, 1877-09-02


=-=
THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST.
The question whether the conviction o
CHRIST was legal is considered by Mr.. ALE1
ASDER TAYLOR IsNEs in the last number o
the Contemporary Recieao. The subjec
naturally divides itself into two branches
inasmuch rs both Hebrew and Roman Inv
were involved in the proceedings. Mr
INSEs confines himself in tho first article tt
n consideration of the Hebrew law. Thj
law is preserved in tho 1ishnn, or ccntra
portion of the Talmud, which was compiled
by Rabbi JUDAH, A. B. 200, and is as ope1
to the investigation of scholars to-day as il
WAS when the trial of JESUS took place. Mr.
lSsEs finds that the forms of law vera Open
lY discarded by the Judges in this case. The
Court twas organized to convict, as was
said of Mr.. SrASroS's military courts, and II
overroda every tcchnicality that seemed to
stand in the way Of the fulfllment of its
mission.
The four grent rules of Jewish criminal
Jurisprudence, Us laid down in the N1ishna.
were s. ''strictncss in the accusation, publicity
i'll the discussion, full freedom granted to
the accused, and assurance against MI errors
of testimony" Mr.. iSSEs holds that these
rules were ftagrantly violated The first
| illegal net WAS the arrest of JESUS, which
could not legally bs made before trial under
the jewish law, unless resistance or escape
WIS apprehended. Tho lawfnlness of tho
arrest, supposing that resistance was appre-
hended, really turned upon the question
whether it was to be the preface to legal
trial. Subsequent Investigations will tend
to show that 1t was to be otherwise here.
The second Illegal act was the secret e1nm-
| ination by night, which was preliminary to
the public arraignment before the full
| Sanhedrinl, It WAS, under the Hebrew law,
] the right of the accused to be free from all
personal Investigations until he was brought
to trial before his congregnted brethren.
The deposition Of two or more witnesses
against tho accused was required to be given
publicly and, until it was SO given, he was
held to be, in the judgment of law, not
merely innocent, but scarcely accused
JESUS was only insisting upon his rights and
showing his familiarity with the Hebrew
law, when. on being interrogatcd as to his
doctrine and his disciples, he replied: "I
spake openly to the world ever
taught in the synagogue, and in the
temple, whittier tho Jews always resort; and
in secret have said nothing. Why a&kest
thou nae7 ASK them ,ohich hard me, what I
have said unto them. Behold, they know
what I said" Later, when n bystander
struck him for insulting the Hgh-Priest, he
again reiterated tile law Z: "l If have spok-
en- evil, bear r1nexs to the evil but, if we'll,
why smitest thou 1nc?" These words"
remarks Mr.. 1sSEs, ''appeal to the princi-
pie Of the Hebrew law by which acitnesses
took upon themselves the whole burden aud
responsibility, and especially the whole ini-
tistivc, Of every accusation, even rs they
we're obliged to appear at the close, and,
with their own hands, to hurl the stones"
Nothing is clesEcr than that the witnesses
did not appear against JESUS in the prelmi-
nary examination before the High-Priest.
Moreover, this examination being held by |
night, Was ipso .fi1cto contrary to law. The |
N1ishna provides:
but may be concluded after nightfal| capital trials
n.c commenced only in the daytime, and must also
be concluded during the day. The former may be |
concluded by acquitt2i or condemnation the day
on which they have begun; the hitter may be con-
culct on that day if there is sentence OF acgne-
til, but be postponed to second day il there
is to be condemnation. And for this reason
capital trials not held the day before Sab
bath fcast-lny- /
The above extract points ont third fla
grant violation of law in the trial Of JESUS.
The meeting of the Council took place on
Friday, the day before Sabbath, which WIS
also Il fcast-day. Such meeting on such
day was forbidden.
A fourth illcgality was the failure to order
m adjournment Of tweutY-four hours before
judgment. The Aishna pro-
rides on this subject: eff man is found
innocent, the Court absolves him. But if
aot, his judgment is put of to the jollo,oi.g
lay. Meantime, the Judges meet together,
md, eating little meat and drinking no wine
luring that whole day, they confer upon the
,ause. On tie jolloaoing morning they return
nto court and vote over again with the
ikc precautions Us before"
Tho fifth illegality was the seeking Of wit
lesses against the accused. The indccorum
# this action will be realized when it is un-
[orstood that under the Jewish law the evi-
ence of the leading witnesses constituted
he charge. The sacredness OF the Office of
fitness is set forth in the Jew
III code, which contains this awful
dmonition: "If any witness shall
cstroy ono soul out of Israel, he is held
Y the Scripture to be as if he had destroyed
he world" The Hebrew Judges were
mincntly counsel for the accused, and the I
illnesses wore the prosecutors. For the :
udges, therefore, to seek for witnesses,
neither bearers of false testimony or of !
'ue, was departure from the principles of !,
,o Jewish law of the most serious kind. ,
There were other minor Irregularities in |
lie proceedings, such as confusion of the s
large against the accused, aud an attempt /
cross-cxamining Him, which was contrary b
the whole scheme Of jurisprudence. But
10 last and greatest Of all the wrongs +
the course Of the trial was the
lemn demand Of the High Priest for \
confession. It was couched in these r