THE TRIAL © CRUCIFIXION 
 
 OF JBSUS CHRIST 
 
 OF -NAZARETH 
 
 . BRODRICK 
 
bectioa . (D , J5 06 
 
THE TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION 
 
 OF 
 
 JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH 
 
THE TRIAL 
 
 AND CRUCIFIXION 
 
 OF JESUS CHRIST 
 
 OF NAZARETH 
 
 BY M. BRODRICK 
 
 JOINT AUTHOR Of "CONCISE DICTIONARY OF EGYPTIAN AKCHjEOLOCK. 
 
 EDITOR OF MURRAY'S "REVISED HANDBOOK FOR PALESTINE 
 
 AND SYRIA," ETC., ETC. 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 LONGMANS GREEN & COMPANY 
 
 London: JOHN MURRAY 
 
 1908 
 
PrittUd in Great Britain. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The following pages are the substance of 
 lectures which have been delivered at 
 various times and in many places other 
 than the United Kingdom, and it is in 
 response to the request of many members 
 of my audiences to possess them in per- 
 manent form that I venture to publish 
 them. 
 
 They are purely historical and legal, 
 and the subject has been purposely treated 
 from a formal and prosaic standpoint. 
 
 The four Gospels alone are their basis, 
 and thus many traditions and hypotheses 
 which bear the stamp of possibility are 
 ignored as not sufficiently capable of proof. 
 
 The statements made about the Jews 
 
 may at first sight appear to be somewhat 
 
 severe, but they can be proved both from 
 
 the Gospels and secular history, and, of 
 vii 
 
VUl PREFACE 
 
 course, only apply to the people as they 
 were in the days of Christ. 
 
 There are many references to both Jewish 
 and English writers which I should like 
 to have given ; but illness and enforced 
 absence from England have prevented me 
 from consulting the authors themselves, and 
 giving the exact chapter and section of 
 their works. 
 
 On page 39 reference is made to the 40 
 vols, of the Talmud. The Editio Princeps, 
 however, is in 12 vols., and an edition of 
 1664, published in Amsterdam, is printed in 
 19 vols. 
 
 There are also editions of the Mishna in 
 3 vols, and 6 vols, as well as that in 1 2 vols. 
 
 I have therefore not attempted to put 
 
 the lectures into literary shape, but have 
 
 left them in the colloquial form in which 
 
 they were given, trusting that with all their 
 
 failings they may not be found unhelpful 
 
 to a sober and accurate realisation of the 
 
 last day of Our Lord's pre - Resurrection 
 
 life. 
 
 M. B. 
 
 BORDIGHERA, I908. 
 
CONTENTS 
 LECTURE I 
 
 THE ARREST 
 
 Page 
 
 The reason for the trial of Christ — Comparison 
 between the Gospels and Jewish and Roman 
 law — The purely historical and legal stand- 
 point of the lectures — Testimony of Josephus 
 and Tacitus — Review of Christ's ministry — 
 His propaganda of reform — His stern rebuke 
 of evil — The Jews — Christ's new teaching — 
 Popular expectation of the Messiah — Accusa- 
 tions formulated against the Preacher — 
 Attempts made to destroy Him — The meet- 
 ing of the Council — The advice of Caiaphas — 
 The arrest — The "band" and "chief captain" 
 — Legality of the arrest — Jewish legislature — 
 The Talmud and the Rabbis — The law — The 
 Sanhedrin — The Pharisees — The Sadducees 
 — The scribes 1-60 
 
 LECTURE II 
 
 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION 
 
 Annas ben Seth — The private interrogation — 
 Joseph Caiaphas the high priest — The palace 
 ix 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 — The probable sequence of events — Four 
 fundamental principles of Hebrew justice — Im- 
 portance of the witnesses — Method of criminal 
 procedure — Forms of oral evidence — Stoning — 
 The Hakiroth — The two charges — Illegal pro- 
 ceeding of Caiaphas — The rejection of the 
 Messiah — The condemnation — Power of the 
 Sanhedrin — Pontius Pilate — The Praetorium 
 — The accusation — Pilate's question — Pilate's 
 just verdict — Pilate's failure to execute justice 
 — The condemnation of Christ . . . . 61-130 
 
 LECTURE III 
 
 THE CRUCIFIXION AND THE SITE OF THE HOLY 
 SEPULCHRE 
 
 Christ delivered to the Roman soldiers — The site 
 of Golgotha — History of this place-name — 
 The crucifixion — History of this punishment — 
 Various forms of the cross — Method of cruci- 
 fixion — " Wine mingled with myrrh " — The 
 titulus — Joseph's tomb — No cultus of the 
 sacred tomb in Apostolic times — No mention 
 of it by early pilgrims — The Emperor Con- 
 stantine— The search for the Holy Sepulchre — 
 Its miraculous discovery — Suggested sites — 
 The true site probably lost . . . .131-191 
 
BOOKS REFERRED TO BY THE 
 AUTHOR. 
 
 Carini, Passione di Christo. 
 Cassiodorus, Chronicles. 
 Castelli, La legge del popolo ebreo. 
 Cicero, Letter to Verres j Pro Rabirio. 
 
 Dictionary of the Bible (Hastings). 
 
 Eusebius, Life of Constajttine ; Praise of Constantine ; On 
 the Theophania. 
 
 Gatti, Album de Rossi. 
 
 Harnack, History of Dogma. 
 
 Josephus, Antiquities of the fetus ; Wars of the few s. 
 
 Keim, fesus von Nazara. 
 
 Levi, Sulla teocrazzia mosaica. 
 
 Maimonides, De Synedriis. 
 
 Migne, Patrologia Graeca ; Patrologia Latina. 
 
 Mommsen, Provifices de Rome de Cesar a Diocletian. 
 
 Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statements. 
 
 Palestine Pilgrims' Texts. 
 
 Petrucelli della Gattina, Memorie di Giuda. 
 
 Rabbinowicz, Legislation criminelle du Talmud. 
 Renan, Histoire du peuple d'' Israel. 
 Roman, The, Penal Code, 
 
 xi 
 
Xll BOOKS REFERRED TO BY THE AUTHOR 
 
 Salvador, Histoire des institutions de Moise ct du fieuple 
 
 Hebreuj La loi de Moise. 
 Schiirer, History of the Jewish People. 
 Schwab, Le Talmud de Jerusaletn. 
 Suetonius, Lives of the CcEsars. 
 
 Tacitus, Annals. 
 
 Talmud, The, of Babylon. 
 
 Talmud, The, of Jerusalem. 
 
 Taylor Innes, lyie Trial of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Wilson, Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre 
 
LECTURE I 
 
 THE ARREST 
 
 "On three things stand the world — on Law, on 
 Worship, and on Charity " 
 
 The closing scenes of the life of Jesus 
 Christ are familiar to us all ; in a certain 
 sense they are almost too familiar, for we 
 have heard them read and preached upon 
 so often, that though the words reach our 
 ears I think they sometimes fail to penetrate 
 our brain. 
 
 It is possible to read the New Testament 
 until it is taken for granted, instead of being 
 known intelligently — to read it with the 
 spirit, yet not with the understanding. 
 
 For some people it is sufficient to accept 
 the fact that Christ's condemnation and death 
 were unjust, and to contemplate them from 
 their theological and spiritual aspect ; but 
 there are also a great many who are not 
 content to give a mere spiritual acquiescence 
 in a belief, the result of which has altered the 
 whole course of Humanity. They desire to 
 
 I A 
 
2 THE ARREST [Lkct. 
 
 know from a historical point of view why 
 the Jews were so relentless in their persecu- 
 tion of the new Teacher, and from a legal 
 point of view how the law of Israel was set 
 aside. 
 
 Much has been written concerning the 
 last hours of Our Lord's life, chiefly from 
 their devotional and theological point of 
 view, but from the legal and purely human 
 aspect there is not much in popular form 
 as the works of the best authorities are 
 technical, and not easily within the reach 
 of the general reader. 
 
 The whole story is a wondrously human 
 document. It is nothino- less than the trial 
 of a Hebrew citizen in the sacred city itself 
 and before the highest tribunal in Jewry, 
 upon a count so grave that if it could be 
 proved, nothing but the utmost penalty of 
 the law awaited him, and that carried out 
 with all speed after the delivery of the 
 sentence. A sentence from which there 
 could be no appeal. Every Christian knows 
 that the arrest of Christ was illegal, His trial 
 conducted unjustly, His condemnation and 
 death nothing short of deliberate murder ; 
 but how many could clearly state where 
 the Jewish law miscarried? All will admit 
 
I.] PURPOSE OF THE BOOK 3 
 
 that Pontius Pilate failed to administer the 
 Roman law with uprightness and justice, 
 yet in what manner did he fail ? All will 
 acknowledge that the punishment of cruci- 
 fixion was a lingering and painful one, yet 
 how many could accurately describe, even 
 if they knew correctly the method of its 
 infliction ? What I propose to do in these 
 lectures is to ask you to examine carefully 
 and in sequence the various details of Our 
 Lord's trial and death, and I think you will 
 agree that only by a comparison of the 
 Gospels with Jewish and Roman law, can 
 we appreciate or even in one or two 
 instances understand Christ's attitude before 
 His accusers. 
 
 Further, that there shall arise no mis- 
 understandings between us, let me make it 
 quite clear that everything will be looked 
 at from the hitman standpoint alone, I shall 
 in no way trench upon theology or dogma, 
 nor upon any points connected with the 
 Divine Nature of Our Lord. All terms 
 used will bear their literal sense, and every- 
 thing that touches upon the religious side 
 of the subject will be eliminated. 
 
 We will look at the events, as they took 
 
4 THE ARREST [Lect, 
 
 place, in the dry, clear light of Law and 
 History and in a strictly formal method. 
 
 Our historical data will be the four 
 Gospels, the only authentic contemporaneous 
 records that we have at present ; of classical 
 allusions to Jesus Christ there are — so far 
 as I know — only two direct ones, those of 
 Josephus the Jew and Tacitus the Roman, 
 though there are indirect allusions to the 
 founder of the Christian religion in Suetonius, 
 Lucian, Pliny the Elder, and Epictetus. 
 Here and there throughout the Talmud 
 there are also references to Him couched 
 in derogatory terms, but of no value histori- 
 cally, and I believe they have been suppressed 
 by the Censor in modern printed copies. 
 
 Josephus says, "At that time lived Jesus, 
 a wise man, if he could be called wise. He 
 did marvellous things, and was the master 
 of those men who received the truth with 
 joy. He, moreover, brought over many 
 Jews to his side as also many foreigners of 
 the Greek countries. This was the Christ. 
 When, on the accusation of the most 
 influential men among us, Pilate sentenced 
 him to death on the cross, his followers 
 nevertheless did not forsake him. He 
 appeared among them on the third day, 
 
I.] TESTIMONY OF JOSEPHUS 5 
 
 because divine prophecies had foretold of 
 him this and many other miracles. Up to 
 the present time the Christian sect — so- 
 called after him — has not ceased to exist."^ 
 Many classical scholars look upon this 
 passage as added by another hand at a 
 later date. Tacitus is very explicit. " In 
 order to quiet the report,^ Nero accused 
 and punished with the most refined tortures, 
 those who with perverse obstinacy called 
 themselves Christians. The author of this 
 name was Christ, who, during the reign of 
 Tiberius, was executed by the Procurator 
 Pontius Pilate."^ 
 
 To understand the causes which led up 
 to the arrest of Jesus Christ, we must look 
 at the history of His three years' ministry. 
 During that time He had lived, so to say, in 
 the sight of all men, and under the scrutiny 
 of a people who are and always have been 
 intensely critical of their teachers. He had 
 passed up and down the land from Galilee 
 to Judsea, leading as every one knew a 
 life of poverty and the sternest asceticism 
 
 ^ Aniiq.jud.f xviii. cap. iv. 
 
 "^ Caused by the great fire in Rome. 
 
 ^ Ann., XV. 44. 
 
6 THE ARREST [Lect. 
 
 and self-denial ; ofttlmes, as He Himself tells 
 us, not knowing where to lay His head. 
 
 He had publicly healed the sick and 
 cleansed the lepers, opened the eyes of the 
 blind, and unstopped the ears of the deaf; 
 He had made "the lame man to leap as 
 an hart," and " the tongue of the dumb to 
 sing." He had fed the hungry and calmed 
 the storm, had cured the epileptic and blessed 
 the little children, had bidden the evil demons 
 that possessed a man body and soul begone 
 and leave him, and He had on three occasions 
 raised to life those who were physically dead. 
 Nay more. He had gone further, and had 
 preached repentance and the coming of the 
 Kingdom of God amongst humanity. He 
 had even forgiven the sins of the penitent 
 in heart and of the diseased in body, and 
 had sent them away with words of encourage- 
 ment and hope ; commanding them to lead 
 a new life, and assuring them that in spite 
 of the severity of priests and Pharisees He 
 would not condemn them, for that He had 
 not come "to break the bruised reed, nor 
 quench the smoking flax." 
 
 These gracious deeds were not done to 
 His fellow - countrymen and to people of 
 His own faith alone, but also to Greek and 
 
I.] PURPOSE OF CHRIST'S MINISTRY 7 
 
 Samaritan, the lost sheep of the House of 
 Israel and the Roman centurion. 
 
 He had taught incessantly during those 
 three years — openly in the Temple, in the 
 local synagogues, on the hillside, and in 
 a boat on the lake of Gennesaret — in fact 
 anywhere and everywhere where men would 
 listen to His teaching. In private also had 
 He spoken deeply and earnestly to Martha 
 and Mary at Bethany, and to Nicodemus 
 in the midnight hour. All acknowledged 
 as they heard Him that "never man spake 
 as this man," for " He taught with authority 
 and not as the scribes." His message 
 was eminently fitted to the comprehension 
 of all sorts and conditions of men, from the 
 learned master in Israel, to the ignorant 
 Roman malefactor dying beside Him. 
 
 Every one who heard Him had been 
 struck with the gracious words which pro- 
 ceeded out of His mouth, very different 
 indeed from the dogmatism of the scribes, 
 Pharisees and lawyers, who insisted upon 
 the strictest keeping of the letter of the law, 
 the spirit of which they frequently evaded,^ 
 and while lading men with burdens grievous 
 
 1 Matt. XV. 3-15; xxiii. 3; Mark vii. 5-9; Luke xi. 
 42-45. 
 
8 THE ARREST [Lect. 
 
 to be borne, touched not those burdens with 
 one of their fingers/ 
 
 He spoke not only smooth words to the 
 people. His utterances were at times 
 charged with fiercest denunciation against 
 those who persisted in walking in hypocrisy 
 and deceit. He fearlessly and with unflinch- 
 ing courage hurled "winged words" of 
 fiery indignation and scathing sarcasm 
 upon Pharisees and Sadducees, priests and 
 lawyers. He attacked them, not because 
 they were powers in high places, but because 
 being called upon by birth, by education, and 
 by knowledge, to responsible and public 
 positions in Israel, they were abusing instead 
 of using their powers. They knew the right, 
 and deliberately chose the wrong. He 
 unhesitatingly denounced them as hypocrites, 
 blind guides, serpents, and the "offspring 
 of vipers";" as white- washed sepulchres full 
 of uncleanness. He bade His followers 
 beware of the leaven, of the Pharisees, the 
 Sadducees, and the Herodians,^ namely their 
 teaching, their example and their life. He 
 accused them of compassing sea and land 
 
 ^ Matt, xxiii. 23-33 ; Luke xi. 39-52. 
 
 2 Matt. V. 20 ; xiii. 3-34 ; xv. 3-15 ; xxii. 18. 
 
 ' Matt. xvi. 6 ; Mark viii. 15 ; Luke xii. i. 
 
r.] CENSURE OF PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES 9 
 
 to make one proselyte, and when they had 
 secured him they made him twofold more 
 the child of Gehenna than they were them- 
 selves,^ and He boldly flung it at them that 
 they should not escape the judgment of 
 Gehenna. He openly brought against them 
 that most terrible of all accusations, that they 
 hid the key of knowledge,' and that while 
 not entering into the Kingdom themselves 
 they prevented from going in many who 
 fain would do so.^ Finally, with the shadows 
 of suffering and death hanging over Him, 
 He poured forth the vials of His wrath upon 
 them all collectively, and told them that 
 they were of their father the devil, and his 
 lusts they would do ; consequently if they 
 continued to work his works they should 
 die in their sins ; ^ and then as if to reassure 
 them, He sarcastically observed that they 
 need not be afraid that He would accuse 
 them to the Father, that Moses on whom 
 they set their hopes would do that, and that 
 into the Kingdom of God, out of which they 
 were thrusting many, the publicans and the 
 harlots should enter before them.^ 
 
 Can you wonder that they hated Him? 
 
 * Matt, xxiii. 15. '^ Matt, xxiii. 13. * Luke xi. 57. 
 * John viii. 15-35. * Matt. xxi. 31. 
 
 B 
 
10 THE ARREST [Lect. 
 
 for His words must have stung their guilty 
 consciences like red-hot arrows : and are you 
 surprised that at last they felt they could 
 bear it no longer, and sought for some means 
 of stopping the preaching of the Prophet of 
 Nazareth ? 
 
 The scribes and Pharisees, the bulk of 
 whom at this period were religious hypocrites, 
 disliked Him ; the Sadducees and Herodians 
 — who were political opportunists — were 
 bitterly antagonistic to Him. These latter 
 who thought only of keeping friends with 
 the Roman power hated any idea of 
 reformation, and were seized with a panic 
 at any suggestion of revolution or even of 
 tumult, so they were alarmed at possible 
 consequences. 
 
 And it was Reform that the Master cease- 
 lessly and untiringly inculcated — Reform 
 not Revolution, Fulfilment not Destruction. 
 It was not the abrogation of the law, but 
 the keeping of the law that Christ insisted 
 upon, while at the same time He showed His 
 co-religionists that the blind following of the 
 letter was not sufficient, and that they could 
 even transgress the spirit of the Divine Law 
 by tying themselves down too rigidly to the 
 dead traditions of the elders. 
 
I.] REFORMATION NOT REVOLUTION II 
 
 For Himself, He had as a pious Jew 
 fulfilled all the requirements of the Mosaic 
 code. He had been circumcised on the 
 eighth day, and duly presented in the 
 Temple ; He went up to Jerusalem for the 
 Passover and other Jewish feasts ; and He 
 was baptized by John at the beginning of 
 His ministry " for thus it becometh us to 
 fulfil all righteousness." Moreover, He 
 required His disciples also to keep the 
 observances of the Levitical law, and sent the 
 healed leper to show himself to the priest 
 and make the required offering. As a good 
 citizen He paid the half shekel demanded 
 by the Roman Procurator from every one 
 over twenty years of age, and bade His 
 disciples render to Caesar his due. He gave 
 them object lessons also on the keeping of 
 the spirit of the Law times without end, 
 as, when on the Sabbath Day He healed the 
 man with the dropsy, released the woman 
 " whom Satan hath bound lo ! these eighteen 
 years," and cured the man too old and too 
 feeble to get by himself into the healing 
 waters of Bethesda. 
 
 One asks the question was it only because 
 Christ spoke so openly, continuously, and 
 uncompromisingly against the hypocrisy 
 
12 THE ARREST [Lect. 
 
 and avarice of the rulers in Jewry that they 
 all hated Him so bitterly ? May we not find 
 in the troubled history of the Jews at this 
 period some political reason also for their 
 persistent determination to compass His 
 death ? 
 
 Renan, in his valuable Histoire du Peuple 
 ^Israel, gives us a clue to the national 
 feeling and temper in Palestine under the 
 later high priests. In looking at the history 
 of the Hebrews, we find that after centuries 
 of pastoral life and patriarchal government, 
 they suddenly burst into a stationary and 
 national life, asking for and obtaining a king 
 to rule over them. They were neither pre- 
 pared for it nor was it in any respect suited 
 to their racial characteristics. The chief- 
 tain's tent and the movable ark were far 
 more in accordance with their temperament 
 and instincts than Solomon's Palace and the 
 Temple at Jerusalem. There was never 
 really any national ideal among the Jews. 
 Very conservative, very superstitious, and 
 very prejudiced, they were originally poly- 
 theists, then became nominally monotheists 
 with Jehovah recognised as their one official 
 deity, yet until the days of the Exile they 
 clung to their Teraphim and their Ephods, 
 
h] JEWISH HISTORY Ij 
 
 their Mazzebahs and their Asherahs. Few 
 were the years that saw a king over an un- 
 divided people ; and few and troublous were 
 the centuries that saw first the division into 
 two parts, and then the final break-up of that 
 short - lived kingdom. The sad period of 
 the Exile and Captivity followed, and when 
 Judah once more returned to the land of 
 their fathers it was to a kingless country 
 and a ruined Temple. 
 
 Then arose the sway of the high priests, 
 and nominally a theocratic government ; 
 and while the nation, busy in rebuilding 
 the Temple and re - arranging the law 
 never consolidated itself, the world around 
 was arming for conquest. We all know the 
 miserable story of Palestine under Seleucids 
 and Romans, with its one bright page of 
 Hasmonican courage and devotion, then 
 the curtain comes down on independent 
 national life, and the country becomes 
 nought but an appanage of Rome and the 
 inhabitants thereof no longer a free people. 
 
 Primarily the exile embittered the Jews, 
 and after their return to their own land the 
 siding of the aristocratic classes with the 
 Roman rulers, and the avarice and hypo- 
 crisy of the priests and Pharisees filled the 
 
14 THE ARREST [Lkct. 
 
 loyal Jews — who were the masses — with 
 indignation and disgust. Can you wonder 
 that when a Prophet arose, preaching Re- 
 generation and Reform both religious and 
 social, that "the common people heard Him 
 gladly," and hopes arose of the advent at 
 no distant day of the Messiah — the Deliverer 
 — the King ? The whole nation was strung 
 up at this time into such a state of tension 
 that the slightest event was sufficient to 
 produce political riot, or religious tumult ; 
 and on many occasions it was only the firm 
 hand of the Roman Procurator and the 
 close proximity of six thousand soldiers, 
 that saved Jerusalem from revolutionary 
 outbursts. 
 
 This new teaching had stirred up all 
 Jewry so much so that a party composed 
 of scribes and Pharisees actually went down 
 from Jerusalem to Galilee, to interview the 
 Prophet, and stop the propaganda — if 
 possible — from spreading further. This was 
 no easy matter, for He had the ear of the 
 people. The whole nation was on the tip- 
 toe of expectation, looking for the Deliverer. 
 Over and over again in the four Gospels 
 do we find this to be the case. At the 
 
I,] POPULAR EXPECTATION OF THE MESSIAH 1 5 
 
 baptism of Christ, "as all the people were 
 in expectation," John the Baptist had pointed 
 Him out as the Anointed of whom he (John) 
 was but the forerunner.^ "Art thou He that 
 should come, or look we for another ? " was 
 the question put to Him in varied forms 
 times and again, both by the disciples of 
 the Baptist and by His own followers. 
 
 His doctrines differed essentially from 
 those of their priests and lawyers, and 
 were so full of graciousness and love that 
 they were compelled to acknowledge that 
 here was no ordinary prophet, but "a new 
 teaching," " Thus the Messianic hope found 
 expression, and many of the Jews felt that 
 this must be the Deliverer who should come 
 to Zion. They admitted first, that "a great 
 prophet hath risen up among us," and that 
 God hath visited His people ; and then , as 
 He became more widely seen and known 
 of His fellow - countrymen, they acknow- 
 ledged in a burst of enthusiasm that He 
 was "the Son of David," "the Holy One 
 of God," "the Christ of God," and finally, 
 "the King of Israel" — the Messiah. But 
 how little did the Hebrew nation grasp 
 the true nature and office of the Messiah. 
 
 ^ Luke iii. 15 ; John. i. 29-34. 2 Mark i. 27. 
 
l6 THE ARREST [Lect. 
 
 Their hearts' desire was for an earthly 
 potentate who should restore again the 
 kingdom to Israel, a royal soldier who would 
 release them from the yoke of Rome and 
 lead them to victory, a king greater than 
 Solomon ; one who should make their nation 
 higher than all that were in the earth, who 
 would bring back the scattered ones from 
 far and near, and rebuild Jerusalem where 
 His throne should be established for ever 
 and men should "bless themselves in His 
 name." It was not until the populace at last 
 began to realise that this was no part of 
 Christ's mission that they — ever fickle and 
 easily disappointed — began to be offended 
 at Him, and murmurs arose that, after all, 
 He was but the carjDenter's son. "His father 
 and mother we know ; " " We know this man 
 whence He is, but when the Christ cometh 
 no man knoweth whence He is;" "Can it 
 be that the rulers indeed know that this 
 is the Christ ? " and so on. Thus already 
 in the three short years of His ministry 
 had the Master begun to see fulfilled His 
 own words, that He came to cast fire upon 
 the earth, and to bring not peace, but a 
 sword. 
 
r.] TWO OPPOSING FORCES 1 7 
 
 So we find that there arose against Him 
 two powerful factions ; on the one hand 
 the priests and the Pharisees, and on the 
 other the Sadducees, and to these must be 
 added a body of His own countrymen who 
 were almost more dangerous, because more 
 uneducated and irresponsible. Swayed now 
 this way, now that, like sedges in a breeze, 
 neither the Sanhedrin on the one hand, nor 
 the Teacher Himself on the other, could tell 
 from day to day what their attitude might 
 be. To-day they would take Him by force 
 and make Him a king, and to-morrow try 
 to throw Him down headlong from the hill 
 whereon their city was built. They would 
 shout Hosanna to the Son of David to-day, 
 and to-morrow take up stones to cast at Him. 
 
 Palestine was on the verge of a religious 
 revolt, and any disturbance would at once 
 bring down with severity the iron hand of 
 Rome. The Jews, more than any other 
 subject people, had been allowed greater 
 freedom in the management of their own in- 
 ternal and municipal afiairs and in the practice 
 of their religion and ritual ; so that any- 
 thing like a breach of the peace or sedition, 
 if known to the Procurator, would be likely 
 to considerably curtail these privileges. 
 
l8 THE ARREST [Lkct. 
 
 Therefore for the poHtical welfare of the 
 nation the Teacher must be suppressed. 
 
 The authorities first tried coercion and 
 decreed, that if "any man should confess 
 that Jesus was the Christ he should be 
 put out of the synagogue,"^ nevertheless, 
 some of the rulers did believe on Him, 
 though secretly, for fear of the Pharisees,^ 
 and multitudes of the common people still 
 heard Him gladly. 
 
 Next, accusations were launched against 
 Him of such a nature that they amounted 
 practically to that most hideous of all 
 Jewish crimes, Lcesce Majestatis Divines, 
 i.e., treason against the Deity, which in 
 the statutes of the Hebrew commonwealth 
 assumed a significance that we can hardly 
 realise. To the Jews Jehovah was their 
 personal and absolute ruler. Kings, judges, 
 and high priests were not so much His 
 earthly representatives, as merely those 
 courtiers tb whom He graciously permitted 
 access to His presence chamber. They 
 conveyed His word, which was law, to 
 the people of Israel. Therefore in that 
 commonwealth anything that savoured of 
 
 ^ John ix. 22. ^ John xii. 42. 
 
I.] FIRST ATTEMPT ON THE LIFE OF CHRIST 19 
 
 "perverting the people," or sorcery, or of 
 playing the part of a ** false prophet," or 
 of "destroying this place and changing the 
 customs which Moses delivered unto us," 
 or even the slightest attempt made to alter 
 the divine system of the law came under 
 the head of "constructive treason," while 
 to make one's self out to be the Son of 
 God and equal to God, unless it could be 
 proved, was blasphemy. 
 
 The punishment for treason against God 
 and for blasphemy was death. 
 
 Once during the early part of His 
 ministry the Pharisees had been so angry 
 with Him for publicly in the synagogue 
 and on the Sabbath Day, healing the man 
 with the withered hand, that they " took 
 counsel against Him how they might 
 destroy Him";^ but He withdrew from 
 them. Again, later, the rulers — presumably 
 the Sanhedrin — deliberately planned how 
 they might compass without failure the 
 arrest of the Prophet of Nazareth. We 
 read of this first attempt in John vii. 32, 
 when at the Feast of Tabernacles during 
 the autumn of a.d. 28 (?), about six 
 months before the Passover "the chief 
 ^ Matt. xii. 14. 
 
20 THE ARREST [Lect. 
 
 priests and Pharisees sent officers to take 
 Him " in the Temple courts where He 
 was teaching, and where evidently a dis- 
 turbance was being created. Some of His 
 hearers said, "This is the Christ" others 
 again scorned the idea, and "there was a 
 division among them." The Temple officers 
 (vTTtjperai), evidently afraid of the temper 
 of the populace, returned without Him say- 
 ing, " Never man spake like this man," to 
 be answered by the scornful remark of the 
 Pharisees, "Are ye also led astray? Hath 
 any of the rulers believed on Him or 
 of the Pharisees ? But this people which 
 knoweth not the Law is accursed." ^ Where- 
 upon Nicodemus made a bold appeal to 
 the conscience of the Council, " Doth our 
 Law judge any man before it first hear from 
 himself and know what he doeth ? " His 
 question contains two of the fundamental 
 principles of Jewish law. 
 
 L a. That in a criminal case every 
 opportunity shall be given to 
 the accused to speak for himself, 
 and to advance any point he 
 can in his own favour. 
 
 * John vii. 47-48. 
 
I.] COURAGE AND ACUMEN OF NICODEMUS 21 
 
 b. That anything said by him during 
 
 the trial shall never be used as 
 evidence against him, or even 
 as tending to prejudice his case. 
 
 c. A criminal trial shall be opened 
 
 always with the defence, and 
 not with the accusation. 
 
