except
that claim was false. We vainly search the record for even an intimation
that inquiry was made or suggested as to the grounds upon which Jesus
based His exalted claims. The action of the high priest in rending his
garments was a dramatic affectation of pious horror at the blasphemy
with which his ears had been assailed. It was expressly forbidden in the
law that the high priest rend his clothes;[1264] but from
extra-scriptural writings we learn that the rending of garments as an
attestation of most grievous guilt, such as that of blasphemy, was
allowable under traditional rule.[1265] There is no indication that the
vote of the judges was taken and recorded in the precise and orderly
manner required by the law.

Jesus stood convicted of the most heinous offense known in Jewry.
However unjustly, He had been pronounced guilty of blasphemy by the
supreme tribunal of the nation. In strict accuracy we cannot say that
the Sanhedrists sentenced Christ to death, inasmuch as the power to
authoritatively pronounce capital sentences had been taken from the
Jewish council by Roman decree. The high-priestly court, however,
decided that Jesus was worthy of death, and so certified when they
handed Him over to Pilate. In their excess of malignant hate, Israel's
judges abandoned their Lord to the wanton will of the attendant varlets,
who heaped upon Him every indignity their brutish instincts could
suggest. They spurted their foul spittle into His face;[1266] and then,
having blindfolded Him, amused themselves by smiting Him again and
again, saying the while: "Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that
smote thee?" The miscreant crowd mocked Him, and railed upon Him with
jeers and taunts, and branded themselves as blasphemers in fact.[1267]

The law and the practise of the time required that any person found
guilty of a capital offense, after due trial before a Jewish tribunal,
should be given a second trial on the following day; and at this later
hearing any or all of the judges who had before voted for conviction
could reverse themselves; but no one who had once voted for acquittal
could change his ballot. A bare majority was sufficient for acquittal,
but more than a majority was required for conviction. By a provision
that must appear to us most unusual, if all the judges voted for
conviction on a capital charge the verdict was not to stand and the
accused had to be set at liberty; for, it was argued, a unanimous vote
agai