THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION OF JESUS AS A LEGAL QUESTION. I. BY HON. EDWARD W. HATCH. IT is not the purpose of this paper to con sider its subject as a theological question in any sense, but placing ourselves in the position occupied by Judaea and its people at the time when Jesus was tried and con demned, to examine it as a legal question governed by the law and practice of the Jewish Theocracy as it was then adminis tered. For this purpose we do not consider the divine attributes of Jesus, but consider him alone as a Jewish subject, bound by the laws of hrs nation and subject to the juris diction ot its properly constituted tribunals. The Jews have ever rejected Jesus as the Messiah, and have ever contended that, how ever much his condemnation and death is to be regretted, yet that treating him as a citizen of the Jewish nation he was an offender against their laws, was guilty of a capital offence, was regularly tried, con demned, and executed; that while the blun ders of the Hebrews may be pitied, they should not be condemned. It is the pur pose of this paper to examine this question tested alone by the standard claimed by some Jewish authority. Mr. Joseph Salva dor, a physician and learned Jew, in a his tory of the Institutions of Moses, and the Hebrew people, attempts to justify the trial, condemnation, and execution. The question stated in his language is : " But since they [the Jews] regarded him only as a citizen, did they not try him according to their law and its existing forms? In answering this question Mr. Salvador states : " This is my question, which can admit of no equivoca tion. I shall draw all my facts from the Evangelists themselves, without inquiring whether all this history was developed after the event, to serve as a form to a new doc trine, or to an old one which had received a
fresh impulse." Taking this therefore as our standard, let us make inquiry. It has been, and is at the present day, quite a preva lent impression that the putting to death of Jesus was the work of a mob of irresponsible persons, without reference to law, its forms or practice. Such a view is erroneous, as Jesus was charged with a specific offence, was arraigned before a constituted tribunal, had a trial, and was sentenced. Sitting in review now, we may examine, as' upon ap peal, whether or not the law was complied with. As we shall hereafter see, under the Jewish law there were four essential things necessary to concur in order to authorize the carrying out final sentence in a capita! case : — (1) There must have been a capital crime committed; (2) There must have been a jurisdictional tribunal to try, regularly organized, sitting at an authorized time and place; (3) Competent proof by two qualified wit nesses to establish the crime; and (4) A sentence of condemnation regularly pronounced. We will examine these in the order stated. The crime of which Jesus was accused was that of blasphemy. This was a crime punishable with death, according with, and based upon the direct command of Jehovah given to Moses as recorded in the twentyfourth chapter of Leviticus, where it is re lated that the Egyptian, son of an Israelitish woman, strove with a man of Israel, and the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord. "12. And they put him in ward, that the mind of the Lord might be shewed them. "13. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying : —
