diff options
Diffstat (limited to '40966-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 40966-0.txt | 12225 |
1 files changed, 12225 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/40966-0.txt b/40966-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f2f259f --- /dev/null +++ b/40966-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,12225 @@ +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 40966 *** + +Transcriber's notes + +Variable spelling has been retained. Minor punctuation inconsistencies +have been silently corrected. A list of other corrections can be found +at the end of the book. Footnotes were sequentially numbered and placed +at the end of the text. In the original, the "The Gospel Narratives" are +printed side by side across the page spread. In this e-book version they +are presented individually. The Index was copied from Volume II. + + Mark up: _italics_ + + + + + THE TRIAL OF JESUS + + + + +[Illustration: JESUS BOUND (MUNKACSY)] + + + + + THE TRIAL OF JESUS + + FROM A LAWYER'S STANDPOINT + + BY + + WALTER M. CHANDLER + + OF THE NEW YORK BAR + + + VOLUME I + + THE HEBREW TRIAL + + + THE EMPIRE PUBLISHING CO. + + 60 WALL STREET, NEW YORK CITY + + 1908 + + + + +Copyright, 1908, by WALTER M. CHANDLER + +_All rights reserved_ + + + + + TO MY MOTHER WITH SENTIMENTS OF LOVE AND VENERATION WHICH NO WORDS + CAN EXPRESS + + + + +LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS + + + FACING PAGE + + JESUS BOUND (Munkacsy) _Frontispiece_ + + ST. MATTHEW (Rembrandt) 2 + + ST. MARK AND ST. PAUL (Dürer) 28 + + ST. JOHN AND ST. PETER (Dürer) 52 + + MOSES AND THE LAW (Michael Angelo) 72 + + THE LAST SUPPER (da Vinci) 174 + + JESUS IN GETHSEMANE (Hoffman) 240 + + THE BETRAYING KISS (Scheffer) 282 + + THE ARREST OF JESUS (Hoffman) 284 + + + + +CONTENTS OF VOLUME ONE + + + PAGE + + PREFACE TO VOLUME ONE xiii + + THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES xxx + + + PART I + + _THE RECORD OF FACT_ + + AUTHENTICITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT NARRATIVES, JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED 3 + + CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPEL WRITERS, LEGALLY TESTED 9 + + + PART II + + _HEBREW CRIMINAL LAW_ + + CHAPTER + + I. THE MOSAIC CODE AND THE TALMUD 73 + + II. HEBREW CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS 91 + + III. HEBREW COURTS AND JUDGES 102 + + IV. HEBREW WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE 127 + + V. MODE OF TRIAL AND EXECUTION IN HEBREW CAPITAL CASES 153 + + + PART III + + _THE BRIEF_ + + WHETHER OR NOT THE GREAT SANHEDRIN EXISTED AT THE TIME OF CHRIST 175 + + CONCERNING THE JURISDICTION OF THE GREAT SANHEDRIN, WITH REFERENCE + TO ROMAN AUTHORITY, TO TRY CAPITAL OFFENSES AT THE DATE OF THE + CRUCIFIXION 181 + + CONCERNING THE JURISDICTION OF THE GREAT SANHEDRIN, UNDER HEBREW LAW, + TO TRY THE PARTICULAR OFFENSE WITH WHICH JESUS WAS CHARGED 183 + + WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A REGULAR LEGAL TRIAL OF JESUS BEFORE THE + GREAT SANHEDRIN 183 + + WHETHER OR NOT THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED IN THE + MISHNA WERE IN EXISTENCE AND ACTIVELY IN FORCE IN JUDEA AT THE + TIME OF THE TRIAL OF JESUS 186 + + THE NATURE OF THE CHARGE BROUGHT AGAINST JESUS AT THE TRIAL BEFORE + THE GREAT SANHEDRIN; AND HIS GUILT OR INNOCENCE WITH REFERENCE + THERETO 187 + + POINT I: CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF THE ARREST OF JESUS IN + GETHSEMANE 219 + + POINT II: CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF THE PRIVATE EXAMINATION OF + JESUS BY ANNAS (OR CAIAPHAS) BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THE REGULAR + TRIAL 238 + + POINT III: CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF THE INDICTMENT AGAINST + JESUS 248 + + POINT IV: CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF TRYING JESUS AT NIGHT 255 + + POINT V: CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF TRYING JESUS BEFORE THE MORNING + SACRIFICE HAD BEEN OFFERED 260 + + POINT VI: CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF TRYING JESUS ON THE EVE OF A + JEWISH SABBATH AND AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CELEBRATION OF THE + PASSOVER FEAST 263 + + POINT VII: CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF CONCLUDING THE TRIAL OF JESUS + WITHIN ONE DAY 267 + + POINT VIII: CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF CONVICTING JESUS UPON HIS + UNCORROBORATED CONFESSION 271 + + POINT IX: CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF A UNANIMOUS VERDICT AGAINST + JESUS 279 + + POINT X: CONCERNING CERTAIN IRREGULARITIES OF FORM IN TRYING AND + CONDEMNING JESUS 287 + + POINT XI: CONCERNING THE LEGAL DISQUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE + GREAT SANHEDRIN, TO TRY JESUS 295 + + POINT XII: CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF THE REFUSAL OF THE GREAT + SANHEDRIN TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE DEFENSE OF JESUS 309 + + + + +PREFACE TO VOLUME ONE + + +Many remarkable trials have characterized the judicial history of +mankind. + +The trial of Socrates before the dicastery of Athens, charged with +corrupting Athenian youth, with blaspheming the Olympic gods, and with +seeking to destroy the constitution of the Attic Republic, is still a +sublime and thrilling chapter in the history of a wonderful people, +among the ruins and wrecks of whose genius the modern world still +wanders to contemplate, admire, and study the pride of every master and +the perfection of every model. + +The trial and execution of Charles the First of England sealed with +royal blood a new covenant of British freedom, and erected upon the +highway of national progress an enduring landmark to civil liberty. The +entire civilized world stood aghast at the solemn and awful spectacle of +the deliberate beheading of a king. And yet, to-day, the sober, serious +judgment of mankind stamps the act with approval, and deems it a +legitimate and righteous step in the heroic march of a brave and +splendid people toward a complete realization of the inalienable rights +of man. The philosopher of history declares these condemnatory and +executory proceedings against a Stuart king worthy of all the epoch +making movements that have glorified the centuries of English +constitutional growth, and have given to mankind the imperishable +parchments of Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights, the Petition of Rights, +and Habeas Corpus. + +The trial of Warren Hastings in the hall of William Rufus has been +immortalized by Lord Macaulay. This trial is a virtual reproduction in +English history of the ancient Roman trial of Verres. England is +substituted for Rome; Sicily becomes India; Hastings takes the place of +Verres; and Burke is the orator instead of Cicero. The indictments are +identical: Maladministration in the government of a province. In the +impeachment of Hastings, England served notice upon her colonial +governors and made proclamation to the world that English conquest was +not intended to despoil and enslave, but was designed to carry to the +inhabitants of distant lands her language, her literature, and her laws. +This message to humanity was framed but not inspired by England. It was +prompted by the success of the American Revolution, in which Washington +and his Continentals had established the immortal principle, that the +consent of the governed is the true source of all just powers of +government. + +The trial of Aaron Burr, omitting Arnold's treason, is the blackest +chapter in the annals of our republic. Burr was the most extraordinary +man of the first half century of American national history. His powerful +and fascinating personality conquered men and enslaved women. He was +the finest scholar of the Revolution excepting Thomas Jefferson. He was +the greatest orator of the Revolution excepting Patrick Henry. His +farewell address to the United States Senate caused his inveterate +enemies to weep. His arraignment at the bar of public justice on the +charge of high treason--that he had sought to destroy the Country of +Washington, the Republic of Jefferson, which is to-day the Union of +Lincoln--was the sad and melancholy close of a long and lofty life. + +The trial of Alfred Dreyfus is still fresh in the minds and memories of +men. Troubled political seas still surge and roll in France because of +the hatred, prejudice, and passion that envelope the mysterious +_bordereau_. The French Republic is still rent by two contending +factions: Dreyfus and anti-Dreyfus. His friends still say that Dreyfus +was a Prometheus who was chained to an ocean-girt rock while the vulture +of exile preyed upon his heart. His enemies still assert that he was a +Judas who betrayed not God or Christ, but France and the Fatherland. His +banishment to the Island of the Devil; his wife's deathless devotion; +the implacable hatred of his enemies; the undying loyalty of friends; +and his own sufferings and woes are the warp and woof of the most +splendid and pathetic epoch of a century. + +Other trials--of Mary Stuart, the beautiful and brilliant Scottish +queen; of Robert Emmet, the grand and gifted Irish patriot +martyr--thrilled the world in their day. + +But these trials, one and all, were tame and commonplace, compared with +the trial and crucifixion of the Galilean peasant, Jesus of Nazareth. +These were earthly trials, on earthly issues, before earthly courts. The +trial of the Nazarene was before the high tribunals of both Heaven and +earth; before the Great Sanhedrin, whose judges were the master-spirits +of a divinely commissioned race; before the court of the Roman Empire +that controlled the legal and political rights of men throughout the +known world, from Scotland to Judea and from Dacia to Abyssinia. + +The trial of Jesus was twofold: Hebrew and Roman; or Ecclesiastical and +Civil. The Hebrew trial took place before the Great Sanhedrin, +consisting of seventy-one members. The Roman trial was held before +Pontius Pilate, Roman governor of Judea, and afterwards before Herod, +Tetrarch of Galilee. These trials all made one, were links in a chain, +and took place within a space of time variously estimated from ten to +twenty hours. + +The general order of events may be thus briefly described: + +(1) About eleven o'clock on the evening of April 6th, A.D. 30, Jesus and +eleven of the Apostles left the scene of the Last Supper, which had been +celebrated (probably in the home of Mark) on the outskirts of Jerusalem, +to go to the Garden of Gethsemane. + +(2) Jesus was arrested about midnight in Gethsemane by a band of Temple +officers and Roman soldiers guided by Judas. + +(3) He was first taken to Annas, and was afterwards sent by Annas to +Caiaphas. A private preliminary examination of Jesus was then had before +one of these church dignitaries. St. John describes this examination, +but does not tell us clearly whether it was Annas or Caiaphas who +conducted it. + +(4) After His preliminary examination, Jesus was arraigned about two +o'clock in the morning before the Sanhedrin, which had convened in the +palace of Caiaphas, and was formally tried and condemned to death on the +charge of blasphemy against Jehovah. + +(5) After a temporary adjournment of the first session, the Sanhedrin +reassembled at the break of day to retry Jesus, and to determine how He +should be brought before Pilate. + +(6) In the early morning of April 7th, Jesus was led before Pontius +Pilate, who was then stopping in the palace of Herod on the hill of +Zion, his customary residence when he came up from Cæsarea to Jerusalem +to attend the Jewish national festivals. A brief trial of Jesus by +Pilate, on the charge of high treason against Cæsar, was then had in +front of and within the palace of Herod. The result was an acquittal of +the prisoner by the Roman procurator, who expressed his verdict in these +words: "I find in him no fault at all." + +(7) Instead of releasing Jesus after having found Him not guilty, +Pilate, being intimidated by the rabble, sent the prisoner away to +Herod, Tetrarch of Galilee, who was then in attendance upon the Passover +Feast, and was at that moment residing in the ancient palace of the +Asmoneans in the immediate neighborhood of the residence of Pilate. A +brief, informal hearing was had before Herod, who, having mocked and +brutalized the prisoner, sent Him back to the Roman governor. + +(8) After the return of Jesus from the Court of Herod, Pilate assembled +the priests and elders, announced to them that Herod had found no fault +with the prisoner in their midst, reminded them that he himself had +acquitted Him, and offered to scourge and then release Him. This +compromise and subterfuge were scornfully rejected by the Jews who had +demanded the crucifixion of Jesus. Pilate, after much vacillation, +finally yielded to the demands of the mob and ordered the prisoner to be +crucified. + +From this brief outline of the proceedings against Jesus, the reader +will readily perceive that there were two distinct trials: a Hebrew and +a Roman. He will notice further that each trial was marked by three +distinct features or appearances. The Hebrew trial was characterized by: + +(1) The appearance before Annas. + +(2) The trial at the night session of the Sanhedrin. + +(3) The examination at the morning sitting of the same court. + +The Roman trial was marked by: + +(1) The appearance of Jesus before Pilate. + +(2) His arraignment before Herod. + +(3) His reappearance before Pilate. + +The first volume of this work has been devoted to the Hebrew trial of +Jesus, and a distinctively Hebrew impress has been given to all its +pages. The second volume has been devoted to the Roman trial, and a +distinctively Roman impress has been given it. Each exhibits a distinct +view of the subject. Taken together, they comprehend the most important +and famous judicial transaction in history. + +It is not the purpose of the author of these volumes to usurp the +functions or the privileges of the ecclesiastic. To priests and +preachers have been left the discussion and solution of theological +problems: the divinity of Jesus, the immortality of the soul and kindred +religious dogmas. "The Trial of Jesus from a _Lawyer's_ Standpoint" is +the expanded title of this work. A strict adherence to a secular +discussion of the theme proclaimed has been studiously observed in the +preparation of these pages. The legal rights of the _man_ Jesus at the +bar of _human_ justice under Jewish and Roman laws have marked the +limitations of the argument. Any digression from this plan has been +temporary and necessary. + +A thorough understanding of any case, judicially considered, involves a +complete analysis of the cardinal legal elements of the case: the +element called Fact and the element called Law. Whether in ancient or +modern times, in a Jewish or Gentile court, of civil or criminal +jurisdiction, these elements have always entered into the legal +conception of a case. Whether the advocate is preparing a pleading at +his desk, is summing up before the jury, or addressing himself to the +court, these elements are working forever in his brain. He is constantly +asking himself these questions: What are the facts of this case? What +is the law applicable to the facts? Do the facts and law meet and +harmonize judicially? Do they blend in legal unison according to the +latest decision of the court of last resort? If so, a case is made; +otherwise, not. + +Now many sermons might be differently preached; many books might be +differently written. But an intelligent discussion of the trial and +crucifixion of Jesus from a lawyer's point of view must be had upon the +basis of an analytical review of the agreement or nonagreement of law +and fact in the case sought to be made against the Christ. + +The first question that naturally suggests itself to the inquiring mind, +in investigating this theme, is this: Upon what facts was the complaint +against Jesus based? A second question then logically follows: What were +the rules and regulations of Hebrew and Roman law directly applicable to +those facts in the trials of Jesus before the Sanhedrin and before +Pilate? It is respectfully submitted that no clear and comprehensive +treatment of the subject can be had without proper answers to these +questions. + +Having learned the facts of any case, and having determined what rules +of law are applicable to them in regard to the controversy in hand, a +third step in the proceedings, in all matters of review on appeal, is +this: To analyze the record from the viewpoint of the juristic agreement +or nonagreement of law and fact; and to determine by a process of +judicial dissection and reformation the presence or absence of essential +legal elements in the proceedings, with a view to affirmance in case of +absence, or reversal of the verdict in the event of the discovery of the +presence of error. + +In obedience to this natural intellectual tendency and to the usual mode +of legal procedure in reviewing and revising matters on appeal, the +contents of Volume I have been divided into three parts, corresponding, +in a general way, to the successive steps heretofore mentioned. + +In Part I, the Record of Fact in the trial of Jesus has been +authenticated; not, indeed, according to the strict provisions of modern +statutes which regulate the authentication of legal documents, but in +the popular sense of the word "authentication." Nevertheless, the +authenticity of the Gospel narratives, which form the record of fact in +the trial of Jesus, and the credibility of the Evangelists who wrote and +published these narratives, have been subjected to the rigorous tests of +rules of evidence laid down by Greenleaf and by Starkie. Such an +authentication has been deemed necessary in a treatise of this kind. + +Two main methods may be employed in investigating and proving the +alleged occurrences of Sacred History: (1) The method which is based +upon the evidence of spiritual consciousness and experience, derived +from religious conversion and from communion with God; (2) the method +that rests upon the application of historic facts and legal rules to the +testimony of those who have asserted the existence of such occurrences. + +It has been contended by many that the first of these methods is the +supreme test, and the only proper one, in solving religious problems and +in reaching full and final assurance of the existence of spiritual +truths. It is confidently asserted by such persons that the true +Christian who has accepted Jesus as his personal Redeemer and has +thereby found peace with God, needs no assurance from Matthew that the +Christ was the Heaven-begotten and Virgin-born. Such a Christian, it is +said, has positive proof from within that Jesus was divine. It is +further contended that all forms of religious truth are susceptible of +the same kind of proof. It is argued that from despairing hope, born of +the longing and the tears of a mother who, grief-stricken and +broken-hearted, kneels in prayer beside the coffin of her firstborn, +springs stronger evidence of a future life and of an everlasting reunion +with loved ones, than comes from all the assurances of immortality +handed down by saints and sages. The advocates of this theory contend +that the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus should be proved mainly by +the method of spiritual consciousness and experience, and only +incidentally by the historical testimony of the sacred writers. They +boldly maintain that the Resurrection was a spiritual fact born of a +spiritual truth; and that within the soul of each true believer is the +image of the risen Jesus, reflected from Heaven in as perfect form as +that seen by Paul while journeying to Damascus. + +It would be decidedly ungenerous and unjust to deny the force of the +contention that spiritual consciousness and religious experience are +convincing forms of proof. To do so would be to offer gratuitous insult +to the intelligence and sincerity of millions of consecrated men and +women who have repeatedly proclaimed and are still proclaiming that the +Spirit of God and Christ within them attests the reality of religion. + +But on the other hand the doctrine of religions consciousness, as a mode +of proof, certainly has its limitations. Spiritual proofs are obviously +the very best means of establishing purely spiritual truths. But not +many truths of religion are purely spiritual. The most of them are +encased within historic facts which may themselves be separately +considered as historic truths. In a sense, all spiritual truth is born +of historic truth; that is, historic truths, in the order of our +acquisition of a knowledge of them, antedate and create spiritual +truths. The religious consciousness of the Resurrection of Jesus would +never have been born in our hearts if we had never read the historical +records of the physical Resurrection. Nor could we have ever had a +religious experience of the divinity of Jesus if we had never read the +historical accounts of His miracles, of His Virgin birth, His +fulfillment of prophecy, and His Resurrection from the dead, unless +Jesus had personally communicated to us evidences of His divinity. These +separate and historic facts, of which spiritual truths are born, cannot +be proved by religious consciousness and experience. + +The distinctions herein suggested are very aptly and beautifully +expressed by Professor Inge in his Bampton Lectures on Christian +Mysticism, in which he says: "The inner light can only testify to +spiritual truths. It always speaks in the present tense; it cannot +guarantee any historical event, past or future. It cannot guarantee +either the Gospel history or a future judgment. It can tell us that +Christ is risen, and He is alive for evermore, but not that He rose +again the third day." + +From the foregoing, then, it is clear that in dealing with the +historical facts and circumstances of the trial and crucifixion of +Jesus, we cannot remotely employ the method of proof which is based upon +religious consciousness and experience, since these events are matters +of the past and not of the present. We have been compelled, therefore, +to resort to the legal and historical method of proof; since we could +not assume the correctness of the record, as such an assumption would +have been lacking in legal requirement and judicial fitness. + +It has also been thought not to be within the scope of this treatise, or +consistent with the purpose of the author of these volumes, to enter +into a discussion of the question of inspiration in the matter of the +origin of the New Testament Gospels, as the record of fact in the trial +of Jesus. As secular historians, rather than as inspired writers, must +the Evangelists be regarded in this connection; since the title of this +work suggests and demands a strictly legal treatment of the theme +proclaimed. The author would respectfully suggest, however, that the day +is past for complete reliance upon the theory of inspiration and a total +rejection of all analysis and investigation. That the Scriptures are +sacred and inspired, and neither need nor permit questions involving +doubt and speculation as to origin and authenticity will no longer meet +the challenge or dissipate the fears of the intellectual leaders of the +human race. The Christianity of the future must be a religion of reason +as well as of faith, else it cannot and will not endure the shocks of +time, or survive the onward march of the soul. If the teachings of the +Nazarene are a faithful portrayal and a truthful expression of all the +verities of Heaven and earth, then Christianity has nothing to fear from +the discoveries of Science, from Roman catacombs, Arabian hieroglyphics, +the sands of Egypt, or the ruins of Nineveh and Babylon. Science is the +High Priestess of Nature and Nature's oracles, and no single revelation +of Science can disprove or contradict the simplest truth of Nature's +God. + +If, on the other hand, Christianity be fundamentally and essentially +false, ignorance and bigotry will not preserve and perpetuate it; all +the prayers of the faithful, all the martyrdom of the centuries, will +not suffice to save it from death and annihilation. + +But the Christian need have no fear of the results of scientific +investigation or historic revelation. Assyriology, archæology, and +paleontology, interpreted and applied by the finest scholarship and the +most superb intellects of earth, have spent all their stupendous and +concentrated forces in the direction of the discovery of natural and +historic facts that would confirm or destroy the Christian theory of +things. And yet not one natural or historic fact has been discovered +that seriously disturbs the testimony of the Evangelists or impairs the +evidence of Christianity. A few unlettered fisherman, casting nets for a +livelihood in the waters of Gennesaret, framed a message to humanity +based upon the life and martyrdom of a Galilean peasant, their spiritual +Lord and Master, and proclaimed it to the world; and all the succeeding +centuries of scientific research and skeptical criticism have not shaken +mankind's confidence in its truthfulness and its potency. If eighteen +hundred years of scientific investigation have resulted only in proof +and vindication of the historic asseverations of the Sacred Scriptures, +and further investigation gives promise of still further proof and +vindication, tending to remove all doubts and destroy all fears, nothing +but rank stupidity and crass ignorance will place obstacles in the way +of ultimate analysis and complete revelation. + +In Part II of this volume, following the plan heretofore suggested, the +element of Law has been considered. Hebrew criminal jurisprudence, based +upon the Mosaic Code and upon the Talmud, has been outlined and +discussed. A more exhaustive treatment has been given than the subject +would seem to justify, but the writer is convinced that the Criminal +Code of the Jews must be of surpassing interest to the general reader, +regardless of whether certain peculiar rules therein contained have +reference to the trial of Jesus or not. The bulk of this Code has been +inserted in this work because it is felt that a comprehensive view of +any system enables the student of a particular trial under that system +to grasp more fully and to appreciate more keenly the merits of the +proceedings. + +In Part III the legal aspects of the trial of Jesus have been reviewed. +The elements of Law and Fact have been combined in the form of a +"Brief," in which "Points" have been made and errors have been +discussed. + +During the past decade, the author of this work has delivered +occasionally, in the United States and in the Dominion of Canada, a +lecture upon the subject, "The Trial of Jesus from a Lawyer's +Standpoint." Numerous requests have been made, from time to time, for +the lecture in printed form. To supply this demand is the purpose of the +publication of these volumes. The voluminous treatment given has been in +response to the demands of those who have asked for a topical treatment +of the subject. Many auditors in his lecture audiences have asked for +special treatment, from a lawyer's standpoint, of the New Testament +Gospels. Many have requested an exhaustive handling of Hebrew criminal +law. Others have asked for the insertion in this work of the Apocryphal +Acts of Pilate. And still others have expressed a desire to have +Græco-Roman Paganism dealt with in its relationship to the trial of +Jesus. In obedience to these various demands, certain chapters have been +incorporated in the general work that may not seem to the average reader +to have any direct bearing upon the subject treated. It is felt, +however, that in every case at least a partial relevancy exists, and +that in a large majority of cases the relevancy is perfect. + +The writer wishes, at this time and place, to acknowledge his +indebtedness and to express his thanks, for valuable assistance +rendered, to all those authors mentioned under the title "Bibliography" +at the end of Volume II. + + WALTER M. CHANDLER. + + NEW YORK CITY, July 1, 1908. + + + + +THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES + + + + +MATTHEW + +xxvi. 47-68; xxvii. 1-26 + + And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and + with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief + priests and elders of the people.... Then came they, and laid hands + on Jesus, and took him.... And they that had laid hold on Jesus led + him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the + elders were assembled.... Now the chief priests, and elders, and + all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to + death; But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet + found they none. At the last came two false witnesses, And said, + This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to + build it in three days. And the high priest arose, and said unto + him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against + thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and + said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us + whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, + Thou has said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see + the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in + the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, + saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of + witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? + They answered and said, He is guilty of death. Then did they spit + in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms + of their hands, Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he + that smote thee? + + When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the + people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death: And when + they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius + Pilate the governor.... And Jesus stood before the governor: and + the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And + Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest. And when he was accused of the + chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then said Pilate + unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against + thee? And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the + governor marvelled greatly. Now at the feast the governor was wont + to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. And they + had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore when they + were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I + release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? For he + knew that for envy they had delivered him. When he was set down on + the judgement seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou + nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things + this day in a dream because of him. But the chief priests and + elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and + destroy Jesus. The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of + the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas. + Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is + called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the + governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the + more, saying, Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could + prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, + and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of + the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the + people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. Then + released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he + delivered him to be crucified. + + +MARK + +xiv. 43-65; xv. 1-15. + + And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the + twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from + the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. And he that + betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall + kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely. And as + soon as he was come, he goeth straightway to him, and saith, + Master, Master; and kissed him. And they laid hands on him, and + took him. And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a + servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. And Jesus answered + and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with + swords and staves to take me? I was daily with you in the temple + teaching, and ye took me not; but the scriptures must be fulfilled. + And they all forsook him, and fled. And there followed him a + certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; + and the young man laid hold on him: And he left the linen cloth, + and fled from them naked. And they led Jesus away to the high + priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the + elders and the scribes.... And the chief priests and all the + council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and + found none. For many bare false witness against him, but their + witness agreed not together. And there arose certain, and bare + false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy + this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will + build another made without hands. But neither so did their witness + agree together. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and + asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these + witness against thee? But he held his peace, and answered nothing. + Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the + Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall + see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming + in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, and + saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the + blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty + of death. And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and + to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did + strike him with the palms of their hands. + + And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a + consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and + bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate. And + Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering + said unto him, Thou sayest it. And the chief priests accused him of + many things: but he answered nothing. And Pilate asked him again, + saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness + against thee. But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate + marvelled. Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, + whomsoever they desired. And there was one named Barabbas, which + lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had + committed murder in the insurrection. And the multitude crying + aloud began to desire him to do as he had ever done unto them. But + Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the + King of the Jews? For he knew that the chief priests had delivered + him for envy. But the chief priests moved the people, that he + should rather release Barabbas unto them. And Pilate answered and + said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him + whom ye call the King of the Jews? And they cried out again, + Crucify him. Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he + done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him. And so + Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, + and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified. + + +LUKE + +xxii. 47-71; xxiii. 1-24. + + And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called + Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto + Jesus to kiss him. But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou + the Son of man with a kiss? When they which were about him saw what + would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the + sword? And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and + cut off his right ear. And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus + far. And he touched his ear, and healed him. Then Jesus said unto + the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, + which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with + swords and staves? When I was daily with you in the temple, ye + stretched forth no hands against me; but this is your hour, and the + power of darkness. Then took they him, and led him, and brought him + into the high priest's house. And Peter followed afar off.... And + as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief + priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their + council, saying, Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto + them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: And if I also ask you, ye + will not answer me, nor let me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man + sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art + thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. + And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves + have heard of his own mouth. + + And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate. And + they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting + the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, saying that he + himself is Christ a King. And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou + the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it. + Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no + fault in this man. And they were the more fierce, saying, He + stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning + from Galilee to this place. When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked + whether the man were a Galilæan. And as soon as he knew that he + belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who + himself also was at Jerusalem at that time. And when Herod saw + Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a + long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped + to have seen some miracle done by him. Then he questioned with him + in many words; but he answered him nothing. And the chief priests + and scribes stood and vehemently accused him. And Herod with his + men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a + gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate. And the same day + Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were + at enmity between themselves. And Pilate, when he had called + together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, Said unto + them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the + people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found + no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him: + No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy + of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him, and + release him.... And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with + this man, and release unto us Barabbas.... Pilate therefore, + willing to release Jesus, spake again to them. But they cried, + saying, Crucify him, crucify him. And he said unto them the third + time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death + in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go. And they + were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be + crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests + prevailed. And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they + required. + +JOHN + +xviii. 3-38; xix. 1-16. + + Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the + chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and + torches and weapons.... Then the band and the captain and officers + of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him, And led him away to Annas + first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high + priest that same year.... The high priest then asked Jesus of his + disciples, and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly + to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, + whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. + Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto + them: behold, they know what I said. And when he had thus spoken, + one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of + his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered + him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, + why smitest thou me? Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the + high priest.... Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of + judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the + judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat + the passover. Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What + accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto + him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him + up unto thee. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge + him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is + not lawful for us to put any man to death.... Then Pilate entered + into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, + Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this + thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate + answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have + delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My + kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, + then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the + Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said + unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I + am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into + the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Everyone that + is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is + truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, + and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all. + + Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. And the + soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and + they put on him a purple robe, And said, Hail, King of the Jews! + and they smote him with their hands. Pilate therefore went forth + again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that + ye may know that I find no fault in him.... The Jews answered + him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made + himself the Son of God. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he + was the more afraid; And went again into the judgment hall, and + saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.... + And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews + cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar's + friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Cæsar. + When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, + and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the + Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation + of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the + Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away + with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your + King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Cæsar. Then + delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took + Jesus, and led him away. + + + + +PART I + +_THE RECORD OF FACT_ + + + + +[Illustration: ST. MATTHEW (REMBRANDT)] + + + + +CHAPTER I + +THE RECORD OF FACT + + +The Gospels of the New Testament form the record of fact in the trial of +Jesus. There is not a line of authentic history in the literature of the +world, sacred or profane, dealing originally and authoritatively with +the facts and circumstances of the trial and crucifixion of the Christ, +excepting these Gospels. A line from Philo--a dubious passage from +Josephus--a mere mention by Tacitus--a few scattering fragments from the +Talmud--all else is darkness, save the light that streams down through +the centuries from Calvary and the Cross through the books of the +Evangelists. + +In dealing with the record of fact contained in the Gospels, in the +trial of Jesus two questions naturally suggest themselves: (1) Are the +Gospel narratives, such as we have them to-day, identical with those +that were given to the world by the Evangelists in Apostolic times? That +is, have these biographies of the Christ by the Evangelical writers been +handed down to us through all the ages substantially uncorrupted and +unimpaired? + +(2) Are the Gospel writers--Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John--credible +witnesses of the facts and circumstances recorded by them in the Gospel +histories? That is, did they tell the truth when they wrote and +published these narratives to the world? Satisfactory affirmative +answers to these questions will establish and authenticate a perfect +record of fact. The pages of Part I of this volume will be devoted to +giving affirmative and satisfactory answers to these questions. And, in +accomplishing this purpose, academic reasoning and metaphysical +speculation will be rejected. Well-established rules of evidence, as +employed in modern courts of law, will be rigorously applied. So-called +"Higher Criticism" has no place in a treatise of this kind, since the +critical niceties and dialectic quibbles of men like Strauss, Renan, and +Baur would not be seriously considered in a modern judicial proceeding. +Reasonable probability, and not mathematical certainty, is the legal +test of adequacy in weighing human testimony with a view to a judicial +determination. + +The reader may ask: Why should not a Christian writer, in a Christian +country, assume, without argument, that the testimony of Christian +sacred writers is true? The answer is that such conduct would convert a +purely legal treatise into a religious one, and substitute faith for +logic. The writer of these volumes, as a Christian, believes that the +Gospels relate the truth. As a lawyer, he is compelled to respect the +opinions of a large proportion of mankind who differ with him, and to +employ judicial methods in treating a legal theme. + +The two questions above mentioned involve two distinct principles or +features in the Law of Evidence: (1) Admissibility or relevancy of +evidence; (2) Credibility of witnesses who have rendered testimony. All +the pages of Part I will be devoted to a consideration of these features +in their relationship to the testimony of the Evangelists. + +The first question that naturally arises is this: Is there a +well-established rule of the modern Law of Evidence under which the +Gospels could be introduced as evidence in a modern judicial proceeding? +Suppose that the question of the Resurrection of Jesus--that is, the +fact of the truthfulness or falsity of the Resurrection--should become a +material fact in issue in a suit in a modern court of law; could the +testimony of the Evangelists relating to the Resurrection be introduced +in evidence? It would probably be objected that their testimony was +hearsay; that they had not been properly subjected to the cardinal tests +of truth: an oath, a cross-examination, and personal demeanor while +testifying. These objections might prevail if another rule of law could +not be successfully invoked. Such a rule exists, and with it we have now +to deal. + +The author can conceive of no more satisfactory way of establishing the +principle of the admissibility of the Gospels in evidence under modern +law than by quoting at length from the celebrated treatise on the +"Testimony of the Evangelists," by Mr. Simon Greenleaf, the greatest of +all writers on the Law of Evidence. The opinion of Greenleaf on a +subject of this kind is somewhat in the nature of a decision of a court +of last resort, and his authority in matters of this import is +unquestioned in every land where English law is practiced. _The London +Law Magazine_, a few years ago, paid him the following splendid tribute: +"It is no mean honor to America that her schools of jurisprudence have +produced two of the first writers and best esteemed legal authorities of +this century--the great and good man, Judge Story, and his worthy and +eminent associate, Professor Greenleaf. Upon the existing Law of +Evidence (by Greenleaf) more light has shone from the New World than +from all the lawyers who adorn the courts of Europe." + +Concerning the authenticity of the Sacred Scriptures and their +admissibility in evidence, Greenleaf has thus written: + + That the books of the Old Testament, as we now have them, are + genuine; that they existed in the time of our Saviour, and were + commonly received and referred to among the Jews as the sacred + books of their religion; and that the text of the Four Evangelists + has been handed down to us in the state in which it was originally + written, that is, without having been materially corrupted or + falsified, either by heretics or Christians, are facts which we are + entitled to assume as true, until the contrary is shown. + + The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, + and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient + writings whatever. The rule of municipal law on this subject is + familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings, + whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, + in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere + convenience, be designated as our first rule. + + _Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper + repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of + forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the + opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise._ + + An ancient document, offered in evidence in our courts, is said to + come from the proper repository, when it is found in the place + where, and under the care of persons with whom, such writings might + naturally and reasonably be expected to be found; for it is this + custody which gives authenticity to documents found within it. If + they come from such a place, and bear no evident marks of forgery, + the law presumes that they are genuine, and they are permitted to + be read in evidence, unless the opposing party is able successfully + to impeach them. The burden of showing them to be false and + unworthy of credit is devolved on the party who makes that + objection. The presumption of law is the judgment of charity. It + presumes that every man is innocent until he is proved guilty; that + everything has been done fairly and legally until it is proved to + have been otherwise; and that every document found in its proper + repository, and not bearing marks of forgery, is genuine. Now this + is precisely the case with the Sacred Writings. They have been used + in the church from time immemorial, and are thus found in the place + where alone they ought to be looked for. They come to us, and + challenge our reception of them as genuine writings, precisely as + Domesday Book, the Ancient Statutes of Wales, or any other of the + ancient documents which have recently been published under the + British Record Commission are received. They are found in familiar + use in all the churches of Christendom, as the sacred books to + which all denominations of Christians refer, as the standard of + their faith. There is no pretense that they were engraven on plates + of gold and discovered in a cave, nor that they were brought from + heaven by angels; but they are received as the plain narratives and + writings of the men whose names they respectively bear, made public + at the time they were written; and though there are some slight + discrepancies among the copies subsequently made, there is no + pretense that the originals were anywhere corrupted. If it be + objected that the originals are lost, and that copies alone are now + produced, the principles of the municipal law here also afford a + satisfactory answer. For the multiplication of copies was a public + fact, in the faithfulness of which all the Christian community had + an interest; and it is a rule of law that + + _In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be + presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are + presumed to be conversant with their own affairs._ + + Therefore it is that, in such matters, the prevailing current of + assertion is resorted to as evidence, for it is to this that every + member of the community is supposed to be privy. The persons, + moreover, who multiplied these copies may be regarded, in some + manner, as the agents of the Christian public, for whose use and + benefit the copies were made; and on the ground of the credit due + to such agents, and of the public nature of the facts themselves, + the copies thus made are entitled to an extraordinary degree of + confidence, and, as in the case of official registers and other + public books, it is not necessary that they should be confirmed and + sanctioned by the ordinary tests of truth. If any ancient document + concerning our public rights were lost, copies which had been as + universally received and acted upon as the Four Gospels have been, + would have been received in evidence in any of our courts of + justice, without the slightest hesitation. The entire text of the + Corpus Juris Civilis is received as authority in all the courts of + continental Europe, upon much weaker evidence of its genuineness; + for the integrity of the Sacred Text has been preserved by the + jealousy of opposing sects, beyond any moral possibility of + corruption; while that of the Roman Civil Law has been preserved by + tacit consent, without the interest of any opposing school, to + watch over and preserve it from alteration. + + These copies of the Holy Scriptures having thus been in familiar + use in the churches from the time when the text was committed to + writing; having been watched with vigilance by so many sects, + opposed to each other in doctrine, yet all appealing to these + Scriptures for the correctness of their faith; and having in all + ages, down to this day, been respected as the authoritative source + of all ecclesiastical power and government, and submitted to, and + acted under in regard to so many claims of right, on the one hand, + and so many obligations of duty, on the other; it is quite + erroneous to suppose that the Christian is bound to offer any + further proof of their genuineness or authenticity. It is for the + objector to show them spurious; for on him, by the plainest rules + of law, lies the burden of proof. If it were the case of a claim to + a franchise, and a copy of an ancient deed or charter were produced + in support of the title, under parallel circumstances on which to + presume its genuineness, no lawyer, it is believed, would venture + to deny either its admissibility in evidence or the satisfactory + character of the proof. In a recent case in the House of Lords, + precisely such a document, being an old manuscript copy, purporting + to have been extracted from ancient Journals of the House, which + were lost, and to have been made by an officer whose duty it was to + prepare lists of the peers, was held admissible in a claim of + peerage.[1] + +Having secured the Gospel writings to be admitted in evidence under the +rule laid down by Mr. Greenleaf, we are now ready to consider more at +length the question of the credibility of the witnesses. The reader +should bear in mind that there is a very important difference between +the admission of testimony in evidence and belief in its truthfulness by +the court or jury. Evidence is frequently deemed relevant and +admissible, and goes to the jury for what it is worth. They may or may +not believe it. + +We are now ready to consider the credit that should be accorded the +testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John concerning the trial and +crucifixion of Jesus. And at the outset it should be borne in mind that +there is a legal presumption that they told the truth. This presumption +operates in their favor from the very moment that their testimony is +admitted in evidence. Here, again, the opinion of Greenleaf--with all +the weight and authority that such an opinion carries--is directly in +point. In the "Testimony of the Evangelists" he says: + + Proceeding further, to inquire whether the facts related by the + Four Evangelists are proved by competent and satisfactory evidence, + we are led, first, to consider on which side lies the burden of + establishing the credibility of the witnesses. On this point the + municipal law furnishes a rule which is of constant application in + all trials by jury, and is indeed the dictate of that charity which + thinketh no evil. + + _In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every + witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown, + the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector._ + + This rule serves to show the injustice with which the writers of + the Gospels have ever been treated by infidels; an injustice + silently acquiesced in even by Christians; in requiring the + Christian affirmatively, and by positive evidence, _aliunde_ to + establish the credibility of his witnesses above all others, before + their testimony is entitled to be considered, and in permitting the + testimony of a single profane writer, alone and uncorroborated, to + outweigh that of any single Christian. This is not the course in + courts of chancery, where the testimony of a single witness is + never permitted to outweigh the oath even of the defendant himself, + interested as he is in the case; but, on the contrary, if the + plaintiff, after having required the oath of his adversary, cannot + overthrow it by something more than the oath of one witness, + however credible, it must stand as evidence against him. But the + Christian writer seems, by the usual course of the argument, to + have been deprived of the common presumption of charity in his + favor; and reversing the ordinary rule of administering justice in + human tribunals, his testimony is unjustly presumed to be false, + until it is proved to be true. This treatment, moreover, has been + applied to them all in a body; and without due regard to the fact, + that, being independent historians, writing at different periods, + they are entitled to the support of each other; they have been + treated, in the argument, almost as if the New Testament were the + entire production, at once, of a body of men, conspiring by a joint + fabrication, to impose a false religion upon the world. It is time + that this injustice should cease; that the testimony of the + evangelists should be admitted to be true, until it can be + disproved by those who would impugn it; that the silence of one + sacred writer on any point should no more detract from his own + veracity or that of other historians, that the like circumstance is + permitted to do among profane writers; and that the Four + Evangelists should be admitted in corroboration of each other, as + readily as Josephus and Tacitus, or Polybius and Livy.[2] + +The reader will notice from the last extract that the eminent writer +quoted has sought to establish the credibility of the Evangelists by a +legal presumption in favor of their veracity. But it should be borne in +mind that this presumption is a disputable one, and may be overturned by +opposing evidence; that objections may be raised which will destroy the +force of the presumption and shift the burden again to him who asserts +the credibility of the witnesses. Now, let us suppose that such +objections have been made, and that sufficient opposing evidence has +been offered to accomplish this result; what has the Christian then to +say in support of the credibility of the first historians of his faith? +What proofs has he to offer, independent of legal presumption, that the +first biographers of the Master were truthful men? Can he show that the +application of legal tests to their credibility will save them in the +eyes of a critical and unbelieving world? The writer believes that the +Christian can do it, and will at once assume the task. + +In "Starkie on Evidence" we find elaborated a rule of municipal law, at +once concise and comprehensive, which furnishes a complete test of the +credibility of witnesses. The various elements of this rule are +constantly operating in the mind of the successful cross-examiner in the +course of any extensive cross-examination. + + _The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon, + firstly, their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, their + number and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the + conformity of their testimony with experience; and fifthly, the + coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances._[3] + +Let us apply these successive tests, in the order above enumerated, to +the Evangelists. + +(1) In the first place, let us consider the question of their _honesty_. + +The meaning of the word "honesty," used in this connection, is peculiar. +It relates rather to personal sincerity than to personal integrity, and +suggests the idea of perjury rather than theft in criminal law. Were the +witnesses honest? That is, were they sincere? Did they intend to tell +the truth? That is, did they themselves believe what they testified? If +so, they were honest witnesses, though their testimony was false, as a +result of error in judgment or mistake of fact. + +In the sense, then, of _sincerity_ is the test of honesty to be applied +to the Evangelists as witnesses of the facts which they relate in the +New Testament narratives. And in making this test let us bear in mind +the nature and scope of this work; that it is not a religious treatise, +and that the question of inspiration must not be allowed to confuse a +purely legal and historical discussion. As secular historians, and not +as inspired writers, must the Evangelists be considered. And in testing +their credibility, the customary standards employed in analyzing the +motives and conduct of ordinary men in the usual experiences and +everyday affairs of life must be applied. To regard them as strange or +supernatural beings, subject to some awful influence, and acting under +the guidance and protection of some god or hero, is decidedly foreign to +the present purpose. + +It is felt that only two considerations are needed in applying the test +of sincerity to the Evangelists: (1) Character; (2) Motive. And this for +the reason that honest character and righteous motive are the legitimate +parentage of perfect sincerity. Then, as a primary consideration, in +discussing their sincerity, it may be reasonably contended that the +Gospel writers were either good men or bad. A middle ground is not +possible in their case, since the issues joined and the results attained +were too terrible and stupendous to have been produced by negative or +indifferent forces. Were they good men, then they believed what they +taught and wrote, and were sincere, else they deliberately palmed off +an imposture on the world, which is inconsistent with the hypothesis +that they were good. Were they bad men, then their lives and teachings +furnish a contradiction in principle and an inversion in the nature and +order of cause and effect which history has not elsewhere recorded, +either before or since; for, in their discourses and their writings, +they portrayed the divinest character and proclaimed the sublimest +truths known to the children of men. Every serious, thoughtful mind at +once inquires: Could bad men, conspirators and hypocrites, have painted +such a character--one whose perfect purity and sinless beauty mock and +shame the mental and spiritual attributes of every false prophet and of +all heathen gods? The Olympian Zeus, the sovereign creation of the +superb Greek intellect, was a fierce and vindictive deity--at times a +faithless spouse and a drunken debauchee. Mahomet, whom two hundred +millions of the human race worship as the Inspired of Allah, was cruel +and treacherous in warfare, and base and sensual in private life. The +Great Spirit of the Indian granted immortality to dogs, but denied it to +women. Other hideous and monstrous attributes deformed the images and +blurred the characters of pagan prophets and heathen divinities. But +Jesus of Nazareth was a pure and perfect being who claimed to be +sinless,[4] and whose claims have been admitted by all the world, +believers and unbelievers alike. The great truths taught by the gentle +Nazarene and transmitted by the Evangelists have brought balm and +healing to the nations, have proclaimed and established universal +brotherhood among men. Is it probable that such a character was painted +and such truths proclaimed by dishonest and insincere men? Can Vice be +the mother of Virtue? "Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of +thistles?" If Jesus was not really the pure and holy being portrayed by +the Gospels, then the Evangelists have created a sublime character in a +superb fiction which surpasses anything to be found in profane +literature, and that evil-minded men could neither have conceived nor +executed. It is impossible to derive from these reflections any other +conclusion than the absolute honesty and perfect sincerity of the +Evangelists. Besides, the mere perusal of their writings leaves a deep +impression that they were pure and pious men. + +Again, a second and more serious consideration than that of character, +as affecting the sincerity of the Gospel writers, is the question of +motive. If the Evangelists were insincere and did not believe their own +story, what motive prompted them to tell it, to preach it and to die for +it? It is not believed that all men are now or have ever been wholly +selfish, but it is contended that desire for compensation is the main +inducement to human action, mental and manual. Reward is the great +golden key that opens the door of the Temple of Labor, and some form of +recompense, here or hereafter, explains all the bustling activity of +men. The Apostles themselves acted in obedience to this law, for we find +them quarreling among themselves as to place and precedence in the New +Kingdom. They even demanded of the Master the exact nature of their +reward for labors performed and sacrifices endured. To which reply was +made that they should sit on twelve thrones and judge the Twelve Tribes +of Israel. + +Now let us apply this principle of expectation of reward to the conduct +of the Evangelists in preaching and publishing the Gospel of the +Nazarene, and let us note particularly the result as it affects the +question of motive in human conduct. But first let us review, for a +moment, the political and religious situation at the beginning of the +Apostolic ministry. The Master and Savior of the first Christians had +just perished as a malefactor on the cross. The religion which the +Apostles began to preach was founded in the doctrine of repentance from +sins, faith in the Crucified One, and belief in His resurrection from +the dead. Christianity, of which these elements were the essentials, +sought to destroy and supplant all other religions. No compromises were +proposed, no treaties were concluded. The followers of the Nazarene +raised a black flag against paganism and every heathen god. No quarter +was asked and none was given. This strange faith not only defied all +other religions, but mocked all earthly government not built upon it. +The small, but devoted, band, thus arrayed against themselves in the +very beginning all the opposing religious and secular forces of the +earth. Judaism branded the new creed as a disobedient and rebellious +daughter. Paganism denounced it as a sham and a fraud, because its +doctrines were unknown to the Portico and the Academy, and because its +teachings were ridiculed by both Stoics and Epicureans. The Roman State +cast a jealous and watchful eye upon the haughty pretensions of a +religious system that taught the impotence of kings and sought to +degrade earthly royalty. + +In seeking, then, to establish the new faith and to inculcate its +doctrines, what could and did the Evangelists expect but the bitter +opposition which they met? Did they seriously hope to see the proud and +haughty Sadducee, who despised the common people, or the kingly +aristocracy of Rome, that vaunted a superhuman excellence, complacently +accept a religion that taught the absolute equality and the universal +brotherhood of men? Did they not expect what they actually +received--bitter persecution, horrible torture, and cruel death? Then we +are led to ask: Was this the recompense which they sought? Again, we +pose the question: What was the motive of these men in thus acting, if +they were dishonest and insincere? If they knew that they were preaching +a falsehood, what reward did they expect? Was it of an earthly or a +heavenly kind? It is unreasonable to suppose that they looked forward to +earthly recompense when their teachings arrayed against them every +spiritual and temporal potentate who had honors to grant or favors to +confer. Were they looking for heavenly reward? It is ridiculous to +imagine that they hoped to gain this by preaching a falsehood in this +world. Nothing could be, therefore, more absurd than the proposition +that a number of men banded themselves together, repudiated the ancient +faith of their fathers, changed completely their mode of life, became +austere in professing and practicing principles of virtue, spent their +entire lives proclaiming certain truths to mankind, and then suffered +the deaths of martyrs--all for the sake of a religion which they knew to +be false. If they did not believe it to be false, they were sincere, and +one element of their credibility is established. It is not a question at +this time as to the absolute correctness of their statements. These +statements might have been false, though their authors believed them to +be true--it is a question of sincerity at this point; and the test of +sincerity, as an element of credibility, rests upon the simple basis +that men are more disposed to believe the statement of a witness if it +is thought that the witness himself believes it. + +(2) In the second place, let us consider the _ability_ of the +Evangelists as a test of their credibility as witnesses. + +The text writers on the Law of Evidence are generally agreed that the +ability of a witness to speak truthfully and accurately depends upon two +considerations: (1) His natural powers of observation, which enable him +to clearly perceive, and his strength of memory, which enables him to +fully retain the matters of fact to which his testimony relates; (2) his +opportunities for observing the things about which he testifies. + +To what extent the Gospel writers possessed the first of these +qualifications--that is, power of observation and strength of memory--we +are not informed by either history or tradition. But we are certainly +justified in assuming to be true what the law actually presumes: that +they were at least men of sound mind and average intelligence. This +presumption, it may be remarked, continues to exist in favor of the +witness until an objector appears who proves the contrary by competent +and satisfactory evidence. It is not believed that this proof has ever +been or can ever be successfully established in the case of the +Evangelists. + +Aside from this legal presumption in their favor, there are certain +considerations which lead us to believe that they were well qualified to +speak truthfully and authoritatively about the matters relating to +Gospel history. In the first place, the writings themselves indicate +extraordinary mental vigor, as well as cultivated intelligence. The +Gospels of Luke and John, moreover, reveal that the elegance of style +and lofty imagery which are the invariable characteristics of +intellectual depth and culture. The "ignorant fishermen" idea is +certainly not applicable to the Gospel writers. If they were ever very +ignorant, at the time of the composition of the Evangelical writings +they had outgrown the affliction. The fact that the Gospels were written +in Greek by Hebrews indicates that they were not entirely illiterate. + +Again, the occupations of two of them are very suggestive. Matthew was a +collector at the seat of customs,[5] and Luke was a physician.[6] Both +these callings required more than ordinary knowledge of men, as well as +accurate powers of observation, discrimination, and analysis. + +But it has been frequently urged that, regardless of their natural +endowments, the Evangelists were biased in favor of Jesus and His +teachings, and bitterly prejudiced against all opposing faiths. In other +words, they were at the same moment both enthusiasts and fanatics. For +this reason, it is contended, their testimony is unreliable. This is +without doubt the weakest assault ever made upon the trustworthiness of +the Gospel narratives. That the Gospel writers were neither fanatics nor +enthusiasts is evident from the very tone and style of the Sacred +Writings themselves. The language of fanaticism and enthusiasm is the +language of rant and rage, of vituperation and of censure, on the one +hand, and of eulogy and adulation on the other. The enthusiast knows no +limit to the praise of those whose cause he advocates. The fanatic +places no bounds to his denunciation of those whom he opposes. Now, the +most remarkable characteristic of the New Testament histories is the +spirit of quiet dignity and simple candor which everywhere pervades +them. There is nowhere the slightest trace of bitterness or resentment. +There is enthusiasm everywhere in the sense of religious fervor, but +nowhere in the sense of unbecoming heat or impatient caviling. The three +eventful years of the ministry of Jesus afforded many opportunities for +the display of temper and for the use of invective in the Evangelical +writings. The murder of the Baptist by Herod; his cunning designs +against Jesus; the constant dogging of the footsteps of the Master by +the spies of the Sanhedrin; and His crucifixion by the order of Pontius +Pilate--what more could be desired to make the heart rage and the blood +boil? But nowhere is there the slightest exhibition of violent feeling +or extravagant emotion. A gentle forbearance, a mild equanimity, a +becoming dignity, mark every thought and utterance. The character of +Pilate, as portrayed in the New Testament, is a supreme illustration of +the fairness and magnanimity of the Gospel writers. Philo and Josephus +describe the Roman procurator as stubborn, cruel, and vindictive. The +only kindly suggestion touching the character of Pilate that has come +down from the ancient world, is that contained in the writings of men +who, above all others, would have been justified in describing him as +cowardly and craven. Instead of painting him as a monster, they have +linked conscience to his character and stored mercy in his heart, by +their accounts of his repeated attempts to release Jesus. Fanatics and +enthusiasts would not have done this. + +Again, the absence of both bias and prejudice in the minds and hearts of +the Evangelists is shown by the fact that they did not hesitate to +record their own ludicrous foibles and blunders, and to proclaim them to +the world. A disposition to do this is one of the surest indications of +a truthful mind. It is in the nature of "a declaration against +interest," in the phraseology of the law; and such declarations are +believed because it has been universally observed that "men are not +likely to invent anecdotes to their own discredit." "When we find them +in any author," says Professor Fisher in his "Grounds of Theistic and +Christian Belief," "a strong presumption is raised in favor of his +general truthfulness." Many passages of New Testament Scriptures place +Jesus and the Apostles in a most unfavorable light before the world. The +denial of the Master by Peter[7] and His betrayal by Judas;[8] the +flight of the Eleven from the Garden at the time of the arrest;[9] the +ridiculous attempt of Peter to walk upon the sea and his failure because +of lack of faith;[10] the frequent childish contentions among the +disciples for place and precedence in the affections of Jesus and in the +New Kingdom;[11] the embassy from John the Baptist to Jesus asking if +He, Jesus, was the Messiah, after the latter had already visited the +former, and had been baptized by him;[12] the belief of the family of +Jesus that He was mad;[13] and the fact that His neighbors at Nazareth +threatened to kill Him by hurling Him from a cliff[14]--these various +recitals have furnished a handle to skeptical criticism in every age. +They might as well have been omitted from the Gospel histories; and they +would have been omitted by designing and untruthful men. + +Again, touching the question of bias and prejudice, it is worthy of +observation that skeptics fail to apply the same rules of criticism to +sacred that they employ in profane literature. It is contended by them +that the Evangelists are unworthy of belief because their writings +record the words and deeds of their own Lord and Master. It is asserted +that this sacred and tender relationship warped and blinded their +Judgment, and disqualified them to write truthfully the facts and +circumstances connected with the life and ministry of the founder of +their faith. But these same critics do not apply the same tests of +credibility to secular writers sustaining similar relationships. The +Commentaries of Cæsar and the Anabasis of Xenophon record the mighty +deeds and brilliant achievements of their authors; but this fact does +not destroy their reliability as historical records in the estimation of +those who insist that the Gospel writers shall be rejected on grounds of +bias and partiality. The Memorabilia of Xenophon, "Recollections of +Socrates," is the tribute of an affectionate and admiring disciple; and +yet, all the colleges and universities of the world employ this work as +a text-book in teaching the life and style of conversation of the great +Athenian philosopher. It is never argued that the intimate relationship +existing between Xenophon and Socrates should affect the credibility of +the author of the Memorabilia. The best biography in the English +language is Boswell's "Life of Johnson." Boswell's admiration for Dr. +Johnson was idolatrous. At times, his servile flattery of the great +Englishman amounted to disgusting sycophancy. In spite of this, his work +is a monumental contribution to historical literature. The "Encyclopedia +Britannica" says that "Boswell has produced the best biography the world +has yet seen"; but why not reject this book because of its author's +spaniel-like devotion to the man whose life he has written? If Matthew, +Mark, Luke, and John are to be repudiated on the ground of bias, why not +repudiate Cæsar, Xenophon, and Boswell? It is respectfully submitted +that there is no real difference in logic between the tests of +credibility applicable to sacred, and those required in the case of +profane writers. A just and exact criticism will apply the same rules to +both. + +As to the second qualification above mentioned, under the second legal +test of credibility laid down by Starkie, that is, the opportunity of +observing facts and circumstances about which testimony is given, it may +safely be said that the majority of the Evangelists possessed it in the +highest degree. The most convincing testimony that can possibly be +offered in a court of law is that of an eyewitness who has seen or heard +what he testifies. Now, it is reasonably certain that all of the Gospel +writers were eyewitnesses of most of the events recorded by them in the +Gospel histories. Both Matthew and John were numbered among the Twelve +who constantly attended the Master in all His wanderings, heard His +discourses, witnessed the performance of His miracles, and proclaimed +His faith after He was gone. It is very probable that Mark was another +eyewitness of the events in the life and ministry of the Savior. It is +now very generally agreed that the author of the Second Gospel was the +young man who threw away his garment and fled at the time of the arrest +in the Garden.