Sanhedrin

Or BETHDIN, house of judgment, was a council of seventy senators among the Jews, usually with the addition of the high priest as president, who determined the most important affairs of the nation. It is first mentioned by Josephus in connection with the reign of John Hyrcanus II, B. C. 69, and is supposed to have originated after the second temple was built, during the cessation of the prophetic office, and in imitation of Moses’ council of seventy elders, Num 11:16-24 . The room, in which they met, according to the rabbins, was a rotunda, half of which was built without the temple, that is, without the inner court of Israel, and half within, the latter part being that in which the judges sat. The Nasi, or president, who was generally the high-priest, sat on a throne at the end of the hall; the vice-president, or chief counselor, called Ab-bethdin, at his right hand; and the sub-deputy, or Hakam, at his left; the other senators being ranged in order on each side. Most of the members of this council were priests or Levites, though men in private stations of life were not excluded. See SADDUCEES.\par The authority of the Sanhedrin was very extensive. It decided causes brought before it by appeal from inferior courts; and even the king, the high priest, and the prophets, were under its jurisdiction. The general affairs of the nation were also brought before this assembly, particularly whatever was in any way connected with religion or worship, Mar 14:55 15:1 Mal 4:7 5:41 6:12. Jews in foreign cities appear to have been amenable to this court in matters of religion, Mal 9:2 . The right of judging in capital cases belonged to it, until this was taken away by the Romans a few years before the time of Christ, Joh 18:31 . The Sanhedrin was probably the "council" referred to by our Lord, Mat 5:22 . There appears also to have been and inferior tribunal of seven members, in every town, for the adjudication of less important matters. Probably it is this tribunal that is called "the judgment" in Mat 5:22 .\par

San’hedrin. (from the Greek, sunedrion, "a council-chamber", commonly, but in correctly, Sanhedrim). The supreme council of the Jewish people, in the time of Christ and earlier.

The origin of this assembly is traced, in the Mishna, to the seventy elders whom Moses was directed, Num 11:16-17, to associate with him, in the government of the Israelites; but this tribunal was, probably, temporary, and did not continue to exist, after the Israelites had entered Palestine. In the lack of definite historical information as to the establishment of the Sanhedrin, it can only be said in general that the Greek etymology of the name seems to point to a period, subsequent to the Macedonian supremacy in Palestine. From the few incidental notices, in the New Testament, we gather that it consisted of chief priests, or the heads of the twenty-four classes, into which the priests were divided, elders, men of age and experience, and scribes, lawyers, or those learned in the Jewish law. Mat 26:57; Mat 26:59; Mar 15:1; Luk 22:66; Act 5:21.

The number of members is usually given as 71. The president of this body was styled nasi, and was chosen in account of his eminence, in worth and wisdom. Often, if not generally, this pre-eminence was accorded to the high priest. The vice-president, called, in the Talmud, the "father of the house of judgment," sat at the right hand of the president. Some writers speak of a second vice-president, but this is not sufficiently confirmed. While in session, the Sanhedrin sat in the form of half-circle.

The place in which the sessions of the Sanhedrin were ordinarily held was, according to the Talmad, a hall called Gazzith, supposed, by Lightfoot, to have been situated in the southeast corner of one of the courts near the Temple building. In special exigencies, however, it seems to have met in the residence of the high priest. Mat 26:3. Forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and consequently, while the Saviour was teaching in Palestine, the sessions of the Sanhedrin were removed from the hall, Gazzith, to a somewhat greater distance from the Temple building, although still on Mount Moriah. After several other changes, its seat was finally established at Tiberias, where it became extinct, A.D. 425.

As a judicial body, the Sanhedrin constituted a supreme court, to which belonged, in the first instance, the trial of false prophets, of the high priest and other priests, and also of a tribe fallen into idolatry. As an administrative council, it determined other important matters. Jesus was arraigned before this body as a false prophet, Joh 11:47, and Peter, John, Stephen and Paul, as teachers of error and deceivers of the people. From Act 9:2, it appears that the Sanhedrin exercised a degree of authority, beyond the limits of Palestine. According to the Jerusalem Gemara, the power of inflicting capital punishment was taken away from this tribunal , forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem. With this, agrees the answer of the Jews to Pilate. Joh 19:31. The Talmud also mentions a lesser Sanhedrin of twenty-three members, in every city in Palestine, in which were not less than 120 householders.

Sanhedrin formed from the Greek sunedrion. Sanhedrin is the Chaldee form. (See COUNCIL.)

SANHEDRIN.—The supreme council and high court of justice in Jerusalem during the Greek and Roman periods.

1. Names and Composition

(a) Of the whole body: (α) Greek: (1) συνέδριον, so first, in point of historical reference, in Josephus Ant. xiv. ix. 3–5, and thereafter frequent in Josephus and NT. (2) γερουσία, first, in point of reference, in Ant. xii. iii. 3; frequent in OT Apocrypha: once in NT, Act 5:21* (cf. below). (3) βουλή, fairly frequent in Josephus, especially in the BJ, but NT never uses βουλή in this sense, though βουλευτής is used of Joseph of Arimathaea in Mar 15:43 and Luk 23:50. (4) πρεσβυτέριον, Luk 22:66, Act 22:5. (5) Josephus also uses τὸ κοινόν, or κοινὸν τῶν Ἰεροσολυμιτῶν, esp. in the Vita, with special reference to the Sanhedrin. (β) Hebrew: (1) In the Talmudic literature the commonest word is סַנְהָדְרִין, a transliteration of συνέδριον, also written סַנֶּדְרַין, and even סַנְהֶדְרֵי, from which again plurals were formed סַנְהֶדְרָיוֹת, or סַנְהָדְרָאוֹת (cf. Jastrow, Dict. of Talmud, 1005). Variations are סַנְהֶדְרִין גְּדוֹלָה and סַנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶהָד. (2) בֵּית דַּין הַגָּדוֹל. (3) On Hasmonaean coins הָבֶר ‘collegium,’ is associated with the reigning high priest, and presumably designates the Sanhedrin.

These names throw light upon the composition and functions of the court. συνέδριον suggests a court of justice, and so, still more explicitly, does בֵּית דִּין. γερουσία is a term applied only to aristocratic eouncils, and the Hasmonaean חָבֶר suggests an aristoeratic body associated with the monarch.* [Note: Act 5:21 presents a certain difficulty in its use of the phrase τὀ συνεδριον καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γερουσὶκν. According to this, the γερουσἰα would have a wider meaning than συνέδριον, whereas in OT Apocrypha it is the regular word for συνέδριον. The identity of the two terms can hardly he doubted, as there is no evidence of the existence of any other court to which the name γερουσία might he applied. As it is unnatural to take καἰ in an explanatory sense (= i.e.) here, it must be supposed that the author used one of the words loosely, regarding συνἐδριον as an inner circle within the general court. Possibly he wished to emphasize the fact that on this occasion not only the necessary quorum but the whole council of 71 members was summoned.]

(b) Of its component parts. Quite as suggestive are the names of the various classes of members of the court. The principal expressions, ignoring minor variations, are οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς, οἱ ἄρχοντες, οἱ πρεσβύτεροι, οἱ δυνατοί, οἱ πρῶτοι, οἱ γνώριμοι, οἱ γραμματεῖς. Some of these terms are interchangeable, or nearly so, and they fall into three main classes. (1) Most important of all were the ἀρχιερεῖς, the chief priests, the members of the sacerdotal aristocraey. In Josephus and NT they are almost invariably mentioned first when the names of the classes composing the Sanhedrin are given (cf. Mat 27:41; Josephus BJ ii. xvii. 2, and frequently). Often they are the only class particularly mentioned (cf. Mar 14:55 οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ ὅλον τὸ συνέδριον). The high priest was president of the court according to Josephus and NT (cf. Act 5:17, which testifies not only to the presidency of the high priest, but also to the fact that the priestlyparty was Sadducee; cf. also Josephus Ant. xiv. ix. 3–5, and other passages from both sources). This is in agreement with the general constitution of the post-exilic Jewish community, in which civil-as well as religious authority was in the hands of the high priest. The priestly nobility were the leading persons in the community, and they were the most conspicuous members of the Sanhedrin. See Chief Priests, High Priest. The ἄρχοντες may be roughly identified with the ἀρχιερεῖς as the ‘rulers’ of the community. Occasionally they are mentioned where one would expect ἀρχιερεῖς: so frequently in Josephus (cf. Act 4:5 τοὺς ἄρχοντας καὶ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους καὶ τοὺς γραμματεῖς, Act 4:8 ἄρχοντες τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ πρεσβύτεροι || Act 4:23 οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι). Very occasionally, however, the ἄρχοντες are mentioned alongside of the ἀρχιερεῖς (cf. Luk 23:13), showing that the term might be used loosely for ‘leaders’ or ‘rulers.’ (2) πρεσβύτερο = וִקֵנִים, in the first instance a general name for the principal men of the community, and so, apparently, a general designation of members of the Sanhedrin (cf. πρεσβυτέριον). But in actual practice it describes those members who were neither ἀρχιερεῖς nor γραμματεῖς. The πρεσβύτεροι made common cause with the ἀρχιερεῖς against the γραμματεῖς, i.e. they belonged in general to the Sadducee party (cf. Act 23:1-14). With this class may be identified the δυνατοί, πρῶτοι, or γνώριμοι (unless qualified in some way, as, γνώριμοι τῶν Φαρισαίων). Josephus frequently uses δυνατοί along with ἀρχιερεῖς, evidently as the equivalent of πρεσβύτεροι. They were the secular nobility of Jerusalem, closely allied to the sacerdotal aristocracy. (3) οἱ γραμματεῖς, the scribes, a class which hardly requires description here. In the main they formed the Pharisee element in the Sanhedrin, though individual members of the other classes may have been Pharisees, and many Pharisees, adhering to the scribal party, were not themselves professional scribes. See Scribes.

These names indicate with sufficient clearness the general character and composition of the court. It was an aristoeratic assembly and high court of justice, in which, alongside of the priestly nobility and the noble families outside the priestly circle, representatives of the more numerous Pharisee party found a place, the Sadducee element, however, retaining the weight of influence.

As to the method of appointment to the Sanhedrin, nothing definite can be gathered from the Greek sources. According to the Mishna, new members were appointed by the court itself. At first, membership was confined to the aristocratic families. Subsequently the political rulers of the country seem to have appointed members by their own authority in some cases at least (cf. Salome’s introduction of a Pharisee element).

