The Scribes
[LITERATURE.—In addition to the literature given at the head of
the next chapter reference may be made to Schürer II, i. pp.
306-379, German ed., II, pp. 363-447; Lightley, _Les Scribes,
Étude sur leur origine chez les Israélites_ (1905). Also the
articles “Scribes and Pharisees” (Prince) in the _Encycl. Bibl._,
and “Scribes” (Eisenstein) in the _Jewish Encycl._]
It is important that we should try, as far as possible, to present
the available _data_ concerning the Scribes in their chronological
order; that would, of course, be desirable in any case, but it is
doubly so when, as here, a clear statement of the development of the
scribal class and its activities may be a help in understanding some
of the difficult questions which will come before us in dealing with
the Sadducees and Pharisees. We shall, therefore, state the evidence
chronologically, as far as may be, making our deductions as we
proceed.
(_a_) _The Old Testament data._
First as to the use of the term “Scribe” = _Sôphēr_ in Hebrew, and is
used in the sense of “secretary” or the like; in 2 Samuel viii. 17,
e.g., among David’s officials are reckoned “Zadok the son of Ahitub,
and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, who were priests; and Seraiah, who
was scribe” (cp. 2 Sam. xx. 25; 2 Kings xviii. 18, etc.). As a royal
official he had various duties; he acted as treasurer, according to
2 Kings xii. 11, 2 Chronicles xxiv. 11, apparently in some military
capacity, according to 2 Kings xxv. 19, Jeremiah lii. 25; in Psalm
xlv. 2 a _Sôphēr_ is clearly one who writes (“My tongue is the pen of
a ready writer” [_Sôphēr_]); and, finally, in Esther iii. 12, viii.
9, he occupies the place of the Persian king’s secretary who writes
out decrees. With one exception (Ps. xlv. 2), in all these passages
the Scribe is spoken of as a royal official; they are, therefore,
only important for us here as showing that the ideas of counting and
writing are connected with the term _Sôphēr_; and these are exactly
the meanings conveyed by the root.
The three next passages, which give some _data_ regarding the office
of the Scribe, have a special importance because they are pre-exilic—
Jeremiah viii. 8, 9: “How do ye say, We are wise, and the Law of
the Lord is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the Scribes hath
wrought falsely. The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and
taken; lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord; and what manner
of wisdom is in them?”
Jeremiah xviii. 18: “Then said they, Come and let us devise devices
against Jeremiah; for the Law shall not perish from the priest, nor
counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet.”
Jeremiah xxxvi.: This chapter is too long to quote in full; it tells
us of Baruch, the Scribe, who wrote down Jeremiah’s words “upon a
roll of a book”; it also mentions Gemariah, the son of Shaphan, the
Scribe, who had his chamber “in the upper court, at the entry of the
new gate of the Lord’s house” (verse 10); further, mention is also
made of Elishama the Scribe, who had his chamber in the king’s house
(verse 12); Elishama was clearly a royal official.
From these passages we gather that Scribes were in existence before
the Exile, that they claimed to be wise, and that they regarded
themselves as authorities on the Law of the Lord; they are censured
by Jeremiah with having “wrought falsely,” and the context points to
this as being connected with the “Law of the Lord”; what precisely
is referred to is not easy to determine, but the point of importance
for us is that the pre-exilic Scribes were occupied with the Law;
if they come under the lash of Jeremiah they do not differ in this
respect from the wise men, nor yet from the priests and the prophets
(see viii. 10). In Jeremiah xxxvi. mention is made of Scribes in
influential positions; but in addition to these there is Baruch, who
belongs to a different category of Scribe, for he makes copies of
what are clearly regarded as sacred writings (see verses 24, 25).
From the meagre evidence we possess there is not much to be gathered;
but we may perhaps be justified in saying that already in pre-exilic
times the term “Scribes” was beginning to be used as a technical
term in the limited sense of their being those whose special duty it
was to make copies of the Law in the form in which it then existed.
But in saying that the term “Scribes” was used in a technical sense
already in this pre-exilic period we must very strongly emphasize
that this is to be understood in an entirely different sense from
that in which it was used as a technical term in post-exilic times.
