Loved that story re this Mega outfit; and I thought, we Osama, Osaba,
Omega - what a handle. The Mega Man - the beginning and the end, holed
up like Mole in the White House reporting to the Mossad. The story
Mega WAS "the boss".
The we have me etings of these oh so wealthy jews - one of which long
legend about ships in night loaded with drugs, one sank - one hooked up
to old time Mafia and these oh so rich men, tell me do they pay taxes?
They are so generous and do not want to be known as the Sanhedrin?
Those who execute Judment? Wonder if Meyer Lansky sat at their LEFT
Hand and Berkowitz are the right? Doubt an untouchable like Ghandi
would be permitted in this unholy circle.
These are the men who have bought and invested in the Democrat Party, I
bet.
These are the men who fed Larry Flynt files on Senate and Congress?
And did these men, or their counterparts way back in 1963 decided to
kill JFK and RFK - and their henchmen - arranged for the hit?
The Mossad monitoring phone calls upon request for surely there are so
many communications systems - maybe this is what was going on in Mexico
that day when these Israelis were thought to be assassins and turned out
to be "communicatin and security" systems connetions....why Ehud Barak
who refused to take off his shoes at the airport, got away with this and
now spends so much time in Texas where this new Bell system is being set
up - all pay phones, LD service now end up here?
This is the MAFIA - the big boys. Does this explain Marc Rich and the
ADL and their bribe to Clinton? So the Zionists have bought the
democrat party - well back in 1970 period I was told by this one
arrogant hoodlum that "we need the straucture of the party" and it would
be destroyed if need be to build back up.
Is this what they are doing to America - destroying it from within to
build up in their image. Note all these landmarks around, these
foundations going up but more particularly, those landmarks going down
like the Twin Towers - with all that Saudi gold at the bottom?
This handful of men running the USA using dirty money - like Bloomberg
to me reeks of a man with no breeding who has all the characteristics of
a Jimmy Hoffa.....first trip he made was pilgrimage to Israel when he
took over and Giuliani went with him, another man with "connections".
So the honest American businessman goes down tubes paying taxes and
these bastards set up all the tax free foundations for money laundering?
Are these the Mega Men - Mega Bucks - who destroy the old line - from
the Masons to the Knights Templar to the Rockefellers to the J P Morgans
- tahe old giants who made this nation great?
These are the scavengers, like big black birds who feed upon the ashes
and dead bodies - a Company of Undertakers?
And to think they bought the Democrat Party and the Mega Man is the
Boss.
Was thinking of this Jack the Ripper letter, alleged to be writiten by
an Englishman "Dear Boss", it said.....some believes Jack was a
slaughterman, a Jewish slaughterman - a product of Lenin....a barber
surgeon - Barber get your Razor......a man who built his murders about
scenes from the bible ......slaughterman get your weapon.
What kind of people murder - Nixon once referred to Johnny Rosselli -
and you know what happened to him - he was cut to pieces, and put in an
oil drug and sent to bottom of waters but his body was recovered.....he
was to be a witness in the Assssination of JFK, etc. resurrection.
Think there are not avengers of blood out there yet and these men are
the cause of the destruction of this country? Oh so generous in
contributions which amount to bribes?
Is this how Murder, Inc. thrived in this country? Bronfman, is
Silverstein who had lease on Twin Towers - is Silverstein just his front
man.
maybe this is the message left in Joel in the bible - for these men use
law of Draco? They buy and they sell and they overurn, overturn
overturn and loosed thugs in the streets to create havoc in this
country?
Look to Israel and see America the Hell Hole to Be.....
OSaba
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
Home > Catholic Encyclopedia > S > Sanhedrin
Join New Advent's Catholic mailing list! Start your FREE subscription
today.
Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia Edited by Father Peter
Stravinskas. This best-selling reference has now been revised and
cross-referenced to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. With over
3,000 entries, this is the most comprehensive single-volume Catholic
encyclopedia available. (Note: This version is not to be confused with
the classic Catholic Encyclopedia featured on New Advent.) More....
Flash Cards to Teach Children the Catholic Faith -- Get this FREE
Sample!
