As to the elements constituting the Sanhedrin, the ruling priests representing the Sadducean party were, according to Josephus (BJ II. xiv. 8, xv. 2f., xvii. 2 ft'., V. i. 5) and the NT (Mt l^^ 27" and elsewhere), dominant in influence, and the patri- cians, called ' the men of power ' (SwaTol) in Josephus (locc. citt.), formed the bulk of the San- hedrin, until king Herod replaced them by homines novi, whereas the Pharisees, who rose to power under Alexandra Salome, were but few in number (Jos. A7U. XIII. XV. 5; Mk 10*^; only the later
Gospels mention the Pharisees). Only tliose were admitted into the Sanhedrin who were of pure blood, so as to be able to intermarry with the priestly families (Sanh. iv. 2). Little historic value can be attached to Jose b. yalaphtha'a statement (T6s. Sanh. ix. 1) that the Sanliedrin selected for each city court the one found to be wise, humble, sin-fearing, of blameless character, and popular as judge, and then had him promoted to membership, first of the two Little Sanhedrins in Jerusalem, and finally to the Great Sanhedrin in the hall of hewn stones. The same holds "ood of the description in Sanh. iv. 3-4, T6s. Sanfi. viii. 1-2, according to which ' the Sanhedrin sat in a semi-circle, the Nasi in the centre and the two secretaries standing at both sides, while the disciples sat before them in three rows according to their rank ; and when a vacancy arose, the new member was chosen from the first row, and his place again filled by one in the second row and so forth.' This seems to be a picture taken from the Sanhedrin of Jabneh. Likewise academic are the prerequisites of the Sanhedrin given in Sifre Nu. 92: 'They must be wise, courageous, high- principled (not ' strong' as Bacher has) and humble.' R. Johanan of the 3rd cent. (Sanh. 176) says : 'They must also be of high stature, of pleasing appearance and of advanced age, conversant with the art of magic and the seventy spoken languages,' to which Judah han-Nast is said to have added ' the dialectic power by which Levitically unclean things can be proven to be clean.'
There is, however, no cause for questioning the correctness of the tradition that the meeting-place of the Great Sanhedrin was in the hall of hewn stones, the lishkath haq-gdzith on the south side of the great court in which the priests held their daily morning service and where other priestly functions were performed (Midd. v. 4; Tdmid, ii., iv. ). Schiirer's identification of lishkath hag-gazith with the Senate assembly house (/Soi'X^) near the Xystos (Jos. BJ V. iv. 2, VI. vi. 3) cannot be accepted in the face of these traditions, which prove that the lishkah (always the name of a Temple cell) must have been within the Temple area.
The Senate house near the Xystos in Josephus may refer, as Bacher thinks, to the time of the removal of the Sanhedrin to the city during the siege (R6sh hash. 31). Besides this there was a special hall assigned to the high priest and the foremost men of the Sanhedrin called lishkath Parhcdrin (TripeSpoi), ' the men of the front rank,' also called lishkath buleulin, i.e. 'senators' hall' (Y6ma, I. i. 86).
6. Functions of the Sanhedrin. — According to the Mishna (Sanh. i. 4), capital punishment was pronounced and executed by the Little Sanhedrin of twenty-three in the various provinces or tribes, but the tribunal of seventy-one in the Temple of Jerusalem was the only body vested with power and authority (1) to pronounce a verdict in a process afi'ecting a tribe, a false prophet, or the high priest ; (2) to declare war against a nation not belonging to ancient Canaan or Amalek ; (3) to extend the character of holiness to additional parts of the Temple, or of Jerusalem ; (4) to appoint Sanhedrin over the tribes ; (5) to execute judgment against a city that had lapsed into idolatry. All these points, derived directly or indirectly from Scripture (Jg 21, Dt 13"- ""■ ; Sanh. 16a f.), refer to a time when the twelve tribes still had their existence, and are consequently theoreti- cal rather than real lite issues. Nor can it be taken as an actual practice of the Sanhedrin when it is charged with the burning of the red heifer (Nu 19), or the breaking of the neck of the heifer to atone for a murder the perpetrator of which
SANHEDKIN
SARUIS
457
cannot be found (Dt 21"-), the finiil jud^'inont of n rebellious elder (Dt 17'"), the hrinijinf; of n guilt offering in the case of an unintentional sin com- mitted by the whole congregation of Israel (Lv 4'^), the installation of a king or of a high priest {Tus. 6V(h/). iii. 4), the ordoal of a woman suspected of adultery {Sula, i. 4 ; cf. I'liilo, ed Mangey, ii. 308), or the hxing of the calendar each new moon (A't/x/t has/i. ii. 5, 9). It may be taken for certain, how- ever, that the three branches of the government, the political, the religious, and the judicial ad- ministration, were centralized in the Sanliedrin ; yet at the same time these three dillerent functions were assigned to three sejiarate bodies. Hence mention is made of a Sanliedrin of the judges {Jos. Ant. XX. i.\. 1), a Beth Din of the priests ilCet. i. 5 ; T6S. Sanh. iv. 4), which had in charge also the investigation of the legitimacy of the priesthood {TCs. Han/i. vii. 1), and the Sanliedrin of the Jcrusalemites (Jos. Vit", 12), i.e. the Senate of Jerusalem, to which tlie political administration of the country was entrusted. I'ossibly the name t6 Koivdv, ' the common administration,' used almost e.xclusively in Vita (12, 13, 38, etc.), refers to this centralization. Holl'mann (op. cit., p. 46) refers the name to the democratic government estab- lished by the Zealots (Vita, 39), and compares the Talmudic 'eddh ('congregation') with the San- hedrin (Satth. 16a). In all matters of great im- portance, or in cases when the lower courts could come to no decision, the Great Sanliedrin, com- posed of three departments (3x23 = 69), together with the president and the patriarch (Nasi and Ab Beth Din), and forming the supreme tribunal ' from which the law went forth to all Israel ' (Sitiih. xi. 2 ; Jos. Ant. IV. viii. 14 ; Philo, ed. Mangey, ii. 367), gave its decision, which was final and inviol- able, and wilful opposition to which on the part of an elder or judge was punished with death. It held its sessions in daj'-time only, and only on week-days, not on Sabbath and holidays (Tfo. Sanh. vii. 1 ; Beza, v. 2 ; Philo, ed. Mangey, i. 450). Cases of capital punishment were not taken up on the eve of Sabbath or of holy days, because the sentence was always to be given on the follow- ing day (Sank. iv. 1). The attendance of at least twenty-three members was required for cases of ca|iital punishment, and unless the full number of seventy-one were present, a majority of one could not decide the condemnation. Talmudic tradition, however, states that forty years (which is a round number) before the destruction of the Temple the right of jurisdiction in cases of capital punishment was taken from Israel (Jer. Sank. i. 18ei ; Bab. Shab. 156). This a^ees with Jos. Ant. XX. ix. 1, Jn 18^', and the whole procedure of the Crucifixion. Otherwise the conllicting (iospel stories concerning the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus show, to say the least, irregularities for which only the high priests (cf. Jos. Ant. xvill. iii. 3, 'the fore- most men ') were responsible.