The Moral
Character of the Personages
Who Sat at the
Trial of Christ
As we have already noticed, the members of the Sanhedrim
that judged Christ were seventy-one in number, and were divided into three
chambers; but we must know the names, acts, and moral character of these
judges. That such knowledge would throw
a great light on this celebrated trial can be easily understood. The characters of Caiaphas, Ananias, and
Pilate are already well-known to us.
These stand out as the three leading figures in the drama of the
Passion. But others have appeared in
it; would it not be possible to produce them also before history? This task, we believe, has never yet been
undertaken. It was thought that
documents were wanting. But this is an
error; such documents exist. We have
consulted them; and in this century of historical study and research, we shall
draw forth from the places where they have been hidden for centuries, the
majority of the judges of Christ.
Three
kinds of documents have, in a particular manner, enabled us to discover the
character of these men: the books of the evangelists, the valuable writings of
Josephus the historian, and the hitherto unexplored pages of the Talmud. We shall bring to light forty of the judges,
so that more than half of the Sanhedrim will appear before us; and this large
majority will be sufficient to enable us to form an opinion of the moral tone
of the whole assembly.
To proceed
with due order, we will begin with the most important chamber — viz., the
chamber of the priests.
We use the
expression “chamber of the priests.”
In the Gospel narrative, however, this division of the Sanhedrim bears a
more imposing title. Matthew, Mark, and
other evangelists, designate it by the following names: the council of the high priests, and
the council of the princes of the priests, Matthew 2:4, 21:15, 26:3,
47, 59; Mark 11:18, 15:11; Luke 19:47, 20:1; John 11:47, 12:10.
But we may
ask, why is this pompous name given to this chamber by the evangelists? Is this not an error on their part? An assembly of priests seems natural, but
how can there be an assembly of high priests, since according to the Mosaic
institution there could be only one high priest, whose office was tenable for
life. There is, however, neither an
error nor an undue amplification on the part of the Gospel narrators; and we
may also add here that both Talmuds positively speak of an assembly of high
priests, (Dérembourg, Essai sur l’histoire et la géographie de la Palestine,
p. 231, note 1). But how, then, can we
account for the presence of several high priests at the same time in the
Sanhedrim? Here is the explanation, to
the shame of the Jewish assembly:
For nearly
a century a detestable abuse prevailed, which consisted in the arbitrary
nomination and deposition of the high priest.
The high priesthood, which for fifteen centuries had been preserved in
the same family, being hereditary according to the divine command, (Josephus, Ant.,
Book 20, Chap. 10.1; 15, 3.1) had at the time of Christ’s advent become an
object of commercial speculation. Herod
commenced these arbitrary changes (Josephus, Ant., Book 15, Chap. 3.1)
and after Judea became one of the Roman conquests the election of the high
priest took place almost every year at Jerusalem, the procurators appointing
and deposing them in the same manner as the praetorians later on made and
unmade emperors, (Josephus, Ant., Book 18, Chap. 2.3; Book 20, Chap.
9.1, 4). The Talmud speaks sorrowfully
of this venality and the yearly changes of the high priest.
This
sacred office was given to the one that offered the most money for it, and the
mothers were particularly anxious that their sons should be nominated to this
dignity. (See Talmud, Yoma, or the
Day of Atonement, fol. 35, recto; also Dérembourg, work above quoted, p.
230, note 2.)
The
expression, “the council of the high priests,” used by the evangelists
to designate this section of the Sanhedrim, is therefore rigorously correct;
for at the time of the trial of Christ there were about twelve former high
priests, who still retained the honorable title of their charge, and were, by
the right of that title, members of the high tribunal. Several ordinary priests were also included
in this chamber, but they were in most cases related to the high priests; for
in the midst of the intrigues by which the sovereign pontificate was surrounded
in those days, it was customary for the more influential of the chief priests
to bring in their sons and allies as members of their chamber. The spirit of caste was very powerful, and
as M. Dérembourg, a modern Jewish savant, has remarked: “A few priestly, aristocratic, powerful,
and vain families, who cared for neither the dignity nor the interests of the
altar, quarreled with each other respecting appointments, influence, and
wealth,” (Essai sur l’histoire et la géographie de la Palestine, p.
232).
To sum up,
we have, then, in this first chamber a double element — high priests and
ordinary priests. We shall now make
them known by their names and character, and indicate the sources whence the
information has been obtained.
Caiaphas, high priest then in office. He was the son-in-law of Ananos, and
exercised his office for eleven years — during the whole term of Pilate’s
administration, 25-36 A.D. It is he who
presided over the Sanhedrim during this trial, and the history of the Passion
as given by the evangelists is sufficient to make him known to us. (See Matthew 26:3; Luke 3:2, etc.;
Jos., Ant., Book 18, Chap. 2.2.)
Ananos held the office of high priest for seven years under
Coponius, Ambivius, and Rufus (7-11 A.D.).
This personage was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, and although out of
office, was nevertheless consulted on matters of importance. It may be said, indeed, that in the midst of
the instability of the sacerdotal office, he alone preserved in reality its
authority. For fifty years this high
office remained without interruption in his family. Five of his sons successively assumed its dignity. This family was even known as the
“sacerdotal family,” as if this office had become hereditary in it. Ananos had charge also of the more important
duties of the Temple, and Josephus says that he was considered the most
fortunate man of his time. He adds,
however, that the spirit of this family was haughty, audacious, and cruel, (Luke
3:2; John 18:13, 24; Acts 4:6; Jos., Ant., Book 15, Chap. 3.1; 20,
9.1, 3; Jewish Wars, Book 4, Chap. 5. 2, 6, 7).
Eleazar was high priest during one year, under Valerius
Grattus, 23-24 A.D. He was the eldest
son of Ananos, (Jos., Ant., Book 18, 2.2).
Jonathan, son of Ananos, simple priest at that time, but afterward
made high priest for one year in the place of Caiaphas when the latter was
deposed, after the disgrace of Pilate, by Vitellius, Governor-general of Syria,
37 A.D., (Jos., Ant., B. 18, 4.3).
Theophilus, son of Ananos, simple priest at that time, but
afterward made high priest in the place of his brother Jonathan, who was
deposed by Vitellius. Theophilus was in
office five years, 38-42 A.D., (Jos., Ant., B. 19, 6.2; Munk, Hist.
de la Palestine, p. 568).
