summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/40966-h/40966-h.htm
blob: 3e48346e0dae1df468b89657375cdd0e93ff7178 (plain) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581
3582
3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
4015
4016
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
4193
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
4217
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
4285
4286
4287
4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303
4304
4305
4306
4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
4315
4316
4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
4327
4328
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333
4334
4335
4336
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341
4342
4343
4344
4345
4346
4347
4348
4349
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354
4355
4356
4357
4358
4359
4360
4361
4362
4363
4364
4365
4366
4367
4368
4369
4370
4371
4372
4373
4374
4375
4376
4377
4378
4379
4380
4381
4382
4383
4384
4385
4386
4387
4388
4389
4390
4391
4392
4393
4394
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399
4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413
4414
4415
4416
4417
4418
4419
4420
4421
4422
4423
4424
4425
4426
4427
4428
4429
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434
4435
4436
4437
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445
4446
4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456
4457
4458
4459
4460
4461
4462
4463
4464
4465
4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
4475
4476
4477
4478
4479
4480
4481
4482
4483
4484
4485
4486
4487
4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494
4495
4496
4497
4498
4499
4500
4501
4502
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4521
4522
4523
4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530
4531
4532
4533
4534
4535
4536
4537
4538
4539
4540
4541
4542
4543
4544
4545
4546
4547
4548
4549
4550
4551
4552
4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558
4559
4560
4561
4562
4563
4564
4565
4566
4567
4568
4569
4570
4571
4572
4573
4574
4575
4576
4577
4578
4579
4580
4581
4582
4583
4584
4585
4586
4587
4588
4589
4590
4591
4592
4593
4594
4595
4596
4597
4598
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603
4604
4605
4606
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
4613
4614
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619
4620
4621
4622
4623
4624
4625
4626
4627
4628
4629
4630
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
4645
4646
4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653
4654
4655
4656
4657
4658
4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665
4666
4667
4668
4669
4670
4671
4672
4673
4674
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704
4705
4706
4707
4708
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715
4716
4717
4718
4719
4720
4721
4722
4723
4724
4725
4726
4727
4728
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736
4737
4738
4739
4740
4741
4742
4743
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749
4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
4756
4757
4758
4759
4760
4761
4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
4767
4768
4769
4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775
4776
4777
4778
4779
4780
4781
4782
4783
4784
4785
4786
4787
4788
4789
4790
4791
4792
4793
4794
4795
4796
4797
4798
4799
4800
4801
4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809
4810
4811
4812
4813
4814
4815
4816
4817
4818
4819
4820
4821
4822
4823
4824
4825
4826
4827
4828
4829
4830
4831
4832
4833
4834
4835
4836
4837
4838
4839
4840
4841
4842
4843
4844
4845
4846
4847
4848
4849
4850
4851
4852
4853
4854
4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860
4861
4862
4863
4864
4865
4866
4867
4868
4869
4870
4871
4872
4873
4874
4875
4876
4877
4878
4879
4880
4881
4882
4883
4884
4885
4886
4887
4888
4889
4890
4891
4892
4893
4894
4895
4896
4897
4898
4899
4900
4901
4902
4903
4904
4905
4906
4907
4908
4909
4910
4911
4912
4913
4914
4915
4916
4917
4918
4919
4920
4921
4922
4923
4924
4925
4926
4927
4928
4929
4930
4931
4932
4933
4934
4935
4936
4937
4938
4939
4940
4941
4942
4943
4944
4945
4946
4947
4948
4949
4950
4951
4952
4953
4954
4955
4956
4957
4958
4959
4960
4961
4962
4963
4964
4965
4966
4967
4968
4969
4970
4971
4972
4973
4974
4975
4976
4977
4978
4979
4980
4981
4982
4983
4984
4985
4986
4987
4988
4989
4990
4991
4992
4993
4994
4995
4996
4997
4998
4999
5000
5001
5002
5003
5004
5005
5006
5007
5008
5009
5010
5011
5012
5013
5014
5015
5016
5017
5018
5019
5020
5021
5022
5023
5024
5025
5026
5027
5028
5029
5030
5031
5032
5033
5034
5035
5036
5037
5038
5039
5040
5041
5042
5043
5044
5045
5046
5047
5048
5049
5050
5051
5052
5053
5054
5055
5056
5057
5058
5059
5060
5061
5062
5063
5064
5065
5066
5067
5068
5069
5070
5071
5072
5073
5074
5075
5076
5077
5078
5079
5080
5081
5082
5083
5084
5085
5086
5087
5088
5089
5090
5091
5092
5093
5094
5095
5096
5097
5098
5099
5100
5101
5102
5103
5104
5105
5106
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
5117
5118
5119
5120
5121
5122
5123
5124
5125
5126
5127
5128
5129
5130
5131
5132
5133
5134
5135
5136
5137
5138
5139
5140
5141
5142
5143
5144
5145
5146
5147
5148
5149
5150
5151
5152
5153
5154
5155
5156
5157
5158
5159
5160
5161
5162
5163
5164
5165
5166
5167
5168
5169
5170
5171
5172
5173
5174
5175
5176
5177
5178
5179
5180
5181
5182
5183
5184
5185
5186
5187
5188
5189
5190
5191
5192
5193
5194
5195
5196
5197
5198
5199
5200
5201
5202
5203
5204
5205
5206
5207
5208
5209
5210
5211
5212
5213
5214
5215
5216
5217
5218
5219
5220
5221
5222
5223
5224
5225
5226
5227
5228
5229
5230
5231
5232
5233
5234
5235
5236
5237
5238
5239
5240
5241
5242
5243
5244
5245
5246
5247
5248
5249
5250
5251
5252
5253
5254
5255
5256
5257
5258
5259
5260
5261
5262
5263
5264
5265
5266
5267
5268
5269
5270
5271
5272
5273
5274
5275
5276
5277
5278
5279
5280
5281
5282
5283
5284
5285
5286
5287
5288
5289
5290
5291
5292
5293
5294
5295
5296
5297
5298
5299
5300
5301
5302
5303
5304
5305
5306
5307
5308
5309
5310
5311
5312
5313
5314
5315
5316
5317
5318
5319
5320
5321
5322
5323
5324
5325
5326
5327
5328
5329
5330
5331
5332
5333
5334
5335
5336
5337
5338
5339
5340
5341
5342
5343
5344
5345
5346
5347
5348
5349
5350
5351
5352
5353
5354
5355
5356
5357
5358
5359
5360
5361
5362
5363
5364
5365
5366
5367
5368
5369
5370
5371
5372
5373
5374
5375
5376
5377
5378
5379
5380
5381
5382
5383
5384
5385
5386
5387
5388
5389
5390
5391
5392
5393
5394
5395
5396
5397
5398
5399
5400
5401
5402
5403
5404
5405
5406
5407
5408
5409
5410
5411
5412
5413
5414
5415
5416
5417
5418
5419
5420
5421
5422
5423
5424
5425
5426
5427
5428
5429
5430
5431
5432
5433
5434
5435
5436
5437
5438
5439
5440
5441
5442
5443
5444
5445
5446
5447
5448
5449
5450
5451
5452
5453
5454
5455
5456
5457
5458
5459
5460
5461
5462
5463
5464
5465
5466
5467
5468
5469
5470
5471
5472
5473
5474
5475
5476
5477
5478
5479
5480
5481
5482
5483
5484
5485
5486
5487
5488
5489
5490
5491
5492
5493
5494
5495
5496
5497
5498
5499
5500
5501
5502
5503
5504
5505
5506
5507
5508
5509
5510
5511
5512
5513
5514
5515
5516
5517
5518
5519
5520
5521
5522
5523
5524
5525
5526
5527
5528
5529
5530
5531
5532
5533
5534
5535
5536
5537
5538
5539
5540
5541
5542
5543
5544
5545
5546
5547
5548
5549
5550
5551
5552
5553
5554
5555
5556
5557
5558
5559
5560
5561
5562
5563
5564
5565
5566
5567
5568
5569
5570
5571
5572
5573
5574
5575
5576
5577
5578
5579
5580
5581
5582
5583
5584
5585
5586
5587
5588
5589
5590
5591
5592
5593
5594
5595
5596
5597
5598
5599
5600
5601
5602
5603
5604
5605
5606
5607
5608
5609
5610
5611
5612
5613
5614
5615
5616
5617
5618
5619
5620
5621
5622
5623
5624
5625
5626
5627
5628
5629
5630
5631
5632
5633
5634
5635
5636
5637
5638
5639
5640
5641
5642
5643
5644
5645
5646
5647
5648
5649
5650
5651
5652
5653
5654
5655
5656
5657
5658
5659
5660
5661
5662
5663
5664
5665
5666
5667
5668
5669
5670
5671
5672
5673
5674
5675
5676
5677
5678
5679
5680
5681
5682
5683
5684
5685
5686
5687
5688
5689
5690
5691
5692
5693
5694
5695
5696
5697
5698
5699
5700
5701
5702
5703
5704
5705
5706
5707
5708
5709
5710
5711
5712
5713
5714
5715
5716
5717
5718
5719
5720
5721
5722
5723
5724
5725
5726
5727
5728
5729
5730
5731
5732
5733
5734
5735
5736
5737
5738
5739
5740
5741
5742
5743
5744
5745
5746
5747
5748
5749
5750
5751
5752
5753
5754
5755
5756
5757
5758
5759
5760
5761
5762
5763
5764
5765
5766
5767
5768
5769
5770
5771
5772
5773
5774
5775
5776
5777
5778
5779
5780
5781
5782
5783
5784
5785
5786
5787
5788
5789
5790
5791
5792
5793
5794
5795
5796
5797
5798
5799
5800
5801
5802
5803
5804
5805
5806
5807
5808
5809
5810
5811
5812
5813
5814
5815
5816
5817
5818
5819
5820
5821
5822
5823
5824
5825
5826
5827
5828
5829
5830
5831
5832
5833
5834
5835
5836
5837
5838
5839
5840
5841
5842
5843
5844
5845
5846
5847
5848
5849
5850
5851
5852
5853
5854
5855
5856
5857
5858
5859
5860
5861
5862
5863
5864
5865
5866
5867
5868
5869
5870
5871
5872
5873
5874
5875
5876
5877
5878
5879
5880
5881
5882
5883
5884
5885
5886
5887
5888
5889
5890
5891
5892
5893
5894
5895
5896
5897
5898
5899
5900
5901
5902
5903
5904
5905
5906
5907
5908
5909
5910
5911
5912
5913
5914
5915
5916
5917
5918
5919
5920
5921
5922
5923
5924
5925
5926
5927
5928
5929
5930
5931
5932
5933
5934
5935
5936
5937
5938
5939
5940
5941
5942
5943
5944
5945
5946
5947
5948
5949
5950
5951
5952
5953
5954
5955
5956
5957
5958
5959
5960
5961
5962
5963
5964
5965
5966
5967
5968
5969
5970
5971
5972
5973
5974
5975
5976
5977
5978
5979
5980
5981
5982
5983
5984
5985
5986
5987
5988
5989
5990
5991
5992
5993
5994
5995
5996
5997
5998
5999
6000
6001
6002
6003
6004
6005
6006
6007
6008
6009
6010
6011
6012
6013
6014
6015
6016
6017
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022
6023
6024
6025
6026
6027
6028
6029
6030
6031
6032
6033
6034
6035
6036
6037
6038
6039
6040
6041
6042
6043
6044
6045
6046
6047
6048
6049
6050
6051
6052
6053
6054
6055
6056
6057
6058
6059
6060
6061
6062
6063
6064
6065
6066
6067
6068
6069
6070
6071
6072
6073
6074
6075
6076
6077
6078
6079
6080
6081
6082
6083
6084
6085
6086
6087
6088
6089
6090
6091
6092
6093
6094
6095
6096
6097
6098
6099
6100
6101
6102
6103
6104
6105
6106
6107
6108
6109
6110
6111
6112
6113
6114
6115
6116
6117
6118
6119
6120
6121
6122
6123
6124
6125
6126
6127
6128
6129
6130
6131
6132
6133
6134
6135
6136
6137
6138
6139
6140
6141
6142
6143
6144
6145
6146
6147
6148
6149
6150
6151
6152
6153
6154
6155
6156
6157
6158
6159
6160
6161
6162
6163
6164
6165
6166
6167
6168
6169
6170
6171
6172
6173
6174
6175
6176
6177
6178
6179
6180
6181
6182
6183
6184
6185
6186
6187
6188
6189
6190
6191
6192
6193
6194
6195
6196
6197
6198
6199
6200
6201
6202
6203
6204
6205
6206
6207
6208
6209
6210
6211
6212
6213
6214
6215
6216
6217
6218
6219
6220
6221
6222
6223
6224
6225
6226
6227
6228
6229
6230
6231
6232
6233
6234
6235
6236
6237
6238
6239
6240
6241
6242
6243
6244
6245
6246
6247
6248
6249
6250
6251
6252
6253
6254
6255
6256
6257
6258
6259
6260
6261
6262
6263
6264
6265
6266
6267
6268
6269
6270
6271
6272
6273
6274
6275
6276
6277
6278
6279
6280
6281
6282
6283
6284
6285
6286
6287
6288
6289
6290
6291
6292
6293
6294
6295
6296
6297
6298
6299
6300
6301
6302
6303
6304
6305
6306
6307
6308
6309
6310
6311
6312
6313
6314
6315
6316
6317
6318
6319
6320
6321
6322
6323
6324
6325
6326
6327
6328
6329
6330
6331
6332
6333
6334
6335
6336
6337
6338
6339
6340
6341
6342
6343
6344
6345
6346
6347
6348
6349
6350
6351
6352
6353
6354
6355
6356
6357
6358
6359
6360
6361
6362
6363
6364
6365
6366
6367
6368
6369
6370
6371
6372
6373
6374
6375
6376
6377
6378
6379
6380
6381
6382
6383
6384
6385
6386
6387
6388
6389
6390
6391
6392
6393
6394
6395
6396
6397
6398
6399
6400
6401
6402
6403
6404
6405
6406
6407
6408
6409
6410
6411
6412
6413
6414
6415
6416
6417
6418
6419
6420
6421
6422
6423
6424
6425
6426
6427
6428
6429
6430
6431
6432
6433
6434
6435
6436
6437
6438
6439
6440
6441
6442
6443
6444
6445
6446
6447
6448
6449
6450
6451
6452
6453
6454
6455
6456
6457
6458
6459
6460
6461
6462
6463
6464
6465
6466
6467
6468
6469
6470
6471
6472
6473
6474
6475
6476
6477
6478
6479
6480
6481
6482
6483
6484
6485
6486
6487
6488
6489
6490
6491
6492
6493
6494
6495
6496
6497
6498
6499
6500
6501
6502
6503
6504
6505
6506
6507
6508
6509
6510
6511
6512
6513
6514
6515
6516
6517
6518
6519
6520
6521
6522
6523
6524
6525
6526
6527
6528
6529
6530
6531
6532
6533
6534
6535
6536
6537
6538
6539
6540
6541
6542
6543
6544
6545
6546
6547
6548
6549
6550
6551
6552
6553
6554
6555
6556
6557
6558
6559
6560
6561
6562
6563
6564
6565
6566
6567
6568
6569
6570
6571
6572
6573
6574
6575
6576
6577
6578
6579
6580
6581
6582
6583
6584
6585
6586
6587
6588
6589
6590
6591
6592
6593
6594
6595
6596
6597
6598
6599
6600
6601
6602
6603
6604
6605
6606
6607
6608
6609
6610
6611
6612
6613
6614
6615
6616
6617
6618
6619
6620
6621
6622
6623
6624
6625
6626
6627
6628
6629
6630
6631
6632
6633
6634
6635
6636
6637
6638
6639
6640
6641
6642
6643
6644
6645
6646
6647
6648
6649
6650
6651
6652
6653
6654
6655
6656
6657
6658
6659
6660
6661
6662
6663
6664
6665
6666
6667
6668
6669
6670
6671
6672
6673
6674
6675
6676
6677
6678
6679
6680
6681
6682
6683
6684
6685
6686
6687
6688
6689
6690
6691
6692
6693
6694
6695
6696
6697
6698
6699
6700
6701
6702
6703
6704
6705
6706
6707
6708
6709
6710
6711
6712
6713
6714
6715
6716
6717
6718
6719
6720
6721
6722
6723
6724
6725
6726
6727
6728
6729
6730
6731
6732
6733
6734
6735
6736
6737
6738
6739
6740
6741
6742
6743
6744
6745
6746
6747
6748
6749
6750
6751
6752
6753
6754
6755
6756
6757
6758
6759
6760
6761
6762
6763
6764
6765
6766
6767
6768
6769
6770
6771
6772
6773
6774
6775
6776
6777
6778
6779
6780
6781
6782
6783
6784
6785
6786
6787
6788
6789
6790
6791
6792
6793
6794
6795
6796
6797
6798
6799
6800
6801
6802
6803
6804
6805
6806
6807
6808
6809
6810
6811
6812
6813
6814
6815
6816
6817
6818
6819
6820
6821
6822
6823
6824
6825
6826
6827
6828
6829
6830
6831
6832
6833
6834
6835
6836
6837
6838
6839
6840
6841
6842
6843
6844
6845
6846
6847
6848
6849
6850
6851
6852
6853
6854
6855
6856
6857
6858
6859
6860
6861
6862
6863
6864
6865
6866
6867
6868
6869
6870
6871
6872
6873
6874
6875
6876
6877
6878
6879
6880
6881
6882
6883
6884
6885
6886
6887
6888
6889
6890
6891
6892
6893
6894
6895
6896
6897
6898
6899
6900
6901
6902
6903
6904
6905
6906
6907
6908
6909
6910
6911
6912
6913
6914
6915
6916
6917
6918
6919
6920
6921
6922
6923
6924
6925
6926
6927
6928
6929
6930
6931
6932
6933
6934
6935
6936
6937
6938
6939
6940
6941
6942
6943
6944
6945
6946
6947
6948
6949
6950
6951
6952
6953
6954
6955
6956
6957
6958
6959
6960
6961
6962
6963
6964
6965
6966
6967
6968
6969
6970
6971
6972
6973
6974
6975
6976
6977
6978
6979
6980
6981
6982
6983
6984
6985
6986
6987
6988
6989
6990
6991
6992
6993
6994
6995
6996
6997
6998
6999
7000
7001
7002
7003
7004
7005
7006
7007
7008
7009
7010
7011
7012
7013
7014
7015
7016
7017
7018
7019
7020
7021
7022
7023
7024
7025
7026
7027
7028
7029
7030
7031
7032
7033
7034
7035
7036
7037
7038
7039
7040
7041
7042
7043
7044
7045
7046
7047
7048
7049
7050
7051
7052
7053
7054
7055
7056
7057
7058
7059
7060
7061
7062
7063
7064
7065
7066
7067
7068
7069
7070
7071
7072
7073
7074
7075
7076
7077
7078
7079
7080
7081
7082
7083
7084
7085
7086
7087
7088
7089
7090
7091
7092
7093
7094
7095
7096
7097
7098
7099
7100
7101
7102
7103
7104
7105
7106
7107
7108
7109
7110
7111
7112
7113
7114
7115
7116
7117
7118
7119
7120
7121
7122
7123
7124
7125
7126
7127
7128
7129
7130
7131
7132
7133
7134
7135
7136
7137
7138
7139
7140
7141
7142
7143
7144
7145
7146
7147
7148
7149
7150
7151
7152
7153
7154
7155
7156
7157
7158
7159
7160
7161
7162
7163
7164
7165
7166
7167
7168
7169
7170
7171
7172
7173
7174
7175
7176
7177
7178
7179
7180
7181
7182
7183
7184
7185
7186
7187
7188
7189
7190
7191
7192
7193
7194
7195
7196
7197
7198
7199
7200
7201
7202
7203
7204
7205
7206
7207
7208
7209
7210
7211
7212
7213
7214
7215
7216
7217
7218
7219
7220
7221
7222
7223
7224
7225
7226
7227
7228
7229
7230
7231
7232
7233
7234
7235
7236
7237
7238
7239
7240
7241
7242
7243
7244
7245
7246
7247
7248
7249
7250
7251
7252
7253
7254
7255
7256
7257
7258
7259
7260
7261
7262
7263
7264
7265
7266
7267
7268
7269
7270
7271
7272
7273
7274
7275
7276
7277
7278
7279
7280
7281
7282
7283
7284
7285
7286
7287
7288
7289
7290
7291
7292
7293
7294
7295
7296
7297
7298
7299
7300
7301
7302
7303
7304
7305
7306
7307
7308
7309
7310
7311
7312
7313
7314
7315
7316
7317
7318
7319
7320
7321
7322
7323
7324
7325
7326
7327
7328
7329
7330
7331
7332
7333
7334
7335
7336
7337
7338
7339
7340
7341
7342
7343
7344
7345
7346
7347
7348
7349
7350
7351
7352
7353
7354
7355
7356
7357
7358
7359
7360
7361
7362
7363
7364
7365
7366
7367
7368
7369
7370
7371
7372
7373
7374
7375
7376
7377
7378
7379
7380
7381
7382
7383
7384
7385
7386
7387
7388
7389
7390
7391
7392
7393
7394
7395
7396
7397
7398
7399
7400
7401
7402
7403
7404
7405
7406
7407
7408
7409
7410
7411
7412
7413
7414
7415
7416
7417
7418
7419
7420
7421
7422
7423
7424
7425
7426
7427
7428
7429
7430
7431
7432
7433
7434
7435
7436
7437
7438
7439
7440
7441
7442
7443
7444
7445
7446
7447
7448
7449
7450
7451
7452
7453
7454
7455
7456
7457
7458
7459
7460
7461
7462
7463
7464
7465
7466
7467
7468
7469
7470
7471
7472
7473
7474
7475
7476
7477
7478
7479
7480
7481
7482
7483
7484
7485
7486
7487
7488
7489
7490
7491
7492
7493
7494
7495
7496
7497
7498
7499
7500
7501
7502
7503
7504
7505
7506
7507
7508
7509
7510
7511
7512
7513
7514
7515
7516
7517
7518
7519
7520
7521
7522
7523
7524
7525
7526
7527
7528
7529
7530
7531
7532
7533
7534
7535
7536
7537
7538
7539
7540
7541
7542
7543
7544
7545
7546
7547
7548
7549
7550
7551
7552
7553
7554
7555
7556
7557
7558
7559
7560
7561
7562
7563
7564
7565
7566
7567
7568
7569
7570
7571
7572
7573
7574
7575
7576
7577
7578
7579
7580
7581
7582
7583
7584
7585
7586
7587
7588
7589
7590
7591
7592
7593
7594
7595
7596
7597
7598
7599
7600
7601
7602
7603
7604
7605
7606
7607
7608
7609
7610
7611
7612
7613
7614
7615
7616
7617
7618
7619
7620
7621
7622
7623
7624
7625
7626
7627
7628
7629
7630
7631
7632
7633
7634
7635
7636
7637
7638
7639
7640
7641
7642
7643
7644
7645
7646
7647
7648
7649
7650
7651
7652
7653
7654
7655
7656
7657
7658
7659
7660
7661
7662
7663
7664
7665
7666
7667
7668
7669
7670
7671
7672
7673
7674
7675
7676
7677
7678
7679
7680
7681
7682
7683
7684
7685
7686
7687
7688
7689
7690
7691
7692
7693
7694
7695
7696
7697
7698
7699
7700
7701
7702
7703
7704
7705
7706
7707
7708
7709
7710
7711
7712
7713
7714
7715
7716
7717
7718
7719
7720
7721
7722
7723
7724
7725
7726
7727
7728
7729
7730
7731
7732
7733
7734
7735
7736
7737
7738
7739
7740
7741
7742
7743
7744
7745
7746
7747
7748
7749
7750
7751
7752
7753
7754
7755
7756
7757
7758
7759
7760
7761
7762
7763
7764
7765
7766
7767
7768
7769
7770
7771
7772
7773
7774
7775
7776
7777
7778
7779
7780
7781
7782
7783
7784
7785
7786
7787
7788
7789
7790
7791
7792
7793
7794
7795
7796
7797
7798
7799
7800
7801
7802
7803
7804
7805
7806
7807
7808
7809
7810
7811
7812
7813
7814
7815
7816
7817
7818
7819
7820
7821
7822
7823
7824
7825
7826
7827
7828
7829
7830
7831
7832
7833
7834
7835
7836
7837
7838
7839
7840
7841
7842
7843
7844
7845
7846
7847
7848
7849
7850
7851
7852
7853
7854
7855
7856
7857
7858
7859
7860
7861
7862
7863
7864
7865
7866
7867
7868
7869
7870
7871
7872
7873
7874
7875
7876
7877
7878
7879
7880
7881
7882
7883
7884
7885
7886
7887
7888
7889
7890
7891
7892
7893
7894
7895
7896
7897
7898
7899
7900
7901
7902
7903
7904
7905
7906
7907
7908
7909
7910
7911
7912
7913
7914
7915
7916
7917
7918
7919
7920
7921
7922
7923
7924
7925
7926
7927
7928
7929
7930
7931
7932
7933
7934
7935
7936
7937
7938
7939
7940
7941
7942
7943
7944
7945
7946
7947
7948
7949
7950
7951
7952
7953
7954
7955
7956
7957
7958
7959
7960
7961
7962
7963
7964
7965
7966
7967
7968
7969
7970
7971
7972
7973
7974
7975
7976
7977
7978
7979
7980
7981
7982
7983
7984
7985
7986
7987
7988
7989
7990
7991
7992
7993
7994
7995
7996
7997
7998
7999
8000
8001
8002
8003
8004
8005
8006
8007
8008
8009
8010
8011
8012
8013
8014
8015
8016
8017
8018
8019
8020
8021
8022
8023
8024
8025
8026
8027
8028
8029
8030
8031
8032
8033
8034
8035
8036
8037
8038
8039
8040
8041
8042
8043
8044
8045
8046
8047
8048
8049
8050
8051
8052
8053
8054
8055
8056
8057
8058
8059
8060
8061
8062
8063
8064
8065
8066
8067
8068
8069
8070
8071
8072
8073
8074
8075
8076
8077
8078
8079
8080
8081
8082
8083
8084
8085
8086
8087
8088
8089
8090
8091
8092
8093
8094
8095
8096
8097
8098
8099
8100
8101
8102
8103
8104
8105
8106
8107
8108
8109
8110
8111
8112
8113
8114
8115
8116
8117
8118
8119
8120
8121
8122
8123
8124
8125
8126
8127
8128
8129
8130
8131
8132
8133
8134
8135
8136
8137
8138
8139
8140
8141
8142
8143
8144
8145
8146
8147
8148
8149
8150
8151
8152
8153
8154
8155
8156
8157
8158
8159
8160
8161
8162
8163
8164
8165
8166
8167
8168
8169
8170
8171
8172
8173
8174
8175
8176
8177
8178
8179
8180
8181
8182
8183
8184
8185
8186
8187
8188
8189
8190
8191
8192
8193
8194
8195
8196
8197
8198
8199
8200
8201
8202
8203
8204
8205
8206
8207
8208
8209
8210
8211
8212
8213
8214
8215
8216
8217
8218
8219
8220
8221
8222
8223
8224
8225
8226
8227
8228
8229
8230
8231
8232
8233
8234
8235
8236
8237
8238
8239
8240
8241
8242
8243
8244
8245
8246
8247
8248
8249
8250
8251
8252
8253
8254
8255
8256
8257
8258
8259
8260
8261
8262
8263
8264
8265
8266
8267
8268
8269
8270
8271
8272
8273
8274
8275
8276
8277
8278
8279
8280
8281
8282
8283
8284
8285
8286
8287
8288
8289
8290
8291
8292
8293
8294
8295
8296
8297
8298
8299
8300
8301
8302
8303
8304
8305
8306
8307
8308
8309
8310
8311
8312
8313
8314
8315
8316
8317
8318
8319
8320
8321
8322
8323
8324
8325
8326
8327
8328
8329
8330
8331
8332
8333
8334
8335
8336
8337
8338
8339
8340
8341
8342
8343
8344
8345
8346
8347
8348
8349
8350
8351
8352
8353
8354
8355
8356
8357
8358
8359
8360
8361
8362
8363
8364
8365
8366
8367
8368
8369
8370
8371
8372
8373
8374
8375
8376
8377
8378
8379
8380
8381
8382
8383
8384
8385
8386
8387
8388
8389
8390
8391
8392
8393
8394
8395
8396
8397
8398
8399
8400
8401
8402
8403
8404
8405
8406
8407
8408
8409
8410
8411
8412
8413
8414
8415
8416
8417
8418
8419
8420
8421
8422
8423
8424
8425
8426
8427
8428
8429
8430
8431
8432
8433
8434
8435
8436
8437
8438
8439
8440
8441
8442
8443
8444
8445
8446
8447
8448
8449
8450
8451
8452
8453
8454
8455
8456
8457
8458
8459
8460
8461
8462
8463
8464
8465
8466
8467
8468
8469
8470
8471
8472
8473
8474
8475
8476
8477
8478
8479
8480
8481
8482
8483
8484
8485
8486
8487
8488
8489
8490
8491
8492
8493
8494
8495
8496
8497
8498
8499
8500
8501
8502
8503
8504
8505
8506
8507
8508
8509
8510
8511
8512
8513
8514
8515
8516
8517
8518
8519
8520
8521
8522
8523
8524
8525
8526
8527
8528
8529
8530
8531
8532
8533
8534
8535
8536
8537
8538
8539
8540
8541
8542
8543
8544
8545
8546
8547
8548
8549
8550
8551
8552
8553
8554
8555
8556
8557
8558
8559
8560
8561
8562
8563
8564
8565
8566
8567
8568
8569
8570
8571
8572
8573
8574
8575
8576
8577
8578
8579
8580
8581
8582
8583
8584
8585
8586
8587
8588
8589
8590
8591
8592
8593
8594
8595
8596
8597
8598
8599
8600
8601
8602
8603
8604
8605
8606
8607
8608
8609
8610
8611
8612
8613
8614
8615
8616
8617
8618
8619
8620
8621
8622
8623
8624
8625
8626
8627
8628
8629
8630
8631
8632
8633
8634
8635
8636
8637
8638
8639
8640
8641
8642
8643
8644
8645
8646
8647
8648
8649
8650
8651
8652
8653
8654
8655
8656
8657
8658
8659
8660
8661
8662
8663
8664
8665
8666
8667
8668
8669
8670
8671
8672
8673
8674
8675
8676
8677
8678
8679
8680
8681
8682
8683
8684
8685
8686
8687
8688
8689
8690
8691
8692
8693
8694
8695
8696
8697
8698
8699
8700
8701
8702
8703
8704
8705
8706
8707
8708
8709
8710
8711
8712
8713
8714
8715
8716
8717
8718
8719
8720
8721
8722
8723
8724
8725
8726
8727
8728
8729
8730
8731
8732
8733
8734
8735
8736
8737
8738
8739
8740
8741
8742
8743
8744
8745
8746
8747
8748
8749
8750
8751
8752
8753
8754
8755
8756
8757
8758
8759
8760
8761
8762
8763
8764
8765
8766
8767
8768
8769
8770
8771
8772
8773
8774
8775
8776
8777
8778
8779
8780
8781
8782
8783
8784
8785
8786
8787
8788
8789
8790
8791
8792
8793
8794
8795
8796
8797
8798
8799
8800
8801
8802
8803
8804
8805
8806
8807
8808
8809
8810
8811
8812
8813
8814
8815
8816
8817
8818
8819
8820
8821
8822
8823
8824
8825
8826
8827
8828
8829
8830
8831
8832
8833
8834
8835
8836
8837
8838
8839
8840
8841
8842
8843
8844
8845
8846
8847
8848
8849
8850
8851
8852
8853
8854
8855
8856
8857
8858
8859
8860
8861
8862
8863
8864
8865
8866
8867
8868
8869
8870
8871
8872
8873
8874
8875
8876
8877
8878
8879
8880
8881
8882
8883
8884
8885
8886
8887
8888
8889
8890
8891
8892
8893
8894
8895
8896
8897
8898
8899
8900
8901
8902
8903
8904
8905
8906
8907
8908
8909
8910
8911
8912
8913
8914
8915
8916
8917
8918
8919
8920
8921
8922
8923
8924
8925
8926
8927
8928
8929
8930
8931
8932
8933
8934
8935
8936
8937
8938
8939
8940
8941
8942
8943
8944
8945
8946
8947
8948
8949
8950
8951
8952
8953
8954
8955
8956
8957
8958
8959
8960
8961
8962
8963
8964
8965
8966
8967
8968
8969
8970
8971
8972
8973
8974
8975
8976
8977
8978
8979
8980
8981
8982
8983
8984
8985
8986
8987
8988
8989
8990
8991
8992
8993
8994
8995
8996
8997
8998
8999
9000
9001
9002
9003
9004
9005
9006
9007
9008
9009
9010
9011
9012
9013
9014
9015
9016
9017
9018
9019
9020
9021
9022
9023
9024
9025
9026
9027
9028
9029
9030
9031
9032
9033
9034
9035
9036
9037
9038
9039
9040
9041
9042
9043
9044
9045
9046
9047
9048
9049
9050
9051
9052
9053
9054
9055
9056
9057
9058
9059
9060
9061
9062
9063
9064
9065
9066
9067
9068
9069
9070
9071
9072
9073
9074
9075
9076
9077
9078
9079
9080
9081
9082
9083
9084
9085
9086
9087
9088
9089
9090
9091
9092
9093
9094
9095
9096
9097
9098
9099
9100
9101
9102
9103
9104
9105
9106
9107
9108
9109
9110
9111
9112
9113
9114
9115
9116
9117
9118
9119
9120
9121
9122
9123
9124
9125
9126
9127
9128
9129
9130
9131
9132
9133
9134
9135
9136
9137
9138
9139
9140
9141
9142
9143
9144
9145
9146
9147
9148
9149
9150
9151
9152
9153
9154
9155
9156
9157
9158
9159
9160
9161
9162
9163
9164
9165
9166
9167
9168
9169
9170
9171
9172
9173
9174
9175
9176
9177
9178
9179
9180
9181
9182
9183
9184
9185
9186
9187
9188
9189
9190
9191
9192
9193
9194
9195
9196
9197
9198
9199
9200
9201
9202
9203
9204
9205
9206
9207
9208
9209
9210
9211
9212
9213
9214
9215
9216
9217
9218
9219
9220
9221
9222
9223
9224
9225
9226
9227
9228
9229
9230
9231
9232
9233
9234
9235
9236
9237
9238
9239
9240
9241
9242
9243
9244
9245
9246
9247
9248
9249
9250
9251
9252
9253
9254
9255
9256
9257
9258
9259
9260
9261
9262
9263
9264
9265
9266
9267
9268
9269
9270
9271
9272
9273
9274
9275
9276
9277
9278
9279
9280
9281
9282
9283
9284
9285
9286
9287
9288
9289
9290
9291
9292
9293
9294
9295
9296
9297
9298
9299
9300
9301
9302
9303
9304
9305
9306
9307
9308
9309
9310
9311
9312
9313
9314
9315
9316
9317
9318
9319
9320
9321
9322
9323
9324
9325
9326
9327
9328
9329
9330
9331
9332
9333
9334
9335
9336
9337
9338
9339
9340
9341
9342
9343
9344
9345
9346
9347
9348
9349
9350
9351
9352
9353
9354
9355
9356
9357
9358
9359
9360
9361
9362
9363
9364
9365
9366
9367
9368
9369
9370
9371
9372
9373
9374
9375
9376
9377
9378
9379
9380
9381
9382
9383
9384
9385
9386
9387
9388
9389
9390
9391
9392
9393
9394
9395
9396
9397
9398
9399
9400
9401
9402
9403
9404
9405
9406
9407
9408
9409
9410
9411
9412
9413
9414
9415
9416
9417
9418
9419
9420
9421
9422
9423
9424
9425
9426
9427
9428
9429
9430
9431
9432
9433
9434
9435
9436
9437
9438
9439
9440
9441
9442
9443
9444
9445
9446
9447
9448
9449
9450
9451
9452
9453
9454
9455
9456
9457
9458
9459
9460
9461
9462
9463
9464
9465
9466
9467
9468
9469
9470
9471
9472
9473
9474
9475
9476
9477
9478
9479
9480
9481
9482
9483
9484
9485
9486
9487
9488
9489
9490
9491
9492
9493
9494
9495
9496
9497
9498
9499
9500
9501
9502
9503
9504
9505
9506
9507
9508
9509
9510
9511
9512
9513
9514
9515
9516
9517
9518
9519
9520
9521
9522
9523
9524
9525
9526
9527
9528
9529
9530
9531
9532
9533
9534
9535
9536
9537
9538
9539
9540
9541
9542
9543
9544
9545
9546
9547
9548
9549
9550
9551
9552
9553
9554
9555
9556
9557
9558
9559
9560
9561
9562
9563
9564
9565
9566
9567
9568
9569
9570
9571
9572
9573
9574
9575
9576
9577
9578
9579
9580
9581
9582
9583
9584
9585
9586
9587
9588
9589
9590
9591
9592
9593
9594
9595
9596
9597
9598
9599
9600
9601
9602
9603
9604
9605
9606
9607
9608
9609
9610
9611
9612
9613
9614
9615
9616
9617
9618
9619
9620
9621
9622
9623
9624
9625
9626
9627
9628
9629
9630
9631
9632
9633
9634
9635
9636
9637
9638
9639
9640
9641
9642
9643
9644
9645
9646
9647
9648
9649
9650
9651
9652
9653
9654
9655
9656
9657
9658
9659
9660
9661
9662
9663
9664
9665
9666
9667
9668
9669
9670
9671
9672
9673
9674
9675
9676
9677
9678
9679
9680
9681
9682
9683
9684
9685
9686
9687
9688
9689
9690
9691
9692
9693
9694
9695
9696
9697
9698
9699
9700
9701
9702
9703
9704
9705
9706
9707
9708
9709
9710
9711
9712
9713
9714
9715
9716
9717
9718
9719
9720
9721
9722
9723
9724
9725
9726
9727
9728
9729
9730
9731
9732
9733
9734
9735
9736
9737
9738
9739
9740
9741
9742
9743
9744
9745
9746
9747
9748
9749
9750
9751
9752
9753
9754
9755
9756
9757
9758
9759
9760
9761
9762
9763
9764
9765
9766
9767
9768
9769
9770
9771
9772
9773
9774
9775
9776
9777
9778
9779
9780
9781
9782
9783
9784
9785
9786
9787
9788
9789
9790
9791
9792
9793
9794
9795
9796
9797
9798
9799
9800
9801
9802
9803
9804
9805
9806
9807
9808
9809
9810
9811
9812
9813
9814
9815
9816
9817
9818
9819
9820
9821
9822
9823
9824
9825
9826
9827
9828
9829
9830
9831
9832
9833
9834
9835
9836
9837
9838
9839
9840
9841
9842
9843
9844
9845
9846
9847
9848
9849
9850
9851
9852
9853
9854
9855
9856
9857
9858
9859
9860
9861
9862
9863
9864
9865
9866
9867
9868
9869
9870
9871
9872
9873
9874
9875
9876
9877
9878
9879
9880
9881
9882
9883
9884
9885
9886
9887
9888
9889
9890
9891
9892
9893
9894
9895
9896
9897
9898
9899
9900
9901
9902
9903
9904
9905
9906
9907
9908
9909
9910
9911
9912
9913
9914
9915
9916
9917
9918
9919
9920
9921
9922
9923
9924
9925
9926
9927
9928
9929
9930
9931
9932
9933
9934
9935
9936
9937
9938
9939
9940
9941
9942
9943
9944
9945
9946
9947
9948
9949
9950
9951
9952
9953
9954
9955
9956
9957
9958
9959
9960
9961
9962
9963
9964
9965
9966
9967
9968
9969
9970
9971
9972
9973
9974
9975
9976
9977
9978
9979
9980
9981
9982
9983
9984
9985
9986
9987
9988
9989
9990
9991
9992
9993
9994
9995
9996
9997
9998
9999
10000
10001
10002
10003
10004
10005
10006
10007
10008
10009
10010
10011
10012
10013
10014
10015
10016
10017
10018
10019
10020
10021
10022
10023
10024
10025
10026
10027
10028
10029
10030
10031
10032
10033
10034
10035
10036
10037
10038
10039
10040
10041
10042
10043
10044
10045
10046
10047
10048
10049
10050
10051
10052
10053
10054
10055
10056
10057
10058
10059
10060
10061
10062
10063
10064
10065
10066
10067
10068
10069
10070
10071
10072
10073
10074
10075
10076
10077
10078
10079
10080
10081
10082
10083
10084
10085
10086
10087
10088
10089
10090
10091
10092
10093
10094
10095
10096
10097
10098
10099
10100
10101
10102
10103
10104
10105
10106
10107
10108
10109
10110
10111
10112
10113
10114
10115
10116
10117
10118
10119
10120
10121
10122
10123
10124
10125
10126
10127
10128
10129
10130
10131
10132
10133
10134
10135
10136
10137
10138
10139
10140
10141
10142
10143
10144
10145
10146
10147
10148
10149
10150
10151
10152
10153
10154
10155
10156
10157
10158
10159
10160
10161
10162
10163
10164
10165
10166
10167
10168
10169
10170
10171
10172
10173
10174
10175
10176
10177
10178
10179
10180
10181
10182
10183
10184
10185
10186
10187
10188
10189
10190
10191
10192
10193
10194
10195
10196
10197
10198
10199
10200
10201
10202
10203
10204
10205
10206
10207
10208
10209
10210
10211
10212
10213
10214
10215
10216
10217
10218
10219
10220
10221
10222
10223
10224
10225
10226
10227
10228
10229
10230
10231
10232
10233
10234
10235
10236
10237
10238
10239
10240
10241
10242
10243
10244
10245
10246
10247
10248
10249
10250
10251
10252
10253
10254
10255
10256
10257
10258
10259
10260
10261
10262
10263
10264
10265
10266
10267
10268
10269
10270
10271
10272
10273
10274
10275
10276
10277
10278
10279
10280
10281
10282
10283
10284
10285
10286
10287
10288
10289
10290
10291
10292
10293
10294
10295
10296
10297
10298
10299
10300
10301
10302
10303
10304
10305
10306
10307
10308
10309
10310
10311
10312
10313
10314
10315
10316
10317
10318
10319
10320
10321
10322
10323
10324
10325
10326
10327
10328
10329
10330
10331
10332
10333
10334
10335
10336
10337
10338
10339
10340
10341
10342
10343
10344
10345
10346
10347
10348
10349
10350
10351
10352
10353
10354
10355
10356
10357
10358
10359
10360
10361
10362
10363
10364
10365
10366
10367
10368
10369
10370
10371
10372
10373
10374
10375
10376
10377
10378
10379
10380
10381
10382
10383
10384
10385
10386
10387
10388
10389
10390
10391
10392
10393
10394
10395
10396
10397
10398
10399
10400
10401
10402
10403
10404
10405
10406
10407
10408
10409
10410
10411
10412
10413
10414
10415
10416
10417
10418
10419
10420
10421
10422
10423
10424
10425
10426
10427
10428
10429
10430
10431
10432
10433
10434
10435
10436
10437
10438
10439
10440
10441
10442
10443
10444
10445
10446
10447
10448
10449
10450
10451
10452
10453
10454
10455
10456
10457
10458
10459
10460
10461
10462
10463
10464
10465
10466
10467
10468
10469
10470
10471
10472
10473
10474
10475
10476
10477
10478
10479
10480
10481
10482
10483
10484
10485
10486
10487
10488
10489
10490
10491
10492
10493
10494
10495
10496
10497
10498
10499
10500
10501
10502
10503
10504
10505
10506
10507
10508
10509
10510
10511
10512
10513
10514
10515
10516
10517
10518
10519
10520
10521
10522
10523
10524
10525
10526
10527
10528
10529
10530
10531
10532
10533
10534
10535
10536
10537
10538
10539
10540
10541
10542
10543
10544
10545
10546
10547
10548
10549
10550
10551
10552
10553
10554
10555
10556
10557
10558
10559
10560
10561
10562
10563
10564
10565
10566
10567
10568
10569
10570
10571
10572
10573
10574
10575
10576
10577
10578
10579
10580
10581
10582
10583
10584
10585
10586
10587
10588
10589
10590
10591
10592
10593
10594
10595
10596
10597
10598
10599
10600
10601
10602
10603
10604
10605
10606
10607
10608
10609
10610
10611
10612
10613
10614
10615
10616
10617
10618
10619
10620
10621
10622
10623
10624
10625
10626
10627
10628
10629
10630
10631
10632
10633
10634
10635
10636
10637
10638
10639
10640
10641
10642
10643
10644
10645
10646
10647
10648
10649
10650
10651
10652
10653
10654
10655
10656
10657
10658
10659
10660
10661
10662
10663
10664
10665
10666
10667
10668
10669
10670
10671
10672
10673
10674
10675
10676
10677
10678
10679
10680
10681
10682
10683
10684
10685
10686
10687
10688
10689
10690
10691
10692
10693
10694
10695
10696
10697
10698
10699
10700
10701
10702
10703
10704
10705
10706
10707
10708
10709
10710
10711
10712
10713
10714
10715
10716
10717
10718
10719
10720
10721
10722
10723
10724
10725
10726
10727
10728
10729
10730
10731
10732
10733
10734
10735
10736
10737
10738
10739
10740
10741
10742
10743
10744
10745
10746
10747
10748
10749
10750
10751
10752
10753
10754
10755
10756
10757
10758
10759
10760
10761
10762
10763
10764
10765
10766
10767
10768
10769
10770
10771
10772
10773
10774
10775
10776
10777
10778
10779
10780
10781
10782
10783
10784
10785
10786
10787
10788
10789
10790
10791
10792
10793
10794
10795
10796
10797
10798
10799
10800
10801
10802
10803
10804
10805
10806
10807
10808
10809
10810
10811
10812
10813
10814
10815
10816
10817
10818
10819
10820
10821
10822
10823
10824
10825
10826
10827
10828
10829
10830
10831
10832
10833
10834
10835
10836
10837
10838
10839
10840
10841
10842
10843
10844
10845
10846
10847
10848
10849
10850
10851
10852
10853
10854
10855
10856
10857
10858
10859
10860
10861
10862
10863
10864
10865
10866
10867
10868
10869
10870
10871
10872
10873
10874
10875
10876
10877
10878
10879
10880
10881
10882
10883
10884
10885
10886
10887
10888
10889
10890
10891
10892
10893
10894
10895
10896
10897
10898
10899
10900
10901
10902
10903
10904
10905
10906
10907
10908
10909
10910
10911
10912
10913
10914
10915
10916
10917
10918
10919
10920
10921
10922
10923
10924
10925
10926
10927
10928
10929
10930
10931
10932
10933
10934
10935
10936
10937
10938
10939
10940
10941
10942
10943
10944
10945
10946
10947
10948
10949
10950
10951
10952
10953
10954
10955
10956
10957
10958
10959
10960
10961
10962
10963
10964
10965
10966
10967
10968
10969
10970
10971
10972
10973
10974
10975
10976
10977
10978
10979
10980
10981
10982
10983
10984
10985
10986
10987
10988
10989
10990
10991
10992
10993
10994
10995
10996
10997
10998
10999
11000
11001
11002
11003
11004
11005
11006
11007
11008
11009
11010
11011
11012
11013
11014
11015
11016
11017
11018
11019
11020
11021
11022
11023
11024
11025
11026
11027
11028
11029
11030
11031
11032
11033
11034
11035
11036
11037
11038
11039
11040
11041
11042
11043
11044
11045
11046
11047
11048
11049
11050
11051
11052
11053
11054
11055
11056
11057
11058
11059
11060
11061
11062
11063
11064
11065
11066
11067
11068
11069
11070
11071
11072
11073
11074
11075
11076
11077
11078
11079
11080
11081
11082
11083
11084
11085
11086
11087
11088
11089
11090
11091
11092
11093
11094
11095
11096
11097
11098
11099
11100
11101
11102
11103
11104
11105
11106
11107
11108
11109
11110
11111
11112
11113
11114
11115
11116
11117
11118
11119
11120
11121
11122
11123
11124
11125
11126
11127
11128
11129
11130
11131
11132
11133
11134
11135
11136
11137
11138
11139
11140
11141
11142
11143
11144
11145
11146
11147
11148
11149
11150
11151
11152
11153
11154
11155
11156
11157
11158
11159
11160
11161
11162
11163
11164
11165
11166
11167
11168
11169
11170
11171
11172
11173
11174
11175
11176
11177
11178
11179
11180
11181
11182
11183
11184
11185
11186
11187
11188
11189
11190
11191
11192
11193
11194
11195
11196
11197
11198
11199
11200
11201
11202
11203
11204
11205
11206
11207
11208
11209
11210
11211
11212
11213
11214
11215
11216
11217
11218
11219
11220
11221
11222
11223
11224
11225
11226
11227
11228
11229
11230
11231
11232
11233
11234
11235
11236
11237
11238
11239
11240
11241
11242
11243
11244
11245
11246
11247
11248
11249
11250
11251
11252
11253
11254
11255
11256
11257
11258
11259
11260
11261
11262
11263
11264
11265
11266
11267
11268
11269
11270
11271
11272
11273
11274
11275
11276
11277
11278
11279
11280
11281
11282
11283
11284
11285
11286
11287
11288
11289
11290
11291
11292
11293
11294
11295
11296
11297
11298
11299
11300
11301
11302
11303
11304
11305
11306
11307
11308
11309
11310
11311
11312
11313
11314
11315
11316
11317
11318
11319
11320
11321
11322
11323
11324
11325
11326
11327
11328
11329
11330
11331
11332
11333
11334
11335
11336
11337
11338
11339
11340
11341
11342
11343
11344
11345
11346
11347
11348
11349
11350
11351
11352
11353
11354
11355
11356
11357
11358
11359
11360
11361
11362
11363
11364
11365
11366
11367
11368
11369
11370
11371
11372
11373
11374
11375
11376
11377
11378
11379
11380
11381
11382
11383
11384
11385
11386
11387
11388
11389
11390
11391
11392
11393
11394
11395
11396
11397
11398
11399
11400
11401
11402
11403
11404
11405
11406
11407
11408
11409
11410
11411
11412
11413
11414
11415
11416
11417
11418
11419
11420
11421
11422
11423
11424
11425
11426
11427
11428
11429
11430
11431
11432
11433
11434
11435
11436
11437
11438
11439
11440
11441
11442
11443
11444
11445
11446
11447
11448
11449
11450
11451
11452
11453
11454
11455
11456
11457
11458
11459
11460
11461
11462
11463
11464
11465
11466
11467
11468
11469
11470
11471
11472
11473
11474
11475
11476
11477
11478
11479
11480
11481
11482
11483
11484
11485
11486
11487
11488
11489
11490
11491
11492
11493
11494
11495
11496
11497
11498
11499
11500
11501
11502
11503
11504
11505
11506
11507
11508
11509
11510
11511
11512
11513
11514
11515
11516
11517
11518
11519
11520
11521
11522
11523
11524
11525
11526
11527
11528
11529
11530
11531
11532
11533
11534
11535
11536
11537
11538
11539
11540
11541
11542
11543
11544
11545
11546
11547
11548
11549
11550
11551
11552
11553
11554
11555
11556
11557
11558
11559
11560
11561
11562
11563
11564
11565
11566
11567
11568
11569
11570
11571
11572
11573
11574
11575
11576
11577
11578
11579
11580
11581
11582
11583
11584
11585
11586
11587
11588
11589
11590
11591
11592
11593
11594
11595
11596
11597
11598
11599
11600
11601
11602
11603
11604
11605
11606
11607
11608
11609
11610
11611
11612
11613
11614
11615
11616
11617
11618
11619
11620
11621
11622
11623
11624
11625
11626
11627
11628
11629
11630
11631
11632
11633
11634
11635
11636
11637
11638
11639
11640
11641
11642
11643
11644
11645
11646
11647
11648
11649
11650
11651
11652
11653
11654
11655
11656
11657
11658
11659
11660
11661
11662
11663
11664
11665
11666
11667
11668
11669
11670
11671
11672
11673
11674
11675
11676
11677
11678
11679
11680
11681
11682
11683
11684
11685
11686
11687
11688
11689
11690
11691
11692
11693
11694
11695
11696
11697
11698
11699
11700
11701
11702
11703
11704
11705
11706
11707
11708
11709
11710
11711
11712
11713
11714
11715
11716
11717
11718
11719
11720
11721
11722
11723
11724
11725
11726
11727
11728
11729
11730
11731
11732
11733
11734
11735
11736
11737
11738
11739
11740
11741
11742
11743
11744
11745
11746
11747
11748
11749
11750
11751
11752
11753
11754
11755
11756
11757
11758
11759
11760
11761
11762
11763
11764
11765
11766
11767
11768
11769
11770
11771
11772
11773
11774
11775
11776
11777
11778
11779
11780
11781
11782
11783
11784
11785
11786
11787
11788
11789
11790
11791
11792
11793
11794
11795
11796
11797
11798
11799
11800
11801
11802
11803
11804
11805
11806
11807
11808
11809
11810
11811
11812
11813
11814
11815
11816
11817
11818
11819
11820
11821
11822
11823
11824
11825
11826
11827
11828
11829
11830
11831
11832
11833
11834
11835
11836
11837
11838
11839
11840
11841
11842
11843
11844
11845
11846
11847
11848
11849
11850
11851
11852
11853
11854
11855
11856
11857
11858
11859
11860
11861
11862
11863
11864
11865
11866
11867
11868
11869
11870
11871
11872
11873
11874
11875
11876
11877
11878
11879
11880
11881
11882
11883
11884
11885
11886
11887
11888
11889
11890
11891
11892
11893
11894
11895
11896
11897
11898
11899
11900
11901
11902
11903
11904
11905
11906
11907
11908
11909
11910
11911
11912
11913
11914
11915
11916
11917
11918
11919
11920
11921
11922
11923
11924
11925
11926
11927
11928
11929
11930
11931
11932
11933
11934
11935
11936
11937
11938
11939
11940
11941
11942
11943
11944
11945
11946
11947
11948
11949
11950
11951
11952
11953
11954
11955
11956
11957
11958
11959
11960
11961
11962
11963
11964
11965
11966
11967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974
11975
11976
11977
11978
11979
11980
11981
11982
11983
11984
11985
11986
11987
11988
11989
11990
11991
11992
11993
11994
11995
11996
11997
11998
11999
12000
12001
12002
12003
12004
12005
12006
12007
12008
12009
12010
12011
12012
12013
12014
12015
12016
12017
12018
12019
12020
12021
12022
12023
12024
12025
12026
12027
12028
12029
12030
12031
12032
12033
12034
12035
12036
12037
12038
12039
12040
12041
12042
12043
12044
12045
12046
12047
12048
12049
12050
12051
12052
12053
12054
12055
12056
12057
12058
12059
12060
12061
12062
12063
12064
12065
12066
12067
12068
12069
12070
12071
12072
12073
12074
12075
12076
12077
12078
12079
12080
12081
12082
12083
12084
12085
12086
12087
12088
12089
12090
12091
12092
12093
12094
12095
12096
12097
12098
12099
12100
12101
12102
12103
12104
12105
12106
12107
12108
12109
12110
12111
12112
12113
12114
12115
12116
12117
12118
12119
12120
12121
12122
12123
12124
12125
12126
12127
12128
12129
12130
12131
12132
12133
12134
12135
12136
12137
12138
12139
12140
12141
12142
12143
12144
12145
12146
12147
12148
12149
12150
12151
12152
12153
12154
12155
12156
12157
12158
12159
12160
12161
12162
12163
12164
12165
12166
12167
12168
12169
12170
12171
12172
12173
12174
12175
12176
12177
12178
12179
12180
12181
12182
12183
12184
12185
12186
12187
12188
12189
12190
12191
12192
12193
12194
12195
12196
12197
12198
12199
12200
12201
12202
12203
12204
12205
12206
12207
12208
12209
12210
12211
12212
12213
12214
12215
12216
12217
12218
12219
12220
12221
12222
12223
12224
12225
12226
12227
12228
12229
12230
12231
12232
12233
12234
12235
12236
12237
12238
12239
12240
12241
12242
12243
12244
12245
12246
12247
12248
12249
12250
12251
12252
12253
12254
12255
12256
12257
12258
12259
12260
12261
12262
12263
12264
12265
12266
12267
12268
12269
12270
12271
12272
12273
12274
12275
12276
12277
12278
12279
12280
12281
12282
12283
12284
12285
12286
12287
12288
12289
12290
12291
12292
12293
12294
12295
12296
12297
12298
12299
12300
12301
12302
12303
12304
12305
12306
12307
12308
12309
12310
12311
12312
12313
12314
12315
12316
12317
12318
12319
12320
12321
12322
12323
12324
12325
12326
12327
12328
12329
12330
12331
12332
12333
12334
12335
12336
12337
12338
12339
12340
12341
12342
12343
12344
12345
12346
12347
12348
12349
12350
12351
12352
12353
12354
12355
12356
12357
12358
12359
12360
12361
12362
12363
12364
12365
12366
12367
12368
12369
12370
12371
12372
12373
12374
12375
12376
12377
12378
12379
12380
12381
12382
12383
12384
12385
12386
12387
12388
12389
12390
12391
12392
12393
12394
12395
12396
12397
12398
12399
12400
12401
12402
12403
12404
12405
12406
12407
12408
12409
12410
12411
12412
12413
12414
12415
12416
12417
12418
12419
12420
12421
12422
12423
12424
12425
12426
12427
12428
12429
12430
12431
12432
12433
12434
12435
12436
12437
12438
12439
12440
12441
12442
12443
12444
12445
12446
12447
12448
12449
12450
12451
12452
12453
12454
12455
12456
12457
12458
12459
12460
12461
12462
12463
12464
12465
12466
12467
12468
12469
12470
12471
12472
12473
12474
12475
12476
12477
12478
12479
12480
12481
12482
12483
12484
12485
12486
12487
12488
12489
12490
12491
12492
12493
12494
12495
12496
12497
12498
12499
12500
12501
12502
12503
12504
12505
12506
12507
12508
12509
12510
12511
12512
12513
12514
12515
12516
12517
12518
12519
12520
12521
12522
12523
12524
12525
12526
12527
12528
12529
12530
12531
12532
12533
12534
12535
12536
12537
12538
12539
12540
12541
12542
12543
12544
12545
12546
12547
12548
12549
12550
12551
12552
12553
12554
12555
12556
12557
12558
12559
12560
12561
12562
12563
12564
12565
12566
12567
12568
12569
12570
12571
12572
12573
12574
12575
12576
12577
12578
12579
12580
12581
12582
12583
12584
12585
12586
12587
12588
12589
12590
12591
12592
12593
12594
12595
12596
12597
12598
12599
12600
12601
12602
12603
12604
12605
12606
12607
12608
12609
12610
12611
12612
12613
12614
12615
12616
12617
12618
12619
12620
12621
12622
12623
12624
12625
12626
12627
12628
12629
12630
12631
12632
12633
12634
12635
12636
12637
12638
12639
12640
12641
12642
12643
12644
12645
12646
12647
12648
12649
12650
12651
12652
12653
12654
12655
12656
12657
12658
12659
12660
12661
12662
12663
12664
12665
12666
12667
12668
12669
12670
12671
12672
12673
12674
12675
12676
12677
12678
12679
12680
12681
12682
12683
12684
12685
12686
12687
12688
12689
12690
12691
12692
12693
12694
12695
12696
12697
12698
12699
12700
12701
12702
12703
12704
12705
12706
12707
12708
12709
12710
12711
12712
12713
12714
12715
12716
12717
12718
12719
12720
12721
12722
12723
12724
12725
12726
12727
12728
12729
12730
12731
12732
12733
12734
12735
12736
12737
12738
12739
12740
12741
12742
12743
12744
12745
12746
12747
12748
12749
12750
12751
12752
12753
12754
12755
12756
12757
12758
12759
12760
12761
12762
12763
12764
12765
12766
12767
12768
12769
12770
12771
12772
12773
12774
12775
12776
12777
12778
12779
12780
12781
12782
12783
12784
12785
12786
12787
12788
12789
12790
12791
12792
12793
12794
12795
12796
12797
12798
12799
12800
12801
12802
12803
12804
12805
12806
12807
12808
12809
12810
12811
12812
12813
12814
12815
12816
12817
12818
12819
12820
12821
12822
12823
12824
12825
12826
12827
12828
12829
12830
12831
12832
12833
12834
12835
12836
12837
12838
12839
12840
12841
12842
12843
12844
12845
12846
12847
12848
12849
12850
12851
12852
12853
12854
12855
12856
12857
12858
12859
12860
12861
12862
12863
12864
12865
12866
12867
12868
12869
12870
12871
12872
12873
12874
12875
12876
12877
12878
12879
12880
12881
12882
12883
12884
12885
12886
12887
12888
12889
12890
12891
12892
12893
12894
12895
12896
12897
12898
12899
12900
12901
12902
12903
12904
12905
12906
12907
12908
12909
12910
12911
12912
12913
12914
12915
12916
12917
12918
12919
12920
12921
12922
12923
12924
12925
12926
12927
12928
12929
12930
12931
12932
12933
12934
12935
12936
12937
12938
12939
12940
12941
12942
12943
12944
12945
12946
12947
12948
12949
12950
12951
12952
12953
12954
12955
12956
12957
12958
12959
12960
12961
12962
12963
12964
12965
12966
12967
12968
12969
12970
12971
12972
12973
12974
12975
12976
12977
12978
12979
12980
12981
12982
12983
12984
12985
12986
12987
12988
12989
12990
12991
12992
12993
12994
12995
12996
12997
12998
12999
13000
13001
13002
13003
13004
13005
13006
13007
13008
13009
13010
13011
13012
13013
13014
13015
13016
13017
13018
13019
13020
13021
13022
13023
13024
13025
13026
13027
13028
13029
13030
13031
13032
13033
13034
13035
13036
13037
13038
13039
13040
13041
13042
13043
13044
13045
13046
13047
13048
13049
13050
13051
13052
13053
13054
13055
13056
13057
13058
13059
13060
13061
13062
13063
13064
13065
13066
13067
13068
13069
13070
13071
13072
13073
13074
13075
13076
13077
13078
13079
13080
13081
13082
13083
13084
13085
13086
13087
13088
13089
13090
13091
13092
13093
13094
13095
13096
13097
13098
13099
13100
13101
13102
13103
13104
13105
13106
13107
13108
13109
13110
13111
13112
13113
13114
13115
13116
13117
13118
13119
13120
13121
13122
13123
13124
13125
13126
13127
13128
13129
13130
13131
13132
13133
13134
13135
13136
13137
13138
13139
13140
13141
13142
13143
13144
13145
13146
13147
13148
13149
13150
13151
13152
13153
13154
13155
13156
13157
13158
13159
13160
13161
13162
13163
13164
13165
13166
13167
13168
13169
13170
13171
13172
13173
13174
13175
13176
13177
13178
13179
13180
13181
13182
13183
13184
13185
13186
13187
13188
13189
13190
13191
13192
13193
13194
13195
13196
13197
13198
13199
13200
13201
13202
13203
13204
13205
13206
13207
13208
13209
13210
13211
13212
13213
13214
13215
13216
13217
13218
13219
13220
13221
13222
13223
13224
13225
13226
13227
13228
13229
13230
13231
13232
13233
13234
13235
13236
13237
13238
13239
13240
13241
13242
13243
13244
13245
13246
13247
13248
13249
13250
13251
13252
13253
13254
13255
13256
13257
13258
13259
13260
13261
13262
13263
13264
13265
13266
13267
13268
13269
13270
13271
13272
13273
13274
13275
13276
13277
13278
13279
13280
13281
13282
13283
13284
13285
13286
13287
13288
13289
13290
13291
13292
13293
13294
13295
13296
13297
13298
13299
13300
13301
13302
13303
13304
13305
13306
13307
13308
13309
13310
13311
13312
13313
13314
13315
13316
13317
13318
13319
13320
13321
13322
13323
13324
13325
13326
13327
13328
13329
13330
13331
13332
13333
13334
13335
13336
13337
13338
13339
13340
13341
13342
13343
13344
13345
13346
13347
13348
13349
13350
13351
13352
13353
13354
13355
13356
13357
13358
13359
13360
13361
13362
13363
13364
13365
13366
13367
13368
13369
13370
13371
13372
13373
13374
13375
13376
13377
13378
13379
13380
13381
13382
13383
13384
13385
13386
13387
13388
13389
13390
13391
13392
13393
13394
13395
13396
13397
13398
13399
13400
13401
13402
13403
13404
13405
13406
13407
13408
13409
13410
13411
13412
13413
13414
13415
13416
13417
13418
13419
13420
13421
13422
13423
13424
13425
13426
13427
13428
13429
13430
13431
13432
13433
13434
13435
13436
13437
13438
13439
13440
13441
13442
13443
13444
13445
13446
13447
13448
13449
13450
13451
13452
13453
13454
13455
13456
13457
13458
13459
13460
13461
13462
13463
13464
13465
13466
13467
13468
13469
13470
13471
13472
13473
13474
13475
13476
13477
13478
13479
13480
13481
13482
13483
13484
13485
13486
13487
13488
13489
13490
13491
13492
13493
13494
13495
13496
13497
13498
13499
13500
13501
13502
13503
13504
13505
13506
13507
13508
13509
13510
13511
13512
13513
13514
13515
13516
13517
13518
13519
13520
13521
13522
13523
13524
13525
13526
13527
13528
13529
13530
13531
13532
13533
13534
13535
13536
13537
13538
13539
13540
13541
13542
13543
13544
13545
13546
13547
13548
13549
13550
13551
13552
13553
13554
13555
13556
13557
13558
13559
13560
13561
13562
13563
13564
13565
13566
13567
13568
13569
13570
13571
13572
13573
13574
13575
13576
13577
13578
13579
13580
13581
13582
13583
13584
13585
13586
13587
13588
13589
13590
13591
13592
13593
13594
13595
13596
13597
13598
13599
13600
13601
13602
13603
13604
13605
13606
13607
13608
13609
13610
13611
13612
13613
13614
13615
13616
13617
13618
13619
13620
13621
13622
13623
13624
13625
13626
13627
13628
13629
13630
13631
13632
13633
13634
13635
13636
13637
13638
13639
13640
13641
13642
13643
13644
13645
13646
13647
13648
13649
13650
13651
13652
13653
13654
13655
13656
13657
13658
13659
13660
13661
13662
13663
13664
13665
13666
13667
13668
13669
13670
13671
13672
13673
13674
13675
13676
13677
13678
13679
13680
13681
13682
13683
13684
13685
13686
13687
13688
13689
13690
13691
13692
13693
13694
13695
13696
13697
13698
13699
13700
13701
13702
13703
13704
13705
13706
13707
13708
13709
13710
13711
13712
13713
13714
13715
13716
13717
13718
13719
13720
13721
13722
13723
13724
13725
13726
13727
13728
13729
13730
13731
13732
13733
13734
13735
13736
13737
13738
13739
13740
13741
13742
13743
13744
13745
13746
13747
13748
13749
13750
13751
13752
13753
13754
13755
13756
13757
13758
13759
13760
13761
13762
13763
13764
13765
13766
13767
13768
13769
13770
13771
13772
13773
13774
13775
13776
13777
13778
13779
13780
13781
13782
13783
13784
13785
13786
13787
13788
13789
13790
13791
13792
13793
13794
13795
13796
13797
13798
13799
13800
13801
13802
13803
13804
13805
13806
13807
13808
13809
13810
13811
13812
13813
13814
13815
13816
13817
13818
13819
13820
13821
13822
13823
13824
13825
13826
13827
13828
13829
13830
13831
13832
13833
13834
13835
13836
13837
13838
13839
13840
13841
13842
13843
13844
13845
13846
13847
13848
13849
13850
13851
13852
13853
13854
13855
13856
13857
13858
13859
13860
13861
13862
13863
13864
13865
13866
13867
13868
13869
13870
13871
13872
13873
13874
13875
13876
13877
13878
13879
13880
13881
13882
13883
13884
13885
13886
13887
13888
13889
13890
13891
13892
13893
13894
13895
13896
13897
13898
13899
13900
13901
13902
13903
13904
13905
13906
13907
13908
13909
13910
13911
13912
13913
13914
13915
13916
13917
13918
13919
13920
13921
13922
13923
13924
13925
13926
13927
13928
13929
13930
13931
13932
13933
13934
13935
13936
13937
13938
13939
13940
13941
13942
13943
13944
13945
13946
13947
13948
13949
13950
13951
13952
13953
13954
13955
13956
13957
13958
13959
13960
13961
13962
13963
13964
13965
13966
13967
13968
13969
13970
13971
13972
13973
13974
13975
13976
13977
13978
13979
13980
13981
13982
13983
13984
13985
13986
13987
13988
13989
13990
13991
13992
13993
13994
13995
13996
13997
13998
13999
14000
14001
14002
14003
14004
14005
14006
14007
14008
14009
14010
14011
14012
14013
14014
14015
14016
14017
14018
14019
14020
14021
14022
14023
14024
14025
14026
14027
14028
14029
14030
14031
14032
14033
14034
14035
14036
14037
14038
14039
14040
14041
14042
14043
14044
14045
14046
14047
14048
14049
14050
14051
14052
14053
14054
14055
14056
14057
14058
14059
14060
14061
14062
14063
14064
14065
14066
14067
14068
14069
14070
14071
14072
14073
14074
14075
14076
14077
14078
14079
14080
14081
14082
14083
14084
14085
14086
14087
14088
14089
14090
14091
14092
14093
14094
14095
14096
14097
14098
14099
14100
14101
14102
14103
14104
14105
14106
14107
14108
14109
14110
14111
14112
14113
14114
14115
14116
14117
14118
14119
14120
14121
14122
14123
14124
14125
14126
14127
14128
14129
14130
14131
14132
14133
14134
14135
14136
14137
14138
14139
14140
14141
14142
14143
14144
14145
14146
14147
14148
14149
14150
14151
14152
14153
14154
14155
14156
14157
14158
14159
14160
14161
14162
14163
14164
14165
14166
14167
14168
14169
14170
14171
14172
14173
14174
14175
14176
14177
14178
14179
14180
14181
14182
14183
14184
14185
14186
14187
14188
14189
14190
14191
14192
14193
14194
14195
14196
14197
14198
14199
14200
14201
14202
14203
14204
14205
14206
14207
14208
14209
14210
14211
14212
14213
14214
14215
14216
14217
14218
14219
14220
14221
14222
14223
14224
14225
14226
14227
14228
14229
14230
14231
14232
14233
14234
14235
14236
14237
14238
14239
14240
14241
14242
14243
14244
14245
14246
14247
14248
14249
14250
14251
14252
14253
14254
14255
14256
14257
14258
14259
14260
14261
14262
14263
14264
14265
14266
14267
14268
14269
14270
14271
14272
14273
14274
14275
14276
14277
14278
14279
14280
14281
14282
14283
14284
14285
14286
14287
14288
14289
14290
14291
14292
14293
14294
14295
14296
14297
14298
14299
14300
14301
14302
14303
14304
14305
14306
14307
14308
14309
14310
14311
14312
14313
14314
14315
14316
14317
14318
14319
14320
14321
14322
14323
14324
14325
14326
14327
14328
14329
14330
14331
14332
14333
14334
14335
14336
14337
14338
14339
14340
14341
14342
14343
14344
14345
14346
14347
14348
14349
14350
14351
14352
14353
14354
14355
14356
14357
14358
14359
14360
14361
14362
14363
14364
14365
14366
14367
14368
14369
14370
14371
14372
14373
14374
14375
14376
14377
14378
14379
14380
14381
14382
14383
14384
14385
14386
14387
14388
14389
14390
14391
14392
14393
14394
14395
14396
14397
14398
14399
14400
14401
14402
14403
14404
14405
14406
14407
14408
14409
14410
14411
14412
14413
14414
14415
14416
14417
14418
14419
14420
14421
14422
14423
14424
14425
14426
14427
14428
14429
14430
14431
14432
14433
14434
14435
14436
14437
14438
14439
14440
14441
14442
14443
14444
14445
14446
14447
14448
14449
14450
14451
14452
14453
14454
14455
14456
14457
14458
14459
14460
14461
14462
14463
14464
14465
14466
14467
14468
14469
14470
14471
14472
14473
14474
14475
14476
14477
14478
14479
14480
14481
14482
14483
14484
14485
14486
14487
14488
14489
14490
14491
14492
14493
14494
14495
14496
14497
14498
14499
14500
14501
14502
14503
14504
14505
14506
14507
14508
14509
14510
14511
14512
14513
14514
14515
14516
14517
14518
14519
14520
14521
14522
14523
14524
14525
14526
14527
14528
14529
14530
14531
14532
14533
14534
14535
14536
14537
14538
14539
14540
14541
14542
14543
14544
14545
14546
14547
14548
14549
14550
14551
14552
14553
14554
14555
14556
14557
14558
14559
14560
14561
14562
14563
14564
14565
14566
14567
14568
14569
14570
14571
14572
14573
14574
14575
14576
14577
14578
14579
14580
14581
14582
14583
14584
14585
14586
14587
14588
14589
14590
14591
14592
14593
14594
14595
14596
14597
14598
14599
14600
14601
14602
14603
14604
14605
14606
14607
14608
14609
14610
14611
14612
14613
14614
14615
14616
14617
14618
14619
14620
14621
14622
14623
14624
14625
14626
14627
14628
14629
14630
14631
14632
14633
14634
14635
14636
14637
14638
14639
14640
14641
14642
14643
14644
14645
14646
14647
14648
14649
14650
14651
14652
14653
14654
14655
14656
14657
14658
14659
14660
14661
14662
14663
14664
14665
14666
14667
14668
14669
14670
14671
14672
14673
14674
14675
14676
14677
14678
14679
14680
14681
14682
14683
14684
14685
14686
14687
14688
14689
14690
14691
14692
14693
14694
14695
14696
14697
14698
14699
14700
14701
14702
14703
14704
14705
14706
14707
14708
14709
14710
14711
14712
14713
14714
14715
14716
14717
14718
14719
14720
14721
14722
14723
14724
14725
14726
14727
14728
14729
14730
14731
14732
14733
14734
14735
14736
14737
14738
14739
14740
14741
14742
14743
14744
14745
14746
14747
14748
14749
14750
14751
14752
14753
14754
14755
14756
14757
14758
14759
14760
14761
14762
14763
14764
14765
14766
14767
14768
14769
14770
14771
14772
14773
14774
14775
14776
14777
14778
14779
14780
14781
14782
14783
14784
14785
14786
14787
14788
14789
14790
14791
14792
14793
14794
14795
14796
14797
14798
14799
14800
14801
14802
14803
14804
14805
14806
14807
14808
14809
14810
14811
14812
14813
14814
14815
14816
14817
14818
14819
14820
14821
14822
14823
14824
14825
14826
14827
14828
14829
14830
14831
14832
14833
14834
14835
14836
14837
14838
14839
14840
14841
14842
14843
14844
14845
14846
14847
14848
14849
14850
14851
14852
14853
14854
14855
14856
14857
14858
14859
14860
14861
14862
14863
14864
14865
14866
14867
14868
14869
14870
14871
14872
14873
14874
14875
14876
14877
14878
14879
14880
14881
14882
14883
14884
14885
14886
14887
14888
14889
14890
14891
14892
14893
14894
14895
14896
14897
14898
14899
14900
14901
14902
14903
14904
14905
14906
14907
14908
14909
14910
14911
14912
14913
14914
14915
14916
14917
14918
14919
14920
14921
14922
14923
14924
14925
14926
14927
14928
14929
14930
14931
14932
14933
14934
14935
14936
14937
14938
14939
14940
14941
14942
14943
14944
14945
14946
14947
14948
14949
14950
14951
14952
14953
14954
14955
14956
14957
14958
14959
14960
14961
14962
14963
14964
14965
14966
14967
14968
14969
14970
14971
14972
14973
14974
14975
14976
14977
14978
14979
14980
14981
14982
14983
14984
14985
14986
14987
14988
14989
14990
14991
14992
14993
14994
14995
14996
14997
14998
14999
15000
15001
15002
15003
15004
15005
15006
15007
15008
15009
15010
15011
15012
15013
15014
15015
15016
15017
15018
15019
15020
15021
15022
15023
15024
15025
15026
15027
15028
15029
15030
15031
15032
15033
15034
15035
15036
15037
15038
15039
15040
15041
15042
15043
15044
15045
15046
15047
15048
15049
15050
15051
15052
15053
15054
15055
15056
15057
15058
15059
15060
15061
15062
15063
15064
15065
15066
15067
15068
15069
15070
15071
15072
15073
15074
15075
15076
15077
15078
15079
15080
15081
15082
15083
15084
15085
15086
15087
15088
15089
15090
15091
15092
15093
15094
15095
15096
15097
15098
15099
15100
15101
15102
15103
15104
15105
15106
15107
15108
15109
15110
15111
15112
15113
15114
15115
15116
15117
15118
15119
15120
15121
15122
15123
15124
15125
15126
15127
15128
15129
15130
15131
15132
15133
15134
15135
15136
15137
15138
15139
15140
15141
15142
15143
15144
15145
15146
15147
15148
15149
15150
15151
15152
15153
15154
15155
15156
15157
15158
15159
15160
15161

