,transcriber's notes ,variable spelling has been retained4 ,minor punctuation inconsistencies have been silently corrected4 ,a list of other corrections can be found at the end of the book4 ,footnotes were sequentially numbered and placed at the end of the text4 ,in the original1 the ,the ,gospel ,narratives are printed side by side across the page spread4 ,in this e-book version they are presented individually4 ,the ,index was copied from ,volume ,,ii4 ,mark up3 italics ,,the ,,trial ,,of ,,jesus ,illustration3 ,,jesus ,,bound 7,,munkacsy7 ,,the ,,trial ,,of ,,jesus ,,from ,a ,,lawyer',s ,,standpoint ,,by ,,walter ,m4 ,,chandler ,,of ,,the ,,new ,,york ,,bar ,,volume ,i ,,the ,,hebrew ,,trial ,,the ,,empire ,,publishing ,,co4 #fj ,,wall ,,street1 ,,new ,,york ,,city #aijh ,copyright1 #aijh1 by ,,walter ,m4 ,,chandler ,all rights reserved ,,to ,,my ,,mother ,,with ,,sentiments ,,of ,,love ,,and ,,veneration ,,which ,,no ,,words ,,can ,,express ,,list ,,of ,,illustrations ,,facing ,,page ,,jesus ,,bound 7,munkacsy7 ,frontispiece ,,st4 ,,matthew 7,rembrandt7 #b ,,st4 ,,mark ,,and ,,st4 ,,paul 7,drer7 #bh ,,st4 ,,john ,,and ,,st4 ,,peter 7,drer7 #eb ,,moses ,,and ,,the ,,law 7,michael ,angelo7 #gb ,,the ,,last ,,supper 7da ,vinci7 #agd ,,jesus ,,in ,,gethsemane 7,hoffman7 #bdj ,,the ,,betraying ,,kiss 7,scheffer7 #bhb ,,the ,,arrest ,,of ,,jesus 7,hoffman7 #bhd ,,contents ,,of ,,volume ,,one ,,page ,,preface ,,to ,,volume ,,one xiii ,,the ,,gospel ,,narratives xxx ,,part ,i ,,the ,,record ,,of ,,fact ,,authenticity ,,of ,,the ,,new ,,testament ,,narratives1 ,,judicially ,,considered #c ,,credibility ,,of ,,the ,,gospel ,,writers1 ,,legally ,,tested #i ,,part ,,ii ,,hebrew ,,criminal ,,law ,,chapter ,i4 ,,the ,,mosaic ,,code ,,and ,,the ,,talmud #gc ,,ii4 ,,hebrew ,,crimes ,,and ,,punishments #ia ,,iii4 ,,hebrew ,,courts ,,and ,,judges #ajb ,,iv4 ,,hebrew ,,witnesses ,,and ,,evidence #abg ,v4 ,,mode ,,of ,,trial ,,and ,,execution ,,in ,,hebrew ,,capital ,,cases #aec ,,part ,,iii ,,the ,,brief ,,whether ,,or ,,not ,,the ,,great ,,sanhedrin ,,existed ,,at ,,the ,,time ,,of ,,christ #age ,,concerning ,,the ,,jurisdiction ,,of ,,the ,,great ,,sanhedrin1 ,,with ,,reference ,,to ,,roman ,,authority1 ,,to ,,try ,,capital ,,offenses ,,at ,,the ,,date ,,of ,,the ,,crucifixion #aha ,,concerning ,,the ,,jurisdiction ,,of ,,the ,,great ,,sanhedrin1 ,,under ,,hebrew ,,law1 ,,to ,,try ,,the ,,particular ,,offense ,,with ,,which ,,jesus ,,was ,,charged #ahc ,,whether ,,or ,,not ,,there ,,was ,a ,,regular ,,legal ,,trial ,,of ,,jesus ,,before ,,the ,,great ,,sanhedrin #ahc ,,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 #ahf ,,the ,,nature ,,of ,,the ,,charge ,,brought ,,against ,,jesus ,,at ,,the ,,trial ,,before ,,the ,,great ,,sanhedrin2 ,,and ,,his ,,guilt ,,or ,,innocence ,,with ,,reference ,,thereto #ahg ,,point ,i3 ,,concerning ,,the ,,legality ,,of ,,the ,,arrest ,,of ,,jesus ,,in ,,gethsemane #bai ,,point ,,ii3 ,,concerning ,,the ,,legality ,,of ,,the ,,private ,,examination ,,of ,,jesus ,,by ,,annas 7,,or ,,caiaphas7 ,,before ,,the ,,beginning ,,of ,,the ,,regular ,,trial #bch ,,point ,,iii3 ,,concerning ,,the ,,legality ,,of ,,the ,,indictment ,,against ,,jesus #bdh ,,point ,,iv3 ,,concerning ,,the ,,legality ,,of ,,trying ,,jesus ,,at ,,night #bee ,,point ,v3 ,,concerning ,,the ,,legality ,,of ,,trying ,,jesus ,,before ,,the ,,morning ,,sacrifice ,,had ,,been ,,offered #bfj ,,point ,,vi3 ,,concerning ,,the ,,legality ,,of ,,trying ,,jesus ,,on ,,the ,,eve ,,of ,a ,,jewish ,,sabbath ,,and ,,at ,,the ,,beginning ,,of ,,the ,,celebration ,,of ,,the ,,passover ,,feast #bfc ,,point ,,vii3 ,,concerning ,,the ,,legality ,,of ,,concluding ,,the ,,trial ,,of ,,jesus ,,within ,,one ,,day #bfg ,,point ,,viii3 ,,concerning ,,the ,,legality ,,of ,,convicting ,,jesus ,,upon ,,his ,,uncorroborated ,,confession #bga ,,point ,,ix3 ,,concerning ,,the ,,legality ,,of ,a ,,unanimous ,,verdict ,,against ,,jesus #bgi ,,point ,x3 ,,concerning ,,certain ,,irregularities ,,of ,,form ,,in ,,trying ,,and ,,condemning ,,jesus #bhg ,,point ,,xi3 ,,concerning ,,the ,,legal ,,disqualifications ,,of ,,members ,,of ,,the ,,great ,,sanhedrin1 ,,to ,,try ,,jesus #bie ,,point ,,xii3 ,,concerning ,,the ,,legality ,,of ,,the ,,refusal ,,of ,,the ,,great ,,sanhedrin ,,to ,,consider ,,the ,,merits ,,of ,,the ,,defense ,,of ,,jesus #cji ,,preface ,,to ,,volume ,,one ,many remarkable trials have characterized the judicial history of mankind4 ,the trial of ,socrates before the dicastery of ,athens1 charged with corrupting ,athenian youth1 with blaspheming the ,olympic gods1 and with seeking to destroy the constitution of the ,attic ,republic1 is still a sublime and thrilling chapter in the history of a wonderful people1 among the ruins and wrecks of whose genius the modern world still wanders to contemplate1 admire1 and study the pride of every master and the perfection of every model4 ,the trial and execution of ,charles the ,first of ,england sealed with royal blood a new covenant of ,british freedom1 and erected upon the highway of national progress an enduring landmark to civil liberty4 ,the entire civilized world stood aghast at the solemn and awful spectacle of the deliberate beheading of a king4 ,and yet1 to-day1 the sober1 serious judgment of mankind stamps the act with approval1 and deems it a legitimate and righteous step in the heroic march of a brave and splendid people toward a complete realization of the inalienable rights of man4 ,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 growth1 and have given to mankind the imperishable parchments of ,magna ,charta1 the ,bill of ,rights1 the ,petition of ,rights1 and ,habeas ,corpus4 ,the trial of ,warren ,hastings in the hall of ,william ,rufus has been immortalized by ,lord ,macaulay4 ,this trial is a virtual reproduction in ,english history of the ancient ,roman trial of ,verres4 ,england is substituted for ,rome2 ,sicily becomes ,india2 ,hastings takes the place of ,verres2 and ,burke is the orator instead of ,cicero4 ,the indictments are identical3 ,maladministration in the government of a province4 ,in the impeachment of ,hastings1 ,england served notice upon her colonial governors and made proclamation to the world that ,english conquest was not intended to despoil and enslave1 but was designed to carry to the inhabitants of distant lands her language1 her literature1 and her laws4 ,this message to humanity was framed but not inspired by ,england4 ,it was prompted by the success of the ,american ,revolution1 in which ,washington and his ,continentals had established the immortal principle1 that the consent of the governed is the true source of all just powers of government4 ,the trial of ,aaron ,burr1 omitting ,arnold's treason1 is the blackest chapter in the annals of our republic4 ,burr was the most extraordinary man of the first half century of ,american national history4 ,his powerful and fascinating personality conquered men and enslaved women4 ,he was the finest scholar of the ,revolution excepting ,thomas ,jefferson4 ,he was the greatest orator of the ,revolution excepting ,patrick ,henry4 ,his farewell address to the ,united ,states ,senate caused his inveterate enemies to weep4 ,his arraignment at the bar of public justice on the charge of high treason--that he had sought to destroy the ,country of ,washington1 the ,republic of ,jefferson1 which is to-day the ,union of ,lincoln--was the sad and melancholy close of a long and lofty life4 ,the trial of ,alfred ,dreyfus is still fresh in the minds and memories of men4 ,troubled political seas still surge and roll in ,france because of the hatred1 prejudice1 and passion that envelope the mysterious bordereau4 ,the ,french ,republic is still rent by two contending factions3 ,dreyfus and anti-,dreyfus4 ,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 heart4 ,his enemies still assert that he was a ,judas who betrayed not ,god or ,christ1 but ,france and the ,fatherland4 ,his banishment to the ,island of the ,devil2 his wife's deathless devotion2 the implacable hatred of his enemies2 the undying loyalty of friends2 and his own sufferings and woes are the warp and woof of the most splendid and pathetic epoch of a century4 ,other trials--of ,mary ,stuart1 the beautiful and brilliant ,scottish queen2 of ,robert ,emmet1 the grand and gifted ,irish patriot martyr--thrilled the world in their day4 ,but these trials1 one and all1 were tame and commonplace1 compared with the trial and crucifixion of the ,galilean peasant1 ,jesus of ,nazareth4 ,these were earthly trials1 on earthly issues1 before earthly courts4 ,the trial of the ,nazarene was before the high tribunals of both ,heaven and earth2 before the ,great ,sanhedrin1 whose judges were the master-spirits of a divinely commissioned race2 before the court of the ,roman ,empire that controlled the legal and political rights of men throughout the known world1 from ,scotland to ,judea and from ,dacia to ,abyssinia4 ,the trial of ,jesus was twofold3 ,hebrew and ,roman2 or ,ecclesiastical and ,civil4 ,the ,hebrew trial took place before the ,great ,sanhedrin1 consisting of seventy-one members4 ,the ,roman trial was held before ,pontius ,pilate1 ,roman governor of ,judea1 and afterwards before ,herod1 ,tetrarch of ,galilee4 ,these trials all made one1 were links in a chain1 and took place within a space of time variously estimated from ten to twenty hours4 ,the general order of events may be thus briefly described3 7#a7 ,about eleven o'clock on the evening of ,april #fth1 ,a4,d4 #cj1 ,jesus and eleven of the ,apostles left the scene of the ,last ,supper1 which had been celebrated 7probably in the home of ,mark7 on the outskirts of ,jerusalem1 to go to the ,garden of ,gethsemane4 7#b7 ,jesus was arrested about midnight in ,gethsemane by a band of ,temple officers and ,roman soldiers guided by ,judas4 7#c7 ,he was first taken to ,annas1 and was afterwards sent by ,annas to ,caiaphas4 ,a private preliminary examination of ,jesus was then had before one of these church dignitaries4 ,st4 ,john describes this examination1 but does not tell us clearly whether it was ,annas or ,caiaphas who conducted it4 7#d7 ,after ,his preliminary examination1 ,jesus was arraigned about two o'clock in the morning before the ,sanhedrin1 which had convened in the palace of ,caiaphas1 and was formally tried and condemned to death on the charge of blasphemy against ,jehovah4 7#e7 ,after a temporary adjournment of the first session1 the ,sanhedrin reassembled at the break of day to retry ,jesus1 and to determine how ,he should be brought before ,pilate4 7#f7 ,in the early morning of ,april #gth1 ,jesus was led before ,pontius ,pilate1 who was then stopping in the palace of ,herod on the hill of ,zion1 his customary residence when he came up from ,csarea to ,jerusalem to attend the ,jewish national festivals4 ,a brief trial of ,jesus by ,pilate1 on the charge of high treason against ,csar1 was then had in front of and within the palace of ,herod4 ,the result was an acquittal of the prisoner by the ,roman procurator1 who expressed his verdict in these words3 ,i find in him no fault at all4 7#g7 ,instead of releasing ,jesus after having found ,him not guilty1 ,pilate1 being intimidated by the rabble1 sent the prisoner away to ,herod1 ,tetrarch of ,galilee1 who was then in attendance upon the ,passover ,feast1 and was at that moment residing in the ancient palace of the ,asmoneans in the immediate neighborhood of the residence of ,pilate4 ,a brief1 informal hearing was had before ,herod1 who1 having mocked and brutalized the prisoner1 sent ,him back to the ,roman governor4 7#h7 ,after the return of ,jesus from the ,court of ,herod1 ,pilate assembled the priests and elders1 announced to them that ,herod had found no fault with the prisoner in their midst1 reminded them that he himself had acquitted ,him1 and offered to scourge and then release ,him4 ,this compromise and subterfuge were scornfully rejected by the ,jews who had demanded the crucifixion of ,jesus4 ,pilate1 after much vacillation1 finally yielded to the demands of the mob and ordered the prisoner to be crucified4 ,from this brief outline of the proceedings against ,jesus1 the reader will readily perceive that there were two distinct trials3 a ,hebrew and a ,roman4 ,he will notice further that each trial was marked by three distinct features or appearances4 ,the ,hebrew trial was characterized by3 7#a7 ,the appearance before ,annas4 7#b7 ,the trial at the night session of the ,sanhedrin4 7#c7 ,the examination at the morning sitting of the same court4 ,the ,roman trial was marked by3 7#a7 ,the appearance of ,jesus before ,pilate4 7#b7 ,his arraignment before ,herod4 7#c7 ,his reappearance before ,pilate4 ,the first volume of this work has been devoted to the ,hebrew trial of ,jesus1 and a distinctively ,hebrew impress has been given to all its pages4 ,the second volume has been devoted to the ,roman trial1 and a distinctively ,roman impress has been given it4 ,each exhibits a distinct view of the subject4 ,taken together1 they comprehend the most important and famous judicial transaction in history4 ,it is not the purpose of the author of these volumes to usurp the functions or the privileges of the ecclesiastic4 ,to priests and preachers have been left the discussion and solution of theological problems3 the divinity of ,jesus1 the immortality of the soul and kindred religious dogmas4 ,the ,trial of ,jesus from a ,lawyer's ,standpoint is the expanded title of this work4 ,a strict adherence to a secular discussion of the theme proclaimed has been studiously observed in the preparation of these pages4 ,the legal rights of the man ,jesus at the bar of human justice under ,jewish and ,roman laws have marked the limitations of the argument4 ,any digression from this plan has been temporary and necessary4 ,a thorough understanding of any case1 judicially considered1 involves a complete analysis of the cardinal legal elements of the case3 the element called ,fact and the element called ,law4 ,whether in ancient or modern times1 in a ,jewish or ,gentile court1 of civil or criminal jurisdiction1 these elements have always entered into the legal conception of a case4 ,whether the advocate is preparing a pleading at his desk1 is summing up before the jury1 or addressing himself to the court1 these elements are working forever in his brain4 ,he is constantly asking himself these questions3 ,what are the facts of this case8 ,what is the law applicable to the facts8 ,do the facts and law meet and harmonize judicially8 ,do they blend in legal unison according to the latest decision of the court of last resort8 ,if so1 a case is made2 otherwise1 not4 ,now many sermons might be differently preached2 many books might be differently written4 ,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 ,christ4 ,the first question that naturally suggests itself to the inquiring mind1 in investigating this theme1 is this3 ,upon what facts was the complaint against ,jesus based8 ,a second question then logically follows3 ,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 ,pilate8 ,it is respectfully submitted that no clear and comprehensive treatment of the subject can be had without proper answers to these questions4 ,having learned the facts of any case1 and having determined what rules of law are applicable to them in regard to the controversy in hand1 a third step in the proceedings1 in all matters of review on appeal1 is this3 ,to analyze the record from the viewpoint of the juristic agreement or nonagreement of law and fact2 and to determine by a process of judicial dissection and reformation the presence or absence of essential legal elements in the proceedings1 with a view to affirmance in case of absence1 or reversal of the verdict in the event of the discovery of the presence of error4 ,in obedience to this natural intellectual tendency and to the usual mode of legal procedure in reviewing and revising matters on appeal1 the contents of ,volume ,i have been divided into three parts1 corresponding1 in a general way1 to the successive steps heretofore mentioned4 ,in ,part ,i1 the ,record of ,fact in the trial of ,jesus has been authenticated2 not1 indeed1 according to the strict provisions of modern statutes which regulate the authentication of legal documents1 but in the popular sense of the word authentication4 ,nevertheless1 the authenticity of the ,gospel narratives1 which form the record of fact in the trial of ,jesus1 and the credibility of the ,evangelists who wrote and published these narratives1 have been subjected to the rigorous tests of rules of evidence laid down by ,greenleaf and by ,starkie4 ,such an authentication has been deemed necessary in a treatise of this kind4 ,two main methods may be employed in investigating and proving the alleged occurrences of ,sacred ,history3 7#a7 ,the method which is based upon the evidence of spiritual consciousness and experience1 derived from religious conversion and from communion with ,god2 7#b7 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 occurrences4 ,it has been contended by many that the first of these methods is the supreme test1 and the only proper one1 in solving religious problems and in reaching full and final assurance of the existence of spiritual truths4 ,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 ,god1 needs no assurance from ,matthew that the ,christ was the ,heaven-begotten and ,virgin-born4 ,such a ,christian1 it is said1 has positive proof from within that ,jesus was divine4 ,it is further contended that all forms of religious truth are susceptible of the same kind of proof4 ,it is argued that from despairing hope1 born of the longing and the tears of a mother who1 grief-stricken and broken-hearted1 kneels in prayer beside the coffin of her firstborn1 springs stronger evidence of a future life and of an everlasting reunion with loved ones1 than comes from all the assurances of immortality handed down by saints and sages4 ,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 experience1 and only incidentally by the historical testimony of the sacred writers4 ,they boldly maintain that the ,resurrection was a spiritual fact born of a spiritual truth2 and that within the soul of each true believer is the image of the risen ,jesus1 reflected from ,heaven in as perfect form as that seen by ,paul while journeying to ,damascus4 ,it would be decidedly ungenerous and unjust to deny the force of the contention that spiritual consciousness and religious experience are convincing forms of proof4 ,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 religion4 ,but on the other hand the doctrine of religions consciousness1 as a mode of proof1 certainly has its limitations4 ,spiritual proofs are obviously the very best means of establishing purely spiritual truths4 ,but not many truths of religion are purely spiritual4 ,the most of them are encased within historic facts which may themselves be separately considered as historic truths4 ,in a sense1 all spiritual truth is born of historic truth2 that is1 historic truths1 in the order of our acquisition of a knowledge of them1 antedate and create spiritual truths4 ,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 ,resurrection4 ,nor could we have ever had a religious experience of the divinity of ,jesus if we had never read the historical accounts of ,his miracles1 of ,his ,virgin birth1 ,his fulfillment of prophecy1 and ,his ,resurrection from the dead1 unless ,jesus had personally communicated to us evidences of ,his divinity4 ,these separate and historic facts1 of which spiritual truths are born1 cannot be proved by religious consciousness and experience4 ,the distinctions herein suggested are very aptly and beautifully expressed by ,professor ,inge in his ,bampton ,lectures on ,christian ,mysticism1 in which he says3 ,the inner light can only testify to spiritual truths4 ,it always speaks in the present tense2 it cannot guarantee any historical event1 past or future4 ,it cannot guarantee either the ,gospel history or a future judgment4 ,it can tell us that ,christ is risen1 and ,he is alive for evermore1 but not that ,he rose again the third day4 ,from the foregoing1 then1 it is clear that in dealing with the historical facts and circumstances of the trial and crucifixion of ,jesus1 we cannot remotely employ the method of proof which is based upon religious consciousness and experience1 since these events are matters of the past and not of the present4 ,we have been compelled1 therefore1 to resort to the legal and historical method of proof2 since we could not assume the correctness of the record1 as such an assumption would have been lacking in legal requirement and judicial fitness4 ,it has also been thought not to be within the scope of this treatise1 or consistent with the purpose of the author of these volumes1 to enter into a discussion of the question of inspiration in the matter of the origin of the ,new ,testament ,gospels1 as the record of fact in the trial of ,jesus4 ,as secular historians1 rather than as inspired writers1 must the ,evangelists be regarded in this connection2 since the title of this work suggests and demands a strictly legal treatment of the theme proclaimed4 ,the author would respectfully suggest1 however1 that the day is past for complete reliance upon the theory of inspiration and a total rejection of all analysis and investigation4 ,that the ,scriptures are sacred and inspired1 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 race4 ,the ,christianity of the future must be a religion of reason as well as of faith1 else it cannot and will not endure the shocks of time1 or survive the onward march of the soul4 ,if the teachings of the ,nazarene are a faithful portrayal and a truthful expression of all the verities of ,heaven and earth1 then ,christianity has nothing to fear from the discoveries of ,science1 from ,roman catacombs1 ,arabian hieroglyphics1 the sands of ,egypt1 or the ruins of ,nineveh and ,babylon4 ,science is the ,high ,priestess of ,nature and ,nature's oracles1 and no single revelation of ,science can disprove or contradict the simplest truth of ,nature's ,god4 ,if1 on the other hand1 ,christianity be fundamentally and essentially false1 ignorance and bigotry will not preserve and perpetuate it2 all the prayers of the faithful1 all the martyrdom of the centuries1 will not suffice to save it from death and annihilation4 ,but the ,christian need have no fear of the results of scientific investigation or historic revelation4 ,assyriology1 archology1 and paleontology1 interpreted and applied by the finest scholarship and the most superb intellects of earth1 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 things4 ,and yet not one natural or historic fact has been discovered that seriously disturbs the testimony of the ,evangelists or impairs the evidence of ,christianity4 ,a few unlettered fisherman1 casting nets for a livelihood in the waters of ,gennesaret1 framed a message to humanity based upon the life and martyrdom of a ,galilean peasant1 their spiritual ,lord and ,master1 and proclaimed it to the world2 and all the succeeding centuries of scientific research and skeptical criticism have not shaken mankind's confidence in its truthfulness and its potency4 ,if eighteen hundred years of scientific investigation have resulted only in proof and vindication of the historic asseverations of the ,sacred ,scriptures1 and further investigation gives promise of still further proof and vindication1 tending to remove all doubts and destroy all fears1 nothing but rank stupidity and crass ignorance will place obstacles in the way of ultimate analysis and complete revelation4 ,in ,part ,,ii of this volume1 following the plan heretofore suggested1 the element of ,law has been considered4 ,hebrew criminal jurisprudence1 based upon the ,mosaic ,code and upon the ,talmud1 has been outlined and discussed4 ,a more exhaustive treatment has been given than the subject would seem to justify1 but the writer is convinced that the ,criminal ,code of the ,jews must be of surpassing interest to the general reader1 regardless of whether certain peculiar rules therein contained have reference to the trial of ,jesus or not4 ,the bulk of this ,code has been inserted in this work because it is felt that a comprehensive view of any system enables the student of a particular trial under that system to grasp more fully and to appreciate more keenly the merits of the proceedings4 ,in ,part ,,iii the legal aspects of the trial of ,jesus have been reviewed4 ,the elements of ,law and ,fact have been combined in the form of a ,brief1 in which ,points have been made and errors have been discussed4 ,during the past decade1 the author of this work has delivered occasionally1 in the ,united ,states and in the ,dominion of ,canada1 a lecture upon the subject1 ,the ,trial of ,jesus from a ,lawyer's ,standpoint4 ,numerous requests have been made1 from time to time1 for the lecture in printed form4 ,to supply this demand is the purpose of the publication of these volumes4 ,the voluminous treatment given has been in response to the demands of those who have asked for a topical treatment of the subject4 ,many auditors in his lecture audiences have asked for special treatment1 from a lawyer's standpoint1 of the ,new ,testament ,gospels4 ,many have requested an exhaustive handling of ,hebrew criminal law4 ,others have asked for the insertion in this work of the ,apocryphal ,acts of ,pilate4 ,and still others have expressed a desire to have ,grco-,roman ,paganism dealt with in its relationship to the trial of ,jesus4 ,in obedience to these various demands1 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 treated4 ,it is felt1 however1 that in every case at least a partial relevancy exists1 and that in a large majority of cases the relevancy is perfect4 ,the writer wishes1 at this time and place1 to acknowledge his indebtedness and to express his thanks1 for valuable assistance rendered1 to all those authors mentioned under the title ,bibliography at the end of ,volume ,,ii4 ,,walter ,m4 ,,chandler4 ,,new ,,york ,,city1 ,july #a1 #aijh4 ,,the ,,gospel ,,narratives ,,matthew xxvi4 #dg-fh2 xxvii4 #a-bf ,and while he yet spake1 lo1 ,judas1 one of the twelve1 came1 and with him a great multitude with swords and staves1 from the chief priests and elders of the people4444 ,then came they1 and laid hands on ,jesus1 and took him4444 ,and they that had laid hold on ,jesus led him away to ,caiaphas the high priest1 where the scribes and the elders were assembled4444 ,now the chief priests1 and elders1 and all the council1 sought false witness against ,jesus1 to put him to death2 ,but found none3 yea1 though many false witnesses came1 yet found they none4 ,at the last came two false witnesses1 ,and said1 ,this fellow said1 ,i am able to destroy the temple of ,god1 and to build it in three days4 ,and the high priest arose1 and said unto him1 ,answerest thou nothing8 what is it which these witness against thee8 ,but ,jesus held his peace4 ,and the high priest answered and said unto him1 ,i adjure thee by the living ,god1 that thou tell us whether thou be the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god4 ,jesus saith unto him1 ,thou has said3 nevertheless ,i say unto you1 ,hereafter shall ye see the ,son of man sitting on the right hand of power1 and coming in the clouds of heaven4 ,then the high priest rent his clothes1 saying1 ,he hath spoken blasphemy2 what further need have we of witnesses8 behold1 now ye have heard his blasphemy4 ,what think ye8 ,they answered and said1 ,he is guilty of death4 ,then did they spit in his face1 and buffeted him2 and others smote him with the palms of their hands1 ,saying1 ,prophesy unto us1 thou ,christ1 ,who is he that smote thee8 ,when the morning was come1 all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against ,jesus to put him to death3 ,and when they had bound him1 they led him away1 and delivered him to ,pontius ,pilate the governor4444 ,and ,jesus stood before the governor3 and the governor asked him1 saying1 ,art thou the ,king of the ,jews8 ,and ,jesus said unto him1 ,thou sayest4 ,and when he was accused of the chief priests and elders1 he answered nothing4 ,then said ,pilate unto him1 ,hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee8 ,and he answered him to never a word2 insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly4 ,now at the feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner1 whom they would4 ,and they had then a notable prisoner1 called ,barabbas4 ,therefore when they were gathered together1 ,pilate said unto them1 ,whom will ye that ,i release unto you8 ,barabbas1 or ,jesus which is called ,christ8 ,for he knew that for envy they had delivered him4 ,when he was set down on the judgement seat1 his wife sent unto him1 saying1 ,have thou nothing to do with that just man3 for ,i have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him4 ,but the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask ,barabbas1 and destroy ,jesus4 ,the governor answered and said unto them1 ,whether of the twain will ye that ,i release unto you8 ,they said1 ,barabbas4 ,pilate saith unto them1 ,what shall ,i do then with ,jesus which is called ,christ8 ,they all say unto him1 ,let him be crucified4 ,and the governor said1 ,why1 what evil hath he done8 ,but they cried out the more1 saying1 ,let him be crucified4 ,when ,pilate saw that he could prevail nothing1 but that rather a tumult was made1 he took water1 and washed his hands before the multitude1 saying1 ,i am innocent of the blood of this just person3 see ye to it4 ,then answered all the people1 and said1 ,his blood be on us1 and on our children4 ,then released he ,barabbas unto them3 and when he had scourged ,jesus1 he delivered him to be crucified4 ,,mark xiv4 #dc-fe2 xv4 #a-ae4 ,and immediately1 while he yet spake1 cometh ,judas1 one of the twelve1 and with him a great multitude with swords and staves1 from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders4 ,and he that betrayed him had given them a token1 saying1 ,whomsoever ,i shall kiss1 that same is he2 take him1 and lead him away safely4 ,and as soon as he was come1 he goeth straightway to him1 and saith1 ,master1 ,master2 and kissed him4 ,and they laid hands on him1 and took him4 ,and one of them that stood by drew a sword1 and smote a servant of the high priest1 and cut off his ear4 ,and ,jesus answered and said unto them1 ,are ye come out1 as against a thief1 with swords and staves to take me8 ,i was daily with you in the temple teaching1 and ye took me not2 but the scriptures must be fulfilled4 ,and they all forsook him1 and fled4 ,and there followed him a certain young man1 having a linen cloth cast about his naked body2 and the young man laid hold on him3 ,and he left the linen cloth1 and fled from them naked4 ,and they led ,jesus away to the high priest3 and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes4444 ,and the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against ,jesus to put him to death2 and found none4 ,for many bare false witness against him1 but their witness agreed not together4 ,and there arose certain1 and bare false witness against him1 saying1 ,we heard him say1 ,i will destroy this temple that is made with hands1 and within three days ,i will build another made without hands4 ,but neither so did their witness agree together4 ,and the high priest stood up in the midst1 and asked ,jesus1 saying1 ,answerest thou nothing8 what is it which these witness against thee8 ,but he held his peace1 and answered nothing4 ,again the high priest asked him1 and said unto him1 ,art thou the ,christ1 the ,son of the ,blessed8 ,and ,jesus said1 ,i am3 and ye shall see the ,son of man sitting on the right hand of power1 and coming in the clouds of heaven4 ,then the high priest rent his clothes1 and saith1 ,what need we any further witnesses8 ,ye have heard the blasphemy3 what think ye8 ,and they all condemned him to be guilty of death4 ,and some began to spit on him1 and to cover his face1 and to buffet him1 and to say unto him1 ,prophesy3 and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands4 ,and straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council1 and bound ,jesus1 and carried him away1 and delivered him to ,pilate4 ,and ,pilate asked him1 ,art thou the ,king of the ,jews8 ,and he answering said unto him1 ,thou sayest it4 ,and the chief priests accused him of many things3 but he answered nothing4 ,and ,pilate asked him again1 saying1 ,answerest thou nothing8 behold how many things they witness against thee4 ,but ,jesus yet answered nothing2 so that ,pilate marvelled4 ,now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner1 whomsoever they desired4 ,and there was one named ,barabbas1 which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him1 who had committed murder in the insurrection4 ,and the multitude crying aloud began to desire him to do as he had ever done unto them4 ,but ,pilate answered them1 saying1 ,will ye that ,i release unto you the ,king of the ,jews8 ,for he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy4 ,but the chief priests moved the people1 that he should rather release ,barabbas unto them4 ,and ,pilate answered and said again unto them1 ,what will ye then that ,i shall do unto him whom ye call the ,king of the ,jews8 ,and they cried out again1 ,crucify him4 ,then ,pilate said unto them1 ,why1 what evil hath he done8 ,and they cried out the more exceedingly1 ,crucify him4 ,and so ,pilate1 willing to content the people1 released ,barabbas unto them1 and delivered ,jesus1 when he had scourged him1 to be crucified4 ,,luke xxii4 #dg-ga2 xxiii4 #a-bd4 ,and while he yet spake1 behold a multitude1 and he that was called ,judas1 one of the twelve1 went before them1 and drew near unto ,jesus to kiss him4 ,but ,jesus said unto him1 ,judas1 betrayest thou the ,son of man with a kiss8 ,when they which were about him saw what would follow1 they said unto him1 ,lord1 shall we smite with the sword8 ,and one of them smote the servant of the high priest1 and cut off his right ear4 ,and ,jesus answered and said1 ,suffer ye thus far4 ,and he touched his ear1 and healed him4 ,then ,jesus said unto the chief priests1 and captains of the temple1 and the elders1 which were come to him1 ,be ye come out1 as against a thief1 with swords and staves8 ,when ,i was daily with you in the temple1 ye stretched forth no hands against me2 but this is your hour1 and the power of darkness4 ,then took they him1 and led him1 and brought him into the high priest's house4 ,and ,peter followed afar off4444 ,and as soon as it was day1 the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together1 and led him into their council1 saying1 ,art thou the ,christ8 tell us4 ,and he said unto them1 ,if ,i tell you1 ye will not believe3 ,and if ,i also ask you1 ye will not answer me1 nor let me go4 ,hereafter shall the ,son of man sit on the right hand of the power of ,god4 ,then said they all1 ,art thou then the ,son of ,god8 ,and he said unto them1 ,ye say that ,i am4 ,and they said1 ,what need we any further witness8 for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth4 ,and the whole multitude of them arose1 and led him unto ,pilate4 ,and they began to accuse him1 saying1 ,we found this fellow perverting the nation1 and forbidding to give tribute to ,csar1 saying that he himself is ,christ a ,king4 ,and ,pilate asked him1 saying1 ,art thou the ,king of the ,jews8 ,and he answered him and said1 ,thou sayest it4 ,then said ,pilate to the chief priests and to the people1 ,i find no fault in this man4 ,and they were the more fierce1 saying1 ,he stirreth up the people1 teaching throughout all ,jewry1 beginning from ,galilee to this place4 ,when ,pilate heard of ,galilee1 he asked whether the man were a ,galilan4 ,and as soon as he knew that he belonged unto ,herod's jurisdiction1 he sent him to ,herod1 who himself also was at ,jerusalem at that time4 ,and when ,herod saw ,jesus1 he was exceeding glad3 for he was desirous to see him of a long season1 because he had heard many things of him2 and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him4 ,then he questioned with him in many words2 but he answered him nothing4 ,and the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him4 ,and ,herod with his men of war set him at nought1 and mocked him1 and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe1 and sent him again to ,pilate4 ,and the same day ,pilate and ,herod were made friends together3 for before they were at enmity between themselves4 ,and ,pilate1 when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people1 ,said unto them1 ,ye have brought this man unto me1 as one that perverteth the people3 and1 behold1 ,i1 having examined him before you1 have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him3 ,no1 nor yet ,herod3 for ,i sent you to him2 and1 lo1 nothing worthy of death is done unto him4 ,i will therefore chastise him1 and release him4444 ,and they cried out all at once1 saying1 ,away with this man1 and release unto us ,barabbas4444 ,pilate therefore1 willing to release ,jesus1 spake again to them4 ,but they cried1 saying1 ,crucify him1 crucify him4 ,and he said unto them the third time1 ,why1 what evil hath he done8 ,i have found no cause of death in him3 ,i will therefore chastise him1 and let him go4 ,and they were instant with loud voices1 requiring that he might be crucified4 ,and the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed4 ,and ,pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required4 ,,john xviii4 #c-ch2 xix4 #a-af4 ,judas then1 having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and ,pharisees1 cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons4444 ,then the band and the captain and officers of the ,jews took ,jesus1 and bound him1 ,and led him away to ,annas first2 for he was father in law to ,caiaphas1 which was the high priest that same year4444 ,the high priest then asked ,jesus of his disciples1 and of his doctrine4 ,jesus answered him1 ,i spake openly to the world2 ,i ever taught in the synagogue1 and in the temple1 whither the ,jews always resort2 and in secret have ,i said nothing4 ,why askest thou me8 ask them which heard me1 what ,i have said unto them3 behold1 they know what ,i said4 ,and when he had thus spoken1 one of the officers which stood by struck ,jesus with the palm of his hand1 saying1 ,answerest thou the high priest so8 ,jesus answered him1 ,if ,i have spoken evil1 bear witness of the evil3 but if well1 why smitest thou me8 ,now ,annas had sent him bound unto ,caiaphas the high priest4444 ,then led they ,jesus from ,caiaphas unto the hall of judgment3 and it was early2 and they themselves went not into the judgment hall1 lest they should be defiled2 but that they might eat the passover4 ,pilate then went out unto them1 and said1 ,what accusation bring ye against this man8 ,they answered and said unto him1 ,if he were not a malefactor1 we would not have delivered him up unto thee4 ,then said ,pilate unto them1 ,take ye him1 and judge him according to your law4 ,the ,jews therefore said unto him1 ,it is not lawful for us to put any man to death4444 ,then ,pilate entered into the judgment hall again1 and called ,jesus1 and said unto him1 ,art thou the ,king of the ,jews8 ,jesus answered him1 ,sayest thou this thing of thyself1 or did others tell it thee of me8 ,pilate answered1 ,am ,i a ,jew8 ,thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me3 what hast thou done8 ,jesus answered1 ,my kingdom is not of this world3 if my kingdom were of this world1 then would my servants fight1 that ,i should not be delivered to the ,jews3 but now is my kingdom not from hence4 ,pilate therefore said unto him1 ,art thou a king then8 ,jesus answered1 ,thou sayest that ,i am a king4 ,to this end was ,i born1 and for this cause came ,i into the world1 that ,i should bear witness unto the truth4 ,everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice4 ,pilate saith unto him1 ,what is truth8 ,and when he had said this1 he went out again unto the ,jews1 and saith unto them1 ,i find in him no fault at all4 ,then ,pilate therefore took ,jesus1 and scourged him4 ,and the soldiers platted a crown of thorns1 and put it on his head1 and they put on him a purple robe1 ,and said1 ,hail1 ,king of the ,jews6 and they smote him with their hands4 ,pilate therefore went forth again1 and saith unto them1 ,behold1 ,i bring him forth to you1 that ye may know that ,i find no fault in him4444 ,the ,jews answered him1 ,we have a law1 and by our law he ought to die1 because he made himself the ,son of ,god4 ,when ,pilate therefore heard that saying1 he was the more afraid2 ,and went again into the judgment hall1 and saith unto ,jesus1 ,whence art thou8 ,but ,jesus gave him no answer4444 ,and from thenceforth ,pilate sought to release him3 but the ,jews cried out1 saying1 ,if thou let this man go1 thou art not ,csar's friend3 whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against ,csar4 ,when ,pilate therefore heard that saying1 he brought ,jesus forth1 and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the ,pavement1 but in the ,hebrew1 ,gabbatha4 ,and it was the preparation of the passover1 and about the sixth hour3 and he saith unto the ,jews1 ,behold your ,king6 ,but they cried out1 ,away with him1 away with him1 crucify him4 ,pilate saith unto them1 ,shall ,i crucify your ,king8 ,the chief priests answered1 ,we have no king but ,csar4 ,then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified4 ,and they took ,jesus1 and led him away4 ,,part ,i ,,the ,,record ,,of ,,fact ,illustration3 ,,st4 ,,matthew 7,,rembrandt7 ,,chapter ,i ,,the ,,record ,,of ,,fact ,the ,gospels of the ,new ,testament form the record of fact in the trial of ,jesus4 ,there is not a line of authentic history in the literature of the world1 sacred or profane1 dealing originally and authoritatively with the facts and circumstances of the trial and crucifixion of the ,christ1 excepting these ,gospels4 ,a line from ,philo--a dubious passage from ,josephus--a mere mention by ,tacitus--a few scattering fragments from the ,talmud--all else is darkness1 save the light that streams down through the centuries from ,calvary and the ,cross through the books of the ,evangelists4 ,in dealing with the record of fact contained in the ,gospels1 in the trial of ,jesus two questions naturally suggest themselves3 7#a7 ,are the ,gospel narratives1 such as we have them to-day1 identical with those that were given to the world by the ,evangelists in ,apostolic times8 ,that is1 have these biographies of the ,christ by the ,evangelical writers been handed down to us through all the ages substantially uncorrupted and unimpaired8 7#b7 ,are the ,gospel writers--,matthew1 ,mark1 ,luke1 and ,john--credible witnesses of the facts and circumstances recorded by them in the ,gospel histories8 ,that is1 did they tell the truth when they wrote and published these narratives to the world8 ,satisfactory affirmative answers to these questions will establish and authenticate a perfect record of fact4 ,the pages of ,part ,i of this volume will be devoted to giving affirmative and satisfactory answers to these questions4 ,and1 in accomplishing this purpose1 academic reasoning and metaphysical speculation will be rejected4 ,well-established rules of evidence1 as employed in modern courts of law1 will be rigorously applied4 ,so-called ,higher ,criticism has no place in a treatise of this kind1 since the critical niceties and dialectic quibbles of men like ,strauss1 ,renan1 and ,baur would not be seriously considered in a modern judicial proceeding4 ,reasonable probability1 and not mathematical certainty1 is the legal test of adequacy in weighing human testimony with a view to a judicial determination4 ,the reader may ask3 ,why should not a ,christian writer1 in a ,christian country1 assume1 without argument1 that the testimony of ,christian sacred writers is true8 ,the answer is that such conduct would convert a purely legal treatise into a religious one1 and substitute faith for logic4 ,the writer of these volumes1 as a ,christian1 believes that the ,gospels relate the truth4 ,as a lawyer1 he is compelled to respect the opinions of a large proportion of mankind who differ with him1 and to employ judicial methods in treating a legal theme4 ,the two questions above mentioned involve two distinct principles or features in the ,law of ,evidence3 7#a7 ,admissibility or relevancy of evidence2 7#b7 ,credibility of witnesses who have rendered testimony4 ,all the pages of ,part ,i will be devoted to a consideration of these features in their relationship to the testimony of the ,evangelists4 ,the first question that naturally arises is this3 ,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 proceeding8 ,suppose that the question of the ,resurrection of ,jesus--that is1 the fact of the truthfulness or falsity of the ,resurrection--should become a material fact in issue in a suit in a modern court of law2 could the testimony of the ,evangelists relating to the ,resurrection be introduced in evidence8 ,it would probably be objected that their testimony was hearsay2 that they had not been properly subjected to the cardinal tests of truth3 an oath1 a cross-examination1 and personal demeanor while testifying4 ,these objections might prevail if another rule of law could not be successfully invoked4 ,such a rule exists1 and with it we have now to deal4 ,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 ,evangelists1 by ,mr4 ,simon ,greenleaf1 the greatest of all writers on the ,law of ,evidence4 ,the opinion of ,greenleaf on a subject of this kind is somewhat in the nature of a decision of a court of last resort1 and his authority in matters of this import is unquestioned in every land where ,english law is practiced4 ,the ,london ,law ,magazine1 a few years ago1 paid him the following splendid tribute3 ,it is no mean honor to ,america that her schools of jurisprudence have produced two of the first writers and best esteemed legal authorities of this century--the great and good man1 ,judge ,story1 and his worthy and eminent associate1 ,professor ,greenleaf4 ,upon the existing ,law of ,evidence 7by ,greenleaf7 more light has shone from the ,new ,world than from all the lawyers who adorn the courts of ,europe4 ,concerning the authenticity of the ,sacred ,scriptures and their admissibility in evidence1 ,greenleaf has thus written3 ,that the books of the ,old ,testament1 as we now have them1 are genuine2 that they existed in the time of our ,saviour1 and were commonly received and referred to among the ,jews as the sacred books of their religion2 and that the text of the ,four ,evangelists has been handed down to us in the state in which it was originally written1 that is1 without having been materially corrupted or falsified1 either by heretics or ,christians1 are facts which we are entitled to assume as true1 until the contrary is shown4 ,the genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt1 and is susceptible of as ready proof1 as that of any ancient writings whatever4 ,the rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar1 and applies with equal force to all ancient writings1 whether documentary or otherwise2 and as it comes first in order1 in the prosecution of these inquiries1 it may1 for the sake of mere convenience1 be designated as our first rule4 ,every document1 apparently ancient1 coming from the proper repository or custody1 and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery1 the law presumes to be genuine1 and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise4 ,an ancient document1 offered in evidence in our courts1 is said to come from the proper repository1 when it is found in the place where1 and under the care of persons with whom1 such writings might naturally and reasonably be expected to be found2 for it is this custody which gives authenticity to documents found within it4 ,if they come from such a place1 and bear no evident marks of forgery1 the law presumes that they are genuine1 and they are permitted to be read in evidence1 unless the opposing party is able successfully to impeach them4 ,the burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit is devolved on the party who makes that objection4 ,the presumption of law is the judgment of charity4 ,it presumes that every man is innocent until he is proved guilty2 that everything has been done fairly and legally until it is proved to have been otherwise2 and that every document found in its proper repository1 and not bearing marks of forgery1 is genuine4 ,now this is precisely the case with the ,sacred ,writings4 ,they have been used in the church from time immemorial1 and are thus found in the place where alone they ought to be looked for4 ,they come to us1 and challenge our reception of them as genuine writings1 precisely as ,domesday ,book1 the ,ancient ,statutes of ,wales1 or any other of the ancient documents which have recently been published under the ,british ,record ,commission are received4 ,they are found in familiar use in all the churches of ,christendom1 as the sacred books to which all denominations of ,christians refer1 as the standard of their faith4 ,there is no pretense that they were engraven on plates of gold and discovered in a cave1 nor that they were brought from heaven by angels2 but they are received as the plain narratives and writings of the men whose names they respectively bear1 made public at the time they were written2 and though there are some slight discrepancies among the copies subsequently made1 there is no pretense that the originals were anywhere corrupted4 ,if it be objected that the originals are lost1 and that copies alone are now produced1 the principles of the municipal law here also afford a satisfactory answer4 ,for the multiplication of copies was a public fact1 in the faithfulness of which all the ,christian community had an interest2 and it is a rule of law that ,in matters of public and general interest1 all persons must be presumed to be conversant1 on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs4 ,therefore it is that1 in such matters1 the prevailing current of assertion is resorted to as evidence1 for it is to this that every member of the community is supposed to be privy4 ,the persons1 moreover1 who multiplied these copies may be regarded1 in some manner1 as the agents of the ,christian public1 for whose use and benefit the copies were made2 and on the ground of the credit due to such agents1 and of the public nature of the facts themselves1 the copies thus made are entitled to an extraordinary degree of confidence1 and1 as in the case of official registers and other public books1 it is not necessary that they should be confirmed and sanctioned by the ordinary tests of truth4 ,if any ancient document concerning our public rights were lost1 copies which had been as universally received and acted upon as the ,four ,gospels have been1 would have been received in evidence in any of our courts of justice1 without the slightest hesitation4 ,the entire text of the ,corpus ,juris ,civilis is received as authority in all the courts of continental ,europe1 upon much weaker evidence of its genuineness2 for the integrity of the ,sacred ,text has been preserved by the jealousy of opposing sects1 beyond any moral possibility of corruption2 while that of the ,roman ,civil ,law has been preserved by tacit consent1 without the interest of any opposing school1 to watch over and preserve it from alteration4 ,these copies of the ,holy ,scriptures having thus been in familiar use in the churches from the time when the text was committed to writing2 having been watched with vigilance by so many sects1 opposed to each other in doctrine1 yet all appealing to these ,scriptures for the correctness of their faith2 and having in all ages1 down to this day1 been respected as the authoritative source of all ecclesiastical power and government1 and submitted to1 and acted under in regard to so many claims of right1 on the one hand1 and so many obligations of duty1 on the other2 it is quite erroneous to suppose that the ,christian is bound to offer any further proof of their genuineness or authenticity4 ,it is for the objector to show them spurious2 for on him1 by the plainest rules of law1 lies the burden of proof4 ,if it were the case of a claim to a franchise1 and a copy of an ancient deed or charter were produced in support of the title1 under parallel circumstances on which to presume its genuineness1 no lawyer1 it is believed1 would venture to deny either its admissibility in evidence or the satisfactory character of the proof4 ,in a recent case in the ,house of ,lords1 precisely such a document1 being an old manuscript copy1 purporting to have been extracted from ancient ,journals of the ,house1 which were lost1 and to have been made by an officer whose duty it was to prepare lists of the peers1 was held admissible in a claim of peerage4#a ,having secured the ,gospel writings to be admitted in evidence under the rule laid down by ,mr4 ,greenleaf1 we are now ready to consider more at length the question of the credibility of the witnesses4 ,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 jury4 ,evidence is frequently deemed relevant and admissible1 and goes to the jury for what it is worth4 ,they may or may not believe it4 ,we are now ready to consider the credit that should be accorded the testimony of ,matthew1 ,mark1 ,luke1 and ,john concerning the trial and crucifixion of ,jesus4 ,and at the outset it should be borne in mind that there is a legal presumption that they told the truth4 ,this presumption operates in their favor from the very moment that their testimony is admitted in evidence4 ,here1 again1 the opinion of ,greenleaf--with all the weight and authority that such an opinion carries--is directly in point4 ,in the ,testimony of the ,evangelists he says3 ,proceeding further1 to inquire whether the facts related by the ,four ,evangelists are proved by competent and satisfactory evidence1 we are led1 first1 to consider on which side lies the burden of establishing the credibility of the witnesses4 ,on this point the municipal law furnishes a rule which is of constant application in all trials by jury1 and is indeed the dictate of that charity which thinketh no evil4 ,in the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion1 every witness is to be presumed credible1 until the contrary is shown1 the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector4 ,this rule serves to show the injustice with which the writers of the ,gospels have ever been treated by infidels2 an injustice silently acquiesced in even by ,christians2 in requiring the ,christian affirmatively1 and by positive evidence1 aliunde to establish the credibility of his witnesses above all others1 before their testimony is entitled to be considered1 and in permitting the testimony of a single profane writer1 alone and uncorroborated1 to outweigh that of any single ,christian4 ,this is not the course in courts of chancery1 where the testimony of a single witness is never permitted to outweigh the oath even of the defendant himself1 interested as he is in the case2 but1 on the contrary1 if the plaintiff1 after having required the oath of his adversary1 cannot overthrow it by something more than the oath of one witness1 however credible1 it must stand as evidence against him4 ,but the ,christian writer seems1 by the usual course of the argument1 to have been deprived of the common presumption of charity in his favor2 and reversing the ordinary rule of administering justice in human tribunals1 his testimony is unjustly presumed to be false1 until it is proved to be true4 ,this treatment1 moreover1 has been applied to them all in a body2 and without due regard to the fact1 that1 being independent historians1 writing at different periods1 they are entitled to the support of each other2 they have been treated1 in the argument1 almost as if the ,new ,testament were the entire production1 at once1 of a body of men1 conspiring by a joint fabrication1 to impose a false religion upon the world4 ,it is time that this injustice should cease2 that the testimony of the evangelists should be admitted to be true1 until it can be disproved by those who would impugn it2 that the silence of one sacred writer on any point should no more detract from his own veracity or that of other historians1 that the like circumstance is permitted to do among profane writers2 and that the ,four ,evangelists should be admitted in corroboration of each other1 as readily as ,josephus and ,tacitus1 or ,polybius and ,livy4#b ,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 veracity4 ,but it should be borne in mind that this presumption is a disputable one1 and may be overturned by opposing evidence2 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 witnesses4 ,now1 let us suppose that such objections have been made1 and that sufficient opposing evidence has been offered to accomplish this result2 what has the ,christian then to say in support of the credibility of the first historians of his faith8 ,what proofs has he to offer1 independent of legal presumption1 that the first biographers of the ,master were truthful men8 ,can he show that the application of legal tests to their credibility will save them in the eyes of a critical and unbelieving world8 ,the writer believes that the ,christian can do it1 and will at once assume the task4 ,in ,starkie on ,evidence we find elaborated a rule of municipal law1 at once concise and comprehensive1 which furnishes a complete test of the credibility of witnesses4 ,the various elements of this rule are constantly operating in the mind of the successful cross-examiner in the course of any extensive cross-examination4 ,the credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon1 firstly1 their honesty2 secondly1 their ability2 thirdly1 their number and the consistency of their testimony2 fourthly1 the conformity of their testimony with experience2 and fifthly1 the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances4#c ,let us apply these successive tests1 in the order above enumerated1 to the ,evangelists4 7#a7 ,in the first place1 let us consider the question of their honesty4 ,the meaning of the word honesty1 used in this connection1 is peculiar4 ,it relates rather to personal sincerity than to personal integrity1 and suggests the idea of perjury rather than theft in criminal law4 ,were the witnesses honest8 ,that is1 were they sincere8 ,did they intend to tell the truth8 ,that is1 did they themselves believe what they testified8 ,if so1 they were honest witnesses1 though their testimony was false1 as a result of error in judgment or mistake of fact4 ,in the sense1 then1 of sincerity is the test of honesty to be applied to the ,evangelists as witnesses of the facts which they relate in the ,new ,testament narratives4 ,and in making this test let us bear in mind the nature and scope of this work2 that it is not a religious treatise1 and that the question of inspiration must not be allowed to confuse a purely legal and historical discussion4 ,as secular historians1 and not as inspired writers1 must the ,evangelists be considered4 ,and in testing their credibility1 the customary standards employed in analyzing the motives and conduct of ordinary men in the usual experiences and everyday affairs of life must be applied4 ,to regard them as strange or supernatural beings1 subject to some awful influence1 and acting under the guidance and protection of some god or hero1 is decidedly foreign to the present purpose4 ,it is felt that only two considerations are needed in applying the test of sincerity to the ,evangelists3 7#a7 ,character2 7#b7 ,motive4 ,and this for the reason that honest character and righteous motive are the legitimate parentage of perfect sincerity4 ,then1 as a primary consideration1 in discussing their sincerity1 it may be reasonably contended that the ,gospel writers were either good men or bad4 ,a middle ground is not possible in their case1 since the issues joined and the results attained were too terrible and stupendous to have been produced by negative or indifferent forces4 ,were they good men1 then they believed what they taught and wrote1 and were sincere1 else they deliberately palmed off an imposture on the world1 which is inconsistent with the hypothesis that they were good4 ,were they bad men1 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 recorded1 either before or since2 for1 in their discourses and their writings1 they portrayed the divinest character and proclaimed the sublimest truths known to the children of men4 ,every serious1 thoughtful mind at once inquires3 ,could bad men1 conspirators and hypocrites1 have painted such a character--one whose perfect purity and sinless beauty mock and shame the mental and spiritual attributes of every false prophet and of all heathen gods8 ,the ,olympian ,zeus1 the sovereign creation of the superb ,greek intellect1 was a fierce and vindictive deity--at times a faithless spouse and a drunken debauchee4 ,mahomet1 whom two hundred millions of the human race worship as the ,inspired of ,allah1 was cruel and treacherous in warfare1 and base and sensual in private life4 ,the ,great ,spirit of the ,indian granted immortality to dogs1 but denied it to women4 ,other hideous and monstrous attributes deformed the images and blurred the characters of pagan prophets and heathen divinities4 ,but ,jesus of ,nazareth was a pure and perfect being who claimed to be sinless1#d and whose claims have been admitted by all the world1 believers and unbelievers alike4 ,the great truths taught by the gentle ,nazarene and transmitted by the ,evangelists have brought balm and healing to the nations1 have proclaimed and established universal brotherhood among men4 ,is it probable that such a character was painted and such truths proclaimed by dishonest and insincere men8 ,can ,vice be the mother of ,virtue8 ,do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles8 ,if ,jesus was not really the pure and holy being portrayed by the ,gospels1 then the ,evangelists have created a sublime character in a superb fiction which surpasses anything to be found in profane literature1 and that evil-minded men could neither have conceived nor executed4 ,it is impossible to derive from these reflections any other conclusion than the absolute honesty and perfect sincerity of the ,evangelists4 ,besides1 the mere perusal of their writings leaves a deep impression that they were pure and pious men4 ,again1 a second and more serious consideration than that of character1 as affecting the sincerity of the ,gospel writers1 is the question of motive4 ,if the ,evangelists were insincere and did not believe their own story1 what motive prompted them to tell it1 to preach it and to die for it8 ,it is not believed that all men are now or have ever been wholly selfish1 but it is contended that desire for compensation is the main inducement to human action1 mental and manual4 ,reward is the great golden key that opens the door of the ,temple of ,labor1 and some form of recompense1 here or hereafter1 explains all the bustling activity of men4 ,the ,apostles themselves acted in obedience to this law1 for we find them quarreling among themselves as to place and precedence in the ,new ,kingdom4 ,they even demanded of the ,master the exact nature of their reward for labors performed and sacrifices endured4 ,to which reply was made that they should sit on twelve thrones and judge the ,twelve ,tribes of ,israel4 ,now let us apply this principle of expectation of reward to the conduct of the ,evangelists in preaching and publishing the ,gospel of the ,nazarene1 and let us note particularly the result as it affects the question of motive in human conduct4 ,but first let us review1 for a moment1 the political and religious situation at the beginning of the ,apostolic ministry4 ,the ,master and ,savior of the first ,christians had just perished as a malefactor on the cross4 ,the religion which the ,apostles began to preach was founded in the doctrine of repentance from sins1 faith in the ,crucified ,one1 and belief in ,his resurrection from the dead4 ,christianity1 of which these elements were the essentials1 sought to destroy and supplant all other religions4 ,no compromises were proposed1 no treaties were concluded4 ,the followers of the ,nazarene raised a black flag against paganism and every heathen god4 ,no quarter was asked and none was given4 ,this strange faith not only defied all other religions1 but mocked all earthly government not built upon it4 ,the small1 but devoted1 band1 thus arrayed against themselves in the very beginning all the opposing religious and secular forces of the earth4 ,judaism branded the new creed as a disobedient and rebellious daughter4 ,paganism denounced it as a sham and a fraud1 because its doctrines were unknown to the ,portico and the ,academy1 and because its teachings were ridiculed by both ,stoics and ,epicureans4 ,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 royalty4 ,in seeking1 then1 to establish the new faith and to inculcate its doctrines1 what could and did the ,evangelists expect but the bitter opposition which they met8 ,did they seriously hope to see the proud and haughty ,sadducee1 who despised the common people1 or the kingly aristocracy of ,rome1 that vaunted a superhuman excellence1 complacently accept a religion that taught the absolute equality and the universal brotherhood of men8 ,did they not expect what they actually received--bitter persecution1 horrible torture1 and cruel death8 ,then we are led to ask3 ,was this the recompense which they sought8 ,again1 we pose the question3 ,what was the motive of these men in thus acting1 if they were dishonest and insincere8 ,if they knew that they were preaching a falsehood1 what reward did they expect8 ,was it of an earthly or a heavenly kind8 ,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 confer4 ,were they looking for heavenly reward8 ,it is ridiculous to imagine that they hoped to gain this by preaching a falsehood in this world4 ,nothing could be1 therefore1 more absurd than the proposition that a number of men banded themselves together1 repudiated the ancient faith of their fathers1 changed completely their mode of life1 became austere in professing and practicing principles of virtue1 spent their entire lives proclaiming certain truths to mankind1 and then suffered the deaths of martyrs--all for the sake of a religion which they knew to be false4 ,if they did not believe it to be false1 they were sincere1 and one element of their credibility is established4 ,it is not a question at this time as to the absolute correctness of their statements4 ,these statements might have been false1 though their authors believed them to be true--it is a question of sincerity at this point2 and the test of sincerity1 as an element of credibility1 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 it4 7#b7 ,in the second place1 let us consider the ability of the ,evangelists as a test of their credibility as witnesses4 ,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 considerations3 7#a7 ,his natural powers of observation1 which enable him to clearly perceive1 and his strength of memory1 which enables him to fully retain the matters of fact to which his testimony relates2 7#b7 his opportunities for observing the things about which he testifies4 ,to what extent the ,gospel writers possessed the first of these qualifications--that is1 power of observation and strength of memory--we are not informed by either history or tradition4 ,but we are certainly justified in assuming to be true what the law actually presumes3 that they were at least men of sound mind and average intelligence4 ,this presumption1 it may be remarked1 continues to exist in favor of the witness until an objector appears who proves the contrary by competent and satisfactory evidence4 ,it is not believed that this proof has ever been or can ever be successfully established in the case of the ,evangelists4 ,aside from this legal presumption in their favor1 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 history4 ,in the first place1 the writings themselves indicate extraordinary mental vigor1 as well as cultivated intelligence4 ,the ,gospels of ,luke and ,john1 moreover1 reveal that the elegance of style and lofty imagery which are the invariable characteristics of intellectual depth and culture4 ,the ignorant fishermen idea is certainly not applicable to the ,gospel writers4 ,if they were ever very ignorant1 at the time of the composition of the ,evangelical writings they had outgrown the affliction4 ,the fact that the ,gospels were written in ,greek by ,hebrews indicates that they were not entirely illiterate4 ,again1 the occupations of two of them are very suggestive4 ,matthew was a collector at the seat of customs1#e and ,luke was a physician4#f ,both these callings required more than ordinary knowledge of men1 as well as accurate powers of observation1 discrimination1 and analysis4 ,but it has been frequently urged that1 regardless of their natural endowments1 the ,evangelists were biased in favor of ,jesus and ,his teachings1 and bitterly prejudiced against all opposing faiths4 ,in other words1 they were at the same moment both enthusiasts and fanatics4 ,for this reason1 it is contended1 their testimony is unreliable4 ,this is without doubt the weakest assault ever made upon the trustworthiness of the ,gospel narratives4 ,that the ,gospel writers were neither fanatics nor enthusiasts is evident from the very tone and style of the ,sacred ,writings themselves4 ,the language of fanaticism and enthusiasm is the language of rant and rage1 of vituperation and of censure1 on the one hand1 and of eulogy and adulation on the other4 ,the enthusiast knows no limit to the praise of those whose cause he advocates4 ,the fanatic places no bounds to his denunciation of those whom he opposes4 ,now1 the most remarkable characteristic of the ,new ,testament histories is the spirit of quiet dignity and simple candor which everywhere pervades them4 ,there is nowhere the slightest trace of bitterness or resentment4 ,there is enthusiasm everywhere in the sense of religious fervor1 but nowhere in the sense of unbecoming heat or impatient caviling4 ,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 writings4 ,the murder of the ,baptist by ,herod2 his cunning designs against ,jesus2 the constant dogging of the footsteps of the ,master by the spies of the ,sanhedrin2 and ,his crucifixion by the order of ,pontius ,pilate--what more could be desired to make the heart rage and the blood boil8 ,but nowhere is there the slightest exhibition of violent feeling or extravagant emotion4 ,a gentle forbearance1 a mild equanimity1 a becoming dignity1 mark every thought and utterance4 ,the character of ,pilate1 as portrayed in the ,new ,testament1 is a supreme illustration of the fairness and magnanimity of the ,gospel writers4 ,philo and ,josephus describe the ,roman procurator as stubborn1 cruel1 and vindictive4 ,the only kindly suggestion touching the character of ,pilate that has come down from the ancient world1 is that contained in the writings of men who1 above all others1 would have been justified in describing him as cowardly and craven4 ,instead of painting him as a monster1 they have linked conscience to his character and stored mercy in his heart1 by their accounts of his repeated attempts to release ,jesus4 ,fanatics and enthusiasts would not have done this4 ,again1 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 blunders1 and to proclaim them to the world4 ,a disposition to do this is one of the surest indications of a truthful mind4 ,it is in the nature of a declaration against interest1 in the phraseology of the law2 and such declarations are believed because it has been universally observed that men are not likely to invent anecdotes to their own discredit4 ,when we find them in any author1 says ,professor ,fisher in his ,grounds of ,theistic and ,christian ,belief1 a strong presumption is raised in favor of his general truthfulness4 ,many passages of ,new ,testament ,scriptures place ,jesus and the ,apostles in a most unfavorable light before the world4 ,the denial of the ,master by ,peter#g and ,his betrayal by ,judas2#h the flight of the ,eleven from the ,garden at the time of the arrest2#i the ridiculous attempt of ,peter to walk upon the sea and his failure because of lack of faith2#aj the frequent childish contentions among the disciples for place and precedence in the affections of ,jesus and in the ,new ,kingdom2#aa the embassy from ,john the ,baptist to ,jesus asking if ,he1 ,jesus1 was the ,messiah1 after the latter had already visited the former1 and had been baptized by him2#ab the belief of the family of ,jesus that ,he was mad2#ac and the fact that ,his neighbors at ,nazareth threatened to kill ,him by hurling ,him from a cliff#ad--these various recitals have furnished a handle to skeptical criticism in every age4 ,they might as well have been omitted from the ,gospel histories2 and they would have been omitted by designing and untruthful men4 ,again1 touching the question of bias and prejudice1 it is worthy of observation that skeptics fail to apply the same rules of criticism to sacred that they employ in profane literature4 ,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 ,master4 ,it is asserted that this sacred and tender relationship warped and blinded their ,judgment1 and disqualified them to write truthfully the facts and circumstances connected with the life and ministry of the founder of their faith4 ,but these same critics do not apply the same tests of credibility to secular writers sustaining similar relationships4 ,the ,commentaries of ,csar and the ,anabasis of ,xenophon record the mighty deeds and brilliant achievements of their authors2 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 partiality4 ,the ,memorabilia of ,xenophon1 ,recollections of ,socrates1 is the tribute of an affectionate and admiring disciple2 and yet1 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 philosopher4 ,it is never argued that the intimate relationship existing between ,xenophon and ,socrates should affect the credibility of the author of the ,memorabilia4 ,the best biography in the ,english language is ,boswell's ,life of ,johnson4 ,boswell's admiration for ,dr4 ,johnson was idolatrous4 ,at times1 his servile flattery of the great ,englishman amounted to disgusting sycophancy4 ,in spite of this1 his work is a monumental contribution to historical literature4 ,the ,encyclopedia ,britannica says that ,boswell has produced the best biography the world has yet seen2 but why not reject this book because of its author's spaniel-like devotion to the man whose life he has written8 ,if ,matthew1 ,mark1 ,luke1 and ,john are to be repudiated on the ground of bias1 why not repudiate ,csar1 ,xenophon1 and ,boswell8 ,it is respectfully submitted that there is no real difference in logic between the tests of credibility applicable to sacred1 and those required in the case of profane writers4 ,a just and exact criticism will apply the same rules to both4 ,as to the second qualification above mentioned1 under the second legal test of credibility laid down by ,starkie1 that is1 the opportunity of observing facts and circumstances about which testimony is given1 it may safely be said that the majority of the ,evangelists possessed it in the highest degree4 ,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 testifies4 ,now1 it is reasonably certain that all of the ,gospel writers were eyewitnesses of most of the events recorded by them in the ,gospel histories4 ,both ,matthew and ,john were numbered among the ,twelve who constantly attended the ,master in all ,his wanderings1 heard ,his discourses1 witnessed the performance of ,his miracles1 and proclaimed ,his faith after ,he was gone4 ,it is very probable that ,mark was another eyewitness of the events in the life and ministry of the ,savior4 ,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 ,garden4#ae ,if ,mark was actually present at midnight in ,gethsemane peering through the shadows to see what would be done to the ,nazarene by the mob1 it is more than probable that he was also a witness of many other events in the life and ministry of the great ,teacher4 ,but1 whether this be true or not1 it is very well settled that the ,second ,gospel was dictated to ,mark by ,peter1 who was as familiar with all the acts and words of ,jesus as was ,matthew or ,john4 ,the ,christian writers