[15] If Mark was actually present at midnight in +Gethsemane peering through the shadows to see what would be done to the +Nazarene by the mob, it is more than probable that he was also a witness +of many other events in the life and ministry of the great Teacher. +But, whether this be true or not, it is very well settled that the +Second Gospel was dictated to Mark by Peter, who was as familiar with +all the acts and words of Jesus as was Matthew or John. The Christian +writers of antiquity unanimously testify that Mark wrote the Gospel +ascribed to him, at the dictation of Peter. If their testimony is true, +Peter is the real author of the Second Gospel. That the Gospel of Mark +was written by an eyewitness is the opinion of Renan, the skeptic, who +says: "In Mark, the facts are related with a clearness for which we seek +in vain amongst the other Evangelists. He likes to report certain words +of Jesus in Syro-Chaldean. He is full of minute observations, coming +doubtless from an eye-witness. There is nothing to prevent our agreeing +with Papias in regarding this eye-witness, who evidently had followed +Jesus, who had loved Him and observed Him very closely, and who had +preserved a lively image of Him, as the Apostle Peter himself."[16] The +same writer declares Matthew to have been an eyewitness of the events +described by him. He says: "On the whole, I admit as authentic the four +canonical Gospels. All, in my opinion, date from the first century, and +the authors are, generally speaking, those to whom they are attributed; +but their historic value is diverse. Matthew evidently merits an +unlimited confidence as to the discourses; they are the Logia, the +identical notes taken from a clear and lively remembrance of the +teachings of Jesus."[16] + +That Luke was an eyewitness of many of the things recorded by him, and +that the others were related to him by eyewitnesses, is perfectly clear +from the introductory verses of his Gospel. In addressing his royal +patron, Theophilus, he assures him that those who communicated the +information contained in the Gospel to him were eyewitnesses; and +follows by saying that he himself had had "perfect understanding of all +things from the very first."[17] The evident meaning of this is that, +desiring full information for Theophilus, he had supplemented his own +personal knowledge by additional facts secured from eyewitnesses to +those things which, not being of the Twelve, he himself had not seen. + +St. John was peculiarly well qualified to record the sayings and doings +of the Christ. He was called "the disciple whom Jesus loved." He was +admitted into the presence of the Savior, at all times, on terms of the +utmost intimacy and friendship. At the Last Supper, his head reposed +confidingly and lovingly upon the bosom of the Master. Together with +Peter and James, he witnessed the resurrection of Jairus' daughter; was +present at the Transfiguration on the Mount, and at the agony of the +Savior in the Garden. From the cross, Jesus placed upon him the tender +and pathetic burden of caring for His mother; and, running ahead of +Peter, he was the first among the Twelve to arrive at the open +sepulcher. By means of a favorable acquaintanceship with the High +Priest, he was enabled to gain access to the palace and to be present at +the trial of Jesus, as well as to introduce Peter, his friend. + +It is thus clearly evident that the Evangelists were amply able, from +any point of view, to truthfully and accurately record the events +narrated in the Gospel histories. As eyewitnesses, being on the ground +and having the situation well in hand, they were certainly better +qualified to write truthful history of the events then occurring than +historians and critics who lived centuries afterwards. + +But it is frequently contended that, if the Evangelists were +eyewitnesses of the leading events which they recorded, they committed +them to writing so long afterwards that they had forgotten them, or had +confused them with various traditions that had in the meantime grown up. +There may be some little truth in this contention, but not enough to +destroy the credibility of the witnesses as to events such as the +Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus. These are not matters to be +easily forgotten or confused with other things. The date of the +composition and publication of the different Gospels is not known. But +Professor Holtzmann, of Heidelberg (a man who cannot be said to be +favorable to Christianity, since he was for several years the leader of +the freethinkers in the Grand Duchy of Baden), after many years of +careful study of the subject, declared that the Synoptic Gospels, the +first three, were committed to writing between the years 60 and 80 of +our era.[18] This was only from thirty to fifty years after the death of +Jesus. Could men of average memory and intelligence who had been almost +daily preaching the life and deeds of Jesus during these thirty or +fifty years have forgotten them? The testimony of Principal Drummond, of +Oxford, is very pertinent at this point. He says: "If we suppose that +the Synoptic Gospels were written from forty to sixty years after the +time of Christ, still they were based on earlier material, and even +after forty years the memory of characteristic sayings may be perfectly +clear.... I have not a particularly good memory, but I can recall many +sayings that were uttered forty, or even fifty, years ago, and in some +cases can vividly recollect the scene."[19] + +If the Evangelists were eyewitnesses, which the records seem clearly to +indicate, they possessed one of the strongest tests of credibility. + +(3) In the third place, as to their _number_ and the _consistency_ of +their testimony. + +The credibility of a witness is greatly strengthened if his testimony is +corroborated by other witnesses who testify to substantially the same +thing. The greater the number of supporting witnesses, fraud and +collusion being barred, the greater the credibility of the witness +corroborated. But corroboration implies the presence in evidence of due +and reasonable consistency between the testimony of the witness +testifying and that of those corroborating. A radical discrepancy on a +material point not only fails to strengthen, but tends to destroy the +credibility of one or both the witnesses. + +Now, the fierce fire of skeptical criticism during all the ages has been +centered upon the so-called discrepancies of the Gospel narratives. It +is asserted by many critics that these inconsistencies are so +numerous and so palpable, that the Gospel records are worthless, even as +secular histories. The authors of these writings, according to the +skeptics, mutually destroy each other. + +[Illustration: ST. MARK AND ST. PAUL (DÜRER)] + +In considering this phase of the credibility of the Gospel writers, it +must again be remembered that the question of inspiration has no place +in this discussion; and that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John must be +regarded simply as secular historians. The reader is urged to consider +the biographers of the Christ as he would consider ordinary witnesses in +a court of law; to apply to them the same tests of credibility; to sift +and weigh their testimony in the same manner; and to subject them to the +same rules of cross-examination. If this is done, it is felt that the +result will be entirely favorable to the veracity and integrity of the +sacred writers. + +In considering the subject of discrepancies it should be constantly kept +in mind that contradictions in testimony do not necessarily mean that +there has been falsehood or bad faith on the part of the witnesses. +Every lawyer of experience and every adult citizen of average +intelligence knows that this is true. Men of unquestioned veracity and +incorruptible integrity are frequently arrayed against each other in +both civil and criminal trials, and the record reveals irreconcilable +contradictions in their testimony. Not only do prosecutions for perjury +not follow, but, in many instances, the witnesses are not even suspected +of bad faith or an intention to falsify. Defects in sight, hearing, or +memory; superior advantage in the matter of observation; or a sudden +change in the position of one or both the parties, causing distraction +of attention, at the time of the occurrence of the events involved in +litigation--all or any of these conditions, as well as many others, may +create discrepancies and contradictions where there is a total absence +of any intention to misrepresent. A thorough appreciation of this fact +will greatly aid in a clear understanding of this phase of the +discussion. + +Again, an investigation of the charge of discrepancy against the Gospel +writers shows that the critics and skeptics have classified mere +_omissions_ as contradictions. Nothing could be more absurd than to +consider an omission a contradiction, unless the requirements of the +case show that the facts and circumstances omitted were essential to be +stated, or that the omission was evidently intended to mislead or +deceive. Any other contention would turn historical literature +topsy-turvy and load it down with contradictions. Dion Cassius, Tacitus, +and Suetonius have all written elaborately of the reign of Tiberius. +Many things are mentioned by each that are not recorded by the other +two. Are we to reject all three as unreliable historians because of this +fact? Abbott, Hazlitt, Bourrienne, and Walter Scott have written +biographies of Napoleon Bonaparte. No one of them has recited all the +facts recorded by the others. Are these omissions to destroy the merits +of all these writers and cause them to be suspected and rejected? +Grafton's Chronicles rank high in English historical literature. They +comprise the reign of King John; and yet make no mention of the granting +of Magna Charta. This is as if the life of Jefferson had been written +without mention of the Declaration of Independence; or a biography of +Lincoln without calling attention to the Emancipation Proclamation. +Notwithstanding this strange omission, Englishmen still preserve +Grafton's Chronicles as valuable records among their archives. And the +same spirit of generous criticism is everywhere displayed in matters of +profane literature. The opponents of Christianity are never embarrassed +in excusing or explaining away omissions or contradictions, provided the +writer is a layman and his subject secular. But let the theme be a +sacred one, and the author an ecclesiastic--preacher, priest, or +prophet--and immediately incredulity rises to high tide, engulfs the +reason, and destroys all dispassionate criticism. Could it be forgotten +for a moment that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were biographers of the +Christ, a sacred person, no difficulties would arise in the matter of +inconsistencies, no objections would be made to their credibility. The +slight discrepancies that undoubtedly exist would pass unnoticed, or be +forever buried under the weight of an overwhelming conviction that they +are, in the main, accurate and truthful. + +But the Evangelists were guided by inspiration, the skeptics say; and +discrepancies are inconsistent with the theory of inspiration. God would +not have inspired them to write contradictory stories. But the +assumption is false that they claimed to be guided by inspiration; for, +as Marcus Dods truthfully says, "none of our Gospels pretends to be +infallible or even _inspired_. Only one of them tells us how its writer +obtained his information, and that was by careful inquiry at the proper +sources."[20] + +But whether the Gospel writers were inspired or not is immaterial so far +as the purpose of this chapter is concerned. The rules of evidence +testing their credibility would be the same in either case. + +A more pertinent observation upon the Gospel discrepancies has not been +made than that by Paley in his "Evidences of Christianity," where he +says: + + I know not a more rash or more unphilosophical conduct of the + understanding than to reject the substance of a story by reason of + some diversity in the circumstances with which it is related. The + usual character of human testimony is substantial truth under + circumstantial variety. This is what the daily experience of courts + of justice teaches. When accounts of a transaction come from the + mouths of different witnesses it is seldom that it is not possible + to pick out apparent or real inconsistencies between them. These + inconsistencies are studiously displayed by an adverse pleader, but + oftentimes with little impression upon the minds of the judges. On + the contrary, a close and minute agreement induces the suspicion of + confederacy and fraud. When written histories touch upon the same + scenes of action, the comparison almost always affords ground for a + like reflection. Numerous, and sometimes important, variations + present themselves; not seldom, also, absolute and final + contradictions; yet neither one nor the other are deemed sufficient + to shake the credibility of the main fact. The embassy of the Jews + to deprecate the execution of Claudian's order to place his statue + in their temple, Philo places in the harvest, Josephus in seed-time; + both contemporary writers. No reader is led by this inconsistency to + doubt whether such an embassy was sent, or whether such an order was + given. Our own history supplies examples of the same kind. In the + account of the Marquis of Argyll's death, in the reign of Charles + II, we have very remarkable contradiction. Lord Clarendon relates + that he was condemned to be hanged, which was performed the same + day; on the contrary, Burnet, Woodrow, Heath, Echard, concur in + stating that he was condemned upon the Saturday and executed upon a + Monday. Was any reader of English history ever skeptic enough to + raise from hence a question, whether the Marquis of Argyll was + executed or not? Yet this ought to be left in uncertainty, according + to the principles upon which the Christian history has sometimes + been attacked.[21] + +The reader should most carefully consider the useful as well as the +damaging effect of Gospel inconsistencies in the matter of the +credibility of the Evangelists. A certain class of persons have imagined +the Gospel writers to be common conspirators who met together at the +same time and place to devise ways and means of publishing a false +report to the world. This is a silly supposition, since it is positively +known that the authors of the Evangelical narratives wrote and published +them at different times and places. Moreover, the style and contents of +the books themselves negative the idea of a concerted purpose to +deceive. And, besides, the very inconsistencies themselves show that +there was no "confederacy and fraud"; since intelligent conspirators +would have fabricated exactly the same story in substantially the same +language. + +Furthermore, a just and impartial criticism will consider not only the +discrepant but also the corroborative elements in the New Testament +histories. It should not be forgotten that the authors of the Gospels +were independent historians who wrote at different times and places. +Then, in all matters of fact in which there is a common agreement, they +may be said to fully corroborate each other. And it may be contended +without fear of successful contradiction that, when so considered, there +will be found numerous cases of corroboration where there is one of +discord or inconsistency. + +The corroborative elements or features in the Evangelical narratives may +be classified under three headings: (1) Instances in which certain +historical events related by one of the Gospel writers are also told by +one or more of the others. These are cases of ordinary corroboration. +(2) Instances in which the recital of a certain fact by one of the +Evangelists would be obscure or meaningless unless explained or +supplemented by another. These may be regarded as examples of internal +confirmation. (3) Instances in which the fact related by one Evangelist +must be true from the nature of the case, regardless of what the others +have said. This is the simple confirmation of logic or reason. + +A few illustrations will serve to make clear this classification. + +Under the first heading of "ordinary corroboration" may be mentioned the +accounts of the miracle of feeding the five thousand. All the +Evangelists tell us of this event, and each records the fact that the +fragments taken up were _twelve baskets full_.[22] + +Under the second heading of "internal confirmation" the following +instances may be cited: + +Matt. xxvi. 67, 68: "And others smote him with the palms of their +hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote +thee?" + +A caviling criticism would demand: Why ask of the Christ to _prophesy_ +to those in His presence? And the obscurity would be damaging, were it +not for an additional sentence in Luke, who records the same +circumstance. "_And when they had blindfolded him_, they struck him on +the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, Who is it that smote +thee?"[23] The fact that Jesus was blindfolded, which is told by Luke, +explains the use of the word "prophesy" by Matthew, which would +otherwise be absurd. + +Again, Matt. xiii. 2: "And great multitudes were gathered together with +him, so that he went into the ship, and sat." Here, the definite article +points to a particular ship which Matthew fails to mention. But Mark +comes to his aid and clearly explains the statement: "And he spake to +his disciples, that a small vessel should wait upon him because of the +multitude, lest they should throng him." These two passages taken +together identify the ship. + +Again, John vi. 5: "When Jesus lifted up his eyes, and saw a great +company come to him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread +that these may eat?" This is one of the only two places in the Gospel +where Jesus addressed this Apostle. But why ask Philip instead of one of +the others? Two other passages, one from John and one from Luke, furnish +an explanation. In John i. 44 we read that "Philip was of Bethsaida." In +Luke ix. 10 we learn that the scene of the event, the miracle of +feeding the five thousand, was "a desert place belonging to the city +called Bethsaida." The reason, then, for addressing Philip, instead of +one of the other Apostles, is clear. Bethsaida was the home of Philip; +and he would naturally, therefore, be more familiar with the location of +the bread shops than the others. In John vi., where the question is +asked, neither the place of the feeding nor the apostle questioned is +even remotely connected with the city of Bethsaida; and in Luke the +account of the miracle says nothing of Philip or the question put to +him. But when the passages are connected the striking coincidence +appears, and the explanation is complete. + +Again, John xviii. 10: "Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and +smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The +servant's name was Malchus." It has been objected that there is nowhere +an account of the arrest or punishment of Peter for this assault and +resistance to armed authority; and that, therefore, there was no such +occurrence. A passage from Luke explains the failure to arrest. "And +Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far, and he touched his ear and +healed him."[24] The healing of the ear explains why no arrest followed; +for, if charges had been made, there would have been no evidence of the +gravity of the offense. Indeed, witnesses against Peter would have been +completely confounded and humiliated by the result of the miracle; and +might have been driven from court as malicious accusers. Then, the +failure to arrest is a silent corroboration of the statement that the +event occurred and that the miracle was performed. + +Under the third heading, of the "confirmation of logic or reason," a +single instance will suffice. + +John xx. 4: "And the other disciple did outrun Peter and came first to +the sepulchre." The "other disciple" was St. John, who is generally +conceded to have been the youngest of the Apostles. And St. Peter, we +may judge from John xxi. 18, was already past the meridian of life. What +could be more natural than that the younger man should outrun the older +and arrive first at the sepulcher? What better proof could be expected +of the fact of the existence of that sweetness and modesty in youth +which respects old age, and that endeared John to Jesus above all +others, than we have here, where the younger man awaits the arrival of +the older before beginning to explore the deserted tomb? + +Examples similar to these might be multiplied at length, since the +Gospel histories are filled with them; but those above mentioned are +deemed sufficient to illustrate the theory of corroboration. The +instances of internal confirmation in the New Testament narratives are +especially convincing. They are arguments and proofs in the nature of +undesigned coincidences which, from the very nature of the case, shut +out all possibility of collusion or fraud. In most cases they are +expressed in a single phrase and represent an isolated thought +corroborative of some other elsewhere expressed. Though small, detached, +and fragmentary, like particles of dynamite, they operate with +resistless force when collected and combined. + +Once more attention is called to the fact that these discrepancies +negative completely the idea that the Gospel writers were conspirators, +bent upon the common purpose of deceiving mankind by publishing a false +history to the world. Nothing could be more absurd than to suppose that +men conspiring to perpetrate a fraud, would neglect a fundamental +principle underlying all successful conspiracy; that is, the creation +and maintenance of a due and reasonable consistency between the words +and deeds of the conspirators in formulating plans for carrying out the +common purpose. Then, if there was no previous concert, the fact that +four men, writing at different times and places, concurred in framing +substantially the same history, is one of the strongest proofs of the +credibility of the writers and the truthfulness of their narratives. And +on this point the testimony of a very great writer may be quoted: that +"in a number of concurrent testimonies, where there has been no previous +concert, there is a probability distinct from that which may be termed +the sum of the probabilities resulting from the testimonies of the +witnesses; a probability which would remain, even though the witnesses +were of such a character as to merit no faith at all. This probability +arises from the concurrence itself. That such a concurrence should +spring from chance is as one to infinite; that is, in other words, +morally impossible. If, therefore, concert be excluded, there remains no +cause but the reality of the fact."[25] + +Apply the theory of probability, arising from concurrent testimonies, +where there has been no previous concert, to the case of the +Evangelists, and we are at once convinced that they were truthful and +that their histories are true. + +(4) Let us now consider the _conformity of the testimony of the +Evangelists with human experience_. This is the fourth legal test of the +credibility of witnesses prescribed by Starkie. + +The conformity of testimony with experience is one of the most potent +and universally applied tests of the credibility of witnesses. And it +may be remarked that its application is not confined to judicial +proceedings or to courts of law. It requires no professional attainments +to make it effective. The blacksmith and carpenter, as well as the judge +and jury, employ it in every mental operation where the statements of +others are submitted to analysis and investigation. A new theory being +proposed, the correctness of which is questioned, the test of experience +is at once applied. If it is not in harmony with what we have seen and +heard and felt, we usually reject it; or, at least, doubt it. If an +explorer should return from the Arctic regions and tell us that he had +seen oranges, such as we import from Florida, growing on trees near the +North Pole, we would not believe him. Neither would we credit the +statement of a traveler from South America that he had seen Polar bears +browsing on the banks of the Amazon. These representations would be +utterly inconsistent with what we know to be the essential conditions of +orange culture, and with the well-known habits and climatic nature of +the Polar bear. An ancient document, purporting to date from the time +of Washington and the Revolution, and containing recitals about +railways, telegraphs, telephones, and electric lights, would be +recognized at once as spurious, because our own experience as well as +facts of history would tell us that there were no such things in the +days of Washington and the American Revolution. These are simple +illustrations of the application of the test of experience in the mental +processes of weighing and sifting the testimony of others. + +Now, no serious objection to the credibility of the Gospel writers has +been made under the test of the conformity of their statements with +experience, except in the matter of miracles. It is generally admitted, +even by skeptics, that the facts stated in the New Testament narratives +might have happened in the due course of nature and in harmony with +human experience, except where miracles are related. + +A few skeptics have declared that a miracle is an impossibility and that +the Evangelists were either deceivers or deceived when they wrote their +accounts of the miraculous performances of the Christ; and that, whether +deceivers or deceived, they are unworthy of belief. The great antagonist +of the theory of miracles among those who assert their impossibility is +Spinoza, who has thus written: "A miracle, whether contrary to or above +nature, is a sheer absurdity. Nothing happens in nature which does not +follow from its laws; these laws extend to all which enters the Divine +mind; and, lastly, nature proceeds in a fixed and changeless +course--whence it follows that the word 'miracle' can only be +understood in relation to the opinions of mankind, and signifies nothing +more than an event, a phenomenon, the cause of which cannot be explained +by another familiar instance.... I might say, indeed, that a miracle was +_that_, the cause of which cannot be explained by our _natural +understanding from the known principles of natural things_." + +The radical antagonism of Spinoza to the doctrine of miracles, as taught +in the New Testament scriptures, was the legitimate offspring of his +peculiar philosophy. He was a pantheist and identified God with nature. +He did not believe in a personal God, separate from and superior to +nature. He repudiated the theory of a spiritual kingdom having a +spiritual sovereign to whom earth and nature are subject and obedient. +Therefore, every manifestation of power which he could not identify with +a natural force he believed was unreal, if not actually deceptive and +fraudulent; since he could not imagine anything superior to nature that +could have created the phenomenon. His denial of miracles was, then, +really nothing less than a denial of the existence of a personal God who +spoke the earth into being in the very beginning; and has since, with a +watchful paternal eye, followed its movements and controlled its +destiny. + +The question of miracles is really a matter of faith and not a problem +of science. It is impossible to either prove or disprove the nature of a +miracle by physical demonstration. In other words, it is impossible to +analyze a miracle from the standpoint of chemistry or physics. The +performance of a miracle, nevertheless, may be proved by ordinary human +testimony, as any other event may be proved. We may testify to the fact +without being able to understand or to demonstrate the cause. + +Those who believe that there are distinct spiritual as well as physical +forces in the universe; that there is somewhere an omniscient and +omnipotent Spiritual Being who has but to will the creation of a planet +or the destruction of matter in order to accomplish the result desired, +can easily believe in the exercise of miraculous power. Those who +believe the Bible account of the creation, that God said in the +beginning, "Let there be light: and there was light"--such persons find +no difficulty in believing that Jesus converted water into wine or +caused the lame to walk, if they believe that He was this same God +"manifest in the flesh." A divinity who, in the morning of creation, +spoke something out of nothing, would certainly not be impotent to +restore life to Lazarus or sight to the blind Bartimeus. + +The trouble with the philosophy of Spinoza is that his own high +priestess--Nature--seems to be constantly working miracles under his own +definition; and miracles, too, that very closely resemble the wonders +said to have been wrought by the Christ. Milk is taken into the stomach, +subjected to various processes of digestion, is then thrown into the +blood and finally becomes flesh and bone. The ultimate step in this +process of transformation is unknown and, perhaps, unknowable to +scientists. No deeper mystery is suggested by the New Testament +scriptures. The conversion of water into wine is no stranger, no more +incomprehensible than the transformation of milk into flesh and bone. It +may be admitted that the chemical elements are the same throughout in +one process and different in the other. Nevertheless, the results of +both are perfectly described by Spinoza's definition, "that a miracle +was _that_, the cause of which cannot be explained by our _natural +understanding from the known principles of natural things_." + +It may be truthfully remarked that nature is everywhere and at all times +working wonders in harmony with and parallel to the miracles wrought by +the spiritual forces of the universe. God's sovereign miracle may be +described as the changing of a man, with all his sins and imperfections, +into a winged spirit, thus fitting him to leave the coarse and vulgar +earth for life among the stars. Nature, in her feeble way, tries to +imitate the wonder by transforming the caterpillar into a butterfly, +thus fitting it to leave the dunghill for life among the flowers. + +Spinoza insists that miracles are impossible because "nature proceeds in +a fixed and changeless course." But is this really true? Are the laws of +nature invariably uniform? Does not nature seem at times tired of +uniformity and resolved to rise to liberty by the creation of what we +call a miracle, or more vulgarly, a "freak"? Moving in what Spinoza is +pleased to call a "fixed and changeless course," nature ordinarily +provides a chicken with two legs and a snake with one head. But what +about chickens with three legs and snakes with two heads, such as are +frequently seen? Was nature moving in a fixed and changeless course when +these things were created? Could Spinoza have explained such phenomena +by his "natural understanding from the known principles of natural +things"? Would he have contented himself with calling them natural +"accidents" or "freaks"? Nevertheless, they are miracles under his +definition; and the entire subject must be discussed and debated with +reference to some standard or definition of a miracle. If nature +occasionally, in moments of sportiveness or digression, upsets her own +laws and creates what we call "freaks," why is it unreasonable to +suppose that the great God who created nature should not, at times, +temporarily suspend the laws which He has made for the government of the +universe, or even devote them to strange and novel purposes in the +creation of those noble phenomena which we call miracles? + +Other skeptics, like Renan, do not deny the possibility of miracles, but +simply content themselves with asserting that there is no sufficient +proof that such things ever happened. They thus repudiate the testimony +of the Evangelists in this regard. "It is not," says Renan, "then, in +the name of this or that philosophy, but in the name of universal +experience, that we banish miracle from history. We do not say that +miracles are impossible. We do say that up to this time a miracle has +never been proved." Then the Breton biographer and philosopher gives us +his idea of the tests that should be made in order to furnish adequate +proof that a miracle has been performed. "If to-morrow," he says, "a +thaumaturgus presents himself with credentials sufficiently important to +be discussed and announces himself as able, say, to raise the dead, what +would be done? A commission composed of physiologists, physicists, +chemists, persons accustomed to historical criticism would be named. +This commission would choose a corpse, would assure itself that the +death was real, would select a room in which the experiment should be +made, would arrange the whole system of precautions, so as to leave no +chance of doubt. If, under such conditions, the resurrection were +effected, a probability almost equal to certainty would be established. +As, however, it ought to be possible always to repeat an experiment--to +do over again that which has been done once; and as, in the order of +miracle, there can be no question of ease or difficulty, the +thaumaturgus would be invited to reproduce his marvelous act under other +circumstances, upon other corpses, in another place. If the miracle +should succeed each time, two things would be proved: first, that +supernatural events happen in the world; second, that the power of +producing them belongs or is delegated in certain persons. But who does +not see that no miracle ever took place under these conditions? But that +always hitherto the thaumaturgus has chosen the subject of the +experiment, chosen the spot, chosen the public?"[26] + +This is an extract from the celebrated "Life of Jesus" by Renan, and is +intended to demolish the Gospel account of the miracles of the Christ. +It is not too much to say that the great skeptic has failed to exhibit +his usual fairness in argument. He has indirectly compared Jesus to a +thaumaturgus, and has inferentially stated that in the performance of +His miracles He "chose the subject of his experiment, chose the spot, +chose the public." Every student of New Testament history knows that +this is not true of the facts and circumstances surrounding the +performance of miracles by Christ. It is true that vulgar curiosity and +caviling incredulity were not gratified by the presence of specially +summoned "physiologists, physicists, and chemists." But it is equally +true that such persons were not prevented from being present; that there +was no attempt at secrecy or concealment; and that no subject of +experiment, particular spot, or special audience was ever chosen. The +New Testament miracles were wrought, as a general thing, under the open +sky, in the street, by the wayside, on the mountain slope, and in the +presence of many people, both friends and enemies of Jesus. There was no +searching or advertising for subjects for experiment. Far from choosing +the subject, the spot, and the public, Jesus exercised His miraculous +powers upon those who came voluntarily to Him suffering with some +dreadful malady and asking to be cured. In some instances, the case of +affliction was of long standing and well known to the community. The +healing was done publicly and witnessed by many people. + +Renan suggests that the thaumaturgus mentioned in his illustration would +be required to repeat his performance in the matter of raising the dead +before he would be fully believed. This reminds us that Jesus wrought +many miracles. More than forty are recorded in the Gospel narratives; +and in the closing verse of St. John, there is a strong intimation that +He performed many that were never recorded. These, it is respectfully +submitted, were amply sufficient to demonstrate His miraculous powers. + +Whatever form infidelity may assume in its antagonism to the doctrine of +miracles, it will be found that the central idea is that such things are +not founded in experience; and that this test of credibility fails in +the case of the Gospel writers, because they knowingly recorded +impossible events. It would be idle to attempt to depreciate the value +of this particular test; but it must be observed that nothing is more +fallacious, unless properly defined and limited. It must be remembered +that the experience of one man, nation, or generation is not necessarily +that of another man, nation, or generation. The exact mechanical +processes employed by the Egyptians in raising the pyramids are as much +a mystery to modern scientists as a Marconigram would be to a savage of +New Guinea. The Orient and the Occident present to each other almost +miraculous forms of diversity in manners, habits, and customs, in modes +of thought and life. "The Frenchman says, 'I am the best dyer in Europe: +nobody can equal me, and nobody can surpass Lyons.' Yet in Cashmere, +where the girls make shawls worth $30,000, they will show him three +hundred distinct colors, which he not only cannot make, but cannot even +distinguish." Sir Walter Scott, in his "Tales of the Crusaders," +thrillingly describes a meeting between the Turkish Saladin and the +English Richard Coeur-de-Lion. Saladin asked Richard to give him an +exhibition of his marvelous strength. The Norman monarch picked up an +iron bar from the floor of the tent and severed it. The Mahometan +crusader was amazed. Richard then asked him what he could do. Saladin +replied that he could not pull iron apart like that, but that he could +do something equally as wonderful. Thereupon, he took an eider-down +pillow from the sofa, and drew his keen, Damascus-tempered blade across +it, which caused it to fall into two pieces. Richard cried in +astonishment: "This is the black art; it is magic; it is the devil: you +cannot cut that which has no resistance!" Here Occidental strength and +Oriental magic met and wrought seeming miracles in the presence of each +other. In his great lecture on "The Lost Arts," Wendell Phillips says +that one George Thompson told him that he saw a man in Calcutta throw a +handful of floss silk into the air, and that a Hindoo severed it into +pieces with his saber. A Western swordsman could not do this. + +Objectors to miracles frequently ask why they are not performed to-day, +why we never see them. To which reply may be made that, under Spinoza's +definition, miracles are being wrought every day not only by nature, but +by man. Why call Edison "the magician" and "the wizard," unless the +public believes this? But is it any argument against the miracles of +Jesus that similar ones are not seen to-day? Have things not been done +in the past that will never be repeated? We have referred to the +pyramids of Egypt and to the lost art involved in their construction. A +further illustration may be found in the origin of man. One of two +theories is undoubtedly true: that the first man and woman came into the +world without being born; or that man and woman are the products of +evolution from lower orders of animals. No other theories have ever been +advanced as to the origin of the human race. Now, it is certain that +modern generations have never experienced either of these things, for +all the human beings of to-day were undoubtedly born of other human +beings, and it is certain that the process of evolution stopped long +ago, since men and women were as perfect physically and mentally four +thousand years ago as they are to-day. In other words, the processes +which originated man are things of the past, since we have no Garden of +Eden experiences to-day, nor is there any universal metamorphosis of +monkeys going on. Therefore, to argue that the miracles of Jesus did not +happen, because we do not see such things to-day, is to deny the +undoubted occurrences of history and developments of human life, because +such occurrences and developments are no longer familiar to us and our +generation. + +To denounce everything as false that we have not individually seen, +heard, and felt, would be to limit most painfully the range of the +mental vision. The intellectual horizon would not be greatly extended +should we join with our own the experience of others that we have seen +and known. Much information is reported by telegraphic despatch and +many things are told us by travelers that we should accept as true; +although such matters may have no relation to what we have ever seen or +heard. Else, we should be as foolish as the king of Siam who rejected +the story of the Dutch ambassador, that in Holland water was frequently +frozen into a solid mass. In the warm climate of the East Indian tropics +the king had never seen water so congealed and, therefore, he refused to +believe that such a thing had ever happened anywhere. + +Experience is a most logical and reasonable test if it is sufficiently +extended to touch all the material phases of the subject under +investigation. It is a most dangerous one if we insist upon judging the +material and spiritual universe, with its infinite variety of forms and +changes, by the limited experience of a simple and isolated life, or by +the particular standards of any one age or race. A progressive +civilization, under such an application of the test, would be +impossible, since each generation of men would have to begin _de novo_, +and be restricted to the results of its own experience. The enforcement +of such a doctrine would prevent, furthermore, the acceptance of the +truths of nature discovered by inventive genius or developed by physical +or chemical research, until such truths had become matters of universal +experience. Every man would then be in the position of the incredulous +citizen who, having been told that a message had been sent by wire from +Baltimore to Washington announcing the nomination of James K. Polk for +the presidency, refused to believe in telegraphic messages until he +could be at both ends of the line at once. The art of telegraphy was a +reality, nevertheless, in spite of his incredulity and inexperience. The +American savages who first beheld the ships of Columbus are said to have +regarded them as huge birds from heaven and to have refused to believe +that they were boats, because, in their experience, they had never seen +such immense canoes with wings. Herodotus tells us of some daring +sailors who crept along the coast of Africa beyond the limits usually +visited at that time. They came back home with a wonderful account of +their trip and told the story that they had actually reached a country +where their shadows fell toward the south at midday. They were not +believed, and their report was rejected with scorn and incredulity by +the inhabitants of the Mediterranean coasts, because their only +experience was that a man's shadow always pointed toward the north; and +they did not believe it possible that shadows could be cast otherwise. +But the report of the sailors was true, nevertheless.[27] + +These simple illustrations teach us that beings other than ourselves +have had experiences which are not only different from any that we have +ever had, but are also either temporarily or permanently beyond our +comprehension. And the moral of this truth, when applied to the +statements of the Evangelists regarding miracles, is that the fortunate +subjects and witnesses of the miraculous powers of Jesus might have had +experiences which we have never had and that we cannot now clearly +comprehend. + +(5) In the fifth and last place, as to the _coincidence of their +testimony with collateral circumstances_. + +This is the chief test of credibility in all those cases where the +witness, whose testimony has been reduced to writing, is dead, absent, +or insane. Under such circumstances it is impossible to apply what may +be termed personal tests on cross-examination; that is, to develop the +impeaching or corroborating features of bias, prejudice, and personal +demeanor to the same extent as when the witness is still living and +testifies orally. When a written narrative is all that we have, its +reliability can only be ascertained by a close inspection of its parts, +comparing them with each other, and then with collateral and +contemporaneous facts and circumstances. The value of this test cannot +be over-estimated, and Greenleaf has stated very fully and concisely the +basis upon which it rests. "Every event," he says, "which actually +transpires, has its appropriate relation and place in the vast +complication of circumstances of which the affairs of men consist; it +owes its origin to the events which have preceded it, is intimately +connected with all others which occur at the same time and place, and +often with those of remote regions, and in its turn gives birth to +numberless others which succeed. In all this almost inconceivable +contexture and seeming discord, there is perfect harmony; and while the +fact which really happened tallies exactly with every other +contemporaneous incident related to it in the remotest degree, it is not +possible for the wit of man to invent a story, which, if closely +compared with the actual occurrences of the same time and place, may +not be shown to be false."[28] + +[Illustration: ST. JOHN AND ST. PETER (DÜRER)] + +This principle offers a wide field to the skill of the cross-examiner, +and enables him frequently to elicit truth or establish falsehood when +all other tests have failed. It is a principle also perfectly well known +to the perjurer and to the suborner of witnesses. Multiplicity of +details is studiously avoided by the false witness, who dreads +particularity and feels that safety lies in confining his testimony as +nearly as possible to a single fact, whose attendant facts and +circumstances are few and simple. When the witness is too ignorant to +understand the principle and appreciate the danger, his attorney, if he +consents to dishonor his profession and pollute the waters of justice +with corrupt testimony, may be depended upon to administer proper +warning. The witness will be told to know as few things and to remember +as little as possible concerning matters about which he has not been +previously instructed. The result will be that his testimony, especially +in matters in which he is compelled by the court to testify, will be +hesitating, restrained, unequal, and unnatural. He will be served at +every turn by a most convenient memory which will enable him to forget +many important and to remember many unimportant facts and circumstances. +He will betray a painful hesitancy in the matter of committing himself +upon any particular point upon which he has not been already drilled. +The truthful witness, on the other hand, is usually candid, ingenuous, +and copious in his statements. He shows a willingness to answer all +questions, even those involving the minutest details, and seems totally +indifferent to the question of verification or contradiction. The +texture of his testimony is, therefore, equal, natural, and +unrestrained. + +Now these latter characteristics mark every page of the New Testament +histories. The Gospel writers wrote with the utmost freedom, and +recorded in detail and with the utmost particularity, the manners, +customs, habits, and historic facts contemporaneous with their lives. +The naturalness and ingenuousness of their writings are simply +marvelous. There is nowhere any evidence of an attempt to conceal, patch +up, or reconcile. No introductory exclamations or subsequent +explanations which usually characterize false testimony appear anywhere +in their writings. They were seemingly absolutely indifferent to whether +they were believed or not. Their narratives seem to say: These are +records of truth; and if the world rejects them it rejects the facts of +history. Such candor and assurance are always overwhelmingly impressive; +and in every forum of debate are regarded as unmistakable signs of +truth. + +The Evangelists, it must be assumed, were fully aware of the danger of +too great particularity in the matter of false testimony, and would have +hesitated to commit themselves on so many points if their statements had +been untrue. We have already noted the opinion of Professor Holtzmann, +of Heidelberg, that the Synoptic Gospels were committed to writing +between the years 60 and 80 of our era. At that time it is certain that +there were still living many persons who were familiar with the events +in the life and teachings of the Savior, as well as with the numerous +other facts and circumstances related by the sacred writers. St. Paul, +in I Cor. xv. 6, speaks of five hundred brethren to whom the risen Jesus +appeared at one time; and he adds, "_of whom the greater part remain +unto this present, but some are fallen asleep_." And it must be +remembered that this particular group of two hundred and fifty or more +were certainly not the only persons then living who had a distinct +remembrance of the Master, His teachings, and His miracles. Many who had +been healed by Him, children who had sat upon His knee and been blessed +by Him, and many members of the Pharisaic party and of the Sadducean +aristocracy who had persecuted Him and had then slain Him, were +doubtless still living and had a lively recollection of the events of +the ministry of the Nazarene. Such persons were in a position to +disprove from their personal knowledge false statements made by the +Evangelists. A consciousness of this fact would have been, within +itself, a strong inducement to tell the truth. + +But not only are the Gospels not contradicted by contemporaneous +writers; they are also not impeached or disproved by later scientific +research and historical investigation. And at this point we come to make +a direct application of the test of the coincidence of their testimony +with collateral and contemporaneous history. For this purpose, as a +matter of illustration, only facts in profane history corroborative of +the circumstances attending the trial and crucifixion of the Master +will be cited. + +In the first place, the Evangelists tell us that Pontius Pilate sat in +judgment on the Christ. Both Josephus and Tacitus tell us that Pilate +was governor of Judea at that time.[29] + +In John xviii. 31 we read: "Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and +judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, _It +is not lawful for us to put any man to death._" From many profane +historians, ancient and modern, we learn that the power of life and +death had been taken from the Jews and vested in the Roman governor.[30] + +In John xix. 16, 17 occurs this passage: "And they took Jesus, and led +him away; and he, _bearing his cross_, went forth." This corroborative +sentence is found in Plutarch: "Every kind of wickedness produces its +own particular torment; just as every malefactor, when he is brought +forth to execution, _carries his own cross_."[31] + +In Matthew xxvii. 26 we read: "When he had scourged Jesus, he delivered +him to be crucified." That scourging was a preliminary to crucifixion +among the Romans is attested by many ancient writers, among whom may be +mentioned Josephus and Livy. The following passages are taken from +Josephus: + + Whom, having _first scourged with whips_, he crucified.[32] + + Being _beaten_, they were crucified opposite to the citadel.[33] + + He was burned alive, _having been first beaten_.[34] + +From Livy, a single sentence will suffice: + + All were led out, _beaten with rods_, and beheaded.[35] + +In John xix. 19, 20 we read: "And Pilate wrote a title and put it on the +cross; and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin." That it was +a custom among the Romans to affix the accusation against the criminal +to the instrument of his punishment appears from several ancient +writers, among them Suetonius and Dion Cassius. In Suetonius occurs this +sentence: "He exposed the father of the family to the dogs, with this +_title_, 'A gladiator, impious in speech.'"[36] And in Dion Cassius +occurs the following: "Having led him through the midst of the court or +assembly, _with a writing signifying the cause of his death, and +afterwards crucifying him_."[37] + +And finally, we read in John xix. 32: "Then came the soldiers and _brake +the legs_ of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him." +By an edict of Constantine, the punishment of crucifixion was abolished. +Speaking in commendation of this edict, a celebrated heathen writer +mentions the circumstances of _breaking the legs_. "He was pious to such +a degree," says this writer, "that he was the first to set aside that +very ancient punishment, the cross, with the _breaking of legs_."[38] + +If we leave the narrow circle of facts attendant upon the trial and +crucifixion of Jesus with its corroborative features of contemporary +history, and consider the Gospel narratives as a whole, we shall find +that they are confirmed and corroborated by the facts and teachings of +universal history and experience. An examination of these narratives +will also reveal a divine element in them which furnishes conclusive +proof of their truthfulness and reliability. A discussion of the divine +or spiritual element in the Gospel histories would be foreign to the +purpose of this treatise. The closing pages of Part I will be devoted to +a consideration of the human element in the New Testament narratives. +This will be nothing more than an elaboration of the fifth legal test of +credibility mentioned by Starkie. + +By the human or historical element of credibility in the Gospel +histories is meant that likeness or resemblance in matters of +representation of fact to other matters of representation of fact which +we find recorded in secular histories of standard authority whose +statements we are accustomed to accept as true. The relations of +historic facts to each other, and the connections and coincidences of +things known or believed to be true with still others sought to be +proved, form a fundamental ground of belief, and are, therefore, +reliable modes of proof. The most casual perusal of the New Testament +narratives suggests certain striking resemblances between the events +therein narrated and well-known historical occurrences related by +secular historians whose statements are implicitly believed. Let us +draw a few parallels and call attention to a few of these resemblances. + +Describing the anguish of the Savior in the Garden, St. Luke says: "And +being in an agony, He prayed more earnestly: And his sweat was as it +were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."[39] + +This strange phenomenon of the "bloody sweat" has been of such rare +occurrence in the history of the world that its happening in Gethsemane +has been frequently denied. The account of it has been ascribed to the +overwrought imagination of the third Evangelist in recording the errors +of tradition. And yet similar cases are well authenticated in the works +of secular writers. Tissot reports a case of "a sailor who was so +alarmed by a storm, that through fear he fell down, and his face sweated +blood which, during the whole continuance of the storm, returned like +ordinary sweat, as fast as it was wiped away."[40] Schenck cites the +case of "a nun who fell into the hands of soldiers; and, on seeing +herself encompassed with swords and daggers threatening instant death, +was so terrified and agitated that she discharged blood from every part +of her body, and died of hemorrhage in the sight of her assailants."[41] +Writing of the death of Charles IX of France, Voltaire says: "The +disease which carried him off is very uncommon; his blood flowed from +all his pores. This malady, of which there are some examples, is the +result either of excessive fear, furious passion, or of a violent and +melancholic temperament."[42] The same event is thus graphically +described by the old French historian, De Mezeray: "After the vigor of +his youth and the energy of his courage had long struggled against his +disease, he was at length reduced by it to his bed at the castle of +Vincennes, about the 8th of May, 1574. During the last two weeks of his +life his constitution made strange efforts. He was affected with spasms +and convulsions of extreme violence. He tossed and agitated himself +continually and his blood gushed from all the outlets of his body, even +from the pores of his skin, so that on one occasion he was found bathed +in a bloody sweat."[43] + +If the sailor, the nun, and the king of France were afflicted with the +"bloody sweat," why should it seem incredible that the man Jesus, the +carpenter of Nazareth, should have been similarly afflicted? If Tissot, +Schenck, and Voltaire are to be believed, why should we refuse to +believe St. Luke? If St. Luke told the truth in this regard, why should +we doubt his statements concerning other matters relating to the life, +death, and resurrection of the Son of God? Does not Voltaire, the most +brilliant and powerful skeptic that ever lived, corroborate in this +particular the biographer of the Christ? + +Let us pass to another instance of resemblance and corroboration. While +describing the crucifixion, St. John wrote the following: "But one of +the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there +out _blood and water_."[44] Early skeptical criticism denied the account +of the flowing of blood and water from the side of the Savior because, +in the first place, the other Evangelists did not mention the +circumstance; and, in the second place, it was an unscientific fact +stated. But modern medical science has very cleverly demonstrated that +Jesus, according to the Gospel accounts, died of rupture of the heart. +About the middle of the last century, a celebrated English physician and +surgeon, Dr. Stroud, wrote a treatise entitled, "Physical Cause of the +Death of Christ." In this book, he proved very clearly that cardiac +rupture was the immediate cause of the death of Jesus on the cross. Many +arguments were adduced to establish this fact. Among others, it was +urged that the shortness of time during which the sufferer remained upon +the cross and His loud cry just before "He gave up the ghost," tended to +prove that a broken heart was the cause of the death of the Man of +Sorrows. But the strongest proof, according to the author of this work, +was the fact that blood and water flowed from the dead man when a spear +was thrust into His side. This, says Dr. Stroud, has happened frequently +when the heart was suddenly and violently perforated after death from +cardiac rupture. Within a few hours after death from this cause, he +says, the blood frequently separates into its constituent parts or +essential elements: _crassamentum_, a soft clotted substance of deep-red +color, and _serum_, a pale, watery liquid--popularly called blood and +water, which will flow out separately, if the pericardium and heart be +violently torn or punctured. In this treatise numerous medical +authorities are cited and the finished work is indorsed by several of +the most famous physicians and surgeons of England. + +It is very probable that St. John did not know the physical cause of the +strange flow of blood and water from the side of Jesus. It seems that he +was afraid that he would not be believed; for, in the following verse, +he was careful to tell the world that he himself had personally seen it. +"And he that _saw it_ bare record, and his record is true: And he +knoweth that he saith true that ye might believe."[45] + +Here again modern medical science has corroborated, in the matter of the +flowing of blood and water from the side of Jesus, the simple narrative +of the gentle and loving Evangelist. + +Still another illustration of resemblance, coincidence, and +corroboration is furnished by the incident of the arrest of Jesus in the +Garden. St. John says: "As soon, then, as he had said unto them, I am +he, they went backward and fell to the ground."[46] + +This is only one of several cases mentioned in history where ordinary +men have been dazed and paralyzed in the presence of illustrious men +against whom they were designing evil. When a Gallic trooper was sent by +Sulla to Minturnæ to put Marius to death, the old Roman lion, his great +eyes flashing fire, arose and advanced toward the slave, who fled in +utter terror from the place, exclaiming, "I cannot kill Caius +Marius!"[47] + +Again, we learn from St. Matthew that at the moment of the arrest in +the Garden, "all the disciples forsook him and fled." + +This is no isolated case of cowardice and desertion. It is merely an +illustration of a universal truth: that the multitude will follow +blindly and adore insanely the hero or prophet in his hour of triumph +and coronation, but will desert and destroy him at the moment of his +humiliation and crucifixion. + +Note the burning of Savonarola. The patriot-priest of the Florentine +Republic believed himself inspired of God; his heroic life and martyr +death seemed to justify his claim. From the pulpit of St. Mark's he +became the herald and evangel of the Reformation, and his devoted +followers hung upon his words as if inspiration clothed them with +messages from the skies. And yet when a wicked Inquisition had nailed +him to the cross and fagots were flaming about him, this same multitude +who adored him, now reviled him and jeered and mocked his martyrdom. + +Note the career of Napoleon. When the sun of Austerlitz rose upon the +world the whole French nation grew delirious with love and homage for +their emperor, who was once a subaltern of Corsica. But when the Allies +entered Paris after the battle of Leipsic, this same French nation +repudiated their imperial idol, cast down his images, canceled his +decrees, and united with all Europe in demanding his eternal banishment +from France. The voyage to Elba followed. But the historic melodrama of +popular fidelity and fickleness was not yet completely played. When this +same Napoleon, a few months later, escaped from his islet prison in the +Mediterranean and landed on the shores of France, this same French +nation again grew delirious, welcomed the royal exile with open arms, +showered him with his eagles, and almost smothered him with kisses. A +hundred days passed. On the frightful field of Waterloo, "Chance and +Fate combined to wreck the fortunes of their former king." Again the +fickle French multitude heaped execrations upon their fallen monarch, +declared the Napoleonic dynasty at an end and welcomed with acclamations +of joy the return of the exiled Bourbon Louis XVIII. + +And when the Evangelist wrote these words: "All the disciples forsook +him and fled," he simply gave expression to a form of truth which all +history reflects and corroborates. + +Again, the parallels and resemblances of sacred and profane history do +not seem to stop with mere narratives of facts. Secular history seems to +have produced at times characters in the exact likeness of those in +sacred history. The resemblance is often so striking as to create +astonishment. For instance, who was St. Peter but Marshal Ney by +anticipation? Peter was the leader of the Apostolic Twelve; Ney was the +chief of the Twelve Marshals of Napoleon. Peter was impulsive and +impetuous; so was Ney. Peter was the first to speak and act in all the +emergencies of the Apostolic ministry; Ney, so Dumas tells us, was +always impatient to open the battle and lead the first charge. Peter was +probably the last to leave the garden in which the great tragedy of his +Master had begun; Ney was the last to leave the horrors of a Russian +winter in which the beginning of the end of the career of his monarch +was plainly seen. Peter denied Jesus; Ney repudiated Napoleon, and even +offered to bring him, at the time of his escape from Elba, in a cage to +Louis XVIII. Peter was afterwards crucified for his devotion to Jesus +whom he had denied; Ney was afterwards shot for loyalty to Napoleon whom +he had once repudiated. + +The examples heretofore given involve the idea of comparison and are +based upon resemblance. These illustrations could be greatly extended, +but it is believed that enough has been said in this connection. +However, in closing this brief discussion of the human element in the +sacred writings as evidenced by the coincidences and resemblances of +their narratives to those of profane history, slight mention may be made +of another test of truth which may be applied to the histories of the +Evangelists. This test is not derived from a comparison which is focused +upon any particular group of historic facts. It springs from an +instantaneously recognized and inseparable connection between the +statements made by the Gospel writers and the experience of the human +race. A single illustration will suffice to elucidate this point. When +Jesus was nailed upon the cross, the sad and pathetic spectacle was +presented of the absence of the Apostolic band, with the exception of +St. John, who was the only Apostle present at the crucifixion. The male +members of the following of the Nazarene did not sustain and soothe +their Master in the supreme moment of His anguish. But the women of His +company were with Him to the end. Mary, his mother, Mary Magdalene, +Mary, the wife of Cleophas, Salome, the mother of St. John the +Evangelist, and others, doubtless among "the women that followed him +from Galilee," ministered to His sufferings and consoled Him with their +presence. They were the last to cling to His cross and the first to +greet Him on the morning of the third day; for when the resurrection +morn dawned upon the world, these same women were seen hastening toward +the sepulcher bearing spices--fragrant offerings of deathless love. What +a contrast between the loyalty and devotion of the women and the fickle, +faltering adherence of the men who attended the footsteps of the Man of +Sorrows in His last days! One of His Apostles denied Him, another +betrayed Him, and all, excepting one, deserted Him in His death +struggle. His countrymen crucified Him ignominiously. But "not one woman +mentioned in the New Testament ever lifted her voice against the Son of +God." + +This revelation from the sacred pages of the devotion of woman is +reflected in universal history and experience. It is needless to give +examples. Suffice it to say that when Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John tell +us of this devotion, we simply answer: yes, this has been ever true in +all countries and in every age. We have learned it not only from history +but from our own experience in all the affairs of life, extending from +the cradle to the grave. The night of sorrow never grows so dark that a +mother's love will not irradiate the gloom. The criminal guilt of a +wayward son can never become so black that her arms will not be found +about him. If we pass from loving loyalty to the individual, to +patriotic devotion to the causes of the nations, woman's fidelity is +still undying. The women of France are said to have paid the German war +debt. The message of the Spartan mother to her soldier son is too well +known to be repeated. When the legions of Scipio engirdled the walls of +Carthage and desperation seized the inhabitants of the Punic city, +Carthaginian women cut their long black hair to furnish bowstrings to +the Carthaginian archers. Illustrations might be multiplied; but these +will suffice to show that Mary and Martha and Salome, the women of the +Gospels, are simply types of the consecrated women of the world. + +When we come to summarize, we are led to declare that if the Gospel +historians be not worthy of belief we are without foundation for +rational faith in the secular annals of the human race. No other +literature bears historic scrutiny so well as the New Testament +biographies. Not by a single chain, but by three great chains can we +link our Bible of to-day with the Apostolic Bible. The great +manuscripts: the Vatican, the Alexandrian, and the Sinaitic, dating from +the middle of the fourth and fifth centuries, must have been copies of +originals, or at least of first copies. The Bible is complete in these +manuscripts to-day. + +The Versions, translations of the original Scriptures from the language +in which they were first written into other languages, form a perfect +connection between the days of the Apostles and our own. The Vulgate, +the celebrated Latin version of St. Jerome, was completed A.D. 385. In +making this translation the great scholar has himself said that he used +"ancient (Greek) copies." Manuscripts that were ancient, A.D. 385, must +have been the original writings, or, at least, first copies. The +Vulgate, then, is alone a perfect historic connection between the Bible +that we read to-day and that studied by the first Christians. + +Again, the Writings of the Church Fathers furnish a chain, without a +single missing link, between the Bible of this generation and that of +the first generation of the followers of the Christ. It has been +truthfully said that if all the Bibles in the world were destroyed an +almost perfect Bible could be reconstructed from quotations from these +writings, so numerous and so exact are they. Beginning with Barnabas and +Clement, companions of St. Paul, and coming down through the ages, there +is not a single generation in which some prince or potentate of the +Church has not left convincing evidence in writing that the Books of the +Old and New Testament which we read to-day are identical with those read +by the first propagators of our faith. The chain of proof forged from +the Writings of the early Fathers is made up of a hundred links, each +perfect within itself and yet relinked and welded with a hundred others +that make each and all doubly strong. If these various testimonies, the +Manuscripts, the Versions, and the Writings of the Church Fathers, be +taken, not singly, but collectively, in support and corroboration of +each other, we have, then, not merely a chain but rather a huge +spiritual cable of many wires, stretching across the great sea of time +and linking our Bible of to-day inseparably with that of the Apostolic +Age. + +If it be objected that these various writings might have been and +probably were corrupted in coming down to us through the centuries, +reply may be made that the facts of history repel such suggestions. As +Mr. Greenleaf has suggested, the jealousy of opposing sects preserved +them from forgery and mutilation. Besides these sects, it may be added, +there were, even in the earliest times, open and avowed infidels who +assaulted the cardinal tenets of the Christian faith and made the Gospel +histories the targets for their attacks. They, too, would have detected +and denounced any attempt from any source to corrupt these writings. + +Another and final, and probably the most cogent reason for the +remarkable preservation of the books of the Bible, is the reverential +care bestowed upon them by their custodians in every age. It is +difficult for the modern world to fully appreciate the meaning and +extent of this reverence and care. Before the age of printing, it must +be remembered, the masses of the people could not and did not possess +Bibles. In the Middle Ages it required a small fortune to own a single +copy. The extreme scarcity enhanced not only the commercial value but +added to the awful sanctity that attached to the precious volume; on the +principle that the person of a king becomes more sacred and mysterious +when least seen in public. Synagogues and monasteries were, for many +centuries, the sole repositories of the Holy Books, and the deliberate +mutilation of any portion of the Bible would have been regarded like +the blaspheming of the Deity or the desecration of a shrine. These +considerations alone are sufficient reason why the Holy Scriptures have +come down to us uncorrupted and unimpaired. + +These various considerations are the logical basis of that rule of law +laid down by Mr. Greenleaf, under which the Gospel histories would be +admitted into a modern court of law in a modern judicial proceeding. + +Under legal tests laid down by Starkie, we have seen that the +Evangelists should be believed, because: (1) They were honest and +sincere, that is, they believed that they were telling the truth; (2) +they were undoubtedly men of good intelligence and were eyewitnesses of +the facts narrated by them in the New Testament histories; (3) they were +independent historians, who wrote at different times and places and, in +all essential details, fully corroborate each other; (4) excepting in +the matter of miracles, which skepticism has never been able to fully +disprove, their testimony is in full conformity with human experience; +(5) their testimony coincides fully and accurately with all the +collateral, social, historical, and religious circumstances of their +time, as well as with the teachings and experience of universal history +in every age. + +Having received from antiquity an uncorrupted message, born of truth, we +have, it is believed, a perfect record of fact with which to discuss the +trial of Jesus. + + + + +PART II + +_HEBREW CRIMINAL LAW_ + + + + +[Illustration: MOSES AND THE LAW (MICHAEL ANGELO)] + + + + +CHAPTER I + +HEBREW CRIMINAL LAW--MOSAIC AND TALMUDIC + + +The Pentateuch and the Talmud form the double basis of Hebrew +jurisprudence. "The wisdom of the lawgiver," says Bacon, "consists not +only in a platform of justice, but in the application thereof." The +Mosaic Code, embodied in the Pentateuch, furnished to the children of +Israel the necessary platform of justice; ancient tradition and Rabbinic +interpretation contained in the Talmud, supplied needed rules of +practical application. Employing classic terminology, it may be said +that the ordinances of Moses were the substantive and the provisions of +the Talmud were the adjective laws of the ancient Hebrews. These terms +are not strictly accurate, however, since many absolute rights are +declared and defined in the Talmud as well as in the Pentateuch. Another +definition, following the classification of Roman legists, describes +Mosaic injunction as the _lex scripta_ and Talmudic provision as the +_lex non scripta_ of the Commonwealth of Israel. In other words, the +Pentateuch was the foundation, the cornerstone; the Talmud was the +superstructure, the gilded dome of the great temple of Hebrew justice. + +Bible students throughout the world are familiar with the provisions of +the Mosaic Code; but the contents of the Talmud are known to few, even +among scholars and literary men. The most appalling ignorance has +existed in every age among the Gentile uninitiated as to the nature and +identity of this gigantic literary compilation. Henricus Segnensis, a +pious monk of the Middle Ages, having heard and read many things about +the despised heretical Talmud, conceived it to be a person and, in a +transport of religious frenzy, declared that he would sooner or later +have _him, the Talmud_, put to death by the hangman![48] + +For the benefit of the average reader as well as to illuminate the +general subject, a short description of the Talmud will be given. + +_Definition._--Many attempts have been made to define the Talmud, but +all definition of this monumental literary production is necessarily +inaccurate and incomplete because of the vastness and peculiarity of the +matter treated. To describe it as an encyclopedia of the life and +literature, law and religion, art and science of the Hebrew people +during a thousand years would convey only an approximately correct idea +of its true meaning, for it is even more than the foregoing descriptive +terms would indicate. Emanuel Deutsch in his brilliant essay on the +Talmud defines it as "a Corpus Juris, an encyclopedia of law, civil and +penal, ecclesiastical and international, human and divine. It is a +microcosm, embracing, even as does the Bible, heaven and earth. It is as +if all the prose and poetry, the science, the faith and speculation of +the Old World were, though only in faint reflections, bound up in it _in +nuce_." + +Benny describes it as "the Talmud--that much maligned and even more +misunderstood compilation of the rabbins; that digest of what Carlyle +would term _allerlei-wissenschaften_; which is at once the compendium of +their literature, the storehouse of their tradition, the exponent of +their faith, the record of their acquirements, the handbook of their +ceremonials and the summary of their legal code, civil and penal." + +To speak of the Talmud as a book would be inaccurate. It is a small +library, or collection of books. "Modern editions of the Talmud, +including the most important commentaries, consist of about 3,000 folio +sheets, or 12,000 folio pages of closely printed matter, generally +divided into twelve or twenty volumes. One page of Talmudic Hebrew +intelligibly translated into English would cover three pages; the +translation of the whole Talmud with its commentaries would accordingly +make a library of 400 volumes, each numbering 360 octavo pages."[49] + +It would be well to bear in mind that the contents of the Talmud were +not proclaimed to the world by any executive, legislative, or judicial +body; that they were not the result of any resolution or mandate of any +congregation, college, or Sanhedrin; that they were not, in any case, +formal or statutory. They were simply a great mass of traditionary +matter and commentary transmitted orally through many centuries before +being finally reduced to writing. Rabbinism claims for these traditions +a remote antiquity, declaring them to be coeval with the proclamation of +the Decalogue. Many learned doctors among the Jews ascribe this +antiquity to the whole mass of traditional laws. Others maintain that +only the principles upon which Rabbinic interpretation and discussion +are based, can be traced back so far. But it is certain that distinct +traditions are to be found at a very early period in the history of the +children of Israel, and that on their return from Babylonian captivity +these traditions were delivered to them by Ezra and his coadjutors of +the Great Assembly. + +This development of Hebrew jurisprudence along lines of written and oral +law, Pentateuch and Talmud, Mosaic ordinance and time-honored tradition, +seems to have followed in obedience to a general principle of juristic +growth. _Lex scripta_ and _lex non scripta_ are classical Roman terms of +universal application in systems of enlightened jurisprudence. A +charter, a parchment, a marble column, a table of stone, a sacred book, +containing written maxims defining legal rights and wrongs are the +beginnings of all civilized schemes of justice. Around these written, +fundamental laws grow and cluster the race traditions of a people which +attach themselves to and become inseparable from the prime organic +structure. These oral traditions are the natural and necessary products +of a nation's growth and progress. The laws of the Medes and Persians, +at once unalterable and irrevocable, represent a strange and painful +anomaly in the jurisprudence of mankind. No written constitution, +incapable of amendment and subject to strict construction, can long +survive the growth and expansion of a great and progressive people. The +ever-changing, perpetually evolving forms of social, commercial, +political, and religious life of a restless, marching, ambitious race, +necessitate corresponding changes and evolutions in laws and +constitutions. These necessary legal supplements are as varied in origin +as are the nations that produce them. Magna Charta, wrung from John at +Runnymede, became the written basis of English law and freedom, and +around it grew up those customs and traditions that--born on the shores +of the German Ocean, transplanted to the Isles of Britain, nurtured and +developed through a thousand years of judicial interpretation and +application--became the great basic structure of the Common Law of +England. + +What the Mosaic Code was to the ancient Hebrews, what Magna Charta is to +Englishmen, the Koran is to Mahometans: the written charter of their +faith and law. Surrounding the Koran are many volumes of tradition, made +up of the sayings of Mahomet, which are regarded as equally sacred and +authoritative as the Koran itself. These volumes of Mahometan tradition +are called the Sonna and correspond to the Talmud of the Hebrews. An +analysis of any great system of jurisprudence will reveal the same +natural arrangement of written and oral law as that represented by the +Pentateuch and the Talmud of the Jews. + +The word "Talmud" has various meanings, as it appears in Hebrew +traditional literature. It is an old scholastic term, and "is a noun +formed from the verb 'limmed'='to teach.' It therefore means, primarily, +'teaching,' although it denotes also 'learning'; it is employed in this +latter sense with special reference to the Torah, the terms 'Talmud' and +'Torah' being usually combined to indicate the study of the Law, both in +its wider and its more restricted sense."