There is a world of difference between the Scribe who is the more or
less officially accredited copier of the text of the Law or other
Scriptures, and the Scribe who also interprets the Law, teaches it to
the people, and in whom is vested the judicial power of enforcing its
decrees. In each case “Scribe” may be used as a technical term while
connoting two very different things.
Further, from the second of the passages quoted above we see that
three distinct classes are mentioned, viz., the priests, the wise men
or _Chakamim_, and the prophets. There can be no doubt that these
three were in existence long before Scribes in the technical sense
were heard of; with the prophets we are not concerned here, for
their activity lay in a different sphere altogether; but we must try
and get some clear ideas upon the subject of the relationship between
the Scribes and the priests on the one hand, and the Scribes and the
_Chakamim_ on the other.
Originally the priests alone were concerned with the Law; but the Law
contained, broadly speaking, two elements, the ritual and the moral;
the former of these was more especially the concern of the priests;
but the latter had a wider interest, and many of the _Chakamim_ as
well as the priests occupied themselves with it. When the Scribes
arose—it is not possible to say precisely when this was, but it was
before the Exile—they did not, as a body, restrict themselves to the
study of one or other aspect of the Law, but, according to their
bent, some gave more particular attention to the study of the ritual
Law, others to the moral Law; so that among the types of scribe there
appeared the priest-scribe, such as Ezra, and the wisdom-scribe,
such as was Ben-Sira in later times. But the _Chakamim_, as a class,
still remained, no less than the priests, each occupying themselves
with their particular study, as they had done before the Scribes came
into existence. In course of time, and through Ezra’s influence,
the power of the Scribes greatly increased, and they became the
most influential leaders among the people; and by the time of the
Maccabæan struggle their activities were wholly and exclusively
absorbed in the study and teaching of the Law, both ritual and moral,
written and oral. But we have anticipated, and must now turn to the
evidence of the post-exilic books.
In Ezra vii. the following verses are important: “Ezra ... was a
ready scribe in the Law of Moses, which the Lord, the God of Israel,
had given” (verse 6). “Ezra had set his heart to seek the Law of the
Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgements”
(verse 10). “... Ezra the priest, the scribe, even the scribe of
the words of the commandments of the Lord, and of His statutes to
Israel....” “Ezra the priest, the scribe of the Law of the God of
heaven” (verses 11, 12, 21). According to vii. 25, Artaxerxes gives
the following instructions to Ezra: “And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom
of thy God that is in thine hand, appoint magistrates and judges,
which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as
know the laws of thy God, and teach ye him that knoweth them not.”
The whole of Nehemiah viii.-x. is important for our present subject;
we draw special attention to the following passages: “Ezra the
scribe” is asked by the people to bring the book of the Law of Moses
in order that it might be read to them; it then continues: “And Ezra
the priest brought the Law before the congregation, both men and
women, and all that could hear with understanding.... And he read
therein before the broad place that was before the water-gate from
early morning until mid-day, in the presence of the men and the
women, and of those that could understand; and the ears of all the
people were attentive unto the book of the Law” (viii. 2, 3). In
viii. 7-9, the names of thirteen men are enumerated who, together
with the Levites, “caused the people to understand the Law. And
they read in the book, in the Law of God, interpreting it; and they
gave the sense, and caused (the people) to understand the reading.
And Nehemiah, which was the Tirshatha,[142] and Ezra the priest the
scribe, and the Levites that taught the people, said unto all the
people, This day is holy unto the Lord your God; mourn not, nor
weep.” Further, in viii. 13-15, it is said: “And on the second day
were gathered together the heads of the fathers’ houses of all the
people, the priests and the Levites, unto Ezra the scribe, even to
give attention to the words of the Law. And they found written in the
Law, how that the Lord had commanded by Moses that the children of
Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month ...”;
then follows the account of how the people were to celebrate the
Feast of Tabernacles.
These passages show that whatever may have been the scribal activity
before the Exile, an altogether new position was assigned to the Law
and its observances by the scribe Ezra.[143] The Law now begins to
be the central pre-occupation of the Scribes under the guidance of
Ezra and Nehemiah, the former of whom is the scribe _par excellence_.