of antiquity unanimously testify that ,mark wrote the ,gospel ascribed to him1 at the dictation of ,peter4 ,if their testimony is true1 ,peter is the real author of the ,second ,gospel4 ,that the ,gospel of ,mark was written by an eyewitness is the opinion of ,renan1 the skeptic1 who says3 ,in ,mark1 the facts are related with a clearness for which we seek in vain amongst the other ,evangelists4 ,he likes to report certain words of ,jesus in ,syro-,chaldean4 ,he is full of minute observations1 coming doubtless from an eye-witness4 ,there is nothing to prevent our agreeing with ,papias in regarding this eye-witness1 who evidently had followed ,jesus1 who had loved ,him and observed ,him very closely1 and who had preserved a lively image of ,him1 as the ,apostle ,peter himself4#af ,the same writer declares ,matthew to have been an eyewitness of the events described by him4 ,he says3 ,on the whole1 ,i admit as authentic the four canonical ,gospels4 ,all1 in my opinion1 date from the first century1 and the authors are1 generally speaking1 those to whom they are attributed2 but their historic value is diverse4 ,matthew evidently merits an unlimited confidence as to the discourses2 they are the ,logia1 the identical notes taken from a clear and lively remembrance of the teachings of ,jesus4#af ,that ,luke was an eyewitness of many of the things recorded by him1 and that the others were related to him by eyewitnesses1 is perfectly clear from the introductory verses of his ,gospel4 ,in addressing his royal patron1 ,theophilus1 he assures him that those who communicated the information contained in the ,gospel to him were eyewitnesses2 and follows by saying that he himself had had perfect understanding of all things from the very first4#ag ,the evident meaning of this is that1 desiring full information for ,theophilus1 he had supplemented his own personal knowledge by additional facts secured from eyewitnesses to those things which1 not being of the ,twelve1 he himself had not seen4 ,st4 ,john was peculiarly well qualified to record the sayings and doings of the ,christ4 ,he was called the disciple whom ,jesus loved4 ,he was admitted into the presence of the ,savior1 at all times1 on terms of the utmost intimacy and friendship4 ,at the ,last ,supper1 his head reposed confidingly and lovingly upon the bosom of the ,master4 ,together with ,peter and ,james1 he witnessed the resurrection of ,jairus' daughter2 was present at the ,transfiguration on the ,mount1 and at the agony of the ,savior in the ,garden4 ,from the cross1 ,jesus placed upon him the tender and pathetic burden of caring for ,his mother2 and1 running ahead of ,peter1 he was the first among the ,twelve to arrive at the open sepulcher4 ,by means of a favorable acquaintanceship with the ,high ,priest1 he was enabled to gain access to the palace and to be present at the trial of ,jesus1 as well as to introduce ,peter1 his friend4 ,it is thus clearly evident that the ,evangelists were amply able1 from any point of view1 to truthfully and accurately record the events narrated in the ,gospel histories4 ,as eyewitnesses1 being on the ground and having the situation well in hand1 they were certainly better qualified to write truthful history of the events then occurring than historians and critics who lived centuries afterwards4 ,but it is frequently contended that1 if the ,evangelists were eyewitnesses of the leading events which they recorded1 they committed them to writing so long afterwards that they had forgotten them1 or had confused them with various traditions that had in the meantime grown up4 ,there may be some little truth in this contention1 but not enough to destroy the credibility of the witnesses as to events such as the ,crucifixion and ,resurrection of ,jesus4 ,these are not matters to be easily forgotten or confused with other things4 ,the date of the composition and publication of the different ,gospels is not known4 ,but ,professor ,holtzmann1 of ,heidelberg 7a man who cannot be said to be favorable to ,christianity1 since he was for several years the leader of the freethinkers in the ,grand ,duchy of ,baden71 after many years of careful study of the subject1 declared that the ,synoptic ,gospels1 the first three1 were committed to writing between the years #fj and #hj of our era4#ah ,this was only from thirty to fifty years after the death of ,jesus4 ,could men of average memory and intelligence who had been almost daily preaching the life and deeds of ,jesus during these thirty or fifty years have forgotten them8 ,the testimony of ,principal ,drummond1 of ,oxford1 is very pertinent at this point4 ,he says3 ,if we suppose that the ,synoptic ,gospels were written from forty to sixty years after the time of ,christ1 still they were based on earlier material1 and even after forty years the memory of characteristic sayings may be perfectly clear4444 ,i have not a particularly good memory1 but ,i can recall many sayings that were uttered forty1 or even fifty1 years ago1 and in some cases can vividly recollect the scene4#ai ,if the ,evangelists were eyewitnesses1 which the records seem clearly to indicate1 they possessed one of the strongest tests of credibility4 7#c7 ,in the third place1 as to their number and the consistency of their testimony4 ,the credibility of a witness is greatly strengthened if his testimony is corroborated by other witnesses who testify to substantially the same thing4 ,the greater the number of supporting witnesses1 fraud and collusion being barred1 the greater the credibility of the witness corroborated4 ,but corroboration implies the presence in evidence of due and reasonable consistency between the testimony of the witness testifying and that of those corroborating4 ,a radical discrepancy on a material point not only fails to strengthen1 but tends to destroy the credibility of one or both the witnesses4 ,now1 the fierce fire of skeptical criticism during all the ages has been centered upon the so-called discrepancies of the ,gospel narratives4 ,it is asserted by many critics that these inconsistencies are so numerous and so palpable1 that the ,gospel records are worthless1 even as secular histories4 ,the authors of these writings1 according to the skeptics1 mutually destroy each other4 ,illustration3 ,,st4 ,,mark ,,and ,,st4 ,,paul 7,d,,rer7 ,in considering this phase of the credibility of the ,gospel writers1 it must again be remembered that the question of inspiration has no place in this discussion2 and that ,matthew1 ,mark1 ,luke1 and ,john must be regarded simply as secular historians4 ,the reader is urged to consider the biographers of the ,christ as he would consider ordinary witnesses in a court of law2 to apply to them the same tests of credibility2 to sift and weigh their testimony in the same manner2 and to subject them to the same rules of cross-examination4 ,if this is done1 it is felt that the result will be entirely favorable to the veracity and integrity of the sacred writers4 ,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 witnesses4 ,every lawyer of experience and every adult citizen of average intelligence knows that this is true4 ,men of unquestioned veracity and incorruptible integrity are frequently arrayed against each other in both civil and criminal trials1 and the record reveals irreconcilable contradictions in their testimony4 ,not only do prosecutions for perjury not follow1 but1 in many instances1 the witnesses are not even suspected of bad faith or an intention to falsify4 ,defects in sight1 hearing1 or memory2 superior advantage in the matter of observation2 or a sudden change in the position of one or both the parties1 causing distraction of attention1 at the time of the occurrence of the events involved in litigation--all or any of these conditions1 as well as many others1 may create discrepancies and contradictions where there is a total absence of any intention to misrepresent4 ,a thorough appreciation of this fact will greatly aid in a clear understanding of this phase of the discussion4 ,again1 an investigation of the charge of discrepancy against the ,gospel writers shows that the critics and skeptics have classified mere omissions as contradictions4 ,nothing could be more absurd than to consider an omission a contradiction1 unless the requirements of the case show that the facts and circumstances omitted were essential to be stated1 or that the omission was evidently intended to mislead or deceive4 ,any other contention would turn historical literature topsy-turvy and load it down with contradictions4 ,dion ,cassius1 ,tacitus1 and ,suetonius have all written elaborately of the reign of ,tiberius4 ,many things are mentioned by each that are not recorded by the other two4 ,are we to reject all three as unreliable historians because of this fact8 ,abbott1 ,hazlitt1 ,bourrienne1 and ,walter ,scott have written biographies of ,napoleon ,bonaparte4 ,no one of them has recited all the facts recorded by the others4 ,are these omissions to destroy the merits of all these writers and cause them to be suspected and rejected8 ,grafton's ,chronicles rank high in ,english historical literature4 ,they comprise the reign of ,king ,john2 and yet make no mention of the granting of ,magna ,charta4 ,this is as if the life of ,jefferson had been written without mention of the ,declaration of ,independence2 or a biography of ,lincoln without calling attention to the ,emancipation ,proclamation4 ,notwithstanding this strange omission1 ,englishmen still preserve ,grafton's ,chronicles as valuable records among their archives4 ,and the same spirit of generous criticism is everywhere displayed in matters of profane literature4 ,the opponents of ,christianity are never embarrassed in excusing or explaining away omissions or contradictions1 provided the writer is a layman and his subject secular4 ,but let the theme be a sacred one1 and the author an ecclesiastic--preacher1 priest1 or prophet--and immediately incredulity rises to high tide1 engulfs the reason1 and destroys all dispassionate criticism4 ,could it be forgotten for a moment that ,matthew1 ,mark1 ,luke1 and ,john were biographers of the ,christ1 a sacred person1 no difficulties would arise in the matter of inconsistencies1 no objections would be made to their credibility4 ,the slight discrepancies that undoubtedly exist would pass unnoticed1 or be forever buried under the weight of an overwhelming conviction that they are1 in the main1 accurate and truthful4 ,but the ,evangelists were guided by inspiration1 the skeptics say2 and discrepancies are inconsistent with the theory of inspiration4 ,god would not have inspired them to write contradictory stories4 ,but the assumption is false that they claimed to be guided by inspiration2 for1 as ,marcus ,dods truthfully says1 none of our ,gospels pretends to be infallible or even inspired4 ,only one of them tells us how its writer obtained his information1 and that was by careful inquiry at the proper sources4#bj ,but whether the ,gospel writers were inspired or not is immaterial so far as the purpose of this chapter is concerned4 ,the rules of evidence testing their credibility would be the same in either case4 ,a more pertinent observation upon the ,gospel discrepancies has not been made than that by ,paley in his ,evidences of ,christianity1 where he says3 ,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 related4 ,the usual character of human testimony is substantial truth under circumstantial variety4 ,this is what the daily experience of courts of justice teaches4 ,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 them4 ,these inconsistencies are studiously displayed by an adverse pleader1 but oftentimes with little impression upon the minds of the judges4 ,on the contrary1 a close and minute agreement induces the suspicion of confederacy and fraud4 ,when written histories touch upon the same scenes of action1 the comparison almost always affords ground for a like reflection4 ,numerous1 and sometimes important1 variations present themselves2 not seldom1 also1 absolute and final contradictions2 yet neither one nor the other are deemed sufficient to shake the credibility of the main fact4 ,the embassy of the ,jews to deprecate the execution of ,claudian's order to place his statue in their temple1 ,philo places in the harvest1 ,josephus in seed-time2 both contemporary writers4 ,no reader is led by this inconsistency to doubt whether such an embassy was sent1 or whether such an order was given4 ,our own history supplies examples of the same kind4 ,in the account of the ,marquis of ,argyll's death1 in the reign of ,charles ,,ii1 we have very remarkable contradiction4 ,lord ,clarendon relates that he was condemned to be hanged1 which was performed the same day2 on the contrary1 ,burnet1 ,woodrow1 ,heath1 ,echard1 concur in stating that he was condemned upon the ,saturday and executed upon a ,monday4 ,was any reader of ,english history ever skeptic enough to raise from hence a question1 whether the ,marquis of ,argyll was executed or not8 ,yet this ought to be left in uncertainty1 according to the principles upon which the ,christian history has sometimes been attacked4#ba ,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 ,evangelists4 ,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 world4 ,this is a silly supposition1 since it is positively known that the authors of the ,evangelical narratives wrote and published them at different times and places4 ,moreover1 the style and contents of the books themselves negative the idea of a concerted purpose to deceive4 ,and1 besides1 the very inconsistencies themselves show that there was no confederacy and fraud2 since intelligent conspirators would have fabricated exactly the same story in substantially the same language4 ,furthermore1 a just and impartial criticism will consider not only the discrepant but also the corroborative elements in the ,new ,testament histories4 ,it should not be forgotten that the authors of the ,gospels were independent historians who wrote at different times and places4 ,then1 in all matters of fact in which there is a common agreement1 they may be said to fully corroborate each other4 ,and it may be contended without fear of successful contradiction that1 when so considered1 there will be found numerous cases of corroboration where there is one of discord or inconsistency4 ,the corroborative elements or features in the ,evangelical narratives may be classified under three headings3 7#a7 ,instances in which certain historical events related by one of the ,gospel writers are also told by one or more of the others4 ,these are cases of ordinary corroboration4 7#b7 ,instances in which the recital of a certain fact by one of the ,evangelists would be obscure or meaningless unless explained or supplemented by another4 ,these may be regarded as examples of internal confirmation4 7#c7 ,instances in which the fact related by one ,evangelist must be true from the nature of the case1 regardless of what the others have said4 ,this is the simple confirmation of logic or reason4 ,a few illustrations will serve to make clear this classification4 ,under the first heading of ordinary corroboration may be mentioned the accounts of the miracle of feeding the five thousand4 ,all the ,evangelists tell us of this event1 and each records the fact that the fragments taken up were twelve baskets full4#bb ,under the second heading of internal confirmation the following instances may be cited3 ,matt4 xxvi4 #fg1 #fh3 ,and others smote him with the palms of their hands1 saying1 ,prophesy unto us1 thou ,christ1 ,who is he that smote thee8 ,a caviling criticism would demand3 ,why ask of the ,christ to prophesy to those in ,his presence8 ,and the obscurity would be damaging1 were it not for an additional sentence in ,luke1 who records the same circumstance4 ,and when they had blindfolded him1 they struck him on the face1 and asked him1 saying1 ,prophesy1 ,who is it that smote thee8#bc ,the fact that ,jesus was blindfolded1 which is told by ,luke1 explains the use of the word prophesy by ,matthew1 which would otherwise be absurd4 ,again1 ,matt4 xiii4 #b3 ,and great multitudes were gathered together with him1 so that he went into the ship1 and sat4 ,here1 the definite article points to a particular ship which ,matthew fails to mention4 ,but ,mark comes to his aid and clearly explains the statement3 ,and he spake to his disciples1 that a small vessel should wait upon him because of the multitude1 lest they should throng him4 ,these two passages taken together identify the ship4 ,again1 ,john vi4 #e3 ,when ,jesus lifted up his eyes1 and saw a great company come to him1 he saith unto ,philip1 ,whence shall we buy bread that these may eat8 ,this is one of the only two places in the ,gospel where ,jesus addressed this ,apostle4 ,but why ask ,philip instead of one of the others8 ,two other passages1 one from ,john and one from ,luke1 furnish an explanation4 ,in ,john i4 #dd we read that ,philip was of ,bethsaida4 ,in ,luke ix4 #aj we learn that the scene of the event1 the miracle of feeding the five thousand1 was a desert place belonging to the city called ,bethsaida4 ,the reason1 then1 for addressing ,philip1 instead of one of the other ,apostles1 is clear4 ,bethsaida was the home of ,philip2 and he would naturally1 therefore1 be more familiar with the location of the bread shops than the others4 ,in ,john vi41 where the question is asked1 neither the place of the feeding nor the apostle questioned is even remotely connected with the city of ,bethsaida2 and in ,luke the account of the miracle says nothing of ,philip or the question put to him4 ,but when the passages are connected the striking coincidence appears1 and the explanation is complete4 ,again1 ,john xviii4 #aj3 ,then ,simon ,peter1 having a sword1 drew it and smote the high priest's servant1 and cut off his right ear4 ,the servant's name was ,malchus4 ,it has been objected that there is nowhere an account of the arrest or punishment of ,peter for this assault and resistance to armed authority2 and that1 therefore1 there was no such occurrence4 ,a passage from ,luke explains the failure to arrest4 ,and ,jesus answered and said1 ,suffer ye thus far1 and he touched his ear and healed him4#bd ,the healing of the ear explains why no arrest followed2 for1 if charges had been made1 there would have been no evidence of the gravity of the offense4 ,indeed1 witnesses against ,peter would have been completely confounded and humiliated by the result of the miracle2 and might have been driven from court as malicious accusers4 ,then1 the failure to arrest is a silent corroboration of the statement that the event occurred and that the miracle was performed4 ,under the third heading1 of the confirmation of logic or reason1 a single instance will suffice4 ,john xx4 #d3 ,and the other disciple did outrun ,peter and came first to the sepulchre4 ,the other disciple was ,st4 ,john1 who is generally conceded to have been the youngest of the ,apostles4 ,and ,st4 ,peter1 we may judge from ,john xxi4 #ah1 was already past the meridian of life4 ,what could be more natural than that the younger man should outrun the older and arrive first at the sepulcher8 ,what better proof could be expected of the fact of the existence of that sweetness and modesty in youth which respects old age1 and that endeared ,john to ,jesus above all others1 than we have here1 where the younger man awaits the arrival of the older before beginning to explore the deserted tomb8 ,examples similar to these might be multiplied at length1 since the ,gospel histories are filled with them2 but those above mentioned are deemed sufficient to illustrate the theory of corroboration4 ,the instances of internal confirmation in the ,new ,testament narratives are especially convincing4 ,they are arguments and proofs in the nature of undesigned coincidences which1 from the very nature of the case1 shut out all possibility of collusion or fraud4 ,in most cases they are expressed in a single phrase and represent an isolated thought corroborative of some other elsewhere expressed4 ,though small1 detached1 and fragmentary1 like particles of dynamite1 they operate with resistless force when collected and combined4 ,once more attention is called to the fact that these discrepancies negative completely the idea that the ,gospel writers were conspirators1 bent upon the common purpose of deceiving mankind by publishing a false history to the world4 ,nothing could be more absurd than to suppose that men conspiring to perpetrate a fraud1 would neglect a fundamental principle underlying all successful conspiracy2 that is1 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 purpose4 ,then1 if there was no previous concert1 the fact that four men1 writing at different times and places1 concurred in framing substantially the same history1 is one of the strongest proofs of the credibility of the writers and the truthfulness of their narratives4 ,and on this point the testimony of a very great writer may be quoted3 that in a number of concurrent testimonies1 where there has been no previous concert1 there is a probability distinct from that which may be termed the sum of the probabilities resulting from the testimonies of the witnesses2 a probability which would remain1 even though the witnesses were of such a character as to merit no faith at all4 ,this probability arises from the concurrence itself4 ,that such a concurrence should spring from chance is as one to infinite2 that is1 in other words1 morally impossible4 ,if1 therefore1 concert be excluded1 there remains no cause but the reality of the fact4#be ,apply the theory of probability1 arising from concurrent testimonies1 where there has been no previous concert1 to the case of the ,evangelists1 and we are at once convinced that they were truthful and that their histories are true4 7#d7 ,let us now consider the conformity of the testimony of the ,evangelists with human experience4 ,this is the fourth legal test of the credibility of witnesses prescribed by ,starkie4 ,the conformity of testimony with experience is one of the most potent and universally applied tests of the credibility of witnesses4 ,and it may be remarked that its application is not confined to judicial proceedings or to courts of law4 ,it requires no professional attainments to make it effective4 ,the blacksmith and carpenter1 as well as the judge and jury1 employ it in every mental operation where the statements of others are submitted to analysis and investigation4 ,a new theory being proposed1 the correctness of which is questioned1 the test of experience is at once applied4 ,if it is not in harmony with what we have seen and heard and felt1 we usually reject it2 or1 at least1 doubt it4 ,if an explorer should return from the ,arctic regions and tell us that he had seen oranges1 such as we import from ,florida1 growing on trees near the ,north ,pole1 we would not believe him4 ,neither would we credit the statement of a traveler from ,south ,america that he had seen ,polar bears browsing on the banks of the ,amazon4 ,these representations would be utterly inconsistent with what we know to be the essential conditions of orange culture1 and with the well-known habits and climatic nature of the ,polar bear4 ,an ancient document1 purporting to date from the time of ,washington and the ,revolution1 and containing recitals about railways1 telegraphs1 telephones1 and electric lights1 would be recognized at once as spurious1 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 ,revolution4 ,these are simple illustrations of the application of the test of experience in the mental processes of weighing and sifting the testimony of others4 ,now1 no serious objection to the credibility of the ,gospel writers has been made under the test of the conformity of their statements with experience1 except in the matter of miracles4 ,it is generally admitted1 even by skeptics1 that the facts stated in the ,new ,testament narratives might have happened in the due course of nature and in harmony with human experience1 except where miracles are related4 ,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 ,christ2 and that1 whether deceivers or deceived1 they are unworthy of belief4 ,the great antagonist of the theory of miracles among those who assert their impossibility is ,spinoza1 who has thus written3 ,a miracle1 whether contrary to or above nature1 is a sheer absurdity4 ,nothing happens in nature which does not follow from its laws2 these laws extend to all which enters the ,divine mind2 and1 lastly1 nature proceeds in a fixed and changeless course--whence it follows that the word 'miracle' can only be understood in relation to the opinions of mankind1 and signifies nothing more than an event1 a phenomenon1 the cause of which cannot be explained by another familiar instance4444 ,i might say1 indeed1 that a miracle was that1 the cause of which cannot be explained by our natural understanding from the known principles of natural things4 ,the radical antagonism of ,spinoza to the doctrine of miracles1 as taught in the ,new ,testament scriptures1 was the legitimate offspring of his peculiar philosophy4 ,he was a pantheist and identified ,god with nature4 ,he did not believe in a personal ,god1 separate from and superior to nature4 ,he repudiated the theory of a spiritual kingdom having a spiritual sovereign to whom earth and nature are subject and obedient4 ,therefore1 every manifestation of power which he could not identify with a natural force he believed was unreal1 if not actually deceptive and fraudulent2 since he could not imagine anything superior to nature that could have created the phenomenon4 ,his denial of miracles was1 then1 really nothing less than a denial of the existence of a personal ,god who spoke the earth into being in the very beginning2 and has since1 with a watchful paternal eye1 followed its movements and controlled its destiny4 ,the question of miracles is really a matter of faith and not a problem of science4 ,it is impossible to either prove or disprove the nature of a miracle by physical demonstration4 ,in other words1 it is impossible to analyze a miracle from the standpoint of chemistry or physics4 ,the performance of a miracle1 nevertheless1 may be proved by ordinary human testimony1 as any other event may be proved4 ,we may testify to the fact without being able to understand or to demonstrate the cause4 ,those who believe that there are distinct spiritual as well as physical forces in the universe2 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 desired1 can easily believe in the exercise of miraculous power4 ,those who believe the ,bible account of the creation1 that ,god said in the beginning1 ,let there be light3 and there was light--such persons find no difficulty in believing that ,jesus converted water into wine or caused the lame to walk1 if they believe that ,he was this same ,god manifest in the flesh4 ,a divinity who1 in the morning of creation1 spoke something out of nothing1 would certainly not be impotent to restore life to ,lazarus or sight to the blind ,bartimeus4 ,the trouble with the philosophy of ,spinoza is that his own high priestess--,nature--seems to be constantly working miracles under his own definition2 and miracles1 too1 that very closely resemble the wonders said to have been wrought by the ,christ4 ,milk is taken into the stomach1 subjected to various processes of digestion1 is then thrown into the blood and finally becomes flesh and bone4 ,the ultimate step in this process of transformation is unknown and1 perhaps1 unknowable to scientists4 ,no deeper mystery is suggested by the ,new ,testament scriptures4 ,the conversion of water into wine is no stranger1 no more incomprehensible than the transformation of milk into flesh and bone4 ,it may be admitted that the chemical elements are the same throughout in one process and different in the other4 ,nevertheless1 the results of both are perfectly described by ,spinoza's definition1 that a miracle was that1 the cause of which cannot be explained by our natural understanding from the known principles of natural things4 ,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 universe4 ,god's sovereign miracle may be described as the changing of a man1 with all his sins and imperfections1 into a winged spirit1 thus fitting him to leave the coarse and vulgar earth for life among the stars4 ,nature1 in her feeble way1 tries to imitate the wonder by transforming the caterpillar into a butterfly1 thus fitting it to leave the dunghill for life among the flowers4 ,spinoza insists that miracles are impossible because nature proceeds in a fixed and changeless course4 ,but is this really true8 ,are the laws of nature invariably uniform8 ,does not nature seem at times tired of uniformity and resolved to rise to liberty by the creation of what we call a miracle1 or more vulgarly1 a freak8 ,moving in what ,spinoza is pleased to call a fixed and changeless course1 nature ordinarily provides a chicken with two legs and a snake with one head4 ,but what about chickens with three legs and snakes with two heads1 such as are frequently seen8 ,was nature moving in a fixed and changeless course when these things were created8 ,could ,spinoza have explained such phenomena by his natural understanding from the known principles of natural things8 ,would he have contented himself with calling them natural accidents or freaks8 ,nevertheless1 they are miracles under his definition2 and the entire subject must be discussed and debated with reference to some standard or definition of a miracle4 ,if nature occasionally1 in moments of sportiveness or digression1 upsets her own laws and creates what we call freaks1 why is it unreasonable to suppose that the great ,god who created nature should not1 at times1 temporarily suspend the laws which ,he has made for the government of the universe1 or even devote them to strange and novel purposes in the creation of those noble phenomena which we call miracles8 ,other skeptics1 like ,renan1 do not deny the possibility of miracles1 but simply content themselves with asserting that there is no sufficient proof that such things ever happened4 ,they thus repudiate the testimony of the ,evangelists in this regard4 ,it is not1 says ,renan1 then1 in the name of this or that philosophy1 but in the name of universal experience1 that we banish miracle from history4 ,we do not say that miracles are impossible4 ,we do say that up to this time a miracle has never been proved4 ,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 performed4 ,if to-morrow1 he says1 a thaumaturgus presents himself with credentials sufficiently important to be discussed and announces himself as able1 say1 to raise the dead1 what would be done8 ,a commission composed of physiologists1 physicists1 chemists1 persons accustomed to historical criticism would be named4 ,this commission would choose a corpse1 would assure itself that the death was real1 would select a room in which the experiment should be made1 would arrange the whole system of precautions1 so as to leave no chance of doubt4 ,if1 under such conditions1 the resurrection were effected1 a probability almost equal to certainty would be established4 ,as1 however1 it ought to be possible always to repeat an experiment--to do over again that which has been done once2 and as1 in the order of miracle1 there can be no question of ease or difficulty1 the thaumaturgus would be invited to reproduce his marvelous act under other circumstances1 upon other corpses1 in another place4 ,if the miracle should succeed each time1 two things would be proved3 first1 that supernatural events happen in the world2 second1 that the power of producing them belongs or is delegated in certain persons4 ,but who does not see that no miracle ever took place under these conditions8 ,but that always hitherto the thaumaturgus has chosen the subject of the experiment1 chosen the spot1 chosen the public8#bf ,this is an extract from the celebrated ,life of ,jesus by ,renan1 and is intended to demolish the ,gospel account of the miracles of the ,christ4 ,it is not too much to say that the great skeptic has failed to exhibit his usual fairness in argument4 ,he has indirectly compared ,jesus to a thaumaturgus1 and has inferentially stated that in the performance of ,his miracles ,he chose the subject of his experiment1 chose the spot1 chose the public4 ,every student of ,new ,testament history knows that this is not true of the facts and circumstances surrounding the performance of miracles by ,christ4 ,it is true that vulgar curiosity and caviling incredulity were not gratified by the presence of specially summoned physiologists1 physicists1 and chemists4 ,but it is equally true that such persons were not prevented from being present2 that there was no attempt at secrecy or concealment2 and that no subject of experiment1 particular spot1 or special audience was ever chosen4 ,the ,new ,testament miracles were wrought1 as a general thing1 under the open sky1 in the street1 by the wayside1 on the mountain slope1 and in the presence of many people1 both friends and enemies of ,jesus4 ,there was no searching or advertising for subjects for experiment4 ,far from choosing the subject1 the spot1 and the public1 ,jesus exercised ,his miraculous powers upon those who came voluntarily to ,him suffering with some dreadful malady and asking to be cured4 ,in some instances1 the case of affliction was of long standing and well known to the community4 ,the healing was done publicly and witnessed by many people4 ,renan suggests that the thaumaturgus mentioned in his illustration would be required to repeat his performance in the matter of raising the dead before he would be fully believed4 ,this reminds us that ,jesus wrought many miracles4 ,more than forty are recorded in the ,gospel narratives2 and in the closing verse of ,st4 ,john1 there is a strong intimation that ,he performed many that were never recorded4 ,these1 it is respectfully submitted1 were amply sufficient to demonstrate ,his miraculous powers4 ,whatever form infidelity may assume in its antagonism to the doctrine of miracles1 it will be found that the central idea is that such things are not founded in experience2 and that this test of credibility fails in the case of the ,gospel writers1 because they knowingly recorded impossible events4 ,it would be idle to attempt to depreciate the value of this particular test2 but it must be observed that nothing is more fallacious1 unless properly defined and limited4 ,it must be remembered that the experience of one man1 nation1 or generation is not necessarily that of another man1 nation1 or generation4 ,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 ,guinea4 ,the ,orient and the ,occident present to each other almost miraculous forms of diversity in manners1 habits1 and customs1 in modes of thought and life4 ,the ,frenchman says1 ',i am the best dyer in ,europe3 nobody can equal me1 and nobody can surpass ,lyons4' ,yet in ,cashmere1 where the girls make shawls worth #cj1jjj1 they will show him three hundred distinct colors1 which he not only cannot make1 but cannot even distinguish4 ,sir ,walter ,scott1 in his ,tales of the ,crusaders1 thrillingly describes a meeting between the ,turkish ,saladin and the ,english ,richard ,coeur-de-,lion4 ,saladin asked ,richard to give him an exhibition of his marvelous strength4 ,the ,norman monarch picked up an iron bar from the floor of the tent and severed it4 ,the ,mahometan crusader was amazed4 ,richard then asked him what he could do4 ,saladin replied that he could not pull iron apart like that1 but that he could do something equally as wonderful4 ,thereupon1 he took an eider-down pillow from the sofa1 and drew his keen1 ,damascus-tempered blade across it1 which caused it to fall into two pieces4 ,richard cried in astonishment3 ,this is the black art2 it is magic2 it is the devil3 you cannot cut that which has no resistance6 ,here ,occidental strength and ,oriental magic met and wrought seeming miracles in the presence of each other4 ,in his great lecture on ,the ,lost ,arts1 ,wendell ,phillips says that one ,george ,thompson told him that he saw a man in ,calcutta throw a handful of floss silk into the air1 and that a ,hindoo severed it into pieces with his saber4 ,a ,western swordsman could not do this4 ,objectors to miracles frequently ask why they are not performed to-day1 why we never see them4 ,to which reply may be made that1 under ,spinoza's definition1 miracles are being wrought every day not only by nature1 but by man4 ,why call ,edison the magician and the wizard1 unless the public believes this8 ,but is it any argument against the miracles of ,jesus that similar ones are not seen to-day8 ,have things not been done in the past that will never be repeated8 ,we have referred to the pyramids of ,egypt and to the lost art involved in their construction4 ,a further illustration may be found in the origin of man4 ,one of two theories is undoubtedly true3 that the first man and woman came into the world without being born2 or that man and woman are the products of evolution from lower orders of animals4 ,no other theories have ever been advanced as to the origin of the human race4 ,now1 it is certain that modern generations have never experienced either of these things1 for all the human beings of to-day were undoubtedly born of other human beings1 and it is certain that the process of evolution stopped long ago1 since men and women were as perfect physically and mentally four thousand years ago as they are to-day4 ,in other words1 the processes which originated man are things of the past1 since we have no ,garden of ,eden experiences to-day1 nor is there any universal metamorphosis of monkeys going on4 ,therefore1 to argue that the miracles of ,jesus did not happen1 because we do not see such things to-day1 is to deny the undoubted occurrences of history and developments of human life1 because such occurrences and developments are no longer familiar to us and our generation4 ,to denounce everything as false that we have not individually seen1 heard1 and felt1 would be to limit most painfully the range of the mental vision4 ,the intellectual horizon would not be greatly extended should we join with our own the experience of others that we have seen and known4 ,much information is reported by telegraphic despatch and many things are told us by travelers that we should accept as true2 although such matters may have no relation to what we have ever seen or heard4 ,else1 we should be as foolish as the king of ,siam who rejected the story of the ,dutch ambassador1 that in ,holland water was frequently frozen into a solid mass4 ,in the warm climate of the ,east ,indian tropics the king had never seen water so congealed and1 therefore1 he refused to believe that such a thing had ever happened anywhere4 ,experience is a most logical and reasonable test if it is sufficiently extended to touch all the material phases of the subject under investigation4 ,it is a most dangerous one if we insist upon judging the material and spiritual universe1 with its infinite variety of forms and changes1 by the limited experience of a simple and isolated life1 or by the particular standards of any one age or race4 ,a progressive civilization1 under such an application of the test1 would be impossible1 since each generation of men would have to begin de novo1 and be restricted to the results of its own experience4 ,the enforcement of such a doctrine would prevent1 furthermore1 the acceptance of the truths of nature discovered by inventive genius or developed by physical or chemical research1 until such truths had become matters of universal experience4 ,every man would then be in the position of the incredulous citizen who1 having been told that a message had been sent by wire from ,baltimore to ,washington announcing the nomination of ,james ,k4 ,polk for the presidency1 refused to believe in telegraphic messages until he could be at both ends of the line at once4 ,the art of telegraphy was a reality1 nevertheless1 in spite of his incredulity and inexperience4 ,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 boats1 because1 in their experience1 they had never seen such immense canoes with wings4 ,herodotus tells us of some daring sailors who crept along the coast of ,africa beyond the limits usually visited at that time4 ,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 midday4 ,they were not believed1 and their report was rejected with scorn and incredulity by the inhabitants of the ,mediterranean coasts1 because their only experience was that a man's shadow always pointed toward the north2 and they did not believe it possible that shadows could be cast otherwise4 ,but the report of the sailors was true1 nevertheless4#bg ,these simple illustrations teach us that beings other than ourselves have had experiences which are not only different from any that we have ever had1 but are also either temporarily or permanently beyond our comprehension4 ,and the moral of this truth1 when applied to the statements of the ,evangelists regarding miracles1 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 comprehend4 7#e7 ,in the fifth and last place1 as to the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances4 ,this is the chief test of credibility in all those cases where the witness1 whose testimony has been reduced to writing1 is dead1 absent1 or insane4 ,under such circumstances it is impossible to apply what may be termed personal tests on cross-examination2 that is1 to develop the impeaching or corroborating features of bias1 prejudice1 and personal demeanor to the same extent as when the witness is still living and testifies orally4 ,when a written narrative is all that we have1 its reliability can only be ascertained by a close inspection of its parts1 comparing them with each other1 and then with collateral and contemporaneous facts and circumstances4 ,the value of this test cannot be over-estimated1 and ,greenleaf has stated very fully and concisely the basis upon which it rests4 ,every event1 he says1 which actually transpires1 has its appropriate relation and place in the vast complication of circumstances of which the affairs of men consist2 it owes its origin to the events which have preceded it1 is intimately connected with all others which occur at the same time and place1 and often with those of remote regions1 and in its turn gives birth to numberless others which succeed4 ,in all this almost inconceivable contexture and seeming discord1 there is perfect harmony2 and while the fact which really happened tallies exactly with every other contemporaneous incident related to it in the remotest degree1 it is not possible for the wit of man to invent a story1 which1 if closely compared with the actual occurrences of the same time and place1 may not be shown to be false4#bh ,illustration3 ,,st4 ,,john ,,and ,,st4 ,,peter 7,d,,rer7 ,this principle offers a wide field to the skill of the cross-examiner1 and enables him frequently to elicit truth or establish falsehood when all other tests have failed4 ,it is a principle also perfectly well known to the perjurer and to the suborner of witnesses4 ,multiplicity of details is studiously avoided by the false witness1 who dreads particularity and feels that safety lies in confining his testimony as nearly as possible to a single fact1 whose attendant facts and circumstances are few and simple4 ,when the witness is too ignorant to understand the principle and appreciate the danger1 his attorney1 if he consents to dishonor his profession and pollute the waters of justice with corrupt testimony1 may be depended upon to administer proper warning4 ,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 instructed4 ,the result will be that his testimony1 especially in matters in which he is compelled by the court to testify1 will be hesitating1 restrained1 unequal1 and unnatural4 ,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 circumstances4 ,he will betray a painful hesitancy in the matter of committing himself upon any particular point upon which he has not been already drilled4 ,the truthful witness1 on the other hand1 is usually candid1 ingenuous1 and copious in his statements4 ,he shows a willingness to answer all questions1 even those involving the minutest details1 and seems totally indifferent to the question of verification or contradiction4 ,the texture of his testimony is1 therefore1 equal1 natural1 and unrestrained4 ,now these latter characteristics mark every page of the ,new ,testament histories4 ,the ,gospel writers wrote with the utmost freedom1 and recorded in detail and with the utmost particularity1 the manners1 customs1 habits1 and historic facts contemporaneous with their lives4 ,the naturalness and ingenuousness of their writings are simply marvelous4 ,there is nowhere any evidence of an attempt to conceal1 patch up1 or reconcile4 ,no introductory exclamations or subsequent explanations which usually characterize false testimony appear anywhere in their writings4 ,they were seemingly absolutely indifferent to whether they were believed or not4 ,their narratives seem to say3 ,these are records of truth2 and if the world rejects them it rejects the facts of history4 ,such candor and assurance are always overwhelmingly impressive2 and in every forum of debate are regarded as unmistakable signs of truth4 ,the ,evangelists1 it must be assumed1 were fully aware of the danger of too great particularity in the matter of false testimony1 and would have hesitated to commit themselves on so many points if their statements had been untrue4 ,we have already noted the opinion of ,professor ,holtzmann1 of ,heidelberg1 that the ,synoptic ,gospels were committed to writing between the years #fj and #hj of our era4 ,at that time it is certain that there were still living many persons who were familiar with the events in the life and teachings of the ,savior1 as well as with the numerous other facts and circumstances related by the sacred writers4 ,st4 ,paul1 in ,i ,cor4 xv4 #f1 speaks of five hundred brethren to whom the risen ,jesus appeared at one time2 and he adds1 of whom the greater part remain unto this present1 but some are fallen asleep4 ,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 ,master1 ,his teachings1 and ,his miracles4 ,many who had been healed by ,him1 children who had sat upon ,his knee and been blessed by ,him1 and many members of the ,pharisaic party and of the ,sadducean aristocracy who had persecuted ,him and had then slain ,him1 were doubtless still living and had a lively recollection of the events of the ministry of the ,nazarene4 ,such persons were in a position to disprove from their personal knowledge false statements made by the ,evangelists4 ,a consciousness of this fact would have been1 within itself1 a strong inducement to tell the truth4 ,but not only are the ,gospels not contradicted by contemporaneous writers2 they are also not impeached or disproved by later scientific research and historical investigation4 ,and at this point we come to make a direct application of the test of the coincidence of their testimony with collateral and contemporaneous history4 ,for this purpose1 as a matter of illustration1 only facts in profane history corroborative of the circumstances attending the trial and crucifixion of the ,master will be cited4 ,in the first place1 the ,evangelists tell us that ,pontius ,pilate sat in judgment on the ,christ4 ,both ,josephus and ,tacitus tell us that ,pilate was governor of ,judea at that time4#bi ,in ,john xviii4 #ca we read3 ,then said ,pilate unto them1 ,take ye him1 and judge him according to your law4 ,the ,jews therefore said unto him1 ,it is not lawful for us to put any man to death4 ,from many profane historians1 ancient and modern1 we learn that the power of life and death had been taken from the ,jews and vested in the ,roman governor4#cj ,in ,john xix4 #af1 #ag occurs this passage3 ,and they took ,jesus1 and led him away2 and he1 bearing his cross1 went forth4 ,this corroborative sentence is found in ,plutarch3 ,every kind of wickedness produces its own particular torment2 just as every malefactor1 when he is brought forth to execution1 carries his own cross4#ca ,in ,matthew xxvii4 #bf we read3 ,when he had scourged ,jesus1 he delivered him to be crucified4 ,that scourging was a preliminary to crucifixion among the ,romans is attested by many ancient writers1 among whom may be mentioned ,josephus and ,livy4 ,the following passages are taken from ,josephus3 ,whom1 having first scourged with whips1 he crucified4#cb ,being beaten1 they were crucified opposite to the citadel4#cc ,he was burned alive1 having been first beaten4#cd ,from ,livy1 a single sentence will suffice3 ,all were led out1 beaten with rods1 and beheaded4#ce ,in ,john xix4 #ai1 #bj we read3 ,and ,pilate wrote a title and put it on the cross2 and it was written in ,hebrew1 and ,greek1 and ,latin4 ,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 writers1 among them ,suetonius and ,dion ,cassius4 ,in ,suetonius occurs this sentence3 ,he exposed the father of the family to the dogs1 with this title1 ',a gladiator1 impious in speech4'#cf ,and in ,dion ,cassius occurs the following3 ,having led him through the midst of the court or assembly1 with a writing signifying the cause of his death1 and afterwards crucifying him4#cg ,and finally1 we read in ,john xix4 #cb3 ,then came the soldiers and brake the legs of the first1 and of the other which was crucified with him4 ,by an edict of ,constantine1 the punishment of crucifixion was abolished4 ,speaking in commendation of this edict1 a celebrated heathen writer mentions the circumstances of breaking the legs4 ,he was pious to such a degree1 says this writer1 that he was the first to set aside that very ancient punishment1 the cross1 with the breaking of legs4#ch ,if we leave the narrow circle of facts attendant upon the trial and crucifixion of ,jesus with its corroborative features of contemporary history1 and consider the ,gospel narratives as a whole1 we shall find that they are confirmed and corroborated by the facts and teachings of universal history and experience4 ,an examination of these narratives will also reveal a divine element in them which furnishes conclusive proof of their truthfulness and reliability4 ,a discussion of the divine or spiritual element in the ,gospel histories would be foreign to the purpose of this treatise4 ,the closing pages of ,part ,i will be devoted to a consideration of the human element in the ,new ,testament narratives4 ,this will be nothing more than an elaboration of the fifth legal test of credibility mentioned by ,starkie4 ,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 true4 ,the relations of historic facts to each other1 and the connections and coincidences of things known or believed to be true with still others sought to be proved1 form a fundamental ground of belief1 and are1 therefore1 reliable modes of proof4 ,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 believed4 ,let us draw a few parallels and call attention to a few of these resemblances4 ,describing the anguish of the ,savior in the ,garden1 ,st4 ,luke says3 ,and being in an agony1 ,he prayed more earnestly3 ,and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground4#ci ,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 denied4 ,the account of it has been ascribed to the overwrought imagination of the third ,evangelist in recording the errors of tradition4 ,and yet similar cases are well authenticated in the works of secular writers4 ,tissot reports a case of a sailor who was so alarmed by a storm1 that through fear he fell down1 and his face sweated blood which1 during the whole continuance of the storm1 returned like ordinary sweat1 as fast as it was wiped away4#dj ,schenck cites the case of a nun who fell into the hands of soldiers2 and1 on seeing herself encompassed with swords and daggers threatening instant death1 was so terrified and agitated that she discharged blood from every part of her body1 and died of hemorrhage in the sight of her assailants4#da ,writing of the death of ,charles ,,ix of ,france1 ,voltaire says3 ,the disease which carried him off is very uncommon2 his blood flowed from all his pores4 ,this malady1 of which there are some examples1 is the result either of excessive fear1 furious passion1 or of a violent and melancholic temperament4#db ,the same event is thus graphically described by the old ,french historian1 ,de ,mezeray3 ,after the vigor of his youth and the energy of his courage had long struggled against his disease1 he was at length reduced by it to his bed at the castle of ,vincennes1 about the #hth of ,may1 #aegd4 ,during the last two weeks of his life his constitution made strange efforts4 ,he was affected with spasms and convulsions of extreme violence4 ,he tossed and agitated himself continually and his blood gushed from all the outlets of his body1 even from the pores of his skin1 so that on one occasion he was found bathed in a bloody sweat4#dc ,if the sailor1 the nun1 and the king of ,france were afflicted with the bloody sweat1 why should it seem incredible that the man ,jesus1 the carpenter of ,nazareth1 should have been similarly afflicted8 ,if ,tissot1 ,schenck1 and ,voltaire are to be believed1 why should we refuse to believe ,st4 ,luke8 ,if ,st4 ,luke told the truth in this regard1 why should we doubt his statements concerning other matters relating to the life1 death1 and resurrection of the ,son of ,god8 ,does not ,voltaire1 the most brilliant and powerful skeptic that ever lived1 corroborate in this particular the biographer of the ,christ8 ,let us pass to another instance of resemblance and corroboration4 ,while describing the crucifixion1 ,st4 ,john wrote the following3 ,but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side1 and forthwith came there out blood and water4#dd ,early skeptical criticism denied the account of the flowing of blood and water from the side of the ,savior because1 in the first place1 the other ,evangelists did not mention the circumstance2 and1 in the second place1 it was an unscientific fact stated4 ,but modern medical science has very cleverly demonstrated that ,jesus1 according to the ,gospel accounts1 died of rupture of the heart4 ,about the middle of the last century1 a celebrated ,english physician and surgeon1 ,dr4 ,stroud1 wrote a treatise entitled1 ,physical ,cause of the ,death of ,christ4 ,in this book1 he proved very clearly that cardiac rupture was the immediate cause of the death of ,jesus on the cross4 ,many arguments were adduced to establish this fact4 ,among others1 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 ghost1 tended to prove that a broken heart was the cause of the death of the ,man of ,sorrows4 ,but the strongest proof1 according to the author of this work1 was the fact that blood and water flowed from the dead man when a spear was thrust into ,his side4 ,this1 says ,dr4 ,stroud1 has happened frequently when the heart was suddenly and violently perforated after death from cardiac rupture4 ,within a few hours after death from this cause1 he says1 the blood frequently separates into its constituent parts or essential elements3 crassamentum1 a soft clotted substance of deep-red color1 and serum1 a pale1 watery liquid--popularly called blood and water1 which will flow out separately1 if the pericardium and heart be violently torn or punctured4 ,in this treatise numerous medical authorities are cited and the finished work is indorsed by several of the most famous physicians and surgeons of ,england4 ,it is very probable that ,st4 ,john did not know the physical cause of the strange flow of blood and water from the side of ,jesus4 ,it seems that he was afraid that he would not be believed2 for1 in the following verse1 he was careful to tell the world that he himself had personally seen it4 ,and he that saw it bare record1 and his record is true3 ,and he knoweth that he saith true that ye might believe4#de ,here again modern medical science has corroborated1 in the matter of the flowing of blood and water from the side of ,jesus1 the simple narrative of the gentle and loving ,evangelist4 ,still another illustration of resemblance1 coincidence1 and corroboration is furnished by the incident of the arrest of ,jesus in the ,garden4 ,st4 ,john says3 ,as soon1 then1 as he had said unto them1 ,i am he1 they went backward and fell to the ground4#df ,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 evil4 ,when a ,gallic trooper was sent by ,sulla to ,minturn to put ,marius to death1 the old ,roman lion1 his great eyes flashing fire1 arose and advanced toward the slave1 who fled in utter terror from the place1 exclaiming1 ,i cannot kill ,caius ,marius6#dg ,again1 we learn from ,st4 ,matthew that at the moment of the arrest in the ,garden1 all the disciples forsook him and fled4 ,this is no isolated case of cowardice and desertion4 ,it is merely an illustration of a universal truth3 that the multitude will follow blindly and adore insanely the hero or prophet in his hour of triumph and coronation1 but will desert and destroy him at the moment of his humiliation and crucifixion4 ,note the burning of ,savonarola4 ,the patriot-priest of the ,florentine ,republic believed himself inspired of ,god2 his heroic life and martyr death seemed to justify his claim4 ,from the pulpit of ,st4 ,mark's he became the herald and evangel of the ,reformation1 and his devoted followers hung upon his words as if inspiration clothed them with messages from the skies4 ,and yet when a wicked ,inquisition had nailed him to the cross and fagots were flaming about him1 this same multitude who adored him1 now reviled him and jeered and mocked his martyrdom4 ,note the career of ,napoleon4 ,when the sun of ,austerlitz rose upon the world the whole ,french nation grew delirious with love and homage for their emperor1 who was once a subaltern of ,corsica4 ,but when the ,allies entered ,paris after the battle of ,leipsic1 this same ,french nation repudiated their imperial idol1 cast down his images1 canceled his decrees1 and united with all ,europe in demanding his eternal banishment from ,france4 ,the voyage to ,elba followed4 ,but the historic melodrama of popular fidelity and fickleness was not yet completely played4 ,when this same ,napoleon1 a few months later1 escaped from his islet prison in the ,mediterranean and landed on the shores of ,france1 this same ,french nation again grew delirious1 welcomed the royal exile with open arms1 showered him with his eagles1 and almost smothered him with kisses4 ,a hundred days passed4 ,on the frightful field of ,waterloo1 ,chance and ,fate combined to wreck the fortunes of their former king4 ,again the fickle ,french multitude heaped execrations upon their fallen monarch1 declared the ,napoleonic dynasty at an end and welcomed with acclamations of joy the return of the exiled ,bourbon ,louis ,,xviii4 ,and when the ,evangelist wrote these words3 ,all the disciples forsook him and fled1 he simply gave expression to a form of truth which all history reflects and corroborates4 ,again1 the parallels and resemblances of sacred and profane history do not seem to stop with mere narratives of facts4 ,secular history seems to have produced at times characters in the exact likeness of those in sacred history4 ,the resemblance is often so striking as to create astonishment4 ,for instance1 who was ,st4 ,peter but ,marshal ,ney by anticipation8 ,peter was the leader of the ,apostolic ,twelve2 ,ney was the chief of the ,twelve ,marshals of ,napoleon4 ,peter was impulsive and impetuous2 so was ,ney4 ,peter was the first to speak and act in all the emergencies of the ,apostolic ministry2 ,ney1 so ,dumas tells us1 was always impatient to open the battle and lead the first charge4 ,peter was probably the last to leave the garden in which the great tragedy of his ,master had begun2 ,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 seen4 ,peter denied ,jesus2 ,ney repudiated ,napoleon1 and even offered to bring him1 at the time of his escape from ,elba1 in a cage to ,louis ,,xviii4 ,peter was afterwards crucified for his devotion to ,jesus whom he had denied2 ,ney was afterwards shot for loyalty to ,napoleon whom he had once repudiated4 ,the examples heretofore given involve the idea of comparison and are based upon resemblance4 ,these illustrations could be greatly extended1 but it is believed that enough has been said in this connection4 ,however1 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 history1 slight mention may be made of another test of truth which may be applied to the histories of the ,evangelists4 ,this test is not derived from a comparison which is focused upon any particular group of historic facts4 ,it springs from an instantaneously recognized and inseparable connection between the statements made by the ,gospel writers and the experience of the human race4 ,a single illustration will suffice to elucidate this point4 ,when ,jesus was nailed upon the cross1 the sad and pathetic spectacle was presented of the absence of the ,apostolic band1 with the exception of ,st4 ,john1 who was the only ,apostle present at the crucifixion4 ,the male members of the following of the ,nazarene did not sustain and soothe their ,master in the supreme moment of ,his anguish4 ,but the women of ,his company were with ,him to the end4 ,mary1 his mother1 ,mary ,magdalene1 ,mary1 the wife of ,cleophas1 ,salome1 the mother of ,st4 ,john the ,evangelist1 and others1 doubtless among the women that followed him from ,galilee1 ministered to ,his sufferings and consoled ,him with their presence4 ,they were the last to cling to ,his cross and the first to greet ,him on the morning of the third day2 for when the resurrection morn dawned upon the world1 these same women were seen hastening toward the sepulcher bearing spices--fragrant offerings of deathless love4 ,what a contrast between the loyalty and devotion of the women and the fickle1 faltering adherence of the men who attended the footsteps of the ,man of ,sorrows in ,his last days6 ,one of ,his ,apostles denied ,him1 another betrayed ,him1 and all1 excepting one1 deserted ,him in ,his death struggle4 ,his countrymen crucified ,him ignominiously4 ,but not one woman mentioned in the ,new ,testament ever lifted her voice against the ,son of ,god4 ,this revelation from the sacred pages of the devotion of woman is reflected in universal history and experience4 ,it is needless to give examples4 ,suffice it to say that when ,matthew1 ,mark1 ,luke1 and ,john tell us of this devotion1 we simply answer3 yes1 this has been ever true in all countries and in every age4 ,we have learned it not only from history but from our own experience in all the affairs of life1 extending from the cradle to the grave4 ,the night of sorrow never grows so dark that a mother's love will not irradiate the gloom4 ,the criminal guilt of a wayward son can never become so black that her arms will not be found about him4 ,if we pass from loving loyalty to the individual1 to patriotic devotion to the causes of the nations1 woman's fidelity is still undying4 ,the women of ,france are said to have paid the ,german war debt4 ,the message of the ,spartan mother to her soldier son is too well known to be repeated4 ,when the legions of ,scipio engirdled the walls of ,carthage and desperation seized the inhabitants of the ,punic city1 ,carthaginian women cut their long black hair to furnish bowstrings to the ,carthaginian archers4 ,illustrations might be multiplied2 but these will suffice to show that ,mary and ,martha and ,salome1 the women of the ,gospels1 are simply types of the consecrated women of the world4 ,when we come to summarize1 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 race4 ,no other literature bears historic scrutiny so well as the ,new ,testament biographies4 ,not by a single chain1 but by three great chains can we link our ,bible of to-day with the ,apostolic ,bible4 ,the great manuscripts3 the ,vatican1 the ,alexandrian1 and the ,sinaitic1 dating from the middle of the fourth and fifth centuries1 must have been copies of originals1 or at least of first copies4 ,the ,bible is complete in these manuscripts to-day4 ,the ,versions1 translations of the original ,scriptures from the language in which they were first written into other languages1 form a perfect connection between the days of the ,apostles and our own4 ,the ,vulgate1 the celebrated ,latin version of ,st4 ,jerome1 was completed ,a4,d4 #che4 ,in making this translation the great scholar has himself said that he used ancient 7,greek7 copies4 ,manuscripts that were ancient1 ,a4,d4 #che1 must have been the original writings1 or1 at least1 first copies4 ,the ,vulgate1 then1 is alone a perfect historic connection between the ,bible that we read to-day and that studied by the first ,christians4 ,again1 the ,writings of the ,church ,fathers furnish a chain1 without a single missing link1 between the ,bible of this generation and that of the first generation of the followers of the ,christ4 ,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 writings1 so numerous and so exact are they4 ,beginning with ,barnabas and ,clement1 companions of ,st4 ,paul1 and coming down through the ages1 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 faith4 ,the chain of proof forged from the ,writings of the early ,fathers is made up of a hundred links1 each perfect within itself and yet relinked and welded with a hundred others that make each and all doubly strong4 ,if these various testimonies1 the ,manuscripts1 the ,versions1 and the ,writings of the ,church ,fathers1 be taken1 not singly1 but collectively1 in support and corroboration of each other1 we have1 then1 not merely a chain but rather a huge spiritual cable of many wires1 stretching across the great sea of time and linking our ,bible of to-day inseparably with that of the ,apostolic ,age4 ,if it be objected that these various writings might have been and probably were corrupted in coming down to us through the centuries1 reply may be made that the facts of history repel such suggestions4 ,as ,mr4 ,greenleaf has suggested1 the jealousy of opposing sects preserved them from forgery and mutilation4 ,besides these sects1 it may be added1 there were1 even in the earliest times1 open and avowed infidels who assaulted the cardinal tenets of the ,christian faith and made the ,gospel histories the targets for their attacks4 ,they1 too1 would have detected and denounced any attempt from any source to corrupt these writings4 ,another and final1 and probably the most cogent reason for the remarkable preservation of the books of the ,bible1 is the reverential care bestowed upon them by their custodians in every age4 ,it is difficult for the modern world to fully appreciate the meaning and extent of this reverence and care4 ,before the age of printing1 it must be remembered1 the masses of the people could not and did not possess ,bibles4 ,in the ,middle ,ages it required a small fortune to own a single copy4 ,the extreme scarcity enhanced not only the commercial value but added to the awful sanctity that attached to the precious volume2 on the principle that the person of a king becomes more sacred and mysterious when least seen in public4 ,synagogues and monasteries were1 for many centuries1 the sole repositories of the ,holy ,books1 and the deliberate mutilation of any portion of the ,bible would have been regarded like the blaspheming of the ,deity or the desecration of a shrine4 ,these considerations alone are sufficient reason why the ,holy ,scriptures have come down to us uncorrupted and unimpaired4 ,these various considerations are the logical basis of that rule of law laid down by ,mr4 ,greenleaf1 under which the ,gospel histories would be admitted into a modern court of law in a modern judicial proceeding4 ,under legal tests laid down by ,starkie1 we have seen that the ,evangelists should be believed1 because3 7#a7 ,they were honest and sincere1 that is1 they believed that they were telling the truth2 7#b7 they were undoubtedly men of good intelligence and were eyewitnesses of the facts narrated by them in the ,new ,testament histories2 7#c7 they were independent historians1 who wrote at different times and places and1 in all essential details1 fully corroborate each other2 7#d7 excepting in the matter of miracles1 which skepticism has never been able to fully disprove1 their testimony is in full conformity with human experience2 7#e7 their testimony coincides fully and accurately with all the collateral1 social1 historical1 and religious circumstances of their time1 as well as with the teachings and experience of universal history in every age4 ,having received from antiquity an uncorrupted message1 born of truth1 we have1 it is believed1 a perfect record of fact with which to discuss the trial of ,jesus4 ,,part ,,ii ,,hebrew ,,criminal ,,law ,illustration3 ,,moses ,,and ,,the ,,law 7,,michael ,,angelo7 ,,chapter ,i ,,hebrew ,,criminal ,,law--,,mosaic ,,and ,,talmudic ,the ,pentateuch and the ,talmud form the double basis of ,hebrew jurisprudence4 ,the wisdom of the lawgiver1 says ,bacon1 consists not only in a platform of justice1 but in the application thereof4 ,the ,mosaic ,code1 embodied in the ,pentateuch1 furnished to the children of ,israel the necessary platform of justice2 ancient tradition and ,rabbinic interpretation contained in the ,talmud1 supplied needed rules of practical application4 ,employing classic terminology1 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 ,hebrews4 ,these terms are not strictly accurate1 however1 since many absolute rights are declared and defined in the ,talmud as well as in the ,pentateuch4 ,another definition1 following the classification of ,roman legists1 describes ,mosaic injunction as the lex scripta and ,talmudic provision as the lex non scripta of the ,commonwealth of ,israel4 ,in other words1 the ,pentateuch was the foundation1 the cornerstone2 the ,talmud was the superstructure1 the gilded dome of the great temple of ,hebrew justice4 ,bible students throughout the world are familiar with the provisions of the ,mosaic ,code2 but the contents of the ,talmud are known to few1 even among scholars and literary men4 ,the most appalling ignorance has existed in every age among the ,gentile uninitiated as to the nature and identity of this gigantic literary compilation4 ,henricus ,segnensis1 a pious monk of the ,middle ,ages1 having heard and read many things about the despised heretical ,talmud1 conceived it to be a person and1 in a transport of religious frenzy1 declared that he would sooner or later have him1 the ,talmud1 put to death by the hangman6#dh ,for the benefit of the average reader as well as to illuminate the general subject1 a short description of the ,talmud will be given4 ,definition4--,many attempts have been made to define the ,talmud1 but all definition of this monumental literary production is necessarily inaccurate and incomplete because of the vastness and peculiarity of the matter treated4 ,to describe it as an encyclopedia of the life and literature1 law and religion1 art and science of the ,hebrew people during a thousand years would convey only an approximately correct idea of its true meaning1 for it is even more than the foregoing descriptive terms would indicate4 ,emanuel ,deutsch in his brilliant essay on the ,talmud defines it as a ,corpus ,juris1 an encyclopedia of law1 civil and penal1 ecclesiastical and international1 human and divine4 ,it is a microcosm1 embracing1 even as does the ,bible1 heaven and earth4 ,it is as if all the prose and poetry1 the science1 the faith and speculation of the ,old ,world were1 though only in faint reflections1 bound up in it in nuce4 ,benny describes it as the ,talmud--that much maligned and even more misunderstood compilation of the rabbins2 that digest of what ,carlyle would term allerlei-wissenschaften2 which is at once the compendium of their literature1 the storehouse of their tradition1 the exponent of their faith1 the record of their acquirements1 the handbook of their ceremonials and the summary of their legal code1 civil and penal4 ,to speak of the ,talmud as a book would be inaccurate4 ,it is a small library1 or collection of books4 ,modern editions of the ,talmud1 including the most important commentaries1 consist of about #c1jjj folio sheets1 or #ab1jjj folio pages of closely printed matter1 generally divided into twelve or twenty volumes4 ,one page of ,talmudic ,hebrew intelligibly translated into ,english would cover three pages2 the translation of the whole ,talmud with its commentaries would accordingly make a library of #djj volumes1 each numbering #cfj octavo pages4#di ,it would be well to bear in mind that the contents of the ,talmud were not proclaimed to the world by any executive1 legislative1 or judicial body2 that they were not the result of any resolution or mandate of any congregation1 college1 or ,sanhedrin2 that they were not1 in any case1 formal or statutory4 ,they were simply a great mass of traditionary matter and commentary transmitted orally through many centuries before being finally reduced to writing4 ,rabbinism claims for these traditions a remote antiquity1 declaring them to be coeval with the proclamation of the ,decalogue4 ,many learned doctors among the ,jews ascribe this antiquity to the whole mass of traditional laws4 ,others maintain that only the principles upon which ,rabbinic interpretation and discussion are based1 can be traced back so far4 ,but it is certain that distinct traditions are to be found at a very early period in the history of the children of ,israel1 and that on their return from ,babylonian captivity these traditions were delivered to them by ,ezra and his coadjutors of the ,great ,assembly4 ,this development of ,hebrew jurisprudence along lines of written and oral law1 ,pentateuch and ,talmud1 ,mosaic ordinance and time-honored tradition1 seems to have followed in obedience to a general principle of juristic growth4 ,lex scripta and lex non scripta are classical ,roman terms of universal application in systems of enlightened jurisprudence4 ,a charter1 a parchment1 a marble column1 a table of stone1 a sacred book1 containing written maxims defining legal rights and wrongs are the beginnings of all civilized schemes of justice4 ,around these written1 fundamental laws grow and cluster the race traditions of a people which attach themselves to and become inseparable from the prime organic structure4 ,these oral traditions are the natural and necessary products of a nation's growth and progress4 ,the laws of the ,medes and ,persians1 at once unalterable and irrevocable1 represent a strange and painful anomaly in the jurisprudence of mankind4 ,no written constitution1 incapable of amendment and subject to strict construction1 can long survive the growth and expansion of a great and progressive people4 ,the ever-changing1 perpetually evolving forms of social1 commercial1 political1 and religious life of a restless1 marching1 ambitious race1 necessitate corresponding changes and evolutions in laws and constitutions4 ,these necessary legal supplements are as varied in origin as are the nations that produce them4 ,magna ,charta1 wrung from ,john at ,runnymede1 became the written basis of ,english law and freedom1 and around it grew up those customs and traditions that--born on the shores of the ,german ,ocean1 transplanted to the ,isles of ,britain1 nurtured and developed through a thousand years of judicial interpretation and application--became the great basic structure of the ,common ,law of ,england4 ,what the ,mosaic ,code was to the ancient ,hebrews1 what ,magna ,charta is to ,englishmen1 the ,koran is to ,mahometans3 the written charter of their faith and law4 ,surrounding the ,koran are many volumes of tradition1 made up of the sayings of ,mahomet1 which are regarded as equally sacred and authoritative as the ,koran itself4 ,these volumes of ,mahometan tradition are called the ,sonna and correspond to the ,talmud of the ,hebrews4 ,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 ,jews4 ,the word ,talmud has various meanings1 as it appears in ,hebrew traditional literature4 ,it is an old scholastic term1 and is a noun formed from the verb 'limmed''to teach4' ,it therefore means1 primarily1 'teaching1' although it denotes also 'learning'2 it is employed in this latter sense with special reference to the ,torah1 the terms ',talmud' and ',torah' being usually combined to indicate the study of the ,law1 both in its wider and its more restricted sense4#ej ,it is thus frequently used in the sense of the word exegesis1 meaning ,biblical exposition or interpretation4 ,but with the etymological and restricted1 we are not so much interested as with the popular and general signification of the term ,talmud4 ,popularly used1 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 era4 ,divisions of the ,talmud4--,the ,talmud is divided into two component parts3 the ,mishna1 which may be described as the text2 and the ,gemara1 which may be termed the commentary4#ea ,the ,mishna1 meaning tradition1 is almost wholly law4 ,it was1 indeed1 of old1 translated as the ,second or ,oral ,law--the ,greek3 deutersis--to distinguish it from the ,written ,law delivered by ,god to ,moses4 ,the relationship between the ,mishna1 meaning oral law1 and the ,gemara1 meaning commentary1 may be illustrated by a bill introduced into ,congress and the debates which follow4 ,in a general way1 the bill corresponds to the ,mishna1 and the debates to the ,gemara4 ,the distinction1 however1 is that the law resulting from the passage of the bill is the effect and culmination of the debate2 while the ,mishna was already law when the ,gemara or commentary was made4 ,as we have seen above1 ,hebrew jurisprudence in its principles and in the manner of their interpretation was chiefly transmitted by the living voice of tradition4 ,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 stood4 ,but1 with the destruction of the ,temple and the banishment of the ,jews from ,palestine 7,a4,d4 #gj71 the danger became imminent that in the loss of their nationality would also be buried the remembrance of their laws4 ,moved with pity and compassion for the sad condition of his people1 ,judah the ,holy1 called ,rabbi for preminence1 resolved to collect and perpetuate for them in writing their time-honored traditions4 ,his work received the name ,mishna1 the same which we have discussed above4 ,but it must not be imagined that this work was the sudden or exclusive effort of ,rabbi ,judah4 ,his achievement was merely the sum total and culmination of the labors of a long line of celebrated ,hebrew sages4 ,the ,oral ,law had been recognized by ,ezra2 had become important in the days of the ,maccabees2 had been supported by ,pharisaism2 narrowed by the school of ,shammai1 codified by the school of ,hillel1 systematized by ,r4 ,akiba1 placed on a logical basis by ,r4 ,ishmael1 exegetically amplified by ,r4 ,eliezer1 and constantly enriched by successive rabbis and their schools4 ,rabbi ,judah put the coping-stone to the immense structure4#eb ,emanuel ,deutsch gives the following subdivisions of the ,mishna3 ,the ,mishna is divided into six sections4 ,these are subdivided again into #aa1 #ab1 #g1 #i 7or #aj71 #aa1 and #ab chapters1 respectively1 which are further broken up into #ebd paragraphs4 ,we shall briefly describe their contents3 ,section ,i4 ,seeds3 of ,agrarian ,laws1 commencing with a chapter on ,prayers4 ,in this section1 the various tithes and donations due to the ,priests1 the ,levites1 and the poor1 from the products of the lands1 and further the ,sabbatical year and the prohibited mixtures in plants1 animals1 garments1 are treated of4 ,section ,,ii4 ,feasts3 of ,sabbaths1 ,feast1 and ,fast days1 the work prohibited1 the ceremonies ordained1 the sacrifices to be offered1 on them4 ,special chapters are devoted to the ,feast of the ,exodus from ,egypt1 to the ,new ,year's ,day1 to the ,day of ,atonement 7one of the most impressive portions of the whole book71 to the ,feast of ,tabernacles and to that of ,haman4 ,section ,,iii4 ,women3 of betrothal1 marriage1 divorce1 etc41 also of vows4 ,section ,,iv4 ,damages3 including a great part of the civil and criminal law4 ,it treats of the law of trover1 of buying and selling1 and the ordinary monetary transactions4 ,further1 of the greatest crime known to the law1 viz41 idolatry4 ,next of witnesses1 of oaths1 of legal punishments1 and of the ,sanhedrin itself4 ,this section concludes with the so-called ,sentences of the ,fathers1 containing some of the sublimest ethical dicta known in the history of religious philosophy4 ,section ,v4 ,sacred ,things3 of sacrifices1 the first-born1 etc42 also of the measurements of the ,temple 7,middoth74 ,section ,,vi4 ,purifications3 of the various levitical and other hygienic laws1 of impure things and persons1 their purification1 etc4#ec ,recensions4--,the ,talmud exists in two recensions3 the ,jerusalem and the ,babylonian4 ,these two editions represent a double ,gemara2 the first 7,jerusalem7 being an expression of the schools in ,palestine and redacted at ,tiberias about #cij ,a4,d42 the second 7,babylonian7 being an expression of the schools in ,babylonia and redacted about #cfe-dbg ,a4,d4 ,the ,mishna1 having been formed into a code1 became in its turn what the ,pentateuch had been before it1 a basis of discussion and development4 ,the ,gemara of the ,jerusalem ,talmud embodies the critical discussions and disquisitions on the ,mishna by hundreds of learned doctors who lived in ,palestine1 chiefly in ,galilee1 from the end of the second till about the middle of the fifth century of the ,christian era4 ,the ,gemara of the ,babylonian ,talmud embodies the criticisms and dissertations on the same ,mishna of numerous learned doctors living in various places in ,babylonia1 but chiefly those of the two great schools of ,sura and ,pumbaditha4#ed ,the ,babylonian ,talmud is written in ,west ,araman1 is the product of six or seven generations of constant development1 and is about four times as large as that of the ,jerusalem ,talmud1 which is written in ,east ,araman4#ee ,it should be kept clearly before the mind that the only difference between these two recensions is in the matter of commentary4 ,the two sets of doctors whose different commentaries distinguish the two ,talmuds dealt with the same ,mishna as a basis of criticism4 ,but decided differences are noticeable in the subject matter and style of the two ,gemaras represented by the two recensions of the ,talmud4 ,the discussions and commentaries in the ,jerusalem ,talmud are simple1 brief1 and pointed2 while those of the ,babylonian ,talmud are generally subtle1 abstruse1 and prolix4 ,the dissertations in the ,jerusalem ,talmud are filled to overflowing with archology1 geography1 and history1 while the ,babylonian ,talmud is more marked by legal and religious development4 ,but the reader should not form a wrong impression of the contents of the ,talmud4 ,they are a blending of the oral law of the ,mishna and the notes and comments of the sages4 ,the characteristics of both the editions are legal and religious1 but a multitude of references are made in each to things that have no connection with either religion or law4 ,the ,talmud does1 indeed1 offer us a perfect picture of the cosmopolitanism and luxury of those final days of ,rome1 such as but few classical or postclassical writings contain4 ,we find mention made of ,spanish fish1 of ,cretan apples1 ,bithynian cheese1 ,egyptian lentils and beans1 ,greek and ,egyptian pumpkins1 ,italian wine1 ,median beer1 ,egyptian ,zyphus2 garments imported from ,pelusium and ,india1 shirts from ,cilicia1 and veils from ,arabia4 ,to the ,arabic1 ,persian1 and ,indian materials contained1 in addition to these1 in the ,gemara1 a bare allusion may suffice4 ,so much we venture to predict1 that when once archological and linguistic science shall turn to this field1 they will not leave it again soon4 ,relation of ,talmud to ,mishna4--,the relation of the ,talmud1 used in the popular sense1 to the ,mishna1 raises the question of the relation of the whole to one of its parts4 ,the varying meanings of ,mishna1 ,gemara1 and ,talmud very easily confuse the ordinary reader4 ,if these terms are considered separately in the order in which they appear in the preceding sentence1 simple mathematical addition will greatly aid in elucidating matters4 ,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 era4 ,the ,gemara is the ,rabbinical exposition of the meaning of the ,mishna4 ,the ,talmud is the sum of the ,mishna plus the ,gemara4 ,in other words1 the ,talmud is the elaboration or amplification of the ,mishna by manifold commentaries1 designated as the ,gemara4 ,it frequently happens that the ,talmud and the ,mishna appear in the same sentence as terms designating entirely different things4 ,this association in a different sense inevitably breeds confusion1 unless we pause to consider that the ,mishna has a separate existence from the ,talmud and a distinct recension of its own4 ,in this state it is simply a naked code of laws4 ,but when the ,gemara has been added to it the ,talmud is the result1 which1 in its turn1 becomes a distinct entity and may be referred to as such in the same sentence with the ,mishna4 ,relation of ,talmud to ,pentateuch4--,as before suggested1 the ,pentateuch1 or ,mosaic ,code1 was the ,written ,law and the very foundation of ancient ,hebrew jurisprudence4 ,the ,talmud1 composed of the ,mishna1 i4e41 ,tradition1 and the ,gemara1 i4e41 ,commentary1 was the ,oral ,law1 connected with1 derived from1 and built upon the ,written ,law4 ,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 ,jehovah4 ,this was as true of ,talmudic tradition as of ,mosaic ordinance4 ,hillel1 who interpreted tradition1 was as much inspired of ,god as was ,moses when he received the ,written ,law on ,sinai4 ,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 rules2 that1 besides1 there were certain enactments of the primitive ,council of the ,desert1 and certain verdicts issued by the later judges within the gates--all of which entered into the general body of the ,oral ,law and were transmitted side by side with the ,written ,law through the ages4#ef ,the fourth book of ,ezra1 as well as other ,apocryphal writings1 together with ,philo and certain of the ,church ,fathers1 tells us of great numbers of books that were given to ,moses at the same time that he received the ,pentateuch4 ,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 origin4 ,jewish tradition traces the bulk of the oral injunctions1 through a chain of distinctly named authorities1 to ',sinai itself4' ,it mentions in detail how ,moses communicated those minuti of his legislation1 in which he had been instructed during the mysterious forty days and nights on the ,mount1 to the chosen guides of the people1 in such a manner that they should forever remain engraven on the tablets of their hearts4#eg ,this direct descent of the ,oral ,law from the ,sacred ,mount itself would indicate an independent character and authority4 ,nevertheless1 ,talmudic interpretation of tradition professed to remain always subject to the ,mosaic ,code2 to be built upon1 and to derive its highest inspiration from it4 ,but1 as a matter of fact1 while claiming theoretically to be subordinate to it1 the ,talmud finally superseded and virtually displaced the ,pentateuch as a legal and administrative code4 ,this was the inevitable consequence and effect of the laws of growth and progress in national existence4 ,altered conditions of life1 at home and in exile1 necessitated new rules of action in the government of the ,jewish commonwealth4 ,the ,mosaic ,code was found inadequate to the ever-changing exigencies of ,hebrew life4 ,as a matter of fact1 ,moses laid down only general principles for the guidance of ,hebrew judges4 ,he furnished the body of the law1 but a system of legal procedure was wholly wanting4 ,the ,talmud supplied the deficiency and completed a perfect whole4 ,while yet in the ,wilderness1 ,moses commanded the ,israelites to establish courts and appoint judges for the administration of justice as soon as they were settled in ,palestine4#eh ,this clearly indicates that the great lawgiver did not intend his ordinances and injunctions to be final and exclusive4 ,having furnished a foundation for the scheme1 he anticipated that the piety1 judgment1 and learning of subsequent ages would do the rest4 ,his expectations were fulfilled in the development of the traditions afterwards embodied in the ,mishna1 which is the principal component part of the ,talmud4 ,as before suggested1 with the growth in population and the ever-increasing complications in social1 political1 and religious life1 and with the general advance in ,hebrew civilization1 ,mosaic injunction began to prove entirely inadequate to the national wants4 ,in the time intervening between the destruction of the first and second ,temples1 a number of ,mosaic laws had become utter anachronisms2 others were perfectly impracticable1 and several were no longer even understood4 ,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 ,pentateuch4 ,but the divine origin of the ,hebrew system of law was never for a moment forgotten1 whatever the change and wherever made4 ,the ,rabbins never formally repealed or abolished any ,mosaic enactment4 ,they simply declared that it had fallen into desuetude4 ,and1 in devising new laws rendered necessary by changed conditions of life they invariably invoked some principle or interpretation of the ,written ,law4 ,in the declining years of ,jewish nationality1 many characteristic laws of the ,pentateuch had become obsolete4 ,the ordinance which determined the punishment of a stubborn and rebellious son2 the enactment which commanded the destruction of a city given to idolatry2 and1 above all1 the lex talionis had become purely matters of legend4 ,on the other hand1 many new laws appear in the ,talmud of which no trace whatever can be discovered in the ,pentateuch4 ,the ,pharisees1 says ,josephus1 have imposed upon the people many laws taken from the tradition of the ,fathers1 which are not written in the law of ,moses4#ei ,the most significant of these is the one providing for ,antecedent ,warning in criminal prosecutions1 the meaning and purpose of which will be fully discussed in another chapter4 ,vicissitudes of the ,talmud4--,an old ,latin adage runs3 ,habent sua fata libelli4#fj 7,even books are victims of fate74 ,this saying is peculiarly applicable to the ,talmud1 which has had1 in a general way1 the same fateful history as the race that created it4 ,proscription1 exile1 imprisonment1 confiscation1 and burning was its lot throughout the ,middle ,ages4 ,during a thousand years1 popes and kings vied with each other in pronouncing edicts and hurling anathemas against it4 ,during the latter half of the sixteenth century it was burned not fewer than six different times by royal or papal decree4 ,whole wagonloads were consigned to the flames at a single burning4 ,in #abhf1 in a letter to the ,archbishop of ,canterbury1 ,honorius ,,iv described the ,talmud as a damnable book 7liber damnabilis71 and vehemently urged that nobody in ,england be permitted to read it1 since all other evils flow out of it4#fa ,on ,new ,year's day1 #aeec1 numerous copies of the ,talmud were burned at ,rome in compliance with a decree of the ,inquisition4 ,and1 as late as #ageg1 in ,poland1 ,bishop ,dembowski1 at the instigation of the ,frankists1 convened a public assembly at ,kamenetz-,podolsk1 which decreed that all copies of the ,talmud found in the bishopric should be confiscated and burned by the hangman4#fb ,of the two recensions1 the ,babylonian ,talmud bore the brunt of persecution during all the ages4 ,this resulted from the fact that the ,jerusalem ,talmud was little read after the closing of the ,jewish academies in ,palestine1 while the ,babylonian ,talmud was the popular edition of eminent ,jewish scholars throughout the world4 ,it is needless to say that the treatment accorded the venerable literary compilation was due to bitter prejudice and crass ignorance4 ,this is well illustrated by the circumstance that when1 in #acjg1 ,clement ,v was asked to issue a bull against the ,talmud1 he declined to do so1 until he had learned something about it4 ,to his amazement and chagrin1 he could find no one who could throw any light upon the subject4 ,those who wished it condemned and burned were totally ignorant of its meaning and contents4 ,the surprise and disgust of ,clement were so great that he resolved to found three chairs in ,hebrew1 ,arabic1 and ,chaldee1 the three tongues nearest the idiom of the ,talmud4 ,he designated the ,universities of ,paris1 ,salamanca1 ,bologna1 and ,oxford as places where these languages should be taught1 and expressed the hope that1 in time1 one of these universities might be able to produce a translation of this mysterious book4#fc ,it may be added that these plans of the ,pope were never consummated4 ,the ,message and ,mission of the ,talmud4--,to appreciate the message and mission of the ,talmud1 its contents must be viewed and contemplated in the light of both literature and history4 ,as a literary production it is a masterpiece--strange1 weird1 and unique--but a masterpiece1 nevertheless4 ,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 years4 ,as an encyclopedia of faith and scholarship it reveals the noblest thoughts and highest aspirations of a divinely commissioned race4 ,whatever the master spirits of ,judaism in ,palestine and ,babylon esteemed worthy of thought and devotion was devoted to its pages4 ,it thus became a great twin messenger1 with the ,bible1 of ,hebrew civilization to all the races of mankind and to all the centuries yet to come4 ,to ,hebrews it is still the great storehouse of information touching the legal1 political1 and religious traditions of their fathers in many lands and ages4 ,to the ,biblical critic of any faith it is an invaluable help to ,bible exegesis4 ,and to all the world who care for the sacred and the solemn it is a priceless literary treasure4 ,as an historical factor the ,talmud has only remotely affected the great currents of ,gentile history4 ,but to ,judaism it has been the cementing bond in every time of persecution and threatened dissolution4 ,it was carried from ,babylon to ,egypt1 northern ,africa1 ,spain1 ,italy1 ,france1 ,germany1 and ,poland4 ,and when threatened with national and race destruction1 the children of ,abraham in every land bowed themselves above its sacred pages and caught therefrom inspiration to renewed life and higher effort4 ,the ,hebrews of every age have held the ,talmud in extravagant reverence as the greatest sacred heirloom of their race4 ,their supreme affection for it has placed it above even the ,bible4 ,it is an adage with them that1 ,the ,bible is salt1 the ,mischna pepper1 the ,gemara balmy spice1 and ,rabbi ,solomon ben ,joseph sings3 ,the ,kabbala and ,talmud hoar ,than all the ,prophets prize ,i more2 ,for water is all ,bible lore1 ,but ,mischna is pure wine4 ,more than any other human agency has the ,talmud been instrumental in creating that strangest of all political phenomena--a nation without a country1 a race without a fatherland4 ,,chapter ,,ii ,,hebrew ,,criminal ,,law--,,crimes ,,and ,,punishments ,capital crimes1 under ,hebrew law1 were classified by ,maimonides according to their respective penalties4 ,his arrangement will be followed in this chapter4#fd ,hebrew jurisprudence provided four methods of capital punishment3 7#a7 ,beheading2 7#b7 ,strangling2 7#c7 ,burning2 7#d7 ,stoning4 ,crucifixion was unknown to ,hebrew law4 ,this cruel and loathsome form of punishment will be fully discussed in the second volume of this work4 ,thirty-six capital crimes are mentioned by the ,pentateuch and the ,talmud4 ,beheading was the punishment for only two crimes3 7#a7 ,murder4 7#b7 ,communal apostasy from ,judaism to idolatry4 ,strangling was prescribed for six offenses3 7#a7 ,adultery4 7#b7 ,kidnaping4 7#c7 ,false prophecy4 7#d7 ,bruising a parent4 7#e7 ,prophesying in the name of heathen deities4 7#f7 ,maladministration 7the ,rebellious ,elder74 ,burning was the death penalty for ten forms of incest--criminal commerce3 7#a7 ,with one's own daughter4 7#b7 ,with one's own son's daughter4 7#c7 ,with one's own daughter's daughter4 7#d7 ,with one's own stepdaughter4 7#e7 ,with one's own stepson's daughter4 7#f7 ,with one's own stepdaughter's daughter4 7#g7 ,with one's own mother-in-law4 7#h7 ,with one's own mother-in-law's mother4 7#i7 ,with one's own father-in-law's mother4 7#aj7 ,with a priest's daughter4#fe ,stoning was the penalty for eighteen capital offenses3 7#a7 ,magic4 7#b7 ,idolatry4 7#c7 ,blasphemy4 7#d7 ,pythonism4 7#e7 ,pederasty4 7#f7 ,necromancy4 7#g7 ,cursing a parent4 7#h7 ,violating the ,sabbath4 7#i7 ,bestiality1 practiced by a man4 7#aj7 ,bestiality1 practiced by a woman4 7#aa7 ,sacrificing one's own children to ,moloch4 7#ab7 ,instigating individuals to embrace idolatry4 7#ac7 ,instigating communities to embrace idolatry4 7#ad7 ,criminal conversation with one's own mother4 7#ae7 ,criminal conversation with a betrothed virgin4 7#af7 ,criminal conversation with one's own stepmother4 7#ag7 ,criminal conversation with one's own daughter-in-law4 7#ah7 ,violation of filial duty 7making the ,prodigal ,son74#ff ,the crime of false swearing requires special notice4 ,this offense could not be classified under any of the above subdivisions because of its peculiar nature4 ,the ,mosaic ,code ordains in ,deut4 xix4 #af-ba3 ,if a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong 444 and1 behold1 if the witness be a false witness1 and hath testified falsely against his brother2 then shall ye do unto him1 as he had thought to have done unto his brother 444 and thine eye shall not pity1 but life shall go for life1 eye for eye1 tooth for tooth1 hand for hand1 foot for foot4 ,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 criminal1 if the testimony of the false swearer had been true4 ,imprisonment1 as a method of punishment1 was unknown to the ,mosaic ,code4 ,leviticus xxiv4 #ab and ,numbers xv4 #cd seem to indicate the contrary2 but the imprisonment therein mentioned undoubtedly refers to the mere detention of the prisoner until sentence could be pronounced against him4 ,imprisonment as a form of punishment was a creation of the ,talmudists who legalized its application among the ,hebrews4 ,according to ,mendelsohn1 five different classes of offenders were punished by imprisonment3 7#a7 ,homicides2 whose crime could not be legally punished with death1 because some condition or other1 necessary to produce a legal conviction1 had not been complied with4 7#b7 ,instigators to or procurers of murder2 such1 for instance1 as had the deed committed by the hands of a hireling4 7#c7 ,accessories to loss of life1 as1 for instance1 when several persons had clubbed one to death1 and the court could not determine the one who gave the death blow4 7#d7 ,persons who having been twice duly condemned to and punished with flagellation for as many transgressions of one and the same negative precept1 committed it a third time4 7#e7 ,incorrigible offenders1 who1 on each of three occasions1 had failed to acknowledge as many warnings antecedent to the commission of one and the same crime1 the original penalty for which was excision4#fg ,flagellation is the only corporal punishment mentioned by the ,pentateuch4 ,the number of stripes administered were not to exceed forty and were to be imposed in the presence of the judges4#fh ,wherever the ,mosaic ,code forbade an act1 or1 in the language of the sages1 said ,thou shalt not1 and prescribed no other punishment or alternative1 a ,court of ,three might impose stripes as the penalty for wrongdoing4 ,mendelsohn gives the following classification3 ,flagellation is the penalty of three classes of offenses3 7#a7 ,the violation of a negative precept1 deadly in the sight of heaven4 7#b7 ,the violation of any negative precept1 when accomplished by means of a positive act4 7#c7 ,the violation of any one of the prohibitive ordinances punishable1 according to the ,mosaic law with excision1 to which1 however1 no capital punishment at the instance of a human tribunal is attached4#fi ,the ,mishna enumerates fifty offenses punishable by stripes1 but this enumeration is evidently incomplete4 ,maimonides gives a full classification of all the offenses punishable by flagellation1 the number of which he estimates to be two hundred and seven4 ,the last three in his list are cases in which the king takes too many wives1 accumulates too much silver or gold1 or collects too many horses4#gj ,slavery was the penalty for theft under ancient ,hebrew law4 ,this is the only case where the ,mosaic law imposed slavery upon the culprit as a punishment for his crime2 and a loss of liberty followed only where the thief was unable to make the prescribed restitution4 ,exodus xxii4 #a-c says3 ,if a man shall steal an ox1 or a sheep1 and kill it1 or sell it1 he shall restore five oxen for an ox1 and four sheep for a sheep 444 if he have nothing1 then he shall be sold for his theft4 ,penal servitude1 or slavery1 was imposed only on men1 never on women4 ,slavery1 as a penalty for theft1 was limited to a period of six years in obedience to the ,mosaic ordinance laid down in ,exodus xxi4 #b4 ,if thou buy a ,hebrew servant1 six years he shall serve3 and in the seventh1 he shall go free for nothing4 ,it should be remarked1 in this connection1 that slavery1 as a punishment for crime1 carried with it none of the odium and hardship usually borne by the slave4 ,the humanity of ,hebrew law provided that the culprit1 thief though he was1 should not be degraded or humiliated4 ,he could be compelled to do work for his master1 such as he had been accustomed to do while free1 but was relieved by the law from all degrading employment1 such as attending the master to the bath1 fastening or unfastening his sandals1 washing his feet1 or any other labor usually performed by the regular slave4 ,hebrew law required such kindly treatment of the convict thief by his master that this maxim was the result3 ,he who buys a ,hebrew slave1 buys himself a master4 ,internment in a city of refuge was the punishment for accidental homicide4 ,mischance or misadventure1 resulting in the slaying of a fellow-man1 was not1 properly speaking1 a crime2 nor was exile in a city of refuge considered by the ,talmudists a form of punishment4 ,but they are so classified by most writers on ,hebrew criminal law4 ,among nearly all ancient nations there was a place of refuge for the unfortunate and downtrodden of the earth2 debtors1 slaves1 criminals1 and political offenders2 some sacred spot--an altar1 a grave1 or a sanctuary dedicated and devoted to some divinity who threw about the hallowed place divine protection and inviolability4 ,such was at ,athens the ,temple of ,theseus1 the sanctuary of slaves4 ,it will be remembered that the orator ,demosthenes took refuge in the ,temple of ,poseidon as a sanctuary1 when pursued by emissaries of ,antipater and the ,macedonians4#ga ,among the ancient ,hebrews1 there were six cities of refuge2 three on either side of the ,jordan4 ,they were so located as to be nearly opposite each other4 ,bezer in ,reuben was opposite ,hebron in ,judah2 ,schechem in ,ephraim was opposite to ,ramoth in ,gad2 and ,golan in ,manasseh was opposite to ,kedesh in ,naphtali4#gb ,highways in excellent condition led from one to the other4 ,signposts were placed at regular intervals to indicate the way to the nearest city of refuge4 ,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 blood4 ,among nearly all primitive peoples of crude political development1 such as the early ,germans1 the ancient ,greeks and ,slavs1 certain ,north ,american savage tribes and the modern ,arabs1 ,corsicans and ,sicilians1 the right of private vengeance was and is taught and tolerated4 ,upon the next of kin1 the avenger of blood1 devolved the duty of hunting down and slaying the guilty man4 ,cities of refuge were provided by ,mosaic law for such an emergency among the ,hebrews4 ,this provision of the ,mosaic ,code doubtless sprang from a personal experience of its founder4 ,bible students will remember that ,moses slew an ,egyptian and was compelled to flee in consequence4#gc ,remembering his dire distress on this occasion1 the great lawgiver was naturally disposed to provide sanctuaries for others similarly distressed4 ,but the popular notion of the rights of sanctuary under the ,mosaic law is far from right4 ,that a common murderer could1 by precipitate flight1 reach one of the designated places and be safe from his pursuers and the vengeance of the law1 is thought by many4 ,the observation of ,benny on this point is apt and lucid3 ,internment in one of the cities of refuge was not the scampering process depicted in the popular engraving3 a man in the last stage of exhaustion at the gate of an ,eastern town2 his pursuers close upon him1 arrows fixed and bows drawn2 his arms stretched imploringly towards a fair ,jewish damsel1 with a pitcher gracefully poised upon her head4 ,this may be extremely picturesque1 but it is miserably unlike the custom in vogue among the later ,hebrews4 ,internment in a city of refuge was a sober and judicial proceeding4 ,he who claimed the privilege was tried before the ,sanhedrin like any ordinary criminal4 ,he was required to undergo examination2 to confront witnesses1 to produce evidence1 precisely as in the case of other offenders4 ,he had to prove that the homicide was purely accidental2 that he had borne no malice against his neighbor2 that he had not lain in wait for him to slay him4 ,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 cities4 ,there was no scurrying in the matter2 no abrupt flight2 no hot pursuit1 and no appeal for shelter4 ,as soon as judgment was pronounced the criminal was conducted to one of the appointed places4 ,he was accompanied the whole distance by two talmide-chachamin-disciples of the ,rabbins4 ,the avengers of the blood dared not interfere with the offender on the way4 ,to slay him would have been murder1 punishable with death4 ,execution of ,capital ,sentences4 7#a7 ,beheading4--,the ,hebrews considered beheading the most awful and ignominious of all forms of punishment4 ,it was the penalty for deliberate murder and for communal apostasy from ,judaism to idolatry1 the most heinous offenses against the ,hebrew theocracy4 ,beheading was accomplished by fastening the culprit securely to a post and then severing his head from his body by a stroke with a sword4#gd 7#b7 ,strangling4--,the capital punishment of strangling was effected by burying the culprit to his waist in soft mud1 and then tightening a cord wrapped in a soft cloth around his neck1 until suffocation ensued4#ge 7#c7 ,burning4--,the execution of criminals by burning was not done by consuming the living person with fire1 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 ,america4 ,indeed1 the term burning seems to be a misnomer in this connection1 for the culprit was not really burned to death4 ,he was simply suffocated by strangling4 ,as in the case of strangling1 the condemned man was placed in a pit dug in the ground4 ,soft dirt was then thrown in and battered down1 until nothing but his head and chest protruded4 ,a cord1 wrapped in a soft cloth1 was then passed once around his neck4 ,two strong men came forward1 grasped each an end1 and drew the cord so hard that suffocation immediately followed4 ,as the lower jaw dropped from insensibility and relaxation1 a lighted wick was quickly thrown into his mouth4 ,this constituted the burning4#gf ,there is authority for the statement that instead of a lighted wick1 molten lead was poured down the culprit's throat4#gg 7#d7 ,stoning4--,death by stoning was accomplished in the following manner3 ,the culprit was taken to some lofty hill or eminence1 made to undress completely1 if a man1 and was then precipitated violently to the ground beneath4 ,the fall usually broke the neck or dislocated the spinal cord4 ,if death did not follow instantaneously the witnesses hurled upon his prostrate body heavy stones until he was dead4 ,if the first stone1 so heavy as to require two persons to carry it1 did not produce death1 then bystanders threw stones upon him until death ensued4 ,here1 again1 stoning to death is not strictly accurate4 ,death usually resulted from the fall of the man from the platform1 scaffold1 hill1 or other elevation from which he was hurled4 ,it was really a process of neck-breaking1 instead of stoning1 as burning was a process of suffocation1 instead of consuming with fire4 ,these four methods of execution--beheading1 strangling1 burning1 and stoning--were the only forms of capital punishment known to the ancient ,hebrews4 ,crucifixion was never practiced by them2 but a posthumous indignity1 resembling crucifixion1 was employed as an insult to the criminal1 in the crimes of idolatry and blasphemy4 ,in addition to being stoned to death1 as a punishment for either of these crimes1 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 ignominious4 ,this hanging to a tree was in obedience to a ,mosaic ordinance contained in ,deut4 xxi4 #bb4 ,the corpse was not permitted1 however1 to remain hanging during the night4 ,the burial of the dead body of the criminal immediately followed execution1 but interment could not take place in the family burial ground4 ,near each town in ancient ,palestine were two cemeteries2 in one of them were buried those criminals who had been executed by beheading or strangling2 in the other were interred those who had been put to death by stoning or burning4 ,the bodies were required to remain1 thus buried1 until the flesh had completely decayed and fallen from the bone4 ,the relatives were then permitted to dig up the skeletons and place them in the family sepulchers4 ,,chapter ,,iii ,,hebrew ,,criminal ,,law--,,courts ,,and ,,judges ,the ,hebrew tribunals were three in kind3 the ,great ,sanhedrin2 the ,minor ,sanhedrin2 and the ,lower ,tribunal1 or the ,court of ,three4 ,the ,great ,sanhedrin1 or ,grand ,council1 was the high court of justice and the supreme tribunal of the ,jews4 ,it sat at ,jerusalem4 ,it numbered seventy-one members4 ,its powers were legislative1 executive1 and judicial4 ,it exercised all the functions of education1 of government1 and of religion4 ,it was the national parliament of the ,hebrew ,theocracy1 the human administrator of the divine will4 ,it was the most august tribunal that ever interpreted or administered religion to man4 ,the ,name4--,the word ,sanhedrin is derived from the ,greek 7,greek3 synedrion7 and denotes a legislative assembly or an ecclesiastical council deliberating in a sitting posture4 ,it suggests also the gravity and solemnity of an ,oriental synod1 transacting business of great importance4 ,the etymology of the word indicates that it was first used in the later years of ,jewish nationality4 ,several other names are also found in history to designate the ,great ,sanhedrin of the ,jews4 ,the ,council of ,ancients is a familiar designation of early ,jewish writers4 ,it is called ,gerusia1 or ,senate1 in the second book of ,maccabees4#gh ,concilium1 or ,grand ,council1 is the name found in the ,vulgate4#gi ,the ,talmud designates it sometimes as the ,tribunal of the ,maccabees1 but usually terms it ,sanhedrin1 the name most frequently employed in the ,greek text of the ,gospels1 in the writings of the ,rabbins1 and in the works of ,josephus4#hj ,origin of the ,great ,sanhedrin4--,the historians are at loggerheads as to the origin of the ,great ,sanhedrin4 ,many contend that it was established in the ,wilderness by ,moses1 who acted under divine commission recorded in ,numbers xi4 #af1 #ag3 ,gather unto me seventy of the elders of ,israel1 whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people1 and officers of them2 and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation1 that they may stand with thee2 and ,i will take of the ,spirit that is upon thee and will put it upon them2 and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee1 that thou bearest it not alone4 ,over the seventy elders1 ,moses is said to have presided1 making seventy-one1 the historic number of the ,great ,sanhedrin4 ,several ,christian historians1 among them ,grotius and ,selden1 have entertained this view2 others equally celebrated have maintained contrary opinions4 ,these latter contend that the council of seventy ordained by ,moses existed only a short time1 having been established to assist the great lawgiver in the administration of justice2 and that1 upon the entrance of the children of ,israel into the ,promised ,land1 it disappeared altogether4 ,the writers who hold this view contend that if the great assembly organized in the ,wilderness was perpetuated side by side with the royal power1 throughout the ages1 as the ,rabbis maintained1 some mention of this fact would1 in reason1 have been made by the ,bible1 ,josephus1 or ,philo4 ,the pages of ,jewish history disclose the greatest diversity of opinion as to the origin of the ,great ,sanhedrin4 ,the ,maccabean era is thought by some to be the time of its first appearance4 ,others contend that the reign of ,john ,hyrcanus1 and still others that the days of ,judas ,maccabeus1 marked its birth and beginning4 ,raphall1 having studied with care its origin and progress1 wrote3 ,we have thus traced the existence of a council of ,zekenim or ,elders founded by ,moses1 existing in the days of ,ezekiel1 restored under the name of ,sabay ,yehoudai1 or ,elders of the ,jews1 under ,persian dominion2 ,gerusia1 under the supremacy of the ,greeks2 and ,sanhedrin under the ,asmonean kings and under the ,romans4#ha ,brushing aside mere theory and speculation1 one historical fact is clear and uncontradicted1 that the first ,sanhedrin ,council clothed with the general judicial and religious attributes of the ,great ,sanhedrin of the times of ,jesus1 was established at ,jerusalem between #agj and #ajf ,b4,c4 ,organization of the ,great ,sanhedrin4--,the seventy-one members composing the ,great ,sanhedrin were divided into three chambers3 ,the chamber of priests2 ,the chamber of scribes2 ,the chamber of elders4 ,the first of these orders represented the religious or sacerdotal2 the second1 the literary or legal2 the third1 the patriarchal1 the democratic or popular element of the ,hebrew population4 ,thus the principal ,estates of the ,commonwealth of ,israel were present1 by representation1 in the great court and parliament of the nation4 ,matthew refers to these three orders and identifies the tribunal that passed judgment upon ,christ3 ,from that time forth1 began ,jesus to shew unto his disciples1 how that he must go unto ,jerusalem1 and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes1 and be killed and raised again the third day4#hb ,theoretically1 under the ,hebrew constitution1 the seventy-one of the three chambers were to be equally divided3 ,twenty-three in the chamber of priests1 ,twenty-three in the chamber of scribes1 ,twenty-three in the chamber of elders4 ,a total of sixty-nine1 together with the two presiding officers1 would constitute the requisite number1 seventy-one4 ,but1 practically1 this arrangement was rarely ever observed4 ,the theocratic structure of the government of ,israel and the pious regard of the people for the guardians of the ,temple1 gave the priestly element a predominating influence from time to time4 ,the scribes1 too1 were a most vigorous and aggressive sect and frequently encroached upon the rights and privileges of the other orders4 ,abarbanel1 one of the greatest of the ,hebrew writers1 has offered this explanation3 ,the priests and scribes naturally predominated in the ,sanhedrin because1 not having like the other ,israelites received lands to cultivate and improve1 they had abundant time to consecrate to the study of law and justice1 and thus became better qualified to act as judges4#hc ,qualifications of ,members of the ,great ,sanhedrin4--,the following qualifications were requisite to entitle an applicant to membership in the ,great ,sanhedrin3 7#a7 ,he must have been a ,hebrew and a lineal descendant of ,hebrew parents4#hd 7#b7 ,he must have been learned in the law2 both written and unwritten4 ,his legal attainment must have included an intimate acquaintance with all the enactments of the ,mosaic ,code1 with traditional practices1 with the precepts and precedents of the colleges1 with the adjudications of former courts and the opinions of former judges4 ,he must have been familiar not only with the laws then actively in force1 but also with those that had become obsolete4#he 7#c7 ,he must have had judicial experience2 that is1 he must have already filled three offices of gradually increasing dignity1 beginning with one of the local courts1 and passing successively through two magistracies at ,jerusalem4#hf 7#d7 ,he must have been thoroughly proficient in scientific knowledge4 ,the ancient ,sanhedrists were required to be especially well grounded in astronomy and medicine4 ,they were also expected to be familiar with the arts of the necromancer4#hg ,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 chemistry1 as far as these sciences were developed and understood in those days4 ,history records that ,rabbi ,ismael and his disciples once engaged in experimental dissection in order to learn the anatomy of the human frame4 ,on one occasion a deceitful witness tried to impose upon a ,hebrew court by representing spermatic fluid to be the albumen of an egg4 ,baba bar ,boutah was enabled1 from his knowledge of the elements of chemistry1 to demonstrate the fact of fraud in the testimony of the witness4 ,eighty disciples of the famous ,academy of ,hillel are said to have been acquainted with every branch of science known in those days4#hh 7#e7 ,he must have been an accomplished linguist2 that is1 he must have been thoroughly familiar with the languages of the surrounding nations4 ,interpreters were not allowed in ,hebrew courts4 ,a knowledge of several languages was1 therefore1 indispensable to the candidate who sought membership in the ,great ,sanhedrin4 ,in the case of a foreigner being called as a witness before a tribunal1 it was absolutely necessary that two members should understand the language in which the stranger's evidence was given2 that two others should speak to him2 while another was required to be both able to understand and to converse with the witness4 ,a majority of three judges could always be obtained on any doubtful point in the interpretation of the testimony submitted to the court4 ,at ,bither there were three ,rabbins acquainted with every language then known1 while at ,jabneh there were said to be four similarly endowed with the gift of 'all the tongues4'#hi 7#f7 ,he must have been modest1 popular1 of good appearance1 and free from haughtiness4#ij ,the ,hebrew mind conceived modesty to be the natural result of that learning1 dignity1 and piety which every judge was supposed to possess4 ,the qualification of popularity did not convey the notion of electioneering1 hobnobbing and familiarity4 ,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 life1 liberty1 and property to his keeping4 ,by good appearance was meant that freedom from physical blemishes and defects1 and that possession of physical endowments that would inspire respect and reverence in the beholder4 ,the haughty judge was supposed to be lacking in the elements of piety and humility which qualified him for communion with ,god4 ,haughtiness1 therefore1 disqualified for admission to the ,great ,sanhedrin4 7#g7 ,he must have been pious1 strong1 and courageous4#ia ,piety was the preminent qualification of a judge of ,israel4 ,impiety was the negation of everything ,israelitish4 ,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 judgments4 ,disqualifications4--,disqualifications of applicants for membership in the ,great ,sanhedrin are not less interesting than qualifications4 ,they are in the main mere negatives of affirmatives which have already been given1 and would seem1 therefore1 to be superfluous4 ,but they are strongly accentuated in ,hebrew law1 and are therefore repeated here4 7#a7 ,a man was disqualified to act as judge who had not1 or had never had1 any regular trade1 occupation1 or profession by which he gained his livelihood4 ,the reason for this disqualification was based upon a stringent maxim of the ,rabbins3 ,he who neglects to teach his son a trade1 is as though he taught him to steal6 ,a man who did not work and had never labored in the sweat of his brow for an honest livelihood1 was not qualified1 reasoned the ,hebrew people1 to give proper consideration or extend due sympathy to the cause of litigants whose differences arose out of the struggles of everyday life4 7#b7 ,in trials where the death penalty might be inflicted1 an aged man1 a person who had never had any children of his own1 and a bastard were disqualified to act as judge4 ,a person of advanced years was disqualified because according to the ,rabbins old age is frequently marked by bad temper2 and because his years and infirmities were likely to render him harsh1 perhaps obstinate and unyielding4 ,on the other hand1 youth was also a disqualification to sit in the ,sanhedrin4 ,according to the ,rabbis1 twenty-five years was the age which entitled a person to be called a ,man2#ib but no one was eligible to a seat in the ,sanhedrin until he had reached the age of forty years4#ic ,the ancient ,hebrews regarded that period as the beginning of discretion and understanding4 ,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 life4 ,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 judge4 7#c7 ,gamblers1 dice players1 bettors on pigeon matches1 usurers1 and slave dealers were disqualified to act as judges4 ,the ,hebrews regarded gambling1 dice playing1 betting on pigeon matches1 and other such practices as forms of thievery2 and thieves were not eligible to sit as judges in their courts4 ,no man who was in the habit of lending money in an usurious manner could be a judge4 ,it was immaterial whether the money was lent to a countryman or a stranger4 ,slave dealers were disqualified to act as judges because they were regarded as inhuman and unsympathetic4 7#d7 ,no man was qualified to be a judge who had dealt in the fruits of the seventh year4 ,such a person was deemed lacking in conscience and unfitted to perform judicial functions4 7#e7 ,no man who was concerned or interested in a matter to be adjudicated was qualified to sit in judgment thereon4 ,this is a universal disqualification of judges under all enlightened systems of justice4 ,the weakness and selfishness of human nature are such that few men are qualified to judge impartially where their own interests are involved4 7#f7 ,all relatives of the accused man1 of whatever degree of consanguinity1 were disqualified from sitting in judgment on his case4 ,this is only a variation of the disqualification of interest4 7#g7 ,no person who would be benefited1 as heir1 or otherwise1 by the death or condemnation of an accused man1 was qualified to be his judge4 ,this1 too1 is a variation of the disqualification of interest4 7#h7 ,the king could not be a member of the ,sanhedrin4 ,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 justice4 ,and1 finally1 in closing the enumeration of disqualifications1 it may be added that an election to a seat obtained by fraud or any unfair means was null and void4 ,no respect was shown for the piety or learning of such a judge2 his judicial mantle was spat upon with scorn1 and his fellow judges fled from him as from a plague or pest4 ,hebrew contempt for such a judge was expressed in the maxim3 ,the robe of the unfairly elected judge is to be respected not more than the blanket of an ass4 ,officers of the ,great ,sanhedrin4--,two presiding officers directed the proceedings of the ,great ,sanhedrin4 ,one of these1 styled prince 7nasi71 was the chief and the president of the court4 ,the other1 known as the father of the ,tribunal 7ab-beth-din71 was the vice-president4 ,there has been much discussion among the historians as to the particular chamber from which the president was chosen4 ,some have contended that the presidency of the ,sanhedrin belonged by right to the high priest4 ,but the facts of history do not sustain this contention4 ,aaron was high priest at the time when ,moses was president of the first ,sanhedrin in the ,wilderness2 and1 besides1 the list of presidents preserved by the ,talmud reveals the names of many who did not belong to the priesthood4 ,maimonides has made the following very apt observation on the subject3 ,whoever surpassed his colleagues in wisdom was made by them chief of the ,sanhedrin4#id ,according to most ,jewish writers1 there were two scribes or secretaries of the ,sanhedrin4 ,but several others contend that there were three4 ,benny says3 ,three scribes were present2 one was seated on the right1 one on the left1 the third in the center of the hall4 ,the first recorded the names of the judges who voted for the acquittal of the accused1 and the arguments upon which the acquittal was grounded4 ,the second noted the names of such as decided to condemn the prisoner and the reasons upon which the conviction was based4 ,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 reporters4#ie ,in addition to these officers1 there were still others who executed sentences and attended to all the police work of legal procedure4 ,they were called shoterim4#if ,there was no such officer as a public prosecutor or ,state's attorney known to the laws of the ancient ,hebrews4 ,the witnesses to the crime were the only prosecutors recognized by ,hebrew criminal jurisprudence2 and in capital cases they were the legal executioners as well4 ,there was also no such body as the modern ,grand ,jury known to ancient ,hebrew criminal law4 ,and no similar body of committee of the ,sanhedrin performed the accusatory functions of the modern ,grand ,jury4 ,the witnesses were the only accusers1 and their testimony was both the indictment and the evidence4 ,until they testified1 the man suspected was deemed not only innocent but unaccused4 ,the profession of the law1 in the modern sense of the term1 was no part of the judicial system of the ancient ,hebrews4 ,there were no advocates as we know them4 ,there were1 indeed1 men learned in the law--,pharisees and ,sadducees--who knew all the law4 ,there were doctors of the law3 men whom ,jesus confounded when a youth in the ,temple at the age of twelve4#ig ,but there were no lawyers in the modern sense3 professional characters who accept fees and prosecute cases4 ,the judges and disciples performed all the duties of the modern attorney and counselor-at-law4 ,the prophets were the sole orators of ,hebrew life1 but they were never allowed to appear as defendants of accused persons4 ,indeed1 they themselves were at times compelled to play the role of defendants4 ,jeremiah is an illustrious example4#ih ,both ,keim#ii and ,geikie#ajj speak of a ,baal ,rib1 a counsel appointed to see that everything possible was done to secure the rights of an accused person at a ,hebrew criminal trial4 ,but these statements are not in accord with standard works on ancient ,hebrew jurisprudence4 ,indeed1 ,friedlieb emphatically denies that there was any such person as a ,baal ,rib or ,dominus ,litis among the ancient ,hebrews4#aja ,it seems that in the closing years of ,jewish nationality1 specially retained advocates were known1 for ,st4 ,luke tells us that the ,jews employed ,tertullus1 a certain orator1 to prosecute ,st4 ,paul4#ajb ,but this was certainly an exceptional case4 ,it is historically certain that in the early ages of the ,jewish ,commonwealth litigants pleaded their own causes4 ,this we learn from the case of the two women who appeared before ,king ,solomon1 and laid before him their respective claims to a child4#ajc ,compensation of ,officers4--,the judges of ,israel were originally not paid anything for their services4 ,the honor of the office itself was considered sufficient emolument for labors performed4 ,indeed1 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 ,sanhedrin4 ,such high station was regarded as a sacred sphere into which the idea of material gain should not enter4 ,the regular court days were1 therefore1 spent by the judge on the bench1 without any expectation of reward for his services4 ,the other days of the week he spent in earning a livelihood4 ,but in later years of the national life a change seems to have taken place4 ,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 pursuits1 custom and the law gave him the right to claim a substitute during the time he was occupied on the bench2 or1 in default of a substitute1 to claim remuneration for the time which he had lost4 ,another modification was that if his legal duties required his entire time1 the judge in ,israel was entitled to support from the communal treasury1 and was even permitted to accept fees from litigants4 ,this practice was discouraged1 however1 by the ,rabbis1 who looked with disfavor upon the appointment of judges who were not entirely able to support themselves4 ,the secretaries and other officers of subordinate dignity were paid for their services4#ajd ,sessions of the ,courts4--,in the early days of the ,hebrew ,commonwealth the laws provided for no regular court days4 ,the ,sanhedrin convened as occasion required1 to transact such business and dispose of such cases as came before it4 ,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 session4 ,to accommodate the country folk1 the farmers1 and shepherds1 ,ezra and his coadjutors of the ,great ,assembly designated ,mondays and ,thursdays as regular court days4 ,this enactment was not prohibitive1 however4 ,court might be held on any day of the week that necessity required4 ,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 places1 in their houses of worship1 to hear the law read and interpreted4 ,while in attendance upon these sacred services1 it was thought that the time was both convenient and propitious for the settlement of their legal difficulties4#aje ,the authorities are divided as to the exact official hours of the day for holding court4 ,the ,sanhedrin sat from the close of the morning sacrifice to the time of the evening sacrifice1 is the language of the ,jerusalem ,talmud4#ajf ,mendelsohn says3 ,the official hours for holding court were between the morning service and noon2 but a suit entered upon during the legal hours could be carried on until evening1 and civil cases could be continued even after nightfall4#ajg ,but in no case of a criminal nature could the court continue its session during the night4#ajh ,the ,minor ,sanhedrins in the provinces1 as well as the local ,courts of ,three1 usually held their sessions in the most public place1 that is1 at the city gate4 ,the two ,minor ,sanhedrins of ,jerusalem held their sessions at the entrance to the ,temple-mound and to the woman's department respectively4 ,the ,great ,sanhedrin convened in an apartment of the national temple at ,jerusalem1 known as the ,lishkath haggazith4 ,this apartment was the celebrated ,hall of ,hewn ,stones4#aji ,recruitments4--,the young ,hebrew disciple who possessed the necessary mental1 spiritual1 and personal qualifications for judicial honors was styled ,haber1 which means associate1 fellow4#aaj ,such a disciple was first solemnly ordained and received the title of ,zaken 7elder7 or ,rabbi4 ,this title rendered him eligible to membership in the different courts4 ,but that he might acquire necessary experience for membership in the ,great ,sanhedrin and became a sage worthy of ,israel1 he was required to begin at the lowest rung of the judicial ladder and work gradually to the top4 ,he was first appointed by the ,great ,sanhedrin to a place in one of the local courts1 consisting of three members2 he then served as a member of one of the provincial ,sanhedrins2 was then promoted to the first1 and afterwards to the second ,minor ,sanhedrin at ,jerusalem2 and was elevated finally to the ,great ,sanhedrin itself4#aaa ,after this manner1 all the courts of the ancient ,hebrews were recruited and replenished from time to time2 the young aspirant to judicial favors beginning in the local ,court of ,three and rising by successive steps to the ,great ,sanhedrin at ,jerusalem4 ,the exact method of filling vacancies and thus replenishing the membership of the ,great ,sanhedrin is not certainly known4#aab ,the following extract from the ,talmud1 however1 is thought to be authoritative3 ,in front of them 7the judges of the ,great ,sanhedrin7 sat three rows of learned disciples2 each of them had his own special place4 ,should it be necessary to promote one of them to the office of judge1 one of those in the foremost row was selected4 ,his place was then supplied by one in the second row1 while one from the third was in turn advanced to the second4 ,this being done1 someone was then chosen from the congregation to supply the vacancy thus created in the third row4 ,but the person so appointed did not step directly into the place occupied by the one last promoted from the third row1 but into the place that beseemed one who was only newly admitted4#aac ,quorum of the ,great ,sanhedrin4--,twenty-three members constituted a quorum of the ,great ,sanhedrin4 ,this was the full number of the membership of a ,minor ,sanhedrin4 ,number of ,votes ,required to ,convict4--,in criminal trials a majority of one vote is sufficient for an acquittal2 but for a condemnation a majority of two is necessary1 is the language of the ,mishna4#aad ,the full membership of the ,great ,sanhedrin was seventy-one4 ,a condemnation by thirty-five acquitted the accused2 a condemnation by thirty-six also acquitted4 ,at least thirty-seven votes were needed to convict4 ,if a bare quorum was present1 at least thirteen votes were necessary to condemn4 ,a very peculiar rule of ,hebrew law provided that a simultaneous and unanimous verdict of guilty rendered on the day of trial1 had the effect of an acquittal4#aae ,such a verdict was considered to be lacking in the element of mercy1 and was thought to result more from conspiracy and mob violence than from mature judicial deliberation4 ,jurisdiction of the ,great ,sanhedrin4--,the jurisdiction of the ,great ,sanhedrin is briefly and concisely stated in the ,mishna3 ,the judgement of the seventy-one is besought when the affair concerns a whole tribe or is regarding a false prophet or the high-priest2 when it is a question whether war shall be declared or not2 when it has for its object the enlargement of ,jerusalem or its suburbs2 whether tribunals of twenty-three shall be instituted in the provinces1 or to declare that a town has become defiled1 and to place it under ban of excommunication4#aaf ,edward ,gibbon has also defined the jurisdiction of the same court as follows3 ,with regard to civil objects1 it was the supreme court of appeal2 with regard to criminal matters1 a tribunal constituted for the trial of all offences that were committed by men in any public station1 or that affected the peace and majesty of the people4 ,its most frequent and serious occupation was the exercise of judicial power4 ,as a council of state and as a court of justice1 it possessed many prerogatives4 ,every power was derived from its authority1 every law was ratified by its sanction4 ,the ,great ,sanhedrin possessed all the powers and attributes of a national parliament and a supreme court of judicature4 ,it corresponded to the ,areopagus of ,athens and to the senate of ,rome4 ,it took cognizance of the misconduct of priests and kings4 ,josephus tells us that ,herod the ,great was arraigned as a criminal before its judges1 and that ,king ,hyrcanus himself obeyed its mandates and decrees4 ,appeals4--,appeals were allowed from a ,minor ,sanhedrin to the ,great ,sanhedrin4 ,but there was no appeal from a mandate1 judgment1 or decree of the ,great ,sanhedrin4 ,its authority was supreme in all matters2 civil and political1 social1 religious1 and criminal4 ,it is believed that enough has been said touching the character1 organization1 and jurisdiction of the supreme tribunal of the ancient ,hebrews to satisfy the average reader4 ,indeed1 it may be that this limit has been exceeded4 ,the remainder of this chapter will be devoted to a short review of the ,minor ,sanhedrins and the ,courts of ,three4 ,minor ,sanhedrins4--,there was no fixed number of ,minor ,sanhedrins for the administration of ,justice in the ,hebrew ,commonwealth4 ,wherever and whenever1 in any town or city inhabited by at least one hundred and twenty families1 the people desired a ,sanhedrin of three-and-twenty members1 such a tribunal was established4 ,for this purpose1 an application was made to the ,great ,sanhedrin at ,jerusalem1 which dispatched a mandate to the town ordering the residents to assemble and to nominate from among themselves persons qualified to act as judges4 ,the electors were expected to bear in mind the qualifications that would fit a judge for membership in the ,great ,sanhedrin1 to which all local judges might eventually be elevated4 ,accordingly1 only good men and true were chosen at the town mass meeting4 ,immediately upon receipt of the return to the mandate1 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 members4#aag ,jurisdiction of the ,minor ,sanhedrins4--,the jurisdiction of the ,minor ,sanhedrins extended to nearly all criminal cases involving imprisonment or seclusion for life1 internment in a city of refuge1 and capital punishment4 ,adultery1 seduction1 blasphemy1 incest1 manslaughter1 and murder belonged to these different classes4 ,this court condemned an ox to be butchered that had gored a man to death4 ,the condemnation proceedings were something in the nature of a trial of the beast2 and the owner was severely fined where the evidence proved that he knew the vicious disposition and habits of the animal4 ,the deliberations at the trial of the bull were most careful and solemn1 since the value of a human life was involved in the proceedings and had to be estimated in the judgment4 ,besides jurisdiction in criminal matters1 the ,sanhedrins of three-and-twenty members performed certain civil functions4 ,they were the tax boards of the various provinces4 ,they constituted the regular agencies of government for the distribution of public charity4 ,the management and administration of public elementary schools were under their control4 ,the legal standards of weights and measures were inspected by them and received their seals4 ,sanitary regulations1 repairing the defenses of walled cities1 and maintaining the public highways in good condition1 were among the duties of the ,minor ,sanhedrins4 ,the qualifications of judges of these courts were the same as those required for membership in the ,great ,sanhedrin4 ,this was true because the judges of the provincial courts might be promoted to the supreme tribunal at ,jerusalem4 ,the ,minor ,sanhedrins might be very aptly described as the nisi prius courts of the ,commonwealth of ,israel4 ,it was in these courts of three-and-twenty members that the bulk of ,hebrew litigation was disposed of4 ,it seems that1 though equal in number1 they were not all regarded as equal in learning or authority4 ,it is distinctly stated that appeals could be taken from one ,minor ,sanhedrin to another deemed of superior authority4#aah ,the difference was probably due to the fact that in the larger towns were located colleges and schools1 some of whose professors were doubtless either advisers or members of the local ,sanhedrin4 ,at any rate1 when a difficult question1 civil or criminal1 could not be determined1 for want of an authoritative and registered decision1 by an ordinary ,sanhedrin of three-and-twenty judges1 the matter was referred to the nearest neighboring ,sanhedrin thought to be of greater repute4 ,if no authentic tradition offering a solution of the litigated question was in the possession of the ,sanhedrin to which appeal had been taken1 the matter was then referred to the first ,minor ,sanhedrin in ,jerusalem which sat in the ,har-habaith4 ,if the judges of this court were themselves without precedent touching upon the litigated proposition1 it was still further referred to the second ,minor ,sanhedrin of ,jerusalem1 located in the ,azarah4 ,if1 again1 this ,court was without the necessary tradition that would enable it to decide the question1 the matter was finally brought before the ,great ,sanhedrin4 ,if this august tribunal was without precedent and tradition that would enable its members to dispose of the question according to adjudicated cases1 they then decided1 nevertheless1 in accordance with the sentiments and principles of natural justice4 ,it should be remembered that of the ,minor ,sanhedrins to which every town of one hundred and twenty families was entitled1 two sat at ,jerusalem4 ,it was left optional with a litigant from the provinces to appeal to the local ,sanhedrin or to one of the ,minor ,sanhedrins in ,jerusalem4 ,local bias or prejudice was thus avoided4 ,lower ,tribunals4--,the lowest order of ,hebrew tribunal was the ,court of ,three1 composed of judges selected by the litigants themselves4 ,the plaintiff chose one member1 the defendant selected another1 and these two chose a third4 ,a majority opinion decided all questions4 ,in the later years of ,jewish nationality1 it was thought best to have at least one authorized jurist 7mumcha7 in the ,court of ,three4 ,this particular judge was probably an appointee of the ,great ,sanhedrin from among the young disciples 7,zaken or ,rabbis74 ,this appointment was doubtless intended to give repute to the local court and experience to the legal aspirant1 as well as to furnish a possible recruit to the ,great ,sanhedrin4#aai ,these courts corresponded very nearly to the modern courts of ,justices of the ,peace4 ,their jurisdiction extended to civil matters of small importance and to petty criminal offenses4 ,they were not permanent1 being more in the nature of referees or arbitrators1 and sat only when occasion required4 ,their sessions were public and were held in the open air under trees1 or at the city gate4 ,thus much for the judicial system of courts and judges among the ancient ,hebrews4 ,it was simple in the extreme1 democratic to the core1 and seems to have been thoroughly reliable and effective4 ,it was founded upon universal suffrage1 subject only to the general supervision and occasional appointments of the ,great ,sanhedrin4 ,the judges were ever in touch with the sympathies and the best interests of the people4 ,peculiarities of the ,hebrew ,system4--,certain very striking peculiarities marked the ,hebrew system3 7#a7 ,there were no lawyers or advocates4 ,these judicial disputants have been known to every other system of enlightened jurisprudence4 ,but there were no ,ciceros1 ,erskines1 ,choates among the ancient ,hebrews4 ,the judges were the defenders as well as the judges of the accused4 ,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 nuisance4 ,king ,ferdinand1 of ,spain1 seems to have had the ,hebrew notion when1 more than a thousand years after ,jerusalem fell1 he sent out colonists to the ,west ,indies1 with special instructions that no lawyers should be carried along1 lest lawsuits should become ordinary occurrences in the ,new ,world4#abj ,ferdinand evidently agreed with ,plato that lawyers are the plague of the community4#aba 7#b7 ,there was no secret body1 with the accusatory functions of the modern ,grand ,jury1 connected with the ancient ,hebrew judicial system4 ,the witnesses were the accusers1 and their testimony constituted both the indictment and the evidence4 7#c7 ,there were no public prosecutors or ,state's attorneys known to the ,hebrew system4 ,here1 again1 the witnesses were the informants1 prosecutors1 and1 in capital cases1 executioners of the accused4 7#d7 ,no court1 among the ancient ,hebrews1 could consist of a single judge4 ,three was the number of the lowest court2 three-and-twenty1 of the next highest2 and seventy-one1 of the ,great ,sanhedrin at ,jerusalem4 ,a single intelligence acting judicially would have been regarded as a usurpation of divine prerogative4 ,the basis of this peculiar ,hebrew notion is a single sentence from the ,pirke ,aboth1 iv4 #h3 ,be not a sole judge1 for there is no sole judge but ,one4#abb ,,chapter ,,iv ,,hebrew ,,criminal ,,law--,,witnesses ,,and ,,evidence ,competency4--,the qualifications of a competent witness1 under ,hebrew law1 were almost identical with those of a qualified judge1 mentioned in a previous chapter4 ,self-evidently1 all persons who were not incompetent1 were competent4 ,incompetency4--,the following persons were incompetent to be witnesses3 ,gentiles1 women1#abc minors1 slaves1#abd idiots and lunatics1 deaf mutes1 blind men1 gamblers1 usurers1 illiterate or immodest persons1 persons who had been convicted of irreligion or immorality1 relatives by affinity or consanguinity1 and all persons directly interested in the case4 ,the witness must have been a ,hebrew1 though the ,talmud mentions cases in which certain facts were allowed to stand proved upon statements made innocently by a ,gentile2 that is1 not as a witness in court4 ,women were not permitted to be witnesses ordinarily1 because of the levity and boldness of the sex4#abe ,in capital cases1 they were not allowed to testify against the accused1 because the law required the witnesses to become the executioners of the condemned man1 and it was not deemed proper to impose this solemn and awful duty upon the weaker sex4 ,puberty or adolescence marked the age which qualified a person to be a witness in criminal cases2 that is1 the thirteenth year must have been passed4 ,immoral and irreligious persons were incompetent to testify4 ,such men were termed wicked in reference to the law as laid down in ,exodus xxiii4 #a3 ,thou shalt not raise a false report3 put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness4 ,under the stigma of the immoral and irreligious came dicers1 usurers1 pigeon fliers1 and those who traded in the fruits of the ,sabbatical year4 ,maimonides also mentions as incompetent men who showed lack of self-respect by eating on the street1 walking about naked at their work1 or living openly on the charity of ,gentiles4#abf ,publicans--tax-gatherers--were usually classed with heathens and sinners as being among the immoral and irreligious4 ,this class of persons were suspected by the ,jews1 not only because they were regarded as the official representatives of the ,roman oppressors of ,judea1 but also because extortion and cruelty were frequently practiced by them4 ,theocritus being asked which was the most cruel of all beasts1 replied3 ,among the beasts of the wilderness1 the bear and the lion are the most cruel1 but among the beasts of the city1 the ,publican and the ,parasite4#abg ,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 made1 until he had first divested himself of all share in the title to the litigated property4#abh ,number ,required to ,convict4--,under ,hebrew law1 both ,mosaic and ,talmudic1 at least two witnesses were required to convict an accused person4 ,the prosecuting witness being included1 three were necessary4 ,concerning capital punishment1 the ,mosaic ordinance1 referring to this rule1 runs thus3 ,at the mouth of two witnesses1 or three witnesses1 shall he that is worthy of death be put to death2 but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death4#abi ,whoso killeth any person1 the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses2 but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die4#acj ,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 nationality4 ,it was a requirement of prudence and safety which commends itself to every logician and legist4 ,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 champion4 ,pliny1 the historian1 knew this when he wrote3 ,nullum tam impudens mendacium est quod teste careat4#aca ,the requirement of two witnesses was not1 however1 peculiar to the jurisprudence of the ,hebrews4 ,nearly every ancient code contained a similar enactment4 ,it was especially prominent in ,roman law4#acb ,but it can scarcely be found to-day in any modern legislation4 ,in prosecutions for the crimes of treason and perjury under the ,common ,law of ,england1 two witnesses were required2 in almost all other cases1 one positive witness was sufficient4#acc ,the ,american ,constitution requires two witnesses to the same overt act1 to convict of treason4#acd ,and the penal laws of the majority of the ,american ,states have provisions requiring at least two witnesses1 or one witness corroborated by circumstantial evidence1 to establish guilt in the prosecution of certain crimes2 notably1 the sexual crimes of rape and seduction1 the crime of perjury1 as well as all crimes where it is sought to convict upon the testimony of an accomplice4 ,more than one hundred years ago1 ,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 liberty4#ace ,the reason of the rule proclaimed by the great ,french writer is the same as that put forth by the ancient ,rabbins4 ,it was assumed that the defendant in a criminal case would plead not guilty and deny the facts of the crime4 ,his plea and denial would simply counterbalance and destroy the testimony of a single witness swearing for the commonwealth4 ,the testimony of a third witness was1 therefore1 indispensable to a decision4 ,it may be objected that this rule was absurd1 since a conviction was impossible unless the ,state could produce more witnesses than the accused4 ,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 law4 ,agreement of ,witnesses4--,the witnesses were required to agree in all essential details2 else1 their testimony was invalid and had to be rejected4 ,the ,talmudic provision is3 ,if one witness contradicts another1 the testimony is not accepted4#acf ,the illustration of the rule given by ,maimonides1 in his commentary on this provision1 is3 ,for instance1 if one witness were to testify to having seen an ,israelite in the act of worshiping the sun1 and another to having seen the same man worshiping the moon1 yet1 although each of the two facts proves clearly that the man had committed the horrible crime of idolatry1 the discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses invalidates their testimony and the accused is free4#acg ,this rule of strict agreement1 it is supposed1 extended1 at first1 only to criminal cases1 but it was undoubtedly afterwards applied to civil causes as well4 ,an eminent contributor to the ,jewish ,encyclopedia says3 ,in civil cases1 however1 it is not necessary that the two witnesses should agree very closely as to the time and place4 ,thus1 if of two witnesses to a loan one should say1 ,a lent ,b a jar of oil1 the other1 ,he lent him a jar of wine2 or1 if one should say1 ,i was present when the money was paid at ,jerusalem1 the other1 ,i saw it paid at ,hebron2 or1 if one should say1 ,i saw it paid in the month of ,nisan1 the other1 ,i saw it paid in ,iyyar1 their testimony would be void4 ,but if one says he saw it paid in the upper and the other in the lower story2 or if he says on the first of the month and the other on the second of the month1 such evidence is within the limit of fair mistake and the testimony stands4 ,even less does a disagreement as to circumstances other than time and place affect the testimony2 for instance1 if one say the money is black from usage1 the other that it was new1 this would be regarded as an immaterial circumstance1 and the testimony would stand4 ,where the two witnesses vary only in the matter of quantity1 the lesser quantity is sufficiently proved4#ach ,one of the strangest provisions of ,hebrew law was the requirement that the testimony of each witness to the transaction should cover the entire case4 ,this was a ,talmudic rule resulting from ,rabbinic construction of the ,mosaic ordinance1 requiring at least two witnesses to establish a crime4 ,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 case4 ,hebrew law did not permit the use of circumstantial evidence in criminal prosecutions4 ,only eyewitnesses of the crime were competent4 ,under ,english and ,american law a crime may be proven by any number of witnesses1 each of whom testifies to a separate fact which constitutes a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence4 ,but this method of proof was forbidden by both the ,pentateuch and the ,talmud4 ,under ,hebrew law the capital crime of kidnaping was made up of the two elements of ,abduction and ,selling4 ,the testimony of two witnesses--one to the fact of ,abduction1 the other to the fact of ,selling--was insufficient to convict4 ,each had to testify to the facts of both ,abduction and ,selling4 ,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 crime4 ,the extreme of the rule is declared by ,mendelsohn when he says3 ,and even where there appeared a legal number of duly qualified witnesses1 the testimony was insufficient to convict1 unless they agreed not only with regard to the prisoner's offense1 but also with regard to the mode of committing it4 ,rabbinic law does not subject a person to