Part Second
Chapter 2
** The Legality of the Trial Brought Into Question** The Rules of Justice and the Legal Forms Which the Sanhedrim was Under Obligation to Observe in the Trial of Criminal Cases With the knowledge we have of the moral character of the members of the Sanhedrim and their secret hatred for Christ, we might, without further delay, enter with the crowd into the Sanhedrim hall in order to be present at the trial; but to prepare ourselves to judge impartially of the proceeding there enacted, we must first make ourselves familiar with the criminal code of the Hebrews. Besides the laws of natural justice, common to all people and all times, the Jewish nation, with their superior civilization, was governed by others still more binding, since they were either dictated by God Himself or transmitted through agents divinely appointed. A minute investigation of these laws is indispensable to an impartial estimate of the proceedings of the Sanhedrim in the case before us. The Pentateuch and other portions of the Old Testament, though full and clear enough as to the ceremonial law, are less explicit with regard to the administration of justice. Hebrew jurisprudence, in its principles and manner of their interpretation, was chiefly transmitted by the living voice of tradition. Next to Scripture, then, we must consult these traditions for a complete knowledge of the criminal code of the Hebrews as administered by the Sanhedrim. The traditions to which we refer were collected seventeen centuries ago by the learned Rabbi Judah in a voluminous work, The Mishnah. This rabbi, moved with pity for the sad condition of his people, who had just been driven from Judea by Adrian, resolved to perpetuate in writing for them a collection of their time-honored traditions. His work received the name of the Second Law , or Mishnah , to distinguish it from the Pentateuch, or Written Law , delivered by God to Moses. Among the religious, legal, and administrative treatises of the Mishnah , there is one entitled The Sanhedrim , especially devoted to jurisprudence, and which throws more light upon the subject than can be obtained from any other source. From this treatise we shall quote freely, as from some others bearing upon the same subject, and contained in this vast compilation, (The Mishnah is the work of Jehudah the Holy, who died about the end of the second century of our era. It comprises six orders (Sedderim), each devoted to a special class of subjects. These are divided into tractates (Massichtoth , textures, webs), of which there are sixty-three (or else sixty-two) in all. These tractates are again subdivided into chapters (Perakim), in all 525, which severally consist of a certain number of verses, or mishnahs , in all 4,187. The first order (Zeraim , seeds) begins with the ordinances concerning benedictions, or the time, mode, manner, and character of the prayers prescribed. It then goes on to detail what may be called the religio-agrarian laws (such as tithing, sabbatical years, firstfruits, etc.). The second order (Moed , festive time) discusses all connected with the Sabbath’s observance and the other festivals. Third order (Nashim , women) treats of all that concerns betrothal, marriage, and divorce; it also includes a tractate on the Nasirate. The fourth order (Nezikin , damages) contains the civil and criminal law. Characteristically, it includes all the ordinances concerning idol-worship (in the tractate Avodah Zurah) and the sayings of the fathers (avoth). The fifth order (Kodashim , holy things) treats of the various classes of sacrifices, offerings, and things belonging (as the firstborn) or dedicated to God, and of all questions which can be grouped under “sacred things” (such as the redemption, exchange, or alienation of what had been dedicated to God). It also includes the laws concerning the daily morning and evening service (Tamid), and description of the structure and arrangements of the Temple (Middoth , the measurements). Finally, the sixth order (Toharoth , cleannesses) gives every ordinance connected with the questions of clean and unclean alike, as regards human beings, animals, and inanimate things, (Dr. Edersheim: The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah , American ed., vol. 1., p. 102). The tractate “ Sanhedrim” is to be found in the fourth order of the Mishnah.). In cases of criminal procedure, the Sanhedrim was under obligation to adhere strictly to the following regulations: I. Days and Hours on Which the Holding of Court was Forbidden Under the Penalty of a Nullification of the Judgments Pronounced 1. Court must not be held on the Sabbath, or any holy day. “Court must not be held on the Sabbath, or any holy day,” (Mishnah, Betza , or of the Egg , Chap. 5, No. 2). The solemnity of the days would be a sufficient reason for this prohibition. Maimonides, however, in his commentary on Sanhedrim , Chapter 2, adds: “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,” Exodus 35:3. 