|
|
|
Jesus Before The Sanhedrin – The
Legality Of Jesus’ Trial Under Jewish Law
(an article by Roy Schoeman based
on a book by the Lemann Brothers that originally appeared in the March,
2005 issue of Inside the Vatican)
The past twenty centuries have seen a steady stream of Jews entering
the Church, bringing with them their own particular gifts and talents,
beginning, of course, with the twelve apostles (prudence prevents me
beginning the list with the Blessed Virgin Mary and Our Lord
Himself). Nineteenth century France had a number of prominent
Jews enter the Church. Best known perhaps are the Ratisbonne
brothers, one of whom, Alphonse, was converted on the spot by an
apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They went on to found an
order in the Holy Land specifically to pray for the conversion of the
Jews. Less well known, but equally distinguished, were the Lemann
brothers. Jewish twins orphaned at a young age and brought up by
relatives, they as teenagers entered the Church at the cost of their
home, family, fortune, and almost of their lives (a fuller account of
the Ratisbonne and Lemann conversions appears in my book Salvation is
from the Jews). The Lemann brothers went on to found an
orphanage, a home for the deaf, and several religious associations; to
participate actively in the first Vatican Council; and to write over 60
religious and apologetic works, many of which used their deep knowledge
of Hebrew language, scriptures, and laws, to illumine issues of the
Catholic Faith. One of the most important of these was Jesus
Before the Sanhedrin, in which they showed that the trial of Jesus
before the Sanhedrin violated Jewish law in literally dozens of ways,
any one of which would have sufficed to invalidate the final
verdict.
The ire of the Lemann brothers was never directed towards the Jewish
people, but rather towards the corrupt Jewish leaders of his time who,
in order to preserve their own power and prerogatives, threw to the
winds all Jewish norms of justice and railroaded through the
condemnation of Jesus, thus depriving the Jews themselves, His own
people according to the flesh and those to whom He first came (“I was
sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” – Mt. 15:24) the
joy and grace of receiving their own Messiah. It was from the
depth of their yearning that their coreligionists may finally throw off
the blindness imposed on them by those unworthy authorities, that they
wrote that work, from which the following is drawn.
The Sanhedrin
The Sanhedrin, or Grand Council, was the high court of justice and the
supreme tribunal of the Jews. It was established at Jerusalem
after the Babylonian captivity. It is the opinion of the rabbis that
the assembly of the Sanhedrin was no other than the one that Moses
himself had established. To pronounce this name before Israelites
is to recall to their minds the most learned, the most equitable, and
the most honorable assembly that ever existed….We shall endeavor, by
the help of God, to tear the veil asunder, that our Hebrew brethren may
at last know the truth. We shall make use of Jewish documents of
the highest importance and the most unquestionable authenticity, to
show how the dignity of this high tribunal was abused by the immoral
and unjust character of the men composing it. We, as sons of
Israel, have studied the subject of Jewish legislation from its own
sources, inquiring minutely into the legality of the proceedings of the
Sanhedrin against Christ, and say, ‘Behold the guilty! These are
the men who have led the whole Jewish nation astray.’”
When was Jesus Condemned to Death ?
Even before Jesus was brought to public trial following his arrest in
the Garden of Gethsemane, the Sanhedrin had already assembled three
times in secret and rendered decisions which prove, beyond a doubt,
that the death-sentence of Christ was determined upon even before his
public accusation. The first such meeting was held in September
of the year preceding the crucifixion. This fact is made clear by St.
John the Evangelist in his account of Jesus healing the man born blind,
when he states “for the Jews had already agreed that if any man did
confess that he was the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.”
(Jn. 9:22) For only a solemn assembly of the Sanhedrin had power
to pronounce such a decree of excommunication. In excommunicating
Jesus’ followers, they indirectly declared Jesus a false prophet, and
hence subject to the death penalty. Is this not a proof, as
Nicodemus had implied (Jn. 7:51), that they had already condemned him
without having granted him a hearing or listened to a word in his
defense?
The second such session of the Sanhedrin took place in the month of
February, about four and a half months after the first session.
The resurrection of Lazarus was the occasion that called the Sanhedrin
into council at this time.(from Jn. 11:47-53)
So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council, and said,
"What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go
on thus, every one will believe in him, and the Romans will come and
destroy both our holy place and our nation." But one of them,
Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know
nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that
one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not
perish”. So from that day on they took counsel how to put him to death.
We see then, that at this second council the death of Christ was
decided upon. In the September session his death was proposed
only indirectly, but this time the sentence is passed, the high-priest
having himself declared that it were better for one man to die!
