhedrin are called ^Vr.^ {irpeafiiTepoC), and the Sanhedrin it.self (see below) also bears the title yepovala. — Now we do not know when the Book of Proverbs was translated into (ireek, but in all probiibility it is included among the ' other books,' besides the Pentateuch and the Prophets, whose translation into Greek is mentioned in the Prologue to Siraih.

In that case the Greek translation of Proverlis would have been in existence as early jus B.C. 130, and (rwidpiov had been then for a long time the common property of the Jewish school speech, into which it nnist have found its way at the era of the (irieco-Syriau supremacy. ii. OlIKJIN AND HlSTOKV OK TIM'. iNSIITrTlON. — 1. It might be .i-s-sumed beforehand that the institution which received the (ireek title awiSpiov in the 2nd cent. B.C. h.

ad also an existence of some kind during the earlier centuries of the .second temple. It has been suggested that the (iltKAT SVNAOOOfE (nVnjn .-oj:), which in the school tradition (see Aboth i. 1) forma the connect- Cfutrks AtiOnci'tl ^nt» 398 SANHEDPJN SANHEDRIN irig link between the last of the Prophets ami the first teachers of the ],a\v who are named in the (jrei'k period, was nothing else than tlie supreme council of Jerusalem, afterwards called the San- hedrin.

Hut it is to be noted as a fact that the school tradiiiuu itself understands by .T^njn pdjj not an institution persisting f<n' centuries, lint that exlreniely important assembly held under Kzra and Nehemiah (Neh 8-10), which was called the 'great,' just as 1 Mac l-i"-* gives the name <ri'>'o7w77) lieyaXr) to the assembly wjiich nominated t^iinon hereditary prince and higli priest. t)f cour.se it is po.ssible that the supreme council of .

Jerusalem was thought of as the continuation of that great assi'iubly, or, rather, tluit the great assembly was thouglit of as the supreme council, the Sanhediin of the period between the last of the Prophets and the beginning of the Greek domination. Such a conception would make its ■way all tlie more readily, seeing that later tradi- tion contracted this period to a few decades.

It Would also explain the circumstance that in the Koll of Fasts (Mcgillot Taanith) the Sanhedrin is called ,s, ^i"j3 ( = noj;) in the past^age cited below. An actual trace of the highest court of justice as it existed in .Jerusalem at the close of the Persian period should perhaps be discovered in the de- scription of the college of judges which, according to 2 Ch 19', king Jehoshaphat instituted at Jeru- salem, and whose functions are specified, having regard to Dt 17*.

In this description the Chronicler had before his mind's eye the institution as it existed in Jerusalem in his own day. 2. In the records relating to the Greek period we find the supreme council of Jeitisalem bearing the designation yepovtrla. It is so named by Antiochus the Great (c. 200 B.C.) at the head of the leading classes of the .Jews who are freed from all imposts and taxes (Jos. Ant. XII. iii. 3). Antiochus v., in a letter to the Jewish people (ii.f.

104), offers greetings t^ -yepovaig. twp 'lovdaiap (2 Mac 11-"). Elsewhere, too, in the narratives of the Maccaba^an era there is mention of the yepovvta, or we find the first place assigned to the ' elders ' (oi Trpea^uTipoi) of Israel (cf. Schiirer, GJV^ ii. 102 [lUPn. i. 167]). In the Talmudic tradition the SaiUiedrin of the Hasmonoean period is called 'Nji^rrn ''•:• j<-i r^a ' house of justice of the Has- momeans' {Ahnda ziira '■UVj ; Sanhed. 82a).

Its history coincides partially with the history of the conflicts between the PllAKISEKS and S.vddi'ckes. When .John Ilyrcanus, towards the end of his reign, shook himself loose from the Pharisees and declared their enactments to be without force (Jos. Ant. -WI. xi. 1), he is not likely to have accom- ])lished this without having expelled the Pharisaic members from the Saidiedrin. There came thus into beinga 'Sadducean lSanhedrin'(:v"s ^!:r j'-nn:D; cf. a'pns '^•ff jn ri'3 of Bab. Hanhed. 52?))

, as it is called in a valuable tradition preserved in § 10 of the Koll of Fasts {MeijiUnt Taanith) which is of importance for the history of the Sanliedrin. Here it is said that on the 28th of the month Tebet : '^•; NPi'>jD nd'.t Nj'-i, i.e. 'the assembly constituted itself according to the law,' or 'the assembly sat for judgment.' According to the accompanying glo.ss, which re.

sts beyond doubt on historical tradition, this event, whose memory was thus perpetuated by an ainii- versary, took place in the reign of Janufcus, and consisted in the expulsion of the Sadducean members from the Sanhedrin, and in the constitu- tion of a new .Sanhedrin, whose deliberations were conducted on Pharisaic iirinciples, under the leadership of Simon ben Shetach. Hut this victory of the Pharisees was soon followe<l by the bitterest conflicts between them and Alexander Janiiieus.

and by the consequent supremacy of the Sadducees in the Sanhedrin, which, however, had to yield in turn to that of the Pharisees under Jann;eus' successor Salome Alexandra. In the brothers' quarrel amongst the sons oi Alexanilra, the Sanhedrin must again have played its role. This strife led to the intervention oi Rome, and not long afterwards to the above, mentioned degradation of the Sanhedrin by Ga- binius.

