Sanhedrin, Sanhedriyyot, Or Mere Invention? Author(S): Lester L

Sanhedrin, Sanhedriyyot, or Mere Invention? Author(s): Lester L. Grabbe Source: Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period, Vol. 39, No. 1 (2008), pp. 1-19 Published by: Brill Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24670033 Accessed: 02-03-2018 13:42 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms

Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period

This content downloaded from 128.36.7.76 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 13:42:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms ϊ~ «4 Journal^ ;; "||f : the Study of S Judaism ׳68י * brill BRILL Journal for the Study ofJudaism 39 (2008) 1-19 www.brill.nl/jsj

Sanhedrin, Sanhedriyyot, or Mere Invention?1

Lester L. Grabbe

Department Department of Iheology, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7K, UK L.L.L.L. [email protected]. uk

Abstract

The institution of the Sanhedrin has been taken for granted in much discussion on Second Temple Judaism. In recent years, however, it has come to be questioned. This study examines the primary evidence and asks historical questions: Did such an institution (under the name "Sanhedrin" or some other name or names) actu ally exist? If so, what form did it take? How might it have functioned? The study concludes that such an institution did exist, but not as described in the Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin, and it varied in function and power through its long history.

Keywords Sanhedrin, Gerousia, Boule, council, David Goodbiatt, high priest, administra tion of Judah, Second Temple Judaism

There has been fierce debate about the nature of the Sanhedrin: was there one? two? even more? What were its powers? Who controlled it? Now, there are some prominent scholars of Judaica who question the standard assumption about the Sanhedrin. A good example is the recent mono graph by David Goodbiatt which states in no uncertain terms:

Had a national council been the supreme Judean institution of self-government, then I think it reasonable to assume that it would have left a clearer mark in

" An earlier version of this paper was read at the Seminar on Judaism, Department of Theology, University of Durham (March 2001), and to the combined seminar of the Clas sics Department and the Department of Theology and Religions, University of Leeds (Feb ruary 2002). I thank them for their invitations. I also wish to thank those present for questions and comments that helped to improve the paper.

This content downloaded from 128.36.7.76 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 13:42:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 2 L. L. Grabbe / Journalfor the Study of Judaism 39 (2008) 1-19

the sources—even when the fragmentary nature of the documentation is taken into account. Instead what the ancient sources clearly indicate is a regime of priestly monarchy in which the high priest is at the apex of Judean self-government. The theory of conciliar supremacy, then, is based on a rab binic ideal. It is the tannaitic masters who projected a dominant council back into biblical times... But for the second temple era, conciliar supremacy is a scholarly myth.2

Considering Goodblatt's comments, it is surprising to find how few stud ies have been devoted to the question: a monograph by A. Biichler at the beginning of the 20th c. is still cited;3 one might also mention discussions on the question by A. Edersheim and G. F. Moore;4 but perhaps the most notable recent study (before Goodblatt) is by H. Mantel.5 It is clear that a full assessment needs to be done: what are the sources, what are the issues, why is there such a variety of views? Here are the principles on which my study will be based:6

1. The term "Sanhedrin" is our term and will sometimes be used here, but sources may not always have used the same terminology; there fore, one of the problems will be to ask about the significance of different terms in the sources.

2, David Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity (TSAJ 38; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1994), 130. See also his earlier article, "Sanhedrin," ERERERER 13:60-63. A. Biichler, "Das Synedrion in Jerusalem u. d. grosse Beth-Din in der Quaderkammer (נ d. jerusalemischen Tempels," 9■ Jahresbericht d. isr.-theol. Lehranstalt in Wien (1902), 1 -252 (cited from Eduard Lohse, "συνέδριον," 7ZW7"7:863 n.17). 41 Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (2nd edn; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1886), 2:553-58; George Foot Moore, Judaism in the First Three Centuries of the of the Christian Era (3 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard 1927-30), 1:82, 85; 3:32-34. 5' H. Mantel, Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin (Cambridge: University Press, 1961); "Sanhedrin," IDBSup 784-86. See also S. Safrai, "Jewish Self-Government," in The Jewish People People in the First Century (ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern; CRINT 1/1; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 1:379-80; Ellis Rivkin, "Beth Din, Boule, Sanhedrin: A Tragedy of Errors," HUCA 46 (1975): 181-99; J. Efron, "The Great Sanhedrin in Vision and Reality," Studies on the Hasmonean Period (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 287-338; Anthony J. Saldarini, "Sanhedrin," ABD 5:975-80; Edward P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 6363 BCE-66 CE (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992), 472-88. 6) I shall naturally interact with Goodblatt a great deal because of the extent and impor tance of his study; nevertheless, my study is an attempt to come to grips with the question from a non-partisan point of view and is not primarily a response to his book.

This content downloaded from 128.36.7.76 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 13:42:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms L. L. Grabbe / Journal for the Study of Judaism 39 (2008) 1-19 3

2. The sources need to be examined carefully, each in its own right. It is methodologically wrong to attempt to harmonize or to create a syn thesis at the beginning; on the contrary, the synthesis should come only after the data of each source are understood in their own literary and historical context. 3. If a Sanhedrin existed, it may well have varied in position, composi tion, power, and place in the administration and society over time. 4. The idea of a "monarchic high priesthood" and a Sanhedrin are not necessarily mutually exclusive.7 That is, acceptance of the one does not automatically rule out the other. Conversely, the existence of a Sanhedrin does not, contrary to Goodblatt, necessarily imply "con ciliary supremacy."