This sentence was pronounced without summoning the accused into
council, without witnesses, and without making any investigation of his
doctrines or his miracles. Neither was it pronounced because
Jesus was found to be seditious or revolutionary, but because it was
necessary to put a stop to his miracles, and thus destroy the peoples’
belief in him. The sentence having been pronounced by the
high-priest, it was ratified by the whole assembly “From that day on
they took counsel how to put him to death.” It is a settled
question; there remains to be determined only the time and the manner
of executing the sentence. Have we not here ample evidence that
the condemnation of Jesus preceded is arrest and trial?
The third session was held about three weeks after the second, just two
days before the Passion.
Now the feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the
Passover. And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to put
him to death; for they feared the people. Then the chief priests and
the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, who
was called Caiaphas, and took counsel together in order to arrest Jesus
by stealth and kill him. But they said, "Not during the feast, lest
there be a tumult among the people."(Lk. 22:1-2, Mt. 26:3-5)
We notice that at this gathering the question of the sentence of Christ
is no longer debated. His death had already been determined upon
at the second session. The only things that now remain to be
settled are the manner of his death and the proper time for its
execution.
Now let us sum up the decisions of the three councils. The first
council, in excommunicating the partisans of Christ, denounced him as a
false prophet, and consequently guilty of death. In the second
council the question of whether he should die was proposed, and
unanimously decided in the affirmative. In the third council his
arrest and execution were appointed to take place at the first
favorable opportunity. We now ask of every sincere Israelite if the
trial of Christ was not a fearful mockery and a lie.
The subsequent trial of Jesus on the eve of the Passion entailed no
less than 27 violations of Jewish law, any single one of which would be
sufficient to nullify the verdict of the Sanhedrin. [note: for reasons
of space not all of the 27 appear in this extract]
Violation 1: The court was prohibited from meeting
to decide capital cases either on a Sabbath or feast-day, or on the
preceding day:
“Court must not be held on the Sabbath, or any holy day.” – Mishnah,
Betza, ch. v, #2.
“They shall not judge on the eve of the Sabbath-day, nor on that of any
festival” – Mishnah, Sanhedrin, ch. iv, #1
Violation 2: A capital trial could not take place at
night:
“Let it be tried during the day and suspended at night”. – Mishnah,
Sanhedrin, ch. iv, #1. This is further expounded by Maimonides: ”The
reason why the trial of a capital offense could not be held at night is
because a more thorough and searching examination can be made by
daylight.” – Maimonides, Sanhedrin, ch. iii.
No session of the Court could take place before the offering of the
morning sacrifice: “The Sanhedrin sat from the close of the morning
sacrifice to the time of the evening sacrifice.” – Talmud Jerusalem,
Sanhedrin, ch. i, folio 19; Talmud Babylonian ch. x, folio 88; also
Mishnah Thamid ch. iii
Both of these prohibitions – that a capital trial could not place on
the eve of a feast-day, nor at night -- were violated when the first
part of trial of Jesus took place during the night preceding the start
of the Feast of Passover, as is evident in all four Gospel accounts
(Jn. 18, Mt. 26, Mk. 14, and Lk. 22).
Violation 3: The witnesses must give their testimony separately,
and in the presence of the accused. (based in part on the trial of
Susanna in Daniel 13)
Violation 4: Before testifying, the witnesses must solemnly promise
to tell the truth:
“The judge shall address each witness as follows: It is not conjecture,
or anything you may have heard, that we ask of you…If you should cause
the accused to condemned unjustly, his blood shall cry for vengeance
against you, and God will hold you accountable, even as he did Cain for
the blood of his brother Abel.” – Mishnah, Sanhedrin, ch. iv, #5)
Violation 5: The judges must carefully weigh the
testimony of each witness – Deut. xix. 18, Mishnah Sanhedrin ch. v, 1.
Violation 6: No testimony is valid unless the
witnesses all agreed in each detail:
“If one witness contradicts another, the testimony is not accepted.” –
Mishnah Sanhedrin, ch. v, #2., Maimonides Sanhedrin ch. xx.
It is impossible to reconcile these preceding five requirements with
respect to witnesses with the Gospel accounts of the trial, for
instance: “Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony
against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none. For many
bore false witness against him, and their witness did not agree.
And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, "We
heard him say, `I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and
in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'" Yet not even
so did their testimony agree.” (Mk. 14:55-59).
Violation 7: The accused must not be condemned on
his own confession:
“We have it as a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that on one
can bring an accusation against himself. Should a man make
confession of guilt before a legally constituted tribunal, such
confession is not to be used against him…our law never condemns on the
simple confession of an accused party.” – Mishnah, Sanhedrin, ch. vi,
#2. , Maimonides Sanhedrin.
