TRIAL OF OUR LORD IN HIS PASSION
At the start of Lent, as we move inexorably towards Passiontide, we present the following examination of the key element of the Passion itself – the trial of Our Lord which led to His suffering and death. Understanding the juridical authority of the people involved is vital to realizing the merit of Our Lord and an answer to the charges, so easily bandied about today, of anti-Semitism. Similarly, in order to judge the accusers of Our Lord fairly we need to look not only at the people involved, but also the acts of their assembly, the Sanhedrin.
The Sanhedrin was the Grand Council of the Jews established in Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile. It was modeled on the Council of seventy ancients established by Moses in the desert and which had disappeared after the entry into the Promised Land. Before the time of Our Lord it had a relatively brief existence appearing somewhere between 170 and 106 B.C. Its late origin may be seen in the Greek (as opposed to Hebrew) etymology of the word meaning a seated assembly. There were three chambers of 23 members each–the priests, the scribes and doctors, and the ancients. Towards the end of the Jewish history these numbers were not strictly adhered to and the priests tended to predominate. There were two presidents, the prince of the assembly and the father of the tribunal who was in practice the vice president. This made a Sanhedrin of 71 members. Although, historically, the president wasn't of necessity a priest, during the Roman occupation this was practically the case. Certainly the Sanhedrin had the highest authority, even Herod the Great had to appear before it at one stage in his youth, but it was still bound by certain rules, particularly, as in the case we are considering here, in the matter of pronouncing a sentence of death, which could only be done in the temple in the room of the cut stones.
This had been the law but, 23 years before the trial of Our Lord, the power of capital punishment was taken away from the Council by the Romans. Herod's successor, Archelaus, was deposed and, to bring it into line with all other Roman provinces, the province of Judah and its legislative body, the Sanhedrin, had its jus gladii (the right to put someone to death) taken away. It still had the right to excommunicate, imprison and scourge but not to condemn to death. Various Jewish sources contrive to suggest that, either because of the great number of crimes at that time, or because of the Roman occupation, it was impossible or unsuitable to condemn Jews to death so the Sanhedrin voluntarily left the room of the cut stones so that they wouldn't be able to condemn anyone. But this is trying to put a brave face on a harsh reality. Moreover, already in Genesis it had been prophesied that the Messiah would come only after the kingdom of Judah had fallen and its jus gladii been taken away (Gen. 49:8-10). In fact the scepter had been taken away from Judah for some time. With the Babylonian captivity the scepter passed to the Levites, the Machabees, then to the Herods who were Edomites and not Jews at all. That was the royal power gone, but in AD 11 the judiciary power was also taken away. Of course, to acknowledge that openly would mean that the Jews would also have to recognize that the time for the Messiah had come.
Of the 71 members of the Sanhedrin at the time of Our Lord we have information on around 40 of them. This comes from the Gospels, from the Jewish History of the contemporary Jew, Joseph, and the Talmud.
The First Chamber of the Sanhedrin: The Priests
Of the priests perhaps the two most well known are the high priests, Annas and Caiphas. That there should be two high priests at that time is already something of an indictment on the house of priests. The office of high priest had been hereditary and for life, but already under Herod priests had seen themselves deposed and replaced. Under the Romans this became a regular occurrence. Thus it was that at the time of Our Lord's trial there were not just two but around a dozen deposed high priests who were all members of the Council along with the simple priests. Someone like Annas could make sure that the office would stay in his family for almost 50 continuous years but, once the position of power became up for grabs, as it were, it became the object of ambitious scheming and even treachery which scandalized the Jews themselves.
Caiphas was officially the acting high priest but much of the authority remained with his father-in-law, Annas. This latter had five sons who had been or who were to be high priest at the time of Our Lord and as such they were all members of the Council. They, along with the sons of Simon Boethius (three) and indeed the other ten who are mentioned in the sources, were little edifying in their personal lives. Joseph says they were violent thieves and the Talmud, normally only too full of praise for Jewish institutions and personages, calls the priests at that time a plague. Thus the vast majority (the known 18 of the 23 members) of the house of priests was corrupt.
