Denver Law Review Denver Law Review

Volume 6 Issue 10 Article 4

January 1929

The People of Israel vs. Jesus of Nazareth The People of Israel vs. Jesus of Nazareth

Robert L. Stearns

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Robert L. Stearns, The People of Israel vs. Jesus of Nazareth, 6 Dicta 4 (1929).

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Denver Law Review at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu.

DICTAVol. VI AUGUST, 1929 No. 10

THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL VS. JESUSOF NAZARETH

By Robert L. Stearns of the Denver Bar

T is said that when Voltaire was 83 years old, he becamevery ill, and a priest was sent to shrive him. Voltaire, whowas always sceptical of churches, said to the priest:

"From whom do you come, M. l'Abbe?""From God, himself", was the answer."Well, well, sir; your credentials?"I realize my own shortcomings enough to know that I am

not qualified as a theologian to discuss this, one of the world'sgreatest trials, from the standpoint of its religious and eccles-iastical consequences. It is my purpose merely to discuss thetrial from a legal standpoint, and remove from consideration,as much as possible, the question of divine origin. I am notintentionally irreverent. I am merely trying to avoid one ofthe errors common to many of the legal commentators onthis subject.

While this is the viewpoint I will ask you to take withme, we must remember that one of the principal charges filedagainst Jesus was the high crime of blasphemy. The questionof guilt or innocence, therefore, depended largely uponwhether or not the court believed that the accused was theSon of God. It did not believe the accused, and the deathpenalty was inflicted. Did the accused receive a fair and im-partial trial from a legal standpoint, according to the lawsand methods then prevailing among the people of Israel, sub-ject to the Roman sovereignty? To that question, more orless directly, I will endeavor to address myself.

Once upon a time there was a piece of real estate in AsiaMinor about 150 miles wide and 300 miles long, pinched inbetween the Arabian Desert and the Mediterranean Sea.

DICTA

Over here was Egypt; up at the top was Assyria; over on theeast was Babylonia. The Arabian Desert was unsafe fortravel. The Great Sea, or the Uttermost Sea, as the Medi-terranean was then called, was full of monsters, and the linersdid not get much beyond the three mile limit.

Consequently, when one man, or an army, wanted to gofrom one of these places to the other, he had to cross thislittle strip of real estate, and for centuries they crossed andre-crossed, conquered and re-conquered this small, but im-portant, Land of Israel, harassing, imprisoning and educatingits people. Occasionally, a local hero, like David or Solomon,drove out the invaders and set up a strong local government,only to have it fall before the next invading conqueror.

But this tumultuous history did two things for the peopleof Israel.

First, it kindled a fervent hope that some day from amongtheir number would step forth a mighty ruler, who wouldestablish a powerful temporal kingdom, and revive the splen-dors of the House of David and the regal magnificence ofKing Solomon.Second, it developed an amazing religious solidarity andfortified their firm conviction that the Egyptians, Assyrians,Persians, Greeks and Romans, with their multifarious deities,were all wrong. Throughout its whole tragic history, thepeople of Israel clung to their great belief in one God. Thewhole religious yearning of the race was centered in the Godof its worship. Small wonder, therefore, that blasphemy wasa heinous crime. Small wonder that one who proclaimedhimself king, but wore no royal purple, should get a very coldshoulder; and small wonder that a people. anticipating a tem-poral kingship should fail to be sympathetic with one whopromulgated not a code of laws, but a code of living.

In 56 B. C., the late Roman General Pompey defeatedthe last of the ancient line of Syrian kings, and claimed ashis, by conquest, the indefeasible fee simple title to our his-toric strip of real estate. This resulted in Roman dominionand rule over Judea.

