JC & the Law: illegally tried & convicted … (12/06/18)
At his “preliminary hearing” (held that same evening in the home of Caiaphas, the high priest – see Matthew 26:57 & Luke 22:54) Jesus faced Caiaphas and at least a portion of the Sanhedrin1 – the ruling legal council for the Jewish community. It was here that the priests looked for evidence that would allow them to execute Jesus for blasphemy, and yet the witnesses they brought forth proved to be highly unreliable and Jesus did not even need answer their charges. (see Matthew 26:59-63 & Mark 14:55-61) As such, the priests resorted to demanding that Jesus himself testify as to whether or not he claimed to be the Messiah, whereupon he answered, “You have said so” (see Matthew 26:63-64 & Luke 22:70) – essentially responding “No” thereby, and thus proclaiming to them his innocence2. Jesus then went on to add a meaningfully cryptic reference to Daniel 7:13 (“From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the Right Hand of Power and coming on the clouds of Heaven” – see Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62, & Luke 22:69), which inspired the priests to cry aloud, tear their own robes (a direct violation of the Law as set forth in Leviticus 21:10), and falsely pronounce him to be a blasphemer worthy of death. (see Matthew 26:65-66, Mark 14:63-64, & Luke 22:69-71)
The next morning, Jesus was bound and handed over to be tried by Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of the region. (see Matthew 27:1-2, Mark 15:1, Luke 23:1, & John 18:28) Pilate was told of Jesus’ supposed crime and asked him if he indeed considered himself to be “King of the Jews,” whereupon Jesus responded with the same negation he had used the night before – “You say so.”3 (see Matthew 27:11, Mark 15:2, Luke 23:3, & John 18:37) It was then that the Jewish priests & elders stepped in and began to openly accuse Jesus; not only of blasphemy (“saying that he is the Messiah” – the only charge brought at their own hearing) but also of sedition against the Roman government (accusing Jesus of “perverting our nation” and “forbidding us to pay taxes to the Emperor” – two extra charges not mentioned in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, or John; only in Luke 23:2). In obvious recognition of the fact that the priests & elders had no moral authority at the time and no legal authority in that venue4, Jesus refused to answer their accusations; remaining stoically silent throughout their scathing cross examination. (see Matthew 27:12-14 & Mark 15:3-5) According to the Gospel of John, Pilate then asks Jesus again in he is “King of the Jews” and Jesus again effectively tells him “No,” saying “My kingdom is not from this world. For if my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my Kingdom is not from here …For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the Truth. Everyone who belongs to the Truth hears my voice.” (John 18:33-37) Fully befuddled at this point (see Matthew 27:14, Mark 15:5, & John 18:38), Pilate then decided to send the matter to his superior, Herod (only mentioned in the Gospel of Luke – see Luke 23:6-11), and yet Jesus refused to speak to Herod at all, and was thus returned to Pilate for sentencing.
Finally, after attempting to directly proclaim Jesus’ innocence and being rebuked (see Luke 23:13-17 & John 18:38 – also John 19:4‘s “I find no case against him.”), Pilate used the “Paschal Pardon”5 as a last resort (see Matthew 27:15, Mark 15:6, Luke 23:18, & John 19:39), offering to let the crowd that had been steadily gathering choose who would be freed that day: Jesus or Barabbas.6 (see Matthew 27:16-17 & Mark 15:7-10) Pilate then had Jesus flogged (John 20:1) and brought him out before the crowd, who then chose to loudly demand both the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus; demands to which Pilate ultimately relented. (see Matthew 27:20-26, Mark 15:11-15, Luke 23:18-25, & John 20:5-16)
Taking the entirety of the story into account, and juxtaposing it with the still viable Jewish Law of the day, it is easy to see how Jesus’ arrest, his trial, and his conviction were all patently illegal (and in all likelihood part of an elaborate setup). Consider the following evidence proving the same …
.*The Sanhedrin were unequivocally biased against Jesus from the start … It was a founding tenet of Jewish Law that judges had to treat all those accused with impartiality and render wholly just decisions (see Exodus 23:6, Leviticus 19:15, & Deuteronomy 1:17) – a founding tenet that the Sanhedrin clearly violated in Jesus’ case. Not only did he not receive a fair trial after he was arrested (see below), the Sanhedrin themselves were instrumental in effectuating his illegal arrest. Jesus was a loud & disconcerting opponent of their religious authority, and as such they feared him (see John 7:37-53 & John 11:41-53 et al) and went out of their way to set him up for confinement, prosecution, and elimination7 – thereby essentially manifesting the exact opposite of judicial due process in his case.
