Jesus and the Anti-Jew.

 (A Paper Read Before the Maccabean Union on 11th August, 1908, by B. A. Levinson, M.A., LL.B.)

(Concluded from Last Issue.)

It is stated that the chief priests and the scribes sought to take Jesus by craft and put him to death and they secured his betrayal by his disciple, Judas of Kerioth. He was brought before the High Priest and the assembly of scribes and elders. Witnesses were sought against him, and none were found. At length two false witnesses appeared whose accounts agreed. They had heard "this fellow" declare he could destroy the Temple of God and rebuild it in three days. Jesus did not answer these witnesses. Then the High Priest Caiaphas asked him, "Art thou the Christ, the Son of God ?" To this, according to Matthew, Jesus answered, "Thou hast said": and, according to Luke, "Ye say that I am": and, according to Mark, he boldly said, "I am." "Nevertheless," he added, "ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in clouds of heaven." Then the High Priest rent his clothes and declared, "He hath spoken blasphemy. What need for further witnesses ?" And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

Let us pause for a while. What was this assembly of High Priest, scribes, and elders? Not the great Jewish tribunal, the Sanhedrin ; because that body was not in existence at the time of Jesus. It was abolished by Herod in 40 B.C., and not reinstated until 82 years later. It is absolutely impossible to determine the name and authority of the assembly. The Synoptics assert that the trial was at night, and this could not lawfully be. It was wrong to arrest and to try on the Passover night; wrong for the High Priest to rend his garments. It was contrary to Jewish jurisprudence to exhort the accused to confess. More serious criticism still, Jesus could not have been condemned to death as a blasphemer according to the Jewish law. Only he who cursed God by the ineffable name of Jehovah and who seduced others into cursing God and enticed them to idolatry was a blasphemer according to Jewish law and guilty of death. "Freedom of speech," says Graetz, "thanks to the frequent debates in the schools of Shammai and Hillel, had become firmly established a right." He adds that in calling himself "the Son of God" Jesus had laid himself open to accusation. But the phrase, "Son of God," is often spoken in the Prophets and Psalms, as Rabbi Drucker shows, and Graetz appears to have forgotten.

These discrepancies and these irregularities, and worse, do not, of course, prove that Jesus was never brought before the High Priest, but they make it improbable that he was tried illegally before a Jewish tribunal and sentenced by it illegally to death.

What follows makes it more improbable. Judaea being a Roman province, only the Roman Governor could sanction execution by death. Jesus was delivered to Pontius Pilate, the procurator. What was his question to Jesus ? Was it of "the Son of God" ? No. "Art thou," he asked, "the King of the Jews ?" Or in other words Dost thou say thou art King of Judaea, which is a Roman province ? And Jesus answered, "Thou sayest it." Then it is said that the chief priests and elders accused him and he answered them not; but of what they accused him it is not written. So far the charge is a political one. In this turbulent province a "King of Judaea" meant a rebellion, and Rome had had bitter experience of Jewish messiahs and Jewish rebellions. Still Pilate is made to say—despite the confession of Jesus—that he found no fault in this man. The older Gospels, Mark and Matthew, make no mention of Pilate's so declaring. Luke and John are at pains to show it was the Jews and again the Jews who would have the blood of Jesus. Who was this Pilate whom they show to be so merciful ?

According to Josephus and Philo, Pilate came with the avowed intention of stamping out every vestige of freedom that might still have been dormant in the hearts of the Judaeans. It was he who ordered the soldiers to restore to their standards the usual Roman images which previous Governors had removed out of respect for Jewish susceptibilities. It was he who provoked a Jewish rebellion and ordered the slaughter of Jewish delegates. The New Testament admits that he mingled the blood of pilgrims with the blood of the sacrifices. So cruel was his rule that he was recalled after fourteen years of tyranny. But note how this tyrant is made to bear himself.

Luke tells that the Chief Priests and the people grew all the more fierce and said, "He stirreth up the people teaching through out all Jewry." When he heard that Jesus was of Galilee, Pilate seized the chance and sent him to Herod, tetrarch of Galilee, who had jurisdiction over Galileans. Mark and Matthew and John know nothing of Herod's introduction. The writer of John makes Pilate argue with Jesus—-"Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee to me."

It was the custom at Passover to release a prisoner, and Pilate, hopeful that Jesus would be chosen, offered them Jesus or Barabbas. Notice the offensiveness of the contrast. Barabbas was a murderer, a publican —that is to say, the collector for Rome of a detested tax which none but the lowest of the people would collect. The chief priests moved the people that they should call for Barabbas, and, as to him called the King of the Jews, they cried out, "Crucify him !" And Pilate, remarkable to relate, expostulated : "Why, what evil hath he done ?" But still they cried out, "Crucify him !" and so it was ordered. Matthew goes one step further. "When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, ' I am innocent of the blood of this just person : see ye to it.' And answered all the people and said, ' His blood be on us and on our children.' "

I can never read that passage without warmth. All else in the narratives can be reasoned upon and the probabilities weighed. But the hand that wrote that passage, drew Pilate washing his hands of responsibility and the Jews deliberately accepting for themselves and their children all blame, that hand wrote in malice, wrote a lie. Is it conceivable Pilate should protest so mercifully ? Is it believable that finding him a "just man" he would condemn him to death? Could he as Roman Governor let him go free who claimed to be and was acclaimed the King of the subject province ? Washing his hands was a Jewish custom, as crucifixion was a Roman. If the Jews had gone to Pilate for his permission to execute their sentence, their sentence would have been carried out with stones. The cross was a Roman punishment for some Roman crime.

The oldest of the Gospels, Mark's, has least of the spirit of rancour against the Jews. There is none of this disputation mentioned there. Pilate asks the people of "him ye call the King of the Jews," and they answer, "Crucify him !"

Then the soldiers lead him into the Pretorium and clothe him with purple and platted a crown of thorns and put it on his head and salute him in mockery—"Hail, King of the Jews." Is all this for an offence against Judaic faith ? Or is it not rather a lesson and a scornful lesson to the Judaeans, teaching them their subjection and warning would-be Kings ? Then to the crucifix, on which the Romans slew their malefactors, a death of degradation and shame ; and on the cross they set the superscription in Greek and Latin and Hebrew that all might read—"Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews." John adds that the chief priests asked Pilate to write instead, "He said, I am King of the Jews," but Pilate said, "What I have written, I have written."

Malice has not reached its end. Matthew and Mark tell that ere he died the last words the listeners heard from the sufferer were, Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachtani—My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? the cry of a Jew in his last agony, a Jew of a great soul who had served his God to the end. But the Roman Luke, bitterest of all the chroniclers, declares that Jesus cried, "Father, forgive them ; for they know not what they do." Innocent words in themselves, for "they" might be the Romans, but this was a last arrow sent quivering into the flesh of the Jew.

Is it not clear, as one examines the story, that it was the Romans who caused Jesus to die? Tacitus, the Roman historian, states, "Jesus, called Christ, was crucified by Pilate for promoting a rebellion among the Jews." Is it not clear that the Jews were willing to follow him whom the Romans crucified as their King ? Is it possible such a kind and noble spirit would have been hounded down by his people ? Did they not acclaim him as he entered Jerusalem amid rejoicing some few weeks before ? Was he not taken by stealth, lest there should be an uproar against the people? In a word, is it not clear beyond any doubt that the Jews were guiltless of the death of Jesus ?

As to the High Priest's part it is not easy to decide. The trial before him is incredible, but he may have found Jesus and delivered him to the Romans. I believe he did. In Mark, it is said that Pilate knew that the Chief Priest had delivered him from envy. In John there is no trial before Caiaphas ; but he is brought before Annas, who questions him of his disciples and his doctrine and is answered by Jesus that he has spoken openly to the world and not in secret, and he is taken to Caiaphas and then led unto the hall of judgment before Pilate. The position of the High Priests, the tools and spies of the Romans, their detachment from the rest of the people, their satisfaction with the existing state of things and their disinclination for any new kingdom, makes it probable that Caiaphas, or whoever else was High Priest at the time, surrendered to Pilate this leader of men whose popularity was growing dangerous. But whatever the so-called "High Priest's" part in the crime, the Jews as a people could incur no blame. He belonged to the Romans, who appointed him to his office, whom it was his duty and habit to please and whose servant he was, and not to them.