The Scribes
The scribes, the learned ones of Israel, formed the second chamber of the Sanhedrin. Whereas there is little edifying to learn from the chamber of priests, the scribes counted one or two exceptions to a decadent house at the time of Our Lord.
Gamaliel, for example, is praised in both the Talmud and the Acts of the Apostles. Among his disciples were St. Paul, St. Barnabas, and St. Stephen. When the Sanhedrin was plotting the death of the Apostles he gave them the advice: Leave them alone–if it is a human belief it will die anyway; if it's not, you won't be able to destroy it. A short while afterwards he converted to Christianity himself. Other members, however, were not so edifying.
His son, Simeon, for example, although also gifted with a great wisdom, became the intimate friend of the bandit John of Giscala whose cruelty and excesses against the Romans and even Jews led to the sack of Jerusalem in 70.
Onkelos, born a pagan, had all the fervor of a Pharisaic convert, even throwing his inheritance in the Dead Sea because it came from his Gentile parents. He was, obviously, not well disposed to Our Lord.
Jonathan, the famous translator of the Pentateuch missed out, in his translation of the prophets, the book of Daniel because the way he described the death of the Messiah was too close to that of Our Lord.
Samuel (the less) is the composer of the curse against the Christians which was added by the Sanhedrin to the synagogue "blessing" Shemone Esdrah which, St. Jerome remarks, Jews are supposed to pray three times a day.
Of the other 18 we know at least the names of half of them. Though they were certainly gifted with a certain wisdom, the evidence all points to most of them being filled with pride. Hence, at the time of Our Lord, the rather recent predilection for the title Rabbi. This was not a title used by the scribes historically–Hillell or Esdras had this title at the time of the captivity. But by the time of Our Lord the coveting of titles had become such that He could reproach them for it in Mt. 23:6-7. They introduced 24 excommunications against those who didn't show them sufficient respect, comparing themselves to God Himself. After the destruction of Jerusalem, Rabbi Judah wrote, "If Jerusalem has been destroyed one has to look no further for the cause than the lack of respect shown to the scribes and doctors."
The Ancients
The third chamber of the Sanhedrin was that of the Ancients. They had the least influence and so it is not surprising that we have less information about them than others. Nonetheless, we can suppose something concerning around half of them from contemporary records. From the Gospels, for example, we know that Joseph of Arimathea was a member. Like the other members he was a rich man but is nonetheless credited with the title of "just senator"–that is to say that he was one of the ten magistrates under the Romans to govern the city. He shares his just character with another disciple of Christ, albeit a secret one, Nicodemus, who was also one of the three richest men in Jerusalem. The other two mentioned by the Talmud were Ben Calba Shebua and Ben Tsitsit Haccassat. It is, however, probably more indicative of the interest of the Talmud than a lack of any real virtue that they are all only praised for their riches and, particularly in the case of the two latter, their sumptuous lifestyle. We know but the names of six others and of those only the notorious cruelty of one of them, Doras, who was responsible for killing the high Priest Jonathan under the governor Felix. It could be, therefore, that this least influential chamber of the Sanhedrin had better qualities than the previous two.
One fact which we learn from Josephus Flavius seems to make this unlikely, however. The Ancients of the Sanhedrin were recruited from the rich inhabitants of Jerusalem. But it was also from the rich that the Sadducees took their members. It was the Sadducees who did not believe in the resurrection and this belief in the death of the soul with the body led to a profound materialism–hardly likely to be compatible with Our Lord's teaching. An interesting incident from the Acts of the Apostles confirms that Sadduceeism was rife in the Sanhedrin. When St. Paul is brought before the Council he cleverly causes an instant dissension amongst them by siding with the Pharisees and unleashing a pandemonium of recriminations and confusion. If it is the case that at the time of Our Lord the highest Council of the Jews is filled with notorious heretics, it doesn't augur well for a just trial.
Indeed, what else could one expect from a Council made up of ambitious and degenerate priests, mostly Pharisees who thought themselves infallible? They were awaiting a Messiah, certainly, but not one who exposed their hypocrisy, rejected their invented prescriptions, and called for the abolition of their illegal tithes with which they oppressed the people.
What else could one expect from Scribes filled with pride in their own knowledge? The Messiah they were to judge proclaimed blessed those who were humble of heart, his disciples were ignorant artisans and fishermen.
