Under tlie totally new conditions Avliich pre- vailed after the destruction of Jerusalem, a neAv court established itself, bearing the name ' San- hedrin,' but differing in essential features from the older body. The ncAV Sanhedrin had no po- litical authority, and Avas composed exclusively of Rabbis, Avliose discussions and decisions Avere mainly theoretical. It exercised considerable judicial authority over the JeAvish people, oAving to its moral influence, but was quite Avithout govern- mental importance. The real Sanhedrin fell Avith the city.
3. Functions and authority.— The trustworthy sources give only incidental indications of the functions of the Sanhedrin and the extent of its authority. The changes in the constitution, also, from the time of the Maccabaean rising to the fall of tlie city, Avere so great and so frequent, that it is difficult to say hoAV much authority Avas actually^ vested in the Sanhedrin at any one time. Under the Hasmonaeans it must have been considerable, botii in administration and jurisdiction, though the stronger kings, like Jannajus, may have ruled very independently. It was much more limited under the Herodian kings, Avhose authority Avas quite independent of the Jewish constitution. By the Romans tlie constitution Avas as far as possible respected, and the Sanhedrin, though subordinate to the Roman authority, had again considerable poAvers, perhaj^>s greater than at any other time. The system of bhort tenure of the liigh -priestly office Avould throAV ^lore influence into the hands of the permanent body. In these later days, also, its moral authority over tiie JeAvish people was much Avider thai Iits actual poAver. Territorially
/
SAREPTA
SATAN
569
its actual autliority extended under the procurators over Judtea only. On the other hand, its recom- mendations were regarded by orthodox Jews out- side Judaea as possessing the force of commands (cf. Ac 9'-). In general, it may be said tliat under the procurators the Sanhedrin exercised such authority as was not either within the competence of local councils or reserved by the Romans, and that, while it had considerable powers of police administration and in the levying of taxes, and a certain responsibility for the maintenance of order, its main function was tliat of a su|)reme judicial tribunal. Except in the case of capital sentences, its autliority was absolute, and it had the power to carry its decisions into effect. An ettective sentence of death could be pronounced only by the procurator's court. Tlie stoning of Stephen (Ac ■j57fl.) -vvithout the sanction of the procurator was an illegal act, not an execution but a ' lynching.' In the case of one ofl'ence, that of profanation of the sanctuary, even Koman citizens might be tried and condemned by tiie Sanhedrin, subject, of course, to the procurator's revision of the capital sentence. In spite, however, of tiie constituti<mal powers conceded to tlie Sanhedrin, the Roman authority was always absolute, and the procurator or the tribune of the garrison could not only sum- mon the Sanhedrin and direct it to investigate a matter, but could interfere and withdraw a prisoner from its jurisdiction, as Avas done in the case of St. Paul (Ac 2-2»' -iS^^f-).
i. Sessions and procedure. — The Sanhedrin could sit on any day except the Sabbath and holy days ; and as s^entence of death could be pro- nounced (according to the Mishna) only on the day after a trial on a capital charge, such charges were not heard on the day preceding a Sabbath or lioly day. The jjlace of meeting is called by Josephus the povXrj, and was near the Xystus, whicli appears to be indicated in the Mishnic n'ljn n^^/h 'hall of hewn stone' (cf. Schiirer, GJV^ ii.'211). It was close to the upper city, but not in it, as it was destroyed by the Romans before they liad reduced the upper city (Jos. BJ vi. vi. 3). The references in NT to meetings of the Sanhedrin (cf. Ac 23) sliow that its proceedings might be en- livened by stirring debates, and by the stormy scenes which occasionally take place even in the most dignified political assemblies. In the case of ordinary trials, the ])rocedure may have resembled that described in the Miskpa. According to its account, the proceedings were conducted accord- ing to strict rules, and the members gave judg- ment in regular order. Twentj^-three members formed a quorum, and while a bare majority might acquit, a majority of two was necessary to secure condemn.ation. If a majority of one gave a verdict of guilty, more members were summoned, until either tlie requisite majority was obtained for a legal verdict, or the full number of seventy-one members was reached, when a majority of one was decisive on either side.
The accounts of tiie trial of Jesus present con- siderable difficulty, and it is not easy to accom- modate them to tiie regular procedure of the San- hedrin. See art. Trial of Jesus Christ.
LiTERATURB. — This is extensive, comprisinfj all Histories of the Jews clnrinK the period B.C. 200-a.d. 70, as well as the relevant articles in all Bible Dictionaries, and some special works. The most useful and accessible comprehensive state- ment is that of Schurer, GJV-^ ii. 188-214 [UJP il. i. 163 ff.]. The most illuminatinjj account of the history and composition of the Sanhedrin is Wellhausen, Pharisder nnd Saddticder. To these may be added Hastings' DB, art. ' Sanhedrin ' (Bacher) ; EBi, artt. ' Synedrium ' (Canney), and ' Government ' (Ben- Einger), § 28-31. C. H. THOMSON.