Talk:Sanhedrin

Among the reasons that this topic may be considered controversial is that some of its factual basis comes from religious texts. Specific reasons for controversy have to do with the death of Jesus, and whether this institutional body was truly in a postion to stop it, or if it was directly responsible. The casual editor should be warned that posits made in this article, innocently stated, may fuel a sensitive debate.

Template:DelistedGAbecause There are some major inaccuracies in this article, no matter what scholarly position one holds on controversial issues.

Removal

An important binary in the New Testament is the opposition between law and love. Also the New Testament portrays the Sanhedrin as a corrupt group of Pharisees, despite that it was predominantly Sadducees at the time. Accordingly, the New Testament presents the Pharisees as obsessed with man-made rules (especially concerning purity) whereas Jesus is more concerned with God’s love; the Pharisees scorn sinners whereas Jesus seeks them out. Because of the New Testament's frequent depictions of Pharisees as self-righteous rule-followers, and because most scholars agree that the gospels place the blame for Jesus' crucifixion on a large faction of Pharisees, the word "pharisee" (and its derivatives: "pharisaical", etc.) has come into semi-common usage in English to describe a hypocritical and arrogant person who places the letter of the law above its spirit. Jews today, who ascribe to Pharisaic Judaism, typically find this insulting if not anti-Semitic.

--metta, The Sunborn ☥ 06:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Put a line back

The line "the New Testament portrays the Sanhedrin as a corrupt group of Pharisees, despite that it was predominantly Sadducees at the time." still speaks to the topic, introduces the two groups. I put it back in where it would tie two concepts together.

--Jndrline 30 June 2005 00:11 (UTC)

POV alert

Surely the following is highly POV: However, the Gospels and the acts of the Apostles are actual, personal, accounts of events that happened well before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, and are presumed to have been based on earlier sources. Though scholars may dispute their bias, they are not works of fiction. It is by no means undisputed that the gospels are "not works of fiction" (c.f. Historicity of Jesus for both sides of the argument). As such I have removed the passage. Dewrad 15:36, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

This was actually something I edited so that it wouldn't be based on POV, when I separated the religious accounts from the scholarly accounts. (Prior, both were mixed together, and very confusing to read.) It seems that people have edited the statement so that it actually reads differently.

I think the objection isn't with the statement as a whole, but with a misunderstanding of "they are not works of fiction." I meant to say that they exist today, and that someone wrote them. I don't remember my orignal phrasing, but "actual,personal" was also pointing to the same. They are really accounts, and they were written by people — regardless of their content.

Under this assumption I have put it back and rephrased:

However, the Gospels exist, and do account the events that happened well before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, and there is no dispute that they were penned after the Temple was destroyed. But, scholars believe them to have been based on earlier sources, rather than giving a first-person account; though the Gospels are not entirely dismissed, they are presumed to be biased rather than factual.

Personally, I think they're all fiction, but I didn't think staying objective would've been as hard as it has; thanks for calling it to attention.

>Personally, I think they're all fiction> You are patently wrong. The name of roman governor Pontius Pilate is absolutely not mentioned in any other source but the Bible. It was so stated he must have been an invented personality and thus the New Testament is a work of fiction. However, a few years ago a very minor sidewalk was found during archeological excavations in Jerusalem and one of its stones bore the inscription that it was built by the order and at the expense of governor Pontius Pilate. This single evidence alone shows that the New Testament contains genuine non-fiction information.

Apparently Pilate was in office for no more than 2.5 years maximum and so left little lasting effect except the execution of Jesus. 195.70.32.136 12:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

--Jndrline 30 June 2005 00:11 (UTC)

Modern Sanhedrin

The authority of this body is not recognized by the Israeli government or by non-traditional streams of Judaism. This language, which originally read "non-hareidi streams of Judaism", is misleading. What is "traditional"? Are the Modern Orthodox, Yeshiva University-types "traditional"? As far as I am aware they have not recognized the authority of the modern Sanhedrin. In the US there is a growing "Traditional" movement, that certainly has not recognized them. Who are the members of this Sanhedrin? Does anyone have a list? I'll accept that "non-haredi" may be inaccurate to the extent that some members are not hareidim per se, but this language is not acceptable either. --Briangotts 15:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deletions

This was removed from the article because it didn't have anything to do with the actual sanhedrin:

(perhaps it could be compared to the reaction of the Chinese government to Falun Gong). seems to me POV and beside the point. I'm deleting it. --Ori.livneh 17:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry. Thanks.  

