Ep. 127: The Jewish Trial
CLICK HERE for the corresponding blog post in Yeshua Adored
MATTHEW 26:59-68, MARK 14:55-65
Caiaphas’ private examination would be placed between the first and second denial of Peter. The Sanhedrists would have arrived immediately after his second denial. The private inquiry of Caiaphas had been unsuccessful and, indeed, it was only preliminary. The leading Sanhedrists must have been warned that the capture of Jesus would be attempted that night and to hold themselves in readiness when summoned to the High Priest.
This was no formal, regular meeting of the Sanhedrin and all Jewish order and law would have been grossly infringed in almost every way if this had been a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin. In those days there were three tribunals and the highest tribunal was that of seventy-one, or the Great Sanhedrin, which met first in one of the Temple Chambers, the so-called Lishkath haGazith - or Chamber of Hewn Stones - and at the time of which we write, in ‘the booths of the sons of Annas.’ The Judges of all these Courts were equally set apart by ordination (Semikhah), originally that of the laying on of hands.
With the highest tribunal, the Great Sanhedrin, ‘the disciples’ or students sat facing the Judges. The latter sat in a semicircle, under the presidency of the Nasi (‘prince’) and the vice-presidency of the Ab-beth-din (‘father of the Court of Law’). At least twenty-three members were required to form a quorum. Facing the semicircle of Judges, we are told, there were two shorthand writers, to note down, respectively, the speeches in favour and against the accused.
It is of great importance to enquire how far legal instructions and ordinances were carried out under the iron rule of Herod and that of the Roman Procurators. We can well believe that neither Herod nor the Procurators would wish to abolish the Sanhedrin, but would leave to them the administration of justice, especially in all that might in any way be connected with purely religious questions. Equally, they would be deprived of the power of the sword and of decision making on all matters of political or supreme importance. In all cases if he saw fit to interfere, Herod would reserve to himself the final decisions, and so would the Procurators, who especially would not have tolerated any attempt at jurisdiction over a Roman citizen.
In short, the Sanhedrin would be accorded full jurisdiction in inferior and in religious matters, with the greatest show, but with the least amount of real rule or of supreme authority. Lastly, as both Herod and the Procurators treated the High Priest, who ‘was their own man’, as the real head and representative of the Jews and as it would be their policy to curtail the power of the independent and fanatical Rabbis, we can understand how, in great criminal causes or in important investigations, the High Priest would always preside, the presidency of the Nasi being reserved for legal and ritual questions and discussions.
Even this brief summary about the Sanhedrin would be needless if it were a question of applying its rules of procedure to the indictment of Jesus. For the fact remains that Jesus was not formally tried and condemned by the Sanhedrin. It is admitted on all hands, that forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin ceased to pronounce capital sentences. This alone would be sufficient. But, besides, the trial and sentence of Jesus in the Palace of Caiaphas would have outraged every principle of Jewish criminal law and procedure. Such causes could only be tried, and capital sentence pronounced, in the regular meeting place of the Sanhedrin, not, as here, in the High Priest’s Palace.
Also, no such process might be begun in the night, not even in the afternoon, although if the discussion had gone on all day, the sentence might be pronounced at night. Again, no process could take place on Sabbaths or Feast days, or even on the eves of them, although this would not have nullified proceedings and it might be argued on the other side, that a process against one who had seduced the people should preferably by carried on and sentence executed, at the great public Feasts, for the warning of all.
Lastly, in capital cases, there was a very elaborate system of warning and cautioning witnesses, while it may safely be affirmed, that at a regular trial Jewish Judges, however prejudiced, would not have acted as the Sanhedrists and Caiaphas did on this occasion. But as we examine it more closely, we see that the Gospels do not speak of a formal trial and sentence by the Sanhedrin. Such references as to ‘the Sanhedrin’ (‘council’), or to ‘all the Sanhedrin,’ must be taken in the wider sense, which will presently be explained. On the other hand, the four Gospels equally indicate that the whole proceedings of that night were carried on in the Palace of Caiaphas and that during that night no formal sentence of death was pronounced.
This is an extract from the book, Jesus : Life and Times, available for £12 here (Finalist for Academic Book of the year at 2023 CRT awards)