The administration of the country was entrusted to aprocurator, who was subordinate to the lieutenant governorof Syria, and this form of administration lasted from the year

DICTA

6 to the year 41 A. D. Thus, in the year 29 A. D., in whichthe trial of Jesus and the events which gave rise to it, tookplace, Jerusalem, the principal city of Judea, belonged to aprovince of Rome, under the lieutenant governor of Syria,that post being then held by Flaccus Pomponius, the actualgovernment being exercised in the name of Pomponius by aprocurator named Pontius Pilate. This was under the reignof Tiberius Caesar.

The Roman conquerors, with admirable foresight, didnot undertake t6 change the local laws of their dominions asto minor offenses. Thus, Pilate was empowered to applyeither the Roman law or the local law in any case where theoffense was against both the Province and the Empire, as inthe crime of murder. In the case of treason, however, withwhich offense Jesus was likewise charged, Pilate could onlyapply the law of Rome under the forms of Roman procedure.The nature of the offense must, therefore, be considered indetermining the tribunal before which it might properly betried.

It is extremely difficult to obtain a clear statement of thecharges filed against Jesus, from a judicial standpoint. Prac-tically our only source of information is the narrative con-tained in the four Gospels. The pleadings, as disclosed bythe record, are a bit vague, and it is next to impossible toarrive at an understanding of the charges filed, or perhaps Ishould say hurled, without knowing something of the natureof the people who hurled them.

The Jewish people at this time were divided into fac-tions, based upon their respective prejudices and dispositionfor political and religious graft. Among these were thePharisees, who were the religious zealots of the day. Theywere extremely ritualistic and careful in their observance ofreligious forms, but it is whispered among the uncharitable,that they used their-religion as a mask behind which to hidetheir corruption. The Sadducees, who were formerly thearistocrats of the day, were the persons from whom weredrawn the rulers of the nation before their power was wrestedfrom them by the Roman government. They were quitefriendly to the Roman rule, but they had small regard for thepeople; and their acquisitive proclivities were developed well-

DICTA

nigh to the point of greed. In matters of religion they weremore rationalistic, but they had no great popular following.There were various other factions and parties at the time, butit is sufficient here to say, that Jesus and his followers belongedto no single one of these groups; in fact, his teachings wereantagonistic to the doctrines and interest of these factions, thusgiving rise to a desire on their part for his destruction, and aconcerted movement to accomplish this result.

At first, the Pharisees expressed wonder and astonishmentat the teachings of Jesus, but when they saw his popular fol-lowing and the manner of his reception by the people, theyfelt their pride as religious leaders had been weakened, andtheir power and income threatened. At first they did not ven-ture an open rupture with him, but attempted to discredit himamong his followers by the time-honored method of heckling.In this, however, they were not successful; but his disregardof their time-honored religious observances and his repeatedviolations of their blue laws convinced them that he was adangerous character.

The opposition of the Sadducees apparently had its in-ception when Jesus cleaned house in the temple. Disturbingthe franchises of the vested interests has ever been an effectivemethod of arousing their animosity. This case was no ex-ception.

Then came the arrival of Jesus in Jerusalem on or aboutthe Feast of the Passover, in the year 29. Apparently, thepublic demonstration was remarkable, and gave strong im-petus to the determination of the oppositon for his destruc-tion; but what offense had been committed the opposition wasunable to determine. Apparently, therefore, after a consulta-tion among themselves, they sent a deputation to him, to in-quire concerning his religious and political views, in the hopethat by so doing, they might obtain some incriminating com-mitment. They inquired, for example: "Is it lawful to givetribute to Caesar, or not?" Had he said "Yes", the Phariseeswould have denounced him to the people as an enemy to theirliberties. Had he said "No", he would have been broughtbefore Pilate with a charge of treason. His famous answerincreased their dilemma: "Render unto Caesar the thingswhich are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's."

DICTA

This process took place from time to time during the nextfew days, until they determined to apprehend him, apparentlyon the charge of blasphemy. He was accordingly arrested.

Now, at this time, a brief digression in the narrative isnecessary, to describe the Jewish court and code of criminalprocedure.

