6 
Indiana University Studies 
In later law, when the judges consisted of the elders of the 
city, they sat in the gates . 21 Still later Jerusalem was the princi- 
pal place of judgment. More than one witness was required, 
and no redemption was allowed. Perjury was forbidden and 
heavily punished . 22 In Ezra’s time a court of twenty-three 
sat on Mondays and Thursdays till noon, and never after sun- 
set. This may explain the second trial of Jesus. There was 
no official prosecutor. Attorneys in the sense of advocates or 
barristers were unknown. The parties handled their own 
cases, either alone or with the assistance of the Sanhedrin. 
A man’s confession was not admitted. There was no pre- 
liminary examination. The trial began when the witnesses 
appeared . 23 The judges sat in a semi-circle, with one scribe 
on the right and one on the left to record the votes and the 
arguments. In front of the judges sat the disciples. A ma- 
jority of one was necessary for acquittal, and a majority of 
two for conviction. If there was no decision, after adding 
disciples until the bench numbered seventy-one without result, 
the accused was discharged. The executioners were the wit- 
nesses causing the execution . 24 Thruout the entire history of 
Hebrew legal procedure the control over all legal proceedings 
was lodged in the judges. It was never turned over to prac- 
ticing attorneys, as has been done in the United States. In 
Hebrew legal procedure, there were no formal pleadings, only 
a few rules of evidence, and the rules of practice were an- 
nounced by the court. There was no appeal to another court, 
except from the local courts to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem 
and its predecessors. 
Such was the system of courts, and the system of legal 
procedure, which Moses instituted. Both were very simple 
and expeditious when instituted , 25 and they never became the 
complicated and technical instruments for the administration 
of justice which the Anglo-American courts and legal pro- 
cedure became. 
After this brief survey of the historical development of the 
adjective law of the Hebrew people, we are ready to consider 
somewhat more in detail the historical development of their 
substantive law. 
2f 16 Deut. 18. 
22 23 Exod. 1-2; 20 Exod. 16; 5 Deut. 20; 19 Deut. 16-21; 5 Lev. 1; 19 Lev. 16. 
23 19 Deut. 15. 
24 17 Deut. 7 ; 25 Deut. 2. 
25 Judges were charged not to he influenced by rank (23 Exod. 6, 7) ; not to accept 
bribes (23 Exod. 8) ; and to be guided only by a sense of justice (16 Deut. 18-20 ; 19 
Lev. 15-35). 
