SANHEDRIN săn ə’ drĭn (סַנְהְֶדרִין). A Heb. and Aram. term taken over directly into Eng. denoting the council of Jerusalem which constituted the highest Jewish authority in the Pal. of pre-a.d. 70. The Heb.-Aram. word is, in turn, a transliteration of the Gr. word συνέδριον, G5284, a noun constructed from the adjective σύνεδρος, G5286, “sitting in council” (from σύν, G5250, [with] + ἕδρα [seat]). The occasionally encountered spelling “sanhedrim” is the result of a mistaken assumption that the word was in reality a masc. pl. Heb. noun. The Sanhedrin, the Jewish council of supreme authority which met in Jerusalem, must be distinguished from lesser, local courts of law to which the name “sanhedrin” was also regularly applied.

1. Sources for the study of the Sanhedrin. The three primary sources of information for our knowledge of the Sanhedrin are (1) the NT documents, (2) the writings of the Jewish historian, Josephus, and (3) rabbinic tradition particularly as codified in the Mishnah (in the tractate “Sanhedrin”), but also found in other places such as the “Sanhedrin” tractate in the Tosefta (“Supplement”) and in the Gemaras of the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds. The information that can be gleaned from the NT and Josephus is, of course, indirect, whereas the rabbinic materials often intend specifically to provide information about the Sanhedrin. This fact is counterbalanced, however, by the comparatively late date (about a.d. 200) at which the rabbinic materials that had been handed down orally were finally written down.

It is, unfortunately, impossible to reconcile the description of the Sanhedrin in the rabbinic materials with that found in the NT and Josephus. An attempt has been made to do just this, however, by alleging that there were two major Sanhedrins in Jerusalem: (1) a political Sanhedrin composed of a priestly aristocracy headed by the high priest, concerned with civil affairs and the administration of criminal justice (of which we read in the NT and Josephus) and (2) a religious Sanhedrin composed of a laity of Pharisees headed by a rabbi, concerned with matters of religious life and the interpretation of Torah (of which we read in the rabbinic materials). While this ingenious and attractive theory has been accepted by a number of Jewish scholars (e.g. Lauterbach, Hoenig, Zeitlin, Mantel), it has not found general consent and is here rejected as a conjecture that is too facile and goes too far beyond what the concrete evidence warrants. As historical sources the reliability of the NT and Josephus far exceeds that of the rabbinic writings, which often reflect the state of affairs after, rather than before, the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. Consequently the traditions of the rabbis, while they may sometimes convey trustworthy information concerning the Sanhedrin, must be used critically. Where there is conflicting testimony between the NT and Josephus on the one hand and the rabbinic materials on the other hand, historically speaking, one is on safer ground to accept the former as trustworthy and to reject the latter as anachronistic.

2. Terminology. The Gr. word συνέδριον, G5284, is frequently encountered in Classical and Hellenistic Gr., where it commonly means “place of gathering,” but also comes to connote the gathering itself and in some instances even its authority. The word occurs also in the LXX where it refers to an assembly or court (but not to the Sanhedrin as commonly understood). While συνέδριον, G5284, is common in the NT (over twenty occurrences) and in Josephus, it is not the only term or phrase used in referring to the great council of Jerusalem. The term γερουσία, G1172, “senate,” is found occasionally in the OT Apocrypha and Josephus, and occurs once also in the NT (Acts 5:21). Another word used to refer to the Sanhedrin is πρεσβυτέριον, G4564, “council of elders,” which is used twice in the NT (Luke 22:66; Acts 22:5). A word used often by Josephus in referring to the Sanhedrin is βουλή, G1087. While this particular word is not used by NT writers, the cognate noun βουλευτής, G1085, “councillor,” is used by Luke (23:50) in referring to Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin. The noun βουλευτήριον, “council,” also is used by Josephus. The council is often referred to in the NT by speaking of its members using one, or a conjoining of more than one, of the following: ἀρχιερεῖς, “chief priests”; γραμματεῖς, “scribes”; πρεσβύτεροι, “elders.”

