One life I'm gonna give it up
I'm takin' flight said I'll never get enough.
Stand tall I'm young and kinda proud
I'm on top as long as the music's loud.
If you think I'll sit around as the world goes by
You're thinkin' like a fool 'cause it's a case of do or die.
Up there is a fortune waitin' to be had
If you think I'll let it go you're mad
I've got another thing comin'.
JW:
The question this Thread will ask is:
Who was head of the
Sanhedrin in Jesus' supposed time?Most people just assume that the Gospel account of The High Priest in charge of the Sanhedrin is historical. GMark, presumably the original related narrative, shows the High Priest in charge:
Mark 14
"Mark" (the author of GMark) sure makes it sound like the High Priest was in charge of the Sanhedrin even though he never gives the High Priest's name. GMark looks like the base for subsequent Gospels which than inherit that the High Priest was in charge but, since unlike GMark, they want historical witness to Jesus, provide variation as to who was the High Priest in charge at the time.60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.
63 And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses?
64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death.
The holy and blessed Talmud though tells a different story:
Per the Talmud it would not appear that the High Priest would have been in charge of the Sanhedrin in Jesus' supposed time. Now before Skeptics get their panteras all in a wadid, Josephus does appear to support the Gospel view that the High Priest was in charge of the Sanhedrin c. 1st century. The late great Raymond Brown, in his classic The Death of the Messiah c. page 339, provides excerpts from Josephus supporting the High Priest in charge of the Sanhedrin in the 60s.The Sanhedrin as a body claimed powers that lesser Jewish courts did not have. As such, they were the only ones who could try the king, extend the boundaries of the Temple and Jerusalem, and were the ones to whom all questions of law were finally put. Before 191 BC the High Priest acted as the ex officio head of the Sanhedrin[citation needed], but in 191 BC, when the Sanhedrin lost confidence in the High Priest, the office of Nasi was created. After the time of Hillel the Elder (late 1st century BC and early 1st century AD), the Nasi was almost invariably a descendant of Hillel. The second highest-ranking member of the Sanhedrin was called the Av Beit Din, or "Head of the Court" (literally, Av Beit Din = "father of the house of judgment"), who presided over the Sanhedrin when it sat as a criminal court.[5]
So, who to believe, the Roman stooge Josephus who wants to show that the Romans were in charge, or the Jewish sage Talmudus who wants to show that the Jews were in charge (Neil Godfree would have us believe that Jesus' casualty was actually collateral damage from the Israeli Air Force). This has even created a theory that both were in charge. The Roman appointed High Priest Council was in charge of the political and the Jewish appointed Sanhedrin was in charge of the religious. Potentially this could explain Caiphais and Annas both being in charge. Caiphais is the High Priest in charge of the political and Annas, a former High Priest, is in charge of the religious (image of JP Holding scratching chin and muttering, "Hmmm, maybe he's got something there.) Like I keep on saying, you know what they say, Counter-missionaries have the best apologies.
It's possible that there was a gradual transition between the two. In the 30s when there was less tension between Rome and Israel, there may have been more autonomy in Israel with the Jews deciding on the head of the Sanhedrin. In the 60s when the relationship deteriorated Rome may have taken more control and required their appointed High Priest be in charge of the Sanhedrin.
Conclude what you will, just know that it's possible that GMark's depiction of a High Priest in charge of a c. 30s Sanhedrin may be one of many anachronisms.
Joseph
ErrancyWiki