2. In the records relating to the Greek period we find the supreme council of Jeitisalem bearing the designation yepovtrla. It is so named by Antiochus the Great (c. 200 B.C.) at the head of the leading classes of the .Jews who are freed from all imposts and taxes (Jos. Ant. XII. iii. 3). Antiochus v., in a letter to the Jewish people (ii.f. 104), offers greetings t^ -yepovaig. twp 'lovdaiap (2 Mac 11-"). Elsewhere, too, in the narratives of the Maccaba^an era there is mention of the yepovvta, or we find the first place assigned to the ' elders ' (oi Trpea^uTipoi) of Israel (cf. Schiirer, GJV^ ii. 102 [lUPn. i. 167]). In the Talmudic tradition the SaiUiedrin of the Hasmonoean period is called 'Nji^rrn ''•:• j<-i r^a ' house of justice of the Has- momeans' {Ahnda ziira '■UVj ; Sanhed. 82a). Its history coincides partially with the history of the conflicts between the PllAKISEKS and S.vddi'ckes. When .John Ilyrcanus, towards the end of his reign, shook himself loose from the Pharisees and declared their enactments to be without force (Jos. Ant. -WI. xi. 1), he is not likely to have accom- ])lished this without having expelled the Pharisaic members from the Saidiedrin. There came thus into beinga 'Sadducean lSanhedrin'(:v"s ^!:r j'-nn:D; cf. a'pns '^•ff jn ri'3 of Bab. Hanhed. 52?)), as it is called in a valuable tradition preserved in § 10 of the Koll of Fasts {MeijiUnt Taanith) which is of importance for the history of the Sanliedrin. Here it is said that on the 28th of the month Tebet : '^•; NPi'>jD nd'.t Nj'-i, i.e. 'the assembly constituted itself according to the law,' or 'the assembly sat for judgment.' According to the accompanying glo.ss, which re.sts beyond doubt on historical tradition, this event, whose memory was thus perpetuated by an ainii- versary, took place in the reign of Janufcus, and consisted in the expulsion of the Sadducean members from the Sanhedrin, and in the constitu- tion of a new .Sanhedrin, whose deliberations were conducted on Pharisaic iirinciples, under the leadership of Simon ben Shetach. Hut this victory of the Pharisees was soon followe<l by the bitterest conflicts between them and Alexander Janiiieus. and by the consequent supremacy of the Sadducees in the Sanhedrin, which, however, had to yield
in turn to that of the Pharisees under Jann;eus' successor Salome Alexandra.
In the brothers' quarrel amongst the sons oi Alexanilra, the Sanhedrin must again have played its role. This strife led to the intervention oi Rome, and not long afterwards to the above, mentioned degradation of the Sanhedrin by Ga- binius. This degradation, however, was only transient, and soon we find the Sanhedrin sitting in judgment uiJon Herod the young son of Anti- pater {Ant. XIV. ix. 4). This memorable judicial sitting was destined to be fateful for the San- hedrin. those who took part in it falling victims to . the bloody revenge of Herod when he came to power (iV).). The institution itself Herod allowed to continue. He even utilized the Sanhedrin to get sentence of death pa.ssed upon the aged Ilyr- canus {Ant. XV. vi. :',).
3. During the period of the Roman procurators, which was interrupted for a few years {.\.\i. 41-44) by the reign of Agrippa I., the Sanhedrin contiimed to be the supreme authority of the Jewish people. It appears as such in the NT narratives of the trial of Jesus (Mt 20^", Mk 14^^ 151, Lk 226>i, Jn IP"), as well as on other occasions in the earlv davs of Christianity (Ac 41"' r.-'-'ir. &^-«- •2-2~» 23iff- '24-'"). Jesus Himself once (Mt 5-) names the Sanhedrin as the tribunal called on to give judgment in the Ciise of capital offences. In Josephus' record of the events that occurred in the times of the last procurators and during the war against Rome, the .Sanhedrin is mentioned sometimes as avviopiov and sometimes as fSovXri. Or he speaks, .as is almost his uniform practice in his autobiography, of the kolvod tQiv 'lepo<ro\vp.iT!bv {Vita 12. 13. 38. 49. 70), or, shortly, rb Koiv6v {ib. 52. fio), meaning by this especially tlie Sanhedrin. It was the latter that during the fir.st years of the war with Rome guided affairs and organized the struggle. But when the Zealots seized the reins of power in the besieged .Jeru- salem, they no doubt put the Sanhedrin aside. In order to procure a sentence of death upon a man who had incurred their displeasure, the Zealots assembled ad hoc a tribunal of 70. in which Josephus {B.J IV. V. 4) sees a caricature of tlie regular court. Amongst the traditions relating to the melancholy events connected with the fall of the .Jewish State, we read not only of the destruction of the Temple but of the ' cess.ation of the Sanhedrin ' ( Snta ix. end ; Efha rahhuthi on La 5'°). ' With it,' we are told, ' ceased the joyous song of the feasts.'
4. As the Jewi.<!h people itself, immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, began a new life in Palestine under new conditions, so also the Sanhed- rin of Jerusalem experienced a kind of resurrec- tion. At .Jabneh (Jaiiinia) an assembly of teadiers of the Law constituted itself and regarded itself as the continuation of the Great Sanhedrin. In the first instance a university or academy, but then an a.ssembly which deliberated, which inter- preted the laws of the Jewish religion, and thus became really a legislative and judicial body. — this new Sanhedrin, as constituted at Jamnia, had many points of clo.se contact with the old council of Jerusalem. And when Jamnia cea.sed to bi' tlie central point of Jewish scribism, the Sanhedrin migrated — so the tradition expressed it {Rush hashana 31a 6, upon the .authority of R. Jochanan, t 279) — to other places, till it settled down at Tiberias. This notion of the persistence of the Saidiedrin even after the destruction of Jerusalem, and of its continuance in the high schools of Palestine, has largely inflnenced the trjiditions about the Sanhedrin. What was true of the new institution was transferred to the ancient one, and the historical picture of the latter was thus essentially changed. Yet it may be assumed, od