Part 36 (1/2)

[Footnote 5: Tacitus (_Ann_, xv 44) describes the death of Jesus as a political execution by Pontius Pilate But at the epoch in which Tacitus wrote, the Rouilty of secretly conspiring against the state It was natural that the Latin historian should believe that Pilate, in putting Jesus to death, had been actuated by a desire for the public safety Josephus is much ested itself to the overnor by which he could reconcile his own feelings with the demands of the fanatical people, whose pressure he had already so often felt It was the custom to deliver a prisoner to the people at the ti that Jesus had only been arrested in consequence of the jealousy of the priests,[1] tried to obtain for hiain upon the _bi of the Jews” The proposition h ironical, was characterized by a degree of liberality The priests saw the danger of it They acted promptly,[2]

and in order to coested to the crowd the nareat popularity in Jerusaleular coincidence, he also was called Jesus,[3]

and bore the surnae,[5] and had been arrested for taking part in an uproar in which eneral clamor was raised, ”Not this ed to release Jesus Bar-Rabban

[Footnote 1: Mark xv 10]

[Footnote 2: Matt xxvii 20; Mark xv 11]

[Footnote 3: The nareater part of the reat authorities in its favor]

[Footnote 4: Matt xxvii 16]

[Footnote 5: Cf St Jerome In Matt xxvii 16]

[Footnote 6: Mark xv 7; Luke xxiii 19 John (xviii 40), who makes him a robber, appears here too much further from the truth than Mark]

His eence shown to a prisoner, to as given the title of ”King of the Jews,”

ht compromise him Fanaticism, moreover, coht hi to shed blood, in order to satisfyinto a jest Affecting to laugh at the poiven to Jesus, he caused hieneral preliminary of crucifixion[2]

Perhaps Pilate wished it to be believed that this sentence had already been pronounced, hoping that the preli to all the narratives) a revolting scene The soldiers put a scarlet robe on his back, a crown formed of branches of thorns upon his head, and a reed in his hand Thus attired, he was led to the tribunal in front of the people The soldiers defiled before hi of the Jews”[3] Others, it is said, spit upon him, and struck his head with the reed It is difficult to understand how Ronity could stoop to acts so shameful It is true that Pilate, in the capacity of procurator, had under his command scarcely any but auxiliary troops[4] Roraded themselves by such conduct

[Footnote 1: Matt xxvii 26; Mark xv 15; John xix 1]

[Footnote 2: Jos, _BJ_, II xiv 9, V xi 1, VII vi 4; titus-Livy, xxxIII 36; Quintus Curtius, VII xi 28]

[Footnote 3: Matt xxvii 27, and following; Mark xv 16, and following; Luke xxiii 11; John xix 2, and following]

[Footnote 4: See _Inscript Rom B]

Did Pilate think by this display that he freed himself from responsibility? Did he hope to turn aside the blohich threatened Jesus by conceding so for the tragic denouerotesque termination, to make it appear that the affair merited no other issue? If such were his idea, it was unsuccessful The tumult increased, and became an open riot The cry ”Crucify him! crucify hily urgent, declared the law in peril if the corrupter were not punished with death[2] Pilate saw clearly that to save Jesus he would have to put down a terrible disturbance He still tried, however, to gain timent-hall, and ascertained fro a pretext for declaring his inability to adjudicate[3] According to one tradition, he even sent Jesus to Antipas, who, it is said, was then at Jerusalem[4] Jesus took no part in these well-meant efforts; he nified silence, which astonished Pilate The cries fro The people had already begun to denounce the lack of zeal in the functionary who protected an enereatest adversaries of the Roman rule were suddenly transforht have the right of accusing the too tolerant procurator of treason ”We have no king,” said they, ”but Caesar If thou let this o, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever ainst Caesar”[5] The feeble Pilate yielded; he foresaw the report that his enemies would send to Ro protected a rival of Tiberius Once before, in the matter of the votive escutcheons,[6] the Jews had written to the emperor, and had received satisfaction He feared for his office By a compliance, which was to deliver his na, it is said, upon the Jews all the responsibility of as about to happen The latter, according to the Christians, fully accepted it, by exclai, ”His blood be on us and on our children!”[7]

[Footnote 1: Luke xxiii 16, 22]

[Footnote 2: John xix 7]

[Footnote 3: John xix 9 Cf Luke xxiii 6, and following]

[Footnote 4: It is probable that this is a first attempt at a ”Harmony of the Gospels” Luke must have had before him a narrative in which the death of Jesus was erroneously attributed to Herod In order not to sacrifice this version entirely he must have combined the two traditions What ue knowledge that Jesus (as John teaches us) appeared before three authorities In many other cases, Luke seems to have a remote idea of the facts which are peculiar to the narration of John Moreover, the third Gospel contains in its history of the Crucifixion a series of additions which the author appears to have drawn from a ed with a special view to edification]

[Footnote 5: John xix 12, 15 Cf Luke xxiii 2 In order to appreciate the exactitude of the description of this scene in the evangelists, see Philo, _Leg ad Caium_, -- 38]

[Footnote 6: See _ante_, p 351]

[Footnote 7: Matt xxvii 24, 25]

Were these words really uttered? We may doubt it But they are the expression of a profound historical truth Considering the attitude which the Romans had taken in Judea, Pilate could scarcely have acted otherwise How ious intolerance have been extorted fro of Spain, who, in order to please a fanatical clergy, delivered hundreds of his subjects to the stake, was more blameable than Pilate, for he represented a more absolute power than that of the Ro or meddlesome at the solicitation of the priesthood, it proves its weakness But let the government that is without sin in this respect throw the first stone at Pilate The ”secular arm,” behind which clerical cruelty shelters itself, is not the culprit No one has a right to say that he has a horror of blood when he causes it to be shed by his servants

It was, then, neither Tiberius nor Pilate who condemned Jesus It was the old Jewish party; it was the Mosaic Law According to our modern ideas, there is no transmission of moral demerit from father to son; no one is accountable to human or divine justice except for that which he himself has done Consequently, every Jeho suffers to-day for the ht have acted as did Siht not have been with those who cried ”Crucify him!” But nations, like individuals, have their responsibilities, and if ever crime was the crial” in the sense that it was primarily caused by a lahich was the very soul of the nation