written law, that would look like the recognition of the Sanhedrin, and
have therefore fixed on two passages which they think will serve their
cause. One is that to which we have already alluded, “Thou shalt come
unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those
days.” (Deut. xvii. 9.) We have already said sufficient to show that
this passage is totally irrelevant, and now add one remark more, which
is in itself decisive, and that is, that the constitution of the
Sanhedrin, as described in the oral law, is altogether at variance with
the conditions laid down in this passage. The oral law says—
ומצוה להיות בסנהדרין גדולה כהנים ולוים שנאמר שנאמר ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים
ואם לא מצאו אפילו היו כולם ישראלים דרי זה מותר ׃
“The command is, that there should be in the great Sanhedrin, priests
and Levites, for it is said, ‘Thou shalt come to the priests, the
Levites.’ But if they find none, yea, though they be all mere
Israelites, this is lawful.” (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, c. ii. 2.) According
to this the Sanhedrin was to consist of three distinct classes, priests,
Levites, and Israelites; but Moses does not say one word of the Levites,
as distinguished from the priests. His words are, “Thou shalt come to
the priests, the Levites.” He does not say, “The priests _and_ the
Levites;” but simply, “The priests, the Levites;” from which it is plain
that he was speaking only of that one class of the sons of Levi, who had
the office of the priesthood; but not of that other class, whose only
title was “The Levites.” This is the first difference. The second is
like it, inasmuch as it is also an unauthorized addition, and that is,
that there should be Israelites members of this council, of whom Moses
does not say one word more than he does of the Levites. Besides the
priests, Moses mentions none but the judge השופט, not the judges, so
that if the judge was an Israelite, there could at the very most be only
one Israelite amongst those whom Moses appoints as the highest court of
appeal in Israel. But if the judge השופט was himself a priest, then
there was not even one Israelite; but the court was composed exclusively
of priests. This court cannot, therefore, be the same as the Sanhedrin,
which was to be composed of all the three classes. Thirdly, the oral law
says, That though the Sanhedrin should not reckon one priest amongst its
members, but should consist entirely of Israelites, that still it is
lawful; this court can, therefore, never be the same as that of which
Moses says, “Thou shalt come to the priests, the Levites, and to the
judge.” The court which the rabbies have appointed might not have even
one priest, and yet they ask us to believe that this is identical with
that, which, according to the appointment of Moses, could never have
more than one Israelite, but might, and in the days of Eli actually did,
consist exclusively of priests. Truly the rabbies must have calculated
upon disciples with a most inordinate measure of credulity. The man that
would believe this, would believe that black is white; or as Rashi says,
that his right hand is the left, and his left hand the right. And this
is really what modern Judaism expects, and absolutely commands in so
many words. In Rashi’s commentary on the words “Thou shalt not decline
from the sentence which they shall show thee, to the right nor to the
left” (Deut. xvii. 11); which words, as we have seen, the rabbies apply
to the Sanhedrin, he says—
אפילו אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל ועל שמאל שהוא ימין ׃
“Yea, though they should tell thee of the right hand, that it is the
left, and of the left hand, that it is the right.” Of course men that
expected from their followers this perfect renunciation of reason, might
say any thing they liked, and might therefore ask them to believe that a
court consisting of all priests was identical with one from which
priests were altogether excluded. But as we are not willing to give up
that reason, which we consider a noble gift of God, we cannot help
thinking that these two courts are as different as day and night, and
that the appointment of Moses does not in the remotest degree serve as a
warrant for the appointment of the Sanhedrin. Indeed, the sad perplexity
of the rabbies to find out some passage or other on which to father
their own inventions, and the desperate necessity which they felt of
appealing to this passage, proves to us most satisfactorily, that the
Sanhedrin is not a Mosaic institution at all. It is as impossible that
there could be two supreme courts, as that a man can have two heads.