Matthias, son of Ananos, simple priest; afterward high priest
for two years (42-44 A.D.). He
succeeded Simon Cantharus, who was deposed by King Herod Agrippa, (Jos., Ant.,
19, 6.4).
Ananus, son of Ananos, simple priest at the time;
afterwards made high priest by Herod Agrippa after the death of the Roman
governor, Portius Festus (63 A.D.).
Being a Sadducee of extravagant zeal, he was deposed at the end of three
months by Albanus, successor of Portius Festus, for having illegally condemned
the apostle James to be stoned, (Acts 23:2, 24:1; Jos., Ant., B.
20, 9.1).
Joazar, high priest for six years during the latter days of
Herod the Great and the first years of Archelaus (4 B.C.-2 A.D.). He was the son of Simon Boethus, who owed
his dignity and fortune to the following dishonorable circumstance, as related
by Josephus the historian: “There was one Simon, a citizen of Jerusalem, the
son of Boethus, a citizen of Alexandria and a priest of great note there. This man had a daughter, who was esteemed
the most beautiful woman of that time.
And when the people of Jerusalem began to speak much in her
commendation, it happened that Herod was much affected by what was said of her;
and when he saw the damsel he was smitten with her beauty. Yet did he entirely reject the thought of
using his authority to abuse her . . . so he thought it best to take the damsel
to wife. And while Simon was of a
dignity too inferior to be allied to him, but still too considerable to be
despised, he governed his inclinations after the most prudent manner by
augmenting the dignity of the family and making them more honorable. Accordingly, he forthwith deprived Jesus,
the son of Phabet, of the high priesthood, and conferred that dignity on
Simon.” Such, according to Josephus, is
the origin — not at all of a supernatural nature — of the call to the high
priesthood of Simon Boethus and his whole family. Simon, at the time of this trial, was already dead; but Joazar
figured in it with two of his brothers, one of whom was, like himself, a former
high priest, (Jos., Ant., B. 15, 9.3; 17, 6.4; 18, 1; 19, 6.2).
Eleazar, second son of Simon Boethus. He succeeded his brother Joazar when the
latter was deprived of that function by King Archelaus (2 A.D.) Eleazar was high priest for a short time
only, the same king deposing him three months after his installation, (Jos., Ant.,
B. 17, 13.1; 19.6.2).
Simon
Cantharus, third son of Simon
Boethus, simple priest at the time; was afterwards made high priest by King
Herod Agrippa (42 A.D.), who, however, deposed him after a few months, (Jos., Ant.,
B. 19, 2, 4).
Jesus ben
Sie succeeded Eleazar to the
high priesthood, and held the office for five or six years (1-6 A.D.) under the
reign of Archelaus, (Jos., Ant., 17, 13.1).
Ismael ben
Phabi, high priest for nine years
under procurator Valerius Grattus, predecessor of Pontius Pilate. He was considered, according to the rabbins,
the handsomest man of his time. The
effeminate love of luxury of this chief priest was carried to such an extent
that his mother, having made him a tunic of great price, he deigned to wear it
once, and then consigned it to the public wardrobe, as a grand lady might
dispose of a robe which no longer pleased her caprices, (Talmud, Pesachim, or
of the Passover, fol. 57, verso; Yoma, or the Day of Atonement,
fol. 9, verso; 35, recto; Jos., Ant., 18, 2.2; 20, 8.11; Bartolocci, Grand
Bibliotheque Rabbinique, T. 3, p. 297; Munk, Palestine, pp. 563,
575).
Simon ben
Camithus, high priest during one
year under procurator Valerius Grattus (24-25 A.D.). This personage was celebrated for the enormous size of his hand,
and the Talmud relates of him the following incident: On the eve of the Day of
Atonement it happened, in the course of a conversation which he had with
Arathus, King of Arabia — whose daughter Herod Antipas had just married — that
some saliva, coming out of the mouth of the king, fell on the robe of
Simon. As soon as the king left him, he
hastened to divest himself of it, considering it desecrated by the
circumstance, and hence unworthy to be worn during the services of the
following day. What a remarkable
instance of Pharisaical purity and charity!
(Talmud, Yoma, or the Day of Atonement, fol. 47, verso;
Jos., Ant., 18, 2.2; Dérembourg, Essai sur l’histoire, p. 197, n.
2.)
John, simple priest.
He is made known to us through the Acts of the Apostles. “And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas,
and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest,
were gathered together in Jerusalem,” Acts 4:6.
Alexander, simple priest; also mentioned in the Acts of the
Apostles in the passage above quoted.
Josephus also makes mention of him, and says that he afterwards became
an Alabarch — that is to say, first magistrate of the Jews in
Alexandria. That he was very rich is to
be learned from the fact that King Herod Agrippa asked and obtained from him
the loan of two hundred thousand pieces of silver, (Acts 4:6; Jos., Ant.,
18, 6.3; 20, 5.2; Petri Wesselingii, Diatribe de Judaeorum Archontibus,
Trajecti ad Rhenum, p. 69-71).
Ananias
ben Nebedeus, simple priest
at that itme; was elected to the high priesthood under procurators Ventideus,
Cumanus, and Felix (48-54 A.D.). He is
mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles and by Josephus. It was this high priest who delivered the
apostle Paul to procurator Felix.
“Ananias the high priest descended with the elders, and with a certain
orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul,” Acts 24:1. According to Jewish tradition, this high
priest is chiefly known for his excessive gluttony. What the Talmud says of his voracity is quite phenomenal. It mentions three hundred calves, as many
casks of wine, and forty pairs of young pigeons as having been brought together
for his repast, (Talmud, Bab., Pesachim, or the Passover, fol. 57,
verso; Kerihoth, or Sins Which Close the Entrance to Eternal Life,
fol. 28, verso; Jos., Ant., 20, 5.2; Dérembourg, work quoted above, p.
230, 234; Munk, Palestine, p. 573, n. 1).