Survey of Sources

Because of the nature of the sources, we cannot always be sure whether a source is speaking about the situation in the historical period to which the source refers or about the situation in the time when it was actually written (assuming we can determine the latter). There is also the problem that our sources normally refer to the question only in passing or give even more oblique allusions. We do not have a description of a "functioning Sanhe drin" until the New Testament or even the Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin. This survey proceeds in rough chronological order; however, when it reaches the Roman period, the main sources (Josephus, the NT, rabbinic literature) are considered each in its own right because of the individual characteristics.

From From the Monarchy to the Persian Period

In the period of the monarchy, the king was seen as the head of the cult at that time.8 The place of the high priest seems not to have been as important

71 I essentially agree with Goodblatt's analysis of a "monarchic high priesthood" (cf. my Judaic Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practicefrom the Exile to Yavneh [Lon don/New don/New York: Routledge, 2000], 144-47), but unlike him I do not see why that should exclude the idea of a Sanhedrin of some sort. In other words, the objection quoted above states a "strong" position with regard to a Sanhedrin, but it constricts discussion. Goodblatt needs to accept and allow for other positions that accept the existence of the institution without making it so dominant as he expresses it. 81 Lester L. Grabbe, Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-historical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995), 20-40.

This content downloaded from 128.36.7.76 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 13:42:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 4 L. L. Grabbe / Journalfor the Study of Judaism 39 (2008) 1-19 as later; nevertheless, a number of passing references suggest a continuing office with an important function even while a native king reigned in Jeru salem.9 No council as such seems to have been envisaged. With the loss of the monarchy and the incorporation of Judah into the Persian empire as a province, the office of high priest expanded in impor tance to fill the gap of local leadership.10 This was true even though there was a provincial governor appointed by the Persians, as is clearly indicated in the books of Haggai and Zechariah where the two figures are mentioned together as a sort of diarchical leadership. The harmonious relationship between the high priest and the Persian governor suggested by Haggai and Zechariah was not necessarily a given, however. For one thing, we do not know that the Persian governor was always Jewish, and a non-native gov ernor would probably not be so inclined to work closely with the high priest." We also know from the book of Nehemiah that even a Jewish governor might not feel compelled to establish a good working relation ship with the high priest.12 Of particular relevance to our question is a letter among the Elephan tine papyri, from Jedaniah to Bagohi the governor of Judah, written in 410 B.C.E. Within the letter is the following statement:

We sent a letter to our lord (Bagohi the governor) and to Yehohanan the high priest and his companions the priests who are in Jerusalem and to Ostan the brother of Anan and the nobles of the Jews. They did not send a single letter to us.13

" See such passages as 2 Kgs 11; 12:8-11; 22:8-14; 23:4; cf. 2 Chron 23; 24:4-11; 26:16 20; 34:14-22; see also Grabbe, Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages, 60-62; Judaic Religion in the

Second Temple Period,Second Temple Period, 144. 10) Lester L. Grabbe, A History of the Jews andJudaism in the Second Temple Period 1: Yehud: A A History of the Persian Province ofjudah (LSTS 47; London/New York: Τ & Τ Clark Inter national, 2004), 147-48, 230-34; "The Gestalt of the High Priest in the Second Temple Period: An Anthropological Perspective," in The Priesthood in the Second Temple Period (ed. Alice Hunt; London: Τ & Τ Clark International, forthcoming). This is also what Goodblatt is attempting to demonstrate. 111 Grabbe, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period 1, 148-49, 321. 12' See Neh 13:4-9, 28, and cf. Lester L. Grabbe, Ezra and Nehemiah (Readings; London: Routledge, 1998), 161-67. 13) AP ##30 and 31 (= TAD A4.7 and A4.8) are two copies of the same document with ןחלש הרנא :only slight differences. My translation is from the text in TAD A4.7:18-19 אידוזז־ ׳רחו יננע יז הרחא ןחסוא לעו םלטור׳ב יז א׳נהכ התונכו אכד אנהכ ןנחוהי לעו ןארמ .;ילע וחלש אל הדח הדנא

This content downloaded from 128.36.7.76 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 13:42:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms L. L. Grabbe / Journal for the Study of Judaism 39 (2008) 1-19 5

This short passage is very significant for our question. There was not only the Persian province of Judah with its governor Bagohi; the implication of this letter is that within the Persian province ofYehud is a Jewish commu nity having a leadership (in addition to the officially appointed governor) composed of the high priest and his fellow priests and the local nobility. No statement is made here of a formal council. The question is, though, how did the exercise of leadership actually function?

Early Early Greek Period (to 200 B. C.E.)