What else could one expect from Ancients many, if not most, of whom were Sadducees, happy with the goods of this life, neither caring for their soul, nor God, nor the resurrection?
The Secret Pre-trial Meetings
We are familiar with the Gospel accounts of the trial of Our Lord before the Sanhedrin and having studied the character of most of those who made up the Council we could make an educated guess as to the sentence they might come up with. Nonetheless, we see elsewhere in the Gospels that, in fact, before the meetings on Maundy Thursday and then early Good Friday morning there had already been three secret meetings without the presence of Our Lord. A look at the decisions that were taken at these meetings will enable us to see the full nature of the sham trial which He underwent in His Passion.
The first meeting took place somewhere between September 28-30, 781 ab urbe condita [AUC, that is, "from the foundation of the City (of Rome)," otherwise known to us as 753 B.C.–Ed.]. St. John tells us (Jn. 7:37-53) that on the last day of the feast of the Tabernacles (September 28th that year) the Pharisees sent people to take Our Lord. They returned empty-handed claiming that no-one had ever spoken as he did. The Pharisees were enraged and already determined to discuss what to do but Nicodemus asked, "Is it the way of our law to judge a man without giving him a hearing first, and finding out what he is about?" The Pharisees' reply was a contemptuous question as to whether Nicodemus was a Galilean. At any rate, they could see that Our Lord's teaching was making such progress that they needed to call a meeting of the Sanhedrin.
Two days after the feast Our Lord cures the man born blind, and St. John tells us that his parents feared the Jews because, "they had already agreed among themselves" to excommunicate anyone who recognized Jesus as the Christ. So it seems some time between the two dates a solemn meeting of the Sanhedrin must have been called since they were the only ones able to excommunicate. It is also probable that at this first meeting they had decided to pronounce the most solemn degree of excommunication (i.e., sentence of death) which was the penalty reserved for false prophets. Actually, the Talmud records that he was excommunicated to the sound of 400 trumpets for being a magician and seducer of the people. This probable exaggeration nonetheless means that even if the sentence of excommunication (i.e., sentence of death) wasn't pronounced at this first session then it was at least discussed. In fact, pronouncing it at this early stage could have backfired since the people were still very enthusiastic, so they contented themselves with a lesser degree of excommunication for his disciples, threatening anyone who followed Our Lord with being cast out of the synagogue.
The second meeting of the Sanhedrin took place in February of 782 AUC, that is, around four and a half months after the first and was occasioned by the raising of Lazarus. John 11:46-56 reports how the council was called and mentions the prophecy of Caiphas regarding the death of one for many. It is thus at this second meeting that it was already decided that Jesus must die, and information was sought as to his whereabouts that he might be taken. The sentence is pronounced by the high priest himself without hearing, without prosecution, witnesses, nor defence. The reason given for the sentence is neither sedition nor revolt but, reports St. John, in order to stop the miracles and hence that people should believe in Jesus. The sentence is ratified unopposed, it seems, by the Council and it is only the time of His arrest that is awaited; when He finally appeared before the Sanhedrin on the night of Maundy Thursday the sentence had already been passed.
The final meeting took place around 20-25 days later on the Wednesday before the Passion, that year on March 12. As reported by St. Luke (22:1-3) and St. Matthew (26:3-5) the council was assembled in the house of Caiphas, and it was decided that Jesus' arrest shouldn't take place during the coming feast lest there should be a revolt by the people. So, it seems that the death sentence, which had already been decided at the second meeting, was going to be put off until after Easter when an unexpected visit accelerated events. "Judas, surnamed Iscariot, one of the twelve went and discoursed with the chief priests and the magistrates, how he might betray him to them" (Lk. 22:3-4). If the Jews were surprised, they nonetheless rejoiced greatly that help should come from such an unexpected quarter. Judas even promised to hand over Jesus quickly and at a time when there would be no crowds to prevent it, thus allaying the only fear of the Sanhedrin in carrying out their decision. They decide to give him money.
Thus the betrayal means that, instead of being after Easter, the immolation of the Lamb of God takes place on the very day that for fifteen centuries the Paschal Lamb had been offered as a prophecy of His saving death.
