According to Matthew, Caiaphas, before calling for the votes exclaimed: "He hath spoken blasphemy."[305] Instead of doing this should he not, under the law, have carefully concealed his opinion until the younger members of the court had voted? Is it not a matter of history that the opinion of the high priest was regarded as almost infallible authority among the ancient Hebrews? Did not this premature declaration of guilt on the part of the high priest rob the subordinate judges of freedom of suffrage? The conduct of the case at the close, when the balloting took place, seems to justify the view of those writers who assert that there was no regular trial of Jesus, but rather the action of a mob. POINT XI THE MEMBERS OF THE GREAT SANHEDRIN WERE LEGALLY DISQUALIFIED TO TRY JESUS LAW "The robe of the unfairly elected judge is to be respected not more than the blanket of the ass."--MENDELSOHN, "Hebrew Maxims and Rules," p. 182. "As Moses sat in judgment without the expectation of material reward, so also must every judge act from a sense of duty only."--MENDELSOHN, "Hebrew Maxims and Rules," p. 177. "Nor must there be on the judicial bench either a relation, or a particular friend, or an enemy of either the accused or of the accuser."--MENDELSOHN, "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," p. 108. "He (the Hebrew judge) was, in the first instance, to be modest, of good repute among his neighbors, and generally liked."--BENNY, "Criminal Code of the Jews," p. 38. "Nor under any circumstances, was a man known to be _at enmity with the accused person_ permitted to occupy a position among his judges."--BENNY, "Criminal Code of the Jews," p. 37. FACT AND ARGUMENT THE Gospel records disclose the fact that the members of the Great Sanhedrin were legally disqualified to try Jesus. This disqualification was of two kinds: (1) A general disqualification, under Hebrew law, to act as judges in any case; (2) a special disqualification to sit in judgment upon the life of Jesus.