The priests and Levites are associated with the scribe Ezra, and
presumably with the scribes in general; but we know from later
history that the study of the Law soon became the special concern of
the Scribes almost to the exclusion of the priests. Noteworthy is the
stress laid on teaching the Law to the people; and a new element of
far-reaching importance seems to be adumbrated in Nehemiah viii. 8,
where it is said that the teachers of Law “read in the book, in the
Law of God, interpreting it; and they gave the sense, and caused (the
people) to understand the reading.” It is interesting to note that
the Hebrew root for “to interpret” here (_p-r-sh_) is the same as
that from which the word Pharisee comes; we shall draw attention to
this again later.
One or two passages of later date must also be noted, for they are
not without interest, and shed further light on our subject:
1 Chronicles ii. 55: Among various genealogical enumerations
occurs that of “the families of scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the
Tirathites, the Shimeathites, the Sucathites. These are the Kenites
that came of Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab.” From this
we gather, first, that the scribal office was inherited, and from
Jeremiah xxxvi. 10-12 we may assume that this was also the case in
pre-exilic times, for both Michaiah, and his father Gemariah, who was
the son of Shaphan the scribe, seem to be closely associated with
the scribes, and were presumably themselves scribes. Another point
to be noted from the passage quoted is that some families of the
scribes were connected with the house of Rechab; now the Rechabites
were ascetics (see Jer. xxxv. 6-10), and it is possible that when, in
later days, the Pharisees made a point of practising asceticism,[144]
they were following an early tradition in principle though the actual
practices had become different with the changed conditions of life.
2 Chronicles xxxiv. 13: This passage is referred to because it
says that some of the Levites were scribes, which again implies
association with the priests.
Daniel v. 26-28: Here we have an example of text and interpretation
which, so far as the principle is concerned, is according to the
scribal method.
We have now to examine some Old Testament evidence of another kind,
and as this is calculated to throw light on the subsequent history
of the scribal movement and its developments it deserves careful
consideration.
From a number of indications to be found in the Books of Ezra and
Nehemiah it is evident that from the very commencement of the
settlement of the exiles in Palestine differences arose between them
and the Israelites whom they found there on their return. There
seem to have been several causes for these differences; but what
largely lay at the bottom of them was the contention of the returned
exiles that they alone represented the true Israelites; those who
had been left in the land had become mixed with the heathen[145] by
living among them and intermarrying with them, and were therefore
not regarded as true Israelites. But more than this; it would seem
that among the exiles themselves there were some who belonged to the
priesthood, but that this was denied by the leaders among the exiles;
this is gathered from Ezra ii. 61-63, where the enumeration of some
priestly families is given concerning whom it is said: “These sought
their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they
were not found; therefore were they deemed polluted and put from
the priesthood. And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should
not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with
Urim and with Thummim.” Among the exiled people, too, were some who
“could not show their fathers’ houses and their seed, whether they
were of Israel” (Ezra ii. 39). Thus both those who had been living
in Palestine, and some of those who returned with the exiles, had
a grievance. This was greatly aggravated when Zerubbabel refused
the help of any but those whom he considered true Israelites in the
building of the temple (Ezra iv. 1-5): “... Then the people of the
land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in
building....” (cp. Neh. ii. 19, iv. 1 ff.).
A more far-reaching cause of division was that of marriage with
foreigners, especially with Samaritans, who were with justice
regarded as heathen by the bulk of the returned exiles; in Ezra
ix. 1, 2, we read: “... the princes drew near unto me, saying, The
people of Israel, and the priests and the Levites, have not separated
themselves from the peoples of the lands.... For they have taken
of their daughters for themselves and for their sons; so that the
holy seed have mingled themselves with the peoples of the lands.
Yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this
trespass” (cp. Neh. xiii. 23, 24). That, as indicated in these last
words, it was the aristocracy, i.e. the high-priestly families, who
were most forward in contracting foreign alliances and who were in
favour of intercourse with non-Jews generally, is shown further by
such passages as Nehemiah vi. 17-19: “Moreover, in those days the
nobles of Judah sent many letters unto Tobiah, and the letters of
Tobiah came unto them. For there were many in Judah sworn unto him,
because he was the son-in-law of Shechaniah the son of Arah; and his
son Johanan had taken the daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah
to wife. Also they spake of his good deeds before me and reported my
words to him.” And again Nehemiah xiii. 28: “And one of the sons of
Joiada, son of Eliashib the high-priest, was son-in-law to Sanballat
the Horonite.” Very significant, too, is the long passage Ezra x.
