1

Rabbinic Authority Versus the Historical Record

Brian Crawford, M.Div

[email protected]
Chosen People Ministries
Project Director, Chosen People Answers
Spring 2017

1 INTRODUCTION
When attempting to share the Gospel with Traditional Jewish people, the issue of religious authority
is rarely far away.1 Traditional Judaism is built upon the religious authority of the rabbis, who issue
definitive requirements for Jewish people to walk in (halakhah). According to these authorities,
Jesus of Nazareth was an idolator who was rightly condemned,2 and the New Testament writings
about him are foolishness.3 These roadblocks significantly hinder the Apostle Paul’s call to take the
Gospel of salvation to the Jew first (Rom. 1:16). Consequently, before a traditional Jewish person
can adequately hear the Gospel of grace, a substantial amount of pre-evangelism may be necessary.
In other words, believers need to be ready to make an apologetics case to Traditional Jewish people,
just as the Apostle Paul did in the synagogues of Greece (Acts 17:17, 18:4). Because many
Traditional Jews say that Judaism is nothing without the authority of their rabbis, a Jewish person’s
trust in their rabbinic sages may need to be addressed before any other subject.

1
In this paper, “Traditional Judaism” is broadly defined as the classic Judaism that was prevalent before the
Enlightenment and which today survives in communities who call themselves Orthodox, Hasidic, or Haredi.
These groups accept the authority of the halakha (rabbinic law) and the authoritative nature of the Mishnah
and Talmud.

2
b. Sanhedrin 43A, b. Sanhedrin 107B

3
Blau writes, “R. Meïr, who flourished after 135, a descendant of Greek proselytes, was the first to play upon
the word ἐυαγγέλιον by translating it as ‫“ =( און גלון‬worthlessness of [i.e., written upon] a scroll”).” Ludwig
Blau, “Gilyonim,” The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and
Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, 12 Volumes, Isidore Singer, ed.,
(New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1901–1906), 5:668.
 2

In this paper, we seek to use historical apologetics as an ally in the pre-evangelism battle to convince
Traditional Jewish people to question the authority of their rabbis and to consider the High
Priesthood of Rabbi Yeshua of Nazareth.

2 THE TRADITIONAL JEWISH POSITION: THE AUTHORITY OF THE RABBIS

STEMS FROM MOSES HIMSELF
In Traditional Judaism, the rabbis derive their authority from Moses, who established a system of
judges to govern Israel (Deut. 16-17). This rabbinic claim to authority is most evident in the
Mishnaic passages Pirke Avot and Hagigah.

2.1 PIRKE AVOT – THE FOUNDATIONAL CLAIM FOR RABBINIC AUTHORITY

The Mishnaic tractate Pirke Avot (“The Ethics of the Fathers”) contains timeless wisdom that
encourages the pursuit of God and his Torah before all things. There is wit, and wisdom, and heart
in Pirke Avot, and for these qualities it is beloved. At the opening of Pirke Avot is a section that has
been called, “The Chain of Tradition.” This, more than any other section of the early rabbis’
writings, serves as the foundation stone for Traditional Judaism, for we learn that the Oral Torah
derives from Moses at Sinai. Here is the chain, in summarized form:

The Chain of Tradition – Pirke Avot

1:1 Moses received Torah at Sinai and handed it on to Joshua, Joshua to elders, and elders to
prophets. And prophets handed it on to the men of the great assembly.
1:2 Simeon the Righteous was one of the last survivors of the great assembly.
1:3 Antigonos of Sokho received [the Torah] from Simeon the Righteous.
1:4 Yose b. Yoezer of Seredah and Yose b. Yohanan of Jerusalem received [it] from them.
1:6 Joshua b. Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite received [it] from them.
1:8 Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shatah received [it] from them.
1:10 Shemaiah and Abtalion received [it] from them.
1:12 Hillel and Shammai received [it] from them.
1:16-2:7 – Other names associated with the Pharisees, but not actually in the Chain
2:8 Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai received [it] from Hillel and Shammai.4

4
m. Avot 1:1-2:8. Translation from Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah : A New Translation (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1988).
 3

In this list, we find Torah as the primary subject. The men who are listed are only transmitters of
this Torah from generation to generation. After each of the men are listed, Pirke Avot cites some of
the teachings of the men who passed on this Torah:

The Great Assembly: “Be prudent in judgment. Raise up many disciples. Make a fence for
the Torah.”
Yose b. Yoezer: “Let your house be a gathering place for sages.”
Shemaiah: “Love work. Hate authority. Don’t get friendly with the government.”
Hillel: “If I am not for myself, who is for me? And when I am for myself, what am I? And if
not now, when?”

None of these quotations are found in the Pentateuch or the Prophets or the Writings.
Consequently, the Torah that is being passed down in Pirke Avot is the Oral Law. Pirke Avot is
establishing the Oral Law by tracing its origin, generation by generation, back to Moses. Thus, the
purpose of the Chain of Tradition is to establish that the men mentioned in the Chain are the
authoritative recipients of the Oral Law and have the authority to interpret the Written Law.

It should be noted that the final name in the list, Rabbi Yohanan b. Zakkai, established the Council
of Yavneh after the destruction of Jerusalem (circa 80 CE). Through his leadership, Judaism as we
know it was born. Rabbi Yohanan had five disciples, and those rabbinic disciples had further
rabbinic disciples. Thus, the rabbis at Traditional synagogues today trace their religious authority
back to the men in this list.

2.2 A PARALLEL LIST IN M. HAGIGAH 2:2

Pirke Avot is the most famous passage that lists the Chain of Tradition, and it is also the most
complete. However, another passage in the Mishnah, m. Hagigah 2:2, adds details to the Chain.
Here is the text:

Yose b. Yoezer says not to lay on hands.

Yose b. Yohanan says to lay on hands.
Joshua b. Perahyah says not to lay on hands.
Nittai the Arbelite says to lay on hands.
Judah b. Tabbai says not to lay on hands.
Simeon b. Shatah says to lay on hands.
Shemayah says to lay on hands.
Abtalyon says not to lay on hands.
 4

Hillel and Menahem did not differ.

Menahem departed, Shammai entered.
Shammai says not to lay on hands. Hillel says to lay on hands.
The first-named were patriarchs, and the second to them were heads of the court.5
6
(‫ ושניים להם אבות בית דין‬,‫)הראשונים היו נשיאים‬

In this list, we learn several new things that were not present in Pirke Avot. First, we learn that there
was a controversy between the Zugot, the “Pairs” who lived around the same time as each other. The
first of each pair said that laying on hands was forbidden; the second said it was permitted. Second,
we learn that Shammai was not originally paired with Hillel; Menachem was, but then he left, and
Shammai took his place. Third, we learn that the first name in each of the Zugot was the patriarch,
and the second name was the head of the court. In other words, the first of the pair was the
president of the Sanhedrin (Nasi), and the second of the pair was the vice-president (Av Beit Din).7
This is a very important claim that we will return to later.

Consequently, we learn from Hagigah that the authority of the men on the list was official; they
were the heads of the Sanhedrin, the legal religious body over Israel. They passed on their official
authority to their successors, culminating in the authority of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, who
passed on his authority to all the rabbis after the destruction of Jerusalem. We should also note that
the Zugot were all Pharisees, so the Chain of Tradition is saying that Pharisaic scholars were the
rulers of the Sanhedrin.

Finally, we learn from another passage, m. Middoth 5:4, that this Pharisaic Sanhedrin judged the
priesthood. In other words, the Pharisees were the top religious authorities over all Israel, including
over the priests.

5
Neusner, The Mishnah, 330

6
Mishnaic Hebrew for the final line quoted from The Soncino Classics Collection by Judaica Press on DVD.

7
For confirmation of this from an Orthodox perspective, see entries for each man listed in Shulamis Frieman,
Who’s Who in the Talmud (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc.). From a Reform (liberal) perspective, see the
entries for each man under The Jewish Encyclopedia. Also see Jewish Encyclopedia for “Nasi” and
“Sanhedrin.”
 5

2.3 A SUMMARY OF THE HISTORICAL TIMELINE FROM THE MISHNAH

These passages in the Mishnah seek to establish the authority of the early rabbis, the Tannaim,8 by
tracing their forbears back to Moses. This is an argument from history. It is as if the Tannaim are
saying, “We have religious authority because history proves it.”

