Introduction to JavaScript Programming with XML and PHP 1st Edition Drake Test Bank instant download
Uploaded by
vovcicdginoIntroduction to JavaScript Programming with XML and PHP 1st Edition Drake Test Bank instant download
Uploaded by
vovcicdginoIntroduction to JavaScript Programming with XML
and PHP 1st Edition Drake Test Bank download
https://testbankfan.com/product/introduction-to-javascript-
programming-with-xml-and-php-1st-edition-drake-test-bank/
Explore and download more test bank or solution manual
at testbankfan.com
Here are some recommended products for you. Click the link to
download, or explore more at testbankfan.com
Introduction to JavaScript Programming with XML and PHP
1st Edition Drake Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/introduction-to-javascript-
programming-with-xml-and-php-1st-edition-drake-solutions-manual/
Introduction to Programming with C++ 3rd Edition Liang
Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/introduction-to-programming-
with-c-3rd-edition-liang-test-bank/
Introduction to Programming with C++ 4th Edition Diane Zak
Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/introduction-to-programming-
with-c-4th-edition-diane-zak-test-bank/
Exploring Sociology The Concise Edition Canadian 1st
Edition Ravelli Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/exploring-sociology-the-concise-
edition-canadian-1st-edition-ravelli-test-bank/
Introduction to Operations Research 9th Edition Hillier
Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/introduction-to-operations-
research-9th-edition-hillier-solutions-manual/
Experience Psychology 3rd Edition King Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/experience-psychology-3rd-edition-
king-test-bank/
Paralegal Professional 5th Edition Goldman Solutions
Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/paralegal-professional-5th-edition-
goldman-solutions-manual/
Introduction to Young Children with Special Needs Birth
Through Age Eight 4th Edition Gargiulo Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/introduction-to-young-children-with-
special-needs-birth-through-age-eight-4th-edition-gargiulo-solutions-
manual/
Technology Now Your Companion to SAM Computer Concepts 1st
Edition Corinne Hoisington Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/technology-now-your-companion-to-sam-
computer-concepts-1st-edition-corinne-hoisington-test-bank/
Science of Nutrition 4th Edition Thompson Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/science-of-nutrition-4th-edition-
thompson-test-bank/
Introduction to JavaScript Programming Test Bank Chapter 6
with XML and PHP
Test Bank for Chapter 6
MULTIPLE CHOICE
1. Where are <form></form> tags placed?
a. Directly after the opening <body> tag b. Anywhere in the HTML document
and must be closed right before the
closing </body> tag
c. Anywhere in the body of a web page d. In the <head> section
ANS: C
2. Buttons that can be automatically created using the type attribute are:
a. submit b. reset
c. hidden d. (a) and (b) only e. (a), (b), and (c)
ANS: E
3. Which of the following are ways to submit form data?
a. By email b. to a JavaScript program
c. to a server d. (b) and (c) only e. (a), (b), and (c)
ANS: E
4. When using a set of radio buttons, which attribute must be the same for all buttons in the set
a. name b. value
c. id d. selected
ANS: A
5. Which line of code should be used to make the following code snippet work?
var longString = "Great day, isn't it?";
var shortString = _____???_______
document.write("It's going ton rain to" + shortString);
a. shortString = longString.substr(20, 7);
b. shortString = longString.substr(6, 3);
c. shortString = substr(longString, 6, 3);
d. shortString = longString.substr(7, 3);
ANS: B
© 2014 Pearson Education 1
Introduction to JavaScript Programming Test Bank Chapter 6
with XML and PHP
6. Which of the following will send form results from a form named “importantInfo” to the email
address lizzy@SFC.edu with the subject “Read this!”
a. <form name=“info” method=“post” id=“important info” action =
lizzy@SFC.edu?subject = Read this!” enctype=“plain/text”>
b. <form name=“importantInfo” method=“post” id=“info” action=
“mailto:lizzy@SFC.edu?subject=Read this!” enctype=“plain/text”>
c. <form name=“importantInfo” method=“email” id=“info” action =
mailto:lizzy@SFC.edu “subject=Read this!” enctype=“plain/text”>
d. <form name=“importantInfo” method=post id=info action =
“mailto:lizzy@SFC.edu ? subject=Read this!” enctype=text/plain>
ANS: B
7. Which line of code will check if any character in the string variable pword is the letter X and
return true for the variable check?
var check = false;
for (i = 0; i < pword.length; i++)
{
_____???_______
check = true;
}
a. if (var charX == "X");
b. if (var charX == charX.charAt[i]);
c. if (var charX.charAt[i] == "X");
d. if (var charX.charCodeAt[i] == "X");
ANS: C
8. Given the following line of code, what does the this keyword refer to?
<input type = "button" name = "murgatroyd" id = "Mortimer"
onclick = "doSomething(this.id)" />
© 2014 Pearson Education 2
Introduction to JavaScript Programming Test Bank Chapter 6
with XML and PHP
a. the button type b. the name attribute
c. the id attribute d. the onclick() event
ANS: C
9. Which of the following will check to see if a password contains a # sign, given that the
character code for "#" is 37? The password is 8 characters long and is stored in a variable named
pword.
a. var check = false;
for (j = 1; j < 7; j++)
{
if (pword.charCodeAt[j] == 37);
check = true;
}
b. var check = false;
for (j = 0; j < 8; j++)
{
if (pword.charCodeAt(j) == 37)
check = true;
c. var check = false;
for (j = 0; j <= 8; j++)
{
if (pword.charCodeAt()== 37)
check = true;
}
d. var check = true;
for (j = 1; j < 9; j++)
{
if (pword.charCodeAt(37)== "#")
check = true;
}
ANS: B
10. Which of the following sets or changes the tab order of form controls?
a. tab b. tab = 0; c. tab index d. index
ANS: C
© 2014 Pearson Education 3
Introduction to JavaScript Programming Test Bank Chapter 6
with XML and PHP
11. Which of the following will substitute an image named redButton.jpg that is stored in the same
place as the web page for a generic button? The doStuff() function is called when the button is
clicked.
