3. Yet another transference of later relations t(»
SAN H ED KIN
SANHEDRIN
401
early times took place witli respect to the title Xasi. This title, which fnnii the second half of the 2nil cent. A.I), onwards had become hereditary, was also attributed to the forefathers of its heredi- tary bearers. It was said (Bab. Shahbuth 15a) that Hillel, his son Simon, Simon's son Gamaliel, and Gamaliel's son Simon, held the position of Nasi during the last century of the second Temple (B.C. 30-A.u. 70); and the appointment of Hillel to be Nasi, i.e. president of the Sanhedrin, is described in a narrative emanating from the Tannaite period (Tos. Pcsachim iv. end ; Jcrus. Pisai-h. 33a; Bab. J'luach. 6(;«). Both this narrative and the above chronological notice, apart from the title Xasi, have a historical foundation. For, although we hear nothing eLsc- where of Hillel's son, we know that Hillel himself, as well as his grandson Gamaliel l. and his great- grandson Simon b. Gamaliel I., were amongst the leading men in Jerusalem. The last named was cme of the directors of the war against the Romans, as We learn from Josephus (/j./iv. iii. !); I'i7a, 38), who, moreover, mentions that he was descended from an illu.strious family. Hillel and Gamaliel I. are known not only as notable scribes, but also as the founders of institutions and enactments, which prove that they must have played a leading r61e in the supreme court, the Sanhedrin. That (ianialiel I., at whose feet Saul of Tarsus, the future Apostle Paul, sat as a pupil (Ac 22'), took the lead in the Sanhedrin, may be seen from the well-known narrative of Ac .3**-^^ Of course, all this does not prove that Hillel and his successors were presidents of the Sanhedrin. The statements of Josephus and the NT about the presidency of I lie high priest arc too definite to be got over, iiut. on the other hand, we may not summarily reject the supposition that in a body, composed for llie most part of scribes and called on to decide .[ucstions which demanded an expert accjuaintance with the Law, the heads of the scribal body took the lirst place side by side with the high priests, who were only exceptionally scribes as well, and that perhaps the Pharisaic heads of schools were even formally invested with a certain rank in the Sanhedrin, approaching closely to that of president.
In IhiR way, as a matter of fact, the tltlo * father of the b'jtiM- of justice ' ('.-16 Beth I>in)may,as has been held by many iiivfjttiu'atiirs. have been In nso even at a time when tlie pre.stilent iiroper of the Sanhedrin was still the hi^jh priest. On elo.ter con.'iiderntion one cannot escape the Impression that neither at the time of the liu.smonu-au Iil;,'h priests nor at that i>( the hlt;h priests appointed by Ilcrml and by the Ifoman procurators, could the .Sanhedrin hare been without a t'uldance not identical witll the presidency of the hiph priest. The scliool traditions re^'ardln^' the position lield by ttie I'liarlsalc scliool heads In the .Sanhedrin possess thus a kernel of Idstorical irnth. even If they are adapted to later conditions and artitlciaily constructe<I.
4. Another question is how the term Nasi, which is used for the head of the State, couhl comi^ to be the title of the president of the Sanhedrin. Two hypotheses are po.ssible. (a) The title may go back to the time when the high priest who as such presided over the .Sanhedrin was also actually prince (■■*'?'}) or he.id of the .State, i.e. to the time of the Ilasmonfean rulers. Or (h) the title 'prince' may have been given, after the ileslruriion of Jenr^ialeni, to the president of the Sanhedrin at Jamnia, (iamaliel II., in order, as it were, that at least in the iiainini; of the head of the highest authority which had arisen from the ruins of the national independence, there might be |)ie.served a symbol of thai independence. The second hypothesis is the more likely, because the first wouUl imply that the title S'n.ii conliiuied unused during more than a whole century until it was revived in the way itidicated in the second explanation, after the fall of Jerusalein.
6. Theassuinptionof the title ,Vosf by Gamaliel II. VOL. IV.— 26
and then by his son Sinxin was probably connected with the belief that the family of Hillel was descended from the Davidic royal house. There was thus cou])led with the title in an esoteric kind of way a recollection of the former princes of the house of David. It was not till the time of Gamaliel II.'s grandson Jehudah I., who was called Xa.ii Kar' i^oxv", that the title became the official designation of the head, recognized even by the Koman government, of the Jews in Palestine, i.e. of their patriarch. Its meaning as president of the Sanhedrin then fell into the second i)lace.
vi. FiscTloxs AND Pi:oci;i)Li;i;. — 1. The Grea/ Sanhedrin at .Jerusalem was primarily the supreme court of justice, which had either the sole right of judgment in certain specially important matters, or was appealed to on questions upon which the lower courts were unable to come to a decision. As to this last point, we learn from the oft-cited report of Jose b. Chalaftha (Tos. Saiihcd. vii. 1 and parall.) the following: 'When the lirst competent tribunal failed to come to a finding, the litigant, accompanied by the most distinguished member t)f this court, betook himself to Jeru-salem to submit his case in the first place to the two lesser si/netlria (see above). If neither of these could come to a decision, the question came for final judgment before the Great Sanhedrin.' There can be no doubt that a kernel of historical truth underlies this description of the train of judicial procedure (see also Mishna, Sanlied. xi. 2). — In regard to cases reserved for the sole competence of the Great Sanhedrin, the Mishna (Sauhed. i. 5) enumerates the following points upon which only the ' tribunal of the seventy-one ' was entitled to judge and i)ro- nouuce a verdict : (1) A process affecting a tribe ; (2) the process against a false prophet ; (3) a pro- cess affecting the high priest ; (4) the sending out of the army to a non-compulsory war ; (5) the extension of the city of Jerusalem ; (0) the exten- sion of the Temple courts ; (7) the appointment of sijui'dritt over the tribes ; (8) the judging of a city which had lapsed into idolatry (.see Dt 13'^"'). Witli reference to the fourth point, it is enacted also amongst the decrees affecting the king, that the latter is to lead the army out to war only upon the authority of a decision of the (ii'eat Sanhedrin (Mi.shna, tS'anlicd. ii. 4). The eight points bear, indeed, a theoretical stamp, and even presu]>pose the continued existence of the tribes (the first of them has for background the naiTative of Jg 20 f.) ; but, on the other hand, they witness that, even in hal.achio theory, the Great Sanhedrin figures not merely as a court of justice, but also as the body that was called on to give decisions in State matters and which exei'cised administrative autho- rity, in the fa.shion exhibited to us by the state- ments and nan-atives, meagre as they are, contained in other sources. A Tannaite rule (Tos. Sniihed. iii. 4) pre.scribes that the in.stallation of a king and of a liigh priest is to belong only to the tribunal of the seventy-one.