•YmJE-^MVESSITinr-

1901

THE TRIAL OF JESUS

The Trial of Jesus

BY

GIOVANNI ROSADI
DBPTTTATO TO THE ITALIAN PAKLIAMENT AND
ADVOCATE TO THE CODBT OP TUSCANY

EDITED, WITH A PREFACE, BY
DR. EMIL REICH
AUTHOR OP
'SUCCESS AMONG NATIONS," "FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN
EUROPE," "ATLAS OP ENGLISH HISTORY," ETC.

NEW YORK
DODD, MEAD AND COMPANY
1905

Copyright, 1905, by
Dodd, Mead and Company
Published, April, 1905

'¦

11 rS

PREFACE
In August last I happened to hear, almost immediately
after its publication, of the present work on the trial of
Jesus. Ever anxious to learn what Italian thinkers have to
say in all matters of human interest, I hastened to acquire
the book, and read it with avidity. It has long been my
conviction that in the history of Jesus is indicated and re
vealed the history of all humanity. The history of The
Man is the history of man. No age, no single historian can
tell the last word of this unique story. Each generation
wants its own Life of Jesus ; for in each generation new, or
partially new, human forces are shaping new phenomena
of goodness and wickedness, of greatness and misery.
Whatever new or formally new features may rise on the
moral horizon of humanity, we may always be sure that it
is within the Sphere of that Sun that for close on sixty gen
erations has been the centre of our ethical and religious
system. The depths and endless vistas in the Life of Je
sus are such as to necessitate a study of His time from the
most varied standpoints.
Unfortunately for a true comprehension of Jesus as a
purely historical phenomenon, let alone as the religious
Fact and Impulse, the study of the New Testament has
in the last seventy to eighty years fallen into the hands of
the so-called "higher critics," in whose criticism there is
nothing high, and in whose heights there is nothing crit
ical. They are philologians ; and that alone condemns
them as historians generally, and places them absolutely

vi PREFACE
out of court as historians of Christianity. The philologian,
whose means and habits of research are taken from the
study of languages, is and must be naturally averse to a be
lief in personality. Languages, indeed, have not been pro
duced by single personalities ; and no one syntactic con
struction, such as the ablativus absolutus, or any other lin
guistic institution of Latin or Greek or Hebrew, can be
traced back to the influence of a single great personality.
In Christianity, on the other hand, everything emanates
from and comes back to one central Personality. Reduce
or obliterate that Personahty, and you have reduced or
obliterated the whole of Christianity.
This is not the place to show that all ancient polities of
the classical type are necessarily based and grafted upon
an initial and final Personality. To the sober student of
History and Religion there can be no doubt whatever that
while, for instance, the existence of the Spartan state or
the Hebrew state may be considered only as an historic
necessity, the existence of Lycurgus and Moses are facts of
psychological necessity. In the case of Christianity this
irresistible psychological inference from present Chris
tianity to its Founder, that is, to the surpassing Personality
of Jesus, becomes almost a logical necessity. If we should
lose every scrap of written or monumental evidence from
the first century of our era, just as we have lost all contem
porary evidence of Lycurgus or Moses, the very fact of
Christianity as existing to-day ought to suffice to prove the
existence of a Founder endowed with a unique and alto
gether extraordinary personality.
All these manifest truths, proved by the most sceptical
and " objective " study of the past, are contemptuously ig
nored by the pedants who have so long imposed upon peo
ple who affect to be stunned by a display of learned foot
notes in a dozen old languages. It is now high time to

PREFACE vii
proclaim that "higher criticism," whether applied to Greek
and Latin classics or to the Old and New Testament, has
proved an amazing blunder. Nor can that be otherwise.
When institutions the very heart, the very essence of which
consists of Personality, are studied, analysed, and criticised
by people who by their professional training have long
incapacitated themselves for any mental attitude enabling
us to appreciate adequately the nature and effect of Per
sonahty, the result can be nothing short of absolute failure.
If Bentley had essayed to write a history of Greek art, he
would have covered himself with ridicule. So have the
too numerous German, Dutch, French, and English schol
ars who, with an appearance of systematic precision, have
invaded every syllable of the New Testament, and who,
after driving out from each dwelling-place of the text what
ever spiritual or human element there is in it, solemnly de
clare that the New Testament is a mere story-book, Christ
a myth, and Christianity a fraud.
The reaction is setting in. People learning from real
scholars, such as Mr. Kenyon, of the British Museum, how
inept and pointless have been most of the admired philo
logical tours de force of the great " emendators '' of Greek
and Roman classics, are prepared to assume that the amaz
ing "higher critics," who, with solemn divining-rods, have
torn the Pentateuch and other parts of the Bible into shreds
belonging to different " sources," are not a whit better than
their coUeagues. Higher criticism has done harm, but,
forsooth, not to the Bible, but to the critics themselves.
Whatever sciolists and pedants may say in their numerous
journals and periodicals, it remains certain that higher
critics have not contributed anything essential towards a
true historical construction of the greatest figure of His
tory. A new and deep comprehension of the Great Phenom-

viii PREFACE
enon is required. The cravings of the mass of humanity
are still unsatisfied. They want a new life, and they feel
that it will flow principally from a new consideration of
the life of Him who has vitalised and spiritualised the great
institutions of the past. This new life of Jesus, in its total
ity, can as yet not be written. Mountains of prejudices
and erudite sandhills have to be removed first. Mean
while, we must be grateful to any one who has, at the cost
of much disinterested study, drawn at least one aspect of
that unique Life in the spirit of true research and genuine
enthusiasm for his subject.
Such a book is the present. Signor Rosadi has ap
proached his problem — apparently a purely legal one —
with a warmth of sympathy, with a breadth of philosophi
cal view, with a purity of religious sentiment that have
rendered his book not only a noteworthy contribution to
the history of Jesus, but a stimulating and (we say it un
hesitatingly) an edifying work in the best sense of the word.
It is to be hoped that few people whose Christianity is not
a mere formula to them will leave this book unread. It is
one of those great preliminary studies that may, in the end,
enable us to see in its entirety the immense force of Good
ness and Greatness embodied in Him whose name is con
stantly on our lips, and whom we yet know so little.
Emil Reich.
London, November 15, 1904.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I
PAGE
The Great Injustice of the Trial of Jesus — Long Impunity of
the Accused — His Times — The Prophets — The Sects of
Palestine: the Pharisees; the Sadducees; the Essenes;
the Therapeutics — The Rabbis and the other Zealots of
Israel — Popular Agitation against Heresy, the Tribute,
and Taxation, the Inobservance of the Law — The Good
News of Jesus — A Complete Social Revolution — Cause
of His Impunity .  1

CHAPTER II
The Voice in the Desert — The Precursor of Jesus — The Axe
to the Root of the Tree — The Messiad which crossed
from the Desert into Civilisation — Civil Status of Jesus —
His Country — His Parents — His Precocious Childhood —
The Family Trade— The Meeting with St. John the Bap
tist — Beginning of the Public Life of Jesus . . .12

CHAPTER III
The Doctrine of Jesus from the Economic Point of View —
The Hebrew Tenure of Property — Wealth Incompat
ible with the Kingdom of God — The Attacks and Para
bles of Jesus — The Conclusions of His Doctrine — New
Definition of the Meaning of Life — Substitution of the
Christian for the Pagan Idea of Society — Neither Nega-

CONTENTS

tion nor Distribution of Wealth, but its Administration
by Owners for the Benefit of All — Christianity and So
cialism — The Language of the Fathers of the Church
and the Language of Jesus — The Thoughts and Lan
guage of Jesus in regard to the state of opinion and of
legislation concerning wealth — Jesus does not violate in
stitutions and laws, but raises feelings at variance with
them — The Rich come to hate Him . . . .23
CHAPTER rV
The Religious Doctrine of Jesus — His Vehemence against
the Desecrators of the Temple — High Emoluments of the
Priests and Levites — The Interests of the Priesthood
bound up with those of the Nation — The Idea of the
Theocratic Constitution — The Covenant and the Mosaic
Law — The Sanctuary in Jerusalem the Centre of the
National Forces — Christ's Attitude neither Theocratic
nor Nationalist — The Fulfilment of the Law of Moses —
His Resolute Opposition to the Officialism Predominant
in Public Worship — At the Well of Sichem — The Fanat
ics join the Rich in their Hatred of Jesus . . . . 42
CHAPTER V
The Political Doctrme of Jesus — His Indifference to Estab
lished Institutions — The Law founded on Force, but the
Moral Law of Jesus confided to the Liberty of the Soul —
Neither Conflict nor Adhesion between Divine and Hu
man Authority — Tribute to Csesar — The Individualism
of Jesus representing the Integrity of Manhood as against
the Claims of Citizenship — Renunciation of the Law and
Indifference to Institutions do not conflict with True Jus
tice or the Combative Element in Life, nor with Labour
or the Progress of Civilisation — All the Less Reason was
there that any such Conflict should exist in Ancient Pales
tine — Jesus did not compete for Political Power . . 52

CONTENTS xi
CHAPTER VI
PAGE
Propaganda and Associations — No one a Prophet in his own
Country — At Nazareth, Capernaum, and Gennesaret —
The Twelve Apostles — Men and Women following Him
— The Familiarity and Benignity of Jesus at Popular Fes
tivals — Hypocrites scandahsed — Originality and Charm
of His Words — His Style — His Invectives against Hypoc
risy, Instrument of Fraud and Disunion — Authoritative
Admirers — First Councils adverse to Impunity — The
Amours of Antipater and Herodias hasten the Death of
the Baptist — The Tetrarch wishes to see Jesus . . 63
CHAPTER VII
First Mission of the Apostles — The Master shows the Disci
ples the Perils of Public Life — Period of Vague and Cir
cumspect Propaganda — A Deputation of Scribes and
Pharisees comes from Jerusalem to question Jesus — A
Query regarding Inobservance of Form — The Reply of
Jesus against Pedants and Hypocrites — Another Mission
of Seventy Disciples — Jesus after a Long Journey braves
the Hostility of Jerusalem — The Absolution of the Adul
teress — Significance of this Absolution in View of the
Mosaic and Roman Law — Opinion regarding Jesus at
Jerusalem — Refuge in John the Baptist's Country . . 78

CHAPTER VIII
A Message from Bethany — The House of Lazarus, Martha,
and Mary — The Fame of the Resurrection of Lazarus —
The Elders and Priests of Jerusalem convene the Sanhe
drin — The Statutory Necessity that some one should die
for the People — It is decided that Jesus shall die — Juridi
cal Consequences of this Anticipatory Decision — The
Fame of other Miracles as tending to render Jesus ame-

xii CONTENTS
PAGE
nable to the Provisions of the Penal Law — The Capital
Charge of working Miracles on the Sabbath — Other
Warnings of Danger — The Supper at Bethany — Judas
Iscariot and his Treachery as treated by Tradition —
Jesus at the Epilogue of His Mission — His Joyous Entry
into Jerusalem — Political and Juridical Value of the
Fact — Last Conflicts in the Temple — The Last Supper . 92

CHAPTER IX
The Arrest — Judas guides the Band sent to apprehend Jesus
— The Bass of Betrayal — The Beginning of an Attempt
at Armed Resistance — Another Meeting of the Sanhedrin
preceding the Arrest — Juridical Significance of this Meet
ing — The Order and Form of the Arrest — Provocative
Agents — The Use of Spies under the Mosaic Law — The
Roman Authority and Military Force have nothing to do
with the Arrest — Incompetence of the Jewish Authority
to take this Step — Jesus before Annas — Formal Arrest
Unjustifiable — Intrigues and Interference of the Ex-High
Priest — The Nepotism of the Sacerdotal Family — The
High Priest Joseph Caiaphas  1 12

CHAPTER X
The Political Constitution of Syria in Regard to Roman Law
— The Conquest of Syria by Pompey — The reign of
Herod the Great, and the Territorial Division made Be
tween Archelaus, Philip, and Herod Antipater — The
Principality of Archelaus withdrawn from the Latter and
transferred to the Governor before the Trial of Jesus — ¦
Consequences of the Roman Conquest in Financial and
Police Matters, and in the Department of Justice — Colo
nies, Municipalities, and Provinces — The Office of Gov
ernor, and of the Procurators officiating as Vice-Gov
ernors — The Jurisdiction of Vice-Governors in Cases

CONTENTS xiii

involving Capital Punishment — The General Opinion re
garding the Jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin refuted — Why
the Judgment of the Sanhedrin was an Abuse of Power
— The Action of Justice in Inverse Ratio to the progress
of Humanity — Why Judges Untrammelled by the Spirit
and Interests of Conservatism would not have condemned
Jesus — Class Justice and Political Offences — The San
hedrin usurped Roman Jurisdiction in Order to defend
Class Interests and Beliefs — Why the Vice-Governor, left
Free in his Jurisdiction, should have collected the Proofs,
and conducted the Whole Trial himself — The Arrest of
the Person charged was also a Matter within his Juris
diction  . . 131

CHAPTER XI
The Convening of the Sanhedrin — The Hour of the Meeting
— Prohibition of the Mosaic Law against Procedure in
Capital Cases at Night — Divergence in the Synoptic Gos
pels — The Exegetic Observations of D. F. Strauss — The
Gospel Narrative of the Trial of Jesus before the Sanhe
drin — It is concluded from it that all the Proceedings
before the Sanhedrin in this Matter were Nocturnal —
Significance of this Irregularity in View of the Rigorous
Observance of Legal Forms by the Hebrews — How the
Trial terminated with another Irregularity, inasmuch as
the Sentence could not Legally be pronounced on the
Same Day as that on which the Trial closed . . . 152

CHAPTER XII
The Constitution of the Sanhedrin — Historical Lacunes and
Conjectures — The Biblical Judges — The King and the
Elders and Judges — The Institutions of David and Je-
hoshaphat — Mention in Deuteronomy of a Supreme Mag
istracy at Jerusalem — Necessity of consulting the Talmud

xiv CONTENTS

for determining the Hebraic Judicial Organisation — Tri
bunals of Three Grades — The Capital Jurisdiction of the
Grand Sanhedrin and its Particular Attributions — The
Nasi, the Scribes, the Shoterim — Suppression of the
Greater Privileges of the Sanhedrin in the Time of Jesus . 162
CHAPTER XIII
The Minutes of the Audience of the Sanhedrin — The Pagan
Sources upon the Life and Trial of Jesus — Critical Con
clusions regarding the Form and Contents of the Gospels
— The Gospel Texts upon the Trial before the Sanhedrin
— The Two Charges brought against Jesus : Sedition and
Blasphemy — How the Sanhedrin proceeded by Elimina
tion, abandoning the First Charge in Default of Proof and
taking the Second from the Confession of the Accused —
Why the Confession did not dispense the Judges from ex
amining Witnesses — Why the Confession would not in
Itself constitute an Indictable Offence .... 169
CHAPTER XIV
Wherein the two Charges are examined with Reference to
their Contents — It is shown that the Charge of Sedition
was False and that of Blasphemy Unjust — Confutation of
the Thesis of Renan that it was the First and not the Sec
ond Charge which caused the Condemnation before the
Sanhedrin — How Jesus proclaimed Himself the Messiah
— Moral and Historical Conception of the Messiah — How
the Messiah was understood and awaited by the Contem
poraries of Jesus in Various Manners — How the Judges
of the Sanhedrin neglected their Duty in not raising the
Problem of Messianic Identity with regard to their Pris
oner — Contemporary Judaism and Christianity success
ively prove that this Problem ought not to have been set
on one side by a Foregone Conclusion — The Sanhedrin
conducted a Conspiracy, not a Trial .... 184

CONTENTS xv
CHAPTER XV
PAGE
In which it is shown that the Sentence ascribed to the Sanhe
drin was not a Judicial Sentence — How in the Alleged Sen
tence there is no Indication of the Kind of Punishment —
How not one of the Evangelists treats of a Real Sentence
— Exposition of the Mosaic Penal System in order to de
duce what would have been the Punishment applicable to
Jesus — -The Various Forms of Capital Punishment:
Hanging, Stoning, Burning, Decapitation — Preventive
Imprisonment — Fine and Flagellation — The Crimes Pun
ishable with Death — How for the Crime of Blasphemy
stoning was decreed — It is concluded that had Jesus
been condemned by the Sanhedrin He would have been
stoned  200
CHAPTER XVI
Lucius Pontius Pilate — His Spanish Origin — At the Court of
Tiberius — How his Shameful Marriage caused his Nom
ination as Procurator of Judsea — His wife Claudia joins
him in his Province — The Tenacious and Vehement
Character of Pilate contrasted with that Imagined by
Tradition — His Violent Treatment and Provocation of
the Jews — End of his Official Career caused by his final
Deeds of Violence — An Allusion of Dante . . . 215
CHAPTER XVII
In which it is shown that the Reputed Judges of Jesus acted
as Prosecutors before Pilate — Scruples of Levitic Con
tamination close the Gate of the Prsetorium to them —
Better Determination of the Day upon which these Oc
currences took place — Pilate's Tribune — How an Accu
sation but not a Condemnation upon the Part of the Jews
is spoken of — How the Charge of Blasphemy was not
Maintained, but the Aheady Abandoned Charge of Se-

xvi CONTENTS

PAGE

dition was once more pressed — The Examination of Je
sus before Pilate — How Pilate concluded that he found
no Crime in Him  230

CHAPTER XVIII
From Pilate to Herod — From Herod to Pilate — How the Te-
trarch could not have had Jurisdiction over Jesus, al
though a Galilean — Herod questions the Prisoner, who
does not answer — Meaning of His Silence — How the
Scribes and Priests repeated the Charges before Herod
— Jesus is sent back to Pilate in a White Garment — The
Second Expedient of a Simple Chastisement — Its Failure,
and the Recourse of the Governor to a Third Expedient .

CHAPTER XIX
The pardoning of Barabbas — What we know about him — It
is denied that this Pardon was founded on Mosaic Law — •
Its Foundation is looked for in Roman Law — The Vari
ous Extinctions of the Penal Sanction : Expiation, Death,
Pardon, Indulgence, Public and Private Rescission — It
is shown how Pilate could have only set Barabbas Free
by Virtue of a Private Rescission — The Liberation of
Barabbas should have taken place in Consequence of a
Demand from the Prosecutors, and not at the Pleasure of
the Judge  250

CHAPTER XX
How Barabbas was preferred to Jesus — The Message of the
Wife of Pilate — Her Prophetic Dream — Pilate insists on
the Alternative : Christ or Barabbas ? — How the Mock
ing Spirit of the Governor makes Jest of the King to be
crucified, and the Servile Character of the Jews who in-

CONTENTS xvii
PAGE
voked the Friendship of the Emperor — The Unanimous
Cry of "Crucify Him" — How not even an Echo was
heard of the late Hosannas — The Reason of this is found
in the Disappointment of the People that looked for a
Miracle — How the Identical Popular Phenomenon was
renewed at Florence with regard to Fra Savonarola — The
Phenomenon regarded from the Positive Point of View
of Collective Suggestion, and from that of the Disorderly
Crowd  266
CHAPTER XXI
Pilate washes his Hands — Meaning of this Judicial Usage —
The Crowd insists Anew — The Last Stand of the Gover
nor — Ecce Homo — Jesus handed over to the Priest — This
Handing-Over was the sole Form of Condemnation —
The Responsibility for the Death of Jesus falls upon the
Governor — The Roman Soldiers come at this Point upon
the Scene for the First Time — The Scourging from a Ju
dicial Point of View — The Prisoner travestied — The
Crown of Thorns — The Order of Procedure in Roman
Trials — Jesus' Trial does not correspond to any Normal
Form of Proceeding : It was a Political Murder . . 282
CHAPTER XXII
The Cross — The Procession towards Calvary — How the
Three Prisoners carried the Implements of their own
Punishment — Simon of Cyrene — The Two Thieves — The
Women who followed Jesus and His Mother — Golgotha
— The Cross as a Penalty of Roman and not of Mosaic
Law — The Superscription of the Offence written above
the Cross — Crucifixion of Jesus — The Beverage — How
the Garments of the Executed passed by Right of Law
to the Executioners — The breaking of the Bones of the
Crucified Prisoners — The Last Words of Jesus — His
Death  299

THE TRIAL OF JESUS

C&e Crtal of 3esus

CHAPTER I
The Great Injustice of the Trial of Jesus — Long Impunity of the
Accused — His Times — The Prophets — The Sects of Palestine:
the Pharisees; the Sadducees; the Essenes; the Therapeu
tics — The Rabbis and the other Zealots of Israel — Popular
Agitation against Heresy, the Tribute, and Taxation, the
Inobservance of the Law — The Good News of Jesus — A
Complete Social Revolution — Cause of his Impunity.
In the year of Rome 783, a carpenter of Nazareth was
arrested at Gethsemane, tried at Jerusalem, and put to
death on Golgotha as guilty of sedition.
Grasping priests denounced Him, false witnesses ac
cused Him, judges of bad faith condemned Him; a
friend betrayed Him ; no one defended Him ; He was
dragged with every kind of contumely and violence
to the malefactor's cross, where He spoke the last words
of truth and brotherhood among men. It was one of
the greatest and the most memorable acts of injustice.
For centuries it will afford to thinkers and believers
subject for meditation, as the human and divine prob
lem; people of every race and every faith will demand
vengeance for it ; the prisoner of Gethsemane will be for
ever unified with God, and the very cross of His infamy
will become the purest and the highest symbol of hope
and revolution. 1

2 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
He whom they condemned was innocent: blameless
in His manners, simple in His ways, inaccessible in his
aspirations, He preached one great law of love and
solidarity for the government of the world ; He loved
the poor and humble and made brethren of the sinful and
unhappy ; He shunned pomp and power, and declared to
those who besought Him for worldly advantage that
His kingdom was not of this world. Yet He paid the
tribute due to Caesar and was a good citizen.1 But He
had frequently spoken against the hypocrisy of the
Pharisees, which manifested itself in every social con
vention ; sometimes He assailed public worship and the
law as leading to nothing but contradiction and false
hood ; and He had cried still louder " Woe to the rich,"
while announcing to the poor a speedy betterment of
their condition. He had counted the tears and the ini
quity of the earth, and promised as compensation and as
a contrast the happiness and the justice of heaven. This
propaganda of ideas and designs was bound to be dis
tasteful, as it was, to the greater part of the Hebrew
people, interested in the welfare and power of the nation,
and could only transgress, as it was intended to trans
gress, its laws, which were ill interpreted in the fury of
politics and the delirium of superstition. Party passion
has always claimed two victims, liberty and innocence,
and has never overthrown two tormentors, persecution
and calumny.
Jesus — as the innocent victim of Nazareth was called
— had therefore to die.
And in our day, any one speaking with His licence
and favour, and even gifted with His soul and eloquence,
would rather be likely to fall a hundred times into the
clutches of the political authorities than to gain the
good graces of the magistrates. On every particular
occasion he would be arrested as a measure of public

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 3
safety, as we now call it; he would be warned, under
the suspicion that he contemplated the commission of
political offences, as is also customarily done; he would
be sent into forced domicile, as at present ; and even
his friendly consorting with twelve followers of the new
idea would be denounced as an association of malefactors
— all most admirable devices which nineteen centuries
of continuous and strenuous progress have generously
bestowed upon worn-out humanity. Jesus was not
greatly disturbed during His open and fearless mission,
although never lost sight of and always marked for the
cross. And yet, even those days were not tranquil and happy !
The Hebrew people — converted too late from the no
madic life to national life, and passing too quickly from
the patriarchal state of a spontaneous and suitable
equality to the juridical system, in the first place, of
property vested in the family and then in the individual
— lived in a condition of great tension from the captivity
of Babylon to the Roman conquest. Egoist, sophistical,
conservative, and superstitious, it was with bitter feel
ings that the Hebrew people saw commerce and wealth
develop and the luxury of Tyre and Babylon penetrate
into Israel. It grieved their souls to see thousands of
men toiling in the caves of Judah, in the forests of
Lebanon, and in the galleys of Oman in order to pro
cure for a few idlers the ease and luxury of the towns,
and for some libertines the pleasures and diversions of
obscene harems. They saw with indignation that when
Rome made a new province out of their country, the
Jewish aristocratic class sided with the sacrilegious and
idolatrous conquerors, while the mass of the people, re
maining faithful to the old traditions, manifested the
same hatred against aristocrats and strangers alike.2
And lo! in the midst of this grief-stricken people

4 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
prophets arose from day to day who directed the fervour
of hope and the gesture of invocation towards a new
era, not only of political, but human regeneration; a
state of perfect innocence and universal palingenesis;
a golden age, not to be sought as by the peoples of
classic antiquity in the past, but to be expected in a
distant future, foretold in canticles and visions, in suf
fering and in faith ; 3 and the Israelitish prophets, ob
serves Ernest Renan in his historical work — much more
authoritative than his eccentric, biography of Jesus —
were ardent publicists of the kind now called anarchists,
fanatics on behalf of social justice and solemnly pro
claiming that if the world is neither just nor likely to
become so, then it were better destroyed — a point of
view no doubt very false, but still fruitful of results,
since, like all desperate doctrines, like the Russian
Nihilism of our own day, it tends to produce heroism
and a great awakening of human forces.4
The prophets were the speakers of the various ten
dencies in action. The word designating them only meant
orator, and the faculty of divination commonly attrib
uted to the prophetic vocation as synonymous with it
was only secondary and accessory. According to bibli
cal tradition, Moses lacked fluency of speech, and God
associated his brother Aaron with him as prophet.5
Miriam was called prophetess when she went singing
and playing on the cithara the immortal song of victory.6
The prophets represented liberty of speech as in our
day the press represents liberty of opinion. It burst
forth, unprepared, unforeseen, undisciplined like genius ;
it was the genius of the popular conscience. A prophet
showed himself in public places, on the threshold of the
temple, before the people, among the priests, at the foot
of the throne, and animadverted freely upon things and
persons. His right was founded in the law which fixed

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 5
one sole limit to his liberty — respect for the monotheistic
idea and for the name of Jehovah.
Uncompromising above all, more Israelitish than 7
Moses, the Pharisees formed a Gnostic sect, the strongest
and yet the most dangerous privileged commentator of
traditional truth. Claiming to be exclusive depositaries
of the moral tradition received by Moses on Mount Sinai,
the Pharisees also claimed to be alone able to interpret
the signification of the sacred texts, and violently op
posed any who gave them a different interpretation,
whereas among other sects the right of free interpreta
tion was admitted. Sophists, pedants, hypocrites, fac
tious formalists and formulists, and of a grasping na
ture, they studied only to obscure the law, which in their
hands became the worst weapon of persecution and im
posture. They believed in the struggle between the
empire of good and that of evil, and regarded as a par
ticular domain of evil the hegemony of Rome over their
nation, not from any spirit of independence and dignity,
but solely because they perceived in it a permanent sin
of idolatry. They appeared in public with their faces
covered, some, indeed, with closed eyes, in order to see
no woman — while others, by way of showing extreme
contrition daubed themselves with foetid bitumen. All
prayed in public, taking the first places in the synagogues
and giving alms by sound of trumpet, a practice with
which Jesus, in His memorable words, one day reproached
them.8 Less fanatical and more positive, the Sadducees re
pudiated tradition and observed the written law with
discretion. They thought that God did not intervene
overmuch in the affairs of men, and supposed that the
soul died with the body, although that did not prevent
the principal priests of the temple of Jerusalem from
belonging to this sect. They accepted foreign domina-

