Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 13.djvu/498

 SAN JOS£

446

SAN JOS^

perfectly conversant with all the intricacies of the Law. Gauged by the standard of later times, the consideration which must have attached to this posi- tion of trust led to the misconception of the actual role of Hillel's descendants in the Sanhedrin, and thus very likely arose the tradition recorded in the Talmud.

Jurisdiction atid Procedure. — We have seen above how the jurisdiction of the Sanliedrin varied in ex- tension at different periods. At the time of the pubhc life of the Saviour, only the eleven toparchies of Judea were de jure subject to the Great Sanhedrin of Jeru- salem; however, de facto the Jews all the world over acknowledged its authority (as an instance of this, see Acts, ix. 2; xxii, 5; xxvi, 12). As the supreme court of justice of the nation, the Sanhedrin was appealed to when the lower courts were unable to come to a decision {Sarih., vii, 1; xi, 2); moreover, it had the exclusive right of judgment in matters of special importance, as for instance the case of a false prophet, accusations against the high priest, the sending out of an army in certain circumstances, the enlarging of the city of Jerusalem, or of the Temple courts, etc. (Sank., i, 5; ii, 4; iii, 4); the few instances men- tioned in the New Testament exemplify the cases to which the competency of the Sanhedrin extended; in short, all reUgious matters and all civil matters not claimed by Roman authority were within its attributions; and the decisions issued by its judges were to be held inviolable (Saiih., xi, 2-4). Whether or not the Sanhedrin had been deprived, at the time of Jesus Christ, of the right to carry death-sentences into execution, is a much-disputed question. On the one hand, that such a curtailing of the Sanhedrin's power did actually take place seems implied in the cry of the Jews: "It is not la-^^i'ul for us to put any man to death" (John, x^aii, 31), in the statement of Josephus (Ant., XX, ix, 1) and in those of the Tal- mud of Jer. (Sanh., 18a, 24b). Still we see in Acts, vii, St. Stephen put to death by the Sanhedrin; we read likewise in Talm. Jer. (Sanh., 24, 25) of an adul- teress burnt at the stake and a heretic stoned; and these three facts occurred precisely during the last forty years of the Temple's existence, when the power of life and death is supposed to have been no longer in the Sanhedrin. Assuming the two facts recorded in Tahn. Jer. to be historical, we might explain them away, just as the stoning of St. Stephen, and reconcile them with the curtailing of the Sanhedrin's rights by attributing them to outbursts of popular passion. Some scholars, however, deny that the Romans ever deprived the Sanhedrin of any part of its power: the Sanhedrin, they say, owing to the frequency of cases half-rehgious and half-pohtical in nature, in order not to alienate the feelings of the people and at the same time not to incur the displeasure of the Roman authorities, practically surrendered into the hands of the latter the right to approve capital sentences; the cry of the Jews: "it is not lawful for us to put any man to death", was therefore rather a flattery to the procurator than the expression of truth.

It should be noticed, however, that of these views the former is more favourably received by schol- ars. At all events, criminal causes were tried before a commission of twenty-three members (in urgent cases any twenty-three members might do) assembled under the presidency of the Ab Beth-Din; two other boards, also of twenty-three members each, studied the questions to be submitted to plenary meetings. These three sections had their separate places of meeting in the Temple buildings; the crimi- nal section met originally in the famous "Hall of the Hewn Stone" (Mishna. I-'eM.h, ii, 6; Eduyoth, vii, 4) which was on the w>uth side of the court {Middoth, V, 4) and server] also for the sittings of the "Great Sanhedrin", or plenary meetings; about a. d. .30, that same section was transffirred to another buikling closer to the outer wall ; they had also another meeting

place in property called khanyioth, "trade-halls", belonging to the family of Hanan (cf. John, xvii, 13). The members of the Sanhedrin sat in a semicircle that they might see one another while deliberating (Mishna^ Sarih., iv, 2; Tos., Sanh., vii, 1). Two clerks stood before them, the one to the right and the other to the left, to take down the votes (Mishna, Sanh., iv, 2). The members stood up to speak, and on matters of civil or ceremonial law the voting began with the principal member of the assembly, whereas the younger members were the first to give their opinion in criminal affairs. For judgments of the latter description a quorum of at least twenty-three members was required: a majority of one vote sufficed for the acquittal; for a condemnation a majority of two votes was necessary, except when all the members of the court (seventy-one) were present (Mishna, Sanh., iv; Tos., Sanh., vii).

