diff options
Diffstat (limited to '40966-8.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 40966-8.txt | 12615 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 12615 deletions
diff --git a/40966-8.txt b/40966-8.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 0f2903f..0000000 --- a/40966-8.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,12615 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Trial of Jesus from a Lawyer's -Standpoint, Vol. I (of II), by Walter M. Chandler - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org - - -Title: The Trial of Jesus from a Lawyer's Standpoint, Vol. I (of II) - The Hebrew Trial - -Author: Walter M. Chandler - -Release Date: October 7, 2012 [EBook #40966] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TRIAL OF JESUS *** - - - - -Produced by Jeff G., Eleni Christofaki and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net - - - - - - - - - -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 (Œ -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 THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TRIAL OF JESUS *** - -***** This file should be named 40966-8.txt or 40966-8.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/4/0/9/6/40966/ - -Produced by Jeff G., Eleni Christofaki and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at - www.gutenberg.org/license. - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 -North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email -contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the -Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |