K^l" ^^ lfesMW»^^ I / ^ ^....-^ ^V //- > -^w .^..'w^iL: ■%«3: ^:^^* s>4 ^i i¥ ^^<^"lagfti,j PRINCETON, N. J. ''Ph. '*A Division .JZj.S^^ 2, S Section... i.^.A.dA't^ v,2 >r*' I^Mj THE TRIAL OF JESUS THE TRIAL OF JESUS FROM A LAWYER'S STANDPOINT Li\x QF n BY WALTER M. CHANDLER OF THE NEW YORK BAR [* APR 9 1909 VOLUME II THE ROMAN TRIAL THE EMPIRE PUBLISHING CO. 60 Wall Street, New York City 1908 Copyright, 190?, by WALTER M. CHANDLER jIll rights restr-ved LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Christ Before Pilate (Munkacsy) Tiberius C^sar (Antique Sculpture) . Pontius Pilate (Munkacsy) , Christ Leaving the Pr^torium (Dore) The Crucifixion (Munkacsy) Jupiter (Antique Sculpture) . Ave C^sar! Io Saturnalia (Alma-Tadema) The Dying Gladiator (Antique Sculpture) Reading from Homer (Alma-Tadema) Frontisftece FAcmo PAGB 68 8i 141 175 195 240 260 270 CONTENTS OF VOLUME TWO Preface to Volume Two PART I THE ROMAN TRIAL CHAPTER PAGE I. A Twofold Jurisdiction 3 II. Number of Regular Trials 9 III. Powers and Duties of Pilate 24 IV. Mode of Trial in Roman Capital Cases .... ^\' V. Roman Forms of Punishment '^ VI. Roman Law Applicable to the Trial of Jesus . . 68 VII. Pontius Pilate 81 VIII. Jesus Before Pilate 96 IX. Jesus Before Herod 119 X. Jesus Again Before Pilate 129 XI. Legal Analysis and Summary of the Roman Trial of Jesus 141 PART II GR^CO-ROMAN PAGANISM I. The Gr^co-Roman Religion 198 II. Gr^co-Roman Social Life 236 APPENDICES I. Characters of the Sanhedrists who Tried Jesus . . 291 II. Acts of Pilate 327 Bibliography 3^3 Index 3^9 PREFACE TO VOLUME TWO UFFICIENT was said concern- ing ihe entire work in the pref- ace to volume one to warrant a very brief preface to volume two. The reader will notice that the plan of treatment of the Roman trial of Jesus is radically differ- ent from that employed in the , Hebrew trial. There is no Rec- ord of Fact in the second volume, for the reason that the Record of Fact dealt with in the first volume is common to the two trials. Again, there is no Brief of the Roman trial and no systematic and exhaustive treatment of Roman criminal law in the second vol- ume, corresponding with such a treatment of the He- brew trial, under Hebrew criminal law, in the first volume. This is explained by the fact that the San- hedrin found Jesus guilty, while both Pilate and Herod found Him not guilty. A proper consideration then of the Hebrew trial became a matter of review on appeal, requiring a Brief, containing a complete state- ment of facts, an ample exposition of law, and sufficient argument to show the existence of error in the judg- ment. The nature of the verdicts pronounced by Pilate and by Herod rendered these things unnecessary in dealing with the Roman trial. X PREFACE TO VOLUME TWO In Part II of this volume, Graeco-Roman Pagan- ism at the time of Christ has been treated. It is evident that this part of the treatise has no legal con- nection with the trial of Jesus. It w^as added simply to give coloring and atmosphere to the painting of the great tragedy. It will serve the further purpose, it is believed, of furnishing a key to the motives of the lead- ing actors in the drama, by describing their social, re- ligious, and political environments. The strictly legal features of a great criminal trial are rarely ever alto- gether sufficient for a proper understanding of even the judicial aspects of the case. The religious faith of Pilate, the judge, is quite as important a factor in de- termining the merits of the Roman trial, as is the re- ligious belief of Jesus, the prisoner. This contention will be fully appreciated after a careful perusal of Chapter VI of this volume. Short biographical sketches of about forty members of the Great Sanhedrin who tried Jesus have been given under Appendix I at the end of this work. They were originally written by MM. Lemann, two of the great- est Hebrew scholars of France, and are doubtless au- thoritative and correct. These sketches will familiarize the reader with the names and characters of a majority of the Hebrew judges of Jesus. And it may be added that they are a very valuable addition to the general work, since the character of the tribunal is an impor- tant consideration in the trial of any case, civil or criminal. The apocryphal Acts of Pilate have been given under Appendix II. But the author does not thereby PREFACE TO VOLUME TWO xi vouch for their authenticity. They have been added because of their very intimate connection with the trial of Jesus; and for the further reason that, whether authentic or not, quotations from them are to be found everywhere in literature, sacred and secular, dealing with this subject. The mystery of their origin, the question of their genuineness, and the final disposition that will be made of them, render the Acts of Pilate a subject of surpassing interest to the student of ancient documents. Walter M. Chandler. New York City, July i, 1908. PART I THE ROMAN TRIAL Christus, Tibcrio imperitante, per procuratorein Pontium Pilatum supplicio afFectus est. — Tacitus. CHAPTER I A TWOFOLD JURISDICTION P^^^ ^^^ttHQ{^^^ T M ■ m H HE Hebrew trial of Jesus hav- ing ended, the Roman trial be- gan. The twofold character of the proceedings against the Christ invested them with a sol- emn majesty, an awful gran- deur. The two mightiest juris- dictions of the earth assumed cognizance of charges against the Man of Galilee, the central figure of all history. " His tomb," says Lamartine, " was the grave of the Old World and the cradle of the New," and now upon His life before He descended into the tomb, Rome, the mother of laws, and Jerusalem, the destroyer of proph- ets, sat in judgment. The Sanhedrin, or Grand Council, which conducted the Hebrew trial of Jesus was the high court of justice and the supreme tribunal of the Jews. It numbered seventy-one members. Its powers were legislative, executive, and judicial. It exercised all the functions of education, of government, and of religion. It was the national parliament of the Hebrew Theocracy, the human administrator of the divine! will. It was the 3 4 THE TRIAL OF JESUS most august tribunal that ever interpreted or adminis- tered religion to man. Its judges applied the laws of the most peculiar and venerable system of jurispru- dence known to civilized mankind, and condemned upon the charge of blasphemy against Jehovah, the most precious and illustrious of the human race. Standing alone, the Hebrew trial of Christ would have been the most thrilling and impressive judicial pro- ceeding in all history. The Mosaic Code, whose pro- visions form the basis of this trial, is the foundation of the Bible, the most potent juridical as well as spir- itual agency in the universe. In all the courts of Christendom it binds the consciences, if it does not mold the convictions, of judge and jury in passing judgment upon the rights of life, liberty, and property. The Bible is everywhere to be found. It is read in the jungles of Africa, while crossing burning deserts, and amidst Arctic snows. No ship ever puts to sea without this sacred treasure. It is found in the cave of the hermit, in the hut of the peasant, in the palace of the king, and in the Vatican of the pope. It adorns the altar where bride and bridegroom meet to pledge eternal love. It sheds its hallowing influence upon the baptismal font where infancy is christened into reli- gious life. Its divine precepts furnish elements of morals and manliness in formative life to jubilant youth; cast a radiant charm about the strength of lusty manhood; and when life's pilgrimage is ended, oflfer to the dying patriarch, who clasps it to his bosom, a sublime solace as he crosses the great divide and passes into the twilight's purple gloom. This noble book has A TWOFOLD JURISDICTION 5 furnished not only the most enduring laws and the sub- limest religious truths, but inspiration as well to the grandest intellectual triumphs. It is literally woven into the literature of the world, and few books of mod- ern times are worth reading that do not reflect the sen- timents of its sacred pages. And it was the Mosaic Code, the basis of this book, that furnished the legal guide to the Sanhedrin in the trial of the Christ. Truly it may be said that no other trial mentioned in history would have been comparable to this, if the pro- ceedings had ended here. But to the Hebrew was added Roman cognizance, and the result was a judicial transaction at once unique and sublime. If the sacred spirit of the Hebrew law has illuminated the con- science of the world in every age, it must not be forgot- ten that " the written reason of the Roman law has been silently and studiously transfused " into all our modern legal and political life. The Roman judicial system is incomparable in the history of jurisprudence. Judea gave religion, Greece gave letters, and Rome gave laws to mankind. Thus runs the judgment of the world. A fine sense of justice was native to the Roman mind. A spirit of domination was the mental accom- paniment of this trait. The mighty abstraction called Rome may be easily resolved into two cardinal con- crete elements: the Legion and the Law. The legion was the unit of the military system through which Rome conquered the world. The law was the cement- ing bond betsveen the conquered states and the sover- eign city on the hills. The legion was the guardian and protector of the physical boundaries of the Em- 6 THE TRIAL OF JESUS pire, and Roman citizens felt contented and secure, as long as the legionaries were loyal to the standards and the eagles. The presence of barbarians at the gate created not so much consternation and despair among the citizens of Rome, as did the news of the mutiny of the soldiers of Germanicus on the Rhine. What the legion was to the body, the law was to the soul of Rome — the highest expression of its sanctity and majesty. And when her physical body that once extended from Scotland to Judea, and from Dacia to Abyssinia was dead, in the year 476 A.D., her soul rose triumphant in her laws and established a second Roman Empire over the minds and consciences of men. The Corpus Juris Civilis of Justinian is a text-book in the greatest uni- versities of the world, and Roman law is to-day the basis of the jurisprudence of nearly every state of con- tinental Europe. The Germans never submitted to Caesar and his legions. They were the first to resist successfully, then to attack vigorously, and to over- throw finally the Roman Empire. And yet, until a few years ago, Germans obeyed implicitly the edicts and decrees of Roman praetors and tribunes. Is it any wonder, then, that the lawyers of all modern centuries have looked back with filial love and veneration to the mighty jurisconsults of the imperial republic? Is it any w^onder that the tragedy of the Praetorium and Gol- gotha, aside from its sacred aspects, is the most notable event in history? Jesus was arraigned in one day, in one city, before the sovereign courts of the universe; before the Sanhedrin, the supreme tribunal of a di- vinely commissioned race; before the court of the Ro- A TWOFOLD JURISDICTION 7 man Empire that determined the legal and political rights of men throughout the known world. The Nazarene stood charged with blasphemy and with treason against the enthroned monarchs represented by these courts; blasphemy against Jehovah who, from the lightning-lit summit of Sinai, proclaimed His laws to mankind; treason against Caesar, enthroned and uttering his will to the world amidst the pomp and splendor of Rome. History records no other instance of a trial conducted before the courts of both Heaven and earth; the court of God and the court of man; under the law of Israel and the law of Rome; before Caiaphas and Pilate, as the representatives of these courts and administrators of these laws. Approaching more closely the consideration of the nature and character of the Roman trial, we are con- fronted at once by several pertinent and interesting questions. In the first place, were there two distinct trials of Jesus? If so, why were there two trials instead of one? Were the two trials separate and independent? If not, was the second trial a mere review of the first, or was the first a mere preliminary to the second? Again, what charges were brought against Jesus at the hearing before Pilate? Were these charges the same as those preferred against Him at the trial before the Sanhedrin? Upon what charge was He finally condemned and crucified? Again, what Roman law was applicable to the charges made against Jesus to Pilate? Did Pilate apply these laws either in letter or in spirit? 8 THE TRIAL OF JESUS Was there an attempt by Pilate to attain substantial justice, either with or without the due observance of forms of law? Did Pilate apply Hebrew or Roman law to the charges presented to him against the Christ? What forms of criminal procedure, if any, were cm- ployed by Pilate in conducting the Roman trial of Jesus? If not legally, was Pilate politically justified in delivering Jesus to be crucified? A satisfactory answer to several of these questions, in the introductory chapters of this volume, is deemed absolutely essential to a thorough understanding of the discussion of the trial proper which will follow. The plan proposed is to describe first the powers and duties of Pilate as presiding judge at the trial of Christ. And for this purpose, general principles of Roman provincial administration will be outlined and dis- cussed ; the legal and political status of the subject Jew in his relationship to the conquering Roman will be considered; and the exact requirements of criminal procedure in Roman capital trials, at the time of Christ, will, if possible, be determined. It is believed that in the present case it will be more logical and effective to state first what should have been done by Pilate in the trial of Jesus, and then follow with an account of what was actually done, than to reverse this order of procedure. CHAPTER II NUMBER OF REGULAR TRIALS ERE there two regular trials of Jesus? In the first volume of this work this question was re- viewed at length in the intro- duction to the Brief. The au- thorities were there cited and discussed. It was there seen that one class of writers deny the existence of the Great Sanhe- drin at the time of Christ. These same writers declare that there could have been no Hebrew trial of Jesus, since there was no competent Hebrew court in exist- ence to try Him. This class of critics assert that the so-called Sanhedrin that met in the palace of Caiaphas was an ecclesiastical body, acting without judicial authority; and that their proceedings were merely preparatory to charges to be presented to Pilate, who was alone competent to try capital cases. Those who make this contention seek to uphold it by saying that the errors were so numerous and the proceedings so flagrant, according to the Gospel account, that there could have been no trial at all before the Sanhedrin; that the party of priests who arrested and examined 9 lo THE TRIAL OF JESUS Jesus did not constitute a court, but rather a vigilance committee. On the other hand, other writers contend that the only regular trial was that before the Sanhedrin; and that the appearance before Pilate was merely for the purpose of securing his confirmation of a regular judi- cial sentence which had already been pronounced. Renan, the ablest exponent of this class, says: "The course which the priests had resolved to pursue in re- gard to Jesus was quite in conformity with the estab- lished law. The plan of the enemies of Jesus was to convict Him, by the testimony of witnesses and by His own avowals, of blasphemy and of outrage against the Mosaic religion, to condemn Him to death according to law, and then to get the condemnation sanctioned by Pilate." Still another class of writers contend that there were two distinct trials. Innes thus tersely and forcibly states the proposition: "Whether it was legitimate or not for the Jews to condemn for a capital crime, on this occasion they did so. Whether it was legitimate or not for Pilate to try over again an accused whom they had condemned, on this occasion he did so. There were certainly two trials. And the dialogue already narrated expresses with a most admirable terseness the struggle which we should have expected between the elTort of the Jews to get a mere counter- sign of their sentence, and the determination of Pilate to assume the full judicial responsibility, whether of first instance or of revision." This contention, it is be- lieved, is right, and has been acted upon in dividing NUMBER OF REGULAR TRIALS ii the general treatise into two volumes, and in devoting each to a separate trial of the case. Why were there two trials of Jesus? When the San- hedrists had condemned Christ to death upon the charge of blasphemy, why did they not lead Him away to execution, and stone Him to death, as their law re- quired? Why did they seek the aid of Pilate and invoke the sanction of Roman authority? The answer to these questions is to be found in the historic relation- ship that existed, at the time of the crucifixion, be- tween the sovereign Roman Empire and the dependent province of Judea. The student of history will re- member that the legions of Pompey overran Palestine in the year 63 B.C., and that the land of the Jews then became a subject state. After the deposition of Arche- laus, A.D. 6, Judea became a Roman province, and was governed by procurators who were sent out from Rome. The historian Rawlinson has described the political situation of Judea, at the time of Christ, as '' complicated and anomalous, undergoing frequent changes, but retaining through them all certain pecu- liarities which made that country unique among the dependencies of Rome. Having passed under Roman rule with the consent and by the assistance of a large party of its inhabitants, it was allowed to maintain for a while a sort of semi-independence. A mixture of Roman with native power resulted from this cause and a complication in a political status difficult to be thor- oughly understood by one not native and contem- porary." The difficulty in determining the exact political 12 THE TRIAL OF JESUS status of the Jews at the time of Christ has given birth to the radically dififerent views concerning the number and nature of the trials of Jesus. The most learned critics are in direct antagonism on the point. More than forty years ago Salvador and Dupin debated the question in France. The former contended that the Sanhedrin retained complete authority after the Ro- man conquest to try even capital crimes, and that sen- tence of death pronounced by the supreme tribunal of the Jews required only the countersign or approval of the Roman procurator. On the other hand, it was argued by Dupin that the Sanhedrin had no right whatever to try cases of a capital nature; that their whole procedure was a usurpation; and that the only competent and legitimate trial of Christ was the one conducted by Pilate. How difficult the problem is of solution will be apparent when we reflect that both these disputants were able, learned, conscientious men who, with the facts of history in front of them, arrived at entirely dififerent conclusions. Amidst the general confusion and uncertainty, the reader must rely upon himself, and appeal to the facts and philosophy of his- tory for light and guidance. In seeking to ascertain the political relationship be- tween Rome and Judea at the time of Christ, two im- portant considerations should be kept in mind: (i) That there was no treaty or concordat, defining mutual rights and obligations, existing between the two pow- ers; Romans were the conquerors and Jews were the conquered; the subject Jews enjoyed just so much religious and political freedom as the conquering NUMBER OF REGULAR TRIALS 13 Romans saw fit to grant them; (2) that it was the policy of the Roman government to grant to subject states the greatest amount of freedom in local self- government that was consistent with the interests and sovereignty of the Roman people. These two consid- erations are fundamental and indispensable in forming a correct notion of the general relations between the two powers. The peculiar character of Judea as a fragment of the mighty Roman Empire should also be kept clearly in mind. Roman conquest, from first to last, resulted in three distinct types of political communities more or less strongly bound by ties of interest to Rome. These classes were: (i) Free states; (2) allied states; and (3) subject states. The communities of Italy were in the main, free and allied, and were members of a great military confederacy. The provinces beyond Italy were, in the main, subject states and dependent upon the good will and mercy of Rome. The free states re- ceived from Rome a charter of privileges (lex data) which, however, the Roman senate might at any time revoke. The allied cities were bound by a sworn treaty (fceJus), a breach of which was a cause of war. In either case, whether of charter or treaty, the grant of privileges raised the state or people on whom it was conferred to the level of the Italian communes and secured to its inhabitants absolute control of their own finances, free and full possession of their land, which exempted them from the payment of tribute, and, above all, allowed them entire freedom in the adminis- tration of their local laws. The subject states were 14 THE TRIAL OF JESUS ruled by Roman governors who administered the so- called law of the province (lex provincite). This law was peculiar to each province and was framed to meet all the exigencies of provincial life. It was sometimes the work of a conquering general, assisted by a com- mission of ten men appointed by the senate. At other times, its character was determined by the decrees of the emperor and the senate, as well as by the edicts of the praetor and procurator. In any case, the law of the province (lex provincicB) was the sum total of the local provincial law which Rome saw fit to allow the people of the conquered state to retain, with Roman decrees and regulations superadded. These added de- crees and regulations were always determined by local provincial conditions. The Romans were no sticklers for consistency and uniformity in provincial adminis- tration. Adaptability and expediency were the main traits of the lawgiving and government-imposing genius of Rome. The payment of taxes and the fur- nishing of auxiliary troops were the chief exactions im- posed upon conquered states. An enlightened public policy prompted the Romans to grant to subject com- munities the greatest amount of freedom consistent with Roman sovereignty. Two main reasons formed the basis of this policy. One was the economy of time and labor, for the Roman official staff was not large enough to successfully perform those official duties which were usually incumbent upon the local courts. Racial and religious differences alone would have im- peded and prevented a successful administration of local government by Roman diplomats and officers. NUMBER OF REGULAR TRIALS 15 Another reason for Roman noninterference in local provincial affairs was that loyalty was created and peace promoted among the provincials by the enjoy- ment of their own laws and religions. To such an extent was this policy carried by the Romans that it is asserted by the best historians that there was little real difference in practice between the rights exercised by free and those enjoyed by subject states. On this point, Mommsen says : " In regard to the extent of applica- tion, the jurisdiction of the native courts and judicato- ries among subject communities can scarcely have been much more restricted than among the federated com- munities; while in administration and in civil jurisdic- tion we find the same principles operative as in legal procedure and criminal laws." ^ The difference be- tween the rights enjoyed by subject and those exercised by free states was that the former were subject to the whims and caprices of Rome, while the latter were protected by a written charter. A second difference was that Roman citizens residing within the bounda- ries of subject states had their own law and their own judicatories. The general result was that the citizens of subject states were left free to govern themselves subject to the two great obligations of taxation and military service. The Roman authorities, however, could and did interfere in legislation and in adminis- tration whenever Roman interests required. Now, in the light of the facts and principles just stated, what was the exact political status of the Jews at the time of Christ? Judea was a subject state. Did 1 Mommsen, " Romisches Staatsrecht," III. I. p. 748. 1 6 THE TRIAL OF JESUS the general laws of Roman provincial administration apply to this province? Or w^ere peculiar rights and privileges granted to the strange people who inhabited it? A great German writer answers in the affirmative. Geib says: " Only one province . . . namely Judea, at least in the earlier days of the empire, formed an ex- ception to all the arrangements hitherto described. Whereas in the other provinces the whole criminal jurisdiction was in the hands of the governor, and only in the most important cases had the supreme imperial courts to decide — just as in the least important matters the municipal courts did — the principle that applied in Judea was that at least in regard to questions of re- ligious offenses the high priest with the Sanhedrin could pronounce even death sentences, for the carrying out of which, however, the confirmation of the proc- urator was required." That Roman conquest did not blot out Jewish local self-government; and that the Great Sanhedrin still retained judicial and administrative power, subject to Roman authority in all matters pertaining to the local affairs of the Jews, is thus clearly and pointedly stated by Schiirer: " As regards the area over which the jurisdiction of the supreme Sanhedrin extended, it has been already remarked above that its civil authority was restricted, in the time of Christ, to the eleven toparchies of Judea proper. And accordingly, for this reason, it had no judicial authority over Jesus Christ so long as He remained in Galilee. It was only as soon as He entered Judea that He came directly under its jurisdiction. In a certain sense, no doubt, the San- NUMBER OF REGULAR TRIALS 17 hedrin exercised such jurisdiction over every Jewish community in the world, and in that sense over Galilee as wxll. Its orders were regarded as binding through- out the entire domain of orthodox Judaism. It had power, for example, to issue warrants to the congrega- tions (synagogues) in Damascus for the apprehension of the Christians in that quarter (Acts ix. 2; xxii. 5; xxvi. 12). At the same time, however, the extent to which the Jewish communities were willing to yield obedience to the orders of the Sanhedrin always de- pended on how far they were favorably disposed toward it. It was only within the limits of Judea proper that it exercised any direct authority. There could not possibly be a more erroneous way of defin- ing the extent of its jurisdiction as regards the kind of causes with which it was competent to deal than to say that it was the spiritual or theological tribunal in con- tradistinction to the civil judicatories of the Romans. On the contrary, it would be more correct to say that it formed, in contrast to the foreign authority of Rome, that supreme native court which here, as almost everyw^here else, the Romans had allowed to continue as before, only imposing certain restrictions with re- gard to competency. To this tribunal then belonged all those judicial matters and all those measures of an administrative character which either could not be competently dealt with by the inferior or local courts or which the Roman procurator had not specially reserved for himself." ^ The closing words of the last quotation suggest an ^ "The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ," 2d Div., I. p. 185. i8 THE TRIAL OF JESUS important fact which furnishes the answer to the ques- tion asked at the beginning of this chapter, Why were there two trials of Jesus? Schiirer declares that the Sanhedrin retained judicial and administrative power in all local matters which the *' procurator had not specially reserved for himself." Now, it should be borne in mind that there is not now in existence and that there probably never existed any law, treaty or decree declaring what judicial acts the Sanhedrin was competent to perform and what acts were reserved to the authority of the Roman governor. It is probable that in all ordinary crimes the Jews were allowed a free hand and final decision by the Romans. No in- terference took place unless Roman interests were in- volved or Roman sovereignty threatened. But one fact is well established by the great weight of author- ity: that the question of sovereignty was raised when- ever the question of life and death arose; and that Rome reserved to herself, in such a case, the preroga- tive of final judicial determination. Even this conten- tion, however, has been opposed by both ancient and modern writers of repute; and, for this reason, it has been thought necessary to cite authorities and offer ar- guments in favor of the proposition that the right of life or death, jus vit^e aut necis, had passed from Jew- ish into Roman hands at the time of Christ. Both sacred and profane history support the affirmative of this proposition. Regarding this matter, Schiirer says: " There is a special interest attaching to the ques- tion as to how far the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin was limited by the authority of the Roman procurator. NUMBER OF REGULAR TRIALS 19 We accordingly proceed to observe that, inasmuch as the Roman system of provincial government was not strictly carried out in the case of Judea, as the simple fact of its being administered by means of a procurator plainly shows, the Sanhedrin was still left in the enjoy- ment of a comparatively high degree of independence. Not only did it exercise civil jurisdiction, and that according to Jewish law (which was only a matter of course, as otherwise a Jewish court of justice would have been simply inconceivable), but it also enjoyed a considerable amount of criminal jurisdiction as well. It had an independent authority in regard to political affairs, and consequently possessed the right of order- ing arrests to be made by its own officers (Matt. xxvi. 47; Mark xiv. 43; Acts iv. 3; v. 17, 18). It had also the power of finally disposing, on its own authority, of such cases as did not involve sentence of death (Acts iv. 5-23 ; V. 21-40). It was only in cases in which such sentence of death was pronounced that the judgment required to be ratified by the authority of the proc- urator." ^ The Jews contend, and, indeed, the Talmud states that " forty years before the destruction of the temple the judgment of capital cases was taken away from Israel." Again, we learn from Josephus that the Jews had lost the power to inflict capital punishment from the day of the deposition of Archelaus, A.D. 6, when Judea became a Roman province and was placed under the control of Roman procurators. The great Jewish his- ^ "The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ," 2d Div., I. p. 187. 20 THE TRIAL OF JESUS torian says: " And now Archelaus's part of Judea was reduced into a province, and Coponius, one of the equestrian order among the Romans, was sent as proc- urator, having the power of life and death put into his hands by Caesar." ^ Again, we are informed that Annas was deposed from the high priesthood by the procurator Valerius Gratus, A.D. 14, for imposing and executing capital sentences. One of his sons, we learn from Josephus, was also deposed by King Agrippa for condemning James, the brother of Jesus, and several others, to death by stoning. At the same time, Agrippa reminded the high priest that the Sanhedrin could not lawfully as- semble without the consent of the procurator.^ That the Jews had lost and that the Roman procura- tors possessed the power over life and death is also clearly indicated by the New Testament account of the trial of Jesus. One passage explicitly states that Pilate claimed the right to impose and carry out capital sen- tences. Addressing Jesus, Pilate said: " Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee and have power to release thee? " ^ In another passage, the Jews admitted that the power of life and death had passed away from them. Answering a question of Pilate, at the time of the trial, they answered : " It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." * If we keep in mind the fact stated by Geib that " the principle that applied in Judea was that at least in ^ Josephus, "Wars of the Jews," II, 8, I, ^ John xix. lo. 2 Josephus, "Ant.," XX. 9, l. ^ John xviii. 31. NUMBER OF REGULAR TRIALS 21 regard to questions of religious offense the high priest with the Sanhedrin could pronounce even death sen- tences, for the carrying out of which, however, the confirmation of the procurator was required," we are then in a position to answer finally and definitely the question, Why were there two trials of Jesus? In the light of all the authorities cited and discussed in this chapter, we feel justified in asserting that the Sanhedrin was competent to take the initiative in the arrest and trial of Jesus on the charge of blasphemy, this being a religious offense of the most awful grav- ity; that this court was competent not only to try but to pass sentence of death upon the Christ; but that its proceedings had to be retried or at least reviewed before the sentence could be executed. Thus two trials were necessary. The Hebrew trial was necessary, be- cause a religious offense was involved with which Rome refused to meddle, and of which she refused to take cognizance in the first instance. The Roman trial was necessary, because, instead of an acquittal which would have rendered Roman interference unnecessary, a conviction involving the death sentence had to be reviewed in the name of Roman sovereignty. Having decided that there were two trials, we are now ready to consider the questions: Were the two trials separate and independent? If not, was the sec- ond trial a mere review of the first, or was the first a mere preliminary to the second? No more difficult questions are suggested by the trial of Jesus. It is, in fact, impossible to answer them with certainty and satisfaction. 22 THE TRIAL OF JESUS A possible solution is to be found in the nature of the charge preferred against Jesus. It is reasonable to suppose that in the conflict of jurisdiction between Jewish and Roman authority the character of the crime would be a determining factor. In the case of ordinary offenses it is probable that neither Jews nor Romans were particular about the question of jurisdiction. It is more than probable that the Roman governor would assert his right to try the case de novo, where the of- fense charged either directly or remotely involved the safety and sovereignty of the Roman state. It is en- tirely reasonable to suppose that the Jews would insist on a final determination by themselves of the merits of all offenses of a religious nature; and that they would insist that the Roman governor should limit his action to a mere countersign of their decree. It is believed that ordinarily these principles would apply. But the trial of Jesus presents a peculiar feature which makes the case entirely exceptional. And this peculiarity, it is felt, contains a correct answer to the questions asked above. Jesus was tried before the Sanhedrin on the charge of blasphemy. This was a religious offense of the most serious nature. But when the Christ was led before Pilate, this charge was abandoned and that of high treason against Rome was substituted. Now, it is certain that a Roman governor would not have al- lowed a Jewish tribunal to try an offense involving high treason against Caesar. This was a matter exclu- sively under his control. It is thus certain that Pilate did not merely review a sentence which had been passed by the Sanhedrin after a regular trial, but that NUMBER OF REGULAR TRIALS 23 he tried ab initio d. charge that had not been presented before the Jewish tribunal at the night session in the palace of Caiaphas. It will thus be seen that there were two trials of Jesus; that these trials were separate and independent as far as the charges, judges, and jurisdictions were concerned; and that the only common elements were the persons of the accusers and the accused. CHAPTER III POWERS AND DUTIES OF PILATE HAT were the powers and du- ties of Pilate as procurator of Judea? What forms of criminal procedure, if any, were em- ployed by him in conducting the Roman trial of Jesus? This chapter will be devoted to an- swering these questions. The New Testament Gospels denominate Pilate the " governor " of Judea. A more exact designation is contained in the Latin phrase, procurator Ccesaris; the procurator of Caesar. By this is meant that Pilate was the deputy, attorney, or per- sonal representative of Tiberius Caesar in the province of Judea. The powers and duties of his office were by no means limited to the financial functions of a Roman quaestor, a procurator fiscalis. " He was a procurator cum potestate; a governor with civil, criminal, and military jurisdiction; subordinated no doubt in rank to the adjacent governor of Syria, but directly responsible to his great master at Rome." A clear conception of the official character of Pilate is impossible unless we first thoroughly understand the official character of the man whose political substitute a4 POWERS AND DUTIES OF PILATE 25 he was. A thorough understanding of the official character of Tiberius Caesar is impossible unless we first fully comprehend the political changes wrought by the civil wars of Rome in which Julius Caesar de- feated Cneius Pompey at the battle of Pharsalia and made himself dictator and undisputed master of the Roman world. With the ascendency of Caesar the an- cient republic became extinct. But liberty was still cherished in the hearts of Romans, and the title of king was detestable. The hardy virtues and democratic simplicity of the early republic were still remem- bered; and patriots like Cicero had dreamed of the restoration of the ancient order of things. But Roman conquest was complete, Roman manners were corrupt, and Roman patriotism was paralyzed. The hand of a dictator guided by a single intelligence was the natural result of the progressive degradation of the Roman state. The logical and inevitable outcome of the death of Caesar and the dissolution of the Triumvirate was the regime of Augustus, a monarchy veiled under re- publican forms. Recognizing Roman horror of abso- lutism, Roman love of liberty, and Roman detestation of kingly power, Augustus, while in fact an emperor, claimed to be only a plain Roman citizen intrusted with general powers of government. He affected to despise public honors, disclaimed every idea of per- sonal superiority, and exhibited extreme simplicity of manners in public and private life. This was the strategy of a successful politician who sought to con- ceal offensive reality under the cloak of a pleasant de- ception^ Great Caesar fallen at the foot of Pompey's 26 THE TRIAL OF JESUS statue was a solemn reminder to Augustus that the dagger of the assassin was still ready to defend the memory of freedom, after liberty was, in reality, dead. And the refusal by the greatest of the Romans, at the feast of the Lupercal, to accept a kingly crown when it was thrice oflfered him by Antony, was a model of discreet behavior and political caution for the first and most illustrious of the emperors. In short, Augustus dared not destroy the laws or assault the constitution of the state. But he accomplished his object, neverthe- less. " He gathered into his own hands the whole hon- ors and privileges, which the state had for centuries distributed among its great magistrates and representa- tives. He became perpetual Princeps Senatus, or leader of the legislative house. He became perpetual Pontifex Maximus, or chief of the national religion. He became perpetual Tribune, or guardian of the peo- ple, with his person thereby made sacred and invio- lable. He became perpetual Consul, or supreme mag- istrate over the whole Roman world, with the control of its revenues, the disposal of its armies, and the execution of its laws. And lastly he became perpetual Imperator, or military chief, to whom every legionary throughout the world took the sacramentum, and whose sword swept the globe from Gibraltar to the Indus and the Baltic. And yet in all he was a simple citizen — a mere magistrate of the Republic. Only in this one man was now visibly accumulated and concen- trated all that for centuries had broadened and ex- panded under the magnificent abstraction of Rome." The boundless authority of Rome was thus centered POWERS AND DUTIES OF PILATE 27 in the hands of a single person. Consuls, tribunes, praetors, proconsuls, and procurators were merely the agents and representatives of this person. Tiberius Caesar, the political master of Pontius Pi- late, was the successor of Augustus and the first in- heritor of his constitution. Under this constitution, Augustus had divided the provinces into two classes. The centrally located and peacefully disposed were governed by proconsuls appointed by the senate. The more distant and turbulent were subjected by Augustus to his personal control, and were governed by procura- tors who acted as his deputies or personal representa- tives. Judea came in his second class, and the real governor of his province was the emperor himself. Tiberius Cssar was thus the real procurator of Judea at the time of the crucifixion and Pilate was his politi- cal substitute who did his bidding and obeyed his will. Whatever Tiberius might have done, Pilate might have done. We are thus enabled to judge the extent of Pilate's powers; powers clothed with imperium and revocable only by the great procurator at Rome. r^ In the government of the purely subject states of a "^ province, the procurator exercised the unlimited juris- I diction of the military imperium. No law abridged^ the single and sovereign exercise of his will. Custom, however, having in fact the force of law, prescribed that he should summon to his aid a council of advisers. This advisory body was composed of two elements: ( I ) Roman citizens resident in this particular locality where the governor was holding court; and (2) mem- bers of his personal staff known as the Praetorian 28 THE TRIAL OF JESUS Cohort. The governor, in his conduct of judicial pro- ceedings, might solicit the opinions of the members of his council. He might require them to vote upon the question at issue; and might, if he pleased, abide by the decision of the majority. But no rule of law re- quired him to do it; it was merely a concession and a courtesy; it was not a legal duty. Again, when it is said that the procurator exercised the " unlimited jurisdiction of the military imperium,^^ we must interpret this, paradoxical though it may seem, in a restricted sense; that is, we must recognize the existence of exceptions to the rule. It is unreason- able to suppose that Rome, the mother of laws, ever contemplated the rule of despotism and caprice in the administration of justice in any part of the empire. It is true that the effect of the imperium^ " as applied to provincial governorship, was to make each imperator a king in his own domain " ; but kings themselves have nearly always been subject to restrictions; and the authorities are agreed that the imperium of the Roman procurator of the time of Christ was hemmed in by many limitations. A few of these may be named. In the first place, the rights guaranteed to subject states within the provincial area by the law of the province {lex provincia) were the first limitations upon his power. Again, it is a well-known fact that Roman citizens could appeal from the decision of the governor, in cer- tain cases, to the emperor at Rome. Paul exercised this right, because he was a Roman citizen.^ Jesus ^ Acts XXV., xxvi. POWERS AND DUTIES OF PILATE 29 could not appeal from the judgment of Pilate, because He was not a Roman citizen. Again, fear of an aroused and indignant public sen- timent which might result in his removal by the em- peror, exercised a salutary restraint upon the conduct, if it did not abridge the powers of the governor. These various considerations bring us now to the second question asked in the beginning of this chapter: What forms of criminal procedure, if any, were em- ployed by Pilate in conducting the Roman trial of Jesus? It is historically true that Pilate exercised, as proc- urator of Judea, the unlimited jurisdiction of the mili- tary imperium\ and that this imperium made him vir- tually an " imperator, a king in his own domain." It is also historically true that the inhabitants of the purely subject states of a p,rovince, who were not them- selves Roman citizens, when accused of crime, stood before a Roman governor with no protection except the plea of justice against the summary exercise of absolute power. In other words, in the employment of the unlimited jurisdiction of the military imperium, a Roman governor, in the exercise of his discretion, might, in the case of non-Roman citizens of a subject state, throw all rules and forms of law to the wind, and decide the matter arbitrarily and despotically. It may be that Pilate did this in this case. But the best writers are agreed that this was not the policy of the Roman governors in the administration of justice in the provinces at the time of Christ. The lawgiving genius of Rome had then reached maturity and ap- 30 THE TRIAL OF JESUS proximate perfection in the organization of its crimi- nal tribunals. It is not probable, as before suggested, that despotism and caprice would be systematically tol- erated anywhere in the Roman world. If the emper- ors at Rome were forced, out of regard for public sentiment, to respect the constitution and the laws, it is reasonable to infer that their personal representatives in the provinces were under the same restraint. We feel justified then in asserting that Pilate, in the trial of Jesus, should have applied certain laws and been governed by certain definite rules of criminal proce- dure. What were these rules? A few preliminary considerations will greatly aid the reader in arriving at an answer to this question. It should be understood : ( I ) That Pilate was empowered to apply either Ro- man law or the local law in the trial of any case where the crime was an ofifense against both the province and the empire, as in the crime of murder; but that in the case of treason with which Jesus was charged he would apply the law of Rome under forms of Roman pro- cedure. It has been denied that Pilate had a right to apply Jewish law in the government of his province; but this denial is contrary to authority. Innes says: " The Roman governor sanctioned, or even himself ad- ministered, the old law of the region." ^ Schiirer says: " It may be assumed that the administration of the civil law was wholly in the hands of the Sanhedrin and native or local magistrates: Jewish courts decided according to Jewish law. But even in the criminal law this was almost invariably the case, only with this ex- * "The Trial of Jesus," p. "]"]. POWERS AND DUTIES OF PILATE 31 ception, that death sentences required to be confirmed by the Roman procurator. In such cases, the procura- tor decided, if he pleased, according to Jewish law." ^ Greenidge says: " Even the first clause of the Sicilian lexy if it contained no reference to jurisdiction by the local magistrate, left the interpretation of the native law wholly to Roman proprcBtors^ ^ It is thus clearly evident that Roman procurators might apply either Roman or local laws in ordinary cases. (2) That Roman governors were empowered to apply the adjective law of Rome to the substantive law of the province. In support of this contention, Green- idge says: "The edict of the proprator or pro-consul, . . . clearly could not express the native law of each particular state under its jurisdiction; but its general- ity and its expansiveness admitted, as we shall see, of an application of Roman forms to the substantive law of any particular city." ^ (3) That the criminal procedure employed by Pi- late in the trial of Jesus should have been the criminal procedure of a capital case tried at Rome, during the reign of Tiberius Caesar. This fact is very evident from the authorities. The trial of capital cases at Rome furnished models for similar trials in the prov- inces. In the exercise of the unlimited jurisdiction of the military imperium, Roman governors might disre- gard these models. But, ordinarily, custom compelled them to follow the criminal precedents of the Capital 1 "The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ," 1st Div., II. p. 74. 2 "The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time," p. 118. 2 "The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time," p. 118. 32 THE TRIAL OF JESUS of the empire. The following authorities support this contention. Rosadi says: " It is also certain that in the provinces the same order was observed in criminal cases as was observed in cases tried at Rome." ^ This eminent Ital- ian writer cites, in proof of this statement, Pothier, Pandect. XLVIIL 2, n. 28. Greenidge says : " Yet, in spite of this absence of legal checks, the criminal procedure of the provinces was, in the protection of the citizen as in other respects, closely modelled on that of Rome." " To the same effect, but more clearly and pointedly expressed, is Geib, who says: " It is nevertheless true that the knowledge which we have, imperfect though it may be, leaves no doubt that the courts of the Italian municipalities and provinces had, in all essential ele- ments, the permanent tribunals (qucesttones perpetues) as models; so that, in fact, a description of the pro- ceedings in the permanent tribunals is, at the same time, to be regarded as a description of the proceedings in the provincial courts." ^ These permanent tribunals {qucestiones perpetucB) were courts of criminal jurisdiction established at Rome, and were in existence at the time of the cruci- fixion. Proceedings in these courts in capital cases, were models of criminal procedure in the provinces at the time of Christ. It logically follows then that if we can ascertain the successive steps in the trial of a capi- ^ "The Trial of Jesus," p. 293. ^ "The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time," p. 413. ^"Geschichte des romischen criminalprocesses." POWERS AND DUTIES OF PILATE 23 tal case at Rome before one of the permanent tribunals, we have accurate information of the exact form of criminal procedure, not that Pilate did employ, but which he should have employed in the trial of Jesus. Fortunately for the purposes of this treatise, every step which Roman law required in the trial of capital cases at Rome is as well known as the provisions of any modern criminal code. From the celebrated Roman trials in which Cicero appeared as an advocate, may be gleaned with unerring accuracy the fullest informa- tion touching all the details of capital trials at Rome at the time of Cicero. It should be observed, at this point, that the period of Roman jurisprudence just referred to was in the closing years of the republic; and that certain changes in the organization of the tribunals as well as in the forms of procedure were effected by the legis- lation of Augustus. But we have it upon the authority of Rosadi that these changes were not radical in the case of the criminal courts and that the rules and regu- lations that governed procedure in them during the republic remained substantially unchanged under the empire. The same writer tells us that the permanent tribunals for the trial of capital cases did not go out of existence until the third century of the Christian era.^ The following chapter will be devoted, in the main, to a description of the mode of trial of capital cases at Rome before the permanent tribunals at the time of Christ. * "The Trial of Jesus," pp. 291-93. CHAPTER IV MODE OF TRIAL IN ROMAN CAPITAL CASES HE reader should keep clearly and constantly in mind the pur- pose of this chapter: to describe the mode of trial in capital cases at Rome during the reign of Ti- berius Caesar; and thus to fur- nish a model of criminal proce- dure which Pilate should have imitated in the trial of Jesus at Jerusalem. In the last chapter, we saw that the pro- ceedings of the permanent tribunals {qucestiones per- petu^e) at Rome furnished models for the trial of criminal cases in the provinces. It is now only neces- sary to determine what the procedure of the permanent tribunals at the time of Christ was, in order to under- stand what Pilate should have done in the trial of Jesus. But the character of the qucestiones perpetuce, as well as the rules and regulations that governed their proceedings, cannot well be understood without refer- ence to the criminal tribunals and modes of trial in criminal cases that preceded them. Roman history discloses two distinct periods of criminal procedure before the organization of the permanent tribunals 34 TRIAL IN ROMAN CAPITAL CASES 3 s about the beginning of the last century of the Repub- lic: (i) The period of the kings and (2) the period of the early republic. Each of these will be here briefly considered. The Regal Period. — The earliest glimpses of Roman political life reveal the existence of a sacred and mili- tary monarchy in which the king is generalissimo of the army, chief pontiff of the national religion, and supreme judge in civil and criminal matters over the lives and property of the citizens. These various pow- ers and attributes are wrapped up in the imperium. By virtue of the imperium, the king Issued commands to the army and also exercised the highest judicial functions over the lives and fortunes of his fellow- citizens. The kings were thus military commanders and judges in one person, as the consuls were after them. The monarch might sit alone and judge cases and impose sentences; but the trial was usually a per- sonal investigation undertaken by him with the advice and aid of a chosen body of judges from the senate or the pontifical college. According to Dionysius, Romu- lus ordered that all crimes of a serious nature should be tried by the king, but that all lighter offenses should be judged by the senate.^ Little confidence can be re- posed in this statement, since the age and deeds of Romulus are exceedingly legendary and mythical. But it is historically true that in the regal period of Rome the kings were the supreme judges in all civil and criminal matters. The Early Republican Period. — ^The abolition of 1 Dionysius II. 14. ^6 THE TRIAL OF JESUS the monarchy and the establishment of the republic witnessed the distribution of the powers of government formerly exercised by the king among a number of magistrates and public officers. Consuls, tribunes, praetors, aediles, both curule and plebeian, exercised, under the republic, judicial functions in criminal matters. The consuls were supreme criminal judges at the beginning of the republic, and were clothed with un- limited power in matters of life and death. This is shown by the condemnation and execution of the sons of Brutus and their fellow-conspirators.^ Associated with the consuls were, at first, two annually appointed quaestors whom they nominated. The functions of the quaestors were as unlimited as those of their superiors, the consuls; but their jurisdiction was confined chiefly to criminal matters and finance. The tribunes, sacred and inviolable in their persons as representatives of the plebs and as their protectors against patrician oppression, exercised at first merely a negative control over the regular magistracies of the community. But, finally, they became the chief pub- lic prosecutors of political criminals. The prstors, whose chief jurisdiction was in civil matters, were potentially as fully criminal judges as the consuls, and there may have been a time when a portion of criminal jurisdiction was actually in their hands. In the later republic, they presided over the queestiones perpetuce, permanent criminal tribunals. The aediles are found in Roman history exercising 1 Liv. II. iv. 5. TRIAL IN ROMAN CAPITAL CASES 37 functions of criminal jurisdiction, although their gen- eral powers were confined to the special duties of car- ing for the games, the market, and the archives. But the criminal jurisdiction of the magistrates who replaced the king at the downfall of the monarchy was abridged and almost destroyed by the famous lex Valeria {de provocatione) . This law was proposed 509 B.C. by Publius Valerius, one of the first consuls of Rome, and provided that no magistrate should have power to execute a sentence of death against a Roman citizen who had appealed to the judgment of the peo- ple in their public assembly. This lex was the magna charta of the Romans and was justly regarded by them as the great palladium of their civil liberty. And it was this law that inaugurated the popular jurisdiction of the comitia. The result was that for more than three hundred years the final determination of the question of life or death was in the hands of the people themselves. From the passage of the Valerian law the function of the magistrates was limited to the duty of convincing the people of the guilt of an alleged crimi- nal against whom they themselves had already pro- nounced a preliminary sentence. The magistrates were, therefore, not so much judges as prosecutors; the people were the final judges in the case. Mode of Trial in the Comitia, or Public Assembly. — On a certain day, the prosecuting magistrate, who had himself pronounced the preliminary sentence against an accused person who had appealed to the people in their public assembly, mounted the rostra, and called the people together by the voice of a herald. 38 THE TRIAL OF JESUS He then made a proclamation that on a certain day he would bring an accusation against a certain person upon a given charge. At the same time, he called upon this person to come forward and hear the charges against him. The defendant then presented himself, listened to the accusation, and immediately furnished bond for his appearance, or in default of bail, was thrown into prison. Upon the day announced at the opening of the trial, the prosecuting magistrate again mounted the rostra, and summoned the accused bv a herald, if he was at large, or had him brought forth if he was in prison. The prosecutor then produced evi- dence, oral and documentary, against the prisoner. The indictment had to be in writing, and was pub- lished on three market days in the Forum. The prosecution came to an end on the third day, and the accused then began his defense by mounting the rostra with his patron and presenting evidence in his own behalf. The prosecutor then announced that on a cer- tain day he would ask the people to render judgment by their votes. In the early years of the republic, the people voted by shouting their approval or disap- proval of the charges made; but later a tablet bearing one of the two letters V. {uti rogas) or A. {absolvo) was used as a ballot. The effect of popular jurisdiction in criminal proc- esses at Rome was in the nature of a two-edged sword that, cut both ways. It was beneficial in the limita- tions it imposed upon the conduct of single magis- trates who were too often capricious and despotic. But this benefit was purchased at the price of a TRIAL IN ROMAN CAPITAL CASES 39 kind of popular despotism not less dangerous in its way. It has always been characteristic of popular assemblies that their decisions have been more the out- come of passion and prejudice than the result of calm wisdom and absolute justice. The trouble at Rome was that the people were both legislators and judges in their public assemblies; and it nearly always hap- pened that the lawmakers rose above and trampled upon the very laws which they themselves had made. The natural offspring of this state of things is either anarchy or despotism; and it was only the marvelous vitality of the Roman Commonwealth that enabled it to survive. The reports of the great criminal trials before the comitia reveal the inherent weakness of a system of popular jurisdiction in criminal matters. Personal and political considerations foreign to the merits of the case were allowed to take the place of competent evidence; and issues of right and expediency were too frequently mixed up. The accused, at times, trusted not so much in the righteousness of his cause as in the feelings of compassion and prejudice that moved the people as popular judges. And to excite these feelings the most ludicrous and undignified steps were some- times taken. The defendant nearly always appeared at the trial in mourning garb, frequently let his hair and beard grow long, and often exhibited the scars and wounds received in battle whilst fighting for his country. He sometimes offered prayers to the immor- tal gods and wept bitterly; at other times he caused his children and other relatives to appear at the trial, 40 THE TRIAL OF JESUS wailing, and tearing their clothes. Not content with presenting all the pathetic features of his own life, he left nothing undone to expose his opponents to hatred and contempt. It thus happened that many of the great criminal causes of Rome were mere farcical pro- ceedings. A few instances may be cited. Horatius, though tried in the time of the third Roman king, was pardoned by the people for the mur- der of his sister because of his heroic deed in single combat with the three Curiatii, and because his father had lost three children in the service of the state. In the year 98, Manlius Aquillius, the pacificator of Sicily, was tried for embezzlement. Marcus Antonius, his advocate, ended his argument for the defense by tearing the tunic of Aquillius to show the breast of the veteran warrior covered with scars. The people were moved to tears and Aquillius was acquitted, although the evidence was very clear against him. In the trial of M. Manlius, 384 B.C., new tactics were employed. The accused refused to appear in mourning. There was no weeping in his behalf. On the other hand, Manlius relied upon his services to the state for acquittal. He brought forward four hundred citizens who by his generosity he had saved from bond- age for debt; he exhibited the spoils taken from thirty slain enemies, also military decorations received for bravery in battle — among them two mural and eight civic crowns; he then produced many citizens rescued by him from the hands of the enemy; he then bared his breast and exhibited the scars received by him in war; and, lastly, turning toward the Capitol, he im- TRIAL IN ROMAN CAPITAL CASES 41 plored Jupiter to protect him, and to infuse, at this moment, into the Roman people, his judges, the same spirit of courage and patriotism that had given him strength to save the city of Rome and his w^hole coun- try from the hands of the Gauls. He begged the peo- ple to keep their eyes fixed on the Capitol while they were pronouncing sentence against him to whom they owed life and liberty. It is said that his prosecutors despaired of convicting him amidst such surroundings, and adjourned the trial to another place, where the Capitol could not be seen; and that thereupon the con- viction of Manlius was secured and his condemnation pronounced. In the year 185 B.C., the tribune M. Naevius, at the instigation of Cato, accused Scipio Africanus before the tribes of having been bribed to secure a dishonor- able peace. It was clearly evident that a charge of this kind could not well be sustained by evidence; but it was believed that a conviction could be secured by an appeal to the passion and prejudice of the multitude. But this advantage operated as greatly in favor of Scipio as it did in favor of his accusers. And he did not fail to use the advantage to the fullest extent. In seeming imitation of M. Manlius, two hundred years before, he appealed for acquittal to the people on ac- count of his public services. He refused to appear in mourning, offered no evidence in his own behalf, nor did he exhibit the usual humility of an accused Roman before his countrymen. With proud disdain, he spurned the unworthy imputation of bribery, and pointed the people to the magnificent achievements of 42 THE TRIAL OF JESUS his brilliant public career. He reminded them that the day of the trial was itself the anniversary of his victory over the greatest enemy that Rome ever had, at Zama. It was degrading, he exclaimed, both to him and to the Roman nation, to bring such a charge on this day against the man to whom it was due that the Common- wealth of Rome still existed. He refused to lower himself, he said, by listening to the insolent charges of a vulgar brawler who had never done anything for the state. He declared that instead he would repair at once to the temple of Jupiter and render thanks for his victory over Hannibal to the protecting gods of his country. With these words, he left the Forum and went to the Capitol and from there to his house, accom- panied by the great majority of the people, while the accusing tribune and his official staff were left alone in the market place. The inevitable result of these cases of miscarriage of justice, in which patriotic bravado and rhetorical clap- trap took the place of legal rules, was a desire and de- mand for the reform of criminal procedure. Besides, it had ever been found troublesome and inconvenient to summon the whole body of the Roman people to try ordinary offenses. It was only in cases of great gravity that the ponderous machinery of the comitia centuriata could be set in motion. This difficulty was increased with the growth of the republic, in which crimes also grew in number and magnitude. The necessity for the reform of the criminal law resulted in the institution of permanent tribunals (quastiones perpetuce). A series of legal enactments accomplished this result. TRIAL IN ROMAN CAPITAL CASES 43 The earliest law that created a permanent queestto was the lex Calpurnia of 149 B.C. And it was the proceed- ings in these courts, which we shall now describe, that should have guided Pilate in the trial of Jesus. Mode of Trial in the Permanent Tribunals. — ^We shall attempt to trace in the remaining pages of this chapter the successive steps in the trial of criminal cases before the permanent tribunals at Rome. First Stage (postulatio) . — A Roman criminal trial before a qucestio perpetua commenced with an appli- cation to the presiding magistrate, the praetor or the index qutBstionis, for permission to bring a criminal charge against a certain person. The technical Latin expression for this request to prosecute is postulatio. It should be here noted that State's attorneys or public prosecutors, in a modern sense, were not known to the Romans at this time. Private citizens took upon them- selves public prosecutions in behalf of the state. They were encouraged to do this from motives of personal profit as well as patriotic interest in the welfare of the community. As young men in modern times, just ad- mitted to the bar, often accept criminal cases by assign- ment from the court in order to make a beginning in their professional careers, so young Roman nobles in ancient times sought to make reputations for them- selves by accusing and prosecuting public delinquents. And not only professional reputation, but financial compensation as well could be gained in this way. The Roman laws of the time of Cicero provided that a successful prosecutor should receive one-fourth part of the property confiscated or the fine imposed. A 44 THE TRIAL OF JESUS Macedonian inscription offered a reward of 200 denarii to the prosecutor who should bring to justice the desecrators of a tomb/ Second Stage [divinatio) . — It often happened that more than one accuser desired to prosecute a single offense; but more than one prosecutor was not per- mitted by Roman law unless there was more than one crime charged. Then, in case of a concurrence of would-be accusers, a preliminary trial was had to de- termine which one of these was best fitted to bring the accusation. This initial hearing was known in Roman law as the divinatio. It was indeed more than a mere hearing; it was a regular trial in which the question of the fitness of the different candidates for the position of delator was argued before the president and the jury. This jury was in many cases distinct from the one that finally tried the case on the merits. The purpose of the whole proceeding known as the divinatio was to secure a prosecutor who was at once both able and sin- cere; and both these qualities were generally very strenuously urged by all those who desired to assume the role of accuser. Indeed all personal qualifications involving the mental and moral attributes of the would-be prosecutors were pointedly urged. At the hearing, the different candidates frequently became animated and even bitter opponents of each other. Crimination and recrimination then followed as a natural consequence. An applicant might show that he was thoroughly familiar with the affairs of a province, as a special fitness in the prosecution of ^ Heuzey, "Miss, archeol. de Maced.," p. 38. TRIAL IN ROMAN CAPITAL CASES 45 a public official for extortion in that province. An opponent, on the other hand, might show that said applicant had been associated with said official In the government of the province and had been, and was now, on the friendliest terms with him. After the meritorious qualifications of all the claimants had been presented, the president and jury rendered their decision. The details of the evidence afifecting the merits of the charge were not considered at this pre- liminary trial. Only such facts were considered as affected the personal qualifications of the different can- didates for the place of accuser. When these qualifica- tions were about equally balanced in point of merit between two applicants, the abler speaker was gener- ally chosen. Third Stage (nominis delatio). — It frequently hap- pened that the postulatio, the request to prosecute, was not followed by the divinatio, the preliminary hearing on the merits of dififerent applicants, because there was only one would-be accuser; and his qualifications were beyond dispute. In such a case, when a request to bring a criminal charge against a certain person had been presented by a citizen to the praetor, there fol- lowed, after a certain interval of time, a private hear- ing before the president of the court for the purpose of gaining fuller and more definite information concern- ing the charge. This private proceeding was styled the nominis or criminis delatio, and took place before the president alone. Its main object was to secure a specification of the personality of the accused as well as of the charges brought against him. At this stage 46 THE TRIAL OF JESUS of the trial the presence of the accused person was necessary, unless he was absent under valid excuse. The lex Memmia, passed in the year 114 B.C., per- mitted a delinquent to plead that he was absent from Rome on public business, as an excuse for not appear- ing at the nominis delatio. In the year 58 B.C., the tribune L. Antistius impeached Julius Caesar. But the colleagues of Antistius excused Caesar from personal attendance because he was absent in the service of the state in Gaul. But, if the accused appeared at the nominis delatio^ the prosecutor interrogated him at length concerning the facts of the crime. The purpose of this interrogation (interrogatio) was to satisfy the president that there was a prima facie case to carry before the regular tribunal in open trial. The proceed- ings of the nominis delatio were thus in the nature of a modern Grand Jury investigation, instituted to deter- mine if a serious prosecution should be had. Fourth Stage (inscriptio). — If the interrogation convinced the president that the prosecutor had a prima facie case to take before the permanent tribunal, he framed a form of indictment called the inscriptio. This indictment was signed by the chief prosecutor and also by a number of witnesses against the accused called subscriptores. The charge was now definitely fixed; and, from this moment, it was the only ofifense that could be prosecuted at the trial. The drawing up of this charge by the president was similar to the fram- ing of an indictment by a modern Grand Jury. Fifth Stage {nominis receptio). — After the indict- ment or inscription had been framed, it was formally TRIAL IN ROMAN CAPITAL CASES 47 received by the president. This act was styled the nominis receptio and corresponds, in a general way, with the presentment of an indictment by a modern Grand Jury. When the nominis receptio was com- plete, the case was said to be in judicio, and the accused was said to be in reatu. The president then fixed a day certain for the appearance of the accused and the be- ginning of the trial. The time fixed was usually ten days from the nominis receptio. However, a longer time was allowed if evidence had to be secured from beyond the sea. Thirty days were allowed the accusers in the prosecution of Scaurus. Cicero was given one hundred and ten days to secure evidence against Verres; but he actually employed only sixty. The time granted the prosecutor was also required by the law to be utilized by the defendant in preparing his case. The preliminary steps in the prosecution were now complete, and the accused awaited the day of trial. In the meantime, he was allowed to go at large, even when charged with a grave offense like murder. Im- prisonment to prevent escape had almost ceased at the time of which we write. If the evidence against the accused was weak, it was felt that he would certainly appear at the trial. If the evidence against him was very strong, it was thought that he would seek to es- cape a sentence of death in voluntary exile, a step which Romans always encouraged, as they were averse, at all times, to putting a Roman citizen to death. Sixth Stage (citatio). — At the expiration of the time 48 THE TRIAL OF JESUS designated by the president for the beginning of the trial, the proceedings before the judges began. All the necessary parties, including the judges or jurors, were summoned by a herald to appear. This procedure was termed the citatio. Strange to say, if the accused failed to appear the case could proceed without him. The reason for the requirement of his presence at the nominis Jelatio, but not at the trial is not clear; es- pecially when viewed in the light of a modern trial in which the defendant must be present at every impor- tant step in the proceedings. Under Roman procedure, the presence of the defendant was not necessary, whether he was in voluntary exile, or was obstinately absent. In 52 B.C., Milo was condemned in his ab- sence; and we read in Plutarch that the assassins of Caesar were tried in their absence, 43 B.C. Excusable absence necessitated an adjournment of the case. The chief grounds for an adjournment were: (i) Absence from the city in the public service; (2) that the accused was compelled to appear in another court on the same day; (3) illness. The absence of the accused did not prevent the prosecution of the case, but the nonappearance of the prosecutor on the day fixed for the beginning of the trial usually terminated the proceedings at once. The fact that the case had to be dismissed if the accuser failed to appear only serves to illustrate how dependent the state was on the sincerity of the citizen who under- took the prosecution. The obligations of the prose- cutor honestly and vigorously to follow up a suit which he had set in motion were felt to be so serious a matter TRIAL IN ROMAN CAPITAL CASES 49 by the Romans that special laws were passed to hold him in the line of duty. The lex Remmia provided that if any citizen knowingly accused another citizen falsely of a crime, the accuser should be prosecuted for calumny {calumnia). It further provided that, in case of conviction, the letter K should be branded on the forehead of the condemned. Such laws were found necessary to protect the good name of Roman citizens against bad men who desired to use the legal machinery of the state to gratify private malevolence against their enemies. It may thus be seen that the sys- tem which permitted public prosecutions on the mo- tion of private citizens was attended by both good and bad results. Cicero regarded such a system as a posi- tive benefit to the state.^ Its undoubted effect was to place a check upon coiruption in public office by sub- jecting the acts of public officials to the scrutiny and, if need be, to the censure of every man in the nation. On the other hand, accusers in public prosecutions came finally to be identified, in the public mind, with coarse and vulgar informers whose only motive in making public accusations was to create private gain. So thoroughly were they despised that one of the para- sites of Plautus scornfully exclaims that he would not exchange his vocation, though low and groveling, with that of the man who makes a legal proceeding " his net wherein to catch another man's goods." ^ Seventh Stage {impaneling the judges). — But if 1 Accusatores multos esse in civitate utile est, ut metu contineatur audacia (pro Roscio Amer. 20). 