BEFORE HANNAS.

483 a robber, or the head of a rising, with swords and clubs. I sat, day by day, in the Temple, teaching, in the thick of the people. You had every opportunity for laying hold on me then, but you did nothing. The darkness of night is fitted for your designs; it is your hour; the powers of evil work by choice in the dark. But, in all this, there is no chance; it happens only in accordance with the predictions of the prophets." He said no more, and allowed them to lead Him away. The disciples were scattered, but one form hovered after them, white in the moonlight. It was that of a young man, who had, apparently, been roused from sleep by the tumult, and having thrown his white linen sleeping cloth round him in his haste, was following Jesus towards the city. Who he was must remain for ever unknown. Was it Mark himself, who alone relates it? Or one from the house probably attached to Gethsemane? Some have supposed him to have been Lazarus; others have had different conjectures; he was, at least, some faithful heart, eager to see what they would do with his Lord. The soldiers had let the Apostles flee, having no orders to arrest them; but this strange apparition attracted their attention, and they sought to lay hold on him. Casting off the cloth around him, however, he escaped out of their hands.

Yet there were friendly eyes following the sad scene, in the safe darkness of the night. Peter, and another of the Apostles, who could only be John, had fled no further than safety demanded, and followed the crowd at a distance, unable to leave One they held so dear.

The great object with the authorities was to hurry forward the proceedings against their prisoner so quickly, that they might hand him over to the Romans as one already condemned, before the people could be roused on His side. They had so far gained their point.

On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus was first led to the mansion of Hannas, the head of the reigning priestly family, either in deference to his recognised influence, or because, as the oldest high priest, he was still acknowledged as the rightful, if not legal, dignitary. He could see Jesus, and hear His defence, and advise his son-in-law how to act. His "snakelike" craft might help the less acute Caiaphas.

What passed before Hannas, or what hints he sent to Caiaphas, are not known. It may be that he simply passed on the prisoner to the legal high priest at once, hastening to follow Him, and secure his condemnation.

In the East, the houses of the great are rather a group of buildings or chambers, of unequal height, near or above each other, with passages between, and intervening open spaces; the different structures having independent entrances and separate roofs. Such a house, or rather cluster of houses, has usually the form of a large hollow square, the four sides of which surround a roomy court; paved in some cases, in others, planted with trees, and ornamented with a lawn of soft green. Sometimes, an underground cistern, a spring, or a bath, offers the luxury of abundant water, and makes the court an agreeable spot for relaxation or refreshment. Porticos and galleries surround it, and furnish chambers for guests and entertainments. In some houses

there is also a forecourt, enclosed from the street by walls, and, in all, the inner court is reached by an archway through the front building-" the porch," in the narrative of the Gospels.

The hierarchical party were in permanent session in the mansion or "palace" of Caiaphas. A commission, consisting mainly of the chief priests, with Caiaphas at their head, had been appointed, to await the result of the treachery of Judas; for the whole party, in its alarm, had extemporized joint action, though their taking any judicial steps at all was irregular, for they formed no legal court or recognised tribunal. They were simply acting as a self-constituted bodypartisans of established ecclesiastical order, and defenders of their own vested rights-gathered, at the summons of the high priest, in the blind excitement of fanaticism and passion, without rules of judicial proceeding or legal standing as a court. The chief Rabbis of the school of Hillel generally kept aloof from such tumultuous and violent proceedings, which were already too common, and left them to those of the fierce school of Shammai, and to the merciless Sadduces.1 The name Sanhedrim is given in the Gospels to such extemporized assemblies, the word meaning only "an assembly." But they do not use it as the title of a legal tribunal. It was before a mob of dignitaries, not a "court," that Jesus was brought.

The commission were awaiting the arrival of their prey, in the house of Caiaphas, who, as high priest, was the only

1 Jost., vol. i. p. 278.

2 Jost, vol. i. p. 281. Leyrer, in Herzog, vol. xv. p. 324. Graetz, Gesch., 2te Auf., vol. iii. p. 145.

representative of Judaism recognised by the Romans, and, therefore, the only one who could hold official relations with Pilate, to ask him to carry out their predetermined resolution to put Jesus to death.