a. button type="image" src=redButton.jpg onclick="doStuff()" /></button>
b. <a href="Javascript:doStuff()"> <img src = "redButton.jpg"> </a>
c. <button type="image" onclick="doStuff()"><img src="redButton.jpg" />
d. <a href=:Javascript:doStuff()" src ="redButton.jpg" type="button" />
ANS: B
12. Which of the following will call a function named setBlue() when a text box with id =
"blue" gets the focus?
a. onfocus = "blue" onclick = ("setBlue()");
b. onfocus.blue = setBlue()
c. id = "blue" onclick = setBlue()
d. onfocus = "setBlue('blue')"
ANS: D
13. Which of the following is the correct way to set a background color of blue to an HTML element with
id = "color_change"?
a. document.getElementById("color_change").style.background = "blue";
b. document.getElementById("color_change").innerHTML = "blue";
c. document.getElementById("color_change").style = blue(this.id);
d. document.getElementById("color_change").this.id = background("blue");
ANS: A
14. Which of the following checks if the sixth character of a string variable named myMail is the @ sign
using a Boolean variable named atSign set to true if this is true?
a. for (k = 0; k < myMail.length; k++)
{
if(myMail.charAt(k) == @)
atSign = true;
}
b. atSign = "@";
for (k = 0; k < 7; k++)
{
if(myMail.charAt(k) == atSign)
flag = true;
}
c. if(myMail.substr(5, 1) == "@")
atSign = true;
d. if(myMail.substr(1, 5) == "@")
© 2014 Pearson Education 4
Introduction to JavaScript Programming Test Bank Chapter 6
with XML and PHP
atSign = true;
ANS: C
15. Which of the following checks to see if the number of characters in a given string named myName is
greater than 2 and less than 11?
a. if(myName.length > 2 && myName.length < 11)
b. if(myName.length > 2 || myName.length < 11)
c. if(myName.length > 1 && myName.length <= 10)
d. if(myName.length >= 2 || myName.length <= 11)
ANS: A
TRUE/FALSE
1. True/False: Radio buttons are used to allow users to select several options at one time.
ANS: F
2. True/False: A form using the <form></form> tag pair can be placed anywhere within a web page.
ANS: T
3. True/False: When a form is enhanced with JavaScript, an event handler must be used to evoke the
JavaScript code.
ANS: T
4. True/False: The Common Gateway Interface (CGI) allows web pages to be generated as executable
files.
ANS: T
5. True/False: CGI scripts are normally saved in a folder named cgi-bin that exists on every client's
hard drive.
ANS: F
6. True/False: The property of each radio button in a group of radio buttons that must be the same for
each button is the id property.
ANS: F
7. True/False: The checked property can be used to return the state of a checkbox to a JavaScript
function.
ANS: T
8. True/False: The properties that determine the size of a text box are cols and rows.
ANS: F
© 2014 Pearson Education 5
Introduction to JavaScript Programming Test Bank Chapter 6
with XML and PHP
9. True/False: If the information entered into a textarea box exceeds the number of rows originally set,
a scroll bar is created.
ANS: T
10. True/False: The two types of buttons that display masked text (such as *'s or #'s) to hide what a user
enters are "hidden" and "password".
ANS: F
© 2014 Pearson Education 6
Other documents randomly have
different content
against a prisoner in whose favor the record of fact was so
pronounced.
In determining the weight that this evidence should have had in
affecting the decision of the judges we must not forget that a Jewish
prisoner was not required to prove his innocence. It was incumbent
upon the Commonwealth of Israel to establish guilt beyond all
doubt. We should also remember that the peculiar tendency of the
Hebrew system of criminal procedure was in the direction of
complete protection to the accused. Not reasonable doubt merely,
but all doubt was resolved in his favor. It was a maxim of the
Hebrew law that "the Sanhedrin was to save, not to destroy life."
Pretext after pretext was sought to acquit. "The primary object of
the Hebrew judicial system," says Benny, "was to render the
conviction of an innocent person impossible. All the ingenuity of the
Jewish legists was directed to the attainment of this end." If this
generous and merciful tendency of Hebrew law had been duly
observed, would not the production of the evidence above noted
have resulted in the acquittal of Jesus?
But, at this point, let us return to the consideration of the real
meaning of the objection urged in Point XII. The irregularity therein
alleged is that the Sanhedrin paid no attention whatever to the
defense of Jesus. And herein was the real error. The members of
that court might have rejected as false the claims of the Nazarene to
Messiahship. They might have denounced as fraudulent his
pretensions to miraculous powers. They could not for this reason
have been charged with judicial unfairness, if they had first heard his
defense and had then "weighed it in the sincerity of their
conscience." Infallibility of judgment cannot be demanded of judicial
officers.
In closing the discussion of errors committed at the night trial in the
palace of Caiaphas, the reader should be reminded that the twelve
Points above mentioned are not exhaustive of the irregularities.
Others might be mentioned. It seems that Jesus, being the accused,
should not have been put under oath.[343] On the days on which
capital verdicts were pronounced Hebrew judges were required to
mourn and fast.[344] But there was evidently no mourning and
fasting by Caiaphas and his colleagues at the time of the
condemnation of Jesus. Again, there is no evidence that Antecedent
Warning was properly administered. Still other errors might be
noted, if a legal presumption in favor of the correctness of the
record did not prevent. The irregularities which we have heretofore
discussed, it is believed, exhaust all the material errors committed at
the first session of the Sanhedrin. At least, no others are revealed by
the Gospel records.
The Morning Session of the Sanhedrin.—About three hours after the
close of the night session in the palace of Caiaphas, that is about six
o'clock in the morning, the Sanhedrin reconvened in a second
session. In the interval between these sittings Jesus was brutalized
by His keepers. Exactly what the priests were doing we do not know.
They were probably busily engaged in perfecting plans for the
destruction of the prisoner in their charge.
The daylight meeting is thus reported in Matthew xxvii. 1: "When
the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people
took counsel against Jesus to put him to death." In Mark xv. 1 the
same session is thus recorded: "And straightway in the morning the
chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the
whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and
delivered him to Pilate."
