and Rabbinical celebrities (`the couples' or Zugoth) are only teachers of traditionalism, and
ecclesiastical authorities. The `eldership,'37 which under the earlier Maccabees was called `the
tribunal of the Asmoneans.'38 39 now passed into the Sanhedrin.40 41 Thus we place the origin of
this institution about the time of Hyrcanus. With this Jewish tradition fully agrees.42 The power of
the Sanhedrin would, of course, vary with political circumstances, being at times almost
absolute, as in the reign of the Pharisaic devotee-Queen, Alexandra, while at others it was shorn
of all but ecclesiastical authority. But as the Sanhedrin was in full force at the time of Jesus, its
organization will claim our attention in the sequel.
29. 160-143 b.c.
30. The Γερουσια, 1 Macc. xii. 6; xiii. 36; xiv. 28; Jos. Ant. xiii. 4. 9; 5. 8.
31. At the same time some kind of ruling λερουσια existed earlier than at this period, if we may judge
from Jos. Ant. xii 3.3. But he uses the term somewhat vaguely, applying it even to the time of Jaddua
(Antiq. xi. 8. 2).
32. Ant. xi. 4. 8.
33. Even Ber. 48 a furnishes evidence of this `enmity.' This, of course, is an inference from the whole
history and relation there indicated. On the hostile relations between the Pharisaical party and the
Maccabees see Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. p. 367. Comp. Jer. Taan. iv. 5.
34. Ant. xiii. 10. 5. 6.
35. Kidd 66 a.
36. Jer. Maas Sheni v. end, p. 56 d Jer. Sot. ix. p. 24 a.
37. γερουσσια
38.
Sanh 82 a; Ab. Z. 36 b.
39. Derenbourg takes a different view, and identifies the tribunal of the Asmoneans with the Sanhedrin.
This seems to me, historically, impossible. But his opinion to that effect (u. s. p. 87) is apparently
contradicted at p. 93.
40. συνεδριον. {hebrew} in the N.T also once γερουσια, Acts v. 21 and twice πρεσβυτεριον St. Luke
xxii. 66; Acts xxii 5.
41. Schürer, following Wieseler, supposes the Sanhedrin to have been of Roman institution. But the
arguments of Wieseler on this point (Beitr. zur richt. Wurd. d. Evang. p. 224) are inconclusive.
42. Comp. Derenbourg , u. s. p. 95.
After this brief outline of the origin and development of an institution which exerted such decisive
influence on the future of Israel, it seems necessary similarly to trace the growth of the `traditions
of the Elders,' so as to understand what, alas! so effectually, opposed the new doctrine of the
Kingdom. The first place must here be assigned to those legal determinations, which
traditionalism declared absolutely binding on all - not only of equal, but even greater obligation
than Scripture itself.43 And this not illogically, since tradition was equally of Divine origin with