2 Persa V. 63 seq. 50 THE TRIAL OF JESUS the prosecutor appeared in due time, the trial formally began by the impaneling of the judges. This was usu- ally done by the praetor or index qufBstionis who, at the beginning of the trial, placed the names of the com- plete panel of jurors, inscribed on white tablets, into an urn, and then drew out a certain number. Both prosecutor and accused had the right to challenge a limited number, as the names were being drawn. The number of challenges allowed varied from time to time. Eighth Stage (beginning of the trial). — ^When the judges had been impaneled, the regular proceedings began. The place of trial was the Forum. The curule chair of the praetor and the benches of the judges, con- stituting the tribunal, were here placed. On the ground in front of the raised platform upon which the praetor and judges sat, were arranged the benches of the parties, their advocates and witnesses. Like the ancient Hebrew law, Roman law required that crimi- nal cases should be tried only by daylight, that is, be- tween daybreak and one hour before sunset. At the opening of the trial, the prosecutor, backed by the sub- scriptores, and the accused, supported by his patrons and advocates, appeared before the tribunal. In a modern criminal trial the case is opened by the introduction of testimony which is followed by regular speeches of counsel for the people and the defendant. In those jurisdictions where opening addresses are re- quired before the examination of the witnesses, the purpose is to inform the jury of the facts which it is proposed to prove. Argument and characterization TRIAL IN ROMAN CAPITAL CASES 51 are not permitted in these opening speeches. The real speeches in which argument and illustration are per- mitted come after the evidence has been introduced. The purpose of these closing speeches is to assist the jury in determining matters of fact from conflicting testimony. Under the Roman system of trial in criminal cases, the order was reversed. The regular speeches contain- ing argument, characterization, and illustration, as well as a statement of the facts proposed to be proved, were made in the very beginning. Evidence was then introduced to show that the orators had told the truth in their speeches. It is not practicable in this place to discuss the kinds and relevancy of evidence under Roman crim- inal procedure. Suffice it to say that slaves were al- ways examined under torture. The close of the evidence was followed by the judg- ment of the tribunal. Ninth Stage (voting of the judges). — The judges voted by ballot, and a majority of votes decided the verdict. The balloting was done with tablets contain- ing the letters A. (absolvo), C. (condemno) and N. L. (non liquet). When the votes had been cast, the tab- lets were then counted by the president of the tribunal. If the result indicated a condemnation, he pronounced the word fecisse] if an acquittal, the phrase, non fecisse videtur; if a doubtful verdict {non liquet), the words amplius esse cognoscendum. The result of a doubtful (non liquet) verdict was a retrial of the case at some future time. 52 THE TRIAL OF JESUS Such were the main features of the trial of a capital case at Rome at the date of the crucifixion. Such was the model which, according to the best authorities, Pilate was bound to follow in the trial of Jesus. Did he imitate this model? Did he observe these rules and regulations? We shall see. CHAPTER V ROMAN FORMS OF PUNISHMENT CCORDING to Gibbon, the laws of the Twelve Tables, like the statutes of Draco, were writ- ten in blood. These famous de- crees sanctioned the frightful principle of the lex talionis] and prescribed for numerous crimes many horrible forms of punish- ment. The hurling from the Tarpeian Rock was mild in comparison with other modes of execution. The traitor to his country had his hands tied behind his back, his head shrouded in a veil, was then scourged by a lictor, and was afterwards cru- cified, in the midst of the Forum by being nailed to the arbor infelix. A malicious incendiary, on a principle of retaliation, was delivered to the flames. He was burned to death by being wrapped in a garment cov- ered with pitch which was then set on fire.^ A parri- cide was cast into the Tiber or the sea, inclosed in a sack, to which a cock, a viper, a dog, and a monkey had been successively added as fit companions in death.- But the development of Roman jurisprudence and ^ Fiske, "Manual of Classical Literature," III. Sec. 264. 2 Gibbon, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," Chap. XLIV. S3 54 THE TRIAL OF JESUS the growth of Roman civilization witnessed a gradual diminution in the severity of penal sanctions, in the case of free citizens, until voluntary exile was the worst punishment to which a wearer of the toga was com- pelled to submit. The Porcian and Valerian laws pro- hibited the magistrates from putting any Roman citi- zen to death. The principle underlying these laws was the offspring of a proud and patriotic sentiment which exempted the masters of the world from the extreme penalties reserved for barbarians and slaves. Green- idge, interpreting Cicero, very elegantly expresses this sentiment: " It is a f acinus to put a Roman citizen in bonds, a scelus to scourge him, prope parriciditim to put him to death." The subject of this volume limits the discussion in this chapter to a single Roman punishment: Cruci- fixion. Around this word gather the most frightful memories and, at the same time, the sweetest and sub- limest hopes of the human race. A thorough appre- ciation of the trial of Jesus, it is felt, renders necessary a comparatively exhaustive treatment of the punish- ment in which all the horrors and illegalities of the proceedings against Him culminated. History. — Tradition attributes the origin of cruci- fixion, the most frightful and inhuman form of punish- ment ever known, to a woman, Semiramis, Queen of Assyria. We are reminded by this that quartering, drawing at a horse's tail, breaking on the wheel, burn- ing and torture with pincers, were provisions in a codex bearing the name of a woman: Maria Theresa.^ ^ Const, crim. Theres., Art. 5, par. 2. ROMAN FORMS OF PUNISHMENT 55 Crucifixion was practiced by the ancient Egyptians, Carthaginians, Persians, Germans, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans. The Romans employed this form of punishment on a colossal scale. The Roman general Varus crucified 2,000 Jews in one day at the gates of Jerusalem. The close of the war with Spartacus, the gladiator, witnessed the crucifixion of 10,000 slaves be- tween Capua and Rome. Crucifixion, as a form of punishment, was unknown to the ancient Hebrews. The penalty of death was enforced among them by burning, strangling, decapi- tation, and stoning. The " hanging " of criminals " on a tree," mentioned in Deut. xxi. 22, was a posthumous indignity offered the body of the criminal after death by stoning, and struck horror to the soul of every pious Israelite who beheld it. Among the Romans also deg- radation was a part of the infliction, since crucifixion was peculiarly a supplicium servile. Only the vilest criminals, among free men, such as were guilty of rob- bery, piracy, assassination, perjury, sedition, treason, and desertion from the army, met death in this way. The jus civitatis protected Roman citizens against this punishment. Mode of Crucifixion. — A sentence of death having been pronounced by a Roman magistrate or tribunal, scourging became a preliminary to execution. This was done with the terrible flagellum into which the soldiers frequently stuck nails, pieces of bone, and other hard substances to heighten the pain which was often so intense as to produce death. The victim was gene/ally bound to a column to be scourged. It was 56 THE TRIAL OF JESUS claimed by Jerome, Prudentius, Gregory of Tours, and others that they had seen the one to which Jesus was bound before His scourging began. After the flagella- tion, the prisoner was conducted to the place of execu- tion. This was outside the city, often in some public road, or other conspicuous place like the Campus Martius at Rome. The criminal was compelled to carry his own cross; and when he had arrived at the place of crucifixion, he was compelled to watch the preparations for his torture. Before his eyes and in his presence, the cross was driven into the ground; and, after having been stripped naked, he was lifted upon and nailed to it. It sometimes happened that he was stretched upon it first and then lifted with it from the ground. The former method was the more common, however, as it was desired to strike terror into the vic- tim by the sight of the erection of the cross. The body was fastened to the cross by nails driven into the hands and sometimes into the feet; more frequently, however, the feet were merely bound by cords. The pictures of crosses in works of art are misrepre- sentations, in that they are too large and too high. The real cross of antiquity was very little longer than the victim, whose head was near the top, and whose feet often hung only twelve or fifteen inches from the ground. Pictorial art is also false because it fails to show the projecting beam from near the center of the cross upon which the criminal sat. That there was such a beam is attested by the almost unanimous voice of antiquity. Crucifixion was conducted, under Roman auspices, ROMAN FORMS OF PUNISHMENT 57 by a carnifex, or hangman, assisted by a band of sol- diers. At Rome, execution was done under the super- vision of the Triumviri Capitales. The duty of the^ soldiers was not only to erect the cross and nail the vie/ tim to it, but also to watch him until he was dead; This was a necessary precaution to prevent friends and relatives from taking the criminal down and from carrying him away, since he sometimes continued to live upon the cross during several days. If taken down in time, the suffering man might easily be resuscitated and restored to health. Josephus tells us that three victims were ordered to be taken down by Titus at his request, and that one of them recovered. " In the later persecutions of the Christians, the guards remained four or six days by the dead, in order to secure them to the wild beasts and to cut off all possibility of burial and resurrection; and in Lyons the Christians were not once able by offers of much gold to obtain the privilege of showing compassion upon the victims of the pagan popular fury. Sometimes, however, particularly on festival days, e. g., the birthdays of the emperors, the corpse was given up to the friends of the deceased, either for money or without money, although even Augustus could be cruel enough to turn a deaf ear to the entreaties of the condemned for sepulture." * Roman records tell us that the soldiers frequently hastened death by breaking the legs of the criminal; at other times, fires were built about the cross beneath him; and, again, wild beasts were turned loose upon him. 1 Keim, "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. p. 250. 58 THE TRIAL OF JESUS It was the general custom to allow the body to re- main and rot upon the cross, or to be devoured by wild beasts and birds of prey. " Distracted relatives and friends saw the birds of prey attack the very faces of those whom they loved; and piety often took pains to scare away the birds by day and the beasts by night, or to outwit the guards that watched the dead." ^ Sepulture was generally forbidden by law, though there were exceptions to the rule. At the request of Joseph of Arimathea, Pilate consented that Jesus should be taken down and buried." A national excep- tion seems also to have been made in the case of the Jews on account of the requirements of Deut. xxi. 22, 23. Pathology. — The following pathological phases of death by crucifixion are from a treatise by the cele- brated physician, Richter (in John's " Bibl. Arch."), which have been reproduced in Strong and McClin- tock's " Cyclopedia " : " (i) The unnatural position and violent tension of the body, which cause a painful sensation from the least motion. " (2) The nails, being driven through parts of the hands and feet which are full of nerves and tendons (and yet at a distance from the heart) create the most exquisite anguish. " (3) The exposure of so many wounds and lacera- tions brings on inflammation, which tends to become gangrene, and every movement increases the poign- ancy of suffering. ^Kcim, "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. p. 250. ^ John xix. 38-41. ROMAN FORMS OF PUNISHMENT 59 " (4) In the distended parts of the body, more blood flows through the arteries than can be carried back into the veins : hence too much blood finds its way from the aorta into the head and stomach, and the blood vessels of the head become pressed and swollen. The general obstruction of circulation v/hich ensues causes an in- tense excitement, exertion, and anxiety more intoler- able than death itself. " (5) The inexpressible misery of gradually increas- ing and lingering anguish. " (6) Burning and raging thirst. " Death by crucifixion (physically considered) is, therefore, to be attributed to the sympathetic fever which is excited by the wounds, and aggravated by exposure to the weather, privation of water, and the painfully constrained position of the body. Traumatic fever corresponds, in intensity and in character, to the local inflammation of the wound, is characterized by heat, swelling, and great pain, the fever is highly in- flammatory, and the sufferer complains of heat, throb- ing headache, intense thirst, restlessness, and anxiety. As soon as suppuration sets in, the fever somewhat abates, and partially ceases as suppuration diminishes and the stage of cicatrization approaches. But if the wound be prevented from healing and suppuration continues, the fever assumes a hectic character, and will sooner or later exhaust the powers of life. When, however, the inflammation of the wound is so intense as to produce mortification, nervous depression is the immediate consequence; and, if the cause of this ex- cessive inflammation of the wound still continues, as is 6o THE TRIAL OF JESUS the case in crucifixion, the sufferer rapidly sinks. He is no longer sensible of pain, but his anxiety and sense of prostration are excessive; hiccough supervenes, his skin is moistened with a cold clammy sweat, and death ensues. It is in this manner that death on the cross must have taken place in an ordinarily healthy consti- tution." The intense sufferings and prolonged agony of cru- cifixion can be best illustrated by an account of several cases of this form of punishment taken from history. From the " Chrestomathia Arabica " of Kosegarten, published in 1828, is taken the following story of the execution of a Mameluke. The author of this work gleaned the story from an Arabic manuscript entitled " The Meadow of Flowers and the Fragrant Odour": *' It is said that he had killed his master for some cause or other, and he was crucified on the banks of the river Barada under the castle of Damascus, with his face turned toward the East. His hands, arms, and feet were nailed, and he remained so from midday on Friday to the same hour on Sunday, when he died. He was remarkable for his strength and prowess; he had been engaged with his master in sacred war at Askelon, where he slew great numbers of the Franks; and when very young he had killed a lion. Several extraordinary things occurred at his being nailed, as that he gave himself up without resistance to the cross, and without complaint stretched out his hands, which were nailed and after them his feet: he in the mean- time looked on, and did not utter a groan, or change his countenance or move his limbs. ^ I have heard this ROMAN FORMS OF PUNISHMENT 6i from one who witnessed it, and he thus remained till he died, patient and silent, without wailing, but look- ing around him to the right and the left upon the peo- ple. But he begged for water, and none was given him, and he gazed upon it and longed for one drop of it, and he complained of thirst all the first day, after which he was silent, for God gave him strength." Describing the punishments used in Madasgascar, Rev. Mr. Ellis says : " In a few cases of great enormity, a sort of crucifixion has been resorted to; and, in addi- tion to this, burning or roasting at a slow fire, kept at some distance from the sufferer, has completed the hor- rors of this miserable death. ... In the year 1825, a man was condemned to crucifixion, who had murdered a female for the sake of stealing her child. He carried the child for sale to the public market, where the in- fant was recognized, and the murderer detected. He bore his punishment in the most hardened manner, avenging himself by all the violence he was capable of exercising upon those who dragged him to the place of execution. Not a single groan escaped him during the period he was nailed to the wood, nor while the cross was fixed upright in the earth." ^ More horrible still than punishment by crucifixion was that of impalement and suspension on a hook. The following description of the execution, in 1830, at Salonica, of Chaban, a captain of banditti, is given by Blade : " He was described by those who saw him as a very fine-looking man, about thirty-five. As a pre- paratory exercise, he was suspended by his arms for 1 "History of Madagascar," vol. i. pp. 371, 372. 62 THE TRIAL OF JESUS twelve hours. The following day a hook was thrust into his side, by which he was suspended to a tree, and there hung enduring the agony of thirst till the third evening, when death closed the scene; but before that about an hour the birds, already considering him their own, had alighted upon his brow to pick his eyes. During this frightful period he uttered no unmanly complaints, only repeated several times, *Had I known that I was to sufifer this infernal death, I would never have done what I have. From the moment I led the klephte's life I had death before my eyes, and was pre- pared to meet it, but I expected to die as my predeces- sors, by decapitation." ^ The Cross. — The instrument of crucifixion, called the Cross, was variously formed. Lipsius and Gretser have employed a twofold classification: the crux sim- plex, and the crux composita or compacta. A single upright stake was distinguished as a crux simplex. The crux composita, the compound or actual cross, was subject to the following modifications of form: Crux immissa, formed as in the figure "f"; crux com- niissa thus formed T ; and the crux decussata, the cruciform figure, set diagonally after the manner of the Roman letter X. It is generally thought that Jesus was crucified upon the crux immissa, the " Latin cross." According to the well-known legend of the " Inven- tion of the Cross," the actual cross on which Jesus was crucified was discovered in the year 326 A.D. by the Empress Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great. ^ "Records of Travel in Turkey and Greece," vol. i. p. 447. ROMAN FORMS OF PUNISHMENT Si, As the story goes, while visiting Jerusalem and the scenes of the passion, she was guided to the summit of Calvary by an aged Jew. Here an excavation was made, and, at a considerable depth, three crosses were found; and, with them, but lying aside by itself, was the inscription, in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek, placed above the head of Christ at the time of the crucifixion. To determine which of the three crosses was the one upon which Jesus suffered, it was decided, at the sug- gestion of Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, to employ a miracle. The sick were brought and required to touch the three. According to the legend, the one upon which the Savior died immediately imparted miraculous healing. A church was at once built above the excavation and in it was deposited the greater part of the supposed real cross, and the remainder was sent to Byzantium, and from there to Rome, where it was placed in the church of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, built especially to receive the precious relic. The genuineness of this relic was afterwards attested by a Bull of Pope Alexander HI. In connection with the legend of the discovery of the actual cross upon which Christ was crucified, goes a secondary story that the nails used at the crucifixion were also found at the same time and place. Later tradition declared that one of these was thrown by Helena into the Adriatic when swept by a terrific storm, and that this was followed by an instantaneous calm. The popular impression among Christians that the cross is exclusively a Christian religious symbol, seems 64 THE TRIAL OF JESUS to be without historical foundation. It is quite certain, indeed, that it was a religious emblem among several ancient races before the beginning of the Christian era. The ancient Egyptians adored the cross with the most holy veneration; and this sacred emblem was carved upon many of their monuments. Several of these monuments may be seen to-day in the British Museum.^ A cross upon a Calvary may also be seen upon the breast of one of the Egyptian mummies in the Museum of the London University.^ The ancient Egyptians were accustomed to putting a cross on their sacred cakes, just as the Christians of to-day do, on Good Friday.^ The cross was also adored by the ancient Greeks and Romans, long before the crucifixion of Christ. Greek crosses of equal arms adorn the tomb of Midas, the ancient Phrygian king.^ One of the early Christian Fathers, Minucius Felix, in a heated controversy with the pagan Romans, charged them with adoration of the cross. " As for adoration of the cross," said he to the Romans, " which you object against us, I must tell you that we neither adore crosses nor desire them. You it is, ye Pagans, who worship wooden gods, who are the most likely people to adore wooden crosses, as being part of the same substance with your deities. For what else are your ensigns, flags, and standards, but crosses, gilt and beautiful? Your victorious tro- ^ "The Celtic Druids," p. 126; "Anacalypsis," vol. i. p. 317. 2 "Anacalypsis," vol. 1. p. 217. 3 Colenso's "Pentateuch Examined," vol. vi. p. 1 15. ■* Baring-Gould, "Curious Myths," p. 291. ROMAN FORMS OF PUNISHMENT Ss phies not only represent a cross, but a cross with a man upon ity ^ It also seems that, at a time antedating the early Ro- mans, Etruscans and Sabines, a primitive race inhab- ited the plains of Northern Italy, " to whom the cross was a religious symbol, the sign beneath which they laid their dead to rest; a people of whom history tells nothing, knowing not their name; but of whom anti- quarian research has learned this, that they lived in ignorance of the arts of civilization, that they dwelt in villages built on platforms over lakes, and that they trusted to the cross to guard, and maybe to revive, their loved ones whom they committed to the dust." The cross was also a sacred symbol among the an- cient Scandinavians. " It occurs," says Mr. R. P. Knight, " on many Runic monuments found in Sweden and Denmark, which are of an age long anterior to the approach of Christianity to those countries, and, prob- ably, to its appearance in the world." ^ When the Spanish missionaries first set foot on the soil of Mexico, they were amazed to find that the Az- tecs worshiped the cross as an object of supreme ven- eration. They found it suspended as a sacred symbol and an august emblem from the walls of all the Aztec temples.^ When they penetrated farther south and entered Peru, they found that the Incas adored a cross made out of a single piece of jasper/ " It appears," says " Chambers's Encyclopedia," " that the sign of the 1 "Octavius," Chap. XXIX. ^ "Ancient Art and Mythology," p. 30. 3 Brinton, "The Myths of the New World," p. 95. "* Baring-Gould, "Curious Myths," p. 299. 66 THE TRIAL OF JESUS cross was in use as an emblem having certain religious and mystic meanings attached to it, long before the Christian era; and the Spanish conquerors were aston- ished to find it an object of religious veneration among the nations of Central and South America." ^ That the ancient Mexicans should have worshiped the cross and also a crucified Savior, called Quetzal- coatle,^ is one of the strangest phenomena of sacred history. It is a puzzle which the most eminent theo- logians have found it impossible to solve. They have generally contented themselves with declaring the whole thing a myth built upon primitive superstition and ignorance. This worship of the cross and Quet- zalcoatle was going on before Columbus discovered America, and it seems impossible to establish any his- torical or geographical connection between it and the Christian worship of the cross and the crucified Jesus. Several writers of eminence have contended that the widespread adoration of the cross, as a sacred symbol, among so many races of mankind, ancient and modern, proves a universal spiritual impulse, culminating in the crucifixion of Jesus as the common Savior of the world. " It is more than a coincidence," says the Rev. S. Baring-Gould, " that Osiris by the cross should give life eternal to the spirits of the just; that with the cross Thor should smite the head of the great Serpent, and bring to life those who were slain; that beneath the cross the Muysca mothers should lay their babes, trust- ing to that sign to secure them from the power of evil iVol.iii. Art., "Cross." 2 Kingsborough, "Mexican Antiquities," vol. vi. i66. p. ROMAN FORMS OF PUNISHMENT 67 spirits; that with that symbol to protect them, the an- cient people of Northern Italy should lay them down in the dust." ^ But it is not with the mythical crucifixions of mythi- cal gods that we have to deal. The real, historical death of Jesus upon the cross with its accompanying incidents of outrageous illegality is the purpose of this treatise; and to the accomplishment of that design we now return. 1 "Curious Myths," p. 311. CHAPTER VI ROMAN LAW APPLICABLE TO THE TRIAL OF JESUS HAT was the law of Rome in relation to the trial of Jesus? The answer to this question is referable to the main charge brought against the Master be- fore Pilate. A single verse in St. Luke contains the indict- ment: "And they began to ac- cuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King." Three distinct elements are wrapped up in this general accusation; but they are all interwoven with and culminate in the great charge that Jesus claimed to be " Christ a King." Of this accusation alone, Pilate took cognizance. And there is no mistake as to its nature and meaning. It was High Treason against Caesar — the most awful crime known to Roman law. This was the charge brought by the priests of the Sanhedrin against the Nazarene. What then was the law of Rome in relation to the crime of high trea- son? The older Roman law, crimen perJuellionis, applied chiefly to offenses committed in the military service. Deserters from the army were regarded as 68 TIBERIUS VJESAK (ANTIQUE SCULPTURE) RELEVANT ROMAN LAW 69 traitors and punished as public enemies either by death or interdiction of fire and water. Later Roman law broadened the definition of treason until it compre- hended any offense against the Roman Commonwealth that affected the dignity and security of the Roman people. Ulpian, defining treason, says: ^^ Majestatis crimen illud est quod adversus populum Romanum vel adversus securitatem ejus committitur.^^ ^ Cicero very admirably describes the same crime as: ^^ Majes- tatem minuere est de dignitate aut amplitudine aut potestate populi aut eorum quibus populus potestatem dedit aliquid derogarey " The substance of both these definitions is this: Treason is an insult to the dignity or an attack upon the sovereignty and security of the Roman State. From time to time, various laws were passed to define this crime and to provide penalties for its commission. Chief among these were the lex Julia Majestatis, 48 B.C. Other laws of an earlier date were the lex Cornelia^ 81 B.C.; lex Faria, 92 B.C.; and the lex Appuleia, 100 B.C. The lex Julia was in existence at the time of Christ, and was the basis of the Roman law of treason until the closing years of the empire. One of its provisions was that every accusation of trea- son against a Roman citizen should be made by a writ- ten libel. But it is not probable that provincials were entitled to the benefit of this provision ; and it was not therefore an infraction of the law that the priests and Pilate failed to present a written charge against Jesus. In studying the trial of Jesus and the charge brought 1 "Digest," XLVIII. 4. 2 "De Inventione," II. 17. 70 THE TRIAL OF JESLS against Him, the reader should constantly remind him- self that the crucifixion took place during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, a morbid and capricious tyrant, whose fretful and suspicious temper would kindle into fire at the slightest suggestion of treason in any quarter. Tacitus records fifty-two cases of prosecution for trea- son during his reign. The enormous development of the law of majestas at this time gave rise to a class of professional informers, delatores^ whose infamous ac- tivity against private citizens helped to blacken the name of Tiberius. The most harmless acts were at times construed into an aflfront to the majesty or into an assault upon the safety of this miserable despot. Cotta Messalinus was prosecuted for treason because it was alleged " that he had given Caligula the nickname of Caia, as contaminated by incest"; and again on an- other charge that he had styled a banquet among the priests on the birthday of Augusta, a " funeral sup- per"; and again on another charge that, while com- plaining of the influence of Manius Lepidus and Lucius Arruntius, with whom he had had trouble in court, he had said that " they indeed will be supported by the senate, but I by my little Tiberius." ^ Manercus Scaurus was prosecuted for treason be- cause he wrote a tragedy in which were certain lines that might be made to apply in an uncomplimentary manner to Tiberius. We are told by Dio that this tragedy was founded on the story of Atreus; and that Tiberius, believing himself referred to, said, '* Since he makes me another Atreus, I will make him an ^Tacitus, "Annals," p. 215. RELEVANT ROMAN LAW 71 Ajax," meaning that he would compel him to destroy himself.^ " Nor," says Tacitus, " were even women exempt from danger. With designs to usurp the government they could not be charged; their tears are therefore made treason; and Vitia, mother to Fusius Geminus, once consul, was executed in her old age for bewailing the death of her son." ^ An anecdote taken from Seneca but related in Taci- tus, illustrates the pernicious activity of the political informers of this age. At a banquet in Rome, one of the guests wore the image of Tiberius on his ring. His slave, seeing his master intoxicated, took the ring off his finger. An informer noticed the act, and, later in the evening, insisted that the owner, to show his con- tempt of Tiberius, was sitting upon the figure of the emperor. Whereupon he began to draw up an accusa- tion for high treason and was getting ready to have it attested by subscribing witnesses, when the slave took the ring from his own pocket, and thus demonstrated to the whole company that he had had It in his posses- sion all the time. These instances fully serve to illus- trate the political tone and temper of the age that witnessed the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. They also suggest the exceedingly delicate and painful position of Pilate when sitting in judgment upon the life of a subject of Tiberius who claimed to be a king. It is deemed entirely appropriate, in this place, to discuss a peculiar phase of the law of treason In its re- lationship to the trial of Jesus. It is easily demon- 1 Dio, Lib. LVIII. 2 "Annals," B. VI. Chap. II. 72 THE TRIAL OF JESUS strable that the teachings of Christ were treasonable under Roman public law. An essential and dominat- ing principle of that law was that the imperial State had the right to regulate and control the private con- sciences of men in religious matters. It was held to be an attribute of the sovereignty of Rome that she had the right to create or destroy religions. And the the- ory of the Roman constitution was that the exercise of this right was not a religious but a governmental func- tion. The modern doctrine of the separation of Church and State had no place in Roman politics at the time of Christ. Tiberius Caesar, at the beginning of his reign, definitely adopted the principle of a state religion, and as Pontifex Maximus, was bound to pro- tect the ancient Roman worship as a matter of official duty. Roman treatment of foreign religions, from first to last, is a most interesting and fascinating study. Poly- theistic above all other nations, the general policy of the Roman empire was one of toleration. Indeed she not only tolerated but adopted and absorbed foreign worships into her own. The Roman religion was a composite of nearly all the religions of the earth. It was thus natural that the imperial State should be in- dulgent in religious matters, since warfare upon for- eign faiths would have been an assault upon integral parts of her own sacred system. It is historically true that attempts were made from time to time by patriotic Romans to preserve the old Latin faith in its original purity from foreign invasion. The introduction of Greek gods was at first vigorously opposed, but the RELEVANT ROMAN LAW 73 exquisite beauty of Greek sculpture, the irresistible in- fluence of Greek literature, and the overwhelming fascination of Greek myths, finally destroyed this opposition, and placed Apollo and iEsculapius in the Roman pantheon beside Jupiter and Minerva. At another time the senate declared war on the Egyptian worship which was gradually making its way into Rome. It had the images of Isis and Serapis thrown down; but the people set them up again. It decreed that the temples to these deities should be de- stroyed, but not a single workman would lay hands upon them, i^milius Paulus, the consul, was himself forced to seize an ax and break in the doors of the temple. In spite of this, the worship of Isis and Sera- pis was soon again practiced unrestrained at Rome.^ It is further true that Rome showed not only intol- erance but mortal antagonism to Druidism, which was completely annihilated during the reign of the Em- peror Claudius. A decree of the Roman senate, during the reign of Tiberius, ordered four thousand freemen charged with Egyptian and Jewish superstitions out to Sardinia to fight against and be destroyed by the banditti there, unless they saw fit to renounce these superstitions within a given time.- But it must be remembered that these are excep- tional cases of intolerance revealed by Roman history. The general policy of the empire, on the other hand, was of extreme tolerance and liberality. The keynote ^ DolHnger, "The Gentile and the Jew," vol. ii. p. ^2' 2 DolHnger, "The Gentile and the Jew," vol. ii. p. 172. 74 THE TRIAL OF JESUS of this policy was that all religions would be tolerated that consented to live side by side and in peace with all other religions. There was but one restriction upon and limitation of this principle, that foreign religions would be tolerated only in their local seats, or, at most, among the races in which such religions were native. The fact that the worship of Serapis was left undis- turbed on the banks of the Nile, did not mean that the same worship would be tolerated on the banks of the Tiber. An express authorization by Rome was neces- sary for this purpose. Said authorization made said worship a religio licita. And the peregrini, or for- eigners in Rome, were thus permitted to erect their own altars, and to assemble for the purpose of worship- ing their own gods which they had brought with them. The reverse side of this general principle of religious tolerance shows that Roman citizens were not only permitted but required to carry the Roman faith with them throughout the world. Upon them, the Roman state religion was absolutely binding; and for all the balance of the world it was the dominant cult. " The provinces," says Renan, " were entirely free to adhere to their own rights, on the sole condition of not inter- fering with those of others." " Such toleration or in- difference, however," says Dollinger, " found its own limits at once whenever the doctrine taught had a prac- tical bearing on society, interfered with the worship of the state gods, or confronted their worship with one of its own; as well as when a strange god and cultus assumed a hostile attitude toward Roman gods, could be brought into no affinity or corporate relation with RELEVANT ROMAN LAW 75 them, and would not bend to the supremacy of Jupiter Capitolinus." Now, the principles declared by Renan and DoUin- ger are fundamental and pointed in the matter of the relationship between the teachings of Jesus and the theory of treason under Roman law. These principles were essential elements of Roman public law, and an attempt to destroy them was an act of treason under the definitions of both Ulpian and Cicero. The Roman constitution required that a foreign religion, as a con- dition of its very existence, should live in peace with its neighbors ; that it should not make war upon or seek to destroy other religions; and that it should acknowl- edge the dominance and superior character of the imperial religion. All these things Jesus refused to do, as did his followers after Him. The Jews, it is true, had done the same thing, but their nationality and lack of aggressiveness saved them until the destruction of Jerusalem. But Christianity was essentially aggressive and proselytizing. It sought to supplant and destroy all other religions. No compromises were proposed, no treaties concluded. The followers of the Nazarene raised a black flag against paganism and every heathen god. Their strange faith not only defied all other re- ligions, but mocked all earthly government not built upon it. Their propaganda was nothing less than a challenge to the Roman empire in the affairs of both law and religion. Here was a faith which claimed to be the only true religion; that proclaimed a monothe- istic message which was death to polytheism ; and that refused to be confined within local limits. Here was 76 THE TRIAL OF JESUS a religion that scorned an authorization from Rome to worship its god and prophet; a religion that demanded acceptance and obedience from all the world — from Roman and Greek, as well as Jew and Egyptian. This scorn and this demand were an affront to the dignity and a challenge to the laws of the Roman Common- wealth. Such conduct was treason against the consti- tution of the empire. " The substance of what the Romans did," says Sir James Fitz-James Stephen, " was to treat Christianity by fits and starts as a crime." ^ But why a crime? Be- cause the Roman religion, built upon polytheism, was an integral and inseparable part of the Roman State, and whatever menaced the life of the one, threatened the existence of the other. The Romans regarded their religion as " an engine of state which could not be shaken without the utmost danger to their civil gov- ernment." Cicero further says: "The institutions of the fathers must be defended; it is the part of wisdom to hold fast the sacred rites and ceremonies." " Roman statesmen were fully aware of the truthfulness of the statement of a modern writer that, " wherever the re- ligion of any state falls into disregard and contempt it is impossible for that state to subsist long." Now, Christianity was monotheistic, and threatened destruc- tion to polytheism everywhere. And the Romans treated it as a crime because it was regarded as a form of seditious atheism whose teachings and principles were destructive of the established order of things. The Roman conception of the nature of the crime com- "^ 1 "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," pp. 89, 90. ^ Dg Legibus. RELEVANT ROMAN LAW 77 mitted by an attack upon the national religion is well illustrated by the following sentence from Dollinger: " If an opinion unfavorable to the apotheosis of any member of the imperial dynasty happened to be dropped, it was dangerous in itself as falling within the purview of the law of high treason; and so it fell out in the case of Thrasea Paetus, who refused to be- lieve in the deification of Poppaea." If it was high treason to refuse to believe in the deification of an em- peror or an empress, what other crime could be im- puted to him whose design was to destroy an entire religious system, and to pile all the gods and goddesses — Juno and Poppaea, Jupiter and Augustus — in com- mon ruin? From the foregoing, it may be readily seen that it is impossible to appreciate the legal aspects of the trial of Jesus before Pilate, unless it is constantly kept in mind that the Roman constitution, which was binding upon the whole empire, reserved to the state the right to permit or forbid the existence of new religious faiths and the exercise of rights of conscience in reli- gious matters. Rome was perfectly willing to tolerate all religions as long as they were peaceful and passive in their relations with other religions. But when a new and aggressive faith appeared upon the scene, proclaiming the strange dogma that there was but one name under heaven whereby men might be saved, and demanding that every knee bow at the mention of that name, and threatening damnation upon all who re- fused, the majesty of Roman law felt itself insulted and outraged ; and persecution, torture, and death were the 78 THE TRIAL OF JESUS inevitable result. The best' and wisest of the Roman emperors, Trajan and the Antonines, devoted to the ax or condemned to crucifixion the early Christians, not because Christianity was spiritually false, but because it was aggressive and intolerant, and they be- lieved its destruction necessary to the maintenance of the supremacy and sovereignty of the Roman State. An interesting correspondence between Pliny and Trajan, while the former was governor of Bithynia, reveals the Roman conception of and attitude toward Christianity. Pliny wrote to Trajan : " In the mean- while, the method I have observed toward those who have been brought before me as Christians is this: I asked them whether they were Christians; if they ad- mitted it, I repeated the question twice, and threatened them with punishment; if they persisted, I ordered them to be at once punished, for I was persuaded, whatever the nature of their opinions might be, a con- tumacious and inflexible obstinacy certainly deserved correction. There were others also brought before me possessed with the same infatuation, but being Roman citizens, I directed them to be sent to Rome." To this, Trajan replied: "You have adopted the right course, my dearest Secundus, in investigating the charges against the Christians who were brought be- fore you. It is not possible to lay down any general rule for all such cases. Do not go out of your way to look for them. If, indeed, they should be brought before you, and the crime is proved, they must be pun- ished; with the restriction, however, that where the party denies he is a Christian, and shall make it evident RELEVANT ROMAN LAW 79 he is not, by invoking our gods, let him (notwithstand- ing any former suspicion) be pardoned upon his re- pentance." ^ Here the magnanimous Trajan called Christianity a crime, and this was the popular Roman conception of it during the first two centuries of its existence. Now, it is true that Christianity was not on trial before Pilate; but the Author of Christianity was. And the same legal principles were extant and appli- cable that afterwards brought the Roman State and the followers of the Nazarene into mortal conflict. For the prisoner who now stood before the procurator to answer the charge of high treason asserted substan- tially the same claims and proclaimed the same doc- trines that afterwards caused Rome to devote His adherents to flames and to wild beasts in the amphithea- ter. The record does not disclose that Pilate became fully acquainted at the trial of Jesus with His claims and doctrines. On the other hand, it is clear that he became convinced that the claim of Jesus to be '* Christ a King " was not a pretension to earthly sovereignty. But, nevertheless, whatever might have been the in- formation or the notions of the deputy of Tiberius, the teachings of Jesus were inconsistent and incompatible with the public law of the Roman State. Pilate was not necessarily called upon to enforce this law, since it was frequently the duty of Roman governors, as in- timated by Trajan in his letter to Pliny, to exercise leniency in dealing with religious delinquents. To summarize, then : it may be said that the Roman ^ Correspondence between Pliny and Trajan, Letters XCVII, XCVIII. 8o THE TRIAL OF JESUS. law applicable to the trial of Jesus was the lex Julia Majestatts, interpreted either in the light of claims to actual kingship made by Jesus, or to kingship of a religious realm whose character and existence were a menace to the religion and laws of Rome. In the light of the evidence adduced at the hearing before Pilate, these legal principles become mere abstract proposi- tions, since there seems to have been neither necessity nor attempt to enforce them; but they were in exist- ence, nevertheless, and were directly applicable to the trial of Jesus. PONTIUS PILATE (mUNKACSY) CHAPTER VII PONTIUS PILATE IS Name. — The prasnomen or first name of Pilate is not known. Rosadi calls him Lucius, but upon what authority is not stated. His nomen or family name indicates that he was con- nected either by descent or by adoption with the gens of the Pontii, a tribe first made famous in Roman history in the person and achievements of C. Pontius Telesinus, the great Samnite general. A Ger- man legend, however, offers another explanation. Ac- cording to this story, Pilate was the natural son of Tyrus, King of Mayence. His father sent him to Rome as a hostage, and there he was guilty of murder. After- wards he was sent to Pontus, where he distinguished himself by subduing certain barbarian tribes. In rec- ognition of his services, it is said, he received the name Pontius. But this account is a pure fabrication. It is possible that it was invented by the 22d legion, which was assigned to Palestine at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, and was afterwards stationed at May- ence. The soldiers of this legion might have been " either the bearers of this tradition or the inventors of the fable." 8i 82 THE TRIAL OF JESUS It is historically almost certain that Pilate was a na- tive of Seville, one of the cities of Baetic Spain that enjoyed rights of Roman citizenship. In the war of annihilation waged by Agrippa against the Canta- brians, the father of Pilate, Marcus Pontius, acquired fame as a general on the side of Rome. He seems to have been a renegade to the cause of the Spaniards, his countrymen. And when Spain had been conquered by Rome, as a reward for service, and as a mark of dis- tinction, he received the pilum (javelin), and from this fact his family took the name of Pilati. This is the common explanation of the origin of the cognomen Pilatus. Others have sought to derive the word Pilate from pileatus, which, among the Romans, was the cap worn as a badge of servitude by manumitted slaves. This derivation would make Pontius Pilate a libertus, or the descendant of one. Of his youth, very little is known. But it is believed that, after leaving Spain, he entered the suite of Ger- manicus on the Rhine and served through the German campaigns; and that, when peace was concluded, he went to Rome in search of fortune and in pursuit of pleasure. His Marriage. — Soon after his arrival in Rome, Pilate was married to Claudia, the youngest daughter of Julia, the daughter of Augustus. Julia was a woman of the most dissolute and reckless habits. Ac- cording to Suetonius, nothing so embittered the life of the Roman emperor as the shameful conduct of the mother of the wife of the procurator of Judea. He PONTIUS PILATE 83 had reared her with the utmost care, had accustomed her to domestic employments such as knitting and spin- ning, and had sought to inculcate principles of purity and nobility of soul by requiring her to speak and act openly before the family, that everything which was said and done might be put down in a diary. His guardianship of the attentions paid her by young men was so strict that he once wrote a letter to Lucius Vini- cius, a handsome young man of good family, in which he said: "You have not behaved very modestly, in making a visit to my daughter at Baiae." Notwith- standing this good training, Julia became one of the lewdest and coarsest women in Rome. Augustus mar- ried her first to Marcellus; then, after the death of Marcellus, to Marcus Agrippa; and, finally, to Tibe- rius. But in spite of the noble matches that had been made for her, her lewdness and debaucheries became so notorious that Augustus was compelled to banish her from Rome. It is said that he was so much ashamed of her infamous conduct that for a long time he avoided all company, and even had thoughts of putting her to death. His sorrow and humiliation are shown from the circumstance that when one Phoebe, a freedwoman and confidante of hers, hanged herself about the time the decree of banishment was passed by the senate, he said: " I had rather be the father of Phoebe than of Julia." And whenever the name of Julia was men- tioned to him, during her exile, Augustus was wont to exclaim : " Would I were wifeless, or had childless died." ^ 1 Suet., "Caesar Augustus," Chap. LXIV. 84 THE TRIAL OF JESUS Such was the character of Julia, mother-in-law of Pilate. In exile, she bore Claudia to a Roman knight. In her fifteenth year, the young girl met the Spaniard in Rome and was courted by him. Nothing better il- lustrates the character of Pilate than his union with this woman with whose origin and bringing up he was well acquainted. It was a servile and lustful rather than a noble and affectionate eye which he cast upon her. Having won the favor of Tiberius and the con- sent of Claudia, the marriage was consummated. After the nuptial rites, tradition has it that Pilate de- sired to follow the bride in the imperial litter; but Tiberius, who had acted as one of the twelve witnesses required by the law, forced him back, and drawing a paper from his bosom, handed it to him and passed on. This paper contained his commission as procurator of Judea; and the real object of the suit paid to Claudia was attained. Pilate proceeded at once to Caesarea, the headquar- ters of the government of his province. His wife, who had been left behind, joined him afterwards. Caesar's permission to do this was a most gracious concession, as it was not generally allowed that governors of prov- inces should take their wives with them. At first it was positively forbidden. But afterwards a senatus con- sult, which is embodied in the Justinian text, declared it better that the wives of proconsuls and procurators should not go with them, but ordaining that said offi- cials might take their wives with them provided they made themselves personally responsible for any trans- gressions on their part. Notwithstanding the numer- PONTIUS PILATE 85 ous restrictions of Roman law and custom, it is very evident that the wives of Roman officers frequently accompanied them to the provinces. From Tacitus we learn that at the time of the death of Augustus, Ger- manicus had his wife Agrippina with him in Ger- many; and afterwards, in the beginning of the reign of Tiberius, she was also with him in the East. Piso, the praefect of Syria, took his wife with him at the same time. These facts are historical corroborations of the Gospel accounts of the presence of Claudia in Jerusa- lem at the time of the crucifixion and of her warning dream to Pilate concerning the fate of the Master. His Procuratorship. — Pontius Pilate was the sixth procurator of Judea. Sabinus, Coponius, Ambivus, Rufus, and Gratus had preceded him in the govern- ment of the province. Pilate's connection with the trial and crucifixion of Jesus will be dealt with in suc- ceeding chapters of this volume. Only the chief acts of his public administration, in a purely political ca- pacity, will be noticed here. One of the first of these acts serves well to illustrate the reckless and tactless character of the man. His predecessors in office had exercised great care in the matter of the religious prejudices of the Jews. They had studiously avoided exhibiting flags and other emblems bearing images of the emperor that might ofifend the sacred sentiments of the native population. Even Vitellius, the legate of Syria, when he was marching against the Arabian king Aretas, ordered his troops not to carry their standards into Jewish territory, but to march around it. Pilate, on the other hand, in defiance of precedent and policy. 86 THE TRIAL OF JESUS caused the garrison soldiers of Jerusalem to enter the city by night carrying aloft their standards, blazoned with the images of Tiberius. The news of this outrage threw the Jews into wild excitement. The people in great numbers flocked down to Caesarea, where Pilate was still stopping, and begged him to remove the standards. Pilate refused; and for five days the dis- cussion went on. At last he became enraged, sum- moned the people into the race course, had them sur- rounded by a detachment of soldiers, and served notice upon them that he would have them put to death if they did not become quiet and disperse. But, not in the least dismayed, they threw themselves upon the ground, laid bare their necks, and, in their turn, served notice upon Pilate that they, the children of Abraham, would rather die, and that they would die, before they would willingly see the Holy City defiled. The result was that Pilate finally yielded, and had the standards and images withdrawn from Jerusalem. Such was the Roman procurator and such the people with whom he had to deal. Thus the very first act of his procurator- ship was a blunder which embarrassed his whole sub- sequent career. A new storm burst forth when, on another occasion, Pilate appropriated funds from the Corban or sacred treasury to complete an aqueduct for bringing water to Jerusalem from the " Pools of Solomon." This was certainly a most useful enterprise; and, ordinarily, would speak well for the statesmanship and adminis- trative ability of the procurator. But, in this instance, it was only another exhibition of tactless behavior in PONTIUS PILATE Sy dealing with a stubborn and peculiar people. The Jews had a very great reverence for whatever was set apart for the Corban, and they considered it a form of awful impiety to devote its funds to secular pur- poses. Pilate, we must assume, was well acquainted with their religious scruples in this regard, and his open defiance of their prejudices was an illustration not of courage, but of weakness in administrative mat- ters. Moreover, his final conduct in the matter of the aqueduct revealed a malignant quality in the temper of the man. On one occasion when he was getting ready to go to Jerusalem to supervise the building of this work, he learned that the people would again im- portune him, as in the case of the standards and the images. He then deliberately caused some of his sol- diers to be disguised as Jewish citizens, had them armed with clubs and daggers, which they carried con- cealed beneath their upper garments; and when the multitude approached him to make complaints and to present their petitions, he gave a preconcerted signal, at which the assassins beat down and cut to pieces great numbers of the helpless crowds. Pilate was victorious in this matter; for the opposition to the building of the aqueduct was thus crushed in a most bloody man- ner. But hatred against Pilate was stirred up afresh and intensified in the hearts of the Jews. A third act of defiance of the religious prejudices of the inhabitants of Jerusalem illustrates not only the ob- stinacy but the stupidity as well of the deputy of Caesar in Judea. In the face of his previous experiences, he insisted on hanging up in Herod's palace certain gilt 88 THE TRIAL OF JESUS shields dedicated to Tiberius. The Jews remonstrated with him in vain for this new outrage upon their national feelings. They were all the more indignant because they believed that he had done it, " less for the honor of Tiberius than for the annoyance of the Jewish people." Upon the refusal of Pilate to remove the shields, a petition signed by the leading men of the na- tion, among whom were the four sons of Herod, was addressed to the emperor, asking for the removal of the offensive decorations. Tiberius granted the request and the shields were taken from Jerusalem and depos- ited in the temple of Augustus at Caesarea — " And thus were preserved both the honor of the emperor and the ancient customs of the city." ^ The instances above cited are recounted in the works of Josephus " and Philo. But the New Testament also contains intimations that Pilate was a cruel and reck- less governor in his dealings with the Jews. Accord- ing to St. Luke xiii. i: "There were present at that season some that told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices." Noth- ing definite is known of this incident mentioned by the Evangelist. But it probably refers to the fact that Pilate had put to the sword a number of Gali- leans while they were offering their sacrifices at Jerusalem. His Character. — The estimates of the character of Pilate are as varied as the races and creeds of men. Both Josephus and Philo have handed down to poster- 1 Philo, "De Legatione ad Cajum," Sec. 38, ed. Mangey, II. 589 sq. 2 Josephus, "Ant.," XVIII. 3, 1. PONTIUS PILATE 89 ity a very ugly picture of the sixth Roman procurator of Judea. Philo charges him with " corruptibility, violence, robberies, ill-treatment of the people, griev- ances, continuous executions without even the form of a trial, endless and intolerable cruelties." If we were to stop with this, we should have a very poor impres- sion of the deputy of Tiberius; and, indeed at best, we can never either admire or love him. But there is a tender and even pathetic side to the character of Pilate, which is revealed to us by the Evangelists of the New Testament. The pure-hearted, gentle-minded authors of the Gospels, in whose writings there is not even a tinge of bitterness or resentment, have restored " for us the man within the governor, with a delicacy, and even tenderness, which make the accusing portrait of Philo and Josephus look like a hard, revengeful daub." In- stead of painting him as a monster, they have linked conscience to his character and placed mercy in his heart, by their accounts of his repeated attempts to re- lease Jesus. The extreme of pity and of pathos, de- rived from these exquisitely merciful side touches of the gentle biographers of the Christ, is manifested in the opinion of Tertullian that Pilate was virtually a Christian at heart.^ A further manifestation is the fact that the Abys- sinian Church of Christians has canonized him and placed his name in the calendar on June 25th. A still further revelation of this spirit of regarding Pilate merely as a sacred instrument in the hands of God is shown by the Apocryphal Gospel of Nicode- ^ Apol. c. 21 ("jam pro sua conscientia Cristianum"). 90 THE TRIAL OF JESUS mus which speaks of him as " uncircumcised in flesh but circumcised in heart." Renan has called him a good administrator, and has sought to condone his brutal treatment of the Jews by pointing to the necessity of vigorous action in dealing with a turbulent and fanatical race. But the combined efforts of both sacred and secular apologists are still not sufficient to save the name of Pilate from the scorn and reprobation of mankind. That he was not a bad man in the worst sense of the term is manifest from the teachings of the Gospel narratives. To believe that he was wholly without conscience is to repudiate the reve- lations of these sacred writings. Of wanton cruelty and gratuitous wickedness, he was perhaps incapable. But the circumstances of his birth and breeding; his descent from a renegade father; his adventurous life in the army of Germanicus; his contact with and ab- sorption of the skepticism and debauchery of Rome; his marriage to a woman of questionable virtue whose mother was notoriously coarse and lewd — all these things had given coloring to the character of Pilate and had stricken with inward paralysis the moral fiber of his manhood. And now, in the supreme moment of his life and of history, from his nerveless grasp fell the reins of fate and fortune that destiny had placed within his hands. Called upon to play a leading role in the mighty drama of the universe, his craven cowardice made him a pitiable and contemptible figure. A splendid example this, the conduct of Pilate, for the youth of the world, not to imitate but to shun! Let the young men of America and of all the earth remem- PONTIUS PILATE 91 ber that a crisis is allotted to every life. It may be a great one or a small one, but it will come either invited or unbidden. The sublime courage of the soul does not avoid, but seeks this crisis. The bravest and most holy aspirations leap at times like angels from the temple of the brain to the highest heaven. Never a physician who does not long for the skill that discovers a remedy for disease and that will make him a Pasteur or a Koch; never a poet that does not beseech the muse to inspire him to write a Hamlet or a Faust; never a gen- eral of armies who would not fight an Austerlitz battle. Every ambitious soul fervently prays for strength, when the great crisis comes, to swing the hammer of the Cyclop with the arm of the Titan. Let the young aspirant for the glories of the earth and the rewards of heaven remember that youth is the time for the forma- tion of that courage and the gathering of that strength of which victory is born. Let him remember that if he degrades his physical and spiritual manhood in early life, the coming of the great day of his existence will make him another Pilate — cringing, crouching, and contemptible. The true character of the Roman judge of Jesus is thus very tersely given by Dr. EUicott: " A thorough and complete type of the later Roman man of the world: stern, but not relentless; shrewd and world- worn, prompt and practical, haughtily just, and yet, as the early writers correctly perceived, self-seeking and cowardly; able to perceive what was right, but without moral strength to follow it out." ^ ^ "Historical Lectures," 6th ed. p. 350. 92 THE TRIAL OF JESUS His End. — Pilate's utter recklessness was the final cause of his undoing. It was an old belief among the Samaritans that Moses buried the sacred vessels of the temple on Mt. Gerizim. An impostor, a sort of pseudo-prophet, promised the people that if they would assemble on the top of the mountain, he would unearth the holy utensils in their presence. The sim- ple-minded Samaritans assembled in great numbers at the foot of the Mount, and were preparing to ascend, when Pilate on the pretense that they were revolution- ists, intercepted them with a strong force of horse and foot. Those who did not immediately submit were either slain or put to flight. The most notable among the captives were put to death. The Samaritans at once complained to Vitellius, the legate in Syria at that time. Vitellius at once turned over the administration of Judea to Marcellus and ordered Pilate to leave for Rome in order to give an account to the emperor of the charges brought against him by the Jews.^ Before he arrived in Italy, Tiberius had died; but Pilate never returned to the province over which he had ruled dur- ing ten bloody and eventful years. " Paradosis Pilatiy — The death of Pilate is clouded in mystery and legend. Where and when he died is not known. Two apocryphal accounts are interesting, though false and ridiculous. According to one legend, the " Paradosis Pilati," the emperor Tiberius, startled and terrified at the universal darkness that had fallen on the Roman world at the hour of the crucifixion, summoned Pilate to Rome to answer for having caused 1 Josephus, "Ant.," XVIII. 3, 2. PONTIUS PILATE 93 it. He was found guilty and condemned to death; but before he was executed, he prayed to Jesus that he might not be destroyed in eternity with the wicked Jews, and pleaded ignorance as an excuse for having delivered the Christ to be crucified. A voice from heaven answered his prayer, and assured him that all generations would call him blessed, and that he should be a witness for Christ at his second coming to judge the Twelve Tribes of Israel. He was then executed; an angel, according to the legend, received his head; and his wife died from joy and was buried with him. " Mors Pi/atiy — According to another legend, the '* Mors Pilati," Tiberius had heard of the miracles of healing wrought by Jesus in Judea. He ordered Pi- late to conduct to Rome the man possessed of such divine power. But Pilate was forced to confess that he had crucified the miracle worker. The messenger sent by Tiberius met Veronica who gave him the cloth that had received the impress of the divine features. This was taken to Rome and given to the emperor, who was restored to health by it. Pilate was summoned immediately to stand trial for the execution of the Christ. He presented himself wearing the holy tunic. This acted as a charm upon the emperor, who tempo- rarily relented. After a time, however, Pilate was thrown into prison, where he committed suicide. His body was thrown into the Tiber. Storms and tempests immediately followed, and the Romans were com- pelled to take out the corpse and send it to Vienne, where it was cast into the Rhone. But as the storms 94 THE TRIAL OF JESUS and tempests came again, the body was again removed and sent to Lucerne, where it was sunk in a deep pool, surrounded by mountains on all sides. Even then, it is said, the water of the pool began to boil and bubble strangely. This tradition must have had its origin in an early attempt to connect the name of Pilate with Mt. Pilatus that overlooks Lake Lucerne. Another legend con- nected with this mountain is that Pilate sought to find an asylum from his sorrows in its shadows and recesses; that, after spending years in remorse and despair, wandering up and down its sides, he plunged into the dismal lake which occupies its summit. In times past, popular superstition was wont to relate how " a form is often seen to emerge from the gloomy waters, and go through the action of washing his hands; and when he does so, dark clouds of mist gather first round the bosom of the Infernal Lake (such as it has been styled of old) and then wrapping the whole upper part of the mountain in darkness, presage a tempest or hurricane which is sure to follow in a short space." ^ The superstitious Swiss believed for many centuries that if a stone were thrown into the lake a violent storm would follow. For many years no one was per- mitted to visit it without special authority from the officers of Lucerne. The neighboring shepherds bound themselves by a solemn oath, which they renewed an- nually, never to guide a stranger to it." The strange 1 Scott, "Anne of Geierstein," Chap. I. 2 Gessner, "Descript. Mont. Pilat," Zurich, 1555. PONTIUS PILATE 95 spell was broken, however, and the legend exploded in 1584, when Johannes Miiller, cure of Lucerne, was bold enough to throw stones into the lake, and to stand by complacently to await the consequences/ 1 Golbery, "Univcrs Pittoresque de la Suisse," p. 327. CHAPTER VIII JESUS BEFORE PILATE T the close of their trial, accord- ing to Matthew ^ and Mark,- the high priest and the entire Sanhe- drin led Jesus away to the tri- bunal of the Roman governor. It was early morning, probably between six and seven o'clock, when the accusing multitude moved from the judgment seat of Caiaphas to the Praetorium of Pilate. Oriental labor anticipates the day because of the excessive heat of noon; and, at daybreak. Eastern life is all astir. To accommodate the people and to enjoy the repose of midday, Roman governors, Suetonius tells us, mounted the bema at sunrise. The location of the judgment hall of Pilate in Jerusalem is not certainly known. It may have been in the Castle of Antonia, a frowning fortress that overlooked the Temple and its courts. Much more probably, however, it was the magnificent palace of Herod, situated in the northwest quarter of the city. This probability is heightened by the fact that it was a custom born of both pride and pleasure, for Roman procurators and proconsuls to occupy the 1 Matt, xxvii. 1,2. 2 Mark xv. i. 96 JESUS BEFORE PILATE 97 splendid edifices of the local kings. The Roman pro- praetor of Sicily dwelt in the Castle of King Hiero; and it is reasonable to suppose that Pilate would have passed his time while at Jerusalem in the palace of Herod. This building was frequently called the " King's Castle," sometimes was styled the " Praeto- rium," and was often given the mixed name of " Herod's Praetorium." But, by whatever name known, it was of gorgeous architecture and magnifi- cent proportions. Keim describes it as " a tyrant's stronghold and in part a fairy pleasure-house." A wall thirty cubits high completely encircled the build- ings of the palace. Beautiful white towers crowned this wall at regular intervals. Three of these were named in honor of Mariamne, the wife; Hippicus, the friend; and Phasaelus, the brother of the king. Within the inclosure of the wall, a small army could have been garrisoned. The floors and ceilings of the palace were decorated and adorned with the finest woods and precious stones. Projecting from the main building were two colossal marble wings, named for two Roman imperial friends, the Caesareum and the iEgrippeum. To a person standing in one of the tow- ers, a magnificent prospect opened to the view. Sur- rounding the castle walls were beautiful green parks, intercepted with broad walks and deep canals. Here and there splashing fountains gushed from brazen mouths. A hundred dovecots, scattered about the basins and filled with cooing and fluttering inmates, lent charm and animation to the scene. And to crown the whole, was the splendid panorama of Jerusalem 98 THE TRIAL OF JESUS stretching away among the hills and valleys. Such was the residence of the Roman knight who at this time ruled Judea. And yet, with all its regal splendor and magnificence, he inhabited it only a few weeks in each year. The Jewish metropolis had no fascination what- ever for the tastes and accomplishments of Pilate. " The saddest region in the world," says Renan, who had been imbued, from long residence there, with its melancholy character, " is perhaps that which sur- rounds Jerusalem." " To the Spaniard," says Rosadi, " who had come to Jerusalem, by way of Rome, and who was also of courtly origin, there could have been nothing pleasing in the parched, arid and colorless na- ture of Palestine, much less in the humble, mystic, out- at-elbows existence of its people. Their superstition, which would have nothing of Roman idolatry, which was their sole belief, their all, appeared to him a rea- sonable explanation, and a legitimate one, of their dis- dain and opposition. He therefore detested the Jews, and his detestation was fully reciprocated." It is not surprising, then, that he preferred to reside at Cssarea by the sea where were present Roman modes of thought and forms of life. He visited Jerusalem as a matter of official duty, " during the festivals, and particularly at Easter with its dreaded inspirations of the Jewish longing for freedom, which the festival, the air of spring and the great rendezvous of the nation, charmed into activity." In keeping with this custom, Pilate was now in the Jewish Capital on the occasion of the feast of the Passover. ^< Having condemned Him to death themselves, the JESUS BEFORE PILATE 99 Sanhedrin judges were compelled to lead Jesus away to the Praetorium of the Roman governor to see what he had to say about the case ; whether he would reverse or affirm the condemnation which they had pro- nounced. Between dawn and sunrise, they were at the palace gates. Here they were compelled to halt. The Passover had commenced, and to enter the procurator's palace at such a time was to incur Levitic contamina- tion, A dozen judicial blunders had marked the pro- ceedings of their own trial in the palace of Caiaphas. And yet they hesitated to violate a purely ritual regu- lation in the matter of ceremonial defilement. This regulation was a prohibition to eat fermented food during the Passover Feast, and was sacred to the mem- ory of the great deliverance from Egyptian bondage when the children of Israel, in their flight, had no time to ferment their dough and were compelled to consume it before it had been leavened. Their purposes and scruples were announced to Pilate; and, in a spirit of gracious and politic condescension, he removed the difficulty by coming out to meet them. But this action was really neither an inconvenience nor a condescen- sion ; for it was usual to conduct Roman trials in the open air. Publicity was characteristic of all Roman criminal proceedings. And, in obedience to this prin- ciple, we find that the proconsul of Achaia at Corinth, the city magistrates in Macedonia, and the procurators at Cssarea and Jerusalem, erected their tribunals in the most conspicuous public places, such as the market, the race course, and even upon the open highway.^ An 1 Keim, "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. p. 84. loo THE TRIAL OF JESUS example directly in point is, 'moreover, that of the procurator Florus who caused his judgment seat to be raised in front of the palace of Herod, A.D. 66, and, en- throned thereon, received the great men of Jerusalem who came to see him and gathered around his tribunal. To the same place, according to Josephus, the Jewish queen Bernice came barefoot and suppliant to ask favors of Florus/ The act of Pilate in emerging from the palace to meet the Jews was, therefore, in exact compliance with Roman custom. His judgment seat was doubtless raised immediately in front of the en- trance and between the great marble wings of the palace. Pilate's tribune or benia was located in this space on the elevated spot called Gabaatha, an Ara- maic word signifying an eminence, a *' hump." The same place in Greek was called Lithostroton, and sig- nified " The Pavement," because it was laid with Roman marble mosaic. The location on an eminence was in accordance with a maxim of Roman law that all criminal trials should be directed from a raised tri- bunal where everybody could see and understand what was being said and done. The ivory curule chair of the procurator, or perhaps the ancient golden royal chair of Archelaus was placed upon the tessellated pavement and was designed for the use of the governor. As a general thing, there was sitting room on the tri- bunal for the assessors, the accusers and the accused. But such courtesies and conveniences were not ex- tended to the despised subjects of Judea; and Jesus, as ,well as the members of the Sanhedrin, was compelled 1 Josephus, " Wars of the Jews," II. 14, 8; II. 15, I. JESUS BEFORE PILATE loi V to stand. The Latin language was the official tongue of the Roman empire, and was generally used in the administration of justice. But at the trial of Jesus it is believed that the Greek language was the medium of communication. Jesus had doubtless become ac- quainted with Greek in Galilee and probably replied to Pilate in that tongue. This is the opinion, at least, of both Keim ^ and Geikie.- The former asserts that there was no interpreter called at the trial of Christ. It is also reasonably certain that no special orator like Tertullus, who informed the gov- ernor against Paul, was present to accuse Jesus. ^ Doubtless Caiaphas the high priest played this im- portant role. When Pilate had mounted the bema, and order had been restored, he asked: " What accusation bring ye against this man? " This question is keenly suggestive of the presence of a judge and of the beginning of a solemn judicial pro- ceeding. Every word rings with Roman authority and administrative capacity. The suggestion is also prominent that accusation was a more important ele- ment in Roman criminal trials than inquisition. This suggestion is reenforced by actual dictum from the lips of Pilate's successor in the same place: " It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have license to answer for himself concern- ing the crime laid against him." ^ 1 Keim, " Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. p. 87. ^ Acts xxiv. i. 2 Geikie, "The Life and Words of Christ," vol. ii. p. 533, ^ Acts xxv. 16. I02 THE TRIAL OF JESUS The chief priests and scribes sought to evade this question by answering: " If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee." ^ They meant by this that they desired the procurator to waive his right to retry the case; accept their trial as conclusive; and content himself with the mere exe- cution of the sentence. In this reply of the priests to the initial question of the Roman judge, is also re- vealed the further question of that conflict of jurisdic- tion between Jews and Romans that we have already so fully discussed. " If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee." These words from the mouths of the priests were intended to convey to the mind of Pilate the Jewish notion that a judgment by the Sanhedrin was all-sufficient; and that they merely needed his countersign to justify execu- tion. But Pilate did not take the hint or view the question in that light. In a tone of contemptuous scorn he simply replied : " Take ye him, and judge him according to your law." This answer indicates that Pilate did not, at first, un- derstand the exact nature of the proceedings against Jesus. He evidently did not know that the prisoner had been charged with a capital ofifense; else he would not have suggested that the Jews take jurisdiction of the matter. This is clearly shown from the further reply of the priestly accusers: " It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." ^ ^ John xviii, 30. ^john xviii. 31. JESUS BEFORE PILATE 103 The advice of Pilate and the retort of the Jews have been construed in two ways. A certain class of critics have contended that the procurator granted to the Jews in this instance the right to carry out capital punishment, as others have maintained was the case in the execution of Stephen. This construction argues that Pilate knew at once the nature of the accusation. Another class of writers contend that the governor, by this language, merely proposed to them one of the minor penalties which they were already empowered to execute. The objection to the first interpretation is that the Jews would have been delighted to have such power conferred upon them, and would have exer- cised it; unless it is true, as has been held, that they were desirous of throwing the odium of Christ's death upon the Romans. The second construction is entirely admissible, because it is consonant with the theory that jurisdiction in capital cases had been withdrawn from the Sanhedrin, but that the trial and punishment of petty offenses still remained with it. A third and more reasonable interpretation still is that when Pilate said, " Take ye him and judge him according to your law," he intended to give expression to the hatred and bitterness of his cynical and sarcastic soul. He de- spised the Jews most heartily, and he knew that they hated him. He had repeatedly outraged their reli- gious feelings by introducing images and shields into the Holy City. He had devoted the Corban funds to unhallowed purposes, and had mingled the blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices. In short, he had I04 THE TRIAL OF JESUS left nothing undone to humiliate and degrade them. Now here was another opportunity. By telling them to judge Jesus according to their own laws, he knew that they must make a reply which would be wound- ing and galling to their race and national pride. He knew that they would have to confess that sovereignty and nationality were gone from them. Such a confes- sion from them would be music to his ear. The sub- stance of his advice to the Jews was to exercise their rights to a certain point, to the moment of condemna- tion; but to stop at the place where their sweetest de- sires would be gratified with the exercise of the rights of sovereignty and nationality. Modern poetry supports this interpretation of an- cient history. *' The Merchant of Venice " reveals the same method of heaping ridicule upon a Jew by making him impotent to execute the law. Shylock, the Jew, in contracting a usurious loan, inserted a stipulation that if the debt should not be paid when due, the debtor must allow a pound of flesh to be cut from his body. The debt was not discharged at the maturity of the bond, and Shylock made application to the Doge to have the pound of human flesh deliv- ered to him in accordance with the compact. But Por- tia, a friend of the debtor, though a woman, assumed the garb and affected the speech of a lawyer in his de- fense; and, in pleading the case, called tauntingly and exultingly to the Jew: This bond doth give thee here no jot of blood; The words expressly are, a pound of flesh: JESUS BEFORE PILATE 105 Take then thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh; But, in the cutting it, if thou dost shed One drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods Are by the laws of Venice confiscate Unto the State of Venice.