The Legal and Medical Aspects of the Trial and Death of
Christ : Part 1
by Robert Bucklin, M.D., J.D. Las Vegas, Nevada
Copyright 1970
I - Legal
In an approach to a topic of this type, one is immediately
faced with a dearth of factual material with which to work.
Very little, if any, data concerning the subject matter
appears in secular writings, and it becomes obvious that the
main and probably the only source of data is in the writings
of the Evangelists. This poses a problem from the beginning,
and if the facts as revealed by the Gospels are to be given
credence it becomes necessary to make certain that these
facts will fit into recognized rules of evidence as we
understand them in the present day. The field of evidence is
concerned with those rules of law which determine what
testimony is to be accepted and what is to be rejected in a
civil or criminal trial, as well as what weight is to be
given to the testimony admitted. The rules upon which the
admission of evidence is based must be governed by their
adaptation to the development of the truth of the facts
under consideration (60 A.L.R. 376; 66 A.L.R. 360). The
usual rule is that questions of evidence are governed by the
law of the forum, and this applies to all types of
litigation as well as to the matter of the competency,
admissibility, weight and sufficiency of the evidence and
the degree of proof (89 A.L.R. 1278). In the realm of
presumptions and burden of proof, the rules of evidence are
determined by the lex loci (78 A.L.R. 889). In order to
apply these propositions to the results of the trial of
Christ, we must first examine the facts as they were
presented, and the forum in which they were presented. In
attempting to do this, the objective approach will be made,
considering the qualifications and attitudes of the
Evangelists upon whose descriptions we must rely in
interpreting the incidents of the trial, as well as the
makeup and functions of the legal bodies, both Hebrew and
Roman, before whom the trial was conducted.
First of all, can we consider the factual descriptions of
the Gospel writers to be accurate and unbiased? It is
desirable, for the purposes of a legal approach at least, to
divorce any concept of a Divine guide to the words of the
Gospels, and to treat the Gospel reports as pure human
efforts, even though there are satisfying grounds for a
belief that there was an inspiring force behind them. Our
knowledge of the lives of the Evangelists leads us to the
consideration that they were honest men. Certainly they did
not receive an earthly reward for their adherence to the
truths which they preached, for they all were persecuted and
treated shamefully. Their sincerity in attempting to report
the facts would appear to be unquestionable. So also would
their ability, as shown by the style of their writings,
particularly the writings of Luke and John. Literacy must be
assumed, since the Gospels were written either in Greek or
Hebrew. One might logically assume that the backgrounds of
the Evangelists would be helpful in their being able to
reproduce in writing the events which they had observed. We
know that Luke was a physician (Col. IV:14), and Matthew was
a revenue collector (Matt.IX: 9), both of which occupations
would tend to indicate more than minimal powers of
observation as well as suggesting some degree of analytical
ability. The dignity in which the writings are conducted
seems to remove them from the realm of the fanatic, the
biased or the prejudiced. The relationships of the Gospel
writers to Christ is important in evaluating their truth,
and it is well known that some of them, and John in
particular, were very close to Christ and were actual eye
witnesses of many of the facts about which they wrote. That
the writings were made a number of years after the events
took place should not detract from their accuracy, since in
very many instances there is an amazing correlation of facts
in accounts written far apart and with no chance of
collaboration. Often, the Gospels interlock in their
descriptions, so that it is necessary to read them together
in order to get a full story, and in doing, the reader is
not dismayed but rather is brought to a more complete
appreciation of the accuracy of the accounts. This is shown
even more clearly in the instances where the accounts of an
event are presented in almost identical language in each of
the Gospels. Taken together, then, it may be accurately
stated that the accounts of the events of the trial and
death of Christ as related by the Evangelists are correct
since the competency of the authors cannot be seriously
questioned, and the accounts therefore fulfill the
requirements of admissible evidence of the facts which they
portray. For information about the legal bodies in charge of
administering justice at the time of Christ, we must look to
Hebrew law as it is contained in the Talmud. The latter is a
collection of many volumes which may be conveniently divided
into the Mishna or oral law, and the Gemara or commentary.