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" />
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
    <title>
      The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Trial of Jesus, Vol. I, by Walter M. Chandler.
    </title>
<link rel="coverpage" href="images/covera.jpg" />
    <style type="text/css">

body {margin-left: 25%; margin-right: 25%;}

    h1,h2,h3 {
    text-align: center; /* all headings centered */
    clear: both;}
h4,h5 {
    text-align: center; /* all headings centered */
    clear: both; font-weight: normal;}
p {margin-top: .75em;
    text-align: justify;
    margin-bottom: .75em;}
p.chapstart:first-letter {font-size: 2em; text-align: left; font-weight: bold; float: left; padding: 0 .1em 0 0; vertical-align: bottom;}

hr.l65 {width: 65%; margin-top: 4em; margin-bottom: 4em; visibility: hidden;}
hr.l2 {width: 30%; margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto;
    margin-right: auto; clear: both; border: none; visibility: hidden;}

hr.l1 {width: 20%; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto;
    margin-right: auto; clear: both; border: none; visibility: hidden;}
.err {border-bottom: thin dotted black;}

.p2 {margin-top: 2em;}

table { margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;}
.center table { margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;  text-align: left; }
.top {vertical-align: top;}

.title { text-align: center; text-indent:1em;
        font-weight:normal; font-variant:normal;
        line-height:2; margin-bottom:3em; }

.hang  {text-indent: -1em; margin-left: 1em;}
.pagenum  { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */
    /*  visibility: hidden; */
    /* define the position */
    position: absolute;
    right: 3%;
    margin-right: 0em;
    text-align: right;
    /* remove any special formating that could be inherited */
    font-style: normal;
    font-weight: normal;
    font-variant: normal;
    letter-spacing: 0em;
    text-decoration: none;
    text-indent: 0em;
    font-size: x-small;
    /* never wrap this */
    white-space: nowrap;}
.pagenum span { /* do not show text that is meant for non-css version*/
    visibility: hidden;}
.pagenum a { display: inline-block;
    color: #808080; border: 1px solid silver; padding: 1px 4px 1px 4px;}

.blockquot {margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%; font-size: 95%}

.tnote{max-width: 90%; border: 1px dashed #808080;background-color: #fafafa;text-align: justify;
	padding: 0 0.75em;margin: 120px auto 120px auto;}
.in {text-indent: 1em;}

.center   {text-align: center;}

.smcap    {font-variant: small-caps;}
.big {font-size: 120%;}
.small {font-size: 80%;}
.u  {text-decoration: underline;}
.right {text-align: right;}
.caption  {font-weight: normal; text-align: center;}
.figcenter   {margin: auto; text-align: center;}
.floatl {float: left;
              clear: left;
              text-align: center;
              border: 0px solid black;
              padding: 2px;
              margin: 0 4px 0 0; /* right margin to keep out from body */}

.img {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-right: 1em;
padding-top: 1em; text-align: center;}

.hidden {display: none;}

.footnotes  {border: none;}
.footnote {margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%; font-size: 0.9em;}
.footnote .label {position: relative; bottom: 0.4em;
                 vertical-align: baseline; font-size: 80%; text-decoration: none;}
.fnanchor {vertical-align: baseline; position: relative; bottom: 0.4em;
   font-size: 80%; text-decoration: none;}