 II. "To know what he doeth," i.e., 
 the witnesses themselves must 
 arrest the prisoner, and formulate 
 in public and upon solemn oath 
 their reason for so doing.^ 
 
 This determined attack upon the liberty 
 of Christ was thus foiled by the courage of 
 that timid "ruler of the Jews" who first 
 came to Him secretly in the dead of night. 
 It was a masterly stroke on the part of 
 Nicodemus, and that short sentence contains 
 the pith of Jewish criminal procedure. In 
 a few words he had summed up the whole 
 digest of their criminal corpus juris, and no 
 member of the Council could fail to acknow- 
 ledge the cogency of that insistence upon 
 justice. 
 
 Two attempts to take mob law into their 
 own hands and put Him to death are now 
 ^ Mishna, De Syn., iv. 
 
22 THE ARREST [Lect. 
 
 recorded against the populace. Speaking 
 in the treasury of the Temple a little later 
 on, Christ had openly told them that He 
 knew they sought to kill Him (John viii. ;^y) 
 and rebuked them for not believing on 
 Him (v. 40), adding that for those who 
 kept His sayings there was no death (v. 51), 
 as before Abraham was I AM. Whereupon 
 the people in a paroxysm of fury declared 
 Him to be possessed by a demon (v. 48) 
 and tried to stone Him. But He escaped. 
 Again, a little later on in the winter time, 
 during the Feast of the Dedication which 
 took place on Kisleu 25th, i.e., towards the 
 middle of December, they tried again to 
 take Him up for blasphemy.^ Some of the 
 Jews urged Him to keep them no longer 
 in suspense, but once and for all to declare 
 Himself the Christ, if so He was. His 
 reply was the claim, " I and My Father 
 are one," which so enraged them that they 
 attempted again to stone Him. Once more 
 He escaped and went away into the desert 
 country east of the Jordan, from whence 
 He was only recalled by the illness and 
 death of His friend Lazarus. His visit to 
 the bereaved sisters brought Him back to 
 
 ^ John X. 22-33. 
 
I.] THE ADVICE OF CAIAPHAS 23 
 
 Bethany, a village within a stone's-throw 
 of the Holy City, where His raising of 
 Lazarus and the consequent excitement 
 among the people seem to have brought 
 matters to a climax. A council of the 
 Sanhedrin ^ was hastily called together, and 
 it was resolved that this state of popular 
 ferment must be put an end to "lest the 
 Romans come and take away our place 
 and nation." Whereupon Caiaphas, the 
 worldly wise Sadducee, the degenerate high 
 priest and the friend of Pontius Pilate, 
 cynically observed, "Ye know nothing at 
 all ; it is far wiser to take the life of this 
 one man who is the cause of all this trouble 
 than that a tumult arise which will assuredly 
 come to the ears of the Procurator, for 
 then the Romans will come and take away 
 our place and nation ; better far to sacrifice 
 one life than that the whole nation perish." 
 Advice which appeared reasonable to his 
 colleagues. 
 
 From that moment Christ's doom was 
 sealed. An order was issued that if any 
 one knew where He was, he was to say so 
 that the. arrest might immediately be effected. 
 Not only was He to be apprehended, but 
 
 ^ John xi. 47, crvviSpioi'. 
 
24 THE ARREST [Lect. 
 
 Lazarus also, through whose influence many 
 were believing on Him.^ So from that day 
 forth " they took counsel how they might 
 put Him to death " ; but He withdrew Him- 
 self into the city of Ephraim in the near 
 eastern desert, and there remained until 
 six days before the Passover. 
 
 Failing to capture Him at once, and the 
 Passover drawing nigh, which would un- 
 doubtedly bring many of His friends and 
 disciples to Jerusalem, thus increasing their 
 difficulties, the chief priests and scribes sent 
 forth spies to watch Christ and endeavour to 
 provoke Him to do or say something that 
 might bring Him into the hands of the 
 Roman governor. They selected for their 
 purpose the crucial question as to whether 
 being Jews it was needful for them to pay 
 tribute to Caesar ; " but they were not able to 
 take hold" of His answer before the people, 
 and were once more foiled. 
 
 Thus in unsuccessful plotting, not now 
 against the liberty, but against the very life of 
 Christ, the days preceding the Passover wore 
 away. They were within two days of the 
 Feast, and still the " Mesith," the perverter of 
 the people was not only at large, but openly 
 
 ^ John. xii. lo-ii. 
 
I.] THE LEGALITY OF THE MEETING 25 
 
 teaching in the Temple. In despair another 
 meeting was hastily called in the palace of 
 the high priest, consisting of the chief priests, 
 elders of the people and scribes,^ when it 
 was agreed that for fear of a popular rising 
 during the Feast in favour of the Teacher, He 
 must be arrested secretly, by craft, and at once 
 put to death. All four Gospels- expressly 
 state this, and it seems as if the difficulties 
 in taking Him were great, for finally Judas, 
 one of His own specially chosen apostles 
 who knew intimately His movements and 
 His habits, offered to betray Him to His 
 murderers — and for what? A paltry thirty 
 shekels of silver, the price of an adult slave. 
 
 Now comes the question, Was this meeting 
 a properly convened legal meeting of the 
 Council ? Had the scribes, priests, and elders 
 of the people the power to arrest Jesus 
 Christ for an anticipated verdict ? 
 
 The writer of the Fourth Gospel alone 
 mentions the Council at which Caiaphas 
 urged the necessity for Christ's death, and 
 he uses the strictly technical term [avvk^piov) 
 for it. On the other hand, not one of the 
 Synoptists, who all three mention the gather- 
 
 ^ Matt. xxvi. 3 ; Mark xiv. i ; Luke xxii. 2. 
 * Matt. xxvi. 4 ; Mark xiv. 1-2 ; Luke xxii. 2 ; John xi. 5. 
 
 D 
 
26 THE ARREST [Lect. 
 
 ing in Caiaphas' house — which is omitted by 
 the writer of the Fourth Gospel — call it by 
 any legal title. Yet this was the meeting 
 that actually condemned Him to death before 
 arrest. The careful omission of any technical 
 name, and the fact of the meeting being in 
 the high priest's house and not in " the sheds," 
 nor in the chamber called Gazith, make it 
 very doubtful if this was indeed a legally con- 
 stituted meeting of the Sanhedrin, or High 
 Court of Justice, which alone could issue an 
 order of arrest and which required a bench 
 of seventy-one judges to consign the prisoner 
 to capital punishment. " A whole tribe or a 
 false prophet or a high priest, if they have 
 to be judged for a crime which may bring 
 capital punishment need a court of seventy- 
 one judges," says the Rabbi Simeon Ben 
 Gamaliel. And it was for leading people 
 astray, for being in fact a '* Mesith " — a " false 
 prophet" that Jesus Christ was apprehended. 
 
 The Arrest. 
 
 The Rulers of the Jews having obtained 
 the co-operation of Judas Iscariot, supplied 
 him with the means of arresting Jesus Christ 
 
I.] THE BAND AND OFFICERS 27 
 
 a. A orreat multitude with swords and 
 
 staves.^ 
 
 b. A multitude with swords and staves 
 
 from the chief priests and elders.^ 
 
 c. A multitude and he that was called 
 
 Judas.^ 
 
 d. A band of soldiers and officers from 
 
 the chief priests and the Pharisees. 
 T^v a-Treipav Kai vTrtjperai;,'^ 
 
 It is only the Fourth Gospel which speaks 
 of "the band" c-welpav — Vulgate cokors, 
 and the "chief captain" x''^''«PXo? — Vulgate 
 tribumis.^ 
 
 Are we to infer from the silence of the 
 Synoptists and this one mention of the 
 military that Roman authority had been 
 requisitioned ? We read that Judas received 
 them from the Jewish governors, who most 
 certainly had no power of themselves to call 
 in the aid of Roman soldiers to arrest a man 
 upon whom they were intending to pass 
 sentence of death for an ecclesiastical offence, 
 neither was it the business of the tribune 
 to accompany soldiers upon a police affair, 
 neither does the word a-vreipa necessarily imply 
 
 ^ Matt. xxvi. 47. " Mark xiv. 43. * Luke xxii. 47. 
 ^ John xviii. 3. ^ John xviii. 12. 
 
28 THE ARREST [Lbct. 
 
 a Roman armed band, nor is xihlapxo<i always 
 and exclusively used in the technical sense. 
 Judging from the statements of the Synoptists 
 I cannot help thinking that the " band and 
 chief captain " may be taken to imply the 
 Temple police or guard virnpirai recruited 
 from the ranks of the Levites, with their 
 commanding officer a-Tparrjyo?. If you accept 
 the terms crireipai and x'^iapx^? in their technical 
 sense you are brought face to face with the 
 ludicrous spectacle of a dignified Roman 
 tribune in all his war panoply at the head of 
 a cohort of six hundred men,^ helping the 
 Temple police and a Jewish rabble to hunt 
 by torchlight in a garden for an unarmed 
 and unresisting man. Which thing is in- 
 credible. Besides the very last thing desired 
 by the Sadducean element would be that at 
 the Passover time any idea of a tumult in 
 Jerusalem should come to Roman ears. 
 
 St Peter's unwise and impulsive act would 
 have at once resulted in his being bound and 
 carried off 'a prisoner had the *•' band and 
 chief captain " been Roman officials, for 
 punishment speedily followed resistance to 
 Imperial Rome. 
 
 ^ A Roman cohort consisted of three maniples each 
 containing two hundred men — or of six centuries, each century 
 consislinL'^ of one hundred men. 
 
I.] THE TEMPLE GUARD 29 
 
 In all probability " the band " sent to arrest 
 Christ were the Shoterim — V7rt]perai — officials 
 of the same nature as those who were sent 
 to arrest Him during the Feast of Taber- 
 nacles.^ Probably also they were the same 
 force as that which was employed with "the 
 captain — a-rpaTijyo'i — of the Temple" in appre- 
 hending Peter and John.^ 
 
 St Mark uses the word a-rreipa ^ when after 
 the trial was over the soldiers — crrpaTiwrai — 
 led Him away into the Prsetorium and called 
 together the whole band — a-ireipa, Vulgate 
 cohors. The crTar^wrat were undoubtedly the 
 Roman soldiers, who are not mentioned by St 
 Mark as having been at the arrest. It does 
 not seem probable that six hundred of them, 
 with their x'^^apxo? — tribunus would have been 
 on guard in the palace at that early hour in 
 the morning, nor that they would have been 
 simultaneously called together to torment a 
 helpless prisoner.* It is evident that the 
 "whole band" was already on the spot, 
 which points to the Jewish Temple guard 
 who until now had been responsible for the 
 custody of the prisoner. 
 
 Had the arrest of Jesus Christ been 
 
 * John vii. 32-45. 2 ^^ts iv. i ; v. 22-26. 
 
 * Mark xv. 16. ■* Mark xv. 17-20. 
 
30 THE ARREST [Lect. 
 
 effected by the permission of the Procurator 
 and with the aid of Roman soldiers, there is 
 not the slightest doubt but that He would 
 have been "put in ward" in the castle of 
 Antonia until the next day, and then brought 
 straio'ht before Pilate.^ 
 
 'S3' 
 
 Two questions now confront us — 
 
 a. Was the arrest of Jesus Christ legally 
 
 executed ? 
 d. Had the Sanhedrin of that day the 
 
 right to arrest Him? 
 
 In connection with the first question the 
 Mishna lays down the following regulations. 
 
 a. Arrest before trial was not permitted 
 unless it was practically certain 
 that either escape or armed resist- 
 ance was contemplated. 
 
 d. Arrest after sunset was illegal. 
 
 ^. It was not lawful to bear arms at 
 the Passover time. 
 
 d. The witnesses themselves must arrest 
 the accused and bring him before 
 the court. 
 
 ^ See A. Loisy Le IV"": Evangile who draws the same 
 conchision from a totally different line of argument. 
 
I.] ILLEGALITY OF THE ARREST 3 1 
 
 e. Arrest upon a count that was likely 
 to end in sentence of death was 
 not permitted at Passover time. 
 
 y[ It was illegal to arrest any man for 
 a predetermined conviction. 
 
 Every one of these regulations was con- 
 travened. 
 
 Jesus Christ was arrested for the express 
 purpose of being put to death, during the 
 night of the 14 or 15 Nisan which was 
 the Passover time, not by the witnesses 
 who would later on be his public accusers, 
 but by a band of armed men to whom He 
 was betrayed by a renegade friend. He 
 was arrested by order of the Sanhedrin, 
 not as a preventive measure but as an 
 executive act. 
 
 The second question is more difficult to 
 answer, as the jurists themselves are by 
 no means all of one mind upon the subject ; 
 and we shall have to discuss it later on. 
 Castelli ^ and several other writers main- 
 tain that with the conquest of Judaea by 
 Rome there passed away not only the right 
 
 ^ Legge delpopolo Ebreo^ cap. viii. 
 
32 THE ARREST [Lect. 
 
 of the Jewish court to try capital cases, 
 but even to arrest the criminal. 
 
 On the other hand, Salvador and Momm- 
 sen emphatically declare that the San- 
 hedrin had still the right both of arrest 
 and trial for capital crimes, and could even 
 condemn the prisoner to death, but that 
 they could no longer carry the execution 
 into effect, Rome as the conqueror reserving 
 this right always to herself. 
 
 At any rate I think it is quite clear that 
 the Sanhedrin were within their privileges, 
 if not their rights, in permitting the arrest 
 of Jesus Christ, as He was accused of 
 purely ecclesiastical offences, and none that 
 in any way touched or even remotely con- 
 cerned Roman laws. But, as a judicial 
 body they had no power to arrest Him. 
 It was the duty of the witnesses who would 
 subsequently be His accusers in open court 
 to do this, though the Sanhedrin might 
 facilitate matters by granting the help of 
 the Temple police. 
 
 Having apprehended their prisoner, the 
 legal duty of the band was to guard Him 
 securely until the Sanhedrin was next in 
 session ; which, being the eve of the Pass- 
 
I.] ABSENCE OF THE DISCIPLES ^3 
 
 over, would not have been until after the 
 Feast, the Octave and the following Sabbath 
 were over, thus postponing the trial for 
 nine days.^ Instead of doing this they took 
 Him bound to the palace of the ex-high 
 priest Annas alone — for all His disciples 
 had fled — but followed ultimately by that 
 one, who, knowing the high priest, went 
 in with the officers. He was thus in all 
 probability the only disciple present at the 
 interrogation by Annas and the trial before 
 Caiaphas. The Synoptists, not being on 
 the spot, have only recorded what took 
 place from hearsay, and this may account 
 for their omission to mention the disciple's 
 presence in the court and his obtaining 
 permission for Peter to enter. St Mark 
 who probably gives St Peter's account of 
 the events of that night, states that Peter 
 remained below in the court with the 
 servants.^ The absence of the other dis- 
 ciples will also help to explain the obvious 
 discrepancies and variations contained in 
 the accounts of what took place on that 
 fateful night. We are bound to consider 
 them carefully ; but they do not any of 
 them present insuperable difficulties. They 
 
 * Mishna, Moed Katon^ xi. 2. ^ Mark xiv. 66. 
 
 E 
 
34 THE ARREST [LeCT. 
 
 are only such as we might expect to find 
 in four separate accounts of the same events 
 written by four different people at various 
 intervals of time after those events took 
 place, and in three instances by men who 
 were not eye - witnesses. Fortunately the 
 most hopeless discrepancy for us to recon- 
 cile, viz., the exact date of the arrest, trial, 
 and crucifixion, in no way affects any legal 
 question, and we are therefore not called 
 upon to discuss it. 
 
 To follow the exact sequence of events is 
 a matter of difficulty. St John alone records 
 the interrogation by Annas,^ St Luke alone 
 mentions the transfer to Herod, ^ while 
 Matthew and Mark relate that He was 
 taken by night to the palace of Caiaphas 
 and there interrogated by the Council, who 
 produced false witnesses to bear testimony 
 against Him. These two latter Evangelists 
 also state that in the morning another con- 
 sultation took place, apparently still in the 
 high priest's house, but perhaps before a 
 larger number of the chief priests, scribes, 
 and elders.^ St Luke again differs from them 
 
 ^ John xviii. 13. 
 ^ Luke xxiii. 7. ^ Matt, xxvii. i j Mark xv. i. 
 
I.] PECULIARITIES OF JEWISH LAW 35 
 
 all, by stating- simply " that they brought Him 
 into the high priest's house," and he records 
 no trial before Caiaphas. His account reads 
 as if Our Lord had merely been detained 
 and tormented by the guard until dawn, 
 when He was led away into the Council 
 Hall of the Sanhedrin from whence He was 
 taken to Pilate.^ 
 
 St Matthew alone mentions the dream 
 of Pilate's wife, and the washing of the 
 governor's hands.' 
 
 We come now to the record of those 
 events in Our Lord's trial, which are in 
 direct conflict with Hebrew law and pro- 
 cedure, and concerning which much has been 
 written by both Jewish and Christian writers. 
 The fact that the latter invariably approach 
 the question from a Christian standpoint, 
 with a veil of Roman law and modern usage 
 before their eyes, invalidates much that they 
 have said upon the subject. On the Mishna 
 itself must lie the onus of proving illegality 
 and injustice. 
 
 Jewish legislature was essentially Oriental, 
 peculiar entirely to itself, and cannot be com- 
 pared with any modern, western code. It 
 
 1 Luke xxii. 54 ; xxiii. i. ^ Matt, xxvii. 19-24. 
 
36 THE ARREST [Lect. 
 
 was made for a theocratic commonwealth of 
 pastoral people, in which the life of each 
 individual was most carefully guarded. 
 
 Roman law had its foundation in a western, 
 military system controlled by the Imperator, 
 who was at once commander-in-chief, high 
 priest, and chief judge. 
 
 Christian lawyers who have written upon 
 the subject have invariably annulled the value 
 of their writings, by endeavouring to prove 
 that the Sanhedrin had no legal right to do 
 this or that or the other, because it was not 
 the course which they consider legal, and 
 quote the principles of Roman law to back 
 up their dicta. A method which seems to 
 be wholly wanting in common-sense. 
 
 To understand Hebrew law and its 
 methods, we must consult those learned 
 Jewish Rabbis and lawyers who have given 
 their time and attention to elucidating and 
 explaining their own legal code. Foremost 
 among modern jurists stands Salvador, a 
 learned Spanish Jew, whose history of the 
 Mosaic institutions is an European classic, 
 and who devoted years to the study and 
 exposition of the Talmud. 
 
 Maimonides, Mommsen, and Rabbinowicz 
 among many others have written learnedly 
 
I.] DECISION BY THE MISHNA 37 
 
 and thoughtfully upon the same subject. 
 Therefore by following the Mishna itself 
 and the aforesaid scholars' commentaries 
 upon it we are more likely to obtain a 
 right view of the complicated questions that 
 will confront us. 
 
 Would you go to a Muhammedan ulema to 
 ask for an explanation of Christian doctrine ? 
 Then why consult a modern European and 
 Christian lawyer upon questions of ancient 
 and Jewish law ? The last book of any 
 importance that has been written upon the 
 subject and which created some stir on its 
 publication, was Rosadi's II processo di Gesti, 
 the work of a brilliant Tuscan advocate ; but 
 it is inaccurate and misleading, chiefly because 
 — misstatements apart, of which there are 
 many — he applies ancient Roman law as 
 exemplified in modern Italian procedure to 
 a Jewish trial that took place nineteen 
 hundred years ago. Where the two different 
 legal systems do not coincide he emphati- 
 cally denounces the Sanhedrin as in the 
 wrong, denying them even the right to try 
 an ecclesiastical offender. Undoubtedly the 
 rulers of the Jews conducted the trial with 
 serious forms of illegality ; but the Mishna 
 and not the Pandects of Justinian, must 
 
38 THE ARREST [Lect. 
 
 show cause where justice was not done, 
 and murder committed. 
 
 The Talmud. 
 
 We will now turn to the Talmud, that 
 "encyclopaedia of all law," as it has been 
 called, and see by what legal process the 
 Council had power thus arbitrarily to order 
 the arrest of the Teacher, having already 
 prejudged and condemned Him. 
 
 "The word Talmud means literally a 
 'teaching,' an 'inference,' or a 'doctrine.' 
 It is a collection of works embodying the 
 oral law of the Hebrews." The Jews 
 declare that "Moses received Torah — or 
 Law — (which includes the Pentateuch and 
 the oral teaching) from Sinai, delivered it 
 to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the 
 elders to the prophets. The prophets 
 delivered it to the men of the Great 
 Synagogue*" ; these last being the most 
 important teachers, of whom a list of pairs 
 is given reaching down to Hillel and 
 Shammai, who lived in the early days of 
 Christ.^ It was supposed to be based upon 
 
 ^ Mishna, Pirke Avoth, i. b. 
 
I.] DIVISIONS OF THE MISHNA 39 
 
 the Skema or Jewish profession of faith that 
 was recited twice daily by every pious Jew. 
 As time went on it gradually became orally 
 expanded into such a vast compilation of 
 legal enactments and quibbles, traditions 
 and usages, discussions and decisions, com- 
 mentaries and illustrations, that at last it was 
 absolutely chaotic ; all the more so that it 
 was looked upon as a religious offence to 
 codify it in writing. It contains many other 
 things besides law, but out of the forty 
 volumes of the Talmud, by far the oldest 
 are the twelve volumes of law, pure and 
 simple, called the Mishna, i.e., the Repeti- 
 tion. "The Mishna is divided into six 
 sections termed Sedarim. Each Seder is 
 divided into Masechtoth or treatises. Each 
 Masechta is again subdivided into chapters 
 called Perakim. The Masechta entitled 
 ' Sanhedrin ' is the fourth treatise of the 
 Seder or section termed Nezikin, or damages 
 which embraces a great part of the civil and 
 criminal law."^ In particular it gives the 
 scope and composition of the Sanhedrin — 
 the Jewish High Court of Justice — the 
 methods of procedure in trials, and the laws 
 concerning the examination of witnesses, 
 
 ' Mielziner. 
 
40 THE ARREST [Lect. 
 
 capital punishment, and "forty stripes save 
 one." It decrees how oaths — both those 
 taken in private and openly in court — are 
 to be administered, and it defines the law 
 of evidences. 
 
 This legal code which professed to be 
 based upon the Mosaic law began, as a 
 matter of fact, to supersede it after the 
 return from the captivity and the establish- 
 ment of local synagogues. During the 
 period of the Second Temple it was con- 
 tinually enlarged ; commentaries were made 
 upon it, and commentaries again upon 
 those commentaries until about the second 
 century a.d., when the original law bade fair 
 to be entirely lost in minute and detailed 
 dissertations. Thus from the days of the 
 return from Babylon this oral law had 
 been gradually accumulating, and the trend 
 of the Mishna in each succeeding genera- 
 tion had been to multiply precautions against 
 any possibility of injustice towards, or negli- 
 gence of, the interests of the prisoner. Its 
 great object was to ensure for every one, 
 however lowly his station, full publicity in 
 any trial which might end in capital punish- 
 ment.^ In this respect one might almost 
 ^ Mishna, Cap. Pairum, i. b. 
 
I.] THE WORK OF THE RABBIS 41 
 
 describe Jewish law as caution run mad. 
 " Be cautious and slow in judgment, raise up 
 many disciples, and make a fence round the 
 law," was a favourite axiom of the Rabbis. 
 
 The learned Hillel, who presided over the 
 Sanhedrin during the reign of Herod the 
 Great, was the first who attempted to reduce 
 this legal chaos to order, and arranged the 
 Mishna into six divisions. Then followed 
 in the second century, a.d., the Rabbi Akiba, 
 who took out all the subject matter of those 
 six divisions, arranging them under their 
 correct headings, and tabulating them. The 
 Rabbi Meir, a disciple of Akiba, continued 
 his master's work, and may be said to have 
 finally arranged the law. In the beginning 
 of the third century, a.d., came the Rabbi 
 Jehuda Hannasi, a very wealthy and learned 
 Jew of irreproachable life, and a great friend 
 of the Roman authorities. He was the head 
 of one of the Palestinian Academies founded 
 for the express purpose of studying and 
 handing down legal tradition, and with a 
 band of devoted disciples gave up his time 
 and wealth to codifying and setting down 
 the oral law in writing. Many of his 
 opinions were based upon those of his great 
 predecessors — Hillel and the two Gamaliels. 
 
 F 
 
42 THE ARREST [Lect. 
 
 In the century immediately before Christ 
 schools were established under Tannaim or 
 teachers, for the express purpose of explain- 
 ing the law, and instructing children in it. 
 Although the Mishna had not been reduced 
 to writing at the time of Christ's trial, 
 Jewish writers generally concur in admitting 
 that the criminal code there enunciated was 
 the same as that in use in the days of 
 Caiaphas. 
 
 The Jewish Church considered the Law 
 to be more inspired than the rest of their 
 sacred books, and a vast amount of time 
 was spent in trying to squeeze cryptic and 
 allegorical meanings out of even the plainest 
 directions, these being applied equally to the 
 greatest emergencies or the most trifiing 
 details of everyday life. Thus at the date 
 when Christ was brought to trial for " pervert- 
 ing the nation," the life of a Hebrew was so 
 carefully hedged round, so marvellous and 
 intricate were the precautions and the legal 
 quibbles, so many gnats were strained out 
 and so many camels swallowed whole, that 
 capital punishment was almost an impossi- 
 bility. The old Rabbi Meir writes : " What 
 doth God say — if one may speak after the 
 manner of men of God — when the malefactor 
 
I.] ABHORRENCE OF DEATH PENALTY 43 
 
 suffers the anguish of his crime ? He says : 
 * My head and my Hmbs are pained ' ; and if 
 He so speaks of the guilty, what must He 
 utter when the righteous is condemned ? " ^ 
 
 Eleazar, the son of Azarias, maintains that 
 the Sanhedrin, which once in seventy years 
 condemns a man to death, is a slaughter- 
 house ; ^ and the two Rabbis, Akiba and Tar- 
 phon go even further, and declare that if 
 only they were members of the Sanhedrin, 
 no one should ever suffer the death sentence, 
 to which sentiment Simeon, the son of 
 Gamaliel retorts that, "such scholars would 
 only increase bloodshed in Israel."^ 
 
 The Sanhedrin. 
 
 The whole underlying principle of Jewish 
 legal procedure at this period tended towards 
 the multiplication of precautions against any 
 possible miscarriage of justice. To carry 
 these out effectually it was decreed that no 
 one man should ever judge a cause " Be not 
 a sole judge; there is no sole judge but One."* 
 
 From Deut. xvi. 18-20, it is clear that so 
 
 ^ Mishna, De Syn, vi. 5. - Ibid., Makhoth. 
 
 ^ Ibid., Makhoth Stripes. * Ibid., Pirke Avoth^ iv. 8. 
 
44 THE ARREST [Lect. 
 
 far back as pre-exilic days there was some 
 organised method of judging the people with 
 righteous judgment. It was probably carried 
 out then by means of a Council of the heads 
 of the tribes, which as time went on developed 
 into the central and local Courts of Justice 
 known as the Great Sanhedrin and the Minor 
 Sanhedrins. These latter were established 
 in towns of not less than one hundred and 
 twenty adult males, and were composed of 
 twenty-three members, both priests and lay- 
 men, although in order to form a Sanhedrin 
 the Council need not necessarily contain a 
 priestly member.^ 
 
 The Great Sanhedrin crweSpiov was " the 
 highest Court of Justice and Supreme 
 Council " in Jewry, and sat in Jerusalem itself. 
 It received its Greek title in the second 
 century, b.c, and was probably the descendant 
 of the great assembly of the elders convened 
 by Nehemiah and Ezra after the return from 
 the captivity.^ 
 
 It was entirely reconstituted after the fall 
 of Jerusalem, first at Jamnia and then at 
 Tiberias. This court was evidently looked 
 
 ^ De Sytiy i. par 6 ; x. par 2. Mommsen's Lesprov. Rom.^ xi. 
 
 479-503. 
 
 * Nehemiah viii. 10. 
 
I.] THE SANHEDRIN 45 
 
 Upon by Christ, who speaks of it as judging 
 capital offences/ as the supreme tribunal in 
 His day. 
 
 Two maxims were supposed to regulate 
 the deliberation of its judges. 
 
 a. Thou shalt do no unrighteousness in 
 
 judgment. 
 
 b. Be cautious and slow in judgment. 
 
 The members were called Elders, and 
 are often alluded to in the Gospels ; and 
 in Christ's time these elders were chiefly 
 recruited from the ranks of the Sadducees. 
 There were various methods of election to 
 the Great Sanhedrin prevailing at different 
 periods of history ; but at that with which we 
 are dealing any Jew who was well versed 
 in Law and Tradition, and had publicly 
 distinguished himself as a judge in his own 
 locality, might become first a member of 
 one of the two lesser Synedria in Jerusalem, 
 afterwards rising to be an elder of the Great 
 Sanhedrin, which was the highest dignity a 
 judge could attain.^ Besides legal ability the 
 personal qualifications that were theoretically 
 required were so exacting that it is wonderful 
 
 > Matt. V. 21. 
 
 "^ ]o%€ ben Chalaftha \ Tosefta, Shekalitn. 
 
46 THE ARREST [Lect. 
 
 that any human being was found worthy to 
 sit in that magic semicircle. 
 
