There is a well known Jewish "fable" that each month two witnesses were required to observe the first visible sliver of the moon and that on the testimony of these two witnesses the new month could be declared. The basis of this approach is this command:

A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established.

— Deuteronomy 19:15

This verse applies to crimes and court cases, and is being used to resolve a sign as if the sign could be disputed. Most Christians take this for granted as "how it should be done" and assume it must be described somewhere in the Bible, but it is not found anywhere. Consider the implications if the start of every month could be corrupted by 2 or more people claiming they saw the sign even if they did not. Given the heart of the antichrist spirit to deceive people into sinning, this would be guaranteed to occur and the same oral history that tells us the fable also records false reports:

Originally, they would light torches on the mountaintops [after the court sanctified the new month]. They would light from one mountain to another until the signal reached the Diaspora. But when the Cutheans (Samaritans) began to act deceitfully and lit fires on the wrong days to confuse the Jews, the Sages instituted that messengers should go out [instead] to inform the people.

— Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 2:2–4

Switching to messengers doesn't solve the problem of false witness fires because messengers are too slow and can also lie, especially for appointed times like the Feast of Trumpets that occur on the first day of the month. A messenger could travel at most ~70 miles before sunrise. Only with modern speed of light communication or advanced calculation techniques beyond the average person can this calendar structure even be considered beyond Jerusalem.

A consequence of having to evaluate the testimony of human witnesses is that it places someone in position of authority to determine the sincerity of the individuals and that the necessary "due process" has been followed. This in turn means that with this process it isn't the general population's observations that matter, but the decree of a corruptible central authority. We all know how trustworthy centralized human institutions are.

The Babylonian Talmud in Rosh Hashanah 18b–19a and parallels state that the Sanhedrin's intercalation (adding leap months) and new month declarations are final, even overriding potential witnesses if needed for alignment.

Some argue that you must obey the Sanhedrin on the basis of this scripture:

According to the teaching that they will teach you and according to the judgment that they will say to you, you shall do; you shall not deviate from the word that they will tell you, right or left.

— Deuteronomy 17:11

The oral torah documented in the Talmud interprets this verse as giving a group of people the absolute authority to interpret Torah and all others must obey them — even if their rules appear to contradict scripture.

Even if they tell you that right is left and left is right, obey them.

— Sifrei Devarim 154, Rashi on Deuteronomy 17:11

Even if [the judge/Sanhedrin] tells you about what appears to your eyes as right that it is left, or left that it is right—listen to them.

— Rashi

In this scriptural context "they" is defined in the prior verses as the Levitical priests located in the place God chooses (The Temple in Jerusalem).

Go to the place that the Lord your God will choose (Jerusalem Temple), and come to the Levitical priests and to the judge who will be in those days, and inquire.

— Deuteronomy 17:7-8

And the subject matter jurisdiction of the court is defined here:

If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another, any case within your towns that is too difficult for you, then you shall arise and go up to the place that the LORD your God will choose.

— Deuteronomy 17:9

The Pharisaic Jews interpreted this broadly so as to give them ultimate authority over all matters. A self-serving interpretation if there ever was one. From this authority they can give orders that are in direct contradiction to Torah and imply that their orders carry the full authority of God and the masses must obey them or they are disobeying God. They have made themselves into gods.

The issue is that this text is clearly focused on "cases too difficult for local towns" and thus local towns are to have authority over the plain reading of the Torah on simple matters. The calendar, being a command that scripture implies is "not too difficult for you" is clearly a local matter.

Furthermore, this is authority to judge a dispute and not an authority to legislate. It focused on disputes between people over property rights and assaults. It is the difference between congress and the supreme court. God is the sole law giver and judge of the law, disputes between brothers regarding property rights are the jurisdiction delegated to elders by Torah.

The Fallacy of Case Law Authority

In the United States our legal system has a concept of "case law" where courts consider the opinion of prior court rulings when making new court rulings. In theory, this is supposed to provide consistency in ruling over time, but in practice it causes divergence from the actual constitutional law over time. One "wrong" opinion issued by the supreme court becomes a de-facto law that nullifies the actual constitution. Small errors accumulate over time like a game of telephone until the law that is enforced is unrelated to the law that is written.

To avoid deviation from the actual law, all rulings need to be independent interpretations. One judge's opinion should not be binding on the next judge's opinion. The written law is the ground truth and everything else is subject to error.

In science there is a principle that all measurements contain some level of error and to find the best approximation of the truth you must take many independent measurements of the same value and aggregate them. If you need to combine two measurements to find the area of a square, then the error of the area is amplified by the errors in the measurements of the two sides. Each side must be measured multiple times and averaged before multiplying the averages to get the area.

This same principle could apply to interpreting Torah. Each case or dispute must look at the Torah with fresh eyes and avoid looking to past decisions for guidance. Each part of the Torah must be independently evaluated and decisions that involve combining interpretations of two or more parts of Torah have greater chance of error just like area calculations have greater margin of error than length calculations. Therefore, more care must be taken before building on more complex rulings.

When it comes to the calendar, one must aggregate dozens of verses across scripture because there is no distilled passage that gives explicit instructions. Thus it is more like attempting to calculate the volume of a complex object than measuring the length of one of its sides. For this reason, we need many independent measurements not a single authoritative ruling by a centralized source.

