INTRODUCTION
The trial of Jesus Christ may be one of the most difficult passages in the entire Bible.[1] Even James Crichton sees the difficulty of the said subject when he asserts: “The Gospels were written from different viewpoints, and for different purposes, each of the writers selecting such particulars as seemed to him to be of special importance…the difficulty is increased by the great irregularities and the tumultuous character of the proceedings; by our imperfect knowledge of the topography of Jerus[alem] at this time (29 AD)…”[2] The intention of the paper, however, is not an attempt to solve such problems rather it intends to unearth the events leading to Jesus’ crucifixion from the perspective of the Jewish Law of the day. Therefore, it is important to look at the Jewish trial of Jesus through the lens of a socio-legal[3] reading in order to see if Jesus’ legal rights had been violated in the process of His trial. Legal rights here may simply be understood as a fair and just trial. To put it differently, any kind of illegal trial is considered to be a violation of one’s legal right. No doubt, voluminous articles seemed to have been published in relation to the trial of Jesus but most of the previous writings focused on the illegality of the trial.[4] But scanty attempt has been made in regards to the violation of His legal rights. Therefore, attempt will be made in the paper to show that Jesus not only underwent illegal trial but that His right was also violated through such illegal trial. However, as the title has clearly indicated, matters related to the Jewish trial will only be discussed.
1. THE QUESTION OF HISTORICITY
1.1. The Issue: The issue to be addressed here is whether or not Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin.[5] After having closely read the passion narratives of the Gospels, many scholars came to the conclusion that Jesus underwent only a single trial – the Roman trial – for they considered that the so called “the Jewish trial” did not occur historically.[6] Proponents of this view based their argument on the fact that Luke and John made no mention of the Jewish trial. Although Luke mentions a formal setting, “There are no witnesses, there is no charge that Jesus threatened to destroy the temple, the high priest does not question Jesus, there is no accusation of blasphemy, nor does the council formally condemn Jesus to death” (cf. Lk. 22:71);[7] thereby, lacking in description about a formal trial. Similarly, the Gospel of John maintains that “there is no accusation that Jesus threatened to destroy the temple, nor is Jesus asked if He is the Messiah.”[8] For this reason, many scholars expressed doubts over the Jewish trial of Jesus in various ways. For instance, Moltmann called it a “moral consultation” in order to avoid the Jewish uprising against him (Caiaphas) because of Jesus’ execution,[9] while B. Corley considered the atmosphere as a “roughshod interrogation by a notable examiner to get incriminating evidence.”[10] For Matera it was more or less a “prelude” to the Roman trial rather than that of a formal legal process.[11] James D. G. Dunn still considered the hearing before the Council as being held for the purpose of getting an advice; therefore, is insufficient to pursue the legality of Jesus’ trial as it is only “a waste of time with so many anachronisms in play.”[12] While being sceptical about Jesus’ appearance before the Great Sanhedrin, Gerard S. Sloyan also interpreted the event as a literary composition by Mark enabling him to state a religious belief, not a historical happening.[13] Likewise, John R. Donahue bluntly argued that Mark created the entire narrative, including the blasphemy charge and condemnation.[14] Such arguments thus call for a closer look at the Gospel account of Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin.