The most important early Greek source about the Jews is the account of Hecataeus of Abdera. Writing about 300 B.C.E., Hecataeus had one of the few descriptions of the Jewish people in Palestine and one of the earliest in Greek. He describes a Jewish ethnic and national community centering on Jerusalem in which the priests provide leadership and act as judges, as well as running the cult and teaching the law. Chief authority is invested in the high priest:

For this reason the Jews never have a king, and authority over the people is regularly vested in whichever priest is regarded as superior to his colleagues in wisdom and virtue. They call this man the high priest (αρχιερέα), and believe that he acts as a messenger to them of God's commandments. (6) It is he, we are told, who in their assemblies and other gatherings announces what is ordained, and the Jews are so docile in such matters that straightway they fall to the ground and do reverence to the high priest when he expounds the com mandments to them.14

Whether Hecataeus used a written Jewish source or consulted Jews ver bally, the source of the information is not the biblical tradition (or at least not primarily it). This picture has been idealized in certain ways, probably by Hecataeus himself,15 but that does not negate the value of the basic

141 Apud Diodorus Siculus 40.3.5-6. For text, translation, and commentary, see Menahem Stem, Jews Stem, Jews andJudaism in Greek and Latin Literature (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1974-84), 1:26-35. For a survey of the most recent scholarship on the work, see Bezalel Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, On the Jews: Legitimizing the Jewish Dias porapora (Hellenistic Culture and Society 21; Berkeley: University of California, 1996), 7-43. Unfortunately, the quotations ascribed to Hecataeus in Josephus are not likely to be authen tic, as Bar-Kochva has now demonstrated. 15' E.g., Doran Mendels ("Hecataeus of Abdera and a Jewish 'patrios politeia' of the Persian

This content downloaded from 128.36.7.76 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 13:42:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 6 L. L. Grabbe / Journalfor the Study of Judaism 39 (2008) 1-19 information.16 In spite of the focus on the high priest, the passage recog nizes that other priests were also in positions of authority, including being judges in major disputes. Acording to Josephus, about the middle of the third c. B.C.E. the high priest Onias II refused to pay a tribute of twenty talents of silver to the Ptolemaic court. Joseph Tobiad intervened to pay the sum owed. Accord ing to one interpretation, Onias was deprived of a civic office granted by the Ptolemies, that of the προστασία or official representative of the Jewish nation, which was passed on to Joseph Tobiad to be exercised by him.17 This precise example is disputed, but it serves to illustrate that the high priest's power was not necessarily a constant over the centuries. About 200 B.C.E., according to Josephus, Antiochus III issued a decree which named the "council of elders" (γερουσία) and temple personnel and relieved some of their taxes temporarily so the temple could be repaired of war damage.18 This document has generally been taken as authentic,19 but it strangely fails to mention the high priest (who is usually thought to be Simon II at that time). There are several possible explanations for this, however: Antiochus may have wanted to concentrate on the institutions (the "council of elders") or groups rather than individuals; or Simon may

Period (Diodorus Siculus XL, 3)," ZAW95 [1983]: 96-110) argues that he has assimilated his description to the Greek model of the patriospoliteia or native constitution. 16) It can be argued that the ultimate source of this picture is priestly teaching. For example, the period of the monarchy is completely unknown, and the priestly class is pictured as being in charge from the beginning. O. Murray (in M. Stern and O. Murray, "Hecataeus of of Abdera and Theophrastus on Jews and Egyptians,"59 [1973]: 159-68) suggests that Hecataeus consulted Jews, even priests; Mendels ("Hecataeus of Abdera") argues that Hec ataeus made use of a Jewish source which gave a priestly interpretation of the Jewish past. 171 Ant. 12.160-166; on doubts about this and also the details of the Joseph Tobiad story, see Dov Gera ,Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 219 to 161 B. C.E. (Brill's Series in Jewish Studies 8; Leiden: Brill, 1998) ch. 2; idem, "On the Credibility of the History of the Tobi ads," in Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel: Collected Essays (ed. A. Kasher, U. Rappaport, and G. Fuks; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1990), 21-38. Without entering into a debate on this issue, I would note that even fictional accounts can reflect the general func tioning of institutions in society. IS) Quoted in Josephus, Ant. 12.138-146 (Thackeray, LCL). On the question of authenticity, see the discussion and bibliography in Lester L. Grabbe, "Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period," in Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period (ed. L. L. Grabbe; JSOTSup 317317 = European Seminar in Historical Methodology 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 129-55, esp. 139-42.

This content downloaded from 128.36.7.76 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 13:42:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms L. L. Grabbe / Journal for the Study ofJudaism 39 (2008) 1-19 7 have opposed Antiochus (but then why was he allowed to continue in office?); or there was no high priest at the time of the invasion, perhaps because the high priest was killed in the fighting over Jerusalem, and Simon came to the office only after Antiochus had entered the city. However one explains this, the "council of elders" clearly had an important role in lead ership of the community at this time. Also about 200 B.C.E. Ben Sira describes the situation in Palestine. He gives the classic description of the high priest Simon II as leader of the nation (Sir 50:1-21). References to a council are complicated because the original Hebrew text is only partially preserved, and some of this only in very late copies. Nevertheless, there is one apparent reference in 38:32-33 where only the Greek text is preserved (NRSV): "Yet they are not sought out for the council of the people (εις βουλήν λαοΰ), nor do they attain eminence in the public assembly (έν έκκλησία)." In addition, 7:14 speaks of the "council of nobles/officials/elders" (έν πλήθει πρεσβυτέρων/ Unfortunately, the context does not delineate the precise nature .(םירש תדע of these entities, but however we interpret the references, we cannot dis miss or ignore them.

SeleucidSeleucid and Hasmonean Periods

The books of Maccabees are extremely important because they give the most direct details about a "council of elders" or "senate" (gerousia). Such a body definitely functioned for the Hellenistic city established by Jason; 2 Macc 4:43-47 states:

Charges were brought against Menelaus about this incident. When the king came to Tyre, three men sent by the senate (ύπό της γερουσίας) presented the case before him... Menelaus, the cause of all the trouble, he (Antiochus) acquitted of the charges against him, while he sentenced to death those unfor tunate men, who would have been freed uncondemned if they had pleaded even before Scythians.