[50] It is thus frequently used +in the sense of the word "exegesis," meaning Biblical exposition or +interpretation. But with the etymological and restricted, we are not so +much interested as with the popular and general signification of the +term "Talmud." Popularly used, it means simply a small collection of +books represented by two distinct editions handed down to posterity by +the Palestinian and Babylonian schools during the early centuries of the +Christian era. + +_Divisions of the Talmud._--The Talmud is divided into two component +parts: the Mishna, which may be described as the _text_; and the Gemara, +which may be termed the _commentary_.[51] The Mishna, meaning tradition, +is almost wholly law. It was, indeed, of old, translated as the Second +or Oral Law--the [Greek: deuterôsis]--to distinguish it from the Written +Law delivered by God to Moses. The relationship between the Mishna, +meaning oral law, and the Gemara, meaning commentary, may be illustrated +by a bill introduced into Congress and the debates which follow. In a +general way, the bill corresponds to the Mishna, and the debates to the +Gemara. The distinction, however, is that the law resulting from the +passage of the bill is the effect and culmination of the debate; while +the Mishna was already law when the Gemara or commentary was made. + +As we have seen above, Hebrew jurisprudence in its principles and in the +manner of their interpretation was chiefly transmitted by the living +voice of tradition. These laws were easily and safely handed down from +father to son through successive generations as long as Jewish +nationality continued and the Temple at Jerusalem still stood. But, with +the destruction of the Temple and the banishment of the Jews from +Palestine (A.D. 70), the danger became imminent that in the loss of +their nationality would also be buried the remembrance of their laws. +Moved with pity and compassion for the sad condition of his people, +Judah the Holy, called Rabbi for preëminence, resolved to collect and +perpetuate for them in writing their time-honored traditions. His work +received the name Mishna, the same which we have discussed above. But it +must not be imagined that this work was the sudden or exclusive effort +of Rabbi Judah. His achievement was merely the sum total and culmination +of the labors of a long line of celebrated Hebrew sages. "The Oral Law +had been recognized by Ezra; had become important in the days of the +Maccabees; had been supported by Pharisaism; narrowed by the school of +Shammai, codified by the school of Hillel, systematized by R. Akiba, +placed on a logical basis by R. Ishmael, exegetically amplified by R. +Eliezer, and constantly enriched by successive rabbis and their +schools. Rabbi Judah put the coping-stone to the immense structure."[52] + +Emanuel Deutsch gives the following subdivisions of the Mishna: + + The Mishna is divided into six sections. These are subdivided again + into 11, 12, 7, 9 (or 10), 11, and 12 chapters, respectively, which + are further broken up into 524 paragraphs. We shall briefly + describe their contents: + + Section I. Seeds: of Agrarian Laws, commencing with a chapter on + Prayers. In this section, the various tithes and donations due to + the Priests, the Levites, and the poor, from the products of the + lands, and further the Sabbatical year and the prohibited mixtures + in plants, animals, garments, are treated of. + + Section II. Feasts: of Sabbaths, Feast, and Fast days, the work + prohibited, the ceremonies ordained, the sacrifices to be offered, + on them. Special chapters are devoted to the Feast of the Exodus + from Egypt, to the New Year's Day, to the Day of Atonement (one of + the most impressive portions of the whole book), to the Feast of + Tabernacles and to that of Haman. + + Section III. Women: of betrothal, marriage, divorce, etc., also of + vows. + + Section IV. Damages: including a great part of the civil and + criminal law. It treats of the law of trover, of buying and + selling, and the ordinary monetary transactions. Further, of the + greatest crime known to the law, viz., idolatry. Next of witnesses, + of oaths, of legal punishments, and of the Sanhedrin itself. This + section concludes with the so-called "Sentences of the Fathers," + containing some of the sublimest ethical dicta known in the history + of religious philosophy. + + Section V. Sacred Things: of sacrifices, the first-born, etc.; also + of the measurements of the Temple (Middoth). + + Section VI. Purifications: of the various levitical and other + hygienic laws, of impure things and persons, their purification, + etc.[53] + +_Recensions._--The Talmud exists in two recensions: the Jerusalem and +the Babylonian. These two editions represent a double Gemara; the first +(Jerusalem) being an expression of the schools in Palestine and redacted +at Tiberias about 390 A.D.; the second (Babylonian) being an expression +of the schools in Babylonia and redacted about 365-427 A.D. + +The Mishna, having been formed into a code, became in its turn what the +Pentateuch had been before it, a basis of discussion and development. +The Gemara of the Jerusalem Talmud embodies the critical discussions and +disquisitions on the Mishna by hundreds of learned doctors who lived in +Palestine, chiefly in Galilee, from the end of the second till about the +middle of the fifth century of the Christian era. The Gemara of the +Babylonian Talmud embodies the criticisms and dissertations on the same +Mishna of numerous learned doctors living in various places in +Babylonia, but chiefly those of the two great schools of Sura and +Pumbaditha.[54] The Babylonian Talmud is written in "West Aramæan," is +the product of six or seven generations of constant development, and is +about four times as large as that of the Jerusalem Talmud, which is +written in "East Aramæan."[55] It should be kept clearly before the mind +that the only difference between these two recensions is in the matter +of commentary. The two sets of doctors whose different commentaries +distinguish the two Talmuds dealt with the same Mishna as a basis of +criticism. But decided differences are noticeable in the subject matter +and style of the two Gemaras represented by the two recensions of the +Talmud. The discussions and commentaries in the Jerusalem Talmud are +simple, brief, and pointed; while those of the Babylonian Talmud are +generally subtle, abstruse, and prolix. The dissertations in the +Jerusalem Talmud are filled to overflowing with archæology, geography, +and history, while the Babylonian Talmud is more marked by legal and +religious development. + +But the reader should not form a wrong impression of the contents of the +Talmud. They are a blending of the oral law of the Mishna and the notes +and comments of the sages. The characteristics of both the editions are +legal and religious, but a multitude of references are made in each to +things that have no connection with either religion or law. "The Talmud +does, indeed, offer us a perfect picture of the cosmopolitanism and +luxury of those final days of Rome, such as but few classical or +postclassical writings contain. We find mention made of Spanish fish, of +Cretan apples, Bithynian cheese, Egyptian lentils and beans, Greek and +Egyptian pumpkins, Italian wine, Median beer, Egyptian Zyphus; garments +imported from Pelusium and India, shirts from Cilicia, and veils from +Arabia. To the Arabic, Persian, and Indian materials contained, in +addition to these, in the Gemara, a bare allusion may suffice. So much +we venture to predict, that when once archæological and linguistic +science shall turn to this field, they will not leave it again soon." + +_Relation of Talmud to Mishna._--The relation of the Talmud, used in the +popular sense, to the Mishna, raises the question of the relation of the +whole to one of its parts. The varying meanings of Mishna, Gemara, and +Talmud very easily confuse the ordinary reader. If these terms are +considered separately in the order in which they appear in the preceding +sentence, simple mathematical addition will greatly aid in elucidating +matters. The Mishna is a vast mass of tradition or oral law which was +finally reduced to writing about the close of the second century of the +Christian era. The Gemara is the Rabbinical exposition of the meaning of +the Mishna. The Talmud is the sum of the Mishna plus the Gemara. In +other words, the Talmud is the elaboration or amplification of the +Mishna by manifold commentaries, designated as the Gemara. It frequently +happens that the Talmud and the Mishna appear in the same sentence as +terms designating entirely different things. This association in a +different sense inevitably breeds confusion, unless we pause to consider +that the Mishna has a separate existence from the Talmud and a distinct +recension of its own. In this state it is simply a naked code of laws. +But when the Gemara has been added to it the Talmud is the result, +which, in its turn, becomes a distinct entity and may be referred to as +such in the same sentence with the Mishna. + +_Relation of Talmud to Pentateuch._--As before suggested, the +Pentateuch, or Mosaic Code, was the Written Law and the very foundation +of ancient Hebrew jurisprudence. The Talmud, composed of the Mishna, +i.e., Tradition, and the Gemara, i.e., Commentary, was the Oral Law, +connected with, derived from, and built upon the Written Law. It must be +remembered that the commonwealth of the Jews was a pure theocracy and +that all law as well as all religion emanated directly or indirectly +from Jehovah. This was as true of Talmudic tradition as of Mosaic +ordinance. Hillel, who interpreted tradition, was as much inspired of +God as was Moses when he received the Written Law on Sinai. Emanuel +Deutsch is of the opinion that from the very beginning of the Mosaic law +there must have existed a number of corollary laws which were used to +interpret and explain the written rules; that, besides, there were +certain enactments of the primitive Council of the Desert, and certain +verdicts issued by the later "judges within the gates"--all of which +entered into the general body of the Oral Law and were transmitted side +by side with the Written Law through the ages.[56] The fourth book of +Ezra, as well as other Apocryphal writings, together with Philo and +certain of the Church Fathers, tells us of great numbers of books that +were given to Moses at the same time that he received the Pentateuch. +These writings are doubtless the source of the popular belief among the +Jews that the traditional laws of the Mishna had existed from time +immemorial and were of divine origin. "Jewish tradition traces the bulk +of the oral injunctions, through a chain of distinctly named +authorities, to 'Sinai itself.' It mentions in detail how Moses +communicated those minutiæ of his legislation, in which he had been +instructed during the mysterious forty days and nights on the Mount, to +the chosen guides of the people, in such a manner that they should +forever remain engraven on the tablets of their hearts."[57] This direct +descent of the Oral Law from the Sacred Mount itself would indicate an +independent character and authority. Nevertheless, Talmudic +interpretation of tradition professed to remain always subject to the +Mosaic Code; to be built upon, and to derive its highest inspiration +from it. But, as a matter of fact, while claiming theoretically to be +subordinate to it, the Talmud finally superseded and virtually displaced +the Pentateuch as a legal and administrative code. This was the +inevitable consequence and effect of the laws of growth and progress in +national existence. Altered conditions of life, at home and in exile, +necessitated new rules of action in the government of the Jewish +commonwealth. The Mosaic Code was found inadequate to the ever-changing +exigencies of Hebrew life. As a matter of fact, Moses laid down only +general principles for the guidance of Hebrew judges. He furnished the +body of the law, but a system of legal procedure was wholly wanting. The +Talmud supplied the deficiency and completed a perfect whole. While yet +in the Wilderness, Moses commanded the Israelites to establish courts +and appoint judges for the administration of justice as soon as they +were settled in Palestine.[58] This clearly indicates that the great +lawgiver did not intend his ordinances and injunctions to be final and +exclusive. Having furnished a foundation for the scheme, he anticipated +that the piety, judgment, and learning of subsequent ages would do the +rest. His expectations were fulfilled in the development of the +traditions afterwards embodied in the Mishna, which is the principal +component part of the Talmud. + +As before suggested, with the growth in population and the +ever-increasing complications in social, political, and religious life, +and with the general advance in Hebrew civilization, Mosaic injunction +began to prove entirely inadequate to the national wants. In the time +intervening between the destruction of the first and second Temples, a +number of Mosaic laws had become utter anachronisms; others were +perfectly impracticable, and several were no longer even understood. The +exigencies of an altered mode of life and the changed conditions and +circumstances of the people rendered imperative the enactment of new +laws unknown to the Pentateuch. But the divine origin of the Hebrew +system of law was never for a moment forgotten, whatever the change and +wherever made. The Rabbins never formally repealed or abolished any +Mosaic enactment. They simply declared that it had fallen into +desuetude. And, in devising new laws rendered necessary by changed +conditions of life they invariably invoked some principle or +interpretation of the Written Law. + +In the declining years of Jewish nationality, many characteristic laws +of the Pentateuch had become obsolete. The ordinance which determined +the punishment of a stubborn and rebellious son; the enactment which +commanded the destruction of a city given to idolatry; and, above all, +the _lex talionis_ had become purely matters of legend. On the other +hand, many new laws appear in the Talmud of which no trace whatever can +be discovered in the Pentateuch. "The Pharisees," says Josephus, "have +imposed upon the people many laws taken from the tradition of the +Fathers, which are not written in the law of Moses."[59] The most +significant of these is the one providing for Antecedent Warning in +criminal prosecutions, the meaning and purpose of which will be fully +discussed in another chapter. + +_Vicissitudes of the Talmud._--An old Latin adage runs: "Habent sua fata +libelli."[60] (Even books are victims of fate). This saying is +peculiarly applicable to the Talmud, which has had, in a general way, +the same fateful history as the race that created it. Proscription, +exile, imprisonment, confiscation, and burning was its lot throughout +the Middle Ages. During a thousand years, popes and kings vied with each +other in pronouncing edicts and hurling anathemas against it. During the +latter half of the sixteenth century it was burned not fewer than six +different times by royal or papal decree. Whole wagonloads were +consigned to the flames at a single burning. In 1286, in a letter to the +Archbishop of Canterbury, Honorius IV described the Talmud as a +"damnable book" (liber damnabilis), and vehemently urged that nobody in +England be permitted to read it, since "all other evils flow out of +it."[61] On New Year's day, 1553, numerous copies of the Talmud were +burned at Rome in compliance with a decree of the Inquisition. And, as +late as 1757, in Poland, Bishop Dembowski, at the instigation of the +Frankists, convened a public assembly at Kamenetz-Podolsk, which decreed +that all copies of the Talmud found in the bishopric should be +confiscated and burned by the hangman.[62] + +Of the two recensions, the Babylonian Talmud bore the brunt of +persecution during all the ages. This resulted from the fact that the +Jerusalem Talmud was little read after the closing of the Jewish +academies in Palestine, while the Babylonian Talmud was the popular +edition of eminent Jewish scholars throughout the world. + +It is needless to say that the treatment accorded the venerable literary +compilation was due to bitter prejudice and crass ignorance. This is +well illustrated by the circumstance that when, in 1307, Clement V was +asked to issue a bull against the Talmud, he declined to do so, until he +had learned something about it. To his amazement and chagrin, he could +find no one who could throw any light upon the subject. Those who wished +it condemned and burned were totally ignorant of its meaning and +contents. The surprise and disgust of Clement were so great that he +resolved to found three chairs in Hebrew, Arabic, and Chaldee, the +three tongues nearest the idiom of the Talmud. He designated the +Universities of Paris, Salamanca, Bologna, and Oxford as places where +these languages should be taught, and expressed the hope that, in time, +one of these universities might be able to produce a translation of +"this mysterious book."[63] It may be added that these plans of the Pope +were never consummated. + +_The Message and Mission of the Talmud._--To appreciate the message and +mission of the Talmud, its contents must be viewed and contemplated in +the light of both literature and history. As a literary production it is +a masterpiece--strange, weird, and unique--but a masterpiece, +nevertheless. It is a sort of spiritual and intellectual cosmos in which +the brain growth and soul burst of a great race found expression during +a thousand years. As an encyclopedia of faith and scholarship it reveals +the noblest thoughts and highest aspirations of a divinely commissioned +race. Whatever the master spirits of Judaism in Palestine and Babylon +esteemed worthy of thought and devotion was devoted to its pages. It +thus became a great twin messenger, with the Bible, of Hebrew +civilization to all the races of mankind and to all the centuries yet to +come. To Hebrews it is still the great storehouse of information +touching the legal, political, and religious traditions of their fathers +in many lands and ages. To the Biblical critic of any faith it is an +invaluable help to Bible exegesis. And to all the world who care for +the sacred and the solemn it is a priceless literary treasure. + +As an historical factor the Talmud has only remotely affected the great +currents of Gentile history. But to Judaism it has been the cementing +bond in every time of persecution and threatened dissolution. It was +carried from Babylon to Egypt, northern Africa, Spain, Italy, France, +Germany, and Poland. And when threatened with national and race +destruction, the children of Abraham in every land bowed themselves +above its sacred pages and caught therefrom inspiration to renewed life +and higher effort. The Hebrews of every age have held the Talmud in +extravagant reverence as the greatest sacred heirloom of their race. +Their supreme affection for it has placed it above even the Bible. It is +an adage with them that, "The Bible is salt, the Mischna pepper, the +Gemara balmy spice," and Rabbi Solomon ben Joseph sings: + + "The Kabbala and Talmud hoar + Than all the Prophets prize I more; + For water is all Bible lore, + But Mischna is pure wine." + +More than any other human agency has the Talmud been instrumental in +creating that strangest of all political phenomena--a nation without a +country, a race without a fatherland. + + + + +CHAPTER II + +HEBREW CRIMINAL LAW--CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS + + +Capital crimes, under Hebrew law, were classified by Maimonides +according to their respective penalties. His arrangement will be +followed in this chapter.[64] + +Hebrew jurisprudence provided four methods of capital punishment: (1) +Beheading; (2) Strangling; (3) Burning; (4) Stoning. + +Crucifixion was unknown to Hebrew law. This cruel and loathsome form of +punishment will be fully discussed in the second volume of this work. + +Thirty-six capital crimes are mentioned by the Pentateuch and the +Talmud. + +_Beheading_ was the punishment for only two crimes: + + (1) Murder. + (2) Communal apostasy from Judaism to idolatry. + +_Strangling_ was prescribed for six offenses: + + (1) Adultery. + (2) Kidnaping. + (3) False prophecy. + (4) Bruising a parent. + (5) Prophesying in the name of heathen deities. + (6) Maladministration (the "Rebellious Elder"). + +_Burning_ was the death penalty for ten forms of incest--criminal +commerce: + + (1) With one's own daughter. + (2) With one's own son's daughter. + (3) With one's own daughter's daughter. + (4) With one's own stepdaughter. + (5) With one's own stepson's daughter. + (6) With one's own stepdaughter's daughter. + (7) With one's own mother-in-law. + (8) With one's own mother-in-law's mother. + (9) With one's own father-in-law's mother. + (10) With a priest's daughter.[65] + +_Stoning_ was the penalty for eighteen capital offenses: + + (1) Magic. + (2) Idolatry. + (3) Blasphemy. + (4) Pythonism. + (5) Pederasty. + (6) Necromancy. + (7) Cursing a parent. + (8) Violating the Sabbath. + (9) Bestiality, practiced by a man. + (10) Bestiality, practiced by a woman. + (11) Sacrificing one's own children to Moloch. + (12) Instigating individuals to embrace idolatry. + (13) Instigating communities to embrace idolatry. + (14) Criminal conversation with one's own mother. + (15) Criminal conversation with a betrothed virgin. + (16) Criminal conversation with one's own stepmother. + (17) Criminal conversation with one's own daughter-in-law. + (18) Violation of filial duty (making the "Prodigal Son").[66] + +The crime of _false swearing_ requires special notice. This offense +could not be classified under any of the above subdivisions because of +its peculiar nature. The Mosaic Code ordains in Deut. xix. 16-21: "If a +false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which +is wrong ... and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath +testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he +had thought to have done unto his brother ... and thine eye shall not +pity, but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for +hand, foot for foot." Talmudic construction of this law awarded the same +kind of death to him who had sworn falsely against his brother that +would have been meted out to the alleged criminal, if the testimony of +the false swearer had been true. + +_Imprisonment_, as a method of punishment, was unknown to the Mosaic +Code. Leviticus xxiv. 12 and Numbers xv. 34 seem to indicate the +contrary; but the imprisonment therein mentioned undoubtedly refers to +the mere detention of the prisoner until sentence could be pronounced +against him. Imprisonment as a form of punishment was a creation of the +Talmudists who legalized its application among the Hebrews. According to +Mendelsohn, five different classes of offenders were punished by +_imprisonment_: + +(1) Homicides; whose crime could not be legally punished with death, +because some condition or other, necessary to produce a legal +conviction, had not been complied with. + +(2) Instigators to or procurers of murder; such, for instance, as had +the deed committed by the hands of a hireling. + +(3) Accessories to loss of life, as, for instance, when several persons +had clubbed one to death, and the court could not determine the one who +gave the death blow. + +(4) Persons who having been twice duly condemned to and punished with +flagellation for as many transgressions of one and the same negative +precept, committed it a third time. + +(5) Incorrigible offenders, who, on each of three occasions, had failed +to acknowledge as many warnings antecedent to the commission of one and +the same crime, the original penalty for which was excision.[67] + +_Flagellation_ is the only corporal punishment mentioned by the +Pentateuch. The number of stripes administered were not to exceed forty +and were to be imposed in the presence of the judges.[68] Wherever the +Mosaic Code forbade an act, or, in the language of the sages, said "Thou +shalt not," and prescribed no other punishment or alternative, a Court +of Three might impose stripes as the penalty for wrongdoing. Mendelsohn +gives the following classification: + +Flagellation is the penalty of three classes of offenses: + +(1) The violation of a negative precept, deadly in the sight of heaven. + +(2) The violation of any negative precept, when accomplished by means of +a positive act. + +(3) The violation of any one of the prohibitive ordinances punishable, +according to the Mosaic law with _excision_, to which, however, no +capital punishment at the instance of a human tribunal is attached.[69] + +The Mishna enumerates fifty offenses punishable by stripes, but this +enumeration is evidently incomplete. Maimonides gives a full +classification of all the offenses punishable by flagellation, the +number of which he estimates to be two hundred and seven. The last three +in his list are cases in which the king takes too many wives, +accumulates too much silver or gold, or collects too many horses.[70] + +_Slavery_ was the penalty for _theft_ under ancient Hebrew law. This is +the only case where the Mosaic law imposed slavery upon the culprit as a +punishment for his crime; and a loss of liberty followed only where the +thief was unable to make the prescribed restitution. Exodus xxii. 1-3 +says: + + If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it, he + shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep ... + if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. + +Penal servitude, or slavery, was imposed only on men, never on women. +Slavery, as a penalty for theft, was limited to a period of six years in +obedience to the Mosaic ordinance laid down in Exodus xxi. 2. + + If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the + seventh, he shall go free for nothing. + +It should be remarked, in this connection, that slavery, as a punishment +for crime, carried with it none of the odium and hardship usually borne +by the slave. The humanity of Hebrew law provided that the culprit, +thief though he was, should not be degraded or humiliated. He could be +compelled to do work for his master, such as he had been accustomed to +do while free, but was relieved by the law from all degrading +employment, such as "attending the master to the bath, fastening or +unfastening his sandals, washing his feet, or any other labor usually +performed by the regular slave." Hebrew law required such kindly +treatment of the convict thief by his master that this maxim was the +result: "He who buys a Hebrew slave, buys himself a master." + +_Internment_ in a city of refuge was the punishment for accidental +homicide. Mischance or misadventure, resulting in the slaying of a +fellow-man, was not, properly speaking, a crime; nor was exile in a city +of refuge considered by the Talmudists a form of punishment. But they +are so classified by most writers on Hebrew criminal law. Among nearly +all ancient nations there was a place of refuge for the unfortunate and +downtrodden of the earth; debtors, slaves, criminals, and political +offenders; some sacred spot--an altar, a grave, or a sanctuary dedicated +and devoted to some divinity who threw about the hallowed place divine +protection and inviolability. Such was at Athens the Temple of Theseus, +the sanctuary of slaves. It will be remembered that the orator +Demosthenes took refuge in the Temple of Poseidon as a sanctuary, when +pursued by emissaries of Antipater and the Macedonians.[71] Among the +ancient Hebrews, there were six cities of refuge; three on either side +of the Jordan. They were so located as to be nearly opposite each other. +Bezer in Reuben was opposite Hebron in Judah; Schechem in Ephraim was +opposite to Ramoth in Gad; and Golan in Manasseh was opposite to Kedesh +in Naphtali.[72] Highways in excellent condition led from one to the +other. Signposts were placed at regular intervals to indicate the way to +the nearest city of refuge. These cities were designated by the law as +asylums or sanctuaries for the protection of innocent slayers of their +fellow-men from the "avenger of blood." Among nearly all primitive +peoples of crude political development, such as the early Germans, the +ancient Greeks and Slavs, certain North American savage tribes and the +modern Arabs, Corsicans and Sicilians, the right of private vengeance +was and is taught and tolerated. Upon the "next of kin," the "avenger of +blood," devolved the duty of hunting down and slaying the guilty man. +Cities of refuge were provided by Mosaic law for such an emergency +among the Hebrews. This provision of the Mosaic Code doubtless sprang +from a personal experience of its founder. Bible students will remember +that Moses slew an Egyptian and was compelled to flee in +consequence.[73] Remembering his dire distress on this occasion, the +great lawgiver was naturally disposed to provide sanctuaries for others +similarly distressed. But the popular notion of the rights of sanctuary +under the Mosaic law is far from right. That a common murderer could, by +precipitate flight, reach one of the designated places and be safe from +his pursuers and the vengeance of the law, is thought by many. The +observation of Benny on this point is apt and lucid: + + Internment in one of the cities of refuge was not the scampering + process depicted in the popular engraving: a man in the last stage + of exhaustion at the gate of an Eastern town; his pursuers close + upon him, arrows fixed and bows drawn; his arms stretched + imploringly towards a fair Jewish damsel, with a pitcher gracefully + poised upon her head. This may be extremely picturesque, but it is + miserably unlike the custom in vogue among the later Hebrews. + Internment in a city of refuge was a sober and judicial proceeding. + He who claimed the privilege was tried before the Sanhedrin like + any ordinary criminal. He was required to undergo examination; to + confront witnesses, to produce evidence, precisely as in the case + of other offenders. He had to prove that the homicide was purely + accidental; that he had borne no malice against his neighbor; that + he had not lain in wait for him to slay him. Only when the judges + were convinced that the crime was homicide by misadventure was the + culprit adjudged to be interned in one of the sheltering cities. + There was no scurrying in the matter; no abrupt flight; no hot + pursuit, and no appeal for shelter. As soon as judgment was + pronounced the criminal was conducted to one of the appointed + places. He was accompanied the whole distance by two + talmide-chachamin-disciples of the Rabbins. The avengers of the + blood dared not interfere with the offender on the way. To slay him + would have been murder, punishable with death. + +_Execution of Capital Sentences._ (1) _Beheading._--The Hebrews +considered beheading the most awful and ignominious of all forms of +punishment. It was the penalty for deliberate murder and for communal +apostasy from Judaism to idolatry, the most heinous offenses against the +Hebrew theocracy. Beheading was accomplished by fastening the culprit +securely to a post and then severing his head from his body by a stroke +with a sword.[74] + +(2) _Strangling._--The capital punishment of strangling was effected by +burying the culprit to his waist in soft mud, and then tightening a cord +_wrapped in a soft cloth_ around his neck, until suffocation ensued.[75] + +(3) _Burning._--The execution of criminals by burning was not done by +consuming the living person with fire, as was practiced in the case of +heretics by prelates in the Middle Ages and in the case of white +captives by savages in colonial days in America. Indeed, the term +"burning" seems to be a misnomer in this connection, for the culprit was +not really burned to death. He was simply suffocated by strangling. As +in the case of strangling, the condemned man was placed in a pit dug in +the ground. Soft dirt was then thrown in and battered down, until +nothing but his head and chest protruded. A cord, wrapped in a soft +cloth, was then passed once around his neck. Two strong men came +forward, grasped each an end, and drew the cord so hard that suffocation +immediately followed. As the lower jaw dropped from insensibility and +relaxation, a lighted wick was quickly thrown into his mouth. This +constituted the burning.[76] There is authority for the statement that +instead of a lighted wick, molten lead was poured down the culprit's +throat.[77] + +(4) _Stoning._--Death by stoning was accomplished in the following +manner: The culprit was taken to some lofty hill or eminence, made to +undress completely, if a man, and was then precipitated violently to the +ground beneath. The fall usually broke the neck or dislocated the spinal +cord. If death did not follow instantaneously the witnesses hurled upon +his prostrate body heavy stones until he was dead. If the first stone, +so heavy as to require two persons to carry it, did not produce death, +then bystanders threw stones upon him until death ensued. Here, again, +"stoning" to death is not strictly accurate. Death usually resulted from +the fall of the man from the platform, scaffold, hill, or other +elevation from which he was hurled. It was really a process of +neck-breaking, instead of stoning, as burning was a process of +suffocation, instead of consuming with fire. + +These four methods of execution--beheading, strangling, burning, and +stoning--were the only forms of capital punishment known to the ancient +Hebrews. Crucifixion was never practiced by them; but a posthumous +indignity, resembling crucifixion, was employed as an insult to the +criminal, in the crimes of idolatry and blasphemy. In addition to being +stoned to death, as a punishment for either of these crimes, the dead +body of the culprit was then hanged in public view as a means of +rendering the offense more hideous and the death more ignominious. This +_hanging_ to a tree was in obedience to a Mosaic ordinance contained in +Deut. xxi. 22. The corpse was not permitted, however, to remain hanging +during the night. + +The burial of the dead body of the criminal immediately followed +execution, but interment could not take place in the family burial +ground. Near each town in ancient Palestine were two cemeteries; in one +of them were buried those criminals who had been executed by beheading +or strangling; in the other were interred those who had been put to +death by stoning or burning. The bodies were required to remain, thus +buried, until the flesh had completely decayed and fallen from the bone. +The relatives were then permitted to dig up the skeletons and place them +in the family sepulchers. + + + + +CHAPTER III + +HEBREW CRIMINAL LAW--COURTS AND JUDGES + + +The Hebrew tribunals were three in kind: the Great Sanhedrin; the Minor +Sanhedrin; and the Lower Tribunal, or the Court of Three. + +The Great Sanhedrin, or Grand Council, was the high court of justice and +the supreme tribunal of the Jews. It sat at Jerusalem. It numbered +seventy-one members. Its powers were legislative, executive, and +judicial. It exercised all the functions of education, of government, +and of religion. It was the national parliament of the Hebrew Theocracy, +the human administrator of the divine will. It was the most august +tribunal that ever interpreted or administered religion to man. + +_The Name._--The word "Sanhedrin" is derived from the Greek ([Greek: +synedrion]) and denotes a legislative assembly or an ecclesiastical +council deliberating in a sitting posture. It suggests also the gravity +and solemnity of an Oriental synod, transacting business of great +importance. The etymology of the word indicates that it was first used +in the later years of Jewish nationality. Several other names are also +found in history to designate the Great Sanhedrin of the Jews. The +Council of Ancients is a familiar designation of early Jewish writers. +It is called Gerusia, or Senate, in the second book of Maccabees.[78] +Concilium, or Grand Council, is the name found in the Vulgate.[79] The +Talmud designates it sometimes as the Tribunal of the Maccabees, but +usually terms it Sanhedrin, the name most frequently employed in the +Greek text of the Gospels, in the writings of the Rabbins, and in the +works of Josephus.[80] + +_Origin of the Great Sanhedrin._--The historians are at loggerheads as +to the origin of the Great Sanhedrin. Many contend that it was +established in the Wilderness by Moses, who acted under divine +commission recorded in Numbers xi. 16, 17: "Gather unto me seventy of +the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, +and officers of them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the +congregation, that they may stand with thee; and I will take of the +Spirit that is upon thee and will put it upon them; and they shall bear +the burden of the people with thee, that thou bearest it not alone." +Over the seventy elders, Moses is said to have presided, making +seventy-one, the historic number of the Great Sanhedrin. Several +Christian historians, among them Grotius and Selden, have entertained +this view; others equally celebrated have maintained contrary opinions. +These latter contend that the council of seventy ordained by Moses +existed only a short time, having been established to assist the great +lawgiver in the administration of justice; and that, upon the entrance +of the children of Israel into the Promised Land, it disappeared +altogether. The writers who hold this view contend that if the great +assembly organized in the Wilderness was perpetuated side by side with +the royal power, throughout the ages, as the Rabbis maintained, some +mention of this fact would, in reason, have been made by the Bible, +Josephus, or Philo. + +The pages of Jewish history disclose the greatest diversity of opinion +as to the origin of the Great Sanhedrin. The Maccabean era is thought by +some to be the time of its first appearance. Others contend that the +reign of John Hyrcanus, and still others that the days of Judas +Maccabeus, marked its birth and beginning. Raphall, having studied with +care its origin and progress, wrote: "We have thus traced the existence +of a council of Zekenim or Elders founded by Moses, existing in the days +of Ezekiel, restored under the name of Sabay Yehoudai, or Elders of the +Jews, under Persian dominion; Gerusia, under the supremacy of the +Greeks; and Sanhedrin under the Asmonean kings and under the +Romans."[81] + +Brushing aside mere theory and speculation, one historical fact is clear +and uncontradicted, that the first Sanhedrin Council clothed with the +general judicial and religious attributes of the Great Sanhedrin of the +times of Jesus, was established at Jerusalem between 170 and 106 B.C. + +_Organization of the Great Sanhedrin._--The seventy-one members +composing the Great Sanhedrin were divided into three chambers: + + The chamber of priests; + The chamber of scribes; + The chamber of elders. + +The first of these orders represented the religious or sacerdotal; the +second, the literary or legal; the third, the patriarchal, the +democratic or popular element of the Hebrew population. Thus the +principal Estates of the Commonwealth of Israel were present, by +representation, in the great court and parliament of the nation. + +Matthew refers to these three orders and identifies the tribunal that +passed judgment upon Christ: "From that time forth, began Jesus to shew +unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many +things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed and +raised again the third day."[82] + +Theoretically, under the Hebrew constitution, the "seventy-one" of the +three chambers were to be equally divided: + + Twenty-three in the chamber of priests, + Twenty-three in the chamber of scribes, + Twenty-three in the chamber of elders. + +A total of sixty-nine, together with the two presiding officers, would +constitute the requisite number, seventy-one. But, practically, this +arrangement was rarely ever observed. The theocratic structure of the +government of Israel and the pious regard of the people for the +guardians of the Temple, gave the priestly element a predominating +influence from time to time. The scribes, too, were a most vigorous and +aggressive sect and frequently encroached upon the rights and privileges +of the other orders. Abarbanel, one of the greatest of the Hebrew +writers, has offered this explanation: "The priests and scribes +naturally predominated in the Sanhedrin because, not having like the +other Israelites received lands to cultivate and improve, they had +abundant time to consecrate to the study of law and justice, and thus +became better qualified to act as judges."[83] + +_Qualifications of Members of the Great Sanhedrin._--The following +qualifications were requisite to entitle an applicant to membership in +the Great Sanhedrin: + +(1) _He must have been a Hebrew and a lineal descendant of Hebrew +parents._[84] + +(2) _He must have been "learned in the law"; both written and +unwritten._ + +His legal attainment must have included an intimate acquaintance with +all the enactments of the Mosaic Code, with traditional practices, with +the precepts and precedents of the colleges, with the adjudications of +former courts and the opinions of former judges. He must have been +familiar not only with the laws then actively in force, but also with +those that had become obsolete.[85] + +(3) _He must have had judicial experience; that is, he must have +already filled three offices of gradually increasing dignity, beginning +with one of the local courts, and passing successively through two +magistracies at Jerusalem._[86] + +(4) _He must have been thoroughly proficient in scientific knowledge._ + +The ancient Sanhedrists were required to be especially well grounded in +astronomy and medicine. They were also expected to be familiar with the +arts of the necromancer.[87] We are also led to believe from the +revelations of the Talmud that the judges of Israel were well versed in +the principles of physiology and chemistry, as far as these sciences +were developed and understood in those days. History records that Rabbi +Ismael and his disciples once engaged in experimental dissection in +order to learn the anatomy of the human frame. On one occasion a +deceitful witness tried to impose upon a Hebrew court by representing +spermatic fluid to be the albumen of an egg. Baba bar Boutah was +enabled, from his knowledge of the elements of chemistry, to demonstrate +the fact of fraud in the testimony of the witness. Eighty disciples of +the famous Academy of Hillel are said to have been acquainted with every +branch of science known in those days.[88] + +(5) _He must have been an accomplished linguist; that is, he must have +been thoroughly familiar with the languages of the surrounding nations._ + +Interpreters were not allowed in Hebrew courts. A knowledge of several +languages was, therefore, indispensable to the candidate who sought +membership in the Great Sanhedrin. "In the case of a foreigner being +called as a witness before a tribunal, it was absolutely necessary that +two members should understand the language in which the stranger's +evidence was given; that two others should speak to him; while another +was required to be both able to understand and to converse with the +witness. A majority of three judges could always be obtained on any +doubtful point in the interpretation of the testimony submitted to the +court. At Bither there were three Rabbins acquainted with every language +then known, while at Jabneh there were said to be four similarly endowed +with the gift of 'all the tongues.'"[89] + +(6) _He must have been modest, popular, of good appearance, and free +from haughtiness._[90] + +The Hebrew mind conceived modesty to be the natural result of that +learning, dignity, and piety which every judge was supposed to possess. +The qualification of "popularity" did not convey the notion of +electioneering, hobnobbing and familiarity. It meant simply that the +reputation of the applicant for judicial honors was so far above +reproach that his countrymen could and would willingly commit all their +interests of life, liberty, and property to his keeping. By "good +appearance" was meant that freedom from physical blemishes and defects, +and that possession of physical endowments that would inspire respect +and reverence in the beholder. The haughty judge was supposed to be +lacking in the elements of piety and humility which qualified him for +communion with God. Haughtiness, therefore, disqualified for admission +to the Great Sanhedrin. + +(7) _He must have been pious, strong, and courageous._[91] + +Piety was the preëminent qualification of a judge of Israel. Impiety was +the negation of everything Israelitish. Strength and courage are +attributes that all judges in all ages and among all races have been +supposed to possess in order to be just and righteous in their +judgments. + +_Disqualifications._--Disqualifications of applicants for membership in +the Great Sanhedrin are not less interesting than qualifications. They +are in the main mere negatives of affirmatives which have already been +given, and would seem, therefore, to be superfluous. But they are +strongly accentuated in Hebrew law, and are therefore repeated here. + +(1) _A man was disqualified to act as judge who had not, or had never +had, any regular trade, occupation, or profession by which he gained his +livelihood._ + +The reason for this disqualification was based upon a stringent maxim of +the Rabbins: "He who neglects to teach his son a trade, is as though he +taught him to steal!" A man who did not work and had never labored in +the sweat of his brow for an honest livelihood, was not qualified, +reasoned the Hebrew people, to give proper consideration or extend due +sympathy to the cause of litigants whose differences arose out of the +struggles of everyday life. + +(2) _In trials where the death penalty might be inflicted, an aged man, +a person who had never had any children of his own, and a bastard were +disqualified to act as judge._ + +A person of advanced years was disqualified because according to the +Rabbins old age is frequently marked by bad temper; and "because his +years and infirmities were likely to render him harsh, perhaps obstinate +and unyielding." On the other hand, youth was also a disqualification to +sit in the Sanhedrin. According to the Rabbis, twenty-five years was the +age which entitled a person to be called a Man;[92] but no one was +eligible to a seat in the Sanhedrin until he had reached the age of +forty years.[93] The ancient Hebrews regarded that period as the +beginning of discretion and understanding. + +A person without children was not supposed to possess those tender +paternal feelings "which should warm him on behalf of the son of Israel +who was in peril of his life." + +The stain of birth and the degradation in character of a bastard were +wholly inconsistent with the high ideals of the qualifications of a +Hebrew judge. + +(3) _Gamblers, dice players, bettors on pigeon matches, usurers, and +slave dealers were disqualified to act as judges._ + +The Hebrews regarded gambling, dice playing, betting on pigeon matches, +and other such practices as forms of thievery; and thieves were not +eligible to sit as judges in their courts. No man who was in the habit +of lending money in an usurious manner could be a judge. It was +immaterial whether the money was lent to a countryman or a stranger. +Slave dealers were disqualified to act as judges because they were +regarded as inhuman and unsympathetic. + +(4) _No man was qualified to be a judge who had dealt in the fruits of +the seventh year._ + +Such a person was deemed lacking in conscience and unfitted to perform +judicial functions. + +(5) _No man who was concerned or interested in a matter to be +adjudicated was qualified to sit in judgment thereon._ + +This is a universal disqualification of judges under all enlightened +systems of justice. The weakness and selfishness of human nature are +such that few men are qualified to judge impartially where their own +interests are involved. + +(6) _All relatives of the accused man, of whatever degree of +consanguinity, were disqualified from sitting in judgment on his case._ + +This is only a variation of the disqualification of interest. + +(7) _No person who would be benefited, as heir, or otherwise, by the +death or condemnation of an accused man, was qualified to be his judge._ + +This, too, is a variation of the disqualification of interest. + +(8) _The king could not be a member of the Sanhedrin._ + +Royalty disqualified from holding the place of judge because of the +high station of the king and because his exercising judicial functions +might hamper the administration of justice. + +And, finally, in closing the enumeration of disqualifications, it may be +added that an election to a seat obtained by fraud or any unfair means +was null and void. No respect was shown for the piety or learning of +such a judge; his judicial mantle was spat upon with scorn, and his +fellow judges fled from him as from a plague or pest. Hebrew contempt +for such a judge was expressed in the maxim: "The robe of the unfairly +elected judge is to be respected not more than the blanket of an ass." + +_Officers of the Great Sanhedrin._--Two presiding officers directed the +proceedings of the Great Sanhedrin. One of these, styled _prince_ +(nasi), was the chief and the president of the court. The other, known +as the _father of the Tribunal_ (ab-beth-din), was the vice-president. + +There has been much discussion among the historians as to the particular +chamber from which the president was chosen. Some have contended that +the presidency of the Sanhedrin belonged by right to the high priest. +But the facts of history do not sustain this contention. Aaron was high +priest at the time when Moses was president of the first Sanhedrin in +the Wilderness; and, besides, the list of presidents preserved by the +Talmud reveals the names of many who did not belong to the priesthood. +Maimonides has made the following very apt observation on the subject: +"Whoever surpassed his colleagues in wisdom was made by them chief of +the Sanhedrin."[94] + +According to most Jewish writers, there were two scribes or secretaries +of the Sanhedrin. But several others contend that there were three. +Benny says: "Three scribes were present; one was seated on the right, +one on the left, the third in the center of the hall. The first recorded +the names of the judges who voted for the acquittal of the accused, and +the arguments upon which the acquittal was grounded. The second noted +the names of such as decided to condemn the prisoner and the reasons +upon which the conviction was based. The third kept an account of both +the preceding so as to be able at any time to supply omissions or check +inaccuracies in the memoranda of his brother reporters."[95] + +In addition to these officers, there were still others who executed +sentences and attended to all the police work of legal procedure. They +were called _shoterim_.[96] + +There was no such officer as a public prosecutor or State's attorney +known to the laws of the ancient Hebrews. The witnesses to the crime +were the only prosecutors recognized by Hebrew criminal jurisprudence; +and in capital cases they were the legal executioners as well. + +There was also no such body as the modern Grand Jury known to ancient +Hebrew criminal law. And no similar body of committee of the Sanhedrin +performed the accusatory functions of the modern Grand Jury. The +witnesses were the only accusers, and their testimony was both the +indictment and the evidence. Until they testified, the man suspected was +deemed not only innocent but unaccused. + +The profession of the law, in the modern sense of the term, was no part +of the judicial system of the ancient Hebrews. There were no advocates +as we know them. There were, indeed, men learned in the law--Pharisees +and Sadducees--who knew all the law. There were doctors of the law: men +whom Jesus confounded when a youth in the Temple at the age of +twelve.[97] But there were no lawyers in the modern sense: professional +characters who accept fees and prosecute cases. The judges and disciples +performed all the duties of the modern attorney and counselor-at-law. +The prophets were the sole orators of Hebrew life, but they were never +allowed to appear as defendants of accused persons. Indeed, they +themselves were at times compelled to play the role of defendants. +Jeremiah is an illustrious example.[98] Both Keim[99] and Geikie[100] +speak of a Baal Rib, a counsel appointed to see that everything possible +was done to secure the rights of an accused person at a Hebrew criminal +trial. But these statements are not in accord with standard works on +ancient Hebrew jurisprudence. Indeed, Friedlieb emphatically denies that +there was any such person as a Baal Rib or Dominus Litis among the +ancient Hebrews.[101] It seems that in the closing years of Jewish +nationality, specially retained advocates were known, for St. Luke tells +us that the Jews employed Tertullus, a certain orator, to prosecute St. +Paul.[102] But this was certainly an exceptional case. It is +historically certain that in the early ages of the Jewish Commonwealth +litigants pleaded their own causes. This we learn from the case of the +two women who appeared before King Solomon, and laid before him their +respective claims to a child.[103] + +_Compensation of Officers._--The judges of Israel were originally not +paid anything for their services. The honor of the office itself was +considered sufficient emolument for labors performed. Indeed, the office +of teacher and judge in Israel was so highly prized that the struggles +and sacrifices of a lifetime were not considered too great to pay for a +place in the Great Sanhedrin. Such high station was regarded as a sacred +sphere into which the idea of material gain should not enter. The +regular court days were, therefore, spent by the judge on the bench, +without any expectation of reward for his services. The other days of +the week he spent in earning a livelihood. But in later years of the +national life a change seems to have taken place. The ancient rule was +so far modified that when the services of the judge were required on +days when he was engaged in his private pursuits, custom and the law +gave him the right to claim a substitute during the time he was occupied +on the bench; or, in default of a substitute, to claim remuneration for +the time which he had lost. Another modification was that if his legal +duties required his entire time, the judge in Israel was entitled to +support from the communal treasury, and was even permitted to accept +fees from litigants. This practice was discouraged, however, by the +Rabbis, who looked with disfavor upon the appointment of judges who were +not entirely able to support themselves. + +The secretaries and other officers of subordinate dignity were paid for +their services.[104] + +_Sessions of the Courts._--In the early days of the Hebrew Commonwealth +the laws provided for no regular court days. The Sanhedrin convened as +occasion required, to transact such business and dispose of such cases +as came before it. But this practice was oftentimes found to be +expensive and annoying to litigants who came into Jerusalem from the +country and found no courts in session. To accommodate the country folk, +the farmers, and shepherds, Ezra and his coadjutors of the Great +Assembly designated Mondays and Thursdays as regular court days. This +enactment was not prohibitive, however. Court might be held on any day +of the week that necessity required. The reason assigned by the Rabbins +for the selection of Mondays and Thursdays as court days was that on +those days people from the country usually congregated in populous +places, in their houses of worship, to hear the law read and +interpreted. While in attendance upon these sacred services, it was +thought that the time was both convenient and propitious for the +settlement of their legal difficulties.[105] + +The authorities are divided as to the exact official hours of the day +for holding court. "The Sanhedrin sat from the close of the morning +sacrifice to the time of the evening sacrifice," is the language of the +Jerusalem Talmud.[106] Mendelsohn says: "The official hours for holding +court were between the morning service and noon; but a suit entered upon +during the legal hours could be carried on until evening, and civil +cases could be continued even after nightfall."[107] But in no case of a +criminal nature could the court continue its session during the +night.[108] + +The Minor Sanhedrins in the provinces, as well as the local Courts of +Three, usually held their sessions in the most public place, that is, at +the city gate. The two Minor Sanhedrins of Jerusalem held their sessions +at the entrance to the Temple-mound and to the woman's department +respectively. The Great Sanhedrin convened in an apartment of the +national temple at Jerusalem, known as the _Lishkath haggazith_. This +apartment was the celebrated "Hall of Hewn Stones."[109] + +_Recruitments._--The young Hebrew disciple who possessed the necessary +mental, spiritual, and personal qualifications for judicial honors was +styled Haber, which means associate, fellow.[110] Such a disciple was +first solemnly ordained and received the title of Zaken (elder) or +Rabbi. This title rendered him eligible to membership in the different +courts. But that he might acquire necessary experience for membership in +the Great Sanhedrin and became a sage worthy of Israel, he was required +to begin at the lowest rung of the judicial ladder and work gradually to +the top. He was first appointed by the Great Sanhedrin to a place in one +of the local courts, consisting of three members; he then served as a +member of one of the provincial Sanhedrins; was then promoted to the +first, and afterwards to the second Minor Sanhedrin at Jerusalem; and +was elevated finally to the Great Sanhedrin itself.[111] After this +manner, all the courts of the ancient Hebrews were recruited and +replenished from time to time; the young aspirant to judicial favors +beginning in the local Court of Three and rising by successive steps to +the Great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem. + +The exact method of filling vacancies and thus replenishing the +membership of the Great Sanhedrin is not certainly known.[112] The +following extract from the Talmud, however, is thought to be +authoritative: + + In front of them (the judges of the Great Sanhedrin) sat three rows + of learned disciples; each of them had his own special place. + Should it be necessary to promote one of them to the office of + judge, one of those in the foremost row was selected. His place was + then supplied by one in the second row, while one from the third + was in turn advanced to the second. This being done, someone was + then chosen from the congregation to supply the vacancy thus + created in the third row. But the person so appointed did not step + directly into the place occupied by the one last promoted from the + third row, but into the place that beseemed one who was only newly + admitted.[113] + +_Quorum of the Great Sanhedrin._--Twenty-three members constituted a +quorum of the Great Sanhedrin. This was the full number of the +membership of a Minor Sanhedrin. + +_Number of Votes Required to Convict._--"In criminal trials a majority +of one vote is sufficient for an acquittal; but for a condemnation a +majority of two is necessary," is the language of the Mishna.[114] The +full membership of the Great Sanhedrin was seventy-one. A condemnation +by thirty-five acquitted the accused; a condemnation by thirty-six also +acquitted. At least thirty-seven votes were needed to convict. If a bare +quorum was present, at least thirteen votes were necessary to condemn. + +A very peculiar rule of Hebrew law provided that "a simultaneous and +unanimous verdict of guilty rendered on the day of trial, had the effect +of an acquittal."[115] Such a verdict was considered to be lacking in +the element of mercy, and was thought to result more from conspiracy and +mob violence than from mature judicial deliberation. + +_Jurisdiction of the Great Sanhedrin._--The jurisdiction of the Great +Sanhedrin is briefly and concisely stated in the Mishna: + + _The judgement of the seventy-one is besought when the affair + concerns a whole tribe or is regarding a false prophet or the + high-priest; when it is a question whether war shall be declared or + not; when it has for its object the enlargement of Jerusalem or its + suburbs; whether tribunals of twenty-three shall be instituted in + the provinces, or to declare that a town has become defiled, and to + place it under ban of excommunication.[116]_ + +Edward Gibbon has also defined the jurisdiction of the same court as +follows: + + _With regard to civil objects, it was the supreme court of appeal; + with regard to criminal matters, a tribunal constituted for the + trial of all offences that were committed by men in any public + station, or that affected the peace and majesty of the people. Its + most frequent and serious occupation was the exercise of judicial + power. As a council of state and as a court of justice, it + possessed many prerogatives. Every power was derived from its + authority, every law was ratified by its sanction._ + +The Great Sanhedrin possessed all the powers and attributes of a +national parliament and a supreme court of judicature. It corresponded +to the Areopagus of Athens and to the senate of Rome. It took cognizance +of the misconduct of priests and kings. Josephus tells us that Herod the +Great was arraigned as a criminal before its judges, and that King +Hyrcanus himself obeyed its mandates and decrees. + +_Appeals._--Appeals were allowed from a Minor Sanhedrin to the Great +Sanhedrin. But there was no appeal from a mandate, judgment, or decree +of the Great Sanhedrin. "Its authority was supreme in all matters; civil +and political, social, religious, and criminal." + +It is believed that enough has been said touching the character, +organization, and jurisdiction of the supreme tribunal of the ancient +Hebrews to satisfy the average reader. Indeed, it may be that this limit +has been exceeded. The remainder of this chapter will be devoted to a +short review of the Minor Sanhedrins and the Courts of Three. + +_Minor Sanhedrins._--There was no fixed number of Minor Sanhedrins for +the administration of Justice in the Hebrew Commonwealth. Wherever and +whenever, in any town or city inhabited by at least one hundred and +twenty families, the people desired a Sanhedrin of three-and-twenty +members, such a tribunal was established. For this purpose, an +application was made to the Great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, which +dispatched a mandate to the town ordering the residents to assemble and +to nominate from among themselves persons qualified to act as judges. +The electors were expected to bear in mind the qualifications that would +fit a judge for membership in the Great Sanhedrin, to which all local +judges might eventually be elevated. Accordingly, only "good men and +true" were chosen at the town mass meeting. Immediately upon receipt of +the return to the mandate, an authorization was sent back from Jerusalem +to the town or city which confirmed the election and constituted the +judges selected a Sanhedrin of three-and-twenty members.[117] + +_Jurisdiction of the Minor Sanhedrins._--The jurisdiction of the Minor +Sanhedrins extended to nearly all criminal cases involving imprisonment +or seclusion for life, internment in a city of refuge, and capital +punishment. Adultery, seduction, blasphemy, incest, manslaughter, and +murder belonged to these different classes. This court condemned an ox +to be butchered that had gored a man to death. The condemnation +proceedings were something in the nature of a trial of the beast; and +the owner was severely fined where the evidence proved that he knew the +vicious disposition and habits of the animal. The deliberations at the +trial of the bull were most careful and solemn, since the value of a +human life was involved in the proceedings and had to be estimated in +the judgment. + +Besides jurisdiction in criminal matters, the Sanhedrins of +three-and-twenty members performed certain civil functions. They were +the tax boards of the various provinces. They constituted the regular +agencies of government for the distribution of public charity. The +management and administration of public elementary schools were under +their control. The legal standards of weights and measures were +inspected by them and received their seals. Sanitary regulations, +repairing the defenses of walled cities, and maintaining the public +highways in good condition, were among the duties of the Minor +Sanhedrins. + +The qualifications of judges of these courts were the same as those +required for membership in the Great Sanhedrin. This was true because +the judges of the provincial courts might be promoted to the supreme +tribunal at Jerusalem. The Minor Sanhedrins might be very aptly +described as the _nisi prius_ courts of the Commonwealth of Israel. It +was in these courts of three-and-twenty members that the bulk of Hebrew +litigation was disposed of. It seems that, though equal in number, they +were not all regarded as equal in learning or authority. It is +distinctly stated that appeals could be taken from one Minor Sanhedrin +to another "deemed of superior authority."[118] The difference was +probably due to the fact that in the larger towns were located colleges +and schools, some of whose professors were doubtless either advisers or +members of the local Sanhedrin. At any rate, when a difficult question, +civil or criminal, could not be determined, for want of an authoritative +and registered decision, by an ordinary Sanhedrin of three-and-twenty +judges, the matter was referred to the nearest neighboring Sanhedrin +thought to be of greater repute. If no authentic tradition offering a +solution of the litigated question was in the possession of the +Sanhedrin to which appeal had been taken, the matter was then referred +to the first Minor Sanhedrin in Jerusalem which sat in the Har-habaith. +If the judges of this court were themselves without precedent touching +upon the litigated proposition, it was still further referred to the +second Minor Sanhedrin of Jerusalem, located in the Azarah. If, again, +this Court was without the necessary tradition that would enable it to +decide the question, the matter was finally brought before the Great +Sanhedrin. If this august tribunal was without precedent and tradition +that would enable its members to dispose of the question according to +adjudicated cases, they then decided, nevertheless, in accordance with +the sentiments and principles of natural justice. + +It should be remembered that of the Minor Sanhedrins to which every town +of one hundred and twenty families was entitled, two sat at Jerusalem. +It was left optional with a litigant from the provinces to appeal to the +local Sanhedrin or to one of the Minor Sanhedrins in Jerusalem. Local +bias or prejudice was thus avoided. + +_Lower Tribunals._--The lowest order of Hebrew tribunal was the Court of +Three, composed of judges selected by the litigants themselves. The +plaintiff chose one member, the defendant selected another, and these +two chose a third. A majority opinion decided all questions. In the +later years of Jewish nationality, it was thought best to have at least +one authorized jurist (mumcha) in the Court of Three. This particular +judge was probably an appointee of the Great Sanhedrin from among the +young disciples (Zaken or Rabbis). This appointment was doubtless +intended to give repute to the local court and experience to the legal +aspirant, as well as to furnish a possible recruit to the Great +Sanhedrin.[119] + +These courts corresponded very nearly to the modern courts of Justices +of the Peace. Their jurisdiction extended to civil matters of small +importance and to petty criminal offenses. They were not permanent, +being more in the nature of referees or arbitrators, and sat only when +occasion required. Their sessions were public and were held in the open +air under trees, or at the city gate. + +Thus much for the judicial system of courts and judges among the ancient +Hebrews. It was simple in the extreme, democratic to the core, and seems +to have been thoroughly reliable and effective. It was founded upon +universal suffrage, subject only to the general supervision and +occasional appointments of the Great Sanhedrin. The judges were ever in +touch with the sympathies and the best interests of the people. + +_Peculiarities of the Hebrew System._--Certain very striking +peculiarities marked the Hebrew system: + +(1) There were no lawyers or advocates. These judicial disputants have +been known to every other system of enlightened jurisprudence. But there +were no Ciceros, Erskines, Choates among the ancient Hebrews. The judges +were the defenders as well as the judges of the accused. It may be +easily read between the lines that the framers and builders of the +Hebrew judicial system regarded paid advocates as an abomination and a +nuisance. King Ferdinand, of Spain, seems to have had the Hebrew notion +when, more than a thousand years after Jerusalem fell, he sent out +colonists to the West Indies, with special instructions "that no lawyers +should be carried along, lest lawsuits should become ordinary +occurrences in the New World."[120] Ferdinand evidently agreed with +Plato that lawyers are the plague of the community.[121] + +(2) There was no secret body, with the accusatory functions of the +modern Grand Jury, connected with the ancient Hebrew judicial system. +The witnesses were the accusers, and their testimony constituted both +the indictment and the evidence. + +(3) There were no public prosecutors or State's attorneys known to the +Hebrew system. Here, again, the witnesses were the informants, +prosecutors, and, in capital cases, executioners of the accused. + +(4) No court, among the ancient Hebrews, could consist of a single +judge. Three was the number of the lowest court; three-and-twenty, of +the next highest; and seventy-one, of the Great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem. +A single intelligence acting judicially would have been regarded as a +usurpation of divine prerogative. The basis of this peculiar Hebrew +notion is a single sentence from the Pirke Aboth, iv. 8: "Be not a sole +judge, for there is no sole judge but One."[122] + + + + +CHAPTER IV + +HEBREW CRIMINAL LAW--WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE + + +_Competency.--The qualifications of a competent witness, under Hebrew +law, were almost identical with those of a qualified judge, mentioned in +a previous chapter. Self-evidently, all persons who were not +incompetent, were competent._ + +_Incompetency.--The following persons were incompetent to be witnesses: +Gentiles, women,[123] minors, slaves,[124] idiots and lunatics, deaf +mutes, blind men, gamblers, usurers, illiterate or immodest persons, +persons who had been convicted of irreligion or immorality, relatives by +affinity or consanguinity, and all persons directly interested in the +case._ + +The witness must have been a Hebrew, though the Talmud mentions cases in +which certain facts were allowed to stand proved upon statements "made +innocently" by a Gentile; that is, not as a witness in court. + +Women were not permitted to be witnesses ordinarily, because of the +"levity and boldness of the sex."[125] In capital cases, they were not +allowed to testify against the accused, because the law required the +witnesses to become the executioners of the condemned man, and it was +not deemed proper to impose this solemn and awful duty upon the weaker +sex. + +Puberty or adolescence marked the age which qualified a person to be a +witness in criminal cases; that is, the thirteenth year must have been +passed. + +Immoral and irreligious persons were incompetent to testify. Such men +were termed "wicked" in reference to the law as laid down in Exodus +xxiii. 1: "Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with +the wicked to be an unrighteous witness." Under the stigma of the +immoral and irreligious came dicers, usurers, pigeon fliers, and those +who traded in the fruits of the Sabbatical year. Maimonides also +mentions as incompetent "men who showed lack of self-respect by eating +on the street, walking about naked at their work, or living openly on +the charity of Gentiles."[126] Publicans--tax-gatherers--were usually +classed with heathens and sinners as being among the immoral and +irreligious. This class of persons were suspected by the Jews, not only +because they were regarded as the official representatives of the Roman +oppressors of Judea, but also because extortion and cruelty were +frequently practiced by them. Theocritus being asked which was the most +cruel of all beasts, replied: "Among the beasts of the wilderness, the +bear and the lion are the most cruel, but among the beasts of the city, +the Publican and the Parasite."[127] + +The doctrine of interest as a disqualification to testify was carried to +the limit of declaring a person incompetent to be a witness when he was +the citizen of a town where claim of title to the public bath house or +the square was made, until he had first divested himself of all share in +the title to the litigated property.[128] + +_Number Required to Convict.--Under Hebrew law, both Mosaic and +Talmudic, at least two witnesses were required to convict an accused +person. The prosecuting witness being included, three were necessary._ + +Concerning capital punishment, the Mosaic ordinance, referring to this +rule, runs thus: + + At the mouth of _two_ witnesses, or _three_ witnesses, shall he + that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of _one_ + witness he shall not be put to death.[129] + + Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the + mouth of witnesses; but _one_ witness shall not testify against any + person to cause him to die.[130] + +From the Talmud we learn that this Mosaic provision was maintained with +scrupulous fidelity in the administration of justice throughout all the +years of Jewish nationality. It was a requirement of prudence and safety +which commends itself to every logician and legist. It is not necessary +to be a criminal lawyer of large experience to know that the blackest +falsehood can almost always secure at least one champion. Pliny, the +historian, knew this when he wrote: "_Nullum tam impudens mendacium est +quod teste careat._"[131] + +The requirement of two witnesses was not, however, peculiar to the +jurisprudence of the Hebrews. Nearly every ancient code contained a +similar enactment. It was especially prominent in Roman law.[132] But it +can scarcely be found to-day in any modern legislation. In prosecutions +for the crimes of treason and perjury under the Common Law of England, +two witnesses were required; in almost all other cases, one positive +witness was sufficient.[133] + +The American Constitution requires two witnesses to the same overt act, +to convict of treason.[134] And the penal laws of the majority of the +American States have provisions requiring at least two witnesses, or one +witness corroborated by circumstantial evidence, to establish guilt in +the prosecution of certain crimes; notably, the sexual crimes of rape +and seduction, the crime of perjury, as well as all crimes where it is +sought to convict upon the testimony of an accomplice. + +More than one hundred years ago, Montesquieu boasted of such a +requirement in French law and declared that those laws which condemn a +man to death on the testimony of a single witness are fatal to +liberty.[135] The reason of the rule proclaimed by the great French +writer is the same as that put forth by the ancient Rabbins. It was +assumed that the defendant in a criminal case would plead not guilty and +deny the facts of the crime. His plea and denial would simply +counterbalance and destroy the testimony of a single witness swearing +for the commonwealth. The testimony of a third witness was, therefore, +indispensable to a decision. It may be objected that this rule was +absurd, since a conviction was impossible unless the State could produce +more witnesses than the accused. But we shall learn later that the +doctrine of sifting testimony and weighing the credibility of witnesses +did not obtain so strictly among the ancient Hebrew judges as it does in +cases of modern trial by jury under English and American law. + +_Agreement of Witnesses.--The witnesses were required to agree in all +essential details; else, their testimony was invalid and had to be +rejected._ + +The Talmudic provision is: "If one witness contradicts another, the +testimony is not accepted."[136] + +The illustration of the rule given by Maimonides, in his commentary on +this provision, is: "For instance, if one witness were to testify to +having seen an Israelite in the act of worshiping the sun, and another +to having seen the same man worshiping the moon, yet, although each of +the two facts proves clearly that the man had committed the horrible +crime of idolatry, the discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses +invalidates their testimony and the accused is free."[137] + +This rule of strict agreement, it is supposed, extended, at first, only +to criminal cases, but it was undoubtedly afterwards applied to civil +causes as well. An eminent contributor to the "Jewish Encyclopedia" +says: + + In civil cases, however, it is not necessary that the two witnesses + should agree very closely as to the time and place. Thus, if of two + witnesses to a loan one should say, "A lent B a jar of oil," the + other, "He lent him a jar of wine"; or, if one should say, "I was + present when the money was paid at Jerusalem," the other, "I saw it + paid at Hebron"; or, if one should say, "I saw it paid in the month + of Nisan," the other, "I saw it paid in Iyyar," their testimony + would be void. But if one says he saw it paid in the upper and the + other in the lower story; or if he says on the first of the month + and the other on the second of the month, such evidence is within + the limit of fair mistake and the testimony stands. Even less does + a disagreement as to circumstances other than time and place affect + the testimony; for instance, if one say the money is black from + usage, the other that it was new, this would be regarded as an + immaterial circumstance, and the testimony would stand. Where the + two witnesses vary only in the matter of quantity, the lesser + quantity is sufficiently proved.[138] + +One of the strangest provisions of Hebrew law was the requirement that +the testimony of each witness to the transaction should cover the entire +case. This was a Talmudic rule resulting from Rabbinic construction of +the Mosaic ordinance, requiring at least two witnesses to establish a +crime. The doctors of the law construed the rule to mean that the +testimony of each witness was to be complete within itself and to extend +to the whole case. Hebrew law did not permit the use of circumstantial +evidence in criminal prosecutions. Only eyewitnesses of the crime were +competent. Under English and American law a crime may be proven by any +number of witnesses, each of whom testifies to a separate fact which +constitutes a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. But this +method of proof was forbidden by both the Pentateuch and the Talmud. +Under Hebrew law the capital crime of kidnaping was made up of the two +elements of Abduction and Selling. The testimony of two witnesses--one +to the fact of Abduction, the other to the fact of Selling--was +insufficient to convict. Each had to testify to the facts of both +Abduction and Selling. This Talmudic rule of criminal procedure was +undoubtedly based upon a supreme regard for the sanctity of human life +and upon the fact that the Hebrews rejected circumstantial evidence +altogether in proving crime. The extreme of the rule is declared by +Mendelsohn when he says: "And even where there appeared a legal number +of duly qualified witnesses, the testimony was insufficient to convict, +unless they agreed not only with regard to the prisoner's offense, but +also with regard to the mode of committing it. Rabbinic law does not +subject a person to capital, nor even to corporal punishment, unless all +witnesses charge him with one and the same criminal act, their +statements fully agreeing in the main circumstances, and declaring that +they saw one another, while seeing him engaged in the crime."