Through coordination with other written sources, we can identify the approximate time period of
many of the men in the Chain of Tradition as seen in the chart below:

Generation Receiver of Torah Date

1 Moses ~1400 BCE

2 Joshua ~1400 BCE

3 Elders ~1400 BCE

4 Prophets ~1000-400 BCE

5 Men of the Great Assembly ~400 BCE

Either (310–291 or 300–270 B.C.) or (219–199

6 Simeon the Righteous
B.C.)9

7 Antigonos of Sokho Dependent on above

8
“Tannaim” is the name for the early generations of Torah scholars after the destruction of the Temple in 70
CE. The word means, “repeaters,” as in those who repeat the Oral Law to keep it in memory. David Kraemer,
“Tanna, Tannaim,” Edited by David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York:
Doubleday, 1992), 6:319.

9
Schulim Ochser, “Simeon the Just”, Jewish Encyclopedia. Robert L. Plummer comments on the difficulty of
identifying Simeon: “There is one major problem, of course, in connecting these events which the Talmud
dates to ad 30 with Simeon the Righteous. Traditionally, the title "Simeon the Righteous" or "Simon the Just"
is associated with the high priest Simon II who lived around 200 bc and was succeeded by Onias III. In fact,
the more one investigates references to Simeon the Righteous throughout the rabbinic writings, the more
confusing it becomes as to which historical period he belongs.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
48, no. 2 (2005): 308.
 6

President of Vice-President
Sanhedrin of Sanhedrin

8 Yose b. Yoezer Yose b. Yohanan Dependent on above

Joshua b. Nittai the Joshua b. Perahiah: During reign of King

9
Perahiah Arbelite Yannai [Alexander Jannaeus] (103-76 BCE)10

Simeon b. Shatah: During reign of King

Simeon b.
10 Judah b. Tabbai Yannai (103-76 BCE) and Queen Alexandra
Shatah
(Salome, 76-67 BCE)11

Shemaiah: During reign of Herod (37 BCE-4

11 Shemaiah Abtalion CE)
Abtalion: During reign of Herod12

12 Menachem Menachem: During Reign of Herod13

Hillel
Shammai Hillel: Reign of Herod. Perhaps until 10 CE?

The Destruction of Jerusalem (70 CE)

13 Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai 70-80 CE

14 Yohanan's Five Disciples 70-90 CE

15+ The rest of the Tannaim 90 CE +

Table 1 - The Chain of Tradition

10
b. Sanhedrin 107B. This account anachronistically places Jesus in this time period as well.

11
b. Sanhedrin 19A, b. Berakhot 48A

12
Josephus, Antiquities 15.3

13
Hillel and Menachem were originally paired together, but m. Hagigah 2:2 and y. Hagigah 77D say that
Menachem “departed” from his post. Josephus in Antiquities 15.373 places Menachem during the time of
Herod and says that he was an Essene. It is possible that Menachem was once a Pharisee and was paired with
Hillel, and then left to join the Essenes. Shammai took his place.
 7

By coordinating rabbinic sources with others, we have been able to plot out a chronology of the
Chain of Tradition. We now have approximate ideas of when each of these men lived, enabling us to
compare the Chain of Tradition with other historical writings of the period.

3 WHO HELD RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY OVER ISRAEL BEFORE 70 CE?

The Chain of Tradition is an apologetic for the religious authority of the rabbis, stemming from
Moses himself. How does this rabbinic presentation of history compare with non-rabbinic accounts?

3.1 THE ERA OF THE TANAKH – MOSES TO NEHEMIAH: THE PRIESTS HAD RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY
The question of religious authority in the Tanakh15 is a complicated question, since Israel often went
through tumultuous times. Pirke Avot refers to this complexity when it mentions elders and
prophets in Avot 1:1. However, for some reason, the Chain of Tradition leaves out a very important
group: the Levitical priests. When we investigate the Tanakh, we find that the priests and Levites
were given the religious authority to teach the Torah and to decide legal matters. Although others
could teach and be judges, the Levites were the only group given this role:

And the Lord spoke to Aaron, saying… “You are to distinguish between the holy and the
common, and between the unclean and the clean, and you are to teach the people of Israel
all the statutes that the Lord has spoken to them by Moses.” (Leviticus 10:8-11)

The priests and Levites were intended to be the religious, legal, and judicial authorities over all of
Israel. Moses says, “They [Levites] shall teach Jacob your rules and Israel your law” (Deut. 33:10).
Malachi says, “For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction
from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts” (Mal. 2:7). In Haggai, it is stated,
“Thus says the Lord of hosts: Ask the priests about the law” (Hag. 2:11). God intended the priests
and Levites to live on the tithes given to them by others, so they would be fully devoted to studying

15
This is the traditional way for Jews to call the Old Testament. It is an acronym for Torah, Nevi’im
(Prophets), Ketuvim (Writings) – a tripartite division of the Hebrew Scriptures.
 8

the Torah (2 Chronicles 31:4). Many more passages associate the role of teaching and legal matters
to the priesthood.16

Of course, the priests were not the only ones who could teach the Torah or serve as judges. Moses
established courts of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens (Ex. 18, Deut. 1:15), and being a priest
or Levite was not a requirement to be part of the judiciary. However, Moses called for Israel to set
up a High Court at “the place which the Lord your God will choose” (Deut. 17:8), which in the
context of Deuteronomy, eventually came to mean Jerusalem.17 People would bring cases to the high
court if “any case within your towns [is] too difficult for you” (Deut. 17:8), where the high court
would serve as the final decision maker in the Israelite legal system. Who was a part of the Israelite
High Court? Answer: the Levitical priests and “the judge” (Deut. 17:9). Who was this judge? As we
will see below, ancient Jewish tradition identified this judge as the High Priest.

The Israelite king Jehosophat interpreted Moses’ instructions in this way when he set up a high
court in Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 19:8–11):

Moreover, in Jerusalem Jehoshaphat appointed certain Levites and priests and heads of
families of Israel, to give judgment for the LORD and to decide disputed cases. They had
their seat at Jerusalem. And he charged them: “Thus you shall do in the fear of the LORD, in
faithfulness, and with your whole heart: whenever a case comes to you from your brothers
who live in their cities, concerning bloodshed, law or commandment, statutes or rules, then
you shall warn them, that they may not incur guilt before the LORD and wrath may not come
upon you and your brothers. Thus you shall do, and you will not incur guilt. And behold,
Amariah the chief priest is over you in all matters of the LORD; and Zebadiah the son of
Ishmael, the governor of the house of Judah, in all the king’s matters, and the Levites will
serve you as officers. Deal courageously, and may the LORD be with the upright!”

16
Ezekiel 7:26, Jeremiah 8:18, 1 Chronicles 23:2-6, 2 Chronicles 15:3, 19:8-11, 23:8, 24:20, 31:4, Nehemiah
8:6-13

17
See Deut. 12:5-7, 16:16, 31:9 for things that could only be done at the central sanctuary, which eventually
came to be placed in Jerusalem. God explicitly states his choice of Jerusalem in passages such as 1 Kings 11:32,
2 Kings 23:37, 2 Kings 21:4, Psalm 132:13, etc.
 9

The High Court in Jehosaphat’s era consisted of a group that met in Jerusalem, with Levites as
officers, and had the High Priest in charge of religious matters, and the king’s servant in charge of
political matters.

It was a high court like this one that was established after the Babylonian Exile and came to be
known as the Sanhedrin. Was this later high court headed by a priest?

3.2 NEHEMIAH’S ERA, CIRCA 400 BCE: THE PRIESTS HAD RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY
According to the rabbis, after the last prophets died, the religious authority over Israel passed to the
Men of the Great Assembly (Generation 5). These men are supposedly the same men mentioned in
the list included in Nehemiah 10:1-27. When we read the list, we find the following groups
mentioned:

1. The Governor: 1 man, Nehemiah

2. The Priests: 22 men
3. The Levites: 17 men
4. The chiefs of the people: 44 men

It is possible that the groups are listed in order of importance:

1. Political leader
2. Religious leaders
3. Favored Tribe (Levi)
4. All other tribes18

Besides this list, in the books written after the return to the Land, we have records of the priests’
authority to teach the people of Israel:

So Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, both men and women and all who
could understand what they heard, on the first day of the seventh month. And he read from

18
We do not know how many tribes are represented in this number. They could be all Judahites, or they could
include other tribes. The New Testament does not allow for the notion that the 10 tribes of the Northern
Kingdom were completely lost, since we have record of Paul, from the tribe of Benjamin (Acts 13:21), and
Anna, of the tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36). Even if a few of the 10 tribes are represented in this list, there is still a
heavy representation of Levites in comparison. Also note that the same order of priest, Levite, and people is
given a few verses later in Neh. 10:34.
 10

it facing the square before the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence
of the men and the women and those who could understand. And the ears of all the people
were attentive to the Book of the Law. (Neh. 8:2-3)

And Nehemiah, who was the governor, and Ezra the priest and scribe, and the Levites who
taught the people… (Neh. 8:9)

Thus says the Lord of hosts: Ask the priests about the law. (Haggai 2:11)

We also have the record of an Aramaic letter that was addressed to the Persian governor of Judea in
408 or 407 BCE.19 In this letter, the leader of a Jewish community in Elephantine, Egypt, records
that he sent a previous letter “…to your lordship [named earlier as Bigvai, the Persian governor] and
to Johanan the high priest and his colleagues the priests who are in Jerusalem, and to Ostanes the
brother of ʿAnani, and the nobles of the Jews.”20 The names of the governor Bigvai and the High
Priest Johanan are confirmed by Josephus’ histories about this time period.21 When this Jewish
letter-writer wanted to get his voice heard by official people, he wrote to the High Priest in
Jerusalem. This is most likely because the High Priest was the supreme religious leader of the Jewish
people in 407 BCE.