The Greek sources agree in giving one picture of the Sanhedrin, while the Mishnic representation is radically different. That the representations are mutually irreconcilable, and that of the Greek sources is preferable in all respects, is now generally recognized by scholars, and the point requires to be stated rather than argued here. According to the Greek sources, as appears from the above, the Sanhedrin was composed of chief priests, elders, and scribes, and was presided over by the high priest. The chief priests and elders belonged in general to the Sadducee party, while the scribes formed the Pharisee element, which, however influential among the people, was seldom in the ascendant in the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was thus a political assembly and court of justice, representing in the main the aristocratic elements in the Jewish community. According to the Mishnic literature, on the other hand, it was a court of Rabbis, presided over by the leading Rabbi of the time, in which the priestly element as such does not appear, while the Sadducees are mentioned only as heretics to be refuted. The presiding Rabbi bears the title Nasi (otherwise a political title), and another, apparently the vice-president, is called Ab-beth-din. It was an ecclesiastical rather than a political assembly. The irreconcilability of the two representations is most marked in the answer they give to the question, Who was the President of the Sanhedrin? We have lists of Rabbis filling the offices of Nasi and Ab-beth-din during the two centuries preceding the destruction of Jerusalem, whereas the Greek sources furnish explicit evidence that during this period the high priest presided. Where individual names are mentioned in both sources the contradiction is very evident: e.g. Gamaliel was president according to the Mishna, but in Act 5:34 he appears simply as Φαρισαιος ὀνοματι Γαμαλιήλ. The Greek sources are contemporary, while the Mishna is late and was compiled under totally changed conditions. The account given in the Greek sources accords with all that is known of the constitution and history of the Jewish community, from the Maccabaean revolt to the destruction of Jerusalem. Further, the evidence they furnish, while perfectly explicit, is largely incidental, proceeding from no theory, but simply reflecting the actual state of affairs. There is no trace of ‘tendency,’ and no motive for misrepresentation. On the other hand, the Mishnic account is true only of the reconstituted Sanhedrin which sat at Jamnia after the destruction of Jerusalem and the disappearance of the old aristocratic and Sadducee element. The character of this Sanhedrin, which bore little more resemblance to the older court than the ‘Sanhedrin’ which Napoleon endeavoured to establish, was transferred to the assembly of which we have accurate descriptions in the contemporary Greek sources. How far the Mishna has preserved reliable traditions on points of detail connected with the Sanhedrin is not easy to determine. Considerable use is often made of it even by those who admit the superiority of the Greek sources (cf. Bacher, art. ‘Sanhedrin’ in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ). In view, however, of the chasm which the destruction of Jerusalem made in the constitution and history of Judaism, and the radically false conception of the Sanhedrin which appears in the Mishnic tradition, statements based on the unsupported authority of the Mishna must be regarded as little better than conjectures.

2. History.—The Mishnic tradition connects the Sanhedrin with Moses’ seventy elders, then with the alleged Great Synagogue of Ezra’s time, then with such names of leading Rabbis as had escaped oblivion (cf. opening sections of Pirke Aboth), and so gives the Sanhedrin of Jamnia an appearance of historical continuity with the past. In point of fact, however, the Sanhedrin emerges into authentic history first in the Greek period. It must have existed earlier, but its origin is covered by the darkness which obscures all Jewish history from the time of Nehemiah (and even earlier) till the Maccabaean rising. The post-exilic Jewish community was nominally a theocracy, enjoying a certain measure of independence under foreign rule. At its head was the high priest, who was assisted by a γερουσία consisting chiefly of members of the aristocratic sacerdotal caste. The administration of secular affairs tended to produce in this caste a certain worldliness, a more or less exclusive interest in worldly business and culture, and consequently a readiness to fall under the influence of Hellenism. Passively opposed to them were the Hăsîdîm, the pious students of the Law and the legal tradition, whose interests and aspirations were exclusively religious and ecclesiastical. When the crisis came under Antiochus Epiphanes, the aristocratic caste, and consequently the γερουσία, or Sanhedrin, was in the main ready to yield completely to the pressure of an enforced Hellenism. The Hăsîdîm continued to offer steadfast but passive resistance to the persecutor. There arose, however, a third group, consisting of men who, while not specially in sympathy with the Hăsîdîm, wished to maintain the ancient religion and also the liberties of the people. The Hasmonaean family led them in armed revolt, and under the skilful leadership of Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers they not only regained religious liberty, but achieved the political independence of the Jewish State, of which the Hasmonaeans and their loyal followers became the rulers. The old aristocracy was practically destroyed, and the remnants of it were forced to acquiesce in the rule of the new dynasty. The Hăsîdîm, who had supported the Hasmonaeans until liberty of religion was secured, drifted away from them as the political aspect of the struggle became more prominent, and resumed towards them the same attitude of passive opposition which had characterized their relation to the older aristocracy. They were especially incensed at the Hasmonaean assumption of the title and functions of the high-priesthood, which they regarded as usurpation and as a secularizing of the theocracy. At the time of John Hyrcanus, therefore, the Sanhedrin consisted of adherents of the Hasmonaean dynasty—the new aristocracy combined with the remnants of the old, representing two of the three elements of the later court, the chief priests and the elders—and was overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, Sadducee. The Pharisees, the representatives of the earlier Hăsîdîm, stood aloof, and devoted themselves to the cultivation of their moral and religious influence with the people. It became necessary to conciliate them, and Hyrcanus made an effort to do so.* [Note: Josephus (Ant. xiii. x. 5–6) relates a story which tells how Hyrcanus broke with the Pharisees, to whom he had hitherto been attached, and went over to the Sadducees. But a critical examination of the story, and a comparison of its presuppositions with the previous history as related in 1 Mac., show that what took place was not a breach with the Pharisees, but an unsuccessful attempt to conciliate them. There is no evidence that they sat in the Sanhedrin before Salome’s change of policy. Cf. Wellhausen, Pharisäer und Sadducäer.] But their terms were too high. They demanded that Hyrcanus should resign the high-priesthood, and thus destroy the constitution and government which his father and uncles had established. His refusal to concede the demand made the opposition of the Pharisees to the ruling party more acute, and under Alexander Jannaeus there was open war. The Sanhedrin, composed as it was of the Hasmonaean nobility, supported Jannaeus. But the attitude of the people showed that the Pharisees could no longer with safety be left in opposition. Salome reversed the policy of her predecessors, and admitted them to a share in the government—for a time the dominant share—and to the Sanhedrin.

From that time onwards the Sanhedrin consisted of chief priests, elders, and scribes. It was a house divided against itself, and the bitter conflicts of Sadducee and Pharisee contributed in no small degree to the confusion and decay of the century and a half preceding the destruction of Jerusalem. The path of the Romans and of the Herodian house was made smooth by the inability of the Sanhedrin to act in unity and lead a united people. Pompey abrogated the kingship, but left the high priest at the head of the people and of the Sanhedrin, as heretofore. Gabinius went further, and established five συνέδρια in place of the single court, thus largely destroying its influence (57–55 b.c.). Some years later, however, the Sanhedrin was restored to its former position, and resumed the exercise of authority over the whole Jewish territory. Herod is stated to have commenced his reign with a massacre of the members of the Sanhedrin (Josephus Ant. xiv. ix. 4). According to another account (ib. xv. i. 2), he put to death 45 members of the party of Antigonus. His object was to destroy the influence of the Sadducee nobility, his consistent opponents and only possible rivals. With the same object in view, he reduced the dignity and importance of the high-priesthood by making it no longer hereditary and tenable for life, and by frequent changes. Under his rule the Sanhedrin had but little influence,—less probably than at any other time. Herod’s death was followed by the dismemberment of his kingdom, and the authority of the Sanhedrin ceased to extend beyond the limits of Judaea.

The government of the Roman procurators was on the whole favourable to the Sanhedrin. They had not the Herodian jealousy of the local nobility, and were content to leave considerable powers of internal control in their hands. Josephus and the NT bear witness to the influence and authority of the Sanhedrin during this period. So long as it retained control of the people, there was a fair measure of peace and good government. Ultimately, however, the people, under the influence of the Zealots, became unmanageable, and, against the advice of the older and more experienced aristocrats, embarked on the fatal revolt against the Roman authority. Even then the Sanhedrin, had it been left to itself, might have saved Jerusalem from total destruction. But the Zealots usurped its authority, rid themselves of those who counselled moderation, and inaugurated a Reign of Terror, which was terminated only by the entry of the Roman troops into the city.

Under the totally new conditions which prevailed after the destruction of Jerusalem, a new court established itself, bearing the name ‘Sanhedrin,’ but differing in essential features from the older body. The new Sanhedrin had no political authority, and was composed exclusively of Rabbis, whose discussions and decisions were mainly theoretical. It exercised considerable judicial authority over the Jewish people, owing to its moral influence, but was quite without governmental importance. The real Sanhedrin fell with the city.

3. Functions and authority.—The trustworthy sources give only incidental indications of the functions of the Sanhedrin and the extent of its authority. The changes in the constitution, also, from the time of the Maccabaean rising to the fall of the city, were so great and so frequent, that it is difficult to say how much authority was actually vested in the Sanhedrin at any one time. Under the Hasmonaeans it must have been considerable, both in administration and jurisdiction, though the stronger kings, like Jannaeus, may have ruled very independently. It was much more limited under the Herodian kings, whose authority was quite independent of the Jewish constitution. By the Romans the constitution was as far as possible respected, and the Sanhedrin, though subordinate to the Roman authority, had again considerable powers, perhaps greater than at any other time. The system of short tenure of the high-priestly office would throw more influence into the hands of the permanent body. In these later days, also, its moral authority over the Jewish people was much wider than its actual power. Territorially its actual authority extended under the procurators over Judaea only. On the other hand, its recommendations were regarded by orthodox Jews outside Judaea as possessing the force of commands (cf. Act 9:2). In general, it may be said that under the procurators the Sanhedrin exercised such authority as was not either within the competence of local councils or reserved by the Romans, and that, while it had considerable powers of police administration and in the levying of taxes, and a certain responsibility for the maintenance of order, its main function was that of a supreme judicial tribunal. Except in the case of capital sentences, its authority was absolute, and it had the power to carry its decisions into effect. An effective sentence of death could be pronounced only by the procurator’s court. The stoning of Stephen (Act 7:57 ff.) without the sanction of the procurator was an illegal act, not an execution but a ‘lynching.’ In the case of one offence, that of profanation of the sanctuary, even Roman citizens might be tried and condemned by the Sanhedrin, subject, of course, to the procurator’s revision of the capital sentence. In spite, however, of the constitutional powers conceded to the Sanhedrin, the Roman authority was always absolute, and the procurator or the tribune of the garrison could not only summon the Sanhedrin and direct it to investigate a matter, but could interfere and withdraw a prisoner from its jurisdiction, as was done in the case of St. Paul (Act 22:30; Act 23:23 ff.).

4. Sessions and procedure.—The Sanhedrin could sit on any day except the Sabbath and holy days; and as sentence of death could be pronounced (according to the Mishna) only on the day after a trial on a capital charge, such charges were not heard on the day preceding a Sabbath or holy day. The place of meeting is called by Josephus the βουλή, and was near the Xystus, which appears to be indicated in the Mishnic לִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית ‘hall of hewn stone’ (cf. Schürer, GJV [Note: JV Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes.] ^{3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} , ii. 211). It was close to the upper city, but not in it, as it was destroyed by the Romans before they had reduced the upper city (Josephus BJ vi. vi. 3). The references in NT to meetings of the Sanhedrin (cf. Acts 23) show that its proceedings might be enlivened by stirring debates, and by the stormy scenes which occasionally take place even in the most dignified political assemblies. In the case of ordinary trials, the procedure may have resembled that described in the Mishna. According to its account, the proceedings were conducted according to strict rules, and the members gave judgment in regular order. Twenty-three members formed a quorum, and while a bare majority might acquit, a majority of two was necessary to secure condemnation. If a majority of one gave a verdict of guilty, more members were summoned, until either the requisite majority was obtained for a legal verdict, or the full number of seventy-one members was reached, when a majority of one was decisive on either side.

