4:64: 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY.— SUPPLEMENT. 



nation of the answers of Jesus of Nazareth to 

 the midnight questions of the high-priest. The 

 ecclesiastical magistrate, probably sitting pri- 

 vately, and certainly before witnesses were called, 

 asks Jesus of his disciples and of his doctrine. 



"Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the 

 world ; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in 

 the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and 

 in secret have I said nothing. 1 Why askest thou 

 me ? ask them which heard me, what I have said 

 unto them : behold, they know what I said." 



It was in every word the voice of pure He- 

 brew justice, founding upon the broad principle 

 of their judicial procedure, and recalling an un- 

 just judge to the first duty of his great office. 

 But, as one who studied that nation in older 

 times observed, " When a vile man is exalted, 

 the wicked walk on every side " around him ; and 

 when the accused had thus claimed his rights, 

 one of the officers of court — a class usually spe- 

 cially alive to the observance of form, and of that 

 alone — " struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, 

 saying, Answerest thou the high-priest so ? " 

 The reply of Jesus is exceedingly striking. In it 

 he again resolutely took his stand on the plat- 

 form of the legal rights of a Hebrew — a ground 

 from which he afterward no doubt rose to a 

 higher, but which he certainly never abandoned : 

 " If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil : 

 but if well, why smitest thou me ? " 



The words are no doubt a protest for freedom 

 of speech and liberty to the accused. But they 

 appeal again to the same principle of the Hebrew 

 law — that by which witnesses took upon them- 

 selves the whole burden and responsibility, and 

 especially the whole initiative, of every accusa- 

 tion, even as they were obliged to appear at the 

 close, and with their own hands to hurl the 

 stones. And the renewed protest was so far 

 effectual. For now the witnesses came forward, 

 or, at least, they were summoned to bear their 

 testimony ; and only when they came forward 

 can a formal trial be said to have commenced. 



But did all this not take place by night ? And 

 was a trial by night legal ? 



On the question of fact, it is well known that 



1 These words recall a very curious provision of the 

 MishnaiDe Sj-nedriis, vii., 10), as to the 3fesith, or private 

 "seductor — i. e , laicus seducens laicum" — a phrase which 

 is, no doubt, translated in the gospel words " deceiver of 

 the people." In the case of such a one, who says, private- 

 ly, "Let us go after other gods," the rule as to laying no 

 snares for the accused was superseded. The person at- 

 tempted to be seduced might profess to acquiesce, and so 

 hide other witnesses to overhear the Mesith, and testify 

 against him. 



the four evangelists give a confused account of 

 what took place. Matthew aud Mark, omitting 

 the seemingly private interrogation of which we 

 have already spoken, distinctly narrate a dou- 

 ble and very striking trial by night — first by 

 witnesses, and then by an attempt to obtain a 

 confession ; but all before the high-priest, the 

 scribes, and the elders, to whom Mark adds, 

 " all the chief priests." Their narrative reads as 

 if the first part of this trial might have taken 

 place almost as soon as the prisoner was brought 

 from the mount of Olives. At all events, in their 

 narrative it took place by night, while in the 

 morning there was a second and separate " con- 

 sultation" of a similar but seemingly larger and 

 more authoritative meeting. 1 John, on the other 

 hand, narrates the interrogation by the high- 

 priest, the transfer from Annas to Caiaphas, and 

 the delivery to Pilate in the morning, but does 

 not allude to any trial before the council. These 

 two representations, though not contradictory, 

 are unsatisfactory and inconsistent ; and the tra- 

 dition of Luke, which differs from both, com- 

 pletes the confusion, but helps us to a result. 

 He omits the earlier part of the alleged trial — the 

 interrogation of witnesses ; but narrates the con- 

 fession and condemnation as at one meeting of 

 the council, which took place "as soon as it was 

 day," and after which the whole multitude "led 

 him to Pilate." Putting all these representa- 

 tions together, there is no difficulty in arriving at 

 the order of the historical transactions, though 

 there will always be insuperable difficulty to 

 those who insist on their legal validity and regu- 

 larity. The visit to Annas and the transfer to 

 Caiaphas came first, with the interrogation of the 

 accused by one or other of the high-priests. 

 About this earlier hour certainly took place the 

 denial of Peter related by all the evangelists, 

 while some time must have been consumed in 

 sending for witnesses and summoning either the 

 whole council or its members. That the whole 

 council did not meet at night is unquestionable : 

 that a certain number of them were present by 

 night with Caiaphas is equally clear. Assuming 

 that there was a final and formal meeting of the 

 whole Sanhedrim at its usual morning hour, it is 

 barely possible that the vivid scene of the adju- 

 ration, confession, and sentence, took place be- 

 fore it. But it is much more likely on the evi- 



1 Byna?us (De Monte Christi) holds a second trial in 

 the morning. But the view (recently repeated by Dr. 

 Farrar), that Luke narrates a different scene from that 

 given in nearly the same words by the early evangelists, 

 is scarcely tenable. 