1.2. The Gospel Account: The grave concern here is that even the evangelists do not come to the same conclusion. While John has no record of trial before the Sanhedrin,[15] a sort of morning trial before the Council appears in Luke’s account even though no verdict was passed against Jesus (Lk. 22:66-71). Again, Mark (cf. 14:53-15:15), further developed by Matthew (cf. 26:57-27:26) strongly points to a night hearing or trial before the Sanhedrin and also to Jewish involvement in Jesus’ death,[16] thus suggesting two formal trials – one before the Sanhedrin and another before Pilate. Matthew and Mark are also quite definite that Caiaphas, in the company of the chief priests and the whole council, held a night interrogation (Mt. 26: 59-68; Mk. 14:55-65) in which they “all” condemned Jesus to be worthy of death (Mk. 14:64; Mt. 26:66).[17]
In this case, Markan account (14: 55-65) may be taken as more reliable than Luke because Mark could have been “influenced by the Scripture proof and the Christian confession,” says Lohse.[18] J. B. Tyson even goes to the extent of suggesting that the sequence of events in Luke might have been an “abbreviation of the Markan narrative” than Lukan (L) source itself,[19] thus suggesting the reliability of Markan account over Luke.[20] Such view is further strengthened when Matera attributed the differences between the two Gospels (Mark and Luke) to Lukan redaction, stating that “Luke is primarily dependent upon Mark and does not bring forth new, historical information.”[21] Even if the material does belong to Luke (L), it may be taken that Luke intended to present the night hearing as a “pre-trial hearing” which was meant particularly to please the Roman officials who always desire to keep jurisdiction in their hands so that Jesus may be tried “either by an official appointed directly by the Emperor or by this official’s representative, the prefect” and not by the local officers of the subject states.[22] Therefore, it can be concluded with Ben Witherington that Jesus was tried at night before the Sanhedrin on the eve of Passover for such is not impossible in the pre-AD 70.[23]
But Luke, having described only a mockery and beating at night (Lk. 22:63-65), also mentions Jesus’ hearing before the Council in the morning (Lk. 22:66-71). Does that mean there were two sessions of the Sanhedrin, one at night and the other in the morning? Even though R. P. Martin seems to support the existence of a second meeting,[24] the single session is widely accepted because the morning session described by Luke echoes most of the night time dialogue found in Matthew and Mark (except the questions are put by the entire body and no witness called). Moreover, the morning assembly described by Mark and Matthew may be taken not so much as another trial; because there was no accusation of temple destruction or of a blasphemy of God (Lk. 22:66-70). In the words of Corley, “since the morning assembly went to Pilate with expanded allegations (Lk. 23:2), the entire Sanhedrin may well have rehearsed the previous night’s dialog (Lk. 22: 66-71) in order to devise the sedition charge.”[25] Therefore, the morning assembly cannot be counted as a trial.
2. THE SANHEDRIN: ITS JURISDICTION, POWER AND PROCEDURES
As the paper intends to use the Mishnaic presentation of the Sanhedrin as a yardstick to see if there be any violation of the existing Jewish Law of the day throughout Jesus’ trial, it is firstly important to have a brief description of the Sanhedrin.
2.1. Jurisdiction and Functions: The Sanhedrin deals with every problem that had any connection with religion however small. It also acts as the civil court for Jerusalem and as a court of appeal or arbitration for the other toparchies.[26] It has recently been argued by Ellis Rivkin that the Sanhedrin was in fact a political body with no jurisdiction over religious matters and that the charge brought against Jesus was a political one, not religious.[27] However, it is unlikely that such a body, exercising political powers only, would have existed under Roman rule. Therefore, the charges brought against Jesus are likely to have been religious ones.[28] It is also seemingly that by the time of Jesus, the Sanhedrin held both the religious and political powers, and saw Jesus’ popularity as a threat to their position of power.[29] To some extent, the Sanhedrin also exercised criminal jurisdiction[30] which will further be discussed below. The high priest acted as the president (cf. Mt. 25:5-6; Jn. 11:49) of the Great Sanhedrin.[31] He convened the Council and was also the presiding officer. In this manner, he enjoyed a “very considerable power, not only in strictly religious matters, but also through his leadership of an organization in which the boundaries separating politics from religion and theocracy were also ill-defined.”[32]