The accounts of the trial of Jesus present considerable difficulty, and it is not easy to accommodate them to the regular procedure of the Sanhedrin. See art. Trial of Jesus Christ.

Literature.—This is extensive, comprising all Histories of the Jews during the period b.c. 200–a.d. 70, as well as the relevant articles in all Bible Dictionaries, and some special works. The most useful and accessible comprehensive statement is that of Schürer, GJV [Note: JV Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes.] ^{3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} ii. 188–214 [HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] ii. i. 163 ff.]. The most illuminating account of the history and composition of the Sanhedrin is Wellhausen, Pharisäer und Sadducäer. To these may be added Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible , art. ‘Sanhedrin’ (Bacher); EBi [Note: Bi Encyclopaedia Biblica.] , artt. ‘Synedrium’ (Canney), and ‘Government’ (Benzinger), § 28–31.

C. H. Thomson.

("Court"):

By: Wilhelm Bacher, Jacob Zallel Lauterbach

Name of a treatise of the Mishnah, Tosefta, and both Talmudim. It stands fourth in the order Neziḳin in most editions, and is divided into eleven chapters containing seventy-one paragraphs in all. It treats chiefly of courtsand their powers, of qualifications for the office of judge, and of legal procedure and criminal law.

Ch. i: Cases which are brought before a court of three judges (§§ 1-3), before a small sanhedrin of twenty-three members (§ 4), or before the Great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem consisting of seventy-one, or, according to R. Judah, of seventy members (§ 5); origin of the requirement that there should be seventy (or seventy-one) members in the Great Sanhedrin, and twenty-three in the smaller body; minimum number of inhabitants entitling a city to a sanhedrin (§ 6).

Contents Ch. i.-v.

Ch. ii.: Rights of the high priest (§ 1); rights and duties of the king, who may neither judge nor be judged, and may declare war only with the consent of the Great Sanhedrin; his share of the booty; he may not accumulate treasure for himself; he must have a copy of the Torah made for himself; the reverence due him (§§ 2-5).

Ch. iii.: Suits involving money which are decided by arbitrators; cases in which one party may reject the judge selected or the witness cited by the other party; persons debarred from acting either as judges or as witnesses (§§ 1-5); examination of witnesses, each of whom is questioned separately, with a subsequent comparison of their testimony (§ 6); announcement of the verdict by the president of the board; no judge may say to either party: "I wished to acquit thee, but I was overruled by the majority of my colleagues" (§ 7); if he who loses the case later produces written testimony or a witness in his favor, the sentence is reversed (§ 8).

Ch. iv.: Difference in the proceedings and in the number of judges between trials in which money is involved and criminal cases in which the life of the defendant is in jeopardy, the former being conducted before three judges and the latter before a sanhedrin of twenty-three members (§§ 1-2); the sanhedrin sat in a semicircle, so that all the members might see one another, while the clerks recorded the reasons which the judges gave either for acquittal or for condemnation (§ 3); three rows of scholars versed in the Law sat in front of the sanhedrin, one or more of them being called upon at need to fill the bench, in case a quorum of judges was not present (§ 4); address to the witnesses in criminal cases, reminding them of the value of a human life; in this connection it is said that Adam is called the ancestor of the whole human race, in order that no one might superciliously say to his fellow man: "My great grandfather was more important than thine " (§ 5).

Ch. v.: Examination of the witnesses regarding the time, place, and circumstances of the case, and the coherency of the testimony given; consultation and mode of procedure on the part of the judges (§§ 1-5).

Contents Ch. vi.-xi.

Ch. vi.: How the condemned man is led to the place of execution; proclamation of the verdict, so that a reversal may be possible at the last moment if proofs of innocence are produced (§ 1); the condemned man is exhorted to confess his sins that he may atone for them by his death (§ 2); method of stoning to death, and cases in which those who are stoned are hanged after death, and the manner of hanging (§§ 3-4); burial-place of those who have been executed, and the demeanor of their relatives (§§ 5-6).

Ch. vii.: The four methods of capital punishment—stoning, burning, beheading, and strangling—and the manner of each (§§ 1-3); crimes punishable by stoning (§§ 4-11).

Ch. viii.: The circumstances in which a stubborn and rebellious son (comp. Deut. xxi. 18 et seq.) is regarded and sentenced as such (§§ 1-4); the stubborn son, like the burglar (comp. Ex. xxii. 1), is treated with severity in order that he may be prevented from committing greater crimes; in this connection the cases are given in which one about to commit a crime may be killed to prevent its commission (§§ 5-7).

Ch. ix.: Criminals who are burned and those who are beheaded; cases in which homicide is not regarded as murder (§§ 1-2); cases in which a mistake is made as to the identity of criminals condemned to death so that it is impossible to tell what punishment each one has deserved (§ 3); cases in which one has committed two different crimes, and so deserves two different forms of capital punishment (§ 4); criminals who are placed in solitary confinement ("kipah"; § 5); cases in which a criminal taken in the act may be killed by any one without being brought before a court (§ 6).

Ch. x.: Those who have no part in the future world; the problem whether the Ten Tribes will return at some future time from the place of their exile (§§ 1-3); the idolatrous city (comp. Deut. xiii. 13 et seq.; §§ 4-6).

Ch. xi.: Criminals who are strangled (§ 1); the dissenting teacher ("zaḳen mamreh") and the proceedings against him (§§ 2-4); the false prophet and the one who makes predictions in the name of idols (§§ 5-6). In the Mishnah of the Babylonian Talmud the order of the tenth and eleventh chapters is inverted.

Tosefta and Gemara.

The Tosefta to Sanhedrin is divided into fourteen chapters, and contains many interesting haggadic interpretations and sayings besides the additions and supplements to the Mishnah. Especially noteworthy is the attempt in iv. 5 to explain how the people sinned in asking for a king (I Sam. viii.), and thus to remove the discrepancy between I Sam. xii. 17 and Deut. xvii. 14-20; there is likewise an interesting discussion of the problem whether the script in which the Torah was originally given to the people was changed, and, if so, when the alteration was made (v. 7-8). Other remarkable passages (xi. 6, xiv. 1) state that the laws set forth in Deut. xiii. 13-18 and xxi. 18-21 are valid in theory only, since they never have been and never will be enforced in practise.

The Gemara of both the Talmudim contains a mass of interesting maxims, legends, myths, stories, and haggadic sayings and interpretations in addition to its elucidations of the passages of the Mishnah, the number of haggadot on the tenth (or eleventh) chapter being especially large. Among the interesting passages of the Babylonian Gemara may be noted the disputations with the heretics (38b-39a); the attempts to find the belief in the resurrectionof the dead outlined in the Bible, and the polemics against heretics who deny the resurrection (90b-91a, 91b, 92a); the discussion whether the resurrection of the dead described in Ezek. xxxvii. is to be interpreted merely as a figurative prophetic vision or whether it was a real event (92b); and the discussions and computations of the time at which the Messiah will appear, with the events which will attend his coming (97b-99a).

Especially noteworthy in the Palestinian Gemara are the legend of the angel who assumed the form of Solomon and deprived him of his throne (20c); the story of the execution of the eighty sorceresses of Ashkelon on one day by Simeon b. Sheṭaḥ (23d); and the account of the unfortunate and undeserved death of Simeon b. Sheṭaḥ's son (23b).

SANHEDRIN.—The Gr. word synedrion (EV [Note: English Version.] council) became so familiar to the Jews that they adopted it in the form of Sanhedrin, which occurs very frequently both in Josephus and in the Talmud.

1. According to Rabbinical tradition, the Sanhedrin was originally created by Moses in obedience to Divine command (cf. Num 11:16), and it is taught that this assembly existed, and exercised judicial functions, throughout the whole period of Biblical history right up to Talmudic times. That this cannot have been the case is seen already in the fact that, according to Biblical authority itself, king Jehoshaphat is mentioned as having instituted the supreme court at Jerusalem (2Ch 19:8); but that this court cannot have been identical with the Sanhedrin of later times is clear from the fact that, whereas the latter had governing powers as well as judicial functions, the former was a court of justice and nothing else. It is possible that the ‘elders’ mentioned in the Book of Ezra (Ezr 5:5; Ezr 5:9; Ezr 6:7; Ezr 6:14; Ezr 10:8) and ‘rulers’ in the Book of Nehemiah (Neh 2:18; Neh 4:8; Neh 4:18; Neh 5:7; Neh 7:5) constituted a body which to some extent corresponded to the Sanhedrin properly so called. But seeing that the Sanhedrin is often referred to as a Gerousia (i.e. an aristocratic, as distinct from a democratic, body), and that as such it is not mentioned before the time of Antiochus the Great (b.c. 223–187), it is reasonably certain that, in its more developed form at ail events, it did not exist before the Greek period. The Sanhedrin is referred to under the name Gerousia (EV [Note: English Version.] senate) In 2Ma 1:10; 2Ma 4:44, Jdt 4:8; Jdt 11:14; Jdt 15:8 and elsewhere in the Apocr. [Note: Apocrypha, Apocryphal.] , in Act 5:21, and frequently in Josephus, e.g. Ant. IV. viii. 41.

The Sanhedrin was conceived of mainly as a court of justice, the equivalent Heb. term being Beth Dîn, and it is in this sense that it is usually referred to in the NT (see, e.g., Mat 5:22; Mat 26:59, Mar 15:1, Luk 22:66, Joh 11:47, Act 4:15; Act 5:21; Act 6:12; Act 22:30 etc.). Sometimes in the NT the terms Presbyterion and Gerousia are used in reference to the Sanhedrin (Act 5:21; Act 22:5). A member of this court was called a bouteutes (‘councillor’). Joseph of Arimathæa was one (Mar 15:43, Luk 23:50). The Sanhedrin was abolished after the destruction of Jerusalem (a.d. 70).

2. As regards the composition of the Sanhedrin, the hereditary high priest stood at the head of it, and in its fundamental character it formed a sacerdotal aristocracy, and represented the nobility, i.e. predominantly the Sadducæan interest; but under Herod, who favoured the Pharisaic party in his desire to restrict the power and influence of the old nobility, the Sadducæan element in the Sanhedrin became less prominent, while that of the Pharisees increased. So that during the Roman period the Sanhedrin contained representatives of two opposed parties, the priestly nobility with its Sadducæan sympathies, and the learned Pharisees. According to the Mishna, the Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one members (Sanhed. i. 6); when a vacancy occurred the members co-opted some one ‘from the congregation’ to fill the place (Sanhed. iv. 4), and he was admitted by the ceremony of the laying on of hands.