—  <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     23:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Not guilty of treason

The Gospels don't say Jesus was found guilty by the Romans of treason. This section is obviously a kind of online battleground over points of faith, and so wording is touchy but should not be inaccurate.

--josephconklin 13 August 2005

The original did not simply say that he was guilty of treason. It said "Whereas the Sanhedrin was a legitimate body representing an existing religion, sanctioned under Roman law, starting a new religion was seen by the Romans as a treasonous means to overthrow their leadership." Dwrad felt that this was me lying: "starting a new religion was not seen by Romans as treason." Since I no longer have my source, I let it be. When you came to it, the sentance had become disjointed from its explanation.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that this article is prone to POV. It brings up the touchy (esp for me) subject of whether Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus.

— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     00:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It's also touchy for me, but I believe truth should be the standard. Jesus made claims that were considered blasphemous by Jewish religious leaders. He made it clear several times that being crucified fulfilled His mission. If it was the Jewish authorities who instigated it, then that's just the facts. Got to go with the facts. Regardless of quibbling, the Gospels are the closest to witness we have of these events, and they say it was the Sanhedrin that instigated the crucifixion. Barring irrefutable evidence to the contrary, I see no reason not to go with the Gospel accounts.

josephconklin 8 September 2005

Indiscrimate POV

The recent edit that the portrayal of the Sanhedrin in the Gospels is not "generally" taken as historical fact, versus "universally," reflects extreme POV on the part of the editor. Any dispute with the Gospel accounts is not "generally" accepted at all. We can go back and forth on this, but the fact is that the Gospels are generally viewed as historical by those reading them, but not universally.

josephconklin 8 September 2005

I think "extreme pov" is a bit of an overreaction. The diction of universally versus generally is really meaningless. These reversions are pointless. freestylefrappe 23:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

The "diction" is definitely not meaningless. "The portrayal is not generally taken as historical fact" implies that there is a majority opinion against it. "The portrayal is not universally taken as historical fact" implies simply that there is a dispute. josephconklin September 11, 2005

Armageddonic bullshit in the article!

>XY saw it as good news >Believing that the Sanhedrin would be responsible for the rebuilding of the Temple

Which of course would mean WWIII, since the same location is now occupied by the building of the golden-roof mosque, the third holiest place in Islam. There are 900 million muslims and the judeo-christians are already in a global war with them.

A religious fanatic's wet dream of seeing mankind massacre each other entirely so that King of Hell can return does not belong to Wikipedia. Please erase the offending sentence.

If that is what this organisation believes it would amount to censorship to remove this. It's not the words that cause World Wars but the people who believe them. JFW | T@lk 22:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments on the article

1. Why is the etymology given not once, but twice in the intro?? The first time it says "probably"; the second time seems a little more certain, but is still slightly different interpretaton of the Greek. Oughtn't these be merged better?

2. About the section entitled, "Opposition to Christian historical accounts"... (Uh,...)

I read the following: "Furthermore, it was only after 70 that Phariseeism emerged as the dominant form of Judaism." But, isn't that statement proven false by the Dead Sea Scrolls, that are agreed by all to be rather older than that, and don't the Scrolls describe the Pharisees as the dominant party already (and isn't that mainly the reason why the "Essene party" had to hide out in caves anyway?) Could someone with more expertise weigh in on this? Regards, ፈቃደ 00:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The definition is given twice because the etymology is usually given right after the first use of the term. To give the whole etymology in the first line would clutter the intro. JFW | T@lk 08:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You are right in regards to the fact that the Pharisees were already powerful among the Israelites. They emerged out of the Babylonian Exile as Rabbi's, etc. Unlike it was with the priesthood, one did not have to be a Levite to be a Pharisee, as the Apostle Paul demonstrated in his writing (1 Corinthians). However, that is really not the reason the Essenes were in the desert. They believed that they were the rightful priesthood - true descendants of Zadok and were awaiting the day when the temple would be purified, along with Jerusalem and the land of Israel in general. That was the main reason for their own ascetic practices: to remain ritually clean. Eltinwë 20:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Dates???????