2.2. Powers: Whether the Sanhedrin had the power of capital punishment in the late Second Temple period remains debated. Theodor Keim, as cited by Chandler, asserted that Sanhedrin acquired the highest legally constituted tribunal and even has the right to pass sentence to death (cf. Ant. 14.168; Mt. 26:66)[33] even though the death penalty was relative only to Jewish religious offences.[34] But, things changed following the Roman interference in Judea. As never before, the appointment of a procurator for Judea in AD 6 (by the Romans) marked an end to the power of Sanhedrin to execute capital punishment. [35] Now, the Sanhedrin is empowered to judge cases which did not involve capital punishment (Acts 4-5). Capital cases required the confirmation of the Roman procurator (cf. Jn. 18:31) even though the procurator’s judgement was normally in accordance with the demands of the Sanhedrin.[36] It is therefore argued by James Orr that the Jews had no power to execute death sentence (cf. Jn. 18:31), for such power belonged to the Romans and was vested in the Roman governor.[37] Accordingly Witherington posited that the Sanhedrin could legally pass sentence on Jesus, but could not legally execute Him because the power of capital punishment is held by the Romans.[38] Such understanding is probable because the Sanhedrin would execute Jesus if they had the power.[39] Lohse made this point very clear:
Undoubtedly the Sanhedrin could decide all matters relating to the cultic community and it could punish offences against the Torah so long as these did not involve the death penalty. It was even conceded the right to punish with death a pagan – even a Roman – who went across the temple barrier and entered the sacred precincts. But one should not deduce from the granting of this special privilege that under the rule of the procurators the Jewish court maintained the right to impose and execute a capital sentence.[40]
It may thus be concluded that the Sanhedrin could try criminal cases but could not pronounce the death sentence without the sanction of the Roman governor. This means that any execution on the orders of the Jewish court between 6 and 70 AD was done “probably during the short reign of Agrippa I (41-44AD) in which the Jews had again their own independent state.”[41]
2.3. Time and Procedures: There is no record found as to the proceedings of the Sanhedrin except that Mishnah[42] gives detail judicial procedures of the lesser Sanhedrin.[43] Few of them may be made mentioned even as they may reflect the Jerusalem (Great) Sanhedrin before AD 70. Twelftree may best summarize the procedures for capital cases in the Mishnah thus:
A majority of two [two-thirds] was required for a guilty verdict on a capital charge. Verdicts could be reversed but not from an acquittal to a conviction in a capital trial…a speaker in favour of conviction could only charge and argue in favour of the accused, not the reverse…the verdict for an acquittal could be reached that night, but a verdict of conviction had to wait until the following day (m. Sanh. 4:1). In that way members of the Sanhedrin could go off in pairs to eat a little (no wine was permitted) and discuss the matter all night before meeting in court early next morning (m. Sanh. 5:5). Therefore, trials were not to be held on the days before a sabbath or festival (m. Sanh. 4:10). In capital cases voting began with the most junior members standing, each giving their verdict (m. Sanh. 5:5).[44]
Mishnah also stated that in case of capital trial verdict must be announced during daytime and not at night (m. Sanh. 4:1); that a person condemned to death could not be mocked, beaten, scourged, or mistreated (Num. 35:9-34; m. Sanh. 4:2); that a person could never be condemned on the ground of his/her own testimony even as the testimony of two or three witnesses was required (Deut. 17:6-7; 19:15-20; m. Sanh. 3:3-4).[45] Each witness in a capital case was to be questioned individually and not in the presence of other witnesses (m. Sanh. 3:6). Besides, all trials were to be done publicly and secret trials were forbidden (m. Sanh. 1:6), and a person is considered guilty only when he/she pronounced the very name of God (m. Sanh. 7:5).[46]
3. AN APPRAISAL OF THE JEWISH TRIAL OF JESUS IN THE LIGHT OF THE JEWISH RELIGIOUS LAW
3.1. The Wrong Procedure: According to the Jewish religious Law, capital cases were to begin with the case for acquittal. In the words of Laura L. Berg, “Capital cases required that proper procedures be followed in the trial, beginning with arguments for acquittal (the defence presenting the case for innocence), and then followed by arguments for conviction (the prosecutors presenting the case for guilt).”[47] However, the arguments for guilt were presented first in the case of Christ, and no argument for His innocence was presented.[48] It is also seen that the rights of the defence was not considered while the Jewish Law authorizes “the right to a defence, lest an innocent be convicted” (Deut. 13:14).[49] It may therefore be stated that Jesus was convicted on the basis of false accusations and hearsay even as there was no first hand (prima facie) evidence. In such case, Jesus could have been dismissed or He could have asked for dismissal since the rules of legal proceedings were not followed.[50] However, far from releasing Him, He was all the more charged with blaspheming God which in fact was a way of suppressing His legal right.