capital1 nor even to corporal punishment1 unless all witnesses charge him with one and the same criminal act1 their statements fully agreeing in the main circumstances1 and declaring that they saw one another1 while seeing him engaged in the crime4#aci ,no ,oath ,required4--,an oath1 in the modern sense1 was never administered to a ,hebrew witness4 ,testimony was given under the sanction of the ,ninth ,commandment3 ,thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor4 ,this solemn prohibition of bearing false witness was regarded by both ,moses and the ,talmudists as a sufficient safeguard against perjury4 ,it was a settled maxim of ,talmudic law that3 ,whosoever will not tell the truth without an oath1 would not scruple to assert falsehood with an oath4 ,the doctrine was carried still further by some of the ,jewish philosophers who declared that swearing was injurious in itself2 and that he who consents to swear should ipso facto be suspected of lacking credibility4#adj ,in the place of an oath1 the following solemn warning or adjuration was administered to each witness in the presence of the entire court3 ,forget not1 ,o witness1 that it is one thing to give evidence in a trial as to money and another in a trial for life4 ,in a money suit1 if thy witness-bearing shall do wrong1 money may repair that wrong4 ,but in this trial for life1 if thou sinnest1 the blood of the accused and the blood of his seed to the end of time shall be imputed unto thee4444 ,therefore was ,adam created one man and alone1 to teach thee that if any witness shall destroy one soul out of ,israel1 he is held by the ,scripture to be as if he had destroyed the world2 and he who saves one such soul to be as if he had saved the world4444 ,for a man from one signet ring may strike off many impressions1 and all of them shall be exactly alike4 ,but ,he1 the ,king of the kings of kings1 ,he the ,holy and the ,blessed1 has struck off from ,his type of the first man the forms of all men that shall live1 yet so that no one human being is wholly alike to any other4 ,wherefore let us think and believe that the whole world is created for a man such as he whose life hangs on thy words4 ,but these ideas must not deter thee from testifying to what thou actually knowest4 ,scripture declares3 ,the witness who hath seen or known1 and doth not tell1 shall bear his iniquity4 ,nor must ye scruple about becoming the instrument of the alleged criminal's death4 ,remember the ,scriptural maxim3 ,in the destruction of the wicked1 there is joy4#ada ,it will be observed that the two elements of this preliminary caution were1 first1 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 descendants2 second1 a pointed admonition against timidity or fear in testifying4 ,bound by this tremendous sanction1 the ,hebrew witness was prepared to testify4 ,the method was unique1 but seems to have been thoroughly effective4 ,students of law will not be struck by its peculiarity4 ,they are well aware that any plan or mode is legal and effective that binds the conscience of the witness4 ,even under modern codes that impose an oath1 no fixed form is imperatively demanded4 ,in ,king v4 ,morgan1 ,i ,leach ,c4 ,l4 #ed1 a ,mahometan was sworn upon the ,koran2 in ,omychund v4 ,baker1 ,i ,atk4 #ba1 a ,gentoo was sworn by touching the foot of a ,brahmin2 in ,reg4 v4 ,entrehman1 ,i ,car4 ,m4 #bdh1 a ,chinese witness took an oath by kneeling down and breaking a saucer1 the oath being administered through an interpreter in these words3 ,you shall tell the truth1 the whole truth2 the saucer is cracked1 and if you do not tell the truth1 your soul will be cracked like the saucer4 ,examination of ,witnesses4--,as an act of caution against the admission of irrelevant testimony1 and as a means of placing before the entire court1 in the first instance1 only such evidence as was deemed strictly legal1 a preliminary examination of witnesses was conducted in private by a special committee of the ,sanhedrin appointed for that purpose4 ,all irrelevant testimony developed at this private examination was immediately declared inadmissible and was cast aside4 ,the necessary result of this most sensible proceeding was the discovery1 in advance1 of discrepancies in the statements of witnesses and the eradication of all illegal testimony4 ,the full court sitting in regular session were not1 therefore1 exposed to the danger of being prejudiced by the recital of facts that had no legal connection with the case4 ,modern jurists might easily learn something from the ancient ,hebrews in this regard4 ,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 jury1 knowing very well that it will be overruled by the court4 ,these attorneys frequently deliberately draw out such testimony from the witness with the expectation and understanding that it will be ordered stricken out4 ,the rule of practice that allows incompetent testimony to be temporarily introduced upon a promise that a foundation will be laid or relevancy shown1 is abortive instead of productive of justice4 ,the mere clerical act of striking out incompetent testimony does not1 as a matter of fact1 remove the impression of prejudice from the brain of the judge or juror4 ,the ancient ,sanhedrists were men of brilliant education and superior natural endowments4 ,they were trained in powers of logical analysis1 and yet they were unwilling to trust themselves with the possession of prejudicial facts arising from incompetent testimony4 ,it is respectfully submitted that the modern average juror1 whose mind is usually undisciplined in logic and legal matters1 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' duration4 ,theoretically1 he is2 but practically1 he is not4 ,every impression1 good or bad1 legal or illegal1 received at the trial1 affects his judgment and enters into the general summary of the case in reaching a verdict4 ,separation of ,witnesses4--,the witnesses were required to give their testimony separately and always in the presence of the accused4 ,daniel said to the people concerning the two old men who testified against ,susanna3 ,separate them1 and ,i will examine them4#adb ,by this was meant that witnesses could not be examined until they had been separated in conformity with law4 ,under modern practice in most jurisdictions1 witnesses may be separated and examined one at a time out of the presence of each other4 ,the rule of separation is1 however1 generally optional with the litigant and discretionary with the court2 the ruling of the court being usually reversed only in case of abuse of discretion4 ,but among the ,hebrews the requirement was mandatory and imperative4 ,it had to be observed in every case4 ,mode of ,examination of ,witnesses4--,the mode employed by the ,hebrew judges in examining witnesses is without a precedent or parallel in the jurisprudence of the world4 ,two distinct sets of questions constituted the examination4 ,the first set consisted of a series of interrogations relating to the time and place of the alleged crime4 ,these questions were prescribed by law and could not be varied in the slightest4 ,the technical name applied to the first set of questions was ,hakiroth4 ,the second set was termed ,bedikoth#adc and included all interrogations touching the investigation of relevant circumstances and corroborative facts surrounding the case4 ,the following seven questions1 constituting the ,hakiroth1 the first set of questions1 were propounded to each witness3 ,was it during a year of jubilee8 ,was it in an ordinary year8 ,in what month8 ,on what day of the month8 ,at what hour8 ,in what place8 ,do you identify this person8#add ,these seven questions were framed and applied in conformity with a fundamental principle of the ,hebrew law of evidence that the testimony of any witness1 if false1 should admit of being impeached and overthrown by proof of an alibi against the witness4 ,it seems1 indeed1 that proof of an alibi against the witness was the only method of impeachment known to ,hebrew law4 ,it may be readily seen that the only statements capable of being thus contradicted were confined to those relating to the details of time and place4 ,to illustrate3 ,suppose that two witnesses had testified that the alleged crime was committed in a certain town at a certain hour2 suppose that it subsequently appeared in evidence that1 at the stated time1 one or both these witnesses were in a neighboring town4 ,in such a case1 the witness or witnesses stood impeached1 their testimony was overthrown and they1 themselves1 became subject to the pains and penalties of perjury4 ,the failure of any witness to answer satisfactorily any of the seven questions above mentioned entitled the accused to immediate acquittal4 ,any material disagreement between two or more witnesses required by the law in answer to any one of these questions1 likewise entitled the prisoner to immediate discharge4 ,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 witnesses4 ,the rule and the reason thereof are thus clearly and succinctly stated by ,mendelsohn3 ,the several particulars referring to time and place must be furnished with the greatest possible precision and certainty1 and that by the whole party of witnesses4 ,the slightest disagreement on the part of the witnesses in regard to any one of these particulars invalidates the entire testimony4 ,even where a number of witnesses greater than that required by law1 as three1 appear1 and two agree on every point1 but the third differs from them as to more than one day1 or more than one hour in the day1 the whole testimony is invalidated4 ,for time and place are the only points which affect the person of the witness himself2 he not being able to be at more than one spot at any one time2 time and place are1 accordingly1 the only grounds on which the witness may be confuted and duly punished4 ,the second set of questions1 termed the ,bedikoth1 embraced all matters not brought out by the ,hakiroth1 such as would form the basis of legitimate modern direct or cross examination4 ,the following kinds of evidence1 however1 were not admissible under either set of questions3 ,evidence of character1 good or bad2 previous convictions of the accused2 and evidence as to the prisoner's antecedents4 ,such matters were not relevant1 under ,hebrew law1 and could not be urged against the prisoner4#ade ,false ,witnesses4--,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 accused4 ,the ,scriptural authority for this rule is the following3 ,and the judges shall make diligent inquisition2 and1 behold1 if the witness be a false witness and hath testified falsely against his brother1 then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to do unto his brother4 444 ,and thine eye shall not pity1 but life shall go for life1 eye for eye1 tooth for tooth1 hand for hand1 foot for foot4#adf ,and they arose against the two elders1 for ,daniel had convicted them of false witness1 by their own mouth2 and according to the law of ,moses1 they did unto them in such a sort as they maliciously intended to do their neighbor2 and they put them to death4#adg ,the ,accused as ,witness4--,the accused was never compelled1 under ,hebrew law1 to testify against himself2 but was permitted and encouraged to offer testimony in his own behalf4 ,his confession of guilt was accepted in evidence and considered in connection with other facts of the case1 but was never permitted1 standing alone1 to form the basis of a conviction4 ,the following is the commentary of ,maimonides on this rule of law3 ,we have it as a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that no one can bring an accusation against himself4 ,should a man make a confession of guilt before a legally constituted tribunal1 such confession is not to be used against him1 unless properly attested by two other witnesses4 ,it is1 however1 well to remark that the death sentence issued against ,achan was an exceptional case1 brought about by the nature of the circumstances attending it1 for our law never condemns on the single confession of an accused party4#adh ,it is needless to suggest that the accused was never put under oath4 ,his position in this regard was exactly the same as that of any other ,hebrew witness4 ,a special reason assigned for not swearing the accused is that offered in the celebrated maxim3 ,in most men religion is silent when interest speaks4 ,again1 the inducement to perjury was so great that it was thought imprudent to allow the accused to confess under the solemnity of an oath4 ,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 jurisprudence4 ,it is intended to protect the commonwealth against perjury and deception on the part of the accused4 ,it is also intended to protect the prisoner against ignorance and rashness4 ,it is a well-known fact that the masses of mankind are ignorant of law1 both civil and criminal4 ,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 citizen4 ,by refusing to allow an uncorroborated confession to be made the basis of a conviction1 the ,state simply throws the mantle of charity and protection around the ignorance of the prisoner who confesses4 ,it is also well known that men will frequently confess guilt when they are not guilty2 sometimes1 when they are even ignorant of the facts constituting the offense4 ,this is one of the strangest things known to psychology and mental philosophy4#adi ,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 blow4 ,a celebrated modern writer1 while discussing this rule of ,hebrew law1 wrote the following observations upon the origin and motive of confession of guilt under criminal charges3 ,the confession of the accused made no exception to the rule1 showing how a confession could be made the result of weakness1 or folly1 or of interest--yes1 even of interest4 ,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 time2 a husband persisted in declaring himself guilty of outrage upon a woman1 really committed by some unknown person1 in order that1 by being sentenced on this account1 he might prove his marital efficiency1 which had been disputed by his wife1 who was contemplating steps to annul her marriage4 ,some weak-minded people1 unable to support the torture of a harassing examination1 and eager to regain their liberty1 make a full confession1 accusing themselves in order not to be indicted1 like those persons who1 crossing a river on a plank bridge1 throw themselves1 through nervousness1 into the rushing water1 in order not to fall in4 ,fools1 from want of responsibility1 or through a boastful nature1 accept1 affirm1 or confess everything of which they know nothing4#aej ,the reasons above stated lie at the foundation of all modern provisions framed for the protection of the accused against precipitate self-condemnation4 ,but1 strange to say1 these reasons were not urged by the framers or interpreters of ,hebrew law4 ,the explanation offered by the ,talmud was simply this3 ,he is his own kin2 and1 as we have seen1 relatives were never permitted to be witnesses4 ,a modern ,jewish writer has assigned the following reason for the rule forbidding a confession to form the basis of a conviction3 that1 if the prisoner were innocent1 he should not be permitted to incriminate himself by a false confession2 if he were guilty1 he was a wicked person1 and1 therefore1 incompetent to testify under ,hebrew law4#aea ,this rule was not enforced1 however1 against the defendant when testifying in his own behalf2 an additional proof of the merciful regard of ,hebrew law for the unfortunate position of a human being charged with crime4 ,his testimony1 though self-serving1 was given due weight when urged in his own defense4 ,little attention was paid to it when he testified against himself4 ,relevancy of ,hebrew ,evidence4--,hearsay evidence was irrelevant under ,hebrew law4 ,hearsay evidence was barred equally in civil as in criminal cases1 no matter how strongly the witness might believe in what he heard and however worthy and numerous were his informants4#aeb ,circumstantial evidence was irrelevant under ,hebrew law4 ,the sages had very little more confidence in circumstantial evidence given for the purpose of 'taking money out of' the defendant's pocket1 than in that given for the purpose of inflicting the penalty of death or stripes4 ,ket4 ii4 #aj has been cited1 according to which a witness may testify that1 when a boy1 he saw a woman walk about in maidenly attire2 the object being to prove that she married as a maiden1 not as a widow1 and is therefore entitled to a greater sum for her jointure4 ,in discussing this clause1 the ,talmud remarks that this is only arguing from the majority of cases2 for though in most cases those wearing maidens' attire are not widows1 occasionally they are2 and money ought not to be taken out of a man's pocket on reasoning from the greater number of cases4 ,in fact1 circumstantial evidence was generally rejected4#aec ,there were occasional exceptions to the rule in the administration of ,hebrew civil law1 but none in criminal law4 ,in criminal cases no ,hebrew prisoner could be convicted upon circumstantial evidence4 ,every link in the chain of testimony had to be forged by the direct evidence of at least two competent witnesses2 else the accused was acquitted and discharged4 ,written1 or documentary evidence1 was not relevant1 under ,hebrew law1 in criminal prosecution4 ,the reason of this rule was derived from a literal interpretation of the ,mosaic ordinance3 ,whoso killeth any person1 the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses4#aed ,the expression1 mouth of witnesses1 was construed by the interpreters of the law to require oral testimony and to exclude writing in all criminal prosecutions4 ,kinds of ,oral ,testimony4--,hebrew oral testimony is divided by the ,mishna into three leading classes3#aee 7#a7 ,vain testimony4 7#b7 ,standing testimony4 7#c7 ,adequate testimony4 ,vain testimony seems to have been wholly immaterial and irrelevant4 ,it was not even conditionally admitted1 but was instantly and permanently rejected4 ,the ,new ,testament seems to indicate that such testimony was rendered against ,jesus by the many false witnesses who first came1 and that testimony was rejected4 ,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 required4 ,it was not valid1 however1 until so connected and confirmed4 ,we must remember that at least two witnesses1 agreeing in all essential details1 were needed1 under ,hebrew law1 to convict a prisoner4 ,it is evident then that the testimony of the first witness against the accused was necessarily regarded as standing testimony1 until the second or confirming witness1 which the law required1 had testified4 ,this testimony is also referred to in the ,new ,testament when it is said that3 ,at the last1 came two false witnesses1 ,and said1 ,this fellow said1 ,i am able to destroy the temple of ,god and to build it in three days4#aef ,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 it4 ,contradictory testimony was thrown out under ,hebrew criminal procedure2 and this was done regardless of the number of witnesses who testified against the accused4 ,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 witnesses1 if said testimony had been contradicted in a radical and material way by even a single witness4 ,the sifting of evidence and the weighing of the credibility of witnesses1 which is the peculiar prerogative of the modern jury1 were no part of the duties of the ancient ,sanhedrists4 ,the testimony of all the witnesses against the accused had to agree in all material respects1 else it was wholly rejected4 ,now it necessarily follows that all testimony against a prisoner was of the standing or provisional kind until the last witness had testified1 and it was found that the evidence in its entirety was in legal agreement4 ,mark1 using the almost exact technical expression of the law1 tells us1 concerning the false testimony against ,jesus1 that their witness agreed not together4#aeg ,this disagreement caused the standing testimony of the first witness to fall and the charge of threatening or attempting to destroy the ,temple was abandoned1 as we shall see in a later part of this work4 ,adequate testimony1 under ,hebrew criminal procedure1 was evidence that was competent1 material1 and in legal agreement4 ,when two or more witnesses1 being the entire number1 against the accused agreed in all essential details1 their testimony was considered adequate1 and if the judges believed it to be true they based a conviction upon it4 ,antecedent ,warning4--,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 procedure4 ,in the chapter on ,mosaic and ,talmudic law1 reference was made to the celebrated proviso1 called ,antecedent ,warning4 ,this proviso was unknown to the ,mosaic ,code1 being a creation of ,talmudic law1 and is without a parallel in the jurisprudence of the world4 ,briefly stated1 ,antecedent ,warning1 under ,hebrew law1 meant simply this3 ,that no person charged with crime involving life and death1 or even corporal punishment1 could be convicted1 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 crime1 and that a certain penalty was attached thereto4 ,the warning was not effective if any time elapsed between the admonition and the commission of the offense4 ,furthermore1 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 act4 ,it must have been shown that1 having received the warning1 the would-be offender turned to his monitor and said1 ,i am very well aware of the nature of the act ,i am about to commit1 of the rules of law applicable thereto1 and of the inevitable consequences of my misdeed--else the court could not consider the condition complied with4 ,this peculiar proviso seems to have been intended to serve three distinct purposes3 7#a7 ,to protect the would-be offender against his own ignorance and rashness and to prevent the commission of crime by a timely warning2 7#b7 to aid in establishing guilty intention1 that is1 criminal intent1 at the trial of the prisoner1 after the commission of the offense2 7#c7 to enable the judges to determine the exact penalty to assess4 ,the first two purposes are self-evident4 ,the third merits a brief consideration4 ,to complete the warning1 it was essential that the offender be told the exact penalty attached to the crime which he was about to commit2 whether the punishment was capital or corporal1 and the exact kind1 if capital2 that is1 whether beheading1 burning1 stoning1 or strangling4 ,now1 it often happened that two crimes were committed by the same person in one day2 the penalty for one of which being flagellation and the other death4 ,and it sometimes happened that two different crimes were the result of one criminal transaction4 ,in such a case1 the nature of the ,antecedent ,warning would guide the judges in decreeing punishment4 ,to illustrate3 ,the ,mosaic ,code forbids the killing of either a cow or a ewe and her young both in one day2#aeh and a violation of this prohibition1 according to ,rabbinic law1 entails the punishment of flagellation4 ,another ,mosaic ordinance imposes the penalty of death on the ,jewish idolater4#aei ,now1 it might have happened that the last two offenses mentioned were committed by the same person at the same time1 as when an ,israelite slaughtered a ewe and her young and sacrificed them as an offering to an idol4 ,the question would at once arise3 ,which penalty should be assessed1 death for idolatry1 or flagellation for killing the ewe and her young both on the same day8 ,here1 the nature of the ,warning would determine4 ,if the prisoner had been told that flagellation would be the punishment1 then stripes were administered4 ,if he had been warned that death was the penalty1 then capital punishment was meted out to him4 ,if the caution had included both death and flagellation1 then death would have been administered1 because of the enormity of the crime of idolatry and for the reason that all lesser punishments are merged in death4 ,another illustration of the third purpose above mentioned1 that is1 to enable the judges to determine the exact punishment to administer1 is this3 ,the ancient ,nazarites made solemn vows of abstemiousness4#afj ,and when any ,israelite took the ,nazarite vow and violated it1 he subjected himself to the penalty of flagellation if he drank a certain measure 7 log7 of wine4 ,if he drank several such measures in succession1 the question would arise how he was to be punished4 ,again1 the antecedent caution would decide4 ,if the testimony showed that he had received due warning before each drink1 then he was punished for each drink separately4 ,if he had been admonished only once1 he was punished only once for the whole debauch4#afa ,the enforcement of this proviso established a rule of criminal procedure peculiar to the ,hebrews1 and recognized by no other nation4 ,such a requirement seems to be utterly subversive of the celebrated maxim that has found place in every other enlightened system of law3 ,ignorantia juris1 quod quisque tenetur scire1 neminem excusat4 ,among modern civilized nations1 ignorance or mistake of fact in criminal law1 as well as ignorance or mistake of the meaning and effect of civil or private law1 has sometimes been permitted to operate as an excuse in favor of the victim of the ignorance or mistake2 but ignorance of the criminal or public law has never been permitted to be pleaded as a defense to an indictment for crime4 ,such a plea would threaten the very existence of the state by rendering the proof of crime and the conviction of criminals impossible4 ,other reasons besides those assigned above have been advanced to explain the invention of such a proviso by the ,talmudists4 ,none of them is entirely satisfactory4 ,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 ,code1 and to abolish altogether the punishment of death by making the conviction of criminals practically impossible4#afb ,but this view has been ably and probably successfully combated by ,benny and others4 ,to say the least1 it was a senseless provision when viewed from the standpoint of the state in maintaining order and preserving the commonwealth4 ,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 state4 ,the false witness was excluded from the benefit of this proviso1 as were also the instigator to idolatry and the burglar4 ,the false witness was denied the benefit because of the impossibility of foreseeing that he would swear falsely and of forewarning him2 the idolater was excepted because of the heinousness of the crime of idolatry under a theocratic commonwealth2 and the burglar was denied the benefit of the caution for the very peculiar reason that the breaking in1 while committing the crime of burglary1 was sufficient warning4#afc ,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 devise2 usually under the cover of night1 often with a mask1 frequently by the aid of accomplices to give notice of the appearance of the officers of the law1 and nearly always with subsequent attempts to wipe out evidences of the commission of the offense4 ,to require a preliminary caution1 such as the ,antecedent ,warning of the ,jews1 was to handicap the state most seriously and to render almost impossible the apprehension and punishment of public malefactors4 ,,chapter ,v ,,hebrew ,,criminal ,,law--,,mode ,,of ,,trial ,,and ,,execution ,,in ,,capital ,,cases ,the administration of ,hebrew criminal law was marked by lofty conception of right and wrong1 and was pervaded by a noble sentiment of justice and humanity4 ,from the framing of the ,decalogue to the latest years of ,jewish nationality1 each succeeding generation witnessed some humane and merciful modification of existing rules4 ,talmudic interpretation invented a series or collection of sayings that gave form and character to the whole body of later ,hebrew law4 ,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 trials4 ,indeed1 every possible precaution was taken to render impossible the wrongful conviction of an accused person4 ,the student of ,hebrew law is at times astonished by the excessive caution inculcated in criminal procedure4 ,certain cautionary rules are no less than pedantic1 and may be justly and aptly styled ,judaical4 ,the judges leaned always to the side of the defendant and gave him the advantage of every possible doubt4 ,they went a step farther and sought pretext after pretext that would result in an acquittal4 ,a sense of awful responsibility weighed upon the hearts and consciences of the judges4 ,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 ,sanhedrin4 ,certain sacred maxims flamed forever like beacon lights along the pathway of the members of the court during the solemn deliberations4 ,a judge1 says the ,talmud1 should always consider that a sword threatens him from above1 and destruction yawns at his feet4 ,the ancient adage1 the pen of the law fears the thunder of ,heaven1 though of ,chinese origin1 is ,hebraic in spirit4 ,thou shalt do no unrighteousness in judgment was the leading aphorism of ,hebrew jurisprudence4 ,among the earliest traditions of the ,fathers1 we read this maxim3 ,when a judge decides not according to truth1 he makes the majesty of ,god to depart from ,israel4 ,but if he judges according to the truth1 were it only for one hour1 it is as if he established the whole world1 for it is in judgment that the divine presence in ,israel has its habitation4 ,hebrew horror of capital punishment and dread of taking human life are well expressed in the celebrated maxim of the ,mishna3 ,the ,sanhedrin1 which so often as once in seven years1 condemns a man to death1 is a slaughter-house4#afd ,and more striking and startling still is the terrible sentence of ,rabbi ,meir3 ,what doth ,god say 7if one may speak of ,god after the manner of men7 when a malefactor suffers the anguish due to his crime8 ,he says1 ,my head and my limbs are pained4 ,and if he so speaks of the suffering even of the guilty1 what must he utter when the righteous is condemned8 ,the whole spirit of ,talmudic caution is well illustrated by the principal rule of the ,pirke ,aboth1 which says3 ,be cautious and slow in judgment1 send forth many disciples1 and make a fence round the law4#afe ,in addition to the maxims above mentioned1 which were more religious than legal1 four cardinal rules of criminal procedure--strictness in the accusation1 publicity in the discussion1 full freedom granted to the accused1 and assurance against all dangers or errors of testimony#aff--molded the judgment and guided the consciences of ,hebrew judges4 ,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 cases4 ,with prayer in their hearts and these maxims upon their lips1 they applied themselves to the solemn duties of their office4 ,a most interesting passage in the ,mishna draws a striking contrast between capital trials and those involving questions of money only4 ,the relevancy of the passage to this chapter is so great that it is deemed best to quote it entire3 ,money trials and trials for life have the same rule of inquiry and investigation4 ,but they differ in procedure in the following points3 ,the former require only three1 the latter three-and-twenty judges4 ,in the former it matters not on which side the judges speak who give the first opinions2 in the latter1 those who are in favor of acquittal must speak first4 ,in the former1 a majority of one is always enough2 in the latter1 a majority of one is enough to acquit1 but it requires a majority of two to condemn4 ,in the former1 a decision may be quashed on review 7for error71 no matter which way it has gone2 in the latter1 a condemnation may be quashed1 but not an acquittal4 ,in the former1 disciples of the law present in the court may speak 7as assessors7 on either side2 in the latter1 they may speak in favor of the accused1 but not against him4 ,in the former1 a judge who has indicated his opinion1 no matter on which side1 may change his mind2 in the latter1 he who has given his voice for acquittal may not change4 ,the former 7money trials7 are commenced only in the daytime1 but may be concluded after nightfall2 the latter 7capital trials7 are commenced only in the daytime1 and must also be concluded during the day4 ,the former may be concluded by acquittal or condemnation on the day on which they have begun2 the latter may be concluded on that day if there is a sentence of acquittal1 but must be postponed to a second day if there is to be a condemnation4 ,and for this reason capital trials are not held on the day before a ,sabbath or a feast day4#afg ,the principal features of a ,hebrew capital trial before the ,great ,sanhedrin were3 7#a7 ,the ,morning ,sacrifice2 7#b7 the ,assembling of the ,judges in the ,lishkath haggazith1 or the ,hall of ,hewn ,stones2 7#c7 the ,examination of ,witnesses2 7#d7 the ,debates and ,balloting of the ,judges on the guilt or the innocence of the accused4 ,these successive steps will be briefly considered in this chapter4 ,the ,morning ,sacrifice4--,it is not positively known what legal connection1 if any1 the morning sacrifice had with the trial of a capital case before the ,great ,sanhedrin at ,jerusalem4 ,several writers contend that there was no essential legal connection2 that the sacrifice was offered at the break of day whether a capital case was to be tried or not2 and that the court was not dependent upon this religious observance for jurisdiction in the trial of criminal cases4 ,other writers hold opposite views1 and contend that the morning sacrifice was essential to give jurisdiction to the court4 ,,mm4 ,lmann consider it an error in the trial of ,jesus that the morning sacrifice was not offered before the commencement of proceedings4#afh ,certain passages from the ,mishna very strongly support this second view3 that the court could not legally convene until the morning sacrifice had been offered4 ,the ,sanhedrin sat from the close of the morning sacrifice to the time of the evening sacrifice4#afi 444 ,since the morning sacrifice was offered at the break of day1 it was hardly possible for the ,sanhedrin to assemble until an hour after that time4#agj ,these passages seem to indicate that the morning sacrifice was necessary before the court could legally convene4 ,this question will be found more fully discussed under ,point ,v of the ,brief in this volume4 ,the method of offering the morning sacrifice was as judicial in its precision as it was religious in its solemnity4 ,the ,assembling of the ,judges4--,at the close of the morning sacrifice1 the members of the court entered the judgment hall in solemn procession4 ,they took their seats1 turbaned1 on cushions or pillows1 in oriental fashion1 with crossed legs1 and unshod feet1 in a half-circle4#aga ,the high priest sat in the center with the other members of the court to the right and left of him4 ,his head was crowned with a turban of blue inwrought with gold4 ,on his bosom hung the priestly breastplate1 in which glittered twelve precious stones1 emblems of the twelve tribes of ,israel4 ,a flowing robe of blue1 gathered about his waist by a girdle of purple1 scarlet1 and gold embroidery1 enveloped his person and set off the pure white linen of his capacious sleeves4 ,the buttons of this costly robe were onyx stones4 ,his slippered feet were half concealed beneath the long fringe of his pontifical vestments1 which were curiously embroidered with pomegranates in gold and scarlet and crimson4 ,no ,roman ,catholic pontiff ever wore robes more resplendent than those in which the high priest was attired on public and state occasions4 ,immediately before him sat the scribes or clerks of the court4 ,the one on his left hand wrote down whatever testimony was adduced against the accused2 what votes were cast for his condemnation4 ,the one on the right transcribed what appeared in his favor4#agb ,according to most writers1 including ,dr4 ,lyman ,abbott1 only two scribes were present having seats at each end of the semicircle4 ,according to ,benny1 however1 three scribes were present2 one was seated on the right1 one on the left1 the third in the center of the hall4 ,the first recorded the names of the judges who voted for the acquittal of the accused and the arguments upon which the acquittal was grounded4 ,the second noted the names of such as decided to condemn the prisoner and the reasons upon which the conviction was based4 ,the third kept an account of both the preceding1 so as to be able at any time to supply omissions or check inaccuracies in the memoranda of his brother reporters4 ,the prisoner was placed in front of the high priest1 in a conspicuous position1 where he could see all and could be seen by all4 ,thus organized and arranged1 the ,sanhedrin began the work of the day4 ,examination of ,witnesses4--,the examination of witnesses1 who were also accusers1 marked the beginning of proceedings4 ,it is doubtful if the indictment against criminals was in writing4 ,the first witness who was to testify was led into an adjoining room and solemnly warned4 ,he was asked questions similar to the following3 ,is it not probable that your belief in the prisoner's guilt is derived from hearsay or circumstantial evidence8 ,in forming your opinions concerning the guilt of the accused1 have you or not been influenced by the remarks of persons whom you regard as reputable and trustworthy8 ,are you aware that you will be submitted to a most searching examination8 ,are you acquainted with the penalty attached to the crime of perjury8 ,after this preliminary warning1 conveyed in these questions1 had been given1 the most learned and venerable of the judges administered to the witness the following impressive adjuration3 ,forget not1 ,o witness1 that it is one thing to give evidence in a trial as to money1 and another in a trial for life4 ,in a money suit1 if thy witness-bearing shall do wrong1 money may repair that wrong4 ,but in this trial for life1 if thou sinnest1 the blood of the accused1 and the blood of his seed to the end of time1 shall be imputed unto thee4444 ,therefore was ,adam created one man and alone1 to teach thee that if any witness shall destroy one soul out of ,israel1 he is held by the ,scripture to be as if he had destroyed the world2 and he who saves one such soul to be as if he had saved the world4444 ,for a man from one signet-ring may strike off many impressions1 and all of them shall be exactly alike4 ,but ,he1 the ,king of the kings of kings1 ,he the ,holy and the ,blessed1 has struck off from ,his type of the first man the forms of all men that shall live2 yet so1 that no one human being is wholly alike to any other4 ,wherefore let us think and believe that the whole world is created for a man such as he whose life hangs on thy words4 ,but these ideas must not deter you from testifying from what you actually know4 ,scripture declares3 ,the witness who hath seen or known1 and doth not tell1 shall bear his iniquity4 ,nor must ye scruple about becoming the instrument of the alleged criminal's death4 ,remember the ,scriptural maxim3 ,in the destruction of the wicked1 there is joy4 ,at the close of this solemn exhortation1 the examination of the witness commenced4 ,the ,hakiroth1 seven questions prescribed by law1 touching the identity of the prisoner and fixing the elements of time and place1 were asked4 ,they were as follows3 ,was it during a year of jubilee8 ,was it an ordinary year8 ,in what month8 ,on what day of the month8 ,at what hour8 ,in what place8 ,do you identify this person8 ,these questions being satisfactorily answered1 the next step was a rigid examination into the facts and circumstances attending the commission of the crime and the connection of the accused therewith4 ,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 bar4 ,when the witnesses for the ,commonwealth of ,israel had been examined1 witnesses for the defendant were heard4 ,the accused was also urged to say anything he wished in his own behalf4 ,as we have before pointed out1 the ,hakiroth questions as to time and place could be rebutted only by establishing an alibi against the witnesses for the state4 ,if such an alibi was proved1 the defendant was acquitted and at once discharged4 ,a contributor to the ,jewish ,encyclopedia1 discussing this point of procedure1 says3 ,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 them4 ,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 untrue4 ,under such circumstances1 a modern judge or jury would weigh the credibility of the witnesses and the probability of their stories and decide between them accordingly4 ,the sages did not trust themselves or their successors with this discretion4 ,if there were no indicia or fraud1 they held that as some one was evidently lying they could not decide which of them it was1 and that there was no evidence on the point4#agc ,the result was an acquittal4 ,if material contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses were shown by the ,bedikoth1 the trial was at once terminated and the accused was free4 ,the failure of any witness to answer satisfactorily any of the seven questions above mentioned entitled the accused to immediate acquittal4 ,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 discharge4 ,if the prosecuting witnesses relied upon documentary1 circumstantial or hearsay evidence to convict1 their testimony was at once rejected and the defendant was released4 ,but if the accused failed to establish an alibi against the prosecuting witnesses in the matter of the ,hakiroth2 and if the ,bedikoth developed evidence fairly consistent and uncontradictory2 and if the testimony of the witnesses was purely oral1 that is1 was not documentary1 hearsay or circumstantial1 then there was legally admissible evidence to lay before the ,sanhedrin4 ,the competent witnesses who could render relevant testimony were then led1 one at a time1 before the general body and required to testify4 ,the ,debates and ,balloting of the ,judges4--,all the evidence1 pro and con1 having been adduced1 the tribunal began a full discussion of the case1 preliminary to casting ballots4 ,arguments could be begun only on behalf of the accused4 ,nothing was permitted to be said against him until one of the judges had urged something in his behalf1 and had said3 ,as ,i view the matter1 and according to such and such evidence1 it seems to me that the prisoner should be acquitted4 ,the discussion became general for and against the accused4 ,the entire record was then overhauled4 ,each item of evidence was carefully considered and subjected to the minutest criticism4 ,contradictions were noted and extenuating facts pleaded4 ,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 convicted1 he was invited to take his seat among the judges1 and was regarded as a member of the court during the remainder of the day4 ,if his argument resulted in the acquittal of the accused and saved a human life he was made a permanent member of the court4 ,on the other hand1 if one of the disciples had anything to say that would tend to injure the defendant he was not permitted to raise his voice4 ,when the entire case had been exhaustively discussed1 the argument was closed and the balloting on the guilt or innocence of the accused commenced4 ,the scribes were in readiness to record the votes and note the reasons assigned therefor4 ,the youngest members of the tribunal were required to vote first1 in order that they might not be unduly influenced by the example of their seniors in age and authority4 ,the high priest1 who was generally president of the ,sanhedrin1 addressed a gentle admonition to the youngest member1 who was never less than forty years of age1 to render a free and untrammeled verdict1 and not to be awed or influenced by the patriarchs of the court4 ,this admonition was repeated in the case of each youthful member of the tribunal4 ,when the balloting commenced1 each judge arose in his place and voted2 at the same time making a short speech explanatory of his ballot4 ,to secure a conviction it was not necessary that the members of the ,sanhedrin should be unanimous4 ,indeed a peculiar rule of ,hebrew law provided that if the verdict was instantaneous and unanimous it was invalid and could not stand4 ,if the prisoner had not a single friend in court1 the element of mercy was wanting in the verdict1 said the ancient ,hebrews1 and the proceedings were regarded in the light of conspiracy and mob violence4 ,a majority vote of at least two members was necessary to convict4 ,a majority vote of one in his favor would acquit4 ,any majority amounting to two or more that did not reach unanimity was sufficient to condemn4 ,if the accused was tried before a ,minor ,sanhedrin of three-and-twenty members or before the ,great ,sanhedrin with a bare quorum 7twenty-three members1 the same number as the full membership of a ,minor ,sanhedrin71 a vote of thirteen members was necessary1 in either case1 to convict4 ,if eleven judges were for conviction and twelve for acquittal1 the prisoner was discharged at once2 a majority of one vote being sufficient for that purpose4 ,if twelve were in favor of conviction and eleven for acquittal1 the condemnation of the accused was impossible2 a majority of at least two being required to condemn4 ,according to some writers1 an acquittal was the result in such a case4 ,according to others1 in such a contingency the following novel expedient was employed to reach a verdict3 ,from the first row of disciples two additional judges were selected and added to the original twenty-three members4 ,balloting then commenced anew4 ,if the vote resulted in a majority of at least two against the prisoner1 he stood convicted4 ,if not1 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 secured4 ,if it happened that the constant additions finally raised the number to seventy-one1 the membership of the ,great ,sanhedrin1 the process of increasing by twos was discontinued1 and final balloting then began4 ,if thirty-six voted for conviction and thirty-five for acquittal1 the whole case was reargued for a reasonable time until one of the thirty-six yielded and declared in favor of acquittal4 ,in case the thirty-six members persevered in their determination to convict1 the prisoner was discharged4 ,at any stage of the trial1 from the beginning with the three-and-twenty judges through all the successive additions of new members1 a majority vote of one or more in favor of the accused would acquit2 a majority of two or more1 not amounting to unanimity1 would convict4 ,in case of an acquittal the prisoner was immediately released and the trial was closed4 ,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 day4 ,upon adjournment the members of the ,sanhedrin with measured step and solemn mien left the chamber in which the trial had been conducted4 ,outside the judgment hall1 in the open street1 the judges formed themselves into groups or knots of five or six to discuss the trial and to lament the awful misfortune impending over ,jerusalem2 for such was the ,hebrew conception of the execution of a son of ,israel4 ,the nucleus of each group was formed of elders of the ,sanhedrin2 the younger members came up from behind1 leaned over between the shoulders of the patriarchs1 and listened attentively and devoutly to what they were saying about the case4 ,gradually the groups broke up and the judges linked arm in arm1 by twos1 walked slowly homeward1 still discussing the facts and arguments adduced at the trial4 ,finally they parted and retired to their respective homes4 ,no heavy food1 like meat1 and no intoxicating beverage1 were taken for the remainder of the day or during the night4 ,nothing was done that would incapacitate them for correct thinking4 ,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 case4 ,when these visits were concluded1 in the early evening1 each judge retired to the privacy of his own home to sleep1 meditate1 and pray4 ,at the dawn of day1 they arose and prepared to resume again the solemn responsibilities of their office4 ,the morning sacrifice was offered and the judges again assembled at sunrise in the hall of justice4 ,they reseated themselves in the form of a semicircle2 the prisoner was again led to the bar of the court2 the witnesses were again produced2 and the scribes1 bringing with them the minutes of the former meeting1 again took seats in their accustomed places4 ,the second part of the trial then began4 ,it must be remembered that there were two trials of every ,hebrew capital case4 ,the second day was not a trial de novo2 but was a proceeding in the nature of an appeal and was intended to accomplish a review of the proceedings of the previous day4 ,additional testimony1 however1 which had been discovered after the close of the first trial1 might be introduced4 ,but the record of facts seems not to have been considered so important as the question of the fixed opinions of the judges4 ,each member of the ,sanhedrin was required1 on the second day1 to vote again and to declare anew his notions concerning the guilt or innocence of the accused4 ,the statements of each judge were carefully noted by the scribes and compared with his statements at the previous day4 ,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 day1 his verdict was rejected4 ,a member who had voted for acquittal on the first day was not permitted to change his vote for conviction on the second day4 ,but one who had voted for condemnation at the first trial1 might1 by giving valid reasons1 vote on the second day for acquittal4#agd ,a most striking peculiarity of ,hebrew law is to be noted in their method of counting votes and arriving at sums total in favor of or against the accused4 ,certain peculiar rules were to be strictly applied in determining the ultimate result4 ,when upon examination of the record it was discovered that two or more judges had advanced identical arguments1 though each supported his contention by different ,biblical citations1 their collective opinions were regarded as the common expression of a single mind and all their votes were counted only as one4 ,father and son1 teacher and pupil1 being members of the same court1 counted also as one1 provided their votes and opinions were arrayed on the same side1 but not when they were placed in antagonism4#age ,when the balloting was complete the number for and against the prisoner was again announced4 ,if a majority of at least two votes were registered against him he stood convicted a second time4 ,but the humane and indulgent spirit of ,hebrew law continued to operate and deferred immediate sentence4 ,the judges continued to deliberate4 ,no one thought of quitting the judgment hall on the second day of the trial4 ,no one ate anything1 no one drank anything on this second day2 for the day that was to condemn an ,israelite to death was to be a fast day for those who condemned him4 ,it was to be a day of prayerful meditation4 ,ancient maxims of the ,fathers1 framed for the protection of the accused1 were reconsidered4 ,all the merciful tendencies of ,talmudic interpretation were invoked and pleaded by the judges1 the defenders of the accused4 ,it was hoped that a few hours' time would discover facts favorable to the doomed man4 ,new arguments1 it was thought1 might be offered and new witnesses might be forthcoming in his behalf4 ,as they continued to deliberate1 the fatal hour approached4 ,there was to be no thirty or sixty days1 as in ,america1 between sentence and execution1 during which time the condemned man could make peace with ,god4 ,the moment that saw the judgment finally pronounced witnessed the beginning of its execution4 ,sunset1 ,nature's symbol of the extinguishment of the light of life1 was the time fixed for both4 ,the death march and the final circumstances attending the execution of a ,hebrew prisoner are without parallel in the jurisprudence of the world4 ,as the culprit was led away to his doom1 a man1 carrying in his hand a flag1 was stationed at the entrance of the ,sanhedrin ,hall4 ,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 hill4 ,a herald1 carrying aloft a staff from which fluttered a crimson banner1 made proclamation to the gazing multitude along the way that a human being was about to be executed4 ,he cried aloud3 ,,ab is to be put to death on the testimony of ,,cd and ,,xy1 on such and such a charge4 ,if any man knows anything favorable to the accused1 in the name of ,god let him come forth and speak1 in order that the prisoner may be led back to the ,sanhedrin ,hall to be again confronted and tried by his judges4 ,if any witness1 friend or stranger1 came forth to furnish new evidence in favor of the condemned man1 the procession was halted and the accused was led back to the ,sanhedrin ,chamber4 ,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 trial1 he arose quickly in his place and stated it to his fellow-judges4 ,the flag at the gate was then waved and the mounted messenger1 chosen for such an emergency1 saw it waving and galloped forward to stop the execution4 ,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 death4 ,he was led back as often as he gave any good excuse1 not exceeding five times1 the number prescribed by law4 ,if no new witnesses appeared and if the prisoner made no further plea for life1 the procession proceeded to within a short distance of the place of execution4 ,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 sins4 ,he was told that a full confession would entitle him to a happy existence beyond this life1 since the flood of death would wash away all stains of sin and cleanse the soul of all the iniquities of existence in this world4 ,if the condemned man still refused to confess that he was guilty of the crime with which he was charged1 he was then urged to say3 ,may my death prove an atonement for all my transgressions4 ,he was then led to the ground of execution4 ,the death draught1 consisting of a mixture of frankincense and myrrh1 poured into a cup of vinegar or light wine1 was then given him4 ,stupefaction followed1 rendering the culprit unconscious of his impending doom and insensible to the agonies of death4 ,in ,jerusalem1 this benumbing and stupefying mixture was furnished by the ,hebrew women1 whose tender and merciful regard for the wretched and unfortunate of earth has in all ages been a striking characteristic of the sex4 ,as soon as the draught had been administered the execution took place4 ,the prisoner was either stoned1 strangled1 burned1 or beheaded1 according to the nature of his crime4 ,in case of blasphemy or idolatry the dead body was afterwards hung upon a gallows until dusk4 ,but ordinarily the corpse was immediately interred after execution4 ,on the outskirts of every town there were two graveyards for criminals2 in one of these those who had been burned or stoned were buried2 in the other were interred those who had been hanged or beheaded4 ,as soon as decomposition had taken place--that is1 when the flesh had decayed and fallen from the bones--the relatives were allowed to remove the skeleton and to deposit it in the family burial ground4 ,soon after the execution the friends and relatives of the dead man made friendly calls upon the judges who had tried and sentenced him4 ,these visits were intended to show that the visitors harbored no feelings of bitterness or revenge against those who1 in condemning one of their loved ones to death1 had only performed the high and righteous duties of just and honorable judges of ,israel4 ,,part ,,iii ,,the ,,brief ,illustration3 ,,the ,,last ,,supper 7,,da ,,vinci7 ,,the ,,brief ,a number of difficult and confusing questions present themselves at the very beginning of any extensive and impartial investigation of the trial of ,jesus4 ,did the ,great ,sanhedrin exist at the time of ,christ8 ,if it existed1 was it still a legally constituted court1 having jurisdiction to try capital offenses8 ,did it have jurisdiction of the particular offense with which ,jesus was charged8 ,if the ,great ,sanhedrin was actually in existence1 had criminal jurisdiction in capital cases1 and was judicially empowered to try the offense with which ,jesus was charged1 did it actually try ,him8 ,were the rules of criminal procedure1 prescribed in the ,mishna and cited in this ,brief1 in existence and actively in force in ,judea at the time of the trial of ,jesus8 ,what was the nature of the charge brought against the ,christ8 ,was ,he guilty as charged8 ,were forms of law duly observed in the trial of the accusation against ,him8 ,answers to these questions1 which will be considered in the ,brief in the order above enumerated1 will cover the legal aspects of the ,hebrew trial of ,jesus4 ,did the ,great ,sanhedrin exist at the time of ,christ8 ,the answer to this question is of prime importance1 since the existence of a court having jurisdiction of the person and subject matter of the suit is a fundamental consideration in all litigation4 ,it is generally supposed that the ,hebrew trial of ,jesus took place before the ,great ,sanhedrin in ,jerusalem4 ,but many able writers1 both ,jewish and ,gentile1 deny that this court had any existence at the time of ,christ4 ,in the ,martyrdom of ,jesus1 ,rabbi ,wise says3 ,but this body did positively not exist at the time when ,jesus was crucified1 having been dissolved #cj ,a4,c4 ,in nowise1 then1 any passages of the ,gospels must be understood to refer to the ,great ,sanhedrin4 ,many ,jewish and several eminent ,gentile authors agree with this contention1 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 death4#agf ,it is contended by these writers that the supreme tribunal of the ,jews was then abolished and was not restored until subsequent to the crucifixion4 ,opposed to this assertion1 however1 is the weight of both reason and authority4 ,schrer is of the opinion that ,josephus did not mean literally all 7,greek3 pantas7 when he wrote that ,herod had destroyed all the members of the ,great ,sanhedrin2 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 ,antigonus1 who must themselves have been members of this court2 and forty-five are twenty-six fewer than seventy-one1 the full membership of the ,great ,sanhedrin4#agg ,the same author asserts the existence and discusses the jurisdiction of this court in the following language3 ,as regards the area over which the jurisdiction of the ,great ,sanhedrin extended1 it has already been remarked above that its civil authority was restricted1 in the time of ,christ1 to the eleven toparchies of ,judea proper4 ,and1 accordingly1 for this reason it had no judicial authority over ,jesus ,christ so long as ,he remained in ,galilee4 ,it was only as soon as ,he entered ,judea that ,he came directly under its jurisdiction4#agh ,again1 ,salvador1 who may be justly styled the ,jewish ,blackstone1 wrote concerning the condemnation of ,jesus3 ,the senate declared that ,jesus1 son of ,joseph1 born at ,bethlehem1 had profaned the name of ,god in usurping it for himself1 a simple citizen4 ,the capital sentence was then pronounced4 ,now1 the word senate is properly applied nowhere in literature to any other ,hebrew court than the ,great ,sanhedrin4 ,this ,high ,court of the ,jews has been frequently compared to the senate of ,rome1 to the ,areopagus of the ,greek and to the parliament of ,england4 ,it should be noted in this connection that the great ,jewish writer not only styled the body that tried ,jesus senate 7,great ,sanhedrin7 but stated that it pronounced a capital sentence1 thus declaring that the supreme tribunal of the ,jews not only existed at the time of ,jesus but had the right to decree capital punishment4 ,edersheim1 discussing the alleged abolition of the ,sanhedrin by ,herod1 says3 ,the ,sanhedrin did exist during his reign1 though it must have been shorn of all real power1 and its activity confined to ecclesiastical or semi-ecclesiastical causes4 ,we can well believe that neither ,herod nor the procurators would wish to abolish the ,sanhedrin1 but would leave to them the administration of justice1 especially in all that might in any way be connected with purely religious questions4 ,in short1 the ,sanhedrin would be accorded full jurisdiction in inferior and in religious matters2 with the greatest show1 but with the least amount of real rule or of supreme authority4#agi ,this is a powerful voice in favor of the existence of the supreme tribunal of the ,jews at the time of ,christ2 for ,edersheim's ,life and ,times of ,jesus the ,messiah is the best and most reliable biography of the ,savior in any language4 ,keim bases his advocacy of the existence of the ,sanhedrin at the time of ,christ on ,new ,testament authority4 ,not only1 he says1 does the ,new ,testament speak of ,synedria in the time of ,jesus and the ,apostles1 but ,jesus ,himself1 in a well-established utterance1 mentions the ,synedrion 7,sanhedrin7 as the highest legally constituted tribunal and as having the right to pass the sentence of death4#ahj ,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 v4 #ba3 ,but the high priest came1 and they that were with him1 and called the council together1 and all the senate of the children of ,israel1 and sent to the prison to have them brought4 ,here1 the use of the words high priest1 council1 and senate in the same connection1 strongly suggests1 almost accurately describes1 the president and members of the ,great ,sanhedrin2 and besides1 the words1 sent to the prison to have them brought1 indicate that this body was exercising judicial functions4 ,again1 the utterance of ,jesus above referred to by ,keim is found in two passages of ,matthew4 ,the first is in ,chap4 xvi4 #ba3 ,from that time forth began ,jesus to shew unto ,his disciples1 how that ,he must go unto ,jerusalem1 and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes1 and be killed and be raised again the third day4 ,the second is in ,chap4 xx4 #ah3 ,behold1 we go up to ,jerusalem2 and the ,son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes1 and they shall condemn him to death4 ,the elders and chief priests and scribes were the characteristic constituent elements of the ,great ,sanhedrin2 and the prophecy1 they shall condemn him to death1 ascribed to them the highest judicial prerogative1 the right of passing the death sentence4 ,in his brilliant essay on the ,talmud1 ,emanuel ,deutsch emphatically says3 ,whenever the ,new ,testament mentions the ',priests1 the ,elders1 and the ,scribes' together1 it means the ,great ,sanhedrin4#aha ,it is impossible to refrain from contrasting this statement of a most eminent and learned ,jewish writer with that of ,rabbi ,wise1 also very scholarly and pious1 ,in no wise1 then1 any passages of the ,gospels must be considered to refer to the ,great ,sanhedrin4 ,suffice it to say that the weight of authority is with ,emanuel ,deutsch4 ,and that which seems to conclusively disprove the whole theory of the nonexistence of the ,great ,sanhedrin at the date of the crucifixion1 is the fact that ,josephus--whose account of the alleged killing of all the members of the ,sanhedrin by ,herod is the very basis of the theory--in a subsequent chapter1 relating to a subsequent event1 describes the summoning of ,hyrcanus1 former king and high priest1 before the ,sanhedrin to be tried by them4 ,as a result of the trial1 ,hyrcanus was put to death4#ahb ,such a personage could have been tried and condemned only by the ,great ,sanhedrin1 which was in existence subsequent to the alleged destruction of all its members by ,herod4 ,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 founded4 ,as a matter of reason1 the mere destruction of the members of the court by ,herod did not1 of necessity1 abolish the court itself4 ,from what we know of the character and policy of ,herod1 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 interests4 ,again1 it is entirely improbable that the ,roman masters1 of whom ,herod was but a subject prince and tool1 would have permitted the destruction of the most important local institution of a conquered state4 ,the policy of the ,romans in this regard is well known4 ,whenever it was consistent with the dignity and safety of the ,roman empire1 local institutions were allowed to remain intact and undisturbed4 ,we are not aware of any good historical reason why the ,great ,sanhedrin1 the national parliament1 and the supreme tribunal of the ,jews1 should have been abolished thirty years before ,christ1 as ,rabbi ,wise and other eminent scholars and theologians have contended4 ,after all1 it seems to be more a matter of dogma than of history4 ,the majority of ,jewish writers rest their case upon ,josephus1 with their peculiar construction of the passage2 the majority of ,christian writers quite naturally prefer the ,new ,testament4 ,but the line is not closely drawn4 ,dr4 ,geikie1 the eminent ,gentile author1 supports the ,jewish opinion1 without reference1 however1 to the passage in ,josephus4 ,on the other hand1 ,salvador1 ,edersheim1 and ,deutsch1 all writers of ,jewish blood1 support the ,christian contention4 ,the assertion of ,graetz that ,jesus was arraigned before one of the ,minor ,sanhedrins1#ahc of which there were two in ,jerusalem1 is not to be taken seriously1 since these minor courts had no jurisdiction of the crime with which ,jesus was charged4#ahd ,it is very evident from the weight of authority that ,jesus was tried before the ,great ,sanhedrin1 and that this court had authority to pass sentence of death4 ,upon this theory1 the author will proceed in framing the ,brief4 ,did the ,great ,sanhedrin have jurisdiction to try capital offenses at the time of the crucifixion8 ,this question1 involving great difficulty and much confusion in discussing the trial of ,jesus1 arises from the divergent opinions of ,bible scholars as to the exact legal and political status of the ,jews at the time of ,christ4 ,many concede the existence of the ,great ,sanhedrin at this time1 but insist that it had been shorn of its most important judicial attributes2 that the right to try capital cases had been wholly taken from it2 and that it retained the legal right to try only petty crimes and religious offenses not involving the death penalty4 ,the ,jews contend1 and indeed the ,talmud states that forty years before the destruction of the ,temple the judgment of capital causes was taken away from ,israel4 ,the great weight of authority1 however1 is registered against this view4 ,the ,new ,testament teachings on the subject have just been discussed in the beginning of the ,brief4 ,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 ,herod2 that its legislative1 executive1 and judicial powers remained substantially unimpaired in local matters pertaining to the internal affairs of the ,jews2 and that the ,roman representatives intervened only when ,roman interests required and the sovereignty of the ,roman ,state demanded4 ,the question of sovereignty presented itself1 indeed1 whenever the question of life and death arose2 and ,rome reserved to herself1 in such cases1 the prerogative of final judicial determination4 ,both ,renan and ,salvador hold the view that the ,sanhedrin had the right of initiative1 the cognitio caus2 that is1 the right to try the case4 ,in the event of the acquittal of the accused the matter was finally ended without ,roman interference1 but in case of conviction the ,roman legate or procurator certainly might review and probably was required to review the matter1 and either affirm or reverse the sentence4 ,this is the prevalent opinion among the best writers2 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 ,jews4 ,however1 many able writers1 among them ,rosadi and ,dupin1 assert that the ,jews had lost the right1 by virtue of ,roman conquest1 even to try capital cases4 ,and it must be admitted that the logic of law is in their favor1 though the facts of history and the weight of authority are against them4 ,did the ,great ,sanhedrin have jurisdiction of the particular offense with which ,jesus was charged8 ,admitting the existence of the ,great ,sanhedrin at the time of ,christ1 and its right to initiate and try proceedings in capital cases with reference to ,roman authority1 had it jurisdiction1 under ,hebrew law1 of the special accusation against ,christ8 ,on this point there is little difference of opinion4 ,jesus was brought before the ,sanhedrin on the charges of sedition and blasphemy1 both of which crimes came within the cognizance of the supreme tribunal of the ,jews4#ahe ,was there a regular legal trial of ,jesus before the ,great ,sanhedrin8 ,admitting that this court was in existence at the time of ,christ1 that it had competence1 with reference to ,roman authority1 to try capital cases1 and that it had jurisdiction under ,hebrew law of the crime with which ,jesus was charged1 did it actually conduct a regular1 formal trial of the ,christ8 ,many able critics give a negative answer to this inquiry4 ,jost1 one of the greatest and most impartial of ,jewish historians1 designates the crucifixion of ,jesus a private murder 7,privat-,mord7 committed by burning enemies1 not the sentence of a regularly constituted ,sanhedrin4#ahf ,edersheim supports this view as to the nature of the trial4#ahg ,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 ,christ4 ,if this court did not exist1 they say1 there could not have been any regular judicial proceeding1 since this body was the only ,hebrew tribunal that had jurisdiction to try the offense with which ,jesus was charged4 ,others1 who hold similar views1 maintain that the errors were so numerous and the proceedings so flagrant1 according to the ,gospel account1 that there could have been no trial at all1 and that it was simply the action of a mob4 ,these writers contend that the members of the ,sanhedrin acted more like a vigilance committee than a regularly organized tribunal4 ,of this opinion is ,dr4 ,cunningham ,geikie4 ,still another class of critics insist that the ,hebrew judges exercised only accusatory functions1 and that the examination of ,jesus at night was merely preparatory to charges to be presented to ,pilate4 ,others still apparently reverse the order1 and insist that the ,hebrew trial was the only one2 that the duty of ,pilate was merely to review1 sanction1 and countersign the verdict of the ,sanhedrin4 ,of this class is ,renan1 who says3 ,the course which the priests had resolved to pursue in regard to ,jesus was quite in conformity with the established law4 ,the plan of the enemies of ,jesus was to convict him1 by the testimony of witnesses and by his own avowals1 of blasphemy and of outrage against the ,mosaic religion1 to condemn him to death according to law1 and then to get the condemnation sanctioned by ,pilate4#ahh ,salvador and ,stapfer agree with ,renan that the ,hebrew trial was regular and that the proceedings were legal4 ,on the other hand1 ,rosadi1 ,dupin1 ,keim and many others denounce the proceedings in the trial of ,jesus as outrageously illegal4 ,as to the number of trials1 the authorities above cited seem to be exceptions to the rule4 ,by far the greater number contend that there were two distinct trials3 a ,hebrew and a ,roman1 separate and yet dependent4 ,the opinion of this class of writers is most clearly expressed by ,innes1 who says3 ,whether it was legitimate or not for the ,jews to condemn for a capital crime on this occasion1 they did so4 ,whether it was legitimate or not for ,pilate to try over again an accused whom they had condemned1 on this occasion1 he did so4 ,there were certainly two trials4#ahi ,this is the view of the writer of these pages2 and he has1 accordingly1 divided the general subject into two trials1 devoting a volume of the work to each4 ,it may be answered1 then1 that there was a regular trial of ,jesus before the ,great ,sanhedrin4 ,the relation of this trial to the ,roman proceeding will be more fully discussed in the second volume of this treatise4 ,were the rules of criminal procedure prescribed in the ,mishna and cited in this ,brief1 in existence and actively in force in ,judea at the time of the trial of ,jesus8 ,this question has been answered in the negative by several writers of repute4 ,others have answered that the matter is in doubt4 ,but it is very generally agreed that an affirmative answer is the proper one4 ,out of this question1 two others arise3 7#a7 ,were the rules of criminal law1 herein cited1 obsolete at the time of the crucifixion8 7#b7 ,were they the legal developments of an age subsequent to that great event8 ,in either case1 their citation1 in this connection1 is without reason or justification4 ,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 ,christ4 ,in support of a negative answer to this question1 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 crucifixion4 ,the answer to the second question above suggested is a more serious matter4 ,it is historically true that the ,mishna was not reduced to writing until two hundred years after the beginning of our era4 ,the ,jerusalem ,talmud was not redacted until #cij ,a4,d42 and the ,babylonian ,talmud1 about #cfe-dbg ,a4,d4 ,the question at once arises3 ,were the rules of criminal procedure1 which we have herein invoked in the discussion of this case1 the growth of the periods intervening between the crucifixion of ,jesus and these dates8 ,two valid reasons give a negative answer to this question4 ,in the first place1 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 ,jesus4 ,in the second place1 they could not have been the developments of a time subsequent to the crucifixion1 because less than forty years1 a single generation1 intervened between that event and the fall of ,jerusalem1 which was followed by the destruction of ,jewish nationality and the dispersion of the ,jews4 ,this short interval was a period of national decay and disintegration of the ,jewish people and could not have been1 under ,roman domination1 a formative period in legal matters4 ,after the fall of ,jerusalem1 the additions and developments in ,hebrew law were more a matter of commentary than of organic formation--more of ,gemara than of ,mosaic or ,mishnic growth4 ,the decided weight of authority1 then1 as well as the greater reason1 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 write4 ,what was the nature of the charge brought against ,christ at the trial before the ,sanhedrin8 ,was ,he guilty as charged8 ,the questions preceding these were secondary1 though important4 ,if the ,great ,sanhedrin did not exist at the time of ,christ1 we are forced to believe and admit that the men who arrested and examined ,jesus at night were nothing more than an irresponsible rabble1 acting without judicial authority or legal excuse4 ,if it was without criminal jurisdiction1 though in existence1 we have erroneously spoken of a ,hebrew trial4 ,if the rules of criminal procedure which we have invoked were not in existence at the time of the crucifixion1 we have proceeded upon a false hypothesis4 ,fortunately1 the weight of authority1 in every case1 is so overwhelmingly in our favor1 and our contention is1 in each case1 so well founded in reason1 that we feel justified in now proceeding to a discussion of the real merits of the case1 involved in answers to the questions3 ,what was the nature of the charge or charges brought against ,jesus at the ,hebrew trial8 ,was ,he guilty as charged8 ,the accusations against ,christ were numerous1 both in and out of court2 and it will help to simplify matters and to arrive at a clear understanding1 if1 in the very beginning1 the distinction be made and held in mind between judicial and extra-judicial charges4 ,by judicial charges are meant those made at the time of the examination of ,jesus by the ,sanhedrin1 assembled at night in the palace of ,caiaphas4 ,by extra-judicial charges are meant those made out of court at divers times and places in ,jerusalem1 ,galilee1 and elsewhere by the accusers of the ,christ1 and especially by the spies who dogged ,his footsteps during the last days of ,his ministry on earth4 ,ordinarily1 it would be proper1 in a work of this kind1 to consider only charges made after the trial of the accused had begun1 and jeopardy had attached4 ,all others are extra-judicial and are entitled to only passing notice4 ,it would be proper to omit them altogether1 if they did not serve to throw much light upon the specific charges at the trial4 ,an excellent summary of the extra-judicial charges brought against ,jesus at various times in ,his career1 is given in ,abbott's ,jesus of ,nazareth1 p4 #ddh3 ,it was charged that ,he was a preacher of turbulence and faction2 that ,he flattered the poor and inveighed against the rich2 that ,he denounced whole cities1 as ,capernaum1 ,bethsaida1 ,chorazin2 that ,he gathered about ,him a rabble of publicans1 harlots1 and drunkards1 under a mere pretense of reforming them2 that ,he subverted the laws and institutions of the ,mosaic commonwealth1 