The administration of justice among the Hebrew peoplewas entrusted to three classes of courts. First in point of in-feriority was the "Court of Three", which was composed ofthree judges, one chosen by each party to the litigation, andthe third selected by the two thus chosen. No educationalqualifications were necessary for membership. An appealfrom their determination lay to the minor Sanhedrin, or lowercouncil of laws. These courts existed in every town of morethan one hundred families, and consisted of 23 judges, eachappointed by the court and Sanhedrin sitting at Jerusalem.They had jurisdiction of lesser crimes and misdemeanors. Anappeal would lie from the lesser Sanhedrin to the Great San-hedrin. This latter court was the supreme tribunal of theJews. It had original jurisdiction of crime$ punishable bydeath, and of offenses involving the peace and majesty of thepeople. It consisted of two presiding officers, a religiouschamber of 23' priests, a law chamber of 23 scribes, and apopular chamber of 23 elders. Extreme care was taken in theselection. Its sessions were held in Jerusalem, and 23 mem-bers constituted a quorum. Under the law, its members couldnot act prosecutors or accusers, but were required to protectand defend the accused.

A most elaborate system of the protection of an accusedperson was developed by the Hebrew jurisprudence. Someof these essential points are as follows:

1. The person must be arraigned, the process consistingof reading the charges in open court by the clerk.

. 2. The charges were based upon an accusation previous-ly made by some person familiar with the facts.

3. Next came the introduc'tion of testimony against theaccused, following which an opportunity was given him tooffer his defense, and to introduce witnesses in support thereof.

4. Thereupon, one of the judges was supposed to makea summary of the case, and all judges were to proceed to ballot.

DICTA

5. Two scribes tabulated the votes, one taking downthose cast in favor of acquittal, and the other those in favorof conviction.

6. If a majority of the court voted for acquittal, theaccused was set at liberty. If a majority voted for conviction,no announcement of the finding could then be made, as at leastone day must intervene between the vote of conviction and thepronouncement of the verdict and the sentence.

7. After the proper interval had elapsed, another votewas taken. A judge who had originally voted to condemnmight now change his opinion, and vote to acquit; but onewho originally voted for acquittal was not permitted to changehis opinion and now vote for a conviction.

8. Under the law, it was the duty of the court to defendthe accused, and a verdict of guilty, without some member ofthe court having interposed a defense, was invalid.

9. The court was prohibited by law from entering uponthe trial of a criminal case on Friday, for the reason that suchtrial could not be conducted on the Sabbath, nor could it bepostponed over the Sabbath.

10. Any indignities inflicted upon the accused duringthe progress of his trial subjected those who committed themto the same punishment as if they were inflicted upon one whowas not accused.

Many other and similar refinements could be noted.The Professor of Religious History at Harvard, Moore,

has written an interesting work on Judaism, wherein he speaksof these unusual and stringent limitations as follows:

"It is clear that with such a procedure, conviction in capital cases wasnext to impossible, and that this was the intention of the framers of the rulesis equally plain. The Mishna itself brands a court which executes one manin seven years as ruinous. (Jewish Talmud, Mishna X: The Sanhedrin whoexecutes a person once in seven years is considered pernicious.) It should beobserved, however, that when the court was convinced of the guilt of the ac-cused, though the evidence did not warrant his conviction, they might imprisonhim on bread and water (Mishna, Sanhedrin, 9, 5). * * * It cannot be im-agined that any government charged with the maintenance of public orderand security ever devised and put into practice a code of procedure the effectand intent of which was to make the conviction of criminals impossible."

The limitations to the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin abovereferred to are contained in the Talmud as we know it today.

DICTA

But the Talmud as we know it today is the outgrowth of theresults of the collaboration of numerous rabbis, and was notcompleted until approximately 500 A. D. We cannot, there-fore, say with certainty that the method of procedure now setout in the Talmud was the method of procedure in vogue in29 A. D. Upon this point Professor Moore says:

"The inquiry whether the trial of Jesus was 'legal', i. e., whether it con-formed to the rules in the Mishna, is futile, because it assumes that those rulesrepresent a judicial procedure of the Old Sanhedrin."