6 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
tion as a means of uniting Hebraic and foreign culture,
noble examples of the latter having already been adopted
by the Jewish school at Alexandria.9
Incomparably the best among all the sectaries, the
Essenes formed one of those mystic schools based upon
renunciation and community of goods. Devoted to the
principle of Zoroaster that the soul should be freed from
the trammels and influences of the body, they lived, re
tired from towns, in country places. They disciplined
their bodies by fasting and morbifications, shunned trade
and its corruptions, kept no slaves and gained no wealth,
dedicating themselves to work and sharing the fruit of
it in common. They disdained sophistical theology and
studied natural science, medicine in the first place. Thus
they made profession both of medicine and philanthropy,
helping the sick and needy.10
Not very dissimilar, but nevertheless distinct from
them, the Therapeutics based their origin on Western
tradition transmitted by the Alexandrine and particu
larly by the Pythagorian school. More inclined to con
templation than to action, their rule differed from that
of the Essenes, not so much by metaphysical specula
tion, as by a still more chastened mode of life.
The rabbis who taught in the synagogues, though not
forming close sects but schools, did not confine them
selves to didactic teaching, but held disputations con
cerning the civil and religious interpretation of the law,
and contributed by their daily arguments to open up
new horizons to popular hopes and superstitions. Anti-
gon of Soco, Jesus son of Sirach, and above all the gentle
and clear-sighted Plillel, who preceded the Nazarene by
half a century, had already professed elevated ideas of
equality and fraternity — of love of God and rest in Him
— in contrast to the officialism and hypocrisy of the
dominant form of worship.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 7
And all these schools, sometimes differing and often
completely at variance among themselves, sprang not
only from the role of the prophet of antiquity, recon
stituted in the Judaism of the later days, passing
through the hazardous vicissitudes of the Herodian
dynasty and the Roman conquest, not only from the
foreign breeding of the Hebrew exiles returned to their
country, but also from the particularly ascetic bent of
the Hebrew people, which must be considered as a pre
disposing influence of no minor importance.
Those who may be acquainted with the localities of
this history will have observed how natural character
istics of a singular kind harmonise with a singular
people. " The saddest region in the world," says Renan,
under the impression of a painful sojourn there, " is
perhaps that which surrounds Jerusalem. Jewish towns
are generally mere agglomerations of houses built with
out a trace of style, and the country is arid, poor, and
dreary. Everything appears to be the work of an agri
cultural people devoid of artistic instinct, debarred from
industry, indifferent to beauty of form, but solely and
profoundly idealist. And just by reason of this singu
larity of nature the life of the Jewish people, egoist
as it was, was not limited by the coarse and unthinking
materialism of our own agriculturists, but became
spiritualised in a continuous dream and in an indefinite
ideal. Greek art, by means of poetry and sculpture,
had already given the purest and most delicate images
of life, but the stylus and chisel of the Greeks repre
sented a nature without backgrounds, without distant
horizons, without glimpses of heaven. There was no
art whatever in Palestine, but, as compensation, this
squalid and contemplative people clung to the gigantic
vision of ages past — a vision which rejuvenated from
day to day its decrepit life. " Man," says Renan, pur-

8 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
suing the same line of thought, " never grasped the
problem of his destiny with more desperate courage or
more resistless determination." n
Not all the Zealots, for whom Moses was the great
exemplar, confined themselves to professing and incul
cating their doctrines ; the greater part of them gath
ered together in strong groups and elaborated dangerous
plots often ending in revolt. A long series of Roman
Governors from Coponius to Pilate vainly strove to
drown in blood this fiery furnace, within which seethed
the tears and sweat of a wretched people. But popular
agitations were nearly all based upon some political or
religious programme, and consequently resolved them
selves into mere party struggles. One day heresy was
assailed in connection with Herodian works of art, and
the Roman votive shields which appeared to smack of
idolatry, while the sect of Judah son of Sariphasus, and
of Matthew son of Margaloth, put forth nothing but
this slight programme. At another time fierce opposi
tion was offered to the tribute law applied in the coun
tries recently conquered by Rome — which was regarded
as an impiety, inasmuch as no Lord could be recognised
but God, and this was the sole argument used by the
school of Judah of Gaulon. Others offered opposition
to the legality of the tax, while one leader, Judah of
Gamala, associated with a Pharisee named Zadok, formed
a party to work solely on this line of attack. Then
vengeance was sworn against whomsoever should trans
gress the Mosaic law, and the Zealots were pious cut
throats and assassins (not an exceptional case in the his
tory of religious criminality 12) who imposed upon them
selves the sacred obligation of killing all transgressors
of the law.13
It was in the midst of these tendencies and these con
trasts that Jesus was born and rose to manhood.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 9
He came in the fulness of time, and yet no one was less
than He of His time. No one felt more than He its his
torical conditions, and yet he dominated them. No one
forded the stream of centuries and epitomised in His
regenerating word the infinite course of history like the
martyr of Galilee.14 He came to give to the world, and
to Rome herself, what men knew not of, or denied —
equality before God. Alexander, Caesar, Augustus,
Tiberius, or the reactionaries who might have rebelled
against them, would have failed in this great enterprise,
since, although one or the other might perhaps have
succeeded in imposing it with poor and transitory result,
they would not have understood how to indicate it simply
while leaving it to fulfil itself. All the incomparable
power of Jesus is in this truth.
He announced the good news of the kingdom of God,
but His God is not the national God of Israel, nor the
Lord of Hosts, nor does He sit enthroned amid clouds
and lightning. Pie is the Father who is in heaven.15
In the presence of this fundamental affirmation all men
are brethren, being sons of one and the same Father,
and there are no longer any Hebrews, nor Samaritans,
nor common people, nor outcast classes : humanity is one
people and one family, whom God loves and watches over
from heaven with a Father's impartial eye. Here is the
mighty lever of a whole social revolution.
The domain of Jesus is not confined to the rights and
needs of one people only, but embraces the aspirations
and aims of humanity. Hence He founded no political
party and headed no religious faction; He propounded
no judicial system nor any economic rule in substitution
of contemporary law and government. Even wealth,
which is the negation of His kingdom, He does not seek
to claim nor to regulate or socialise, contrary to what
has been wrongly said in His name by some in our day.

10 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
But He deprived it of all honour, all value, and re
pudiated it. He overcomes the world because He knows
how to renounce it.
His programme is rather a reaction against than the
evolution of preceding popular movements ; heaven
divides Him from the Essenes, the idea of country from
the Gaulonites, intelligence from the laws of the Phari
sees,16 and Jesus, perhaps as an intended contrast to
the school of Sariphaeus, declares that His kingdom is
not of this world. It may have been that, in similar con
tradiction to the sect of the Gaulonites, He enjoined the
rendering unto Caesar of the things that are Caesar's, and,
from a similar antithesis to the party of Gamaliel, paid
the state tithe.
This great and incomprehensible vastness of doctrine
must have been the first cause of the impunity enjoyed
for three years by the public discourses of Jesus, as in
our own day the vast movement of an economic party
could more easily escape check than the subtle action of
an anti-constitutional party. The latter is a nearer and
more concentrated enemy than the former, and every
government defending itself from its enemies has the
shortsightedness of the egoist, and takes the uncertain
measures characteristic of timidity. Not least among
the causes of impunity were, no doubt, the attitude and
customs of this people, unquiet by nature, necessitous by
origin, and the prey of a continual and irrepressible
agitation connected with the problem of its existence
and destiny. Spontaneous and valid reason was also
afforded by the manner of life which was made cause of
reproach against Jesus by His enemies — by His pure and
simple youth and His missionary action, void of all
finality and mundane competition. Later on we shall
see how a malignant pretext and a calumnious charge
were put forward in order to bring into the category of

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 11
external, imputable facts an ideal, superhuman work that
appealed solely to the hearts of men, wherein the Galilean
had founded His kingdom and kindled His revolution.

Notes
1 Under the title of Jesus hem citoyen Bossuet wrote a chapter
of his Politique tiree de UEcriture sainte.
2 Renan, Histoire du peuple d'Israel, vol. ii. pp. 170, 171, 181;
Nitti, II socialismo Cattolico, cap. iii.
3 Cf . Castelli, II Messia secondo gli Ebrei, Firenze, Le Monnier,
1874, pp. 25, 31; Chiappelli, Nuove Pagine sul Cristianesimo
antico, Firenze, Le Monnier, 1902, p. 43.
4 Op. cit. Preface, p. 3.
5 Exodus vii. 1, 2.
6 Exodus xv. 20, 21.
7 Deuteronomy, xiii. 1, 3, 6, 8, xviii. 15, 18, 20. Cf. Levi,
Sulla teocrazia mosaica, Firenze, Le Monnier, pp. 191-220.
8 Josephus Flavius, De hello jud. n. viii. 1-8; Antiq. xiii. ix.
7, 18, 4, 5, xvni. i. 1, 3, 4.
9 Ibid. Antiq. xiii. ix. 7, xvm. ii. 2; De hello jud. n. viii. 1, 8.
10 Ibid. Antiq. xiii. ix. 7, xvni. ii. 1; De hello jud. n. viii. 2-7;
Pliny, Hist. not. v. 17; Adv. har. cap. xix. 1, 2.
11 Vie de Jesus, ch. iv.
12 Cf. Corre, L'ethnographie criminelle, Arch, delle Trad. Pop.
xii. 130, Palermo, 1893; Lombroso, L'uomo delinq. i. 52. Annec-
chino, Divinita, criminali, p. 9; De Rotterdamo, Elogio della
pazzia. 13 Philo, Leg. ad Cajum, par. 38; Josephus, Antiq. xin. par. 2.
14 Cf. Chiappelli, Nuove Pagine sul Cristian. ant. p. 76.
15 S. Matthew v. 45, 48, passim.
16 Petruccelli Della Gattina, Memorie di Giuda, ii. 184. To
this Italian author, unjustly forgotten, because of no common
worth, we owe the neatness and elegance of the above passage,
together with the originality and acuteness of continuous obser
vations, which are set like gems in common metal in the romantic
matter of this book, Memorie di Giuda — material which, in view
of delicacy of the subject to be treated, is of poor alloy.

CHAPTER II
The Voice in the Desert — The Precursor of Jesus — The Axe to
the Root of the Tree — The Messiad which crossed from
the Desert into Civilisation — Civil Status of Jesus — His
Country — His Parents — His Precocious Childhood — The
Family Trade — The Meeting with St. John the Baptist —
Beginning of the Public Life of Jesus.
A strange pilgrim wandered in the year 28 of our era
in the solitudes of the desert of Judaea on the left bank
of the Jordan.1 Wearing a leathern girdle about his
loins and subsisting upon locusts and wild honey, he
exhibited in his mode of life the repentance and self-
sacrifice which he taught to those who approached him.2
" Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand1 —
And now also the axe is laid to the root of the tree;
therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit
is hewn down and cast into the fire. He that hath
two coats let him impart to him that hath none, and
he that hath meat let him do likewise." 3 And to the
Sadducees and Pharisees who accosted him under pre
text of desiring instruction he cried, spurning their
duplicity, " O generation of vipers, who hath warned
you to flee from the wrath to come? " 4
This ardent and inspired language bore no doubtful
signification. The unfruitful tree was egotism, deceit,
cupidity; the axe already laid to the root of the worth
less tree was the work of regeneration and justice,
proclaimed to be imminent. Most men thought that
it was this pilgrim himself — the Anointed One or the
12

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 13
Messiah' — who should complete the purifying work, but
to them he declared in order to dispel their illusion: —
" I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness
' Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths
straight — there cometh One mightier than I after me,
the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop
down and unloose.' " 5
The pilgrim is therefore a precursor. He knows that
men are not yet at all prepared for the mission that
is coming after him, and calls them to repentance, and
demands a searching purification of souls symbolised
by the exterior laving of baptism. His cry is one of
innovation, it is the cry of an idea become a need — of
a conception proceeding from sentiment, of an imminent
necessity which will not be gainsayed and penetrates
to the desert. When this cry comes from the desert
of Judaea, the necessity is imperious, the man pre
destined to incarnate it is present, He is on the banks
of the Jordan and desires immersion in its waters under
the creed of the Baptist. He represents the feeling of
necessity coming from the depths, from the desert ; He,
become incarnate, takes up His mission from the hands
of the Baptist by the grace of baptism and not in
the way of improvisation. The Messiah is in the
desert, the Messiah shall render it cultivated, popular,
victorious.6 What difference of life and language exists in fact
between the precursor and Him whom he preceded!
The former is a rude, strong anchorite, and if not be
longing, as some have conjectured, to the Essenes, is
at least Nazarene, and thus bound by vow to solitude
and abstinence.7 Even in the midst of multitudes of
hearers, and of those who had received baptism, he
always remained a solitary. His voice shakes the
soul and makes it tremble: it is the voice of a censor,

14 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
not of a consoler, and for his austerity of censorship
alone he is destined to lose his head. Jesus, on the
other hand, is of gentle nature, serene and sociable.
He shuns the solitude and stillness of the desert, defies
the powerful and the hostile, braves sectaries and priests,
has the sinner for His friend, is merciful to the adul
teress and eats with publicans. His words are suave,
insinuating, tranquillising, His call to the kingdom of
God, which epitomises all His mission, is likened by
Him to a genial banquet, and he who follows it takes
part as in a wedding procession. His thoughts and
His figures of speech are most frequently of festivity,
of confidence; His yoke — He tells us — is easy. He
also calls men to repentance, but the penitence which
He enjoins is not the leathern girdle, nor the solitude,
nor the fasting of the desert ; it is contrition and faith.
The prodigal son obtains more grace from his Father
than the more righteous brother, and while the censor
of the desert with just but austere rigour rebukes
Herod Antipater, who fives in concubinage, Jesus turns
to the adulteress with gracious words of defence and
pardon. " They are two figures," very justly observes
one of our best authors, " who move in the same
religious orbit, but in contrary directions. They are
indeed so dissimilar that this diversity should alone
suffice to condemn the hypothesis, maintained by a re
cent German critic and based upon the opinion of some
contemporaries of the two personages, that Jesus was
only a second name of the Baptist who was believed to
have risen from the dead." s
The voice of the desert brought hearers from every
part of Syria, and among them the Nazarene, Jesus,
who had just attained His thirtieth year. Before this
date little is known of His youth, since the Gospel
record of His life commences about that time.9 In

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 15
any case it is only now that Jesus enters upon
His public hfe.10 It is not certain how long it lasted
in view of the hitherto irreconcilable doubts and con
tradictions connected with the chronology of the whole
life. According, however, to the Synoptics, the pubhc
portion of the life was of the duration of one year
passed in Galilee, while, according to the fourth Evan
gelist, it extended over three years, passed in Judaea,
excepting the time during which Jesus was compelled
to abandon His pubhc teaching.11 Irenaeus, who lived
in the second century, affirms that the public life of Jesus
lasted for ten years, and that he learned from disciples
of the Evangelist S. John that the life of Jesus on
earth exceeded forty years.12 The year of the birth
of Jesus is not known with certainty, but it incontest-
ably occurred in Palestine under the Empire of Augus
tus Caesar, about the Roman year 752 — that is to say,
about two years before the Christian era, which is,
however, commonly supposed to have commenced with
the birth of Jesus Christ and was therefore named after
Him.13 He was born at Bethlehem in Judaea,14 but
His family were of Nazareth in Galilee, and He was
therefore commonly called the Nazarene.15 Joseph,
His father, was a poor artisan and worked as a car
penter. Mary, His mother, was a young woman of the
Syrian type, full of grace and charm.16 Nothing
more can be affirmed with certainty regarding the civil
status of Jesus if we regard only natural and not
dogmatic data, for which there is no place in the present
historical work. Only those who have set themselves
to run counter to every Messianic tradition could main
tain that Joseph and Mary were legally married,
because otherwise their offspring could not, as illegiti
mate, have remained seated before the High Council on
his trial,17 as if it were not the fact that neither the

16 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
Mosaic nor the Roman law was superficially observed
in the political homicide of Golgotha and that the pro
cedure was of the most irregular and tumultuous kind.
This, in fact will be the principal argument of these
pages. The incidents narrated in the Gospels show that
the child Jesus was precocious in manifesting His in
clinations, so that when at the age of twelve He went
with His parents for his first Easter to Jerusalem, He
took great interest in discussions with the rabbis and
scribes.18 While still adolescent He followed the pater
nal trade at Nazareth 19 and learned to read and write
the language of His father, which was a Syriac dialect
mixed with Hebrew such as was then spoken in Pales
tine.20 It is a gratuitous and unproven assertion that
His childhood was confided to the care of the Essenes.21
In Nazareth, whence every year He made the Easter
journey to Jerusalem,22 the youth of Jesus passed in
obscurity with His mother, who treasured in her heart
the wisdom and grace by which her only Son 23 was so
distinguished among the youth of the place.24 About
this time the father died,25 and Jesus in the thirtieth
year of His life went forth to meet the pilgrim of the
desert. This man was John, surnamed the Baptist,
from his custom of baptising all who desired to receive
a visible sign of his words, and whom he immersed in
the waters of the Jordan in sign of penitence and puri
fication.26 Jesus also received baptism, and under the
influence of this meeting He entered securely and mar
vellously upon Plis mission. His baptiser was His pre
cursor, but the baptised Jesus commenced where the
Baptist finished and was ready to expound a teaching
which after nineteen hundred years may still find adver
saries but no emulators.
John laid the axe to the root of the tree; Jesus will
fell it.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 17

Notes
1 S. Luke iii. 1. The Evangelist fixes the date at which the
mission of S. John the Baptist began : " Anno autem quinto-
decimo imperii Tiberii Csesaris, procurante Pontio Pilato
Judaeam," and adds " ipse Jesus erat incipiens quasi annorum
triginta" (lvi). Josephus, Antiq. xvni. vii. 2. For the heterodox
criticism regarding John the Baptist, v. Strauss, Vie de Jesus,
ou examen critique de son histoire, trad, by E. Littre, Paris, De
Laudrage, 1839, torn i. ch. i. par. 44.
2 S. Matthew iii. 1, 4; S. Mark i. 4, 6.
3 S. Luke iii. 9, 11; S. Matthew iii. 10.
4 S. Luke iii. 7; S. Matthew iii. 7.
5 S. Matthew iii. 3, 11; S. Mark i. 3, 7; S. Luke iii. 4, 16; S.
John i. 23, 26, 27; Acts i. 5, xi. 16, xix. 4. Cf. Isaiah xl. 3.
6 Cf . Bovio, Corso di scienza del diritto, Napoli, Jovene, 1877,
Lez. vi.
7 Epifanio, Adv. hmr. xxx. 13.
8 Chiappelli, Nuove pag. sul Crist, ant. pp. 56, 57. The German
author is Sack, Die Alijiidische Religion, Berlin, 1889, p. 429.
For the popular Jewish opinion, v. S. Matthew xiv. 2, S. Mark vi.
14, S. Luke ix. 8.
9 S. Mark (i, 1, 3, 9) begins his Gospel direct from this epoch.
10 S. Luke iii. 1: v. s. note 1. If, as this Evangelist attests,
Jesus had entered his thirtieth year when He heard the voice
from the desert, it is clear that before this time Jesus had not
come before the people.
11 S. John iv. 1, 3, 43, vii. 1.
12 Adversus hxsreses.
13 The calculation by which the birth of Jesus coincides with
the beginning of the Christian era was made in the sixth century
by Dionysius Exiguus. According to this reckoning, by which
we all count the days of our life, the birth of Jesus and the begin
ning of our era should fall in the year 753 of Rome, corresponding
to the year IV. of the CICIV. Olympiad and to the year 4714
of the Julian period. But this calculation is by common accord
found to be incorrect. Cf. Caspari, Introduzione cronologico

18 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
geografica alia vita di G. C. (Hamburg, 1869). In this matter
may also be consulted Bonghi's easy and lucid exposition, Vita
di Gesu, appendix iii. The chronology of Caspari is adopted
here. The only certain chronological date in the life of Jesus is
its final limit, which can be fixed as nearly as possible in the year
36 of Christ, since in the year 37 Pilate was recalled by Tiberius
a little before the death of the latter. And as Tiberius died in
March and Pilate on his return found him already dead, the
recall must therefore have been notified before March of the year
37, and hence the last Easter which Pilate passed in Jerusalem,
and during which the Crucifixion could have occurred, must have
been that of the year 36. (For the recall of Pilate, cf. Josephus,
Antiq. xvni. 4, and Tacitus, Annal. vi. 31, 32).
14 S. John vii. 42; S. Matthew ii. 1, 5, 8, 16; S. Luke ii. 4, 7, 15.
15 S. John i. 45, 46, viii. 41; S. Matthew ii. 23, xiii. 54; S. Mark
vi. 1. The reason why the mother of Jesus went from Nazareth
to Bethlehem where the child was born is not clear, but that does
not mean that it is a statement to be rejected with the sole object
of inventing another. An invention of this sort, for it was never
proved, was the story that contrary to the Messianic tradition,
Jesus was born at Nazareth and not at Bethlehem. It was not
understood why the mother of Jesus should have made the journey
to Bethlehem, and to explain this it has been alleged, on the basis
of a slight indication in the Gospel narrative, that in those days
an edict went forth from Augustus Csesar ordering a census of all
the people, according to which every subject of Rome, including
those of the province of Judaea, should report at the nearest town
of their district, for which reason Joseph, the father of Jesus,
had to repair to Bethlehem. But even if this were the manner
of obeying the decree of Augustus, it is also true that the census
in question was carried out by Publius Sulpicius Quirinus,
the Imperial Prefect in Syria, about ten years after the birth of
Jesus, since it was only at that time, and not before, that Sulpicius
Quirinus succeeded Quintilius in the Syrian Prefecture (Orelli,
Inscr. lot.; Henzen, Supplement to Orelli). But if the reason
accepted in explanation of the circumstance of the birth of Jesus
at Bethlehem.may not be good in itself, still less satisfactory is
the reason so lightly alleged by Renan (Vie de Jesus, ch. ii.),
as proving that Jesus must have been born at Nazareth. Renan

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 19
only refers to the testimony of the Evangelist who more often
speaks of Jesus as of Nazareth (S. John i. 45, 46, vii. 41, 42),
but he does not perceive that the same Evangelist also speaks of
Bethlehem as the city whence came the Messiah (S. John vii.
42), and for him the Messiah was Jesus (S. John i. 14, 17, passim).
16 S. Matthew xiii. 55; S. John vi. 42. The Latin word faher
(corresponding to the Greek tIktihv) signifies any mechanical
work, while in the designation of particular kinds of work it
requires a specific adjective. Thus, for example, faber ferra-
rius, blacksmith, faher aurarius, goldsmith, faber lignarius,
carpenter (Cicero, Bruto, cap. lxxiii.). Moreover, it was a
general custom with the Hebrews as with other peoples that men
following intellectual pursuits should learn some trade. S. Paul,
for example, was a tentmaker, scenofactoria ars (Acta Apost.
xviii. 3). According to a pious tradition, it is to a gift from Mary
that the women of Nazareth owe the beauty for which they are re
nowned in our own day. At eventide, when the young girls, with
pitchers poised on their heads, go to draw water from the springs
which run flashing among the rocks, the foreign wayfarer is
struck by the regularity and grace of their features, the ineffable
sweetness of their smile and the glance which they cast upon him
from their black eyes (Mistrali, Vita di Gesu by Renan, cap. ii.).
Renan also noticed this in his visit to Nazareth : —
"The fountain around which gathered in past times the gaiety
and life of the httle town is now destroyed, and only turbid water
is to be got from its broken conduits. The women who congre
gate there preserve to a surprising extent the beauty already
remarked in the sixth century (reference is here made to An
toninus Martyr) and believed to be a gift of the Virgin Mary.
It is the Syrian type in all its grace, and full of sweetness. Mary
no doubt came there nearly every day with her water-pitcher,
taking her place in the file of her fellow towns-women who have not
emerged from obscurity" (Vie, ch. ii.).
For the legends concerning Mary reference may be made for
example, to Fabricius, Codices apocryph. novi testam., in which
is reprinted the Proto-Gospel (primitive form) attributed to S.
James. Many foohsh and minute details, including even the
alleged visit of a midwife to Mary in the Grotto at Bethlehem,
are pure fantasy of very questionable taste.

20 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
17 Salvador, Histoire des institutions de Maise et du peuple
hebreu, torn. iv. par. 1, liv. 4, ch. 3 text, and note 84. The law
to which Salvador refers must be this passage of Deuteronomy:
"Non ingredietur mamzer, hoc est, de scorto natus, in ecclesiam
Domini, usque ad decimam generationem" (xxiii. 2). But
Salvador himself says: "The family of which Jesus formed part
was not a fortunate one. Joseph, his putative father, knew that
his wife was with child before they came together. If he had
brought her before the tribunal, Mary in the ordinary course
would have been condemned under Art. 23 of chap. xxii. of
Deuteronomy." But in this text we read : "Si puellam virginem
desponderit vir, et invenerit earn aliquis in civitate, et concubuerit
cum ea. (Par. 24 follows) Educes utrumque ad portam civitatis
illius et lapidibus obruentur." Now who, in the case of Mary,
concubuerit cum ea? If allusion to Joseph is intended, the text
of the law is not applicable. How then can Salvador interpret
this text ? To me it seems only possible to interpret it in the
sense that the Hebrew girl (who after espousal remained for some
time in the paternal home) was punished as an adulteress if
she had yielded to somebody who might have met her in the town,
but not if to her betrothed husband since (adds the same par.
24) vir humiliavit uxorem proximi sui. Hence lapidation could
not be the lot of either Mary or Joseph.
It would have been hard for Joseph — a putative husband — to
have been stoned to death! Against the theory of a real and
proper marriage reference may be made to S. Matthew i. 18, 19,
20 ; S. Luke i. 27, 34, 35, ii. 5 ; S. Augustine, Contra Julianum,
lib. v. cap. xii.
18 S. Luke ii. 42 et seq. For the heterodox criticism on this
point, v. Strauss, Vie, sect. i. ch. v. par. 40.
19 S. Mark vi. 3: "Nonne hie est faber, filius Mariae?" This
results also from the Storie di Sozomeno, lib vi. c. ii.
20 S. John viii. 6, 8. More from this passage than any other
it may be concluded that Jesus had learned to write. The
Evangelist, referring to the incident of the pardon of the woman
taken in adultery, attests that Jesus wrote upon the ground with
His finger. Cf. Mishnah, Shahbath. i. 3. For the language
spoken by Jesus, consult Eusebius, De ritu et nom. loc. hehr.;
Adv. hxr. xxix. 7-9; xxx. 3; S. Jerome, Dial. adv. pelag. hi. 2.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 21
21 Salvador, Histoire des institutions de Mdise et du peuple
hebreu, torn. i. ch. iii. p. 270. Salvador affirms it.
22 S. Luke ii. 41. Cf. Exodus xxiii. 15, xxxiv. 18; Deuteronomy
xvi. 2.
23 Those relations who would appear to have been, and are
sometimes called by the Evangelists themselves, brothers and
sisters of Jesus (Acts i. 14; S. Luke viii. 20; S. Matthew xii. 47
et seq.; S. John ii. 12, vii, 3, 10; S. Mark vi. 3). They were
not really so, since they are mentioned by their names of James,
Simon, Joseph, and Judah as sons of Mary, sister of the mother
of Jesus, who espoused a certain Alpheus or Cleophas and had
by him a large family (Const. Apost. vii. 46; Hist. eccl. iii. 32).
Hence the supposed brothers and sisters of Jesus are nothing
but cousins, of whom he was the elder in years, and for that
reason was called the firstborn (S. Matthew i. 25; S. Lukeii. 23).
Moreover, when these two Evangelists speak of Jesus as firstborn,
they do not wish to convey that He had brothers and sisters.
S. Matthew (1. c.) says that Joseph knew not Mary until after
her son was born, and by this the Evangelist does not wish it
to be supposed that Mary before the birth of her son was known
by another, seeing that his idea is essentially a dogmatic one
and cannot admit contradiction based on reasons of a natural
order! In like manner S. Luke (I. c.) mentions the firstborn
in connection with the purification of Mary after having spoken
of the spiritual conception of her son (i. 27-35), a statement which
would be in open opposition to the attribution of other children
to Mary. Heterodox criticism, in fact, willingly upholds the
contrary thesis (cf. Strauss, Vie, ch. iii. par. 30, and Renan,
Vie, ch. ii.) — a thesis which in my poor opinion can never be
confirmed by the Gospels, on which it is sought to be founded,
since if the Evangelists, according to all heterodox criticism,
adapted their narratives in conformity with a didactic dogmatical
and theological point of view rather than with a biographical,
historical, and naturalistic one, it is an absurdity and a contra
diction to pretend that they themselves wished to testify to a
primogeniture in Jesus, whom they necessarily regarded as the
only begotten Son, in consonance with the mystery and dogma
of the incarnation upheld in common accord by them.
24 S. Luke ii. 51; S. Matthew ii. 23.

