A high priest did not assume the role of prophet, much less would he have given utterance to the prophecy ascribed to Caiaphas. The Roman procurator might have expressed such a sentiment, for according to Roman law and ethics an individual could be sacrificed for the welfare of the state. The high priest, on the other hand, could not have uttered such a sentiment, because it was abhorrent to the Jewish mind. If all Israel could have been saved, and could have been saved only by the death of one of its innocent members, that member could not have been put to death, because, according to Jewish law, it would have made of every Jew concerned in it a murderer. It was a fundamental principle of the Jewish code that, "No human life must be abandoned on account of any other life." 298 Did Jesus have a trial before the Sanhedrim? Synoptics: He had (Matt. xxvi, 57-75; Mark xiv, 53-72; Luke xxii, 54-71). It was about this time (30 A. D.), that the Sanhedrim ceased to have jurisdiction over capital offenses. After its jurisdiction ceased Jesus could not have been tried before it; and before its jurisdiction ceased he would not have had a subsequent trial before Pilate. 299 Where was his trial held? Matthew and Mark: At the palace of the high priest. No trial was ever held at the residence of the high priest. All meetings of the Sanhedrim were held in the hall adjoining the temple. A trial at any other place would have been illegal. 300 What was the charge preferred against him? All: Blasphemy. Jesus, it was charged, had declared himself to be the son of God. This, if true, would not have constituted blasphemy. It was no offense against the law for a man to claim that he was the son of God. All men, and especially all good men, were recognized as the sons of God. Referring to Christ's claim, a Jewish writer says: "No law, no precedent, and no fictitious case in the Bible or the rabbinical literature, can be cited to make of this expression a case of blasphemy." And even if he had been proven guilty of blasphemy, he could not have been put to death, for blasphemy, at this time, had ceased to be a capital offense. And is it reasonable to suppose that the Romans would have condemned a man to death for an offense against a religion in which they did not themselves believe, but which they regarded as one of the vilest of superstitions? It may be urged that in his trial before Pilate the charge was changed to sedition. This charge was not sustained. 301 What is said regarding witnesses? Matthew and Mark: "Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witnesses against Jesus, to put him to death; but found none; yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none" (Matt. xxvi, 59, 60; Mark xiv, 55, 56).