"Specifically the writings of Luke and the Apostle Paul have been established as published in the 40's and 50's CE. Therefore, it is quite possible that these early Christian writings are accurate contemporary accounts of the Sanhedrin and could reflect the socio-political dynamics which surrounded this institution in Judean society."

Huh????? "Established"????? "Published"????? Since when?????

Since 1 Thessalonians is widely recognized as Paul's first work, and is widely recognized as having been written in about 51 AD, how does this article get away with pushing a date of "40s." Furthermore, Luke's Gospel is dated by the vast, vast, overwhelming majority of scholars to the mid-80s. The generally accepted dates for the writings of the New Testament are Mark 65-75 (much controversy, of course, as to whether or not pre- or post-70); Luke and Acts (volumes 1 and 2 of a single, complete work) roughly 85; Matthew anywhere from 75 to 90, depending on whom one reads; John 90-100; Paul's letters 51-67 (I won't go into individual letters and dates here). If there were pre-existent written Christian documents, such as the speculated "Q" or "Aramaic Matthew," their date and contents are mostly conjecture.

Let me say: this does not make the Gospel accounts useless as clues to 1st Century Sanhedrin practice. That's a whole interesting other argument. But whatever one's position on that, let's not take the rather wild, fringe opinions of a couple of scholars (with agendas) and call them "established." Amherst5282 04:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And we can honestly say YOU don't have an agenda? Frankly, I think the uncharacteristically Jewish nature of the Gospel of Matthew certainly provides evidence for an early dating. Also, if the Gospels were written AFTER 70 A.D., would they not have mentioned the Fall of the Temple considereding THREE of the FOUR Gospel writers were Hebrews? Not only that, Jesus' own predictions concerning the Temple's fall would make any human writer put it in there for the sake of proving the point. The Gospels don't do that but the history speaks for itself. Even Bruce Metzger, liberal that he is, argues that the Scriptures are historically early.

Rabbi Richman

Could someone knowledable about this subject stop by God's Learning Channel and see if the language introducing Rabbi Chaim Richman is accurate and NPOV (and fix it if it isn't). Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sensitive?

How are the details of Jesus' trial sensitive? Are there really people getting violent somewhere over this kind of trivial detail?

Liastnir 00:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• In response to this question, and because I haven't been to this page in a while and have seen some pretty bad edits, and many revertings . . . I have added the Template:Controversial to the Talk page, and an explanation that should warn the newbie to be aware.

—  <TALKJNDRLINETALK>    

Not a medication

O.k., for the last time, "Sanhedrin" is NOT a headache medicine.

69.39.172.17 13:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not? Oh man, what're these meds I've been taking? Lol j/k I guess people are confusing it with hedrin, a cure for lice, ephedrin, a botanical drug, or most likely sudafedrin cold medicine, and so on. Some people are just stupid, I doubt it needed a talk comment but oh well. SF2K1

• LOL. Pseudoephedrine.

Dating

Users seem to be reverted BCE/CE back to BC/AD. While I support BC/AD myself, as a courtesy to the Jewish people (of whom I have a deep respect), I have put them back and ask any users to cease these pointless edits. -DavidK 22:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice info

See [1] it should be nice to get the quote of the Muslims.. etc. if anyone has time.... 203.214.153.235 23:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

July Edit War

Moved to Talk:Modern_attempts_to_revive_the_Sanhedrin/Archive_1

This article is even more infomative

This article is more infomative and it is written by an athiest about the Sanhedrin. 203.217.83.31 16:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the assistance, but the article doesn't seem to be from a recognized publication. It also contains a number of statements which are widely contradicted by generally-regarded souces. It says the Sanhedrin consisted of "chief priests" and later "chief priests or political leaders, but the Sanhedrin contained many individuals with little political base. It claims the Mishnah indicates the Sanhedrin existed "between the 4th and 5th century" BCE, but there's a lot of evidence (including statements in the Mishnah) that the Sanhedrin existed for a much longer period. And so forth. Thank you for your interest and contribution. --Shirahadasha 21:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

