568
SANHEDRIN
SANHEDEIN
interest in worldly business and culture, and con- sequently a readiness to fall under the influence of Hellenism. Passively opposed to them were the Hdsidim, the pious students of the Law and the legal tradition, whose intei'ests and aspirations were exclusively religious and ecclesiastical. When the crisis came under Antiochus Epiphanes, the aristocratic caste, and consequently the yepovaia, or Sanhedrin, was in the main ready to yield com- pletely to the pressure of an enforced Hellenism. The Hdstdim continued to ofler steadfast but passive resistance to the persecutor. There arose, however, a third group, consisting of men who, while not specially in sympathy with the Hdfiidtin, wished to maintain the ancient religion and also the liberties of the people. The Hasmona^an family led them in armed revolt, and under the skilful leadership of Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers they not only regained religioiis liberty, but achieved the political independence of the Jewish State, of which the Hasmonreans and their loyal followers became the rulers. The old aristocracy was practically destroyed, and the remnants of it were forced to acquiesce in the rule of the new dynasty. The Hdsidim, Avho had supported the Hasmonajans until liberty of religion was' secured, drifted away from them as the political aspect of the struggle became more prominent, and resumed towards them the same attitude of passive o^jposi- tion which had characterized their relation to the older aristocracy. They were especially incensed at the Hasmonrean assumption of the title and functions of tlie high -priesthood, which they re- garded as usurpation and as a secularizing of the theocracy. At the time of John Hyrcanus, there- fore, the Sanhedrin consisted of adherents of the Hasmonaean dynasty — the new aristocracy com- bined Avith the remnants of the old, representing two of tlie three elements of the later court, the chief i^riests and the elders — and was overwhelm- ingly, if not exclusively, Sadducee. The Pharisees, the representatives of the earlier Hdsidim, stood aloof, and devoted themselves to the cultivation of their moral and religious influence with the people. It became necessary to conciliate them, and Hyrcanus made an effort to do so.* But their terms were too high. They demanded that Hyrcanus should resign the high-priesthood, and thus destroy the constitution and government which his father and uncles had established. His refusal to concede the demand made the opposition of the Pharisees to the ruling party more acute, and under Alexander Jannjcus there was open war. The Sanhedrin, composed as it was of the Hasmouiiean nobility, supported Jannajus. But the attitude of the jieople showed that the Pliarisees could no longer with safety be left in opposition. Salome reversed the policy of her predecessors, and admitted them to a share in the government — for a time the dominant shai'e — and to the Sanhedrin.
From that time onwards the Sanhedrin con- sisted of chief priests, elders, and scribes. It was a house divided against itself, and the bitter con- flicts of Sadducee and Pharisee contributed in no small degree to the confusion and decay of the century and a half preceding the destruction of Jerusalem. The path of the Romans and of the Herodian house was made smooth by the inability of the Sanhedrin to act in unity and lead a united people. Pompey abrogated the kingship, but left
* Josephus {Ant. xiii. x. .5-6) relates a storj- which tells how Hyrcanus broke with the Pharisees, to whom he had hitherto been attached, and went over to the Sadducees. But a critical examination of the story, and a comparison of its presupposi- tions with the pre\-ious history as related in 1 Mac, show that what took ]ilace was not a breach with the Pharisees, but an unsuccessful attempt to conciliate them. There is no evidence that they sat in tlie Sanhedrin before Salome's change of policy. Cf. VVellhausen, I'harisiier und Sadduccier.
the high priest at the head of the people and of the Sanhedrin, as heretofore. Gabinius went further, and established five cwi^pia in place of the single court, thus largely destroying its influence (57-55 B.C.). Some years later, however, the San- liedrin Avas restored to its former position, and resumed the exercise of authority over the whole Jewish territory. Herod is stated to have com- menced his reign with a massacre of the members of the Sanhedrin (Jos. Ant. XIV. ix. 4). Accord- ing to another account (ib. XV. i. 2), he put to deatli 45 members of the party of Antigonus. His object Avas to destroy the influence of the Sadducee nobility, liis consistent opponents and only possible rivals. With the same object in view, he reduced tlie dignity and importance of the high-priesthood Ijy making it no longer hereditary and tenable for life, and by frequent changes. Under his rule tiie Sanliecirin had but little influence,— less pro- bably than at any other time. Herod's death Avas ioUoAved by the dismemberment of his kingdom, and the authority of the Sanhedrin ceased to extend beyond the limits of Judaea.
The government of the Roman procurators Avas on the Avhole favourable to the Sanhedrin. They had not the Herodian jealousy of the local nobility, and Avere content to leave considerable poAvers of internal control in their hands. Josephus and the NT bear Avitness to the influence and authority of tiie Sanhedrin during this period. So long as it retained control of the people, there Avas a fair measure of peace and good government. Ulti- mately, hoAvever, the people, under the influence of tlie Zealots, became unmanageable, and, against the advice of the older and more experienced aristocrats, embarked on the fatal revolt against the Roman authority. Even then the Sanhedrin, had it been left to itself, might have saved Jeru- salem from total destruction. But the Zealots usurped its authority, rid themselves of those Avho counselled moderation, and inaugurated a Reign of Terror, Avhich Avas terminated only by the entry of the Roman troops into the city.