22 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
25 Concerning the death of Joseph, more may be deduced from
what is left unsaid than from what is said by the Evangehsts,
who say no more about it at this point, leading us thereby to
understand that Joseph died when Jesus had reached his twelfth
year. Luke, who particularises more than the other Evangehsts
concerning the childhood of the Master, mentions the generation
of Jesus and Joseph in chap. ii.
26 S. Mark i. 4; S. Matthew iii. 1, 6, 13; S. Luke iii. 3, 16, 21;
S. John i. 6, 8, 20, 23, 26, 28. Cf. Witsii, Exercitatio de Johanne
Baptista in Miscell. Sacra, ii. 87.
Baptism, as the original Greek word indicates, signifies ablution
or washing, and in this sense the Jews designated as baptism
certain legal purifications which were practised after circum
cision. The Hebraic law is full of injunctions in regard to
lustrations and baptisms. The baptism practised by S. John
the Baptist may be compared to a bridge leading from the Jewish
baptism to that of Jesus (S. Chrysostom, Hebr. cap. x.).

CHAPTER in
The Doctrine of Jesus from the Economic Point of View — The
Hebrew Tenure of Property — Wealth Incompatible with the
Kingdom of God — The Attacks and Parables of Jesus — The
Conclusions of His Doctrine — New Definition of the Meaning
of Life — Substitution of the Christian for the Pagan Idea of
Society — Neither Negation nor Distribution of Wealth, but
its Administration by Owners for the Benefit of All — Chris
tianity and Socialism — The Language of the Fathers of the
Church and the Language of Jesus — The Thoughts and
Language of Jesus in regard to the state of opinion and of
legislation concerning wealth — Jesus. does not violate institu
tions and laws, but raises feelings at variance with them —
The Rich come to hate Him.
The first blow of the axe was bound to be directed
against wealth, the principal cause of the differences
and rancour characterising social struggles ; wealth
which is the first obstacle to the reign of the paternity of
God, as it is also its most irreconcilable negation, since
it breaks the filial relation of man to the Father, and
the fraternal bond between men. In those days it did
not happen that a single family enjoyed an income of
£4,000 per day — equivalent to the earnings of fifty
thousand operatives with wages at one shilling and
eight-pence per day — as we now see with the Astors,
Rockefellers, and Goulds of the United States of Amer
ica, nor did the motive force at the disposal of the na
tions exceed that of fifty million horse-power, and usurp
the work of a thousand millions of men ; nor did com
merce, formed and transformed in infinite combinations,
23

24 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
engender a most novel feudalism that enabled great
establishments like the Louvre, the Printemps, and the
Bon Marche to raze at their pleasure thousands of
humble homes in a few days; nor finally did the state
admit the poor to the same civil and political rights as
the rich — and thus, while admitting and proclaiming
the equality of political conditions, render more acute
and more irritating the inequality existing between
economic conditions. Nevertheless the intolerable dis
proportion between superfluity and want existing among
classes of one and the same people even then made itself
felt. The system of the tenure of property in force with
the Hebrews is insufficiently known, but it is certain that
the acquisition of property underwent a very rapid evo
lution. Genesis already mentions family property,1 but
it is known that this system was of very brief duration,
and was replaced by the individual system of ownership.
It is known also that the land of Canaan, conquered
by violence, was divided up in such proportions that
some noble families received as much as whole towns.2
Hence John the Baptist's simile of the unfruitful tree
that should be cast into the fire 3 was in no way an
unjust one.
Jesus, in taking up the work of his precursor, dwells
persistently upon wealth being the first condition of in
compatibility with His Father's kingdom, and on this
head admits neither truce nor compromise. " That ye
may be," He says, " the children of your Father which
is in heaven, for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil
and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the
unjust." i And leaving metaphor, He cries yet louder:
" But woe unto you that are rich ! for ye have received
your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! for ye
shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 25
ye shall mourn and weep." 5 And after the cry — veh
divitibus! — which He raised in His celebrated Sermon
on the Mount,6 the Master of Nazareth declared : " It
is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,
than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." 7
And the Evangelist records only one case in which a rich
man is saved, the case of Joseph of Arimathea, perhaps
to prove that God's omnipotence may enable a camel to
pass through the eye of a needle !
The parable of the rich man who is erroneously stig
matised as bad, exemplifies the same inexorable principle ;
the poor man in the bosom of Abraham ; the rich man,
solely for being rich, in Gehenna.8 In the other par
able of the unfaithful steward the Master praises the
main who makes friends for himself among the poor to
the prejudice of the administrative trust confided to
him.9 On another occasion, replying to a young and
wealthy proprietor who asks what he shall do to inherit
eternal hfe, He says, " Go thy way, sell whatsoever thou
hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure
in heaven, and come, take up the cross, and follow
Me." 10 And finally, when praying to the Father,
" Holy Father, keep them in Thy Name whom Thou
hast given me, that they may be one, even as we also
are." n A too liberal interpretation of the words of
Jesus represents Him in the Vulgate text as having said,
" Quod su-perest date eleemosynam." 12 But this ren
dering is an arbitrary one. The Greek words to,
evovra, were badly rendered by the Vulgate in the Latin
quod superest, which would certainly signify " what ye
have over and above," while in their original form the
words simply mean " such things as ye have, and not
the things ye have in superfluity." The error, too long
allowed to subsist, was pointed out at the end of the
sixteenth century by Catholic translators themselves

26 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
when greater attention began to be paid to the Greek
text of the Gospels, which in the case of S. Luke is the
original text.13 Jesus, therefore, did not teach that to
the poor should be given the superfluity of the rich, but
all that the poor needed.
Hence the antithetical terms of His doctrine. Riches
had to be renounced or the kingdom of God must be
renounced: man must either serve the cause of egotisti
cal society or embrace that of the Gospel. To serve
two opposing causes would be the same as serving two
masters — and Jesus declares, " No man can serve two
masters, for either he will hate the one and love the
other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the
other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon." 14 Hence
the incontrovertible conclusion that this doctrine could
not have been, and never can be, intended as embodying
rules of conduct and revelations to be unchangeably ac
cepted. It was, and is, a new explanation of the mean
ing of life, a fundamental definition of human conduct,
an absolute substitution of the Christian idea for the
Pagan idea of society. Otherwise Christianity would
have been then, and to-day more so than ever, a worship
and not a faith, an institution and not a whole and co
herent conviction. In fact, its decadence dates from
Constantine, when Pope Sylvester induced that monarch
to profess the rehgion of Christ without requiring him
to renounce the principles and customs of Paganism.
In this the most Christian of the poets had reason to
lament di quanto mal fu matre, not the conversion of
the Roman Emperor, but queila dote by which the two
Powers thenceforward united their efforts and procured
the development of the material greatness of two insti
tutions instead of one!15
Nevertheless, it is not to be understood that Jesus advo
cated — through the absolute negation of wealth — a uni-

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 27
versal impoverishment in order to make wretchedness the
terrestrial system of the heavenly kingdom, nor did Jesus
propound a social programme aiming at succouring
poverty and overcoming the inequality which is its step
mother, by acquiring and regulating wealth. Both
these often-repeated assertions are false.
To Jesus, evil is evil, need is need, and instead of tol
erating or encouraging them, His aim is to oppose and
destroy them. Endurance and not resistance to evil is
taught by Him to its victims, who in this respect are
the poor; but to the workers of iniquity, who, in the
same purview, are the rich, He allows neither truce nor
evasion, and enjoins cessation from sin as the sole way
of repentance. All His work in this regard also has
been one of salvation, one of struggle against evil.
" Thus it might be said," observes the learned historian
of Dogma, " that Jesus may have exaggerated the de
pressing effect of poverty and misery and made too
great account of them, while attributing at the same
time undue value to compassion and mercy-— the forces
that should counteract those evils." But to main
tain this would be an error, because he knows that a
power exists which for him is worse than wretchedness
and need, and this is sin ; he knows there is a redeeming
power greater than pity, and that is forgiveness.16
Now no danger and no occasion of sin can appear
greater to the mind of Jesus than riches, which obtain
the mastery over men and make them tyrants of them
selves and others, subject them to the vulgar strivings
and ease-loving propensities of this life and constantly
tend to place them in incompatability with the paternal
idea of God. Money becomes consolidated violence,
egoism a mute tyranny. And against this condition of
sin, Jesus set in motion a corrective force, which is altru
ism, solidarity, pity ; but where this may not attain its

28 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
object or prove inadequate, he indicates another force
much more efficacious and of a quite opposite character,
which is the power of forgiveness. This force, in the
practical outcome of life, goes beyond the other — it even
takes its place or preserves it, since men are much more
disposed to obtain forgiveness when they find who it is
that pardons, than not to get themselves praised.
Between two classes, one wealthy, the other disinherited,
the former will be so much less disposed to acts of altru
ism, while the latter will be to a greater degree inclined
to an attitude of resignation and forgiveness. Failing
an immanent pressure on the part of the poor, and also
in view of their resignation, the rich will always retain
their wealth, and if undisturbed, may even augment it.
And hence the supposed impoverishment will be much less
provoked by the doctrine of toleration and forgiveness
than by the system of struggle and conquest of classes.
Moreover, Jesus applies His ideas to the world such as
it is, in its laws and tendencies. To apply them He
neither presupposes nor looks for the renovation and
perfection of humanity, always and above all things
egoistic, exception being made of the heavenly rewards
promised in the Sermon on the Mount to those who
hunger and thirst now, and the inexorable penalties
pronounced against those who are satiated.
If, then, we adopt the mere abstract and polemical
hypothesis that the good seed sown by Jesus may bear
prompt and complete fruit, yet even then wealth will not
be abolished, although its abuse will be changed into a
spontaneous and perfectly equal and fraternal use. The
same sentiments of altruism, of solidarity, and of
mercy will induce the holders of wealth to distribute it
and not to annihilate it, making the largest and best
proportioned use not of quod superest, but of ea qua;
adsunt. It may be said that the economic programme

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 29
of Jesus never aimed at annihilating wealth 17 but prop
erty, and this, not in regard to the power conferred by
its possession, but to the fact of its unlimited enjoy
ment. In the Christian idea individual property could not and
should not be the jus utendi et abutendi of the Pagan
conception; but should nevertheless be withdrawn from
the occasional and legitimate possession of its holders.
The latter should admit in principle and in fact that the
property which they possess is the indivisible patrimony
of the Father, who cannot have made distinctions or
preferences among the brethren of the universal human
family, that property does not belong less to others than
to themselves, and that they should only possess it for
the sole and unalterable object of administering it no
longer for their own advantage, but for the benefit of
their neighbours.18 And although this may be a jurid
ical paradox, it is not a moral absurdity, since it is
wholly founded upon a calculation of the perfectibility
of the individual by virtue of a persuasive ethical law,
rather than on the perfection of the State by force of a
coercive law such as might be expected from the col-
lectivist economic schools.
Thus the individual in the individualistic system in
separable from Christianity, exercises a plainly socialist
function in place of the State, which in the juridical
system of collectivity should regulate the socialisation of
land and the employment of the instruments of wealth.
But the socialism inaugurated by the Master of Naza
reth is one that admits of no comparison. It is not
founded upon the premiss of antagonistic interests, but
on the consciousness of a spiritual unity, and does not
subject the solidarity of men and the community of
things to the pressing and triumphant right of the dis
inherited, who remain always in the same attitude of res-

30 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
ignation, and in the same expectancy of pardon. This
solidarity and this communism are recommended by the
Master to the infinite appreciation of the soul in its place
amid the eternal harmonies of justice.19 Everybody
will understand that it would be an unjust and fallacious
artifice to compose a programme of juridical socialism,
be it called Catholic or Christian, professional or State-
directed, whether founded or not upon the abolition of
individual property, or whether the cause be mixed or
composite rather than simple and indivisible, wherefrom
it is possible to distinguish what is superfluous and vain.
And yet it has been affirmed that whoever rejects mod
ern socialism rejects ancient Christianity.20
In reality, however, socialism and Christianity form a
double name containing similar premises but wholly
diverse conclusions. The premiss of a universal equal
ity is similar and not identical, but the title and direc
tion given to its realisation are absolutely different.
What defines socialism is the recognition and exercise of
an absolute and equal right of all men to the enjoyment
of social well-being and the government of society.
Now this is an altogether modern democratic idea which
differs not only from the Christian, but also from the
Pagan idea of communism, which shows itself in the re
motest phases of society.21
The philosophers of antiquity who propounded com
munistic theories intended them to form an aristocratic
ideal, and rejected the idea of any right on the part of
the masses to govern the State. Plato and Xenophon,
who fostered these theories, were two excellent aristo
crats.22 Free Sparta, which long preserved institutions
most analogous to communism, was the most aristocratic
republic of Greece. Even the much-envied Italian
municipalities, observes a French writer on Florentine
history, were not really democratic.23 In Florence,,

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 31
Venice, Bologna, and Milan political power resided in
the city : the immense rural districts surrounding them
being reduced to the strictest obedience, and in no way
participating in the government of the State. The
peasant in many of the freest States of mediaeval Italy
not only enjoyed no political, but often did not even
possess civil rights.
Socialism is a product of modern democracy, and of
those same liberal doctrines and reforms with which it
appears to be in open opposition. A German socialist
Deputy was right in saying at a sitting of the Reichstag
to his colleagues of the Liberal party : " We are your
pupils, we have done nothing but popularise your doc
trines, and carry them to their final consequences for the
advantage of the people." 24 With universal suffrage
now introduced in almost all States, Liberals have said
to the masses : " Rise, be the arbiters of the State."
And thus it has come to pass that the equality of civil
and political rights is the natural source of economic
equality and the historic cause of socialism.
Without doubt the moral idea of Christ fertilised the
exclusively economic germs by its long and fruitful
work of education, anterior to the definition of any
principles or to any conquests of liberalism. And from
this point of view it has been rightly said that socialism
is a phenomenon reflected from Christian countries.25
And if there is truth in the admission also made by
a positive economist that the intelligence of social
science proceeds from the heart more than from the
mind,26 it must be said that the doctrine of Jesus, which
for the last nineteen hundred years has spoken to hearts
capable of generosity and compassion the great truths
of fraternity and love, while rebuking social differences
and injustices, must have weighed as a powerful in
fluence in the deepest and noblest moral reasons of the

32 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
new economic doctrine, which has in part humanised the
divine doctrine.
But the difference between the two doctrines is pre
cisely that which intervenes between the two terms of
the human and divine, between an affair of this world
and an order of supernatural facts ; the uncertain pos
session of property and economic inequality are not,
according to the Master of Nazareth, injustices in the
modern sense nor an injuria in the Roman acceptation
of the term, but a contradiction and a fault of the soul
destined for perfection. The equality which should be
substituted for this sinful condition should be a matter
of fact not of right, to be attained and secured by the
simple virtue of persuasion and by the sole sanction of
faith — a faith which rests upon the rewards and punish
ments of a justice beyond this world.
On the other hand, in the foundation of the socialist
programme, individual property and economic inequal
ity are a spoliation and an injustice for which should be
substituted a condition of right and not of fact, con
stitutionally different, founded upon the socialisation of
all the means of wealth and disciplined by the will and
coercive sanction of the State government.27 Such is
the socialist State of modern collectivism, which is op
posed to and does not approach the socialist individual
ism of original Christianity.
By this profound individualism, and this negation of
every rule and every constitution of the State, the City
of God prepared by Jesus would be comparable rather
to anarchism than socialism, to a mild, sweet, and holy
anarchy to which all law and every activity of life would
be left, to the liberty of the soul and the conscience of
the perfectible individual.
In one sole point is affinity perceivable between social
ism and Christianity, and that is in the negative and

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 33
popular part of their doctrine — that is to say, in the
ready and deeply felt condemnation of social inequali
ties and injustices. This affinity does not exist in
the reconstructive domain where the designation and
means of the cure and the remedies to be applied to
the evils of society have to be considered. Hence, in
their propaganda against these evils, resemblance exists
between Christianity and socialism, but not identity.
The early Fathers of the Christian Church were prodi
gal of their reprobation and threats against wealth, and
particularly against property, in a vast and florid lit
erature which in our own day would be described as more
than subversive, and which not all socialists, not even
the most ardent, are at present accustomed to adopt.
A humorous French writer found material for a book
in his researches among this literature.28 One of the
most moderate stylists is S. John Chrysostom, who ex
presses himself to the following effect: "This is the
idea which we must form of the rich. They are veri
table robbers posted on the highway, where they strip
travellers of all they possess, and heap up in their
houses, as in caves, the goods of which they have de
spoiled others." 29 Not less vigorous are the expres
sions used by S. Gregory the Great : " There is no great
ness simply in not robbing others of what they possess,
and vainly do those believe themselves innocent who ap
propriate the sole goods that God has rendered com
mon. By not giving to others what they have received,
they become homicides, since, retaining for themselves
what would have alleviated the sufferings of the poor,
they may be said to kill every day as many people as
they might have succoured." 30 And S. Jerome : " Opu
lence is always the product of robbery, which, if not
committed by the present proprietors, certainly was by
their predecessors." 31 S. Basilius says : " You rich act

34 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
like a man who, being in a theatre and having secured
the best places that others might have taken, seeks to
prevent anybody else from entering." 32 S. Ambrose
describes private right as born of usurpation.33 S.
Augustine declares : " Property is in no way derived
from natural right but positive right, and rests simply
upon civil authority." 34 Tertullian, speaking more in
the spirit of a layman, says : " Everything must be in
common among us except women." 35 And many other
quotations to the same effect might be adduced.
Jesus Himself did not spare sharp and vehement words
in this or in any other matter which called for repro
bation, but to no one so much as in His own case do
mutilation of His doctrine and garbling of His words
do such great affront and prejudice. His idea is simple,
organic, indivisible, and cannot be properly understood
if abstraction be made of his preaching. When, for
instance, we read in the Gospel that He recommended
the young man desirous of following His teaching to
sell all he had and to follow Him,36 we must not think
that a contradiction exists between this incontestable dec
laration of the negation of wealth and the demonstra
tion of the idea of the detention and administration of
wealth by its proprietors for the benefit of their neigh
bours. Jesus sometimes commanded the renunciation of
every means of wealth, but did not impose upon all this
renunciation, which results from a singular gift, from
a special vocation. He imposed it solely upon those
who asked Him to allow them to dedicate their lives to
the ministry of the Word and the preaching of the Gos
pel.37 And among these was certainly the young pro
prietor whom He recommended to sell all and follow
Him. The suggestion was irrefutable, since it must be
concluded that those who dedicate themselves to preach
ing and heavenly things would be the worst administra-

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 35
tors of this world's goods, injuring not only themselves,
but also those depending upon a good administration of
their property. It is clear, then, that another incom
patibility of a practical and decisive kind arises. It is
that if a healthy man may console a sick man, a wealthy
man may not preach to the poor man that riches have
no value, and that in any case they have not so much
price as to be worth incurring hatred and vengeance to
acquire them, rather than exercise resignation and lov
ing-kindness. Similarly Jesus mentioned those who became eunuchs
in order to follow Him in the way of heaven, and on
one occasion said : " If any man come to Me and hate
not his father and mother and wife and children and
brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he can
not be My disciple." 38 But even these and other utter
ances, which should be interpreted in a broad and not
narrow spirit, are addressed to those few disciples who
volunteered to follow Him directly. As regards all
other men, Jesus believes it possible that at their risk
and peril they may live with their faith in the position
wherein fortune has placed them, each remaining in his
calling and station in life. Moreover, the Apostles
themselves did not put before everything the poor and
ascetic hfe. They proclaimed that the labourer was
worthy of his hire and did not repudiate their own wives.
Of St. Peter it is even related that his wife accompanied
him on his missions, and the statement that the Apostles
endeavoured to found a sort of communism in the early
days of Christianity in Jerusalem is not confirmed.39
But do the thoughts and the style of Jesus, as exam
ined in the argument on the economic question, make of
Him a subverter and a rebel before the state of general
contemporary opinion regarding wealth? And may
His thoughts and His style furnish matter for accusa-

36 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
tion in regard to the institutions and laws of His time?
Neither hypothesis is justifiable.
Above all, the new and original inculcation of mercy
upon the rich and resignation upon the poor exhaled
such a fragrance of peace and human concord that con
servatives of the age in which Jesus Hved could not de
sire in this argument anything less anti-social and more
opportune. Moreover, the most spontaneous democratic
fervour had long agitated the Jewish race. In the
pages of the Old Testament the thought often occurs
that God is the protector of the poor and of the weak
against the rich and powerful. The Book of Enoch
contains maledictions no less violent than in the Gospel
against pomp and riches. Luxury is treated as a
crime : 40 the initiation of the Hebrew people to profane
hfe, the gradual introduction of well-being and soft
ness in the Israelite cities, the invasion of commerce and
its corruptions, provoked a furious reaction in favour
of the lost patriarchal simplicity. The name of ebion
(poor person) became synonymous with holy man, and
the term " ebionism," with a life of sanctity.41 Man,
according to the idea of Job, is born to labour as the
bird to fly.42 Whosoever deprives a man of the bread
gained by the sweat of his brow is like unto him who
murders his kind.43 In Leviticus we read that the Lord
hath said : " The land shall not be sold for ever, for
the land is Mine, for ye are strangers and sojourners
with Me." 44 The prophets, orators of the most liberal
tendencies, constantly repeated these trenchant utter
ances, which recovered actuality in the popular dislike
of the ever-increasing concentration of wealth.
Mosaic legislation as resulting from Scripture, and
particularly from the Pentateuch, was a programme of
theocratic communism based on solidarity. Property
was not an absolute right — the succession of women was

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 37
limited, the transfer of the paternal heritage to various
tribes on the occasion of marriages and agnatic prefer
ences, intended to assure the permanence of property in
families, were prohibited. Other measures were the sur
render imposed upon owners of the spoils of battle in
favour of the poor, the remission of debts, and the rest
given to the earth every seven years, the division of
national territory among the twelve tribes, the jubilee,
or the restitution at the end of fifty years of the lands
alienated in favour of former proprietors and their
heirs, the organisation of mutual services, the tithe, the
other fees in favour of the priest, the limitation of usury,
the obligation of alms-giving, indicated by a word
signifying justice (tsedakak). Other similar obliga
tions recommended by injunctions in the moral order
abound in the Hebrew laws.45 Such and so many were
the legal limitations imposed upon wealth, as to show
that the state of economic legislation was not much
below the demands of popular opinion.
The views of Jesus upon wealth cannot then be op
posed either to the traditions or the laws or the opinion
of His time, although they may differ essentially from
them. They are certainly in strong contrast to the feel
ing of easy and contented egotism of the holders of
wealth, who perceived to their great chagrin in the
propaganda of the new rabbi or prophet a brightness
and an insinuating and victorious charm which they
had never noticed or feared in any other preachings.
The rich could not be friends, but neither could they be
the accusers of Jesus, since His attitude and language
in the argument was perfectly legal, but they cherished
in their hearts on account of His words a strong and
deep aversion, anxious to find a pretext on the first
favourable occasion to support an accusation that might
have any semblance of legality. Here, however, even

38 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
the appearance of culpability was wanting, and Jesus
must of necessity be acknowledged innocent, since His
doctrine, differing from, or rather in contrast with,
every other economic movement in history, contained
nothing of a temporal character. Nothing of the
human action of Jesus, either on this point or any other
of His doctrine, ever aimed at violating the laws or in
stitutions: it sought only to educate and move public
feehng in a spirit differing from their provisions. Even
had property been the jealous institution which it is
now, and was not then, it is certain that the Master of
Nazareth would never have incited any one to attack
it. He never taught the acquisition of it even by
pacific means, and to no one did He promise the advent
of economic justice upon earth.