However wrong it is. It still is a lot more infomative than this article. How a Sanhedrin functioned should be explained here instead of talking about some well-disputed references to a Sanhedrin in Christian literature which don't even give any insight on how it functioned! 203.217.83.31 10:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Explain different types of Sanhedrins

This article needs to explain the different types of Sanhedrins. Saying the Sanhedrin met in ... is misleading without explaining which Sanhedrin. Maybe we can have a comparation in between the Great Sanhedrin and the Senate. And a normal Sanhedrin a court. 10:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.83.31 (talk • contribs)

Added Great Sanhedrin and Lesser Sanhedrin section. --Shirahadasha 03:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference for disputed text

Hi, is there a reference to support the inclusion of "including the refusal of the Haredi leadership to recognize the body. " According to WP:V the burden of proof is on the editors who want the material included to provide references. This policy also clearly states that any editor can remove material not supported by reliable sources. Addhoc 14:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not just WP:verifiability, it's also WP:NPOV#undue weight, singling out a particular group for special mention among all the other groups involved. The main article, Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin, currently has individual subsections on seven such groups, includein gModern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin#The debate stirred within the Haredi camp, which currently indicates there are multiple opinions in this area. It would would give undue weight to mention only an editor's own opinion about the editor's own group in what is supposed to be a high-level summary. Suggest the main article continue to handle the various contentious disputes over who supports and opposes what, and the Sanhedrin article continue to focus on the original Sanhedrin and give only a brief summary of the recent effort -- including the existence of opposition and contention -- without supplying details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirahadasha (talk • contribs)

Made an NPOV version. Hope everyone agrees. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I dispute it. How do two unsourced statements make it NPOV? If you can't bring a source for either, why say it? --Historian2 11:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that very large segments of the Jewish world do not support this Sanhedrin. Or, I see, next you are going to claim that they do? Since you oppose merely saying that large parts (specifically the Chareidi world) oppose this 'Sanhedrin', it would seem no more than logical to just add a notice that 'others, however, do support it', to make it NPOV. --Daniel575 | (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I dispute it, it "virulent opposition and fanatical support" is POV and unsourced. --Historian2 11:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Move proposed

I suggest to move this article to Synedrion as Sanhedrin is only a local name (and reflects merely back-transliteration). Syendrion is the original name of the assembly as well as government councils in other countries and entities (such as League of Corinth and Seleucid Empire). It is also the international word such as "senate", "republic", "president" which used unchanged in the same form regardless local variations and pronounciation.--Nixer 10:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This article only covers one specific instance of a Synedrion: the particular legislative body which was connected with the Jewish people primarily during the Second Temple period, and its subsequent attempts at restoration. As far as I know this Jewish body has universally been called "Sanhedrin" by Jews and Christians in the English language. --Historian2 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

We can name the article Synedrion (Judea) for example--Nixer 13:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

WTF. Nixer, please take a hike and do some research before you make a total idiot/fool out of yourself, which is what you are doing with this 'proposal'. --Daniel575 | (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there some more grounded opinion?--Nixer 18:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Nixer. Sanhedrin, whatever the etymology, is a uniquely Jewish institution, and is uniformly known as precisely Sanhedrin, not Synhedrion, ever, for any reason. No Jewish people have ever heard of a "Synhedrion" and wouldn't know it from baked beans. I have no idea what the motivation would be to move the article in this fashion, and must resolutely oppose the move. What's more, I guarantee you that every single participant of WP:JEW, WP:OJ, and WP:ORBCW would oppose as well if they knew. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You're not right. Synedrion in Judea was indtroduced by Seleucid king Antiochus to make the state more close resembling the Greek standard. It was a common institution in ancient world - just as modern "republic", "federation", "president", "parliament", "secretary" etc. We do not use local variations of these words. About Russia, for example, we say "federation", not "federatsiya", "republic", not "respublika", "president", not "prezident". We do not need back-transliterate these words.--Nixer 22:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts here.