3.3 HECATAEUS OF ABDERA, CIRCA 300 BCE: THE JEWS ARE LED BY PRIESTS
The Greek historian Hecataeus of Abdera lived around 300 BCE, during the time of Alexander the
Great. Josephus says that Hecataeus wrote an entire book on the Jews,22 but this work has been lost.
In fact, all we have of Hecataeus has been preserved in quotations by other writers. One of those
writers was Diodorus Siculus, a 1st Century CE historian. He quotes a passage from Hecataeus that
describes the origin of the Jewish people (with emphasis added):

19
Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century (APFC) No. 30. Cowley, A., ed. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century
B.C. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923. Pages 108-118.

20
APFC 30.18

21
Antiquities xi.7, cf. Cowley p. 108.

22
Josephus, Against Apion 1.22 §§183; 1.23 §214; §205
 11

The leader of this colony was one Moses, a very wise and valiant man, who, after he had
possessed himself of the country, amongst other cities, built that now most famous city,
Jerusalem, and the temple there, which is so greatly revered among them. He instituted the
holy rites and ceremonies with which they worship God; and made laws for the methodical
government of the state… He also picked out the most accomplished men, who were best
fitted to rule and govern the whole nation, and he appointed them to be priests, whose duty
was continually to attend in the temple, and employ themselves in the public worship and
service of God. He also made them judges, for the decision of the most serious cases, and
committed to their care the preservation of their laws and customs. Therefore they say that
the Jews have never had any king; but that the leadership of the people has always been
entrusted to a priest, who excels all the rest in prudence and virtue. They call him the chief
priest, and they regard him as the messenger and interpreter of the mind and commands of
God. And they say that he, in all their public assemblies and other meetings, discloses what
has been commanded; and the Jews are so compliant in these matters, that forthwith they
prostrate themselves upon the ground, and adore him as the high priest, who has
interpreted to them the will of God.23

This description of the Jewish people sheds light on Judaism in the 4th Century BCE. It is actually
the earliest known pagan document that mentions Moses.24 The Greek historian gets several details
wrong, such as Moses founding Jerusalem, but we should not expect his descriptions of the situation
in his own day to suffer from such obvious inaccuracies. Evans summarizes the report as saying,
“the Jewish people were governed by priests, chosen by Moses, who served as judges, over whom a
high priest presided.”25

It is also interesting that this Greek author gives a commentary on Deuteronomy 16 and 17, where
Moses called for the appointment of judges. According to the rabbinic interpretation, the rabbis are

23
Diodorus Siculus, 40.3, available in English translation at http://attalus.org/translate/diodorus40.html.

24
Holladay, Carl R. “Hecataeus, Pseudo-.” Edited by David Noel Freedman. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary.
New York: Doubleday, 1992.

25
Craig A. Evans, “Sanhedrin,” ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow, The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early
Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 1193.
 12

judges over Israel. But according to this ancient observer of Judaism, it was the priests who had
been appointed judges by Moses.

3.4 NONCANONICAL JEWISH WORKS, CIRCA 2ND CENTURY BCE: THE PRIESTS HAVE RELIGIOUS
AUTHORITY
Jewish people of the Second Temple period (5th century BCE to 70 CE) wrote many religious works,
yet few of them were preserved within Traditional Judaism. Even though most of these works are
unfamiliar to Traditional Jews today, each of the following quotations came from Jewish pens.
According to these authors, their religious authorities were the High Priest, the other priests, and
the Levites:

Reference Quotation Comment

1 Maccabees “Jonathan, high priest of the nation, and This is an introductory address at the
12:6 the council and the priests and the beginning of a letter, with the High
remaining people of the Judeans…” Priest listed first in importance (as
author of the official letter) and with
the council (Sanhedrin) behind him,
the priests behind the council, and
the people behind them.
3 Maccabees “And when they said it was not proper to The high priest “is leader of all.”
1:11 do this because the Gentiles do not enter
in, nor all the priests, but only the chief
priest, who is leader of all, and for this
one once only during a year.”
4 Maccabees “So the king allowed him to be the high The high priest was appointed to lead
4:18 priest and to lead the nation.” the nation.
Sirach 45:15- ⌊ Moses ordained [Aaron]⌋ and anointed The priests have “authority in
17 him with sacred olive oil; it became an covenants of judgment” and to teach
eternal covenant with him and with his Israel the Torah.
seed, ⌊as long as the sky endures⌋, to
minister to him together and to serve as a
priest, and to bless his people by the
name. 16 He chose him from all who are
living, to offer burnt offerings to the
Lord, incense and a sweet smell as a
memorial, to make atonement for your
 13

people. 17 He gave him, by his

commandments, authority in covenants
of judgment, to teach Jacob the
testimonies and to summon Israel with
his law. 26
Jubilees And [Levi and Judah] drew near to Levi’s sons are the judges and rulers
31:11-15 [Jacob] and he turned and kissed them and leaders of all the people of Israel.
and embraced the both of them together. They will speak righteously, execute
12
And a spirit of prophecy came down judgment righteously, and teach
upon his mouth. And he took Levi in his Israel the Torah.
right hand and Judah in his left hand.
13
And he turned to Levi first and he
began to bless him first, and he said to
him, “May the God of all, i.e. the LORD of
all ages, bless you and your sons in all
ages. 14 May the LORD give you and your
seed very great honor. May he draw you
and your seed near to him from all flesh
to serve in his sanctuary as the angels of
the presence and the holy ones. May your
sons’ seed be like them with respect to
honor and greatness and sanctification.
And may he make them great in every
age. 15 And they will become judges and
rulers and leaders for all of the seed of the
sons of Jacob. The word of the LORD they
will speak righteously, and all of his
judgments they will execute righteously.

26
Rick Brannan et al., eds., The Lexham English Septuagint (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012), Sir
45:15–17.
 14

And they will tell my ways to Jacob, and

my paths to Israel. 27
Jubilees “And [Jacob] gave all of his books and his The Levites had the religious
45:15 fathers’ books to Levi, his son, so that he authority to be the keepers of the
might preserve them and renew them for Scriptures and the scribes who “renew
his sons until this day.” them” by writing new scrolls. This
authority was supposed to last “until
this day,” meaning perpetually.
Philo, Just as each single individual who is The High Priest dispenses justice to
Special Laws wilfully murdered has kinsmen to inflict litigants according to the Torah, and
III.131 vengeance on the murderer, so too the does so for the whole nation.
whole nation has a kinsman and close
relative common to all in the high priest,
who as ruler dispenses justice to litigants
according to the law, who day by day
offers prayers and sacrifices and asks for
blessings, as for his brothers and parents
and children, that every age and every
part of the nation regarded as a single
body may be united in one and the same
fellowship, making peace and good order
their aim.28
Philo, So then if the facts create a sense of If a difficult case is too hard to decide,
Special Laws uncertainty and great obscurity, and he a lower judge should decline to judge
IV.190-192 feels that his apprehension of them is but the case and should instead send the
dim, he should decline to judge the cases case up to “more discerning judges.”
and send them up to more discerning Philo asks, “Who should these be but
judges. And who should these be but the the priests, and the head and leader of
priests, and the head and leader of the the priests?” Additionally, the true

27
James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament: Expansions of the
“Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom, and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments
of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, vol. 2 (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1985), 115.