Moses did appoint a supreme court, from which there was no appeal, as is
plain from the words, “Thou shalt come to the priests, the Levites, and
to the judge,” and we have proved that this court is not identical with
the Sanhedrin. But according to the rabbies, the Sanhedrin was a supreme
court; if, therefore, it had existed, there would have been two supreme
courts, perfectly independent of each other, which is plainly
impossible. It never entered into the head even of human lawgivers to be
guilty of such absurdity, and it would be an affront to the wisdom of
the Almighty to suppose that he had sanctioned it in his own law. This
one argument is in itself sufficient to overthrow the doctrine of a
Sanhedrin as taught in the oral law. It was not only unknown to Moses,
but is directly opposed to his own institution.
This portion of the oral law is, however, most important for proving the
total disregard, or rather contempt, which the rabbies had for the
institutions of Moses, and the motives by which they were actuated.
Moses ordained a supreme court of judicature, to consist exclusively of
priests, together with the chief civil governor for the time being. The
rabbies not only did not choose to obey the command of Moses, but
actually abrogated his institution, and set up another instead of it.
They were probably enabled to do this in the time of confusion which
followed the Greek conquest. The Greeks, who cared nothing for Moses or
his laws, naturally disregarded the priests and the lawful civil
governor; and therefore when they conquered the land, set up a tribunal
of their own, composed not of those whom Moses had appointed, but of any
whom they could find. Indeed, to secure their own dominion, their
natural policy was to exclude those who had previously held the reins of
government. To this new tribunal they of course gave a Greek name, and
called it in their own language, συνέδριον, or, as the Talmud pronounces
it, Sanhedrin. The Jews, whom they appointed members, liked the power
which it gave them, and therefore, when the Greeks were gone,
endeavoured to perpetuate it; and as they could not find a warrant for
it in the written law, declared that the institution was a part of the
oral law: and thus, to gratify their own ambition, trampled upon the law
of Moses. This is the probable history of the rise of the Sanhedrin; but
however that be, it is certain that it is directly opposed to that
supreme court appointed by Moses, and that it was love of power which
induced the rabbies to sanction it. They thereby depressed the authority
of the priests and the civil governor, and in fact became the dictators
of the Jewish commonwealth. A tribunal supported from such motives, and
so directly subversive of the commands of Moses, cannot prove to any
lover of the old religion the authority of the rabbies. Indeed, the
approval of such a body would go far to prove that the oral law and the
rabbies were Moses’s enemies. The Mosaic law was first pulled down
before the Sanhedrin could be built up, and it was founded on the ruins
of the Mosaic institutions.
We have not space at present to enter into the other passage which the
rabbies cite in proof of the authority of the Sanhedrin, but hope to do
so in our next number—not that it is necessary to the argument, but
simply because it is our earnest wish that the people of Israel should
see how the rabbies are in difficulty to find even a semblance of proof
for the foundation-stone of their whole fabric. That one passage from
Deuteronomy—“Thou shalt come unto the priests, the Levites, and unto the
judge,” is quite sufficient to prove that Moses did not institute the
Sanhedrin but that, on the contrary, it must have been established by
some determined enemies of the Mosaic law; and that it was perpetuated
by those whose ambition led them to usurp power, which Moses had
committed unto others. We have thus another proof that modern Judaism
has demolished even the external form of the Mosaic constitution. The
rabbies were not content with rejecting the religion of Moses, and
casting out the religious teachers whom he had appointed, but have also
revolutionized the national polity. Moses ordained a supreme council,
consisting of the priests, the Levites, together with the judge, the
chief civil governor; but the rabbies have preferred a tribunal
established by idolatrous Greeks, because this Greek institution gave
the power into their own hands. No wonder that the God of Moses
destroyed their city, and put an end to that delusion with which
ambitious and wicked men deceived his people Israel.
No. XLIV.
SANHEDRIN CONTINUED.