and substituted an unauthorized legislation of ,his own2 that ,he disregarded not only all distinctions of society1 but even those of religion1 and commended the idolatrous ,samaritan as of greater worth than the holy priest and pious ,levite2 that1 though ,he pretended to work miracles1 ,he had invariably refused to perform them in the presence and at the request of the ,rabbis of the ,church2 that ,he had contemned the solemn sanctions of their holy religion1 had sat down to eat with publicans and sinners with unwashen hands1 had disregarded the obligations of the ,sabbath1 had attended the ,jewish feasts with great irregularity or not at all1 had declared that ,god could be worshiped in any other place as well as in ,his ,holy ,temple1 had openly and violently interfered with its sacred services by driving away the cattle gathered there for sacrifice4 ,these different charges were doubtless present in the minds and hearts of the members of the ,sanhedrin at the time of the trial1 and probably influenced their conduct and entered into their verdict4 ,but only one or two of these accusations can be said to have any direct connection with the record in this case1 and1 consequently1 can be only indirectly considered in discussing its merits4 ,we come now to examine the actual charges made at the night trial before the ,sanhedrin4 ,the subsequent charges before ,pilate have no place in this volume4 ,a review of the proceedings at the time of the examination in the palace of ,caiaphas reveals two distinct charges3 one preferred by witnesses who had been summoned by the ,sanhedrin1 the other preferred by ,caiaphas himself4 ,first1 according to ,matthew1 ,at the last came two false witnesses1 and said1 ,this fellow said1 ,i am able to destroy the temple of ,god1 and to build it in three days4#aij ,the same testimony is thus reported by ,mark3 ,and there arose certain1 and bare false witness against him1 saying1 ,we heard him say1 ,i will destroy this temple that is made with hands1 and within three days1 ,i will build another made without hands4#aia ,luke and ,john do not discuss the night trial before the ,sanhedrin1 and therefore make no reference to the charges brought forward by the false witnesses4 ,the second accusation made against ,jesus is that by ,caiaphas himself1 who embodies his charge in the form of an oath or adjuration which he administered to the accused3 ,i adjure thee by the living ,god that thou tell us whether thou be the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god4 ,then came the confession and condemnation4 ,jesus said unto him1 ,thou hast said3 nevertheless ,i say unto you1 ,hereafter shall ye see the ,son of man sitting on the right hand of power1 and coming in the clouds of heaven4 ,then the high priest rent his clothes1 saying1 ,he hath spoken blasphemy2 what further need have we of witnesses8 behold1 now ye have heard his blasphemy4 ,what think ye8 ,they answered and said1 ,he is guilty of death4#aib ,these few words of ,scripture are the essential parts of the record of fact of the most awful trial in the history of the universe4 ,an analysis of the evidence shows the existence of two distinct charges3 that preferred by the false witnesses1 accusing ,jesus of sedition2 and that of blasphemy made by ,caiaphas himself4 ,concerning the testimony adduced in support of the first charge1 ,mark says3 ,for many bare false witness against him1 but their witness agreed not together4#aic ,now1 we have seen that the concurrent testimony of at least two witnesses1 agreeing in all essential details1 was necessary to sustain a conviction under ,hebrew law4 ,if one witness against the accused contradicted any other witness against the accused1 all were rejected4 ,under this rule of law1 when their witness agreed not together1 according to ,mark1 the charge of sedition was abandoned1 and the accusation of blasphemy then followed1 which resulted in a confession and condemnation4 ,later on1 in another place1 we shall discuss the illegality of a double accusation1 in the same breath and at the same trial4 ,but at this point we have no further interest in the abandoned charge1 except to say that the false witnesses1 in their ignorance and blindness1 failed to grasp the ,master's allegorical language in reference to the destruction of the ,temple4 ,their worldly-mindedness and purely physical conception of things centered their thoughts upon the ,temple at ,jerusalem1 and gave a purely temporal and material interpretation to ,his words4 ,forty and six years was this temple in building1 and wilt thou rear it again in three days8#aid ,this question asked by the original auditors1 shows a total misconception of the true meaning of the language of ,jesus4 ,the spiritual allusion to the resurrection of ,his own body seems never to have penetrated their thoughts4 ,then1 again1 their general statement was1 in effect1 an absolute misrepresentation4 ,by perverting ,his language1 ,he was made to utter a deliberate threat against a national institution1 around which clustered all the power1 sanctity1 and glory of the ,hebrew people4 ,he was made to threaten the destruction of the ,temple at ,jerusalem4 ,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 used4 ,in reality1 ,he did not say3 ,i can destroy1 or ,i will destroy2 but1 simply1 ,destroy4 ,destroy this temple1 and in three days ,i will raise it up4#aie ,this is evidently a purely hypothetical expression and is equivalent to ,supposing you destroy this temple4 ,st4 ,john1 in whose presence1 it seems1 this language was used1 correctly interprets the ,savior's meaning when he says3 ,he spake of the temple of his body4#aif ,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 charge4 ,we come now to consider more closely the real accusation upon which ,jesus was condemned to death4 ,at first glance1 there seems to be no difficulty in determining what this accusation was1 since the ,gospel record specifically mentions the crime of blasphemy4 ,it was for this offense that ,caiaphas pronounced judgment against ,jesus with the unanimous approval of his fellow-judges4 ,then the high priest rent his clothes and saith1 ,what need we any further witnesses8 ye have heard the blasphemy3 what think ye8 and they all condemned him to be guilty of death4 ,but what had they heard that constituted blasphemy8 ,nothing more than ,his own confession that ,he was the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god4 ,this seems simple enough upon its face2 but a vast mass of acrimonious discussion has resulted from these few passages of the ,scripture4 ,the main difficulty turns upon the meaning of the word blasphemy1 as used by the high priest in passing condemnation upon ,jesus4 ,the facts adduced at the trial1 or rather the facts suggested by the oath or adjuration addressed to ,jesus1 as to whether or not ,he was ,christ1 the ,son of ,god1 did not1 in the opinion of many1 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 ,mishna4 ,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 ,god4 ,rabbi ,wise1 in ,the ,martyrdom of ,jesus1 has very tersely stated the ,jewish position on the subject4 ,had ,jesus maintained1 he says1 before a body of ,jewish lawyers to be the ,son of ,god1 they could not have found him guilty of blasphemy1 because every ,israelite had a perfect right to call himself a son of ,god1 the law 7,deut4 xiv4 #a7 stating in unmistakable words1 ',ye are sons of the ,lord1 your ,god4' ,when ,rabbi ,judah advanced the opinion1 ',if ye conduct yourselves like the sons of ,god1 ye are2 if not1 not1' there was ,rabbi ,mair on hand to contradict him3 ',in this or in that case1 ye are the sons of the ,lord your ,god4' ,no law1 no precedent1 and no fictitious case in the ,bible or the rabbinical literature can be cited to make of this expression a case of blasphemy4 ,the blasphemy law is in ,leviticus 7xxiv4 #ae-bj71 which ordains1 ',if any man shall curse his ,god 7i4e41 by whatever name he may call his ,god71 he shall bear his sin1' but the law has nothing to do with it1 dictates no punishment1 takes no cognizance thereof4 ',but he who shall curse the name of ,jehovah1 he shall surely be put to death1' be the curser native or alien4 ,another blasphemy law exists not in the ,pentateuch4 ,the ancient ,hebrews expounded this law1 that none is guilty of blasphemy in the first degree1 unless he curses ,god himself by the name of ,jehovah2 or1 as ,maimonides maintains1 by the name ,adonai4 ,the penalty of death is only threatened in the first degree4 ,the ,mishna states expressly as the general law1 ',the blasphemer is not guilty1 unless he 7in cursing the ,deity7 has mentioned the name itself' 7of ,jehovah or ,adonai71 so that there can be no doubt whatever that such was the law in ,israel4 ,it is clear that the statements made by ,mark1 in the name of ,jesus1 had nothing in the world to do with the blasphemy laws of the ,jews4#aig ,rabbi ,wise was concededly an able and accomplished theologian2 and in a general way the above extract states the truth4 ,but it does not state the whole truth1 and in one or two places is certainly erroneous4 ,leviticus xxiv4 #ae-bj is undoubtedly the blasphemy statute of the ,mosaic ,code4 ,but ,mr4 ,wise was assuredly wrong when he stated that another blasphemy ,law exists not in the ,pentateuch4 ,for1 if this were a correct statement1 other eminent ,jewish authorities1 as well as many ,gentile authors1 would be all at sea4 ,besides1 the ,new ,testament use of the word blasphemy1 in many places1 would only serve to illustrate the dense ignorance of the ,jews of the time of ,jesus as to the meaning of the term1 if the author of ,the ,martyrdom of ,jesus were right4 ,in this connection1 let us now consider another ,jewish authority1 as able and even more famous than the one just cited4 ,in ,salvador's celebrated treatise entitled ,histoire des ,institutions de ,mose1 he devotes a chapter to the question of the judgment and condemnation of ,jesus4 ,touching the nature of the charge against ,christ and the real cause of ,his conviction1 he says3 ,but ,jesus1 in presenting new theories and in giving new forms to those already promulgated1 speaks of himself as ,god2 his disciples repeat it2 and the subsequent events prove in the most satisfactory manner that they thus understood him4 ,this was shocking blasphemy in the eyes of the citizens3 the law commands them to follow ,jehovah alone1 the only true ,god2 not to believe in gods of flesh and bones1 resembling men or women2 neither to spare or listen to a prophet who1 even doing miracles1 should proclaim a new god1 a god neither they nor their fathers had known4 ,the question already raised among the people was this3 ,has ,jesus become ,god8 ,but the ,senate having adjudged that ,jesus1 son of ,joseph1 born in ,bethlehem1 had profaned the name of ,god by usurping it to himself1 a mere citizen1 applied to him the law in the #acth ,chapter of ,deuteronomy and the #bjth verse in ,chapter #ah1 according to which every prophet1 even he who works miracles1 must be punished when he speaks of a god unknown to the ,jews and their fathers3 the capital sentence was pronounced4 ,here we have the doctors divided2 ,wise saying that another blasphemy law exists not in the ,pentateuch1 and ,salvador contending that ,jesus was legally convicted of blasphemy under the ,mosaic ,law as it was laid down1 not in ,leviticus xxiv4 #ae-bj1 but in ,deuteronomy xiii4 ,the law in ,deuteronomy is peculiarly impressive in its relationship to the charges against ,jesus4 ,if there arise among you a prophet1 or a dreamer of dreams1 and giveth thee a sign or a wonder1 ,and the sign or the wonder come to pass1 whereof he spake unto thee1 saying1 ,let us go after other gods1 which thou hast not known1 and let us serve them2 ,thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet1 or that dreamer of dreams3 for the ,lord your ,god proveth you1 to know whether ye love the ,lord your ,god with all your heart and with all your soul4 ,ye shall walk after the ,lord your ,god1 and fear ,him1 and keep ,his commandments1 and obey ,his voice1 and ye shall serve ,him1 and cleave unto ,him4 ,and that prophet1 or that dreamer of dreams1 shall be put to death2 because he hath spoken to turn you away from the ,lord your ,god1 which brought you out of the land of ,egypt and redeemed you out of the house of bondage1 to thrust thee out of the way which the ,lord thy ,god commanded thee to walk in4#aih ,the position of ,rabbi ,wise cannot be defended by trying to identify this passage with the one in ,leviticus4 ,the law in ,deuteronomy has reference to that form of blasphemy which is nearly identical with idolatry1 that is1 seducing the people from their allegiance to ,jehovah1 and inducing them to go off after strange gods4 ,the law in ,leviticus applies peculiarly to profane epithets and to curses hurled at ,jehovah ,himself4 ,again1 ,rabbi ,wise ridicules the notion that ,caiaphas and the ,sanhedrists attempted to twist the use of the words ,son of ,god into a crime4 ,he is right when1 quoting ,deuteronomy xiv4 #a1 he says that every ,israelite had a perfect right to call himself a son of ,god4 ,but here again the eminent theologian has stopped short of the entire truth4 ,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 ,himself4 ,should reply be made that such would be an unwarranted construction of ,christ's confession that he was the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god1 then the opinion of ,salvador would be again invoked4 ,in a note to the ,jugement de ,jesus1 he says3 ,i repeat that the expression ',son of ,god' includes here the idea of ,god ,himself4 ,we are not in a position1 nearly two thousand years after the event occurred1 to tell exactly what was in the mind of ,caiaphas at the time4 ,but1 in view of the condemnation which he passed1 and of the language which he used in passing it1 we are certainly justified in supposing that he deliberately and designedly connected the two titles--the ,christ and the ,son of ,god--to see if ,jesus would assume responsibility for both1 or if ,he would content himself with the simple appellation1 son of ,god1 to which every pious ,israelite was entitled4 ,the reply of ,jesus1 ,thou hast said1 meaning ,i am the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god1 was an affirmation of ,his identity with the ,father4 ,the condemnation for blasphemy immediately followed4 ,such a sentence would have been inconsistent with any other theory than the assumption that ,jesus had claimed equality with ,god1 or had arrogated to ,himself power and authority which belonged alone to ,jehovah4 ,this definition of blasphemy is certainly different from that laid down in ,leviticus xxiv4 #ae-bj4 ,as a matter of history1 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 ,code1 but also more than one conception and definition of blasphemy at different periods in the development of the ,hebrew people4 ,in ,,ii ,samuel xii4 #ad the word blaspheme is used in the sense to despise ,judaism4 ,in ,i ,macc4 ii4 #f blasphemy means idolatry4 ,in ,job ii4 #e2 ,,ii ,kings xix4 #d-f2 ,hosea vii4 #af1 the term indicates reproach1 derision4 ,not only might ,god be blasphemed1 but the king also1 as his representative4 ,the indictment against ,naboth was3 ,thou didst blaspheme ,god and the king4#aii ,the people of ,jehovah and his ,holy ,land might also become victims of blasphemy4#bjj ,the ,new ,testament writers frequently charge the ,jews with blaspheming ,jesus1 when they use insulting language toward ,him1 or deny to ,him the credit that is ,his due4#bja ,in ,revelation1 ,st4 ,john tells that he saw a beast rise up out of the sea1 having seven heads and ten horns1 and upon his horns ten crowns1 and upon his heads the name of blasphemy4 ,and he opened his mouth in blasphemy against ,god1 to blaspheme his name1 and his tabernacles1 and them that dwell in heaven4#bjb ,this beast was the symbolical ,antichrist1 and his blasphemy was simply the treasonable opposition of the antichristian world to ,god and ,his kingdom4 ,a comprehensive meaning of blasphemy1 in the various senses above suggested1 is conveyed by the definition of the term treason under the governments of ,gentile commonwealths4 ,a single statute1 #be ,edw4 iii4 c4 #b1 defines seven different ways of committing treason against the king of ,england4#bjc ,the lex ,julia majestatis1 promulgated by ,augustus ,csar1 was a single statute which comprehended all the ancient laws that had previously been enacted to punish transgressors against the ,roman ,state4#bjd ,there was no particular statute1 as ,rabbi ,wise would have us believe1 among the ancient ,hebrews1 that defined all forms of blasphemy against ,jehovah4 ,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 law4 ,it should not be forgotten that the ancient ,hebrew ,commonwealth was a pure theocracy2 that ,jehovah was king2 that priests1 prophets1 and people were merely the subjects and servants of this king2 that its government and its institutions were the products of his brain2 and that the destinies of the people of ,israel1 the chosen seed1 were absolutely in his keeping and subject to his divine direction and control4 ,it should also be remembered that the ,god of ,israel was a most jealous ,god2 that the greatest irritant of ,his wrath was any encroachment upon ,his rights as ruler of men and creator of the universe2 that for the protection of ,his sovereignty1 ,he had proclaimed to ,his people through ,his servant ,moses the most stringent statutes against any profanation of ,his name or disloyalty to ,his person4 ,the ,decalogue was the great charter of ,jehovah for the government of ,his children4 ,the first three commandments were special statutes intended to excite their gratitude and insure their attachment4 ,he reminds them of the circumstances of their deliverance1 and warns them1 under severe penalty1 against going off after strange gods4 ,but1 not content with these1 ,he had still other statutes proclaimed1 furnishing safeguards against idolatry and insuring loyalty to ,his person4#bje ,at the time of the establishment of the ,hebrew theocracy1 idolatry was everywhere to be found4 ,not only were the neighboring peoples worshipers of idols1 but the ,israelites themselves were prone to idolatry and to running off after strange gods4 ,the worship of the ,golden ,calf is a familiar illustration of this truth4 ,thus the ,commonwealth of ,jehovah was threatened not only with idolatrous invasion from without but with idolatrous insurrection from within4 ,hence the severity of the measures adopted for the protection of ,his kingdom1 ,his person1 and ,his name1 not only against idolaters but against necromancers1 witches1 sorcerers1 and all persons who pretended to supernatural powers that did not proceed directly from ,jehovah ,himself4 ,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 foretold1 wonders worked1 and supernatural powers of any kind exhibited4 ,and throughout the ,sacred ,scriptures1 in both the ,old and ,new ,testaments1 we find traces of the operation of this law4 ,sometimes it is an instance of obedience1 as when ,pharaoh wanted to credit ,joseph with the power of interpreting dreams4 ,and ,joseph answered ,pharaoh1 saying1 ,it is not in me3 ,god shall give ,pharaoh an answer of peace4#bjf ,at other times1 it is an act of disobedience4 ,to satisfy the thirsty multitude ,moses smote the rock and brought forth water at ,meribah4 ,but instead of giving the ,lord credit for the act1 ,moses claimed it for ,aaron and himself1 saying1 ,hear now1 ye rebels3 must we fetch you water out of this rock8 ,whereupon ,jehovah grew very angry and said to ,moses and ,aaron3 ,because ye believe me not1 to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of ,israel1 therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which ,i have given them4#bjg ,as punishment for this blasphemous conduct1 neither ,moses nor ,aaron was permitted to enter the ,promised ,land4#bjh ,and that this omission to give due acknowledgment to the ,lord for the miraculous flow of water was treasonable or blasphemous under the wider interpretation of the term1 cannot be doubted4 ,from the foregoing remarks it is clear that blasphemy among the ancient ,hebrews was subject to a twofold classification3 7#a7 ,a verbal renunciation and profane speaking of the name of ,jehovah4 ,to this kind of blasphemy the provision in ,leviticus xxiv4 #ae-bj was applicable4 ,this was blasphemy in its generally accepted but narrower and more restricted sense4 ,this kind of blasphemy indicated a most depraved and malignant state of mind1 and to secure a conviction it was necessary to show that the word ,jehovah or ,adonai had been pronounced4 7#b7 ,every word or act1 directly in derogation of the sovereignty of ,jehovah1 such as speaking in the name of another god1 or omitting1 on any occasion that required it1 to give to ,jehovah the honor due to ,his own name4#bji ,this form of blasphemy was nearly the same as treason under modern governments1 and included all offenses that threatened the usurpation of the throne of ,jehovah1 the destruction of ,his institutions1 and that withheld from ,him due acknowledgment of ,his authority and authorship in all matters of miracle and prophecy4 ,returning to the trial in the palace of ,caiaphas1 let us again consider the question3 ,was ,jesus guilty of blasphemy under any of the definitions above given8 ,had ,he ever cursed the name of ,jehovah and thereby brought ,himself within the condemnation of the law1 as laid down in ,leviticus xxiv4 #ae-bj8 ,certainly not4 ,every word uttered by ,him at the trial1 as well as every other expression elsewhere uttered at any time or place1 was said with reverence and awe and love in praise and glorification of the name and person of ,jehovah4 ,rabbi ,wise ridicules the notion that ,jesus was ever tried upon the charge of blasphemy1 because it is not recorded anywhere that ,he ever used any but tender and affectionate language in speaking of the ,heavenly ,father4 ,had ,jesus blasphemed1 in the sense of despising ,judaism1 and thereby brought ,himself within the purview of the rule as exemplified in ,,ii ,sam4 xii4 #ad8 ,certainly not4 ,there is no record anywhere that ,he despised ,judaism4 ,jesus revered both the ,law and the ,prophets4 ,he claimed that ,he came to fulfill1 not to destroy them4#baj ,he frequently denounced ,pharisaic formalism and hypocrisy1 but at the same time ,he was a most loyal ,jew and a devoted son of ,israel4 ,had ,he blasphemed by working wonders in ,his own name1 and omitting to give ,jehovah credit for them2 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 ,meribah8 ,we are forced to answer this question in the affirmative4 ,if we regard ,jesus as a mere man1 a plain citizen1 like ,moses1 the ,new ,testament discloses many infractions of the ,law in ,his prophecies and miracles4 ,it is true that in ,john v4 #ai it is said1 ,verily1 verily1 ,i say unto you1 ,the ,son can do nothing of himself1 but what he seeth the ,father do4 ,here ,he affirmed that the power was from ,god and not from ,himself4 ,again1 having raised ,lazarus from the dead1 ,jesus said1 ,father1 ,i thank thee that thou hast heard me1#baa thus acknowledging the intervention of ,jehovah in the performance of the miracle4 ,in several other places ,he gave the ,father credit for the act of the ,son4 ,but these were exceptions1 isolated cases4 ,the law required an express acknowledgment in every case of prophesy or miracle working4 ,thus saith the ,lord was either the prologue or epilogue of every wonder-working performance4 ,in all the miracles wrought by him in ,egypt ,moses had given due credit to ,jehovah4 ,but this was not enough4 ,he was made an example for all time when he failed to make acknowledgment in the matter of striking the water from the rock4 ,now ,jesus worked many miracles in no other name than ,his own1 and in so doing brought ,himself within the operation of the rule and of the precedent established in the case of ,moses and ,aaron4 ,the curing of the bloody issue1#bab the stilling of the tempest1#bac the chasing of the devils into the sea1#bad the raising of ,jairus' daughter1#bae and of the son of the widow of ,nain#baf from the dead1 were done without any mention of the power and guidance of ,jehovah4 ,but these transgressions were extra-judicial offenses and have been discussed merely as an introduction throwing light upon the specific charge at the trial1 that ,jesus had claimed to be the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god4 ,the question of the high priest is meaningless1 unless interpreted in the light of knowledge which we know the members of the ,sanhedrin had regarding the wonder-working performances of the ,christ4 ,the failure of ,jesus to acknowledge the power of ,jehovah in working miracles might be interpreted as a tacit avowal that ,he ,himself was ,jehovah1 and that therefore no acknowledgments were necessary4 ,the silence itself was a proclamation of the divinity that was in ,him1 which placed ,him above a law intended to govern the conduct of men like ,moses and ,aaron4 ,we are now prepared to consider the final question3 ,had ,jesus blasphemed1 when ,he confessed to the high priest that ,he was the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god8 ,had ,he blasphemed in that wider sense which ,salvador has interpreted as being the ,jewish notion of blasphemy at the time of ,christ2 that is1 by claiming at once the attributes of the ,messiah and the ,son of ,god8 ,had ,he asserted an equality with ,god which looked to a usurpation of ,his power and the destruction of ,his throne2 that is1 did the confession of ,jesus that ,he was ,christ1 the ,son of ,god1 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 ,israel8 ,regarding ,jesus as a mere man1 a plain citizen1 an affirmative answer to any one of these questions would convict ,him of blasphemy1 according to the ,jewish interpretation of that term at the time of ,christ2 for the ,hebrew ,jehovah had repeatedly proclaimed that ,he was a jealous ,god1 and that ,he would brook neither rivals nor associates in the government of ,his kingdom4 ,that ,jesus had more than once identified ,himself with ,jehovah1 and had claimed divine attributes and powers2 and that the ,jews regarded all these pretenses as blasphemous1 is evident1 and can be ascertained from more than one passage of ,new ,testament ,scripture4 ,on one occasion the ,savior said to one sick of palsy3 ,son1 be of good cheer2 thy sins be forgiven thee4 ,and1 behold1 certain of the ,scribes said within themselves1 ,this man blasphemeth4#bag ,according to ,luke1 they said3 ,who is this man which speaketh blasphemies8 ,who can forgive sins but ,god alone8#bah ,here1 according to the ,scribes and ,pharisees1 ,jesus had blasphemed by claiming the power which alone belonged to ,jehovah1 that of forgiving sins2 or1 at least1 by exercising a supernatural power without acknowledging the authorship and guidance of the ,almighty4 ,it should be remembered that in this instance of alleged blasphemy ,jesus had not remotely cursed or profaned the name of ,jehovah2 but1 according to ,jewish notions of the times1 had exercised a prerogative1 that of forgiving sins1 which belonged solely to ,jehovah1 without giving credit4 ,again1 we read this passage in the ,new ,testament3 ,therefore ,jews sought the more to kill him1 because he not only had broken the ,sabbath1 but said also that ,god was his father1 making himself equal with ,god4#bai ,here we see that the ,jews of the days of ,jesus1 as well as ,salvador in our own day1 construed the claims of ,jesus to be the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god1 as an assertion of equality with ,jehovah4 ,again1 on another occasion1 ,jesus said emphatically3 ,i and my ,father are one4 ,then the ,jews took up stones again to stone him4 ,jesus answered them1 ,many good works have ,i shewed you from my ,father2 for which of those works do ye stone me8 ,the ,jews answered him1 saying1 ,for a good work1 we stone thee not2 but for blasphemy2 and because that thou1 being a man1 makest thyself ,god4#bbj ,even before this bold declaration of ,his identity with ,jehovah1 ,he had intimated that ,he was of ,heavenly origin and had enjoyed a divine prexistence4 ,he had declared that ,he was the ,bread which came down from ,heaven1#bba and that ,before ,abraham was1 ,i am4#bbb ,the ,jews regarded ,his statement that ,he had lived before ,abraham as blasphemy1 and took up stones to cast at him1 this being the usual punishment for blasphemous conduct4 ,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 ,leviticus2 and that the confession of being ,christ1 the ,son of ,god1 as the ,jews and ,caiaphas interpreted the term1 brought ,jesus within the meaning of blasphemy1 in its wider signification--that of assuming equality with ,god4 ,the numerous illustrations above furnished were given to provide means of clear interpretation of the term blasphemy1 as used in the condemnatory sentence of the high priest4 ,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 trial4 ,but we repeat1 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 ,sanhedrin4 ,we further repeat that the ,new ,testament furnishes abundant evidence that ,jesus the man1 the ,jewish citizen1 had1 at divers times and places1 committed blasphemy against ,jehovah1 under a strict interpretation of the law of ,god4 ,mr4 ,simon ,greenleaf1 the great ,christian writer on the ,law of ,evidence and the ,harmony of the ,gospels1 has thus tersely and admirably summarized the matter from the lawyer's point of view3 ,if we regard ,jesus simply as a ,jewish citizen1 and with no higher character1 this conviction seems substantially right in point of law1 though the trial were not legal in all its forms4 ,for1 whether the accusation were founded on the first or the second command in the ,decalogue1 or on the law laid down in the thirteenth chapter of ,deuteronomy1 or on that in the eighteenth chapter and the twentieth verse1 he had violated them all by assuming to himself powers belonging alone to ,jehovah4 ,it is not easy to perceive on what ground his conduct could have been defended before any tribunal1 unless upon that of his superhuman character4 ,no lawyer1 it is conceived1 would think of placing his defense upon any other basis4#bbc ,but1 at this point1 the reader would do well to discriminate very carefully between certain matters touching the most vital features of the controversy4 ,certain well-defined distinctions must be observed1 else an erroneous conclusion will inevitably follow4 ,in the first place1 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 law4 ,it must be remembered that1 in this connection1 ,jesus is regarded merely as a man1 a ,jewish citizen1 to use ,greenleaf's phrase4 ,his divine character1 as the only-begotten ,son of ,god1 as the ,second ,person of the ,trinity1 as the ,savior of the human race1 is not considered4 ,but the reader may object1 and with reason1 that this is begging the question2 and is therefore an inexcusable evasion2 since the real issue before the ,sanhedrin was this3 ,is ,jesus ,god8 ,and to strike the ,godhead of ,jesus from the discussion is to destroy the real issue1 and to place the judgment of the ,sanhedrin upon an irrelevant and immaterial basis4 ,there is much truth in this contention1 since it is clearly evident that if ,jesus was actually ,god1 manifest in the flesh1 ,he was not guilty2 if ,he was not ,god1 ,he was guilty4 ,fortunately for the purposes of this treatise1 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 form4 ,whether ,jesus were ,god or not is a question involving ,his divinity1 and is a problem peculiarly within the domain of the theologian4 ,whether legal rules were duly observed in the trial of ,christ1 were ,he man or ,god1 is a question involving ,his civil rights1 and belongs to the domain of the lawyer4 ,unless this distinction be recognized and held in mind1 the treatment of this theme from a legal standpoint has no justification4 ,this contention is all the more certainly true1 since proof of the divinity of ,jesus1 a spiritual problem1 would rest more upon the basis of religious consciousness and experience1 than upon historical facts and logical inferences4 ,the author of these volumes believes that ,jesus was divine1 and that if ,he was not divine1 ,divinity has not touched this globe4 ,the writer bases his conviction of this fact upon the perfect purity1 beauty1 and sinlessness of ,jesus2 upon the overwhelming historical evidence of ,his resurrection from the dead1 which event may unhesitatingly be pronounced that best established in history2#bbd as well as upon the evident impress of a divine hand upon genuine ,christian civilization in every age4 ,but the historic proofs of the divinity of ,christ that have come down to us through twenty centuries were not before the ,sanhedrin4 ,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 ,god1 when ,his own disciples evidently failed to recognize them4 ,the incidents of the ,last ,supper clearly prove that those who had been intimately associated with ,him during three eventful years did not1 at the close of ,his ministry1 fully comprehend ,his character and appreciate ,his message and ,his mission4#bbe ,were comparative strangers to ,him and ,his teachings expected to be more keenly discerning8 ,after ,john had baptized ,jesus in the ,jordan and the ,spirit of ,god1 in the form of a dove1 had descended upon ,him1 the ,baptist seems to have had some doubts of the ,messiahship of ,christ and sent an embassy to ,him to ask1 ,art thou he that should come1 or do we look for another8#bbf ,if the ,forerunner of the ,messiah did not know1 are we justified in demanding perfect prescience and absolute infallibility of ,caiaphas8 ,the most perfect proof of the divinity of ,jesus is the fact of ,his resurrection from the dead1 attested by ,matthew1 ,mark1 ,luke1 ,john1 ,peter1 ,james1 and ,paul4 ,and yet1 although ,he had frequently foretold to them that ,he would rise again1 ,jesus had to personally appear before them and submit to physical tests before they would believe that ,his prophecies had been fulfilled4#bbg ,and it must be remembered that the great proof of ,his divinity1 ,his resurrection from the dead1 was not before ,caiaphas and his colleagues at the time of the trial4 ,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 ,jesus4 ,under ,point ,,xi of the ,brief we shall prove by ,jewish testimony alone the utterly wicked and worthless character of these judges4 ,under ,point ,,xii we shall elaborate the proofs in favor of the ,messiahship of ,jesus and of ,his divine ,sonship of the ,father1 as far as the scope of this work will permit4 ,we have suggested above the perplexity of the members of the ,sanhedrin and of the disciples of ,jesus1 concerning the divinity of the ,nazarene1 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 ,god1 and thereby fix upon ,his judges in the palace of ,caiaphas the odium of an unrighteous judgment4 ,the question1 after all1 is one to be settled in the forum of conscience1 illuminated by the light of history1 and not at the bar of legal justice4 ,but whether ,jesus were man or ,god1 or man-,god1 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 claims4 ,and at this point we return to a consideration of the phrase1 substantially right in point of law4 ,this language is not intended to convey the notion that ,jesus was legally convicted4 ,it means simply that the claim of equality with ,god by a plain ,jewish citizen was1 under ,hebrew law1 blasphemy2 the crime which ,caiaphas and the ,sanhedrin believed that ,jesus had confessed1 and for which they condemned ,him4 ,another distinction that must be made is that relating to the kind of law that is meant1 when it is said that the conviction of ,jesus was substantially right in point of law4 ,ancient ,hebrew law is meant1 and as that law was interpreted from the standpoint of ancient ,judaism4 ,the policy and precepts of the ,new ,dispensation inaugurated by ,jesus can hardly be considered1 in a legal sense1 to have been binding upon ,caiaphas and the ,sanhedrin1 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 prophecy4 ,the ,pentateuch1 the ,prophets1 and the ,talmud were the legal guides1 then1 of the judges of ,israel in judicial proceedings at this time1 and furnished rules for determining the genuineness of ,his pretensions4 ,mr4 ,greenleaf1 the author of the phrase1 substantially right in point of law1 asserts that the trial was not legal in all its forms1 but he fails to enumerate the errors4 ,the purpose of the ,brief in this work is to name and discuss the errors and irregularities of the ,hebrew trial1 that is1 the trial before the ,sanhedrin4 ,but the question may be asked3 ,why be guilty of the inconsistency of discussing illegalities1 when admission has already been made that the decision was substantially right in point of law8 ,the answer is that a distinction must be made between that which is popularly and historically known or believed to be true1 and that which has not been or cannot be proved in a court of law4 ,every lawyer is familiar with this distinction4 ,the court may know that the accused is guilty1 the jury may know it1 the attorneys may be perfectly sure of it1 but if the verdict of guilt returned by the jury into court is not based upon testimony that came from the witness stand from witnesses who were under oath1 and that had submitted to cross-examination1 such verdict would hardly be sustained on appeal4 ,in other words1 the lives and liberties of alleged criminals must not be endangered by extra-judicial and incompetent testimony4 ,a legal verdict can be rendered only when a regular trial has been had before a competent court1 having jurisdiction of the crime charged1 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 prisoner4 ,however heinous the offense committed1 no man is1 legally speaking1 a criminal1 until he has been legally tried and declared a criminal4 ,the presumption of innocence1 a substantial legal right1 is thrown around him from the very beginning1 and continues in his favor until it is overthrown by competent and satisfactory evidence4 ,unless such evidence is furnished1 under legal forms1 no man1 however morally guilty1 can be denominated a criminal1 in a juristic sense1 in the face of the perpetual continuance of this presumption of innocence4 ,if these rules and principles be applied to the trial of ,jesus1 either before the ,sanhedrin or before ,pilate1 it can be easily demonstrated that while ,he might have been abstractly and historically guilty of the crime of blasphemy1 in the wider acceptation of that term1 ,he was not remotely a criminal1 because ,he was never legally tried and convicted4 ,in other words1 his condemnation was not based upon a legal procedure that was in harmony with either the ,mosaic ,code or the ,mishna4 ,the pages of human history present no stronger case of judicial murder than the trial and crucifixion of ,jesus of ,nazareth1 for the simple reason that all forms of law were outraged and trampled under foot in the proceedings instituted against ,him4 ,the errors were so numerous and the proceedings so flagrant that many have doubted the existence of a trial4 ,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 place4 ,as ,renan would say1 this is a species of nave impudence1 to assert that a trial was not had1 because numerous errors are alleged2 as if a ,hebrew court could not either intentionally or unintentionally commit blunders and many of them4 ,every lawyer of extensive practice anywhere knows from experience that judges of great ability and exalted character conduct lengthy trials1 in both civil and criminal cases1 with the most painstaking care1 and are aided by eminent counsel and good and honest jurors2 the whole purpose of the proceedings being to reach a just and righteous verdict2 and yet1 on appeal1 it is frequently held that not one but many errors have been committed4 ,at this point1 a few preliminary observations are necessary as a means of introduction to the discussion of errors4 ,certain elementary principles should be clearly understood at the outset4 ,in the first place1 an analysis of the word case1 used in a juristic sense1 shows the existence of two cardinal judicial elements3 the element called ,fact1 and the element called ,law4 ,and whether the advocate is preparing a pleading at his desk1 is making a speech to the jury1 or addressing himself to the court1 these elements are ever present in his mind4 ,he is continually asking these questions3 ,what are the facts of this case8 ,what is the law applicable to these facts8 ,do the facts and law meet1 harmonize1 blend1 according to the latest decision of the court of last resort8 ,if so1 a case is made2 otherwise1 not4 ,it is impossible to frame any legal argument upon any other basis than that of the agreement or nonagreement of law and fact1 in a juristic sense2 and upon this plan errors will be discussed and the ,brief will be framed4 ,in the second place1 it must not be forgotten that1 in matters of review on appeal1 errors will not be presumed2 that is1 errors will not be considered that do not appeal affirmatively upon the record4 ,the law will rather presume and the court will assume that what should have been done1 has been done4 ,in conformity with this principle1 only such errors will be discussed in these pages that affirmatively appear in the ,new ,testament ,gospels which form the record in this case4 ,by affirmatively appear is meant that the error is clearly apparent or may be reasonably inferred4 ,in ,part ,,ii of the preceding pages of this volume1 ,hebrew criminal law1 which was actively in force at the time of ,christ1 was outlined and discussed4 ,in ,part ,i the ,record of ,fact was reviewed in the light of judicial rules4 ,it is the present purpose1 in ,part ,,iii1 to enumerate1 in the form of a ,brief1 the errors committed by the ,hebrew judges of ,jesus1 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 stake4 ,the plan proposed is to announce successive errors in brief statements which will be designated ,points1 in imitation of the ,new ,york method on appeal4 ,following the statement of error will be given a short synopsis of the law applicable to the point suggested4 ,then1 finally1 will follow the fact and argument necessary to elaboration and proof4 ,accordingly1 in pursuance of this method1 let us consider the points in order4 ,,point ,i ,,the ,,arrest ,,of ,,jesus ,,was ,,illegal ,,law ,now the ,jewish law prohibited all proceedings by night4--,,dupin1 ,jesus ,devant ,caphe et ,pilate4 ,the testimony of an accomplice is not permissible by ,rabbinic law both propter affectum and propter delictum1 and no man's life1 nor his liberty1 nor his reputation can be endangered by the malice of one who has confessed himself a criminal4--,,mendelsohn1 ,criminal ,jurisprudence of the ,ancient ,hebrews1 n4 #bgd4 ,thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people3 neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbor4 ,thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart3 ,thou shalt not avenge or bear any grudge against the children of thy people1 but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself4--,,leviticus xix4 #ag1 #ah4 ,,fact ,,and ,,argument ,the ,bible record discloses three distinct elements of illegality in the arrest of ,jesus3 7#a7 ,the arrest took place at night in violation of ,hebrew law2 7#b7 it was effected through the agency of a traitor and informer1 in violation of a provision in the ,mosaic ,code and of a ,rabbinic rule based thereon2 7#c7 it was not the result of a legal mandate from a court whose intentions were to conduct a legal trial for the purpose of reaching a righteous judgment4 ,these elements of illegality will be apparent when the facts of the arrest are briefly stated4 ,it was the #adth ,nisan1 according to the ,jewish calendar2 or ,april #fth1 ,a4,d4 #cj1 according to our calendar4 ,the ,paschal ,feast was at hand4 ,the eyes of all ,israel were centered upon the ,metropolis of ,judaism4 ,from ,judea1 from ,samaria1 from ,galilee and ,perea1 from all parts of the world where ,jews were resident1 pilgrims came streaming into the ,holy ,city to be present at the great national festival4 ,it was to be an occasion of prayer and thanksgiving1 of sweet memories and happy reunions4 ,then and there offerings would be made and purifications obtained4 ,in the great ,temple1 with its gorgeous ritual1 ,judaism was to offer its soul to ,jehovah4 ,the national and religious feelings of a divinely commissioned race were to be deeply stirred by memories that reminded them of the first1 and by hopes that looked forward to the final great deliverance4 ,it was probably in the home of ,mark1 on the outskirts of ,jerusalem1 that ,jesus gathered with the ,twelve1 on the evening of this day1 to eat the ,paschal lamb4 ,in the ,upper ,room1 the sacred feast was spread and the little band were gathered4 ,only the genius of a da ,vinci could do justice to that scene4 ,there was ,peter1 hot-headed1 impetuous1 bravado-like4 ,there was ,john1 as gentle1 pure-minded1 and loving as a woman4 ,there was ,judas1 mercenary1 low-browed1 and craven-hearted4 ,there were others who1 with ,peter and ,john1 were to have temples dedicated in their names4 ,in their midst was the ,master of them all1 ,god manifest in the flesh1 who with ,his pierced hands was to lift empires off their hinges1 and turn the stream of centuries from its channel4 ,no moment of history was so fraught with tragic interest for the human race4 ,there the seal of the ,new ,covenant was affixed1 the bond of the new human spiritual alliance was made4 ,the great law of love was proclaimed which was to regenerate and sanctify the world4 ,these things ,i command you1 that ye love one another4 ,and ,i have declared unto them thy name1 and will declare it2 that the love wherewith thou hast loved me1 may be in them1 and ,i in them4 ,thus the great law of love was to be the binding tie1 not only among the little brotherhood there assembled but was to be the cementing bond between the regenerate of earth1 the ,mediator1 and the great ,father of love1 ,himself4 ,there1 too1 was given the great example of humility which was to characterize true ,christian piety throughout the ages4 ,the pages of history record no other spectacle so thrilling and sublime1 and at the same time tender and pathetic1 as that afforded by the ,paschal ,meal1 when ,jesus1 the ,savior of men1 the ,son of ,god1 the ,maker of all the shining worlds1 sank upon ,his knees to wash the feet of ignorant1 simple-minded ,galilean fishermen1 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 religion4 ,during the evening1 a bitter anxiety1 an awful melancholy1 seized the devoted band1 whose number1 thirteen1 even to-day inspires superstitious dread4 ,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 said3 ,verily1 verily1 ,i say unto you that one of you shall betray me4 ,this prediction only intensified the sadness that had already begun to fall over the ,sacred ,meal and the loving disciples began to ask3 ,lord1 is it ,i8 ,even the betrayer himself joined with the others1 and1 with inconceivable heartlessness and effrontery1 asked3 ,lord1 is it ,i8 ,at the moment of greatest dread and consternation1 ,peter1 bolder than the rest1 leaned across the table and whispered to ,john1 who was resting upon the bosom of ,jesus1 and suggested that he ask the ,master who it was4 ,accordingly1 ,john whispered and asked the ,savior3 ,lord1 who is it8 ,jesus answered1 ,he it is1 to whom ,i shall give a sop1 when ,i have dipped it4 ,and when he had dipped the sop1 he gave it to ,judas ,iscariot1 the son of ,simon4 ,and after the sop ,satan entered into him4 ,then said ,jesus unto him1 ,that thou doest1 do quickly4 ,judas then arose from the feast and vanished from the room4 ,when he was gone1 the ,master began to deliver to ,his little children1#bbh to those who had loved and followed ,him1 those farewell words which ,st4 ,john alone records1 and that are so rarely mixed of sadness and joys1 and studded with mysteries as with emeralds4 ,there1 too1 doubts and fears began to burst from the hearts and lips of the members of the little company4 ,the knowledge that the gentle ,jesus1 whose ministry had thrilled and glorified their simple peasant lives1 and promised to them crowns of glory in the world to come1 was about to leave them1 and in a most tragic way1 filled them with solicitude and dread4 ,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 incredulous4 ,they said1 therefore1 ,what is this that he saith1 ,a little while8 ,we cannot tell what he saith4 ,this verse is a simple illustration of the continued misapprehension1 on this night1 upon the part of the ,apostles1 of everything said by the ,master4 ,peter was anxious to know why he could not follow the ,lord4 ,thomas wanted to know the exact way1 evidently failing to comprehend the figurative language of the ,christ4 ,judas ,lebbus also had his doubts4 ,he became muddled by mixing the purely spiritual with the physical powers of sight4 ,lord1 how is it1 he asked1 that thou wilt manifest thyself to us and not to the world8 ,philip of ,bethsaida desired to see the ,father4 ,lord1 show us the ,father1 he said1 and it sufficeth us4 ,philip seems to have been so dense that he had no appreciation of the spiritual attributes and invisible existence of the ,father4 ,it was thus that several hours were spent in celebrating the great ,feast2 in drinking wine2 in eating the ,paschal lamb1 the unleavened bread1 and the bitter herbs2 in singing hymns1 offering prayers1 and performing the sacred rites2 in delivering discourses which in every age have been the most precious treasures of ,christians1 and in expressing doubts and fears that have excited the astonishment and even the ridicule of the exacting and supercilious of all the centuries4 ,at the approach of midnight1 ,jesus and the ,eleven left the ,upper ,chamber of the little house and stepped out into the moonlight of a solemn ,passover night4 ,they began to wend their way toward the ,kedron that separated them from the olive orchard on the ,mount4 ,less than an hour's journey brought them to the ,garden of ,gethsemane4 ,the word ,gethsemane means oil press4 ,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 slopes4 ,whether it was a public garden or belonged to some friend of ,jesus1 we do not know1 but certain it is that it was a holy place1 a sanctuary of prayer1 where the ,man of ,sorrows frequently retired to pray and commune with ,his ,heavenly ,father4 ,at the gateway ,jesus left eight of the ,apostles and took with ,him the other three3 ,peter1 ,james1 and ,john4 ,these men seem to have been the best beloved of the ,master4 ,they were with ,him at the raising of ,jairus' daughter1 at the ,transfiguration on the ,mount1 and were now selected to be nearest ,him in the hour of ,his agony4 ,proceeding with them a short distance1 ,he suddenly stopped and exclaimed3 ,my soul is exceedingly sorrowful1 even unto death3 tarry ye here1 and watch with me4 ,then1 withdrawing ,himself from them a stone's cast1 ,he sank upon ,his knees and prayed2 and in the agony of prayer great drops of sweat resembling blood rolled from ,his face and fell upon the ground4 ,rising from prayer1 ,he returned to ,his disciples to find them asleep4 ,sorrow had overcame them and they were mercifully spared the tortures of the place and hour4 ,three times did ,he go away to pray1 and as many times1 upon ,his return1 they were found asleep4 ,the last time ,he came ,he said to them3 ,rise1 let us be going2 behold he is at hand that doth betray me4 ,at this moment were heard the noise and tramp of an advancing multitude4 ,judas then1 having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and ,pharisees1 cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons4 ,this midnight mob1 led by ,judas1 was made up of ,roman soldiers1 the ,temple guard1 and stragglers from along the way4 ,it is probable that the traitor walked ahead of the mob by several paces4 ,and forthwith he came to ,jesus1 and said1 ,hail1 master1 and kissed him and ,jesus said unto him1 ,friend1 wherefore art thou come8 ,then came they and laid hands on ,jesus and took him4 ,but the arrest was not accomplished without incidents of pathos and of passion4 ,whom seek ye8 asked the ,master4 ,jesus of ,nazareth1 they answered4 ,i am he1 replied the ,savior4 ,then1 dazed and bewildered1 they fell backward upon the ground4 ,then asked he them again1 whom seek ye8 and they said1 ,jesus of ,nazareth4 ,jesus answered1 ,i have told you that ,i am he3 if1 therefore1 ye seek me1 let these go their way4 ,john says that this intercession for the disciples was to the end that prophecy might be fulfilled4#bbi ,doubtless so2 but this was not all4 ,nowhere in sacred literature do we find such pointed testimony to the courage and manliness of ,jesus4 ,his tender solicitude for the members of the little band1 for those who had quit their homes and callings to link their destinies with ,his1 was here superbly illustrated4 ,he knew that ,he was going to immediate condemnation and then to death1 but ,he ardently desired that they should be spared to live4 ,and for them ,he threw ,himself into the breach4 ,the furious and the passionate1 as well as the tender and pathetic1 mark the arrest in the garden4 ,then ,simon ,peter having a sword drew it1 and smote the high priest's servant1 and cut off his right ear4 ,the servant's name was ,malchus4 ,this was bloody proof of that fidelity which ,peter loudly proclaimed at the banquet board1 but which was soon to be swallowed up in craven flight and pusillanimous denial4 ,then the band and the captain and officers of the ,jews took ,jesus1 and bound him4 ,at this point the arrest was complete1 and we now return to the discussion of the illegalities connected with it4 ,it was a well-established and inflexible rule of ,hebrew law that proceedings in capital trials could not be had at night4 ,this provision did not apply simply to the proceedings of the trial after the prisoner had been arraigned and the examination had been begun4 ,we have it upon the authority of ,dupin that it applied to the entire proceedings1 from the arrest to the execution4 ,the great ,french advocate explicitly states that the arrest was illegal because it was made at night4#bcj ,deference to this rule seems to have been shown in the arrest of ,peter and ,john on another occasion4 ,and they laid hands upon them and put them in hold unto the next day3 for it was now eventide4#bca ,that ,jesus was arrested at night is clearly evident from the fact that those who captured ,him bore lanterns and torches and weapons4 ,the employment of ,judas by the ,sanhedrin authorities constitutes the second element of illegality in the arrest4 ,this wretched creature had been numbered among the ,twelve1 had been blessed and honored1 not merely with discipleship but with apostleship1 had himself been sent on holy missions by the ,master1 had been given the power to cast out devils1 had been appointed by his ,lord the keeper of the moneys of the ,apostolic company1 and1 if ,edersheim is to be believed1 had occupied the seat of honor by the ,master at the ,last ,supper4#bcb ,this craven and cowardly ,apostate was employed by the ,sanhedrin ,council to betray the ,christ4 ,it is clearly evident from the ,scriptures that the arrest of ,jesus would not have taken place on the occasion of the ,passover1 and therefore probably not at all1 if ,judas had not deserted and betrayed ,him4 ,the ,savior had appeared and preached daily in the ,temple1 and every opportunity was offered to effect a legal arrest on legal charges with a view to a legal determination4 ,but the enemies of ,jesus did not want this4 ,they were waiting to effect ,his capture in some out-of-the-way place1 at the dead of night1 when ,his friends could not defend ,him and their murderous proceedings would not reach the eye and ear of the public4 ,this could not be accomplished as long as ,his intimates were faithful to ,him4 ,it was1 then1 a joyful surprise to the members of the ,sanhedrin when they learned that ,judas was willing to betray his ,master4 ,and when they heard it1 they were glad1 and promised to give him money4 ,in modern jurisdictions1 accomplice testimony has been and is allowed4 ,the judicial authorities1 however1 have always regarded it with distrust1 and we might say with deep-seated suspicion4 ,at the common law in ,england a conviction for crime might rest upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice1 after the jury had been warned that such testimony was to be closely scrutinized4 ,in the ,american ,states the testimony of an accomplice is admissible1 but must be corroborated in order to sustain a conviction4 ,this is the general rule4 ,the weakness of such evidence is shown by the nature of the corroboration required by several states4 ,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 commission4 ,another evidence of the untrustworthiness of such testimony is that in several states an accomplice is not permitted to corroborate another accomplice1 so as to satisfy the statutes4#bcc ,the admission of such testimony seems to rest1 in great measure1 upon the supreme necessity of the preservation of the state1 which is only possible when the punishment of crime is possible2 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 evidence4 ,but notwithstanding this supreme consideration of the necessity of the preservation of the state1 the ancient ,hebrews forbade the use of accomplice testimony1 as we have seen from the extract from ,the ,criminal ,jurisprudence of the ,ancient ,hebrews1 by ,mendelsohn1 cited on page #bai4 ,the arrest of ,jesus was ordered upon the supposition that ,he was a criminal2 this same supposition would have made ,judas1 who had aided1 encouraged1 and abetted ,jesus in the propagation of ,his faith1 an accomplice4 ,if ,judas was not an accomplice1 ,jesus was innocent1 and ,his arrest was an outrage1 and therefore illegal4 ,the ,hebrew law against accomplice testimony must have been derived1 in part at least1 from the following rule laid down in ,leviticus xix4 #af-ah3 ,thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people3 neither shall thou stand against the blood of thy neighbor4 ,thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart3 ,thou shalt not avenge1 or bear any grudge against the children of thy people1 but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself4 ,it may be objected that this is only a moral injunction and not a legal rule2 to which reply must be made that there was no difference between morality and law among the ancient ,hebrews4 ,their religion was founded upon law1 and their law upon religion4 ,the two ideas of morality and law were inseparable4 ,the ancient ,hebrew religion was founded upon a contract of the strictest legal kind4 ,the ,abrahamic covenant1 when properly interpreted1 meant simply that ,jehovah had agreed with the children of ,israel that if they would obey the law as ,he gave it1 they would be rewarded by ,him4 ,the force of this contention will be readily perceived when it is reflected that the ,decalogue is nothing but ten moral injunctions1 which are nevertheless said to be the law which ,god gave to ,moses4 ,every provision in the rule laid down in ,leviticus is1 moreover1 directly applicable to the character and conduct of ,judas1 and seems to have been intended as a prophetic warning to him4 ,let us consider the different elements of this rule in order4 ,thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people4 ,was not ,judas a talebearer among his people8 ,did he not go to the chief priests to betray his ,master unto them8 ,was he not a talebearer if he did nothing more than communicate to the chief priests the whereabouts of the ,savior1 that ,gethsemane was ,his accustomed place of prayer and that ,he might be found and arrested there at midnight8 ,are we not justified in supposing that ,judas told the enemies of ,jesus much more than this8 ,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 ,nazarene8 ,is it not probable that ,judas detailed to the chief priests many events in the ministry of ,jesus which1 it is known1 ,he communicated only to the ,twelve8 ,if he did these things1 was he not a talebearer within the meaning of the rule8 ,neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbor4 ,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 death8 ,thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart4 ,is it possible to suppose that anything less than hatred could have induced ,judas to betray the ,christ8 ,this question is important1 for it involves a consideration of the real character of the betrayer and the main motive for the betrayal4 ,judas was from ,kerioth in ,judea and was the only ,judean among the ,twelve4 ,why ,judas was selected as a member of the ,apostolic company is too deep a mystery to be solved by the author of these pages4 ,besides1 the consideration of the elements of predestination in his case is foreign to the purpose of this work4 ,his character as a purely human agency is sufficient to answer the present design4 ,judas had undoubtedly demonstrated business capacity in some way before his appointment to the treasury portfolio of the little band4 ,it cannot be doubted that greed was his besetting sin4 ,this trait1 coupled with political ambition1 undoubtedly accounts for his downfall and destruction4 ,he was one of those simple-minded1 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 kingdom4 ,he believed that this result would be brought about through the agency of a temporal ,messiah1 an earthly deliverer of almost divine qualities4 ,he thought at first that he saw in ,jesus the person of the ,messiah1 and in the ,apostolic band the nucleus of a revolution4 ,he was gratified beyond measure at his appointment to the treasury position1 for he felt sure that from it promotion was in sight4 ,he was perfectly contented to carry for a while the little bag1 provided there was reasonable assurance that later on he would be permitted to carry a larger one4 ,as the months and years rolled by1 heavy scales began to fall from his stupid eyes and he began to be deceived not by but in ,jesus4 ,we are justified in believing that ,judas never even remotely appreciated the spiritual grandeur of the ,christ4 ,he probably had intellect and soul enough to be charmed and fascinated by the lofty bearing and eloquent discourse of ,jesus1 but after all he perceived only the necessary qualifications of a great republican leader and successful revolutionist4 ,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 results4 ,it is probable that disaffection and treachery were born and began to grow in his mind and heart at ,capernaum1 when ,jesus was deserted by many of ,his followers and was forced to effect a realignment along spiritual lines4 ,judas was not equal to the spiritual test1 and it was doubtless then that the disintegration of his moral nature began1 which stopped only with betrayal1 infamy1 and death4 ,but by what process1 we may ask1 was the mercenary disposition of ,judas converted into hatred against ,jesus8 ,the process was that of disappointment4 ,when ,judas became convinced that all the years of his connection with the ,apostolic company had been lost1 his will became embittered and his resentment was aroused4 ,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 duped4 ,he had looked forward to worldly promotion and success4 ,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 revolt1 drive the ,romans from ,judea1 and establish the long-looked-for kingdom of the ,jews4 ,he had noted with deep disappointment and unutterable chagrin the failure of ,jesus to proclaim ,himself king when1 at ,bethphage1 the multitude had greeted ,his entrance into ,jerusalem with ,hosannas and acclamations4 ,and now1 at the ,last ,supper1 he became convinced from the conduct and discourses of the ,master that his worst fears were true1 that ,jesus was sincere in ,his resolution to offer ,himself as a sacrifice for the sake of a principle which he1 ,judas1 did not approve because he could not understand4 ,in other words1 he witnessed in the resolve of ,jesus to die at once the shipwreck of his hopes1 and he made haste to vent his wrath upon the author of his disappointment4 ,the writer agrees with ,renan that the thirty pieces of silver were not the real or leading inducement to this black and monumental betrayal4 ,having taken the fatal step1 by leaving the ,upper ,room in the home of ,mark1 to deliver his ,lord and ,master into the hands of enemies1 a bitter hatred was formed at once against the innocent victim of his foul designs1 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 ourselves4 ,thou shalt not avenge or bear any grudge against the children of thy people4 ,where1 in the annals of the universe1 do we find another such case of vengeance and grudge as this of ,judas against ,jesus8 ,but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself4 ,this commandment of the ,mosaic law was also the great commandment of the ,master of ,galilee1 and in violating it by consenting to betray and sacrifice ,jesus1 ,judas assaulted and destroyed in his own soul the cardinal principle of the two great religious dispensations of his race4 ,and yet this informer1 conspirator1 and malefactor was employed by the chief priests in effecting the arrest of ,jesus4 ,was not a fundamental rule of ,mosaic law violated8 ,will it be urged that the rule operated against ,judas but not against the chief priests8 ,if so1 it must be remembered that no wicked instrument could be used in promoting ,hebrew justice4 ,officers of the law were not permitted to require a citizen to do an act which was forbidden by law4 ,if ,jesus was innocent1 then the arrest was illegal4 ,if ,he was guilty1 then ,judas1 his ,apostle and fellow-worker1 was an accomplice2 and no accomplice could be utilized in furtherance of justice1 under ,hebrew law1 either in the matter of arrest or in the establishment of guilt as a witness at the trial4 ,according to the ,talmud1 there was at least one seeming exception to this rule4 ,renan describes it with peculiar clearness and succinctness4 ,the procedure1 he says1 against the 'corrupter' 7mesith71 who sought to attaint the purity of religion1 is explained in the ,talmud1 with details1 the nave impudence of which provokes a smile4 ,a judicial ambush is therein erected into an essential part of the examination of criminals4 ,when a man was accused of being a 'corrupter1' two witnesses were suborned who were concealed behind a partition4 ,it was arranged to bring the accused into a contiguous room1 where he could be heard by these two witnesses without his perceiving them4 ,two candles were lighted near him1 in order that it might be satisfactorily proved that the witnesses 'saw him4' 7,in criminal matters1 eyewitnesses alone were admitted4 ,mishna1 ,sanhedrin ,,vi1 #e47 ,he was then made to repeat his blasphemy2 next urged to retract it4 ,if he persisted1 the witnesses who had heard him conducted him to the ,tribunal and he was stoned to death4 ,the ,talmud adds that this was the manner in which they treated ,jesus2 that he was condemned on the faith of two witnesses who had been suborned1 and that the crime of 'corruption' is1 moreover1 the only one for which the witnesses are thus prepared4#bcd ,most ,gentile writers ridicule this statement of the ,talmud1 and maintain that it was a ,rabbinic invention of post-,apostolic days1 and was intended to offer an excuse for the outrageous proceedings against the ,christ4 ,schrer dismisses the whole proposition with contempt4 ,many ,jewish scholars also refuse it the sanction of their authority4 ,but even if it was a ,talmudic rule of law in force at the time of ,christ1 its constitutionality1 so to speak1 might be questioned1 in the first place2 since it was1 in spirit at least1 repugnant to and subversive of the ,mosaic provision in ,leviticus cited above4 ,it must not be forgotten that the ,mosaic ,code was the constitution1 the fundamental law of ,judaism1 by which every ,rabbinic interpretation and every legal innovation was to be tested4 ,again1 such a law would have been no protection to the chief priests and to ,judas against the operation of this ,mosaic injunction4 ,if such a rule of procedure could be justified upon any ground1 it would require disinterested men acting from honorable motives1 in promoting the maintenance of law and order4 ,officers of the law have sometimes1 as pretended accomplices1 acted in concert with criminals in order to secure and furnish evidence against them4 ,but they were officers of the law1 and the courts have held that their evidence was not accomplice testimony requiring corroboration4 ,it is very clear that ,judas was not such a disinterested witness1 acting in the interest of public justice4 ,he was a fugitive from the ,last ,supper of his ,master1 a talebearer within the meaning of the provision in ,leviticus2 and his employment by the ,sanhedrin was a violation of a fundamental provision in the ,mosaic ,code4 ,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 judgment4 ,this arrest1 says ,rosadi1 effected in the night between ,thursday and ,friday1 the last day of the life of ,jesus1 on ,nisan #ad1 according to the ,hebrew calendar1 was the execution of an illegal and factious resolution of the ,sanhedrin4 ,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 unfounded2 the intention was simply to seize a man and do away with him4 ,the arrest was not a preventive measure such as might lawfully precede trial and condemnation2 it was an executive act1 accomplished in view of a sentence to be pronounced without legal justification4 ,,point ,,ii ,,the ,,private ,,examination ,,of ,,jesus ,,before ,,annas 7,,or ,,caiaphas7 ,,was ,,illegal ,,law ,now the ,jewish law prohibited all proceedings by night4--,,dupin1 ,jesus ,devant ,caphe et ,pilate4 ,be not a sole judge1 for there is no sole judge but ,one4--,,mishna1 ,pirke ,aboth ,,iv4 #h4 ,a principle perpetually reproduced in the ,hebrew scriptures relates to the two conditions of publicity and liberty4 ,an accused man was never subjected to private or secret examination1 lest1 in his perplexity1 he furnish damaging testimony against himself4--,,salvador1 ,institutions de ,mose1 pp4 #cfe1 #cff4 ,,fact ,,and ,,argument ,the private examination before ,annas 7or ,caiaphas7 was illegal for the following reasons3 7#a7 ,the examination was conducted at night in violation of ,hebrew law2 7#b7 no judge or magistrate1 sitting alone1 could interrogate an accused judicially or sit in judgment upon his legal rights2 7#c7 private preliminary examinations of accused persons were not allowed by ,hebrew law4 ,the general order of events following the arrest in the garden was this3 7#a7 ,jesus was first taken to the house of ,annas2 7#b7 after a brief delay ,he was sent by ,annas to ,caiaphas1 the high priest1 in whose palace the ,sanhedrin1 or a part thereof1 had already assembled2 7#c7 ,he was then brought before this body1 tried and condemned2 7#d7 ,he remained1 during the rest of the night1 in the high priest's palace1 exposed to the insults and outrages of ,his keepers2 and was finally and formally sentenced to death by the ,sanhedrin which reconvened at the break of day4 ,that ,jesus was privately examined before ,his regular trial by the ,sanhedrin is quite clear4 ,but whether this preliminary examination took place before ,annas or ,caiaphas is not certainly known4 ,john alone records the private interrogation of ,jesus and he alone refers to ,annas in a way to connect him with it4 ,this ,evangelist mentions that they led him away to ,annas first4#bce ,matthew says that after the arrest of ,jesus1 they led him away to ,caiaphas the high priest1#bcf without mentioning the name of ,annas4 ,mark tells us that they led ,jesus away to the high priest2#bcg but he does not mention either ,annas or ,caiaphas4 ,luke records that they took him1 and led him1 and brought him into the high priest's house1#bch without telling us the name of the high priest4 ,the high priest then asked ,jesus of his disciples and of his doctrine4#bci ,this was the beginning of the examination4 ,but who was the examiner--,annas or ,caiaphas8 ,at first view we are inclined to declare that ,caiaphas is meant1 because he was undoubtedly high priest in that year4 ,but ,annas is also designated as high priest by ,luke in several places4#bdj ,in ,acts iv4 #f he mentions ,caiaphas without an official title1 but calls ,annas high priest4 ,it is therefore not known to whom ,john refers when he says that the high priest asked ,jesus of his disciples and of his doctrine4 ,for a lengthy discussion of this point1 the reader is referred to ,andrews's ,life of ,our ,lord1 pp4 #eje-eaj4 ,but it is absolutely immaterial1 from a legal point of view1 whether it was ,annas or ,caiaphas who examined ,jesus1 as the proceedings would be illegal in either case4 ,for whether it was the one or the other1 neither had the right to sit alone as judge2 neither had the right to conduct any judicial proceeding at night2 neither had the right to institute a secret preliminary examination by day or night4 ,attention has been called to the matter as involving a question of historical rather than of legal consequence4 ,a knowledge of the true facts of the case might1 however1 throw light upon the order and connection of the proceedings which followed the same night4 ,for if the private examination recorded by ,john was had before ,annas1 it was doubtless separated by a certain interval of place and time from the later proceedings before ,caiaphas4 ,then it is reasonable to suppose that the examination of witnesses1 the confession and condemnation which took place at the regular trial before the ,sanhedrin over which ,caiaphas presided1 happened later in the night1 or even toward morning1 and were of the nature of a regular public trial4 ,if1 on the other hand1 ,annas sent ,jesus without delay to ,caiaphas1 who examined ,him1 it is reasonable to conclude that witnesses were at once produced1 and that the adjuration and condemnation immediately followed4 ,if such were the case1 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 session4 ,but these considerations are really foreign to the question of legal errors involved1 which we come now to discuss4 ,illustration3 ,,jesus ,,in ,,gethsemane 7,,hoffman7 ,in the first place1 the private examination of ,jesus1 whether by ,annas or ,caiaphas1 took place at night2 and we have learned from ,dupin that all proceedings at night in capital cases were forbidden4 ,in the second place1 no judge or magistrate1 sitting alone1 could interrogate an accused person judicially or sit in judgment upon his legal rights4 ,we have seen in ,part ,,ii of this volume that the ,hebrew system of courts and judges provided no single magistrates who1 sitting alone1 could adjudicate causes4 ,the lowest ,hebrew court consisted of three judges1 sometimes called the ,court of ,three4 ,the next highest tribunal was the ,minor ,sanhedrin of three-and-twenty members4 ,the supreme tribunal of the ,jews was the ,great ,sanhedrin of seventy-one members4 ,there was no such thing among the ancient ,hebrews as a court with a single judge4 ,be not a sole judge1 for there is no sole judge but ,one1 is one of the most famous aphorisms of the ,pirke ,aboth4 ,the reason of this rule is founded not only in a religious exaction born of the jealousy of ,jehovah1 but in the principle of publicity which provides for the accused1 in the very number of judges1 a public hearing4 ,the same principle is suggested by the number of witnesses required by both the ,mishna and ,mosaic ,code for the conviction of a prisoner4 ,at least two or three witnesses were required to appear publicly and give testimony against the accused1 else a conviction could not follow4 ,again1 preliminary examinations of accused persons were not allowed by ,hebrew law4 ,in the ,american states and in some other countries1 a man suspected of crime and against whom an information or complaint has been lodged1 is frequently taken before an examining magistrate to determine whether he should be discharged1 admitted to bail1 or sent to prison to await the action of a ,grand ,jury4 ,at such hearing1 the prisoner is usually notified that he is at liberty to make a statement regarding the charge against him2 that he need not do so unless he desires2 but that if he does1 his testimony may be subsequently used against