[139] + +_No Oath Required.--An oath, in the modern sense, was never administered +to a Hebrew witness._ + +Testimony was given under the sanction of the Ninth Commandment: "Thou +shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." This solemn +prohibition of bearing false witness was regarded by both Moses and the +Talmudists as a sufficient safeguard against perjury. It was a settled +maxim of Talmudic law that: "Whosoever will not tell the truth without +an oath, would not scruple to assert falsehood with an oath." The +doctrine was carried still further by some of the Jewish philosophers +who declared that swearing was injurious in itself; and that he who +consents to swear should _ipso facto_ be suspected of lacking +credibility.[140] + +In the place of an oath, the following solemn warning or adjuration was +administered to each witness in the presence of the entire court: + + Forget not, O witness, that it is one thing to give evidence in a + trial as to money and another in a trial for life. In a money suit, + if thy witness-bearing shall do wrong, money may repair that wrong. + But in this trial for life, if thou sinnest, the blood of the + accused and the blood of his seed to the end of time shall be + imputed unto thee.... Therefore was Adam created one man and alone, + to teach thee that if any witness shall destroy one soul out of + Israel, he is held by the Scripture to be as if he had destroyed + the world; and he who saves one such soul to be as if he had saved + the world.... For a man from one signet ring may strike off many + impressions, and all of them shall be exactly alike. But He, the + King of the kings of kings, He the Holy and the Blessed, has struck + off from His type of the first man the forms of all men that shall + live, yet so that no one human being is wholly alike to any other. + Wherefore let us think and believe that the whole world is created + for a man such as he whose life hangs on thy words. But these ideas + must not deter thee from testifying to what thou actually knowest. + Scripture declares: "The witness who hath seen or known, and doth + not tell, shall bear his iniquity." Nor must ye scruple about + becoming the instrument of the alleged criminal's death. Remember + the Scriptural maxim: "In the destruction of the wicked, there is + joy."[141] + +It will be observed that the two elements of this preliminary caution +were, first, a solemn warning against injustice to the accused through +false swearing and a reminder of the inevitable retribution of Heaven +upon the perjured swearer and his remote descendants; second, a pointed +admonition against timidity or fear in testifying. + +Bound by this tremendous sanction, the Hebrew witness was prepared to +testify. The method was unique, but seems to have been thoroughly +effective. Students of law will not be struck by its peculiarity. They +are well aware that any plan or mode is legal and effective that binds +the conscience of the witness. Even under modern codes that impose an +oath, no fixed form is imperatively demanded. In King _v._ Morgan, I +Leach C. L. 54, a Mahometan was sworn upon the Koran; in Omychund _v._ +Baker, I Atk. 21, a Gentoo was sworn by touching the foot of a Brahmin; +in Reg. _v._ Entrehman, I Car. & M. 248, a Chinese witness took an oath +by kneeling down and breaking a saucer, the oath being administered +through an interpreter in these words: "You shall tell the truth, the +whole truth; the saucer is cracked, and if you do not tell the truth, +your soul will be cracked like the saucer." + +_Examination of Witnesses._--As an act of caution against the admission +of irrelevant testimony, and as a means of placing before the entire +court, in the first instance, only such evidence as was deemed strictly +legal, a preliminary examination of witnesses was conducted in private +by a special committee of the Sanhedrin appointed for that purpose. All +irrelevant testimony developed at this private examination was +immediately declared inadmissible and was cast aside. The necessary +result of this most sensible proceeding was the discovery, in advance, +of discrepancies in the statements of witnesses and the eradication of +all illegal testimony. The full court sitting in regular session were +not, therefore, exposed to the danger of being prejudiced by the recital +of facts that had no legal connection with the case. Modern jurists +might easily learn something from the ancient Hebrews in this regard. +Every sensible lawyer is perfectly well aware of the absurdity and +injustice of the modern method of criminal procedure in allowing skilled +and designing attorneys to propose certain kinds of irrelevant testimony +in the presence of the jury, knowing very well that it will be overruled +by the court. These attorneys frequently deliberately draw out such +testimony from the witness with the expectation and understanding that +it will be ordered stricken out. The rule of practice that allows +incompetent testimony to be temporarily introduced upon a promise that a +foundation will be laid or relevancy shown, is abortive instead of +productive of justice. The mere clerical act of striking out incompetent +testimony does not, as a matter of fact, remove the impression of +prejudice from the brain of the judge or juror. The ancient Sanhedrists +were men of brilliant education and superior natural endowments. They +were trained in powers of logical analysis, and yet they were unwilling +to trust themselves with the possession of prejudicial facts arising +from incompetent testimony. It is respectfully submitted that the modern +average juror, whose mind is usually undisciplined in logic and legal +matters, is not able to sift and disentangle the relevant from the +irrelevant in the record of a civil or criminal trial of two or more +weeks' duration. Theoretically, he is; but practically, he is not. Every +impression, good or bad, legal or illegal, received at the trial, +affects his judgment and enters into the general summary of the case in +reaching a verdict. + +_Separation of Witnesses.--The witnesses were required to give their +testimony separately and always in the presence of the accused._ + +Daniel said to the people concerning the two old men who testified +against Susanna: "_Separate_ them, and I will examine them."[142] + +By this was meant that witnesses could not be examined until they had +been separated in conformity with law. Under modern practice in most +jurisdictions, witnesses may be separated and examined one at a time out +of the presence of each other. The rule of separation is, however, +generally optional with the litigant and discretionary with the court; +the ruling of the court being usually reversed only in case of abuse of +discretion. But among the Hebrews the requirement was mandatory and +imperative. It had to be observed in every case. + +_Mode of Examination of Witnesses._--The mode employed by the Hebrew +judges in examining witnesses is without a precedent or parallel in the +jurisprudence of the world. Two distinct sets of questions constituted +the examination. The first set consisted of a series of interrogations +relating to the _time_ and _place_ of the alleged crime. These questions +were prescribed by law and could not be varied in the slightest. The +technical name applied to the first set of questions was Hakiroth. The +second set was termed Bedikoth[143] and included all interrogations +touching the investigation of relevant circumstances and corroborative +facts surrounding the case. The following seven questions, constituting +the Hakiroth, the first set of questions, were propounded to each +witness: "Was it during a year of jubilee? Was it in an ordinary year? +In what month? On what day of the month? At what hour? In what place? Do +you identify this person?"[144] + +These seven questions were framed and applied in conformity with a +fundamental principle of the Hebrew law of evidence that the testimony +of any witness, if false, should admit of being impeached and +overthrown by proof of an _alibi_ against the witness. It seems, indeed, +that proof of an _alibi_ against the witness was the only method of +impeachment known to Hebrew law. It may be readily seen that the only +statements capable of being thus contradicted were confined to those +relating to the details of _time_ and _place_. To illustrate: Suppose +that two witnesses had testified that the alleged crime was committed in +a certain town at a certain hour; suppose that it subsequently appeared +in evidence that, at the stated time, one or both these witnesses were +in a neighboring town. In such a case, the witness or witnesses stood +impeached, their testimony was overthrown and they, themselves, became +subject to the pains and penalties of perjury. + +The failure of any witness to answer satisfactorily any of the seven +questions above mentioned entitled the accused to immediate acquittal. +Any material disagreement between two or more witnesses required by the +law in answer to any one of these questions, likewise entitled the +prisoner to immediate discharge. These seven questions seem to have been +framed not so much to develop truthful testimony and to promote the ends +of justice from the standpoint of the State as to enable the defendant +to attack and destroy the testimony of hostile witnesses. The rule and +the reason thereof are thus clearly and succinctly stated by Mendelsohn: + + The several particulars referring to time and place must be + furnished with the greatest possible precision and certainty, and + that by the whole party of witnesses. The slightest disagreement + on the part of the witnesses in regard to any one of these + particulars invalidates the entire testimony. Even where a number + of witnesses greater than that required by law, as three, appear, + and two agree on every point, but the third differs from them as to + more than one day, or more than one hour in the day, the whole + testimony is invalidated. For time and place are the only points + which affect the person of the witness himself; he not being able + to be at more than one spot at any one time; time and place are, + accordingly, the only grounds on which the witness may be confuted + and duly punished. + +The second set of questions, termed the Bedikoth, embraced all matters +not brought out by the Hakiroth, such as would form the basis of +legitimate modern direct or cross examination. The following kinds of +evidence, however, were not admissible under either set of questions: +Evidence of character, good or bad; previous convictions of the accused; +and evidence as to the prisoner's antecedents. Such matters were not +relevant, under Hebrew law, and could not be urged against the +prisoner.[145] + +_False Witnesses.--Hebrew law provided that false witnesses should +suffer the penalty provided for the commission of the crime which they +sought by their testimony to fix upon the accused._ + +The Scriptural authority for this rule is the following: + + "And the judges shall make diligent inquisition; and, behold, if + the witness be a false witness and hath testified falsely against + his brother, then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to do unto + his brother. + + ... And thine eye shall not pity, but life shall go for life, eye + for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."[146] + + "And they arose against the two elders, for Daniel had convicted + them of false witness, by their own mouth; and according to the law + of Moses, they did unto them in such a sort as they maliciously + intended to do their neighbor; and they put them to death."[147] + + _The Accused as Witness.--The accused was never compelled, under + Hebrew law, to testify against himself; but was permitted and + encouraged to offer testimony in his own behalf. His confession of + guilt was accepted in evidence and considered in connection with + other facts of the case, but was never permitted, standing alone, + to form the basis of a conviction._ + +The following is the commentary of Maimonides on this rule of law: + + We have it as a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that no + one can bring an accusation against himself. Should a man make a + confession of guilt before a legally constituted tribunal, such + confession is not to be used against him, unless properly attested + by two other witnesses. It is, however, well to remark that the + death sentence issued against Achan was an exceptional case, + brought about by the nature of the circumstances attending it, for + our law never condemns on the single confession of an accused + party.[148] + +It is needless to suggest that the accused was never put under oath. His +position in this regard was exactly the same as that of any other Hebrew +witness. A special reason assigned for not swearing the accused is that +offered in the celebrated maxim: "In most men religion is silent when +interest speaks." Again, the inducement to perjury was so great that it +was thought imprudent to allow the accused to confess under the +solemnity of an oath. + +The principle of law which rejects a bare confession of guilt as a basis +of criminal conviction is one of the most merciful and benign known to +jurisprudence. It is intended to protect the commonwealth against +perjury and deception on the part of the accused. It is also intended to +protect the prisoner against ignorance and rashness. It is a well-known +fact that the masses of mankind are ignorant of law, both civil and +criminal. Not one in a thousand in the most enlightened commonwealths +can define successfully the elements of the crimes of the state of which +he is a citizen. By refusing to allow an uncorroborated confession to be +made the basis of a conviction, the State simply throws the mantle of +charity and protection around the ignorance of the prisoner who +confesses. It is also well known that men will frequently confess guilt +when they are not guilty; sometimes, when they are even ignorant of the +facts constituting the offense. This is one of the strangest things +known to psychology and mental philosophy.[149] It is derived from the +well-known and universally recognized weakness of the human will when +confronted with a charge that threatens to blight and destroy life and +character at a single blow. A celebrated modern writer, while +discussing this rule of Hebrew law, wrote the following observations +upon the origin and motive of confession of guilt under criminal +charges: + + The confession of the accused made no exception to the rule, + showing how a confession could be made the result of weakness, or + folly, or of interest--yes, even of interest. Some homicide on one + occasion confessed himself to be guilty of robbery or arson in + order to obtain proof of his innocence of some greater crime which + he had committed at the same time; a husband persisted in declaring + himself guilty of outrage upon a woman, really committed by some + unknown person, in order that, by being sentenced on this account, + he might prove his marital efficiency, which had been disputed by + his wife, who was contemplating steps to annul her marriage. Some + weak-minded people, unable to support the torture of a harassing + examination, and eager to regain their liberty, make a full + confession, accusing themselves in order not to be indicted, like + those persons who, crossing a river on a plank bridge, throw + themselves, through nervousness, into the rushing water, in order + not to fall in. Fools, from want of responsibility, or through a + boastful nature, accept, affirm, or confess everything of which + they know nothing.[150] + +The reasons above stated lie at the foundation of all modern provisions +framed for the protection of the accused against precipitate +self-condemnation. But, strange to say, these reasons were not urged by +the framers or interpreters of Hebrew law. The explanation offered by +the Talmud was simply this: "He is his own kin"; and, as we have seen, +relatives were never permitted to be witnesses. A modern Jewish writer +has assigned the following reason for the rule forbidding a confession +to form the basis of a conviction: that, if the prisoner were innocent, +he should not be permitted to incriminate himself by a false confession; +if he were guilty, he was a wicked person, and, therefore, incompetent +to testify under Hebrew law.[151] This rule was not enforced, however, +against the defendant when testifying in his own behalf; an additional +proof of the merciful regard of Hebrew law for the unfortunate position +of a human being charged with crime. His testimony, though self-serving, +was given due weight when urged in his own defense. Little attention was +paid to it when he testified against himself. + +_Relevancy of Hebrew Evidence.--Hearsay evidence was irrelevant under +Hebrew law._ "Hearsay evidence was barred equally in civil as in +criminal cases, no matter how strongly the witness might believe in what +he heard and however worthy and numerous were his informants."[152] + +_Circumstantial evidence was irrelevant under Hebrew law._ "The sages +had very little more confidence in circumstantial evidence given for the +purpose of 'taking money out of' the defendant's pocket, than in that +given for the purpose of inflicting the penalty of death or stripes. +Ket. ii. 10 has been cited, according to which a witness may testify +that, when a boy, he saw a woman walk about in maidenly attire; the +object being to prove that she married as a maiden, not as a widow, and +is therefore entitled to a greater sum for her jointure. In discussing +this clause, the Talmud remarks that this is only arguing from the +majority of cases; for though in most cases those wearing maidens' +attire are not widows, occasionally they are; and money ought not to be +taken out of a man's pocket on reasoning from the greater number of +cases. In fact, circumstantial evidence was generally rejected."[153] + +There were occasional exceptions to the rule in the administration of +Hebrew civil law, but none in criminal law. In criminal cases no Hebrew +prisoner could be convicted upon circumstantial evidence. Every link in +the chain of testimony had to be forged by the direct evidence of at +least two competent witnesses; else the accused was acquitted and +discharged. + +_Written, or documentary evidence, was not relevant, under Hebrew law, +in criminal prosecution._ The reason of this rule was derived from a +literal interpretation of the Mosaic ordinance: "Whoso killeth any +person, the murderer shall be put to death by the _mouth of +witnesses_."[154] The expression, "mouth of witnesses," was construed by +the interpreters of the law to require oral testimony and to exclude +writing in all criminal prosecutions. + +_Kinds of Oral Testimony._--Hebrew oral testimony is divided by the +Mishna into three leading classes:[155] + + (1) Vain testimony. + (2) Standing testimony. + (3) Adequate testimony. + +"Vain testimony" seems to have been wholly immaterial and irrelevant. It +was not even conditionally admitted, but was instantly and permanently +rejected. The New Testament seems to indicate that such testimony was +rendered against Jesus by the "many false witnesses" who first came, and +that testimony was rejected. + +"Standing testimony" seems to have been conditionally admitted and to +have been allowed to remain in evidence until it was properly confirmed +by and joined to other evidence which the law required. It was not +valid, however, until so connected and confirmed. We must remember that +at least two witnesses, agreeing in all essential details, were needed, +under Hebrew law, to convict a prisoner. It is evident then that the +testimony of the first witness against the accused was necessarily +regarded as "standing testimony," until the second or confirming +witness, which the law required, had testified. This testimony is also +referred to in the New Testament when it is said that: "At the last, +came two false witnesses, And said, This fellow said, I am able to +destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days."[156] The +testimony of the first of these witnesses was doubtless allowed to stand +until it was shown that the second witness did not render testimony in +agreement with it. Contradictory testimony was thrown out under Hebrew +criminal procedure; and this was done regardless of the number of +witnesses who testified against the accused. It seems that a rigid +application of the principle of exclusion based upon contradictory +statements would have shut out the testimony of any number of agreeing +witnesses, if said testimony had been contradicted in a radical and +material way by even a single witness. The sifting of evidence and the +weighing of the credibility of witnesses, which is the peculiar +prerogative of the modern jury, were no part of the duties of the +ancient Sanhedrists. The testimony of all the witnesses against the +accused had to agree in all material respects, else it was wholly +rejected. Now it necessarily follows that all testimony against a +prisoner was of the "standing" or provisional kind until the last +witness had testified, and it was found that the evidence in its +entirety was in legal agreement. Mark, using the almost exact technical +expression of the law, tells us, concerning the false testimony against +Jesus, that "their witness agreed not together."[157] This disagreement +caused the "standing testimony" of the first witness to fall and the +charge of threatening or attempting to destroy the Temple was abandoned, +as we shall see in a later part of this work. + +"Adequate testimony," under Hebrew criminal procedure, was evidence that +was competent, material, and in legal agreement. When two or more +witnesses, being the entire number, against the accused agreed in all +essential details, their testimony was considered adequate, and if the +judges believed it to be true they based a conviction upon it. + +_Antecedent Warning._--It is deemed appropriate in this chapter to call +attention to and briefly discuss a very striking peculiarity of the law +of evidence under Hebrew criminal procedure. In the chapter on Mosaic +and Talmudic law, reference was made to the celebrated proviso, called +"Antecedent Warning." This proviso was unknown to the Mosaic Code, being +a creation of Talmudic law, and is without a parallel in the +jurisprudence of the world. Briefly stated, Antecedent Warning, under +Hebrew law, meant simply this: That no person charged with crime +involving life and death, or even corporal punishment, could be +convicted, unless it was shown by competent testimony that immediately +before the commission of the crime the offender was warned that what he +was about to do was a crime, and that a certain penalty was attached +thereto. The warning was not effective if any time elapsed between the +admonition and the commission of the offense. Furthermore, the warning +was of no force unless it was shown that the alleged criminal had duly +acknowledged it and had expressed a willingness to suffer corporal +punishment or to die for the act. It must have been shown that, having +received the warning, the would-be offender turned to his monitor and +said, "I am very well aware of the nature of the act I am about to +commit, of the rules of law applicable thereto, and of the inevitable +consequences of my misdeed"--else the court could not consider the +condition complied with. + +This peculiar proviso seems to have been intended to serve three +distinct purposes: (1) To protect the would-be offender against his own +ignorance and rashness and to prevent the commission of crime by a +timely warning; (2) to aid in establishing guilty intention, that is, +criminal intent, at the trial of the prisoner, after the commission of +the offense; (3) to enable the judges to determine the exact penalty to +assess. The first two purposes are self-evident. The third merits a +brief consideration. To complete the warning, it was essential that the +offender be told the exact penalty attached to the crime which he was +about to commit; whether the punishment was capital or corporal, and the +exact kind, if capital; that is, whether beheading, burning, stoning, or +strangling. Now, it often happened that two crimes were committed by the +same person in one day; the penalty for one of which being flagellation +and the other death. And it sometimes happened that two different crimes +were the result of one criminal transaction. In such a case, the nature +of the Antecedent Warning would guide the judges in decreeing +punishment. To illustrate: The Mosaic Code forbids the killing of either +a cow or a ewe "and her young both in one day";[158] and a violation of +this prohibition, according to Rabbinic law, entails the punishment of +flagellation. Another Mosaic ordinance imposes the penalty of death on +the Jewish idolater.[159] Now, it might have happened that the last two +offenses mentioned were committed by the same person at the same time, +as when an Israelite slaughtered a ewe and her young and sacrificed them +as an offering to an idol. The question would at once arise: Which +penalty should be assessed, death for idolatry, or flagellation for +killing the ewe and her young both on the same day? Here, the nature of +the Warning would determine. If the prisoner had been told that +flagellation would be the punishment, then stripes were administered. If +he had been warned that death was the penalty, then capital punishment +was meted out to him. If the caution had included both death and +flagellation, then death would have been administered, because of the +enormity of the crime of idolatry and for the reason that all lesser +punishments are merged in death. + +Another illustration of the third purpose above mentioned, that is, to +enable the judges to determine the exact punishment to administer, is +this: The ancient Nazarites made solemn vows of abstemiousness.[160] And +when any Israelite took the Nazarite vow and violated it, he subjected +himself to the penalty of flagellation if he drank a certain measure (¼ +log) of wine. If he drank several such measures in succession, the +question would arise how he was to be punished. Again, the antecedent +caution would decide. If the testimony showed that he had received due +warning before each drink, then he was punished for each drink +separately. If he had been admonished only once, he was punished only +once for the whole debauch.[161] + +The enforcement of this proviso established a rule of criminal procedure +peculiar to the Hebrews, and recognized by no other nation. Such a +requirement seems to be utterly subversive of the celebrated maxim that +has found place in every other enlightened system of law: _Ignorantia +juris, quod quisque tenetur scire, neminem excusat_. Among modern +civilized nations, ignorance or mistake of fact in criminal law, as +well as ignorance or mistake of the meaning and effect of civil or +private law, has sometimes been permitted to operate as an excuse in +favor of the victim of the ignorance or mistake; but ignorance of the +criminal or public law has never been permitted to be pleaded as a +defense to an indictment for crime. Such a plea would threaten the very +existence of the state by rendering the proof of crime and the +conviction of criminals impossible. + +Other reasons besides those assigned above have been advanced to explain +the invention of such a proviso by the Talmudists. None of them is +entirely satisfactory. Rabbinowicz has urged with great force that the +enactment was the offspring of a constantly increasing tendency on the +part of the framers of the Talmud to mitigate the rigors of the Mosaic +Code, and to abolish altogether the punishment of death by making the +conviction of criminals practically impossible.[162] But this view has +been ably and probably successfully combated by Benny and others. To say +the least, it was a senseless provision when viewed from the standpoint +of the state in maintaining order and preserving the commonwealth. The +Rabbins framed several exceptions to its operation which were doubtless +designed to stay the progress of certain forms of crime and to preserve +the state. The false witness was excluded from the benefit of this +proviso, as were also the instigator to idolatry and the burglar. The +false witness was denied the benefit because of the impossibility of +foreseeing that he would swear falsely and of forewarning him; the +idolater was excepted because of the heinousness of the crime of +idolatry under a theocratic commonwealth; and the burglar was denied the +benefit of the caution for the very peculiar reason that the "breaking +in," while committing the crime of burglary, was sufficient +warning.[163] + +Such a rule is utterly without foundation in logic or reason from the +simple fact that crime in every age has been committed with every +circumstance of caution and concealment that criminal ingenuity could +devise; usually under the cover of night, often with a mask, frequently +by the aid of accomplices to give notice of the appearance of the +officers of the law, and nearly always with subsequent attempts to wipe +out evidences of the commission of the offense. To require a preliminary +caution, such as the Antecedent Warning of the Jews, was to handicap the +state most seriously and to render almost impossible the apprehension +and punishment of public malefactors. + + + + +CHAPTER V + +HEBREW CRIMINAL LAW--MODE OF TRIAL AND EXECUTION IN CAPITAL CASES + + +The administration of Hebrew criminal law was marked by lofty conception +of right and wrong, and was pervaded by a noble sentiment of justice and +humanity. From the framing of the Decalogue to the latest years of +Jewish nationality, each succeeding generation witnessed some humane and +merciful modification of existing rules. Talmudic interpretation +invented a series or collection of sayings that gave form and character +to the whole body of later Hebrew law. These maxims were intended to +mitigate the rigors of the Mosaic Code and to establish safeguards +against negligence or injustice to the defendant in criminal trials. +Indeed, every possible precaution was taken to render impossible the +wrongful conviction of an accused person. The student of Hebrew law is +at times astonished by the excessive caution inculcated in criminal +procedure. Certain cautionary rules are no less than pedantic, and may +be justly and aptly styled Judaical. The judges leaned always to the +side of the defendant and gave him the advantage of every possible +doubt. They went a step farther and sought pretext after pretext that +would result in an acquittal. A sense of awful responsibility weighed +upon the hearts and consciences of the judges. The services of the +synagogue were not conducted with deeper fervor or greater religious +solemnity than were the proceedings of a capital trial in the great +Judgment Hall of the Sanhedrin. Certain sacred maxims flamed forever +like beacon lights along the pathway of the members of the court during +the solemn deliberations. "A judge," says the Talmud, "should always +consider that a sword threatens him from above, and destruction yawns at +his feet." The ancient adage, "the pen of the law fears the thunder of +Heaven," though of Chinese origin, is Hebraic in spirit. "Thou shalt do +no unrighteousness in judgment" was the leading aphorism of Hebrew +jurisprudence. Among the earliest traditions of the Fathers, we read +this maxim: "When a judge decides not according to truth, he makes the +majesty of God to depart from Israel. But if he judges according to the +truth, were it only for one hour, it is as if he established the whole +world, for it is in judgment that the divine presence in Israel has its +habitation." Hebrew horror of capital punishment and dread of taking +human life are well expressed in the celebrated maxim of the Mishna: +"The Sanhedrin, which so often as once in seven years, condemns a man to +death, is a slaughter-house."[164] And more striking and startling still +is the terrible sentence of Rabbi Meir: "What doth God say (if one may +speak of God after the manner of men) when a malefactor suffers the +anguish due to his crime? He says, _My head and my limbs are pained_. +And if he so speaks of the suffering even of the guilty, what must he +utter when the righteous is condemned?" The whole spirit of Talmudic +caution is well illustrated by the principal rule of the Pirke Aboth, +which says: "Be cautious and slow in judgment, send forth many +disciples, and _make a fence round the law_."[165] + +In addition to the maxims above mentioned, which were more religious +than legal, four cardinal rules of criminal procedure--"strictness in +the accusation, publicity in the discussion, full freedom granted +to the accused, and assurance against all dangers or errors of +testimony"[166]--molded the judgment and guided the consciences of +Hebrew judges. These sayings of the Fathers and maxims of the law were +the touchstones of all their judicial inquiries and meditations at the +trial of capital cases. With prayer in their hearts and these maxims +upon their lips, they applied themselves to the solemn duties of their +office. + +A most interesting passage in the Mishna draws a striking contrast +between capital trials and those involving questions of money only. The +relevancy of the passage to this chapter is so great that it is deemed +best to quote it entire: + + Money trials and trials for life have the same rule of inquiry and + investigation. But they differ in procedure in the following + points: The former require only three, the latter three-and-twenty + judges. + + In the former it matters not on which side the judges speak who + give the first opinions; in the latter, those who are in favor of + acquittal must speak first. + + In the former, a majority of one is always enough; in the latter, a + majority of one is enough to acquit, but it requires a majority of + two to condemn. + + In the former, a decision may be quashed on review (for error), no + matter which way it has gone; in the latter, a condemnation may be + quashed, but not an acquittal. + + In the former, disciples of the law present in the court may speak + (as assessors) on either side; in the latter, they may speak in + favor of the accused, but not against him. + + In the former, a judge who has indicated his opinion, no matter on + which side, may change his mind; in the latter, he who has given + his voice for acquittal may not change. + + The former (money trials) are commenced only in the daytime, but + may be concluded after nightfall; the latter (capital trials) are + commenced only in the daytime, and must also be concluded during + the day. + + The former may be concluded by acquittal or condemnation on the day + on which they have begun; the latter may be concluded on that day + if there is a sentence of acquittal, but must be postponed to a + second day if there is to be a condemnation. And for this reason + capital trials are not held on the day before a Sabbath or a feast + day.[167] + +The principal features of a Hebrew capital trial before the Great +Sanhedrin were: (1) The Morning Sacrifice; (2) the Assembling of the +Judges in the Lishkath haggazith, or the Hall of Hewn Stones; (3) the +Examination of Witnesses; (4) the Debates and Balloting of the Judges on +the guilt or the innocence of the accused. These successive steps will +be briefly considered in this chapter. + +_The Morning Sacrifice._--It is not positively known what legal +connection, if any, the morning sacrifice had with the trial of a +capital case before the Great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem. Several writers +contend that there was no essential legal connection; that the sacrifice +was offered at the break of day whether a capital case was to be tried +or not; and that the court was not dependent upon this religious +observance for jurisdiction in the trial of criminal cases. Other +writers hold opposite views, and contend that the morning sacrifice was +essential to give jurisdiction to the court. MM. Lémann consider it an +error in the trial of Jesus that the morning sacrifice was not offered +before the commencement of proceedings.[168] Certain passages from the +Mishna very strongly support this second view: that the court could not +legally convene until the morning sacrifice had been offered. "The +Sanhedrin sat from the close of the morning sacrifice to the time of the +evening sacrifice."[169] ... "Since the morning sacrifice was offered at +the break of day, it was hardly possible for the Sanhedrin to assemble +until an hour after that time."[170] These passages seem to indicate +that the morning sacrifice was necessary before the court could legally +convene. This question will be found more fully discussed under Point V +of the Brief in this volume. The method of offering the morning +sacrifice was as judicial in its precision as it was religious in its +solemnity. + +_The Assembling of the Judges._--At the close of the morning sacrifice, +the members of the court entered the judgment hall in solemn procession. +They took their seats, "turbaned, on cushions or pillows, in oriental +fashion, with crossed legs, and unshod feet, in a half-circle."[171] The +high priest sat in the center with the other members of the court to the +right and left of him. "His head was crowned with a turban of blue +inwrought with gold. On his bosom hung the priestly breastplate, in +which glittered twelve precious stones, emblems of the twelve tribes of +Israel. A flowing robe of blue, gathered about his waist by a girdle of +purple, scarlet, and gold embroidery, enveloped his person and set off +the pure white linen of his capacious sleeves. The buttons of this +costly robe were onyx stones. His slippered feet were half concealed +beneath the long fringe of his pontifical vestments, which were +curiously embroidered with pomegranates in gold and scarlet and crimson. +No Roman Catholic pontiff ever wore robes more resplendent than those in +which the high priest was attired on public and state occasions. +Immediately before him sat the scribes or clerks of the court. The one +on his left hand wrote down whatever testimony was adduced against the +accused; what votes were cast for his condemnation. The one on the right +transcribed what appeared in his favor."[172] + +According to most writers, including Dr. Lyman Abbott, only two scribes +were present having seats at each end of the semicircle. According to +Benny, however, "three scribes were present; one was seated on the +right, one on the left, the third in the center of the hall. The first +recorded the names of the judges who voted for the acquittal of the +accused and the arguments upon which the acquittal was grounded. The +second noted the names of such as decided to condemn the prisoner and +the reasons upon which the conviction was based. The third kept an +account of both the preceding, so as to be able at any time to supply +omissions or check inaccuracies in the memoranda of his brother +reporters." + +The prisoner was placed in front of the high priest, in a conspicuous +position, where he could see all and could be seen by all. + +Thus organized and arranged, the Sanhedrin began the work of the day. + +_Examination of Witnesses._--The examination of witnesses, who were also +accusers, marked the beginning of proceedings. It is doubtful if the +indictment against criminals was in writing. The first witness who was +to testify was led into an adjoining room and solemnly warned. He was +asked questions similar to the following: Is it not probable that your +belief in the prisoner's guilt is derived from hearsay or circumstantial +evidence? In forming your opinions concerning the guilt of the accused, +have you or not been influenced by the remarks of persons whom you +regard as reputable and trustworthy? Are you aware that you will be +submitted to a most searching examination? Are you acquainted with the +penalty attached to the crime of perjury? + +After this preliminary warning, conveyed in these questions, had been +given, the most learned and venerable of the judges administered to the +witness the following impressive adjuration: + + Forget not, O witness, that it is one thing to give evidence in a + trial as to money, and another in a trial for life. In a money + suit, if thy witness-bearing shall do wrong, money may repair that + wrong. But in this trial for life, if thou sinnest, the blood of + the accused, and the blood of his seed to the end of time, shall be + imputed unto thee.... Therefore was Adam created one man and alone, + to teach thee that if any witness shall destroy one soul out of + Israel, he is held by the Scripture to be as if he had destroyed + the world; and he who saves one such soul to be as if he had saved + the world.... For a man from one signet-ring may strike off many + impressions, and all of them shall be exactly alike. But He, the + King of the kings of kings, He the Holy and the Blessed, has struck + off from His type of the first man the forms of all men that shall + live; yet so, that no one human being is wholly alike to any other. + Wherefore let us think and believe that the whole world is created + for a man such as he whose life hangs on thy words. But these ideas + must not deter you from testifying from what you actually know. + Scripture declares: "The witness who hath seen or known, and doth + not tell, shall bear his iniquity." Nor must ye scruple about + becoming the instrument of the alleged criminal's death. Remember + the Scriptural maxim: "In the destruction of the wicked, there is + joy." + +At the close of this solemn exhortation, the examination of the witness +commenced. The Hakiroth, seven questions prescribed by law, touching the +identity of the prisoner and fixing the elements of time and place, were +asked. They were as follows: Was it during a year of jubilee? Was it an +ordinary year? In what month? On what day of the month? At what hour? +In what place? Do you identify this person? + +These questions being satisfactorily answered, the next step was a rigid +examination into the facts and circumstances attending the commission of +the crime and the connection of the accused therewith. This process of +examination and cross-examination was termed the Bedikoth and embraced +all questions not included in the Hakiroth which tended to establish the +guilt or innocence of the prisoner at the bar. + +When the witnesses for the Commonwealth of Israel had been examined, +witnesses for the defendant were heard. The accused was also urged to +say anything he wished in his own behalf. As we have before pointed out, +the Hakiroth questions as to time and place could be rebutted only by +establishing an alibi against the witnesses for the state. If such an +alibi was proved, the defendant was acquitted and at once discharged. A +contributor to the "Jewish Encyclopedia," discussing this point of +procedure, says: "It has been shown under Alibi how a 'set' of witnesses +may be convicted as 'plotters' by another set or sets proving an alibi +on them. But the opposite party may prove an alibi on the convicting set +or in some other way show that the facts testified to by the first set +were impossible or untrue. Under such circumstances, a modern judge or +jury would weigh the credibility of the witnesses and the probability of +their stories and decide between them accordingly. The sages did not +trust themselves or their successors with this discretion. If there were +no indicia or fraud, they held that as some one was evidently lying +they could not decide which of them it was, and that there was no +evidence on the point."[173] The result was an acquittal. + +If material contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses were shown +by the Bedikoth, the trial was at once terminated and the accused was +free. The failure of any witness to answer satisfactorily any of the +seven questions above mentioned entitled the accused to immediate +acquittal. Any material disagreement between the two or more witnesses +required by the law in answer to any of these questions likewise +entitled the prisoner to an immediate discharge. If the prosecuting +witnesses relied upon documentary, circumstantial or hearsay evidence to +convict, their testimony was at once rejected and the defendant was +released. + +But if the accused failed to establish an alibi against the prosecuting +witnesses in the matter of the Hakiroth; and if the Bedikoth developed +evidence fairly consistent and uncontradictory; and if the testimony of +the witnesses was purely oral, that is, was not documentary, hearsay or +circumstantial, then there was legally admissible evidence to lay before +the Sanhedrin. The competent witnesses who could render relevant +testimony were then led, one at a time, before the general body and +required to testify. + +_The Debates and Balloting of the Judges._--All the evidence, pro and +con, having been adduced, the tribunal began a full discussion of the +case, preliminary to casting ballots. Arguments could be begun only on +behalf of the accused. Nothing was permitted to be said against him +until one of the judges had urged something in his behalf, and had said: +"As I view the matter, and according to such and such evidence, it seems +to me that the prisoner should be acquitted." The discussion became +general for and against the accused. The entire record was then +overhauled. Each item of evidence was carefully considered and subjected +to the minutest criticism. Contradictions were noted and extenuating +facts pleaded. If one of the disciples occupying one of the three rows +of seats could offer any cogent or valid reason why the prisoner should +not be convicted, he was invited to take his seat among the judges, and +was regarded as a member of the court during the remainder of the day. +If his argument resulted in the acquittal of the accused and saved a +human life he was made a permanent member of the court. On the other +hand, if one of the disciples had anything to say that would tend to +injure the defendant he was not permitted to raise his voice. + +When the entire case had been exhaustively discussed, the argument was +closed and the balloting on the guilt or innocence of the accused +commenced. The scribes were in readiness to record the votes and note +the reasons assigned therefor. The youngest members of the tribunal were +required to vote first, in order that they might not be unduly +influenced by the example of their seniors in age and authority. The +high priest, who was generally president of the Sanhedrin, addressed a +gentle admonition to the youngest member, who was never less than forty +years of age, to render a free and untrammeled verdict, and not to be +awed or influenced by the patriarchs of the court. This admonition was +repeated in the case of each youthful member of the tribunal. When the +balloting commenced, each judge arose in his place and voted; at the +same time making a short speech explanatory of his ballot. To secure a +conviction it was not necessary that the members of the Sanhedrin should +be unanimous. Indeed a peculiar rule of Hebrew law provided that if the +verdict was instantaneous and unanimous it was invalid and could not +stand. If the prisoner had not a single friend in court, the element of +mercy was wanting in the verdict, said the ancient Hebrews, and the +proceedings were regarded in the light of conspiracy and mob violence. A +majority vote of at least two members was necessary to convict. A +majority vote of one in his favor would acquit. Any majority amounting +to two or more that did not reach unanimity was sufficient to condemn. +If the accused was tried before a Minor Sanhedrin of three-and-twenty +members or before the Great Sanhedrin with a bare quorum (twenty-three +members, the same number as the full membership of a Minor Sanhedrin), a +vote of thirteen members was necessary, in either case, to convict. If +eleven judges were for conviction and twelve for acquittal, the prisoner +was discharged at once; a majority of one vote being sufficient for that +purpose. If twelve were in favor of conviction and eleven for acquittal, +the condemnation of the accused was impossible; a majority of at least +two being required to condemn. According to some writers, an acquittal +was the result in such a case. According to others, in such a +contingency the following novel expedient was employed to reach a +verdict: From the first row of disciples two additional judges were +selected and added to the original twenty-three members. Balloting then +commenced anew. If the vote resulted in a majority of at least two +against the prisoner, he stood convicted. If not, two more disciples +were added from the first row in front and this process of increasing by +twos the number of the Sanhedrin was continued until the requisite +majority was secured. If it happened that the constant additions finally +raised the number to seventy-one, the membership of the Great Sanhedrin, +the process of increasing by twos was discontinued, and final balloting +then began. If thirty-six voted for conviction and thirty-five for +acquittal, the whole case was reargued for a reasonable time until one +of the thirty-six yielded and declared in favor of acquittal. In case +the thirty-six members persevered in their determination to convict, the +prisoner was discharged. + +At any stage of the trial, from the beginning with the three-and-twenty +judges through all the successive additions of new members, a majority +vote of one or more in favor of the accused would acquit; a majority of +two or more, not amounting to unanimity, would convict. + +In case of an acquittal the prisoner was immediately released and the +trial was closed. In the event of conviction sentence could not be +pronounced until the next afternoon and the session of the court was +accordingly adjourned until the following day. Upon adjournment the +members of the Sanhedrin with measured step and solemn mien left the +chamber in which the trial had been conducted. Outside the judgment +hall, in the open street, the judges formed themselves into groups or +knots of five or six to discuss the trial and to lament the awful +misfortune impending over Jerusalem; for such was the Hebrew conception +of the execution of a son of Israel. The nucleus of each group was +formed of elders of the Sanhedrin; the younger members came up from +behind, leaned over between the shoulders of the patriarchs, and +listened attentively and devoutly to what they were saying about the +case. Gradually the groups broke up and the judges linked arm in arm, by +twos, walked slowly homeward, still discussing the facts and arguments +adduced at the trial. Finally they parted and retired to their +respective homes. No heavy food, like meat, and no intoxicating +beverage, were taken for the remainder of the day or during the night. +Nothing was done that would incapacitate them for correct thinking. At +sunset they began to make calls upon each other for the purpose of +examining more carefully and debating more fully the issues of the case. +When these visits were concluded, in the early evening, each judge +retired to the privacy of his own home to sleep, meditate, and pray. At +the dawn of day, they arose and prepared to resume again the solemn +responsibilities of their office. The morning sacrifice was offered and +the judges again assembled at sunrise in the hall of justice. They +reseated themselves in the form of a semicircle; the prisoner was again +led to the bar of the court; the witnesses were again produced; and the +scribes, bringing with them the minutes of the former meeting, again +took seats in their accustomed places. + +The second part of the trial then began. It must be remembered that +there were two trials of every Hebrew capital case. The second day was +not a trial _de novo_; but was a proceeding in the nature of an appeal +and was intended to accomplish a review of the proceedings of the +previous day. Additional testimony, however, which had been discovered +after the close of the first trial, might be introduced. But the record +of facts seems not to have been considered so important as the question +of the fixed opinions of the judges. Each member of the Sanhedrin was +required, on the second day, to vote again and to declare anew his +notions concerning the guilt or innocence of the accused. The statements +of each judge were carefully noted by the scribes and compared with his +statements at the previous day. If any judge voted for conviction at the +second trial and founded his judgment on reasons and arguments radically +different from those of the first day, his verdict was rejected. A +member who had voted for acquittal on the first day was not permitted to +change his vote for conviction on the second day. But one who had voted +for condemnation at the first trial, might, by giving valid reasons, +vote on the second day for acquittal.[174] + +A most striking peculiarity of Hebrew law is to be noted in their method +of counting votes and arriving at sums total in favor of or against the +accused. Certain peculiar rules were to be strictly applied in +determining the ultimate result. When upon examination of the record it +was discovered that two or more judges had advanced identical arguments, +though each supported his contention by different Biblical citations, +their collective opinions were regarded as the common expression of a +single mind and all their votes were counted only as one. Father and +son, teacher and pupil, being members of the same court, counted also as +one, provided their votes and opinions were arrayed on the same side, +but not when they were placed in antagonism.[175] + +When the balloting was complete the number for and against the prisoner +was again announced. If a majority of at least two votes were registered +against him he stood convicted a second time. But the humane and +indulgent spirit of Hebrew law continued to operate and deferred +immediate sentence. The judges continued to deliberate. No one thought +of quitting the judgment hall on the second day of the trial. No one ate +anything, no one drank anything on this second day; for the day that was +to condemn an Israelite to death was to be a fast day for those who +condemned him. It was to be a day of prayerful meditation. Ancient +maxims of the Fathers, framed for the protection of the accused, were +reconsidered. All the merciful tendencies of Talmudic interpretation +were invoked and pleaded by the judges, the defenders of the accused. It +was hoped that a few hours' time would discover facts favorable to the +doomed man. New arguments, it was thought, might be offered and new +witnesses might be forthcoming in his behalf. As they continued to +deliberate, the fatal hour approached. There was to be no thirty or +sixty days, as in America, between sentence and execution, during which +time the condemned man could make peace with God. The moment that saw +the judgment finally pronounced witnessed the beginning of its +execution. Sunset, Nature's symbol of the extinguishment of the light of +life, was the time fixed for both. + +The death march and the final circumstances attending the execution of a +Hebrew prisoner are without parallel in the jurisprudence of the world. +As the culprit was led away to his doom, a man, carrying in his hand a +flag, was stationed at the entrance of the Sanhedrin Hall. A mounted +officer of the court followed the procession at a convenient distance +and kept his eyes constantly turned in the direction of the flag bearer +on the hill. A herald, carrying aloft a staff from which fluttered a +crimson banner, made proclamation to the gazing multitude along the way +that a human being was about to be executed. He cried aloud: "AB is to +be put to death on the testimony of CD and XY, on such and such a +charge. If any man knows anything favorable to the accused, in the name +of God let him come forth and speak, in order that the prisoner may be +led back to the Sanhedrin Hall to be again confronted and tried by his +judges." + +If any witness, friend or stranger, came forth to furnish new evidence +in favor of the condemned man, the procession was halted and the +accused was led back to the Sanhedrin Chamber. If any member of the +court still sitting in the hall of judgment bethought himself of any new +argument in behalf of the accused that had not been offered at the +trial, he arose quickly in his place and stated it to his fellow-judges. +The flag at the gate was then waved and the mounted messenger, chosen +for such an emergency, saw it waving and galloped forward to stop the +execution. + +The culprit himself could delay or prevent the accomplishment of the +death sentence if he could give to the Rabbins who escorted him any +valid reason why he should not be put to death. He was led back as often +as he gave any good excuse, not exceeding five times, the number +prescribed by law. If no new witnesses appeared and if the prisoner made +no further plea for life, the procession proceeded to within a short +distance of the place of execution. The convict was then exhorted to +declare himself guilty of the crime of which he was charged and to make +full confession of all his sins. He was told that a full confession +would entitle him to a happy existence beyond this life, since the flood +of death would wash away all stains of sin and cleanse the soul of all +the iniquities of existence in this world. If the condemned man still +refused to confess that he was guilty of the crime with which he was +charged, he was then urged to say: "May my death prove an atonement for +all my transgressions." + +He was then led to the ground of execution. The death draught, +consisting of a mixture of frankincense and myrrh, poured into a cup of +vinegar or light wine, was then given him. Stupefaction followed, +rendering the culprit unconscious of his impending doom and insensible +to the agonies of death. In Jerusalem, this benumbing and stupefying +mixture was furnished by the Hebrew women, whose tender and merciful +regard for the wretched and unfortunate of earth has in all ages been a +striking characteristic of the sex. As soon as the draught had been +administered the execution took place. The prisoner was either stoned, +strangled, burned, or beheaded, according to the nature of his crime. In +case of blasphemy or idolatry the dead body was afterwards hung upon a +gallows until dusk. But ordinarily the corpse was immediately interred +after execution. On the outskirts of every town there were two +graveyards for criminals; in one of these those who had been burned or +stoned were buried; in the other were interred those who had been hanged +or beheaded. As soon as decomposition had taken place--that is, when the +flesh had decayed and fallen from the bones--the relatives were allowed +to remove the skeleton and to deposit it in the family burial ground. + +Soon after the execution the friends and relatives of the dead man made +friendly calls upon the judges who had tried and sentenced him. These +visits were intended to show that the visitors harbored no feelings of +bitterness or revenge against those who, in condemning one of their +loved ones to death, had only performed the high and righteous duties of +just and honorable judges of Israel. + + + + +PART III + +_THE BRIEF_ + + + + +[Illustration: THE LAST SUPPER (DA VINCI)] + + + + +THE BRIEF + + +A number of difficult and confusing questions present themselves at the +very beginning of any extensive and impartial investigation of the trial +of Jesus. + +Did the Great Sanhedrin exist at the time of Christ? If it existed, was +it still a legally constituted court, having jurisdiction to try capital +offenses? Did it have jurisdiction of the particular offense with which +Jesus was charged? If the Great Sanhedrin was actually in existence, had +criminal jurisdiction in capital cases, and was judicially empowered to +try the offense with which Jesus was charged, did it actually try Him? +Were the rules of criminal procedure, prescribed in the Mishna and cited +in this Brief, in existence and actively in force in Judea at the time +of the trial of Jesus? What was the nature of the charge brought against +the Christ? Was He guilty as charged? Were forms of law duly observed in +the trial of the accusation against Him? Answers to these questions, +which will be considered in the Brief in the order above enumerated, +will cover the legal aspects of the Hebrew trial of Jesus. + +_Did the Great Sanhedrin exist at the time of Christ?_ The answer to +this question is of prime importance, since the existence of a court +having jurisdiction of the person and subject matter of the suit is a +fundamental consideration in all litigation. It is generally supposed +that the Hebrew trial of Jesus took place before the Great Sanhedrin in +Jerusalem. But many able writers, both Jewish and Gentile, deny that +this court had any existence at the time of Christ. In the "Martyrdom of +Jesus," Rabbi Wise says: "But this body did positively not exist at the +time when Jesus was crucified, having been dissolved 30 A.C. In nowise, +then, any passages of the Gospels must be understood to refer to the +Great Sanhedrin." Many Jewish and several eminent Gentile authors agree +with this contention, which is founded upon a passage in Josephus in +which it is declared that King Herod had all the members of the +Sanhedrin put to death.[176] It is contended by these writers that the +supreme tribunal of the Jews was then abolished and was not restored +until subsequent to the crucifixion. Opposed to this assertion, however, +is the weight of both reason and authority. Schürer is of the opinion +that Josephus did not mean literally "all" ([Greek: pantas]) when he +wrote that Herod had destroyed all the members of the Great Sanhedrin; +since in the following book he relates that the same king caused to be +put to death the forty-five most prominent members of the party of +Antigonus, who must themselves have been members of this court; and +forty-five are twenty-six fewer than seventy-one, the full membership of +the Great Sanhedrin.[177] The same author asserts the existence and +discusses the jurisdiction of this court in the following language: "As +regards the area over which the jurisdiction of the Great Sanhedrin +extended, it has already been remarked above that its civil authority +was restricted, in the time of Christ, to the eleven toparchies of Judea +proper. And, accordingly, for this reason it had no judicial authority +over Jesus Christ so long as He remained in Galilee. It was only as soon +as He entered Judea that He came directly under its jurisdiction."[178] + +Again, Salvador, who may be justly styled the Jewish Blackstone, wrote +concerning the condemnation of Jesus: "The _senate_ declared that Jesus, +son of Joseph, born at Bethlehem, had profaned the name of God in +usurping it for himself, a simple citizen. The capital sentence was then +pronounced." Now, the word "senate" is properly applied nowhere in +literature to any other Hebrew court than the Great Sanhedrin. This High +Court of the Jews has been frequently compared to the senate of Rome, to +the Areopagus of the Greek and to the parliament of England. It should +be noted in this connection that the great Jewish writer not only styled +the body that tried Jesus "senate" (Great Sanhedrin) but stated that it +pronounced a capital sentence, thus declaring that the supreme tribunal +of the Jews not only existed at the time of Jesus but had the right to +decree capital punishment. + +Edersheim, discussing the alleged abolition of the Sanhedrin by Herod, +says: "The Sanhedrin did exist during his reign, though it must have +been shorn of all real power, and its activity confined to +ecclesiastical or semi-ecclesiastical causes. We can well believe that +neither Herod nor the procurators would wish to _abolish_ the Sanhedrin, +but would leave to them the administration of justice, especially in all +that might in any way be connected with purely religious questions. In +short, the Sanhedrin would be accorded full jurisdiction in inferior and +in religious matters; with the greatest show, but with the least amount +of real rule or of supreme authority."[179] This is a powerful voice in +favor of the existence of the supreme tribunal of the Jews at the time +of Christ; for Edersheim's "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah" is the +best and most reliable biography of the Savior in any language. + +Keim bases his advocacy of the existence of the Sanhedrin at the time of +Christ on New Testament authority. "Not only," he says, "does the New +Testament speak of Synedria in the time of Jesus and the Apostles, but +Jesus Himself, in a well-established utterance, mentions the Synedrion +(Sanhedrin) as the highest legally constituted tribunal and as having +the right to pass the sentence of death."[180] + +The strongest passage in the New Testament supporting the contention of +the existence of the Great Sanhedrin at the time of the crucifixion is +contained in Acts v. 21: "But the high priest came, and they that were +with him, and called the _council_ together, and all the _senate_ of the +children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought." Here, +the use of the words "high priest," "council," and "senate" in the same +connection, strongly suggests, almost accurately describes, the +president and members of the Great Sanhedrin; and besides, the words, +"sent to the prison to have them brought," indicate that this body was +exercising judicial functions. + +Again, the utterance of Jesus above referred to by Keim is found in two +passages of Matthew. The first is in Chap. xvi. 21: "From that time +forth began Jesus to shew unto His disciples, how that He must go unto +Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the _elders_ and _chief priests_ +and _scribes_, and be killed and be raised again the third day." The +second is in Chap. xx. 18: "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son +of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, +and they shall condemn him to death." The "elders" and "chief priests" +and "scribes" were the characteristic constituent elements of the Great +Sanhedrin; and the prophecy, "they shall condemn him to death," ascribed +to them the highest judicial prerogative, the right of passing the death +sentence. In his brilliant essay on the Talmud, Emanuel Deutsch +emphatically says: "Whenever the New Testament mentions the 'Priests, +the Elders, and the Scribes' together, it means the Great +Sanhedrin."[181] It is impossible to refrain from contrasting this +statement of a most eminent and learned Jewish writer with that of Rabbi +Wise, also very scholarly and pious, "In no wise, then, any passages of +the Gospels must be considered to refer to the Great Sanhedrin." Suffice +it to say that the weight of authority is with Emanuel Deutsch. And +that which seems to conclusively disprove the whole theory of the +nonexistence of the Great Sanhedrin at the date of the crucifixion, is +the fact that Josephus--whose account of the alleged killing of all the +members of the Sanhedrin by Herod is the very basis of the theory--in a +subsequent chapter, relating to a subsequent event, describes the +summoning of Hyrcanus, former king and high priest, before the Sanhedrin +to be tried by them. As a result of the trial, Hyrcanus was put to +death.[182] Such a personage could have been tried and condemned only by +the Great Sanhedrin, which was in existence subsequent to the alleged +destruction of all its members by Herod. + +It is believed that enough has been said to show that the contention +that the Great Sanhedrin did not exist at the time of Christ is not well +founded. As a matter of reason, the mere destruction of the members of +the court by Herod did not, of necessity, abolish the court itself. From +what we know of the character and policy of Herod, he simply had the +members of an old and unfriendly aristocracy put to death in order that +he might make room in the court for an entirely new body friendly to him +and devoted to his interests. Again, it is entirely improbable that the +Roman masters, of whom Herod was but a subject prince and tool, would +have permitted the destruction of the most important local institution +of a conquered state. The policy of the Romans in this regard is well +known. Whenever it was consistent with the dignity and safety of the +Roman empire, local institutions were allowed to remain intact and +undisturbed. We are not aware of any good historical reason why the +Great Sanhedrin, the national parliament, and the supreme tribunal of +the Jews, should have been abolished thirty years before Christ, as +Rabbi Wise and other eminent scholars and theologians have contended. +After all, it seems to be more a matter of dogma than of history. The +majority of Jewish writers rest their case upon Josephus, with their +peculiar construction of the passage; the majority of Christian writers +quite naturally prefer the New Testament. But the line is not closely +drawn. Dr. Geikie, the eminent Gentile author, supports the Jewish +opinion, without reference, however, to the passage in Josephus. On the +other hand, Salvador, Edersheim, and Deutsch, all writers of Jewish +blood, support the Christian contention. + +The assertion of Graetz that Jesus was arraigned before one of the Minor +Sanhedrins,[183] of which there were two in Jerusalem, is not to be +taken seriously, since these minor courts had no jurisdiction of the +crime with which Jesus was charged.[184] It is very evident from the +weight of authority that Jesus was tried before the Great Sanhedrin, and +that this court had authority to pass sentence of death. Upon this +theory, the author will proceed in framing the Brief. + +_Did the Great Sanhedrin have jurisdiction to try capital offenses at +the time of the crucifixion?_ This question, involving great difficulty +and much confusion in discussing the trial of Jesus, arises from the +divergent opinions of Bible scholars as to the exact legal and political +status of the Jews at the time of Christ. Many concede the existence of +the Great Sanhedrin at this time, but insist that it had been shorn of +its most important judicial attributes; that the right to try capital +cases had been wholly taken from it; and that it retained the legal +right to try only petty crimes and religious offenses not involving the +death penalty. The Jews contend, and indeed the Talmud states that +"forty years before the destruction of the Temple the judgment of +capital causes was taken away from Israel." The great weight of +authority, however, is registered against this view. The New Testament +teachings on the subject have just been discussed in the beginning of +the Brief. The opinion generally held by Bible scholars is that the +Great Sanhedrin continued to exist after the Roman conquest of Judea and +after the time of Herod; that its legislative, executive, and judicial +powers remained substantially unimpaired in local matters pertaining to +the internal affairs of the Jews; and that the Roman representatives +intervened only when Roman interests required and the sovereignty of the +Roman State demanded. The question of sovereignty presented itself, +indeed, whenever the question of life and death arose; and Rome reserved +to herself, in such cases, the prerogative of final judicial +determination. Both Renan and Salvador hold the view that the Sanhedrin +had the right of initiative, the _cognitio causæ_; that is, the right to +try the case. In the event of the acquittal of the accused the matter +was finally ended without Roman interference, but in case of conviction +the Roman legate or procurator certainly might review and probably was +required to review the matter, and either affirm or reverse the +sentence. This is the prevalent opinion among the best writers; and is +plausible because it is at once consistent with the idea of the +maintenance of Roman sovereignty and of the preservation of the local +government of the Jews. However, many able writers, among them Rosadi +and Dupin, assert that the Jews had lost the right, by virtue of Roman +conquest, even to try capital cases. And it must be admitted that the +logic of law is in their favor, though the facts of history and the +weight of authority are against them. + +_Did the Great Sanhedrin have jurisdiction of the particular offense +with which Jesus was charged?_ Admitting the existence of the Great +Sanhedrin at the time of Christ, and its right to initiate and try +proceedings in capital cases with reference to Roman authority, had it +jurisdiction, under Hebrew law, of the special accusation against +Christ? On this point there is little difference of opinion. Jesus was +brought before the Sanhedrin on the charges of sedition and blasphemy, +both of which crimes came within the cognizance of the supreme tribunal +of the Jews.[185] + +_Was there a regular legal trial of Jesus before the Great Sanhedrin?_ +Admitting that this court was in existence at the time of Christ, that +it had competence, with reference to Roman authority, to try capital +cases, and that it had jurisdiction under Hebrew law of the crime with +which Jesus was charged, did it actually conduct a regular, formal trial +of the Christ? Many able critics give a negative answer to this inquiry. +Jost, one of the greatest and most impartial of Jewish historians, +designates the crucifixion of Jesus "a private murder (Privat-Mord) +committed by burning enemies, not the sentence of a regularly +constituted Sanhedrin."[186] Edersheim supports this view as to the +nature of the trial.[187] + +A certain class of writers base their objection to a regular trial on +the ground of the nonexistence of the Great Sanhedrin at the time of +Christ. If this court did not exist, they say, there could not have been +any regular judicial proceeding, since this body was the only Hebrew +tribunal that had jurisdiction to try the offense with which Jesus was +charged. Others, who hold similar views, maintain that the errors were +so numerous and the proceedings so flagrant, according to the Gospel +account, that there could have been no trial at all, and that it was +simply the action of a mob. These writers contend that the members of +the Sanhedrin acted more like a vigilance committee than a regularly +organized tribunal. Of this opinion is Dr. Cunningham Geikie. + +Still another class of critics insist that the Hebrew judges exercised +only accusatory functions, and that the examination of Jesus at night +was merely preparatory to charges to be presented to Pilate. + +Others still apparently reverse the order, and insist that the Hebrew +trial was the only one; that the duty of Pilate was merely to review, +sanction, and countersign the verdict of the Sanhedrin. Of this class is +Renan, who says: "The course which the priests had resolved to pursue in +regard to Jesus was quite in conformity with the established law. The +plan of the enemies of Jesus was to convict him, by the testimony of +witnesses and by his own avowals, of blasphemy and of outrage against +the Mosaic religion, to condemn him to death according to law, and then +to get the condemnation sanctioned by Pilate."[188] Salvador and Stapfer +agree with Renan that the Hebrew trial was regular and that the +proceedings were legal. On the other hand, Rosadi, Dupin, Keim and many +others denounce the proceedings in the trial of Jesus as outrageously +illegal. + +As to the number of trials, the authorities above cited seem to be +exceptions to the rule. By far the greater number contend that there +were two distinct trials: a Hebrew and a Roman, separate and yet +dependent. The opinion of this class of writers is most clearly +expressed by Innes, who says: "Whether it was legitimate or not for the +Jews to condemn for a capital crime on this occasion, they did so. +Whether it was legitimate or not for Pilate to try over again an accused +whom they had condemned, on this occasion, he did so. There were +certainly two trials."[189] This is the view of the writer of these +pages; and he has, accordingly, divided the general subject into two +trials, devoting a volume of the work to each. It may be answered, then, +that there was a regular trial of Jesus before the Great Sanhedrin. The +relation of this trial to the Roman proceeding will be more fully +discussed in the second volume of this treatise. + +_Were the rules of criminal procedure prescribed in the Mishna and cited +in this Brief, in existence and actively in force in Judea at the time +of the trial of Jesus?_ This question has been answered in the negative +by several writers of repute. Others have answered that the matter is in +doubt. But it is very generally agreed that an affirmative answer is the +proper one. Out of this question, two others arise: (1) Were the rules +of criminal law, herein cited, obsolete at the time of the crucifixion? +(2) Were they the legal developments of an age subsequent to that great +event? In either case, their citation, in this connection, is without +reason or justification. + +It is a sufficient answer to the first of these questions that none of +the standard works on Hebrew criminal law classes any of the rules +herein stated as obsolete at the time of Christ. In support of a +negative answer to this question, it may be urged that all of the +aforesaid rules were the essential elements of an enlightened and humane +criminal procedure in capital cases at the date of the crucifixion. + +The answer to the second question above suggested is a more serious +matter. It is historically true that the Mishna was not reduced to +writing until two hundred years after the beginning of our era. The +Jerusalem Talmud was not redacted until 390 A.D.; and the Babylonian +Talmud, about 365-427 A.D. The question at once arises: Were the rules +of criminal procedure, which we have herein invoked in the discussion of +this case, the growth of the periods intervening between the crucifixion +of Jesus and these dates? Two valid reasons give a negative answer to +this question. In the first place, the criminal rules applied in the +Brief are in nearly every case traceable to Mosaic provisions which were +framed more than a thousand years before the trial of Jesus. In the +second place, they could not have been the developments of a time +subsequent to the crucifixion, because less than forty years, a single +generation, intervened between that event and the fall of Jerusalem, +which was followed by the destruction of Jewish nationality and the +dispersion of the Jews. This short interval was a period of national +decay and disintegration of the Jewish people and could not have been, +under Roman domination, a formative period in legal matters. After the +fall of Jerusalem, the additions and developments in Hebrew law were +more a matter of commentary than of organic formation--more of Gemara +than of Mosaic or Mishnic growth. The decided weight of authority, then, +as well as the greater reason, is in favor of the proposition that the +Hebrew criminal law had reached its full development and was still in +active force at the time of which we write. + +_What was the nature of the charge brought against Christ at the trial +before the Sanhedrin? Was He guilty as charged?