Lessons for Machiavelli, from the Prince - Yehudah HaNasi II

Jerusalem Talmud – Sanhedrin 2.1

source: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IPFrMccNp0kC&pg=PR7&lpg=PR7&dq=talmud+yerushalmi+sanhedrin&source=bl&ots=gqT02xxunq&sig=NSA6PYYlW63fS2qsKPvJOVYe3Jg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EwyHU-IWxKDsBpPpgNgP&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=true

The above gemara on a mishnah, shows the reaction of Yehuda II, the Patriarch or Prince, and grandson of the editor of the Mishnah, Yehudah HaNasi, to comments made by Shimon ben Laqish (Resh Laqish).   Resh Laqish is teaching that even a ruler (such as Yehudah) can be punished by a Bet Din if he sins.  The editor of the Mishnah, who had claimed for himself the position of "Prince" of Israel, was allegedly of the Davidic line. However, there is no evidence that the Davidic line was known in Maccabean times, which preceded the Mishnah.  However, a new "Princehood" was instituted, and his grandson kept the same title.

This seems to be a) particularly violent behaviour on the part of the Yudah II, who had the inherited title of Prince (Patriarch).  Is that the norm for discussing the oral law and alleged traditions from "Sinai"? In other words, if these rabbis really believed in Oral Law,would they bring hired assassins to shoot the messenger, when the message threatens their political position of power and comfort?
It took the intervention of Yochanan, who was partner of Resh Laqish, to save him from serious harm.
 And b) this is remarkably reminiscent of Nico Machiavelli's teachings, although the inheritor of the title of "Prince" had over 1000 years head start on Machiavelli!


Here is a Yeshiva article justifying the writing of the Mishnah, which allegedly existed 500 years prior.
http://ohr.edu/explore_judaism/literary_corner/dawn_to_destiny/4695

The article suggests that there never really was an Oral law, since it had existed in previous mishmayot, which were written down.  This is a circular argument.