him at the regular trial of the case4 ,but such proceedings1 according to ,salvador1 were forbidden by ancient ,hebrew law4 ,the preliminary examination1 therefore1 by ,annas or ,caiaphas was illegal4 ,the reason of the rule1 as above stated1 was to protect the prisoner against furnishing evidence that might be used against him at the regular trial of his case4 ,the private examination of ,jesus illustrates the justice of the rule and the necessity of its existence1 for it was undoubtedly the purpose of ,annas or ,caiaphas to gather material in advance to lay before the regularly assembled ,sanhedrin and thereby expedite the proceedings at the expense of justice4 ,if it be contended that the leading of ,jesus to ,annas first1 which ,st4 ,john alone relates1 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 years2 and that there was no examination of ,jesus before ,annas--the interrogation by the high priest concerning the disciples and the doctrine of ,jesus being construed to refer to an examination by ,caiaphas1 and being identical with the night trial referred to by ,matthew and ,mark--reply may be made that1 under any construction of the case1 there was at least an illegal appearance before ,annas1 as mere vulgar curiosity to see a celebrated prisoner was no excuse for the violation of the spirit if not the letter of the law4 ,it is inconceivable1 however1 to suppose that ,annas did not actually interrogate ,jesus concerning ,his disciples1 ,his doctrine1 and ,his personal pretensions4 ,to suppose that he demanded to see ,jesus for no other reason than to get an impression of ,his looks1 is to insult common sense4 ,if ,annas examined the prisoner1 though only slightly1 concerning matters affecting the charges against ,him that might endanger ,his life or liberty1 he had violated a very important rule of ,hebrew criminal procedure4 ,the question of the amount of examination of the accused is immaterial4 ,it is not known whether ,annas at this time sat in the ,great ,sanhedrin as a judge4 ,he had been deposed from the high priesthood nearly twenty years before by the procurator ,valerius ,gratus1 for imposing and executing capital sentences4 ,but he was1 nevertheless1 still all-powerful in the great ,council of the ,jews4 ,edersheim says that though deprived of the ,pontificate1 he still continued to preside over the ,sanhedrin4#bda ,andrews is of the opinion that he did in fact hold some high official position1 and this probably in connection with the ,sanhedrin1 perhaps as occasional president4#bdb ,basing his criticism upon the words in ,luke1 ,annas and ,caiaphus being the high priests1#bdc ,dr4 ,plummer believes that between them they discharged the duties1 or that each of them in different senses was regarded high priest1 ,annas de jure1 and ,caiaphas de facto4#bdd ,this is a mere supposition1 however1 since there is no historical evidence that ,annas was restored to the pontificate after his deposition by ,valerius ,gratus1 ,a4,d4 #ad4bde ,the phrase1 ,annas and ,caiaphas being high priests1 refers to the fifteenth year of the reign of ,tiberius ,csar1 which was ,a4,d4 #bf4 ,after all1 it is here again an historical more than a legal question1 whether ,annas was an official or not at the time of the appearance of ,jesus before him4 ,in either case his preliminary examination of the ,christ was illegal4 ,if he was a member of the ,sanhedrin1 the law forbade him to hold an informal preliminary examination at night4 ,he certainly could not do this while sitting alone4 ,if he was not a magistrate1 as ,dupin very properly contends1 this fact only added to the seriousness of the illegality of subjecting a prisoner to the whimsical examination of a private citizen4 ,whether a member of the ,sanhedrin or not1 ,annas was at the time of ,christ and had been for many years its dominating spirit4 ,he himself had been high priest4 ,caiaphas was his son-in-law1 and was succeeded in the high priesthood by four sons of ,annas4 ,the writer does not believe that ,annas had any legal connection with the ,sanhedrin1 but1 like many ,american political bosses1 exercised more authority than the man that held the office4 ,he was simply the political tool of the ,roman masters of ,judea1 and the members of the ,sanhedrin were simply figureheads under his control4 ,again1 the private examination of ,jesus was marked by an act of brutality which ,hebrew jurisprudence did not tolerate4 ,this was not enumerated above as an error1 because it was not probably a violation of any specific rule of law4 ,but it was an outrage upon the ,hebrew sense of justice and humanity which in its normal state was very pure and lofty4 ,the high priest then asked ,jesus of his disciples and of his doctrine4 ,jesus answered him1 ,i spake openly to the world2 ,i ever taught in the ,synagogue1 and in the ,temple1 whither the ,jews always resort2 and in secret have ,i said nothing4 ,why askest thou me8 ask them which heard me1 what ,i have said unto them3 behold1 they know what ,i said4 ,in this reply ,jesus planted ,himself squarely upon ,his legal rights as a ,jewish citizen4 ,it was in every word the voice of pure ,hebrew justice1 founded upon the broad principle of their judicial procedure and recalling an unjust judge to the first duty of his great office4 ,and when he had thus spoken1 one of the officers which stood by struck ,jesus with the palm of his hand1 saying1 ,answerest thou the high priest so8 ,again the ,nazarene appealed for protection to the procedure designed to safeguard the rights of the ,hebrew prisoner4 ,jesus answered him1 ,if ,i have spoken evil1 bear witness of the evil3 but if well1 why smitest thou me8#bdf ,we have seen that1 under ,hebrew law1 the witnesses were the accusers1 and their testimony was at once the indictment and the evidence4 ,we have also seen that a ,hebrew prisoner could not be compelled to testify against himself1 and that his uncorroborated confession could not be made the basis of a conviction4 ,why askest thou me8 ask them that heard me1 what ,i have said unto them4 ,this was equivalent to asking3 ,do you demand that ,i incriminate myself when our law forbids such a thing8 ,why not call witnesses as the law requires8 ,if ,i am an evil-doer1 bear witness of the evil1 that is1 let witnesses testify to the wrongdoing1 that ,i may be legally convicted4 ,if ,i am not guilty of a crime1 why am ,i thus maltreated8 ,is it possible to imagine a more pointed and pathetic appeal for justice and for the protection of the law against illegality and brutal treatment8 ,this appeal for the production of legal testimony was not without its effect4 ,witnesses were soon forthcoming--not truthful witnesses1 indeed--but witnesses nevertheless4 ,and with the coming of these witnesses began the formal trial of the ,christ1 and a formal trial1 under ,hebrew law1 could be commenced only by witnesses4 ,,point ,,iii ,,the ,,indictment ,,against ,,jesus ,,was1 ,,in ,,form1 ,,illegal ,,law ,the entire criminal procedure of the ,mosaic ,code rests upon four rules3 certainty in the indictment2 publicity in the discussion2 full freedom granted to the accused2 and assurance against all dangers or errors of testimony4--,,salvador1 ,institutions de ,mose1 p4 #cfe4 ,the ,sanhedrin did not and could not originate charges2 it only investigated those brought before it4--,,edersheim1 ,life and ,times of ,jesus the ,messiah1 vol4 i4 p4 #cji4 ,the evidence of the leading witnesses constituted the charge4 ,there was no other charge3 no more formal indictment4 ,until they spoke1 and spoke in the public assembly1 the prisoner was scarcely an accused man4 ,when they spoke1 and the evidence of the two agreed together1 it formed the legal charge1 libel1 or indictment1 as well as the evidence for its truth4--,,innes1 ,the ,trial of ,jesus ,christ1 p4 #da4 ,the only prosecutors known to ,talmudic criminal jurisprudence are the witnesses to the crime4 ,their duty is to bring the matter to the cognizance of the court1 and to bear witness against the criminal4 ,in capital cases1 they are the legal executioners also4 ,of an official accuser or prosecutor there is nowhere any trace in the laws of the ancient ,hebrews4--,,mendelsohn1 ,the ,criminal ,jurisprudence of the ,ancient ,hebrews1 p4 #aaj4 ,,fact ,,and ,,argument ,the ,gospel records disclose two distinct elements of illegality in the indictment against ,jesus3 7#a7 ,the accusation1 at the trial1 was twofold1 vague1 and indefinite1 which ,mosaic law forbade2 7#b7 it was made1 in part1 by ,caiaphas1 the high priest1 who was one of the judges of ,jesus2 while ,hebrew law forbade any but leading witnesses to present the charge4 ,a thorough understanding of ,point ,,iii depends upon keeping clearly in mind certain well-defined elementary principles of law4 ,in the first place1 it should be remembered that in most modern jurisdictions an indictment is simply an accusation1 carries with it no presumption of guilt1 and has no evidentiary force4 ,its only function is to bring the charge against the prisoner before the court and jury1 and to notify the accused of the nature of the accusation against him4 ,but not so under the ancient ,hebrew scheme of justice4 ,under that system there was no such body as the modern ,grand ,jury1 and no committee of the ,sanhedrin exercised similar accusatory functions4 ,the leading witnesses1 and they alone1 presented charges4 ,it follows then1 of necessity1 that the ancient ,hebrew indictment1 unlike the modern indictment1 carried with it a certain presumption of guilt and had certain evidentiary force4 ,this could not be otherwise1 since the testimony of the leading witnesses was at once the indictment and the evidence offered to prove it4 ,again1 in the very nature of things an indictment should1 and under any enlightened system of jurisprudence1 does clearly advise the accused of the exact nature of the charge against him4 ,under no other conditions would it be possible for a prisoner to prepare his defense4 ,most modern codes have sought to promote clearness and certainty in indictments by requiring the charging of only one crime in one indictment1 and in language so clear and simple that the nature of the offense charged may be easily understood4 ,now ,salvador says that certainty in the indictment was one of the cardinal rules upon which rested the entire criminal procedure of the ,mosaic ,code4 ,was this rule observed in framing the accusation against ,jesus at the night trial before the ,sanhedrin8 ,if so1 the ,gospel records do not disclose the fact4 ,it is very certain1 indeed1 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 ,christ4 ,this subject was too exhaustively discussed in the beginning of the ,brief to warrant lengthy treatment here4 ,suffice it to say that the record of the night trial before ,caiaphas discloses two distinct charges3 the charge of sedition--the threat to destroy a national institution and to seduce the people from their ancient allegiance1 in the matter of the destruction of the ,temple2 and the charge of blasphemy preferred by ,caiaphas himself in the adjuration which he administered to ,jesus4 ,when the false witnesses failed to agree1 their contradictory testimony was rejected and the charge of sedition was abandoned4 ,and before ,jesus had time to answer the question concerning sedition1 another distinct charge1 that of blasphemy1 was made in almost the same breath4#bdg ,did this procedure tend to promote certainty in the indictment8 ,did it not result in the complete destruction of all clearness and certainty8 ,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 ,him8 ,again1 the accusation was1 in part1 by ,caiaphas1 the high priest1 who was also one of the judges of ,jesus2#bdh while ,hebrew law forbade any but leading witnesses to present the charge4 ,edersheim tells us that the ,sanhedrin did not and could not originate charges2 it only investigated those brought before it4 ,if the ,sanhedrin as a whole could not originate charges1 because its members were judges1 neither could any individual ,sanhedrist do so4 ,when the witnesses agreed not together in the matter of the charge of sedition1 this accusation was abandoned4 ,caiaphas then deliberately assumed the rle of accuser1 in violation of the law1 and charged ,jesus1 in the form of an adjuration1 with blasphemy1 in claiming to be the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god4 ,confession and condemnation then followed4 ,only leading witnesses could prefer criminal charges under ,hebrew law4 ,caiaphas1 being a judge1 could not possibly be a witness2 and could not1 therefore1 be an accuser4 ,therefore1 the indictment against ,jesus was illegally presented4 ,the writer believes that the above is a correct interpretation of the nature and number of the charges brought against the ,christ1 and that the legal aspects of the case are as above stated4 ,but candor and impartiality require consideration of another view4 ,several excellent writers have contended that there were1 in fact1 not two charges preferred against ,jesus but only one under different forms4 ,these writers contend that ,caiaphas and his colleagues understood that ,jesus claimed supernatural power and identity with ,god when ,he declared that ,he was able to destroy the ,temple and to build it again in three days1#bdi and that the question of the high priest1 ,i adjure thee by the living ,god1 that thou tell us whether thou be the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god1 flowed naturally from and had direct reference to the charge of being able to destroy the ,temple4 ,the advocates of this view appeal to the language of the original auditors to sustain their contention4 ,forty-and-six years was this temple in building1 and wilt thou rear it again in three days8 ,it is insisted that these words convey the idea that those who heard ,jesus understood ,him to mean that ,he had supernatural power4 ,there is certainly much force in the contention but it fails to meet other difficulties4 ,in the first place1 it is not clear that a threat to destroy the ,temple implied a claim to supernatural power2 in which case there would be no connection between the first charge and that in which it was suggested that ,jesus had claimed to be the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god4 ,in the second place1 the contention that the two charges are substantially the same ignores the language of ,mark1 ,but neither so did their witness agree together1#bej which was certainly not injected by the author of the second ,gospel as a matter of mere caprice or pastime4 ,this language1 legally interpreted1 means that the testimony of the false witnesses1 being contradictory1 was thrown aside1 and that the charge concerning the destruction of the ,temple was abandoned4 ,this is the opinion of ,signor ,rosadi and is very weighty4 ,those writers who maintain that there was only one charge1 that of blasphemy1 under different forms1 rely upon the passage in ,matthew1 ,i am able to destroy the temple of ,god and to build it again in three days1 and interpret it as a claim to supernatural power in the light of the language used by those who heard it3 ,forty-and-six years was this temple in building1 and wilt thou rear it again in three days8 ,those who hold the opposite view1 that there were two distinct charges1 rely upon the passage in ,mark1 ,i will destroy this temple that is made with hands1 and within three days ,i will build another made without hands1 and interpret it in the light of a similar accusation against ,stephen a few months afterwards3 ,for we have heard him say1 that this ,jesus of ,nazareth shall destroy this place1 and shall change the customs which ,moses delivered us4#bea ,this second interpretation1 which we believe to be the better1 establishes the existence at the trial of ,christ of two distinct charges3 that of sedition1 based upon a threat to assault existing institutions2 and that of blasphemy1 founded upon the claim of equality with ,god4 ,and1 in the light of this interpretation1 the illegality in the form of the indictment against ,jesus has been urged4 ,if the first construction be the true one1 then the error alleged in ,point ,,iii is not well founded1 since the accusation was presented by witnesses1 as the law required2 unless it could be successfully urged that the witnesses1 being false witnesses1 were no more competent to accuse a prisoner than to convict him upon their false testimony4 ,in such a case the substance as well as the form of the indictment would be worthless1 and the whole case would fall1 through failure not only of competent testimony to convict but also of a legal indictment under which to prosecute4 ,neither the ,mishna nor the ,gemara mentions written indictments among the ancient ,hebrews4 ,the ,jewish ,encyclopedia says that accusations were probably in writing1 but that it is not certain4#beb ,a passage in ,salvador seems to indicate that they were in writing4 ,the papers in the case1 he says1 were read1 and the accusing witnesses were then called4 ,the papers were probably none other than the indictment4 ,but of this we are not sure1 and cannot1 therefore1 predicate the allegation of an error upon it4 ,from the whole context of the ,scriptures1 however1 we are led to believe that only oral charges were preferred against ,jesus4 ,,point ,,iv ,,the ,,proceedings ,,of ,,the ,,sanhedrin ,,against ,,jesus ,,were ,,illegal ,,because ,,they ,,were ,,conducted ,,at ,,night ,,law ,let a capital offence be tried during the day1 but suspend it at night4--,,mishna1 ,sanhedrin ,,iv4 #a4 ,criminal cases can be acted upon by the various courts during day time only1 by the ,lesser ,synhedrions from the close of the morning service till noon1 and by the ,great ,synhedrion till evening4--,,mendelsohn1 ,criminal ,jurisprudence of the ,ancient ,hebrews1 p4 #aab4 ,the reason why the trial of a capital offense could not be held at night is because1 as oral tradition says1 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 daylight4--,,maimonides1 ,sanhedrin ,,iii4 ,,fact ,,and ,,argument ,,hebrew jurisprudence positively forbade the trial of a capital case at night4 ,the infraction of this rule involves the question of jurisdiction4 ,a court without jurisdiction can pronounce no valid verdict or judgment4 ,a court has no jurisdiction if it convenes and acts at a time forbidden by law4 ,one is naturally disposed to deride the reason assigned by ,maimonides for the existence of the law against criminal proceedings at night4 ,but it should not be forgotten that in the olden days surgery had no such aids as are at hand to-day4 ,modern surgical apparatus had not been invented and electric lights and the ,roentgen ,rays were unknown4 ,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 dark4#bec ,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 morning4#bed ,st4 ,luke tells us that there was a daybreak meeting1#bee which was evidently intended to give a semblance of legality and regularity to that rule of ,hebrew law that required two trials of the case4 ,the exact time of the beginning of the night session of the ,sanhedrin is not known4 ,it is generally supposed that the arrest took place in the garden between midnight and one o'clock4 ,the journey to the house of ,annas must have required some little time4 ,where this house was located nobody knows4 ,according to one tradition ,annas owned a house on the ,mount of ,olives close to the booths or bazaars under the ,two ,cedars4 ,stapfer believes that ,jesus was taken to that place4 ,according to another tradition the house of ,annas was located on the ,hill of ,evil ,counsel4 ,barclay believes that this was the place to which ,jesus was conducted4 ,but the tradition which is most generally accepted is that which places the palace of ,annas on ,mount ,zion near the palace of ,caiaphas4 ,it is believed by many that these two men1 who were related1 ,annas being the father-in-law of ,caiaphas1 occupied different apartments in the same place4 ,but these questions are mere matters of conjecture and have no real bearing upon the present discussion1 except to show1 in a general way1 the length of time probably required to conduct ,jesus from ,gethsemane to ,annas2 from ,annas to ,caiaphas1 if the latter was the one who privately examined ,jesus2 and thence to the meeting of the ,sanhedrin4 ,it is reasonable to suppose that at least two hours were thus consumed1 which would bring ,jesus to the palace of ,caiaphas between two and three o'clock1 if the arrest in the garden took place between twelve and one o'clock4 ,but here1 again1 a difference of one or two hours would not affect the merit of the proposition stated in ,point ,,iv4 ,for it is beyond dispute that the first trial before the ,sanhedrin was had at night1 which was forbidden by law4 ,the question has been frequently asked3 ,why did the ,sanhedrin meet at night in violation of law8 ,the answer to this is referable to the treachery of ,judas1 to the fact that he sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude1 and to the thought of the ,master3 ,but this is your hour1 and the power of ,god4 ,luke tells us that the members of the ,sanhedrin feared the people4#bef ,mark informs us that they had resolved not to attempt the arrest and execution of ,jesus at the time of the ,passover1 lest there be an uproar of the people4#beg ,jesus had taught daily in the ,temple1 and had furnished ample opportunity for a legal arrest with a view to a legal trial4 ,but ,his enemies did not desire this4 ,the chief priests and scribes sought how they might take him by craft1 and put him to death4#beh ,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 friends4 ,immediate and decisive action was necessary4 ,not only the arrest but the trial and execution of ,jesus must be accomplished with secrecy and dispatch4 ,the greatest festival of the ,jews had just commenced4 ,pilgrims to the feast were arriving from all parts of the ,jewish kingdom4 ,the friends and followers of ,jesus were among them4 ,his enemies had witnessed the remarkable demonstration in ,his honor which marked ,his entrance into ,jerusalem only a few days before4 ,it is not strange1 then1 that they feared the people in the matter of the summary and illegal proceedings which they had resolved to institute against ,him4 ,they knew that the daylight trial1 under proper legal forms1 with the friends of ,jesus as witnesses1 would upset their plans by resulting in ,his acquittal4 ,they resolved1 therefore1 to act at once1 even at the expense of all forms of justice4 ,and it will be seen that this determination to arrest and try ,jesus at night1 in violation of law1 became the parent of nearly every legal outrage that was committed against ,him4 ,the selection of the midnight hour for such a purpose resulted not merely in a technical infraction of law1 but rendered it impossible to do justice either formally or substantially under rules of ,hebrew criminal procedure4 ,,point ,v ,,the ,,proceedings ,,of ,,the ,,sanhedrin ,,against ,,jesus ,,were ,,illegal ,,because ,,the ,,court ,,convened ,,before ,,the ,,offering ,,of ,,the ,,morning ,,sacrifice ,,law ,the ,sanhedrin sat from the close of the morning sacrifice to the time of the evening sacrifice4--,,talmud1 ,jerus41 ,sanhedrin ,i4 fol4 #ai4 ,no session of the court could take place before the offering of the morning sacrifice4--,,mm4 ,l,,mann1 ,jesus ,before the ,sanhedrin1 p4 #aji4 ,since the morning sacrifice was offered at the dawn of day1 it was hardly possible for the ,sanhedrin to assemble until the hour after that time4--,,mishna1 ,tamid1 or of the ,perpetual ,sacrifice1 ,c4 ,,iii4 ,,fact ,,and ,,argument ,,the fact that the ,sanhedrin convened before the offering of the morning sacrifice constitutes the fifth illegality4 ,this error is alleged upon the authority of ,,mm4 ,lmann1 who1 in their admirable little work entitled ,jesus ,before the ,sanhedrin1 have called attention to it4 ,it is very difficult1 however1 to determine whether this was a mere irregularity1 or was what modern jurists would call a material error4 ,from one point of view it seems to be merely a repetition of the rule forbidding the ,sanhedrin to meet at night4 ,the morning sacrifice was offered at the break of day and lasted about an hour4 ,a session of the court before the morning sacrifice would1 therefore1 have been a meeting at night1 which would have been an infringement of the law4 ,but this was probably not the real reason of the rule4 ,its true meaning is doubtless to be found in the close connection that existed between the ,hebrew law and the ,hebrew religion4 ,the constitution of the ,hebrew ,commonwealth was an emanation of the mind of ,jehovah1 the ,temple in which the court met was ,his residence on earth1 and the judges who formed the ,great ,sanhedrin were the administrators of ,his will4 ,it is most reasonable1 then1 to suppose that an invocation1 in sacrifice and prayer1 of ,his guidance and authority would be the first step in any judicial proceedings conducted in ,his name4 ,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 ,temple4 ,it is entirely probable1 therefore1 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 business4 ,on any other supposition the rules of law cited above would have no meaning4 ,we have reason to believe1 then1 that the offering of the morning sacrifice was a condition precedent to the attachment of jurisdiction1 and without jurisdiction the court had no authority to act4 ,that the morning sacrifice was offered each day1 whether the court assembled or not1 as a religious requirement1 does not alter the principle of law above enunciated4 ,but it may be asked3 ,how do we know that the morning sacrifice was not offered8 ,the answer is that the whole context of the ,scriptures relating to the trial shows that it could not have been offered4 ,furthermore1 a simple and specific reason is that the time prescribed by law for conducting the morning service was between the dawn of day and sunrise4 ,then1 if the court convened between two and three o'clock in the morning1 it is very certain that the sacrifice had not been offered4 ,it is true that there was a morning session of the ,sanhedrin4 ,but this was held simply to confirm the action of the night session at which ,jesus had been condemned4 ,in other words1 the real trial was at night and was held before the performance of the religious ceremony1 which was1 in all probability1 a prerequisite to the attachment of jurisdiction4 ,,point ,,vi ,,the ,,proceedings ,,against ,,jesus ,,were ,,illegal ,,because ,,they ,,were ,,conducted ,,on ,,the ,,day ,,preceding ,a ,,jewish ,,sabbath2 ,,also ,,on ,,the ,,first ,,day ,,of ,,the ,,feast ,,of ,,unleavened ,,bread ,,and ,,the ,,eve ,,of ,,the ,,passover ,,law ,court must not be held on the ,sabbath1 or any holy day4--,betza1 or of the ,egg1 ,chap4 ,v4 ,no4 #b4 ,they shall not judge on the eve of the ,sabbath1 nor on that of any festival4--,,mishna1 ,sanhedrin ,,iv4 #a4 ,no court of justice in ,israel was permitted to hold sessions on the ,sabbath or any of the seven ,biblical holidays4 ,in cases of capital crime1 no trial could be commenced on ,friday or the day previous to any holiday1 because it was not lawful either to adjourn such cases longer than over night1 or to continue them on the ,sabbath or holiday4--,,rabbi ,,wise1 ,martyrdom of ,jesus1 p4 #fg4 ,,fact ,,and ,,argument ,,no ,hebrew court could lawfully meet on a ,sabbath or a feast day1 or on a day preceding a ,sabbath or a feast day4 ,concerning the ,sabbath day provision ,maimonides offers the following reason for the rule3 ,as it is required to execute the criminal immediately after the passing of the sentence1 it would sometimes happen that the kindling of a fire would be necessary1 as in the case of one condemned to be burned2 and this act would be a violation of the law of the ,sabbath1 for it is written ',ye shall kindle no fire in your habitations on the ,sabbath day4'#bei 7,exodus xxxv4 #c47 ,under modern practice1 sessions of court may be adjourned from day to day1 or1 if need be1 from week to week4 ,but under the ,hebrew system of criminal procedure the court could not adjourn for a longer time than a single night4 ,its proceedings were1 so to speak1 continuous until final judgment4 ,as the law forbade sessions of court on ,sabbath and feast days1 it became necessary to provide that courts should not convene on the day preceding a ,sabbath or a feast day1 in order to avoid either an illegal adjournment or an infringement of the rule relating to the ,sabbath and feast days4 ,now ,jesus was tried by the ,sanhedrin on both a feast day and a day preceding the ,sabbath4 ,and1 at this point1 a clear conception of the ancient ,jewish mode of reckoning time should be had4 ,the ,jewish day of twenty-four hours began at one sunset and ended with the next4 ,but this interval was not divided into twenty-four parts or hours of equal and invariable length4 ,their day proper was an integral part of time and was reckoned from sunrise to sunset4 ,their night proper was likewise a distinct division of time and was measured from sunset to sunrise4 ,an hour of time1 according to modern reckoning1 is invariably sixty minutes4 ,but the ancient ,jewish hour was not a fixed measure of time4 ,it varied in length as each successive day and night varied in theirs at different seasons of the year4 ,neither did the ,jews begin their days and nights as we do4 ,our day of twenty-four hours always begins at midnight4 ,their day of twenty-four hours always began at one sunset and ended with the next4 ,now ,jesus was tried by the ,sanhedrin on the #adth ,nisan1 according to the ,jewish calendar2 or between the evening of ,thursday1 ,april #fth1 and the afternoon of ,friday1 ,april #gth1 ,a4,d4 #cj1 according to our calendar4 ,the #adth ,nisan began at sunset on ,april #fth and lasted until sunset on ,april #gth4 ,this was a single ,jewish day1 and within this time ,jesus was tried and executed4 ,according to our calendar1 the trial and execution of ,jesus took place on ,friday1 ,april #gth4 ,this was the day preceding the ,jewish ,sabbath1 which came on ,saturday1 according to our reckoning4 ,and on a day preceding the ,sabbath no ,jewish court could lawfully convene4 ,this is the first error suggested under ,point ,,vi4 ,again1 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 ,sanhedrin4#bfj ,this was in violation of a specific provision of ,hebrew law1 and constitutes the second error alleged under ,point ,,vi4 ,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 preceding4 ,but the question is immaterial from a legal point of view1 as the law forbade a trial either on a feast day or on the day preceding1 for reasons above stated4 ,this violation of the law relating to the ,sabbaths and feast days1 like that relating to night sessions of the ,sanhedrin1 resulted in still other errors4 ,it is necessary to mention only one of these at this point4 ,the proceedings of the ,sanhedrin were recorded by two scribes or clerks4 ,their records were to be used on the second day of the trial in reviewing the proceedings of the first4 ,but ,hebrew law forbade any writing on a ,sabbath or a holy day4 ,how was it possible1 then1 to keep a record of the proceedings1 if ,jesus was tried on a ,sabbath and also on a feast day1 without violating a rule of law8 ,if no minutes of the meeting were kept1 a most glaring irregularity is apparent4 ,,point ,,vii ,,the ,,trial ,,of ,,jesus ,,was ,,illegal ,,because ,,it ,,was ,,concluded ,,within ,,one ,,day ,,law ,a criminal case resulting in the acquittal of the accused may terminate the same day on which the trial began4 ,but if a sentence of death is to be pronounced1 it can not be concluded before the following day4--,,mishna1 ,sanhedrin ,,iv4 #a4 ,,fact ,,and ,,argument ,,care and conservatism1 precaution and delay1 were the characteristic features of the criminal procedure of the ancient ,hebrews4 ,the principal aphorism of the ,pirke ,aboth is this3 ,be cautious and slow in judgment1 send forth many disciples1 and make a fence around the law4#bfa ,the length and seriousness of their deliberations in criminal proceedings of a capital nature were due to their supreme regard for human life4 ,man's life belongs to ,god1 and only according to the law of ,god may it be disposed of4 ,whosoever preserves one worthy life is as meritorious as if he had preserved the world4 ,these and similar maxims guided and controlled ,hebrew judges in every capital trial4 ,their horror of death as the result of a judicial decree is shown by the celebrated saying3 ,the ,sanhedrin which so often as once in seven years condemns a man to death1 is a slaughter-house4#bfb ,to assure due deliberation and reflection in a case where a human life was at stake1 ,hebrew law required that the trial should last at least two days1 in case of the conviction of the accused4 ,in case of an acquittal the trial might terminate within a single day4 ,before condemnation could be finally decreed a night had to intervene1 during which time the judges could sleep1 fast1 meditate1 and pray4 ,at the close of the first day's trial they left the judgment hall and walked homeward1 arm in arm1 discussing the merits of the case4 ,at sunset they began to make calls upon each other1 again reviewing among themselves the facts in evidence4 ,they then retired to their homes for further meditation4 ,during the intervening night they abstained from eating heavy food and from drinking wine4 ,they carefully avoided doing anything that would incapacitate them for correct thinking4 ,on the following day they returned to the judgment hall and retried the case4 ,the second trial was in the nature of a review and was intended to detect errors1 if there were any1 in the first trial4#bfc ,it was not until the afternoon of this day that a final decree could be made and that a capital sentence could follow4 ,now the ,gospel record very clearly discloses the fact that ,jesus was arrested1 tried1 and executed within the limits of a single day4 ,neither the exact hour of ,his arrest1 nor of ,his trial1 nor of ,his execution is known4 ,but it is positively certain that all took place between sunset1 the beginning of ,nisan #ad1 and sunset1 the beginning of ,nisan #ae4 ,this was the interval of a single ,jewish day1 ,nisan #ad4 ,and within such an interval of time it was illegal to finally condemn a man to death under ,hebrew law4 ,even ,stapfer1 who contends that the trial was legal and that forms of law were generally observed1 admits this error4 ,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 code4#bfd ,it is true that there were two distinct trials3 one between #b and #c ,a4,m41 ,friday1 ,april #gth1 which is recorded by ,matthew#bfe and ,mark1#bff and a second about daybreak of the same day1 recorded by ,matthew1#bfg ,mark1#bfh and ,luke4#bfi ,but both these trials were had within one day--indeed1 within six hours of each other4 ,the judges did not try the case and then retire to their homes for sleep1 prayer1 and meditation until the following day1 as the law required4 ,even if they had done so1 they would not have avoided an illegal procedure1 inasmuch as the trial had been illegally begun on a feast day and the eve of the ,sabbath1 and it would have been impossible to avoid the error alleged in ,point ,,vii4 ,for if they had deferred the sentencing and execution of ,jesus until the following day it would still have been illegal1 since the next day was both a ,sabbath and a holy day 7the ,passover74 ,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 trials4 ,but it will readily be seen that this was a subterfuge and evasion1 since both trials were had on the same day1 whereas the law required them to be held on different days4 ,,point ,,viii ,,the ,,sentence ,,of ,,condemnation ,,pronounced ,,against ,,jesus ,,by ,,the ,,sanhedrin ,,was ,,illegal ,,because ,,it ,,was ,,founded ,,upon ,,his ,,uncorroborated ,,confession ,,law ,we have it as a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that no one can bring an accusation against himself4 ,should a man make confession of guilt before a legally constituted tribunal1 such confession is not to be used against him unless properly attested by two other witnesses4--,,maimonides1 ,sanhedrin ,,iv4 #b4 ,not only is self-condemnation never extorted from the defendant by means of torture1 but no attempt is ever made to lead him on to self-incrimination4 ,moreover1 a voluntary confession on his part is not admitted in evidence1 and therefore not competent to convict him1 unless a legal number of witnesses minutely corroborate his self-accusation4--,,mendelsohn1 ,criminal ,jurisprudence of the ,ancient ,hebrews1 p4 #acc4 ,,fact ,,and ,,argument ,,more than one system of jurisprudence has refused to permit a conviction for crime to rest upon an uncorroborated confession4 ,but it remained for the ancient ,hebrews to discover the peculiar reason for the rule1 that the witness who confessed was his own relative2 and relatives were not competent witnesses under ,hebrew law4 ,modern ,jewish writers1 however1 have assigned other reasons for the rule4 ,rabbi ,wise says3 ,self-accusation in cases of capital crime was worthless4 ,for if not guilty he accuses himself of a falsehood2 if guilty he is a wicked man1 and no wicked man1 according to ,hebrew law1 is permitted to testify1 especially not in penal cases4#bgj ,mendelsohn says that the reason assigned for this enactment is the wish to avoid the possibility of permitting judicial homicide on self-accusing lunatics1 or on persons who1 in desperation1 wish to cut short their earthly existence1 and to effect this falsely accuse themselves of some capital crime4#bga ,modern jurists have assigned still other reasons for the rule as it has existed in modern law4#bgb ,men have been known to confess that they were guilty of one crime to avoid punishment for another4 ,morbid and vulgar sentimentality1 such as love of newspaper notoriety1 have induced persons of inferior intelligence1 who were innocent1 to assume responsibility for criminal acts4 ,but whatever the reason of the rule1 ,jesus was condemned to death upon ,his uncorroborated confession1 in violation of ,hebrew law4 ,for many bare false witness against him1 but their witness agreed not together4 ,and there arose certain1 and bare false witness against him1 saying1 ,we heard him say1 ,i will destroy this temple that is made with hands1 and within three days ,i will build another made without hands4 ,but neither so did their witness agree together4 ,and the high priest stood up in the midst1 and asked ,jesus1 saying1 ,answerest thou nothing8 what is it which these witness against thee8 ,but he held his peace1 and answered nothing4 ,again the high priest asked him1 and said unto him1 ,art thou the ,christ1 the ,son of the ,blessed8 ,and ,jesus said1 ,i am3 and ye shall see the ,son of ,man sitting on the right hand of power1 and coming in the clouds of ,heaven4 ,then the high priest rent his clothes1 and saith1 ,what need we any further witnesses8 ye have heard the blasphemy3 what think ye8 ,and they all condemned him to be guilty of death4 ,and some began to spit on him1 and to cover his face1 and to buffet him1 and to say unto him1 ,prophesy4#bgc ,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 sedition1 that is1 that ,he had threatened the destruction of the ,temple and thereby endeavored to seduce the people from their national allegiance4 ,but their witness agreed not together2 and under ,hebrew law they were required to reject contradictory testimony and discharge the prisoner1 if the state was unable to prove its case4 ,this is what should have been done at this point in the trial of ,jesus4 ,but1 instead1 the judges1 in their total disregard at law1 turned to the accused and said3 ,answerest thou nothing8 what is it which these witness against thee8 ,but he held his peace1 and answered nothing4 ,by remaining silent1 ,jesus only exercised the ordinary privilege of a ,jewish prisoner to refuse to incriminate himself4 ,the modern rule that the accused cannot be made to testify against himself1 unless he first voluntarily takes the witness stand in his own behalf1 was substantially true among the ancient ,hebrews4 ,but here we find ,caiaphas insisting that ,jesus incriminate ,himself4 ,and he continues to insist in the matter of the second charge1 that of blasphemy4 ,and the high priest asked him1 and said unto him1 ,art thou the ,christ1 the ,son of the ,blessed8 ,that question was illegal1 because it involved an irregular mode of criminal procedure1 and because it asked for a confession of guilt to be made the basis of a conviction4 ,the false witnesses had failed to agree and had evidently been rejected and dismissed4 ,the judges were then without witnesses to formulate a charge and furnish proof of its truth4 ,they were thus forced to the despicable and illegal method of asking the accused to condemn ,himself1 when they knew that no confession could be made the basis of a conviction4 ,they were also guilty of the illegality of formulating a charge without witnesses4 ,we have seen that only leading witnesses could present an indictment1 but here the judges became the accusers1 in violation of law4 ,in answer to the high priest's question1 ,jesus1 feeling that ,he could not afford at such an hour and in such a place to longer conceal ,his ,messiahship1 answered boldly and emphatically3 ,i am4#bgd ,and they all condemned him to be guilty of death4 ,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 details1 as the law required1 was the ,nazarene condemned to death4 ,if it be argued1 as it has been1 that the two charges of threatening to destroy the ,temple and of pretending to be the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god1 were in fact but different phases of the same charge of blasphemy1 and that the two witnesses were the corroborators of the confession of ,jesus1 then reply must be made that the witnesses were not competent1 being false witnesses1 nor was their testimony legally corroborated1 because it was false and contradictory4 ,again1 it was the rule of ,hebrew law that both witnesses had to testify to all the essential elements of a complete crime4 ,one could not furnish one link1 and another another link1 in order to construct a chain of evidence4 ,each had to testify to all the essential elements necessary to constitute the legal definition of a crime4 ,but the false witnesses did not do this4 ,under any view of the case1 then1 the testimony of these witnesses was wholly worthless1 and the confession of ,jesus was the solitary and illegal basis of ,his conviction4 ,the failure of the ,sanhedrin to secure sufficient and competent evidence to convict ,jesus must not be regarded as accidental1 or as attributable to the hour and to the surroundings4 ,the popularity of the ,nazarene1 outside the narrow circle of the ,temple authorities1 was immense4 ,the friendship of ,nicodemus and ,joseph of ,arimathea is proof that ,he had standing even in the ,sanhedrin itself4 ,it was therefore difficult to find witnesses who were willing to testify against ,him4 ,besides1 the acts of ,his ministry1 while in no sense cowardly or hypocritical1 had been1 in general1 very cautious and diplomatic4 ,he seems to have retired1 at times1 into the desert or the wilderness to avoid disagreeable and even dangerous complications with the civil and ecclesiastical authorities4#bge ,jesus was in no sense a politician1 but ,he was not lacking in mother wit and practical resources4 ,he saw through the designs of ,herod ,antipas1 who wished to get ,him out of his dominions4 ,it will be remembered that certain ,pharisees1 pretending friendship for ,him1 warned ,him to flee from ,galilee to avoid being killed by ,herod4 ,the courage and manliness of ,jesus are shown by the fact that ,he remained in ,his native province1 and even sent a contemptuous message to the ,tetrarch1 whom ,he styled that fox4#bgf ,at other times1 ,christ was compelled to defend ,himself against the swarm of spies that hovered over ,his pathway through ,samaria1 along the ,jordan1 and around the ,sea of ,galilee4 ,in ,his discussions with ,his enemies who sought to entrap ,him1 ,he displayed consummate skill in debate4 ,his pithy sayings and incomparable illustrations usually left ,his questioners defenseless and chagrined4 ,oftentimes in these encounters ,he proclaimed eternal and universal truths which other nations and later ages were to develop and enjoy4 ,when1 holding in ,his hand a penny with ,csar's image upon it1 ,he said1 ,render therefore unto ,csar the things which are ,csar's1 and unto ,god the things that are ,god's1 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 ,commonwealth2 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 alone4 ,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 comrades1 though antagonists4 ,the replies of ,jesus to those who came to entangle him in his talk usually left them disconcerted and defeated1 and little disposed to renew their attacks upon ,him4#bgg ,the efforts of the ,pharisees to entrap ,him seem to have resulted in failure everywhere and at all times4 ,and at the trial the ,sanhedrin found itself in possession of a prisoner but with no competent evidence to establish ,his guilt4 ,it was least of all prepared to convict ,him of the crime of blasphemy as founded upon the claim of ,messiahship1 for ,jesus had been exceedingly cautious1 during ,his ministry1 in declaring ,himself to be the ,messiah4 ,except in the presence of the woman of ,samaria1 who came to draw water from the well1 there is no recorded instance of an avowal of ,his ,messiahship outside the immediate circle of the disciples4#bgh ,he forbade the devils whom ,he had cast out1 and that recognized ,him1 to proclaim ,his ,messiahship4#bgi ,when the ,jews said to ,him1 ,how long dost thou make us doubt8 if thou be the ,christ1 tell us plainly1 ,jesus simply referred them to ,his works1 and made no further answer that could be used as testimony against ,him4#bhj ,he revealed ,himself to ,his followers as the ,messiah1 and permitted them to confess ,him as such1 but forbade them to make the matter public4 ,then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was ,jesus1 the ,christ4#bha ,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 trial4 ,in their desperation1 then1 the members of the ,sanhedrin were compelled to employ false testimony and a confession which was equally illegal4 ,,point ,,ix ,,the ,,condemnation ,,of ,,jesus ,,was ,,illegal ,,because ,,the ,,verdict ,,of ,,the ,,sanhedrin ,,was ,,unanimous ,,law ,a simultaneous and unanimous verdict of guilt rendered on the day of the trial has the effect of an acquittal4--,,mendelsohn1 ,criminal ,jurisprudence of the ,ancient ,hebrews1 p4 #ada4 ,if none of the judges defend the culprit1 i4e41 all pronounce him guilty1 having no defender in the court1 the verdict of guilty was invalid and the sentence of death could not be executed4--,,rabbi ,,wise1 ,martyrdom of ,jesus1 p4 #gd4 ,,fact ,,and ,,argument ,,few stranger rules can be found in the jurisprudence of the world than that provision of ,hebrew law which forbade a conviction to rest upon the unanimous vote of the judges4 ,a comparison instantaneously and almost inevitably arises in the mind between the ,saxon and ,hebrew requirement in the matter of unanimity in the verdict4 ,the finest form of mind of antiquity1 with the possible exception of the ,greek and ,roman1 was the ,hebrew4 ,one of the finest types of intellect of the modern world is that of the ,anglo-,saxon4 ,the ,hebrew organized the ,sanhedrin1 and1 under ,god1 endowed it with judicial and spiritual attributes4 ,the ,anglo-,saxon1 on the shores of the ,german ,ocean1 originated the modern jury and invested it with its distinctive legal traits4 ,with the ,anglo-,saxon jury a unanimous verdict is necessary to convict1 but with the ,hebrew ,sanhedrin unanimity was fatal1 and resulted in an acquittal4 ,a great modern writer#bhb has declared that law is the perfection of reason4 ,but when we contemplate the differences in ,hebrew and ,saxon laws we are inclined to ask1 in seeking the degree of perfection1 whose law and whose reason8 ,but1 after all1 the ,jewish rule is not so unreasonable as it first appears1 when we come to consider the reason of its origin4 ,in the first place1 as we have seen in ,part ,,ii1 there were no lawyers or advocates1 in the modern sense1 among the ancient ,hebrews4 ,the judges were his defenders4 ,now if the verdict was unanimous in favor of condemnation it was evident that the prisoner had had no friend or defender in court4 ,to the ,jewish mind this was almost equivalent to mob violence4 ,it argued conspiracy1 at least4 ,the element of mercy1 which was required to enter into every ,hebrew verdict1 was absent in such a case4 ,again1 this rule of unanimity was only another form or statement of the requirement that the court defer final action1 in case of conviction1 to the next day in order that time for deliberation and reflection might intervene4 ,in other words1 ,hebrew law forbade precipitancy in capital proceedings4 ,and what could be more precipitate than an instantaneous and unanimous verdict8 ,but where all suddenly agree on conviction1 does it not seem1 asks a modern ,jewish writer1 that the convict is a victim of conspiracy and that the verdict is not the result of sober reason and calm deliberation8 ,but how did they convict under ,hebrew law8 ,by a majority vote of at least two4 ,a majority of one would acquit4 ,a majority of two1 or any majority less than unanimity1 would convict4#bhc ,if the accused had one friend in court1 the verdict of condemnation would stand1 since the element of mercy was present and the spirit of conspiracy or mob violence was absent4 ,seventy-one constituted the membership of the ,great ,sanhedrin4 ,if all the members were present and voted1 at least thirty-seven were required to convict4 ,thirty-six would acquit4 ,if a bare quorum1 twenty-three members1 was present1 at least thirteen were required to convict4 ,twelve would acquit4 ,this rule seems ridiculous and absurd1 when viewed in the light of a brutal and undeniable crime4 ,if the facts constituting such a crime had been proved against a ,jewish prisoner beyond any possibility of doubt1 if such facts were apparent to everybody1 still it seems that the rule above stated required that the defendant have at least one advocate and one vote among the judges2 else1 the verdict was invalid and could not stand4 ,such a procedure could be justified on no other ground than that exceptional cases should not be permitted to destroy a rule of action that in its general operation had been found to be both generous and just4 ,now the condemnation of ,jesus was illegal because the verdict of the ,sanhedrin was unanimous4 ,we learn this from ,mark1 who says3 ,then the high priest rent his clothes and saith1 ,what need we any further witnesses8 ye have heard the blasphemy3 what think ye8 ,and they all condemned him to be guilty of death4#bhd ,if they all condemned ,him1 the verdict was unanimous and therefore illegal4 ,the other ,evangelists do not tell us that the verdict was unanimous2 neither do they deny it4 ,mark's testimony stands alone and uncontradicted2 therefore we must assume that it is true4 ,rabbi ,wise#bhe and ,signor ,rosadi#bhf call attention to the fact that the verdict was unanimous4 ,the former seeks to ridicule ,mark as an authority because a unanimous verdict was illegal under ,hebrew law1 and the distinguished ,hebrew writer does not conceive that ,hebrew judges could have made such a mistake4 ,such argument1 reduced to ultimate analysis1 means1 according to ,rabbi ,wise1 that there were certain rules of ,hebrew law that could not be and were never violated4 ,in this connection1 it has been frequently asked3 ,was the entire ,sanhedrin present at the night trial of ,jesus8 ,were ,nicodemus and ,joseph of ,arimathea present8 ,if they were present1 did they vote against ,jesus8 ,these questions can be answered only in the light of the authorities4 ,only two of the ,gospel writers1 ,matthew and ,mark1 tell us of the night trial4 ,both declare that all the council were present4#bhg ,the council 7concilium7 is the ,vulgate1 the ,latin ,new ,testament designation of the ,great ,sanhedrin4 ,then1 if all the council were present1 the ,great ,sanhedrin were all present4 ,illustration3 ,,the ,,betraying ,,kiss 7,,scheffer7 ,concerning the number of judges at the second or daybreak meeting of the ,sanhedrin1 both ,matthew and ,mark again declare that the full membership was present4 ,matthew says3 ,when the morning was come1 all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against ,jesus to put him to death4#bhh ,mark says3 ,and straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council1 and bound ,jesus1 and carried him away1 and delivered him to ,pilate4#bhi ,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 trial4 ,the first and second ,gospel writers therefore corroborate each other1 and the presumption of the law is that each told the truth4 ,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 ,jesus4 ,they insist that both ,matthew and ,mark were employing a figure of speech1 synecdoche1 when they said that all the council were present4 ,but these same writers seem to think that these same ,evangelists were in earnest and speaking literally when they declared that all the chief priests and elders and the whole council were present at the morning trial4 ,we shall not attempt to settle the question but will leave it to the reader to draw his own inferences4 ,suffice it to say that as far as the rule stated in connection with ,point ,,ix is concerned1 it was immaterial whether the full council was present at either meeting4 ,the rule against unanimity applied to a bare quorum or to any number less than the full ,sanhedrin4 ,it was the unanimity itself1 of however few members1 that carried with it the spirit and suggestion of mob violence and conspiracy against which ,hebrew law protested4 ,the question of the number of members that were present at the different meetings of the ,sanhedrin has been discussed in the light of history1 and as bearing upon the conduct of ,nicodemus and ,joseph of ,arimathea1 who were friends of ,jesus4 ,nicodemus was certainly a member of the ,great ,sanhedrin4 ,this we learn from two passages of ,new ,testament scripture4#bij ,it is also believed that ,joseph of ,arimathea was a member from a mere suggestion in another passage4#bia ,did these friends of the ,christ vote against ,him8 ,if they were members of the court2 if ,matthew and ,mark wrote literally when they said that all the council were present2 and if ,mark wrote literally and truthfully when he said that they all condemned him to be guilty of death2 then it naturally and inevitably follows that both ,nicodemus and ,joseph voted against ,jesus4 ,illustration3 ,,the ,,arrest ,,of ,,jesus 7,,hoffman7 ,a number of arguments have been offered against this contention4 ,in the first place1 it is said that at a previous meeting of the ,sanhedrin ,nicodemus defended ,jesus by asking his fellow-judges this question3 ,doth our law judge any man before it hear him and know what he doeth8#bib ,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 one1 that there is a presumption of a continuance of fidelity4 ,but is this good reasoning8 ,did not ,peter cut off the ear of the high priest's servant1 ,malchus1 in defense of ,jesus at midnight1 in the garden1 and then within three hours afterwards deny that he knew ,jesus8 ,there is no good reason to believe that ,nicodemus was braver or more constant than ,peter1 for the former seems to have been either ashamed or afraid to express his affection for the ,master during the daytime1 but preferred to do it at night4#bic ,concerning the part taken by ,nicodemus in the final proceedings1 ,rosadi says3 ,the verdict was unanimous4 ,the members of the ,sanhedrin who were secretly favorable to the ,accused were either absent or else they voted against him4 ,nicodemus was amongst the absentees1 or amongst those that voted against him4 ,at all events1 he did not raise his voice against the pronouncement expressed by acclamation4 ,if ,joseph of ,arimathea was a member of the ,great ,sanhedrin1 it seems that he had not consented to the counsel and the deed of them4#bid ,but it is impossible to tell certainly to which one of the three meetings of the ,sanhedrin1 held within the six months preceding the crucifixion1 this language refers4 ,the defense of ,jesus offered by ,nicodemus was certainly not at the final meeting which condemned ,jesus4 ,it may be that the reference to the protest of ,joseph of ,arimathea also referred to a prior meeting4 ,its connection in ,luke seems to make it refer to the last trial1 but this is not certain4 ,neither is it certain that ,joseph was a member of the ,great ,sanhedrin1 and his failure to consent1 if he were not a member1 would not disturb the contention made in ,point ,,ix of the ,brief4 ,even if he were a member1 his failure to consent would not destroy the contention1 since ancient ,hebrew judges1 like modern ,american jurors1 could have first protested against their action and then have voted with them4 ,the polling of the jury1 under modern law1 has reference1 among other things1 to this state of affairs4 ,but we may admit that both ,nicodemus and ,joseph of ,arimathea1 as well as many others1 were absent1 as ,rosadi suggests1 and still contend that the verdict against ,jesus was illegal because it was unanimous1 as ,mark assures us1 since the number of judges present was immaterial1 provided there was a quorum of at least twenty-three and their verdict was unanimous against the accused4 ,according to the second ,gospel writer1 there seems to be no doubt that this was the case in the judgment pronounced against ,jesus4 ,,point ,x ,,the ,,proceedings ,,against ,,jesus ,,were ,,illegal ,,in ,,that3 7#a7 ,,the ,,sentence ,,of ,,condemnation ,,was ,,pronounced ,,in ,a ,,place ,,forbidden ,,by ,,law2 7#b7 ,,the ,,high ,,priest ,,rent ,,his ,,clothes2 7#c7 ,,the ,,balloting ,,was ,,irregular ,,law ,after leaving the hall ,gazith no sentence of death can be passed upon anyone soever4--,,talmud1 ,bab41 ,abodah ,zarah1 or of ,idolatry1 ,chap4 ,i4 fol4 #h4 ,a sentence of death can be pronounced only so long as the ,sanhedrin holds its sessions in the appointed place4--,,maimonides1 ,sanhedrin ,,xiv4 ,and he that is the high priest among his brethren1 upon whose head the anointing oil was poured1 and that is consecrated to put on the garments1 shall not uncover his head1 nor rend his clothes4--,,leviticus xxi4 #aj4 ,and ,moses said unto ,aaron1 and unto ,eleazar1 and unto ,ithamar1 his sons1 ,uncover not your heads1 neither rend your clothes2 lest ye die1 and lest wrath come upon all the people4--,,leviticus x4 #f4 ,let the judges each in his turn absolve or condemn4--,,mishna1 ,sanhedrin ,,xv4 #e4 ,the members of the ,sanhedrin were seated in the form of a semicircle at the extremity of which a secretary was placed1 whose business it was to record the votes4 ,one of these secretaries recorded the votes in favor of the accused1 the other those against him4--,,mishna1 ,sanhedrin ,,iv4 #c4 ,in ordinary cases the judges voted according to seniority1 the oldest commencing2 in a capital trial1 the reverse order was followed4 ,that the younger members of the ,sanhedrin should not be influenced by the views or arguments of their more mature1 more experienced colleagues1 the junior judge was in these cases always the first to pronounce for or against a conviction4--,,benny1 ,criminal ,code of the ,jews1 pp4 #gc1 #gd4 ,,fact ,,and ,,argument ,,in the trial of capital cases1 the ,great ,sanhedrin was required to meet in an apartment of the ,national ,temple at ,jerusalem1 known as the ,hall of ,hewn ,stones 7,lishkhath haggazith74 ,outside of this hall no capital trial could be conducted and no capital sentence could be pronounced4#bie ,this place was selected in obedience to ,mosaic injunction3 ,thou shalt do according to the tenor of the sentence1 which they may point out to thee from the place which the ,lord shall choose4#bif ,the ,rabbis argued that the ,great ,council could not try a capital case or pronounce a death sentence1 unless it met and remained in the place chosen by ,god1 which1 they contended1 should be an apartment of the ,great ,temple4 ,the ,lishkhath haggazith was chosen1 and continued for many years to be the meeting place of the supreme tribunal4 ,but ,jesus was not tried or condemned to death in the ,hall of ,hewn ,stones1 as ,hebrew law required4 ,it is clearly evident1 from the ,gospels1 that ,he was tried and sentenced in the palace of ,caiaphas1 probably on ,mount ,zion4 ,it is contended by the ,jews1 however1 that soon after the ,roman conquest of ,judea the ,great ,sanhedrin removed from the sacred place to ,bethany1 and from there to other places1 as occasion required4 ,and there is a ,jewish tradition that the court returned to the accustomed place on the occasion of the trial and condemnation of ,jesus4#big ,in opposition to this1 ,edersheim says3 ,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 7,lishkhath haggazith74 ,the whole proceedings took place in the former1 and from it ,christ was brought to ,pilate4#bih ,st4 ,john emphatically declares3 ,then led they ,jesus from ,caiaphas into the hall of judgment4#bii ,this ,hall of ,judgment was the ,prtorium of ,pilate4 ,the first irregularity1 then1 noted under ,point ,x is that ,jesus was tried and condemned in the palace of ,caiaphas instead of the ,hall of ,hewn ,stones1 the regular legal meeting place of the ,great ,sanhedrin4 ,the second error noted under ,point ,x is that which relates to the rending of garments by the high priest4 ,an ordinary ,israelite could1 as an emblem of bereavement1 tear his garments1 but to the high priest it was forbidden1 because his vestments1 being made after the express orders of ,god1 were figurative of his office4#cjj ,when ,jesus confessed that ,he was ,christ the ,son of ,god1 ,caiaphas seems to have lost his balance and to have committed errors with all the rapidity of speech4 ,then the high priest rent his clothes1 and saith1 ,what need we any further witnesses8 ye have heard the blasphemy3 what think ye8 ,and they all condemned him to be guilty of death4#cja ,in this language and conduct of the son-in-law of ,annas there were several irregularities in procedure4 ,the first was the rending of garments reported by ,matthew and ,mark1 which act was forbidden by the provisions of the ,mosaic ,code1 recorded in ,leviticus and cited above4 ,but it is only fair to state the dissenting opinion on this point4 ,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 execration1 whenever blasphemous language was heard4 ,edersheim states the rule3 ,they all heard it--and1 as the law directed1 when blasphemy was spoken1 the high priest rent both his outer and inner garment1 with a rent that might never be repaired4#cjb ,the law here referred to1 however1 is the ,rabbinic or ,talmudic and not the ,mosaic law4 ,it should be remembered that the ,mosaic ,code was the constitution or fundamental law of the ancient ,hebrews4 ,the ,talmudic law embodied in the ,mishna was1 in a sense1 a mere commentary upon the ,mosaic law4 ,we have seen in ,chapter ,i of ,part ,,ii of this volume that the traditional law was based upon1 derived from1 and inspired by the written law contained in the ,pentateuch4 ,it is true that the ,talmud1 while professing subordination to the ,pentateuch1 finally virtually superseded it as an administrative code4 ,but the doctors never repealed a ,mosaic injunction1 since it was an emanation of the mind of ,jehovah and could not be abrogated by human intelligence4 ,when an ancient ordinance ceased to be of practical value the ,jewish legists simply declared that it had fallen into desuetude4 ,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 nation4 ,in other words1 the ,mosaic ,code was ,israel's divine constitution which was to serve as a standard for all future legislation4 ,and as the ,jewish lawmakers were not permitted to repeal a ,mosaic ordinance1 neither were they allowed to establish a rule in contravention of it4 ,now the ,pentateuch forbade the rending of garments4 ,then did the ,talmudists have a right to declare that the law might be changed or broken in the case of blasphemy8 ,that they did is denied by many writers4 ,but admitting the validity of the ,talmudic rule1 it is nevertheless beyond dispute that the high priest was forbidden to rend his clothes on ,sabbaths and holidays4 ,and as ,jesus was condemned on both a ,sabbath and a festival day1 the high priest's action in rending his clothes on that day was illegal4#cjc ,again1 the proceedings against ,jesus were illegal because the balloting was irregular4 ,this is the third error noted under ,point ,x4 ,the ,hebrew law required that each judge1 when his time came to vote upon the guilt or innocence of the accused1 should rise in his place1 declare his vote1 and state his reasons for so voting4 ,in capital cases the youngest judge was required to vote first1 in order that he might not be unduly influenced by the example of his seniors in age and authority4 ,the balloting continued in this manner from the youngest member to the high priest1 who was generally among the oldest4 ,two scribes--according to some writers1 three--were present to record the votes and to note the reasons stated4 ,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 day4 ,judges who had voted for acquittal on the first day could not change their votes on the second day4 ,those who had voted for conviction on the first day might change their votes on the second day1 by assigning good reasons4 ,those who had voted for conviction on the first day could not vote for conviction on the second day1 if the reasons assigned on the second day were radically different from those assigned on the first day4#cjd ,it will thus be seen how very essential were the records of the scribes and how important it was that they should be correctly kept4 ,hence the necessity1 according to ,benny1 of a third scribe whose notes might be used to correct any discrepancies in the reports of the other two4 ,now are we justified in assuming that this was the method employed in counting votes at the trial of ,jesus8 ,the law will not permit us to presume errors4 ,we must rather assume that this was the method employed1 unless the ,gospel record indicates1 either by plain statement or by reasonable construction1 that it was not the method used4 ,in this connection1 let us review the language of the ,scriptures4 ,ye have heard the blasphemy3 what think ye8 ,and they all condemned him to be guilty of death4 ,is it not clearly evident1 from this passage1 that the balloting was not done singly1 the youngest voting first1 as ,hebrew law required8 ,can it not be seen at a glance that the judges voted en masse8 ,if they did1 was it possible for the scribes to record the votes and make a note of the reasons assigned1 as the law required8 ,if these things were not done1 were the proceedings regular8 ,according to ,matthew1 ,caiaphas1 before calling for the votes exclaimed3 ,he hath spoken blasphemy4#cje ,instead of doing this should he not1 under the law1 have carefully concealed his opinion until the younger members of the court had voted8 ,is it not a matter of history that the opinion of the high priest was regarded as almost infallible authority among the ancient ,hebrews8 ,did not this premature declaration of guilt on the part of the high priest rob the subordinate judges of freedom of suffrage8 ,the conduct of the case at the close1 when the balloting took place1 seems to justify the view of those writers who assert that there was no regular trial of ,jesus1 but rather the action of a mob4 ,,point ,,xi ,,the ,,members ,,of ,,the ,,great ,,sanhedrin ,,were ,,legally ,,disqualified ,,to ,,try ,,jesus ,,law ,the robe of the unfairly elected judge is to be respected not more than the blanket of the ass4--,,mendelsohn1 ,hebrew ,maxims and ,rules1 p4 #ahb4 ,as ,moses sat in judgment without the expectation of material reward1 so also must every judge act from a sense of duty only4--,,mendelsohn1 ,hebrew ,maxims and ,rules1 p4 #agg4 ,nor must there be on the judicial bench either a relation1 or a particular friend1 or an enemy of either the accused or of the accuser4--,,mendelsohn1 ,criminal ,jurisprudence of the ,ancient ,hebrews1 p4 #ajh4 ,he 7the ,hebrew judge7 was1 in the first instance1 to be modest1 of good repute among his neighbors1 and generally liked4--,,benny1 ,criminal ,code of the ,jews1 p4 #ch4 ,nor under any circumstances1 was a man known to be at enmity with the accused person permitted to occupy a position among his judges4--,,benny1 ,criminal ,code of the ,jews1 p4 #cg4 ,,fact ,,and ,,argument ,,the ,gospel records disclose the fact that the members of the ,great ,sanhedrin were legally disqualified to try ,jesus4 ,this disqualification was of two kinds3 7#a7 ,a general disqualification1 under ,hebrew law1 to act as judges in any case2 7#b7 a special disqualification to sit in judgment upon the life of ,jesus4 ,among all the great systems of jurisprudence of the world the ancient ,hebrew system was the most exacting in the matter of judicial fitness4 ,in the palmiest days of the ,hebrew ,commonwealth the members of the ,great ,sanhedrin represented the most perfect mental1 moral1 and physical development of the ,hebrew people4 ,a man could not be a member of this court who had any serious mental1 moral1 or physical defect4 ,he must have been learned in the law1 both written and unwritten4 ,he must have had judicial experience2 that is1 he must have filled three offices of gradually increasing dignity1 beginning with one of the local courts and passing successively through two magistracies at ,jerusalem4 ,he must have been an accomplished linguist2 that is1 he must have been thoroughly familiar with the languages of the surrounding nations4 ,he must have been modest1 popular1 of good appearance1 and free from haughtiness4 ,he must have been pious1 strong1 and courageous4 ,and above all1 he must have been friendly in his attitude toward the accused4#cjf ,these were the qualifications of ,israel's judges before ,roman politics had corrupted them4 ,but at the time of ,christ they had grown to be time-serving1 degenerate1 and corrupt4 ,judea was then passing through a period of religious and political revolution4 ,at such a time in any state1 as all history teaches us1 the worst elements of society generally get the upper hand and control the political currents of the day4 ,many members of the ,sanhedrin had themselves been guilty of criminal acts in both public and private life4 ,many of them held office by purchase--they had bought their seats4 ,they were thus unfitted to be judges in any case2 especially in one involving the great question of life and death4 ,in order to show the general disqualification1 under the test of ,hebrew law1 of the members of the ,great ,sanhedrin1 at the time of ,christ1 to exercise judicial functions1 it is necessary to quote only ,jewish authorities4 ,in ,the ,martyrdom of ,jesus1 ,rabbi ,wise says3 ,the chief priests1 under the iron rule of ,pilate and his wicked master1 ,sejan1 were the tools of the ,roman soldiers who held ,judea and ,samaria in subjection4 ,like the high priest1 they were appointed to and removed from office by the ,roman governor of the country1 either directly or indirectly4 ,they purchased their commissions for high prices and1 like almost all ,roman appointees1 used them for mercenary purposes4 ,they were considered wicked men by the ancient writers and must have stood very low in the estimation of the people over whom they tyrannized4 ,the patriots must have looked upon them as hirelings of the foreign despot whose rule was abhorred4 ,although there was1 here and there1 a good1 pious and patriotic man among them1 he was an exception4 ,as a general thing1 and under the rule of ,pilate1 especially1 they were the corrupt tools of a military despotism which ,rome imposed upon enslaved ,palestine4 ,again1 the ,talmud1 in which we never look for slurs upon the ,hebrew people1 where slurs are not deserved1 contains this bitter denunciation of the high-priestly families of the times of ,christ3 ,what a plague is the family of ,simon ,boethus2 cursed be their lances6 ,what a plague is the family of ,ananos2 cursed be their hissing of vipers6 ,what a plague is the family of ,cantharus2 cursed be their pens6 ,what a plague is the family of ,ismael ben ,phabi2 cursed be their fists6 ,they are high priests themselves1 their sons are treasurers1 their sons-in-law are commanders1 and their servants strike the people with staves4 ,in like manner the ,talmud1 in withering rebuke and sarcasm1 again declares that ,the porch of the sanctuary cried out four times4 ,the first time1 ,depart from here1 descendants of ,eli2 ye pollute the ,temple of the ,eternal6 ,the second time1 ,let ,issachar ben ,keifar ,barchi depart from here1 who polluted himself and profaneth the victims consecrated to ,god6 ,the third time1 ,widen yourselves1 ye gates of the sanctuary and let ,israel ben ,phabi1 the wilful1 enter that he may discharge the functions of the priesthood6 ,yet another cry was heard1 ,widen yourselves1 ye gates1 and let ,ananias ben ,nebedeus1 the gourmand1 enter1 that he may glut himself on the victims4#cjg ,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 ,christ4 ,were they legally qualified1 then1 under the ancient and honorable tests of ,hebrew law1 to be members of the highest court in the land8 ,if they bought their offices and used them for mercenary purposes1 as ,wise asserts1 were they worthy of the great exemplar1 ,moses1 who sat in judgment without the expectation of material reward8 ,if they thus secured their places and prostituted them to selfish purposes1 were their robes to be respected any more than the blanket of the ass8 ,the ancient ,hebrew judges1 in the days of ,israel's purity and glory1 submitted their claims to judicial preferment to the suffrage of a loving and confiding people4#cjh ,they climbed the rungs of the judicial ladder by slow and painful degrees4 ,integrity and ability marked each advance toward the top4 ,was this the process of promotion in the case of ,caiaphas and his fellow-judges8 ,did their bought and corrupted places not brand them with the anathema of the law8 ,we come now to consider the special disqualifications of members of the ,sanhedrin to sit in judgment upon the life of ,jesus4 ,the reasons for these disqualifications were two3 7#a7 ,the members of this court were1 in the language of ,jost1 burning enemies of ,jesus1 and were therefore disqualified1 under ,hebrew law1 to act as ,his judges2 7#b7 they had determined upon ,his guilt1 and had sentenced ,him to death before the trial began2 and had thus outraged not only a specific provision of ,hebrew law but also a principle of universal justice4 ,the various causes of the hatred of the members of the ,sanhedrin for ,jesus are too numerous and profound to admit of exhaustive treatment here4 ,a thorough analysis of these causes would necessitate a review of the life of ,christ from the manger to the sepulcher4 ,a few reasons will suffice4 ,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 disqualify4 ,every just and righteous judge should loathe and hate the crime itself2 and a certain amount of loathing and dislike for the criminal is most natural and almost inevitable4 ,but no judge is qualified to sit in judgment upon the rights of life1 liberty1 or property of another whom he hates as the result of a personal grudge1 born of personal experience with the prisoner at the bar4 ,the hatred that disqualified the members of the ,sanhedrin1 under ,hebrew law1 was that kind of hatred that had been generated by personal interest and experience4 ,the most merciless invective1 barbed with incomparable wit1 ridicule1 and satire1 had been daily hurled at them by ,jesus with withering effect4 ,with a touch more potent than that of ,ithuriel's spear ,he had unmasked their wicked hypocrisy and had blazoned it to the skies4 ,every day of ,his active ministry1 which lasted about three years1 had been spent in denouncing their shameless practices and their guilty lives4 ,the ,scribes and ,pharisees were proud1 haughty1 and conceited beyond description4 ,they believed implicitly in the infallibility of their authority and in the perfection of their souls4 ,how galling1 then1 to such men must have been this declaration of an obscure and