An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists, by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice / With an Account of the Trial of Jesus

by Simon Greenleaf

The Jewish Account Of The Trial Of Jesus. By Mr. Salvador.

Mr. Joseph Salvador, a physician and a learned Jew, a few years ago published at Paris, a work, entitled, “Histoire des Institutions de Moïse et du Peuple Hébreu,” in which, among other things, he gives an account of their course of criminal procedure, in a chapter on “The Administration of Justice;” which he illustrates, in a succeeding chapter, by an account of the trial of Jesus. As this is the recent work of a man of learning, himself a Jew, it may be regarded as an authentic statement of what is understood and held by the most intelligent and best informed Jews, respecting the claims of our Lord, the tenor of his doctrines, the nature of the charge laid against him before the Sanhedrim, and the grounds on which they condemned him. The following translation of the last-mentioned chapter will therefore not be unacceptable to the reader. It will be found in Book IV. chapter iii., entitled, “The Trial and Condemnation of Jesus.” The reader will bear in his mind, that it is the language of an enemy of our Saviour, and in justification of his murderers.

“According to this exposition of judicial proceedings,” says the Jew, “I shall follow out the application of them in the most memorable tried in history, that of Jesus Christ. I have already explained the motives which have directed me, and the point of view in which I have considered the subject; I have already shown, that among the Jews no title was a shelter against a prosecution and sentence. Whether the law or its forms were good or bad, is not the object of my present investigation; neither is it to ascertain whether we ought to pity the blindness of the Hebrews in not discovering a Deity in Jesus, or to be astonished that a God personified could not make himself comprehended when he desired it. But since they regarded him [pg 524] only as a citizen, did they not try him according to their law and its existing forms? This is my question, which can admit of no equivocation. 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 doctrine, or to an old one which had received a fresh impulse.

Jesus was born of a family of small fortune; Joseph, his supposed father, perceived that his wife was big before they had come together. If he had brought her to trial, in the ordinary course of things, Mary, according to the 23rd verse of the 22nd chapter of Deuteronomy, would have been condemned, and Jesus, having been declared illegitimate, could never, according to the 2nd verse of the 23rd chapter, have been admitted to a seat in the Sanhedrim.[366] But Joseph, who, to save his wife from disgrace, had taken the resolution of sending her away privately, soon had a dream which consoled him.[367]

After having been circumcised, Jesus grew like other men, attended the solemn feasts, and early displayed surprising wisdom and sagacity. In the assembly on the Sabbath, the Jews, eager for the disputes to which the interpretation of the law gave rise, loved to hear him. But he soon devoted himself to more important labours; he pronounced censures against whole towns, Capernaum, Chorazin and Bethsaida.[368] Recalling the times of Isaiah and Jeremiah, he thundered against the chiefs of the people with a vehemence which would in our day be terrific.[369] The people then regarded him as a prophet;[370] they heard him preach in towns and country without opposition; they saw him surrounded with disciples according to the custom of the learned men of the age; whatever may have been the resentment of the chief men, they were silent as long as he confined himself to the law.

But Jesus, in presenting new theories, and in giving new forms to those already promulgated, speaks of himself as God; his disciples repeat it; and the subsequent events prove in the [pg 525] most satisfactory manner, that they thus understood him.[371] This was shocking blasphemy in the eyes of the citizens: the law commands them to follow Jehovah alone, the only true God; not to believe in gods of flesh and bone, resembling men or women; neither to spare nor listen to a prophet who, even doing miracles, should proclaim a new god, a god whom neither they nor their fathers had known.[372]

Jesus having said to them one day: “I have come down from heaven to do these things,” the Jews, who till then had listened to him, murmured and cried: “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph and of Mary? we know his father, his mother, and his brethren; why then does he say that he has come down from heaven?”[373] On another day, the Jews, irritated from the same cause, took stones and threatened him. Jesus said unto them, “I have done good works in your eyes by the power of my Father, for which of these works would you stone me? It is for no good work,” replied the Jews, who stated the whole process in few words, “but because of thy blasphemy; for being a man,[374] thou makest thyself God.”[375]

His language was not always clear. Often his disciples themselves did not comprehend him. Among his maxims, some of which showed the greatest mildness, there were some which the Hebrews, who were touched only through their natural sense, thought criminal. “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the [pg 526] daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me.”[376] Finally, if he wrought miracles before certain of the people, his replies to the questions of the doctors were generally evasive.[377]

In regard to political relations, he caused dissensions.[378] A great number of disorderly persons whom he had the design of reclaiming, but who inspired dread in the national council, attached themselves to him;[379] his discourse flattered them inasmuch as he pronounced anathemas against riches. “Know,” said he, “that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.”[380] In this state of affairs, the council deliberates; some are of opinion that he should be regarded as a madman,[381] others say that he seeks to seduce the people.[382] Caiaphas, the high priest, whose dignity compels him to defend the letter of the law, observes that these dissensions would furnish an excuse to the Romans for overwhelming Judea, and that the interests of the whole nation must outweigh those of a single individual; he constitutes himself the accuser of Jesus.[383]

The order is given to seize him. But let us pause here upon a fact of the highest importance. The senate did not begin by actually seizing Jesus, as is now the practice; they begin by giving, after some debate, an order that he should be seized.[384] This decree is made public; it is known to all, especially to Jesus. No opposition is offered to his passing the frontier: his liberty depends entirely upon himself. This is not all; the order for his arrest was preceded by a decree of admonition. One day, Jesus having entered the temple, took upon himself authority contrary to the common law; then he preached to the people, and said: “That those who should believe in him should be able to do all things, so that if they should say to a [pg 527] mountain, remove thyself and cast thyself into the sea, it would obey.” Then the chief priest and senators went to find him and said to him, “By what authority doest thou these things? who gave thee this power?”[385]