The Jewish Law also states that in capital case the trial and the verdict of guilt must not occur on the same day (cf. m. Sanh. 4:1; 5:5). While a criminal case resulting in the acquittal of the accused may terminate the same day, it cannot be concluded before the following if a sentence of death is to be pronounced.[51] Therefore a verdict of guilt must be announced the following day (cf. m. Sanh 4:1). Lohse also strongly believes that in the days of Jesus “judicial proceedings were strictly forbidden on the Sabbaths, on feast-days, and on the related days of preparation.”[52] For this reason, trials were not to be held on the eve of a Sabbath or other festival (cf. m. Sanh. 4:1). Such understanding, however, is incompatible with the Synoptic account of the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin in which Jesus is said to have been tried on the eve of the Passover.[53] Therefore, not only did the trial violate the Jewish Law but also the legal rights of Jesus as a Jew.
3.2. The Illegal Session: Scholars, who held the view that Jesus underwent only a single trial, did not believe in the occurrence of the night trial. Accordingly, Raymond E. Brown argued that hearing or scheduling serious criminal cases at night was highly irregular in the New Testament period (cf. Acts 4:3-5; Acts 22: 30).[54] But the Gospel account makes it clear that there was indeed a night trial in the case of Jesus. One such indication is the account of Peter, who before the rooster crowed, warmed himself at the fire in the courtyard of the high priest with the officers and others present (cf. Mk. 14:67).[55] Mark seems to have even made the night session as of the Senate where 71 members of the Sanhedrin were present.[56] Such understanding, all the more, leads to a violation of the existing Jewish Law which prohibited all proceedings by night (cf. m. Sanh. 4:1).
Against the legal proceeding of the Jews, there was also a hurried search for witnesses.[57] At all costs, however, must Jesus be condemned. Therefore, they seek a conviction from the mouth of the accused Himself even though the Jewish Law forbids that a person be condemned on the basis of his/her own testimony alone (Deut. 17:6-7; 19:15-20; m. Sanh. 3:3-4). In other words, a lone self-accusation was not considered sufficient for gaining a conviction, nor was it right for judges to ask the accused to condemn himself/herself. If the witnesses did not agree (cf. Mk. 14:59), he/she could have been released even as no legal judgment could have been passed on presumptuous and unclear evidences[58] but that was not done with Jesus. The Jewish Law also forbids that a person condemned to death be mocked, beaten, scourged, or mistreated (Num. 35:9-34; m. Sanh. 4:2). To speak legally thus, the condemnation pronounced against Jesus was illegal because it was based solely on the unproven confession (Mt. 26:59-66; Mk. 14:55-59), asserts Gowens.[59] It is therefore understood that Jesus, being a Jew, was not even able to receive a fair and just trial. Justice seems far a distant for Him in the face of such ruthless violators of one’s legal rights.