.poem {margin-left:10%;
    margin-right:10%;
    text-align: left;}

.poem br {display: none;}

.poem .stanza {margin: 1em 0em 1em 0em;}

.poem span.i0 {display: block;
    margin-left: 0em;
    padding-left: 3em;
    text-indent: -3em;}

ul {list-style: none;}
li {margin-top: 0.25em; margin-bottom:0; line-height: 1.2em; /* a bit closer than p's */}

table {	/* these affect all table elements */
	margin-top: 1em;	/* space above the table */
	caption-side:		/* top; or */ bottom ;
	empty-cells: show;	/* no need for nbsp's in empty cells */}

@media handheld { /* will become "all" for epub device/epub viewers, stays for everything else */
body {margin-left: 1.5%; margin-right: 1.5%;
margin-top: 1%; margin-bottom: 1%;}

p { margin-top: 0em; margin-bottom: 0em;
text-align: justify; text-indent: 2em; line-height: 1em; }
   }

    </style>
  </head>
<body>
<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 40966 ***</div>

<div class='tnote'>
<h3>Transcriber's notes</h3>

<p>Variable spelling has been retained. Minor punctuation inconsistencies have been
silently corrected. A list of other <a href="#Corrections">corrections</a> 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.
The <a href="#INDEX">Index</a> was copied from Volume II.</p>
</div>

<hr class="l65" />
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/cover.jpg" width="500" height="754" alt="cover" title="cover" />

</div>
<hr class="l65" />
<h1>THE TRIAL OF JESUS</h1>

<hr class="l65" />

<div class="figcenter">

<img src="images/frontis.jpg" width="564" height="1738" alt="Jesus bound (Munkacsy)" title="Jesus bound (Munkacsy)" />
<p class="caption"><a name="JESUS_BOUND" id="JESUS_BOUND"></a>JESUS BOUND (MUNKACSY)</p>
</div>

<hr class="l65" />

<div class="title"><p class="center">
<span class="big"><b>THE TRIAL OF JESUS</b></span></p>

<p class="center">FROM A LAWYER'S STANDPOINT</p>
<p class="center p2">
<span class="small">BY</span></p>

<p class="center">WALTER M. CHANDLER
<br />
<span class="small">OF THE NEW YORK BAR</span></p>

<p class="center p2">
VOLUME I</p>

<p class="center">THE HEBREW TRIAL</p>

<hr class="l2" />
<p class="center">
THE EMPIRE PUBLISHING CO.</p>
<p class="center">
<span class="smcap">60 Wall Street, New York City</span></p>
<p class="center">
1908
</p>
</div>

<hr class="l65" />

<p class="center">
Copyright, 1908, by<br />
WALTER M. CHANDLER</p>

<p class="center p2"><i>All rights reserved</i></p>

<hr class="l65" />

<p class="center">
TO<br />
MY MOTHER<br />
WITH SENTIMENTS OF LOVE AND VENERATION<br />
WHICH NO WORDS CAN EXPRESS
</p>

<hr class="l65" />
<h2>LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS</h2>

<div class="centered">
<table summary="list of illustrations">
<tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td>FACING PAGE</td></tr>
<tr>
<td><span class="smcap"><a href="#JESUS_BOUND">Jesus Bound</a></span> (Munkacsy)</td>
<td><i>Frontispiece</i></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap"><a href="#ST_MATTHEW">St. Matthew</a></span> (Rembrandt)</td>
<td>2</td></tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap"><a href="#ST_MARK_AND_ST_PAUL">St. Mark and St. Paul</a></span> (Dürer)</td>
<td>28</td> </tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap"><a href="#ST_JOHN_AND_ST_PETER">St. John and St. Peter</a></span> (Dürer)</td>
<td>52</td></tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap"><a href="#MOSES_AND_THE_LAW">Moses and the Law</a></span> (Michael Angelo)</td>
<td>72</td> </tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap"><a href="#THE_LAST_SUPPER">The Last Supper</a></span> (da Vinci)</td>
<td>174</td></tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap"><a href="#JESUS_IN_GETHSEMANE">Jesus in Gethsemane</a></span> (Hoffman)</td>
<td>240</td></tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap"><a href="#THE_BETRAYING_KISS">The Betraying Kiss</a></span> (Scheffer)</td>
<td>282</td></tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap"><a href="#THE_ARREST_OF_JESUS">The Arrest of Jesus</a></span> (Hoffman)</td>
<td>284</td></tr>
</table></div>

<hr class="l65" />
<h2>CONTENTS OF VOLUME ONE</h2>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_ix" id="Page_ix">ix</a></span></p>
<div class="centered">
<table summary="contents">
<tr><td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>PAGE</td></tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">Preface to Volume One</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_xiii">xiii</a></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">The Gospel Narratives</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_xxx">xxx</a></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><p class="center">PART I</p></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p class="center"><i>THE RECORD OF FACT</i></p></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">Authenticity of the New Testament Narratives, Judicially
Considered</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_3">3</a></td></tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">Credibility of the Gospel Writers, Legally Tested</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_9">9</a></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><p class="center">PART II</p></td>
</tr>

<tr><td><p class="center"><i>HEBREW CRIMINAL LAW</i></p></td>
</tr>

<tr><td>CHAPTER</td></tr>

<tr><td>I. <span class="smcap">The Mosaic Code and the Talmud</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_73">73</a></td></tr>

<tr><td>II. <span class="smcap">Hebrew Crimes and Punishments</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_91">91</a></td></tr>

<tr><td>III. <span class="smcap">Hebrew Courts and Judges</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_102">102</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td>IV. <span class="smcap">Hebrew Witnesses and Evidence</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_127">127</a></td>
</tr>
<tr><td>V. <span class="smcap">Mode of Trial and Execution in Hebrew Capital Cases</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_153">153</a></td></tr>

<tr><td><p class="center">PART III</p></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p class="center"><i>THE BRIEF</i></p></td></tr>
<tr>
<td><span class="smcap">Whether or not the Great Sanhedrin existed at the time
of Christ</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_175">175</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td><span class="smcap">Concerning the Jurisdiction of the Great Sanhedrin, with
reference to Roman Authority, to try Capital Offenses
at the date of the Crucifixion</span> </td>
<td><a href="#Page_181">181</a></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_x" id="Page_x">x</a></span>
<span class="smcap">Concerning the Jurisdiction of the Great Sanhedrin, under
Hebrew Law, to try the Particular Offense with which
Jesus was charged</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_183">183</a></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">Whether or not there was a Regular Legal Trial of Jesus
before the Great Sanhedrin</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_183">183</a></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">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</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_186">186</a></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">The nature of the Charge brought against Jesus at the trial
before the Great Sanhedrin; and His guilt or innocence
with reference thereto</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_187">187</a></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">Point I: Concerning the legality of the Arrest of Jesus
in Gethsemane</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_219">219</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td><span class="smcap">Point II: Concerning the legality of the Private Examination
of Jesus by Annas (or Caiaphas) before the beginning of
the regular trial</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_238">238</a></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">Point III: Concerning the legality of the Indictment against
Jesus</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_248">248</a></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">Point IV: Concerning the legality of trying Jesus at Night</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_255">255</a></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">Point V: Concerning the legality of trying Jesus before
the Morning Sacrifice had been offered</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_260">260</a></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">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</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_263">263</a></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">Point VII: Concerning the legality of concluding the
Trial of Jesus Within One Day</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_267">267</a></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">Point VIII: Concerning the legality of convicting Jesus
upon His Uncorroborated Confession</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_271">271</a></td></tr>
<tr>
<td><span class="smcap">Point IX: Concerning the legality of a Unanimous Verdict
against Jesus</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_279">279</a></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xi" id="Page_xi">xi</a></span>
<span class="smcap">Point X: Concerning certain Irregularities of Form in
trying and condemning Jesus</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_287">287</a></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">Point XI: Concerning the legal Disqualifications of members
of the Great Sanhedrin, to try Jesus</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_295">295</a></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">Point XII: Concerning the legality of the refusal of the
Great Sanhedrin to consider the Merits of the Defense
of Jesus</span></td>
<td><a href="#Page_309">309</a></td></tr>
</table></div>

<hr class="l65" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xiii" id="Page_xiii">xiii</a></span></p>
<h2>PREFACE TO VOLUME ONE</h2>

<p>
<img src="images/letterm.jpg" width="100" height="112" alt="M" title="M" class="floatl" />
<span class="hidden">M</span>ANY remarkable trials have
characterized the judicial history
of mankind.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xiv" id="Page_xiv">xiv</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xv" id="Page_xv">xv</a></span>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&mdash;that he had sought to destroy the Country
of Washington, the Republic of Jefferson, which is to-day the Union of
Lincoln&mdash;was the sad and melancholy close of a long and lofty life.</p>

<p>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
<i>bordereau</i>. 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.</p>

<p>Other trials&mdash;of Mary Stuart, the beautiful and
brilliant Scottish queen; of Robert Emmet, the grand
and gifted Irish patriot martyr&mdash;thrilled the world in
their day.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xvi" id="Page_xvi">xvi</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The general order of events may be thus briefly
described:</p>

<p>(1) About eleven o'clock on the evening of April
6th, <span class="small">A.D.</span> 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.</p>

<p>(2) Jesus was arrested about midnight in Gethsemane
by a band of Temple officers and Roman soldiers
guided by Judas.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xvii" id="Page_xvii">xvii</a></span>(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.</p>

<p>(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.</p>

<p>(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.</p>

<p>(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."</p>

<p>(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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xviii" id="Page_xviii">xviii</a></span>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.</p>

<p>(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.</p>

<p>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:</p>

<p>(1) The appearance before Annas.</p>

<p>(2) The trial at the night session of the Sanhedrin.</p>

<p>(3) The examination at the morning sitting of the
same court.</p>

<p>The Roman trial was marked by:</p>

<p>(1) The appearance of Jesus before Pilate.</p>

<p>(2) His arraignment before Herod.</p>

<p>(3) His reappearance before Pilate.</p>

<p>The first volume of this work has been devoted to
the Hebrew trial of Jesus, and a distinctively Hebrew
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xix" id="Page_xix">xix</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<i>Lawyer's</i> 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 <i>man</i> Jesus at the bar of <i>human</i> justice under Jewish
and Roman laws have marked the limitations of
the argument. Any digression from this plan has been
temporary and necessary.</p>

<p>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:
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xx" id="Page_xx">xx</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxi" id="Page_xxi">xxi</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxii" id="Page_xxii">xxii</a></span>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.</p>

<p>It would be decidedly ungenerous and unjust to
deny the force of the contention that spiritual consciousness
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxiii" id="Page_xxiii">xxiii</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The distinctions herein suggested are very aptly and
beautifully expressed by Professor Inge in his Bampton
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxiv" id="Page_xxiv">xxiv</a></span>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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxv" id="Page_xxv">xxv</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxvi" id="Page_xxvi">xxvi</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxvii" id="Page_xxvii">xxvii</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxviii" id="Page_xxviii">xxviii</a></span>exists, and that in a large majority of cases the relevancy
is perfect.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p class="right"><span class="smcap">Walter M. Chandler.</span></p>

<p><span class="smcap">New York City</span>, July 1, 1908.</p>

<hr class="l65" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxx" id="Page_xxx">xxx</a></span></p>
<h2>THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES</h2>

<hr class="l65" />

<div class="table">
<table cellspacing="30" summary="the gospel narratives">
<tr><td class="center">MATTHEW</td>
<td class="center">MARK</td></tr>

<tr><td class="center">
xxvi. 47-68; xxvii. 1-26</td>
<td class="center">xiv. 43-65; xv. 1-15.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="top">
<p class="chapstart">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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxxii" id="Page_xxxii">xxxii</a></span>
hands, Saying, Prophesy unto us,
thou Christ, Who is he that smote
thee?</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxxiv" id="Page_xxxiv">xxxiv</a></span>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.</p></td>

<td class="top">

<p class="chapstart">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.</p>

<p>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.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr><td class="center"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxxi" id="Page_xxxi">xxxi</a></span>LUKE</td>
<td class="center">JOHN</td></tr>

<tr>
<td class="center">xxii. 47-71; xxiii. 1-24.</td>
<td class="center">xviii. 3-38; xix. 1-16.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="top">
<p class="chapstart">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.</p>

<p>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.</p></td>

<td class="top">

<p class="chapstart">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.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxxiii" id="Page_xxxiii">xxxiii</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xxxv" id="Page_xxxv">xxxv</a></span>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.</p></td>
</tr>
</table></div>

<hr class="l65" />
<h2><span class="small">PART I</span><br />

<i>THE RECORD OF FACT</i></h2>

<hr class="l65" />
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/image002.jpg" width="600" height="721" alt="ST. MATTHEW (REMBRANDT)" title="ST. MATTHEW (REMBRANDT)" />
<p class="caption"><a name="ST_MATTHEW" id="ST_MATTHEW"></a>ST. MATTHEW (REMBRANDT)</p>

</div>

<hr class="l65" />

<hr class="l65" /><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">3</a></span></p>
<h2>CHAPTER I</h2>

<h3>THE RECORD OF FACT</h3>

<p>
<img src="images/lettert.jpg" width="100" height="111" alt="T" title="T" class="floatl" />
<span class="hidden">T</span>HE 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&mdash;a dubious
passage from Josephus&mdash;a mere mention by
Tacitus&mdash;a few scattering fragments from the Talmud&mdash;all
else is darkness, save the light that streams down
through the centuries from Calvary and the Cross
through the books of the Evangelists.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">4</a></span>(2) Are the Gospel writers&mdash;Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">5</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;that
is, the fact of the truthfulness or falsity of the
Resurrection&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">6</a></span>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. <i>The London Law Magazine</i>, 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&mdash;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."</p>

<p>Concerning the authenticity of the Sacred Scriptures
and their admissibility in evidence, Greenleaf has thus
written:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><i>Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the
proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">7</a></span>marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and
devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to
be otherwise.</i></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">8</a></span>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</p>

<p><i>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.</i></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">9</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></p></div>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">10</a></span>presumption operates in their favor from the very
moment that their testimony is admitted in evidence.
Here, again, the opinion of Greenleaf&mdash;with all the
weight and authority that such an opinion carries&mdash;is
directly in point. In the "Testimony of the Evangelists"
he says:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p>

<p><i>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.</i></p>

<p>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,
<i>aliunde</i> 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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">11</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></p></div>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">12</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p><i>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.</i><a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></p></div>

<p>Let us apply these successive tests, in the order above
enumerated, to the Evangelists.</p>

<p>(1) In the first place, let us consider the question
of their <i>honesty</i>.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">13</a></span>false, as a result of error in judgment or mistake of
fact.</p>

<p>In the sense, then, of <i>sincerity</i> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">14</a></span>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&mdash;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&mdash;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,<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">15</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">16</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">17</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">18</a></span>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&mdash;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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>(2) In the second place, let us consider the <i>ability</i>
of the Evangelists as a test of their credibility as witnesses.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>To what extent the Gospel writers possessed the first
of these qualifications&mdash;that is, power of observation
and strength of memory&mdash;we are not informed by
either history or tradition. But we are certainly justified
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">19</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Again, the occupations of two of them are very suggestive.
Matthew was a collector at the seat of customs,<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a>
and Luke was a physician.<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> Both these callings
required more than ordinary knowledge of men, as well
as accurate powers of observation, discrimination, and
analysis.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">20</a></span>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&mdash;what more
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">21</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">22</a></span>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<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> and His betrayal by Judas;<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> the
flight of the Eleven from the Garden at the time of the
arrest;<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> the ridiculous attempt of Peter to walk upon
the sea and his failure because of lack of faith;<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> the
frequent childish contentions among the disciples for
place and precedence in the affections of Jesus and in
the New Kingdom;<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> 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;<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> the belief of the family of Jesus
that He was mad;<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> and the fact that His neighbors at
Nazareth threatened to kill Him by hurling Him from
a cliff<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a>&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">23</a></span>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">24</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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 <span class="err" title="original: minstry">ministry</span> 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.<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">25</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a>
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."<a name="FNanchor_16a_16a" id="FNanchor_16a_16a"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a></p>

<p>That Luke was an eyewitness of many of the things
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">26</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">27</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">28</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_19_19" id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a></p>

<p>If the Evangelists were eyewitnesses, which the
records seem clearly to indicate, they possessed one of
the strongest tests of credibility.</p>

<p>(3) In the third place, as to their <i>number</i> and the
<i>consistency</i> of their testimony.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">29</a></span>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.</p>
<hr class="l1" />
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/image029.jpg" width="600" height="1421" alt="ST. MARK AND ST. PAUL (DÜRER)" title="ST. MARK AND ST. PAUL (DÜRER)" />
<p class="caption"><a name="ST_MARK_AND_ST_PAUL" id="ST_MARK_AND_ST_PAUL"></a>ST. MARK AND ST. PAUL (DÜRER)</p>
</div>
<hr class="l1" />
<p>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.</p>

<p>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;
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">30</a></span>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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Again, an investigation of the charge of discrepancy
against the Gospel writers shows that the critics and
skeptics have classified mere <i>omissions</i> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">31</a></span>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&mdash;preacher,
priest, or prophet&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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
<i>inspired</i>. Only one of them tells us how its writer obtained
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">32</a></span>his information, and that was by careful inquiry
at the proper sources."<a name="FNanchor_20_20" id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>A more pertinent observation upon the Gospel discrepancies
has not been made than that by Paley in
his "Evidences of Christianity," where he says:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p>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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">33</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_21_21" id="FNanchor_21_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a></p></div>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">34</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>A few illustrations will serve to make clear this classification.</p>

<p>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 <i>twelve baskets full</i>.<a name="FNanchor_22_22" id="FNanchor_22_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a></p>

<p>Under the second heading of "internal confirmation"
the following instances may be cited:</p>

<p>Matt. xxvi. 67, 68: "And others smote him with the
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">35</a></span>palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou
Christ, Who is he that smote thee?"</p>

<p>A caviling criticism would demand: Why ask of
the Christ to <i>prophesy</i> 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.
"<i>And when they had blindfolded him</i>,
they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying,
Prophesy, Who is it that smote thee?"<a name="FNanchor_23_23" id="FNanchor_23_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">36</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_24_24" id="FNanchor_24_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">37</a></span>the statement that the event occurred and that the
miracle was performed.</p>

<p>Under the third heading, of the "confirmation of
logic or reason," a single instance will suffice.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">38</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_25_25" id="FNanchor_25_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a></p>

<p>Apply the theory of probability, arising from concurrent
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">39</a></span>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.</p>

<p>(4) Let us now consider the <i>conformity of the testimony
of the Evangelists with human experience</i>. This
is the fourth legal test of the credibility of witnesses
prescribed by Starkie.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">40</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;whence it follows that the word 'miracle'
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">41</a></span>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 <i>that</i>, the cause of which cannot
be explained by our <i>natural understanding from
the known principles of natural things</i>."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">42</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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"&mdash;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.</p>

<p>The trouble with the philosophy of Spinoza is that
his own high priestess&mdash;Nature&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">43</a></span>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 <i>that</i>, the cause of which cannot be
explained by our <i>natural understanding from the
known principles of natural things</i>."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">44</a></span>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?</p>

<p>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,"
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">45</a></span>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&mdash;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?"<a name="FNanchor_26_26" id="FNanchor_26_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">46</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">47</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">48</a></span>Crusaders," thrillingly describes a meeting between
the Turkish Saladin and the English Richard C&#339;ur-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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">49</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">50</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<i>de novo</i>, 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">51</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_27_27" id="FNanchor_27_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">52</a></span>(5) In the fifth and last place, as to the <i>coincidence
of their testimony with collateral circumstances</i>.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">53</a></span>the same time and place, may not be shown to be
false."<a name="FNanchor_28_28" id="FNanchor_28_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a></p>
<hr class="l1" />
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/imagefacing052.jpg" width="600" height="1449" alt="ST. JOHN AND ST. PETER (DÜRER)" title="ST. JOHN AND ST. PETER (DÜRER)" />
<p class="caption"><a name="ST_JOHN_AND_ST_PETER" id="ST_JOHN_AND_ST_PETER"></a>ST. JOHN AND ST. PETER (DÜRER)</p>
</div>
<hr class="l1" />
<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">54</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">55</a></span>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, "<i>of whom the greater part remain unto this
present, but some are fallen asleep</i>." 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">56</a></span>attending the trial and crucifixion of the Master
will be cited.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_29_29" id="FNanchor_29_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a></p>

<p>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, <i>It is not lawful
for us to put any man to death.</i>" 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.<a name="FNanchor_30_30" id="FNanchor_30_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a></p>

<p>In John xix. 16, 17 occurs this passage: "And they
took Jesus, and led him away; and he, <i>bearing his cross</i>,
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, <i>carries his own cross</i>."<a name="FNanchor_31_31" id="FNanchor_31_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a></p>

<p>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:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p>Whom, having <i>first scourged with whips</i>, he crucified.<a name="FNanchor_32_32" id="FNanchor_32_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a></p>

<p>Being <i>beaten</i>, they were crucified opposite to the citadel.<a name="FNanchor_33_33" id="FNanchor_33_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a></p>

<p>He was burned alive, <i>having been first beaten</i>.<a name="FNanchor_34_34" id="FNanchor_34_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a></p></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">57</a></span>From Livy, a single sentence will suffice:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p>All were led out, <i>beaten with rods</i>, and beheaded.<a name="FNanchor_35_35" id="FNanchor_35_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a></p></div>

<p>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 <i>title</i>, 'A gladiator, impious in speech.'"<a name="FNanchor_36_36" id="FNanchor_36_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> And in
Dion Cassius occurs the following: "Having led him
through the midst of the court or assembly, <i>with a
writing signifying the cause of his death, and afterwards
crucifying him</i>."<a name="FNanchor_37_37" id="FNanchor_37_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a></p>

<p>And finally, we read in John xix. 32: "Then came
the soldiers and <i>brake the legs</i> 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
<i>breaking the legs</i>. "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 <i>breaking
of legs</i>."<a name="FNanchor_38_38" id="FNanchor_38_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">58</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">59</a></span>Let us draw a few parallels and call attention to a few
of these resemblances.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_39_39" id="FNanchor_39_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a></p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_40_40" id="FNanchor_40_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_41_41" id="FNanchor_41_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> 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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">60</a></span>or of a violent and melancholic temperament."<a name="FNanchor_42_42" id="FNanchor_42_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a>
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."<a name="FNanchor_43_43" id="FNanchor_43_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a></p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">61</a></span>there out <i>blood and water</i>."<a name="FNanchor_44_44" id="FNanchor_44_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> 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:
<i>crassamentum</i>, a soft clotted substance of deep-red
color, and <i>serum</i>, a pale, watery liquid&mdash;popularly
called blood and water, which will flow out separately,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">62</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>saw it</i> bare record,
and his record is true: And he knoweth that he
saith true that ye might believe."<a name="FNanchor_45_45" id="FNanchor_45_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_46_46" id="FNanchor_46_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a></p>

<p>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!"<a name="FNanchor_47_47" id="FNanchor_47_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">63</a></span>Again, we learn from St. Matthew that at the moment
of the arrest in the Garden, "all the disciples
forsook him and fled."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">64</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">65</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">66</a></span>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&mdash;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."</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">67</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">68</a></span>Vulgate, the celebrated Latin version of St. Jerome,
was completed <span class="small">A.D.</span> 385. In making this translation
the great scholar has himself said that he used
"ancient (Greek) copies." Manuscripts that were
ancient, <span class="small">A.D.</span> 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.</p>

<p>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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">69</a></span>stretching across the great sea of time and linking our
Bible of to-day inseparably with that of the Apostolic
Age.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">70</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<hr class="l65" />
<h2><span class="small">PART II</span><br />

<i>HEBREW CRIMINAL LAW</i></h2>

<hr class="l65" />

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/imagefacing062.jpg" width="600" height="753" alt="MOSES AND THE LAW (MICHAEL ANGELO)" title="MOSES AND THE LAW (MICHAEL ANGELO)" />
<p class="caption"><a name="MOSES_AND_THE_LAW" id="MOSES_AND_THE_LAW"></a>MOSES AND THE LAW (MICHAEL ANGELO)</p>
</div>

<hr class="l65" /><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">73</a></span></p>
<h2>CHAPTER I</h2>

<h3>HEBREW CRIMINAL LAW&mdash;MOSAIC AND TALMUDIC</h3>

<p>
<img src="images/lettertb.jpg" width="100" height="112" alt="T" title="T" class="floatl" />

<span class="hidden">T</span>HE 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 <i>lex scripta</i> and Talmudic provision
as the <i>lex non scripta</i> of the Commonwealth of Israel.
In other words, the Pentateuch was the foundation,
the cornerstone; the Talmud was the superstructure,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">74</a></span>the gilded dome of the great temple of Hebrew
justice.</p>

<p>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
<i>him, the Talmud</i>, put to death by the hangman!<a name="FNanchor_48_48" id="FNanchor_48_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a></p>

<p>For the benefit of the average reader as well as to
illuminate the general subject, a short description of
the Talmud will be given.</p>

<p><i>Definition.</i>&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">75</a></span>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
<i>in nuce</i>."</p>

<p>Benny describes it as "the Talmud&mdash;that much
maligned and even more misunderstood compilation
of the rabbins; that digest of what Carlyle would term
<i>allerlei-wissenschaften</i>; 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."</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_49_49" id="FNanchor_49_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">76</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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. <i>Lex scripta</i> and <i>lex non scripta</i> 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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">77</a></span>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&mdash;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&mdash;became the great basic
structure of the Common Law of England.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">78</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_50_50" id="FNanchor_50_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> 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.</p>

<p><i>Divisions of the Talmud.</i>&mdash;The Talmud is divided
into two component parts: the Mishna, which may be
described as the <i>text</i>; and the Gemara, which may be
termed the <i>commentary</i>.<a name="FNanchor_51_51" id="FNanchor_51_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> The Mishna, meaning tradition,
is almost wholly law. It was, indeed, of old,
translated as the Second or Oral Law&mdash;the <span lang="el" title="Greek: deuterôsis">&#948;&#949;&#965;&#964;&#8051;&#961;&#969;&#963;&#953;&#987;</span>&mdash;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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">79</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
(<span class="small">A.D.</span> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">80</a></span>enriched by successive rabbis and their schools.
Rabbi Judah put the coping-stone to the immense
structure."<a name="FNanchor_52_52" id="FNanchor_52_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a></p>

<p>Emanuel Deutsch gives the following subdivisions
of the Mishna:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p>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:</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Section III. Women: of betrothal, marriage, divorce,
etc., also of vows.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Section V. Sacred Things: of sacrifices, the first-born,
etc.; also of the measurements of the Temple (Middoth).</p>

<p>Section VI. Purifications: of the various levitical and
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">81</a></span>other hygienic laws, of impure things and persons, their purification,
etc.<a name="FNanchor_53_53" id="FNanchor_53_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a></p></div>

<p><i>Recensions.</i>&mdash;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 <span class="small">A.D.</span>; the second (Babylonian)
being an expression of the schools in Babylonia
and redacted about 365-427 <span class="small">A.D.</span></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_54_54" id="FNanchor_54_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_55_55" id="FNanchor_55_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> It should
be kept clearly before the mind that the only difference
between these two recensions is in the matter of
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">82</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">83</a></span>to predict, that when once archæological and linguistic
science shall turn to this field, they will not
leave it again soon."</p>

<p><i>Relation of Talmud to Mishna.</i>&mdash;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.</p>

<p><i>Relation of Talmud to Pentateuch.</i>&mdash;As before suggested,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">84</a></span>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"&mdash;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.<a name="FNanchor_56_56" id="FNanchor_56_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a> 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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">85</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_57_57" id="FNanchor_57_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">86</a></span>were settled in Palestine.<a name="FNanchor_58_58" id="FNanchor_58_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_58_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">87</a></span>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 <i>lex talionis</i> 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."<a name="FNanchor_59_59" id="FNanchor_59_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a>
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.</p>

<p><i>Vicissitudes of the Talmud.</i>&mdash;An old Latin adage
runs: "Habent sua fata libelli."<a name="FNanchor_60_60" id="FNanchor_60_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a> (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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">88</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_61_61" id="FNanchor_61_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_61_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_62_62" id="FNanchor_62_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_62_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">89</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_63_63" id="FNanchor_63_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_63_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a> It may be
added that these plans of the Pope were never consummated.</p>

<p><i>The Message and Mission of the Talmud.</i>&mdash;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&mdash;strange, weird, and unique&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">90</a></span>the sacred and the solemn it is a priceless literary
treasure.</p>

<p>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:</p>

<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">"The Kabbala and Talmud hoar<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Than all the Prophets prize I more;<br /></span>
<span class="i0">For water is all Bible lore,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">But Mischna is pure wine."<br /></span>
</div></div>

<p>More than any other human agency has the Talmud
been instrumental in creating that strangest of all political
phenomena&mdash;a nation without a country, a race
without a fatherland.</p>

<hr class="l65" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">91</a></span></p>
<h2>CHAPTER II</h2>

<h3>HEBREW CRIMINAL LAW&mdash;CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS</h3>

<p>
<img src="images/letterc.jpg" width="100" height="111" alt="C" title="C" class="floatl" />
<span class="hidden">C</span>apital crimes, under Hebrew
law, were classified by Maimonides
according to their respective
penalties. His arrangement
will be followed in this
chapter.<a name="FNanchor_64_64" id="FNanchor_64_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_64_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a></p>

<p>Hebrew jurisprudence provided
four methods of capital
punishment: (1) Beheading;
(2) Strangling; (3) Burning; (4) Stoning.</p>

<p>Crucifixion was unknown to Hebrew law. This
cruel and loathsome form of punishment will be fully
discussed in the second volume of this work.</p>

<p>Thirty-six capital crimes are mentioned by the Pentateuch
and the Talmud.</p>

<p><i>Beheading</i> was the punishment for only two crimes:</p>

<ul>
<li>(1) Murder.</li>
<li>(2) Communal apostasy from Judaism to idolatry.</li>
</ul>

<p><i>Strangling</i> was prescribed for six offenses:</p>

<ul><li>(1) Adultery.</li>
<li>(2) Kidnaping.</li>
<li>(3) False prophecy.</li>
<li>(4) Bruising a parent.</li>
<li><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">92</a></span>(5) Prophesying in the name of heathen deities.
</li>
<li>(6) Maladministration (the "Rebellious Elder").</li></ul>

<p><i>Burning</i> was the death penalty for ten forms of
incest&mdash;criminal commerce:</p>

<ul><li>(1) With one's own daughter.</li>
<li>(2) With one's own son's daughter.</li>
<li>(3) With one's own daughter's daughter.</li>
<li>(4) With one's own stepdaughter.</li>
<li>(5) With one's own stepson's daughter.</li>
<li>(6) With one's own stepdaughter's daughter.</li>
<li>(7) With one's own mother-in-law.</li>
<li>(8) With one's own mother-in-law's mother.</li>
<li>(9) With one's own father-in-law's mother. </li>
<li>(10) With a priest's daughter.<a name="FNanchor_65_65" id="FNanchor_65_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_65_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a>
</li></ul>

<p><i>Stoning</i> was the penalty for eighteen capital
offenses:</p>

<ul>
<li>(1) Magic.</li>
<li>(2) Idolatry.</li>
<li>(3) Blasphemy.</li>
<li>(4) Pythonism.</li>
<li>(5) Pederasty.</li>
<li>(6) Necromancy.</li>
<li>(7) Cursing a parent.</li>
<li>(8) Violating the Sabbath.</li>
<li>(9) Bestiality, practiced by a man.</li>
<li>(10) Bestiality, practiced by a woman.</li>
<li>(11) Sacrificing one's own children to Moloch.</li>
<li>(12) Instigating individuals to embrace idolatry.</li>
<li>(13) Instigating communities to embrace idolatry.</li>
<li><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">93</a></span>(14) Criminal conversation with one's own mother.</li>
<li>(15) Criminal conversation with a betrothed virgin. </li>
<li>(16) Criminal conversation with one's own stepmother. </li>
<li>(17) Criminal conversation with one's own daughter-in-law.</li>
<li>(18) Violation of filial duty (making the "Prodigal Son").<a name="FNanchor_66_66" id="FNanchor_66_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a><br />
</li></ul>

<p>The crime of <i>false swearing</i> 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.</p>

<p><i>Imprisonment</i>, 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">94</a></span>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 <i>imprisonment</i>:</p>

<p>(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.</p>

<p>(2) Instigators to or procurers of murder; such, for
instance, as had the deed committed by the hands of a
hireling.</p>

<p>(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.</p>

<p>(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.</p>

<p>(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.<a name="FNanchor_67_67" id="FNanchor_67_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a></p>

<p><i>Flagellation</i> 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.<a name="FNanchor_68_68" id="FNanchor_68_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_68_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">95</a></span>stripes as the penalty for wrongdoing. Mendelsohn
gives the following classification:</p>

<p>Flagellation is the penalty of three classes of offenses:</p>

<p>(1) The violation of a negative precept, deadly in
the sight of heaven.</p>

<p>(2) The violation of any negative precept, when
accomplished by means of a positive act.</p>

<p>(3) The violation of any one of the prohibitive ordinances punishable,
according to the Mosaic law with <i>excision</i>, to which, however, no
capital punishment at the instance of a human tribunal is attached.<a
name="FNanchor_69_69" id="FNanchor_69_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_69_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_70_70" id="FNanchor_70_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_70_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a></p>

<p><i>Slavery</i> was the penalty for <i>theft</i> 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:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p></div>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">96</a></span>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.</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p>If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve:
and in the seventh, he shall go free for nothing.</p></div>

<p>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."</p>

<p><i>Internment</i> 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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">97</a></span>and political offenders; some sacred spot&mdash;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.<a name="FNanchor_71_71" id="FNanchor_71_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_71_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_72_72" id="FNanchor_72_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_72_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">98</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_73_73" id="FNanchor_73_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_73_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a>
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:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p>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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">99</a></span>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.</p></div>

<p><i>Execution of Capital Sentences.</i> (1) <i>Beheading.</i>&mdash;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.<a name="FNanchor_74_74" id="FNanchor_74_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_74_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a></p>

<p>(2) <i>Strangling.</i>&mdash;The capital punishment of strangling
was effected by burying the culprit to his waist
in soft mud, and then tightening a cord <i>wrapped in a
soft cloth</i> around his neck, until suffocation ensued.<a name="FNanchor_75_75" id="FNanchor_75_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_75_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a></p>

<p>(3) <i>Burning.</i>&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">100</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_76_76" id="FNanchor_76_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_76_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a>
There is authority for the statement that instead of a
lighted wick, molten lead was poured down the culprit's
throat.<a name="FNanchor_77_77" id="FNanchor_77_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_77_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a></p>

<p>(4) <i>Stoning.</i>&mdash;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.</p>

<p>These four methods of execution&mdash;beheading, strangling,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">101</a></span>burning, and stoning&mdash;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 <i>hanging</i> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<hr class="l65" /><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">102</a></span></p>
<h2>CHAPTER III</h2>

<h3>HEBREW CRIMINAL LAW&mdash;COURTS AND JUDGES</h3>

<p>
<img src="images/lettertb.jpg" width="100" height="112" alt="T" title="T" class="floatl" />

<span class="hidden">T</span>HE Hebrew tribunals were
three in kind: the Great Sanhedrin;
the Minor Sanhedrin;
and the Lower Tribunal, or the
Court of Three.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><i>The Name.</i>&mdash;The word "Sanhedrin" is derived
from the Greek (<span lang="el" title="Greek: synedrion">&#963;&#965;&#957;&#8051;&#948;&#961;&#953;&#959;&#957;</span>) 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">103</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_78_78" id="FNanchor_78_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_78_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> Concilium, or
Grand Council, is the name found in the Vulgate.<a name="FNanchor_79_79" id="FNanchor_79_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_79_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a>
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.<a name="FNanchor_80_80" id="FNanchor_80_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_80_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a></p>

<p><i>Origin of the Great Sanhedrin.</i>&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">104</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_81_81" id="FNanchor_81_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_81_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a></p>

<p>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 <span class="smcap">B.C.</span></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">105</a></span><i>Organization of the Great Sanhedrin.</i>&mdash;The seventy-one
members composing the Great Sanhedrin
were divided into three chambers:</p>

<ul>
<li>The chamber of priests;</li>
<li>The chamber of scribes;</li>
<li>The chamber of elders.</li>
</ul>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_82_82" id="FNanchor_82_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_82_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a></p>

<p>Theoretically, under the Hebrew constitution, the
"seventy-one" of the three chambers were to be
equally divided:</p>

<ul>
<li>Twenty-three in the chamber of priests,</li>
<li>Twenty-three in the chamber of scribes,</li>
<li>Twenty-three in the chamber of elders.</li>
</ul>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">106</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_83_83" id="FNanchor_83_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_83_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a></p>

<p><i>Qualifications of Members of the Great Sanhedrin.</i>&mdash;The
following qualifications were requisite to entitle
an applicant to membership in the Great Sanhedrin:</p>

<p>(1) <i>He must have been a Hebrew and a lineal descendant
of Hebrew parents.</i><a name="FNanchor_84_84" id="FNanchor_84_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_84_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a></p>

<p>(2) <i>He must have been "learned in the law"; both
written and unwritten.</i></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_85_85" id="FNanchor_85_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_85_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">107</a></span>(3) <i>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.</i><a name="FNanchor_86_86" id="FNanchor_86_86"></a><a href="#Footnote_86_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a></p>

<p>(4) <i>He must have been thoroughly proficient in
scientific knowledge.</i></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_87_87" id="FNanchor_87_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_87_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_88_88" id="FNanchor_88_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_88_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a></p>

<p>(5) <i>He must have been an accomplished linguist;
that is, he must have been thoroughly familiar with
the languages of the surrounding nations.</i></p>

<p>Interpreters were not allowed in Hebrew courts. A
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">108</a></span>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.'"<a name="FNanchor_89_89" id="FNanchor_89_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_89_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a></p>

<p>(6) <i>He must have been modest, popular, of good
appearance, and free from haughtiness.</i><a name="FNanchor_90_90" id="FNanchor_90_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_90_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">109</a></span>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.</p>

<p>(7) <i>He must have been pious, strong, and courageous.</i><a name="FNanchor_91_91" id="FNanchor_91_91"></a><a href="#Footnote_91_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><i>Disqualifications.</i>&mdash;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.</p>

<p>(1) <i>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.</i></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">110</a></span>differences arose out of the struggles of everyday
life.</p>

<p>(2) <i>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.</i></p>

<p>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;<a name="FNanchor_92_92" id="FNanchor_92_92"></a><a href="#Footnote_92_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a> but no one was
eligible to a seat in the Sanhedrin until he had reached
the age of forty years.<a name="FNanchor_93_93" id="FNanchor_93_93"></a><a href="#Footnote_93_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a> The ancient Hebrews regarded
that period as the beginning of discretion and
understanding.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>(3) <i>Gamblers, dice players, bettors on pigeon
matches, usurers, and slave dealers were disqualified to
act as judges.</i></p>

<p>The Hebrews regarded gambling, dice playing, betting
on pigeon matches, and other such practices as
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">111</a></span>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.</p>

<p>(4) <i>No man was qualified to be a judge who had
dealt in the fruits of the seventh year.</i></p>

<p>Such a person was deemed lacking in conscience and
unfitted to perform judicial functions.</p>

<p>(5) <i>No man who was concerned or interested in a
matter to be adjudicated was qualified to sit in judgment
thereon.</i></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>(6) <i>All relatives of the accused man, of whatever
degree of consanguinity, were disqualified from sitting
in judgment on his case.</i></p>

<p>This is only a variation of the disqualification of
interest.</p>

<p>(7) <i>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.</i></p>

<p>This, too, is a variation of the disqualification of
interest.</p>

<p>(8) <i>The king could not be a member of the Sanhedrin.</i></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">112</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p><i>Officers of the Great Sanhedrin.</i>&mdash;Two presiding
officers directed the proceedings of the Great Sanhedrin.
One of these, styled <i>prince</i> (nasi), was the chief
and the president of the court. The other, known as
the <i>father of the Tribunal</i> (ab-beth-din), was the vice-president.</p>

<p>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:
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">113</a></span>"Whoever surpassed his colleagues in wisdom
was made by them chief of the Sanhedrin."<a name="FNanchor_94_94" id="FNanchor_94_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_94_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a></p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_95_95" id="FNanchor_95_95"></a><a href="#Footnote_95_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a></p>