18-44; this contains a list of those who had married strange wives;
first are mentioned the sons of the priests, among these a few had
put away their wives (verses 18, 19), but the list, as it continues,
mentions those priests who did not do so (verses 20-22); then follow
the names of Levites, singers, and porters, then of Israelites, who
“had taken strange wives; and some of them had wives by whom they had
children” (verse 44). The attempts of Ezra and Nehemiah to stop these
alliances and to put an end to the intercourse between the Jews and
those whom they regarded as heathen were thus not wholly successful;
and this is further borne out by several passages which reveal the
resistance offered, e.g. Ezra x. 15: “But Jonathan the son of Asahel
and Jahaziah the son of Tikvah stood up against this matter; and
Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them.” Again, in Nehemiah
vi. 10-14 the influence of Sanballat and Tobiah upon many of those
who lived in Jerusalem, and the existence of a party there opposed to
Ezra, is plainly indicated; among those belonging to this party there
are mentioned Shemaiah, the prophetess Noadiah, “and the rest of the
prophets” (cp. also xiii. 4 ff.; Mal. ii. 10-16).
From all these indications it is not difficult to see that the
elements for the formation of a distinct party in opposition to the
_régime_ of Ezra and Nehemiah were present from the very beginning of
the return from the Exile. For some considerable time, no doubt, the
influence of Ezra succeeded in suppressing, though not in quenching,
the opposition which he met with; but two diverging tendencies became
rooted among sections of the people, and in course of time bore fruit
in the formation of distinct parties.
The distinguishing notes of these two tendencies can be discerned
without difficulty; on the one hand there were, as can be seen
from the quotations given above, the members of the aristocracy,
i.e., the high-priestly families, who were friendly disposed to
those of semi-Israelite and even non-Israelite origin. They were,
from the point of view of their adversaries, lax concerning the
observance of the Law (see, e.g., Neh. xiii. 15 ff.), though not
necessarily antagonistic to it, but only to the Ezra conception of
it; they could, for example, show that their foreign marriages were
not contrary to the Law, while Ezra’s requirements went beyond the
Law. On the other hand, there was Ezra, and his followers, strongly
adverse to any intercourse between Jews and non-Jews, and painfully
scrupulous regarding the minute observance of the Law (see, e.g.,
Neh. x. 28 ff.).
Here, therefore, were the tendencies already in existence which, as
time went on, continued to develop until they became the crystallized
tenets of definitely opposed parties, whose watchwords were
Universalism _versus_ Particularism, and whose attitude towards the
Law differed in this respect, that the Universalists interpreted it
in a limited sense, while the Particularists insisted on a laborious
observance of it in all its minute details, which became greatly
increased by their methods of interpretation.
The process of the development of these tendencies can be seen in
some of the books of the Old Testament; for example, in the Book
of Haggai (ii. 10 ff.) we have indications of the importance laid
upon minute legal observances by the priests, with whom, as already
pointed out, the Scribes were associated; in the Book of Jonah, on
the other hand, universalism is throughout the dominant note.
(_b_) _The Apocrypha data._
The classical passage in the books of the Apocrypha concerning our
present subject is Ecclesiasticus xxxix. 1-11, where the ideal scribe
is described; in the passage which precedes this Ben-Sira insists
upon the need of leisure for a scribe if he is to devote himself to
the acquisition of true wisdom; he shows that the labourer and the
artisan, while indispensable to society, are necessarily too much
occupied with their callings to give any time to higher things. Then
he continues:
1. Not so he that applieth himself to the fear of God,
And to set his mind upon the Law of the Most High;
Who searcheth out the wisdom of all the ancients,
And is occupied with the prophets of old;
2. Who heedeth the discourses of men of renown,
And entereth into the deep things of parables;
3. Searcheth out the hidden meaning of proverbs,
And is conversant with the dark sayings of parables....
6. If it seem good to God Most High,
He shall be filled with the spirit of understanding.
