These names indicate with sufficient clearness the general character and composition of the court. It was an aristocratic assembly and high court of justice, in which, alongside of tne priestly nobility
* Ac 521 presents a certain difficulty in its use of the phrase TO irunSpwv xal Tarotv t->,v yipouria-v. According to this, the ■y'.pouirix would have a wider meaning than cwihpiov, whereas in OT Apocrypha it is the regular word (or iruvihpiov. The identity of the two terms can hardly be doubted, as th're is no evidence of the existence of any other court to which the name yipi>uir!oc might be applied. As it is unnatural to t' ite xai in an explana- tory sense ( = i.c.) here, it must be sujyposed that the author used one of the words loosely, regarding a-wihpiov as an inner circle within the general court. Possibly he wished to emphasize the fact that on this occasion not only l" e necessary quorum but the whole council of 71 members was s. nnioned.
and the noble families outside the priestly circle, representatives of the more numerous Pharisee party found a place, the Sadducee element, how- ever, retaining the weight of influence.
As to the method of appointment to the San- hedrin, nothing definite can be gathered from the (Jreek sources. According to the Mishna, new members were appointed by the court itself. At first, membership was confined to the aristocratic families. Subsequently the political rulers of the country seem to have appointed members by their own authority in some cases at least (cf. Salome's introduction of a Pharisee element).
The Greek sources agree in giving one picture of the San- hedrin, while the Mishnic representation is radically different. That the representations are mutually irreconcilable, and that that of the Greek sources is preferable in all respects, is now generally recognized by scholars, and the point requires to Ije stated rather than argued here. According to the Greek sources, as appears from the above, the Sanhedrin was com- posed of chief priests, elders, and scribes, and was presided over by the high priest. The chief priests and elders belonged in general to the Sadducee part}', while the scribes formed the Pharisee element, which, however influential among the people, was seldom in the ascendant in the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was thus a political assembly and court of justice, representing in the main the aristocratic elements in the Jewish comniunit.\ . According to the Mishnic literature, on the other hanH it was a court of Rabbis, presided over by the leading Rabbi of the time, in which the priestly element as such does not appear, while the Sadducees are mentioned only as heretics to be refuted. The presiding Rabbi bears the title Nasi (otherwise a political title), and another, apparently the vice-president, is called Ah-beth-din. It was an ecclesiastical rather than a political assembly. The irreconcilability of the two representa- tions is most marked in the answer they give to the question, Who was the President of the Sanhedrin? We have lists of Rabbis filling the offices of Nasi and Ah-beth-din during the two centuries preceding the destruction of Jerusalem, whereas the Greek sources furnish explicit evidence that during this period the high priest presided. Where individual names are mentioned in both sources the contradiction is very evident : e.g. Gamaliel was president according to the Mishna, but in Ac 534 he appears simply as ix-pia-cuo; oni^aTi ra.t^x,>.ir,x. The Greek sources are contemporary, while the Mishna is late and was compiled under totally changed conditions. The account given in the Greek sources accords with all that is known of the constitution and history of the Jewish community, from the Maccabsean revolt to the destruction of Jerusalem. Further, the evidence they furnish, while perfectly explicit, is largely incidental, proceeding from no theory, but simply reflecting the actual state of affairs. There is no trace of ' tendency,' and no motive for misrepresentation. On the otiier hand, the Mishnic account is true only of the reconstituted Sanhedrin which sat at Jamnia after the destruction of Jerusalem and the disappear- ance of the old aristocratic and Sadducee element. The char- acter of this Sanhedrin, which bore little more resemblance to the older court than the 'Sanhedrin' which Napoleon en- deavoured to establish, was transferred to the assembly of which we have accurate descriptions in the contemporary Greek sources. How far the Mishna has preserved reliable traditions on points of detail connected with the Sanhedrin is not easy to determine. Considerable use is often made of it even by those who admit the superiority of the Greek sources (cf. Bach'er, art. ' Sanhedrin ' in Hastings' DB). In view, however, of the chasm which the destruction of Jerusalem made in the constitution and history of Judaism, and the radically false conception of the Sanhedrin which appears in the Mishnic tradition, state- ments based on the unsupported authority of the Mishna must be regarded as little better than conjectures.
2. History. — The Mishnic tradition connects the Sanhedrin with Moses' seventy elders, then with the alleged Great Synagogue of Ezra's time, then with such names of leading Rabbis as had escaped oblivion (cf. opening sections of Pir/cc Aboth), and so gives the Sanhedrin of Jamnia an appearance of historical continuity with the past. In point of fact, however, the Sanhedrin emerges into authentic history first in the Greek period. It must have existed earlier, but its origin is covered by the darkness which obscures all Jewish history from the time of Nehemiah (and even earlier) till the Maccabsean rising. The post-exilic Jewish com- munity was nominally a theocracy, enjoying a certain measure of independence under itoreign rule. At its head was the high priest, who was assisted by a y€pov(jLa consisting chiefiy of members of the aristocratic sacerdotal caste. The adminis- tration of secular affairs tended to produce in this caste a certain worldliness, a more or less exclusive