3. The extent of the Sanhedrin’s jurisdiction varied at different times in its history; while, in a certain sense, it exercised civil jurisdiction over all Jewish communities, wherever they existed, during the time of Christ this was restricted to Judæa proper; it was for this reason that it had no judicial authority over Him so long as He remained in Galilee. Its orders were, however, very soon after the time of Christ, regarded as binding by orthodox Jews ail over the world. Thus we see that it could issue warrants for the apprehension of Christians in Damascus to the synagogue there (Act 9:2; Act 22:5; Act 26:12); but the extent to which Jewish communities outside of Judæa were willing to submit to such orders depended entirely on how far they were favourably disposed towards the central authority; it was only within the limits of Judæa proper that real authority could he exercised by the Sanhedrin. It was thus the supreme native court, as contrasted with the foreign authority of Rome; to it belonged all such judicial matters as the local provincial courts were incompetent to deal with, or as the Roman procurator did not attend to himself. Above all, it was the final court of appeal for questions connected with the Mosaic Law; its decision having once been given, the judges of the lower courts were, on pain of death, bound to acquiesce in it. The NT offers some interesting examples of the kind of matters that were brought before it: Christ appeared before it on a charge of blasphemy (Mat 26:57, Joh 19:7), Peter and John were accused before it of being false prophets and deceivers of the people (Act 4:5 ff.), Stephen was condemned by it because of blasphemy (Act 7:57-58), and Paul was charged with transgression of the Mosaic Law (Act 22:30). It had independent authority and right to arrest people by its own officers (Mat 26:47, Mar 14:48, Act 4:3; Act 5:17-18); it had also the power of finally disposing, on its own authority, of such cases as did not involve sentence of death (Act 4:5-23; Act 5:21-40). It was only in cases when the sentence of death was pronounced that the latter had to be ratified by the Roman authorities (Joh 18:31); the case of the stoning of Stephen must be regarded as an instance of mob-justice.

While the Sanhedrin could not hold a court of supreme jurisdiction in the absence, or, at all events, without the consent, of the Roman procurator, it enjoyed, nevertheless, wide powers within the sphere of its extensive jurisdiction. At the same time, it had sometimes to submit to the painful experience of realizing its dependent position in face of the Roman power, even in matters which might be regarded as peculiarly within the scope of its own jurisdiction; for the Roman authorities could at any time take the initiative themselves, and proceed independently of the Jewish court, as the NT testifies, e.g. in the case of Paul’s arrest (see also Act 23:15; Act 23:20; Act 23:28).

4. The Sanhedrin met in the Temple, in what was called the Lishkath ha-Gazith (the ‘Hall of hewn-stones’) as a general rule, though an exception is recorded in Mat 26:57 ff., Mar 14:53 ff. The members sat in a semicircle in order to be able to see each other; in front stood clerks of the court, and behind these, three rows of the disciples of the ‘learned men.’ The prisoner had always to be dressed in mourning. When any one had spoken once in favour of the accused, he could not afterwards speak against him. In case of acquittal the decision might be announced the same day, but a sentence of condemnation was always pronounced on the day following, or later; in the former a simple majority sufficed, in the latter a majority of two-thirds was required.

W. O. E. Oesterley.

(Greek: syn, with; hedra, seat)

The supreme council and court of justice among the Jews. Whilst some Jewish Doctors would trace back the Sanhedrin to the council of 70 elders instituted by Moses (Numbers 11), the earliest undisputed mention which we possess touching the council of elders of Jerusalem dates from the time of Antiochus the Great (223-187 B.C.); the institution may have evolved gradually from the council of nobles, chiefs, and ancients on which the ruling of the restored community devolved at the time of Nehemias and Esdras (1 Esdras 5; 6; 10; 2 Esdreas 2; 4; 5; 7). The Sanhedrin consisted of 71 members, president included, appointed probably for life, and the formal installation of new members was accompanied by an imposition of hands. At the height of the Sanhedrin’s power, criminal causes, according to the Talmud, were tried before a committee of 23 members presided over by the Ab-Beth-Din (president); two other committees, also of 23 members each, studied the questions to be submitted to plenary meetings. The members sat in a semi-circle; two clerks stood before them, one on either side, to take down the votes. The members spoke standing. On matters of civil or ceremonial law, the voting began with the oldest member of the assembly; whereas the youngest member was the first to cast his vote in criminal trials. For criminal judgments a quorum of at least 23 members was required; a majority of one vote was sufficient for acquittal, but for conviction a majority of two votes was necessary; a unanimous vote for conviction set the defendant free, the court, by some fiction of law, being by this very fact declared incompetent. The extent of the Sanhedrin’s jurisdiction varied in the course of time. Prior to the reduction of Judea to the status of a Roman province, criminal law was administered by the Sanhedrin and by a number of lesser courts in various towns, the Sanhedrin acting as a court of appeals and having also the function of a trial court in certain cases. After the removal of Archelaus, however, when Judea became one of the provinces ruled by procurators appointed by the emperor, criminal jurisdiction resided in these officials alone; the Sanhedrin had police powers permitting the arrest of alleged breakers of the law, and upon it devolved the duty of gathering the evidence and preparing the indictment for the procurator, who alone was qualified to hear the case and pronounce the sentence. This view accounts for all the details of the prosecution of Our Lord as narrated in the Gospels; and is supported by what is known of Roman provincial administration throughout the empire.

The supreme council and court of justice among the Jews. The name Sanhedrin is derived originally from the Greek word sunédrion, which, variously modified, passed at an unknown period into the Aramaic vocabulary. Among the Greek-speaking Jews, gerousía, "the assembly of the Ancients" was apparently the common name of the Sanhedrin, at least in the beginning; in post-Biblical Hebrew the appellation Beth-Din, "house of judgment", seems to have been quite popular. HISTORYAn 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 we know 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 serious doubts. 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 the gerousía of Jerusalem is connected with the reign of Antiochus the Great (223-187 B. C.; 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 the Jews were allowed a large measure of self-government, many points of civil and religious administration fell to the lot of the high priests and the gerousía to settle. But when, after the Machabean wars, both the royal and priestly powers were invested in the person 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 of Pharisees held sway, continued to be "the house of justice of the Hasmoneans" ("Talm.", Aboda zara, 36b; Sanh., 82a). A coup d’état of John Hyrcanus towards the end of his reign brought about a "Sadducean Sanhedrin" ("Antiq.", XVI, xi, 1; Sanh., 52b; Megillat Taanith, 10), which lasted until Jannæus; but owing to the conflictgs 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 Sapphora, limited the jurisdiction of the gerousía of Jerusalem 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 government ("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 (A. D. 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 against Rome; but soon the Zealots, seizing the power in Jerusalem, 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 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). COMPOSITIONAccording to the testimony of the Mishna (Sanh., i, 6; Shebuoth, ii, 2), confirmed by a remark of Josephus ("Bell. Jud.", II, xx, 5), the Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one members, president included. Jewish tradition appealed to Num., xi, 16, to justify this number; but whether the text of Num. had actually any influence on the determination 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 ancients of the people", is quite frequently equivalent to "members of the Sanhedrin", just as is in Josephus the word bouleutaí "members of the council". They were styled "ancients" no doubt 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. 17b, 88a, also in Sifra, 92, the moral and intellectual qualifications 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 those 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 Sadducean ideas (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 a semikah, 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 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 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 hesitation about the last forty years of the Sanhedrin’s existence: at the trial of Jesus, Caiphas, the high priest (John 11:49), was the head of the Beth-Din (Matthew 26:5;7); so also was Ananias at the trial of St. Paul (Acts 23:2), and we read in "Antiq.", XX, ix, I, 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, 15a)? 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 assembly. 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 actualy obtained that dignity. But after the death of Herod and the deposition 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 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 of Hillel’s descendants in the Sanhedrin, and thus very likely arose the tradition recorded in the Talmud. JURISDICTION AND PROCEDUREWe have seen above how the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin varied in extension at different periods. At the time of the public life of the Saviour, only the eleven toparchies of Judea were de jure subject to the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem; however, de facto the Jews all the world over acknowledged its authority (as an instance of this, see Acts 9:2; 22:5; 26:12). As the supreme court of justice 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 a false prophet, accusations against the high priest, the sending out of an army in certain circumstances, the enlarging of the city of Jerusalem, or of the Temple courts, etc. (Sanh., i, 5; ii, 4; iii, 4); the few instances mentioned in the New 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 of Jesus Christ, of the right 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 the Jews: "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death" (John 18:31), in the statement of Josephus (Ant., XX, ix, 1) and in those of the Talmud of Jer. (Sanh., 18a, 24b). Still we see in Acts, vii, St. Stephen put to death by the Sanhedrin; we read likewise in Talm. Jer. (Sanh., 24, 25) of an adulteress burnt at the stake and a heretic 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’s rights 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 the right to approve capital sentences; the cry of the Jews: "it is not lawful for us to put any man to death", was therefore rather a flattery to the procurator than the expression of truth.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 the Ab 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 A. D. 30, that same section was transferred to another building closer to the outer wall; they had also another meeting place in property called khanyioth, "trade-halls", belonging to the family of Hanan (cf. John 17:13). 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 was necessary, 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 betweeen the old Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem and the schools of Jamnia and Tiberias, it is quite useless to dwell on the latter, as well as on the Kalla assemblies of Babylon. But it will not be amiss to mention the fact that before the fall of Jerusalem there were, besides the Great Sanhedrin we have dealt with above, local courts of justice sometimes designated by the same name, in all the Jewish cities.-----------------------------------Besides the tracts Sanhedrin in both Talmuds, and the works of JOSEPHUS, which are the principal sources of information on the subject, we may cite the following works: MAIMONIDES, De synedriis et pœnis, Heb. and Lat. (Amsterdam, 1695); REIFMANN, Sanhedrin, Heb. (Berdichef, 1888); SELDEN, De synedriis et præfecturis juridicis veterum Ebræorum (London, 1650); UGOLINI, Thesaurus antiquitatum, XXV (Paris, 1672); BLUM, Le sanhédrin … son origine et son histoire (Strasburg, 18899); RABBINOWICZ, Législation criminelle du Talmud (Paris, 1876); IDEM, Législation civile du Talmud (Paris, 1877-80); STAPFER, La Palestine au temps de Jésus-Christ (3rd ed., Paris, 1885), iv; BÜCHLER, Das Synedrion in Jerusalem (Vienna, 1902); JELSKI, Die innere Einrichtung des grossen Synedrion zu Jerusalem und ihre Fortsetzung in späteren palästinensichen Lehrhause bis zur Zeit des R. Jehuda ha-Nasi (Breslau, 1804); LANGEN, Das jüdische Synedrium und die römische Procurator in Judäa in Tübing. theol. Quartalschr. (1862), 441-63; LEVY, Die Präsidentur in Synedrium in Frankel’s Monatschr. (1885); SCHÜRUR, Geschichte des jüd. Volkes im Seitalter Jesu Christi, II (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1898), 188 sq.CHARLES L. SOUVAY Transcribed by WGKofron With thanks to Fr. John Hilkert and St. Mary’s Church, Akron, Ohio The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIIICopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

san´hḗ-drin (סנחדרין, ṣanhedhrı̄n, the Talmudic transcription of the Greek συνέδριον, sunédrion):

1. Name:

The Sanhedrin was, at and before the time of Christ, the name for the highest Jewish tribunal, of 71 members, in Jerusalem, and also for the lower tribunals, of 23 members, of which Jerusalem had two (Tōṣephtā’ Ḥăghı̄ghāh 11 9; Ṣanhedrin 1 6; 11 2). It is derived from sún, “together,” and hédra, “seat.” In Greek and Roman literature the senates of Sparta, Carthage, and even Rome, are so called (compare Pausan. iii. 11, 2; Polyb. iii. 22; Dion Cassius xl.49). In Josephus we meet with the word for the first time in connection with the governor Gabinius (57-55 BC), who divided the whole of Palestine into 5 sunédria (Ant., XIV, v, 4), or súnodoi (BJ, I, viii, 5); and with the term sunedrion for the high council in Jerusalem first in Ant., XIV, ix, 3-5, in connection with Herod, who, when a youth, had to appear before the sunedrion at Jerusalem to answer for his doings in Galilee. But before that date the word appears in the Septuagint version of Proverbs (circa 130 BC), especially in Pro 22:10; Pro 31:23, as an equivalent for the Mishnaic bēth-dı̄n = “judgment chamber.”