 In order to be elected the candidate must 
 be a man of good birth ; tall, strong, and in 
 good health ; married, and the father of a 
 family. He must be venerable, though not 
 too advanced in years, dignified in bearing, 
 and of good courage. He was required to 
 be deeply learned, yet modest withal, able 
 to speak in foreign tongues (Aramaic, Greek, 
 and Latin), and he must have been initiated 
 into the mysteries of Egyptian magic. It 
 was also necessary that he should be held in 
 good repute by his fellow-men, and be wealthy 
 besides, so as to be above suspicion of taking 
 bribes. Any man who was blind, a dice 
 player, or a fowler, was not eligible for office. 
 
 This legal senate consisted of seventy-one 
 judges. To assist them in their labours and 
 adjudicate in minor causes were two courts, 
 each one composed of twenty-three judges, 
 known as the Lesser Sanhedrins. 
 
 Presiding over the Great Sanhedrin was 
 "the Father of the House of Justice,"^ 
 the high priest being only an ex-officio 
 President, except in ecclesiastical cases 
 when he was de facto President.^ This 
 
 1 Voma, vii. 5. ^ Tosefta, Fesac/ii'm, iv. 
 
I.] COMPOSITION OF THE COURT 47 
 
 accounts for the prominent part taken by 
 Caiaphas at our Lord's trial, as in His time 
 Hillel and Simon his son were respectively 
 President and Vice-President, though there 
 are some scholars who think that Gamaliel I,, 
 the son of Simon ben Hillel, and the teacher 
 of Saul of Tarsus, was President at that 
 date. 
 
 Apparently the number of judges required 
 to form a full court differed according to the 
 gravity of the crime ; ^ for we read : " To 
 decide upon the following cases three persons 
 are needed — civil cases, robbery, wounds, 
 damaofes, and half damao-es. The same 
 number are also required in the case of 
 libel," etc. (Deut. xxii. 19); though some 
 of the Talmudists declare that for libel 
 twenty-three are needed, as libel might 
 entail capital punishment. 
 
 "A whole tribe, or a false prophet, or a 
 high priest, if they have to be judged for a 
 crime which may bring capital punishment, 
 shall be judged by a court of seventy-one 
 judges, of whom there must never be fewer 
 than twenty-three on the bench during the 
 
 ' In matters concerning the composition and functions 
 of the Sanhedrin, Jose ben Chalaftha, a well-known and 
 learned Jewish historical writer and Talmudist, is safer to 
 follow than Josephus. 
 
48 THE ARREST [Lbct. 
 
 whole trial. If any man require to go out 
 in order to do his business, let him look 
 round to see if his colleagues be twenty- 
 three. If they be, let him go ; if not, let 
 him wait until another enter in."^ 
 
 The Mishna gives us the reason for these 
 particular numbers. 
 
 " Whence do we deduce that the Great 
 Sanhedrin must be seventy-one? 
 
 " From ' Gather unto me seventy men ' 
 (Numbers xi. 16), and add Moses, who was 
 the head of them — hence seventy-one. 
 
 "And whence do we deduce that a small 
 Sanhedrin must be twenty-three ? 
 
 " From ' the congregation shall judge ' and 
 'the congregation shall save,'" we see that 
 one congregation judges and the other con- 
 gregation saves — hence there are twenty, as 
 a congregation consists of not less than ten 
 personages. 
 
 " Whence do we deduce that three more 
 are needed ? 
 
 " From*' Thou shalt not follow a multitude 
 to do evil ' ; ^ from which we may infer that 
 thou shalt follow them to do well. 
 
 " But if so, why is it written at the end of 
 
 ' Mishna, De Syn^ i ; Lightfoot, Hor. Heb.^ ii. 462. 
 ' Numbers xxxv. 24-25. ' Exodus xxiii. 2. 
 
L] TIME OF SESSION 49 
 
 the same verse : ' Incline after the majority 
 to wrest judgment ? ' 
 
 " This means that the inclination to free 
 the man must not be similar to the influence 
 to condemn, as to condemn a majority of 
 two is needed, while to free a majority of 
 one suffices. And a court must not consist 
 of an even number, as if their opinion is 
 halved no verdict can be established ; there- 
 fore one more must be added. Hence it is 
 twenty-three." ^ 
 
 A certain number of students were 
 attached to the Sanhedrin courts for the 
 purpose of acquiring knowledge of law and 
 procedure. Two scribes, doctors of the law, 
 sat at a table to record the proceedings and 
 sentence, and two officers — members of the 
 Temple police called Shoterim — guarded the 
 prisoner in court. ^ 
 
 According to Jos6 ben Chalaftha, "the 
 judges sat from the offering of the morning 
 until the offering of the evening sacrifice ; 
 but not on the Sabbath day, nor on feast 
 days, nor in the Passover week." When in 
 court they arranged themselves in a half 
 circle, so that each man's face was visible to 
 
 ^ Mishna, De Syn.^ cap. i. 
 
 2 De Syn.y iii. ; Maimonides, De Syn.^ i. 3 ; Haghighk, 16. 
 
 G 
 
50 THE ARREST [Lect. 
 
 all his colleagues. In the centre was the 
 President, with the Vice-President and the 
 High Priest on either hand ; the rest of the 
 Council were placed in the order of their 
 seniority, the youngest members being at 
 the outsides. Judgment usually went by the 
 voting of the members. "In questions of 
 civil law and in those affecting ecclesiastical 
 and ceremonial law, the taking of the vote 
 began with the principal member of the 
 Sanhedrin ; in judgments of life and death, 
 at the side — the younger ones thus voting 
 first so as not to be influenced in any degree 
 by their seniors." ^ 
 
 From the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem 
 "went forth direction for all Israel," and 
 their decisions were binding upon all other 
 synedria, doctors, and teachers. It was the 
 Jewish High Court of Appeal as well, and 
 it was the only law court competent to judge 
 certain cases — eight in number.- 
 
 The judges assembled in the Lishcath ha 
 Gazitk, or Hall of Hewn Stones, within the 
 Temple area, situated on the south side. 
 The Lesser Sanhedrins sat respectively in 
 the "entrance to the Temple mount," and 
 the " entrance of the Temple court." ^ 
 
 ^ De Syn.y iv. 2 ; Tosefta, San, vii. 2. ^ De Sjn., i. 5. 
 * De Syn., i. 6 ; Middoth, v. 2. 
 
I.] RISE OF THE PHARISEES 51 
 
 When under the first Roman governor 
 the Jewish nation was deprived of the power 
 of carrying out the death sentence, the 
 sessions were removed to "the Sheds," or 
 " Bazars of the sons of Annas," which were 
 in an outer court of the Temple, and were 
 probably part of the market where people 
 bought and sold doves, and the money- 
 changers set up their tables. " Forty years 
 before the Temple was destroyed judgment 
 in capital cases was taken away from Israel, 
 and the Council removed, and sat in the 
 sheds." 1 
 
 The Sanhedrin of Christ's day, apart 
 from the purely priestly members, included 
 Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes — three 
 factions with distinctly conflicting interests. 
 
 The Pharisees. 
 
 The Pharisees, i.e., "the separated ones," 
 became a distinctive set in the second 
 century, B.C., when in the days of Antiochus 
 Epiphanes there arose a strong Hellenising 
 party in Palestine, Simon, a "guardian" of 
 the Temple, giving Onias III. the high 
 * Babylonian Talmud, Aboda Zara^ 8 b, f 8. 
 
52 THE ARREST [Lect. 
 
 priest much trouble on this score.^ This 
 movement spread rapidly among the priestly 
 aristocracy, and even many of the lower 
 orders, both of priests and people, appear to 
 have joined it. To combat this national 
 danger the Hasidean party was formed, 
 who resolved to leave no stone unturned 
 to enforce in its utmost strictness every jot 
 and tittle of the Law. The Hasideans and 
 the Hellenisers soon came into opposition, 
 and may thus be said to be, in a sense, the 
 precursors of the Pharisees and Sadducees. 
 The one set being distinctly a religious sect, 
 the other a political party ; although when 
 the Jews lost their national independence 
 the Sadducees naturally became less political, 
 and came to be looked upon more in the 
 light of a religious body. 
 
 Being religious and not political, the 
 Pharisees survived the destruction of 
 Jerusalem, when their leaders under the 
 Rabbi Hillel settled down first at Jamnia 
 and then at Tiberias. Separating them- 
 selves as much as they could from all inter- 
 course with either Gentiles or Christians, 
 and enforcing more rigorously than ever 
 the letter of the law, they became at last 
 ^ Maccabees, iii. ; iv. 6, 
 
I.] PHARISEES' VIEW OF LIFE 53 
 
 a sect of Judaic priests and fanatics, whose 
 lives were one long spiritual slavery. In 
 Christ's day they were partly a legal, partly 
 a religious body, holding vehemently "the 
 tradition of the elders," and were both 
 narrow-minded and hypocritical. They were, 
 in fact, at that time, the Puritans of the 
 Jewish Church. Josephus says that they 
 taught the doctrine of the immortality of 
 the soul, and believed future rewards and 
 punishments to be consequent upon earthly 
 conduct. He also states that they averred 
 that some things in life were the result of 
 " Fate," and impossible to control, while 
 with regard to other matters, man had the 
 power of choosing what he would or would 
 not do. Theirs was, in fact, a convenient 
 doctrine of limited Freewill. They, with 
 their strict observance of the Levitical law, 
 came early into collision with Christ. 
 
 According to their views He was under- 
 mining that which they spent their whole 
 lives in trying to enforce, and was practically 
 proclaiming that the greater number of their 
 most dearly loved regulations were unneces- 
 sary. They looked forward to the establish- 
 ment of an ideal Jewish kingdom upon earth 
 by one of the line of David, in which the 
 
54 THE ARREST [Lect. 
 
 Levitical law, as taught by them, should 
 be kept In every little detail. Until that 
 blessed time came they must endure the 
 chastening of the Lord in the shape of 
 foreign rule, as a punishment for their 
 sins. 
 
 It must also be remembered that they 
 were always stirring up the populace against 
 the Roman power. They refused to take 
 the oath of allegiance to Caesar, and they 
 haggled over paying the Imperial taxes. ^ 
 Against Pharasaic formalism and tyranny 
 Christ strenuously set His face — pleading for 
 justice, mercy, and the love of God, instead 
 of the strict tithing of mint and annise and 
 cummin. 
 
 The Sadducees. 
 
 The Sadducees were the followers of the 
 above-mentioned Hellenisers, and became 
 a very strong political faction ; so much so 
 that in the time of Herod they formed the 
 preponderating influence in the Sanhedrin, 
 even the high priests for several generations 
 being drawn from their ranks. 
 
 ^ jostphus, Aniig,, x. ; xv. 4. 
 
I.] POWER OF THE SADDUCEES 55 
 
 As a class they were enormously wealthy, 
 and consequently very powerful. They 
 were political aristocrats, in contrast to the 
 Pharisees who were religious democrats, 
 and who considered them very lax, not to 
 say godless. 
 
 In B.C. 37 Herod put forty-five Sadducean 
 members of the Sanhedrin to death on 
 account of their outrageous lawlessness,^ 
 while he left the Pharisees untouched as 
 they had great influence over the people, 
 and also because at that moment, as there 
 was no help for it, they had not openly 
 opposed the Romans, arguing that they (the 
 Romans) were Jehovah's curse upon the 
 nation for their evil doings. Archelaus, 
 Herod's successor, wisely left the municipal 
 and religious affairs of Judaea in the hands 
 of the Jews, which meant that the power of 
 the Sanhedrin became paramount on those 
 questions, and consequently strengthened 
 the influence of the Sadducees. It was, 
 however, to the Pharisees in the Council 
 that the people looked for religious direc- 
 tion, and as late as the reign of Agrippa I. 
 they were offering the daily sacrifice, and 
 practising the Law. 
 
 ^ Josephus, Atttiq., xvi. 2. 
 
56 THE ARREST [LecT. 
 
 When Jerusalem fell, the high priestly 
 office passed away for ever, and with the 
 priesthood was swept away the Sadducean 
 party. 
 
 The ideal of the Sadducees was to form 
 a Jewish state in amity with Rome, in 
 which they might live comfortably, not to 
 say luxuriously. They were thus diametri- 
 cally opposed to the Pharisees, with whom 
 they first came into collision in the reign 
 of John Hyrcanus. In religious matters 
 they declined to consider the oral law as 
 binding, though they accepted the written 
 law. They were very severe in carry- 
 ing" out the Lex talionis, and were harsh 
 judges in the Sanhedrin trials, except in the 
 matter of punishing false witnesses, in which 
 the Pharisees were even sterner judges. 
 Although numerically they formed a strong 
 majority, they practically had no influence, 
 either secular or religious, upon their 
 compatriots. 
 
 Josephus'says that the Sadducees denied 
 the resurrection of the body, and thought 
 the soul died with it, which belief, of course, 
 includes the denial of future rewards and 
 punishments. Acts xxiii. 8 says they 
 believed in neither angels nor spirits. 
 
I,] THE SCRIBES 57 
 
 They considered man to be absolutely a 
 free agent and complete master of his own 
 destiny, in contra-distinction to the Pharisees, 
 who believed in a mixture of Fate, God 
 and Freewill. As Wellhausen has pointed 
 out, they were entirely dependent upon their 
 own resources ; they claimed nothing from 
 God, nor He from them. 
 
 Only at the end of Christ's ministry do 
 we find them coming into direct collision 
 with Him, when He interfered, as they con- 
 sidered, with their privileges, so they joined 
 the Pharisees against Him, and being friends 
 of Pilate, tried to prove His disloyalty to 
 Rome. Probably they formed a strong con- 
 demning party in the Sanhedrin, as they 
 lived in a state of perpetual panic for fear 
 of "political consequences." 
 
 The writer of the Fourth Gospel never 
 mentions them by name, although the term 
 " chief priests " must of course include them. 
 
 The Scribes. 
 
 The scribes or Sopherim of Christ's day 
 were practically jurists, many of them were 
 Pharisees, and none of them had any political 
 
 H 
 
58 THE ARREST [LkcT. 
 
 influence. Their great ambition was to gain 
 honour in the Temple and the synagogues, 
 and admiration from their students. 
 Their chief functions were : 
 
 a. To develop the law. 
 
 b. To teach the law. 
 
 c. "To act as judges in the Sanhedrin, 
 
 and in the local courts." 
 
 Not only were they required to expound 
 the Law and oral tradition, but they were 
 expected also to spend time in imagining 
 possible difficult cases which might arise, 
 and arrange how they should be met. Thus 
 they overburdened themselves and their 
 pupils with a mass of legal traditions, 
 quibbles, and regulations, which called forth 
 our Lord's sternest condemnation. Dr 
 Eaton has shown how they reduced piety 
 to formalism, leaving no room for spontaneous 
 devotion and warm-hearted religion. *' Life 
 under the Law was felt to be a heavy burden, 
 and the scribes themselves had to devise 
 methods whereby to evade some of their 
 own precepts.^ Instead of proving a help 
 to men in their moral and religious life, the 
 
 ^ Matt, xxiii. i6 ; Luke xi. 46. 
 
1.] FUNCTIONS OF THE SCRIBES 59 
 
 Law had become a means whereby access to 
 God was cut off."^ 
 
 In order to "raise up many disciples," 
 their one endeavour was to gather round 
 them as many of the Jewish youth as 
 possible, propounding to them difficult and 
 intricate legal quibbles, and disputing with 
 them upon points of doctrine. The primary 
 duty of the pupils was to train their 
 memories to be retentive, never to teach 
 anything other than what their masters had 
 previously taught to them, and to "be quick 
 to hear and slow to forget." ^ Tradition was 
 their fetish — so much so that of Eliezer 
 ben Hyrcanus it was said that he was " a 
 plastered cistern that loseth not a drop." 
 The scribes were supposed to teach gratis, 
 and make their living by other means than 
 the law, although there are many scholars 
 who think that at this period they were 
 paid ; and there are passages in the Gospels 
 which give weight to this opinion.^ "Who- 
 
 ^ Luke xi. 52. 
 
 ^ " He who teaches against the Pentateuch is not con- 
 demned to death, for all men know the Bible ; but if he 
 teaches anything against the doctors he is condemned." — 
 Rabbinowicz, Legislation criminelle du Talmud. 
 
 * Matt. X. 10 ; Mark xii. 40 ; Luke x. 7 ; xvi. 40 ; xx. 47. 
 
6o THE ARREST [Lect f. 
 
 soever makes profit from the words of Torah 
 (Law) removes his life from this world." ^ 
 
 From the composition of the court is it 
 reasonable to think that the judges would 
 try a " Mesith," that is, a "perverter" or 
 "seductor" of the people, or a case of 
 blasphemy and sedition — especially where 
 the element of personal dislike formed a 
 strong factor — with strict impartiality and 
 justice ? 
 
 ^ Pirke Aboth^ iv. 9. 
 
LECTURE II 
 
 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION 
 
 "When a judge decides not according to truth he makes 
 the majesty of God to depart from Israel. But 
 if he judges according to truth — were it only for 
 one hour — it is as if he established the whole 
 world, for it is in judgment that the Divine 
 Presence in Israel has its habitation." 
 
 Having secured their Victim the " officers 
 from the chief priests and Pharisees," followed 
 by Simon Peter and another disciple, re- 
 crossed the Wady Kidron, and ascending 
 the steep pitch that led to the Temple 
 enclosure, took Him straightway to Annas 
 the ex-high priest, who was father-in-law to 
 Caiaphas the high priest de facto. 
 
 Annas ben Seth, the ninth high priest, 
 dating from the reign of Herod, was 
 appointed to that office in the year 7 a.d. 
 by Quirinius. In the year 16 a.d., soon 
 after the accession of the Emperor Tiberius, 
 he was summarily deposed by the Procurator 
 Valerius Gratus, the predecessor of Pontius 
 
 61 
 
62 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 Pilate, for exceeding the powers permitted 
 to the Sanhedrin, and executing several 
 Jewish prisoners without first obtaining a 
 warrant from the Roman governor. 
 
 He was an enormously wealthy Sadducee, 
 and having innumerable kinsmen in the 
 Sanhedrin, besides five immediate relations 
 who at one time or other held the Pontificate, 
 was a personage exercising great influence 
 in Jerusalem. He is said to have been a 
 keen intriguer, and after his deposition to 
 have meddled considerably in affairs pertain- 
 ing to the high priesthood.^ Josephus says 
 that not only did he manage to get five of 
 his sons appointed high priests in succession, 
 but that he also contrived to hold all the 
 important and lucrative posts in the Temple 
 itself Certain it is that he and his family 
 monopolised the sale of all the materials 
 required for the offerings and sacrifices. 
 These were allowed to be sold in the outer 
 courts of the Temple itself, and on the 
 Mount of Olives, and were known as the 
 Booths of Annas. At the great feasts when 
 all the country-side flocked to Jerusalem, an 
 immense and extortionate trade was done in 
 these necessary articles ; hence Our Lord's 
 ^ Josephus, Antiq.f x. 5 ; xx. 8. 
 
II.] ANNAS THE HIGH PRIEST 63 
 
 wrath at His Father's house being turned 
 into a "house of merchandise" and a "den 
 of robbers." 
 
 So intensely were Annas and his family 
 hated that there is a curse against them in 
 the Talmud — "Woe to the house of Annas, 
 woe to their serpent hissings." 
 
 Although he was no longer the actual 
 high priest, he was still so de jure ; as 
 arguing from Numbers xxxv. 25, 28, the 
 Jews considered that a man once anointed 
 as high priest — no matter what happened 
 subsequently — remained a high priest for 
 ever. Probably they considered that Valerius 
 Gratus had no right to depose Annas, and 
 although they were obliged to acknowledge 
 Caiaphas as the acting high priest, they did 
 so under protest and continued to regard 
 the former as their high priest still. This 
 accounts for St John calling Annas the high 
 priest as well as Caiaphas,^ and for St Luke 
 speaking of the combined high priesthood 
 of Annas and Caiaphas.^ In the Acts of 
 the Aposdes Annas is distinctly spoken of 
 as the high priest, which is the last time 
 he is mentioned by name in the New 
 
 ^ John xviii. 3. ^ Luke iii. 2. 
 
64 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [LecT. 
 
 Testament,^ though he is alluded to on two 
 other occasions.^ 
 
 Annas, sitting alone at night, began to 
 interrogate privately the Prisoner, and by- 
 asking Him two leading questions, endea- 
 voured first to make Him incriminate His 
 disciples, and then incriminate Himself out 
 of His own mouth. ^ 
 
 To the first question our Lord vouchsafed 
 no reply — it was too utterly ungenerous. 
 
 To the second He gave an answer, 
 appealing at the same time to the funda- 
 mental principle of Hebrew law. " I have 
 spoken without reserve in temple and 
 synagogue, and in secret have I said 
 nothing. Why askest thou Me ? Ask those 
 who heard Me.'' This was a reminder to 
 Annas, an elder of the Sanhedrin and there- 
 fore a jurist, that the question should have 
 been addressed to the witnesses and not to 
 the prisoner. It was the voice of the 
 Hebrew citizen claiming justice and the 
 riofht of fair trial from his interrooator who 
 knew well enough that in questioning his 
 solitary prisoner privately and in the dead 
 of night, he was himself committing a serious 
 
 ^ Acts iv. 6. "^ Acts vii. i ; ix. i. 
 
 ^ John xviii. 19. 
 
11.] IMPORTANCE OF WITNESSES 65 
 
 breach of that very law he was in duty 
 bound to administer justly. This plea was 
 unanswerable ; the ex-high priest was silent. 
 After the insulting blow dealt by one of the 
 bystanders, Christ again took His stand 
 upon His rights and insisted upon the 
 evidence of the witnesses. " If I have done 
 evil, bear zvitness of the evil." 
 
 Probably we in Europe in this twentieth 
 century hardly realise the extraordinary im- 
 portance of the witnesses in an ancient Jewish 
 "trial for life." The prisoner could not even 
 be legally arrested except by them ; not only 
 must the initiative come from them, but the 
 whole onus and responsibility of the trial 
 rested upon the witnesses alone. Nothing, in 
 fact, could be legally effected without them. 
 
 In their absence Jesus Christ was an 
 unaccused man. Annas could do nothing. 
 
 Now this interrogation of Our Lord by 
 Annas was flagrantly illegal from another 
 point of view also. It was forbidden under 
 any circumstances to question a suspected 
 man in private before he was formally 
 brought to public trial by the witnesses, of 
 whom there must be at least two. No 
 personal investigations were allowed. Upon 
 this point Salvador is very definite. " Un 
 
 I 
 
66 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 prIncipe perpetuellement reproduit dans les 
 Ventures hebraiques, resume deja les deux 
 conditions de publicite et de liberty. On ne 
 soumettait pas Thomme accuse a des inter- 
 rogatoires occultes, ou dans son trouble 
 I'innocent peut fournir des armes mortelles 
 contre lui." ^ Moreover, Annas had arrogated 
 to himself an illegal position. He had 
 practically constituted himself the prisoner's 
 prosecutor ; and in Hebrew law it was the 
 duty of the judge to seek for every reason 
 and excuse for releasing and not condemning 
 the accused, especially if he stood in danger 
 of losing his life. 
 
 No witnesses being present, and thus 
 not being able to proceed further with the 
 case, Annas "therefore sent him bound to 
 Caiaphas." By this time it must have been 
 far into the night. The Sanhedrin could not 
 legally sit until after the offering of the sacri- 
 fice on the ensuing morning, and as a criminal 
 trial where life was likely to be involved 
 might not' be begun, continued, and ended 
 on the selfsame day, it would have meant 
 detaining the prisoner for at least nine days, 
 owing to the Passover week being followed 
 by a Sabbath. In the meantime there would 
 
 ^ Institutions de Moise, i, 366. 
 
II.] CAIAPHAS THE HIGH PRIEST 67 
 
 be no saying but that the very multitude 
 who helped to arrest Him, or His own 
 friends from Galilee might attempt a rescue 
 and cause a tumult. 
 
 Probably these considerations, combined 
 with his fixed determination to put Christ 
 to death, induced Caiaphas to take the illegal 
 course of summoning witnesses and com- 
 mencing the trial in the palace during the 
 night. 
 
 Joseph Caiaphas, high priest de facto in 
 Jerusalem at the time of Our Lord's trial, 
 was the son-in-law and successor of Annas. 
 He was appointed to the Pontifical office 
 by Valerius Gratus in the year a.d. i8, and 
 like most of his predecessors of that period 
 was removed in due course, in a.d. 36 by 
 Vitellius. There were no less than twenty- 
 eight high priests during a period of one 
 hundred and sixty years, and Tiberius is 
 reported to have remarked that the rapid way 
 in which new high priests succeeded each 
 other in Jerusalem was exactly "like flies 
 alighting upon a sore." Caiaphas was a 
 Sadducee, and therefore always in conflict 
 with Christ's teaching and bitterly opposed 
 to Him. He was a great friend of Pontius 
 Pilate, and was determined on political 
 
68 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 issues, if on no others, to sacrifice the 
 Preacher. Hence we have the anomalous 
 and incredible fact, that the very man who 
 a few hours before had given the order for 
 Christ's arrest for the express purpose of 
 putting Him to death, was now to be the 
 President of the Council of Judges which 
 was to try Him. 
 
 Caiaphas was said to be a man of very 
 low intellectual capacity, and his conduct 
 as President of the Sanhedrin during the 
 trial showed him to be one of extremely 
 weak character, and of no moral courage 
 or mental force. He is only once mentioned 
 by name after these events, when, " the rulers 
 and elders and scribes " being gathered 
 together to question Peter and John, Annas 
 is spoken of as the high priest, and Caiaphas 
 is placed among his kindred.^ 
 
 The exact site of the high priest's palace 
 in which the trial took place is not certainly 
 known, though I believe it is considered more 
 than probable that it was situated between 
 the Upper City and the Tyropsean Valley. 
 Doubtless Annas and Caiaphas dwelt in 
 the same building, so that when Annas had 
 concluded his interrogation of Our Lord, 
 ^ Acts iv. 5, 6. 
 
II.] THE HIGH priest's PALACE 69 
 
 he had simply to send Him to Caiaphas 
 across the uncovered courtyard which is to 
 be found in every Oriental house. The 
 palace would in all probability be in close 
 proximity to the Temple, and the late Sir 
 Charles Wilson has suggested that " it may 
 have been the same place as the house 
 (01K109) of Ananias the high priest which was 
 destroyed by the insurgents during the tumult 
 which commenced the war with Rome."^ 
 It would consist of suites of apartments built 
 round an open paved court, and entered 
 from the street through a porch with barred 
 door, at which there would always be a 
 doorkeeper. Probably as in modern Eastern 
 houses the door would be flanked by a small 
 room on either side, where the servants 
 congregate and chat incessantly. 
 
 A comparison of the four gospels points 
 to Annas and Caiaphas living in the same 
 house," and it would be entirely in accordance 
 with Oriental practice where families herd 
 together under one roof, though Annas, as 
 head of the family, probably had his own 
 separate apartments. 
 
 ^ Golgotha afid the Holy Sepulchre^ p. 39 ; Josephus, 
 Wars, ii. § 6, 17. 
 
 2 Matt. xxvi. 57-71 ; Mark xiv. 53-68 ; Luke xxii. 54-61 ; 
 John xviii. 12-25. 
 
70 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 Notwithstanding that the Mishna strictly 
 directs that " in capital cases the trial must 
 commence and end in the daytime,"^ "trials 
 for money " alone being allowed to be finished 
 at night, Caiaphas, the scribes, elders, and 
 the whole Council {a-weSpiov)^ proceeded to 
 commence the trial. 
 
 To fit in the events of that night in 
 their correct sequence is complicated and 
 difficult, the four accounts given by the 
 Evangelists being confused and contradictory. 
 Two of them o;ive first the taking of evidence 
 from false witnesses, which was followed by 
 an attempt to extort a confession. Matthew 
 and Mark read distinctly as if Christ was at 
 once taken to Caiaphas after the arrest, 
 under whose presidency were held two sepa- 
 rate trials before the Sanhedrin — one im- 
 mediately, I.e., during the night, and another 
 on the following morning.^ 
 
 St Luke's account is that they took Him 
 to the palace, where He was mocked and 
 beaten,* and that at daybreak ^ the "assembly 
 
 ^ D£ Syn., 32 ; Rabbinowicz, Lt'gislation criminellc du 
 Talmud^ p. 79 ; Mishna, n. 7. 
 " Matt. xxvi. 57, 59 ; Mark xiv. 53, 55. 
 
 * Matt. xxvi. 57, 59 ; xxvii. I ; Mark xiv. 55 ; xv. I. 
 
 * Luke xxii. 54, 63. » Luke xxiii. 66. 
 
II.] PROBABLE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS Jl 
 
 of the elders," which certainly implies 
 members of the Sanhedrin, led Him before 
 "their council" {a-wiSpiov) who, after asking 
 Him the one crucial question, "Art thou 
 the Christ, the Son of God," arose in a 
 body and took Him to Pilate.^ This 
 evangelist does not mention the false 
 witnesses, though he implies them. 
 
 St John merely states that He was first 
 taken to Annas, who questioned Him and 
 sent Him to Caiaphas, and he omits all 
 mention of a trial before the high priest, 
 saying simply that "they led Him from 
 Caiaphas into the Prsetorium " in the early 
 morning.^ 
 
 Putting together the four narratives the 
 sequence of events seems to be the following. 
 
 Christ was first taken to Annas and by 
 him sent on to Caiaphas, where some 
 members of the Sanhedrin having assembled, 
 the false witnesses were brought in. Their 
 evidence failing to "agree together," and 
 therefore no charge being formulated against 
 the Prisoner, the high priest endeavoured 
 by putting Him upon oath^ to extort a 
 confession which, if He failed to substantiate, 
 
 ^ Luke xxii. 70 ; xxiii. i. * John xviii. 24, 28. 
 