2. Court not to assemble even on the day preceding the Sabbath, or any feast-day. “They shall not judge on the eve of the Sabbath-day, nor on that of any festival,” Mishnah, Sanhedrim , Chap. 4.1. This precaution was taken to avoid exposing the judges to the violation of the law of the Sabbath, in case the trial could not be concluded the same day on which it was begun, (Talmud, Jerus., Kethuboth , or of Marriage Contracts , fol. 24; Moed-Katon , or of Secondary Festivals , fol. 63). 3. The trial of an important case not to be continued during the night. “Let it be tried during the day and suspended at night,” (Mishnah, Sanhedrim , Chap. 4.1). Maimonides, commenting on this ordinance, says: “The reason why the trial of a capital offense could not be held at night is because, as oral tradition says, the examination of such a charge is like the diagnosing of a wound — in either case a more thorough and searching examination can be made by daylight,” (Maimonides, Sanhedrim , chap. 3). 4 . No session of the Court to take place before the offering of the morning sacrifice. “The Sanhedrim sat from the close of the morning sacrifice to the time of the evening sacrifice,” (Talmud, Jerus., Sanhedrim, Chap. 1, fol. 19; Talmud, Bab., Chap. 10, fol. 88). “Since the morning sacrifice was offered at the dawn of day, it was hardly possible for the Sanhedrim to assemble until an hour after that time,” (Mishnah, Tamid , or of the Perpetual Sacrifice , C. 3). II. The Hearing Of The Witnesses 1. The witnesses to be two in number. “One witness shall not testify against any person. At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death,” Deuteronomy 17:6; Num 35:30. 2. The witnesses to give their testimony separately, and always in the presence of the accused. Daniel said to the people (concerning the two old men who testified against Susanna): “Separate them, and I will examine them,” (Apocrypha). 3. Before testifying, the witnesses to promise conscientiously to tell the truth. The judge shall address each witness as follows: “It is not conjecture, nor anything you may have gathered from public rumor, that we ask of you. Remember that a heavy responsibility rests on you; that it is not a question of money where restitution can be made. If you should cause the accused to be condemned unjustly, his blood — yea, even the blood of his posterity — shall cry for vengeance against you, and God will hold you accountable, even as He did Cain for the blood of his brother Abel,” (Mishnah, Sanhedrim , Chap. 4.5). 4. The judges required to carefully weigh the testimony of each witness. “And the judges shall make diligent inquisition : and behold if the witness”…(Deuteronomy 19:18). “The following seven questions must be 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?” (Mishna, Sanhedrim , Chap. 5.1). 5. No testimony valid unless the witnesses all agreed on the same fact in all its details. “If one witness contradicts another, the testimony is not accepted,” (Mishnah, Sanhedrim , C. 5.2). “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 worship the moon, yet, although each of the two facts proves clearly that the man had committed the horrible crime of idolatry, the discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses invalidates their testimony, and the accused is free,” (Maimonides, Sanhedrim , Chap. 20). 6. False witnesses to suffer the penalty to which they sought to condemn the person whom they had calumniated. “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 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,” Deuteronomy 19:18-21. “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,” (Apocrypha). III. The Examination Of The Accused 1. The expressions used by the judge toward the accused person to be humane, and even kind. “Joshua said unto Achan … give, I pray thee, glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make confession unto Him; and tell me now what thou hast done; hide it not from me,” Joshua 7:19. “My very dear daughter, you who are suspected of adultery, could not your guilt be ascribed to the immoderate use of wine? Was it done in consequence of you frequenting the houses of bad neighbors? Perform the ceremonies prescribed for occasions like the present, in the name of the just God of Israel,” (Mishnah, Sotah, Chap. 1.4). 2. The accused not to be condemned on his own confession. “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. 