_ The questions +preceding these were secondary, though important. If the Great Sanhedrin +did not exist at the time of Christ, we are forced to believe and admit +that the men who arrested and examined Jesus at night were nothing more +than an irresponsible rabble, acting without judicial authority or legal +excuse. If it was without criminal jurisdiction, though in existence, we +have erroneously spoken of a Hebrew trial. If the rules of criminal +procedure which we have invoked were not in existence at the time of the +crucifixion, we have proceeded upon a false hypothesis. Fortunately, the +weight of authority, in every case, is so overwhelmingly in our favor, +and our contention is, in each case, so well founded in reason, that we +feel justified in now proceeding to a discussion of the real merits of +the case, involved in answers to the questions: What was the nature of +the charge or charges brought against Jesus at the Hebrew trial? Was He +guilty as charged? + +The accusations against Christ were numerous, both in and out of court; +and it will help to simplify matters and to arrive at a clear +understanding, if, in the very beginning, the distinction be made and +held in mind between _judicial_ and _extra-judicial_ charges. By +judicial charges are meant those made at the time of the examination of +Jesus by the Sanhedrin, assembled at night in the palace of Caiaphas. By +extra-judicial charges are meant those made out of court at divers times +and places in Jerusalem, Galilee, and elsewhere by the accusers of the +Christ, and especially by the spies who dogged His footsteps during the +last days of His ministry on earth. Ordinarily, it would be proper, in +a work of this kind, to consider only charges made after the trial of +the accused had begun, and jeopardy had attached. All others are +extra-judicial and are entitled to only passing notice. It would be +proper to omit them altogether, if they did not serve to throw much +light upon the specific charges at the trial. An excellent summary of +the extra-judicial charges brought against Jesus at various times in His +career, is given in Abbott's "Jesus of Nazareth," p. 448: "It was +charged that He was a preacher of turbulence and faction; that He +flattered the poor and inveighed against the rich; that He denounced +whole cities, as Capernaum, Bethsaida, Chorazin; that He gathered about +Him a rabble of publicans, harlots, and drunkards, under a mere pretense +of reforming them; that He subverted the laws and institutions of the +Mosaic commonwealth, and substituted an unauthorized legislation of His +own; that He disregarded not only all distinctions of society, but even +those of religion, and commended the idolatrous Samaritan as of greater +worth than the holy priest and pious Levite; that, though He pretended +to work miracles, He had invariably refused to perform them in the +presence and at the request of the Rabbis of the Church; that He had +contemned the solemn sanctions of their holy religion, had sat down to +eat with publicans and sinners with unwashen hands, had disregarded the +obligations of the Sabbath, had attended the Jewish feasts with great +irregularity or not at all, had declared that God could be worshiped in +any other place as well as in His Holy Temple, had openly and violently +interfered with its sacred services by driving away the cattle gathered +there for sacrifice." + +These different charges were doubtless present in the minds and hearts +of the members of the Sanhedrin at the time of the trial, and probably +influenced their conduct and entered into their verdict. But only one or +two of these accusations can be said to have any direct connection with +the record in this case, and, consequently, can be only indirectly +considered in discussing its merits. + +We come now to examine the actual charges made at the night trial before +the Sanhedrin. The subsequent charges before Pilate have no place in +this volume. A review of the proceedings at the time of the examination +in the palace of Caiaphas reveals two distinct charges: one preferred by +witnesses who had been summoned by the Sanhedrin, the other preferred by +Caiaphas himself. + +First, according to Matthew, "At the last came two false witnesses, and +said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to +build it in three days."[190] The same testimony is thus reported by +Mark: "And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, +saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with +hands, and within three days, I will build another made without +hands."[191] Luke and John do not discuss the night trial before the +Sanhedrin, and therefore make no reference to the charges brought +forward by the false witnesses. The second accusation made against +Jesus is that by Caiaphas himself, who embodies his charge in the form +of an oath or adjuration which he administered to the accused: "I adjure +thee by the living God that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the +Son of God." Then came the confession and condemnation. "Jesus said unto +him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see +the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the +clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath +spoken _blasphemy_; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now +ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He +is guilty of death."[192] + +These few words of Scripture are the essential parts of the record of +fact of the most awful trial in the history of the universe. An analysis +of the evidence shows the existence of two distinct charges: that +preferred by the false witnesses, accusing Jesus of sedition; and that +of blasphemy made by Caiaphas himself. + +Concerning the testimony adduced in support of the first charge, Mark +says: "For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed +not together."[193] Now, we have seen that the concurrent testimony of +at least two witnesses, agreeing in all essential details, was necessary +to sustain a conviction under Hebrew law. If one witness against the +accused contradicted any other witness against the accused, all were +rejected. Under this rule of law, when "their witness agreed not +together," according to Mark, the charge of sedition was abandoned, and +the accusation of blasphemy then followed, which resulted in a +confession and condemnation. Later on, in another place, we shall +discuss the illegality of a double accusation, in the same breath and at +the same trial. But at this point we have no further interest in the +abandoned charge, except to say that the false witnesses, in their +ignorance and blindness, failed to grasp the Master's allegorical +language in reference to the destruction of the Temple. Their +worldly-mindedness and purely physical conception of things centered +their thoughts upon the Temple at Jerusalem, and gave a purely temporal +and material interpretation to His words. "Forty and six years was this +temple in building, and wilt thou rear it again in three days?"[194] +This question asked by the original auditors, shows a total +misconception of the true meaning of the language of Jesus. The +spiritual allusion to the resurrection of His own body seems never to +have penetrated their thoughts. Then, again, their general statement +was, in effect, an absolute misrepresentation. By perverting His +language, He was made to utter a deliberate threat against a national +institution, around which clustered all the power, sanctity, and glory +of the Hebrew people. He was made to threaten the destruction of the +Temple at Jerusalem. But it is most reasonable to infer from the entire +evidence as contained in the Sacred Writings that the words imputed to +Jesus by the false witnesses were not those which He actually used. In +reality, He did not say: "I _can destroy_," or "I _will destroy_"; but, +simply, "_Destroy_." "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will +raise it up."[195] This is evidently a purely hypothetical expression +and is equivalent to "_Supposing you destroy this temple_." St. John, in +whose presence, it seems, this language was used, correctly interprets +the Savior's meaning when he says: "He spake of the temple of his +body."[196] + +The evidence of the false witnesses was so contradictory that even +wicked judges were forced to reject it and to conduct the prosecution on +another charge. + +We come now to consider more closely the real accusation upon which +Jesus was condemned to death. At first glance, there seems to be no +difficulty in determining what this accusation was, since the Gospel +record specifically mentions the crime of blasphemy. It was for this +offense that Caiaphas pronounced judgment against Jesus with the +unanimous approval of his fellow-judges. "Then the high priest rent his +clothes and saith, What need we any further witnesses? ye have heard the +_blasphemy_: what think ye? and they all condemned him to be guilty of +death." But what had they heard that constituted blasphemy? Nothing more +than His own confession that He was "the Christ, the Son of God." This +seems simple enough upon its face; but a vast mass of acrimonious +discussion has resulted from these few passages of the Scripture. The +main difficulty turns upon the meaning of the word "blasphemy," as used +by the high priest in passing condemnation upon Jesus. The facts +adduced at the trial, or rather the facts suggested by the oath or +adjuration addressed to Jesus, as to whether or not He was "Christ, the +Son of God," did not, in the opinion of many, constitute blasphemy under +the definition of that term given in the Mosaic Code and interpreted by +the Rabbinic writers whose opinions have been embodied in commentaries +upon the Mishna. Eminent Jewish writers have ridiculed the idea of +attempting to make a case of blasphemy out of a mere claim of being a +"Son of God." Rabbi Wise, in "The Martyrdom of Jesus," has very tersely +stated the Jewish position on the subject. "Had Jesus maintained," he +says, "before a body of Jewish lawyers to be the Son of God, they could +not have found him guilty of blasphemy, because every Israelite had a +perfect right to call himself a son of God, the law (Deut. xiv. 1) +stating in unmistakable words, 'Ye are sons of the Lord, your God.' When +Rabbi Judah advanced the opinion, 'If ye conduct yourselves like the +sons of God, ye are; if not, not,' there was Rabbi Mair on hand to +contradict him: 'In this or in that case, ye are the sons of the Lord +your God.' No law, no precedent, and no fictitious case in the Bible or +the rabbinical literature can be cited to make of this expression a case +of blasphemy. The blasphemy law is in Leviticus (xxiv. 15-20), which +ordains, 'If any man shall curse his God (i.e., by whatever name he may +call his God), he shall bear his sin,' but the law has nothing to do +with it, dictates no punishment, takes no cognizance thereof. 'But he +who shall curse the name of Jehovah, he shall surely be put to death,' +be the curser native or alien. Another blasphemy law exists not in the +Pentateuch. The ancient Hebrews expounded this law, that none is guilty +of blasphemy in the first degree, unless he curses God himself by the +name of Jehovah; or, as Maimonides maintains, by the name Adonai. The +penalty of death is only threatened in the first degree. The Mishna +states expressly as the general law, 'The blasphemer is not guilty, +unless he (in cursing the Deity) has mentioned the name itself' (of +Jehovah or Adonai), so that there can be no doubt whatever that such was +the law in Israel. It is clear that the statements made by Mark, in the +name of Jesus, had nothing in the world to do with the blasphemy laws of +the Jews."[197] + +Rabbi Wise was concededly an able and accomplished theologian; and in a +general way the above extract states the truth. But it does not state +the whole truth, and in one or two places is certainly erroneous. +Leviticus xxiv. 15-20 is undoubtedly the blasphemy statute of the Mosaic +Code. But Mr. Wise was assuredly wrong when he stated that "another +blasphemy Law exists not in the Pentateuch." For, if this were a correct +statement, other eminent Jewish authorities, as well as many Gentile +authors, would be all at sea. Besides, the New Testament use of the word +"blasphemy," in many places, would only serve to illustrate the dense +ignorance of the Jews of the time of Jesus as to the meaning of the +term, if the author of "The Martyrdom of Jesus" were right. + +In this connection, let us now consider another Jewish authority, as +able and even more famous than the one just cited. In Salvador's +celebrated treatise entitled "Histoire des Institutions de Moïse," he +devotes a chapter to the question of the judgment and condemnation of +Jesus. Touching the nature of the charge against Christ and the real +cause of His conviction, he says: "But Jesus, in presenting new theories +and in giving new forms to those already promulgated, speaks of himself +as God; his disciples repeat it; and the subsequent events prove in the +most satisfactory manner that they thus understood him. This was +_shocking blasphemy_ in the eyes of the citizens: the law commands them +to follow Jehovah alone, the only true God; not to believe in gods of +flesh and bones, resembling men or women; neither to spare or listen to +a prophet who, even doing miracles, should proclaim a new god, a god +neither they nor their fathers had known. The question already raised +among the people was this: Has Jesus become God? But the Senate having +adjudged that Jesus, son of Joseph, born in Bethlehem, had profaned the +name of God by usurping it to himself, a mere citizen, applied to him +the law in the 13th Chapter of Deuteronomy and the 20th verse in Chapter +18, according to which every prophet, even he who works miracles, must +be punished when he speaks of a god unknown to the Jews and their +fathers: the capital sentence was pronounced." + +Here we have the doctors divided; Wise saying that "another blasphemy +law exists not in the Pentateuch," and Salvador contending that Jesus +was legally convicted of blasphemy under the Mosaic Law as it was laid +down, not in Leviticus xxiv. 15-20, but in Deuteronomy xiii. + +The law in Deuteronomy is peculiarly impressive in its relationship to +the charges against Jesus. + +"If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth +thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, +whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which +thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto +the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your +God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your +heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and +fear Him, and keep His commandments, and obey His voice, and ye shall +serve Him, and cleave unto Him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of +dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away +from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt and +redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way +which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in."[198] + +The position of Rabbi Wise cannot be defended by trying to identify this +passage with the one in Leviticus. The law in Deuteronomy has reference +to that form of blasphemy which is nearly identical with idolatry, that +is, seducing the people from their allegiance to Jehovah, and inducing +them to go off after strange gods. The law in Leviticus applies +peculiarly to profane epithets and to curses hurled at Jehovah Himself. + +Again, Rabbi Wise ridicules the notion that Caiaphas and the Sanhedrists +attempted to twist the use of the words "Son of God" into a crime. He is +right when, quoting Deuteronomy xiv. 1, he says that "every Israelite +had a perfect right to call himself a son of God." But here again the +eminent theologian has stopped short of the entire truth. It is not at +all probable that he would have contended that "every Israelite had a +perfect right to call himself the son of God" in the sense of being +equal with God Himself. Should reply be made that such would be an +unwarranted construction of Christ's confession that he was "the Christ, +the Son of God," then the opinion of Salvador would be again invoked. In +a note to the "Jugement de Jesus," he says: "I repeat that the +expression 'Son of God' includes here the idea of God Himself." + +We are not in a position, nearly two thousand years after the event +occurred, to tell exactly what was in the mind of Caiaphas at the time. +But, in view of the condemnation which he passed, and of the language +which he used in passing it, we are certainly justified in supposing +that he deliberately and designedly connected the two titles--"the +Christ" and "the Son of God"--to see if Jesus would assume +responsibility for both, or if He would content himself with the simple +appellation, "son of God," to which every pious Israelite was entitled. +The reply of Jesus, "Thou hast said," meaning "I am" the Christ, the Son +of God, was an affirmation of His identity with the Father. The +condemnation for blasphemy immediately followed. Such a sentence would +have been inconsistent with any other theory than the assumption that +Jesus had claimed equality with God, or had arrogated to Himself power +and authority which belonged alone to Jehovah. This definition of +blasphemy is certainly different from that laid down in Leviticus xxiv. +15-20. + +As a matter of history, it is really true that both the Old and New +Testaments reveal not only the existence of more than one blasphemy +statute in the Mosaic Code, but also more than one conception and +definition of blasphemy at different periods in the development of the +Hebrew people. + +In II Samuel xii. 14 the word "blaspheme" is used in the sense "to +despise Judaism." In I Macc. ii. 6 blasphemy means "idolatry." In Job +ii. 5; II Kings xix. 4-6; Hosea vii. 16, the term indicates "reproach," +"derision." + +Not only might God be blasphemed, but the king also, as his +representative. The indictment against Naboth was: "Thou didst blaspheme +God and the king."[199] The people of Jehovah and his Holy Land might +also become victims of blasphemy.[200] + +The New Testament writers frequently charge the Jews with blaspheming +Jesus, when they use insulting language toward Him, or deny to Him the +credit that is His due.[201] + +In Revelation, St. John tells that he "saw a beast rise up out of the +sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, +and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And he opened his mouth in +blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacles, and +them that dwell in heaven."[202] This beast was the symbolical +Antichrist, and his blasphemy was simply the treasonable opposition of +the antichristian world to God and His kingdom. + +A comprehensive meaning of "blasphemy," in the various senses above +suggested, is conveyed by the definition of the term "treason" under the +governments of Gentile commonwealths. A single statute, 25 Edw. iii. c. +2, defines seven different ways of committing treason against the king +of England.[203] The _lex Julia majestatis_, promulgated by Augustus +Cæsar, was a single statute which comprehended all the ancient laws that +had previously been enacted to punish transgressors against the Roman +State.[204] There was no particular statute, as Rabbi Wise would have us +believe, among the ancient Hebrews, that defined all forms of blasphemy +against Jehovah. But a very clear notion of the various phases of +blasphemy may be had if we will keep in mind the various definitions of +treason under modern law. + +It should not be forgotten that the ancient Hebrew Commonwealth was a +pure theocracy; that Jehovah was king; that priests, prophets, and +people were merely the subjects and servants of this king; that its +government and its institutions were the products of his brain; and +that the destinies of the people of Israel, the "chosen seed," were +absolutely in his keeping and subject to his divine direction and +control. It should also be remembered that the God of Israel was a most +jealous God; that the greatest irritant of His wrath was any +encroachment upon His rights as ruler of men and creator of the +universe; that for the protection of His sovereignty, He had proclaimed +to His people through His servant Moses the most stringent statutes +against any profanation of His name or disloyalty to His person. The +Decalogue was the great charter of Jehovah for the government of His +children. The first three commandments were special statutes intended to +excite their gratitude and insure their attachment. He reminds them of +the circumstances of their deliverance, and warns them, under severe +penalty, against going off after strange gods. + +But, not content with these, He had still other statutes proclaimed, +furnishing safeguards against idolatry and insuring loyalty to His +person.[205] At the time of the establishment of the Hebrew theocracy, +idolatry was everywhere to be found. Not only were the neighboring +peoples worshipers of idols, but the Israelites themselves were prone to +idolatry and to running off after strange gods. The worship of the +Golden Calf is a familiar illustration of this truth. Thus the +Commonwealth of Jehovah was threatened not only with idolatrous invasion +from without but with idolatrous insurrection from within. Hence the +severity of the measures adopted for the protection of His kingdom, His +person, and His name, not only against idolaters but against +necromancers, witches, sorcerers, and all persons who pretended to +supernatural powers that did not proceed directly from Jehovah Himself. +The enforcement of and obedience to these various statutes required an +acknowledgment of the power and authority of Jehovah in every case where +prophecies were foretold, wonders worked, and supernatural powers of any +kind exhibited. And throughout the Sacred Scriptures, in both the Old +and New Testaments, we find traces of the operation of this law. +Sometimes it is an instance of obedience, as when Pharaoh wanted to +credit Joseph with the power of interpreting dreams. "And Joseph +answered Pharaoh, saying, It is not in _me_: God shall give Pharaoh an +answer of peace."[206] At other times, it is an act of disobedience. To +satisfy the thirsty multitude Moses smote the rock and brought forth +water at Meribah. But instead of giving the Lord credit for the act, +Moses claimed it for Aaron and himself, saying, "Hear now, ye rebels: +must _we_ fetch you water out of this rock?" Whereupon Jehovah grew very +angry and said to Moses and Aaron: "Because ye believe me not, to +sanctify _me_ in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall +not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them."[207] +As punishment for this blasphemous conduct, neither Moses nor Aaron was +permitted to enter the Promised Land.[208] And that this omission to +give due acknowledgment to the Lord for the miraculous flow of water was +treasonable or blasphemous under the wider interpretation of the term, +cannot be doubted. + +From the foregoing remarks it is clear that blasphemy among the ancient +Hebrews was subject to a twofold classification: (1) A verbal +renunciation and profane speaking of the name of Jehovah. To this kind +of blasphemy the provision in Leviticus xxiv. 15-20 was applicable. This +was blasphemy in its generally accepted but narrower and more restricted +sense. This kind of blasphemy indicated a most depraved and malignant +state of mind, and to secure a conviction it was necessary to show that +the word "Jehovah" or "Adonai" had been pronounced. (2) "Every word or +act, directly in derogation of the sovereignty of Jehovah, such as +speaking in the name of another god, or omitting, on any occasion that +required it, to give to Jehovah the honor due to His own name."[209] +This form of blasphemy was nearly the same as treason under modern +governments, and included all offenses that threatened the usurpation of +the throne of Jehovah, the destruction of His institutions, and that +withheld from Him due acknowledgment of His authority and authorship in +all matters of miracle and prophecy. + +Returning to the trial in the palace of Caiaphas, let us again consider +the question: Was Jesus guilty of blasphemy under any of the definitions +above given? Had He ever cursed the name of Jehovah and thereby brought +Himself within the condemnation of the law, as laid down in Leviticus +xxiv. 15-20? Certainly not. Every word uttered by Him at the trial, as +well as every other expression elsewhere uttered at any time or place, +was said with reverence and awe and love in praise and glorification of +the name and person of Jehovah. Rabbi Wise ridicules the notion that +Jesus was ever tried upon the charge of blasphemy, because it is not +recorded anywhere that He ever used any but tender and affectionate +language in speaking of the Heavenly Father. + +Had Jesus blasphemed, in the sense of "despising Judaism," and thereby +brought Himself within the purview of the rule as exemplified in II Sam. +xii. 14? Certainly not. There is no record anywhere that He despised +Judaism. Jesus revered both the Law and the Prophets. He claimed that He +came to fulfill, not to destroy them.[210] He frequently denounced +Pharisaic formalism and hypocrisy, but at the same time He was a most +loyal Jew and a devoted son of Israel. + +Had He blasphemed by working wonders in His own name, and omitting to +give Jehovah credit for them; and did He thereby bring Himself within +the condemnation of the rule exemplified by Moses and Aaron in the +matter of striking water from the rock at Meribah? We are forced to +answer this question in the affirmative. If we regard Jesus as a mere +man, a plain citizen, like Moses, the New Testament discloses many +infractions of the Law in His prophecies and miracles. It is true that +in John v. 19 it is said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can +do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do." Here He +affirmed that the power was from God and not from Himself. Again, having +raised Lazarus from the dead, Jesus said, "Father, I thank thee that +thou hast heard me,"[211] thus acknowledging the intervention of Jehovah +in the performance of the miracle. In several other places He gave the +Father credit for the act of the Son. But these were exceptions, +isolated cases. The law required an express acknowledgment in every case +of prophesy or miracle working. "Thus saith the Lord" was either the +prologue or epilogue of every wonder-working performance. In all the +miracles wrought by him in Egypt Moses had given due credit to Jehovah. +But this was not enough. He was made an example for all time when he +failed to make acknowledgment in the matter of striking the water from +the rock. Now Jesus worked many miracles in no other name than His own, +and in so doing brought Himself within the operation of the rule and of +the precedent established in the case of Moses and Aaron. The curing of +the bloody issue,[212] the stilling of the tempest,[213] the chasing of +the devils into the sea,[214] the raising of Jairus' daughter,[215] and +of the son of the widow of Nain[216] from the dead, were done without +any mention of the power and guidance of Jehovah. + +But these transgressions were extra-judicial offenses and have been +discussed merely as an introduction throwing light upon the specific +charge at the trial, that Jesus had claimed to be "the Christ, the Son +of God." The question of the high priest is meaningless, unless +interpreted in the light of knowledge which we know the members of the +Sanhedrin had regarding the wonder-working performances of the Christ. +The failure of Jesus to acknowledge the power of Jehovah in working +miracles might be interpreted as a tacit avowal that He Himself was +Jehovah, and that therefore no acknowledgments were necessary. The +silence itself was a proclamation of the divinity that was in Him, which +placed Him above a law intended to govern the conduct of men like Moses +and Aaron. + +We are now prepared to consider the final question: Had Jesus +blasphemed, when He confessed to the high priest that He was "the +Christ, the Son of God"? Had He blasphemed in that wider sense which +Salvador has interpreted as being the Jewish notion of blasphemy at the +time of Christ; that is, by claiming at once the attributes of the +Messiah and the Son of God? Had He asserted an equality with God which +looked to a usurpation of His power and the destruction of His throne; +that is, did the confession of Jesus that He was "Christ, the Son of +God," suggest a rivalry between Him and Jehovah which might result in +the dethronement of the latter and the substitution of the former as the +Lord and King and Ruler of Israel? Regarding Jesus as a mere man, a +plain citizen, an affirmative answer to any one of these questions would +convict Him of blasphemy, according to the Jewish interpretation of that +term at the time of Christ; for the Hebrew Jehovah had repeatedly +proclaimed that He was a jealous God, and that He would brook neither +rivals nor associates in the government of His kingdom. + +That Jesus had more than once identified Himself with Jehovah, and had +claimed divine attributes and powers; and that the Jews regarded all +these pretenses as blasphemous, is evident, and can be ascertained from +more than one passage of New Testament Scripture. On one occasion the +Savior said to one sick of palsy: "Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be +forgiven thee. And, behold, certain of the Scribes said within +themselves, This _man_ blasphemeth."[217] According to Luke, they said: +"Who is this man which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but +God alone?"[218] Here, according to the Scribes and Pharisees, Jesus had +blasphemed by claiming the power which alone belonged to Jehovah, that +of forgiving sins; or, at least, by exercising a supernatural power +without acknowledging the authorship and guidance of the Almighty. It +should be remembered that in this instance of alleged blasphemy Jesus +had not remotely cursed or profaned the name of Jehovah; but, according +to Jewish notions of the times, had exercised a prerogative, that of +forgiving sins, which belonged solely to Jehovah, without giving credit. + +Again, we read this passage in the New Testament: "Therefore Jews sought +the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but +said also that God was his father, making himself equal with God."[219] +Here we see that the Jews of the days of Jesus, as well as Salvador in +our own day, construed the claims of Jesus to be "the Christ, the Son of +God," as an assertion of equality with Jehovah. + +Again, on another occasion, Jesus said emphatically: "I and my Father +are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered +them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of +those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good +work, we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being +a man, makest thyself God."[220] Even before this bold declaration of +His identity with Jehovah, He had intimated that He was of Heavenly +origin and had enjoyed a divine preëxistence. He had declared that He +was the "Bread which came down from Heaven,"[221] and that "Before +Abraham was, I am."[222] The Jews regarded His statement that He had +lived before Abraham as blasphemy, and "took up stones to cast at him," +this being the usual punishment for blasphemous conduct. + +We have said enough to emphasize the point that there was another kind +of blasphemy known to the Jews of the days of Jesus than that prescribed +in Leviticus; and that the confession of being "Christ, the Son of God," +as the Jews and Caiaphas interpreted the term, brought Jesus within the +meaning of blasphemy, in its wider signification--that of assuming +equality with God. The numerous illustrations above furnished were +given to provide means of clear interpretation of the term blasphemy, as +used in the condemnatory sentence of the high priest. For it is clearly +evident that he and the other judges must have had many charges against +Jesus in mind other than those that appear in the record of the trial. +But we repeat, these extra-judicial charges must be considered only for +purposes of correct interpretation and as a means of throwing light upon +the actual proceedings in the night trial before the Sanhedrin. We +further repeat that the New Testament furnishes abundant evidence that +Jesus the man, the Jewish citizen, had, at divers times and places, +committed blasphemy against Jehovah, under a strict interpretation of +the law of God. + +Mr. Simon Greenleaf, the great Christian writer on the Law of Evidence +and the Harmony of the Gospels, has thus tersely and admirably +summarized the matter from the lawyer's point of view: "If we regard +Jesus simply as a Jewish citizen, and with no higher character, this +conviction seems substantially right in point of law, though the trial +were not legal in all its forms. For, whether the accusation were +founded on the first or the second command in the Decalogue, or on the +law laid down in the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, or on that in +the eighteenth chapter and the twentieth verse, he had violated them all +by assuming to himself powers belonging alone to Jehovah. It is not easy +to perceive on what ground his conduct could have been defended before +any tribunal, unless upon that of his superhuman character. No lawyer, +it is conceived, would think of placing his defense upon any other +basis."[223] + +But, at this point, the reader would do well to discriminate very +carefully between certain matters touching the most vital features of +the controversy. Certain well-defined distinctions must be observed, +else an erroneous conclusion will inevitably follow. + +In the first place, proper limitations must be applied to the person and +character of Jesus before it can be truthfully said that His conviction +by the Sanhedrin was "substantially right in point of law." It must be +remembered that, in this connection, Jesus is regarded merely as a man, +"a Jewish citizen," to use Greenleaf's phrase. His divine character, as +the only-begotten Son of God, as the Second Person of the Trinity, as +the Savior of the human race, is not considered. But the reader may +object, and with reason, that this is begging the question; and is +therefore an inexcusable evasion; since the real issue before the +Sanhedrin was this: Is Jesus God? And to strike the Godhead of Jesus +from the discussion is to destroy the real issue, and to place the +judgment of the Sanhedrin upon an irrelevant and immaterial basis. There +is much truth in this contention, since it is clearly evident that if +Jesus was actually God, "manifest in the flesh," He was not guilty; if +He was not God, He was guilty. + +Fortunately for the purposes of this treatise, the legality or the +illegality of the proceedings in the trial of Christ is not so much +related to the question of substance as to that of form. Whether Jesus +were God or not is a question involving His divinity, and is a problem +peculiarly within the domain of the theologian. Whether legal rules were +duly observed in the trial of Christ, were He man or God, is a question +involving His civil rights, and belongs to the domain of the lawyer. +Unless this distinction be recognized and held in mind, the treatment of +this theme from a legal standpoint has no justification. This contention +is all the more certainly true, since proof of the divinity of Jesus, a +spiritual problem, would rest more upon the basis of religious +consciousness and experience, than upon historical facts and logical +inferences. + +The author of these volumes believes that Jesus was divine, and that if +He was not divine, Divinity has not touched this globe. The writer bases +his conviction of this fact upon the perfect purity, beauty, and +sinlessness of Jesus; upon the overwhelming historical evidence of His +resurrection from the dead, which event "may unhesitatingly be +pronounced that best established in history";[224] as well as upon the +evident impress of a divine hand upon genuine Christian civilization in +every age. + +But the historic proofs of the divinity of Christ that have come down to +us through twenty centuries were not before the Sanhedrin. A charitable +Christian criticism will be slow in passing unmerciful judgment upon the +members of that court for denying the claims of Jesus to identify with +God, when His own disciples evidently failed to recognize them. The +incidents of the Last Supper clearly prove that those who had been +intimately associated with Him during three eventful years did not, at +the close of His ministry, fully comprehend His character and appreciate +His message and His mission.[225] Were comparative strangers to Him and +His teachings expected to be more keenly discerning? After John had +baptized Jesus in the Jordan and the Spirit of God, in the form of a +dove, had descended upon Him, the Baptist seems to have had some doubts +of the Messiahship of Christ and sent an embassy to Him to ask, "Art +thou he that should come, or do we look for another?"[226] If the +Forerunner of the Messiah did not know, are we justified in demanding +perfect prescience and absolute infallibility of Caiaphas? + +The most perfect proof of the divinity of Jesus is the fact of His +resurrection from the dead, attested by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, +Peter, James, and Paul. And yet, although He had frequently foretold to +them that He would rise again, Jesus had to personally appear before +them and submit to physical tests before they would believe that His +prophecies had been fulfilled.[227] And it must be remembered that the +great proof of His divinity, His resurrection from the dead, was not +before Caiaphas and his colleagues at the time of the trial. + +The preceding suggestions and observations have not been made in order +to excuse or palliate the conduct of the members of the Sanhedrin for +their illegal conduct of the proceedings against Jesus. Under Point XI +of the Brief we shall prove by Jewish testimony alone the utterly wicked +and worthless character of these judges. Under Point XII we shall +elaborate the proofs in favor of the Messiahship of Jesus and of His +divine Sonship of the Father, as far as the scope of this work will +permit. We have suggested above the perplexity of the members of the +Sanhedrin and of the disciples of Jesus, concerning the divinity of the +Nazarene, to illustrate to the reader how futile would be the task of +attempting in a treatise of this kind to settle the question of the +identity of Jesus with God, and thereby fix upon His judges in the +palace of Caiaphas the odium of an unrighteous judgment. The question, +after all, is one to be settled in the forum of conscience, illuminated +by the light of history, and not at the bar of legal justice. + +But whether Jesus were man or God, or man-God, we are justified in +passing upon the question of the violation of forms of law which He was +entitled to have observed in the trial of His claims. And at this point +we return to a consideration of the phrase, "substantially right in +point of law." This language is not intended to convey the notion that +Jesus was legally convicted. It means simply that the claim of equality +with God by a plain Jewish citizen was, under Hebrew law, blasphemy; the +crime which Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin believed that Jesus had +confessed, and for which they condemned Him. + +Another distinction that must be made is that relating to the kind of +law that is meant, when it is said that the conviction of Jesus was +"substantially right in point of law." Ancient Hebrew law is meant, and +as that law was interpreted from the standpoint of ancient Judaism. The +policy and precepts of the New Dispensation inaugurated by Jesus can +hardly be considered, in a legal sense, to have been binding upon +Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, since the very claims of Jesus to +Messiahship and identity with God were to be tested by the provisions of +the Mosaic Code and in the light of Hebrew prophecy. The Pentateuch, the +Prophets, and the Talmud were the legal guides, then, of the judges of +Israel in judicial proceedings at this time, and furnished rules for +determining the genuineness of His pretensions. + +Mr. Greenleaf, the author of the phrase, "substantially right in point +of law," asserts that the trial was not legal in all its forms, but he +fails to enumerate the errors. The purpose of the Brief in this work is +to name and discuss the errors and irregularities of the Hebrew trial, +that is, the trial before the Sanhedrin. + +But the question may be asked: Why be guilty of the inconsistency of +discussing illegalities, when admission has already been made that the +decision was "substantially right in point of law"? The answer is that a +distinction must be made between that which is popularly and +historically known or believed to be true, and that which has not been +or cannot be proved in a court of law. Every lawyer is familiar with +this distinction. The court may know that the accused is guilty, the +jury may know it, the attorneys may be perfectly sure of it, but if the +verdict of guilt returned by the jury into court is not based upon +testimony that came from the witness stand from witnesses who were +under oath, and that had submitted to cross-examination, such verdict +would hardly be sustained on appeal. In other words, the lives and +liberties of alleged criminals must not be endangered by extra-judicial +and incompetent testimony. A legal verdict can be rendered only when a +regular trial has been had before a competent court, having jurisdiction +of the crime charged, and after all legal rules have been observed which +the constitution and the laws have provided as safeguards for the +protection of the rights of both the people and the prisoner. However +heinous the offense committed, no man is, legally speaking, a criminal, +until he has been legally tried and declared a criminal. The presumption +of innocence, a substantial legal right, is thrown around him from the +very beginning, and continues in his favor until it is overthrown by +competent and satisfactory evidence. Unless such evidence is furnished, +under legal forms, no man, however morally guilty, can be denominated a +criminal, in a juristic sense, in the face of the perpetual continuance +of this presumption of innocence. + +If these rules and principles be applied to the trial of Jesus, either +before the Sanhedrin or before Pilate, it can be easily demonstrated +that while He might have been abstractly and historically guilty of the +crime of blasphemy, in the wider acceptation of that term, He was not +remotely a criminal, because He was never legally tried and convicted. +In other words, his condemnation was not based upon a legal procedure +that was in harmony with either the Mosaic Code or the Mishna. The +pages of human history present no stronger case of judicial murder than +the trial and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, for the simple reason +that all forms of law were outraged and trampled under foot in the +proceedings instituted against Him. The errors were so numerous and the +proceedings so flagrant that many have doubted the existence of a trial. +Others have sought to attack the authenticity of the Gospel narratives +and the veracity of the Gospel writers by pointing to the number of +errors committed as evidence that no such proceedings ever took place. +As Renan would say, this is a species of "naïve impudence," to assert +that a trial was not had, because numerous errors are alleged; as if a +Hebrew court could not either intentionally or unintentionally commit +blunders and many of them. Every lawyer of extensive practice anywhere +knows from experience that judges of great ability and exalted character +conduct lengthy trials, in both civil and criminal cases, with the most +painstaking care, and are aided by eminent counsel and good and honest +jurors; the whole purpose of the proceedings being to reach a just and +righteous verdict; and yet, on appeal, it is frequently held that not +one but many errors have been committed. + +At this point, a few preliminary observations are necessary as a means +of introduction to the discussion of errors. Certain elementary +principles should be clearly understood at the outset. In the first +place, an analysis of the word "case," used in a juristic sense, shows +the existence of two cardinal judicial elements: the element called +Fact, and the element called Law. And whether the advocate is preparing +a pleading at his desk, is making a speech to the jury, or addressing +himself to the court, these elements are ever present in his mind. He is +continually asking these questions: What are the facts of this case? +What is the law applicable to these facts? Do the facts and law meet, +harmonize, blend, according to the latest decision of the court of last +resort? If so, a case is made; otherwise, not. + +It is impossible to frame any legal argument upon any other basis than +that of the agreement or nonagreement of law and fact, in a juristic +sense; and upon this plan errors will be discussed and the Brief will be +framed. + +In the second place, it must not be forgotten that, in matters of review +on appeal, errors will not be presumed; that is, errors will not be +considered that do not appeal affirmatively upon the record. The law +will rather presume and the court will assume that what should have been +done, has been done. In conformity with this principle, only such errors +will be discussed in these pages that affirmatively appear in the New +Testament Gospels which form the record in this case. By "affirmatively +appear" is meant that the error is clearly apparent or may be reasonably +inferred. + +In Part II of the preceding pages of this volume, Hebrew criminal law, +which was actively in force at the time of Christ, was outlined and +discussed. In Part I the Record of Fact was reviewed in the light of +judicial rules. It is the present purpose, in Part III, to enumerate, +in the form of a Brief, the errors committed by the Hebrew judges of +Jesus, as the result of their failure to make the facts of their trial +conform with the legal rules by which they were bound in all criminal +proceedings where human life was at stake. The plan proposed is to +announce successive errors in brief statements which will be designated +"Points," in imitation of the New York method on appeal. Following the +statement of error will be given a short synopsis of the law applicable +to the point suggested. Then, finally, will follow the fact and argument +necessary to elaboration and proof. Accordingly, in pursuance of this +method, let us consider the points in order. + + + + +POINT I + +THE ARREST OF JESUS WAS ILLEGAL + + +LAW + + "Now the Jewish law prohibited _all proceedings by night_."--DUPIN, + "Jesus Devant Caïphe et Pilate." + + "The testimony of an accomplice is not permissible by Rabbinic law + both _propter affectum_ and _propter delictum_, and no man's + _life_, nor his _liberty_, nor his _reputation_ can be endangered + by the malice of one who has confessed himself a + criminal."--MENDELSOHN, "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient + Hebrews," n. 274. + + "Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: + neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbor. Thou + shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: Thou shalt not avenge + or bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou + shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."--LEVITICUS xix. 17, 18. + + +FACT AND ARGUMENT + +The Bible record discloses three distinct elements of illegality in the +arrest of Jesus: (1) The arrest took place at night in violation of +Hebrew law; (2) it was effected through the agency of a traitor and +informer, in violation of a provision in the Mosaic Code and of a +Rabbinic rule based thereon; (3) it was not the result of a legal +mandate from a court whose intentions were to conduct a legal trial for +the purpose of reaching a righteous judgment. These elements of +illegality will be apparent when the facts of the arrest are briefly +stated. + +It was the 14th Nisan, according to the Jewish calendar; or April 6th, +A.D. 30, according to our calendar. The Paschal Feast was at hand. The +eyes of all Israel were centered upon the Metropolis of Judaism. From +Judea, from Samaria, from Galilee and Perea, from all parts of the world +where Jews were resident, pilgrims came streaming into the Holy City to +be present at the great national festival. It was to be an occasion of +prayer and thanksgiving, of sweet memories and happy reunions. Then and +there offerings would be made and purifications obtained. In the great +Temple, with its gorgeous ritual, Judaism was to offer its soul to +Jehovah. The national and religious feelings of a divinely commissioned +race were to be deeply stirred by memories that reminded them of the +first, and by hopes that looked forward to the final great deliverance. + +It was probably in the home of Mark, on the outskirts of Jerusalem, that +Jesus gathered with the Twelve, on the evening of this day, to eat the +Paschal lamb. In the Upper Room, the sacred feast was spread and the +little band were gathered. Only the genius of a da Vinci could do +justice to that scene. There was Peter, hot-headed, impetuous, +bravado-like. There was John, as gentle, pure-minded, and loving as a +woman. There was Judas, mercenary, low-browed, and craven-hearted. +There were others who, with Peter and John, were to have temples +dedicated in their names. In their midst was the Master of them all, +"God manifest in the flesh," who "with His pierced hands was to lift +empires off their hinges, and turn the stream of centuries from its +channel." No moment of history was so fraught with tragic interest for +the human race. There the seal of the New Covenant was affixed, the bond +of the new human spiritual alliance was made. The great law of love was +proclaimed which was to regenerate and sanctify the world. "These things +I command you, that ye love one another. And I have declared unto them +thy name, and will declare it; that the love wherewith thou hast loved +me, may be in them, and I in them." Thus the great law of love was to be +the binding tie, not only among the little brotherhood there assembled +but was to be the cementing bond between the regenerate of earth, the +Mediator, and the great Father of love, Himself. There, too, was given +the great example of humility which was to characterize true Christian +piety throughout the ages. The pages of history record no other +spectacle so thrilling and sublime, and at the same time tender and +pathetic, as that afforded by the Paschal Meal, when Jesus, the Savior +of men, the Son of God, the Maker of all the shining worlds, sank upon +His knees to wash the feet of ignorant, simple-minded Galilean +fishermen, in order that future ages might have at once a lesson and an +example of that genuine humility which is the very life and soul of true +religion. + +During the evening, a bitter anxiety, an awful melancholy, seized the +devoted band, whose number, thirteen, even to-day inspires superstitious +dread. In the midst of the apprehension the heart of the Master was so +deeply wrung with agony that He turned to those about Him and said: +"Verily, verily, I say unto you that one of you shall betray me." This +prediction only intensified the sadness that had already begun to fall +over the Sacred Meal and the loving disciples began to ask: "Lord, is it +I?" Even the betrayer himself joined with the others, and, with +inconceivable heartlessness and effrontery, asked: "Lord, is it I?" At +the moment of greatest dread and consternation, Peter, bolder than the +rest, leaned across the table and whispered to John, who was resting +upon the bosom of Jesus, and suggested that he ask the Master who it +was. Accordingly, John whispered and asked the Savior: "Lord, who is +it?" "Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have +dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, +the son of Simon. And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said +Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly." Judas then arose from the +feast and vanished from the room. When he was gone, the Master began to +deliver to His "little children,"[228] to those who had loved and +followed Him, those farewell words which St. John alone records, and +that are so "rarely mixed of sadness and joys, and studded with +mysteries as with emeralds." + +There, too, doubts and fears began to burst from the hearts and lips of +the members of the little company. The knowledge that the gentle Jesus, +whose ministry had thrilled and glorified their simple peasant lives, +and promised to them crowns of glory in the world to come, was about to +leave them, and in a most tragic way, filled them with solicitude and +dread. Their anxiety manifested itself by frequent questioning which +excites our wonder that men who had been with Him so long in the +Apostolic ministry should have been so simple-minded and incredulous. +"They said, therefore, What is this that he saith, A little while? We +cannot tell what he saith." This verse is a simple illustration of the +continued misapprehension, on this night, upon the part of the Apostles, +of everything said by the Master. Peter was anxious to know why he could +not follow the Lord. Thomas wanted to know the exact way, evidently +failing to comprehend the figurative language of the Christ. Judas +Lebbæus also had his doubts. He became muddled by mixing the purely +spiritual with the physical powers of sight. "Lord, how is it," he +asked, "that thou wilt manifest thyself to us and not to the world?" +Philip of Bethsaida desired to see the Father. "Lord, show us the +Father," he said, "and it sufficeth us." Philip seems to have been so +dense that he had no appreciation of the spiritual attributes and +invisible existence of the Father. + +It was thus that several hours were spent in celebrating the great +Feast; in drinking wine; in eating the Paschal lamb, the unleavened +bread, and the bitter herbs; in singing hymns, offering prayers, and +performing the sacred rites; in delivering discourses which in every +age have been the most precious treasures of Christians, and in +expressing doubts and fears that have excited the astonishment and even +the ridicule of the exacting and supercilious of all the centuries. + +At the approach of midnight, Jesus and the Eleven left the Upper Chamber +of the little house and stepped out into the moonlight of a solemn +Passover night. They began to wend their way toward the Kedron that +separated them from the olive orchard on the Mount. Less than an hour's +journey brought them to the Garden of Gethsemane. The word "Gethsemane" +means "oil press." And this place doubtless derived its name from the +fact that in it was located an oil press which was used to crush olives +that grew abundantly on the trees that crowned the slopes. Whether it +was a public garden or belonged to some friend of Jesus, we do not know, +but certain it is that it was a holy place, a sanctuary of prayer, where +the Man of Sorrows frequently retired to pray and commune with His +Heavenly Father. At the gateway Jesus left eight of the Apostles and +took with Him the other three: Peter, James, and John. These men seem to +have been the best beloved of the Master. They were with Him at the +raising of Jairus' daughter, at the Transfiguration on the Mount, and +were now selected to be nearest Him in the hour of His agony. Proceeding +with them a short distance, He suddenly stopped and exclaimed: "My soul +is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with +me." Then, withdrawing Himself from them a stone's cast, He sank upon +His knees and prayed; and in the agony of prayer great drops of sweat +resembling blood rolled from His face and fell upon the ground. Rising +from prayer, He returned to His disciples to find them asleep. Sorrow +had overcame them and they were mercifully spared the tortures of the +place and hour. Three times did He go away to pray, and as many times, +upon His return, they were found asleep. The last time He came He said +to them: "Rise, let us be going; behold he is at hand that doth betray +me." At this moment were heard the noise and tramp of an advancing +multitude. "Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from +the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and +torches and weapons." This midnight mob, led by Judas, was made up of +Roman soldiers, the Temple guard, and stragglers from along the way. It +is probable that the traitor walked ahead of the mob by several paces. +"And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master, and kissed him +and Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they +and laid hands on Jesus and took him." But the arrest was not +accomplished without incidents of pathos and of passion. "Whom seek ye?" +asked the Master. "Jesus of Nazareth," they answered. "I am he," replied +the Savior. Then, dazed and bewildered, they fell backward upon the +ground. "Then asked he them again, whom seek ye? and they said, Jesus of +Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if, therefore, +ye seek me, let these go their way." John says that this intercession +for the disciples was to the end that prophecy might be fulfilled.[229] +Doubtless so; but this was not all. Nowhere in sacred literature do we +find such pointed testimony to the courage and manliness of Jesus. His +tender solicitude for the members of the little band, for those who had +quit their homes and callings to link their destinies with His, was here +superbly illustrated. He knew that He was going to immediate +condemnation and then to death, but He ardently desired that they should +be spared to live. And for them He threw Himself into the breach. + +The furious and the passionate, as well as the tender and pathetic, mark +the arrest in the garden. "Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and +smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The +servant's name was Malchus." This was bloody proof of that fidelity +which Peter loudly proclaimed at the banquet board, but which was soon +to be swallowed up in craven flight and pusillanimous denial. + +"Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and +bound him." + +At this point the arrest was complete, and we now return to the +discussion of the illegalities connected with it. + +It was a well-established and inflexible rule of Hebrew law that +proceedings in capital trials could not be had at night. This provision +did not apply simply to the proceedings of the trial after the prisoner +had been arraigned and the examination had been begun. We have it upon +the authority of Dupin that it applied to the entire proceedings, from +the arrest to the execution. The great French advocate explicitly states +that the arrest was illegal because it was made at night.[230] Deference +to this rule seems to have been shown in the arrest of Peter and John on +another occasion. "And they laid hands upon them and put them in hold +unto the next day: for it was now _eventide_."[231] That Jesus was +arrested at night is clearly evident from the fact that those who +captured Him bore "_lanterns_ and _torches_ and _weapons_." + +The employment of Judas by the Sanhedrin authorities constitutes the +second element of illegality in the arrest. This wretched creature had +been numbered among the Twelve, had been blessed and honored, not merely +with discipleship but with apostleship, had himself been sent on holy +missions by the Master, had been given the power to cast out devils, had +been appointed by his Lord the keeper of the moneys of the Apostolic +company, and, if Edersheim is to be believed, had occupied the seat of +honor by the Master at the Last Supper.[232] This craven and cowardly +Apostate was employed by the Sanhedrin Council to betray the Christ. It +is clearly evident from the Scriptures that the arrest of Jesus would +not have taken place on the occasion of the Passover, and therefore +probably not at all, if Judas had not deserted and betrayed Him. The +Savior had appeared and preached daily in the Temple, and every +opportunity was offered to effect a legal arrest on legal charges with +a view to a legal determination. But the enemies of Jesus did not want +this. They were waiting to effect His capture in some out-of-the-way +place, at the dead of night, when His friends could not defend Him and +their murderous proceedings would not reach the eye and ear of the +public. This could not be accomplished as long as His intimates were +faithful to Him. It was, then, a joyful surprise to the members of the +Sanhedrin when they learned that Judas was willing to betray his Master. +"And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him +money." + +In modern jurisdictions, accomplice testimony has been and is allowed. +The judicial authorities, however, have always regarded it with +distrust, and we might say with deep-seated suspicion. At the common law +in England a conviction for crime might rest upon the uncorroborated +testimony of an accomplice, after the jury had been warned that such +testimony was to be closely scrutinized. In the American States the +testimony of an accomplice is admissible, but must be corroborated in +order to sustain a conviction. This is the general rule. The weakness of +such evidence is shown by the nature of the corroboration required by +several states. In some of them the corroborating testimony must not +only tend to prove the commission of the crime but must also tend to +connect the defendant with such commission. Another evidence of the +untrustworthiness of such testimony is that in several states an +accomplice is not permitted to corroborate another accomplice, so as to +satisfy the statutes.[233] The admission of such testimony seems to +rest, in great measure, upon the supreme necessity of the preservation +of the state, which is only possible when the punishment of crime is +possible; and in very many instances it would be impossible to punish +crime if guilty confederates were not allowed and even encouraged to +give state's evidence. + +But notwithstanding this supreme consideration of the necessity of the +preservation of the state, the ancient Hebrews forbade the use of +accomplice testimony, as we have seen from the extract from "The +Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," by Mendelsohn, cited on +page 219. + +The arrest of Jesus was ordered upon the supposition that He was a +criminal; this same supposition would have made Judas, who had aided, +encouraged, and abetted Jesus in the propagation of His faith, an +accomplice. If Judas was not an accomplice, Jesus was innocent, and His +arrest was an outrage, and therefore illegal. + +The Hebrew law against accomplice testimony must have been derived, in +part at least, from the following rule laid down in Leviticus xix. +16-18: "Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: +neither shall thou stand against the blood of thy neighbor. Thou shalt +not hate thy brother in thine heart: Thou shalt not avenge, or bear any +grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy +neighbor as thyself." It may be objected that this is only a moral +injunction and not a legal rule; to which reply must be made that there +was no difference between morality and law among the ancient Hebrews. +Their religion was founded upon law, and their law upon religion. The +two ideas of morality and law were inseparable. The ancient Hebrew +religion was founded upon a contract of the strictest legal kind. The +Abrahamic covenant, when properly interpreted, meant simply that Jehovah +had agreed with the children of Israel that if they would obey the law +as He gave it, they would be rewarded by Him. The force of this +contention will be readily perceived when it is reflected that the +Decalogue is nothing but ten moral injunctions, which are nevertheless +said to be the law which God gave to Moses. + +Every provision in the rule laid down in Leviticus is, moreover, +directly applicable to the character and conduct of Judas, and seems to +have been intended as a prophetic warning to him. Let us consider the +different elements of this rule in order. + +"Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people." + +Was not Judas a talebearer among his people? Did he not go to the chief +priests to betray his Master unto them? Was he not a "talebearer" if he +did nothing more than communicate to the chief priests the whereabouts +of the Savior, that Gethsemane was His accustomed place of prayer and +that He might be found and arrested there at midnight? Are we not +justified in supposing that Judas told the enemies of Jesus much more +than this? Is it not reasonable to infer that the blood-money was paid +to secure more evidence than that which would merely lead to the arrest +of the Nazarene? Is it not probable that Judas detailed to the chief +priests many events in the ministry of Jesus which, it is known, He +communicated only to the Twelve? If he did these things, was he not a +"talebearer" within the meaning of the rule? + +"Neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbor." + +Did not Judas stand against the blood of his nearest and dearest +neighbor when he consented to be the chief instrument of an arrest which +he knew would result in death? + +"Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart." + +Is it possible to suppose that anything less than hatred could have +induced Judas to betray the Christ? This question is important, for it +involves a consideration of the real character of the betrayer and the +main motive for the betrayal. Judas was from Kerioth in Judea and was +the only Judean among the Twelve. Why Judas was selected as a member of +the Apostolic company is too deep a mystery to be solved by the author +of these pages. Besides, the consideration of the elements of +predestination in his case is foreign to the purpose of this work. His +character as a purely human agency is sufficient to answer the present +design. Judas had undoubtedly demonstrated business capacity in some way +before his appointment to the treasury portfolio of the little band. It +cannot be doubted that greed was his besetting sin. This trait, coupled +with political ambition, undoubtedly accounts for his downfall and +destruction. He was one of those simple-minded, short-sighted +individuals of his day who believed that a political upheaval was at +hand which would result in the restoration of the independence of Israel +as a separate kingdom. He believed that this result would be brought +about through the agency of a temporal Messiah, an earthly deliverer of +almost divine qualities. He thought at first that he saw in Jesus the +person of the Messiah, and in the Apostolic band the nucleus of a +revolution. He was gratified beyond measure at his appointment to the +treasury position, for he felt sure that from it promotion was in sight. +He was perfectly contented to carry for a while the "little bag," +provided there was reasonable assurance that later on he would be +permitted to carry a larger one. + +As the months and years rolled by, heavy scales began to fall from his +stupid eyes and he began to be deceived not by but in Jesus. We are +justified in believing that Judas never even remotely appreciated the +spiritual grandeur of the Christ. He probably had intellect and soul +enough to be charmed and fascinated by the lofty bearing and eloquent +discourse of Jesus, but after all he perceived only the necessary +qualifications of a great republican leader and successful +revolutionist. And after a while he doubtless began to tire of all this +when he saw that the revolution was not progressing and that there was +no possibility of actual and solid results. It is probable that +disaffection and treachery were born and began to grow in his mind and +heart at Capernaum, when Jesus was deserted by many of His followers and +was forced to effect a realignment along spiritual lines. Judas was not +equal to the spiritual test, and it was doubtless then that the +disintegration of his moral nature began, which stopped only with +betrayal, infamy, and death. + +But by what process, we may ask, was the mercenary disposition of Judas +converted into hatred against Jesus? The process was that of +disappointment. When Judas became convinced that all the years of his +connection with the Apostolic company had been lost, his will became +embittered and his resentment was aroused. In the denseness of his +ignorance and in the baseness of his soul he probably thought that Jesus +had deceived His followers as to His true mission and he felt enraged +because he had been duped. He had looked forward to worldly promotion +and success. He had fondly hoped that the eloquence of Jesus would +finally call around Him an invincible host of enthusiastic adherents who +would raise the standard of revolt, drive the Romans from Judea, and +establish the long-looked-for kingdom of the Jews. He had noted with +deep disappointment and unutterable chagrin the failure of Jesus to +proclaim Himself king when, at Bethphage, the multitude had greeted His +entrance into Jerusalem with Hosannas and acclamations. And now, at the +Last Supper, he became convinced from the conduct and discourses of the +Master that his worst fears were true, that Jesus was sincere in His +resolution to offer Himself as a sacrifice for the sake of a principle +which he, Judas, did not approve because he could not understand. In +other words, he witnessed in the resolve of Jesus to die at once the +shipwreck of his hopes, and he made haste to vent his wrath upon the +author of his disappointment. + +The writer agrees with Renan that the thirty pieces of silver were not +the real or leading inducement to this black and monumental betrayal. +Having taken the fatal step, by leaving the Upper Room in the home of +Mark, to deliver his Lord and Master into the hands of enemies, a bitter +hatred was formed at once against the innocent victim of his foul +designs, on the well-known principle of human nature that we hate those +who have induced us to do that which causes us to despise and hate +ourselves. + +"Thou shalt not avenge or bear any grudge against the children of thy +people." + +Where, in the annals of the universe, do we find another such case of +vengeance and grudge as this of Judas against Jesus? + +"But thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." + +This commandment of the Mosaic law was also the great commandment of the +Master of Galilee, and in violating it by consenting to betray and +sacrifice Jesus, Judas assaulted and destroyed in his own soul the +cardinal principle of the two great religious dispensations of his race. + +And yet this informer, conspirator, and malefactor was employed by the +chief priests in effecting the arrest of Jesus. Was not a fundamental +rule of Mosaic law violated? Will it be urged that the rule operated +against Judas but not against the chief priests? If so, it must be +remembered that no wicked instrument could be used in promoting Hebrew +justice. Officers of the law were not permitted to require a citizen to +do an act which was forbidden by law. If Jesus was innocent, then the +arrest was illegal. If He was guilty, then Judas, his Apostle and +fellow-worker, was an accomplice; and no accomplice could be utilized in +furtherance of justice, under Hebrew law, either in the matter of arrest +or in the establishment of guilt as a witness at the trial. + +According to the Talmud, there was at least one seeming exception to +this rule. Renan describes it with peculiar clearness and succinctness. +"The procedure," he says, "against the 'corrupter' (mesith), who sought +to attaint the purity of religion, is explained in the Talmud, with +details, the naïve impudence of which provokes a smile. A judicial +ambush is therein erected into an essential part of the examination of +criminals. When a man was accused of being a 'corrupter,' two witnesses +were suborned who were concealed behind a partition. It was arranged to +bring the accused into a contiguous room, where he could be heard by +these two witnesses without his perceiving them. Two candles were +lighted near him, in order that it might be satisfactorily proved that +the witnesses 'saw him.' (In criminal matters, eyewitnesses alone were +admitted. Mishna, Sanhedrin VI, 5.) He was then made to repeat his +blasphemy; next urged to retract it. If he persisted, the witnesses who +had heard him conducted him to the Tribunal and he was stoned to death. +The Talmud adds that this was the manner in which they treated Jesus; +that he was condemned on the faith of two witnesses who had been +suborned, and that the crime of 'corruption' is, moreover, the only one +for which the witnesses are thus prepared."[234] + +Most Gentile writers ridicule this statement of the Talmud, and maintain +that it was a Rabbinic invention of post-Apostolic days, and was +intended to offer an excuse for the outrageous proceedings against the +Christ. Schürer dismisses the whole proposition with contempt. Many +Jewish scholars also refuse it the sanction of their authority. But even +if it was a Talmudic rule of law in force at the time of Christ, its +constitutionality, so to speak, might be questioned, in the first place; +since it was, in spirit at least, repugnant to and subversive of the +Mosaic provision in Leviticus cited above. It must not be forgotten that +the Mosaic Code was the constitution, the fundamental law of Judaism, by +which every Rabbinic interpretation and every legal innovation was to be +tested. + +Again, such a law would have been no protection to the chief priests and +to Judas against the operation of this Mosaic injunction. If such a rule +of procedure could be justified upon any ground, it would require +disinterested men acting from honorable motives, in promoting the +maintenance of law and order. Officers of the law have sometimes, as +pretended accomplices, acted in concert with criminals in order to +secure and furnish evidence against them. But they were officers of the +law, and the courts have held that their evidence was not accomplice +testimony requiring corroboration. It is very clear that Judas was not +such a disinterested witness, acting in the interest of public justice. +He was a fugitive from the Last Supper of his Master, a talebearer +within the meaning of the provision in Leviticus; and his employment by +the Sanhedrin was a violation of a fundamental provision in the Mosaic +Code. + +The third illegality in the arrest of Jesus was that His capture was not +the result of a legal mandate from a court whose intentions were to +conduct a legal trial for the purpose of reaching a righteous judgment. +"This arrest," says Rosadi, "effected in the night between Thursday and +Friday, the last day of the life of Jesus, on Nisan 14, according to the +Hebrew calendar, was the execution of an illegal and factious resolution +of the Sanhedrin. There was no idea of apprehending a citizen in order +to try him upon a charge which after sincere and regular judgment might +be found just or unfounded; the intention was simply to seize a man and +do away with him. The arrest was not a preventive measure such as might +lawfully precede trial and condemnation; it was an executive act, +accomplished in view of a sentence to be pronounced without legal +justification." + + + + +POINT II + +THE PRIVATE EXAMINATION OF JESUS BEFORE ANNAS (OR CAIAPHAS) WAS ILLEGAL + + +LAW + + "Now the Jewish law prohibited _all proceedings by night_."--DUPIN, + "Jesus Devant Caïphe et Pilate." + + "Be not a sole judge, for there is no sole judge but One."--MISHNA, + Pirke Aboth IV. 8. + + "A principle perpetually reproduced in the Hebrew scriptures relates + to the two conditions of _publicity_ and liberty. An accused man + was never subjected to private or secret examination, lest, in his + perplexity, he furnish damaging testimony against + himself."--SALVADOR, "Institutions de Moïse," pp. 365, 366. + + +FACT AND ARGUMENT + +The private examination before Annas (or Caiaphas) was illegal for the +following reasons: (1) The examination was conducted at night in +violation of Hebrew law; (2) no judge or magistrate, sitting alone, +could interrogate an accused judicially or sit in judgment upon his +legal rights; (3) private preliminary examinations of accused persons +were not allowed by Hebrew law. + +The general order of events following the arrest in the garden was +this: (1) Jesus was first taken to the house of Annas; (2) after a brief +delay He was sent by Annas to Caiaphas, the high priest, in whose palace +the Sanhedrin, or a part thereof, had already assembled; (3) He was then +brought before this body, tried and condemned; (4) He remained, during +the rest of the night, in the high priest's palace, exposed to the +insults and outrages of His keepers; and was finally and formally +sentenced to death by the Sanhedrin which reconvened at the break of +day. + +That Jesus was privately examined before His regular trial by the +Sanhedrin is quite clear. But whether this preliminary examination took +place before Annas or Caiaphas is not certainly known. John alone +records the private interrogation of Jesus and he alone refers to Annas +in a way to connect him with it. This Evangelist mentions that they "led +him away to Annas first."[235] Matthew says that after the arrest of +Jesus, they "led him away to Caiaphas the high priest,"[236] without +mentioning the name of Annas. Mark tells us that "they led Jesus away to +the high priest";[237] but he does not mention either Annas or Caiaphas. +Luke records that they "took him, and led him, and brought him into the +high priest's house,"[238] without telling us the name of the high +priest. + +"The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples and of his +doctrine."[239] This was the beginning of the examination. But who was +the examiner--Annas or Caiaphas? At first view we are inclined to +declare that Caiaphas is meant, because he was undoubtedly high priest +in that year. But Annas is also designated as high priest by Luke in +several places.