Since in spite of the identity of names there is little in common between the old Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem and the schools of Jamnia and Tiberias, it is quite useless to dwell on the latter, as well as on the Kalla assemblies of Babylon. But it will not be amiss to mention the fact that before the fall of Jerusalem there were, besides the Great Sanhedrin we have dealt with above, local courts of justice some- times designated by the same name, in all the Jewish cities.

Besides the tracts Sanhedrin in both Talmuds, and the works of Josephus, which are the principal sources of information on the subject, we may cite the following works: Maimonides, De synedriis et poenis, Heb. and Lat. (Amsterdam, 1695); Reip- MANN, Sanhedrin, Heb. (Berdichef, 1888); Selden, De synedriis et prwfecturis juridicis veterum Ebrceorum (London, 1650); Ugolini, Thesaurus antiquitatum, XXV (Paris, 1672); Blum, Le sanhedrin. . . son origine et son histoire (Strasburg, 1889); Rabbinowicz, Legislation criminelle du Talrmid (Paris, 1876); Idem, Legislation civile du Talmud (Paris, 1877-80); Staffer, La Palestine au temps de Jesus-Christ (3rd ed., Paris, 1885), iv; BticHLER, Das Synedrion in Jerusalem (Vienna, 1902) ; Jeuski, Die innere Einrichtung des grossen Synedrion zu Jerusalem und ihre Forlsetzung im spdteren palastinensischen Lehrhause bis zur Zeit des R. Jehuda ha-Nasi (Breslau, 1894); Langen, Dos jiidische Synedrium und die riimische Procurator in Judda in Tubing, theol. Quartalschr. (1862), 411-63; Levy, Die Prdsi- dentur im Synedrium in Frankel's Monatsschr. (1885); Schurer, Geschichte des jiid. Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, II (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1898), 188 sq.

Charles L. Souvay.

San Jose de Costa Rica, Diocese of (Sancti JosEPHi DE Costarica). — The Repubhc of Costa Rica, Central America, constitutes this diocese as a suffragan see of the Archdiocese of Guatemala. It was established in 1850, and its Catholic population in 1910 amounted to 308,000, which is practically the total number of inhabitants in the country. There are in the republic: 103 priests, of whom 101 are secu- lar and 1 2 regular ; 68 parish churches; 98 chapels; 1 seminarj'; 1 diocesan college; 1 academy for girls; 2 orphan asylums; and 4 hospitals, all supported by the Church. "At San Jos^-, the capital of the republic and see of the diocese, are located the seminary with 10 students; the diocesan college with 150 pupils; the Acafiemy of the Sisters of Our I^ady of Sion with 35 sisters and 100 girls; 1 school for poor girls, connected with tlic sjiinc acadctny, with 80 pupils; 1 or|)han asy- lum, directed by the Sisters of Charity and caring for 230 orphans. There is in the city of Cart ago another orphan asvluin, under tlie Salesian lathers, with 233 orphans. In 1847 President Jose M. Castro entered into negotiations with the Holy See and secured the establishment of a bishopric at Costa Rica, and on 10 Ai)ril, 1851 the Rt. Rev. Anselmo T.lorente y La Fuente was appointed the first bishop, and conse- crated in Guatemala, 7 Sept., of the same year. ^ The present incumbent is Rt. Rev. Jvian Caspar Stork, consecrated 24 Aug., 1904. The cathedral of San Jos6 is the largest and handsomest religious edifice in the capital, and is noted for the dignity and elegance of its architecture. (See Costa Rica, Reimthlic of.) Julian Mokbno-Lacallb.