Much of the Hebrew law was, of course, handed down by word
of mouth, and the Mishna became a sort of Code which was the
basis of conduct for the Jewish people. The Great Sanhedrin
or Grand Council, was the major Hebrew tribunal, and as a
court it was convened in Jerusalem and consisted of
seventy-one members. There is much doubt about the date of
origin of the Sanhedrin, but it probably can be traced back
to the time of Moses (Number X:16, 17). The name comes from
the Greek synedrion, meaning "a sitting together," and the
earliest undisputed mention of the council dates from the
time of Antiochus the Great (223-187 B.C.). Most likely it
developed from a council of nobles, ancients and chiefs who
carried out the administration of laws. There were three
chambers in the Sanhedrin, each composed of twenty-three
persons, and representing priests, scribes and elders.
These, plus two presiding officers, made up the court of
seventy-one members. Members were appointed for life, and a
quorum of twenty-three members was necessary in criminal
cases. The court sat in a semicircle with two clerks before
them to record votes. By the usual rules, a majority of one
vote was needed for acquittal, but a majority of two votes
was required for a conviction. One of the more unusual
policies of the court was the legal fiction that a unanimous
vote for conviction served to free the defendant, the
concept being that such a situation proved the court to be
incompetent. Requirements for membership in the Sanhedrin
included the following: Hebrew descent, knowledge of the law
including the Mosaic Code, previous judicial experience in
lower courts, proficiency in scientific knowledge and
languages. In addition to these qualifications the member
must be modest, popular, of good appearance, pious, strong
and courageous. There were a number of disqualifications and
among them were lack of a previous trade or occupation by
which the member had made his living, advanced years,
gambling and money lending. No man who was concerned or
interested in a matter under adjudication nor a relative of
the accused could sit on the court, nor could any person who
would be benefited by the death or condemnation of the
accused. The king was not eligible to be a member of the
Sanhedrin. The two court officers were the president and the
vice-president.
Under the Hebrew law there were no advocates and the accused
was not represented by an attorney. The witnesses were the
only accusers and the suspect was considered innocent until
accused.
The Sanhedrin sat in the Liscat Haggazith, a hall of
polished stone which dated from the time of King Jannaeus.
The ordinary days for holding court were Mondays and
Thursdays and the court never sat on the Sabbath or on a
feast day. The law was strict in holding that there be no
trials during Passover, during the night or on the eve of
the Sabbath. If it is remembered that there was poor
artificial light at the best during those times, the reasons
for not having a trial at night will be more obvious. In
addition, tradition held that the examination of a criminal
charge was like the diagnosing of a wound, and in both cases
a more thorough and searching examination can be made in
daylight. A capital case could not be tried in one sitting,
but had to carry over to a second day in order to best
accomplish the rules of justice. Also, a case could not be
adjourned for more than one day, hence the reason for not
allowing a trial to start on the eve of a Sabbath, since the
trial could not be postponed, and no trial could be
conducted on the Sabbath.
In addition to the policy of there being no defense
attorney, there was also no prosecutor or States Attorney.
The witnesses acted as informants and prosecutors alike. The
Sanhedrin was not allowed, under rules of the Romans, to
impose the death penalty, and all such penalties were
required to be reviewed by the Roman Governor in Jerusalem.
At this point it might be well to briefly mention and
comment upon the individuals and groups who took part in the
trial and the crucifixion of Christ, and to try an place
them in the proper perspective as far as the events which
took place were concerned. There was, of course, the High
Priest, Caiaphas, who served as presiding officer of the
Sanhedrin during the trial of Christ. He was the son-in-law
of Annas, also a High Priest and the political leader of
Judea. Annas was in his eighties and had held power for over
half a century. He was a Sadducee and he considered Christ a
false prophet and was therefore ready to cooperate in the
plot to arrest and try Christ. It was Annas who was in
charge of those in the Temple who bargained and sold, and
who were so drastically criticized by Christ, hence Annas
resented Christ deeply. Caiaphas had held his position for
eleven years and was entirely devoid of honor and decency.