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 simple confession of an accused party,” (Mishnah, Sanhedrim , Chap. 4.2; Kidushin , or of Dowry and Matrimonial Settlements , Chap. 3.9; Maimonides, Sanhedrim). IV. The Defense 1. The accused to plead his own cause, the law not mentioning any advocates. Permission given to any person present at the trial to speak in defense of the accused, such being considered a pious act. “When I went out to the gate through the city, when I prepared my seat in the street [it was at the gate of the city that justice was administered] … the cause which I knew not I searched out. And I brake the jaws of the wicked, and plucked the spoil out of their teeth,” Job 29:7, 16, 17. “Relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow,” Isaiah 1:17. “Daniel cried with a loud voice, I am clear from the blood of this woman. Then all the people turned them toward him, and said: What mean these words that thou hast spoken? So he, standing in the midst of them, said: Are ye such fools, ye sons of Israel, that without examination or knowledge of the truth ye have condemned a daughter of Israel?” (Apocrypha). V. The Judgment 1. When the trial of a criminal case is to terminate in a sentence of death, it cannot be concluded the same day on which it had begun; but the judges must defer till the next day the voting and the passing of the sentence. “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 cannot be concluded before the following day,” (Mishnah, Sanhedrim , Chap. 4.1). 2. On the night intervening, the judges having retired by twos to their houses, are to reconsider minutely of evidences of the crime, weighing with sincerity of conscience the proofs adduced against the accused, and the arguments made in his defense. “Having postponed the trial to the next day, the judges reassemble by twos and proceed to reexamine the whole case,” (Mishnah, Sanhedrim , Chap. 5.5). 3. In order to secure a more careful deliberation, the judges are under obligation to abstain during the intervening night from heavy food, wine, and all intoxicating beverages, and from everything that would have a tendency to incapacitate them for correct thinking. “Having reduced the quantity of their food and abstained from wine, they examine the case,” (Mishnah, Sanhedrim , Chap. 5.5). This abstinence was founded also on the verse in Leviticus, where it is said: “ Non comedetis super sanguinem — Ye shall not eat upon the blood” 19:26. [One instance among many of the literal and forced interpretations of Scripture by the rabbis. The Latin version of this passage is a literal translation of the Hebrew. — Tr.] 4. On their return next day to the hall of justice, each judge, in his turn, votes for or against the accused. “The next day they return to the hall of justice. Then he who absolves pronounces the words ‘I absolve;’ he who condemns, ‘I condemn’,” (Mishnah, Sanhedrim , Chap. 5.5). 5. Two scribes to record the votes; one those that are favorable to the accused; the other those that are against him. “The members of the Sanhedrim were seated in the form of a semicircle, at each 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,” (Mishnah, Sanhedrim , Chap. 4.3). 6. To condemn, the number of votes must exceed by two the number of those in favor of his acquittal. “In criminal trials, a majority of one vote is sufficient for an acquittal; but for a condemnation a majority of two is necessary,” (Mishnah, Sanhedrim , 4.1). “The members of the Sanhedrim being seventy-one in number, if thirty-five condemn, the accused is free; let him be discharged immediately. If thirty-six condemn, he is still free,” (Ibid., C. 5.5). 7. Any sentence of death pronounced outside of the hall Gazith, or of hewn stones, to be null and void. “After leaving the hall Gazith, no sentence of death can be passed upon any one soever,” (Talmud, Bab., Abodah Zarah , or of Idolatry , Chap. 1, fol. 8). “A sentence of death can be pronounced only so long as the Sanhedrim holds its sessions in the appointed place,” (Maimonides, Sanhedrim , Chap. 14). Such are the principal rules and forms of justice which, after the written and oral law, the Bible, and the Mishnah, the Sanhedrim was bound by the strictest obligations to observe in the trial of all criminal cases. But were these rules of procedure scrupulously adhered to in the trial of Jesus? This is the important question that remains to be considered. We have already shown that the Sanhedrim council was made up of men devoid of moral integrity. We have also proved indisputably that the members of this body had resolved beforehand to pass upon Jesus the sentence of death, however clearly a legal investigation of the charges against him might establish His innocence. We shall now proceed to demonstrate the fact — we hope satisfactorily — that throughout the public trial of Jesus, which commenced on the night of the fourteenth of Nisan, and concluded on the morning of the same day (17th and 18th March, 782), (In religious and civil affairs the Hebrews counted the day of twenty-four hours, from sunset to sunset. “From even until even shall you celebrate your Sabbath,” ( Leviticus 23:32);“And God called the light day, and the darkness he called night; and the evening and the morning were the first day,” (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) all the forms and ordinances which we have mentioned were wantonly violated and trodden under foot; and that the action of the Sanhedrim in the condemnation of Jesus of Nazareth, devoid as it was of even the semblance of justice or legality, was nothing less than an assassination