Visit Catholic Freebies to get free stuff for Catholics. Click here.
Sanhedrin
The supreme council and court of justice among the Jews. The name
Sanhedrin is derived originally from the Greek word sunédrion, which,
variously modified, passed at an unknown period into the Aramaic
vocabulary. Among the Greek-speaking Jews, gerousía, "the assembly of
the Ancients" was apparently the common name of the Sanhedrin, at least
in the beginning; in post-Biblical Hebrew the appellation Beth-Din,
"house of judgment", seems to have been quite popular.
HISTORY
An institution as renowned as the Sanhedrin was naturally given by
Jewish tradition a most venerable and hallowed antiquity. Some Doctors,
indeed, did not hesitate to recognize the Sanhedrin in the Council of
the seventy Elders founded by Moses (Num., xi, 16); others pretended to
discover the first traces of the Sanhedrin in the tribunal created by
Josaphat (II Par., xix, 8): but neither of these institutions bears, in
its composition or in its attributions, any resemblance to the Sanhedrin
as we know it. Nor should the origin of the Sanhedrin be sought in the
Great Synagogue, of which tradition attributed the foundation to Esdras,
and which it considered as the connecting link between the last of the
Prophets and the first Scribes: for aside from the obscurity hovering
over the functions of this once much-famed body, its very existence is,
among modern scholars, the subject of the most serious doubts. Yet it
may be that from the council of the nobles and chiefs and ancients, on
which the ruling of the restored community devolved at the time of
Nehemias and Esdras (Neh., ii, 16; iv, 8, 13; v, 7; vii, 5; I Esd., v,
5, 9; vi, 7, 14; x, 8), gradually developed and organized, sprang up the
Sanhedrin. At any rate, the first undisputed mention we possess touching
the gerousía of Jerusalem is connected with the reign of Antiochus the
Great (223-187 B. C.; Joseph. "Antiq.", XII, iii, 3). From that time on,
we are able to follow the history of the Sanhedrin until its
disappearance in the overthrow of the Jewish nation.
As under the Greek rulers the Jews were allowed a large measure of
self-government, many points of civil and religious administration fell
to the lot of the high priests and the gerousía to settle. But when,
after the Machabean wars, both the royal and priestly powers were
invested in the person of the Hasmonean kings, the authority of the
Sanhedrin was naturally thrown in the background by that of the
autocratic rulers. Still the Sanhedrin, where a majority of Pharisees
held sway, continued to be "the house of justice of the Hasmoneans"
("Talm.", Aboda zara, 36b; Sanh., 82a). A coup d'état of John Hyrcanus
towards the end of his reign brought about a "Sadducean Sanhedrin"
("Antiq.", XVI, xi, 1; Sanh., 52b; Megillat Taanith, 10), which lasted
until Jannæus; but owing to the conflictgs between the new assembly
and Alexander, it was soon restored, to be again overthrown by the
Pharisaic reaction, under Alexandra. The intervention of Rome,
occasioned by the strife between the sons of Alexandra, was momentarily
fatal to the Sanhedrin in so far as the Roman proconsul Gabinius, by
instituting similar assemblies at Gadara, Jericho, Amathonte, and
Sapphora, limited the jurisdiction of the gerousía of Jerusalem to the
city and the neighbouring district (57 B. C.). In 47, however, the
appointment of Hyrcanus II as Ethnarch of the Jews resulted in the
restoring of the Sanhedrin's authority all over the land. One of the
first acts of the now all-powerful assembly was to pass judgment upon
Herod, the son of Antipater, accused of cruelty in his government
("Antiq.", XI, ix, 4). The revengeful prince was not likely to forget
this insult. No sooner, indeed, had he established his power at
Jerusalem (37 B. C.), than forty-five of his former judges, more or less
connected with the party of Antigonus, were put to death ("Antiq.", XV,
i, 2). The Sanhedrin itself, however, Herod allowed to continue; but