The Sanhedrin is, as we said in our last number, the foundation-stone on
which the authority of the rabbies, and the whole fabric of tradition
rests. Take away this, and not the shadow of an argument remains to
justify the Jews in their rejection of the Mosaic religion, and their
demolition of the Mosaic constitution. But this we have done. Enough has
already been said to make it probable that the Sanhedrin, with its Greek
name, was invented and established by the idolatrous Greeks; and to make
it certain that it is subversive of the Supreme Council established by
Moses, and that, for that reason, it was not one of his institutions. We
have already disposed of one of the passages which the rabbies quote
from the Pentateuch, to prove the Divine authority of the Sanhedrin;
but, as they have, with much difficulty, found two, we now proceed to
consider the second. It is quoted in the following manner:—
כמה בתי דינין קבועין יהיו בישראל וכמה יהיה מנינן , קובעין בתחלה בית דין
הגדול במקדש , והוא הנקרא סנהדרי גדולה ומנינם ע׳׳א , שנאמר אספה לי שבעים
איש מזקני ישראל ומשה על גביהן , שנאמר והתיצבו שם עמך הרי ע׳׳א ׃
“How many councils (or tribunals) ought to be established in Israel, and
of how many members ought they to consist? _Ans._ The Great Council in
the temple called the Great Sanhedrin, ought to be established first,
and the number of its members ought to be seventy-one; for it is said,
‘Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel;’ and to them Moses
is to be added, and as it is said, ‘And they shall stand there with
thee.’ (Numb. xi. 16.) This makes seventy-one.” (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, c.
i. 2.) Here the rabbies have certainly found the number seventy-one; but
to prove that this was the Sanhedrin, they ought first, to show, that
these seventy-one persons were not to be scattered through the tribes,
but always to remain together as one council; and, secondly, that this
council was to be permanent; and, thirdly, that this council did really
exist from the time of Moses to the destruction of Jerusalem; and,
fourthly, and most important of all, that this was the _Supreme_
Council; for even if the other three points could be made out, they
would be insufficient without this. The Sanhedrin claims to be the
Supreme Council, and, therefore, if it cannot be shown, that the
assembly of the seventy elders is identical with the Supreme Council
appointed by Moses, this passage is of no more use than the former one.
Now, respecting the three first points, nothing whatever is said, either
in the Law or the Prophets. And respecting the fourth; even if we grant
the three first, we can shew that these seventy elders did not
constitute the Supreme Council of the nation. We have proved in our last
paper, that the supreme power was vested in an exclusive council
composed of the priests, together with the judge השופט, but the seventy
elders, here spoken of, were to be chosen promiscuously from the tribes
of Israel, and therefore cannot be identical with that exclusive
assembly; and therefore did not compose the Supreme Council; and
therefore had nothing of the nature of the Sanhedrin, which pretended to
be supreme over all. Thus it appears on examination, that there is not
one text in the whole law of Moses, which authorizes the establishment
of such a council as the Sanhedrin; but that on the contrary, it stands
in direct opposition to that order of things prescribed by Moses.
We can, however, go farther, and show that all the particulars which the
rabbies detail concerning it are manifest falsehoods; and that, if the
Jews choose to believe what the oral law says concerning the Sanhedrin
they most not only give up Moses, but renounce all the other inspired
writers of the Old Testament. The particular and exclusive duties of the
Sanhedrin are thus detailed:—
אין מעמידין מלך אלא על פי בית דין של ע׳׳א , ואין עושין סנהדרי קטנה לכל
שבט ושבט ולכל עיר ועיר אלא על פי בית דין של ע׳׳א , ואין דנין לא את השבט
שהודח כולו ולא את נביא השקר ולא את כהן הגדול בדיני נפשות אלא בבית דין
הגדול , אבל דיני ממונות בשלשה , וכן אין עושין זקן ממרא ולא עושין עיר
הנדחת ולא משקין את הסוטה אלא בבית דין הגדול , ואין מוסיפין על העיר ועל
העזרות ולא מוציאין למלחמת הרשות ולמדידת החלל אלא על פי בית דין הגדול ,
שנאמר כל הדבר הגדול יביאו אליך ׃
“A king is not to be appointed except by the decision of the Great
Council of Seventy-one. The minor councils through the tribes and towns
are not to be established except by the Council of Seventy-one. Judgment
is not to be passed on a tribe that has been entirely seduced, nor upon
a false prophet, nor upon a high priest in capital cases, except by the
Great Council, (In mere money matters the tribunal of three is
competent.) In like manner an elder is not declared rebellious, nor a
city dealt with as seduced,[35] nor the bitter waters administered to
the suspected adulteress, except by the Great Council. Neither is an
addition made to the city nor to the courts. Neither are armies led
forth to the wars of permission; nor the elders led forth to measure in
the case of a slain person (Deut. xxi. 1, &c.), except by command of the
Great Council, for it is said, ‘Every great matter they shall bring to
thee.’ (Exod. xviii. 22.)” (Hilchoth Sanhedrin, c. v. 1.) Such is the
power and jurisdiction attributed by the rabbies to the Sanhedrin, and
which we have now to consider. The mere reading over of these details is
sufficient to convince any reasonable man that the whole affair is a
waking dream of some man or men, intoxicated with the love of dominion.