^ But whatever special Interpretation may be placed upon the opening words passed between the priestly accusers and the Roman judge, it is clearly evident that the latter did not intend to surrender to the former the right to impose and execute a sentence of death. The substance of Pilate's address to the Jews, when they sought to evade his question concerning the accusation which they had to bring against Jesus, was this: I have asked for a specific charge against the man whom you have brought bound to me. You have given not a direct, but an equivocal answer. I infer that the crime with which you charge him is one against your own laws. With such ofifenses I do not wish to meddle. Therefore, I say unto you: "Take ye him and judge him according to your law." If I am not to know the specific charge against him, I wall not assume cogni- zance of the case. If the accusation and the facts relied upon to support it are not placed before me, I will not sentence the man to death; and, under the law, you cannot. The Jews were thus thwarted in their designs. They had hoped to secure a countersign of their own judg- ment without a retrial by the governor. They now found him in no yielding and accommodating mood. They were thus forced against their will and expecta- 1 Act IV. Scene i. io6 THE TRIAL OF JESUS tion to formulate specific charges against the prisoner in their midst. The indictment as they presented it, is given in a single verse of St. Luke : " And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ, a King." ' It is noteworthy that in this general accusation is a radical departure from the charges of the night before. In the passage from the Sanhedrin to the Praetorium, the indictment had completely changed. Jesus had not been condemned on any of the charges recorded in this sentence of St. Luke. He had been convicted on the charge of blasphemy. But before Pilate he is now charged with high treason. To meet the emergency of a change of jurisdiction, the priestly accusers con- verted the accusation from a religious into a political ofifense. It may be asked why the Sanhedrists did not maintain the same charges before Pilate that they themselves had considered before their own tribunal. Why did they not lead Jesus into the presence of the Roman magistrate and say: O Governor, we have here a Galilean blasphemer of Jehovah. We want him tried on the charge of blasphemy, convicted and sen- tenced to death. Why did they not do this? They were evidently too shrewd. Why? Because, in legal parlance, they would have had no standing in court. Why? Because blasphemy was not an offense against Roman law, and Roman judges would generally as- sume cognizance of no such charges, ^ Luke xxiii. 2. JESUS BEFORE PILATE 107 The Jews understood perfectly well at the trial before Pilate the principle of Roman procedure so ad- mirably expressed a few years later by Gallio, pro- consul of Achaia, and brother of Seneca: " If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you : but if it be a ques- tion of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters." ^ This at- titude of Roman governors toward offenses of a re- ligious nature perfectly explains the Jewish change of front in the matter of the accusation against Jesus. They merely wanted to get themselves into a Roman court on charges that a Roman judge would consent to try. In the threefold accusation recorded by the third Evangelist, they fully accomplished this result. The first count in the indictment, that He was per- verting the nation, was vague and indefinite, but was undoubtedly against Roman law, because it was in the nature of sedition, which was one of the forms of trea- son under Roman jurisprudence. This charge of per- verting the nation was in the nature of the revival of the accusation of sedition which they had first brought forward by means of the false witnesses before their own tribunal, and that had been abandoned because of the contradictory testimony of these witnesses. The second count in the indictment, that He had for- bidden to give tribute to Caesar, was of a more serious nature than the first. A refusal, in modern times, to pay taxes or an attempt to obstruct their collection, is a mild offense compared with a similar act under an- 1 Acts xviii. 14, 15. io8 THE TRIAL OF JESUS cient Roman law. To forbid to pay tribute to Caesar in Judea was a form of treason, not only because it was an open defiance of the laws of the Roman state, but also because it was a direct denial of Roman sover- eignty in Palestine. Such conduct was treason under the definitions of both Ulpian and Cicero. The Jews knew the gravity of the offense when they sought to entrap Jesus in the matter of paying tribute to Caesar. They believed that any answer to the question that they had asked, would be fatal to Him. If He advised to pay the imperial tribute, He could be charged with being an enemy to His countrymen, the Jews. If He advised not to pay the tribute. He would be charged with being a rebellious subject of Caesar. His reply disconcerted and bewildered them when He said: " Render therefore unto Cssar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." ^ In this sublime declaration, the Nazarene announced the immortal principle of the separation of church and state, and of religious freedom in all the ages. And when, in the face of His answer, they still charged Him with forbidding to pay tribute to Caesar, they seem to have been guilty of deliberate falsehood. Keim calls the charge " a very flagrant lie." Both at Capernaum,- where Roman taxes were gathered, and at Jerusalem,^ where religious dues were offered, Jesus seems to have been both a good citizen and a pious Jew. "Jesus bon citoyen " (Jesus a good citizen) is the title of a chapter in the famous work of Bossuet entitled " Politique tiree de I'Ecriture sainte." In it 1 Matt. xxii. 21. 2 Matt. xvii. 24, 25. ^ Matt. xxvi. 18, 19. JESUS BEFORE PILATE 109 the great French ecclesiastic describes very beautifully the law-abiding qualities of the citizen-prophet of Galilee. In pressing the false charge that he had ad- vised not to pay taxes to Rome, the enemies of Jesus revealed a peculiar and wanton malignity. The third count in the indictment, that the prisoner had claimed to be " Christ a King," was the last and greatest of the charges. By this He was deliberately accused of high treason against Caesar, the gravest ofifense known to Roman law. Such an accusation could not be ignored by Pilate as a loyal deputy of Tiberius. The Roman monarch saw high treason in every word and act that was uncomplimentary to his person or dangerous to his power. Fifty-two prosecu- tions for treason, says Tacitus, took place during his reign. The charges of high treason and sedition against Jesus were all the more serious because the Romans believed Palestine to be the hotbed of insurrection and sedition, and the birthplace of pretenders to kingly powers. They had recently had trouble with claim- ants to thrones, some of them from the lowest and most ignoble ranks. Judas, the son of Hezekiah, whom Herod had caused to be put to death, proclaimed royal intentions, gathered quite a multitude of adher- ents about him in the neighborhood of Sepphoris in Galilee, raised an insurrection, assaulted and captured the palace of the king at Sepphoris, seized all the weapons that were stored away in it, and armed his followers with them. Josephus does not tell us what became of this royal pretender; but he does say that no THE TRIAL OF JESUS " he became terrible to all men, by tearing and rending those that came near him." ^ In the province of Perea, a certain Simon, who was formerly a slave of Herod, collected a band of follow- ers, and had himself proclaimed king by them. He burned down the royal palace at Jericho, after having plundered it. A detachment under the command of the Roman general Gratus made short work of the pretensions of Simon by capturing his adherents and putting him to death. " Again, a certain peasant named Athronges, formerly a shepherd, claimed to be a king, and for a long time, in concert with his four brothers, annoyed the authori- ties of the country, until the insurrection was finally broken up by Gratus and Ptolemy.^ In short, during the life of Jesus, Judea was passing through a period of great religious and political ex- citement. The Messiah was expected and a king was hoped for; and numerous pretenders appeared from time to time. The Roman governors were constantly on the outlook for acts of sedition and treason. And when the Jews led Jesus into the presence of Pilate and charged Him with claiming to be a king, the re- cent cases of Judas, Simon, and Athronges must have arisen in his mind, quickened his interest in the pre- tensions of the prisoner of the Jews, and must have awakened his sense of loyalty as Caesar's representative. The lowliness of Jesus, being a carpenter, did not greatly allay his fears; for he must have remembered 1 Josephus, "Ant.," XVII. lo, 5. 2 Josephus, "Ant.," XVII. 10, 6. 3 Josephus, "Ant.," XVII. 10, 7. JESUS BEFORE PILATE iii that Simon was once a slave and that Athronges was nothing more than a simple shepherd. When Pilate had heard the accusations of the Jews, he deliberately arose from his judgment seat, gathered his toga about him, motioned the mob to stand back, and beckoned Jesus to follow him into the palace. St. John alone tells us of this occurrence.^ At another time, in the Galilean simplicity and free- dom of His nature, the Prophet of Nazareth had spoken with a tinge of censure and sarcasm of the rul- ers of the Gentiles that lorded it over their subjects,^ and had declared that " they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses." ^ Now the lowly Jewish peasant was entering for the first time a palace of one of the rulers of the Gentiles in which were soft raiment and royal purple. The imagination is helpless to picture the historical reflections born of the memories of that hour. A meek and lowly carpenter enters a king's pal- ace on his way to an ignominious death upon the cross ; and yet the greatest kings of all the centuries that fol- lowed were humble worshipers in their palaces before the cross that had been the instrument of his torture and degradation. Such is the irony of history; such is the mystery of God's providence; such is the mystic ebb and flow of the tides and currents of destiny and fate. Of the examination of Jesus inside the palace, little is known. Pilate, it seems, brushed the first two charges aside as unworthy of serious consideration; and proceeded at once to examine the prisoner on the 1 John xviii. 33. 2 Matt. xx. 25. ^ Matt. xi. 8. 112 THE TRIAL OF JESUS charge that he pretended to be a king. " If," Pilate must have said, " the fellow pretends to be a king, as Simon and Athronges did before him; if he says that Judea has a right to have a king other than Caesar, he is guilty of treason, and it is my solemn duty as deputy of Tiberius to ascertain the fact and have him put to death." The beginning of the interrogation of Jesus w^ithin the palace is reported by all the Evangelists in the same words. Addressing the prisoner, Pilate asked: "Art thou the King of the Jews?" "Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? "^ This was a most natural and fitting response of the Nazarene to the Roman. It was necessary first to understand the exact nature of the question before an appropriate answer could be made. Jesus simply wished to know whether the question was asked from a Roman or a Jewish, from a temporal or a spiritual standpoint. If the interrogation was directed from a Roman, a temporal point of view, His answer would be an emphatic negative. If the inquiry had been prompted by the Jews, it was then pregnant with re- ligious meaning, and called for a different reply; one that would at once repudiate pretensions to earthly royalty, and, at the same time, assert His claims to the Messiahship and heavenly sovereignty. " Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: What hast thou done? " 1 John xviii. 34. JESUS BEFORE PILATE 113 To this Jesus replied: " My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be deliv- ered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." ^ This reply of the Master is couched in that involved, aphoristic, strangely beautiful style that characterized His speech at critical moments in His career. Its im- port is clear, though expressed in a double sense: first from the Roman political, and then from the Jewish religious side. First He answered negatively: " My kingdom is not of this world." By this He meant that there was no possible rivalry between Him and Caesar. But, in making this denial, He had used two words of grave import: My King- dom. He had used one word that struck the ear of Pilate with electric force : the word Kingdom. In the use of that word, according to Pilate's reasoning, Jesus stood self-convicted. For how, thought Pilate, can He pretend to have a Kingdom, unless He pretends to be a king? And then, as if to cow and intimidate the prisoner, as if to avoid an unpleasant issue of the affair, he probably advanced threateningly upon the Christ, and asked the question which the Bible puts in his mouth: " Art thou a king then? " Rising from the simple dignity of a man to the beauty and glory and grandeur of a God, Jesus used the most wonderful, beautiful, meaningful words in the literature of the earth: "Thou sayest that I am a 1 John xviii. 36. 114 THE TRIAL OF JESUS king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice." * This language contains a perfectly clear descrip- tion of the kingdom of Christ and of His title to spir- itual sovereignty. His was not an empire of matter, but a realm of truth. His kingdom differed widely from that of Caesar. Caesar's empire was over the bodies of men; Christ's over their souls. The strength of Caesar's kingdom was in citadels, armies, navies, the towering Alps, the all-engirdling seas. The strength of the kingdom of the Christ was and is and will ever be in sentiments, principles, ideas, and the saving power of a divine word. But, as clever and brilliant as he must have been, Pilate could not grasp the true meaning of the words of the Prophet. The spiritual and intellectual grandeur of the Galilean peasant was beyond the reach of the Roman lord and governor. In a cynical and sarcastic mood, Pilate turned to Jesus and asked : ^' What is truth ?" 2 This pointed question was the legitimate offspring of the soul of Pilate and a natural product of the Roman civilization of his age. It was not asked with any real desire to know the truth; for he turned to leave the palace before an answer could be given. It was simply a blank response born of mental wretched- ness and doubt. If prompted by any silent yearning for a knowledge of the truth, his conduct indicated clearly that he did not hope to have that longing satis- * John xviii. 37. ^ John xviii. 38. JESUS BEFORE PILATE 115 fied by the words of the humble prisoner in his charge. "What is truth?" An instinctive utterance this, prompted by previous sad reflections upon the wrecks of philosophy in search of truth. We have reason to believe that Pilate was a man of brilliant parts and studious habits. His marriage into the Roman royal family argued not only splendid physical endowments, but rare intellectual gifts as well. Only on this hypothesis can we explain his rise from obscurity in Spain to a place in the royal family as husband of the granddaughter of Augustus and foster daughter of Tiberius. Then he was familiar, if he was thus endowed and accomplished, with the de- spairing efforts of his age and country to solve the mysteries of life and to ascertain the end of man. He had doubtless, as a student, " mused and mourned over Greece, and its search of truth intellectual — its keen and fruitless search, never-ending, ever beginning, across wastes of doubt and seas of speculation lighted by uncertain stars." He knew full well that Roman philosophy had been wrecked and stranded amidst the floating debris of Grecian thought and speculation. He had thought that the ultima ratio of Academicians and Peripatetics, of Stoics and Epicureans had been reached. But here was a new proposition — a kingdom of truth whose sovereign had as subjects mere vagaries, simple mental conceptions called truths — a kingdom whose boundaries were not mountains, seas, and rivers, but clouds, hopes, and dreams. What did Pilate think of Jesus? He evidently re- garded Him as an amiable enthusiast, a harmless reli- ii6 THE TRIAL OF JESUS gious fanatic from whom Cssar had nothing to fear. While alone with Jesus in the palace, he must have reasoned thus with himself, silently and contemptu- ously: The mob outside tells me that this man is Rome's enemy. Foolish thought! We know who Caesar's enemies are. We have seen and heard and felt the enemies of Rome — barbarians from beyond the Danube and the Rhine — great strong men, who can drive a javelin not only through a man, but a horse, as well. These are Caesar's enemies. This strange and melancholy man, whose subjects are mere abstract truths, and whose kingdom is beyond the skies, can be no enemy of Caesar. Believing this, he went out to the rabble and pro- nounced a verdict of acquittal : " I find in him no fault at all." Pilate had tried and acquitted Jesus. Why did he not release Him, and, if need be, protect Him with his cohort from the assaults of the Jews? Mankind has asked for nearly two thousand years why a Roman, with the blood of a Roman in him, with the glorious prestige and stern authority of the Roman empire at his back, with a Roman legion at his command, did not have the courage to do the high Roman act. Pilate was a moral and intellectual coward of arrant type. This is his proper characterization and a fitting answer to the world's eternal question. The Jews heard his sentence of acquittal in sullen silence. Desperately resolved to prevent His release, they began at once to frame new accusations. " And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth JESUS BEFORE PILATE 117 up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, begin- ning from Galilee to this place." ^ This charge was intended by the Jews to serve a double purpose: to strengthen the general accusation of high treason recorded by St. Luke; and to embitter and poison the mind of the judge against the prisoner by telling Pilate that Jesus was from Galilee. In an- cient times Galilee was noted as the hotbed of riot and sedition. The Galileans were brave and hardy moun- taineers who feared neither Rome nor Judea. As champions of Jewish nationality, they were the fiercest opponents of Roman rule ; and in the final catastrophe of Jewish history they were the last to be driven from the battlements of Jerusalem. As advocates and pre- servers of the purity of the primitive Jewish faith, they were relentless foes of Pharisaic and Sadducean hypoc- risy as it was manifested by the Judean keepers of the Temple. The Galileans were hated, therefore, by both Romans and Judeans; and the Sanhedrists believed that Pilate would make short work of Jesus if he learned that the prisoner was from Galilee. But a dif- ferent train of thought was excited in the mind of the Roman governor. He was thinking about one thing, and they about another. Pilate showed himself throughout the trial a craven coward and contemptible timeserver. From beginning to end, his conduct was a record of cowardice and subterfuge. He was con- stantly looking for loopholes of escape. His heart's desire was to satisfy at once both his conscience and the mob. The mention of Galilee was a ray of light that ^ Luke xxiii. 5. ii8 THE TRIAL OF JESUS fell across the troubled path of the cowardly and vacil- lating judge. He believed that he saw an avenue of escape. He asked the Jews if Jesus was a Galilean. An affirmative reply was given. Pilate then deter- mined to rid himself of responsibility by sending Jesus to be tried by the governor of the province to which He belonged. He felt that fortune favored his design ; for Herod, Tetrarch of Galilee, was at that very moment in Jerusalem in attendance upon the Passover feast. He acted at once upon the happy idea; and, under the escort of a detachment of the Praetorian Cohort, Jesus was led away to the palace of the Macca- bees where Herod was accustomed to stop when he came to the Holy City. CHAPTER IX JESUS BEFORE HEROD T was still early morning when Jesus, guarded by Roman sol- diers and surrounded by a jeer- ing, scoffing, raging multitude of Jews, was conducted to the palace of the Maccabees on the slope of Zion, the official resi- dence of Herod when he came to Jerusalem to attend the sacred festivals. This place was to the northeast of the pal- ace of Herod and only a few streets distant from it. The journey must have lasted therefore only a few minutes. But who was this Herod before whom Jesus now ap- peared in chains? History mentions many Herods, the greatest and meanest of whom was Herod I, sur- named the Great, who ordered the massacre of the In- nocents at Bethlehem. At his death, he bequeathed his kingdom to his sons. But being a client-prince, a rex socius, he could not finally dispose of his realm without the consent of Rome. Herod had made several wills, and, at his death, contests arose between his sons for the vacant throne of the father. Several embassies 119 120 THE TRIAL OF JESUS were sent to Rome to argue the rights of the different claimants. Augustus granted the petitioners many- audiences; and, after long delay, finally confirmed practically the last will of Herod. This decision gave Judea, Samaria, and Idumea, with a tribute of six hun- dred talents, to Archelaus. Philip received the regions of Gaulanitis, Auranitis, Trachonitis, Batanea, and Iturea, with an income of one hundred talents. Herod Antipas was given the provinces of Galilee and Perea, with an annual tribute of two hundred talents and the title of Tetrarch. The title of Ethnarch was conferred upon Archelaus. Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee, was the man before whom Jesus, his subject, was now led to be judged. The pages of sacred history mention the name of no more shallow and contemptible character than this petty princeling, this dissolute Idumaean Saddu- cee. Compared with him, Judas is eminently respect- able. Judas had a conscience which, when smitten with remorse, drove him to suicide. It is doubtful whether Herod had a spark of that celestial fire which we call conscience. He was a typical Oriental prince whose chief aim in life was the gratification of his pas- sions. The worthlessness of his character was so pro- nounced that it excited a nauseating disgust in the mind of Jesus, and disturbed for a moment that serene and lofty magnanimity which characterized His whole life and conduct. To Herod is addressed the only purely contemptuous epithet that the Master is ever recorded to have used. " And he said unto them. Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I JESUS BEFORE HEROD 121 do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected." ^ The son of a father who was ten times married and had murdered many of his wives; the murderer him- self of John the Baptist; the slave of a lewd and wicked woman — what better could be expected than a cruel, crafty, worthless character, whose attributes were those of the fox? But why was Jesus sent to Herod? Doubtless be- cause Pilate wished to shift the responsibility from his own shoulders, as a Roman judge, to those of the Gali- lean Tetrarch. A subsidiary purpose may have been to conciliate Herod, with whom, history says, he had had a quarrel. The cause of the trouble between them is not known. Many believe that the murder of the Galileans while sacrificing in the Temple was the ori- gin of the unpleasantness. Others contend that this occurrence was the result and not the cause of the quar- rel between Pilate and Herod. Still others believe that the question of the occupancy of the magnificent palace of Herod engendered ill feeling between the rival potentates. Herod had all the love of gorgeous architecture and luxurious living that characterized the whole Herodian family. And, besides, he doubt- less felt that he should be permitted to occupy the pal- ace of his ancestors on the occasion of his visits to Jeru- salem. But Pilate would naturally object to this, as he was the representative of almighty Rome in a con- quered province and could not afiford to give way, in a matter of palatial residence, to a petty local prince. 1 Luke xiii, 32. 122 THE TRIAL OF JESUS But, whatever the cause, the unfriendliness between them undoubtedly had much to do with the transfer of Jesus from the Praetorium to the palace of the Maccabees. " And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him for a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him." ^ This passage of Scripture throws much light upon Herod's opinion and estimate of Jesus. Fearing that he was the successor and imitator of Judas the Gaulo- nite, Herod at first sought to drive Him from his prov- ince by sending spies to warn Him to flee. The coura- geous and contemptuous reply of Jesus, in which he styled Herod " that fox," put an end to further at- tempts at intimidation. The notions of the Galilean Tetrarch concerning the Galilean Prophet seem to have changed from time to time. Herod had once regarded Jesus with feelings of superstitious dread and awe, as the risen Baptist. But these apprehensions had now partially passed away, and he had come to look upon the Christ as a clever impostor whose claims to kingship and Messiah- ship were mere vulgar dreams. For three years, Gali- lee had been ringing with the fame of the Miracle- worker; but Herod had never seen his famous subject. Now was his chance. And he anticipated a rare occasion of magic and merriment. He doubtless re- garded Jesus as a clever magician whose performance would make a rich and racy programme for an hour's * Luke xxiii. 8. JESUS BEFORE HEROD 123 amusement of his court. This was no doubt his domi- nant feeling regarding the Nazarene. But it is never- theless very probable that his Idumaean cowardice and superstition still conjured images of a drunken debauch, the dance of death, and the bloody head; and connected them with the strange man now be- fore him. No doubt he felt highly pleased and gratified to have Jesus sent to him. The petty and obsequious vas- sal king was caught in Pilate's snare of flattery. The sending of a noted prisoner to his judgment scat by a Roman procurator was no ordinary compliment. But Herod was at once too serious and too frivolous to as- sume jurisdiction of any charges against this prisoner, who had offended both the religious and secular pow- ers of Palestine. To condemn Jesus would be to incur the ill will and resentment of his many followers in his own province of Galilee. Besides, he had already suf- fered keenly from dread and apprehension, caused by the association of the names of John and Jesus, and he had learned that from the blood of one murdered prophet would spring the message and mission of an- other still more powerful and majestic. He was, therefore, unwilling to embroil himself and his domin- ions with the heavenly powers by condemning their earthly representatives. Again, though weak, crafty and vacillating, he still had enough of the cunning of the fox not to wish to excite the enmity of Caesar by a false judgment upon a noted character whose devoted followers might, at any moment, send an embassy to Rome to make serious 124 THE TRIAL OF JESUS and successful charges to the Emperor. He after- wards lost his place as Tetrarch through the suspicions of Caligula, who received news from Galilee that Herod was conspiring against him.^ The premoni- tions of that unhappy day probably now filled the mind of the Idumsan. On the other hand, Herod was too frivolous to con- duct from beginning to end a solemn judicial proceed- ing. He evidently intended to ignore the pretensions of Jesus, and to convert the occasion of His coming into a festive hour in which languor and drowsiness would be banished from his court. He had heard much of the miracles of the prisoner in his presence. Rumor had wafted to his ears strange accounts of mar- velous feats. One messenger had brought news that the Prophet of Nazareth had raised from the dead a man named Lazarus from Bethany, and also the son of the widow of Nain. Another had declared that the laws of nature suspended themselves on occasion at His behest; that when He walked out on the sea, He did not sink; and that He stilled the tempests with a mere motion of His hand. Still another reported that the mighty magician could take mud from the pool and restore sight; that a woman, ill for many months, need only touch the hem of His garment to be made whole again; and that if He but touched the flesh of a leper, it would become as tender and beautiful as that of a new-born babe. These reports had doubtless been received by Herod with sneers and mocking. But he gathered from them that Jesus was a clever juggler » Josephus, "Ant.," XVIII. 7, i, 2. JESUS BEFORE HEROD 125 whose powers of entertainment were very fine; and this was sufficient for him and his court. " Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing." ^ Herod thus opened the examination of Jesus by in- terrogating Him at length. The Master treated his insolent questions with contemptuous scorn and with- ering silence. No doubt this conduct of the lowly Nazarene greatly surprised and nettled the super- cilious Idumaean. He had imagined that Jesus would be delighted to give an exhibition of His skill amidst royal surroundings. He could not conceive that a peasant would observe the contempt of silence in the presence of a prince. He found it difficult, therefore, to explain this silence. He probably mistook it for stu- pidity, and construed it to mean that the pretensions of Jesus were fraudulent. He doubtless believed that his captive would not work a miracle because He could not; and that in His failure to do so were exploded His claims to kingship and Messiahship. At all events, he was evidently deeply perplexed; and this perplexity of the Tetrarch, in its turn, only served to anger the accusing priests who stood by. *' And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehe- mently accused him." ^ This verse from St. Luke clearly reveals the differ- ence in the temper and purposes of the Sanhedrists on the one hand, and of Herod on the other. The latter merely intended to make of the case of Jesus a farcical proceeding in which the jugglery of the prisoner * Luke xxiii. 9. 2 Luke xxxii. 10. 126 THE TRIAL OF JESUS would break the monotony of a day and banish all care during an idle hour. The priests, on the other hand, were desperately bent upon a serious outcome of the affair, as the words " vehemently accused " suggest. In the face of their repeated accusations, Jesus con- tinued to maintain a noble and majestic silence. Modern criticism has sought to analyze and to ex- plain the behavior of Christ at the court of Herod. " How comes it," asks Strauss, *' that Jesus, not only the Jesus without sin of the orthodox school, but also the Jesus who bowed to the constituted authorities, who says ' Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's ' — how comes it that he refuses the answer due to Herod?" The trouble with this question is that it falsely assumes that there was an " answer due to Herod." In the first place, it must be considered that Herod was not Caesar. In the next place, we must remember that St. Luke, the sole Evangelist who records the event, does not explain the character of the questions asked by Herod. Strauss himself says that they " displayed simple curi- osity." Admitting that Jesus acknowledged the juris- diction of Herod, was He compelled to answer irrele- vant and impertinent questions? We do not know what these questions were. But we have reason to believe that, coming from Herod, they were not such as Jesus was called upon to answer. It is very proba- ble that the prisoner knew His legal rights; and that He did not believe that Herod, sitting at Jerusalem, a place without his province, was judicially empowered to examine Him. If He was not legally compelled to answer, we are not surprised that Jesus refused to do so JESUS BEFORE HEROD 127 as a matter of graciousness and accommodation; for we must not forget that the Man-God felt that He was being questioned by a vulgar animal of the most cun- ning type. But what is certain from the Scriptural context is that Herod felt chagrined and mortified at his failure to evoke from Jesus any response. He was enraged that his plans had been foiled by one of his own sub- jects, a simple Galilean peasant. To show his resent- ment, he then resorted to mockery and abuse. " And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate." ^ We are not informed by St. Luke what special charge the priests brought against Jesus at the judg- ment seat of Herod. He simply says that they " stood and vehemently accused him." But we are justified in inferring that they repeated substantially the same ac- cusations which had been made before Pilate, that He had claimed to be Christ a King. This conclusion best explains the mockery which they sought to heap upon Him; for in ancient times, when men became candi- dates for office, they put on white gowns to notify the people of their candidacy. Again, Tacitus assures us that white garments were the peculiar dress of illus- trious persons; and that the tribunes and consuls wore them when marching before the eagles of the legions into battle.^ The meaning of the mockery of Herod was simply this: Behold O Pilate, the illustrious candidate for the 1 Luke xxiii. 1 1. 2 Tacitus, "Hist.," II. 89. 128 THE TRIAL OF JESUS kingship of the Jews! Behold the imperial gown of the royal peasant pretender! The appearance before Herod resulted only in the humiliation of Jesus and the reconciliation of Pilate and Herod. " And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves." * ^ Luke xxiii. 12. CHAPTER X JESUS AGAIN BEFORE PILATE HE sending of Jesus to Herod had not ended the case; and Pilate was undoubtedly very bit- terly disappointed. He had hoped that the Galilean Te- trarch would assume complete jurisdiction and dispose finally of the matter. On the contrary, J Herod simply mocked and bru- talized the prisoner and had him sent back to Pilate. The Roman construed the action of the Idumaean to mean an acquittal, and he so stated to the Jews. " And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people. Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that per- verteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touch- ing those things whereof ye accuse him: No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him, and release him." ^ The proposal to scourge the prisoner was the second of those criminal and cowardly subterfuges through ^ Luke xxiii. 13-16. 129 I30 THE TRIAL OF JESUS which Pilate sought at once to satisfy his conscience and the demands of the mob. The chastisement was to be a sop to the rage of the rabble, a sort of salve to the wounded pride of the priests who were disappointed that no sentence of death had been imposed. The re- lease was intended as a tribute to justice, as a soothing balm and an atoning sacrifice to his own outraged sense of justice. The injustice of this monstrous pro- posal was not merely contemptible, it was execrable. If Jesus was guilty, He should have been punished; if innocent, He should have been set free and protected from the assaults of the Jews. ? The of¥er of scourging first and then the release of the prisoner was indignantly rejected by the rabble. In his desperation, Pilate thought of another loop- hole of escape. <_ The Evangelists tell us that it was a custom upon Passover day to release to the people any single pris- oner that they desired. St. Luke asserts that the gov- ernor was under an obligation to do so.^ Whether this custom was of Roman or Hebrew origin is not cer- tainly known. Many New Testament interpreters have seen in the custom a symbol of the liberty and deliverance realized by Israel in its passage from Egypt at the time of the first great Passover. Others have traced this custom to the Roman practice of re- leasing a slave at the Lectisternia, or banquets to the gods.- Aside from its origin, it is interesting as an illustration of a universal principle in enlightened jurisprudence of lodging somewhere, usually with the 1 Luke xxiii, 17. ^ Livy v. 13: "Vinctis quoque demptu vincula." JESUS AGAIN BEFORE PILATE 131 chief executive of a race or nation, a power of pardon which serves as an extinction of the penal sanction. This merciful principle is a pathetic acknowledgment of the weakness and imperfection of all human schemes of justice. Pilate resolved to escape from his confusion and embarrassment by delivering Jesus to the people, who happened to appear in great numbers at the very- moment when Christ returned from Herod. The mul- titude had come to demand the usual Passover deliver- ance of a prisoner. The arrival of the crowd of dis- interested strangers was inopportune for the priests and elders who were clamoring for the life of the pris- oner in their midst. They marked with keen discern- ment the resolution of the governor to release Jesus. They were equal to the emergency, and began to whis- per among the crowd that Barabbas should be asked. " And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore when they were gathered to- gether, Pilate said unto them. Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? For he knew that for envy they had delivered him." ' Pilate believed that the newly arrived multitude would be free from the envy of the priests, and that they would be satisfied with Jesus whom they had, a few days before, welcomed Into Jerusalem with shouts of joy. When they demanded Barabbas, he still be- lieved that if he offered them the alternative choice of a robber and a prophet, they would choose the latter. 1 Matt, xxvii. i6-i8. 132 THE TRIAL OF JESUS " But the chief priests and elders persuaded the mul- titude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas. Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called the Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified." ^ " Barabbas, or Jesus which is called the Christ? " Such was the alternative offered by a Roman governor to a Jewish mob. Barabbas was a murderer and a rob- ber. Jesus was the sinless Son of God. An erring race wandering in the darkness of sin and perpetually tast- ing the bitterness of life beneath the sun, preferred a criminal to a prophet. And to the ghastliness of the choice was added a touch of the irony of fate. The names of both the prisoners were in signification the same. Barabbas was also called Jesus. And Jesus Barabbas meant Jesus the Son of the Father. This frightful coincidence w^as so repugnant to the Gospel writers that they are generally silent upon it. In this connection, Strauss remarks: " According to one read- ing, the man's complete name was l-qaovs ySapa^ySa?, which fact is noted only because Olshausen considers it noteworthy. Barabbas signifies ' son of the father,' and consequently Olshausen exclaims: ' All that was essen- tial to the Redeemer appears ridiculous in the- assas- sin!' and he deems applicable the verse: ^ Ludit in humanis divina potentia rebus.'' We can see nothing in Olshausen's remark but a Indus humancB impo- tenti^y ^ 1 Matt, xxvii. 20-22. ^ Vie, par. 131. JESUS AGAIN BEFORE PILATE 133 Amidst the tumult provoked by the angry passions of the mob, a messenger arrived from his wife bearing news that filled the soul of Pilate with superstitious dread. Claudia had had a dream of strange and ill- boding character. " When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying. Have thou nothing to do with that just man: For I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him." ^ This dream of Pilate's wife is nothing strange. Profane history mentions many similar ones. Calpur- nia, Caesar's wife, forewarned him in a dream not to go to the senate house ; and the greatest of the Romans fell beneath the daggers of Casca and Brutus, because he failed to heed the admonition of his wife. In the apocryphal report of Pilate to the emperor Tiberius of the facts of the crucifixion, the words of warning sent by Claudia are given: " Beware said she to me, beware and touch not that man, for he is holy. Last night I saw him in a vision. He was walking on the waters. He was flying on the wings of the winds. He spoke to the tempest and to the fishes of the lake; all were obedient to him. Behold! the torrent in Mount Kedron flows with blood, the statues of Caesar are filled with the filth of Gemoniae, the columns of the Interium have given away and the sun is veiled in mourning like a vestal in the tomb. O, Pilate, evil awaits thee if thou wilt not listen to the prayer of thy wife. Dread the curse of the Roman Senate, dread the powers of Cssar." 1 Luke xxvii. 19. Vajj^ ^^''^\ 134 THE TRIAL OF JESUS This noble and lofty language, this tender and pa- thetic speech, may appear strange to those who remem- ber the hereditary stigma of the woman. If this dream was sent from heaven, the recollection is forced upon us that the medium of its communication was the ille- gitimate child of a lewd woman. But then her char- acter was probably not worse than that of Mary Mag- dalene, who was very dear to the Master and has been canonized not only by the church, but by the reverence of the world. It is certain, however, that the dream of Claudia had no determining effect upon the conduct of Pilate. Resolution and irresolution alternately controlled him. Fear and superstition were uppermost in both mind and heart. The Jews beheld with anxious and discern- ing glance the manifestation of the deep anguish of his soul. They feared that the governor was about to pro- nounce a final judgment of acquittal. Exhibiting fierce faces and frenzied feelings, they moved closer to him and exclaimed: "We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God." ^ Despairing of convicting Jesus on a political charge, they deliberately revived a religious one, and pre- sented to Pilate substantially the same accusation upon which they had tried the prisoner before their own tribunal. " He made himself the Son of God! " These words filled Pilate's mind with a strange and awful meaning. In the mythology and ancient annals of his race, there 1 John xix. 7. JESUS AGAIN BEFORE PILATE 135 were many legends of the sons of the gods who walked the earth in human form and guise. They were thus indistinguishable from mortal men. It was dangerous to meet them; for to offend them was to provoke the wrath of the gods, their sires. These reflections, born of superstition, now swept through Pilate's mind with terrific force; and the cries of the mob, " He made himself the Son of God," called from out the deep re- cesses of his memory the half-forgotten, half-remem- bered stories of his childhood. Could not Jesus, rea- soned Pilate, be the son of the Hebrew Jehovah as Hercules was the son of Jupiter? Filled with super- stitious dread and trembling with emotion, Pilate called Jesus inside the Temple a second time; and, looking with renewed awe and wonder, asked: "Whence art thou?"^ But Jesus answered him nothing. Pilate came forth from the judgment hall a second time determined to release the prisoner; but the Jews, marking his decision, began to cry out: "Away with him, away with him, crucify him!"^ Maddened by the relentless importunity of the mob, Pilate replied scornfully and mockingly: " Shall I crucify your king? " The cringing, hypocritical priests shouted back their answer: " We have no king but Caesar." ^ And on the kingly idea of loyalty to Roman sover- eignty they framed their last menace and accusation. From the quiver of their wrath they drew the last ^ John xix. 9. 2 John xix, 15. ^ John xix. 15. 136 THE TRIAL OF JESUS arrow of spite and hate, and fired it straight at the heart of Jesus through the hands of Pilate: " If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." ^ This last maneuver of the mob sealed the doom of the Christ. It teaches also most clearly that Pilate was no match for the Jews when their religious prejudices were aroused and they were bent on accomplishing their desires. They knew Pilate and he knew them. They had been together full six years. He had been compelled to yield to them in the matter of the stand- ards and the eagles. The sacred Corban funds had been appropriated only after blood had been shed in the streets of Jerusalem. The gilt shields of Tiberius that he had placed in Herod's palace were taken down at the demands of the Jews and carried to the temple of Augustus at Caesarea. And now the same fanatical rabble was before him demanding the blood of the Nazarene, and threatening to accuse him to Caesar if he released the prisoner. The position of Pilate was painfully critical. He afterwards lost his procurator- ship at the instance of accusing Jews. The shadow of that distant day now fell like a curse across his path- way. Nothing was so terrifying to a Roman governor as to have the people send a complaining embassy to Rome. It was especially dangerous at this time. The imperial throne was filled by a morbid and suspicious tyrant who needed but a pretext to depose the governor of any province who silently acquiesced in traitorous ^ John xix. 12. JESUS AGAIN BEFORE PILATE 137 pretensions to kingship. Pilate trembled at these re- flections. His feelings of self-preservation suggested immediate surrender to the Jews. But his innate sense of justice, which was woven in the very fiber of his Roman nature, recoiled at the thought of Roman sanc- tion of judicial murder. He resolved, therefore, to propitiate and temporize. The frenzied rabble con- tinued to cry: " Crucify him! Crucify him! " Three times, in reply, Conscience sent to Pilate's trembling lips the searching question: "Why, what evil hath he done?" "Crucify him! Crucify him!" came back from the infuriated mob. Pilate finally resolved to do their bidding and obey their will. But he seems to have secretly cherished the- hope that scourging, which was the usual preliminary to crucifixion, might be made to satisfy the mob. But this hope was soon dispelled; and he found himself compelled to yield completely to their wishes by de- livering the prisoner to be crucified. Before this final step, however, which was an insult to the true courage of the soul and an outrage upon all the charities of the heart, he resolved to apply a soothing salve to wounded conscience. He resolved to perform a ceremonial cleansing act. Calling for a basin of water, he washed his hands before the multitude, saying: "I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it." ^ This was a simple, impressive, theatrical act; but little, mean, contemptible, cowardly. He washed his hands when he should have used them. He should have used them as Brutus or Gracchus or Pompeius 1 Matt, xxvii. 24. 138 THE TRIAL OF JESUS Magnus would have done, in pointing his legion to the field of duty and of glory. He should have used them as Bonaparte did when he put down the mob in the streets of Paris. But he was too craven and cowardly; and herein is to be found the true meaning of the char- acter and conduct of Pilate. He believed that Jesus was innocent; and that the accusations against Him were inspired by the envy of His countrymen. He had declared to the Jews in an emphatic verdict of acquit- tal that he found in Him no fault at all. And yet this very sentence, " I find in him no fault at all," was the beginning of that course of cowardly and criminal vacillation which finally sent Jesus to the cross. " Yet was this utterance," says Innes, " as it turned out, only the first step in that downward course of weakness the world knows so well: a course which, beginning with indecision and complaisance, passed through all the phases of alternate bluster and subserviency; persua- sion, evasion, protest, and compromise; superstitious dread, conscientious reluctance, cautious duplicity, and sheer moral cowardice at last; until this Roman re- mains photographed forever as the perfect feature of the unjust judge, deciding ' against his better knowl- edge, not deceived.' " "Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be cruci- fied. Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed JESUS AGAIN, BEFORE PILATE 139 in his right hand: And they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head. And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe ofif from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him." ^ Thus ended the most memorable act of injustice re- corded in history. At every stage of the trial, whether before Caiaphas or Pilate, the prisoner conducted Himself with that commanding dignity and majesty so well worthy of His origin, mission, and destiny. His sublime deportment at times caused His judges to marvel greatly. And through it all, He stood alone. Plis friends and followers had deserted Him in His hour of greatest need. Single-handed and unaided, the Galilean peasant had bared His breast and brow to the combined authority, to the insults and outrages, of both Jerusalem and Rome. '' Not a single discord- ant voice was raised amidst the tumultuous clamour: not a word of protest disturbed the mighty concord of anger and reviling; not the faintest echo of the late hosannas, which had wrung with wonder, fervour, and devotion, and which had surrounded and exalted to the highest pitch of triumph the bearer of good tidings on his entry into the Holy City. Where were the throngs of the hopeful and believing, who had followed His beckoning as a finger pointing toward the breaking dawn of truth and regeneration? Where were they, what thinking and why silent? The bands of the hum- ble and poor, of the afflicted and outcast who had en- 1 Matt, xxvii. 26-31. I40 THE TRIAL OF JESUS trusted to His controlling grace the salvation of soul and body — where were they, what thinking and why silent? The troops of women and youths, who had drawn fresh strength from the spell of a glance or a word from the Father of all that liveth — where were they, what thinking and why silent? And the multi- tudes of disciples and enthusiasts who had scattered sweet-scented boughs and joyous utterances along the road to Sion, blessing Him that came in the name of the Lord — where were they, what thinking and why silent? Not a remembrance, not a sign, not a word of the great glory so lately His. Jesus was alone." CHAPTER XI LEGAL ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL OF JESUS N the preceding pages of this volume we have considered the elements of both Law and Fact as related to the Roman trial of Jesus. Involved in this consid- eration v/ere the powers and du- ties of Pilate as procurator of Judea and as presiding judge at the trial; general principles of Roman provincial administration at the time of Christ; the legal and political status of the subject Jew in his relationship to the conquering Roman; the exact re- quirements of criminal procedure in Roman capital trials at Rome and in the provinces at the date of the crucifixion; the Roman law applicable to the trial of Jesus; and the facts of said trial before Pilate and Herod, We are now in a position to analyze the case from the view point of the juristic agreement or nonagree- ment of Law and Fact; and to determine by a process of judicial dissection and re-formation, the presence or absence of essential legal elements in the proceedings. We have learned what should have been done by Pilate acting as a Roman judge in a criminal matter involv- 141 142 THE TRIAL OF JESUS ing the life of a prisoner. We have also ascertained what he actually did. We are thus enabled to compare the requirements with the actualities of the case; and to ascertain the resemblances in the proceedings against Jesus to a legally conducted trial under Roman law. But, in making this summary and analysis, a most important consideration must be constantly held in mind: that, in matters of review on appeal, errors will not be presumed; that is, errors will not be considered that do not appear affirmatively upon the record. The law will rather presume and the court will assume that what should have been done, was done. In conformity with this principle, the presumption must be indulged that Pilate acted in strict obedience to the require- ments of Roman law in trying Jesus, unless the Gospels of the New Testament, which constitute the record in the case, either affirmatively or by reasonable infer- ence, disclose the absence of such obedience. A failure to note this presumption and to keep this principle in mind, has caused many writers upon this subject to make erroneous statements concerning the merits and legal aspects of the trial of Christ. Laymen frequently assert the essential principle of this presumption without seeming to be aware of it. Both Keim and Geikie declare that assessors or assist- ants were associated with Pilate in the trial of Jesus. The Gospel records nowhere even intimate such a thing; and no other original records are in existence to furnish such information. And yet one of the most celebrated of the biblical critics, Dr. Theodor Keim, SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 143 writing on the trial of Christ by Pilate, says: " Beside him, upon benches, were the council or the assessors of the court, sub-officials, friends, Roman citizens, whose presence could not be dispensed with, and who were not wanting to the procurators of Judea, although our reports do not mention them." ^ To the same efifect. Dr. Cunningham Geikie thus writes: "The assessors of the court — Roman citizens — who acted as nominal members of the judicial bench, sit beside Pilate — for Roman law required their presence." " These statements of the renowned writers just quoted are justified not only on the ground of logical historical inference, but also on the principle of actual legal presumption. The closest scrutiny of the New Testament narratives nowhere discovers even an inti- mation that a bench of judges helped Pilate to conduct the trial of Jesus. And yet, as Geikie says, " Roman law required their presence," and the legal presump- tion is that they were in and about the Praetorium ready to lend assistance, and that they actually took part in the proceedings. This inference is strength- ened by the fact that Pilate, after he had learned the nature of the accusation against Jesus, called Him into the palace to examine Him. Why did Pilate do this? Why did he not examine the prisoner in the presence of His accusers in the open air? Geikie tells us that there was a judgment hall in the palace in which trials were usually conducted.^ Is it not possible, nay proba- ^ Keim, "Jesus of Nazara, vol. vi. p. 87. 2 Geikie, "The Life and Words of Christ," vol. ii. p. 533. ^ Geikie, "The Life and Words of Christ," vol. ii. p. 532. 144 THE TRIAL OF JESUS ble, that the assessors and Pilate were assembled at an early hour in this hall to hear the usual criminal charges of the day, or, perhaps, to try the accusation against Jesus, of whose appearance before them they had been previously notified; and that, when the gov- ernor heard that the religious scruples of the Jews would not permit them to enter the judgment hall dur- ing the Passover feast, he went out alone to hear the accusation against the prisoner; and that he then re- turned with the accused into the hall where the bench of judges were awaiting him, to lay before them the charges and to further examine the case? It is ad- mitted that this theory and the statement of Geikie that there was a hall in the palace where trials were gener- ally held, are seemingly refuted by the fact that Roman trials vvcre almost always conducted in the open air. But this was not invariably true; and the case of Pilate and his court might have been an exception. It has been sought to lay particular stress upon the doctrine of legal presumption that what should have been done, was done, unless the record affirmatively negatives the fact, because it is impossible to appreciate fully the legal aspects of the trial of Jesus, unless this doctrine is understood and kept constantly in view. A casual perusal of the New Testament narratives leaves the impression upon the mind of the reader that the proceedings against Jesus before Pilate were ex- ceedingly irregular and lacking in all the essential ele- ments of a regular trial. As a matter of fact, this impression may be grounded in absolute truth. It may be that the action of Pilate was arbitrary and devoid SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 145 of all legal forms. This possibility is strengthened by the consideration that Jesus was not a Roman citizen and could not, therefore, demand the strict observance of forms of law in His trial. A Jewish provincial, when accused of crime, stood before a Roman governor with no other rights than the plea of justice as a de- fense against the summary exercise of absolute power. In other words, in the case of Jesus, Pilate was not bound to observe strictly rules of criminal procedure prescribed by Roman law. He could, if he saw fit, dis- pense with forms of law and dispose of the case either equitably or as his whims suggested. Nor was there a right of appeal in such a case, from the judgment of the procurator to the emperor at Rome. The decision of the governor against a provincial -was final. The case of Paul before Felix and before Festus was en- tirely dififerent. Paul was a Roman citizen and, as such, was entitled to all the rights involved in Roman citizenship, which included the privilege of an appeal to Caesar against the judgment of a provincial officer; and he actually exercised this right.* It was incum- bent, therefore, upon Roman officials to observe due forms of law in proceeding against him. And St. Luke, in Acts xxiv., indicates the almost exact pre- cision and formality of a Roman trial, in the case of Paul. But the fact that Jesus was not a Roman citizen does not prove that due forms of law were not observed in His trial. It is hardly probable, as before observed, that despotism and caprice were tolerated at any time, ^ Acts xxiv.; XXV. li; xxvi. 32. 146 THE TRIAL OF JESUS in any part of the Roman world. And, besides, Roman history and jurisprudence are replete with illustrations of complete legal protection extended by Roman offi- cials to the non-Roman citizens of subject states. It is, moreover, a legitimate and almost inevitable infer- ence, drawn from the very nature of the Roman con- stitution and from the peculiar character of Roman judicial administration, that no human life belonging to a citizen or subject of Rome would be permitted to be taken without due process of law, either imperial or local. In forming an opinion as to the existence or non- existence of a regular trial of Jesus before Pilate, the meager details of the New Testament histories must not alone be relied upon. Nor must it be forgotten that the Gospel writers were not lawyers or court offi- cers reporting a case to be reviewed on appeal. They were laymen writing a general account of a judicial transaction. And the omissions in their narratives are not to be considered as either discrepancies or false- hoods. They simply did not intend to tell everything about the trial of Jesus; and the fact that they do not record the successive steps of a regular trial does not mean that these steps were not observed. It is respectfully submitted that if a modern layman should write a newspaper or book account of one of the great criminal trials of this century, with no intention of making it a strictly judicial report, this account would not reveal the presence of more essential legal elements than are disclosed by the reports of the Evan- gelists of the proceedings against Jesus. SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 147 The majority of writers on the subject express the opinion that the appearance of the Christ before the Roman governor was nothing more than a short hear- ing in which a few questions were asked and answers made; that the proceedings were exceedingly brief and informal; and that the emergencies of the case rather than forms of law guided the judgment and controlled the conduct of Pilate. As a layman, the author of these volumes would take the same view. But as a lawyer, treating the subject in a judicial manner, and bound by legal rules, regulations, and presumptions, in review- ing the merits of the case, he feels constrained to dis- sent from the prevalent opinion and to declare that the New Testament records, though meager in details, exhibit all the essential elements of an ordinary crimi- nal trial, whether conducted in ancient or modern times. He further asserts that if the affirmative state- ments of the Evangelists that certain things were done be supplemented by the legal presumption that still other things were done because they should have been done, and because the record does not affirmatively de- clare that they were not done, an almost perfect judi- cial proceeding can be developed from the Gospel reports of the trial of Jesus before Pilate. These re- ports disclose the following essential elements of all ancient and modern criminal trials; I. The Indictment, or Nominis Delatio. " What accusation bring ye against this man?" " And they began to accuse him, saying, We 148 THE TRIAL OF JESUS found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King." 2. The Examination, or Interrogatio. " Art thou the King of the Jews? " " Art thou a King then? " 3. The Defense, or Excusatto. "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be de- livered to the Jews: but now is my king- dom not from hence. . . . To this end was I born and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice." 4. The Acquittal, or Absolutio. " I find in him no fault at all." Here we have clearly presented the essential fea- tures of a criminal trial: the Indictment, the Exam- ination of the charge, the Defense, and the Judg- ment of the tribunal, which, in this case, was an Acquittal. To demonstrate that Pilate intended to conduct the proceedings against Jesus seriously and judicially, at the beginning of the trial, let us briefly review the cir- SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 149 cumstances attendant upon the successive steps just enumerated. And to this end, let us proceed in order: I. The Indictment, or Nominis Delatio. When Pilate had seated himself in the ivory curule chair of the procurator of Judea, at an early hour on Friday morning, the day of the crucifixion of Jesus, a Jerusalem mob, led by the Sanhedrin, confronted him with the prisoner. His first recorded words are: " What accusation bring ye against this man? " As before suggested, this question is very keenly indicative of the presence of the judge and of the beginning of a solemn judicial proceeding. Every word rings with Roman authority and strongly suggests administrative action. The accusing priests sought to evade this question by answering: " If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee." If Pilate had adopted the Jewish view of the merits of the matter, that his countersign was the only thing necessary to justify the final condemnation and punish- ment of the prisoner; or, if he had been indifferent to the legal aspects of the case, he would simply have granted their request at once, and would have ordered the prisoner to execution. But this was not the case; for we are assured that he insisted on knowing the na- ture of the accusation before he would assume juris- diction of the affair. The mere information that He was a " malefactor " did not suffice. The conduct of the Roman judge clearly indicated that accusation was I50 THE TRIAL OF JESUS a more important element of Roman criminal proce- dure than was inquisition. To meet the emergency, the Jews were compelled, then, to make the formal charge, that: " We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King." Here we have presented the indictment, the first step in a criminal proceeding; and it was presented not vol- untarily, but because a Roman judge, acting judicially, demanded and forced its presentment. 2. The Examination, or Interrogatio. Not content with knowing the nature of the charges against the prisoner, Pilate insisted on finding out whether they were true or not. He accordingly took Jesus inside the palace and interrogated Him. With true judicial tact, he brushed aside the first two accu- sations as unimportant, and came with pointed direct- ness to the material question: '' Art thou the King of the Jews? " This interrogation bears the impress of a judicial in- quiry, touching a matter involving the question of high treason, the charge against the prisoner. It clearly in- dicates a legal proceeding in progress. And when Jesus made reply that seemed to indicate guilt, the practiced ear of the Roman judge caught the sugges- tion of a criminal confession, and he asked impa- tiently: " Art thou a King then?" This question indicates seriousness and a resolution SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 151 to get at the bottom of the matter with a view to a serious judicial determination of the afifair. 3. The Defense, or Excusatio. In reply to the question of the judge, the prisoner answered : " My kingdom is not of this world." This language indicates that Jesus was conscious of the solemnity of the proceedings; and that he recog- nized the right of Pilate to interrogate Him judicially. His answer seemed to say: '' I recognize your author- ity in matters of this life and this world. If my claims to kingship were temporal, I fully appreciate that they would be treasonable; and that, as the representative of Caesar, you would be justified in delivering me to death. But my pretensions to royalty are spiritual, and this places the matter beyond your reach." The defense of Jesus was in the nature of what we call in modern pleading a Confession and Avoidance: " A plea which admits, in words or in efifect, the truth of the matter contained in the Declaration; and al- leges some new matter to avoid the efifect of it, and shows that the plaintifif is, notwithstanding, not entitled to his action," It may be analyzed thus: Confession: Inside the palace, Pilate asked Jesus the question : " Art thou the King of the Jews? " Ac- cording to St. Matthew, Jesus answered: "Thou sayest";^ according to St. Mark: "Thou sayest it";^ according to St. Luke: "Thou sayest it";^ ^ Matt, xxvii. II. 2 Mark xv. 2. ^ Luke xxiii. 3. 152 THE TRIAL OF JESUS according to St. John: "Thou sayest that 1 am a king." ' All these replies are identical in signification, and mean: Thou sayest it, because I am really a king. In other words. He simply confessed that He was a king. Then came His real defense. Avoidance: " My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my serv- ants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. . . . To this end was I born and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness of the truth. Every- one that is of the truth heareth my voice." After having confessed claims to kingship, and hav- ing thereby made Himself momentarily liable on the charge of high treason. He at once avoids the effect of the declaration by alleging new matter which ex- empted Him from the operation of the crimen Lasce Majestatis. He boldly declares His kingship, but places His kingdom beyond the skies in the realm of truth and spirit. He asserts a bold antithesis between the Empire of Caesar and the Kingdom of God. He cheerfully acknowledges the procuratorship of Pilate in the first, but fearlessly proclaims His own Messiah- ship in the second. 4. The Acquittal, or Absohitlo. It is more than probable that Pilate's heathen soul mocked the heavenly claims of the lowly prisoner in his presence, but his keenly discerning Roman intellect ' John xviii. 37. SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 153 marked at once the distinction between an earthly and a heavenly kingdom. He saw clearly that their boun- daries nowhere conflicted, and that treasonable contact was impossible. He judged that Jesus was simply a gentle enthusiast whose pretensions were harmless. Accordingly, he went out to the mob and pronounced a verdict of " not guilty." Solemnly raising his hand, he proclaimed the sentence of acquittal: " I find in him no fault at all." This language is not the classical legal phraseology of a Roman verdict of acquittal. The Latin word for a single ballot was absoho] the words of a collective judgment of a bench of judges was non fecisse videtur. The language of St. John, though that of a layman, is equally as effectual, if not so formal and judicial. More than any other feature of the case, the verdict of acquittal, " I find in him no fault at all," indicates the regularity and solemnity of a judicial proceeding. Standing alone, it would indicate the close of a regular trial in which a court having jurisdiction had sat in judgment upon the life or liberty of an alleged criminal. If to these essential elements of a trial which the Gospel records affirmatively disclose be added other necessary elements of a regular Roman trial which legal presumption supplies, because these records do not deny their existence, we have then in the proceed- ings against Jesus all the important features of Roman criminal procedure involving the question of life or death. That several essential elements are absent is evident from a reasonable construction of the state- 154 THE TRIAL OF JESUS ments of the Evangelists. That which most forcibly negatives the existence of a regular trial was the pre- cipitancy with which the proceedings were conducted before Pilate. We have seen that ten days were al- lowed at Rome after the no minis receptio to secure tes- timony and prepare the case before the beginning of the trial. This rule was certainly not observed at the trial of Jesus. But several irregularities which are apparent from a perusal of the Gospel histories may be explained from the fact that Jesus was not a Roman citizen and was not, therefore, entitled to a strict observance of Roman law in the proceedings against him. The foregoing analysis and summary apply only to the proceedings of the first appearance of Jesus before Pilate. It was at this time that the real Roman trial took place. All subsequent proceedings were irregu- lar, tumultuous and absolutely illegal. The examina- tion of Jesus by Herod cannot, strictly speaking, be called a trial. The usual explanation of the sending of the prisoner to Herod is that Pilate learned that He was a native and citizen of Galilee; and that, desiring to rid himself of an embarrassing subject, he deter- mined to transfer the accused from the forum appre- hensionis to the forum originis vel domicilii. It has frequently been asserted that It was usual in Roman procedure to transfer a prisoner from the place of arrest to the place of his origin or residence. There seems to be no authority for this contention. It may or may not have been true as a general proposition. But it was certainly not true in the case of the transfer SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 155 of Jesus to Herod. In the first place, when Pilate de- clared, *' I find no fault in him at all," a verdict of acquittal was pronounced, and the case was ended. The proceedings had taken form of res adjudicata, and former jeopardy could have been pleaded in bar of further prosecution. It might be differently contended if Pilate had discovered that Jesus was from Galilee before the proceedings before him were closed. But it is clear from St. Luke, who alone records the occur- rence of the sending of the prisoner to Herod, that the case was closed and the verdict of acquittal had been rendered before Pilate discovered the identity of the accused.^ It was then too late to subject a prisoner to a second trial for the same offense. Rosadi denies emphatically that Herod had juris- diction of the offense charged against Jesus. In this connection, he says: "His prosecutors insisted tena- ciously upon His answering to a charge of continuous sedition, as lawyers call it. This offence had been begun in Galilee and ended in Jerusalem — that is to say, in Judaea. Now it was a rule of Roman law, which the procurator of Rome could neither fail to recognize nor afford to neglect, that the competence of a court territorially constituted was determined either by the place in which the arrest was made, or by the place in which the offence was committed. Jesus had been arrested at the gates of Jerusalem; His alleged offence had been committed for the most part, and as far as all the final acts were concerned, in the city itself and in other localities of Judaea. In continu- ^ Luke xxiii. 4-16. 156 THE TRIAL OF JESUS ous offences competence was determined by the place in which the last acts going to constitute the offence had been committed. Thus no justification whatever existed for determining the court with regard to the prisoner's origin. But this investigation upon a point of Roman law is to all intents superfluous, because either Pilate, when he thought of Herod, intended to strip himself of his inalienable judicial power, and in this case he ought to have respected the jurisdiction and competence of the Grand Sanhedrin and not to have busied himself with a conflict as to cognizance which should only have been discussed and resolved by the Jewish judicial authorities; or else he had no intention of abdicating his power, and in this case he ought never to have raised the question of competence between himself. Governor of Judaea, and Herod, Regent of Galilee, but between himself and the Roman Vice-Governor of Galilee, his colleague, if there had been such an one. It is only between judges of the same judicial hierarchy that a dispute as to territorial competence can arise. Between magistrates of differ- ent States there can only exist a contrast of power and jurisdiction. The act of Pilate cannot then be inter- preted as a scruple of a constitutional character. It is but a miserable escape for his irresolution, a mere en- deavour to temporize." The second and final appearance of Jesus before Pilate bears little resemblance to a regular trial. The characteristic elements of an ordinary Roman criminal proceeding are almost wholly wanting. The pusillani- mous cowardice of the procurator and the blind fury SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 157 of the mob are the chief component parts. A sort of wild phantasmagoria sweeps through the multitude and circles round the tribunal of the governor. Pilate struggles with his conscience, and seeks safety in sub- terfuge. He begins by declaring to the assembled priests and elders that neither he nor Herod has found any fault in the man; and then, as a means of compro- mise and conciliation, makes the monstrous proposal that he will first scourge and then release the prisoner. This infamous proposal is rejected by the mob. The cowardly procurator then adopts another mean expe- dient as a way of escape. He offers to deliver Jesus to them as a Passover gift. Him they refuse and Barab- bas, the robber, is demanded. Pilate's terror is inten- sified by superstitious dread, when the mob begins to cry: " He made himself the Son of God! " From out the anguish of his soul, the voice of Justice sends to his quivering lips the thrice-repeated question : " Why, what evil hath he done? " The mob continues to cry: *' Crucify him! Crucify him! " And as a final assault upon his conscience and his courage, the hypocritical priests warn him that he must not release a pretender to kingship, for such a man is an enemy to Caesar. The doom of the Nazarene is sealed by this last maneuver of the rabble. Then, as a propitiation to the great God of truth and justice, and as balm to his hurt and wounded conscience, he washes his hands in front of them and exclaims: " I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it." The crucifixion followed Pilate's final determina- 158 THE TRIAL OF JESUS tion; and thus ended the most famous trial in the his- tory of the world. It began with the arrest of Jesus in Gethsemane at midnight, and ended with His cru- cifixion on Golgotha on the afternoon of the same day. As we have seen, it was a double trial, conducted within the jurisdictions of the two most famous systems of jurisprudence known to mankind. In both trials, substantially the right issue was raised. Before the Sanhedrin, the prisoner was charged with blasphemy and convicted. Regarding Jesus as a mere man, a plain Jewish citizen, this judgment was " substan- tially right in point of law " ; but was unjust and out- rageous because forms of criminal procedure which every Jewish prisoner was entitled to have observed, were completely ignored. The proceedings before Pilate, we have reason to believe, were conducted, in a general way, with due. regard to forms of law. But the result was judicial murder, because the judge, after having acquitted Jesus, delivered Him to be crucified. " I find in him no fault at all " was the verdict of Pilate. But this just and righteous sentence was destroyed and obliter- ated by the following: ''And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed. And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required." ^ A horrible travesty on justice, this! ^^Absolvo^^ and '* Ibis ad crucem^^^ in the same breath, were the final utterances of a Roman judge administering Ro- ^ Luke xxiii. 