this new Sanhedrin, filled with his creatures, was henceforth utilized
as a mere tool at his beck (as for instance in the case of the aged
Hyrcanus). After the death of Herod, the territorial jurisdiction of the
assembly was curtailed again and reduced to Judea, Samaria, and Idumea,
the "ethnarchy" allotted to Archelaus. But this condition of affairs was
not to last; for after the deposition of the Ethnarch and the annexation
of Judea to the Roman province of Syria (A. D. 6), the Sanhedrin, under
the control of the procurators, became the supreme authority of the
Jewish people; only capital sentences pronounced by the assembly perhaps
needed confirmation from the Roman officer before they could be carried
into execution. Such was the state of things during the public life of
the Saviour and the following thirty years (Matt., xxvi, 57; Mark, xiv,
55; xv, 1; Luke, xxii, 66; John, xi, 47; Acts, iv, 15; v, 21; vi, 12;
xxii, 30; xxiii, 1 sq.; xxiv, 20; "Antiq.", XX, ix, 1; x; "Bell. Jud.",
II, xv, 6; "Vita", 12, 13, 38, 49, 70). Finally when the misgovernment
of Albinus and Gessius Florus goaded the nation into rebellion, it was
the Sanhedrin that first organized the struggle against Rome; but soon
the Zealots, seizing the power in Jerusalem, put the famous assembly out
of the way. Despite a nominal resurrection first at Jamnia, immediately
after the destruction of the Holy City, and later on at Tiberias, the
great Beth-Din of Jerusalem did not really survive the ruin of the
nation, and later Jewish authors are right when, speaking of the sad
events connected with the fall of Jerusalem, they deplore the cessation
of the Sanhedrin (Sota, ix, end; Echa Rabbathi on Lam., v, 15).
COMPOSITION
According to the testimony of the Mishna (Sanh., i, 6; Shebuoth, ii, 2),
confirmed by a remark of Josephus ("Bell. Jud.", II, xx, 5), the
Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one members, president included. Jewish
tradition appealed to Num., xi, 16, to justify this number; but whether
the text of Num. had actually any influence on the determination of the
composition of the Beth-Din, may be left undecided. The New-Testament
writers seem to divide the members into three classes: the chief
priests, the scribes, and the ancients; but it might be wrong to regard
these three classes as forming a regular hierarchy, for in the New
Testament itself the word "ancients", or the phrase "the ancients of the
people", is quite frequently equivalent to "members of the Sanhedrin",
just as is in Josephus the word bouleutaí "members of the council".
They were styled "ancients" no doubt in memory of the seventy "ancients"
forming the assembly set up by Moses (Num., xi), but also because the
popular mind attached to the word a connotation of maturity of age and
respectability (See in "Talm.", Bab., Sanh. 17b, 88a, also in Sifra, 92,
the moral and intellectual qualifications required for membership. Since
the Beth-Din had to deal frequently with legal matters, it was natural
that many of its members should be chosen from among men specially given
to the study of the Law; this is why we so often hear of the scribes in
the Sanhedrin. Most of those scribes, during the last forty years of the
institution's existence, were Pharisees, whereas the members belonging
to the sacerdotal caste represented in the assembly the Sadducean ideas
(Acts, iv, 1; v, 17, 34; xxiii, 6; "Antiq.", XX, ix, 1; "Bell. Jud.",
II, xvii, 3; "Vita", 38, 39), but history shows that at other periods
the Pharisean influence had been far from preponderating. According to
what rules the members were appointed and the vacancies filled up, we
are unable to state; it seems that various customs prevailed on this
point at different periods; however, from what has been said above, it
is clear that politics interfered more than once in the transaction. At
any rate we are told (Sanh., iv, 4) that a semikah, or imposition of
hands, took place at the formal installation of the new appointees; and
there is every reason to believe that the appointment was for life.