Practically all of the commentators who have discussedthis subject from the legal standpoint, assume, however, thatthe procedure laid down in the Talmud as now known to uswas in effect at the time of the trial of Jesus. I shall makethe same assumption, because I am unable to prove the con-trary.

Assuming, therefore, that these rules of procedure didgovern the Jews in the trial of capital cases in 29 A. D., didthey comply with these requirements in the instant case? Thistakes us back to our historical narrative, the general order ofevents of which are this:

1. He was led to Annas.2. He was sent by Annas to Caiaphas, the high priest.3. He was there brought before the Sanhedrin, tried and

condemned.Annas was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was the

high priest, and apparently a man of considerable standing inthe community. If he should approve the condemnation ofJesus, his approval would go a long way toward strengtheningthe backbone of the opposition. The appearance before Annaswas an extra-legal process, as he had no official position withthe Sanhedrin. Apparently the trial met with the approvalof this man, for the accused was thereupon led to Caiaphas.According to the version of St. John:

"Now, Caiaphas was he who had given the counsel to the Jews; thatit was expedient that one man should die for the people."

The high priest then asked Jesus concerning his doctrine.The examination proceeded immediately to the crux of thecase, so far as the Jews were concerned, and was based uponthe ground of blasphemy. It must be borne in mind that theJewish commonwealth was a pure theocracy. The Old Testa-

DICTA

ment teachings, the Ten Commandments and the Mishna, hadfor them the finality of authority far beyond the pronounce-ments of any temporal monarch. In Leviticus we read: "Youshall not profane my holy name; and I will be hallowed amongthe children of Israel". In Genesis we read: "I am the Lordthy God. They shall have no other gods before me". InIsaiah we read: "I am the first and I am the last; and besideme there is no God". And many other places emphasize theterrific importance of this to the Jewish mind. The profan-ation of the Name was a heinous crime, so terrible that it wasextremely difficult of atonement. Rabbi Ishmael taught thatwhile all other classes of sins may be atoned for according totheir heinousness, by repentance, by the Day of Atonement,by the chastisements cumulatively, yet not all, together, suf-ficed to atone, for the man through whom such Name is pro-faned. Such guilt is only wiped out by death.

Therefore, in answer to the inquiry concerning his doc-trine Jesus said: "I have spoken openly to the world; I havealways taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither allJews resort; and in secret I have spoken nothing."

Then it occurs to him that perhaps it might be in orderfor the prosecution to call a few witnesses, and he says:

"Whyaskest thou me? Ask them who have heard that I have spokenunto them; behold, they know what things I have said ;"

at which juncture he receives a blow from the bailiff, with therhetorical question: "Answerest thou the high priest so?"

Thereupon, further testimony was adduced, and one ofthe witnesses said: '.'This man said, I am able to destroy thetemple of God and after three days to rebuild it."

Then the high priest came directly to the point, and heinquired: "I adjure thee by the living God that thou tell usif thou be the Christ, the son of God." Jesus said to him:"Thou hast said it." In other words, he made a direct affirma-tive answer to the categorical inquiry.

Then the high priest rent his garments. The rending ofgarments seems to be an expensive pastime indulged in by thehigh priest as a symbol that a blasphemous profanation of theName has been uttered, The ballot was by acclamation. Be-fore putting the matter to a vote, however, the high priest ex-pressed himself rather strongly in favor of conviction. He

DICTA

said: "He hath blasphemed; what further need have we ofwitnesses? Behold, now, you have heard the blasphemer,what think you?" They answered and said: "He is guiltyof death."