He himself poureth forth wise sayings in double measure,
And giveth thanks unto the Lord in prayer.
7. He himself directeth counsel and knowledge,
And setteth his mind on their secrets.
8. He himself declareth wise instruction,
And glorieth in the Law of the Lord....
The first thing that must strike us here is that according to
Ben-Sira there is no difference between a scribe and a wise man,
the two are synonymous (verse 1).[146] The next thing to note is
that Ben-Sira recognizes two sources of the scribe’s knowledge,
the study of these is what constitutes the scribal activity; the
first is described in verse 1, viz., the Law of the Most High, the
wisdom of the ancients, and the prophets of old; that is to say,
the Pentateuch, the Wisdom books, and the prophetical books.[147]
The second is described in verses 2, 3, viz., discourses of men of
renown, deep things of parables, hidden meaning of proverbs, and dark
sayings of parables; it is difficult to see to what these things can
refer unless it is to the discussions, proverbs and aphorisms of the
kind which abound in Ben-Sira’s book. That they cannot refer to the
oral Law is clear enough from the description itself; for the oral
Law cannot be said to have consisted of discourses, hidden meaning
of proverbs, or dark sayings of parables. Ben-Sira, though a scribe,
has nothing to say about an oral Law, though he must have known of
its existence; yet he has a great veneration for the Law, there are
abundant indications of that in his book. We have, moreover, seen
that there are strong grounds for believing that an oral Law was in
existence long before the time of Ben-Sira (_circa_ B.C. 200), and
the evidence of somewhat later times points in the same direction. We
are, therefore, forced to the conclusion that Ben-Sira represents a
type of scribe who venerated the Law as written, but repudiated the
oral Law. Further, though Ben-Sira was a good Jew, the Hellenistic
influences which are to be found in his book and his generally
broader mental outlook make him in some respects the antithesis of
Ezra. Ben-Sira thus seems to belong to those, of whom we have made
mention above, whose tendency was in an universalistic direction and
who could venerate the Law without feeling bound by the inferences
which might be drawn from its interpretation.
The evidence of the Prologue to the Greek translation of
Ecclesiasticus, some sixty years later, points also to a veneration
of the Law, but without making any reference to the oral Law,
although it is probable that scribes are in the mind of the writer of
the Prologue when he speaks of “readers” and “lovers of learning who
must be able to profit them which are without [i.e. the laity, most
likely] both by speaking and writing.” The Prologue thus corroborates
what we learn from the book itself.
Before coming to 1 Maccabees, which is the next book to give evidence
on the subject of the Scribes, a word must be said about the
_Assidæans_, or _Chassidim_.[148] By these are meant those “Pious”
ones, frequently mentioned in some of the later Psalms (e.g., cxlix.
1-9, and elsewhere), who clung tenaciously to the Law, both written
and oral, when, in the third century B.C. onwards, many of the
Jews were becoming lax owing, largely, to Hellenistic influences.
They were animated by a strong antipathy towards everyone who was
Hellenistically inclined; they were legalists in the strictest sense
of the word, and particularists. Although in existence beforehand, it
was only during the Maccabæan struggle that they commenced to play an
important _rôle_ in the political life of the nation. The importance
of the _Chassidim_ for our present study is that they are identified
with one type of the scribes in 1 Maccabees vii. 12, 13, viz.: “And
there was gathered together unto Alcimus[149] and Bacchides[150] a
company of scribes to seek for justice; and the _Chassidim_ were the
first among the children of Israel that sought peace of them [i.e.,
of Alcimus and Bacchides].” The evidence of this book appears at
first sight to be conflicting, for in the passage just cited they
appear as the peaceful party, while in ii. 43, 44 they are described
as warlike.[151] It is probable, however, that these descriptions
both witness to the true facts of the case; for the natural
inclination of these students and strict observers of the Law would
clearly lie in the direction of peace; but as soon as they realized
that the cherished object of their existence was imperilled, fighting
became a necessity. It must be remembered that the _Chassidim_ and
the Maccabees are in no sense to be identified; they were both
champions of the Law, and both the enemies of Hellenistic Jews; but
the Maccabees were patriots primarily, while the _Chassidim_ were
legalists, and, provided they were left in peace to follow their
legal studies and observances, it was of no great moment to them
whether their nation was independent or a subject-race.