Notes
1 Genesis xxiii. 13, 18, 20.
2 Numbers xxvi. 53; Joshua xiv. 9. Cf. Nitti, I.e.
3 The description " unfruitful " here used by the Baptist should
not be understood as applying exclusively to the evil of un
productiveness : it is also to be interpreted as absorbing nourish
ment while rendering nothing in return.
4S. Matthew v. 45.
5 S. Luke vi. 24, 25.
6 S. Matthew v. vi. vii.; S. Luke vi. 20-49.
7 S. Matthew xix. 23, 24; S. Mark 23, 25.
8 S. Luke xvi. 19-22, 23. Against the arbitrary description of
the rich man as bad, cf. Curci, Di un socialismo Crist, nella
quest, oper. Florence, Bencini, 1885, cap. vii. par. 14. In the
same sense Reuss, Histoire de la theologie chretienne au siecle
apostolique, lib. vi. cap. vi.
9 S. Luke xvi. 1-10.
10 S. Mark x. 17-21; S. Matthew xix. 16-30.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 39
11 S. John xvii. 11, cf. 20, 21, 22.
12 S. Luke xi. 41.
13 The quod superest of the Vulgate was not read in the text
by Origen (in Levitic. homil. ii.), by S. Chrysostom (in Matth.
homil. ii.), by S. Ciprianus (Ad Quirinam, hb. ii. cap. i.), by
S. Ambrosius (Expos, evang. sec. Lucam, hb. vii. 101), nor
by A. Lapide (Comm. in Lucam, xi. 41), who also mentions
five different modes of interpretation, among which the quod
superest does not appear; S. Augustine, where it is read (Enchiri
dion, cap. lxxvi.) and where it is not read (De verbis Domini,
sermo xxx.). Jansenius understands the passage in its true
sense — i.e. in the sense of things which one actually possesses,
ea quce adsunt (Comm. in cone, evang. cap. lxxxiv.). Cf. Curci,
Note esegetiche e morali espositive del N. T. Florence, Bocca,
1879, vol. i. p. 387 ; ibid. Lezioni sopra i quattro evangeli.
Florence, 1874, vol. iv. lez. viii. p. 14; ibid. Di un socialisms
cristiano nella questione operaia, etc., Florence, Bencini, 1885,
cap. vii. par. 14.
14 S. Matthew vi. 24; S. Luke xvi. 13. In the text, " riches"
is rendered by the world mammona, which had that signification
in the Chaldean language. Cf. S. Luke xvi. 9, 11.
15 Cf. Negri, L'imp. Giuliano I'Apost. Milan, 1902, 2nd. ed.
p. 151 et seq. Kheltchitsky, La rete della fede. A very original
work of the fifteenth century in the Greek language, cited by
Tolstoi, II regno di Dio e in voi. cap. i.
16 Harnack, L'essensa del Crist, conf. vi.
17 The erroneous idea of the annihilation of riches has been
repeated by Nitti, II social, catt. cap. iii. p. 61.
18 St. Thomas, IL— II. Qucest. LXV. to II. ; Qucest. LXVI. to
II. St. Gregory the Great in Evang. horn. ix. n. 7.
19 Harnack, I.e.
20 Todt, II socialismo radicale tedesco, R. Herrose, 1878, Prefaz.
21 Nitti, II social, catt. 2nd ed. p. 10 et seq.
22 Plato, Republic, i. 4. Cf. Fustel de Coulanges in Comptes
rendus de Vacademie de sciences morales, Janvier, 1880; Nitti, I.e.
23 p\ t. Perrens, Histoire de Florence, Paris, 1877, torn. i. p. 207.
24 Bebel, cited by Winterer, Discours prononce au Congres
social de Liege, Rixheim, 1887, p. 14. Cf. Nitti, I.e.
25 Valerian, cited by Nitti, I.e.

40 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
26 The economist is quoted but not named by De Amicis,
Osservaz. sidla quest, soc. Lecce, Tip. Coop. 1894, p. 7.
27 Harnack expresses a similar idea, observing that the Gospel
is always and deeply individualist, although referring to the
mission of the soul, solidarity and fraternal help; it is only and
virtually socialist because it leads to the formation among men
of a community, comprehensive as life itself and profound as
human need (L'csscnza del Crist, conf. vi.).
28 Victor Meunier, Jesus-Christ dcvant les conseils de guerre,
as appendix to Socialisme devant le vieux monde of V. Considerant,
Paris, Librairie Phalansterienne, 1849. This appendix, which
from its deceptive title would appear to be dedicated to the matter
of the trial of Jesus, does not even treat of it indirectly. It is
a comparative selection of the thoughts of Jesus and the Fathers
of the Catholic Church, in opposition to the laws and to the
rigours of modern society. The work is dedicated ironically to
the citizen Procurator-General of the Republic. Its object is
to demonstrate how, if Jesus had been brought before the French
tribunals (this is the author's sole reason for mentioning the
councils of war, or courts-martial) he would not have fared better
than before Caiaphas. Cf. Feugueray, Essais sur les doctrines
politiqucs de Saint-Thomas d'Aquin. Paris, 1857; cap. int.
Democratic des Peres de I'Eglise, p. 217; Laveleye, Le socialisme
contemporain, Preface, p. xvii.
29 De officiis, lib. i. cap. xxviii.
30 Opera: Regimen pastorale, c. 22.
31 Epist. ad Hedibiam. Cf. Meunier, op. cit. p. 237; Laveleye,
op. cit. p. xvii.
32 Concio de divitiis et paupertate.
33 Serm. 64 in Luc. cap. xvi.
34 In Evangelium Joannis, vi. 25, 26.
35 Apolog. c. 39.
36 S. Matthew xix. 16, 30, v. s.
37 Harnack, op. cit. conf. v.
38 S. Luke xiv. 26. Some — e.g. Curci — beheve that a mis
understanding has occurred in these words in the first Evangelist,
in the text of which an important idiom left in the third had been
avoided (the Hebrews having no comparative degrees, used the
contrary of the positive to express the least), and that the injunc-

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 41
tion read thus: "Qui amat patrem et matrem plusquam me,
non est me dignus," and similarly of the sons (S. Matthew x.
37; S. Luke xiv. 26). Di un socialismo crist., etc. cap. vii. par.
11, p. 231.
39 Harnack, op. cit. conf. v.
40 S. James ii. 6.
41 S. James ii. 1 ef seq. C. Renan, Saint-Paul, p. 511; Nitti,
II socialismo, cap. iii.
42 v. 7.
43 xxxiv. 26.
44 Leviticus xxv. 23.
45 Deuteronomy xxiii. 15; Exodus xxii. 25, xxiii. 12, xxxii. 13;
Leviticus xix. 9; Numbers xxxvi. 6-9; Ep. ai. Cor. v. 10, 11,
vi. 10 et seq. Cf. Sumner Maine, L'ancien droit, p. 187.

CHAPTER IV;
The Religious Doctrine of Jesus — His Vehemence against the
Desecrators of the Temple — High Emoluments of the Priests
and Levites — The Interests of the Priesthood bound up with
those of the Nation — The Idea of the Theocratic Constitution
— The Covenant and the Mosaic Law — The Sanctuary in
Jerusalem the Centre of the National Forces — Christ's Attitude
neither Theocratic nor Nationalist — The Fulfilment of the
Law of Moses — His Resolute Opposition to the Officialism
Predominant in Pubhc Worship — At the Well of Sichem —
The Fanatics join the Rich in their Hatred of Jesus.
The second revolutionising blow was to fall on the old
and fragile fabric of worship which in Palestine rep
resented the nationalisation of a God exclusive to a priv
ileged people, and the monopoly of a grasping conser
vative caste: another evident contradiction of the high
est conception of a God, Father of the universal family.
Jesus knows the priests, scribes, and Pharisees in Jeru
salem to be all equally addicted to trafficking with the
faith. One Easter-day He beholds the enclosure of the
temple crowded with usurers and money-changers, with
animals and the traders selling them for sacrifice. At
the sight, laying aside His usual gentleness and twist
ing a scourge of cords, He upsets the benches, scatters
the money, and drives the merchants and beasts out of
the temple. Nobody has the courage to oppose Him.
All remain aghast at such boldness, but the allegorical
words, interpreted in a subversive sense on this occasion,
have been preserved : " I am able to destroy the temple
of God and to build it in three days." x
42

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 43
The scourge had fallen on the officers of the holy
trafficking place. The business then carried on by the
temple, owing to the comminations of the law and the
encouragement given to superstition, had become such
a mine of wealth that to disturb the obedience and fer
vour of contributors meant endangering the revenues
and attacking the greed of the priests. To them was
assigned a great part of the burnt-offerings ; theirs were
the first-fruits of the fields and the first-born of the
flocks, and even of the men, for whom a proportionate
ransom had to be paid; theirs the tithes of all agricul
tural revenues ; theirs a share of the booty in war ; theirs
the poll-tax of half a shekel on the occasion of a general
census ; theirs the lands of the faithful consecrated to
Jehovah; theirs the offerings brought by the faithful
to the temple at the three annual festivals. Augustus
himself, who was disposed to act cautiously towards the
province of Judaea, being aware of its fanatically re
hgious spirit, ordered the sanctuary to be decorated at
his expense. Livia did the same, and the smoke of the
burnt sacrifice of a bull and two lambs rose every day
before the altar by imperial decree. The Levites at
tached as ministrants to the priests in the humblest
duties of the temple, such as the custody and cleaning of
the precincts and the care of its furniture, fleeced the
pious flock at second hand, sharing the daily and annual
emoluments of the priests.2
AU this was due to the close solidarity existing between
the interests of the nation and those of the priesthood,
the incarnation of the theocratic government in whose
sight God Himself was the author of the law, the ruler
of the nation.
In the Israelite monotheism the law was the humani-
sation of God. So long as it remained in the mind of
Jehovah it would have been an abstract idea and could

44 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
not have been a visible manifestation of Him, and in
order that God should manifest Himself it was necessary
that His law should become humanised in a finite being,
and it did this in Israel. In this way the people of
Israel became God's chosen people, not because it was
Israel, but because it was Jehovist ; it was the people of
the law because it was the people of Jehovah — the peo
ple who proclaimed and obeyed Jehovah and the law.
Jehovah, law, Israel, formed one sole idea, the mono
theistic idea, in the theocratic land of Moses.
The idea of the Pagan world, though originally start
ing from man and nature, personified the phenomena of
one and the other in creating its divinities, and had to
do the same in founding its various political constitu
tions ; it had, that is to say, to centre its social existence
in one man or in a gathering of men. In the despotic
governments of Asia the despot united in himself the
idea of form, of justice, of society itself; in the aristo
cratic republics of Greece everything centred in the
moral entity of the State; in the Roman republic the
moral entity was Rome, uniting in itself the whole uni
verse; in a theocratic society such as the Jewish,
Jehovah, who represents being, i.e. all creation, nat
urally also represents social existence.
A contract, or covenant as it is called in the Mosaic
history — a social contract very different from the one
imagined by J. Jacques Rousseau — created the bond
between the people and God which contains the law of
this people ; " a holy people and a kingdom of priests." 3
according to the biblical expression. The primordial
constitutions of the new law are communicated by Je
hovah Himself to the people when He reveals Himself
on Sinai : Jehovah speaks — Moses assembles the delegates
of the people and imparts the divine propositions ; the
people reply by a unanimous shout of assent; Moses

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 45
takes the popular consent to Jehovah, and here, between
God and the people, the covenant by free and full elec
tion is accomplished, binding one to the other and, being
declared continuous, will be also binding on future gen
erations. Moses, from whom the Israelitish law has its
name, on the day when the people believed themselves
to be face to face with God, when the real treaty con
cerning the new law was promulgated, was only the in
terpreter of the people. The latter were convinced of
having been in direct communication with God, and only
from terror at the divine contact delegated their power
to Moses. " We ourselves," said the delegates of the
people to Moses, " with our own eyes, mortal as they
are, have contemplated the divine greatness, but in
future approach thou rather and hear all things that
the Lord shall speak, and bring them to us." 4 Only
by virtue of such a delegation ^id Moses receive the law
for his people — a law divine, not only in its origin, but
in its full application, so that the priests alone can act
as its interpreters and executors.
At the time of Jesus, the Jehovist priesthood strained
every nerve to preserve the traditions, the bonds of con
nection, and, above all, the advantages accruing from
the mystical sentiment of the people vaunting itself
divine. But by this time Israel had become no more
than the shadow of itself ; the schools and sects had con
quered it, the Roman eagles had torn it, the holy city
meant no more than the chief city of a humble province
annexed by Rome, and was compelled to tolerate within
its walls an imperial garrison— which to the Jews meant
a permanent sin of idolatry. The priesthood was a
centre in the sanctuary for all the scattered forces of
the faith, and more than ever directed urgent appeals
to the people to turn with patience and confidence to
Jehovah, the author of its law and civil constitution.

46 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
In proportion as this appeal was responded to, priestly
interests throve, but these declined from time to time
when the appeal failed, as it did occasionally. All the
rights of the priesthood rested on the triumph of the
national idea: every act of recognition of these rights
was a step towards the glory of Jehovah and of the na
tion : woe then to the priests if they went to sleep upon
their slender laurels ! A few years' lethargy would
have decided their irreparable ruin. Hence every mani
festation of popular sentiment, every sacred or national
festival, took place in the sanctuary ; the concourse of
the people brought profit to the priesthood; but at the
same time, Jehovah, the national idea, triumphed.5
Jesus, neither theocratic nor nationalist, necessarily a
stranger to political interests and compromises, consist
ently adverse to the sacrilegious paradox of an earthly
kingdom of God, could not countenance a religion which
was at once a legal institution and a patriotic expedient.
By His indignant action against the traffickers in the
temple, as by His whole teaching, He does not combat
the sentiment of the faith, but He strips it of the laurels
and parasitical suckers of personal and national vested
interests. His action and His doctrine are not a negation of or
a slur on the law of Moses, but its fulfilment and con
summation. He can say : " Think not that I am come
to destroy the law and the prophets. I am not come
to destroy, but to fulfil." 6
Moses was the legislator of deeds, Jesus of the soul.
Moses prohibited murder, Jesus hatred itself; Moses
adultery, Jesus even an impure thought; Moses perjury,
Jesus the oath itself. Moses, as a measure of justice,
conceded an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; Jesus
points to no other justice than forgiveness. Moses
said: "Judge with wisdom and without guile," Jesus

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 47
says: "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Moses recon
ciled masters and slaves; Jesus desires that there shall
only be brothers. Moses commanded the good use of
riches ; Jesus urges the use in common of the fruits, if
not community of possession of all property. Moses,
making laws for the Hebrew people, took thought for
the exceptions; Jesus dictating one sole law of love for
the human species, legislated for the universe. Moses
established the worship and prestige of the temple ; Jesus
erects an altar in every heart capable of purity or re
pentance, of perfection or of sacrifice. Moses recom
mended respect for age and childhood ; Jesus for all the
weak and disinherited, even for forlorn women. Moses
proclaimed the indissoluble nature of the contract
between the people and the natural law, so soon to
harden and crystallise under the impulse of universal
progress ; Jesus affirms the perfectibility of human
nature and of every law which governs it, and He im
parts to it the impress of immortal life with the free
dom and infinite worth of the soul that is stirred by the
creative breath of divine love.7 But to the interested
upholders of the Mosaic law the work of Jesus did not
mean fulfilment, but subversion, as being directed in its
general tendency and results against its official conduc
tors of pubhc worship acting as interpreters and greedy
custodians of the law.
The allusion to the destruction of the temple, which
will also form one of the heads of indictment before the
Sanhedrin of Jerusalem, was only a sort of hypothesis
or hyperbole bearing a perfectly innocent signification,
as will be shown; but other declarations of Jesus are
clear and irrefutable as to the fact of His repudiating
the whole official system of public worship.
One day after He had won in the holy city itself
numerous admirers and followers, among whom was

48 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
the rich Pharisee Nicodemus, wishing to return to His
own Galilee, He started for Samaria. He might have
taken another route passing through Perea, crossing the
Jordan and going up the river again on the other side,
but He had a special and well-considered reason for
His choice.8
In consequence of ancient feuds Samaria was most
hostile to Judaea, while as to its religion, it was more
heretical than Gentile. The Jews avoided Samaria in
their journeyings for fear of being contaminated or of
lightly exposing themselves to affronts : Jesus, on the
contrary, prefers to pass through it, and while crossing
the vale of Sichem stops at a well to rest. A woman
comes to draw water, and Jesus asks her to give Him
to drink. The woman, having recognised Him as a
Judaean by His accent, is astonished, and observes:
" How is that Thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me,
which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no
dealings with the Samaritans."
Jesus gives to the conversation a spiritual turn and
tries to rouse celestial feelings in that simple soul. But
the woman insists : " Our fathers worshipped in this
mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place
where men ought to worship."
And Jesus rejoins: "Woman, beheve Me, the hour
cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet
at Jerusalem, worship the Father. But the true wor
shippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
for the Father seeketh such to worship Him. God is
a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him
in spirit and in truth." 9
Eternal and irrefutable words, the synthesis of the
whole religion of Jesus !
" These words alone," exclaims Giuseppe Mazzini,
" would suffice to establish the superiority of Christianity

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 49
over all other creeds — the great thinkers from Socrates
and Plato to those of our own time predicted the fall of
one faith and the rise of another; but not one foretold
like Jesus the true nature of a future faith." 10
Were these words reported to the Pharisees and other
hypocrites interested in the faith and in the shekels of
the temple ? It is certain that the Master did not refrain
from repeating them in every form. In one of His most
expressive parables He gives a conclusive illustration
of the same thought: a man goes from Jerusalem to
Jericho and falls among thieves, who strip him and leave
him severely hurt on the roadside. A priest comes along,
but passes him by ; a Levite also passes without stopping ;
but a certain Samaritan pauses, succours the distressed
man, and takes care of him.11
The religious profession contained in His words at
the well of Sichem formed a contrast with the words of
the law : —
" But unto the place which the Lord your God shall
choose out of all your tribes to put His name there,
even unto His habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou
shalt come. And thither ye shall bring your burnt-offer
ings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave
offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your free
will offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of
your flocks." " Take heed to thyself that thou offer not
thy burnt-offerings in every place that thou seest." 12
And we know what place Jehovah had chosen from
amongst all the tribes for his worship and habitation,
and best of all was it known to the Jerusalem inter
preters, that Jehovah was domiciled in Jerusalem ! That
this commandment lacked His own sanction is shown by
the omission of any penalty for non-observers: the bib
lical text does not even allude generically to such a
penalty.13 However the legal definitions of the crime of

50 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
blasphemy (ghiduf) with which Jesus was charged
later, and on various grounds in the Sanhedrin, might
apply to the fact of one proclaiming Himself to be the
Messiah, they could not be strained to incriminate one
who, like Jesus, had up to that time done no more than
decline to recognise and favour the hierarchic privileges
of Jerusalem, any more than the popular prejudice of
Ebal or Gerizim.
Christ's attitude on this point could only be regarded
as a negative one, and it does not appear to have been
considered otherwise by His enemies. But it was to be
remembered against Him and to be brought forward to
His prejudice in the characteristic notes of the charges
to be alleged against Him — all being regarded as the
tendencies and manifestations of a suspected man in
criminating his whole political and rehgious conduct —
or, as it is barbarously expressed by the unblushing
political neologists of our own day in their judicial
prose, " the misconduct of the bad citizen " !
And thus, to the alarm of the rich threatened in their
avarice is added the offended superstition of the fanatic
haters of against Jesus!

Notes
1 S. Matthew xxvi. 61; S. Mark xiv. 58, xv. 29; S. John ii.
13 et seq. The temple was the second one, built by Zorobabel.
2 Levi, Sulla teocrazia Mosaica, Florence, Le Monnier, 1865,
pp. 129, 140. The author of this lucid and learned book declares
himself "solemnly and openly to be a Hebrew by confession and
conviction," and is not therefore to be suspected of exaggeration
in this and other similar statements.
3 Exodus xix. 3, 6, 7; Genesis xvii. 2, 4, xxii. 18.
4 Deuteronomy v. 24-7.
6 Levi, op. cit.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 51
6 St. Matthew v. 17: Non veni solvere sed adimplere.
7 Cf. Petruccelh, op. cit. vol. ii. p. 180.
8 S. John iv. 3, 4. It is not understood why this Evangelist
should here speak of the necessity for Jesus to return to Galilee
by way of Samaria (oportebat autem eum transire per Samariam).
9 S. John iv. 7-24. Sichar and not Sichem appears in the text,
but S. Jerome (in Epistaph. Paula;) shows that Sichar was the
old Sichem (Genesis xxxiv. 25-7, xlviii. 22). Eusebius, however
(Onomasticon), calls Sichem Sichar, which was known later as
Neapolis and is now called Naplusa (see also Deuteronomy
xxvii. 4, 12) ; and at the present time, at a distance of not more
than twenty-five minutes' journey from Naplusa, in the road
leading from the valley of Mokua and the valley of Sichem,
travellers are shown the well or fountain of Jacob, now known as
Bir-Jakub. The mountain pointed out by the Samaritan woman
must have been Gerizim or Ebal, on which, according to biblical
tradition, God caused an altar to be erected unto Himself. The
Samaritan codices have Gerizim for Ebal. Renan is of opinion
that the historical reality of the conversation of Jesus with the
Samaritan woman at the well of Sichem need not be too much
insisted upon, since only Jesus Himself or His interlocutrix could
have spoken about it (Vie, ch. xiv. note at the end). And why
not ? It is not said that Jesus mentioned it to His disciples,
who returned shortly afterwards from the city, where they had
gone to buy food (S. John iv. 8, 27), but it is expressly stated by
S. John that the woman spoke of it, or commenced doing so,
to some neighbours and gossips in the town when she left her
pitcher at the well and went into the town saying, "Come and see a
man who hath told me all things whatsoever I have done" (iv.
28, 29). May it not be supposed that she told all the rest?—
a woman too!
10 Dal concilia a Dio, par. vii. Mazzini expresses elsewhere
too his favourable opinion of Christianity. See, for example,
I sistemi e la democrazia, par. 1.
11 St. Luke x. 30 et seq.
12 Deuteronomy xii, 5, 6, 11, 13.
13 Deuteronomy: see the whole of chap. xii.

CHAPTER V
The Pohtical Doctrine of Jesus — His IndifFerence to Established
Institutions — The Law founded on Force, but the Moral Law
of Jesus confided to the Liberty of the Soul — Neither Con
flict nor Adhesion between Divine and Human Authority —
Tribute to Caesar — The Individualism of Jesus representing
the Integrity of Manhood as against the Claims of Citizenship
— Renunciation of the Law and Indifference to Institutions
do not conflict with True Justice or the Combative Element in
Life, nor with Labour or the Progress of Civilisation — All the
Less Reason was there that any such Conflict should exist
in Ancient Palestine — Jesus did not compete for Pohtical
Power.
The blow dealt against civil institutions was no direct
attack, but response by reaction which was none the less
effective. The relation between Gospel and law is a matter of
absolute indifference. All the originality of the reform
preached by Jesus in relation to the State consists in
rendering some indifferent to endure; others indifferent
to exercise civil power. You know, He says to His fol
lowers, " the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion
over them, and they that are great exercise authority
upon them. But it shall not be so among you : but who
soever will be great among you, let him be your minister ;
and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your
servant." J This is an absolute inversion of values : the
ordinary conception of authority is turned upside-down.
Thus act the powerful, but the disciples and followers
of Jesus in all times must do the contrary. Thus act
52

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 53
the powerful, and will continue so acting so long as
those who are not actuated by altogether opposite senti
ments will let them, and who therefore support them
now in their authority. The law, be it of Rome or of
other nations, is founded in its essential nature on force :
" A ferocious force possesses the world, and calls itself
law." All institutions rest on no other basis. Now the king
dom of God announced by the good tidings knows of
no other than moral force; knows no other law of this
force than the liberty of the soul; knows no other law
than that which comes from God — a law intelligible as
a just compensation, and that every one obeys for its
justice, and not as a gracious concession, nor as a social
contract; a law which in order to triumph has no need
of force, and will, on the contrary, triumph over force
itself. Hence the Master admonishes : " I say unto you,
Resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy
right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man
will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him
have thy cloke also." 2 And concluding : " Judge not,
that ye be not judged." 3
The law and the established institutions can have no
value by the side of the doctrine of Jesus ; and He does
not teach to elude them, but to estimate them at their
proper value. Questioned on the fiscal demands of Rome,
Flis advice is to satisfy them. Is it a question of giv
ing a coin to Caesar who exacts it? Let it be given
unto him.4 It is a poor enough thing if the majesty
of an Emperor has to consist solely in that. But never
theless the error of making Jesus the upholder of under
mined thrones and tottering Powers, and supposing a
parallelism of two authorities, one in correspondence with
the other, is not generally recognised. On the contrary,
He makes so great a difference, so profound a separation,

54 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
between them, that conflict is just as much impossible as
conciliation. The relation which Jesus enjoins towards
constituted authority is one of neutrality and toleration ;
but as to the esteem in which He holds it, and teaches that
it should be held, His idea is merely negative.5 Tolerat
ing force and not rebelling against it, being neutral
towards the conquests and exactions of evil, signify the
opposite of supporting it or cringing to it. The way
farer who is assaulted and who yields up his purse to the
robber, even as the Hebrew in the Roman province pays
the tribute to Tiberius, neither approves nor favours the
violence done him, while enduring it.
Meanwhile, if every one had already in the time of
Jesus followed His doctrine of indifference and neutrality
towards existing institutions, the Emperor, were he even
Tiberius, would have had no more support from his
subjects and would have been divested of all his terrible
empire. When a government ceases to excite repulsion
in some or to attract others, it has no longer any reason
for existence nor power of duration. " In this way,"
observes one of our best authors, " Jesus was forming
citizens who could never become soldiers nor magistrates
nor courtiers, nor subjects nor rebels, and who could
never have upheld a government of this world." 6 But
of what world? we ask the acute observer. Certainly not
of the Jewish world, still less of our modern world. But
whoever believes in the perfectibility of the human
species, whoever hopes with the prophet that the time may
come when swords shall be turned into ploughshares and
lances into sickles, and, above all, a true and perfect
Christian who trusts and follows entirely the teaching
of Jesus, cannot desire a different world nor better
citizens. " And meanwhile," observes another no less broad and
eminent thinker, " those citizens humbled themselves to

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 55
become great, abased themselves to become glorious, they
gave themselves to the contemplation of death, common
to all men as the price of eternal, individual life, they
forgot all and everything to remember always them
selves and their individuality, they sought self -forgetful
ness by the apotheosis of self." 7 And all this was the
necessary consequence of the exalted conception of in
dividuality held in the doctrine of their Master: a reac
tion against the prevalence of the conception of man
as a citizen, and a step towards the integration of man,
the antithesis of the individual to the almost impersonal
collectivity of the State.
The Roman world, which placed before men the most
exalted and coveted objects in life, seemed to be the most
humane among empires, but it was not so. To be so,
it should have been able to unite the citizen with the
individual, the civis romanus with the homo, and to
allow the individual to assert himself by his personal
worth and not as an organic institution recognised and
consecrated.8 Jesus, on the other hand, having uncon-
secrated the citizen become an institution, emancipates
man born free in his own infinite perfectibility, and this
emancipation is worth all his life as the price of ransom.
Having refused to recognise any other power, and
admitting only the kingdom of God, He declares every
man to be a free citizen of this kingdom and proclaims
its sovereignty. Woe to him who shall dare to attack
or obscure it ! On this single sovereignty rests the vision
of a human society, no longer upheld by law which as
serts itself by means of force, but by the free obedience
of men to right — a society no longer bound together by
juridical institutions, but by the reciprocity of duty and
love. It was in this sense that I pointed out before that
the society desired by Jesus is comparable not so much
to the sociahstic regime, as to a mild, sweet, and holy