Helcias, simple priest, and keeper of the treasury of the
Temple. It is probably from him that
Judas Iscariot received the thirty pieces of silver, the price of his treason
(Jos., Ant., 20, 8.11).
Sceva, one of the principal priests. He is spoken of in the Acts apropos of his
seven sons, who gave themselves up to witchcraft, Acts 19:13, 14.
Such are
the chief priests that constituted the first chamber of the Sanhedrim at the
time of the trial of Christ.
From the
documents which we have consulted and the résumé which we have just given, we
gather:
1. That several of the high priests were
personally dishonorable.
2. That all these high priests, who succeeded
each other annually in the Aaronic office in utter disregard of the order
established by God, were but miserable intruders. We trust that these expressions will not offend our dear
Israelitish readers, for they are based on the statements of eminent and
zealous Jewish writers.
To begin
with, Josephus the historian. Although
endeavoring to conceal as much as possible the shameful acts committed by the
priests composing this council, yet he was unable, in a moment of distrust, to
refrain from stigmatizing them. “About
this time,” he says, “there arose a sedition between the high priests and the
principal men of the multitude of Jerusalem, each of which assembled a company
of the boldest sort of men, and of those that loved innovations, and became
leaders to them. And when they
struggled together, they did it by casting reproachful words against one
another, and by throwing stones also.
And there was nobody to reprove them; but these disorders were done
after a licentious manner in the city, as if it had no government over it. And such was the impudence and boldness that
had seized on the high priests that they had the hardness to send their servants
into the threshing floors, to take away those tithes that were due the [simple]
priests. Insomuch that the poorest
priests died of want,” (Jos., Ant., 20, 8.8). Such are the acts, the spirit of equity and kindness that
characterized the chief judges of Christ!
But the Talmud goes farther still.
This book, which ordinarily is not sparing of eulogies on the people of
our nation, yet, considering separately and by name, as we have done, the high
priests of that time, it exclaims:
“What a plague is the family of Simon Boethus; cursed be their
lances! What a plague is the family of
Ananos; cursed be their hissing of vipers!
What a plague is the family of Cantharus; cursed be their pens! What a plague is the family of Ismael ben
Phabi; cursed be their fists! They are
high priests themselves, their sons are treasurers, their sons-in-law are
commanders, and their servants strike the people with staves.” (Talmud, Pesachim, or of the
Passover, fol. 57, verso.) The
Talmud continues: “The porch of the
sanctuary cried out four times. The
first time, Depart from here, descendants of Eli; (The high priests designated
under the name of the descendants of Eli are those who, as sons of the high
priest Eli, polluted the Temple by their immorality.) (See I Kings 3:22-25;
I Samuel 2:12-17, 22-25.) ye pollute the Temple of the Eternal! The second time, Let Issachar ben Keifar
Barchi depart from here, who polluteth himself and profaneth the victims
consecrated to God! (This Issachar was a priest of such a dainty nature that in
order to touch the sacrifices he covered his hands with silk.) The third time, Widen yourselves, ye gates
of the sanctuary, and let Israel ben Phabi the willful enter, that he may
discharge the functions of the priesthood!
Yet another cry was heard, Widen yourselves, ye gates, and let Ananias
ben Nebedeus the gourmand enter, that he may glut himself on the victims!” In face of such low morality, avowed by the
least to be suspected of our own nation, is it possible to restrain one’s
indignation against those who sat at the trial of Christ as members of the
chambers of priests? This indignation
becomes yet more intense when one remembers that an ambitious hypocrisy, having
for its aim the domineering over the people, had perverted the law of Moses in
these men. The majority of the priests
belonged, in fact, to the Pharisaic order, the members of which sect made
religion subservient to their personal ambition; and in order to rule over the
people with more ease, they used religion as a tool to effect this purpose,
encumbering the law of Moses with exaggerated precepts and insupportable
burdens which they strenuously imposed upon others, but failed to observe
themselves. Can we, then, be astonished
at the murderous hatred which these false and ambitious men conceived for
Christ? When His words, sharper than a
sword, exposed their hypocrisy and displayed the corrupt interior of these
whitened sepulchers wearing the semblance of justice, the hatred they already
cherished for Him grew to a frenzied intensity. They never forgave Him for having publicly unmasked them. Hypocrisy never forgives that.
Such were
the men composing the council of priests, when the Sanhedrim assembled to judge
Christ. Were we not justified in
forming of them an unfavorable opinion?
. . . . But let us pass on to the second chamber, viz., the chamber of
the scribes.
Let us
recall in a few words who the scribes were.
Chosen indiscriminately among the Levites and laity, they formed the corps
savant of the nation; they were doctors in Israel, and were held in high
esteem and veneration. It is well-known
what respect the Jews, and the Eastern nations generally, have always had for
their wise men.
Next to the
chamber of the priests, that of the scribes was the most important. But from information gathered from documents
to which we have already referred, we are constrained to affirm that, with a
few individual exceptions, this chamber was no better than that of the priests.
The
following is a list of the names and histories of the wise men who
composed the chamber of the scribes at the trial of Christ:
Gamaliel, surnamed the ancient. He was a very worthy Israelite, and his name is spoken of with
honor in the Talmud as well as in the Acts of the Apostles. He belonged to a noble family, being a
grandson of the famous Hillel, who, coming from Babylon forty years before
Christ, taught with such brilliant success in Jerusalem. Gamaliel acquired so great a reputation
among his people for his scientific acquirements, that the Talmud could say of
him: “With the death of Rabbi
Gamaliel the glory of the law has departed.” It was at the feet of this doctor that Saul, afterwards Paul the
Apostle, studied the law and Jewish traditions, and we know how he gloried in
this fact (Acts 22:3). Gamaliel
had also among his disciples Barnabas and Stephen, the first martyr for the
cause of Christ. When the members of
the Sanhedrim discussed the expediency of putting the apostles to death, this
worthy Israelite prevented the passing of the sentence by pronouncing these
celebrated words: “Ye men of Israel,
take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. . . . . And
now I say unto you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this
counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought; but if it be of God, ye
cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God” Acts
5:34-39. Gamaliel died nineteen
years after Christ (52 A.D.). (Acts
5:34-39; 22:3. Mishnah, Sotah,
or the Woman Suspected of Adultry, C.9 Sepher Juchasin, or the
Book of the Ancestors, p. 53; David Ganz, Germe de David ou Chronologie
to 4768; Bartolocci Bibliotheca magna Rabbinica, T. 1, pp. 727-732.)