In the New Testament the word sometimes, especially when used in the plural (Mat 10:17; Mar 13:9; compare Ṣanhedrin 1 5), means simply “court of justice,” i.e. any judicatory (Mat 5:22). But in most cases it is used to designate the supreme Jewish Court of Justice in Jerusalem, in which the process against our Lord was carried on, and before which the apostles (especially Peter and John, Stephen, and Paul) had to justify themselves (Mat 26:59; Mar 14:55; Mar 15:1; Luk 22:66; Joh 11:47; Act 4:15; Act 5:21 ff; Act 6:12 ff; Act 22:30; Act 23:1 ff; Act 24:20). Sometimes presbutérion (Luk 22:66; Act 22:5) and gerousı́a (Act 5:21) are substituted for sunedrion. See SENATE.

In the Jewish tradition-literature the term “Sanhedrin” alternates with k^enı̄shtā’, “meeting-place” (M^eghillath Ta‛ănı̄th 10, compiled in the 1st century AD), and bēth-dı̄n, “court of justice” (Ṣanhedrin 11 2, 4). As, according to Jewish tradition, there were two kinds of sunedria, namely, the supreme sunedrion in Jerusalem of 71 members, and lesser sunedria of 23 members, which were appointed by the supreme one, we find often the term ṣanhedhrı̄n g^edhōlāh, “the great Sanhedrin,” or bēth-dı̄n ha-gādhōl, “the great court of justice” (Middōth 5 4; Ṣanhedrin 1 6), or ṣanhedhrı̄n g^edhōlāh ha-yōshebheth b^e-lish^ekhath hagāzı̄th, “the great Sanhedrin which sits in the hall of hewn stone.”

2. Origin and History:

There is lack of positive historical information as to the origin of the Sanhedrin. According to Jewish tradition (compare Ṣanhedrin 16) it was constituted by Moses (Num 11:16-24) and was reorganized by Ezra immediately after the return from exile (compare the Targum to Son 6:1). But there is no historical evidence to show that previous to the Greek period there existed an organized aristocratic governing tribunal among the Jews. Its beginning is to be placed at the period in which Asia was convulsed by Alexander the Great and his successors.

The Hellenistic kings conceded a great amount of internal freedom to municipal communities, and Palestine was then practically under home rule, and was governed by an aristocratic council of Elders (1 Macc 12:6; 2 Macc 1:10; 4:44; 11:27; 3 Macc 1:8; compare Josephus, Ant., XII, iii, 4; XIII, v, 8; M^eghillath Tā‛ănı̄th 10), the head of which was the hereditary high priest. The court was called Gerousia, which in Greek always signifies an aristocratic body (see Westermann in Pauly’s RE, III, 49). Subsequently this developed into the Sanhedrin.

During the Roman period (except for about 10 years at the time of Gabinius, who applied to Judea the Roman system of government; compare Marquardt, Romische Staatsverwaltung, I, 501), the Sanhedrin’s influence was most powerful, the internal government of the country being practically in its hands (Ant., XX, x), and it was religiously recognized even among the Diaspora (compare Act 9:2; Act 22:5; Act 26:12). According to Schurer (HJP, div II, volume 1, 171; GJV⁴, 236) the civil authority of the Sanhedrin, from the time of Archelaus, Herod the Great’s son, was probably restricted to Judea proper, and for that reason, he thinks, it had no judicial authority over our Lord so long as He remained in Galilee (but see G.A. Smith, Jerusalem, I, 416).

The Sanhedrin was abolished after the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD). The bēth-dı̄n (court of judgment) in Jabneh (68-80), in Usah (80-116), in Shafran (140-63), in Sepphoris (163-93), in Tiberias (193-220), though regarded in the Talmud (compare Rō’sh ha-shānāh 31a) as having been the direct continuation of the Sanhedrin, had an essentially different character; it was merely an assembly of scribes, whose decisions had only a theoretical importance (compare Ṣōṭāh 9 11).

3. Constitution:

The Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem was formed (Mat 26:3, Mat 26:17, Mat 26:59; Mar 14:53; Mar 15:1; Luk 22:66; Act 4:5 f; Act 5:21; Act 22:30) of high priests (i.e. the acting high priest, those who had been high priests, and members of the privileged families from which the high priests were taken), elders (tribal and family heads of the people and priesthood), and scribes (i.e. legal assessors), Pharisees and Sadducees alike (compare Act 4:1 ff; Act 5:17, Act 5:34; Act 23:6). In Mar 15:43; Luk 23:50, Joseph of Arimathea is called bouleutḗs, “councillor,” i.e. member of the Sanhedrin.

According to Josephus and the New Testament, the acting high priest was as such always head and president (Mat 26:3, Mat 26:17; Act 5:17 ff; Act 7:1; Act 9:1 f; Act 22:5; Act 23:2; Act 24:1; Ant., IV, viii, 17; XX, x). Caiaphas is president at the trial of our Lord, and at Paul’s trial Ananias is president. On the other hand, according to the Talmud (especially Ḥăghıghāh 2 2), the Sanhedrin is represented as a juridical tribunal of scribes, in which one scribe acted as nāsı̄’, “prince,” i.e. president, and another as ’abh-bēth-dı̄n, father of the judgment-chamber, i.e. vice-president. So far, it has not been found possible to reconcile these conflicting descriptions (see “Literature,” below).

Sanhedrin 4 3 mentions the ṣōph^erē-ha-dayānı̄m, “notaries,” one of whom registered the reasons for acquittal, and the other the reasons for condemnation. In the New Testament we read of hupērétai, “constables” (Mat 5:25) and of the “servants of the high priest” (Mat 26:51; Mar 14:47; Joh 18:10), whom Josephus describes as “enlisted from the rudest and most restless characters” (Ant., XX, viii, 8; ix, 2). Josephus speaks of the “public whip,” Matthew mentions “tormentors” (Mat 18:34), Luke speaks of “spies” (Luk 20:20).

The whole history of post-exilic Judaism circles round the high priests, and the priestly aristocracy always played the leading part in the Sanhedrin (compare Ṣanhedrin 4 2). But the more the Pharisees grew in importance, the more were they represented in the Sanhedrin. In the time of Salome they were so powerful that “the queen ruled only in name, but the Pharisees in reality” (Ant., XIII, xvi, 2). So in the time of Christ, the Sanhedrin was formally led by the Sadducean high priests, but practically ruled by the Pharisees (Ant., XVIII, i, 4).

4. Jurisdiction:

In the time of Christ the Great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem enjoyed a very high measure of independence. It exercised not only civil jurisdiction, according to Jewish law, but also, in some degree, criminal. It had administrative authority and could order arrests by its own officers of justice (Mat 26:47; Mar 14:43; Act 4:3; Act 5:17 f; Act 9:2; compare Ṣanhedrin 1 5). It was empowered to judge cases which did not involve capital punishment, which latter required the confirmation of the Roman procurator (Joh 18:31; compare the Jerus Ṣanhedrin 1 1; 7 2 (p. 24); Josephus, Ant., XX, ix, 1). But, as a rule, the procurator arranged his judgment in accordance with the demands of the Sanhedrin.

For one offense the Sanhedrin could put to death, on their own authority, even a Roman citizen, namely, in the case of a Gentile passing the fence which divided the inner court of the Temple from that of the Gentiles (BJ, VI, ii, 4; Middōth 11 3; compare Act 21:28). The only case of capital punishment in connection with the Sanhedrin in the New Testament is that of our Lord. The stoning of Stephen (Act 7:54 ff) was probably the illegal act of an enraged multitude.

5. Place and Time of Meeting:

The Talmudic tradition names “the hall of hewn stone,” which, according to Middōth 5 4, was on the south side of the great court, as the seat of the Great Sanhedrin (Pē’āh 2 6; ’Ēdhuyōth 7 4, et al.). But the last sittings of the Sanhedrin were held in the city outside the Temple area (Ṣanhedrin 41a; Shabbāth 15a; Rō’sh ha-shānāh 31a; ‛Abhōdhāh zārāh 8c). Josephus also mentions the place where the bouleutaı́, “the councilors,” met as the boulḗ, outside the Temple (BJ, V, iv, 2), and most probably he refers to these last sittings.

According to the Tōṣephta’ Ṣanhedrin 7 1, the Sanhedrin held its sittings from the time of the offering of the daily morning sacrifice till that of the evening sacrifice. There were no sittings on Sabbaths or feast days.

6. Procedure:

The members of the Sanhedrin were arranged in a semicircle, so that they could see each other (Ṣanhedrin 4 3; Tōṣephta’ 8 1). The two notaries stood before them, whose duty it was to record the votes (see 3, above). The prisoner had to appear in humble attitude and dressed it, mourning (Ant., XIV, ix, 4). A sentence of capital punishment could not be passed on the day of the trial. The decision of the judges had to be examined on the following day (Ṣanhedrin 4 1), except in the case of a person who misled the people, who could be tried and condemned the same day or in the night (Tōṣephta’ Ṣanhedrin 10). Because of this, cases which involved capital punishment were not tried on a Friday or on any day before a feast. A herald preceded the condemned one as he was led to the place of execution, and cried out: “N. the son of N. has been found guilty of death, etc. If anyone knows anything to clear him, let him come forward and declare it” (Ṣanhedrin 6 1). Near the place of execution the condemned man was asked to confess his guilt in order that he might partake in the world to come (ibid.; compare Luk 23:41-43).

Literature.