In the Book of Judith, although the Scribes are never mentioned, many
details of what were really the results of their activity are to be
found; but as these are spoken of in Part II in the account there
given of the Book of Judith (§ iii.), we need not make any further
reference to the subject here.
(_c_) _Some further particulars._
One or two other points regarding the Scribes may be briefly
mentioned. As exponents of the Law and of the Scriptures generally
the Scribes were as a matter of course greatly occupied with the
Hebrew text of these; they thus became, quite apart from their other
duties, such as making copies of the Scriptures, the guardians of the
text of Scripture, and upon them devolved the further duty of the
fixing and the preservation of the Biblical text. This very important
function marks them out as the beginners of the textual criticism of
the Old Testament.
A further practical duty which the study and exposition of the Law
brought with it was that of administering it. The Scribe was a
lawyer; in the Gospels the two terms are synonymous, for which reason
they never occur together. It was as administrators of the Law that
the Scribes were represented in the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem; here
they sat as judges who assisted in the passing of sentences on those
who had broken the Law.[152]
After definite parties had come into existence the Scribes belonged,
in the main, to the Pharisaic party; but there was no reason against
some of them being members of the Sadducæan party; this is, indeed,
implied in such passages as Mark ii. 16; Luke v. 30; Acts xxiii. 9.
That which constituted the difference between the Scribes and the
Pharisees was briefly this: the Scribes handed down the traditional,
i.e. the oral, Law as well as the written Law, and explained it; the
Pharisees carried out in actual practice what was thus prescribed.
This, of course, does not mean to say that the Scribes did not also
strictly observe the legal enactments; but that their special duties
constituted them a class distinct from the Pharisees is clear from
the way in which they are differentiated in the New Testament, for
there we read of the “Scribes of the Pharisees” (Mark ii. 16; Acts
xxiii. 9), and of “the Pharisees and their scribes” (Luke v. 30),
showing clearly that the Scribes were distinct from the Pharisees.
The natural sequel to any account of the Scribes is a consideration
of the Pharisees; with these, in conjunction with the Sadducees, we
shall deal in the next chapter.
SUMMARY
From the Old Testament _data_ we gather that there were Scribes
who were occupied with the written Law in pre-exilic times, though
they arose long subsequently to the priests, the prophets, and the
_Chakamim_, or wise men; but the pre-exilic scribe was of a very
different kind from the scribe of later times. Ezra was not only
the first scribe in the later sense of the word, but was also the
inaugurator of the scribal system as generally understood.
An important point to notice in the activity of the Scribes in the
earliest post-exilic period is that as teachers of the Law they
interpreted it to the people.
From the commencement of the return from the Captivity differences
arose between the returned exiles and those whom they found in
Palestine on their return. These differences reveal the existence of
two diverging tendencies among many of the people, the distinguishing
notes of which were particularism and rigid legalism on the one hand,
and universalism coupled with a less strict interpretation of legal
requirements on the other. Ezra and those who followed him were the
upholders of the former, the high-priestly party and their followers
of the latter tendency. The process of development in either
direction can be discerned in some of the later Old Testament books.
In the Apocrypha we learn from Ecclesiasticus that a type of scribe
had arisen whose energies were directed towards the acquisition of
wisdom which he was concerned to impart to others; this type of
scribe, while venerating the Law, sympathized with the universalistic
rather than with the particularistic attitude. Belonging to a
slightly later time are the _Chassidim_, or “Pious ones,” who were
strict legalists and of a particularistic tendency, though they
were not patriots in the sense that the typical Maccabæans were.
The _Chassidim_ are spoken of in connexion with the Scribes. We
are, therefore, led to the conclusion that before the middle of
the second century B.C. two types of scribe were in existence, the
wisdom scribe, and the more particularly legal scribe. Concerning
these latter, who are to be regarded as the Scribes in the strictly
technical sense and who became closely associated with the Pharisaic
party, the following further points may be noted: upon them
devolved, in addition to other duties, the guardianship of the text
of Scripture. They were, further, the administrators of the Law,
and were represented in the Sanhedrin, and thus sat as judges and
assisted in the passing of sentences on those who had broken the Law.