Who was president of the Sanhedrin? The Bible and Josephus on the one
hand, and the Talmud on the other, contain statements which may shed
some light on the subject; unfortunately these statements appear to be
at variance with each other and need careful handling. In I Mach., xiv,
44, we read that no meeting (sustrophéd) might be called in the land
outside of the high priest's bidding; but it would be clearly illogical
to infer from this that the high priest was appointed by Demetrius ex
officio president of the Sanhedrin. To conclude the same from the
passage of Josephus narrating Herod's arraignment before the Sanhedrin
(Antiq., XIV, ix, 3-5) would likewise perhaps go beyond what is
warranted by the text of the Jewish historian: for it may be doubted
whether in this occurrence Hyrcanus acted as the head of the Hasmonean
family or in his capacity of high priest. At any rate there can be no
hesitation about the last forty years of the Sanhedrin's existence: at
the trial of Jesus, Caiphas, the high priest (John, xi, 49), was the
head of the Beth-Din (Matt., xxvi, 5;7); so also was Ananias at the
trial of St. Paul (Acts, xxiii, 2), and we read in "Antiq.", XX, ix, I,
about the high priest Ananus II summoning the Sanhedrin in A. D. 62.
What then of the Rabbinical tradition speaking persistently of Hillel,
and Simon his son, and Gamaliel I his grandson, and the latter's son
Simon, as holding the office of Nasi from 30 B. C. to A. D. 70 (Talm.,
Bab. Shabbath, 15a)? Of one of these men, Gamaliel, we find mention in
Acts, v, 34; but even though he is said to have played a leading part in
the circumstances referred to there, he is not spoken of as president of
the assembly. The truth may be that during the first century B. C., not
to speak of earlier times, the high priest was not ex officio the head
of the Sanhedrin, and it appears that Hillel actualy obtained that
dignity. But after the death of Herod and the deposition of Archelaus,
which occurred about the time of Hillel's demise, there was inaugurated
a new order of things, and that is possibly what Josephus means when,
speaking of these events, he remarks that "the presidency over the
people was then entrusted to the high priests" (Antiq., XX, x, end). It
was natural that, in an assembly containing many scribes and called upon
the decide many points of legislation, there should be, next to the
Sadducean presidents, men perfectly conversant with all the intricacies
of the Law. Gauged by the standard of later times, the consideration
which must have attached to this position of trust led to the
misconception of the actual rôle of Hillel's descendants in the
Sanhedrin, and thus very likely arose the tradition recorded in the
Talmud.
JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE
We have seen above how the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin varied in
extension at different periods. At the time of the public life of the
Saviour, only the eleven toparchies of Judea were de jure subject to the
Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem; however, de facto the Jews all the world
over acknowledged its authority (as an instance of this, see Acts, ix,
2; xxii, 5; xxvi, 12). As the supreme court of justice of the nation,
the Sanhedrin was appealed to when the lower courts were unable to come
to a decision (Sanh., vii, 1; xi, 2); moreover, it had the exclusive
right of judgment in matters of special importance, as for instance the
case of a false prophet, accusations against the high priest, the
sending out of an army in certain circumstances, the enlarging of the
city of Jerusalem, or of the Temple courts, etc. (Sanh., i, 5; ii, 4;
iii, 4); the few instances mentioned in the New Testament exemplify the
cases to which the competency of the Sanhedrin extended; in short, all
religious matters and all civil matters not claimed by Roman authority
were within its attributions; and the decisions issued by its judges
were to be held inviolable (Sanh., xi, 2-4). Whether or not the
Sanhedrin had been deprived, at the time of Jesus Christ, of the right
to carry death-sentences into execution, is a much-disputed question. On
the one hand, that such a curtailing of the Sanhedrin's power did
actually take place seems implied in the cry of the Jews: "It is not
lawful for us to put any man to death" (John, xviii, 31), in the
statement of Josephus (Ant., XX, ix, 1) and in those of the Talmud of
Jer. (Sanh., 18a, 24b). Still we see in Acts, vii, St. Stephen put to
death by the Sanhedrin; we read likewise in Talm. Jer. (Sanh., 24, 25)
of an adulteress burnt at the stake and a heretic stoned; and these
three facts occurred precisely during the last forty years of the
Temple's existence, when the power of life and death is supposed to have
been no longer in the Sanhedrin. Assuming the two facts recorded in
Talm. Jer. to be historical, we might explain them away, just as the
stoning of St. Stephen, and reconcile them with the curtailing of the
Sanhedrin's rights by attributing them to outbursts of popular passion.