In the rabbinic sources, the word סַנְהֶדְרִין is the common word used to refer to the council. There are, however, other words and phrases for the same body: e.g. בֵּית דִּין גָּדﯴל, “great house of justice”; כְּנִישְׁתָּא, “assembly.”

3. History. The rabbinic tradition as recorded in the Mishnah (San 1:6) traces the origin of the Sanhedrin back to the command of God to Moses to gather together seventy men chosen from among the elders of Israel (Num 11:16). After the Exile it was said to have been reorganized by Ezra. While the precise origins of the Sanhedrin remain obscure, it is commonly argued that historically one cannot speak of the Sanhedrin proper until the Gr. period, i.e. the period of Israel’s domination by the Ptolemies and Seleucids. There are certain anticipations or foreshadowings of the Sanhedrin in the period immediately following the Exile. The place of the elders in Israel was, of course, ever an important one. Early in the history of Israel priests and judges administered justice in specific cases (e.g. Deut 19:15ff.). Long before the Exile Jehoshaphat, king of Judah (872-848 b.c.), is reported to have appointed a law court in Jerusalem consisting of “priests and heads of families of Israel, to give judgment for the Lord and to decide disputed cases” (2 Chron 19:8). Just after the Exile the importance of the elders (e.g. Ezra 5:5ff.; 6:7f.; 10:8) as well as the priests and nobles (e.g. Neh 2:16; 5:7; 7:5) in leadership and adjudication is readily evident. Despite the acknowledged similarity, however, it is still not the Sanhedrin of the NT period.

The first explicit mention of the body known as the Sanhedrin in historical sources is found in Josephus (Antiq. XII. 138ff.) where in his account of a decree of Antiochus III (223-187 b.c.) reference is made to the γερουσία, G1172, or “senate” of the Jews. This “senate” was composed of priests and elders under the direction of the high priest, being constituted as an organized body concerned not merely with judicial matters, but having the broader responsibility of acting as the governing body for the whole of Pal. It was the practice of the Hel. kings to give a large degree of freedom to subject nations in the governing of their internal affairs. This seems to have been true of the Jewish nation under the Ptolemies and Seleucids. The senate of this period is also referred to in the books of the Maccabees (e.g. 1 Macc 12:6; 2 Macc 1:10; 4:44; cf. “the elders of the people,” 1 Macc 7:33). During the period of independence under the Hasmonean Dynasty the power of the council was somewhat curtailed, but it continued to exist as a body. The monarchical rulers of this period needed the support of the nobility who composed its members. It was the queen Salome Alexandra (76-67 b.c.) who, at the advice of her dying husband Alexander Jannaeus, first installed large numbers of Pharisees in the Sanhedrin, making the Pharisees dominant in a group which had hitherto consisted wholly of Sadducees (Jos. War I. 5. 2).

After the Rom. occupation of 63 b.c. the council continued to exist under the leadership of the high priest Hyrcanus (II). Within a few years however, Gabinius, the Rom. governor of Syria (57-55 b.c.), greatly reduced the power of the Jerusalem council by dividing the land into five “sanhedrins” (συνέδρια, Jos. Antiq. XIV. 5. 4; σύνοδοι, Jos. War I. 8. 5) or administrative councils. The high council thereby became merely one among the five, and its regional jurisdiction diminished considerably. This limitation was only temporary, however, for under the direction of Caesar, Hyrcanus was reappointed “ethnarch,” and the Jerusalem council regained its status, appearing again to have had authority over the whole of the land. Indeed, in 47 b.c. there is the remarkable occurrence of Herod being summoned from Galilee to appear before the Sanhedrin for having executed a certain Hezekiah without the permission of the high court. (Jos. Antiq. XIV. 3ff. In this passage the actual word συνέδριον, G5284, occurs for the first time in historical sources in reference to the Jerusalem council, after which however this use of the word becomes common.) For the sake of Hyrcanus, Herod was absolved of this crime, only later—after he had been made king of the Jews—to take bloody revenge by killing the members of this Sanhedrin (Jos. Antiq. XIV. 9. 4; it is doubtful whether “all” the members are to be taken literally; cf. XV. 1. 2). The Sanhedrin continued to exist under Herod, but it was filled with tractable men and its power was severely limited. Herod used the court to carry out his will, but did not allow it or the high priest (Herod was unqualified for this office) to interfere with his reign. At the death of Herod in 4 b.c. his kingdom was divided among his three sons, the most important part (including Judea and Samaria) going to Archelaus who ruled as “ethnarch.” Despite the plea of the people to Augustus for more self-government (cf. Jos. Antiq. XVII. 11. 2ff.), the status and power of the Sanhedrin underwent no particular change.