 ' Matt. xxvi. 63 J Mark xiv. 61. 
 
72 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 practically amounted to " blasphemy against 
 God." Without giving the Prisoner any 
 opportunity of supporting His claim or 
 bringing forward witnesses to prove it, the 
 President at once pronounced Him to be 
 worthy of death,^ and proceeded to take 
 the votes of the assembled judges, who all 
 condemned Him. These proceedings ended 
 the first trial. In the short time that elapsed 
 between this and the second trial, Christ 
 was tormented by the "officers" — His 
 Jewish guard. At daybreak came the trial 
 before the whole Sanhedrin, but neither 
 Matthew nor Mark state what form that 
 " consultation " took. 
 
 Luke's account is that they attempted to 
 obtain practically the same admission from 
 the Prisoner as was extorted at the first trial. ^ 
 
 St John omits it altogether. 
 
 The Trial. 
 
 We must now begin to follow the details 
 of the Trial, comparing them with the Jewish 
 law concerning the method of conducting 
 a "trial for life." 
 ' Matt. xxvi. 66 ; Mark xiv. 64. ^ Luke xxii. 67-70. 
 
II.] LEGALITY OF THE TRIAL 73 
 
 To begin with, Salvador in his Institutions 
 cie Mo'ise clearly points out that four funda- 
 mental principles underlay the whole system 
 of Hebrew criminal jurisprudence as laid 
 down in the Mishna ; these were : 
 
 a. Strictness in accusation. 
 
 b. Publicity in discussion. 
 
 c. Full freedom granted to the accused 
 
 to defend himself. 
 
 d. Assurance against all errors of testi- 
 
 mony. 
 
 These points we must keep clearly before 
 us throughout the whole proceedings. 
 
 It has been first of all contended by some 
 writers that the trial being held in the high 
 priest's palace invalidated it, but as forty 
 years before the court had given up sitting 
 in the Lishcath ha Gazith (see p. 50) the 
 Talmud recognises the legality of the high 
 priest's palace as a place of session. Strictly 
 speaking, not less than twenty-three members 
 should have been present the whole time to 
 take part in a trial for life ; but it is unlikely 
 that being in the dead of night this regulation 
 was adhered to. Also the fact that on the 
 next morning the Prisoner was taken before 
 the "whole council " seems to imply that the 
 
 K 
 
74 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 necessary quorum were not present at the 
 night sitting. 
 
 It is possible that messengers had 
 been despatched during the night appris- 
 ing the seventy-one members of the Great 
 Sanhedrin of the arrest of Christ, and that 
 they consequently mustered in strong force 
 in the morning. It must be admitted that 
 it was a grave breach of the law that the 
 trial was begun at night. " Judgments in 
 souls are conducted by day, and must be 
 settled by day," moreover the Great 
 Sanhedrin might only sit during the hours 
 of daylight. 
 
 The judgment being " set," let us turn first 
 to the Mishna and learn from its pages what 
 ought to have been the proper course for the 
 Council to pursue, comparing it with what 
 actually transpired as stated in the Gospels. 
 
 First the witnesses who ?nust be voluntary 
 are instructed to bring in their prisoner and 
 state their evidence against him. As there 
 could be no "sole judge," so must there be 
 no " sole witness," ^ and before all things the 
 accusation must be publicly made. A Hebrew 
 trial was practically a public duet between 
 the judges and the witnesses. To use 
 ' Deut. xix. 15-18. 
 
II.] IMPORTANCE OF THE WITNESSES 75 
 
 modern legal phraseology, there were no 
 such persons as "Counsel for the prosecu- 
 tion," and "Counsel for the defendant." 
 The witnesses — two at least — must bring, 
 the arrested man into court on their own 
 initiative and there state his crime. Until 
 t\iQy publicly formulated their evidence agains 
 him before the tribunal, he was to all intents 
 and purposes innocent — I might almost say 
 unaccused. The evidence of the witnesses 
 was practically the accusation ; there was 
 no such thing as a formal indictment before 
 the judges. 
 
 The witnesses having stated on oath their 
 charge, those for the defence were at once 
 called upon to speak, and the defendant 
 himself might say anything he liked on 
 his own behalf. It was also permitted to 
 any of the scholars present if they could 
 say anything in favour of the accused to 
 do so, but they might not say anything — 
 even if they could prove it — to his dis- 
 advantage. If what they stated seemed 
 likely to be to the point, the judges are 
 directed to call them to take a place beside 
 them on the bench, where they must remain 
 during the trial. Subsequently they were to 
 be put on oath — which they were allowed 
 
y6 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 to take sitting — and their statements were 
 then carefully sifted. No cross-examination 
 was permitted, the trial was a conflict of 
 evidences, but the onus of proving the 
 accused guilty lay upon the shoulders of 
 those who arrested him. So completely 
 were they made to feel the grave responsi- 
 bility of their act that before giving their 
 evidence they were bound over to tell the 
 truth by a most solemn oath, and, in the 
 event of capital punishment ensuing, the two 
 principal witnesses had to cast the first stones 
 at the condemned man. The judges were 
 essentially in the position of counsel for the 
 accused. Their duty was to protect him 
 by every means in their power^ and with 
 all the precautions, quibbles, and sanctions 
 contained in the Mishna the wonder is that 
 any one ever suffered the death penalty. 
 
 To all intents and purposes it was the 
 Sanhedrin who prosecuted Christ by seek- 
 ing for false witnesses in order that they 
 might put ' Him to death — two flagrant 
 breaches of the law, the former being, as 
 Taylor Innes observes in his admirable Legal 
 Monograph, "a scandalous indecorum." 
 
 A stranger sight can seldom have been 
 seen in the High Court of Jewry than that 
 
it] MONEY TRIALS j^ 
 
 of the judges sending out to seek for 
 witnesses, in order to be able to proceed 
 against a prisoner whom they had ordered 
 to be arraigned before them for a pre- 
 determined verdict. 
 
 Tlie tractate, JDe Synhedris, gives us pre- 
 cise details as to the method to be pursued 
 in criminal cases. 
 
 Although the Talmud was not reduced to 
 writing until many years after this famous 
 trial took place, and although it is possible 
 that under the Roman Government of Judaea 
 some restrictions in, or variations of, pro- 
 cedure may have been made, the consensus 
 of learned Jewish opinion is, that in all im- 
 portant points the regulations there laid 
 down, obtained in the reign of Tiberius. 
 
 Jewish trials were, roughly speaking, 
 divided into two classes : 
 
 " Money Trials " and " Trials for Life," 
 or, as they are also called, " Trials in Souls." 
 
 "Money Trials" and "Trials for Life" 
 had the same rules of enquiry and investiga- 
 tion. But they differed in procedure on the 
 following points : 
 
 "The former require only three, the latter 
 twenty and three judges. 
 
78 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 "In the former it matters not on which 
 side the judges speak who give the first 
 opinions : in the latter, those who are in 
 favour of acquittal must speak first. 
 
 " In the former a majority of one is always 
 enough : in the latter a majority of one is 
 enough to acquit, but it requires a majority 
 of two to condemn. 
 
 "In the former a decision may be quashed 
 on review (for error) no matter which way 
 it has gone : in the latter a condemnation 
 may be quashed, but not an acquittal. 
 
 "In the former, disciples of the law present 
 in the court may speak — as assessors — on 
 either side : in the latter they may speak 
 in favour of the accused, but not against 
 him. 
 
 " In the former, a judge who has indicated 
 his opinion, no matter on which side, may 
 change his mind : in the latter, he who has 
 given his voice for guilt may change his 
 mind, but not he who has given his voice 
 for acquitt&.l. 
 
 " Money trials are commenced only in the 
 daytime, but may be concluded after night- 
 fall : trials for life are commenced only in 
 the daytime, and must also be concluded 
 during the daytime. 
 
ri.] ''trials in souls" 79 
 
 " The former may be concluded by either 
 acquittal or condemnation on the day on 
 which they have begun : the latter may be 
 concluded on that day, if there is a sentence 
 of acquittal, but must be postponed to a 
 second day if there is to be a condemnation 
 to death. For this reason capital trials are 
 not held on the day before a Sabbath or a 
 Feast day. 
 
 "In the former they begin by asking the 
 opinion of the eldest : in the latter with 
 those who sit at the side. 
 
 " All are qualified to judge trials for money, 
 but not every one is qualified to judge a 
 trial for life — only priests, Levites, and those 
 Israelites who may legally marry priests' 
 daughters are thus qualified."^ 
 
 If the evidence offered on behalf of the 
 accused is sufficiently cogent, the judges 
 proceed to vote at once, and acquit and 
 dismiss him. If not the trial must be post- 
 poned until the following day, when the 
 witnesses against the prisoner are put on 
 oath, and their evidence is subjected to a 
 most searching investigation. 
 
 "If a man is found innocent the court 
 absolves him. But if not, his judgment is 
 
 ' De Syn,, iv. 1. 
 
So THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [LeCT. 
 
 put off until the following day. Meantime 
 the judges go out, and meeting outside the 
 court they confer together all night, eatmg 
 but little food and drinking no wine. On 
 the following morning they return into court 
 and vote over again with the like precau- 
 tions as before."^ 
 
 The Mishna defines carefully those persons 
 whose relationships or affinities to the accused 
 shall preclude them from giving evidence 
 against him, and also those whose proclivities 
 shall disqualify them. 
 
 Brothers, brothers of father and mother, 
 brothers-in-law, father-in-law, stepfather and 
 uncles by marriage, merchants who trade 
 in the Sabbatic year, usurers, gamblers, and 
 those who bet (?) on the flight of doves.^ 
 
 The judges having satisfied themselves 
 that not any of these disqualifications exist, 
 next proceed to adjure each witness separately 
 in the following solemn words : 
 
 "Forget not, O witness, that it is one 
 thing to give evidence in a trial for money, 
 and another in a trial for life. In a money 
 suit, if thy witness bearing shall do wrong, 
 money may repair that wrong. But in this 
 trial for life, if thou sinnest, the blood of 
 1 De Syn., v. 1. ' ^^ '^>'«- "*• 3' 4- 
 
II.] SOLEMNITY OF OATH 8 1 
 
 the accused and the blood of his seed unto 
 the end of time shall be imputed unto 
 thee. . . . Therefore was Adam created, one 
 man and alone, to teach thee that if any 
 shall destroy one soul out of Israel, he is 
 held by the Scripture to be as if he had 
 destroyed the world. . . . For a man from 
 one signet ring, may strike off many impres- 
 sions, and all of them shall be exactly alike. 
 But He, the King of Kings, He the Holy 
 and Blessed, has struck off from His type 
 of the first man the forms of all men that 
 shall live ; yet so, that no one human being 
 is wholly alike to any other. Wherefore 
 let us think and believe that the whole 
 world was created for such a man as he 
 whose life hangs on thy words," 
 
 If after this the witness feels he dare 
 not take the oath, he is to be dismissed 
 immediately and sent outside the court ; 
 but should he say, " I will nevertheless 
 swear," he shall stand up, and in a language 
 which he understands take the oath by 
 "the Lord the God of Heaven." 
 
 Before, however, he actually takes it, the 
 court is directed once again to warn the 
 witness in the following words : 
 
 "Be aware that the oath which you take 
 
 L 
 
82 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 is not according to your own mind, but 
 to the mind of the Omnipotent and of the 
 court ; as Moses said : ' And not with you 
 only do I make this covenant and this oath, 
 but with Him that standeth here with us 
 this day.' " ^ 
 
 A small body of the judges shall then 
 privately examine each witness in turn ; 
 and having satisfied themselves that the 
 evidence is relevant and suitable, shall bring 
 him into court, where each one separately 
 and out of hearing of his fellows, is to make 
 his statements in the presence of the accused. 
 
 Jewish law recognised three forms of oral 
 evidence : 
 
 a. A vain testimony. 
 
 b. A standing testimony. 
 
 c. An equal or adequate testimony ; or 
 
 as St Mark expresses it, "the 
 testimony of them that agree 
 together." 
 
 The first was practically worthless and not 
 even provisionally taken into account by the 
 judges. 
 
 The second was considered as sufficiently 
 ^ Deut. xxix. 14, 15. 
 
II.] FORMS OF ORAL EVIDENCE 83 
 
 relevant to be allowed to stand provisionally, 
 in case subsequent facts confirmed it, when 
 it was permitted to complete the evidence 
 as an "adequate testimony." 
 
 The third was the words of them "that 
 agree together," and the smallest discrepancy 
 was held to invalidate it.^ 
 
 If the witness perjured himself, the punish- 
 ment was, "Ye shall do unto him as he had 
 thought to do unto his brother."" 
 
 The evidence having been taken and 
 the witnesses for the defence having been 
 heard, the judges then proceeded to vote, 
 beginning with the youngest members seated 
 at the ends of the semicircle, the casting 
 vote being given by the President. 
 
 "If the judges find a good reason to 
 acquit him (the accused), they do so im- 
 mediately ; and if not, they postpone the 
 trial until the morrow." 
 
 "If twelve of them acquit and eleven 
 condemn, he is acquitted. But if twelve 
 condemn and eleven acquit, and even if 
 eleven condemn and eleven acquit, but the 
 twenty-third says, ' I am in doubt,' even if 
 
 ^ De Syn., v. 3, 4. 
 
 ^ Deut. xix. 18, 19 ; Susanna, 61, 62. 
 
84 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 twenty-two are for condemning- or acquit- 
 ting, and one says, ' I do not know,' judges 
 are to be added." 
 
 " And to what number? " 
 
 "Two and two till the whole number 
 reaches seventy-one, and then if thirty-six 
 acquit and thirty - five condemn he is 
 acquitted ; but if vice versa the discussion is 
 prolonged until one of those who condemns 
 accepts the opinion of those who acquit," 
 
 "If judgment is at last pronounced they 
 bring out the man sentenced, and stone him. 
 The place of punishment is to be apart 
 from the place of judgment, for it is said 
 in Leviticus xxiv. 14, ' Bring the blasphemer 
 without the camp.' " ^ 
 
 The original method of stoning, was for 
 the principal witness to cast the first stone 
 at the condemned man ; if this did not prove 
 fatal, the bystanders then hurled stones at 
 him until death ensued. 
 
 In Our Lord's time it was different; the 
 criminal was thrown down from a height ; 
 the Bet-ha-Sekala or Stoning Place being 
 twice the height of a man. The chief wit- 
 ness grasping him firmly by the thighs 
 
 ^ De Syfi., V. vi. 
 
II.] METHOD OF STONING 85 
 
 thrust him backwards in such a manner that 
 he fell on his back. Should he, however, 
 fall face downwards, he must be turned 
 over. It was only in the event of the fall 
 not proving fatal that all Israel, i.e., the by- 
 standers "stoned him with stones till he 
 died." The body was buried under a cairn 
 outside the city gates or in a common burial 
 place belonging to the Sanhedrin, and the 
 relatives were allowed later on to gather 
 together the bones for interment in the 
 family tomb. If the criminal was put to 
 death for being either a blasphemer or an 
 idolater the corpse was at once gibbeted 
 until sunset, and then buried.^ 
 
 So greatly was capital punishment depre- 
 cated by the Talmud that, after the pro- 
 cession had started for the place of execution, 
 it was possible to save the condemned man ; 
 and arrangements were made for a reprieve 
 being granted even when near the stoning 
 place. 
 
 " An officer shall stand at the door of 
 the court with a flag in his hand ; another 
 mounted shall follow the procession so far, 
 but shall halt at the furthest point where 
 
 * De Syn.^ xii. 3 ; Josephus, Antiq., iv. 8 ; Jewish 
 Encyclopicdia on "Capital Punishment. 
 
86 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 he can see the man with the flag (the judges 
 remain sitting), and if any one offers to 
 prove that the condemned man is innocent, 
 he at the door shall wave the flag, and the 
 horseman instantly shall gallop after the 
 condemned and recall him for his defence. 
 Even if the condemned man himself says, 
 * I have something more to say in my 
 defence,' he is to be brought back to the 
 court even four or five times provided there 
 is something in it which is worthy of con- 
 sideration."^ 
 
 From the above quotations from the 
 Mishna, it will be seen what careful precau- 
 tions — I might almost say exaggerated 
 precautions — were taken in order to pre- 
 serve the life of every Hebrew citizen, and 
 to ensure him strict justice. 
 
 Was th^ law adhered to in the trial of 
 Jesus Christ ? 
 
 Let us turn to the Gospels and compare the 
 actual proceedings of the court, with those 
 that we have seen should have taken place. 
 
 Instead of the witnesses bringing in their 
 prisoner, "they that had taken Him," i.e.^ 
 ^ De Syn.^ v. 5 ; vi. i. 
 
II.] THE HAKIROTH 87 
 
 the emissaries of His judges brought Him 
 before the Council, and those who should 
 have been His protectors ''sought false 
 witnesses to put Him to death," and found 
 them not, for though many came forward 
 and bare witness against Him, their testi- 
 mony was not "adequate."^ Two men at 
 last were found whose words were evidently 
 regarded as " standing testimony," though 
 in the end it proved to be an inadequate 
 or " not even " testimony. 
 
 These witnesses were then sworn(seep. 80), 
 and their evidence elicited by the series of 
 questions known as Hakiroth. 
 
 a. In what Sabbatic period did you hear 
 
 so and so say this thing ? 
 
 b. \x\ what year of the Sabbatic period ? 
 r. In what month ? 
 
 d. On what date of the month ? 
 
 e. On what day of the week ? 
 
 f. At what hour ? 
 
 g. I n what place ? 
 
 These would be followed by another set 
 called Bedikoth^ which were of purely 
 secondary importance, but useful for purposes 
 
 ^ Matt. xxvi. 59 ; Mark xiv. 55. 
 
88 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 of comparison in weighing a "standing 
 testimony." 
 
 The witnesses swore that they heard Him 
 say : 
 
 a. " I am able to destroy the temple of 
 God and build {oikoSojulwcu) it in 
 three days." Matt. xxvi. 6i. 
 d. "I will destroy this temple that is 
 made with hands, and in three days 
 I will build [oiKoSoiJ.i'ia-w) another 
 made without hands." Mark xiv. 
 58- 
 
 What Christ really did say is recorded in 
 the Fourth Gospel. John ii. 19, 21. 
 
 " Destroy this temple and in three days 
 I will raise (eyepvo) it up." But He spake 
 of the temple of His body. 
 
 Christ put the case hypothetically. " If 
 you destroy / will raise up." 
 
 These witnesses twisted the sense round 
 to " Destroy and I will rebuild," or " I will 
 destroy and in three days rebuild without 
 hands." 
 
 In the main, both statements amounted 
 to practically the same thing, but in verbal 
 details there were discrepancies ; and by 
 
II.] THE TWO CHARGES 89 
 
 Hebrew law "the least discordance between 
 the evidence of witnesses was held to destroy 
 its value." ^ 
 
 The first charge, if substantiated, was 
 Sorcery, for only by Satanic agency could 
 the massive building, which it had taken 
 forty and six years to rear, be rebuilt in 
 three days. 
 
 The punishment for Sorcery was death. 
 
 The second charge included more than 
 Sorcery. The destruction of their beloved 
 Temple, their pride and joy, and the dwell- 
 ing-place of Jehovah, would be Sacrilege 
 as well, and, to a theocratic commonwealth 
 like the Jewish, Blasphemy. 
 
 The punishment for that was stoning and 
 exposure of the body. 
 
 The evidence being inconclusive it was 
 now the duty of the President to dismiss 
 the Prisoner or bid Him bring forward 
 witnesses on His side ; and at the same time 
 sentence the false witnesses to death. 
 
 Instead of doing this the high priest pro- 
 ceeded to commit a grave breach of that 
 very law his exalted position alone should 
 
 ^ Salvador, Insi. de Mozse, i. 373. 
 
 M 
 
90 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lkct. 
 
 have prevented him from doing. Nor can 
 ignorance be pleaded as an excuse in his 
 case, for as ex-officio President of the 
 Sanhedrin he must, by years of study and 
 practice of the law, have been intimately 
 acquainted with its every detail and intricacy. 
 Caiaphas — the chief judge — now began him- 
 self to question the Prisoner before him — a 
 proceeding which was absolutely illegal. 
 
 " What is it which these witness against 
 Thee ? " " Answerest Thou nothing ? " 
 
 And this from him whose bounden duty 
 it was not only to do all in his power to 
 protect the life of the accused, but even to 
 refuse to accept a confession of guilt unless 
 it was proved by the adequate testimony 
 of two, if not three, witnesses ! 
 
 In such a hopelessly unjust trial, Jesus 
 Christ quietly refused to take any part, and 
 His dignified silence is far more impressive 
 than the most eloquent defence. It was, 
 at the same time, a tacit reminder to His 
 judges that they were impugning the rights 
 of a Hebrew citizen, to whom the Bench 
 should address no question. 
 
 Christ's silence was the keeping of the 
 law. 
 
 At this crisis the Sanhedrin appear 
 
II-l UNJUSTIFIABLE ACT OF CAIAPHAS QI 
 
 to have got thoroughly out of hand. 
 The failure of the witnesses to produce 
 an " adequate testimony " had evidently 
 exasperated them. Hostile and illegal 
 questions were hurled at the Prisoner, with 
 the intent to make Him incriminate Himself, 
 while the very ground of the enquiry was 
 shifted. They now began to ask Him if 
 He was the Christ, the Son of God, and 
 the Son of the Blessed. It was the old 
 question once more brought forward, and 
 again later on repeated before the Great 
 Sanhedrin.^ And then was enacted a scene 
 which were it not so terribly tragic might 
 almost be called theatrical. It looks as if 
 at this crisis, Caiaphas, infuriated at his 
 unsuccessful attempts to prove the Prisoner 
 guilty of death, completely lost his head. 
 Thwarted at every turn, he seems to have 
 become overpowered with rage. He had 
 already violated every point of criminal 
 procedure in order to gain his end, and yet 
 the Prisoner before him was, in the eyes of 
 their law, an unaccused man and ought to 
 have been released. 
 
 Instead of setting Him at liberty Caiaphas 
 "stood up "and administered to the Prisoner 
 ' Luke xxii. 67. 
 
92 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 the most solemn form of oath it was possible 
 to make — an oath so solemn that it was 
 administered sometimes, when all else failed, 
 to criminals of a desperate type, in order to 
 extort finally a true confession of their crimes. 
 It was a wholly unjustifiable step, but 
 Christ accepting as a pious Jew the awful 
 responsibility thrust upon Him, answered 
 simply, " I am ; and you some day shall see 
 the Son of Man sitting at the right hand 
 of power, and coming in the clouds of 
 heaven." 
 
 This was the supreme moment for the 
 Jewish nation. On oath, the most weighty 
 any Hebrew could make, Christ avowed 
 Himself before the highest tribunal in His 
 country, and under the very shadow of 
 Jehovah's dwelling-place, to be the Son of 
 the Blessed, their Messiah and their King. 
 Either the Prisoner at the bar was in truth 
 that which He claimed to be — the long- 
 looked - for hope of Israel, or else He 
 blasphemed Jehovah. 
 
 No one, however, paused to ask for His 
 credentials, no man asked Him then as they 
 had in former days, "What sign showest 
 thou that we may believe," none enquired 
 
II.] THE CONDEMNATION 93 
 
 of themselves "What and if, after all, this 
 should be the Deliverer." Without even 
 suggesting that He should prove His words 
 Caiaphas exclaimed : "He hath spoken 
 blasphemy. Behold now ye have heard 
 His blasphemy." 
 
 When a man blasphemed the God of 
 Israel, the judges were directed to arise 
 and rend their outer garment from the neck 
 downwards, with a rent that never again was 
 to be sewn together.^ This Caiaphas did, 
 and turning as directed by the law to either 
 side of the semicircle, he put the momentous 
 question first to right and then to left. 
 
 For Life? 
 
 For Death ? 
 
 And all replied : 
 
 IsH Maveth, i.e., A man of death.^ 
 
 "So passed that great condemnation." 
 A condemnation that was to change the 
 whole aspect of future history — and to 
 
 ^ De Syn., vii. 6, ii. 
 
 ' I am aware that Joseph of Arimathasa " had not con- 
 sented to their counsel and deed," but it is not certain 
 that he formed one of the tribunal that night. 
 
94 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 influence untold generations that were yet 
 to come — a condemnation which meant the 
 rejection by the Sanhedrin of their Messiah 
 in the name of, and before the whole Jewish 
 nation, and that, after a trial that was 
 illegal in every detail. 
 
 At this point the meeting was adjourned 
 until the early morning, when Christ was 
 led before the whole Council — not to be 
 retried — but merely to give an appearance 
 of legality to the former proceedings, for 
 the decision to condemn must not be arrived 
 at during the night (see p. yS). 
 
 As a matter of fact, the Great Sanhedrin 
 could not meet until after the offering of the 
 morning sacrifice, neither — presuming that 
 the crucifixion took place on the Friday — 
 could they sit legally on that day, being that 
 on which the Paschal Lamb was eaten ; nor 
 had they the right to pass the final sentence 
 of death upon a cause which had been tried 
 that very day (see p. 79)/ 
 
 To all intents and purposes the judges 
 contented themselves with the mere repeti- 
 tion of the question asked a few hours 
 earlier, " If thou art the Christ, tell us," to 
 
 The Jewish day was reckoned from sunset to sunset. 
 
II.] THE SECOND CONDEMNATION 95 
 
 which He calmly answered, " If I do tell you, 
 ye will not believe Me." "Art thou then 
 the Son of God ? " they once more demanded, 
 to which question, " Ye say that I am," was 
 His quiet reply. On the face of it the 
 answer looks evasive, but in reality it is far 
 from it. It was once more an illegal demand 
 by the judges for a confession, which the 
 law emphatically forbade ; and the " Ve say 
 so," was the gentle reminder that the duty 
 of the judges was to ask the witnesses (His 
 accusers) to come forward and make their 
 charge, and not the Prisoner. Again the 
 Council declared that He blasphemed God, 
 and they ratified the judgment passed at the 
 former session. 
 
 Thus, for the second time, the Jewish 
 nation by the voice of its rulers rejected 
 the Messiah. 
 
 Jesus Christ was condemned to death for 
 blasphemy ; because on a confession illegally 
 extorted from Him, He admitted that He 
 was the Son of God. 
 
 According to Maimonides it was contrary 
 to Jewish law to sentence a prisoner to death 
 on his own confession. Salvador says upon 
 this point : *' Notre loi ne condamne jamais 
 
96 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 sur le simple aveu de I'accuse." And the 
 Rabbi Bartenora in a note to De Syn.y vi. 2 
 writes : " It is a fundamental principle with 
 us that no one can damage himself by what 
 he says during- judgment." Cocceius also 
 states " Ita tenent Magistri, neminem ex 
 propria confessione aut prophetse vaticinio 
 esse neci dandum." 
 
 Now comes the question, What constituted 
 Blasphemy ? 
 
 In its earlier sense it was an offence or 
 insult against God. In its later and more 
 developed meaning it became any form of 
 offence which actively or constructively set 
 itself in opposition to or " struck at " Jehovah 
 — the invisible though potential king of the 
 Jewish theocracy. At the same time the 
 sacred name, the tetragrammaton JHVH 
 must be mentioned. " Nemo tenctur blas- 
 phemus nisi expressit nomen."^ Practically 
 it was "Crimen laesse majestatis divinse," 
 i,e., treason against the Deity. 
 
 Looking at the purely legal aspect of the 
 case, and putting aside all theological mean- 
 ings which have been attached to the 
 expression Son of God, it is quite clear that 
 ' De Syn.^ vii. 6, 11. 
 
II.] REJECTION OF THE ' MESSIAH 97 
 
 there was no high treason against Jehovah 
 in claiming to be the Messiah, nor even in 
 asserting Sonship with God H'lmseU provided 
 that it cotild be proved. While, on the other 
 hand, the outrageous audacity of making 
 such a stupendous claim, and not being able 
 to substantiate it, would constitute "Crimen 
 Isesae majestatis divinae " in the highest 
 degree. 
 
 The Sanhedrin were in duty bound to 
 consider the Messianic identity of the 
 Accused. There was every reason why the 
 claim should be fully and openly weighed, 
 for Scripture, prophecy, tradition and the 
 whole feeling of the nation pointed to the 
 speedy appearance of the Messiah. 
 
 But the problem was not even for one 
 m'oment considered ; the Messiah was 
 summarily rejected as a blasphemer, and 
 sentenced to death. 
 
 His judges sought pretexts for condemning 
 Him and not proofs of His guilt, and they 
 undoubtedly hurried the trial for fear of 
 a popular demonstration in His favour. 
 
 It has been very ably contended that the 
 Sanhedrin had no legal power to try and 
 pass sentence of death upon Jesus Christ ; 
 
 N 
 
gS THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 and it is a contention which must receive 
 attention. Rosadi says : " The sole authority 
 that could try Jesus, arrest and examine 
 Him and render Him amenable to the con- 
 sequences of His alleged offence," was the 
 Roman Procurator ; and he quotes Car- 
 mignani and Lemann to back up his opinion. 
 Dupin also holds that the " Jewish court had 
 no right to try for grave or at least capital 
 crimes at all " ; that their procedure was a 
 usurpation. 
 
 On the other hand, Mommsen declares 
 that they had every right to do so, and 
 Salvador the learned Spanish Rabbi, says : 
 " The Jews retained the faculty of trying 
 cases according to their own law, but it 
 was only the Roman Procurator that had 
 executive power. No culprit could be 
 executed without his consent." Maimonides 
 and Rabbinowicz are also of this opinion. 
 