[240] In Acts iv. 6 he mentions Caiaphas without an +official title, but calls Annas high priest. It is therefore not known +to whom John refers when he says that the "high priest asked Jesus of +his disciples and of his doctrine." For a lengthy discussion of this +point, the reader is referred to Andrews's "Life of Our Lord," pp. +505-510. + +But it is absolutely immaterial, from a legal point of view, whether it +was Annas or Caiaphas who examined Jesus, as the proceedings would be +illegal in either case. For whether it was the one or the other, neither +had the right to sit alone as judge; neither had the right to conduct +any judicial proceeding at night; neither had the right to institute a +secret preliminary examination by day or night. + +Attention has been called to the matter as involving a question of +historical rather than of legal consequence. A knowledge of the true +facts of the case might, however, throw light upon the order and +connection of the proceedings which followed the same night. For if the +private examination recorded by John was had before Annas, it was +doubtless separated by a certain interval of place and time from the +later proceedings before Caiaphas. Then it is reasonable to suppose that +the examination of witnesses, the confession and condemnation which took +place at the regular trial before the Sanhedrin over which Caiaphas +presided, happened later in the night, or even toward morning, and +were of the nature of a regular public trial. If, on the other hand, +Annas sent Jesus without delay to Caiaphas, who examined Him, it is +reasonable to conclude that witnesses were at once produced, and that +the adjuration and condemnation immediately followed. If such were the +case, a considerable interval of time must have intervened between these +proceedings and the meeting of the Sanhedrin which was had in the +morning to confirm the judgment which had been pronounced at the night +session. But these considerations are really foreign to the question of +legal errors involved, which we come now to discuss. + +[Illustration: JESUS IN GETHSEMANE (HOFFMAN)] + +In the first place, the private examination of Jesus, whether by Annas +or Caiaphas, took place at night; and we have learned from Dupin that +_all proceedings at night in capital cases_ were forbidden. + +In the second place, no judge or magistrate, sitting alone, could +interrogate an accused person judicially or sit in judgment upon his +legal rights. We have seen in Part II of this volume that the Hebrew +system of courts and judges provided no single magistrates who, sitting +alone, could adjudicate causes. The lowest Hebrew court consisted of +three judges, sometimes called the Court of Three. The next highest +tribunal was the Minor Sanhedrin of three-and-twenty members. The +supreme tribunal of the Jews was the Great Sanhedrin of seventy-one +members. There was no such thing among the ancient Hebrews as a court +with a single judge. "Be not a sole judge, for there is no sole judge +but One," is one of the most famous aphorisms of the Pirke Aboth. The +reason of this rule is founded not only in a religious exaction born of +the jealousy of Jehovah, but in the principle of publicity which +provides for the accused, in the very number of judges, a public +hearing. The same principle is suggested by the number of witnesses +required by both the Mishna and Mosaic Code for the conviction of a +prisoner. At least "two or three witnesses" were required to appear +publicly and give testimony against the accused, else a conviction could +not follow. + +Again, preliminary examinations of accused persons were not allowed by +Hebrew law. In the American states and in some other countries, a man +suspected of crime and against whom an information or complaint has been +lodged, is frequently taken before an examining magistrate to determine +whether he should be discharged, admitted to bail, or sent to prison to +await the action of a Grand Jury. At such hearing, the prisoner is +usually notified that he is at liberty to make a statement regarding the +charge against him; that he need not do so unless he desires; but that +if he does, his testimony may be subsequently used against him at the +regular trial of the case. But such proceedings, according to Salvador, +were forbidden by ancient Hebrew law. The preliminary examination, +therefore, by Annas or Caiaphas was illegal. The reason of the rule, as +above stated, was to protect the prisoner against furnishing evidence +that might be used against him at the regular trial of his case. The +private examination of Jesus illustrates the justice of the rule and the +necessity of its existence, for it was undoubtedly the purpose of Annas +or Caiaphas to gather material in advance to lay before the regularly +assembled Sanhedrin and thereby expedite the proceedings at the expense +of justice. + +If it be contended that the leading of Jesus to Annas first, which St. +John alone relates, was merely intended to give the aged Sanhedrist an +opportunity to see the prisoner who had been causing such commotion in +the land for several years; and that there was no examination of Jesus +before Annas--the interrogation by the high priest concerning the +disciples and the doctrine of Jesus being construed to refer to an +examination by Caiaphas, and being identical with the night trial +referred to by Matthew and Mark--reply may be made that, under any +construction of the case, there was at least an illegal appearance +before Annas, as mere vulgar curiosity to see a celebrated prisoner was +no excuse for the violation of the spirit if not the letter of the law. +It is inconceivable, however, to suppose that Annas did not actually +interrogate Jesus concerning His disciples, His doctrine, and His +personal pretensions. To suppose that he demanded to see Jesus for no +other reason than to get an impression of His looks, is to insult common +sense. If Annas examined the prisoner, though only slightly, concerning +matters affecting the charges against Him that might endanger His life +or liberty, he had violated a very important rule of Hebrew criminal +procedure. The question of the amount of examination of the accused is +immaterial. + +It is not known whether Annas at this time sat in the Great Sanhedrin +as a judge. He had been deposed from the high priesthood nearly twenty +years before by the procurator Valerius Gratus, for imposing and +executing capital sentences. But he was, nevertheless, still +all-powerful in the great Council of the Jews. Edersheim says that +though "deprived of the Pontificate, he still continued to preside over +the Sanhedrin."[241] Andrews is of the opinion that "he did in fact hold +some high official position, and this probably in connection with the +Sanhedrin, perhaps as occasional president."[242] Basing his criticism +upon the words in Luke, "Annas and Caiaphus being the high +priests,"[243] Dr. Plummer believes "that between them they discharged +the duties, or that each of them in different senses was regarded high +priest, Annas _de jure_, and Caiaphas _de facto_."[244] This is a mere +supposition, however, since there is no historical evidence that Annas +was restored to the pontificate after his deposition by Valerius Gratus, +A.D. 14.[245] The phrase, "Annas and Caiaphas being high priests," +refers to the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, which was +A.D. 26. + +After all, it is here again an historical more than a legal question, +whether Annas was an official or not at the time of the appearance of +Jesus before him. In either case his preliminary examination of the +Christ was illegal. If he was a member of the Sanhedrin, the law forbade +him to hold an informal preliminary examination at night. He certainly +could not do this while sitting alone. If he was not a magistrate, as +Dupin very properly contends, this fact only added to the seriousness of +the illegality of subjecting a prisoner to the whimsical examination of +a private citizen. + +Whether a member of the Sanhedrin or not, Annas was at the time of +Christ and had been for many years its dominating spirit. He himself had +been high priest. Caiaphas was his son-in-law, and was succeeded in the +high priesthood by four sons of Annas. The writer does not believe that +Annas had any legal connection with the Sanhedrin, but, like many +American political bosses, exercised more authority than the man that +held the office. He was simply the political tool of the Roman masters +of Judea, and the members of the Sanhedrin were simply figureheads under +his control. + +Again, the private examination of Jesus was marked by an act of +brutality which Hebrew jurisprudence did not tolerate. This was not +enumerated above as an error, because it was not probably a violation of +any specific rule of law. But it was an outrage upon the Hebrew sense of +justice and humanity which in its normal state was very pure and lofty. + +"The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples and of his doctrine. +Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the +Synagogue, and in the Temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in +secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, +what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said." In this +reply Jesus planted Himself squarely upon His legal rights as a Jewish +citizen. "It was in every word the voice of pure Hebrew justice, founded +upon the broad principle of their judicial procedure and recalling an +unjust judge to the first duty of his great office." + +"And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck +Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest +so?" Again the Nazarene appealed for protection to the procedure +designed to safeguard the rights of the Hebrew prisoner. "Jesus answered +him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why +smitest thou me?"[246] + +We have seen that, under Hebrew law, the witnesses were the accusers, +and their testimony was at once the indictment and the evidence. We have +also seen that a Hebrew prisoner could not be compelled to testify +against himself, and that his uncorroborated confession could not be +made the basis of a conviction. "_Why askest thou me? ask them that +heard me_, what I have said unto them." This was equivalent to asking: +Do you demand that I incriminate myself when our law forbids such a +thing? Why not call witnesses as the law requires? If I am an evil-doer, +bear witness of the evil, that is, let witnesses testify to the +wrongdoing, that I may be legally convicted. If I am not guilty of a +crime, why am I thus maltreated? + +Is it possible to imagine a more pointed and pathetic appeal for justice +and for the protection of the law against illegality and brutal +treatment? This appeal for the production of legal testimony was not +without its effect. Witnesses were soon forthcoming--not truthful +witnesses, indeed--but witnesses nevertheless. And with the coming of +these witnesses began the formal trial of the Christ, and a formal +trial, under Hebrew law, could be commenced only by witnesses. + + + + +POINT III + +THE INDICTMENT AGAINST JESUS WAS, IN FORM, ILLEGAL + + +LAW + + "The entire criminal procedure of the Mosaic Code rests upon four + rules: _certainty in the indictment_; publicity in the discussion; + full freedom granted to the accused; and assurance against all + dangers or errors of testimony."--SALVADOR, "Institutions de + Moïse," p. 365. + + "_The Sanhedrin did not and could not originate charges_; it only + investigated those brought before it."--EDERSHEIM, "Life and Times + of Jesus the Messiah," vol. i. p. 309. + + "_The evidence of the leading witnesses constituted the charge._ + There was no other charge: no more formal indictment. Until they + spoke, and spoke in the public assembly, the prisoner was scarcely + an accused man. When they spoke, and the evidence of the two + agreed together, it formed the legal charge, libel, or indictment, + as well as the evidence for its truth."--INNES, "The Trial of + Jesus Christ," p. 41. + + "The only _prosecutors_ known to Talmudic criminal jurisprudence are + the witnesses to the crime. Their duty is to bring the matter to + the cognizance of the court, and to bear witness against the + criminal. In capital cases, they are the legal executioners also. + Of an official accuser or prosecutor there is nowhere any trace in + the laws of the ancient Hebrews."--MENDELSOHN, "The Criminal + Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," p. 110. + + +FACT AND ARGUMENT + +The Gospel records disclose two distinct elements of illegality in the +indictment against Jesus: (1) The accusation, at the trial, was twofold, +vague, and indefinite, which Mosaic law forbade; (2) it was made, in +part, by Caiaphas, the high priest, who was one of the judges of Jesus; +while Hebrew law forbade any but leading witnesses to present the +charge. + +A thorough understanding of Point III depends upon keeping clearly in +mind certain well-defined elementary principles of law. In the first +place, it should be remembered that in most modern jurisdictions an +indictment is simply an accusation, carries with it no presumption of +guilt, and has no evidentiary force. Its only function is to bring the +charge against the prisoner before the court and jury, and to notify the +accused of the nature of the accusation against him. But not so under +the ancient Hebrew scheme of justice. Under that system there was no +such body as the modern Grand Jury, and no committee of the Sanhedrin +exercised similar accusatory functions. The leading witnesses, and they +alone, presented charges. It follows then, of necessity, that the +ancient Hebrew indictment, unlike the modern indictment, carried with it +a certain presumption of guilt and had certain evidentiary force. This +could not be otherwise, since the testimony of the leading witnesses +was at once the indictment and the evidence offered to prove it. + +Again, in the very nature of things an indictment should, and under any +enlightened system of jurisprudence, does clearly advise the accused of +the exact nature of the charge against him. Under no other conditions +would it be possible for a prisoner to prepare his defense. Most modern +codes have sought to promote clearness and certainty in indictments by +requiring the charging of only one crime in one indictment, and in +language so clear and simple that the nature of the offense charged may +be easily understood. + +Now Salvador says that "certainty in the indictment" was one of the +cardinal rules upon which rested the entire criminal procedure of the +Mosaic Code. Was this rule observed in framing the accusation against +Jesus at the night trial before the Sanhedrin? If so, the Gospel records +do not disclose the fact. It is very certain, indeed, that the learned +of no age of the world since the crucifixion have been able to agree +among themselves as to the exact nature of the indictment against the +Christ. This subject was too exhaustively discussed in the beginning of +the Brief to warrant lengthy treatment here. Suffice it to say that the +record of the night trial before Caiaphas discloses two distinct +charges: the charge of sedition--the threat to destroy a national +institution and to seduce the people from their ancient allegiance, in +the matter of the destruction of the Temple; and the charge of blasphemy +preferred by Caiaphas himself in the adjuration which he administered to +Jesus. When the false witnesses failed to agree, their contradictory +testimony was rejected and the charge of sedition was abandoned. And +before Jesus had time to answer the question concerning sedition, +another distinct charge, that of blasphemy, was made in almost the same +breath.[247] Did this procedure tend to promote "certainty in the +indictment"? Did it not result in the complete destruction of all +clearness and certainty? Are we not justified in supposing that the +silence of Jesus in the presence of His accusers was at least partially +attributable to His failure to comprehend the exact nature of the +charges against Him? + +Again, the accusation was, in part, by Caiaphas, the high priest, who +was also one of the judges of Jesus;[248] while Hebrew law forbade any +but leading witnesses to present the charge. Edersheim tells us that +"the Sanhedrin did not and could not originate charges; it only +investigated those brought before it." If the Sanhedrin as a whole could +not originate charges, because its members were judges, neither could +any individual Sanhedrist do so. When the witnesses "agreed not +together" in the matter of the charge of sedition, this accusation was +abandoned. Caiaphas then deliberately assumed the rôle of accuser, in +violation of the law, and charged Jesus, in the form of an adjuration, +with blasphemy, in claiming to be "the Christ, the Son of God." +Confession and condemnation then followed. Only leading witnesses could +prefer criminal charges under Hebrew law. Caiaphas, being a judge, could +not possibly be a witness; and could not, therefore, be an accuser. +Therefore, the indictment against Jesus was illegally presented. + +The writer believes that the above is a correct interpretation of the +nature and number of the charges brought against the Christ, and that +the legal aspects of the case are as above stated. But candor and +impartiality require consideration of another view. Several excellent +writers have contended that there were, in fact, not two charges +preferred against Jesus but only one under different forms. These +writers contend that Caiaphas and his colleagues understood that Jesus +claimed supernatural power and identity with God when He declared that +He was _able_ to destroy the Temple and to build it again in three +days,[249] and that the question of the high priest, "I adjure thee by +the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of +God," flowed naturally from and had direct reference to the charge of +being able to destroy the Temple. The advocates of this view appeal to +the language of the original auditors to sustain their contention. +"Forty-and-six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it +again in three days?" It is insisted that these words convey the idea +that those who heard Jesus understood Him to mean that He had +supernatural power. There is certainly much force in the contention but +it fails to meet other difficulties. In the first place, it is not clear +that a threat to destroy the Temple implied a claim to supernatural +power; in which case there would be no connection between the first +charge and that in which it was suggested that Jesus had claimed to be +the Christ, the Son of God. In the second place, the contention that the +two charges are substantially the same ignores the language of Mark, +"But neither so did their witness agree together,"[250] which was +certainly not injected by the author of the second Gospel as a matter of +mere caprice or pastime. This language, legally interpreted, means that +the testimony of the false witnesses, being contradictory, was thrown +aside, and that the charge concerning the destruction of the Temple was +abandoned. This is the opinion of Signor Rosadi and is very weighty. + +Those writers who maintain that there was only one charge, that of +blasphemy, under different forms, rely upon the passage in Matthew, "I +am _able_ to destroy the temple of God and to build it again in three +days," and interpret it as a claim to supernatural power in the light of +the language used by those who heard it: "Forty-and-six years was this +temple in building, and wilt thou rear it again in three days?" Those +who hold the opposite view, that there were two distinct charges, rely +upon the passage in Mark, "I _will_ destroy this temple that is made +with hands, and within three days I will build another made without +hands," and interpret it in the light of a similar accusation against +Stephen a few months afterwards: "For we have heard him say, that this +Jesus of Nazareth _shall destroy this place_, and _shall change the +customs_ which Moses delivered us."[251] This second interpretation, +which we believe to be the better, establishes the existence at the +trial of Christ of two distinct charges: that of sedition, based upon a +threat to assault existing institutions; and that of blasphemy, founded +upon the claim of equality with God. And, in the light of this +interpretation, the illegality in the form of the indictment against +Jesus has been urged. + +If the first construction be the true one, then the error alleged in +Point III is not well founded, since the accusation was presented by +witnesses, as the law required; unless it could be successfully urged +that the witnesses, being _false_ witnesses, were no more competent to +accuse a prisoner than to convict him upon their false testimony. In +such a case the substance as well as the form of the indictment would be +worthless, and the whole case would fall, through failure not only of +competent testimony to convict but also of a legal indictment under +which to prosecute. + +Neither the Mishna nor the Gemara mentions written indictments among the +ancient Hebrews. "The Jewish Encyclopedia" says that accusations were +probably in writing, but that it is not certain.[252] A passage in +Salvador seems to indicate that they were in writing. "The papers in the +case," he says, "were read, and the accusing witnesses were then +called." "The papers" were probably none other than the indictment. But +of this we are not sure, and cannot, therefore, predicate the allegation +of an error upon it. From the whole context of the Scriptures, however, +we are led to believe that only oral charges were preferred against +Jesus. + + + + +POINT IV + +THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SANHEDRIN AGAINST JESUS WERE ILLEGAL BECAUSE THEY +WERE CONDUCTED AT NIGHT + + +LAW + + "Let a capital offence be tried during the day, but suspend it at + night."--MISHNA, Sanhedrin IV. 1. + + "Criminal cases can be acted upon by the various courts during day + time only, by the Lesser Synhedrions from the close of the morning + service till noon, and by the Great Synhedrion till + evening."--MENDELSOHN, "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient + Hebrews," p. 112. + + "The reason why the trial of a capital offense could not be held at + night is because, as oral tradition says, the examination of such + a charge is like the diagnosing of a wound--in either case a more + thorough and searching examination can be made by + daylight."--MAIMONIDES, Sanhedrin III. + + +FACT AND ARGUMENT + +HEBREW jurisprudence positively forbade the trial of a capital case at +night. The infraction of this rule involves the question of +jurisdiction. A court without jurisdiction can pronounce no valid +verdict or judgment. A court has no jurisdiction if it convenes and +acts at a time forbidden by law. + +One is naturally disposed to deride the reason assigned by Maimonides +for the existence of the law against criminal proceedings at night. But +it should not be forgotten that in the olden days surgery had no such +aids as are at hand to-day. Modern surgical apparatus had not been +invented and electric lights and the Roentgen Rays were unknown. In the +light of this explanation of the great Jewish philosopher the curious +inquirer after the real meaning of things naturally asks why the +Areopagus of Athens always held its sessions in the night and in the +dark.[253] + +We have seen that Jesus was arrested in Gethsemane about midnight and +that His first ecclesiastical trial took place between two and three +o'clock in the morning.[254] St. Luke tells us that there was a daybreak +meeting,[255] which was evidently intended to give a semblance of +legality and regularity to that rule of Hebrew law that required two +trials of the case. + +The exact time of the beginning of the night session of the Sanhedrin is +not known. It is generally supposed that the arrest took place in the +garden between midnight and one o'clock. The journey to the house of +Annas must have required some little time. Where this house was located +nobody knows. According to one tradition Annas owned a house on the +Mount of Olives close to the booths or bazaars under the "Two Cedars." +Stapfer believes that Jesus was taken to that place. According to +another tradition the house of Annas was located on the "Hill of Evil +Counsel." Barclay believes that this was the place to which Jesus was +conducted. But the tradition which is most generally accepted is that +which places the palace of Annas on Mount Zion near the palace of +Caiaphas. It is believed by many that these two men, who were related, +Annas being the father-in-law of Caiaphas, occupied different apartments +in the same place. But these questions are mere matters of conjecture +and have no real bearing upon the present discussion, except to show, in +a general way, the length of time probably required to conduct Jesus +from Gethsemane to Annas; from Annas to Caiaphas, if the latter was the +one who privately examined Jesus; and thence to the meeting of the +Sanhedrin. It is reasonable to suppose that at least two hours were thus +consumed, which would bring Jesus to the palace of Caiaphas between two +and three o'clock, if the arrest in the garden took place between twelve +and one o'clock. But here, again, a difference of one or two hours would +not affect the merit of the proposition stated in Point IV. For it is +beyond dispute that the first trial before the Sanhedrin was had at +night, which was forbidden by law. + +The question has been frequently asked: Why did the Sanhedrin meet at +night in violation of law? The answer to this is referable to the +treachery of Judas, to the fact that he "sought opportunity to betray +him unto them in the absence of the multitude," and to the thought of +the Master: "But this is your hour, and the power of God." Luke tells us +that the members of the Sanhedrin "feared the people."[256] Mark informs +us that they had resolved not to attempt the arrest and execution of +Jesus at the time of the Passover, "lest there be an uproar of the +people."[257] + +Jesus had taught daily in the Temple, and had furnished ample +opportunity for a legal arrest with a view to a legal trial. But His +enemies did not desire this. "The chief priests and scribes sought how +they might take him by craft, and put him to death."[258] The arrival of +Judas from the scene of the Last Supper with a proposition of immediate +betrayal of the Christ was a glad surprise to Caiaphas and his friends. +Immediate and decisive action was necessary. Not only the arrest but the +trial and execution of Jesus must be accomplished with secrecy and +dispatch. The greatest festival of the Jews had just commenced. Pilgrims +to the feast were arriving from all parts of the Jewish kingdom. The +friends and followers of Jesus were among them. His enemies had +witnessed the remarkable demonstration in His honor which marked His +entrance into Jerusalem only a few days before. It is not strange, then, +that they "feared the people" in the matter of the summary and illegal +proceedings which they had resolved to institute against Him. They knew +that the daylight trial, under proper legal forms, with the friends of +Jesus as witnesses, would upset their plans by resulting in His +acquittal. They resolved, therefore, to act at once, even at the expense +of all forms of justice. And it will be seen that this determination to +arrest and try Jesus at night, in violation of law, became the parent of +nearly every legal outrage that was committed against Him. The selection +of the midnight hour for such a purpose resulted not merely in a +technical infraction of law, but rendered it impossible to do justice +either formally or substantially under rules of Hebrew criminal +procedure. + + + + +POINT V + +THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SANHEDRIN AGAINST JESUS WERE ILLEGAL BECAUSE THE +COURT CONVENED BEFORE THE OFFERING OF THE MORNING SACRIFICE + + +LAW + + "The Sanhedrin sat from the close of the morning sacrifice to the + time of the evening sacrifice."--TALMUD, Jerus., Sanhedrin I. fol. + 19. + + "No session of the court could take place before the offering of the + morning sacrifice."--MM. LÉMANN, "Jesus Before the Sanhedrin," p. + 109. + + "Since the morning sacrifice was offered at the dawn of day, it was + hardly possible for the Sanhedrin to assemble until the hour after + that time."--MISHNA, "Tamid, or of the Perpetual Sacrifice," C. + III. + + +FACT AND ARGUMENT + +THE fact that the Sanhedrin convened before the offering of the morning +sacrifice constitutes the fifth illegality. This error is alleged upon +the authority of MM. Lémann, who, in their admirable little work +entitled "Jesus Before the Sanhedrin," have called attention to it. It +is very difficult, however, to determine whether this was a mere +irregularity, or was what modern jurists would call a material error. +From one point of view it seems to be merely a repetition of the rule +forbidding the Sanhedrin to meet at night. The morning sacrifice was +offered at the break of day and lasted about an hour. A session of the +court before the morning sacrifice would, therefore, have been a meeting +at night, which would have been an infringement of the law. But this was +probably not the real reason of the rule. Its true meaning is doubtless +to be found in the close connection that existed between the Hebrew law +and the Hebrew religion. The constitution of the Hebrew Commonwealth was +an emanation of the mind of Jehovah, the Temple in which the court met +was His residence on earth, and the judges who formed the Great +Sanhedrin were the administrators of His will. It is most reasonable, +then, to suppose that an invocation, in sacrifice and prayer, of His +guidance and authority would be the first step in any judicial +proceedings conducted in His name. + +It is historically true that a session of the Sanhedrin in the palmiest +days of the Jewish Commonwealth was characterized by all the religious +solemnity of a service in the synagogue or the Temple. It is entirely +probable, therefore, that the morning sacrifice was made by law an +indispensable prerequisite to the assembling of the supreme tribunal of +the Jews for the transaction of any serious business. On any other +supposition the rules of law cited above would have no meaning. We have +reason to believe, then, that the offering of the morning sacrifice was +a condition precedent to the attachment of jurisdiction, and without +jurisdiction the court had no authority to act. That the morning +sacrifice was offered each day, whether the court assembled or not, as a +religious requirement, does not alter the principle of law above +enunciated. + +But it may be asked: How do we know that the morning sacrifice was not +offered? The answer is that the whole context of the Scriptures relating +to the trial shows that it could not have been offered. Furthermore, a +simple and specific reason is that the time prescribed by law for +conducting the morning service was between the dawn of day and sunrise. +Then, if the court convened between two and three o'clock in the +morning, it is very certain that the sacrifice had not been offered. It +is true that there was a morning session of the Sanhedrin. But this was +held simply to confirm the action of the night session at which Jesus +had been condemned. In other words, the real trial was at night and was +held before the performance of the religious ceremony, which was, in all +probability, a prerequisite to the attachment of jurisdiction. + + + + +POINT VI + +THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JESUS WERE ILLEGAL BECAUSE THEY WERE CONDUCTED +ON THE DAY PRECEDING A JEWISH SABBATH; ALSO ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE +FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD AND THE EVE OF THE PASSOVER + + +LAW + + "Court must not be held on the Sabbath, or any holy day."--"Betza, + or of the Egg," Chap. V. No. 2. + + "They shall not judge on the eve of the Sabbath, nor on that of any + festival."--MISHNA, Sanhedrin IV. 1. + + "No court of justice in Israel was permitted to hold sessions on the + Sabbath or any of the seven Biblical holidays. In cases of capital + crime, no trial could be commenced on Friday or the day previous + to any holiday, because it was not lawful either to adjourn such + cases longer than over night, or to continue them on the Sabbath + or holiday."--RABBI WISE, "Martyrdom of Jesus," p. 67. + + +FACT AND ARGUMENT + +NO Hebrew court could lawfully meet on a Sabbath or a feast day, or on a +day preceding a Sabbath or a feast day. + +Concerning the Sabbath day provision Maimonides offers the following +reason for the rule: "As it is required to execute the criminal +immediately after the passing of the sentence, it would sometimes happen +that the kindling of a fire would be necessary, as in the case of one +condemned to be burned; and this act would be a violation of the law of +the Sabbath, for it is written 'Ye shall kindle no fire in your +habitations on the Sabbath day.'"[259] (Exodus xxxv. 3.) + +Under modern practice, sessions of court may be adjourned from day to +day, or, if need be, from week to week. But under the Hebrew system of +criminal procedure the court could not adjourn for a longer time than a +single night. Its proceedings were, so to speak, continuous until final +judgment. As the law forbade sessions of court on Sabbath and feast +days, it became necessary to provide that courts should not convene on +the day preceding a Sabbath or a feast day, in order to avoid either an +illegal adjournment or an infringement of the rule relating to the +Sabbath and feast days. + +Now Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin on both a feast day and a day +preceding the Sabbath. And, at this point, a clear conception of the +ancient Jewish mode of reckoning time should be had. The Jewish day of +twenty-four hours began at one sunset and ended with the next. But this +interval was not divided into twenty-four parts or hours of equal and +invariable length. Their day proper was an integral part of time and was +reckoned from sunrise to sunset. Their night proper was likewise a +distinct division of time and was measured from sunset to sunrise. An +hour of time, according to modern reckoning, is invariably sixty +minutes. But the ancient Jewish hour was not a fixed measure of time. It +varied in length as each successive day and night varied in theirs at +different seasons of the year. Neither did the Jews begin their days and +nights as we do. Our day of twenty-four hours always begins at midnight. +Their day of twenty-four hours always began at one sunset and ended with +the next. + +Now Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin on the 14th Nisan, according to the +Jewish calendar; or between the evening of Thursday, April 6th, and the +afternoon of Friday, April 7th, A.D. 30, according to our calendar. The +14th Nisan began at sunset on April 6th and lasted until sunset on April +7th. This was a single Jewish day, and within this time Jesus was tried +and executed. According to our calendar, the trial and execution of +Jesus took place on Friday, April 7th. This was the day preceding the +Jewish Sabbath, which came on Saturday, according to our reckoning. And +on a day preceding the Sabbath no Jewish court could lawfully convene. +This is the first error suggested under Point VI. + +Again, it is beyond dispute that the Feast of Unleavened Bread had begun +and that the Passover was at hand when Jesus was tried by the +Sanhedrin.[260] This was in violation of a specific provision of Hebrew +law, and constitutes the second error alleged under Point VI. + +There seems to be some conflict among the authorities as to whether +Jesus was tried on the first day of the celebration of the feast of the +Passover or on the day preceding. But the question is immaterial from a +legal point of view, as the law forbade a trial either on a feast day or +on the day preceding, for reasons above stated. + +This violation of the law relating to the Sabbaths and feast days, like +that relating to night sessions of the Sanhedrin, resulted in still +other errors. It is necessary to mention only one of these at this +point. The proceedings of the Sanhedrin were recorded by two scribes or +clerks. Their records were to be used on the second day of the trial in +reviewing the proceedings of the first. But Hebrew law forbade any +writing on a Sabbath or a holy day. How was it possible, then, to keep a +record of the proceedings, if Jesus was tried on a Sabbath and also on a +feast day, without violating a rule of law? If no minutes of the meeting +were kept, a most glaring irregularity is apparent. + + + + +POINT VII + +THE TRIAL OF JESUS WAS ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT WAS CONCLUDED WITHIN ONE DAY + + +LAW + + "A criminal case resulting in the acquittal of the accused may + terminate the same day on which the trial began. But if a sentence + of death is to be pronounced, it can not be concluded before the + following day."--MISHNA, Sanhedrin IV. 1. + + +FACT AND ARGUMENT + +CARE and conservatism, precaution and delay, were the characteristic +features of the criminal procedure of the ancient Hebrews. The principal +aphorism of the Pirke Aboth is this: "_Be cautious and slow in +judgment_, send forth many disciples, and _make a fence around the +law._"[261] The length and seriousness of their deliberations in +criminal proceedings of a capital nature were due to their supreme +regard for human life. "Man's life belongs to God, and only according to +the law of God may it be disposed of." "Whosoever preserves one worthy +life is as meritorious as if he had preserved the world." These and +similar maxims guided and controlled Hebrew judges in every capital +trial. Their horror of death as the result of a judicial decree is shown +by the celebrated saying: "The Sanhedrin which so often as once in seven +years condemns a man to death, is a slaughter-house."[262] + +To assure due deliberation and reflection in a case where a human life +was at stake, Hebrew law required that the trial should last at least +two days, in case of the conviction of the accused. In case of an +acquittal the trial might terminate within a single day. Before +condemnation could be finally decreed a night had to intervene, during +which time the judges could sleep, fast, meditate, and pray. At the +close of the first day's trial they left the judgment hall and walked +homeward, arm in arm, discussing the merits of the case. At sunset they +began to make calls upon each other, again reviewing among themselves +the facts in evidence. They then retired to their homes for further +meditation. During the intervening night they abstained from eating +heavy food and from drinking wine. They carefully avoided doing anything +that would incapacitate them for correct thinking. On the following day +they returned to the judgment hall and retried the case. The second +trial was in the nature of a review and was intended to detect errors, +if there were any, in the first trial.[263] It was not until the +afternoon of this day that a final decree could be made and that a +capital sentence could follow. + +Now the Gospel record very clearly discloses the fact that Jesus was +arrested, tried, and executed within the limits of a single day. Neither +the exact hour of His arrest, nor of His trial, nor of His execution is +known. But it is positively certain that all took place between sunset, +the beginning of Nisan 14, and sunset, the beginning of Nisan 15. This +was the interval of a single Jewish day, Nisan 14. And within such an +interval of time it was illegal to finally condemn a man to death under +Hebrew law. Even Stapfer, who contends that the trial was legal and that +forms of law were generally observed, admits this error. He asserts that +the precipitate conduct of the members of the Sanhedrin was not only +opposed to the spirit of Hebrew conservatism in the matter of criminal +procedure but was a breach of a specific provision of the criminal +code.[264] + +It is true that there were two distinct trials: one between 2 and 3 +A.M., Friday, April 7th, which is recorded by Matthew[265] and +Mark,[266] and a second about daybreak of the same day, recorded by +Matthew,[267] Mark,[268] and Luke.[269] But both these trials were had +within one day--indeed, within six hours of each other. The judges did +not try the case and then retire to their homes for sleep, prayer, and +meditation until the following day, as the law required. Even if they +had done so, they would not have avoided an illegal procedure, inasmuch +as the trial had been illegally begun on a feast day and the eve of the +Sabbath, and it would have been impossible to avoid the error alleged in +Point VII. For if they had deferred the sentencing and execution of +Jesus until the following day it would still have been illegal, since +the next day was both a Sabbath and a holy day (the Passover). + +Several writers who contend that there was a regular trial of Jesus +assert that the morning meeting of the Sanhedrin was intended to give a +semblance of legality and regularity to that rule of Hebrew law which +required at least two trials. But it will readily be seen that this was +a subterfuge and evasion, since both trials were had on the same day, +whereas the law required them to be held on different days. + + + + +POINT VIII + +THE SENTENCE OF CONDEMNATION PRONOUNCED AGAINST JESUS BY THE SANHEDRIN +WAS ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT WAS FOUNDED UPON HIS UNCORROBORATED CONFESSION + + +LAW + + "We have it as a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that no + one can bring an accusation against himself. Should a man make + confession of guilt before a legally constituted tribunal, such + confession is not to be used against him unless properly attested + by two other witnesses."--MAIMONIDES, Sanhedrin IV. 2. + + "Not only is self-condemnation never extorted from the defendant by + means of torture, but no attempt is ever made to lead him on to + self-incrimination. Moreover, a voluntary confession on his part + is not admitted in evidence, and therefore not competent to + convict him, unless a legal number of witnesses minutely + corroborate his self-accusation."--MENDELSOHN, "Criminal + Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," p. 133. + + +FACT AND ARGUMENT + +MORE than one system of jurisprudence has refused to permit a conviction +for crime to rest upon an uncorroborated confession. But it remained for +the ancient Hebrews to discover the peculiar reason for the rule, that +the witness who confessed was "his own relative"; and relatives were not +competent witnesses under Hebrew law. Modern Jewish writers, however, +have assigned other reasons for the rule. Rabbi Wise says: +"Self-accusation in cases of capital crime was worthless. For if not +guilty he accuses himself of a falsehood; if guilty he is a wicked man, +and no wicked man, according to Hebrew law, is permitted to testify, +especially not in penal cases."[270] Mendelsohn says that "the reason +assigned for this enactment is the wish to avoid the possibility of +permitting judicial homicide on self-accusing lunatics, or on persons +who, in desperation, wish to cut short their earthly existence, and to +effect this falsely accuse themselves of some capital crime."[271] + +Modern jurists have assigned still other reasons for the rule as it has +existed in modern law.[272] Men have been known to confess that they +were guilty of one crime to avoid punishment for another. Morbid and +vulgar sentimentality, such as love of newspaper notoriety, have induced +persons of inferior intelligence, who were innocent, to assume +responsibility for criminal acts. + +But whatever the reason of the rule, Jesus was condemned to death upon +His uncorroborated confession, in violation of Hebrew law. + +"For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not +together. And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, +saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with +hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. +But neither so did their witness agree together. And the high priest +stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? +what is it which these witness against thee? But he held his peace, and +answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, +Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and +ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and +coming in the clouds of Heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, +and saith, What need we any further witnesses? ye have heard the +blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of +death. And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to +buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy."[273] + +It will be seen from a perusal of this report of the trial that it was +sought to condemn Jesus first on the charge of sedition, that is, that +He had threatened the destruction of the Temple and thereby endeavored +to seduce the people from their national allegiance. "But their witness +agreed not together"; and under Hebrew law they were required to reject +contradictory testimony and discharge the prisoner, if the state was +unable to prove its case. This is what should have been done at this +point in the trial of Jesus. But, instead, the judges, in their total +disregard at law, turned to the accused and said: "Answerest thou +nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?" "But he held his +peace, and answered nothing." By remaining silent, Jesus only exercised +the ordinary privilege of a Jewish prisoner to refuse to incriminate +himself. The modern rule that the accused cannot be made to testify +against himself, unless he first voluntarily takes the witness stand in +his own behalf, was substantially true among the ancient Hebrews. But +here we find Caiaphas insisting that Jesus incriminate Himself. And he +continues to insist in the matter of the second charge, that of +blasphemy. "And the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou +the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" That question was illegal, because +it involved an irregular mode of criminal procedure, and because it +asked for a confession of guilt to be made the basis of a conviction. +The false witnesses had failed to agree and had evidently been rejected +and dismissed. The judges were then without witnesses to formulate a +charge and furnish proof of its truth. They were thus forced to the +despicable and illegal method of asking the accused to condemn Himself, +when they knew that no confession could be made the basis of a +conviction. They were also guilty of the illegality of formulating a +charge without witnesses. We have seen that only leading witnesses could +present an indictment, but here the judges became the accusers, in +violation of law. + +In answer to the high priest's question, Jesus, feeling that He could +not afford at such an hour and in such a place to longer conceal His +Messiahship, answered boldly and emphatically: "I am."[274] "And they +all condemned him to be guilty of death." It will thus be seen that upon +His own confession and not upon the testimony of at least two competent +witnesses agreeing in all essential details, as the law required, was +the Nazarene condemned to death. + +If it be argued, as it has been, that the two charges of threatening to +destroy the Temple and of pretending to be the "Christ, the Son of God," +were in fact but different phases of the same charge of blasphemy, and +that the two witnesses were the corroborators of the confession of +Jesus, then reply must be made that the witnesses were not competent, +being false witnesses, nor was their testimony legally corroborated, +because it was false and contradictory. + +Again, it was the rule of Hebrew law that both witnesses had to testify +to all the essential elements of a complete crime. One could not furnish +one link, and another another link, in order to construct a chain of +evidence. Each had to testify to all the essential elements necessary to +constitute the legal definition of a crime. But the false witnesses did +not do this. Under any view of the case, then, the testimony of these +witnesses was wholly worthless, and the confession of Jesus was the +solitary and illegal basis of His conviction. + +The failure of the Sanhedrin to secure sufficient and competent evidence +to convict Jesus must not be regarded as accidental, or as attributable +to the hour and to the surroundings. The popularity of the Nazarene, +outside the narrow circle of the Temple authorities, was immense. The +friendship of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea is proof that He had +standing even in the Sanhedrin itself. It was therefore difficult to +find witnesses who were willing to testify against Him. Besides, the +acts of His ministry, while in no sense cowardly or hypocritical, had +been, in general, very cautious and diplomatic. He seems to have +retired, at times, into the desert or the wilderness to avoid +disagreeable and even dangerous complications with the civil and +ecclesiastical authorities.[275] Jesus was in no sense a politician, but +He was not lacking in mother wit and practical resources. He saw through +the designs of Herod Antipas, who wished to get Him out of his +dominions. It will be remembered that certain Pharisees, pretending +friendship for Him, warned Him to flee from Galilee to avoid being +killed by Herod. The courage and manliness of Jesus are shown by the +fact that He remained in His native province, and even sent a +contemptuous message to the Tetrarch, whom He styled "that fox."[276] + +At other times, Christ was compelled to defend Himself against the swarm +of spies that hovered over His pathway through Samaria, along the +Jordan, and around the Sea of Galilee. In His discussions with His +enemies who sought to entrap Him, He displayed consummate skill in +debate. His pithy sayings and incomparable illustrations usually left +His questioners defenseless and chagrined. Oftentimes in these +encounters He proclaimed eternal and universal truths which other +nations and later ages were to develop and enjoy. When, holding in His +hand a penny with Cæsar's image upon it, He said, "Render therefore unto +Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are +God's," he foretold and stamped with approval the immortal principle +that was to be embodied in the American constitution and to remain the +cornerstone of the American Commonwealth; a truth repeated by Roger +Williams when in the forests of Rhode Island he declared that the +magistrate should rule in civil matters only and that man was answerable +for his religious faith to God alone. This declaration of the Nazarene +is the spiritual and intellectual basis of the sublime doctrine of civil +liberty and religious freedom that finds its highest expression in that +separation of the Church and State which enables men of different creeds +and different parties to live side by side as patriots and religionists +and as comrades, though antagonists. + +The replies of Jesus to those who came to "entangle him in his talk" +usually left them disconcerted and defeated, and little disposed to +renew their attacks upon Him.[277] The efforts of the Pharisees to +entrap Him seem to have resulted in failure everywhere and at all times. +And at the trial the Sanhedrin found itself in possession of a prisoner +but with no competent evidence to establish His guilt. It was least of +all prepared to convict Him of the crime of blasphemy as founded upon +the claim of Messiahship, for Jesus had been exceedingly cautious, +during His ministry, in declaring Himself to be the Messiah. Except in +the presence of the woman of Samaria, who came to draw water from the +well, there is no recorded instance of an avowal of His Messiahship +outside the immediate circle of the disciples.[278] He forbade the +devils whom He had cast out, and that recognized Him, to proclaim His +Messiahship.[279] When the Jews said to Him, "How long dost thou make us +doubt? if thou be the Christ, tell us plainly," Jesus simply referred +them to His works, and made no further answer that could be used as +testimony against Him.[280] He revealed Himself to His followers as the +Messiah, and permitted them to confess Him as such, but forbade them to +make the matter public. "Then charged he his disciples that they should +tell no man that he was Jesus, the Christ."[281] + +It will thus be seen that probably no two witnesses who were legally +competent to testify could have been secured to condemn Jesus upon the +charge preferred at the trial. In their desperation, then, the members +of the Sanhedrin were compelled to employ false testimony and a +confession which was equally illegal. + + + + +POINT IX + +THE CONDEMNATION OF JESUS WAS ILLEGAL BECAUSE THE VERDICT OF THE +SANHEDRIN WAS UNANIMOUS + + +LAW + + "A simultaneous and unanimous verdict of guilt rendered on the day + of the trial has the effect of an acquittal."--MENDELSOHN, + "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," p. 141. + + "If none of the judges defend the culprit, i.e., all pronounce him + guilty, having no defender in the court, the verdict of guilty was + invalid and the sentence of death could not be executed."--RABBI + WISE, "Martyrdom of Jesus," p. 74. + + +FACT AND ARGUMENT + +FEW stranger rules can be found in the jurisprudence of the world than +that provision of Hebrew law which forbade a conviction to rest upon the +unanimous vote of the judges. A comparison instantaneously and almost +inevitably arises in the mind between the Saxon and Hebrew requirement +in the matter of unanimity in the verdict. The finest form of mind of +antiquity, with the possible exception of the Greek and Roman, was the +Hebrew. One of the finest types of intellect of the modern world is that +of the Anglo-Saxon. The Hebrew organized the Sanhedrin, and, under God, +endowed it with judicial and spiritual attributes. The Anglo-Saxon, on +the shores of the German Ocean, originated the modern jury and invested +it with its distinctive legal traits. With the Anglo-Saxon jury a +unanimous verdict is necessary to convict, but with the Hebrew Sanhedrin +unanimity was fatal, and resulted in an acquittal. A great modern +writer[282] has declared that law is the perfection of reason. But when +we contemplate the differences in Hebrew and Saxon laws we are inclined +to ask, in seeking the degree of perfection, whose law and whose reason? + +But, after all, the Jewish rule is not so unreasonable as it first +appears, when we come to consider the reason of its origin. In the first +place, as we have seen in Part II, there were no lawyers or advocates, +in the modern sense, among the ancient Hebrews. The judges were his +defenders. Now if the verdict was unanimous in favor of condemnation it +was evident that the prisoner had had no friend or defender in court. To +the Jewish mind this was almost equivalent to mob violence. It argued +conspiracy, at least. The element of mercy, which was required to enter +into every Hebrew verdict, was absent in such a case. + +Again, this rule of unanimity was only another form or statement of the +requirement that the court defer final action, in case of conviction, to +the next day in order that time for deliberation and reflection might +intervene. In other words, Hebrew law forbade precipitancy in capital +proceedings. And what could be more precipitate than an instantaneous +and unanimous verdict? "But where all suddenly agree on conviction, does +it not seem," asks a modern Jewish writer, "that the convict is a victim +of conspiracy and that the verdict is not the result of sober reason and +calm deliberation?" + +But how did they convict under Hebrew law? By a majority vote of at +least two. A majority of one would acquit. A majority of two, or any +majority less than unanimity, would convict.[283] If the accused had one +friend in court, the verdict of condemnation would stand, since the +element of mercy was present and the spirit of conspiracy or mob +violence was absent. Seventy-one constituted the membership of the Great +Sanhedrin. If all the members were present and voted, at least +thirty-seven were required to convict. Thirty-six would acquit. If a +bare quorum, twenty-three members, was present, at least thirteen were +required to convict. Twelve would acquit. + +This rule seems ridiculous and absurd, when viewed in the light of a +brutal and undeniable crime. If the facts constituting such a crime had +been proved against a Jewish prisoner beyond any possibility of doubt, +if such facts were apparent to everybody, still it seems that the rule +above stated required that the defendant have at least one advocate and +one vote among the judges; else, the verdict was invalid and could not +stand. Such a procedure could be justified on no other ground than that +exceptional cases should not be permitted to destroy a rule of action +that in its general operation had been found to be both generous and +just. + +Now the condemnation of Jesus was illegal because the verdict of the +Sanhedrin was unanimous. We learn this from Mark, who says: "Then the +high priest rent his clothes and saith, What need we any further +witnesses? ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they _all_ +condemned him to be guilty of death."[284] If they _all_ condemned Him, +the verdict was unanimous and therefore illegal. The other Evangelists +do not tell us that the verdict was unanimous; neither do they deny it. +Mark's testimony stands alone and uncontradicted; therefore we must +assume that it is true. + +Rabbi Wise[285] and Signor Rosadi[286] call attention to the fact that +the verdict was unanimous. The former seeks to ridicule Mark as an +authority because a unanimous verdict was illegal under Hebrew law, and +the distinguished Hebrew writer does not conceive that Hebrew judges +could have made such a mistake. Such argument, reduced to ultimate +analysis, means, according to Rabbi Wise, that there were certain rules +of Hebrew law that could not be and were never violated. + +In this connection, it has been frequently asked: Was the entire +Sanhedrin present at the night trial of Jesus? Were Nicodemus and Joseph +of Arimathea present? If they were present, did they vote against Jesus? +These questions can be answered only in the light of the authorities. +Only two of the Gospel writers, Matthew and Mark, tell us of the night +trial. Both declare that "all the council" were present.[287] The +"council" (concilium) is the Vulgate, the Latin New Testament +designation of the Great Sanhedrin. Then, if all the "council" were +present, the Great Sanhedrin were all present. + +[Illustration: THE BETRAYING KISS (SCHEFFER)] + +Concerning the number of judges at the second or daybreak meeting of the +Sanhedrin, both Matthew and Mark again declare that the full membership +was present. Matthew says: "When the morning was come, _all_ the chief +priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him +to death."[288] Mark says: "And straightway in the morning the chief +priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the _whole +council_, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to +Pilate."[289] It should be remembered that neither Luke nor John +contradicts even remotely the statements of Matthew and Mark concerning +the full attendance of the members of the Sanhedrin at either the night +or morning trial. The first and second Gospel writers therefore +corroborate each other, and the presumption of the law is that each told +the truth. + +And yet most commentators and writers seem to be of the opinion that all +the members of the Sanhedrin were not present at the night trial of +Jesus. They insist that both Matthew and Mark were employing a figure of +speech, synecdoche, when they said that "all the council" were present. +But these same writers seem to think that these same Evangelists were in +earnest and speaking literally when they declared that "_all_ the chief +priests and elders" and the "_whole_ council" were present at the +morning trial. We shall not attempt to settle the question but will +leave it to the reader to draw his own inferences. Suffice it to say +that as far as the rule stated in connection with Point IX is concerned, +it was immaterial whether the full council was present at either +meeting. The rule against unanimity applied to a bare quorum or to any +number less than the full Sanhedrin. It was the unanimity itself, of +however few members, that carried with it the spirit and suggestion of +mob violence and conspiracy against which Hebrew law protested. + +The question of the number of members that were present at the different +meetings of the Sanhedrin has been discussed in the light of history, +and as bearing upon the conduct of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, +who were friends of Jesus. Nicodemus was certainly a member of the Great +Sanhedrin. This we learn from two passages of New Testament +scripture.[290] It is also believed that Joseph of Arimathea was a +member from a mere suggestion in another passage.[291] Did these friends +of the Christ vote against Him? If they were members of the court; if +Matthew and Mark wrote literally when they said that "all the council" +were present; and if Mark wrote literally and truthfully when he said +that "they _all_ condemned him to be guilty of death"; then it naturally +and inevitably follows that both Nicodemus and Joseph voted against +Jesus. + +[Illustration: THE ARREST OF JESUS (HOFFMAN)] + +A number of arguments have been offered against this contention. In the +first place, it is said that at a previous meeting of the Sanhedrin +Nicodemus defended Jesus by asking his fellow-judges this question: +"Doth our law judge any man before it hear him and know what he +doeth?"[292] It is asserted that there is no good reason to believe that +Nicodemus defended Jesus at this meeting and turned against Him at a +subsequent one, that there is a presumption of a continuance of +fidelity. But is this good reasoning? Did not Peter cut off the ear of +the high priest's servant, Malchus, in defense of Jesus at midnight, in +the garden, and then within three hours afterwards deny that he knew +Jesus? There is no good reason to believe that Nicodemus was braver or +more constant than Peter, for the former seems to have been either +ashamed or afraid to express his affection for the Master during the +daytime, but preferred to do it at night.[293] + +Concerning the part taken by Nicodemus in the final proceedings, Rosadi +says: "The verdict was unanimous. The members of the Sanhedrin who were +secretly favorable to the Accused were either absent or else they voted +against him. Nicodemus was amongst the absentees, or amongst those that +voted against him. At all events, he did not raise his voice against the +pronouncement expressed by acclamation." + +If Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Great Sanhedrin, it seems +that he "had not consented to the counsel and the deed of them."[294] +But it is impossible to tell certainly to which one of the three +meetings of the Sanhedrin, held within the six months preceding the +crucifixion, this language refers. The defense of Jesus offered by +Nicodemus was certainly not at the final meeting which condemned Jesus. +It may be that the reference to the protest of Joseph of Arimathea also +referred to a prior meeting. Its connection in Luke seems to make it +refer to the last trial, but this is not certain. Neither is it certain +that Joseph was a member of the Great Sanhedrin, and his failure to +consent, if he were not a member, would not disturb the contention made +in Point IX of the Brief. Even if he were a member, his failure to +consent would not destroy the contention, since ancient Hebrew judges, +like modern American jurors, could have first protested against their +action and then have voted with them. The polling of the jury, under +modern law, has reference, among other things, to this state of affairs. + +But we may admit that both Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, as well as +many others, were absent, as Rosadi suggests, and still contend that the +verdict against Jesus was illegal because it was unanimous, as Mark +assures us, since the number of judges present was immaterial, provided +there was a quorum of at least twenty-three and their verdict was +unanimous against the accused. According to the second Gospel writer, +there seems to be no doubt that this was the case in the judgment +pronounced against Jesus. + + + + +POINT X + +THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JESUS WERE ILLEGAL IN THAT: (1) THE SENTENCE OF +CONDEMNATION WAS PRONOUNCED IN A PLACE FORBIDDEN BY LAW; (2) THE HIGH +PRIEST RENT HIS CLOTHES; (3) THE BALLOTING WAS IRREGULAR + + +LAW + + "After leaving the hall Gazith no sentence of death can be passed + upon anyone soever."--TALMUD, Bab., Abodah Zarah, or of Idolatry, + Chap. I. fol. 8. + + "A sentence of death can be pronounced only so long as the Sanhedrin + holds its sessions in the appointed place."--MAIMONIDES, Sanhedrin + XIV. + + "And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head + the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on + the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his + clothes."--LEVITICUS xxi. 10. + + "And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar, and unto Ithamar, his + sons, Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye + die, and lest wrath come upon all the people."--LEVITICUS x. 6. + + "Let the judges each in his turn absolve or condemn."--MISHNA, + Sanhedrin XV. 5. + + "The members of the Sanhedrin were seated in the form of a + semicircle at the extremity of which a secretary was placed, whose + business it was to record the votes. One of these secretaries + recorded the votes in favor of the accused, the other those + against him."--MISHNA, Sanhedrin IV. 3. + + "In ordinary cases the judges voted according to seniority, the + oldest commencing; in a capital trial, the reverse order was + followed. That the younger members of the Sanhedrin should not be + influenced by the views or arguments of their more mature, more + experienced colleagues, the junior judge was in these cases always + the first to pronounce for or against a conviction."--BENNY, + "Criminal Code of the Jews," pp. 73, 74. + + +FACT AND ARGUMENT + +IN the trial of capital cases, the Great Sanhedrin was required to meet +in an apartment of the National Temple at Jerusalem, known as the Hall +of Hewn Stones (Lishkhath haggazith). Outside of this hall no capital +trial could be conducted and no capital sentence could be +pronounced.[295] This place was selected in obedience to Mosaic +injunction: "Thou shalt do according to the tenor of the sentence, which +they may point out to thee _from the place which the Lord shall +choose_."[296] The Rabbis argued that the Great Council could not try a +capital case or pronounce a death sentence, unless it met and remained +in the place chosen by God, which, they contended, should be an +apartment of the Great Temple. The Lishkhath haggazith was chosen, and +continued for many years to be the meeting place of the supreme +tribunal. + +But Jesus was not tried or condemned to death in the Hall of Hewn +Stones, as Hebrew law required. It is clearly evident, from the Gospels, +that He was tried and sentenced in the palace of Caiaphas, probably on +Mount Zion. It is contended by the Jews, however, that soon after the +Roman conquest of Judea the Great Sanhedrin removed from the sacred +place to Bethany, and from there to other places, as occasion required. +And there is a Jewish tradition that the court returned to the +accustomed place on the occasion of the trial and condemnation of +Jesus.[297] + +In opposition to this, Edersheim says: "There is truly not a tittle of +evidence for the assumption of commentators that Christ was led from the +palace of Caiaphas into the Council Chamber (Lishkhath haggazith). The +whole proceedings took place in the former, and from it Christ was +brought to Pilate."[298] St. John emphatically declares: "Then led they +Jesus from Caiaphas into the hall of judgment."[299] This Hall of +Judgment was the Prætorium of Pilate. + +The first irregularity, then, noted under Point X is that Jesus was +tried and condemned in the palace of Caiaphas instead of the Hall of +Hewn Stones, the regular legal meeting place of the Great Sanhedrin. + +The second error noted under Point X is that which relates to the +rending of garments by the high priest. "An ordinary Israelite could, as +an emblem of bereavement, tear his garments, but to the high priest it +was forbidden, because his vestments, being made after the express +orders of God, were figurative of his office."[300] + +When Jesus confessed that He was Christ the Son of God, Caiaphas seems +to have lost his balance and to have committed errors with all the +rapidity of speech. "Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, +What need we any further witnesses? ye have heard the blasphemy: what +think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death."[301] In +this language and conduct of the son-in-law of Annas there were several +irregularities in procedure. The first was the rending of garments +reported by Matthew and Mark, which act was forbidden by the provisions +of the Mosaic Code, recorded in Leviticus and cited above. + +But it is only fair to state the dissenting opinion on this point. In +the times of Christ it seems to have been the custom among the Jews to +rend the garments as a sign of horror and execration, whenever +blasphemous language was heard. Edersheim states the rule: "They all +heard it--and, as the law directed, when blasphemy was spoken, the high +priest rent both his outer and inner garment, with a rent that might +never be repaired."[302] The law here referred to, however, is the +Rabbinic or Talmudic and not the Mosaic law. It should be remembered +that the Mosaic Code was the constitution or fundamental law of the +ancient Hebrews. The Talmudic law embodied in the Mishna was, in a +sense, a mere commentary upon the Mosaic law. We have seen in Chapter I +of Part II of this volume that the traditional law was based upon, +derived from, and inspired by the written law contained in the +Pentateuch. It is true that the Talmud, while professing subordination +to the Pentateuch, finally virtually superseded it as an administrative +code. But the doctors never repealed a Mosaic injunction, since it was +an emanation of the mind of Jehovah and could not be abrogated by human +intelligence. When an ancient ordinance ceased to be of practical value +the Jewish legists simply declared that it had fallen into desuetude. +And whenever a new law was proclaimed to meet an emergency in the life +of the Hebrew people the Rabbins declared that it was derived from and +inspired by some decree which God had handed down to Moses for the +benefit of the nation. In other words, the Mosaic Code was Israel's +divine constitution which was to serve as a standard for all future +legislation. And as the Jewish lawmakers were not permitted to repeal a +Mosaic ordinance, neither were they allowed to establish a rule in +contravention of it. Now the Pentateuch forbade the rending of garments. +Then did the Talmudists have a right to declare that the law might be +changed or broken in the case of blasphemy? That they did is denied by +many writers. + +But admitting the validity of the Talmudic rule, it is nevertheless +beyond dispute that the high priest was forbidden to rend his clothes on +Sabbaths and holidays. And as Jesus was condemned on both a Sabbath and +a festival day, the high priest's action in rending his clothes on that +day was illegal.[303] + +Again, the proceedings against Jesus were illegal because the balloting +was irregular. This is the third error noted under Point X. + +The Hebrew law required that each judge, when his time came to vote upon +the guilt or innocence of the accused, should rise in his place, declare +his vote, and state his reasons for so voting. In capital cases the +youngest judge was required to vote first, in order that he might not be +unduly influenced by the example of his seniors in age and authority. +The balloting continued in this manner from the youngest member to the +high priest, who was generally among the oldest. Two scribes--according +to some writers, three--were present to record the votes and to note the +reasons stated. These records were to be used on the second day of the +trial in comparing the arguments of the judges on that day with those +offered on the first day. Judges who had voted for acquittal on the +first day could not change their votes on the second day. Those who had +voted for conviction on the first day might change their votes on the +second day, by assigning good reasons. Those who had voted for +conviction on the first day could not vote for conviction on the second +day, if the reasons assigned on the second day were radically different +from those assigned on the first day.[304] It will thus be seen how very +essential were the records of the scribes and how important it was that +they should be correctly kept. Hence the necessity, according to Benny, +of a third scribe whose notes might be used to correct any discrepancies +in the reports of the other two. + +Now are we justified in assuming that this was the method employed in +counting votes at the trial of Jesus? The law will not permit us to +presume errors. We must rather assume that this was the method employed, +unless the Gospel record indicates, either by plain statement or by +reasonable construction, that it was not the method used. + +In this connection, let us review the language of the Scriptures. "Ye +have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to +be guilty of death." Is it not clearly evident, from this passage, that +the balloting was not done singly, the youngest voting first, as Hebrew +law required? Can it not be seen at a glance that the judges voted _en +masse_? If they did, was it possible for the scribes to record the votes +and make a note of the reasons assigned, as the law required? If these +things were not done, were the proceedings regular? + +According to Matthew, Caiaphas, before calling for the votes exclaimed: +"He hath spoken blasphemy."[305] Instead of doing this should he not, +under the law, have carefully concealed his opinion until the younger +members of the court had voted? Is it not a matter of history that the +opinion of the high priest was regarded as almost infallible authority +among the ancient Hebrews? Did not this premature declaration of guilt +on the part of the high priest rob the subordinate judges of freedom of +suffrage? + +The conduct of the case at the close, when the balloting took place, +seems to justify the view of those writers who assert that there was no +regular trial of Jesus, but rather the action of a mob. + + + + +POINT XI + +THE MEMBERS OF THE GREAT SANHEDRIN WERE LEGALLY DISQUALIFIED TO TRY +JESUS + + +LAW + + "The robe of the unfairly elected judge is to be respected not more + than the blanket of the ass."--MENDELSOHN, "Hebrew Maxims and + Rules," p. 182. + + "As Moses sat in judgment without the expectation of material + reward, so also must every judge act from a sense of duty + only."--MENDELSOHN, "Hebrew Maxims and Rules," p. 177. + + "Nor must there be on the judicial bench either a relation, or a + particular friend, or an enemy of either the accused or of the + accuser."--MENDELSOHN, "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient + Hebrews," p. 108. + + "He (the Hebrew judge) was, in the first instance, to be modest, of + good repute among his neighbors, and generally liked."--BENNY, + "Criminal Code of the Jews," p. 38. + + "Nor under any circumstances, was a man known to be _at enmity with + the accused person_ permitted to occupy a position among his + judges."--BENNY, "Criminal Code of the Jews," p. 37. + + +FACT AND ARGUMENT + +THE Gospel records disclose the fact that the members of the Great +Sanhedrin were legally disqualified to try Jesus. This disqualification +was of two kinds: (1) A general disqualification, under Hebrew law, to +act as judges in any case; (2) a special disqualification to sit in +judgment upon the life of Jesus. + +Among all the great systems of jurisprudence of the world the ancient +Hebrew system was the most exacting in the matter of judicial fitness. +In the palmiest days of the Hebrew Commonwealth the members of the Great +Sanhedrin represented the most perfect mental, moral, and physical +development of the Hebrew people. A man could not be a member of this +court who had any serious mental, moral, or physical defect. He must +have been "learned in the law," both written and unwritten. He must have +had judicial experience; that is, he must have filled three offices of +gradually increasing dignity, beginning with one of the local courts and +passing successively through two magistracies at Jerusalem. He must have +been an accomplished linguist; that is, he must have been thoroughly +familiar with the languages of the surrounding nations. He must have +been modest, popular, of good appearance, and free from haughtiness. He +must have been pious, strong, and courageous. And above all, he must +have been friendly in his attitude toward the accused.[306] + +These were the qualifications of Israel's judges before Roman politics +had corrupted them. But at the time of Christ they had grown to be +time-serving, degenerate, and corrupt. Judea was then passing through a +period of religious and political revolution. At such a time in any +state, as all history teaches us, the worst elements of society +generally get the upper hand and control the political currents of the +day. Many members of the Sanhedrin had themselves been guilty of +criminal acts in both public and private life. Many of them held office +by purchase--they had bought their seats. They were thus unfitted to be +judges in any case; especially in one involving the great question of +life and death. + +In order to show the general disqualification, under the test of Hebrew +law, of the members of the Great Sanhedrin, at the time of Christ, to +exercise judicial functions, it is necessary to quote only Jewish +authorities. In "The Martyrdom of Jesus," Rabbi Wise says: "The chief +priests, under the iron rule of Pilate and his wicked master, Sejan, +were the tools of the Roman soldiers who held Judea and Samaria in +subjection. Like the high priest, they were appointed to and removed +from office by the Roman governor of the country, either directly or +indirectly. They purchased their commissions for high prices and, like +almost all Roman appointees, used them for mercenary purposes. They were +considered wicked men by the ancient writers and must have stood very +low in the estimation of the people over whom they tyrannized. The +patriots must have looked upon them as hirelings of the foreign despot +whose rule was abhorred. Although there was, here and there, a good, +pious and patriotic man among them, he was an exception. As a general +thing, and under the rule of Pilate, especially, they were the corrupt +tools of a military despotism which Rome imposed upon enslaved +Palestine." + +Again, the Talmud, in which we never look for slurs upon the Hebrew +people, where slurs are not deserved, contains this bitter denunciation +of the high-priestly families of the times of Christ: "What a plague is +the family of Simon Boethus; cursed be their lances! What a plague is +the family of Ananos; cursed be their hissing of vipers! What a plague +is the family of Cantharus; cursed be their pens! What a plague is the +family of Ismael ben Phabi; cursed be their fists! They are high priests +themselves, their sons are treasurers, their sons-in-law are commanders, +and their servants strike the people with staves." + +In like manner the Talmud, in withering rebuke and sarcasm, again +declares that "The porch of the sanctuary cried out four times. The +first time, Depart from here, descendants of Eli; ye pollute the Temple +of the Eternal! The second time, Let Issachar ben Keifar Barchi depart +from here, who polluted himself and profaneth the victims consecrated to +God! The third time, Widen yourselves, ye gates of the sanctuary and let +Israel ben Phabi, the wilful, enter that he may discharge the functions +of the priesthood! Yet another cry was heard, Widen yourselves, ye +gates, and let Ananias ben Nebedeus, the gourmand, enter, that he may +glut himself on the victims."[307] + +It should be borne in mind that the high-priestly families so +scathingly dealt with by the Talmud were the controlling spirits in the +Great Sanhedrin at the time of Christ. Were they legally qualified, +then, under the ancient and honorable tests of Hebrew law, to be members +of the highest court in the land? If they bought their offices and used +them for mercenary purposes, as Wise asserts, were they worthy of the +great exemplar, Moses, who "sat in judgment without the expectation of +material reward"? If they thus secured their places and prostituted them +to selfish purposes, were their robes to be respected any more than the +blanket of the ass? + +The ancient Hebrew judges, in the days of Israel's purity and glory, +submitted their claims to judicial preferment to the suffrage of a +loving and confiding people.