Simon, son of Gamaliel, like his father, had a seat in the
assembly. The rabbinical books speak of
him in the highest terms of eulogy. The
Mishnah, for instance, attributes to him this sentence: “Brought up from my infancy among learned
men, I have found nothing that is of greater value to man than silence. Doctrines are not the chief things, but
work. He who is in the habit of much
talking falls easily into error.” This
Simon became afterwards the intimate friend of the too-celebrated bandit, John
of Goscola, whose excesses and cruelty toward the Romans, and even the Jews,
caused Titus to order the pillaging of Jerusalem. Simon was killed in the last assult in 70 A.D., (David Ganz, Chronologie
to 4810; Mishnah, Aboth, or of the Fathers, C.1; Talmud, Jerusalem, Berachoth, or of
Blessings, fol. 6, verso; Historia Doctorium Misnicorum, J. H.
Otthonis, pp. 110-113; De Champagny, Rome et la Judee, T. 2, 86-171).
Onkelos was born of heathen parents, but embraced Judaism,
and became one of the most eminent disciples of Gamaliel. He is the author of the famous Chaldaic
paraphrase of the Pentateuch. Although
the rabbinical books do not mention him as a member of the Sanhedrim, yet it is
highly probable that he belonged to
that body, his writings and memory having always been held in great esteem by
the Jews; even at the present day every Jew is enjoined to read weekly a
portion of his version of the books of Moses.
Onkelos carried the Pharisaical intolerance to the last degree. Converted from idolatry to Judaism, he hated
the Gentiles to such an extent that he cast into the Dead Sea, as an object of
impurity, the sum of money that he had inherited from his parents. We can easily understand how that, with such
a disposition, he would not be favorably inclined toward Jesus, who received
Gentiles and Jews alike, (Talmud, Megilla, or The Festival of Esther,
fol. 3, verso; Baba-bathra, or the Last Gate, fol. 134, verso; Succa,
or the Festival of Tabernacles, fol. 28, verso; Thosephthoth, or Supplements
to the Mishnah, C. 5; Rabbi Gedalia, Tzaltzeleth Hakkabalah, or the
Chain of the Kabalah, p. 28; Histor. Doct. Misnic., p. 110; De Rossi, Dizionario degli, Autori Ebrei,
p. 81).
Jonathan
ben Uziel, author of a very
remarkable paraphrase of the Pentateuch and the Prophets. There is a difference of opinion regarding
the precise time at which he lived.
Some place it several years before Christ; others at the time of
Christ. We believe, however, that not
only was he contemporary with Christ, but that he was also one of his
judges. In support of our assertion we
give the two following proofs, which we think indisputable: 1.
Jonathan, the translator of the Prophets, has purposely omitted Daniel,
which omission the Talmud explains as due to the special intervention of an
angel who informed him that the manner in which the prophet speaks of the death
of the Messiah coincided too exactly with that of Jesus of Nazareth. Now, since Jonathan has intentionally left
out the prophecies of Daniel on account of their coincidence with the death of
Christ, it proves that he could not have lived before Christ, but must have
been contemporary with him. 2. In comparing the paraphrase of Onkelos with
that of Jonathan, we find that the latter had made use of the work of the
former, who lived in the time of Christ.
Examples may be found in Deuteronomy 22:5; Judges 5:26; Numbers
21:28-29. If, then, Jonathan
utilized the work of Onkelos, who lived in the time of Christ, the fact proves
beyond question that he could not have lived before Christ. The Talmudists, in order to reward this
person for having, through his hatred of Christ, erased the name of Daniel from
the roll of prophets, eulogize him in the most absurd manner. They relate that while engaged in the study
of the law of God, the atmosphere which surrounded him, and came in contact
with the light of his understanding, so caught fire from his fervor that the
birds, silly enough to be attracted toward it, were consumed immediately,
(Talmud, Succa, or the Festival of Tabernacles, fol. 28, verso;
David Ganz, Chronol. 4728; Gesenius, Comm. on Isaiah, part I, p.
65; Zunz, Culte divin des Jnifs, Berlin, 1832, p. 61; Dérembourg, work
quoted above, p. 276; Hanneburg, Revelat
Bibliq., 2. 163, 432).
Samuel
Hakaton, or the Less. Surnamed to distinguish him from Samuel the
prophet. It was he who, some time after
the resurrection of Christ, composed the famous imprecation against the
Christians, called “Birchath Hamminim,” (Benedictions of Infidels). The “Birchath Hamminim,” says the Talmud,
and the commentary of R. Jarchi, “was composed by R. Samuel Hakaton at Jabneh,
where the Sanhedrim had removed after the misconduct of the Nazarene, who
taught a doctrine contrary to the words of the living God.” The following is the singular benediction: “Let there be no hope for the apostates
of religion, and let all heretics, whosoever they may be, perish suddenly. May the kingdom of pride be rooted out; let
it be annihilated quickly, even in our days!
Be blessed, O Lord, who destroyest the impious, and humblest the proud!”
As soon as Samuel Hekaton had composed this malediction, it was inserted as an
additional blessing in the celebrated prayer of the synagogue, the
“Shemonah-Essara,” (the eighteen blessings).
These blessings belonged to the time of Ezra — that is to say, five
centuries before the Christian era; and every Jew has to recite it daily. St. Jerome was not ignorant of this strange
prayer. He says: “The Jews anathematize three times daily
in their synagogue the name of the Christian, disguising it under the name of
Nazarene.” According to R. Gedalia,
Samuel died before the destruction of Jerusalem, about fifteen or twenty years
after Christ, (Talmud, Berachoth,
or of Prayers, fol. 28, verso; Megilla, or the Festival of
Esther, fol. 28, verso; St. Jerome, Comment. on Isaiam, B. 2,
C.5.18,19; Tom. 4, p. 81 of the Valarsius, quarto edition; Vitringa, de
Synagoga vetr., T. 2, p. 1036, 1047, 1051; Castellus, Lexicon
heptaglotton, art. Min).
