The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidences of His ExistenceRemsburg, John E. (John Eleazer)
Religion
The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidences of His Existence
Remsburg, John E. (John Eleazer)
Jesus Christ -- Historicity; Jesus Christ -- Rationalistic interpretations; Rationalism
Matthew and Mark: During the night. After his arrest, which probably
occurred not later than midnight, they at once "led him away to
Caiaphas the high priest, where ... the chief priests, and elders,
and all the council [Sanhedrim]" had assembled, when his trial
immediately began (Matt. xxvi, 57-68; Mark xiv, 58-65).
Luke: Not until the next morning. During the night he was held in
custody at the house of the high priest. "As soon as it was day,
the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came
together, and led him into the council" (xxii, 66).
This, according to Luke, was his first and only appearance before the
Sanhedrim. Matthew and Mark, in addition to the night trial mentioned
by them, also mention an adjourned session in the morning corresponding
to the meeting of Luke.
307
Could this trial have been held in the night as stated by Matthew
and Mark?
It could not. The Jewish law prohibited the opening of a trial at
night. The Sanhedrim could not hold a session before 6 a. m. or after
3 p. m. Luke was seemingly acquainted with this law; Matthew and Mark
were not.
308
During what religious festivities was his trial held?
Synoptics: During the feast of the Passover.
It could not have been held during the Passover, for no trials were
held by the Jews during this feast.
309
On what day of the week was it held?
Synoptics: On Friday, the day preceding the Sabbath.
No trial for a capital offense was ever allowed to begin on the day
preceding the Sabbath.
310
How long did this trial last?
All: But a few hours.
The Jewish law required at least two days for a capital trial--one
for prosecution, and one for the defense.
311
Did he have a defender or counselor in the Sanhedrim?
Synoptics: He did not.
According to the Synoptics he had no counsel, and the Sanhedrim
were unanimous in their condemnation of him. This was contrary to
Jewish law. The Sanhedrim might be unanimous in their belief that he
was guilty, but it was the duty of at least one of them to defend
him. This was the law: "If none of the judges defend the culprit,
i. e., all pronounce him guilty, having no defender in the court,
the verdict of guilty was invalid and the sentence of death could
not be executed" (Maimonides).
Dr. Geikie admits that the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrim, as
related in the Gospels, was in nearly every particular contrary to
Jewish law. He says:
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account