No man in his senses can believe that God could be the author of a
despotism so dreadful over the minds and bodies of men. In the first
place, here is an aristocracy of seventy persons, described as having
supreme jurisdiction over the King, the High Priest, the Prophets, and
the people—possessing the power not only to judge individuals, but to
pass sentence on whole cities and tribes, and utterly to destroy them if
they pleased—and this without any other law or precedent to guide them
than their own will—and, inasmuch as they were self-elective, subject to
no control whatever, either of the king or the people. We have heard
much of corrupt corporations lately, but any thing at all equal to the
self-elective corporation of the Sanhedrin we never heard of, excepting
another college of seventy-one, the grand council of another oral law of
later date. It is vain to say that this body was controlled by the law
of Moses. When the Sanhedrin existed there was no law of Moses, but
their own will. They expounded the law as they liked; and as we saw in
our last, were not bound even by the decisions of their predecessors:
and if any man dared to think for himself or to dispute their
interpretation, he was strangled:—
כל חכם שמורה על דבריהם מיתתו בחנק ׃
“Strangulation was the mode of execution for any learned man, who
rebelled against their words.” (Hilchoth Mamrim, c. i 2.) They had thus
the power to make the law say what they liked: and there was no power on
earth to control them. If they had been appointed by the king, or
elected by the people, they would have been responsible for the abuse of
their power; but they elected their members, and could be deposed by
none but themselves. A despotism so complete and so dreadful, so
inimical to personal security, and so subversive of all liberty of
conscience, could never have been created by God, but must necessarily
be the offspring of the distempered brain of man. We can hardly believe
that many Jews, except the Talmudistic zealots, who might hope to be
made members wish for the restoration of the Sanhedrin; and yet, if they
do not, they do not believe in the Jewish religion, for the
re-establishment of that Great Council is the consummation of Judaism:
and if they do not believe in this religion, can they consider
themselves honest men in professing it?
But we must proceed to consider on what authority the rabbies make these
claims to such extensive jurisdiction. One would expect to find some
distinct command of God, expressly addressed to the council; but no,
their only authority is the words of Jethro to Moses, “Every great
matter they shall bring to thee;” a plain confession that there is in
the whole Bible nothing to warrant their pretensions, or they never
would have taken refuge in words so totally irrelevant. Indeed, we are
rather surprised that they appealed to the Bible at all, for such an
appeal is fatal to all their pretensions. Just let us examine some of
the particulars detailed above, by the light of God’s word. The first
pretension is, that “A king is not to be appointed except by the
decision of the Great Council of Seventy-one.” Now is this true? Is it
possible to show that any one of the Kings of Israel was appointed by
the Sanhedrin? Not one; but it is possible to prove of many that they
were appointed without any reference whatever to any such council. Take,
for instance, Saul, the first king of Israel; what had the Sanhedrin to
do with his election to the kingly office? Nothing at all. So far as man
was concerned, Samuel, and Samuel alone, was the instrument of his
election. When the people wished a king, they did not go to the
Sanhedrin, but to Samuel. He dissuaded them, “Nevertheless, the people
refused to obey the voice of Samuel.” Would they have ventured to do so
if he had been president of so dreadful a council as the Sanhedrin? When
Saul was anointed, it was not by the Sanhedrin, nor by their command. No
man was present but the king elect and the prophet. “Then Samuel took a
vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said, Is
it not because the Lord hath anointed thee to be captain over his
inheritance?” (1 Sam. x. 1.) And when Saul was solemnly confirmed before
the people, Samuel was still the sole agent. “Samuel called the people
together unto the Lord to Mizpeh, and said, Now therefore present
yourselves before the Lord by your tribes and by your thousands; and
Saul the son of Kish was taken.” (xi. 17-21.) It cannot be pretended
that the Sanhedrin had anything whatever to do with the matter. But let
us try another instance. Let us look at the election of David; was he
chosen by the voice of the Sanhedrin? Just as little as Saul. Samuel was
again the sole agent. “The Lord said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou
mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel?