The exact nature of this morning sitting, whether a regular trial or
an informal gathering, is not certainly known. Meyer, Ellicott, and
Lichtenstein maintain that this second session was nothing more
than a prolongation of the night trial, perhaps with a brief recess,
and that its special object was to convene for consultation
concerning the carrying out of the sentence which had already been
pronounced against Jesus.[345] But this view is entirely exceptional.
It is maintained by the greater number of reputable authorities that
the second sitting was in the nature of a second trial. The solution of
the difficulty seems to turn upon the account given by St. Luke, for
St. John records the details of neither the night nor the morning
session. St. Luke describes a regular trial, but it is not positively
known whether his account refers to the night or to the morning
meeting. If his report refers to the same trial as that described in
Matthew xxvi. 57-68 and in Mark xiv. 53-65, then we have only the
brief notices in Matthew xxvii. 1 and in Mark xv. 1 concerning the
morning session, which indicate only a very brief and informal
meeting of the Sanhedrin at daybreak. On the other hand, if the
report of St. Luke refers to the daylight meeting of the Sanhedrin
referred to by St. Matthew and St. Mark then we have received from
the third Evangelist a description of a regular trial at the second
session of the Sanhedrin. Andrews has thus expressed himself very
cogently concerning this matter:
Our decision as to a second and distinct session of the
Sanhedrin will mainly depend upon the place we give to the
account in Luke xxii. 66-71. Is this examination of Jesus
identical with that first session of Matthew xxvi. 57-68, and of
Mark xiv. 53-65? Against this identity are some strong
objections: First, The mention of time by Luke: "As soon as it
was day." This corresponds well to the time of the morning
session of Matthew and Mark, but not to the time when Jesus
was first led before the Sanhedrin, which must have been two
or three hours before day. Second, The place of the meeting:
"They led Him into their council," ἀνήγαγον αὐτὸν εἰϛ τὸ
συνέδριον ἑαυτῶν. This is rendered by some: "They led Him
up into their council chamber," or the place where they
usually held their sessions. Whether this council chamber was
the room Gazith at the east corner of the court of the temple,
is not certain. Lightfoot (on Matthew xxvi. 3) conjectures that
the Sanhedrin was driven from this its accustomed seat half a
year or thereabout before the death of Christ. But if this were
so, still the "Tabernæ," where it established its sessions, were
shops near the gate Shusan, and so connected with the
temple. They went up to that room where they usually met.
Third, The dissimilarity of the proceedings, as stated by Luke,
which shows that this was no formal trial. There is here no
mention of witnesses—no charges brought to be proved
against Him. He is simply asked to tell them if He is the Christ
("If thou art the Christ, tell us," R. V.); and this seems plainly
to point to the result of the former session. Then, having
confessed Himself to be the Christ, the Son of God, He was
condemned to death for blasphemy. It was only necessary
now that He repeat His confession, and hence this question is
put directly to Him: "Art thou the Christ? tell us." His reply, "If
I tell you, ye will not believe; and if I also ask you, ye will not
answer me, nor let me go," points backward to his former
confession. To His reply they only answer by asking, "Art thou
then the Son of God?" The renewed avowal that He is the
Son of God, heard by them all from His own lips, opens the
way for His immediate delivery into Pilate's hands. Fourth,
The position which Luke gives (xxii. 63-65) to the insults and
abuse heaped upon Jesus. There can be no doubt that they
are the same mentioned by Matthew and Mark as occurring
immediately after the sentence had been first pronounced.
From all this it is a probable, though not a certain conclusion,
that Luke (xxii. 66-71) refers to the same meeting of the
Sanhedrin mentioned by Matthew (xxvii. 1) and Mark (xv. 1),
and relates, in part, what then took place. (Alford thinks that
Luke has confused things and relates as happening at the
second session what really happened at the first.) This
meeting was, then, a morning session convened to ratify
formally what had been done before with haste and
informality. The circumstances under which its members had
been earlier convened, at the palace of Caiaphas, sufficiently
show that the legal forms, which they were so scrupulous in
observing, had not been complied with.[346]
If then the second session of the Sanhedrin was in the nature of a
regular trial, what were the facts of the proceedings? St. Luke says:
"And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief
priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council,
saying, Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell
you, ye will not believe: And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me,
nor let me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand
of the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of
God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What
need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his
own mouth."[347]
The reader will readily perceive the source of the difficulty which we
have just discussed. This report of St. Luke points both ways, toward
both the night and morning sessions. "And as soon as it was day"
clearly indicates a daybreak meeting, but the remainder of the
account bears a most striking resemblance to the reports of the
night trial given by St. Matthew and St. Mark. This seeming
discrepancy is very easily reconciled, however, when we reflect that
the second trial required by Hebrew law to be held in every case
where a verdict of guilt had been pronounced, was virtually a
repetition of the first trial. Benny tells us that the second trial was a
critical examination of the trial of the first day, in which the
questions and answers originally asked and made were carefully
reviewed and reëxamined.[348] Is it very strange, then, that at the
morning trial described by St. Luke substantially the same questions
are asked and answers given as are found in the reports of the night
trial by St. Matthew and St. Mark?
We may now ask: What was the purpose of this second trial? Why
did not the first trial suffice? According to the most reliable
authorities, the answer to this question is to be found in that
provision of the Hebrew law which required two trials instead of one,
in every case where the prisoner had been found guilty at the first
trial. Not only were there to be two trials, but they were to be held
on different days. The morning session of the Sanhedrin was
intended, therefore, to give a semblance of legality and regularity to
this requirement of Hebrew law. But we shall see how completely
the Sanhedrin failed in this design. "What legitimacy," says Keim,
"might be lacking in the proceedings of the nocturnal sitting of the
Sanhedrin, was to be completely made up by the morning sitting,
without prejudice to the authority and the—in the main point—
decisive action of the former.... There nevertheless was no lack of
illegality. The most striking instance of this was the fact that though
they wished to bring about an extension of the procedure over two
days they had in fact only two sittings, and not two separate days.