23, 24. SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 159 man law in the most memorable judicial transaction known to men. The treatment of this great theme would be incom- plete and unsatisfactory unless reference were made to the peculiar views of some who believe that political rather than legal considerations should govern in de- termining the justice or the injustice of the proceedings against Jesus before Pilate. A certain class of critics insist on regarding the Roman governor in the light of an administrator rather than a judge, and contend that the justice of his conduct and the righteousness of his motives should be tested by principles of public policy rather than by strict legal rules. It is insisted by such persons that various considerations support this contention. It is pointed out that Pilate exercised the unlimited jurisdiction of the military imperium, and was not, therefore, strictly bound by legal rules; that Jesus was not a Roman citizen, and, for this rea- son, was not entitled to the strict observance of forms of law; and that the stubborn, rebellious and turbulent temper of the Jewish people required the strong hand of a military governor, enforcing political obedience by drastic measures, rather than the action of a judge punctiliously applying rules of law. These peculiar views subject the conduct of Pilate to the pressure of public necessity rather than to the test of private right, and insist that sympathy rather than censure should hold the scales in which his deeds are weighed. This view of the case was presented in the last gen- eration by Sir James Fitz-Tames Stephen in a book of i6o THE TRIAL OF JESUS extraordinary strength and brilliancy entitled " Lib- erty, Equality, Fraternity." It was written in answer to John Stuart Mill, and is, without doubt, the most powerful assault in the English language on what men have been pleased to call in modern times " liberty of conscience." In his letters and essays, Mr. Mill, ac- cording to the interpretation of Mr. Stephen, " con- demns absolutely all interference with the expression of opinion." When tried by this standard, the Athe- nian dicasts, who condemned Socrates; Marcus Aure- lius, who persecuted the Christians; Pontius Pilate, who crucified Jesus; and Philip II, who sanctioned the tortures of the Spanish Inquisition, were simply viola- tors of rights of personal opinion and of freedom of conscience. If you deny the right of liberty of con- science, Mr. Mill contends, you must not censure Marcus Aurelius and other persecutors of Christianity. On the contrary, you must approve such persecution; and you must go further, and find " a principle which would justify Pontius Pilate." This challenge was boldly accepted by Mr. Stephen, who says: " Was Pilate right in crucifying Christ? I reply, Pilate's paramount duty was to preserve the peace in Palestine, to form the best judgment he could as to the means required for that purpose, and to act upon it when it was formed. Therefore, if and in so far as he believed in good faith and on reasonable grounds that what he did was necessary for the preservation of the peace of Palestine, he was right. It was his duty to run the risk of being mistaken, notwithstanding Mr. Mill's principle as to liberty. He was in the position SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL i6i of a judge whose duty it is to try persons duly brought before him for trial at the risk of error." ^ This contention is founded upon the inexorable doc- trine that what is, is right; that revolution, though righteous, must be nipped in the bud and destroyed; and that rights of private conscience must not be tol- erated if they tend to disturb the peace of the com- munity at large. The inevitable logic of the theory of Mr. Stephen is that the established order of things in Palestine under Roman rule was right, and that it was the duty of the Roman governor to regard all attempts at innovation or revolution in religion or government as a breach of the peace which was to be promptly sup- pressed by vigorous measures. There is undoubtedly a certain amount of truth in this contention, in so far as it implies that under a just and orderly plan of gov- ernment, the rights of the commonwealth to peace and security are greater than the claims of the individual to liberty of conscience which conflict with and tend to destroy those rights. It is a truth, at once sovereign and fundamental, in both law and government, that the rights of the collective body are greater than those of any individual member; and that when the rights of the whole and those of a part of the body politic conflict, the rights of the part must yield and, if neces- sity requires it, be destroyed. Upon no other basis can the doctrine of majorities in politics and the right of Eminent Domain in law, rest. But the application of the principles involved in this theory must always be made with proper limitations, and with a due regard 1 "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," p. 87. 1 62 THE TRIAL OF JESUS to the rights of minorities and individuals; else gov- ernment becomes an engine of despotism instead of an expression of political freedom. A claim of privilege which every member of the community has a right to make, must be respected by the collective body; other- wise, a common right has been violated and destroyed. The complete recognition of this principle is impera- tive and fundamental, and is the corner stone of politi- cal freedom in free institutions among men. But the trouble with the contention of Mr. Stephen is that it proceeds upon a wrong hypothesis. He in- timates that Pilate might have " believed in good faith that what he did was necessary for the preserva- tion of the peace of Palestine." This is a purely gra- tuitous and unhistorical suggestion. The Gospel rec- ords nowhere justify such an assumption. The very opposite is taught by these sacred writings. It is true that Caiaphas contended that it was expedient that one man should die rather than that the whole nation should perish. But this was a Jewish, not a Roman opinion. The Evangelical narratives are unanimous in declar- ing that Pilate believed Jesus to be innocent and that " for envy " He had been accused by His countrymen. It is cheerfully conceded that occasions may present themselves, in the tumult and frenzy of revolution, when the responsible authorities of government may put to death a person whose intentions are innocent, but whose acts are incentives to riot and bloodshed. This may be done upon the principle of self-preserva- tion, which is the first law of government as well as of nature. But no such necessity arose in the case of SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 163 Jesus; and no such motives are ascribed by the Evan- gelists to Pilate. They very clearly inform us that the action of the Roman governor in delivering the pris- oner to be crucified was prompted by private and not public considerations. He had no fears that Jesus would precipitate a revolution dangerous to the Ro- man state. He simply wished to quiet the mob and retain his position as procurator of Judea. The facts of history, then, do not support the contention of Mr. Stephen. Continuing, in another place, the same eminent writer says: " The point to which I wish to direct at- tention is that Pilate's duty was to maintain peace and order in Judea and to maintain the Roman power. It is surely impossible to contend seriously that it was his duty, or that it could be the duty of any one in his posi- tion, to recognize in the person brought to his judg- ment seat, I do not say God Incarnate, but the teacher and preacher of a higher form of morals and a more enduring form of social order than that of which he himself was the representative. To a man in Pilate's position the morals and the social order which he rep- resents are for all practical purposes final and absolute standards. If, in order to evade the obvious inference from this, it is said that Pilate ought to have respected the principle of religious liberty as propounded by Mr. Mill, the answer is that if he had done so he would have run the risk of setting the whole province in a blaze. It is only in very modern times, and under the influence of modern sophisms, that belief and action have come to be so much separated in these parts of i64 THE TRIAL OF JESUS the world that the distinction between the temporal and spiritual department of affairs even appears to be tenable; but this is a point for future discussion. " If this should appear harsh, I would appeal again to Indian experience. Suppose that some great religious reformer — say, for instance, some one claiming to be the Guru of the Sikhs, or the Imam in whose advent many Mahommedans devoutly believe — were to make his appearance in the Punjab or the North-West Prov- inces. Suppose that there was good reason to believe — and nothing is more probable — that whatever might be the preacher's own personal intentions, his preach- ing was calculated to disturb the public peace and pro- duce mutiny and rebellion: and suppose further (though the supposition is one which it is hardly pos- sible to make even in imagination), that a British officer, instead of doing whatever might be necessary, or executing whatever orders he might receive, for the maintenance of British authority, were to consider whether he ought not to become a disciple of the Guru or Imam. What course would be taken towards him? He would be instantly dismissed with ignominy from the service which he would disgrace, and if he acted up to his convictions, and preferred his religion to his Queen and country, he would be hanged as a rebel and a traitor." ^ These theories and illustrations are not only plausi- ble but entirely reasonable when viewed in the light of the facts which they assume to be true. But here again, we must insist that they do not harmonize with ^ "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," pp. 93-95. SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 165 the actual facts of the case to which they are intended to apply. In the extract above quoted, three supposi- tions are suggested. The first one is immaterial. Let us analyze the other two in the light of the Gospel his- tories. The second supposition is this: " Suppose that there was good reason to believe — and nothing is more probable — that whatever might be the preacher's own personal intentions, his preaching was calculated to disturb the public peace and produce mutiny and re- bellion." What passage of Scripture, it may be asked, justifies this parallel with the case of Jesus before Pi- late? There is, in fact, absolutely none. The nearest approach to one is Matthew xxvii. 24: "When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it." The " tumult " here referred to means nothing more than the manifestation of agitated feelings on the part of the mob, who were enraged at the prospect of an ac- quittal by the governor. It does not remotely refer to the danger of a popular rebellion which might en- danger the security and safety of Rome. To admit this supposition would be to elevate the motives of Pilate in consenting to the crucifixion of Jesus to the level of solicitude for the welfare of his country. This would not be justified by the record, which clearly reveals that Pilate was moved by personal self- ishness rather than by a sense of oflicial duty. The third and last supposition above mentioned Is this: "And suppose, further (though the supposition i66 THE TRIAL OF JESUS is one which it is hardly possible to make even in im- agination), that a British officer, instead of doing whatever might be necessary, or executing whatever orders he might receive, for the maintenance of British authority, were to consider whether he ought not to become a disciple of the Guru or Imam." Here again, we may ask, what passage of Scripture supports this parallel of a Mohammedan Guru before a British offi- cer with Jesus Christ before Pontius Pilate? Where is it anywhere stated, or by reasonable inference im- plied, that Pilate considered whether he ought not to become a disciple of Jesus? The celebrated English author has simply argued his case from a radically defective record of fact. On the other hand, let us draw what we conceive to be a true parallel. Let us take an illustration nearer home. Suppose that the Governor General of the Philippine Islands was clothed with authority of life and death as a judge in criminal matters pertaining to the affairs of those islands. Suppose that a Moham- medan preacher should appear somewhere in the archipelago where Mohammedans are numerous, and begin to proclaim a new religious faith which was op- posed not only to the ordinary tenets of Islamism, but also to the Christian religion which is the dominant faith of the rulers of the Philippines. Suppose that the coreligionists of this Mohammedan prophet should seize him, bring him before the Governor General, and lodge against him a threefold charge: That he was stirring up sedition in the islands; that he had advised the Filipinos not to pay taxes due to the United States SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 167 government; and that he had said and done things that were treasonable against the United States. Suppose that the Governor General, after personal examina- tion, became satisfied that the Mohammedan preacher was an innocent enthusiast, that the charges against him were false, and were due to the envy and hatred of his fellow-Mohammedans; that to quiet the pas- sions, and satisfy the demands of the mob, he proposed to scourge him first and then release him; that, in the face of the vehement accusations of the rabble, he hesitated and vacillated for several hours; and that finally, when the Mohammedans threatened to send a complaint to President Roosevelt which might endan- ger his position, he ordered his innocent prisoner to death. Suppose this should happen beneath the American flag, what would be the judgment of the American people as to the merits of the proceedings? Would the Governor General retain his office by such a course of conduct? But let us view it in another light. Let us assume that the Governor General believed that the Moham- medan preacher was innocent and that his " personal intentions " were not remotely hostile or treasonable, but felt that his preaching might stir up rebellion dan- gerous to the power of the American government in the Philippines; and that it was his duty as the guar- dian of American honor and security, to put the native preacher to death; and this not to punish past criminal conduct, but to prevent future trouble by a timely exe- cution. Suppose that the Governor General should do this while sitting as a judge, would it not be judicial 1 68 THE TRIAL OF JESUS murder? Suppose that he should do it while acting as an administrator, would it be less an assassination? Would it not stamp with indelible shame the admin- istration that should sanction or tolerate it? Would the press of America not denounce the act as mur- der, declare that despotism reigned in our Eastern possessions, and demand the removal and punish- ment of the man who had disgraced his office and brought odium upon the administrative justice of his country? In closing the Roman trial of Jesus, let us repeat what we have already said: that the conduct of Pilate, when the prisoner was first brought before him, seems to have been marked by judicial regularity and solem- nity; that the Roman procurator seems to have deported himself in a manner worthy of his office; that, in the beginning, he appears to have resolved to observe due forms of law in the proceedings, to the end that justice might be attained; and that, after a comparatively regular trial, he pronounced an absolute verdict of ac- quittal. Thus far the course of Pilate is manly and courageous. But with the return of the prisoner from Herod, unmanliness and cowardice begin. This last act of the great drama presents a pitiable spectacle of Roman degeneracy. A Roman governor of courtly origin, clothed with imperium, with a Praeto- rian Cohort at his command, and the military author- ity and resources of an empire at his back, cringes and crouches before a Jerusalem mob. The early Chris- tian writers characterized Pilate with a single term {avavSpia)^ " unmanliness." They were right. This SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 169 word is a summary, accurate and complete, of the char- acter of the man. There is inherent in the highest and noblest of the human species a quality of courage which knows no fear; that prefers death and annihilation to dishonor and disgrace; that believes, with Caesar, that it is bet- ter to die at once than to live always in fear of death ; and, with Mahomet, that Paradise will be found in the shadow of the crossing of swords. This quality of courage is peculiar to no race of men and to no form of civilization. It has existed everywhere and at all times. It causes the spirit of man to tread the earth like a lion and to mount the air like an eagle. The ancient barbarians of Gaul believed that lightning was a menace from the skies; and amidst the very fury of the storm, from their great bows they sent arrows heavenward as a defiance to the gods. This quality of courage, which is natural to man, Pilate lacked. And when we think of his cowardly, cringing, crouching, vacillating conduct before a few fanatical priests in Jerusalem, another scene at another time comes up before us. The Tenth Legion rises in mutiny and defies Julius Caesar. The mighty Roman summons his rebel- lious soldiers to the Field of Mars, reads to them the Roman riot act, and threatens to dismiss them not only from his favor but from Roman military service. The veterans of a hundred Gallic battlefields are subdued and conquered by the tone and glance of a single man; and with tearful eyes, beg forgiveness, and ask to be permitted to follow once again him and his eagles to the feast of victory and of death. Imagine, if you can. lyo THE TRIAL OF JESUS Caesar in the place of Pilate. It is not difficult to con- ceive the fate of a vulgar rabble who persisted in an- noying such a Roman by demanding the blood of an innocent man. But the cowardice and pusillanimity of the Roman governor are not properly illustrated by comparison with the courage and magnanimity of a Roman gen- eral. At the trial of Jesus, Pilate was acting in a judi- cial capacity, and was essentially a judge. His char- acter, then, may be best understood by contrasting it with another judge in another age and country. His craven qualities will then be manifest. The greatest of the English jurists and judges was Sir Edward Coke. His legal genius was superb and his judicial labors prodigious. During the greater part of his professional career he slept only six hours, " and from three in the morning till nine at night he read or took notes of the cases tried in Westminster Hall with as little interruption as possible." He was great not only as a judge, but as an advocate as well. The consummate skill with which he argued the intri- cate cases of Lord Cromwell and Edward Shelley, brought him a practice never before equaled in Eng- land, and made him renowned as the greatest lawyer of the times. If his erudition was profound, his pow- ers of advocacy brilliant, his personal and judicial courage was magnificent. He not only repeatedly de- fied and ridiculed his colleagues on the bench, but more than once excited the wrath and braved the anger of the king. He fearlessly planted himself upon the ancient and inalienable rights of Englishmen; and, SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 171 ( , time and time again, interposed his robe of office between the privileges of the Commons and the ag- gressions of the Crown. He boldly declared that a royal proclamation could not make that an offense which was not an ofifense before. His unswerving in- dependence was well illustrated in a case brought before him in 1616. The question at issue was the validity of a grant made by the king to the Bishop of Lichfield of a benefice to be held in commendam. King James, through his attorney-general, Bacon, commanded the chief justice to delay judgment till he himself had discussed the question with the judges. Bacon, at Coke's request, sent a letter containing the same command to each of the judges. Coke then obtained their signatures to a paper declaring that the instructions of the attorney-general were ille- gal, and that they were bound to proceed with the case. The king became very angry, summoned the judges before him in the council chamber, declared to them his kingly prerogative, and forbade them to dis- cuss his royal privileges in ordinary arguments before their tribunal. Coke's colleagues fell upon their knees, cowed and terrified, before the royal bigot and despot, and begged his pardon for having expressed an opin- ion that had excited his displeasure. But Coke refused to yield, and, when asked if, in the future, he would delay a case at the king's order, he bravely replied that on all occasions and under any emergency, he would do nothing unworthy of himself or his office as an Eng- lish citizen and judge. And rather than prostitute the high prerogatives of his court, he indignantly and con- 172 THE TRIAL OF JESUS temptuously hurled his judicial mantle into the face of the Stuart king. How much grander and nobler was the conduct of Coke, the Englishman, than that of Pi- late, the cowardly, pusillanimous Roman! Both were judges, both stood in the shadow of the majesty and menace of a throne, both were threatened with royal wrath, both held high judicial places under the gov- ernments of the most vast and glorious empires that this world has known. Coke preferred the dictates of his conscience to the decrees of his king; and his name remains forever enshrined in the minds and memories of men as the noblest type of a brave and righteous judge. For a miserable mess of Roman political pot- tage, Pilate forfeited his birthright to the most splen- did and illustrious example of judicial integrity and courage in the history of the earth; and his name re- mains forever a hissing and reproach, as the worst specimen of the corrupt and cowardly judge that man- kind has known. If it be objected that the position of Pilate was more painful and precarious than that of Coke, because the Roman was confronted by a wild and furious mob, reply must then be made that both the spirit and letter of Roman laws forbade surrender by Roman gover- nors and administrators of the principles of justice to the blind passions of the multitude. This spirit was, in a later age, set forth in the laws of Justinian, when reproduction was made of the proclamations of the emperors Diocletian and Maximian, on the occasion of a public riot, that " the vain clamors of the people are not to be heeded, seeing that it is in no wise neces- SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 173 sary to pay any attention to the cries of those desiring the acquittal of the guilty, or the condemnation of the innocent." ^ Pilate yielded to the demands of the mob when his country's laws forbade it. His intellect willed the exe- cution of an innocent man when his conscience con- demned it. " Such was the man whose cowardice, made manifest in the most supreme and memorable act of injustice the world has ever known, was destined to earn him eternal infamy. To him and to no others pointed the poet as ' colui Che fece per viltate il gran rifiuto; ' to him, the prototype of that long train of those who were never quite alive, who vainly sought glory in this world, vainly dreaded infamy; who, ever waver- ing betwixt good and evil, washed their hands; who, like the neutral angels of the threshold, were neither faithful nor rebellious; who are equally despised by pity and justice; who render themselves 'A Dio spiacenti ed ai nemici sui.' And what man other than Pilate was ever placed so typically, in such accordance with the eyes of the poet, between the Son of God and His enemies, between jus- tice and mercy, between right and wrong, between the ^ L. 12, Cod. De poenis, ix. 47: "Vanae voces populi non sunt audiendae, nee enim vocibus eorum credi oportet quando aut noxium crimine absolvi aut innocentem condemnari desiderant." 174 THE TRIAL OF JESUS Emperor and the Jews, and has refused either issue of the dilemma? " Was it Celestine, Diocletian, or Esau? But they of two things chose the one; and who knows but that they chose the better? A hermitage and a mess of pottage may under many aspects be better worth than the papacy renounced by Celestine, than the empire abdi- cated by Diocletian, or than the birthright bartered by Esau. But Pilate refused to choose, and his refusal was great — great enough to justify the antonomasia of Dante — and it was cowardly. He refused not only the great gift of free will, in a case when a free choice was his absolute duty. When admitted, like the fallen angels, to the great choice between good and evil, he did not cleave for ever to the good, as did S. Michael, or to the evil, as did Lucifer, but he refused a power which for him was the fount of duty and which cost the life of a man and the right of an innocent." But was Pilate alone guilty of the crime of the cru- cifixion? Were the Jews wholly blameless? This raises the question: Who were the real crucifiers of the Christ, the Jews or the Romans? That the Jews were the instigators and the Romans the consummators of the crucifixion is evident from the Gospel narratives. The Jews made the complaint, and the Romans or- dered and efifected the arrest of the prisoner in Geth- semane. Having tried Him before their own tri- bunal, the Jews then led Jesus away to the Roman governor, and in the Praetorium accused Him and fur- nished evidence against Him. But the final act of crucifying was a Roman act. It is true that Jewish SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 175 elements were present in the crucifixion of Jesus. The death draught offered Him on the cross suggests a humane provision of Hebrew law. This drink was usually administered among the Hebrews " so that the delinquent might lose clear consciousness through the ensuing intoxication." Again, the body of Jesus was removed from the cross and buried before it was night. This was in deference to an ancient custom of the Jews to bury criminals before sunset who had first been ex- ecuted by stoning for the crime of blasphemy and had then been subjected to the indignity of being hung upon a tree, in conformity with a Mosaic ordinance contained in Deut. xxi. 22. But these two incidents exhaust the Jewish features of the crucifixion; and, besides, these elements were merely physical. The spiritual or moral features, involving turpitude and crime, are entirely different considerations from those that are simply historical. The question still arises: Who were the morally guilty parties? Who were the directly responsible agents of the crucifixion, the Jews or the Romans? Upon whom should the greater blame rest, if both were guilty? A passage from St. John seems to indicate that the Jews were the bearers of the greater sin. Replying to a question of Pilate concerning the procurator's power to crucify Him, ^' Jesus answered. Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above; therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." ^ According to many commentators, Jesus referred to Caiaphas; according to others, He 1 John xix. 10. 176 THE TRIAL OF JESUS spoke of Judas as the person who had the greater sin. But in any case it is certain that He did not intend to involve the whole Jewish nation in the crime of His arrest and execution. The language of the scriptural context indicates a single person. Pilate, on the one hand, is made the silent instrument in the hands of God for the accomplishment of the designs of Heaven. Caiaphas, on the other hand, is probably referred to as the one having the greater sin, because, being the high priest of the Sanhedrin, he better understood the questions involved in the religious charge of blas- phemy, and was, therefore, the greater sinner against the laws of God, in the matter of the injustice then being perpetrated. Aside from the religious questions involved, and speaking in the light of history and law, our own judg- ment is that the real crucifiers of the Christ were the Romans, and that Pilate and his countrymen should bear the greater blame. It is true that the Jews were the instigators, the accusers. But Pilate was the judge whose authority was absolute. The Jews were power- less to inflict the death penalty. Pilate had the final dis- position of all matters of life and death. In short, he could have prevented the crucifixion of Jesus. He did not do so; and upon him and his countrymen should rest the censure of Heaven and the execration of man- kind. But, admitting that the priests of the Sanhedrin were equally guilty with Pilate and the Romans, does it follow that all Jews of the days of Jesus who were not participants in the crime against him, should suffer SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 177 for the folly and criminal conduct of a mere fragment of a Sadducean sect? Is it not true that the Jewish people, as a race, were not parties to the condemnation and execution of the Christ? Is it not reasonable to suppose that the masses in Palestine were friendly to the democratic Reformer who was the friend of the poor, the lame, and the blind? Did not the reception of his miracles and his triumphal entry into Jerusalem indicate His popularity with the plain people? Is it not historically true that the great body of the Jewish population in Judea, in Galilee, in Samaria, and in Perea, was unfriendly to the members of the Sanhe- drin, and regarded them as political renegades and religious delinquents? Is it not reasonably certain that a large majority of the countrymen of Jesus were his ardent well-wishers and sincerely regretted his un- timely end? Is it possible to conceive that these friends and well-wishers were the inheritors of the curse of Heaven because of the crime of Golgotha? If not, is it rational to suppose that their innocent de- scendants have been the victims of this curse? ^ The cruel and senseless notion of the implacable wrath of Deity has prevailed in all the ages as an ex- planation of the destruction of Jerusalem and the dis- persion and persecution of the Jews. It is worse than nonsense to see in this event anything but the operation of vulgar physical forces of the most ordinary kind. The fall of Jerusalem was a most natural and conse- quential thing. It was not even an extraordinary his- torical occurrence, even in Jewish history. Titus did not so completely destroy Jerusalem as did Nebuchad- lyS THE TRIAL OF JESUS nezzar before him. Razing cities to the ground was a customary Roman act, a form of pastime, a charac- teristic Roman proceeding in the case of stubborn and rebellious towns. Scipio razed Carthage and drove Carthaginians into the most remote corners of the earth. Was any Roman or Punic god interested in this event? Caesar destroyed many Gallic cities and scat- tered Gauls throughout the world. Was any deity concerned about these things? Roman admiration was at times enkindled, but Roman clemency was never gained by deeds of valor directed against the arms of Rome. Neither Hannibal nor Mithradates, Vercingetorix nor Jugurtha, the grandest of her enemies, received any mercy at her hands. To oppose her will, was to invite destruction ; and the sequel was a mere question of " the survival of the fittest." The most turbulent, rebellious and deter- mined of all the imperial dependencies was the prov- ince of Judea. The Jews regarded the Romans as idolaters; and, instead of obeying them as masters, de- spised and defied them as barbarians. When this spirit became manifest and promised to be perpetual, the dignity of the Roman name as well as the safety of the Roman State, demanded the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews. And destruction and dispersion followed as naturally as any profane effect follows any vulgar cause. The Irish, another splendid race, are being dis- persed throughout the earth by the English domina- tion of Ireland. Is anybody so keenly discerning as to see in Irish dispersion a divine or superhuman agency? SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 179 Is it not, after all, the simple operation of the same brutal, physical forces that destroyed Carthage and Jerusalem, and, in a latter century, dismembered Poland? But the advocates of the divine wrath theory quote Scriptures and point to prophecy in support of their contention. Then Scriptures must be pitted against Scriptures. The last prayer of the Master on the cross must be made to repeal every earlier Scriptural proph- ecy or decree. " Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," is the sublimest utterance in the literature of the world. It is the epitome of every Christian virtue and of all religious truth. This proc- lamation from the cross repealed the Mosaic law of hereditary sin; placed upon a personal basis responsi- bility for offenses against God and man; and served notice upon future generations that those who " know not what they do " are entitled to be spared and for- given. To believe that God ignored the prayer of Christ on the cross; and that the centuries of persecu- tion of the Jews which followed, were but the fulfill- ment of prophecy and fate, is to assail the Messiahship of Jesus and to question the goodness and mercy of Jehovah. Jesus knew the full meaning of His prayer and was serious unto death. To believe that the Father rejected the petition of the Son is to destroy the equal- ity of the persons of the Trinity by investing one with the authority and power to review, revise, and reject the judgments and petitions of the others. If the Christian doctrine be true that Christ was God " mani- fest in the flesh "; if the doctrine of the Trinity be true i8o THE TRIAL OF JESUS that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, are one and the same, eternal and inseparable, then the prayer of Jesus on the cross was not a petition, but a declaration that the malefactors of the crucifix- ion, who, in the blindness of ignorance, had helped to kill the Son of Man, would receive at the Last Day the benefits of the amnesty of the Father of mercy and forgiveness. If the perpetrators of the great injustice of the San- hedrin and of the Praetorium are to be forgiven be- cause they knew not what they did, is there any justice, human or divine, in persecuting their innocent de- scendants of all lands and ages? " When Sir Moses Montefiore was taunted by a political opponent with the memory of Calvary and described by him as one who sprang from the murderers who crucified the world's Redeemer, the next morning the Jewish phi- lanthropist, whom Christendom has learned to honor, called upon his assailant and showed him the record of his ancestors which had been kept for two thousand years, and which showed that their home had been in Spain for two hundred years before Jesus of Nazareth was born." This half-humorous anecdote illustrates the utter absurdity and supreme injustice of connect- ing the modern Jew with ancient tragic history. The elemental forces of reason, logic, courage and sympa- thy, wrapped up and interwoven in every impulse and fiber of the human mind and heart, will be forever in rebellion against the monstrous doctrine of centuries of shame, exile and persecution visited upon an entire race, because of the sins and crimes of a handful of SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 181 their progenitors who lived more than a thousand years before. But, if the visitation of the sins of the fathers upon the sons is to be maintained, and perpetuated as a form of divine, if not of human justice, then, why not, at least, be consistent in the application of the principle? Many philosophers and critics have detected a striking kinship between the teachings of Socrates and those of Jesus. A celebrated historian closes a chapter of the history of Greece with this sentence: "Thus perished the greatest and most original of the Grecian philoso- phers (Socrates), whose uninspired wisdom made the nearest approach to the divine morality of the Gos- pel." ^ The indictments against the philosopher of Athens and the Prophet of Nazareth were strikingly similar. Socrates was charged with corrupting Athe- nian youth; Jesus, with perverting the nation. Soc- rates was charged with treason against Athens; Jesus, with treason against Rome. Both were charged with blasphemy; the Athenian, with blasphemy of the Olympic gods; the Nazarene, with blaspheming Jeho- vah. Both sealed with their blood the faith that was in them. If the descendants of the crucifiers of the Christ are to be persecuted, brutalized, and exiled for the sins of the fathers, why not apply the same pitiless law of hereditary punishment to the descendants of the Athenian dicasts who administered hemlock to the greatest sage of antiquity? Why not persecute all the Greeks of the earth, wherever found, because of the injustice of the Areopagus? 1 Dr. Smith's "History of Greece," Chap. XXXV. p. 418. 1 82 THE TRIAL OF JESUS Coming back from antiquity and the Greeks to mod- ern times in America, let us express the hope that all forms of race prejudice and persecution will soon cease forever. It is a truth well known of all intelligent men that racial prejudice against the Jew has not com- pletely vanished from the minds and hearts of Gen- tiles; that political freedom in an enlightened age has not brought with it full religious tolerance and social recognition; that the Jew enjoys the freedom of the letter, but is still under the ban of the spirit. It is not necessary to go to Russia to prove this contention. In 1896, Adolf von Sonnenthal, the greatest of modern actors, who has covered the Austrian stage with glory, celebrated the fortieth anniversary of his entrance into theatrical life. The City Council of Vienna refused to extend him the freedom of the city, because he was a Jew. In 1906, Madame Bernhardt, the most mar- velous living woman, while acting in Canada, was in- sulted by having spoiled eggs thrown upon the stage amidst shouts of " Down with the Jewess! " This out- rage called forth a letter of apology, which appeared in public print, from Sir Wilfred Laurier, Prime Minister of the Dominion. In the summer of 1907, the sister of Senator Isidor Rayner, of Maryland, was refused admission to an Atlantic City hotel because she was a Jewess.* Be it remembered that these several acts of prejudice and persecution did not happen in the Middle Ages, or under the government of the Ro- manoffs. Two of them occurred at the beginning of the twentieth century, beneath the flags of two of the freest and most civilized nations of the globe. What SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 183 have Americans to say of the exclusion of a virtuous, refined, intelligent sister of a great American senator from an American hotel for no other reason than that she was a Jewess ; that is, that she was of the same race with the Savior of mankind? There is certainly no place for religious intolerance and race prejudice beneath our flag. False and hypo- critical our religion, if while professing faith in Jesus we continue to persecute those for whom He prayed! In vain did Washington, marching in Liberty's van- guard, " lead Freedom's eaglets to their feast " ; in vain the proclamation of the Declaration of Independence and the adoption of the Constitution at Philadelphia, a hundred years ago; in vain the bonfires and orations of the nation's natal day, if our boasted liberties are to exist in theory, but not in practice, in fancy, but not in fact! Let no persecutor of the Jew lay the unction to his soul that he is justified by the tragedy of Golgotha; for he who persecutes in the name of religion is a spiritual barbarian, an intellectual savage. Let this same perse- cutor not make the mistake of supposing that the Jews are wholly responsible for the persecution that has been heaped upon them. Before he falls into the fool- ish blunder of such a supposition, let him ponder the testimony of several Gentile experts upon the subject. Let him read " The Scattered Nation," a brilliant lec- ture on the Jew by the late Zebulon Vance, of North Carolina, in which occurs this sentence: " If the Jew is a bad job, in all honesty we should contemplate him as the handiwork of our own civilization." Let him 1 84 THE TRIAL OF JESUS find Shakespearean confirmation of this statement in *' The Merchant of Venice," Act III, Scene i. If the Jew-baiter objects that this is the imagination of a poet, let us then point him to the testimony of a great historian and statesman to prove to him that the Gen- tile is in great measure responsible for the causes that have produced Jewish persecution. In the British House of Commons, on April 17, 1873, a bill for the removal of the disabilities of the Jews was the subject of parliamentary discussion. Lord Macaulay took part in the debate and spoke as follows : The honorable member for Oldham tells us that the Jews are naturally a mean race, a money-getting race; that they are averse to all honorable callings; that they neither sow nor reap; that they have neither flocks nor herds; that usury is the only pursuit for which they are fit; that they are destitute of all elevated and amiable sentiments. Such, sir, has in every age been the reasoning of bigots. They never fail to plead in justification of persecution the vices which persecution has engendered. England has been legally a home to the Jews less than half a century, and we revile them because they do not feel for England more than a half patriotism. We treat them as slaves, and wonder that they do not re- gard us as brethren. We drive them to mean occupations, and then reproach them for not embracing honorable pro- fessions. We long forbade them to possess land, and we complain that they chiefly occupy themselves in trade. We shut them out from all the paths of ambition, and then wc despise them for taking refuge in avarice. During many ages we have, in our dealings with them, abused our immense superiority of force, and then we are disgusted because they have recourse to that cunning which is the natural and universal defence of the weak against the SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 185 violence of the strong. But were they always a mere money- changing, money-getting, money-hoarding race? Nobody knows better than my honorable friend, the member for the University of Oxford, that there is nothing in their national character which unfits them for the highest duties of citizens. He knows that, in the infancy of civilization, when our island was as savage as New Guinea, when letters and art were still unknown to Athens, when scarcely a thatched hut stood on what was afterwards the site of Rome, this con- temned people had their fenced cities and cedar palaces, their splendid Temple, their fleets of merchant ships, their schools of sacred learning, their great statesmen and sol- diers, their natural philosophers, their historians and their poets. What nation ever contended more manfully against overwhelming odds for Its Independence and religion? What nation ever. In Its last agonies, gave such signal proofs of what may be accomplished by a brave despair? And if. In the course of many centuries, the depressed descendants of warriors and sages have degenerated from the qualities of their fathers; if, while excluded from the blessings of law and bowed down under the yoke of slavery, they have con- tracted some of the vices of outlaws and slaves, shall we consider this Is a matter of reproach to them? Shall we not rather consider It as a matter of shame and remorse to our- selves? Let us do justice to them. Let us open to them the door of the House of Commons. Let us open to them every career In which ability and energy can be displayed. Till we have done this, let us not presume to say that there Is no genius among the countrymen of Isaiah, no heroism among the descendants of the Maccabees. If the persecutor of the Jew is not moved by the elo- quence of Macaulay or by the satire and sarcasm of Shakespeare, then let him call the roll of Hebrew great names and watch the mighty procession as it moves. Abraham among patriarchs; Moses among lawgivers; Isaiah and Jeremiah among prophets; 1 86 THE TRIAL OF JESUS Philo, Maimonides, Spinoza, and Mendelsohn among philosophers; Herschel, Sylvester, Jacobi, and Kron- ecker among mathematicians and astronomers; Jose- phus, Neander, Graetz, Palgrave, and Geiger among historians; Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer, Offenbach, Goldmark, Joachim, Rubinstein, and Strauss among musicians; Sonnenthal, Possart, Rachel, and Bern- hardt among actors and actresses; Disraeli, Gambetta, Castelar, Lasker, Cremieux, and Benjamin among statesmen; Halevi and Heine among poets; Karl Marx and Samuel Gompers among labor leaders and political economists; the Rothschilds, Bleichrorders, Schiffs, and Seligmans among financiers; Auerbach and Nordau among novelists; Sir Moses Montefiore and Baron Hirsch among philanthropists! But there are no Caesars, no Napoleons, no Shake- speares, no Aristotles among them, you say? Maybe so; but what of that? Admitting that this is true, is anything proved by the fact? These characters repre- sented mountain peaks of intellect, and were the iso- lated products of different races and different centu- ries. It may be justly observed that, of their kind, no others were comparable to them. But if the " moun- tain-peak " theory is to govern as to the intellectuality of races, will it be seriously contended that any one of the last-mentioned characters was equal in either spir- itual or intellectual grandeur to the Galilean peasant, Jesus of Nazareth? If colossal forms of intellect and soul be invoked, does not the Jew still lead the universe? Jesus was the most perfect product of Jewish spir- SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 187 itual creation, the most precious gem of human life. The most brilliant and civilized nations of the earth worship Him as God, " manifest in the flesh, justified by the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gen- tiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Both skeptics and believers of all ages have alike pronounced His name with reverence and respect. Even the flippant, sarcastic soul of Voltaire was awed, softened and subdued by the sweetness of His life and the majesty of His character.^ " If the life and death of Socrates are those of a sage," said Rousseau, " the life and death of Jesus are those of a God." ^ " Jesus of Nazareth," says Carlyle, " our divinest symbol! Higher has the human thought not yet reached. A symbol of quite perennial, infinite char- acter, whose significance will ever demand to be anew inquired into, and anew made manifest." * "Jesus Christ," says Herder, "is in the noblest and most perfect sense, the realized ideal of hu- manity." ■'"' " He is," says Strauss, " the highest object we can possibly imagine with respect to religion, the Being without whose presence in the mind perfect piety is impossible." ^' " The Christ of the Gospels," says Renan, " is the 1 I Tim. iii. 16. 2 See Diet. Philos. Art. "Religion." ^ "Emile." * "Sartor Resartus," 137, 140. ^"Herzog's Encyc." vol. v. 751. Art. "Herder." ^"Vergangl. u. Bleibendes im Christenthum," 132. 1 88 THE TRIAL OF JESUS most beautiful incarnation of God In the most beau- tiful of forms. His beauty is eternal; His reign will never end." ^ Max Nordau betrays secret Jewish pride in Jesus when he says: " Jesus is soul of our soul, even as he is flesh of our flesh. Who, then, could think of excluding him from the people of Israel? St. Peter will remain the only Jew who has said of the Son of David, ' I know not the man.' Putting aside the Messianic mis- sion, this man is ours. He honors our race, and we claim him as we claim the Gospels — flowers of Jewish literature and only Jewish." " Is it a truth," asks Keim, " or is it nothing but words, when this virtuous God-allied human life is called the noblest blossom of a noble tree, the crown of the cedar of Israel? A full vigorous life in a barren time, a new building among ruins, an erect strong na- ture among broken ones, a Son of God among the god- less and the God-forsaken, one who was joyous, hopeful, generous among those who were mourning and in despair, a freeman among slaves, a saint among sinners — by this contradiction to the facts of the time, by this gigantic exaltation above the depressed uni- formity of the century, by this compensation for stag- nation, retrogression, and the sickness of death in progress, health, force and color of eternal youth — finally, by the lofty uniqueness of what he achieved, of his purity, of his God-nearness — he produces, even with regard to endless new centuries that have through him been saved from stagnation and retrogression, 1 "Etudes d'Hist. Rel.," pp. 213, 214. SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 189 the impression of mysterious solitariness, superhuman miracle, divine creation." ^ ^' Between Him and whoever else in the world," said Napoleon at St. Helena, " there is no possible term of comparison." ^ Throughout Napoleonic literature two names con- stantly recur as exhibiting the Corsican's ideals of spir- itual and intellectual perfection. These names are those of Jesus Christ and Julius Caesar. Napoleon's stupendous genius and incomprehensible destiny formed the basis of a secret conviction within his soul that with Jesus and Caesar displaced, he himself would be the grandest ornament of history. But in the mind of the emperor there was no element of equality or comparison between Jesus and Caesar. The latter he regarded as the crown and consummation of Roman manhood, the most superb character of the ancient world. The former he believed to be divine. It was the custom of Napoleon while in exile at St. Helena to converse almost daily about the illustrious men of antiquity and to compare them with himself. On one occasion while talking upon his favorite theme with an officer, one of the companions of his exile, he suddenly stopped and asked: "But can you tell me who Jesus Christ was? " In reply, the officer candidly con- fessed that he had never thought much about the Nazarene. " Well, then," said Napoleon, " I will tell you." The illustrious captive then compared Jesus with the heroes of antiquity and finally with himself. 1 "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. pp. 430, 431. 2 Montholon, "Recit de la Captivite de I'Emp. Napoleon." I90 THE TRIAL OF JESUS The comparison demonstrated how paltry and con- temptible was everything human when viewed in the light of the divine character and sublime achievements of the Man of Nazareth. " I think I understand somewhat of human nature," said Napoleon, " and I tell you all these were men, and I am a man, but not one is like Him; Jesus Christ was more than man. Alexander, Cssar, Charlemagne, and myself founded great empires; but upon what did the creations of our genius depend? Upon force. Jesus alone founded His empire upon love, and to this very day millions would die for Him." ^ We have every reason to believe that the homage paid the character of Jesus by Napoleon was not merely the product of his brain, but was also the hum- ble tribute of his heart. When the disasters of the Rus- sian campaign broke upon his fortunes, when " the infantry of the snow and the cavalry of the wild blast scattered his legions like winter's withered leaves," the iron-hearted, granite-featured man who had " con- quered the Alps and had mingled the eagles of France with the eagles of the crags," only laughed and joked. But, while contemplating the life and death of Jesus, he became serious, meditative and humble. And when he came to write his last will and testament, he made this sentence the opening paragraph: "I die in the Roman Catholic Apostolical religion, in the bosom of which I was born more than fifty years ago." ^ The 1 Bertrand's "Memoir?," Paris, 1844. 2 " Je meurs dans la religion catholique, apostolique et romaine, dans le sein de laquellc je suis ne, il y a plus de cinquante ans." SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL 191 Christianity of Napoleon has been questioned. It is respectfully submitted that only an ungenerous criti- cism will attribute hypocrisy to this final testimony of his religious faith. The imperial courage, the grand- eur of character, and the loftiness of life of the great- est of the emperors negative completely the thought of insincerity in a declaration made at a time when every earthly inducement to misrepresentation had passed forever. But Jesus was not the Christ, the Savior of warrior- kings alone, in the hour of death. On the battlefield of Inkerman an humble soldier fell mortally wounded. He managed to crawl to his tent before he died. When found he was lying face downward with the open Bible beside him. His right hand was glued with his lifeblood to Chapter XL, Verse 25 of St. John. When the hand was lifted, these words, con- taining the ever-living promise of the Master, could be clearly traced: " I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live." PART II GRMCO-RGMAN PAGANISM JUPITER (antique SCULPTURE) CHAPTER I GR^CO-ROMAN PAGANISM \XTENT of the Roman Empire at the Time of Christ. — The pol- icy of ancient Rome was to ex- tend and hold her possessions by force of arms. She made de- mands; and if they were not complied with, she spurned the medium of diplomacy and ap- pealed for arbitrament to the god of battles. Her achievements were the achieve- ments of war. Her glories were the glories of combat. Her trophies were the treasures of conquered prov- inces and chained captives bowed in grief and shame. Her theory was that "might makes right"; and in vindication and support of this theory she imbued her youth with a martial spirit, trained them in the use of arms from childhood to manhood, and stationed her legions wherever she extended her empire. Thus, mili- tary discipline and the fortune of successful warfare formed the basis of the prosperity of Rome. At the period of which we write, her invincible legions had accomplished the conquest of the civilized earth. Britain, Gaul, Spain, Italy, Illyria, Greece, Asia Minor, Africa, Egypt, and the islands of the Medi- 195 196 THE TRIAL OF JESUS terranean — six hundred thousand square leagues of the most fertile territory in the world — had been subdued to the Roman will and had become obedient to Roman decrees. " The empire of the Romans," says Gibbon, *' filled the world, and when that empire fell into the hands of a single person, the world became a safe and dreary prison for his enemies. The slave of imperial despotism, whether he was compelled to drag his gilded chain in Rome and the Senate, or to wear out a life of exile on the barren rock of Seriphus, or on the frozen banks of the Danube, expected his fate in silent despair. To resist was fatal, and it was impos- sible to fly. On every side he was encompassed by a vast extent of sea and land, which he could never hope to traverse without being discovered, seized, and re- stored to his irritated master. Beyond the frontiers, his anxious view could discover nothing, except the ocean, inhospitable deserts, hostile tribes of barbarians, of fierce manners and unknown language, or depend- ent kings who would gladly purchase the emperor's protection by the sacrifice of an obnoxious fugitive. ' Wherever you are,' said Cicero to the exiled Marcel- lus, ' remember that you are equally within the power of the conqueror.' " In obedience to a universal law of development and growth, when the Roman empire had reached the lim- its of physical expansion, when Roman conquest was complete, when Roman laws and letters had reached approximate perfection, and when Roman civilization had attained its crown and consummation, Roman de- cline began. The birth of the empire marked the be- GRiECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 197 ginning of the end. It was then that the shades of night commenced to gather slowly upon the Roman world; and that the Roman ship of state began to move slowly but inevitably, upon a current of indescribable depravity ^ and degeneracy, toward the abyss. The Roman giant bore upon his shoulders the treasures of a conquered world; and Bacchus-like, reeled, crowned and drunken, to his doom. No period of human history is so marked by lust and licentiousness as the history of Rome at the beginning of the Christian era. The Roman religion had fallen into contempt. The family instinct was dead, and the marital relation was a mockery and a shame. The humane spirit had vanished from Roman hearts, and slavery was the curse of every province of the empire. The destruction of infants and the gladiatorial games were mere epitomes of Roman brutality and degener- acy. Barbarity, corruption and dissoluteness pervaded every form of Roman life. A perfect picture of the depravity of the times about which we write may be had from a perusal of the Roman satirists, Tacitus and Juvenal. The ordinary Roman debauchee was not the sole victim of their wrath. They chiseled the hideous features of the Caesars with a finer stroke than that employed by Phidias and Praxiteles in carving statues of the Olym- pic gods. The purpose of Part II of this volume is to give col- oring and atmosphere to the picture of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus by describing: (i) The Graeco- Roman religion; and (2) the Graeco-Roman social 198 THE TRIAL OF JESUS life, during the century preceding and the century fol- lowing the birth of the Savior. I. THE GR^CO-ROMAN RELIGION Origin and Multiplicity of the Roman Gods. — The Romans acquired their gods by inheritance, by impor- tation, and by manufacture. The Roman race sprang from a union of Etruscans, Latins, and Sabines; and the gods of these different tribes, naturalized and adopted, were the first deities of Rome. Chief among them were Janus, Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva. Other early Roman deities were Sol, the Sun, and Luna the Moon, both of Sabine origin; Mater Matuta, Mother of Day; Divus Pater Tiberinus, or Father Tiber; Fon- tus, the god of fountains; Vesta, the goddess of the hearth; and the Lares and Penates, household gods. These primitive Italian divinities were at first mere abstractions, simple nature-powers; but later they were Hellenized and received plastic form. The Greeks and Romans had a common ancestry and the amalgamation of their religions was an easy matter. The successive steps in the process of blending the two forms of worship are historical. From Cumae, one of the oldest Greek settlements in Italy, the famous Sibyl- line books found their way to Rome; and through these books the Greek gods and their worship established themselves in Italy. The date of the arrival of several of the Hellenic deities is well ascertained. The first temple to Apollo was vowed in the year 351 A.U.C. To check a lingering epidemic of pestilence and disease, the v/orship of ^sculapius was introduced from Epi- GRiE CO-ROMAN PAGANISM 199 daurus into Rome in the year 463. In 549, Cybele, the Idaean mother, was imported from Phrygia, in the shape of a black stone, and was worshiped at Rome by order of the Sibylline books. In various ways, the Hellenization of the Roman religion was accomplished. The Decemviri, to whom the consulting of the Sibylline books was intrusted, fre- quently interpreted them to mean that certain foreign gods should be invited at once to take up their resi- dence in Rome. The introduction of Greek literature also resulted in the importation of Greek gods. The tragedies of Livius Andronicus and the comedies of Naevius, founded upon Greek legends of gods and heroes, were presented in Rome in the later years of the third cen- tury B.C. Fragments of Greek literature also began to make their way into the Capital about this time. Philosophers, rhetoricians, and grammarians flocked from Greece to Italy and brought with them the works of Homer, Hesiod and the Greek philosophers, whose writings were permeated with Greek mythology. Grecian sculpture was as potent as Grecian litera- ture in transforming and Hellenizing the religion of Rome. The subjugation of the Greek colonies in the south of Italy and the conquests of Greek cities like Syracuse and Corinth in the East, brought together in Rome the masterpieces of the Greek sculptors. A determined effort was made from time to time by the patriotic Romans to destroy Hellenic influence and to preserve in their original purity early Roman forms of worship. But all attempts were futile. The aver- 200 THE TRIAL OF JESUS age Roman citizen, though practical and unimagina- tive, was still enamored of the beautiful myths and ex- quisite statues of the Greek gods. And it was only by Hellenizing their own deities that they could bring themselves into touch and communion with the Hel- lenic spirit. The aesthetical and fascinating influence of the Greek language, literature and sculpture, was overwhelming. " At bottom, the Roman religion was based only on two ideas — the might of the gods who were friendly to Rome, and the power of the ceremo- nies over the gods. How could a religion, so poverty- stricken of thought, with its troops of phantom gods, beingless shadows and deified abstractions, remain un- scathed and unaltered when it came in contact with the profusion of the Greek religion, with its circle of gods, so full of life, so thoroughly anthropomorphised, so deeply interwoven into everything human? "^ Not only from Greece but from every conquered country, strange gods were brought into Italy and placed in the Roman pantheon. When a foreign city was besieged and captured, the Romans, after a pre- liminary ceremony, invited the native gods to leave their temples and go to Rome where, they were as- sured, they would have much grander altars and would receive a more enthusiastic worship. It was a reli- gious belief of the ancient masters of the world that gods could be enticed from their allegiance and induced to emigrate. In their foreign wars, the Ro- mans frequently kept the names of their own gods secret to prevent the enemy from bribing them. ^ Dollinger, "The Gentile and the Jew," vol. ii. p. 29. GRv^CO-ROMAN PAGANISM 201 The gods at Rome increased in number just in pro- portion that the empire expanded. The admission of foreign territory brought with it the introduction of strange gods into the Roman worship. When the Romans needed a new god and could not find a foreign one that pleased them, they deliberately manufactured a special deity for the occasion. In the breaking up and multiplication of the god-idea, they excelled all the nations of antiquity. It was the duty of the pontiffs to manufacture a divinity whenever an emergency arose and one was needed. The god- casting business was a regular employment of the De- cemviri and the Quindecemviri; and a perusal of the pages of Roman history reveals these god-makers actively engaged in their workshops making some new deity to meet some new development in Roman life. The extent of the polytheistic notions of the ancient Romans is almost inconceivable to the modern mind. Not only were the great forces of nature deified, but the simplest elements of time, of thought, and action. Ordinary mental abstractions were clothed with the attributes of gods. Mens (Mind), Pudicitia (Chas- tity), Pietas (Piety), Fides (Fidelity), Concordia (Concord), Virtus (Courage), Spes (Hope), and Voluptas (Pleasure), were all deities of the human soul, and were enthusiastically worshiped by the Ro- mans. A single human action was frequently broken into parts each of which had a little god of its own. The beginning of a marriage had one deity and its conclusion, another. Cunina was the cradle-goddess 202 THE TRIAL OF JESUS of a child. Statilinus, Edusa, Potnia, Paventia, Fa- belinus and Catius were other goddesses who pre- sided over other phases of its infancy. Juventas was the goddess of its youth; and, in case of loss of parents, Orbona was the goddess that protected its orphanage. Any political development in the Roman state ne- cessitated a new divinity to mark the change. In the early periods of their history, the Romans used cattle as a medium of exchange in buying and bartering. Pecunia was then the goddess of such exchange. But when, in later times, copper money came into use, a god called ^^sculanus was created to preside over the finances; and when, still later, silver money began to be used, the god Argentarius was called into being to protect the coinage. This Argentarius was naturally the son of ^^sculanus. Not only the beneficent but the malign forces of na- ture were deified. Pests, plagues, and tempests had their special divinities who were to be placated. " There were particular gods for every portion of a dwelling — the door, the threshold of the door, and even the hinges of the door. There was a special god for each different class — even the most menial and the most immoral; and a special divinity for those who were afflicted in a peculiar manner, such as the child- less, the maimed or the blind. There was the god of the stable, and the goddess of the horses; there were gods for merchants, artists, poets and tillers of the soil. The gods must be invoked before the harvest could be reaped ; and not even a tree could be felled in the for- GRiECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 203 est without supplicating the unknown god who might inhabit it." ^ The extreme of the Roman divinity-making process was the deification of mere negative ideas. Tranquil- litas Vacuna was the goddess of " doing nothing." Not only were special actions and peculiar ideas broken up and subdivided with an appropriate divin- ity for each part or subdivision, but the individual gods themselves were subdivided and multiplied. It is said that there were three hundred Jupiters in Rome. This means that Jupiter was worshiped under three hundred different forms. Jupiter Pluvius, Jupiter Fulgurator, Jupiter Tonans, Jupiter Fulminator, Ju- piter Imbricitor, Jupiter Serenator, were only a few designations of the supreme deity of the Romans. It will thus be seen that polytheism was insatiable in its thirst for new and strange gods. When the god- casting business was once begun, there was no end to it. And when the Roman empire had reached its greatest expansion, and Roman public and private life had attained to complete development, the deities of the Roman religion were innumerable. No pantheon could hold them, and no Roman could remember the names of all. Temples of the gods were everywhere to be found throughout the empire; and where there were no altars or temples, certain trees, stones and rocks were decorated with garlands and worshiped as sacred places which the gods were supposed to fre- quent. Thus the Roman world became crowded with holy places, and the gods and goddesses became an 1 "Preparation of the World for Christ," pp. 380, 381. ao4 THE TRIAL OF JESUS innumerable host. Petronius makes a countrywoman from a district adjoining Rome declare that it was much easier to find a god in her neighborhood than a man. We shall see that the multiplicity of the gods was finally the cause of the decay and ruin of the Roman religion. The Roman Priesthood. — The Roman priesthood was composed of several orders of pontiffs, augurs, keepers of the Sibylline books, Vestal virgins, epulos, salians, lupercals, etc. Fifteen pontiffs exercised supreme control in matters of religion. They were consecrated to the service of the gods; and all questions of doubtful religious inter- pretation were submitted to the judgment of their tribunal. '* Fifteen learned and experienced augurs observed the phenomena of nature and studied the flight of birds as a means of directing the actions of the state. Fifteen keepers of the Sibylline books read the pages of their treasures and from them divined coming events. Six Vestals, immaculate in their virginity, guarded the Roman sacred fire, and presided at the national hearthstone of the Roman race. Seven epulos conducted the solemn processions and regulated the religious ceremonies at the annual fes- tivals of the gods. Fifteen flamens were consecrated to the service of separate deities. Those of Jupiter, Mars, and Quiri- nus were held in the highest esteem. The Flamen Dialis, or priest of Jupiter, was loaded down with re- GRiECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 205 ligious obligations and restrictions. He was not per- mitted to take an oath, to ride, to have anything tied with knots on his person, to look at a prisoner, see armed men, or to touch a dog, a goat, or raw flesh, or yeast. He was not allowed to bathe in the open air; nor could he spend the night outside the city. He could resign his office only on the death of his wife. The Salians were priests of Mars, who, at festivals celebrated in honor of the war-god, danced in heavy armor, and sang martial hymns. Roman Forms of Worship. — Roman worship was very elaborate and ceremonial. It consisted of sacri- fices, vows, prayers, and festivals. With the exception of the ancient Hebrews, the Romans were the greatest formalists and ritualists of antiquity. Every act of Roman public and private life was supposed to be framed in accordance with the will of the gods. There was a formula of prayer adapted to every vicis- situde of life. Caesar never mounted his chariot, it is said, that he did not repeat a formula three times to avert dangers. A painful exactness in the use of words was required in the offering of a Roman prayer. A syllable left out or a word mispronounced, or the intervention of any disturbing cause of evil import, would destroy the merit of the formula. The Romans believed that the voice of prayer should not be interrupted by noises or bad omens. And that the sound of evil augury might not be heard at the moment of supplication, they were in the habit of covering their ears. Musical notes of favorable import were not objectionable, and fre- 2o6 THE TRIAL OF JESUS quently flutes were played while the prayer was being ofifered to chase away disturbing sounds. At other times, the priests had special assistants whose duty it was to maintain silence during the recital of the for- mula. But, if the ceremony was successful, if the lan- guage had been correctly pronounced, without the omission or addition of a word; if all disturbing causes and things of evil omen had been alienated from the services, then the granting of the prayer was assured, regardless of the motive or intention of the person praying. It should be remembered that piety and faith were not necessary to the efficacy of Roman prayer. Ceremonial precision, rather than purity of heart, was pleasing to the Roman gods. A peculiar element entered into the religions of both the ancient Romans and the ancient Hebrews. It was the prin- ciple of contract in an almost purely juristic sense. Both the Romans and the Hebrews believed that if the divine law was obeyed to the letter, their deities were under the strictest obligation to grant their petitions. Under the Roman form of worship, a peculiar act of supplication was performed by the suppliant who kissed his right hand, turned round in a circle by the right, and then seated himself upon the ground. This was done in obedience to one of the laws of Numa. The circular movement of the earth, it was thought, was symbolized by the turning round in a circle; and the sitting down indicated that the suppliant was con- fidant that his prayer would be granted. The Romans believed that prayers were more effica- GRiECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 1207 cious if said in the immediate presence and, if possi- ble, in actual contact with the image of the god. The doorkeepers of the temple were frequently besieged by suppliants who begged to be admitted into the inclo- sures of the sacred places where they might pray to the deity on the spot. On account of the vast numbers of the gods, the Romans were sometimes at a loss to know which one to address in prayer. Unlike the Greeks, they had no preferences among their deities. Each was suppli- cated in his turn according to the business in hand. But they were frequently in doubt as to the name of the god who had control of the subject-matter of their petitions. In such cases, the practical genius of the Roman people served them well. They had recourse to several expedients which they believed would insure success. When in doubt as to the particular divinity which they should address in supplication, they would, at times, invoke, in the first place, Janus, the god of all good beginnings, the doorkeeper, so to speak, of the pantheon, who, it was believed, would deliver the prayer to the proper deity. At other times, in such perplexity, they would address their petitions to a group of gods in which they knew the right one was bound to be. It sometimes happened that they did not know whether the deity to be supplicated was a god or goddess. In such an emergency, they expressed them- selves very cautiously, using the alternative proviso: " Be thou god or goddess." At other times, in cases of extreme doubt, they prayed to all the deities at once; and often, in fits of desperation, they dismissed the 2o8 THE TRIAL OF JESUS entire pantheon and addressed their prayers to the Unknown God. Another mode of propitiating the gods was by sacri- fice. Animals, the fruits of the fields, and even human beings were devoted to this purpose. In the matter of sacrifice, the practical genius of the Roman people was again forcibly manifested. They were tactful enough to adapt the sacrifice to the whims and tastes of the gods. A provision of the Twelve Tables was that " such beasts should be used for victims as were be- coming and agreeable to each deity." The framers of these laws evidently believed that the gods had keenly whetted appetites and discriminating tastes in the mat- ter of animal sacrifice. Jupiter Capitolinus was pleased with an offering of white cattle with gilded horns, but would not accept rams or bulls. Mars, Neptune and Apollo were, on the other hand, highly delighted with the sacrifice of bulls. It was also agreeable to Mars to have horses, cocks, and asses sac- rificed in his honor. An intact heifer was always pleasing to the goddess Minerva. A white cow with moon-shaped horns delighted Juno Calendaris. A sow in young was sacrificed to the great Mother; and doves and sparrows to Venus. Unweaned puppies were offered as victims of expiation to the Lares and Penates. Black bulls were usually slaughtered to ap- pease the infernal gods. The most careful attention was given to the selection of the victims of sacrifice from the flocks and herds. Any serious physical defect in the animal disqualified. A calf was not fit for slaughter if its tail did not reach GR.ECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 209 to the joint of the leg. Sheep with cloven tongues and black ears were rejected. Black spots on a white ox had to be rubbed white with chalk before the beast was available for sacrifice. Not only animals were sacrificed, but human beings as well, to appease the wrath of the gods in time of awful calamity. In early Roman history, gray-headed men of sixty years were hurled from the Pons Sublicius into the Tiber as an offering to Saturn. In the year 227 B.C., the pontiffs discovered from the Sibylline books that the Gauls and Greeks were to attack and capture the city. To fulfill the prophecy and, at the same time to avert the danger, the senate decreed that a man and woman of each of these two nations should be buried alive in the forum as a form of constructive possession. This was nothing but a human sacrifice to the gods. Again, two of Cesar's soldiers, who had participated in a riot in Rome, were taken to the Campus Martius and sacrificed to Mars by the pontiffs and the Flamen Martialis. Their heads were fixed upon the Regia, as was the case in the sacrifice of the October-horse. As an oblation to Neptune, Sextus Pompeius had live men and horses thrown into the sea at the time when a great storm was destroying the fleet of the enemy. A near approach to human sacrifice was the custom of sprinkling the statue of Jupiter Latiaris with the blood of gladiators. A priest caught the blood as it gushed from the wound of the dying gladiator, and dashed it while still warm at the face of the image of the god. 2IO THE TRIAL OF JESUS Suetonius tells us that after the capture of Perugia, Augustus Caesar slaughtered three hundred prisoners as an expiatory sacrifice to Julius Caesar. Thus at the beginning of the Christian era, human beings were still being sacrificed on the altars of super- stition. Ascertaining the Will of the Gods. — Various meth- ods were employed by the Romans in ascertaining the will of the gods. Chief among these were the art of divination from the flight of birds and from the in- spection of the entrails of animals; also from the ob- servation of lightning and the interpretation of dreams. The Romans had no oracles like those of the Greeks, but they frequently sent messengers to consult the Delphic oracle. Nothing is stranger or more disgusting in all the range of religious history than the practice of the Roman haruspices. That the ancient masters of the world should have felt themselves obliged to search in the belly of a beast for the will of Jupiter is one of the abominable enigmas of Pagan superstition. The in- spection of the entrails of victims was a Tuscan science, early imported from Etruria, and naturalized at Rome. Tuscan haruspices accompanied the Roman armies everywhere, and determined by their skill whether a battle should be fought or a retreat ordered. When it was doubtful what to do, an animal was slaughtered, and the heart, lungs, liver, tongue, spleen, kidneys and caul were closely inspected with the aid of a small needle or knife. Various conditions and ap- pearances of these parts were considered as signs of GRiECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 211 the pleasure or disfavor of the gods. Largely devel- oped veins on the adverse side were considered tokens of extreme displeasure and an indication of pending misfortune. It was also considered gravely ominous when the head or protuberance in the right lobe of the liver was wanting. The Romans were too practical and indomitable, however, to allow a single bad omen to frustrate a great enterprise. If the inspection of the entrails of the first animal was not favorable, they slaughtered still others until a propitious sign was ob- served. At times, a score of beasts were slain before the gods gave assent to the enterprise in hand. Divination from the flight and notes of birds was another method employed by the Romans in finding out the will of the gods. And it may be remarked that this was certainly a more rational and elevated form of divination than that which we have just discussed. An eagle swooping down from the skies would cer- tainly be a more natural and pleasing suggestion of the thoughts and attributes of Jove than the filthy in- terior of the entrails of a bull. The elements of divination from the flight of birds were derived either from the significant notes and sounds of their voices, or from the manner in which their wings were flapped or their flight conducted. If the bird flew from the left to the right of the augur, it was considered a happy omen; if the flight was in the opposite direction, the enterprise in hand had to be abandoned or at least delayed. Augury by flight was usually applied to eagles and vultures, while woodpeckers, ravens, crows, and screech owls an- 212 THE TRIAL OF JESUS nounced the will of the gods by note. The direction from which the note came, usually determined the nature of the augury. But, in the case of the screech owl, the sounds were always of evil omen, from what- ever side they came. And those who have been so un- fortunate as to hear its mournful, desolate and God- forsaken tones will not be disposed to censure either the Romans or their gods for the low esteem in which they held this bird. Again, it was a principle of Roman augury that auspices could be neutralized or overcome. If a crow furnished an omen, and an eagle gave another which was opposed to it, the first sign was wiped out, because the eagle was a larger and nobler bird than the crow. And, as in the case of prayer, so also in the matter of the auspices, a disturbing sound would destroy the effect of the augury. The squeak or cry of a mouse would destroy a message from Jupiter conveyed in the scream of an eagle. But the most potent manifestation of the divine mind, among the ancient Romans, was that derived from thunder and lightning. Lightning to them was the sovereign expression of the will of the gods; and a single flash blotted out every other sign and token. It was an irrevocable presage and could not be re- motely modified or evaded. It came directly from the hand of the deity and was an emphatic revelation of the divine mind. All places struck by lightning were considered sacred and were consecrated to the god who had sent the bolt. Upon the spot where it fell, an altar was raised and an inclosure formed. The service of GRi^CO-ROMAN PAGANISM 213 consecration consisted in burying the lightning, that is, in restoring the earth thrown up by it, and in the sacrifice of a two-year-old sheep. All such places were considered hallowed spots and it was impious and sac- rilegious to touch them or even look at them. The gods deprived of reason those who destroyed the altars and sacred inclosures of these places. These various methods of ascertaining the will of the deities were employed in every important transac- tion of Roman public and private life. At times, all of them cooperated on occasions of vast import and when the lives and destinies of great men were involved. The following single paragraph from Suetonius contains allusions to all the modes of divination which we have just discussed: After the death of Caesar, upon his return from Apol- lonia as he was entering the city, on a sudden, in a clear and bright sky a circle resembling the rainbow surrounded the body of the sun; and immediately afterwards, the tomb of Julia, CcEsar's daughter, was struck by lightning. In his first consulship whilst he was observing the auguries, twelve vultures presented themselves as they had done to Romulus. And when he offered sacrifice, the livers of all the victims were folded Inward In the lower part; a circumstance which was regarded by those present, who had skill In things of that nature, as an indubitable prognostic of great and won- derful fortune.