Sanhedrin

VIEW:22 DATA:01-04-2020

sitting together
Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary


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.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

Sanhedrin formed from the Greek sunedrion. Sanhedrin is the Chaldee form. (See COUNCIL.)
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

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.
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863

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).
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.

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 kenı̄shtā', ?meeting-place? (Meghillath 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 gedhōlāh, ?the great Sanhedrin,? or bēth-dı̄n ha-gādhōl, ?the great court of justice? (Middōth 5 4; Ṣanhedrin 1 6), or ṣanhedhrı̄n gedhōlāh ha-yōshebheth be-lishekhath 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; Meghillath 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 ṣōpherē-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).

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores