Jesus
Before the Sanhedrim
Part First
The Study of the Personal Character of the Members
of the Sanhedrim that Sat at the Trial of Christ
Chapter
First
The Several
Bodies Composing the Sanhedrim in the Time of Christ
The
Sanhedrim, or Grand Council, was the high court of justice and the supreme
tribunal of the Jews. It was
established at Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity, and it is said that the
famous council of seventy elders instituted by Moses in the wilderness (Deuteronomy
17:8; Numbers 11:16, 24, 25; Exodus 24:1, 9) served as a model for this
assembly.
In
consequence of this resemblance, the rabbis, who are always inclined to
exaggeration whenever there is a question of glorifying the Jewish
institutions, have maintained that the assembly of the Sanhedrim was no other
than the one Moses himself had established.
It is their opinion that the council of seventy established by Moses was
maintained and perpetuated through the centuries of the dispensation of the
law, side by side with the royal power.
They further assert that its name was changed in the latter times to Sanhedrim
instead of Council of Ancients.
This
assertion is doubtless an exaggeration; for the council of seventy ordained by
Moses remained in office for a limited time only. Having been created in order to assist the great Hebrew
legislator in the administration of justice, it disappeared on the entrance of
the children of Israel into the Promised Land.
For if, as the rabbis maintain, it was perpetuated side by side with the
royal power, surely the Bible, Josephus, or Philo, would have mentioned the
fact.
The truth
is, the Sanhedrim appears for the first time during the Maccabean era. Some place the date of its foundation under
the government of Judas Maccabeus, others under that of Jonathan, others again
under the reign of John Hyrcanus.
Whichever opinion we may adopt, the date of the establishment of the
first Sanhedrim Council is between 170 and 106 B.C.
The reader
may also learn with interest the etymology of the word Sanhedrim. This supreme tribunal is also designated in
history by other names. In the second
book of Maccabees it is called yepovoia, or senate, Chap. 1.10; 10.1,
2. In the Vulgate, it is known under
the name of Concilium, or grand council (Matthew 26:59; Luke 22:66). The Talmud names it sometimes the tribunal
of the Maccabees, but more frequently Sanhedrim. All these names are synonymous, although that of Sanhedrim has
generally prevailed in history. It is
used in the Greek text of the Gospels, by the historian Josephus, and in the
rabbinical writings (Jos. Ant., 14, Chap. 5.4; Wars of the Jews,
1.8.5; Talmud, Sanhedrim.)
Borrowed from the Greek, it signifies the assembly of a council in a
sitting posture. It is well-known with
what calmness and gravity the Orientals are in the habit of deliberating on
important matters.
Such are,
so to speak, the external facts concerning this famous assembly. Let us now consider its composition. We shall endeavor, to some extent, to
introduce the reader to the interior of the Sanhedrim.
It was
composed of seventy-one members, including the presidents. This is the number given by Josephus and all
Jewish historians, (Jos., Wars of the Jews, 2.10.5; Maimonides,
Yadchazaka (mighty hand), or Abridgment of the Talmud, Book 14; Constitution
of the Sanhedrim, Chap. 1). At the
time of Christ these seventy-one members were divided into three chambers, as
follows:
The chamber of the priests;
The chamber of the scribes, or
doctors;
The chamber of the elders.
Each
chamber was ordinarily composed of twenty-three members, which together with
the presidents, of whom we shall presently speak, gave the number of
seventy-one.
The chamber
of priests, as the name indicates, was composed exclusively of those who held
the rank of priest.
The
chamber of scribes included the Levites and such of the laymen as were
particularly versed in the knowledge of the law.
The
chamber of ancients was formed of the most venerable men of the nation.
Such was
the constitution of the assembly represented by the three principal estates of
the Hebrew nation, as recorded by all the Hebrew and Christian contemporary
writers. The New Testament declares
that the priests, the scribes, and the ancients assembled to judge Christ, (Mark
14:53, 16:1; Matthew 15:21; John 11:47; Acts 4:5), and Maimonides, who is
so well informed as to the traditions and usages of the Israelites, says: “Only such priests, Levites, and Israelites
were made judges as by the nobility of their origin were worthy to be placed
beside those who held the sacred office of the priesthood” (Maimonides’s Constitutuion
of the Sanhedrim, Chap. 2).
Although constitutionally the “seventy-one” were to
be divided in equal numbers in each of the three chambers — viz.:
Twenty-three in the chamber of the
priests,
Twenty-three in the chamber of the
scribes,
Twenty-three in the chamber of the elders.
Nevertheless
this equal division was not always rigorously maintained; and it occurred more
than once, especially toward the close of the Jewish history of that period,
that the chamber of the priests contained a majority of the members of the
Sanhedrim. The reason for the
preponderance of the priestly element has been given by Abarbanel, one of the
most renowned rabbis of the synagogue.
“The priests and the scribes,” says he, “naturally predominated in the
Sanhedrim because, not having like the other Israelites received lands to
cultivate and improve, they had abundant time to consecrate to the study of law
and justice, and thus became better qualified to act as judges,” (Abarbanel, Comm.
on the Law, fol. 366, recto).
The remark
of this learned rabbi is also supported by the evangelists, who in many places
(Matthew 26:59; John 11:47, 56, 12:10; Acts 5:21, 24, 27, 22:30) leave
us to suppose that the chamber of the priests far surpassed in numbers and
influence those of the scribes and the ancients.
Having
thus defined the constitution of the assembly, (This constitution of the high
assembly of priests, scribes, and elders, had a precedent in Jewish history:
“Moreover in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites, and of the priests,
and of the chief of the fathers of Israel, for the judgment of the Lord, and
for controversies, when they returned to Jerusalem” II Chronicles 19:8.)
let us now see who presided over the debates.
There were
two presidents. One was styled prince
(nassi) of the assembly, and was its real president; the other was called the father
of the tribunal (av-beth-din), and was the vice-president. Both had their places of honor, and were
seated on thrones at the extremity of the hall, having their colleagues at
their sides on seats placed in the form of a semi-circle. At each end of the semi-circle was placed a
secretary.
But out of
which of the three chambers was the president chosen? Some authors, Basnage (History of the Jews, 6.23; la Haye
edition, 1716) among them, have maintained that the presidency belonged by
right to the high priest. This is an
error; for as in the primitive assembly established in the wilderness, it was
Moses, and not the high priest Aaron, who was president, so the presidency of
the Sanhedrim was reserved, as a rule, for the most worthy man of the nation. And, in fact, in the catalogue of presidents
preserved by the Talmud, we find many who did not belong to the
priesthood. Besides, Maimonides, who
has studied the subject thoroughly, says expressly: “Whosoever surpassed his colleagues in wisdom was made by them
chief of the Sanhedrim” (Maimonides, Const. of the Sanhedrim, Chap. 1).
It is,
however, necessary to add that when the influence of the high priesthood became
preponderant — and such was the case when Judea became a Roman province — the officiating
high priest usually assumed the presidency of the Sanhedrim also. Cases are on record even where the
presidency was taken possession of by violence. Need we, then, be surprised at their mercenary spirit and lack of
justice? The mode of the election being
corrupt, their administration became corrupt also. Thus they did not scruple, on many occasions, to decide the most
important questions when only a half or even a third of the members were
present. We said important questions,
for it was to the superior light of the Sanhedrim that the most intricate
questions of justice, doctrines, and administrations were referred.
“The
judgment of the seventy-one is besought when the affair concerns a whole tribe or
is regarding a false prophet or the high priest; when it is a question whether
war shall be declared or not; when it has for its object the enlargement of
Jerusalem or its suburbs; whether
tribunals of twenty-three shall be instituted in the provinces, or to declare
that a town had become defiled, and to place it under ban of excommunication” (Mishnah, Sanhedrim, Chap. 1.5). From this extract from the Mishnah, we see
how great the judiciary powers of the Sanhedrim were. That this assembly possessed indeed a supreme authority, may be
seen from the fact that Herod the Great, during his prefectorate, was obliged
to appear before it as a criminal for having caused a band of robbers to be
killed by its own chief (Josephus, Ant., Book 14, Chap. 9.4); not even
the royal prerogatives of King Hyrcanus himself being able to exempt him from
the mandates of the Sanhedrim Council.