But contempt of the legal ordinances was much more seriously
shown by the absence of any investigation into the circumstances of
the case at the second sitting, although both law and tradition
demanded such an investigation."[349]
If "both law and tradition demanded such an investigation," that is,
if the second trial of the case on the second day of the proceedings
was required to be formal and in the nature of an action de novo; if
the second trial was required by law to be characterized by all the
formality, solemnity, and legality of the first trial; what errors, we
may ask, are disclosed by the reports of St. Luke, St. Matthew, and
St. Mark in the proceedings against Jesus conducted by the
Sanhedrin at the morning session? To be brief, reply may be made
that the irregularities were virtually the same as those that occurred
at the night trial. The same precipitancy that was forbidden by
Hebrew law is apparent. This haste prevented, of course, that
careful deliberation and painstaking investigation of the case which
the Mosaic Code as well as the rules of the Mishna imperatively
demanded. It is true that the second trial was not conducted at
night. But the Passover Feast was still in progress, and no court
could legally sit at such a time. The Sanhedrin at the second session
seems to have been still sitting in the palace of Caiaphas instead of
the Hall of Hewn Stones, the legal meeting place of the court. This
we learn from a passage in St. John.[350] Again, no witnesses seem
to have been summoned, and the accused was convicted upon his
uncorroborated confession.
And finally, the verdict at the second trial, as was the case in that of
the first, seems to have been unanimous, and therefore illegal. This
unanimity is indicated by the combined reports of St. Matthew, St.
Mark, and St. Luke. St. Matthew says: "When the morning was
come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel
against Jesus to put Him to death." St. Mark says: "And straightway
in the morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders
and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him
away, and delivered him to Pilate." These accounts of the first two
Evangelists very clearly state that the full Sanhedrin was present at
the morning trial. Then St. Luke very explicitly explains the nature
and manner of the verdict: "Then said they all, Art thou then the
Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said,
What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of
his own mouth."
It may be objected that no formal verdict was pronounced at the
second trial. Such a verdict would have been expressed in these
words: "Thou, Jesus, art guilty."[351] While such words are not
expressly reported by the Evangelists, the account of St. Luke taken
in connection with the report of St. Mark of the night trial, which the
morning session was intended to confirm, clearly indicates that such
a verdict must have been pronounced. A reasonable inference from
the whole context of the synoptic writers in describing both trials
certainly justifies such a conclusion.
The question again arises: If the full Sanhedrin was present at the
morning session and if all the members condemned Jesus, either
with or without a formal verdict, is it not true that both Nicodemus
and Joseph of Arimathea, who were doubtless members of the
court, were arrayed against the Christ? If they were hostile in their
attitude toward Him, either openly or by acquiescence at the
morning session, does this fact not help to support the contention
made under Point IX that they voted against Him at the night trial?
We are well aware that there is much opposition to this view, but we
are, nevertheless, compelled to agree rather reluctantly with Keim
that "it is a pure supposition that members of the council who were
secret friends of Jesus—whose existence, moreover, cannot be
established—either raised an opposition in one of the sessions, or
abstained from voting, or were not present."[352] The plain language
of the Scriptures indicates: (1) That both Nicodemus[353] and Joseph
of Arimathea[354] were members of the Great Sanhedrin; (2) that
they were both present at both trials;[355] and (3) that they both
either voted against Him or tacitly acquiesced in the judgments
pronounced against Him.[356] We have already discussed under
Point IX the passage in Luke xxiii. 51 referring to the fact that
Joseph of Arimathea "had not consented to the counsel and deed of
them," which seems to furnish refutation of the contention which we
have made, as far as such contention relates to Joseph of
Arimathea. Suffice it to note the opinion of Keim that "the passage in
itself can be held to refer to absence or to dissent in voting."[357]
"And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate."
The reader may ask: Why did the Jews lead Jesus away to Pilate?
When they had condemned Him to death on the charge of
blasphemy, why did they themselves not put Him to death? Why did
they invoke Roman interference in the matter? Why did they not
stone Jesus to death, as Hebrew law required in the case of culprits
convicted of blasphemy? Stephen was stoned to death for
blasphemy.[358] What was the difference between his case and that
of Jesus? Why was Jesus crucified instead of being put to death by
stoning?
The stoning of Stephen as a blasphemer by the Jews has been
explained as an irregular outbreak of fanatical priests, a sort of mob
violence. It has also been contended that the case of Stephen was
one of the rare instances in which Roman procurators permitted the
Jews to execute the death sentence. In any event it was an
exceptional proceeding. At the time of the crucifixion of Jesus and of
the martyrdom of Stephen the Jews had lost the right of enforcing
the death penalty. Judea was a subject province of the Roman
empire. The Jews were permitted by the Romans to try capital
cases. If an acquittal was the result, the Romans did not interfere. If
a verdict of guilty was found, the Jews were compelled to lead the
prisoner away to the Roman governor, who reviewed or retried the
case as he saw fit. Accordingly, having condemned Him to death
themselves, the Jews were compelled to lead Jesus away to the
palace of Herod on the hill of Zion in which Pilate was stopping on
the occasion of the Paschal Feast, to see what he had to say about
the matter, whether he would reverse or affirm the sentence which
they had pronounced.
The Roman trial of Jesus will be treated in the second volume of this
work.
END OF VOL. I
FOOTNOTES:
[1] "Testimony of the Evangelists," pp. 7-11.
[2] "Testimony of the Evangelists," pp. 25, 26.
[3] I "Starkie on Evidence," pp. 480-545.
[4] John x. 30: "I and my Father are one."
[5] Matt. ix. 9.
[6] Col. iv. 14: "Luke, the beloved physician."
[7] Matt. xxvi. 70-72.
[8] Matt. xxvi. 46-50.
[9] Matt. xxvi. 56.
[10] Matt. xiv. 28-31.
[11] Mark x. 35-42; Matt. xx. 20-25.
[12] Matt. xi. 2, 3.