Fill thine horn with oil and go; I will send thee to Jesse, the
Bethlehemite; for I have provided me a king among his sons.” And so
Samuel went and anointed him, without any intervention whatever of the
Sanhedrin, or any one else. These two cases are sufficient to prove the
falsehood of the rabbinic pretensions; but there is one more decisive
still, and that is the case of Solomon. Adonijah had made himself king,
and Bathsheba, by the advice of Nathan the prophet, took measures to
make her son Solomon king. But to whom did Nathan advise her to go? Did
he tell her to go to the Sanhedrin and to seek justice? No, but to go to
David the king, and to him she accordingly went, and found him not in
council, or surrounded by the members of the Sanhedrin, but with
Abishag, the Shunammite, ministering to him; and David, without asking
any advice, sware unto her, “Assuredly Solomon, thy Son, shall reign
after me.” The Sanhedrin had nothing whatever to do with the matter. The
assertion, then, that “Nothing was appointed except by the authority of
the Sanhedrin,” is a gross falsehood, and very evidently made by
ambitious men, grasping after power to which they had no right.
In like manner, we might appeal to history to show, that the tribe of
Dan was judged, and that Saul, David, and the other kings of Israel,
waged wars without once consulting the Sanhedrin; but there is one of
these pretensions so directly opposed to the plain letter of the Mosaic
law, that we prefer noticing it. The oral law says, that the waters of
jealousy were not administered except by the authority of the Sanhedrin.
But what says Moses? When the spirit of jealousy comes upon a man, does
he tell him to bring his wife to the Sanhedrin? No, but to the priest.
“Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest,” &c. (Numb. v. 15.)
What then is the priest to do? Is he to go first to the Sanhedrin, and
get its sanction? No; as soon as the man has brought his wife, and the
offering of jealousy, the priest’s business is to bring her before the
Lord—“And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the
Lord,”—and is then to proceed with all the prescribed rites; and the
whole ends with these plain words, “And the priest shall execute upon
her all this law.” There is not only no mention of the Sanhedrin, but
immediate power is unequivocally given to the priest, yea, he is
commanded to proceed without awaiting the decision of any other
tribunal. Here again, then, the pretenders of rabbinic tradition are in
direct opposition to the plain commands of Moses, and are therefore
unfounded. It is unnecessary to enter into more of these particulars.
The two which we have examined are contrary to truth; and two falsehoods
are quite enough to shake the credit of any claims. The only possible
way of establishing the authority of the Sanhedrin, in answer to this
argument, is, to deny the authority of the Bible. There is no other
alternative—either the authors of the Pentateuch, the books of Samuel
and Kings, are mistaken, or the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin is a mere
fiction. Moses commands a very different institution, and the historical
books represent a very different form of government. He who receives
these books as inspired, must renounce the authority of the Sanhedrin,
whilst he who maintains it must give up the sacred books.
There is, however, another tribunal mentioned in the above-quoted
passage of the oral law which it is necessary to notice, and that is the
minor Sanhedrin, or council of twenty-three. It is said, “The minor
councils through the tribes and towns are not to be established except
by the council of seventy-one;” and elsewhere we read:—
ימעמידין בכל עיר ועיר בישראל שיש בה ק׳׳כ או יותר סנהדרי קטנה , וכמה יהיה
מנינם כ׳׳ג דיינים ׃