Chanania
ben Chiskia. He was a great conciliator in the midst of
the doctrinal quarrels so common at that time; and it happened that the rival
schools of Shammai and Hillel, which were not abolished with the death of their
founders, often employed him as their arbitrator. This skillful umpire did not always succeed, however, in calming
the disputants; for we read in the ancient books that in the transition from
force of argument to argument of force, the members of the schools of Shammai
and Hillel frequently came to blows.
Hence the French expression se chammailler. It happened, however, according to the
Talmud, that Chanania once departed from his usual system of equilibrium in
favor of the prophet Ezekiel. It
appears that on one occasion the most influential members of the Sanhedrim
proposed to censure, and even reject, the book of this prophet, because,
according to their opinion, it contained several passages in contradiction of
the law of Moses; but Chanania defended it with so much eloquence that they
were obliged to desist from their project.
This fact alone, reported fully as it is in the Talmud, would be
sufficient to show the laxity of the study of the prophecies at that time. Although the exact date of his death is
uncertain, it is, nevertheless, sure that it took place before the destruction
of the Temple, (Talmud, Chagiga, or the obligations of the males to
present themselves three times a year at Jerusalem, 2, 13; Shabbath,
or of the Sabbath, C.1; Sepher
Juchasin, or the Book of Ancestors, p. 57).
Ismael ben
Eliza, renowned for the depth of his
mind and beauty of his face. The
rabbins record that he was learned in the most mysterious things; for example,
he could command the angels to descend from heaven and ascend thither. We have it also from the same authority that
his mother held him in such high admiration that one day on his return from
school she washed his feet, and, through respect for him, drank the water,
which she had used for that purpose.
His death was of a no less romantic nature. It appears that after the capture of Jerusalem, the daughter of
Titus was so struck with his beauty that she obtained permission of her father
to have the skin of his face taken off after his death, which skin she had
embalmed, and having perfumed it, she sent it to Rome to figure among the
spoils as a trophy, (Talmud, Aboda Zarah, or of Idolatry, C.1; Rabbi Gadalia, Tzaltzeleth Hakkabalah,
or the Chain of the Kabalah, p. 29;
Sepher Juchasin, or the Book of Ancestors, p. 25; Tosephoth
Kiddushin, C.4).
Rabbi
Zadok. He was about forty years old at the trial of Christ, and died
after the burning of the Temple, aged over seventy. The Talmud relates that for forty years he ceased not from
fasting, that God might so order it that the Temple should not be destroyed by
fire. Upon this the question is
propounded in the same book, but no answer given, as to how this rabbin could
have known that the Temple was threatened with so great a calamity. We believe that Rabbi Zadok could have
obtained information of this terrible event in one of two ways — either from
the prophetic voice of Daniel which proclaimed more than forty years previous
to the occurrence that abomination and desolation should crush the Temple of
Jerusalem when the Messiah should have been put to death; or by the voice of
Jesus Himself, who said forty years before the destruction of the Temple: “See ye not all these things?” (i.e.,
the buildings of the Temple) “verily, verily I say unto you, There shall not be
left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down,” (Mishnah, Shabbath,
or of the Sabbath, C.24.5 to end; Eduth, or the Testimony,
C.7.1; Aboth, or of the Fathers of Tradition, 4.5; David Ganz, Chronol.
4785; Seph. Juchasin, fol. 21, 26; Schikardi, Jus Regium Hebraeorum,
p. 468; Daniel 9:25-27; Luke 21:6; Matthew 24:2).
Jochanan
ben Zakai. The rabbinical books accord to this rabbi an
extraordinary longevity. From their
writings it would appear that, like Moses, he lived a hundred and twenty years,
forty years of which he consecrated to manual labor; another forty to the study
of the law; and the last forty years of his life he devoted to imparting his
knowledge to others. His reputation as
a savant was so well-established that he was surnamed the Splendor of Wisdom. After the destruction of the Temple, he
rallied together the remaining members of the Sanhedrim to Jabneh, where he
presided over this remnant for the last four or five years of his life. He died in the year 73 A.D. When he breathed his last, says the Mishnah,
a cry of anguish was heard, saying:
“With the death of Jochanan ben Zakai the splendor of wisdom has been
quenched!” We have, however, other
information regarding this rabbi, which is, so to speak, like the reverse side
of a medal. The Bereshith Rabba says that
Rabbi Jochanan was in the habit of eulogizing himself in the most extravagant
manner, and gives the following as a specimen of the praises he bestowed upon
himself: “If the skies were parchment,
all the inhabitants of the world writers, and all the trees of the forest pens,
all these would not suffice to transcribe the doctrines which he had learned
from the masters.” What humility of
language! One day his disciples asked
him to what he attributed his long life.
“To my wisdom and piety,” was his reply in his tone of habitual
modesty. Besides, if we were to judge
of his moral character by an ordinance of which he is author, his morality
might be equal to the standard of his humility. He abolished the Mosaical command of the order of bitter waters, immorally
isolating a passage in Isaiah from its context. Finally, to fill up the measure of his honesty, he became one of
the lewdest courtiers of Titus, and the destroyer of his country. But while obsequious to human grandeur, he
was obdurate to the warnings of God, and died proud and impenitent, (Talmud, Rosh
Hashanah, or of the New Year, fol. 20, recto; 31, recto; Sotah,
or of the Woman Suspected, etc., 9.9; Yoma, or the Day of
Atonement, fol. 39, recto, and 43; Gittin, or of Divorce, fol.
56, verso and recto; Succa, or of the Festival of Tabernacles,
fol. 28, verso; Mishnah, Chapter, Egla arupha; Sepher Juchasin, or the
Book of Ancestors, fol. 20, recto; Seph. Hakkabalah; Otthonis,
Hist. Doct. Misn., pp. 93-103; Hosea 4:14; Jos., Wars,
6,5.3; De Champagny, Rome et la
Judee, T.1, p. 158).
