And finally, the verdict at the second trial, as was the case in that of
the first, seems to have been unanimous, and therefore illegal. This
unanimity is indicated by the combined reports of St. Matthew, St. Mark,
and St. Luke. St. Matthew says: "When the morning was come, _all_ the
chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put
Him to death." St. Mark says: "And straightway in the morning, the chief
priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the _whole
council_, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to
Pilate." These accounts of the first two Evangelists very clearly state
that the full Sanhedrin was present at the morning trial. Then St. Luke
very explicitly explains the nature and manner of the verdict: "Then
said they _all_, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye
say that I am. And they said, What need we any further witness? for we
ourselves have heard of his own mouth."
It may be objected that no formal verdict was pronounced at the second
trial. Such a verdict would have been expressed in these words: "Thou,
Jesus, art guilty."[351] While such words are not expressly reported by
the Evangelists, the account of St. Luke taken in connection with the
report of St. Mark of the night trial, which the morning session was
intended to confirm, clearly indicates that such a verdict must have
been pronounced. A reasonable inference from the whole context of the
synoptic writers in describing both trials certainly justifies such a
conclusion.
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