Highton, Henry E.

English

OpenSIUC

MISCELLANEOUS. 507When the imperial sovereign of Rome declined all interference with the ruleof the Sanhedrin over Jerusalem, considering it policy to court the senate of eldersrather than provoke hostilities, did it lie within the office of the procurator torescind a sentence passed by the leading authorities of Jerusalem on an apostatefrom Israel ?A review of the political and religious aspect of the brief period of Christ'smessianic activity leads to the conclusion that to the sway of the highest nativetribunal, the Sanhedrin, the imperium of Rome lent official aid. The issue beingthat if the Procurator did not act in co-operation with the Holy Senate he was theone the crafty Tiberias went against : as instanced by the three recorded rebellionsof the Jews under Pontius Pilate when in each case he was compelled to yield inconsequence of the Jews' appeals to the Emperor. From such conditions were be-gotten Pilate's political peril and the weakness of his situation ; the sequencebeing that not as the accomplice, but as the implement of the priestly aristocracy,he was coerced cravenly into ratifying the decree of the Jewish council, giving upto its authority one whose righteousness he declared himself convinced of. Over-come by the outrage of the Jews he yielded his name to the scourge of historywhile casting upon the priest-led Jewish mob the whole reproach of the death of'' This Just Man, He in whom I find no fault, "—a responsibility which was acceptedwith cries of " Let his blood be upon us."Was it Tiberias who was guilty of the death of Jesus ?Was it Pilate ?Was it not rather the old Mosaic law represented by Hanan ? A law whichassigned the penalty of death to all attempts to change the Hebrew faith.How many death sentences dictated by priestly intolerance have forced thehand of the civil power ! Sacerdotal cruelty has ever shielded itself behind thesecular arm.Christ had made the first step towards incurring the hatred of the rabbis, andthe condemnation of those who disputed the right of individual judgment in thesphere of religion, when as a little child he had stood amongst the doctors in theJewish hall pondering on problems, and hearing and asking questions ; with anearly introversion seeking through outward forms for the subtile essence of eternalverities. That day he had taken the first step towards the agony of Gethsemane.That day he had set his face all unconsciously towards the dread shadow of theMount of Golgotha." Socrates was the glory of the Athenians who would not suffer him to liveamongst them. Spinoza was the greatest of modern Jews and the Synagogue ex-pelled him with ignominy. Jesus was the glory of the people of Israel who cruci-fied him." Thus wrote an Oriental scholar of the past on the subject of the crimecommitted upon Calvary. "Jesus was crucified by the Romans, not by the Jews,"thus writes one of our great scholars of to-day. In the presence of such conflictingliterary statements, will The Open Court treat considerately the foregoing sugges-tions cast forth by one of its constant and earnest students ? Geo. Auld.Basseterre, St. Kitts.THE JUDGES OF JESUS, AGAIN.To the Editor of The Open Court:In the number of The Open Court for June you answer the question of Mr.George Auld in terms which are technically correct. Undoubtedly the sentence of5o8 THE OPEN COURT.the Jewish Sanhedrim was executed, and legally could have been executed, onlythrough the Roman Governor. But is it not true that, in the deeper sense in whichthe transaction is regarded by the Christian World, the responsibility for the exe-cution, as well as for the sentence, rested upon the Sanhedrim ? The death ofJesus was demanded under the Jewish law because he had declared himself to bethe Son of God. Pilate, however, tried to save him and, to that end, exhaustedevery argument he could employ and, when his efforts proved ineffectual, washedhis hands before the multitude and declared his innocence "of the blood of thisjust person." According to St. John, he did not consent to the execution until twoappeals had exercised upon him a coercive eSect, —/irsl: that in declaring himselfa King, Jesus had committed treason against Rome, and, second, that for this rea-son, to refuse the crucifixion would be an offence against Cassar.From my point of view it follows that, while Pilate was a moral coward, theSanhedrim was substantially responsible for the sentence and the execution.Henry E. Highton.EDITORIAL COMMENTS.In considering historical questions of events narrated in the New Testament,we must bear in mind that the Gospels are not history in the literal sense of theword. The contradictions of the Gospels are a sufficient evidence to prove that thestatements of the New Testament stand as much in need of critical revision andinvestigation as do any secular records or documents. There is no doubt that themain facts themselves,—the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, the offence he gave tothe orthodox Jews, his condemnation by the Roman governor, and his crucifixion,—are historical ; but the reports are colored by the opinions of the several authors.There can be no doubt, as our correspondent, Mr. Highton, says, that "in thesense in which the transaction was regarded by the Christian world," the responsi-bility for the sentence lies with the Jewish priests. Without being prosecuted bythe Sanhedrim, the Roman authorities would not have crucified