28
Philo, Philo, trans. F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, and J. W. Earp, vol. 7, The Loeb Classical Library
(London; England; Cambridge, MA: William Heinemann Ltd; Harvard University Press, 1929–1962).
 15

priests? For the genuine ministers of God priests are invested with the gift of
have taken all care to sharpen their prophecy, explaining why they are the
understanding and count the slightest final say in the High Court.
error to be no slight error, because the
surpassing greatness of the King whom
they serve is seen in every matter; and
therefore all officiating priests are
commanded to abstain from strong drink
when they sacrifice, that no poison to
derange the mind and the tongue should
steal in and dim the eyes of the
understanding. Another possible reason
for sending such cases to the priests is
that the true priest is necessarily a
prophet, advanced to the service of the
truly Existent by virtue rather than by
birth, and to a prophet nothing is
unknown since he has within him a
spiritual sun and unclouded rays to give
him a full and clear apprehension of
things unseen by sense but apprehended
by the understanding.
Testimony God gave Levi the authority, and to Judah The Levites are rules and give
of Reuben with him, [as well as to me and to Dan instructions concerning justice and
8
6.7-8 and to Joseph], to be rulers. It is for this sacrifice, and will do so until “the
reason that I command you to give heed consummation of times” – that is, the
to Levi, because he will know the law of end of the age.
God and will give instructions concerning
justice and concerning sacrifice for Israel
until the consummation of times; he is
the anointed priest of whom the Lord
spoke.29

29
Testimony of Reuben 6.7–8. James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1 (New York;
London: Yale University Press, 1983), 784–785.
 16

Table 2 - Intertestamental Works

These quotations speak for themselves – according to these sources, the priests and Levites had the
supreme religious authority during this time period, and that authority included teaching the Torah,
deciding legal cases, and serving on the High Court, which was headed by the High Priest.

3.5 THE JEWISH HISTORIAN JOSEPHUS: THE PRIESTS HAVE RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY
The first century CE historian Josephus is our primary source for the history of the Jewish people
during the Hellenistic Era. He was not the only Jewish man to write a history of the period, but he is
the only one whose works still survive.32 Thankfully, Josephus’ history is comprehensive and
detailed.

Josephus scholar Louis Feldman writes, “The high priesthood, according to Josephus Flavius’
judgment, was the most important institution of Early Judaism with regard to cult, prophecy,
salvation, and worldly policy. In his opinion, the weal and woe of the Jewish people, and partially
also of the non-Jewish powers and nations, depended on the sacral and political activities of these
prominent office holders.”33

Before we give Josephus’ accounts of the religious rulers near his time, let us first look at his
paraphrase of the way Moses set up religious authority in the Torah. It sounds remarkably similar to
the Greek historian Hecataeus. In Josephus’ account, Moses says (emphasis added),

Let there be seven men to judge in every city, and these such as have been before most
zealous in the exercise of virtue and righteousness. Let every judge have two officers, allotted
him out of the tribe of Levi… But if these judges be unable to give a just sentence about the
causes that come before them (which case is not unfrequent in human affairs), let them send

32
Other Jewish historians of the period were Justus of Tiberias and Nicolaus of Damascus. See Steven
Bowman, “Josephus in Byzantium,” in “Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity,” (Detroit: Wayne State University
Press, 1987) 366-8.

33
Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds., Josephus, the Bible, and History (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989), 196.
 17

the cause undetermined to the holy city, and there let the high priest, the prophet, and the
sanhedrin, determine as it shall seem good to them. 34

According to this understanding, the judges of each city have two Levite officers each, but when
they are unable to agree on a matter, the “high priest, the prophet, and the Sanhedrin” judge the
issue. They are the religious and legal authorities.

Josephus confirms this understanding when he writes that the priests “had the main care of the law
and of the other parts of the people’s conduct committed to them; for they were the priests who
were ordained to be the inspectors of all, and the judges in doubtful cases, and the punishers of
those that were condemned to suffer punishment.”35 Not only were the priests teachers of the
Torah, but they were judges over infractions of the Torah itself.

Concerning the High Priest, Josephus makes a connection between the one Temple and the one
High Priest who serves Israel by teaching and judging: “There ought also to be but one temple for
one God; for likeness is the constant foundation of agreement. This temple ought to be common to
all men, because he is the common God of all men. His priests are to be continually about his
worship, over whom he that is the first by his birth is to be their ruler perpetually. His business
must be to offer sacrifices to God, together with those priests that are joined with him, to see that
the laws be observed, to determine controversies, and to punish those that are convicted of injustice;
while he that does not submit to him shall be subject to the same punishment, as if he had been
guilty of impiety towards God himself.”36

However, the most important evidence that Josephus hands down to us is an entire chapter listing
the High Priests from the time of the Babylonian Exile until the Destruction of Jerusalem by Rome
(Antiquities XX.10). Josephus claims that there were 83 high priests from Aaron until Phannias,
who was elevated to the post during the Roman siege in 70.

34
Antiquities 4.214, 218. Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and
Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987). Emphasis added.

35
Against Apion 2.185-87

36
Against Apion 2.193-194
 18

Early Judaism scholar James C. VanderKam has analyzed Josephus’ list of High Priests and has given
their dates and the names of other historical sources that mention them. Essentially, VanderKam
has done for Josephus what we have done above in the Chain of Tradition:

Josephus’ List of High Priests With Dates and Cross-References38

From the Exile to 30 BCE From 30 BCE to 68 CE
Joshua Aristobulus III (35) (the last Hasmonean high priest)
Joiakim Jesus son of Phiabi (30–24/22)
Eliashib (Nehemiah’s contemporary) Simon son of Boethus (24/22–25)
Joiada Mattathias son of Theophilus (5–4)
Johanan (mentioned in a papyrus from Elephantine, dated Joazar son of Boethus (4 B.C.E.?–6 C.E.)
407 B.C.E.) Eleazar son of Boethus (4 B.C.E.)
Jaddua (contemporary of Alexander the Great) Jesus son of Seë (4 B.C.E.-?)
Onias I (1 Macc. 12:20–23?) Ananus son of Seth/Sethi (6–15 C.E.) (the Annas of the
Simon I (Sirach 50?) New Testament [Luke 3:2; John 18:13, 24; Acts 4:6])
Eleazar (the Letter of Aristeas identifies him as the high Ishmael son of Phiabi (15–16?)
priest when the Torah was translated into Greek) Eleazar son of Ananus (16–17?)
Manasseh Simon son of Camith (17–18)
Onias II Joseph Caiaphas (18–36/37) (high priest when Jesus was
Simon II arrested [Matt. 26:3, 57; Luke 3:2; John 11:49; 18:13–
Onias III (?–175 B.C.E.) (2 Maccabees) 14, 24, 28; Acts 4:6])
Jason (175–72) (2 Maccabees) Jonathan son of Ananus (36 or 37)
Menelaus (172–62) (2 Maccabees) Theophilus son of Ananus (37–41)
[Onias IV, a son of Onias III who may have served as high Simon Cantheras son of Boethus (41–42)
priest briefly] Matthias son of Ananus (42–43?)
Alcimus (162–60/59) (1–2 Maccabees) Elionaeus son of Cantheras (43?–45)
Jonathan (152–42) (first Hasmonean high priest, civil and Joseph son of Camei (45–48)
military leader; 1–2 Maccabees) Ananias son of Nedebaeus (48–59) (the high priest involved
Simon [III] (142–34) (1–2 Maccabees) in the trial of Paul [Acts 23:2; 24:1])
John Hyrcanus (134–104) (1 Maccabees) Ishmael son of Phiabi (59–61)
Aristobulus I (104–103) Joseph son of Simon (61–62)
Alexander Jannaeus (103–76) Ananus son of Ananus (62) (the high priest who had James
Hyrcanus II (76–67, 63–40) executed)
Aristobulus II (67–63) Jesus son of Demnaeus (62–63?)
Antigonus (40–37) (last Hasmonean high priest and king) Jesus son of Gamaliel (63–64)
Ananel (37–35, 35–30?) (the first of Herod’s appointees as Matthias son of Theophilus (64–66?)
high priest) Phannias son of Samuel (68?)
Table 3 - Josephus' List of High Priests

38
James C. VanderKam, “High Priests,” ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow, The Eerdmans Dictionary of
Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 740.
 19

This list given by Josephus stands as a competing claim of religious authority versus the rabbis’
Chain of Tradition. Josephus’ list has multiple connections to outside sources, such as 1-2
Maccabees, Sirach, and the New Testament. For example, Josephus names three high priests that
appear in the New Testament: Ananus, Joseph Caiaphas,39 and Ananias. These multiple cross-
references are a feature that the rabbis’ Chain of Tradition lacks.

3.6 MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE, JOHN, AND ACTS, 1ST CENTURY CE: THE PRIESTS HAVE RELIGIOUS
AUTHORITY
As historical documents, the Gospels and Acts record the political, legal, and religious situation in
1st century Judea. Alongside Josephus, the New Testament is the best source of historical
information for the period we have available. The accounts in the New Testament agree that the
High Priest was the finalized decision-maker, sometimes equating the decision of the Sanhedrin
with the High Priest himself.