56 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
anarchy, taking this word to mean simply the negation
of every government and institution.
The victory of right, which comes from God, belongs
neither to the solicitous nor to the cunning and violent,
but to the oppressed, who will see their own right tri
umph. And this attitude of resignation, this expecta
tion of a triumph entirely inward and moral, does not
contradict the human theme of a society which should
evolve itself to the highest perfection.
The iniquity of the world is so great, its injustice so
profound, the conception of right so artificial and con
ventional, that the oppressed cannot succeed even if
they try to make their reasons heard, and there are not
a few who are satisfied with the consciousness of right
or renounce voluntarily any claim for justice on account
of wrongs suffered, especially if they are animated by
superior sentiments of generosity and self-denial or
bound by ties of affection, relationship, or friendship.
" Are we not accustomed to act thus among our families
and friends? " asks Adolf Harnack.9 Are we not
taught not to return evil for evil, insult for insult?
What family, what company of friends, could exist if
every individual thought solely of maintaining his own
rights, and were not taught to renounce them, even
before unjust aggression? Now Jesus depicts the
earthly kingdom of God — society as rendered perfect
by His teaching — as a future universal family in which
will be found inherent and spontaneous the sacrifices
and transitions already possible and real, though in
lesser proportion in a small family of to-day. But these
renunciations and compromises, if they do not signify
resistance to wrong from those who suffer, do not
excuse those who are able to employ the smallest force
to fight against wrong in defence of their neighbour
who may be suffering from it. According to the teach-

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 57
ing and example of Jesus, he who would follow Him, far
from retiring to live alone in inactivity and self-aban
donment, must take up his cross, and choose, according
to his own particular aptitude, his position in the fight
against the irreconcilable enemies of the great truth
taught by Him — egoism, injustice, hypocrisy. Jesus
did not preach a general renunciation of the struggle
against these enemies — He did not enjoin flight, which
would leave them victorious and unconquered; on the
contrary ^ He has imposed vigilance to the point of sacri
fice, danger to the point of death, for their confusion
and annihilation. His first disciples go about announc
ing the good tidings like sheep among wolves ; He recom
mends them to be simple as doves, wise as serpents, but
He also exhorts them not to fear those who kill the body
but cannot kill the soul. It is false, therefore, that the
teaching of Christ disheartens a man ready to fight, and
that it is contrary to vigorous and combative natures.
Its Spirit is, on the contrary, liberal and active, which
neither implies the negation of the world nor an inert
asceticism — unless for such as are really unfit for the
fight — while from all His other followers He requires
only the renunciation resulting from the sacrifice made in
defending the right of others. In the struggle for good
ness there is much hidden though strenuous courage,
which fights in silence and darkness with a tenacity and
vigour which overcome the violence and fraud with
which the two-headed tyranny of wrong is wont to clothe
itself. There are sacrifices, obscure, but magnanimous,
which resist and react against the attractive and tri
umphant arts of gold and power ; there are victories un
known, but valiantly won, which receive no prize of fame
and no greeting by sound of trumpet. The life of the
Spirit, active charity, contented abnegation, poverty sus
tained with dignity, are battle-fields in. which the heroes

58 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
of virtue and sacrifice, the heroes of the love of God,
display the greatest boldness, the most indomitable
energy.10 And yet some people have pointed to a profound
defect in the teaching of Jesus, as viewed in relation
to political and social questions, maintaining it to be
unadaptable to civil life, because extraneous, if not
opposed, to the work and progress of civilisation. " But
although civil work and progress," replied Adolf Har
nack, " are very precious blessings, and worthy of our
greatest endeavours, they do not represent the supreme
ideal and cannot give to the soul its truest happiness.
Work is a source of happiness ; and the joys of work can
only be acquired through hardship and obstinate, pain
ful endeavour." " In this exaltation of work," continues
the authoritative rationalist, " there is much rhetoric
and much hypocrisy. Human labour, as regards more
than three parts of it, is fatigue that stupefies. One man
who knows what such labour is tells how much truth there
is in the poet's yearning for the coming of night, when
head, feet, and hands rejoice, for the day's toil is over.
He knows that if he had to begin again, after the task
were done, the instruments of work would fall hke a dead
weight on soul and mind ; he knows that the labour which
is merely labour can only result in nausea, as it appears
to Faust, whose soul asks compensation and cries ' Let
us drink from the river of hfe — from its source ' ! "
Work is a safety-valve that saves us from greater
evils, but it is not in itself a good, much less an ideal.
The same may be said of the progress of civilisation.
No one underrates its value, but that which to-day is a
condition of progress, which cheers and exalts us, will
be to-morrow a vulgar mechanical thing that will leave
us indifferent. The man who looks deeply into things
receives with gratitude the benefits of progress, but

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 59
knows that his inner life, the questions which occupy
and stir him, the fundamental relations in which he
lives, will in reality remain unchanged, or be changed
only superficially. The lively impression of novelty
and comfort which it brings us are but of momentary
duration. A man of advancing years, with a life's ex
perience, who has formed for himself an inner world,
receives almost no further stimulus from the doings of
the external world, and the progress of civilisation ; on
the contrary, the more he is disposed to recognise that
the civilisation of his day has risen to one of its higher
grades, the more does he perceive that he himself has
not changed his place, and that he needs those same
powers from which his predecessors derived comfort, the
moral forces of love and faith; and he recognises, even
though he may not say so, that this is the foundation
of the truth announced by the Nazarene.11
At any rate, was it the problem of combative life,
which is presumed to be discouraged rather than ani
mated by the teachings of Jesus, which could pre-occupy
the minds and oppose the laws of His contemporaries?
Or could it be the problem of labour depreciated and
weakened, or the progress of civilisation arrested and
opposed ?
It has already been observed how obtuse and conserva
tive was the nature of the Hebrew people. Not born to
industry, debarred from art, abhorring pomp, they had
watched with sorrow the development of commerce and
the flow of wealth penetrating their land from without.
They looked upon Roman magnificence as a sin of idola
try, rather than an act of violence ; they barely tolerated
their own law of property, and only within the strictest
limitations, and even then regarded it as more or less sin
ful ; they regarded poverty as holy and meritorious ; the
voice of their prophets was a constant invocation to the

60 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
simplicity of the old lost life, and almost all their sects,
however discordant among themselves, were united on
the question of the negation of the world and the neces
sity of privation. Only one gleam in the darkness
opened an outlet for aspiration toward a mystic but in
definite and confused ideal. In the midst of this people
the word of Jesus sounded quite other than depressing,
or as dulling the sense of common needs and appeals.
Solidarity taught as an active law of the universal struct
ure inspired love as the living flame of every human rela
tion; individuality raised to the degree of divine sov
ereignty, the struggle against evil commanded to the last
sacrifice, selfish care for earthly things, unf orgivingness,
private property only allowed in the pubhc service, in
favour of one's neighbour, the idolatry of the Caesars
condemned, like every other Power, to fall of itself, the
abuse of the weak condemned as an attack upon the
majesty of the citizen of God; disdain for those who
have succumbed to sin, substituted by their redemption
— the superhuman ideal exalted and extended beyond
all limits of purity and simplicity : — these chief items
in the teachings of Jesus were the fulfilment, and not
the abrogation, of the law of Moses and the word of the
prophets. The fact is, that Jesus placed the superhuman ideal,
which the people of Israel conceived of as one that was
nationally and peculiarly their own, so high, that they
saw that something escaped them which yet intimately
belonged to them, that their God was being taken from
them. That small chink, which in the darkness of dull
souls opened a way to the popular ideal of Palestine, was
so burst open and expanded by Jesus, that it emitted
rays of most vivid light — with waves of warm and fer
tilising air, the forerunners of great but beneficent
storms.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 61
All this disturbed the traditions and intellectual habits,
if not the equilibrium of the patriotic forces of a people
profoundly unlearned and nationalist. The spirit and
interests of conservation, and naught else, were attacked
by the teaching of Jesus — but reflexively, not by what
His doctrine took away from the law and institutions,
but by all that it implied that was great, high, and ex
alted beyond the law and institutions. The integrity
of the law, regarded in its letter and immediate applica
tion, received no derogation, nor was the security of
existing institutions in any way threatened, still less was
there any question of personal jealousy of the political
power. Concerning that jealousy, it is sufficient for the
present to point out (we shall return to the matter
later on) that the whole conduct of Jesus towards estab
lished Powers was one of rejection and not of competi
tion. When they desire to make Him king, He escapes from
the multitude ; when at the gates of Jerusalem He is fol
lowed by the greatest popular enthusiasm, He is solic
itous to represent the fact to be a fulfilment of prophecy
and to deprive it of any significance as a public demon
stration; and when before His judges He is questioned
upon the capital charge, He repeats once more that His
kingdom is not of this world.
" Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews " was the de
scription given of a crime that Jesus had not even con
ceived, still less committed ; it was an evident and vulgar
irony.

62 THE TRIAL OF JESUS

Notes
1 S. Matthew xx. 25-7.
2 S. Matthew v. 39, 40.
3 S. Matthew vii. 1.
4 S. Luke xx. 22, et seq.
5 Harnack, L'essenza del Crist, conf. vi.
6 Ellero, La questione sociale, Bologna, 1877, cap. I.
7 Bovio, Corso di scienza del diritto, lez. vi. Cf. Disegno d' una
storia del diritto in Italia.
8 Bovio, Corso di scienza, I.e.
9 L'essenza del Crist, conf. vi.
10 U. Cosmo, in an honestly written httle book entitled Gli
eroi dell' amor di Dio, treats of the principal hero, whom he
regards as S. Francis (Verona, Drucker, 1896). V. Hugo (Les
Miserables, liv. iv.) justly raises to the rank of heroes all the poor
wretches who victoriously struggle against the trials of their
miserable lot.
11 L'ess. del Crist, conf. vii. Harnack entertained a personal
and perhaps traditional preference for Protestantism as com
pared with Cathohcism, and this may be traced in some of the
profound thoughts which he has given to the world. His author
ity, however, is singularly great in matters into which this leaning
does not enter, and is indeed such that a better cannot be recalled,
although lately some adversaries, fighting with disloyal weapons,
have opposed him not as " an honourable adversary with whom
one may differ upon the more or less," but as an author "of
historical falsehoods and of puerile dialectic" (Civilta Cattolica,
an. liv. vol. ix. pp. 515, 523). See, on the other hand, the same
Catholic critic regarding Harnack: Le vie della fede, Rome,
1903, p. 43; Culiura sociale, December 16, 1902, p. 380; Alfr.
Loisy, L'Evangile et I'Eglise, Paris, 1903.

CHAPTER VI
Propaganda and Associations — No one a Prophet in his own
Country — At Nazareth, Capernaum, and Gennesaret — The
Twelve Apostles — Men and Women following Him — The
Familiarity and Benignity of Jesus at Popular Festivals —
Hypocrites scandalised — Originality and Charm of His Words
— His Style — His Invectives against Hypocrisy, Instrument of
Fraud and Cause of Disunion — Authoritative Admirers —
First Councils Adverse to Impunity — The Amours of Antipater
and Herodias hasten the Death of the Baptist — The Tetrarch
wishes to see Jesus.
Here it becomes necessary to retrace the course of events
in the life of Jesus in relation to the susceptibilities of
the State, which will one day have a furious awakening
and descend in its wrath upon His innocent head, with
the cunning and fell purpose of conservative passion.
At Nazareth, where the Master announced the good tid
ings, He is met with incredulity and wonder. " Is He
not," asked the Nazarenes, " that carpenter, the son of
Joseph and Mary, whose father and mother we know ? " 1
those not of Nazareth adding : " Can there be any good
thing come out of Nazareth ? " 2 His relations think He
is beside Himself.3 Galilee was in every respect less arid
and more fertile than Judaea; the green luxuriant land
scape combined extreme sweetness with a profound
melancholy. The new ideas of the zealots of the Mosaic
dispensation either did not penetrate so far or did not
raise the bitter, uncontrollable passions that raged in
Judaea, and above all in Jerusalem. Rabbis, reformers,

64 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
and sectaries were not wanting here, but the Pharisees,
who elsewhere formed the strongest and most hateful
sect, were in the minority. Hence the Master of Naza
reth could not meet with anything worse than incredulity
and wonder.
But this does not dishearten Him. He thinks and
says that no one is a prophet in his own country,4 and
goes to Capernaum, a city of Galilee near the lake of
Gennesaret. And as at Nazareth on the mount,5 so at
Capernaum in the synagogue 6 and at Gennesaret on the
lake,7 He carries out His mission. Meanwhile to a daily
and active propaganda 8 is added a vast spontaneous
concourse ; 9 propaganda and concourse : the two eternal
terms of definition for the crime of treason to the State.
Jesus is no longer alone. Some disciples of humble
condition gather around Him in fraternal intercourse,
twelve of whom became his apostles or missionaries later
on. The twelve are mostly fishermen from the lake of
Gennesaret; the most cultured among them being a rev
enue official named Matthew.10 The disciple whose
energy confers upon him most authority among his
brethren is Simon Peter, from Bethsaida ; Judas Iscariot
acts as treasurer for them all. The youngest and best
beloved of the Master is John, who on every occasion,
at the Supper, the Crucifixion, at the Sepulchre, occu
pies the first place.11 One of the twelve will betray Him.
The women 12 join the men, providing for the support
of the party : Mary, from the little town of Magdala —
hence called Magdalena ; Salome, mother of the disciples
James and John ; Joanna, wife of Chuza, one of Herod's
stewards ; and not a few others constantly follow the
Nazarene, and will accompany Him one day to the foot
of the cross.
He lived in the freest intimacy with His followers, and
almost always in the open air ; so much so that He used

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 65
to say: " The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air
have nests ; but the Son of Man hath not where to lay
His head." 13
Sometimes he did not disdain the hospitality of the
humblest and of the worst, for which he was bitterly
reproached by many. The scribes and Pharisees said
unto Him : " Why do the disciples of John fast often
and make prayers, and likewise the Pharisees, but thine
eat and drink with publicans and sinners." 14 And the
Master replied : " Whereunto shall I liken the men of
this generation? and to what are they like? For John
the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine ;
and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of Man is come
eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous
man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sin
ners ! " 15 And He added, with the most inspired up
lifting of the disinherited and the most crushing morti
fication of the hypocrites : " Verily I say unto you, That
the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of
Heaven before you." 16
He loved the fields, the sea, and children, and these
happy images figured brightly and spontaneously in His
conversation, which overflowed with the love and gentle
ness that filled His soul. His style, such as we may
gather it to have been from the text of the Gospels,
was not Greek in character, but rather approached the
manner of the Hebrew parabolist, and particularly the
phrasing of contemporary Jewish doctors, as we find
it in the Pirke Abothe and in the Talmud; in fact, He
excelled chiefly in parable. In developing His views in
conversation, He was sparing of words and proceeded by
surate, but for the originality and efficacy of His words,
Judaism had afforded Him no model.17 He preached as
one having authority, not like the scribes; His words
were words of life, seeds which germinated and produced

66 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
fruit; these were the new, original, unequalled, sublime
elements of His teaching. By the charm of His thought
and word, Jesus conducts His propaganda through Gali
lee amid the ever-growing favour of His hearers. Men
fallen to the depths of social degradation, who in the
tangled words of a hundred sects that flourished amongst
them had not found the way of salvation, were attracted
by a penetrating glance from Him, by one suggestive
word, and became His faithful, inseparable followers.
Weak and guilty women, drawn by His purity, feel in
Him the regenerating contact of virtue, and follow Him
with the most intense fervour; grief-stricken mothers,
intrepid in their maternal affection, bring their children
that He may touch them, strengthen them, or heal them.
Hence, in certain respects Renan was right in concluding
that the propaganda and the following of Jesus was a
movement started by women and children.171
Just because the movement was such in part, and
especially in the beginning, the fact of the large follow
ing could not have occasioned the State more uneasiness
with regard to the Master of Nazareth than that caused
by His propaganda.
Sometimes His words are vehement and contumelious ;
and then He made enemies ; but these were only the
Pharisees and other hypocrites, to whom alone Jesus,
lucid and polished speaker, addressed Himself with
vehemence and invective. The good tidings announced
by Him were the establishment of truth on earth and
the liberation of man from all falsehood. This brings
the worst shame and the greatest harm to humanity —
and with regard to the doctrine of Jesus it is a practical
contradiction to the infinite perfection of the soul, to
brotherhood itself, and universal solidarity. In fact,
falsehood creates disunion, deceit, treachery — the atti
tude of man, who is a fox towards man when the latter

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 67
is not a wolf, according to the latest form of evolution of
the animal struggle for existence, in which fraud at
last takes the place of violence. Thus the highest prin
ciple of social justice, such as the conception of the
kingdom of Heaven, becomes idle, if the hfe of society,
turning upon its fixed pivot in an inverted order, dis
avows at every moment the political and moral principles
on which it is founded ; if it is inclined to contradict in
its customs its knowledge of the truth, and is in the
habit of simulating faith in what it does not believe, of
esteeming what it does not esteem, and of doing and
tolerating things which admit neither of toleration nor
compromise. If it were not for hypocrisy, which means
playing a part, men would not much longer, nor with
such general readiness, act the part which suits their
nature and their place in the vulgar comedy of hfe,
according to the dictates of the falsest and most artificial
conventionality, and sustained by the double force of
conventional and legal make-beheve. Hypocrisy is
sometimes religious, consisting in the monstrous union
of sanctity of form with impious acts ; sometimes legal,
when it takes advantage of the unexceptional and
obsequious observance of laws and customs, to gain
an easy and mendacious justification in that profound
struggle which goes on in every man's heart between
conscience and life.
The Pharisees, contemporaries of Jesus, were legal
hypocrites, because they masked iniquity and perfidy
under the most pedantic and astute observance of the
law; and to them were addressed the only words of
invective and malediction which Jesus ever uttered.
Sometimes his contempt took no other form than
that of impetuous invective : " Woe unto you, scribes
and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows'
houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore

68 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you
ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by
the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by
the gold of the temple, he is a debtor ! Woe unto you
scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye pay tithe of
mint and anise and cummin, and have left the weightier
matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith. . . .
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape
the judgment of hell? . . . That upon you may come
all the righteous blood that hath been shed upon the
earth, from the blood of righteous Abel even unto the
blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew
between the temple and the altar." 18
Sometimes the attack was indirect, because he con
fined Himself to urging them to act differently from
the hypocrites : " Take heed that ye do not your alms
before men, to be seen of them. Therefore when thou
doest thine alms, sound not a trumpet before thee, as
the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets,
that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto
you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms,
let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth.
That thine alms may be in secret : and Thy Father which
seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." 19
And again, and how humanly ! — " Moreover, when ye
fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance : for
they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto
men to fast. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine
head, and wash thy face." 20
And again, and divinely : " Therefore if thou bring
thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy
brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift
before the altar, and go thy way ; first be reconciled to
thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift." 21 A
wonderful parable shows his acute, mordant thought

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 69
concerning the sincerity and purity of the soul com
pared with and in condemnation of conventional men
dacious forms : " Two men went up into the temple to
pray ; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The
Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, O God,
I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extor
tioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I pos
sess. And the publican, standing afar off would not
so much as lift up his eyes to heaven, but smote his
breast, saying, O God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell
you, this man went down into his house justified rather
than the other; because every one that exalteth himself
shall be abased, and he that humbleth himself shall be
exalted." 22
And even in external conduct and in forms of speech
Jesus condemns artifices, and urges simplicity and frank
ness. " Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because
thou canst not make one hair white or black. But
let your communication be, Yea, yea ; Nay, nay : for
whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." 23 Some
times His irony does not spare the wicked; and His
subtle raillery, His barbed shafts, go straight to the
heart, where they remain planted as eternal stigmata
in the wound. " This shirt of Nessus," says Renan,
" which for so many centuries the Hebrew has trailed
after him in rags, was woven by Jesus with divine
art." Masterpieces of scorn, His darts cut fiery lines in
the flesh of the hypocrites and the false devotees; in
comparable darts worthy of a Son of God! Socrates
and Moliere only graze the skin; the fiery reproof of
Jesus pierces to the marrow of the bones.24 But it was
written that at the end of His mission He should pay
with His life for the triumph of the truth. The Phari
sees, the scribes, the false devotees, were the tenacious

70 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
custodians of orthodox Judaism and personified the
tradition, authority, and fortune of the temple, which
meant also the fortune of the nation. Hence this private
and not public hatred, but none the less terrible and
powerful, which could only be quenched in blood.
Almost as if to call down more speedily this vengeance
upon His head, we have that sudden outburst of indigna
tion against the desecrating traffickers in the temple
which He will be charged with when brought before His
judges, when also the subversive words which He uttered
on that occasion will be especially brought up against
Him. Meanwhile, however, He is winning adherents and
followers in the holy city itself. Nicodemus, a rich
Pharisee, a member of the Sanhedrin and an esteemed
citizen of Jerusalem, becomes His friend.25 But Jesus
does not trust too much to this new favour, and prepares
to return to Gahlee, passing through Samaria.26 On
returning to Jerusalem He hears of two events which
imperil the safety of His mission.27 In April of the year
29 the Baptist had been put to death by order of Anti
pater, son of Herod the Great, called Herod himself,
King of Perea and Galilee; and shortly after there is a
rumour that the tetrarch wishes to see Jesus.
This little Herod, corrupt and imbecile, being deter
mined to remove the Baptist, added to an easily alleged
reason of State an entirely personal question. Blinded
by passion for Herodias, his sister-in-law, he had been
drawn into seducing and then marrying her after re
pudiating his wife, Herodias being still bound to her own
first husband. The austere censor from the desert echoed
the universal indignation felt against this iniquitous
marriage ; but for his open and unsparing rebuke he was
arrested and shut up in the fortress of Machero.
Perhaps Antipater did not desire his death, inasmuch
as his imprisonment lasted six months ; and during that

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 71
time the Baptist frequently corresponded from the depths
of his prison with his followers, and perhaps also with
those of Jesus.28 But Herodias could only be satisfied
by his blood, and in this horrible vengeance she made
Salome (her daughter by her first marriage) her accom
plice. One day, at a celebration of the birthday of this
beautiful but perverse girl, the latter executed a char
acteristic dance after supper, which so fascinated Anti
pater, who was perhaps already overcome by wine, that
he asked her what she desired. The girl, at the instiga
tion of her mother, unhesitatingly asked for the head of
John the Baptist. Soon after one of the guards brought
on a salver the head of the prisoner, and handed it to the
girl, who delivered it to her mother.29
The story is not very original, as the figure of
Herodias, who desires the death of John, is modelled
on that of Jezebel, who desired the death of Elias and
of Naboth. The scene of the seduction is taken from
the story of Esther. The tetrarch Antipater makes to
the daughter of Herodias the same offer which King
Ahasuerus made to Esther,30 but still, all this does not
prove that the story was invented. Tradition, which
creates a likely retribution in default of a proven one,
tells us that one day while Salome was crossing a frozen
lake she sank into the water up to her neck, when the
sharp edges of the broken ice cut through her throat.31
Whatever the cause, the death of John caused among
the people so uneasy and painful an impression, that
the defeat of Antipater in the war against the Arabs
was counted as a just retribution for his crime. Jesus
had no illusions regarding the causes which led to the
murder of the Baptist nor as to the faction which had
brought it about. On the contrary, he instinctively
felt that this party would also turn against Himself,
as continuing the work of the martyr who had come to

72 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
prepare the way for Him. The tetrarch and his court
wondered who Jesus could be. They who remembered
the prophecy of Malachias said : " It is Elias " ; those
who recalled the words of Moses said : " He is a proph
et " ; the more advanced said : " He is a forerunner of the
Messiah." " But I have had John beheaded," said
Antipater. " Who can this man be of whom I hear so
much." And he sought to see Him.32 But he will not
see Him until the day of His condemnation, which even
to him will appear unjust.