He was a close friend of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor
and both these men hated Christ. Pilate, as Governor, had
full jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters and was
answerable only to the Emperor Tiberius Caesar in Rome. He
had a violent record and was known to have executed hundreds
of persons. He had great fear that the Jews might put him in
the disfavor of the Emperor and try to remove him from
office, so he cooperated with the Jews and at the same time
acted as their Governor under orders from Rome. Pilate was a
native of Spain. Actually the record shows that he declared
Christ innocent no less than four times and tried to release
Him, but finally gave in to the wishes of the crowd. Another
party who played a role in the trial was Herod Antipas, the
Tetrarch of Galilee, who was the son of Herod the Great. He
was noted for his cruelty and for his lack of conscience.
His part in the trial was small, and it is to be noted that
Christ showed His contempt for Herod Antipas by keeping
silence while before him. The two political and religious
groups involved in the action against Christ were the
Sadducees and the Pharisees. The former were arrogant and
aristocratic and were the wealthiest members of Jewish
society. They controlled the government as well as the
Sanhedrin, and they believed nothing that Christ was
teaching. They were ordinarily not close to the Pharisees
but joined with them in the plan to destroy Christ. The
Pharisees were haughty and boasted of their knowledge of the
law and tradition. They demanded very strict compliance with
the laws of fasting and all other regulations and they found
fault with Christ because He brushed aside many of their
habits.
The details of procedure in Hebrew criminal law are outlined
in the Mishna and it was necessary that the rules be adhered
to rigidly for the trial to be valid. As has been indicated,
the witnesses were the mainstay of the legal process and
they served as judges and accusers. They had to agree in all
details for their evidence to be admissible, and each
witness was required to give a complete account of the
entire series of events constituting the crime in question.
It was not permissible for one witness to present one facet
and another witness to supplement this with facts which took
place before or after those previously described. Two
witnesses who were in full agreement were required, and both
must tell the complete account of the crime, or else the
accused would be released. No oath was ever administered,
either to the witnesses or to the accused, should he testify
in his own behalf. The Jews relied on the precepts of the
Ninth Commandment which forbade false testimony, and this
took the place of the oath. In the examination of the
witness, there was an arbitrary division into two parts, the
first of which consisted of a series of questions related to
the time and place of the offense, in the manner of a direct
examination. This was followed by a more detailed series of
questions designed to serve as both a direct and a
cross-examination.
Hearsay evidence was not allowed, nor was pure
circumstantial evidence. The accused was not required to
testify in his own behalf, but could do so if he wished. He
was not put under oath when he gave his evidence. It was the
policy of the courts not to allow documentary evidence of
any kind, since the Mishna was explicit in permitting oral
testimony only. It is to be particularly noted that through
the whole regime of Jewish law there runs a strong religious
theme, and the judges were endowed with the concept that
they were, in a way, acting under the direct influence of
God. For that reason, caution in actions and sincere
attempts to reach the truth of a situation were paramount in
the functions of the courts. The innocence of the accused
was presumed, and during the debate among the judges which
followed the giving of testimony by the witnesses and
preceded the balloting, the tendency was toward trying to
find a reason for acquittal. Only after exhaustive debate on
the merits of all the evidence presented did the judges cast
their ballots in favor of or against the accused. As was
mentioned before, it was necessary that there be a majority
vote of at least two in order to convict. If this majority
was not reached, the prisoner was immediately released and
the trial was considered to be at an end. On the other hand,
if the vote was for conviction, the court adjourned without
passing sentence, and reconvened the following day. At that
time, the evidence was again reviewed and another vote was
taken. Those who had voted the day before for acquittal were
not permitted to change their vote, but those who had voted
to convict on the previous day were allowed, with valid
reason, to change their vote in favor of acquittal. Here
again, the scrupulosity and tendency to favor the accused is
apparent, but once the vote was definitely for conviction,
the court wasted no time in passing sentence and putting it
into effect. There was no appeal as we know it, from that
point on, and the very time that the judgment was passed
became the moment of beginning of execution of the sentence.
One cannot help but be impressed at the thoughtfulness and
attitude of fairness which permeates the Hebrew criminal
code. But as this was applied to Christ during His trial,
there is little resemblance to justice or fair play. The
events leading up to the arrest, the arrest itself and the
subsequent trial and punishment, as reported by the
Evangelists, followed none of the rigid rules set out above.