This degradation, however, was only transient, and soon we find the Sanhedrin sitting in judgment uiJon Herod the young son of Anti- pater {Ant. XIV. ix. 4). This memorable judicial sitting was destined to be fateful for the San- hedrin. those who took part in it falling victims to . the bloody revenge of Herod when he came to power (iV).) The institution itself Herod allowed to continue. He even utilized the Sanhedrin to get sentence of death pa.ssed upon the aged Ilyr- canus {Ant. XV. vi.

:',). 3. During the period of the Roman procurators, which was interrupted for a few years {.\.\i. 41-44) by the reign of Agrippa I., the Sanhedrin contiimed to be the supreme authority of the Jewish people. It appears as such in the NT narratives of the trial of Jesus (Mt 20^", Mk 14^^ 151, Lk 226>i, Jn IP"), as well as on other occasions in the earlv davs of Christianity (Ac 41"' r.-'-'ir. &^-«- •2-2~» 23iff- '24-'").

Jesus Himself once (Mt 5-) names the Sanhedrin as the tribunal called on to give judgment in the Ciise of capital offences. In Josephus' record of the events that occurred in the times of the last procurators and during the war against Rome, the .Sanhedrin is mentioned sometimes as avviopiov and sometimes as fSovXri. Or he speaks, .as is almost his uniform practice in his autobiography, of the kolvod tQiv 'lepo<ro\vp.iT!bv {Vita 12. 13. 38. 49. 70), or, shortly, rb Koiv6v {ib. 52.

fio), meaning by this especially tlie Sanhedrin. It was the latter that during the fir.st years of the war with Rome guided affairs and organized the struggle. But when the Zealots seized the reins of power in the besieged .Jeru- salem, they no doubt put the Sanhedrin aside. In order to procure a sentence of death upon a man who had incurred their displeasure, the Zealots assembled ad hoc a tribunal of 70. in which Josephus {B.J IV. V. 4) sees a caricature of tlie regular court.

Amongst the traditions relating to the melancholy events connected with the fall of the .Jewish State, we read not only of the destruction of the Temple but of the ' cess.ation of the Sanhedrin ' ( Snta ix. end ; Efha rahhuthi on La 5'°). ' With it,' we are told, ' ceased the joyous song of the feasts.' 4. As the Jewi.<!

h people itself, immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, began a new life in Palestine under new conditions, so also the Sanhed- rin of Jerusalem experienced a kind of resurrec- tion. At .Jabneh (Jaiiinia) an assembly of teadiers of the Law constituted itself and regarded itself as the continuation of the Great Sanhedrin. In the first instance a university or academy, but then an a.

ssembly which deliberated, which inter- preted the laws of the Jewish religion, and thus became really a legislative and judicial body. — this new Sanhedrin, as constituted at Jamnia, had many points of clo.se contact with the old council of Jerusalem. And when Jamnia cea.sed to bi' tlie central point of Jewish scribism, the Sanhedrin migrated — so the tradition expressed it {Rush hashana 31a 6, upon the .authority of R. Jochanan, t 279) — to other places, till it settled down at Tiberias.

This notion of the persistence of the Saidiedrin even after the destruction of Jerusalem, and of its continuance in the high schools of Palestine, has largely inflnenced the trjiditions about the Sanhedrin. What was true of the new institution was transferred to the ancient one, and the historical picture of the latter was thus essentially changed.

Yet it may be assumed, od SANHEDRIN SAXHEDRIN 399 the other hand, that faithful adlicreiice to tradi- tion about the ancient Saidiediin secured the retention in the new body of many peculiarities of the institution its it had existed in its last decades. In this way even the statements about the Sanhi-ilrin preserved in Tannaite tradition and in halachic theory may be treated as historical evidence.

It is hard, to be sure, to briiii; this evidence into harmony with the statements of Josephus and the NT, but all the same it is to the.se first-named witnesses that we owe our aci|uaintance with most of the features in the l^icture we are to draw of tlie character and activity of the Sanhedrin. 5. In distinction from the lesser courts of justice ■which were found in all the cities of the Jew.

s' country, the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem was called the Great Sanhedrin (nSni jmnjo or nSnj '-nnjo, the same as '■nj pn p'd). The Mishna (SanhciJ. i. ti) says on this point: 'There was a great Sanhedrin of 71 members and a little Sanhedrin of 2:!.' Aocordini; to the Tannaite Jose b. Chalaftlia, well known as a chroiiologist and a -source of historical information, there were in Jerusalem itself, besides llie Great Sanhedrin, other two little sijiti'dria.