Notes
1 S. Mark vi. 3; S. John vi. 42.
2 S. John i. 46; in fact, the phrase is attributed to Nathanael,
who was of Cana, when he came from under the fig-tree to meet
Jesus. 3 S. Mark iii. 21; cf. S. John vii. 3-5.
4 S. Luke iv. 24; S. Mark vi. 4.
5 Mountain unnamed from which Jesus delivered the Sermon
on the Mount. S. Matthew v. 1 et seq. ; S. Luke vi. 20.
6 S. Mark i. 21 et seq.; S. Luke iv. 16. Every Hebrew city
had a synagogue or meeting-place formed of one rectangular
hall or chamber with a portico usually of Greek architectural
style. The remains of some are still to be seen at Orbid (Arbela) ,
Meiron, Gisch, and in other towns of Palestine. Cf. Mischna,
Megilla, iii. 1. Renan says that the synagogues were httle
republics where honours, etc., were conferred: Vie, ch. viii.
7 S. Luke v. 1.
8 S. Matthew iv. 17, 18, 23, ix. 35; S. Mark i. 39.
9 S. Matthew x. 1 et seq.; S. Mark iii. 13; S. Luke vi. 12 et seq.;
S. John vi. 1 et seq.
10 S. Matthew was a revenue officer and not a publican. Those
who at Rome were called publicans (Tacitus, Ann. iv. 6; Cicero,
De provinc. consul. 5) were farmers-general of the taxes, and at
most were knights. S. Matthew was a revenue officer — one of

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 73
those who collect the taxes: a vile and even sacrilegious office
in the eyes of the Jews, since the tax was the sign of their vassalage,
and paying it constituted an act of Paganism.
11 The same Evangelist names them in the following order:
Simon Peter and Andrew his brother (Eusebius, H.E. vol. iii.;
James and John, sons of Zebedee — called from their vehemence
Sons of Thunder (S. Mark i. 20; S. Luke v. 10, viii. 3; S. John
xix. 27); Philip; Nathanael — afterwards called Bartholomew;
Thomas or Didimus; Matthew or Levi, son of Alpheus (Gospel
of the Ebonim in Epiphanius, Adv. Hwr. xxx. 13); James, son of
Alpheus and cousin of Jesus; Lebbeus or Thaddeus, who for
merly belonged to the party of Judah the Colonite (Epiphanius,
Adv. Haw. xxx. 13) ; Simon or Zelotes, also called the Canaanite,
who also belonged to the party of the Colonites (Epiphanius,
ibid.); and Judas Iscariot.
12 S. Luke viii. 1-3.
13 S. Matthew viii. 20.
14 St. Matthew ix. 11 et seq.; S. Mark ii. 18 et seq.; S. Luke
v. 33 et seq. Rabbi Benamozegh explains the disdain expressed
by the Pharisees concerning the popular festivals, at which
Jesus used to be present, by the fact that they were extremely
particular as to whom they sat next at table, and expected that
their own attendance should be regarded as a very high honour
(Storia degli Essini, Florence, Le Monnier, 1865, p. 240, and p.
244 in note).
15 S. Luke vii. 31-4.
16 S. Matthew xxi. 31.
17 Renan, Vie, ch. v.
17a y^ ch xj Renan, in this passage, giving free rein to his
poetic enthusiasm, beheves that the charm exercised by the
personal beauty of Jesus had much to do with the success of His
propaganda, but here also the romance rests upon a purely
theoretical basis, and is intended to counteract another tradition
of the personal ugliness of Jesus — also resting upon nothing but
a theory according to which this ill-favouredness, aesthetically
speaking, was to be regarded as a true Messianic sign. See Justin,
Dial, cum Tryph. 85, 88, 100 ; cf. Isaiah i., iii. 2. The sup
posed beauty of face and form is thought to be accredited by the

74 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
portrait attributed to Lentulus, the ill-favouredness by the bare
word of Tertullian, Alexandrinus, Origen, S. Clement, S. Augus
tine, and others. It may be well imagined that there has appeared
since the invention of printing, not one book only, but a small
library treating of this argument. Cf. e.g. Pijart, De singulari
Christi Jesu D.N . Salvatoris pulchritudine, and Lami, De erudi
tions Apostolorum, Florence, 1766, p. 114. For the history of
the conventional pictures of Jesus, cf. Lipsius, Christusbilder,
Berlin, 1897. In the catacombs of Rome, in which symbolism
and typical conventionalism dominate, Jesus preferably figures as
the Pastor bonus, a symbol that came from pre-Christian literature
(Psalms xxiii. 1-3; Isaiah xl. 11; Ezekiel xxxiv. 23) into the
New Testament (S. Matthew ix. 36; S. John i. 29, 36, x. 14-19;
Hebrews xiii. 20). Besides many pictures, there have been
discovered in the subsoil of the catacombs five statues representing
the same pastoral symbol. Allied to this symbol of the Good
Shepherd is that of the Agnus Dei, in memory of Jesus who sacri
ficed Himself pro ovibus suis. Another symbol is that of Orpheus,
who draws all things unto himself (omnia traham ad me) by the
power of his teaching and example, a faithful translation of the
mythological symbol into an evangelical one. Another symbolic
figuration is that of the Dolphin swallowing another fish, this
being intended to represent Christ overcoming the Demon, the
seducer of the world (Ap. xii. 9). Cf. Labanca, G. C. nclle
catacombe di Roma in the Rivista d' Italia, Dec. 1902. For the
immense and interesting argument regarding Jesus in art, cf.
e.g. Hoppenot, Le Crucifix dans I'histoire et dans Vart, dans I'ame
des saints et dans notre vie, Paris, Desclee, 1903, 3rd ed.
The fantasy of details concerning the physical personahty of
Jesus has been carried to the extent of measuring his body.
The fact is historical, and its origin is simple enough. It was
ordained by the Jewish law that the standards of weights and
measures should be preserved in the sanctuary (Leviticus xix.
35, 36), and that every family should have copies of them (Deuter
onomy xxv. 13-15). The Emperor Constantine ordained that
the cubit standard of the hydrometer by which the height of the
Nile water was measured should be transferred from the Pagan
temple of Serapium to the Christian Church (Cassiodori, Opera

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 75
omnia, t. i. pp. 215, 6). Justinian supported the biblical tradi
tion, and ordered the clergy to be charged with the preservation
of the weights and measures (Novell, cxxviii. cap. xv.), and this
system was maintained in Italy until the time of the Republics
(Muratori, Antiquitates Italia, vol. ii. p. 87.) Now the ecclesias
tics in their choice of standards were guided by religious ideas,
and among these was the idea of the body of Christ. How they
could conceive the measure of it, I do not know. Probably they
had as models the oldest and most celebrated pictures of Christ,
such, for example, as that in the Church of S. Saviour, in one of
the Imperial palaces at Constantinople, and at a later epoch the
picture of the Santa Sindone in the Royal Chapel at Turin — or
perhaps it was deshed to create an analogy with the Palestine
cubit, and that, preferring a triune number, the stature of Jesus
was fixed at three Palestine cubits — equivalent to 1 • 6644 metres.
Several of our Florence codices treat of the stature of Jesus and
give the figure of it. The Riccardi codex sec. xiv. (No. 1294,
c. 103) gives 1-744 metres; another Riccardi codex sec. xv.
(No. 1763 c. 56) 1-60 metres; a Laurentian codex of the first
hah of the fourteenth century three Florentine braccia, or about
three times 0 ¦ 584 metres. And so greatly has the application of
these imaginative details as regards the stature of Christ been
abused, that various prayers entitled "the stature of Christ"
have been composed — some against the plague, and others against
other calamities. From the catalogue of books published by the
famous Ripoh press of Florence between the years 1477 and 1482
it is found that many prayers were printed under this title. Cf.
Giorn. stor. della let. it. vol. xx, fasc. 60, an. 1892; Uzielli, Orazione
della misura di G. C. Florence, 1902; ibid. Misure lineali
medicevali, etc., Florence, 1899. Judgment in fantastic details
has also been passed upon the final scene of the great drama of
Jesus, and this has gone so far as to determine the distances to
the place of execution. One anonymous traveller ends the rela
tion of his journey in the Holy Land as follows: —
"Let it be noted by those who make the pilgrimage to the Holy
Land from beyond sea, that from the Sepulchre of our Lord Jesus
Christ to Mount Calvary where He was nailed to the Cross, is
fifty paces; and from the Sepulchre to the spot which He said

76 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
was the centre of the world is twenty-five paces. From the
Sepulchre to the column to which He was bound, and where He
was scourged, it is fifty-five paces; and from the Sepulchre to
His prison it is fifty paces; and from the column where He
was scourged to the place where was found the other cross it
is sixty-five paces; and from the Sepulchre to the place where He
said the Lord's Prayer it is thirty paces; and from Jerusalem to
S. Mary of Bethlehem it is six miles, where Christ was born; and
from Jerusalem to the River Jordan it is thirty miles; and from
Jerusalem to Mount Olivet it is two thousand paces; and from
the River Jordan to the place where Christ made Lent it is four
miles; and from the river towards the east is the promised land.
God lead us there to salvation. Amen." Cf. Viaggi di Leo
nardo Frescobaldi e altri in Terra santa del Secolo, xv. Florence,
Barbera, 1862, pp. 118, 143, 449, 450. And there are not a few
manuals and guides which are placed in the hands of strangers
visiting Jerusalem. See the Itahan manual, G. C. Ferrario,
Descriz. e guida di Gerusalemme, Rome, Civelli, 1894, in which
is described the column to which was affixed the sentence passed
upon Jesus (p. 261), the Gate of Judgment through which Jesus
passed to Calvary, the arch Ecce Homo where Pilate showed
Jesus to the people (p. 262), the Garden of Gethsemane with
eight olive-trees — and I know not how much celery — the Grotto
of the Agony where Jesus passed His last night (p. 287), the
Antonia tower where Jesus was delivered over by Pilate to the
Jews (p. 287), and other similar curiosities for honeymoon trav
ellers! 18 S. Matthew xxiii. 14, 16, 23, 33, 35.
19 S. Matthew vi. 1-4.
20 S. Matthew vi. 16, 17.
21 S. Matthew v. 23, 24.
22 S. Luke xviii. 9-14.
23 S. Matthew v. 36, 37.
24 Vie, ch. xx.
25 S. John iii. 1 et seq.
20 V. s. cap. iv.
27 S. Matthew xiv. 11, 12; S. Mark vi. 30; S. Luke ix. 9, 10.
28 S. Matthew vii. 17 et seq.; S. Mark vi. 17, 19, iii. 19.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 77
29 Josephus, Antiq. hb. xiv.; S. Matthew xiv. 6; S. Mark vi.
17-19. 30 Negri, Gesu, a Cesarea di Filippo in the Rivista Europea,
November 1875, p. 402.
31 Witsii, Exercitatio de Johanne Baptista, Misc. Sacra, ii. 367.
32 S. Luke ix. 7-9; S. Mark vi. 14-16.

CHAPTER VII
First Mission of the Apostles — The Master shows the Disciples
the Perils of Public Life — Period of Vague and Circumspect
Propaganda — A Deputation of Scribes and Pharisees comes
from Jerusalem to question Jesus — A Query regarding Inob
servance of Form — The Reply of Jesus against Pedants and
Hypocrites — Another Mission of Seventy Disciples — Jesus
after a Long Journey braves the Hostility of Jerusalem —
The Absolution of the Adulteress — Significance of this Abso
lution in View of the Mosaic and Roman Law — Opinion re
garding Jesus at Jerusalem — Refuge in John the Baptist's
Country.
Jesus knew of the indiscreet curiosity of Herod from
the disciples of the martyred baptist and His own, and
withdrew into desert places followed by the multitude
and by His Apostles.
The latter had just then returned from the first mis
sion entrusted to them by the Master, that of journey
ing through the land and announcing the good tidings
in the towns and villages through which they passed.1
And in giving this mission Jesus took partly into ac
count all the peril which He and His ran. " Behold,
I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves ; be ye
therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves. But
beware of men, for they will deliver you up to the coun
cils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues.
And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for
My sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or
what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that
78

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 79
same hour what ye shall speak. Fear them not there
fore, for there is nothing covered that shall not be re
vealed, and hid that shall not be known. What I tell
you in darkness, that speak ye in light, and what ye
hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not
able to kill the soul ; but rather fear him which is able to
destroy both body and soul in hell. Are not two spar
rows sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall
on the ground without your Father knoweth. But the
very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not
therefore ; ye are of more value than many sparrows." 2
Such was the feeling that the Master sought to render
clear and present to the disciples, regarding the trials
and sacrifices to which their mission would expose them,
and to enable them either to decline it or clearly meas
ure all its hazardous possibilities — an example, indeed,
worthy of imitation, but not imitated, of the just and
rigorous idea of responsibility on the part of a leader
towards followers on an arduous public mission.
According to S. Matthew, the withdrawal of Jesus
into the desert was due to the execution of S. John the
Baptist. The same Evangelist, however, relates that
Jesus returned several times to the shores of the lake of
Gennesaret, which seemed to possess an almost irre
sistible attraction for Him, although at times compelled
to leave them by the workings of His enemies. It
would appear to have been under stress of these con
flicting influences that He formed later on the extreme
and courageous resolution to precipitate events by
going Himself to Jerusalem. According, however, to
the other two Evangelists, Jesus withdrew into solitude
after the grievous news of the martyrdom of John the
Baptist with the sole object of obtaining rest for Him
self and His disciples on the return of the latter from

80 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
their first mission, and had then no prescience of any
imminent peril.3 But the version of S. Matthew, as the
most probable one in this slight divergence of motives
and not of facts, should be preferred.
The first locality in which Jesus sought refuge was
the region of Bethsaida, at the eastern extremity of
the lake — a district which, after the death of Philip,
another son of Herod to whom it belonged, was annexed
to the province of Syria. How long He may have
tarried there it is not possible to determine, owing to
the variety and inversion of some of the dates in the
Gospel narratives, but when one considers how warm
a welcome was given to Him on His return to the western
shore of the lake, it seems reasonable to conclude that His
absence could not have been of short duration. He was
received with great rejoicings, and the sick hastened to
meet Him as a Saviour long expected when He returned
to Gennesaret.4
It is certain that His fame had not only reached the
ears of Antipater, but that, passing over the confines of
Galilee, it had penetrated the jealous souls of the mag
nates of Jerusalem. In fact, a deputation composed
of scribes and Pharisees journeyed from Jerusalem to
Galilee to see matters for themselves on the spot, and
oppose the progress of a propaganda and an associa
tion which began to appear dangerous. Scribes and
Pharisees are ready to employ every art to place Jesus
in contradiction with the written law and traditional
faith of the Hebrew people, and regarded no fatigue
as too great to attain that end. The first charge which
they make against Him is that of failing in observance
of ritual practices. " And it is in this charge," observes
one of our few cultivators of Christology, " that all the
strength of the Pharisaical spirit shows itself. In the
great moral phenomenon that was being revealed to them,

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 81
this party only saw and observed the tendency to infringe
formal prescriptions ; but this, then, was precisely the
gravest matter — they were mummified souls absorbed in
the worship of form, and for them fault, merit, chastise
ment, and praise rested upon nothing but appearances.5
The scribes and Pharisees said to Jesus : " Why do thy
disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they
wash not their hands when they eat bread."
Jesus replied : " Why do ye also transgress the com
mandment of God because of your tradition ? For God
commanded, saying, Flonour thy father and thy mother ;
and he that curseth father or mother, let him die the
death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father
or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have
been profited by me is given to God ; he shall not honour
his father. Ye hypocrites ! well did Isaiah prophesy of
you, saying, This people honoureth me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me." 6
The constant and irreconcilable idea of opposition
to all that signifies contradiction to the truth on the
part of conventional forms, hypocrisy, and superstition
could not be more openly revealed by Jesus to His ene
mies. The latter went their way scandalised, and when
the twelve informed the Master of their departure, He
continued in the same sense, saying, " Let them alone :
they be blind leaders of the blind. Do not ye yet under
stand that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth in
at the belly and is cast out into the draught? But the
things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from
the heart, and they defile the man. For out of the mouth
proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications,
thefts, false witness, blasphemies." 7
Jesus left these places and undertook a long tour of
propaganda of which it would be impossible to deter
mine the complete itinerary or duration. It is certain

82 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
that He visited Phoenicia in the environs of Tyre, and
from there journeyed by way of Sidon to the district of
Decapolis, on the eastern shore of the lake, retracing
His steps to His paternal Galilee, and finally moving
towards Jerusalem, the centre of implacable hostility.8
While preparing for this long journey He chose
seventy of His followers and despatched them into the
country round, as He had already directed the twelve
Apostles to precede Him two by two in the towns through
which He intended passing. And in these words He in
structs them : " The harvest truly is plenteous, but the
labourers are few. Pray ye therefore the Lord of the
harvest that He send forth labourers into His harvest.
Go your ways. Behold, I send you forth as lambs
among wolves. Carry neither purse nor scrip nor shoes,
and salute no man by the way. And into whatsoever
house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house, and if the
Son of peace be there your peace shall rest upon it; if
not it shall turn to you again. And in the same house
remain eating and drinking such things as they give, for
the labourer is worthy of his hire. And treat the sick
that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of
God is come nigh unto you. But into whatsoever city
you enter and they receive you not, go your ways out
into the streets of the same and say, Even the very dust
of your city which cleaveth on us we do wipe off against
you; notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the king
dom of God is come nigh. I say unto you that it shall be
more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that
city." 9 It appears, however, that this mission was
of brief duration and made no great stir, since only
S. Luke mentions it, and no reference is made to it by
the other Evangelists, nor in the Acts of the Apostles,
nor in the apostolic epistles.10 There is no doubt that
in consequence of the great favour with which the word

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 83
of Jesus had been received, many people followed Him
from Galilee to Judaea and up to Jerusalem.
Here in the temple,11 in the Court of Women 12 under
Solomon's Porch,13 He spoke to new and more difficult
hearers. It appears that on this occasion He remained
in the city from the feast of Tabernacles in mid-October
until the feast of Dedication in the following winter.14
One day during this stay, while in the temple among
the people who crowded round Him from admiration
or curiosity, a woman was brought before Plim.
" Master," said they unto Him, " this woman was even
now taken in adultery. Now Moses in the law com
manded us to stone such a one. But what sayest
Thou?" The question was maliciously put with the object of
compromising so popular a rabbi, since it placed Him in
the dilemma of replying either that the adulteress should
not be stoned, thus running counter to the Mosaic law,
or that she should be stoned, which would be a breach
of Roman law, the latter prohibiting the Jews from pro
nouncing death sentences. Jesus at first made no reply,
perceiving perfectly well the snare set for Him ; then
stooping down, He wrote with His finger on the ground.
When they continued asking Him, He rose up and said,
" He that is without sin amongst you, let him first cast
a stone at her." And as they continued questioning Him,
He again stooped down and wrote on the ground. But
His malicious questioners went out one by one, beginning
with the eldest, Jesus alone remaining with the woman
standing in the midst.
" Woman," said Jesus unto her, " where are they that
accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee? "
" No man, Lord."
" And Jesus said, Neither will I condemn thee. Go,
and sin no more." 15

84 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
Comprehensive and irrefutable words ! He who uttered
them recognised the sin of adultery, and in dismissing
the woman exhorted her not to repeat it. He did not ap
prove the fault, but commuted the penalty. But the
Mosaic law, which in the original conception of the
Decalogue and in the greater part of the injunctions
given in the Pentateuch, not excluding the more reason
able ordinances of a hygienic character, is a document
of remarkable wisdom. It was, however, interpreted in
a narrow spirit based upon casuistic quibbles which com
pletely changed its sense, and in view of such a mode of
interpretation the indulgence of Jesus became an anti-
juridical pronouncement, a real overthrowing of the law.
The judgment of Jesus could not be more humane, nor
more consonant with the subhme idea of forgiveness, for
the weak and yielding victims of strong passion such
as had, through love, led this woman to adultery, or for
the victims of any determinant invincible force, and it
was these whom in the Sermon on the Mount He taught
to pray, " Lead us not into temptation." 16 But the
judgment, though just, was not legal: it afforded
ground enough for the narrow souls who were sticklers
for the impeccable observance of the law to add a fresh
count to the indictment against Jesus.
At Jerusalem, public opinion concerning Him was
divided between those who declared Him to be a good
man and those who said, " No, He seduceth the peo
ple." 17 When He went into the temple to preach, many
wondered, saying, " How doth this man know letters,
having never learned? " 18 Some murmured against the
impunity which He enjoyed. " Lo, this man speaketh in
public and nothing is said to Him." " Can it be that the
rulers indeed know that this is the Christ? But we know
this man whence He is; but when the Christ cometh
no man knoweth whence He is." 19 Others sought to

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 85
throw in His face His proclamation of the truth that
should make all men free. " We are the seed of Abra
ham, and we have never yet been slaves to any man. How
sayest Thou, Ye shall be made free? " 20
Jesus replied to them, " If you be the children of Abra
ham, do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to
kill Me, a man that hath told you the truth which I heard
from God. This did not Abraham." 21 It seems, in
deed, that from that time the enemies of Jesus sought
to kill Him, or at least to apprehend Him,22 and that
twice already stones had been picked up to cast at Him.23
Still, these were popular and not official manifestations.
Evidently the holy city, head and altar of the conserva
tive and religious spirit of the nation, was for the greater
part hostile to Him. It was perhaps in order to avoid
the extreme fury of this enmity, and, moreover, because
His hour was not yet come, nor His mission entirely
finished,24 that He quitted the city which killed its
prophets, and returned to the country beyond the Jordan
in which John the Baptist dwelt during his lifetime.
Here He was soon surrounded by fresh followers ready
to hail Him as the Lord of whom the Baptist had an
nounced the coming.25

Notes
1 S. Matthew x. 5 et seq.
2 S. Matthew x. 16-19, 26-31; S. Mark vi. 7 et seq.; S. Luke
ix. 1 et seq.
3 Cf. Negri, Gesu a Cesarea di Filippo, I.e.
4 S. Matthew xiv. 34-6 ; cf. Negri, I.e.
5 Negri, I.e.
6 S. Matthew xv. 1 ef seq. ; S. Mark vii. 1 et seq. ; cf . Isaiah
xxix. 13.
7 S. Matthew xv. 12 et seq.

86 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
8 S. Matthew xiv. 34, xv. 21, 29, xvi. 13, 21, xvii. 22, 24, xix. 1;
S. Mark vi. 32, 45, 53, 56, vii. 24, 31, ix. 32, x. 1; S. Luke ix. 10
51, 52, 56 ; S. John vii. 1, 2, 6, 9. Cf. Negri, Gesu, a Cesarea di
Filippo, I.e. For the difficult chronology, cf. Labanca, G. C.
nella lett. contemp. Turin, Bocca, 1903, cap. ix. p. 372, V. 1,
cap. ii. n. 13.
9 S. Luke x. 1-12. The encouragement here given to the dis
regard of every scruple concerning food is noteworthy. The
recommendation to avoid greetings must be interpreted with
regard to the custom of salutation then prevailing among Orien
tals, with whom the act of greeting was not restricted to a gesture
or a word, but consisted of various questions and replies, and
other ceremonies which required much time. Hence the recom
mendation of Jesus resolves itself into a counsel in favour of
brevity and despatch. In fact, in the second Book of Kings we
read that Ehsha speaks in this sense to his servant Gehazi,
enjoining him to gird his loins and take his staff without saluting
any man or conversing with any one by the way, and if any should
greet him he is not to make reply (2 Kings iv. 29).
10 Strauss, just because this detail is destitute of any great
importance, believes it ; rather an important confession from
a profound critic, though with a preconceived idea (Vie, torn. i.
ch. v. par. 75). The choice of the seventy might, however, have
some special signification. As the choice of twelve Apostles
indicated, owing to their representing the twelve tribes of Israel,
the mission of Jesus to the Jewish people, so the seventy (or
according to some authorities the seventy-two) were the repre
sentatives of the seventy or seventy-two peoples who, with as
many different languages, were to be found at that time on the
surface of the earth, according to the belief of the Jews and the
first Christians (Clem. Horn. 18, 4 ; Epiphanius, Hares, i. 5).
11 S. John vii. 14-28.
12 S. John viii. 20. The Evangelist uses the word Gazophy-
lacium, which is half Persian (gaza, i.e. riches) and half Greek
((jivXaKYj, i.e. custody), which in its general acceptance indicated
the place where the chests or boxes destined to receive the obla
tions were kept. And the same word is used by S. Mark, who
mentions the poor widow as depositing her mite in one of these

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 87
boxes, thus deserving, according to the memorable words of Jesus,
more than those who had given larger offerings. But the
Gazophylacium was placed in the Court of Women, so called,
not because only women were admitted, but because they could
not penetrate farther into the temple than this court. Other
writers locate the Gazophylacium elsewhere (Lightfoot, In
Horis hcebr. et tahn.). A copious if not clear description of the
temple of Jerusalem is to be found in Josephus (De hello judaico,
lib. v. cap. v. and xiii.).
13 S. John x. 23.
14 S. John vii. 2-10, x. 22 et seq. The feast of Tabernacles
was instituted to commemorate the time during which the people
of Israel hved in tents in desert places under the protection of
the Lord (Leviticus v. 23). The feast of Dedication was cele
brated to consecrate a temple or an altar. The Maccabees, e.g.,
after having purified the contaminated temple of Antiochus
Epiphanus, celebrated its dedication to the service of God (Exo
dus xi. ; Kings viii. ; Maccab. iv.).
15 S. John viii. 1-11. The penal enactment of the Mosaic
law against adultery to which the accusers of the woman refer
is the seventh commandment of the Decalogue, which can be
reconstructed from the Pentateuch (cf. Deuteronomy v. 21 and
Exodus xx. 17), from two passages in Leviticus (xviii. 20 and
xx. 10), and from two passages of Deuteronomy (xxii. 22, 24).
Only in the last-named passage (Deuteronomy xxii. 24) is the
penalty of lapidation clearly indicated, whereas elsewhere the
prohibition against adultery is mixed up with various other
ordinances, some being expressed in the form of recommenda
tions only, such as that forbidding women to be touched quas
patitur menstrua (Leviticus xviii. 19). The passage here cited
concerning lapidation either escapes the notice of Strauss — who
from the non-existence of a specific penalty for adultery argues
in favour of the non-existence of the incident of the woman taken
in adultery mentioned in the Gospel (Vie, torn. i. ch. viii. par. 90)
— or the passage does not appear to him sufficient to indicate
lapidation. This is not my opinion, since if, according to the
passage in question, lapidation is threatened for fornication on
the part of a woman when still only bound by betrothal, it must

88 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
certainly be understood as threatened for fornication on the part
of a married woman. Moreover, the reprobation of adultery
appears in par. 22 of the same chapter (xxii), and in par. 24 lapi
dation is threatened. Nevertheless, the Talmudic canon will
not bear application here which says, " Omne mortis supplicium
in scriptura absolute positum esse strangulationem " (Mishna,
tr. Sanhedr. c. 10; Maimonides, Sanhedr. f. 1), because the rule
in the Mosaic penal law whereby strangulation is understood
to be intended when no other form of capital execution is specified,
is not applicable when such specification is not made, and it is
not wanting in the present case. According to the Talmud the
adulterer was punished, not by lapidation, but strangulation
(Sanhedr. 84 C). That among the accusers of the woman the
old men were the first to steal away ashamed and confounded,
is related by the Evangelist himself (S. John viii. 11).
About the year 1894 there appeared successfully on the Itahan
stage a piece in one act by Deputy Giovanni Bovio entitled Cristo
alia festa di Purim, which treated this argument on the question
of adultery. The zealots cried sacrilege and implored God's
forgiveness for those guilty of it (U?iita Cattolica, June 8-9, 1894;
G. C. sul teatro, Protesta e riparazione, Florence, Ciardi, 1894.
Some critics praised the work to the skies and described it as
"the best drama of our century, since it represents the synthesis
of strength and the power of faith in the ideals of love and jus
tice" (Enrico Piccione, Le rappresentazione sacre e il Cristo del
Bovio, Rome, Perino, 1894, p. 5). An equally great partisan
exaggeration! In reading and in seeing this piece it did not
appear to me to be either a miracle or a blasphemy. After com
mitting the unjustifiable error by which Jesus is made to appear
at the feast of Purim, this short piece consists of a dialogue
between Judas Iscariot and Mary Magdalene and the appearance
of the adulteress on the scene. The dialogue offends every sound
dramatic rule, since it is neither indicated nor justified by any
motive of action, and is moreover overloaded with references to
the words of other persons or to the words of Jesus, who, however,
by a felicitous and delicate sense of fitness on the author's part,
does not appear on the scene. Judas represents a patriot in the
garb of a traitor, which does not seem to be the happiest mode of

THE TRIAL' OF JESUS 89
indicating and representing love and patriotic zeal, particularly
since this Judas is not the one defended by Renan nor the one
invented by Petruccelli, but simply the Judas of tradition who
betrays and sells his Master. In any case he is a pohtical
reactionary who desires that Judaea should shake off the Ro
man yoke, while Jesus is a social revolutionist advocating
fraternity and equality among men. What is revolt in one case
is revolution in the other. This contrast may have suggested
itself to Signor Bovio by his acquaintance with two of his parlia
mentary colleagues, one a republican patriot and the other a
revolutionary socialist, although the comparison applied to two
biblical personages has a somewhat odious effect. The appear
ance of the adulteress is managed with fine scenic effect, but the
impression soon fades away before the unfulfilled exigencies of his
torical truth and dramatic fitness. The scribes ask Jesus what
He thinks of this woman, and after being the butt of some more
or less ribald jeers from members of the crowd, Jesus utters the
solemn words recorded in the Gospel, " He among you who is
without sin," etc. Who can fail to see that these noble and com
prehensive words, preceded by such popular licence, lose their
spontaneity and significance ? Jesus did not defend the adul
teress, because even her accusers were adulterers. Such a defence
would have been too easy and common on the basis of an argu
ment ad hominem, but He wished to admonish His hearers that
no one could make himself an accuser and judge of the faults of
others when, in his own conscience and in the average state of
social feehng and custom, he found the constant although una-
vowable committal of those faults, so that between right feeling
and practice on the one hand, and accusing and judging on the
other, contradiction and hypocrisy arise, and, finally, injustice and
iniquity. It matters not that the practical habit of the fault falls
under the same category of culpable actions ; in this manner the
species is prejudicial to the genus, the concrete to the abstract,
whereas Jesus spoke in general terms in full coherence with His
great thought enunciated on another occasion, "Judge not, that
ye be not judged " (S. Matthew vii. 1) — a thought confirmed by
Him in practice when refusing to settle the question of a dis
puted inheritance (S. Luke xii. 13), and confirmed anew by the

90 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
words which he addressed to the Pharisees : "Ye judge after the
flesh: I judge no man " (S. John viii. 15). So much is this true,
that when left alone with the adulteress, He that had never com
mitted adultery dismissed her saying: "Neither will I condemn
thee." And then in the Gospel text one does not read all those
small details which tend to diminish a great truth, and which after
all deprive it of its natural vis comica : " cum ergo perseverarent
interrogantes eum " is a phrase that indicates insistence and repe
tition of the same demand, and not specification and discussion.
More valuable though less genial among the recent theatrical
representations on the fruitful theme of Jesus are La Samaritaine
of Edmond Rostand and La Tentazione di Gesu of Arturo Graf.
The work of the illustrious author of Cyrano de Bergerac is
developed in three acts round the well of Sichem, and in it figure
the three patriarchs who effectively represent the traditions of the
people of Israel. It is a work treated with a certain mastery of
touch, but not with happy effect. Graf's piece consists simply
of a dialogue between Jesus and Satan maintained throughout
at the height befitting the theme. Various forms of temptation,
love, money, power, are successively represented by appropriate
scenic effects, and then by antithesis to these alluring baits
appears a vision of the cross dimly seen by the first pale hght of
an Eastern dawn on the hill of Golgotha. The whole effect of the
piece is much aided by the appropriate, thoughtful, and beautiful
music composed for it by the Maestro Carlo Cordara. But how
far could I not be led by the fascinating theme of Jesus in art ?
To begin at the end — that is to say, by its musical expression — the
subject-matter is rich and important enough from the study of
the conceptions of Bach, Beethoven, Pergolese, Rossini, and
Perosi, but becomes immense when we go back to sculpture,
painting, and architecture. But an adequate study of Jesus in
art has not yet been written.
16 S. Matthew vi. 13.
17 S. John vii. 12, 43.
18 S. John vii. 14, 15.
19 S. John vii. 26, 27.
20 S. John viii. 32, 33.
21 S. John viii. 39, 40.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 91
22 S. John vii. 25, 30, 32, 44, x. 39.
23 S. John viii. 59, x. 31. This Evangelist places here the first
projects of reprisals against Jesus harboured by the Jews, while
the Synoptics refer them to a somewhat later date. It must,
however, be admitted that there were various currents of pubhc
opinion at the time.
24 S. John vii. 6, 8.
25 S. Matthew xix. 1; S. Mark x. 1; S. John x. 40.

