The evidence for such an understanding is sketchy, but it is a possibility that Saul / Paul was indeed a member of the Sanhedrin during the 1st century CE when Stephen was stoned. He tells us in his letter to the Galatians that he had been excelling above his peers in the Jewish faith. In Acts 8:1 we are told that Saul “gave his approval” to the killing of Stephen. Does this mean he generally agreed that Stephen’s death was justified, or that he actually gave his “vote” in the Sanhedrin? Notice how Paul, himself, describes similar accounts concerning those believers he brought to Jerusalem for judgment when he spoke before King Agrippa:
Acts 26:9-10 ASV I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. (10) And this I also did in Jerusalem: and I both shut up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, and when they were put to death I gave my vote against them.
The phrase: I gave my vote comes from two Greek words kataphero (G2702) and psephos (G5586). According to “The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon,” kataphero means “to bear down, bring down, cast down” and when used with psephos, “a small, worn, smooth stone, a pebble”, it means: “to cast a pebble or calculus into the urn, i.e. give one’s vote, to approve.” Thayer goes on to say that “…in the ancient courts of justice the accused were condemned by black pebbles and acquitted by white.” Thus, we have Paul implying that he was a voting member of the Sanhedrin who condemned the early believers in Jesus. If this conclusion is true, then Paul was probably one of the members of the Sanhedrin who condemned Stephen.
According to Acts 7:58, Stephen was taken outside the city, as commanded by Deuteronomy 17:2-7. The Scripture further says the witnesses against Stephen were to cast the first stones. Leviticus 24:14 makes the same point saying that he who cursed was to be stoned outside the city, and remember the accusation against Stephen was “blasphemy” i.e. he cursed God in that he was saying the Temple upon which the Name of God was would be destroyed. The Talmud has an interesting account of the act of stoning that bears mention concerning Paul. Notice:
“When the trial was over, they take him [the condemned person] out to be stoned. The place of stoning was at a distance from the court, as it is said, ‘Take out the one who has cursed’ (Leviticus 24:14). A man stands at the entrance of the court; in his hand is a signaling flag [Hebrew sudarin = sudar, ‘scarf, sweater’]. A horseman was stationed far away but within sight of him. If one [of the judges] says, ‘I have something [more] to say in his favor,’ he [the signaler] waves the sudarin, and the horseman runs and stops them [from stoning him]. Even if [the condemned person] himself says, ‘I have something to say in my favor,’ they bring him back, even four of five times, only provided that there is some substance to what he is saying.” [Sanhedrin 42b]
Notice that it is said in Acts 7:58 “the witnesses laid their cloaks at the feet of the young man named Saul.” The Jewish New Testament Commentary by David H. Stern has an interesting comment about the above excerpt from the Talmud. Notice:
“…Joseph Shulam thinks sudar in later Hebrew can also mean ‘coat.’ Thus, he conjectures, the Greek translator of Acts from a presumed original Hebrew text didn’t understand the Jewish context and therefore wrote of laying coats at Sha’ul’s feet, whereas actually Shu’ul was a member of the Sanhedrin, specifically, the one who held the sudar.”
So, was Paul a member of the Sanhedrin? Maybe, and maybe not, but the idea is an interesting one. One point against the idea would be, that an actual trial of life and death was not supposed to be held on a Holy Day according to the Talmud—and according to my study Stephen was stoned on the Day of Atonement in 34 CE. The account of Stephen’s trial seems a bit sketchy itself. Nothing is actually said about a vote taken against the accused, so was Stephen’s death an actual verdict of the court or was the matter decided by mob-rule? Luke just isn’t as clear as we would like him to be, so interpreting matters concerning the trial, the verdict and the sentence are questionable.
Smoodock's Blog 
44 responses to “Was Paul a Member of the Sanhedrin?”
You SAY I prevent no evidence, yet I actually did.