Our knowledge about the Sanhedrin is based on three sources: the New Testament, Josephus, and the Jewish tradition-literature (especially Mishna, Ṣanhedrin and Maḳḳōth, best edition, Strack, with German translation, Schriften des Institutum Judaicum in Berlin, N. 38, Leipzig, 1910). See the article, TALMUD.

Consult the following histories of the Jewish people: Ewald, Herzfeld, Gratz, but especially Schurer’s excellent HJP, much more fully in GJV⁴; also G. A. Smith, Jerusalem. Special treatises on Sanhedrin: D. Hoffmann, Der oberste Gerichtsh of in der Stadt des Heiligtums, Berlin, 1878, where the author tries to defend the Jewish traditional view as to the antiquity of the Sanhedrin; J. Reifmann, Ṣanhedrin (in Hebrews), Berditschew, 1888; A. Kuenen, On the Composition of the Sanhedrin, in Dutch, translated into German by Budde, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, etc., 49-81, Freiburg, 1894; Jelski, Die innere Einrichtung des grossen Synedrions zu Jerusalem, Breslau, 1894, who tries to reconcile the Talmudical statements about the composition of the Sanhedrin with those of Josephus and the New Testament (especially in connection with the question of president) by showing that in the Mishna (except Ḥăghı̄ghāh 11 2) nāsı̄’ always stands for the political president, the high priest, and ’abh-bēth-dı̄n for the scribal head of the Sanhedrin, and not for the vice-president; A. Buchler, Das Synedrium in Jerusalem und das grosse Beth-din in der Quaderkammer des jerusalemischen Tempels, Vienna, 1902, a very interesting but not convincing work, where the author, in order to reconcile the two different sets of sources, tries to prove that the great Sanhedrin of the Talmud is not identical with the Sanhedrin of Josephus and the New Testament, but that there were two Sanhedrins in Jerusalem, the one of the New Testament and Josephus being a political one, the other a religious one. He also thinks that Christ was seized, not by the Sanhedrin, but by the temple authorities.

See also W. Bacher’s article in HDB (excellent for sifting the Talmudic sources); Dr. Lauterbach’s article in the Jewish Encyclopedia (accepts fully Biichler’s view); H. Strack’s article in Sch-Herz (concise and exact).

1. The name.-Sanhedrin (ñַðְäֶãְøִéï, pl. [Note: plural.] ñַðְäֶãְøִéåֹú; Targumic also ñַðֶãְøִéï, pl. [Note: plural.] ñַðְãַּøְéָúָà, Heb. Aram. form of óõíÝäñéïí, ‘council,’ specifically ‘court of justice’ [so Septuagint Pro_22:10; Pro_26:26; Pro_31:23, Ps.-Son_4:1; Josephus, Ant. XIV. v. 4]) is the name of the high court of justice and supreme council, specifically at Jerusalem (Sanh. iv. 3; Sôṭâ, ix. 18), called also ‘Sanhedrin of Seventy-one’ (Sheb. ii. 2), ‘the Great Sanhedrin’ (Sanh. i. 6; Midd. v. 4) in contradistinction to ‘the Little Sanhedrin of Twenty-three,’ the Bçth, Dîn shel shib‛îm we eḥâd, ‘the court of justice of seventy-one’ (Sanh. i. 5; Tôs. Sanh. iii. 4) and most frequently Bçth Dîn hag-gadôl shebyerûshâlaim, ‘the high court of justice of Jerusalem’ (Sôṭâ, i. 4; Giṭṭ vi. 7; Sanh. xi. 4), also Bçth Dîn hag-gadôl shebhlishkath haggâzîth, ‘the great court of justice which has its sessions in the hall of hewn stones’ (Sifrç Dt. 154; Sanh. xi. 2). The older name is ãåñïõóßá, ‘senate’ (Jos. Ant. XII. iii. 3; 2Ma_1:10; 2Ma_4:44; 2Ma_11:27, 1Ma_12:6, Jdt_4:8, and elsewhere; also simply ‘the elders’ or ‘the elders of the people’ (1Ma_7:33; 1Ma_11:23; 1Ma_12:35; 1Ma_14:20); cf. Ziḳnê ‛amkâ bçth Yisrâçl in the ancient eighteen benedictions for the Sanhedrin, zâḳçn, ‘elder,’ being the name of the single member of the Sanhedrin = óýíåäñïò (Jos. Ant. XIV. ix. 4). Another name for the Sanhedrin (possibly the Jerusalemic and not national Council of Justice) is âïõëÞ (Jos. Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. xv. 6, xvi. 2, xvii. 1, V. xiii. 1), whence Jos. ib. II. xvii. 1; Mar_15:43 âïõëåýôçò = áּåּìåְåèֵéí (J. Levy, Neuhebr. u. chald. Wörterbuch über die Talmudim u. Midraschim, 1876-89, i. 199f.). On Maccabaean coins the Sanhedrin is called ḥeber hâ-yehûdîm, ‘representative assembly of the Jews’ (F. W. Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, 1864, p. 58; A. Geiger, Urschriften und Übersetzungen der Bibel, 1857, p. 121; J. Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer, 1874, pp. 29, 34).

2. Origin and history.-The institution is based on Deu_17:8-11 (Sifrç and Sanh. 2a) and the seventy elders on Num_11:16 (Sifrç). The Talmudic sources ascribe it to Moses; also that of ‘the Little Sanhedrin of Twenty-three’ for each tribe after Deu_16:18 (Sanh. 16b, Jer. Sanh. i. 19c; cf. Sôṭâ, 44b; Targ. Jer. Num_25:4; Num_25:7; Num_7:85; Num_9:8, Exo_21:30; Exo_32:2 bf., Lev_24:12); and speak of its existence under Joshua, Jabez, Jerubbaal, Boaz, Jephthah, Samuel, David, and Solomon, and until the time of the captivity by Nebuchadnezzar (Bâbâ bathrâ, 121b; Yômâ, 80a; Mak. 23b; Ḳoh. R. 18; Targ. Rth_3:11; Rth_4:1, 1Ch_4:12; 1Ch_5:12; 1Ch_18:17, Psa_69:1; Psa_80:1; M.Ḳ 26a; Bâbâ Ḳammâ, 61a; Yeb. 77a; Ber. 3b-4a; Sanh. 16b, 107a; Targ. Est_1:2; Jer. Sanh. i. 18b). Again, during the Second Temple, after the men of the Great Synagogue from Ezra to Simon the Just ii. had occupied the place of the Sanhedrin, Talmudic tradition holds that it was re-organized under the zûggôth, (duumviri [Âbôth, i. 4-11; Ḥag. ii. 2; Peah, ii. 6; Yad, ii. 6; Jer. Sôṭâ, ix. 24a]) and continued in power under such form until the destruction of the Temple, when it was transferred to Jabneh, to Usha, to Sepphoris, and, finally, to Tiberias (Rôsh hash. 31b). This whole view, however, bears the imprint of the schoolhouse, and forms part of the Pharisaic system which in support of the Oral Law postulated an unbroken chain of tradition without any interference by any priestly-that is, Sadducean-authority. In this sense Jose ben Ḥalaphtha, the great 2nd cent. authority for Talmudic historiography, says (Tôs. Sanh. vii. 1; Ḥag. ii. 9): ‘In former times there were no dissensions in Israel. Every legal question that could not be decided in any city was submitted to the Sanhedrin of 23 on the Temple hill, and if not decided there, to the Little Sanhedrin of 23 in the Temple rampart, and if not decided there either, brought for final decision before the Great Sanhedrin in the hall of hewn stones which was in session from morning to evening, never allowing fewer than 23 of its members to be present for the discussion of the subject in the Temple schoolhouse. Thus the Hãlâkah was fixed and developed in Israel. Dissensions arose when the disciples of Hillel and Shammai increased in number and failed to acquire through personal contact with their master the necessary knowledge and thus the doctrine was divided into many doctrines.’ As a matter of fact, pre-Exilic history presents nowhere a trace of an institution like the Sanhedrin. The seventy elders invested with spiritual powers (Num_11:16; Num_11:24 f., Exo_24:1; Exo_24:9; cf. àֲöִéìַé áְּðֵééִùְׂøָàַì [Exo_24:11] with [åéָàöֶì 11:25]) point to the existence of some sort of representative body of the nation (cf. Ezr_8:11 with Exo_3:16; Exo_18:12, Deu_21:9, 1Ki_8:1; 1Ki_12:8; 1Ki_20:7, 2Ki_23:1), but they form no judiciary like the Sanhedrin. The story in 2Ch_19:1-2 of a high court of justice established by king Jehoshaphat, after Deu_17:8 f., consisting of Levites, priests, and heads of the families, with two chief members-the high priest to decide the religious, the governor of Judah to decide the monarchical, matters-cannot be adduced as proof of the Mosaic origin of the Sanhedrin, as does D. Hoffmann (Der oberste Gerichtshof, pp. 6, 20), but is, like all the Chronicler’s stories, a reflexion of the views of the post-Exilic writer. In fact, it indicates, as pointed out by Wellhausen (Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels3, 1886, p. 199), the existence of the Sanhedrin in his time, i.e. in the 4th century. As to the duumviri see below.

The first positive record of the Sanhedrin, under the name of Gerousia, appears in the decree of Antiochus the Great about 200 (Jos. Ant. XII. iii. 33). This was an aristocratic body of elders of the nation with the high priest at its head, which had charge of the government of the Jewish people under Persian and then under Ptolemaic and Seleucidaean rule; nor was it different under Roman rule (ib. IV. viii. 17, XI. iv. 8, XX. x.; 1Ma_12:6; 1Ma_13:36; 1Ma_14:20; 1 Maccabees 14 :2Ma_1:10; 2Ma_4:44; 2Ma_11:27). The name Synhedrion (Aramaized Sanhedrin), which denotes chiefly a court of justice, came into popular use under Ptolemaic rule; and, as its Hebrew equivalent, the name Ḥeber hâ-Yehûdîm appears on Hasmonaean coins, which read: ‘Joḥannan the high priest, the head, and the Council (representative) of the Jews’ (Madden, op. cit., p. 58; Wellhausen, Phar. und Sadd., pp. 29, 34, Israelit. und jüd. Geschichte,4, p. 281). A Sanhedrin of the Hasmonaeans is mentioned in Sanh. 82a, Abôda Zârâ, 36b, which is probably identical with the Pharisaic Sanhedrin (called kenîshtâ, ‘assembly,’ Meg. Ta‛ânîth, x.), whose triumph over the Sadducean Sanhedrin in the reign of queen Alexandra Salome and under the leadership, of Simon b. Sheṭaḥ was celebrated as a festival. The Sanhedrin seems to have played a political rôle in the quarrel between Alexandra’s two sons, when Gabinius, the Roman governor of Syria in 57 b.c., diminished its power by dividing the country into five districts and placing a Sanhedrin in Sepphoris and Jericho alongside of that at Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. XIV. v. 4). Soon afterwards, however, the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem was in full power again when sitting in judgment upon young Herod (ib. XIV. ix. 4), but forty-five of its members fell victims to the terrible revenge of the tyrant. Thus he rose to power, and a new Sanhedrin was chosen by him of servile men who passed sentences of death at his command (ib. XV. i. 2, vi. 2).