<p>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 <i>shoterim</i>.<a name="FNanchor_96_96" id="FNanchor_96_96"></a><a href="#Footnote_96_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">114</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;Pharisees
and Sadducees&mdash;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.<a name="FNanchor_97_97" id="FNanchor_97_97"></a><a href="#Footnote_97_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_98_98" id="FNanchor_98_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_98_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a> Both Keim<a name="FNanchor_99_99" id="FNanchor_99_99"></a><a href="#Footnote_99_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a> and
Geikie<a name="FNanchor_100_100" id="FNanchor_100_100"></a><a href="#Footnote_100_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">115</a></span>Hebrews.<a name="FNanchor_101_101" id="FNanchor_101_101"></a><a href="#Footnote_101_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_102_102" id="FNanchor_102_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_102_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a>
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.<a name="FNanchor_103_103" id="FNanchor_103_103"></a><a href="#Footnote_103_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a></p>

<p><i>Compensation of Officers.</i>&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">116</a></span>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.</p>

<p>The secretaries and other officers of subordinate
dignity were paid for their services.<a name="FNanchor_104_104" id="FNanchor_104_104"></a><a href="#Footnote_104_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a></p>

<p><i>Sessions of the Courts.</i>&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">117</a></span>the time was both convenient and propitious for the
settlement of their legal difficulties.<a name="FNanchor_105_105" id="FNanchor_105_105"></a><a href="#Footnote_105_105" class="fnanchor">[105]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_106_106" id="FNanchor_106_106"></a><a href="#Footnote_106_106" class="fnanchor">[106]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_107_107" id="FNanchor_107_107"></a><a href="#Footnote_107_107" class="fnanchor">[107]</a>
But in no case of a criminal nature could the court
continue its session during the night.<a name="FNanchor_108_108" id="FNanchor_108_108"></a><a href="#Footnote_108_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a></p>

<p>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 <i>Lishkath haggazith</i>. This
apartment was the celebrated "Hall of Hewn
Stones."<a name="FNanchor_109_109" id="FNanchor_109_109"></a><a href="#Footnote_109_109" class="fnanchor">[109]</a></p>

<p><i>Recruitments.</i>&mdash;The young Hebrew disciple who
possessed the necessary mental, spiritual, and personal
qualifications for judicial honors was styled Haber,
which means associate, fellow.<a name="FNanchor_110_110" id="FNanchor_110_110"></a><a href="#Footnote_110_110" class="fnanchor">[110]</a> Such a disciple was
first solemnly ordained and received the title of Zaken
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">118</a></span>(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.<a name="FNanchor_111_111" id="FNanchor_111_111"></a><a href="#Footnote_111_111" class="fnanchor">[111]</a>
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.</p>

<p>The exact method of filling vacancies and thus replenishing
the membership of the Great Sanhedrin is
not certainly known.<a name="FNanchor_112_112" id="FNanchor_112_112"></a><a href="#Footnote_112_112" class="fnanchor">[112]</a> The following extract from the
Talmud, however, is thought to be authoritative:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">119</a></span>the place occupied by the one last promoted from the third
row, but into the place that beseemed one who was only newly
admitted.<a name="FNanchor_113_113" id="FNanchor_113_113"></a><a href="#Footnote_113_113" class="fnanchor">[113]</a></p></div>

<p><i>Quorum of the Great Sanhedrin.</i>&mdash;Twenty-three
members constituted a quorum of the Great Sanhedrin.
This was the full number of the membership of
a Minor Sanhedrin.</p>

<p><i>Number of Votes Required to Convict.</i>&mdash;"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.<a name="FNanchor_114_114" id="FNanchor_114_114"></a><a href="#Footnote_114_114" class="fnanchor">[114]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_115_115" id="FNanchor_115_115"></a><a href="#Footnote_115_115" class="fnanchor">[115]</a>
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.</p>

<p><i>Jurisdiction of the Great Sanhedrin.</i>&mdash;The jurisdiction
of the Great Sanhedrin is briefly and concisely
stated in the Mishna:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p><i>The judgement of the seventy-one is besought when the
affair concerns a whole tribe or is regarding a false prophet
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">120</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_116_116" id="FNanchor_116_116"></a><a href="#Footnote_116_116" class="fnanchor">[116]</a></i></p></div>

<p>Edward Gibbon has also defined the jurisdiction of
the same court as follows:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p><i>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.</i></p></div>

<p>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.</p>

<p><i>Appeals.</i>&mdash;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."</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">121</a></span>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.</p>

<p><i>Minor Sanhedrins.</i>&mdash;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.<a name="FNanchor_117_117" id="FNanchor_117_117"></a><a href="#Footnote_117_117" class="fnanchor">[117]</a></p>

<p><i>Jurisdiction of the Minor Sanhedrins.</i>&mdash;The jurisdiction
of the Minor Sanhedrins extended to nearly
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">122</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">123</a></span>be very aptly described as the <i>nisi prius</i> 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."<a name="FNanchor_118_118" id="FNanchor_118_118"></a><a href="#Footnote_118_118" class="fnanchor">[118]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">124</a></span>dispose of the question according to adjudicated cases,
they then decided, nevertheless, in accordance with the
sentiments and principles of natural justice.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><i>Lower Tribunals.</i>&mdash;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.<a name="FNanchor_119_119" id="FNanchor_119_119"></a><a href="#Footnote_119_119" class="fnanchor">[119]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">125</a></span>public and were held in the open air under trees, or
at the city gate.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><i>Peculiarities of the Hebrew System.</i>&mdash;Certain very
striking peculiarities marked the Hebrew system:</p>

<p>(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."<a name="FNanchor_120_120" id="FNanchor_120_120"></a><a href="#Footnote_120_120" class="fnanchor">[120]</a> Ferdinand evidently agreed with Plato
that lawyers are the plague of the community.<a name="FNanchor_121_121" id="FNanchor_121_121"></a><a href="#Footnote_121_121" class="fnanchor">[121]</a></p>

<p>(2) There was no secret body, with the accusatory
functions of the modern Grand Jury, connected with
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">126</a></span>the ancient Hebrew judicial system. The witnesses
were the accusers, and their testimony constituted both
the indictment and the evidence.</p>

<p>(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.</p>

<p>(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."<a name="FNanchor_122_122" id="FNanchor_122_122"></a><a href="#Footnote_122_122" class="fnanchor">[122]</a></p>

<hr class="l65" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">127</a></span></p>
<h2>CHAPTER IV</h2>

<h3>HEBREW CRIMINAL LAW&mdash;WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE</h3>

<p>
<img src="images/lettercb.jpg" width="100" height="112" alt="C" title="C" class="floatl" />

<i><span class="hidden">C</span>OMPETENCY.&mdash;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.</i></p>

<p><i>Incompetency.&mdash;The following
persons were incompetent to be witnesses: Gentiles,
women,<a name="FNanchor_123_123" id="FNanchor_123_123"></a><a href="#Footnote_123_123" class="fnanchor">[123]</a> minors, slaves,<a name="FNanchor_124_124" id="FNanchor_124_124"></a><a href="#Footnote_124_124" class="fnanchor">[124]</a> 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.</i></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Women were not permitted to be witnesses ordinarily,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">128</a></span>because of the "levity and boldness of the
sex."<a name="FNanchor_125_125" id="FNanchor_125_125"></a><a href="#Footnote_125_125" class="fnanchor">[125]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_126_126" id="FNanchor_126_126"></a><a href="#Footnote_126_126" class="fnanchor">[126]</a> Publicans&mdash;tax-gatherers&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">129</a></span>and the lion are the most cruel, but among the beasts
of the city, the Publican and the Parasite."<a name="FNanchor_127_127" id="FNanchor_127_127"></a><a href="#Footnote_127_127" class="fnanchor">[127]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_128_128" id="FNanchor_128_128"></a><a href="#Footnote_128_128" class="fnanchor">[128]</a></p>

<p><i>Number Required to Convict.&mdash;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.</i></p>

<p>Concerning capital punishment, the Mosaic ordinance,
referring to this rule, runs thus:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p>At the mouth of <i>two</i> witnesses, or <i>three</i> witnesses, shall he
that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of
<i>one</i> witness he shall not be put to death.<a name="FNanchor_129_129" id="FNanchor_129_129"></a><a href="#Footnote_129_129" class="fnanchor">[129]</a></p>

<p>Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to
death by the mouth of witnesses; but <i>one</i> witness shall not
testify against any person to cause him to die.<a name="FNanchor_130_130" id="FNanchor_130_130"></a><a href="#Footnote_130_130" class="fnanchor">[130]</a></p></div>

<p>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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">130</a></span>the historian, knew this when he wrote: "<i>Nullum
tam impudens mendacium est quod teste careat.</i>"<a name="FNanchor_131_131" id="FNanchor_131_131"></a><a href="#Footnote_131_131" class="fnanchor">[131]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_132_132" id="FNanchor_132_132"></a><a href="#Footnote_132_132" class="fnanchor">[132]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_133_133" id="FNanchor_133_133"></a><a href="#Footnote_133_133" class="fnanchor">[133]</a></p>

<p>The American Constitution requires two witnesses
to the same overt act, to convict of treason.<a name="FNanchor_134_134" id="FNanchor_134_134"></a><a href="#Footnote_134_134" class="fnanchor">[134]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_135_135" id="FNanchor_135_135"></a><a href="#Footnote_135_135" class="fnanchor">[135]</a>
The reason of the rule proclaimed by the great
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">131</a></span>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.</p>

<p><i>Agreement of Witnesses.&mdash;The witnesses were required
to agree in all essential details; else, their testimony
was invalid and had to be rejected.</i></p>

<p>The Talmudic provision is: "If one witness contradicts
another, the testimony is not accepted."<a name="FNanchor_136_136" id="FNanchor_136_136"></a><a href="#Footnote_136_136" class="fnanchor">[136]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">132</a></span>discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses invalidates
their testimony and the accused is free."<a name="FNanchor_137_137" id="FNanchor_137_137"></a><a href="#Footnote_137_137" class="fnanchor">[137]</a></p>

<p>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:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p>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.<a name="FNanchor_138_138" id="FNanchor_138_138"></a><a href="#Footnote_138_138" class="fnanchor">[138]</a></p></div>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">133</a></span>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&mdash;one
to the fact of Abduction, the other to the fact of
Selling&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">134</a></span>saw one another, while seeing him engaged in the
crime."<a name="FNanchor_139_139" id="FNanchor_139_139"></a><a href="#Footnote_139_139" class="fnanchor">[139]</a></p>

<p><i>No Oath Required.&mdash;An oath, in the modern sense,
was never administered to a Hebrew witness.</i></p>

<p>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 <i>ipso facto</i> be suspected of lacking credibility.<a name="FNanchor_140_140" id="FNanchor_140_140"></a><a href="#Footnote_140_140" class="fnanchor">[140]</a></p>

<p>In the place of an oath, the following solemn warning
or adjuration was administered to each witness in
the presence of the entire court:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">135</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_141_141" id="FNanchor_141_141"></a><a href="#Footnote_141_141" class="fnanchor">[141]</a></p></div>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>v.</i>
Morgan, I Leach C. L. 54, a Mahometan was sworn
upon the Koran; in Omychund <i>v.</i> Baker, I Atk. 21, a
Gentoo was sworn by touching the foot of a Brahmin;
in Reg. <i>v.</i> Entrehman, I Car. &amp; M. 248, a Chinese witness
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">136</a></span>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."</p>

<p><i>Examination of Witnesses.</i>&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">137</a></span>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.</p>

<p><i>Separation of Witnesses.&mdash;The witnesses were required
to give their testimony separately and always
in the presence of the accused.</i></p>

<p>Daniel said to the people concerning the two old
men who testified against Susanna: "<i>Separate</i> them,
and I will examine them."<a name="FNanchor_142_142" id="FNanchor_142_142"></a><a href="#Footnote_142_142" class="fnanchor">[142]</a></p>

<p>By this was meant that witnesses could not be examined
until they had been separated in conformity with
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">138</a></span>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.</p>

<p><i>Mode of Examination of Witnesses.</i>&mdash;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 <i>time</i> and <i>place</i>
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<a name="FNanchor_143_143" id="FNanchor_143_143"></a><a href="#Footnote_143_143" class="fnanchor">[143]</a> 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?"<a name="FNanchor_144_144" id="FNanchor_144_144"></a><a href="#Footnote_144_144" class="fnanchor">[144]</a></p>

<p>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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">139</a></span>if false, should admit of being impeached and overthrown
by proof of an <i>alibi</i> against the witness. It
seems, indeed, that proof of an <i>alibi</i> 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 <i>time</i> and <i>place</i>.
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.</p>

<p>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:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">140</a></span>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.</p></div>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_145_145" id="FNanchor_145_145"></a><a href="#Footnote_145_145" class="fnanchor">[145]</a></p>

<p><i>False Witnesses.&mdash;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.</i></p>

<p>The Scriptural authority for this rule is the following:</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">141</a></span>... And thine eye shall not pity, but life shall go for
life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot
for foot."<a name="FNanchor_146_146" id="FNanchor_146_146"></a><a href="#Footnote_146_146" class="fnanchor">[146]</a></p>

<p>"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."<a name="FNanchor_147_147" id="FNanchor_147_147"></a><a href="#Footnote_147_147" class="fnanchor">[147]</a></p>

<p><i>The Accused as Witness.&mdash;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.</i></p>

<p>The following is the commentary of Maimonides on
this rule of law:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p>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.<a name="FNanchor_148_148" id="FNanchor_148_148"></a><a href="#Footnote_148_148" class="fnanchor">[148]</a></p></div>

<p>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.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">142</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_149_149" id="FNanchor_149_149"></a><a href="#Footnote_149_149" class="fnanchor">[149]</a> 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.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">143</a></span>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:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p>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&mdash;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.<a name="FNanchor_150_150" id="FNanchor_150_150"></a><a href="#Footnote_150_150" class="fnanchor">[150]</a></p></div>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">144</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_151_151" id="FNanchor_151_151"></a><a href="#Footnote_151_151" class="fnanchor">[151]</a>
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.</p>

<p><i>Relevancy of Hebrew Evidence.&mdash;Hearsay evidence
was irrelevant under Hebrew law.</i> "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."<a name="FNanchor_152_152" id="FNanchor_152_152"></a><a href="#Footnote_152_152" class="fnanchor">[152]</a></p>

<p><i>Circumstantial evidence was irrelevant under Hebrew
law.</i> "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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">145</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_153_153" id="FNanchor_153_153"></a><a href="#Footnote_153_153" class="fnanchor">[153]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><i>Written, or documentary evidence, was not relevant,
under Hebrew law, in criminal prosecution.</i> 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
<i>mouth of witnesses</i>."<a name="FNanchor_154_154" id="FNanchor_154_154"></a><a href="#Footnote_154_154" class="fnanchor">[154]</a> 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.</p>

<p><i>Kinds of Oral Testimony.</i>&mdash;Hebrew oral testimony
is divided by the Mishna into three leading classes:<a name="FNanchor_155_155" id="FNanchor_155_155"></a><a href="#Footnote_155_155" class="fnanchor">[155]</a></p>

<ul>
<li>(1) Vain testimony.</li>
<li>(2) Standing testimony.</li>
<li>(3) Adequate testimony.</li>
</ul>

<p>"Vain testimony" seems to have been wholly immaterial
and irrelevant. It was not even conditionally
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">146</a></span>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.</p>

<p>"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."<a name="FNanchor_156_156" id="FNanchor_156_156"></a><a href="#Footnote_156_156" class="fnanchor">[156]</a> 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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">147</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_157_157" id="FNanchor_157_157"></a><a href="#Footnote_157_157" class="fnanchor">[157]</a> 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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p><i>Antecedent Warning.</i>&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">148</a></span>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"&mdash;else
the court could not consider the condition
complied with.</p>

<p>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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">149</a></span>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";<a name="FNanchor_158_158" id="FNanchor_158_158"></a><a href="#Footnote_158_158" class="fnanchor">[158]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_159_159" id="FNanchor_159_159"></a><a href="#Footnote_159_159" class="fnanchor">[159]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">150</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_160_160" id="FNanchor_160_160"></a><a href="#Footnote_160_160" class="fnanchor">[160]</a>
And when any Israelite took the Nazarite vow and
violated it, he subjected himself to the penalty of flagellation
if he drank a certain measure (¼ log) of
wine. If he drank several such measures in succession,
the question would arise how he was to be punished.
Again, the antecedent caution would decide. If the
testimony showed that he had received due warning
before each drink, then he was punished for each
drink separately. If he had been admonished only
once, he was punished only once for the whole debauch.<a name="FNanchor_161_161" id="FNanchor_161_161"></a><a href="#Footnote_161_161" class="fnanchor">[161]</a></p>

<p>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: <i>Ignorantia juris, quod quisque tenetur scire,
neminem excusat</i>. Among modern civilized nations,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">151</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_162_162" id="FNanchor_162_162"></a><a href="#Footnote_162_162" class="fnanchor">[162]</a>
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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">152</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_163_163" id="FNanchor_163_163"></a><a href="#Footnote_163_163" class="fnanchor">[163]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<hr class="l65" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">153</a></span></p>
<h2>CHAPTER V</h2>

<h3>HEBREW CRIMINAL LAW&mdash;MODE OF TRIAL AND EXECUTION
IN CAPITAL CASES</h3>

<p>
<img src="images/lettertb.jpg" width="100" height="112" alt="T" title="T" class="floatl" />
<span class="hidden">T</span>HE 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">154</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_164_164" id="FNanchor_164_164"></a><a href="#Footnote_164_164" class="fnanchor">[164]</a> And more striking and startling
still is the terrible sentence of Rabbi Meir: "What
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">155</a></span>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, <i>My head and my limbs are
pained</i>. 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 <i>make a fence
round the law</i>."<a name="FNanchor_165_165" id="FNanchor_165_165"></a><a href="#Footnote_165_165" class="fnanchor">[165]</a></p>

<p>In addition to the maxims above mentioned, which
were more religious than legal, four cardinal rules of
criminal procedure&mdash;"strictness in the accusation,
publicity in the discussion, full freedom granted to the
accused, and assurance against all dangers or errors of
testimony"<a name="FNanchor_166_166" id="FNanchor_166_166"></a><a href="#Footnote_166_166" class="fnanchor">[166]</a>&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p>Money trials and trials for life have the same rule of inquiry
and investigation. But they differ in procedure in the
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">156</a></span>following points: The former require only three, the latter
three-and-twenty judges.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_167_167" id="FNanchor_167_167"></a><a href="#Footnote_167_167" class="fnanchor">[167]</a></p></div>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">157</a></span><i>The Morning Sacrifice.</i>&mdash;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.<a name="FNanchor_168_168" id="FNanchor_168_168"></a><a href="#Footnote_168_168" class="fnanchor">[168]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_169_169" id="FNanchor_169_169"></a><a href="#Footnote_169_169" class="fnanchor">[169]</a> ... "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."<a name="FNanchor_170_170" id="FNanchor_170_170"></a><a href="#Footnote_170_170" class="fnanchor">[170]</a> 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">158</a></span><i>The Assembling of the Judges.</i>&mdash;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."<a name="FNanchor_171_171" id="FNanchor_171_171"></a><a href="#Footnote_171_171" class="fnanchor">[171]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_172_172" id="FNanchor_172_172"></a><a href="#Footnote_172_172" class="fnanchor">[172]</a></p>

<p>According to most writers, including Dr. Lyman
Abbott, only two scribes were present having seats
at each end of the semicircle. According to Benny,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">159</a></span>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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Thus organized and arranged, the Sanhedrin began
the work of the day.</p>

<p><i>Examination of Witnesses.</i>&mdash;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?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">160</a></span>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:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p>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."</p></div>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">161</a></span>month? On what day of the month? At what hour?
In what place? Do you identify this person?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">162</a></span>some one was evidently lying they could not decide
which of them it was, and that there was no evidence
on the point."<a name="FNanchor_173_173" id="FNanchor_173_173"></a><a href="#Footnote_173_173" class="fnanchor">[173]</a> The result was an acquittal.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><i>The Debates and Balloting of the Judges.</i>&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">163</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">164</a></span>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">165</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">166</a></span>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">167</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>de
novo</i>; 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.<a name="FNanchor_174_174" id="FNanchor_174_174"></a><a href="#Footnote_174_174" class="fnanchor">[174]</a></p>

<p>A most striking peculiarity of Hebrew law is to be
noted in their method of counting votes and arriving
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">168</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_175_175" id="FNanchor_175_175"></a><a href="#Footnote_175_175" class="fnanchor">[175]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">169</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>If any witness, friend or stranger, came forth to furnish
new evidence in favor of the condemned man, the
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">170</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>He was then led to the ground of execution. The
death draught, consisting of a mixture of frankincense
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">171</a></span>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&mdash;that
is, when the flesh had decayed and fallen from
the bones&mdash;the relatives were allowed to remove the
skeleton and to deposit it in the family burial ground.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<hr class="l65" />
<h2><span class="small">PART III</span><br />

<i>THE BRIEF</i></h2>

<hr class="l65" />

<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/imagefacing175.jpg" width="600" height="332" alt="THE LAST SUPPER (DA VINCI)" title="THE LAST SUPPER (DA VINCI)" />
<p class="caption"><a name="THE_LAST_SUPPER" id="THE_LAST_SUPPER"></a>THE LAST SUPPER (DA VINCI)</p>
</div>

<hr class="l65" /><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">175</a></span></p>
<h2>THE BRIEF</h2>

<p>
<img src="images/lettera.jpg" width="100" height="111" alt="A" title="A" class="floatl" />

<span class="hidden">A</span> NUMBER of difficult and confusing
questions present themselves
at the very beginning of
any extensive and impartial investigation
of the trial of Jesus.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><i>Did the Great Sanhedrin exist at the time of Christ?</i>
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">176</a></span>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 <span class="small">A.C.</span> 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.<a name="FNanchor_176_176" id="FNanchor_176_176"></a><a href="#Footnote_176_176" class="fnanchor">[176]</a> 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" (<span lang="el" title="Greek: pantas">&#960;&#8049;&#957;&#964;&#945;&#962;</span>) 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.<a name="FNanchor_177_177" id="FNanchor_177_177"></a><a href="#Footnote_177_177" class="fnanchor">[177]</a> The same
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">177</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_178_178" id="FNanchor_178_178"></a><a href="#Footnote_178_178" class="fnanchor">[178]</a></p>

<p>Again, Salvador, who may be justly styled the Jewish
Blackstone, wrote concerning the condemnation of
Jesus: "The <i>senate</i> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">178</a></span>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
<i>abolish</i> 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."<a name="FNanchor_179_179" id="FNanchor_179_179"></a><a href="#Footnote_179_179" class="fnanchor">[179]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_180_180" id="FNanchor_180_180"></a><a href="#Footnote_180_180" class="fnanchor">[180]</a></p>

<p>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 <i>council</i> together, and all
the <i>senate</i> of the children of Israel, and sent to the
prison to have them brought." Here, the use of the
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">179</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>elders</i> and
<i>chief priests</i> and <i>scribes</i>, 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."<a name="FNanchor_181_181" id="FNanchor_181_181"></a><a href="#Footnote_181_181" class="fnanchor">[181]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">180</a></span>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&mdash;whose account of the alleged killing
of all the members of the Sanhedrin by Herod is
the very basis of the theory&mdash;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.<a name="FNanchor_182_182" id="FNanchor_182_182"></a><a href="#Footnote_182_182" class="fnanchor">[182]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">181</a></span>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.</p>

<p>The assertion of Graetz that Jesus was arraigned
before one of the Minor Sanhedrins,<a name="FNanchor_183_183" id="FNanchor_183_183"></a><a href="#Footnote_183_183" class="fnanchor">[183]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_184_184" id="FNanchor_184_184"></a><a href="#Footnote_184_184" class="fnanchor">[184]</a> 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.</p>

<p><i>Did the Great Sanhedrin have jurisdiction to try
capital offenses at the time of the crucifixion?</i> This
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">182</a></span>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 <i>cognitio
causæ</i>; that is, the right to try the case. In the
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">183</a></span>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.</p>

<p><i>Did the Great Sanhedrin have jurisdiction of the
particular offense with which Jesus was charged?</i> 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.<a name="FNanchor_185_185" id="FNanchor_185_185"></a><a href="#Footnote_185_185" class="fnanchor">[185]</a></p>

<p><i>Was there a regular legal trial of Jesus before the
Great Sanhedrin?</i> Admitting that this court was in
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">184</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_186_186" id="FNanchor_186_186"></a><a href="#Footnote_186_186" class="fnanchor">[186]</a> Edersheim supports this view as to the
nature of the trial.<a name="FNanchor_187_187" id="FNanchor_187_187"></a><a href="#Footnote_187_187" class="fnanchor">[187]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Still another class of critics insist that the Hebrew
judges exercised only accusatory functions, and that
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">185</a></span>the examination of Jesus at night was merely preparatory
to charges to be presented to Pilate.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_188_188" id="FNanchor_188_188"></a><a href="#Footnote_188_188" class="fnanchor">[188]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_189_189" id="FNanchor_189_189"></a><a href="#Footnote_189_189" class="fnanchor">[189]</a> This is the
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">186</a></span>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.</p>

<p><i>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?</i> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">187</a></span>years after the beginning of our era. The Jerusalem
Talmud was not redacted until 390 <span class="small">A.D.</span>; and the Babylonian
Talmud, about 365-427 <span class="small">A.D.</span> 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p><i>What was the nature of the charge brought against
Christ at the trial before the Sanhedrin? Was He
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">188</a></span>guilty as charged?</i> 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?</p>

<p>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 <i>judicial</i> and <i>extra-judicial</i> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">189</a></span>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 <span class="err" title="original: he">He</span> 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 <span class="err" title="original: his">His</span>
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190">190</a></span>Holy Temple, had openly and violently interfered
with its sacred services by driving away the cattle
gathered there for sacrifice."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_190_190" id="FNanchor_190_190"></a><a href="#Footnote_190_190" class="fnanchor">[190]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_191_191" id="FNanchor_191_191"></a><a href="#Footnote_191_191" class="fnanchor">[191]</a> 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.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">191</a></span>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 <i>blasphemy</i>; 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."<a name="FNanchor_192_192" id="FNanchor_192_192"></a><a href="#Footnote_192_192" class="fnanchor">[192]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_193_193" id="FNanchor_193_193"></a><a href="#Footnote_193_193" class="fnanchor">[193]</a>
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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">192</a></span>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?"<a name="FNanchor_194_194" id="FNanchor_194_194"></a><a href="#Footnote_194_194" class="fnanchor">[194]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">193</a></span>say: "I <i>can destroy</i>," or "I <i>will destroy</i>"; but, simply,
"<i>Destroy</i>." "Destroy this temple, and in three
days I will raise it up."<a name="FNanchor_195_195" id="FNanchor_195_195"></a><a href="#Footnote_195_195" class="fnanchor">[195]</a> This is evidently a purely
hypothetical expression and is equivalent to "<i>Supposing
you destroy this temple</i>." 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."<a name="FNanchor_196_196" id="FNanchor_196_196"></a><a href="#Footnote_196_196" class="fnanchor">[196]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>blasphemy</i>: 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">194</a></span>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">195</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_197_197" id="FNanchor_197_197"></a><a href="#Footnote_197_197" class="fnanchor">[197]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">196</a></span>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
<i>shocking blasphemy</i> 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."</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">197</a></span>of blasphemy under the Mosaic Law as it was
laid down, not in Leviticus xxiv. 15-20, but in Deuteronomy
xiii.</p>

<p>The law in Deuteronomy is peculiarly impressive in
its relationship to the charges against Jesus.</p>

<p>"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."<a name="FNanchor_198_198" id="FNanchor_198_198"></a><a href="#Footnote_198_198" class="fnanchor">[198]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">198</a></span>to profane epithets and to curses hurled at Jehovah
Himself.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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&mdash;"the Christ" and "the Son of
God"&mdash;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.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">199</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_199_199" id="FNanchor_199_199"></a><a href="#Footnote_199_199" class="fnanchor">[199]</a> The people of Jehovah and his Holy Land
might also become victims of blasphemy.<a name="FNanchor_200_200" id="FNanchor_200_200"></a><a href="#Footnote_200_200" class="fnanchor">[200]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_201_201" id="FNanchor_201_201"></a><a href="#Footnote_201_201" class="fnanchor">[201]</a></p>

<p>In Revelation, St. John tells that he "saw a beast
rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">200</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_202_202" id="FNanchor_202_202"></a><a href="#Footnote_202_202" class="fnanchor">[202]</a> This beast was the symbolical Antichrist,
and his blasphemy was simply the treasonable opposition
of the antichristian world to God and His
kingdom.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_203_203" id="FNanchor_203_203"></a><a href="#Footnote_203_203" class="fnanchor">[203]</a> The <i>lex Julia
majestatis</i>, 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.<a name="FNanchor_204_204" id="FNanchor_204_204"></a><a href="#Footnote_204_204" class="fnanchor">[204]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">201</a></span>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.</p>

<p>But, not content with these, He had still other statutes
proclaimed, furnishing safeguards against idolatry
and insuring loyalty to His person.<a name="FNanchor_205_205" id="FNanchor_205_205"></a><a href="#Footnote_205_205" class="fnanchor">[205]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">202</a></span>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 <i>me</i>: God shall give Pharaoh
an answer of peace."<a name="FNanchor_206_206" id="FNanchor_206_206"></a><a href="#Footnote_206_206" class="fnanchor">[206]</a> 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 <i>we</i> 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 <i>me</i> in the eyes of the children of Israel,
therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the
land which I have given them."<a name="FNanchor_207_207" id="FNanchor_207_207"></a><a href="#Footnote_207_207" class="fnanchor">[207]</a> As punishment for
this blasphemous conduct, neither Moses nor Aaron
was permitted to enter the Promised Land.<a name="FNanchor_208_208" id="FNanchor_208_208"></a><a href="#Footnote_208_208" class="fnanchor">[208]</a> And that
this omission to give due acknowledgment to the
Lord for the miraculous flow of water was treasonable
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">203</a></span>or blasphemous under the wider interpretation of the
term, cannot be doubted.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_209_209" id="FNanchor_209_209"></a><a href="#Footnote_209_209" class="fnanchor">[209]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.

<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">204</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_210_210" id="FNanchor_210_210"></a><a href="#Footnote_210_210" class="fnanchor">[210]</a> He frequently denounced Pharisaic
formalism and hypocrisy, but at the same time He was
a most loyal Jew and a devoted son of Israel.</p>

<p>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."
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">205</a></span>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,"<a name="FNanchor_211_211" id="FNanchor_211_211"></a><a href="#Footnote_211_211" class="fnanchor">[211]</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_212_212" id="FNanchor_212_212"></a><a href="#Footnote_212_212" class="fnanchor">[212]</a> the stilling
of the tempest,<a name="FNanchor_213_213" id="FNanchor_213_213"></a><a href="#Footnote_213_213" class="fnanchor">[213]</a> the chasing of the devils into the sea,<a name="FNanchor_214_214" id="FNanchor_214_214"></a><a href="#Footnote_214_214" class="fnanchor">[214]</a>
the raising of Jairus' daughter,<a name="FNanchor_215_215" id="FNanchor_215_215"></a><a href="#Footnote_215_215" class="fnanchor">[215]</a> and of the son of the
widow of Nain<a name="FNanchor_216_216" id="FNanchor_216_216"></a><a href="#Footnote_216_216" class="fnanchor">[216]</a> from the dead, were done without
any mention of the power and guidance of Jehovah.</p>

<p>But these transgressions were extra-judicial offenses
and have been discussed merely as an introduction
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">206</a></span>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.</p>

<p>We are now prepared to consider the final question:
Had Jesus blasphemed, when He confessed to the high
priest that <span class="err" title="original: he">He</span> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">207</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>man</i> blasphemeth."<a name="FNanchor_217_217" id="FNanchor_217_217"></a><a href="#Footnote_217_217" class="fnanchor">[217]</a> According to
Luke, they said: "Who is this man which speaketh
blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God
alone?"<a name="FNanchor_218_218" id="FNanchor_218_218"></a><a href="#Footnote_218_218" class="fnanchor">[218]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">208</a></span>God."<a name="FNanchor_219_219" id="FNanchor_219_219"></a><a href="#Footnote_219_219" class="fnanchor">[219]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_220_220" id="FNanchor_220_220"></a><a href="#Footnote_220_220" class="fnanchor">[220]</a> 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,"<a name="FNanchor_221_221" id="FNanchor_221_221"></a><a href="#Footnote_221_221" class="fnanchor">[221]</a> and that "Before Abraham was, I
am."<a name="FNanchor_222_222" id="FNanchor_222_222"></a><a href="#Footnote_222_222" class="fnanchor">[222]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;that of assuming equality
with God. The numerous illustrations above furnished
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">209</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">210</a></span>conceived, would think of placing his defense upon
any other basis."<a name="FNanchor_223_223" id="FNanchor_223_223"></a><a href="#Footnote_223_223" class="fnanchor">[223]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">211</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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";<a name="FNanchor_224_224" id="FNanchor_224_224"></a><a href="#Footnote_224_224" class="fnanchor">[224]</a> as well as upon the evident
impress of a divine hand upon genuine Christian civilization
in every age.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">212</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_225_225" id="FNanchor_225_225"></a><a href="#Footnote_225_225" class="fnanchor">[225]</a> 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?"<a name="FNanchor_226_226" id="FNanchor_226_226"></a><a href="#Footnote_226_226" class="fnanchor">[226]</a> If the Forerunner
of the Messiah did not know, are we justified in
demanding perfect prescience and absolute infallibility
of Caiaphas?</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_227_227" id="FNanchor_227_227"></a><a href="#Footnote_227_227" class="fnanchor">[227]</a>
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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">213</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">214</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">215</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">216</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">217</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">218</a></span>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.</p>

<hr class="l65" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">219</a></span></p>
<h3>POINT I</h3>

<h4>THE ARREST OF JESUS WAS ILLEGAL</h4>

<h5>LAW</h5>

<div class="blockquot"><p class="hang">"Now the Jewish law prohibited <i>all proceedings by
night</i>."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Dupin</span>, "Jesus Devant Caïphe et Pilate."</p>

<p class="hang">"The testimony of an accomplice is not permissible by
Rabbinic law both <i>propter affectum</i> and <i>propter
delictum</i>, and no man's <i>life</i>, nor his <i>liberty</i>, nor his
<i>reputation</i> can be endangered by the malice of one
who has confessed himself a criminal."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Mendelsohn</span>,
"Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient
Hebrews," n. 274.</p>

<p class="hang">"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."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Leviticus</span>
xix. 17, 18.</p></div>

<h5>FACT AND ARGUMENT</h5>

<p><span class="smcap">The</span> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">220</a></span>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.</p>

<p>It was the 14th Nisan, according to the Jewish calendar;
or April 6th, <span class="small">A.D.</span> 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.</p>

<p>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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221">221</a></span>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222">222</a></span>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,"<a name="FNanchor_228_228" id="FNanchor_228_228"></a><a href="#Footnote_228_228" class="fnanchor">[228]</a> 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."</p>

<p>There, too, doubts and fears began to burst from the
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_223" id="Page_223">223</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_224" id="Page_224">224</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_225" id="Page_225">225</a></span>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_226" id="Page_226">226</a></span>disciples was to the end that prophecy might be fulfilled.<a name="FNanchor_229_229" id="FNanchor_229_229"></a><a href="#Footnote_229_229" class="fnanchor">[229]</a>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>"Then the band and the captain and officers of the
Jews took Jesus, and bound him."</p>

<p>At this point the arrest was complete, and we now
return to the discussion of the illegalities connected
with it.</p>

<p>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.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_227" id="Page_227">227</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_230_230" id="FNanchor_230_230"></a><a href="#Footnote_230_230" class="fnanchor">[230]</a> 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 <i>eventide</i>."<a name="FNanchor_231_231" id="FNanchor_231_231"></a><a href="#Footnote_231_231" class="fnanchor">[231]</a>
That Jesus was arrested at night is clearly
evident from the fact that those who captured Him
bore "<i>lanterns</i> and <i>torches</i> and <i>weapons</i>."</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_232_232" id="FNanchor_232_232"></a><a href="#Footnote_232_232" class="fnanchor">[232]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_228" id="Page_228">228</a></span>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."</p>

<p>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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_229" id="Page_229">229</a></span>so as to satisfy the statutes.<a name="FNanchor_233_233" id="FNanchor_233_233"></a><a href="#Footnote_233_233" class="fnanchor">[233]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_230" id="Page_230">230</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>"Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer
among thy people."</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_231" id="Page_231">231</a></span>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?</p>

<p>"Neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy
neighbor."</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>"Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart."</p>

<p>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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_232" id="Page_232">232</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_233" id="Page_233">233</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_234" id="Page_234">234</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>"Thou shalt not avenge or bear any grudge against
the children of thy people."</p>

<p>Where, in the annals of the universe, do we find another
such case of vengeance and grudge as this of
Judas against Jesus?</p>

<p>"But thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_235" id="Page_235">235</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_236" id="Page_236">236</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_234_234" id="FNanchor_234_234"></a><a href="#Footnote_234_234" class="fnanchor">[234]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_237" id="Page_237">237</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<hr class="l65" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_238" id="Page_238">238</a></span></p>
<h3>POINT II</h3>

<h4>THE PRIVATE EXAMINATION OF JESUS
BEFORE ANNAS (OR CAIAPHAS) WAS
ILLEGAL</h4>

<h5>LAW</h5>

<div class="blockquot"><p class="hang">"Now the Jewish law prohibited <i>all proceedings by
night</i>."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Dupin</span>, "Jesus Devant Caïphe et Pilate."</p>

<p class="hang">"Be not a sole judge, for there is no sole judge but
One."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Mishna</span>, Pirke Aboth IV. 8.</p>

<p class="hang">"A principle perpetually reproduced in the Hebrew
scriptures relates to the two conditions of <i>publicity</i>
and liberty. An accused man was never subjected
to private or secret examination, lest, in his perplexity,
he furnish damaging testimony against
himself."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Salvador</span>, "Institutions de Moïse," pp.
365, 366.</p></div>

<h5>FACT AND ARGUMENT</h5>

<p><span class="smcap">The</span> 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.</p>

<p>The general order of events following the arrest in
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_239" id="Page_239">239</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_235_235" id="FNanchor_235_235"></a><a href="#Footnote_235_235" class="fnanchor">[235]</a> Matthew says that after the arrest of Jesus,
they "led him away to Caiaphas the high priest,"<a name="FNanchor_236_236" id="FNanchor_236_236"></a><a href="#Footnote_236_236" class="fnanchor">[236]</a>
without mentioning the name of Annas. Mark tells us
that "they led Jesus away to the high priest";<a name="FNanchor_237_237" id="FNanchor_237_237"></a><a href="#Footnote_237_237" class="fnanchor">[237]</a> 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,"<a name="FNanchor_238_238" id="FNanchor_238_238"></a><a href="#Footnote_238_238" class="fnanchor">[238]</a> without telling us
the name of the high priest.</p>

<p>"The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples
and of his doctrine."<a name="FNanchor_239_239" id="FNanchor_239_239"></a><a href="#Footnote_239_239" class="fnanchor">[239]</a> This was the beginning of the
examination. But who was the examiner&mdash;Annas or
Caiaphas? At first view we are inclined to declare
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_240" id="Page_240">240</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_240_240" id="FNanchor_240_240"></a><a href="#Footnote_240_240" class="fnanchor">[240]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_241" id="Page_241">241</a></span>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.</p>
<hr class="l1" />
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/imagefacing240.jpg" width="600" height="793" alt="JESUS IN GETHSEMANE (HOFFMAN)" title="JESUS IN GETHSEMANE (HOFFMAN)" />
<p class="caption"><a name="JESUS_IN_GETHSEMANE" id="JESUS_IN_GETHSEMANE"></a>JESUS IN GETHSEMANE (HOFFMAN)</p>
</div>

<hr class="l1" />
<p>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 <i>all proceedings
at night in capital cases</i> were forbidden.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_242" id="Page_242">242</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_243" id="Page_243">243</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>It is not known whether Annas at this time sat in
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_244" id="Page_244">244</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_241_241" id="FNanchor_241_241"></a><a href="#Footnote_241_241" class="fnanchor">[241]</a>
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."<a name="FNanchor_242_242" id="FNanchor_242_242"></a><a href="#Footnote_242_242" class="fnanchor">[242]</a> Basing his criticism upon the
words in Luke, "Annas and Caiaphus being the high
priests,"<a name="FNanchor_243_243" id="FNanchor_243_243"></a><a href="#Footnote_243_243" class="fnanchor">[243]</a> Dr. Plummer believes "that between them
they discharged the duties, or that each of them in different
senses was regarded high priest, Annas <i>de jure</i>,
and Caiaphas <i>de facto</i>."<a name="FNanchor_244_244" id="FNanchor_244_244"></a><a href="#Footnote_244_244" class="fnanchor">[244]</a> 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, <span class="small">A.D.</span> 14.<a name="FNanchor_245_245" id="FNanchor_245_245"></a><a href="#Footnote_245_245" class="fnanchor">[245]</a> The phrase, "Annas and
Caiaphas being high priests," refers to the fifteenth
year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, which was <span class="small">A.D.</span> 26.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_245" id="Page_245">245</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>"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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_246" id="Page_246">246</a></span>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."</p>

<p>"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?"<a name="FNanchor_246_246" id="FNanchor_246_246"></a><a href="#Footnote_246_246" class="fnanchor">[246]</a></p>

<p>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. "<i>Why
askest thou me? ask them that heard me</i>, 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?</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_247" id="Page_247">247</a></span>for the production of legal testimony was not without
its effect. Witnesses were soon forthcoming&mdash;not
truthful witnesses, indeed&mdash;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.</p>

<hr class="l65" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_248" id="Page_248">248</a></span></p>
<h3>POINT III</h3>

<h4>THE INDICTMENT AGAINST JESUS WAS,
IN FORM, ILLEGAL</h4>

<h5>LAW</h5>

<div class="blockquot"><p class="hang">"The entire criminal procedure of the Mosaic Code
rests upon four rules: <i>certainty in the indictment</i>;
publicity in the discussion; full freedom granted to
the accused; and assurance against all dangers or
errors of testimony."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Salvador</span>, "Institutions de
Moïse," p. 365.</p>

<p class="hang">"<i>The Sanhedrin did not and could not originate
charges</i>; it only investigated those brought before
it."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Edersheim</span>, "Life and Times of Jesus the
Messiah," vol. i. p. 309.</p>

<p class="hang">"<i>The evidence of the leading witnesses constituted the
charge.</i> 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."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Innes</span>, "The Trial of Jesus
Christ," p. 41.</p>

<p class="hang">"The only <i>prosecutors</i> 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.