Abba
Saul. He was of prodigious height, and had the charge of superintending
the burials of the dead, that everything might be done according to the
law. The rabbins, who delight in the
marvelous, affirm that in the exercise of his duties he found the thighbone of
Og, the King of Bashan, and the right eye of Absalom. By virtue of the marrow extracted from the thigh of Og, he was
enabled to chase a young buck for three leagues; as for the eye of Absalom, it
was so deep that he could have hidden himself in it as if in a cavern. These stories, no doubt, appear very
puerile; and yet according to a Talmudical book (Menorath-Hammoer, the
lighted candlestick), which is considered of great authority even in the
modern [orthodox] synagogue, we must judge of these matters in the following
manner: “Everything which our doctors
have taught in the Medrashim (allegoric or historical commentaries) we are
bound to consider and believe in as the law of Moses our master; and if we find
anything in it which appears exaggerated and incredible, we must attribute it
to the weakness of our understandings, rather than to their teachings; and
whoever turns into ridicule whatever they have said will be punished.” According to Maimonides, Abba Saul died
before the destruction of the Temple,
(Mishnah, Middoth, or of the Dimensions of the Temple,
Chapter, Har habbaith; Talmud,
Nidda, or the Purification of Women, C.3, fol. 24, recto;
Maimonides, Proef ad zeraim;
Drach, Harmonies entre l’ Eglise et la Synagogue, T. 2, p. 375).
R.
Chanania, surnamed the Vicar of the
Priests. The Mishnah attributes to him
a saying which brings clearly before us the social position of the Jewish
people in the last days of Jerusalem.
“Pray,” said he, “for the Roman Empire; for should the terror of its
power disappear in Palestine, neighbor will devour neighbor alive.” This avowal shows the deplorable state of
Judea, and the divisions to which she had become a prey. The Romans seem, however, to have cared very
little for the sympathy of R. Chanania, for, having possessed themselves of the
city, they put him to death (Mishnah, Aboth, or of the Fathers of
Tradition, C.3.2; Zevachim, or of Sacrifices, C.9.3; Eduth,
or of Testimony, C.2.1; David Ganz, Chronologie, 4826; Sepher
Juchasin, or the Book of Ancestors, p. 57).
Rabbi
Eleazar ben Partah, one of
the most esteemed scribes of the Sanhedrim, on account of his scientific
knowledge. Already very aged at the destruction
of the Temple, he yet lived several years after that national calamity,
(Talmud, Gittin, or of Divorces, C.3.4; Sepher Juchasin,
p. 31).
Rabbi
Nachum Halbalar. He is mentioned in the rabbinical books as
belonging to the Sanhedrim in the year 28 A.D., but nothing particular is
mentioned of his history, (Talmud, Peah, or of the Angle, C.2.6, Sanhedrim).
Rabbi
Simon Hamizpah. He also is said to have belonged to the
Sanhedrim in the year 28 A.D. Beyond
this but little is known, (Talmud, Peah, C.2.6).
These are,
according to Jewish tradition, the principal scribes, or doctors that composed
the second chamber of the Sanhedrim at the time of the trial of Christ. The ancient books, which speak of them are,
of course, filled with their praises. Nevertheless,
blended with these praises are some remarks which point to the predominant vice
of these men — namely, pride. We read
in Rabbi Nathan’s book, Aruch (a Talmudical dictionary of great
authority), (Rabbi Nathan, son of Rabbi Yechiel, was the disciple of the
celebrated Moses, the preacher and first rabbi of the synagogue at Rome in the
ninth century. His work forms a large
folio volume, and contains some minute explanations of the most difficult
passages in the Talmud): “In the
past and more honorable times the titles of rabbin, rabbi, or rav, (i.e., lord)
to designate the learned men of Babylon and Palestine were unknown; thus when
Hillel came from Babylon the title of rabbi was not added to his name. It was the same with the prophets who were
styled simply Isaiah, Haggai, etc., and not Rabbi Isaiah, Rabbi Haggai,
etc. Neither did Ezra bring the title
of rabbi with him from Babylon. It was
not until the time of Gamaliel, Simon, and Jochanan ben Zackai that this
imposing title was first introduced among the worthies of the Sanhedrim.”
This
pompous appellation appears, indeed, for the first time among the Jews
contemporary with Christ. “They love
the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and
greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.” Proud of their titles and learning, they
laid claim to the foremost rank in society.
A wise man, say they, should be preferred to a king; the king
takes the precedence of the high priest; the priest of the Levite; the Levite
of the ordinary Israelite. The wise man
should be preferred to the king, for if the wise man should die he could not
easily be replaced; while the king could be succeeded by an Israelite of any
order, (Talmud, Jerus., Horayoth, or Regulations of Justice,
fol. 84, recto). Basing the social
status on this maxim we are not astonished to find in the Talmud, (Talmud,
Jerus., Shevuoth, or of Oaths, fol.19, verso) that at a certain
time twenty-four persons were excommunicated for having failed to render to the
rabbi the reverence due his position.
Indeed, a very small offense was often sufficient to call forth
maledictions from this haughty and intolerant dignitary. Punishment was mercilessly inflicted
wherever there was open violation of any one of the following rules established
by the rabbis themselves:
If any one
opposes his rabbi, he is guilty in the same degree as if he opposed God
himself, (Tanchumah, or Book
of Consolation, fol. 68, recto).
If any one
quarrels with his rabbi, it is as if he contended with the living God, (Ibid.).
If any one
thinks evil of his rabbi, it is as if he thought evil of the Eternal, (Ibid.,
and Sanhedrim, fol. 110, verso).
This
self-sufficiency was carried to such an enormous extent that when Jerusalem
fell into the hands of Titus, who came against it armed with the sword of
vengeance of Jehovah, Rabbi Jehudah wrote with an unflinching pen: “If Jerusalem was destroyed, we need look
for no other cause than the people’s want of respect for the rabbis,”
(Talmud, Shabbath, or of the Sabbath, fol. 119, recto).
