5. ;]/o(/e of Conducting Trials, Pinmhments, etc. — The humane and benevolent feelings of the rulers towards the people whom they rejiresented were especially seen in their administration of tlie law. They always acted upon the |)rinciple that the accused was innocent till he could be proved guilty. Hence they always manifested an anxiety, in their mode of conducting the trial, to clear the arraigned rather than secure his condemnation, es-
SANHEDRIM
345
SANHEDRIM
pecially in matters of life and death. Their axiom was that " the Sanhedrim is to save, not to destroy life" {^Sunhediin, 42 h). Hence no man could be tried and condemned in his absence (John vii, 51) ; and when the accused was brought before the tribunal, tiie president of the Sanhedrim at the very outset of the trial solemn- ly admonished the witnesses, pointing out to them the preciousness of human life, and earnestly beseeching them carefully and calmly to reflect whether they had not overlooked some circumstances which might favor the innocence of tlie accused {Sanhedrin, 37 a). Even the attendants were allowed to take part in the discus- sion, if a mild sentence could thereby be ])rocured ; while those members of the Sanhedrim who, during the debate, once expressed themselves in favor of acquitting the ac- cused, could not any more give their votes for his con- demnation at the end of the trial. The taking of the votes always began from the junior member and grad- ually went on to the senior, in order that the lowest members might not be influenced by the opinion of the highest {ibid. 32 a). In capital offences, it required a majority of at least two to condemn the accused ; and when the trial was before a quorum of twenty-three, or before the Small Sunhedriin, which consisted of this lumilier. thirteen members had to declare for the guilt (IMishna, Sanhedrin. iv, 1 ; Gemara, ibid. 2 a, 40 a). In trials of capital offences, the verdict of acquittal could be given on the same day, but that o'i (iidlty had to be reserveii for the following day, for which reason such trials could not commence on the day preceding the Sabbath or a festival. No criminal trial could be car- ried through in the night (Mishna, «6m/. iv, 1; (iemara, ibid. 32). The judges who condemned a criminal to death had to fast all day (Sanhedrin, 63 a). The con- demned was not executed the same day on which the sentence was passed ; but the votes pro and con having been taken by the two notaries, the members of the Sanhedrim assembled together on the following day to examine the discussion, and to see whether there was any contradiction on the part of the judges (Mishna, Sdnhedriti. iv, 1 ; (iemara, ibid. 39 a). If on the way to execution the criminal remembered that he had some- thing fresh to adduce in his favor, he was led back to the tribunal, and the validity of his statement was ex- amined. If he himself could say nothing more, a her- ald preceded him as he was led to the jilace of execu- tion, and exclaimed, " A, son of B, has been found guilty of death, because he committed such and such a crime according to the testimony oi'C and D; if any one knows anything to clear him, let him come forward and de- clare it" (Mishna, ibid, vi, 1). Clemency and human- ity, however, were manifested towards him even when his criminality was beyond the shadow of a doubt, and when the law had to take its final course. Before his execution, a stu|iefying beverage was administered to the condemned by jjious women to deprive him of con- sciousness and lessen the pain (Sanhedrin, 43 a, with Matt, xxvii, 48; Mark xv, 23, 36; Luke xxiii, 36; John xix, 29, 30). The property of the executed was not confiscateil, but passed over to his heirs (Sanhe- drin, 48 b). The only exception to this leniency was one who gave himself out as the Messiah, or who led the peo[)le astray from the doctrines of their fathers (n"^1?3l r^O^ — TrXdpove; Matt, xxvii, 63 ; Luke xiii, 33; Acts iv, 2; v, 28). Such a one had to endure all the rigors of the law without any mitigation (Sanhe- drin, 36 b, 67 a). He could even be tried and con- demned the same day or in the night (Tosej}hta Sanhe- di-in, x; Matt, xxvii, 1, 2).
As to the different punishments which the Sanhe- drim had the power to inflict, though they were com- mensurate with the gravity of the offences which fell within their jurisdiction to try, and embraced both cor- poral (Acts V, 40; Mishna, Afinialh, iii, 1-5) and capi- tal piuiisliments, yet even this supreme court was re- stricted to four modes of taking life — viz. by stoning,
burning, beheading, and strangling (ilS'^"iU5 inb'^pO p:m Ti'^n). These four modes of execution were the only legal ones among the Jews from time immemorial (^Mishna, Sanhedrin, vii, 1), and could be inflicted eithir by the (ireat Sanhedrim or by the Small Sanhedrim. According to the (iospel of John, however, the Jews de- clare (i/i-ih' oi'K i^iCTiv ciTTuKTdvai ovctra), "It is not lawlul for us to put any man to death" (xviii, 31), wiiich agrees with the remark in the Jerusalem Talmud that "forty years before the destruction of the Temple the power of inflicting capital punishment was taken away from Israel" ( Sanhedrin, i, beginning ; vii, 2, 1). 24). But this sim])ly means that without the con- firmation of the sentence on the part of the lioman proc- urator, the Jews had not the power to carry the sen- tence of the Sanhedrim into execution. This is not only confirmed by Josephus, who tells us that the Phar- isees complained to the procurator Albinus about the assumption to execute capital punishment on the part of the Sadduca?an high-priest (.4?;/. xx, 9, 1), but by the appeal of Paul to the chief captain (Acts xxii, 25-30), and especially by the whole manner in which the trial of Jesus was conducted. The stoning of Stephen (vii, 54, etc.) was the illegal act of an enraged multitude, as Josephus (.Ant. xx, 9, 1) expressly declares the execu- tion of the a|)ostle James during the absence of the proc- urator to have been.