[308] They climbed the rungs of the judicial +ladder by slow and painful degrees. Integrity and ability marked each +advance toward the top. Was this the process of promotion in the case of +Caiaphas and his fellow-judges? Did their bought and corrupted places +not brand them with the anathema of the law? + +We come now to consider the special disqualifications of members of the +Sanhedrin to sit in judgment upon the life of Jesus. The reasons for +these disqualifications were two: (1) The members of this court were, in +the language of Jost, "burning enemies" of Jesus, and were therefore +disqualified, under Hebrew law, to act as His judges; (2) they had +determined upon His guilt, and had sentenced Him to death before the +trial began; and had thus outraged not only a specific provision of +Hebrew law but also a principle of universal justice. + +The various causes of the hatred of the members of the Sanhedrin for +Jesus are too numerous and profound to admit of exhaustive treatment +here. A thorough analysis of these causes would necessitate a review of +the life of Christ from the manger to the sepulcher. A few reasons will +suffice. + +But at this point a distinction should be made between that personal +hatred which disqualifies and the hatred and loathing of the crime that +do not disqualify. Every just and righteous judge should loathe and hate +the crime itself; and a certain amount of loathing and dislike for the +criminal is most natural and almost inevitable. But no judge is +qualified to sit in judgment upon the rights of life, liberty, or +property of another whom he hates as the result of a personal grudge, +born of personal experience with the prisoner at the bar. The hatred +that disqualified the members of the Sanhedrin, under Hebrew law, was +that kind of hatred that had been generated by personal interest and +experience. The most merciless invective, barbed with incomparable wit, +ridicule, and satire, had been daily hurled at them by Jesus with +withering effect. With a touch more potent than that of Ithuriel's spear +He had unmasked their wicked hypocrisy and had blazoned it to the skies. +Every day of His active ministry, which lasted about three years, had +been spent in denouncing their shameless practices and their guilty +lives. The Scribes and Pharisees were proud, haughty, and conceited +beyond description. They believed implicitly in the infallibility of +their authority and in the perfection of their souls. How galling, then, +to such men must have been this declaration of an obscure and lowly +Nazarene: "Verily, I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go +into the kingdom of God before you."[309] What impetuous invective this: +"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' +houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive +the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! +for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, +ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."[310] We can +well imagine how these fiery darts pierced and tore the vanity of a +haughty and contemptuous priesthood. + +Consider for a moment the difference in the spheres of Jesus and of His +enemies. He, an obscure prophet from Nazareth in Galilee; they, the +leaders of Israel and the guardians of the Temple at Jerusalem. He, the +single advocate of the New Dispensation; they, the manifold upholders of +the Old. He, without earthly authority in the propagation of His faith; +they, clothed with the sanction of the law and the prestige of a mighty +past. Imagine, then, if you can, the intensity of the hatred engendered +by the language and the conduct of Jesus. + +That we may fully appreciate the tension of the situation let us cast a +single glance at the character of the Scribes. Edersheim has written +these wonderfully graphic lines about them: + + He pushes to the front, the crowd respectfully giving way, and + eagerly hanging on his utterances, as those of a recognized + authority. He has been solemnly ordained by the laying on of hands; + and is the Rabbi, "my great one," Master, amplitudo. Indeed, his + hyper-ingenuity in questioning has become a proverb. There is not + measure of his dignity, nor yet limit to his importance. He is the + "lawyer," the "well-plastered pit," filled with the water of + knowledge, "out of which not a drop can escape," in opposition to + the "weeds of untilled soil" of ignorance. He is the divine + aristocrat, among the vulgar herd of rude and profane "country + people," who "know not the law," and are "cursed." Each scribe + outweighed all the common people, who must accordingly pay him + every honor.... Such was to be the respect paid to their sayings + that they were to be absolutely believed, even if they were to + declare that to be at the right hand which was at the left, or + vice-versa.[311] + +What could, then, be more terrific than the hatred of such a character +for an unlettered Galilean who descended from the mountains of His +native province to rebuke and instruct the "divine aristocrats" in +religious matters and heavenly affairs? Imagine his rage and chagrin +when he heard these words: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, +hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear +beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and all +uncleanness.... Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because +ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the +righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would +not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. +Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of +them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your +fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the +damnation of hell?"[312] + +"His exquisite irony," says Renan, "His stinging remarks, always went to +the heart. They were everlasting stings, and have remained festering in +the wound. This Nessus-shirt of ridicule which the Jew, son of the +Pharisees, has dragged in tatters after him during eighteen centuries, +was woven by Jesus with a divine skill. Masterpieces of fine raillery, +their features are written in lines of fire upon the flesh of the +hypocrite and the false devotee. Incomparable traits worthy of a Son of +God! A god alone knows how to kill in this way. Socrates and Molière +only grazed the skin. The former carried fire and rage to the very +marrow."[313] + +Are we not now justified in asserting, with Jost, that the members of +the Sanhedrin, who were none other than the Scribes and Pharisees above +described by Jesus, were the "burning enemies" of the prisoner at the +bar? If they were, were they legally qualified to be His judges? + +But it may be argued that their hatred was simply a form of righteous +indignation provoked by His repeated assaults upon the national religion +and the national institutions; that it was their duty as guardians of +both to both hate and try Him; and that they would have been derelict in +duty if they had not done so. But it is apparent from the record and is +evident to any fair-minded reader that the enmity of the judges toward +Jesus was more personal than political, more a private than a public +affair. In support of this contention, in addition to the withering +language addressed to them, the matter of the purification of the Temple +may be mentioned. It will be remembered how Jesus, with a scorpion lash, +scourged the money-changers and traders from the Sanctuary. Now it is +historically true that Annas and Caiaphas and their friends owned and +controlled the stalls, booths, and bazaars connected with the Temple and +from which flowed a most lucrative trade. The profits from the sale of +lambs and doves, sold for sacrifice, alone were enormous. When Jesus +threatened the destruction of this trade He assaulted the interests of +Annas and his associates in the Sanhedrin in a vital place. This +grievance was certainly not so religious as it was personal. The driving +of the cattle from the stalls was probably more effective in compassing +the destruction of the Christ than any miracle that He performed or any +discourse that He delivered. But whatever the cause the fact is historic +and indisputable that the Sanhedrists were enemies of Jesus, and +therefore disqualified under Hebrew law to try Him. + +A second reason for the special disqualification of the members of the +Sanhedrin to sit as judges at the trial of Christ was the fact that they +had determined upon His guilt and had sentenced Him to death before the +trial began. This point needs no extensive argument or illustration. +Under every enlightened system of justice the first great qualification +of judges has been that they should be unbiased and unprejudiced. +Judicial proceedings are murderous and no better than mob violence when +judges and jurors enter upon the trial of the case with a determination +to convict the accused, regardless of the testimony. The principles +underlying this proposition are fundamental and self-evident. + +Now the Gospel narratives disclose the fact that three different +meetings of the Sanhedrin were held in the six months preceding the +crucifixion, to discuss the miracles and discourses of Jesus, and to +devise ways and means to entrap Him and put Him to death. + +The first meeting was held in the latter part of the month of September, +A.D. 29, about six months before the night trial in the palace of +Caiaphas. This meeting is recorded by St. John in Chap. vii., verses +37-53. The occasion was the Feast of Tabernacles, when Jesus made many +converts by His preaching, and at the same time caused much apprehension +among the Pharisees, who assembled the Sanhedrin to adopt plans to check +His career. It was on this occasion that Nicodemus defended Christ and +asked the question that shows the nature of the proceedings at that +time. "Doth our law judge any man before it hear him and know what he +doeth?" This was the voice, not only of Hebrew but of universal justice +demanding a hearing before a condemnation. Nothing definite seems to +have been accomplished at this meeting. + +The second session of the Sanhedrin took place in the month of +February, A.D. 30, about six weeks before the crucifixion. The occasion +of this meeting was the resurrection of Lazarus, an account of which is +given in John xi. 41-53. The chief priests and Pharisees seem to have +been seized with consternation by the reports of the progress of the +propaganda of Jesus. They had often listened contemptuously and in +sullen silence to the accounts of His miraculous performances. But when +He began to raise the dead to life, they decided that it was about time +to act. At this meeting Caiaphas appealed to his associates in the name +of the common weal. "Ye know nothing at all," he said, "nor consider +that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and +that the whole nation perish not."[314] This seems to have been a form +of condemnation in which the other judges joined. "Then from that day +forth they took counsel together for to put him to death."[315] At this +second session of the Sanhedrin the death of Jesus seems to have been +decreed in an informal way and an opportunity was awaited for its +accomplishment. + +The third meeting of the Sanhedrin took place just a few days before the +Paschal Feast. + +"Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the +Passover. And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill +him; for they feared the people."[316] "Then assembled together the +chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the +palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and consulted that +they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him. But they said, Not on +the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people."[317] + +At this third session of the court it was agreed that the arrest and +execution of Jesus should be accomplished at the earliest possible date. + +It will be seen that at these different sessions of the Sanhedrin in the +six months preceding the regular trial the judges had resolved that +Jesus should be done away with at the first convenient opportunity. In +short, and in fact, their hatred was formed and their determination +fixed in the matter of the proceedings to be instituted against Him. +Were they, then, legally qualified to act as His judges? + +Again, besides prejudging Him to death had they not demonstrated their +total unfitness for any righteous administration of justice by seeking +false witnesses against Him? Hebrew law forbade them to seek for +witnesses of any kind. They were the defenders of the accused and, under +the Hebrew system, were required to search for pretexts to acquit and +not for witnesses to condemn.[318] It was a maxim that "the Sanhedrin +was to save, not to destroy life."[319] Much more were they forbidden to +seek for false witnesses. Hebrew law denounced false witnesses and +condemned them to the very punishment prescribed for those whom they +sought to convict. + +"And the judges shall make diligent inquisition; and, behold, if the +witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his +brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to do unto his +brother.... And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, +eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."[320] + +But here we find the judges actually seeking testimony which the law +pointedly prohibited. This matter alone establishes their utter +unfitness to try Jesus, and is explicable only on the ground of the +degradation into which they had fallen at the time of Christ and on the +hypothesis that their burning hatred had overwhelmed their judgment and +sense of justice. + +If it be objected that the points of disqualification above alleged were +not applicable to all the judges, a single sentence of Scripture meets +the objection: "And the chief priests and _all the council_ sought for +witness against Jesus to put Him to death."[321] The fact that "all the +council" were willing to outrage a provision of the fundamental law is +sufficient proof that they were all disqualified to try Christ. + +Another conclusive proof of the total unfitness of the members of the +Sanhedrin to try Jesus is the fact that they so far forgot themselves +that they abandoned all sense of self-respect and judicial dignity by +brutally striking Him and spitting in His face. We would like to believe +that this outrageous conduct was limited to the servants of the priests, +but the Gospel of St. Mark, Chap. xiv., verse 65, clearly indicates that +the judges themselves were also guilty. + + + + +POINT XII + +THE CONDEMNATION OF JESUS WAS ILLEGAL BECAUSE THE MERITS OF THE DEFENSE +WERE NOT CONSIDERED + + +LAW + + "Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask + diligently."--DEUTERONOMY xiii. 14. + + "The judges shall weigh the matter in the sincerity of their + conscience."--MISHNA, Sanhedrin IV. 5. + + "The primary object of the Hebrew judicial system was to render the + conviction of an innocent person impossible. All the ingenuity of + the Jewish legists was directed to the attainment of this + end."--BENNY, "Criminal Code of the Jews," p. 56. + + +FACT AND ARGUMENT + +THE actual trial of any criminal case shows, upon the record, two +essential parts: (1) The accusation; (2) the defense. The absence of the +elements of defense makes the proceeding _ex parte_; and there is really +no trial. And it is impossible to conceive a proper administration of +justice where a defense is not allowed, since the right to combat the +allegations of the indictment is the essential principle of liberty +under the law. The destruction of this right is the annihilation of +freedom by subjecting the individual citizen to the whims and caprices +of the governing power. An ideal code of criminal procedure would embody +rules of evidence and practice perfectly adapted to establish truth in +the matter at issue between the commonwealth and the prisoner. Neither +the people nor the accused would be favored or prejudiced by the +admission or exclusion of any kind of evidence. An exact interpretation +and administration of this code would result in a perfect intellectual +balance between the rights of the state and the defendant. But such a +code has never been framed, and if one were in existence, it would be +impossible to enforce it, as long as certain judges insisted on aiding +the prosecution and others on helping the accused, in violation of +standard rules of evidence. + +Now, the ancient Hebrew system of criminal procedure was no such ideal +one as that above described. It should be remembered that there was no +body, under that system, corresponding to our modern Grand Jury, to +present indictments. There were no prosecuting officers and no +counselors-at-law, in the modern sense. The leading witnesses preferred +charges and the judges did the rest. They examined and cross-examined +witnesses, did the summing up and were, above all, the defenders of the +accused. The rights of the defendant seem to have alone been seriously +considered. This startling maxim was a constant menace to the integrity +of the government and to the rights of the commonwealth: "The Sanhedrin +which so often as once in seven years condemns a man to death, is a +slaughter-house."[322] Lightfoot is of the opinion that the Jews did not +lose the power of capital punishment as the result of the Roman +conquest, but that they voluntarily abandoned it because the rules of +criminal procedure which they had from time to time adopted finally +became wholly unfitted for convicting anyone. This view is unsupported +by historic fact, but it is nevertheless true that the legal safeguards +for the protection of the rights of the accused had, in the later years +of Jewish nationality, become so numerous and stringent that a +condemnation was practically impossible. The astonishing provision of +Hebrew law to which we have referred in Part II known as Antecedent +Warning had the effect of securing an acquittal in nearly every case. It +is contended by many that this peculiar provision was intended to +abolish capital punishment by rendering conviction impossible. + +In the light of the principles above suggested let us review the action +of the Sanhedrin in condemning Jesus to death upon His uncorroborated +confession. The standard of thoroughness in investigating criminal +matters is thus prescribed in the Mosaic Code: "Then shalt thou inquire, +and make search, and ask diligently." The Mishna supplements the +fundamental law by this direction: "The judges shall weigh the matter in +the sincerity of their conscience." From what we know of the peculiar +tendency of the Hebrew system to favor the accused we are justified in +assuming that the two rules just cited were framed for the protection +of the prisoner more than for the security of the commonwealth. + +Now at this point we are led to ask: Were these rules applied in the +trial of Jesus in any sense either for or against the accused? Did +Caiaphas and the other members of the Sanhedrin "inquire, and make +search and ask diligently" concerning the facts involved in the issue +between Jesus and the Hebrew people? Did they weigh the whole matter "in +the sincerity of their conscience?" Is it not clearly evident from the +record that the false witnesses contradicted themselves, were rejected +and dismissed, and that Jesus was then condemned upon His uncorroborated +confession that He was the Christ, the Son of God? The usual and natural +proceeding in a Jewish criminal trial was to call witnesses for the +defendant, after the leading witnesses had testified for the people. Was +this done in the case of Jesus? His own apostles deserted Him in the +garden, although two of them seem to have returned to the scene of the +trial. Is it probable, in the light of the record, that witnesses were +called for the defendant? We have seen that they could not legally +convict Him upon His own confession. And there is nowhere the faintest +suggestion that witnesses other than the false ones were called to +testify against Him. The record is clear and unequivocal that the +conviction of Jesus was upon His uncorroborated confession. This was +illegal. When Caiaphas said, "I adjure thee by the living God that thou +tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God," Jesus answered, +"Thou hast said"; that is, "I am," according to Mark. Here was an issue +squarely joined between the Commonwealth of Israel and Jesus of +Nazareth. It was incumbent upon the state to establish His guilt by two +competent witnesses who agreed in all essential details. If these +witnesses were not present, or could not be secured, it was the duty of +the court to discharge Christ at once. This the law provided and +demanded. But this was not done. + +If, as has been contended, the false witnesses were relied upon by the +Sanhedrin to corroborate the confession of Jesus, then under Hebrew law +the judges should at least have sought witnesses in His behalf, or +should have allowed His friends time to find them and bring them in. In +other words, His defense should have been considered. However +overwhelming the conviction of the judges of the Sanhedrin that the +claims of Jesus were false and blasphemous, they were not justified in +refusing to consider the merits of His pretensions. If a midnight +assassin should stealthily creep into the room of a sleeping man and +shoot him to death, a judge would not be legally justified in +instructing the jury, at the close of the people's case, to bring in a +verdict of guilty, on the ground that nothing that the defendant could +prove would help his case. However weak and ridiculous his defense, the +prisoner should at least be heard; and a failure to accord him a hearing +would certainly result in reversal on appeal. A refusal to consider the +defense of a prisoner under ancient Hebrew law was nothing less than an +abrogation of the forms of government and a proclamation of mob +violence in the particular case, for it must be remembered that Hebrew +criminal law was framed especially for the protection of the accused. + +It should also be kept in mind that it would not have been incumbent +upon Caiaphas and his fellow-judges to acquit Jesus simply because a +defense had been made. In other words, they were not bound to accept His +explanations and arguments. If they had heard Him and His witnesses, +they could have rejected His pretensions as false and blasphemous, +although they were truthful and righteous, without incurring the censure +of mankind and the curse of Heaven, for it would be preposterous to +require infallible judgment of judicial officers. All that can be +demanded of judges of the law is that they act conscientiously with the +lights that are in front of them. The maledictions of the human race +have been hurled at Caiaphas and his colleagues during nineteen +centuries, not because they pronounced an illegal judgment, but because +they outraged rules of law in their treatment of the Christ; not because +they misinterpreted His defense, but because they denied Him all +defense. + +We should constantly keep in mind that Jesus was entitled to have the +two requirements, "Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask +diligently," and "The judges shall weigh the matter in the sincerity of +their conscience," applied not only for but against Him. That is, before +the Hebrew Commonwealth rested its case against Him, He had a right to +demand that a _prima facie_ case be made, or in case of failure to do +so, that He be at once discharged. This rule was as pointed and +imperative under ancient as under modern law, and before the merits of +the defense were required to be considered the state had to close its +case against the defendant, with a presumption of guilt against Him, as +a result of the introduction of competent and satisfactory evidence. + +If rules of law had been properly observed in the trial of Jesus the +question of the merits of His defense would never have been raised; for +it was practically impossible to convict Him under the circumstances +surrounding the night trial in the palace of Caiaphas. As has been +before suggested, Jesus was very popular outside the circle of the +Temple authorities. So great was His popularity that it is almost +certain that two competent witnesses could not have been secured to +convict Him of blasphemy in the sense that He had claimed to be the +Messiah. We have seen, under Point VIII, that Jesus had confessed His +Messiahship to no one excepting the Samaritan woman, outside the +Apostolic company. Judas, then, was probably the only witness who had +heard Him declare Himself to be the Messiah that could have been +secured; and his testimony was incompetent, under Hebrew law, because, +under the supposition that Jesus was a criminal, Judas, His apostle, was +an accomplice. As to the charge of blasphemy in the broader sense of +having claimed equality with God, upon which, according to Salvador, +Jesus was convicted, it seems from the Gospel record that there would +have been no difficulty in legally convicting Him, if the Sanhedrin had +met regularly and had taken time to summon witnesses in legal manner. +For on many occasions Jesus had said and done things in the presence of +both friends and enemies that the Jews regarded as blasphemous; such as +claiming that He and His Father were one; that He had existed before +Abraham; and that He had power to forgive sins. But these charges were +not made at the trial, and we have no right to consider them except as +means of interpreting the mind of Caiaphas in connection with the +meaning of the claim of Jesus that He was the Christ, the Son of God. If +Caiaphas was justified in construing these words to mean that Jesus +claimed identity with Jehovah, then he was justified in inferring that +Jesus had spoken blasphemy, for from the standpoint of ancient Judaism +and considering Jesus simply as a Jewish citizen, blasphemy was the +crime that resulted from such a claim. But even from this point of view +Caiaphas was not justified in refusing Jesus ample opportunity to prove +His equality with Jehovah, or at least that He was gifted with divine +power. This was all the more true because the claim of Jesus was that of +Messiahship, and according to one line of authorities in Hebrew +Messianic theology the Messiah was to be clothed with divine authority +and power as the messenger and vicegerent of Jehovah on earth. + +But it is clearly certain that a _prima facie_ case of guilt was not +made by the Sanhedrin against Jesus; and, as a matter of law, He was not +called upon to make any defense. He could have refused to say a word in +answer to the accusation. He could have asserted His legal rights by +objecting that a case against Him had not been made, by demanding that +the charges against Him be dismissed and that He be set at liberty at +once. But Jesus did not do this. He simply confessed His Messiahship and +Sonship of the Father. This confession was not legal evidence upon which +He could have been convicted, but it did help to create an issue, the +truth or falsity of which should have been investigated by the court. + +Now, let us suppose, for argument's sake, that a _prima facie_ case of +guilt against Jesus was made before the Sanhedrin. What was the next +legal step under Hebrew law? What should the judges have done after +hearing the witnesses against Him? It is beyond dispute that they should +have begun at once to "inquire, and make search, and ask diligently" +concerning all matters pertaining to the truthfulness and righteousness +of His claims to Messiahship. They should have assisted Him in securing +witnesses whose testimony would have helped to establish those claims. +Having secured such testimony, they should have weighed it "in the +sincerity of their conscience." But this they did not do. + +It may be asked: What proofs could have been offered that Jesus was "the +Christ, the Son of God," if complete rights of defense had been +accorded? That question is difficult to answer, nearly two thousand +years after the trial. But if a _prima facie_ case of guilt had been +made against Him, shifting the burden of proof, and requiring that His +claims be proved, it may be reasonably contended that a complete defense +would have necessitated proofs: (1) That Jesus was the Christ, that is, +that He was the Messiah; (2) that He was also the Son of God, that is, +that He was identical with God Himself. Let us consider these two phases +of the subject and their attendant proofs in order. + +And first, what evidence could have been offered that Jesus was the +Christ, that is, the Messiah? What method of procedure should have been +employed by the Sanhedrin in investigating His claims? Let us suppose +that Caiaphas understood that Jesus claimed to be the long-looked-for +Messiah who had come from Jehovah with divine authority to redeem +mankind and to regenerate and rule the world. Let us not forget that the +Jews were expecting a Messiah, and that the mere claim of Messiahship +was not illegal. Such a claim merely raised an issue as to its truth or +falsity which was to be investigated like any other proposition of +theology or law. It was not one to be either accepted or rejected +without demonstration. Then when Jesus acknowledged His Messiahship in +answer to the high priest's question it was the duty of the court either +to admit His claim and discharge Him at once, or to summon competent +witnesses, by daylight, to prove that His pretensions were false and +blasphemous. Having rested their case, it was their duty to aid the +prisoner in securing witnesses to substantiate His claims, and according +to the spirit of Hebrew law to view rather favorably than unfavorably +such claims. It was also incumbent upon them to apply to Jesus all the +Messianic tests of each and every school. It should be remembered that +at the time of Christ there were radically different views of the +attributes of the expected Messiah. No two schools agreed upon all the +signs by which the future Deliverer would be recognized. Only one sign +was agreed upon by all--that He would be a scion of the House of David. +The followers of Judas of Galilee believed that the Messiah would be an +earthly hero of giant stature--a William Tell, a Robert Bruce, an +Abraham Lincoln--who would emancipate the Jews by driving out the Romans +and permanently restoring the kingdom of David on the earth. The school +of Shammai believed that he would be not only a great statesman and +warrior, but a religious zealot as well; and that to splendid victories +on the battlefield, he would add the glorious triumphs of religion. +Radically different from both these views, were the teachings of the +gentle Hillel and his disciples. According to these, the Messiah was to +be a prince of peace whose sublime and holy spirit would impress itself +upon all flesh, would banish all wars, and make of Jerusalem the grand +center of international brotherhood and love. But even these conceptions +were not exhaustive of the various Messianic ideas that were prevalent +in Palestine in the days of Jesus. Some of the Messianic notions were +not only contradictory but diametrically opposite in meaning. A "prince +of peace" and a "gigantic warrior" could not well be one and the same +person. And for this reason it is apparent that, had an examination been +made, the claims of Jesus to the Messiahship could not have been +rejected by Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, simply because this or that +attribute did not meet the approval of this or that sect or school. + +Instead of condemning Him to death for blasphemy, when Jesus answered +that He was the Christ, the Son of God, Caiaphas should have asked a +second question: "What sign shewest thou then, that we may see and +believe thee?" It has been contended by Jewish writers that, far from +denying Jesus the privilege of proving His Messiahship, He was +frequently asked to give signs and perform wonders. The reply to this is +that as far as the legal merits of the case are concerned Jesus was not +invited at the trial in the palace of Caiaphas to show signs or give +proofs of His Messiahship. And as to the chances afforded Him at other +times and places, they were extra-judicial and were mere street affairs +in which Jesus probably refused to gratify vulgar curiosity and by which +He was not remotely bound legally or religiously. It is only when +properly arraigned and accused that a citizen under modern law can be +compelled to answer a charge of crime. The rule was more stringent under +the ancient Hebrew dispensation. Private preliminary examinations, even +by judicial officers, were not permitted by Hebrew law, as Salvador +explicitly states. It was only when confronted by proper charges before +a legally constituted tribunal in regular session, that a Hebrew +prisoner was compelled to answer. And at the regular trial before the +full Sanhedrin Jesus was not asked to give evidence that would serve to +exculpate Him. What Caiaphas should have done was to notify Jesus, at +the time of the arraignment in his own house, that His life was at +stake and that now was the time to produce testimony in His own behalf. +It was the duty, furthermore, of the high priest and his associates to +consult the sacred books to see if the Messianic prophecies therein +contained were fulfilled in the birth, life, and performances of Jesus, +as these matters were developed at the trial by witnesses duly summoned +in His behalf. + +It was a matter personally within the knowledge of the judges that the +time was ripe for the appearance of the Deliverer. Not only the people +of Israel, but all the surrounding nations were expecting the coming of +a great renovator of the world. Of such an arrival Virgil had already +sung at Rome.[323] + +A great national misfortune had already foreshadowed the day of the +Messiah more potently than had any individual event in the life of +Jesus. When Jacob lay dying upon his deathbed, he called around him his +twelve sons and began to pronounce upon each in turn the paternal and +prophetic blessing. When the turn of Judah came, the accents of the +dying patriarch became more clear and animated, as he said: "Judah, thou +art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of +thine enemies; thy father's children shall bow down before thee. Judah +is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped +down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up? +The _sceptre_ shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between +his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the +people be."[324] The Jewish Rabbinical commentators of antiquity were +unanimously of the opinion that this prophecy of Jacob referred to the +day of the Messiah. And for ages the people had been told to watch for +two special signs which would herald the coming of the great Deliverer: +(1) The departure of the scepter from Judah; (2) the loss of the +judicial power. + +The Talmudists, commenting on the above passage from Genesis, say: "The +son of David shall not come unless the royal power has been taken from +Judah"; and in another passage: "The son of David shall not come unless +the judges have ceased in Israel."[325] Now both these signs had +appeared at the time of the Roman conquest, shortly before the birth of +Christ. At the deposition of Archelaus, A.D. 6, Judea became a Roman +province with a Roman procurator as governor. Sovereignty then passed +away forever from the Jews. And not only was sovereignty taken from +them, but its chief attribute, the power of life and death in judicial +matters, was destroyed. Thus the legal and historical situation was +produced that had been prophesied by Jacob. The _scepter_ had passed +from Judah and the _lawgiver_ from between his feet, when Jesus stood +before the Sanhedrin claiming to be the Messiah. + +A fair trial in full daylight, it is believed, would have called before +His judges a host of witnesses friendly to Jesus, whose testimony would +have established an exact fulfilment of ancient Messianic prophecy in +His birth, life, arrest, and trial. A judicial record would have been +made of which the following might be regarded as an approximately +correct transcript: + +(1) _That the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem_: + + PROPHECY--But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among + the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto + me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been + from of old, from everlasting.--MICAH v. 2. + + FULFILLMENT--Now when Jesus was _born in Bethlehem_ of Judea in the + days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east + to Jerusalem.--MATT. ii. 1. + + And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, + into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem + (because he was of the house and lineage of David), To be taxed + with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it + was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that + she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, + and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; + because there was no room for them in the inn.--LUKE ii. 4-7. + +(2) _That the Messiah was to be born of a virgin_: + + PROPHECY--Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, + a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name + Immanuel.--ISA. vii. 14. + + FULFILLMENT--And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from + God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused + to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the + virgin's name was Mary.... And the angel said unto her, Fear not, + Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. And, behold, thou shalt + conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his + name Jesus.--LUKE i. 26-30. + + Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord + had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: and knew her not till + she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name + Jesus--MATT. i. 24, 25. + +(3) _That the Messiah was to spring from the house of David_: + + PROPHECY--Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise + unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, + and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days + Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is + his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR + RIGHTEOUSNESS.--JER. xxiii. 5, 6. + + FULFILLMENT--He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the + Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his + father David.--LUKE i. 32. + + But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the + Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of + David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is + conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.--MATT. i. 20. + +(4) _That the Messiah should not come until the scepter had departed +from Judah and the lawgiver from between his feet_: + + PROPHECY--The Sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver + from between his feet, until Shiloh come.--GEN. xlix. 10. + + FULFILLMENT--And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and + superscription? They say unto him, Cæsar's. Then saith he unto + them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's; + and unto God the things that are God's.--MATT. xxii. 20, 21. + + Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according + to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful + for us to put any man to death.--JOHN xviii. 31. + +(5) _That a forerunner like unto Elijah should prepare the way of the +Messiah_: + + PROPHECY--Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the + way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to + his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight + in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.--MAL. iii. 1. + + The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way + of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our + God.--ISA. xl. 3. + + FULFILLMENT--In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the + wilderness of Judea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of + heaven is at hand. For this is he that was spoken of by the + prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, + Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.--MATT. + iii. 1-3. + + This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger + before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. For I + say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a + greater prophet than John the Baptist.--LUKE vii. 27, 28. + +(6) _That the Messiah should begin to preach in Galilee_: + + PROPHECY--In Galilee of the nations, the people that walked in + darkness have seen a great light.--ISA. ix. 1, 2. + + FULFILLMENT--Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into + prison, He departed into Galilee.... The people which sat in + darkness, saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and + shadow of death light is sprung up. From that time, Jesus began to + preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at + hand.--MATT. iv. 12-17. + +(7) _That the Messiah should perform many miracles:_ + + PROPHECY--Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the + ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap + as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness + shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.--ISA. xxxv. 5, + 6. + + FULFILLMENT--Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, + blind, and dumb, and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and + dumb both spake and saw.--MATT. xii. 22. + + But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to + forgive sins (he said unto the sick of the palsy), I say unto thee, + Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house. And + immediately he rose up before them, and took up that whereon he + lay, and departed to his own house, glorifying God.--LUKE v. 24, + 25. + + Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those + things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, + and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, + the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to + them.--MATT. xi. 4, 5. + +(8) _That the Messiah should make his public entry into Jerusalem riding +upon an ass:_ + + PROPHECY--Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter + of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and + having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt + the foal of an ass.--ZECH. ix. 9. + + FULFILLMENT--And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded + them, And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their + clothes, and they set him thereon. And a very great multitude + spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from + the trees, and strewed them in the way. And the multitudes that + went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son + of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; + Hosanna in the highest.--MATT. xxi. 6-9. + +(9) _That the Messiah should be betrayed by one of his followers for +thirty pieces of silver which would finally be thrown into the potter's +field:_ + + PROPHECY--Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which + did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.--PSA. + xli. 9. + + And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if + not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of + silver. And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a + goodly price that I was prized at of them. And I took the thirty + pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the + Lord.--ZECH. xi. 12, 13. + + FULFILLMENT--Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went + unto the chief priests, And said unto them, What will ye give me, + and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for + thirty pieces of silver.--MATT. xxvi. 14, 15. + + Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was + condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces + of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in + that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is + that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver + in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the + chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful + for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of + blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's + field, to bury strangers in.--MATT. xxvii. 3-8. + +(10) _That the Messiah should be a man of poverty and of suffering; and +should be despised and rejected of men:_ + + PROPHECY--He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and + acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; + he was despised, and we esteemed him not.--ISA. liii. 3. + + FULFILLMENT--And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of + the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his + head.--LUKE ix. 58. + + And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, + and bowing their knees worshipped him. And when they had mocked + him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on + him, and led him out to crucify him.--MARK xv. 19, 20. + +Through reasonable diligence, witnesses might have been secured to +testify to a majority, at least, of the points above enumerated, +touching Messianic prophecy and fulfillment. Besides these are many +others too numerous to mention in a treatise of this kind. + +The question then arises at once: Admitting that all the evidence above +suggested, marked "Prophecy" and "Fulfillment," could have been +introduced in evidence at the trial before the Sanhedrin; were the +judges morally and legally bound to acquit and release Jesus, if they +believed this testimony to be true? We answer unhesitatingly, yes; as +far as the count in the accusation relating to Messiahship was +concerned. But we must remember that the charge against Jesus was not +limited to His claims to Messiahship. The indictment against Him was +that He claimed to be "the Christ, the Son of God." "Christ" is the +English form of the Greek translation of the word meaning "Messiah." The +real nature of the charge against the prisoner, then, was that He +claimed to be not only the Messiah but also the Son of God. We have seen +that "Son of God" conveyed to the Sanhedrin the notion of divine origin +and of equality with Jehovah. Even to-day there is no dispute between +Jews and Christians in regard to this construction. Jews charge that +Jesus made such a claim and Christians agree with them. They are +compelled to do so, indeed, or else abjure the fundamental dogma of +their faith--the doctrine of the Trinity. + +Now we approach the consideration of a phase of the subject where +theology and law meet and blend. It has been sought to ridicule the +contention that Jesus should have been heard on the charge of being the +Son of God, in the sense that He was God Himself, because such a claim +was not only ridiculous and frivolous as a plea, but because it was +blasphemous upon its face; as being opposed, by bare assertion, to the +most fundamental and sacred precept of the Mosaic Code and of the +teachings of the Prophets: that God was purely and wholly spiritual; +that He was not only incorporeal but invisible, indivisible, and +incomprehensible. The advocates of this theory declare that Jesus +asserted, in the face of this primary belief of the Hebrews, a plurality +of gods of which He was a member, and that this assertion destroyed the +very cornerstone of Judaism, founded in the teaching of the celebrated +passage: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." They further +declare that when Jesus presented Himself in the flesh, and declared +that He was God, He insulted both the intelligence and religious +consciousness of His judges by a complete anthropomorphism; and that +when He did this, He was not entitled to be heard. + +One of the most radical of this class is Rabbi Wise who, in "The +Martyrdom of Jesus," says: "Had Jesus maintained before a Jewish court +to be the Son of God, in the trinitarian sense of the terms, viz., that +He was part, person, or incarnation of the Deity, He must have said it +in terms to be understood to that effect, as ambiguous words amount to +nothing. But if even clearly understood, the court could only have found +Him insane, but not guilty of any crime." This is strong language, +indeed, and deserves serious consideration. It means nothing less than +that Jesus, upon His confession of equality and identity with God, +should have been committed as a lunatic, and not tried as a criminal. +And the real meaning of this too extreme view is that the claims of +Jesus, being a man in the flesh, to membership in a plurality of gods +was such an outrageous and unheard-of thing that it amounted to +insanity; and that an insane person was not one to be listened to, but +to be committed and protected. The purpose of the distinguished Hebrew +theologian was to show by the absurdity of the thing that Jesus was +never tried before a Hebrew court; that He never claimed to be the Son +of God, and that the Evangelical narratives are simply false. The same +writer thus continues in the same connection: "Mark reports furthermore, +that Jesus did not simply affirm the high priest's question but added: +'And ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and +coming in the clouds of heaven.' Jesus cannot have said these words. Our +reasons are: they are not true; none of the judges and witnesses present +ever did see him either sitting on the right hand of power or coming in +the clouds of heaven. These words could have originated only after the +death of Jesus, when the Jewish Christians expected his immediate return +as the Messiah and restorer of the kingdom of heaven, so that those very +men could see him coming in the clouds of heaven. Besides, Jesus, the +Pharisean Jew, could not have entertained the anthropomorphism that God +had a _right hand_."[326] It is only necessary to add that Rabbi Wise +may be right, if the Gospel writers were untruthful men. Suffice it to +say that we have said enough in support of the veracity of the +Evangelists in Part I of this volume. If we are right that they were +truthful historians when they published these biographies to the world, +Rabbi Wise is wrong; for according to these writers the Sanhedrin did +not take the view that Jesus was a crazy man, but that He was a +criminal. They accordingly tried Him to the extent of bringing an +accusation against Him and of supporting it with a certain kind and +amount of testimony, and by then leading Him away to be crucified by the +Romans. Our contention is that the trial was not complete, in that His +judges did not consider the merits of the defense of Jesus in the +proceedings which they conducted against Him. + +It would be entirely consistent with the plan of this treatise and of +the special treatment of this theme to ignore completely the question of +the divinity of Jesus; since we have announced a legal and not a +theological consideration of the subject. But we repeat that the +theological and the legal are inseparably interwoven in a proper +handling of Point XII. If Rabbi Wise and others are right that the +anthropomorphic pretensions of Jesus robbed Him of the protection of the +law, in the sense that His claims to be God in the flesh were not worthy +of consideration by a Hebrew court, then we are wrong in making the +point that the merits of His defense should have been considered. + +Our contention is that the claims of Jesus were not so strange and +shocking as to place Him without the pale of the law and to deny Him its +ordinary protection; that His pretensions were not those of an insane +man; that if He was not the Son of God He was guilty of blasphemy; and +that if He was the Son of God He was innocent. We further contend that +all these things were subjects of legitimate judicial examination by +Hebrew judges under Hebrew law, and that Jesus should have had His day +in court. + +A very brief examination of the question of anthropomorphism in its +connection with the claims of Jesus will demonstrate the fallacy of the +arguments of Rabbi Wise and of those who agree with him. Candor compels +us to admit that the Jewish conception of Jehovah at the time of the +crucifixion was very foreign to the notion of a God of flesh and bone. +Hebrew monotheism taught the doctrine of one God who was purely +spiritual, and therefore invisible, intangible, and unapproachable. +Judaism delighted to lift its deity above the sensual, material, and +corporeal things of earth, and to represent Him as a pure and sinless +spirit in a state of awful and supreme transcendence. Our first +impression, then, is that this dogma of divine unity and spirituality +must have received a dreadful shock when Jesus, a carpenter of Nazareth, +whose mother, father, brothers, and sisters were known, confronted the +high priest and declared to him that He was God. But the shock was +certainly not so great that Caiaphas and his colleagues, after a +moment's composure and reflection, could not have concluded that the +pretensions of Jesus were not wholly at variance with the revelations of +Hebrew theology in the earlier years of the Commonwealth of Israel. They +might have judged His claims to be unfounded, but they were certainly +not justified in pronouncing Him insane, or in ignoring His rights under +the law to be heard and to have His defense considered. Their arrest and +trial of the prisoner was the consummation of a number of secret +meetings in which the astounding personality and marvelous performances +of Jesus were debated and discussed with fear and trembling. The +raising of Lazarus from the dead had created a frightful panic among the +Sadducean oligarchy. Far from regarding Him as an obscure person whose +claims were ridiculous and whose mind was unbalanced, the priests feared +lest all men might believe on Him, and boldly declared that such was the +influence of His deeds that His single life might be balanced against +the existence of a whole nation.[327] + +What the judges of the Sanhedrin should have done in examining the +merits of the defense of Jesus was: (1) To consider whether, in the +light of Hebrew scripture and tradition, a god of flesh and bone, +representing the second person of a Duality or a Trinity of gods, was +possible; (2) to weigh thoroughly the claims of Jesus, in the light of +testimony properly adduced at the trial, that He was this second person +of a Duality or Trinity of gods. + +In making this examination, let us bear in mind, the members of the +court were not to look forward, but backward. They were to examine the +past, not the future, in reference to the present. Furthermore, they +were not to consider so much a Trinity as a Duality of gods; for it must +be remembered that the Holy Ghost was not a feature of the trial. The +Athanasian creed and the proceedings of the Nicene Council were not +binding upon Caiaphas and his fellow-judges. Nor were the teachings of +the New Testament scriptures published to the world more than a +generation after the trial. They were to consider the divine pretensions +of Jesus in the light of the teachings and revelations of the Law and +the Prophets. They were to measure His claims by these standards in the +light of the evidence adduced before them. + +With a view to a thorough and systematic examination of the merits of +the defense of Jesus, Caiaphas, as presiding officer of the Sanhedrin, +should have propounded to his fellow-judges the following initial +questions: (1) Do the Law and the Prophets reveal the doctrine of a +plurality of gods among the Israelites? That is, has Jehovah ever +begotten, or has He ever promised to beget, a Son of equal divinity with +Himself? Was this Son to be, or is He to be born of a woman; and to +have, therefore, the form of a man and the attributes of a human being? +Was this Son to be, or is He to be at any time identical with the +Father? Do the Law and the Prophets tell us unmistakably that Jehovah +ever appeared upon the earth in human form and exhibited human +attributes? Do they contain a promise from the Father that He would send +His Son to the earth to be the Redeemer of men and the Regenerator of +the world? (2) Do the credentials of Jesus, the prisoner at the bar, in +the light of the evidence before us, entitle Him to be considered this +Son and Ambassador of God, sent from the Father to redeem mankind? + +It follows logically and necessarily that if affirmative answers were +not given to the first set of questions an examination of the second +would be useless. Let us conceive, then, that the judges of the +Sanhedrin had employed this method. What answers, we may ask, would +they have developed to these questions from the Sacred Books? + +At the outset it is safe to say that negative answers would have been +given, if the judges had considered the claims of Jesus with reference +alone to the prevailing Pharisaic teachings of the days of Jesus. And in +this connection let us note that the Hebrew conception of Jehovah had +materially changed in the time intervening between the Mosaic +dispensation and the coming of the Christ. The spiritual growth of the +nation had been characterized at every step by marked aversion to +anthropomorphism--the ascription to God of human form and attributes. In +the Pentateuch there is a prevailing anthropomorphic idea of Jehovah. He +is frequently talked about as if He were a man. Human passions and +emotions are repeatedly ascribed to Him. This was inevitable among a +primitive people whose crude religious consciousness sought to frame +from the analogy of human nature a visible symbol of the Deity and a +sensible emblem of religious faith. All early religions have manifested +the same anthropomorphic tendencies. Both Judaism and Christianity have +long since planted themselves upon the fundamental proposition that God +is a spirit. But both these systems of religion have in all ages been +compelled to run the gantlet of two opposing tendencies: one of which +sought by a living, personal communion with God through Moses and +through Christ, by means of human attributes and symbols, an intimate +knowledge and immediate benefit of the divine nature; the other, from a +horror of anthropomorphism, tending to make God purely passionless and +impersonal, thus reducing Him to a bare conception without form or +quality, thus making Him a blank negation. + +The successive steps in the progress of weeding out anthropomorphisms +from the Pentateuch may be clearly traced in later Hebrew literature. +The Prophets themselves were at times repelled by the sensuous +conceptions of God revealed by the writings of Moses. The great lawgiver +had attributed to Jehovah the quality of repentance, a human attribute. +"And it _repented_ the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it +grieved him at his heart," says Genesis vi. 6. But a later writer, the +prophet Samuel, denied that God had such a quality. "And also the +Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he +should repent."[328] And the prophet Hosea affirms this declaration when +he places in the mouth of Jehovah the affirmation: "For I am God and not +man."[329] + +At a still later age, when the notion of the supreme transcendence of +Jehovah had become prevalent, it was considered objectionable to make +God say, "I will dwell in your midst"; as a substitute, "I shall cause +you to dwell" was adopted. "To behold the face of God" was not a +repulsive phrase in the ancient days of Hebrew plainness and simplicity, +but later times sought to eradicate the anthropomorphism by saying +instead, "to appear before God." + +The Septuagint, the Greek version of the Bible in use at the time of +Christ, reveals the same tendency toward paraphrasing or spiritualizing +the anthropomorphic phrases of the older Bible. In this translation the +"image of God" of the older Hebrew literature becomes "the glory of +God," and "the mouth of God" is expressed by "the voice of the Lord." + +The Septuagint was written more than a century before the birth of +Jesus, and we may safely assert that at the beginning of our era the +Jews not only affirmatively proclaimed the doctrine of divine unity and +pure spirituality, in relation to the person and character of Jehovah, +but that they boldly and indignantly denied and denounced any attempt to +make of God a man or to attribute to Him human qualities. But when we +say "the Jews," we mean the dominant religious sect of the nation, the +Pharisees. We should not forget, in this connection, that the primary +difference between the Sadducees and the Pharisees was in the varying +intensity with which they loved the Law of Moses and adhered to its +teachings. We have seen in Part II of this volume that the Mishna, the +oral law, was really more highly esteemed by the Pharisaic Jews than was +the Mosaic Code. But the Sadducees planted themselves squarely upon the +Pentateuch and denied that the traditions of the Scribes were of binding +force. "The Sadducees were a body of aristocrats opposed to the oral law +and the later developments of Judaism." + +Now what views, we may ask, did the Sadducees entertain of the +possibility of God appearing to men in the flesh? In other words, what +was their notion, at the time of Christ, of the anthropomorphisms of the +Pentateuch, which was their ultimate guide and standard in all matters +of legal and religious interpretation? These questions are important in +this connection, since Caiaphas and the large majority of his colleagues +in the Great Sanhedrin were Sadducees and held the fate of Jesus in +their hands. Candor compels us to admit that we believe that the +Sadducees agreed with the Pharisees that Jehovah was a pure and sinless +spirit. But we feel equally sure that their knowledge of the Pentateuch, +in which at times anthropomorphism is strongly accentuated, taught them +that Jehovah had not only appeared in the flesh among men in olden +times, but that it was not at all impossible or unreasonable that He +should come again in the same form. But this much is certain: that in +determining whether Jesus could be both man and God the Sadducees would +be disposed to ignore the traditions of the Pharisees and "the later +developments of Judaism," and appeal direct to the law of Moses. Jesus +Himself, if He had been disposed to make a defense of His claims, and +His judges had been disposed to hear Him, would have appealed to the +same legal standard. Christ more than once manifested a disposition to +appeal to the Mosaic Code, as a modern citizen would appeal from mere +statutes and the decisions of the courts, to the constitution, as the +fundamental law of the land. Mark tells us that in denouncing the +Pharisees, He used this language: "And he said unto them, Full well ye +reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.... +Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye +have delivered: and many such like things do ye."[330] Hebrew sacred +literature is filled with anecdotes, often characterized by raillery and +jests, of how the Sadducces denounced the Pharisees for their attempts +to nullify Mosaic injunction by their peculiar interpretation. + +Now in view of what we have just said, are we not justified in assuming +that if the judges had accorded Jesus full liberty of defense He would +have appealed to the Pentateuch, with the approbation of His judges, to +show that God had appeared among men in the flesh, and that a plurality +in the Godhead was plainly taught? Would He not then have appealed to +the Prophets to show that Jehovah had spoken of a begotten Son who was +none other than Almighty God Himself? Would He not have shown from both +the Law and the Prophets that the angel of Jehovah, who was none other +than Himself, had frequently, in ages past, acted as the ambassador of +God in numerous visits to the earth, on missions of love and mercy among +men? Would He not have proved to them that this angel of Jehovah had +been at certain times in the past none other than Jehovah Himself? Could +He not have pointed out to them that their whole sacred literature was +filled with prophecies foretelling the coming of this Son and Ambassador +of God to the earth to redeem fallen man? Could He not then have +summoned a hundred witnesses to prove His own connection with these +prophecies, to show His virgin birth, and to give an account of the +numerous miracles which He had wrought, and that were the best evidence +of His divine character? + +Let us imagine that Caiaphas, as judge, had demanded of Jesus, the +prisoner, to produce Biblical evidence that God had ever begotten or had +promised to beget a Son who was equal with Himself. The following +passages might have been produced: + + Psa. ii. 7: Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee. + + Isa. ix. 6: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and + the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be + called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting + Father, The Prince of Peace. + +What closer identity, we may ask, could be demanded between the Father +and the Son than is revealed by this language of Isaiah, "and his (the +son's) name shall be called The mighty God, The everlasting Father?" +What more exact equality could be asked than the same words suggest? +What stronger proof of plurality in the Godhead could be demanded? + +Again, let us suppose that His judges had demanded of Jesus scriptural +proof that the divine Son of God was to be born of a woman, and was to +have, therefore, the form of a man and the attributes of a human being. +The following passages might have been produced: + + Isa. vii. 14: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; + Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his + name Immanuel. + + Gen. iii. 15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and + between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou + shalt bruise his heel. + + Enoch lxii. 5: And one Portion of them will look on the other, and + they will be terrified, and their countenance will fall, and they + will seize them when they see _that Son of Woman_ sitting on the + throne of his glory. + +The first of these passages needs no comment. It is perfectly clear and +speaks for itself. Regarding the second, it may be observed that after +the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden it was announced that the +seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head. This announcement +contained, when viewed in the light of subsequent revelations, both a +promise and a prophecy; a promise of a Redeemer of fallen man, and a +prophecy that He would finally triumph over all the powers of sin and +darkness whose father was Satan, who had entered into the serpent. The +"seed of the woman" foretold that the Redeemer would have a human +nature; His triumph over Satan suggested His divine origin and power. + +Again, continuing the examination, let us suppose that Caiaphas had +informed Jesus that His pretensions to be God in the flesh were not only +not sanctioned by but were offensive to the current teachings of Judaism +in relation to the person and character of Jehovah. Let us suppose, +further, that the high priest had informed the prisoner that he and his +fellow-judges, who were Sadducees in faith and a majority in number of +the Sanhedrin, did not feel themselves bound by Pharisaic tradition and +"the later developments of Judaism"; that they preferred the Mosaic Code +as a standard of legal and religious judgment; that the anthropomorphisms +of the Pentateuch were not particularly offensive to them, for the +reason that they had not been to Moses; and that if He, the prisoner at +the bar, could cite instances related by Moses where Jehovah had +appeared among men, having the form of a human being, His case would be +greatly strengthened; on the ground that if God had ever appeared in the +flesh on one occasion it was not unreasonable, or at least impossible, +that He should so appear again. + +In proof that God had appeared in the flesh, or at least in human form, +among men, the following passages might have been adduced: + + Gen. xviii. 1-8: And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of + Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he + lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: + and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and + bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Lord, if now I have + found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy + servant: ... And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetched a calf + tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to + dress it. And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had + dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the + tree, and they did eat. + + Gen. xvi. 10-13: And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will + multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for + multitude. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou + art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name + Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.... And she + called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God seest + me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me? + + Gen. xxii. 11, 12: And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of + heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he + said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing + unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast + not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me. + + Ex. iii. 2-6: And the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame + of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, + the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And + Moses said, I will not turn aside, and see this great sight, why + the bush is not burnt. And when the Lord saw that he turned aside + to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and + said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. And he said, Draw not + nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet; for the place + whereon thou standest is holy ground. Moreover he said, I am the + God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the + God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look + upon God. + +From the first passage above cited it is clear that Jehovah, in the form +of a man, appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre. A contributor to +"The Jewish Encyclopedia" declares that these three men were angels in +the shape of human beings of extraordinary beauty but that they were not +at once recognized as angels.[331] The Christian commentators are +generally agreed that it was Jehovah who was present in human form.[332] +The other members of the company are declared by some of them to be the +second and third persons of the Trinity. Plausibility is given to this +contention by the fact that Abraham first saw one person, the Lord; +then he looked up and saw three; he then advanced to meet the three, +and, addressing them, used a singular epithet, "My Lord." The form of +the address, together with the movements of Abraham, seem to suggest +three in one and one in three. But with this theory we are not seriously +concerned, as our present purpose is to show that Jehovah occasionally +appeared in human form upon the earth in the olden days. A plurality of +gods is suggested, however, by the passage, if Christian interpretation +be applied; for if one of these men was Jehovah, as Abraham's language +seems to indicate, and as modern Christian interpretation generally +maintains, why could not the other two men have also been gods in the +form of the Son and the Holy Spirit? If the Jewish commentator's +opinion, to which we have referred heretofore, be plausible--that the +three men were angels in human form--why is it not equally as plausible +to suppose that a god or gods should also appear in human form? But at +all events these three men were not ordinary human beings. He who +maintains that they were assaults the intelligence of either the +translators of the Bible or of Abraham, or both; for the Hebrew +patriarch believed that Jehovah was present as a guest in his house, and +he spread a hospitable meal for him. The language of Genesis very +clearly indicates as much. And the question may be asked: If Abraham +could not recognize Jehovah, who could or can? + +In the second of the above extracts from Genesis the angel of the Lord +appeared unto Hagar and said to her: "I will multiply thy seed +exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude." And Hagar +made reply: "And she called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, +Thou God seest me." This passage plainly teaches that the angel of the +Lord and Jehovah were sometimes identical. + +The third passage heretofore cited from Genesis also teaches the +identity of the angel of the Lord and of God Himself, in the matter of +the attempted sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. It was the same voice, that +of the angel of the Lord, that said: "For now I know that thou fearest +God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me." + +Again, the identity of the angel of the Lord and of Jehovah is +unmistakably shown from the account of the voice that cried from the +burning bush: "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God +of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face, for he was +afraid to look upon God." + +Concerning the manifestation of Jehovah to men in angelic and human form +a modern writer says: "Much has been written concerning a certain +Mal'akh Yaweh (messenger of Jehovah) who appears in the Old Testament. I +say 'a certain' Mal'akh Yaweh, because it is not every Mal'akh Yaweh +that appears to which I refer. In most passages the Mal'akh Yaweh is +simply an angel sent by the Almighty to communicate his will or purposes +to men. These angels are distinctly apprehended as created +intelligences, wholly separate and diverse from God. But there is a +class of passages in which the Mal'akh Yaweh appears as a +self-manifestation of God. He appears indeed in human form and speaks +of God in the third person. But those to whom he appears are oppressed +by the consciousness that they have seen God and must die. They see in +him an impersonation of Deity such as is found in no other angel. He is +to their minds not merely a messenger from God but the revelation of the +being of God. The Christian fathers for the most part identify him with +the Logos of the New Testament. But there is as much reason to adopt the +opinion of many modern writers who hold that he is Jehovah himself +appearing in human form, for he is explicitly addressed as Jehovah +(Judges vi. 11-24)."[333] + +The identity of the angel of Jehovah and of Jehovah Himself could not be +more conclusively proved than in the appearance to Gideon, related in +the passage above cited, Judges vi. 11-24. The absolute identity is +revealed in verses 22, 23: "And when Gideon perceived that he was an +angel of the Lord, Gideon said, Alas, O Lord God! for because I have +seen an angel of the Lord face to face. And the Lord said unto him, +Peace be unto thee; fear not: thou shalt not die." + +Now let us suppose that Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin had received these +passages favorably; that they had become convinced that Jehovah had +appeared in the olden days in the form of angels and of men; that at one +time He was identical with a man, and at another with an angel whom He +had sent. Let us suppose further that the judges of Jesus had demanded +of Him a passage of ancient Scriptures connecting Him even remotely +with this messenger of God. The following passage might have been +produced: + + Ex. xxiii. 20, 21: Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep + thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have + prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for + he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. + +The concluding paragraph of the last cited passage, "My name is in him," +is equivalent to "I am in him." The mere name of God is often used to +denote God Himself as manifested. For instance, in I Kings viii. 29 is +contained the statement, "My name shall be there"; that is, "There will +I dwell." And when it is said that the name of Jehovah would be in the +angel of Jehovah it is equivalent to saying that Jehovah Himself would +be present in His messenger which He had sent before Him. The passage +further teaches that the messenger of Jehovah to the earth bore a +commission to pardon sin, or not to, according to his pleasure. The +Sanhedrin were undoubtedly aware that Jesus claimed the same power by +virtue of authority vested in Him by His Father. + +But it may be imagined that Caiaphas was perfectly willing to concede +that Jehovah had appeared in human form upon the earth, but was not +inclined to believe that He had ever manifested human passions and +emotions, as Jesus had done when He denounced on several occasions the +hypocrisy of the Pharisees; and, above all, when He overthrew the tables +in the Temple, and, applying a lash to their backs, drove out the +money-changers.[334] Let us imagine that the high priest demanded of the +prisoner proof from the ancient Scriptures that Jehovah was possessed of +ordinary human attributes; and particularly that He was at times +disposed to fight. Jesus might have produced the following passages to +show that Jehovah, His Father, had manifested in times past the ordinary +human passions and emotions of repentance, grief, jealousy, anger, +graciousness, love, and hate: + + Ex. xv. 3, 6: The Lord is a man of war.... Thy right hand, O + Lord, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O Lord, hath + dashed in pieces the enemy. + + Gen. vi. 6: And it _repented_ the Lord that he had made man on the + earth, and it grieved him at his heart. + + Deut. vi. 15: For the Lord thy God is a _jealous_ God among you, + lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee, and + destroy thee from off the face of the earth. + + Psa. cxi. 4: He hath made his wonderful works to be remembered: the + Lord is _gracious_ and full of _compassion_. + + I Kings x. 9: Because the Lord _loved_ Israel forever, therefore + made he thee king, to do judgment and justice. + + Prov. vi. 16: These six things doth the Lord _hate_: yea, seven are + an abomination unto him. + +And as a final step in the examination let us imagine that Caiaphas and +his colleagues had stated to Jesus that they were satisfied, from the +authorities cited, that Jehovah had, in ancient days, appeared upon the +earth in human form and had exhibited human attributes; that Jehovah had +begotten a Son who was equal in power and majesty with Himself; that +this Son had been begotten of a woman and possessed, therefore, human +form and attributes; that this Jehovah had sent an angel messenger to +the earth with a commission to pardon sins. Let us imagine further that +the judges had demanded of the prisoner that He present and prove His +credentials as the divine ambassador of God from heaven to men on earth; +that He conform His personal claims to heavenly Messiahship to ancient +prophecy by producing evidence before them in court. What facts, we may +ask, could Jesus have shown to establish His claims to Messiahship and +to Sonship of the Father? + +To attempt to originate a defense for Jesus would be unnecessary, if not +actually impertinent and sacrilegious. We are fully justified, however, +in assuming that if called upon to prove His claims to Messiahship He +would have made the same reply to the Sanhedrin that He had already made +to the Jews out of court who asked Him: "What sign shewest thou, then, +that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?"[335] "How long +dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. +Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: _the works that I +do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me_."[336] Again, He would +have doubtless made the same reply to Caiaphas that He did to the +embassy from John the Baptist who came to inquire if He was really the +Messiah. "Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again +those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, +and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead +are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them."