In violation of this fundamental principle, Caiaphas directly asked
Jesus to testify against Himself (Jn. 18:19), and when He refused,
allowed Him to be struck (Jn. 18:22): “Why do you ask me? Ask those who
have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said." When
he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his
hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?".”
Touchingly, Jesus’ refusal to respond to the question and thus give
testimony against Himself was itself motivated by His reverence for the
office of the High Priest. As St. Cyprien said “If he did it not
it was because He was unwilling to dishonor the high-priesthood in the
person holding that sacred office.” (St. Cyprien Epist. lv. Ad Corn.).
Caiaphas repeated his violation of the rule against self-incrimination
later in the trial, when he imperiously demanded "I adjure you by the
living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." (Mt.
26:63) In adjuring Jesus, in the name of the living God, to
declare whether he was the Son of God or not, Caiaphas was setting a
snare for Jesus. Should he answer in the negative, he will be
condemned as an perjurer, for such he has certainly claimed to be ; if
in the affirmative, he will be condemned as a blasphemer. “And Jesus
said unto him, I am” (Mk 14:61). Jesus respects on the lips of
the high-priest the majesty of the name of God. He replies to the
question, despite the malice which prompted it, on account of the
sacred language in which it was clothed. He is not deceived by
the dissimulation of the high-priest – far from it – but he is ready to
do homage to the divine name, although knowing that in this instance it
was basely employed to entrap him.
Violation 8: The expression of the judge toward the
accused must be humane, and even kind, treating him with gentleness and
respect. – Mishnah, Sotah, ch. i, #4.
Violation 9: The accuser cannot also be the judge:
“If a… witness rise up against any man…then both…shall stand before the
judges. – Deut xix 16-17
All of the Gospel accounts of the trial confirm the above violations,
with Caiaphas acting as prosecuting attorney as well as chief judge. A
number of additional violations are shown in the single passage Mt.
26:63-66:
“But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you
by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."
Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you
will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming
on the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his robes, and
said, ‘He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You
have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?" They answered,
"He deserves death."’”
“Then the high priest tore his robes” -- not only was Caiaphas giving
vent to his fury, but he was directly violating the religious law which
strictly prohibits the high-priest’s tearing his garments, even as a
sign of mourning (Lev. 21:10: “And he that is high-priest…shall not
rend his clothes.”). Tear thy garments, O Caiaphas! Before
the day closes the veil of the Temple shall also be torn in twain, to
signify that the Aaronic priesthood and the sacrifices of the Mosaic
law have been abolished to make place for the eternal priesthood of the
high-priest of the new covenant.
“He has uttered blasphemy!” -- This is yet another irregularity, since
the charge was pronounced against the accused without having even
inquired as to the reasonableness of Jesus’ response to the
high-priest’s question. Simple justice required that this bold
avowal by Jesus should have been examined with the utmost care.
Order the holy books to be brought in, O Caiaphas! Read from their
sacred pages the various attributes ascribed to the Messiah, and find
out from the same source whether such could be appropriately applied to
the person before you claiming to be the Son of God. If of all
the characteristics and conditions ascribed by the prophets to the
Messiah a single one be wanting in him, then proclaim loudly and
fearlessly that he has blasphemed. But to pronounce him a
blasphemer without having given his statement even a superficial
investigation, what iniquity!
“He has uttered blasphemy!” -- This statement virtually forestalls the
decision of the other judges, thus violating the requirement that each
of the judges must have the freedom to vote independently, and by a
simple “I absolve” or “I condemn” (Mishnah, Sanhedrin, ch. v,
#5). In his vehement utterance of a decision prompted not by
justice but by malice, he precluded the possibility of his colleagues
differing from him in their votes, for the decision of the high-priest
was considered infallible authority among the Jews.
“That further need have we of witnesses?” -- What! A judge deny
the necessity of witnesses, expressly and absolutely required by the
law, in favor of self-incrimination, expressly forbidden by the law!
