Of the sixty-thousand books said to have been written on the life of Jesus in the last century alone, only a very few were enquiries by lawyers or legal historians into the nature and circumstances of the trial, in which his life culminated and which led to his death. This is surprising, considering that no trial in the history of mankind was of such momentous consequences, that none has ever given rise to such widespread, authoritative and persistent assertions that a grave miscarriage of justice had occurred and that none has had repercussions which have retained their impact and actuality even after the lapse of 1,936 years; It is true that, in their researches, great historians and theologians have made ample use of the legal background material they have painstakingly and (mostly) conscientiously collected from Jewish and Roman sources, and every lawyer approaching the subject today owes them a great debt of gratitude for their preparatory work. But both their approach and their purpose were historical or theological, whereas we as lawyers are not concerned with the historical or theological truth of any statement or description contained in the Gospels. Our purpose is to try and find, within the framework of the prevailing legal institutions and conceptions, some plausible interpretation of the events as to the occurrence of which there is general consensus.

The status and place of religion in the law of Israel has been the subject of public controversy, leading to highly emotional outbursts and fervent debate. It is not surprising, therefore, that lawyers and serious writers have shunned this stormy field and have preferred calmer subjects. But this is not the only reason for avoiding a legal discussion of religion in Israel. The subject is strewn with difficulties, legal and extra-legal. The absence of a constitution and the almost unlimited power of the Knesset have resulted in a patchwork of laws which make generalization almost impossible. The provisions of law relating to religion in Israel are not governed by any general scheme. History, political expediency, party politics and, even more, chance are responsible for an amorphous body of laws which baffles outsiders as well as some Israelis dissatisfied with the present state of the law in this field. The present writer belongs to those who resent the use of secular laws to curb religious freedom and to enforce religious practices on non-religious persons. Nevertheless, it is hoped that the present account and analysis of the state of the law is not tainted by personal bias and that in this article a wall separating, if not State and church, at least opinion and fact, is established.

In these hints Galsworthy the artist describes the attitude of English society in 1886. Galsworthy the member of Lincoln's Inn writing in 1906 also knows it as the attitude of English law: a married person has the right of connubium at any time, not dependent on his spouse's love or willingness, and nothing a husband does to compel his wife to have with him normal sex relations will be considered as rape upon her.