Some scholars, however, deny that the Romans ever deprived the Sanhedrin
of any part of its power: the Sanhedrin, they say, owing to the
frequency of cases half-religious and half-political in nature, in order
not to alienate the feelings of the people and at the same time not to
incur the displeasure of the Roman authorities, practically surrendered
into the hands of the latter the right to approve capital sentences; the
cry of the Jews: "it is not lawful for us to put any man to death", was
therefore rather a flattery to the procurator than the expression of
truth.
It should be noted, however, that of these views the former is more
favourably received by scholars. At all events, criminal causes were
tried before a commission of twenty-three members (in urgent cases any
twenty-three members might do) assembled under the presidency of the Ab
Beth-Din; two other boards, also of twenty-three members each, studied
the questions to be submitted to plenary meetings. These three sections
had their separate places of meeting in the Temple buildings; the
criminal section met originally in the famous "Hall of the Hewn Stone"
(Mishna, Peah, ii, 6; Eduyoth, vii, 4) which was on the south side of
the court (Middoth, v, 4) and served also for the sittings of the "Great
Sanhedrin", or plenary meetings; about A. D. 30, that same section was
transferred to another building closer to the outer wall; they had also
another meeting place in property called khanyioth, "trade-halls",
belonging to the family of Hanan (cf. John, xvii, 13). The members of
the Sanhedrin sat in a semicircle that they might see one another while
deliberating (Mishna, Sanh., iv, 2; Tos., Sanh., vii, 1). Two clerks
stood before them, the one to the right and the other to the left, to
take down the votes (Mishna, Sanh., iv, 2). The members stood up to
speak, and on matters of civil or ceremonial law the voting began with
the principal member of the assembly, whereas the younger members were
the first to give their opinion in criminal affairs. For judgments of
the latter description a quorum of at least twenty-three members was
required: a majority of one vote sufficed for the acquittal; for a
condemnation a majority of two votes was necessary, except when all the
members of the court (seventy-one) were present (Mishna, Sanh., iv;
Tos.,Sanh., vii).
Since in spite of the identity of names there is little in common
betweeen the old Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem and the schools of Jamnia
and Tiberias, it is quite useless to dwell on the latter, as well as on
the Kalla assemblies of Babylon. But it will not be amiss to mention the
fact that before the fall of Jerusalem there were, besides the Great
Sanhedrin we have dealt with above, local courts of justice sometimes
designated by the same name, in all the Jewish cities.
Besides the tracts Sanhedrin in both Talmuds, and the works of JOSEPHUS,
which are the principal sources of information on the subject, we may
cite the following works: MAIMONIDES, De synedriis et pœnis, Heb. and
Lat. (Amsterdam, 1695); REIFMANN, Sanhedrin, Heb. (Berdichef, 1888);
SELDEN, De synedriis et præfecturis juridicis veterum Ebræorum
(London, 1650); UGOLINI, Thesaurus antiquitatum, XXV (Paris, 1672);
BLUM, Le sanhédrin … son origine et son histoire (Strasburg, 18899);
RABBINOWICZ, Législation criminelle du Talmud (Paris, 1876); IDEM,
Législation civile du Talmud (Paris, 1877-80); STAPFER, La Palestine
au temps de Jésus-Christ (3rd ed., Paris, 1885), iv; BÜCHLER, Das
Synedrion in Jerusalem (Vienna, 1902); JELSKI, Die innere Einrichtung
des grossen Synedrion zu Jerusalem und ihre Fortsetzung in späteren
palästinensichen Lehrhause bis zur Zeit des R. Jehuda ha-Nasi
(Breslau, 1804); LANGEN, Das jüdische Synedrium und die römische
Procurator in Judäa in Tübing. theol. Quartalschr. (1862), 441-63;
LEVY, Die Präsidentur in Synedrium in Frankel's Monatschr. (1885);
SCHÜRUR, Geschichte des jüd. Volkes im Seitalter Jesu Christi, II
(3rd ed., Leipzig, 1898), 188 sq.
CHARLES L. SOUVAY
Transcribed by WGKofron
With thanks to Fr. John Hilkert and St. Mary's Church, Akron, Ohio
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIII
Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Type or paste text or Web address (beginning with http://) here:
Powered
by SystranTranslate from:
--- Begin Message ---
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13444a.htm
--- End Message ---