^ The interpretation of dreams also formed an Im- portant part in the determination of the will of the gods, not only among the Romans, but among all an- 1 Suetonius, "Cassar Augustus," Chap. XCV. 214 THE TRIAL OF JESUS cient nations. The literature of antiquity, both sacred and profane, is filled with dreams. Whether the biog- rapher is Matthew or Plutarch, dreams appear on the pages of both. Chrysippus made a collection of prophetical dreams in order to explain their meaning. Both Galen and Hippocrates believed that dreams were sent by the gods to men. Artemidorus wrote a treatise on the subject, and in it he assures us that it was compiled at the express bidding and under the direction of Apollo himself. It was in a dream that Joseph was warned not to put away Mary his wife.^ It was also in a dream that an angel voice warned him to flee into Egypt with the infant Savior to escape the murderous designs of Herod. ^ Nearly every great event, both in Greek and Roman history, seems to have been heralded or at- tended by dreams. The following account is given by Suetonius of the dreams of Quintus Catulus and Mar- cus Cicero presaging the reign of Augustus: Quintus Catulus had a dream, for two nights successively after his dedication of the Capitol. The first night he dreamt that Jupiter out of several boys of the order of the nobility who were playing about his altar, selected one, Into whose bosom he put the public seal of the commonwealth, which he held In his hand; but In his vision the next night, he saw In the bosom of Jupiter Capltollnus, the same boy; whom he ordered to be removed, but It was forbidden by the God, who declared that It must be brought up to become the guardian of the state. The next day, meeting Augustus, with whom till that hour he had not the least acquaintance, and looking at him with admiration, he said he was extremely like the boy he had seen in his dream. Some gave a different ac- 1 Matt. i. 20. 2 Matt. ii. 13. GRiECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 215 count of Catulus's first dream, namely that Jupiter, upon several noble lads requesting of him that they might have a guardian, had pointed to one amongst them, to whom they were to prefer their requests; and putting his fingers to the boy's mouth to kiss, he afterwards applied them to his own. Marcus Cicero, as he was attending Caius Caesar to the Capitol, happened to be telling some of his friends a dream which he had the preceding night, in which he saw a comely youth let down from heaven by a golden chain, who stood at the door of the Capitol, and had a whip put into his hands by Jupiter. And immediately upon sight of Augus- tus, who had been sent for by his uncle Caesar to the sacrifice, and was as yet perfectly unknown to most of the company, he affirmed that it was the very boy he had seen In his dream. When he assumed the manly toga, his senatorian tunic be- coming loose in the seam on each side, fell at his feet. Some would have this to forebode, that the order of which that was the badge of distinction, would some time or other be subject to him.^ Omens also played an important role in molding the destiny of the Roman state. In his " Life of Caesar Augustus," Suetonius says: Some signs and omens he regarded as infallible. If In the morning, his shoe was put on wrong, the left instead of the right, that boded some disaster. If when he commenced a long journey, by land or sea, there happened to fall a mizzling rain, he held it to be a good sign of a speedy and happy return. He was much affected likewise with anything out of the common course of nature. A palm-tree which chanced to grow up between some stones in the court of his house, he transplanted into a court where the images of the Household Gods were placed, and took all possible care to make it thrive. In the island of Capri, some decayed branches of an old ilex, which hung drooping to the ground, recovered themselves upon his arrival; at which he was so 1 Suetonius, "Caesar Augustus," Chap. XCIV. 2i6 THE TRIAL OF JESUS delighted, that he made an exchange with the Republic of Naples, of the island of Ischia, for that of Capri. He like- wise observed certain days; as never to go from home the day after the Numdinae, nor to begin any serious business upon the nones; avoiding nothing else In it, as he writes to Tiberius, than its unlucky name.^ 'Any unusual happening and all the striking phe- nomena of nature were regarded by the Romans as prodigies or omens indicative of the will of the gods. The nature of the occurrence indicated the pleasure or the wrath of the deity. An eclipse of the sun and the moon, a shooting star, a rainbow of peculiar color, showers of stones and ashes, were regarded as awful prodigies, and generally threw the Roman Senate into a panic. On such occasions, the pontifical college called a hurried meeting. The augurs and haruspices were summoned to immediate duty; and everything was done to ascertain the will of the gods and to do their bidding. A two-headed snake or a three-legged chicken, such as we frequently see to-day, would have shaken the whole Roman religious system to the center. Such was the credulity of the Roman people, that the most improbable and impossible stories, mere ru- mors born of lying imposture, were heard and be- lieved. " Idols shed tears or sweated blood, oxen spoke, men were changed into women, cocks into hens, lakes or brooks ran with blood or milk, mice nibbled at the golden vessels of the temples, a swarm of bees lighted on a temple or in a public place." All such alleged occurrences required sacrifices and expiatory ^ Suetonius, "Caesar Augustus," Chap. XCII. GRi^CO-ROMAN PAGANISM 217 rites to conquer the fury and regain the favor of the gods. Fall of the Early Roman Religion. — At the begin- ning of the Christian era, the old Roman religion, founded upon the institutions of Numa, had almost come to an end. The invasion of Italy by the Greek gods was the first serious assault upon the early Roman faith. The elegant refinement and fascinating influ- ence of Greek literature, philosophy and sculpture, had incrusted with a gorgeous coating the rude forms of the primitive Roman worship. But, as time ad- vanced, the old gods grew stale and new deities were sought. The human soul could not forever feed upon myths, however brilliant and bewitching. The myste- rious and melancholy rites of Isis came to establish themselves by the side of those of Janus and ^^scula- pius. The somber qualities of the Egyptian worship seemed to commend it. Even so good and grand a man as Marcus Aurelius avowed himself an adorer of Serapis; and, during a sojourn in Egypt, he is reported to have conducted himself like an Egyptian citizen and philosopher while strolling through the temples and sacred groves on the banks of the Nile.^ The effect of the repeated changes from one form of religious faith to another was to gradually destroy the moral fiber of Roman worship and to shatter Roman faith in the existence and stability of the gods. The first manifestation of that disintegration which finally completely undermined and destroyed the tem- ple of Roman worship was the familiarity with which ^ Dollinger, "The Gentile and the Jew," vol. n". p. 185. 2i8 THE TRIAL OF JESUS the Romans treated their gods. Familiarity with gods, as with men, breeds contempt. A striking peculiarity of both the Roman and Greek mythologies was the in- timate relationship that existed between gods and human beings. Sometimes it took the form of personal intercourse from which heroes sprang, as was the case with Jupiter and Alcmene, of whom Hercules was born. At other times, deities and human beings trav- eled together on long voyages, as was the case with Minerva and Telemachus on their trip to the island of Calypso. These were instances of what the Greeks regarded as that natural and sympathetic relationship that not only could but should exist between them and their divinities. But in time the Romans entered upon a career of frivolous fellowship and familiarity with their gods which destroyed their mutual respect, and hastened the dissolution of the bonds that had hitherto held them together. They began to treat their divini- ties as men, deserving of honor indeed, but neverthe- less human beings with all the frailties and attributes of mortals. " Arnobius speaks of morning serenades sung with an accompaniment of fifes, as a kind of reveille to the sleeping gods, and of an evening salu- tation, in which leave was taken of the deity with the wishing him a good night's rest." The Lectisternia or banquets of the gods were ordi- nary religious functions to which the deities themselves were invited. These feasts were characterized at times by extreme exclusiveness. It was not right, thought the Romans, to degrade and humiliate the greater gods by seating them at the banquet board with smaller GRi^CO-ROMAN PAGANISM 219 ones. So, a right royal fete was annually arranged in the Capitol in honor of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva. The statue of the great god was placed reclining on a pillow; and the images of the two goddesses were seated upon chairs near him. At other times, the func- tions were more democratic, and great numbers of the gods were admitted, as well as a few select and distin- guished mortals. On such occasions, the images of the gods were placed in pairs on cushions near the table. The Romans believed that the spirit of the god ac- tually inhabited or occupied the statue. This we learn from Lucian. The happy mortals who were fortunate enough to be present at the banquet, actually believed that they were seated among the gods. Livy tells us that once the gods turned on their cushions and re- versed themselves at the table, and that mice then came and devoured the meats.^ The Roman historians very seriously inform us that special invitations were extended the gods to attend these banquets. They fail to tell us, however, whether R.S.V.P. or any other directions were inserted in the cards of invitation. We are left completely -in the dark as to the formality employed by the deities to indicate their acceptance or rejection of the proffered honor. The purpose of the Lectisternia was at first undoubt- edly to promote hospitality and fellowship, and to con- ciliate the good will of the gods. But finally such intimacy ripened into contempt and all kinds of inde- cencies began to be practiced against the deities. 1 Liv. xl. 59. 220 THE TRIAL OF JESUS Speaking of the actions of certain Romans, Seneca says: "One sets a rival deity by the side of another god; another shows Jupiter the time of day; this one acts the beadle, the other the anointer, pretending by gesture to rub in the ointment. A number of coiffeurs attend upon Juno and Minerva, and make pretence of curling with their fingers, not only at a distance from their images, but in the actual temple. Some hold the looking-glass to them; some solicit the gods to stand security for them; while others display briefs before them, and instruct them in their law cases." This rude conduct was practiced by men. But Seneca, continu- ing, says: " Women, too, take their seats at the Capitol pretending that Jupiter is enamored of them, and not allowing themselves to be intimidated by Juno's pres- ence." ^ Roman Skepticism. — Of contempt of the gods, which was due to many causes, skepticism was born. The deities of every race had been brought to Rome and placed in the pantheon; and there, gazing into each other's faces, had destroyed each other. The mul- tiplicity of the gods was the chief agency in the de- struction of the Roman faith and ritual. The yoke and burden of endless ceremonials had been borne for centuries and were now producing intolerable irrita- tion and nauseating disgust. The natural freedom of the soul was in open rebellion and revolt against the hollow forms and rigid exactions of the Roman ritual. The eagle of the human intellect was already prepar- ing to soar above the clouds of superstition. Cicero 1 Ap. Aug. C. D. VI. 2. GR.ECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 221 gave expression to the prevalent sentiments of educated Romans of his day when he wrote: I thought I should be doing an immense benefit both to myself and to my countrymen if I could entirely eradi- cate all superstitious errors. Nor is there any fear that true religion can be endangered by the demolition of this super- stition; for as this religion which is united with the knowl- edge of nature is to be propagated, so, also, are all the roots of superstition to be destroyed; for that presses upon and pursues and persecutes you wherever you turn yourself, whether you consult a diviner or have heard an omen or have immolated a victim, or beheld a flight of birds; whether you have seen a Chalda^an or a soothsayer; if it lightens or thunders, or if anything is struck by lightning; if any kind of prodigy occurs; some of which things must be frequently coming to pass, so that you can never rise with a tranquil mind. The completion of Roman conquest in the reign of Augustus was another potent influence in the destruc- tion of the old Roman religion. The chief employ- ment of the Roman gods had ever been as servants of the Roman state in the extension of the Roman empire. Their services were now no longer needed in this re- gard, and their ancient worshipers were ready to repu- diate and dismiss them. The Hebrew characteristic of humility and resignation in the presence of divine displeasure was not a Roman trait. The ancient mas- ters of the world reserved the right to object and even to rebel when the gods failed to do their duty after appropriate prayers had been said and proper ceremo- nies had been performed. Sacrilege, as the result of disappointment, was a frequent occurrence in Roman Ill THE TRIAL OF JESUS religious life. Bitter defiance of the heavenly powers sometimes followed a defeat in battle or a failure in diplomacy. Augustus, as supreme pontiff, chastised Neptune, the god of the sea, because he lost his fleet in a storm, by forbidding the image of the god to be carried in the procession of the next Circensian games. The emperor Julian was regarded as a most pious po- tentate, but he did not hesitate to defy the gods when he became displeased. At the time of the Parthian war, he was preparing to sacrifice ten select and beau- tiful bulls to Mars the Avenger, when nine of them suddenly lay down while being led to the altar, and the tenth broke his band. The fury of the monarch was aroused, and he swore by Jupiter that he would not again offer a sacrifice to Mars.^ Claudius, the commander of the Roman fleet at Drepanum, ordered the sacred pullets to be thrown into the sea because they would not eat. When Germanicus was sick in Asia, his devoted admirers offered frequent prayers to the gods for his recovery. When the report of his death reached Rome, the temples of the unaccommo- dating deities were stoned, and their altars were over- turned.''^ The same feeling of angry resentment and defiance may be discerned in inscriptions on the graves of rela- tives prematurely snatched away by death. An epi- taph on the monument of a child of five years was this: " To the unrighteous gods who robbed me of my life." Another on the tombstone of a maiden of twenty, named Procope, read as follows: "I lift my hand 1 DoUinger, vol, ii. p. 183. 2 Suetonius, "Caligula," Chap. V. GRiECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 223 against the god who has deprived me of my innocent existence." ^ The soil of familiarity, contempt and sacrilege which we have just described, was most fertile ground for the growth of that rank and killing skepticism which was destroying the vitals of the Roman faith at the time of Christ. This unbelief, it is true, was not universal. At the time of the birth of the Savior, the Roman masses still believed in the gods and goddesses of the Greek and Roman mythologies. Superstition was especially prevalent in the country districts of both Greece and Italy. Pausanias, who lived about the middle of the second century of the Christian era, tells us that in his time the olden legends of god and hero were still firmly believed by the common people. As he traveled through Greece, the cypresses of Alcmaeon, the stones of Amphion, and the ashes of the funeral piles of Niobe's children were pointed out to him. In Phocis, he found the belief still existing that larks laid no eggs there because of the sin of Tereus.^ Plutarch, who lived about the middle of the first century of our era, tells us that the people were still modeling the gods in w^ax and clay, as well as carving them in mar- ble and were worshiping them in contempt and de- fiance of philosophers and statesmen.^ But this credul- ity was limited to the ignorant and unthinking masses. The intellectual leaders of both the Greek and Roman races had long been in revolt against the absurdity and vulgarity of the myths which formed the foundation 1 Mabillon, "Iter. Ital." p. 77. 2 Pausanias, ix. 17. I. 3 De Superst. 6. 224 THE TRIAL OF JESUS of their popular faiths. The purity and majesty of the soul felt keenly the insult and outrage of enforced obedience to the obscene divinities that Homer and Hesiod had handed down to them. Five hundred years before Christ, Pindar, the greatest lyric poet of Greece, had denounced the vulgar tales told of the deities, and had branded as blasphemous the story of the cannibal feast spread for the gods by the father of Pelops. Xenophanes, also, in the sixth century before Christ, had ridiculed the mythical tales of the Homeric poems, and had called attention to the purely human character of popular religions. He had pointed out that the Ethiopians painted the images of their deities black, and gave them flat noses, in the likeness of them- selves; that the Thracians, on the other hand, created their gods blue-eyed and red; and that, in general, every race had reflected its own physical peculiarities in the creation of its gods. He declared it to be his opinion that if the beasts of the field should attempt to produce a likeness of the gods, the horses would pro- duce a resemblance of themselves, and that oxen and lions would ascribe to their own divinities their own images and peculiarities. The whole structure of the Roman religion, built upon myths and adorned with fables, was ill fitted to stand the tests of analysis and criticism. It was des- tined to weaken and crumble the moment it was sub- jected to serious rational inquiry. Such inquiry was inevitable in the progress of that soul-growth which the centuries were sure to bring. Natural philosophy and historical study began to dissolve the sacred GRiECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 225 legends and to demand demonstration and proof where faith had before sufficed. Skeptical criticism began to dissect the formulae of prayer and to analyze the elements of augury and sacrifice. Reason began to revolt against the proposition that Jupiter was justi- fied in rejecting a petition because a syllable had been omitted or a word mispronounced. Men began to ask: *' What explanation could be given of the strange changes of mind in the gods, often threatening evil on the first inspection of the victim, and at the second promising good? How did it happen that a sacrifice to Apollo gave favorable, and one to Diana unfavor- able signs? Why did the Etruscan, the Elan, the Egyptian, and the Punic inspectors of sacrifice inter- pret the entrails in an entirely different manner? Again, what connection in nature was there between a fissure in the liver of a lamb, and a trifling advan- tage to a man, an inheritance to be expected, or the like? And on a man's intending to sacrifice, did a change, corresponding to his circumstances, take place in the entrails of the beast; so that, supposing another person had selected the same victim, he would have found the liver in a quite different condition?" The gods themselves became subjects of inspection and analysis. Their origin and nature were studied historically, and were also reviewed in the light of natural and ethical products. Three hundred years before Christ, Evhemere of Messina boldly declared that the gods were simply ancient kings deified by fear and superstition after death. Anaxagoras sought to identify the several deities with the forces and phe- ni6 THE TRIAL OF JESUS nomena of nature, thus converting the pantheon into an observatory, or into a physical and chemical labora- tory. Metrodorus contended that the gods were deifi- cations of mere abstract ethical precepts. Instances are recorded in history, from time to time, where the philosophers attempted to explain to the people the natural meaning of those things which they believed were pregnant with supernatural import. On a certain occasion, a ram with one horn was found on the farm of Pericles; and, from this circumstance, an Athenian diviner, named Lampon, predicted that the party of the orator would triumph over the opposite faction and gain control of the government. Where- upon Anaxagoras dissected the skull, and demonstrated to the people the natural cause of the phenomenon in the peculiar shape of the animal's brain. But this re- former finally suffered the fate of other innovators, was prosecuted for impiety, and was only saved by the influence of Pericles. At the beginning of the Christian era, the religion of Rome was privately ridiculed and repudiated by nearly all statesmen and philosophers of the empire, although they publicly professed it on grounds of public policy. Seneca, a conterhporary of Jesus, ad- vised observance of rites appointed by law, on patri- otic grounds. " All which things," he says, " a wise man will observe as being commanded by the laws, but not as being pleasing to the gods." Again he says: *' All that ignoble rabble of gods which the supersti- tion of ages has heaped up, we shall adore in such a way as to remember that their worship belongs rather GR.ECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 227 to custom than to reality." Ridiculing the popular notions of the matrimonial relations of the deities, the same eminent philosopher says: "And what of this, that we unite the gods in marriage, and that not even naturally, for we join brothers and sisters? We marry Bellona to Mars, Venus to Vulcan, Salacia to Nep- tune. Some of them we leave unmarried, as though there were no match for them, which is surely needless, especially when there are certain unmarried goddesses, as Populonia, or Fulgora, or the goddess Rumina, for whom I am not astonished that suitors have been wanting." The prevailing skepticism of the times is well illus- trated in a dialogue which Cicero introduces into his first Tusculan Disputation between M, which may be interpreted Marcus, and A, which may be translated Auditor: Marcus: Tell me, are you not afraid of the three-headed Cerberus in the infernal regions, and the roaring of Cocytus, and the passage over Acheron, and Tantalus, dying with thirst, while water laves his chin, and Sisyphus, " Who sweats with arduous toil in vain The steepy summit of the mount to gain?" Perhaps you are also afraid of the inexorable judges, Minos and Rhadamanthus, because be- fore them neither L. Crassus nor M. Antonius can defend you, and because appearing before Grecian judges, you will not be permitted to employ Demosthenes, but must plead for your- self before a very great crowd. All these things, perhaps, you fear, and therefore regard death as an eternal evil. 228 THE TRIAL OF JESUS Auditor : Do you think I'm such a fool as to give credence to such things? Marcus: What! You don't believe in them? Auditor: Truly, not in the least. Marcus : I am deeply pained to hear that. Auditor: Why? Marcus: Because, if occasion had offered, I could very eloquently have denounced them, myself.^ The contemptuous scorn of the cultivated Romans of his time is frequently revealed in the w^ritings of Cicero. He refers more than once to the famous re- mark of Cato, who said that he could not explain why the haruspices did not laugh in each other's faces when they began to sacrifice. At this point, it is worthy of observation that the prevalent unbelief was not limited to a simple denial of the existence of mythical divinities and of the effi- cacy of the worship rendered them. Roman skepti- cism sought to destroy the very foundation of all re- ligious belief by denying not only the existence of the gods, but also the immortality of the soul. Cicero is ^ M. Die, qu3Eso, num te ilia terrent? Triceps apud inferos Cerberus? Cocyti fremitus ? travectio Acherontis ? "Mento summam aquam attingens enectus siti, Tantalus, turn illud quod, Sisiphus versat Saxum sudans nitendo neque proficit hilum," fortasse etiam inexorabiles judices Minor et Rhadamanthus? apud quos nee te L. Crassus defender, nee M. Antonius; nee, quoniam apud Graccos judices res agetur, poteris adhibere Demosthenen; tibi ipsi pro te erit maxima corona causa dicenda. Haec fortasse metuis, et idcirco mortem censes esse sempiternum malum. A. Adeone me delirare censes, ut ista esse credam ? M. An tu hacc non credis ? A. Minime vero. M. Male hercule narras. A. Cur, quaeso. M. Quia disertus esse possem, si contra ista dicerem. GRi^CO-ROMAN PAGANISM 229 said to have been the only great Roman of his time who believed that death was not the end. Students of Sallust are familiar with his account of the conspiracy of Cataline in which it is related that Julius Caesar, in a speech before the Roman senate, opposed putting the traitor to death because that form of punishment was too mild, since beyond the grave there was neither joy nor sorrow.^ Antagonism to the doctrine of the immortality of the soul reached a melancholy refinement in the strange contention that life after death was a cruel thought. Pliny expresses this sentiment admirably when he says: What folly it Is to renew life after death. Where shall created beings find rest if you suppose that shades in hell and souls in heaven continue to have any feeling? You rob us of man's greatest good — death. Let us rather find in the tranquillity which preceded our existence the pledge of the repose which Is to follow it. When skepticism had destroyed their faith in the gods, and had robbed them of the consolations of re- ligion, educated Romans sought refuge and solace in Greek philosophy. Stoicism and Epicureanism were the dominant spiritual and intellectual forces of the Roman empire at the time of Christ. Epicureanism was founded by Epicurus, who was born of an Athe- nian family in the Island of Samos about 342 B.C. Stoicism originated with Zeno, a native of Cittium in Cyprus, born about the year 340 B.C. The original design of the system of Epicurus was ^ Sallust, " Bellum Catilinarium, 50." 230 THE TRIAL OF JESUS to found a commonwealth of happiness and goodness in opposition to the purely intellectual aristocracy of Plato and Aristotle. Men were beginning to tire of speculation and dialectics, and to long for a philosophy built upon human feeling and sensibility. As a touch- stone of truth, it was proposed to substitute sensation for intellect. Whatever was pleasing to the natural and healthful senses was to be taken to be true. The pursuit of happiness was to be the chief aim of the devotees of this system. The avoidance of mental pain and physical suffering, as well as the cultivation of all pleasurable emotions, were to be the leading features of every Epicurean programme. In the beginning, Epicureanism inculcated principles of virtue as a means of happiness. The mode of life of the first followers of Epicurus was simple and abstemious. Barley-bread and water are said to have been their ordinary food and drink. But in time this form of philosophy became identified with the coarsest sensu- ality and the most wicked lust. This was especially true after it was transplanted from Greece to Italy. The doctrines of this school met with a ready response from the pleasure-seeking, luxury-loving Roman peo- ple who were now enriched by the spoils and treasures of a conquered world. " This philosophy therefore became at Rome a mere school of self-indulgence, and lost the refinement which, in Greece, had led it to rec- ognize in virtue that which gave zest to pleasure and in temperance that which prolonged it. It called sim- ply for a continuous round of physical delights; it taught the grossest sensuality; it proclaimed the in- GRi^CO-ROMAN PAGANISM 231 anity of goodness and the lawfulness of lust. It was the road — sure, steep and swift, to awful demorali- zation." Stoicism, on the other hand, furnished spiritual and intellectual food to that nobler class of Romans who were at once the support and ornament of a magnifi- cent but decadent civilization. This form of philoso- phy was peculiarly consonant with early Roman instincts and habits. In its teachings were perfectly reflected that vigor, austerity, and manly self-reliance which had made the Roman race undisputed masters of the world. Many of its precepts were not only moral and ennobling, but deeply religious and sustain- ing. A striking kinship between them and certain Christian precepts has been frequently pointed out. Justice, fortitude, prudence, and temperance were the four cardinal virtues of Stoicism. Freedom from all passions and complete simplicity of life, resulting in perfect purity of manners, was its chief aim. But the fundamental principles of both Epicureanism and Stoicism were destructive of those spiritual elements which furnish complete and permanent nourishment to the soul. Stoicism was pantheism, and Epicurean- ism was materialism. The Stoic believed that the human soul was corporeal, but that it was animated and illuminated by the universal soul. The Epicu- rean taught that the soul was composed of material atoms, which would perish when its component parts separated or dissolved. Epicureanism was materialis- tic in its tendency, and its inevitable result, in per- verted form, was sensualism. Stoicism was pervaded 232 THE TRIAL OF JESUS throughout by a melancholy and desolating fatalism. It was peculiarly the philosophy of suicide; or, as a great French writer once described it, " an apprentice- ship for death." ^ To take one's life was not only al- lowable but commendable in certain cases. Zeno, the founder of the sect, taught that incurable disease was a sufficient excuse for suicide. Marcus Aurelius consid- ered it an obligation of nature and of reason to make an end of life when it became an intolerable burden. " Kill thyself and die erect in the consciousness of thy own strength," would have been a suitable inscription over the doorway of every Stoic temple. Seneca fur- nished to his countrymen this Stoic panacea for all the ills of life: Seest thou yon steep height, that is the descent to free- dom. Seest thou yon sea, yon river, yon well; freedom sits there in the depths. Seest thou yon low withered tree; there freedom hangs. Seest thou thy neck, thy throat, thy heart; they are the ways of escape from bondage. And the Roman philosopher was not only conscien- tious but consistent in his teachings. He was heroic enough to take the medicine himself which he had pre- scribed for others. Indeed, he took a double dose; for he not only swallowed poison, but also opened his veins, and thus committed suicide, as other Stoics — such as Zeno, Cleanthes and Cato — had done before him. It was not a problem of the Stoic philosophy, Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them? ^ ^ Renan, "Les Apotres." ^ "Hamlet," Act III, Scene i. GRiECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 122 A familiar illustration of the advocates of suicide among the Roman writers was that a human body afflicted with incurable disease, or a human mind weighed down with intolerable grief, was like a house filled with smoke. As it was the duty of the occupant of the house to escape from the smoke by flight, so it was the duty of the soul to leave the body by suicide. But neither Epicureanism nor Stoicism could satisfy the natural longing of the soul for that which is above the earth and beyond the grave. It Vv^as impossible that philosophy should completely displace religion. The spiritual nature of the Roman people was still in- tact and vigorous after belief in myths was dead. As a substitute for their ancient faith and as a supplement to philosophy, they began to deify their illustrious men and women. The apotheosis of the emperors was the natural result of the progressive degradation of the Roman religion. The deification of Julius Caesar was the beginning of this servile form of worship; and the apotheosis of Diocletian was the fifty-third of these solemn canonizations. Of this number, fifteen were those of princesses belonging to the imperial family. Divine honors began to be paid to Caesar before he was dead. The anniversary of his birth became a na- tional holiday; his bust was placed in the temple, and a month of the year was named for him. After his assassination, he was worshiped as a god under the name of Divus Julius; and sacrifices were offered upon his altar. After Julius Caesar, followed the deifica- tion of Augustus Caesar. Even before his death, Octa- vian had consented to be worshiped in the provinces, 234 THE TRIAL OF JESUS especially in Nicomedia and Pergamus. After his death, his worship was introduced into Rome and Italy. The act of canonizing a dead emperor was accom- plished by a vote of the senate, followed by a solemn ceremony, in which an eagle was released at the funeral pile, and soaring upward, became a symbol of the ascent of the deceased to the skies. A Roman sena- tor, Numerius Atticus, swore that he had seen Augus- tus ascending to heaven at the time of his consecration; and received from Livia a valuable gift of money as a token of her appreciation of his kindness. Not only were grand and gifted men like Julius and Augustus Caesar, but despicable and contemptible tyrants like Nero and Commodus, raised to the rank of immortals. And, not content with making gods of emperors, the Romans made goddesses of their royal women. Caligula had lived in incestuous intercourse with his sister Drusilla; nevertheless, he had her im- mortalized and worshiped as a divine being. This same Caligula who was a monster of depravity, in- sisted on being worshiped as a god in the flesh through- out the Roman empire, although the custom had been not to deify emperors until after they were dead. The cowardly and obsequious Roman senate decreed him a temple in Rome. The royal rascal erected another to himself, and appointed his own private priests and priestesses, among whom were his uncle Claudius, and the Caesonia who afterwards became his wife. This temple and its ministry were maintained at an enor- mous expense. Only the rarest and most costly birds GR^CO-ROMAN PAGANISM 235 like peacocks and pheasants, were allowed to be sacri- ficed to him. Such was the impious conceit of Calig- ula that he requested the Asiatics of Miletus to con- vert a temple of Apollo into a shrine sacred to him- self. Some of the noblest statuary of antiquity was mutilated in displacing the heads of gods to make places for the head of this wicked monster. A mighty 'descent this, indeed, from the Olympian Zeus of Phid- ias to a bust of Caligula! Domitian, after his deification, had himself styled " Lord and God," in all documents, and required all his subjects to so address him. Pliny tells us that the roads leading into Rome were constantly filled with flocks and herds being driven to the Capital to be sac- rificed upon his altar.^ The natural and inevitable result of the decay of the Roman religion was the corruption and demoraliza- tion of Roman social life. All experience teaches that an assault upon a people's religious system is an assault upon the entire social and moral organization. Every student of history knows that a nation will be pros- perous and happy to the extent that it is religiously intelligent, and in proportion to its loyalty to the laws of social virtue, to the laws of good government, and the laws of God; and that an abandonment of its gods means the wreck and dissolution of its entire social structure. The annals of Rome furnish a striking con- firmation of this fact. The closing pages of this chapter will be devoted to a short topical review of Roman society at the time of * Dollinger, vol. ii. pp. 175-79. 11,6 THE TRIAL OF JESUS Christ. Only a few phases of the subject can be pre- sented in a work of this character. II. GRi^CO-ROMAN SOCIAL LIFE Marriage and Divorce. — The family is the unit of the social system; and at the hearthstone all civiliza- tion begins. The loosening of the domestic ties is the beginning of the dissolution of the state; and whatever weakens the nuptial bonds, tends to destroy the moral fiber of society. The degradation of women and the destruction of domestic purity were the first signs of decay in Roman life. In the early ages of the republic, marriage was regarded not only as a contract, but as a sacrament as well. Connubial fidelity was sacredly maintained. Matrons of the type of Cornelia, the mother of the Gracchi, were objects of national pride and affection. The spirit of desperation which caused the father of Virginia to plunge a butcher's knife into the chaste and innocent heart of his child to save her from the lust of Appius Claudius, was a tragic illus- tration of the almost universal Roman respect for virtue in the age of the Tarquins. To such an extent were the marital relations venerated by the early Romans that we are assured by Dionysius that five hundred and twenty years had passed before a single divorce was granted. Carvilius Ruga, the name of the first Roman to procure a divorce, has been handed down to us.^ If we are to believe Dollinger, the abandonment of the policy of lifelong devotion to the marriage rela- * Dion. ii. 25. GRiECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 237 tion and the inauguration of the system of divorce were due not to the faults of the men but to the dangerous and licentious qualities of the Roman women. In con- nection with the divorce of Carvilius Ruga, he dis- cusses a widespread conspiracy of Roman wives to poison their husbands. Several of these husbands fell victims to this plot; and, as punishment for the crime, twenty married women were forced to take the poison which they had themselves prepared, and were thus put to death. And, about a half century after this divorce, several wives of distinguished Romans were discovered to be participants In the bacchanalian orgies. From all these things, DoUinger infers that the Roman men began to tire of their wives and to seek legal separation from them.^ But, whatever the cause, the marriage tie was so easily severed during the latter years of the republic, that divorce was granted on the slightest pretext. Q. Antistius Vetus divorced his wife because she was talk- ing familiarly and confidentially to one of his freed- men. The wife of C. Sulpicius imprudently entered the street without a veil, and her husband secured a divorce on that ground. P. Sempronius Sophus put away his wife for going to the theater without his knowledge. Cicero divorced his first wife that he might marry a younger and wealthier woman; and because this sec- ond one did not exhibit sufficient sorrow at the death of his daughter, Tullia, he repudiated her. Cato, the stern Stoic moralist, was several times di- 1 Dollinger, vol. ii. pp. 267-69. 238 THE TRIAL OF JESUS vorced. To accommodate his friend Hortensius he gave him his second wife Marcia, with her father's consent; and, after the death of the orator, he remar- ried her. After being several times previously divorced, Pom- pey put away Mucia in order that he might wed Julia, Caesar's daughter, who was young enough to be the child of Pompey. Caesar himself was five times married. He divorced his wife, Pompeia, because of her relationship to Clo- dius, a dashing and dissolute young Roman, who entered Caesar's house on the occasion of the celebra- tion of the feast of the Bona Dea in a woman's dress, in order that he might pay clandestine suit to the object of his lust. Caesar professed to believe that the charges against Pompeia were not true, but he divorced her nevertheless, with the remark that " Caesar's wife must be above suspicion." We are reminded by this that, in ancient as in modern times, society placed greater restrictions upon women than upon men; for Caesar, who uttered this virtuous and heroic sentiment, was a most notorious rake and profligate. Suetonius tells us that he debauched many Roman ladies of the first rank; among them " Lollia, the wife of Aulus Ga- binius; TertuUa, the wife of Marcus Crassus; and Mucia, the wife of Cneius Pompey." It was fre- quently made a reproach to Pompey, " that to gratify his ambition, he married the daughter of a man upon whose account he had divorced his wife, after having had three children by her; and whom he used, with a deep sigh, to call ^gisthus." But the favorite mistress GRiE CO-ROMAN PAGANISM 239 of Caesar was Servilia, the mother of Marcus Brutus. To consummate an intrigue with her, he gave Servilia a pearl which cost him six millions of sesterces. And at the time of the civil war he had deeded to her for a trifling consideration, several valuable farms. When people expressed surprise at the lowness of the price, Cicero humorously remarked: "To let you know the real value of the purchase, between ourselves, Tertia was deducted." It was generally suspected at Rome that Servilia had prostituted her daughter Ter- tia to Caesar; and the witticism of the orator was a double entendre^ Tertia signifying the third (of the value of the farm), as wtU as being the name of the girl, whose virtue had paid the price of the deduction. Caesar's lewdness was so flagrant and notorious that his soldiers marching behind his chariot, on the occasion of his Gallic triumph, shouted in ribald jest, to the multitude along the way: Watch well your wives, ye cits, we bring a blade, A bald-pate master of the wenching trade. ^ If this was the private life of the greatest Roman of the world, who, at the time of his death, was Pontifex Maximus, the supreme head of the Roman religion, what must have been the social life of the average citi- zen who delighted to style Caesar the demigod while living and to worship him as divine, when dead? A thorough knowledge of the details of the most corrupt and abandoned state of society recorded in history may be had by a perusal of the Annals of Taci- ^ Suetonius, "Julius Caesar," 1-li. 240 THE TRIAL OF JESUS tus and the Satires of Juvenal. The Sixth Satire is a withering arraignment of Roman profligacy and wick- edness. " To see the world in its worst estate," says Professor Jowett, " we turn to the age of the satirists and of Tacitus, when all the different streams of evil, coming from east, west, north, south, the vices of bar- barism and the vices of civilization, remnants of an- cient cults, and the latest refinements of luxury and impurity, met and mingled on the banks of the Tiber." Rome was the heart of the empire that pumped its filthy blood from the center to the extremities, and re- ceived from the provinces a return current of immo- rality and corruption. Juvenal complains that Long since the stream that wanton Syria laves, Has disembogued its filth in Tiber's waves. Grecian literature and manners were the main cause of Roman dissoluteness. The grandfather of Cicero is said to have made this declaration: " A Roman's wickedness increases in pro- portion to his acquaintance with Greek authors." Tt is undeniably true that the domestic immorality of the Greeks exercised a most baneful influence upon the social life of the Romans. Both at Athens and in Sparta marriage was regarded as the means to an end, the procreation of children as worshipers of the gods and citizens of the state. In this fundamental purpose were involved, the Greeks believed, the mission and the destiny of woman. Marriage was not so much a sacred institution, as it was a convenient arrangement whereby property rights were regulated and soldiers GRiECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 241 were provided for the army and the navy. This view was entertained by both the Athenians and the Spar- tans. The code of Lycurgus regulated the family re- lations to the end that healthy, vigorous children might be born to a military commonwealth. The Spartan maidens were required to exercise in the palestra, almost naked, in the presence of men and strangers. And so loose and extravagant were the ideas of con- jugal fidelity among the Spartans that it was not re- garded as an improper thing to borrow another man's wife for the purpose of procreating children, if there had already been born to the legitimate husband all the children that he desired. This we learn from Xenophon ^ and from Polybius,^ who assure us that it often happened that as many as four Spartans had one woman, in common, for a wife. " Already In the time of Socrates, the wives of Sparta had reached the height of disrepute for their wantonness throughout the whole of Greece; Aristotle says that they lived in unbridled licentiousness; and, indeed, it is a distinctive feature in the female character there, that publicly and shame- lessly they would speed a well-known seducer of a woman of rank by wishing him success, and charging him to think only of endowing Sparta with brave boys." ' At Athens the principle was the same, even if the gratification of lust was surrounded with a halo of poetry and sentiment which the Spartan imagination 1 Xen. de Rep. Lac. i. 8. 2 " Polyb. Fragm." in Scr. Vet. Nov. Coll. ed. Mav. ii. 384. 3 Dollinger, vol. ii. p. 249. 242 THE TRIAL OF JESUS was incapable of creating. The Athenians were guilty of a strange perversion of the social instincts by plac- ing a higher appreciation upon the charms of a certain class of lewd women that they did upon the virtuous merits of their own wives and mothers. These latter were kept in retirement and denied the highest educa- tional advantages; while the former, the Hetairai, beautiful and brilliant courtesans, destined for the pleasure and entertainment of illustrious men, were accorded the utmost freedom, as well as all the advan- tages of culture in the arts and sciences. Demosthenes has classified the women of ancient Athens in this sen- tence: "We have Hetairai for our pleasure, concu- bines for the ordinary requirements of the body, and wives for the procreation of lawful issue and as confi- dential domestic guardians." The most renowned of the Hetairai was Aspasia, the mistress of Pericles. She was exceedingly beautiful and brilliantly accom- plished. At her house in Athens, poets, philosophers, statesmen, and sculptors frequently gathered to do her honor. Pericles is said to have wept only three times in life; and one of these was when he defended Aspasia before the dicastery of Athens against the charge of impiety. Another of the Hetairai scarcely less famous than Aspasia was the celebrated Athenian courtesan, Phryne. Praxiteles, the sculptor, was one of her ador- ers. She, too, was tried for impiety before the dicas- tery. Hiperides, the Attic orator, defended her. To create a favorable impression upon the court, he bade her reveal her bosom to the judges. She did so, and GRiECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 243 was acquitted. So great was the veneration in which Phryne was held that it was considered no profanation to place her image in the sacred temple at Delphi. And so overwhelming was her beauty, that her statues were identified with the Aphrodite of Apelles and the Cnidian goddess of Praxiteles. At Eleusis, on the occasion of a national festival, she impersonated Venus by entering naked into the waves, in the presence of spectators from all the cities of Greece. She is said to have amassed such a fortune that she felt justified in offering to build the walls of Thebes. Such was the esteem in which these elegant harlots were held, that we find recorded among their patrons on the pages of Greek history the names of Pericles, Demades, Lysias, Demosthenes, Isocrates, Aristotle, Aristippus, and Epicurus. So little odium attached to the occupation of this class of women that we read that Socrates frequently paid visits to one of them named Theodota and advised her as to the best method of gaining " friends " and keeping them.^ As the sculptors did not hesitate to carve the images of the Hetairai in marble and give them the names of the goddesses of Olympus, so the poets, orators, and historians did not fail to immortalize them in their poems, orations, and annals. Greek statuary and lit- erature were then transported to Italy to corrupt Roman manners. It was not long before adultery and seduction had completely poisoned and polluted every fountain of Roman private life. *' Liaisons in the first houses," says Mommsen, " had become so frequent, 1 "Xen. Mem. Socr." iii. 13. 244 THE TRIAL OF JESUS that only a scandal altogether exceptional could make them the subject of special talk; a judicial interference seems now almost ridiculous." Roman women of patrician rank, not content with noblemen as lovers, sought out " lewd fellows of the baser sort" among slaves and gladiators, as compan- ions of corrupt intrigues. Juvenal, in his Sixth Satire, paints a horrible picture of social depravity when he describes the lewdness of Messalina, the wife of Clau- dius I. This woman, the wife of an emperor, and the mother of the princely Britannicus, descends from the imperial bed, in the company of a single female slave, at the dead of night, to a common Roman brothel, assumes the name Lycisca, and submits to the embraces of the coarsest Roman debauchees. The degradation of women was not peculiar to the Capital of the empire, but extended to every province. Social impurity was rankest in the East, but it was present everywhere. Virtue seemed to have left the earth, and Vice had taken her place as the supreme mistress of the world. Luxury and Extravagance. — At the birth of Christ, the frontiers of the Roman empire comprised all the territory of the then civilized world. In extending her conquests, Rome laid heavy tribute upon conquered nations. All the wealth of the earth flowed into her coffers. The result was unexampled luxury and ex- travagance. A single illustration will serve to show the mode of life of the wealthy Roman citizen of the time of which we write. LucuUus, the lieutenant of Sulla, and the friend of Cicero and Pompey, had GRiECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 245 amassed enormous wealth in the Mithradatlc wars. This fortune he employed to inaugurate and maintain a style of social life whose splendor and extravagance were the astonishment and scandal of his age and race. The meals served upon his table, even when no guests were present, were marked by all the taste, elegance, and completeness of a banquet. On one occasion, when he happened to dine alone, the table was not arranged with the ordinary fullness and splendor; whereupon he made complaint to the servants, who replied that they did not think it necessary to prepare so completely when he was alone. "What! did you not know that Lucullus would dine with LucuUus? " was his answer. At another time, Cicero and Pompey met him in the Forum and requested that he take them with him to dine, as they desired to learn how his table was spread when no visitors were expected. Lucullus was embar- rassed for a moment; but soon regained his composure, and replied that he would be delighted to have such distinguished Romans dine with him, but that he would like to have a day for preparation. They re- fused this request, however; nor would they con- sent that he send directions to his servants, as they desired to see how meals were served in his home when no guests were there. Lucullus then requested Cicero and Pompey to permit him to tell his serv- ants, in their presence, in what room the repast should be served. They consented to this; and Lucullus then directed that the Hall of Apollo should be ar- ranged for the dinner. Now the dining rooms in the home of Lucullus w^re graded in price; and it was 246 THE TRIAL OF JESUS only necessary to designate the room in order to notify the servants of the style and costliness of the entertain- ment desired. The Hall of Apollo called for an ex- penditure, at each meal, of fifty thousand drachmas, the equivalent of $10,000 in our money. And vs^hen Cicero and Pompey sat down at the table of Lucullus a few hours later, the decorations of the room and the feast spread before them, offered a spectacle of inde- scribable beauty and luxury. The epicure had out- w^itted the orator and the general. Other anecdotes related by Plutarch also illustrate the luxurious life of Lucullus. Once when Pompey was sick, his physician prescribed a thrush for his meal; whereupon Pompey's servants notified him that a thrush could not be secured in Italy during the summer time, except in the fattening coops of Lu- cullus. Cato despised the luxurious habits of Lucullus; and, on one occasion, when a young man was extolling the beauties of frugality and temperance in a speech before the senate, the Stoic interrupted him by asking: " How long do you mean to go on making money like Crassus, living like Lucullus and talking like Cato?"^ Lucullus was not the only Roman of his day who spent fabulous sums of money in luxurious living and in building palatial residences. M. Lepidus, who was elected Consul in 87 B.C., erected the most magnificent private edifice ever seen in Rome. But the culmination of magnificence in Roman architecture was the Golden House of Nero. Its walls 1 Plutarch, "Life of Lucullus." GRiECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 247 were covered with gold and studded with precious stones. The banquet rooms were decorated with gor- geous ceilings, and were so constructed that from them flowers and perfumes could be showered from above on the guests below. Concerning the luxurious life of the later days of the republic, Mommsen says: "Extravagant prices, as much as one hundred thousand sesterces (£1,000) were paid for an exquisite cook. Houses were con- structed with special reference to this subject. ... A dinner was already described as poor at which the fowls were served up to the guests entire, and not merely the choice portions. ... At banquets, above all, the Romans displayed their hosts of slaves minis- tering to luxury, their bands of musicians, their dancing-girls, their elegant furniture, their carpets glittering with gold, or pictorlally embroidered, their rich silver plate." ^ But the luxury and extravagance of the Romans were nowhere so manifest as in their public bathing establishments. " The magnificence of many of the thermae and their luxurious arrangements were such that some writers, as Seneca, are quite lost in their de- scriptions of them. The piscinae were often of im- mense size — that of Diocletian being 200 feet long — and were adorned with beautiful marbles. The halls were crowded with magnificent columns, and were ornamented with the finest pieces of statuary. The walls, it has been said, were covered with exquisite mosaics that Imitated the art of the painter in their 1 Fisher, "The Beginnings of Christianity," p. 205. 248 THE TRIAL OF JESUS elegance of design and variety of color. The Egyp- tian syenite was encrusted with the precious green marbles of Numidia. The rooms contained the works of Phidias and Praxiteles. A perpetual stream of water was poured into capacious basins through the wide mouths of lions of bright and polished silver. * To such a pitch of luxury have we reached,' says Seneca, * that we are dissatisfied if we do not tread on gems in our baths.' " ^ The circuses were scarcely inferior to the baths in magnificence. Caligula is said to have strewn them with gold dust. The result of Roman luxury in the matter of food and drink was a coarse and loathsome gluttony which finds no parallel in modern life. Epicureanism had degenerated from barley-bread and water to the cost- liest diet ever known. Wealthy Romans of the age of Augustus did not hesitate to pay two hundred and fifty dollars for a single fish — the mullet. And that they might indulge their appetite to the fullest extent, and prolong the pleasures of eating beyond the require- ments and even the capacity of nature, they were in the habit of taking an emetic at meal times. We learn from the letters of Cicero that Julius Caesar did this on one occasion when he went to visit the orator at his country villa. And the degeneracy of Roman life is nowhere more clearly indicated than in the Fourth Satire of Juvenal where he describes the gathering of the great men of the state, at the call of Domitian, to determine how a turbot should be cooked. 1 "Encyc. Brit." vol. iii. p. 436. GR^CO-ROMAN PAGANISM 249 But the reader must not infer that all Romans were rich and that luxury was indulged in every home. In the Roman capital the extremes of wealth and poverty met. The city was filled with idlers, vagabonds and paupers from all quarters of the globe. In the early days of the Republic, sturdy farmers had tilled the soil of Italy and had filled the legions with brave and hardy warriors. The beginning of the empire wit- nessed a radical change. Hundreds of thousands of these farmers had been driven from their lands to furnish homes to the disbanded soldiers of conquerors like Sulla, Marius, and Caesar. Homeless and pov- erty-stricken, they wandered away to Rome to swell the ranks of mendicants and adventurers that crowded the streets of the imperial city. The soldiers them- selves, finding agriculture distasteful and unprofitable, sold their lands to Roman speculators, and returned to the scene of the triumphs of their military masters. The inevitable consequence of this influx of strangers and foreigners, without wealth and without employ- ment, was the degradation and demoralization of Roman social and industrial life. Augustus was com- pelled to make annual donations of money and pro- visions to 200,000 persons who wandered helpless about the streets. This state of things — fabulous wealth in the hands of a few, and abject poverty as the lot of millions — was the harbinger sure and swift of the destruction of the state. Slavery. — At the beginning of the Christian era, slavery existed in every province of the Roman em- pire. Nearly everywhere the number of slaves was 250 THE TRIAL OF JESUS much greater than that of the free citizens. In Attica, according to the census of Demetrius Phale- reus, about the beginning of the fourth century B.C., there were 400,000 slaves, 10,000 foreign settlers, and 20,000 free citizens. Zumpt estimates that there were two slaves to every freeman in Rome in the year 5 B.C. It frequently happened that a wealthy Roman pos- sessed as many as 20,000 slaves. Slaves who gained their freedom might themselves become masters and own slaves. During the reign of Augustus, a freed- man died, leaving 4,116 slaves. Crassus possessed so many that his company of architects and carpenters alone exceeded 500 in number. The principal slave markets of Greece were those at Athens, Ephesus, Cyprus, and Samos. In the market place of each of these cities, slaves were exposed for sale upon wooden scaffolds. From the neck of each was hung a tablet or placard containing a description of his or her meritorious qualities, such as parentage, educational advantages, health and freedom from physical defects. They were required to strip them- selves at the request of purchasers. In this way, the qualifications of slaves for certain purposes could be accurately judged. The vigorous, large-limbed Cap- padocians, for instance, like our modern draft horses, were selected for their strength and their ability to lift heavy loads and endure long-continued work. The property of the master in the slave was absolute. The owner might kill or torture his slave at will. Neither the government nor any individual could bring him to account for it. Roman law compelled GRiECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 251 female slaves to surrender themselves, against their will, to their master's lust. All the coarseness and bru- tality of the haughty, arrogant, and merciless Roman disposition v^ere manifested in the treatment of their slaves. Nowhere do we find any mercy or humanity shown them. On the farms they worked with chains about their limbs during the day; and at night they were lodged in the ergastula — subterranean apart- ments, badly lighted and poorly ventilated. The most cruel punishment awaited the slave who attempted to escape. The fugitavarii — professional slave chasers — ran him down, branded him on the forehead, and brought him back to his master. If the master was very rich, or cared little for the life of the slave, he usually commanded him to be thrown, as a punishment for his attempt to flee, to the wild beasts in the amphi- theater. This cruel treatment was not exceptional, but was ordinary. Cato, the paragon among the Stoics, was so merciless in his dealings with his slaves that one of them committed suicide rather than await the hour of punishment for some transgression of which he was guilty.^ It frequently happened that the slaves had knowledge of crimes committed by their masters. In such cases they were fortunate if they escaped death, as the probability of their becoming witnesses against their masters offered every inducement to put them out of the way. In his defense of Cluentius, Cicero speaks of a slave who had his tongue cut out to prevent his betraying his mistress.^ If a slave murdered his mas- ter, all his fellow-slaves under the same roof were held 1 Plutarch, "Life of Cato." 2 Qcero, " Pro Cluent." 66. 252 THE TRIAL OF JESUS responsible for the deed. Thus four hundred slaves were put to death for the act of one who assassinated Pedanius Secundus, during the reign of Nero/ Au- gustus had his steward, Eros, crucified on the mast of his ship because the slave had roasted and eaten a quail that had been trained for the royal quail-pit. Once a slave was flung to the fishes because he had broken a crystal goblet.^ On another occasion, a slave was com- pelled to march around a banquet table, in the pres- ence of the guests, with his hands, which had been cut off, hanging from his neck, because he had stolen some trifling article of silverware. Cicero, in his prosecu- tion of Verres, recites an instance of mean and cow- ardly cruelty toward a slave. " At the time," he says, ** in which L. Domitius was prsetor in Sicily, a slave killed a wild boar of extraordinary size. The praetor, struck by the dexterity and courage of the man, de- sired to see him. The poor wretch, highly gratified with the distinction, came to present himself before the praetor, in hopes, no doubt, of praise and reward; but Domitius, on learning that he had only a javelin to attack and kill the boar, ordered him to be instantly crucified, under the barbarous pretext that the law I prohibited the use of this weapon, as of all others, to slaves." The natural consequence of this cruel treatment was unbounded hatred of the master by the slave. *' We have as many enemies," says Seneca, " as we have slaves." And what rendered the situation perilous was ^ Tacitus, "Annals," 42-44. 2 De Pressense, "The Religions Before Christ," p. 158. GR.ECO-ROMAN PAGANISM is:^ the numerical superiority of the slave over the free population. " They multiply at an immense rate," says Tacitus, " whilst freemen diminish in equal pro- portion." Pliny the Younger gave expression to the universal apprehension w^hen he v^^rote: "By what dangers we are beset! No one is safe; not even the most indulgent, gentlest master." Precautionary meas- ures were adopted from time to time both by indi- viduals and by the government to prevent concerted action among the slaves and to conceal from them all evidences of their own strength. To keep down mu- tiny among his slaves, Cato is said to have constantly excited dissension and enmity among them. " It was once proposed," says Gibbon, " to discriminate the slaves by a peculiar habit; but it was justly appre- hended that there might be some danger in acquaint- ing them with their own numbers." ^ If the Roman masters maltreated and destroyed the bodies of their slaves, the slaves retaliated by corrupt- ing and destroying the morals of their masters. The institution of slavery was one of the most potent agen- cies in the demoralization of ancient Roman manners. The education of children was generally confided to the slaves, who did not fail to poison their minds and hearts in many ways. In debauching their female slaves, the Roman masters polluted their own morals and corrupted their own manhood. The result teaches us that the law of physics is the law of morals: that action and reaction are equal, but in opposite direc- tions. 1 Milman's "Gibbon's Rome," vol, i, p. 51. 254 THE TRIAL OF JESUS Destruction of New-Born Infants. — The destruction of new-born children was the deepest stain upon the civilization of the ancient Greeks and Romans. In obedience to a provision of the code of Lycurgus, every Spartan child was exhibited immediately after birth to public view; and, if it was found to be deformed and weakly, so that it was unfit to grow into a strong and healthy citizen of the Spartan military common- wealth, it was exposed to perish on Mount Taygetus. The practice of exposing infants was even more arbi- trary and cruel in Rome than in Greece. The Roman father was bound by no limitations; but could cast his offspring away to die, through pure caprice. Paulus, the celebrated jurist of the imperial period, admitted that this was a paternal privilege. Suetonius tells us that the day of the death of Germanicus, which took place A.D. 19, was signalized by the exposition of chil- dren who were born on that day.^ This was done as a manifestation of general sorrow. The emperor Au- gustus banished his granddaughter Julia on account of her lewdness and licentiousness, as he had done in the case of his daughter, Julia. In exile, she gave birth to a child which Augustus caused to be exposed. It often happened that new-born babes that had been cast away to die of cold and hunger or to be devoured by dogs or wild beasts were rescued by miscreants who brought them up to devote them to evil purposes. The male children were destined to become gladiators, and the females were sold to houses of prostitution. Often such children were picked up by those who disfigured 1 Suetonius, "Caligula," Chap. V. GR^CO-ROMAN PAGANISM 255 and deformed them for the purpose of associating them with themselves as beggars. The custom of exposing infants was born of the spirit of fierceness and barbarity that characterized many ancient races. Its direct tendency was to make savages of men by destroying those tender and humane feelings for the weak and helpless which have been the most marked attributes of modern civilizations. Oc- casionally in our day one hears or reads of a proposi- tion by some pseudo-philanthropist that the good of the race demands the destruction of certain persons — deformed infants, imbecile adults and the like. But the humanity of the age invariably frowns upon such proposals. The benign and merciful features of our Christian creed would be outraged by such a practice. Gladiatorial Games. — The combats of gladiators wxre the culmination of Roman barbarity and brutal- ity. All the devotees of vice and crime met and min- gled at the arena, and derived strength and inspiration from its bloody scenes. The gatherings in the am- phitheater were miniatures of Roman life. There, political matters were discussed and questions of state determined, as was once the case in the public assem- blies of the people. Now that the gates of Janus were closed for the third time in Roman history, the com- bats of the arena took the place, on a diminutive scale, of those battles by which Romans had conquered the world. The processions of the gladiators reminded the enthusiastic populace of the triumphal entries of their conquerors into the Roman capital. Nothing so glutted the appetite and quenched the thirst of a cruel 1S6 THE TRIAL OF JESUS and licentious race as the gorgeous ceremonials and bloody butchery of the gladiatorial shows. These contests, strange to say, first took place at funerals, and were intended to honor the dead. In 264 B.C., at the burial of D. Junius Brutus, we are told, three pairs of gladiators fought in the cattle market. Again, in 216 B.C., at the obsequies of M. iEmilius Lepidus, twenty-two pairs engaged in combat in the Forum. And, in 174 B.C., on the death of his father, Titus Flaminius caused seventy-four pairs to fight for three days.^ It will thus be seen that the death of one Roman generally called for that of several others. In time, the fondness of these contests had grown so great that generals and statesmen arranged them on a gigantic scale as a means of winning the favor and sup- port of the multitude. The Roman proletariat de- manded not only bread to satisfy their hunger, but games to amuse them in their hours of idleness. Au- gustus not only gave money and rations to 200,000 idlers, but inaugurated gladiatorial shows in which 10,000 combatants fought. Not only men but wild beasts were brought into the arena. Pompey arranged a fight of 500 lions, 18 elephants and 410 other fero- cious animals, brought from Africa. In a chase ar- ranged by Augustus, A.D. 5, 36 crocodiles were killed in the Flaminian circus, which was flooded for the purpose. Caligula brought 400 bears into the arena to fight with an equal number of African wild animals. But all previous shows were surpassed in the magnificent games instituted by Trajan, A.D. 106, 1 Fisher, "The Beginnings of Christianity," p. 213. GR^CO-ROMAN PAGANISM 257 to celebrate his victories on the Danube. These games lasted four months; and, in them, 10,000 gladiators fought, and 11,000 beasts were slain. Such was the thirst for blood, and to such a pitch had the fury of the passions reached at the beginning of the empire that Romans were no longer satisfied with small fights by single pairs. They began to de- mand regular battles and a larger flow of blood. And to please the populace, Julius Caesar celebrated his triumph by a real battle in the circus. On each side were arrayed 500 foot soldiers, 300 cavalrymen, and 20 elephants bearing soldiers in towers upon their backs. This was no mimic fray, but an actual battle in which blood was shed and men were killed. To vary the en- tertainment, Caesar also arranged a sea fight. He caused a lake to be dug out on Mars Field, and placed battleships upon it which represented Tyrian and Egyptian fleets. These he caused to be manned by a thousand soldiers and 2,000 oarsmen. A bloody fight then ensued between men who had no other motive in killing each other than to furnish a Roman holi- day. Augustus also arranged a sea fight upon an artificial lake where 3,000 men were engaged. But both these battles were eclipsed by the great sea fight which the emperor Claudius caused to be fought on Lake Fucinus, in the presence of a great multitude that lined the shore. Nineteen thousand men engaged in the bloody struggle. On an eminence overlooking the lake, the Empress Agrippina, in gor- geous costume, sat by the side of the emperor and watched the battle. 25? THE TRIAL OF JESUS Announcement of gladiatorial fights in the amphi- theater was made by posters on the walls of the city. In these advertisements, the number and names of the fighters were announced. On the day of the perform- ance a solemn procession of gladiators, walking in couples, passed through the streets to the arena. The arrangements of the building and the manner of the fights were so ordered as to arouse to the highest pitch of excitement the passions and expectations of the spectators. The citizens were required to wear the white toga. The lower rows of seats were occupied by senators, in whose midst were the boxes occupied by the imperial family. The equestrian order occupied places immediately above the senators. The citizens were seated next after the equestrians ; and in the top- most rows, on benches, were gathered the Roman rab- ble. An immense party-colored awning, stretched above the multitude, reflected into the arena its varie- gated hues. Strains of music filled the air while preparations for the combat were being made. The atmosphere of the amphitheater was kept cool and fragrant by frequent sprays of perfume. The regular combat was preceded by a mock fight with blunt weapons. Then followed arrangements for the life- and-death struggle. The manager of the games finally gave the command, and the fight was on. When one of the gladiators was wounded, the words " hoc habet " were shouted. The wounded man fell to the earth, dropped his weapon, and, holding up his forefinger, begged his life from the people. If mercy was refused him, he was compelled to renew the combat or to sub- GRiECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 259 mit to the death stroke of his antagonist. Attendants were at hand with hot irons to apply to the victim to see that death was not simulated. If life was not ex- tinct, the fallen gladiator was dragged out to the dead room, and there dispatched. Servants then ran into the arena and scattered sand over the blood-drenched ground. Other fighters standing in readiness, immedi- ately rushed in to renew the contest. Thus the fight went on until the Roman populace was glutted with butchery and blood. Gladiators were chosen from the strongest and most athletic among slaves and condemned criminals. Thra- cians, Gauls, and Germans were captured and enslaved for the purpose of being sacrificed in the arena. They were trained with the greatest care in gladiatorial schools. The most famous of these institutions was at Capua in Italy. It was here that Spartacus, a young Thracian, of noble ancestry, excited an insurrection that soon spread throughout all Italy and threatened the destruction of Rome. Addressing himself to sev- enty of his fellow-gladiators, Spartacus is said to have made a bitter and impassioned speech in which he pro- posed that, if they must die, they should die fighting their enemies and not themselves; that, if they were to engage in bloody battles, these battles should be fought under the open sky in behalf of life and liberty, and not in the amphitheater to furnish pastime and enter- tainment to their masters and oppressors. The speech had its effect. The band of fighters broke out of Capua, and took refuge in the crater of Mount Vesu- vius {y;^ B.C.). Spartacus became the leader, with 26o THE TRIAL OF JESUS Crixus and CEnomaus, two Celtic gladiators, as lieu- tenants. Their ranks soon swelled to the proportions of an army, through accessions of slaves and despe- radoes from the neighborhood of the volcano. During two years, they terrorized all Italy, defeated two con- suls, and burned many cities. Crixus was defeated and killed at Mount Gargarus in Apulia by the praEtor Arrius. Spartacus compelled three hundred Roman prisoners, whom he had captured, to fight as gladia- tors, following Roman custom, at the grave of his fallen comrade and lieutenant. Finally, he himself was slain, sword in hand, having killed two centurions before he fell. With the death of their leaders, the insurgents either surrendered or fled. Those who were captured were crucified. It is said that the entire way from Capua to Rome was marked by crosses on which their bodies were suspended, to the number of ten thousand.