This statement, which is coupled with informa- tion about the activity of the Sanhedrin (To.sefta, Chnijiiia ii. 0. and Sanhed. vii. 1 ; .Jerus. SanUed. I'.ic ; I5al). Sfinhi'il. 886), agrees with the anonymous statement of the Mishna (^Hanhed. xi. 2) and the Sifre (on l)t 17* § 1.52). iii. Pl.ACK OK Mketixo.

— ^The seats of the two lesser courts of justice of Jerusalem are specified in the above passages as, respectively, ' the entrance of the Temple nioimt' [in one version 'the Temple mount'], and 'the entrance of the Temple court' [in one version 'of the C'hel,' Middoth ii. ;i]. The legend of the destruction of .lerusalem (Eclia rah. I'rocem. n. 2:!, ib. on La 2- and 4''' ; Kohfl. mil. on lOc 81" ; Bab. GitdH 676) also speaks of the great and the little Sanhedrin.

— As the seat of tlie Great Sanheilrin, the Tannaite tradition (be- sides the above-cited passages, see Mishna, Peiik ii. 6, Eduijiith vii. 4) names ' the Hall of Hewn Stone' (-'tjn rx'S), which, according to Middoth V. 4, was on the south side of the great court. This hall served the priests also for the disposing by lot of their functions (.Mishna, Tamid ii. end; Tosefta, Yomn ii. 10 ; I5ab. Toma 25n), and as the place for the recitation of the Shema' (Tumid iv. end).

Arconilntr to a huraitha of llie Bab. Tahiiuil ( Yomtt ITya) the 'litill of lii-wii Stone ' was in tlio form of a 'prejil l)U^iUcu.' Itiit thi.H .sliitLMiierit iniiy httve arisen from tho (lescriptioii of tlio bH.Hilk'a at Ak-xaiiiirla In which the Sanhedrin thoro held U.s Hlttinirs (Tos. Siik'kft Iv. 6; liab. Snkkut Mh). Ahavi, a Bab. Amorn of tlie 4th cent.

, inferred ft-om the Htatements 'about Iho use of the Hull of Hewn Stone, that the latter lay half on 8acre<l f,'rotirid an<l half ontnlde tt. In any case the Hall must bu thought of as within the Temple area", and the view of .Schuror {O.rv II. 8in that P'lJn means the (varot and n'tjn pjrS the iiall by the .\'i/t/uti, and that the latter Is Identical with tlio ^ouA^ mentioned by .losejilms (/V./ v. Iv. ii). cannot hold irround.

lose|ihus irlves in this [lassace tlie situation of the jilace where the 'eoiincir (Sanhedrin ( held Its sltllnu's durlliir the last years ofthe.tewlsh State. Hut, accordlni? to a tradition which is to be refranleil as In Us kernel true, duiirii; the last years of .lerusalem the slttlnirs of the Sanhedrin were no loiicer held in the Hall of Hewn Stone, but wore removcil from it to a [ilaee called the ' trade hall ' (."Ijn, r</r. ler,. pliir.

i^'Un • trade halls '), and from there af:ntn to 'ilerusalern ' i.^hahhath l.'wf ; /lonh htiHtutna 'A\it \ .^tnhftl. 4lrt ; Ahutta zara xh\. Accordlni; to this autlirirltv the last sltlliifrs of the Sanhedrin were held outslflo the 'remplc area, In the city itself, and It Is to this situation that .Iriseiihiis' words about the |3ovAi} In the neigh- bourhood of the fuffToff refer. iv. Composition OF THKCori:T.—1.

The Great Sanhetirin consisted, according to the above-cited testimony of the Mishna, of 71 members. It is called on that account insiD'ya:''";' i>iti;d ( Slirl/iinth ii. 2), or inxi sv^." ":•-' V ^'^ (Jose b. Chalaftha, I.e. ; cf. also Mishna, Sanhed. i. 5; Tos. Sanhed. iii. 4). The derivation of this number from that of the 70 elders of Nu 11"', which with Moses amounted to 71, appears to be old (Mishiui, Sanhed. i. 6 ; Sifre on Xumhers, § 92).

It is (luestionable whether it was this derivation that determined the number of members, or whether the number already estab- lished found its sanction by thus going back to the Hible narrative. According to the above-cited statement about the basilica of Alexandria, there was in that city also a Sanhedrin of 71 members. The same number w,as retained at .Tamnia, for, as Simon b. Azzai (before A.Ii. 160) relates, there were 72 elders present, when Kleazar b.

Azarja was associated with Ciamaliel II. as president (Mishna, Zebachimi. 3; Yadaim iii. 5, iv. 2), i.e. one more than the usual number. An isolated tradition, from .Jehudah b. Uai, fixes the total membership at 70 (Mishna, Sanhed. i. 0 ; 'i"os. Sanhed. iii. 9), and the Great Sanhedrin is called accordingly z^;2y Ss' 'D (Sifre on Kuiabers, S 92). losepluis likewise cho.

se 70 of the elders of the land to constitute the supreme authority in the Iirovince of Galilee, which had been assigned to him (B.f \l. XX. v) ; and in the same way the court .set up by the Zealots (.see above, ii. 3) numbered 70 members. The vacillation of our authorities between the numbers 70 and 71 is no doubt due to the circumstance that the president might be regarded as belonghig to the total number or not. 2. We have no posiiive information as to wTio composed the Sanhedrin.