[337] + +Under a fair trial, in daylight, with full freedom of defense to the +accused, abundant evidence could have been secured of the miraculous +powers of Jesus and of the truthfulness of His pretensions to a divine +origin. Testimony could have been introduced that would have been not +only competent but entirely satisfactory. The New Testament narratives +tell us of about forty miracles that Jesus performed during His life. +The closing verse of St. John intimates that He performed many that were +never reported. The circumstances surrounding the working of these +wonders were such as to make them peculiarly competent as evidence and +to carry conviction of their genuineness, when they were once +introduced. + +In the first place, miracles were entirely capable of being proved by +testimony. If those persons who had known Lazarus intimately during his +lifetime saw him dead on one day, and on the fourth day afterwards saw +him alive and walking the streets, the senses would be perfectly +competent to decide and the fact that a miracle had been performed would +be conclusively proved. And it may be added that a dozen witnesses who +were entirely competent to testify could have been summoned to the +defense of Jesus in the matter of raising Lazarus from the dead. + +Again, we must remember that the miracles of Jesus were performed in the +most public manner, in the street, on the highway, in far-away Galilee, +and at the very gates of Jerusalem. Both His friends and enemies, men +and women, were witnesses of their performance. The number and publicity +of these wonder-working performances rendered it possible for the +Sanhedrin to call before them hundreds and thousands of competent +witnesses who had seen and felt the manifestation of the divine power of +the prisoner in their presence. + +Again, the miracles of Jesus were such as to render them subject to the +test of the senses, when submitted to examination. If Caiaphas and his +fellow-judges had decided that there was fraud in the matter of the +alleged raising of Lazarus from the dead, because the brother of Martha +and Mary was not really dead, but simply swooned or slept; if they had +decided that the man sick of the palsy was not cured by miracle, but by +faith; nevertheless, they could not have charged fraud and faith cure in +the matter of the stilling of the tempest or the feeding of the five +thousand or the walking on the sea. They would have been forced to +conclude that the witnesses had lied or that miracles had been wrought. +In the case of the feeding of the five thousand, the witnesses would +have been too numerous to brand with falsehood. + +But, we may ask, was the performance of miracles by Jesus, if believed +by the Sanhedrin, sufficient evidence of the divine origin of Jesus? +This question we are not prepared to answer positively, either yes or +no. We can only venture the personal opinion that the act of raising a +person indisputably dead, to life again, would be an astounding +miracle, an achievement that could be wrought by the hand of a God +alone. The trouble with the question is that men like Elijah raised the +dead.[338] It is true that there is no pretension that Elijah was divine +or that he wrought the miracle by virtue of any peculiar power within +himself. The Scriptures plainly state that he asked God to raise the +dead to life through him. The same is true of the raising of Lazarus by +Jesus.[339] But Christ seems to have raised the daughter of Jairus[340] +and the son of the widow of Nain[341] from the dead by virtue of the +strength of His own divinity; for there is no suggestion that the power +of God was either previously invoked or subsequently acknowledged. + +As to the weight which the testimony of the miracles of Jesus should +have had with Caiaphas and the other members of the court, we have a +valuable indication in the opinion expressed by Nicodemus, who was +himself a member of the Sanhedrin, when he said to Jesus: "We know that +thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that +thou doest, except God be with him."[342] If Nicodemus, "a ruler of the +Jews" and one of the leading members of their highest tribunal, believed +that Jesus was divine because of the wonders that He had wrought, why +should not a knowledge of these miracles by the other members of the +Sanhedrin have produced the same impression? Nicodemus, it is true, was +a friend of Jesus, but he was not a disciple. And the very timidity +with which he expressed his friendship, having come at night to pay his +compliments to the Master, demonstrates the deep impression that the +miraculous powers of the Christ had made upon him. + +But the judges of Jesus were not limited to the evidence of miracles as +a proof of the divinity of the prisoner in their midst. They should have +weighed "in the sincerity of their conscience" the fact that Jesus was +born in Bethlehem in fulfillment of the prophecy contained in Micah v. +2; that He was sprung from the House of David in conformity with the +teachings in Jeremiah xxiii. 5, 6; that John the Baptist was His +forerunner like unto Elijah, who had come to prepare the way according +to the prophecy in Malachi iii. 1; that He had begun to preach in +Galilee, as foretold in Isaiah ix. 1, 2; that the scepter had departed +from Judah and the lawgiver from between his feet, as prophesied in +Genesis xlix. 10, which fact it was believed would herald the approach +of the Messiah; that He had made His public entry into Jerusalem riding +upon an ass, as foretold in Zechariah ix. 9; and that He had been +betrayed into their hands by one of His own friends, in fulfillment of +prophecies contained in Psalms xli. 9 and Zechariah xi. 12, 13. + +This cumulative evidence, this collective proof, must have carried +overwhelming conviction to the minds and the hearts of fair and +impartial judges. More than one Nicodemus would have arisen to plead the +cause of Jesus if this testimony had been adduced before a free-minded, +open-hearted, disinterested tribunal. More than one Joseph of Arimathea +would have refused assent in a hostile verdict against a prisoner in +whose favor the record of fact was so pronounced. + +In determining the weight that this evidence should have had in +affecting the decision of the judges we must not forget that a Jewish +prisoner was not required to prove his innocence. It was incumbent upon +the Commonwealth of Israel to establish guilt beyond all doubt. We +should also remember that the peculiar tendency of the Hebrew system of +criminal procedure was in the direction of complete protection to the +accused. Not reasonable doubt merely, but all doubt was resolved in his +favor. It was a maxim of the Hebrew law that "the Sanhedrin was to save, +not to destroy life." Pretext after pretext was sought to acquit. "The +primary object of the Hebrew judicial system," says Benny, "was to +render the conviction of an innocent person impossible. All the +ingenuity of the Jewish legists was directed to the attainment of this +end." If this generous and merciful tendency of Hebrew law had been duly +observed, would not the production of the evidence above noted have +resulted in the acquittal of Jesus? + +But, at this point, let us return to the consideration of the real +meaning of the objection urged in Point XII. The irregularity therein +alleged is that the Sanhedrin paid no attention whatever to the defense +of Jesus. And herein was the real error. The members of that court might +have rejected as false the claims of the Nazarene to Messiahship. They +might have denounced as fraudulent his pretensions to miraculous +powers. They could not for this reason have been charged with judicial +unfairness, if they had first heard his defense and had then "weighed it +in the sincerity of their conscience." Infallibility of judgment cannot +be demanded of judicial officers. + +In closing the discussion of errors committed at the night trial in the +palace of Caiaphas, the reader should be reminded that the twelve Points +above mentioned are not exhaustive of the irregularities. Others might +be mentioned. It seems that Jesus, being the accused, should not have +been put under oath.[343] On the days on which capital verdicts were +pronounced Hebrew judges were required to mourn and fast.[344] But there +was evidently no mourning and fasting by Caiaphas and his colleagues at +the time of the condemnation of Jesus. Again, there is no evidence that +Antecedent Warning was properly administered. Still other errors might +be noted, if a legal presumption in favor of the correctness of the +record did not prevent. The irregularities which we have heretofore +discussed, it is believed, exhaust all the material errors committed at +the first session of the Sanhedrin. At least, no others are revealed by +the Gospel records. + +_The Morning Session of the Sanhedrin._--About three hours after the +close of the night session in the palace of Caiaphas, that is about six +o'clock in the morning, the Sanhedrin reconvened in a second session. +In the interval between these sittings Jesus was brutalized by His +keepers. Exactly what the priests were doing we do not know. They were +probably busily engaged in perfecting plans for the destruction of the +prisoner in their charge. + +The daylight meeting is thus reported in Matthew xxvii. 1: "When the +morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took +counsel against Jesus to put him to death." In Mark xv. 1 the same +session is thus recorded: "And straightway in the morning the chief +priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole +council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to +Pilate." + +The exact nature of this morning sitting, whether a regular trial or an +informal gathering, is not certainly known. Meyer, Ellicott, and +Lichtenstein maintain that this second session was nothing more than a +prolongation of the night trial, perhaps with a brief recess, and that +its special object was to convene for consultation concerning the +carrying out of the sentence which had already been pronounced against +Jesus.[345] But this view is entirely exceptional. It is maintained by +the greater number of reputable authorities that the second sitting was +in the nature of a second trial. The solution of the difficulty seems to +turn upon the account given by St. Luke, for St. John records the +details of neither the night nor the morning session. St. Luke describes +a regular trial, but it is not positively known whether his account +refers to the night or to the morning meeting. If his report refers to +the same trial as that described in Matthew xxvi. 57-68 and in Mark xiv. +53-65, then we have only the brief notices in Matthew xxvii. 1 and in +Mark xv. 1 concerning the morning session, which indicate only a very +brief and informal meeting of the Sanhedrin at daybreak. On the other +hand, if the report of St. Luke refers to the daylight meeting of the +Sanhedrin referred to by St. Matthew and St. Mark then we have received +from the third Evangelist a description of a regular trial at the second +session of the Sanhedrin. Andrews has thus expressed himself very +cogently concerning this matter: + + Our decision as to a second and distinct session of the Sanhedrin + will mainly depend upon the place we give to the account in Luke + xxii. 66-71. Is this examination of Jesus identical with that first + session of Matthew xxvi. 57-68, and of Mark xiv. 53-65? Against + this identity are some strong objections: First, The mention of + time by Luke: "As soon as it was day." This corresponds well to the + time of the morning session of Matthew and Mark, but not to the + time when Jesus was first led before the Sanhedrin, which must have + been two or three hours before day. Second, The place of the + meeting: "They led Him into their council," [Greek: anêgagon auton + eis to synedrion heautôn]. This is rendered by some: "They led Him + up into their council chamber," or the place where they usually + held their sessions. Whether this council chamber was the room + Gazith at the east corner of the court of the temple, is not + certain. Lightfoot (on Matthew xxvi. 3) conjectures that the + Sanhedrin was driven from this its accustomed seat half a year or + thereabout before the death of Christ. But if this were so, still + the "Tabernæ," where it established its sessions, were shops near + the gate Shusan, and so connected with the temple. They went up to + that room where they usually met. Third, The dissimilarity of the + proceedings, as stated by Luke, which shows that this was no formal + trial. There is here no mention of witnesses--no charges brought to + be proved against Him. He is simply asked to tell them if He is the + Christ ("If thou art the Christ, tell us," R. V.); and this seems + plainly to point to the result of the former session. Then, having + confessed Himself to be the Christ, the Son of God, He was + condemned to death for blasphemy. It was only necessary now that He + repeat His confession, and hence this question is put directly to + Him: "Art thou the Christ? tell us." His reply, "If I tell you, ye + will not believe; and if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor + let me go," points backward to his former confession. To His reply + they only answer by asking, "Art thou then the Son of God?" The + renewed avowal that He is the Son of God, heard by them all from + His own lips, opens the way for His immediate delivery into + Pilate's hands. Fourth, The position which Luke gives (xxii. 63-65) + to the insults and abuse heaped upon Jesus. There can be no doubt + that they are the same mentioned by Matthew and Mark as occurring + immediately after the sentence had been first pronounced. + + From all this it is a probable, though not a certain conclusion, + that Luke (xxii. 66-71) refers to the same meeting of the Sanhedrin + mentioned by Matthew (xxvii. 1) and Mark (xv. 1), and relates, in + part, what then took place. (Alford thinks that Luke has confused + things and relates as happening at the second session what really + happened at the first.) This meeting was, then, a morning session + convened to ratify formally what had been done before with haste + and informality. The circumstances under which its members had been + earlier convened, at the palace of Caiaphas, sufficiently show that + the legal forms, which they were so scrupulous in observing, had + not been complied with.[346] + +If then the second session of the Sanhedrin was in the nature of a +regular trial, what were the facts of the proceedings? St. Luke says: +"And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief +priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, +saying, Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell +you, ye will not believe: And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, +nor let me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of +the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And +he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What need we any +further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth."[347] + +The reader will readily perceive the source of the difficulty which we +have just discussed. This report of St. Luke points both ways, toward +both the night and morning sessions. "_And as soon as it was day_" +clearly indicates a daybreak meeting, but the remainder of the account +bears a most striking resemblance to the reports of the night trial +given by St. Matthew and St. Mark. This seeming discrepancy is very +easily reconciled, however, when we reflect that the second trial +required by Hebrew law to be held in every case where a verdict of guilt +had been pronounced, was virtually a repetition of the first trial. +Benny tells us that the second trial was a critical examination of the +trial of the first day, in which the questions and answers originally +asked and made were carefully reviewed and reëxamined.[348] Is it very +strange, then, that at the morning trial described by St. Luke +substantially the same questions are asked and answers given as are +found in the reports of the night trial by St. Matthew and St. Mark? + +We may now ask: What was the purpose of this second trial? Why did not +the first trial suffice? According to the most reliable authorities, the +answer to this question is to be found in that provision of the Hebrew +law which required two trials instead of one, in every case where the +prisoner had been found guilty at the first trial. Not only were there +to be two trials, but they were to be held on different days. The +morning session of the Sanhedrin was intended, therefore, to give a +semblance of legality and regularity to this requirement of Hebrew law. +But we shall see how completely the Sanhedrin failed in this design. +"What legitimacy," says Keim, "might be lacking in the proceedings of +the nocturnal sitting of the Sanhedrin, was to be completely made up by +the morning sitting, without prejudice to the authority and the--in the +main point--decisive action of the former.... There nevertheless was no +lack of illegality. The most striking instance of this was the fact that +though they wished to bring about an extension of the procedure over two +days they had in fact only two sittings, and not two separate days. But +contempt of the legal ordinances was much more seriously shown by the +absence of any investigation into the circumstances of the case at the +second sitting, although _both law and tradition demanded such an +investigation_."[349] + +If "both law and tradition demanded such an investigation," that is, if +the second trial of the case on the second day of the proceedings was +required to be formal and in the nature of an action _de novo_; if the +second trial was required by law to be characterized by all the +formality, solemnity, and legality of the first trial; what errors, we +may ask, are disclosed by the reports of St. Luke, St. Matthew, and St. +Mark in the proceedings against Jesus conducted by the Sanhedrin at the +morning session? To be brief, reply may be made that the irregularities +were virtually the same as those that occurred at the night trial. The +same precipitancy that was forbidden by Hebrew law is apparent. This +haste prevented, of course, that careful deliberation and painstaking +investigation of the case which the Mosaic Code as well as the rules of +the Mishna imperatively demanded. It is true that the second trial was +not conducted at night. But the Passover Feast was still in progress, +and no court could legally sit at such a time. The Sanhedrin at the +second session seems to have been still sitting in the palace of +Caiaphas instead of the Hall of Hewn Stones, the legal meeting place of +the court. This we learn from a passage in St. John.[350] Again, no +witnesses seem to have been summoned, and the accused was convicted upon +his uncorroborated confession. + +And finally, the verdict at the second trial, as was the case in that of +the first, seems to have been unanimous, and therefore illegal. This +unanimity is indicated by the combined reports of St. Matthew, St. Mark, +and St. Luke. St. Matthew says: "When the morning was come, _all_ the +chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put +Him to death." St. Mark says: "And straightway in the morning, the chief +priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the _whole +council_, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to +Pilate." These accounts of the first two Evangelists very clearly state +that the full Sanhedrin was present at the morning trial. Then St. Luke +very explicitly explains the nature and manner of the verdict: "Then +said they _all_, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye +say that I am. And they said, What need we any further witness? for we +ourselves have heard of his own mouth." + +It may be objected that no formal verdict was pronounced at the second +trial. Such a verdict would have been expressed in these words: "Thou, +Jesus, art guilty."[351] While such words are not expressly reported by +the Evangelists, the account of St. Luke taken in connection with the +report of St. Mark of the night trial, which the morning session was +intended to confirm, clearly indicates that such a verdict must have +been pronounced. A reasonable inference from the whole context of the +synoptic writers in describing both trials certainly justifies such a +conclusion. + +The question again arises: If the full Sanhedrin was present at the +morning session and if all the members condemned Jesus, either with or +without a formal verdict, is it not true that both Nicodemus and Joseph +of Arimathea, who were doubtless members of the court, were arrayed +against the Christ? If they were hostile in their attitude toward Him, +either openly or by acquiescence at the morning session, does this fact +not help to support the contention made under Point IX that they voted +against Him at the night trial? We are well aware that there is much +opposition to this view, but we are, nevertheless, compelled to agree +rather reluctantly with Keim that "it is a pure supposition that members +of the council who were secret friends of Jesus--whose existence, +moreover, cannot be established--either raised an opposition in one of +the sessions, or abstained from voting, or were not present."[352] The +plain language of the Scriptures indicates: (1) That both Nicodemus[353] +and Joseph of Arimathea[354] were members of the Great Sanhedrin; (2) +that they were both present at both trials;[355] and (3) that they both +either voted against Him or tacitly acquiesced in the judgments +pronounced against Him.[356] We have already discussed under Point IX +the passage in Luke xxiii. 51 referring to the fact that Joseph of +Arimathea "had not consented to the counsel and deed of them," which +seems to furnish refutation of the contention which we have made, as far +as such contention relates to Joseph of Arimathea. Suffice it to note +the opinion of Keim that "the passage in itself can be held to refer to +absence or to dissent in voting."[357] + +"And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate." + +The reader may ask: Why did the Jews lead Jesus away to Pilate? When +they had condemned Him to death on the charge of blasphemy, why did they +themselves not put Him to death? Why did they invoke Roman interference +in the matter? Why did they not stone Jesus to death, as Hebrew law +required in the case of culprits convicted of blasphemy? Stephen was +stoned to death for blasphemy.[358] What was the difference between his +case and that of Jesus? Why was Jesus crucified instead of being put to +death by stoning? + +The stoning of Stephen as a blasphemer by the Jews has been explained as +an irregular outbreak of fanatical priests, a sort of mob violence. It +has also been contended that the case of Stephen was one of the rare +instances in which Roman procurators permitted the Jews to execute the +death sentence. In any event it was an exceptional proceeding. At the +time of the crucifixion of Jesus and of the martyrdom of Stephen the +Jews had lost the right of enforcing the death penalty. Judea was a +subject province of the Roman empire. The Jews were permitted by the +Romans to try capital cases. If an acquittal was the result, the Romans +did not interfere. If a verdict of guilty was found, the Jews were +compelled to lead the prisoner away to the Roman governor, who reviewed +or retried the case as he saw fit. Accordingly, having condemned Him to +death themselves, the Jews were compelled to lead Jesus away to the +palace of Herod on the hill of Zion in which Pilate was stopping on the +occasion of the Paschal Feast, to see what he had to say about the +matter, whether he would reverse or affirm the sentence which they had +pronounced. + +The Roman trial of Jesus will be treated in the second volume of this +work. + + +END OF VOL. I + + +FOOTNOTES: + +[1] "Testimony of the Evangelists," pp. 7-11. + +[2] "Testimony of the Evangelists," pp. 25, 26. + +[3] I "Starkie on Evidence," pp. 480-545. + +[4] John x. 30: "I and my Father are one." + +[5] Matt. ix. 9. + +[6] Col. iv. 14: "Luke, the beloved physician." + +[7] Matt. xxvi. 70-72. + +[8] Matt. xxvi. 46-50. + +[9] Matt. xxvi. 56. + +[10] Matt. xiv. 28-31. + +[11] Mark x. 35-42; Matt. xx. 20-25. + +[12] Matt. xi. 2, 3. + +[13] Mark iii. 21. + +[14] Luke iv. 28, 29. + +[15] Mark xiv. 51, 52. + +[16] "Intro. Vie de Jesus." + +[17] Luke i. 2, 3. + +[18] "Die synoptischen Evangelien," pp. 412-14. + +[19] Marcus Dods, "The Bible, Its Origin and Nature," p. 184. + +[20] An opposite doctrine seems to be taught in Luke xii. 11, 12; xxiv. +48, 49. + +[21] "Evidences of Christianity," p. 319. + +[22] Matt. xiv. 12-20; Mark vi. 34-43; Luke ix. 12-17; John vi. 5-13. + +[23] Luke xxii. 64. + +[24] Luke xxii. 51. + +[25] Campbell's "Philosophy of Rhetoric," c. v. b. 1, Part III, p. 125. + +[26] "Intro. Vie de Jesus," p. 62. + +[27] D. L. Moody, "Sermon on the Resurrection of Jesus." + +[28] See also I "Starkie on Evidence," pp. 496-99. + +[29] "Ant.," XVIII. 3, I. + +[30] See authorities cited in "The Brief." + +[31] "De iis qui sero puniuntur," p. 554. + +[32] P. 1080, edit. 45. + +[33] P. 1247, edit. 24, Huds. + +[34] P. 1327, edit. 43. + +[35] "Productique omnes, virgisque cæsi, ac securi percussi," Lib. XI. +c. 5. + +[36] Domit. Cap. X. "Patremfamilias--canibus objecit, cum hoc _titulo_, +Impie locutus, parmularius." + +[37] Book LIV. + +[38] "Aur. Vict. Ces.," Cap. XLI. "Eo pius, ut etiam vetus veterrimumque +supplicium, patibulum, et cruribus suffringendis, primus removerit." +Also see Paley's "Evidences of Christianity," pp. 266-68. + +[39] Luke xxii. 44. + +[40] Tissot, "Traité des Nerfs," pp. 279, 280. + +[41] Joannes Schenck à Grafenberg, "Observ. Medic.," Lib. III. p. 458. + +[42] Voltaire, "Oeuvres complètes," vol. xviii. pp. 531, 532. + +[43] De Mezeray, "Histoire de France," vol. iii. p. 306. + +[44] John xix. 34. + +[45] John xix. 35. + +[46] John xviii. 6. + +[47] "Encyc. Brit.," vol. xv. p. 550. + +[48] Mendelsohn, "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," p. +191. + +[49] Mendelsohn, p. 189, n. 1. + +[50] "Jewish Encyc.," vol. xii. p. 1. + +[51] Emanuel Deutsch, "The Talmud," p. 26. + +[52] Farrar, "Hist. of Interpretation." + +[53] Emanuel Deutsch, "The Talmud," p. 47. + +[54] "Encyc. Brit.," vol. xxiii. p. 35. + +[55] Emanuel Deutsch, "The Talmud," p. 58. + +[56] Emanuel Deutsch, "The Talmud," p. 27. + +[57] Emanuel Deutsch, "The Talmud," p. 27. + +[58] Deut. xvi. 18. + +[59] "Ant.," XIII. 10, 6. + +[60] Horace. + +[61] Emanuel Deutsch, "The Talmud," p. 12. + +[62] "Jewish Encyc.," vol. xii. p. 22. + +[63] Emanuel Deutsch, "Talmud," p. 12. + +[64] Maimon., "H. Sanh." xv. 10-13. + +[65] Mendelsohn, "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," pp. +45-50. + +[66] Mendelsohn, "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," pp. +45-50. + +[67] Mendelsohn, p. 43. + +[68] Mendelsohn, pp. 39, 40. + +[69] Mendelsohn, pp. 39, 40. + +[70] Maimonides ("Yad"), "Sanhedrin" xix. + +[71] Dr. Smith's "Hist. of Greece," p. 557. + +[72] "Jewish Encyc.," vol. ii. p. 257. + +[73] Ex. ii. 12-16. + +[74] "Sanh." 52b; Maim., "H. Sanh." xv. 4. + +[75] "H. Sanh." xv. 5. + +[76] Benny, "Crim. Code of the Jews," p. 90. + +[77] Mendelsohn, p. 159. + +[78] Chap. I. 10; X. i, 2. + +[79] Matt. xxvi. 59. + +[80] "Ant.," XIV. Chap. V. 4; "Wars of the Jews," I. VIII. 5; "Talmud," +"Sanhedrin." + +[81] "Post Bibl. Hist.," vol. i. p. 106. + +[82] Matt. xvi. 21. + +[83] "Commentary on the Law," vol. ccclxvi. recto. + +[84] "Sanhedrin" 32. + +[85] Benny. + +[86] Jose b. Halafta, I. c. + +[87] R. Johanan, "Sanhedrin" 19a. + +[88] Benny. + +[89] Benny. + +[90] "Sanhedrin" 17a; "Menahoth" 65a. + +[91] Sifre, Num. 92 (ed. Friedmann, p. 25b). + +[92] Yalkut, "Exodus," Sec. 167. + +[93] Sotah 22b. + +[94] "Const. of the Sanhedrin," Chap. I. + +[95] Benny, "The Criminal Code of the Jews," p. 71. + +[96] Saalschütz, "Das Mosaische Recht," p. 58; Deut. xx. 5, 6. + +[97] Luke ii. 46-51. + +[98] Jer. xxxvii., xxxviii. + +[99] "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. p. 45. + +[100] "The Life and Words of Christ," vol. ii. p. 517. + +[101] "Archæol." 87. + +[102] Acts xxiv. 1, 2. + +[103] I Kings iii. 16-28. + +[104] Mendelsohn, "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," pp. +102, 103. + +[105] Mendelsohn, pp. 96-98. + +[106] "Sanhedrin," Chap. I. fol. 19. + +[107] Mendelsohn, p. 97. + +[108] Mishna, "Sanhedrin," Chap. IV. 1. + +[109] Mendelsohn, p. 98. + +[110] "Sanhedrin," 8b, 41a, _et al._ + +[111] Mendelsohn, p. 101. + +[112] Schürer, "The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ," 2d Div., +1. + +[113] "Sanhedrin," IV. 4. + +[114] "Sanhedrin," IV. 1. + +[115] "Sanhedrin," 17a, p. 176. + +[116] "Sanhedrin," Chap. I. 5. + +[117] Benny. + +[118] Benny. + +[119] Benny. + +[120] Mendelsohn, p. 140, n. 327. + +[121] Montaigne, "Essays," III. C. XIII. + +[122] "Un homme ne jugera jamais seul; cela n'appartient qu'a Dieu." + +"Ne sis judex unus; non est enim unicus judex, nisi unus."--Salvador, +"Institutions de Moïse," L. IV. Chap. II. p. 357. + +[123] "But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the +levity and boldness of their sex."--Josephus, "Ant.," IV. 8, 15. + +[124] "Nor let servants be admitted to give testimony, on account of the +ignobility of their souls."--"Ant.," IV. 8, 15. + +[125] "Ant.," IV. 8, 15. + +[126] Maimonides, I. C. XI. 6, based on "Sanh." 26b. + +[127] Mendelsohn, p. 118. + +[128] "Talmud," B. B. 43a. + +[129] Deut. xvii. 6. + +[130] Num. xxxv. 30. + +[131] "Hist. Nat.," Lib. VIII. Cap. XXII. + +[132] L. 20, Dig. De quæstionibus, xlviii. 18. + +[133] Blackstone, iv. 357. + +[134] Con. U. S., Art. III, Sec. 3. + +[135] "Les lois qui font périr un homme sur la déposition d'un seul +témoin, sont fatales à la liberté. La raison en exige deux; parce qu'un +témoin qui affirme, et un accusé qui nie, font un partage; et il faut un +tiers pour le vider. Les Grecs and les Romains exigeaient une voix de +plus pour condamner. Nos lois françaises en demandent deux. Les Grecs +prétendaient que leur usage avait été établi par les dieux; mais c'est +le notre."--"De L'Esprit Des Lois," L. XII. C. III. + +[136] Mishna, "Sanhedrin," C. V. 2. + +[137] Maimonides, "Sanhedrin," Chap. XX. + +[138] "Jewish Encyc.," vol. v. p. 277. + +[139] "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," p. 29. + +[140] Philo Judæus, "De Decalogo," III. + +[141] Prov. xi. 10; Mishna, "Sanhedrin," IV. 5. + +[142] Apocrypha. + +[143] Benny. + +[144] Mishna, "Sanhedrin," Chap. V. 1. + +[145] Benny. + +[146] Deut. xix. 18-21. + +[147] Apocrypha. + +[148] Maimonides, Mishna, "Sanhedrin," Chap. IV. 2. + +[149] Münsterberg, "On the Witness Stand," "Untrue Confessions," pp. +137-171. + +[150] Rosadi. + +[151] Rabbi Wise, "Martyrdom of Jesus." + +[152] "Yad," Edut, xvii. 1. + +[153] "Jewish Encyc.," vol. v. p. 279. + +[154] Num. xxxv. 30. + +[155] Mishna, "Sanhedrin" V. 3, 4. + +[156] Matt. xxvi. 60. + +[157] Mark xiv. 56. + +[158] Lev. xxii. 28. + +[159] Deut. xvii. 5; "Sanhedrin" VII. 4. + +[160] Num. vi. 2-4. + +[161] "Jewish Encyc.," vol. vi. p. 260. + +[162] "Einleitung in der Gesetzgebung," p. 4. + +[163] "Jewish Encyc.," vol. vi. p. 260; Benny, "Criminal Code of the +Jews," p. 97; Saalschütz, "Das Mosaische Recht," n. 560. + +[164] Mishna, treatise Makhoth. + +[165] Mishna, "Capita Patrum," I. 1. + +[166] Salvador, "Institutions de Moïse." + +[167] Mishna, "Sanhedrin," IV. 1. + +[168] "Jesus Before the Sanhedrin," p. 109. + +[169] "Talmud," Jerus., Sanh., C. I. fol. 19. + +[170] Mishna, "Tamid," C. III. + +[171] Geikie, vol. ii. p. 517. + +[172] Lyman Abbott, "Jesus of Nazareth," pp. 446, 447. + +[173] "Jewish Encyc.," vol. v. pp. 279, 280. + +[174] Benny. + +[175] Mendelsohn, p. 144. + +[176] Josephus, "Ant.," XIV. 9, 4. + +[177] Schürer, 2d div., vol. i. p. 175. + +[178] Schürer, 2d div., vol. i. p. 184. + +[179] "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. ii. p. 556. + +[180] "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. p. 37. + +[181] "The Talmud," p. 32. + +[182] "Ant.," xv. 6, 2. + +[183] "History of the Jews," vol. ii. p. 163. + +[184] "Tribus, pseudo-propheta, sacerdos magnus, non nisi a septuaginta +et unius judicum consessu judicantur."--"Mishna, De Synedriis," i. 5. + +[185] "Among the offenses of which it took cognizance were false claims +to prophetic inspiration and blasphemy."--Andrews, "The Life of Our +Lord," p. 510. + +[186] "Gesch. d. Judenth." vol. i. pp. 402-409. + +[187] "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. ii. p. 553. + +[188] "Vie de Jesus," pp. 303, 304. + +[189] "Trial of Jesus Christ," p. 81. + +[190] Matt. xxvi. 60, 61. + +[191] Mark xiv. 57, 58. + +[192] Matt. xxvi. 64-66. + +[193] Mark xiv. 56. + +[194] John ii. 20. + +[195] John ii. 19. + +[196] John ii. 21. + +[197] "The Martyrdom of Jesus," pp. 75-77. + +[198] Deut. xiii. 1-5. + +[199] I Kings xxi. 10. + +[200] Isa. lii, 5; Ezek. xxxv. 12. + +[201] Luke xxii. 65; Acts xiii. 45; xviii. 6. + +[202] Revelation xiii. 1-6. + +[203] "Blackstone," vol. ii. pp. 75-84. + +[204] Greenidge, "Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time," pp. 427, 507, 518. + +[205] Deut. iv. 15, 16; Deut. xiii. + +[206] Gen. xli. 16. + +[207] Num. xx. 10-12. + +[208] Num. xx. 20-24. + +[209] Greenleaf, "Testimony of the Evangelists," p. 555. + +[210] Matt. v. 17. + +[211] John xi. 41. + +[212] Matt. ix. 20-22; Mark v. 25-34; Luke viii. 43-48. + +[213] Matt. viii. 24-26; Mark iv. 37-39; Luke viii. 23-25. + +[214] Matt. viii. 28-32; Mark v. 1-13; Luke viii. 26-33. + +[215] Matt. ix. 18-26; Mark v. 22-42; Luke viii. 41-55. + +[216] Luke vii. 12-15. + +[217] Matt. ix. 2, 3. + +[218] Luke v. 21. + +[219] John v. 18. + +[220] John x. 30-33. + +[221] John vi. 41. + +[222] John viii. 58. + +[223] "Testimony of the Evangelists," p. 562. + +[224] Edersheim, "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. ii. p. 629. + +[225] John xiii.-xvii. + +[226] Matt. xi. 3. + +[227] Luke xxiv. 39-43; John xx. 24-28. + +[228] John xiii. 33. + +[229] John xviii. 9. + +[230] "Jesus Devant Caïphe et Pilate." + +[231] Acts iv. 3. + +[232] "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. ii. p. 494. + +[233] See Cooley's "Blackstone," vol. ii. p. 330, n. 6; also Greenleaf, +"On Evidence," vol. i. pp. 531-35 (10th edition). + +[234] "Vie de Jesus," p. 303. + +[235] John xviii. 13. + +[236] Matt. xxvi. 57. + +[237] Mark xiv. 53. + +[238] Luke xxii. 54. + +[239] John xviii. 19. + +[240] Luke iii. 2; Acts iv. 6. + +[241] "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. i. p. 264. + +[242] "The Life of Our Lord," p. 142. + +[243] Luke iii. 2. + +[244] Plummer, St. Luke, in "International Critical Commentary," pp. 84, +515. + +[245] Josephus, "Ant.," XVIII. chap. ii. 2. + +[246] John xviii. 19-23. + +[247] Mark xiv. 58-61. + +[248] Matt. xxvi. 60-63. + +[249] Matt. xxvi. 63. + +[250] Mark xiv. 59. + +[251] Acts vi. 14. + +[252] "Jewish Encyc.," vol. i. p. 163. + +[253] Fiske, "Manual of Classical Literature," iii. Sec. 108; Smith, +"Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities," 89a. + +[254] See discussion of Point I. + +[255] Luke xxii. 66. + +[256] Luke xxii. 2. + +[257] Mark xiv. 2. + +[258] Mark xiv. i; Matt. xxvi. 4 (Consilium fecerunt ut Jesum dolo +tenerent et occiderent). + +[259] Maimonides, "Sanhedrin" II. + +[260] John xviii. 28; Luke xxii. 1; Mark xiv. 1; Matt. xxvi. 2. + +[261] Mishna, "Capita Patrum," I, 1. + +[262] Mishna, "Treatise Makhoth." + +[263] See Part II, Chap. V. + +[264] Edmund Stapfer, "Life of Jesus." + +[265] Matt. xxvi. 57-66. + +[266] Mark xiv. 55-64. + +[267] Matt. xxvii. 1. + +[268] Mark xv. 1. + +[269] Luke xxii. 66-71. + +[270] "Martyrdom of Jesus," p. 74. + +[271] "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," p. 133, n. 311. + +[272] See Part II, Chap. IV. + +[273] Mark xiv. 56-65. + +[274] Mark xiv. 62. + +[275] Matt. xii. 14-16; Mark iii. 7; ix. 29, 30. + +[276] Luke xiii. 31, 32. + +[277] Matt. xxii. 15. + +[278] John iv. 26. + +[279] Mark i. 34. + +[280] John x. 24. + +[281] Matt. xvi. 20. + +[282] Blackstone. + +[283] Mendelsohn, p. 143. + +[284] Mark xiv. 63, 64. + +[285] "Martyrdom of Jesus," p. 74. + +[286] "The Trial of Jesus," p. 200. + +[287] Matt. xxvi. 59; Mark xiv. 55. + +[288] Matt. xxvii. 1. + +[289] Mark xv. 1. + +[290] John iii. 1; vii. 50. + +[291] Luke xxiii. 51. + +[292] John vii. 51. + +[293] John vii. 50; xix. 39. + +[294] Luke xxiii. 51. + +[295] Mendelsohn, p. 98. + +[296] Deut. xvii. 7, 8. + +[297] "It is important to notice that every time the necessities of the +case required the Sanhedrin returned to the Hall Gazith, or of Hewn +Stones, as in the case of Jesus and others."--"Thosephthoth, or +Additions to the Talmud," Bab., "Sanhedrin," C. IV. fol. 37, recto. + +[298] Edersheim, "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. ii. p. 556, +n. 1. + +[299] John xviii. 28. + +[300] MM. Lémann, "Jesus Before the Sanhedrin," p. 140. + +[301] Mark xiv. 63, 64. + +[302] Edersheim, "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. ii. p. 561. + +[303] Rabbi Wise, "Martyrdom of Jesus," p. 74. + +[304] Benny, "Criminal Code of the Jews," p. 81. + +[305] Matt. xxvi. 65. + +[306] See Part II, Qualifications of Judges. + +[307] "Talmud, Pesachim, or the Passover," fol. 57, verso; see also +"Jesus Before the Sanhedrin," pp. 54, 55. + +[308] Benny, "Criminal Code of the Jews," pp. 28-41. + +[309] Matt. xxi. 31. + +[310] Matt. xxiii. 14, 15. + +[311] "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. i. pp. 93, 94. + +[312] Matt. xxiii. 27, 29-33. + +[313] "Vie de Jesus," p. 267. + +[314] John xi. 49, 50. + +[315] John xi. 53. + +[316] Luke xxii. 1-3. + +[317] Matt. xxvi. 3-5. + +[318] Benny, "Criminal Code of the Jews," p. 56. + +[319] Geikie, "The Life and Words of Christ," vol. ii. p. 517. + +[320] Deut. xix. 18-21. + +[321] Mark xiv. 55. + +[322] Mishna, Treatise "Makhoth." + +[323] + + "Afresh the mighty line of years unroll'd, + The Virgin now, now Saturn's sway returns; + Now the blest globe a heaven-sprung Child adorns, + Whose genial power shall whelm earth's iron race, + And plant once more the golden in its place."--Virgil, Eclogue IV. + +[324] Gen. xlix. 8-10. + +[325] "Sanhedrin," fol. 97, verso. + +[326] "Martyrdom of Jesus," p. 76. + +[327] John xi. 48-50. + +[328] I Sam. xv. 29. + +[329] Hosea xi. 9. + +[330] Mark vii. 9-13. + +[331] "Jewish Encyc.," vol. i. p. 583. + +[332] Hodge, "Systematic Theology," vol. i. p. 485. + +[333] Steenstra, "The Being of God as Unity and Trinity," pp. 192, 193. + +[334] John ii. 15. + +[335] John vi. 30. + +[336] John x. 24, 25. + +[337] Matt. xi. 4, 5. + +[338] I Kings xvii. 17-22. + +[339] John xi. 41. + +[340] Matt. ix. 18-26; Mark v. 22-42; Luke viii. 41-55. + +[341] Luke vii. 12-15. + +[342] John iii. 2. + +[343] See Friedlieb, Archæol., 87; Dupin, 75; Keim, vol. iii. 327. + +[344] Bab. Sanh. f. 63, 1: "Cum synedrium quemquam moti adjudicavit, ne +quidquam degustent illi isto die." + +[345] Andrews, "The Life of Our Lord," p. 522. + +[346] "The Life of Our Lord," pp. 523, 524. + +[347] Luke xxii. 66-71. + +[348] See Part II, Chap. V.; also Benny, "Crim. Code of the Jews," pp. +81-83. + +[349] Keim, "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. pp. 63, 64. + +[350] John xviii. 28. + +[351] "Thou, Reuben, art guilty! Thou, Simon, art acquitted, art not +guilty!" were stereotyped forms of verdicts under Hebrew criminal +procedure. Sanh. in Friedl., p. 89. + +[352] Keim, "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. p. 74. + +[353] John iii. 1; vii. 50. + +[354] Luke xxiii. 50, 51. + +[355] Matt. xxvi. 59; Mark xiv. 55; Matt. xxvii. 1; Mark xv. 1. + +[356] Mark xiv. 63, 64; Luke xxii. 70, 71. + +[357] Keim, "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. p. 74, n. 2. + +[358] Acts vi. 11; vii. 59. + + + + +INDEX + + + A + + Abarbanel, Isaac, on the Sanhedrin, I, 106 + + Ab-beth-din, vice-president of the Sanhedrin, I, 112 + + Abbott, Lyman, on the scribes of the Sanhedrin, I, 158 + + Acts of Pilate, the Apocryphal, + modern criticism of, II, 327 + discovery of, II, 327 + Lardner on the authenticity of, II, 328 _seq._ + Tischendorf on the authenticity of, II, 345 _seq._ + antiquity of, II, 351 + text of, II, 351 _seq._ + + Æbutius, Publius, part of, in the exposure of Bacchanalian orgies, II, + 271 _seq._ + + Ædile, Roman, judicial powers of, II, 36 + + Æsculapius, Græco-Roman divinity, II, 198 + + Akiba, Jewish rabbi, Mishna systematized by, I, 79 + + Albanus, Roman governor, his deposition of Albanus, II, 296 + + Alcmene, myth of Zeus and, II, 265 + + Alexander, Jewish Alabarch, biographical note on, II, 299 + + Alexander III, pope, genuineness of "true cross" attested by bull of, + II, 63 + + Alexandrian MS. of the Bible, I, 67 + + Ananias ben Nebedeus, Jewish priest, + biographical note on, II, 299 + family of, cursed in Talmud, II, 302 + + Ananos. See Annas + + Ananus, son of Annas, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 296 + + Anathemas, Jewish, against the Christians, II, 307, 308 + + Anaxagoras, Greek philosopher, + on the deification of natural forces, II, 225 + his exposure of the divination of Lampon, II, 226 + + Annanias, author of "Acts of Pilate," II, 351 + + Annas (Ananos), Jewish high priest, + examination of Christ before, I, 238-247 + deposition of, by Gratus, I, 244; II, 20 + Christ examined in house of, I, 256 + biographical note on, II, 295 + legendary examination of Joseph of Arimathea, II, 374, 376 + + Antecedent Warning, peculiar provision of Hebrew Criminal Law + regarding, I, 147-152 + + Antistius, L., Roman tribune, impeachment of Julius Cæsar by, II, 46 + + Antoninus Pius, Roman emperor, persecution of Christians by, II, 78 + + Aphrodisia, rites of, II, 265 + + Aphrodite, Greek divinity, patroness of prostitutes, II, 265 + + Aquillius, Manlius, Roman governor, trial of, before the Comitia, II, 40 + + Antonius, Marcus, Roman advocate, defense of, of Manlius Aquillius, II, + 40 + + Aristotle, Greek philosopher, on the licentiousness of Sparta, II, 241 + + Arnold, Matthew, on despair of Roman people, II, 286 + + Arnobius, Numidian writer, + on the familiar treatment of Roman gods, II, 218 + on the lewdness of the Roman drama, II, 267 + + Art, effect of, in corruption of Roman and Greek morals, II, 268 + + Aspasia, mistress of Pericles, II, 242 + + Athens, domestic licentiousness of, II, 240, 241 + + Athronges, Jewish peasant, revolt of, II, 110 + + Atticus, Numerius, Roman senator, attests ascent of Augustus to heaven, + II, 234 + + Atys, myth of, represented on Greek and Roman stage, II, 267 + + Augurs, + Roman priests, II, 204 + spectators at licentious dramas, II, 267 + + Augury, modes of, II, 211 + + Augustus Cæsar, Roman emperor, + reign and policy of, II, 25, 26 + care of profligate daughter Julia, II, 83 + belief of, in omens, II, 215 + his chastisement of Neptune, II, 222 + deification of, II, 233 + + Aurelius Antoninus, Marcus, Roman emperor and philosopher, + persecution of Christianity by, II, 78 + adoration of Serapis by, II, 217 + on suicide, II, 232 + + + B + + Bacchanalian orgies, Livy's account of, II, 270-283 + + Bacchus, Roman deity, licentious festivals of, II, 265 + + Barabbas (Bar Abbas) released by Pilate, II, 131, 138, 363 + + Baring-Gould, S., on the symbolism of the Cross, II, 66 + + Baths, Roman, splendor of, II, 247 + + Beheading of criminals under Hebrew Law, I, 91, 99 + + Benny, + on the Talmud, I, 75 + on internment in Jewish Cities of Refuge, I, 98, 99 + + Bernhardt, Sarah, insulted in Quebec, II, 182 + + Bernice (Berenice), Jewish queen, a suppliant before Florus, II, 100 + + Bible, + the manuscripts of, I, 67 + purity of text of, I, 69 + anthropomorphism of, I, 336-338 + influence of, II, 4, 5 + "Birchath Hamminim" Jewish imprecation against Christians, II, 308 + + Blasphemy, + discussion of charge against Christ of, I, 193-209 + Hebrew definition of, I, 199-201 + classification of, I, 203 + + Boethus, family of, cursed in Talmud, II, 301. See also Simon + + Bossuet, Jacques B., French divine, on the citizenship of Christ, II, + 108 + + Brothels, Roman, dedication of, to Venus, II, 265 + + Burning of criminals under Hebrew Law, I, 92, 99 + + + C + + Cæsar, Caius Julius, + 10th legion cowed by, II, 169 + superstition of, II, 205 + disbelief of, in immortality, II, 229 + deification of, II, 233 + divorces of, II, 238 + profligacy of, II, 238, 239 + unnatural practices attributed to, II, 263 + + Caiaphas, Jewish high priest, + accusation of, against Christ, before Sanhedrin, I, 190 + erratic conduct of, at trial of Christ, I, 290 + rôle of, in trial of Jesus before Pilate, II, 101 + biographical note on, II, 295 + legendary examination of Joseph of Arimathea by, II, 374, 376 + + Caligula, Roman emperor, + deifies his sister Drusilla, II, 234 + depravity of, II, 234 + + Cantharus, family of, cursed in Talmud, II, 301 + + Capital Crimes under Hebrew Criminal Law, classification and + punishments of, I, 91-101 + + Carlyle, Thomas, on the life of Christ, II, 187 + + Cassius, Dion, on the labeling of Roman criminals, I, 57 + + Cato, Marcus Porcius, + contempt of, for the haruspices, II, 228 + suicide of, II, 232 + divorces of, II, 237 + contempt of, for Lucullus, II, 246 + merciless treatment of slaves, II, 251 + + Catulus, Quintus, dream of, presaging accession of Augustus, II, 214 + + Chanania, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 314 + + Chanania ben Chiskia, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 309 + + Charles IX, king of France, bloody sweat of, I, 59, 60 + + Christianity, conflict of, with Roman paganism, I, 16; II, 76-79 + + Chrysostom, St. John, on the legendary desire of Tiberius to deify + Christ, II, 344 + + Cicero, Marcus Tullius, + dream of, presaging accession of Augustus, II, 215 + on Roman superstition, II, 221 + on Roman skepticism, II, 227 + his divorce of his wife, II, 237 + witticism of, upon Cæsar's gallantries, II, 239 + + Cities of Refuge, Jewish, internment in, I, 96-99 + + Claudia, granddaughter of Augustus, + marriage of, to Pilate, II, 82 + dream of, regarding Jesus, II, 133, 355 + + Claudius, Roman commander, throws sacred pullets into the sea, II, 222 + + Clement V, pope, and the Talmud, I, 88, 89 + + Coliseum, the, description of, II, 260 + + Comitia Centuriata, + public criminal trials in, II, 37-43 + miscarriage of justice in, II, 38-42 + + Commodus, Roman emperor, deification of, II, 234 + + Consul, Roman, judicial powers of, II, 36 + + Coke, Sir Edward, contrast between Pilate and, II, 170-172 + + Cornelius, son of Ceron, the elder, biographical note on, II, 321 + + Cross, Roman instrument of death, + erroneous representations of, II, 56 + forms of, II, 62 + use of, by various races as religious symbol, II, 64-67 + + "Cross, the True," legends of, II, 62, 63 + + Crucifixion, + Plutarch on, I, 56 + history of, II, 54, 55 + mode of, II, 55 + pathology of, II, 58, 59 + Roman citizens exempt from, II, 54 + of Jesus, II, 365 + + Cybele, Roman deity, importation of, from Phrygia, II, 199 + + + D + + Deification of Roman emperors, ceremony of, II, 234 + + Dembowski, Bishop, and the Talmud, I, 88 + + Demosthenes, on the women of Athens, II, 242 + + Dérembourg, Joseph, on the Jewish priestly families, II, 294 + + Deutsch, Emanuel, + on the Talmud, I, 74, 80 + on the existence of the Great Sanhedrin at the time of Christ, I, + 179, 181 + + Diocletian, Roman emperor, deification of, II, 233 + + Divination, Roman modes of, II, 211 + + Divorce, + among the Romans, II, 236-239 + trivial pretexts for, II, 237, 238 + + Döllinger, + on the Roman view of Christianity and high treason, II, 77 + on divorce, and the profligacy of Roman matrons, II, 236 + on the effect of art in corrupting Greek and Roman manners, II, 268 + + Domitian, Roman emperor, self-deification of, II, 235 + + Doras, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 321 + + Dorotheas, son of Nathanael, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, + 321 + + Drama, the, licentiousness of, among Greeks and Romans, II, 266 + + Dreams, interpretation of, among Romans and Greeks, II, 213, 214 + + Druidism, annihilation of, II, 73 + + Drusilla, deified by Caligula, II, 234 + + Dysmas, legendary name of one of the thieves crucified with Jesus, II, + 364 + + + E + + Edersheim, Alfred, on the existence of the Great Sanhedrin at the time + of Christ, I, 177 + + Elders, Jewish chamber of. See Sanhedrin + + Eleazar ben Partah, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 314 + + Eleazar, son of Annas, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, + 295 + + Eleazar, son of Simon Boethus, Jewish high priest, biographical note + on, II, 297 + + Eliezer, Jewish rabbi, Mishna amplified by, I, 79 + + Ellicott, Dr., on the character of Pilate, II, 91 + + Epicurus, Greek philosopher, II, 229 + + Epicureanism, degradation of, among Romans, II, 230 + + Epitaphs, irreligious Roman, II, 222, 285 + + Epulos, Roman priests, II, 204 + + Etruria, importation of haruspices from, II, 210 + + Eusebius, reference of, to the "Acts of Pilate," II, 329, 333, 344 + + Evhemere, on the Greek gods, II, 225 + + Evangelists, + honesty of, I, 12 + character of, I, 13, 14 + motives of, I, 15 + ability of, I, 18 + candor of, I, 20-24 + discrepancies of, I, 29-33 + corroborative elements of narrative of, I, 34-39 + impossibility of collusion among, I, 38 + conformity of narrative of, with human experience, I, 39 + coincidence of testimony of, with collateral circumstances, I, 52-67 + narrative of, confirmed by profane historians, I, 56, 57 + + Evidence, rules of, under Hebrew Law, I, 144, 145 + + + F + + False swearing under Hebrew Criminal Law, I, 93 + + Fathers, Church, writings of the, I, 68 + + Fecenia, Hispala, part of, in exposure of Bacchanalian orgies, II, + 271 _seq._ + + Felix, Minucius, Christian father, controversy of, with pagans on + adoration of the cross, II, 64 + + Flagellation, under Hebrew Criminal, I, 94 + + Flamens, + Roman priests, II, 204 + spectators at licentious dramas, II, 267 + + + G + + Gallio, pro-consul of Achaia, attitude of, toward Jewish clamors, II, + 107 + + Gamaliel, Jewish rabbi, biographical note on, II, 304 + + Ganymede, depraving influence of myth of rape of, II, 262 + + Gavazzi, Alessandro, sermons of, in Coliseum, II, 262 + + Geib, on the status of Judea, II, 16 on the courts of the Roman + Provinces, II, 32 + + Geikie, Cunningham, + on the non-existence of the Sanhedrin at the time of Christ, I, 181 + on the character of the trial of Jesus before Sanhedrin, I, 184 + + Gemara, + the Jerusalem and Babylonian recensions of, I, 81 + relation of, to Mishna, I, 83. See also Talmud and Mishna + + Germanicus, + Cæsar temples profaned on death of, II, 222 + exposure of children born on day of death of, II, 254 + + Gestas, legendary name of one of thieves crucified with Jesus, II, 364 + + Golden House of Nero, II, 246 + + Gibbon, Edward, + on the jurisdiction of the great Sanhedrin, I, 120 + on the laws of the Twelve Tables, II, 53 + on the extent of the Roman Empire, II, 196 + + Gladiatorial games, + origin of, II, 256 + gigantic scale of, in Rome, II, 256, 257 + conduct of, II, 258 + + Gospels, the, admissibility of, as legal evidence, I, 5-12 + + Governors, Roman, + powers of, II, 24, 27, 28, 29 + forbidden to take wives to their provinces, II, 84, 85 + + Graetz, Heinrich, on the existence of the Sanhedrin at the time of + Christ, I, 181 + + Greeks, + superstition of, II, 223 + philosophy of, II, 229 + depraving effect on Romans of art, literature, and manners of, II, + 240-244, 268, 284 + Bacchanalian orgies introduced by, II, 270 + invective of Juvenal against, II, 284 + + Greenidge, on the interpretation of native law by Roman proprætors, II, + 31 + + Greenleaf, Simon, American jurist, + on the admissibility of the Scriptures as legal evidence, I, 6-9 + on the testimony of the Evangelists, I, 10, 11 + on the legal justice of the conviction of Christ for blasphemy, I, + 209 + + + H + + Hacksab ben Tzitzith, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 320 + + "Hall of Hewn Stones," sessions of Sanhedrin in, I, 117 + + Haruspices, Roman, account of, II, 210 + + Helcias, Jewish treasurer, biographical note on, II, 300 + + Helena, Empress, legendary discovery of "true cross" by, II, 62 + + Hercules, Greek divinity, burning of, represented on Greek and Roman + stage, II, 267 + + Herder, Johann, on the character of Christ, II, 187 + + Herod Antipas, + character of, II, 120 + his treatment of Jesus, II, 122-127 + + Herod I, the Great, + last will of, II, 119, 120 + arbitrary changes of, in high priesthood, II, 293 + + Hetairai, status of, in Athens, II, 242, 243 + + High priest, Jewish, + vestments of, I, 158 + abuses in appointment of, II, 293 + + Hillel, Jewish doctor, inspiration of, I, 84 + + Hillel, School of, + and the Mishna, I, 79 + dissensions of, with School of Shammai, II, 309 + + Homer, the bible of the Greeks, II, 264 + + Honorius IV, pope, and the Talmud, I, 87 + + Horatius, trial of, before the Comitia Centuriata, II, 40 + + + I + + Ignatius, St., martyrdom of, in Coliseum, II, 261 + + Impalement, death by, II, 61 + + Infanticide, among Romans, II, 254 + + Inkerman, story of soldier killed at battle of, II, 191 + + Innes, + on the trials of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, I, 185; II, 10 + on the cowardice of Pilate, II, 138 + + Interpreters, not allowed in Jewish courts, I, 107 + + Imprisonment. See Law, Hebrew Criminal, I, 93 + + Ishmael, Jewish rabbi, and the Mishna, I, 79 + + Ismael ben Eliza, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 309 + + Ismael ben Phabi, Jewish high priest, + biographical note on, II, 298 + family of, cursed in Talmud, II, 301 + + Isis, Egyptian deity, + rites of, established in Rome, II, 217 + Roman temples of, a resort of vice, II, 269 + + Issachar ben Keifar Barchi, Jewish priest, cursed in Talmud, II, 302 + + + J + + James, brother of Jesus, condemnation of, by Ananus, II, 296 + + Janus, Roman god, invocations of, II, 207 + + Jehovah, appearances of, in human form, I, 343-349 + + Jerome, St., on the Jewish anathema against Christians, II, 308 + + Jesus, the Christ, + human perfection of, I, 14; II, 186 + scourging of, I, 56, 57 + breaking of legs of, by soldiers, I, 57 + bloody sweat of, I, 59, 60 + physical cause of death of, I, 61, 62 + watery issue of, I, 60-62 + devotion of women to, I, 66 + resurrection of, I, 211; II, 368 + divinity of, I, 211, 212 + celebrates the Paschal feast, I, 220-224 + at Gethsemane, I, 224-226 + arrest of, I, 225 + private examination of, before high priest, I, 238-247 + charged with sedition and blasphemy I, 250 + annnounces his Messiahship before Sanhedrin, I, 273, 274 + Messianic prophecies fulfilled in Him, I, 323-328, 341, 342 + miracles of, I, 350-355 + at morning session of Sanhedrin, I, 356-362 + condemned to death by Sanhedrin, I, 365 + His teachings treasonable under Roman law, II, 72 + before Pilate, II, 96 _seq._ + charged with high treason before Pilate, II, 106, 352 + indictment of, before Pilate, II, 107-109 + acquitted by Pilate, II, 116 + sent by Pilate to Herod, II, 118 + before Herod, II, 119 _seq._ + mocked, and sent back to Pilate by Herod, II, 127 + second appearance of, before Pilate, II, 129 _seq._ + delivered to Jews by Pilate, II, 138 + mocked by mob, II, 139 + tributes of skeptics to, II, 187 + Napoleon's tribute to, II, 189, 190 + charged by Jews with illegitimacy, II, 356 + crucifixion of, II, 365 + See also trial of Jesus, Hebrew, and trial of Jesus, Roman + + Jesus ben Sie, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 298 + + Jews, the political state of, + at time of Jesus, II, 11-23 + discussion of their responsibility for Christ's death, II, 174-180 + prejudices against, II, 180-187 + distinguished, II, 185, 186 + + Joazar, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 296 + + Jochanan ben Zakai, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 311 + + John, St., + at the sepulcher, I, 37 + at the crucifixion of Christ, I, 65 + + John, St., Gospel of, style of, I, 19 + + John, Jewish priest, biographical note on, II, 299 + + Jonathan, son of Annas, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, + 295 + + Jonathan ben Uziel, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 306 + + John, son of John, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 321 + + Joseph of Arimathea, + presence of, at trials of Christ, I, 282-286, 364 + biographical note on, II, 318 + receives body of Jesus from Pilate, II, 366 + apocryphal account of escape of, from Jews, II, 367, 373-376 + + Josephus, Flavius, + on the character of Pilate, I, 21 + on scourging I, 56 + on the Pharisees, I, 87 + on the existence of the great Sanhedrin at time of Christ, I, 176 + on the loss, by Jews, of power of life and death, II, 19 + on the rapacity of the high priests, II, 301 + + Jowett, Benjamin, upon the corruption of Rome, II, 240 + + Judah, the Holy, Jewish rabbi, and the composition of the Mishna, I, 79, + 80 + + Judas, son of Hezekiah, Jewish rebel, put to death by Herod, II, 109 + + Judas Iscariot, his betrayal of Christ, I, 227-235 + + Julia, daughter of Augustus, + profligacy of, II, 82 + marriages of, II, 83 + + Julian, Roman emperor, his defiance of Mars, II, 222 + + Juno, Roman divinity, sacrifices to, II, 208 + + Jupiter, Roman deity, + multitudinous forms of, II, 203 + sacrifices to, II, 208 + + Justin Martyr, reference of, to "Acts of Pilate," II, 331, 346, 348 + + Juvenal, Satires of, on Roman social depravity, II, 240, 244, 248 + + + K + + Keim, Theodor, + on the existence of the Great Sanhedrin at the time of Christ, I, + 178 + on the character of Christ, II, 188, 189 + + Knight, R. P., on the symbolism of the Cross, II, 65 + + Koran, the, I, 77 + + + L + + Lamartine, Alphonse, on the death of Christ, II, 3 + + Lampon, Greek diviner, exposed by Anaxagoras, II, 226 + + Lardner, on the authenticity of the "Acts of Pilate," II, 328 _seq._ + + Law, Hebrew Criminal, + administration of, I, 153, 154 + basis of, I, 73, 84, 85 + burial of bodies after execution under, I, 101, 171 + capital punishments under, I, 91-93, 99-101 + circumstantial evidence under, I, 144 + Cities of Refuge under, I, 96 + courts and judges, I, 102-126 + execution under, I, 170, 171 + false swearing under, I, 93 + flagellation under, I, 94 + imprisonment under, I, 93 + peculiarities of, I, 125, 132, 147, 167, 168 + slavery under, I, 95 + tenderness of, for human life, I, 154, 155, 310 + testimony under, I, 144-147 + witnesses under, I, 127-144 + written and documentary evidence irrelevant, I, 133, 145 + + Laws, Roman, + lex Appuleia, II, 69 + Cornelia, II, 69 + Julia Majestatis, II, 69, 80 + Memmia, II, 46 + Porcia, II, 54 + Remmia, II, 49 + Talionis, II, 53 + Valeria, II, 37, 54 + Varia, II, 69 + + Lazarus, raising of, from the dead, I, 352 + + Lectisternia, Roman banquets to the gods, + slaves released at, II, 130 + indecencies of, II, 218 + + Lémann, extract from work of, on Sanhedrin, II, 291 + + Lepidus, Marcus, Roman patrician, magnificence of, II, 246 + + Livy, + on scourging, I, 57 + account of Bacchanalian orgies, II, 270-283 + + Longinus, legendary name of soldier who pierced Christ, II, 379 + + Lucullus, Roman patrician, luxury of, II, 244 + + Luke, St., occupation of, I, 19 + + Luke, St., Gospel of, style of, I, 19 + + Lupercals, Roman priests, II, 204 + + Luxury of the Romans, II, 244 + + Lycurgus, code of, II, 241 + + + M + + Macarius, identification of "true cross" by, II, 63 + + Macaulay, Lord, speech of, on Jewish disabilities, II, 184 + + Mahomet, character of, I, 14 + + Malchus, ear of, cut off by Peter, I, 36, 226 + + Magath, Julius, extract from work of, II, 291 + + Maimonides, + on Hebrew Capital Crimes, I, 91 + on the prohibition of nocturnal trials, I, 255, 256 + + Manlius, Marcus, trial of, before the Comitia Centuriata, II, 40 + + Marius, Caius, assassin cowed by, I, 62 + + Mark, St., Jesus arrested at home of, I, 220 + + Marriage, + among the Romans, II, 236 + among the Greeks, II, 240-243 + + Marcius, Quintus, Roman consul, motion of, on the suppression of the + Bacchanalian orgies, II, 282 + + Mars, Roman deity, II, 208 + + Messiah, the, + prophecies regarding, and their fulfillment in Jesus, I, 322-328 + varying expectations of Jews regarding, I, 319-322; II, 110 + conception of Pharisees of, II, 324 + conception of Sadducees of, II, 325 + + Matthew, St., occupation of, I, 19 + + Matthias, son of Annas, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, + 296 + + Mendelssohn, on the Talmud, I, 75 + + Messalina, Roman empress, lewdness of, II, 244 + + Messalinus, Cotta, prosecuted for treason, II, 70 + + Metrodorus on the Greek gods, II, 226 + + Mezeray, de, on the bloody sweat of Charles IX, I, 60 + + Minerva, Roman deity, II, 208 + + Miracles, + probability of, I, 40-51 + Spinoza on, I, 40-43 + Renan on, I, 44 + of Christ, I, 351-354 + + Mishna, the, + E. Deutsch on, I, 80 + subdivisions of, I, 80 + relation of Talmud to, I, 83 + traditional view of, I, 84 + on capital and pecuniary cases, I, 155, 156. See also Gemara and + Talmud. + + Mommsen, Theodor, + on the jurisdiction of native courts of Roman subject peoples, II, + 15 + on Roman marital looseness, II, 243 + on Roman extravagance, II, 247 + + Montefiore, Sir Moses, anecdote of, II, 180 + + Mosaic Code, the, a basis of Hebrew Criminal Law, I, 73, 84, 85 + + Müller, Johannes, explodes legend of Pilate and Lake Lucerne, II, 95 + + + N + + Nachum Halbalar, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 314 + + Nævius, Marcus, accusation of Scipio Africanus by, II, 41 + + Napoleon I, + fickleness of populace toward, I, 63, 64 + tribute of, to Jesus, II, 189 + religious faith of, II, 190, 191 + + Nasi, prince of the Sanhedrin, I, 112 + + Nathan, Jewish rabbi, note on, II, 315, note + + Neptune, Roman deity, II, 208 + + Nero, Roman emperor, + deification of, II, 234 + Golden House of, II, 246 + + Ney, Michel, French marshal, compared with St. Peter, I, 64 + + Nicodemus, Jewish elder, + presence of, at trial of Christ, I, 282-286 + defense of Christ before Sanhedrin, I, 305 + presence and conduct of, at second trial of Jesus by Sanhedrin, I, + 364 + biographical note on, II, 319 + apocryphal account of pleading of, for Jesus before Pilate, II, 360 + Gospel of. See "Acts of Pilate" + + Nordau, Max, on Jewish pride in Jesus, II, 188 + + + O + + Oaths, not administered to witnesses, under Jewish law, I, 134 + + Octavian. See Augustus + + Omens, belief of Romans in, II, 215 + + Onkelos, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 305 + + Oracle, Delphic, consulted by Romans, II, 210 + + Osiris, Egyptian deity, the cross a symbol of, II, 66 + + Ovid, Roman poet, on unnatural practices in temples, II, 269 + + + P + + Paganism, Græco-Roman, + conflict of, with Christianity, I, 16; II, 76-79 + Hellenization of Roman religion, II, 199 + importation of foreign gods, II, 200 + origin and multiplicity of Roman gods, II, 198-204 + Roman priesthood, II, 204, 205 + Roman forms of worship, II, 205-209 + perplexity of worshipers regarding deities, II, 207 + prayer, II, 207, 208-210 + augury and divination, II, 210-215 + omens, II, 215, 216 + decay of Roman faith, II, 217-220 + Roman skepticism, II, 220-229 + sacrilege among Romans, II, 221 + disbelief of Romans in immortality, II, 228, 229 + Epicureanism among the Romans, II, 229-231 + stoicism, II, 231-233 + deification of Roman emperors, II, 233-235 + base deities of Romans, II, 265 + effect of religion in Greek and Roman social corruption, II, 269 + + Palace of Herod, description of, II, 96, 97 + + Paley, William, on the discrepancies of the Gospels, I, 32, 33 + + Pan, Græco-Roman divinity, feasts of, II, 265 + + Paul, St., + on the depravity of Rome, II, 284 + delivery of, to Felix, II, 299 + + Pericles, Greek tyrant, and the divination of Lampon, II, 226 + + Pentateuch, the, a basis of Hebrew jurisprudence, I, 73 + + Permanent Tribunals (quæstiones perpetuæ), mode of trials before, at + Rome, II, 43-52 + + Peter, St., + at the sepulcher, I, 37 + compared with Marshal Ney, I, 64 + and Malchus, I, 36, 226 + + Pharisees, + and the Talmud, I, 87 + attitude of, toward the law, I, 338 + dominant in priestly order, II, 302 + their conception of the Messiah, II, 324 + characteristics of, II, 324 + + Philip, St., and the feeding of the five thousand, I, 35 + + Phillips, Wendell, on Hindu swordsmanship, I, 48 + + Philo, Jewish philosopher, on the character of Pilate, I, 21; II, 89-91 + + Phryne, mistress of Praxiteles anecdote of, II, 242 + + Pilate, Pontius, + powers of, as procurator of Judea, II, 27-31 + name and origin of, II, 81, 82 + marriage of, II, 82 + becomes procurator of Judea, II, 84 + provokes the Jews, II, 85 + appropriates funds from Corban, II, 86 + hangs shields in Herod's palace, II, 88 + slays Galileans, II, 88 + character of, I, 21; II, 88 + canonization of, II, 89 + ordered to Rome by Vitellius, II, 92 + legends regarding death of, II, 92-94 + interrogation of Jesus, II, 112-115 + talents of, II, 115 + his opinion of Jesus, II, 115 + acquits Jesus, II, 116 + sends Jesus to Herod, II, 117 + reconciled with Herod, II, 128 + offers to release Barabbas, II, 130 + warned by wife's dream of Jesus, II, 133, 355 + washes his hands of Christ's death, II, 137, 364 + releases Barabbas, II, 138, 363 + summary of his conduct of Christ's trial, II, 168 + conduct of, compared with Cæsar, II, 169; with Sir Edward Coke, II, + 170-172 + + Pindar, Greek poet, denunciation of, of vulgar superstitions, II, 224 + + Plato, Greek philosopher, + unnatural love of, II, 263 + reprobation of Homeric myths, II, 264 + + Pliny, the Younger, + correspondence of, with Trajan, II, 78 + disbelief of, in immortality, II, 229 + on slavery, II, 203 + + Plutarch, + on crucifixion, I, 56 + anecdotes of Lucullus, II, 244-246 + + Polybius, on Roman pederasty, II, 263 + + Pompeia divorced by Cæsar, II, 238 + + Pompey, Cneius, the Great, + conquest of Palestine by, II, 11 + defeated at Pharsalia, II, 25 + divorce of his wife Mucia, II, 238 + + Pontiffs, Roman, II, 204 + + Poppæa, wife of Nero, deification of, II, 77 + + Postumius, Spurius, Roman consul, suppression of Bacchanalians by, II, + 270-283 + + Prætor, Roman, judicial powers of, II, 36 + + Priesthood, Roman. See Roman religion + + Priests, Jewish Chamber of. See Sanhedrin + + Procurator, Roman, jurisdiction of, II, 27, 28 + + Provinces, Roman, classification of, by Augustus, II, 27 + + + Q + + Quetzalcoatle, crucified Savior, worshiped by Mexicans, II, 66 + + + R + + Rabbi, origin of Jewish title of, II, 315 + + Rabbis, Jewish, arrogance of, II, 316 + + Raphall, Morris, on the origin of the Sanhedrin, I, 104 + + Rawlinson, George, on the political state of Judea at the time of + Christ, II, 11 + + Religions, policy of Romans toward foreign, and of conquered peoples, + II, 72-74 + + Renan, Ernest, + on miracles, I, 44-47 + on the "judicial ambush" of blasphemers, I, 235 + on the character of Pilate, II, 90 + on the character of Christ, II, 187, 188 + + Richard III, King of England, contest of, with Saladin, I, 48 + + Richter on the pathology of crucifixion, II, 58, 59 + + Rosadi, + on the confession of the accused under Hebrew law, I, 143 + on the hatred of Pilate toward the Jews, II, 98 + on the order of criminal trials in Roman provinces, II, 32 + + Rousseau, Jean Jacques, on the death of Christ, II, 187 + + Romans, + laws of, the basis of modern jurisprudence, II, 5 + policy of, toward subject peoples, II, 13-15 + responsibility of, for Christ's death, II, 174-176 + religion of. See Paganism + + Ruga, Carvilius, first Roman to procure a divorce, II, 236 + + + S + + Sacrifice, human, among the Romans, II, 209 + + Sadducees, + attitude of, toward the law, I, 338 + attitude of, toward anthropomorphism of Pentateuch, I, 338 + dominant in the Sanhedrin, I, 339 + disbelief of, in immortality, II, 322 + wealth and rank of, II, 322 + + Saladin, Saracen Sultan, contest of, with Richard III, I, 48 + + Salians, Roman priests, II, 204 + + Sallust, Roman historian, on the conspiracy of Cataline, II, 229 + + Salvador, Joseph, on the existence of the Great Sanhedrin at the time of + Christ, I, 177 + + Samuel, Hakaton, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 307 + + Sanctuary, right of, among ancient peoples, I, 96 + + Sanhedrin, the Great, + origin of, I, 103 + history of, I, 104 + organization of, I, 105 + chamber of scribes, I, 105; II, 303 + chamber of elders, I, 105; II, 318 + chamber of priests, I, 105; II, 292 + qualifications of members of, I, 106 + disqualifications of judges of, I, 109 + officers of, I, 112 + compensation of officers of, I, 115 + sessions of, I, 116 + recruitment of personnel of, I, 117 + quorum of, I, 119 + jurisdiction of, I, 119 + appeals to, from minor Sanhedrins, I, 120 + morning sacrifice of, I, 157 + assembling of judges of, I, 158 + scribes of, I, 158, 159 + examination of witnesses by, I, 159-162 + debates and balloting of judges of, I, 162 + procedure of, in cases of condemnation of accused, I, 165-167 + method of counting votes, I, 167, 168 + death march of, I, 169, 170 + question of existence of, at time of Christ, I, 175-181 + jurisdiction of, in capital cases at the time of Christ, I, 181-183 + discussion of trial of Christ before, I, 183-186 + procedure of, in trial of Christ before, I, 186 + illegality of proceedings of, against Christ, I, 255-259, 260-262, + 263-266, 267-270, 287-294 + illegality of sentence of, against Christ, I, 271-278, 279-286 + disqualifications of members of, who condemned Christ, I, 296-308 + morning session of, at trial of Christ, I, 356-364 + three sessions of, to discuss Christ, I, 305, 306 + authority of, after Roman conquest, II, 12, 16, 21 + deprived by Romans of power of capital punishment, II, 19, 20 + biographical sketches of members of, who tried Jesus, II, 291-326 + + Sanhedrins, minor, + appeals from, to Great Sanhedrin, I, 120 + establishment of, I, 121 + jurisdiction of, I, 121 + superior rank of those of Jerusalem, I, 123, 124 + + Saul, Abba, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 313 + + Savonarola, Girolamo, Florentine reformer, burning of, I, 63 + + Scaurus, Manercus, prosecuted for treason, II, 70 + + Sceva, Jewish priest, biographical note on, II, 300 + + Schenck, account of, of the bloody sweat of a nun, I, 59 + + Schürer, + on the existence of the Sanhedrin at the time of Christ, I, 176 + on the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin, II, 18 + on the administration of civil law by Sanhedrin, II, 30 + + Scipio Africanus, trial of, before Comitia Centuriata, II, 41 + + Scott, Sir Walter, on the contest between Richard III and Saladin, I, + 47, 48 + + Scourging, + of Jesus, I, 56 + mode of, among Romans, II, 55 + + Scribes, Jewish, Edersheim on, I, 302 + + Scribes, Jewish Chamber of. See Sanhedrin + + Segnensis, Henricus, anecdote of, illustrative of mediæval ignorance + regarding Talmud, II, 74 + + Semiramis, Assyrian queen, origin of crucifixion imputed to, II, 54 + + Seneca, + anecdote from, regarding political informers, II, 71 + on the patriotic observance of the national religion, II, 226 + on suicide, II, 232 + on slavery, II, 252 + on Roman myths, II, 265 + + Septuagint, version of the Bible, paraphrasing of anthropomorphic + passages in, I, 237 + + Sepulture, of crucified criminals forbidden, II, 58 + + Serapis, Egyptian deity, + images of thrown down, II, 73 + Marcus Aurelius an adorer of, II, 217 + + Servilia, mistress of Julius Cæsar, II, 239 + + Shammai, School of, + and the Mishna, I, 79 + dissensions of, with School of Hillel, II, 309 + + Shevuah ben Kalba, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 319 + + Shoterim of the Sanhedrin, I, 113 + + Sibylline Books, II, 199, 204 + + Sibyl, Erythræan, Virgil inspired by, II, 287 + + Simon, Jewish rebel, revolt of, II, 110 + + Simon, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 320 + + Simon Boethus, made high priest by Herod I, II, 296 + + Simon ben Camithus, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 298 + + Simon Cantharus, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 297 + + Simon, son of Gamaliel, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 305 + + Simon Hamizpah, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 314 + + Sinaitic MS. of the Bible, I, 67 + + Slavery, + under Hebrew law, I, 95 + account of, among Romans, II, 250, 251 + + Social life, Græco-Roman, + marriage and divorce, II, 236-240 + prostitution, II, 242-244 + luxury and extravagance, II, 244-249 + poverty of Roman masses, II, 249 + slavery, II, 249-253 + infanticide, II, 254 + gladiatorial games, II, 255-262 + depravity of, traceable to corrupt myths, II, 262-270 + practice of Bacchanalian rites, II, 270-283 + hopeless state of, at time of Christ, II, 284-287 + + Socrates, Greek philosopher, + resemblance of charges against, to those against Jesus, II, 181 + counsel of, to Hetairai, II, 243 + + Sodomy, prevalence of, + among Greeks and Romans, II, 262-264 + practiced in Roman temples, II, 269 + + Solomon ben Joseph, Jewish rabbi, on the Talmud, I, 90 + + Sonnenthal, Adolf von, Jewish actor, refused freedom of Vienna, II, 182 + + Sparta, licentiousness of, II, 241 + + Spartacus, Roman gladiator, revolt of, II, 259, 260 + + Spartans, marital looseness of, II, 241 + + Spinoza, Jewish philosopher, on miracles, I, 40-44 + + Standards, apocryphal miracle of, at trial of Christ, II, 354 _seq._ + + Starkie on the credibility of testimony, I, 12 + + Stephen, St., stoning of, I, 365 + + Stephen, Sir James F. J., + on the Roman treatment of Christianity, II, 76 + on Pilate's trial of Jesus, II, 159-164 + + Stoicism, + among the Romans, II, 231 + resemblance of, to Christian precepts, II, 331 + + Stoning of criminals under Hebrew law, I, 92, 99 + + Strangling of criminals under Hebrew law, I, 91, 99 + + Strauss, David, + on the behavior of Jesus before Herod, II, 126 + on the character of Christ, II, 187 + + Stroud on the physical cause of death of Christ, I, 61, 62 + + Suetonius, Roman historian, + on the labeling of criminals before execution, I, 57 + on divination, II, 213 + narrative of, of dreams presaging reign of Augustus, II, 214 + account of, of belief of Augustus in omens, II, 215 + + Suicide, attitude of Stoics toward, II, 232 + + Suspension, death by, II, 61, 62 + + Sweat, bloody, historical instances of, I, 59, 60 + + + T + + Tacitus, Roman historian, on slavery, II, 253 + + Talmud, the, + definition of, I, 74 + recensions of, I, 81 + contents of, I, 82 + relation of Mishna to, I, 83, to Gemara, I, 83; to Pentateuch, I, + 83; to Mosaic Code, I, 84, 85 + efforts of Christians to extirpate, I, 87, 88 + message and mission of, I, 89 + See also Gemara and Mishna + + Telemachus, St., death of, in arena, II, 261 + + Temples, a resort of immorality in Rome, II, 269 + + Tertullian, Latin father, + on the character of Pilate, II, 89 + on the resort of vice to temple precincts, II, 269 + reference of, to the "Acts of Pilate," II, 329, 333 _seq._, 347, 348 + + Tertullus, his prosecution of Paul, II, 299 + + Testimony, under Hebrew Criminal Law, + of each witness required to cover entire case, I, 132 + vain, I, 145 + standing, I, 146 + adequate, I, 147 + of accomplices, I, 228-230, 235, 236 + + Theodota, the courtesan, counseled by Socrates, II, 243 + + Theophilus, son of Annas, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, + 296 + + Theresa, Maria, Austrian empress, codex of, II, 54 + + Three, Jewish Courts of, jurisdiction of, I, 124 + + Tiberius Cæsar, Roman emperor, + sway of, II, 27 + character of, II, 70 + prosecutions of, for treason, II, 70, 71 + marriage of, to Julia, II, 83 + legendary desire of, to deify Christ, II, 329, 330 _seq._ + + Tischendorf, Constantine, on the authenticity of the "Acts of + Pilate," II, 345 _seq._ + + Tissot, account of, of the bloody sweat of a sailor, I, 59 + + Trajan, Roman emperor, correspondence of, with Pliny, II, 78 + + Trials, Roman criminal, + right of appeal, II, 28 + during the regal period, II, 35 + Roman, mode of, in the Comitia Centuriata, II, 37-43 + mode of, in the Permanent Tribunals, II, 43-52 + prosecutor, rôle and selection of, II, 43, 44, 49 + + Trial of Jesus, Hebrew, + nature of charge against Jesus before Sanhedrin, I, 187 + procedure of, before Sanhedrin, I, 188 + discussion of charge of blasphemy against Jesus, I, 193-209 + illegality of arrest of Jesus, I, 219-237 + illegality of private examination of Jesus before high priest, I, + 238-247 + illegality of indictment of Jesus, I, 248-254 + illegality of nocturnal proceedings against Jesus, I, 255-259 + illegality of the meeting of the Sanhedrin before morning sacrifice, + I, 260-262 + illegality of proceedings against Christ, because held on the eve + of the Sabbath, and of a feast, I, 263-266 + illegality of trial, because concluded in one day, I, 267-270 + condemnation of Jesus founded on uncorroborated evidence, I, 271-278 + Jesus illegally condemned by unanimous verdict, I, 279-286 + condemnation of Jesus pronounced in place forbidden by law, I, 288-292 + irregular balloting of judges of Jesus, I, 292-294 + condemnation of Jesus illegal, because of unlawful conduct of high + priest, I, 290, 291 + disqualifications of judges of Jesus, I, 296-308 + Jesus condemned without defense, I, 309 + second trial of Jesus by Sanhedrin, I, 356-366 + + Trial of Jesus, Roman, + discussion of Roman and Hebrew jurisdiction, II, 3-23 + Roman law applicable to, II, 68-80 + as conducted by Pilate, II, 96-118, 129-139 + legal analysis of, II, 141-168 + + Tribune, Roman, judicial powers of, II, 36 + + Tryphon, son of Theudion, Jewish elder; biographical note on, II, 321 + + Twelve Tables, laws of the, II, 53, 208 + + + U + + Ulpian, Roman jurist, his definition of treason, II, 69 + + + V + + Vatican, MS. of the Bible, I, 67 + + Venus, Roman deity, + sacrifices to, II, 208 + impersonated by Phryne, II, 243 + worshiped by harlots, II, 266 + + Veronica, St., legend of, II, 93 + + Vestals, Roman priestesses, + guardians of sacred fire, II, 204 + spectators at licentious dramas, II, 267 + + Vinicius, Lucius, Roman patrician, letter of Augustus to, II, 83 + + Virgil, poem of, on advent of heaven-born child, I, 321; II, 287 + + Virginia, legend of, II, 236 + + Vitellius, legate of Syria, + spares Jewish prejudices, II, 85 + orders Pilate to Rome, II, 92 + + Vitia, Roman matron, executed for treason, II, 71 + + Voltaire, François de, + account of, of the bloody sweat of Charles IX, I, 59 + on character of Christ, II, 187 + + Vulgate, version of the Bible, I, 68 + + + W + + Witnesses, under Hebrew Criminal Law, + competency and incompetency of, I, 127-129 + number of, required to convict, I, 129 + agreement of, I, 131 + adjuration to, I, 134 + examination of, I, 136, 138 + false, I, 140 + the accused as, I, 141 + separation of, I, 137 + + Wise, Rabbi, + on the non-existence of the Great Sanhedrin at time of Christ, I, + 175, 179 + on the "martyrdom of Jesus," I, 330 + + + X + + Xenophanes, ridicule of, of Greek religion, II, 224 + + + Z + + Zadok, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 310 + + Zeno, Greek philosopher, originator of Stoicism, II, 229 + + Zeus, Greek divinity, + character of, I, 14 + myth of rape of Ganymede by, II, 262 + + + + +Corrections + +The first line indicates the original, the second the correction: + + p. 24: in the life and minstry + in the life and ministry + + p. 189: that he flattered + that He flattered + + God could be worshiped in any other place as well as in his + God could be worshiped in any other place as well as in His + + p. 206: that he was "the Christ, the Son of God" + that He was "the Christ, the Son of God" + + Index: + + Dysmas, legendary name of one of thieves crucified with Jesus, II, 364 + Dysmas, legendary name of one of the thieves crucified with Jesus, II, + 364 + + Derembourg, Joseph, on the Jewish priestly families, II, 294 + Dérembourg, Joseph, on the Jewish priestly families, II, 294 + + Lemann, extract from work of, on Sanhedrin, II, 291 + Lémann, extract from work of, on Sanhedrin, II, 291 + + Scipio Africanus, trial of, before Comitia Centuriata + Scipio Africanus, trial of, before Comitia Centuriata, II, 41 + + Footnote 135: sont fatales a la liberté. + sont fatales à la liberté. + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Trial of Jesus from a Lawyer's +Standpoint, Vol. I (of II), by Walter M. Chandler + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 40966 *** |