^ Throughout Italy were amphitheaters for gladiato- rial games. But the largest and most celebrated of all was the Coliseum at Rome. Its ruins are still stand- ing. It was originally called the Flavian Amphithea- ter. This vast building was begun A.D. 72, upon the site of the reservoir of Nero, by the emperor Vespa- sian, who built as far as the third row of arches, the last two rows being finished by Titus after his return from the conquest of Jerusalem. It is said that twelve thousand captive Jews were employed in this work, as the Hebrews were employed in building the Pyramids of Egypt, and that the external walls alone cost nearly 1 Pliny, Ep. X. 38. u g GRiE CO-ROMAN PAGANISM 261 four millions of dollars. It consists of four stories: the first, Doric; the second, Ionic; the third and fourth, Corinthian. Its circumference is nearly two thou- sand feet; its length, six hundred and twenty feet; and its width, five hundred and thirteen. The entrance for the emperor was between two arches facing the Esqui- line, where there was no cornice. The arena was sur- rounded by a wall sufficiently high to protect the spec- tators from the wild beasts, which were introduced by subterranean passages, closed by huge gates from the side. The Amphitheater is said to have been capable of seating eighty-seven thousand people, and was in- augurated by gladiatorial games that lasted one hun- dred days, and in which five thousand beasts were slain. The emperor Commodus himself fought in the Coliseum, and killed both gladiators and wild beasts. He insisted on calling himself Hercules, was dressed in a lion's skin, and had his hair sprinkled with gold dust. An oriental monk, Talemachus, was so horrified at the sight of the gladiatorial games, that he rushed into the midst of the arena, and besought the spectators to have them stopped. Instead of listening to him, they put him to death. The first martyrdom in the Coliseum was that of St. Ignatius, said to have been the child especially blessed by our Savior, the disciple of John, and the companion of Polycarp, who was sent to Rome from Antioch when he was bishop. When brought into the^ arena, St. Ignatius knelt down and exclaimed: " Romans who are here present, know that I have not been brought into this place for any crime, but in order that by this 262 THE TRIAL OF JESUS means I may merit the fruition of the glory of God, for love of whom I have been made a prisoner. I am as the grain of the field and must be ground by the teeth of the lions that I may become bread fit for His table." The lions were then let loose, and devoured him, except the larger bones which the Christians col- lected during the night. The spot where the Christian martyrs suffered was for a long time marked by a tall cross devoutly kissed by the faithful. The Pulpit of the Coliseum was used for the stormy sermons of Gavazzi, who called the people to arms from thence in the Revolution of March, 1848. Gr(2co-Roman Social Depravity, Born of Religion and Traceable to the Gods. — The modern mind iden- tifies true religion with perfect purity of heart and with boundless love. " Do unto others as you would have others do unto you " is the leading aphorism of both the Hebrew and Christian faiths. The Sermon on the Mount is the chart of the soul on the sea of life; and its beatitudes are the glorifications of the virtues of meekness, mercy, and peace. To the mind imbued with the divine precepts of the Savior, it seems incredi- ble that religion should have ever been the direct source of crime and sin. It is, nevertheless, a well- established fact that the Roman and Greek mytholo- gies were the potent causes of political corruption and social impurity in both Italy and Greece. Nothing better illustrates this truth than the abominable prac- tice that found its inspiration and excuse in the myth of the rape of Ganymede. The guilty passion of Zeus GRiECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 161, for the beautiful boy whom he, himself, in the form of an eagle, had snatched up from earth and carried away to Olympus to devote to shameful and unnatural uses, was the foundation, in Greece, of the most loathsome habit that ever disgraced the conduct of men. Passion- ate fondness for beautiful boys, called paiderastia in Greek, termed sodomy in modern criminal law, was the curse and infamy of both Roman and Grecian life. This unnatural vice was not confined to the vulgar and degenerate. Men of letters, poets, statesmen and phi- losophers, debased themselves with this form of pollu- tion. It was even legalized by the laws of Crete and Sparta. Polybius tells us that many Romans paid as much as a talent ($1,000) for a beautifully formed youth. This strange perversion of the sexual instincts was marked by all the tenderness and sweetness of a modern courtship or a honeymoon. The victim of this degrading and disgusting passion treated the beautiful boy with all the delicacy and feeling generally paid a newly wedded wife. Kisses and caresses were at times showered upon him. At other times, he became an object of insane jealousy. An obscene couplet in Suetonius attributes this filthy habit to Julius Caesar in the matter of an abominable relationship with the King of Bithynia.^ " So strong was the influence of the prevalent epidemic on Plato, that he had lost all sense of the love of women, and in his descriptions of Eros, divine as well as human, his thoughts were centered only in his boy passion. The result in Greece confessedly was that the inclination ^ Suetonius, "Julius Caesar," Chap. XLIX. 264 THE TRIAL OF JESUS for a woman was looked upon as low and dishonorable, while that for a youth was the only one worthy of a man of education." ^ A moment's reflection will convince the most skep- tical of the progress of morality and the advance of civilization. That which philosophers and emperors not only approved but practiced in the palmiest days of the commonwealths of Greece and Rome, is to-day penalized; and the person guilty of the offense is so- cially ostracized and branded with infamy and con- tempt. The above is only one of many illustrations of the demoralizing influence of the myths. The Greeks looked to the gods as models of behavior, and could see nothing wrong in paiderastia, since both Zeus and Apollo had practiced it. Nearly every crime com- mitted by the Greeks and Romans was sought to be excused on the ground that the gods had done the same thing. Euthyphro justified mistreatment of his own father on the ground that Zeus had chased Cronos, his father, from the skies. Homer was not only the Bible, but the schoolbook of Grecian boys and girls throughout the world; and their minds were saturated at an early age with the es- capades of the gods and goddesses as told by the im- mortal bard. Plato, in the " Republic," deprecates the influence of the Homeric myths upon the youth of Greece, when he says: " They are likely to have a bad effect on those who hear them; for everybody will begin to excuse his own vices when he is convinced that ^ Dollinger, vol. ii. pp. 253, 254. GR.ECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 265 similar wickednesses are always being perpetrated by the kindred of the gods." And Seneca thus condemns the moral effect of the myth of Zeus and Alcmene: " What else is this appeal to the precedent of the gods for, but to inflame our lusts, and to furnish a free li- cense and excuse for the corrupt act under shelter of its divine prototype? " " This," says the same author in another treatise, " has led to no other result than to deprive sin of its shame in man's eyes, when he saw that the gods were no better than himself." We have seen that, in the matter of the multiplicity of the gods, there were deities of the baser as well as of the better passions, and of criminal as well as virtu- ous propensities. Pausanias tells us that, in his day, on the road to Pellene, there were statues of Hermes Dolios (the cheat), and that the worshipers of this god believed that he was always ready to help them in their intrigues and adventures. The same writer also tells us that young maidens of Troezene dedicated their girdles to Athene Apaturia, the deceiver, for having cunningly betrayed ^^thra into the hands of Neptune. The festivals of Bacchus were far-famed in ancient times for the drunken debauches and degrading cere- monies that accompanied them. The Attic feasts of Pan were celebrated with every circumstance of low buffoonery. The solemnities of the Aphrodisia were akin to the bacchanalian orgies in all the features of inebriety and lust. The name of the goddess of love and beauty was blazoned across the portal of more than one Greek and Roman brothel. The Aphrodite- Lamia at Athens and the Aphrodite-Stratonikis at iSe THE TRIAL OF JESUS Smyrna were the favorite resorts of the most famous courtesans of antiquity. Venus was the recognized goddess of the harlots. A thousand of them guarded her temple at Corinth; and, when an altar was erected to her at the Colline gate in Rome, in the year 183 A.U.C., they celebrated a great feast in her honor, and dedicated chaplets of myrtle and roses, as a means of obtaining her favor as the guardian divinity of their calling. What more could be expected, then, of the morality of the Greeks and Romans, when we consider the nature of their religion and the character of their gods? Jupiter and Apollo were notorious rakes and libertines; Venus and Flora were brazen-faced cour- tesans; Harmonia was a Phrygian dancer, who had been seduced by Cadmus; Hercules was a gladiator; Pan was a buffoon; Bacchus was a drunkard, and Mercury was a highway robber. And not only in the poems of Homer and Hesiod did the Greek and Roman youth learn these things, but from the plays of the theaters and from plastic art as well. If we except the gladiatorial fights in the amphitheaters, nothing was more cruel and unchaste than Greek and Roman tragedy and comedy. At the time of Christ, the tastes and appetites of the multitude had grown so fierce and depraved that ordinary spectacles were regarded as commonplace and insipid. Lifelike realities were de- manded from the actors on the stage; and accordingly, the hero who played the role of the robber chief, Laureolus, was actually crucified before the specta- tors, and was then torn to pieces by a hungry bear. GR.^ CO-ROMAN PAGANISM 267 The burning of Hercules on Mount CEta and the emasculation of Atys were sought to be realized on the stage by the actual burning and emasculation of con- demned criminals. Lustful as well as cruel appetites were inflamed and fed by theatrical representations of the intrigues and adventures of the gods and goddesses. Pantomimes and mimic dances, with flute accompani- ment, were employed to reproduce the amours and passionate devotions of the inhabitants of Olympus. The guilty loves of Aphrodite with Mars and Adonis, the adventures of Jupiter and Apollo with the wives and daughters of mortals, were the plays most fre- quently presented and most wildly applauded. And the ignorant rabble were not the only witnesses of these spectacles. " The sacerdotal colleges and authorities," says Arnobius, " flamens, and augurs, and chaste ves- tals, all have seats at these public amusements. There are seated the collective people and senate, consuls and consulars, while Venus, the mother of the Roman race, is danced to the life, and in shameless mimicry is rep- resented as reveling through all the phases of mere- tricious lust. The great mother, too, is danced; the Dindymene of Pessinus, in spite of her age, surrender- ing herself to disgusting passion in the embraces of a cowherd. The supreme ruler of the world is himself brought in, without respect to his name or majesty, to play the part of an adulterer, masking himself in order to deceive chaste wives, and take the place of their husbands in the nuptial bed." ^ Not only gladiatorial games and theatrical shows, ^ DoUinger, vol. ii. pp. 205, 206. a68 THE TRIAL OF JESUS but painting and sculpture as well, served to corrupt and demoralize Roman and Greek manners. Nor is there any prudery in this statement. The masterpieces of the Greek artists have been the astonishment and de- spair of all succeeding ages; and the triumphs of mod- ern art have been but poor imitations of the models of the first masters. But it is, nevertheless, true that the embodiment in marble of certain obscene myths was destructive of ancient morals. The paintings in the temples and houses of the cities of Greece and Italy were a constant menace to the mental purity of those who gazed upon them. The statue of Ganymede at the side of Zeus was a perpetual reminder to the youth of Athens of the originator of the loathsome custom of paiderastia. The paintings of Leda and the swan, of the courtship of Dionysus and Ariadne, of the naked Aphrodite ensnared and caught in the net with Ares that adorned the walls and ceilings of Greek and Ro- man homes, were not too well calculated to inspire pure and virtuous thoughts in the minds and hearts of tender youths and modest maidens who looked upon and contemplated them. At Athens, especially, was the corrupting influence of painting and plastic art most deeply felt. " At every step," says Dollinger, *' which a Greek or Roman took, he was surrounded by images of his gods and memorials of their mythic history. Not the temples only, but streets and public squares, house walls, domestic implements and drink- ing vessels, were all covered and incrusted with orna- ments of the kind. His eye could rest nowhere, not a piece of money could he take into his hand without GRiECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 269 confronting a god. And in this way, through the magical omnipresence of plastic art, the memory of his gods had sunk into his soul indelibly, grown up with every operation of his intellect, and inseparably blended with every picture of his imagination." ^ It can thus be easily imagined how close the connec- tion between the social depravity and the religion of the Greeks and Romans. What was right in the con- duct of the gods, men could not deem sinful in their own behavior. Indeed, lewd and lascivious acts were frequently proclaimed not only right, but sacred, because they had been both sanctioned and committed by the gods themselves. *' As impurity," says Dol- linger, " formed a part of religion, people had no scruples in using the temple and its adjoining build- ings for the satisfaction of their lust. The construction of many of the temples and the prevalent gloom favored this. ' It is a matter of general notoriety,' Ter- tullian says, ' that the temples are the very places where adulteries were arranged, and procuresses pur- sue their victims between the altars.' In the chambers of the priests and ministers of the temple, impurity was committed amid clouds of incense; and this, Minucius adds, more frequently than in the privileged haunts of this sin. The sanctuaries and priests of Isis at Rome were specially notorious in this respect. * As this Isis was the concubine of Jove herself, she also makes prostitutes of others,' Ovid said. Still more shameful sin was practiced in the temples of the Pessi- nuntine mother of the gods, where men prostituted ^ Dollinger, vol. ii. p. 207. 270 THE TRIAL OF JESUS themselves and made a boast of their shame after- wards." ^ The Bacchanalian Orgies. — The most interesting passage of ancient literature dealing with social life in its relation to religious observances, is an extract from Livy, the most elegant of Roman historians. This pas- sage describes the bacchanalian orgies, and gives ex- quisite touches to certain phases of ancient Roman social life. Its insertion here entire is excused on the ground of its direct bearing upon the subject matter of this chapter: A Greek of mean condition came, first, into Etruria; not with one of the many trades which his nation, of all others the most skilful in the cultivation of the mind and body, has introduced among us, but a low operator in sacrifices, and a soothsayer; nor was he one who, by open religious rites, and by publicly professing his calling and teaching, imbued the minds of his followers with terror, but a priest of secret and nocturnal rites. These mysterious rites were, at first, im- parted to a few, but afterwards communicated to great numbers, both men and women. To their religious perform- ances were added the pleasures of wine and feasting, to al- lure a greater number of proselytes. When wine, lascivious discourse, night, and the intercourse of the sexes had extin- guished every sentiment of modesty, then debaucheries of every kind began to be practiced, as every person found at hand that sort of enjoyment to which he was disposed by the passion predominant in his nature. Nor were they con- fined to one species of vice — the promiscuous intercourse of free-born men and women; but from this store-house of vil- lany proceeded false witnesses, counterfeit seals, false evi- dences, and pretended discoveries. From the same place, too, proceeded poison and secret murders, so that in some cases, even the bodies could not be found for burial. Many of their 1 Dollinger, vol. ii. p. 208. P4 GR.E CO-ROMAN PAGANISM 271 audacious deeds were brought about by treachery, but most of them by force; it served to conceal the violence, that on account of the loud shouting, and the noise of drums and cymbals, none of the cries uttered by the persons suffering violation or murder could be heard abroad. The infection of this mischief, like that from the con- tagion of disease, spread from Etruria to Rome; where, the size of the city affording greater room for such evils, and more means of concealment, cloaked it at first; but informa- tion of it was at length brought to the consul, Postumius, principally in the following manner. Publius i^butius, whose father had held equestrian rank in the army, was left an or- phan, and his guardians dying, he was educated under the eye of his mother Duronia, and his stepfather Titus Sem- pronius Rutilus. Duronia was entirely devoted to her hus- band; and Sempronius, having managed the guardianship in such a manner that he could not give an account of the prop- erty, wished that his ward should be either made away with, or bound to compliance with his will by some strong tie. The Bacchanalian rites were the only way to effect the ruin of the youth. His mother told him, that, " During his sick- ness, she had made a vow for him, that if he should recover, she would initiate him among the Bacchanahans; that being, through the kindness of the gods, bound by this vow, she wished now to fulfil it; that it was necessary he should pre- serve chastity for ten days, and on the tenth, after he should have supped and washed himself, she would conduct him into the place of worship." There was a freedwoman called Hispala Fecenia, a noted courtesan, but deserving of a bet- ter lot than the mode of life to which she had been accus- torned when very young, and a slave, and by which she had maintained herself since her manumission. As they lived in the same neighborhood, an intimacy subsisted between her and i^butius, which was far from being injurious either to the young man's character or property; for he had been loved and wooed by her unsolicited; and as his friends supplied his wants illiberally, he was supported by the generosity of this woman; nay, to such a length did she go under the in- fluence of her affection, that, on the death of her patron, 272 THE TRIAL OF JESUS because she was under the protection of no one, having peti- tioned the tribunes and praetors for a guardian, when she was mai<;ing her will, she constituted iEbutius her sole heir. As such pledges of mutual love subsisted, and as neither kept anything secret from the other, the young man jokingly bid her not be surprised if he separated himself from her for a few nights; as, "on account of a religious duty, to discharge a vow made for his health, he intended to be in- itiated among the Bacchanalians." On hearing this, the woman, greatly alarmed, cried out, *' May the gods will more favorably! " affirming that " It would be better, both for him and her, to lose their lives than that he should do such a thing:" she then imprecated curses, vengeance, and destruction on the head of those who advised him to such a step. The young man, surprised both at her expressions and at the violence of her alarm, bid her refrain from curses, for " it was his mother who ordered him to do so, with the approbation of his stepfather." " Then," said she, " your stepfather (for perhaps it is not allowable to censure your mother), is in haste to destroy, by that act, your chastity, your character, your hopes and your life." To him, now surprised by such language, and inquiring what was the mat- ter, she said, (after imploring the favor and pardon of the gods and goddesses, if, compelled by her regard for him, she disclosed what ought not to be revealed), that "when in service, she had gone into that place of worship, as an attendant on her mistress, but that, since she had obtained her liberty, she had never once gone near it : that she knew it to be the receptacle of all kinds of debaucheries; that it was well known that, for two years past, no one older than twenty had been initiated there. When any person was in- troduced he was delivered as a victim to the priests, who led him away to a place resounding with shouts, the sound of music, and the beating of cymbals and drums, lest his cries while suffering violation, should be heard abroad." She then entreated and besought him to put an end to that matter in some way or other; and not to plunge himself into a situa- tion, where he must first suffer, and afterwards commit, everything that was abominable. Nor did she quit him until GR.^CO-ROMAN PAGANISM 273 the young man gave her his promise to keep himself clear of those rites. When he came home, and his mother made mention of such things pertaining to the ceremony as were to be per- formed on that day, and on the several following days, he told her that he would not perform any of them, nor did he intend to be initiated. His i>iepfather was present at this discourse. Immediately the woman observed that " he could not deprive himself of the company of Hispala for ten nights; that he was so fascinated by the caresses and baneful influence of that serpent, that he retained no respect for his mother or stepfather, or even the gods themselves." His mother on one side and his stepfather on the other loading him with reproaches, drove him out of the house, assisted by four slaves. The youth on this repaired to his aunt ^butia, told her the reason of his being turned out by his mother, and the next day, by her advice, gave information of the affair to the consul Postumius, without any witnesses of the interview. The consul dismissed him, with an order to come again on the third day following. In the meantime, he inquired of his mother-in-law, Sulpicia, a woman of re- spectable character, "whether she knew an old matron called iEbutia, who lived on the Aventine hill? " When she had answered that " she knew her well, and that iEbutia was a woman of virtue, and of the ancient purity of morals; " he said that he required a conference with her, and that a mes- senger should be sent for her to come. ^Ebutia, on receiving the message, came to Sulpicia's house, and the consul, soon after, coming in, as if by accident, introduced a conversation about i^Ibutius, her brother's son. The tears of the woman burst forth, and she began to lament the unhappy lot of the youth : who after being robbed of his property by persons whom it least of all became, was then residing with her, being driven out of doors by his mother, because, being a good youth (may the gods be propitious to him), he refused to be initiated in ceremonies devoted to lewdness, as report goes. The consul thinking that he had made sufficient inquiries concerning ^Ebutius, and that his testimony was unquestion- 274 THE TRIAL OF JESUS able, having dismissed iEbutia, requested his mother-in-law to send again to the Aventine, and bring from that quarter Hispala, a freedwoman, not unknown in that neighborhood; for there were some queries which he wished to mal<.e of her. Hispala being alarmed because she was being sent for by a woman of such high rank and respectable character, and being ignorant of the cause, after she saw the lictors in the porch, the multitude attending to the consul and the consul himself, was very near fainting. The consul led her into the retired part of the house, and, in the presence of his mother-in-law, told her, that she need not be uneasy, if she could resolve to speak the truth. She might receive a prom- ise of protection either from Sulpicia, a matron of such dig- nified character, or from himself. That she ought to tell him, what was accustomed to be done at the Bacchanalia, in the nocturnal orgies in the grove of Stimula. When the woman heard this, such terror and trembling of all her limbs seized her, that for a long time she was unable to speak; but recovering at length she said, that " when she was very young, and a slave, she had been initiated, together with her mis- tress; but for several years past, since she had obtained her liberty, she knew nothing of what was done there." The consul commended her so far, as not having denied that she was initiated, but charged her to explain all the rest with the same sincerity; and told her, affirming that she knew nothing further, that " there would not be the same tender- ness or pardon extended to her, if she should be convicted by another person, and one who had made a voluntary con- fession; that there was such a person, who had heard the whole from her, and had given him a full account of it." The woman, now thinking without a doubt that it must certainly be ^butius who had discovered the secret, threw herself at Sulpicia's feet, and at first began to beseech her, " not to let the private conversation of a freedwoman with her lover be turned not only into a serious business, but even capital charge;" declaring that "she had spoken of such things merely to frighten him, and not because she knew any- thing of the kind." On this Postumius, growing angry, said *' she seemed to imagine that then too she was wrangling GR.^CO-ROMAN PAGANISM 275 with her gallant i^butius, and not that she was speaking in the house of a most respectable matron, and to a consul." Sulpicia raised her, terrified, from the ground, and while she encouraged her to speak out, at the same time pacified her son-in-law's anger. At length she took courage, and, hav- ing censured severely the perfidy of i^butius, because he had made such a return for the extraordinary kindness shown to him in that very instance, she declared that " she stood in great dread of the gods, whose secret mysteries she was to divulge; and in much greater dread of the men implicated, who would tear her asunder with their hands if she became an informer. Therefore she entreated this favor of Sulpicia, and likewise of the consul, that they would send her away some place out of Italy, where she might pass the remainder of her life in safety." The consul desired her to be of good spirits, and said that It should be his care that she might live securely In Rome. Hispala then gave a full account of the origin of the mys- teries. " At first," she said, " those rites were performed by women. No man used to be admitted. They had three stated days In the year on which such persons were Initiated among the Bacchanalians, In the daytime. The matrons used to be appointed priestesses, in rotation. Paculla Minia, a Campanian, when priestess, made an alteration in every par- ticular as If by the direction of the gods. For she first Introduced men, who were her own sons, MInucIus and Her- renlus, both surnamed Cerrinius; changed the time of cele- bration, from day to night; and. Instead of three days in the year, appointed five days of Initiation In each month. From the time that the rites were thus made common, and men were Intermixed with women, and the licentious free- dom of the night was added, there was nothing wicked, nothing flagitious, that had not been practiced among them. There were more frequent pollution of men, with each other, than with women. If any were less patient In submitting to dishonor, or more averse to the commission of vice, they were sacrificed as victims. To think nothing unlawful, was the grand maxim of their religion. The men, as if bereft of reason, uttered predictions, with frantic contortions of 276 THE TRIAL OF JESUS their bodies; the women, in the habit of Bacchantes, with their hair dishevelled, and carrying blazing torches, ran down to the Tiber; where, dipping their torches in the water, they drew them up again with the flame unextinguished, being composed of native sulphur and charcoal. They said that those men were carried off by the gods, whom the machines laid hold of and dragged from their view into secret caves. These were such as refused to take the oath of the society or to associate in their crimes, or to submit to defilement. Their number was exceedingly great now, almost a second state in themselves and among them were many men and women of noble families. During the last two years it had been a rule, that no person above the age of twenty should be initiated, for they sought for people of such age as made them more liable to suffer deception and personal abuse." When she had completed her information, she again fell at the consul's knees, and repeated the same entreaties, that he might send her out of the country. The consul requested his mother-in- law to clear some part of the house, into which Hispala might remove; accordingly an apartment was assigned her in the upper part of it, of which the stairs, opening into the street, were stopped up, and the entrance made from the inner court. Thither all Fecenia's effects were immediately removed, and her domestics sent for. iEbutius, also, was ordered to re- move to the house of one of the consul's clients. When both the informers were by these means in his power, Postumius represented the affair to the senate, laying before them the whole circumstance, in due order; the information given to him at first, and the discoveries gained by his in- quiries afterwards. Great consternation seized on the sen- ators; not only on the public account, lest such conspiracies and nightly meetings might be productive of secret treachery and mischief, but, likewise, on account of their own particu- lar families, lest some of their relations might be involved in this infamous affair. The senate voted, however, that thanks should be given to the consul because he had investigated the matter with singular diligence, and without exciting any alarm. They then commit to the consuls the holding an in- quiry, out of the common course, concerning the Bacchanals GR^CO-ROMAN PAGANISM 277 and their nocturnal orgies. They ordered them to take care that the informers, -^butius and Fecenia, might suffer no Injury on that account; and to invite other informers in the matter, by offering rewards. They ordered that the officials in those rites, whether men or women, should be sought for, not only at Rome, but also throughout all the market towns and places of assembly, and be delivered over to the power of the consuls; and also that proclamation should be made in the city of Rome, and published through all Italy, that " no persons initiated in the Bacchanalian rites should pre- sume to come together or assemble on account of those rites, or to perform any such kind of worship;" and above all, that search should be made for those who had assembled or conspired for personal abuse, or for any other flagitious prac- tices. The senate passed these decrees. The consuls directed the curule sediles to make strict inquiry after all the priests of those mysteries, and to keep such as they could apprehend in custody until their trial; they at the same time charged the plebeian Eediles to take care that no religious ceremonies should be performed in private. To the capital triumvirs the task was assigned to post watches in proper places in the city, and to use vigilance in preventing any meetings by night. In order likewise to guard against fires, five assist- ants were joined to the triumvirs, so that each might have the charge of the buildings In his own separate district, on this side the Tiber. After despatching these officers to their several employ- ments, the consuls mounted the rostrum; and, having sum- moned an assembly of the people, one of the consuls, when he had finished the solemn form of prayer which the magis- trates are accustomed to pronounce before they address the people, proceeded thus: " Romans, to no former assembly was this solemn supplication to the gods more suitable or even more necessary : as it serves to remind you, that these are the deities whom your forefathers pointed out as the objects of your worship, veneration and prayers: and not those which Infatuated men's minds with corrupt and foreign modes of religion, and drove them, as If goaded by the furies, to every lust and every vice. I am at a loss to know what I 278 THE TRIAL OF JESUS should conceal, or how far I ought to speak out; for I dread lest, if I leave you ignorant of any particular, I should give room for carelessness, or if I disclose the whole, that I should too much awaken your fears. Whatever I shall say, be assured that it is less than the magnitude and atrociousness of the affair would justify: exertions will be used by us that it may be sufficient to set us properly on our guard. That the Bacchanalian rites have subsisted for some time past in every country in Italy, and are at present performed in many parts of this city also, I am sure you must have been in- formed, not only by report, but by the nightly noises and the horrid yells that resound through the whole city; but still you are ignorant of the nature of that business. Part of you think it is some kind of worship of the gods; others, some excusable sport and amusement, and that whatever it may be, it concerns but a few. As regards the number if I tell you that there are many thousands, that you would be imme- diately terrified to excess is a necessary consequence; unless I further acquaint you who and what sort of persons they are. First, then, a great part of them are women, and this was the source of the evil; the rest are males, but nearly resembling women; actors and pathics in the vilest lewdness; night revellers, driven frantic by wine, noise of instruments, and clamors. The conspiracy, as yet, has no strength; but it has abundant means of acquiring strength, for they are becoming more numerous every day. Your ancestors would not allow that you should ever assemble casually without some good reason; that is, either when the standard was erected on the Janiculum, and the army led out on occasion of elections; or when the tribunes proclaimed a meeting of the commons, or some of the magistrates summoned you to it. And they judged it necessary, that wherever a multi- tude was, there should be a lawful governor of that mul- titude present. Of what kind do you suppose are the meet- ings of these people? In the first place, held in the night, and in the next, composed promiscuously of men and women. If you knew at what ages the males are initiated, you would feel not only pity, but also shame for them. Romans, can you think youths initiated, under such oaths as theirs, are GRiECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 279 fit to be made soldiers? That arms should be intrusted with wretches brought out of that temple of obscenity? Shall these, contaminated with their own foul debaucheries and those of others, be champions for the chastity of your wives and children? " But the mischief were less, If they were only effeminated by their practices; or that the disgrace would chiefly affect themselves; if they refrained their hands from outrage, and their thoughts from fraud. But never was there in the state an evil of so great magnitude, or one that extended to so many persons or so many acts of wickedness. Whatever deeds of vlllany have, during late years been committed through lust; whatever through fraud; whatever through violence; they have all, be assured, proceeded from that association alone. They have not yet perpetrated all the crimes for which they combine. The Impious assembly at present confines Itself to outrages on private citizens; be- cause It has not yet acquired force sufficient to crush the commonwealth: but the evil increases and spreads daily; It Is already too great for the private ranks of life to contain it, and aims Its views at the body of the state. Unless you take timely precautions, Romans, their nightly assembly may become as large as this, held in open day and legally sum- moned by a consul. Now they one by one dread you collected together in the assembly; presently, when you shall have separated and retired to your several dwellings. In town and country, they will again come together, and will hold a con- sultation on the means of their own safety, and, at the same time, of your destruction. Thus united, they will cause terror to every one of you. Each of you therefore, ought to pray that his kindred may have behaved with wisdom and pru- dence; and if lust, if madness, has dragged any of them into that abyss, to consider such a person as the relation of those with whom he has conspired for every disgraceful and reck- less act, and not as one of your own. I am not secure, lest some even of yourselves may have erred through mistake; for nothing Is more deceptive In appearance than false re- ligion. When the authority of the gods is held out as a pretext to cover vice, fear enters our minds, lest In punish- 28o THE TRIAL OF JESUS ing the crimes of men, we may violate some divine right connected therewith. Numberless decisions of the pontiffs, decrees of the senate, and even answers of the aruspices, free you from religious scruples of this character. How often in the ages of our fathers was it given in charge to the magistrates, to prohibit the performances of any foreign religious rites; to banish strolling sacrificers and soothsayers from the Forum, the circus and the city; to search for and burn books of divination; and to abolish every mode of sac- rificing that was not conformable to the Roman practice ! For they, completely versed in every divine and human law, maintained that nothing tended so strongly to the subversion of religion as sacrifice, when we offered it not after the insti- tutions of our forefathers, but after foreign customs. Thus much I thought necessary to mention to you beforehand, that no vain scruple might disturb your minds when you should see us demolishing the places resorted to by the Bacchanal- ians, and dispersing their impious assemblies. We shall do all these things with the favor and approbation of the gods; who, because they were indignant that their divinity was dis- honored by those people's lust and crimes, have drawn forth their proceedings from hidden darkness into the open light; and who have directed them to be exposed, not that they may escape with impunity, but in order that they may be punished and suppressed. The senate have committed to me and my colleague, an inquisition extraordinary concerning that affair. What is requisite to be done by ourselves, in person, we will do with energy. The charge of posting watches through the city, during the night, we have com- mitted to the inferior magistrates; and, for your parts, it is incumbent on you to execute vigorously whatever duties are assigned you, and in the several places where each will be placed, to perform whatever orders you shall receive, and to use your best endeavors that no danger or tumult may arise from the treachery of the party involved in the guilt." I hey then ordered the decrees of the senate to be read, and published a reward for any discoverer who should bring any of the guilty before them, or give information against any of the absent, adding, that " if any person accused should GRiECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 281 fly, they would limit a certain day upon which, if he did not answer when summoned, he would be condemned in his ab- sence; and if anyone should be charged who was out of Italy, they would not allow him any longer time, if he should wish to come and make his defence." They then issued an edict, that " no person whatever should presume to buy or sell any- thing for the purpose of leaving the country; or to receive or conceal, or by any means aid the fugitives." On the assembly being dismissed, great terror spread throughout the city; nor was it confined merely within the walls, or to the Roman territory, for everywhere throughout the whole of Italy alarm began to be felt — when the letters from the guest-friends were received — concerning the decree of the senate, and what passed in the assembly and the edict of the consuls. During the night, which succeeded the day in which the affair was made public, great numbers attempting to fly, were seized and brought back by the triumvirs, who had posted guards at all the gates; and Informations were lodged against many, some of whom, both men and women, put themselves to death. Above seven thousand men and women are said to have taken the oath of the association. But it appeared that the heads of the conspiracy were the two Catlnii, Marcus and Calus, Roman plebeians; Lucius Opi- turnius, a Falisclan; and MInlus Cerrlnius, a Campanian : that from these proceeded all their criminal practices, and that these were the chief priests and founders of the sect. Care was taken that they should be apprehended as soon as possible. They were brought before the consuls, and con- fessing their guilt, caused no delay to the ends of justice. But so great were the numbers that fled from the city, that because the lawsuits and property of many persons were go- ing to ruin, the prsetors, Titlus MsBnlus and Marcus Licinius were obliged, under the direction of the senate, to adjourn their courts for thirty days until the inquiries should be fin- ished by the consuls. The same deserted state of the law courts, since the persons against whom charges were brought did not appear to answer, nor could be found in Rome, neces- sitated the consuls to make a circuit of the country towns, and there to make their inquisitions and hold the trials. 282 THE TRIAL OF JESUS Those who, as It appeared, had been only initiated, and had made after the priest, and in the most solemn form, the pre- scribed imprecations, in which the accursed conspiracy for the perpetration of every crime and lust was contained, but who had not themselves committed, or compelled others to commit, any of those acts to which they were bound by the oath — all such they left in prison. But those who had for- cibly committed personal defilements or murders, or were stained with the guilt of false evidence, counterfeit seals, forged wills, or other frauds, all these they punished with death. A greater number were executed than thrown into prison; indeed the multitude of men and women who suffered in both ways, was very considerable. The consuls delivered the women who were condemned to their relations, or to those under whose guardianship they were, that they might inflict the punishment in private; but if there did not appear any proper person of the kind to execute the sentence, the punishment was inflicted in public. A charge was then given to demolish all the places where the Bacchanalians had held their meetings; first, in Rome, and then throughout all Italy; excepting those wherein should be found some ancient altar, or consecrated statue. With regard to the future, the senate passed a decree, " that no Bacchanalian rites should be cele- brated in Rome or in Italy:" and ordering that, "In case any person should believe some such kind of worship in- cumbent upon him, and necessary; and that he could not, without offence to religion, and incurring guilt, omit it, he should represent this to the city praetor, and the praetor should lay the business before the senate. If permission were granted by the senate, when not less than one hundred members were present, then he might perform those rites, provided that no more than five persons should be present at the sacrifice, and that they should have no common stock of money, nor any president of the ceremonies, nor priest." Another decree connected with this was then made, on a motion of the consul, Quintus Marcius, that " the business respecting the persons who had served the consuls as inform- ers should be proposed to the senate In its original form, when Spurlus Postumius should have finished his inquiries, GR.ECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 283 and returned to Rome." They voted that Minus Cerrinius, the Campanian, should be sent to Ardea, to be kept in cus- tody there ; and that a caution should be given to the rnagis- trates of that city, to guard him with more than ordinary care, so as to prevent not only his escaping, but his having an opportunity of committing suicide. Spurius Postumius some time after came to Rome and on his proposing the question, concerning the reward to be given to Publius ^butlus and Hispala Fecenia, because the Bac- chanalian ceremonies were discovered by their exertions, the senate passed a vote, that " the city quaestors should give to each of them, out of the public treasury, one hundred thousand asses; and that the consuls should desire the ple- beian tribunes to propose to the commons as soon as con- venient, that the campaigns of Publius iEbutius should be considered as served, that he should not become a soldier against his wishes, nor should any censor assign him a horse at the public charge." They voted also, that " Hispala Fecenia should enjoy the privileges of alienating her prop- erty by gift or deed; of marrying out of her rank, and of choosing a guardian, as If a husband had conferred them by will; that she should be at liberty to wed a man of hon- orable birth, and that there should be no disgrace or Igno- miny to him who should marry her; and that the consuls and praetors then In office, and their successors, should take care that no injury should be offered to that woman, and that she might live in safety. That the senate wishes, and thought proper, that all these things should be so ordered." — All these particulars were proposed to the commons, and executed, according to the vote of the senate; and full per- mission was given to the consuls to determine respecting the impunity and rewards of the other informers.^ The bacchanalian orgies were first suppressed nearly two hundred years before Christ. The above extract from Livy reminds us that at that time the Romans were still strong and virtuous, and that a proposal of ^ Livy, b. xxxix. Chaps. VI I. -XX. 284 THE TRIAL OF JESUS their Consul to eradicate a vicious evil that threatened the existence of both domestic life and the State, met with warm approval and hearty support from both the Senate and the people. But the insidious infection was never completely eradicated ; and the work of the *' Greek from Etruria " bore bitter fruit in the centu- ries that followed. And when we consider that not only bacchanalian orgies, but Greek literature, paint- ing, sculpture, tragedy and comedy, were the chief causes of the pollution of Roman morals and the de- struction of the Roman State, should we be surprised that Juvenal, in an outburst of patriotic wrath, should have declaimed against " a Grecian capital in Italy"; ^ and that he should have hurled withering scorn at The flattering, cringing, treacherous, artful race, Of fluent tongue and never-blushing face, A Protean tribe, one knows not what to call, That shifts to every form, and shines in all. And, when we consider the state of the Roman world at the time of Christ, should we be surprised that St. Paul should have described Romans as " Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wicked- ness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without under- standing, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful"?^ ^ " non possum ferre, Quirites, Graecam urbem." (Sat. III.) ^ Romans i, 29-31. GR/ECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 285 Suffice it to say, in closing the chapter on GraBCO- Roman paganism, that, at the beginning of the Chris- tian era, the Roman empire had reached the limit of physical expansion. Roman military glory had culmi- nated in the sublime achievements of Pompey and of Caesar. Mountains, seas, and deserts, beyond which all was barbarous and desolate, were the natural bar- riers of Roman dominion. Roman arms could go no farther; and Roman ambition could be no longer gratified by conquest. The Roman religion had fallen into decay and contempt; and the Roman conscience was paralyzed and benumbed. Disgusted with this world, the average Roman did not believe in any other, and was utterly without hope of future happiness. A gloomy despondency filled the hearts of men and drove them into black despair. When approaching death, they wore no look of triumph, expressed no belief in immortality, but simply requested of those whom they were leaving behind, to scatter flowers on their graves, or to bewail their early end. An epigram of the Anthology is this: " Let us drink and be merry; for we shall have no more of kissing and dancing in the kingdom of Proserpine: soon shall we fall asleep to wake no more." The same sentiments are expressed in epitaphs on Roman sepulchral monuments of the period. One of them reads thus : '^ What I have eaten and drunk, that I take with me; what I have left be- hind me, that have I forfeited." This is the language of another: ''Reader, enjoy thy life; for after death there is neither laughter nor play, nor any kind of enjoyment." Still another: " Friend, I advise, mix 286 THE TRIAL OF JESUS thee a goblet of wine, and drink, crowning thy head with flowers. Earth and fire consume all that remains after death." And, finally, one of them assures us that Greek mythology is false: " Pilgrim, stay thee, listen and learn. In Hades there is no ferryboat, nor ferry- man Charon; no i^acus or Cerberus; — once dead, and we are all alike." ^ Matthew Arnold has very graphically described the disgusting, sickening, overwhelming despair of the Roman people at the birth of Christ. Ah ! carry back thy ken, What, some two thousand years ! Survey The world as it was then. Like ours it looked, in outward air. Its head was clear and true; Sumptuous its clothing, rich its fare; No pause its action knew. Stout was its arm, each thew and bone Seem'd puissant and alive — But ah ! its heart, its heart was stone And so it could not thrive. On that hard pagan world disgust And secret loathing fell ; Deep weariness and sated lust Made human life a hell. In his goodly hall with haggard eyes, The Roman noble lay; He drove abroad in furious guise Along the Appian Way. 1 Dollinger, vol. ii. pp. 155, 156. GRyECO-ROMAN PAGANISM 287 He made a feast, drank fierce and fast, And crowned his hair with flowers; No easier, nor no quicker passed The impracticable hours.^ But the " darkest hour is just before the dawn," and " the fulness of the time was come." Already the first faint glimmers of the breaking of a grander and better day were perceptible to the senses of the noblest and finest of Roman intellects. Already Cicero had pic- tured a glorious millennium that would follow if per- fect virtue should ever enter into the flesh and come to dwell among men.- Already Virgil, deriving inspira- tion from the Erythraean Sibylline prophecies, had sung of the advent of a heaven-born child, whose com- ing would restore the Golden Age, and establish en- during peace and happiness on the earth.^ Already a debauched, degraded and degenerate world was crying in the anguish of its soul : ^' I know that my Redeemer liveth! " And, even before the Baptist began to preach in the wilderness, the ways had been made straight for the coming of the Nazarene. 1 Matthew Arnold's Poems — "Obermann Once More," 2 Cicero, " De Pin." v. pp. 24, 6g. 2 Eclogue IV. APPENDICES APPENDIX I CHARACTERS OF THE SANHEDRISTS WHO TRIED JESUS HE following short biographical sketches of about forty of the members of the Sanhedrin who tried Jesus are from a work en- titled " Valeur de I'assemblee qui pronon^'a la peine de mort contre Jesus Christ " — Lemann. The English translation, under the title " Jesus Before the Sanhe- drin," is by Julius Magath, Oxford, Georgia. Professor Magath's translation is used in this work by special permission. — The AUTHOR. The Moral Characters of the Personages who Sat at the Trial of Christ The members of the Sanhedrin that judged Christ were seventy-one in number, and were divided into three chambers; but we must know the names, acts, and moral characters of these judges. That such a knowledge would throw a great light on this cele- brated trial can be easily understood. The characters of Caiaphas, Ananos, and Pilate are already well known to us. These stand out as the three leading fig- ures in the drama of the Passion. But others have X91 igi THE TRIAL OF JESUS appeared in it; would it not be possible to produce them also before history? This task, we believe, has never yet been undertaken. It was thought that documents were wanting. But this is an error; such documents exist. We have consulted them; and in this century of historical study and research we shall draw forth from the places where they have been hidden for centuries, the majority of the judges of Christ. Three kinds of documents have, in a particular man- ner, enabled us to discover the characters of these men: the books of the Evangelists, the valuable writings of Josephus the historian, and the hitherto unexplored pages of the Talmud. We shall bring to light forty of the judges, so that more than half of the Sanhedrin will appear before us; and this large majority will be sufficient to enable us to form an opinion of the moral tone of the whole assembly. To proceed with due order, we will begin with the most important chamber — viz., the chamber of the priests. I. The Chamber of the Priests We use the expression " chamber of the priests.'''' In the Gospel narrative, however, this division of the San- hedrin bears a more imposing title. Matthew, Mark, and the other Evangelists, designate it by the following names: the council of the high priests^ and the council of the princes of the priests} ^ Matt. ii. 4; xxi. 15; xxvi. 3, 47, 59; Mark xi. 18; xv. ll; Luke xix. 47; XX. i; John xi. 47; xii. 20. CHARACTERS OF THE SANHEDRISTS 293 But we may ask, Why is this pompous name given to this chamber by the Evangelists? Is this not an error on their part? An assembly of priests seems natural, but how can there be an assembly of high priests, since according to the Mosaic institution there could be only one high priest, whose office was tenable for life. There is, however, neither an error nor an undue amplifica- tion on the part of the Gospel narrators; and we may also add here that both Talmuds positively speak of an assembly of high priests.^ But how, then, can we account for the presence of several high priests at the same time in the Sanhedrin? Here is the explanation, to the shame of the Jewish assembly: For nearly a century a detestable abuse prevailed, which consisted in the arbitrary nomination and depo- sition of the high priest. The high priesthood, which for fifteen centuries had been preserved in the same family, being hereditary according to the divine com- mand,^ had at the time oi Christ's advent become an object of commercial speculation. Herod commenced these arbitrary changes,^ and after Judea became one of the Roman conquests the election of the high priest took place almost every year at Jerusalem, the procu- rators appointing and deposing them in the same man- ner as the praetorians later on made and unmade emperors.^ The Talmud speaks sorrowfully of this venality and the yearly changes of the high priest. ^ Derembourg, "Essai sur I'histoire et la geographic de la Palestine," p. 231, note I. 2 Josephus, "Ant.," Book XX. Chap. X. i; XV. III. I. 3 Josephus, "Ant.," Book XV. Chap. III. i. 4 Josephus, "Ant.," Book XVIII. Chap. II. 3; Book XX. Chap. IX. i, 4. 294 THE TRIAL OF JESUS This sacred office was given to the one that offered the most money for it, and mothers were particularly anxious that their sons should be nominated to this dignity/ The expression, " the council of the high priests,^^ used by the Evangelists to designate this section of the Sanhedrin, is therefore rigorously correct; for at the time of the trial of Christ there were about twelve ex- high priests, who still retained the honorable title of their charge, and were, by the right of that title, mem- bers of the high tribunal. Several ordinary priests were also included in this chamber, but they were in most cases related to the high priests; for in the midst of the intrigues by which the sovereign pontificate was surrounded in those days, it was customary for the more influential of the chief priests to bring in their sons and allies as members of their chamber. The spirit of caste was very powerful, and as M. Derembourg, a modern Jewish savant, has remarked : "ydf feu' priest- ly, aristocratic, powerful, and vain families, who cared for neither the dignity nor the interests of the altar, quarreled with each other respecting appointments, in- fluence, and wealth!''' ^ To sum up, we have, then, in this first chamber a double element — high priests and ordinary priests. We shall now make them known by their names and characters, and indicate the sources whence the in- formation has been obtained. ^ See "Talmud," " Yoma," or "the Day of Atonement," fol. 35, recto; also Derembourg, work above quoted, p. 230, note 2. ^ "Essai sur I'histoire et la geographie de la Palestine," p. 232. CHARACTERS OF THE SANHEDRISTS 295 Caiaphas, high priest then in office. He was the son-in-law of Ananos, and exercised his office for eleven years — during the whole term of Pilate's administra- tion (25-36 A.D.). It is he who presided over the Sanhedrin during this trial, and the history of the Passion as given by the Evangelists is sufficient to malie him known to us. (See Matt. xxvi. 3; Luke iii. 2, etc.; Jos., "Ant.," B. XVHI. C. H. 2.) Ananos held the office of high priest for seven years under Coponius, Ambivus, and Rufus (7-1 1 A.D.). This personage was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, and although out of office was nevertheless consulted on matters of importance. It may be said, indeed, that in the midst of the instability of the sacerdotal office he alone preserved in reality its authority. For fifty years this high office remained without interruption in his family. Five of his sons successively assumed its dignity. This family was even known as the " sac- erdotal family," as if this office had become hereditary in it. Ananos had charge also of the more important duties of the Temple, and Josephus says that he was considered the most fortunate man of his time. He adds, however, that the spirit of this family was haughty, audacious, and cruel. (Luke iii. 2; John xviii. 13, 24; Acts iv. 6; Jos., " Ant.," B. XV. C. III. i ; XX. IX. I, 3; "Jewish Wars," B. IV. V. 2, 6, 7.) Eleazar was high priest during one year, under Valerius Grattus (23-24 A.D.). He was the eldest son of Ananos. (Jos., " Ant.," B. XVIII. II. 2.) Jonathan, son of Ananos, simple priest at that time, but afterwards made high priest for one year in the 296 THE TRIAL OF JESUS place of Caiaphas when the latter was deposed, after the disgrace of Pilate, by Vitellius, Governor-general of Syria (37 A.D.). (Jos., " Ant.," B. XVIII. IV. 3.) Theophilus, son of Ananos, simple priest at that time, but afterwards made high priest in the place of his brother Jonathan, who was deposed by Vitellius. Theophilus was in office five years (38-42 A.D.) . (Jos., "Ant," B. XIX. VI. 2; Munk, "Hist, de la Pales- tine," p. 568.) Matthias, son of Ananos. Simple priest; after- wards high priest for two years (42-44 A.D.). He suc- ceeded Simon Cantharus, who was deposed by King Herod Agrippa. (Jos., " Ant," XIX. VI. 4.) Ananus, son of Ananos. Simple priest at the time; afterwards made high priest by Herod Agrippa after the death of the Roman governor, Portius Festus (63 A.D.). Being a Sadducee of extravagant zeal, he was deposed at the end of three months by Albanus, suc- cessor of Portius Festus, for having illegally condemned the apostle James to be stoned. (Acts xxiii. 2, xxiv. i ; Jos., "Ant," B. XX. IX. i.) JOAZAR, high priest for six years during the latter days of Herod the Great and the first years of Arche- laus (4 B.C.-2 A.D.) . He was the son of Simon Boethus, who owed his dignity and fortune to the following dishonorable circumstance, as related by Josephus the historian: "There was one Simon, a citizen of Jeru- salem, the son of Boethus, a citizen of Alexandria and a priest of great note there. This man had a daughter, vyho was esteemed the most beautiful woman of that time. And when the people of Jerusalem began to CHARACTERS OF THE SANHEDRISTS 297 speak much in her commendation, it happened that Herod was much affected by what was said of her; and when he saw the damsel he was smitten with her beauty. Yet did he entirely reject the thought of using his authority to abuse her ... so he thought it best to take the damsel to wife. And while Simon was of a dignity too inferior to be allied to him, but still too considerable to be despised, he governed his inclina- tions after the most prudent manner by augmenting the dignity of the family and making them more hon- orable. Accordingly he forthwith deprived Jesus, the son of Phabet, of the high priesthood, and conferred that dignity on Simon." Such, according to Josephus, is the origin — not at all of a supernatural nature — of the call to the high priesthood of Simon Boethus and his whole family. Simon, at the time of this trial, was already dead; but Joazar figured in it with two of his brothers, one of whom was, like himself, an ex-high priest. (Jos., "Ant.," B. XV. IX. 3; XVII. VI. 4;XVnL I. i;XIX. VI. 2.) Eleazar, second son of Simon Boethus. He suc- ceeded his brother Joazar when the latter was deprived of that function by King Archelaus (2 A.D.). Eleazar was high priest for a short time only, the same king deposing him three months after his installation. (Jos., "Ant," B. XVII. XIII. i; XIX. VI. 2.) Simon CanTHARUS, third son of Simon Boethus. Simple priest at the time; was afterwards made high priest by King Herod Agrippa (42 A.D.), who, how- ever, deposed him after a few months. (Jos., "Ant.," B. XIX. VI. 2, 4.) 298 THE TRIAL OF JESUS Jesus ben Sie succeeded Eleazar to the high priest- hood, and held the office for five or six years ( 1-6 A.D.) under the reign of Archelaus. (Jos., " Ant.," XVII. XIII. I.) ISMAEL ben Phabi. High priest for nine years un- der procurator Valerius Grattus, predecessor of Pon- tius Pilate. He was considered, according to the rab- bins, the handsomest man of his time. The effeminate love of luxury of this chief priest was carried to such an extent that his mother, having made him a tunic of great price, he deigned to wear it once, and then consigned it to the public wardrobe, as a grand lady might dispose of a robe which no longer pleased her caprices. (" Talmud," " Pesachim," or " of the Pass- over," fol. 57, verso; " Yoma," or " the Day of Atone- ment," fol. 9, verso; 3^, recto; Jos., "Ant," XVIII. II. 2; XX. VIII. II ; Bartolocci, " Grand Bibliotheque Rabbinique," T. III. p. 297; Munk, " Palestine," pp. 563, 575-) Simon hen Camithus, high priest during one year under procurator Valerius Grattus (24-25 A.D.). This personage was celebrated for the enormous size of his hand, and the Talmud relates of him the following incident: On the eve of the day of atonement it hap- pened, in the course of a conversation which he had with Arathus, King of Arabia — whose daughter Herod Antipas had just married — that some saliva, coming out of the mouth of the king, fell on the robe of Simon. As soon as the king left him, he hastened to divest himself of it, considering it desecrated by the circumstance, and hence unworthy to be worn during CHARACTERS OF THE SANHEDRISTS 299 the services of the following day. What a remarkable instance of Pharisaical purity and charity! ("Tal- mud," " Yoma," or " the Day of Atonement," fol. 47, verso; Jos., " Ant.," XVHI. H. 2; Derembourg, " Es- sai sur I'histoire," p. 197, n. 2.) John, simple priest. He is made known to us through the Acts of the Apostles. " And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together in Jerusalem." (Acts iv. 6.) Alexander, simple priest; also mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles in the passage above quoted. Jo- sephus also makes mention of him, and says that he afterwards became an Alabarch — that is to say, first magistrate of the Jews in Alexandria. That he was very rich is to be learned from the fact that King Herod Agrippa asked and obtained from him the loan of two hundred thousand pieces of silver. (Acts iv. 6; Jos., " Ant.," XVHI. VI. 3; XX. V. 2; Petri Wesse- lingii, " Diatribe de Judaeorum Archontibus," Tra- jecti ad Rhenum, pp. 69-71.) Ananias ben Nebedeus, simple priest at that time; was elected to the high priesthood under procurators Ventideus, Cumanus, and Felix (48-54 A.D.). He is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles and by Josephus. It was this high priest who delivered the apostle Paul to procurator Felix. " Ananias the high priest de- scended with the elders, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul." (Acts xxiv, I.) According to Jewish tradition, this high priest is chiefly known for his excessive glut- 300 THE TRIAL OF JESUS tony. What the Talmud says of his voracity Is quite phenomenal. It mentions three hundred calves, as many casks of wine, and forty pairs of young pigeons as having been brought together for his repast. (" Tal- mud," Bab., " Pesachim," or " of the Passover," fol. 57, verso; " Kerihoth," or " Sins which Close the Entrance to Eternal Life," fol. 28, verso; Jos., "Ant.," XX. V. 2; Derembourg, work quoted above, pp. 230, 234; Munk, " Palestine," p. 573, n. i.) Helcias, simple priest, and keeper of the treasury of the Temple. It is probably from him that Judas Iscariot received the thirty pieces of silver, the price of his treason. (Jos., "Ant.," XX. VIII. 11.) SCEVA, one of the principal priests. He is spoken of in the Acts apropos of his seven sons, who gave themselves up to witchcraft. (Acts xix. 13, 14.) Such are the chief priests that constituted the first chamber of the Sanhedrin at the time of the trial of Christ. From the documents which we have consulted and the resume which we have just given, we gather: 1. That several of the high priests were personally dishonorable. 2. That all these high priests, who succeeded each other annually in the Aaronic office in utter disregard of the order established by God, were but miserable intruders. We trust that these expressions will not of- fend our dear Israelitish readers, for they are based on the statements of eminent and zealous Jewish writers. To begin with Josephus the historian. Although CHARACTERS OF THE SANHEDRISTS 301 endeavoring to conceal as much as possible the shame- ful acts committed by the priests composing this coun- cil, yet he was unable, in a moment of disgust, to re- frain from stigmatizing them. " About this time," he says, " there arose a sedition between the high priests and the principal men of the multitude of Jerusalem, each of which assembled a company of the boldest sort of men, and of those that loved innovations, and be- came leaders to them. And when they struggled to- gether they did it by casting reproachful words against one another, and by throwing stones also. And there was nobody to reprove them; but these disorders were done after a licentious manner in the city, as if it had no government over it. And such was the impudence and boldness that had seized on the high priests that they had the hardness to send their servants into the threshing-floors, to take away those tithes that were due the [simple] priests. Insomuch that the poorest priests died of want." ^ Such are the acts, the spirit of equity and kindness, that characterized the chief judges of Christ! But the Talmud goes farther still. This book, which ordinarily is not sparing of eulogies on the people of our nation, yet, considering separately and by name, as we have done, the high priests of that time, it exclaims: "What a plague is the family of Simon Boethus; cursed be their lances! What a plague is the family of Ananos; cursed be their hissing of vipers! What a plague is the family of Cantharus; cursed be their pens! What a plague is the family of Ismael ben Phabi; cursed be their fists! They are high priests 1 Jos., "Ant.," XX. VIII. 8. 302 THE TRIAL OF JESUS themselves, their sons are treasurers, their sons-in-law are commanders, and their servants strike the people with staves."^ The Talmud continues: "The porch of the sanctuary cried out four times. The first time, Depart from here, descendants of Eli; ^ ye pollute the Temple of the Eternal! The second time, Let Issachar ben Keifar Barchi depart from here, who polluteth himself and profaneth the victims consecrated to God! " The third time. Widen yourselves, ye gates of the sanc- tuary, and let Israel ben Phabi the willful enter, that he may discharge the functions of the priesthood! Yet another cry was heard. Widen yourselves, ye gates, and let Ananias ben Nebedeus the gourmand enter, that he may glut himself on the victims! " In the face of such low morality, avowed by the least to be suspected of our own nation, is it possible to restrain one's indigna- tion against those who sat at the trial of Christ as mem- bers of the chamber of priests? This indignation be- comes yet more intense when one remembers that an ambitious hypocrisy, having for its aim the domineer- ing over the people, had perverted the law of Moses in these men. The majority of the priests belonged, in fact, to the Pharisaic order, the members of which sect made religion subservient to their personal ambi- tion; and in order to rule over the people with more ease, they used religion as a tool to effect this purpose, ^ "Talmud," " Pesachim," or "of the Passover," fol. 57, verso. ^ The high priests designated under the name of the descendants of Eh" arc those who, as sons of the high priest EH, polluted the Temple by their immorality. (See I Kings iii. 22-25.) ^ This Issachar vpas a priest of such a dainty nature that in order to touch the sacrifices he covered his hands with silk. ("Talmud," "Pesachim," or " of the Passover," fol. 57, verso.) CHARACTERS OF THE SANHEDRISTS 303 encumbering the law of Moses with exaggerated pre- cepts and insupportable burdens which they strenu- ously imposed upon others, but failed to observe them- selves. Can we, then, be astonished at the murderous hatred w^hich these false and ambitious men conceived for Christ? When his words, sharper than a sword, exposed their hypocrisy and displayed the corrupt in- terior of these whitened sepulchers wearing the sem- blance of justice, the hatred they already cherished for him grew to a frenzied intensity. They never forgave him for having publicly unmasked them. Hypocrisy never forgives that. Such were the men composing the council of priests, when the Sanhedrin assembled to judge Christ. Were we not justified in forming of them an unfavorable opinion? . . . But let us pass on to the second cham- ber, viz., the chamber of the scribes. II. Chamber of the Scribes Let us recall in a few words who the scribes were. Chosen indiscriminately among the Levites and laity, they formed the corps savant of the nation ; they were doctors in Israel, and were held in high esteem and veneration. It is well known what respect the Jews, and the Eastern nations generally, have always had for their wise men. Next to the chamber of the priests, that of the scribes was the most important. But from information gath- ered from the documents to which we have already referred, we are constrained to affirm that, with a few 304 THE TRIAL OF JESUS individual exceptions, this chamber was no better than that of the priests. The following is a list of the names and histories of the wise men who composed the chamber of the scribes at the trial of Christ: Gamaliel, surnamed the ancient. He was a very worthy Israelite, and his name is spoken of with honor in the Talmud as well as in the Acts of the Apostles. He belonged to a noble family, being a grandson of the famous Hillel, who, coming from Babylon forty years before Christ, taught with such brilliant success in Jerusalem. Gamaliel acquired so great a reputation among his people for his scientific acquirements that the Talmud could say of him: ''With the death of Rabbi Gamaliel the glory of the law has departed." It was at the feet of this doctor that Saul, afterwards Paul the apostle, studied the law and Jewish traditions, and we know how he gloried in this fact. Gamaliel had also among his disciples Barnabas and Stephen, the first martyr for the cause of Christ. When the members of the Sanhedrin discussed the expediency of putting the apostles to death, this worthy Israelite pre- vented the passing of the sentence by pronouncing these celebrated words : " Ye men of Israel, take heed to your- selves what ye intend to do as touching these men. . . . And now I say unto you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this counsel be of men it will come to naught; but if it be of God ye cannot over- throw it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." Gamaliel died nineteen years after Christ (52 A.,D.). (Acts V. 34-39; xxii. 3; Mishna, " Sotah," or CHARACTERS OF THE SANHEDRISTS 305 " the Woman Suspected of Adultery," C. IX. ; " Sepher Juchasin," or "the Book of the Ancestors," p. 53; David Ganz, " Germe de David ou Chronologic " to 4768 ; Bartolocci, " Bibliotheca magna Rabbinica," T. i. pp. 727-732.) Simon, son of Gamaliel, like his father, had a seat in the assembly. The rabbinical books speak of him in the highest terms of eulogy. The Mishna, for in- stance, attributes to him this sentence: "Brought up from my infancy among learned men, I have found nothing that is of greater value to man than silence. Doctrines are not the chief things, but w^ork. He who is in the habit of much talking falls easily into error." This Simon became afterv^ards the intimate friend of the too celebrated bandit, John of Giscala, w^hose ex- cesses and cruelty tov^ard the Romans, and even the Jev^s, caused Titus to order the pillaging of Jerusalem. Simon was killed in the last assault in 70 A.D. (David Ganz, " Chronologic" to 4810; Mishna, " Aboth," or " of the Fathers," C. I.; " Talmud," Jerusalem, " Ber- achoth," or "of Blessings," fol. 6, verso; " Historia Doctorium Misnicorum," J. H. Otthonis, pp. iio- 113; De Champagny, "Rome et la Judee," T. ii. 86-171.) Onkelos was born of heathen parents, but embraced Judaism, and became one of the most eminent disciples of Gamaliel. He is the author of the famous Chaldaic paraphrase of the Pentateuch. Although the rabbin- ical books do not mention him as a member of the Sanhedrin, yet it is highly probable that he belonged to that body, his writings and memory having always 3o6 THE TRIAL OF JESUS been held in great esteem by the Jews; even at the present day every Jew is enjoined to read weekly a portion of his version of the books of Moses. Onkelos carried the Pharisaical intolerance to the last degree. Converted from idolatry to Judaism, he hated the Gen- tiles to such an extent that he cast into the Dead Sea, as an object of impurity, the sum of money that he had inherited from his parents. We can easily under- stand how that, with such a disposition, he would not be favorably inclined toward Jesus, who received Gen- tiles and Jews alike. (" Talmud," " Megilla," or " Fes- tival of Esther," fol. 3, verso; " Baba-bathra," or " the Last Gate," fol. 134, verso; " Succa," or " the Festival of Tabernacles," fol. 28, verso; " Thosephthoth," or " Supplements to the Mishna," C. v.; Rabbi Gedalia, " Tzaltzeleth Hakkabalah," or " the Chain of the Ka- balah," p. 28; " Histor. Doct. Misnic," p. no; De Rossi, " Dizionario degli Autori Ebrei," p. 81.) Jonathan ben Uziel, author of a very remarkable paraphrase of the Pentateuch and the Prophets. There is a difference of opinion regarding the precise time at which he lived. Some place it several years before Christ; others at the time of Christ. We believe, how- ever, that not only was he contemporary with Christ, but that he was also one of his judges. In support of our assertion we give the two following proofs, which we think indisputable: i. Jonathan, the translator of the Prophets, has purposely omitted Daniel, which omission the Talmud explains as due to the special intervention of an angel who informed him that the manner in which the prophet speaks of the death of CHARACTERS OF THE SANHEDRISTS 307 the Messiah coincided too exactly with that of Jesus of Nazareth. Now, since Jonathan has intentionally left out the prophecies of Daniel on account of their coincidence with the death of Christ, it proves that he could not have lived before Christ, but must have been contemporary with him. 2. In comparing the para- phrase of Onkelos with that of Jonathan, we find that the latter had made use of the work of the former, who lived in the time of Christ. Examples may be found in Deut. xxii. 5, Judges v. 26, Num. xxi. 28, 29. If, then, Jonathan utilized the work of Onkelos, who lived in the time of Christ, the fact proves beyond ques- tion that he could not have lived before Christ. The Talmudists, in order to reward this person for having, through his hatred of Christ, erased the name of Daniel from the roll of prophets, eulogize him in the most absurd manner. They relate that while engaged in the study of the law of God, the atmosphere which sur- rounded him, and came in contact with the light of his understanding, so caught fire from his fervor that the birds, silly enough to be attracted toward it, were con- sumed immediately. ("Talmud," " Succa," or "the Festival of Tabernacles," fol. 28, verso; David Ganz, " Chronol." 