The halachic tradition on this ])oint must be regarded as theory, derived only in part from the actual condition of things. The members of the Sanhedrin were called ''Ji"!', 'elders' ( = irpc(7/3i}Tepoi ) , a name which gained its special sense from the fact that the .Sanhedrin was regarded as an institution set up by Jloses when he nominated the 70 elders (Nu 11).

It is members of the Sanhedrin that are meant when it is said that tlie preparing of the high priest for his functions on the Day of Atonement is to be attended to by jn n''3 'jpto D'jpt ( Ycima i. 3, 5). Again, I?.', is doubtless to be taken in its special •sense of member of the Sanhedrin, when the epithet li^V- is applied to Shammai, Ilillel, and liillel's grandson Gamaliel I. In the NT the members of the Sanhedrin (irpeapuTepoi^ or irpetr.

toO XaoD) are often named along with the chief priests {ipx^cpfts) and the scribes {ypafiixarcts), for the membership of the Sanhedrin was recruited from these two leading clas.ses (Schiirer, I.e. p. 200). loseplius, in whose writings the Sanhedrin is frequently called povX-//, also calls its members l}ov\evTal (BJ II. xvii. 1). This designation prob- ably accounts for one of the halls of the Temple being called 'unSia n^i-S 'hall of the povXevraU The same hall afterward.

s boro the name pitniD P3'.:'s hall of the irpotSpoi' (.Mishna, Yoma 1. 1). This last title, which lias been handed down by the Tannaite .leliudah b. llai (Itab. Yowa hO), Is <|llllo worthy of cr4'dlt. and it supports the suggestion of Sehurer that by the irpotSpot should be understood the highest In rank of the members of the Sanhedrin, the * lirst ten' of whoirl wo hear under the procurator Kestus {Ant. XX. vlll. 11, roix; npuiTovi fieittt ; cf Schiirer, I.e. p. 201 f.)

i'])on the abnve-eited authority of .Jehudah b. llai wo are told that the irporjpoi were changed every twelve months, so that the rank of ' lirst ten' was enjoyed' by dltlerent members of the Sanhedrin every year. If we. further, take Into account that the institution <if t'lie npoeSpot was of late iirlglli, we can readily understand how the above change of name for the hall also came info use.

The circumstanco that the ' hall of the frpdt£poi ' was the private residence of the high priest Is not <llllicult to ex|ilain, considering the relation of tfie high priest to tito Sanhedrin. Thi* ^oeAevrat, afterwards the Trpdefipoi. mav have assembled In the house of the high |>rlest (cf. Mt2li«, Mk ll'>=) before taking their placed In the public sitting of tliu Sanhedrin. 3. Of distinctions of r.ink within the Saidiedrin wo he.ar nothing, .apart from the above-mentioned conjecture.

Neither are we aware on what |irin- ciple the members were nominated or how the Sanhedrin filled up vacancies in its number. Onlv 400 SAKHEDRIN SANHEDRIN two, (divergent, statements have come down to us regarding the latter point, and of tliese one can refer only to the period preceding the destruction of Jerusalem, whereas the other has in view rather the school of Jamnia and its successors. Tlie first statement is found in the ahove-named narrative of Jose b.

Chalaftha, and in an anony- mous precept of the Tosefta {Shi-h-tilim, end), according to which a seat in the Sanhedrin is the last step in the career of judge. Any one who distinguished himself as a judge in his place of residence was advanced to be a member first of the one, then of the other, of the two lesser synedria at Jerusalem, and wa.s chosen finally to be a member of the Great Sanhedrin. According to the other statement (Mislma, Sanhed. iv. 4 ; Tos. SanlK'd. viii.

2), in front of the members of the Sanhedrin .sat in three rows the non-ordained scribes, and from among these any vacancies in the membership were filled up, the recpusite number being chosen and ordained according to a fixed order. It is plain that these two accounts of the filling up of vacancies relate to different periods of time.

In the first, which has in view the period before the destruction of Jerusalem, there is no mention at all of the ordination of the new mem- bers, but we find the expression 3'U'in, which means 'cause to sit,' implying simply that the new mem- ber had a seat assigned him in the Sanhedrin. This is quite intelligible, for, according to the view we are considering, those who became mem- bers of the Sanhedrin had previously officiated in the lower courts, and were thus ordained already. 4.