This body was likely to have been an official body of the Greek polis of Jerusalem; however, a gerousia was not the traditional governing body for Greek cities which more often had officials known as archons and an assem bly of citizens known as the ekklesia. Thus, Jason seems to have continued a pre-existing Jewish body, even if he reconstituted it. Also of significance are the series of letters quoted in both 1 and 2 Maccabees.

This content downloaded from 128.36.7.76 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 13:42:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 8 L. L. Grabbe / Journalfor the Study of Judaism 39 (2008) 1-19

For example, a letter from Antiochus IV (thought to be authentic) is addressed to the "senate" (gerousia) of the Jews during the Maccabean conflict (2 Macc 11:27-29):

To the nation the king's letter was as follows: "King Antiochus to the senate (τη γερουσία των Ιουδαίων) of the Jews and to the other Jews, greetings. If you are well, it is as we desire. We also are in good health. Menelaus has informed us that you wish to return home and look after your own affairs."

This is only one of a number of quoted letters (see, e.g., 1 Macc 12:5-6; 2 Macc 1:10; 11:27). Not all of them are authentic, of course, but some of them are likely to be. More important, however, is that even literary ere ations would have attempted to follow actual models of letters. For fictious letters to be believed, they need to imitate real letters and to reflect the conventions of the time. 3 Maccabees 1 describes the battle of Raphia and the attempt by Pto lemy IV Philopater (221-204 B.C.E.) to enter the temple when he visited Jerusalem after the battle, as a result of an invitation from a delegation of "the council (από της γερουσίας) and the elders" (3 Macc 1-2, quotation from 1:8). 3 Maccabees is a curious mixture. On the whole, it describes a situation that is likely to be unhistorical, whether it is Ptolemy's trying to enter the temple or his persecution of the Jews subsequently. Nevertheless, the author is knowledgeable about the battle of Raphia. Where he got his information about the "council of the Jews" is unknown, but it may reflect an actual source or some sort of personal knowledge relating to the writer's own time. The book of Judith ostensibly describes an invasion of Judah by Nebu chadnezzar. The book is a work of fiction with many errors about the his torical situation during the Neo-Babylonian period. However, this would not prevent the author from knowing about Jewish society in his own time (2nd c. B.C.E.?). In several passages the book mentions a decision-making body associated with the high priest. Judith 4:6-8 (NRSV) gives the reac tion of the Jews to the invasion of Holophernes:

The high priest, Joakim, who was in Jerusalem at the time, wrote to the peo pie of Bethulia... So the Israelites did as they had been ordered by the high priest Joakim and the senate of the whole people of Israel (ή γερουσία παντός δήμου Ισραήλ), in session at Jerusalem.

This content downloaded from 128.36.7.76 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 13:42:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms L. L. Grabbe / Journalfor the Study of Judaism 39 (2008) 1-19 9

Judith 11:14 assumes that decisions on cultic matters would need permis sion "from the council of elders (παρά της γερουσίας)" in Jerusalem. Finally, 15:8 notes that "Joakim the high priest and ή γερουσία of the Isra elites" who lived in Jerusalem came to see the wonderful things done by the Lord on Israel's behalf.

JosephusJosephus

Josephus is an important source for the different periods of Jewish history, though his knowledge varies according to the sources available to him. For the biblical period he generally draws on the biblical text. His interpreta tion of the text is complex, however, making use of his knowledge of his own time, his own idealized view of the Jews' history and past, and a desire to interpret Judaism and the Jews in a manner that would be seen as rea sonable and positive by Greek and Roman readers. Thus, when he describes the situation in the time before or during the Israelite monarchy, we can have little confidence that he has any information beyond the text of the Bible. Yet when he differs from the statements of the text, he may show knowledge of the situation of a later period which he has projected back in the time of ancient Israel.

Ant.Ant. 4.218 states that hard cases which cannot be decided by the local judges are to go to the holy city for the high priest, the prophet, and gerousiagerousia to judge. This is based on Deut 17:8-9 which mentions only the "Leviticai priests" and the judge, so Josephus's statement represents a re-interpretation of the passage. Ant. 4.224 adds that the king is to do nothing without the high priest and "the council of his senators" (των γερουσιαστών). Ant. 5.23 has the gerousia among those that make a circuit of the walls of Jericho. In the post-biblical period an important passage is Ant. 14.163-184 which uses the term sunedrion. It is a well-known Greek word meaning "assembly" or "meeting" or "council." In this particular episode some com plained of Herod's actions as governor of Galilee, because he had executed certain "brigands." The issue focused on the fact that he had done this without permission of "the council" (ύπό του συνεδρίου [Ant. 14.167]). He himself was called to answer before this council under the chairman ship of Hyrcanus II the high priest {Ant. 14.168-180). Later on Herod is alleged to have executed many members of that body {Ant. 14.175).20 This

The Monarchic Principle, 111) states that he is mistaken because he later says־} Goodblatt 201