We ask now
of every sincere Israelite, What opinion can be formed of the members of the
second chamber who are about to assist in pronouncing judgment upon
Christ? Could impartiality be expected
of those proud and selfish men, whose lips delighted in nothing so much as
sounding their own praises? What
apprehensions must one not have of an unjust and cruel verdict when he
remembers it was of these very men that Christ had said: “Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk
in long robes . . . they make broad their phylacteries and enlarge the borders
of their garments, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men,
Rabbi, Rabbi . . . which devour widows’ houses; and for show make long
prayers,” Luke 20:46; Matthew 23:5-7; Mark 12:38, 39. The remembrance of this rebuke, so galling
to their pride, continually rankled in their minds; and when the opportunity
came, with what remorseless hate did they wreak upon him their vengeance! We may, then, conclude from the forgoing
facts that the members of the chamber of the scribes were no better than those
composing the chamber of the priests.
To this assertion, however, there is one exception to be made; for, as
we have already seen, there was among those arrogant and unscrupulous men,
(some remarkable pages respecting the pride of the Jewish scribes and doctors
may be found in Bossuet’s Meditations on the Gospel) one whose sense of
justice was not surpassed by his great learning. That man was Gamaliel.
This
chamber was the least influential of the three; hence, but few names of the
persons composing it at the period to which we refer have been preserved.
Joseph
of Arimathea. The Gospel makes of him the following
eulogy: Rich man; honorable counselor;
good and just man; the same had not consented to the counsel and deed of the
others. Joseph of Arimathea is called
in the Vulgate, or the Latin version of the Bible, “noble centurion,” because
he was one of the ten magistrates or senators who had the principal authority
in Jerusalem under the Romans. His
noble position is more clearly marked in the Greek version. That he was one of the seventy may be
concluded. First, because it was common to admit senators who were considered the
ancients of the people in this assembly; they were indeed the chiefs and the
princes of the nation — seniores populi, principes nostri. Second,
because these words, “he had not consented to the counsel and deed of the
others,” proves that he had a right to be in the grand assembly and take part
in the discussions, (Matthew 27:57-59; Mark 15:43-46; Luke 23:50; John 19:38; Jacobi Alting, Schilo seu de Vaticinio
patriarchae Jacobi, p. 310; Goschler, Diction. Encyclopediq.; word,
“Arimathea”; Cornelius Lapidus, Comment.
in Script. Sac., edition Vives, T. 15, p. 638, second col.).
Nicodemus. St. John
the Evangelist says that he was by profession a Pharisee, a prince of the Jews,
a master in Israel, and a member of the Sanhedrim, where he one day attempted to
oppose his colleagues by speaking in defense of Jesus. This act brought down upon him the
disdainful retort from the others, “Art thou also a Galilean?” He was one, it is true, but in secret. We know from the Gospel account of him that
he possessed great riches, and that he used nearly a hundred pounds of myrrh
and spices for the burial of Christ.
The name of Nicodemus is mentioned in the Talmud also; and, although it
was known that his attachment to Christ was great, he is, nevertheless, spoken
of with honor. But this fact may be due
to his great wealth. There were, says
the Hebrew book, three eminent men in Jerusalem — Nicodemus ben Gurien, ben
Tzitzith Hacksab, ben Kalba Shevuah — each of whom could have supported the
whole city for ten years, (John 3:1-10, 7:50-52, 19:39; Talmud, Gittin,
or of Divorces, C.5, fol. 56, verso; Abodah Zarah, or of
Idolatry, C.2, fol. verso; Taanith, or of the Fast days, 3.,
fol. 25, verso; Midrash Rabbath on Koheleth, 7.11; David Ganz , Chron.
4757; Knappius, Comment. in Colloquium Christi cum Nicodemo; Cornelius
Lapidus, Comment. In Joan, Cap. 3., et seq.).
Ben
Kalba Shevuah. After stating that he
was one of the three rich men of Jerusalem, the Talmud adds: “His name was
given to him because whosoever entered his house as hungry as a dog came out
filled." There is no doubt that his high financial position secured for
him one of the first places in the chamber of the ancients. His memory,
according to Ritter, is still preserved among the Jews in Jerusalem, (Talmud, Gittin,
or of Divorces, C. v., fol. 56, verso; David Ganz, Chronol. 4757;
Ritter, Erkunde, xvi. 478).
Ben
Tzitzith Hacksab. The effeminacy of this third rich man is
make known to us by the Talmud, where it is stated that the border of his
pallium trained itself always on the softest carpets. Like Nicodemus and Kalba Shevuah, he no doubt belonged to the
Sanhedrim, (Talmud, Gittin, C.
v., fol. 56, verso; David Ganz, Chron. 4757).
Simon. From
Josephus the historian we learn that he was of Jewish parentage, and was highly
esteemed in Jerusalem on account of the accurate knowledge of the law which he
possessed. He had the boldness, one
day, to convoke an assembly of the people and to bring an accusation against King
Herod Agippa, who, he said, deserved, on account of his bad conduct, that the
entrance into the sacred portals should be forbidden him. This took place eight or nine years after
Christ — that is to say, in the year 42 or 43 A.D. We may safely conclude that a man who had power enough to convoke
an assembly and sufficient reputation and knowledge to dare accuse a king, must
undoubtedly have belonged to the council of the Sanhedrim. Besides, his birth alone at a time when
nobility of origin constituted, as we have already said, a right to honors,
would have thrown wide open to him the doors of the assembly, (Jos. Ant.,
19. 7. 4; Dérembourg, Essai sur l’histoire et la géographie de la Palestine,
p. 207, n. 1; Frankel, Monatsschrift., 3. 440).
Doras
was a very influential citizen
of Jerusalem, and is thus spoken of by Josephus. He was, however, a man of cruel and immoral character, not
hesitating, for the sake of ingratiating himself with Governor Felix, to cause
the assassination of Jonathan, the high priest who had made himself obnoxious
to that ruler by some just remonstrances respecting his administration. Doras
effected the assassination in cold blood by means of murderers hired at the
expense of Felix (52 or 53 A.D.). The
prominence which this man for a long time maintained in Jerusalem warrants the
presumption that he was a member of the Sanhedrim, (Jos. Ant., 20. 8.
5).
