SYNEDRIUM (συvέδpιov ), a Greek word which means “assembly” and is especially used of judicial or representative assemblies, is the name by which (or by its Hebrew transcription, םנחדין, sanhedrin, sanhedrim) that Jewish body is known which in its origin was the municipal council of Jerusalem, but acquired extended functions and no small authority and influence over the Jews at large (see vol. xiii. p. 424 sq.). In the Mishnah it is called “the sanhedrin,” “the great sanhedrin,” “the sanhedrin of seventy-one [members],” and “the great court of justice” (bêth dîn haggadôl). The oldest testimony to the existence and constitution of the synedrium of Jerusalem is probably to be found in 2 Chron, xix. 8; for the priests, Levites, and hereditary heads of houses there spoken of as sitting at Jerusalem as a court of appeal from the local judicatories does not correspond with anything mentioned in the old history, and it is the practice of the Chronicler to refer the institutions of his own time to an origin in ancient Israel. And just such an aristocratic council is what seems to be meant by the gerusia or senate of “elders” repeatedly mentioned in the history of the Jews, both under the Greeks from the time of Antiochus the Great (Jos., Ant., xii. 3, 3) and under the Hasmonean high priests and princes. The high priest as the head of the state was doubtless also the head of the senate, which, according to Eastern usage, exercised both judicial and administrative or political functions (comp. 1 Mac. xii. 6, xiv. 20). The exact measure of its authority must have varied from time to time, at first with the measure of autonomy left to the nation by its foreign lords and afterwards with the more or less autocratic power claimed by the native ...sovereigns.
As has been shown in vol. xiii. p. 424 sq., the original aristocratic constitution of the senate began to be modified under the later Hasmoneans by the inevitable introduction of representatives of the rising party of the Pharisees, and this new element gained strength under Herod the Great, the bitter enemy of the priestly aristocracy. Finally under the Roman procurators the synedrium was left under the presidency of the chief priest as the highest native tribunal, though without the power of life and death (John xviii. 31). The aristocratic element now again preponderated, as appears from Josephus and from the New Testament, in which “chief priests” and “rulers” are synonymous expressions. But with these there sat also “scribes” or trained legal doctors of the Pharisees and other notables, who are simply called “elders” (Mark xv. 1). The Jewish tradition which regards the synedrium as entirely composed of rabbins sitting under the presidency and vice-presidency of a pair of chief doctors, the nasi and ab beth din, is quite false as regards the true synedrium. It was after the fall of the state that a merely rabbinical beth din sat at Jabneh and afterwards at Tiberias, and gave legal responses to those who chose to admit a judicature not recognized by the civil power. Gradually this illegal court usurped such authority that it even ventured to pronounce capital sentences,—acting, however, with so much secrecy as to allow the Roman authorities to close their eyes to its proceedings (Origen, Ep. ad Afr., § 14). That this was possible will appear less surprising if we remember that in like manner the synedrium of Jerusalem was able to extend an authority not sanctioned by Roman law over Jews beyond Judaea, e.g., in Damascus (Acts ix. 2; xxii. 5).
The council-chamber (βουλή) where the synedrium usually sat was between the Xystus and the temple, probably on the temple-hill, hut hardly, as the Mishnah states, within the inner court. The meeting in the palace of the high priest which condemned our Lord was exceptional. The proceedings also on this occasion were highly irregular, if measured by the rules of procedure which, according to Jewish tradition, were laid down to secure order and a fair trial for the accused.
Of the older literature of the subject it is enough to cite Selden, De Synedriis. The most important critical discussion is that of Kuenen in the Verslagen, &c., of the Amsterdam Academy, 1866, p. 131 sq. A good summary is given by Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, 2d ed., § 23, iii.
[734 words — estimated reading time: 5 minutes]
SYNESIUS, bishop of Ptolemais in the Libyan Pentapolis from 410 to c. 414, was born of wealthy parents, who claimed descent from Spartan kings, at Cyrene about 375. While still a youth (393) he went with his brother Euoptius to Alexandria, where he became an enthusiastic Neoplatonist and disciple of Hypatia ( q.v.). Returning to his native place some time before 397, he was in that year chosen to head an embassy from the cities of the Pentapolis to the imperial court to ask for remission of taxation and other relief. His stay in Constantinople, which lasted three years, was wearisome and otherwise disagreeable; the leisure it forced upon him he devoted in part to literary composition (see his De Providentia). The oration he delivered when at last admitted to the presence of Arcadius is also extant (De Regno). Returning abruptly to Cyrene in 400, he spent the next ten years partly in that city, when unavoidable business called him there, but chiefly on an estate in the interior of the province, where he was able to enjoy the literary leisure that was most congenial to him, varying his studies with gardening and hunting and the quiet pleasures of domestic life. His marriage took place at Alexandria in 403; in the previous year he had visited Athens. In 409 or 410 Synesius, whose Christianity had until then been by no means very pronounced, was popularly chosen to be bishop of Ptolemais, and, after long hesitation on personal and doctrinal grounds, he ultimately accepted the office thus thrust upon him, being consecrated by Theophilus at Alexandria. One personal difficulty at least was obviated by his being allowed to retain his wife, to whom he was much attached; but as regarded orthodoxy he expressly stipulated for personal freedom to dissent on the questions of the ...soul’s creation, a literal resurrection, and the final destruction of the world, while at the same time he agreed to make some concession to popular views in his public teaching (τὰ μὲv οἴκοι φιλοσόφων, τά δ’ ἔξω φιλομαθών). His tenure of the bishopric, which was comparatively brief, was troubled not only by domestic bereavements but also by barbaric invasions of the country, and by conflicts with the prefect Andronicus, whom he excommunicated for interfering with the church’s right of asylum. The date of his death is unknown, but he died probably not later than 414.
His extant works are—(1) a speech before Arcadius, De Regno; (2) Dio, sive de suo ipsius Instituto, in which he signifies his purpose to devote himself to true philosophy; (3) Encomium Calvitii, a literary jeu d 'esprit, suggested by Dio Chrysostom’s Praise of Hair·, (4) De Providentia, in two books; (5) De Insomniis ; (6) 157 Epistolae ; (7) 12 Hymni ; and several homilies and occasional speeches. The editio princeps is that of Turnebus (Paris, 1553); it was followed by that of Morell, with Latin translation by Petavius (1612, greatly enlarged and improved 1633; reprinted by Migne, 1859). The Epistolae, which for the modern reader greatly exceed his other works in interest, have been edited by Demetriades (Vienna, 1792) and by Glukus (Venice, 1812), the Calvitii Encomium by Krabinger (Stuttgart, 1834), the De Providentia by Krabinger (Sulzbach, 1835), the De Regno by Krabinger (Munich, 1825), and the Hymns by Flach (Tübingen, 1875).
See Clausen, De Synesiο Philosopho (Copenhagen, 1831); Volkrnann, Synesius von Gyrene (Berlin, 1869); and Miss Alice Gardner’s monograph in “The Fathers for English Readers” (London, 1S86).
[573 words — estimated reading time: 4 minutes]