CHAPTER LXI.

THE JEWISH TRIAL.

ASSING through the closed porch, or archway, into

the inner court, His captors led Jesus to one of the chambers opening from it, where His judges sat, ready to go through the mockery of a trial. The Roman soldiers had been halted outside, for their presence would have been a defilement; but the Jewish serving men went in with the prisoner, though only the few required accompanied Him to the inner chamber. The tribunal about to condemn Him, it must not be forgotten, was not a legal "court," but simply a self-constituted "Committee of Public Safety," extemporized by the excited Temple authorities and Rabbis, like the Vigilance Committees of America, with a Jewish Fouquier Tinville for President, in the person of the Sadducce Caiaphas. Knowing the illegality of their proceedings, they could only venture to propose the framing an indictment to lay before Pilate, and trust to their violence for extorting a condemnation from him.

The hierarchy were masters of form, and knew how to honour the appearance of justice while mocking the reality. In imitation of the traditional usages of the Sanhedrim, while it existed, the judges before whom Jesus was led, sat turbaned, on cushions or pillows, in Oriental fashion, with crossed legs and unshod feet, in a half circle; Caiaphas, as high priest, in the centre, and the chief or oldest, according to precedence, on each side. The prisoner was placed, standing, before Caiaphas; at each end of the semicircle sat a scribe, to write out the sentence of acquittal or condemnation; some bailiffs, with cords and thongs, guarded the Accused, while a few others stood behind, to call witnesses, and, at the close, to carry out the decision of the judges.1

Like most other matters in the Judaism of the time, nothing could be fairer, or more attractive, on paper, but 1 Talmud, quoted in Keim, vol. iii. p. 328.

RULES OF A JEWISH TRIAL.

487

on paper alone, than the rules for the trial of prisoners. The accused was in all cases to be held innocent, till proved guilty. It was an axiom, that "the Sanhedrim was to save, not to destroy life." No one could be tried and condemned in his absence, and when a person accused was brought before the court, it was the duty of the president, at the outset, to admonish the witnesses to remember the value of human life, and to take care that they forgot nothing that would tell in the prisoner's favour. Nor was he left undefended; a Baal-Rib, or counsel, was appointed, to see that all possible was done for his acquittal. Whatever evidence tended to aid him was to be freely admitted, and no member of the court who had once spoken in favour of acquittal could afterwards vote for condemnation. The votes of the youngest of the judges were taken first, that they might not be influenced by their seniors. In capital charges, it required a majority of at least two to condemn, and while the verdict of acquittal could be given at once, that of guilty could only be pronounced the next day. Hence, capital trials could not begin on the day preceding a Sabbath, or public feast. No criminal trial could be carried through in the night; the judges who condemned any one to death had to fast all the day before, and no one could be executed on the same day on which the sentence was pronounced.

"3

"Ficti

Rules so precise and so humane condemn the whole trial on Jesus, before Caiaphas, as an outrage. It was, in fact, as anticipation of the prostitution of justice which Josephuf records as common in the later days of Jerusalem. tious tribunals and judicatures," he tells us, "were set up, and men called together to act as judges though they had no real authority, when it was desired to secure the death of an opponent." As in those later instances, so now in the case of Jesus, they kept up the form and mockery of a tribunal to the close. No accuser presenting himself, the judge himself took the office, in utter violation of all propriety. Witnesses against the prisoner alone appeared, and were eagerly brought forward by the judge; but not a single witness in His defence was called, though the law gave such the preference. No Baal-Rib, or counsel, was assigned Him, nor were any facilities provided, or even the possibility 1 John vii. 51.

2 Ginsburg, Art. Sanhedrim, Kitto's Bib. Cyclo. 345, 346.

3 Bell. Jud., iv. 5. 4.

Keim, vol. iii. pp.