In considering the numerous breaches, it is perhaps best to
review them in chronological order, beginning with the
arrest of Christ by the servants of the High Priest as He
left the Garden of Gethsemane. It has been stated that the
Hebrew code forbade any arrest or trial at night, yet it is
clearly recorded that the arrest took place at night (Acts
IV:3), probably sometime between midnight and three o'clock
in the morning. The arrest was also illegal in that it was
brought about through the medium of a traitor, Judas, who
was hired by the Sanhedrin, the court which was to try
Christ. Judas had broken the commandment of the old law in
acting as he did (Leviticus XIX:17), and this was sufficient
to add another factor of illegality to the arrest. The time
and date of the trial was illegal, not only because it took
place at night, but also because it took place on the eve of
the Sabbath, thereby precluding any chance for the required
adjournment to the next day in the event of a conviction.
The date of the trial was on the fourteenth Nisan, which
began at sunset of April 6, 30 A.D. and lasted until sunset
Friday, April 7. The trial was conducted during the period
of one day in addition to being held on a day when the court
could not legally convene.
The Sanhedrin was without authority to instigate charges and
was only supposed to investigate charges brought before it,
yet in the case of Christ the court itself formulated the
charges. Caiaphas, the High Priest presented the charge, and
he was one of the judges (Matt. XXVI:6).
Perhaps one of the most striking errors in the procedure was
the fact that the charges against Christ were changed during
the trial. He was first accused of blasphemy on the basis of
statements quoted by witnesses to the effect that He would
be able to destroy the Temple of God and rebuild it within
three days. These statements were made by witnesses coached
by Caiaphas, while the actual words of Christ were: "Destroy
this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John
II:19). The reference to the "temple" was to His own body,
not to the Jewish temple (John II:22) but the words were
deliberately distorted. The blasphemy portion of the charge
was brought out by Caiaphas when he asked, "Art thou the
Christ, the son of God?," and when Christ answered, "Thou
has said it," Caiaphas tore his garments in the traditional
manner and declared that Christ had blasphemed. At the same
time Caiaphas declared that there was no further need for
more witnesses (Mark XIV:63). This was an illegal procedure
since there had not been the required two witnesses who
agreed on their stories. Later, in the appearance of Christ
before the Roman Governor, Pilate, it was realized that the
charge of blasphemy would not hold up, since such a charge
was of no concern to the Romans. For that reason the charge
was changed to treason and sedition and Pilate was told that
Christ was undermining his authority before the Emperor.
Some question has been raised as to the actual site where
the Sanhedrin met to conduct the trial. There is nothing
which would indicate that the court met in its usual place,
and, in fact, John implies that the proceedings took place
at the palace of Caiaphas and from there Christ was taken
directly to Pilate at the Praetorium (John XVIII:28).
It must be obvious that the members of the Sanhedrin were so
prejudiced against Christ that they could not possibly judge
Him fairly. This stems from both political and personal
enmity against Him. Christ had upset the High Priests by His
actions in clearing the money lenders and the salesmen from
the Temple, and this served as a financial blow to those men
who had built up a lucrative trade in selling of animals and
birds for sacrificial purposes in the temple. This feeling
was carried to other members of the court through the
influence of Caiaphas, and certainly made the Sanhedrin a
biased group. In addition to this, and probably much more
important, is the fact that Christ had been prejudged by the
court which tried Him. There are three separate references
in the Gospels to events in which members of the Sanhedrin
took part in a plan to entrap Christ. The first (John VII:
37-53) took place about six months before the arrest, when,
at the Feast of the Tabernacles, Christ by his teachings and
by the number of His converts caused much concern among the
Pharisees. Similar consternation among the Pharisees took
place at the resurrection of Lazarus (John XI: 41-53), and
at that time the decision that Christ must die seems to have
been made. The third event took place shortly before the
Passover when the chief priests and scribes sought means
whereby they could kill Christ (Luke XXII: 1-3; Matt XXVI:
3-5). Under these circumstances, it is impossible that there
could have been an impartial trial. The one illegality in
the proceedings which outshines all others is the fact that
Christ was permitted no defense. It was strictly held under
Jewish law that there be an exhaustive search into the facts
presented by the witnesses in order to prove their accuracy.