This first trial before the Sanhedrin was concluded aboutthree o'clock in the morning of Friday. We have seen underthe Jewish Code, that in capital cases the death sentence couldnot be pronounced until one full day had elapsed. We havealso seen that the trial of a capital case could not be com-menced on Friday. However, it was the obvious desire ofthe prosecution to get this matter over with, and accordingly,they re-convened at daybreak on this same Friday. This sec-ond hearing was a perfunctory affair, in order to attempt acompliance with the requirements of the code. At this time,again, Jesus was interrogated, although no further witnesseswere brought forward. There seems to be no question butthat between these two trials, one ending at three o'clock inthe morning, and the other commencing at daybreak, theprisoner was subjected to a considerable amount of insult,violence and indignity.

It does not specifically appear that any of the membersof the Sanhedrin undertook to speak in his defense at eithertrial. In his book on the Martyrdom of Jesus, Rabbi Wisesays if none of the judges defended the culprit, the verdict wasinvalid. At least two of the historians assert that Gamalielthe Ancient and Rabbi Naravi both undertook to defend theaccused. According to these historians, these two were theonly ones who voted for an acquittal. According to the Biblenarrative, not even these two voted for acquittal. The state-ment is, "And they all condemned him to be guilty of death".

Now, under the rule in the Talmud, the death penaltymight be inflicted upon a blasphemer in any one of four dif-ferent ways:

Burning,Stoning,Strangling,Beheading.

But Josephus tells us that the Jews lost their power to inflictcapital punishment in the year 6 A. D., when Judea formally

DICTA

became a Roman province. Moreover, you will note thatcrucifixion was not among the forms of death prescribed fora blasphemer by the Talmud, but it was the form of executionthen in vogue among the Romans.

After the verdict of the Sanhedrin, the court adjournedto the Roman Procurator. Now, it would seem that this ap-peal to the Roman jurisdiction must have been based upon arecognition of the Roman supremacy. This was a trial denovo. His jurisdiction was plenary. His duty was to inquireinto the accusation made, and determine from all the facts andcircumstances whether the prisoner was guilty of an offensepunishable under the Roman law. If the crime Was not onerecognized by the Roman law, it became the duty of the pro-curator to refuse to proceed further with the case, and toacquit the prisoner. Pilate proceeds, in a thoroughly judicialattitude. His first inquiry is:

"What accusation bring ye against this man?"Very well; what accusation? He has been tried and con-

victed of blasphemy before the Sanhedrin; but to blasphemethe God of the Jews was not an offense against the Roman or-der. Apparently at a loss for a specific charge, the priests an-nounced: "If he were not a malefactor, we would not havedelivered him up unto thee". Apparently they thought thismight be sufficient for the Roman governor; but Pilate seemsto have been a man of more than ordinary judicial discern-ment. He said: "Take him, and judge him according to thylaw"; whereupon the Jews were forced to admit their lack ofpower, for they said: "It is not lawful for us to put any manto death."

Thereupon, they advanced a new, charge. The criticsjudge them harshly for this, but I am not sure that they de-serve this harsh judgment. It strikes me that they were put-ting a different interpretation upon the same offense. Theoffense which to them was blasphemy, because it identifiedJesus with the Deity, became now treason against the Romanorder, because it made Jesus the King of the Jews. They said:"We found this fellow perverting the nation, forbidding togive tribute to Cesar, saying, I am Christ the King". If thischarge were true, it constituted an offense against the Romanorder.

DICTA

From what we know of the character of Jesus and histeachings with reference to submission to authority, it wasprobably not true, but Pilate proceeded with his inquiry, andsaid to Jesus: "Art thou the King of the Jews?" ThereuponJesus asked him: "Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or didothers tell it thee of me?" It seems reasonable for him toinquire as to whether or not the charge came from the Romanor the Jewish standpoint.

Thereupon Pilate replied: "Am I a Jew? Thy own na-tion and the chief priests delivered thee unto me."

