daring rebellion, in either case to be visited with 'the ban.' A nd this was at least one
aspect of the controversy as between the chief authorities and Jesus. No one would
have thought of interfering with a mere Haggadist - a popular expositor, preacher, or
teller of legends. But authoritatively to teach, required othe r warrant. In fact there was
regular ordination (Semikhah) to the office of Rabbi, Elder, and Judge, for the three
functions were combined in one. According to the Mishnah, the 'disciples' sat before the
Sanhedrin in three rows, the members of the Sanhedri n being recruited successively
from the front-rank of the Scholars.11 At first the practice is said to have been for every
Rabbi to accredit his own disciples. But afterwards this right was transferred to the
Sanhedrin, with the proviso that this body might not ordain without the consent of its
Chief, though the latter might do so without consent of the Sanhedrin.12 But this
privilege was afterwards withdrawn on account of abuses. Although we have not any
description of the earliest mode of ordination, the very name - Semikhah - implies the
imposition of hands. Again, in the oldest record, reaching up, no doubt, to the time of
Christ, the presence of at least three ordained persons was required for ordination.13 At
a later period, the presence of an ordained Rabbi, with the assessorship of two others,
even if unordained, was deemed sufficient.14 In the course of time certain formalities
were added. The person to be ordained had to deliver a Discourse; hymns and poems
were recited; the title 'Rabbi' was formally bestowed on the candidate, and authority
given him to teach and to act as Judge [to bind and loose, to declare guilty or free]. Nay,
there seem to have been even different orders, according to the authority bestowed on
the person ordained. The formula i n bestowing full orders was: 'Let him teach; let him
teach; let him judge; let him decide on questions of first-born;15 let him decide; let him
judge!' At one time it was held that ordination could only take place in the Holy Land.
Those who went abroad to ok with them their 'letters of orders.'16
10. Otherwise the greatest liberty of utterance was accorded to all who were qualified to
teach.
12. Jer. Sanh. 19 a; lines 29 &c. from bottom.
11. Sanh. iv. 4.
14. Sanh. 7 b.
13. Sanh. i. 3.
15. These involved points of special difficulty in
cannon-law.
16. Comp. Hamburger, Real-Encycl. ii. pp. 883-886. But he adds little to the learned
labours of Selden, De Synedriis, ed. Frcf. pp. 681 -713. How the notion can have arisen
that in early times a key was handed at ordination (Dean Plumptre and many others), it is
difficult to say - unless it be from a misunderstanding of St. Luke xi. 52, or from a strange
mistake of Lightfoot's meaning ad loc.
At whatever periods some of these practices may have b een introduced, it is at least
certain that, at the time of our Lord, no one would have ventured authoritatively to teach
without proper Rabbinic authorisation. The question, therefore, with which the Jewish
authorities met Christ, while teaching, was one which had a very real meaning, and
appealed to the habits and feelings of the people who listened to Jesus. Otherwise,
also, it was cunningly framed. For, it did not merely challenge Him for teaching, but also
asked for His authority in what He did, referring not only to His Work generally, but,
perhaps, especially to what had happened on the previous day. They were not there to