Sermon Tone Analysis

*11.3*     *The Sanhedrin*

* *

*11.3.1*

*Origin*

857*        *The name ‘Sanhedrin’ is a Hebrew transliteration of the Greek word /sunedrion//,/ meaning ‘council’.

Its origin is largely shrouded in uncertainty.

Jewish traditions carry it back to the advisory body of seventy leading figures appointed to assist Moses (Nm 11:10–24), which would be reconstituted by Ezra after the exile.

This view rests, however, rather on rabbinic interests than on facts.

What seems certain is that this body was *post-exilic and came into being as an assembly of prominent aristocrats.*

*11.3.2*

*Status and competence*

858*        *During the Seleucid regime, the Sanhedrin appeared as a convocation of the ‘elders’ (heads of families—Greek: /gerousia//)/ representing the nation.

According to Josephus, it was proclaimed as such by Antiochus III in 198 bc (/Antiq.

/XII:138–44).

859        *In the Maccabaean period there is mention of two groups of dignitaries: the /archontes (rulers) and the elders/*.

Presumably the ‘rulers’ were officials with special functions and the elders were the heads of the leading aristocratic families.

Under the earlier Hasmonaeans this body continued to enjoy respect, but it fell into disfavour with the later members of that house, forfeiting much of its significance.

860        *Herod I forced the two groups of leading Jews, the priestly aristocracy and the heads of families, into the background.*

As for the Sanhedrin, he had several of its prominent members put to death, while he deprived it of its jurisdiction and turned it into a puppet he could manipulate in his own legal processes in Jewish society.

As a result of the antagonistic actions of both the later Hasmonaeans and Herod against the Jewish aristocracy, this class opposed the royal house in question, on the one hand, and, on the other, supported Rome.

861        *The Romans, however, considerably restored the power of the Sanhedrin* by transferring partial jurisdiction to it and allowing it to function as a kind of legislature for internal political matters, which had not previously been the case.

This enabled the Sanhedrin to figure as the Jews’ *parliament, government (executive authority) and supreme court of justice.*

But it was only in Judaea that it had formal authority, though its prestige extended to the whole of Jewry.

An example of this was the payment of the temple tax by all Jews.

Though in particular instances the Sanhedrin could operate outside Judaea, an action such as the one mentioned in Ac 9:2 is not known elsewhere in literature.

Whether during Roman rule the Sanhedrin was competent to inflict the death penalty remains a most controversial question.

*According to the indications, at the time of Jesus’ trial it did not have the power to carry out an execution* (see Jn 18:31, but cf.

Ac 7:54-58).

In any case, it could not put a Roman citizen to death.

None the less, due to our New Testament (cf.

i.a.

Mt 5:22; Ac 4:11-22) and other sources, and especially to the tradition of Jesus’ trial and conviction (Mk 14:53-65par Mt 26:57-68; Lk 22:66–71), it is widely recognized that this Jewish Council had jurisdiction over many spheres of Jewish national life.

862        It would also seem that, despite its prominent role in Jewish national life in New Testament times, one of its constituents, the *heads of families, no longer played as important a part in the Sanhedrin, effectively taking a back seat behind the priestly aristocracy and the scribes.*

In those changed times these two groups were evidently better equipped to deal with the issues which required attention.

The Sanhedrin was thus no longer comparable to a senate; now it more nearly resembled a legislature.

Yet, as representatives of the Jewish nobility, the heads of families continued to retain a certain significance, seeing that they still comprised part of the governing authority and also embodied the conservative Sadducean points of view.

*11.3.3*

*Composition*

863*        *Besides the *high priest as its president,* in the time of Jesus and the apostles the Sanhedrin in all probability consisted of *seventy members* (following Nm 11:16), composed of three groups: the *‘chief priests’* (the most prominent members of the priestly aristocracy; see e.g.

Mk 14:53; 15:1; Ac 4:5), the *elders* (heads of families), and the *scribes* (mostly Pharisees).

864        While this threefold composition continued during the time of Jesus, there was a complete change after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in ad 70.

The cult associated with the temple came to an abrupt end, and with it the priestly element disappeared from Jewish life.

This meant that after ad 70 the Sanhedrin in Jamnia, which would oversee Jewish affairs, would no longer have anyone from the priestly aristocracy or a Sadducee among its members.

The Pharisaic party alone would assume leadership and exercise authority in those matters which concerned Jewish life and religion.

865        We need to note that not all scholars these days accept that such a body actually existed or that its composition was along the lines traditionally postulated.

They point out that the sources available to us do not present a harmonious record.

Rabbinic literature, they contend, depicts the Council as an *assembly of Torah scholars,* with the leader of the Pharisees as its president.

The Greek sources (Josephus, the gospels and Acts) portray *an aristocratic council* presided over by the high priest.

These differences are sufficient to convince such scholars that we probably have to do with two councils or bodies, the one dealing with political, the other with religious matters, or that it may well have been that there was no particular, permanent body.

Others, again, are of the opinion that the divergencies are to be attributed to the fact that the Sanhedrin’s nature and composition altered in course of time and due to circumstances.