In a.d. 6, however, when Judaea was made a Rom. province, the Sanhedrin and its president, the high priest, were granted almost exclusive control of the internal affairs of the nation, similar to that which it had under the Hel. kings. The sacred status of Jerusalem and its environs was recognized by the Romans and, so long as public order was maintained and tax revenues were forthcoming, they were content for national matters to be under the control of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin. It is during the period of the Rom. procurators (a.d. 6-66) that the Sanhedrin came to possess the greatest power and jurisdiction of its history, although the Jewish authority was always ultimately answerable to the Rom. governor. Josephus can speak of the dominion of the nation as having been entrusted to the high priests of this period (Antiq. XX. 10).

This is the Sanhedrin which we encounter in the NT documents. It is a body composed largely of members of the aristocracy (the chief priests and Sadducees), which under the leadership of the high priest, exercises considerable judicial authority in handling Jesus of Nazareth according to the gospels, and his disciples according to the Book of Acts. Its area of jurisdiction also appears to include the Diaspora to some degree (witness Paul’s request for letters to the synagogue at Damascus from the high priest, Acts 9:1f.).

With the Jewish rebellion, which began in a.d. 66, martial law came into effect, and when Jerusalem finally fell in a.d. 70 the Sanhedrin was permanently dissolved. From this point onward Pal. was governed solely by orthodox Rom. provincial administration. Almost immediately, it appears, a new “Sanhedrin” was constituted at Jamnia. This “Sanhedrin,” however, was markedly different from its predecessor in that, needless to say, it had no political or governing power whatsoever, and was limited exclusively to the judgment of religious questions. Despite the rabbinic claims that this “Sanhedrin” stood in continuity with the Sanhedrin of earlier periods, it is evident that by comparison the new Sanhedrin was powerless. Whereas the Jerusalem Sanhedrin of the period of the Rom. procurators consisted largely of aristocratic men led by the high priest, the decrees of which were binding under penalty of severe punishment, the new Sanhedrin or Beth Din (court of Justice), as it was called, consisted exclusively of rabbinic scholars under a scholar-president whose decrees were theoretical and bore only the authority warranted by voluntary respect for scholarly wisdom.

4. Composition. Although the rabbinic tradition knows only of a Sanhedrin composed entirely of scholarly scribes and Pharisees, historically it is known that throughout its history the Sanhedrin was dominated by a priestly aristocracy. And, to speak in terms of the parties that developed during Hasmonean times, the nobility almost without exception consisted of Sadducees. Pharisees were admitted into the Sanhedrin in considerable numbers at two particular junctures in its history: once under Salome Alexandra (as noted above) and subsequently under Herod the Great, who took this measure to limit more effectively the power of the older nobility who opposed him. According to the Mishnah (San. 1:6) the membership of the Great Sanhedrin numbered seventy-one. This seems to reflect accurately the situation before the fall of Jerusalem. (Mention is made also of smaller, local sanhedrins composed of twenty-three members.) Tribunals were quite prob. modeled in number after the tribunal of seventy instituted by Moses according to Numbers 11:16f. (There are a number of indications that, among the Jews, councils of seventy were favored.) The extra man was apparently the leader or president of the Sanhedrin, which according to the evidence of Josephus and the NT, was the high priest. The rabbinic tradition, however, does not associate the Great Sanhedrin with the high priest. Instead, it attributes the leadership of the council to a president (נָסִיא or “prince”) who was merely one of the scribes of the council. He was assisted by a vice-president (אַב בֵּית הַדִּין, or “father of the house of justice”) who was also a scribe. This almost certainly reflects the post a.d. 70 situation and is wrongly taken as accurately describing the Sanhedrin of the time of Christ.

