[5923] Sanh. 88 b; Maim. u. s. ch. ii. 7, 8.
[5924] 1 Tim. iii.; Tit. i.
[5925] Tit. i. 5.
[5926] Kuene, and after him Schürer (Neutest. Zeitgesch.) have denied the existence of this arrangement, but, as I think, on quite insufficient grounds. They have been answered by D. Hoffmann (see the very able ed. of the Pirqé Abhoth, by that learned and accurate scholar, Prof. Strack of Berlin, p. 9, notes). Comp. also Levy, Neuhebr. Worterb., s. v. Schürer has to account for other passages besides those which he quotes (p. 413) - notably for the very clear statement in Chag. ii. 2.
[5927] Bemidb. R. 1.
[5928] Kidd, 40 a.
[5929] Ab Zar. 8 b.
[5930] There is truly not a tittle of evidence for the assumption of commentators, that Christ was led from the Palace of Caiaphas into the Council-Chamber. The whole proceedings took place in the former, and from it Christ was brought to Pilate (St. John xviii. 28).
[5931] Shabb. 9 b
[5932] The ordinary Court-hours were from after morning-service till the time of the meal (Sabb. 10 a).
[5933] Sanh. 32 a.
[5934] Bets. 36.
[5935] Baba K. 113 a.
[5936] In civil cases at least no process was carried on in the months of Nisan and Tishri (comp. Bloch, Civil Process-Ordnung).
[5937] Sanh. xi. 4; Tos. Sanh. xi. 6.
[5938] The details on these points are given in most commentaries. (Comp. the Tractate Sanhedrin and the Gemara on it.) In a capital cause not only would the formal and very solemn warning charge against false testimony have been addressed to the witnesses, but the latter would be tested by the threefold process known as Chaqiroth, Derishoth, and Bediqoth; the former two referring to questions on the main points, the third or secondary points in the evidence.
[5939] St. Matt. xxvi. 66.
[5940] St. Mark xiv. 64: condemned Him to be worthy of death.'
[5941] St. John xviii.29, 30.
[5942] St. Luke xxiii. 2; St. Matt. xxvii. 12.
[5943] St. John xviii. 31.
[5944] The Pharisaic Law of witness was very peculiar. Witnesses who contradicted each other were not considered in Rabbinic Law as false witnesses, in the sense of being punishable. Nor would they be so, even if an alibi of the accused were proved - only if the alibi of the witnesses themselves were proved (comp. Bähr, Gesetz u. Falsche Zeug., pp. 29, &c.). Thus the Story of Susanna' is bad in Jewish Law, unless, as Geiger supposes, it embodies an earlier mode of procedure in Jewish criminal jurisprudence.
[5945] St. John ii. 18, 19.
[5946] Critically also this is of interest. The first Purgation of the Temple is not related by the Synoptists, but they here confirm St. John's account of it. On the other hand, St. John's account of the Temple purgation confirms that of the Temple-purgation which St. John does not relate. And the evidence is the stronger, that the two sets of accounts are manifestly independent of each other, and that of the Fourth Gospel younger than that of the Synoptists.
[5947] St. Mark.
[5948] St. Matt.
[5949] At the same time neither this, nor even the later charge of blasphemy,' would have made Jesus what was technically called either a Massith, or a Maddiach. The former is described as an individual who privately seduces private individuals into idolatry (Sanh. vii. 10; Jer. Yeb. 15 d), it being added that he speaks with a loud voice (in praise of some false god) and uses the Holy (Hebr.) language (Jer. Sanh. 25 d). On the other hand, the Maddiach is one who publicly seduces the people to idolatry, using, as it is added, the language spoken commonly by the people. The two Talmudic stories, that witnesses had lain in wait to hear and report the utterances of Christ (Sanh. 67 a), and that forty days before His execution heralds had summoned any exculpatory evidence in His favour (Sanh. 43 a), may be dismissed without comment.