As to the qnaJificatUms for membership in the Sanhedrin, the oft-cited narrative of Jose b. Chalaftha gives a list of the personal qualities which the candidate for this high rank must possess. He had to be learned (a3n), humble (^vy; ; Bab. Sanhed. 88a ti3 Va:-). popidar with his fellow-men (ucn nmj pin^n nn). In the different versions of the passage there are yet further moral qualities specified. In the ancient exposition of Nu 11"' (Sifre, § '.12) it is inferred from the word i:".

s ('man') that the members must be perfect men : learned, courageous, strong, and modest. Jochanan, the Palestinian Amora of the 3rd cent., states the qualifications of a member of the San- hedrin thus : tall stature, learning, dignified bear- ing, advanced age. Further, in order to be able to meet the demands of his office, he must be acquainted with foreign languages and initiated into the my.steries of the art of magic (Bab. Sanhed. l~b).

As the high court of juatice described in 2 Ch 19^ consisted of I.evites, priests, and beads of Israelitish families,' so in the ancient exposition of Dt IT" (Sifre, tid loc, § 1.^ ad init.) it Is stated tliat the court dealing with law cases must have priests and T.evites amongst its nienibers, hut that even without tliese it miglit be legitimately composed. A rule of the Mishna {Kidihithin iv.

')) is to the elVect that an inijuiry as to purity of family descent Is not to be carried lieyond the Sanhedrin, since no'one can be a member of it whose origin is not uiu]Ues- tionable. It is actually described in another rule {Satififd. iv. 21 that iudgos in criminal cases, inclu<ling therel'ore meml>eis nf the Sanhedrin, are to be only priests, l-evites, or Israelites whose daughters may be inan-ieu by priests. V. Tin-: Pi:Ksn)KNT()F Tin; Saniif.duin'. — 1.

On this point the tr,adition-literature contains state- ments which it is ditficull or impossible to recon- cile with the report.s of Joseplius and the NT. The last are meagre, indeed, and do not give a distinct ])icture of the method of procedure in the Sanhedrin and of the action of its president. But from Joseplius we learn that in K.v. 47 the Ilas- moniean high priest and prince Hyrcanus II. called the Sanhedrin together and directed the procedure in the case of lierod (Ant. x;iv. ix. 4 f.)

, and that in A.I). (i2 the Sadducean high priest Ananus 11. summoned the Sanhedrin, in order to have some sentences of death passed {ib. xx. ix. 1). At the trial of Jesus, the high priest Caiaphas appears at the head of the Sanhed'Mn (Mt •J(i'^'), as does the high priest Anani;us at the trial of St. Paul (Ac 24'). Of such a function belonging to the high priest (cf. also 2 Ch 19'i) there is not the slightest trace in the tradition-literature.

On the contrary, it is assumed as an axiom that the Sanhedrin h.ad its own president, making up the number of members to 71 (see above). The simplest designa- tion of the president is pi ro Nr-i ' head of the hou.se of justice ' (Itonh hxishana ii. 7, iv. 4), which in the later haggadic literature is represented by p-nnjD ^£' c's-> {Pernkta rahbathi, c. xi. p. 4:ib), jmnjD 'U\s-i {TaHchiima, ed. Buber, i. 17o), 'u-si pw-nn:D (Esther rab. on l'-'). But the title that must be regarded a.

s peculiar to the president is jn n'3 3N 'father of the house of justice.' As liead of the supreme court, the 'Ab Beth Din is once named after the king (^Yoma vii. 5), once after the 'prince' (Taanilh ii. 1), by which last title is meant the head of the State, who, after the usage of the Pentateuch and especially of Ezekiel, is frequently called in the halachic literature >* ^'l 'prince'; once it is expressly said, with allusion to Lv 4, , I'^'in nt N'ti'jn int-si (Jlordijolh iii. 'A).

Now, remarkably enough, the same word n-^'j became the title of the president of the Sanhedrin. The sitting arrangements of the Satdiedrin are thus described (Tos. Sanhed. viii. 1 ; Jems. Sanhed. 19c) : 'The Sanhedrin sat in a semicircle [lit. 'like the half of a circular threshing-floor']; in the middle sat the Xasi, and the elders [i.e. the mem- bers of the Sanhedrin] sat upon his right hand and upon his left.'

This statement appears to relate to the Sanhedrin of Jamnia, for it is followed im- mediately by the reminiscences of a teacher of the Law regarding that Sanhedrin. Eleazar b. Zadok reports: 'When R. Gamaliel [Gamaliel II.] held the presidency at Jamnia, my father and another sat to the right, the others to the left.' 2. It is not till the post-Hadrianio era that the 'Ah Beth Din appears side by side with the Xasi as joint-president.

Jochanan (t 279) records — doubtless on the basis of trustworthy tradition — that R. Simon b. Gamaliel (the son of Gamaliel II.) was Nasi, wdiile R. Nathan was 'Ab Beth Din (Bab. Horaijiith 13?;). This double presidency, to designate which the two titles of the president of the Sanhedrin are utilized, is carried back, in a quite i-solated notice of the Mishna (C'haijiija ii. 2), to the time when the Temple still existed.