John, son of John. Dorotheas, son of Nathanael. Tryphon, son Theudion. Cornelius, son of Ceron. These four personages were sent as ambassadors
by the Jews of Jerusalem to Emperor Claudius in the year 44, when Cuspius Fadus
was governor of Judea. Claudius
mentions this fact in a letter sent by him to Cuspius Fadus, and which Josephus
has preserved. It is very probable that
either they themselves or their fathers were members of the chamber of the
ancients; for the Jews appointed as their ambassadors only such members of the
Sanhedrim as were distinguished for superior learning, (Jos. Ant., 20.,
1. 1, 2).
The
rabbinical books limit their information concerning the members of this chamber
to the names we have just mentioned. To
be guided, then, by the documents quoted, one would suppose that although this
chamber was the least important of the three, yet its members were perhaps more
just than those composing the other two, and consequently manifested less
vehemence against Christ during His trial.
But a statement by Josephus the historian proves beyond doubt that this
third chamber was made up of men no better than were to be found in the others.
It was from among the wealthy element of Jewish society, says Josephus, that
Sadduceeism received most of its disciples (Jos. Ant, 18., 7. 4). Since then, the chamber of ancients was
composed principally of the rich men of Jerusalem, we may safely conclude that
the majority of its members were infected with the errors of Sadduceeism — that
is to say, with a creed that taught that the soul dies before the body
(Ibid.). We are, then, in the presence
of real materialists, who consider the destiny of man to consist in the
enjoyment of material and worldly things (Munk, Palestine, p. 515), and
who are so carnally-minded that it would
seem as if the prophetic indignation of David had stigmatized them
beforehand when he says: “They have so debased themselves as to become like the
beasts that have no understanding,” Psalms. Let not our readers imagine that in thus speaking we at all mean
to do injustice to the memory of these men.
A fact of great importance proves indisputably that Sadducees or
Epicureans were numerous among the Sanhedrim.
When, several years after the trial of Christ, the apostle Paul had in
his turn to appear before that body, he succeeded by the skill of his oratory
in turning the doctrinal differences of that assembly to his benefit. “Men and brethren,” he exclaimed, “I am a
Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am
called in question,” Acts 23:6.
Hardly had the apostle pronounced these words when a hot discussion
arose between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, all of them rising and speaking
in great confusion — some for the resurrection, others against it — and it was
in the tumult of recrimination and general uproar that the apostle was able
peacefully to withdraw. Such was the
state of things in the supreme council of the Hebrews; and men of notorious
heresy, and even impiety, were appointed as judges to decide on questions of
doctrine. Among these materialists
there were, however, two just men; and, like Lot among the wicked inhabitants
of Sodom, there were in this assembly Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea.
We shall
now briefly sum up the contents of the preceding chapter. We possess certain information respecting
more than one-half of the seventy-one members of the Sanhedrim. We know almost all the high priests, who, as
we have already said, formed the principal element of this council. This majority, as we have intimated, is
sufficient for the forming of an estimate of the moral tone of all the judges;
and before the debates begin, it is easy to foresee the issue of the trial of
Christ.
What,
indeed, could have been the issue of a trial before the first chamber, composed
as it was of demoralized, ambitious, and scheming priests? Of priests who were mostly Pharisees — that
is to say, men of narrow minds, careful only of the external, haughty,
overbearing, and self-satisfied, believing themselves to be both infallible and
impeccable? (Matthew 6:2, 5, 16, 9:11, 14, 12:2, 23:5, 15, 23; Luke 5:30,
6:2, 7, 11:39, etc., 18:12; John 9:16; Perkeh Avoth, or Sentences
of the Fathers, 1. 16; Jos. Ant., 17. 2. 4; 18. 1. 3; Vita,
38; Talmud, Bab., Sotah, fol. 22, recto). It is true they expected a Messiah; but their Messiah was to
subdue unto them all their enemies, impose for their benefit a tax on all the
nations of the earth, and uphold them in all the absurdities with which they
had loaded the law of Moses.
But this
Man who was about to be brought before them has exposed their hypocritical
semblance of piety, and justly stripped them of the undeserved esteem in which
they were held by the people. He has
absolutely denounced the precepts which they invented and placed above the
law. He even desired to abolish the
illegal taxes which they had imposed upon the people. Are not all these more than sufficient to condemn Him in their
eyes and prove Him worthy of death?
Can a more
favorable verdict be expected of the members of the second chamber, composed as
it was of men so conceited and arrogant?
These doctors expected a Messiah who would be another Solomon, under
whose reign and with whose aid they would establish at Jerusalem an academy of
learning that would attract all the kings, even as the Queen of Sheba was
attracted to the court of the wisest king of Israel. But this Jesus, who claims to be the Messiah, has the boldness to
declare blessed those who are humble in spirit. His disciples are but ignorant fishermen, chosen from the least
of the tribes; His speech of a provoking simplicity, condemning before the
multitude the haughty and pretentious language of the doctors. Are not these things sufficient to bring
down upon Him their condemnation?
And what
justice can we expect, in conclusion, from the third chamber, when we remember
that most of its members were depraved Sadducees, caring only for the enjoyment
of the things of the world, heedless of the welfare of the soul, almost denying
the existence of God, and disbelieving in the resurrection of the dead? According to their views, the mission of the
Messiah was not to consist in the regenerating of Israel as well as of the whole
human race, but in the making of Jerusalem the center of riches and worldly
goods, which would be brought hither by the conquered and humbled Gentiles, who
were to become the slaves of the Israelites.
But the Man upon whom they are called to pass judgment, far from
attaching great importance to wealth and dignity, as did they, prescribes to
His disciples the renunciation of riches and honors. He even despises those things which the Sadducees esteem most —
viz., pedigree, silk attire, cups of gold, and sumptuous repast. What could have rendered His condemnation
surer than such manifestations of contempt for the pride and voluptuousness of
these men?
To limit
our inquiry to the moral character of the judges alone, the issue of the trial
can be but fatal to the accused; and so, when the three chambers constituting
the Sanhedrim council had entered into session, we can well imagine that there
was no hope for the acquittal of Jesus; for are not all the high priests, as
well as the majority of the scribes and ancients, against Him? “From that time forth began Jesus to shew
unto His disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things
of the elders and chief priests and scribes,” Matthew 16:21.
The
further study of this trial will amply confirm such a supposition. We have done with the investigation of the
moral characters of the judges, and will next take up the study of the legal
estimate of their acts.