, 1877-09-09
TIE CRUCIFIXION.
DID THE JEWS cRUc1FY CHRIST?
m ttr Edifdr of Tsht Trilu,,e


CHICAGO, Sent. 4.-Thc article on q The Trim
OF Jesus Christi by L. T. lines, in the las
Contemporary Leae.r, Of which your sunda,
editorial gives a fair synopsis, have read il
full, but, am sorry to say, found it far from
being original or satisfactory to any one tolera
bly, acquainted with tue recent German Prot
cstant and Jewish writings On the subject
The author prctends to have studied anew thu
whole Jewish Inv pertaining to the case; yet his
erroneous statements aud arguments make mt
rnther doubt Ills scholarship in Talmudical lure.
Long ago it had been pointed out bv Jewish
historians, lastly and most cxhaustrcly by DR.. L.
Philippsohn, in treatfsc entitled Is Have Really
the Jews Cruciflcd Jesus!'' n somewhat adul-
tcrated American copy OF which was published
By I. n. Wise, of Cincinnati, in his " Mar
tyrdom Of Jesus OF Nazarrth,' that the trial in
the mode described in any of the Gospels could
never have taken place b1fore a Jewish court,
for the obvious reasons that, firstly, no Jewish
court could hold sessions .at night, nor on any
holidav, nor open q trial in cases of capital
crime on the day previous to the Sabbath and
the festival days: that, secondly, no person
could be condemned on mere seft-accusation, or
upon the testimony OF witnesses who, after due
and wearisome cros5-exaEnil:atlon, Wcre found
to disagree in the slightest possible way about
the questions laid before them; nor could any
criminal be executed unless every possible argu-
1neut was brought forth III his favor aud refutud
by the Judgcs,-with the only exception of his
having been oil open scdtlcer to l1o1atry; aud,
thirdly, that neither his having announced the
ruin Of the Temple aud its institutions, nor his
pretended Mcssialship, even should he hare de-
clarci1 himself to BE-, like David, the royal sou
of God, could have formed the charge Of
tsblasphemy" ayalnst Jesus, since only an
actual exccration Of tod, with the cxoress
# EfSft r. frt4nf
and punished with death.
Now, in view Of THESE well-asccrtaincd facts,
rs given in the Mishuah OF SanhcdF;u, tue late
Talmudical narratives dating from the third
century i. G.. represent thc trial Of Jcsus us
founded on the charge OF both seduction to
doubt, which would accord with the je"sl!la",
were it not quite prcpostcrous to charge Jesus
Will, crimes his w0rshipera committed in latter
ayes in lis name.
But, aside from all this, the very fact OF Jesus
having been put to death nels!er Ill the jewish
mode pf execution by stoning, nor by stranyu-
lation, but in tie cruel Roman way o. crncl-
fxion, ought to convince any uupreJudiced his,
torian that tue tyr:ulnical Eolnau rulers anu
their allies must have passed ard executed The
Judgment rather than the cautious 3od clement
Jews. Hence, instead Of stopping l.aif way, i'll
order to show the want Of fairness and legality
in the trial Of Jesus on the part OF the Jewish
court, the author, with little more insight into
the Jewish Law and a somewhat deeper
sense for historical criticism, might have shown
manner stated, ard, consequently, proven its
entire description as given in the various Cos
nels as uuhistorjraI. So ut least do no. merely
jewish scholars OF rank anti authority, wlu
might still be considered partial in this ques-
finn. but independent fnouircrs like Volkmar,
Hansrath. HoItzmanu, ind others, They iii
anrct. f. to the nartiaity Of the Gospcl-wrltcrs,
WHO in the measure thcy had seeded from the