3.3. The False Accusation: The purpose of the accusation against Jesus was objective to convict Him of blasphemy against the temple and consequently against God (Mk. 14:53-64). However, matters related to the accusation are not that simple which thus calls for a further deliberation. For instance, Adela Yarbro Collins accepts the accusation of Jesus as authentic especially in the light of the cultural context of Mark. Accordingly she asserts, “Jesus blasphemed [God] from the perspective of the high priest and the council” and this is also true from the perspective of the audiences as well.[60] Unlike the m. Sanh. 7:5 which states that one is not considered guilty unless he/she pronounces the name (God) itself, Collins contends that Jesus uses the indirect name (i.e., “the power”) rather than the divine name (Mk. 14:62) to blaspheme God.[61] Likewise, Vincent Taylor, as cited by Martin, agreed to the view that Jesus’ speech with the assurance of sharing the throne of God and of the fulfilment of Daniel’s vision in Himself and His community was considered blasphemy.[62]
On the other hand, it is also admitted the uncertainty whether or not the use of indirect name was “the official one that the council of Judea would have applied in the case of Jesus.”[63] Therefore, it may rather be postulated that the high priest already had a foregone conclusion (i.e., the death of Jesus)[64] even before the trial had begun. In other words, it may simply be stated that Jesus was illegally convicted as a blasphemer (Mk. 14: 62-64). It appears therefore that the trial before the Sanhedrin was meant to uncover evidences adequate to convict Jesus of crime warranting the death penalty (cf. Mk. 14:55). This is plausible even as the use of “kata” (against) by Mark (cf. 14: 55-64) further indicates the seriousness of the Jewish hostility towards Jesus and their commitment to His conviction of a capital offense.[65] Besides, it is also unlikely that Mishnah simply reads like a polemic against the Gospels as Israel Abrahams suggested,[66] because Josephus (Ant. 4.8.6 §202)[67] and the Community Rule from Qumran (1QS 6.27-7.2)[68] also attested that the blasphemer is not considered guilty unless he/she pronounces the name itself (cf. m. Sanh. 7:5; Lev. 24:16). Likewise, Taylor claims that claiming to be a Messiah per se was not considered a blasphemy (or even a capital offence).[69] Even others claim the same yet escape capital punishment, asserts Witherington.[70] Strictly speaking thus, “blasphemy” can refer only to naming the name of Yahweh (Lev. 24:16; m. Sanh. 7:5) in which case the “Son of the Blessed” does not fall under that definition.[71] Therefore, it may be concluded that Jesus was convicted illegally by not giving Him even a chance to defend Himself while the Jewish Law makes a room for the convict to speak his/her guiltless (or even the judge to support the convict).
CONCLUSION
The discussion makes it clear that the paper is not an attempt to reclaim the rights of Jesus Christ nor is an aim to call for the re-trial of Jesus Christ. Rather it simply intends to demonstrate that the illegal trial together with the violation of His legal rights resulted in His crucifixion. In other words, there existed a violation of the legal rights of Jesus Christ in the trial before the Sanhedrin. Violation, according to the paper, then is simply understood to be an illegal trial. To put it differently, by having identified one’s legal right as a fair and just trial, it may be posited that Jesus’ legal right was violated. However, to say that Jesus underwent illegal trial, the paper made use of Mishnaic presentation of the Sanhedrin (written around 200 CE) as a yardstick. Therefore, it cannot be denied that there is anachronism in play. However, it is also seen that Mishnah was the only written source which preserves important information about the Sanhedrin; in which case, it may be considered safe to use as a yardstick. Besides, the suggestion that Jesus was tried illegally does not mean that He, as a Jew, has legal rights like the way one have it today. But only when the Jews went beyond what their Law says and demands that they are considered to be violating Jesus’ rights. Thus, Jesus’ right was considered upheld so long as He was tried in accordance with the Jewish Law.
[1] B. Corley, “Trial of Jesus,” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, edited by Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight (Illinois: IVP, 1992), 841-45.
[2] John James Maclaren, “Jesus Christ, Arrest and Trial of,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, edited by James Orr, et. al., vol. III (Michigan: Eerdmans, 1996), 1668.
[3] Socio-legal study is an interdisciplinary approach to analysing law, legal phenomena, and relationships between these and wider society.
[4] Chandler jotted down at least 12 points through which Jesus was illegally tried by the Jewish religious leaders. Walter M. Chandler, The Trial of Jesus from a Lawyer’s Standpoint: The Hebrew Trial, vol. 1 (Newstead: Emereo Publishing, 2013).