We are told there of a controversy about a religious law which went on for five generations, always between two teachers of the Law. The five pairs of teachers named (the last pair being Hillel and Shammai)are the same who, according to the Mishna (Aboth i. 1), were the bearers of the tradition, and who are once (Peah ii. 5) summarily designated, as such, .-'Oi; 'the I'airs.' That these pairs were the most noted teachers of their time, the Pharisaic heads of the schools of the 2nd and 1st cent.

B.C., is known to us also from other traditions about mo.st of them. But the above notice, according to which the first of the pairs was always Nasi and the second 'Ab Beth Din. must be regarded as a trans- ferring of later relations to early times. If 'pair' had the meaning attributed to it by the author of the notice, it would be incomprehensible, apart from anything else, why the series of pairs came to an eiid with Hillel and Shammai.

Nevertheless, the ' Pairs ' belonged to the leading members of the Sanhedrin, as is witnes.sed in the case, for in.stance, of Simon b. Shetach, from other quartfrs. One of the pairs, Shemayah and Abtalion, is mentioned also by Josephus as belonging to the Sanhedrin (Ant. XV. i. 1, where they appear as PoUion and Sameas). 3. Yet another transference of later relations t(» SAN H ED KIN SANHEDRIN 401 early times took place witli respect to the title Xasi.

This title, which fnnii the second half of the 2nil cent. A.I), onwards had become hereditary, was also attributed to the forefathers of its heredi- tary bearers. It was said (Bab. Shahbuth 15a) that Hillel, his son Simon, Simon's son Gamaliel, and Gamaliel's son Simon, held the position of Nasi during the last century of the second Temple (B.C. 30-A.u. 70); and the appointment of Hillel to be Nasi, i.e.

president of the Sanhedrin, is described in a narrative emanating from the Tannaite period (Tos. Pcsachim iv. end ; Jcrus. Pisai-h. 33a; Bab. J'luach. 6(;«). Both this narrative and the above chronological notice, apart from the title Xasi, have a historical foundation. For, although we hear nothing eLsc- where of Hillel's son, we know that Hillel himself, as well as his grandson Gamaliel l. and his great- grandson Simon b. Gamaliel I., were amongst the leading men in Jerusalem.

The last named was cme of the directors of the war against the Romans, as We learn from Josephus (/j./iv. iii. ); I'i7a, 38), who, moreover, mentions that he was descended from an illu.strious family. Hillel and Gamaliel I. are known not only as notable scribes, but also as the founders of institutions and enactments, which prove that they must have played a leading r61e in the supreme court, the Sanhedrin. That (ianialiel I.

, at whose feet Saul of Tarsus, the future Apostle Paul, sat as a pupil (Ac 22'), took the lead in the Sanhedrin, may be seen from the well-known narrative of Ac .3**-^^ Of course, all this does not prove that Hillel and his successors were presidents of the Sanhedrin. The statements of Josephus and the NT about the presidency of I lie high priest arc too definite to be got over, iiut.

on the other hand, we may not summarily reject the supposition that in a body, composed for llie most part of scribes and called on to decide .[ucstions which demanded an expert accjuaintance with the Law, the heads of the scribal body took the lirst place side by side with the high priests, who were only exceptionally scribes as well, and that perhaps the Pharisaic heads of schools were even formally invested with a certain rank in the Sanhedrin, approaching closely to that of president.

In IhiR way, as a matter of fact, the tltlo * father of the b'jtiM- of justice ' ('.-16 Beth I>in)may,as has been held by many iiivfjttiu'atiirs. have been In nso even at a time when tlie pre.stilent iiroper of the Sanhedrin was still the hi^jh priest. On elo.ter con.'iiderntion one cannot escape the Impression that neither at the time of the liu.smonu-au Iil;,'h priests nor at that i>( the hlt;h priests appointed by Ilcrml and by the Ifoman procurators, could the .

Sanhedrin hare been without a t'uldance not identical witll the presidency of the hiph priest. The scliool traditions re^'ardln^' the position lield by ttie I'liarlsalc scliool heads In the .Sanhedrin possess thus a kernel of Idstorical irnth. even If they are adapted to later conditions and artitlciaily constructe<I. 4. Another question is how the term Nasi, which is used for the head of the State, couhl comi^ to be the title of the president of the Sanhedrin. Two hypotheses are po.ssible.

(a) The title may go back to the time when the high priest who as such presided over the .Sanhedrin was also actually prince (■■*'?'}) or he.id of the .State, i.e. to the time of the Ilasmonfean rulers. Or (h) the title 'prince' may have been given, after the ileslruriion of Jenr^ialeni, to the president of the Sanhedrin at Jamnia, (iamaliel II.

, in order, as it were, that at least in the iiainini; of the head of the highest authority which had arisen from the ruins of the national independence, there might be |)ie.served a symbol of thai independence. The second hypothesis is the more likely, because the first wouUl imply that the title S'n.ii conliiuied unused during more than a whole century until it was revived in the way itidicated in the second explanation, after the fall of Jerusalein. 6.