Then Jesus answered in a manner that clearly indicatedhe made no pretension to temporal power. He stated: "Mykingdom is not of this world." Whereupon Pilate inquired:"Art thou then a king?" Whereupon Jesus again emphasizedthe fact that he was attempting to distinguish between thefoundation of a faith and the foundation of an empire. Hesaid:

"Thou sayest I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this causecame I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth."

In the light of religious teachings, we have come to beamazed by the spiritual insight of these utterances; but toPilate, who was a ruler of blood and iron, submitting only tothe authority of the Roman Empire these words did not con-vey a great deal. He thereupon inquired: "What is truth?"History has long debated the mental attitude of Pilate at thetime of making this inquiry. Tertullian concludes that hewas already in conviction a Christian. Bacon concludes thathe was a jesting Pilate, and asked the question for rhetoricaleffect. Certainly, he did not wait for an answer, but proceededforthwith to a verdict of acquittal. He said: "I find no crimein him."

Up to this time, the procedure as conducted by Pilatewas in conformity with Roman law. Pilate had given Jesusa preliminary hearing, and had fearlessly pronounced thejudgment of acquittal. Professor Greenleaf, the authority onevidence, says:

"Here was a sentence of acquittal, judicially pronounced, and irrever-sible except by higher power upon appeal; and it was the duty of Pilate there-upon to have discharged him."

The prosecution, however, did not desire to leave thematter in this condition. They brought forth a new statement:

DICTA

"He stirreth up the people teaching throughout all Jewry, be-ginning from Galilee to this place." At the suggestion of theplace Galilee, Pilate, in spite of his judgment of acquittal,considers on his own motion the matter of change of venue. Itso happens that at this time Herod Antipas, the tetrarch ofGalilee, is in Jerusalem in attendance upon the feasts. Obtain-ing from Jesus the admission that he is a Galilean, he sentthe prisoner over to Herod's palace. Here the prosecutionrenewed its charges of treason and sedition.

Now, Herod, as tetrarch of Galilee, had jurisdiction ofoffenses committed in Galilee. Inasmuch as the chief sceneof Jesus' teachings had been in the vicinity of Galilee, it mighthave been proper that the trial take place before Herod, hadnot Pilate previously assumed jurisdiction and undertaken toacquit the accused. In this second Roman trial, in the wordsof St. Luke, Herod "questioned him in many words" - amethod of interrogation not unknown even in these days. ButJesus "answered him nothing". Apparently he preferred tostand upon his constitutional rights. At this point the trialseems to amuse Herod vastly, and he proceeds to make a jokeof the affair. According to the Gospel narrative, "Herod withhis army set him at naught, and mocked him, putting on hima white garment, and sent him back to Pilate".

You will observe that here is no conviction; in fact, it isanother acquittal. The prosecution then appears a second timewith the accused before the Roman procurator. And Pilate,"calling together the chief priests and the magistrates and thepeople, said to them: You have presented unto me this man,as one that perverteth the people; and behold, I having ex-amined him before you, find no cause in this man in thosethings wherein you accuse him. No, nor Herod neither. ForI sent you to him, and behold, nothing worthy of death is doneto him. I will chastise him, therefore, and release him."

This unquestionably constitutes the third consecutive ac-quittal before the Roman tribunal. But why chastise an in-nocent man? Evidently this was a sop thrown to the populacein order to appease their clamor.

The record here says, "From thenceforth Pilate soughtto release him".

DICTA

Jesus was then taken over to the barrack room of theguards. I think many of you will bear me out, that in prac-tically every barrack room there are anywhere from one to adozen practical jokers. The fact that this poor, bedraggledprisoner proclaimed himself a king, seems to have given riseto much merry-making. With mock solemnity they arrayedhim in a purple garment, and plaited a crown of thorns inwanton mockery of the imperial laurel. They bowed beforehim with mock obeisance, and tendered homage in the formof blows and scourges. He was then brought before thehowling populace.

