Talk:Sanhedrin

message: Almost the entire section pertaining to The Sandhedrin and Christianity was removed. Why is this even here when this is suppose to be about the Sandhedrin? Maybe a note and link should have been added instead,but I was quite appalled to come here to learn about the sandhedrin and find myself instead confronted by christian views about a person who has not even been proven to have existed. Obiviously the author had little interest in actually researching or giving accurate information regarding the supreme council and instead was biased in trying to link this to a possibly fictional event. The title of this article is Sanhedrin and should remained impartial and focused on the subject. Not wander all over the place, being mostly vague until the authors own personal views come into play.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwitsunaih (talk • contribs) 11:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Gospels?

message: :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.  
-- 06:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal

message: To the writer that stated Pontius Pilate has not been identified in any source other than the Bible please not: Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (c.A.D. 55-120), a Roman historian and pagan wrote concerning Jesus "...who were hated for their enormities.  Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also" (Annals XV, 44).  This provides secular confirmation of not only Pontius Pilate but also Tiberius and the death of Christ at the hands of Pilate.
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)
thread_title:  Modern Sanhedrin 

message: 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)
thread_title: Deletions

message: >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)
thread_title:  Armageddonic bullshit in the article! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Comments on the article 

message: 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)
thread_title: Rabbi Richman

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sensitive? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dating 

message: See  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)
thread_title:  Nice info 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This article is even more infomative 

message: 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)
replies: text: Added Great Sanhedrin and Lesser Sanhedrin section. --Shirahadasha 03:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain different types of Sanhedrins 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: Nixer, what you have done now is not going to remain without consequences. There was an extensive consensus that your proposed change was a completely ridiculous proposal. I am reporting this on the Administrator's noticeboard with a request for it to be reverted immediately, and for you to be given an official warning. --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also moved back the talk page.--Runcorn 16:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. If you could also leave a warning for Nixer, would also be nice. --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was already wondering how Runcorn (not administrator) had done that - it was  who moved the page back. --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Runcorn's a sysop. Yanksox 16:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh right, okay. Thanks. You blocked Nixer for 72 hours, I see. Note that he is an established sockpuppet (???? see bottom of user page) with a huge list of bans and accounts of vandalism. Time for permanent ban? --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: And then Nixer moved 'Sanhedrin' to 'Synedrion (Judea)' anyway

message: 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 jurisdiction.
:The main article needs a lot of work.  I am collecting information, and hope to add some, but go ahead and add yourself as well. --Historian2 06:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  jurisdictional details 

message: Are Sanhedrin same as Brahmins in India?
Maaparty 15:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The Sanhedrin were not a caste. Anyone with appropriate learning could, at least theoretically, become a member. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanhedrin versus Brahmin 

message: *You'll notice I removed the section in this article on the Synedrion. I did this for a few reasons. First of all, it was discussing a body that is already discussed at another article, Synedrion and is for the most part irrelevant to the body discussed here. In addition, the section looked to be copy/pasted right out of Britannica, the section began in mid-sentence and used language that was totally inconsistent with the rest of the article, making it nearly incomprehensible. If anyone feels that it is crucially important to have here, feel free to take the time to rewrite it, it's still in the page history. -- Chabuk 21:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Synedrion Section 

message: Anyone want to expand that comment about Maccoby's book and give citation? I've only read Revolution in Judaea and not the book mentioned, though I expect some of the ideas are similar. Khanele 03:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyam Maccoby Book 

message: I reveted what looked like original resesarch - if it isn't I hope thye material will be restored with appropriate citations. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul 

message: Hello. I am new to Wikipedia but I have some thoughts I would like for you to consider. I will not attempt to add any of this to the article (I will leave editing to the Wiki-wise) but will simply post it for your consideration.  I would appreciate an in depth critique which may be sent to :  CWatchman2@gmail.com
Most of it would come under  original research but other sections of it would not. Obviously I am prepared for an onslaught of name calling but perhaps there are some amicable people here that can be constructive. I just think there needs to be more serious research done in this area. I am not the man to do it. But perhaps someone will read this and seriously look into it.
I was somewhat hesitant to post it because of it's length but I feel it is important.
Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN SEARCH OF THE UNBROKEN CHAIN OF SEMICHA
                                                      