Theassuinptionof the title ,Vosf by Gamaliel II. VOL. IV.— 26 and then by his son Sinxin was probably connected with the belief that the family of Hillel was descended from the Davidic royal house. There was thus cou])led with the title in an esoteric kind of way a recollection of the former princes of the house of David. It was not till the time of Gamaliel II.'s grandson Jehudah I., who was called Xa.

ii Kar' i^oxv", that the title became the official designation of the head, recognized even by the Koman government, of the Jews in Palestine, i.e. of their patriarch. Its meaning as president of the Sanhedrin then fell into the second i)lace. vi. FiscTloxs AND Pi:oci;i)Li;i;. — 1. The Grea/ Sanhedrin at .

Jerusalem was primarily the supreme court of justice, which had either the sole right of judgment in certain specially important matters, or was appealed to on questions upon which the lower courts were unable to come to a decision. As to this last point, we learn from the oft-cited report of Jose b. Chalaftha (Tos. Saiihcd. vii. 1 and parall.)

the following: 'When the lirst competent tribunal failed to come to a finding, the litigant, accompanied by the most distinguished member t)f this court, betook himself to Jeru-salem to submit his case in the first place to the two lesser si/netlria (see above). If neither of these could come to a decision, the question came for final judgment before the Great Sanhedrin.'

There can be no doubt that a kernel of historical truth underlies this description of the train of judicial procedure (see also Mishna, Sanlied. xi. 2). — In regard to cases reserved for the sole competence of the Great Sanhedrin, the Mishna (Sauhed. i.

5) enumerates the following points upon which only the ' tribunal of the seventy-one ' was entitled to judge and i)ro- nouuce a verdict : (1) A process affecting a tribe ; (2) the process against a false prophet ; (3) a pro- cess affecting the high priest ; (4) the sending out of the army to a non-compulsory war ; (5) the extension of the city of Jerusalem ; (0) the exten- sion of the Temple courts ; (7) the appointment of sijui'dritt over the tribes ; (8) the judging of a city which had lapsed into idolatry (.

see Dt 13'^"'). Witli reference to the fourth point, it is enacted also amongst the decrees affecting the king, that the latter is to lead the army out to war only upon the authority of a decision of the (ii'eat Sanhedrin (Mi.shna, tS'anlicd. ii. 4). The eight points bear, indeed, a theoretical stamp, and even presu]>pose the continued existence of the tribes (the first of them has for background the naiTative of Jg 20 f.) ; but, on the other hand, they witness that, even in hal.

achio theory, the Great Sanhedrin figures not merely as a court of justice, but also as the body that was called on to give decisions in State matters and which exei'cised administrative autho- rity, in the fa.shion exhibited to us by the state- ments and nan-atives, meagre as they are, contained in other sources. A Tannaite rule (Tos. Sniihed. iii. 4) pre.scribes that the in.stallation of a king and of a liigh priest is to belong only to the tribunal of the seventy-one. 2.

Cases" affecting life and death came, according to the Mishna {tSnnhed. i. 4), before the little Sanhedrin (of 23 members). As a matter of fact, in important instances the Great Sanhedrin was called together to pronounce judgment. Accord- ing to a Tannaite tradition (Jerus. Saiihed. 18«, 24/)), the right of judging in matters of life and ileath was t.aken from Israel (i.e. from the Jewish courts) forty years before the destruction of the Temple. ' Forty ' here is a round number and un- hi.

storical, but the circumstance related by this tradition and confirmed by the Gospel accounts of the trial of Jesus is historical, and is connected with the restrictions impo.sed on the competence of the Jewish courts, and of the Great Sanhedrin in particular, in the time of the Roman procurators. 402 SANHEDRIX SAPHUTHI :'..

The decisions of tlie Great Sanbeilrin 'from which wt'iit forth direction for all Israel,' were of inviolable force, and binilinj; uijou all teachers of the Law and all judges. Any one of these who gave a judgment in opposition to its decrees was called a 'rebellious elder' (rn^n jpi), and was con- dennied by the tireat Sanhedrin (Sanhed. xi. 2—4). The rules for dealing with occa.

sional errors of the Sanhedrin in giving decisions or in interiireting the Law are casuistically exhibited in the first chapter of the Mishiiic tract llnniyoth. 4. The Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem sat in the Hall of Hewn Stone (see above, iii.) Accord- ing to the report of Jose b. Chalaftha, it held its sittings from the time of the offering of the daily morning sacrifice till that of the evening sacrifice (Tos. Sanhcd. vii. 1, and parall.)

On the Sabbath and on feast days no sittings were held, but the members of the Sanhedrin assembled in the school situated on the temple mount (('i.; in Bab. Snnlicd. 88/>, instead of the ■ schocil ' [p'2 inj::' c'-nsn p>3] it is the place called Che.l, where at other times [see above, iii.] one of the two lesser synedria held its sittings). The members of the Sanhedrin sat in a semicircle, that tliey might see one another while deliberating (Mishna, Sanhcd. iv. 2 ; Tos. Sfiiihed. viii. 1).

