Controversial interpretations of justice

Would Jesus Now be Prosecuted by US? (Part #3)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Visuals] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

It is questionable whether any objective consideration of the trial of Jesus is possible. As noted by James Still (The Problem with Jesus' Arrest and Trial. secular Web, 1995):

There is a problem when dealing with the various contradictory biblical accounts of Jesus' arrest and trial as they relate to each other and Jewish practice of the day.

Whilst useful arguments are presented by parties with very different axes to grind, it is difficult to challenge the weaknesses in those arguments -- except in the light of the points made by other parties for their own particular reasons. These are themselves necessarily questionable in turn.

This situation does however help to frame the manner in which the trials of Manning, Assange and Snowden might take place.

One point of departure with respect to the trial of Jesus is the clearly argued case made by Herman L Hoeh (Twelve Reasons Why Jesus' Trial Was Illegal, 1983). Hoeh was an ordained minister in the evangelical Worldwide Church of God (itself a victim of controversy). He however argued that if Jesus were tried in many of today's courts, he would be found guilty. His twelve reasons for the illegaility of the trial, citing Jewish legal procedure and criticizing Husband's arguments, are:

• Jesus was arrested illegally. He was arrested secretly, by night, on no formal charge of any crime, by those who were to be his judges.
• Jesus was illegally subjected to a secret preliminary capital examination by night, contrary to the law.
• the indictment against Jesus was illegal because the judges themselves brought up an unprovable charge against Jesus without any prior testimony by witnesses.
• the trial of Jesus began illegally before sunrise in order that no one could testify on Jesus' behalf.
• the Sanhedrin was illegally convened to try a capital offense on a day before an annual sabbath
• the trial was illegal because it was concluded in one day.
• the indictment against Jesus was false and its use illegal because it was founded upon Jesus' uncorroborated statement.
• the condemnation of Jesus was illegal because the merits of the defense were not considered.
• the condemnation of Jesus by part of the Sanhedrin was illegal because those who would have voted against the condemnation of Jesus were not there.
• the sentence against Jesus was pronounced in a place forbidden by law.
• most Sanhedrin members themselves were legally disqualified to try Jesus.
• the court illegally switched the charges against Jesus from blasphemy to sedition and treason before Pilate.

The reasons are consistent with the traditional effort of Christianity to hold Judaism responsible for the execution of Jesus. The legal and Jewish perspectives are carefully examined by Max Radin (The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth, 1931) followed by the wider-ranging legal study of George R. Dekle (The Case against Christ: a critique of the prosecution of Jesus, 2011). The "political" argument, reinforced by the agenda of atheists, notably explores the manner in which Jesus could indeed be "legitimately" framed as a terrorist.

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Visuals] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]