The Sunday Mail
A summary of critical pointers of this series:
Arrest
Yahoshua was arrested during the night and a day before Sabbath and on the eve of Passover. Both are very important religious observances during which arrests could not be effected.
“A capital offense must be tried during the day and suspended at night” (Mishna in “Sanhedrin” Vol.1); and “Criminal cases can be acted upon by the various courts during the day time only.” (S. Mendelsohn in “Criminal Jurisprudence of Ancient Hebrews” page 112).
“Legal proceedings, including arrests, were forbidden at night. It was a well-established and inflexible rule of Hebrew law that arrests and trials leading to capital punishment [death], could not occur at night. Dupin the famous French lawyer explicitly states that the trial of (Yahoshua) was illegal, but the arrest was also, because both were held at night” – Walter M. Chandler, The Trial of Jesus, volume 1, pages 226-227).
Trial commencement
The trial of Yahoshua commenced a day before Sabbath and on the eve of Passover and yet the Law stated, “They shall not judge on the eve of the Sabbath, nor on that of any festival” (Mishna, Sanhedrin IV. 1), and “Court must not be held on the Sabbath, or any holy day.” (Betza Chapter Vol. II).
The Sanhedrin would only meet after the morning sacrifice and end the meeting before the evening sacrifice.
The Law stated, “The Sanhedrin was to sit from the close of the morning sacrifice to the time of the evening sacrifice.” (Talmud, Jerus, Sanhedrin – Vol. I, p. 19).
Mandate
The Sanhedrin comprised of the 71 members (the high priest and seventy elders). Yahoshua was first examined by a former high priest and later by the current high priest. The appearances before the two were outside the Law.
The Law stated, “Be not a sole judge, for there is no sole judge but One.” (Mishna, in “Pirke Aboth” IV), and “An accused man must never be subjected to private or secret examination, let in his perplexity, he furnish damaging testimony against himself.” (Salvado in, “Institutions de Moise” pp. 365-366).
Accomplice
Judas was an associate of Yahoshua and he was bribed by the priestly class to turn over Yahoshua. Hebrew law forbade the use of an associate in effecting an arrest or securing a conviction because he was considered an accomplice.
“Turning state’s evidence” was illegal in Hebrew jurisprudence (Leviticus 19:16-18). “The testimony of an accomplice is not permissible by rabbinic law, . . and no man’s life, nor his liberty, nor his reputation can be endangered by the malice of one who has confessed himself a criminal” or accomplice of the one judged.” – S. Mendelsohn, page 274.
“The ancient Hebrews forbade the use of accomplice testimony . . . The arrest of (Yahoshua) was ordered upon the supposition that he was a criminal: this same supposition would have made Judas, who had aided, encouraged, and abetted (Yahoshua) in the propagation of his faith, an accomplice. If Judas was not an accomplice, (Yahoshua) was innocent, and his arrest an outrage, and therefore illegal.” – Chandler, The Trial of Jesus, vol. 1, pp. 228 -229.
Nature of trial
The condemnation of Yahoshua by a riff-raff mob was illegal because the merits of his defense were not considered.
The high priest did not “inquire, and make search, and ask diligently” (Deuteronomy 13:14) to see whether Yahoshua’s conduct was illegal. The law in the Mishna says, “The judges shall weigh the matter in sincerity of their conscience” (Sanhedrin IV, 5).
The law also stated, “The primary object of the Hebrew judicial system was to render the conviction of an innocent person impossible. All the ingenuity of the Jewish legist was directed to the attainment of this end” (Benny in “Criminal Code of the Jews” p. 56).
Trial duration
Yahoshua’s trial commenced and was completed in less than nine hours on the same day. After convicting the accused guilty, a sentence was to be pronounced “a night had to intervene between the trial and the decree,” during which the judges could sleep over it for reflection.
The Law stated, “If a sentence of death is to be pronounced, it (a criminal charge) cannot be concluded before the following day” (Mishna, Sanhedrin IV, 1) and “A simultaneous and unanimous verdict of guilt rendered on the day of the trial has the effect of an acquittal.” (Mendelsohn page 141).
Verdict
Even if those who were present had unanimously found Yahoshua guilty, he should have been acquitted.
The Law stated, “If none of the judges defend the culprit, i.e. all pronounce him guilty, having no defender in the court, the verdict guilty was invalid and the sentence of death could not be executed.” – Rabbi Wise in “Martyrdom of Jesus” p. 74.
Conclusion
Everything about the arrest and trial of Yahoshua would have been a brazen violation of the Hebrew laws.
For feedback email, [email protected] or tweet @shingaiRndoro. A gallery of previous articles is found at www.sundaymail.co.zw/author/shingairukwata. Twitter hashtags #ChiselTheDebris, #DeconstructTheScriptures, #ImproveHumanity.