The Sanhedrin's Rules of Due Process
After examining the actual composition of the Sanhedrin at the time of Our Lord it is now time to look at the legal strictures by which any member of that assembly was bound. For if it is true that certain members of the Sanhedrin may have had evil dispositions towards Jesus, nonetheless what is more significant is whether that had any effect on the actual trial of Our Lord or not. To see that, we need to examine the legal procedures for a criminal trial among the Jews.
Of course, it is important to remember that the Jews were not only bound by the natural law. The Pentateuch was the basis of their law and it was, moreover, revealed by God. But it only governed a very small number of matters in any detail. The majority of jurisprudence was passed on by tradition. This tradition has been preserved for the past eighteen hundred years by the Mishna (the Hebrew form of "deuteronomy" or "second law"), written at the end of the second century by the Rabbi Juda. This vast work contains 63 treatises on all aspects of the Jewish law and there is even one particularly dedicated to governing the procedures of the Sanhedrin. Of course, we can be sure that not everything in the Mishna is original but, curiously enough, if it reports a practice that was clearly violated at the trial of Our Lord we can know for certain that it is authentic. The reason for this is that, wherever possible, over the centuries, the rabbis have in fact changed various things to extenuate their guilt in condemning Jesus. Therefore, if they were unable to change something it is obviously because it was so consecrated by time and usage that they would never have got away with it.
Considering the time of trial, it was forbidden (and indeed invalid) to hold a trial on a feast day or on the day before a feast day (the vigil). Likewise it was forbidden to judge a capital case at night. In fact, all cases had to be judged between the morning and the evening sacrifices. Furthermore, a capital sentence had to be pronounced on the second day, i.e., with a night in between since the Jews reckoned their days as starting from the evening (of our previous day). Now regarding the time of Our Lord's trial we can see that it was the first day of the unleavened bread, i.e., the 14th of Nisan (March) which was the vigil of a big feast, the trial was held between the evening and the morning sacrifice, precisely the time when it was not allowed since capital offenses were not allowed to be judged at night and by Jewish reckoning the sentence was passed on the same day that the trial began. Already three irregularities.
We see from Scripture that the prosecutor was Caiphas who, as High Priest, was not only judge as well but also the president of the assembly. Deuteronomy 19:16 is very clear that the same person cannot be judge as well as the accuser. In fact, Caiphas goes even further in his irregularities since he first asks Jesus concerning His doctrine, presumably to try and catch Him out in anything He should say. In fact, what should happen first is the witnesses should be produced to make the charge against the accused clear. There had to be at least two or three witnesses. Each had to give evidence separately in the presence of the accused (cf. the trial of Susanna by Daniel). This was to avoid conflicting testimony which made the accusation invalid and the perjurers were to suffer the punishment due to the accused.
Our Lord's response to this irregularity is very discreetly to draw Caiphas' attention to the fact that His teaching has been public and if this is a trial then the accusations should come from elsewhere, not from the accused himself. For this He is slapped by one of the servants standing by. This is a further irregularity since the law protected the accused until he was proven guilty.
Anyway, Caiphas understands what Our Lord means by His remarks and calls for the witnesses. The Gospel accounts in fact give the impression that witnesses are sought with some desperation despite the law requiring witnesses to be very carefully chosen and sworn-in that they tell only the truth. The two, called the last witnesses in St. Mark and St. Matthew, bring the accusation that Our Lord wanted to destroy the temple–a capital charge as we can see from the prophet Jeremiah who had prophesied the destruction of the temple and only narrowly escaped being stoned to death. But even here their testimony is found to be contradictory. They misrepresent the words of Our Lord and impute to them a sense He never intended. Moreover, since the accusations, while both serious, nonetheless are not the same, neither is valid according to Jewish law.
Caiphas continues to try and provoke Our Lord to a response but His reply mirrors Psalm 37:13-15: "And they that sought my soul used violence. And they that sought evils to me spoke vain things, and studied deceits all the day long. But I, as a deaf man, heard not: and as a dumb man not opening his mouth."
In the case of Pilate later in His Passion, Our Lord's silence urges the judge to look for a means of setting him free, but it only serves to increase the fury of Caiphas, as we shall see.