4728; Gesenius, " Comm. on Isaiah," Part I. p. 65; Zunz, " Culte divin des Juifs," Berlin, 1832, p. 61 ; Derembourg, work quoted above, p. 276; Han- neburg, " Revelat Bibliq.," ii. 163, 432.) Samuel HakaTON, or the Less. Surnamed to dis- tinguish him from Samuel the prophet. It was he who, some time after the resurrection of Christ, composed the famous imprecation against the Christians, called 3o8 THE TRIAL OF JESUS " Birehath Hamminim " (Benedictions of Infidels). The " Birchath Hamminim," says the Talmud, and the commentary of R. Jarchi, "was composed by R. Samuel Hakaton at Jabneh, where the Sanhedrin had removed after the misconduct of the Nazarene, who taught a doctrine contrary to the words of the living God." The following is the singular benediction: " Let there be no hope for the apostates of religion, and let all heretics, whosoever they may be, perish suddenly. May the kingdom of pride be rooted out; let it be annihilated quickly, even in our days! Be blessed, O Lord, ^vho destroyest the impious, and hum- blest the proud/ ''^ As soon as Samuel Hakaton had composed this malediction, it was inserted as an addi- tional blessing in the celebrated prayer of the syna- gogue, the " Shemonah-Essara " (the eighteen bless- ings). These blessings belonged to the time of Ezra — that is to say, five centuries before the Christian era; and every Jew has to recite it daily. St. Jerome was not ignorant of this strange prayer. He says: " The Jews anathematize three times daily in their synagogue the name of the Christian, disguising it under the name of Nazarene.'''' According to R. Gedalia, Samuel died before the destruction of Jerusalem, about fifteen or twenty years after Christ. (" Talmud," " Berachoth," or "of Prayers," fol. 28, verso; " Megilla," or "the Festival of Esther," fol. 28, verso; St. Jerome, " Com- ment, on Isaiam," B. II. C. V. 18, 19; Tom. iv. p. 81 of the " Valarsius," quarto edition ; Vitringa, " de Syna- goga vetr.," T. ii. p. 1036, 1047, 105 1 ; Castellus, " Lex- icon heptaglotton," art. Min.) CHARACTERS OF THE SANHEDRISTS 309 Chanania ben Chiskia. He was a great concili- ator in the midst of the doctrinal quarrels so common at that time; and it happened that the rival schools of Shammai and Hillel, which were not abolished with the death of their founders, often employed him as their arbitrator. This skillful umpire did not always succeed, however, in calming the disputants; for we read in the ancient books that in the transition from force of argument to argument of force, the mem- bers of the schools of Shammai and Hillel frequently came to blows. Hence the French expression se cham- mailler. It happened, however, according to the Tal- mud, that Chanania once departed from his usual sys- tem of equilibrium in favor of the prophet Ezekiel. It appears that on one occasion the most influential members of the Sanhedrin proposed to censure, and even reject, the book of this prophet, because, accord- ing to their opinion, it contained several passages in contradiction of the law of Moses; but Chanania de- fended it with so much eloquence that they were obliged to desist from their project. This fact alone, reported fully as it is in the Talmud, would be suffi- cient to show the laxity of the study of the prophecies at that time. Although the exact date of his death is uncertain, it is, nevertheless, sure that it took place before the destruction of the Temple. (" Talmud," " Chagiga," or " the obligations of the males to present themselves three times a year at Jerusalem," 2, 13; " Shabbath," or " of the Sabbath," C. I.; " Sepher Ju- chasin," or *' the Book of Ancestors," p. 57.) ISMAEL ben Eliza, renowned for the depth of his 3IO THE TRIAL OF JESUS mind and the beauty of his face. The rabbins record that he was learned in the most mysterious things; for example, he could command the angels to descend from heaven and ascend thither. We have it also from the same authority that his mother held him in such high admiration that one day on his return from school she washed his feet, and, through respect for him, drank the water she had used for that purpose. His death was of a no less romantic nature. It appears that after the capture of Jerusalem, the daughter of Titus was so struck with his beauty that she obtained permission of her father to have the skin of his face taken off after his death, which skin she had embalmed, and, having perfumed it, she sent it to Rome to figure among the spoils as a trophy. (" Talmud," " Aboda Zarah," or "of Idolatry," C. L; Rabbi Gedalia, " Tzaltzeleth Hakkabalah," or " the Chain of the Kabalah," p. 29; " Sepher Juchasin," or " the Book of Ancestors," p. 25; "Tosephoth Kiddushin," C. IV.) Rabbi Zadok. He was about forty years old at the trial of Christ, and died after the burning of the Tem- ple, aged over seventy. The Talmud relates that for forty years he ceased not from fasting, that God might so order it that the Temple should not be destroyed by fire. Upon this the question is propounded in the same book, but no answer given, as to how this rabbin could have known that the Temple was threatened with so great a calamity. We believe that Rabbi Zadok could have obtained information of this terrible event in one of the two ways — either from the prophetic voice of Daniel which proclaimed more than forty years pre- CHARACTERS OF THE SANHEDRISTS 311 vious to the occurrence that abomination and desola- tion should crush the Temple of Jerusalem when the Messiah should have been put to death; or by the voice of Jesus himself, who said forty years before the destruction of the Temple: ''See ye not all these things?" (i.e., the buildings of the Temple) "verily, verily I say unto you. There shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down." (Mishna, " Shabbath," or " of the Sabbath," C. XXIV. 5 to end; " Eduth," or "of Testimony," C. Vn. I ; " Aboth," or " of the Fathers of Tradi- tion," IV. 5; David Ganz, " Chronol." 4785; " Seph. Juchasin," fol. 21, 26; Schikardi, "Jus Regium He- braeorum," p. 468; Dan. ix. 25-27; Luke xxi. 6; Matt, xxvi. 2.) JOCHANAN ben Zakai. The rabbinical books accord to this rabbi an extraordinary longevity. From their writings it would appear that, like Moses, he lived a hundred and twenty years, forty years of which he con- secrated to manual labor; another forty to the study of the law; and the last forty years of his life he de- voted to imparting his knowledge to others. His repu- tation as a savant was so well established that he was surnamed the Splendor of Wisdom. After the destruc- tion of the Temple, he rallied together the remaining members of the Sanhedrin to Jabneh, where he pre- sided over this remnant for the last four or five years of his life. He died in the year 73 A.D. When he breathed his last, says the Mishna, a cry of anguish was heard, saying: "With the death of Jochanan ben Zakai the splendor of wisdom has been quenched!" 312 THE TRIAL OF JESUS We have, however, other information regarding this rabbi which is, so to speak, like the reverse side of a medal. The Bereshith Rabba says that Rabbi Jocha- nan was in the habit of eulogizing himself in the most extravagant manner, and gives the following as a speci- men of the praises he bestowed upon himself: " If the skies were parchment, all the inhabitants of the world writers, and all the trees of the forest pens, all these would not suffice to transcribe the doctrines which he had learned from the masters." What humility of lan- guage! One day his disciples asked him to what he attributed his long life. " To my wisdom and piety," was his reply in his tone of habitual modesty. Besides, if we were to judge of his moral character by an ordi- nance of which he is the author, his morality might be equal to the standard of his humility. He abolished the Mosaical command of the ordeal of bitter waters, immorally isolating a passage in Isaiah from its con- text. Finally, to fill up the measure of his honesty, he became one of the lewdest courtiers of Titus, and the destroyer of his country. But while obsequious to hu- man grandeur, he was obdurate to the warnings of God, and died proud and impenitent. ("Talmud," " Rosh Hashanah," or "of the New Year," fol. 20, recto; 31, recto; " Sotah," or "of the Woman Suspected," etc., IX. 9; "Yoma," or "the Day of Atonement," fol. 39, recto, and 43; " Gittin," or "of Divorce," fol. 56, verso and recto; " Succa," or " of the Festival of Tabernacles," fol. 28, verso; Mishna, Chapter, " Egla arupha"; " Sepher Juchasin," or "the Book of Ancestors," fol. 20, recto; " Seph. Hakkabalah"; CHARACTERS OF THE SANHEDRISTS 313 Otthonis, " Hist. Doct. Misn.," pp. 93-103; Hosea iv. 14; Jos., " Wars," VL V. 3 ; De Champagny, " Rome et la Judee," T. i. p. 158.) Abba Saul. He was of prodigious height, and had the charge of superintending the burials of the dead, that everything might be done according to the law. The rabbins, who delight in the marvelous, affirm that in the exercise of his duties he found the thigh bone of Og, the King of Bashan, and the right eye of Absa- lom. By virtue of the marrow extracted from the thigh of Og, he was enabled to chase a young buck for three leagues; as for the eye of Absalom, it was so deep that he could have hidden himself in it as if in a cav- ern. These stories, no doubt, appear very puerile; and yet, according to a Talmudical book (Menorath-Ham- moer, " the lighted candlestick"), which is considered of great authority even in the modern [orthodox] syna- gogue, we must judge of these matters in the following manner: " Everything which our doctors have taught in the Medrashim (allegoric or historical commenta- ries) we are bound to consider and believe in as the law of Moses our master; and if we find anything in it which appears exaggerated and incredible, we must attribute it to the weakness of our understandings, rather than to their teachings; and whoever turns into ridicule whatever they have said will be punished." According to Maimonides, Abba Saul died before the destruction of the Temple. (Mishna, " Middoth," or " of the Dimensions of the Temple," Chapter, " Har habbaith"; "Talmud," " Nidda," or "the Purifica- tion of Women," C. HI. fol. 24, recto; Maimonides, 314 THE TRIAL OF JESUS " Proef ad zeraim"; Drach, " Harmonies entre I'Eglise et la Synagogue," T. ii. p. 375.) R. Chanania, surnamed the Vicar of the Priests. The Mishna attributes to him a saying which brings clearly before us the social position of the Jewish peo- ple in the last days of Jerusalem. " Pray," said he, " for the Roman Empire; for should the terror of its power disappear in Palestine, neighbor will devour neighbor alive." This avowal shows the deplorable state of Judea, and the divisions to which she had be- come a prey. The Romans seem, however, to have cared very little for the sympathy of R. Chanania, for, having possessed themselves of the city, they put him to death. (Mishna, "Aboth," or "of the Fathers of Tradition," C. HI. 2; " Zevachim," or " of Sacrifices," C. IX. 3 ; " Eduth," or " of Testimony," C. II. i ; David Ganz, " Chronologie," 4826; " Sepher Jucha- sin," or " the Book of Ancestors," p. 57.) Rabbi Eleazar ben PartAH, one of the most es- teemed scribes of the Sanhedrin, on account of his scientific knowledge. Already very aged at the de- struction of the Temple, he yet lived several years after that national calamity. (" Talmud," " Gittin," or " of Divorces," C. III. 4; " Sepher Juchasin," p. 31.) Rabbi Nachum Halbalar. He is mentioned in the rabbinical books as belonging to the Sanhedrin in the year 28 A.D., but nothing particular is mentioned of his history. (" Talmud," " Peah," or " of the An- gle," C. II. 6, " Sanhedrin.") Rabbi SiMON Hamizpah. He also is said to have belonged to the Sanhedrin in the year 28 A.D. Beyond CHARACTERS OF THE SANHEDRISTS 315 this but little is known. (''Talmud," " Peah," C. n. 6.) These are, according to Jewish tradition, the princi- pal scribes, or doctors, that composed the second cham- ber of the Sanhedrin at the time of the trial of Christ. The ancient books which speak of them are, of course, filled with their praises. Nevertheless, blended with these praises are some remarks which point to the pre- dominant vice of these men — namely, pride. We read in Rabbi Nathan's book, "Aruch " (a Talmudical dic- tionary of great authority^) : " 7n the past and more honorable tunes the titles of rabbin, rabbi, or rav,^ to designate the learned men of Babylon and Palestine, were unknown; thus when Hillel came from Babylon the title of rabbi was not added to his name. It was the same with the prophets, who were styled simply Isaiah, Haggai, etc., and not Rabbi Isaiah, Rabbi Hag- gai, etc. Neither did Ezra bring the title of rabbi with him from Babylon. It was not until the time of Gama- liel, Simon, and Jochanan ben Zackai that this impos- ing title was first introduced among the worthies of the Sanhedrin. ^^ This pompous appellation appears, indeed, for the first time among the Jews contemporary with Christ. " They love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the mar- ket-places, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi." 1 Rabbi Nathan, son of Rabbi Yechiel, was the disciple of the cele- brated Moses, the preacher and first rabbi of the synagogue at Rome in the ninth century. His work forms a large folio volume, and contains some minute explanations of the most difficult passages in the "Talmud." 2 I. e., lord. 2i6 THE TRIAL OF JESUS Proud of their titles and learning, they laid claim to the foremost rank in society. A wise man, say they, should be preferred to a king; the king takes the prece- dence of the high priest; the priest of the Levite; the Levite of the ordinary Israelite. The wise man should be preferred to the king, for if the wise man should die he could not easily be replaced; while the king could be succeeded by an Israelite of any order} Bas- ing the social status on this maxim we are not aston- ished to find in the Talmud ~ that at a certain time twenty-four persons were excommunicated for having failed to render to the rabbi the reverence due his position. Indeed, a very small offense was often suf- ficient to call forth maledictions from this haughty and intolerant dignitary. Punishment was mercilessly in- flicted wherever there was open violation of any one of the following rules established by the rabbis them- selves : If any one opposes his rabbi, he is guilty in the same degree as if he opposed God himself.^ If any one quarrels with his rabbi, it is as if he contended with the living God.^ If any one thinks evil of his rabbi, it is as if he thought evil of the Eternal.^ This self-sufficiency was carried to such an enormous extent that when Jerusalem fell into the hands of Titus, ^ ' ' Talmud," Jerus., " Horayoth," or " Regulations of Justice,'' fol. 84, recto. ^ "Talmud," Jerus., " Shevuoth," or *' of Oaths," fol. 19, verso. ^ "Tanchumah," or "Book of Consolation," fol. 68, recto. * "Tanchumah," or " Book of Consolation," fol. 68, recto. ^ " Tanchumah," or " Book of Consolation," fol. 68, recto, and "San- hedrin," fol. no, verso. CHARACTERS OF THE SANHEDRISTS 317 who came against it armed with the sword of ven- geance of Jehovah, Rabbi Jehudah wrote with an un- flinching pen : " // Jerusalem was destroyed, we need look for no other cause than the people's want of re- spect for the rabbis.''^ -^ We ask now of every sincere Israelite, What opinion can be formed of the members of the second chamber who are about to assist in pronouncing judgment upon Christ? Could impartiality be expected of those proud and selfish men, whose lips delighted in nothing so much as sounding their own praises? What appre- hensions must one not have of an unjust and cruel ver- dict when he remembers it was of these very men that Christ had said: " Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes; they make broad their phylac- teries and enlarge the borders of their garments; they love greetings in the market, and to be called Rabbi, Rabbi; which devour widows' houses; and for show make long prayers." ^ The remembrance of this re- buke, so galling to their pride, continually rankled in their minds; and when the opportunity came, with what remorseless hate did they wreak upon him their vengeance! We may, then, conclude from the fore- going facts that the members of the chamber of the scribes were no better than those composing the cham- ber of the priests. To this assertion, however, there is one exception to be made; for, as we have already seen, there was among those arrogant and unscrupulous 1 "Talmud/^ "Shabbath," or "of the Sabbath," fol. iig, recto. 2 Luke XX. 46; Matt, xxiii. 5-7; Mark xii. 38, 39. 3i8 THE TRIAL OF JESUS men ^ one whose sense of justice was not surpassed by his great learning. That man was Gamaliel. III. Chamber of the Elders This chamber was the least influential of the three; hence, but few names of the persons composing it at the period to which we refer have been preserved. Joseph of Arimathea. The Gospel makes of him the following eulogy: Rich man; honorable counselor; good and just man ; the same had not consented to the counsel and deed of the others. Joseph of Arimathea is called in the Vulgate, or the Latin version of the Bible, " noble centurion," because he was one of the ten magistrates or senators who had the principal au- thority in Jerusalem under the Romans. His noble position is more clearly marked in the Greek version. That he was one of the seventy may be concluded, first, because it was common to admit senators who were considered the ancients of the people in this assembly; they were indeed the chiefs and the princes of the nation — seniores populi, principes nostri] second, be- cause these words, " he had not consented to the counsel and deed of the others," proves that he had a right to be in the grand assembly and take part in the discus- sions. (Matt, xxvii. 57-59; Mark xv. 43-46; Luke xxiii. 50; John xix. 38; Jacobi Alting, " Schilo seu de Vaticinio patriarchae Jacobi," p. 310; Goschler, Dic- tion. Encyclopediq.; word, "Arimathea"; Cornelius ^ Some remarkable pages respecting the pride of the Jewish scribes and doctors may be found in Bossuet's "Meditations on the Gospel." CHARACTERS OF THE SANHEDRISTS 319 Lapidus, " Comment, in Script, sac," edition Vives, T. XV. p. 638, second col.) NiCODEMUS. St. John the Evangelist says that he was by profession a Pharisee, a prince of the Jews, a master in Israel, and a member of the Sanhedrin, where he one day attempted to oppose his colleagues by speaking in defense of Jesus. This act brought down upon him the disdainful retort from the others, " Art thou also a Galilean? " He was one, it is true, but in secret. We know from the Gospel account of him that he possessed great riches, and that he used nearly a hundred pounds of myrrh and spices for the burial of Christ. The name of Nicodemus is mentioned in the Talmud also; and, although it was known that his attachment to Christ was great, he is, never- theless, spoken of with honor. But this fact may be due to his great wealth. There were, says the Hebrew book, three eminent men in Jerusalem — Nicodemus ben Gurien, ben Tzitzith Hacksab, ben Kalba Shevuah — each of whom could have supported the whole city for ten years. (John iii. i-io; vii. 50-52; xix. 39; " Talmud," " Gittin," or " of Divorces," C. V. fol. 56, verso; " Abodah Zarah," or " of Idolatry," C. II. fol. 25, verso; '' Taanith," or " of the Fast Days," III. fol. 19, recto; fol. 20, verso; Midrash Rabbah on " Kohe- leth," VII. 11; David Ganz, '' Chron." 4757; Knap- pius, " Comment, in Colloquium Christi cum Nico- demo"; Cornelius Lapidus, "Comment, in Joann," Cap. III. et seq.) Ben Kalba Shevuah. After stating that he was one of the three rich men of Jerusalem, the Talmud 320 THE TRIAL OF JESUS adds: " His name was given to him because whosoever entered his house as hungry as a dog came out filled." There is no doubt that his high financial position se- cured for him one of the first places in the chamber of the ancients. His memory, according to Ritter, is still preserved among the Jews in Jerusalem. (" Tal- mud," " Gittin," or '' of Divorces," C. V. fol. 56, verso; David Ganz, " Chronol." 4757; Ritter, " Erdkunde," XVI. 478.) Ben Tzitzith Hacksab. The effeminacy of this third rich man is made known to us by the Talmud, where it is stated that the border of his pallium trained itself always on the softest carpets. Like Nicodemus and Kalba Shevuah, he no doubt belonged to the San- hedrin. (''Talmud," "Gittin," C. V. fol. 56, verso; David Ganz, " Chron." 4757.) Simon. From Josephus the historian we learn that he was of Jewish parentage, and was highly esteemed in Jerusalem on account of the accurate knowledge of the law which he possessed. He had the boldness, one day, to convoke an assembly of the people and to bring an accusation against King Herod Agrippa, who, he said, deserved, on account of his bad conduct, that the entrance into the sacred portals should be forbidden him. This took place eight or nine years after Christ — that is to say, in the year 42 or 43 A.D. We may safely conclude that a man who had power enough to convoke an assembly and sufficient reputation and knowledge to dare accuse a king, must undoubtedly have belonged to the council of the Sanhedrin. Be- sides, his birth alone at a time when nobility of origin CHARACTERS OF THE SANHEDRISTS 321 constituted, as we have already said, a right to hon- ors, would have thrown wide open to him the doors of the assembly. (Jos., "Ant," XIX. VH. 4; De- rembourg, " Essai sur I'histoire et la geographie de la Palestine," p. 207, n. i ; Frankel, Monatsschrift.y III. 440.) Doras was a very influential citizen of Jerusalem, and is thus spoken of by Josephus. He was, how- ever, a man of cruel and immoral character, not hesi- tating, for the sake of ingratiating himself with Gov- ernor Felix, to cause the assassination of Jonathan, the high priest who had made himself obnoxious to that ruler by some just remonstrances respecting his admin- istration. Doras effected the assassination in cold blood by means of murderers hired at the expense of Felix {52 or 53 A.D.). The prominence which this man for a long time maintained in Jerusalem warrants the pre- sumption that he was a member of the Sanhedrin. (Jos., "Ant.," XX. Vni. 5.) John, son of John. Dorotheas, son of Nathanael. Tryphon, son of Theudion. Cornelius, son of Ceron. These four personages were sent as ambassadors by the Jews of Jerusalem to Emperor Claudius in the year 44, when Cuspius Fadus was governor of Judea. Claudius mentions this fact in a letter sent by him to Cuspius Fadus, and which Josephus has preserved. It is very probable that either they themselves or their fathers were members of the chamber of the ancients; for the Jews appointed as their ambassadors only such 222 THE TRIAL OF JESUS members of the Sanhedrin as were distinguished for superior learning. (Jos., "Ant," XX. I. i, 2.) The rabbinical books limit their information con- cerning the members of this chamber to the names we have just mentioned. To be guided, then, by the docu- ments quoted, one would suppose that although this chamber was the least important of the three, yet its members were perhaps more just than those composing the other two, and consequently manifested less vehe- mence against Christ during His trial. But a statement made by Josephus the historian proves beyond doubt that this third chamber was made up of men no better than were to be found in the others. It was from among the wealthy element of Jewish society, says Jo- sephus, that Sadduceeism received most of its disciples.* Since, then, the chamber of ancients was composed principally of the rich men of Jerusalem, we may safely conclude that the majority of its members were infected with the errors of Sadduceeism — that is to say, with a creed that taught that the soul dies before the body.- We are, then, in the presence of real materialists, who consider the destiny of man to consist in the enjoyment of material and worldly things,^ and who are so car- nally minded that it would seem as if the prophetic indignation of David had stigmatized them beforehand when he says : " They have so debased themselves as to become like the beasts that have no understanding." ^ Let not our readers imagine that in thus speaking we at all mean to do injustice to the memory of these 1 Jos., "Ant.," XVIII. I. 4. 3 Munk, "Palestine," p. 515. 2 Jos., "Ant.," XVIII. I. 4. 4 Psalms. CHARACTERS OF THE SANHEDRISTS 323 men. A fact of great importance proves indisputably that Sadducees or Epicureans were numerous among the Sanhedrin. When, several years after the trial of Christ, the apostle Paul had in his turn to appear before that body, he succeeded by the skill of his ora- tory in turning the doctrinal differences of that assem- bly to his benefit. " Men and brethren," he exclaimed, " I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; of the hope and the resurrection of the dead I am called in ques- tion." ^ Hardly had the apostle pronounced these words when a hot discussion arose between the Saddu- cees and the Pharisees, all of them rising and speaking in great confusion — some for the resurrection, others against it — and it was in the tumult of recrimination and general uproar that the apostle was able peacefully to withdraw. Such was the state of things in the su- preme council of the Hebrews; and men of notorious heresy, and even impiety, were appointed as judges to decide on questions of doctrine. Among these mate- rialists there were, however, two just men; and, like Lot among the wicked inhabitants of Sodom, there were in this assembly Nicodemus and Joseph of Ari- mathea. We shall now briefly sum up the contents of the pre- ceding chapter. We possess certain information re- specting more than one half of the seventy-one mem- bers of the Sanhedrin. We know almost all the high priests, who, as we have already said, formed the prin- cipal element of this council. This majority, as we have intimated, is sufficient for the forming of an esti- ^ Acts xxiii. 6. 324 THE TRIAL OF JESUS mate of the moral tone of all the judges; and before the debates begin, it is easy to foresee the issue of the trial of Christ. What, indeed, could have been the issue of a trial before the first chamber, composed as it was of demor- alized, ambitious, and scheming priests? of priests who were mostly Pharisees — that is to say, men of narrow minds, careful only of the external, haughty, overbear- ing, and self-satisfied, believing themselves to be both infallible and impeccable?^ It is true they expected a Messiah; but their Messiah was to subdue unto them all their enemies, impose for their benefit a tax on all the nations of the earth, and uphold them in all the absurdities with which they have loaded the law of Moses. But this man who is about to be brought before them has exposed their hypocritical semblance of piety, and justly stripped them of the undeserved esteem in which they were held by the people. He has absolutely de- nounced the precepts which they invented and placed above the law. He even desired to abolish the illegal taxes which they had imposed upon the people. Are not all these more than sufficient to condemn Him in their eyes and prove Him worthy of death? Can a more favorable verdict be expected of the members of the second chamber, composed as it was of men so conceited and arrogant? These doctors ex- pected a Messiah who would be another Solomon, un- 1 Matt. vi. 2, 5, l6; ix. II, 14; xii. 2; xxiii. 5, 15, 23; Luke v. 30; vi. 2,7; xi. 39, etc.;xviii. 12; John ix. i6;"Perkeh Avoth," or "Sentences of the Fathers," I. 16; Jos., "Ant.," XVII. II. 4; XVIII. I. 3; "Vita," 38; "Talmud," Bab., " Sotah," fol. 22, recto. CHARACTERS OF THE SANHEDRISTS 325 der whose reign and with whose aid they would estab- lish at Jerusalem an academy of learning that would attract all the kings, even as the Queen of Sheba was attracted to the court of the wisest king of Israel. But this Jesus, who claims to be the Messiah, has the bold- ness to declare blessed those who are humble in spirit. His disciples are but ignorant fishermen, chosen from the least of the tribes; his speech of a provoking sim- plicity, condemning before the multitude the haughty and pretentious language of the doctors. Are not these things sufficient to bring down upon him their con- demnation? And what justice can we expect, in fine, from the third chamber, when we remember that most of its members were depraved Sadducees, caring only for the enjoyment of the things of this world, heedless of the welfare of the soul, almost denying the existence of God, and disbelieving in the resurrection of the dead? According to their views, the mission of the Messiah was not to consist in the regenerating of Israel as well as of the whole human race, but in the making of Jerusalem the center of riches and worldly goods, which would be brought hither by the conquered and humbled Gentiles, who were to become the slaves of the Israelites. But the man upon whom they are called to pass judgment, far from attaching great importance to wealth and dignity, as did they, prescribes to his disciples the renunciation of riches and honors. He even despises those things which the Sadducees esteem most — viz., pedigree, silk attire, cups of gold, and sumptuous repast. What could have rendered his con- 326 THE TRIAL OF JESUS demnation surer than such manifestations of contempt for the pride and voluptuousness of these men? To limit our inquiry to the moral characters of the judges alone, the issue of the trial can be but fatal to the accused; and so, when the three chambers consti- tuting the Sanhedrin council had entered into session, we can well imagine that there was no hope for the acquittal of Jesus; for are not all the high priests, as well as the majority of the scribes and ancients, against him?^ ^ " From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes." (Matt. xvi. 21.) APPENDIX II ACTS OF PILATE HE apocryphal Acts of Pilate are herewith given under Ap- pendix 11. The authenticity of these writings has never been finally settled by the scholarship of the world. It is safe to say, however, that the current of modern criticism is decidedly against their genuineness. Nev- ertheless, the following facts seem to be very generally conceded by the critics: That there are now in exist- ence certain ancient documents called the " Acts of Pilate "; that they were probably discovered at Turin, in northern Italy, and were first used by the noted New Testament palaeographer. Dr. Constantine Tischendorf, who studied them in company with the celebrated orientalist, Victor Amadee Peyron, pro- fessor of oriental languages in the University of Turin; and, furthermore, that these documents that we now have are approximately accurate copies of the docu- ment mentioned by Justin Martyr about the year 138 A.D., and by Tertullian about the year 200 A.D. But, admitting all these things, the question of genu- ineness and authenticity still remains to be settled. Was the document referred to by Justin as the " Acts of 3*7 328 THE TRIAL OF JESUS Pilate," and again as the " Acts recorded under Pon- tius Pilate," a genuine manuscript, written by or com- posed under the direction of Pilate, or was it a " pious fraud of some Christian," who gathered his prophecies from the Old, and his facts from the New Testament, and then embellished both with his imagination? The subject is too vast and the space at our disposal is too limited to permit a discussion of the authenticity of the Acts of Pilate. We have deemed it sufficient to insert under Appendix II lengthy extracts from the writings of Tischendorf and Lardner, two of the most celebrated biblical critics, relating to the genuineness of these Acts. The reader would do well to peruse these extracts carefully before reading the Acts of Pilate. Lardner's Remarks on the Acts of Pilate The Acts of Pontius Pilate, and his letter to Tiberius " Justin Martyr, in his first Apology, which was presented to the emperor Antoninus Pius, and the Senate of Rome, about the year 140, having mentioned our Savior's crucifixion and some of the circumstances of it, adds: 'And that these things were so done you may know from the Acts made in the time of Pontius Pilate.' " Afterwards in the same Apology, having mentioned some of our Lord's miracles, such as healing diseases and raising the dead, he adds: ' And that these things were done by him you may know from the Acts made in the time of Pontius Pilate.' ACTS OF PILATE 329 ** Tertullian, in his Apology, about the year 200, having spoken of our Savior's crucifixion and resur- rection, and his appearance to his disciples, who were ordained by him to preach the gospel over the world, goes on : ' Of all these things, relating to Christ, Pilate, in his conscience a Christian, sent an account to Tibe- rius, then emperor.' " In another chapter or section of his Apology, nearer the beginning, he speaks to this purpose: ' There was an ancient decree that no one should be received for a deity unless he was first approved by the senate. Tiberius, in whose time the Christian religion had its rise, having received from Palestine in Syria an account of such things as manifested our Savior's divinity, pro- posed to the senate, and giving his own vote as first in his favor, that he should be placed among the gods. The senate refused, because he himself had declined that honor.' " ' Nevertheless the emperor persisted in his own opinion, and ordered that if any accused the Christians they should be punished.' And then adds: 'Search,' says he, ' your own writings, and you will there find that Nero was the first emperor who exercised any acts of severity toward the Christians, because they were then very numerous at Rome.' " It is fit that we should now observe what notice Eusebius takes of these things in his Ecclesiastical His- tory. It is to this effect: ' When the wonderful resur- rection of our Savior, and his ascension to heaven, were in the mouths of all men, it being an ancient custom for the governors of provinces to write the emperor, 330 THE TRIAL OF JESUS and give him an account of new and remarkable oc- currences, that he might not be ignorant of anything; our Savior's resurrection being much talked of through- out all of Palestine, Pilate informed the emperor of it, as likewise of his miracles, which he had heard of, and that being raised up after he had been put to death, he was already believed by many to be a god. And it is said that Tiberius referred the matter to the sen- ate, but that they refused their consent, under a pre- tence that it had not been first approved of by them; there being an ancient law that no one should be deified among the Romans without an order of the senate; but, indeed, because the saving and divine doctrine of the gospel needed not to be confirmed by human judg- ment and authority. However, Tiberius persisted in his former sentiment, and allowed not anything to be done that was prejudicial to the doctrine of Christ. These things are related by Tertullian, a man famous on other accounts, and particularly for his skill in the Roman laws. I say he speaks thus in his Apology for the Christians, written by him in the Roman tongue, but since (in the days of Eusebius) translated into the Greek.' His words are these: * There was an ancient decree that no one should be consecrated as a deity by the emperor, unless he was first approved of by the senate. Marcus Aemilius knows this by his god Al- burnus. This is to our purpose, forasmuch as among you divinity is bestowed by human judgment.' " And if God does not please man, he shall not be God. And, according to this way of thinking, man must be propitious to God. Tiberius, therefore, in ACTS OF PILATE 331 whose time the Christian name was first known in the world, having received an account of this doctrine out of Palestine, where it began, communicated that ac- count to the senate ; giving his own suffrage at the same time in favor of it. But the senate rejected it, because it had not been approved by themselves. * Neverthe- less the emperor persisted in his judgment, and threat- ened death to such as should accuse the Christians.' * Which,' adds Eusebius, * could not be other than the disposal of Divine Providence, that the doctrine of the gospel, which was then in its beginning, might be preached all over the world without molestation.' So Eusebius. " Divers exceptions have been made by learned mod- erns to the original testimonies of Justin Martyr and Tertullian. ' Is there any likelihood,' say they, ' that Pilate should write such things to Tiberius concerning a man whom he had condemned to death? And if he had written them, is it probable that Tiberius should propose to the senate to have a man put among the gods upon the bare relation of a governor of a prov- ince? And if he had proposed it, who can make a doubt that the senate would not have immediately com- plied? So that though we dare not say that this nar- ration is absolutely false, yet it must be reckoned as doubtful.' So says Du Pin. " These and other difficulties shall now be consid- ered, r " Now, therefore, I shall mention some observations: " In the first place, I shall observe that Justin Mar- tyr and Tertullian are early writers of good repute. 232 THE TRIAL OF JESUS That is an observation of Bishop Pearson. These tes- timonies are taken from the most public writings, Apol- ogies for the Christian religion, presented, or at least proposed and recommended to the emperor and senate of Rome, or to magistrates of high authority and great distinction in the Roman empire. Secondly: It certainly was the custom of governors of provinces to compose Acts or memoirs or commenta- ries of the remarkable occurrences in the places where they presided. In the time of the first Roman emperors there were Acts of the Senate, Acts of the City, or People of Rome, Acts of other cities, and Acts of governors of provinces. Of all these we can discern clear proofs and frequent mention in ancient writers of the best credit. Julius Caesar ordered that Acts of the Senate, as well as daily Acts of the People, should be pub- lished. See Sueton. Jul. Caes. c. xx. " Augustus forbade publishing Acts of the Senate. " There was an officer, himself a senator, whose prov- ince it was to compose those Acts. " The Acts of the Senate must have been large and voluminous, containing not only the question pro- posed, or referred to the senate by the consul, or the emperor, but also the debates and speeches of the senators. " The Acts of the People, or City, were journals or registers of remarkable births, marriages, divorces, deaths, proceedings in courts of judicature, and other interesting affairs, and some other things below the dignity of history. ACTS OF PILATE 333 *' To these Acts of each kind Roman authors fre- quently had recourse for information. " There were such Acts or registers at other places besides Rome, particularly at Antium. From them Suetonius learned the day and place of the birth of Caligula, about which were other uncertain reports. And he speaks of those Acts as public authorities, and therefore more decisive and satisfactory than some other accounts. " There were also Acts of the governors of provinces, registering all remarkable transactions and occurrences. " Justin Martyr and Tertullian could not be mis- taken about this; and the learned bishop of Caesarea admits the truth of what they say. And in the time of the persecuting emperor Maximin, about the year of Christ 307, the heathen people forged Acts of Pilate, derogatory to the honor of our Savior, which were dili- gently spread abroad, to unsettle Christians, or discour- age them in the profession of their faith. Of this we are informed by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History. Thirdly: It was customary for the governors of prov- inces to send to the emperor an account of remarkable transactions in places where they presided. " So thought the learned Eusebius, as we have seen. " And Pliny's letters to Trajan, still extant, are a proof of it. Philo speaks of the Acts or Memoirs of Alexandria sent to Caligula, which that emperor read with more eagerness and satisfaction than anything else. " Fourthly: It has been said to be very unlikely that Pilate should write such things to Tiberius, concerning a man whom he [Pilate] had condemned to death. 334 THE TRIAL OF JESUS " To which it is easy to reply, that if he wrote to Tiberius at all, it is very likely that he should speak favorably and honorably of the Savior. *' That Pilate passed sentence of condemnation upon our Lord very unwillingly, and not without a sort of compulsion, appears from the history of the Evangelist: Matt, xxvii. ; Mark xv. ; Luke xxiii. ; John xviii. Pi- late was hard pressed. The rulers of the Jews vehe- mently accused our Lord to him. They said they had found him perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that himself is Christ, a king, and the like; and all without effect for a while. " Pilate still sought for expedients to set Jesus at liberty. " As his reluctance had been very manifest and pub- lic in a court of judicature, in the chief city of the nation at the time of one of their great festivals, it is highly probable that when he sent to Rome he should make some apology for his conduct. Nor could any- thing be more proper than to allege some of our Sa- vior's miracles which he had heard of, and to give an account to the zeal of those who professed faith in him after his ignominious crucifixion, and openly asserted that he had risen from the dead and ascended to heaven. " Pilate would not dare in such a report to write falsehood, nor to conceal the most material circum- stances of the case about which he was writing. At the trial he publicly declared his innocence: and told the Jews several times * that he found no fault in him at all.' " And when he was going to pronounce the sentence ACTS OF PILATE 335 of condemnation, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just person: 'See ye to it.' Matt, xxvii. 24. " When he wrote to Tiberius he would very natu- rally say something of our Lord's wonderful resurrec- tion and ascension, which were much talked of and believed by many, with which he could not be possibly unacquainted. The mention of these things would be the best vindication of his inward persuasion, and his repeated declarations of our Lord's innocence upon trial notwithstanding the loud clamors and united ac- cusations of the Jewish people and their rulers. '' Pilate, as has been said several times, passed con- demnation upon Jesus very unwillingly, and not until after long trial. " When he passed sentence upon him he gave orders that this title or inscription should be put upon the cross: 'Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews.' " When he had expired, application was made to Pilate, by Joseph of Arimathea, an honorable counsel- lor, that the body might be taken down and buried. To which he consented; but not till assurance from the centurion that he had been sometime dead. The next day some of the priests and pharisees came to him, say- ing: ' Sir, we remember that that deceiver said while he was yet alive. After three days I will rise again. Command, therefore, that the sepulchre be made sure, until the third day, lest his disciples come by night and steal him away, and say unto the people. He is 236 THE TRIAL OF JESUS risen from the dead.' ' So the last error shall be worse than the first.' " Pilate said unto them: ' Ye have a watch; go your way, make it sure as you can.' So they went and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone and setting a watch. " Whilst they were at the sepulchre there was a ' great earthquake,' the stone was rolled away by an Angel, * whose countenance was like lightning, and for fear of whom the guards did shake and become as dead men.' Some of the guards went down into the City, and showed unto the chief priests all the things that were done. " Nor can there be any doubt that these things came also to the governor's ears. Pilate, therefore, was fur- nished with materials of great importance relating to this case, very proper to be sent to the emperor. And very probably he did send them, for he could do no otherwise. "Fifthly: it is said, 'That if Pilate had sent such things to Tiberius, it is nevertheless very unlikely that Tiberias should propose to the senate that our Savior might be put among the gods, because that emperor had little or no regard for things of religion.' " But it is easy to answer that such observations are of little or no importance. Few princes are able to preserve uniformity in the whole of their conduct, and it is certain that Tiberius varied from himself upon many occasions and in different parts of his life. "Sixthly: it is further urged, that if Tiberius had proposed the thing to the senate, there can be no doubt that the senate would have immediately complied. ACTS OF PILATE 337 "But neither is this difficulty insuperable; for we are assured by Suetonius that Tiberius let several things be decided by the senate contrary to his own opinion, without showing much uneasiness. (It must be observed here that Dr. Lardner is very copious in quotations from the best authorities in proof of all his statements. The reader is referred to Vol. VI of his great works, pages 605-620, where will be found these quotations in foot-notes too lengthy to be tran- scribed here.) " Seventhly: The right interpretation of the words of TertuUian will be of use to remove difficulties and to confirm the truth of the account. "I have translated them in this manner: 'When Tiberius referred the matter to the senate, that our Lord should be placed in the number of gods, the senate refused, because he had himself declined that honor.' " The words are understood to the like purpose by Pearson. " There is another sense, which is that of the Greek translation of Tertullian's Apology, made use of by Eusebius: 'The senate refused because it had not it- self approved of it.' But that sense, if it be any sense at all, is absurd, and therefore unlikely. If none be- side the senate had a right to consecrate any for the deity, yet certainly the consul or the emperor might refer such a thing to that venerable body. According to Tertullian's account, the whole is in a fair way of legal proceeding." [And it may be remarked here that TertuUian, being well versed in Roman law, would 338 THE TRIAL OF JESUS hardly have passed by a blunder here or committed one in anything wherein he may have had to do with the statement.] " By virtue of an ancient law, no one might be reck- oned a god (at least by the Romans) without the ap- probation of the senate. Tiberius having been in- formed of some extraordinary things concerning Jesus, referred it to the senate, that he also might be placed in the number of deities. Was it possible after this that the senate should refuse it, under a pretense that Tiberius had bestowed divinity upon Jesus without their consent, when he had done no such thing, and at the very time was referring it to their judgment in the old legal way? " Le Clerc objects that the true reading in Tertul- lian is not — Non quia in se non probaverat, but quia non ipse probaverat. " Be it so. The meaning is the same. Ipse must intend the emperor, not the senate. The other sense is absurd, and next to a contradiction, and therefore not likely to be right, and at the same time it is a rude and needless affront. The other interpretation repre- sents a handsome compliment, not without foundation. For it is very true that Tiberius had himself declined receiving divine honors. ** Eighthly: It has been objected that Tiberius was unfriendly to the Jewish people, and therefore it must be reckoned very improbable that he should be willing to put a man who was a Jew among the gods. ' " But there is little or no ground for this objection. It was obviated long ago in the first part of this work. ACTS OF PILATE 339 where beside other things it is said: In the reign of Tiberius the Jewish people were well used. They were indeed banished out of Italy by an edict; but it was for a misdemeanor committed by some villains of that nation. The great hardship was that many innocent persons suffered beside the guilty. " Upon other occasions Tiberius showed the Jews all the favor that could be desired, especially after the death of Sejanus; and is much applauded for it by Philo. "Ninthly: Still it is urged, 'Nothing can be more absurd than to suppose that Tiberius would receive for a deity a man who taught the worship of one God only, and whose religion decried all other deities as mere fiction.' " Upon which I must say, nothing can be more ab- surd than this objection. Tertullian does not suppose Tiberius to be well acquainted with the Christian re- ligion, our Savior's doctrine. " All he says is, that, having heard of some extraor- dinary things concerning him, he had a desire to put him among the Roman deities. "Tenthly: Tertullian proceeds: 'Nevertheless the emperor persisted in his opinion, and ordered that if any accused the Christians they should be punished.' This was very natural. Though the senate would not put Jesus in the number of deities, the emperor was still of opinion that it might have been done. " And he determined to provide by an edict for the safety of those who professed a high regard for Jesus Christ. Which edict, as Eusebius reasonably supposes, 340 THE TRIAL OF JESUS was of use for securing the free preaching of the gospel in many places. " But the authority of that edict would cease at the emperor's demise, if not sooner. Unfortunately, it could not be in force, or have any great effect, for a long season. " Nor need we consider the ordering such an edict as in favor of the Christians as an incredible thing, if we observe what Philo says, who assures us that * Tiberius gave orders to all the governors of prov- inces, to protect the Jews in the cities where they lived in the observation of their own rights and customs; and that they should bear hard on none of them, but such as were unpeaceable and transgressed the laws of the State.' " Nor is it impossible that the Christians should par- take of the like civilities, they being considered as a sect of the Jews. And it is allowed that the Roman empire did not openly persecute the Christians, till they became so numerous that the heathen people were ap- prehensive of the total overthrow of their religion. " In the eleventh place, says a learned and judicious writer, * It is probable that Pilate, who had no enmity toward Christ, and accounted him a man unjustly ac- cused and an extraordinary person, might be moved by the wonderful circumstances attending and follow- ing his death, to hold him in veneration, and perhaps to think him a hero and the son of some deity. It is possible that he might send a narrative, such as he thought most convenient, of these transactions to Tibe- rius: but it is not at all likely that Tiberius proposed ACTS OF PILATE 341 to the senate that Christ should be deified, and that the senate rejected it, and that Tiberius continued fa- vorably disposed toward Christ, and that he threatened to punish those who should molest and accuse the Chris- tians.' ' Observe also,' says the same learned writer, * that the Jews persecuted the apostles, and slew Ste- phen, and that Saul made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and hailing men and women, com- mitting them to prison, and that Pilate connived at all this violence, and was not afraid of the resentment of Tiberius on that account.' *' Admitting the truth of all these particulars just mentioned, it does not follow that no orders were given by Tiberius for the protection of the followers of Jesus. " For no commands of princes are obeyed by all men everywhere. They are oftentimes transgressed. " Nor was any place more likely than Judea, where the enmity of many against the disciples of Jesus was so great. Nor need it be supposed that Tiberius was very intent to have this order strictly regarded. For he was upon many occasions very indolent and dila- tory; and he was well known to be so. Moreover, the death of Stephen was tumultuous, and not an act of the Jewish council. And further, the influence of Pilate in that country was not now at its full height. We perceive from the history of our Lord's trial before him, as recorded in the gospels, that he stood in fear of the Jews. " He was apprehensive that, if he did not gratify them in that point, they might draw up a long list of 342 THE TRIAL OF JESUS maladministrations for the emperor's view. His con- demnation of Jesus at the importunity of the Jews, con- trary to his own judgment and inclination, declared to them more than once, was a point gained; and his gov- ernment must have been ever after much weakened by so mean a condescension. And that Pilate's influence in the province continued to decline is manifest, in that the people of it prevailed at last to have him removed in a very ignominious manner by Vitellius, president of Syria. " Pilate was removed from his government before the Passover in the year of Christ 36. After which there was no procurator or other person with the power of life and death, in Judea, before the ascension of Herod Agrippa, in the year 41. " In that space of time the Jews would take an un- usual license, and gratify their own malicious dispo- sitions, beyond what they could otherwise have done, without control. " Twelfth : Some have objected that Tertullian is so absurd as to speak of Christians in the time of Tiberius; though it be certain that the followers of Jesus were not known by that denomination till some time after- wards. " But this is a trifling objection. Tertullian intends no more by Christians than followers of Jesus, by what- ever name they were known or distinguished; whether that of Nazarenes, or Galileans, or disciples. " And it is undoubted, that the Christian religion had its rise in the reign of Tiberius; though they who professed to believe in Jesus, as risen from the dead ACTS OF PILATE 343 and ascended to heaven, were not called Christians till some time afterwards. " So at the beginning of the paragraph he says, ' There was an ancient law that no god should be consecrated by the emperor, unless it was first approved by the senate.' Nevertheless, Tertullian was not so ignorant as not to know that there were not any em- perors when the ancient decree was passed. " His meaning is, that no one should be deified by any man, no, not by a consul or emperor, without the approbation of the senate. " Finally: We do not suppose that Tiberius under- stood the doctrine of the Savior, or that he was at all inclined to be a Christian. " Nor did Tertullian intend to say any such thing, for immediately after the passage first cited from him, he adds: ' But the Caesars themselves would have be- lieved in Jesus Christ, if they had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been Caesars.' " Grotius appears to have rightly understood the im- portance of these passages of Tertullian; whose note upon Matthew xxiv. 2, 1 have transcribed below." The reader is referred to Vol. VI. of Lardner's Works, where he will find the notes of this learned writer, as quoted from various ancients and moderns, in proof of all he has brought forward in these lengthy arguments, and which cannot be transcribed here. ^ " Admit, then, the right interpretation of Tertullian, and it may be allowed that what he says is not in- credible or improbable. The Romans had almost innumerable deities, and yet they frequently added to 344 THE TRIAL OF JESUS that number and adopted new. As deifications were very frequent, Tiberius might have indulged a thought of placing Jesus among the established deities without intending to derogate from the worship or honor of those who were already received. " But the senate was not in a humor to gratify him. " And the reason assigned is, because the emperor himself had declined that honor, which is so plausible a pretense, and so fine a compliment, that we cannot easily suppose it to be Tertullian's own invention; which, therefore, gives credibility to his account. *' Eusebius, though he acknowledged the overruling providence of God in the favorable disposition of Ti- berius toward the first followers of Jesus, by which means the Christian religion in its infancy was propa- gated over the world with less molestation, does also say, at the beginning of the chapter quoted, ' The sen- ate refused their consent to the emperor's proposal, un- der a pretence that they had not been first asked, there being an ancient law, that no one should be deified without the approbation of the senate; but, indeed,' adds he, * because the saving and divine doctrine of the gospel needed not to be ratified by human judg- ment and authority.' Chrysostom's observation is to like purpose, but with some inaccuracies. It is likely that he was not at all acquainted with Tertullian; and he was no admirer of Eusebius. Perhaps he builds upon general tradition only. ' The Roman senate,' says he, ' had the power of nominating and decreeing who should be gods. When, therefore, all things concerning Christ had been pub- ACTS OF PILATE 345 lished, he who was the governor of the Jewish nation sent to them to know if they would be pleased to ap- point him also to be a god. But they refused, being offended and provoked, that before their decree and judgment had been obtained, the power of the crucified one had shined out and had attracted all the world to the worship of him. But, by the overruling providence of God, this was brought to pass against their will, that the divinity of Christ might not be established by human appointment and that he might not be reck- oned one of the many who were deified by them.' " Some of which, as he proceeds to show, had been of infamous characters. " I shall now transcribe below in his own words what Orosius, in the fifth century, says of this matter, that all my readers may have it at once before them without looking farther for it." This quotation from Orosius will be found in the " Testimony of the Fathers," un- der the title, " Testimony of Orosius." " And I refer to Zonoras and Nicephoras. The for- mer only quotes Eusebius, and transcribes into his An- nals the chapter of his Ecclesiastical History quoted by me. Nor has Nicephoras done much more." ^ Tischendorf's Comments on the Acts of Pilate " It is the same with the second apocryphal work brought under review above, the so-called Acts of Pi- ^ " The Credibility of the Gospel History," in the chapter on " Testi- monies of Ancient Heathens," vol. vi. p. 605 et seq. 346 THE TRIAL OF JESUS late, only with the difference that they refer as much to John as to the synoptical Gospels. Justin, in like manner as before, is the most ancient voucher for this work, which is said to have been written under Pilate's jurisdiction, and by reason of its specification of won- derful occurrences before, during, and after the cruci- fixion, to have borne strong evidence to the divinity of Christ. Justin saw as little reason as Tertullian and others for believing that it was a work of pious decep- tion from a Christian hand." [As has been alleged by opponents.] " On the contrary, Justin appeals to it twice in his first Apology in order to confirm the ac- counts of the occurrences which took place at the cruci- fixion in accordance with prophecy, and of the miracu- lous healings effected by Christ, also the subject of prophetic announcement. He cites specifically (chap. 35) from Isaiah Ixv. 2, and Iviii. 2: 'I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people which walketh in a way that was not good. They ask of me the ordinances of justice, they take delight in approaching to God.' Further, from the 22d Psalm: ' They pierced my hands and my feet; they parted my garments upon them and cast lots upon my vesture.' With reference to this he remarks that Christ fulfilled this; that he did stretch forth his hands when the Jews crucified him — the men who contended against him and denied that he was Christ. ' Then,' he says further, * as the prophet foretold, they dragged him to the judg- ment seat, set him upon it and said, Judge us.' The expression, however, ' they pierced,' etc., refers to the nails with which they fastened his feet and hands to the ACTS OF PILATE 347 cross. And after they had crucified him they threw lots for his clothing, and they who had taken part in the act of crucifixion divided it among themselves. To this he adds: And you can learn from the Acts, com- posed during the governorship of Pontius Pilate, that these things really happened. " Still more explicit is the testimony of Tertullian. It may be found in Apologeticus (chap. 2) where he says that out of envy Jesus was surrendered to Pilate by the Jewish ceremonial lawyers, and by him, after he had yielded to the cries of the people, given over for crucifixion; that while hanging on the cross he gave up the ghost with a loud cry, and so anticipated the executioner's duty; that at that same hour the day was interrupted by a sudden darkness; that a guard of sol- diers was set at the grave for the purpose of preventing his disciples stealing his body, since he had predicted his resurrection, but that on the third day the ground was suddenly shaken and the stone rolled away from before the sepulchre; that in the grave nothing was found but the articles used in his burial; that the re- port was spread abroad by those who stood outside that the disciples had taken the body away; that Jesus spent forty days with them in Galilee, teaching them what their mission should be, and that after giving them their instructions as to what they should preach, he was raised in a cloud to heaven. Tertullian closes this account with the words, * All this was reported to the Emperor at that time, Tiberius, by Pilate, his con- science having compelled even him to become a Chris- tian.' 348 THE TRIAL OF JESUS " The document now in our possession corresponds with this evidence of Justin and TertuUian. Even in the title it agrees with the account of Justin, although instead of the word acta^ which he used, and which is manifestly much more Latin than Greek, a Greek ex- pression is employed which can be shown to have been used to indicate genuine Acts. The details recounted by Justin and TertuUian are all found in our text of the Acts of Pilate, with this variation, that nothing corresponds to what is joined to the declaration of the prophet, ' They dragged him to the seat of judgment and set him upon it and said,' etc. Besides this, the casting lots for the vesture is expressed simply by the allusion to the division of the clothes. We must give even closer scrutiny to one point. Justin alludes to the miracles which were performed in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, on the lame, the dumb, the blind, the dead, and on lepers. In fact, in our Acts of Pilate there are made to appear before the Roman gov- ernor a palsied man who had suffered for thirty-eight years, and was brought in a bed by young men, and healed on the Sabbath day; a blind man cured by the laying on of hands; a cripple who had been restored; a leper who had been cleansed; the woman whose issue of blood had been stanched, and a witness of the raising of Lazarus from the dead. Of that which TertuUian cites we will adduce merely the passage found in no one of our gospels, that Jesus passed forty days after his resurrection in company with his disciples in Galilee. " This is indicated in our Acts of Pilate at the end ACTS OF PILATE 349 of the fifteenth chapter, where the risen man is repre- sented as saying to Joseph: ' For forty days go not out of thy house, for behold I go to my brethren in Galilee.' " Every one will perceive how strongly the argument that our Acts of Pilate are the same which Justin and Tertullian read is buttressed by these unexpected coin- cidences. The assertion recently made requires, conse- quently, no labored contradiction that the allusions to both men have grown out of their mere suspicion that there was such a record as the Acts of Pilate, or out of the circulation of a mere story about such a record, while the real work was written as the consequence of these allusions at the close of the third century. What an uncommon fancy it requires in the two men to coin- cide so perfectly in a single production, as is the case in the Acts to which I am now referring. And are we to imagine that they referred with such emphasis as they employed to the mere creations of their fancy? " The question has been raised with more justice, whether the production in our possession may not have been a copy or a free revision of the old and primitive one. The modern change in the title has given sup- port to this conjecture, for it has occasioned the work to be commonly spoken of as the Gospel of Nicodemus. But this title is borne neither by any Greek manuscript, the Coptic-Sahidian papyrus, nor the Latin manu- scripts with the exception of a few of the most recent. It may be traced only subsequently to the twelfth cen- tury, although at a very early period, in one of the two prefaces attached to the work, Nicodemus is mentioned in one place as a Hebrew author and in another as a 350 THE TRIAL OF JESUS Greek translator. But aside from the title, the hand- writing displays great variation, and the two prefaces alluded to above show clearly the work of two hands. Notwithstanding this, however, there are decisive grounds for holding that our Acts of Pilate contains in its main substance the document drawn from Justin and Tertullian. The first of these to be noticed is, that the Greek text, as given in the version most widely circulated in the manuscripts, is surprisingly corrobo- rated by two documents of the rarest character, and first used by myself — a Coptic-Sahidian papyrus manu- script and a Latin palimpsest — both probably dating from the fifth century. Such a documentary confirma- tion of their text is possessed by scarcely ten works of the collective Greek classic literature. Both of these ancient writings make it in the highest degree probable that the Egyptian and Latin translations which they contain were executed still earlier. " But could a work which was held in great consid- eration in Justin's and Tertullian's time and down to the commencement of the fourth century, and which strenuously insists that the Emperor Maximin caused other blasphemous Acts of Pilate to be published and zealously circulated, manifestly for the purpose of dis- placing and discrediting the older Christian Acts — could such a work suddenly change its whole form, and from the fifth century, to which in so extraordinary a manner translators, wholly different in character, point back with such wonderful concurrence, continue in the new form? Contrary as this is to all historical criticism, there is in the contents of the work, in the ACTS OF PILATE 351 singular manner in which isolated and independent de- tails are shown to be related to the canonical books, no less than in the accordance with the earliest quotations found in Justin and TertuUian, a guaranty of the great- est antiquity. ^' There are in the contents, also, matters of such a nature that we must confess that they are to be traced back to the primitive edition, as, for example, the nar- rative in the first chapter of the bringing forward of the accused. " It is incorrect, moreover, to draw a conclusion from Justin's designation of the Acta which is not warranted by the whole character of the work. The Acta, the vTTOfjLVTJjjLaTa, are specified in Justin's account not less than in the manuscripts which we possess, as being written under Pontius Pilate, and that can signify noth- ing else than that they were an official production com- posed under the direct sanction of the Roman governor. Their transmission to the emperor must be imagined as accompanied by a letter of the same character with that which has been brought down to us in the Greek and Latin edition, and yet not at all similar in purport to the notable Acts of Pilate." ^ The Acts of Pilate (First Greek Form) I, Ananias, of the propraetor's bodyguard, being learned in the law, knowing our Lord Jesus Christ from the Holy Scriptures, coming to Him by faith, 1 "Origin of the Four Gospels," pp. 141-50. ^S^ THE TRIAL OF JESUS and counted worthy of the holy baptism, searching also the memorials written at that time of what was done in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ, which the Jews had laid up in the time of Pontius Pilate, found these memorials written in Hebrew, and, by the favor of God, have translated them into Greek for the infor- mation of all who call upon the name of our Master Jesus Christ, in the seventeenth year of the reign of our lord Flavins Theodosius, and the sixth of Flavius Valentianus, in the ninth indiction. All ye, therefore, who read and transfer into other books, remember me and pray for me, and pardon my sins which I have sinned against Him. Peace be to those who read and those who hear, and to their households. Amen. Chapter i. — Having called a council, the high priests and the scribes Annas and Caiaphas and Semes and Dathaes, and Gamaliel, Judas, Levi and Neptha- lim, Alexander and Jairus, and the rest of the Jews, came to Pilate accusing Jesus about many things, say- ing: We know this man to be the son of Joseph the carpenter, born of Mary; and he says that he is the Son of God, and a king; moreover, profanes the Sab- bath, and wishes to do away with the law of our fa- thers. Pilate says: And what are the things which he does, to show that he wishes to do away with it? The Jews say: We have a law not to cure anyone on the Sabbath; but this man has, on the Sabbath, cured the lame and the crooked, the withered and the blind and the paralytic, the dumb and the demoniac, by evil prac- ACTS OF PILATE 352 tices. Pilate says to them: What evil practices? They say to him: He is a magician, and by Beelzebub, prince of the demons, he casts out the demons, and all are subject to him. Pilate says to them: This is not cast- ing out the demons by an unclean spirit, but by the god Esculapius. The Jews say to Pilate: We entreat your highness that he stand at the tribunal and be heard. And Pi- late, having called them, says: Tell me how I, being a procurator, can try a king? They say to him: We do not say that he is a king, but he himself says that he is. And Pilate, having called the runner, says to him: Let Jesus be brought in with respect. And the runner, going out and recognizing him, adored him, and took his cloak into his hand and spread it on the ground, and says to him: My Lord, walk on this and come in, for the procurator calls thee. And the Jews, seeing what the runner had done, cried out against Pilate, saying: Why hast thou ordered him to come in by a runner, and not by a crier? for assuredly the runner, when he saw him, adored him, and spread his doublet on the ground and made him walk like a king. And Pilate, having called the runner, says to him: Why hast thou done this, and spread out thy cloak upon the earth and made Jesus walk upon it? The runner says to him: My Lord procurator, when thou didst send me to Jerusalem to Alexander, I saw him sitting upon an ass, and the sons of the Hebrews held branches in their hands and shouted; and others spread their clothes under him saying: Save now, thou who 354 THE TRIAL OF JESUS art in the highest; blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. The Jews cry out and say to the runner: The sons of the Hebrews shouted in Hebrew; whence, then, hast thou the Greek? The runner says to them: I asked one of the Jews, and said: What is it they are shouting in Hebrew? And he interpreted it for me. Pilate says to them: And what did they shout in Hebrew? The Jews say to him: Hosanna membrome baruchamma adonai. Pilate says to them: And this hosanna, etc., how is it interpreted? The Jews say to him: Save now in the highest; blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. Pilate says to them: If you bear witness to the words spoken by the children, in what has the runner done wrong? And they were silent. And the procurator says to the runner: Go out and bring him in what way thou wilt. And the runner, going out, did in the same manner as before, and says to Jesus: My Lord, come in; the procurator calleth thee. And Jesus, going in, and the standard bearers hold- ing their standards, the tops of the standards bent down, and adored Jesus. And the Jews, seeing the bearing of the standards how they were bent down and adored Jesus, cried out vehemently against the standard bear- ers. And Pilate says to the Jews: Do you not wonder how the tops of the standards were bent down and adored Jesus? The Jews say to Pilate: We saw how the standard bearers bent them down and adored him. And the procurator, having called the standard bearers, says to them: Why have you done this? They say to Pilate: We are Greeks and temple slaves, and how ACTS OF PILATE 3$$ could we adore him? and assuredly, as we were holding the'm up, the tops bent down of their own accord and adored him. Pilate says to the rulers of the synagogue and the elders of the people: Do you choose for yourselves men strong and powerful, and let them hold up the stan- dards, and let us see whether they will bend down with them. And the elders of the Jews picked out twelve men powerful and strong, and made them hold up the standards six by six; and they were placed in front of the procurator's tribunal. And Pilate says to the run- ner: Take him outside of the Pretorium, and bring him in again in whatever way may please thee. And Jesus and the runner went out of the Pretorium. And Pilate, summoning those who had formerly held up the stan- dards, says to them: I have sworn by the health of Caesar, that if the standards do not bend down when Jesus comes in, I will cut off your heads. And the procurator ordered Jesus to come in the second time. And the runner did in the same manner as before, and made many entreaties to Jesus to walk on his cloak. And he walked on it and went in. And as he went in the standards were again bent down and adored Jesus. Chap. 2. — And Pilate, seeing this, was afraid, and sought to go away from the tribunal ; but when he was still thinking of going away, his wife sent to him say- ing: Have nothing to do with this just man, for many things have I suffered on his account this night. And Pilate, summoning the Jews, says to them: You know that my wife is a worshiper of God, and prefers to 356 THE TRIAL OF JESUS adhere to the Jewish religion along with you. They say to him: Yes, we know. Pilate says to them: Be- hold, my wife has sent to me, saying. Have nothing to do with this just man, for many things have I suf- fered on account of him this night. And the Jews an- swering, say unto Pilate : Did we not tell thee that he was a sorcerer? Behold, he has sent a dream to thy wife. And Pilate, having summoned Jesus, says to him: What do these witness against thee? Sayest thou noth- ing? And Jesus said: Unless they had the power, they would say nothing; for every one has the power of his own mouth to speak both good and evil. They shall see to it. And the elders of the Jews answered, and said to Jesus: What shall we see? First, that thou wast born of fornication; secondly, that thy birth in Beth- lehem was the cause of the murder of the infants; thirdly, that thy father Joseph and thy mother Mary fled into Egypt because they had no confidence in the people. Some of the bystanders, pious men of the Jews, say: We deny that he was born of fornication; for we know that Joseph espoused Mary, and he was not born of fornication. Pilate says to the Jews who said he was of fornication: This story of yours is not true, because they were betrothed, as also these fellow-countrymen of yours say. Annas and Caiaphas say to Pilate: All the multitude of us cry out that he was born of forni- cation, and are not believed; these are proselytes and his disciples. And Pilate, calling Annas and Caiaphas, ACTS OF PILAIE 357 says to them: What are proselytes? They say to him: They are by birth children of the Greeks, and have now become Jews. And those that said that he was not born of fornication, viz.: Lazarus, Asterius, Anto- nius, James, Amnes, Zeras, Samuel, Isaac, Phinees, Crispus, Agrippas and Judas, say: We are not prose- lytes, but are children of the Jews, and speak the truth; for we were present at the betrothal of Joseph and Mary. And Pilate, calling these twelve men who said that he was not born of fornication, says to them: I adjure you, by the health of Caesar, to tell me whether it be true that you say, that he was not born of fornication. They say to Pilate : We have a law against taking oaths, because it is a sin; but they will swear by the health of Caesar that it is not as we have said, and we are liable to death. Pilate says to Annas and Caiaphas: Have you nothing to answer to this? Annas and Caia- phas say to Pilate : These twelve are believed when they say that he was not born of fornication; all the multi- tude of us cry out that he was born of fornication, and that he is a sorcerer; and he says that he is the Son of God and a king, and we are not believed. And Pilate orders all the multitude to go out, ex- cept the twelve men who said that he was not born of fornication, and he ordered Jesus to be separated from them. And Pilate says to them: For what reason do they wish to put him to death? They say to him: They are angry because he cures on the Sabbath. Pi- late says: For a good work do they wish to put him to death? They say to him : Yes. 358 THE TRIAL OF JESUS Chap. 3. — And Pilate, filled with rage, went outside of the Pretorium and said to them: I take the sun to witness that I find no fault in this man. The Jews answered and said to the procurator: Unless this man were an evil-doer, we should not have delivered him to thee. And Pilate said: Do you take him and judge him according to your law. The Jews said to Pilate: It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death. Pilate said: Has God said that you are not to put to death, but that I am? And Pilate went again into the Pretorium and spoke to Jesus privately, and said to him: Art thou the king of the Jews? Jesus answered Pilate: Dost thou say this of thyself, or have others said it to thee of me? Pilate answered Jesus: Am I also a Jew? Thy nation and the chief priests have given thee up to me. What hast thou done? Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world; for if my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight in order that I should not be given up to the Jews : but now my kingdom is not from thence. Pilate said to him: Art thou, then, a king? Jesus answered him: Thou sayest that I am king. Be- cause for this have I been born, and I have come, in order that everyone who is of the truth might hear my voice. Pilate says to him: What is truth? Jesus says to him: Truth is from heaven. Pilate says: Is truth not upon earth? Jesus says to Pilate: Thou seest how those who speak the truth are judged by those that have the power upon earth. Chap. 4. — And leaving Jesus within the Pretorium, ACTS OF PILATE 359 Pilate went out to the Jews and said to them: I find no fault in him. The Jews say to him: He said, I can destroy this temple, and in three days build it. Pilate says: What temple? The Jews say: The one that Solo- mon built in forty-six years, and this man speaks of pulling it down and building it up in three days. Pi- late says to them: I am innocent of the blood of this just man. See you to it. The Jews say: His blood be upon us and upon our children. And Pilate, having summoned the elders and priests and Levites, said to them privately: Do not act thus, because no charge that you bring against him is worthy of death; for your charge is about curing and Sabbath profanation. The elders and the priests and the Levites say: If anyone speak evil against Caesar, is he worthy of death or not? Pilate says: He is worthy of death. The Jews say to Pilate: If anyone speak evil against Caesar, he is worthy of death; but this man has spoken evil against God. And the procurator ordered the Jews to go outside of the Pretorium; and, summoning Jesus, he says to him: What shall I do to thee? Jesus says to Pilate: As it has been given to thee. Pilate says: How given? Jesus says: Moses and the prophets have proclaimed beforehand of my death and resurrection. And the Jews, noticing this and hearing it, say to Pilate: What more wilt thou hear of this blasphemy? Pilate says to the Jews: If these words be blasphemous, do you take him for the blasphemy, and lead him away to your synagogue and judge him according to your law. The Jews say to Pilate : Our law bears that a man who 36o THE TRIAL OF JESUS wrongs his fellow-men is worthy to receive forty save one: but he that blasphemeth God is to be stoned with stones. Pilate says to them: Do you take him and punish him in whatever way you please. The Jews say to Pilate: We wish that he be crucified. Pilate says: He is not deserving of crucifixion. And the procurator, looking round upon the crowds of the Jews standing by, sees many of the Jews weep- ing, and says: All the multitude do not wish him to die. The elders of the Jews say: For this reason all the multitude of us have come, that he should die. Pilate says to the Jews : Why should he die? The Jews say: Because he called himself the Son of God and King. Chap. 5. — And one Nicodemus, a Jew, stood before the procurator and said: I beseech your honor let me say a few words. Pilate says: Say on. Nicodemus says: I said to the elders and the priests and Levites, and to all the multitude of the Jews in the synagogue, What do you seek to do with this man? This man does many miracles and strange things, which no one has done or will do. Let him go and do not wish any evil against him. If the miracles which he does are of God, they will stand; but if of man, they will come to nothing. For assuredly Moses, being sent by God into Egypt, did many miracles, which the Lord com- manded him to do before Pharaoh, king of Egypt. And there were Jannes and Jambres, servants of Pha- raoh, and they also did not a few of the miracles which ACTS OF PILATE 361 Moses did ; and the Egyptians took them to be gods — this Jannes and Jambres. But, since the miracles which they did were not of God, both they and those who believed in them were destroyed. And now release this man, for he is not deserving of death. The Jews say to Nicodemus: Thou hast become his disciple, and therefore thou defendest him. Nicode- mus says to them: Perhaps, too, the procurator has become his disciple, because he defends him. Has the emperor not appointed him to this place of dignity? And the Jews were vehemently enraged, and gnashed their teeth against Nicodemus. Pilate says to them: Why do you gnash your teeth against him when you hear the truth? The Jews say to Nicodemus: Mayst thou receive his truth and his portion. Nicodemus says : Amen, amen ; may I receive it, as you have said. Chap. 6. — One of the Jews, stepping up, asked leave of the procurator to say a word. The procurator says: If thou wishest to say anything, say on. And the Jew said : Thirty-eight years I lay in my bed in great agony. And when Jesus came, many demoniacs and many lying ill of various diseases were cured by him. And when Jesus saw me he had compassion on me, and said to me: Take up thy couch and walk. And I took up my couch and walked. The Jews say to Pilate: Ask him on what day it was when he was cured. He that had been cured says: On a Sabbath. The Jews say: Is not this the very thing we said, that on a Sabbath he cures and casts out demons? And another Jew stepped up and said: I was born 362 THE TRIAL OF JESUS blind; I heard sounds, but saw not a face. And as Jesus passed by I cried out with a loud voice, Pity me, son of David. And he pitied me and put his hands upon my eyes, and I instantly received my sight. And another Jew stepped up and said: I was crooked and he straightened me with a word. And another said: 1 was a leper, and he cured me with a word. Chap. 7. — And a woman cried out from a distance and said: I had an issue of blood, and I touched the hem of his garment, and the issue of blood, which I had had for twelve years, was stopped. The Jews say: We have a law that a woman's evidence is not received. Chap. 8. — And others, a multitude both of men and women, cried out, saying: This man is a prophet, and the demons are subject to him. Pilate says to them who said that the demons were subject to him: Why, then, were not your teachers also subject to him? They say to Pilate: We do not know. And others said: He raised Lazarus from the tomb after he had been dead four days. And the procurator trembled, and said to all the multitude of the Jews: Why do you wish to pour out innocent blood? Chap. 9. — And, having summoned Nicodemus and the twelve men that said he was not born of fornica- tion, he says to them: What shall I do, because there is an insurrection among the people? They say to him: We know not; let them see to it. Again Pilate, having summoned all the multitude of the Jews, says: You ACTS OF PILATE 2^2 know that It Is customary, at the feast of unleavened bread, to release one prisoner to you. I have one con- demned prisoner in the prison, a murderer named Bar Abbas, and this man standing in your presence, Jesus in whom I find no fault. Which of them do you wish me to release to you? And they cry out: Bar Abbas. Pilate says: What, then, shall we do to Jesus, who is called Christ? The Jews say: Let him be crucified. And others said: Thou art no friend of Caesar's if thou release this man, because he called himself the Son of God and King. You wish this man, then, to be a king, and not Caesar? And Pilate, in a rage, says to the Jews: Always has your nation been rebellious, and you always speak against your benefactors. The Jews say: What bene- factors? He says to them: Your God led you out of the land of Egypt from bitter slavery, and brought you safe through the sea as through dry land, and In the desert fed you with manna and gave you quails, and quenched your thirst with water from a rock, and gave you a law; and in all these things have you provoked your God to anger, and sought a molten calf. And you exasperated your God, and he sought to slay you. And Moses prayed for you, and you were not put to death. And now you charge me with hating the em- peror. And, rising up from the tribunal, he sought to go out. And the Jews cry out and say: We know that Caesar is king, and not Jesus. For assuredly the magi brought gifts to him as to a king. And when Herod heard from the magi that a king had been born, he 364 THE TRIAL OF JESUS sought to slay him; and his father, Joseph, knowing this, took him and his mother, and they fled into Egypt. And Herod, hearing of it, destroyed the children of the Hebrews that had been born in Bethlehem. And when Pilate heard these words he was afraid; and, ordering the crowd to keep silence, because they were crying out, he says to them: So this is he whom Herod sought? The Jews say: Yes, it is he. And, taking water, Pilate washed his hands in the face of the sun, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man: see you to it. Again the Jews cry out: His blood be upon us and upon our children. Then Pilate ordered the curtain of the tribunal where he was sitting to be drawn, and says to Jesus: Thy nation has charged thee with being a king. On this account, I sentence thee first to be scourged, ac- cording to the enactment of venerable kings, and then to be fastened on the cross in the garden where thou was seized. And let Dysmas and Gestas, the two male- factors, be crucified with thee. Chap. 10. — And Jesus went forth out of the Preto- rium, and the malefactors with him. And when they came to the place they stripped him of his clothes and girded him with a towel, and put a crown of thorns on him round his head. And they crucified him; and at the same time, also, they hung up the two malefactors along with him. And Jesus said : Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. And the soldiers parted his clothes among them; and the people stood looking at him. And the chief priests and the rulers with them ACTS OF PILATE 1,6s mocked him, saying: He saved others; let him save himself. If he be the Son of God, let him come down from the cross. And the soldiers made sport of him, coming near and offering him vinegar mixed with gall, and said: Thou art the king of the Jews; save thyself. And Pilate, after the sentence, ordered the charge against him to be inscribed as a superscription in Greek and Latin and Hebrew, according to what the Jews had said: He is king of the Jews. And one of the malefactors hanging up spoke to him, saying: If thou be the Christ, save thyself and us. And Dysmas answering reproved him, saying: Dost thou not fear God, because thou art in the same condemna- tion? And we, indeed, justly, for we receive the fit punishment of our deeds; but this man has done no evil. And he said to Jesus: Remember me. Lord, in thy kingdom. And Jesus said to him: Amen, amen; I say to thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Para- dise. Chap. n. — And it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the earth until the ninth hour, the sun being darkened; and the curtain of the temple was split in the middle. And, crying out with a loud voice, Jesus said: Father, baddach ephkid ruel, which is, interpreted, Into thy hands I commit my spirit. And, having said this, he gave up the ghost. And the centurion, seeing what had happened, glorified God and said: This was a just man. And all the crowds that were present at this spectacle, when they 266 THE TRIAL OF JESUS saw what had happened, beat their breasts and went away. And the centurion reported what had happened to the procurator. And when the procurator and his wife heard it they were exceedingly grieved, and neither ate nor drank that day. And Pilate sent for the Jews and said to them: Have you seen what has happened? And they say: There has been an eclipse of the sun in the usual way. And his acquaintances were standing at a distance, and the women who came with him from Galilee, see- ing these things. And a man named Joseph, a coun- cillor from the city of Arimathea, who also waited for the kingdom of God, went to Pilate and begged the body of Jesus. And he took it down and wrapped it in a clean linen, and placed it in a tomb hewn out of the rock, in which no one had ever lain. Chap. 12. — And the Jews, hearing that Joseph had begged the body of Jesus, sought him, and the twelve who said that Jesus was not born of fornication, and Nicodemus and many others who had stepped up be- fore Pilate and declared his good works. And of all these that were hid Nicodemus alone was seen by them, because he was a ruler of the Jews. And Nicodemus says to them: How have you come into the synagogue? The Jews say to him: How hast thou come into the synagogue? for thou art a confederate of his, and his portion is with thee in the world to come. Nicodemus says: Amen, amen. And likewise Joseph also stepped out and said to them: Why are you angry against me ACTS OF PILATE 367 because I begged the body of Jesus? Behold, I have put him in my new tomb, wrapping him in clean linen; and I have rolled a stone to the door of the tomb. And you have acted not well against the just man, because you have not repented of crucifying him, but also have pierced him with a spear. And the Jews seized Joseph and ordered him to be secured until the first day of the week, and said to him: Know that the time does not allow us to do anything against thee, because the Sabbath is dawning: and know that thou shalt not be deemed worthy of burial, but we shall give thy flesh to the birds of the air. Joseph says to them: These are the words of the arrogant Goliath, who reproached the living God and holy David. For God has said by the prophet, Vengeance is mine, and I will repay, saith the Lord. And now that he is uncircumcised in flesh, but circumcised in heart, has taken water and washed his hands in the face of the sun, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just man; see ye to it. And you answered and said to Pilate: His blood be upon us and upon our children. And now I am afraid, lest the wrath of God come upon you and upon your children, as you have said. And the Jews, hearing these words, were embittered in their souls, and seized Joseph and locked him into a room where there was no window; and guards were stationed at the door, and they sealed the door where Joseph was locked in. And on the Sabbath the rulers of the synagogue and the priests and the Levites made a decree that all should be found in the synagogue on the first day of the week. And, rising up early, all the multitude in the synagogue 368 THE TRIAL OF JESUS consulted by what death they should slay him. And when the Sanhedrin was sitting, they ordered him to be brought with much indignity. And, having opened the door, they found him not. And all the people were surprised and struck with dismay, because they found the seals unbroken, and because Caiaphas had the key. And they no longer dared to lay hands upon those who had spoken before Pilate in Jesus' behalf. Chap. 13. — And while they were still sitting in the synagogue and wondering about Joseph, there came some of the guard whom the Jews had begged of Pi- late to guard the tomb of Jesus, that his disciples might not come and steal him. And they reported to the rulers of the synagogue, and the priests and Levites, what had happened: how there had been an earth- quake; and we saw an angel coming down from heav- en, and he rolled away the stone from the mouth of the tomb and sat upon it; and he shone like snow and like lightning. And we were very much afraid, and lay like dead men; and we heard the voice of the angel, saying to the women who remained beside the tomb, Be not afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here. He has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay; and go quickly and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead, and is in Galilee. The Jews say: To what women did he speak? The men of the guard say: We know not who they were. The Jews say: At what time was this? The men of the guard say : At midnight. The Jews say : And where- ACTS OF PILATE 369 fore did you not lay hold of them? The men of the guard say: We were like dead men from fear, not expecting to see the light of day, and how could we lay hold of them? The Jews say: As the Lord liveth, we do not believe you. The men of the guard say to the Jews : You have seen so great miracles in the case of this man, and have not believed; and how can you believe us? And assuredly you have done well to swear that the Lord liveth, for indeed he does live. Again the men of the guard say: We have heard that you have locked up the man that begged the body of Jesus, and put a seal on the door; and that you have opened it and not found him. Do you, then, give us the man whom you were guarding, and we shall give you Jesus. The Jews say: Joseph has gone away to his own city. The men of the guard say to the Jews : And Jesus has risen, as we heard from the angel, and is in Galilee. And when the Jews heard these words they were very much afraid, and said: We must take care lest this story be heard, and all incline to Jesus. And the Jews called a council, and paid down a considerable money and gave it to the soldiers, saying: Say, while he slept, his disciples came by night and stole him; and if this come to the ears of the procurator we shall persuade him and keep you out of trouble. And they took it, and said as they had been instructed. Chap. 14. — And Phinees, a priest, and Adas, a teacher, and Haggai, a Levite, came down from Gali- lee to Jerusalem, and said to the rulers of the syna- gogue, and the priests and the Levites: We saw Jesus 370 THE TRIAL OF JESUS and his disciples sitting on the mountain called Ma- milch; and he said to his disciples, Go into all the world, and preach to every creature: he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be condemned. And these signs shall attend those who have believed: in my name they shall cast out demons, speak new tongues, take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall by no means hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall be well. And while Jesus was speaking to his disciples we saw him taken up into heaven. The elders and priests and Levites say: Give glory to the God of Israel, and confess to him whether you have heard and seen those things, of which you have given us an account. And those who had given the account said: As the Lord liveth, the God of our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, we heard these things, and saw him taken up into heaven. The elders and the priests and the Levites say to them: Have you come to give us this announcement, or to offer prayer to God? And they say: To offer prayer to God. The elders and the chief priests and the Levites say to them : If you have come to offer prayer to God, why, then, have you told these idle tales in the presence of all the people? Says Phinees, the priest, and Adas, the teach- er, and Haggai, the Levite, to the rulers of the syna- gogues, and the priests and the Levites: If what we have said and seen be sinful, behold, we are before you; do to us as seems good in your eyes. And they took the law and made them swear upon it not to give any more an account of these matters to anyone. And ACTS OF PILATE 371 they gave them to eat and drink and sent them out of the city, having given them also money, and three men with them; and they sent them away to Galilee. And these men, having gone into Galilee, the chief priests and the rulers of the synagogue, and the elders came together in the synagogue and locked the door, and lamented with great lamentation, saying: Is this a miracle that has happened in Israel? And Annas and Caiaphas said: Why are you so much moved? Why do you weep? Do you not know that his disciples have given a sum of gold to the guards of the tomb, and have instructed them to say that an angel came down and rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb? And the priests and elders said: Be it that his disciples have stolen his body; how is it that the life has come into his body, and that he is going about in Galilee? And they, being unable to give an answer to these things, said, after great hesitation: It is not lawful for us to believe the uncircumcised. Chap. 15. — And Nicodemus stood up, and stood be- fore the Sanhedrin, saying: You say well; you are not ignorant, you people of the Lord, of these men that come down from Galilee, that they fear God, and are men of substance, haters of covetousness, men of peace; and they have declared with an oath, we saw Jesus upon the mountain Mamilch with his disciples, and he taught what we heard from him, and we saw him taken up into heaven. And no one asked them in what form he went up. For assuredly, as the book of the Holy Scriptures taught us, Helias also was taken up 372 THE TRIAL OF JESUS into heaven, and Elissaeus cried out with a loud voice, and Helias threw his sheepskin upon Elissaeus, and Elissaeus threw his sheepskin upon the Jordan, and crossed and came into Jericho. And the children of the prophets met him and said, O Elissaeus, where is thy master Helias? And he said. He has been taken up into heaven. And they said to Elissaeus, Has not a spirit seized him, and thrown him upon one of the mountains? But let us take our servants with us and seek him. And they persuaded Elisssus, and he went away with them. And they sought him three days, and did not find him; and they knew that he had been taken up. And now listen to me, and let us send into every district of Israel and see, lest, perchance, Christ has been taken up by a spirit and thrown upon one of the mountains. And this proposal pleased all. And they sent into every district of Israel and sought Jesus, and did not find him; but they found Joseph in Ari- mathea, and no one dared to lay hands on him. And they reported to the elders and the priests and the Levites: We have gone round to every district of Israel, and have not found Jesus; but Joseph we have found in Arimathea. And hearing about Joseph they were glad and gave glory to the God of Israel. And the rulers of the synagogue, and the priests and the Levites, having held a council as to the manner in which they should meet with Joseph, took a piece of paper and wrote to Joseph as follows : Peace to thee ! We know that we have sinned against God, and against thee; and we have prayed to the God of Israel that thou shouldst deign to come to thy fathers ACTS OF PILATE 373 and to thy children, because we all have been grieved. For, having opened the door, we did not find thee. And we know that we have counseled evil counsel against thee; but the Lord has defended thee, and the Lord himself has scattered to the winds our counsel against thee, O honorable father Joseph. And they chose from all Israel seven men, friends of Joseph, whom, also, Joseph himself was acquainted with; and the rulers of the synagogue, and the priests and the Levites say to them: Take notice; if, after re- ceiving our letter he read it, know that he will come with you to us. But if he do not read it, know that he is ill-disposed towards us. And, having saluted him in peace, return to us. And having blest the men, they dismissed them. And the men came to Joseph and did reverence to him, and said to him: Peace to thee I And he said: Peace to you and to all the people of Israel! And they gave him the roll of the letter. And Joseph, having received it, read the letter and rolled it up, and blessed God and said: Blessed be the Lord God, who has delivered Israel, that they should not shed inno- cent blood; and blessed be the Lord, who sent out his angel and covered me under his wings. And he set a table for them: and they ate and drank and slept there. And they rose up early and prayed. And Joseph saddled his ass and set out with the men: and they came to the holy city Jerusalem. And all the people met Joseph and cried out: Peace to thee in thy coming in! And he said to all the people: Peace to you! and he kissed them. And the people prayed with Joseph, and they were astonished at the sight of him. And 374 THE TRIAL OF JESUS Nicodemus received him into his house and made a great feast, and called Annas and Caiaphas and the elders and the priests and the Levites to his house. And they rejoiced, eating and drinking with Joseph; and, after singing hymns, each proceeded to his own house. But Joseph remained in the house of Nico- demus. And on the following day, which was the prepara- tion, the rulers of the synagogue and the priests and the Levites went early to the house of Nicodemus; and Nicodemus met them and said: Peace to you! And they said: Peace to thee and to Joseph, and to all thy house and to all the house of Joseph! And he brought them into his house. And all the Sanhedrin sat down, and Joseph sat down between Annas and Caiaphas; and no one dared to say a word to him. And Joseph said: Why have you called me? And they signaled to Nicodemus to speak to Joseph. And Nicodemus, opening his mouth, said to Joseph: Father, thou knowest that the honorable teachers and the priests and the Levites seek to learn a word from thee. And Joseph said: Ask. And Annas and Caia- phas, having taken the law, made Joseph swear, saying: Give glory to the God of Israel, and give him con- fession ; for Achar, being made to swear by the prophet Jesus, did not forswear himself, but declared unto him all, and did not hide a word from him. Do thou also, accordingly, not hide from us to the extent of a word. And Joseph said: I shall not hide from you one word. And they said to him : With grief were we grieved be- cause thou didst beg the body of Jesus and wrap it in ACTS OF PILATE 375 clean linen and lay it in a tomb. And on account of this we secured thee in a room where there was no window; and we put locks and seals upon the doors, and guards kept watching where thou wast locked in. And on the first day of the week we opened and found thee not, and were grieved exceedingly; and astonish- ment fell upon all the people of the Lord until yester- day. And now relate to us what happened to thee. And Joseph said : On the preparation, about the tenth hour, you locked me up, and I remained all the Sab- bath. And at midnight, as I was standing and praying, the room where you locked me in was hung up by the four corners, and I saw a light like lightning into my eyes. And I was afraid and fell to the ground. And some one took me by the hand and removed me from the place where I had fallen; and moisture of water was poured from my head even to my feet, and a smell of perfumes came about my nostrils. And he wiped my face and kissed me, and said to fne. Fear not, Jo- seph: open thine eyes and see who it is that speaks to thee. And, looking up, I saw Jesus. And I trembled and thought it was a phantom; and I said the com- mandments, and he said them with me. Even so you are not ignorant that a phantom, if it meet anybody and hear the commandments, takes to flight. And see- ing that he said them with me, I said to him. Rabbi Helias. And he said to me, I am not Helias. And I said to him. Who art thou, my lord? And he said to me, I am Jesus whose body thou didst beg from Pilate ; and thou didst clothe me with clean linen, and didst put a napkin on my face, and didst lay me in thy new 376 THE TRIAL OF JESUS tomb, and didst roll a great stone to the door of the tomb. And I said to him that was speaking to me, Show me the place where I laid thee. And he carried me away and showed me the place where I laid him; and the linen cloth was lying in it, and the napkin for his face. And I knew that it was Jesus. And he took me by the hand and placed me, though the doors were locked, in the middle of my house, and led me away to my bed and said to me, Peace to thee! And he kissed me and said to me, For forty days go not forth out of thy house; for, behold, I go to my brethren in Galilee. Chap. i6. — And the rulers of the synagogue, and the priests and the Levites when they heard these words from Joseph, became as dead, and fell to the ground, and fasted until the ninth hour. And Nicodemus, along with Joseph, exhorted Annas and Caiaphas, the priests and the Levites, saying: Rise up and stand upon your feet, and taste bread and strengthen your souls, because to-morrow is the Sabbath of the Lord. And they rose up and prayed to God, and ate and drank, and departed every man to his own house. And on the Sabbath our teachers and the priests and Levites sat questioning each other and saying: What is this wrath that has come upon us? for we know his father and mother. Levi, a teacher, says : I know that his parents fear God, and do not withdraw themselves from the prayers, and give the tithes thrice a year. And when Jesus was born his parents brought him to this place and gave sacrifices and burnt offerings to ACTS OF PILATE 377 God. And when the great teacher, Symeon, took him into his arms, he said. Now thou sendest away thy ser- vant, Lord, according to thy word, in peace; for mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all the peoples; a light for the reve- lation of the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. And Symeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother, I give thee good news about this child. And Mary said. It is well, my lord. And Symeon said to her, It is well; behold, he lies for the fall and the rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign spoken against; and of thee thyself a sword shall go through the soul, in order that the reasoning of many hearts may be revealed. They say to the teacher Levi: How knowest thou these things? Levi says to them: Do you not know that from him I learned the law? The Sanhedrin say to him: We wish to see thy father. And they sent for his father. And they asked him, and he said to them: Why have you not believed my son? The blessed and just Symeon himself taught him the law. The San- hedrin says to Rabbi Levi: Is the word that you have Said true? And he said: It is true. And the rulers of the synagogue, and the priests and the Levites said to themselves : Come, let us send into Galilee to the three men that came and told about his teaching and his taking up, and let them tell us how they saw him taken up. And this saying pleased all. And they sent away the three men who had already gone away into Galilee with them; and they say to them: Say to Rabbi Adas and Rabbi Phinees and Rabbi Haggai, Peace to you 378 THE TRIAL OF JESUS and all who are with youl A great inquiry having taken place in the Sanhedrin, we have been sent to you to call you to this holy place, Jerusalem. And the men set out into Galilee and found them sitting and considering the law: and they saluted them in peace. And the men who were in Galilee said to those who had come to them: Peace unto all Israel! And they said: Peace to you! And they again said to them: Why have you come? And those who had been sent said: The Sanhedrin call you to the holy city Jerusalem. And when the men heard that they were sought by the Sanhedrin they prayed to God, and re- clined with the men and ate and drank, and rose up and set out in peace to Jerusalem. And on the following day the Sanhedrin sat in the synagogue, and asked them, saying: Did you really see Jesus sitting on the mountain Mamilch teaching his eleven disciples, and did you see him taken up? And the men answered them and said : As we saw him taken up, so also we said. > Annas says: Take them away from one another and let us see whether their account agrees. And they took them away from one another. And first they call Adas and say to him: How didst thou see Jesus taken up? Adas says: While he was yet sitting on the mountain Mamilch and teaching his disciples, we saw a cloud overshadowing both him and his disciples. And the cloud took him up into heaven, and his disciples lay upon their faces upon the earth. And they call Phi- nees, the priest, and ask him also, saying: How didst thou see Jesus taken up? And he spoke in like manner. ACTS OF PILATE 379 And they again asked Haggai, and he spoke in like manner. And the Sanhedrin said: The law of Moses holds: At the mouth of two or three every word shall be established. Buthem, a teacher, says: It is written in the law, And Enoch walked with God, and is not, because God took him. Jairus, a teacher, said: And the death of holy Moses we have heard of, and have not seen it; for it is written in the law of the Lord, and Moses died from the mouth of the Lord, and no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. And Rabbi Levi said : Why did Rabbi Symeon say, w^hen he saw Jesus, " Behold, he lies for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign spoken against"? And Rabbi Isaac said: It is written in the law. Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall go before thee to keep thee in every good way, because my name has been called upon him. Then Annas and Caiaphas said: Rightly have you said what is written in the law of Moses, that no one saw the death of Enoch, and no one has named the death of Moses; but Jesus was tried before Pilate, and we saw him receiving blows and spittings on his face, and the soldiers put about him a crown of thorns, and he was scourged and received sentence from Pi- late, and was crucified upon the Cranium, and two rob- bers with him; and they gave him to drink vinegar with gall, and Longinus, the soldier, pierced his side with a spear; and Joseph, our honorable father, begged his body, and he says he is risen; and as the three teach- ers say. We saw him taken up into heaven; and Rabbi Levi has given evidence of what was said by Rabbi 38o THE TRIAL OF JESUS Symeon, and that he said, Behold, he lies for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign spoken against. And all the teachers said to all the people of the Lord: If this was from the Lord, and is wonderful in your eyes, knowing you shall know, O house of Jacob, that it is written. Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree. And another scripture teaches: The gods which have not made the heaven and the earth shall be destroyed. And the priests and the Levites said to each other: If this memorial be until the year that is called Jobel, know that it shall endure forever, and he hath raised for himself a new people. Then the rulers of the synagogue, and the priests and the Levites, announced to all Israel, saying: Cursed is that man who shall worship the work of man's hand, and cursed is the man who shall worship the creatures more than the Creator. And all the peo- ple said. Amen, amen. And all the people praised the Lord, and said: Blessed is the Lord, who hath given rest to his people Israel, according to all that he hath spoken; there hath not fallen one word of every good word of his that he spoke to Moses, his servant. May the Lord our God be with us, as he was with our fathers; let him not destroy us. And let him not destroy us, that we may incline our hearts to him, that we may walk in all his ways, that we may keep his commandments and his judgments which he commanded to our fathers. And the Lord shall be for a king over all the earth in that day; and there shall be one Lord, and his name one. The Lord is our king; he shall save us. There ACTS OF PILATE 381 is none like thee, O Lord. Great art thou, O Lord, and great is thy name. By thy power heal us, O Lord, and we shall be healed; save us, O Lord, and we shall be saved, because we are thy lot and heritage. And the Lord will not leave his people, for his great name's sake; for the Lord has begun to make us into his people. And all, having sung praises, went away each man to his own house glorifying God; for his is the glory forever and ever. Amen. BIBLIOGRAPHY The Bible. The Talmud. The Mishna. MAIN authorities English Authorized Version of 1611. Babylonian Recension, translated into Eng- lish by Michael L. Rodkinson. New Tal- mud Publishing Company, New York, 1896. Edition of Surenhusius. Amsterdam, 1 698-1 703. Consulted by the author in the Astor Library, New York City. MINOR AUTHORITIES Abbott. Jesus of Nazareth, by Lyman Abbott. Harper Brothers, New York, 1882. Andrews. The Life of Our Lord, by Samuel J. An- drews. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1906. Baring-Gould. Curious Myths of the Middle Ages, by S. Baring-Gould. Roberts Brothers, Boston, 1880. Baur. The Church History of the First Three Centuries, by F. C. Baur. Translated from German by A. Mendles. London, 1878. Benny. The Criminal Code of the Jews, by Philip Berger Benny. Smith, Elder & Company, London, 1880. 383 384 Blackstone. Cicero. Deutsch. dollinger. Edersheim. Farrar. Fisher. Geib. Geikie. Gibbon. BIBLIOGRAPHY Commentaries on the Laws of England, by Sir William Blackstone. Edited and annotated by Thomas M. Cooley. Cal- laghan & Company, Chicago, 1884. M. Tullii Ciceronis orationes. Whittaker & Company, London, 1855. The Talmud, by Emanuel Deutsch. The Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, 1896. The Gentile and the Jew, by John J. I. Dollinger. Two volumes. Gibbings & Company, London, 1906. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, by Alfred Edersheim. Two volumes. Longmans, Green & Company, New York, 1905. The Life of Christ, by Frederic W. Far- rar. E. P. Button & Company, New York, 1883. The Beginnings of Christianity, by George P. Fisher. Charles Scrlbner's Sons, New York, 1906. Geschichte des romischen Criminalpro- cesses, von Dr. Gustav Geib. Weid- mann'sche Buchhandlung. Leipzig, 1842. The Life and Words of Christ, by Cun- ningham Geikie. Two volumes. Henry S. King & Company. London, 1877. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon. With notes by Rev. H. H. Milman. BIBLIOGRAPHY 385 Phillips, Sampson & Company, Boston, 1853- Graetz. History of the Jews, by Heinrich Graetz. Six volumes. The Jewish Publication So- ciety of America, Philadelphia, 1891. Greenleaf. The Testimony of the Evangelists, by Simon Greenleaf. Soney & Sage, New- ark, N. J., 1903. Greenidge. The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time, by A. H. J. Greenidge. Stevens & Sons, London, 1901. Harnack. Reden und Aufsatzc, von Adolf Harnack. J. Ricker'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Gies- sen, 1904. HiGGlNS. Anacalypsis: An Enquiry into the Origin of Languages, Nations and Religions, by Godfrey Higgins. Longman, Brown & Longman, London, 1827. Hodge. Systematic Theology, by Charles Hodge. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1892. Innes. The Trial of Jesus Christ, by A. Taylor Innes. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1905. JosEPHUS. The Works of Flavius Josephus, Whis- ton's Translation. JosT. Geschichte des Judenthums, von I. M. Jost. Dorffling und Francke, Leipzig, 1857. Juvenal. The Satires of Juvenal. George Bell & Sons, London, 1904. Keim. Jesus of Nazara, by Theodor Kelm. Six volumes. Williams & Norgate, London, 1883. 386 Lardner. Lemann. LiVY. LOISY. Mendelsohn. MOMMSEN. Montesquieu. Paley. Rabbinowicz. Renan. BIBLIOGRAPHY Works of Nathaniel Lardner. Ten vol- umes. William Ball, London, 1838. Valeur de I'assemblee qui prononga la peine de mort contre Jesus-Christ, par MM. Lemann. Translated from the French into English under the title " Jesus Before the Sanhedrin," by Prof. Julius Magath, of Oxford, Ga., in 1899. The History of Rome, by Titus LIvius. George Bell & Sons, London, 1906. Les Evangiles Synoptiques, par Alfred Loisy. Librairie Fishbacher, Paris, 1907. The Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews, by S. Mendelsohn. M. Cur- lander, Baltimore, 1891. The Provinces of the Roman Empire, by Theodor Mommsen. Two v'olumes. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1899. De I'Esprit Des Lois, par Montesquieu. Garnier Freres, Paris, 1905. Evidences of Christianity, by William Paley. The Religious Tract Society, Lon- don, 1794. Legislation Criminelle du Talmud, par I. J. M. Rabbinowicz. Chez Tauteur, Paris, 1876. Histoire des origines du christianisme, par Joseph Ernest Renan. Paris, 1863. Livres 1-6: i. Vie de Jesus. 2. Les apotres. 3. Saint Paul. 4. L' Antichrist. 5. Les evangiles et la seconde generation chretienne. 6. L'eglise chretienne. BIBLIOGRAPHY 387 RosADl. The Trial of Jesus, by Giovanni Rosadi. Dodd, Mead & Company, New York, 1905. Salvador. Histoire des Institutions de MoTse, par J. Salvador. Michel Levy-Freres, Paris, 1862. ScHURER. The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, by Emil Schiirer. Charles Scrib- ner's Sons, New York, 1906. Stephen. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, by James Fitzjames Stephen. Henry Holt & Com- pany, New York, 1873. Suetonius. The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, by C. Suetonius Tranquillus. George Bell & Sons, London, 1906. Tacitus. The Works of Tacitus. American Book Company, New York, 1904. Wise. The Martyrdom of Jesus, by Isaac M. Wise. The Bloch Publishing and Print- ing Company, Cincinnati & Chicago, 1888. In addition to the above, many other authorities have been consulted in the preparation of the two volumes of this work. Quotations from them are frequently found In the text, and citations are given in the notes. The author, in closing the article, entitled " Bibliography," wishes to ex- press his sense of great indebtedness and appreciation to the numerous very valuable encyclopedias that adorn the shelves of the various libraries of New York City; and especially to The Jewish Encyclopedia, published by Funk & Wagnalls, New York and London, 1901. INDEX Abarbanel, Isaac, on the Sanhedrin, I, io6 Ab-beth-din, vice-president of the Sanhedrin, I, Ii2 Abbott, Lyman, on the scribes of the Sanhedrin, I, 158 Acts of Pilate, the Apocryphal, modern criticism of, II, 327 discovery of, II, 327 Lardner on the authenticity of, II, 328 seq. Tischendorf on the authenticity of, II, 345 ^^t- antiquity of, II, 351 text of, II, 351 seq. ^butius, Publius, part of, in the ex- posure of Bacchanalian orgies, II, 271 seq. -Sldile, Roman, judicial powers of, "' 36 ^sculapius, Graeco-Roman divinity, II, 198 Akiba, Jewish rabbi, Mishna sys- tematized by, I, 79 Albanus, Roman governor, his de- position of Albanus, II, 296 Alcmene, myth of Zeus and, II, 265 Alexander, Jewish Alabarch, bio- graphical note on, II, 299 Alexander III, pope, genuineness of "true cross" attested by bull of, 11.63 Alexandrian MS. of the Bible, I, 67 Ananias ben Nebedeus, Jewish priest, biographical note on, II, 299 family of, cursed in Talmud, II, 302 Ananos. See Annas Ananus, son of Annas, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 296 Anathemas, Jewish, against the Christians, II, 307, 308 Anaxagoras, Greek philosopher, on the deification of natural forces, n, 225 his exposure of the divination of Lampon, II, 226 Annanias, author of " Acts of Pilate," Annas (Ananos), Jewish high priest examination of Christ before, I, 238-247 deposition of, by Gratus, I, 244; II, 20 Christ examined in house of, I, 256 biographical note on, II, 295 legendary examination of Joseph of Arimathea, II, 374, 376 Antecedent Warning, peculiar pro- vision of Hebrew Criminal Law regarding, I, 147-152 Antistius, L., Roman tribune, im- peachment of Julius Csesar by, II, 46 Antoninus Pius, Roman emperor, persecution of Christians by, 11,78 389 390 INDEX Aphrodisia, rites of, II, 265 Aphrodite, Greek divinity, patroness of prostitutes, II, 265 Aquillius, Manlius, Roman governor, trial of, before the Comitia, II, 40 Antonius, Marcus, Roman advocate, defense of, of ManHus AquilHus, II, 40 Aristotle, Greek philosopher, on the licentiousness of Sparta, II, 241 Arnold, Matthew, on despair of Roman people, II, 286 Arnobius, Numidian writer, on the familiar treatment of Roman gods, II, 218 on the lewdness of the Roman drama, II, 267 Art, effect of, in corruption of Roman and Greek morals, II, 268 Aspasia, mistress of Pericles, II, 242 Athens, domestic licentiousness of, II, 240, 241 Athronges, Jewish peasant, revolt of, II, 110 Atticus, Numerius, Roman senator, attests ascent of Augustus to heaven, II, 234 Atys, myth of, represented on Greek and Roman stage, II, 267 Augurs, Roman priests, II, 204 spectators at licentious dramas, II, 267 Augury, modes of, II, 211 Augustus Caesar, Roman emperor reign and policy of, II, 25, 26 care of profligate daughter Julia, 11, 83 belief of, in omens, II, 215 his chastisement of Neptune, II, 222 deification of, II, 233 Aurelius Antoninus, Marcus, Roman emperor and philosopher persecution of Christianity by, II, 78 adoration of Serapis by, II, 217 on suicide, II, 232 B Bacchanalian orgies, Livy's account of, II, 270-283 Bacchus, Roman deity, licentious festivals of, II, 265 Barabbas (Bar Abbas) released by Pilate, II, 131, 138, 363 Baring-Gould, S., on the symbolism of the Cross, II, 66 Baths, Roman, splendor of, II, 247 Beheading of criminals under He- brew Law, I, 91, 99 Benny on the Talmud, I, 75 on internment in Jewish Cities of Refuge, I, 98, 99 Bernhardt, Sarah, insulted in Que- bec, II, 182 Bernice (Berenice), Jewish queen, a suppliant before Florus, II, 100 Bible, the manuscripts of, I, 67 purity of text of, I, 69 anthropomorphism of, I, 336-338 influence of, II, 4, 5 " Birchath Hamminim" Jewish im- precation against Christians, II, 308 Blasphemy discussion of charge against Christ of, I, 193-209 Hebrew definition of, I, 199-201 classification of, I, 203 Boethus, family of, cursed in Tal- mud, II, 301. See also Simon Bossuet, Jacques B., French divine, on the citizenship of Christ, II, io3 INDEX 391 Brothels, Roman, dedication of, to Venus, II, 265 Burning of criminals under He- brew Law, I, 92, 99 Caesar, Caius Julius loth legion cowed by, II, 169 superstition of, II, 205 disbelief of, in immortality, II, 229 deification of, II, 233 divorces of, II, 238 profligacy of, II, 238, 239 unnatural practices attributed to, II, 263 Caiaphas, Jewish high priest accusation of, against Christ, before Sanhedrin, I, 190 erratic conduct of, at trial of Christ, I, 290 role of, in trial of Jesus before Pilate, II, loi biographical note on, II, 295 legendary examination of Joseph of Arimathea by, II, 374, 376 Caligula, Roman emperor deifies his sister Drusilla, II, 234 depravity of, II, 234 Cantharus, family of, cursed in Tal- mud, II, 301 Capital Crimes under Hebrew Crim- inal Law, classification and pun- ishments of, I, 91-101 Carlyle, Thomas, on the life of Christ, II, 187 Cassius, Dion, on the labeling of Roman criminals, I, 57 Cato, Marcus Porcius contempt of, for the haruspices, II, 228 suicide of, II, 232 divorces of, II, 237 contempt of, for Lucullus, II, 246 Cato, Marcus Porcius merciless treatment of slaves, II, 251 Catulus, Quintus, dream of, pre- saging accession of Augustus, ^ II, 214 Chanania, Jewish scribe, biograph- ical note on, II, 314 Chanania ben Chiskia, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 309 Charles IX, king of France, bloody sweat of, I, 59, 60 Christianity, conflict of, with Roman paganism, I, 16; II, 76-79 Chrysostom, St. John, on the legen- dary desire of Tiberius to deify Christ, II, 344 Cicero, Marcus Tullius dream of, presaging accession of Augustus, II, 215 on Roman superstition, II, 221 on Roman skepticism, II, 227 his divorce of his wife, II, 237 witticism of, up>on Caesar's gal- lantries, II, 239 Cities of Refuge, Jewish, internment in, I, 96-99 Claudia, granddaughter of Augustus marriage of, to Pilate, II, 82 dream of, regarding Jesus, II, 133, 355 Claudius, Roman commander, throws sacred pullets into the sea, II, 222 Clement V, pope, and the Talmud, I, 88, 89 Coliseum, the, description of, II, 260 Comitia Centuriata, public criminal trials in, II, 37-43 miscarriage of justice in, 11,38-42 Commodus, Roman emperor, deifi- cation of, II, 234 Consul, Roman, judicial powers of, 11,36 392 INDEX Coke, Sir Edward, contrast between Pilate and, II, 170-172 Cornelius, son of Ceron, the elder, biographical note on, II, 321 Cross, Roman instrument of death, erroneous representations of, II, 56 forms of, II, 62 use of, by various races as religious symbol, II, 64-67 "Cross, the True," legends of, II, 62, 63 Crucifixion, Plutarch on, I, 56 history of, II, 54, 55 mode of, II, 55 pathology of, II, 58, 59 Roman citizens exempt from, II, 54 of Jesus, II, 365 Cybele, Roman deity, importation of, from Phrygia, II, 199 D Deification of Roman emperors, ceremony of, II, 234 Dembowski, Bishop, and the Tal- mud, I, 88 Demosthenes, on the women of Athens, II, 242 Derembourg, Joseph, on the Jewish priestly families, II, 294 Deutsch, Emanuel, on the Talmud, I. 74, 80 on the existence of the Great San- hedrin at the time of Christ, I, 179, 181 Diocletian, Roman emperor, deifi- cation of, II, 233 Divination, Roman modes of, II, 211 Divorce, among the Romans, II, 236-239 trivial pretexts for, II, 237, 238 Dollinger on the Roman view of Christianity and high treason, II, 77 on divorce, and the profligacy of Roman matrons, II, 236 on the effect of art in corrupting Greek and Roman manners, II, 268 Domitian, Roman emperor, self- deification of, II, 235 Doras, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 321 Dorotheas, son of Nathanael, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 321 Drama, the, licentiousness of, among Greeks and Romans, II, 266 Dreams, interpretation of, among Romans and Greeks, II, 213, 214 Druidism, annihilation of, II, 73 Drusilla, deified by Caligula, II, 234 Dysmas, legendary name of one of thieves crucified with Jesus, 11, 364 Edersheim, Alfred, on the existence of the Great Sanhedrin at the time of Christ, I, 177 / Elders, Jewish chamber of. See Sanhedrin Eleazar ben Partah, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, M, 314 Eleazar, son of Annas, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 295 Eleazar, son of Simon Boethus, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 297 Eliezer, Jewish rabbi, Mishna ampli- fied by, I, 79 INDEX 393 Ellicott, Dr., on the character of Pilate, II, 91 Epicurus, Greek philosopher, II, 229 Epicureanism, degradation of, among Romans, II, 230 Epitaphs, irreligious Roman, II, 222, 285 Epulos, Roman priests, II, 204 Etruria, importation of haruspices from, II, 210 Eusebius, reference of, to the "Acts of Pilate," II, 329, 333, 344 Evhemere, on the Greek gods, II, 225 Evangelists honesty of, I, 12 character of, I, 13, 14 motives of, I, 15 ability of, I, 18 candor of, I, 20-24 discrepancies of, I, 29-33 corroborative elements of narra- tive of, I, 34-39 impossibility of collusion among, I. 38 conformity of narrative of, with human experience, I, 39 coincidence of testimony of, with collateral circumstances, I, 52- narrative of, confirmed by profane historians, I, 56, 57 Evidence, rules of, under Hebrew Law, I, 144, 145 False swearing under Hebrew Criminal Law, I, 93 Fathers, Church, writings of the, I, 68 Fecenia, Hispala, part of, in ex- posure of Bacchanalian orgies, II, 271 seq. Felix, Minucius, Christian father, controversy of, with pagans on adoration of the cross, II, 64 Flagellation, under Hebrew Crim- inal, I, 94 Flamens, Roman priests, II, 204 spectators at licentious dramas, II, 267 Gallic, pro-consul of Achaia, atti- tude of, toward Jewish clamors, II, 107 Gamaliel, Jewish rabbi, bio- graphical note on, II, 304 Ganymede, depraving influence of myth of rape of, II, 262 Gavazzi, Alessandro, sermons of, in Coliseum, II, 262 Geib, on the status of Judea, II, 16 on the courts of the Roman prov- inces, II, 32 Geikie, Cunningham, on the non- existence of the Sanhedrin at the time of Christ, I, 181 on the character of the trial of Jesus before Sanhedrin, I, 184 Gemara, the Jerusalem and Baby- lonian recensions of, I, 81 relation of, to Mishna, I, 83. See also Talmud and Mishna Germanicus, Caesar temples profaned on death of, II, 222 exposure of children born on day of death of, II, 254 Gestas, legendary name of one of thieves crucified with Jesus, n, 364 Golden House of Nero, II, 246 Gibbon, Edward on the jurisdiction of the great Sanhedrin, I, 120 394 INDEX Gibbon, Edward on the laws of the Twelve Tables, 11,53 on the extent of the Roman Em- pire, II, 196 Gladiatorial games origin of, II, 256 gigantic scale of, in Rome, II, 256, 257 conduct of, II, 258 Gospels, the, admissibility of, as legal evidence, I, 5-12 Governors, Roman, powers of, II, 24, 27, 28, 29 forbidden to take wives to their provinces, II, 84, 85 Graetz, Heinrich, on the existence of the Sanhedrin at the time of Christ, I, 181 Greeks superstition of, II, 223 philosophy of, II, 229 depraving effect on Romans of art, literature, and manners of, II, 240-244, 268, 284 Bacchanalian orgies introduced by, II, 270 invectiveof Juvenal against, 11,284 Greenidge, on the interpretation of native law by Roman pro- praetors, II, 31 Greenleaf, Simon, American jurist, on the admissibility of the Scrip- tures as legal evidence, I, 6-9 on the testimony of the Evangel- ists, I, 10, II on the legal j ustice of the conviction of Christ for blasphemy, I, 209 H Hacksab ben Tzitzith, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 320 "Hall of Hewn Stones," sessions of Sanhedrin in, I, 117 Haruspices, Roman, account of, II, 210 Helcias, Jewish treasurer, biograph- ical note on, II, 300 Helena, Empress, legendary dis- covery of "true cross" by, II, 62 Hercules, Greek divinity, burning of, represented on Greek and Ro- man stage, II, 267 Herder, Johann, on the character of Christ, II, 187 Herod Antipas, character of, II, 120 his treatment of Jesus, II, 122- 127 Herod I, the Great, last will of, II, 119, 120 arbitrary changes of, in high priesthood, II, 293 Hetairai, status of, in Athens, II, 242,243 High priest, Jewish, vestments of, I, 158 abuses in appointment of, II, 293 Hillel, Jewish doctor, inspiration of, I, 84 Hillel, School of, and the Mishna, I, 79 dissensions of, with School of Shammai, II, 309 Homer, the bible of the Greeks, II, 264 Honorius IV, pope, and the Talmud, Horatius, trial of, before the Comitia Centuriata, II, 40 I Ignatius, St., martyrdom of, in Col- iseum, II, 261 Impalement, death by, II, 61 Infanticide, among Romans, II, 254 INDEX 395 Inkerman, story of soldier killed at battle of, II, 191 Innes, on the trials of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, I, 185; II, 10 on the cowardice of Pilate, II, 138 Interpreters, not allowed in Jewish courts, I, 107 Imprisonment. See Law, Hebrew Criminal, I, 93 Ishmael, Jewish rabbi, and the Mishna, I, 79 Ismael ben Eliza, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 309 Ismael ben Phabi, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 298 family of, cursed in Talmud, II, Isis, Egyptian deity, rites of, estab- lished in Rome, II, 217 Roman temples of, a resort of vice, II, 269 Issachar ben Keifar Barchi, Jewish priest, cursed in Talmud, II, 302 J James, brother of Jesus, condem- nation of, by Ananus, II, 296 Janus, Roman god, invocations of, II, 207 Jehovah, appearances of, in human form, I, 343-349 Jerome, St., on the Jewish anathema against Christians, II, 308 Jesus, the Christ human perfection of, I, 14; II, 186 scourging of, I, 56, 57 breaking of legs of, by soldiers, 1.57 bloody sweat of, I, 59, 60 physical cause of death of, I, 61, 62 watery issue of, I, 60-62 Jesus, the Christ devotion of women to, I, 66 resurrection of, I, 211; II, 368 divinity of, I, 2ii, 2i2 celebrates the Paschal feast, I, 220-224 at Gethsemane, I, 224-226 arrest of, I, 225 private examination of, before high priest, I, 238-247 charged with sedition and blas- phemy, I, 250 announces his Messiahship before Sanhedrin, I, 273, 274 Messianic prophecies fulfilled in Him, I, 323-328, 341, 342 miracles of, I, 350-355 at morning session of Sanhedrin, I, 356-362 condemned to death by Sanhedrin, I' 365 . His teachings treasonable under Roman law, II, 72 before Pilate, II, 96 seq. charged with high treason before Pilate, II, 106, 352 indictment of, before Pilate, II, 107-109 acquitted by Pilate, II, 116 sent by Pilate to Herod, II, 118 before Herod, II, 119 seq. mocked, and sent back to Pilate by Herod, II, 127 second appearance of, before Pilate, II, 129 seq. delivered to Jews by Pilate, II, 138 mocked by mob, II, 139 tributes of skeptics to, II, 187 Napoleon's tribute to, II, 189, 190 charged by Jews with illegitimacy, 11., 356 crucifixion of, II, 365 See also trial of Jesus, Hebrew, and trial of Jesus, Roman 39^ INDEX Jesus ben Sie, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 298 Jews, the political state of, at time of Jesus, II, 11-23 discussion of their responsibility for Christ's death, II, 174-180 prejudices against, II, 180-187 distinguished, II, 185, 186 Joazar, Jewish high priest, bio- graphical note on, II, 296 Jochanan ben Zakai, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 311 John, St., at the sepulcher, I, 37 at the crucifixion of Christ, I, 65 John, St., Gospel of, style of, I, 19 John, Jewish priest, biographical note on, II, 299 Jonathan, son of Annas, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 295 Jonathan ben Uziel, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 306 John, son of John, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 321 Joseph of Arimathea presence of, at trials of Christ, I, 282-286, 364 biographical note on, II, 318 receives body of Jesus from Pilate, n, 366 apocryphal account of escape of, from Jews, II, 367, 373-376 Josephus, Flavius on the character of Pilate, I, 2i on scourging, I, 56 on the Pharisees, I, 87 on the existence of the great San- hedrin at time of Christ, I, 176 on the loss, by Jews, of power of life and death, II, 19 on the rapacity of the high priests, II, 301 Jowett, Benjamin, upon the corrup- tion of Rome, II, 240 Judah, the Holy, Jewish rabbi, and the composition of the Mishna, I, 79, 80 Judas, son of Hezekiah, Jewish rebel, put to death by Herod, II, 109 Judas Iscariot, his betrayal of Christ, I, 227-235 Julia, daughter of Augustus, prof- ligacy of, II, 82 marriages of, II, 83 Julian, Roman emperor, his defiance of Mars, II, 222 Juno, Roman divinity, sacrifices to, II, 208 Jupiter, Roman deity, multitudinous forms of, II, 203 sacrifices to, II, 208 Justin Martyr, reference of, to "Acts ofPilate,"II, 331,346, 348 Juvenal, Satires of, on Roman social depravity, II, 240, 244, 248 K Keim, Theodor on the existence of the Great San- hedrin at the time of Christ, I, 178 on the character of Christ, II, 188, 189 Knight, R. P., on the symbolism of the Cross, II, 65 Koran, the, I, 77 Lamartine, Alphonse, on the death of Christ, II, 3 Lampon, Greek diviner, exposed by Anaxagoras, II, 226 INDEX 397 Lardner, on the authenticity of the "Acts of Pilate," II, 328 seq. Law, Hebrew Criminal administration of, I, 153, 154 basis of, I, 73, 84, 85 burial of bodies after execution under, I, loi, 171 capital punishments under, I, 9i-93» 99-101 circumstantial evidence under, I, 144 Cities of Refuge under, I, 96 courts and judges, I, 102-126 execution under, I, 170, 171 false swearing under, I, 93 flagellation under, I, 94 imprisonment under, I, 93 peculiarities of, I, 125, 132, 147, 167, 168 slavery under, I, 95 tenderness of, for human life, I, 154, 155. 310 testimony under, I, 144-147 witnesses under, I, 127-144 written and documentary evidence irrelevant, I, 133, 145 Laws, Roman lex Appuleia, II 69 Cornelia, II, 69 Julia Majestatis, II, 69, 80 Memmia, II, 46 Porcia, II, 54 Remmia, II, 49 Talionis, II, 53 Valeria, II, l,T, 54 Varia, II, 69 Lazarus, raising of, from the dead, I, 352 Lectisternia, Roman banquets to the gods, slaves released at, II, 130 indecencies of, II, 218 Lemann, extract from work of, on Sanhedrin, II, 291 Lepidus, Marcus, Roman patrician, magnificence of, II, 246 Livy, on scourging, I, 57 account of Bacchanalian orgies, II, 270-283 Longinus, legendary name of soldier who pierced Christ, II, 379 Lucullus, Roman patrician, luxury of, II, 244 Luke, St., occupation of, I, 19 Luke, St., Gospel of, style of, I, ig Lupercals, Roman priests, II, 204 Luxury of the Romans, II, 244 Lycurgus, code of, II, 241 M Macarius, identification of "true cross" by, II, 63 Macaulay, Lord, speech of, on Jew- ish disabilities, II, 184 Mahomet, character of, I, 14 Malchus, ear of, cut off by Peter, I, 36, 226 Magath, Julius, extract from work of, II, 291 Maimonides, on Hebrew Capital Crimes, I, 91 on the prohibition of nocturnal trials, I, 255, 256 Manlius, Marcus, trial of, before the Comitia Centuriata, II, 40 Marius, Caius, assassin cowed by, I, 62 Mark, St., Jesus arrested at home of, I, 220 Marriage, among the Romans, II, 236 among the Greeks, II, 240-243 Marcius, Quintus, Roman consul, motion of, on the suppression of the Bacchanalian orgies, II, 282 Mars, Roman deity, II, 208 39^ INDEX Messiah', the prophecies regarding, and their fulfillment in Jesus, I, 322-328 varying expectations of Jews re- garding, I, 319-322; II, no conception of Pharisees of, II, 324 conception of Sadducees of, II, 325 Matthew, St., occupation of, I, ig Matthias, son of Annas, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 296 Mendelssohn on the Talmud, I, 75 Messalina, Roman empress, lewd- ness of, II, 244 Messalinus, Cotta, prosecuted for treason, II, 70 Metrodorus on the Greek gods, II, 226 Mezeray, de, on the bloody sweat of Charles IX, I, 60 Minerva, Roman deity, II, 208 Miracles, probability of, I, 40-51 Spinoza on, I, 40-43 Renan on, I, 44 of Christ, I, 351-354 Mishna, the E. Deutsch on, I, 80 subdivisions of, I, 80 relation of Talmud to, I, 83 traditional view of, I, 84 on capital and pecuniary cases, I, 155, 156. See also Gemara and Talmud Mommsen, Theodor, on the juris- diction of native courts of Roman subject peoples, II, 15 on Roman marital looseness, II, 243 on Roman extravagance, II, 247 Montefiore, Sir Moses, anecdote of, II, 180 Mosaic Code, the, a basis of Hebrew Criminal Law, I, 73, 84, 85 Miiller, Johannes, explodes legend of Pilate and Lake Lucerne, n,95 N Nachum Halbalar, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 314 Naevius, Marcus, accusation of Scipio Africanus by, II, 41 Napoleon I, fickleness of populace toward, I, 63, 64 tribute of, to Jesus, II, 189 religious faith of, II, 190, 191 Nasi, prince of the Sanhedrin, I, 112 Nathan, Jewish rabbi, note on, II, 315, note Neptune, Roman deity, II, 208 Nero, Roman emperor, deification of, II, 234 Golden House of, II, 246 Ney, Michel, French marshal, com- pared with St. Peter, I, 64 Nicodemus, Jewish elder presence of, at trial of Christ, I, 282-286 defense of Christ before Sanhe- drin, I, 305 presence and conduct of, at second trial of Jesus by Sanhedrin, I, 364 biographical note on, II, 319 apocryphal account of pleading of, for Jesus before Pilate, II, 360 Gospel of. See "Acts of Pilate" Nordau, Max, on Jewish pride in Jesus, II, 188 o Oaths, not administered to witnesses, under Jewish law, I, 134 Octavian. See Augustus INDEX 399 Omens, belief of Romans in, II, 215 Onkelos, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 305 Oracle, Delphic, consulted by Ro- mans, II, 210 Osiris, Egyptian deity, the cross a symbol of, II, 66 Ovid, Roman poet, on unnatural practices in temples, II, 269 Paganism, Graeco-Roman conflict of, with Christianity, I, 16; II, 76-79 Hellenization of Roman religion, II, 199 importation of foreign gods, II, 200 origin and multiplicity of Roman gods, II, 198-204 Roman priesthood, II, 204, 205 Roman forms of worship, II, 205- 209 perplexity of worshipers regarding deities, II, 207 prayer, II, 207, 208-210 augury and divination, II, 210-215 omens, II, 215, 216 decay of Roman faith, II, 217-220 Roman skepticism, II, 220-229 sacrilege among Romans, II, 221 disbelief of Romans in immortal- ity, II, 228, 229 Epicureanism among the Romans, II, 229-231 stoicism, II, 231-233 deification of Roman emperors, 11, 233-235 base deities of Romans, II, 265 eflPect of religion in Greek and Ro- man social corruption, II, 269 Palace of Herod, description of, II, 96, 97 Paley, William, on the discrepancies of the Gospels, I, 32, ^^ Pan, Graeco-Roman divinity, feasts of, II, 265 Paul, St., on the depravity of Rome, II, 284 delivery of, to Felix, II, 299 Pericles, Greek tyrant, and the divi- nation of Lampon, II, 226 Pentateuch, the, a basis of Hebrew jurisprudence, I, y^ Permanent Tribunals (quststiones perpetuas), mode of trials before, at Rome, II, 43-52 Peter, St. at the sepulcher, I, 37 compared with Marshal Ney, I, 64 and Malchus, I, 36, 226 Pharisees and the Talmud, I, 87 attitude of, toward the law, I, 338 dominant in priestly order, II, 302 their conception of the Messiah, II, 324 characteristics of, II, 324 Philip, St., and the feeding of the five thousand, I, 35 Phillips, Wendell, on Hindu swords- manship, I, 48 Philo, Jewish philosopher, on the character of Pilate, I, 21; II, 89-91 Phryne, mistress of Praxiteles anecdote of, II, 242 Pilate, Pontius powers of, as procurator of Judea, II, V-3^ name and origin of, II, 81, 82 marriage of, II, 82 becomes procurator of Judea, II, 84 provokes the Jews, II, 85 appropriates funds from Corban, II, 86 400 INDEX Pilate, Pontius hangs shields in Herod's palace, II, 88 slays Galileans, II, 88 character of, I, 21; II, 88 canonization of, II, 89 ordered to Rome by Vitellius, II,g2 legends regarding death of, II, 92-94 interrogation of Jesus, II, 112-I15 talents of, II, 115 his opinion of Jesus, II, 115 acquits Jesus, II, 116 sends Jesus to Herod, II, 117 reconciled with Herod, II, 128 offers to release Barabbas, II, 130 warned by wife's dream of Jesus, II, 133, 355 washes his hands of Christ's death, II, U7, 364 releases Barabbas, II, 138, 363 summary of his conduct of Christ's trial, II, 168 conduct of, compared with Caesar, II, 169; with Sir Edward Coke, II, 170-172 Pindar, Greek poet, denunciation of, of vulgar superstitions, II, 224 Plato, Greek philosopher, unnatural love of, II, 263 reprobation of Homeric myths, 11,264 Pliny, the Younger, correspondence of, with Trajan, II, 78 disbelief of, in immortality, II, 229 on slavery, II, 203 Plutarch, on crucifixion, I, 56 anecdotes of Lucullus, II, 244-246 PolybiuSjOn Roman pederasty, 11,263 Pompeia divorced by Csesar, II, 238 Pompey, Cneius, the Great conquest of Palestine by, II, 11 defeated at Pharsalia, II, 25 divorce of his wife Mucia, II, 238 Pontiffs, Roman, II, 204 Poppaea, wife of Nero, deification of, 11,77 Postumius, Spurius, Roman consul, suppression of Bacchanalians by, II, 270-283 Praetor, Roman, judicial powers of, . II, 36 Priesthood, Roman. See Roman religion Priests, Jewish Chamber of. See Sanhedrin Procurator, Roman, jurisdiction of, II, 27, 28 Provinces, Roman, classification of, by Augustus, II, 27 Q Quetzalcoatle, crucified Savior, wor- shiped by Mexicans, II, 66 R Rabbi, origin of Jewish title of, II, 3J5 Rabbis, Jewish, arrogance of, II, 316 Raphall, Morris, on the origin of the Sanhedrin, I, 104 Rawlinson, George, on the political state of Judea at the time of Christ, II, II Religions, policy of Romans toward foreign, and of conquered peo- ples, II, 72-74 Renan, Ernest on miracles, I, 44-47 on the "judicial ambush" of blasphemers, I, 235 on the character of Pilate, II, 90 on the character of Christ, II, 187, 188 Richard III, King of England, con- test of, with Saladin, I, 48 INDEX 401 Richter on the pathology of cruci- fixion, II, 58, 59 Rosadi, on the confession of the accused under Hebrew law, I, 143 on the hatred of Pilate toward the Jews, II, 98 on the order of criminal trials in Roman provinces, II, 32 Rousseau, Jean Jacques, on the death of Christ, II, 187 Romans laws of, the basis of modern juris- prudence, II, 5 policy of, toward subject peoples, responsibility of, for Christ's death, II, 174-176 religion of. See Paganism Ruga, Carvilius, first Roman to pro- cure a divorce, II, 236 Sacrifice, human, among the Ro- mans, II, 209 Sadducees attitude of, toward the law, I, 338 attitude of, toward anthropomor- phism of Pentateuch, I, 338 dominant in the Sanhedrin, I, 339 disbelief of, in immortality, II, 322 wealth and rank of, II, 322 Saladin, Saracen Sultan, contest of, with Richard III, I, 48 Salians, Roman priests, II, 204 Sallust, Roman historian, on the conspiracy of Cataline, II, 229 Salvador, Joseph, on the existence of the Great Sanhedrin at the time of Christ, I, 177 Samuel, Hakaton, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 307 Sanctuary, right of, among ancient peoples, 1, 96 Sanhedrin, the Great origin of, I, 103 history of, I, 104 organization of, I, 105 chamber of scribes, I, 105; II, 303 chamber of elders, I, 105; II, 318 chamber of priests, I, 105; II, 292 qualifications of members of, I, 106 disqualifications of judges of, I, 109 officers of, I, 112 compensation of officers of, I, 115 sessions of, I, 116 recruitment of personnel of, I, 117 quorum of, I, 119 jurisdiction of, I, 119 appeals to, from minor Sanhedrins, I, 120 morning sacrifice of, I, 157 assembling of judges of, I, 158 scribes of, I, 1 58, 159 examination of witnesses by, I, 159-162 debates and balloting of judges of, I, 162 procedure of, in cases of condem- nation of accused, I, 165-167 method of counting votes, I, 167, 168 death march of, I, 169, 170 question of existence of, at time of Christ, I, 1 75-1 8 1 jurisdiction of, in capital cases at time of Christ, I, 181-183 discussion of trial of Christ before, I, 183-186 procedure of, in trial of Christ before, I, 186 illegality of proceedings of, against Christ, I, 255-259, 260-262, 263-266, 267-270, 287-294 402 INDEX Sanhedrin, the Great illegality of sentence of, against Christ, I, 271-278, 279-286 disqualifications of members of, who condemned Christ, I, 296- 308 morning session of, at trial of Christ, I, 356-364 three sessions of, to discuss Christ, I, 305. 306 authority of, after Roman con- quest, II, 12, 16, 21 deprived by Romans of power of capital punishment, II, 19, 20 biographical sketches of members of, who tried Jesus, II, 291-326 Sanhedrins, minor appeals from, to Great Sanhedrin, I, 120 establishment of, I, 121 jurisdiction of, I, 12I superior rank of those of Jeru- salem, I, 123, 124 Saul, Abba, Jewish scribe, bio- graphical note on, II, 313 Savonarola, Girolamo, Florentine reformer, burning of, I, 63 Scaurus, Manercus, prosecuted for treason, II, 70 Sceva, Jewish priest, biographical note on, II, 300 Schenck, account of, of the bloody sweat of a nun, I, 59 Schiirer, on the existence of the San- hedrin at the time of Christ, I, 176 on the jurisdiction of the Sanhe- drin, II, 18 on the administration of civil law by Sanhedrin, II, 30 Scipio Africanus, trial of, before Comitia Centuriata Scott, Sir Walter, on the contest be- tween Richard III and Saladin, I, 47, 48 Scourging, of Jesus, I, 56 mode of, among Romans, II, 55 Scribes, Jewish, Edersheim on, I, 302 Scribes, Jewish Chamber of. See Sanhedrin Segnensis, Henricus, anecdote of, illustrative of mediaeval igno- rance regarding Talmud, II, 74 Semiramis, Assyrian queen, origin of crucifixion imputed to, II, 54 Seneca anecdote from, regarding political informers, II, 71 on the patriotic observance of the national religion, II, 226 on suicide, II, 232 on slavery, II, 252 on Roman myths, II, 265 Septuagint, version of the Bible, paraphrasing of anthropomor- phic passages in, I, 237 Sepulture, of crucified criminals forbidden, II, 58 Serapis, Egyptian deity, images of thrown down, II, 73 Marcus Aurelius an adorer of, II, 217 Servilia, mistress of Julius Caesar, II, 239 Shammai, School of, and the Mishna, . ^' 79 dissensions of, with School of Hillel, II, 309 Shevuah ben Kalba, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 319 Shoterim of the Sanhedrin, I, 113 Sibylline Books, II, 199, 204 Sibyl, Erythraean, Virgil inspired by, 11,287 Simon, Jewish rebel, revolt of, II, no Simon, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 320 Simon Boethus, made high priest by Herod I, II, 296 INDEX 403 Simon ben Camithus, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 298 Simon Cantharus, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, .297 Simon, son of Gamaliel, Jewish eld- er, biographical note on, II, 305 Simon Hamizpah, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 314 Sinaitic MS. of the Bible, I, 67 Slavery under Hebrew law, I, 95 account of, among Romans, II, 250, 251 Social life, Grceco-Roman marriage and divorce, II, 236-240 prostitution, II, 242-244 luxury and extravagance, II, 244- 249 poverty of Roman masses, II, 249 slavery, II, 249-253 infanticide, II, 254 gladiatorial games, II, 255-262 depravity of, traceable to corrupt myths, II, 262-270 practice of Bacchanalian rites, II, 270-283 hopeless state of, at time of Christ, II, 284-287 Socrates, Greek philosopher, resem- blance of charges against, to those against Jesus, II, 181 counsel of, to Hetairai, II, 243 Sodomy, prevalence of, among Greeks and Romans, II, 262- 264 practiced in Roman temples, II, 269 Solomon ben Joseph, Jewish rabbi, on the Talmud, I, 90 Sonnenthal, Adolf von, Jewish actor, refused freedom of Vienna, II, 182 Sparta, licentiousness of, II, 241 Spartacus, Roman gladiator, revolt of, II, 259, 260 Spartans, marital looseness of, II, 241 Spinoza, Jewish philosopher, on miracles, I, 40-44 Standards, apocryphal miracle of, at trial of Christ, II, 354 seq. Starkie on the credibility of tes- timony, I, 12 Stephen, St., stoning of, I, 365 Stephen, Sir James F. J., on the Roman treatment of Christi- anity, II, 76 on Pilate's trial of Jesus, II, 159-164 Stoicism, among the Romans, II, 231 resemblance of, to Christian pre- cepts, II, 331 Stoning of criminals under Hebrew law, I, 92, 99 Strangling, of criminals under He- brevv' law, I, 91, 99 Strauss, David, on the behavior of Jesus before Herod, II, 126 on the character of Christ, II, 187 Stroud on the physical cause of death of Christ, I, 61, 62 Suetonius, Roman historian on the labeling of criminals before execution, I, 57 on divination, II, 213 narrative of, of dreams presaging reign of Augustus, II, 214 account of, of belief of Augustus in omens, II, 215 Suicide, attitude of Stoics toward, II, 232 Suspension, death by, II, 61, 62 Sweat, bloody, historical instances of, I, 59, 60 404 INDEX Tacitus, Roman historian, on slavery, II, 253 Talmud, the definition of, I, 74 recensions of, I, 81 contents of, I, 82 relation of Mishna to, I, 83, to Gemara, I, 83; to Pentateuch, I, 83; to Mosaic Code, I, 84, 85 efforts of Christians to extirpate, I, 87, 88 message and mission of, I, 8g See also Gemara and Mishna Telemachus, St., death of, in arena, II, 261 Temples, a resort of immorality in Rome, II, 269 Tertullian, Latin father, on the character of Pilate, II, 89 on the resort of vice to temple precincts, II, 269 reference of, to the "Acts of Pilate," II, 329, 333 J^^., 347, 34^ Tertullus, his prosecution of Paul, II, 299 Testimony, under Hebrew Criminal Law of each witness required to cover entire case, I, 132 vain, I, 145 standing, I, 146 adequate, I, 147 of accomplices, 1, 228-230, 235, 236 Theodota, the courtesan, counseled by Socrates, II, 243 Theophilus, son of Annas, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 296 Theresa, Maria, Austrian empress, codex of, II, 54 Three, Jewish Courts of, jurisdic- tion of, I, 124 Tiberius Caesar, Roman emperor sway of, II, 27 character of, II, 70 prosecutions of, for treason, II, 70, 71 marriage of, to Julia, II, 83 legendary desire of, to deify Christ, II, 329, 33« seq. Tischendorf, Constantine, on the authenticity of the "Acts of Pilate," II, 345 seq. Tissot, account of, of the bloody sweat of a sailor, I, 59 Trajan, Roman emperor, correspon- dence of, with Pliny, II, 78 Trials, Roman criminal right of appeal, II, 28 during the regal period, II, 35 Roman, mode of, in the Comitia Centuriata, II, 37-43 mode of, in the Permanent Tri- bunals, II, 43-52 prosecutor, role and selection of, II, 43. 44, 49 Trial of Jesus, Hebrew nature of charge against Jesus before Sanhedrin, I, 187 procedure of, before Sanhedrin, I, 188 discussion of charge of blasphemy against Jesus, I, 193-209 illegality of arrest of Jesus, I, 219- 237 illegality of private examination of Jesus before high priest, I, 238-247 illegality of indictment of Jesus, I, 248-254 illegality of nocturnal proceedings against Jesus, I, 255-259 illegality of the meeting of the Sanhedrin before morning sac- rifice, I, 260-262 INDEX 405 Trial of Jesus, Hebrew illegality of proceedings against Christ, because held on the eve of the Sabbath, and of a feast, I, 263-266 illegahty of trial, because con- cluded in one day, I, 267-270 condemnation of Jesus founded on uncorroborated evidence, I, 271-278 Jesus illegally condemned by unanimous verdict, I, 279-286 condemnation of Jesus pro- nounced in place forbidden by law, I, 288-292 irregular balloting of judges of Jesus, I, 292-294 condemnation of Jesus illegal, because of unlawful conduct of high priest, I, 290, 291 disqualifications of judges of Jesus, I, 296-308 Jesus condemned without defense, I, 309 . second trial of Jesus by Sanhedrin, I, 356-366 Trial of Jesus, Roman discussion of Roman and Hebrew jurisdiction, H, 3-23 Roman law applicable to, H, 68-80 as conducted by Pilate, H, 96-118, 129-139 legal analysis of, H, 141-168 Tribune, Roman, judicial powers of, II. 36 Tryphon, son of Theudion, Jewish elder, biographical note on, H, 321 Twelve Tables, laws of the, H, 53, 208 U Ulpian, Roman jurist, his definition of treason, H, 69 V Vatican, MS. of the Bible, I, 67 Venus, Roman deity, sacrifices to, n,2o8 impersonated by Phryne, H, 243 worshiped by harlots, H, 266 Veronica, St., legend of, H, 93 Vestals, Roman priestesses, guar- dians of sacred fire, H, 204 spectators at licentious dramas, 11,267 Vinicius, Lucius, Roman patrician, letter of Augustus to, H, 83 Virgil, poem of, on advent of heaven-born child, I, 321; H, 287 Virginia, legend of, H, 236 Vitellius, legate of Syria, spares Jewish prejudices, H, 85 orders Pilate to Rome, H, 92 Vitia, Roman matron, executed for treason, H, 71 Voltaire, Francois de, account of, of the bloody sweat of Charles IX, 1.59 on character of Christ, H, 187 Vulgate, version of the Bible, I, 68 W Witnesses, under Hebrew Criminal Law competency and incompetency of, I, 127-129 number of, required to convict, I, 129 agreement of, I, 131 adjuration to, I, 134 examination of, I, 136, 138 false, I, 140 the accused as, I, 141 separation of, I, 137 4o6 INDEX Wise, Rabbi, on the non-existence of y the Great Sanhedrin at time of Christ, I, 176, 179 Zadok, Jewish scribe, biographical on the "martyrdom of Jesus," 1, note on, II, 310 330 Zeno, Greek philosopher, originator of Stoicism, II, 229 Y Zeus, Greek divinity, character of, I, 14 Xenophanes, ridicule of, of Greek myth of rape of Ganymede by, religion, II, 224 II, 262 DATE DUE n^:,.''^^' 'SS 1 n£jijnaiirt:xiii|ji W "^^*^ -— **^ GAYUORD PRINTED IN US A. -s^ .i ■■■■