Thus did Browne seek to bring Judaism and Christianity together by stripping both of their diverse marketable embellishments. This tactic apparently resonated more with Christians than with Jews. A reviewer in Indianapolis wrote of Browne, “In point of brilliant scholarship and fine liberal tone, the most remarkable one heard in this city... he has no prejudices and expresses his views with the earnestness of an apostle and the liberality of a large minded scholar.... In manner the Doctor is vivacious, clear and highly entertaining.”40
A Jewish listener questioned the ecumenical aspect of the speech, objecting to Browne’s conclusion that both Jews and Christians would share equally in the hereafter if each lived up to his own religious beliefs. “Judaism and Christianity,” declared the dissenter, “cannot reasonably be accepted as two corresponding pieces of the same excellent article: if one is true, the other is not true.”
Wise identified the critic as one “who appears to have a distrust of all the present approved forms of religion, and who is classed among the very intelligent and shrewd freethinkers of the city.” This highlighted a tension between the Jewish yearning for acceptance via ecumenism and the inability on the part of many Jews to accept the validity of any other faith than their own or to view their own with its embellishments stripped away. Browne had attacked their conventional approach to ecumenism. Then and in the future, as he continued to speak frankly, he gained approval and admiration from Christians while drawing the disapproval of Jews.41
In November, 1876, Wise notified readers that Browne would leave shortly for a tour through the Southwest (then meaning west of Atlanta and east of Houston.) Noting that Browne “has engagements for all the larger cities... but we have no doubt that arrangements for smaller places can be made,” Wise urged people not to miss the opportunity “to procure a Jewish lecturer in places where there is no congregation... especially as the Doctor is able, eloquent and his lecture well worth hearing.” 42
That spring Browne traveled eastward across the Gulf states from Louisiana, where a reporter for the New Orleans Times praised his talk at the Rampart Street Synagogue as “the most entertaining and instructive... the people of New Orleans have ever heard or missed hearing for a long time.” 43
Crossing the Chattahoochee into Columbus, Georgia, Browne spoke on the historic Jewish view of the crucifixion, addressing an enthusiastic crowd of 125 that included “one colored Baptist Minister,” in the city’s historic Springer Opera House. A local reporter described the speaker as “able, systematic and forcible as we have ever had the pleasure of listening to....” He extolled Browne’s “power of illustration by analogizing” and his “vein of almost imperceptible humor, which was as subtle as is possible to conceive [as] fine, rich and highly enjoyable, though accompanied with due reverence.” Then the reporter, apologizing that he could not give the two and a half hour lecture a “thorough synopsis” due to its length, reviewed it at a length proportionate to its delivery.44
In this presentation Browne made some startling assertions about Jesus’s trial and betrayal, indicating that he knew about an obscure source, the Judas Gospel, that was mentioned in some medieval Christian texts, but not discovered in the original until the 1970s and undisclosed to the general public until 2006. Based partially on information contained in that document, Browne maintained that Jews were not responsible for the crucifixion because the timing and mode of Jesus’s trial was contrary to Jewish laws, because it was carried out by “scalawags” and Romans, because the judges and officers were bribed, and because all but two of the judges were illiterate in Hebrew (presumably meaning Hebrew law, because the people spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew, and the rulers spoke Latin.) Browne exonerated Judas on the grounds that the alleged betrayer was really trying to save Jesus, who had asked to be delivered to the priests for protection. Furthermore, since Judas was the disciples’ treasurer, he could have escaped with far more than thirty pieces of silver if profit had been his motive. Browne tagged Peter as the guilty one but did not say why.
Browne began his explanation of the crucifixion to his mostly Christian audience by giving a fictitious legal example set in 19th Century America. He then described a parallel case under Roman rule in Judea, where false messiahs constantly appeared promising to liberate the people. Their messianic claim was a political crime, for which the penalty was crucifixion.
“The captive nation cried in bitterness for the Messiah that would save it,” Browne asserted, for the nation was torn in fragments, many of which Jesus had been able to reconcile. Then, “in an unguarded moment, by Jesus’s dearest friend, he was declared to be the Messiah, the son of David, he who was to rescue the Jews from Roman bondage.” The indiscreet announcement caused the Nazarene to be betrayed and indicted for high treason.
Browne noted that the trial could not have been a Jewish one because 1) it lasted only a few hours, whereas “by Jewish law then prevailing” it would have taken three days; 2) it took place on a Friday, which was also contrary to Jewish law; and 3) it was said to have taken place on the Passover, “again impossible according to Jewish law.”A later reviewer quoted Browne as saying that, “in an unguarded moment” Peter declared Jesus to be the Messiah, come to rescue the Jews from Roman bondage--a crime greatly feared by the Roman authorities, and punishable by death.
By advancing the theory that an inadvertent remark rather than purposeful betrayal had led to Jesus’s death, Browne sought to disabuse Christians of the notion that Jews were responsible for the crucifixion. It is doubtful that he succeeded with many. Imbedded within centuries of indoctrination, the theory prevailed unchallenged by the Church until almost a century later.45
The Columbus reviewer wrote that Browne “attributed to Jesus a much more dignified character than is credited to him by Christians,” saying that he was “truly liberal throughout his discourse,” and possessed noble sentiments “worthy of any man... a gentleman of high culture, of profound thought, backed by extended [sic] reading.... We wish that his entire lecture would be published that the people might read and study.”46
While fate decreed otherwise about its publication, Browne’s lecture that evening did bring him good fortune. In the audience were four leaders of Atlanta’s Hebrew Benevolent Congregation. It is possible that they were there on a mission to choose a rabbi, for Browne had lectured in Atlanta the previous year on “The Talmud, Its Ethics and Literary Beauties” to good reviews. The Atlanta delegation was so impressed that the men returned home offering personally to pay for the completion of their synagogue building, halted due to lack of funds, if the congregation would engage Browne as its rabbi. Fortunately, Browne had just undergone an operation by an eminent eye surgeon in Texas which improved his condition sufficiently for him to accept the offer.47
The timing was fortuitous. On October 8, 1876, after five years of marriage, Sophie had finally borne a healthy child, a daughter whom they named Lylah Leah. Her arrival gave urgency to Browne’s need for a stable position.
Browne was ready. In these years, he became widely familiar with Middle America, intimately so with the communities of Evansville and Peoria where he had lived. He preached and published advanced ideas, often at odds with mainstream Jewry. Fortified by his understanding that science could be compatible with religion, he advocated both Darwinism and biblical criticism which were bitterly opposed by most rabbis as well as by the Christian clergy. His approach to ecumenism included stripping both Judaism and Christianity of their popularizing but extraneous embellishments, and explaining the crucifixion from the standpoint of the Judas gospel.
During his brief but highly successful tenure in Peoria, Browne broadened his reputation as a public orator and “ambassador to the gentiles,” established himself as a fighter for ecumenism and against agnosticism, furthered his activity as a journalist, and gained friends in the highest levels of government including the president himself.
Storm clouds began to rise in the distance, however. While still supported by Wise and embraced as a member of his family, Wise’s widowhood and remarriage, as well as his son Leo’s return, initiated changes in his relationship with Browne. As a delegate to the opening conference of the Union of American