TEE TRIAL OF JESUS CERIST. 



46; 



dence that it took place earlier, when a consider- 

 able number, quite enough to be popularly called 

 a council, were already assembled. And, in any 

 case, it is certain that that still earlier transac- 

 tion — the examination of witnesses and the de- 

 liberation on their evidence — must have taken 

 place some time during the night. It will always 

 remain doubtful whether this took place before a 

 considerable meeting of the council or its com- 

 mittee on the one hand, or before Caiaphas and 

 a few of his friends on the other. Nor is it of 

 much consequence. The confusion of represen- 

 tation is quite natural. For, according to all the 

 rules of Hebrew law, such a transaction in the 

 night was absolutely illegal, incapable of being 

 validly transacted in either form, and incapable 

 of being reported so as to produce an impression 

 of justice upon the minds of the people. 



The law is laid down in a passage of the 

 Mishna, 1 which contrasts capital trials with ques- 

 tions of mouey. It is so striking that the whole 

 paragraph may be quoted, though it is with the 

 concluding words that we have now to deal : 



" Money trials and trials for life have the same 

 rules of inquiry and investigation. But they differ 

 in procedure, in the following points : The former 

 require only three, the latter three-and-twenty 

 judges. In the former it matters not on which 

 side the judges speak who give the first opinions : 

 in the latter, those who are in favor of acquittal 

 must speak first. In the former, a majority of one 

 is always enough: in the latter, a majority of one 

 is enough to acquit, but it requires a majority of 

 two to condemn. In the former a decision may be 

 quashed on review (for error) no matter which 

 way it has gone : in the latter a condemnation 

 may be quashed, hut not an acquittal. In the 

 former disciples of the law present in the court 

 may speak (as assessors) on either side : in the 

 latter they may speak in favor of the accused, but 

 not against him. In the former a judge who has 

 indicated his opinion, no matter on which side, 

 may change his mind : in the latter he who has 

 given his voice for guilt may change his mind, but 

 not he who has given his voice for acquittal. The 

 former {money trials) are commenced only in the 

 daytime, but may be concluded after nightfall ; the 

 latter (capital trials) are commenced only in the 

 daytime, and must also be concluded during the day. 

 The former may be concluded by acquittal or con- 

 demnation on, the day on which they have begun : 

 the latter may be concluded on that day if there is a 

 sentence of acquittal, but must be postponed to a sec- 

 ond day if there is to be a condemnation. And for 

 this reason capital trials are not held on the day be- 

 fore a Sabbath or a feast-day." 



1 Mishna, De Synedriis, iv., 1. 



30 



The crucifixion of Jesus took place, as has 

 scarcely ever been doubted, on the Friday, the day 

 before a Sabbath which was also "an high day;'' 

 and the meeting of the council took place on the 

 same Friday morning. 1 Such a meeting on such 

 a day was forbidden. If indeed it only met to 

 register an acquittal, it was lawful. But if the 

 court was unable at once to acquit, it was bound 

 to adjourn for at least four-and-twenty hours be- 

 fore meeting for final judgment, and such a final 

 meeting could not be on the Sabbath. The ne- 

 cessity of the adjournment of a capital trial to 

 secure the rights of the accused is shown very 

 clearly by the detailed regulations of the Mishna : * 



" If a man is found innocent, the court absolves 

 him. But if not, his judgment is put off to the 

 following day. Meantime the judges meet to- 

 gether, and eating little meat, and drinking no 

 wine during that whole day, they confer upon the 

 cause. 3 On the following morning they return 

 into court" and vote over again with the like pre- 

 cautions as before. ..." If judgment is at last 

 pronounced, they bring out the man sentenced, to 

 stone him. The place of punishment is to be 

 apart from the place of judgment (for it is said in 

 Leviticus xxiv. 14, ' Bring the blasphemer without 

 the camp '). In the mean time, an officer is to stand 

 at the door of the court with a handkerchief in his 

 hand ; another, mounted on horseback, follows the 

 procession so far, but halts at the farthest point 

 where he can see the man with the handkerchief. 

 [The judges remain sitting], and if any one offers 

 himself to prove that the condemned man is in- 

 nocent, he at the door waves the handkerchief, 

 and the horseman instantly gallops after the con- 

 demned and recalls him tor his defense. 4 



These regulations, taken not from the com- 

 mentary on the oral law, but from the Mishna it- 

 self, probably existed in full detail during the 

 high-priesthood of Caiaphas. There is no reason 

 to doubt that at least the general rule, which pre- 

 scribes adjourning the trial from one day to an- 

 other, bound the judges of Jesus of Nazareth. In 

 no case was such a rule so absolutely necessary 

 to justice, as where the accused, arrested after 

 nightfall, had been put upon his trial by day- 



1 We thus escape, in our present investigation, the ex- 

 tremely difficult and famous questions whether the Friday 

 was the 14th or 15th Nisan, and on which day of that 

 week the passoverwas eaten. If the Friday was the 15th, 

 it was the passover or feast-day, when it seems to have 

 been unlawful to judge at all. — Mishna, Moed Eaton, v., 2. 



9 Jlishna, De Sj-nedriis, v., 5. and vi., 1. 



3 " Beatus judex qui fermenlat judicium suum." — 

 Gemara on Mishna, De Synedriis, c, 1. 



4 A striking commentary on this graphic law will oc- 

 cur to English readers who remember the interposition 

 of Daniel in the " History of Susanna," verses 4G and 49. 