[13] Mark iii. 21.
[14] Luke iv. 28, 29.
[15] Mark xiv. 51, 52.
[16] "Intro. Vie de Jesus."
[17] Luke i. 2, 3.
[18] "Die synoptischen Evangelien," pp. 412-14.
[19] Marcus Dods, "The Bible, Its Origin and Nature," p. 184.
[20] An opposite doctrine seems to be taught in Luke xii. 11, 12; xxiv. 48,
49.
[21] "Evidences of Christianity," p. 319.
[22] Matt. xiv. 12-20; Mark vi. 34-43; Luke ix. 12-17; John vi. 5-13.
[23] Luke xxii. 64.
[24] Luke xxii. 51.
[25] Campbell's "Philosophy of Rhetoric," c. v. b. 1, Part III, p. 125.
[26] "Intro. Vie de Jesus," p. 62.
[27] D. L. Moody, "Sermon on the Resurrection of Jesus."
[28] See also I "Starkie on Evidence," pp. 496-99.
[29] "Ant.," XVIII. 3, I.
[30] See authorities cited in "The Brief."
[31] "De iis qui sero puniuntur," p. 554.
[32] P. 1080, edit. 45.
[33] P. 1247, edit. 24, Huds.
[34] P. 1327, edit. 43.
[35] "Productique omnes, virgisque cæsi, ac securi percussi," Lib. XI. c. 5.
[36] Domit. Cap. X. "Patremfamilias—canibus objecit, cum hoc titulo,
Impie locutus, parmularius."
[37] Book LIV.
[38] "Aur. Vict. Ces.," Cap. XLI. "Eo pius, ut etiam vetus veterrimumque
supplicium, patibulum, et cruribus suffringendis, primus removerit." Also
see Paley's "Evidences of Christianity," pp. 266-68.
[39] Luke xxii. 44.
[40] Tissot, "Traité des Nerfs," pp. 279, 280.
[41] Joannes Schenck à Grafenberg, "Observ. Medic.," Lib. III. p. 458.
[42] Voltaire, "Œuvres complètes," vol. xviii. pp. 531, 532.
[43] De Mezeray, "Histoire de France," vol. iii. p. 306.
[44] John xix. 34.
[45] John xix. 35.
[46] John xviii. 6.
[47] "Encyc. Brit.," vol. xv. p. 550.
[48] Mendelsohn, "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," p. 191.
[49] Mendelsohn, p. 189, n. 1.
[50] "Jewish Encyc.," vol. xii. p. 1.
[51] Emanuel Deutsch, "The Talmud," p. 26.
[52] Farrar, "Hist. of Interpretation."
[53] Emanuel Deutsch, "The Talmud," p. 47.
[54] "Encyc. Brit.," vol. xxiii. p. 35.
[55] Emanuel Deutsch, "The Talmud," p. 58.
[56] Emanuel Deutsch, "The Talmud," p. 27.
[57] Emanuel Deutsch, "The Talmud," p. 27.
[58] Deut. xvi. 18.
[59] "Ant.," XIII. 10, 6.
[60] Horace.
[61] Emanuel Deutsch, "The Talmud," p. 12.
[62] "Jewish Encyc.," vol. xii. p. 22.
[63] Emanuel Deutsch, "Talmud," p. 12.
[64] Maimon., "H. Sanh." xv. 10-13.
[65] Mendelsohn, "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," pp.
45-50.
[66] Mendelsohn, "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," pp.
45-50.
[67] Mendelsohn, p. 43.
[68] Mendelsohn, pp. 39, 40.
[69] Mendelsohn, pp. 39, 40.
[70] Maimonides ("Yad"), "Sanhedrin" xix.
[71] Dr. Smith's "Hist. of Greece," p. 557.
[72] "Jewish Encyc.," vol. ii. p. 257.
[73] Ex. ii. 12-16.
[74] "Sanh." 52b; Maim., "H. Sanh." xv. 4.
[75] "H. Sanh." xv. 5.
[76] Benny, "Crim. Code of the Jews," p. 90.
[77] Mendelsohn, p. 159.
[78] Chap. I. 10; X. i, 2.
[79] Matt. xxvi. 59.
[80] "Ant.," XIV. Chap. V. 4; "Wars of the Jews," I. VIII. 5; "Talmud,"
"Sanhedrin."
[81] "Post Bibl. Hist.," vol. i. p. 106.
[82] Matt. xvi. 21.
[83] "Commentary on the Law," vol. ccclxvi. recto.
[84] "Sanhedrin" 32.
[85] Benny.
[86] Jose b. Halafta, I. c.
[87] R. Johanan, "Sanhedrin" 19a.
[88] Benny.
[89] Benny.
[90] "Sanhedrin" 17a; "Menahoth" 65a.
[91] Sifre, Num. 92 (ed. Friedmann, p. 25b).
[92] Yalkut, "Exodus," Sec. 167.
[93] Sotah 22b.
[94] "Const. of the Sanhedrin," Chap. I.
[95] Benny, "The Criminal Code of the Jews," p. 71.
[96] Saalschütz, "Das Mosaische Recht," p. 58; Deut. xx. 5, 6.
[97] Luke ii. 46-51.
[98] Jer. xxxvii., xxxviii.
[99] "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. p. 45.
[100] "The Life and Words of Christ," vol. ii. p. 517.
[101] "Archæol." 87.
[102] Acts xxiv. 1, 2.
[103] I Kings iii. 16-28.
[104] Mendelsohn, "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," pp.
102, 103.
[105] Mendelsohn, pp. 96-98.
[106] "Sanhedrin," Chap. I. fol. 19.
[107] Mendelsohn, p. 97.
[108] Mishna, "Sanhedrin," Chap. IV. 1.
[109] Mendelsohn, p. 98.
[110] "Sanhedrin," 8b, 41a, et al.
[111] Mendelsohn, p. 101.
[112] Schürer, "The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ," 2d Div., 1.
[113] "Sanhedrin," IV. 4.
[114] "Sanhedrin," IV. 1.