[5] Sanhedrin is the supreme Council of the Jews. In it were 71 members including the presiding officer, who is the High Priest. Its member consists of “the chief priests (the acting high priest and those who had been high priest), members of the privileged families from which the high priests were taken, the elders (tribal and family heads of the people and the priesthood), and the scribes, i.e., the legal experts.” J. A. Thompson, “Sanhedrin,” New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. D. Douglas, et. al. (Secunderabad: OM Books, 2002), 1060.
[6] Frank J. Matera, “The Trial of Jesus: Problems and Proposals,” Interpretation 45(1991): 5.
[7] Matera, Interpretation, 7-8. Hans Lietzmann [Der Prozess Jesu, Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil. Hist. Klasse (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1931), 313-322] followed by Paul Winter [On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1974), 74-87] also denied the fact that there was a trial before the Great Sanhedrin. Rabbi Wise even went to the extent of saying that “this body (Sanhedrin) did positively not exist at the time when Jesus was crucified, having been dissolved 30AD. In nowise, then, any passages of the Gospels must be understood to refer to the Great Sanhedrin.” Rabbi Wise, The Martyrdom of Jesus of Nazareth: A Historico-Critical Treatise on the Last Chapter of The Gospel (Cincinnati: Office of the American Israelites, 1874).
[8] Matera, Interpretation, 7-8.
[9] Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993),137.
[10] Corley, Dictionary of Jesus, 845.
[11] Matera, Interpretation, 5,9.
[12] James D. G. Dunn, “Are You the Messiah?: Is the Crux of Mark 14:61-62 Resolvable?,” in Christology, Controversy and Community: New Testament Essays in Honour of David R. Catchpole, edited by David G. Horrell and Christopher M. Tuckett(Leiden: Brill, 2000), 3.
[13] Gerard S. Sloyan, The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), cited in Leonard W. Levy, Blasphemy: Verbal Offence Against the Sacred, From Moses to Salman Rushdie (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995), 24.
[14] J. R. Donahue, Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 10; Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973), cited in Levy, Blasphemy, 25.
[15] The private interview with the high priest and former high priest does not qualify the view that Jesus was tried before the Sanhedrin (cf. Jn. 18:12-14, 19-27).
[16] Ben Witherington, New Testament History: A Narrative Account (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2006), 148.
[17] Corley, Dictionary of Jesus, 846; E. Lohse, “Sunedrion,” TDNT, edited by Gerhard Friedrich, vol. VII (Michigan: Eerdmans, 1971), 868. According to Walter W. Wessel, “all” may not refer to the 71 members but that a quorum of at least 23 was present. Walter W. Wessel, Mark: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 2010), 768. It is unlikely that the community has an eye-witness for the Sanhedrin hearing, but in view of the “all” (pantej, Mk. 14:64), “one can hardly adduce Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea, as against [the edict].” Lohse, TDNT, 869.
[18] Lohse, TDNT, 869.
[19] J. B. Tyson, “The Lukan Version of the Trial of Jesus,” Novum Testamentum 3 (1959): 249-58; J. Blinzler, Der Prezess Jesu (Verlag: Pustet, 1960), 120-22, cited in Lohse, TDNT, 870.
[20] Matera, Interpretation, 9.
[21] Matera, Interpretation, 9.
[22] Tyson, Novum Testamentum, 254.
[23] Witherington, New Testament History, 150.
[24] R. P. Martin, “Trial of Jesus,” New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. D. Douglas, et. al. (Secunderabad: OM Books, 1995), 1218.
[25] Corley, Dictionary of Jesus, 845.
[26] Charles Guignebert, The Jewish World in the Time of Jesus (New York: University Books, 1968), 54.
[27] Ellis Rivkin, What Crucified Jesus? The Political Execution of a Charismatic (Nashville: Abingdon, 1984), cited in Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel According to St. Mark (BNTC; Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2009), 355.
[28] Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark,355.
[29] Newton Walkin, Praying for Miracles (Maitland, Florida: Xulon Press, 2011), 310.
[30] Thompson, New Bible Dictionary, 1060-061.