.*Jesus’ arrest and preliminary hearing were conducted at night … Even though Jewish oral Law demanded that all capital criminal cases be tried during the daytime (see Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:1), both Jesus’ arrest (which occurred before he was formally charged – see Matthew 26:47-56, Mark 14:43-49, Luke 22:47-54, & John 18:1-11) and his hearing were effectuated at night (see Matthew 26:57-66 & Mark 14:53-64). The illegality of the former, while only indirectly mentioned in the Mishnah, was additionally evidenced by Jesus’ utterance of seeming incredulity during the same (“Here you have come out with swords and clubs as if I were some sort of bandit. And yet when I was with you day after day in the Temple you did not lay hands on me. But this is your hour, and with it the power of darkness.” ~ Luke 22:52-53 – see also Matthew 26:55 & Mark 14:48-49).
.*The Sanhedrin independently instigated the charges … Seeing as how judges under the Jewish oral Law were not allowed to bring charges against anyone without first engaging in due “examination [of the witnesses] & inquiry [into the facts]” (see Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:1 et al) – and seeing as how it was the Sanhedrin themselves who originated the charges against Jesus (see Matthew 26:3-4, Mark 14:1-2, & Luke 22:1-2), even his indictment was illegal under the Law. Jesus’ subsequent arrest was also illegal because it was effectuated via the hands of an accomplice to the crimes being charged (namely, Judas – see Matthew 26:14-16, Mark 14:10-11, & Luke 22:3-6), which was also forbidden by the Law (see Leviticus 19:16-18).
.*In Jesus’ case the Sanhedrin tribunal was illegally convened … Seemingly to prevent backlash from Jesus’ supporters (and possibly to preclude the presence of pro-Jesus witnesses), the Sanhedrin convened the same evening of his arrest (actually, they had already convened during his arrest – see Matthew 26:57 & Mark 14:53). As such, they had done so before the morning sacrifice had been offered, and as such, they had done so in violation of the Law (see Mishnah Tamid 3 & Talmud Sanhedrin 1:19).
.*Jesus’ trial was held in an unsanctioned location … Not only was the High Priest required by Law to remain in the Temple (see Leviticus 21:12), the Sanhedrin were required by oral Law to conduct all trials in the Hall of Hewn Stone (see Mishnah Middot 5:4) – something they neglected to do during Jesus’ trial (holding court in the High Priest’s private home instead – see Matthew 26:57; also Mark 14:54 & John 18:24).
*Jesus’ trial was held at an unsanctioned time … Despite the fact that the oral Law demanded that no capital trials be held on the Sabbath (which began each Friday evening), that no capital trials be held in the evening, and that no capital trials be held on the eve of any holy festival (see Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:1), Jesus’ trial was held on the eve of the Passover Sabbath (see Matthew 26:17-20, Mark 14:12-17, Luke 22:7+54+66, & John 18:19-23).
.*Jesus’ trial was overseen by unsanctioned adjudicators … The oral Law of the day also disqualified the priests who oversaw the case against Jesus, and this for several reasons – among them the following: 01) The initial questioning was presumably presided over by Caiaphas alone (see Luke 22:54 & John 18:24) which was not allowed under the Law (see Mishnah Pirkei Avot 4:8‘s “Do not judge alone, for there is no sole judge other than the One [that being, God]”) … 02) All hearings were presided over by Jesus’ enemies, which was also not allowed by Law (see Mishnah Sanhedrin 3:5, which precluded “anyone who has, out of hatred [see, enmity], not spoken to the litigant for three days” from presiding over a proceeding) … 03) While it is possible that at least 23 members of the Sanhedrin (the minimum required for a quorum in all capital cases per Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:4) were on call for the official hearing that ultimately took place, it is extremely unlikely that all 71 of them were present (which was required by Law for all cases involving false prophecy &/or blasphemy (see Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:5), making their adjudication of Jesus illegal … 04) If all 71 of the Sanhedrin were present (an admitted possibility, seeing as how it was the Sanhedrin who had helped set Jesus up a number of days beforehand – see Matthew 26:3, Mark 14:1, & Luke 22:2) then their adjudication was still illegal, seeing as how at least one of their number – Joseph of Arimathea – would have been a direct relative of the accused (see Mishnah Sanhedrin 3:48).