[115] "Sanhedrin," 17a, p. 176.
[116] "Sanhedrin," Chap. I. 5.
[117] Benny.
[118] Benny.
[119] Benny.
[120] Mendelsohn, p. 140, n. 327.
[121] Montaigne, "Essays," III. C. XIII.
[122] "Un homme ne jugera jamais seul; cela n'appartient qu'a Dieu."
"Ne sis judex unus; non est enim unicus judex, nisi unus."—Salvador,
"Institutions de Moïse," L. IV. Chap. II. p. 357.
[123] "But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the
levity and boldness of their sex."—Josephus, "Ant.," IV. 8, 15.
[124] "Nor let servants be admitted to give testimony, on account of the
ignobility of their souls."—"Ant.," IV. 8, 15.
[125] "Ant.," IV. 8, 15.
[126] Maimonides, I. C. XI. 6, based on "Sanh." 26b.
[127] Mendelsohn, p. 118.
[128] "Talmud," B. B. 43a.
[129] Deut. xvii. 6.
[130] Num. xxxv. 30.
[131] "Hist. Nat.," Lib. VIII. Cap. XXII.
[132] L. 20, Dig. De quæstionibus, xlviii. 18.
[133] Blackstone, iv. 357.
[134] Con. U. S., Art. III, Sec. 3.
[135] "Les lois qui font périr un homme sur la déposition d'un seul témoin,
sont fatales à la liberté. La raison en exige deux; parce qu'un témoin qui
affirme, et un accusé qui nie, font un partage; et il faut un tiers pour le
vider. Les Grecs and les Romains exigeaient une voix de plus pour
condamner. Nos lois françaises en demandent deux. Les Grecs
prétendaient que leur usage avait été établi par les dieux; mais c'est le
notre."—"De L'Esprit Des Lois," L. XII. C. III.
[136] Mishna, "Sanhedrin," C. V. 2.
[137] Maimonides, "Sanhedrin," Chap. XX.
[138] "Jewish Encyc.," vol. v. p. 277.
[139] "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," p. 29.
[140] Philo Judæus, "De Decalogo," III.
[141] Prov. xi. 10; Mishna, "Sanhedrin," IV. 5.
[142] Apocrypha.
[143] Benny.
[144] Mishna, "Sanhedrin," Chap. V. 1.
[145] Benny.
[146] Deut. xix. 18-21.
[147] Apocrypha.
[148] Maimonides, Mishna, "Sanhedrin," Chap. IV. 2.
[149] Münsterberg, "On the Witness Stand," "Untrue Confessions," pp.
137-171.
[150] Rosadi.
[151] Rabbi Wise, "Martyrdom of Jesus."
[152] "Yad," Edut, xvii. 1.
[153] "Jewish Encyc.," vol. v. p. 279.
[154] Num. xxxv. 30.
[155] Mishna, "Sanhedrin" V. 3, 4.
[156] Matt. xxvi. 60.
[157] Mark xiv. 56.
[158] Lev. xxii. 28.
[159] Deut. xvii. 5; "Sanhedrin" VII. 4.
[160] Num. vi. 2-4.
[161] "Jewish Encyc.," vol. vi. p. 260.
[162] "Einleitung in der Gesetzgebung," p. 4.
[163] "Jewish Encyc.," vol. vi. p. 260; Benny, "Criminal Code of the Jews,"
p. 97; Saalschütz, "Das Mosaische Recht," n. 560.
[164] Mishna, treatise Makhoth.
[165] Mishna, "Capita Patrum," I. 1.
[166] Salvador, "Institutions de Moïse."
[167] Mishna, "Sanhedrin," IV. 1.
[168] "Jesus Before the Sanhedrin," p. 109.
[169] "Talmud," Jerus., Sanh., C. I. fol. 19.
[170] Mishna, "Tamid," C. III.
[171] Geikie, vol. ii. p. 517.
[172] Lyman Abbott, "Jesus of Nazareth," pp. 446, 447.
[173] "Jewish Encyc.," vol. v. pp. 279, 280.
[174] Benny.
[175] Mendelsohn, p. 144.
[176] Josephus, "Ant.," XIV. 9, 4.
[177] Schürer, 2d div., vol. i. p. 175.
[178] Schürer, 2d div., vol. i. p. 184.
[179] "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. ii. p. 556.
[180] "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. p. 37.
[181] "The Talmud," p. 32.
[182] "Ant.," xv. 6, 2.
[183] "History of the Jews," vol. ii. p. 163.
[184] "Tribus, pseudo-propheta, sacerdos magnus, non nisi a septuaginta
et unius judicum consessu judicantur."—"Mishna, De Synedriis," i. 5.
[185] "Among the offenses of which it took cognizance were false claims
to prophetic inspiration and blasphemy."—Andrews, "The Life of Our
Lord," p. 510.
[186] "Gesch. d. Judenth." vol. i. pp. 402-409.
[187] "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. ii. p. 553.
[188] "Vie de Jesus," pp. 303, 304.
[189] "Trial of Jesus Christ," p. 81.
[190] Matt. xxvi. 60, 61.
[191] Mark xiv. 57, 58.
[192] Matt. xxvi. 64-66.
[193] Mark xiv. 56.
[194] John ii. 20.
[195] John ii. 19.
[196] John ii. 21.
[197] "The Martyrdom of Jesus," pp. 75-77.
[198] Deut. xiii. 1-5.
[199] I Kings xxi. 10.
[200] Isa. lii, 5; Ezek. xxxv. 12.
[201] Luke xxii. 65; Acts xiii. 45; xviii. 6.
[202] Revelation xiii. 1-6.
[203] "Blackstone," vol. ii. pp. 75-84.
[204] Greenidge, "Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time," pp. 427, 507, 518.
[205] Deut. iv. 15, 16; Deut. xiii.
[206] Gen. xli. 16.
[207] Num. xx. 10-12.
[208] Num. xx. 20-24.
[209] Greenleaf, "Testimony of the Evangelists," p. 555.
[210] Matt. v. 17.
[211] John xi. 41.