• First "Synedrion" probably warrants its own wikipage to cover its Seleucidian origin, perhaps with the Judean 'Synedrion' linked as a specific example of this.
• Second, the voluminous amount of literature in English which references this body as the 'Sanhedrin' would make giving it any other notation awkward. (Google lists 'Sanhedrin' almost 100 times more than 'Synedrion').
• Lastly, in spite of its name, the origin of the Sanhedrin as a greek institution is not universally admitted, and especially not within the traditional Jewish circles. The word 'Synedrion' has come to be associated with a historical literature which in general rejects the traditional view.

If the majority of the content of this wikipage will concern its function within Jewish tradition or its encounter with Christianity, the name that literatures on that subject in English uses is the one we should use. --Historian2 19:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "synedrion" is not of Seleucid origin. It was a generic word for assemblies in Greek city-states and their unions. The supreme body of Alexander the Great's empire was also called "synedrion". The use of "sanhedrin" is not typical for all branches of Christianity. For example, in Russian tradition the body of the Jesus Christ's times also named "synedrion", it used in Gospels, literature and translations, the word "sanhedrin" looks only as Hebraized form of the word.--Nixer 19:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I meant the institution, not the word itself. BTW, I noticed "Synedrion" already has its own wikipage and it probably warrants expansion. I think the use of "Sanhedrin" for that body was typical for most (if not all) English language translations of the Bible and Talmud, and as I pointed out above it is certainly more common in popular usage. Is there a problem with having both wikipages? --Historian2 20:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest only to move it to Synedrion (Judea). BTW, I was not right. Synedrion was invented in Judea during Hasmonean rule (they were very hellinized dynasty).--Nixer 20:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Nixer, your idea is plain ridiculous and will not come to happen. I repeat what I said before: do at least SOME research. Even 5 minutes of research would have made it clear to you that you are making a complete fool out of yourself with this proposal. By the way, Historian2, I do not get 10 times as many, but 79 times as many Google results for Sanhedrin (887k) vs Synedrion (11k). --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Google results may vary. What research do you mean? What exactly do you contest?--Nixer 20:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If you would have done even the slightest little bit of research, you would have seen that your proposal is totally ridiculous. If you still don't understand, I'm not going to spend any more words on it. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575, I said "almost 100 times" 921,000 vs 11,600. Nixer take a look at Synedrion and see if this is a good direction? --Historian2 21:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, read too quickly. About 100, indeed. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Nixer, would you also be taking the view that the term United States President is an inappropriately local term (and equally questionable philologically, as the American head of state actually does very little presiding), and would you be wanting the article renamed to a more general/philologicslly appropriate term such as Archon (United States)? This would seem to be another case where Wikipedia has a whole article on the form of government of only one local country. Perhaps the material on the United States Government should appear only as a local example of a more general government form, such as Republic. On the other hand, nation-states (and forms of government) are only local examples of more general forms of human social organization, and may not deserve their own article either. If you don't oppose an article on something as local as United States President even though it's a local event that could be described as an example of more general phenomena, what makes the Jewish Sanhedrin any different? --Shirahadasha 03:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Very nice response. (Shira, I added your username instead of your IP - looks like you forgot to log in when you posted that.) --Daniel575 | (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You did not get my point completely. I do not suggest to rename Sanhedrin to Council (Judea). I only say that we do not need use local forms of international words when we have internationally-established form (syedrion) and Jewish word "sanhedrin" is just transliteration of the Greek word into Hebrew alphabet.--Nixer 08:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I indeed do not understand your point. Answer Shira's question. Are you going to change President of the United States into Archon (United States)? --Daniel575 | (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? I never suggested anything even close to that. Do you undestand English?--Nixer 08:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Both Synedrion and Sanhedrin have a place within their respective literature. Within the context of a Greek history and a comparison of assemblies in Greek city-states the word Synedrion is commonly used. Within the context Christian and Jewish literature in the English language the word Sanhedrin is almost universally used. I recommend that the two wikipages Synedrion and Sanhedrin reflect these two contexts and use their respective terminology. BTW, Sanhedrin is not used today as a local variations of an international term, but has been fully accepted as a word on its own right in the English language.Random House American Heritage Dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian2 (talk • contribs)