*Jesus’ trial was illegally abbreviated … Even though the oral Law was clear that capital cases were not allowed to be fully tried in a single day (in order to assure time for due inquiry &/or the presentation of potentially acquitting witnesses – see Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:1‘s “When a sentence of death is to be pronounced, [a criminal proceeding] cannot be concluded until the following day”), Jesus’ trial was both initiated & concluded on the same Sabbath (see Matthew 26:57-66, Mark 14:53-64, & John 18:19-24).9
*The Sanhedrin honored false testimony … The Law was clear in Jesus’ day that at least two harmonious witnesses were required in order to convict in capital cases (see Numbers 35:30 & Deuteronomy 19:15). And while the Gospel of Matthew does seem to indicate that two agreeing witnesses came forward to accuse Jesus of claiming to have the power to “destroy the Temple of God and build it back in three days” (see Matthew 26:60b-61), that same Gospel also admits that there were other witnesses who offered contradictory testimony beforehand (see Matthew 26:60a – along with Mark 14:56, which clearly stated that “many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony did not agree”).10 Despite this fact – and the fact that the oral Law was clear in invalidating all testimony that proved contradictory (see Mishnah Sanhedrin 5:2), both the authors of Matthew & Mark note that the Sanhedrin illegally honored this testimony (see Matthew 26:62‘s & Mark 14:60’s “Have you no answer to that which they say against you?”). This violation of the Law was made even more egregious in light of the fact that it was required by Law for all witnesses to testify truthfully (see Exodus 20:16 & Exodus 23:2), and that to fail to do so in a capital case was in & of itself a capital offense (see Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 & Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:2) – in this case a capital offense that was not only not punished, but actually openly encouraged.
*Jesus’ conviction was based on one-sided evidence … Aside from the aforementioned illegality regarding the witness testimony of Jesus’ trial (see Exodus 23:1‘s “You shall not join hands with the wicked to act as a malicious witness” and Deuteronomy 5:20‘s “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”), said proceeding was illegitimate for a number of other evidentiary reasons. First & foremost, the merits of Jesus’ defense were completely ignored. Jewish Law essentially demanded that all those with evidence must testify in court (see Leviticus 5:1), that witnesses must be intensely cross-examined (see Mishnah Sanhedrin 3:6‘s “Bring them in and instill fear in them” & Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:2‘s “The more one examines a witness, the more praiseworthy he becomes”), and that capital cases especially must have intense “examination and inquiry” into the facts surrounding the charge (see Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:1). The Law also demanded that judges weigh every capital accusation with impeccable sincerity (via Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5). Quite obviously, none of these tenets were fulfilled in Jesus’ case. None of his friends, family members, or disciples were brought forth, nor were any other favorable witnesses called to testify on his behalf. Secondly, the oral Law made it illegal to open any capital trial with a call for conviction (see Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:1). Indeed, as it is in any sincerely civilized society, in ancient Israel all accused were considered innocent until proven guilty. This tenet, too, was violated during Jesus’ proceeding. Thirdly and finally – and some would say most egregiously, Jesus was required to testify against himself – and indeed was ultimately condemned on the offering of the same (see Matthew 26:63-65, Mark 14:61-63, & Luke 22:67-71), and this in direct abrogation of the established Law of the day (see Maimonides on Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:2 – as well as Talmud Sanhedrin 9b).
*The charges against Jesus were altered mid-trial … The priests & elders of the Sanhedrin were so desperate to be rid of Jesus that they illegally altered the charges brought against him when presenting the same to Pilate – shifting their allegations from blasphemy against God (see Matthew 26:63-66, Mark 14:61-64, & Luke 22:67-71) to sedition against Roman authority (“We found this man perverting the nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the Emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah – that is, a king … He stirs up the people throughout all of Judea with his teaching” – see Luke 23:2-5); a charge of which he was ultimately convicted without the presence of any substantiating evidence in support of the same (see Matthew 27:17-26, Mark 15:12-15, Luke 23:20-24, & John 18:38 + John 19:4-16).