But why the distortion ? Why the untruthful narratives all turned against the Jews ? Does not the very consistency of their treatment suggest the answer? Judas! Jesus, the divine, is betrayed by Judas, and with a kiss. Judas—and Judaean—in Latin and Greek are practically the same word. Judas was the name of the Maccabee still remembered in Rome. Judas the Galilean had led an insurrection which cost the Romans many men. "It was a well aimed dart," says Rabbi Krauskopf, "and it hit the very heart."

For the cause of so much trouble and woe one must consider very shortly what happened after the death of Jesus. His followers then did not amount to more than 120 in Jerusalem, and perhaps 500 in all. With his death their enthusiasm grew. They were Jews and observed the precepts, kept the Sabbath and reverenced the Temple. But they cherished the belief that the Messiah had come. They accepted poverty as their rule, and so became known as Ebionites. They lived together and shared their belongings. To this class the early Christians belonged, the Jewish-Christians. In the first century they attracted little attention among the Judaeans. Graetz says it was their humble class that sheltered them from observation. Apostles went out from Jerusalem to carry the story of the Messiah, and Judaeans from Greece and Egypt and elsewhere came at their call. The Greek Judaeans soon predominated. They had not been taught the law in Jerusalem, and gradually small innovations were introduced. But it was Saul of Tarsus, called Paul from his smallness, who began the mission to the Gentiles, and so arose the cleavage between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile-Christians. In Rome and in the Roman territories Jews and Jewish Christians were not distinguished. Vespasian's war in Galilee was fought and Jerusalem taken, and the Temple destroyed. The Gentile Christians had every reason to separate themselves from the Jews who were commonly mistaken to be of the same "superstition." They preached their Gospel, as St. Paul had done and as he had told them to do. But they dared not offend the Romans, amongst whom they lived and whose goodwill they needed and whose conversion, besides, they sought. He whom they worshipped suffered in Judaea ; what more natural than that it was the Judaeans that persecuted him ? But what of the Romans' part ? They in sooth protected him.

While the story was an oral one, as it passed from mouth to mouth, the convenience of the time would suggest alterations to make the story more palatable to the Roman and at the same time to distinguish all the more definitely the Christians who worshipped Jesus, from the Jews who killed him. When the narratives were written, the untruth was fixed, and, what "unconscious bias" had not already done, cruel and selfish purpose completed.

I do not hesitate to allege this purpose. There are a hundred indications of it. At every opportunity Jesus is made to inveigh against the Pharisees. "Woe unto you, O Scribes and Pharisees !" occurs again and again. They are classed with hypocrites, confuted with humiliation, treated with every disdain. Now, this at least is clear that the Pharisees were the largest of the three great sects of Judaea. They were the mass of the nation. Indeed, it seems probable that Jesus himself was a Pharisee. The Pharisees' opinions were framed on the law and customs of Judaism. The Sadducees were another sect, who placed religion below the need of preserving the in dependence of the nation. The Essenes were a communistic sect, who were by adoption poor, encouraged celibacy and lived ascetically. The early Christians were a branch of the Essenes. The Pharisees included the learned of the people. It was they who established the synagogues and interpreted the law. It was they who fought in controversy for Judaism against the new Christian faith. It was they, then, who received the full scorn of the Gospels. Jesus is never made to mention the Essenes. The Sadducees are scarcely ever referred to in the four accounts. But it is against the Pharisees that Jesus inveighs. It is they he reproves. It is they who persecute him. It is they the Gentiles are taught to despise and hate. It is they who are represented to be the enemies of God. The Gospels are bitter with the spirit of controversy, while they purport to tell of the Prince of Peace.

Whether others believe those narratives to support their religion, that is no concern of mine to-night. I have not meant to bring in question any creed. Again, if the world would believe those narratives enough to follow faithfully all that Jesus taught, it would be well for us and better for the world. But, alas ! the world still believes them so that an innocent people is still ad judged guilty and still suffers wrongly. And that should not and must not be.

I had intended to trace through the centuries briefly the course of this calumny, to show what in each century and in each country our people has suffered on its account—persecution clearly traceable to the story in the canonical Gospels—such as the massacres in the Crusaders' days. But I have said enough and the sad tale is only too well known. But the true story of the part that was played by the ancient Judaeans in that great drama as is not enough known among ourselves or among our neighbours and should be learnt and taught them.

Jewish Herald (Vic. : 1879 - 1920), Friday 18 September 1908, page 17