The office of high priest was, of course, hereditary although on occasion this was altered for political expediency. Exactly how other members of the Sanhedrin came to hold office remains obscure. A likely conjecture is that the body was self-perpetuating in the sense of electing its own members. The office was prob. given for life, but again this is uncertain. The criteria for membership were prob. age and wealth, although the Mishna mentions only one necessity—that the candidate be learned in rabbinic doctrine.

Particularly in the NT, one encounters repeated references to “chief priests” (ἀρχιερεῖς), the pl. of “high priest,” ἀρχιερεύς, G797. This group which forms the leading component of the Sanhedrin, consisted of former high priests including members of the most important of the priestly families. Probably next to this group in prestige was the lay nobility, who like the priestly aristocracy were also of Sadducean sympathies, and who are prob. referred to under the title “elders” (πρεσβύτεροι). Another important group, an element of increasing importance in the Sanhedrin of the 1st cent., is that of the “scribes” (γραμματεῖς), the professional scholars who were experts in matters of Mosaic law (hence, “lawyers”). The scribes, by way of contrast with the other groups, were Pharisees. Although they were a minority in the Sanhedrin, they apparently enjoyed considerable popular support. So much so, that not only could nothing be accomplished without the Pharisees, but as Josephus indicated, the Sadducees often went along with them in order merely to be tolerated by the masses (Antiq. XVIII. 1. 4).

5. Session. The Sanhedrin, like other local courts according to the Mishnah, almost certainly was prohibited from meeting on the Sabbath or on feast days. Whether it could in extreme circumstances legally meet on a feast day as it did in the trial of Jesus cannot be known, but seems improbable. In cases involving capital punishment, the sentence could not lawfully be delivered until the day following the trial, and therefore such trials were also prohibited on the eve of either a Sabbath or a feast day (San 4:1). Cases involving potential capital punishment were similarly barred from taking place at night (San 4:1). According to Tosephta (San 7:1), the hours of meeting on regular days were from the time of the morning sacrifice to the evening sacrifice.

There is some disagreement concerning where the Sanhedrin held its meetings. According to the Mishnah it met in the Temple precincts to the S of the Temple court, in what was called “The Chamber of Hewn Stone” (Mid 5:4). Josephus, however, appears to locate the meeting place of the Sanhedrin (βουλή, G1087, or βουλευτήριον) in two different spots (cf. War V. 4. 2; VI. 6. 3), but this has been explained as referring to later meeting places. The NT has the Sanhedrin gathered at the palace of the high priest for the trial of Jesus, but the circumstances are exceedingly irregular (the meeting at night was illegal, and could not have taken place in the Temple precincts which would have been locked) and cannot be taken as normative in any sense.

The Mishna provides us with further information concerning the meetings of the Sanhedrin. The members are said to have sat in a semicircle in order that all might see one another, while in front of them on the right and left two scribes were positioned, who kept a written record of the testimony for acquittal or conviction (San 4:3). Also present were three rows of “disciples of the Sages” from which additional judges could be appointed, while a member of the congregation would be chosen to fill the gap caused among the disciples of the Sages (San 4:4). A great amount of additional information of the actual process of justice (e.g. capital cases had to begin with reasons for acquittal, and whereas testimony in such cases could be unanimous for acquittal, it could not be unanimous for condemnation—someone had to argue on behalf of the accused, San 4:1) is available in the Mishnah, but the question of whether or not such information can be accepted as at all accurate for the period of our concern remains crucial.

6. Competence. The Sanhedrin certainly had complete control of the religious affairs of the nation as the Mishnah indicates. The high court was the supreme authority in the interpretation of Mosaic law and, when it mediated in questions disputed in the lower courts, its verdict was final. Beyond this, the Sanhedrin also governed civil affairs and tried certain criminal cases under the authority of the Rom. procurator. The Romans were quite content to let subject nations regulate internal affairs, but there were, of course, always limits. They, for example, would have reserved the right to intervene at will, and while it is probable that they usually went along with the high court’s decisions, they were under no compulsion to do so.

