For many bore false witness against Jesus, but their testimony was inconsistent.
We have here Christ's arraignment, trial, conviction, and condemnation, in the ecclesiastical court, before the great sanhedrim, of which the high priest was president, or judge of the court; the same Caiaphas that had lately adjudged it expedient he should be put to death, guilty or not guilty (Joh 11:50), and who therefore might justly be excepted against as partial. I.
Commenting on Mark 14:53-65
But, neither so did their witness agree together. Their witness did agree together, for they both witnessed the same thing; but not so as to found upon it the charge of a capital crime against him; their witness was not so, "equal", was not answerable to their desires, nor sufficient to convict him of a capital crime, for which they could condemn him to death...
[Their witness agreed not together.] The traditional canons, in these things, divide testimonies into three parts:-- I. There was a vain testimony: which being heard, there is no more inquiry made from that witness, there is no more use made of him, but he is set aside, as speaking nothing to the business. II.