<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_249" id="Page_249">249</a></span>Of an official accuser or prosecutor there is nowhere
any trace in the laws of the ancient Hebrews."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Mendelsohn</span>,
"The Criminal Jurisprudence of
the Ancient Hebrews," p. 110.</p></div>

<h5>FACT AND ARGUMENT</h5>

<p><span class="smcap">The</span> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_250" id="Page_250">250</a></span>testimony of the leading witnesses was at once the indictment
and the evidence offered to prove it.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_251" id="Page_251">251</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_247_247" id="FNanchor_247_247"></a><a href="#Footnote_247_247" class="fnanchor">[247]</a> 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?</p>

<p>Again, the accusation was, in part, by Caiaphas, the
high priest, who was also one of the judges of Jesus;<a name="FNanchor_248_248" id="FNanchor_248_248"></a><a href="#Footnote_248_248" class="fnanchor">[248]</a>
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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_252" id="Page_252">252</a></span>an accuser. Therefore, the indictment against Jesus
was illegally presented.</p>

<p>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 <i>able</i> to destroy the
Temple and to build it again in three days,<a name="FNanchor_249_249" id="FNanchor_249_249"></a><a href="#Footnote_249_249" class="fnanchor">[249]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_253" id="Page_253">253</a></span>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,"<a name="FNanchor_250_250" id="FNanchor_250_250"></a><a href="#Footnote_250_250" class="fnanchor">[250]</a> 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.</p>

<p>Those writers who maintain that there was only one
charge, that of blasphemy, under different forms, rely
upon the passage in Matthew, "I am <i>able</i> 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
<i>will</i> 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
<i>shall destroy this place</i>, and <i>shall change the customs</i>
which Moses delivered us."<a name="FNanchor_251_251" id="FNanchor_251_251"></a><a href="#Footnote_251_251" class="fnanchor">[251]</a> This second interpretation,
which we believe to be the better, establishes the
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_254" id="Page_254">254</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>false</i> 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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_252_252" id="FNanchor_252_252"></a><a href="#Footnote_252_252" class="fnanchor">[252]</a> 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.</p>

<hr class="l65" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_255" id="Page_255">255</a></span></p>
<h3>POINT IV</h3>

<h4>THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SANHEDRIN
AGAINST JESUS WERE ILLEGAL BECAUSE
THEY WERE CONDUCTED AT
NIGHT</h4>

<h5>LAW</h5>

<div class="blockquot"><p class="hang">"Let a capital offence be tried during the day, but suspend
it at night."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Mishna</span>, Sanhedrin IV. 1.</p>

<p class="hang">"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."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Mendelsohn</span>,
"Criminal Jurisprudence of the
Ancient Hebrews," p. 112.</p>

<p class="hang">"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&mdash;in either case a more thorough
and searching examination can be made by
daylight."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Maimonides</span>, Sanhedrin III.</p></div>

<h5>FACT AND ARGUMENT</h5>

<p><span class="smcap">Hebrew</span> 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.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_256" id="Page_256">256</a></span>A court has no jurisdiction if it convenes and
acts at a time forbidden by law.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_253_253" id="FNanchor_253_253"></a><a href="#Footnote_253_253" class="fnanchor">[253]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_254_254" id="FNanchor_254_254"></a><a href="#Footnote_254_254" class="fnanchor">[254]</a>
St. Luke tells us that there was a daybreak
meeting,<a name="FNanchor_255_255" id="FNanchor_255_255"></a><a href="#Footnote_255_255" class="fnanchor">[255]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_257" id="Page_257">257</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_258" id="Page_258">258</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_256_256" id="FNanchor_256_256"></a><a href="#Footnote_256_256" class="fnanchor">[256]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_257_257" id="FNanchor_257_257"></a><a href="#Footnote_257_257" class="fnanchor">[257]</a></p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_258_258" id="FNanchor_258_258"></a><a href="#Footnote_258_258" class="fnanchor">[258]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_259" id="Page_259">259</a></span>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.</p>

<hr class="l65" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_260" id="Page_260">260</a></span></p>
<h3>POINT V</h3>

<h4>THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SANHEDRIN
AGAINST JESUS WERE ILLEGAL BECAUSE
THE COURT CONVENED BEFORE
THE OFFERING OF THE MORNING
SACRIFICE</h4>

<h5>LAW</h5>

<div class="blockquot"><p class="hang">"The Sanhedrin sat from the close of the morning
sacrifice to the time of the evening sacrifice."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Talmud</span>,
Jerus., Sanhedrin I. fol. 19.</p>

<p class="hang">"No session of the court could take place before the
offering of the morning sacrifice."&mdash;MM. <span class="smcap">Lémann</span>,
"Jesus Before the Sanhedrin," p. 109.</p>

<p class="hang">"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."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Mishna</span>,
"Tamid, or of the Perpetual Sacrifice,"
C. III.</p></div>

<h5>FACT AND ARGUMENT</h5>

<p><span class="smcap">The</span> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_261" id="Page_261">261</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_262" id="Page_262">262</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<hr class="l65" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_263" id="Page_263">263</a></span></p>
<h3>POINT VI</h3>

<h4>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</h4>

<h5>LAW</h5>

<div class="blockquot"><p class="hang">"Court must not be held on the Sabbath, or any holy
day."&mdash;"Betza, or of the Egg," Chap. V. No. 2.</p>

<p class="hang">"They shall not judge on the eve of the Sabbath, nor
on that of any festival."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Mishna</span>, Sanhedrin
IV. 1.</p>

<p class="hang">"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."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Rabbi
Wise</span>, "Martyrdom of Jesus," p. 67.</p></div>

<h5>FACT AND ARGUMENT</h5>

<p><span class="smcap">No</span> Hebrew court could lawfully meet on a Sabbath
or a feast day, or on a day preceding a Sabbath
or a feast day.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_264" id="Page_264">264</a></span>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.'"<a name="FNanchor_259_259" id="FNanchor_259_259"></a><a href="#Footnote_259_259" class="fnanchor">[259]</a> (Exodus xxxv. 3.)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_265" id="Page_265">265</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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, <span class="small">A.D.</span> 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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_260_260" id="FNanchor_260_260"></a><a href="#Footnote_260_260" class="fnanchor">[260]</a> This
was in violation of a specific provision of Hebrew
law, and constitutes the second error alleged under
Point VI.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_266" id="Page_266">266</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<hr class="l65" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_267" id="Page_267">267</a></span></p>
<h3>POINT VII</h3>

<h4>THE TRIAL OF JESUS WAS ILLEGAL BECAUSE
IT WAS CONCLUDED WITHIN
ONE DAY</h4>

<h5>LAW</h5>

<div class="blockquot"><p class="hang">"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."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Mishna</span>, Sanhedrin IV. 1.</p></div>

<h5>FACT AND ARGUMENT</h5>

<p><span class="smcap">Care</span> 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: "<i>Be cautious and slow in
judgment</i>, send forth many disciples, and <i>make a fence
around the law.</i>"<a name="FNanchor_261_261" id="FNanchor_261_261"></a><a href="#Footnote_261_261" class="fnanchor">[261]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_268" id="Page_268">268</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_262_262" id="FNanchor_262_262"></a><a href="#Footnote_262_262" class="fnanchor">[262]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_263_263" id="FNanchor_263_263"></a><a href="#Footnote_263_263" class="fnanchor">[263]</a> It was not until the afternoon
of this day that a final decree could be made and
that a capital sentence could follow.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_269" id="Page_269">269</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_264_264" id="FNanchor_264_264"></a><a href="#Footnote_264_264" class="fnanchor">[264]</a></p>

<p>It is true that there were two distinct trials: one
between 2 and 3 <span class="smcap">A.M.</span>, Friday, April 7th, which
is recorded by Matthew<a name="FNanchor_265_265" id="FNanchor_265_265"></a><a href="#Footnote_265_265" class="fnanchor">[265]</a> and Mark,<a name="FNanchor_266_266" id="FNanchor_266_266"></a><a href="#Footnote_266_266" class="fnanchor">[266]</a> and a second
about daybreak of the same day, recorded by Matthew,<a name="FNanchor_267_267" id="FNanchor_267_267"></a><a href="#Footnote_267_267" class="fnanchor">[267]</a>
Mark,<a name="FNanchor_268_268" id="FNanchor_268_268"></a><a href="#Footnote_268_268" class="fnanchor">[268]</a> and Luke.<a name="FNanchor_269_269" id="FNanchor_269_269"></a><a href="#Footnote_269_269" class="fnanchor">[269]</a> But both these trials were
had within one day&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_270" id="Page_270">270</a></span>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).</p>

<p>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.</p>

<hr class="l65" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_271" id="Page_271">271</a></span></p>
<h3>POINT VIII</h3>

<h4>THE SENTENCE OF CONDEMNATION PRONOUNCED
AGAINST JESUS BY THE
SANHEDRIN WAS ILLEGAL BECAUSE
IT WAS FOUNDED UPON HIS UNCORROBORATED
CONFESSION</h4>

<h5>LAW</h5>

<div class="blockquot"><p class="hang">"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."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Maimonides</span>,
Sanhedrin IV. 2.</p>

<p class="hang">"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."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Mendelsohn</span>,
"Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient
Hebrews," p. 133.</p></div>

<h5>FACT AND ARGUMENT</h5>

<p><span class="smcap">More</span> than one system of jurisprudence has refused
to permit a conviction for crime to rest upon an uncorroborated
confession. But it remained for the
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_272" id="Page_272">272</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_270_270" id="FNanchor_270_270"></a><a href="#Footnote_270_270" class="fnanchor">[270]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_271_271" id="FNanchor_271_271"></a><a href="#Footnote_271_271" class="fnanchor">[271]</a></p>

<p>Modern jurists have assigned still other reasons for
the rule as it has existed in modern law.<a name="FNanchor_272_272" id="FNanchor_272_272"></a><a href="#Footnote_272_272" class="fnanchor">[272]</a> 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.</p>

<p>But whatever the reason of the rule, Jesus was condemned
to death upon His uncorroborated confession,
in violation of Hebrew law.</p>

<p>"For many bare false witness against him, but their
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_273" id="Page_273">273</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_273_273" id="FNanchor_273_273"></a><a href="#Footnote_273_273" class="fnanchor">[273]</a></p>

<p>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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_274" id="Page_274">274</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_275" id="Page_275">275</a></span>boldly and emphatically: "I am."<a name="FNanchor_274_274" id="FNanchor_274_274"></a><a href="#Footnote_274_274" class="fnanchor">[274]</a> "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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_276" id="Page_276">276</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_275_275" id="FNanchor_275_275"></a><a href="#Footnote_275_275" class="fnanchor">[275]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_276_276" id="FNanchor_276_276"></a><a href="#Footnote_276_276" class="fnanchor">[276]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_277" id="Page_277">277</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_277_277" id="FNanchor_277_277"></a><a href="#Footnote_277_277" class="fnanchor">[277]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_278" id="Page_278">278</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_278_278" id="FNanchor_278_278"></a><a href="#Footnote_278_278" class="fnanchor">[278]</a> He forbade the devils whom
He had cast out, and that recognized Him, to proclaim
His Messiahship.<a name="FNanchor_279_279" id="FNanchor_279_279"></a><a href="#Footnote_279_279" class="fnanchor">[279]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_280_280" id="FNanchor_280_280"></a><a href="#Footnote_280_280" class="fnanchor">[280]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_281_281" id="FNanchor_281_281"></a><a href="#Footnote_281_281" class="fnanchor">[281]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<hr class="l65" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_279" id="Page_279">279</a></span></p>
<h3>POINT IX</h3>

<h4>THE CONDEMNATION OF JESUS WAS ILLEGAL
BECAUSE THE VERDICT OF
THE SANHEDRIN WAS UNANIMOUS</h4>

<h5>LAW</h5>

<div class="blockquot"><p class="hang">"A simultaneous and unanimous verdict of guilt rendered
on the day of the trial has the effect of an
acquittal."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Mendelsohn</span>, "Criminal Jurisprudence
of the Ancient Hebrews," p. 141.</p>

<p class="hang">"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."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Rabbi
Wise</span>, "Martyrdom of Jesus," p. 74.</p></div>

<h5>FACT AND ARGUMENT</h5>

<p><span class="smcap">Few</span> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_280" id="Page_280">280</a></span>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<a name="FNanchor_282_282" id="FNanchor_282_282"></a><a href="#Footnote_282_282" class="fnanchor">[282]</a> 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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_281" id="Page_281">281</a></span>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?"</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_283_283" id="FNanchor_283_283"></a><a href="#Footnote_283_283" class="fnanchor">[283]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_282" id="Page_282">282</a></span>operation had been found to be both generous and
just.</p>

<p>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 <i>all</i> condemned him to be guilty
of death."<a name="FNanchor_284_284" id="FNanchor_284_284"></a><a href="#Footnote_284_284" class="fnanchor">[284]</a> If they <i>all</i> 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.</p>

<p>Rabbi Wise<a name="FNanchor_285_285" id="FNanchor_285_285"></a><a href="#Footnote_285_285" class="fnanchor">[285]</a> and Signor Rosadi<a name="FNanchor_286_286" id="FNanchor_286_286"></a><a href="#Footnote_286_286" class="fnanchor">[286]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_283" id="Page_283">283</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_287_287" id="FNanchor_287_287"></a><a href="#Footnote_287_287" class="fnanchor">[287]</a>
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.</p>
<hr class="l1" />
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/imagefacing282.jpg" width="600" height="735" alt="THE BETRAYING KISS (SCHEFFER)" title="THE BETRAYING KISS (SCHEFFER)" />
<p class="caption"><a name="THE_BETRAYING_KISS" id="THE_BETRAYING_KISS"></a>THE BETRAYING KISS (SCHEFFER)</p>
</div>

<hr class="l1" />
<p>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, <i>all</i> the chief priests and elders of the people took
counsel against Jesus to put him to death."<a name="FNanchor_288_288" id="FNanchor_288_288"></a><a href="#Footnote_288_288" class="fnanchor">[288]</a> Mark
says: "And straightway in the morning the chief
priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes
and the <i>whole council</i>, and bound Jesus, and carried
him away, and delivered him to Pilate."<a name="FNanchor_289_289" id="FNanchor_289_289"></a><a href="#Footnote_289_289" class="fnanchor">[289]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_284" id="Page_284">284</a></span>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
"<i>all</i> the chief priests and elders" and the "<i>whole</i>
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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_290_290" id="FNanchor_290_290"></a><a href="#Footnote_290_290" class="fnanchor">[290]</a>
It is also believed that Joseph of Arimathea was a
member from a mere suggestion in another passage.<a name="FNanchor_291_291" id="FNanchor_291_291"></a><a href="#Footnote_291_291" class="fnanchor">[291]</a>
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 <i>all</i> condemned him to
be guilty of death"; then it naturally and inevitably
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_285" id="Page_285">285</a></span>follows that both Nicodemus and Joseph voted against
Jesus.</p>
<hr class="l1" />
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="images/imagefacing284.jpg" width="600" height="426" alt="THE ARREST OF JESUS (HOFFMAN)" title="THE ARREST OF JESUS (HOFFMAN)" />
<p class="caption"><a name="THE_ARREST_OF_JESUS" id="THE_ARREST_OF_JESUS"></a>THE ARREST OF JESUS (HOFFMAN)</p>
</div>

<hr class="l1" />
<p>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?"<a name="FNanchor_292_292" id="FNanchor_292_292"></a><a href="#Footnote_292_292" class="fnanchor">[292]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_293_293" id="FNanchor_293_293"></a><a href="#Footnote_293_293" class="fnanchor">[293]</a></p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>If Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Great
Sanhedrin, it seems that he "had not consented to the
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_286" id="Page_286">286</a></span>counsel and the deed of them."<a name="FNanchor_294_294" id="FNanchor_294_294"></a><a href="#Footnote_294_294" class="fnanchor">[294]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<hr class="l65" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_287" id="Page_287">287</a></span></p>
<h3>POINT X</h3>

<h4>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</h4>

<h5>LAW</h5>

<div class="blockquot"><p class="hang">"After leaving the hall Gazith no sentence of death
can be passed upon anyone soever."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Talmud</span>,
Bab., Abodah Zarah, or of Idolatry, Chap. I.
fol. 8.</p>

<p class="hang">"A sentence of death can be pronounced only so long
as the Sanhedrin holds its sessions in the appointed
place."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Maimonides</span>, Sanhedrin XIV.</p>

<p class="hang">"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."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Leviticus</span>
xxi. 10.</p>

<p class="hang">"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."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Leviticus</span>
x. 6.</p>

<p class="hang"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_288" id="Page_288">288</a></span>"Let the judges each in his turn absolve or condemn."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Mishna</span>,
Sanhedrin XV. 5.</p>

<p class="hang">"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."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Mishna</span>, Sanhedrin IV. 3.</p>

<p class="hang">"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."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Benny</span>, "Criminal Code
of the Jews," pp. 73, 74.</p></div>

<h5>FACT AND ARGUMENT</h5>

<p><span class="smcap">In</span> 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.<a name="FNanchor_295_295" id="FNanchor_295_295"></a><a href="#Footnote_295_295" class="fnanchor">[295]</a> 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 <i>from the place which the Lord shall
choose</i>."<a name="FNanchor_296_296" id="FNanchor_296_296"></a><a href="#Footnote_296_296" class="fnanchor">[296]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_289" id="Page_289">289</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_297_297" id="FNanchor_297_297"></a><a href="#Footnote_297_297" class="fnanchor">[297]</a></p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_298_298" id="FNanchor_298_298"></a><a href="#Footnote_298_298" class="fnanchor">[298]</a>
St. John emphatically declares: "Then led they Jesus
from Caiaphas into the hall of judgment."<a name="FNanchor_299_299" id="FNanchor_299_299"></a><a href="#Footnote_299_299" class="fnanchor">[299]</a> This
Hall of Judgment was the Prætorium of Pilate.</p>

<p>The first irregularity, then, noted under Point X is
that Jesus was tried and condemned in the palace of
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_290" id="Page_290">290</a></span>Caiaphas instead of the Hall of Hewn Stones, the
regular legal meeting place of the Great Sanhedrin.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_300_300" id="FNanchor_300_300"></a><a href="#Footnote_300_300" class="fnanchor">[300]</a></p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_301_301" id="FNanchor_301_301"></a><a href="#Footnote_301_301" class="fnanchor">[301]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_291" id="Page_291">291</a></span>be repaired."<a name="FNanchor_302_302" id="FNanchor_302_302"></a><a href="#Footnote_302_302" class="fnanchor">[302]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_292" id="Page_292">292</a></span>of blasphemy? That they did is denied by many
writers.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_303_303" id="FNanchor_303_303"></a><a href="#Footnote_303_303" class="fnanchor">[303]</a></p>

<p>Again, the proceedings against Jesus were illegal
because the balloting was irregular. This is the third
error noted under Point X.</p>

<p>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&mdash;according to some writers, three&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_293" id="Page_293">293</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_304_304" id="FNanchor_304_304"></a><a href="#Footnote_304_304" class="fnanchor">[304]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>en masse</i>? 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?</p>

<p>According to Matthew, Caiaphas, before calling for
the votes exclaimed: "He hath spoken blasphemy."<a name="FNanchor_305_305" id="FNanchor_305_305"></a><a href="#Footnote_305_305" class="fnanchor">[305]</a>
Instead of doing this should he not, under the law,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_294" id="Page_294">294</a></span>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<hr class="l65" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_295" id="Page_295">295</a></span></p>
<h3>POINT XI</h3>

<h4>THE MEMBERS OF THE GREAT SANHEDRIN
WERE LEGALLY DISQUALIFIED
TO TRY JESUS</h4>

<h5>LAW</h5>

<div class="blockquot"><p class="hang">"The robe of the unfairly elected judge is to be respected
not more than the blanket of the ass."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Mendelsohn</span>,
"Hebrew Maxims and Rules," p.
182.</p>

<p class="hang">"As Moses sat in judgment without the expectation
of material reward, so also must every judge act
from a sense of duty only."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Mendelsohn</span>, "Hebrew
Maxims and Rules," p. 177.</p>

<p class="hang">"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."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Mendelsohn</span>,
"Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews,"
p. 108.</p>

<p class="hang">"He (the Hebrew judge) was, in the first instance, to
be modest, of good repute among his neighbors,
and generally liked."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Benny</span>, "Criminal Code
of the Jews," p. 38.</p>

<p class="hang">"Nor under any circumstances, was a man known to
be <i>at enmity with the accused person</i> permitted to
occupy a position among his judges."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Benny</span>,
"Criminal Code of the Jews," p. 37.</p></div>

<h5><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_296" id="Page_296">296</a></span>FACT AND ARGUMENT</h5>

<p><span class="smcap">The</span> 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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_306_306" id="FNanchor_306_306"></a><a href="#Footnote_306_306" class="fnanchor">[306]</a></p>

<p>These were the qualifications of Israel's judges
before Roman politics had corrupted them. But at the
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_297" id="Page_297">297</a></span>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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_298" id="Page_298">298</a></span>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."</p>

<p>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 B&#339;thus; 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."</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_307_307" id="FNanchor_307_307"></a><a href="#Footnote_307_307" class="fnanchor">[307]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_299" id="Page_299">299</a></span>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?</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_308_308" id="FNanchor_308_308"></a><a href="#Footnote_308_308" class="fnanchor">[308]</a> 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?</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_300" id="Page_300">300</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_301" id="Page_301">301</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_309_309" id="FNanchor_309_309"></a><a href="#Footnote_309_309" class="fnanchor">[309]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_310_310" id="FNanchor_310_310"></a><a href="#Footnote_310_310" class="fnanchor">[310]</a> We can well imagine
how these fiery darts pierced and tore the vanity
of a haughty and contemptuous priesthood.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>That we may fully appreciate the tension of the situation let us cast a
single glance at the character of <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_302" id="Page_302">302</a></span>the Scribes. Edersheim has written
these wonderfully graphic lines about them:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p>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.<a
name="FNanchor_311_311" id="FNanchor_311_311"></a><a
href="#Footnote_311_311" class="fnanchor">[311]</a></p></div>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_303" id="Page_303">303</a></span>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?"<a name="FNanchor_312_312" id="FNanchor_312_312"></a><a href="#Footnote_312_312" class="fnanchor">[312]</a></p>

<p>"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."<a name="FNanchor_313_313" id="FNanchor_313_313"></a><a href="#Footnote_313_313" class="fnanchor">[313]</a></p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_304" id="Page_304">304</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_305" id="Page_305">305</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The first meeting was held in the latter part of the
month of September, <span class="small">A.D.</span> 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_306" id="Page_306">306</a></span>The second session of the Sanhedrin took place in
the month of February, <span class="small">A.D.</span> 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."<a name="FNanchor_314_314" id="FNanchor_314_314"></a><a href="#Footnote_314_314" class="fnanchor">[314]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_315_315" id="FNanchor_315_315"></a><a href="#Footnote_315_315" class="fnanchor">[315]</a> 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.</p>

<p>The third meeting of the Sanhedrin took place just
a few days before the Paschal Feast.</p>

<p>"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."<a name="FNanchor_316_316" id="FNanchor_316_316"></a><a href="#Footnote_316_316" class="fnanchor">[316]</a> "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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_307" id="Page_307">307</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_317_317" id="FNanchor_317_317"></a><a href="#Footnote_317_317" class="fnanchor">[317]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_318_318" id="FNanchor_318_318"></a><a href="#Footnote_318_318" class="fnanchor">[318]</a> It was a maxim that "the Sanhedrin was
to save, not to destroy life."<a name="FNanchor_319_319" id="FNanchor_319_319"></a><a href="#Footnote_319_319" class="fnanchor">[319]</a> 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.</p>

<p>"And the judges shall make diligent inquisition;
and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_308" id="Page_308">308</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_320_320" id="FNanchor_320_320"></a><a href="#Footnote_320_320" class="fnanchor">[320]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>all the council</i> sought for witness
against Jesus to put Him to death."<a name="FNanchor_321_321" id="FNanchor_321_321"></a><a href="#Footnote_321_321" class="fnanchor">[321]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<hr class="l65" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_309" id="Page_309">309</a></span></p>
<h3>POINT XII</h3>

<h4>THE CONDEMNATION OF JESUS WAS ILLEGAL
BECAUSE THE MERITS OF THE
DEFENSE WERE NOT CONSIDERED</h4>

<h5>LAW</h5>

<div class="blockquot"><p class="hang">"Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask
diligently."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Deuteronomy</span> xiii. 14.</p>

<p class="hang">"The judges shall weigh the matter in the sincerity of
their conscience."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Mishna</span>, Sanhedrin IV. 5.</p>

<p class="hang">"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."&mdash;<span class="smcap">Benny</span>,
"Criminal Code of the Jews," p. 56.</p></div>

<h5>FACT AND ARGUMENT</h5>

<p><span class="smcap">The</span> 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 <i>ex parte</i>; 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_310" id="Page_310">310</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_311" id="Page_311">311</a></span>as once in seven years condemns a man to death, is a
slaughter-house."<a name="FNanchor_322_322" id="FNanchor_322_322"></a><a href="#Footnote_322_322" class="fnanchor">[322]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_312" id="Page_312">312</a></span>protection of the prisoner more than for the security
of the commonwealth.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_313" id="Page_313">313</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_314" id="Page_314">314</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>prima facie</i> case be made, or in case of
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_315" id="Page_315">315</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_316" id="Page_316">316</a></span>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.</p>

<p>But it is clearly certain that a <i>prima facie</i> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_317" id="Page_317">317</a></span>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.</p>

<p>Now, let us suppose, for argument's sake, that a
<i>prima facie</i> 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.</p>

<p>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 <i>prima facie</i> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_318" id="Page_318">318</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_319" id="Page_319">319</a></span>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&mdash;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&mdash;a William
Tell, a Robert Bruce, an Abraham Lincoln&mdash;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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_320" id="Page_320">320</a></span>simply because this or that attribute did not meet the
approval of this or that sect or school.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_321" id="Page_321">321</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_323_323" id="FNanchor_323_323"></a><a href="#Footnote_323_323" class="fnanchor">[323]</a></p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_322" id="Page_322">322</a></span>stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion;
who shall rouse him up? The <i>sceptre</i> 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."<a name="FNanchor_324_324" id="FNanchor_324_324"></a><a href="#Footnote_324_324" class="fnanchor">[324]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_325_325" id="FNanchor_325_325"></a><a href="#Footnote_325_325" class="fnanchor">[325]</a> Now
both these signs had appeared at the time of the
Roman conquest, shortly before the birth of Christ.
At the deposition of Archelaus, <span class="small">A.D.</span> 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 <i>scepter</i> had passed
from Judah and the <i>lawgiver</i> from between his feet,
when Jesus stood before the Sanhedrin claiming to be
the Messiah.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_323" id="Page_323">323</a></span>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:</p>

<p>(1) <i>That the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem</i>:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p class="hang"><span class="smcap">Prophecy</span>&mdash;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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Micah</span>
v. 2.</p>

<p class="hang"><span class="smcap">Fulfillment</span>&mdash;Now when Jesus was <i>born in Bethlehem</i>
of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there
came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Matt.</span>
ii. 1.</p>

<p>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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Luke</span> ii. 4-7.</p></div>

<p>(2) <i>That the Messiah was to be born of a virgin</i>:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p class="hang"><span class="smcap">Prophecy</span>&mdash;Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a
sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Isa.</span> vii. 14.</p>

<p class="hang"><span class="smcap">Fulfillment</span>&mdash;And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel
was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_324" id="Page_324">324</a></span>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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Luke</span> i. 26-30.</p>

<p>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&mdash;<span class="smcap">Matt.</span>
i. 24, 25.</p></div>

<p>(3) <i>That the Messiah was to spring from the house
of David</i>:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p class="hang"><span class="smcap">Prophecy</span>&mdash;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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Jer.</span> xxiii. 5, 6.</p>

<p class="hang"><span class="smcap">Fulfillment</span>&mdash;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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Luke</span> i. 32.</p>

<p>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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Matt.</span> i. 20.</p></div>

<p>(4) <i>That the Messiah should not come until the
scepter had departed from Judah and the lawgiver
from between his feet</i>:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p class="hang"><span class="smcap">Prophecy</span>&mdash;The Sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor
a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Gen.</span>
xlix. 10.</p>

<p class="hang"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_325" id="Page_325">325</a></span><span class="smcap">Fulfillment</span>&mdash;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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Matt.</span> xxii. 20, 21.</p>

<p>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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">John</span> xviii. 31.</p></div>

<p>(5) <i>That a forerunner like unto Elijah should prepare
the way of the Messiah</i>:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p class="hang"><span class="smcap">Prophecy</span>&mdash;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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Mal.</span> iii. 1.</p>

<p>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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Isa.</span> xl. 3.</p>

<p class="hang"><span class="smcap">Fulfillment</span>&mdash;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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Matt.</span>
iii. 1-3.</p>

<p>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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Luke</span> vii. 27, 28.</p>
</div>
<p>(6) <i>That the Messiah should begin to preach in
Galilee</i>:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p class="hang"><span class="smcap">Prophecy</span>&mdash;In Galilee of the nations, the people that
walked in darkness have seen a great light.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Isa.</span> ix.
1, 2.</p>

<p class="hang"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_326" id="Page_326">326</a></span><span class="smcap">Fulfillment</span>&mdash;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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Matt.</span> iv. 12-17.</p>
</div>
<p>(7) <i>That the Messiah should perform many miracles:</i></p>

<div class="blockquot">
<p class="hang"><span class="smcap">Prophecy</span>&mdash;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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Isa.</span> xxxv. 5, 6.</p>

<p class="hang"><span class="smcap">Fulfillment</span>&mdash;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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Matt.</span>
xii. 22.</p>

<p>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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Luke</span> v.
24, 25.</p>

<p>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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Matt.</span>
xi. 4, 5.</p>
</div>
<p>(8) <i>That the Messiah should make his public entry
into Jerusalem riding upon an ass:</i></p>
<div class="blockquot">
<p class="hang"><span class="smcap">Prophecy</span>&mdash;Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout,
O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_327" id="Page_327">327</a></span>unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and
riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an
ass.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Zech.</span> ix. 9.</p>

<p class="hang"><span class="smcap">Fulfillment</span>&mdash;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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Matt.</span> xxi. 6-9.</p>
</div>
<p>(9) <i>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:</i></p>
<div class="blockquot">
<p class="hang"><span class="smcap">Prophecy</span>&mdash;Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I
trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his
heel against me.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Psa.</span> xli. 9.</p>

<p>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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Zech.</span> xi. 12, 13.</p>

<p class="hang"><span class="smcap">Fulfillment</span>&mdash;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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Matt.</span> xxvi. 14, 15.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_328" id="Page_328">328</a></span>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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Matt.</span> xxvii. 3-8.</p>
</div>
<p>(10) <i>That the Messiah should be a man of poverty
and of suffering; and should be despised and rejected
of men:</i></p>
<div class="blockquot">
<p class="hang"><span class="smcap">Prophecy</span>&mdash;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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Isa.</span> liii. 3.</p>

<p class="hang"><span class="smcap">Fulfillment</span>&mdash;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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Luke</span> ix. 58.</p>

<p>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.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Mark</span> xv. 19, 20.</p>
</div>
<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_329" id="Page_329">329</a></span>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&mdash;the doctrine of the
Trinity.</p>

<p>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.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_330" id="Page_330">330</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_331" id="Page_331">331</a></span>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 <i>right hand</i>."<a name="FNanchor_326_326" id="FNanchor_326_326"></a><a href="#Footnote_326_326" class="fnanchor">[326]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_332" id="Page_332">332</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_333" id="Page_333">333</a></span>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_334" id="Page_334">334</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_327_327" id="FNanchor_327_327"></a><a href="#Footnote_327_327" class="fnanchor">[327]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_335" id="Page_335">335</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_336" id="Page_336">336</a></span>would they have developed to these questions from the
Sacred Books?</p>

<p>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&mdash;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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_337" id="Page_337">337</a></span>to make God purely passionless and impersonal,
thus reducing Him to a bare conception without form
or quality, thus making Him a blank negation.</p>

<p>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
<i>repented</i> 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."<a name="FNanchor_328_328" id="FNanchor_328_328"></a><a href="#Footnote_328_328" class="fnanchor">[328]</a> And the prophet Hosea affirms
this declaration when he places in the mouth of Jehovah
the affirmation: "For I am God and not man."<a name="FNanchor_329_329" id="FNanchor_329_329"></a><a href="#Footnote_329_329" class="fnanchor">[329]</a></p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_338" id="Page_338">338</a></span>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."</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_339" id="Page_339">339</a></span>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_340" id="Page_340">340</a></span>ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."<a name="FNanchor_330_330" id="FNanchor_330_330"></a><a href="#Footnote_330_330" class="fnanchor">[330]</a>
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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_341" id="Page_341">341</a></span>He had wrought, and that were the best evidence of
His divine character?</p>

<p>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:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p>Psa. ii. 7: Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.</p>

<p class="hang">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.</p></div>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p class="hang">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.</p>

<p class="hang">Gen. iii. 15: And I will put enmity between thee and the
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_342" id="Page_342">342</a></span>woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall
bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.</p>

<p class="hang">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 <i>that
Son of Woman</i> sitting on the throne of his glory.</p></div>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_343" id="Page_343">343</a></span>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.</p>

<p>In proof that God had appeared in the flesh, or at
least in human form, among men, the following passages
might have been adduced:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p class="hang">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.</p>

<p class="hang">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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_344" id="Page_344">344</a></span>me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that
seeth me?</p>

<p class="hang">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.</p>

<p class="hang">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.</p></div>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_331_331" id="FNanchor_331_331"></a><a href="#Footnote_331_331" class="fnanchor">[331]</a> The Christian commentators are generally
agreed that it was Jehovah who was present in human
form.<a name="FNanchor_332_332" id="FNanchor_332_332"></a><a href="#Footnote_332_332" class="fnanchor">[332]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_345" id="Page_345">345</a></span>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&mdash;that the three men were angels in human
form&mdash;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?</p>

<p>In the second of the above extracts from Genesis the
angel of the Lord appeared unto Hagar and said to
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_346" id="Page_346">346</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_347" id="Page_347">347</a></span>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)."<a name="FNanchor_333_333" id="FNanchor_333_333"></a><a href="#Footnote_333_333" class="fnanchor">[333]</a></p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_348" id="Page_348">348</a></span>even remotely with this messenger of God. The following
passage might have been produced:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p class="hang">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.</p></div>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_349" id="Page_349">349</a></span>the money-changers.<a name="FNanchor_334_334" id="FNanchor_334_334"></a><a href="#Footnote_334_334" class="fnanchor">[334]</a> 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:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p class="hang">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.</p>

<p class="hang">Gen. vi. 6: And it <i>repented</i> the Lord that he had made man
on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.</p>

<p class="hang">Deut. vi. 15: For the Lord thy God is a <i>jealous</i> 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.</p>

<p class="hang">Psa. cxi. 4: He hath made his wonderful works to be remembered:
the Lord is <i>gracious</i> and full of <i>compassion</i>.</p>

<p class="hang">I Kings x. 9: Because the Lord <i>loved</i> Israel forever, therefore
made he thee king, to do judgment and justice.</p>

<p class="hang">Prov. vi. 16: These six things doth the Lord <i>hate</i>: yea,
seven are an abomination unto him.</p></div>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_350" id="Page_350">350</a></span>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?</p>

<p>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?"<a name="FNanchor_335_335" id="FNanchor_335_335"></a><a href="#Footnote_335_335" class="fnanchor">[335]</a> "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: <i>the works that I
do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me</i>."<a name="FNanchor_336_336" id="FNanchor_336_336"></a><a href="#Footnote_336_336" class="fnanchor">[336]</a>
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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_351" id="Page_351">351</a></span>the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are
raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to
them."<a name="FNanchor_337_337" id="FNanchor_337_337"></a><a href="#Footnote_337_337" class="fnanchor">[337]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Again, we must remember that the miracles of Jesus
were performed in the most public manner, in the
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_352" id="Page_352">352</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_353" id="Page_353">353</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_338_338" id="FNanchor_338_338"></a><a href="#Footnote_338_338" class="fnanchor">[338]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_339_339" id="FNanchor_339_339"></a><a href="#Footnote_339_339" class="fnanchor">[339]</a> But Christ seems to have
raised the daughter of Jairus<a name="FNanchor_340_340" id="FNanchor_340_340"></a><a href="#Footnote_340_340" class="fnanchor">[340]</a> and the son of the
widow of Nain<a name="FNanchor_341_341" id="FNanchor_341_341"></a><a href="#Footnote_341_341" class="fnanchor">[341]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_342_342" id="FNanchor_342_342"></a><a href="#Footnote_342_342" class="fnanchor">[342]</a> 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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_354" id="Page_354">354</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_355" id="Page_355">355</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_356" id="Page_356">356</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_343_343" id="FNanchor_343_343"></a><a href="#Footnote_343_343" class="fnanchor">[343]</a> On the days
on which capital verdicts were pronounced Hebrew
judges were required to mourn and fast.<a name="FNanchor_344_344" id="FNanchor_344_344"></a><a href="#Footnote_344_344" class="fnanchor">[344]</a> 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.</p>

<p><i>The Morning Session of the Sanhedrin.</i>&mdash;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.
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_357" id="Page_357">357</a></span>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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_345_345" id="FNanchor_345_345"></a><a href="#Footnote_345_345" class="fnanchor">[345]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_358" id="Page_358">358</a></span>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:</p>