One of the most vexing questions concerning the Sanhedrin was whether or not the Romans had granted it the power of capital punishment. There is a fair amount of evidence which seems to indicate that the Sanhedrin did have the right to try capital cases and to execute capital punishment. In the Mishnah regulations are given for different types of execution. (Four kinds of capital punishment which could be inflicted by the court are enumerated in San 7:1.) There is, moreover, reference to the burning of a priest’s daughter for adultery, which prob. occurred before the fall of Jerusalem. Further records of actual executions are found in Josephus (Antiq. XX. 9. 1) who provides an account of the Sanhedrin’s trial and stoning of James, the brother of Jesus, as well as some other Christians. Documentary evidence has been discovered by archeologists which proves that Gentiles (even Rom. citizens) could be put to death by the Jewish authorities for trespassing the restricted areas of the Temple precinct. In the NT itself there is the account of the trial and stoning of Stephen by the Sanhedrin (Acts 6:9-8:1).

While this evidence is weighty, it is not necessarily conclusive. The regulations in the Mishnah quite prob. describe the situation after the “re-constitution” of the Sanhedrin at Jamnia. The execution of the priest’s daughter referred to in the Mishnah may be readily explained if it occurred during the reign of Herod Agrippa I (who ruled as king over the whole of Pal.) in the years a.d. 41-44 when there was a temporary interruption in the procuratorial system of government in Pal. The stoning of James, it is known, took place just in this interval between Rom. procurators. The executions were still illegal, and Agrippa quickly had the high priest responsible (Annas II, or Ananus) removed from office (Jos. Antiq. XX. 9. 1). It is also during this period that the slaying of James the son of Zebedee took place, this by the hand of Agrippa (Acts 12:1ff.). The right of capital punishment over those trespassing the holy places of the Temple is surely to be regarded as an extraordinary privilege granted by the Romans merely for the sake of expediency. It would be rash to extrapolate from this and allege that therefore the Sanhedrin would also possess the right of capital punishment in other matters, at least over its own people, the Jews. The stoning of Stephen took place after a trial before the Sanhedrin on the charge of blasphemy. (Herein lies another problem in that technically Stephen was not guilty of blasphemy since he did not pronounce the ineffable Name, and thus at most he should have received forty stripes lacking one.) However, the execution bears the marks of precipitate action on the part of an enraged mob. On the other hand, if it was the carefully deliberate action of the Sanhedrin, it is not difficult to believe that occasionally the Jewish authority perpetrated an illegality which to the Romans was not very significant, and which was thus conveniently overlooked.

The NT data clearly point to the conclusion that the Sanhedrin did not possess the power of capital punishment. Jesus appears to have been turned over to the Romans because the crime of which He was alleged to be guilty was regarded as deserving of capital punishment. At any rate, the assertion of John 18:31 made by the Jews to Pilate is beyond question: “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” Remarkably, there is a piece of Talmudic evidence that supports this assertion. In the Jerusalem Talmud (San 1:1; 7:2), it is said that the right of capital punishment was taken from Israel forty years prior to the destruction of the Temple. The round number forty quite prob. means to convey the period of Rom. procuratorship (precisely, a.d. 6-66). All of this fits with what is known of the Rom. custom in the government of the provinces. Capital punishment was almost always held by the governor as his own personal prerogative. It was on occasion granted to free cities in the empire, but that it would be granted to a city such as Jerusalem, or to a nation so infamously unruly as Judaea is hardly to be expected.