1. Paul never met Jesus
2. According to Biblical standards which Paul himself cites, any charges or claims need witnesses, yet who witnessed the Damascus trip, that Paul himself doesn’t corroborate entirely, or any of his claims to secret revelations? Where are his witnesses?
3. No apostle corroborated Paul’s being an apostle, ever called him one. This is because he doesn’t meet the qualifications set out in Acts and 12 is a sacred number.
4. Vision of New Jerusalem has 12 of many things, tribes and apostles being significant.
5.All those who were in Asia turned away from Paul.
6. Revelation is SPECIFICALLY addressed to the 7 churches in Asis and congratulates Ephesus for rejecting false apostles. Ephesians is the letter Paul say that Asia rejected him.
This is MORE evidence, all from memory as I have studied this for years after reaching the conclusion myself it was discovered by me a great deal of Bible scholars a know this too.
Last, Mt. 24 is a perfect example of the type of person Paul is and claims he makes, you can disagree of course, but to say that I should re read something I have studied for years to come to your conclusion when I have made mine, and it is accurate, is unfair.
Certainly you will try and “debunk” my evidence, but evidence it is and you may have to resort to sophistry to do so. I am not new to the issue of Paul and his problems with Jerusalem so it will have no effect on me.
Paul was forbidden by the Holy Spirit from preaching in Jerusalem and lacks the witnesses necessary to validate his claims by his own and Biblically quoted from standards.
The claim of no evidence was just untrue. You disagree WITH my evidence, but the evidence does not disagree with me.
I am happy to debate this so long as it remains civil, keep in mind I intend no offense to anyone nor demand anyone agree.
In good fun
Seth
Greetings again, Seth, and welcome to my blog.
First of all, your comment lacks evidence. You present no evidence that Gamaliel was a pacifist, and you present no evidence that Paul was hired by the Romans or the Sadducees to infiltrate the Church. While the Sadducees may have had reason to plant spies among the believers, the Romans did not. Throughout the Gospels and the Book of Acts the Romans seem to view the Jesus movement and his Gospel as harmless, no threat to Rome. So far, all you are doing is pulling out accusations from a hat and expecting us to be impressed.
In your second paragraph above you mention that Gamaliel wanted to protect the Nazarenes (meaning the disciples of Christ), but in your next paragraph you say the Nazarenes were heretical along with the Ebionites. Which is it? Were the Nazarenes of Acts believers or not?
Concerning the Ebionites of paragraph three, if they were heretical, why should we accept their testimony about Paul? If you think you have evidence that Paul is not a true Apostle, quote that evidence or at least point to the Scriptural reference that has that evidence. Otherwise, how can I take your accusations seriously, if you base them on the testimony of heretics?
Concerning Timothy, Timothy was a Jew, and Paul took him to the synagogues in and around Galatia where he was known to have a gentile father. Unbelieving Jews would have been offended if Timothy was not circumcised but tried to preach to them that Jesus was their Messiah. It wouldn’t have been a kosher thing to do. Therefore, Paul circumcised him. It was a case where the Gospel would have been refused if it wasn’t done.
As for the Jerusalem Council, you are correct; it concluded that circumcision was not necessary for salvation, and was not to be forced upon the gentiles. However, concerning Jews, it was part of their covenant with God. It was expected of a Jew to be circumcised.
Concerning Acts 16:6, what would it look like if the Holy Spirit forbade Paul to preach in Asia? Would that mean the people in Asia weren’t worthy? Weren’t they loved by God? The text says that after they preached throughout Galatia and Phrygia, they went through Mysia to Troas, probably intending to enter Asia by boat, but the Holy Spirit gave Paul a vision to go to Europe. The Holy Spirit indeed “kept” Paul from preaching to folks in Asia at that time, but it was never meant to be taken, as you suppose, a forbidding commandment never to preach in Asia.
