Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In the canonical gospels, Pilate's court refers to the trial of Jesus in the praetorium before Pontius Pilate, preceded by the Sanhedrin Trial. In the Gospel of Luke , Pilate finds that Jesus, being from Galilee , belonged to Herod Antipas ' jurisdiction, and so he decides to send Jesus to Herod .
Sources on Pontius Pilate are limited, although modern scholars know more about him than about other Roman governors of Judaea. [14] The most important sources are the Embassy to Gaius (after the year 41) by contemporary Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria, [15] the Jewish Wars (c. 74) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94) by the Jewish historian Josephus, as well as the four canonical Christian ...
Following trials at Pilate's and Herod's courts, sentenced to death In the New Testament, the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus refers to the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin (a Jewish judicial body) following his arrest in Jerusalem and prior to the trial before Pontius Pilate .
The Acta Pilati or Acts of Pilate is a Christian text that records Jesus's trial, execution, and resurrection and expands upon the details given from the gospels. It is by far the most popular and well-read of Pilate-related apocrypha, being compiled in the Gospel of Nicodemus (Evangelium Nicodemi) in the 9th century, which was a popular work among medieval European Christians.
There appears to be little reference to the section of the text where Pilate points out he's not Jewish, to which Jesus responded with "the ones who have handed me to you committed the gravest sin". Many commentators and religious historians have surmised this was a reference to violation of the possibly then existent Mesirah law concerning ...
The Summary Jurisdiction Act 1848 repealed and consolidated the provisions of a large number of earlier acts. The Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 provided a mode of appeal to the High Court by case stated as to questions of law raised in summary proceedings. The Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879 amended the procedure in many details with the view of ...
The Court rejected the Secretary's proposed understanding of "prudent" as a grant of discretion to weigh costs and benefits to determine whether alternatives exist. [6] Because the costs of building through parks were demonstrably low, as construction before 1966 had shown, the Court held that the 1966 enactment of the "feasible and prudent ...
Early federal and state civil procedure in the United States was rather ad hoc and was based on traditional common law procedure but with much local variety. There were varying rules that governed different types of civil cases such as "actions" at law or "suits" in equity or in admiralty; these differences grew from the history of "law" and "equity" as separate court systems in English law.