*Penultimately, the Sanhedrin convicted Jesus with an illegitimately unanimous verdict … While it was true that a majority opinion of the Sanhedrin was considered necessary to convict in capital cases (as long as the majority advantage was greater than one – see Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:1) and while it was also clearly true that the vast majority of the Sanhedrin were in favor of convicting Jesus, Jewish oral Law made it just as clear that unanimous decisions in favor of capital conviction were evidence of a tainted court, and that all litigants so judged were to be granted an acquittal thereby (also via Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:1).11
*Finally, the Sanhedrin rendered an illegitimate verdict at Jesus’ trial for the following reasons: 01) The trial took place in an non-sanctified venue (i.e. in the private residence of Caiaphas, the high priest – see Matthew 26:57; also Mark 14:54 & John 18:24) instead of in the legally recognized Hall of Hewn Stone (see Mishnah Middot 5:4, Talmud Idolatry 1:8, & Maimonides’ comment in Sanhedrin 14 “A sentence of death can be pronounced only so long as the Sanhedrin holds its sessions in the appointed place”) … 02) The verdict was rendered despite the lack of any reasonably reliable testimony from witnesses (see Exodus 23:7) … 03) A verdict of blasphemy was rendered against Jesus even though the Law required that convicted blasphemers must first explicitly utter the name of God (see Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:5) – something Jesus never did during his trial … 04) The priests & elders of the Sanhedrin openly called for Jesus’ crucifixion (and Jesus was indeed ultimately crucified) even though crucifixion was an unsanctioned form of execution under Jewish Law (see Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:1) … 05) Jesus was crucified despite the fact that convicted blasphemers were required by Jewish Law to be stoned to death (see Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:4) … and 06) According to the Law Jesus was required to be immediately executed after his conviction, and yet the Sanhedrin took him instead to Pilate’s headquarters – essentially to be tried a second time on a seemingly new set of charges (see Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:1).
“You shall not render an unjust verdict …
With justice shall you judge your neighbor;
by the blood of him you shall not profit …
Keep far from all false charges, and
kill not the innocent or those in the right.”
(Leviticus 19:15-16 & Exodus 23:7)
…………………………………………………….
1The Greater Sanhedrin, or Grand Council, was the primary legal tribunal in ancient Jewish society. As a court of law (and as the ultimate adjudicator of the Law) it consisted of 71 Jewish priests, nobles, elders, scribes, & scholars and was always convened in Jerusalem. It remains uncertain as to when the Sanhedrin first held court (the Mishnah Sanhedrin dates back to the early 200’s CE and Josephus also mentioned the Sanhedrin in his writings in the early 90’s CE) and yet it is reasonable to assume that the tribunal (or at least some form thereof) dates back to near the time of Moses (as vaguely evidenced by the 70 appointed elders mentioned in Numbers 11:16).
2Admittedly, Mark 14:61-62 (unlike the Gospels of Matthew & Luke) does have Jesus apparently saying “I am” when asked whether or not he was “the Christ; the Son of the Blessed One.” That having been said, there are number of things to consider when thinking about the same – 01) Jesus does not say “I am” (the Greek eimi – Strong’s #1510) in this verse, but rather “I, I am” (the Greek ego eimi, adding Strong’s #1473) – a reference he thereby makes not to himself but to the divine Christ essence he has chosen to embody; the same essence that latently resides within all human beings (see John 14:12-26) … 02) In the same vein, while the priests were indeed probably referencing the sole Davidian Messiah when asking Jesus if he was “the Christos” in Mark 14:61, the Greek term christos did not in & of itself mean “the anointed one”, but rather “an anointed one” – a term which, for Jesus at least, meant anyone who had chosen to “pick up their cross” and follow his Way (Luke 9:23) … 03) Just like the parallel tellings of Matthew & Luke, Jesus concludes his answer by citing Daniel 7:13 – a fascinatingly important passage; seeing as how it is one of the only times in the Bible where the term “Son of Man” is indeed used to refer to the lone Davidian Messiah, and seeing as how Jesus went out of his way at the very beginning of his ministry to reject the same gifts accepted by that Messiah in the book of Daniel when they were offered to him in the wilderness by Satan (see Matthew 4:4-10) … 04) At least as far as biblical literalists are concerned, Jesus’ response of “You have said so” in both Matthew & Luke (which would have to be cross-applied to Mark to keep the three Gospels synoptic) is clearly his way of cryptically saying “No, I am not” (or at the very least, “Not in the way you imply”), with the juxtaposition of John 6:15 with Mark 15:2, Luke 23:3, & John 18:37 proving the same.