Let's keep it civil. What's next, renaming all republic into democracy? The same words, translated from Greek into Latin... ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Republic is the original Latin word. It even is not a translation of "democracy", not to speak transliteration. By the way, we use word "democracy" even if in local language it is "demokratiya", we use "republic" even if in local language it is "respublika" - we do not back-transliterate these words. We say "Russian Federation", not "Russian Federatsyya"--Nixer 14:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Translation, not transliteration: Demos+Kratos vs. Rex+Publica. But let's forget about it, as well as about the whole unpopular proposal and move on. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Republic is not from rex+publica, but from res+publica, which had completely differing meaning.--Nixer 16:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that this is the English Wikipedia, and while the word Sanhedrin is a common one in English, the word Synedrion is obscure. It would be (at best) a bit like a scholar of Middle English proposing to move the Sheriff article to a subsection of Reeve. It's true that the Reeve of the Shire (The Shire-Reeve or Sheriff) was once just one kind of Reeve among many, but we don't speak Middle English anymore, the word Reeve has all but dissappeared from English while the word Sheriff survives, and the connection has been forgotten. And that's at best. Not everyone would agree that the Sanhedron was originally a kind of Synedrion in the way a Sheriff was originally a kind of Reeve. There are claims that its origins were completely different -- that it was an older institution with different cultural roots. --Shirahadasha 15:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Relationship between Synedrion and Sanhedrin wikipages

I propose moving content on the Sanhedrin the other way, from the Synedrion#Synhedrion in Judea article to Sanhedrin. I notice that the current content under Synedrion seems to be a WP:POV fork. It duplicates some of the content of this article, but from a POV that the Sanhedrin was an essentially Hellenic institution, primarily civil rather than religious in character, that was founded and operated much like any other Greek Synedrion, and it explicitly says that claims of an older or culturally different origin are false, mere embellishments of chroniclers. Suggest we move things the other way, that is, that the Synedrion#Synhedrion in Judea section merely provide a summary and a link to Sanhedrin as main article, and that the content and claims made about the Sanhedrin in the Synedrion article be moved here. Otherwise we have a clear POV fork in violation of Wikipedia policy. --Shirahadasha 15:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: Both views may well be consistent with the evidence and correct in their own worlds. As User:Historian2 indicated, Hellenic governements who had dealings with it may well have viewed it as a hellenic institution, while locals viewed it as a local one. A scholar of the Hellenic world would perhaps be inclined to see it through the Greek lens, while religious Jews and other descendents of the locals would be inclined to see it through a different lens. --Shirahadasha 15:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However, there is no need to move content from Synedrion#Synhedrion in Judea article to Sanhedrin, because it is an exact duplicate what is already in Sanhedrin. I put that text there, but no POV was intended. My thinking was to place information that would interest someone researching the Greek Assemblies/Synhedrions in Synhedrion. This would include a summary about each specific Synhedrion including the Judean Synhedrion/Sanhedrin and a link to each respective page.

I didn't have a summary text to place in Synhedrion so I copied the "Synhedrion" paragraph to Synedrion, leaving that information also in Sanhedrin. What is needed now to complete the task, is to write a proper NPOV summary for Synedrion#Synhedrion in Judea. --Historian2 16:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I notice the wikipage Synhedrion is spelled with an "h". The standard spelling is without an "h". You can see this in google. "Synedrion" is much more common then "Synhedrion", 11,000 to 527 most of which are wikipedia hits. --Historian2 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Shirahadasha I changed the name to the accepted spelling, and replied to your comment on the Synedrion talk page. --Historian2 10:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

jurisdictional details

The main article doesn't exactly say what the scope of the Sanhedrin's jurisdiction was, short of it being at once both a supreme court and legislative body, and implicitly a single body convened at a single time.

Would it be right to say that the building that the Sanhedrin was housed in, was the Temple of Jerusalem, and this was where legal instruments (like deeds, leases, treaties, and those relating to the payment of taxes and equitable liens) were recorded? And if legal instruments were recorded in some other building, and kept apart from the temple, what was the method whereby the judges of the Sanhedrin would go about taking judicial notice of the existence of those records?

The main article would be improved if there were at least some reference to the Sanhedrin's subject matter jurisdicition.