[212] Matt. ix. 20-22; Mark v. 25-34; Luke viii. 43-48.
[213] Matt. viii. 24-26; Mark iv. 37-39; Luke viii. 23-25.
[214] Matt. viii. 28-32; Mark v. 1-13; Luke viii. 26-33.
[215] Matt. ix. 18-26; Mark v. 22-42; Luke viii. 41-55.
[216] Luke vii. 12-15.
[217] Matt. ix. 2, 3.
[218] Luke v. 21.
[219] John v. 18.
[220] John x. 30-33.
[221] John vi. 41.
[222] John viii. 58.
[223] "Testimony of the Evangelists," p. 562.
[224] Edersheim, "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. ii. p. 629.
[225] John xiii.-xvii.
[226] Matt. xi. 3.
[227] Luke xxiv. 39-43; John xx. 24-28.
[228] John xiii. 33.
[229] John xviii. 9.
[230] "Jesus Devant Caïphe et Pilate."
[231] Acts iv. 3.
[232] "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. ii. p. 494.
[233] See Cooley's "Blackstone," vol. ii. p. 330, n. 6; also Greenleaf, "On
Evidence," vol. i. pp. 531-35 (10th edition).
[234] "Vie de Jesus," p. 303.
[235] John xviii. 13.
[236] Matt. xxvi. 57.
[237] Mark xiv. 53.
[238] Luke xxii. 54.
[239] John xviii. 19.
[240] Luke iii. 2; Acts iv. 6.
[241] "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. i. p. 264.
[242] "The Life of Our Lord," p. 142.
[243] Luke iii. 2.
[244] Plummer, St. Luke, in "International Critical Commentary," pp. 84,
515.
[245] Josephus, "Ant.," XVIII. chap. ii. 2.
[246] John xviii. 19-23.
[247] Mark xiv. 58-61.
[248] Matt. xxvi. 60-63.
[249] Matt. xxvi. 63.
[250] Mark xiv. 59.
[251] Acts vi. 14.
[252] "Jewish Encyc.," vol. i. p. 163.
[253] Fiske, "Manual of Classical Literature," iii. Sec. 108; Smith,
"Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities," 89a.
[254] See discussion of Point I.
[255] Luke xxii. 66.
[256] Luke xxii. 2.
[257] Mark xiv. 2.
[258] Mark xiv. i; Matt. xxvi. 4 (Consilium fecerunt ut Jesum dolo tenerent
et occiderent).
[259] Maimonides, "Sanhedrin" II.
[260] John xviii. 28; Luke xxii. 1; Mark xiv. 1; Matt. xxvi. 2.
[261] Mishna, "Capita Patrum," I, 1.
[262] Mishna, "Treatise Makhoth."
[263] See Part II, Chap. V.
[264] Edmund Stapfer, "Life of Jesus."
[265] Matt. xxvi. 57-66.
[266] Mark xiv. 55-64.
[267] Matt. xxvii. 1.
[268] Mark xv. 1.
[269] Luke xxii. 66-71.
[270] "Martyrdom of Jesus," p. 74.
[271] "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews," p. 133, n. 311.
[272] See Part II, Chap. IV.
[273] Mark xiv. 56-65.
[274] Mark xiv. 62.
[275] Matt. xii. 14-16; Mark iii. 7; ix. 29, 30.
[276] Luke xiii. 31, 32.
[277] Matt. xxii. 15.
[278] John iv. 26.
[279] Mark i. 34.
[280] John x. 24.
[281] Matt. xvi. 20.
[282] Blackstone.
[283] Mendelsohn, p. 143.
[284] Mark xiv. 63, 64.
[285] "Martyrdom of Jesus," p. 74.
[286] "The Trial of Jesus," p. 200.
[287] Matt. xxvi. 59; Mark xiv. 55.
[288] Matt. xxvii. 1.
[289] Mark xv. 1.
[290] John iii. 1; vii. 50.
[291] Luke xxiii. 51.
[292] John vii. 51.
[293] John vii. 50; xix. 39.
[294] Luke xxiii. 51.
[295] Mendelsohn, p. 98.
[296] Deut. xvii. 7, 8.
[297] "It is important to notice that every time the necessities of the case
required the Sanhedrin returned to the Hall Gazith, or of Hewn Stones, as
in the case of Jesus and others."—"Thosephthoth, or Additions to the
Talmud," Bab., "Sanhedrin," C. IV. fol. 37, recto.
[298] Edersheim, "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. ii. p. 556, n.
1.
[299] John xviii. 28.
[300] MM. Lémann, "Jesus Before the Sanhedrin," p. 140.
[301] Mark xiv. 63, 64.
[302] Edersheim, "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. ii. p. 561.
[303] Rabbi Wise, "Martyrdom of Jesus," p. 74.
[304] Benny, "Criminal Code of the Jews," p. 81.
[305] Matt. xxvi. 65.
[306] See Part II, Qualifications of Judges.
[307] "Talmud, Pesachim, or the Passover," fol. 57, verso; see also "Jesus
Before the Sanhedrin," pp. 54, 55.
[308] Benny, "Criminal Code of the Jews," pp. 28-41.
[309] Matt. xxi. 31.
[310] Matt. xxiii. 14, 15.
[311] "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. i. pp. 93, 94.
[312] Matt. xxiii. 27, 29-33.
[313] "Vie de Jesus," p. 267.
[314] John xi. 49, 50.
[315] John xi. 53.
[316] Luke xxii. 1-3.
[317] Matt. xxvi. 3-5.
[318] Benny, "Criminal Code of the Jews," p. 56.
[319] Geikie, "The Life and Words of Christ," vol. ii. p. 517.
[320] Deut. xix. 18-21.
[321] Mark xiv. 55.
[322] Mishna, Treatise "Makhoth."
[323]
"Afresh the mighty line of years unroll'd,
The Virgin now, now Saturn's sway returns;
Now the blest globe a heaven-sprung Child adorns,
Whose genial power shall whelm earth's iron race,
And plant once more the golden in its place."