<div class="blockquot"><p>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,"
<span lang="el" title="Greek: anêgagon auton eis to synedrion heautôn">
&#7936;&#957;&#8053;&#947;&#945;&#947;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#8016;&#964;&#8056;&#957;
&#949;&#7984;&#987; &#964;&#8056; &#963;&#965;&#957;&#8051;&#948;&#961;&#953;&#959;&#957;
&#7953;&#945;&#965;&#964;&#8182;&#957;</span>. 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_359" id="Page_359">359</a></span>of the proceedings, as stated by Luke, which shows that this
was no formal trial. There is here no mention of witnesses&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_346_346" id="FNanchor_346_346"></a><a href="#Footnote_346_346" class="fnanchor">[346]</a></p>
</div>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_360" id="Page_360">360</a></span>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."<a name="FNanchor_347_347" id="FNanchor_347_347"></a><a href="#Footnote_347_347" class="fnanchor">[347]</a></p>

<p>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. "<i>And as soon as it was day</i>"
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.<a name="FNanchor_348_348" id="FNanchor_348_348"></a><a href="#Footnote_348_348" class="fnanchor">[348]</a> Is it very
strange, then, that at the morning trial described by
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_361" id="Page_361">361</a></span>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?</p>

<p>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&mdash;in
the main point&mdash;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 <i>both law and tradition
demanded such an investigation</i>."<a name="FNanchor_349_349" id="FNanchor_349_349"></a><a href="#Footnote_349_349" class="fnanchor">[349]</a></p>

<p>If "both law and tradition demanded such an investigation,"
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_362" id="Page_362">362</a></span>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 <i>de novo</i>; 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.<a name="FNanchor_350_350" id="FNanchor_350_350"></a><a href="#Footnote_350_350" class="fnanchor">[350]</a> Again, no witnesses seem to
have been summoned, and the accused was convicted
upon his uncorroborated confession.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_363" id="Page_363">363</a></span>morning was come, <i>all</i> 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 <i>whole council</i>, 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 <i>all</i>, 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."</p>

<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_351_351" id="FNanchor_351_351"></a><a href="#Footnote_351_351" class="fnanchor">[351]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_364" id="Page_364">364</a></span>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&mdash;whose existence, moreover, cannot be established&mdash;either
raised an opposition in one of the sessions,
or abstained from voting, or were not present."<a name="FNanchor_352_352" id="FNanchor_352_352"></a><a href="#Footnote_352_352" class="fnanchor">[352]</a>
The plain language of the Scriptures indicates: (1)
That both Nicodemus<a name="FNanchor_353_353" id="FNanchor_353_353"></a><a href="#Footnote_353_353" class="fnanchor">[353]</a> and Joseph of Arimathea<a name="FNanchor_354_354" id="FNanchor_354_354"></a><a href="#Footnote_354_354" class="fnanchor">[354]</a>
were members of the Great Sanhedrin; (2) that they
were both present at both trials;<a name="FNanchor_355_355" id="FNanchor_355_355"></a><a href="#Footnote_355_355" class="fnanchor">[355]</a> and (3) that they
both either voted against Him or tacitly acquiesced in
the judgments pronounced against Him.<a name="FNanchor_356_356" id="FNanchor_356_356"></a><a href="#Footnote_356_356" class="fnanchor">[356]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_365" id="Page_365">365</a></span>can be held to refer to absence or to dissent in
voting."<a name="FNanchor_357_357" id="FNanchor_357_357"></a><a href="#Footnote_357_357" class="fnanchor">[357]</a></p>

<p>"And the whole multitude of them arose, and led
him unto Pilate."</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_358_358" id="FNanchor_358_358"></a><a href="#Footnote_358_358" class="fnanchor">[358]</a> What was the difference
between his case and that of Jesus? Why was
Jesus crucified instead of being put to death by
stoning?</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_366" id="Page_366">366</a></span>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.</p>

<p>The Roman trial of Jesus will be treated in the second
volume of this work.</p>

<p class="center p2">END OF VOL. I</p>

<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> "Testimony of the Evangelists," pp. 7-11.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> "Testimony of the Evangelists," pp. 25, 26.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> I "Starkie on Evidence," pp. 480-545.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> John x. 30: "I and my Father are one."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> Matt. ix. 9.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> Col. iv. 14: "Luke, the beloved physician."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> Matt. xxvi. 70-72.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> Matt. xxvi. 46-50.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> Matt. xxvi. 56.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> Matt. xiv. 28-31.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> Mark x. 35-42; Matt. xx. 20-25.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> Matt. xi. 2, 3.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> Mark iii. 21.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> Luke iv. 28, 29.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> Mark xiv. 51, 52.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> "Intro. Vie de Jesus."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> Luke i. 2, 3.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> "Die synoptischen Evangelien," pp. 412-14.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_19" id="Footnote_19_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> Marcus Dods, "The Bible, Its Origin and Nature," p. 184.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_20" id="Footnote_20_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> An opposite doctrine seems to be taught in Luke xii. 11, 12; xxiv. 48, 49.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_21" id="Footnote_21_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> "Evidences of Christianity," p. 319.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_22" id="Footnote_22_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> Matt. xiv. 12-20; Mark vi. 34-43; Luke ix. 12-17; John vi. 5-13.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_23" id="Footnote_23_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> Luke xxii. 64.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_24" id="Footnote_24_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> Luke xxii. 51.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_25" id="Footnote_25_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> Campbell's "Philosophy of Rhetoric," c. v. b. 1, Part III, p. 125.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_26" id="Footnote_26_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> "Intro. Vie de Jesus," p. 62.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_27" id="Footnote_27_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> D. L. Moody, "Sermon on the Resurrection of Jesus."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_28" id="Footnote_28_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> See also I "Starkie on Evidence," pp. 496-99.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_29" id="Footnote_29_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> "Ant.," XVIII. 3, I.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_30" id="Footnote_30_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> See authorities cited in "The Brief."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_31" id="Footnote_31_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> "De iis qui sero puniuntur," p. 554.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_32" id="Footnote_32_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> P. 1080, edit. 45.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_33" id="Footnote_33_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> P. 1247, edit. 24, Huds.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_34" id="Footnote_34_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> P. 1327, edit. 43.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_35" id="Footnote_35_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> "Productique omnes, virgisque cæsi, ac securi percussi," Lib. XI. c. 5.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_36" id="Footnote_36_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> Domit. Cap. X. "Patremfamilias&mdash;canibus objecit, cum hoc <i>titulo</i>,
Impie locutus, parmularius."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_37" id="Footnote_37_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> Book LIV.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_38" id="Footnote_38_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> "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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39_39" id="Footnote_39_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> Luke xxii. 44.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40_40" id="Footnote_40_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> Tissot, "Traité des Nerfs," pp. 279, 280.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_41_41" id="Footnote_41_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> Joannes Schenck à Grafenberg, "Observ. Medic.," Lib. III. p. 458.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42_42" id="Footnote_42_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> Voltaire, "&#338;uvres complètes," vol. xviii. pp. 531, 532.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_43_43" id="Footnote_43_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> De Mezeray, "Histoire de France," vol. iii. p. 306.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_44_44" id="Footnote_44_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> John xix. 34.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_45_45" id="Footnote_45_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> John xix. 35.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_46_46" id="Footnote_46_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> John xviii. 6.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_47_47" id="Footnote_47_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> "Encyc. Brit.," vol. xv. p. 550.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_48_48" id="Footnote_48_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> Mendelsohn, "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," p. 191.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_49_49" id="Footnote_49_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> Mendelsohn, p. 189, n. 1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_50_50" id="Footnote_50_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> "Jewish Encyc.," vol. xii. p. 1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_51_51" id="Footnote_51_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> Emanuel Deutsch, "The Talmud," p. 26.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_52_52" id="Footnote_52_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> Farrar, "Hist. of Interpretation."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_53_53" id="Footnote_53_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> Emanuel Deutsch, "The Talmud," p. 47.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_54_54" id="Footnote_54_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> "Encyc. Brit.," vol. xxiii. p. 35.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_55_55" id="Footnote_55_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_55"><span class="label">[55]</span></a> Emanuel Deutsch, "The Talmud," p. 58.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_56_56" id="Footnote_56_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_56"><span class="label">[56]</span></a> Emanuel Deutsch, "The Talmud," p. 27.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_57_57" id="Footnote_57_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_57"><span class="label">[57]</span></a> Emanuel Deutsch, "The Talmud," p. 27.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_58_58" id="Footnote_58_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58_58"><span class="label">[58]</span></a> Deut. xvi. 18.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_59_59" id="Footnote_59_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59_59"><span class="label">[59]</span></a> "Ant.," XIII. 10, 6.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_60_60" id="Footnote_60_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60_60"><span class="label">[60]</span></a> Horace.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_61_61" id="Footnote_61_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61_61"><span class="label">[61]</span></a> Emanuel Deutsch, "The Talmud," p. 12.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_62_62" id="Footnote_62_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62_62"><span class="label">[62]</span></a> "Jewish Encyc.," vol. xii. p. 22.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_63_63" id="Footnote_63_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63_63"><span class="label">[63]</span></a> Emanuel Deutsch, "Talmud," p. 12.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_64_64" id="Footnote_64_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64_64"><span class="label">[64]</span></a> Maimon., "H. Sanh." xv. 10-13.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_65_65" id="Footnote_65_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65_65"><span class="label">[65]</span></a> Mendelsohn, "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," pp.
45-50.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_66_66" id="Footnote_66_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66_66"><span class="label">[66]</span></a> Mendelsohn, "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," pp. 45-50.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_67_67" id="Footnote_67_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67_67"><span class="label">[67]</span></a> Mendelsohn, p. 43.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_68_68" id="Footnote_68_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68_68"><span class="label">[68]</span></a> Mendelsohn, pp. 39, 40.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_69_69" id="Footnote_69_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69_69"><span class="label">[69]</span></a> Mendelsohn, pp. 39, 40.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_70_70" id="Footnote_70_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70_70"><span class="label">[70]</span></a> Maimonides ("Yad"), "Sanhedrin" xix.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_71_71" id="Footnote_71_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71_71"><span class="label">[71]</span></a> Dr. Smith's "Hist. of Greece," p. 557.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_72_72" id="Footnote_72_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72_72"><span class="label">[72]</span></a> "Jewish Encyc.," vol. ii. p. 257.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_73_73" id="Footnote_73_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_73_73"><span class="label">[73]</span></a> Ex. ii. 12-16.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_74_74" id="Footnote_74_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74_74"><span class="label">[74]</span></a> "Sanh." 52b; Maim., "H. Sanh." xv. 4.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_75_75" id="Footnote_75_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75_75"><span class="label">[75]</span></a> "H. Sanh." xv. 5.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_76_76" id="Footnote_76_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76_76"><span class="label">[76]</span></a> Benny, "Crim. Code of the Jews," p. 90.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_77_77" id="Footnote_77_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77_77"><span class="label">[77]</span></a> Mendelsohn, p. 159.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_78_78" id="Footnote_78_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78_78"><span class="label">[78]</span></a> Chap. I. 10; X. i, 2.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_79_79" id="Footnote_79_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79_79"><span class="label">[79]</span></a> Matt. xxvi. 59.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_80_80" id="Footnote_80_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80_80"><span class="label">[80]</span></a> "Ant.," XIV. Chap. V. 4; "Wars of the Jews," I. VIII. 5; "Talmud,"
"Sanhedrin."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_81_81" id="Footnote_81_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81_81"><span class="label">[81]</span></a> "Post Bibl. Hist.," vol. i. p. 106.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_82_82" id="Footnote_82_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82_82"><span class="label">[82]</span></a> Matt. xvi. 21.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_83_83" id="Footnote_83_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83_83"><span class="label">[83]</span></a> "Commentary on the Law," vol. ccclxvi. recto.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_84_84" id="Footnote_84_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84_84"><span class="label">[84]</span></a> "Sanhedrin" 32.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_85_85" id="Footnote_85_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_85_85"><span class="label">[85]</span></a> Benny.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_86_86" id="Footnote_86_86"></a><a href="#FNanchor_86_86"><span class="label">[86]</span></a> Jose b. Halafta, I. c.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_87_87" id="Footnote_87_87"></a><a href="#FNanchor_87_87"><span class="label">[87]</span></a> R. Johanan, "Sanhedrin" 19a.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_88_88" id="Footnote_88_88"></a><a href="#FNanchor_88_88"><span class="label">[88]</span></a> Benny.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_89_89" id="Footnote_89_89"></a><a href="#FNanchor_89_89"><span class="label">[89]</span></a> Benny.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_90_90" id="Footnote_90_90"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90_90"><span class="label">[90]</span></a> "Sanhedrin" 17a; "Menahoth" 65a.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_91_91" id="Footnote_91_91"></a><a href="#FNanchor_91_91"><span class="label">[91]</span></a> Sifre, Num. 92 (ed. Friedmann, p. 25b).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_92_92" id="Footnote_92_92"></a><a href="#FNanchor_92_92"><span class="label">[92]</span></a> Yalkut, "Exodus," Sec. 167.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_93_93" id="Footnote_93_93"></a><a href="#FNanchor_93_93"><span class="label">[93]</span></a> Sotah 22b.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_94_94" id="Footnote_94_94"></a><a href="#FNanchor_94_94"><span class="label">[94]</span></a> "Const. of the Sanhedrin," Chap. I.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_95_95" id="Footnote_95_95"></a><a href="#FNanchor_95_95"><span class="label">[95]</span></a> Benny, "The Criminal Code of the Jews," p. 71.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_96_96" id="Footnote_96_96"></a><a href="#FNanchor_96_96"><span class="label">[96]</span></a> Saalschütz, "Das Mosaische Recht," p. 58; Deut. xx. 5, 6.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_97_97" id="Footnote_97_97"></a><a href="#FNanchor_97_97"><span class="label">[97]</span></a> Luke ii. 46-51.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_98_98" id="Footnote_98_98"></a><a href="#FNanchor_98_98"><span class="label">[98]</span></a> Jer. xxxvii., xxxviii.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_99_99" id="Footnote_99_99"></a><a href="#FNanchor_99_99"><span class="label">[99]</span></a> "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. p. 45.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_100_100" id="Footnote_100_100"></a><a href="#FNanchor_100_100"><span class="label">[100]</span></a> "The Life and Words of Christ," vol. ii. p. 517.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_101_101" id="Footnote_101_101"></a><a href="#FNanchor_101_101"><span class="label">[101]</span></a> "Archæol." 87.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_102_102" id="Footnote_102_102"></a><a href="#FNanchor_102_102"><span class="label">[102]</span></a> Acts xxiv. 1, 2.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_103_103" id="Footnote_103_103"></a><a href="#FNanchor_103_103"><span class="label">[103]</span></a> I Kings iii. 16-28.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_104_104" id="Footnote_104_104"></a><a href="#FNanchor_104_104"><span class="label">[104]</span></a> Mendelsohn, "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," pp.
102, 103.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_105_105" id="Footnote_105_105"></a><a href="#FNanchor_105_105"><span class="label">[105]</span></a> Mendelsohn, pp. 96-98.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_106_106" id="Footnote_106_106"></a><a href="#FNanchor_106_106"><span class="label">[106]</span></a> "Sanhedrin," Chap. I. fol. 19.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_107_107" id="Footnote_107_107"></a><a href="#FNanchor_107_107"><span class="label">[107]</span></a> Mendelsohn, p. 97.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_108_108" id="Footnote_108_108"></a><a href="#FNanchor_108_108"><span class="label">[108]</span></a> Mishna, "Sanhedrin," Chap. IV. 1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_109_109" id="Footnote_109_109"></a><a href="#FNanchor_109_109"><span class="label">[109]</span></a> Mendelsohn, p. 98.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_110_110" id="Footnote_110_110"></a><a href="#FNanchor_110_110"><span class="label">[110]</span></a> "Sanhedrin," 8b, 41a, <i>et al.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_111_111" id="Footnote_111_111"></a><a href="#FNanchor_111_111"><span class="label">[111]</span></a> Mendelsohn, p. 101.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_112_112" id="Footnote_112_112"></a><a href="#FNanchor_112_112"><span class="label">[112]</span></a> Schürer, "The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ," 2d Div., 1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_113_113" id="Footnote_113_113"></a><a href="#FNanchor_113_113"><span class="label">[113]</span></a> "Sanhedrin," IV. 4.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_114_114" id="Footnote_114_114"></a><a href="#FNanchor_114_114"><span class="label">[114]</span></a> "Sanhedrin," IV. 1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_115_115" id="Footnote_115_115"></a><a href="#FNanchor_115_115"><span class="label">[115]</span></a> "Sanhedrin," 17a, p. 176.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_116_116" id="Footnote_116_116"></a><a href="#FNanchor_116_116"><span class="label">[116]</span></a> "Sanhedrin," Chap. I. 5.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_117_117" id="Footnote_117_117"></a><a href="#FNanchor_117_117"><span class="label">[117]</span></a> Benny.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_118_118" id="Footnote_118_118"></a><a href="#FNanchor_118_118"><span class="label">[118]</span></a> Benny.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_119_119" id="Footnote_119_119"></a><a href="#FNanchor_119_119"><span class="label">[119]</span></a> Benny.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_120_120" id="Footnote_120_120"></a><a href="#FNanchor_120_120"><span class="label">[120]</span></a> Mendelsohn, p. 140, n. 327.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_121_121" id="Footnote_121_121"></a><a href="#FNanchor_121_121"><span class="label">[121]</span></a> Montaigne, "Essays," III. C. XIII.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_122_122" id="Footnote_122_122"></a><a href="#FNanchor_122_122"><span class="label">[122]</span></a> "Un homme ne jugera jamais seul; cela n'appartient qu'a Dieu."
</p><p>
"Ne sis judex unus; non est enim unicus judex, nisi unus."&mdash;Salvador,
"Institutions de Moïse," L. IV. Chap. II. p. 357.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_123_123" id="Footnote_123_123"></a><a href="#FNanchor_123_123"><span class="label">[123]</span></a> "But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the
levity and boldness of their sex."&mdash;Josephus, "Ant.," IV. 8, 15.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_124_124" id="Footnote_124_124"></a><a href="#FNanchor_124_124"><span class="label">[124]</span></a> "Nor let servants be admitted to give testimony, on account of the ignobility
of their souls."&mdash;"Ant.," IV. 8, 15.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_125_125" id="Footnote_125_125"></a><a href="#FNanchor_125_125"><span class="label">[125]</span></a> "Ant.," IV. 8, 15.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_126_126" id="Footnote_126_126"></a><a href="#FNanchor_126_126"><span class="label">[126]</span></a> Maimonides, I. C. XI. 6, based on "Sanh." 26b.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_127_127" id="Footnote_127_127"></a><a href="#FNanchor_127_127"><span class="label">[127]</span></a> Mendelsohn, p. 118.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_128_128" id="Footnote_128_128"></a><a href="#FNanchor_128_128"><span class="label">[128]</span></a> "Talmud," B. B. 43a.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_129_129" id="Footnote_129_129"></a><a href="#FNanchor_129_129"><span class="label">[129]</span></a> Deut. xvii. 6.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_130_130" id="Footnote_130_130"></a><a href="#FNanchor_130_130"><span class="label">[130]</span></a> Num. xxxv. 30.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_131_131" id="Footnote_131_131"></a><a href="#FNanchor_131_131"><span class="label">[131]</span></a> "Hist. Nat.," Lib. VIII. Cap. XXII.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_132_132" id="Footnote_132_132"></a><a href="#FNanchor_132_132"><span class="label">[132]</span></a> L. 20, Dig. De quæstionibus, xlviii. 18.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_133_133" id="Footnote_133_133"></a><a href="#FNanchor_133_133"><span class="label">[133]</span></a> Blackstone, iv. 357.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_134_134" id="Footnote_134_134"></a><a href="#FNanchor_134_134"><span class="label">[134]</span></a> Con. U. S., Art. III, Sec. 3.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_135_135" id="Footnote_135_135"></a><a href="#FNanchor_135_135"><span class="label">[135]</span></a> "Les lois qui font périr un homme sur la déposition d'un seul témoin,
sont fatales <span class="err" title="original: a">à</span> 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."&mdash;"De L'Esprit Des
Lois," L. XII. C. III.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_136_136" id="Footnote_136_136"></a><a href="#FNanchor_136_136"><span class="label">[136]</span></a> Mishna, "Sanhedrin," C. V. 2.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_137_137" id="Footnote_137_137"></a><a href="#FNanchor_137_137"><span class="label">[137]</span></a> Maimonides, "Sanhedrin," Chap. XX.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_138_138" id="Footnote_138_138"></a><a href="#FNanchor_138_138"><span class="label">[138]</span></a> "Jewish Encyc.," vol. v. p. 277.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_139_139" id="Footnote_139_139"></a><a href="#FNanchor_139_139"><span class="label">[139]</span></a> "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," p. 29.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_140_140" id="Footnote_140_140"></a><a href="#FNanchor_140_140"><span class="label">[140]</span></a> Philo Judæus, "De Decalogo," III.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_141_141" id="Footnote_141_141"></a><a href="#FNanchor_141_141"><span class="label">[141]</span></a> Prov. xi. 10; Mishna, "Sanhedrin," IV. 5.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_142_142" id="Footnote_142_142"></a><a href="#FNanchor_142_142"><span class="label">[142]</span></a> Apocrypha.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_143_143" id="Footnote_143_143"></a><a href="#FNanchor_143_143"><span class="label">[143]</span></a> Benny.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_144_144" id="Footnote_144_144"></a><a href="#FNanchor_144_144"><span class="label">[144]</span></a> Mishna, "Sanhedrin," Chap. V. 1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_145_145" id="Footnote_145_145"></a><a href="#FNanchor_145_145"><span class="label">[145]</span></a> Benny.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_146_146" id="Footnote_146_146"></a><a href="#FNanchor_146_146"><span class="label">[146]</span></a> Deut. xix. 18-21.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_147_147" id="Footnote_147_147"></a><a href="#FNanchor_147_147"><span class="label">[147]</span></a> Apocrypha.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_148_148" id="Footnote_148_148"></a><a href="#FNanchor_148_148"><span class="label">[148]</span></a> Maimonides, Mishna, "Sanhedrin," Chap. IV. 2.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_149_149" id="Footnote_149_149"></a><a href="#FNanchor_149_149"><span class="label">[149]</span></a> Münsterberg, "On the Witness Stand," "Untrue Confessions," pp.
137-171.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_150_150" id="Footnote_150_150"></a><a href="#FNanchor_150_150"><span class="label">[150]</span></a> Rosadi.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_151_151" id="Footnote_151_151"></a><a href="#FNanchor_151_151"><span class="label">[151]</span></a> Rabbi Wise, "Martyrdom of Jesus."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_152_152" id="Footnote_152_152"></a><a href="#FNanchor_152_152"><span class="label">[152]</span></a> "Yad," Edut, xvii. 1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_153_153" id="Footnote_153_153"></a><a href="#FNanchor_153_153"><span class="label">[153]</span></a> "Jewish Encyc.," vol. v. p. 279.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_154_154" id="Footnote_154_154"></a><a href="#FNanchor_154_154"><span class="label">[154]</span></a> Num. xxxv. 30.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_155_155" id="Footnote_155_155"></a><a href="#FNanchor_155_155"><span class="label">[155]</span></a> Mishna, "Sanhedrin" V. 3, 4.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_156_156" id="Footnote_156_156"></a><a href="#FNanchor_156_156"><span class="label">[156]</span></a> Matt. xxvi. 60.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_157_157" id="Footnote_157_157"></a><a href="#FNanchor_157_157"><span class="label">[157]</span></a> Mark xiv. 56.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_158_158" id="Footnote_158_158"></a><a href="#FNanchor_158_158"><span class="label">[158]</span></a> Lev. xxii. 28.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_159_159" id="Footnote_159_159"></a><a href="#FNanchor_159_159"><span class="label">[159]</span></a> Deut. xvii. 5; "Sanhedrin" VII. 4.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_160_160" id="Footnote_160_160"></a><a href="#FNanchor_160_160"><span class="label">[160]</span></a> Num. vi. 2-4.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_161_161" id="Footnote_161_161"></a><a href="#FNanchor_161_161"><span class="label">[161]</span></a> "Jewish Encyc.," vol. vi. p. 260.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_162_162" id="Footnote_162_162"></a><a href="#FNanchor_162_162"><span class="label">[162]</span></a> "Einleitung in der Gesetzgebung," p. 4.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_163_163" id="Footnote_163_163"></a><a href="#FNanchor_163_163"><span class="label">[163]</span></a> "Jewish Encyc.," vol. vi. p. 260; Benny, "Criminal Code of the Jews,"
p. 97; Saalschütz, "Das Mosaische Recht," n. 560.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_164_164" id="Footnote_164_164"></a><a href="#FNanchor_164_164"><span class="label">[164]</span></a> Mishna, treatise Makhoth.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_165_165" id="Footnote_165_165"></a><a href="#FNanchor_165_165"><span class="label">[165]</span></a> Mishna, "Capita Patrum," I. 1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_166_166" id="Footnote_166_166"></a><a href="#FNanchor_166_166"><span class="label">[166]</span></a> Salvador, "Institutions de Moïse."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_167_167" id="Footnote_167_167"></a><a href="#FNanchor_167_167"><span class="label">[167]</span></a> Mishna, "Sanhedrin," IV. 1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_168_168" id="Footnote_168_168"></a><a href="#FNanchor_168_168"><span class="label">[168]</span></a> "Jesus Before the Sanhedrin," p. 109.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_169_169" id="Footnote_169_169"></a><a href="#FNanchor_169_169"><span class="label">[169]</span></a> "Talmud," Jerus., Sanh., C. I. fol. 19.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_170_170" id="Footnote_170_170"></a><a href="#FNanchor_170_170"><span class="label">[170]</span></a> Mishna, "Tamid," C. III.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_171_171" id="Footnote_171_171"></a><a href="#FNanchor_171_171"><span class="label">[171]</span></a> Geikie, vol. ii. p. 517.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_172_172" id="Footnote_172_172"></a><a href="#FNanchor_172_172"><span class="label">[172]</span></a> Lyman Abbott, "Jesus of Nazareth," pp. 446, 447.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_173_173" id="Footnote_173_173"></a><a href="#FNanchor_173_173"><span class="label">[173]</span></a> "Jewish Encyc.," vol. v. pp. 279, 280.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_174_174" id="Footnote_174_174"></a><a href="#FNanchor_174_174"><span class="label">[174]</span></a> Benny.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_175_175" id="Footnote_175_175"></a><a href="#FNanchor_175_175"><span class="label">[175]</span></a> Mendelsohn, p. 144.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_176_176" id="Footnote_176_176"></a><a href="#FNanchor_176_176"><span class="label">[176]</span></a> Josephus, "Ant.," XIV. 9, 4.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_177_177" id="Footnote_177_177"></a><a href="#FNanchor_177_177"><span class="label">[177]</span></a> Schürer, 2d div., vol. i. p. 175.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_178_178" id="Footnote_178_178"></a><a href="#FNanchor_178_178"><span class="label">[178]</span></a> Schürer, 2d div., vol. i. p. 184.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_179_179" id="Footnote_179_179"></a><a href="#FNanchor_179_179"><span class="label">[179]</span></a> "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. ii. p. 556.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_180_180" id="Footnote_180_180"></a><a href="#FNanchor_180_180"><span class="label">[180]</span></a> "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. p. 37.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_181_181" id="Footnote_181_181"></a><a href="#FNanchor_181_181"><span class="label">[181]</span></a> "The Talmud," p. 32.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_182_182" id="Footnote_182_182"></a><a href="#FNanchor_182_182"><span class="label">[182]</span></a> "Ant.," xv. 6, 2.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_183_183" id="Footnote_183_183"></a><a href="#FNanchor_183_183"><span class="label">[183]</span></a> "History of the Jews," vol. ii. p. 163.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_184_184" id="Footnote_184_184"></a><a href="#FNanchor_184_184"><span class="label">[184]</span></a> "Tribus, pseudo-propheta, sacerdos magnus, non nisi a septuaginta et
unius judicum consessu judicantur."&mdash;"Mishna, De Synedriis," i. 5.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_185_185" id="Footnote_185_185"></a><a href="#FNanchor_185_185"><span class="label">[185]</span></a> "Among the offenses of which it took cognizance were false claims to
prophetic inspiration and blasphemy."&mdash;Andrews, "The Life of Our Lord,"
p. 510.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_186_186" id="Footnote_186_186"></a><a href="#FNanchor_186_186"><span class="label">[186]</span></a> "Gesch. d. Judenth." vol. i. pp. 402-409.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_187_187" id="Footnote_187_187"></a><a href="#FNanchor_187_187"><span class="label">[187]</span></a> "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. ii. p. 553.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_188_188" id="Footnote_188_188"></a><a href="#FNanchor_188_188"><span class="label">[188]</span></a> "Vie de Jesus," pp. 303, 304.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_189_189" id="Footnote_189_189"></a><a href="#FNanchor_189_189"><span class="label">[189]</span></a> "Trial of Jesus Christ," p. 81.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_190_190" id="Footnote_190_190"></a><a href="#FNanchor_190_190"><span class="label">[190]</span></a> Matt. xxvi. 60, 61.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_191_191" id="Footnote_191_191"></a><a href="#FNanchor_191_191"><span class="label">[191]</span></a> Mark xiv. 57, 58.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_192_192" id="Footnote_192_192"></a><a href="#FNanchor_192_192"><span class="label">[192]</span></a> Matt. xxvi. 64-66.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_193_193" id="Footnote_193_193"></a><a href="#FNanchor_193_193"><span class="label">[193]</span></a> Mark xiv. 56.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_194_194" id="Footnote_194_194"></a><a href="#FNanchor_194_194"><span class="label">[194]</span></a> John ii. 20.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_195_195" id="Footnote_195_195"></a><a href="#FNanchor_195_195"><span class="label">[195]</span></a> John ii. 19.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_196_196" id="Footnote_196_196"></a><a href="#FNanchor_196_196"><span class="label">[196]</span></a> John ii. 21.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_197_197" id="Footnote_197_197"></a><a href="#FNanchor_197_197"><span class="label">[197]</span></a> "The Martyrdom of Jesus," pp. 75-77.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_198_198" id="Footnote_198_198"></a><a href="#FNanchor_198_198"><span class="label">[198]</span></a> Deut. xiii. 1-5.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_199_199" id="Footnote_199_199"></a><a href="#FNanchor_199_199"><span class="label">[199]</span></a> I Kings xxi. 10.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_200_200" id="Footnote_200_200"></a><a href="#FNanchor_200_200"><span class="label">[200]</span></a> Isa. lii, 5; Ezek. xxxv. 12.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_201_201" id="Footnote_201_201"></a><a href="#FNanchor_201_201"><span class="label">[201]</span></a> Luke xxii. 65; Acts xiii. 45; xviii. 6.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_202_202" id="Footnote_202_202"></a><a href="#FNanchor_202_202"><span class="label">[202]</span></a> Revelation xiii. 1-6.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_203_203" id="Footnote_203_203"></a><a href="#FNanchor_203_203"><span class="label">[203]</span></a> "Blackstone," vol. ii. pp. 75-84.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_204_204" id="Footnote_204_204"></a><a href="#FNanchor_204_204"><span class="label">[204]</span></a> Greenidge, "Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time," pp. 427, 507, 518.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_205_205" id="Footnote_205_205"></a><a href="#FNanchor_205_205"><span class="label">[205]</span></a> Deut. iv. 15, 16; Deut. xiii.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_206_206" id="Footnote_206_206"></a><a href="#FNanchor_206_206"><span class="label">[206]</span></a> Gen. xli. 16.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_207_207" id="Footnote_207_207"></a><a href="#FNanchor_207_207"><span class="label">[207]</span></a> Num. xx. 10-12.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_208_208" id="Footnote_208_208"></a><a href="#FNanchor_208_208"><span class="label">[208]</span></a> Num. xx. 20-24.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_209_209" id="Footnote_209_209"></a><a href="#FNanchor_209_209"><span class="label">[209]</span></a> Greenleaf, "Testimony of the Evangelists," p. 555.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_210_210" id="Footnote_210_210"></a><a href="#FNanchor_210_210"><span class="label">[210]</span></a> Matt. v. 17.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_211_211" id="Footnote_211_211"></a><a href="#FNanchor_211_211"><span class="label">[211]</span></a> John xi. 41.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_212_212" id="Footnote_212_212"></a><a href="#FNanchor_212_212"><span class="label">[212]</span></a> Matt. ix. 20-22; Mark v. 25-34; Luke viii. 43-48.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_213_213" id="Footnote_213_213"></a><a href="#FNanchor_213_213"><span class="label">[213]</span></a> Matt. viii. 24-26; Mark iv. 37-39; Luke viii. 23-25.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_214_214" id="Footnote_214_214"></a><a href="#FNanchor_214_214"><span class="label">[214]</span></a> Matt. viii. 28-32; Mark v. 1-13; Luke viii. 26-33.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_215_215" id="Footnote_215_215"></a><a href="#FNanchor_215_215"><span class="label">[215]</span></a> Matt. ix. 18-26; Mark v. 22-42; Luke viii. 41-55.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_216_216" id="Footnote_216_216"></a><a href="#FNanchor_216_216"><span class="label">[216]</span></a> Luke vii. 12-15.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_217_217" id="Footnote_217_217"></a><a href="#FNanchor_217_217"><span class="label">[217]</span></a> Matt. ix. 2, 3.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_218_218" id="Footnote_218_218"></a><a href="#FNanchor_218_218"><span class="label">[218]</span></a> Luke v. 21.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_219_219" id="Footnote_219_219"></a><a href="#FNanchor_219_219"><span class="label">[219]</span></a> John v. 18.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_220_220" id="Footnote_220_220"></a><a href="#FNanchor_220_220"><span class="label">[220]</span></a> John x. 30-33.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_221_221" id="Footnote_221_221"></a><a href="#FNanchor_221_221"><span class="label">[221]</span></a> John vi. 41.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_222_222" id="Footnote_222_222"></a><a href="#FNanchor_222_222"><span class="label">[222]</span></a> John viii. 58.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_223_223" id="Footnote_223_223"></a><a href="#FNanchor_223_223"><span class="label">[223]</span></a> "Testimony of the Evangelists," p. 562.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_224_224" id="Footnote_224_224"></a><a href="#FNanchor_224_224"><span class="label">[224]</span></a> Edersheim, "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. ii. p. 629.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_225_225" id="Footnote_225_225"></a><a href="#FNanchor_225_225"><span class="label">[225]</span></a> John xiii.-xvii.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_226_226" id="Footnote_226_226"></a><a href="#FNanchor_226_226"><span class="label">[226]</span></a> Matt. xi. 3.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_227_227" id="Footnote_227_227"></a><a href="#FNanchor_227_227"><span class="label">[227]</span></a> Luke xxiv. 39-43; John xx. 24-28.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_228_228" id="Footnote_228_228"></a><a href="#FNanchor_228_228"><span class="label">[228]</span></a> John xiii. 33.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_229_229" id="Footnote_229_229"></a><a href="#FNanchor_229_229"><span class="label">[229]</span></a> John xviii. 9.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_230_230" id="Footnote_230_230"></a><a href="#FNanchor_230_230"><span class="label">[230]</span></a> "Jesus Devant Caïphe et Pilate."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_231_231" id="Footnote_231_231"></a><a href="#FNanchor_231_231"><span class="label">[231]</span></a> Acts iv. 3.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_232_232" id="Footnote_232_232"></a><a href="#FNanchor_232_232"><span class="label">[232]</span></a> "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. ii. p. 494.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_233_233" id="Footnote_233_233"></a><a href="#FNanchor_233_233"><span class="label">[233]</span></a> See Cooley's "Blackstone," vol. ii. p. 330, n. 6; also Greenleaf, "On
Evidence," vol. i. pp. 531-35 (10th edition).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_234_234" id="Footnote_234_234"></a><a href="#FNanchor_234_234"><span class="label">[234]</span></a> "Vie de Jesus," p. 303.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_235_235" id="Footnote_235_235"></a><a href="#FNanchor_235_235"><span class="label">[235]</span></a> John xviii. 13.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_236_236" id="Footnote_236_236"></a><a href="#FNanchor_236_236"><span class="label">[236]</span></a> Matt. xxvi. 57.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_237_237" id="Footnote_237_237"></a><a href="#FNanchor_237_237"><span class="label">[237]</span></a> Mark xiv. 53.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_238_238" id="Footnote_238_238"></a><a href="#FNanchor_238_238"><span class="label">[238]</span></a> Luke xxii. 54.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_239_239" id="Footnote_239_239"></a><a href="#FNanchor_239_239"><span class="label">[239]</span></a> John xviii. 19.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_240_240" id="Footnote_240_240"></a><a href="#FNanchor_240_240"><span class="label">[240]</span></a> Luke iii. 2; Acts iv. 6.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_241_241" id="Footnote_241_241"></a><a href="#FNanchor_241_241"><span class="label">[241]</span></a> "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. i. p. 264.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_242_242" id="Footnote_242_242"></a><a href="#FNanchor_242_242"><span class="label">[242]</span></a> "The Life of Our Lord," p. 142.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_243_243" id="Footnote_243_243"></a><a href="#FNanchor_243_243"><span class="label">[243]</span></a> Luke iii. 2.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_244_244" id="Footnote_244_244"></a><a href="#FNanchor_244_244"><span class="label">[244]</span></a> Plummer, St. Luke, in "International Critical Commentary," pp. 84, 515.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_245_245" id="Footnote_245_245"></a><a href="#FNanchor_245_245"><span class="label">[245]</span></a> Josephus, "Ant.," XVIII. chap. ii. 2.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_246_246" id="Footnote_246_246"></a><a href="#FNanchor_246_246"><span class="label">[246]</span></a> John xviii. 19-23.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_247_247" id="Footnote_247_247"></a><a href="#FNanchor_247_247"><span class="label">[247]</span></a> Mark xiv. 58-61.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_248_248" id="Footnote_248_248"></a><a href="#FNanchor_248_248"><span class="label">[248]</span></a> Matt. xxvi. 60-63.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_249_249" id="Footnote_249_249"></a><a href="#FNanchor_249_249"><span class="label">[249]</span></a> Matt. xxvi. 63.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_250_250" id="Footnote_250_250"></a><a href="#FNanchor_250_250"><span class="label">[250]</span></a> Mark xiv. 59.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_251_251" id="Footnote_251_251"></a><a href="#FNanchor_251_251"><span class="label">[251]</span></a> Acts vi. 14.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_252_252" id="Footnote_252_252"></a><a href="#FNanchor_252_252"><span class="label">[252]</span></a> "Jewish Encyc.," vol. i. p. 163.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_253_253" id="Footnote_253_253"></a><a href="#FNanchor_253_253"><span class="label">[253]</span></a> Fiske, "Manual of Classical Literature," iii. Sec. 108; Smith, "Dictionary
of Greek and Roman Antiquities," 89a.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_254_254" id="Footnote_254_254"></a><a href="#FNanchor_254_254"><span class="label">[254]</span></a> See discussion of Point I.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_255_255" id="Footnote_255_255"></a><a href="#FNanchor_255_255"><span class="label">[255]</span></a> Luke xxii. 66.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_256_256" id="Footnote_256_256"></a><a href="#FNanchor_256_256"><span class="label">[256]</span></a> Luke xxii. 2.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_257_257" id="Footnote_257_257"></a><a href="#FNanchor_257_257"><span class="label">[257]</span></a> Mark xiv. 2.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_258_258" id="Footnote_258_258"></a><a href="#FNanchor_258_258"><span class="label">[258]</span></a> Mark xiv. i; Matt. xxvi. 4 (Consilium fecerunt ut Jesum dolo tenerent et
occiderent).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_259_259" id="Footnote_259_259"></a><a href="#FNanchor_259_259"><span class="label">[259]</span></a> Maimonides, "Sanhedrin" II.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_260_260" id="Footnote_260_260"></a><a href="#FNanchor_260_260"><span class="label">[260]</span></a> John xviii. 28; Luke xxii. 1; Mark xiv. 1; Matt. xxvi. 2.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_261_261" id="Footnote_261_261"></a><a href="#FNanchor_261_261"><span class="label">[261]</span></a> Mishna, "Capita Patrum," I, 1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_262_262" id="Footnote_262_262"></a><a href="#FNanchor_262_262"><span class="label">[262]</span></a> Mishna, "Treatise Makhoth."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_263_263" id="Footnote_263_263"></a><a href="#FNanchor_263_263"><span class="label">[263]</span></a> See Part II, Chap. V.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_264_264" id="Footnote_264_264"></a><a href="#FNanchor_264_264"><span class="label">[264]</span></a> Edmund Stapfer, "Life of Jesus."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_265_265" id="Footnote_265_265"></a><a href="#FNanchor_265_265"><span class="label">[265]</span></a> Matt. xxvi. 57-66.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_266_266" id="Footnote_266_266"></a><a href="#FNanchor_266_266"><span class="label">[266]</span></a> Mark xiv. 55-64.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_267_267" id="Footnote_267_267"></a><a href="#FNanchor_267_267"><span class="label">[267]</span></a> Matt. xxvii. 1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_268_268" id="Footnote_268_268"></a><a href="#FNanchor_268_268"><span class="label">[268]</span></a> Mark xv. 1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_269_269" id="Footnote_269_269"></a><a href="#FNanchor_269_269"><span class="label">[269]</span></a> Luke xxii. 66-71.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_270_270" id="Footnote_270_270"></a><a href="#FNanchor_270_270"><span class="label">[270]</span></a> "Martyrdom of Jesus," p. 74.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_271_271" id="Footnote_271_271"></a><a href="#FNanchor_271_271"><span class="label">[271]</span></a> "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," p. 133, n. 311.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_272_272" id="Footnote_272_272"></a><a href="#FNanchor_272_272"><span class="label">[272]</span></a> See Part II, Chap. IV.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_273_273" id="Footnote_273_273"></a><a href="#FNanchor_273_273"><span class="label">[273]</span></a> Mark xiv. 56-65.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_274_274" id="Footnote_274_274"></a><a href="#FNanchor_274_274"><span class="label">[274]</span></a> Mark xiv. 62.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_275_275" id="Footnote_275_275"></a><a href="#FNanchor_275_275"><span class="label">[275]</span></a> Matt. xii. 14-16; Mark iii. 7; ix. 29, 30.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_276_276" id="Footnote_276_276"></a><a href="#FNanchor_276_276"><span class="label">[276]</span></a> Luke xiii. 31, 32.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_277_277" id="Footnote_277_277"></a><a href="#FNanchor_277_277"><span class="label">[277]</span></a> Matt. xxii. 15.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_278_278" id="Footnote_278_278"></a><a href="#FNanchor_278_278"><span class="label">[278]</span></a> John iv. 26.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_279_279" id="Footnote_279_279"></a><a href="#FNanchor_279_279"><span class="label">[279]</span></a> Mark i. 34.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_280_280" id="Footnote_280_280"></a><a href="#FNanchor_280_280"><span class="label">[280]</span></a> John x. 24.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_281_281" id="Footnote_281_281"></a><a href="#FNanchor_281_281"><span class="label">[281]</span></a> Matt. xvi. 20.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_282_282" id="Footnote_282_282"></a><a href="#FNanchor_282_282"><span class="label">[282]</span></a> Blackstone.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_283_283" id="Footnote_283_283"></a><a href="#FNanchor_283_283"><span class="label">[283]</span></a> Mendelsohn, p. 143.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_284_284" id="Footnote_284_284"></a><a href="#FNanchor_284_284"><span class="label">[284]</span></a> Mark xiv. 63, 64.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_285_285" id="Footnote_285_285"></a><a href="#FNanchor_285_285"><span class="label">[285]</span></a> "Martyrdom of Jesus," p. 74.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_286_286" id="Footnote_286_286"></a><a href="#FNanchor_286_286"><span class="label">[286]</span></a> "The Trial of Jesus," p. 200.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_287_287" id="Footnote_287_287"></a><a href="#FNanchor_287_287"><span class="label">[287]</span></a> Matt. xxvi. 59; Mark xiv. 55.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_288_288" id="Footnote_288_288"></a><a href="#FNanchor_288_288"><span class="label">[288]</span></a> Matt. xxvii. 1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_289_289" id="Footnote_289_289"></a><a href="#FNanchor_289_289"><span class="label">[289]</span></a> Mark xv. 1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_290_290" id="Footnote_290_290"></a><a href="#FNanchor_290_290"><span class="label">[290]</span></a> John iii. 1; vii. 50.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_291_291" id="Footnote_291_291"></a><a href="#FNanchor_291_291"><span class="label">[291]</span></a> Luke xxiii. 51.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_292_292" id="Footnote_292_292"></a><a href="#FNanchor_292_292"><span class="label">[292]</span></a> John vii. 51.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_293_293" id="Footnote_293_293"></a><a href="#FNanchor_293_293"><span class="label">[293]</span></a> John vii. 50; xix. 39.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_294_294" id="Footnote_294_294"></a><a href="#FNanchor_294_294"><span class="label">[294]</span></a> Luke xxiii. 51.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_295_295" id="Footnote_295_295"></a><a href="#FNanchor_295_295"><span class="label">[295]</span></a> Mendelsohn, p. 98.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_296_296" id="Footnote_296_296"></a><a href="#FNanchor_296_296"><span class="label">[296]</span></a> Deut. xvii. 7, 8.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_297_297" id="Footnote_297_297"></a><a href="#FNanchor_297_297"><span class="label">[297]</span></a> "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."&mdash;"Thosephthoth, or Additions to the Talmud,"
Bab., "Sanhedrin," C. IV. fol. 37, recto.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_298_298" id="Footnote_298_298"></a><a href="#FNanchor_298_298"><span class="label">[298]</span></a> Edersheim, "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. ii. p. 556, n. 1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_299_299" id="Footnote_299_299"></a><a href="#FNanchor_299_299"><span class="label">[299]</span></a> John xviii. 28.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_300_300" id="Footnote_300_300"></a><a href="#FNanchor_300_300"><span class="label">[300]</span></a> MM. Lémann, "Jesus Before the Sanhedrin," p. 140.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_301_301" id="Footnote_301_301"></a><a href="#FNanchor_301_301"><span class="label">[301]</span></a> Mark xiv. 63, 64.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_302_302" id="Footnote_302_302"></a><a href="#FNanchor_302_302"><span class="label">[302]</span></a> Edersheim, "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. ii. p. 561.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_303_303" id="Footnote_303_303"></a><a href="#FNanchor_303_303"><span class="label">[303]</span></a> Rabbi Wise, "Martyrdom of Jesus," p. 74.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_304_304" id="Footnote_304_304"></a><a href="#FNanchor_304_304"><span class="label">[304]</span></a> Benny, "Criminal Code of the Jews," p. 81.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_305_305" id="Footnote_305_305"></a><a href="#FNanchor_305_305"><span class="label">[305]</span></a> Matt. xxvi. 65.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_306_306" id="Footnote_306_306"></a><a href="#FNanchor_306_306"><span class="label">[306]</span></a> See Part II, Qualifications of Judges.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_307_307" id="Footnote_307_307"></a><a href="#FNanchor_307_307"><span class="label">[307]</span></a> "Talmud, Pesachim, or the Passover," fol. 57, verso; see also "Jesus
Before the Sanhedrin," pp. 54, 55.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_308_308" id="Footnote_308_308"></a><a href="#FNanchor_308_308"><span class="label">[308]</span></a> Benny, "Criminal Code of the Jews," pp. 28-41.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_309_309" id="Footnote_309_309"></a><a href="#FNanchor_309_309"><span class="label">[309]</span></a> Matt. xxi. 31.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_310_310" id="Footnote_310_310"></a><a href="#FNanchor_310_310"><span class="label">[310]</span></a> Matt. xxiii. 14, 15.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_311_311" id="Footnote_311_311"></a><a href="#FNanchor_311_311"><span class="label">[311]</span></a> "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. i. pp. 93, 94.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_312_312" id="Footnote_312_312"></a><a href="#FNanchor_312_312"><span class="label">[312]</span></a> Matt. xxiii. 27, 29-33.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_313_313" id="Footnote_313_313"></a><a href="#FNanchor_313_313"><span class="label">[313]</span></a> "Vie de Jesus," p. 267.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_314_314" id="Footnote_314_314"></a><a href="#FNanchor_314_314"><span class="label">[314]</span></a> John xi. 49, 50.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_315_315" id="Footnote_315_315"></a><a href="#FNanchor_315_315"><span class="label">[315]</span></a> John xi. 53.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_316_316" id="Footnote_316_316"></a><a href="#FNanchor_316_316"><span class="label">[316]</span></a> Luke xxii. 1-3.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_317_317" id="Footnote_317_317"></a><a href="#FNanchor_317_317"><span class="label">[317]</span></a> Matt. xxvi. 3-5.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_318_318" id="Footnote_318_318"></a><a href="#FNanchor_318_318"><span class="label">[318]</span></a> Benny, "Criminal Code of the Jews," p. 56.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_319_319" id="Footnote_319_319"></a><a href="#FNanchor_319_319"><span class="label">[319]</span></a> Geikie, "The Life and Words of Christ," vol. ii. p. 517.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_320_320" id="Footnote_320_320"></a><a href="#FNanchor_320_320"><span class="label">[320]</span></a> Deut. xix. 18-21.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_321_321" id="Footnote_321_321"></a><a href="#FNanchor_321_321"><span class="label">[321]</span></a> Mark xiv. 55.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_322_322" id="Footnote_322_322"></a><a href="#FNanchor_322_322"><span class="label">[322]</span></a> Mishna, Treatise "Makhoth."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_323_323" id="Footnote_323_323"></a><a href="#FNanchor_323_323"><span class="label">[323]</span></a>
</p>
<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">"Afresh the mighty line of years unroll'd,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">The Virgin now, now Saturn's sway returns;<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Now the blest globe a heaven-sprung Child adorns,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Whose genial power shall whelm earth's iron race,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">And plant once more the golden in its place."<br /></span>
</div></div>
<p class="right">&mdash;Virgil, Eclogue IV.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_324_324" id="Footnote_324_324"></a><a href="#FNanchor_324_324"><span class="label">[324]</span></a> Gen. xlix. 8-10.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_325_325" id="Footnote_325_325"></a><a href="#FNanchor_325_325"><span class="label">[325]</span></a> "Sanhedrin," fol. 97, verso.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_326_326" id="Footnote_326_326"></a><a href="#FNanchor_326_326"><span class="label">[326]</span></a> "Martyrdom of Jesus," p. 76.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_327_327" id="Footnote_327_327"></a><a href="#FNanchor_327_327"><span class="label">[327]</span></a> John xi. 48-50.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_328_328" id="Footnote_328_328"></a><a href="#FNanchor_328_328"><span class="label">[328]</span></a> I Sam. xv. 29.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_329_329" id="Footnote_329_329"></a><a href="#FNanchor_329_329"><span class="label">[329]</span></a> Hosea xi. 9.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_330_330" id="Footnote_330_330"></a><a href="#FNanchor_330_330"><span class="label">[330]</span></a> Mark vii. 9-13.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_331_331" id="Footnote_331_331"></a><a href="#FNanchor_331_331"><span class="label">[331]</span></a> "Jewish Encyc.," vol. i. p. 583.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_332_332" id="Footnote_332_332"></a><a href="#FNanchor_332_332"><span class="label">[332]</span></a> Hodge, "Systematic Theology," vol. i. p. 485.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_333_333" id="Footnote_333_333"></a><a href="#FNanchor_333_333"><span class="label">[333]</span></a> Steenstra, "The Being of God as Unity and Trinity," pp. 192, 193.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_334_334" id="Footnote_334_334"></a><a href="#FNanchor_334_334"><span class="label">[334]</span></a> John ii. 15.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_335_335" id="Footnote_335_335"></a><a href="#FNanchor_335_335"><span class="label">[335]</span></a> John vi. 30.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_336_336" id="Footnote_336_336"></a><a href="#FNanchor_336_336"><span class="label">[336]</span></a> John x. 24, 25.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_337_337" id="Footnote_337_337"></a><a href="#FNanchor_337_337"><span class="label">[337]</span></a> Matt. xi. 4, 5.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_338_338" id="Footnote_338_338"></a><a href="#FNanchor_338_338"><span class="label">[338]</span></a> I Kings xvii. 17-22.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_339_339" id="Footnote_339_339"></a><a href="#FNanchor_339_339"><span class="label">[339]</span></a> John xi. 41.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_340_340" id="Footnote_340_340"></a><a href="#FNanchor_340_340"><span class="label">[340]</span></a> Matt. ix. 18-26; Mark v. 22-42; Luke viii. 41-55.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_341_341" id="Footnote_341_341"></a><a href="#FNanchor_341_341"><span class="label">[341]</span></a> Luke vii. 12-15.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_342_342" id="Footnote_342_342"></a><a href="#FNanchor_342_342"><span class="label">[342]</span></a> John iii. 2.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_343_343" id="Footnote_343_343"></a><a href="#FNanchor_343_343"><span class="label">[343]</span></a> See Friedlieb, Archæol., 87; Dupin, 75; Keim, vol. iii. 327.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_344_344" id="Footnote_344_344"></a><a href="#FNanchor_344_344"><span class="label">[344]</span></a> Bab. Sanh. f. 63, 1: "Cum synedrium quemquam moti adjudicavit, ne
quidquam degustent illi isto die."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_345_345" id="Footnote_345_345"></a><a href="#FNanchor_345_345"><span class="label">[345]</span></a> Andrews, "The Life of Our Lord," p. 522.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_346_346" id="Footnote_346_346"></a><a href="#FNanchor_346_346"><span class="label">[346]</span></a> "The Life of Our Lord," pp. 523, 524.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_347_347" id="Footnote_347_347"></a><a href="#FNanchor_347_347"><span class="label">[347]</span></a> Luke xxii. 66-71.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_348_348" id="Footnote_348_348"></a><a href="#FNanchor_348_348"><span class="label">[348]</span></a> See Part II, Chap. V.; also Benny, "Crim. Code of the Jews," pp.
81-83.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_349_349" id="Footnote_349_349"></a><a href="#FNanchor_349_349"><span class="label">[349]</span></a> Keim, "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. pp. 63, 64.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_350_350" id="Footnote_350_350"></a><a href="#FNanchor_350_350"><span class="label">[350]</span></a> John xviii. 28.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_351_351" id="Footnote_351_351"></a><a href="#FNanchor_351_351"><span class="label">[351]</span></a> "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.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_352_352" id="Footnote_352_352"></a><a href="#FNanchor_352_352"><span class="label">[352]</span></a> Keim, "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. p. 74.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_353_353" id="Footnote_353_353"></a><a href="#FNanchor_353_353"><span class="label">[353]</span></a> John iii. 1; vii. 50.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_354_354" id="Footnote_354_354"></a><a href="#FNanchor_354_354"><span class="label">[354]</span></a> Luke xxiii. 50, 51.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_355_355" id="Footnote_355_355"></a><a href="#FNanchor_355_355"><span class="label">[355]</span></a> Matt. xxvi. 59; Mark xiv. 55; Matt. xxvii. 1; Mark xv. 1.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_356_356" id="Footnote_356_356"></a><a href="#FNanchor_356_356"><span class="label">[356]</span></a> Mark xiv. 63, 64; Luke xxii. 70, 71.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_357_357" id="Footnote_357_357"></a><a href="#FNanchor_357_357"><span class="label">[357]</span></a> Keim, "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. p. 74, n. 2.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_358_358" id="Footnote_358_358"></a><a href="#FNanchor_358_358"><span class="label">[358]</span></a> Acts vi. 11; vii. 59.</p></div>
</div>