 Around this much vexed question there 
 has grown up a perfect mountain of literature, 
 and there is no doubt that even now opinions 
 vary considerably, but there are a few points, 
 more perhaps of common-sense than of law, 
 that may be taken into account, in trying 
 to arrive at a decision. 
 
II.] JEWISH PRIVILEGES 99 
 
 I. Christ was tried for an ecclesiastical 
 offence ; and it seems to be fairly established 
 that the Romans in matters affecting religious 
 questions allowed the Jews the right of trial 
 in first instance, retaining for themselves the 
 right of recognitio did they wish to exercise 
 it. It was an understood thing, of course, 
 that the Roman Procurator alone could 
 actually deliver over a prisoner to death. 
 TYiQ jtis gladii passed away from the Jewish 
 people with the advent of the Roman power. 
 
 II. Annas the ex-high priest, had been 
 deposed only a few years before by Pilate's 
 predecessor for putting certain prisoners to 
 death during his absence. It is hardly 
 likely that the Sanhedrin by stretching 
 their privileges again would have so soon 
 risked a curtailment of them. 
 
 While there was no concordat between the 
 Jews and the Romans, the latter undoubtedly 
 allowed the conquered nation to exercise 
 their own religion and carry out their 
 ecclesiastical and ceremonial law within 
 their own borders : and so long as there 
 was no infringement of the prerogatives of 
 Imperial Caesar a fair amount both of freedom 
 and power were left to the Sanhedrin. It 
 
lOO THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 was ever the policy of Rome in dealing with 
 her colonies and foreign dependencies to 
 allow great latitude to their ruling officials 
 in the matter of religious questions. 
 
 From a Roman point of view the Jews 
 had no rights, but they certainly were 
 allowed privileges. 
 
 III. If the Sanhedrin had exceeded their 
 privileges, Pilate would certainly have tried 
 the whole case de novo with a formal Roman 
 trial ; and at the same time would un- 
 doubtedly have manifested his displeasure. 
 
 IV. It is generally conceded by the greater 
 number of writers, that during the troublous 
 period of the Hasmonaeans, certain modifica- 
 tions crept into the legal practices of the 
 Jews, some of which were done away with 
 under Roman rule. Therefore, in judging 
 the conduct of the Sanhedrin, we must 
 make a little allowance for the regulations 
 of the Mishna not being strictly adhered to. 
 Herod I., King of Judaea in B.C. 40, the 
 first Roman successor of the Hasmonaeans, 
 was very jealous of the Sanhedrin, and 
 tried to curtail their privileges. After the 
 deposition of Archelaus in a.d. 6 and the 
 
11.] LAWLESSNESS OF THE JEWS lOI 
 
 appointment of procurators much of their 
 ecclesiastical and municipal power was 
 restored to them ; but in matters imperial 
 and political the Jews were eminently 
 the conquered people, from whom Rome 
 brooked neither suggestion nor interference. 
 
 Jerusalem was practically governed by 
 the priestly party, and therefore by the 
 Sadducees who were a political set, it 
 being clearly understood that they in no 
 way infringed their privileges, duly paid the 
 imperial taxes, avoided any contravention of 
 Roman laws, and kept good order within 
 the city. Close to the Temple stood the 
 fortress of Antonia in which six thousand 
 soldiers are said to have been always 
 quartered 1 with the main force of the 
 legionaries at Csesarea Stratonis near by, 
 so that any breach of the peace or case 
 of maladministration, at once met with 
 summary punishment. The Jews were 
 notorious for their lawlessness and for 
 being ever on the verge of revolt ; in 
 fact, so little did the Romans trust them 
 that at the Feasts a strong body of troops 
 was always brought into Jerusalem. 
 
 Taking all these points into considera- 
 ^ Josephus, IVars, v. 5, 8. 
 
I02 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 tion it is not likely that the Sanhedrin or 
 Caiaphas would have desired to break their 
 friendship with Pilate. The Jewish rulers 
 had been left the privilege of trying and 
 condemning a prisoner for an ecclesiastical 
 offence, and they used it, but they could 
 go no further. They might verbally consign 
 Christ to the most cruel death you can 
 possibly imagine, but they had not the power 
 to hurt one single hair of His head. Csesar 
 alone by the mouth of his Procurator could 
 issue the death warrant, and therefore to 
 Pilate must the Sanhedrin have recourse for 
 permission to put Jesus Christ to death. 
 
 Pontius Pilate. 
 
 "Colui che fece per viltate il gran rifiuto 
 A Deo spiacento ed ai nemici sui." 
 
 At the time of the birth of Jesus Christ 
 Syria wafe divided into three parts for 
 governmental purposes. Idumsea, Samaria 
 and Judaea were administered by Archelaus 
 until A.D. 6, when Augustus deposed and 
 banished him to Gaul — Publius Sulpicius 
 Quirinus succeeding him.^ In Galilee and 
 
 ' Luke ii. 2. 
 
II.] THE ROMAN GOVERNOR IO3 
 
 Peraa Herod Antipas was tetrarch until 
 Caligula relegated him in a.d, 39 to 
 Lugdunum ; and Philip governed the barren 
 regions of the extreme northern border. 
 From the time of Quirinus Judsea was 
 placed under the administration of Rome 
 itself, as a province of Syria, and a 
 Procurator Ccssaris cum potestafe, armed 
 with plenary powers, governed the province 
 in the name of, and was directly responsible 
 to the Imperator himself.^ In Jerusalem 
 the high priest in conjunction with the 
 Sanhedrin presided over purely Jewish 
 affairs and matters ecclesiastical. 
 
 Lucius Pontius Pilate, the Procurator 
 Caesaris in Judsea at the time of Christ's 
 trial, is one of those characters concerning 
 whom but little historical is known, yet of 
 whom any number of traditional stories are 
 told. It is said, but on doubtful authority, 
 that he was a Spaniard, born in Seville. 
 He was a soldier and the son of a dis- 
 tinguished soldier, and after fighting in 
 Germany under Germanicus went to Rome 
 on amusement bent. While there he fell 
 in love with and married Claudia Procula, 
 the illegitimate daughter of Claudia the 
 
 ^ Tacitus, Annals^ ii. 66 ; Suetonius, Tiberius^ 22, 
 
I04 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lkct. 
 
 third wife of Tiberius, and the grand- 
 daughter of Augustus Caesar. 
 
 When appointed Governor of Judaea 
 Pontius Pilate asked for, and obtained the 
 unusual permission to take his wife with 
 him. Of his rule in Judsea we know 
 hardly anything authentic. We learn from 
 Josephus that he annoyed the Jews by 
 causing the insignia of Caesar to be set 
 up in the sacred city, and that again 
 later he incurred their hatred by appro- 
 priating some of the Temple funds for 
 the useful and highly necessary work of 
 bringing water into the city, a work which 
 met with no sympathy from them. The 
 water supply of Jerusalem was at the best 
 of times but scanty, and with the greatly 
 increased population caused by the Roman 
 occupation, wholly inadequate. He is said 
 to have also dealt severely with the 
 Samarita'ns, who having been beguiled by 
 a foolish impostor promising to produce 
 the sacred vessels hidden in Mount Gerizim, 
 armed themselves to assemble there in force. 
 Pilate knowing the turbulent nature of the 
 people, and being responsible for the main- 
 tenance of peace and quiet, stole a march 
 upon them in order to prevent a riot ; and 
 
II.] Pilate's unpopularity 105 
 
 on the arrival of the Samaritans at the 
 Mount, they found it surrounded by Roman 
 soldiers, who dispersed the mob, capturing 
 many, and putting the ringleaders to death. ^ 
 Owing to representations made to Vitellius 
 the Governor of Syria, Pilate was ordered 
 to Rome to give an account of himself to 
 Csesar, but on his arrival Tiberius was dead. 
 Cassiodorus says that he was banished to 
 Vena Gallica, where he died. Two letters 
 and a report are extant purporting to be 
 from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius, relatinor to 
 the trial of Jesus Christ, but they are in 
 Greek, not Latin, and though they are 
 interesting up to a certain point can only 
 be regarded as apocryphal. Beyond these 
 few facts, and the conduct of the Procurator 
 himself towards Christ as shown in the 
 Gospels, we have no clue to the personality 
 of the man. He has been made the object 
 of unmitigated vituperation throughout the 
 ages, alike from ecclesiastics and historians ; 
 and Josephus and Philo his biographers, are 
 so violent in their language concerning him 
 that we are driven to the conclusion that 
 many of their statements cannot be accepted 
 as historical. 
 
 ^ Josephus, Anitq.i xviii. ; 4, i. 
 
Io6 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 Pilate was placed in a position of very 
 great difficulty, and one requiring much 
 firmness and decision, and he failed, and 
 it is not easy at this distance of time to 
 weigh impartially and accurately the guilt 
 of the heathen governor. I hold no brief 
 for Pontius Pilate, and I have not the 
 slightest intention of whitewashing- his 
 character, but at least let us be fair to the 
 man ; and while we sternly condemn the 
 injustice of Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, let 
 us not fail in seeing that justice is meted 
 out even to Pilate the failure. 
 
 In judging of his conduct towards Christ 
 we have to remember how different a view 
 of the matter the Pagan governor would 
 have taken from either the Sanhedrin, or 
 a Christian council. Pilate's first and fore- 
 most duty was to preserve order in a 
 conquered country whose inhabitants were 
 proverbial .for their disaffection and insub- 
 ordination, and were moreover a people 
 whom he cordially disliked. The religions 
 of the two races were also fundamentally 
 antagonistic, though never likely to clash, 
 for Rome, while worshipping at her own 
 altars in Judaea, left the Jews in peace to 
 serve Jehovah in their own land, and the 
 
II.] PILATE S DIFFICULTY I07 
 
 latter for their part never desired to prosyle- 
 tise. Consequently Pilate knew nothing of 
 the Jewish faith and probably cared less. 
 
 He was a low-born Roman soldier of no 
 mental culture, who would be completely 
 ignorant as to what blasphemy against God 
 meant, or what a vital question was involved 
 in the assumption by the Prisoner of the 
 title " Son of God." His duty as Procurator 
 was to take into consideration two points. 
 Was the Prisoner guilty of treason against 
 Csesar, and was He, by His religious doctrines 
 and teaching, stirring up revolt and sedition 
 among His fellow-countrymen? The first 
 of these Pilate dismissed with a verdict of 
 Not Guilty ; and the second was not even 
 worth a thought. 
 
 There was no injustice nor even unfairness 
 in sending Christ to Herod — the superior 
 officer — though legally there was no necessity 
 for it. It was merely trying to shirk responsi- 
 bility under the cloak of deference. 
 
 Pilate's failure as a judge was that he had 
 not strength of mind to carry out his just 
 verdict — " I find no crime in Him." 
 
 So in the grey dawn of that early April 
 morning, the chief priests, with the elders 
 
I08 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 and scribes, accompanied by a crowd of 
 Jews/ passed with their Prisoner across the 
 Temple precincts. Opinions differ as to 
 which palace Pilate was at this time in- 
 habiting. It was not likely to have been — 
 as many suggest — the Castle of Antonia, as 
 that contained the barracks and so was 
 not at all suitable as the residence of a 
 Roman lady of Imperial birth. It may have 
 been the beautiful palace built by Herod 
 the Great, which with its fine marble court 
 would make an excellent place for Roman 
 open-air trials. This lay near the present 
 gardens of the Armenian patriarch, and was 
 connected with the Temple by a causeway 
 across the Tyropaean Valley. As Herod, the 
 tetrarch of Galilee, had come to Jerusalem 
 for the Feast, it is not impossible that Pilate 
 wishing to do him honour may have ceded 
 the palace to him for temporary use, and 
 have gone himself with his consort into the 
 old palace of the Hasmonseans built on a 
 fine spur on the west side of the Temple, 
 and therefore quite easy of access. 
 
 At any rate one thing is certain, and that 
 is that the Prsetorium was wherever Pilate at 
 that moment resided, the name being applied 
 
 ' Luke xxiii. 4. 
 
ir.] Pilate's question log 
 
 in the first instance to the Praetor's tent of 
 older and simpler days, then to the military 
 council, and finally, after the days of Augustus, 
 to the building" where the Procurator was at 
 that time. Into the palace court Christ's 
 judges, who had not hesitated to break the 
 law on most vital points, had scruples against 
 entering. Had they done so they would 
 have been defiled, and unable to eat the 
 Passover.^ So standing before the balustrade 
 which separated the palace from the Temple 
 precincts, they awaited the moment when 
 the bema or portable chair, in which the 
 Roman magistrates sat when administering 
 justice, should be put in place, and the 
 Procurator appear. 
 
 Pilate as a concession to Jewish religious 
 feelings " went out " to them, and at once 
 with the true Roman spirit of fair play 
 demanded: "What accusation bring ye?" 
 The Sanhedrin evaded the question by 
 replying that He was an "evil-doer," literally 
 a malefactor, upon which Pilate, evidently 
 thinking that it was merely some local or 
 religious offence, bade the Jews judge Him 
 according to their own law. He probably 
 
 ' This points to the crucifixion not having taken place on 
 the Friday. 
 
no THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 thought as did — later on — Annseus GalHo, 
 the Pro-consul of Achaia, that " if it were 
 a matter of wrong or wicked villainy O ye 
 Jews, reason would that I should bear with 
 you, but if it be a question of words and 
 names and of your own law, see ye to it, 
 I will be no judge in these matters."^ This 
 brought the accusers to their bearings, and 
 they were obliged to return the galling 
 answer: "It is not permissible for us to 
 put any one to death." It was the bitter 
 admission unwillingly wrung from them, 
 that they were a conquered people, and 
 could not execute their own law. It at 
 once gave Pilate a clue to the whole situa- 
 tion, though his question: "What accusa- 
 tion ? " still remained unanswered. My belief 
 is that Caiaphas, being a friend of Pilate, 
 hoped that the Procurator would have 
 accepted the judgment of the Sanhedrin 
 without fjurther enquiry, and signed the 
 necessary permission, or perhaps he trusted 
 that out of consideration for their religious 
 scruples at the Passover time, and knowing 
 how prone the people were to riot during 
 the Feasts, Pilate would, for the sake of 
 quiet and order, have at once condemned 
 
 ' Acts xiii., 14, 15. 
 
IL] THE ACCUSATION III 
 
 the Prisoner to death. The high priest 
 may also have feared a reversal of the 
 sentence. It is evident from the first that 
 the Roman governor meant to use his right 
 of recognitio, all the more so that he could 
 not obtain a direct answer to his question. 
 They "accused Him of many things," but 
 nothing defmite. 
 
 At last the Procurator succeeded in getting 
 a statement of the Prisoner's crime, but the 
 Ground of the accusation had once more 
 
 o 
 
 shifted. This time it was not Sorcery and 
 Blasphemy with which Christ was charged, 
 but with treason against great Caesar him- 
 self — a crime which the rulers knew would 
 immediately compel the attention of the 
 Procurator. 
 
 a. "We found Him perverting the 
 
 nation." 
 
 b. "Forbidding to give tribute to 
 
 Caesar." 
 
 c. " Saying He is Christ a king." 
 
 Having first accused Him in a vague way 
 of evil doing, they now definitely state evil 
 speaking in three ways. 
 
 The first count Pilate cared nothing 
 about ; it did not matter one iota to Imperial 
 
112 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 Rome that a religious fanatic should pervert 
 the Jewish nation. 
 
 The second was too obviously false to 
 stand ; it had already been brought up and 
 disproved. 
 
 The third, if true, was very serious ; it was 
 nothing short of Crimen lessee Majestatis — 
 a crime which Tiberius punished with the 
 utmost severity, and concerning which had 
 even issued an edict that verbal statements 
 as well as overt acts were to be counted as 
 treason, while to use the sacred name of Caesar 
 was to give a yet more serious aspect to the 
 case.^ If Christ had been a Roman citizen, 
 the mere verbal accusation would not have 
 availed against Him as a case of treason 
 must be attested by the production of the 
 written libel ; but not being able to claim, as 
 did St Paul, the privilege : " Civis Romanus 
 sum," He, as one of a conquered nation 
 was defenceless, and could only trust to 
 the justice of His judge. 
 
 Having" extracted a definite statement 
 
 of crime from the Prisoner's accusers, Pilate 
 
 proceeded at once to put the right and 
 
 natural question : " Art thou the King of 
 
 * Tacitus, Annuls^ iii. 39. 
 
II.] NO OPPOSITION TO C.<€SAR II3 
 
 the Jews?" to which Christ repHed, "Thou 
 sayest." Comparing the four Gospels, it 
 seems as if this interrogation and reply 
 must have taken place in the hearing of 
 the chief priests, elders, and the multitude 
 who were accusing Him, some of one thing 
 and some of another. Pilate in despair at 
 getting at the truth of the matter with all 
 the confusion going on round him, appealed 
 to the Prisoner Himself and finally with- 
 drew Him into the Praetorium, where he 
 could quietly investigate the charge. The 
 judge again put the same question: "Art 
 thou the King of the Jews?" Christ's 
 answer when alone with the Procurator is 
 most interesting. He first asks His judge 
 a question : " Sayest thou this of thyself, 
 or did others tell it thee of Me?" In other 
 words Christ asks His judge : " Do you as 
 the representative of Caesar ask Me, if I 
 stand here at your judgment seat guilty of 
 attacking the Roman power and claiming 
 to be the King of the Jews in the place of 
 the Imperator ; or is it merely because 
 others tell you I am the King of the Jews 
 that you ask Me ? " 
 
 It was but a few days before that Christ 
 had sternly bidden the spies sent by the 
 
114 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 high priests and elders to "take hold 
 of His speech" to "render to Csesar the 
 things which are Caesar's," making it quite 
 clear that the kingdom over which He 
 proclaimed Himself a King was not to 
 be established by means of the overthrow 
 of the powers that be. He had, in fact, 
 pointed out that although in days to come 
 Christianity might find itself in collision 
 with empires and powers in high places, 
 it was no part of His plan of campaign to 
 destroy the kingdoms of the world in order 
 to establish His own. His kinordom was 
 not to be founded upon the ruins of law- 
 fully constituted authority. 
 
 Pilate — a Roman — naturally retorted : 
 "Am I a jew yo2ir authorities have given 
 you up to me, what is it really that you have 
 done?" Practically, if Christ of Himself 
 claimed to be the King of the Jews, then 
 there might be political mischief lurking 
 behind, and treason against Caesar might 
 have been committed ; but if others said 
 He was the King of the Jews, then 
 probably it was nothing but yet another of 
 those fanatical religious movements which 
 were always stirring in Judaea, and Pilate 
 could dismiss the Prisoner as innocent. 
 
II. 1 THE JUST VERDICT II5 
 
 Christ's reply was at once oriental and 
 symbolical : " My kingdom is not of this 
 kosnios, else would my servants fight that I 
 should not be delivered into the hands of 
 the Jews." Pilate still puzzled, reiterated 
 the question: "Art thou then a King?" 
 and Christ admitted that He was a King, 
 and was born into the world to bear witness 
 to the truth. Pilate more puzzled still, and 
 still less understanding the Prisoner's 
 meaning, but quite convinced that here was 
 no political crime to be punished, exclaimed 
 hopelessly: "What is the truth of the 
 matter ? " and going out to the angry crowd 
 said: "I find no crime in Him." It was 
 quite evident to the prosaic and unlettered 
 mind of the Roman governor that this self- 
 styled King was but the imaginary ruler 
 of a phantom kingdom — a product of his 
 brain alone. He might be a fanatic or a 
 madman, or even both, but He was certainly 
 no evil-doer, nor was He plotting against 
 Caesar. 
 
 The charge had broken down — Pilate was 
 bound to acquit the Prisoner, and he did 
 so.^ Thus far the Procurator had been an 
 absolutely just judge. 
 
 ^ John xviii. 38. 
 
Il6 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 The verdict "I find no crime in Him" 
 appears to have raised a perfect storm, and 
 priests and people alike clamoured for the 
 death sentence. Matthew and John state 
 that Pilate now proposed the alternative 
 release of Jesus or Barabbas the murderer. 
 Mark says that the multitude "began to 
 ask him (Pilate) to do as he was wont to 
 do unto them," and that the chief priests 
 stirred up the people "that he should rather 
 release Barabbas unto them " begging that 
 Jesus might be crucified. It is from this 
 point — when Pilate allowed popular clamour 
 to interfere with his right judgment — that 
 he began that hopelessly downward course 
 of vacillation and bluster, cowardice and 
 cruelty, compromise and subterfuge which 
 have stamped him for all time as a weak 
 and incapable judge, who, in a moment of 
 acute crisis and desperate dilemma, set aside 
 man's crowning gift of free will. 
 
 He tried to temporise between what he 
 knew to be right on the one side and felt to 
 be wrong on the other ; he decided neither 
 for Christ nor Csesar, he washed his hands to 
 escape the difficulty of making an unpopular 
 decision, and threw the burden of responsi- 
 bility upon the prosecutors. He did not 
 
II.] REFUSAL OF BARABBAS II7 
 
 at once veto the injustice of condemning 
 an obviously innocent man and set Him 
 forthwith at liberty, but pronouncing Him 
 innocent he tortured Him hoping to get 
 the people to be content with thus much 
 punishment. 
 
 Obviously, from the Procurator's own 
 lips, he recognised where the path of 
 justice and duty lay, but he chose deliber- 
 ately to evade it. To him one feels that 
 Dante's words rightly apply " che fece per 
 viltate il gran rifiuto." W^ ^2.^ par excellence 
 the type of those feeble characters whom 
 justice and mercy equally despise, who side 
 neither with God, nor man, nor the devil, 
 but who are so morally invertebrate as to 
 be incapable of using their free will when 
 a vital emergency occurs. 
 
 The Jews refused Barabbas, and Pilate 
 feebly asked what he should do with their 
 King. They all cried out begging for a 
 Roman death ; thus endeavouring to shift 
 the difficulty of putting a malefactor to death 
 at the Passover on to the Romans. St 
 Matthew xxvii. 19 here mentions the dream 
 of Claudia, which reads very much as if It 
 were an interpolation, for it breaks into the 
 sense of the context, and has been obviouslv 
 
Il8 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 dragged In ; verse 20 clearly should follow 
 immediately after verse 18 in order to 
 complete the episode. 
 
 Findinor that the offer of Barabbas was 
 rejected, and that his question, "Why, what 
 evil hath He done ? " only seemed to increase 
 the tumult, Pilate called for water and 
 washed his hands in the sight of the angry 
 multitude. This was a Jewish custom, and 
 implied that the Roman Procurator in con- 
 demning "this righteous man" made his 
 own fellow-countrymen responsible for the 
 punishment that should befall him. The 
 Mosaic law directs that the washing of 
 hands shall be accompanied by these words : 
 " Our hands have not shed this blood, 
 neither have our eyes seen it. Forgive, 
 O Lord, thy people Israel whom thou hast 
 redeemed, and suffer not innocent blood 
 to remain in the midst of thy people 
 Israel." 
 
 I cannot agree with those writers who 
 think that in washing his hands Pilate 
 deliberately meant to insult the Jewish 
 nation by a public travesty of their own 
 religious ceremonial ; rather was it that the 
 uproar was so great — loud voices vehemently 
 •accusing Him and asking that He might 
 
II.] THE REMISSION TO HEROD II9 
 
 be crucified — that the grovernor could get 
 no hearing, and so conveyed by a sign 
 which all understood, the intelligence which 
 he could not make audible by word of 
 mouth. 
 
 Once more the Jews relentlessly insisted 
 upon the Prisoner's death, and accepted the 
 responsibility thus thrown upon them in 
 those terrible words : "His blood be on 
 us and on our children." ^ 
 
 St Luke alone gives the remission of 
 Christ to Herod. The chief priests seeing 
 that Pilate persisted in finding "no fault 
 with this man " waxed yet more vehement, 
 and again changed the accusation, " He 
 stirreth up all Jewry from Galilee unto this 
 place." Now Herod Antipas, the Governor 
 of Syria, was, according to his custom, in 
 Jerusalem for the Passover, and the Pro- 
 curator caught at this fact as an excuse to 
 escape from enforcing the just verdict he 
 had already given. From the Forum 
 apprehensionis he would send the prisoner 
 to the Forum originis vel domicilii. 
 
 Legally, there was no need to hand over a 
 man arrested in Jerusalem for offences com- 
 mitted mostly in that city to the jurisdiction 
 ^ Matt, xxvii. 25. 
 
I20 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 of the governor of another territorial district ; 
 and Herod wisely and rightly declined to 
 interfere, although, out of idle curiosity, 
 he was "exceeding glad to see Jesus," 
 who answered nothing to the Tetrarch's 
 questions. So back once more to the 
 Prsetorium the chief priests and scribes 
 brought their Prisoner, and once again 
 Pilate acquitted Him ; "I having examined 
 Him found no fault in Him, no, nor yet 
 Herod." 
 
 He was innocent, the judge had pro- 
 nounced the Absolvo, and He should at 
 once have been released ; instead of this, 
 Pilate, by way of temporising, made an 
 unjust and illegal proposal : " I will chastise 
 Him and release Him." 
 
 The four Evangelists are not quite in 
 agreement in their statements about the 
 scourging of Our Lord. St Luke does not 
 tell us that it was ever carried into effect.^ 
 SS. Matthew and Mark merely state that 
 when " Pilate had scourged Him he delivered 
 Him to be crucified." St John relates that 
 the scourging took place earlier in the 
 morning, and was consequently independent 
 of the crucifixion. As a rule, flagellation 
 
 ' Luke xxiii. i6, 22, 25. 
 
11.] THE JEWS DEMAND ROMAN DEATH 121 
 
 was part of the Roman death punishment, 
 and it would probably be taken by the 
 multitude as an indication on the part of 
 the governor that he intended to deliver 
 up the Prisoner. It was so brutal a punish- 
 ment that, according to the classic writers, 
 the prisoners sometimes died under it. 
 
 This compromise only increased the 
 clamour of priests and people who "were 
 instant with loud voices asking that He 
 mieht be crucified." Under this renewed 
 pressure the Roman governor exclaimed : 
 "Take ye Him and crucify Him for / find 
 no crime in Him." It was a last and futile 
 effort to rid himself of the difficulty of making 
 up his mind to do justice and face the 
 possible revenge of an angry mob whom 
 he knew well enough already hated him. 
 This half measure was not at all what the 
 multitude desired. Their religious scruples, 
 which forbade them to pass into the 
 unhallowed court of the Praetorium on the 
 day of the Passover, would be entirely 
 outraged if required by the heathen governor 
 to defile themselves by putting a criminal 
 to death. They had, as a conquered people, 
 been forced into the bitter position of sub- 
 servience to Rome in matters of life and 
 
122 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect- 
 
 death, and they intended that Rome's 
 representative should have the entire 
 responsibility of the condemnation and 
 execution of their prisoner. 
 
 Is it possible also that while insisting upon 
 a Roman death, which in those days was 
 never the fate of a Jewish subject, there may 
 have arisen deep down in the minds of the 
 Sanhedrin the uncomfortable question as to 
 the identity of their prisoner. The quiet 
 dignity and the grand silence of the Accused 
 must have struck even the most prejudiced 
 of His enemies. His was not the bearing 
 of a criminal, an impostor, or a fanatic ; even 
 to a casual observer it must have gone far 
 to prove His claim to a kingdom "not 
 from hence," for no one could have passed 
 through those hours of storm and fury, of 
 insult and physical suffering with such calm- 
 ness unless absolutely certain of the truth 
 of His clciim. It may be that the thought 
 passed through their minds that if in future 
 days history should prove that Jesus of 
 Nazareth, the despised Galilsean peasant- 
 teacher, had been — though rejected and 
 persecuted — their Messiah, the guilt of His 
 death should not rest on their nation. They 
 should be able to point to treason against 
 
II.] THIRD REJECTION OF THE MESSIAH I23 
 
 great Caesar as the crime for which He 
 was condemned, and crucifixion by Roman 
 soldiers as the punishment by which He 
 died. 
 
 Again did Pilate leave the palace to appeal 
 to the people, but they only insisted that by 
 Jewish law the Prisoner ought to die because 
 "He made Himself the Son of God" — 
 and then Pilate was afraid. The governor's 
 last interview with Christ is full of pathos ; 
 the cowardice of the judge, and the gentle- 
 ness, almost pity, of the Accused towards 
 him are in striking contrast — while His 
 final words to the Procurator, "therefore 
 he that delivered Me unto thee hath the 
 greater sin " are full of tenderness and for- 
 giveness, nay, almost of excuse. 
 
 " Upon which Pilate sought to release 
 Him." 
 
 One final shaft remained yet for the 
 Jewish rulers to aim at the Roman governor, 
 and one that they knew well enough would 
 strike home. "If thou let this man go 
 thou art not Caesar's friend, whosoever 
 maketh himself a king speaketh against 
 Caesar." This was the climax — and Pilate, 
 sending the Prisoner out into the open court, 
 himself followed, and seating himself upon 
 
124 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 the beyna placed on the Lithostroton or 
 tessellated pavement that formed the open 
 court in front of the palace exclaimed : 
 " Behold your King ! " only to be shouted 
 down with cries of "Away with Him, 
 crucify Him." " Shall I crucify your King ? " 
 asked the governor, to which the chief 
 priests replied : " We have no king but 
 Caesar." 
 
 For the third time the Jewish nation 
 rejected Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah, 
 and at the same moment acknowledged the 
 Imperator of Rome — their conqueror — to 
 be their king. How true those words were 
 destined to prove they doubtless did not 
 foresee ; but from that day forth for nigh 
 on two thousand years, the Jews have been 
 in the strange and anomalous position of a 
 race without a leader, a nation without a 
 country, a people under submission to the 
 Caesar in whose land they dwell as strangers 
 and foreigners, and among whose own 
 subjects they are but at the best of times 
 barely tolerated. 
 