In this hearing Caiphas has so far failed in any attempt to bring forward witnesses or indeed any charge against Our Lord. In his final examination of Our Lord he adjures him by the living God to tell the people if He is the Christ or not. Hence, he seems to have abandoned the quest for witnesses who can agree as to the charge or even the evidence to support it. And whereas the witnesses were not sworn to tell the truth, Caiphas now illicitly requires it of the accused.
It seems at first sight a bizarre question because both answers in justice should lead to Our Lord's acquittal since if He is not the Son of God there is no other accusation, and if He is, then they should all fall down and worship Him. In this tribunal, however, both answers can only bring death since if Our Lord denies being the Christ when He has explicitly taught as much throughout His public ministry, He will be condemned as an impostor. If He does claim to be the Messiah when they do not accept Him as such He will be condemned for blasphemy.
At any rate if He does not acknowledge the legitimacy of the trial, nor the justice of those conducting it, Jesus nonetheless respects the Name of God on the lips of the High Priest despite the obvious treachery of the incumbent of the sacred office. He affirms that He is the Christ.
The result is remarkable. The High Priest rends his garments. This was, in fact, normally a sign of mourning for the Hebrews but it was expressly forbidden for the high priest to do so since his clothing was the sign of the priesthood of God. Similarly his cry of "blasphemy" is unjust on two counts. First, he is obliged to examine the claim before he pronounces on its veracity, and secondly he may not prejudice the other judges by pronouncing his sentence first since the authority of the high priest would preclude their dissent. At any rate, he then dispenses the tribunal from the need for witnesses and indeed of any further procedure although the law required at least seven questions with regard to the accused and his charge.
His appeal to the general assembly, what we would call the voice of the mob today, is a further irregularity since each member had to give his sentence individually in order. The idea of all shouting at the same time "He is worthy of death" is completely opposed to the Jewish law. First, the assembly only has the assertion of Caiphas to base its judgment on; secondly, the sentence is pronounced immediately instead of waiting until the next day, the scribes do not count the votes for and against–indeed, it seems there are no votes against.
It might be surmised that at least Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea would have registered their dissent considering the enormous number of irregularities in the procedures. That they say nothing is probably due to their absence–it is likely they would have refused to come to an illegal sitting of the Sanhedrin at night. If they were present their voices could have been silenced by the general press either by being shouted down or simply by being excluded from the proceedings. The Gospel, at any rate, gives us to believe that Joseph, at least, took no part in the unjust proceedings (Lk. 23: 50-1).
With that, the trial for the night is over and Our Lord is handed over to the good pleasure of the soldiers of the temple and servants by whom He is wretchedly mishandled. Although there is no explicit condemnation of this in Jewish law it is nonetheless a scandalous breach of even common decency.
The next morning at dawn there was a further sitting. Probably to salve the consciences of any who might claim that a nocturnal sitting was invalid, Caiphas called this as soon as the sun was up (i.e., before the morning sacrifice); which is to say that it, too, was illicit. There was moreover obviously no question of reversing the sentence from the previous sitting but merely giving a semblance of legality for the sake of the people. No legal form is followed, however, merely the question regarding Our Lord's divinity is posed once more so that the same condemnation can be pronounced. Once again Our Lord clearly states His divinity and once again a sentence by general acclamation is given. Instead of legalizing the proceedings of but a few hours ago the irregularities are compounded.
A cursory reading of the Gospel accounts of Our Lord's "trial" leaves even the casual reader with an uncomfortable feeling that all is not right. When one examines the procedures which should be followed, comparing them with what actually happened, and add to that the general character of the members of the Sanhedrin at the time, one can only be horrified at the travesty of justice that is committed. That this travesty is committed by His own people and by those of His people in whom He should have been able to have the greatest confidence must have been one of the most acute sufferings of Our Lord in His Passion for the forgiveness of our sins.
The return of the Hebrews to the favor of God is one of the things which Tradition teaches is to happen before Our Lord comes in glory to judge the living and the dead. May this article in some way inspire continued prayer for the conversion of this people, once the chosen ones of God, who played such a crucial role in the dolorous Passion of Our Lord.
Current Issue