Under the Roman procurators when Judaea was shorn of all her sovereignty and independence, the Sanhedrin still continued to represent the supreme power and authority of the Jewish people (Mat_26:59 and Act_4:15; Act_5:21; Act_6:12; Act_22:30; Act_23:1; Act_24:20). In the war against Rome it directed and organized the struggle, and when towards the last the Zealots took hold of the city of Jerusalem, they appointed their own Sanhedrin in place of the old to have a semblance of authority for their atrocious acts (Jos. Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. xv. 6, xvi. 1 ff., IV. v. 4). It must be noticed, however, that Josephus uses the term âïõëÞ in Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) and êïéíüí in Vita, 12, 13, 38, etc., instead of Sanhedrin, probably because the latter had become more what he calls (Vita, 12) ‘the Sanhedrin of the Jerusalemites,’ i.e. a city Senate. With the downfall of the State, the Sanhedrin as a national or political institution ceased to exist (Sôṭâ, ix. 11 Çkâh R. v. 16), but under the leadership of Joḥanan b. Zakkai, Hillel’s great disciple, the new Sanhedrin was soon afterwards organized at Jabneh (Jamnia), of an entirely scholastic character, consisting only of teachers of the Law; and the form the new Sanhedrin assumed under his successor Gamaliel II., who took the title of Nâsî as the lineal descendant of Hillel, offered to the Talmudic tradition many of the features ascribed to the ancient Sanhedrin.

3. The presidency of the Sanhedrin.-The chief difficulty for the historian lies in the irreconcilable conflict between the Talmudic traditions and the above quoted historical records in Josephus and the NT concerning the presidency of the Sanhedrin. According to the latter, the authenticity of which cannot be questioned, the high priest, as the political head of the nation, was the president. The former assign to the high priest no place in the Sanhedrin (Sanh. ii. 1, ‘The high priest can neither bring a case before the Sanhedrin nor be judged by them’; cf. Yômâ, 1:3, according to which he receives his mandates from the Sanhedrin), and instead have masters of the Pharisean schools placed regularly at its head. Two such masters known under the name of zûggôth (= duumviri), one with the title of Nâsî (prince), the other with that of Ab Bçth Dîn (‘father of the court of justice’), are recorded to have presided over the Sanhedrin from about the middle of the 2nd to the middle of the 1st cent. b.c. (Ḥag. ii. 2; cf. Abôth, i. 4-12; Peah, ii. 6; Yad, ii. 16; Jer. Sôṭâ, ix. 24a): Jose b. Jcezer of Zereda (a relative of Alkimos the high priest) (Ber. R. 65, 18), and most probably identical with the Hasidaean leader Razis (?) (2Ma_14:37 ‘an elder and father of the Jews’) and Jose b. Joḥanan-the first duumvirate; Joshua b. Peraḥya and Nittai of Arbela-the second; Simon b. Sheṭaḥ (contemporary of Alexander Jannaeus and relative of queen Alexandra) (H. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, iii. 4 [1888] 137; E. Schürer, GJV [Note: JV Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes (Schürer).] ii. 4, 421), and Judah b. Tabbai-the third; Shemaiah (= Sameas, Jos. Ant. XIV. ix. 4) and Abtalion (= Ptolion, ib. XV. i. 1)-the fifth. According to Sheb. 15a, Hillel’s successor as Nâsî was his son Simon, and he was followed by his son Gamaliel I., and he again by his own son Simon, the last president of the Sanhedrin before the destruction of the Temple. The untrustworthiness of these traditions, however, is shown first of all by the confusion in the sources, some of which place Judah b. Tabbai above Simon b. Sheṭaḥ, and Shammai above Hillel (Ḥag. ii. 2, 16b; cf. Sheb. 17a), and then by the significant fact that nowhere else are these men spoken of as Nâsî, Hillel being simply called ‘the elder’ = senator (Suk. 53a and elsewhere), but above all by the direct mention of Sameas and Ptolion (Jos. Ant. XIV. ix. 4, XV. i. 1), of Gamaliel 1. (Act_5:34) and Simon b. Gamaliel (Jos. Vita, 38), as ‘certain members of the Sanhedrin belonging to the Pharisean party,’ while in each case the high priest appears as chief of the Sanhedrin. It is, therefore, impossible to escape the conclusion that the conditions existing under Gamaliel II. at the close of the 1st cent. were transferred to former times, and so the title of Nâsî (ethnarch) held by the Hillclites down to the 4th cent. (Orig. Epp. ad Africanum, quoted in Schürer, GJV [Note: JV Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes (Schürer).] ii. 4, 248, n. [Note: . note.] 28) was claimed for Hillel, the ancestor believed to be of Davidic descent (Jos. Vita, 38; Ber. R. xlix. 10; Sanh. 5a); and, finally, the whole system of the duumvirate was carried back to the beginning of Pharisaism.

4. The title Ab Bçth Din and the duumvirate.-It is nevertheless unwarranted to dismiss as fictitious, as Schürer, Wellhausen, and Kuenen do, the whole tradition concerning the leadership of the so-called Nesîîm and the duumvirate. As a matter of fact, the important innovations (ṭekkânôth) ascribed to such masters as Jose b. Jcezer, Simon b. Sheṭaḥ, Hillel, and Gamaliel I. (cf. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, iii. and iv. [see Index], and Jelski, Die innere Einrichtung des grossen Synedrions zu Jerusalem, pp. 43-81) could have been brought about only under a Pharisean leadership of greater authority on the Law than was the high priest, who as a rule lacked both learning and piety. Apart from this, however, the tradition of a duumvirate is corroborated by Josephus in a remarkable passage which failed to receive the attention its importance deserves. In giving an exposition of the Mosaic constitution, in all probability taken from an older Pharisaic source, he writes (Ant. IV. viii. 14): ‘Each city shall have for its magistrates seven men known for their practice of virtue and zeal for righteousness, and to each magistracy two men of the tribe of Levi shall be assigned as assistants [secretaries]. These elected as judges shall be held in the utmost esteem.… For the power to judge cometh from God.… But if these judges do not know how to decide on matters submitted to them … they shall send the undecided case to the holy city, and there shall the high priest and the prophet and the Senate come together and give the final decision.’

It is plain that these rules must have been taken from the practice of the time and regarded as ancient traditional law. Now there is a trace of seven judges instead of the Talmudic three in each city court (Sanh. i. 1), found in the seven city aldermen (ṭôbç hâ ‛îr [Meg. 26a; cf. Jer. Meg. iii. 1, 74a; Tôs. Meg. iii. 1], probably ḥeber hâ ‛îr [Bik. iii. 12; Tôs. Peah, iv. 16; Sheb. vii. 9]). And the seven judges recur in Jos. Ant. IV. viii. 38 with reference to Exo_22:7-8, Elohim being taken as judges (cf. Targ. [Note: Targum.] and Meḳ. to the passage). As governor of Galilee, Josephus appointed seven judges for each town and a Sanhedrin of seventy for the whole province (Jos. Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. xx. 5). For the high court at Jerusalem, however, a duumvirate, consisting of the high priest and the prophet, is ordained, and neither Kuenen (Gesamm. Abhandlungen, p. 66) nor Wellhausen (Phar. und Sadd., p. 26) nor Hoffmann (Del oberste Gerichtshof, p. 25) nor Büchler (Das Synedrion in Jerus., p. 62) explains the mention of the prophet here satisfactorily. The fact is that the Law (Deu_17:9; Deu_17:12) mentions alongside of the priest also ‘the judge,’ implying thereby a man of judicial competence and authority, and thus suggests a sort of duumvirate such as the Chronicler (2Ch_19:11) has. It is easy to see how, in view of the decline of the Sadducean priesthood, the necessity arose of having as the spiritual head of the Sanhedrin a Pharisean scribe who was to be consulted in all difficult questions. Such a scribe could well be called prophet, as the one filled with the Divine spirit of wisdom (Deu_34:9; cf. Jos. Ant. iv. viii. 46, Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. viii. 12; Wis_7:27; Didache, x. 7; see also Hor. i. 4, mufla), while as the patriarch he received the title ‘Ab Bçth Dîn’ (cf. Jdg_17:10; Jdg_18:19, 2Ki_2:12, and the title ‘Aboth’ for the ancient sages). It is especially noteworthy that Jose b. Jcezer, the first of the duumviri, was called ‘the father of the Jews’ (2Ma_14:37). The duumvirate was, no doubt, the result of a compromise between Sadducean priesthood and the Pharisean scribes, the Ab Bçth Dîn being for the Pharisees the actual president, whereas the Sadducean high priest was consigned to oblivion, wherefore a later tradition referred the duumvirate to the leaders of the two Pharisean schools of each generation, giving to the foremost one the title of Nâsî (cf. Jewish Encyclopedia , article ‘Nasi’). It is not as president, but as the patriarch, that Gamaliel i. speaks with authority (Act_5:34).

5. Composition and meeting-place of the Sanhedrin.-The Great Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one members, the seventy elders and the Nâsî or president (Sanh. i. 5; cf. Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. xx. 5 and IV. v. 4). When Gamaliel II. and Eleazar b. Azariah alternated as presidents, they counted seventy-two (Yad, ii. 5; Zeb. i. 3).

The Little Sanhedrin in the provinces (Sanh. i. 16b) and in Jerusalem, one at the entrance to the Temple hill, the other at the entrance to the Temple Court or the Rampart (Sanh. xi. 1; Tôs. Sanh. ix. 1; Sifrç Dt. 152) consisted, according to the Talmudic tradition, of twenty-three. Of the former, one is mentioned as the âïõëÞ of Tiberias (Josephus, Vita, 12), whereas the Great Sanhedrin is referred to as the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem. Possibly the Great Sanhedrin of seventy-one was composed of the two Little Sanhedrins the one on the Temple hill, which may be identified with the Senate of Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. XX. i. 2, Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. xv. 6, xvi. 2), and the other before the Temple court, probably the one concerned with the Temple practice and the priestly legitimacy (Ant. XX. ix. 6), and the main body of the high court, also consisting of twenty-three (Tôs. Sanh. ix. 1), that is, 3 × 23 = 69, besides the patriarch of the court and the president or Nâsî. This would also account for the forty-five slain by king Herod, if it may be assumed that the Senate of Jerusalem sided with him (Ant. XV. i. 2).