<hr class="l65" />
<h2><a name="INDEX" id="INDEX"></a>INDEX</h2>

<ul>
<li class="center p2">A</li>

<li>Abarbanel, Isaac, on the Sanhedrin, I, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li>

<li>Ab-beth-din, vice-president of the Sanhedrin, I, <a href="#Page_112">112</a></li>

<li>Abbott, Lyman, on the scribes of the Sanhedrin, I, <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li>

<li><a name="Acts_of_Pilate" id="Acts_of_Pilate"></a>Acts of Pilate, the Apocryphal,</li>
<li class="in">modern criticism of, II, 327</li>
<li class="in">discovery of, II, 327</li>
<li class="in">Lardner on the authenticity of, II, 328 <i>seq.</i></li>
<li class="in">Tischendorf on the authenticity of, II, 345 <i>seq.</i></li>
<li class="in">antiquity of, II, 351</li>
<li class="in">text of, II, 351 <i>seq.</i></li>

<li>Æbutius, Publius, part of, in the exposure of Bacchanalian orgies, II,
271 <i>seq.</i></li>

<li>Ædile, Roman, judicial powers of, II, 36</li>

<li>Æsculapius, Græco-Roman divinity, II, 198</li>

<li>Akiba, Jewish rabbi, Mishna systematized by, I, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></li>

<li>Albanus, Roman governor, his deposition of Albanus, II, 296</li>

<li>Alcmene, myth of Zeus and, II, 265</li>

<li>Alexander, Jewish Alabarch, biographical note on, II, 299</li>

<li>Alexander III, pope, genuineness of "true cross" attested by bull of,
II, 63</li>

<li>Alexandrian MS. of the Bible, I, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li>

<li>Ananias ben Nebedeus, Jewish priest,</li>
<li class="in">biographical note on, II, 299</li>
<li class="in">family of, cursed in Talmud, II, 302</li>

<li>Ananos. See <a href="#Annas">Annas</a></li>

<li>Ananus, son of Annas, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 296</li>

<li>Anathemas, Jewish, against the Christians, II, 307, 308</li>

<li>Anaxagoras, Greek philosopher,</li>
<li class="in">on the deification of natural forces,
II, 225</li>
<li class="in">his exposure of the divination of Lampon, II, 226</li>

<li>Annanias, author of "Acts of Pilate," II, 351</li>

<li><a name="Annas" id="Annas"></a>Annas (Ananos), Jewish high priest,</li>
<li class="in">examination of Christ before, I, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>-<a href="#Page_247">247</a></li>
<li class="in">deposition of, by Gratus, I, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>; II, 20</li>
<li class="in">Christ examined in house of, I, <a href="#Page_256">256</a></li>
<li class="in">biographical note on, II, 295</li>
<li class="in">legendary examination of Joseph of Arimathea, II, 374, 376</li>

<li>Antecedent Warning, peculiar provision of Hebrew Criminal Law
regarding, I, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>-<a href="#Page_152">152</a></li>

<li>Antistius, L., Roman tribune, impeachment of Julius Cæsar by, II, 46</li>

<li>Antoninus Pius, Roman emperor, persecution of Christians by, II, 78</li>

<li>Aphrodisia, rites of, II, 265</li>

<li>Aphrodite, Greek divinity, patroness of prostitutes, II, 265</li>

<li>Aquillius, Manlius, Roman governor, trial of, before the Comitia, II, 40</li>

<li>Antonius, Marcus, Roman advocate, defense of, of Manlius Aquillius, II, 40</li>

<li>Aristotle, Greek philosopher, on the licentiousness of Sparta, II, 241</li>

<li>Arnold, Matthew, on despair of Roman people, II, 286</li>

<li>Arnobius, Numidian writer, </li>
<li class="in">on the familiar treatment of Roman gods,
II, 218</li>
<li class="in">on the lewdness of the Roman drama, II, 267</li>

<li>Art, effect of, in corruption of Roman and Greek morals, II, 268</li>

<li>Aspasia, mistress of Pericles, II, 242</li>

<li>Athens, domestic licentiousness of, II, 240, 241</li>

<li>Athronges, Jewish peasant, revolt of, II, 110</li>

<li>Atticus, Numerius, Roman senator, attests ascent of Augustus to
heaven, II, 234</li>

<li>Atys, myth of, represented on Greek and Roman stage, II, 267</li>

<li>Augurs,</li>
<li class="in">Roman priests, II, 204</li>
<li class="in">spectators at licentious dramas, II, 267</li>

<li>Augury, modes of, II, 211</li>

<li><a name="Augustus_Caesar" id="Augustus_Caesar"></a>Augustus Cæsar, Roman emperor,</li>
<li class="in">reign and policy of, II, 25, 26</li>
<li class="in">care of profligate daughter Julia, II, 83</li>
<li class="in">belief of, in omens, II, 215</li>
<li class="in">his chastisement of Neptune, II, 222</li>
<li class="in">deification of, II, 233</li>

<li>Aurelius Antoninus, Marcus, Roman emperor and philosopher,</li>
<li class="in">persecution
of Christianity by, II, 78</li>
<li class="in">adoration of Serapis by, II, 217</li>
<li class="in">on suicide, II, 232</li>

<li class="center p2">B</li>

<li>Bacchanalian orgies, Livy's account of, II, 270-283</li>

<li>Bacchus, Roman deity, licentious festivals of, II, 265</li>

<li>Barabbas (Bar Abbas) released by Pilate, II, 131, 138, 363</li>

<li>Baring-Gould, S., on the symbolism of the Cross, II, 66</li>

<li>Baths, Roman, splendor of, II, 247</li>

<li>Beheading of criminals under Hebrew Law, I, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li>

<li>Benny,</li>
<li class="in">on the Talmud, I, <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li>
<li class="in">on internment in Jewish Cities of Refuge, I, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li>

<li>Bernhardt, Sarah, insulted in Quebec, II, 182</li>

<li>Bernice (Berenice), Jewish queen, a suppliant before Florus, II, 100</li>

<li>Bible,</li>
<li class="in">the manuscripts of, I, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li>
<li class="in">purity of text of, I, <a href="#Page_69">69</a></li>
<li class="in">anthropomorphism of, I, <a href="#Page_336">336</a>-<a href="#Page_338">338</a></li>
<li class="in">influence of, II, 4, 5</li>
<li class="in">"Birchath Hamminim" Jewish imprecation against Christians, II, 308</li>

<li>Blasphemy,</li>
<li class="in">discussion of charge against Christ of, I, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>-<a href="#Page_209">209</a></li>
<li class="in">Hebrew definition of, I, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>-<a href="#Page_201">201</a></li>
<li class="in">classification of, I, <a href="#Page_203">203</a></li>

<li>Boethus, family of, cursed in Talmud, II, 301. See also <a href="#Simon">Simon</a></li>

<li>Bossuet, Jacques B., French divine, on the citizenship of Christ, II,
108</li>

<li>Brothels, Roman, dedication of, to Venus, II, 265</li>

<li>Burning of criminals under Hebrew Law, I, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li>

<li class="center p2">C</li>

<li>Cæsar, Caius Julius,</li>
<li class="in">10th legion cowed by, II, 169</li>
<li class="in">superstition of, II, 205</li>
<li class="in">disbelief of, in immortality, II, 229</li>
<li class="in">deification of, II, 233</li>
<li class="in">divorces of, II, 238</li>
<li class="in">profligacy of, II, 238, 239</li>
<li class="in">unnatural practices attributed to, II, 263</li>

<li>Caiaphas, Jewish high priest,</li>
<li class="in">accusation of, against Christ, before
Sanhedrin, I, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li>
<li class="in">erratic conduct of, at trial of Christ, I, <a href="#Page_290">290</a></li>
<li class="in">rôle of, in trial of Jesus before Pilate, II, 101</li>
<li class="in">biographical note on, II, 295</li>
<li class="in">legendary examination of Joseph of Arimathea by, II, 374, 376</li>

<li>Caligula, Roman emperor,</li>
<li class="in">deifies his sister Drusilla, II, 234</li>
<li class="in">depravity of, II, 234</li>

<li>Cantharus, family of, cursed in Talmud, II, 301</li>

<li>Capital Crimes under Hebrew Criminal Law, classification and
punishments of, I, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>-<a href="#Page_101">101</a></li>

<li>Carlyle, Thomas, on the life of Christ, II, 187</li>

<li>Cassius, Dion, on the labeling of Roman criminals, I, <a href="#Page_57">57</a></li>

<li>Cato, Marcus Porcius,</li>
<li class="in">contempt of, for the haruspices, II, 228</li>
<li class="in">suicide of, II, 232</li>
<li class="in">divorces of, II, 237</li>
<li class="in">contempt of, for Lucullus, II, 246</li>
<li class="in">merciless treatment of slaves, II, 251</li>

<li>Catulus, Quintus, dream of, presaging accession of Augustus, II, 214</li>

<li>Chanania, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 314</li>

<li>Chanania ben Chiskia, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 309</li>

<li>Charles IX, king of France, bloody sweat of, I, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li>

<li>Christianity, conflict of, with Roman paganism, I, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>; II, 76-79</li>

<li>Chrysostom, St. John, on the legendary desire of Tiberius to deify
Christ, II, 344</li>

<li>Cicero, Marcus Tullius,</li>
<li class="in">dream of, presaging accession of Augustus, II,
215</li>
<li class="in">on Roman superstition, II, 221</li>
<li class="in">on Roman skepticism, II, 227</li>
<li class="in">his divorce of his wife, II, 237</li>
<li class="in">witticism of, upon Cæsar's gallantries, II, 239</li>

<li>Cities of Refuge, Jewish, internment in, I, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>-<a href="#Page_99">99</a></li>

<li>Claudia, granddaughter of Augustus,</li>
<li class="in">marriage of, to Pilate, II, 82</li>
<li class="in">dream of, regarding Jesus, II, 133, 355</li>

<li>Claudius, Roman commander, throws sacred pullets into the sea, II, 222</li>

<li>Clement V, pope, and the Talmud, I, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>

<li>Coliseum, the, description of, II, 260</li>

<li>Comitia Centuriata,</li>
<li class="in">public criminal trials in, II, 37-43</li>
<li class="in">miscarriage of justice in, II, 38-42</li>

<li>Commodus, Roman emperor, deification of, II, 234</li>

<li>Consul, Roman, judicial powers of, II, 36</li>

<li>Coke, Sir Edward, contrast between Pilate and, II, 170-172</li>

<li>Cornelius, son of Ceron, the elder, biographical note on, II, 321</li>

<li>Cross, Roman instrument of death,</li>
<li class="in">erroneous representations of, II, 56</li>
<li class="in">forms of, II, 62</li>
<li class="in">use of, by various races as religious symbol, II, 64-67</li>

<li>"Cross, the True," legends of, II, 62, 63</li>

<li>Crucifixion,</li>
<li class="in">Plutarch on, I, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li>
<li class="in">history of, II, 54, 55</li>
<li class="in">mode of, II, 55</li>
<li class="in">pathology of, II, 58, 59</li>
<li class="in">Roman citizens exempt from, II, 54</li>
<li class="in">of Jesus, II, 365</li>

<li>Cybele, Roman deity, importation of, from Phrygia, II, 199</li>

<li class="center p2">D</li>

<li>Deification of Roman emperors, ceremony of, II, 234</li>

<li>Dembowski, Bishop, and the Talmud, I, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>

<li>Demosthenes, on the women of Athens, II, 242</li>

<li><span class="err" title="original: Derembourg"><a name="Derembourg" id="Derembourg"></a>Dérembourg</span>, Joseph, on the Jewish priestly families, II, 294</li>

<li>Deutsch, Emanuel,</li>
<li class="in">on the Talmud, I, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
<li class="in">on the existence of the Great Sanhedrin at the time of Christ, I,
<a href="#Page_179">179</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a></li>

<li>Diocletian, Roman emperor, deification of, II, 233</li>

<li>Divination, Roman modes of, II, 211</li>

<li>Divorce,</li>
<li class="in">among the Romans, II, 236-239</li>
<li class="in">trivial pretexts for, II, 237, 238</li>

<li>Döllinger,</li>
<li class="in">on the Roman view of Christianity and high treason, II, 77</li>
<li class="in">on divorce, and the profligacy of Roman matrons, II, 236</li>
<li class="in">on the effect of art in corrupting Greek and Roman manners, II, 268</li>

<li>Domitian, Roman emperor, self-deification of, II, 235</li>

<li>Doras, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 321</li>

<li>Dorotheas, son of Nathanael, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II,
321</li>

<li>Drama, the, licentiousness of, among Greeks and Romans, II, 266</li>

<li>Dreams, interpretation of, among Romans and Greeks, II, 213, 214</li>

<li>Druidism, annihilation of, II, 73</li>

<li>Drusilla, deified by Caligula, II, 234</li>

<li><a name="Dysmas" id="Dysmas"></a>Dysmas, legendary name of one <span class="err" title="original: of thieves">of the thieves</span> crucified with Jesus, II, 364</li>

<li class="center p2">E</li>

<li>Edersheim, Alfred, on the existence of the Great Sanhedrin at the time
of Christ, I, <a href="#Page_177">177</a></li>

<li>Elders, Jewish chamber of. See <a href="#Sanhedrin">Sanhedrin</a></li>

<li>Eleazar ben Partah, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 314</li>

<li>Eleazar, son of Annas, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II,
295</li>

<li>Eleazar, son of Simon Boethus, Jewish high priest, biographical note
on, II, 297</li>

<li>Eliezer, Jewish rabbi, Mishna amplified by, I, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></li>

<li>Ellicott, Dr., on the character of Pilate, II, 91</li>

<li>Epicurus, Greek philosopher, II, 229</li>

<li>Epicureanism, degradation of, among Romans, II, 230</li>

<li>Epitaphs, irreligious Roman, II, 222, 285</li>

<li>Epulos, Roman priests, II, 204</li>

<li>Etruria, importation of haruspices from, II, 210</li>

<li>Eusebius, reference of, to the "Acts of Pilate," II, 329, 333, 344</li>

<li>Evhemere, on the Greek gods, II, 225</li>

<li>Evangelists,</li>
<li class="in">honesty of, I, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>
<li class="in">character of, I, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a></li>
<li class="in">motives of, I, <a href="#Page_15">15</a></li>
<li class="in">ability of, I, <a href="#Page_18">18</a></li>
<li class="in">candor of, I, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>-<a href="#Page_24">24</a></li>
<li class="in">discrepancies of, I, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>-<a href="#Page_33">33</a></li>
<li class="in">corroborative elements of narrative of, I, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>-<a href="#Page_39">39</a></li>
<li class="in">impossibility of collusion among, I, <a href="#Page_38">38</a></li>
<li class="in">conformity of narrative of, with human experience, I, <a href="#Page_39">39</a></li>
<li class="in">coincidence of testimony of, with collateral circumstances, I, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>-<a href="#Page_67">67</a></li>
<li class="in">narrative of, confirmed by profane historians, I, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a></li>

<li>Evidence, rules of, under Hebrew Law, I, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a></li>

<li class="center p2">F</li>

<li>False swearing under Hebrew Criminal Law, I, <a href="#Page_93">93</a></li>

<li>Fathers, Church, writings of the, I, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li>

<li>Fecenia, Hispala, part of, in exposure of Bacchanalian orgies, II,
271 <i>seq.</i></li>

<li>Felix, Minucius, Christian father, controversy of, with pagans on
adoration of the cross, II, 64</li>

<li>Flagellation, under Hebrew Criminal, I, <a href="#Page_94">94</a></li>

<li>Flamens,</li>
<li class="in">Roman priests, II, 204</li>
<li class="in">spectators at licentious dramas, II,
267</li>

<li class="center p2">G</li>

<li>Gallio, pro-consul of Achaia, attitude of, toward Jewish clamors, II,
107</li>

<li>Gamaliel, Jewish rabbi, biographical note on, II, 304</li>

<li>Ganymede, depraving influence of myth of rape of, II, 262</li>

<li>Gavazzi, Alessandro, sermons of, in Coliseum, II, 262</li>

<li>Geib, on the status of Judea, II, 16 on the courts of the Roman
Provinces, II, 32</li>

<li>Geikie, Cunningham,</li>
<li class="in">on the non-existence of the Sanhedrin at the time
of Christ, I, <a href="#Page_181">181</a></li>
<li class="in">on the character of the trial of Jesus before Sanhedrin, I, <a href="#Page_184">184</a></li>

<li><a name="Gemara" id="Gemara"></a>Gemara,</li>
<li class="in">the Jerusalem and Babylonian recensions of, I, <a href="#Page_81">81</a></li>
<li class="in">relation of, to Mishna, I, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>. See also <a href="#Talmud">Talmud</a> and <a href="#Mishna">Mishna</a></li>

<li>Germanicus,</li>
<li class="in">Cæsar temples profaned on death of, II, 222</li>
<li class="in">exposure of children born on day of death of, II, 254</li>

<li>Gestas, legendary name of one of thieves crucified with Jesus, II, 364</li>

<li>Golden House of Nero, II, 246</li>

<li>Gibbon, Edward,</li>
<li class="in">on the jurisdiction of the great Sanhedrin, I, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li>
<li class="in">on the laws of the Twelve Tables, II, 53</li>
<li class="in">on the extent of the Roman Empire, II, 196</li>

<li>Gladiatorial games,</li>
<li class="in">origin of, II, 256</li>
<li class="in">gigantic scale of, in Rome, II, 256, 257</li>
<li class="in">conduct of, II, 258</li>

<li>Gospels, the, admissibility of, as legal evidence, I, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>-<a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>

<li>Governors, Roman,</li>
<li class="in">powers of, II, 24, 27, 28, 29</li>
<li class="in">forbidden to take wives to their provinces, II, 84, 85</li>

<li>Graetz, Heinrich, on the existence of the Sanhedrin at the time of
Christ, I, <a href="#Page_181">181</a></li>

<li>Greeks,</li>
<li class="in">superstition of, II, 223</li>
<li class="in">philosophy of, II, 229</li>
<li class="in">depraving effect on Romans of art, literature, and manners of, II,
40-244, 268, 284</li>
<li class="in">Bacchanalian orgies introduced by, II, 270</li>
<li class="in">invective of Juvenal against, II, 284</li>

<li>Greenidge, on the interpretation of native law by Roman proprætors,
II, 31</li>

<li>Greenleaf, Simon, American jurist,</li>
<li class="in">on the admissibility of the Scriptures as legal evidence, I, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>-<a href="#Page_9">9</a></li>
<li class="in">on the testimony of the Evangelists, I, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a></li>
<li class="in">on the legal justice of the conviction of Christ for blasphemy, I,
<a href="#Page_209">209</a></li>

<li class="center p2">H</li>

<li>Hacksab ben Tzitzith, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 320</li>

<li>"Hall of Hewn Stones," sessions of Sanhedrin in, I, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li>

<li>Haruspices, Roman, account of, II, 210</li>

<li>Helcias, Jewish treasurer, biographical note on, II, 300</li>

<li>Helena, Empress, legendary discovery of "true cross" by, II, 62</li>

<li>Hercules, Greek divinity, burning of, represented on Greek and Roman
stage, II, 267</li>

<li>Herder, Johann, on the character of Christ, II, 187</li>

<li>Herod Antipas,</li>
<li class="in">character of, II, 120</li>
<li class="in">his treatment of Jesus, II, 122-127</li>

<li>Herod I, the Great,</li>
<li class="in">last will of, II, 119, 120</li>
<li class="in">arbitrary changes of, in high priesthood, II, 293</li>

<li>Hetairai, status of, in Athens, II, 242, 243</li>

<li>High priest, Jewish,</li>
<li class="in">vestments of, I, <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li>
<li class="in">abuses in appointment of, II, 293</li>

<li>Hillel, Jewish doctor, inspiration of, I, <a href="#Page_84">84</a></li>

<li>Hillel, School of,</li>
<li class="in">and the Mishna, I, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></li>
<li class="in">dissensions of, with School of Shammai, II, 309</li>

<li>Homer, the bible of the Greeks, II, 264</li>

<li>Honorius IV, pope, and the Talmud, I, <a href="#Page_87">87</a></li>

<li>Horatius, trial of, before the Comitia Centuriata, II, 40</li>

<li class="center p2">I</li>

<li>Ignatius, St., martyrdom of, in Coliseum, II, 261</li>

<li>Impalement, death by, II, 61</li>

<li>Infanticide, among Romans, II, 254</li>

<li>Inkerman, story of soldier killed at battle of, II, 191</li>

<li>Innes,</li>
<li class="in">on the trials of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, I, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>; II, 10</li>
<li class="in">on the cowardice of Pilate, II, 138</li>

<li>Interpreters, not allowed in Jewish courts, I, <a href="#Page_107">107</a></li>

<li>Imprisonment. See <a href="#Law_Hebrew_Criminal">Law, Hebrew Criminal</a>, I, <a href="#Page_93">93</a></li>

<li>Ishmael, Jewish rabbi, and the Mishna, I, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></li>

<li>Ismael ben Eliza, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 309</li>

<li>Ismael ben Phabi, Jewish high priest,</li>
<li class="in">biographical note on, II, 298</li>
<li class="in">family of, cursed in Talmud, II, 301</li>

<li>Isis, Egyptian deity,</li>
<li class="in">rites of, established in Rome, II, 217</li>
<li class="in">Roman temples of, a resort of vice, II, 269</li>

<li>Issachar ben Keifar Barchi, Jewish priest, cursed in Talmud, II, 302</li>

<li class="center p2">J</li>

<li>James, brother of Jesus, condemnation of, by Ananus, II, 296</li>

<li>Janus, Roman god, invocations of, II, 207</li>

<li>Jehovah, appearances of, in human form, I, <a href="#Page_343">343</a>-<a href="#Page_349">349</a></li>

<li>Jerome, St., on the Jewish anathema against Christians, II, 308</li>

<li>Jesus, the Christ,</li>
<li class="in">human perfection of, I, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>; II, 186</li>
<li class="in">scourging of, I, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a></li>
<li class="in">breaking of legs of, by soldiers, I, <a href="#Page_57">57</a></li>
<li class="in">bloody sweat of, I, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li>
<li class="in">physical cause of death of, I, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
<li class="in">watery issue of, I, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>-<a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
<li class="in">devotion of women to, I, <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li>
<li class="in">resurrection of, I, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>; II, 368</li>
<li class="in">divinity of, I, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>, <a href="#Page_212">212</a></li>
<li class="in">celebrates the Paschal feast, I, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>-<a href="#Page_224">224</a></li>
<li class="in">at Gethsemane, I, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>-<a href="#Page_226">226</a></li>
<li class="in">arrest of, I, <a href="#Page_225">225</a></li>
<li class="in">private examination of, before high priest, I, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>-<a href="#Page_247">247</a></li>
<li class="in">charged with sedition and blasphemy I, <a href="#Page_250">250</a></li>
<li class="in">annnounces his Messiahship before Sanhedrin, I, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>, <a href="#Page_274">274</a></li>
<li class="in">Messianic prophecies fulfilled in Him, I, <a href="#Page_323">323</a>-<a href="#Page_328">328</a>, <a href="#Page_341">341</a>, <a href="#Page_342">342</a></li>
<li class="in">miracles of, I, <a href="#Page_350">350</a>-<a href="#Page_355">355</a></li>
<li class="in">at morning session of Sanhedrin, I, <a href="#Page_356">356</a>-<a href="#Page_362">362</a></li>
<li class="in">condemned to death by Sanhedrin, I, <a href="#Page_365">365</a></li>
<li class="in">His teachings treasonable under Roman law, II, 72</li>
<li class="in">before Pilate, II, 96 <i>seq.</i></li>
<li class="in">charged with high treason before Pilate, II, 106, 352</li>
<li class="in">indictment of, before Pilate, II, 107-109</li>
<li class="in">acquitted by Pilate, II, 116</li>
<li class="in">sent by Pilate to Herod, II, 118</li>
<li class="in">before Herod, II, 119 <i>seq.</i></li>
<li class="in">mocked, and sent back to Pilate by Herod, II, 127</li>
<li class="in">second appearance of, before Pilate, II, 129 <i>seq.</i></li>
<li class="in">delivered to Jews by Pilate, II, 138</li>
<li class="in">mocked by mob, II, 139</li>
<li class="in">tributes of skeptics to, II, 187</li>
<li class="in">Napoleon's tribute to, II, 189, 190</li>
<li class="in">charged by Jews with illegitimacy, II, 356</li>
<li class="in">crucifixion of, II, 365</li>
<li class="in">See also <a href="#Trial_of_Jesus_Hebrew">trial of Jesus, Hebrew</a>, and <a href="#Trial_of_Jesus_Roman">trial of Jesus, Roman</a></li>

<li>Jesus ben Sie, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 298</li>

<li>Jews, the political state of,</li>
<li class="in">at time of Jesus, II, 11-23</li>
<li class="in">discussion of their responsibility for Christ's death, II, 174-180</li>
<li class="in">prejudices against, II, 180-187</li>
<li class="in">distinguished, II, 185, 186</li>

<li>Joazar, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 296</li>

<li>Jochanan ben Zakai, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 311</li>

<li>John, St.,</li>
<li class="in">at the sepulcher, I, <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li>
<li class="in">at the crucifixion of Christ, I, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>

<li>John, St., Gospel of, style of, I, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>

<li>John, Jewish priest, biographical note on, II, 299</li>

<li>Jonathan, son of Annas, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II,
295</li>