“What is your judgment” -- This question forms yet another
irregularity, for nothing could have been more irregular than the
calling for a public and general vote. The Mishnah says expressly
“Let the judges, each in his turn, absolve or condemn” (Sanhedrin, xv,
#5); but Caiaphas would have them vote en masse. (Violation 10)
They answered, "He deserves death." -- In this one sentence we
find several irregularities. The first is seen in the precipitate
assent of the other judges to Caiaphas’ accusation of blasphemy,
instead of first deliberating among themselves, as the law requires:
“…the judges reassemble by twos, and proceed to reexamine the whole
case.” (Mishnah, Sanhedrin, ch. V, #5) (Violation 11)
The next is seen in the fact that the sentence was pronounced on the
same day, whereas, according to law, it should have been deferred to
the next day at least: “if a sentence of death is to be pronounced, it
cannot be concluded before the following day” – Mishnah, Sanhedrin, iv,
#1 (Violation 12)
Another is seen in the fact that the judges did not vote one at a time
and in order, for it says in the Mishnah: “At each extremity a
secretary was placed, whose business was to record the votes. One
recorded the votes in favor of the accused, the other those opposed” –
Sanhedrin, ch. iv, #8. (Violation 13)
When the trial was reconvened the following morning at dawn (Mk 15:1,
Lk 22:66, Mt. 27:1) at least seven more violations were added. As
it is described in Luke:
When day came, the assembly of the elders of the people gathered
together, both chief priests and scribes; and they led him away to
their council, and they said, "If you are the Christ, tell us." But he
said to them, "If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I ask you,
you will not answer. But from now on the Son of man shall be seated at
the right hand of the power of God." And they all said, "Are you the
Son of God, then?" And he said to them, "You say that I am." And they
said, "What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves
from his own lips."
The convening before the morning sacrifice was a violation. No session
of the Court could take place before the offering of the morning
sacrifice: “The Sanhedrin sat from the close of the morning sacrifice
to the time of the evening sacrifice.” – Talmud Jerusalem, Sanhedrin,
ch. I, folio 19; Talmud Babylonian ch. x, folio 88; also Mishnah Tamid
ch. iii (Violation 14). No attempt was made to secure witnesses,
but rather Jesus was immediately asked to incriminate Himself (Violation
15). Once again, contrary to law the sentence was pronounced en
masse (Violation 16). No scrutiny was made of whether Jesus’
claim might be true (Violation 17). The sentence was passed
immediately, rather than being deferred to the next day (Violation 18),
and passed on a feast-day (Violation 19). The sentence of
death was pronounced in a place prohibited by the law, for it was
passed in the house of Caiaphas, instead of in the court of the Temple
known as the “Hall of Hewn Stones”, which was the only place where a
death sentence could legally be passed: “After leaving the hall of hewn
stones, no sentence of death can be passed against anyonesoever.” –
Talmud Babyl. Abodah Zarah ch. i, folio 8, recto., also “A sentence of
death can be pronounced only so long as the Sanhedrin hold it sessions
in the appointed place.” Maimonides Sanhedrin ch. xiv. (Violation 20)
Conclusion
Can any one honestly and sincerely reflect upon these things without
being convinced of the utter lack of moral character in the judges, and
the shameful injustice of their proceedings against Christ? And
now, we ask, is not every Israelite bound by the highest principles of
honor and justice to withhold his ratification of the sentence
pronounced against Christ by the Sanhedrin until he has thoroughly
studied the question, Who was Jesus Christ?
Nineteen hundred years have passed. The tumultuous passions of
Christ’s enemies have subsided. Yet this question continues to
resound with a restless clamor in the ears of those of whom he once
said: “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”
As for ourselves, your own brethren after the flesh, we solved the
question twenty years ago; and it is never without profound emotion
that we turn to a certain page of God’s Holy Word to which we desire to
call your special attention. Meditate upon it. It will show
you who the condemned one of the Sanhedrin was; it will also show you
how the Jewish people, by repentance and faith in him, shall enter into
the promised land of Christ’s Church on earth (from Zechariah 12 and 13)
On that day the LORD will put a shield about the inhabitants of
Jerusalem so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like
David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the
LORD, at their head.
And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of
Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they
look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one
mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over
a first-born. On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be great. The
land shall mourn, every family apart; and their wives apart.
And if one asks him, `What are these wounds on your back?' he will say,
`The wounds I received in the house of my friends.'" They will call on
my name, and I will answer them. I will say, `They are my people'; and
they will say, `The LORD is my God.'"
By this description, by these wounds in the hands and feet, how can you
fail, O Israelites, to recognize the God-man, the Lord, the promised
Messiah? Our fathers, it is true, have not known him, but their
sons shall know him, and every one shall say unto him, “The Lord, my
God.”
Acknowledging him as their Savior, they will, in contemplating the
wounds in his hands and his feet, shed bitter tears of
repentance. At such a sight the whole earth will be moved; and
all the families that remain shall join in their lamentations, “every
family apart, and their wives apart.”
We who have written these pages will not live to see the glorious day
of Israel’s’ redemption; but from heaven where we trust God will have
graciously received us, we shall contemplate with joy unspeakable the
gathering in of our people to the fold of Christ.
|
|