CHAPTER VIII
A Message from Bethany — The House of Lazarus, Martha, and
Mary — The Fame of the Resurrection of Lazarus — The
Elders and Priests of Jerusalem convene the Sanhedrin —
The Statutory Necessity that some one should die for the
People — It is decided that Jesus shall die — Juridical Con
sequences of this Anticipatory Decision — The Fame of other
Miracles as tending to render Jesus amenable to the Pro
visions of the Penal Law — The Capital Charge of working
Miracles on the Sabbath — Other Warnings of Danger — The
Supper at Bethany — Judas Iscariot and his Treachery as
treated by Tradition — Jesus at the Epilogue of His Mission
— His Joyous Entry into Jerusalem — Political and Juridical
Value of the Fact — Last Conflicts in the Temple — The Last
Supper.
It was while in the midst of this tranquil but fruitful
work that a message destined to draw Him from it
reached Jesus at Bethany.1 This was a village situated
on the slope of the Mount of Olives which overlooks the
Jordan and the Dead Sea, an hour and a half's journey
from Jerusalem. Here Jesus knew a family of three
persons, two sisters and a brother, whose friendship was
very dear to Him. Martha, one of the sisters, was active
and housewifely ; the other, named Mary, was of a more
languid and contemplative character, and often sat at
the feet of the Master. Thus occupied, she sometimes
forgot her domestic duties, and Martha reproached her
gently on that account.
Their brother Lazarus was also much loved of Jesus.
There was another member of the family, the master
of the house — a leper named Simon.2
92

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 93
The message came from this family and said that
Lazarus was ill. Jesus hastened to Bethany, and thence
the rumour gradually spread that on arriving Jesus had
found His friend already dead and had raised him to
life.3 This report caused great stir, and while increasing
the supporters of Jesus, embittered His enemies. Some
hastened to relate what had occurred to the Pharisees,
and the latter resolved to lose no more time. On this
occasion they held council with the priests. " What
is happening? " they asked themselves. " This man is
working great marvels, and if we allow Him to go on,
we shall have the Romans taking from us our country
and our nationality." 4 They were not sincere in thus
arguing, as it will be seen how widely the Roman
procurator differed from themselves regarding Jesus,
but they disguised private passion under the pretext
of pubhc welfare. Meanwhile, one of the assembled
councillors, the high priest Caiaphas, observed : " ' Ye
know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for
us, that one man should die for the people, and that the
whole nation perish not.' And this spake he not of him
self : but being high priest that year, he prophesied that
Jesus should die for the nation. Then from that day
forth they took counsel together for to put Him to
death." 5
Here an observation should be made which will serve
to reveal the real origin of the judgment upon Jesus,
which very shortly men will be saying could be pro
nounced by the elders and priests of Jerusalem. But
these men had already decided the fate of Jesus. It
was these same elders, these same priests, who had
already bound conscience and intelligence to a pre
conceived opinion, who were to be the unbiassed and
serene judges of the trial which the Accused of Nazareth
was to undergo before the Sanhedrin. Whatever may

94 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
be the procedure of this tribunal, the judges who shall
state that they pronounced a righteous sentence will
be guilty of falsehood, not only for having judged most
unjustly the charges brought against the accused, but
because they acted upon a resolution already arrived
at between themselves — namely, that Jesus must die.
At this time, and in fact even before the resurrection
of Lazarus, though much more afterwards, the news
spread abroad of other miracles worked by Jesus, who
was reported to have cured those possessed by evil
spirits,6 lepers,7 paralytics,8 the lame,9 the crippled,10
the blind,11 the deaf,12 and the dropsical;13 also that
with a small quantity of food he had fed a multitude
of persons,14 that He had turned water into wine,15 that
He had become transfigured on the Mount,16 had walked
on water,17 and raised the dead to life.18
The question of miracles, their authenticity, their ex
planation, though it cannot be an indifferent one to
theological or rationalistic criticism,19 is altogether so
as regards the matter of these pages, in which every
act of the life of Jesus is noted or omitted according
as it may or may not come within the fixed domain
of contemporary penal justice. Now the miracles at
tributed to Jesus aroused the jealousy of His enemies
by convincing them of His increasing favour with the
people owing to the theurgic attraction which He exer
cised, and in fact the anxious conferences between the
elders and the priests, assembled for the first time in
council, had no other significance, but the miracles them
selves could not and never did of themselves afford
ground for legal indictment.
The significance now attached to miracles by virtue
of the better knowledge supposed to be possessed regard
ing natural laws and their limits was then unknown. In
nearly all antiquity a miracle was only an extraordinary

THE TRIAL' OF JESUS 95
event, recognised as being even outside the domain of
religion, to which it is now restricted. Not only the min
isters of the divinity, but also the magi and the exorcists,
supported by the general confidence, wielded to a certain
extent this prodigious force. In Samaria a magus named
Simon by his conjurations created for himself a position
in which he received almost divine honours. Except
by the great scientific schools of Greece, miracles were
admitted. The illustrious school of Alexandria accepted
them, Plotinus and other Alexandrine philosophers had
the reputation of being able to work them, and even at
Rome there were some men believing themselves in pos
session of the favour of heaven (favor cceli) and the
special grace of the Divinity (inclinatio numinum) who
enjoyed the same repute. Tacitus and Suetonius assure
us that Vespasian was accosted in Alexandria by a blind
man who, asserting that he was acting under the counsel
of the god Serapis, entreated the Emperor to cure him
by moistening his eyes with saliva, which Vespasian is
reported to have done with success.20 The Old and the
New Testament abound in miraculous stories. Through
the agency of Moses the famished people were succoured
by supernatural means. The prophets Eli and Elisha
closed the eyes of some, opened those of others, and raised
the dead to hfe.21 The ideas concerning the influence of
malignant spirits over men, causing melancholy, delir
ium, and epilepsy, grew among the Greeks and Hebrews
through the progressive diffusion of Oriental, and par
ticularly Persian, pneumatology, and of such influence
traces are to be found in Josephus, Lucian, and Philo-
stratus.22 An evil spirit rendered Saul morose and rest
less.23 Vainly did Hippocrates, four and a half cen
turies before Jesus, in his treatise Del male sacro state the
principles of medicine in such cases. The error long per
sisted, and the art of the exorcist, I do not say of the

96 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
thaumaturgist, was as regular a profession as that of the
doctor.24 Hence thaumaturgy was not, even in the coun
try of Jesus, a new phenomenon, contrary to custom and
common opinion, so that it might excite the wonder and
the reprobation of the many, though not the suscep
tibility of penal justice.
It is true that those miracles, claimed as being of direct
divine origin, might constitute some of the signs and
attributes of the Messiah who was expected as a second
Moses and the greatest of the prophets, and among the
prophecies speaking of him who was to come, that of
Isaiah, " Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened,
and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped ; then shall
the lame man leap as an hart and the tongue of the
dumb sing." 25 Of Jesus Himself a sign ( o~rjfji.ei.ov) was
more than once asked — a sign which would have been in
contradiction with His real nature.26 But these signs,
though proper to the Messiah, were not exclusively His,
so true is it that Jesus did not regard them as essential
to His Messianic revelation. To those who besought
miracles of Him He twice happily replied : " When it is
evening, ye say it will be fair weather, for the sky is red.
And in the morning, it will be foul weather to-day, for
the sky is red and lowering. Ye can discern the face of
the sky, but can ye not discern the signs of the times ? A
wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign,
and there shall no sign be given unto it but the sign of
the prophet Jonas.27 For as Jonas was three days and
three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of Man
be three days and three nights in the heart of the
earth." 28 And to confirm that He did not make of
miracles a virtue exclusive to Himself, it is sufficient to
recall the duty which He assigned to His apostles when
sending them on their first mission : " Heal the sick,
cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils." 29

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 97
One would like to know on what grounds the enemies of
Jesus believed they could find Him guilty of a breach
of the Mosaic law? Not in working miracles nor in
doing so on the Sabbath. When the old and poor par
alytic man found no one to put him into the holy pool
at the time the water was troubled, and that whenever he
drew near somebody went down the steps before him,
Jesus told him to take up his bed and walk — it was the
Sabbath day.30 When the beggar, blind from birth, was
surrounded by rabbis and scribes who found nothing
better to do than to dispute whether his affliction was his
own fault or that of his parents, according to the vulgar
belief that every ill was sent by God in punishment for
the sins of the forefathers unto the fourth generation,
Jesus bathed the eyes of the beggar with mud from the
pool — this also was on the Sabbath.31 But the bigoted
sticklers for the law would have demanded that the man
who had sight restored to him should re-close his eyes and
the old paralytic set down his bed again, because they
esteemed it was not lawful even to carry one's bed on the
Sabbath day.
Unsatisfied and exasperated in their ill-repressed rage
against Jesus, they still found some comfort in the hope
of having discovered a capital charge against him. This
man is not of God, because He keepeth not the Sabbath
day. How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles ? 32
Jesus replied with His never-failing refutation of adver
saries : " Ye on the Sabbath day circumcise a man. If a
man on the Sabbath receive circumcision, that the law of
Moses should not be broken, are ye angry at Me because
I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day ?
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge
righteous judgment." 33 " The Sabbath was made for
man, and not man for the Sabbath." 34
Certainly the Mosaic law forbade work on the Sab-

98 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
bath day, a day of rest consecrated to Jehovah, and
punished non-observance of this precept with the capital
punishment of lapidation. But the text of the laws
containing the prohibition and the penalty of labour
on the Sabbath nowhere lends itself to so rigorous an
interpretation as to include among the various manners
of work thus penalised that of touching the eyes of
a bhnd man, or speaking to a paralytic.35 Such an
interpretation would require the application of the law,
in the first place, before all others, to those loquacious
and pedantic scribes who in full Sabbath not only per
formed such surgical work as circumcision, much more
material in character than the therapeutic work of a
miracle, but fatigued themselves by noisy discussions in
public places.
If the law were so rigorously interpreted, it would
have to be applied to the most ordinary affairs of daily
life, which were, on the contrary, generally transacted
without reproach. There were disputations between
the schools of Hillel and Schammai whether it was even
lawful to comfort the sick on the Sabbath day, and the
most pedantic sticklers for trifles among the Pharisees
enjoined absolute inertia and immobility on that day.36
The more spontaneous activity of the life of the devout
descendants of Moses will not be arrested even for an
hour. Jesus in His replies dwelt upon the scruples of the
hypocrites, and asked what it was most fitting to do on
the Sabbath day — good or evil? to preserve or destroy
an existence ? He dealt with the argument in a masterly
way, bringing forward the usual striking example,
" What man shall there be among you that shall have
one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day,
will he not lay hold on it and lift it out? How much
then is a man of more value than a sheep, wherefore it
is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day." 37 And

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 99
again : " Ye hypocrites ! doth not each one of you on the
Sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall and lead
him away to watering? " 38 His adversaries know not
what to reply, blush for themselves, and leave the Master
in the midst of the people who are not scandalised but
convinced.39 The enemies of Jesus, much as they might be inflamed
with wrath and consumed by envy, could not use as
elements in their indictments against Him any argu
ments based on the fact of His working miracles, and
in confirmation of this it may be observed that nothing
was said of any charge regarding miracles in the pro
ceedings either before the Sanhedrin or in the Pretorium.
After the first meeting of the Sanhedrin, Jesus, accom
panied by His disciples, left Jerusalem, whither He was
shortly to return when Plis hour was come. He went
to Ephraim, a little town near the desert separating the
territory of the tribe of Judah from the Jordan.40 As
Easter was drawing near, Jesus could join the caravan
of pilgrims journeying from Galilee to Jerusalem by
way of Samaria, or by the caravan leaving Perea for
Jerusalem by way of Jericho. Jesus chose the latter
route, and when the caravan reached the first slopes of
Sion and prepared to enter the holy city, He withdrew
to Bethany to visit the hospitable home of Martha and
Mary.41 Here a supper was given in His honour at
which Lazarus and the twelve Apostles were present,
Martha ministering to the wants of the company.
And while Jesus reclined at table, Mary appeared, and
approaching Him, anointed His feet with liquid oint
ment of spikenard, afterwards wiping them with her long,
luxuriant, thick hair, so that the chamber was filled with
the grateful perfume. One of the twelve disapproved of
what he regarded as this waste of precious ointment,
" which might have been sold for three hundred pence

100 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
and have been given to the poor." 42 He who reasoned
thus was Judas Iscariot, the treasurer of the apostohc
family. He was a thief, and on this account the lavish
use of the ointment might have displeased him. He
might have preferred to have charge of its value. But
his harsh and unseemly act of opposition to the Master
was really due to another reason. This act was the rev
elation of the betrayal which he contemplated.
The love of opposition and the question of the betrayal
of Jesus have led many minds to make of Judas an al
together different figure from that under which he is
clearly presented in the Gospels. Hence this man, whom
the whole Christian tradition represents as a thief and a
betrayer, appears as a devoted patriot, as if patriots at
all times and in every nation were habitually to be found
among renegades and thieves. This spirit of contradic
tion has been carried so far as even to ignore the miser
able end of Judas, sought by himself, with a rope round
his neck, and to maintain that after the sacrifice of the
betrayed Master, Judas led a retired but pleasant life on
the field of Aceldama — bought with the price of his
treachery — while his former friends conquered the world,
spreading everywhere the story of his treason.43
Gospel tradition is, however, unanimous in attesting
that Judas was the unfaithful disciple who after the
supper at Bethany went to the chief priests and made
the base offer to sell the Master. " What will ye
give me, and I will deliver Him unto you? " They
covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver, the price
of a slave, and from that time Judas sought opportunity
to betray the Master.44 Six days of life now remained
to Jesus.
He is again in Jerusalem at the epilogue of His mis
sion. Crossing the Mount of Olives, on the hollow flank
of which lay Bethany, He entered the city riding on an

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 101
ass. The multitude which had already commenced to
gather around Him at Jericho preceded Him to the gates
of Jerusalem, spreading mantles and tunics on His pas
sage, strewing the way with branches of trees, and cry
ing, " Blessed is He that cometh in the Name of the
Lord ! Hosanna in the Highest ! " A multitude which
swelled as it progressed, like the waters of a river as it
nears its junction with the sea, followed with the same
jubilant cries. Jesus, knowing how disturbed His official
enemies would be on account of His glorious entry into
Jerusalem, reassured them in words of ironical humour:
" Fear not, daughters of Zion. Behold, thy King cometh
sitting on an ass's colt." All the people were moved, and
some asked : " Who is this ? " and the multitude said :
" This is Jesus, the Prophet of Nazareth of Galilee." 45
There are some who see in this event evidence of a politi
cal conspiracy by which the Master of Nazareth, aided
by the people, was to seize upon power. But what power ?
And in connection with what political programme?
Reimarus, quoted by Strauss, endeavours to prove that
Jesus had such designs, but Strauss himself does not give
assent to this false supposition. Arguing on profes
sionally critical hnes, Strauss holds that Jesus, who as
sumed the Messianic mission in His life and always op
posed the prevalent idea of a terrible and warlike
Messiah, referred to the prophetic text of Zechariah as
justifying His appearance before the people as the
clement Prince of Peace.46 But the evident reason that
does away with any suspicion of conspiracy is to be
found in the clear and inviolable finality of the doc
trine and conduct of Jesus, both directed to the con
quest of a kingdom that was not of this world. This
will be his sole defence in the Pretorium, and mean
while His ironical exclamation, alluding to the humble
character of His equipage when entering Jerusalem,

102 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
is the most sincere and just manifestation of His
innocence. It is also true, however, that this triumphal entry
caused great stir throughout the city, which was very
full owing to the nearness of Easter-time, and that irri
tation was at length felt by the aristocracy of the
temple, who were constantly being worked upon by the
Pharisees. A great multitude from the city had met
Jesus,47 and there had been no adverse manifestation.
It was only the Pharisees who were consumed by envy
and ill-will ; they said among themselves : " Perceive ye
how ye prevail nothing? Behold, the world is gone after
Him." 48 And some of the Pharisees from among the
multitude said unto Him : " Master, rebuke thy dis
ciples," and He answered and said unto them, " I tell
you that if these shall hold their peace, the stones will
cry out." 49 On nearing the city and looking upon it,
He wept at the thought of its conservative and fatal
opposition to His mission. " If thou hadst known,"
He said, " even thou, at least in this thy day, the things
which belong unto thy peace ! but now they are hid from
thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that
thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and com
pass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and
shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children
within thee; and shall they not leave in thee one stone
upon another ; because thou knewest not the time of
thy visitation." 50 Meanwhile the people escorting
Jesus dispersed at the gate of Shushan.
The Master went to pass the night at Bethany with
His disciples. A day or two later He returned to Jeru
salem, and there argued hotly with the rabbis and
scribes, these disputes being the last of His open and
irreconcilable conflicts with the temple.51 In the evening
He again went up to Bethany, or rather to ithe western

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 103
valley of the Mount of Olives, where he had many
beloved followers.52 This was the only district in the
environs of Jerusalem which presented a bright and
verdant aspect, and the palms, fig-trees, and olive-
trees which were numerous and fruitful gave name to
the villages or districts of Bethany, Bethphage, and
Gethsemane.53 On Thursday evening He sat at the Last Supper with
His disciples, and here in various ways unconnected with
the scope of these pages He affixed the seal of the new
human spiritual alliance. Towards the end of supper
He revealed to His disciples the bitter vision that was
passing through His soul. " Verily," He exclaimed,
" one of you shall betray me." The disciples were sitting
near Him, and S. John rested his head on the bosom of
Jesus. The traitor was also present. The latter dared
to ask, like the others, " Master, is it I? " More sensi
tive than his companions, S. Peter felt bitter pain under
the suspicion that appeared to weigh upon all, and made
a sign to S. John, who could speak to the Master without
being heard by all, to question Jesus concerning the
grave allusion.
Then S. John, raising himself from the bosom of Jesus,
asked : " Lord, who is it ? " Jesus answered, " He it is
to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it. And
when He had dipped the sop He gave it to Judas Is
cariot, the son of Simon. Then said Jesus unto him,
" That thou doest do quickly." None of those present
understood these words, except perhaps S. Peter and S.
John. Hence most of the disciples believed that the
Master had given to Judas some directions concerning
the feast of the morrow. Meanwhile Judas, having re
ceived the sop, departed.
And it was night.54

104 THE TRIAL OF JESUS

Notes
1 S. John xi. 3. This same Evangelist says that Bethany was
fifteen stadii journey from Jerusalem (xi. 18). It is now called
Lararidh, from Lazarus, and naturally the stranger is shown
the tomb of the friend of Jesus, which is in a sort of high grotto,
access to which is gained by a flight of many steps from the
ground (Ferrario, Descriz. e guida di Gerus. p. 270).
2 S. Luke x. 39-42 ; S. John xi. 3, 5, 36 ; S. Matthew xxvi. 6 ;
S. Mark xiv. 3.
3 S. John xi. 11 el seq.
4 S. John xi. 46-8.
5 S. John xi. 49-53.
6S. Matthew viii. 28-34, xii. 22-30, xv. 21 et seq.; S. Luke iv.
33-7, viii. 26-39, ix. 37-48 ; S. Mark i. 21-7, iii. 16-31, ix. 22-7.
7 S. Matthew viii. 2-4 ; S. Mark i. 40-45 ; S. Luke v. 12-16.
8 S. Mark ii. 1-12 ; S. Luke v. 17-26.
9 S. John v. 2-9. In the Piscina Probatica, alias Lakelet of
Beasts, in Jerusalem.
10 S. Matthew xii. 10-15, xv. 30 ; S. Mark iii. 1-6.
11 S. Matthew ix. 27-31, xx. 29-34 ; S. Mark viii. 22-6 ; S. John
ix. 1-7.
12 S. Mark vii. 31-7.
13 S. Luke xiv. 1-6.
14 S. Matthew xiv. 13-21 ; S. Mark vi. 34 et seq., viii. 1-9 ; S. Luke
ix. 12 et seq. ; S. John vi. 2-13.
15 S. John ii. 1-11, iv. 46.
16 S. Matthew xvii. 1, 8 ; S. Mark ix. 1-8 ; S. Luke ix. 28-36.
17 S. Matthew xiv. 23-33.
18 S. Matthew ix. 23-6 ; S. Mark v. 35-43 ; S. Luke vii. 11-17,
viii. 49-56 ; S. John xi. 17-44.
19 Such indifference is affirmed by Harnack (L' ess. del Crist.
conf. ii.), but is confuted by orthodox criticism, and with ample
reason (cf. Civilta Cattolica, an. liv. vol. ix. p. 540 ; v. s. cap. v.
note 11).
20 Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists : Life of Plotinus, by Por
phyry, etc. ; Tacitus, Hist. 4, 8 ; Suetonius, Vespasianus, 7. Cf.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 105
Strauss, Vie, torn. i. Introd. par. 14 ; ch. ix. pars. 91 and 100 ;
Renan, Vie, ch. xvi. ; Harnack, L' ess. del Crist, conf. ii.
21 Exodus xvi. 11 et seq. ; 1 Kings xvii. 17, 22 ; 2 Kings iv. 17-35.
22 Josephus, Antiq. vi. xi. 12 ; De hello jud. vii. vi. 3 ; Lucian,
Philopseud. 16 ; Philostratus, Life of Apollonius, 4, 20, 25. Aris
totle had already spoken of persons possessed by the devil (De
Mirah. 160). Cf. Creuzer, Symbolik, 3, p. 60 et seq. ; Baur,
Apollonius von Tyana und Christus, p. 144. The lunatici (o-e\n-
via£6/j.€voi) mentioned by S. Matthew are only a species of pos
sessed persons whose more violent accesses coincided perhaps
with certain lunar phases (S. Matthew xvii. 14 et seq.).
23 1 Kings xvi. 14 ; Josephus, Antiq. vi. xiv. 1.
24 Justin, Dial, cum Tryphone, 85 ; Lucian, Epigr. xxiii. ; Renan,
Vie, ch. xvi. ; Strauss, Vie, Introd. par. 14 ; torn. ii. ch. ix. par.
92 et seq. ; Harnack, L' ess. del Crist, conf. ii. Modern science
has made a great step towards solving the problem of the mar
vellous, having now reached the point of examining with more
confidence and less hostility the allegations of facts attested as
miracles, recognizing them as historical data and drawing from
them their proper value on that account, and even the greatest
possible profit. Faith, which believes inimitably in the mir
aculous, finds itself towards science in the position of one who
has jumped by a single leap to the point which he holds, and
leaves others to come up with him by fatiguing journeys and
laborious efforts. For example, when Strauss in his Life of
Jesus, Tubingen edition, 1836, spoke of miracles, he said that
science could explain how " a physical affection in which no
lesion existed in the bodily organs except in the nervous system,
entirely connected with the soul, could be cured by purely spir
itual means and by the sole action of the spoken words the looks
of Jesus and the impression which He created." " But when
the malady was one that had penetrated the bodily organism, a
cure in such a case became inconceivable " (torn. ii. ch. ii. par.
100). But less than half a century later this view ceased to be
held by science. In our day it no longer confines its explanation
to the cases " in which there has been no lesion in the bodily
organs except the nervous system," but on the contrary admits
and explains the cures — spiritual, so to speak, of such profound
lesions and affections as true ulcers and tumours afflicting pa-