7. The Sanhedrin in the NT. The action of the Sanhedrin in the NT bears out the picture here presented. The Sanhedrin is perhaps most conspicuous in its role in the trial of Jesus in the gospels. Without getting into the intricacies of the trial itself, the following may be said. The Sanhedrin had every right to prosecute Jesus for alleged crimes whether religious or civil. From what can be pieced together from the Gospel narratives (Matt 26; Mark 14; Luke 22; John 19) the Sanhedrin rather than being a vehicle for the accomplishment of justice—for which the rabbinic model in the Mishnah is exemplary—here became guilty of a gross travesty of justice. The time and nature of its meetings, the manner in which the “trial” was conducted, its strange outcome—all point to the intent desire of the Jewish authorities to do away with Jesus. Here we have a group of desperate men who, while trying to keep a show of propriety and at least a semblance of “legality,” take what can only be regarded as very desperate measures. Long before His arrest and trial they had determined to have Jesus put to death (Matt 12:14; Mark 3:6; John 11:53). It was only a question of how to do this, and under what charges to hand him over to the Romans for the capital punishment they themselves could not legally administer. Ultimately they found this in the political charge of sedition.

In the Acts of the Apostles, the Sanhedrin on occasion behaves more as one should expect this council to act. The apostles are brought before the court and admonished not to continue stirring up the people with their message (4:5-22; 5:17-42). At one point when some members of the council wanted to kill them (5:33) a Pharisee of the council, the famous rabbi Gamaliel, made an eloquent plea for justice (5:35ff.). Similarly, when Paul was arraigned before the Sanhedrin, he was able (with some skill and knowledge) to elicit support from the Pharisees of the council who declared, “We find nothing wrong in this man” (Acts 23:9). In the stoning of Stephen, however, the court appeared in a bad light, being guilty of an illegal, as well as an impetuous act.

There can be little question that the Sanhedrin in its full complement included some outstanding men. In addition to Gamaliel, already mentioned, the council included Joseph of Arimathea who was a disciple of Jesus secretly (John 19:38), and Nicodemus who was also drawn to Jesus. The latter showed a genuine concern for justice in the high council’s intentions concerning Jesus when he said to his fellow members, “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” (John 7:50). One may only suppose that in the fiasco which served as Jesus’ trial, these more honorable members of the Sanhedrin were not present at the clandestine meetings, or that we have no record of their protestations. It has occasionally been suggested that Saul of Tarsus was a member of the Sanhedrin prior to his conversion. Acts 8:1 and 26:10 do not necessarily mean that Saul voted as a member of the council. What is meant is prob. only that he gave his assent unofficially, for it is virtually impossible that Saul at his young age could have been a member of the august council of elders.

Bibliography Primary sources in addition to the NT include: Josephus, Loeb Classical Library, 9 volumes, eds. H. St. J. Thackeray, R. Marcus, A. Wikgren (1926-1963); The Mishnah (trans. H. Danby) (1933), esp. the tractate Sanhedrin, 382-400.

Secondary materials: E. Schürer, A History of the Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ (1885), 163-195; J. Z. Lauterbach, “Sanhedrin,” JE XI (1905), 41-46; H. Danby, “The Bearing of the Rabbinical Criminal Code on the Jewish Trial Narratives in the Gospels,” JTS XXI (1919), 51-76; S. Zeitlin, “The Political Synedrion and the Religious Sanhedrin,” JQR XXXVI (1945-1946), 109-140; “Synedrion in Greek Literature, the Gospels and the Institution of the Sanhedrin,” JQR XXXVII (1946-1947), 189-198; J. Jeremias “Zur Geschichtlichkeit des Verhörs Jesu vor dem hohen Rat,” ZNW XLIII (1950-1951), 145-150; S. B. Hoenig, The Great Sanhedrin (1953); T. A. Burkill, “The Competence of the Sanhedrin,” VB X (1956), 80-96; J. Blinzler, The Trial of Jesus (1959); H. Mantel, Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin (1961); P. Winter, On the Trial of Jesus (1961); T. A. Burkill, “Sanhedrin,” IDB IV (1962), 214-218; J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (1962; E. T. 1967), esp. 222-232; E. Lohse “συνέδριον, G5284,” TWNT VII, part 2 (1964), 858-869; E. Bammel (ed.), The Trial of Jesus, Cambridge Studies in honor of C. F. D. Moule (1970).