This content downloaded from 128.36.7.76 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 13:42:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 10 L. L. Grabbe / Journalfor the Study of Judaism 39 (2008) 1-19 passage gives the definite impression that "the council" (τό συνέδριον) is a pre-existing body, with a variety of prominent Jews as members and chaired by the high priest. There are two problems, however: first, the earlier account in the War is somewhat different and, secondly, some passages have been thought to be secondary, especially the story of Samaias the Pharisee.21 There are a number of differences between the two accounts in the War and the Antiquities. The term sunedrion is not mentioned in the version in the War, the story of Samaias the Pharisee is absent from the War, and the details regarding the outcome of Herod's trial are somewhat different in the two. However, these differences are not unusual since the War and the

Antiquities Antiquities often differ in details where they are parallel. One of the consis tent differences is that of length, with the War's account usually being rather shorter, but there are also tendencies in the Antiquities based on Josephus's own proclivities or prejudices.22 Granted the difference between the two accounts, is the one in the

Antiquities Antiquities "a story whose historical value is highly suspect"?23 As suggested, the story of Samaias may indeed be a Pharisaic tradition that Josephus has gained from somewhere. However, anyone who reads the two accounts will see that they are essentially the same in the main features: Herod is accused by the families of the victims, he is tried before Hyrcanus, he escapes being condemned, and many other elements of the story are more or less the same. We must also keep in mind that Josephus does sometimes have genuine additional information in the later account (perhaps because the earlier one extensively compressed the sources in some cases). Most

that Herod killed 45 of Antigonus's men {Ant. 15.6). However, there is no evidence that either episode has anything to do with the other. It is Goodblatt who asserts that they are two versions of the same episode; the text nowhere suggests such a conclusion. 211 This second point is argued by Goodblatt {TheMonarchic Principle, 112-13) who refers to it as "a fictionalized account of the events, created in Pharisaic circles and preserved by Josephus at JA 14." Similar views are expressed by Ralph Marcus (Josephus [LCL] 7.540) and E. P. Sanders {Jesus and Judaism [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 313. 22) For example, I noted the tendency for Josephus to include the Pharisees as actants at various points in the Antiquities where the War was silent about them (Judaism from Cyrus to to Hadrian: 304, 470-72). Cf. also Lester L. Grabbe, "The Sadducees and Pharisees," in Judaism Judaism in Late Antiquity: Part Three. Where We Stand: Issues and Debates in Ancient Juda ism:ism: Volume 1 (ed. Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck; HdO: Erste Abteilung, der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 40; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 3:35-62. 231 Quote from Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle, 113.

This content downloaded from 128.36.7.76 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 13:42:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms L. L. Grabbe / Journal for the Study of Judaism 39 (2008) 1-19 11 significantly, although sunedrion does not occur in the relevant passage in the War, there are several references to a trial. Before whom was this trial conducted? There is nothing to rule out the sunedrion of the Antiquities, and the presence or absence of the Samaias story does not change this. There is no basis for Goodblatt's assertion, "Thus the reference to an ongo ing institution of nation-wide jurisdiction called the sunedrion may be no more historical than the account of Samaias' rebuke."24 On the contrary, the existence of "the sunedrion" does not depend on the Samaias story but is referred to throughout the account in the Antiquities and is compatible with the War. If there was no such institution, why would Josephus have put it in? Where did he get the idea, if he invented it, and what was his motive?

A number of passages use a new term, referring to a boule. According to Josephus the emperor Claudius addressed a letter "to the rulers, council, and people (άρχουσι βουλή δήμφ) of Jerusalem and to the whole nation of the Jews" {Ant. 20.10-14). When there was trouble during Florus's term of office (about 66 C.E.), the Roman governor assembled "the chief priests, the nobles, and the most eminent citizens" (οϊ τε άρχιερεΐς και δυνατοί τό τε γνωριμώτατον της πόλεως) to have certain individuals handed over who had insulted him {War 2.301). He later sent for the "chief priests and lead ing citizens" (τούς αρχιερείς συν τοις γνωρίμοις [War 2.318]). Finally, he called "the chief priests and the council" (τους άρχιερεΐς και την βουλήν) to tell them he was leaving the city, since it was they who were clearly responsible for civic order in Jerusalem" {War 2.331; cf. 2.336). Shortly afterward the Jewish king Agrippa II attempted to avert the friction between the Romans and Jews by having "the rulers and members of the council (οϊ τε άρχοντες και βουλευτά!)" go out and collect taxes to pay the arrears to the Romans {War 2.405, 407). How should we understand this new term: boule or "council, senate." It was widely used for one of the main ruling bodies within a Greek city (alongside the ekklesia or "assembly of citizens"). The question is, what is its precise connotation here? V. A. Tcherikover argued that it was not the city council of a Greek city, as one might think, but was a Jewish body that had responsibility for the nation rather than just the city of Jerusa lem.25 We later read of a building in which the boule met (τη βουλή, τό

·The Monarchic Principle, 113 י24 251 V. A. Tcherikover, "Was Jerusalem a 'Polia'?" IEJ 14 (1964): 61 -78.