At this point unquestionably Pilate's heart was touched,and he uttered the now famous words, "Behold the man!"-apparently an effort to enlist the sympathies of the arousedmultitude. To small effect, however, because they continuedtheir demands for crucifixion. Pilate then said: "Behold, Ibring him forth unto you, that you may know that I find nocause in him." This appears to be a fourth affirmation by aRoman official of the fact of proven innocence.

Again they cried for the blood of their appointed victim,and turning away in disgust, Pilate said to them: "Take yehim and crucify him, for I find no fault in him"-(a fifthaffirmation of innocence). Thereupon he was taken to theappointed place and crucified.

Thus we have seen in the short space of a few hours theaccused subjected to two trials before the regularly constitutedJewish tribunal, and two trials and a rehearing before theregularly constituted Roman tribunal. Much has been saidas to the legality of these trials, and much has been said as tothe illegality of them. The following are the principal pointswhich are asserted as grounds for the onclusion that theJewish trial was illegal:

1. The trial was illegal because the arrest was illegal.The arrest took place at night, which was in violation of theHebrew law. It was effected through the agency of a traitorand an informer, in violation of the Mosaic code.

2. The trial was illegal because Jesus was not permittedto show whether or not he was, in fact, the Messiah.

3. The trial was illegal because Jesus was found guiltyon his own confession. Caiaphas, you will recall, said: "What

DICTA

further need have we of witnesses? Ye have heard the blas-phemer."

4. The trial was illegal because the Sanhedrin had pre-viously decided that Jesus must die. This was apparentlydone in the preceding February, at a very interesting meetingwhen the activities of Jesus were the subject of a hot discus-sion. At this point it is reported that one of the more level-headed brethren, by the name of Nicodemus, arose and said:"Doth our law judge any man before it hear him and knowwhat he doth?" Apparently the chief priests and the elderswere somewhat confounded by this query.

5. The trial was illegal because the judges were preju-diced.

6. The trial was illegal, because it was conducted atnight.

7. The trial was illegal because it was conducted on theday before the Sabbath, and on a feast day.

8. The trial was illegal because the actions of the HighPriest were prejudical.

The following are the principal points which are assertedas the ground for the conclusion that the Roman trial wasillegal:

1. That Jesus had already been acquitted on the chargeon which he was tried.

2. That Pilate was intimidated by the mob.It has been very easy for men to justify the conclusion

which they desired to reach in this case. They have said thatthe trial was illegal because they felt that an innocent man wasexecuted.

i

Considered from the standpoint of the Jews, with theirracial and religious background and their feeling of revulsionagainst what they regarded as blasphemy, I am of the opinionthat a fair and impartial hearing was not had. As to whetheror not the trial was "legal", namely was in conformity withthe laws and practices of the Jewish Commonwealth, a soundconclusion cannot be reached by-merely reading the Mishna.It is first necessary to determine which of the rules prescribedin the Mishna were in effect in the year 29 A. D. If the rulesthat now appear in the Mishna were in effect at that time, Iam satisfied that a legal conviction was an impossibility.

18 DICTA

But the situation is different with Pontius Pilate. He wasa Governor charged with the duty of maintaining order inhis Province. He interrogated and tried the accused. Hefound him guiltless and pronounced a judgment of acquittal.He reiterated this conclusion some three or four times and thenpermitted the execution of a prisoner whom he had repeatedlydeclared to be innocent. I am convinced in my own mind thathe is responsible for the act which History has condemned.

But analyze the case as we may from a legal s.tandpoint,I think we will come at last to the conclusion that whatevercrime was committed was a political crime, resulting in apolitical trial terminating in an execution inspired by motivesof political expediency. Perhaps the most difficult class ofcases with which the legal profession has to contend. The ac-cusers are inflamed, the seriousness of the crime is magnifiedand the Judges, consciously or unconsciously, are biased andintimidated. Rare indeed is the outcome a satisfactory one.