—Virgil, Eclogue IV.
[324] Gen. xlix. 8-10.
[325] "Sanhedrin," fol. 97, verso.
[326] "Martyrdom of Jesus," p. 76.
[327] John xi. 48-50.
[328] I Sam. xv. 29.
[329] Hosea xi. 9.
[330] Mark vii. 9-13.
[331] "Jewish Encyc.," vol. i. p. 583.
[332] Hodge, "Systematic Theology," vol. i. p. 485.
[333] Steenstra, "The Being of God as Unity and Trinity," pp. 192, 193.
[334] John ii. 15.
[335] John vi. 30.
[336] John x. 24, 25.
[337] Matt. xi. 4, 5.
[338] I Kings xvii. 17-22.
[339] John xi. 41.
[340] Matt. ix. 18-26; Mark v. 22-42; Luke viii. 41-55.
[341] Luke vii. 12-15.
[342] John iii. 2.
[343] See Friedlieb, Archæol., 87; Dupin, 75; Keim, vol. iii. 327.
[344] Bab. Sanh. f. 63, 1: "Cum synedrium quemquam moti adjudicavit, ne
quidquam degustent illi isto die."
[345] Andrews, "The Life of Our Lord," p. 522.
[346] "The Life of Our Lord," pp. 523, 524.
[347] Luke xxii. 66-71.
[348] See Part II, Chap. V.; also Benny, "Crim. Code of the Jews," pp. 81-
83.
[349] Keim, "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. pp. 63, 64.
[350] John xviii. 28.
[351] "Thou, Reuben, art guilty! Thou, Simon, art acquitted, art not
guilty!" were stereotyped forms of verdicts under Hebrew criminal
procedure. Sanh. in Friedl., p. 89.
[352] Keim, "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. p. 74.
[353] John iii. 1; vii. 50.
[354] Luke xxiii. 50, 51.
[355] Matt. xxvi. 59; Mark xiv. 55; Matt. xxvii. 1; Mark xv. 1.
[356] Mark xiv. 63, 64; Luke xxii. 70, 71.
[357] Keim, "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. p. 74, n. 2.
[358] Acts vi. 11; vii. 59.
INDEX
A
Abarbanel, Isaac, on the Sanhedrin, I, 106
Ab-beth-din, vice-president of the Sanhedrin, I, 112
Abbott, Lyman, on the scribes of the Sanhedrin, I, 158
Acts of Pilate, the Apocryphal,
modern criticism of, II, 327
discovery of, II, 327
Lardner on the authenticity of, II, 328 seq.
Tischendorf on the authenticity of, II, 345 seq.
antiquity of, II, 351
text of, II, 351 seq.
Æbutius, Publius, part of, in the exposure of Bacchanalian
orgies, II, 271 seq.
Ædile, Roman, judicial powers of, II, 36
Æsculapius, Græco-Roman divinity, II, 198
Akiba, Jewish rabbi, Mishna systematized by, I, 79
Albanus, Roman governor, his deposition of Albanus, II, 296
Alcmene, myth of Zeus and, II, 265
Alexander, Jewish Alabarch, biographical note on, II, 299
Alexander III, pope, genuineness of "true cross" attested by bull
of, II, 63
Alexandrian MS. of the Bible, I, 67
Ananias ben Nebedeus, Jewish priest,
biographical note on, II, 299
family of, cursed in Talmud, II, 302
Ananos. See Annas
Ananus, son of Annas, Jewish high priest, biographical note on,
II, 296
Anathemas, Jewish, against the Christians, II, 307, 308
Anaxagoras, Greek philosopher,
on the deification of natural forces, II, 225
his exposure of the divination of Lampon, II, 226
Annanias, author of "Acts of Pilate," II, 351
Annas (Ananos), Jewish high priest,
examination of Christ before, I, 238-247
deposition of, by Gratus, I, 244; II, 20
Christ examined in house of, I, 256
biographical note on, II, 295
legendary examination of Joseph of Arimathea, II, 374, 376
Antecedent Warning, peculiar provision of Hebrew Criminal Law
regarding, I, 147-152
Antistius, L., Roman tribune, impeachment of Julius Cæsar by,
II, 46
Antoninus Pius, Roman emperor, persecution of Christians by, II,
78
Aphrodisia, rites of, II, 265
Aphrodite, Greek divinity, patroness of prostitutes, II, 265
Aquillius, Manlius, Roman governor, trial of, before the Comitia,
II, 40
Antonius, Marcus, Roman advocate, defense of, of Manlius
Aquillius, II, 40
Aristotle, Greek philosopher, on the licentiousness of Sparta, II,
241
Arnold, Matthew, on despair of Roman people, II, 286
Arnobius, Numidian writer,
on the familiar treatment of Roman gods, II, 218
on the lewdness of the Roman drama, II, 267
Art, effect of, in corruption of Roman and Greek morals, II, 268
Aspasia, mistress of Pericles, II, 242
Athens, domestic licentiousness of, II, 240, 241
Athronges, Jewish peasant, revolt of, II, 110
Atticus, Numerius, Roman senator, attests ascent of Augustus to
heaven, II, 234
Atys, myth of, represented on Greek and Roman stage, II, 267
Augurs,
Roman priests, II, 204
spectators at licentious dramas, II, 267
Augury, modes of, II, 211
Augustus Cæsar, Roman emperor,
reign and policy of, II, 25, 26
care of profligate daughter Julia, II, 83
belief of, in omens, II, 215
his chastisement of Neptune, II, 222
deification of, II, 233
Aurelius Antoninus, Marcus, Roman emperor and philosopher,
persecution of Christianity by, II, 78
adoration of Serapis by, II, 217
on suicide, II, 232
B
Bacchanalian orgies, Livy's account of, II, 270-283
Bacchus, Roman deity, licentious festivals of, II, 265
Barabbas (Bar Abbas) released by Pilate, II, 131, 138, 363
Baring-Gould, S., on the symbolism of the Cross, II, 66
Baths, Roman, splendor of, II, 247
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
testbankfan.com