This was not done, because the witnesses were false and were
hirelings of the Sanhedrin and their testimony would not
stand investigation. If the procedure had been followed,
even if there had been a prima facie case against Christ,
the court would have been obliged to make a searching study
of the evidence and undoubtedly would have taken judicial
notice of the many facts about the life of Christ which had
been brought forth in the prophesies and had been fulfilled.
The birth of Christ as the Messiah had been predicted, and
the birthplace and heredity had been prophesied, as well as
the little to be expected statement that Christ would be
born to a virgin. Even the matter of the betrayal for thirty
pieces of silver by Judas was spelled out, and these matters
were well known to the judges. That they chose to overlook
them speaks strongly in favor of the total illegality of the
trial.
The final item in the list of illegal procedures was the
pronouncing of the death sentence by the Sanhedrin. This
power was removed from them by the Romans, and while the
Sanhedrin could try a special case and could enter a verdict
of not guilty without interference by the Romans, the
Sanhedrin was not allowed to convict and put the death
sentence into effect (John XVIII: 31). This authority was
reserved to the Romans who could either retry the accused or
review the evidence before issuing its verdict. This policy
resulted in there being actually two trials, the second of
which was conducted in the presence of Pontius Pilate. Since
the trial by the Jews was for a religious offense which was
of no interest to the Romans and would probably not have
even been reviewed by them, it became necessary to add
another charge which would serve to bring the prisoner under
the jurisdiction of the Roman court. The second trial, then,
had to be a trial de novo, since the charge was entirely
different. The charge was vague at best, but included three
items specifically: perverting the nation, forbidding the
giving of tribute to Caesar, and claiming to be a king (Luke
XXIII: 2).
The relationship between the Romans and the Jews at that
time requires some explanation. The Jews had become subject
to Roman control from the year 63 B.C. when Pompey took over
Palestine. Judea became a Roman province in A.D. 6 and was
governed by procurators sent from Rome. There was a mixture
of independence on the part of the Jewish nation, but for
the most part, the Romans were in charge of the political
scene. There was no treaty between the two, and there was no
outline of duties and responsibilities, since the Romans
preferred to permit whatever freedom seemed appropriate
without jeopardizing the relationship between master and
subject. As have been seen, the Sanhedrin was still allowed
judicial power, subject only to the Roman veto, and this
actually amounted to a high degree of independence, not only
civil but also in criminal matters. It could dispose of most
cases which did not involve a sentence of death (Acts IV:
5-23, V: 21-40). That the Procurator had the right to impose
the death sentence is proven by the words of Pilate to
Christ when he threatened Christ with death (John: XIX: 10).
Pilate exercised unlimited jurisdiction in military matters
and was not required to follow particular rules and forms of
law. He was in the position of being able to apply the law
of the forum, that is , Roman law, or the law of the
community, Jewish law. Most authorities feel that he should
have strictly followed the criminal procedure in vogue in a
capital case tried in Rome instead of handling the case
against Christ as he did. The procedure before the permanent
tribunal was involved and complicated, and was designed to
insure justice. Criminal charges against any person were
brought by a private citizen with permission of the
presiding magistrate. An initial hearing was held to
determine which prosecutor might present the case, in the
event that there was more than one. A private hearing was
often held before the president of the court in order to get
more definite information about the charge. If it was
thereby determined that there was a prima facie case to take
before the tribunal, an indictment was issued. This
procedure is not unlike the Grand Jury investigation of our
day. The indictment was presented to the tribunal and a date
was set for the trial, usually from ten to thirty days from
that time. During this period the accused was free to go and
come as he pleased and was under no bond. On the day of the
trial the accused was expected to appear and was only
excused if he were absent from the city on public service,
or if he was in another court on the same day or if he was
ill. Cases could be tried in the absence of the defendant
but had to be postponed if the prosecutor failed to appear.
If all was in order, the trial began with the impaneling of
the judges by means of selecting names from a number of
prospective judges whose names were placed in an urn and
drawn out one by one. In the presentation of the case
against the defendant, the argument and reasoning of the
counsel was brought out first and was followed by evidence
which was used to support the contentions made. This is the
reverse of the modern courtroom procedure. The evidence
having been presented, the judges voted and a majority
determined the verdict. The type of punishment which could
be administered by the tribunal included a great variety of
sentences which ranged from scourging to being hurled from a
high place and from beheading or being cast into the sea in
a bag containing a number of voracious animals. Of all the
punishments, crucifixion was the one most widely used, but
it was ordinarily limited to those found guilty of the
vilest of crimes. The civil law of the Romans protected
Roman citizens against this form of punishment.