This content downloaded from 128.36.7.76 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 13:42:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 12 L. L. Grabbe / Journalfor the Study of Judaism 39 (2008) 1-19

βουλευτήριον: War 5.144; 354) and of the "secretary of the council (ό γραμματεύς της βουλής)" (War 3.532). Although the matter is not entirely certain, the bouleseems to be the same as the sunedrion. One might ask whether it is credible that the same institution was called by a variety of of names. Yet the fact is that any administration has offices bearing different names for what seems to be the same office. To take one small example, Alexander the Great appointed his lieutenant Philoxenus to collect taxes in Asia Minor (Arrian, Anab. 3.6.4). There is some evidence that he was or became satrap (σατράπης) of Caria (Arrian, Anab. 7.23.1; 7.24.1). Else where he is referred to as στρατηγός ("general, commander": Plutarch, Alex.Alex.Alex. 22.1, 676F; De vit. pud. 5, 531 A) and ύπαρχος ("hyparch, satrap, chief administrator": Plutarch, De Alex. mag. fort. 1.12, 333A; Polyaenus 6.49). This interchange of terms might be due to a variety of factors, but it is not unusual.26 For an institute like the Sanhedrin that existed over many centuries, a variety of terms in the sources would hardly be surprising, especially if none of the Greek terms quite fitted an originally Semitic institution. Finally, about the year 64 C.E., Agrippa II was asked "to convene the Sanhedrin (συνέδριον)" for a decision from "those who attended the San hedrin (των εις το συνέδρων)" on a temple matter (Ant. 20.216-217). The question is whether Agrippa was being asked to convene a pre-existing body or to appoint an ad hoc group to advise on the question. What sort of ad hoc council would Agrippa have called? Who would be on it? After all this was a priestly matter; on the other hand, the priests might have seen the request as a threat. It seems most likely that Agrippa would have used an official body if one already existed. However, the first occurrence of the word sunedrion is without the definite article. Should the phrase be trans lated, "to convene an (ad hoc) council"? This might indeed be the case, and one should recognize it, but the absence of the definite article does not automatically lead to a meaning which would take the indefinite article in English.27 The convening of an already existing group is grammatically

261 See Α. Β. Bosworth, A Historical Commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander: Volume I I Commentary on Books /-/// (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 280-82 for a more detailed discussion of Philoxenus and the different titles he held. I have discussed some of these terms in more detail in my article "The Terminology of Government in the Septuagint—in Comparison with Hebrew, Aramaic, and Other Languages," in Administration and Gover nance nance in the Hellenistic Empires (ed. Tessa Rajak; Oxford: Clarendon Press, forthcoming). 27> The significance of the presence or absence of the article in Greek is not always easy to

New New New Testament

A A number of passages in the New Testament refer to a "council" (gerousia, sunedrion).sunedrion). A number of the passages in the Gospels suggest an existing body with the powers of judgment and under the control of the high priest or the chief priests. The Sermon on the Mount asserts, "Whoever says to his brother, 'Raka,' will be liable to 'the council' (τω συνεδρίω)" (Matt 5:22). John 11:47 states that "the chief priests and the Pharisees" called together "the council" (συνέδρων) to plot against Jesus. Later, the trial of Jesus included a trial before the "the council" (τό συνέδριον) (Mark 14:55; 15:l//Matt 26:59//Luke 22:66). Joseph of Arimathea was alleged to have been a member of the council (βουλευτής: Mark 15:42 43//Luke 23:50-51). The book of Acts is the source giving what seems to be the most direct information on how the council was supposed to have functioned. In Acts 4 and 5 the apostles Peter and John are pictured as being called before the council to account for their actions: "When the high priest and those with him arrived, they called together the council and the whole body of the elders (τό συνέδριον και πασαν την γερουσίαν) of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought" (5:21; cf. 4:15). Later, in Acts 22-23 the apostle Paul is brought before "the chief priests and all the council (πάν τό συνέδριον)" (22:30; see also 23:6, 12). Thus, both the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles suggest a body, pre sided over by the high priest, that makes decisions on religious matters.

Tractate Tractate Sanhedrin

The tractate Sanhedrin of the Mishnah presupposes several institutions that have often been drawn upon for the description of "the Sanhedrin" in

define; cf. Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (rev. Gordon M. Messing; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956), 288-92; Friedrich Blass and Albert Debrunner, GrammatikGrammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (rev. Friedrich Rehkopf; 14th rev. ed.; Got tingen; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), 201-27; F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek

Grammar of the New Grammar of the New Testament (rev. of 9th-10 th German ed. by Robert W. Funk; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 131-45; Nigel Turner, Vol. Ill: Syntax in James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: Τ & Τ Clark, 1963), 172-84.

This content downloaded from 128.36.7.76 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 13:42:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 14 L. L. Grabbe / Journalfor the Study of Judaism 39 (2008) 1-19 secondary sources. Up until recently most treatments of the subject have begun with the rabbinic picture or at least gave considerable weight to that picture. We shall focus on the picture in the Tannaitic sources, especially the Mishnah:28 Its description presupposes a "large Sanhedrin" of 71 mem bers which met in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, and local institutions of 23 members each. There were also allegedly other courts in Jerusalem, though their precise relationship to one another is not completely clear:

.. .Three courts were there (in Jerusalem): one used to sit at the gate of the Temple Mount, one used to sit at the gate of the Temple Court, and one used to sit in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. They used to come first to the court that was at the gate of the Temple Mount... otherwise they betook them selves to them of the court that was at the gate of the Temple Court... otherwise they both came in to the Great Court that was in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, whence the Law goes forth to all Israel... {m. Sanh. 11:2)

On the surface, it seems quite plausible to accept the picture, but there are reasons to be cautious.29 One of the main reasons is that the Mishnah was written well after the Second Temple period and clearly presupposes the destruction of the temple in 70 C.E. It also talks about the place of the king in legal judgment, which suggests not a reality but a theoretical posi tion. The question is, then, whether rabbinic literature describes anything other than the fertile imagination of later rabbinic figures who present an idealized picture rather than the historical reality. That this is an idealized picture is indicated by the following:

He was not condemned to death either by the court that was in his own city or by the court that was in Jabneh, but he was brought up to the Great Court that was in Jerusalem. (m. Sanh. 11:4)

281 Translations from the Mishnah are from Herbert Danby (ed.), The Mishnah, translated from from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933). See also Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven: Yale Univer sity Press, 1988). 25, The intensive study of rabbinic literature in recent years, including the question of its value for historical and sociological data, cannot be dealt with here. I have tried to sum marize some of the issues and give some of the main bibliography in Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian Hadrian (13-16) and Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period (116-17). The work of Jacob Neusner is, of course, central to the new perspectives. What it means is that older secondary studies are generally quite unreliable in their use of rabbinic sources for historical purposes.

This content downloaded from 128.36.7.76 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 13:42:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms L. L. Grabbe / Journal for the Study of Judaism 39 (2008) 1-19 15

The reference to the "court in Yavneh" alludes to the post-70 situation when the centre of Judaism had shifted from Jerusalem to Yavneh.30 Fur thermore, all the descriptions of the Sanhedrin seem to be theoretical. As Efron notes,

Throughout all those generations, from the Zugot ("Pairs") to the end of the Second Temple, there is not one mention of a specific act of the Great Sanhe drin meeting in the Chamber of Hewn Stones. Its actual appearance is not interwoven in the variegated memories stored in the Eretz Israel talmudic tradition... Its existence is not recognized or implied in the duties or activi ties of the Pharisee leaders, in the conduct or dicta of Rabban Gamaliel, the elder, and his son, nor in the company of Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai and his disciples. Such a total void cannot be filled by contrived excuses, nor can its significance be ignored.31

Much more could be said, but as Goodblatt, Efron, and others have dem onstrated, the Sanhedrin of rabbinic literature is an idealized creation of the rabbis. There may be some genuine memories of Second Temple times, but as a whole it does not fit the society of Judea or Judaism before 70. Once this is recognized, many of the difficulties with trying to find the historical Sanhedrin disappear.

Summary Summary and Conclusions

The preceding survey of sources has indicated a situation far from simple. There is no description of a national council or Sanhedrin before the rab binic period, which is why many previous studies have begun with the Sanhedrin of rabbinic literature. The problems with taking the rabbinic picture as in any way normative have already been noted, but there are various references in passing, in a variety of Second Temple sources, to a gerousiagerousia "senate" or "council of elders", to a boule "(advisory) council", and to "the sunedrion." The question is what we do with these data. The approach of Goodblatt is that since we cannot clearly demonstrate the existence of a "Sanhedrin",

30, See especially Jacob Neusner, "The Formation of Rabbinic Judaism: Yavneh (Jamnia) from A.D. 70 to 100," ANRW19.2:3-42; also Grabbe, Judaic Religion of the Second Temple Period,Period, 116-26.

311 Efron, "The Great Sanhedrin in Vision and Reality," 298-99.

This content downloaded from 128.36.7.76 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 13:42:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 16 L. L. Grabbe /Journalfor the Study of Judaism 39 (2008) 1-19 we can reject its existence. Unfortunately, that is not the way historical study works. The task of the historian ultimately must be to try to recon struct the most reasonable picture. It is not a case of rejecting a particular interpretation unless it can be proved beyond doubt. After all, in ancient history there is little that can be proved beyond doubt. Although his survey of sources is thorough and helpful, Goodblatt takes a consistently negative attitude toward any evidence for the existence of any such body. The fact is that he is being inconsistent, for if we were to take that same approach with his evidence for the "monarchic priesthood", we could come up with equally negative conclusions. There may be times when we must admit to not having enough information to engage in any sort of reasonable recon struction, but this is not the case here. The question is, what sort of hypoth esis will best fit all the data?

Here is my hypothesis: Beginning in the Persian period, the high priest was the main leader of the Jewish community in Palestine for much of the Second Temple period. There was also a Persian governor part or all the time. Sometimes this governor was Jewish, in which case the high priest and the governor probably cooperated to a lesser or greater extent (though Nehemiah was an exception). In the Greek period, though, we have no indication of a governor, which made the high priest s civic role even more important. (His powers were greatly circumscribed in the Roman period by the Herodian rulers and the Roman provincial government, but he continued to have a role even then.) He was assisted in his role of governor and leader by some sort of larger body, though its status and even its for mal designation may well have varied over the centuries. "The powers and influence of this body probably also varied, with the high priest sometimes more in control and sometimes less. The membership of this advisory body included other leading priests but also members of the non-priestly nobil ity. Exactly how this body functioned is uncertain though, once again, its exact functioning probably varied over time. Whether it had regular sched uled meetings with an agenda or was only called together irregularly, whether there was a precise membership, how the membership was cho sen, its precise jurisdiction—these are ail questions that cannot be answered in the light of present knowledge. This body probably already existed as early as the Persian period and continued to the breakdown of traditional societal structures in the 66-70 C.E. war with Rome. This hypothesis is supported by the following points that also summarize the main data and arguments of this study:

This content downloaded from 128.36.7.76 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 13:42:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms L. L. Grabbe / Journal for the Study of Judaism 39 (2008) 1-19 17