History of Sanhedrin's "Authority"

A court must have proper authority for its rulings to be binding and that means it must trace its delegated authority directly from God and the Torah. A group of people cannot simply assemble and declare themselves to have divine authority over a matter.

In Jewish tradition, the Sanhedrin (or Great Sanhedrin, a supreme court of 71 members) claims its roots to the Bible. This is a theological origin which any group of 71 people could claim as the basis of their authority. The original elders were chosen by Moses and Moses was given authority to chose from God. From this point forward the elders would reach a consensus on approving new members. In theory, as long as this process was followed then a group could claim authority all the way back to God's command to Moses.

The issue is that this process was not followed without introducing corrupting authorities. During the period of Judges there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

And it came to pass, when [the prophet] Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel… And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.

— 1 Samuel 8:1–3

The elders of Israel approached Samuel, saying his sons are corrupt and they want "a king to judge/rule us like all the other nations". God tells Samuel this request is actually a rejection of Him as their true King, but instructs Samuel to grant it after solemnly warning them about how the king will tax them heavily and abuse his powers.

At this point "authority" of the elders was passed to the authority of the King anointed by God. This went first to Saul, then when he was corrupted, passed to David. David passed it on to Solomon who became corrupt and the kingdom was divided upon his death. From this point forward the "judges" were appointed by kings, most of whom lacked proper anointing.

Then Israel was taken into captivity and under captivity they lost the ability to "rule themselves" and thus the chain of authority was broken for over a generation. The new root of authority would be the biblical prophets who oversaw the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple. However, this source of authority was also corrupted.

Historically, the Sanhedrin as a formalized institution emerged during the Hellenistic period under foreign rule (Greek and Roman), evolving from earlier bodies like the council of elders under Persian and Seleucid control (c. 333–165 BCE). Key developments:

• c. 200 BC: Earliest traceable origins as a supreme theocratic court under Seleucid rule, granting Jewish autonomy in Judea.
• c. 191 BC: Formal restructuring when the High Priest lost confidence; the office of Nasi was created, separating leadership from the priesthood.
• c. 76–57 BC: First explicit mentions during Hasmonean rule and Roman reorganization by Aulus Gabinius, who established five local synedria (councils) in 57 BCE.

The Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem (meeting in the Chamber of Hewn Stones in the Temple) is attested from the 63 BC Roman conquest to the 70 AD Temple destruction. It functioned as a legislative, judicial, and religious body until Roman suppression.

Sources vary due to fragmentary evidence (e.g., Josephus, Talmud, New Testament), but the consensus is that while concepts are ancient, the institution as known crystallized in the 2nd–1st centuries BC. It was disbanded after the Bar Kokhba revolt (135 AD) and fully abolished by Emperor Theodosius I in 395 AD. Modern revival attempts (e.g., 2004 in Tiberias) claim continuity but lack broad recognition.

Under Roman rule in the first century, the Sanhedrin operated with significant but limited autonomy. While the body traditionally filled its ranks through internal co-optation of qualified priests, elders, and scribes, ultimate authority rested with Rome. Roman governors and client rulers directly appointed and deposed the high priest, who presided over the Sanhedrin and wielded decisive influence over its proceedings.

Historical records, particularly from Josephus, illustrate this control: procurators like Valerius Gratus (ca. 15–26 AD) repeatedly removed high priests and installed figures such as Joseph Caiaphas (Antiquities 18.2.2), ensuring the leadership aligned with Roman interests. Similarly, Herod the Great purged and appointed members to secure loyalty, and later procurators intervened when actions (such as convening without approval) threatened order.

Membership thus prioritized political reliability over purely religious or scholarly merit. The high priest and key aristocratic elements—often Sadducean elites—owed their positions to Roman favor, rendering the Sanhedrin's authority derivative of imperial power rather than independent divine or traditional mandate. This structure fostered compliance with Roman policy, as the council's legitimacy and survival depended on demonstrating loyalty to the occupying regime. In practice, Rome remained the ultimate source of the Sanhedrin's effective power during this era.

What we can conclude from this is that appeals to the Sanhedrin for authority on interpreting Torah and the calendar are extremely suspect and their rulings should not be given divine authority.

Under Roman rule in the first century, the apostles explicitly rejected the authority of the Sanhedrin when its commands conflicted with God's directives. In Acts 5, after being arrested for preaching about Jesus despite prior orders to stop, Peter and the other apostles stood before the council and declared their higher allegiance.

But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men."

— Acts 5:29

This direct confrontation occurred in the context of the Sanhedrin's prohibition against teaching in Jesus' name (Acts 5:28). The apostles viewed obedience to God as supreme. Human authority, even when exercised by religious leaders under Roman oversight, could not override divine mandates.

But Peter and John answered them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard."

— Acts 4:19–20 (ESV)

In both cases, the apostles acknowledged the Sanhedrin's position but subordinated it to God's ultimate authority. Their stance highlighted that loyalty to Rome's derivative power through the council did not bind believers when it contradicted divine commands, prioritizing obedience to God over any human institution.

Therefore, when it comes to the calendar one cannot appeal to the fixed calculated calendar from 358 AD to determine God's appointed times because this was over 200 years after the Sanhedrin was disbanded and by Rome and the apostles instructed us to obey God, and His Word expressed in Torah, rather than rulings of the Sanhedrin that contradict it.

A similar line of reasoning can apply to any church authority attempting to change the Sabbath and feast days. There is simply no human authority to change the appointed times of the LORD.

---

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

— Sherlock Holmes