 Thrice had Pilate declared the Prisoner to 
 be not guilty ; but now, overwhelmed by the 
 fury of an Eastern mob, the weak and utterly 
 unnerved Roman Procurator was willing to 
 
II.] THE CONDEMNATION 1 25 
 
 content the people, and, without rescinding 
 his original verdict, delivered the fateful con- 
 demnation. 
 
 Ibis ad Crucem. 
 
 Jesus Christ was condemned to death by 
 the Sanhedrin for blasphemy against God. 
 He was arraigned before the Roman Pro- 
 curator on a charge of Sedition and High 
 Treason, of which crimes He was proved 
 guiltless. He was executed because Pontius 
 Pilate wished to please the Jewish people. 
 
 There are many writers who maintain that 
 the proceedings before Pilate were illegal 
 from the point of view of Roman law, 
 and in proof thereof describe the elaborate 
 organisation and lengthy formalities of a 
 trial under the Empire. 
 
 They contend that legally Pilate should 
 have proclaimed to the multitude, by the 
 voice of the public crier, a day on which he 
 would consider the charges brought against 
 the Prisoner, summoning also his fellow 
 citizens to come together at the same time. 
 On the day appointed the judge in the 
 presence of the Prisoner and in open court 
 should have announced the crime alleged 
 
126 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 against Him, a statement of which should also 
 have been made in writing. The Sanhedrin 
 would have then been required to produce 
 their witnesses and the Accused his, when the 
 judge after weighing the evidence would 
 have pronounced judgment in either of the 
 following terms — Absolvo — Condemno — Non 
 liquet, as the case might be. 
 
 These writers emphasise the fact that it 
 was not in Roman towns only that these 
 regulations prevailed, but in the country 
 districts and conquered provinces as well. 
 This is undoubtedly true so far as the 
 Romans were themselves concerned ; but 
 Jesus Christ was not a Roman citizen. 
 He was a Jew, and not even a Roman 
 subject save by conquest, so He could 
 not claim a formal Roman trial nor appeal 
 to Caesar. His case — in its differences — 
 can in no way be compared with that of St 
 Paul before Felix and Festus. True it is 
 that St Paul was proud to call himself a 
 Hebrew of the Hebrews, and that like 
 Christ he was arrested in Jerusalem ; but 
 unlike Christ he was a Roman freeborn 
 citizen which privilege carried with it 
 "besides private rights (i) exemption from 
 degrading punishments, e.g., scourging and 
 
Ill ST PAUL'S TRIAL 127 
 
 crucifixion ; (2) right of appeal to the emperor 
 after sentence in all cases ; (3) right to be 
 sent to Rome for trial before the emperor 
 if charged with a capital offence " [Bernard). 
 St Paul could and did claim these rights. 
 
 A marked feature in the policy of Rome 
 towards her conquered subjects was to judge 
 them as far as possible according tO' their 
 own laws, and to allow them the use and 
 methods of their national courts ; and while 
 she required her foreign delegates to execute 
 justice she allowed them great latitude in 
 the method of administering it. The Jewish 
 rulers had already tried and passed sentence 
 on Jesus Christ, and they came to Pilate for 
 the endorsement of their verdict and the 
 necessary permission to carry out the death 
 sentence. If they had not evaded his first 
 question "What accusation bring ye against 
 this man ? " but had at once answered that 
 He had blasphemed God and by their law 
 He ought to die, probably Pilate seeing that 
 it was purely a question of Jewish religion 
 would have said, " Take ye Him and stone 
 Him." But His accusers first evaded giving 
 an answer, and then refused a direct reply, 
 which determined the Procurator to look into 
 the matter for himself. Here, evidently, was 
 
128 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lect. 
 
 a case in which a man's life hung in the 
 balance, it was patent that for envy His 
 fellow-countrymen had delivered Him and 
 Pilate chose to exercise the conqueror's right 
 of recognitio. 
 
 There were certain important formalities 
 required in a Roman trial which were faith- 
 fully carried out by Pilate. He demanded — 
 
 a. The public Accusatio. 
 
 " What accusation bring ye against 
 this man ? " 
 
 b. He addressed to the prisoner the 
 
 Interrogatio. 
 " Art thou then a King ? " 
 " Art thou the King of the Jews ? " 
 
 c. The Excusatio on the part of the 
 
 Prisoner was allowed. 
 " My kingdom is not of this kosjnos" 
 " Now is my kingdom not from 
 ' hence." 
 
 d. The just verdict — Absolvo — was 
 
 three times repeated, 
 
 " I find no crime at all in Him." 
 
 The Procurator was in all these respects 
 a strictly correct judge. He failed because, 
 after having examined the Prisoner, con- 
 
II.] Pilate's failure 129 
 
 sidered the evidence and pronounced Him 
 innocent, he had not the courage to abide 
 by his dehberate verdict, but yielding to 
 the pressure of an angry crowd suggested 
 first a compromise and then, in spite of his 
 knowledge and against his better judgment, 
 condemned an innocent man to death. 
 Pilate had plenary power to deal with what 
 would appear to him to be a case of Jewish 
 religious enthusiasm in such a manner as 
 seemed to be fitting with its requirements, 
 without being tied down to the strict formali- 
 ties of a Roman law court, and no injustice 
 can be alleged nor fault found with the 
 method pursued as far as the pronouncement 
 of the verdict. 
 
 The TVz^/was at that point actually com- 
 pleted, and all that followed was but a series 
 of vacillations, compromises, and evasions 
 made in order to avoid carrying the just 
 verdict into effect. Overwhelmed by the 
 blind passion of the multitude Pilate without 
 rescinding his verdict of Not Guilty con- 
 sented to the death sentence. 
 
 No verdict of Guilty or Condemno was 
 ever passed upon Our Lord by the Roman 
 Procurator; His own national tribunal alone 
 
 R 
 
130 THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION [Lbct. II. 
 
 judged Him to be "worthy of death." 
 Pilate first acquitted Him, and afterwards 
 weakly yielded to the clamour of the Jews. 
 
 It may have been that he was utterly un- 
 strung by such an exhibition of insensate 
 fury and unable to pronounce another verdict. 
 Possibly even he would not compromise him- 
 self by an unjust condemnation, after pro- 
 nouncing a just acquittal ; or it may be that 
 in this feeble - minded judge there was a 
 faint sense of justice, and perchance a spark 
 of conscience, which prevented him from 
 deliberately giving a judgment which he 
 knew to be absolutely false. 
 
LECTURE III 
 
 THE CRUCIFIXION AND THE SITE OF THE 
 HOLY SEPULCHRE 
 
 Christus, Tiberio imperitante, per procuratorem 
 Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus est. 
 
 The chief priests and scribes with the 
 multitude having gained their end — the 
 condemnation of Jesus Christ to a Roman 
 death — now probably withdrew from the 
 balustrade of the Praetorium, leaving the 
 Prisoner to the tender mercies of the Roman 
 soldiery who forthwith led Him back from 
 the open court into the Palace Hall, where, 
 calling together the whole band {a-Tretpa) 
 they proceeded to torment their victim while 
 the cross was being prepared. 
 
 St Matthew^ says the soldiers arrayed 
 Him in a scarlet robe. St Mark and St 
 John call it purple ; ^ probably it was the 
 chlamys which was the distinctive mark of 
 a Roman soldier, and was of the colour 
 called by Pliny coccinea. Then plaiting a 
 crown of thorns {k^axavQiav) they mockingly 
 
 ^ xxvii. 27. * Mark xv. 16 ; John xix. 2. 
 
132 THE CRUCIFIXION [Lect. 
 
 saluted Him as King of the Jews. Con- 
 jecture has been rife as to what plant was 
 taken to make the crown. It is impossible 
 to say for certain. The jzmcus marimis, 
 the zizyphus spina Christi, the calycoto^ne 
 villosa known in modern Arabic as the 
 kundaul, and the rhamnus punctata have 
 all been suggested with more or less plausi- 
 bility, and either of them might well have 
 been used. Perhaps of these four the last 
 mentioned was the most likely. 
 
 St Luke is silent as to what took place 
 between the passing of the sentence and 
 the procession to Golgotha. St John^ gives 
 the same events as St Mark, but makes 
 them take place earlier in the morning and 
 Pilate to be cognisant of them, leaving us 
 at first sight with the impression that there 
 were two similar, yet distinct, episodes. 
 This is most improbable. It is far more 
 likely that. St Matthew and St Mark writing 
 so much nearer the time should give the 
 correct sequence, and that the writer of the 
 Fourth Gospel who put together his recollec- 
 tions of Our Lord at a much later period 
 may, while clearly remembering the facts, 
 have inverted the sequence. 
 
 1 John xix. 2-4. 
 
III.] THE PROCESSION TO GOLGOTHA I33 
 
 It cannot have been long after the offer- 
 ing of the morning sacrifice when the pro- 
 cession started from the Praetorium,^ followed 
 at a distance by a "great multitude of 
 the people, and women who bewailed and 
 lamented Him " with those shrill, weird 
 sounds that from time immemorial have 
 been practised by the Orientals on the 
 occasion of a death, and which none save 
 themselves seem capable of emitting. It 
 may be also that some of the women who 
 followed their revered Master poured forth 
 as they moved along an extemporised lament 
 for Him, as it was the special office of 
 Jewish women to improvise and chant the 
 death songs for all save kings and warriors. 
 Had it not been for this exception we should 
 never have had that exquisitely pathetic 
 lament of David for his friend Jonathan. 
 
 According to the Synoptists, the soldiers 
 meeting Simon of Kyrene coming into 
 Jerusalem from the country, made him carry 
 the cross after Jesus. St John does not 
 mention Simon, but says that Christ "went 
 out bearing the cross for Himself." And 
 
 ^ Mark xv. 25. John xix. 14 complicates the question by 
 stating that it was the sixth hour when Pilate said to the 
 Jews, " Behold your King 1 " 
 
134 THE CRUCIFIXION [Lect. 
 
 here I want to call your attention to one of 
 those misapprehensions of Scripture which 
 has formed a favourite subject for artists, 
 and a popular text for sermons, and which 
 owes its existence to ignorance. It is 
 currently accepted among Christians that 
 in "carrying the cross" Our Lord carried 
 the whole cross and sank beneath the 
 burden, and that Simon was impressed in 
 order to relieve Him from its weight. This 
 is not so, as the entire cross was not carried 
 by the prisoners ; they only carried to the 
 place of execution the patibulum, or cross- 
 bar, which was usually made of some thin 
 wood. The heavy upright made of a strong 
 beam — or even tree trunk — was driven into 
 the ground beforehand. At the same 
 time we can well believe that the long 
 drawn out mental agony which began in 
 Gethsemane, when further combined with 
 the fatigue of standing bound for so many 
 hours, and then increased by the brutal 
 flagellation,^ had completely exhausted Our 
 
 1 The Roman soldiers stripped the prisoner, tied him to 
 a post in a stooping position, and beat him with a scourge 
 composed of leather thongs with sharp pieces of bone, or 
 bits of lead knotted into the ends. Flagellation usually 
 preceded crucifixion among the Romans. Horace calls it 
 the "horribile flagellum." 
 
III.] GOLGOTHA 135 
 
 Lord's physical powers, so that even the light 
 weight of the patibulum might have been 
 beyond His strength to carry. But to 
 represent Him as carrying the entire cross 
 is a historical and artistic fiction. 
 
 Golgotha. 
 
 The site of the crucifixion is generally 
 spoken of as a " mount " or " hill," for which 
 statement there is not the slightest scientific 
 foundation. Nowhere in the Gospels — 
 which alone furnish contemporaneous records 
 — is Golgotha alluded to in any way that 
 could possibly give rise to the idea that it 
 was on raised ground. Early Christian art 
 and not topography is probably responsible 
 for the original presentment of an elevated 
 spot, and the mosaic in the Basilica of 
 St Pudenziana in Rome, which probably 
 dates from about the fourth century, is one 
 of the first representations of the cross 
 being erected upon a little rounded knoll 
 or hillock. From that time onwards artists 
 have invariably depicted the crucifixion as 
 taking place upon a hill, or at any rate on 
 
136 THE CRUCIFIXION [Lect. 
 
 elevated ground, probably in order to carry 
 out the idea that it could be seen from afar. 
 There is no mention of Golgotha being 
 raised ground until the fourth century, when 
 it is spoken of as a monticulus, or little hill, 
 by the Bordeaux Pilgrim. The expression 
 does not occur again until once in the sixth 
 century,^ after which we do not come across 
 it until Bernard the Pilgrim visited Palestine 
 in the ninth century, and writes of having 
 seen Mons Calvaricr. From that date the 
 expression is frequently used by writers 
 belonofingf to the Western Church, and has 
 survived unto this day. The early Greek 
 writers, with the exception of Gregory 
 Nazianzen and Cyril of Jerusalem, never 
 allude to Golgotha as connected with a hill 
 or height, and it must be remembered that 
 both these authors lived after the official 
 finding of the Holy Places by the Emperor 
 Constantine. Unfortunately, this false idea 
 is likely to be current even amongst the 
 educated classes so long as some good people 
 will continue to write, and other good people 
 will continue to teach their children that 
 " there is a green hill far away," upon which 
 Our Lord was crucified. 
 
 ' In The Breviarns. 
 
III.] THE SITE OF GOLGOTHA 137 
 
 This assertion is a fair specimen of one 
 of those many cases that we come across 
 both in history and science where a supposi- 
 tion stated sufficiently often and forcibly, 
 becomes in time an established fact. 
 
 Golgotha was not a hill, and if it had 
 been it would not have been green. It was 
 far more likely to have been a site in one 
 of the ravines or deep ditches which run 
 from north to south of the city, it may even 
 be it was a ridge in the Tyropsean Valley 
 itself; and though most writers place it on 
 the north side of the city there is no 
 reason why it should not have been on 
 the south side. Such a spot would have 
 allowed both priests and people to watch the 
 crucifixion without being near enough to incur 
 ceremonial defilement. Josephof Arimathaea's 
 garden, in which was his newly excavated tomb, 
 lay close to the spot selected by the soldiers ; 
 and like all Jewish graves it would be rock- 
 hewn in the face of one of the limestone 
 terraces, on which the garden was formed. 
 
 The Gospels give us no definite land- 
 marks as to the exact site of Golgotha, 
 and it is easier to say where it could not 
 have been than where it actually was. We 
 know that it was outside the second wall 
 
138 THE CRUCIFIXION [LeCT. 
 
 of the city, that it was near a main road, 
 and yet " nigh to the city," and probably 
 for the sake of pubHcity was close to the 
 gateway. It must have been an open space 
 for people to have been able to behold 
 "from afar off," and it was adjoining a 
 garden in which was a new tomb. We 
 know that the lie of the ground was such 
 that the Jews could revile Him saying — 
 not calling out, or shoziting : " Thou that 
 destroyest the Temple and buildest it in 
 three days save Thyself," etc., and that the 
 road-farers could rail on Him ; that it was 
 in such a position that the women and the 
 disciple whom He loved could stand near 
 the cross without becoming polluted, and 
 that even in His death agony His words 
 were audible to them. It must have been 
 immediately outside one of the city gates — 
 possibly on the north side — which could be 
 easily rea'ched from the Prsetorium, whether 
 that building at the moment was the Palace 
 of Herod, or the disused palace of the 
 Hasmonsean princes (see p. 108). 
 
 One thing would be quite certain, and 
 that is that the soldiers after the angry 
 scenes of the morning would, for fear of 
 an outbreak of popular fury, put the 
 
III.] ORIGIN OF NAME — GOLGOTHA 139 
 
 Prisoner to death as near at hand and as 
 quietly as they possibly could. Pilate also 
 would wish to avoid a disturbance among 
 the Jews with Herod In Jerusalem ready 
 to report him to Tiberius should a breach 
 of the peace occur ; and the Jews with the 
 Passover drawing nigh must have been 
 anxious to procure the execution of the 
 sentence as speedily as possible, for they 
 well knew that many long hours must 
 elapse before death would release their 
 Victim, and enable them to bury His body 
 before nightfall. Instead, therefore, of 
 looking for an impossible "green hill" 
 outside Jerusalem upon which to locate the 
 crucifixion, we are more likely to be nearer 
 to the true site on the floor of a rock- 
 terrace formlnor the side of a ravine close 
 against one of the city gates In the second 
 wall. From both wall and gateway the 
 priests and people could easily look down 
 upon the scene and deride the Prisoner 
 without being defiled. 
 
 a. The centurion and soldiers led Jesus 
 
 away to "a place called Golgotha, 
 
 that is to say the place of a skull." ^ 
 
 ^ Matt. xxvi. 2)^. 
 
140 THE CRUCIFIXION [Lect. 
 
 b. " The place Golgotha, which is being 
 
 interpreted the place of a skull." ^ 
 
 c. "The place which is called the 
 
 Skull." 2 
 
 d. "The place called the place of a 
 
 skull which is called in the Hebrew 
 Golgotha."^ 
 
 The name in Hebrew is Gulgoleth, in 
 Aramaic — the current language in Palestine 
 at that day — GMlgiilta, the Greek trans- 
 lation of which is Y^pavlov, and the Vulgate 
 Calvaria. In plain English it was the 
 Skull Place. 
 
 Of the history of this curious place-name 
 we have neither authentic nor contemporary 
 records, and the early Christian writers who 
 have written much and speculated more upon 
 the subject have, in assigning reasons for 
 this name but given play to their lively 
 imaginations mixed up with old traditions. 
 Except in the Gospels, Golgotha is not 
 mentioned by any Christian writer until the 
 time of Origen (a.d. 185-253) who visited 
 Palestine in the early years of the third 
 century. There are no purely Christian 
 traditions concerning the name prior to the 
 
 ' Mark xv. 22. '^ Luke xxiii. 33. ' John xix. 17. 
 
HI.] FANCIFUL THEORIES 141 
 
 fourth century, and then wc have only the 
 very fantastic account given by Eusebius 
 of the official finding of the site, by order 
 of the Emperor Constantine. 
 
 That Golgotha received its name because 
 the skulls of criminals, who had suffered 
 ca[jital punishment by decapitation, were 
 allowed to lie about there unburied, is a 
 theory that is not worth the paper and 
 ink with which it has been written. Any 
 one possessing the slightest acquaintance 
 with either Jewish punishments or customs 
 knows that such a thing would have been 
 impossible. 
 
 That the skull - like appearance of the 
 ground originated the name is another 
 much loved and equally fanciful theory, 
 which owes its existence to fourth-century 
 writers — mostly Latin, and therefore for 
 the most part unacquainted with Jerusalem. 
 Evidently it must have become fashionable 
 for Epiphanius, a Hebrew, combats it, 
 declaring it to be untrue. " There is 
 nothing to be seen in the place resembling 
 this name (skull), for it is not situated upon 
 a height that it should be called a skull, 
 answering to the place of the head in the 
 human body, neither has it the shape of a 
 
142 THE CRUCIFIXION [LecT. 
 
 lofty watch tower, for it does not even 
 rise above the places round about it. 
 Indeed, over against it stands the Mount 
 of Olives. . . . Lastly, even that hill which 
 once stood on Mount Sion, but at the 
 present day has been cut down, was higher 
 than Golgotha."^ We are more likely to get 
 nearer to the real origin of the name by 
 enquiring of the old Jewish writers than of 
 the Christian fathers, though it is doubtful 
 if they can do more than give local 
 legends as handed down to them from time 
 immemorial. 
 
 There is a very ancient Hebrew tradition, 
 which states that when Adam was banished 
 with Eve from the Garden of Eden, he 
 went and dwelt in the land of Judaea, and 
 that death overtook him in the Mount of 
 Jebus — where he was buried. Now, when 
 Noah was warned of God to prepare the 
 ark and enter into it, he dug up the bones 
 of Adam and took them with him for 
 safe-keeping. After the subsidence of the 
 waters, and before Noah and his sons 
 parted each to go his own way and re- 
 people the earth, the Patriarch divided the 
 bones among Shem, Ham, and Japhet. 
 
 ^ Adversus Hcereses^ lib. 1., tome iii., xlvi. 5. 
 
III.] HEBREW TRADITION I43 
 
 To the former he gave the skull, allotting 
 Judaea to him at the same time. When, 
 therefore, Shem arrived in his own country 
 he reburied the skull at Jehus, which after- 
 wards became Jerusalem — the Sacred City.^ 
 
 Another ancient legend is, that when 
 Adam lay dying he called together his son 
 Seth and his immediate male descendants 
 to the fourth generation, and bade them 
 embalm his body and lay it in the cave El- 
 Kanuz, further requiring of them that 
 whichever of them should be alive when 
 they next migrated was to take his body 
 and re-bury it in the centre of the earth 
 "from whence shall come my salvation, and 
 the salvation of all my children," Noah 
 took the body into the ark, and when 
 dying bade Shem and Melchisedec the son 
 of Peleg, take the body secretly and go forth 
 with it, "until the angel of the Lord shall 
 show you the place of burial, and ye shall 
 know that this spot is the middle of the 
 earth." Which thing happened on Mount 
 Moriah. 
 
 This tradition that Golgotha the Skull 
 Place, was the grave of Adam's skull was 
 well known to the early Greek Fathers. 
 
 ^ Moses Bar Cepha, De Paradiso, i., cap. 14. 
 
144 "^"^ CRUCIFIXION [Lbct. 
 
 Origen — a Hebrew scholar — knew it, so also 
 did Athanasius, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, 
 and other fourth and fifth century writers ; 
 though it is noticeable that both Eusebius 
 and Cyril of Jerusalem do not mention it, 
 but their position with regard to Constantine 
 would perhaps prevent that. Only a few 
 of the Latin writers seem to have taken 
 it into account ; Augustine in the Sermones 
 Supposititii, Sermo, vi., alludes to the "ancient 
 tradition that the first man Adam was buried 
 on the very spot where the cross was set up, 
 and the place was therefore called Calvary." 
 Jerome knew of the Hebrew tradition, but 
 scorned it, proposing an interpretation of his 
 own which is wholly untenable.^ In the sixth 
 and subsequent centuries it was evidently 
 a current tradition that Adam was buried 
 in Jerusalem, and that on the site of his 
 grave Jesus Christ was crucified, thereby 
 bringing salvation to Adam's descendants, 
 and thus fulfilling his prophecy. So widely 
 was this legend known that it found its way 
 into the Abyssinian Church and appeared 
 in the Ethiopic " Book of Adam." 
 
 The probability is, therefore, that Golgotha 
 received its name from being the traditional 
 
 ^ Migne, Pat. Lat. xxv., col. 209. 
 
in.] THE ROUTE TO GOLGOTHA 145 
 
 burial-place of Adam's skull. That it was 
 a well-known place is evident, as neither of 
 the Evangelists — not even St John who is 
 so exact in his explanations — thought it 
 necessary to mention its locality. Adam 
 legends seem to have found favour with 
 early ecclesiastical writers, and there are, 
 I believe, four separate works upon the 
 traditional history of our first ancestor, 
 besides a " Book of Adam," referred to 
 in the Talmud. With the exception of this 
 last they are post Christian in date, but 
 based on Jewish tradition. 
 
 Speculation has been busy throughout the 
 ages as to the route taken from the 
 Praetorium to Golgotha, and a vast amount 
 of ingenuity based mostly upon ignorance 
 of the topography of Jerusalem has been 
 wasted in describing minutely the Via 
 Dolorosa. It is only necessary to say that 
 the present so-called Via Dolorosa, upon 
 which so much sentimentality has been 
 poured out, cannot possibly have been the 
 street in Jerusalem along which Our Lord 
 passed. I am well aware that an old tradi- 
 tion represents Him as having been marched 
 through the main thoroughfares of the Holy 
 City, so that the crowds assembling for 
 
 T 
 
146 THE CRUCIFIXION [Lect. 
 
 the Passover might see and take warn- 
 ing by His fate. It is also true that the 
 Romans considered it to be part of the 
 death punishment to escort a criminal 
 through the chief streets in order that he 
 might feel his disgrace more acutely ; but 
 Christ was not a Roman, nor had He been 
 found guilty of any crime by the Procurator 
 — who was merely sacrificing Him to please 
 the people — nor was He being put to death 
 on Roman territory. When Pilate delivered 
 Christ to be crucified he had finished with 
 Him, and it was the executioners and not the 
 governor who chose the site and the route. 
 
 Seeing the ferment and uproar that the 
 trial of the Prisoner had caused, and the 
 fury with which His death sentence was 
 forced from the Roman governor by His 
 own countrymen, and knowing also that 
 Jerusalem was crowded for the Feast, it was 
 only likely that the centurion would select 
 the nearest available spot outside the city 
 wall for the site of the execution, and get 
 it over as quickly as possible. We do not 
 know for certain which palace served that 
 morning as the Roman judgment-hall, but 
 of this we may be quite sure that the 
 centurion removed Our Lord by the nearest 
 
Ill] HOUR OF THE CRUCIFIXION 147 
 
 and least frequented route in order to prevent 
 either a riot or a rescue ; and " modern tradi- 
 tion is clearly at fault in identifying the first 
 part of the Via Dolorosa with a street that 
 lies above the ditch, which at the time of 
 the crucifixion, must have protected the 
 Antonia and the second wall " ( Wilson). 
 
 The Crucifixion. 
 
 At Golgotha, the Skull Place, they crucified 
 Him, having spared Him the worst indignity 
 inflicted upon a condemned criminal, that of 
 stripping Him of His clothes before leaving 
 the place of detention. The clothing and 
 in fact anything of which the Prisoner could 
 be despoiled, were the perquisites of the 
 executioners, for which there is a distinct 
 provision made in Roman law,^ so that there 
 was nothing unusual, nor was there any 
 especial insult intended when the four 
 soldiers parted His garments among them. 
 
 The Synoptists are not agreed as to the 
 hour at which the crucifixion took place, 
 St Matthew does not mention it, but states 
 
 ^ De bonis damnatorum^ xlvii. 20. 
 
148 THE CRUCIFIXION [Lect. 
 
 that there was darkness over all the land from 
 the sixth to the ninth hour, and that at the 
 ninth Jesus yielded up His spirit.^ St Mark 
 says that it was the third hour when they 
 crucified Him, and that darkness prevailed 
 from the sixth to the ninth hour when 
 ** He gave up the ghost." ^ St Luke like 
 St Matthew gives various details as to what 
 took place after the crucifixion, and before 
 the darkness settled down upon Jerusalem 
 at the sixth hour, but agrees with the 
 Synoptists that it was at the ninth hour 
 when Our Lord cried with a strong voice 
 and gave up His spirit.^ St John does not 
 mention either the time of the crucifixion or 
 the hour of death, nor does he allude to the 
 darkness that enveloped the land/ 
 
 Seeing that St Matthew and St Luke both 
 mention such facts as the setting up of the 
 titulus, the division of the garments, the 
 reproaches of the robbers, and the derision of 
 the passers-by, scribes and elders as all taking 
 place after the actual crucifixion and before 
 the sixth hour, probably the earlier time — 
 
 ^ Matt, xxvii. 45, 46, 50. "^ Mark xv. 25, 33. 
 
 * Luke xxiii. 46. 
 
 * But he does state that at the sixth hour on the day 
 of preparation Pilate said to the multitude " Behold your 
 King!" which adds yet another difificulty. John xix, 14. 
 
III.] ORIGIN OF CRUCIFIXION I49 
 
 the third hour given by St Mark — is the 
 correct. Crucifixion was such a lingering 
 death that three hours, medically speaking, 
 would have hardly sufficed for the Victim's 
 release. It was not an uncommon thing 
 for a prisoner to hang on the cross for three 
 or even four days, dying in the end from 
 exhaustion, starvation, and exposure to the 
 elements. Cases have even been recorded 
 of a criminal being taken down as dead, 
 and reviving. Had Christ been a Roman 
 subject, burial would have been denied Him, 
 as the body would have been left on the 
 cross until the birds and beasts had devoured 
 the flesh, and the action of sun and rain had 
 caused the skeleton to fall to pieces. 
 
 Most people base their ideas of the 
 crucifixion upon mediaeval art, and the mass 
 of devotional literature which has been 
 published upon the subject ; these if tested 
 by medical and historical evidence will be 
 found in many points to be inaccurate or 
 only applicable to the aggravated punish- 
 ment inflicted at a subsequent period. I 
 have not the slightest desire to minimise 
 the physical sufferings of Jesus Christ, and 
 I desire to speak with all reverence of the 
 
150 THE CRUCIFIXION [Lect. 
 
 events of that day, but we have slipped into 
 a conventional way of accepting statements, 
 and it will be well to look at the actual facts 
 rather than at the emotional and artistic 
 presentments of Christ's death. The mental 
 and spiritual agony of the God-Man was 
 beyond human power to understand or to 
 measure, so intense that compared with it 
 His physical sufferings were probably as 
 nought ; but the contemplation of exaggerated 
 bodily suffering can only produce a morbid 
 psychic condition, instead of carrying us up 
 on to the higher plane involved in the 
 endeavour to realise the insuperably greater 
 agony of a perfectly pure spirit. 
 
 Let us look at the history of this punish- 
 ment of crucifixion up to the time of the 
 siege of Jerusalem. There is no need to 
 ofo into the added suffering of it under Titus 
 and the later emperors. Jesus Christ was 
 not crucifi'ed under Varus or Diocletian, but 
 in the days of Tiberius and by the method 
 in use in his reign. 
 