Concerning Luke contradicting Paul, I don’t know how you can say such a thing and expect to be taken seriously, since Luke writes so much about Paul. Acts 1-12 concerns Peter’s ministry, but the rest of Acts concerns Paul’s. What do you want to do, throw out over half of Acts? As for Peter’s vision in Acts 10 and his going to Cornelius, that was for a witness to the super-conservative believers in Jerusalem (Acts 11). They had a difficult time believing Paul. In fact, they had a difficult time fellowshipping with Jews of the Diaspora (Hellenists). They considered them unclean. See Acts 6:7 where it is implied that the believing priests didn’t join the Apostles, until the Hellenist Jews went out on their own in a friendly split–i.e. the Apostles appointed men among the Hellenist believers to lead them. Peter was sent to the Jews (not gentiles), and Paul was sent to the gentiles (Matthew 10:5, 23 and Acts 9:15).
Lord bless you, Seth, as you consider the position you have taken here, and may he help you see the truth of the Scriptures.
Luke says he did (Acts 9:1-6).
The vision was verified by Ananias and Paul (two witnesses). If Paul had doubts about what he saw, it would have been verified by the fact that in the vision he was told that a man by the name of Ananias would come to him (Acts 9:12). The fact that a man named Ananias did come to him as predicted in the vision would have verified the vision to Paul (if he doubted the vision). Moreover, the fact that Ananias received a vision himself and was given a specific address where to find Paul and what to do when he got there (Acts 9:11), would have verified the vision to Ananias. There are two witnesses here, not to mention that miracles were performed by Paul–according to Luke–so we also have the witness of the Holy Spirit.
Why would we need an apostle’s corroboration that Paul was who he claimed to be? Did Paul need corroboration of the credentials of the twelve? Can’t Jesus do what he wishes to do in the Church or does he need the approval of his disciples to do so? An apostle is an emissary. The 12 were sent out by Jesus to the Jews. Barnabas and several other people are called “apostles” in Paul’s letters. These were “emissaries” representing one church to another. If Jesus sent Paul to the gentiles as Luke claims in Acts 9:15, then he was, indeed, and “apostle” of Jesus, and that doesn’t need an approval from the 12 or the Jerusalem Council, and a “sacred number, notwithstanding.
While I have no argument that the #12 points to many things (12 tribes, 12 sons of Jacob etc.), why would this be “evidence” that Paul isn’t an apostle sent out by Jesus to the gentiles? Do gentiles have to become Jews or members of the 12 tribes in order to be received by God? Revelation is a book written primarily to Jews. Its significance is for Jews. Again, why would this be evidence that Paul wasn’t an apostle?
Why should I accept this as “evidence” that Paul isn’t who he claims to be? Didn’t the Jews as a people–a nation–reject Jesus? Is that “evidence” that Jesus isn’t the Messiah?
Again, how does this refute the idea that Paul was a legitimate apostle of Jesus? You have presented no proof for your claims.
Lord bless you, Seth, as you reconsider your claim about Paul, unless you also wish to debunk Luke and Peter, who both claim that Paul was a legitimate preacher of the Gospel and wrote Scripture.
I am afraid Anias or Ananias does not qualify as a witness.
The reason? He didn’t write Acts and Luke wasn’t there.
No witnesses. I may be mistaken but the epistle of Ananias has never been mentioned, doesn’t exist and therefore is not corroboration, having no chance to speak for himself.
Further, the applicable law says 2 or 3 witnesses. Paul has ZERO.
I said the “heretical” Nazarenes because according to Epiphanius they were heretics, he is the first father to mention them outside of the NT.
To declare the religion of JTB and Jesus, James and the 12 apostles as heretical in quotation marks means that I don’t believe they were, but the Church did.
When something is put in quotations it is like saying alleged heretics, and they were declared heretics as were the Ebionites who scholars have suggested most likely, due to many factors such as use of the same scripture, location in Pella and Symmachus the Ebionites followers being called Nazarenes.
You must have missed the quotation marks, surely you know what they mean.