<li>Jonathan ben Uziel, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 306</li>

<li>John, son of John, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 321</li>

<li>Joseph of Arimathea,</li>
<li class="in">presence of, at trials of Christ, I, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>-<a href="#Page_286">286</a>, <a href="#Page_364">364</a></li>
<li class="in">biographical note on, II, 318</li>
<li class="in">receives body of Jesus from Pilate, II, 366</li>
<li class="in">apocryphal account of escape of, from Jews, II, 367, 373-376</li>

<li>Josephus, Flavius,</li>
<li class="in">on the character of Pilate, I, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>
<li class="in">on scourging I, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li>
<li class="in">on the Pharisees, I, <a href="#Page_87">87</a></li>
<li class="in">on the existence of the great Sanhedrin at time of Christ, I, <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li>
<li class="in">on the loss, by Jews, of power of life and death, II, 19</li>
<li class="in">on the rapacity of the high priests, II, 301</li>

<li>Jowett, Benjamin, upon the corruption of Rome, II, 240</li>

<li>Judah, the Holy, Jewish rabbi, and the composition of the Mishna, I,
<a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>

<li>Judas, son of Hezekiah, Jewish rebel, put to death by Herod, II, 109</li>

<li>Judas Iscariot, his betrayal of Christ, I, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>-<a href="#Page_235">235</a></li>

<li>Julia, daughter of Augustus,</li>
<li class="in">profligacy of, II, 82</li>
<li class="in">marriages of, II, 83</li>

<li>Julian, Roman emperor, his defiance of Mars, II, 222</li>

<li>Juno, Roman divinity, sacrifices to, II, 208</li>

<li>Jupiter, Roman deity,</li>
<li class="in">multitudinous forms of, II, 203</li>
<li class="in">sacrifices to, II, 208</li>

<li>Justin Martyr, reference of, to "Acts of Pilate," II, 331, 346, 348</li>

<li>Juvenal, Satires of, on Roman social depravity, II, 240, 244, 248</li>

<li class="center p2">K</li>

<li>Keim, Theodor,</li>
<li class="in">on the existence of the Great Sanhedrin at the time of Christ, I,
<a href="#Page_178">178</a></li>
<li class="in">on the character of Christ, II, 188, 189</li>

<li>Knight, R. P., on the symbolism of the Cross, II, 65</li>

<li>Koran, the, I, <a href="#Page_77">77</a></li>

<li class="center p2">L</li>

<li>Lamartine, Alphonse, on the death of Christ, II, 3</li>

<li>Lampon, Greek diviner, exposed by Anaxagoras, II, 226</li>

<li>Lardner, on the authenticity of the "Acts of Pilate," II, 328 <i>seq.</i></li>

<li><a name="Law_Hebrew_Criminal" id="Law_Hebrew_Criminal"></a>Law, Hebrew Criminal,</li>
<li class="in">administration of, I, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a></li>
<li class="in">basis of, I, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
<li class="in">burial of bodies after execution under, I, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li>
<li class="in">capital punishments under, I, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>-<a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>-<a href="#Page_101">101</a></li>
<li class="in">circumstantial evidence under, I, <a href="#Page_144">144</a></li>
<li class="in">Cities of Refuge under, I, <a href="#Page_96">96</a></li>
<li class="in">courts and judges, I, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>-<a href="#Page_126">126</a></li>
<li class="in">execution under, I, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li>
<li class="in">false swearing under, I, <a href="#Page_93">93</a></li>
<li class="in">flagellation under, I, <a href="#Page_94">94</a></li>
<li class="in">imprisonment under, I, <a href="#Page_93">93</a></li>
<li class="in">peculiarities of, I, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li>
<li class="in">slavery under, I, <a href="#Page_95">95</a></li>
<li class="in">tenderness of, for human life, I, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310</a></li>
<li class="in">testimony under, I, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>-<a href="#Page_147">147</a></li>
<li class="in">witnesses under, I, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>-<a href="#Page_144">144</a></li>
<li class="in">written and documentary evidence irrelevant, I, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a></li>

<li>Laws, Roman,</li>
<li class="in">lex Appuleia, II, 69</li>
<li class="in">Cornelia, II, 69</li>
<li class="in">Julia Majestatis, II, 69, 80</li>
<li class="in">Memmia, II, 46</li>
<li class="in">Porcia, II, 54</li>
<li class="in">Remmia, II, 49</li>
<li class="in">Talionis, II, 53</li>
<li class="in">Valeria, II, 37, 54</li>
<li class="in">Varia, II, 69</li>

<li>Lazarus, raising of, from the dead, I, <a href="#Page_352">352</a></li>

<li>Lectisternia, Roman banquets to the gods,</li>
<li class="in">slaves released at, II, 130</li>
<li class="in">indecencies of, II, 218</li>

<li><a name="Lemann" id="Lemann"></a><span class="err" title="original: Lemann">Lémann</span>, extract from work of, on Sanhedrin, II, 291</li>

<li>Lepidus, Marcus, Roman patrician, magnificence of, II, 246</li>

<li>Livy,</li>
<li class="in">on scourging, I, <a href="#Page_57">57</a></li>
<li class="in">account of Bacchanalian orgies, II, 270-283</li>

<li>Longinus, legendary name of soldier who pierced Christ, II, 379</li>

<li>Lucullus, Roman patrician, luxury of, II, 244</li>

<li>Luke, St., occupation of, I, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>

<li>Luke, St., Gospel of, style of, I, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>

<li>Lupercals, Roman priests, II, 204</li>

<li>Luxury of the Romans, II, 244</li>

<li>Lycurgus, code of, II, 241</li>

<li class="center p2">M</li>

<li>Macarius, identification of "true cross" by, II, 63</li>

<li>Macaulay, Lord, speech of, on Jewish disabilities, II, 184</li>

<li>Mahomet, character of, I, <a href="#Page_14">14</a></li>

<li>Malchus, ear of, cut off by Peter, I, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_226">226</a></li>

<li>Magath, Julius, extract from work of, II, 291</li>

<li>Maimonides,</li>
<li class="in">on Hebrew Capital Crimes, I, <a href="#Page_91">91</a></li>
<li class="in">on the prohibition of nocturnal trials, I, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>, <a href="#Page_256">256</a></li>

<li>Manlius, Marcus, trial of, before the Comitia Centuriata, II, 40</li>

<li>Marius, Caius, assassin cowed by, I, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>

<li>Mark, St., Jesus arrested at home of, I, <a href="#Page_220">220</a></li>

<li>Marriage,</li>
<li class="in">among the Romans, II, 236</li>
<li class="in">among the Greeks, II, 240-243</li>

<li>Marcius, Quintus, Roman consul, motion of, on the suppression of the
Bacchanalian orgies, II, 282</li>

<li>Mars, Roman deity, II, 208</li>

<li>Messiah, the,</li>
<li class="in">prophecies regarding, and their fulfillment in Jesus, I, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>-<a href="#Page_328">328</a></li>
<li class="in">varying expectations of Jews regarding, I, <a href="#Page_319">319</a>-<a href="#Page_322">322</a>; II, 110</li>
<li class="in">conception of Pharisees of, II, 324</li>
<li class="in">conception of Sadducees of, II, 325</li>

<li>Matthew, St., occupation of, I, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>

<li>Matthias, son of Annas, Jewish high priest, biographical note on,
II, 296</li>

<li>Mendelssohn, on the Talmud, I, <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li>

<li>Messalina, Roman empress, lewdness of, II, 244</li>

<li>Messalinus, Cotta, prosecuted for treason, II, 70</li>

<li>Metrodorus on the Greek gods, II, 226</li>

<li>Mezeray, de, on the bloody sweat of Charles IX, I, <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li>

<li>Minerva, Roman deity, II, 208</li>

<li>Miracles,</li>
<li class="in">probability of, I, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>-<a href="#Page_51">51</a></li>
<li class="in">Spinoza on, I, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>-<a href="#Page_43">43</a></li>
<li class="in">Renan on, I, <a href="#Page_44">44</a></li>
<li class="in">of Christ, I, <a href="#Page_351">351</a>-<a href="#Page_354">354</a></li>

<li><a name="Mishna" id="Mishna"></a>Mishna, the,</li>
<li class="in">E. Deutsch on, I, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
<li class="in">subdivisions of, I, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
<li class="in">relation of Talmud to, I, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li>
<li class="in">traditional view of, I, <a href="#Page_84">84</a></li>
<li class="in">on capital and pecuniary cases, I, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>. See also <a href="#Gemara">Gemara</a> and
<a href="#Talmud">Talmud</a>.</li>

<li>Mommsen, Theodor,</li>
<li class="in">on the jurisdiction of native courts of Roman
subject peoples, II, 15</li>
<li class="in">on Roman marital looseness, II, 243</li>
<li class="in">on Roman extravagance, II, 247</li>

<li>Montefiore, Sir Moses, anecdote of, II, 180</li>

<li>Mosaic Code, the, a basis of Hebrew Criminal Law, I, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>

<li>Müller, Johannes, explodes legend of Pilate and Lake Lucerne, II, 95</li>

<li class="center p2">N</li>

<li>Nachum Halbalar, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 314</li>

<li>Nævius, Marcus, accusation of Scipio Africanus by, II, 41</li>

<li>Napoleon I,</li>
<li class="in">fickleness of populace toward, I, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a></li>
<li class="in">tribute of, to Jesus, II, 189</li>
<li class="in">religious faith of, II, 190, 191</li>

<li>Nasi, prince of the Sanhedrin, I, <a href="#Page_112">112</a></li>

<li>Nathan, Jewish rabbi, note on, II, 315, note</li>

<li>Neptune, Roman deity, II, 208</li>

<li>Nero, Roman emperor,</li>
<li class="in">deification of, II, 234</li>
<li class="in">Golden House of, II, 246</li>

<li>Ney, Michel, French marshal, compared with St. Peter, I, <a href="#Page_64">64</a></li>

<li>Nicodemus, Jewish elder,</li>
<li class="in">presence of, at trial of Christ, I, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>-<a href="#Page_286">286</a></li>
<li class="in">defense of Christ before Sanhedrin, I, <a href="#Page_305">305</a></li>
<li class="in">presence and conduct of, at second trial of Jesus by Sanhedrin, I, <a href="#Page_364">364</a></li>
<li class="in">biographical note on, II, 319</li>
<li class="in">apocryphal account of pleading of, for Jesus before Pilate, II, 360</li>
<li class="in">Gospel of. See "<a href="#Acts_of_Pilate">Acts of Pilate</a>"</li>

<li>Nordau, Max, on Jewish pride in Jesus, II, 188</li>

<li class="center p2">O</li>

<li>Oaths, not administered to witnesses, under Jewish law, I, <a href="#Page_134">134</a></li>

<li>Octavian. See <a href="#Augustus_Caesar">Augustus</a></li>

<li>Omens, belief of Romans in, II, 215</li>

<li>Onkelos, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 305</li>

<li>Oracle, Delphic, consulted by Romans, II, 210</li>

<li>Osiris, Egyptian deity, the cross a symbol of, II, 66</li>

<li>Ovid, Roman poet, on unnatural practices in temples, II, 269</li>

<li class="center p2">P</li>

<li><a name="Paganism" id="Paganism"></a>Paganism, Græco-Roman,</li>
<li class="in">conflict of, with Christianity, I, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>; II, 76-79</li>
<li class="in">Hellenization of Roman religion, II, 199</li>
<li class="in">importation of foreign gods, II, 200</li>
<li class="in">origin and multiplicity of Roman gods, II, 198-204</li>
<li class="in">Roman priesthood, II, 204, 205</li>
<li class="in">Roman forms of worship, II, 205-209</li>
<li class="in">perplexity of worshipers regarding deities, II, 207</li>
<li class="in">prayer, II, 207, 208-210</li>
<li class="in">augury and divination, II, 210-215</li>
<li class="in">omens, II, 215, 216</li>
<li class="in">decay of Roman faith, II, 217-220</li>
<li class="in">Roman skepticism, II, 220-229</li>
<li class="in">sacrilege among Romans, II, 221</li>
<li class="in">disbelief of Romans in immortality, II, 228, 229</li>
<li class="in">Epicureanism among the Romans, II, 229-231</li>
<li class="in">stoicism, II, 231-233</li>
<li class="in">deification of Roman emperors, II, 233-235</li>
<li class="in">base deities of Romans, II, 265</li>
<li class="in">effect of religion in Greek and Roman social corruption, II, 269</li>

<li>Palace of Herod, description of, II, 96, 97</li>

<li>Paley, William, on the discrepancies of the Gospels, I, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li>

<li>Pan, Græco-Roman divinity, feasts of, II, 265</li>

<li>Paul, St.,</li>
<li class="in">on the depravity of Rome, II, 284</li>
<li class="in">delivery of, to Felix, II, 299</li>

<li>Pericles, Greek tyrant, and the divination of Lampon, II, 226</li>

<li>Pentateuch, the, a basis of Hebrew jurisprudence, I, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>

<li>Permanent Tribunals (quæstiones perpetuæ), mode of trials before, at
Rome, II, 43-52</li>

<li>Peter, St.,</li>
<li class="in">at the sepulcher, I, <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li>
<li class="in">compared with Marshal Ney, I, <a href="#Page_64">64</a></li>
<li class="in">and Malchus, I, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_226">226</a></li>

<li>Pharisees,</li>
<li class="in">and the Talmud, I, <a href="#Page_87">87</a></li>
<li class="in">attitude of, toward the law, I, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li>
<li class="in">dominant in priestly order, II, 302</li>
<li class="in">their conception of the Messiah, II, 324</li>
<li class="in">characteristics of, II, 324</li>

<li>Philip, St., and the feeding of the five thousand, I, <a href="#Page_35">35</a></li>

<li>Phillips, Wendell, on Hindu swordsmanship, I, <a href="#Page_48">48</a></li>

<li>Philo, Jewish philosopher, on the character of Pilate, I, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>; II, 89-91</li>

<li>Phryne, mistress of Praxiteles anecdote of, II, 242</li>

<li>Pilate, Pontius,</li>
<li class="in">powers of, as procurator of Judea, II, 27-31</li>
<li class="in">name and origin of, II, 81, 82</li>
<li class="in">marriage of, II, 82</li>
<li class="in">becomes procurator of Judea, II, 84</li>
<li class="in">provokes the Jews, II, 85</li>
<li class="in">appropriates funds from Corban, II, 86</li>
<li class="in">hangs shields in Herod's palace, II, 88</li>
<li class="in">slays Galileans, II, 88</li>
<li class="in">character of, I, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>; II, 88</li>
<li class="in">canonization of, II, 89</li>
<li class="in">ordered to Rome by Vitellius, II, 92</li>
<li class="in">legends regarding death of, II, 92-94</li>
<li class="in">interrogation of Jesus, II, 112-115</li>
<li class="in">talents of, II, 115</li>
<li class="in">his opinion of Jesus, II, 115</li>
<li class="in">acquits Jesus, II, 116</li>
<li class="in">sends Jesus to Herod, II, 117</li>
<li class="in">reconciled with Herod, II, 128</li>
<li class="in">offers to release Barabbas, II, 130</li>
<li class="in">warned by wife's dream of Jesus, II, 133, 355</li>
<li class="in">washes his hands of Christ's death, II, 137, 364</li>
<li class="in">releases Barabbas, II, 138, 363</li>
<li class="in">summary of his conduct of Christ's trial, II, 168</li>
<li class="in">conduct of, compared with Cæsar, II, 169; with Sir Edward Coke, II,
170-172</li>

<li>Pindar, Greek poet, denunciation of, of vulgar superstitions, II, 224</li>

<li>Plato, Greek philosopher,</li>
<li class="in">unnatural love of, II, 263</li>
<li class="in">reprobation of Homeric myths, II, 264</li>

<li>Pliny, the Younger,</li>
<li class="in">correspondence of, with Trajan, II, 78</li>
<li class="in">disbelief of, in immortality, II, 229</li>
<li class="in">on slavery, II, 203</li>

<li>Plutarch,</li>
<li class="in">on crucifixion, I, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li>
<li class="in">anecdotes of Lucullus, II, 244-246</li>

<li>Polybius, on Roman pederasty, II, 263</li>

<li>Pompeia divorced by Cæsar, II, 238</li>

<li>Pompey, Cneius, the Great,</li>
<li class="in">conquest of Palestine by, II, 11</li>
<li class="in">defeated at Pharsalia, II, 25</li>
<li class="in">divorce of his wife Mucia, II, 238</li>

<li>Pontiffs, Roman, II, 204</li>

<li>Poppæa, wife of Nero, deification of, II, 77</li>

<li>Postumius, Spurius, Roman consul, suppression of Bacchanalians by, II,
270-283</li>

<li>Prætor, Roman, judicial powers of, II, 36</li>

<li>Priesthood, Roman. See <a href="#Romans">Roman religion</a></li>

<li>Priests, Jewish Chamber of. See <a href="#Sanhedrin">Sanhedrin</a></li>

<li>Procurator, Roman, jurisdiction of, II, 27, 28</li>

<li>Provinces, Roman, classification of, by Augustus, II, 27</li>

<li class="center p2">Q</li>

<li>Quetzalcoatle, crucified Savior, worshiped by Mexicans, II, 66</li>

<li class="center p2">R</li>

<li>Rabbi, origin of Jewish title of, II, 315</li>

<li>Rabbis, Jewish, arrogance of, II, 316</li>

<li>Raphall, Morris, on the origin of the Sanhedrin, I, <a href="#Page_104">104</a></li>

<li>Rawlinson, George, on the political state of Judea at the time of
Christ, II, 11</li>

<li>Religions, policy of Romans toward foreign, and of conquered peoples,
II, 72-74</li>

<li>Renan, Ernest,</li>
<li class="in">on miracles, I, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>-<a href="#Page_47">47</a></li>
<li class="in">on the "judicial ambush" of blasphemers, I, <a href="#Page_235">235</a></li>
<li class="in">on the character of Pilate, II, 90</li>
<li class="in">on the character of Christ, II, 187, 188</li>

<li>Richard III, King of England, contest of, with Saladin, I, <a href="#Page_48">48</a></li>

<li>Richter on the pathology of crucifixion, II, 58, 59</li>

<li>Rosadi,</li>
<li class="in">on the confession of the accused under Hebrew law, I, <a href="#Page_143">143</a></li>
<li class="in">on the hatred of Pilate toward the Jews, II, 98</li>
<li class="in">on the order of criminal trials in Roman provinces, II, 32</li>

<li>Rousseau, Jean Jacques, on the death of Christ, II, 187</li>

<li><a name="Romans" id="Romans"></a>Romans,</li>
<li class="in">laws of, the basis of modern jurisprudence, II, 5</li>
<li class="in">policy of, toward subject peoples, II, 13-15</li>
<li class="in">responsibility of, for Christ's death, II, 174-176</li>
<li class="in">religion of. See <a href="#Paganism">Paganism</a></li>

<li>Ruga, Carvilius, first Roman to procure a divorce, II, 236</li>

<li class="center p2">S</li>

<li>Sacrifice, human, among the Romans, II, 209</li>

<li>Sadducees,</li>
<li class="in">attitude of, toward the law, I, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li>
<li class="in">attitude of, toward anthropomorphism of Pentateuch, I, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li>
<li class="in">dominant in the Sanhedrin, I, <a href="#Page_339">339</a></li>
<li class="in">disbelief of, in immortality, II, 322</li>
<li class="in">wealth and rank of, II, 322</li>

<li>Saladin, Saracen Sultan, contest of, with Richard III, I, <a href="#Page_48">48</a></li>

<li>Salians, Roman priests, II, 204</li>

<li>Sallust, Roman historian, on the conspiracy of Cataline, II, 229</li>

<li>Salvador, Joseph, on the existence of the Great Sanhedrin at the time
of Christ, I, <a href="#Page_177">177</a></li>

<li>Samuel, Hakaton, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 307</li>

<li>Sanctuary, right of, among ancient peoples, I, <a href="#Page_96">96</a></li>

<li><a name="Sanhedrin" id="Sanhedrin"></a>Sanhedrin, the Great,</li>
<li class="in">origin of, I, <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li>
<li class="in">history of, I, <a href="#Page_104">104</a></li>
<li class="in">organization of, I, <a href="#Page_105">105</a></li>
<li class="in">chamber of scribes, I, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>; II, 303</li>
<li class="in">chamber of elders, I, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>; II, 318</li>
<li class="in">chamber of priests, I, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>; II, 292</li>
<li class="in">qualifications of members of, I, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li>
<li class="in">disqualifications of judges of, I, <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li>
<li class="in">officers of, I, <a href="#Page_112">112</a></li>
<li class="in">compensation of officers of, I, <a href="#Page_115">115</a></li>
<li class="in">sessions of, I, <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li>
<li class="in">recruitment of personnel of, I, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li>
<li class="in">quorum of, I, <a href="#Page_119">119</a></li>
<li class="in">jurisdiction of, I, <a href="#Page_119">119</a></li>
<li class="in">appeals to, from minor Sanhedrins, I, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li>
<li class="in">morning sacrifice of, I, <a href="#Page_157">157</a></li>
<li class="in">assembling of judges of, I, <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li>
<li class="in">scribes of, I, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li>
<li class="in">examination of witnesses by, I, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>-<a href="#Page_162">162</a></li>
<li class="in">debates and balloting of judges of, I, <a href="#Page_162">162</a></li>
<li class="in">procedure of, in cases of condemnation of accused, I, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>-<a href="#Page_167">167</a></li>
<li class="in">method of counting votes, I, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li>
<li class="in">death march of, I, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a></li>
<li class="in">question of existence of, at time of Christ, I, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>-<a href="#Page_181">181</a></li>
<li class="in">jurisdiction of, in capital cases at the time of Christ, I, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>-<a href="#Page_183">183</a></li>
<li class="in">discussion of trial of Christ before, I, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>-<a href="#Page_186">186</a></li>
<li class="in">procedure of, in trial of Christ before, I, <a href="#Page_186">186</a></li>
<li class="in">illegality of proceedings of, against Christ, I, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>-<a href="#Page_259">259</a>, <a href="#Page_260">260</a>-<a href="#Page_262">262</a>,
<a href="#Page_263">263</a>-<a href="#Page_266">266</a>, <a href="#Page_267">267</a>-<a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_287">287</a>-<a href="#Page_294">294</a></li>

<li class="in">illegality of sentence of, against Christ, I, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>-<a href="#Page_278">278</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>-<a href="#Page_286">286</a></li>
<li class="in">disqualifications of members of, who condemned Christ, I, <a href="#Page_296">296</a>-<a href="#Page_308">308</a></li>
<li class="in">morning session of, at trial of Christ, I, <a href="#Page_356">356</a>-<a href="#Page_364">364</a></li>
<li class="in">three sessions of, to discuss Christ, I, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, <a href="#Page_306">306</a></li>
<li class="in">authority of, after Roman conquest, II, 12, 16, 21</li>
<li class="in">deprived by Romans of power of capital punishment, II, 19, 20</li>
<li class="in">biographical sketches of members of, who tried Jesus, II, 291-326</li>

<li>Sanhedrins, minor,</li>
<li class="in">appeals from, to Great Sanhedrin, I, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li>
<li class="in">establishment of, I, <a href="#Page_121">121</a></li>
<li class="in">jurisdiction of, I, <a href="#Page_121">121</a></li>
<li class="in">superior rank of those of Jerusalem, I, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li>

<li>Saul, Abba, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 313</li>

<li>Savonarola, Girolamo, Florentine reformer, burning of, I, <a href="#Page_63">63</a></li>

<li>Scaurus, Manercus, prosecuted for treason, II, 70</li>

<li>Sceva, Jewish priest, biographical note on, II, 300</li>

<li>Schenck, account of, of the bloody sweat of a nun, I, <a href="#Page_59">59</a></li>

<li>Schürer,</li>
<li class="in">on the existence of the Sanhedrin at the time of Christ, I, <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li>
<li class="in">on the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin, II, 18</li>
<li class="in">on the administration of civil law by Sanhedrin, II, 30</li>

<li><a name="Scipio_Africanus" id="Scipio_Africanus"></a>Scipio Africanus, trial of, before Comitia Centuriata<span class="err" title="original: before Comitia Centuriata">, II, 41</span></li>

<li>Scott, Sir Walter, on the contest between Richard III and Saladin, I,
<a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a></li>

<li>Scourging,</li>
<li class="in">of Jesus, I, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li>
<li class="in">mode of, among Romans, II, 55</li>

<li>Scribes, Jewish, Edersheim on, I, <a href="#Page_302">302</a></li>

<li>Scribes, Jewish Chamber of. See <a href="#Sanhedrin">Sanhedrin</a></li>

<li>Segnensis, Henricus, anecdote of,
illustrative of mediæval ignorance regarding Talmud, II, 74</li>

<li>Semiramis, Assyrian queen, origin of
crucifixion imputed to, II, 54</li>

<li>Seneca,</li>
<li class="in">anecdote from, regarding political informers, II, 71</li>
<li class="in">on the patriotic observance of the national religion, II, 226</li>
<li class="in">on suicide, II, 232</li>
<li class="in">on slavery, II, 252</li>
<li class="in">on Roman myths, II, 265</li>

<li>Septuagint, version of the Bible,
paraphrasing of anthropomorphic passages in, I, <a href="#Page_237">237</a></li>

<li>Sepulture, of crucified criminals forbidden, II, 58</li>

<li>Serapis, Egyptian deity,</li>
<li class="in">images of thrown down, II, 73</li>
<li class="in">Marcus Aurelius an adorer of, II, 217</li>

<li>Servilia, mistress of Julius Cæsar, II, 239</li>

<li>Shammai, School of,</li>
<li class="in">and the Mishna, I, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></li>
<li class="in">dissensions of, with School of Hillel, II, 309</li>

<li>Shevuah ben Kalba, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 319</li>

<li>Shoterim of the Sanhedrin, I, <a href="#Page_113">113</a></li>

<li>Sibylline Books, II, 199, 204</li>

<li>Sibyl, Erythræan, Virgil inspired by, II, 287</li>

<li><a name="Simon" id="Simon"></a>Simon, Jewish rebel, revolt of, II, 110</li>

<li>Simon, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 320</li>

<li>Simon Boethus, made high priest by Herod I, II, 296</li>

<li>Simon ben Camithus, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 298</li>

<li>Simon Cantharus, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 297</li>

<li>Simon, son of Gamaliel, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 305</li>

<li>Simon Hamizpah, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 314</li>

<li>Sinaitic MS. of the Bible, I, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li>

<li>Slavery,</li>
<li class="in">under Hebrew law, I, <a href="#Page_95">95</a></li>
<li class="in">account of, among Romans, II, 250, 251</li>

<li>Social life, Græco-Roman,</li>
<li class="in">marriage and divorce, II, 236-240</li>
<li class="in">prostitution, II, 242-244</li>
<li class="in">luxury and extravagance, II, 244-249</li>
<li class="in">poverty of Roman masses, II, 249</li>
<li class="in">slavery, II, 249-253</li>
<li class="in">infanticide, II, 254</li>
<li class="in">gladiatorial games, II, 255-262</li>
<li class="in">depravity of, traceable to corrupt myths, II, 262-270</li>
<li class="in">practice of Bacchanalian rites, II, 270-283</li>
<li class="in">hopeless state of, at time of Christ, II, 284-287</li>

<li>Socrates, Greek philosopher,</li>
<li class="in">resemblance of charges against, to those
against Jesus, II, 181</li>
<li class="in">counsel of, to Hetairai, II, 243</li>

<li>Sodomy, prevalence of,</li>
<li class="in">among Greeks and Romans, II, 262-264</li>
<li class="in">practiced in Roman temples, II, 269</li>

<li>Solomon ben Joseph, Jewish rabbi, on the Talmud, I, <a href="#Page_90">90</a></li>

<li>Sonnenthal, Adolf von, Jewish actor, refused freedom of Vienna, II, 182</li>

<li>Sparta, licentiousness of, II, 241</li>

<li>Spartacus, Roman gladiator, revolt of, II, 259, 260</li>

<li>Spartans, marital looseness of, II, 241</li>

<li>Spinoza, Jewish philosopher, on miracles, I, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>-<a href="#Page_44">44</a></li>

<li>Standards, apocryphal miracle of, at trial of Christ, II, 354 <i>seq.</i></li>

<li>Starkie on the credibility of testimony, I, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>

<li>Stephen, St., stoning of, I, <a href="#Page_365">365</a></li>

<li>Stephen, Sir James F. J.,</li>
<li class="in">on the Roman treatment of Christianity, II,
76</li>
<li class="in">on Pilate's trial of Jesus, II, 159-164</li>

<li>Stoicism,</li>
<li class="in">among the Romans, II, 231</li>
<li class="in">resemblance of, to Christian precepts, II, 331</li>

<li>Stoning of criminals under Hebrew law, I, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li>

<li>Strangling of criminals under Hebrew law, I, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li>

<li>Strauss, David,</li>
<li class="in">on the behavior of Jesus before Herod, II, 126</li>
<li class="in">on the character of Christ, II, 187</li>

<li>Stroud on the physical cause of death of Christ, I, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>

<li>Suetonius, Roman historian,</li>
<li class="in">on the labeling of criminals before execution, I, <a href="#Page_57">57</a></li>
<li class="in">on divination, II, 213</li>
<li class="in">narrative of, of dreams presaging reign of Augustus, II, 214</li>
<li class="in">account of, of belief of Augustus in omens, II, 215</li>

<li>Suicide, attitude of Stoics toward, II, 232</li>

<li>Suspension, death by, II, 61, 62</li>

<li>Sweat, bloody, historical instances of, I, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li>

<li class="center p2">T</li>

<li>Tacitus, Roman historian, on slavery, II, 253</li>

<li><a name="Talmud" id="Talmud"></a>Talmud, the,</li>
<li class="in">definition of, I, <a href="#Page_74">74</a></li>
<li class="in">recensions of, I, <a href="#Page_81">81</a></li>
<li class="in">contents of, I, <a href="#Page_82">82</a></li>
<li class="in">relation of Mishna to, I, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, to Gemara, I, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>; to Pentateuch, I,
<a href="#Page_83">83</a>; to Mosaic Code, I, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
<li class="in">efforts of Christians to extirpate, I, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>
<li class="in">message and mission of, I, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>
<li class="in">See also <a href="#Gemara">Gemara</a> and <a href="#Mishna">Mishna</a></li>

<li>Telemachus, St., death of, in arena, II, 261</li>

<li>Temples, a resort of immorality in Rome, II, 269</li>

<li>Tertullian, Latin father,</li>
<li class="in">on the character of Pilate, II, 89</li>
<li class="in">on the resort of vice to temple precincts, II, 269</li>
<li class="in">reference of, to the "Acts of Pilate," II, 329, 333 <i>seq.</i>, 347, 348</li>

<li>Tertullus, his prosecution of Paul, II, 299</li>

<li>Testimony, under Hebrew Criminal Law,</li>
<li class="in">of each witness required to cover entire case, I, <a href="#Page_132">132</a></li>
<li class="in">vain, I, <a href="#Page_145">145</a></li>
<li class="in">standing, I, <a href="#Page_146">146</a></li>
<li class="in">adequate, I, <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li>
<li class="in">of accomplices, I, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>-<a href="#Page_230">230</a>, <a href="#Page_235">235</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a></li>

<li>Theodota, the courtesan, counseled by Socrates, II, 243</li>

<li>Theophilus, son of Annas, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II,
296</li>

<li>Theresa, Maria, Austrian empress, codex of, II, 54</li>

<li>Three, Jewish Courts of, jurisdiction of, I, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li>

<li>Tiberius Cæsar, Roman emperor,</li>
<li class="in">sway of, II, 27</li>
<li class="in">character of, II, 70</li>
<li class="in">prosecutions of, for treason, II, 70, 71</li>
<li class="in">marriage of, to Julia, II, 83</li>
<li class="in">legendary desire of, to deify Christ, II, 329, 330 <i>seq.</i></li>

<li>Tischendorf, Constantine, on the authenticity of the "Acts of
Pilate," II, 345 <i>seq.</i></li>

<li>Tissot, account of, of the bloody sweat of a sailor, I, <a href="#Page_59">59</a></li>

<li>Trajan, Roman emperor, correspondence of, with Pliny, II, 78</li>

<li>Trials, Roman criminal,</li>
<li class="in">right of appeal, II, 28</li>
<li class="in">during the regal period, II, 35</li>
<li class="in">Roman, mode of, in the Comitia Centuriata, II, 37-43</li>
<li class="in">mode of, in the Permanent Tribunals, II, 43-52</li>
<li class="in">prosecutor, rôle and selection of, II, 43, 44, 49</li>

<li><a name="Trial_of_Jesus_Hebrew" id="Trial_of_Jesus_Hebrew"></a>Trial of Jesus, Hebrew,</li>
<li class="in">nature of charge against Jesus before Sanhedrin, I, <a href="#Page_187">187</a></li>
<li class="in">procedure of, before Sanhedrin, I, <a href="#Page_188">188</a></li>
<li class="in">discussion of charge of blasphemy against Jesus, I, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>-<a href="#Page_209">209</a></li>
<li class="in">illegality of arrest of Jesus, I, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>-<a href="#Page_237">237</a></li>
<li class="in">illegality of private examination of Jesus before high priest, I,
<a href="#Page_238">238</a>-<a href="#Page_247">247</a></li>
<li class="in">illegality of indictment of Jesus, I, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>-<a href="#Page_254">254</a></li>
<li class="in">illegality of nocturnal proceedings against Jesus, I, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>-<a href="#Page_259">259</a></li>
<li class="in">illegality of the meeting of the Sanhedrin before morning sacrifice,
I, <a href="#Page_260">260</a>-<a href="#Page_262">262</a></li>
<li class="in">illegality of proceedings against Christ, because held on the eve
of the Sabbath, and of a feast, I, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>-<a href="#Page_266">266</a></li>
<li class="in">illegality of trial, because concluded in one day, I, <a href="#Page_267">267</a>-<a href="#Page_270">270</a></li>
<li class="in">condemnation of Jesus founded on uncorroborated evidence, I, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>-<a href="#Page_278">278</a></li>
<li class="in">Jesus illegally condemned by unanimous verdict, I, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>-<a href="#Page_286">286</a></li>
<li class="in">condemnation of Jesus pronounced in place forbidden by law, I, <a href="#Page_288">288</a>-<a href="#Page_292">292</a></li>
<li class="in">irregular balloting of judges of Jesus, I, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>-<a href="#Page_294">294</a></li>
<li class="in">condemnation of Jesus illegal, because of unlawful conduct of high
priest, I, <a href="#Page_290">290</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a></li>
<li class="in">disqualifications of judges of Jesus, I, <a href="#Page_296">296</a>-<a href="#Page_308">308</a></li>
<li class="in">Jesus condemned without defense, I, <a href="#Page_309">309</a></li>
<li class="in">second trial of Jesus by Sanhedrin, I, <a href="#Page_356">356</a>-<a href="#Page_366">366</a></li>

<li><a name="Trial_of_Jesus_Roman" id="Trial_of_Jesus_Roman"></a>Trial of Jesus, Roman,</li>
<li class="in">discussion of Roman and Hebrew jurisdiction, II, 3-23</li>
<li class="in">Roman law applicable to, II, 68-80</li>
<li class="in">as conducted by Pilate, II, 96-118, 129-139</li>
<li class="in">legal analysis of, II, 141-168</li>

<li>Tribune, Roman, judicial powers of, II, 36</li>

<li>Tryphon, son of Theudion, Jewish elder; biographical note on, II, 321</li>

<li>Twelve Tables, laws of the, II, 53, 208</li>

<li class="center p2">U</li>

<li>Ulpian, Roman jurist, his definition of treason, II, 69</li>

<li class="center p2">V</li>

<li>Vatican, MS. of the Bible, I, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li>

<li>Venus, Roman deity,</li>
<li class="in">sacrifices to, II, 208</li>
<li class="in">impersonated by Phryne, II, 243</li>
<li class="in">worshiped by harlots, II, 266</li>

<li>Veronica, St., legend of, II, 93</li>

<li>Vestals, Roman priestesses,</li>
<li class="in">guardians of sacred fire, II, 204</li>
<li class="in">spectators at licentious dramas, II, 267</li>

<li>Vinicius, Lucius, Roman patrician, letter of Augustus to, II, 83</li>

<li>Virgil, poem of, on advent of heaven-born child, I, <a href="#Page_321">321</a>; II, 287</li>

<li>Virginia, legend of, II, 236</li>

<li>Vitellius, legate of Syria,</li>
<li class="in">spares Jewish prejudices, II, 85</li>
<li class="in">orders Pilate to Rome, II, 92</li>

<li>Vitia, Roman matron, executed for treason, II, 71</li>

<li>Voltaire, François de,</li>
<li class="in">account of, of the bloody sweat of Charles IX, I, <a href="#Page_59">59</a></li>
<li class="in">on character of Christ, II, 187</li>

<li class="in">Vulgate, version of the Bible, I, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li>

<li class="center p2">W</li>

<li>Witnesses, under Hebrew Criminal Law,</li>
<li class="in">competency and incompetency of, I, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>-<a href="#Page_129">129</a></li>
<li class="in">number of, required to convict, I, <a href="#Page_129">129</a></li>
<li class="in">agreement of, I, <a href="#Page_131">131</a></li>
<li class="in">adjuration to, I, <a href="#Page_134">134</a></li>
<li class="in">examination of, I, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a></li>
<li class="in">false, I, <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li>
<li class="in">the accused as, I, <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li>
<li class="in">separation of, I, <a href="#Page_137">137</a></li>

<li>Wise, Rabbi,</li>
<li class="in">on the non-existence of the Great Sanhedrin at time of
Christ, I, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_179">179</a></li>

<li class="in">on the "martyrdom of Jesus," I, <a href="#Page_330">330</a></li>

<li class="center p2">X</li>

<li>Xenophanes, ridicule of, of Greek religion, II, 224</li>

<li class="center p2">Z</li>

<li>Zadok, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 310</li>

<li>Zeno, Greek philosopher, originator of Stoicism, II, 229</li>

<li>Zeus, Greek divinity,</li>
<li class="in">character of, I, <a href="#Page_14">14</a></li>
<li class="in">myth of rape of Ganymede by, II, 262</li>
</ul>

<hr class="l65" />
<div class='tnote'>
<h3><a name="Corrections" id="Corrections"></a>Corrections</h3>

<p>The first line indicates the original, the second the correction:</p>

<p>p. <a href="#Page_24">24</a>:</p>
<ul>
<li>in the life and minstry</li>

<li>in the life and <span class="u">ministry</span></li>
</ul>
<p>p. <a href="#Page_189">189</a>:</p>
<ul><li>that he flattered</li>

<li>that <span class="u">He</span> flattered</li>

<li>God could be worshiped in any other place as well as in his</li>

<li>God could be worshiped in any other place as well as in <span class="u">His</span></li>
</ul>
<p>p. <a href="#Page_206">206</a>:</p>
<ul><li>that he was "the Christ, the Son of God"</li>

<li>that <span class="u">He</span> was "the Christ, the Son of God"</li>
</ul>

<p>Index:</p>
<ul>

<li><a href="#Dysmas">Dysmas</a>, legendary name of one of thieves crucified with Jesus, II, 364</li>
<li>Dysmas, legendary name of one of <span class="u">the</span> thieves crucified with Jesus, II, 364</li>
<li><a href="#Derembourg">Derembourg</a>, Joseph, on the Jewish priestly families, II, 294</li>
<li><span class="u">Dérembourg</span>, Joseph, on the Jewish priestly families, II, 294</li>
<li><a href="#Lemann">Lemann</a>, extract from work of, on Sanhedrin, II, 291</li>
  <li><span class="u">Lémann</span>, extract from work of, on Sanhedrin, II, 291</li>
<li><a href="#Scipio_Africanus">Scipio Africanus</a>, trial of, before Comitia Centuriata</li>
<li>Scipio Africanus, trial of, before Comitia Centuriata<span class="u">, II, 41</span></li>

</ul>
<p>Footnote <a href="#Footnote_135_135">135</a>:</p>
<ul><li>sont fatales a la liberté.</li>

<li>sont fatales <span class="u">à</span> la liberté.</li>
</ul>

</div>

<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 40966 ***</div>
</body>
</html>
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.25.1) at 2026-01-04 21:52:53 +0000