 The very word in itself is, on the surface, 
 misleading, because in Roman law every 
 man condemned to death was called 
 cruciarius, and whether he was merely 
 hanged on an arbor infelixy or by whatever 
 
in.] DERIVATION OF WORD 151 
 
 form of capital punishment he was executed, 
 that death was called the "cross" — crux} 
 
 We must go back to the very beginning 
 of history for the origin of the punishment. 
 The Greek word gives it best (jravpo^, a 
 great stake, which in Latin becomes pahis, 
 from which we derive our words pale, 
 paling, palisade, and impale. To impale 
 was to suspend the corpse of a victim to 
 an upright stake or beam, or to drive a 
 stake through it. This punishment came 
 from the East. It was common in Chaldaea 
 and Persia, and was not unknown in Egypt. 
 It was practised by the Philistines, the 
 Numidians, and the Phoenicians, and from 
 these latter found its way into Greece, where 
 it was at first used as a posthumous form 
 of disgrace. I believe that Alexander the 
 Great was the first to bind — not nail — a 
 living man to the stake. 
 
 Crucifixion was in fact the outcome or 
 evolution of impaling. There are ancient 
 Babylonian bas-reliefs representing the king 
 and queen feasting in a beautiful garden 
 surrounded by their courtiers and favourites. 
 In the trees above them are suspended the 
 
 ^ Cicero, Pro Rabirio, 3, 4 ; Plautus, Aulularia, 3, 5, 46 ; 
 Apuleius, Met. 10 — Terence, Eunuchus^ 2, 3, 91. 
 
152 THE CRUCIFIXION [Lect. 
 
 heads of their enemies, whose bodies were 
 either staked or hung up in a public place 
 as a warning to the passers-by. In Egypt 
 may be seen at Edfou and other temples 
 representations of prisoners, with their hands 
 and feet tied behind their backs, bound to a 
 great stake driven into the ground ; and the 
 episode of the baker in the history of Joseph 
 is familiar to all. He was to be beheaded and 
 his body afterwards impaled.^ The suspen- 
 sion and exposure of a dead body either from 
 a tree or a stake was by no means unknown 
 among the Jews ; in fact Deuteronomy 
 xxi. 2 2 expressly provides for this form of 
 punishment, and St Paul directly applies it 
 to Our Lord's crucifixion.^ 
 
 When " Israel abode in Shittim," and 
 bowed themselves down before the Baal of 
 Peor, Moses was commanded to take the 
 chiefs of the people and "hang them up 
 before the sun," i.e.^ in broad daylight, that 
 all might see and fear, and he bade the 
 judges saying, " Slay ye every one his man."^ 
 Probably, as in Exodus xxxii. 27, they were 
 first put to the sword and then impaled. 
 
 The people of Ai, in the days of Joshua, 
 were put to the sword, and the corpse of 
 ^ Gen. xl. 19. " Gal. iii. i^. ^ Numbers xxv. 
 
III.] JEWISH FORM OF PUNISHMENT 153 
 
 their king hanged on a tree until the sunset, 
 when Joshua took it down, cast it just out- 
 side the gate of the city — the most public 
 place — and raised a cairn over it.^ There is 
 even a better example still in 2 Samuel xxi. 
 When famine had ravaged the land of 
 Canaan for three years, David sought the 
 Lord; "And the Lord said, It is for Saul 
 and for his bloody house, because he put to 
 death the Gibeonites." So David sent for 
 the Gibeonites and enquired of them what 
 atonement he could make for the dead king's 
 act, and they replied that neither silver nor 
 gold could wipe out the deed, and requested 
 that seven of Saul's sons should be handed 
 over to them that, "they might hang them 
 up unto the Lord." So they were put to 
 death in the beginning of the barley harvest, 
 and their bodies " hanged before the Lord " ; 
 and Rizpah, the mother of two of the dead 
 men, stationed herself below the stakes until 
 the autumn rains came, in order to prevent 
 the birds of the air and the beasts of the 
 field from touching them. As a reward for 
 this devout attention David took the bones 
 and had them buried. 
 
 The fate that befell Saul and Jonathan 
 
 ^ Joshua viii. 
 
 U 
 
154 THE CRUCIFIXION [Lect. 
 
 his son, at the hands of the Philistines, was 
 the same, their bodies were hung up in the 
 street or broad place of Beth Shan. 
 
 7'he Greeks appear to have borrowed the 
 idea of exposing the dead body of a criminal 
 upon a stake or gibbet from the Phoenicians, 
 and to have, afterwards, added suffering to 
 ignominy by first binding the prisoner alive 
 to the tree or stake. Alexander the Great 
 is said by Josephus to have thus crucified 
 two thousand conquered Syrians — but the 
 numbers are doubtless exaogrerated. From 
 Greece this form of death passed to Rome, 
 where it was developed from the suspension 
 of a criminal upon an ai^bor infelix, i.e., a 
 tree which neither grows from seed nor bears 
 fruit ^ — to the binding of him alive, to an 
 upright stake with a transverse beam along 
 which were stretched the arms — a cross in 
 fact. 
 
 At first' the Romans made but sparing 
 use of this form of crucifixion as a death 
 punishment ; citizens were exempt from it, 
 and it was reserved for slaves, highway- 
 men, those condemned for treason, and for 
 criminals of the lowest and most violent 
 type. It was looked upon with intense 
 
 ^ Pliny, Hist. Nat., lib. xxvi. 
 
III.] ROMAN USE OF CRUCIFIXION 155 
 
 horror, and Cicero in his celebrated letter 
 to Verres speaks of it as crudelissvnum 
 teterrimumque. Not only was there great 
 ignominy mfamia connected with this form 
 of execution, but the sufferings of the victim 
 were so protracted — sufferings which he 
 must endure to the bitter end as conscious- 
 ness was generally retained until the moment 
 of death. For three, and even four days 
 prisoners have been known to hang bound 
 to the cross, exposed to the heat by day 
 and the cold by night, jeered at and tor- 
 mented by every passer - by, until finally 
 they died from exhaustion and exposure to 
 the elements. 
 
 Under the emperors crucifixion was 
 placed on the list of the death penalties,^ 
 and then citizens were not exempted from 
 it, though in order to mitigate the ignominy 
 in their case, it was sometimes carried out 
 privately in the prison itself, instead of in 
 some public place. The victim was accursed, 
 and the infamia was so great that it was 
 considered an outrage on the privileges of 
 a Civis Romanus. When Verres crucified 
 some Roman citizens in Sicily it aroused 
 a perfect storm of fury, and called forth 
 
 * " Summa supplicia sunt Crux, Crematio, DecoUatio." 
 
156 THE CRUCIFIXION [Lect. 
 
 from Cicero the following strong protest : 
 " Facimus est vinciri civem Romanem ; 
 scelus verberari ; prope parricidum necari ; 
 quid dicam in crucem tolli ? Verbo satis 
 digno tarn nefaria res appellari nullo modo 
 potest." 
 
 In the time of Jesus Christ crucifixion 
 was of rare occurrence in Palestine, and was 
 practically unknown as a punishment for the 
 Jews, who were allowed to be put to death 
 by their own methods of execution. After 
 the siege of Jerusalem, and during the 
 succeeding years of revolt, the Romans 
 became so exasperated with the Jews that 
 they treated them with great harshness, and 
 frequently crucified them ; though the state- 
 ments of Josephus, our chief authority in this 
 matter, must be received with caution. It 
 is not an unlikely supposition that Jesus 
 Christ was one of the first — if not the very 
 first — Jew to suffer this dreaded death 
 penalty. After the fall of Jerusalem, and 
 under the later emperors, crucifixion as a 
 form of capital punishment was only too 
 frequently resorted to, and often took place 
 under circumstances of great cruelty. Thus 
 when Tertullian, Justin, Plautus, and others 
 describe some of the horrors of crucifixion, 
 
III.l FORMS OF THE CROSS 1 57 
 
 and apply them to Christ, it must be remem- 
 bered that they are writing of the aggravated 
 form of it that obtained in their day, and not 
 of the method in use when Christ was put to 
 death. 
 
 Three forms of cross were used by the 
 Romans : 
 
 a. The simplex — a long beam or stake 
 
 to which the victim was firmly 
 bound, his arms being fastened 
 above his head. 
 
 b. The immissa or capitata — the Latin 
 
 cross with the transverse or pati- 
 buluni fastened at right angles 
 about three-fourths of the way up 
 the (TTavpo?. This is the form 
 which popular art has chosen for 
 Our Lord's cross, though we have 
 not the very slightest clue as to 
 which kind the soldiers used. Re- 
 membering how sparsely wooded 
 Jerusalem and its environs are, it 
 was not unlikely to have been 
 the simplex as three crosses were 
 required. 
 
 c. The summissa or commissa, or as 
 
 it is sometimes called the Tau 
 
158 THE CRUCIFIXION [Lbct. 
 
 cross, in which the patibulum was 
 morticed into the point of the 
 upright beam. 
 d. The decussata — better known as St 
 Andrew's Cross, in which the up- 
 right and ihe. patibulum were merely 
 grooved into or nailed to each other 
 in such a manner as to form two 
 acute angles. 
 
 The a-ravpo? ov Stake was generally made 
 from oak, or from some strong tough wood 
 which was driven down firmly into the 
 ground, where it remained for future use. It 
 was usually from y^ to 9 feet high, and the 
 victim was so placed as to have his head 
 and shoulders above the crowd. In the days 
 of Galba the a-ravpo? was sometimes made 
 much higher in order to add to the degrada- 
 tion of the victim, and in one case mentioned 
 by Suetonius it was whitened so as to attract 
 more attention. For the patibulum or cross 
 bar some common kind of wood usually 
 sufficed ; it was formed either from two 
 parallel laths set a few inches apart and 
 closed at the ends, through which the 
 prisoner's head was sometimes passed, or 
 less frequently of a simple board. This was 
 
III.] ROMAN METHOD OF CRUCIFIXION 1 59 
 
 carried by the condemned man himself to 
 the place of execution. In some cases a 
 block or saddle was fixed to the crray/ooV, 
 called the cornus or sedilis excessus which, 
 while relieving the great strain on the heart 
 and internal organs, prolonged the suffering. 
 The feet were placed side by side and bound 
 to the upright. The block or wedge seen 
 beneath them in pictorial and plastic repre- 
 sentations of the crucifixion exists in artistic 
 imagination, and not in history. 
 
 Mediaeval and modern art and the ecclesi- 
 astics of the Western Church insist upon the 
 nailing of Our Lord's hands and feet to the 
 cross. The four Gospels give no clue as to 
 the form of the cross nor the method of 
 execution. Tiberius was the first to invent 
 the barbarous plan of nailing the hands, as 
 he maintained that death by being merely 
 bound to the cross was no punishment, but 
 simply an escape from it. The lowest of 
 Roman criminals condemned for violence 
 and murder were thus executed. It is more 
 than doubtful whether as early as a.d. 29 
 or 33 this aggravated form of crucifixion had 
 passed into the provinces, and very unlikely 
 that it would have been inflicted upon a Jew 
 who was condemned to death — not for any 
 
l6o THE CRUCIFIXION [Lect. 
 
 crime of violence or treason against Imperial 
 Caesar, but merely because the Procurator 
 wished to please the Jewish mob. If any 
 of the victims were nailed, it was more likely 
 to have been the Roman malefactors (Xijarral) 
 than Jesus. 
 
 The Evangelists give very little help in 
 the matter. 
 
 The only direct allusion to this subject 
 is not given by the Synoptists. It is the 
 incident of Thomas recorded in the Fourth 
 Gospel, wherein that disciple declines to 
 believe in the risen Christ, unless he sees 
 for himself the marks of the nails in the 
 hands and the spear in the side. There is 
 no mention of the feet you will notice. 
 
 St Luke records the sudden appear- 
 ance of the risen Christ in the midst of 
 His eleven disciples, who were frightened, 
 supposing that they beheld a phantom, and 
 to reassure them He bade them see and 
 feel His hands and feet — not as many suppose 
 for His identification by the nail marks — but 
 that they might realise that He was an 
 actual living being, for "a spirit hath not 
 flesh and bones as ye see Me having. "^ 
 ** He shewed them His hands and His feet," 
 
 ^ Luke xxiv. 39. 
 
III.] CRUELTY OF TIBERIUS l6l 
 
 is not to be found in many of the older 
 manuscripts of this Gospel. 
 
 It is, of course, within the region of possi- 
 bility that Our Lord's hands were nailed 
 besides being bound to the cross, but the 
 silence of the four Gospels upon the subject, 
 and with only this one late allusion to it, 
 and that made by a writer who had survived 
 the horrors of both Jewish and Christian per- 
 secutions and so may well have had the 
 aggravated form of crucifixion in his mind, 
 leaves it an open question. There is no 
 doubt that the feet were not nailed. It is, 
 I believe, an impossibility — even if a nail 
 large enough could on the spur of the moment 
 have been forged — to drive one through both 
 feet at once as depicted in crucifixes and 
 paintings ; and it is almost as impossible to 
 nail through even one foot, partly on account 
 of its position against the a-ravpo?, and partly 
 on account of the hardness of the bones in 
 the arch of the foot and the heel. It would 
 certainly be absolutely impossible to nail the 
 feet to the a-ravpog without the block of wood 
 seen in so many pictures, which block does 
 not appear in contemporary history or 
 classic literature. 
 
 Although Tiberius invented the horrible 
 
 X 
 
l6a THE CRUCIFIXION [Lect. 
 
 cruelty of nailing the hands to the cross- 
 bar, the victim was bound to it first. It 
 would be impossible to fasten a man — with 
 only a nail passed through the palm of each 
 hand — to a cross beam, without disastrous 
 results ensuing. The weight of the body 
 in such a position would fall forward, and 
 would soon tear through the metatarsal tissue 
 of the hands. The aggravated cruelty lay not 
 only in the greatly increased suffering, but 
 also in the fact that so little blood was lost that 
 the Victim's death was in no way hastened. 
 
 Realistic but thoroughly inaccurate de- 
 scriptions in some of the hymns and 
 devotional books of the Western Church, 
 speak of the blood that poured or fell 
 from Our Lord's wounds ; but in reality, 
 in nailing through the hands only a very 
 few drops of blood would exude, and 
 these so slowly that they would coagulate 
 at once in the open air. In the same way 
 writers have jumped to the conclusion that 
 the spear that pierced the Victim's side 
 pierced also the heart. We have absolutely 
 no foundation for such a statement. The 
 only Gospel that mentions this episode ^ 
 gives no details, and the fact that blood and 
 
 ^ St John xix. 34. 
 
III.] THE TWENTY-SECOND PSALM 163 
 
 serum issued from the incision is no proof that 
 they came from the heart ; they may equally 
 well have come from the pleura surrounding 
 the lung. Many of the old masters represent 
 in their paintings the wound as on the right 
 side. 
 
 Doubtless that incorrect and unfortunate 
 translation of Psalm xxii. i6, "They pierced 
 My hands and My feet," which has been 
 twisted round to have a Messianic mean- 
 ing, is responsible for the preconceived 
 idea common to most people that Our 
 Lord's hands and feet were nailed. 
 
 The Masoretic or pointed text reads 
 kadri "like a lion," which is worse than 
 no help at all, as it does not make sense. 
 Duhm and many other Hebrew scholars 
 would read here kadri2 instead — a verb 
 which is derived from the root Mr, mean- 
 ing in its first idea to be round \ therefore 
 handcuffs or cords or anything which binds 
 or goes rotmd the feet and hands would be 
 in accordance with the spirit of the word. 
 Many ancient versions give "they bound" 
 instead of "they pierced." "They fettered 
 My hands and My feet" will probably be 
 a rendering that will meet with the require- 
 ments of the original. The same idea is 
 
164 THE CRUCIFIXION [Lkct. 
 
 to be found in Zechariah xii. 10. h was 
 an allusion to ihc oKl punishment before 
 described, the hani^ino- up o\' the victim 
 with his hands above his head. 
 
 The lews oi' that period knew nothino- of 
 the "hanoinL;' up" or erucitixion with nails of 
 a living- man. Jeremiah speaks of " binding 
 up " as the fate of princes after the downfall 
 of Jerusalem.^ Darius the Mede, proclaimed 
 that if an\' man should alter the decree 
 made by Cyrus in favour of the jews that 
 a beam should be pulled out frgm his 
 house, and " let him be lifted up (or hung up) 
 and fastened thereon." Gregory Nazianzen 
 writing in the fourth century, uses the 
 technical expression, "and when they had 
 hung up the Lord," etc."'' 
 
 The reading "they bound" of some ancient 
 versions confirms this meaning which Jerome 
 translates by viuxcrunt. 
 
 " Probably fixcrunt would never have 
 been used but for the idea that Our Lord's 
 sufferings were foretold here in detail. It 
 was believed that His hands were pierced: 
 therefore, it was argued His feet were 
 also. But there is no authority for this 
 
 ' Lamentations v. 12. 
 
 * Christus Pafitns, I. 657 et seqq. 
 
in.] INCORRECT PRESENTMENTS 165 
 
 latter belief in the New Testament, and 
 apart from this verse nowhere else either. 
 
 To re^^ard God as planning the details 
 of the Passion of His Son centuries before- 
 hand, and inspiring men to write them down, 
 is to take a low and unworthy view of His 
 action. It introduces also a psychological 
 miracle which is unthinkable."^ 
 
 Early Christian art in mosaic and fresco 
 was far more reverend and reserved in the 
 presentment of Our Lord's crucifixion than 
 were media:val painters, and are modern 
 religious writers. At first the old artists 
 used only signs or symbols to represent it, 
 sometimes only the Greek letter T ; as years 
 went on you will find a simple cross depicted, 
 then later the sacrificial lamb placed in front 
 of or near to a plain Latin cross, until after 
 many developments a realistic age portrayed 
 the Saviour clothed in the long robe or 
 co/odmm, which was gradually shortened to 
 the loin cloth or perizona. Since then 
 art encouraged by the Western Church 
 has degraded itself by spending its genius 
 of conception and craftsmanship upon the 
 terrible and ultra realistic presentments of 
 the crucifixion, which even were they 
 
 ' W. F. Cobb, The Book of Psalms^ pp. 62, 64. 
 
l66 THE CRUCIFIXION [Lect 
 
 accurate in detail are horrible to look upon, 
 and should be discouraged as tending towards 
 morbid sentimentality. We ought to be as 
 historical and sober in our religious beliefs 
 as we try to be in our scientific and 
 intellectual ones. We cannot be worse 
 Christians for striving after this, and we 
 might be better. 
 
 St Matthew says that when they came to 
 Golgotha "they gave Him wine to drink 
 mingled with gall"; St Mark calls it "wine 
 mingled with myrrh." St Luke and St 
 John make no allusion to it. It is more 
 than probable that the myrrh of St Mark 
 is identical with the gall of St Matthew, 
 for the Hebrew root for both words is the 
 same, and means "bitter." Two ancient 
 physicians, Galen and Dioscorides, speak of 
 the soothing effects of frankincense and 
 myrrh, both of which are bitter to the taste. 
 Some writers have seen in that verse, " Give 
 strong drink to him that is ready to perish," 
 when taken in conjunction with the words 
 that precede it,^ an indication of its use 
 among the Jews as an anodyne for those 
 condemned to capital punishment, and there 
 
 ^ Prov. xxxi. 6. 
 
Ill, THE TITULUS 167 
 
 is a passage in the Babylonian Talmud 
 which lends colour to this view. 
 
 In the days when crucifixion was less 
 frequent than it afterwards became, the 
 Roman soldiers used to give an aromatic 
 drink to their victims after having bound 
 them to the patibulum, and before raising 
 both to the o-raypoV, in order to deaden con- 
 sciousness. It is to this that the Evangelists 
 refer. It consisted of wine mingled with 
 frankincense to which was sometimes added 
 the lebkSnah, called by the Hebrews Rosh, 
 and by the Arabs Ras, i.e., "the head"; it 
 was also known as the "father of sleep," 
 and was made probably from the papaver 
 S07nniferum or opium poppy, which has an 
 acrid taste. It was practically a temporary 
 anaesthetic, and brought a blessed dulness of 
 sensation, if not absolute unconsciousness, 
 to the sufferer in the first awful moments of 
 tension. 
 
 This drink our Lord refused. 
 
 The soldiers then set up over His head the 
 "superscription" or "accusation" dictated 
 by the Roman Procurator. This is known 
 technically as the titulus, and was carried 
 either by the condemned man himself, or 
 was borne before him to the place of 
 
l68 THE CRUCIFIXION [Lect. 
 
 execution. It was a thin board or slab of 
 wood whitewashed over with gypsum, on 
 which was inscribed in large black letters 
 the ** accusation," not necessarily the 
 "crime," for which the prisoner was to 
 pay the death penalty. St John alone 
 gives the correct term to it. The four 
 Evangelists vary as to its exact wording, 
 no two formulae being exactly similar 
 though the basis of all is the same — The 
 King of the Jews. 
 
 His own people had brought Him to the 
 governor to decree the death sentence 
 because by their law He ought to die for 
 making Himself the Son of God, a point 
 of Jewish ecclesiastical law which to Rome 
 mattered nothing. 
 
 They shifted their ground when pressed 
 for a direct accusation of definite crime, 
 and tried to bring in treason against 
 Caesar. 
 
 Pilate condemned Christ without retracting 
 or modifying his original sentence — " I find 
 no crime in Him," and therefore as he 
 sentenced the Prisoner to be crucified, 
 though it was merely ** to please the 
 people," he naturally had, as the law 
 required, to shew cause why capital punish- 
 
III.] THE ACCUSATION 169 
 
 ment was inflicted. He therefore recorded 
 the accusation brought against the Prisoner 
 by His own countrymen. 
 
 The carrying of the titulus was to impress 
 upon the condemned man His shame and 
 degradation, hence arose the saying /Saa-Ta^eiv 
 TOP aravpov avrov, and is another of those 
 many misapplied texts ; for the taking up 
 the cross meant — not the carrying of a 
 literal cross, but the public shame and 
 exposure to insult, which resulted from 
 having to carry the titulus. 
 
 The Procurator was determined that no 
 passer-by on that day, and no gazer at that 
 sight, should fail to understand why that 
 Prisoner was executed. In Hebrew (probably 
 Aramaic) the current language of the people, 
 in Greek the polite language which at that 
 time was understood by every educated 
 man, and in Latin the tongue of the 
 conquering and executive race ran the 
 accusation — The King of the Jews. 
 From the point of view of Roman law it 
 was absolutely the only title that Pilate could 
 have placed above the Prisoner's head, and 
 to the Jews it must have been as gall and 
 wormwood ; but no amount of entreaty could 
 produce anything from the governor, but 
 
 y 
 
170 THE CRUCIFIXION [Lect. 
 
 the unrelenting reply, " What I have written 
 I have written." 
 
 The only note of human and physical 
 suffering during those long hours comes to 
 us through the Fourth Gospel, which records 
 that just before the end, when in the last 
 stage of final exhaustion Christ exclaimed, 
 " I thirst," a soldier dipped a bunch of 
 hyssop — which he could easily pull out from 
 the wall close by — in the posca or thin, sour 
 wine which formed part of the daily rations 
 of the common soldiers, and putting it on 
 a reed raised it to His lips. This gave the 
 momentary stimulus which enabled Him to 
 cry with a loud voice, T^TiKecTTai — " It is 
 finished " — the effort of which ruptured the 
 heart. The Jews realising that the day 
 was passing, and that the sunset was draw- 
 ing nigh which brought a festival Sabbath 
 — upon which it would have been a defile- 
 ment of their land to have victims dying 
 of capital punishment, or dead bodies hang- 
 ing at the very gates of the Holy City — 
 besought Pilate that their legs might be 
 broken. This was nothing unusual if there 
 was any reason for hastening death, and 
 was done with a heavy wooden mallet 
 
III.] NO SYMPATHY FROM THE JEWS 171 
 
 called a crurifragmm. Christ being already- 
 dead to all appearances *' they brake not His 
 legs " ; but in order to make certain that it 
 was actual and not apparent death, a 
 soldier ran a spear into His side, which 
 proved beyond doubt that He had truly 
 yielded up His spirit. This episode finds 
 no place in the Gospels of the Synoptists, 
 and it is curious that St Luke, who always 
 notices and records the physical facts con- 
 nected with Our Lord's life, should have 
 omitted this one. 
 
 The Jews had now to all appearances 
 gained their desired end, and had stopped, as 
 they thought, the Preacher and His doctrines. 
 While accepting the consequences of His 
 death they had managed to throw off the 
 responsibility of it from their own shoulders 
 on to those of their hated conquerors, by 
 the hands of whose officers — at their own 
 request — the death punishment had been 
 carried out. They had shown no sympathy 
 with the pure life and high ideals of the Master 
 during His ministry, and at the time of His 
 trial He received neither mercy nor justice 
 from their hands. They not only did not 
 manifest the slightest touch of humanity as 
 
172 THE CRUCIFIXION [Lkct. 
 
 they gathered near His cross, but they 
 derided Him in His death agony. And 
 the irony of it was that throughout the long 
 spun - out hours of that grim tragedy the 
 only mark of consideration that He received 
 was not from one of His own chosen band 
 of disciples, nor from one of His brethren, 
 His kinsfolk, or His acquaintance. It was 
 not even one of His own countrymen but 
 a Roman soldier who, in the moment of 
 supreme agony, offered Him the soothing 
 draught of the "father of sleep," of which, 
 "when He had tasted thereof, He would 
 not drink." 
 
 The Tomb, 
 
 "And after these things Joseph of 
 Arimathsea, being a disciple, but secretly, 
 for fear of the Jews, asked of Pilate that he 
 might take away the body of Jesus : and 
 Pilate gave him leave." John xix. 38. 
 
 "And Joseph took the body and wrapped 
 it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his 
 own new tomb, which he had hewn out of 
 a rock." Matt, xxvii. 59, 60. 
 
III.] Joseph's tomb 173 
 
 No minute details are given as to the 
 exact site of the tomb of Christ. The 
 Synoptists merely say that it was rock- 
 hewn ; St John alone gives any clue to its 
 situation — " in the place (not on which it 
 would be had Golgotha been a hill) where 
 He was crucified, there was a garden, and 
 in the garden a new tomb." There the 
 two disciples, who had not dared to openly 
 confess their belief in the Preacher, placed 
 the body for — as I believe — temporary burial 
 only.^ The Jews thought so much of 
 interment in the family tomb that probably 
 Joseph, who was "of the house and lineage 
 of David," or Zacharias the priest, whose 
 wife Elizabeth was of the daughters of 
 Aaron and a kinswoman of Mary, would 
 either of them have had some large place 
 of "gathering unto the fathers," where, 
 after the Sabbath was past, the body could 
 be finally laid to rest with the customary 
 Jewish ceremonial. 
 
 Joseph's tomb was probably excavated in 
 the face of the limestone rock, which arose 
 in abrupt step-like terraces from the ravines. 
 This geological formation is found in many 
 parts of the Holy Land, specially in and 
 
 ^ John xix. 42 gives ground for this opinion. 
 
174 "^"^ HOLY SEPULCHRE [Lect. 
 
 round Jerusalem ; and in the scarp forming 
 the back of these terraces are to be seen to 
 this day tombs of post-exilic period. They 
 consist of an open ante - chamber, round 
 which runs a stone mastabah or bench, and 
 an inner mortuary chamber. Probably with 
 the need for haste which the approach of 
 the Sabbath necessitated, the body was laid 
 on the bench in the ante-chamber. Certainly 
 this would be the case were Joseph's tomb 
 intended to be only a temporary resting- 
 place. The fact also that the women could 
 see the body, and how it was laid, points 
 to its being placed on the mastabah, and 
 not put away in the loculus or kok ; the 
 spices would also be for temporary burial 
 only. 
 
 Controversy has raged fast and furious 
 round the site of the tomb, and the question 
 as to whether the present Church of the 
 Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem does or does 
 not cover it has been fought by archaeologists 
 and ecclesiastics with much energy and no 
 little bitterness. Until we know for an 
 absolute certainty the trend of the second 
 wall of the city we can never lay down the 
 law positively upon the subject, or even 
 suggest a definite spot whereon may have 
 
III.] CHRISTIAN MEETING-PLACES 1 75 
 
 been the tomb that contained for a few 
 hours the body of the dead Christ. 
 
 During the first four centuries no mention 
 is made of the sacred site. Immediately 
 after the Ascension "those that beheved " 
 sold their possessions for the benefit of 
 the needy, and had all things in common.^ 
 Land is especially mentioned as being parted 
 with by its owners ; it is, therefore, more 
 than probable that Joseph sold his garden, 
 which would include his tomb. And this 
 brings us face to face with the question, 
 which is an important one to consider in 
 connection with this subject, Was it likely 
 that any veneration was paid by the Apostles 
 and early Christians to the temporary rest- 
 ing-place of their Master's body ? The first 
 Christians were essentially Jews in their 
 strict observance of Mosaic regulations ; and 
 the Temple, and not the tomb, was, until 
 the fall of Jerusalem, their meeting-place for 
 worship and instruction. Any reverence of 
 the empty grave would be a practical nega- 
 tion of that very doctrine of the Resurrection, 
 of which the Christ was the exponent and 
 
 1 Acts ii. 44, 45 ; iv. 32, 34. 
 
176 THE HOLY SEPULCHRE [Lbct. 
 
 example, and to which they were to be the 
 witnesses to all the world. 
 