The extent of the power of the Sanhedrim was therefore equal to that of
royalty itself, and sometimes even exceeded it.
Here,
however, we must notice a very important restriction, which the Sanhedrim
imposed upon itself with regard to the power it possessed over life and
death. We shall also very soon find to
what extent the Sanhedrim enjoyed this power under the Roman constitution. What we particularly desire to point out
here is the limitation as to the place itself, where the sentence of
death could be pronounced.
There was
but one hall in Jerusalem where a capital sentence could be pronounced. This hall was called “Gazith,” or the Hall
of Hewn Stones. It was situated in
one of the courts of the Temple, (Talmud, Sanhedrim, Chap. 14. We should not be surprised that the
Sanhedrim held its sessions in the buildings of the Temple. A council of elders had already assembled
there in the times of the kings. See Second
Book of Chronicles), and owed its name to the fact that it was built of
square and highly polished stones, which were considered very elegant at that
time in Jerusalem. (The scriptures
remark that Solomon ordered in the building of the Temple that only large
stones were to be used, and that they were to be cut with great precision, I
Kings 5:17. On the polishing of the hewn stones, see Amos 5:2, 11.)
That it
was there, and there only, that a capital sentence could be pronounced, the
Jewish traditions are unanimous in declaring.
“After leaving the hall of Gazith,” says the Talmud, “no
sentence of death can be passed against any one soever” (Talmud, Bab., Aboda
Zarah, or of Idolatry, Chap. 1, fol. 8, recto). “Capital sentences are not pronounced in
all places,” adds the commentary of R. Solomon, “but only when the
Sanhedrim is assembled in the Hall of Hewn Stones.” Here is also the testimony of
Maimonides: “There can be no
sentence of death unless the Sanhedrim is assembled in its place,” (See Pugio fidei of Raymond Martin,
p. 872, Leipsic edition).
This
custom of confining the pronouncing of capital sentences exclusively to the
hall Gazith was only adopted in the latter times of Jewish national
history, about a century before Christ.
We do not see the slightest trace of so singular a custom either in the
time of the judges or the kings. When
justice required it, the sentence of death was pronounced in any place. One has only to open the Bible to be
convinced of this fact. This
resolution, which includes, so to speak, the right over life and death in the hall
of hewn stones, was introduced, as we have said, in the last period of
Hebrew history. How was this
introduced? No author gives any
information on the subject. The motive
only, which prompted the passage of such a resolution is known, (Talmud, Bab., Sanhedrim, Chap. 14).
In the
book of Deuteronomy it is written: “If
there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment . . . then shalt thou arise,
and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose . . .
and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee,” Deuteronomy
17:8-10. Exaggerating the import of
this commandment, the chiefs of the synagogue who lived a century before Christ
persuaded themselves that, in order to obey punctually this commandment, “they
had to go to the place which the Lord had chosen” every time that “a matter too
hard in judgment” presented itself; and, according to their opinion, could
there be a harder matter in judgment than that of pronouncing the sentence of
death, and what other place could the Lord have chosen if not the Temple? Starting thus from this narrow and forced
interpretation of Scripture, the judges in Israel would no more exercise the
right over life and death unless they were assembled in a special hall in the
Temple — hence the custom which restricted the trial of capital offenses to the
hall Gazith.
We see, then, that the exaggerated and literal
interpretation of the Word of God, which the Talmudists afterwards carried to
such an enormous extent, had already commenced.
It is thus
established beyond doubt that the custom of pronouncing the sentence of death
in the Hall of Hewn Stones only, had in the time of Christ acquired the
force of law, and that any sentence pronounced outside of that place was
void. This fact is of importance, and
the reader will understand it more fully as he advances.