As to the elements constituting the Sanhedrin, the ruling priests representing the Sadducean party were, according to Josephus (Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. xiv. 8, xv. 2 f., xvii. 2 ff., V. i. 5) and the NT (Mat_26:59; Mat_27:41 and elsewhere), dominant in influence, and the patricians, called ‘the men of power’ (äõíáôïß) in Josephus (locc. citt.), formed the bulk of the Sanhedrin, until king Herod replaced them by homines novi, whereas the Pharisees, who rose to power under Alexandra Salome, were but few in number (Jos. Ant. XIII. xv. 5; Mar_10:33; only the later Gospels mention the Pharisees). Only those were admitted into the Sanhedrin who were of pure blood, so as to be able to intermarry with the priestly families (Sanh. iv. 2). Little historic value can be attached to Jose b. Ḥalaphtha’s statement (Tôs. Sanh. ix. 1) that the Sanhedrin selected for each city court, the one found to be wise, humble, sin-fearing, of blameless character, and popular as judge, and then had him promoted to membership, first of the two Little Sanhedrins in Jerusalem, and finally to the Great Sanhedrin in the hall of hewn stones. The same holds good of the description in Sanh. iv. 3-4, Tôs. Sanh. viii. 1-2, according to which ‘the Sanhedrin sat in a semi-circle, the Nâsî in the centre and the two secretaries standing at both sides, while the disciples sat before them in three rows according to their rank; and when a vacancy arose, the new member was chosen from the first row, and his place again filled by one in the second row and so forth.’ This seems to be a picture taken from the Sanhedrin of Jabneh. Likewise academic are the prerequisites of the Sanhedrin given in Sifrç Nu. 92: ‘They must be wise, courageous, high-principled (not ‘strong’ as Bacher has) and humble.’ R. Joḥanan of the 3rd cent. (Sanh. 17b) says: ‘They must also be of high stature, of pleasing appearance and of advanced age, conversant with the art of magic and the seventy spoken languages,’ to which Judah han-Nâsî is said to have added ‘the dialectic power by which Levitically unclean things can be proven to be clean.’

There is, however, no cause for questioning the correctness of the tradition that the meeting-place of the Great Sanhedrin was in the hall of hewn stones, the lishkath hag-gâzîth on the south side of the great court in which the priests held their daily morning service and where other priestly functions were performed (Midd. v. 4; Tâmîd, ii., iv.). Schürer’s identification of lishkath hag-gâzîth with the Senate assembly house (âïõëÞ) near the Xystos (Jos. Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) V. iv. 2, VI. vi. 3) cannot be accepted in the face of these traditions, which prove that the lishkah (always the name of a Temple cell) must have been within the Temple area.

The Senate house near the Xystos in Josephus may refer, as Bacher thinks, to the time of the removal of the Sanhedrin to the city during the siege (Rôsh hash. 31). Besides this there was a special hall assigned to the high priest and the foremost men of the Sanhedrin called lishkath Parhedrîn (ðÜñåäñïé), ‘the men of the front rank,’ also called lishkath bûleuṭîn, i.e. ‘senators’ hall’ (Yômâ, I. i. 8b).

6. Functions of the Sanhedrin.-According to the Mishna (Sanh. i. 4), capital punishment wag pronounced and executed by the Little Sanhedrin of twenty-three in the various provinces or tribes, but the tribunal of seventy-one in the Temple of Jerusalem was the only body vested with power and authority (1) to pronounce a verdict in a process affecting a tribe, a false prophet, or the high priest; (2) to declare war against a nation not belonging to ancient Canaan or Amalek; (3) to extend the character of holiness to additional parts of the Temple, or of Jerusalem; (4) to appoint Sanhedrin over the tribes; (5) to execute judgment against a city that had lapsed into idolatry. All these points, derived directly or, indirectly from Scripture (Judges 21, Deu_13:7 f., 13ff.; Sanh. 16a f.), refer to a time when the twelve tribes still had their existence, and are consequently theoretical rather than real life issues. Nor can it be taken as an actual practice of the Sanhedrin when it is charged with the burning of the red heifer (Numbers 19), or the breaking of the neck of the heifer to atone for a murder the perpetrator of which cannot be found (Deu_21:1 f.), the final judgment of a rebellious elder (Deu_17:12), the bringing of a guilt offering in the case of an unintentional sin committed by the whole congregation of Israel (Lev_4:13), the installation of a king or of a high priest (Tôs. Sanh. iii. 4), the ordeal of a woman suspected of adultery (Sôṭâ, i. 4; cf. Philo, ed Mangey, ii. 308), or the fixing of the calendar each new moon (Rôsh hash. ii. 5, 9). It may be taken for certain, however, that the three branches of the government, the political, the religious, and the judicial administration, were centralized in the Sanhedrin; yet at the same time these three different functions were assigned to three separate bodies. Hence mention is made of a Sanhedrin of the judges (Jos. Ant. XX. ix. 1), a Bçth Dîn of the priests (Ket. i. 5; Tôs. Sanh. iv. 4), which had in charge also the investigation of the legitimacy of the priesthood (Tôs. Sanh. vii. 1), and the Sanhedrin of the Jerusalemites (Jos. Vita, 12), i.e. the Senate of Jerusalem, to which the political administration of the country was entrusted. Possibly the name ôὸ êïéíüí, ‘the common administration,’ used almost exclusively in Vita (12, 13, 38, etc.), refers to this centralization. Hoffmann (op. cit., p. 46) refers the name to the democratic government established by the Zealots (Vita, 39), and compares the Talmudic ‛çdâh (‘congregation’) with the Sanhedrin (Sanh. 16a). In all matters of great importance, or in cases when the lower courts could come to no decision, the Great Sanhedrin, composed of three departments (3 × 23 = 69), together with the president and the patriarch (Nâsî and Ab Bçth Dîn), and forming the supreme tribunal ‘from which the law went forth to all Israel’ (Sanh. xi. 2; Jos. Ant. IV. viii. 14; Philo, ed. Mangey, ii. 367), gave its decision, which was final and inviolable, and wilful opposition to which on the part of an elder or judge was punished with death. It held its sessions in day-time only, and only on week-days, not on Sabbath and holidays (Tôs. Sanh. vii. 1; Beza, v. 2; Philo, ed. Mangey, i. 450). Cases of capital punishment were not taken up on the eve of Sabbath or of holy days, because the sentence was always to be given on the following day (Sanh. iv. 1). The attendance of at least twenty-three members was required for cases of capital punishment, and unless the full number of seventy-one were present, a majority of one could not decide the condemnation. Talmudic tradition, however, states that forty years (which is a round number) before the destruction of the Temple the right of jurisdiction in cases of capital punishment was taken from Israel (Jer. Sanh. i. 18a; Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] Shab. 15b) This agrees with Jos. Ant. XX. ix. 1, Joh_18:31, and the whole procedure of the Crucifixion. Otherwise the conflicting Gospel stories concerning the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus show, to say the least, irregularities for which only the high priests (cf. Jos. Ant. VIII. iii. 3, ‘the foremost men’) were responsible.

As regards the death penalty on sacrilegious intruders on the Temple ground, this was, as the inscription indicates (see T. Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, v. 2 [1885] 513), a law against the Zealots sanctioned by the people and the Roman government (see article ‘Zealots’ in Jewish Encyclopedia xii. 641b), and has nothing to do with the Sanhedrin, as Schürer thinks (GJV [Note: JV Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes (Schürer).] ii. 4, 260 f.).

Characteristic of later times is the academic view of the 2nd cent. masters of the Mishna (Mak. i. 10): ‘A Sanhedrin that passes a sentence of death once within 7 years, others say, every 70 years, and still others, only once, deserves the epithet murderous.’ The Mishnaic rules of procedure in cases of capital punishment (Sanh. iv. 2, 5) may accordingly be regarded as of academic rather than historical value. The Sanhedrin had its jurisdiction over the Jews throughout the world as far as their religious life was concerned (Rôsh hash. i. 3 f.; cf. W. Bousset, Religion des Judentums, 1903, p. 83). As a religious tribunal it outlasted the Temple and State of Judaea , existing in the shape of a body of academicians down to the 5th cent. when its name was transferred to the seventy members of the academy of Babylonia called Kallâh (‘the circle’).

Literature.-E. Schürer, GJV [Note: JV Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes (Schürer).] ii. 4 [1907] 237-267, where the entire literature is given; H. L. Strack, article ‘Synedrium’ in PRE [Note: RE Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche.] 3 xix.; W. Backer, article ‘Sanhedrin’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) . Especially to be mentioned are A. Kuenen, ‘Über die Zusammensetzung des Sanhedrin’ (in Gesamm. Abhandl. zur bibl. Wissenschaft, translation K. Budde, 1894, pp. 49-81); I. Jelski, Die innere Einrichtung des grossen Synedrions zu Jerusalem, 1894; D. Hoffmann, ‘Der oberste Gerichtsbof in der Stadt des Heiligtums,’ in Programm des Rabbinerseminars zu Berlin, 1877-78 (only apologetic in character); A. Büchler, Das Synedrion in Jerusalem und das grosse Beth Din in der Quaderkammer des jerusalemischen Tempels, 1902 (valuable for its large material on the subject, but unsound in its argumentation and its historical conclusions).

K. Kohler.

With the re-establishment of the Jewish nation after the Jews’ return from captivity in Babylon, there were significant developments in the Jewish religion. Many of these were connected with the establishment of synagogues (or meeting places) in the Jewish communities, and the rise of people known as scribes (or teachers of the law). The scribes usually had positions of power in the synagogues and used them as places from which to spread their teachings (see SCRIBES; SYNAGOGUE).

Under Ezra groups of elders and judges had been appointed to administer civil and religious law in Israel (Ezr 7:25-26; Ezr 10:14). It was probably on this basis that such people became leaders of the synagogues and rulers in the Jewish communities. As the scribes and other leaders on the synagogue committees grew in power, a system of local Jewish rule developed that eventually produced a council known as the Sanhedrin. Although any local Jewish council may have been called a Sanhedrin, the word was used most commonly for the supreme Jewish council in Jerusalem.

The Jerusalem Sanhedrin consisted of a maximum of seventy members, not counting the high priest. (The number was probably based on the ancient arrangement by which Moses and seventy elders administered Israel; see Num 11:24.) The composition of the Sanhedrin changed from time to time, depending on political developments within the nation. In New Testament times it consisted of scribes, elders, priests and other respected citizens, and included both Pharisees and Sadducees. The high priest acted as president (Mat 26:3; Mat 26:57-59; Luk 22:66; Luk 23:50; Act 4:5-7; Act 5:17-21; Act 5:34; Act 22:30; Act 23:1-6). Any meeting of the Sanhedrin required at least twenty-three members to be present.

Rome gave the Sanhedrin authority to arrest, judge and punish Jewish people for offences relating to their religious law and for certain civil offences (Mar 14:43; Act 5:17-21; Act 5:40; Act 6:11-15; Act 9:2). The one exception concerned the death sentence. Although it could pass the death sentence, the Sanhedrin could not carry it out without permission from Rome (Mat 26:66; Mat 27:1-2; Joh 18:30-31).

From details of Sanhedrin procedures recorded in ancient Jewish writings, it is clear that Jesus’ trial, conviction and execution were illegal. The Jews’ execution of Stephen was also illegal, but the Roman authorities probably considered it safer to ignore the incident and so avoid trouble with the Jews (Act 7:57-58; cf. Act 18:14-17; Mat 27:24).

The Sanhedrin was a council of 71 individuals, around the time of Christ that was comprised of Pharisees and Sadducees who governed the Jewish nation while under the rule of Rome. It often served as a court to settle legal and religious matters.