1. A variety of Second Temple sources make reference in passing to such a body. In some cases, the interpretation of the particular passage is difficult or ambiguous; in other cases, it can be asked how and even whether the writer had any direct information of the actual situation. Yet the sheer number, variety, and independence of the sources make any attempt to dismiss or explain them all away look rather tendentious. Reference is made to actual decisions by a council or other body of some sort, to letters whose addresses include this body, and even to membership in it. 2. A number of terms (all Greek) are used, but this would not be sur prising if Greek writers were trying to find a term to fit a Jewish institution that did not precisely fit any Greek term. A frequent term is gerousia or "council of elders" (decree of Antiochus III [Ant. 12.138-146]; 1 Macc 12:5-6; 2 Macc 1:10; 4:43-50; 11:27; 3 Macc 1:6-8; Jdt 4:6-8; 11:14; 15:8). Although the word gerousia can sometimes be a collective for "elders", in context it clearly means a functioning, decision-making body of some sort, and to discount this usage is simply perverse. The name boule "(advi sory) council" is found in some references from the Roman period, includ ing an alleged letter from Claudius (Ant. 20.10-14) and a number of references in Josephus (War 2.331; 2.336; cf. 5.144; 5.532; 6.354). The Greek word is often used of city councils, and such usage even occurs in Josephus (Life 12.64; 13.69; 34.169); nevertheless, several of the references above indicate a body with authority much wider than the city of Jerusa lem. The term sunedrion is probably the most difficult because it refers to ad hoc assemblies called to try cases of conspiracy (e.g., War 1.537; 1.559; Ant.Ant. 16.357-367), to give advice (Life 66.368), or to function as regional councils (War 1.170; Ant. 14.91). Nevertheless, the word can refer to a regular constituted council or senate, and a number of passages suggest a permanent body, chaired by the high priest (Josephus [Ant. 14.I63-I04J; the Gospels [Matt 5:22; John 11:47; Mark 44:55; 15:l//Matt 26:59//Luke 22:66; Mark 15:42-43//Luke 23:50-51]; the book of Acts [4-5, 22-23]). Can these various accounts be reconciled? Clearly, they do not always fit together in all the details; nevertheless, that is a strong thread through all of them. The bodies seem to have similar characteristics and similar functions. The simplest hypothesis is that there was a continuing body rather than that they refer to several different bodies. The different terms used might suggest slightly different institutions at different times with, e.g., the boule as a related but successor organization to the gerousia; however, it seems more likely that the different sources used slightly different terms for essen tially the same body because none of the Greek terms was an exact fit.

This content downloaded from 128.36.7.76 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 13:42:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 18 L. L. Grabbe / Journalfor the Study of Judaism 39 (2008) 1-19

3. The community was led primarily by the high priest, but a number of passages indicate other elements in the Jewish leadership: the chief priests, the "rulers" (archontes in Greek sources), the elders, and notable citizens. Some late references mention "notable Pharisees." An Elephantine letter to the Jerusalem high priest mentions the priests and nobles. What is often forgotten in discussion is that leadership needs some sort of societal structures for it to happen. These structures may be formal or informal, official or unofficial; from a sociological point of view, however, the one may be as real as the other. How did these leadership elements, which existed alongside the high priest, exercise their duty? Although no specific council is mentioned, the community leadership just described suggests that some sort of body would have been the vehicle for this leadership to exercise its advice to and influence on the high priest. Unfortunately, some of of those discussing the idea of a Sanhedrin from a sceptical position ignore the question of structures. It is all very well to speak of "the elders" or "an indefinite group of elders" in some passages, but how did these elders express their will or influence in society? If the elders had a leadership function in society, as seems to be accepted, how did they exercise this? It is not enough to discount all references to the gerousia as not referring to an actual council or senate with established functions and a place in the power structures of Judah. 4.4. It is likely that any ruler would have had his advisers, including the high priest, whether they were "official" or not, and the existence of an advisory council is suggested by various sources noted above (e.g., Acts 5:21-41). The power of this body would probably have varied, being completely subservient to strong high priests but perhaps dominating the decision-making process under weaker leaders (under Herod it seems almost to have disappeared, only to be revived after his death). As noted above, power is not always exercised through formal structures. Sometimes unofficial bodies are the real wielders of power. One can think of the "kitchen cabinet" of advisers to the US president and to the UK prime minister: even though not the official cabinet, it can sometimes exercise greater influence than the actual cabinet. Also, if we are looking for evi dence of official bodies, we should keep in mind that the cabinet of Amer ican government headed by the US president is not referred to in the Constitution: no such body is described by the governmental structure laid down by the Constitution. Should we just dismiss its existence then? Similarly, juries are indefinite, ad hoc groups without any fixed timetable of meetings, yet they are fully constituted bodies and important in our

This content downloaded from 128.36.7.76 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 13:42:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms L. L. Grabbe / Journal for the Study of Judaism 39 (2008) 1-19 19 legal system. Some standing committees may meet only when need arises, yet their existence and activity is not in dispute. 5. This hypothesis would be confounded if the "Sanhedrin" of rabbinic literature had to be reconciled with it. However, in the light of recent study there is no need to assume that the rabbinic picture is anything more than a later invention or rabbinic ideology, even 1r some or elements or a pre-70 body have been correctly remembered and incorporated into it.

This content downloaded from 128.36.7.76 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 13:42:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms