00s Source

SOURCES OF INFORMATION The sources of information about the two trials of Jesus are the four Gospels and some references thereto in the Acts of the Apostles.

There are two kinds of law — the law of God and the law of the State. The Jewish State was in theory a theocracy, therefore the law of God was also the law of the State. But at the beginning of the Christian era the Sanhedrin of Judges, which was charged with the duty of administering that law, was divided against itself as to what constituted the law of God; therefore the law of the State was in doubt. This division amongst the judges arose from the fact that they were divided into two opposing religious sects; some of them were Pharisees and some Sadducees. The Pharisees contended that the “Written Law” together with the “Oral Law” comprised the law of God; the Sadducees maintained that the Written Law alone was of divine origin. At the time of Jesus the Sadducees were in the ascendant in the Sanhedrin The “Chief Justice” — the High Priest — was a Sadducee and he dominated the Court. But the Pharisees were the popular party and the Sadducees were by no means able to ignore their demands. Josephus makes a pronouncement of considerable importance when he says: “They (the Sadducees) are able to do almost nothing of themselves; for when they become magistrates, unwillingly and by force sometimes they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitude would not otherwise bear them.” This confused state of affairs provides us with a major problem in our study, for it makes it a matter of no little difficulty to form an opinion about the system of law in force and applied in the Sanhedrin in c . A.D. 30, the year in which the trial of Jesus probably took place. It would seem that what happened in practice was that both sects acknowledged and enforced the Written Law; that to it the Pharisees sought to add the Oral Law; and that the Sadducees agreed to enforce the Oral Law only on occasions when they thought a refusal on their part would incense popular feeling. As for the Scribes who, inter alia , advised the Court on points of law and procedure, they might be either Pharisees or Sadducees. With a tribunal so divided against itself, there must have been more than the usual difficulties in obtaining a clear ruling upon a disputed point. The Written Law, which, broadly speaking, corresponds with English Statute law, was contained in the Pentateuch. In c . A.D. 200, the Oral Law, corresponding roughly with English Common Law — described by Blackstone as “the ancient unwritten law of this kingdom” — was embodied in the Mishnah . “The Oral Law consisted of ‘the traditions of the elders’ — rules of Jewish life and religion which in the course of centuries had come to possess a validity and sanctity equal to that of the Written Law and which, as the Oral Law, were deemed, equally with the Written Law, to be of divine origin, and therefore consonant with and, for the most part, deducible from the Written Law” (Mishnah , Aboth 1. n . 2). The Mishnah was compiled by Rabbi Judah the Patriarch. “The Rabbi did not aim at promulgating the Mishnah as an authoritative, definitive legal code, a final summary of Jewish law.It was simply a compilation of the Oral Law as it was taught in the many Rabbinical Schools of his time. His “prominence in the community, his reputation in the field of the Rabbinical law. served almost immediately to win universal recognition for his Mishnah as the only complete and balanced statement of the Oral Law.

It displaced all others and became the final authority for legal decisions” (Mishnah , Intro., p. 22). The chief value of the Mishnah in this study is that apart from the disputed Oral Law, it quotes much of the Written Law and contains rules of evidence and procedure, some of which were necessary in the administration of either system of law and about which there was probably no disagreement between the Pharisees and Sadducees. As to the twenty-two books of the Old Testament (now sub-divided into thirty-nine), including as they do the Pentateuch, Josephus, writing about.A.D. 100, is an authority for the statement that by general agreement those books constituted the sacred books of the Jews of his day (Contra Apion 1. 8). The general acceptance of their canonicity preceded any decision of the schools, though such a decision was probably made at the Council of Jamnia, c . A.D. 90.

It is outside the scope of this study to discuss why we should accept the authority of the Gospels or the Bible generally, but we share the traditional Christian belief that there is weighty historical and other evidence to justify a belief beyond reasonable doubt that the writers of the Gospels had personal knowledge and information of the matters about which they wrote; that their original writings were read and treasured in the Apostolic Churches; that when the original writings disappeared, authentic copies continued in use; that the greater part of the New testament was in writing before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and that the remainder came into existence soon after that event; that at the beginning of the fourth century the majority, and before its close, all of the Churches had accepted the canon of the New Testament as we have it to-day; and, finally, that in A.D. 397 the Third Council of Carthage ordered that “beside the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of the divine Scriptures” (see New Bible Handbook).

Another valuable source of information is the Works of Josephus.

Josephus (A.D. 37-103), the Jewish historian, general and statesman, was of a high priestly royal family, and claimed to be the most learned man of his time in Jewish lore. He was a Pharisee. His “Works” contain a useful collection of “case” law, that is to say, reports of cases tried in the Jewish Courts, and these cases contain interesting information concerning the law, practice and procedure in those Courts. Probably no historian knew more about Pilate, or the manner and customs of the Pharisees and Sadducees, than he.

There is a considerable difference of opinion as to whether or not the proceedings before the Sanhedrin constituted a formal legal trial and whether or not the Mishnah rules were observed. Klausner says that there was no full legal trial by the Sanhedrin but only a preliminary judicial investigation; that the Mishnah rules were not observed and that those rules are at variance with the system in vogue in the time of Jesus (see hereafter). Lord Shaw states a precisely opposite view (at pp. 8, 11 and of his book): “Jesus Christ underwent a double trial. Two great and independent systems of criminal jurisprudence were called into play to determine His fate.” Referring to the Sanhedrin of Judges, Lord Shaw says: “It contained apparently the leaders of both the Pharisaic and Sadducean castes. It was moved by traditions which it was bound to respect and which constituted the body of the law. In later years these were consolidated in the Talmud. But the Mishnah, or central body of the Talmud, includes those traditions which were admittedly in force as law when the Christian era began.”

It is important to bear in mind that whatever the true nature of the proceedings before the Sanhedrin, that Court purported to convict Jesus of blasphemy, and blasphemy was an offense created by the agreed Written Law and not by the disputed Oral Law. Our study leads to the conclusion that the Jewish proceedings, whatever their true character, were overshadowed and dominated by the fact that before they commenced, the members of the Tribunal pre-determined the result, namely, the death of the Accused. Such a prejudging of a case would be fatal to the validity of a trial under any system of jurisprudence. In view of this astounding fact, why were there any “proceedings” at all? It would seem that the Rulers of the Jews desired above all else that the claim of Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah should be rejected with every outward show of judicial authority and in a manner most calculated to carry conviction to and secure the support of all shades of Jewish religious and political opinion; that to ensure this result, the Pharisaic and Sadducean Judges sank their differences and staged a “trial,” which was in fact and in intent a mere colorable pretense of a lawfully convened and formally conducted trial, at which they purported to observe not only the agreed Written Law but such of the rules of the Oral Law as did not interfere with their united and unlawful pre-trial determination to put Jesus to death. If this be the true view, there was no genuine Jewish “Trial” or “Investigation.” We also come to the conclusion that it was the Greater Sanhedrin which met during the night and purported to try Jesus, and that the meeting which was held “when the morning was come” was that of a much larger body, a grand Consultative Assembly, which took the decision to bring Jesus before Pilate and thus place the odium for His death upon the Roman Power. The case purported to be made against Jesus before the Sanhedrin was in substance that He was a false prophet; that He was a sorcerer; that He was teaching a new religion; that He was inciting the people to worship God contrary to the law of Moses; that He was undermining the national religious institutions; that He falsely claimed to be the long-promised Messiah; that He falsely claimed to be “the Son of God,” that is, one in a unique relationship to Jehovah; that all this was insulting to the Deity, and, therefore, was the crime of constructive blasphemy. When before the Sanhedrin Jesus put forward no detailed defense. No doubt there were many reasons for this, but He mentioned one: “If I tell you, ye will not believe.” When Jesus appeared before Pilate, the charge of “blasphemy” was abandoned and one of “high treason” against Caesar substituted. Contrary to a widely-held view, we see no reason to suppose that Pilate regarded himself as reviewing a decision previously arrived at in another Court. To the charge of high treason, Jesus entered a plea known to English lawyers as “Confession and Avoidance.” He confessed that He claimed to be a King, but “avoided,” that is, denied, the innuendoes implied by His accusers; that is to say, He denied that He claimed to be the sort of King alleged, namely, a King who was a rival to Caesar. Jesus explained to Pilate that His Kingdom was “not of this world.” The Roman Judge was convinced by the explanation and defense and formally declared Jesus to be not guilty of the charges laid against Him. Before the amazing Roman trial concluded, the Judge envisaged the possibility that he himself might be accused of treason to his Emperor, and to avoid such impeachment, and to prolong his term of office, he condemned to death the Accused he declared to be innocent. But the respite Pilate gained was short-lived. In A.D. 36 he was recalled to Rome to answer the joint accusations of Samaritans and Jews.