 The cultus of the tombs of relations and 
 friends, which has become so popular now- 
 adays, is but a relic of paganism that has 
 survived in spite of Christianity, and is only 
 conceivable when graves contain all that 
 has resisted the dissolution of the bodies of 
 the departed ; but for Christians to make 
 an empty tomb an object of veneration is 
 so absolutely wanting in logic and common- 
 sense that it is inconceivable that the 
 Apostles and their converts should have 
 wasted their time, and compromised their 
 faith in the Resurrection by so doing. They 
 were too full of a burning zeal to go and 
 proclaim the risen Christ, and their definite 
 orders were to disperse after the descent of 
 the Paraclete, and to go into all the world 
 making c^isciples and baptizing into the 
 Tri-une Name. So persuaded also were 
 they that their Lord would return visibly 
 before many years had elapsed, that their 
 one desire was to lose no time in carrying 
 the Gospel of the Kingdom north and 
 south, east and west, entreating all men to 
 accept it. 
 
III.] UNIMPORTANCE OF THE TOMB 1 77 
 
 We hear no word from them, nor sugges- 
 tion even, that their converts should pray 
 or meditate at the tomb — nay, rather, 
 practical missionary activity in spreading 
 the new faith was the distinguishing mark 
 of those early proselytes. Christ's visible 
 departure, which was accompanied by the 
 promise of His invisible presence among 
 them unto the end of the ages, had filled 
 the Apostles with joy, " and they were con- 
 tinually in the Temple praising and blessing 
 God," not praying beside or contemplating 
 an empty grave. 
 
 Their whole attitude was so completely 
 that of men who lived with present realities, 
 who implicitly believed in a living and ever 
 present Master, and fully expected His 
 speedy appearance. To them the temporary 
 tomb must have been nothing, the risen, 
 returning Christ everything, and this belief 
 which was the driving - wheel of their 
 missionary zeal, coupled with their banish- 
 ment from Jerusalem and the complete 
 destruction of their city, would effectually 
 prevent any cultus of the tomb, and there- 
 fore even the knowledge of its site from 
 being preserved. 
 
 To the first Jewish Christians the Temple 
 
 z 
 
178 THE HOLY SEPULCHRE [Lect. 
 
 with its worship and the Mosaic observances 
 and ceremonial were religious essentials, as 
 the early chapters of the Acts of the Apostles 
 shew. To the Gentile Christians who had 
 never known or seen the Lord, the venera- 
 tion of His empty tomb would be a contradic- 
 tion of the definite teachino- of their own 
 special apostle — St Paul — whose whole force 
 was expended in endeavouring to raise the 
 thoughts and ideas of his converts to a plane 
 above "the earth — earthy" — to the worship 
 of a risen, ascended, and yet, spiritually, ever 
 present Christ, rather than persuading them 
 into the mere intellectual belief in a physical, 
 earthly, and historic Jesus.-^ 
 
 The flight of the Christian community to 
 Pella in a.d. 67 or 68 would further lessen 
 any tendency — had one arisen — to make 
 the tomb an object of veneration, while the 
 siege and capture of Jerusalem and its total 
 destruction by Titus followed by its occupa- 
 tion by the Legion Fretensis and their 
 barracks would certainly alter the ground, 
 and sweep away many Jewish landmarks 
 and sites. It is computed that the Tenth 
 Legion with the auxiliaries quartered in and 
 round Jerusalem cannot have numbered less 
 
 ^ Harnack, History 0/ Dogma, pp. 82 et seqq. 
 
III.] RETURN OF THE CHRISTIANS I79 
 
 than seven thousand men, while the civil 
 population has been estimated at three 
 thousand. Notwithstanding that Vespasian 
 considered "the province of Judsea" as the 
 private possession of the Emperors, to whose 
 privy purse the revenues belonged, the 
 Holy City lay desolate and in ruined heaps, 
 overgrown with weeds and merely a Roman 
 camp until a.d. 136. Hadrian then — "after 
 passing the plough over the ground of the 
 capital " ^ rebuilt it, but not the Temple. To 
 the new city he gave "his own name and 
 the use of the imperial title, for, as he was 
 named ^lius Hadrianus he named the city 
 ^lia." 
 
 It is most unlikely that during all those 
 troublous years a continuous tradition of the 
 tomb would have been kept up. We do not 
 know when the Christians returned from 
 Pella — in fact we have only the authority 
 of one author, Epiphanius, for asserting that 
 they did so. By the Romans they were 
 at first regarded as a Jewish sect, and no 
 distinction was drawn by the governors 
 between Jews and Christians. It was not 
 until the revolt under Bar Cocheba in a.d. 
 132, who claimed to be the Messiah, that 
 
 1 Jerusalem Talmud, Taanith^ iv. 
 
l80 THE HOLY SEPULCHRE [Lect. 
 
 there was a definite and final rupture between 
 the Jew and the Christian ; then, each went 
 his own widely divergent way for ever, upon 
 acknowledgfed and distinct religious lines. 
 
 Where Jehovah's house had once stood 
 arose a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus, and 
 Jerusalem with its seven districts, from which 
 every Jew was rigidly excluded, became a 
 Roman military colony. Christians were 
 then allowed to come and reside outside 
 the walls of JEVisl proper, but by this time 
 knowledge of the site of the tomb must 
 have become hazy and traditional, even 
 if the first Christians had kept it in re- 
 membrance. 
 
 Neither Golgotha nor the Holy Sepulchre 
 is mentioned by any of the early pilgrims 
 to Jerusalem, which looks as if their sites 
 did not possess a special attraction for 
 the devout. Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical 
 History does not mention them, and in the 
 Demonstratio Evangelica he speaks of the 
 Mount of Olives and not the sepulchre as 
 being the place where "the Christians flock 
 together to hear the story of Jerusalem," 
 and to worship; for there on the top "Our 
 Lord and Saviour who was Himself the 
 
III.] constantine's command i8i 
 
 Word — communicated the mysteries of the 
 Christian covenant, and from thence He 
 ascended into heaven." 
 
 If the Christians had set any religious 
 value upon the ground of Golgotha and the 
 sepulchre, we may be perfectly certain that 
 they would have found some means to 
 preserve among themselves the knowledge 
 of those sites, even if the latter had been 
 sold, and mention would surely have been 
 made of them by early pilgrims. 
 
 As it is we have to wait until the fourth 
 century before any desire is manifested to 
 reverence them, and then it is admitted by 
 Eusebius that they were lost. Moreover 
 the desire to bring them to light did not 
 come spontaneously, either from the little 
 Christian community settled outside ^^lia 
 or from the devotion of pilgrims who had 
 travelled to Jerusalem, but merely by the 
 fiat of Imperial Rome. 
 
 History is silent as to the real motive 
 which induced Constantine to write to 
 Bishop Macarius of ^lia, and desire him 
 to find the true cross and the holy places ; 
 though Eusebius puts it down to " the inspira- 
 tion of the Saviour." One thing is quite 
 certain, and that is there is not a single 
 
1 82 THE HOLY SEPULCHRE [Lect. 
 
 testimony to the finding of them given by 
 an eye - witness ; every statement made is 
 based either upon Divine inspiration or hear- 
 say, and the accounts given of their dis- 
 covery are so mixed up with the marvellous 
 — not to say miraculous — as to discount 
 credibility. 
 
 In the year a.d. 312, Constantine the 
 Emperor of Rome, after having murdered 
 his wife Fausta in her bath and poisoned his 
 son Crispus, became a convert to Christianity. 
 It may have been to show his zeal for the 
 new faith, or perhaps as an act of atone- 
 ment for the murder of his relatives, that 
 he commanded "a house of prayer to be 
 erected to God at Jerusalem near the place 
 called the Skull." In order the better to 
 accomplish this, Helena his mother, " being 
 divinely directed by dreams " set forth to 
 find the sepulchre of Christ, "and after 
 much difficulty by God's help recovered it,"^ 
 
 Alexander Monachus says that Constantine 
 "sent his mother a woman in all respects 
 most worthy of praise, with letters and a 
 great sum of money, to Macarius, Bishop 
 of i^lia in order that they might together 
 ^ Sozomen, Hist, Eccles.^ vol. ii. 
 
III.] MIRACULOUS FINDING OF THE CROSS 183 
 
 search for the Holy Cross and adorn the 
 holy places with buildings." These sites 
 were unknown, and the Bishop of ^lia 
 was commanded by Constantine to "use 
 all diligence in searching for the life-giving- 
 Cross, the Lord's sepulchre, and all the 
 holy places." Was it likely that when 
 Imperial Caesar commanded that certain 
 unknown sites should be laid bare, and 
 sent his mother with a large sum of money 
 for that purpose, that they would remain 
 " lost " for long ? The story of the discovery 
 both of the cross and the sites may be read 
 at length in the Theophania of Eusebius, 
 of which the original Greek text is lost and 
 only the Syriac copy is in existence, also in 
 his Life of Constantine, a most exaggerated 
 panegyric of the erst- while murderer. Sozo- 
 men, Socrates, Theodoret, Sulpicius Severus, 
 and Rufinus in their Ecclesiastical Histories, 
 and also Alexander Monachus in his De 
 Inventione sanctoe Crucis relate the mira- 
 culous finding of the sacred relics. How- 
 ever, their writings are not contemporaneous 
 with the event, and their statements are so 
 mixed up with the legendary and incredible 
 that from a historical standpoint they are not 
 of great value. Even those of Eusebius were 
 
184 THE HOLY SEPULCHRE [LscT, 
 
 not penned until Constantine had officially- 
 announced his "marvellous discovery," and 
 their authority was only such information 
 as Constantine, Helena, and Macarius chose 
 to give. The Bishop of ^lia to whom 
 " the place was miraculously revealed," and 
 who was present at the finding of the so- 
 called "true cross," and who must have 
 seen the miracle of the healinof of a noble 
 lady by touching its wood (Theodoret), and 
 the raising of a dead body by being placed 
 in contact with it (S. Severus), discreetly 
 never records his experiences (see p. 187). 
 
 Eusebius, who lived nearest to the time 
 of Constantine, says that ungodly men — or 
 rather the whole race of demons by their 
 means — and "impious persons" determined 
 to hide the sacred cave by bringing earth 
 from the outside and covering it up, that 
 their machinations continued for a long 
 time, and that " none of the governors, 
 praetors, or emperors was found capable of 
 abolishing these daring impieties, save only 
 that one (Constantine) who is dear to God." 
 The hidden cave "was covered with a 
 dreadful thing, a veritable sepulchre of souls, 
 a building to the impure demon Aphrodite, 
 to whom an image was set up." One asks 
 
III.] JEWS FORBIDDEN IN JERUSALEM 185 
 
 the question : Upon whose authority does 
 Eusebius make this statement ? If such a 
 dehberate desecration had taken place it 
 would never have been allowed to pass 
 unnoticed by previous Christian writers, 
 and yet not one has alluded to either 
 Golgotha or the tomb, let alone their 
 desecration. 
 
 Again, who were these " impious persons " 
 who at some unspecified date had of set 
 purpose desecrated the sacred spot ? They 
 cannot have been the Roman governors of 
 ^lia nor either of the emperors, for no 
 writer — and certainly not one engaged in 
 praising the reigning Caesar — would have 
 dared to make such a statement. It would 
 have savoured too much of crimen Icbscb 
 rnajestatis with its consequent death penalty. 
 Nor was it likely to have been the Jews, 
 as after the defeat of Bar Cocheba Jerusalem 
 was ploughed up and the ruins of the Temple 
 finally destroyed.^ They were then informed 
 that if they so much as came to the city, 
 much more if they entered it, they should 
 be starved to death ; and when in the reiofn 
 of Constantine they were once more allowed 
 to return, they would not have erected 
 
 ^ Maimonides, Bib, Rabbinica^ iii. 67. 
 
 2 A 
 
1 86 THE HOLY SEPULCHRE [Lect. 
 
 a temple in honour of a deity of their 
 conquerors. Knowing how irresistible and 
 relentless was the hand of Rome, it seems 
 impossible to believe that " neither governors, 
 praetors, nor emperors " could abolish these 
 "impieties" did they wish to do so. We 
 never hear of the subject until Constantine 
 with his materialistic Roman intellect wished 
 to establish first a cultus of the cross, and 
 then of the sacred sites. 
 
 Several pilgrimages to Jerusalem are 
 recorded as having been made before 
 Constantine's reign by Christians of the 
 Eastern Church. Melito of Sardis visited 
 it in the end of the second century, 
 Alexander of Cappadocia afterwards Bishop 
 of Jerusalem, and Firmilian in the third, and 
 many others are mentioned in the fourth ; 
 but they went "to see where the Gospel 
 history was acted out," "in consequence of 
 a vow," "for the sake of information," "to 
 investigate the footsteps of Jesus," and 
 "to worship on the Mount of Olives." 
 Evidently Golgotha and the tomb had no 
 attraction for them. 
 
 The required sites having been miracu- 
 lously pointed out to the Bishop of yElia, 
 and the layers of earth removed, " contrary 
 
III.] HELENA AND THE TRUE CROSS 187 
 
 to all expectation the venerable monument 
 of our Saviour's resurrection became visible." 
 The miraculous indication of a rock-tomb 
 — and rock-tombs are common enough in 
 Jerusalem — will hardly be deemed by 
 archaeologists sufficient proof that this 
 particular grave selected by Macarius, and 
 over which Constantine built the famous 
 basilica, was in fact the Holy Sepulchre. 
 We are told that in this same place Helena 
 discovered three crosses and the tablet of 
 Pilate,^ and she being distressed, and fear- 
 ing that through ignorance she might 
 venerate one of the robbers' crosses instead 
 of the Saviour's, confided her difficulty to 
 Macarius, who to relieve her sought a sign 
 from heaven, and shortly obtained it. There 
 was a lady of rank living in Jerusalem at 
 the time, who was ill with an incurable 
 disease, so the Bishop and the Emperor's 
 mother proceeded to her bed - side and 
 applied pieces of each cross to her body. 
 When the wood of the Saviour's cross 
 touched her she forthwith arose healed.^ 
 Sulpicius Severus gives another version 
 equally incredible. When Helena was in 
 
 ^ Socrates, Hist. Eccles.., i. 17. 
 ^ Sozomen, Hist. Eccles..^ ii. i. 
 
l88 THE HOLY SEPULCHRE [LecT. 
 
 her worst difficulty, "just as if by the 
 appointment of God," the funeral of a dead 
 man was being conducted with the usual 
 ceremonies ; all rushing up took the body 
 from the bier. It was applied in vain to 
 the first two crosses, but when it touched 
 that of Christ, wonderful to tell, while all 
 stood trembling, the dead body was shaken 
 off and stood up in the midst of those 
 looking at it. The true cross was thus 
 identified and consecrated with all ceremony.-' 
 Unfortunately neither of these stories 
 carries with it either probability, or even 
 possibility. However, Helena and Macarius 
 were quite satisfied as to the genuineness of 
 this "venerable and hallowed monument of 
 Our Saviour's Resurrection," as well as of 
 the "venerable wood of Our Lord's Cross," 
 for Constantine wrote to the Bishop and 
 ordered "that a house of prayer should be 
 erected round the cave of salvation, on a 
 scale of rich and imperial costliness." This 
 looks as if the Emperor's original intention 
 had been to include the whole ground of 
 Golgotha and the tomb within one magni- 
 ficent basilica, which plan was evidently 
 abandoned, as two churches arose, those of 
 ' S. Severus, Hist. Sacra., ii. 31. 
 
III.] THE CHURCH OF THE ANASTASIS 189 
 
 the Martyrion and the Anastasis which were 
 connected by a court. They are spoken of 
 by Euseblus as "a temple" raised by the 
 Emperor, in order to be a conspicuous monu- 
 ment of the Saviour's resurrection/ The 
 Church of the Anastasis — otherwise known 
 as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre — was 
 completed about a.d. 335, and was then 
 officially announced to the Christian world 
 as covering the long-lost and newly-found 
 site of the Saviour's tomb. 
 
 It is a significant fact that for the first 
 three hundred years after the crucifixion 
 no interest appears to have been taken in 
 the supposed sites of Golgotha or the tomb, 
 and they were even lost sight of. 
 
 In A.D. 335 Constantine established a cultus 
 of them after their miraculous discovery. 
 
 Before another four hundred years were 
 past doubts had already begun to arise in 
 the minds of many of the Palestine pilgrims 
 as to their authenticity, added to the fact 
 that they were inside the city. These doubts 
 seem first to have been voiced by Willibald, 
 who about a.d. 750, writes that "Calvary 
 was formerly outside Jerusalem, but Helena, 
 ' Eusebius, Life of Constantine., iii. 40. 
 
igO THE HOLY SEPULCHRE [Lect. 
 
 when she found the cross, arranged that 
 place so as to be within the city." ^ 
 
 From that time onwards we find the 
 question being raised at intervals until 1738, 
 when a bookseller of Altona, Korte by 
 name, went to Palestine to study the sacred 
 places, and as the result of his journey 
 wrote a book entirely rejecting Constantine's 
 sites.'^ Since then their authenticity has been 
 questioned with both vigour and scholarship, 
 while at the same time numerous places have 
 been suggested all more or less unlikely. 
 
 The most widely known and popular 
 theory is that of Otto Thenius and his 
 followers, who would like to identify the so- 
 called "Skull Hill" and the quarry below it 
 — commonly known as El - Edhemiyeh or 
 "Jeremiah's Grotto" — with Golgotha and 
 the tomb. Unfortunately General Gordon, 
 who was po archaeologist, was immensely 
 taken with it and vigorously advocated it, 
 but from a purely mystical and fanciful point 
 of view, which cannot for one moment 
 carry any weight. There is not a shred of 
 evidence either direct or indirect, to favour 
 the idea that one of the meanest tombs in 
 
 * Palestine Pilgrims' Texts, iii. 
 
 2 Korte, Reise nach den Weiland gelobte Lande. 
 
III.] TRUE SITES LOST 19I 
 
 the cemetery outside Jerusalem, excavated 
 in an old disused stone quarry, and possess- 
 ing unmistakable Christian details, can ever 
 have been the "Garden Tomb" of the 
 wealthy councillor, Joseph of Arimathsea. 
 
 Although we are not justified in positively 
 asserting that the Church of the Holy 
 Sepulchre, the Garden Tomb, and the various 
 other suggested places are not any of them 
 the sacred tomb, yet there are strong archaeo- 
 logical and historical reasons for thinking 
 that they cannot be the authentic sites. 
 
 My own belief is that the knowledge of 
 the sacred places has been lost, and will 
 remain so for ever. 
 
INDEX 
 
 ABSOLVO, 126, 128 
 Academies, the Palestinian, 41 
 Accusatio, the, 128 
 Accusation, the, iii, 167, 170 
 ^lia, the city of, 179, 180 
 Agrippa I., 55 
 Ai, the people of, 152 
 Akiba, the Rabbi, 41, 43 
 Alexander the Great, 151-154 
 
 of Cappadocia, 186 
 
 Annas, 61-64 
 
 Antipas, Herod, 103 
 
 Antonia, the Castle of, 30, loi, 108 
 
 Arbor infelix, 150, 154 
 
 Archelaus, 55, 102 
 
 Arrest, Jewish law of, 30, 31, 32 
 
 Babylonian bas-reliefs, 151 
 Barabbas, 116 
 Bar Cocheba, 179, 185 
 Bedikoth, 87 
 Bema, the, 108, 124 
 Bernard the Pilgrim, 136 
 Bethany, 23 
 Bct-ha-Sekala, the, 84 
 Blasphemy, 89, 96 
 
 , punishment for, 19 
 
 "Book of Adam," 144 
 Booths of Annas, 62 
 
 C^SAREA STRATONIS, IOI 
 
 Caiaphas, 23, 47, 63, 67, 90-92, 
 
 no 
 "Carrying the Cross," 134 
 Chlamys, the, 131 
 
 XiX/apxos, 27, 28, 29 
 
 Christ, outline of ministry, 5-1 1 ; 
 fulfilled the law, 11 ; the 
 Reformer, 14 ; accusations 
 against, 18 ; attempts on life 
 of, 19-22 ; orders for arrest 
 of, 23-25 ; watched by spies, 
 24 ; the arrest of, 27 et seq. 
 
 Christians, flight of the, 178 ; 
 return of the, 179 
 
 Church of the Anastasis, 189 
 
 Cicero, 154 
 
 Citizen, privileges of a Roman, 
 127 
 
 Claudia Procula, 103 
 
 Cohort, a, 27, 28 
 
 Condentno, 129 
 
 Condemnation of Christ, 93, 125 
 
 Constantine, 181, 182, 185 
 
 , Life of, 183 
 
 Cornus, the, 159 
 
 Crimen Lesce divina, 18, 19 
 
 majesiatis, 112 
 
 Crispus, 182 
 
 Cross, different forms of, 157 
 
 Crown of thorns, the, 132 
 
 Cruciarius, 150 
 
 Crucifixion, hour of the, 133 ; 
 site of the, 147 ; origin of, 
 150 ; a lingering death, 155 ; 
 nailing of hands and feet, 159- 
 165 ; early representations of, 
 165 ; administration of 
 anodyne, 167 ; piercing of 
 side, 163, 171 
 
 [93 2 B 
 
194 
 
 INDIiX 
 
 Crurifragium, the, 171 
 
 Crux, the, 151 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, 136 
 
 Death of Christ, 148, 149 
 Dedication, feast of, 22 
 Discrepancies in Gospels, 33-34 
 Dream, the, of Pilate's wife, 
 
 117, 118 
 Dupin, 98 
 
 Edfou, 152 
 Elders, the, 45 
 Eleazar, the Rabbi, 43 
 Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, 59 
 Ephraim, city of, 24 
 Epictctus, 4 
 Epiphanius, 141, 179 
 Eusebius, 141, 180, 183 
 Excusatio, the, 12S 
 
 "Father of tlie House of 
 
 Justice," the, 46 
 Fausta, 182 
 Felix, 126 
 Festus, 126 
 Fimiilian, 186 
 Flagellation, mode of, 134 
 Frankincense, 166 
 
 Galilee, 14 
 Gall, 166 
 
 Gallio, Annreus, no 
 Gamaliel, the Rabbi, 26, 41, 47 
 Gazith, 26 
 Gerizim, Mt., 105 
 Germanicus, 103 
 Gibeonites, the, 153 
 Golgotha, 135 et set]., 180; 
 
 possible site of, 137, 138 ; 
 
 origin of name, 140, 141 ; 
 
 legends of, 142-145 
 Gordon's Tomb, 191 
 Gregory Nazianzen, 164 
 
 Hadrian, 179 
 
 Hakiroth, 87 
 
 " Hall of Ilcwn Stones," the, 50 
 
 "Hanging up," 152, 153 
 Hannasi, Kabbi Jehuda, 41 
 Hasidcans, the, 52 
 Hasmon;vans, the, 100 
 Helena, 184, 1S7 
 Hellenisers, the, 52, 54 
 Herod, 55, 61, 103, 119 
 Herodians, 8, 10 
 High priest, the, 63 
 Hillel, the Rabbi, 41, 47, 52 
 
 Impaling, 151 
 Interrogation the, 128 
 
 Jamnia, 44, 52 
 
 feremiah's grotto, 191 
 
 lews, the, 12; their religion, 
 12; their government, 13; 
 conquest by Rome, 13 ; 
 privileges of the, 17, 99, 100, 
 102 ; a theocratic common- 
 wealth, 18 ; banished from 
 Jerusalem, 180, 1S5 
 
 Jerusalem, 44 ; government of, 
 100, loi ; destruction of, 179, 
 185; a Roman colony, 180; 
 pilgrimages to, 186 
 
 John Hyrcanus, 56 
 
 John the Baptist, 1 5 
 
 Jonathan, 153 
 
 Jos(^ ben Chalaftha, 149 
 
 Joseph, 152 
 
 josephus, 4, 53, 56, 62, 104 
 
 Joshua, 153 
 
 Judas Iscariot, 25 
 
 Judge, qualifications of, 79 
 
 Judges, the, 46, 48 
 
 Judgment, how arrived at, 83 
 
 Jupiter Capitolinus, temple of, 
 180 
 
 Jus g/adii, the, 99 
 
 KoRTfc, 190 
 
 Law, the, 10, 42 
 , Jewish, 35 
 
INDEX 
 
 195 
 
 Law, Jewish, two fundamental 
 
 principles, 20, 21 
 Lazarus, 22, 24 
 Legion, the tenth, 178 
 Lithostroton, the, 124 
 Loisy, 30 
 Lucian, 4 
 
 Macarius, 184, 187 
 
 , Bishop, 181 
 
 Mairnonides, 36, 95, 98 
 Martha, 7 
 
 Martyrion, the, 189 
 Mary, 7 
 Mastahah, 173 
 Meir, Rabbi, 42 
 Melito of Sardis, 186 
 Mesith, a, 24, 60 
 Messiah, the, 15 
 
 , rejection of, 95, 124 
 
 Mishna, the, 30, 35, 37, 39, 40 
 Mommscn, 36, 98 
 Monachus, Alexander, 182 
 Money trials, 77 
 Mofts Calvaria, 136 
 Myrrh, 166 
 
 NiCODEMUS, 7, 20, 21 
 
 Nisan, 31 
 Non liquet, 126 
 
 Oath, form of, 80 
 Olives, Mount of, 180, 181 
 Onias IIL, 51 
 Opium poppy, the, 167 
 Origen, 140 
 
 Palace of the high priest, 68 
 
 of Hasmonaians, 108 
 
 of Herod, 108 
 
 Palus, 151 
 Passover, the, 24 
 PaHbulum, 134, 158 
 Perjury, punishment of, 83 
 Pharisees, 7, 10, 14, 16, 51, 54 
 Philo, 105 
 
 Pilate, Pontius, 5, 23, 62, 67, 
 102 e( seq., 125 
 
 Pilate's failure, ro6, 116 
 
 question, 113 
 
 Pliny, 4 
 
 Posca, 170 
 
 Prsetorium, the, 108, 113 
 
 , 138 
 
 Priests, high, the, 13 
 
 QuiRlNlus, P. S., 61, 102 
 
 Rabbinowicz, 98 
 Recognitio, 128 
 
 , the right of, 99, 1 1 1 
 
 Reform, 10 
 
 Renan, E., 12 
 
 Reprieve, 85 
 
 Rizpah, 153 
 
 Roman criminal procedure, 125- 
 
 127 
 policy towards conquered 
 
 people, 127 
 Rosadi, 37, 98 
 Rufmus, 183 
 
 Sacrilege, 89 
 
 Sadducees, 8, 10, 16, 45, 54, 57, 
 
 lOI 
 
 Salvador, 36, 65, 95, 98 
 
 Samaritans, 104 
 
 Sanhedrin, 31, 32, 37, 44^/5*^., 
 
 62, 65, 94 
 , council of, 23 ; election 
 
 to, 45, 46 ; meeting - place 
 
 of, 50 ; method of voting, 50 ; 
 
 minor, 44 ; powers of, 25 et 
 
 ^^9-i 97 ; session of, 33 ; the 
 
 tractate, 39 
 Saul, 153 
 
 Scarlet robe, the, 131 
 Scourging, 120-122 
 Scribes, 10, 57, 60 
 Sedile excessus, the, 159 
 Sepulchre, Church of the, 173 
 
 , the Holy, 180 
 
 , Holy, site of lost, 184 
 
 , , cultus of, 189 
 
 , , miraculous finding 
 
 of, 182, ei seq. 187 
 
196 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Sequence of events, 70 et seq. 
 Sheds, the, 51 
 Shema, the, 39 
 Shoterim, 29, 49 
 Simeon, 43 
 Simon, 47 
 
 , the guardian, 51 
 
 of Kyrene, 133 
 
 Socrates, 183 
 
 Sopherim, 57 
 
 Sorcery, 89 
 
 Sozomen, 183 
 
 (Tireipa, the, 27, 28, 29, 131 
 
 St Augustine, 144 
 
 Gregory Nazianzen, 136 
 
 Paul, 126 
 
 Pudenziana, the Basilica 
 
 of, 135 
 (TTavpos, the, 1 5 1, 1 58 
 Stoning, 84 
 arpaTTiyds, the, 28' 
 Students, law, 49 
 Suetonius, 4 
 Sulpicius, Severus, 183, 187 
 
 Tacitus, 4, 5 
 Talmud, the, 4, 38, 39 
 Tannaim, the, 42 
 Tarphon, the Rabbi, 43 
 Temple guard, the, 29 
 Thenius, Otto, 190 
 Theodoret, 183 
 
 Tiberias, 42, 52 
 
 Tiberius, 5, 61, 159 
 
 Tituhis, the, 167 
 
 Titus, 178 
 
 Tomb of Joseph of Arimatha;a, 
 
 137 
 not reverenced, 173, 175- 
 
 178 
 Torah, the, 38 
 Tradition, 59 
 Treason against God, 18 
 Trial, the Jewish, 72 et seq. 
 
 , the Roman, 108 et seq. 
 
 " Trials in Souls," 77 
 Trilmnns, the, 28, 29 
 "True Cross," the finding of 
 
 the, 182, 187 
 
 vTrripirai, the, 20 
 
 Valerius Gratus, 61, 63, 67 
 
 Verdict, the, 115, 129 
 
 Verres, 154 
 
 Vespasian, 179 
 
 Via Dolorosa, 145, 147 
 
 Vitellius, 105 
 
 Washing, the, of Pilate's hands, 
 
 1x8 
 Wellhausen, 57 
 Willibald, 189 
 Wine, sour, 170 
 Witnesses, 65, 74-80 
 
 PRINTED AT THK HDINBURGH I'KP.SS, 9 ANU II YOUNG STKBUT. 
 
Date Due 
 
 ^^ : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 llJMg^U^^j^b^MJJi 
 
 
 
 
 1 II — 
 
 ■n 
 
 
 
 rf--<«*^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ( ll_ 
 
 I** 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
^w^ 
 
 BS2425.6 B86 
 
 The trial and crucifixion of Jesus 
 
 lllirill nil l«r ,?l?^'"' Semmary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00057 2596