One of the most intriguing stories ever told is that of the ancient chain of Semicha.
Today it is almost universally accepted that the chain of Semicha  was broken around the fifth century AD and was forever lost. Recent research, however, has uncovered at least four remarkable sources of possible intact Semicha.
Semicha is the rabbinical ordination classically transmitted by the laying on of hands. Moses ordained Joshua and the seventy elders through this authority (Num 27:15-23, Num 11: 16-25, Deut. 34: 9). Their successors in turn ordained others. This hands on transmission  continued until around the fifth century at which time it is believed to have ceased to exist. 
But G-d said Semicha was unto all generations forever. Is G-d not capable of preserving the gift He so graciously bestowed upon his people. Without Semicha there is no succession of the Sanhedrin  nor a priesthood. Without the  priesthood there is no building of the Temple. Without the Temple to where will Messiah come ?  (Rambam said, “If there is one with uninterrupted semicha, you do not require everyone’s agreement”). Jewish people today believe in the absolute transmission of Torah and Mesorah from Rabbineau Moshe to the present day but believe Semicha ceased centuries ago. But if Hashem preserved the Torah why could He not also preserve Semicha? There are three sources of possible Semicha to consider: (1) A Lost Tribe of Israel (Lemba's) (2) Isaac Ben Luria (3) Remnant in Europe (4) Teacher/student transmission. Today I will give more space to sources one and four beginning with the first source.
(1) A LOST TRIBE OF ISRAEL: THE LEMBA
" I would like to mention that we, the Jewish community are guilty--guilty because we never accepted what the Lemba had always maintained...until [the] genetic proof recently ; that their story was a part of ours. We are guilty because we rejected them. " (Dr. Rudo Mathiva).
Approximately 2,500 years ago, a group of Jews left Judah settling in Yemen populating a city called Senna. Unfavorable conditions compelled them to journey many miles until settling in and around Zimbabwe. Similar to other Jews during the Diaspora they assimilated local customs and genes from the local gene pool. For centuries these people passed down their tradition to their children and adamantly claimed they were Jewish. Unlike the locals they believed in one God, Shabbot, Kosher dietary laws, circumcision, the lunar calendar, Torah, and many other Jewish customs. They not only claimed to be Jewish and of the Cohanim  but they also boasted an unbroken Semicha.  Academia laughed at these black people proclaiming to be Jews. They were in a delusion...or were they they? In 1997 critical research data indicated that a large proportion of contemporary Jewish Cohanim (those claiming ancestry from the priestly line of Aaron the High Priest) share a set of Y chromosomal genetic markers, known as the Cohen Modal Haplotype, which has been determined to have derived from a single common ancestor dating back to the very time in which the Torah recorded Aaron existed. Scientific calculations which were based on the high rate of genetic similarity of today's Cohanim resulted in the highest "paternity-certainty" rate that has been ever been recorded in population genetics studies. Scientists found that 45 percent of Ashkenazi priests and 56 percent of Sepharic priests have the cohen genetic signature, while in Jewish populations in general the frequency rate is 3 to 5 percent. When they tested the priestly tribe of Lemba they were astonished to discover they had 53 percent! They had unique genetic markers found only in the Jewish communities. Dr. Tudar Parfitt says "It turned out what they are saying about themselves is substantially correct." Geneticist Trevor Jenkins said the tests turned out to "prove consistent with Lemba oral history." Science had conclusively proven the Lemba carried the Priestly genes dating back to the time of Aaron and Moses just as they had always proclaimed. 
Numerous other historical traditions they proclaimed turned out to be true. The unknown city Lemba claimed they journeyed from was discovered ("Journey to the Vanished City", Dr. Tudor Parfitt). An artifact they claimed they possessed and lost hundreds of years ago was discovered in a an ancient cave. Dr. Mathiva said, "Old maps of the Holy Land have now revealed that there was a place called Lemba way back BCE." She further stated that the Jewish community was left with a moral dilemma as to their responsibility and future obligations to the Lemba and concluded saying, "Now that we know, can we continue to pretend they do not exist?" 
We have an even GREATER dilemma. If their claims of Jewish origin, Cohanim decent , names of lost cities, etc. proved to be true....what about their claim to possess an unbroken line of Semicha!!! They have persistently claimed an unbroken succession of ordination...the Semicha.
Please keep in mind Semicha has alledgedly been conferred on clans of Lemba that were Cohanim as well as those that were not but were nevertheless considered Jewish.  Those recieving Semicha are considered Priests although most are born into into the Priesthood as well as recieving Semicha.
Magdel le Roux says the Lemba still has the priesthood to this very day and the priest traditionally passes his teaching and priesthood on to his son in perpetual succession. He reports the priest said to him:
"The succession is just from our forefathers right up to this generation and it will just continue like that. You see there is just a house of priesthood like in the Old Testament and this priesthood is not something of imposition of something you do to yourself. It was something bestowed to a particular house by G-d." (D:A:4; italics mine).
Would such a Semicha be halackally acceptable? It may be time for us to reconsider what is halackally acceptable transmission of Semicha when faced with dispersion and hardship. Even Elijah when in exile accepted food from non-kosher unclean birds until such a time he could resume a normal kosher life. Rabbi Yisroel Shklover said a dispersed group distant from the rest of Klal Yisroel before certain halachic Rabbinical rules were declared would be exempt from those rules not having accepted nor heard them. 
One thing is for certain...the Lemba and their claims of Semicha are here...and they are not going to just "go away."
2) ISAAC BIN LURIA
Isaac Bin Luria (ARI) was a mystic whom many felt was a holy man with divine favor. He claimed the prophet Elijah, who had been his godfather in his babyhood, paid him frequent visits, initiating him into sublime truths. Rabbi Chayim Vital said the ARI increased his piety, asceticism, purity and holiness until he reached a level where Eliyahu HaNavie (Elijah the prophet) would constantly reveal himself to him, speaking to him "mouth to mouth," teaching him these mysteries. " According to scripture Elijah was one of two men who had never tasted death. This would not have been a "phantom" but the real Elijah. If this is true then there would be no doubt Semicha continued because the ARI's line is still presently extent. However this is impossible to verify and smacks a bit as being Quixotic but is still an avenue for the mystically minded to explore.
(3) REMNANT IN EUROPE
It is claimed that Semicha survived intact in a remnant of Jewish people in Europe. A small group of Messianic Jews as well as independent orthodox groups claim to have received preserved Semicha from this and other lines. Further research is needed before I can accurately publish the details which I can do at a later date. 
Also we must not forget there are many laymen "balebatim" who have semicha and are officially "ordained" but do not practice as rabbis at all.
								