[31] Amy – Jill Levine, “Sanhedrin,” A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations, edited by Edward Kessler and Neil Wenborn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 396.
[32] Guignebert, The Jewish World, 55-7.
[33] Walter M. Chandler, The Trial of Jesus from a Lawyer’s Standpoint: The Hebrew Trial, vol. 1 (Newstead: Emereo Publishing, 2013), n.p.
[34] At the same time, he expresses that it is difficult to harmonize this understanding with John 18:31 which claims that death sentences required Roman confirmation. Martin, New Bible Dictionary, 1218.
[35] G. H. Twelftree, “Sanhedrin,” Dictionary of New Testament Background, edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter (Illinois: IVP, 2000), 1064.
[36] Thompson, New Bible Dictionary, 1060-061.
[37] James Orr, “Jesus Christ,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, edited by James Orr, vol. III (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996), 1661.
[38] Witherington, New Testament History, 152.
[39] Levine, A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian, 396.
[40] Lohse, TDNT, 865.
[41] Lohse, TDNT, 865; Twelftree, Dictionary of New Testament, 1064.
[42] Mishnah is a book of rules, understood to be written form of the Jewish oral law, was preserved by the rabbis following the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE, and was completed in approximately 200 CE. The book consists of six major parts which is divided into large tractates, and each tractate is divided into chapters. Herbert Danby, The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011), xiii – xxi; Jacob Neusner, Learn Mishnah (New Jersey: Behrman House, Inc. Publishers, 1978), 4.
[43] Twelftree, Dictionary of New Testament, 1064.
[44] Twelftree, Dictionary of New Testament, 1065; cf. Thompson, New Bible Dictionary, 1061.
[45] Laura L. Berg, “The Illegalities of Jesus’ Religious and Civil Trials,” Bibliotheca Sacra 161 (July – September 2004): 332-334.
[46] Berg, Bibliotheca, 331-34.
[47] Berg, Bibliotheca, 333.
[48] Berg, Bibliotheca, 333.
[49] Michael L. Gowens, The Gospel of Luke: Expository Essays Series (Lexington, Kentucky: Sovereign Grace Publications, 2011), 266.
[50] Gowens, The Gospel of Luke, 266.
[51] Gowens, The Gospel of Luke, 265.
[52] Lohse, TDNT, 869.
[53] Lohse, TDNT, 869.
[54] This may be the reason Luke reports that Jesus was not brought before the Council until morning following His arrest (22: 66-71). Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 284.
[55] Berg, Bibliotheca, 331; M. Dupin, The Trial of Jesus Before Caiaphas and Pilate (Boston: Cambridge Press, 1839), 37-8.
[56] Winter, On the Trial of Jesus, 43.
[57] Orr, International Standard Bible, 1660.
[58] Witherington, New Testament History, 151.
[59] Gowens, The Gospel of Luke, 265.
[60] She believes that the conviction – that Jesus had already been enthroned as the heavenly Messiah – even intensifies the ironic effect. Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Charge of Blasphemy in Mark 14:64,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26/4 (2004): 381.
[61] Collins, Journal for the Study, 380-81.
[62] Martin, New Bible Dictionary, 1218.
[63] Collins, Journal for the Study, 380-81.
[64] Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 362.
[65] Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 360-61.
[66] Israel Abrahams, “The Tannaitic Tradition and the Trial Narratives,” in Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, vol.II (New York: Ktav, 1924), 137.
[67] Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, translated by H. St. J. Thackeray, vol. IV (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930), 572-73.
[68] Collins, Journal for the Study, 379, 395.
[69] Cf. Martin, New Bible Dictionary, 1218.
[70] Witherington also argues that “the blasphemy most likely was perceived in His claim in Mark 14:62 to sit at the right hand of God, and to come in power to judge the high priest (who was also the high court), suggesting his possession of divine honors, powers and prerogatives. Witherington, New Testament History, 151.
[71] Dunn, Christology, Controversy and Community, 18.
LAI-LEENG 