This may be seen in the parallel accounts of Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin. Caiaphas served as
High Priest during Jesus’ trial, so the portrayals of his power are instructive. Matthew and Mark
depict Caiaphas as needing ratification for his emotional decision to condemn Jesus when he asks
the Sanhedrin, “What do you think?”, but it is still clear that Caiaphas is the sponsor of the motion
and thus ultimately responsible (Matthew 26:65-66, Mark 14:63-64). Luke puts the words attributed
to Caiaphas by Matthew and Mark into the mouth of the entire Council, thus signifying that
Caiaphas’ decisions were viewed as the authoritative position of the entire Sanhedrin (Luke 22:66-
71).40 This equating of Caiaphas with the Sanhedrin is even more apparent in John, who neglects to

39
There is even archaeological evidence for Caiaphas being an important priest in this era. In 1990, Israeli
archaeologists discovered a first-century ossuary (bone box) with “Joseph son of Caiaphas” on carved on the
outside, and the bones of a 60-year-old man inside. The scholarly consensus is that this is the same Joseph
Caiaphas as mentioned in the New Testament and Josephus. Additionally, in 2011, archaeologists from Bar-
Ilan and Tel Aviv University discovered another ossuary, called the Miriam ossuary, which has an inscription
that names Miriam as “daughter of Yeshua son of Caiaphas, priests of Ma’aziah from Beth Imri.” This is
further evidence that Caiaphas was a priest. See the archaeological report here:
http://lisa.biu.ac.il/files/lisa/shared/n-Miriam_Ossuary_-_Offprint_from_IEJ_61-2011.pdf

40
We actually find a remnant of this understanding of the priest representing many others in the Mishnah, in
m. Horayoth 2:1: “For an [erroneous] decision of an anointed [high] priest for himself is tantamount to an
[erroneous] decision of a court for the entire community.”
 20

mention the Sanhedrin at all, but simply remarks that Jesus was sent to Caiaphas the High Priest
(John 18:24).

Furthermore, in the book of Acts, the early Messianic Jewish followers of Jesus are summoned
before the Sanhedrin because of their message that Jesus had risen from the dead. This occurs
multiple times in the book of Acts, since the teachings of Jesus’ followers were threatening the
authority of the Sanhedrin.

In Acts 4:5-6, the convocation of the Sanhedrin is described, this time with multiple high priests
mentioned: “On the next day their rulers and elders and scribes gathered together in Jerusalem, with
Annas the high priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly
family.” Although the entire Sanhedrin was present, the high priest Annas [Ananus in Josephus] and
other high priests are singled out because of their authority.

The followers of Jesus got in trouble again in Acts 5:17-8, where it says, “But the high priest rose up,
and all who were with him (that is, the party of the Sadducees), and filled with jealousy they
arrested the apostles and put them in the public prison.” In this passage, we learn not only that the
high priest had religious authority, but that there were many Sadducees in the Sanhedrin along with
him.41 It must have been a source of frustration for the Pharisees to have such powerful Sadducees
in the Sanhedrin.

In Acts 5:24, we learn about “the captain of the temple” who is associated with leadership of the
chief priests (cf. Acts 4:1). Josephus uses the same title (strategos, στρατηγὸς) to describe the
second in command under the high priest (Antiquities 20.131). There is a first and second in
command of the Sanhedrin, as the rabbis claim, but in these sources, they are the high priest and
the captain of the temple.

Finally, in Acts 9:14, it is said that the Paul had “authority from the chief priests” to destroy the
early community of Jewish believers (that is, before Paul came to believe in Jesus himself). Many
other passages in Acts tell the same story.42 According to the New Testament, the religious
authorities over Jewish people in the 1st century were the priests of the Sanhedrin.

41
Similar conclusions can be reached from Acts 5:21

42
Acts 22:5, 24:1, 25:2, 25:15, 26:10, 26:12,
 21

3.7 TWO COMPETING NARRATIVES: THE TANNAIM VERSUS ALL OTHER SOURCES
We have surveyed multiple accounts about who was in religious power during the era before the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. We have found two competing narratives in these accounts:

Who held religious authority over Israel before 70 CE?

Answers:
The Priests (esp. High Priest) The Pharisaic Zugot
According to: According to:
• th
Torah (14 century BCE) • The Tannaim in the Mishnah (2nd
• Nehemiah (5th century BCE) century CE)
• Chronicles (5th century BCE)
• Aramaic Papyri (5th century BCE)
• Hecataeus of Abdera (4th century BCE)
• 1, 3, and 4 Maccabees, Sirach, and
Jubilees (2nd century BCE)
• Testimonies of Judah and Levi (1st
century BCE)
• Philo (1st century CE)
• Josephus (1st century CE)
• Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts (1st
century CE)
Table 4 - The Sources Compared

On the left side of the table, we have contemporary accounts written by people who lived during the
time of the Second Temple. All of these older reports say that the High Priest was the supreme
religious and legal leader over Israel, and other priests had lesser roles. According to the later report
in the Mishnah, after the Temple’s destruction, the priests are not mentioned. Instead, we are told
that the Pharisees in the Zugot were the religious and legal authorities over Israel.

This is a serious contradiction. Who has the history right? Who had real religious authority before
70 CE: the High Priests, or the Pharisaic scholars?

4 SOME ATTEMPTED SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM

This historical problem was unknown for centuries, mostly because it required crossing the Jewish-
Christian divide. For many centuries, Jews were happy to study only rabbinic sources, and
Christians were content with leaving rabbinic sources out of their studies. On top of this, there has
 22

been a historical language divide. Most of the sources siding with the priests are written in Greek,
whereas the rabbinic sources siding with the Pharisees are written in Hebrew and Aramaic. For most
of the last 1500 years, with few exceptions,43 it was rare for a Gentile to read Hebrew and rare for a
Jewish person to read Greek. Consequently, these sources were not compared to each other because
doing so required cross-disciplinary, cross-lingual, and cross-religious skills that few people had.

Today, cross-disciplinary scholars abound in Second Temple Judaism studies, so modern scholars
have noted this discrepancy.44 Few from within Traditional Judaism have noticed these issues,
perhaps because reading works outside of the rabbinic canon is frowned upon. However, other
Jewish scholars without such aversion have noticed the problem. Emil Hirsoh, in the Jewish
Encyclopedia, noted, “The high priest was the presiding officer of the Sanhedrin. This view conflicts
with the later Jewish tradition according to which the Pharisaic Tannaim at the head of the
academies presided over the great Sanhedrin also (Hag. 2:2).”45 Hugo Mantel, in the Encyclopedia
Judaica, wrote, “Another aspect of the conflict between the sources is that whereas the tannaitic
documents represent the Sanhedrin as being composed of Pharisaic scholars, headed by the

43
Of course there were many Byzantine Jews who spoke Greek, and both Origen and Jerome could read
Hebrew, but it was not until the Renaissance that Christians started regaining knowledge of Hebrew.

44
Saldarini claims that the controversy has been known since at least Geiger in 1857. Anthony J. Saldarini,
“Sanhedrin,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 978.
Also see Sidney B. Hoenig, The Great Sanhedrin (Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1953), 121-32. Hugo Mantel,
Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 1961). Lester L Grabbe,
“Sanhedrin, Sanhedriyyot, or Mere Invention?,” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic
and Roman Period 39, no. 1 (2008): 1–19. Paul Levertoff, “Sanhedrin.” Edited by James Orr, John L. Nuelsen,
Edgar Y. Mullins, and Morris O. Evans, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. (Chicago: The
Howard-Severance Company, 1915), 2690. G. H. Twelftree, “Sanhedrin.” Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K.
Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Second Edition (Downers Grove, IL;
Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; IVP, 2013) 836-40. W. D. Davies asks why the priesthood is not
included in the Chain of Tradition, without coming to a definitive answer why. W.D. Davies ,”Reflexions on
Tradition: The Aboth Revisited,” in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox,
Cambridge: CUP Archive, 1967, page 130.

45
Hirsoh, “High Priest,” Jewish Encyclopedia, 6:393.
 23

foremost men of the sect – the nasi and av bet din – the Hellenistic accounts usually make the high
priest, or the king, the president of the body.”46

There are multiple ways that scholars have attempted to solve this problem, as seen in the table
below:47

Option 1. Tannaitic Option 2. Synthesis Option 3. Synthesis Option 4. Hellenistic

Primacy A48 B49 Primacy
Chain of Tradition is Both text families are Both text families are Josephus, New
correct correct due to joint correct, due to there Testament,
leadership, separate being a political Apocrypha, etc. are
divisions of the Sanhedrin (Hellenistic correct, and the Chain
Sanhedrin, or texts) and a religious of Tradition is
subcommittees Sanhedrin (Mishnah) mistaken
Zugot had authority Priests and Zugot had Priests and Zugot had Priests had authority
over the Sanhedrin shared authority authority in different over the Sanhedrin
realms
Table 5 - Attempted Solutions

In traditional Judaism, only Option 1 is allowed: the Zugot had authority, end of story. But is this
the most plausible solution to the evidence we have?