(4) TEACHER/STUDENT TRANSMISSION
We must seriously consider the theorem that in times when persecution prohibited the existence of ordained Rabbi’s that the father automatically became Rabbi of the home and passed his rabbinical blessing to his son (or children) until such time the classical form of Semicha was able to be resumed (after all Rabbi does mean "teacher"). Perhaps we need to reconsider what is halackally acceptable transmission of Semicha when faced with insurmountable persecution and threat of death.
It is possible, no PROBABLE, that in time of unavoidable secrecy and threat of death that Hashem accepted the following as transmission of Semicha : Transmission of Torah from teacher to student (or father to son) consisting of Torah teaching, pronunciation of blessing, and the physical embrace and/or kiss. This would have been an acceptable link in the unbroken chain of Semichut until such a time that the classical Semicha could be resumed by Rambam's suggestion of all the sages of Israel coming together, unanimously ordaining judges, and then resuming classical Semicha. This is the most practical and pragmatic approach . If , as many believe, there was an unbroken chain of transmission of Torah, there by necessity must be a teacher to transmit it and a student to receive it, and this done in perpetual succession. 
Consider the precision that the Torah was preserved in and passed on in times of aggressive prohibition. Consider the intricate , detailed, typologies involved in Pesach observance. Consider the multitude of details in Jewish observances accurately handed down from generation to generation of families forbidden to observe such custom even at the threat of death and extinction. Do you...COULD you...imagine for one single moment that some Jewish family or families failed to pass on something as critical as Semicha? The vast interactive, connecting, branching, web of of Jewish culture has spun a geometric weave of cultural preservation in the metropolitans, prison camps, jungles, and villages throughout the far reaches of the earth. To think the anointed, ethereal substance of Semicha came to an end is to strike the very heart of faith as well as the credibility of human potential. Hashem is much wiser then we could ever imagine and what He has established He has the ability to preserve. There are no DNA tests, no historical discoveries, no law in the land, nor religious body that can prove to be as dependable a source of evidence as the way and word of Hashem. He has preserved the Jewish people, their traditions, and the Cohanim in the brutal face of Dispersion, holocausts, prison, and centuries of exile. Hitler could not burn her traditions, Nazi's could not imprison them, and exile could not silence her voice. Through the stygian darkness of night by the candles of Shabbot precious oral history and religious traditions were secretly passed down from generation to generation as her persecutors stalked her doors firing their brutal ammunition over her weary head. When the smoke of historical debates have cleared and skeptics reluctantly lift their heads from the fox holes...before them standing undaunted will be proof of Hashem's perpetual Semicha...to all generations forever.
"THEIR ANOINTING shall surely be an EVERLASTING priesthood throughout your generations." (Ex. 40: 15)
CWatchman (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: In Search of the Undroken Chain of Semicha