3Again, at the very least for all Christian conservatives who claim to read the Bible “literally,” Jesus’ response of “You have said so” in this instance is clearly his way of cryptically saying “No, I am not” (or at the very least, “Not in the way you think”), with the juxtaposition of John 6:15 with Mark 15:2, Luke 23:3, & John 18:37 making this blatantly clear.
4In John 18:29-31, after asking them what Jesus was accused of doing, the priests & elders avoid answering directly by passive-aggressively trying to coerce Pilate into accepting their sentence outright without further inquiry. Pilate was unswayed by this backhanded tactic, and was possibly even a bit annoyed by it – as evidenced by him then attempting to send the case back to the Sanhedrin from whence it came, saying “Take him yourselves and judge him according to your own Law.” The priests & elders then reminded Pilate that blasphemy was a capital offense (sedition was as well) , and that Roman law forbade them from executing anyone without his approval. It was at this point that the Sanhedrin officially accepted Roman jurisdiction as far as Jesus’ punishment was concerned – it was at this point that the priests & elders abrogated their own Law in order to ensure Jesus’ death by eventual crucifixion; a form of capital punishment not allowed under Jewish Law.
5Three of the four canonical Gospels mention a supposed custom whereby the presiding Roman governor would release a prisoner of the people’s choosing (see Matthew 27:15, Mark 15:6, & John 18:39 – noting as well that later copies of the Gospel of Luke also contain a similar mention – see Luke 23:17). While there is no historical evidence whatsoever for such a custom other than these biblical accounts – and while it is admittedly highly unlikely that any Roman governor would ever make such a concession (especially when the custom so honored was a Jewish one – see John 18:39), there have been a few recorded instances of similar Roman leniencies. It was also fully within the proscribed authority of Pilate to make such a concession, seeing as how neither Jesus nor Barabbas had been officially convicted of their crimes and were both merely being held prior to final judgment & sentencing (otherwise they both would have already been well on their way to their respective crucifixions; the standard method of swift execution for all convicted enemies of the state) … Of course, from the Roman perspective – especially in light of the highly volatile sociopolitical climate of that time – this story is highly unusual, in that Pilate was a notoriously cruel governor, and that he was at that time supported by overwhelming military power. As such, we are left with two possible explanations for the source of this story – 01) it is fully fictional, created by the author of the Gospel of Mark to shift the blame for Jesus’ death from the Roman government to the Jewish religions leaders (with the Gospel of Matthew taking the tale a step further and shifting the blame onto the Jewish people altogether – see Matthew 27:25), or 02) Pilate was indeed in league with Jesus and his co-conspirators (including his friend, Joseph of Arimathea – see John 19:38-40, along with the Gospel of Peter ) and willingly helped them carry out Jesus’ plan to have himself be crucified as a most symbolically potent ending to his ministry (see my book Exhuming Easter for a comprehensive biblical proof of the same).