Jesus. But itseems to me very doubtful to speak of this interpretation as "the deeper sense" ;it is rather an interpretation which does not take the facts as they are, but weighsat the same time the moral responsibility of one of the parties, fixing the guilt on awhole nation which belongs to one class only. Jesus was obnoxious to the ortho-dox Jews because he was a sectarian, and moreover a leader, one who had been,as is probably historically true, greeted at his entry into Jerusalem as the Messiahby the members of his sect. According to the Gospel account, he was condemnedfor blasphemy because he called himself the " Son of God," which is interpretedin the sense in which Paul uses the term " Son of God." But it is not probablethat the Sanhedrim would condemn a man for calling himself the son of God, sinceeven to-day there is a large Jewish society which call themselves "Sons of God,"the "B'nei Adonai" or the "B'nei Elohim." God is frequently called "Father"in the Old Testament, and Israel collectively is called the "Son of God." Theintroduction of the narrative that Pilate washed his hands, seems to me to betraythe tendency of whitewashing the Romans, and I deem it, though not impossible,yet as historically improbable. But whether or not historical, this symbolical actdoes not relieve Pilate of his responsibility. That the Roman governor at firsttried to release the prisoner is quite plausible, for Pilate knew of the bitternesswith which the orthodox Jews persecuted their unorthodox fellow-countrymen.But as soon as he heard that Jesus was regarded by a part of the population as aMessiah, he did not hesitate to condemn him to the cross, and thus it seems to meMISCELLANEOUS. 50gthat the historical background of the judgment scene in the praetorium is histori-cally tenable. But for all that, even if the Sanhedrim hated the man who wasworshipped as the Messiah by the Nazarenes, the Ebionites, or some similar sect,it would be very wrong to make the whole nation responsible for his condem-nation.Translate the whole story into modern conditions, such as we are familiarwith. Suppose that there is a tribe of South Sea Islanders ruled by a Britishgovernor. There rises among them a native pretender, harmless and inoffensive,who somehow makes himself obnoxious to the chieftains of his own nation. Thelatter, themselves of a rebellious character, hand him over to the British governoras a traitor to the cause of British rule. The British governor finds no guilt in theprisoner, but the chieftains say that the accused is a rebel, and if he be not exe-cuted at once they will report the case to London. Now let us assume, the Britishgovernor learns that the pretender is the head of a powerful native party which hesuspects of being just as dangerous as the chieftains, and so he concludes to havehim executed, would the governor and with him the British government not be re-sponsible for the execution ? The chieftains would not be free from blame, butwe could not say that the South Sea Islanders had killed him.The Jewish Christian certainly did not condemn the entire nation ; and theconception of fastening the guilt upon the Jews collectively originated at a laterdate, when Christianity had taken root among the Gentiles. It is a peculiarlyGentile-Christian conception, and characterises the interpretation of the Gentile-Christian world of the second century and later ages.ADOLF BASTIAN ON THE ETHNOLOGICAL WORK OFAMERICA.Dr. Adolf Bastian, the Nestor of German ethnologists and director of the greatmuseum of Berlin, is as active as ever in research and literary production. Scarcelya year goes by but several works descriptive of the results of his extensive travelsand vast studies appear. Just recently three books, one treating of the history ofcivilisation as illuminated by Buddhism,' a second of ethnology in its relation tohistory," and a third of ethnic psychology,^ have come to our table,—not to men-tion contributions to technical journals. The readers of The Open Court will soonhave the opportunity to read an article by Dr. Achelis of Bremen treating at lengthof Bastian's fruitful and unremitting labors in the field of ethnology, so that ourremarks may be brief at this time. It is interesting to know, however, the highopinion which Bastian has of the ethnological work now being done in America,and we accordingly quote from a private letter of his to the editor the followingremarks:"The science of modern times, our new 'science of man,' struck root in thesoil of the New World most quickly of all ; and by the generous endowments theremade for its advancement has reached a high point of development.1 Culturhistoriscke Studien unter Riickbeziehting aufJen Bicddhismus. I. Berlin ; Druck undVerlag von A. Haack. Pages, 197.2Z?/V V'dlkerkunde und der Volkerverkehr unter seiner Riickivirkung auf die Volksgesckichte.Ein Beitrag zur Volks- und Menschenkunde. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. 1900.Pages, iv, 171..3/?zV humanistischen Studieti in ihrer Behandlungstueise iiach comparativ-genetischer Me-thode auf naturwissenschaftlicher Unterlage. Prolegomena zu einer ethnischen Psychologie.Berlin : Ferd. Diimmlers Verlagsbuchhandlung. 1901. Pages, iv, 186.

The Judges of Jesus, Again. With Editorial Note.

https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1351&amp;context=ocj

The Judges of Jesus, Again. With Editorial Note.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

OpenSIUC