46
Mantel, “Sanhedrin,” Encyclopedia Judaica, 837

47
Cf. Saldarini, 978 for discussion of Options 2-4. He does not even consider Option 1. Also see Mantel,
“Sanhedrin,” Encyclopedia Judaica, 837. Rabbinic scholar E.P Sanders does not consider the rabbinic claims
because the evidence saying otherwise is so strong: E. P. Sanders, “Law: Law in Judaism of the NT Period,” ed.
David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 261-2. Everett
Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 567-68.

48
Proposed by Chwolson, Schreier, Katzenelson according to Hoenig, 121-132.

49
First proposed by Büchler in 1902, and defended by Zeitlin, Mantel, and Hoenig. See Saldarini, 978. Hugo
Mantel’s defense is contained in his Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin (Harvard University Press:
Cambridge, 1961). Sidney B. Hoenig, The Great Sanhedrin (Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1953).
 24

4.1 EVALUATING THE SOLUTIONS

Let us consider each of the four options presented above.

4.1.1 Option 1: The Pharisees of the Chain of Tradition Were the Leaders of the Sanhedrin
The Traditional Jewish position is Option 1: the Zugot in the Chain of Tradition were the real
leaders of the Sanhedrin. If this were the case, then we must be able to explain why all the other
sources say something different. Why do Jewish and Gentile and Messianic Jewish sources outside
of the Mishnah say that priests had religious authority during the Second Temple period? A position
which says that Hillel and Shammai ran the Sanhedrin must explain why others claimed the High
Priest had that role.

This is a predicament that most Jewish people have never been exposed to. Most Orthodox Jews
believe in Option 1 precisely because they have not been exposed to sources which say otherwise. A
belief in a rabbinic Sanhedrin makes sense only if limited to reading the Mishnah and Gemara. This
is a biased and selective approach to discovering what happened during the Second Temple Period.
The reports outside the Mishnah and Gemara are credible reports of the Sanhedrin’s leadership
structure, and they are often just as Jewish in character as the rabbis’ teachings themselves.

Once we start reading the Jewish and Gentile and Messianic Jewish works outside of the rabbis’ own
library, we cannot hold to this position with intellectual credibility. We would have to postulate a
vast conspiracy theory in which the tale of priestly power was fabricated - but for what purpose?
What motive would Josephus and Jesus’ followers and a Gentile historian have in fabricating a lie
that priests presided over the Sanhedrin?50 Such a fabrication would gain them nothing.

50
Mantel is quite dismissive of Josephus and the New Testament, postulating implausible reasons for their
silence on the Zugot leading the Sanhedrin. He accuses Josephus as being too devoted to the priestly order to
bring himself to mention the Pharisaic leadership of the high court (Mantel, 97). But what motive would
Josephus have in staying silent? Josephus has no problems mentioning the degeneration of the high priestly
office (Wars, 4.147-57), to the detriment of his own position on the priesthood. Josephus is not shy of
embarrassment on this issue. Why would he be embarrassed to mention the Zugot in the Sanhedrin? Mantel is
also dismissive of the Book of Acts. He postulates that Luke had a motive to demote the position of Gamaliel
in the Sanhedrin (Acts 5:34) in order to protect the Davidic heritage of Jesus from the Davidic lineage of
Hillel, Gamaliel, and Gamaliel II (Mantel, 98). But there is nothing negative in Acts’ portrayal of Gamaliel – it
is actually quite friendly. If Luke truly wanted to fight against Gamaliel’s position, he either would have
 25

4.1.2 Options 2 and 3: Attempts to Synthesize Priestly and Rabbinic Control

Some scholars have attempted to make all the sources correct at the same time by synthesizing
them. The problem with these solutions is that there is a lack of actual evidence for a synthesis.
They are ingenious solutions that appear to solve the discrepancy, but the solutions are only
theoretical, conjectures in the minds of the scholar.

Some say that the Pharisees had legal authority, whereas the priests only had “religious” authority
pertaining to matters at the Temple.51 Since the priests were the administrators of the Temple who
performed the divine worship and the sacrifices, they were the authorities over that realm. But
outside of the Temple, the Pharisees, such as Hillel and Shammai, held legal authority in the legal
Sanhedrin. But this distinction between “legal” and “religious” realms is not present in the
contemporary Jewish sources. They indeed say that the High Priest was the top judge in the Judean
legal system, which encompassed all of Jewish life, not just procedures in the Temple.52

Likewise, there is no positive evidence that there was a political Sanhedrin and a religious one. Some
scholars have tried to posit a difference between gerousia, boule, and synedrion, all Greek terms for
a Jewish ruling council, but this has been unsuccessful.53 Moreover, there is no evidence that the
Zugot traded places with the High Priests. These synthesizing solutions not only have a lack of
evidence, but they do not fit the situation in the first century. Magnum and Babota write,

Scholars have attempted to explain the variety in the evidence by postulating two or more
official councils. The most common division is the theory of two Sanhedrins: a political one
concerned with secular issues and a religious one concerned with issues of religious law.
This division, however, is artificial and unlikely, based on a modern distinction between
secular and religious facets of life. In ancient Jewish society, religion and politics were

painted him in negative light, or would not have mentioned him at all. Hoenig 40-41 likewise gives a series of
implausible loopholes to explain away the presidency of the High Priest in Josephus, 1 Maccabees, and the
book of Acts. These are not serious attempts to deal with the sources.

51
Counter-missionary Moshe Shulman conveyed this explanation to me in private discussion

52
Philo, Special Laws IV.188-192, Josephus, Against Apion 2.185-87, 2.193-194, the New Testament

53
Grabbe, 7-13.
 26

thoroughly woven into the fabric of Jewish daily life. There was no distinction between civil,
criminal, and religious matters, and the same high council likely dealt with all of them.54

Second Temple scholar Craig Evans says that Hoenig’s solution of multiple councils is a
“complicated hypothesis” that “relies too heavily on rabbinic traditions that in all probability have
indulged in midrashic hagiography [sage veneration] and tend to read rabbinic ideals back into
earlier periods.”55

Unfortunately, while the synthesizing positions try to make all the sources fit, they do not rest on
good historical foundations. While Options 2 and 3 may be possible, they are unlikely to have been
the reality on the ground.

4.1.3 Option 4 – The Priests were the Leaders of the Sanhedrin

If we postulate that priests were the actual leaders of the Sanhedrin, then we satisfy the claims of the
sources we have from the Second Temple Period. However, we run into a problem with the sources
written afterward by the Tannaim, namely the Mishnah. If the priests were leaders of the Sanhedrin,
then we need to have an adequate explanation for why later rabbinic sources say otherwise. Let us
consider some of the possible reasons below.

4.2 WHY WOULD THE TANNAIM CLAIM THE ZUGOT HAD POWER, WHEN THEY REALLY DID NOT?
4.2.1 Possibility #1: The Tannaim Made an Honest Mistake
Perhaps the Tannaim claimed that the Zugot controlled the Sanhedrin because they were misled to
think so. Perhaps the destruction of Jerusalem was a catastrophe that created a fog of confusion over
2nd century Jews’ recollection of the past. Thus, they projected their ideal system of religious
government upon the earlier period, without attempting to be dishonest.

The problem with this solution is that it turns the Tannaim into uninformed simpletons. The Jewish
leaders who rallied Israel to survive amid the Roman destructions were not so naïve. There was no
foggy recollection of the past – nearly all of the Mishnah is a recollection of specific details of
observances performed in the Temple and in life before the Roman destruction. Clearly, cultural

54
Douglas Mangum and Vasile Babota, “Sanhedrin,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary
(Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

55
Craig A. Evans, “Sanhedrin,” ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow, The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early
Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 1193.
 27

memories of pre-70 situations had survived. It is too implausible to say that the Tannaim were
misinformed about the leadership of the Sanhedrin.

Also, if the rabbis made an honest mistake in identifying the Zugot as the leaders of the Sanhedrin,
it was a terribly convenient mistake. The Pharisaic Zugot were the Tannaim’s ideological fathers. By
making a mistake that the Zugot were in power, the rabbis would have gained hereditary power
themselves. This conflict of interest makes this mistake less than honest and innocent.

We cannot explain the rabbis’ claims by saying that they made a simple mistake. There must be
another solution.

4.2.2 Possibility #2: The Tannaim Neglected to Mention the Priesthood out of Embarrassment
What would motivate the Tannaim to write an “official history” that leaves out any mention of the
priesthood? Perhaps it is because the priesthood was widely discredited after the Roman sword came
to Jerusalem in 70 CE.

Gedalyahu Alon of Hebrew University writes about the corruption of the High Priesthood during
the first century.56 He uncovers how multiple Jewish and Christian sources claim that the High
Priesthood degenerated into an office that was bought and sold for money. The biblical succession
of priesthood from father to son was abolished, the High Priesthood changed hands as often as
yearly, and people without high priestly stock gained the office.

Second Temple scholar Gottlob Schrenk wrote, “By the time of Jesus this confusion had broken the
influence of the high-priest beyond repair, and political caprice, assisted by simony and competition,
and the growing power of the scribes and Pharisees in the cultus and the Sanhedrin, had further
undermined it. Nevertheless, the high-priest was still the supreme religious representative of the
Jewish people.”57

These scholars draw these conclusions primarily from Josephus, who described the sorry fate of the
high priesthood in his historical accounts. While the Romans besieged Jerusalem, the High

56
Gedalyahu Alon, Jews, Judaism, and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the
Second Temple and Talmud, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1977), 48-88.

57
Gottlob Schrenk, “Ἱερός, Τὸ Ἱερόν, Ἱερωσύνη, Ἱερατεύω, Ἱεράτευμα, Ἱερατεία, (-Ία), Ἱερουργέω, Ἱερόθυτος,
Ἱεροπρεπής, Ἱεροσυλέω, Ἱερόσυλος, Ἱερεύς, Ἀρχιερεύς,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard
Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 268–269.
 28

Priesthood became a political pawn amongst a Jewish civil war. The succession of high priests was
annulled, and whoever had the most power appointed “unknown and ignoble persons” for the high
priesthood so “they might have their assistance in their wicked undertakings” (Wars 4.147-48).
Josephus laments that the final high priest, Phannias, was elevated to his post by the randomness of
lot, and that he did not even know what the high priesthood was. This weak man took the orders of
whoever pushed him the most. Josephus writes, “This horrid piece of wickedness was sport and
pastime with them, but occasioned the other priests, who at a distance saw their law made a jest of,
to shed tears, and sorely lament the dissolution of such a sacred dignity” (Wars, 4.157). While the
Romans attacked Judea in 70 CE, the priesthood was being made into a mockery.

Things only became worse after the Romans breached Jerusalem’s walls. The Roman general Titus
exterminated many of the priests in Jerusalem in 70 CE, killing off the Sadducee party and the
Sanhedrin. Josephus records the horrific scene in which the surviving priests came down from the
rubble of the destroyed Temple after five days of hiding, begging the Romans for their lives (Wars
6.321-2). No mercy was given – Titus exterminated them all.

This turn of events may have turned public opinion against the priesthood as an institution. Their
leadership had gotten Israel into this mess. As one later rabbi said, “If you see a generation on which
great troubles break, go and examine the judges of Israel, for any punishment that comes into the
world comes only on account of the judges of Israel.”58 The priests had been the judges of the
people, and they had failed.

This may plausibly explain why the priesthood was downplayed or ignored by many Jewish people
after the destruction of Jerusalem. The priesthood may have been the legitimate religious and legal
authority over Israel, but that authority had only brought catastrophe. Jewish people, including the
Pharisaic rabbis, started looking for other options.

While this possibility may explain why the Tannaim left out any mention of the priesthood in Pirke
Avot and Hagigah, it doesn’t explain why they put the Pharisaic Zugot in their place. We need to
consider a further possibility for to explain the switch.

58
B. Shabbat 139a. This saying is attributed to R. Yosé b. Elisha, but this name does not show up elsewhere.
At least one Orthodox publication claims that this was a scribal mistake and that the real speaker is R. Ishmael
b. Elisha. Shulamis Frieman, Who’s Who in the Talmud (New Jersey, Jerusalem: Jason Aronson Inc, 1995),
406-7.
 29

4.2.3 Possibility #3: The Tannaim Rewrote History to Fill a Power Vacuum
As discussed above, the destruction of Jerusalem led to a leadership crisis. Who was going to
support a decimated, discredited, and dishonorable priesthood any longer? The Sanhedrin of priests
and judges had been destroyed, and there was a power vacuum at the top. Anarchy and confusion
reigned amongst Jewish people in the wake of the destruction. What happened next is connected to
the political and religious currents that swirled before the destruction.

Josephus writes about the power struggle between the priests and the Pharisees before the
destruction of the Temple. Although the priests were the divinely-appointed legal and religious
leaders of Israel, the Pharisees grew in influence to have the hearts of the people. The Pharisees “are
those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explication of their laws”59 and “have the multitude
on their side.”60 Josephus speaks of mingling with “the high priests and the chief of the Pharisees,”61
thereby referring to two power structures, and in another account, he highlights the religious
politics of having priests and Pharisees in resolving disputes.62

But what would happen if a catastrophic event were to neutralize the power of the priesthood? What
would happen next?

Power vacuums never stay for long. Someone eventually will rise up to fill the gap, and the Pharisees
were eager for the opportunity. According to the traditions of the rabbis, one man was ideally placed
to fill the power vacuum: the Pharisee Yohanan ben Zakkai.

The story of Yohanan’s escape from Jerusalem during its siege is told in Avot de Rabbi Natan and b.
Gittin 56B. Yohanan, a prominent Pharisee scholar, escaped from the city in a coffin and then
negotiated with Vespasian to have the freedom to establish a yeshiva (school) in Yavneh. From there
he would set about the task of training a new generation of Pharisaic scholars to take the Torah to
Israel. As Shulamis Frieman explains,

59
Wars 2.162

60
Antiquities 13.298

61
Life 21

62
Life 189-198
 30

“The sages and students in Yavneh realized that the tremendous task of organizing Jewish
life lay in their hands. Now that the Temple was destroyed, many of the divine
commandments were impossible to perform, and the national cohesiveness for the Jewish
people was lost. The decisive leadership and center of Torah for the Jewish people was
therefore created anew in Yavneh.”63

There was one problem, however. Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai was not a priest, and he did not sit on
the Sanhedrin before the Temple’s destruction. There was no continuity between Yohanan and the
top religious authorities who came before him. According to the Torah and according to centuries of
Jewish practice, a High Priest was supposed to be the religious leader of the Jewish people. Yet
people started flocking to Yavneh and started accepting Yohanan’s Torah leadership despite his lack
of priestly authority. His popularity was outstretching his lineage. He and his students were
becoming the de facto leaders of Israel, but they lacked official legitimacy. How were they to fix this?

There is a solution that fits the puzzle pieces together. It explains why early Jewish sources say the
priesthood had spiritual authority, and why post-Temple Jewish sources say the rabbis have spiritual
authority. The proposed solution is this: the rabbis’ quest to legitimize their own power by
illegitimately usurping the authority of the priesthood.

Like many of the previously cited scholars, we believe that the Chain of Tradition in Pirke Avot and
Hagigah are Tannaitic attempts to establish Yohanan and his followers as the only religious leaders
over Israel, but they crossed a line into dishonesty by misrepresenting the past. By elevating the
Zugot to the position of Sanhedrin leaders, Pirke Avot and Hagigah erased the priesthood from
history and replaced the priests with themselves.

4.3 THE COHANIM VERSUS THE TANNAIM IN POST-TEMPLE JUDAISM

While the Tannaim were the heirs of the Pharisees, only a few were priests. This was a problem,
since the requirement of priestly authority would have disqualified many rabbis from having official
religious power. By neglecting the authority of the priests and by elevating the Pharisees in their
historical accounts, the Tannaim established themselves as the only religious authorities over the
people of Israel. No longer were the priests the teachers of the Torah; now the rabbis were the
authority. No longer would Jewish people go to the priests for teaching and judgment, as required in

63
Frieman, xxix
 31

the Torah; now the rabbi was the sole judge over Jewish society. This became the status quo that
continues today, but it was a hard-fought battle to win.

Scholars have identified this battle for legitimacy in Jewish writings after the destruction of
Jerusalem. Rabbinic scholar Gary Porton writes, “Yohanan’s ritual innovations and his
disagreements with the priesthood place the rabbinic usurpation of priestly prerogatives at the very
inception of the rabbinic movement.”64 Philip Alexander, a British professor of post-biblical Jewish
literature, writes that after 70 CE, “the priests were in direct competition with the rabbis, whose
authority rested solely on their expertise in the law.”65 He continues,

The key difference between the rabbis and the priests, then, was not about the centrality of
the [T]orah, but about who had the authority to interpret it. The priests were on very strong
ground, because the [T]orah clearly assigned the task to them, not to the scribes. It may
have been to try to counter this that the rabbinate developed the fiction of the Oral Torah,
which tried to trace rabbinic tradition back to Sinai, and give it the same status as the
Written Torah.66

Cambridge and Jewish Theological Seminary scholar Israel Abrahams investigated the battle
between the priests and the rabbis: “We have examined a number of sources in the Tannaitic and
Amoraic tradition relative to the High Priests at the close of the Second Temple period, and we have
seen that they all adopt a censorious attitude towards the High Priesthood, which they regard as
essentially Hellenized…[W]e cannot in all instances treat them as historic testimony, nevertheless
many of the statements are undoubtedly historically correct. And as for the others, where the
sources are divergent, we must bear in mind that even they reflect socio-political conditions of

64
Gary G. Porton, “Yohanan Ben Zakkai,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New
York: Doubleday, 1992), 1025.

