Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 05.pdf/436

 Trial and Condemnation of Jesus as a Legal Question. composed of twenty-three judges, who had jurisdiction of judgments in souls, in which are included crimes punishable with death, although some authorities say only with stripes; and one composed of seventy-one judges, some say seventy-two. The first was called the Court of Three; the second the Council of Twenty-three, or Lesser San hedrim; and the third the Great Sanhedrim, or Synhedrion. Provision was made for adding judges to the Council of Twentythree. Jesus was tried before the Great Sanhedrim. It is stated by the Rabbins that to become an ordinary member of the Sanhedrim, " a man must have been wise, handsome, aristocratic, old, a magician, and able to speak seventy languages,1 that the Sanhedrim might not need an interpreter." The law, the course of procedure, and the character of the tribunal is set forth in the Mishna Treatise. From it we learn that the members of the Sanhedrim for judgment in souls, when in session, were seated upon the floor on carpets or raised cushions, in a semicircle, that they might observe each other. The High Priest was President: it could also elect a presiding officer, with a first and a second vice-president, who sat respectively upon the right and left of the High Priest. The Talmudist writers state that their sitting was in the Temple; but Josephus places their meeting-place upon Mount Zion, not far from the Temple. Men delsohn says they held their sessions at the entrance to the Temple mound; other writers place it between Xystes and the Temple, on Temple Hill, but not in the inner court. But all agree that its place of meeting in the palace or house of the High Priest was exceptional and irregular; and Mendelsohn states that unless domiciled in the usual place, which was regarded as sacred, no jurisdiction existed to pronounce judgment in a capital case. Two of the scribes of the judges stood before them, — one on the right, and one on the left, — and Rabbin Judah said three, one of whom wrote the sentence of 1 This doubtless means dialects. 5'

401

acquittal, the other of condemnation, and the third wrote both. It is quite evident that these scribes also wrote down the testimony taken upon the trial, as it appears that they were upon occasion required to refer to it. Before the Sanhedrim also sat three rows of disciples,orprobationers, — persons who were eligible to appointment as judges; but no probationer could be appointed until he had served in some branch of all the lower courts. If it became necessary to appoint, the judges took one from the front row, one stepped forward in order and filled his place from the rear row, and one was selected from the pro bationers to fill the rear place thus advanced. At first the judges were not paid, the position being regarded as one of honor. It does not appear that bribery ever stained the record. The time of trials was in the morning, and it was not lawful to try causes of a capital nature in the night, or to examine a cause, pass sentence, and put it in execution the same day. The last particular was very strenuously insisted upon, nor could trials be held on festival days or Fridays. "Judg ments in £ouls are finished on the same day for clearing, and on the day after it for con demnation, wherefore there can be no judgments on Friday, or on the eve of a festival," says the Mishna. Trials were public. Both the accused and the accuser made their appearance before the judges. The accuser was denominated Satan, or the Adversary; and after the captivity he ap peared with dishevelled hair and in mourning. In order to establish the charge, two wit nesses were necessary, and including the accuser, three. The witnesses were examined separately, the accused having the right to be present when the testimony was given. The witnesses were brought in separately, and cautioned that the witness bear in mind the solemnity of the occasion, the subject of the trial, and that before speaking they be absolutely certain of the truth of what they speak as a fact within their personal know ledge. The Mishna thus states the process of intimidating or cautioning as carried on