6While Matthew 27:16-17 does state that Barabbas’ name was actually “Jesus Barabbas”, and while the name Barabbas literally means “son of the (heavenly) Father” in Aramaic, the majority of scholars agree that the story does indeed speak of two different men (after all, Jesus Christ was a radical advocate for peace & Love, and would never have been cited as having committed any acts of violence) … It is generally agreed among scholars that Mark was the first Gospel written and that Matthew & Luke copied, edited, and added to its texts shortly thereafter. As such, it is significant to note that – even though John 18:40 calls Barabbas a mere “bandit” (a term Josephus used to describe revolutionaries, by the way) and Matthew 27:16 merely describes him as being a “notorious prisoner” – Mark describes Barabbas as being accused of committing murder during a recent insurrection (see Mark 15:7), with Luke 23:19 echoing this claim by stating that Barabbas was being held in connection with a “riot.” And this makes sense for the following reasons – 01) A Jewish crowd at that time would never have cried out in support of a supposed thief &/or robber, whereas they certainly would have loudly demanded the release one of their freedom fighters. 02) The Jewish people of that day were longing for a Davidian Messiah to come and rescue them from Roman occupation (a desire that came to head just a few decades later; a desire that led to the Jewish revolution of 66 AD and the complete destruction of the Temple by the Romans four years thereafter) – a hero who, much like Barabbas, would advocate subversive military actions against their oppressors and conquer them by force; a hero quite unlike Jesus Christ, a man who vehemently denied being such a sociopolitical savior (see Matthew 5:9, Matthew 22:41-45, Mark 10:18, & John 5:41 et al) and a man who just as openly advocated radically non–violent resistance thereto instead (see Matthew 5:39-48, Mark 12:17, & Luke 27-36 et al). 03) Pilate’s vehement reluctance to release Barabbas and obvious desire to acquit Jesus (both of whom having been charged with the same crime) shows that he was concerned about the violence of the former (and in seeming admiration of the peacefulness of the latter). 04) The Sanhedrin were especially concerned with any religious movements that even seemed messianic (“If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our [Temple] and our nation. It is better that one man die … than that the whole nation perish” ~ John 11:48-50), explaining the lengths to which they went to ignore their own Law and persuade Pilate to have Jesus permanently removed from the scene.
7See Matthew 26:3-4, Mark 14:1-2, & Luke 22:1-2 (where the priests vowed to “conspired to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him”) – along with Matthew 26:14-16, Mark 14:10-11, & Luke 22:3-6 (where they enlist Judas to do the same – see also Matthew 27:3-4, where Judas’ repentance of his part in this sin is callously rejected by the members of Sanhedrin).
8While more than a few scholars believe that Joseph of Arimathea (“a respected member of the Council” – see Mark 15:43) was the uncle of Jesus’ moth Mary – and thus the Great Uncle of Jesus himself (a relation that was not precluded under Mishnah Sanhedrin 3:4), there is substantial evidence to suggest that his kindred to Jesus was far more intimate than that. And most of this evidence hinges upon the biblical fact that Joseph was the one who claimed Jesus’ body after his crucifixion (see Matthew 27:58, Mark 15:43, Luke 23:52-53, & John 19:38), and that he would have had to have done so as legal next-of-kin – and this for the simple reason that he could not have successfully done so as a mere friend (as both Roman & Jewish Law demanded that all bodies of executed criminals be disposed of in mass graves unless claimed by an intimate relative beforehand) or disciple (John 19:38-39 notes that Joseph was hiding his discipleship at the time, and Matthew 27:62-66 makes it clear that the authorities in no way wanted Jesus’ disciples to have access to his body) … As an intriguing sideNOTE, Luke 23:50-56 clearly indicates that Joseph of Arimathea “had not consented [to either the] decision or the action” of the Sanhedrin in Jesus’ case; meaning that their verdict for the conviction of Jesus was not a unanimous one – and thus was a valid one in that regard (see Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:1, where any unanimous verdict for conviction in a capital case illegitimized the same and was cause for immediate acquittal).
9While it is true that Matthew 27:1, Mark 15:1, & Luke 22:66-71 all show Jesus’ trial officially concluding the morning after his arrest the previous evening, all the legal proceedings still took place on the same day according to Jewish Law (where each day runs from sundown to sundown).
10NOTE that Mark 14:57-59 (written before the texts of Matthew were conceived &/or copied) speaks to the same evidence, and makes clear that “even on this point [the witnesses’] testimony did not agree” … NOTE as well that neither the Gospel of Luke nor the Gospel of John mention the hearing of witness testimony at all.
11To be fair, Luke 23:50-51 makes it clear that Joseph of Arimathea had not agreed with either the Sanhedrin’s plan to arrest and try Jesus nor the death sentence that was subsequently levied upon him. This would mean that if he was indeed present at the rendering of the final verdict (as must have been the case, otherwise the necessary quorum of 71 judges would not have been met – see Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:5) then he would have officially dissented, and the subsequent 70 to 1 vote for Jesus’ conviction would have been thereby legitimized.
;