65
Philip S. Alexander, “What Happened To The Jewish Priesthood After 70?” in “A Wandering Galilean:
Essays in Honour of Seán Freyne,” Brill:2009. p. 26.

66
Alexander, 26-27
 32

substance, even though in their form and expression they cannot be substantiated.”67 Abrahams
distances himself from the religious claims of the rabbis, since they cannot be historically validated.

We only have a few remaining evidences of the battle for religious authority within post-Temple
Judaism. Josephus was a supporter of the priesthood even after the destruction of the Temple. In
Against Apion, which he wrote at least 25 years after the Sanhedrin had been extinguished (ie, circa
95 CE), Josephus still wanted the priesthood to reign as Israel’s spiritual authority. Despite the
catastrophe, Josephus still believed that there was no better government than the priesthood
established by God.68 He boldly proclaimed that the priests had preserved the Scriptures with
“utmost accuracy,” and that the priests would continue in that role despite the changed
circumstances.69 In Josephus’ mind, the destruction of 70 CE did not justify changing the priests’

67
Israel Abrahams, Jews, Judaism, and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the
Second Temple and Talmud (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1977), 75.

68
Against Apion 2.185-87. “And where shall we find a better or more righteous constitution than ours, while
this makes us esteem God to be the governor of the universe, and permits the priests in general to be the
administrators of the principal affairs, and withal intrusts the government over the other priests to the chief
high priest himself! which priests our legislator, at their first appointment, did not advance to that dignity for
their riches, or any abundance of other possessions, or any plenty they had as the gifts of fortune; but he
intrusted the principal management of divine worship to those that exceeded others in an ability to persuade
men, and in prudence of conduct. These men had the main care of the law and of the other parts of the
people’s conduct committed to them; for they were the priests who were ordained to be the inspectors of all,
and the judges in doubtful cases, and the punishers of those that were condemned to suffer punishment.”

69
Against Apion 1.28-29. “As to the care of writing down the records from the earliest antiquity among the
Egyptians and Babylonians; that the priests were intrusted therewith, and employed a philosophical concern
about it; that these were the Chaldean priests that did so among the Babylonians…they committed that matter
to their high priests and to the prophets, and that these records have been written all along down to our own
times with the utmost accuracy; nay, if it be not too bold for me to say it, our history will be so written
hereafter.”
 33

roles at all. It is possible that one aspect of Josephus’ bad reputation within later Jewish circles was
due to his praise of the priesthood.70

The priesthood became something for the Tannaim to separate themselves from and cast scorn on
whenever they had the chance. For example, rabbinics scholar David Instone-Brewer comments,

The later Sages liked to believe that the priests respected their predecessors’ superior
knowledge and obeyed them… E.g in t.Kipp.1.8: “they forced [the High Priest] to swear [to
obey the Sages]”; b.Yom.19b: “the father [of a priest who disobeyed the Sages] met him
[and] said to him: My son, although we follow the Sadducees we fear the Pharisees”;
m.Yom.1.6: “If [the High Priest] was a sage, he expounds [the Scriptures], and if not,
disciples of sages expound for him; if he was used to reading [Scriptures], he read, and if
not, they read for him.”71

The purpose of these passages is to assert the superiority of the Tannaitic sages in the face of a
priesthood that is still claiming the right to lead. 72 The Mishnah records that the priests continued
in their service after the destruction of the Temple,73 but before long, the rabbis were teaching that
Torah scholarship exceeds any priestly and royal authority.74 As the self-appointed Torah experts,

70
Of course, the fact that Josephus sold out to the Romans would seem to be a greater offense, but Josephus’
understanding of the priesthood does not fit within the worldview of the Mishnah.

71
David Instone-Brewer, Feasts and Sabbaths: Passover and Atonement, vol. 2A, Traditions of the Rabbis
from the Era of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2011), 145.

72
Interestingly, the Tannaim did not clean up all of the evidence of the priesthood having religious authority
before the Temple’s destruction. Every once in a while, they speak of how they had to submit to the decisions
of the priesthood. For example, in m. Pesachim 5:8, the Tannaim say that the priests disregarded the sages’
wishes regarding procedures in the Temple, and the sages couldn’t do anything about it.

73
m. Horayoth 3:4, m. Megilla 1:9

74
m. Avot 6:6 (in Kinyan Torah, cf. m. Avot 4:14): “Torah is greater than priesthood and kingship, for
kingship is acquired through thirty achievements, and priesthood through twenty-four, but the Torah is
 34

the Tannaim made the priests unnecessary. The rabbis soon won this battle and shut down the
active priesthood.75

Modern scholars do not believe the Zugot had religious authority over Second Temple Israel because
the Tannaim had too much to gain by claiming so, and because there are no accounts which confirm
the rabbis’ claims.76 Consequently, in our opinion, there is no need to synthesize the rabbis’ Chain
of Tradition with the other sources, since the Mishnah’s version of history is tainted and biased by
the unjustified absence of the priests. The Chain of Tradition may be “official history” in traditional
Judaism, but it is rewritten history in the pursuit of religious control.

5 CONCLUSION: A PRIESTHOOD IS STILL REQUIRED TODAY

Ever since Pirke Avot was written, the rabbis have been the spiritual leaders of Israel. This is the
status quo. However, it has not always been this way. The rabbis are a new breed of religious leader,
unlike anything given by God in the Hebrew Scriptures:

They have no political authority. They are not kings.

They have no cultic authority. They are not priests.
They have no prophetic authority. They are not prophets.
They only have legal authority. They are lawyers of religion.

acquired through forty-eight things.” William Berkson and Menachem Fisch, Pirke Avot: Timeless Wisdom
for Modern Life: Translation, First edition. (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2010), 215.

75
Daniel Gruber in Rabbi Akiva’s Messiah 150-51 writes that Akiba was instrumental in adding loopholes to
the requirements of tithing, thereby abolishing the Levites’ ability to survive on the tithes of the people. A
discussion on Stack Exchange concerning maaser rishon shows how tithing to Levites today is a rarity, forcing
Levites into secular occupation or the rabbinate: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/25891/why-
dont-we-distribute-maaser-rishon-or-maaser-ani-nowadays

76
For example, Grabbe, 19 is transparent about his neglect of the rabbinic accounts in his hypothesis about
the history of the Sanhedrin: “This hypothesis would be confounded if the “Sanhedrin” of rabbinic literature
had to be reconciled with it. However, in the light of recent study there is no need to assume that the rabbinic
picture is anything more than a later invention of rabbinic ideology, even if some of elements of a pre-70 body
have been correctly remembered and incorporated into it.”
 35

The elevation of rabbis over the priests has removed a significant argument which the New
Testament, namely the book of Hebrews, once saw as convincing toward a Jewish audience. It was
once assumed within Judaism that Israel required a High Priest as her religious head. Thus the
author of Hebrews could point to Jesus as the greater High Priest whose priesthood comes from a
higher and transcendent order than that of the Levitical priests (Heb. 7-8). According the worldview
of Hebrews, the loss of the active Levitical priesthood in 70 CE would not be a catastrophe, since
Jewish believers in Jesus retained the Great High Priest of heaven as their religious authority.
However, because the rabbis usurped the authority of the Levites and negated the need for an active
priesthood, Hebrews’ discussion about the Jesus the High Priest now has little currency with Jewish
people. It does not matter if Jesus can be described as a high priest; the concept is foreign and
unnecessary in the eyes of Jewish people today.

However, if we can find the opportunity to have a historical discussion with a Traditional Jewish
person about the leadership of the Sanhedrin, then we may have a way to convince him or her about
the continued necessity of the priesthood. It may lead to thoughts like this: “If God always requires
priests to lead Israel, and the rabbis are not priests, and there is no active Jewish priesthood today,
then who are our priests today? Are we left without any religious authorities as Jews? Why would
God leave us in a place with no priesthood?”

If we can lead a Jewish person to ask questions like this, then the pre-evangelism battle has been
won. Now we can proceed to share the good news about the Great High Priest after the pattern of
Melchizedek who has not left Israel without religious authority or atonement for sin. As God
required priestly leadership over Israel before 70 CE, so too he requires it today.