There is no question that the usual trial before a tribunal
as practiced in Rome was not accorded to Christ by Pilate.
He was brought before the Roman only because the Sanhedrin
was obliged to do so in order to put the death penalty into
effect. This was done early in the morning, about sun up.
The court of Pilate was held at the Antonia, a wing of his
palace set up as a tribunal. There is no mention as to who
was the accuser or prosecutor but it may be logically be
assumed that Caiaphas played this role. When Pilate asked
what Christ was accused of doing, the priests tried to avoid
the answer and to persuade Pilate to merely accept their
judgment and waive his rights to retry the case (John XVIII:
30). However, Pilate did not elect to do this but instead
tried to refer the case back to the Sanhedrin for disposal.
It was only then that the priests had to take a position and
declare their reasons for seeking a trial before Pilate, and
it was then that they accepted the jurisdiction of Pilate as
far as the death penalty was concerned and gave this as
their reason for bringing Christ before the tribunal (John
XVIII: 31). Also at that point the Jews had to present a
charge which would be of concern to Pilate and which would
allow him to try the case. The charge of perverting the
nation was very vague and was a form of sedition. More
serious were the allegations that Christ had forbidden
tribute to Caesar and that He had declared Himself king. The
charge concerning the tribute was based upon Christ's advice
to the Jews that they render to Caesar those things which
are Caesar's, and to God the things which are God's (Matt,
XXII: 21). It was another example of misinterpretation of
words, and this was also true of the accusation that Christ
claimed to be a king. Pilate decided to ignore the first two
charges and proceeded to question Christ on the matter of
His kingdom (John XVII: 34-38). The interrogation satisfied
Pilate that Christ was not a king in the earthly manner and
that He posed no threat to the Emperor. For that reason,
Pilate then issued a verdict of not guilty and acquitted
Him. This angered the Jews, and in spite of the verdict
having been given and judgment rendered, they attempted to
present new accusations and to reopen the trial. Pilate,
breaking all procedural rules, and seeking to share the
responsibility of the case with another, ordered that Christ
be taken before Herod Antipas, the Tetrarch, at the Palace
of the Maccabees in Jerusalem, only a short distance from
the Antonia. The reaction of Herod to having Christ appear
before him was favorable, although highly illegal as a
judicial measure. He hoped to see a miracle performed (Luke
XXIII: 8), but in this he was disappointed. He questioned
Christ extensively, but received no answers but silence, in
spite of the fact that the priests and scribes also stood by
and made further accusations (Luke XXIII: 9-10). Herod tried
mockery and carried this to an extreme by placing a gorgeous
robe on Christ and returning Him to Pilate (Luke XXIII: 11).
This must have upset Pilate, for he then strayed a bit
further from the path of legality and justice and after
declaring again that Christ was innocent, proceeded to
punish Him by the scourge. The description by John of these
proceedings is complete and reflects the mood and actions of
Pilate (John XIX: 7-15). After offering Barabbas to the Jews
and being refused, Pilate finally gave in to the wishes of
the group and released Christ to them to be crucified. He
had defied all the precepts of Roman law and had conducted a
wholly illegal trial, and his final gesture in washing his
hands before the multitude was only a theatrical act with no
meaning, legal or otherwise. Thus ended the trials of
Christ, first by the Jews and then by the Romans. The
numerous illegalities of both are manifest and serve to
justify the conclusion that these must have been the most
infamous trials in history. Certainly the consequences of
them have affected the world in the past and will
undoubtedly continue to do so. The guilt of the parties,
particularly the Jews, has been debated for centuries, and
has been one reason for antipathy between religious groups
and others who have felt that the guild of a small group of
persons should be transferred to a nation and all its
progeny. The movement of the Second Vatican Council to
formally exonerate subsequent generations of Jews from
responsibility for the murder of Christ seems to be a step
in the right direction, but, more important, this action
served to formally document a fact previously left unsaid.
[ Click Me ] Go To Part Two . . .