' Two clerks of court (fJ""'^ ■■idid) stood before them, the one to the right and the other to the left, and took down the wi^rds of those who gave their voice for acquittal and of those who were for condemnation ' (Mishna, Saithed. iv. 2). According to Jehudah b. Ilai (H/.) there were three clerks : one took down the votes for ac(|uittal, one those for condenniation, while the third took down botli (in order to check the lists of the other two). In the report of Jose b.

Chalaftha it is said that, when a question came before the Great Sanhedrin, and the reply could not be given on the ground of a tradition, it was tlecided by the votes of the majority. As to the mode of deliberating and voting and the distinc- tions which were oKserved according to the nature of the subject under consideration, tradition con- tains a multitude of rules which, it may safely be inferred, are based upon the actual praxis of the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem.

Some of these rules may be cited : — In questions of civil riglit and in those affecting the Ceremonial Law, the taking of the vote began with the principal mem- ber of the Sanhedrin ; in judgments affecting life and death it began 'at the side.' i.e. with the younger members, in order that their vote might not be influenced b}' that of the leaders (Mishna, Sanhad. iv. 2 ; 'l"os. Sanhrd. vii. 2). For a judg- ment affecting life and death an attendance of at leiust 23 members w;is reiiuired.

If the result of the vote showed a majority of only one for 'guilty,' the court had to be increased by two successively till the number of 71 was reached. Only when the full number was present, was a majority of one (.'(! votes against ;!5) .suflicient to procure a con- demnation (Mishna, Saithed. iv. 0). vii. L,\Ti;sT IIISTOUY OF THE SANIIKDr.IN. — The Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem, as we have already said, revived, after the fall of Jerusalem, in the schools of Palestine.

The activity of the college of scribes, in which the tradition of the I'harisaic schools was perpetuated and underwent vigorous development, attached itself to the work of the defunct supreme court of Jerusalem, and it strengthened its authority by adopting the name and the constitution of the Great Sanhedrin. Down to the 5th cent., i.e.

down to the cessation of the office of patriarch or Nasi, which was heredi- tary in the house of Hillel, tliere existed in the Holy Land an institution which could be regarded as a continuation of the Great Sanhedrin.

After Babylon became the one centre of Jewish learning in the time of the Gaons, the name ' Sanhedrin' was given to the most eminent members of the so- calle<l Kalla iussemblies, the 70 scholars who sat in the first seven rows and who at all events were chosen upon a fixed principle. Even recent times have witnessed a revival of the name of the ancient Sanhedrin. In the year 1807, at the summons of Xapoleon I. there met in I'aris an as.

sembly of representatives of Judaism, which at the invitation of the Emperor himself took the name 'Sanhedrin," and constituted itself upon the traditional model of the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem. Apart from a few declarations as to the relation of the Jewish religion to State law and of Jews to non-Jews, this assembly has left no permanent traces. LlTERATCRE.

— In all accounts of Jewish history at the time of the seeond temple, as well as in the Histories of NT times, the Sanhedrin is treated of in more or less detail. The sources aro the wriliups of Josephus and the NT on the one band, and the Jewish tradition-literature on the other. Amongst the latter the name Sanhedrin is attached to the tracts of the Mishna and Tosefta dealinf^ with .iustice and its administration, as well as to the correspondinj; tracts of the Jems, and Bab. Talmuds.

Of the Literature cited by SchCircr tfrVP' ii. ISsf.) the following works and treatises, dealing specially with the .Sanhedrin, may be selected for mention : Selden, rf« 5i/w#rfri/« et Prcefecturi8J\iri<licU veterum Ehrwornm. Lond. 1650-65; .Sachs, ' Ueber die Zeit der Kntstehung des Synhedrins' (in Frankel's ZeitHclirift, 1&45, pp. 801-3K') ; Levy, 'Die Pra'si- deutur iai Synedrium ' (in Krankel's Momi/i.M-fn'ifi. 1S55) ; Langen.

'Das jfidische Synedrium und die ri'Miische Procura- turin Judiia' (in Tuhlng^r Theofoffische Quaytalsvhrift. 1S62, pp. 411—1(1.3); Kuenen, ' T'eber dieZusammensetzung des Sanhe- drin ' {Gesam. Ahhaiidl. z. bihl. WiKSciiSfh., Budde's tr. pp. 4!l-SIl; D. Hoffmann. 'Der ober.sle tterichtshof in der Stadt des Ileiligthums ' {Profinn/tm deft lidlihiiier'Semintires zu BeyUn for 1 s7T-TS); ,IeUki.

Die in lu re Ein richtuu'jdefi grottsen Siftiedrionft zu Jernyiihin niid Hire Entt^efzuiiu i)/t yjiuteren piildxtinenHitichen Lehrhatffte bin zitr Zeit des Jl. Jehuda ha- Xusi. Breslau. 1S04. Not mentinned by Schurer is a work in Hebrew by the well-known Jakob lleif'mann, entitled piinjD ^01 iwges)," published at Berditsehcw In ISSS. W. BACKER.