This seems to be the most attractive view, just as it appears completely acceptable that over a particular period, and certainly in the time of Jesus and the apostles, there was such a body with an august membership exercising considerable influence on Jewish affairs and with jurisdiction over them.

But that does not alter the fact that there are scholars who contend that the existence of such a body cannot be demonstrated from the sources, or that, if it did exist, its nature and composition cannot be determined.

*11.3.4*

*Functions*

866*        *As already mentioned, the Sanhedrin was composed of seventy-one members (seventy, with the high priest as president), but that did not mean that the full Council met on every occasion.

In fact, a plenary session occurred only seldom, seeing that *most matters were dealt with by smaller committees or councils.*

There were, of course, occasions when a full sitting was required, as, for instance, in cases of capital crimes and apostasy (heretical teachers, seducers, false prophets, rebel sons, etc.).

867        As far as the Sanhedrin’s judicial processes were concerned, there were certain regulations which under normal circumstances had to be strictly observed.

Among the more important of these were the following: No trial could take place at night or on the Sabbath or during a festival.

Every charge of apostasy had to be confirmed by the evidence of at least two witnesses.

Evidence supporting an accusation had to agree materially in every minute detail.

Women were not accepted as witnesses.

After sentence had been passed, not even the withdrawal of evidence could alter the situation.

A trial on a capital charge, where the verdict of guilty was reached, could not commence and conclude on the same day.

On the other hand, the president of the court had the right (known as the law of the moment~/circumstances) in exceptional cases to ignore the relevant regulations, in order to bring a serious offence to a speedy and radical conclusion.

In how far all these stipulations were in force already in the time of Jesus and were complied with or not during his trial (cf.

Mk 14:53–15:1par), is uncertain.

*11.3.5*

*The high priest as president*

868*        *During the time of Jesus, the high priest himself was the aristocratic president of the Council, though the Romans restricted his power.

In the period ad 6–36 the high priest’s vestments were kept in Fort Antonia, and the Romans reserved the right to appoint or depose him.

This meant that in Jesus’ day, *next to the procurator, the high priest was the most powerful man in the land.*

869        The *high priest* had the following three responsibilities:

1.

He represented all the Jews before God.

2.       He had to represent the Roman administration among the cultic personnel.

3.

He had to preside over all domestic matters in the jurisdiction and administration of Judaea.

870        The following *officials* assisted the high priest in the carrying out of his responsibilities:

 

1.

The *captain of the temple,* who commanded the temple guard, and, as a member of the highest priestly aristocracy, was frequently himself a candidate for the high priesthood.

Assisted by the temple guard, a kind of Jewish military police, he was responsible for maintaining order in the temple square.

2.       Five or so additional *aristocratic priests,* whose chief task was to deal with mainly judicial matters as well as with cultic questions.

3.       Three or four priests or laymen, who served as *treasurers.*

They were responsible for administering the income deriving from sacrifices and the temple tax, as well as seeing to the wages of the priests and the temple workers.

871        This executive committee, consisting of about ten men, dealt with current issues relating to the *cult, justice, and finance.*

872        The most prominent men who served as high priests in the time of Jesus and the apostles were the following, who clearly reflect the enormous influence wielded by Annas I:

 

 

Annas (Ananus) I

ad

6–15

 

Caiaphas (son-in-law of Annas)

 

18–36

 

Jonathan (son of Annas)

 

36–37

 

Ananias (see Ac 23:2)

 

48–58

 

Annas (Ananus) II

 

62

 

 

 

*11.4*

*Local authorities*

873*        *The Sanhedrin, located in Jerusalem as the highest authority, was not the only body of its kind in the Jewish domains.

*Across the country there were also many local governing bodies or Sanhedrins.*

We read of these smaller councils in the New Testament (Mk 13:9par; Mt 5:22;10:17), but unfortunately have very little information about them.

We do, however, know that villages with a population of not less than a hundred and twenty adult males were obliged to form a local Sanhedrin of twenty-three members.

Such councils were competent to deal with managerial and judicial matters, and the ‘elders’ were prominent among their members.

But even the smaller hamlets had their local Sanhedrins, each composed of seven members (Schürer).

We also know that for purposes of control (tax, for instance) the Romans divided Judaea into some *twelve **/toparchiae/**/ or districts,/* based around certain urban centres like Jerusalem, Joppa, Jamnia and Emmaus.

We may accept that the Sanhedrin of such a centre would have exercised authority over the whole district.

All weighty issues had, however, to be brought to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, though even its jurisdiction was not unlimited.

Charges involving capital punishment had to be heard by the procurator, since he alone was empowered to inflict the death penalty.

*BIBLIOGRAPHICAL GUIDE*

874*        *

P. Billerbeck, /KNTTM/ I, 257–9,835,1005,1026; II, 166,271; IV, 339–43

T.A. Burkill, Sanhedrin, /IDB/ IV, 214–18

W. Dommershausen, /Umwelt/ (§561), 54f

E. Ferguson, /Backgrounds/ (§82), 533–6