lowly ,nazarene3 ,verily1 ,i say unto you1 ,that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of ,god before you4#cji ,what impetuous invective this3 ,woe unto you1 scribes and ,pharisees1 hypocrites6 for ye devour widows' houses1 and for a pretense make long prayer3 therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation4 ,woe unto you1 scribes and ,pharisees1 hypocrites6 for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte1 and when he is made1 ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves4#caj ,we can well imagine how these fiery darts pierced and tore the vanity of a haughty and contemptuous priesthood4 ,consider for a moment the difference in the spheres of ,jesus and of ,his enemies4 ,he1 an obscure prophet from ,nazareth in ,galilee2 they1 the leaders of ,israel and the guardians of the ,temple at ,jerusalem4 ,he1 the single advocate of the ,new ,dispensation2 they1 the manifold upholders of the ,old4 ,he1 without earthly authority in the propagation of ,his faith2 they1 clothed with the sanction of the law and the prestige of a mighty past4 ,imagine1 then1 if you can1 the intensity of the hatred engendered by the language and the conduct of ,jesus4 ,that we may fully appreciate the tension of the situation let us cast a single glance at the character of the ,scribes4 ,edersheim has written these wonderfully graphic lines about them3 ,he pushes to the front1 the crowd respectfully giving way1 and eagerly hanging on his utterances1 as those of a recognized authority4 ,he has been solemnly ordained by the laying on of hands2 and is the ,rabbi1 my great one1 ,master1 amplitudo4 ,indeed1 his hyper-ingenuity in questioning has become a proverb4 ,there is not measure of his dignity1 nor yet limit to his importance4 ,he is the lawyer1 the well-plastered pit1 filled with the water of knowledge1 out of which not a drop can escape1 in opposition to the weeds of untilled soil of ignorance4 ,he is the divine aristocrat1 among the vulgar herd of rude and profane country people1 who know not the law1 and are cursed4 ,each scribe outweighed all the common people1 who must accordingly pay him every honor4444 ,such was to be the respect paid to their sayings that they were to be absolutely believed1 even if they were to declare that to be at the right hand which was at the left1 or vice-versa4#caa ,what could1 then1 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 affairs8 ,imagine his rage and chagrin when he heard these words3 ,woe unto you1 scribes and ,pharisees1 hypocrites6 for ye are like unto whited sepulchres1 which indeed appear beautiful outward1 but are within full of dead men's bones1 and all uncleanness4444 ,woe unto you1 scribes and ,pharisees1 hypocrites6 because ye build the tombs of the prophets1 and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous1 ,and say1 ,if we had been in the days of our fathers1 we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets4 ,wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves1 that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets4 ,fill ye up then the measure of your fathers4 ,ye serpents1 ye generation of vipers1 how can ye escape the damnation of hell8#cab ,his exquisite irony1 says ,renan1 ,his stinging remarks1 always went to the heart4 ,they were everlasting stings1 and have remained festering in the wound4 ,this ,nessus-shirt of ridicule which the ,jew1 son of the ,pharisees1 has dragged in tatters after him during eighteen centuries1 was woven by ,jesus with a divine skill4 ,masterpieces of fine raillery1 their features are written in lines of fire upon the flesh of the hypocrite and the false devotee4 ,incomparable traits worthy of a ,son of ,god6 ,a god alone knows how to kill in this way4 ,socrates and ,molire only grazed the skin4 ,the former carried fire and rage to the very marrow4#cac ,are we not now justified in asserting1 with ,jost1 that the members of the ,sanhedrin1 who were none other than the ,scribes and ,pharisees above described by ,jesus1 were the burning enemies of the prisoner at the bar8 ,if they were1 were they legally qualified to be ,his judges8 ,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 institutions2 that it was their duty as guardians of both to both hate and try ,him2 and that they would have been derelict in duty if they had not done so4 ,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 political1 more a private than a public affair4 ,in support of this contention1 in addition to the withering language addressed to them1 the matter of the purification of the ,temple may be mentioned4 ,it will be remembered how ,jesus1 with a scorpion lash1 scourged the money-changers and traders from the ,sanctuary4 ,now it is historically true that ,annas and ,caiaphas and their friends owned and controlled the stalls1 booths1 and bazaars connected with the ,temple and from which flowed a most lucrative trade4 ,the profits from the sale of lambs and doves1 sold for sacrifice1 alone were enormous4 ,when ,jesus threatened the destruction of this trade ,he assaulted the interests of ,annas and his associates in the ,sanhedrin in a vital place4 ,this grievance was certainly not so religious as it was personal4 ,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 delivered4 ,but whatever the cause the fact is historic and indisputable that the ,sanhedrists were enemies of ,jesus1 and therefore disqualified under ,hebrew law to try ,him4 ,a second reason for the special disqualification of the members of the ,sanhedrin to sit as judges at the trial of ,christ was the fact that they had determined upon ,his guilt and had sentenced ,him to death before the trial began4 ,this point needs no extensive argument or illustration4 ,under every enlightened system of justice the first great qualification of judges has been that they should be unbiased and unprejudiced4 ,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 accused1 regardless of the testimony4 ,the principles underlying this proposition are fundamental and self-evident4 ,now the ,gospel narratives disclose the fact that three different meetings of the ,sanhedrin were held in the six months preceding the crucifixion1 to discuss the miracles and discourses of ,jesus1 and to devise ways and means to entrap ,him and put ,him to death4 ,the first meeting was held in the latter part of the month of ,september1 ,a4,d4 #bi1 about six months before the night trial in the palace of ,caiaphas4 ,this meeting is recorded by ,st4 ,john in ,chap4 vii41 verses #cg-ec4 ,the occasion was the ,feast of ,tabernacles1 when ,jesus made many converts by ,his preaching1 and at the same time caused much apprehension among the ,pharisees1 who assembled the ,sanhedrin to adopt plans to check ,his career4 ,it was on this occasion that ,nicodemus defended ,christ and asked the question that shows the nature of the proceedings at that time4 ,doth our law judge any man before it hear him and know what he doeth8 ,this was the voice1 not only of ,hebrew but of universal justice demanding a hearing before a condemnation4 ,nothing definite seems to have been accomplished at this meeting4 ,the second session of the ,sanhedrin took place in the month of ,february1 ,a4,d4 #cj1 about six weeks before the crucifixion4 ,the occasion of this meeting was the resurrection of ,lazarus1 an account of which is given in ,john xi4 #da-ec4 ,the chief priests and ,pharisees seem to have been seized with consternation by the reports of the progress of the propaganda of ,jesus4 ,they had often listened contemptuously and in sullen silence to the accounts of ,his miraculous performances4 ,but when ,he began to raise the dead to life1 they decided that it was about time to act4 ,at this meeting ,caiaphas appealed to his associates in the name of the common weal4 ,ye know nothing at all1 he said1 nor consider that it is expedient for us1 that one man should die for the people1 and that the whole nation perish not4#cad ,this seems to have been a form of condemnation in which the other judges joined4 ,then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death4#cae ,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 accomplishment4 ,the third meeting of the ,sanhedrin took place just a few days before the ,paschal ,feast4 ,now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh1 which is called the ,passover4 ,and the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him2 for they feared the people4#caf ,then assembled together the chief priests1 and the scribes1 and the elders of the people1 unto the palace of the high priest1 who was called ,caiaphas1 and consulted that they might take ,jesus by subtilty1 and kill him4 ,but they said1 ,not on the feast day1 lest there be an uproar among the people4#cag ,at this third session of the court it was agreed that the arrest and execution of ,jesus should be accomplished at the earliest possible date4 ,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 opportunity4 ,in short1 and in fact1 their hatred was formed and their determination fixed in the matter of the proceedings to be instituted against ,him4 ,were they1 then1 legally qualified to act as ,his judges8 ,again1 besides prejudging ,him to death had they not demonstrated their total unfitness for any righteous administration of justice by seeking false witnesses against ,him8 ,hebrew law forbade them to seek for witnesses of any kind4 ,they were the defenders of the accused and1 under the ,hebrew system1 were required to search for pretexts to acquit and not for witnesses to condemn4#cah ,it was a maxim that the ,sanhedrin was to save1 not to destroy life4#cai ,much more were they forbidden to seek for false witnesses4 ,hebrew law denounced false witnesses and condemned them to the very punishment prescribed for those whom they sought to convict4 ,and the judges shall make diligent inquisition2 and1 behold1 if the witness be a false witness1 and hath testified falsely against his brother2 then shall ye do unto him1 as he had thought to do unto his brother4444 ,and thine eye shall not pity2 but life shall go for life1 eye for eye1 tooth for tooth1 hand for hand1 foot for foot4#cbj ,but here we find the judges actually seeking testimony which the law pointedly prohibited4 ,this matter alone establishes their utter unfitness to try ,jesus1 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 justice4 ,if it be objected that the points of disqualification above alleged were not applicable to all the judges1 a single sentence of ,scripture meets the objection3 ,and the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against ,jesus to put ,him to death4#cba ,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 ,christ4 ,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 face4 ,we would like to believe that this outrageous conduct was limited to the servants of the priests1 but the ,gospel of ,st4 ,mark1 ,chap4 xiv41 verse #fe1 clearly indicates that the judges themselves were also guilty4 ,,point ,,xii ,,the ,,condemnation ,,of ,,jesus ,,was ,,illegal ,,because ,,the ,,merits ,,of ,,the ,,defense ,,were ,,not ,,considered ,,law ,then shalt thou inquire1 and make search1 and ask diligently4--,,deuteronomy xiii4 #ad4 ,the judges shall weigh the matter in the sincerity of their conscience4--,,mishna1 ,sanhedrin ,,iv4 #e4 ,the primary object of the ,hebrew judicial system was to render the conviction of an innocent person impossible4 ,all the ingenuity of the ,jewish legists was directed to the attainment of this end4--,,benny1 ,criminal ,code of the ,jews1 p4 #ef4 ,,fact ,,and ,,argument ,,the actual trial of any criminal case shows1 upon the record1 two essential parts3 7#a7 ,the accusation2 7#b7 the defense4 ,the absence of the elements of defense makes the proceeding ex parte2 and there is really no trial4 ,and it is impossible to conceive a proper administration of justice where a defense is not allowed1 since the right to combat the allegations of the indictment is the essential principle of liberty under the law4 ,the destruction of this right is the annihilation of freedom by subjecting the individual citizen to the whims and caprices of the governing power4 ,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 prisoner4 ,neither the people nor the accused would be favored or prejudiced by the admission or exclusion of any kind of evidence4 ,an exact interpretation and administration of this code would result in a perfect intellectual balance between the rights of the state and the defendant4 ,but such a code has never been framed1 and if one were in existence1 it would be impossible to enforce it1 as long as certain judges insisted on aiding the prosecution and others on helping the accused1 in violation of standard rules of evidence4 ,now1 the ancient ,hebrew system of criminal procedure was no such ideal one as that above described4 ,it should be remembered that there was no body1 under that system1 corresponding to our modern ,grand ,jury1 to present indictments4 ,there were no prosecuting officers and no counselors-at-law1 in the modern sense4 ,the leading witnesses preferred charges and the judges did the rest4 ,they examined and cross-examined witnesses1 did the summing up and were1 above all1 the defenders of the accused4 ,the rights of the defendant seem to have alone been seriously considered4 ,this startling maxim was a constant menace to the integrity of the government and to the rights of the commonwealth3 ,the ,sanhedrin which so often as once in seven years condemns a man to death1 is a slaughter-house4#cbb ,lightfoot is of the opinion that the ,jews did not lose the power of capital punishment as the result of the ,roman conquest1 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 anyone4 ,this view is unsupported by historic fact1 but it is nevertheless true that the legal safeguards for the protection of the rights of the accused had1 in the later years of ,jewish nationality1 become so numerous and stringent that a condemnation was practically impossible4 ,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 case4 ,it is contended by many that this peculiar provision was intended to abolish capital punishment by rendering conviction impossible4 ,in the light of the principles above suggested let us review the action of the ,sanhedrin in condemning ,jesus to death upon ,his uncorroborated confession4 ,the standard of thoroughness in investigating criminal matters is thus prescribed in the ,mosaic ,code3 ,then shalt thou inquire1 and make search1 and ask diligently4 ,the ,mishna supplements the fundamental law by this direction3 ,the judges shall weigh the matter in the sincerity of their conscience4 ,from what we know of the peculiar tendency of the ,hebrew system to favor the accused we are justified in assuming that the two rules just cited were framed for the protection of the prisoner more than for the security of the commonwealth4 ,now at this point we are led to ask3 ,were these rules applied in the trial of ,jesus in any sense either for or against the accused8 ,did ,caiaphas and the other members of the ,sanhedrin inquire1 and make search and ask diligently concerning the facts involved in the issue between ,jesus and the ,hebrew people8 ,did they weigh the whole matter in the sincerity of their conscience8 ,is it not clearly evident from the record that the false witnesses contradicted themselves1 were rejected and dismissed1 and that ,jesus was then condemned upon ,his uncorroborated confession that ,he was the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god8 ,the usual and natural proceeding in a ,jewish criminal trial was to call witnesses for the defendant1 after the leading witnesses had testified for the people4 ,was this done in the case of ,jesus8 ,his own apostles deserted ,him in the garden1 although two of them seem to have returned to the scene of the trial4 ,is it probable1 in the light of the record1 that witnesses were called for the defendant8 ,we have seen that they could not legally convict ,him upon ,his own confession4 ,and there is nowhere the faintest suggestion that witnesses other than the false ones were called to testify against ,him4 ,the record is clear and unequivocal that the conviction of ,jesus was upon ,his uncorroborated confession4 ,this was illegal4 ,when ,caiaphas said1 ,i adjure thee by the living ,god that thou tell us whether thou be the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god1 ,jesus answered1 ,thou hast said2 that is1 ,i am1 according to ,mark4 ,here was an issue squarely joined between the ,commonwealth of ,israel and ,jesus of ,nazareth4 ,it was incumbent upon the state to establish ,his guilt by two competent witnesses who agreed in all essential details4 ,if these witnesses were not present1 or could not be secured1 it was the duty of the court to discharge ,christ at once4 ,this the law provided and demanded4 ,but this was not done4 ,if1 as has been contended1 the false witnesses were relied upon by the ,sanhedrin to corroborate the confession of ,jesus1 then under ,hebrew law the judges should at least have sought witnesses in ,his behalf1 or should have allowed ,his friends time to find them and bring them in4 ,in other words1 ,his defense should have been considered4 ,however overwhelming the conviction of the judges of the ,sanhedrin that the claims of ,jesus were false and blasphemous1 they were not justified in refusing to consider the merits of ,his pretensions4 ,if a midnight assassin should stealthily creep into the room of a sleeping man and shoot him to death1 a judge would not be legally justified in instructing the jury1 at the close of the people's case1 to bring in a verdict of guilty1 on the ground that nothing that the defendant could prove would help his case4 ,however weak and ridiculous his defense1 the prisoner should at least be heard2 and a failure to accord him a hearing would certainly result in reversal on appeal4 ,a refusal to consider the defense of a prisoner under ancient ,hebrew law was nothing less than an abrogation of the forms of government and a proclamation of mob violence in the particular case1 for it must be remembered that ,hebrew criminal law was framed especially for the protection of the accused4 ,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 made4 ,in other words1 they were not bound to accept ,his explanations and arguments4 ,if they had heard ,him and ,his witnesses1 they could have rejected ,his pretensions as false and blasphemous1 although they were truthful and righteous1 without incurring the censure of mankind and the curse of ,heaven1 for it would be preposterous to require infallible judgment of judicial officers4 ,all that can be demanded of judges of the law is that they act conscientiously with the lights that are in front of them4 ,the maledictions of the human race have been hurled at ,caiaphas and his colleagues during nineteen centuries1 not because they pronounced an illegal judgment1 but because they outraged rules of law in their treatment of the ,christ2 not because they misinterpreted ,his defense1 but because they denied ,him all defense4 ,we should constantly keep in mind that ,jesus was entitled to have the two requirements1 ,then shalt thou inquire1 and make search1 and ask diligently1 and ,the judges shall weigh the matter in the sincerity of their conscience1 applied not only for but against ,him4 ,that is1 before the ,hebrew ,commonwealth rested its case against ,him1 ,he had a right to demand that a prima facie case be made1 or in case of failure to do so1 that ,he be at once discharged4 ,this rule was as pointed and imperative under ancient as under modern law1 and before the merits of the defense were required to be considered the state had to close its case against the defendant1 with a presumption of guilt against ,him1 as a result of the introduction of competent and satisfactory evidence4 ,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 raised2 for it was practically impossible to convict ,him under the circumstances surrounding the night trial in the palace of ,caiaphas4 ,as has been before suggested1 ,jesus was very popular outside the circle of the ,temple authorities4 ,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 ,messiah4 ,we have seen1 under ,point ,,viii1 that ,jesus had confessed ,his ,messiahship to no one excepting the ,samaritan woman1 outside the ,apostolic company4 ,judas1 then1 was probably the only witness who had heard ,him declare ,himself to be the ,messiah that could have been secured2 and his testimony was incompetent1 under ,hebrew law1 because1 under the supposition that ,jesus was a criminal1 ,judas1 ,his apostle1 was an accomplice4 ,as to the charge of blasphemy in the broader sense of having claimed equality with ,god1 upon which1 according to ,salvador1 ,jesus was convicted1 it seems from the ,gospel record that there would have been no difficulty in legally convicting ,him1 if the ,sanhedrin had met regularly and had taken time to summon witnesses in legal manner4 ,for on many occasions ,jesus had said and done things in the presence of both friends and enemies that the ,jews regarded as blasphemous2 such as claiming that ,he and ,his ,father were one2 that ,he had existed before ,abraham2 and that ,he had power to forgive sins4 ,but these charges were not made at the trial1 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 ,christ1 the ,son of ,god4 ,if ,caiaphas was justified in construing these words to mean that ,jesus claimed identity with ,jehovah1 then he was justified in inferring that ,jesus had spoken blasphemy1 for from the standpoint of ancient ,judaism and considering ,jesus simply as a ,jewish citizen1 blasphemy was the crime that resulted from such a claim4 ,but even from this point of view ,caiaphas was not justified in refusing ,jesus ample opportunity to prove ,his equality with ,jehovah1 or at least that ,he was gifted with divine power4 ,this was all the more true because the claim of ,jesus was that of ,messiahship1 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 earth4 ,but it is clearly certain that a prima facie case of guilt was not made by the ,sanhedrin against ,jesus2 and1 as a matter of law1 ,he was not called upon to make any defense4 ,he could have refused to say a word in answer to the accusation4 ,he could have asserted ,his legal rights by objecting that a case against ,him had not been made1 by demanding that the charges against ,him be dismissed and that ,he be set at liberty at once4 ,but ,jesus did not do this4 ,he simply confessed ,his ,messiahship and ,sonship of the ,father4 ,this confession was not legal evidence upon which ,he could have been convicted1 but it did help to create an issue1 the truth or falsity of which should have been investigated by the court4 ,now1 let us suppose1 for argument's sake1 that a prima facie case of guilt against ,jesus was made before the ,sanhedrin4 ,what was the next legal step under ,hebrew law8 ,what should the judges have done after hearing the witnesses against ,him8 ,it is beyond dispute that they should have begun at once to inquire1 and make search1 and ask diligently concerning all matters pertaining to the truthfulness and righteousness of ,his claims to ,messiahship4 ,they should have assisted ,him in securing witnesses whose testimony would have helped to establish those claims4 ,having secured such testimony1 they should have weighed it in the sincerity of their conscience4 ,but this they did not do4 ,it may be asked3 ,what proofs could have been offered that ,jesus was the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god1 if complete rights of defense had been accorded8 ,that question is difficult to answer1 nearly two thousand years after the trial4 ,but if a prima facie case of guilt had been made against ,him1 shifting the burden of proof1 and requiring that ,his claims be proved1 it may be reasonably contended that a complete defense would have necessitated proofs3 7#a7 ,that ,jesus was the ,christ1 that is1 that ,he was the ,messiah2 7#b7 that ,he was also the ,son of ,god1 that is1 that ,he was identical with ,god ,himself4 ,let us consider these two phases of the subject and their attendant proofs in order4 ,and first1 what evidence could have been offered that ,jesus was the ,christ1 that is1 the ,messiah8 ,what method of procedure should have been employed by the ,sanhedrin in investigating ,his claims8 ,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 world4 ,let us not forget that the ,jews were expecting a ,messiah1 and that the mere claim of ,messiahship was not illegal4 ,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 law4 ,it was not one to be either accepted or rejected without demonstration4 ,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 once1 or to summon competent witnesses1 by daylight1 to prove that ,his pretensions were false and blasphemous4 ,having rested their case1 it was their duty to aid the prisoner in securing witnesses to substantiate ,his claims1 and according to the spirit of ,hebrew law to view rather favorably than unfavorably such claims4 ,it was also incumbent upon them to apply to ,jesus all the ,messianic tests of each and every school4 ,it should be remembered that at the time of ,christ there were radically different views of the attributes of the expected ,messiah4 ,no two schools agreed upon all the signs by which the future ,deliverer would be recognized4 ,only one sign was agreed upon by all--that ,he would be a scion of the ,house of ,david4 ,the followers of ,judas of ,galilee believed that the ,messiah would be an earthly hero of giant stature--a ,william ,tell1 a ,robert ,bruce1 an ,abraham ,lincoln--who would emancipate the ,jews by driving out the ,romans and permanently restoring the kingdom of ,david on the earth4 ,the school of ,shammai believed that he would be not only a great statesman and warrior1 but a religious zealot as well2 and that to splendid victories on the battlefield1 he would add the glorious triumphs of religion4 ,radically different from both these views1 were the teachings of the gentle ,hillel and his disciples4 ,according to these1 the ,messiah was to be a prince of peace whose sublime and holy spirit would impress itself upon all flesh1 would banish all wars1 and make of ,jerusalem the grand center of international brotherhood and love4 ,but even these conceptions were not exhaustive of the various ,messianic ideas that were prevalent in ,palestine in the days of ,jesus4 ,some of the ,messianic notions were not only contradictory but diametrically opposite in meaning4 ,a prince of peace and a gigantic warrior could not well be one and the same person4 ,and for this reason it is apparent that1 had an examination been made1 the claims of ,jesus to the ,messiahship could not have been rejected by ,caiaphas and the ,sanhedrin1 simply because this or that attribute did not meet the approval of this or that sect or school4 ,instead of condemning ,him to death for blasphemy1 when ,jesus answered that ,he was the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god1 ,caiaphas should have asked a second question3 ,what sign shewest thou then1 that we may see and believe thee8 ,it has been contended by ,jewish writers that1 far from denying ,jesus the privilege of proving ,his ,messiahship1 ,he was frequently asked to give signs and perform wonders4 ,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 ,messiahship4 ,and as to the chances afforded ,him at other times and places1 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 religiously4 ,it is only when properly arraigned and accused that a citizen under modern law can be compelled to answer a charge of crime4 ,the rule was more stringent under the ancient ,hebrew dispensation4 ,private preliminary examinations1 even by judicial officers1 were not permitted by ,hebrew law1 as ,salvador explicitly states4 ,it was only when confronted by proper charges before a legally constituted tribunal in regular session1 that a ,hebrew prisoner was compelled to answer4 ,and at the regular trial before the full ,sanhedrin ,jesus was not asked to give evidence that would serve to exculpate ,him4 ,what ,caiaphas should have done was to notify ,jesus1 at the time of the arraignment in his own house1 that ,his life was at stake and that now was the time to produce testimony in ,his own behalf4 ,it was the duty1 furthermore1 of the high priest and his associates to consult the sacred books to see if the ,messianic prophecies therein contained were fulfilled in the birth1 life1 and performances of ,jesus1 as these matters were developed at the trial by witnesses duly summoned in ,his behalf4 ,it was a matter personally within the knowledge of the judges that the time was ripe for the appearance of the ,deliverer4 ,not only the people of ,israel1 but all the surrounding nations were expecting the coming of a great renovator of the world4 ,of such an arrival ,virgil had already sung at ,rome4#cbc ,a great national misfortune had already foreshadowed the day of the ,messiah more potently than had any individual event in the life of ,jesus4 ,when ,jacob lay dying upon his deathbed1 he called around him his twelve sons and began to pronounce upon each in turn the paternal and prophetic blessing4 ,when the turn of ,judah came1 the accents of the dying patriarch became more clear and animated1 as he said3 ,judah1 thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise3 thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies2 thy father's children shall bow down before thee4 ,judah is a lion's whelp3 from the prey1 my son1 thou art gone up3 he stooped down1 he couched as a lion1 and as an old lion2 who shall rouse him up8 ,the sceptre shall not depart from ,judah1 nor a lawgiver from between his feet1 until ,shiloh come2 and unto him shall the gathering of the people be4#cbd ,the ,jewish ,rabbinical commentators of antiquity were unanimously of the opinion that this prophecy of ,jacob referred to the day of the ,messiah4 ,and for ages the people had been told to watch for two special signs which would herald the coming of the great ,deliverer3 7#a7 ,the departure of the scepter from ,judah2 7#b7 the loss of the judicial power4 ,the ,talmudists1 commenting on the above passage from ,genesis1 say3 ,the son of ,david shall not come unless the royal power has been taken from ,judah2 and in another passage3 ,the son of ,david shall not come unless the judges have ceased in ,israel4#cbe ,now both these signs had appeared at the time of the ,roman conquest1 shortly before the birth of ,christ4 ,at the deposition of ,archelaus1 ,a4,d4 #f1 ,judea became a ,roman province with a ,roman procurator as governor4 ,sovereignty then passed away forever from the ,jews4 ,and not only was sovereignty taken from them1 but its chief attribute1 the power of life and death in judicial matters1 was destroyed4 ,thus the legal and historical situation was produced that had been prophesied by ,jacob4 ,the scepter had passed from ,judah and the lawgiver from between his feet1 when ,jesus stood before the ,sanhedrin claiming to be the ,messiah4 ,a fair trial in full daylight1 it is believed1 would have called before ,his judges a host of witnesses friendly to ,jesus1 whose testimony would have established an exact fulfilment of ancient ,messianic prophecy in ,his birth1 life1 arrest1 and trial4 ,a judicial record would have been made of which the following might be regarded as an approximately correct transcript3 7#a7 ,that the ,messiah was to be born in ,bethlehem3 ,,prophecy--,but thou1 ,beth-lehem ,ephratah1 though thou be little among the thousands of ,judah1 yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in ,israel2 whose goings forth have been from of old1 from everlasting4--,,micah v4 #b4 ,,fulfillment--,now when ,jesus was born in ,bethlehem of ,judea in the days of ,herod the king1 behold1 there came wise men from the east to ,jerusalem4--,,matt4 ii4 #a4 ,and ,joseph also went up from ,galilee1 out of the city of ,nazareth1 into ,judea1 unto the city of ,david1 which is called ,bethlehem 7because he was of the house and lineage of ,david71 ,to be taxed with ,mary his espoused wife1 being great with child4 ,and so it was1 that1 while they were there1 the days were accomplished that she should be delivered4 ,and she brought forth her firstborn son1 and wrapped him in swaddling clothes1 and laid him in a manger2 because there was no room for them in the inn4--,,luke ii4 #d-g4 7#b7 ,that the ,messiah was to be born of a virgin3 ,,prophecy--,therefore the ,lord himself shall give you a sign2 ,behold1 a virgin shall conceive1 and bear a son1 and shall call his name ,immanuel4--,,isa4 vii4 #ad4 ,,fulfillment--,and in the sixth month the angel ,gabriel was sent from ,god unto a city of ,galilee1 named ,nazareth1 ,to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was ,joseph1 of the house of ,david2 and the virgin's name was ,mary4444 ,and the angel said unto her1 ,fear not1 ,mary3 for thou hast found favor with ,god4 ,and1 behold1 thou shalt conceive in thy womb1 and bring forth a son1 and shalt call his name ,jesus4--,,luke i4 #bf-cj4 ,then ,joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the ,lord had bidden him1 and took unto him his wife3 and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son3 and he called his name ,jesus--,,matt4 i4 #bd1 #be4 7#c7 ,that the ,messiah was to spring from the house of ,david3 ,,prophecy--,behold1 the days come1 saith the ,lord1 that ,i will raise unto ,david a righteous ,branch1 and a ,king shall reign and prosper1 and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth4 ,in his days ,judah shall be saved1 and ,israel shall dwell safely3 and this is his name whereby he shall be called1 ,,the ,,lord ,,our ,,righteousness4--,,jer4 xxiii4 #e1 #f4 ,,fulfillment--,he shall be great1 and shall be called the ,son of the ,highest2 and the ,lord ,god shall give unto him the throne of his father ,david4--,,luke i4 #cb4 ,but while he thought on these things1 behold1 the angel of the ,lord appeared unto him in a dream1 saying1 ,joseph1 thou son of ,david1 fear not to take unto thee ,mary thy wife3 for that which is conceived in her is of the ,holy ,ghost4--,,matt4 i4 #bj4 7#d7 ,that the ,messiah should not come until the scepter had departed from ,judah and the lawgiver from between his feet3 ,,prophecy--,the ,sceptre shall not depart from ,judah1 nor a lawgiver from between his feet1 until ,shiloh come4--,,gen4 xlix4 #aj4 ,,fulfillment--,and he saith unto them1 ,whose is this image and superscription8 ,they say unto him1 ,csar's4 ,then saith he unto them1 ,render therefore unto ,csar the things which are ,csar's2 and unto ,god the things that are ,god's4--,,matt4 xxii4 #bj1 #ba4 ,then said ,pilate unto them1 ,take ye him1 and judge him according to your law4 ,the ,jews therefore said unto him1 ,it is not lawful for us to put any man to death4--,,john xviii4 #ca4 7#e7 ,that a forerunner like unto ,elijah should prepare the way of the ,messiah3 ,,prophecy--,behold1 ,i will send my messenger1 and he shall prepare the way before me3 and the ,lord1 whom ye seek1 shall suddenly come to his temple1 even the messenger of the covenant1 whom ye delight in3 behold1 he shall come1 saith the ,lord of hosts4--,,mal4 iii4 #a4 ,the voice of him that crieth in the wilderness1 ,prepare ye the way of the ,lord1 make straight in the desert a highway for our ,god4--,,isa4 xl4 #c4 ,,fulfillment--,in those days came ,john the ,baptist1 preaching in the wilderness of ,judea1 ,and saying1 ,repent ye3 for the kingdom of heaven is at hand4 ,for this is he that was spoken of by the prophet ,esaias1 saying1 ,the voice of one crying in the wilderness1 ,prepare ye the way of the ,lord1 make his paths straight4--,,matt4 iii4 #a-c4 ,this is he1 of whom it is written1 ,behold1 ,i send my messenger before thy face1 which shall prepare thy way before thee4 ,for ,i say unto you1 ,among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than ,john the ,baptist4--,,luke vii4 #bg1 #bh4 7#f7 ,that the ,messiah should begin to preach in ,galilee3 ,,prophecy--,in ,galilee of the nations1 the people that walked in darkness have seen a great light4--,,isa4 ix4 #a1 #b4 ,,fulfillment--,now when ,jesus had heard that ,john was cast into prison1 ,he departed into ,galilee4444 ,the people which sat in darkness1 saw great light2 and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up4 ,from that time1 ,jesus began to preach1 and to say1 ,repent3 for the kingdom of heaven is at hand4--,,matt4 iv4 #ab-ag4 7#g7 ,that the ,messiah should perform many miracles3 ,,prophecy--,then the eyes of the blind shall be opened1 and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped4 ,then shall the lame man leap as a hart1 and the tongue of the dumb sing3 for in the wilderness shall waters break out1 and streams in the desert4--,,isa4 xxxv4 #e1 #f4 ,,fulfillment--,then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil1 blind1 and dumb1 and he healed him1 insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw4--,,matt4 xii4 #bb4 ,but that ye may know that the ,son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins 7he said unto the sick of the palsy71 ,i say unto thee1 ,arise1 and take up thy couch1 and go into thine house4 ,and immediately he rose up before them1 and took up that whereon he lay1 and departed to his own house1 glorifying ,god4--,,luke v4 #bd1 #be4 ,jesus answered and said unto them1 ,go and shew ,john again those things which ye do hear and see3 ,the blind receive their sight1 and the lame walk1 the lepers are cleansed1 and the deaf hear1 the dead are raised up1 and the poor have the gospel preached to them4--,,matt4 xi4 #d1 #e4 7#h7 ,that the ,messiah should make his public entry into ,jerusalem riding upon an ass3 ,,prophecy--,rejoice greatly1 ,o daughter of ,zion2 shout1 ,o daughter of ,jerusalem3 behold1 thy ,king cometh unto thee3 he is just1 and having salvation2 lowly1 and riding upon an ass1 and upon a colt the foal of an ass4--,,zech4 ix4 #i4 ,,fulfillment--,and the disciples went1 and did as ,jesus commanded them1 ,and brought the ass1 and the colt1 and put on them their clothes1 and they set him thereon4 ,and a very great multitude spread their garments in the way2 others cut down branches from the trees1 and strewed them in the way4 ,and the multitudes that went before1 and that followed1 cried1 saying1 ,hosanna to the ,son of ,david3 ,blessed is he that cometh in the name of the ,lord2 ,hosanna in the highest4--,,matt4 xxi4 #f-i4 7#i7 ,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 field3 ,,prophecy--,yea1 mine own familiar friend1 in whom ,i trusted1 which did eat of my bread1 hath lifted up his heel against me4--,,psa4 xli4 #i4 ,and ,i said unto them1 ,if ye think good1 give me my price2 and if not1 forbear4 ,so they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver4 ,and the ,lord said unto me1 ,cast it unto the potter3 a goodly price that ,i was prized at of them4 ,and ,i took the thirty pieces of silver1 and cast them to the potter in the house of the ,lord4--,,zech4 xi4 #ab1 #ac4 ,,fulfillment--,then one of the twelve1 called ,judas ,iscariot1 went unto the chief priests1 ,and said unto them1 ,what will ye give me1 and ,i will deliver him unto you8 ,and they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver4--,,matt4 xxvi4 #ad1 #ae4 ,then ,judas1 which had betrayed him1 when he saw that he was condemned1 repented himself1 and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders1 ,saying1 ,i have sinned in that ,i have betrayed the innocent blood4 ,and they said1 ,what is that to us8 see thou to that4 ,and he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple1 and departed1 and went and hanged himself4 ,and the chief priests took the silver pieces1 and said1 ,it is not lawful for to put them into the treasury1 because it is the price of blood4 ,and they took counsel1 and bought with them the potter's field1 to bury strangers in4--,,matt4 xxvii4 #c-h4 7#aj7 ,that the ,messiah should be a man of poverty and of suffering2 and should be despised and rejected of men3 ,,prophecy--,he is despised and rejected of men2 a man of sorrows1 and acquainted with grief3 and we hid as it were our faces from him2 he was despised1 and we esteemed him not4--,,isa4 liii4 #c4 ,,fulfillment--,and ,jesus said unto him1 ,foxes have holes1 and birds of the air have nests2 but the ,son of man hath not where to lay his head4--,,luke ix4 #eh4 ,and they smote him on the head with a reed1 and did spit upon him1 and bowing their knees worshipped him4 ,and when they had mocked him1 they took off the purple from him1 and put his own clothes on him1 and led him out to crucify him4--,,mark xv4 #ai1 #bj4 ,through reasonable diligence1 witnesses might have been secured to testify to a majority1 at least1 of the points above enumerated1 touching ,messianic prophecy and fulfillment4 ,besides these are many others too numerous to mention in a treatise of this kind4 ,the question then arises at once3 ,admitting that all the evidence above suggested1 marked ,prophecy and ,fulfillment1 could have been introduced in evidence at the trial before the ,sanhedrin2 were the judges morally and legally bound to acquit and release ,jesus1 if they believed this testimony to be true8 ,we answer unhesitatingly1 yes2 as far as the count in the accusation relating to ,messiahship was concerned4 ,but we must remember that the charge against ,jesus was not limited to ,his claims to ,messiahship4 ,the indictment against ,him was that ,he claimed to be the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god4 ,christ is the ,english form of the ,greek translation of the word meaning ,messiah4 ,the real nature of the charge against the prisoner1 then1 was that ,he claimed to be not only the ,messiah but also the ,son of ,god4 ,we have seen that ,son of ,god conveyed to the ,sanhedrin the notion of divine origin and of equality with ,jehovah4 ,even to-day there is no dispute between ,jews and ,christians in regard to this construction4 ,jews charge that ,jesus made such a claim and ,christians agree with them4 ,they are compelled to do so1 indeed1 or else abjure the fundamental dogma of their faith--the doctrine of the ,trinity4 ,now we approach the consideration of a phase of the subject where theology and law meet and blend4 ,it has been sought to ridicule the contention that ,jesus should have been heard on the charge of being the ,son of ,god1 in the sense that ,he was ,god ,himself1 because such a claim was not only ridiculous and frivolous as a plea1 but because it was blasphemous upon its face2 as being opposed1 by bare assertion1 to the most fundamental and sacred precept of the ,mosaic ,code and of the teachings of the ,prophets3 that ,god was purely and wholly spiritual2 that ,he was not only incorporeal but invisible1 indivisible1 and incomprehensible4 ,the advocates of this theory declare that ,jesus asserted1 in the face of this primary belief of the ,hebrews1 a plurality of gods of which ,he was a member1 and that this assertion destroyed the very cornerstone of ,judaism1 founded in the teaching of the celebrated passage3 ,hear1 ,o ,israel3 ,the ,lord our ,god is one ,lord4 ,they further declare that when ,jesus presented ,himself in the flesh1 and declared that ,he was ,god1 ,he insulted both the intelligence and religious consciousness of ,his judges by a complete anthropomorphism2 and that when ,he did this1 ,he was not entitled to be heard4 ,one of the most radical of this class is ,rabbi ,wise who1 in ,the ,martyrdom of ,jesus1 says3 ,had ,jesus maintained before a ,jewish court to be the ,son of ,god1 in the trinitarian sense of the terms1 viz41 that ,he was part1 person1 or incarnation of the ,deity1 ,he must have said it in terms to be understood to that effect1 as ambiguous words amount to nothing4 ,but if even clearly understood1 the court could only have found ,him insane1 but not guilty of any crime4 ,this is strong language1 indeed1 and deserves serious consideration4 ,it means nothing less than that ,jesus1 upon ,his confession of equality and identity with ,god1 should have been committed as a lunatic1 and not tried as a criminal4 ,and the real meaning of this too extreme view is that the claims of ,jesus1 being a man in the flesh1 to membership in a plurality of gods was such an outrageous and unheard-of thing that it amounted to insanity2 and that an insane person was not one to be listened to1 but to be committed and protected4 ,the purpose of the distinguished ,hebrew theologian was to show by the absurdity of the thing that ,jesus was never tried before a ,hebrew court2 that ,he never claimed to be the ,son of ,god1 and that the ,evangelical narratives are simply false4 ,the same writer thus continues in the same connection3 ,mark reports furthermore1 that ,jesus did not simply affirm the high priest's question but added3 ',and ye shall see the ,son of ,man sitting on the right hand of power1 and coming in the clouds of heaven4' ,jesus cannot have said these words4 ,our reasons are3 they are not true2 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 heaven4 ,these words could have originated only after the death of ,jesus1 when the ,jewish ,christians expected his immediate return as the ,messiah and restorer of the kingdom of heaven1 so that those very men could see him coming in the clouds of heaven4 ,besides1 ,jesus1 the ,pharisean ,jew1 could not have entertained the anthropomorphism that ,god had a right hand4#cbf ,it is only necessary to add that ,rabbi ,wise may be right1 if the ,gospel writers were untruthful men4 ,suffice it to say that we have said enough in support of the veracity of the ,evangelists in ,part ,i of this volume4 ,if we are right that they were truthful historians when they published these biographies to the world1 ,rabbi ,wise is wrong2 for according to these writers the ,sanhedrin did not take the view that ,jesus was a crazy man1 but that ,he was a criminal4 ,they accordingly tried ,him to the extent of bringing an accusation against ,him and of supporting it with a certain kind and amount of testimony1 and by then leading ,him away to be crucified by the ,romans4 ,our contention is that the trial was not complete1 in that ,his judges did not consider the merits of the defense of ,jesus in the proceedings which they conducted against ,him4 ,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 ,jesus2 since we have announced a legal and not a theological consideration of the subject4 ,but we repeat that the theological and the legal are inseparably interwoven in a proper handling of ,point ,,xii4 ,if ,rabbi ,wise and others are right that the anthropomorphic pretensions of ,jesus robbed ,him of the protection of the law1 in the sense that ,his claims to be ,god in the flesh were not worthy of consideration by a ,hebrew court1 then we are wrong in making the point that the merits of ,his defense should have been considered4 ,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 protection2 that ,his pretensions were not those of an insane man2 that if ,he was not the ,son of ,god ,he was guilty of blasphemy2 and that if ,he was the ,son of ,god ,he was innocent4 ,we further contend that all these things were subjects of legitimate judicial examination by ,hebrew judges under ,hebrew law1 and that ,jesus should have had ,his day in court4 ,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 him4 ,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 bone4 ,hebrew monotheism taught the doctrine of one ,god who was purely spiritual1 and therefore invisible1 intangible1 and unapproachable4 ,judaism delighted to lift its deity above the sensual1 material1 and corporeal things of earth1 and to represent ,him as a pure and sinless spirit in a state of awful and supreme transcendence4 ,our first impression1 then1 is that this dogma of divine unity and spirituality must have received a dreadful shock when ,jesus1 a carpenter of ,nazareth1 whose mother1 father1 brothers1 and sisters were known1 confronted the high priest and declared to him that ,he was ,god4 ,but the shock was certainly not so great that ,caiaphas and his colleagues1 after a moment's composure and reflection1 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 ,israel4 ,they might have judged ,his claims to be unfounded1 but they were certainly not justified in pronouncing ,him insane1 or in ignoring ,his rights under the law to be heard and to have ,his defense considered4 ,their arrest and trial of the prisoner was the consummation of a number of secret meetings in which the astounding personality and marvelous performances of ,jesus were debated and discussed with fear and trembling4 ,the raising of ,lazarus from the dead had created a frightful panic among the ,sadducean oligarchy4 ,far from regarding ,him as an obscure person whose claims were ridiculous and whose mind was unbalanced1 the priests feared lest all men might believe on ,him1 and boldly declared that such was the influence of ,his deeds that ,his single life might be balanced against the existence of a whole nation4#cbg ,what the judges of the ,sanhedrin should have done in examining the merits of the defense of ,jesus was3 7#a7 ,to consider whether1 in the light of ,hebrew scripture and tradition1 a god of flesh and bone1 representing the second person of a ,duality or a ,trinity of gods1 was possible2 7#b7 to weigh thoroughly the claims of ,jesus1 in the light of testimony properly adduced at the trial1 that ,he was this second person of a ,duality or ,trinity of gods4 ,in making this examination1 let us bear in mind1 the members of the court were not to look forward1 but backward4 ,they were to examine the past1 not the future1 in reference to the present4 ,furthermore1 they were not to consider so much a ,trinity as a ,duality of gods2 for it must be remembered that the ,holy ,ghost was not a feature of the trial4 ,the ,athanasian creed and the proceedings of the ,nicene ,council were not binding upon ,caiaphas and his fellow-judges4 ,nor were the teachings of the ,new ,testament scriptures published to the world more than a generation after the trial4 ,they were to consider the divine pretensions of ,jesus in the light of the teachings and revelations of the ,law and the ,prophets4 ,they were to measure ,his claims by these standards in the light of the evidence adduced before them4 ,with a view to a thorough and systematic examination of the merits of the defense of ,jesus1 ,caiaphas1 as presiding officer of the ,sanhedrin1 should have propounded to his fellow-judges the following initial questions3 7#a7 ,do the ,law and the ,prophets reveal the doctrine of a plurality of gods among the ,israelites8 ,that is1 has ,jehovah ever begotten1 or has ,he ever promised to beget1 a ,son of equal divinity with ,himself8 ,was this ,son to be1 or is ,he to be born of a woman2 and to have1 therefore1 the form of a man and the attributes of a human being8 ,was this ,son to be1 or is ,he to be at any time identical with the ,father8 ,do the ,law and the ,prophets tell us unmistakably that ,jehovah ever appeared upon the earth in human form and exhibited human attributes8 ,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 world8 7#b7 ,do the credentials of ,jesus1 the prisoner at the bar1 in the light of the evidence before us1 entitle ,him to be considered this ,son and ,ambassador of ,god1 sent from the ,father to redeem mankind8 ,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 useless4 ,let us conceive1 then1 that the judges of the ,sanhedrin had employed this method4 ,what answers1 we may ask1 would they have developed to these questions from the ,sacred ,books8 ,at the outset it is safe to say that negative answers would have been given1 if the judges had considered the claims of ,jesus with reference alone to the prevailing ,pharisaic teachings of the days of ,jesus4 ,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 ,christ4 ,the spiritual growth of the nation had been characterized at every step by marked aversion to anthropomorphism--the ascription to ,god of human form and attributes4 ,in the ,pentateuch there is a prevailing anthropomorphic idea of ,jehovah4 ,he is frequently talked about as if ,he were a man4 ,human passions and emotions are repeatedly ascribed to ,him4 ,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 faith4 ,all early religions have manifested the same anthropomorphic tendencies4 ,both ,judaism and ,christianity have long since planted themselves upon the fundamental proposition that ,god is a spirit4 ,but both these systems of religion have in all ages been compelled to run the gantlet of two opposing tendencies3 one of which sought by a living1 personal communion with ,god through ,moses and through ,christ1 by means of human attributes and symbols1 an intimate knowledge and immediate benefit of the divine nature2 the other1 from a horror of anthropomorphism1 tending to make ,god purely passionless and impersonal1 thus reducing ,him to a bare conception without form or quality1 thus making ,him a blank negation4 ,the successive steps in the progress of weeding out anthropomorphisms from the ,pentateuch may be clearly traced in later ,hebrew literature4 ,the ,prophets themselves were at times repelled by the sensuous conceptions of ,god revealed by the writings of ,moses4 ,the great lawgiver had attributed to ,jehovah the quality of repentance1 a human attribute4 ,and it repented the ,lord that he had made man on the earth1 and it grieved him at his heart1 says ,genesis vi4 #f4 ,but a later writer1 the prophet ,samuel1 denied that ,god had such a quality4 ,and also the ,strength of ,israel will not lie nor repent3 for he is not a man1 that he should repent4#cbh ,and the prophet ,hosea affirms this declaration when he places in the mouth of ,jehovah the affirmation3 ,for ,i am ,god and not man4#cbi ,at a still later age1 when the notion of the supreme transcendence of ,jehovah had become prevalent1 it was considered objectionable to make ,god say1 ,i will dwell in your midst2 as a substitute1 ,i shall cause you to dwell was adopted4 ,to behold the face of ,god was not a repulsive phrase in the ancient days of ,hebrew plainness and simplicity1 but later times sought to eradicate the anthropomorphism by saying instead1 to appear before ,god4 ,the ,septuagint1 the ,greek version of the ,bible in use at the time of ,christ1 reveals the same tendency toward paraphrasing or spiritualizing the anthropomorphic phrases of the older ,bible4 ,in this translation the image of ,god of the older ,hebrew literature becomes the glory of ,god1 and the mouth of ,god is expressed by the voice of the ,lord4 ,the ,septuagint was written more than a century before the birth of ,jesus1 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 spirituality1 in relation to the person and character of ,jehovah1 but that they boldly and indignantly denied and denounced any attempt to make of ,god a man or to attribute to ,him human qualities4 ,but when we say the ,jews1 we mean the dominant religious sect of the nation1 the ,pharisees4 ,we should not forget1 in this connection1 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 teachings4 ,we have seen in ,part ,,ii of this volume that the ,mishna1 the oral law1 was really more highly esteemed by the ,pharisaic ,jews than was the ,mosaic ,code4 ,but the ,sadducees planted themselves squarely upon the ,pentateuch and denied that the traditions of the ,scribes were of binding force4 ,the ,sadducees were a body of aristocrats opposed to the oral law and the later developments of ,judaism4 ,now what views1 we may ask1 did the ,sadducees entertain of the possibility of ,god appearing to men in the flesh8 ,in other words1 what was their notion1 at the time of ,christ1 of the anthropomorphisms of the ,pentateuch1 which was their ultimate guide and standard in all matters of legal and religious interpretation8 ,these questions are important in this connection1 since ,caiaphas and the large majority of his colleagues in the ,great ,sanhedrin were ,sadducees and held the fate of ,jesus in their hands4 ,candor compels us to admit that we believe that the ,sadducees agreed with the ,pharisees that ,jehovah was a pure and sinless spirit4 ,but we feel equally sure that their knowledge of the ,pentateuch1 in which at times anthropomorphism is strongly accentuated1 taught them that ,jehovah had not only appeared in the flesh among men in olden times1 but that it was not at all impossible or unreasonable that ,he should come again in the same form4 ,but this much is certain3 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 ,judaism1 and appeal direct to the law of ,moses4 ,jesus ,himself1 if ,he had been disposed to make a defense of ,his claims1 and ,his judges had been disposed to hear ,him1 would have appealed to the same legal standard4 ,christ more than once manifested a disposition to appeal to the ,mosaic ,code1 as a modern citizen would appeal from mere statutes and the decisions of the courts1 to the constitution1 as the fundamental law of the land4 ,mark tells us that in denouncing the ,pharisees1 ,he used this language3 ,and he said unto them1 ,full well ye reject the commandment of ,god1 that ye may keep your own tradition4444 ,making the word of ,god of none effect through your tradition1 which ye have delivered3 and many such like things do ye4#ccj ,hebrew sacred literature is filled with anecdotes1 often characterized by raillery and jests1 of how the ,sadducces denounced the ,pharisees for their attempts to nullify ,mosaic injunction by their peculiar interpretation4 ,now in view of what we have just said1 are we not justified in assuming that if the judges had accorded ,jesus full liberty of defense ,he would have appealed to the ,pentateuch1 with the approbation of ,his judges1 to show that ,god had appeared among men in the flesh1 and that a plurality in the ,godhead was plainly taught8 ,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 ,himself8 ,would ,he not have shown from both the ,law and the ,prophets that the angel of ,jehovah1 who was none other than ,himself1 had frequently1 in ages past1 acted as the ambassador of ,god in numerous visits to the earth1 on missions of love and mercy among men8 ,would ,he not have proved to them that this angel of ,jehovah had been at certain times in the past none other than ,jehovah ,himself8 ,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 man8 ,could ,he not then have summoned a hundred witnesses to prove ,his own connection with these prophecies1 to show ,his virgin birth1 and to give an account of the numerous miracles which ,he had wrought1 and that were the best evidence of ,his divine character8 ,let us imagine that ,caiaphas1 as judge1 had demanded of ,jesus1 the prisoner1 to produce ,biblical evidence that ,god had ever begotten or had promised to beget a ,son who was equal with ,himself4 ,the following passages might have been produced3 ,psa4 ii4 #g3 ,thou art my son2 this day have ,i begotten thee4 ,isa4 ix4 #f3 ,for unto us a child is born1 unto us a son is given3 and the government shall be upon his shoulder3 and his name shall be called ,wonderful1 ,counselor1 ,the mighty ,god1 ,the everlasting ,father1 ,the ,prince of ,peace4 ,what closer identity1 we may ask1 could be demanded between the ,father and the ,son than is revealed by this language of ,isaiah1 and his 7the son's7 name shall be called ,the mighty ,god1 ,the everlasting ,father8 ,what more exact equality could be asked than the same words suggest8 ,what stronger proof of plurality in the ,godhead could be demanded8 ,again1 let us suppose that ,his judges had demanded of ,jesus scriptural proof that the divine ,son of ,god was to be born of a woman1 and was to have1 therefore1 the form of a man and the attributes of a human being4 ,the following passages might have been produced3 ,isa4 vii4 #ad3 ,therefore the ,lord himself shall give you a sign2 ,behold1 a virgin shall conceive and bear a son1 and shall call his name ,immanuel4 ,gen4 iii4 #ae3 ,and ,i will put enmity between thee and the woman1 and between thy seed and her seed2 it shall bruise thy head1 and thou shalt bruise his heel4 ,enoch lxii4 #e3 ,and one ,portion of them will look on the other1 and they will be terrified1 and their countenance will fall1 and they will seize them when they see that ,son of ,woman sitting on the throne of his glory4 ,the first of these passages needs no comment4 ,it is perfectly clear and speaks for itself4 ,regarding the second1 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 head4 ,this announcement contained1 when viewed in the light of subsequent revelations1 both a promise and a prophecy2 a promise of a ,redeemer of fallen man1 and a prophecy that ,he would finally triumph over all the powers of sin and darkness whose father was ,satan1 who had entered into the serpent4 ,the seed of the woman foretold that the ,redeemer would have a human nature2 ,his triumph over ,satan suggested ,his divine origin and power4 ,again1 continuing the examination1 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 ,jehovah4 ,let us suppose1 further1 that the high priest had informed the prisoner that he and his fellow-judges1 who were ,sadducees in faith and a majority in number of the ,sanhedrin1 did not feel themselves bound by ,pharisaic tradition and the later developments of ,judaism2 that they preferred the ,mosaic ,code as a standard of legal and religious judgment2 that the anthropomorphisms of the ,pentateuch were not particularly offensive to them1 for the reason that they had not been to ,moses2 and that if ,he1 the prisoner at the bar1 could cite instances related by ,moses where ,jehovah had appeared among men1 having the form of a human being1 ,his case would be greatly strengthened2 on the ground that if ,god had ever appeared in the flesh on one occasion it was not unreasonable1 or at least impossible1 that ,he should so appear again4 ,in proof that ,god had appeared in the flesh1 or at least in human form1 among men1 the following passages might have been adduced3 ,gen4 xviii4 #a-h3 ,and the ,lord appeared unto him in the plains of ,mamre3 and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day2 ,and he lifted up his eyes and looked1 and1 lo1 three men stood by him3 and when he saw them1 he ran to meet them from the tent door1 and bowed himself toward the ground1 ,and said1 ,my ,lord1 if now ,i have found favour in thy sight1 pass not away1 ,i pray thee1 from thy servant3 444 ,and ,abraham ran unto the herd1 and fetched a calf tender and good1 and gave it unto a young man2 and he hasted to dress it4 ,and he took butter1 and milk1 and the calf which he had dressed1 and set it before them2 and he stood by them under the tree1 and they did eat4 ,gen4 xvi4 #aj-ac3 ,and the angel of the ,lord said unto her1 ,i will multiply thy seed exceedingly1 that it shall not be numbered for multitude4 ,and the angel of the ,lord said unto her1 ,behold1 thou art with child1 and shalt bear a son1 and shalt call his name ,ishmael2 because the ,lord hath heard thy affliction4444 ,and she called the name of the ,lord that spake unto her1 ,thou ,god seest me3 for she said1 ,have ,i also here looked after him that seeth me8 ,gen4 xxii4 #aa1 #ab3 ,and the angel of the ,lord called unto him out of heaven1 and said1 ,abraham1 ,abraham3 and he said1 ,here am ,i4 ,and he said1 ,lay not thine hand upon the lad1 neither do thou any thing unto him3 for now ,i know that thou fearest ,god1 seeing thou hast not withheld thy son1 thine only son1 from me4 ,ex4 iii4 #b-f3 ,and the ,angel of the ,lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush3 and he looked1 and1 behold1 the bush burned with fire1 and the bush was not consumed4 ,and ,moses said1 ,i will not turn aside1 and see this great sight1 why the bush is not burnt4 ,and when the ,lord saw that he turned aside to see1 ,god called unto him out of the midst of the bush1 and said1 ,moses1 ,moses4 ,and he said1 ,here am ,i4 ,and he said1 ,draw not nigh hither3 put off thy shoes from off thy feet2 for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground4 ,moreover he said1 ,i am the ,god of thy father1 the ,god of ,abraham1 the ,god of ,isaac1 and the ,god of ,jacob4 ,and ,moses hid his face2 for he was afraid to look upon ,god4 ,from the first passage above cited it is clear that ,jehovah1 in the form of a man1 appeared to ,abraham in the plains of ,mamre4 ,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 angels4#cca ,the ,christian commentators are generally agreed that it was ,jehovah who was present in human form4#ccb ,the other members of the company are declared by some of them to be the second and third persons of the ,trinity4 ,plausibility is given to this contention by the fact that ,abraham first saw one person1 the ,lord2 then he looked up and saw three2 he then advanced to meet the three1 and1 addressing them1 used a singular epithet1 ,my ,lord4 ,the form of the address1 together with the movements of ,abraham1 seem to suggest three in one and one in three4 ,but with this theory we are not seriously concerned1 as our present purpose is to show that ,jehovah occasionally appeared in human form upon the earth in the olden days4 ,a plurality of gods is suggested1 however1 by the passage1 if ,christian interpretation be applied2 for if one of these men was ,jehovah1 as ,abraham's language seems to indicate1 and as modern ,christian interpretation generally maintains1 why could not the other two men have also been gods in the form of the ,son and the ,holy ,spirit8 ,if the ,jewish commentator's opinion1 to which we have referred heretofore1 be plausible--that the three men were angels in human form--why is it not equally as plausible to suppose that a god or gods should also appear in human form8 ,but at all events these three men were not ordinary human beings4 ,he who maintains that they were assaults the intelligence of either the translators of the ,bible or of ,abraham1 or both2 for the ,hebrew patriarch believed that ,jehovah was present as a guest in his house1 and he spread a hospitable meal for him4 ,the language of ,genesis very clearly indicates as much4 ,and the question may be asked3 ,if ,abraham could not recognize ,jehovah1 who could or can8 ,in the second of the above extracts from ,genesis the angel of the ,lord appeared unto ,hagar and said to her3 ,i will multiply thy seed exceedingly1 that it shall not be numbered for multitude4 ,and ,hagar made reply3 ,and she called the name of the ,lord that spake unto her1 ,thou ,god seest me4 ,this passage plainly teaches that the angel of the ,lord and ,jehovah were sometimes identical4 ,the third passage heretofore cited from ,genesis also teaches the identity of the angel of the ,lord and of ,god ,himself1 in the matter of the attempted sacrifice of ,isaac by ,abraham4 ,it was the same voice1 that of the angel of the ,lord1 that said3 ,for now ,i know that thou fearest ,god1 seeing thou hast not withheld thy son1 thine only son from me4 ,again1 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 bush3 ,i am the ,god of thy father1 the ,god of ,abraham1 the ,god of ,isaac1 and the ,god of ,jacob4 ,and ,moses hid his face1 for he was afraid to look upon ,god4 ,concerning the manifestation of ,jehovah to men in angelic and human form a modern writer says3 ,much has been written concerning a certain ,mal'akh ,yaweh 7messenger of ,jehovah7 who appears in the ,old ,testament4 ,i say 'a certain' ,mal'akh ,yaweh1 because it is not every ,mal'akh ,yaweh that appears to which ,i refer4 ,in most passages the ,mal'akh ,yaweh is simply an angel sent by the ,almighty to communicate his will or purposes to men4 ,these angels are distinctly apprehended as created intelligences1 wholly separate and diverse from ,god4 ,but there is a class of passages in which the ,mal'akh ,yaweh appears as a self-manifestation of ,god4 ,he appears indeed in human form and speaks of ,god in the third person4 ,but those to whom he appears are oppressed by the consciousness that they have seen ,god and must die4 ,they see in him an impersonation of ,deity such as is found in no other angel4 ,he is to their minds not merely a messenger from ,god but the revelation of the being of ,god4 ,the ,christian fathers for the most part identify him with the ,logos of the ,new ,testament4 ,but there is as much reason to adopt the opinion of many modern writers who hold that he is ,jehovah himself appearing in human form1 for he is explicitly addressed as ,jehovah 7,judges vi4 #aa-bd74ccc ,the identity of the angel of ,jehovah and of ,jehovah ,himself could not be more conclusively proved than in the appearance to ,gideon1 related in the passage above cited1 ,judges vi4 #aa-bd4 ,the absolute identity is revealed in verses #bb1 #bc3 ,and when ,gideon perceived that he was an angel of the ,lord1 ,gideon said1 ,alas1 ,o ,lord ,god6 for because ,i have seen an angel of the ,lord face to face4 ,and the ,lord said unto him1 ,peace be unto thee2 fear not3 thou shalt not die4 ,now let us suppose that ,caiaphas and the ,sanhedrin had received these passages favorably2 that they had become convinced that ,jehovah had appeared in the olden days in the form of angels and of men2 that at one time ,he was identical with a man1 and at another with an angel whom ,he had sent4 ,let us suppose further that the judges of ,jesus had demanded of ,him a passage of ancient ,scriptures connecting ,him even remotely with this messenger of ,god4 ,the following passage might have been produced3 ,ex4 xxiii4 #bj1 #ba3 ,behold1 ,i send an ,angel before thee1 to keep thee in the way1 and to bring thee into the place which ,i have prepared4 ,beware of him1 and obey his voice1 provoke him not2 for he will not pardon your transgressions3 for my name is in him4 ,the concluding paragraph of the last cited passage1 ,my name is in him1 is equivalent to ,i am in him4 ,the mere name of ,god is often used to denote ,god ,himself as manifested4 ,for instance1 in ,i ,kings viii4 #bi is contained the statement1 ,my name shall be there2 that is1 ,there will ,i dwell4 ,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 ,him4 ,the passage further teaches that the messenger of ,jehovah to the earth bore a commission to pardon sin1 or not to1 according to his pleasure4 ,the ,sanhedrin were undoubtedly aware that ,jesus claimed the same power by virtue of authority vested in ,him by ,his ,father4 ,but it may be imagined that ,caiaphas was perfectly willing to concede that ,jehovah had appeared in human form upon the earth1 but was not inclined to believe that ,he had ever manifested human passions and emotions1 as ,jesus had done when ,he denounced on several occasions the hypocrisy of the ,pharisees2 and1 above all1 when ,he overthrew the tables in the ,temple1 and1 applying a lash to their backs1 drove out the money-changers4#ccd ,let us imagine that the high priest demanded of the prisoner proof from the ancient ,scriptures that ,jehovah was possessed of ordinary human attributes2 and particularly that ,he was at times disposed to fight4 ,jesus might have produced the following passages to show that ,jehovah1 ,his ,father1 had manifested in times past the ordinary human passions and emotions of repentance1 grief1 jealousy1 anger1 graciousness1 love1 and hate3 ,ex4 xv4 #c1 #f3 ,the ,lord is a man of war4444 ,thy right hand1 ,o ,lord1 is become glorious in power3 thy right hand1 ,o ,lord1 hath dashed in pieces the enemy4 ,gen4 vi4 #f3 ,and it repented the ,lord that he had made man on the earth1 and it grieved him at his heart4 ,deut4 vi4 #ae3 ,for the ,lord thy ,god is a jealous ,god among you1 lest the anger of the ,lord thy ,god be kindled against thee1 and destroy thee from off the face of the earth4 ,psa4 cxi4 #d3 ,he hath made his wonderful works to be remembered3 the ,lord is gracious and full of compassion4 ,i ,kings x4 #i3 ,because the ,lord loved ,israel forever1 therefore made he thee king1 to do judgment and justice4 ,prov4 vi4 #af3 ,these six things doth the ,lord hate3 yea1 seven are an abomination unto him4 ,and as a final step in the examination let us imagine that ,caiaphas and his colleagues had stated to ,jesus that they were satisfied1 from the authorities cited1 that ,jehovah had1 in ancient days1 appeared upon the earth in human form and had exhibited human attributes2 that ,jehovah had begotten a ,son who was equal in power and majesty with ,himself2 that this ,son had been begotten of a woman and possessed1 therefore1 human form and attributes2 that this ,jehovah had sent an angel messenger to the earth with a commission to pardon sins4 ,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 earth2 that ,he conform ,his personal claims to heavenly ,messiahship to ancient prophecy by producing evidence before them in court4 ,what facts1 we may ask1 could ,jesus have shown to establish ,his claims to ,messiahship and to ,sonship of the ,father8 ,to attempt to originate a defense for ,jesus would be unnecessary1 if not actually impertinent and sacrilegious4 ,we are fully justified1 however1 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 ,him3 ,what sign shewest thou1 then1 that we may see1 and believe thee8 what dost thou work8#cce ,how long dost thou make us to doubt8 ,if thou be the ,christ1 tell us plainly4 ,jesus answered them1 ,i told you1 and ye believed not3 the works that ,i do in my ,father's name1 they bear witness of me4#ccf ,again1 ,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 ,messiah4 ,jesus answered and said unto them1 ,go and shew ,john again those things which ye do hear and see3 ,the blind receive their sight1 and the lame walk1 the lepers are cleansed1 and the deaf hear1 the dead are raised up1 and the poor have the gospel preached to them4#ccg ,under a fair trial1 in daylight1 with full freedom of defense to the accused1 abundant evidence could have been secured of the miraculous powers of ,jesus and of the truthfulness of ,his pretensions to a divine origin4 ,testimony could have been introduced that would have been not only competent but entirely satisfactory4 ,the ,new ,testament narratives tell us of about forty miracles that ,jesus performed during ,his life4 ,the closing verse of ,st4 ,john intimates that ,he performed many that were never reported4 ,the circumstances surrounding the working of these wonders were such as to make them peculiarly competent as evidence and to carry conviction of their genuineness1 when they were once introduced4 ,in the first place1 miracles were entirely capable of being proved by testimony4 ,if those persons who had known ,lazarus intimately during his lifetime saw him dead on one day1 and on the fourth day afterwards saw him alive and walking the streets1 the senses would be perfectly competent to decide and the fact that a miracle had been performed would be conclusively proved4 ,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 dead4 ,again1 we must remember that the miracles of ,jesus were performed in the most public manner1 in the street1 on the highway1 in far-away ,galilee1 and at the very gates of ,jerusalem4 ,both ,his friends and enemies1 men and women1 were witnesses of their performance4 ,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 presence4 ,again1 the miracles of ,jesus were such as to render them subject to the test of the senses1 when submitted to examination4 ,if ,caiaphas and his fellow-judges had decided that there was fraud in the matter of the alleged raising of ,lazarus from the dead1 because the brother of ,martha and ,mary was not really dead1 but simply swooned or slept2 if they had decided that the man sick of the palsy was not cured by miracle1 but by faith2 nevertheless1 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 sea4 ,they would have been forced to conclude that the witnesses had lied or that miracles had been wrought4 ,in the case of the feeding of the five thousand1 the witnesses would have been too numerous to brand with falsehood4 ,but1 we may ask1 was the performance of miracles by ,jesus1 if believed by the ,sanhedrin1 sufficient evidence of the divine origin of ,jesus8 ,this question we are not prepared to answer positively1 either yes or no4 ,we can only venture the personal opinion that the act of raising a person indisputably dead1 to life again1 would be an astounding miracle1 an achievement that could be wrought by the hand of a ,god alone4 ,the trouble with the question is that men like ,elijah raised the dead4#cch ,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 himself4 ,the ,scriptures plainly state that he asked ,god to raise the dead to life through him4 ,the same is true of the raising of ,lazarus by ,jesus4#cci ,but ,christ seems to have raised the daughter of ,jairus#cdj and the son of the widow of ,nain#cda from the dead by virtue of the strength of ,his own divinity2 for there is no suggestion that the power of ,god was either previously invoked or subsequently acknowledged4 ,as to the weight which the testimony of the miracles of ,jesus should have had with ,caiaphas and the other members of the court1 we have a valuable indication in the opinion expressed by ,nicodemus1 who was himself a member of the ,sanhedrin1 when he said to ,jesus3 ,we know that thou art a teacher come from ,god3 for no man can do these miracles that thou doest1 except ,god be with him4#cdb ,if ,nicodemus1 a ruler of the ,jews and one of the leading members of their highest tribunal1 believed that ,jesus was divine because of the wonders that ,he had wrought1 why should not a knowledge of these miracles by the other members of the ,sanhedrin have produced the same impression8 ,nicodemus1 it is true1 was a friend of ,jesus1 but he was not a disciple4 ,and the very timidity with which he expressed his friendship1 having come at night to pay his compliments to the ,master1 demonstrates the deep impression that the miraculous powers of the ,christ had made upon him4 ,but the judges of ,jesus were not limited to the evidence of miracles as a proof of the divinity of the prisoner in their midst4 ,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 v4 #b2 that ,he was sprung from the ,house of ,david in conformity with the teachings in ,jeremiah xxiii4 #e1 #f2 that ,john the ,baptist was ,his forerunner like unto ,elijah1 who had come to prepare the way according to the prophecy in ,malachi iii4 #a2 that ,he had begun to preach in ,galilee1 as foretold in ,isaiah ix4 #a1 #b2 that the scepter had departed from ,judah and the lawgiver from between his feet1 as prophesied in ,genesis xlix4 #aj1 which fact it was believed would herald the approach of the ,messiah2 that ,he had made ,his public entry into ,jerusalem riding upon an ass1 as foretold in ,zechariah ix4 #i2 and that ,he had been betrayed into their hands by one of ,his own friends1 in fulfillment of prophecies contained in ,psalms xli4 #i and ,zechariah xi4 #ab1 #ac4 ,this cumulative evidence1 this collective proof1 must have carried overwhelming conviction to the minds and the hearts of fair and impartial judges4 ,more than one ,nicodemus would have arisen to plead the cause of ,jesus if this testimony had been adduced before a free-minded1 open-hearted1 disinterested tribunal4 ,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 pronounced4 ,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 innocence4 ,it was incumbent upon the ,commonwealth of ,israel to establish guilt beyond all doubt4 ,we should also remember that the peculiar tendency of the ,hebrew system of criminal procedure was in the direction of complete protection to the accused4 ,not reasonable doubt merely1 but all doubt was resolved in his favor4 ,it was a maxim of the ,hebrew law that the ,sanhedrin was to save1 not to destroy life4 ,pretext after pretext was sought to acquit4 ,the primary object of the ,hebrew judicial system1 says ,benny1 was to render the conviction of an innocent person impossible4 ,all the ingenuity of the ,jewish legists was directed to the attainment of this end4 ,if this generous and merciful tendency of ,hebrew law had been duly observed1 would not the production of the evidence above noted have resulted in the acquittal of ,jesus8 ,but1 at this point1 let us return to the consideration of the real meaning of the objection urged in ,point ,,xii4 ,the irregularity therein alleged is that the ,sanhedrin paid no attention whatever to the defense of ,jesus4 ,and herein was the real error4 ,the members of that court might have rejected as false the claims of the ,nazarene to ,messiahship4 ,they might have denounced as fraudulent his pretensions to miraculous powers4 ,they could not for this reason have been charged with judicial unfairness1 if they had first heard his defense and had then weighed it in the sincerity of their conscience4 ,infallibility of judgment cannot be demanded of judicial officers4 ,in closing the discussion of errors committed at the night trial in the palace of ,caiaphas1 the reader should be reminded that the twelve ,points above mentioned are not exhaustive of the irregularities4 ,others might be mentioned4 ,it seems that ,jesus1 being the accused1 should not have been put under oath4#cdc ,on the days on which capital verdicts were pronounced ,hebrew judges were required to mourn and fast4#cdd ,but there was evidently no mourning and fasting by ,caiaphas and his colleagues at the time of the condemnation of ,jesus4 ,again1 there is no evidence that ,antecedent ,warning was properly administered4 ,still other errors might be noted1 if a legal presumption in favor of the correctness of the record did not prevent4 ,the irregularities which we have heretofore discussed1 it is believed1 exhaust all the material errors committed at the first session of the ,sanhedrin4 ,at least1 no others are revealed by the ,gospel records4 ,the ,morning ,session of the ,sanhedrin4--,about three hours after the close of the night session in the palace of ,caiaphas1 that is about six o'clock in the morning1 the ,sanhedrin reconvened in a second session4 ,in the interval between these sittings ,jesus was brutalized by ,his keepers4 ,exactly what the priests were doing we do not know4 ,they were probably busily engaged in perfecting plans for the destruction of the prisoner in their charge4 ,the daylight meeting is thus reported in ,matthew xxvii4 #a3 ,when the morning was come1 all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against ,jesus to put him to death4 ,in ,mark xv4 #a the same session is thus recorded3 ,and straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council1 and bound ,jesus1 and carried him away1 and delivered him to ,pilate4 ,the exact nature of this morning sitting1 whether a regular trial or an informal gathering1 is not certainly known4 ,meyer1 ,ellicott1 and ,lichtenstein maintain that this second session was nothing more than a prolongation of the night trial1 perhaps with a brief recess1 and that its special object was to convene for consultation concerning the carrying out of the sentence which had already been pronounced against ,jesus4#cde ,but this view is entirely exceptional4 ,it is maintained by the greater number of reputable authorities that the second sitting was in the nature of a second trial4 ,the solution of the difficulty seems to turn upon the account given by ,st4 ,luke1 for ,st4 ,john records the details of neither the night nor the morning session4 ,st4 ,luke describes a regular trial1 but it is not positively known whether his account refers to the night or to the morning meeting4 ,if his report refers to the same trial as that described in ,matthew xxvi4 #eg-fh and in ,mark xiv4 #ec-fe1 then we have only the brief notices in ,matthew xxvii4 #a and in ,mark xv4 #a concerning the morning session1 which indicate only a very brief and informal meeting of the ,sanhedrin at daybreak4 ,on the other hand1 if the report of ,st4 ,luke refers to the daylight meeting of the ,sanhedrin referred to by ,st4 ,matthew and ,st4 ,mark then we have received from the third ,evangelist a description of a regular trial at the second session of the ,sanhedrin4 ,andrews has thus expressed himself very cogently concerning this matter3 ,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 xxii4 #ff-ga4 ,is this examination of ,jesus identical with that first session of ,matthew xxvi4 #eg-fh1 and of ,mark xiv4 #ec-fe8 ,against this identity are some strong objections3 ,first1 ,the mention of time by ,luke3 ,as soon as it was day4 ,this corresponds well to the time of the morning session of ,matthew and ,mark1 but not to the time when ,jesus was first led before the ,sanhedrin1 which must have been two or three hours before day4 ,second1 ,the place of the meeting3 ,they led ,him into their council1 ,greek3 angagon auton eis to synedrion heautn4 ,this is rendered by some3 ,they led ,him up into their council chamber1 or the place where they usually held their sessions4 ,whether this council chamber was the room ,gazith at the east corner of the court of the temple1 is not certain4 ,lightfoot 7on ,matthew xxvi4 #c7 conjectures that the ,sanhedrin was driven from this its accustomed seat half a year or thereabout before the death of ,christ4 ,but if this were so1 still the ,tabern1 where it established its sessions1 were shops near the gate ,shusan1 and so connected with the temple4 ,they went up to that room where they usually met4 ,third1 ,the dissimilarity of the proceedings1 as stated by ,luke1 which shows that this was no formal trial4 ,there is here no mention of witnesses--no charges brought to be proved against ,him4 ,he is simply asked to tell them if ,he is the ,christ 7,if thou art the ,christ1 tell us1 ,r4 ,v472 and this seems plainly to point to the result of the former session4 ,then1 having confessed ,himself to be the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god1 ,he was condemned to death for blasphemy4 ,it was only necessary now that ,he repeat ,his confession1 and hence this question is put directly to ,him3 ,art thou the ,christ8 tell us4 ,his reply1 ,if ,i tell you1 ye will not believe2 and if ,i also ask you1 ye will not answer me1 nor let me go1 points backward to his former confession4 ,to ,his reply they only answer by asking1 ,art thou then the ,son of ,god8 ,the renewed avowal that ,he is the ,son of ,god1 heard by them all from ,his own lips1 opens the way for ,his immediate delivery into ,pilate's hands4 ,fourth1 ,the position which ,luke gives 7xxii4 #fc-fe7 to the insults and abuse heaped upon ,jesus4 ,there can be no doubt that they are the same mentioned by ,matthew and ,mark as occurring immediately after the sentence had been first pronounced4 ,from all this it is a probable1 though not a certain conclusion1 that ,luke 7xxii4 #ff-ga7 refers to the same meeting of the ,sanhedrin mentioned by ,matthew 7xxvii4 #a7 and ,mark 7xv4 #a71 and relates1 in part1 what then took place4 7,alford thinks that ,luke has confused things and relates as happening at the second session what really happened at the first47 ,this meeting was1 then1 a morning session convened to ratify formally what had been done before with haste and informality4 ,the circumstances under which its members had been earlier convened1 at the palace of ,caiaphas1 sufficiently show that the legal forms1 which they were so scrupulous in observing1 had not been complied with4#cdf ,if then the second session of the ,sanhedrin was in the nature of a regular trial1 what were the facts of the proceedings8 ,st4 ,luke says3 ,and as soon as it was day1 the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together1 and led him into their council1 saying1 ,art thou the ,christ8 tell us4 ,and he said unto them1 ,if ,i tell you1 ye will not believe3 ,and if ,i also ask you1 ye will not answer me1 nor let me go4 ,hereafter shall the ,son of man sit on the right hand of the power of ,god4 ,then said they all1 ,art thou then the ,son of ,god8 ,and he said unto them1 ,ye say that ,i am4 ,and they said1 ,what need we any further witness8 for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth4#cdg ,the reader will readily perceive the source of the difficulty which we have just discussed4 ,this report of ,st4 ,luke points both ways1 toward both the night and morning sessions4 ,and as soon as it was day clearly indicates a daybreak meeting1 but the remainder of the account bears a most striking resemblance to the reports of the night trial given by ,st4 ,matthew and ,st4 ,mark4 ,this seeming discrepancy is very easily reconciled1 however1 when we reflect that the second trial required by ,hebrew law to be held in every case where a verdict of guilt had been pronounced1 was virtually a repetition of the first trial4 ,benny tells us that the second trial was a critical examination of the trial of the first day1 in which the questions and answers originally asked and made were carefully reviewed and rexamined4#cdh ,is it very strange1 then1 that at the morning trial described by ,st4 ,luke substantially the same questions are asked and answers given as are found in the reports of the night trial by ,st4 ,matthew and ,st4 ,mark8 ,we may now ask3 ,what was the purpose of this second trial8 ,why did not the first trial suffice8 ,according to the most reliable authorities1 the answer to this question is to be found in that provision of the ,hebrew law which required two trials instead of one1 in every case where the prisoner had been found guilty at the first trial4 ,not only were there to be two trials1 but they were to be held on different days4 ,the morning session of the ,sanhedrin was intended1 therefore1 to give a semblance of legality and regularity to this requirement of ,hebrew law4 ,but we shall see how completely the ,sanhedrin failed in this design4 ,what legitimacy1 says ,keim1 might be lacking in the proceedings of the nocturnal sitting of the ,sanhedrin1 was to be completely made up by the morning sitting1 without prejudice to the authority and the--in the main point--decisive action of the former4444 ,there nevertheless was no lack of illegality4 ,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 sittings1 and not two separate days4 ,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 sitting1 although both law and tradition demanded such an investigation4#cdi ,if both law and tradition demanded such an investigation1 that is1 if the second trial of the case on the second day of the proceedings was required to be formal and in the nature of an action de novo2 if the second trial was required by law to be characterized by all the formality1 solemnity1 and legality of the first trial2 what errors1 we may ask1 are disclosed by the reports of ,st4 ,luke1 ,st4 ,matthew1 and ,st4 ,mark in the proceedings against ,jesus conducted by the ,sanhedrin at the morning session8 ,to be brief1 reply may be made that the irregularities were virtually the same as those that occurred at the night trial4 ,the same precipitancy that was forbidden by ,hebrew law is apparent4 ,this haste prevented1 of course1 that careful deliberation and painstaking investigation of the case which the ,mosaic ,code as well as the rules of the ,mishna imperatively demanded4 ,it is true that the second trial was not conducted at night4 ,but the ,passover ,feast was still in progress1 and no court could legally sit at such a time4 ,the ,sanhedrin at the second session seems to have been still sitting in the palace of ,caiaphas instead of the ,hall of ,hewn ,stones1 the legal meeting place of the court4 ,this we learn from a passage in ,st4 ,john4#cej ,again1 no witnesses seem to have been summoned1 and the accused was convicted upon his uncorroborated confession4 ,and finally1 the verdict at the second trial1 as was the case in that of the first1 seems to have been unanimous1 and therefore illegal4 ,this unanimity is indicated by the combined reports of ,st4 ,matthew1 ,st4 ,mark1 and ,st4 ,luke4 ,st4 ,matthew says3 ,when the morning was come1 all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against ,jesus to put ,him to death4 ,st4 ,mark says3 ,and straightway in the morning1 the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council1 and bound ,jesus1 and carried him away1 and delivered him to ,pilate4 ,these accounts of the first two ,evangelists very clearly state that the full ,sanhedrin was present at the morning trial4 ,then ,st4 ,luke very explicitly explains the nature and manner of the verdict3 ,then said they all1 ,art thou then the ,son of ,god8 ,and he said unto them1 ,ye say that ,i am4 ,and they said1 ,what need we any further witness8 for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth4 ,it may be objected that no formal verdict was pronounced at the second trial4 ,such a verdict would have been expressed in these words3 ,thou1 ,jesus1 art guilty4#cea ,while such words are not expressly reported by the ,evangelists1 the account of ,st4 ,luke taken in connection with the report of ,st4 ,mark of the night trial1 which the morning session was intended to confirm1 clearly indicates that such a verdict must have been pronounced4 ,a reasonable inference from the whole context of the synoptic writers in describing both trials certainly justifies such a conclusion4 ,the question again arises3 ,if the full ,sanhedrin was present at the morning session and if all the members condemned ,jesus1 either with or without a formal verdict1 is it not true that both ,nicodemus and ,joseph of ,arimathea1 who were doubtless members of the court1 were arrayed against the ,christ8 ,if they were hostile in their attitude toward ,him1 either openly or by acquiescence at the morning session1 does this fact not help to support the contention made under ,point ,,ix that they voted against ,him at the night trial8 ,we are well aware that there is much opposition to this view1 but we are1 nevertheless1 compelled to agree rather reluctantly with ,keim that it is a pure supposition that members of the council who were secret friends of ,jesus--whose existence1 moreover1 cannot be established--either raised an opposition in one of the sessions1 or abstained from voting1 or were not present4#ceb ,the plain language of the ,scriptures indicates3 7#a7 ,that both ,nicodemus#cec and ,joseph of ,arimathea#ced were members of the ,great ,sanhedrin2 7#b7 that they were both present at both trials2#cee and 7#c7 that they both either voted against ,him or tacitly acquiesced in the judgments pronounced against ,him4#cef ,we have already discussed under ,point ,,ix the passage in ,luke xxiii4 #ea referring to the fact that ,joseph of ,arimathea had not consented to the counsel and deed of them1 which seems to furnish refutation of the contention which we have made1 as far as such contention relates to ,joseph of ,arimathea4 ,suffice it to note the opinion of ,keim that the passage in itself can be held to refer to absence or to dissent in voting4#ceg ,and the whole multitude of them arose1 and led him unto ,pilate4 ,the reader may ask3 ,why did the ,jews lead ,jesus away to ,pilate8 ,when they had condemned ,him to death on the charge of blasphemy1 why did they themselves not put ,him to death8 ,why did they invoke ,roman interference in the matter8 ,why did they not stone ,jesus to death1 as ,hebrew law required in the case of culprits convicted of blasphemy8 ,stephen was stoned to death for blasphemy4#ceh ,what was the difference between his case and that of ,jesus8 ,why was ,jesus crucified instead of being put to death by stoning8 ,the stoning of ,stephen as a blasphemer by the ,jews has been explained as an irregular outbreak of fanatical priests1 a sort of mob violence4 ,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 sentence4 ,in any event it was an exceptional proceeding4 ,at the time of the crucifixion of ,jesus and of the martyrdom of ,stephen the ,jews had lost the right of enforcing the death penalty4 ,judea was a subject province of the ,roman empire4 ,the ,jews were permitted by the ,romans to try capital cases4 ,if an acquittal was the result1 the ,romans did not interfere4 ,if a verdict of guilty was found1 the ,jews were compelled to lead the prisoner away to the ,roman governor1 who reviewed or retried the case as he saw fit4 ,accordingly1 having condemned ,him to death themselves1 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 ,feast1 to see what he had to say about the matter1 whether he would reverse or affirm the sentence which they had pronounced4 ,the ,roman trial of ,jesus will be treated in the second volume of this work4 ,,end ,,of ,,vol4 ,i ,,footnotes3 #a ,testimony of the ,evangelists1 pp4 #g-aa4 #b ,testimony of the ,evangelists1 pp4 #be1 #bf4 #c ,i ,starkie on ,evidence1 pp4 #dhj-ede4 #d ,john x4 #cj3 ,i and my ,father are one4 #e ,matt4 ix4 #i4 #f ,col4 iv4 #ad3 ,luke1 the beloved physician4 #g ,matt4 xxvi4 #gj-gb4 #h ,matt4 xxvi4 #df-ej4 #i ,matt4 xxvi4 #ef4 #aj ,matt4 xiv4 #bh-ca4 #aa ,mark x4 #ce-db2 ,matt4 xx4 #bj-be4 #ab ,matt4 xi4 #b1 #c4 #ac ,mark iii4 #ba4 #ad ,luke iv4 #bh1 #bi4 #ae ,mark xiv4 #ea1 #eb4 #af ,intro4 ,vie de ,jesus4 #ag ,luke i4 #b1 #c4 #ah ,die synoptischen ,evangelien1 pp4 #dab-ad4 #ai ,marcus ,dods1 ,the ,bible1 ,its ,origin and ,nature1 p4 #ahd4 #bj ,an opposite doctrine seems to be taught in ,luke xii4 #aa1 #ab2 xxiv4 #dh1 #di4 #ba ,evidences of ,christianity1 p4 #cai4 #bb ,matt4 xiv4 #ab-bj2 ,mark vi4 #cd-dc2 ,luke ix4 #ab-ag2 ,john vi4 #e-ac4 #bc ,luke xxii4 #fd4 #bd ,luke xxii4 #ea4 #be ,campbell's ,philosophy of ,rhetoric1 c4 v4 b4 #a1 ,part ,,iii1 p4 #abe4 #bf ,intro4 ,vie de ,jesus1 p4 #fb4 #bg ,d4 ,l4 ,moody1 ,sermon on the ,resurrection of ,jesus4 #bh ,see also ,i ,starkie on ,evidence1 pp4 #dif-ii4 #bi ,ant41 ,,xviii4 #c1 ,i4 #cj ,see authorities cited in ,the ,brief4 #ca ,de iis qui sero puniuntur1 p4 #eed4 #cb ,p4 #ajhj1 edit4 #de4 #cc ,p4 #abdg1 edit4 #bd1 ,huds4 #cd ,p4 #acbg1 edit4 #dc4 #ce ,productique omnes1 virgisque csi1 ac securi percussi1 ,lib4 ,,xi4 c4 #e4 #cf ,domit4 ,cap4 ,x4 ,patremfamilias--canibus objecit1 cum hoc titulo1 ,impie locutus1 parmularius4 #cg ,book ,,liv4 #ch ,aur4 ,vict4 ,ces41 ,cap4 ,,xli4 ,eo pius1 ut etiam vetus veterrimumque supplicium1 patibulum1 et cruribus suffringendis1 primus removerit4 ,also see ,paley's ,evidences of ,christianity1 pp4 #bff-fh4 #ci ,luke xxii4 #dd4 #dj ,tissot1 ,trait des ,nerfs1 pp4 #bgi1 #bhj4 #da ,joannes ,schenck ,grafenberg1 ,observ4 ,medic41 ,lib4 ,,iii4 p4 #deh4 #db ,voltaire1 ,oeuvres compltes1 vol4 xviii4 pp4 #eca1 #ecb4 #dc ,de ,mezeray1 ,histoire de ,france1 vol4 iii4 p4 #cjf4 #dd ,john xix4 #cd4 #de ,john xix4 #ce4 #df ,john xviii4 #f4 #dg ,encyc4 ,brit41 vol4 xv4 p4 #eej4 #dh ,mendelsohn1 ,criminal ,jurisprudence of the ,ancient ,hebrews1 p4 #aia4 #di ,mendelsohn1 p4 #ahi1 n4 #a4 #ej ,jewish ,encyc41 vol4 xii4 p4 #a4 #ea ,emanuel ,deutsch1 ,the ,talmud1 p4 #bf4 #eb ,farrar1 ,hist4 of ,interpretation4 #ec ,emanuel ,deutsch1 ,the ,talmud1 p4 #dg4 #ed ,encyc4 ,brit41 vol4 xxiii4 p4 #ce4 #ee ,emanuel ,deutsch1 ,the ,talmud1 p4 #eh4 #ef ,emanuel ,deutsch1 ,the ,talmud1 p4 #bg4 #eg ,emanuel ,deutsch1 ,the ,talmud1 p4 #bg4 #eh ,deut4 xvi4 #ah4 #ei ,ant41 ,,xiii4 #aj1 #f4 #fj ,horace4 #fa ,emanuel ,deutsch1 ,the ,talmud1 p4 #ab4 #fb ,jewish ,encyc41 vol4 xii4 p4 #bb4 #fc ,emanuel ,deutsch1 ,talmud1 p4 #ab4 #fd ,maimon41 ,h4 ,sanh4 xv4 #aj-ac4 #fe ,mendelsohn1 ,criminal ,jurisprudence of the ,ancient ,hebrews1 pp4 #de-ej4 #ff ,mendelsohn1 ,criminal ,jurisprudence of the ,ancient ,hebrews1 pp4 #de-ej4 #fg ,mendelsohn1 p4 #dc4 #fh ,mendelsohn1 pp4 #ci1 #dj4 #fi ,mendelsohn1 pp4 #ci1 #dj4 #gj ,maimonides 7,yad71 ,sanhedrin xix4 #ga ,dr4 ,smith's ,hist4 of ,greece1 p4 #eeg4 #gb ,jewish ,encyc41 vol4 ii4 p4 #beg4 #gc ,ex4 ii4 #ab-af4 #gd ,sanh4 #eb;b2 ,maim41 ,h4 ,sanh4 xv4 #d4 #ge ,h4 ,sanh4 xv4 #e4 #gf ,benny1 ,crim4 ,code of the ,jews1 p4 #ij4 #gg ,mendelsohn1 p4 #aei4 #gh ,chap4 ,i4 #aj2 ,x4 i1 #b4 #gi ,matt4 xxvi4 #ei4 #hj ,ant41 ,,xiv4 ,chap4 ,v4 #d2 ,wars of the ,jews1 ,i4 ,,viii4 #e2 ,talmud1 ,sanhedrin4 #ha ,post ,bibl4 ,hist41 vol4 i4 p4 #ajf4 #hb ,matt4 xvi4 #ba4 #hc ,commentary on the ,law1 vol4 ccclxvi4 recto4 #hd ,sanhedrin #cb4 #he ,benny4 #hf ,jose b4 ,halafta1 ,i4 c4 #hg ,r4 ,johanan1 ,sanhedrin #ai;a4 #hh ,benny4 #hi ,benny4 #ij ,sanhedrin #ag;a2 ,menahoth #fe;a4 #ia ,sifre1 ,num4 #ib 7ed4 ,friedmann1 p4 #be;b74 #ib ,yalkut1 ,exodus1 ,sec4 #afg4 #ic ,sotah #bb;b4 #id ,const4 of the ,sanhedrin1 ,chap4 ,i4 #ie ,benny1 ,the ,criminal ,code of the ,jews1 p4 #ga4 #if ,saalschtz1 ,das ,mosaische ,recht1 p4 #eh2 ,deut4 xx4 #e1 #f4 #ig ,luke ii4 #df-ea4 #ih ,jer4 xxxvii41 xxxviii4 #ii ,jesus of ,nazara1 vol4 vi4 p4 #de4 #ajj ,the ,life and ,words of ,christ1 vol4 ii4 p4 #eag4 #aja ,archol4 #hg4 #ajb ,acts xxiv4 #a1 #b4 #ajc ,i ,kings iii4 #af-bh4 #ajd ,mendelsohn1 ,criminal ,jurisprudence of the ,ancient ,hebrews1 pp4 #ajb1 #ajc4 #aje ,mendelsohn1 pp4 #if-ih4 #ajf ,sanhedrin1 ,chap4 ,i4 fol4 #ai4 #ajg ,mendelsohn1 p4 #ig4 #ajh ,mishna1 ,sanhedrin1 ,chap4 ,,iv4 #a4 #aji ,mendelsohn1 p4 #ih4 #aaj ,sanhedrin1 #h;b1 #da;a1 et al4 #aaa ,mendelsohn1 p4 #aja4 #aab ,schrer1 ,the ,jewish ,people in the ,time of ,jesus ,christ1 #b;d ,div41 #a4 #aac ,sanhedrin1 ,,iv4 #d4 #aad ,sanhedrin1 ,,iv4 #a4 #aae ,sanhedrin1 #ag;a1 p4 #agf4 #aaf ,sanhedrin1 ,chap4 ,i4 #e4 #aag ,benny4 #aah ,benny4 #aai ,benny4 #abj ,mendelsohn1 p4 #adj1 n4 #cbg4 #aba ,montaigne1 ,essays1 ,,iii4 ,c4 ,,xiii4 #abb ,un homme ne jugera jamais seul2 cela n'appartient qu'a ,dieu4 ,ne sis judex unus2 non est enim unicus judex1 nisi unus4--,salvador1 ,institutions de ,mose1 ,l4 ,,iv4 ,chap4 ,,ii4 p4 #ceg4 #abc ,but let not the testimony of women be admitted1 on account of the levity and boldness of their sex4--,josephus1 ,ant41 ,,iv4 #h1 #ae4 #abd ,nor let servants be admitted to give testimony1 on account of the ignobility of their souls4--,ant41 ,,iv4 #h1 #ae4 #abe ,ant41 ,,iv4 #h1 #ae4 #abf ,maimonides1 ,i4 ,c4 ,,xi4 #f1 based on ,sanh4 #bf;b4 #abg ,mendelsohn1 p4 #aah4 #abh ,talmud1 ,b4 ,b4 #dc;a4 #abi ,deut4 xvii4 #f4 #acj ,num4 xxxv4 #cj4 #aca ,hist4 ,nat41 ,lib4 ,,viii4 ,cap4 ,,xxii4 #acb ,l4 #bj1 ,dig4 ,de qustionibus1 xlviii4 #ah4 #acc ,blackstone1 iv4 #ceg4 #acd ,con4 ,u4 ,s41 ,art4 ,,iii1 ,sec4 #c4 #ace ,les lois qui font prir un homme sur la dposition d'un seul tmoin1 sont fatales la libert4 ,la raison en exige deux2 parce qu'un tmoin qui affirme1 et un accus qui nie1 font un partage2 et il faut un tiers pour le vider4 ,les ,grecs and les ,romains exigeaient une voix de plus pour condamner4 ,nos lois franaises en demandent deux4 ,les ,grecs prtendaient que leur usage avait t tabli par les dieux2 mais c'est le notre4--,de ,l',esprit ,des ,lois1 ,l4 ,,xii4 ,c4 ,,iii4 #acf ,mishna1 ,sanhedrin1 ,c4 ,v4 #b4 #acg ,maimonides1 ,sanhedrin1 ,chap4 ,,xx4 #ach ,jewish ,encyc41 vol4 v4 p4 #bgg4 #aci ,criminal ,jurisprudence of the ,ancient ,hebrews1 p4 #bi4 #adj ,philo ,judus1 ,de ,decalogo1 ,,iii4 #ada ,prov4 xi4 #aj2 ,mishna1 ,sanhedrin1 ,,iv4 #e4 #adb ,apocrypha4 #adc ,benny4 #add ,mishna1 ,sanhedrin1 ,chap4 ,v4 #a4 #ade ,benny4 #adf ,deut4 xix4 #ah-ba4 #adg ,apocrypha4 #adh ,maimonides1 ,mishna1 ,sanhedrin1 ,chap4 ,,iv4 #b4 #adi ,mnsterberg1 ,on the ,witness ,stand1 ,untrue ,confessions1 pp4 #acg-aga4 #aej ,rosadi4 #aea ,rabbi ,wise1 ,martyrdom of ,jesus4 #aeb ,yad1 ,edut1 xvii4 #a4 #aec ,jewish ,encyc41 vol4 v4 p4 #bgi4 #aed ,num4 xxxv4 #cj4 #aee ,mishna1 ,sanhedrin ,v4 #c1 #d4 #aef ,matt4 xxvi4 #fj4 #aeg ,mark xiv4 #ef4 #aeh ,lev4 xxii4 #bh4 #aei ,deut4 xvii4 #e2 ,sanhedrin ,,vii4 #d4 #afj ,num4 vi4 #b-d4 #afa ,jewish ,encyc41 vol4 vi4 p4 #bfj4 #afb ,einleitung in der ,gesetzgebung1 p4 #d4 #afc ,jewish ,encyc41 vol4 vi4 p4 #bfj2 ,benny1 ,criminal ,code of the ,jews1 p4 #ig2 ,saalschtz1 ,das ,mosaische ,recht1 n4 #efj4 #afd ,mishna1 treatise ,makhoth4 #afe ,mishna1 ,capita ,patrum1 ,i4 #a4 #aff ,salvador1 ,institutions de ,mose4 #afg ,mishna1 ,sanhedrin1 ,,iv4 #a4 #afh ,jesus ,before the ,sanhedrin1 p4 #aji4 #afi ,talmud1 ,jerus41 ,sanh41 ,c4 ,i4 fol4 #ai4 #agj ,mishna1 ,tamid1 ,c4 ,,iii4 #aga ,geikie1 vol4 ii4 p4 #eag4 #agb ,lyman ,abbott1 ,jesus of ,nazareth1 pp4 #ddf1 #ddg4 #agc ,jewish ,encyc41 vol4 v4 pp4 #bgi1 #bhj4 #agd ,benny4 #age ,mendelsohn1 p4 #add4 #agf ,josephus1 ,ant41 ,,xiv4 #i1 #d4 #agg ,schrer1 #b;d div41 vol4 i4 p4 #age4 #agh ,schrer1 #b;d div41 vol4 i4 p4 #ahd4 #agi ,life and ,times of ,jesus the ,messiah1 vol4 ii4 p4 #eef4 #ahj ,jesus of ,nazara1 vol4 vi4 p4 #cg4 #aha ,the ,talmud1 p4 #cb4 #ahb ,ant41 xv4 #f1 #b4 #ahc ,history of the ,jews1 vol4 ii4 p4 #afc4 #ahd ,tribus1 pseudo-propheta1 sacerdos magnus1 non nisi a septuaginta et unius judicum consessu judicantur4--,mishna1 ,de ,synedriis1 i4 #e4 #ahe ,among the offenses of which it took cognizance were false claims to prophetic inspiration and blasphemy4--,andrews1 ,the ,life of ,our ,lord1 p4 #eaj4 #ahf ,gesch4 d4 ,judenth4 vol4 i4 pp4 #djb-dji4 #ahg ,life and ,times of ,jesus the ,messiah1 vol4 ii4 p4 #eec4 #ahh ,vie de ,jesus1 pp4 #cjc1 #cjd4 #ahi ,trial of ,jesus ,christ1 p4 #ha4 #aij ,matt4 xxvi4 #fj1 #fa4 #aia ,mark xiv4 #eg1 #eh4 #aib ,matt4 xxvi4 #fd-ff4 #aic ,mark xiv4 #ef4 #aid ,john ii4 #bj4 #aie ,john ii4 #ai4 #aif ,john ii4 #ba4 #aig ,the ,martyrdom of ,jesus1 pp4 #ge-gg4 #aih ,deut4 xiii4 #a-e4 #aii ,i ,kings xxi4 #aj4 #bjj ,isa4 lii1 #e2 ,ezek4 xxxv4 #ab4 #bja ,luke xxii4 #fe2 ,acts xiii4 #de2 xviii4 #f4 #bjb ,revelation xiii4 #a-f4 #bjc ,blackstone1 vol4 ii4 pp4 #ge-hd4 #bjd ,greenidge1 ,legal ,procedure of ,cicero's ,time1 pp4 #dbg1 #ejg1 #eah4 #bje ,deut4 iv4 #ae1 #af2 ,deut4 xiii4 #bjf ,gen4 xli4 #af4 #bjg ,num4 xx4 #aj-ab4 #bjh ,num4 xx4 #bj-bd4 #bji ,greenleaf1 ,testimony of the ,evangelists1 p4 #eee4 #baj ,matt4 v4 #ag4 #baa ,john xi4 #da4 #bab ,matt4 ix4 #bj-bb2 ,mark v4 #be-cd2 ,luke viii4 #dc-dh4 #bac ,matt4 viii4 #bd-bf2 ,mark iv4 #cg-ci2 ,luke viii4 #bc-be4 #bad ,matt4 viii4 #bh-cb2 ,mark v4 #a-ac2 ,luke viii4 #bf-cc4 #bae ,matt4 ix4 #ah-bf2 ,mark v4 #bb-db2 ,luke viii4 #da-ee4 #baf ,luke vii4 #ab-ae4 #bag ,matt4 ix4 #b1 #c4 #bah ,luke v4 #ba4 #bai ,john v4 #ah4 #bbj ,john x4 #cj-cc4 #bba ,john vi4 #da4 #bbb ,john viii4 #eh4 #bbc ,testimony of the ,evangelists1 p4 #efb4 #bbd ,edersheim1 ,life and ,times of ,jesus the ,messiah1 vol4 ii4 p4 #fbi4 #bbe ,john xiii4-xvii4 #bbf ,matt4 xi4 #c4 #bbg ,luke xxiv4 #ci-dc2 ,john xx4 #bd-bh4 #bbh ,john xiii4 #cc4 #bbi ,john xviii4 #i4 #bcj ,jesus ,devant ,caphe et ,pilate4 #bca ,acts iv4 #c4 #bcb ,life and ,times of ,jesus the ,messiah1 vol4 ii4 p4 #did4 #bcc ,see ,cooley's ,blackstone1 vol4 ii4 p4 #ccj1 n4 #f2 also ,greenleaf1 ,on ,evidence1 vol4 i4 pp4 #eca-ce 7#ajth edition74 #bcd ,vie de ,jesus1 p4 #cjc4 #bce ,john xviii4 #ac4 #bcf ,matt4 xxvi4 #eg4 #bcg ,mark xiv4 #ec4 #bch ,luke xxii4 #ed4 #bci ,john xviii4 #ai4 #bdj ,luke iii4 #b2 ,acts iv4 #f4 #bda ,life and ,times of ,jesus the ,messiah1 vol4 i4 p4 #bfd4 #bdb ,the ,life of ,our ,lord1 p4 #adb4 #bdc ,luke iii4 #b4 #bdd ,plummer1 ,st4 ,luke1 in ,international ,critical ,commentary1 pp4 #hd1 #eae4 #bde ,josephus1 ,ant41 ,,xviii4 chap4 ii4 #b4 #bdf ,john xviii4 #ai-bc4 #bdg ,mark xiv4 #eh-fa4 #bdh ,matt4 xxvi4 #fj-fc4 #bdi ,matt4 xxvi4 #fc4 #bej ,mark xiv4 #ei4 #bea ,acts vi4 #ad4 #beb ,jewish ,encyc41 vol4 i4 p4 #afc4 #bec ,fiske1 ,manual of ,classical ,literature1 iii4 ,sec4 #ajh2 ,smith1 ,dictionary of ,greek and ,roman ,antiquities1 #hi;a4 #bed ,see discussion of ,point ,i4 #bee ,luke xxii4 #ff4 #bef ,luke xxii4 #b4 #beg ,mark xiv4 #b4 #beh ,mark xiv4 i2 ,matt4 xxvi4 #d 7,consilium fecerunt ut ,jesum dolo tenerent et occiderent74 #bei ,maimonides1 ,sanhedrin ,,ii4 #bfj ,john xviii4 #bh2 ,luke xxii4 #a2 ,mark xiv4 #a2 ,matt4 xxvi4 #b4 #bfa ,mishna1 ,capita ,patrum1 ,i1 #a4 #bfb ,mishna1 ,treatise ,makhoth4 #bfc ,see ,part ,,ii1 ,chap4 ,v4 #bfd ,edmund ,stapfer1 ,life of ,jesus4 #bfe ,matt4 xxvi4 #eg-ff4 #bff ,mark xiv4 #ee-fd4 #bfg ,matt4 xxvii4 #a4 #bfh ,mark xv4 #a4 #bfi ,luke xxii4 #ff-ga4 #bgj ,martyrdom of ,jesus1 p4 #gd4 #bga ,criminal ,jurisprudence of the ,ancient ,hebrews1 p4 #acc1 n4 #caa4 #bgb ,see ,part ,,ii1 ,chap4 ,,iv4 #bgc ,mark xiv4 #ef-fe4 #bgd ,mark xiv4 #fb4 #bge ,matt4 xii4 #ad-af2 ,mark iii4 #g2 ix4 #bi1 #cj4 #bgf ,luke xiii4 #ca1 #cb4 #bgg ,matt4 xxii4 #ae4 #bgh ,john iv4 #bf4 #bgi ,mark i4 #cd4 #bhj ,john x4 #bd4 #bha ,matt4 xvi4 #bj4 #bhb ,blackstone4 #bhc ,mendelsohn1 p4 #adc4 #bhd ,mark xiv4 #fc1 #fd4 #bhe ,martyrdom of ,jesus1 p4 #gd4 #bhf ,the ,trial of ,jesus1 p4 #bjj4 #bhg ,matt4 xxvi4 #ei2 ,mark xiv4 #ee4 #bhh ,matt4 xxvii4 #a4 #bhi ,mark xv4 #a4 #bij ,john iii4 #a2 vii4 #ej4 #bia ,luke xxiii4 #ea4 #bib ,john vii4 #ea4 #bic ,john vii4 #ej2 xix4 #ci4 #bid ,luke xxiii4 #ea4 #bie ,mendelsohn1 p4 #ih4 #bif ,deut4 xvii4 #g1 #h4 #big ,it is important to notice that every time the necessities of the case required the ,sanhedrin returned to the ,hall ,gazith1 or of ,hewn ,stones1 as in the case of ,jesus and others4--,thosephthoth1 or ,additions to the ,talmud1 ,bab41 ,sanhedrin1 ,c4 ,,iv4 fol4 #cg1 recto4 #bih ,edersheim1 ,life and ,times of ,jesus the ,messiah1 vol4 ii4 p4 #eef1 n4 #a4 #bii ,john xviii4 #bh4 #cjj ,,mm4 ,lmann1 ,jesus ,before the ,sanhedrin1 p4 #adj4 #cja ,mark xiv4 #fc1 #fd4 #cjb ,edersheim1 ,life and ,times of ,jesus the ,messiah1 vol4 ii4 p4 #efa4 #cjc ,rabbi ,wise1 ,martyrdom of ,jesus1 p4 #gd4 #cjd ,benny1 ,criminal ,code of the ,jews1 p4 #ha4 #cje ,matt4 xxvi4 #fe4 #cjf ,see ,part ,,ii1 ,qualifications of ,judges4 #cjg ,talmud1 ,pesachim1 or the ,passover1 fol4 #eg1 verso2 see also ,jesus ,before the ,sanhedrin1 pp4 #ed1 #ee4 #cjh ,benny1 ,criminal ,code of the ,jews1 pp4 #bh-da4 #cji ,matt4 xxi4 #ca4 #caj ,matt4 xxiii4 #ad1 #ae4 #caa ,life and ,times of ,jesus the ,messiah1 vol4 i4 pp4 #ic1 #id4 #cab ,matt4 xxiii4 #bg1 #bi-cc4 #cac ,vie de ,jesus1 p4 #bfg4 #cad ,john xi4 #di1 #ej4 #cae ,john xi4 #ec4 #caf ,luke xxii4 #a-c4 #cag ,matt4 xxvi4 #c-e4 #cah ,benny1 ,criminal ,code of the ,jews1 p4 #ef4 #cai ,geikie1 ,the ,life and ,words of ,christ1 vol4 ii4 p4 #eag4 #cbj ,deut4 xix4 #ah-ba4 #cba ,mark xiv4 #ee4 #cbb ,mishna1 ,treatise ,makhoth4 #cbc ,afresh the mighty line of years unroll'd1 ,the ,virgin now1 now ,saturn's sway returns2 ,now the blest globe a heaven-sprung ,child adorns1 ,whose genial power shall whelm earth's iron race1 ,and plant once more the golden in its place4--,virgil1 ,eclogue ,,iv4 #cbd ,gen4 xlix4 #h-aj4 #cbe ,sanhedrin1 fol4 #ig1 verso4 #cbf ,martyrdom of ,jesus1 p4 #gf4 #cbg ,john xi4 #dh-ej4 #cbh ,i ,sam4 xv4 #bi4 #cbi ,hosea xi4 #i4 #ccj ,mark vii4 #i-ac4 #cca ,jewish ,encyc41 vol4 i4 p4 #ehc4 #ccb ,hodge1 ,systematic ,theology1 vol4 i4 p4 #dhe4 #ccc ,steenstra1 ,the ,being of ,god as ,unity and ,trinity1 pp4 #aib1 #aic4 #ccd ,john ii4 #ae4 #cce ,john vi4 #cj4 #ccf ,john x4 #bd1 #be4 #ccg ,matt4 xi4 #d1 #e4 #cch ,i ,kings xvii4 #ag-bb4 #cci ,john xi4 #da4 #cdj ,matt4 ix4 #ah-bf2 ,mark v4 #bb-db2 ,luke viii4 #da-ee4 #cda ,luke vii4 #ab-ae4 #cdb ,john iii4 #b4 #cdc ,see ,friedlieb1 ,archol41 #hg2 ,dupin1 #ge2 ,keim1 vol4 iii4 #cbg4 #cdd ,bab4 ,sanh4 f4 #fc1 #a3 ,cum synedrium quemquam moti adjudicavit1 ne quidquam degustent illi isto die4 #cde ,andrews1 ,the ,life of ,our ,lord1 p4 #ebb4 #cdf ,the ,life of ,our ,lord1 pp4 #ebc1 #ebd4 #cdg ,luke xxii4 #ff-ga4 #cdh ,see ,part ,,ii1 ,chap4 ,v42 also ,benny1 ,crim4 ,code of the ,jews1 pp4 #ha-hc4 #cdi ,keim1 ,jesus of ,nazara1 vol4 vi4 pp4 #fc1 #fd4 #cej ,john xviii4 #bh4 #cea ,thou1 ,reuben1 art guilty6 ,thou1 ,simon1 art acquitted1 art not guilty6 were stereotyped forms of verdicts under ,hebrew criminal procedure4 ,sanh4 in ,friedl41 p4 #hi4 #ceb ,keim1 ,jesus of ,nazara1 vol4 vi4 p4 #gd4 #cec ,john iii4 #a2 vii4 #ej4 #ced ,luke xxiii4 #ej1 #ea4 #cee ,matt4 xxvi4 #ei2 ,mark xiv4 #ee2 ,matt4 xxvii4 #a2 ,mark xv4 #a4 #cef ,mark xiv4 #fc1 #fd2 ,luke xxii4 #gj1 #ga4 #ceg ,keim1 ,jesus of ,nazara1 vol4 vi4 p4 #gd1 n4 #b4 #ceh ,acts vi4 #aa2 vii4 #ei4 ,,index ,a ,abarbanel1 ,isaac1 on the ,sanhedrin1 ,i1 #ajf ,ab-beth-din1 vice-president of the ,sanhedrin1 ,i1 #aab ,abbott1 ,lyman1 on the scribes of the ,sanhedrin1 ,i1 #aeh ,acts of ,pilate1 the ,apocryphal1 modern criticism of1 ,,ii1 #cbg discovery of1 ,,ii1 #cbg ,lardner on the authenticity of1 ,,ii1 #cbh seq4 ,tischendorf on the authenticity of1 ,,ii1 #cde seq4 antiquity of1 ,,ii1 #cea text of1 ,,ii1 #cea seq4 butius1 ,publius1 part of1 in the exposure of ,bacchanalian orgies1 ,,ii1 #bga seq4 dile1 ,roman1 judicial powers of1 ,,ii1 #cf sculapius1 ,grco-,roman divinity1 ,,ii1 #aih ,akiba1 ,jewish rabbi1 ,mishna systematized by1 ,i1 #gi ,albanus1 ,roman governor1 his deposition of ,albanus1 ,,ii1 #bif ,alcmene1 myth of ,zeus and1 ,,ii1 #bfe ,alexander1 ,jewish ,alabarch1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #bii ,alexander ,,iii1 pope1 genuineness of true cross attested by bull of1 ,,ii1 #fc ,alexandrian ,,ms4 of the ,bible1 ,i1 #fg ,ananias ben ,nebedeus1 ,jewish priest1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #bii family of1 cursed in ,talmud1 ,,ii1 #cjb ,ananos4 ,see ,annas ,ananus1 son of ,annas1 ,jewish high priest1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #bif ,anathemas1 ,jewish1 against the ,christians1 ,,ii1 #cjg1 #cjh ,anaxagoras1 ,greek philosopher1 on the deification of natural forces1 ,,ii1 #bbe his exposure of the divination of ,lampon1 ,,ii1 #bbf ,annanias1 author of ,acts of ,pilate1 ,,ii1 #cea ,annas 7,ananos71 ,jewish high priest1 examination of ,christ before1 ,i1 #bch-bdg deposition of1 by ,gratus1 ,i1 #bdd2 ,,ii1 #bj ,christ examined in house of1 ,i1 #bef biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #bie legendary examination of ,joseph of ,arimathea1 ,,ii1 #cgd1 #cgf ,antecedent ,warning1 peculiar provision of ,hebrew ,criminal ,law regarding1 ,i1 #adg-aeb ,antistius1 ,l41 ,roman tribune1 impeachment of ,julius ,csar by1 ,,ii1 #df ,antoninus ,pius1 ,roman emperor1 persecution of ,christians by1 ,,ii1 #gh ,aphrodisia1 rites of1 ,,ii1 #bfe ,aphrodite1 ,greek divinity1 patroness of prostitutes1 ,,ii1 #bfe ,aquillius1 ,manlius1 ,roman governor1 trial of1 before the ,comitia1 ,,ii1 #dj ,antonius1 ,marcus1 ,roman advocate1 defense of1 of ,manlius ,aquillius1 ,,ii1 #dj ,aristotle1 ,greek philosopher1 on the licentiousness of ,sparta1 ,,ii1 #bda ,arnold1 ,matthew1 on despair of ,roman people1 ,,ii1 #bhf ,arnobius1 ,numidian writer1 on the familiar treatment of ,roman gods1 ,,ii1 #bah on the lewdness of the ,roman drama1 ,,ii1 #bfg ,art1 effect of1 in corruption of ,roman and ,greek morals1 ,,ii1 #bfh ,aspasia1 mistress of ,pericles1 ,,ii1 #bdb ,athens1 domestic licentiousness of1 ,,ii1 #bdj1 #bda ,athronges1 ,jewish peasant1 revolt of1 ,,ii1 #aaj ,atticus1 ,numerius1 ,roman senator1 attests ascent of ,augustus to heaven1 ,,ii1 #bcd ,atys1 myth of1 represented on ,greek and ,roman stage1 ,,ii1 #bfg ,augurs1 ,roman priests1 ,,ii1 #bjd spectators at licentious dramas1 ,,ii1 #bfg ,augury1 modes of1 ,,ii1 #baa ,augustus ,csar1 ,roman emperor1 reign and policy of1 ,,ii1 #be1 #bf care of profligate daughter ,julia1 ,,ii1 #hc belief of1 in omens1 ,,ii1 #bae his chastisement of ,neptune1 ,,ii1 #bbb deification of1 ,,ii1 #bcc ,aurelius ,antoninus1 ,marcus1 ,roman emperor and philosopher1 persecution of ,christianity by1 ,,ii1 #gh adoration of ,serapis by1 ,,ii1 #bag on suicide1 ,,ii1 #bcb ,b ,bacchanalian orgies1 ,livy's account of1 ,,ii1 #bgj-bhc ,bacchus1 ,roman deity1 licentious festivals of1 ,,ii1 #bfe ,barabbas 7,bar ,abbas7 released by ,pilate1 ,,ii1 #aca1 #ach1 #cfc ,baring-,gould1 ,s41 on the symbolism of the ,cross1 ,,ii1 #ff ,baths1 ,roman1 splendor of1 ,,ii1 #bdg ,beheading of criminals under ,hebrew ,law1 ,i1 #ia1 #ii ,benny1 on the ,talmud1 ,i1 #ge on internment in ,jewish ,cities of ,refuge1 ,i1 #ih1 #ii ,bernhardt1 ,sarah1 insulted in ,quebec1 ,,ii1 #ahb ,bernice 7,berenice71 ,jewish queen1 a suppliant before ,florus1 ,,ii1 #ajj ,bible1 the manuscripts of1 ,i1 #fg purity of text of1 ,i1 #fi anthropomorphism of1 ,i1 #ccf-cch influence of1 ,,ii1 #d1 #e ,birchath ,hamminim ,jewish imprecation against ,christians1 ,,ii1 #cjh ,blasphemy1 discussion of charge against ,christ of1 ,i1 #aic-bji ,hebrew definition of1 ,i1 #aii-bja classification of1 ,i1 #bjc ,boethus1 family of1 cursed in ,talmud1 ,,ii1 #cja4 ,see also ,simon ,bossuet1 ,jacques ,b41 ,french divine1 on the citizenship of ,christ1 ,,ii1 #ajh ,brothels1 ,roman1 dedication of1 to ,venus1 ,,ii1 #bfe ,burning of criminals under ,hebrew ,law1 ,i1 #ib1 #ii ,c ,csar1 ,caius ,julius1 #ajth legion cowed by1 ,,ii1 #afi superstition of1 ,,ii1 #bje disbelief of1 in immortality1 ,,ii1 #bbi deification of1 ,,ii1 #bcc divorces of1 ,,ii1 #bch profligacy of1 ,,ii1 #bch1 #bci unnatural practices attributed to1 ,,ii1 #bfc ,caiaphas1 ,jewish high priest1 accusation of1 against ,christ1 before ,sanhedrin1 ,i1 #aij erratic conduct of1 at trial of ,christ1 ,i1 #bij rle of1 in trial of ,jesus before ,pilate1 ,,ii1 #aja biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #bie legendary examination of ,joseph of ,arimathea by1 ,,ii1 #cgd1 #cgf ,caligula1 ,roman emperor1 deifies his sister ,drusilla1 ,,ii1 #bcd depravity of1 ,,ii1 #bcd ,cantharus1 family of1 cursed in ,talmud1 ,,ii1 #cja ,capital ,crimes under ,hebrew ,criminal ,law1 classification and punishments of1 ,i1 #ia-aja ,carlyle1 ,thomas1 on the life of ,christ1 ,,ii1 #ahg ,cassius1 ,dion1 on the labeling of ,roman criminals1 ,i1 #eg ,cato1 ,marcus ,porcius1 contempt of1 for the haruspices1 ,,ii1 #bbh suicide of1 ,,ii1 #bcb divorces of1 ,,ii1 #bcg contempt of1 for ,lucullus1 ,,ii1 #bdf merciless treatment of slaves1 ,,ii1 #bea ,catulus1 ,quintus1 dream of1 presaging accession of ,augustus1 ,,ii1 #bad ,chanania1 ,jewish scribe1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cad ,chanania ben ,chiskia1 ,jewish scribe1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cji ,charles ,,ix1 king of ,france1 bloody sweat of1 ,i1 #ei1 #fj ,christianity1 conflict of1 with ,roman paganism1 ,i1 #af2 ,,ii1 #gf-gi ,chrysostom1 ,st4 ,john1 on the legendary desire of ,tiberius to deify ,christ1 ,,ii1 #cdd ,cicero1 ,marcus ,tullius1 dream of1 presaging accession of ,augustus1 ,,ii1 #bae on ,roman superstition1 ,,ii1 #bba on ,roman skepticism1 ,,ii1 #bbg his divorce of his wife1 ,,ii1 #bcg witticism of1 upon ,csar's gallantries1 ,,ii1 #bci ,cities of ,refuge1 ,jewish1 internment in1 ,i1 #if-ii ,claudia1 granddaughter of ,augustus1 marriage of1 to ,pilate1 ,,ii1 #hb dream of1 regarding ,jesus1 ,,ii1 #acc1 #cee ,claudius1 ,roman commander1 throws sacred pullets into the sea1 ,,ii1 #bbb ,clement ,v1 pope1 and the ,talmud1 ,i1 #hh1 #hi ,coliseum1 the1 description of1 ,,ii1 #bfj ,comitia ,centuriata1 public criminal trials in1 ,,ii1 #cg-dc miscarriage of justice in1 ,,ii1 #ch-db ,commodus1 ,roman emperor1 deification of1 ,,ii1 #bcd ,consul1 ,roman1 judicial powers of1 ,,ii1 #cf ,coke1 ,sir ,edward1 contrast between ,pilate and1 ,,ii1 #agj-agb ,cornelius1 son of ,ceron1 the elder1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cba ,cross1 ,roman instrument of death1 erroneous representations of1 ,,ii1 #ef forms of1 ,,ii1 #fb use of1 by various races as religious symbol1 ,,ii1 #fd-fg ,cross1 the ,true1 legends of1 ,,ii1 #fb1 #fc ,crucifixion1 ,plutarch on1 ,i1 #ef history of1 ,,ii1 #ed1 #ee mode of1 ,,ii1 #ee pathology of1 ,,ii1 #eh1 #ei ,roman citizens exempt from1 ,,ii1 #ed of ,jesus1 ,,ii1 #cfe ,cybele1 ,roman deity1 importation of1 from ,phrygia1 ,,ii1 #aii ,d ,deification of ,roman emperors1 ceremony of1 ,,ii1 #bcd ,dembowski1 ,bishop1 and the ,talmud1 ,i1 #hh ,demosthenes1 on the women of ,athens1 ,,ii1 #bdb ,drembourg1 ,joseph1 on the ,jewish priestly families1 ,,ii1 #bid ,deutsch1 ,emanuel1 on the ,talmud1 ,i1 #gd1 #hj on the existence of the ,great ,sanhedrin at the time of ,christ1 ,i1 #agi1 #aha ,diocletian1 ,roman emperor1 deification of1 ,,ii1 #bcc ,divination1 ,roman modes of1 ,,ii1 #baa ,divorce1 among the ,romans1 ,,ii1 #bcf-bci trivial pretexts for1 ,,ii1 #bcg1 #bch ,dllinger1 on the ,roman view of ,christianity and high treason1 ,,ii1 #gg on divorce1 and the profligacy of ,roman matrons1 ,,ii1 #bcf on the effect of art in corrupting ,greek and ,roman manners1 ,,ii1 #bfh ,domitian1 ,roman emperor1 self-deification of1 ,,ii1 #bce ,doras1 ,jewish elder1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cba ,dorotheas1 son of ,nathanael1 ,jewish elder1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cba ,drama1 the1 licentiousness of1 among ,greeks and ,romans1 ,,ii1 #bff ,dreams1 interpretation of1 among ,romans and ,greeks1 ,,ii1 #bac1 #bad ,druidism1 annihilation of1 ,,ii1 #gc ,drusilla1 deified by ,caligula1 ,,ii1 #bcd ,dysmas1 legendary name of one of the thieves crucified with ,jesus1 ,,ii1 #cfd ,e ,edersheim1 ,alfred1 on the existence of the ,great ,sanhedrin at the time of ,christ1 ,i1 #agg ,elders1 ,jewish chamber of4 ,see ,sanhedrin ,eleazar ben ,partah1 ,jewish scribe1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cad ,eleazar1 son of ,annas1 ,jewish high priest1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #bie ,eleazar1 son of ,simon ,boethus1 ,jewish high priest1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #big ,eliezer1 ,jewish rabbi1 ,mishna amplified by1 ,i1 #gi ,ellicott1 ,dr41 on the character of ,pilate1 ,,ii1 #ia ,epicurus1 ,greek philosopher1 ,,ii1 #bbi ,epicureanism1 degradation of1 among ,romans1 ,,ii1 #bcj ,epitaphs1 irreligious ,roman1 ,,ii1 #bbb1 #bhe ,epulos1 ,roman priests1 ,,ii1 #bjd ,etruria1 importation of haruspices from1 ,,ii1 #baj ,eusebius1 reference of1 to the ,acts of ,pilate1 ,,ii1 #cbi1 #ccc1 #cdd ,evhemere1 on the ,greek gods1 ,,ii1 #bbe ,evangelists1 honesty of1 ,i1 #ab character of1 ,i1 #ac1 #ad motives of1 ,i1 #ae ability of1 ,i1 #ah candor of1 ,i1 #bj-bd discrepancies of1 ,i1 #bi-cc corroborative elements of narrative of1 ,i1 #cd-ci impossibility of collusion among1 ,i1 #ch conformity of narrative of1 with human experience1 ,i1 #ci coincidence of testimony of1 with collateral circumstances1 ,i1 #eb-fg narrative of1 confirmed by profane historians1 ,i1 #ef1 #eg ,evidence1 rules of1 under ,hebrew ,law1 ,i1 #add1 #ade ,f ,false swearing under ,hebrew ,criminal ,law1 ,i1 #ic ,fathers1 ,church1 writings of the1 ,i1 #fh ,fecenia1 ,hispala1 part of1 in exposure of ,bacchanalian orgies1 ,,ii1 #bga seq4 ,felix1 ,minucius1 ,christian father1 controversy of1 with pagans on adoration of the cross1 ,,ii1 #fd ,flagellation1 under ,hebrew ,criminal1 ,i1 #id ,flamens1 ,roman priests1 ,,ii1 #bjd spectators at licentious dramas1 ,,ii1 #bfg ,g ,gallio1 pro-consul of ,achaia1 attitude of1 toward ,jewish clamors1 ,,ii1 #ajg ,gamaliel1 ,jewish rabbi1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cjd ,ganymede1 depraving influence of myth of rape of1 ,,ii1 #bfb ,gavazzi1 ,alessandro1 sermons of1 in ,coliseum1 ,,ii1 #bfb ,geib1 on the status of ,judea1 ,,ii1 #af on the courts of the ,roman ,provinces1 ,,ii1 #cb ,geikie1 ,cunningham1 on the non-existence of the ,sanhedrin at the time of ,christ1 ,i1 #aha on the character of the trial of ,jesus before ,sanhedrin1 ,i1 #ahd ,gemara1 the ,jerusalem and ,babylonian recensions of1 ,i1 #ha relation of1 to ,mishna1 ,i1 #hc4 ,see also ,talmud and ,mishna ,germanicus1 ,csar temples profaned on death of1 ,,ii1 #bbb exposure of children born on day of death of1 ,,ii1 #bed ,gestas1 legendary name of one of thieves crucified with ,jesus1 ,,ii1 #cfd ,golden ,house of ,nero1 ,,ii1 #bdf ,gibbon1 ,edward1 on the jurisdiction of the great ,sanhedrin1 ,i1 #abj on the laws of the ,twelve ,tables1 ,,ii1 #ec on the extent of the ,roman ,empire1 ,,ii1 #aif ,gladiatorial games1 origin of1 ,,ii1 #bef gigantic scale of1 in ,rome1 ,,ii1 #bef1 #beg conduct of1 ,,ii1 #beh ,gospels1 the1 admissibility of1 as legal evidence1 ,i1 #e-ab ,governors1 ,roman1 powers of1 ,,ii1 #bd1 #bg1 #bh1 #bi forbidden to take wives to their provinces1 ,,ii1 #hd1 #he ,graetz1 ,heinrich1 on the existence of the ,sanhedrin at the time of ,christ1 ,i1 #aha ,greeks1 superstition of1 ,,ii1 #bbc philosophy of1 ,,ii1 #bbi depraving effect on ,romans of art1 literature1 and manners of1 ,,ii1 #bdj-bdd1 #bfh1 #bhd ,bacchanalian orgies introduced by1 ,,ii1 #bgj invective of ,juvenal against1 ,,ii1 #bhd ,greenidge1 on the interpretation of native law by ,roman proprtors1 ,,ii1 #ca ,greenleaf1 ,simon1 ,american jurist1 on the admissibility of the ,scriptures as legal evidence1 ,i1 #f-i on the testimony of the ,evangelists1 ,i1 #aj1 #aa on the legal justice of the conviction of ,christ for blasphemy1 ,i1 #bji ,h ,hacksab ben ,tzitzith1 ,jewish elder1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cbj ,hall of ,hewn ,stones1 sessions of ,sanhedrin in1 ,i1 #aag ,haruspices1 ,roman1 account of1 ,,ii1 #baj ,helcias1 ,jewish treasurer1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cjj ,helena1 ,empress1 legendary discovery of true cross by1 ,,ii1 #fb ,hercules1 ,greek divinity1 burning of1 represented on ,greek and ,roman stage1 ,,ii1 #bfg ,herder1 ,johann1 on the character of ,christ1 ,,ii1 #ahg ,herod ,antipas1 character of1 ,,ii1 #abj his treatment of ,jesus1 ,,ii1 #abb-abg ,herod ,i1 the ,great1 last will of1 ,,ii1 #aai1 #abj arbitrary changes of1 in high priesthood1 ,,ii1 #bic ,hetairai1 status of1 in ,athens1 ,,ii1 #bdb1 #bdc ,high priest1 ,jewish1 vestments of1 ,i1 #aeh abuses in appointment of1 ,,ii1 #bic ,hillel1 ,jewish doctor1 inspiration of1 ,i1 #hd ,hillel1 ,school of1 and the ,mishna1 ,i1 #gi dissensions of1 with ,school of ,shammai1 ,,ii1 #cji ,homer1 the bible of the ,greeks1 ,,ii1 #bfd ,honorius ,,iv1 pope1 and the ,talmud1 ,i1 #hg ,horatius1 trial of1 before the ,comitia ,centuriata1 ,,ii1 #dj ,i ,ignatius1 ,st41 martyrdom of1 in ,coliseum1 ,,ii1 #bfa ,impalement1 death by1 ,,ii1 #fa ,infanticide1 among ,romans1 ,,ii1 #bed ,inkerman1 story of soldier killed at battle of1 ,,ii1 #aia ,innes1 on the trials of ,jesus before the ,sanhedrin1 ,i1 #ahe2 ,,ii1 #aj on the cowardice of ,pilate1 ,,ii1 #ach ,interpreters1 not allowed in ,jewish courts1 ,i1 #ajg ,imprisonment4 ,see ,law1 ,hebrew ,criminal1 ,i1 #ic ,ishmael1 ,jewish rabbi1 and the ,mishna1 ,i1 #gi ,ismael ben ,eliza1 ,jewish scribe1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cji ,ismael ben ,phabi1 ,jewish high priest1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #bih family of1 cursed in ,talmud1 ,,ii1 #cja ,isis1 ,egyptian deity1 rites of1 established in ,rome1 ,,ii1 #bag ,roman temples of1 a resort of vice1 ,,ii1 #bfi ,issachar ben ,keifar ,barchi1 ,jewish priest1 cursed in ,talmud1 ,,ii1 #cjb ,j ,james1 brother of ,jesus1 condemnation of1 by ,ananus1 ,,ii1 #bif ,janus1 ,roman god1 invocations of1 ,,ii1 #bjg ,jehovah1 appearances of1 in human form1 ,i1 #cdc-cdi ,jerome1 ,st41 on the ,jewish anathema against ,christians1 ,,ii1 #cjh ,jesus1 the ,christ1 human perfection of1 ,i1 #ad2 ,,ii1 #ahf scourging of1 ,i1 #ef1 #eg breaking of legs of1 by soldiers1 ,i1 #eg bloody sweat of1 ,i1 #ei1 #fj physical cause of death of1 ,i1 #fa1 #fb watery issue of1 ,i1 #fj-fb devotion of women to1 ,i1 #ff resurrection of1 ,i1 #baa2 ,,ii1 #cfh divinity of1 ,i1 #baa1 #bab celebrates the ,paschal feast1 ,i1 #bbj-bbd at ,gethsemane1 ,i1 #bbd-bbf arrest of1 ,i1 #bbe private examination of1 before high priest1 ,i1 #bch-bdg charged with sedition and blasphemy ,i1 #bej annnounces his ,messiahship before ,sanhedrin1 ,i1 #bgc1 #bgd ,messianic prophecies fulfilled in ,him1 ,i1 #cbc-cbh1 #cda1 #cdb miracles of1 ,i1 #cej-cee at morning session of ,sanhedrin1 ,i1 #cef-cfb condemned to death by ,sanhedrin1 ,i1 #cfe ,his teachings treasonable under ,roman law1 ,,ii1 #gb before ,pilate1 ,,ii1 #if seq4 charged with high treason before ,pilate1 ,,ii1 #ajf1 #ceb indictment of1 before ,pilate1 ,,ii1 #ajg-aji acquitted by ,pilate1 ,,ii1 #aaf sent by ,pilate to ,herod1 ,,ii1 #aah before ,herod1 ,,ii1 #aai seq4 mocked1 and sent back to ,pilate by ,herod1 ,,ii1 #abg second appearance of1 before ,pilate1 ,,ii1 #abi seq4 delivered to ,jews by ,pilate1 ,,ii1 #ach mocked by mob1 ,,ii1 #aci tributes of skeptics to1 ,,ii1 #ahg ,napoleon's tribute to1 ,,ii1 #ahi1 #aij charged by ,jews with illegitimacy1 ,,ii1 #cef crucifixion of1 ,,ii1 #cfe ,see also trial of ,jesus1 ,hebrew1 and trial of ,jesus1 ,roman ,jesus ben ,sie1 ,jewish high priest1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #bih ,jews1 the political state of1 at time of ,jesus1 ,,ii1 #aa-bc discussion of their responsibility for ,christ's death1 ,,ii1 #agd-ahj prejudices against1 ,,ii1 #ahj-ahg distinguished1 ,,ii1 #ahe1 #ahf ,joazar1 ,jewish high priest1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #bif ,jochanan ben ,zakai1 ,jewish scribe1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #caa ,john1 ,st41 at the sepulcher1 ,i1 #cg at the crucifixion of ,christ1 ,i1 #fe ,john1 ,st41 ,gospel of1 style of1 ,i1 #ai ,john1 ,jewish priest1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #bii ,jonathan1 son of ,annas1 ,jewish high priest1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #bie ,jonathan ben ,uziel1 ,jewish scribe1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cjf ,john1 son of ,john1 ,jewish elder1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cba ,joseph of ,arimathea1 presence of1 at trials of ,christ1 ,i1 #bhb-bhf1 #cfd biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cah receives body of ,jesus from ,pilate1 ,,ii1 #cff apocryphal account of escape of1 from ,jews1 ,,ii1 #cfg1 #cgc-cgf ,josephus1 ,flavius1 on the character of ,pilate1 ,i1 #ba on scourging ,i1 #ef on the ,pharisees1 ,i1 #hg on the existence of the great ,sanhedrin at time of ,christ1 ,i1 #agf on the loss1 by ,jews1 of power of life and death1 ,,ii1 #ai on the rapacity of the high priests1 ,,ii1 #cja ,jowett1 ,benjamin1 upon the corruption of ,rome1 ,,ii1 #bdj ,judah1 the ,holy1 ,jewish rabbi1 and the composition of the ,mishna1 ,i1 #gi1 #hj ,judas1 son of ,hezekiah1 ,jewish rebel1 put to death by ,herod1 ,,ii1 #aji ,judas ,iscariot1 his betrayal of ,christ1 ,i1 #bbg-bce ,julia1 daughter of ,augustus1 profligacy of1 ,,ii1 #hb marriages of1 ,,ii1 #hc ,julian1 ,roman emperor1 his defiance of ,mars1 ,,ii1 #bbb ,juno1 ,roman divinity1 sacrifices to1 ,,ii1 #bjh ,jupiter1 ,roman deity1 multitudinous forms of1 ,,ii1 #bjc sacrifices to1 ,,ii1 #bjh ,justin ,martyr1 reference of1 to ,acts of ,pilate1 ,,ii1 #cca1 #cdf1 #cdh ,juvenal1 ,satires of1 on ,roman social depravity1 ,,ii1 #bdj1 #bdd1 #bdh ,k ,keim1 ,theodor1 on the existence of the ,great ,sanhedrin at the time of ,christ1 ,i1 #agh on the character of ,christ1 ,,ii1 #ahh1 #ahi ,knight1 ,r4 ,p41 on the symbolism of the ,cross1 ,,ii1 #fe ,koran1 the1 ,i1 #gg ,l ,lamartine1 ,alphonse1 on the death of ,christ1 ,,ii1 #c ,lampon1 ,greek diviner1 exposed by ,anaxagoras1 ,,ii1 #bbf ,lardner1 on the authenticity of the ,acts of ,pilate1 ,,ii1 #cbh seq4 ,law1 ,hebrew ,criminal1 administration of1 ,i1 #aec1 #aed basis of1 ,i1 #gc1 #hd1 #he burial of bodies after execution under1 ,i1 #aja1 #aga capital punishments under1 ,i1 #ia-ic1 #ii-aja circumstantial evidence under1 ,i1 #add ,cities of ,refuge under1 ,i1 #if courts and judges1 ,i1 #ajb-abf execution under1 ,i1 #agj1 #aga false swearing under1 ,i1 #ic flagellation under1 ,i1 #id imprisonment under1 ,i1 #ic peculiarities of1 ,i1 #abe1 #acb1 #adg1 #afg1 #afh slavery under1 ,i1 #ie tenderness of1 for human life1 ,i1 #aed1 #aee1 #caj testimony under1 ,i1 #add-adg witnesses under1 ,i1 #abg-add written and documentary evidence irrelevant1 ,i1 #acc1 #ade ,laws1 ,roman1 lex ,appuleia1 ,,ii1 #fi ,cornelia1 ,,ii1 #fi ,julia ,majestatis1 ,,ii1 #fi1 #hj ,memmia1 ,,ii1 #df ,porcia1 ,,ii1 #ed ,remmia1 ,,ii1 #di ,talionis1 ,,ii1 #ec ,valeria1 ,,ii1 #cg1 #ed ,varia1 ,,ii1 #fi ,lazarus1 raising of1 from the dead1 ,i1 #ceb ,lectisternia1 ,roman banquets to the gods1 slaves released at1 ,,ii1 #acj indecencies of1 ,,ii1 #bah ,lmann1 extract from work of1 on ,sanhedrin1 ,,ii1 #bia ,lepidus1 ,marcus1 ,roman patrician1 magnificence of1 ,,ii1 #bdf ,livy1 on scourging1 ,i1 #eg account of ,bacchanalian orgies1 ,,ii1 #bgj-bhc ,longinus1 legendary name of soldier who pierced ,christ1 ,,ii1 #cgi ,lucullus1 ,roman patrician1 luxury of1 ,,ii1 #bdd ,luke1 ,st41 occupation of1 ,i1 #ai ,luke1 ,st41 ,gospel of1 style of1 ,i1 #ai ,lupercals1 ,roman priests1 ,,ii1 #bjd ,luxury of the ,romans1 ,,ii1 #bdd ,lycurgus1 code of1 ,,ii1 #bda ,m ,macarius1 identification of true cross by1 ,,ii1 #fc ,macaulay1 ,lord1 speech of1 on ,jewish disabilities1 ,,ii1 #ahd ,mahomet1 character of1 ,i1 #ad ,malchus1 ear of1 cut off by ,peter1 ,i1 #cf1 #bbf ,magath1 ,julius1 extract from work of1 ,,ii1 #bia ,maimonides1 on ,hebrew ,capital ,crimes1 ,i1 #ia on the prohibition of nocturnal trials1 ,i1 #bee1 #bef ,manlius1 ,marcus1 trial of1 before the ,comitia ,centuriata1 ,,ii1 #dj ,marius1 ,caius1 assassin cowed by1 ,i1 #fb ,mark1 ,st41 ,jesus arrested at home of1 ,i1 #bbj ,marriage1 among the ,romans1 ,,ii1 #bcf among the ,greeks1 ,,ii1 #bdj-bdc ,marcius1 ,quintus1 ,roman consul1 motion of1 on the suppression of the ,bacchanalian orgies1 ,,ii1 #bhb ,mars1 ,roman deity1 ,,ii1 #bjh ,messiah1 the1 prophecies regarding1 and their fulfillment in ,jesus1 ,i1 #cbb-cbh varying expectations of ,jews regarding1 ,i1 #cai-cbb2 ,,ii1 #aaj conception of ,pharisees of1 ,,ii1 #cbd conception of ,sadducees of1 ,,ii1 #cbe ,matthew1 ,st41 occupation of1 ,i1 #ai ,matthias1 son of ,annas1 ,jewish high priest1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #bif ,mendelssohn1 on the ,talmud1 ,i1 #ge ,messalina1 ,roman empress1 lewdness of1 ,,ii1 #bdd ,messalinus1 ,cotta1 prosecuted for treason1 ,,ii1 #gj ,metrodorus on the ,greek gods1 ,,ii1 #bbf ,mezeray1 de1 on the bloody sweat of ,charles ,,ix1 ,i1 #fj ,minerva1 ,roman deity1 ,,ii1 #bjh ,miracles1 probability of1 ,i1 #dj-ea ,spinoza on1 ,i1 #dj-dc ,renan on1 ,i1 #dd of ,christ1 ,i1 #cea-ced ,mishna1 the1 ,e4 ,deutsch on1 ,i1 #hj subdivisions of1 ,i1 #hj relation of ,talmud to1 ,i1 #hc traditional view of1 ,i1 #hd on capital and pecuniary cases1 ,i1 #aee1 #aef4 ,see also ,gemara and ,talmud4 ,mommsen1 ,theodor1 on the jurisdiction of native courts of ,roman subject peoples1 ,,ii1 #ae on ,roman marital looseness1 ,,ii1 #bdc on ,roman extravagance1 ,,ii1 #bdg ,montefiore1 ,sir ,moses1 anecdote of1 ,,ii1 #ahj ,mosaic ,code1 the1 a basis of ,hebrew ,criminal ,law1 ,i1 #gc1 #hd1 #he ,mller1 ,johannes1 explodes legend of ,pilate and ,lake ,lucerne1 ,,ii1 #ie ,n ,nachum ,halbalar1 ,jewish scribe1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cad ,nvius1 ,marcus1 accusation of ,scipio ,africanus by1 ,,ii1 #da ,napoleon ,i1 fickleness of populace toward1 ,i1 #fc1 #fd tribute of1 to ,jesus1 ,,ii1 #ahi religious faith of1 ,,ii1 #aij1 #aia ,nasi1 prince of the ,sanhedrin1 ,i1 #aab ,nathan1 ,jewish rabbi1 note on1 ,,ii1 #cae1 note ,neptune1 ,roman deity1 ,,ii1 #bjh ,nero1 ,roman emperor1 deification of1 ,,ii1 #bcd ,golden ,house of1 ,,ii1 #bdf ,ney1 ,michel1 ,french marshal1 compared with ,st4 ,peter1 ,i1 #fd ,nicodemus1 ,jewish elder1 presence of1 at trial of ,christ1 ,i1 #bhb-bhf defense of ,christ before ,sanhedrin1 ,i1 #cje presence and conduct of1 at second trial of ,jesus by ,sanhedrin1 ,i1 #cfd biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cai apocryphal account of pleading of1 for ,jesus before ,pilate1 ,,ii1 #cfj ,gospel of4 ,see ,acts of ,pilate ,nordau1 ,max1 on ,jewish pride in ,jesus1 ,,ii1 #ahh ,o ,oaths1 not administered to witnesses1 under ,jewish law1 ,i1 #acd ,octavian4 ,see ,augustus ,omens1 belief of ,romans in1 ,,ii1 #bae ,onkelos1 ,jewish scribe1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cje ,oracle1 ,delphic1 consulted by ,romans1 ,,ii1 #baj ,osiris1 ,egyptian deity1 the cross a symbol of1 ,,ii1 #ff ,ovid1 ,roman poet1 on unnatural practices in temples1 ,,ii1 #bfi ,p ,paganism1 ,grco-,roman1 conflict of1 with ,christianity1 ,i1 #af2 ,,ii1 #gf-gi ,hellenization of ,roman religion1 ,,ii1 #aii importation of foreign gods1 ,,ii1 #bjj origin and multiplicity of ,roman gods1 ,,ii1 #aih-bjd ,roman priesthood1 ,,ii1 #bjd1 #bje ,roman forms of worship1 ,,ii1 #bje-bji perplexity of worshipers regarding deities1 ,,ii1 #bjg prayer1 ,,ii1 #bjg1 #bjh-baj augury and divination1 ,,ii1 #baj-bae omens1 ,,ii1 #bae1 #baf decay of ,roman faith1 ,,ii1 #bag-bbj ,roman skepticism1 ,,ii1 #bbj-bbi sacrilege among ,romans1 ,,ii1 #bba disbelief of ,romans in immortality1 ,,ii1 #bbh1 #bbi ,epicureanism among the ,romans1 ,,ii1 #bbi-bca stoicism1 ,,ii1 #bca-bcc deification of ,roman emperors1 ,,ii1 #bcc-bce base deities of ,romans1 ,,ii1 #bfe effect of religion in ,greek and ,roman social corruption1 ,,ii1 #bfi ,palace of ,herod1 description of1 ,,ii1 #if1 #ig ,paley1 ,william1 on the discrepancies of the ,gospels1 ,i1 #cb1 #cc ,pan1 ,grco-,roman divinity1 feasts of1 ,,ii1 #bfe ,paul1 ,st41 on the depravity of ,rome1 ,,ii1 #bhd delivery of1 to ,felix1 ,,ii1 #bii ,pericles1 ,greek tyrant1 and the divination of ,lampon1 ,,ii1 #bbf ,pentateuch1 the1 a basis of ,hebrew jurisprudence1 ,i1 #gc ,permanent ,tribunals 7qustiones perpetu71 mode of trials before1 at ,rome1 ,,ii1 #dc-eb ,peter1 ,st41 at the sepulcher1 ,i1 #cg compared with ,marshal ,ney1 ,i1 #fd and ,malchus1 ,i1 #cf1 #bbf ,pharisees1 and the ,talmud1 ,i1 #hg attitude of1 toward the law1 ,i1 #cch dominant in priestly order1 ,,ii1 #cjb their conception of the ,messiah1 ,,ii1 #cbd characteristics of1 ,,ii1 #cbd ,philip1 ,st41 and the feeding of the five thousand1 ,i1 #ce ,phillips1 ,wendell1 on ,hindu swordsmanship1 ,i1 #dh ,philo1 ,jewish philosopher1 on the character of ,pilate1 ,i1 #ba2 ,,ii1 #hi-ia ,phryne1 mistress of ,praxiteles anecdote of1 ,,ii1 #bdb ,pilate1 ,pontius1 powers of1 as procurator of ,judea1 ,,ii1 #bg-ca name and origin of1 ,,ii1 #ha1 #hb marriage of1 ,,ii1 #hb becomes procurator of ,judea1 ,,ii1 #hd provokes the ,jews1 ,,ii1 #he appropriates funds from ,corban1 ,,ii1 #hf hangs shields in ,herod's palace1 ,,ii1 #hh slays ,galileans1 ,,ii1 #hh character of1 ,i1 #ba2 ,,ii1 #hh canonization of1 ,,ii1 #hi ordered to ,rome by ,vitellius1 ,,ii1 #ib legends regarding death of1 ,,ii1 #ib-id interrogation of ,jesus1 ,,ii1 #aab-aae talents of1 ,,ii1 #aae his opinion of ,jesus1 ,,ii1 #aae acquits ,jesus1 ,,ii1 #aaf sends ,jesus to ,herod1 ,,ii1 #aag reconciled with ,herod1 ,,ii1 #abh offers to release ,barabbas1 ,,ii1 #acj warned by wife's dream of ,jesus1 ,,ii1 #acc1 #cee washes his hands of ,christ's death1 ,,ii1 #acg1 #cfd releases ,barabbas1 ,,ii1 #ach1 #cfc summary of his conduct of ,christ's trial1 ,,ii1 #afh conduct of1 compared with ,csar1 ,,ii1 #afi2 with ,sir ,edward ,coke1 ,,ii1 #agj-agb ,pindar1 ,greek poet1 denunciation of1 of vulgar superstitions1 ,,ii1 #bbd ,plato1 ,greek philosopher1 unnatural love of1 ,,ii1 #bfc reprobation of ,homeric myths1 ,,ii1 #bfd ,pliny1 the ,younger1 correspondence of1 with ,trajan1 ,,ii1 #gh disbelief of1 in immortality1 ,,ii1 #bbi on slavery1 ,,ii1 #bjc ,plutarch1 on crucifixion1 ,i1 #ef anecdotes of ,lucullus1 ,,ii1 #bdd-bdf ,polybius1 on ,roman pederasty1 ,,ii1 #bfc ,pompeia divorced by ,csar1 ,,ii1 #bch ,pompey1 ,cneius1 the ,great1 conquest of ,palestine by1 ,,ii1 #aa defeated at ,pharsalia1 ,,ii1 #be divorce of his wife ,mucia1 ,,ii1 #bch ,pontiffs1 ,roman1 ,,ii1 #bjd ,poppa1 wife of ,nero1 deification of1 ,,ii1 #gg ,postumius1 ,spurius1 ,roman consul1 suppression of ,bacchanalians by1 ,,ii1 #bgj-bhc ,prtor1 ,roman1 judicial powers of1 ,,ii1 #cf ,priesthood1 ,roman4 ,see ,roman religion ,priests1 ,jewish ,chamber of4 ,see ,sanhedrin ,procurator1 ,roman1 jurisdiction of1 ,,ii1 #bg1 #bh ,provinces1 ,roman1 classification of1 by ,augustus1 ,,ii1 #bg ,q ,quetzalcoatle1 crucified ,savior1 worshiped by ,mexicans1 ,,ii1 #ff ,r ,rabbi1 origin of ,jewish title of1 ,,ii1 #cae ,rabbis1 ,jewish1 arrogance of1 ,,ii1 #caf ,raphall1 ,morris1 on the origin of the ,sanhedrin1 ,i1 #ajd ,rawlinson1 ,george1 on the political state of ,judea at the time of ,christ1 ,,ii1 #aa ,religions1 policy of ,romans toward foreign1 and of conquered peoples1 ,,ii1 #gb-gd ,renan1 ,ernest1 on miracles1 ,i1 #dd-dg on the judicial ambush of blasphemers1 ,i1 #bce on the character of ,pilate1 ,,ii1 #ij on the character of ,christ1 ,,ii1 #ahg1 #ahh ,richard ,,iii1 ,king of ,england1 contest of1 with ,saladin1 ,i1 #dh ,richter on the pathology of crucifixion1 ,,ii1 #eh1 #ei ,rosadi1 on the confession of the accused under ,hebrew law1 ,i1 #adc on the hatred of ,pilate toward the ,jews1 ,,ii1 #ih on the order of criminal trials in ,roman provinces1 ,,ii1 #cb ,rousseau1 ,jean ,jacques1 on the death of ,christ1 ,,ii1 #ahg ,romans1 laws of1 the basis of modern jurisprudence1 ,,ii1 #e policy of1 toward subject peoples1 ,,ii1 #ac-ae responsibility of1 for ,christ's death1 ,,ii1 #agd-agf religion of4 ,see ,paganism ,ruga1 ,carvilius1 first ,roman to procure a divorce1 ,,ii1 #bcf ,s ,sacrifice1 human1 among the ,romans1 ,,ii1 #bji ,sadducees1 attitude of1 toward the law1 ,i1 #cch attitude of1 toward anthropomorphism of ,pentateuch1 ,i1 #cch dominant in the ,sanhedrin1 ,i1 #cci disbelief of1 in immortality1 ,,ii1 #cbb wealth and rank of1 ,,ii1 #cbb ,saladin1 ,saracen ,sultan1 contest of1 with ,richard ,,iii1 ,i1 #dh ,salians1 ,roman priests1 ,,ii1 #bjd ,sallust1 ,roman historian1 on the conspiracy of ,cataline1 ,,ii1 #bbi ,salvador1 ,joseph1 on the existence of the ,great ,sanhedrin at the time of ,christ1 ,i1 #agg ,samuel1 ,hakaton1 ,jewish scribe1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cjg ,sanctuary1 right of1 among ancient peoples1 ,i1 #if ,sanhedrin1 the ,great1 origin of1 ,i1 #ajc history of1 ,i1 #ajd organization of1 ,i1 #aje chamber of scribes1 ,i1 #aje2 ,,ii1 #cjc chamber of elders1 ,i1 #aje2 ,,ii1 #cah chamber of priests1 ,i1 #aje2 ,,ii1 #bib qualifications of members of1 ,i1 #ajf disqualifications of judges of1 ,i1 #aji officers of1 ,i1 #aab compensation of officers of1 ,i1 #aae sessions of1 ,i1 #aaf recruitment of personnel of1 ,i1 #aag quorum of1 ,i1 #aai jurisdiction of1 ,i1 #aai appeals to1 from minor ,sanhedrins1 ,i1 #abj morning sacrifice of1 ,i1 #aeg assembling of judges of1 ,i1 #aeh scribes of1 ,i1 #aeh1 #aei examination of witnesses by1 ,i1 #aei-afb debates and balloting of judges of1 ,i1 #afb procedure of1 in cases of condemnation of accused1 ,i1 #afe-afg method of counting votes1 ,i1 #afg1 #afh death march of1 ,i1 #afi1 #agj question of existence of1 at time of ,christ1 ,i1 #age-aha jurisdiction of1 in capital cases at the time of ,christ1 ,i1 #aha-ahc discussion of trial of ,christ before1 ,i1 #ahc-ahf procedure of1 in trial of ,christ before1 ,i1 #ahf illegality of proceedings of1 against ,christ1 ,i1 #bee-bei1 #bfj-bfb1 #bfc-bff1 #bfg-bgj1 #bhg-bid illegality of sentence of1 against ,christ1 ,i1 #bga-bgh1 #bgi-bhf disqualifications of members of1 who condemned ,christ1 ,i1 #bif-cjh morning session of1 at trial of ,christ1 ,i1 #cef-cfd three sessions of1 to discuss ,christ1 ,i1 #cje1 #cjf authority of1 after ,roman conquest1 ,,ii1 #ab1 #af1 #ba deprived by ,romans of power of capital punishment1 ,,ii1 #ai1 #bj biographical sketches of members of1 who tried ,jesus1 ,,ii1 #bia-cbf ,sanhedrins1 minor1 appeals from1 to ,great ,sanhedrin1 ,i1 #abj establishment of1 ,i1 #aba jurisdiction of1 ,i1 #aba superior rank of those of ,jerusalem1 ,i1 #abc1 #abd ,saul1 ,abba1 ,jewish scribe1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cac ,savonarola1 ,girolamo1 ,florentine reformer1 burning of1 ,i1 #fc ,scaurus1 ,manercus1 prosecuted for treason1 ,,ii1 #gj ,sceva1 ,jewish priest1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cjj ,schenck1 account of1 of the bloody sweat of a nun1 ,i1 #ei ,schrer1 on the existence of the ,sanhedrin at the time of ,christ1 ,i1 #agf on the jurisdiction of the ,sanhedrin1 ,,ii1 #ah on the administration of civil law by ,sanhedrin1 ,,ii1 #cj ,scipio ,africanus1 trial of1 before ,comitia ,centuriata1 ,,ii1 #da ,scott1 ,sir ,walter1 on the contest between ,richard ,,iii and ,saladin1 ,i1 #dg1 #dh ,scourging1 of ,jesus1 ,i1 #ef mode of1 among ,romans1 ,,ii1 #ee ,scribes1 ,jewish1 ,edersheim on1 ,i1 #cjb ,scribes1 ,jewish ,chamber of4 ,see ,sanhedrin ,segnensis1 ,henricus1 anecdote of1 illustrative of medival ignorance regarding ,talmud1 ,,ii1 #gd ,semiramis1 ,assyrian queen1 origin of crucifixion imputed to1 ,,ii1 #ed ,seneca1 anecdote from1 regarding political informers1 ,,ii1 #ga on the patriotic observance of the national religion1 ,,ii1 #bbf on suicide1 ,,ii1 #bcb on slavery1 ,,ii1 #beb on ,roman myths1 ,,ii1 #bfe ,septuagint1 version of the ,bible1 paraphrasing of anthropomorphic passages in1 ,i1 #bcg ,sepulture1 of crucified criminals forbidden1 ,,ii1 #eh ,serapis1 ,egyptian deity1 images of thrown down1 ,,ii1 #gc ,marcus ,aurelius an adorer of1 ,,ii1 #bag ,servilia1 mistress of ,julius ,csar1 ,,ii1 #bci ,shammai1 ,school of1 and the ,mishna1 ,i1 #gi dissensions of1 with ,school of ,hillel1 ,,ii1 #cji ,shevuah ben ,kalba1 ,jewish elder1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cai ,shoterim of the ,sanhedrin1 ,i1 #aac ,sibylline ,books1 ,,ii1 #aii1 #bjd ,sibyl1 ,erythran1 ,virgil inspired by1 ,,ii1 #bhg ,simon1 ,jewish rebel1 revolt of1 ,,ii1 #aaj ,simon1 ,jewish elder1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cbj ,simon ,boethus1 made high priest by ,herod ,i1 ,,ii1 #bif ,simon ben ,camithus1 ,jewish high priest1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #bih ,simon ,cantharus1 ,jewish high priest1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #big ,simon1 son of ,gamaliel1 ,jewish elder1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cje ,simon ,hamizpah1 ,jewish scribe1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cad ,sinaitic ,,ms4 of the ,bible1 ,i1 #fg ,slavery1 under ,hebrew law1 ,i1 #ie account of1 among ,romans1 ,,ii1 #bej1 #bea ,social life1 ,grco-,roman1 marriage and divorce1 ,,ii1 #bcf-bdj prostitution1 ,,ii1 #bdb-bdd luxury and extravagance1 ,,ii1 #bdd-bdi poverty of ,roman masses1 ,,ii1 #bdi slavery1 ,,ii1 #bdi-bec infanticide1 ,,ii1 #bed gladiatorial games1 ,,ii1 #bee-bfb depravity of1 traceable to corrupt myths1 ,,ii1 #bfb-bgj practice of ,bacchanalian rites1 ,,ii1 #bgj-bhc hopeless state of1 at time of ,christ1 ,,ii1 #bhd-bhg ,socrates1 ,greek philosopher1 resemblance of charges against1 to those against ,jesus1 ,,ii1 #aha counsel of1 to ,hetairai1 ,,ii1 #bdc ,sodomy1 prevalence of1 among ,greeks and ,romans1 ,,ii1 #bfb-bfd practiced in ,roman temples1 ,,ii1 #bfi ,solomon ben ,joseph1 ,jewish rabbi1 on the ,talmud1 ,i1 #ij ,sonnenthal1 ,adolf von1 ,jewish actor1 refused freedom of ,vienna1 ,,ii1 #ahb ,sparta1 licentiousness of1 ,,ii1 #bda ,spartacus1 ,roman gladiator1 revolt of1 ,,ii1 #bei1 #bfj ,spartans1 marital looseness of1 ,,ii1 #bda ,spinoza1 ,jewish philosopher1 on miracles1 ,i1 #dj-dd ,standards1 apocryphal miracle of1 at trial of ,christ1 ,,ii1 #ced seq4 ,starkie on the credibility of testimony1 ,i1 #ab ,stephen1 ,st41 stoning of1 ,i1 #cfe ,stephen1 ,sir ,james ,f4 ,j41 on the ,roman treatment of ,christianity1 ,,ii1 #gf on ,pilate's trial of ,jesus1 ,,ii1 #aei-afd ,stoicism1 among the ,romans1 ,,ii1 #bca resemblance of1 to ,christian precepts1 ,,ii1 #cca ,stoning of criminals under ,hebrew law1 ,i1 #ib1 #ii ,strangling of criminals under ,hebrew law1 ,i1 #ia1 #ii ,strauss1 ,david1 on the behavior of ,jesus before ,herod1 ,,ii1 #abf on the character of ,christ1 ,,ii1 #ahg ,stroud on the physical cause of death of ,christ1 ,i1 #fa1 #fb ,suetonius1 ,roman historian1 on the labeling of criminals before execution1 ,i1 #eg on divination1 ,,ii1 #bac narrative of1 of dreams presaging reign of ,augustus1 ,,ii1 #bad account of1 of belief of ,augustus in omens1 ,,ii1 #bae ,suicide1 attitude of ,stoics toward1 ,,ii1 #bcb ,suspension1 death by1 ,,ii1 #fa1 #fb ,sweat1 bloody1 historical instances of1 ,i1 #ei1 #fj ,t ,tacitus1 ,roman historian1 on slavery1 ,,ii1 #bec ,talmud1 the1 definition of1 ,i1 #gd recensions of1 ,i1 #ha contents of1 ,i1 #hb relation of ,mishna to1 ,i1 #hc1 to ,gemara1 ,i1 #hc2 to ,pentateuch1 ,i1 #hc2 to ,mosaic ,code1 ,i1 #hd1 #he efforts of ,christians to extirpate1 ,i1 #hg1 #hh message and mission of1 ,i1 #hi ,see also ,gemara and ,mishna ,telemachus1 ,st41 death of1 in arena1 ,,ii1 #bfa ,temples1 a resort of immorality in ,rome1 ,,ii1 #bfi ,tertullian1 ,latin father1 on the character of ,pilate1 ,,ii1 #hi on the resort of vice to temple precincts1 ,,ii1 #bfi reference of1 to the ,acts of ,pilate1 ,,ii1 #cbi1 #ccc seq41 #cdg1 #cdh ,tertullus1 his prosecution of ,paul1 ,,ii1 #bii ,testimony1 under ,hebrew ,criminal ,law1 of each witness required to cover entire case1 ,i1 #acb vain1 ,i1 #ade standing1 ,i1 #adf adequate1 ,i1 #adg of accomplices1 ,i1 #bbh-bcj1 #bce1 #bcf ,theodota1 the courtesan1 counseled by ,socrates1 ,,ii1 #bdc ,theophilus1 son of ,annas1 ,jewish high priest1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #bif ,theresa1 ,maria1 ,austrian empress1 codex of1 ,,ii1 #ed ,three1 ,jewish ,courts of1 jurisdiction of1 ,i1 #abd ,tiberius ,csar1 ,roman emperor1 sway of1 ,,ii1 #bg character of1 ,,ii1 #gj prosecutions of1 for treason1 ,,ii1 #gj1 #ga marriage of1 to ,julia1 ,,ii1 #hc legendary desire of1 to deify ,christ1 ,,ii1 #cbi1 #ccj seq4 ,tischendorf1 ,constantine1 on the authenticity of the ,acts of ,pilate1 ,,ii1 #cde seq4 ,tissot1 account of1 of the bloody sweat of a sailor1 ,i1 #ei ,trajan1 ,roman emperor1 correspondence of1 with ,pliny1 ,,ii1 #gh ,trials1 ,roman criminal1 right of appeal1 ,,ii1 #bh during the regal period1 ,,ii1 #ce ,roman1 mode of1 in the ,comitia ,centuriata1 ,,ii1 #cg-dc mode of1 in the ,permanent ,tribunals1 ,,ii1 #dc-eb prosecutor1 rle and selection of1 ,,ii1 #dc1 #dd1 #di ,trial of ,jesus1 ,hebrew1 nature of charge against ,jesus before ,sanhedrin1 ,i1 #ahg procedure of1 before ,sanhedrin1 ,i1 #ahh discussion of charge of blasphemy against ,jesus1 ,i1 #aic-bji illegality of arrest of ,jesus1 ,i1 #bai-bcg illegality of private examination of ,jesus before high priest1 ,i1 #bch-bdg illegality of indictment of ,jesus1 ,i1 #bdh-bed illegality of nocturnal proceedings against ,jesus1 ,i1 #bee-bei illegality of the meeting of the ,sanhedrin before morning sacrifice1 ,i1 #bfj-bfb illegality of proceedings against ,christ1 because held on the eve of the ,sabbath1 and of a feast1 ,i1 #bfc-bff illegality of trial1 because concluded in one day1 ,i1 #bfg-bgj condemnation of ,jesus founded on uncorroborated evidence1 ,i1 #bga-bgh ,jesus illegally condemned by unanimous verdict1 ,i1 #bgi-bhf condemnation of ,jesus pronounced in place forbidden by law1 ,i1 #bhh-bib irregular balloting of judges of ,jesus1 ,i1 #bib-bid condemnation of ,jesus illegal1 because of unlawful conduct of high priest1 ,i1 #bij1 #bia disqualifications of judges of ,jesus1 ,i1 #bif-cjh ,jesus condemned without defense1 ,i1 #cji second trial of ,jesus by ,sanhedrin1 ,i1 #cef-cff ,trial of ,jesus1 ,roman1 discussion of ,roman and ,hebrew jurisdiction1 ,,ii1 #c-bc ,roman law applicable to1 ,,ii1 #fh-hj as conducted by ,pilate1 ,,ii1 #if-aah1 #abi-aci legal analysis of1 ,,ii1 #ada-afh ,tribune1 ,roman1 judicial powers of1 ,,ii1 #cf ,tryphon1 son of ,theudion1 ,jewish elder2 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #cba ,twelve ,tables1 laws of the1 ,,ii1 #ec1 #bjh ,u ,ulpian1 ,roman jurist1 his definition of treason1 ,,ii1 #fi ,v ,vatican1 ,,ms4 of the ,bible1 ,i1 #fg ,venus1 ,roman deity1 sacrifices to1 ,,ii1 #bjh impersonated by ,phryne1 ,,ii1 #bdc worshiped by harlots1 ,,ii1 #bff ,veronica1 ,st41 legend of1 ,,ii1 #ic ,vestals1 ,roman priestesses1 guardians of sacred fire1 ,,ii1 #bjd spectators at licentious dramas1 ,,ii1 #bfg ,vinicius1 ,lucius1 ,roman patrician1 letter of ,augustus to1 ,,ii1 #hc ,virgil1 poem of1 on advent of heaven-born child1 ,i1 #cba2 ,,ii1 #bhg ,virginia1 legend of1 ,,ii1 #bcf ,vitellius1 legate of ,syria1 spares ,jewish prejudices1 ,,ii1 #he orders ,pilate to ,rome1 ,,ii1 #ib ,vitia1 ,roman matron1 executed for treason1 ,,ii1 #ga ,voltaire1 ,franois de1 account of1 of the bloody sweat of ,charles ,,ix1 ,i1 #ei on character of ,christ1 ,,ii1 #ahg ,vulgate1 version of the ,bible1 ,i1 #fh ,w ,witnesses1 under ,hebrew ,criminal ,law1 competency and incompetency of1 ,i1 #abg-abi number of1 required to convict1 ,i1 #abi agreement of1 ,i1 #aca adjuration to1 ,i1 #acd examination of1 ,i1 #acf1 #ach false1 ,i1 #adj the accused as1 ,i1 #ada separation of1 ,i1 #acg ,wise1 ,rabbi1 on the non-existence of the ,great ,sanhedrin at time of ,christ1 ,i1 #age1 #agi on the martyrdom of ,jesus1 ,i1 #ccj ,x ,xenophanes1 ridicule of1 of ,greek religion1 ,,ii1 #bbd ,z ,zadok1 ,jewish scribe1 biographical note on1 ,,ii1 #caj ,zeno1 ,greek philosopher1 originator of ,stoicism1 ,,ii1 #bbi ,zeus1 ,greek divinity1 character of1 ,i1 #ad myth of rape of ,ganymede by1 ,,ii1 #bfb ,corrections ,the first line indicates the original1 the second the correction3 p4 #bd3 in the life and minstry in the life and ministry p4 #ahi3 that he flattered that ,he flattered ,god could be worshiped in any other place as well as in his ,god could be worshiped in any other place as well as in ,his p4 #bjf3 that he was the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god that ,he was the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god ,index3 ,dysmas1 legendary name of one of thieves crucified with ,jesus1 ,,ii1 #cfd ,dysmas1 legendary name of one of the thieves crucified with ,jesus1 ,,ii1 #cfd ,derembourg1 ,joseph1 on the ,jewish priestly families1 ,,ii1 #bid ,drembourg1 ,joseph1 on the ,jewish priestly families1 ,,ii1 #bid ,lemann1 extract from work of1 on ,sanhedrin1 ,,ii1 #bia ,lmann1 extract from work of1 on ,sanhedrin1 ,,ii1 #bia ,scipio ,africanus1 trial of1 before ,comitia ,centuriata ,scipio ,africanus1 trial of1 before ,comitia ,centuriata1 ,,ii1 #da ,footnote #ace3 sont fatales a la libert4 sont fatales la libert4