But what
Sanders is actually saying is that whereas in the Antiquities
and the
Life (Vita in Latin), Josephus talks about the
Sanhedrin making
decisions one would associate with the government, in the War,
he never uses
the word Sanhedrin. He does talk about a boulē making
decisions.
Usually, the Greek words sunedrion and boulē would
both be
translated into English as council. For example, in Matthew
26:59, the Revised Standard
Version (the translation used in the Oxford Annotated Bible)
has: "Now the
chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against
Jesus that they
might put him to death." In that case, the word translated as
"council" is sunedrion. So, as Sanders states, the
easiest
solution is to say that in some of his books, Josephus used
the word sunedrion
and in other books the word boulē, but they are
two different words
for the same thing. In general, in Greek
cities, people
used the word boulē to refer to a ruling council. So Josephus may have
adopted that word to
be easily understood by Greek readers. However, when Jews
wrote about the
history of Jerusalem, they used the word Sanhedrin to refer to
a council that
would decide legal cases. In Panama, the legislative body is
La Asamblea. I
could translate that into English as the Assembly, which is
the closest word.
If I were talking to someone familiar with Panama, that is
what I would do.
But, in England, many schools start the day with a meeting
where the head
teacher addresses all the students, and this is called an
assembly. If I told
someone in England that in Panama, there was an important
meeting of the
Assembly coming up, they might wonder why I was so concerned
about what was
happening in a school. So, if I were speaking to people in
England, I might
translate La Asemblea as Parliament, because the Asemblea is
to Panama what
Parliament is to the United Kingdom. But then, if I were
speaking to Americans,
the word I would use is Congress. So too, Josephus might be
varying the word he
uses in Greek simply because he has different audiences in
mind. The * indicates where Sanders has a citation, in which
he lists other scholars who have adopted this solution - two
different words for the Council/Sanhedrin. Sanders then says
that, even if we agree with this solution - it might be right
- it still isn't clear how much power this Council had. In
some of Josephus' writings, it seems to be an important
decision-making body, at other times, it seems to be there
merely to advise whoever is in power. He isn't sure whether
there was a set of people who were entitled to sit on the
Council, or whether perhaps, it was more informal - a ruler
about to take a controversial decision would gather together
people known to be wise to consult with them. The English word
"court" is ambiguous. In the Middle Ages, a King would have a
court - a set of important people who live with him, and can
be consulted on important matters, who would watch as he
judges cases and announces his decisions. But today, the word
"court" is used for the judicial body that tries cases
according to very strict procedures, and the King or Queen is
not present.
In later Rabbinic writings, the Mishnah for example, the
Sanhedrin is described as something like a court in the latter
sense - an organized body with a set of procedures for trying
cases. One of the handouts I sent you contained a set of
procedures supposedly used by the Sanhedrin for trying capital
cases. So, if we take what we have in the Mishnah at face
value, the Sanhedrin was entitled to try Jesus and find him
guilty of an offense that deserved the death penalty according
to the Torah.
Sanders however is turning to Josephus' works because he
thinks that what we have in the Mishnah is a later
idealization. Just as I rejected the story of Pilate's wife
above, Sanders has doubts about the procedures laid down in
the Mishnah. But if Sanders' alternative reconstruction is
correct, that does not mean that the Sanhedrin was exceeding
its authority by conducting a trial. Sanders thinks that perhaps
there was no necessity to have a trial at all:
The
accounts of Josephus of the way in which the Romans related
to Jewish leaders show that it is by no means impossible
that, in a matter such as this, the Romans would have dealt
entirely with the chief priests ... It is also clear from
Josephus that whoever was in power - whether a Hasmonean, a
Herod or a Roman Procurator - could execute of free whom he
wishes without a formal trial ... The confusion in the
Gospels about the events which immediately led to Jesus'
execution may well point to the fact that there was no
orderly procedure which was noted and remembered. (p. 317)
So, according to
Sanders' reconstruction, there might not have been any
formal entity that was required to give Jesus a trial
before he was executed. If they had wanted, the chief
priests could have just told Pilate "We'd like you to kill
this man, we think he's a trouble-maker." But they might
have asked other people to come along while they interrogated
Jesus, and that meeting could be called a "sunedrion".
A final note. The
same student who referred to Sanders says, towards the
conclusion of the paper:
...Jesus was taken to the
Sanhedrin where he awaited trial, was sentenced by
mostly Pharisees and killed by Pilate.
Here is Sanders' conclusion:
There could have been a hearing before a
group which represented others than the chief
priests, but I think we cannot know that to be the
case. The situation seems to require only the
involvement of the priests, but we cannot definitely
exclude the participation of other leaders. The
Pharisees cannot be decisively eliminated from
participating because it remains possible (although
not necessary) that there was a hearing by the
Sanhedrin and that scribes were present. We should
recall however that it is difficult to find any
substantial conflict between Jesus and the
Pharisees. (p. 318)
So, the student cites Sanders as a source,
but ignores Sanders' conclusion, which is that the
chief priests were definitely involved in the
execution of Jesus, but the Pharisees may not have
been. It is fine to disagree with Sanders, but if
you are going to cite him as an authority, you
must be careful to report what he says accurately.
(I understand that his work might not be easy to
read - I can see how easy it would be to
misunderstand what he is saying about boulē
and sunedrion, but you are learning
to read difficult material). Also, if you take him
to be an authority then, if you disagree with him,
you need to explain why.
Back to REL 2240