message: Removed "Since proclaiming oneself Moshiach is not forbidden under halakha (there were many springing up at the time), but was illegal under Roman law as a challenge to imperial authority, perhaps this may be a more likely alternative.  However, John 19:12 cites the religious Sanhedrin using this argument to sway Pilate.  Hyam Maccoby's book "The Mythmaker" presents an interesting account of a different historical interpretation.[citation needed]"
Irrelevant and misguided POV.  The Gospels do not state Jesus as being crucified for merely claiming to be the Messiah.  He was accused of blasphemy for claiming to be God, or equal to God.  Book reference is not offering any information and should be expanded on if anyone wishes it to stay.  Sb981 (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition to Christian historical accounts 

message: Why the Sanhedrin in the book of Numbers removed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.34.210 (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: The opening paragraph should not jump into the deep-end of the mysterical reasons for the number 21.  
Instead, lead with:
Who were the Sanhedrin?   When did they exist?  Where were they?   What function did they serve? 
The numerology is interesting  but should be way down in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.46.182 (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... and too much numerology! 

message: The first sentence in the lead paragraph describes the Sanhedrin as "an assembly...". This is liable for ambiguous readings. "Assembly" has the connotation of a gathering, i.e. those who assemble, rather than a public body composed of appointed (or elected) members that convenes (= assembles). Might the word "council" be a better descriptor? -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assembly vs. council 

message: Before the first Jewish revolt, the Sanhedrin seems to have been dominated by prominent Jerusalem priestly families (more or less what have been known as Sadducees).  Subsequent versions of the Sanhedrin were rabbinic... AnonMoos (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sanhedrin under Romans

message: Propose to merge Palestinian Patriarchate -> Sanhedrin, the first likely being a WP:FORK article, about exactly the same topic. The Great Sanhedrin during the late Roman period is sometimes referred as Sanhedrin in Palestine or Patriarchate in Palestine, but the WP:COMMONNAME is Sanhedrin.GreyShark (dibra) 08:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sanhedrin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051020130904/http://www.gibsoncondo.com/~david/convert/history.html to http://www.gibsoncondo.com/~david/convert/history.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060519083636/http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/economic/friedman/sanhedrin.htm to http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/economic/friedman/sanhedrin.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I noticed that this article does not mention the Gospel of Luke as a source of information about the Sanhedrin. Nevertheless, the word συνέδριον does appear in Luke 22:66. Curiously though, most English Bible translations render this word as 'council' or 'Council' (some even twice: 'council of the elders', but that is probably a liberal translation of 'πρεσβυτέριον', 'elderhood'). The Christian Standard Bible, Holman Christian Standard Bible, Weymouth New Testament, and Young's Literal Translation do translate it as 'Sanhedrin' or 'sanhedrin/m'. How should we treat that? The very same word συνέδριον appears in Matthew 26:59 and this is variously rendered as 'council' and 'Sanhedrin' as well, but that passage is mentioned in this Wikipedia article. Why? Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luke 22:66