106 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
tients of both sexes of hysterical temperament, and generally in
those pathological conditions which prove the great influence
which the mind has over the body. " It is known," says M.
Charcot, " that any violent emotion may nail us to the ground
without the power of moving a muscle, but on the re-establish
ment of the motor impulsion emanating from the brain, we are
able to walk as before." Now the motor impulsion can be pow
erfully re-established by a psychic force, by suggestion. " A
patient," Charcot says further, " hears that in some sanctuary
miraculous cures are obtained, and since in his infirm condition
he does not immediately decide to undertake an unknown jour
ney, he begins to question his acquaintances in order to obtain
information from them. He then hears nothing but comforting
words. The doctor himself admits this, and says, ' We can do
nothing against natural laws,' and does not seek to disillusion
his patient. Now the suggestion begins gradually to develop
itself, incubation prepares it, the pilgrimage augments it — a
final effort, a last prayer, an ablution in the holy well — when at
length that kind of attractive force created by devotional ex
ercises and the predominance attained by the psychical over the
physical state completes its work, and the miracle is an accom
plished fact." The scientific man, submitting to the mortifica
tion caused by his own impotence, can only say to the patient
what Jesus said to the woman whom He healed, " Go, thy faith
hath saved thee." And hence faith-healing has its efficacy in
the power of mind over body. On this subject Dr. Hack Tuke
discoursed largely thirty years ago in his Illustration of the Influ
ence of the Mind over the Body in Health and Disease, Designed to
Elucidate the Action of the Imagination, London, Churchill, 1872.
Charcot observes : " Muscular atrophy most often accompanies
paralysis or hysterical contraction, and that ulceration of the
skin and cutaneous gangrene induced by edema, which in its
turn may be induced by atrophy, are frequent enough in neurosis.
Nevertheless faith-healing is specially indicated in those cases
of paralysis which Russel Reynolds claims to be " dependent on
idea " (Remarks on Paralysis, etc., in British Medical Journal,
November 1869). Hence the conclusion has been reached that
" the therapeutic miracle has its determinism and that the laws
which govern its genesis and evolution are beginning, in more

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 107
than one point, to be adequately known " (Charcot, La foi qui
guerit, 1897). At present a vast amount of scientific research is
devoted to the subject of the occult faculties in their varied and
complex phenomena, such as those of hyperaesthesis (cf. De
Rochas, Les etats profonds de I'hypnose, Paris, Chamuel, 1896), the
transposition of the senses (cf . Lombroso, SuW azione del magnete
e sulla trasposizione dei sensi nell' isterismo in Arch, de psich.
1882 ; Ellero, Caso di ipnosi con fenomeni di trasposizione dei
sensi in Gazz. Med. Prov. Veneta, 1893 — cited by Ottolenghi, in
fra), on the exteriorisation of sensibility (cf. Joire, De I'exteriori-
sation de la sensibilite in Revue de Vhypnot. January 1898),
on the exteriorisation of motility (cf. Rochas, L 'exteriorisation
de la metricite, Paris, 1896 ; Boirac, Experiences sur I'exteriori-
sation de la sensibilite in Ann. de se. psych, n. 3, 1895), on the sub
liminal conscience (cf. Myers on the same subject in Ann. de sc.
psych, n. 4), on psychic force in the spiritist hypothesis (cf. Tam-
burini, Spiritismo e telepatia in Riv. di fren. 1892, p. 434 ; Lom
broso, I fatti spiritici e la loro spiegazione psichiatrica in Vita
Moderna, 1892). And have not the new physical discoveries re
vealed, and do they not promiss to reveal, yet more laws hitherto
shrouded in mystery ? The discovery made by Rontgen in 1895
upon the rays of hght passing through opaque bodies has already
raised doubt whether in the ambient in which we live there may
not be, without need for induction apparatus or Crookes' tubes,
other rays traversing solid bodies which we do not ordinarily see,
but which become visible in certain special physical conditions —
as happens in the phenomena of clairvoyance (cf. Du Prel, Les
rayons de Rontgen et I'occultisme in Revue des Revues, p. 146,
March 1896 ; Ottolenghi, La luce Rontgen e la luciditadelle ister-
iche, in Scuola Positiva, n. 2, 1896 ; contra : Morselh in Archivio
per V antropologia e V etnologia, vol. xxvi. f. ii. 1896). The dis
covery recently made by our Marconi of wireless telegraphy has
suggested the question whether a comparison may not be insti
tuted between a generator and receiver of electricity and two
brains, that of the agent and that of the receiver, in such a way as
to render it possible to demonstrate the existence of a radiation or
projection of psychic-nervous force from the surface of the body
and the projection of nervous undulations to a distance, as hap
pens with the Herz and Marconi electrical undulations, and to

108 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
explain by the same law mental suggestion and analogous occult
phenomena (cf. Ottolenghi, La suggestione e le facolta psichiche
occulte, Turin, Bocca, 1900, Parte I. cap. iii. par. 3). The latest
discovery, that of the N rays (radium), opens the mind to still
greater expectations in the way of the marvellous. And with all
this, in the question of miracles, it is a saint and a poet who, when
all is said, are found to be right. The saint, who was S. Augus
tine, taught that miracles occur, not against nature, but agamst
the knowledge we have of nature (De Gen ad. litt. hb. vi. c. 13 ;
De civ. Dei, 1. xxi. c. 8). The poet — Shakespeare — said that
there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in
our philosophy.
25 xxxv. 5, 6, xiii. 7 ; cf. Bertholdts, Christologie, par. 33, n. 1.
26 S. Matthew xii. 38, xvi. 1; S. John ii. 18, vi. 30.
27 S. Matthew, xvi. 2, 4.
28 S. Matthew xii. 40. In the preceding verses (38 and 39) the
refusal of the request to work miracles — or give a sign — is re
peated. 29 S. Matthew x. 8.
30 S. John v. 5-9.
31 S. John ix. 1-14. For the vulgar opinion regarding the mala
dies looked upon as chastisements, see Exodus xx. 5. Cf . Strauss,
Vie, torn. ii. ch. ix. par. 96.
32 S. John v. 16, 18, vii. 20, ix. 16.
33 S. John vii. 22-4. The commentators of the Bible err in re
calling, with reference to verse 24 of this text, verse 16 of chap. i.
of Deuteronomy (cf. e.g. Martini, Volgata, ibid.). In this passage
judges are admonished to judge according to the excellent rule
of making no difference of persons, and more particularly be
tween citizens and strangers : sive civis sit ille, sive peregrinus.
But the admonition of Jesus is infinitely greater in virility, since
he reproves every judgment founded on externals and appear
ances which do not correspond to a malicious consciousness of ill-
doing, and founded also on that materiality opposed in itself to
the law or to opinion as to what may be lawful, but not animated
by malicious intention. Judgments so founded upon appearances
and materiality not animated by malice are the delight of conven
tional hypocrisy and of the legal hypocrisy which still dishonours
custom and jurisprudence.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 109
It is our modern sages whose judgments are very contrary to the
teachings of Jesus, who condemn the serving-maid found convey
ing arms by her master's orders, and punish her for carrying arms
without a licence, or the humane wayfarer punished in the same
way for relieving a wounded hunter of the fatigue of carrying his
gun, or the analphabetic rag-dealer sentenced to the minimum
penalty of six months' imprisonment for having failed without
being able to show his books duly stamped and officially vised, or
the mountaineer sent to prison for one hundred days at least on
the charge of stealing sticks in the snow-covered wood in order to
warm his family who were perishing with cold, and other con
demnations of a similar kind.
34 S. Mark. ii. 27.
35 Numbers xv. 32-6 ; Exodus xx. 10, 11, xxiii. 12, xxxi. 15-17,
xxxiv. 21 ; Leviticus xix. 30 ; Deuteronomy v. 14, xvi. 8 ; cf . Gen
esis ii. 2. The Sabbath rest was imposed not only for the theo
logical reason of obedience to the Lord (Exodus xx. 11), but as a
national memento of the exodus of the Israehtes from Egypt (Deu
teronomy v. 15). The texts use the expression "observe the Sab
bath day" and "do not work"; one text only says "not do any
work whatever " without other specification (Deuteronomy v. 14).
36 Cf. Paulus, Exeg. handb. i. vi. 83 ; Schabbath, f. 12, in Schbtt-
gen, i. p. 123 ; Strauss, Vie, torn. ii. ch. ix. par. 99.
37 S. Matthew xii. 11, 12.
38 S. Luke xiii. 15.
39 S. Luke xiii. 17.
40 S. John xi. et seq. Cf . Josephus, De hello jud. iv. ix. 9 ; Euse
bius, in Onomasticon ; S. Jerome, in Epist. Paulus.
41 S. Matthew xx. 17, 29 ; S. Mark x. 1, 46, xi. 1 ; S. Luke xviii.
35. Cf. Curci, II N.T. volgarizzato ed esposto in note esag. e mor.
ii. 89, 90.
42 S. Matthew xxvii. 6 et seq.; S. Mark xiv. 3 et seq.; S. John xii.
1 et seq. It is doubtful whether the supper described by S. John
is the same as that mentioned by the two first Evangehsts. S.
Luke is silent respecting it. The divergencies between S. John
and the other Evangehsts are very noteworthy. Cf., for a special
dissertation on this subject, S. Jerome in Matth. cap. xxvi., and
S. Anthony, De Virgin. As regards the personality of Mary, the
hypotheses are various and discordant. Some beheve her to be

110 ,THE TRIAL OF JESUS
Mary Magdalene, some the Penitent Woman, some the sister of
Lazarus. Cf. Didon, Jesus-Christ, Appendix T ; Faillon, Docu-
menti inediti sugli Apostoti di Provenza ; Cahnet, Dissert, delle tre
Marie. It was a token of peace commonly offered by women in
the East, and particularly in Judsea, that of preparing and admin
istering such perfumed ointments to persons of distinction whom
it was wished to honour. " Nardus mea dedit odorem suum "
(Canticles i. and ii.).
43 Renan, Vie, ch. xxvii. A similar transformation in the evan
gelical figure of Judas was made by Petruccelh della Gattina,
Memorie di Giuda; v. speciaUy vol. ii. p. 260 in note. The same
thing was attempted by Bovio, v. supra, cap. vii. note 15. Ter
tullian and Irenaeus had already had to oppose some writers of
their time, who held the conduct of Judas to be meritorious, but
these writers only exaggerated the feeling of faith, believing that
Judas had rendered a great service to humanity by preparing the
Redemption! According to a precise statement handed down by
tradition, Judas ended by hanging himself (Matthew xxvii. 5).
According to another account, " he burst asunder in the midst "
after hanging, " and all his bowels gushed out " (Acts i. 18). Pa-
pia, reconciling these two accounts, states that the traitor first
hanged himself as S. Matthew relates, but the rope breaking, he
lived for some time, and at length swelled so much as to burst in
the middle. Papias, in (Ecumenio enarrat. in Act. Apost. Cf.
Cahnet, Comment in hunc. loc. Matth.; Capacelatro, Errori di Re
nan, cap. xx. at the end. Theophrastus in Matth. xxvii. 5. Ac
cording to S. Matthew the field of a potter was bought by the
priests with the thirty pieces of silver cast down by Judas in the
temple, but S. Luke relates that it was bought by Judas himself
(Acts i. 18).
44 S. Matthew xxvi. 14, 16, xiv. 10, 11; S. Luke xxii. 3-6 ; S.
John xii. 4. V. infra concerning the arrest of Jesus effected with
the aid of Judas.
45 S. Matthew xxi. 1, 11; S. Mark xi. 1-11 ; S. Luke xix. 28-44 ;
S. John xii. 12 et seq.
46 Strauss, Vie, torn. ii. ch. x.
47 S. John xii. 12, 18.
48 S. John xii. 19.
49 S. Luke xix. 39, 40.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 111
50 S. Luke xix. 42-4. According to this Evangelist, Jesus for
the second time drove the profane traffickers from the temple.
The circumstance, unless due to a mere repetition, is unimpor
tant, since from the Evangehsts themselves it appears that the
incident was unattended by any noteworthy consequences. Cf.
S. Matthew xxi. 12, 13 ; S. Mark xi. 15-17 ; S. Luke xix. 45 ; S.
John ii. 14-16 ; v. s. cap. iv.
51 S. Matthew xxi. 12 et seq.; S. Mark xi. 15 et seq.; S. Luke xix.
45 et seq. ; S. John xii. 20 et seq.
52 S. Matthew xxi. 17, 23-45, xxii. 1 et seq., xxxiii. 1 et seq.; S.
Mark xi. 11, 27, et seq.
53 Didon, Jesus-Christ, Paris, 1891, liv. iv. ch. i.
54 S. Matthew xxvi. 6-25 ; S. Mark xiv. 3-21; S. Luke xxii. 1 et
seq.; S. John xiii. 1-28.

CHAPTER IX
The Arrest — Judas guides the Band sent to Apprehend Jesus —
The Kiss of Betrayal — The Beginning of an Attempt at
Armed Resistance — Another Meeting of the Sanhedrin
preceding the Arrest — Juridical Significance of this Meet
ing — The Order and Form of the Arrest — Provocative
Agents — The Use of Spies under the Mosaic Law — The
Roman Authority and Military Force have nothing to do
with the Arrest — Incompetence of the Jewish Authority
to take this Step — Jesus before Annas — Formal Arrest Un
justifiable — Intrigues and Interference of the ex-High Priest
— The Nepotism of the Sacerdotal Family — The High Priest
Joseph Caiaphas.
Jesus rising from supper with the eleven Apostles —
for only eleven now remained to Him- — wended His way
to the Mount of Olives. On this short nocturnal jour
ney, when the moon shed her light upon Jerusalem, the
devourer of prophets, a profound sadness oppressed the
fearful souls of the disciples. Some, like S. Thomas
and S. Philip, had already during the supper asked
questions implying lack of faith; others had rashly
sworn that they would go with Him to imprisonment
and death, but Jesus manifested some doubt concerning
the steadfastness of such professions, and to S. Peter,
who declared Himself to be the firmest of all in the
faith, He foretold that before the cock crew he would
thrice deny his Master. Crossing the dry sandy bed
of the Kedron, the dejected company entered a garden
in which was a crushing-press, and which on this
account was called Gethsemane. Here the soul of the
112

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 113
Master, as He Himself said to S. Peter and the sons
of Zebedee, became exceeding sorrowful unto death.
" Being in an agony He prayed so earnestly that His
sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood falling
down to the ground." And while the olive branches,
symbols of peace, sole condition of love and mildness
among men, rustled and swayed in the night wind under
the immensity of the starry heavens, Jesus tasted the
bitter cup overflowing with the tears and blood of un
redeemed humanity, and resolved to drink it to the
dregs. He was still praying and His disciples were sleeping
when an armed band appeared in the garden with
torches and lanterns. Judas, who guided them, ap
proached the Master and kissed Him, the signal of
identification agreed upon with His enemies.
The first thought of Jesus was to sever His fortunes
from those of His disciples, and although knowing all
that was to befall Him, He asked, "Whom seek ye?"
and they said, " Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus said unto
them, " I am He."
As soon as He had said unto them " I am He " they
went backward and fell to the ground. Then asked He
them again, " Whom seek ye? " and they said, " Jesus
of Nazareth."
Jesus answered, " I have told you that I am He ; if
therefore ye seek Me, let these go their way."
Then the rabble advancing, laid hands upon Him, but
Simon Peter at this, having one of the two swords with
which the Apostles had provided themselves, drew it
and smote the high priest's servant Malchus, cutting
off his right ear. The resistance might have continued,
and victoriously, owing to the affection and confidence
animating the Apostles, but that Jesus hastened to re
strain this first impulse of violence by giving Himself

114 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
up entirely into the hands of those who had come to
arrest Him.
" Be ye come out," He said, " as against a thief with
swords and staves? When I was daily with you in the
temple, ye stretched forth no hand against Me, but this
is your hour and the power of darkness."
To Judas He said, " Judas, betrayest thou the Son of
Man with a kiss ? " He was then bound and taken out
of the garden while His eleven disciples fled.1
This arrest, effected in the night between Thursday
and Friday, the last day of the life of Jesus, on Nisan
14, according to the Hebrew calendar, was the execution
of an illegal and factious resolution of the Sanhedrin.2
After the triumphant entry of the Nazarene into Jeru
salem on the preceding Sunday, Nisan 9, the priests
and elders of Jerusalem, who had many times sought
to convict Jesus of some flagrant violation of the law,
but had not succeeded, or rather had not the courage to
seize Him for fear of the people, whose favour He en
joyed,3 held a meeting on the Wednesday following,
Nisan 12, at which they discussed the means of getting
hold of Jesus. It was finally decided to arrest Him,
even though illegally, and have Him put to death.4
This was the idea, or rather the preconceived idea, of
the resolution which led to the arrest in the Garden of
Gethsemane. There was no idea of apprehending a
citizen in order to try him upon a charge which after
sincere and regular judgment might be found just or
unfounded : the intention was simply to seize a man and
do away with him. The arrest was not a preventive
measure such as might lawfully precede trial and con
demnation: it was an executive act, accomplished in
view of a sentence to be pronounced without legal jus
tification. Hence the impudent mockery of an exam
ination accompanied by violence against the accused,

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 115
the subornation of witnesses bearing false and discord
ant testimony, the flagrant pretext of the capital offence
of blasphemy having been committed by the accused
when defending Himself, the vulgar farce of the exam
ining judge's simulated horror and anger on so-called
proof of the prisoner's guilt being offered, and finally
the application of the death penalty as the result of
proceedings invalid both from a legal and ritualistic
point of view. Futile and miserable acts of Pharisaical
hypocrisy were, in fact, resorted to in the effort to give
a shadow of legality to the ferocious and sanguinary
action of those who acted with premeditated malice.
Nevertheless, all these measures appear to Renan to
have been marked by a great spirit of order and con
servatism ! 5 But what measures does Renan really re
fer to? Was it a justifiable measure of order and police
to set aside the spontaneous and unprejudiced develop
ment of a criminal process? And was it really a fair
proceeding, and not a dishonourable act, to arrest a
man not as one who was to undergo a fair trial, but
as one already condemned in anticipation? Consilium
fecerunt ut Jesum dolo tenerent et occiderent— they held
counsel with the object of devising means to take Jesus
by subtlety and kill Him. S. Luke relates that the
chief priests and scribes had lost no time in sending
out spies to watch Jesus and report all His acts and
words.6 According to Renan 7 these spies also ap
proached the disciples, hoping to obtain from their
weakness or simplicity information of value to their
employers, and in Judas Iscariot they found the man
they sought. Hence they sought and found a Judas,
not in order to be able to effect an arrest that might
have been the legal consequence of a legal charge, but
to collect information and evidence to support the pre
text alleged for the execution of a capital sentence, while

116 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
at the same time they seized the man whom they had
determined to do away with. It must be observed in
this connection that Jesus could easily have been
arrested at any time, when one remembers how open and
frank His conduct was, and known to be so by all His
following. Hence it follows that the fresh and defini
tive resolution of Nisan 12 did not on the one hand
formulate a sufficiently specific charge, in so far as the
necessary data were sought to be obtained by provoca
tive agents ; on the other, it resolved itself into a pre
determined condemnation, or was rather the outcome of
an official conspiracy to suppress the man whom the
priests, scribes, and Pharisees so much hated.
But in no case could the arrest made at Gethsemane
proceed from an order regularly given, for the simple
reason that the Sanhedrin had no power to issue it.
It will be shown that as an effect of the conquest of
Palestine the right of inquiry and of arrest in capital
charges was reserved to the conquering Power (Rome),
and that the Jewish authority could not therefore order
the arrest of Jesus, who was charged with a capital
offence.8 And in fact the Evangelists do not mention
any formal order of arrest emanating from the Sanhe
drin, but only, it is necessary to repeat, the intention of
the priests and scribes to seize Jesus by surprise.
It is the general opinion, as represented in pictorial
art from the earliest times to modern days, that the
band sent from the Jewish temple to arrest Jesus in
cluded some Roman soldiers. But with every respect
for the authority of critics and distinguished artists,
who, moreover, had no means of verifying this historical
detail, I believe the opinion to be erroneous because
founded on an expression in the fourth Evangelist which
disagrees with the text of the Synoptics. S. Matthew
and S. Mark mention " men sent by the high priest,

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 117
and elders of the people " ; 9 S. Luke first speaks of " a
multitude " and then of " the chief priests and captains
of the temple, and the elders who went out against
Jesus." 10 S. John relates that Judas received a band
of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees;
and that this band and the captains and officers- of
the Jews took Jesus and bound Him,11 and from this
passage it is sought to argue that the Jewish authorities
had requested the aid of Roman soldiers.12 But as
regards the mention of a band, this expression, though
it may signify a number of armed men, is not sufficient
to indicate that these men were Roman soldiers, and all
the less so since staves as well as swords are mentioned
as among the weapons carried. Hence die band spoken
of by the fourth Evangelist cannot have belonged to
the Roman garrison. Judas, in fact, got his escort
from the chief priests and Pharisees, and they had no
control over the Roman soldiery. Moreover, the Greek
word cnreipa, which is translated cohort (cohors),
means an armed band and not a special detachment of
the Roman army. As to the officer (xl^"¥*X0S) whom
the Vulgate calls tribune (tribunus), the Greek word
does not always and exclusively mean an officer of that
rank in the Roman army who held an important posi
tion and had a special residence. In its literal sense
the word signifies officer, captain, and most often, but
not necessarily, tribune.13 Now S. John may have used
the word in its broader, although less usual, sense as
referring to the commander of the temple guard accom
panying Judas (who could not take with him a Roman
standard) in the brilliant operation of Gethsemane, and
in that he would be in complete accord with the Evan
gelists themselves, who mention neither tribune nor
cohort. S. Mark, who also does not mention this point,
speaks of cohorts and soldiers only at the time when

118 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
Jesus is scourged in the Pretorium.14 If therefore it is
maintained that S. John cannot have used the Greek word
in a signification different from what was often given
to it, and especially in the New Testament, then the
term which he employed must be regarded as incorrect
or inappropriate. But this inaccuracy or inappropri-
ateness in the fourth Gospel is not always ignored by
orthodox, and is till less denied by heterodox, criticism,
which assigns it, not to the first apostolic age and to S.
John, but to a time and an author indicating a testi
mony less direct and less precise regarding the facts of
the life of Jesus.
Moreover, all the reasons influencing the logical
development of these facts lead to an entirely contrary
conclusion. The tribuni militares or militum were not
corporals or centurions to be found in any company of
Roman soldiers mixed up in any riotous or police busi
ness. Elected first by the consuls and then by the
people in the comitice, they never numbered more than
six for each legion ; and held a high position in the
organisation of the Roman army.15 Now I cannot enter
tain the idea that no less a personage than a military
tribune clad in the splendid armour of his rank in the
Roman army could have found himself in the midst of
a rabble armed mostly with staves creeping through a
garden like police, led by a spy, commanded and urged
forward by four priests, perhaps muttering Adonai
elosnu, Adonai echad, in order to ensure success of the
cowardly device by which they had made a kiss to be
the signal of the betrayal of their victim. This rabble
fell back and stumbled at the first words spoken by
Jesus when they approached Him ; they left on the
ground an ear cut from the head of one of their num
ber, without seizing the aggressor ; and the only spoils
they had to boast of consisted of a linen cloth torn from

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 119
the naked body of a young man who was following
Jesus, whom they endeavoured to stop, but who succeeded
in escaping from them.
A centurion, a Roman military rank not unknown to
the Evangelists, would have been too much to expect
in such surroundings,16 if even as many as a hundred
Roman soldiers were there. And by whom could the
services of this centurion have been applied for, and
who would have commanded him? Did the chief priests
request him from Pilate? This must be presumed by
any one who supposes that the Roman authority inter
vened in the events of the evening of Nisan 14 in order
to preserve public order,17 but the supposition is arbi
trary and absurd. It is arbitrary, because there is not
a word in the New Testament of any Roman interven
tion with such an object, whereas any instance of Roman
interference when really occurring is mentioned with no
lack of detail, from the moment that Jesus was taken
before Pilate to the end; and it is absurd, because if
the Jews had not the power of arrest and inquiry for
capital offences, as has been already stated and proved,
it would have involved a juridical contradiction had
Roman aid been lent to an executive act which would
have ignored and usurped the exercise of their own judi
cial power. That the Jews in capturing Jesus may have
feared a popular rising is likely, and may be true, but
that was a matter that regarded themselves, since in
the case of a rising they would fail in their enterprise,
whereas the Romans, fearing possible disorder, might
see reason to prevent and not aid the capture of Jesus,
which, besides being an illegal, was a dangerous step.
And then the Evangelist who mentions the fears of a
popular tumult relates that the sole effect of these ap
prehensions was to decide the Jews to seize Jesus on a
day that was not a feast day and to arrest Him with

120 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
the aid and intervention of the Romans.18 On the con
trary, if Roman intervention had been solicited, this was
the place where it would have been opportunely, not to
say necessarily, mentioned, whereas to have kept silence
on the point is equivalent to denial.
Nevertheless, it may be held that some Roman soldiers
found themselves at Gethsemane on that Thursday
evening, attracted thither by mere curiosity. S. John
mentions the officer who is supposed to have been
Roman because he and the cohort alleged to have been
his helped the captain and officers of the Jews to bind
Jesus.19 An intervention arising from mere curiosity
would, however, have no juridical value, and would re
solve itself into nothing more than an anecdotic detail
of an idle and imaginative character.
Let us add to all this the feeling of surprise so strongly
manifested in Pilate's demeanour on the appearance of
Jesus before him, and above all his obstinate resistance
to the capital charge and the demand for the death sen
tence that reached him so clamorously from the immo-
lators of the innocent. Had the arrest been authorised,
arranged, and aided by the Governor, the latter could
only have regarded the trial and sentence as two stages
of the matter following the arrest, and unless he opposed
the arrest he could not oppose its natural consequences.
It is necessary, therefore, to bear in mind that the
arrest of Jesus was not due to any order legally given,
since the Jews had no power to issue such an order,
and the Romans, to whom the right belonged, had no
occasion or motive to exercise it.
The supposition that any regular order could have
been given is further excluded by the attitude of the
Jewish authorities towards the disciple of Jesus who
offered armed resistance to the arrest and seriously
wounded and permanently disfigured one of the party

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 121
sent against Jesus. Had Simon Peter resisted a legal
and formal order he would not probably have gone
unpunished.20 Simon Peter timidly followed the Master
(timidly because he feared to be charged with com
plicity), and was recognised by a woman in the hall of
the high priest's palace, and even by a relative of Mal
chus, the servant whom he had wounded, but was not
called by any one to account for the violence and rebel
lion of which he had been guilty.
It must, moreover, be observed that the execution of
a legal order could never have been mixed up with an
ignoble betrayal, agreed upon between the betrayer and
the magistrates from whom emanated the order of an
arrest. When the enemies of Jesus, in order to attain
their end, made use of that contemptible yet dangerous
weapon of the judicial police known as the informer, it
did what is still too much done in our own day. At
present the penal legislator, who may not profess the
utilitarian principles of Hobbes and Bentham as a phil
osophical basis for the right to punish, accepts the con
venience of making use of informers as one accepts
manure for enriching fields, although nobody would ever
soil one's hands with it.21 But the priesthood and the
magistracy of the temple could not use Judas, the faith
less friend and disciple, while at the same time issuing
an order in the name of the law; since their law, dif
fering in that respect from ours, proscribed and con
demned as illegal such an ignoble act as the betrayal
of Jesus proposed by Judas. The chief priests and
elders could certainly not be accomplices in that be
trayal, except as private individuals, though crafty and
pusillanimous enemies of Jesus. The Hebrew legislator
is more often a moralist than a legist, and throughout
the Hebraic law there is constant mention of things that
are not commanded but recommended, so that an im-

122 THE TRIAL OF JESUSi
moral action became also illegal if deprecated or cen
sured by the law.22 Now the action of Judas, judged
by the Mosaic law, was in the highest degree both im
moral and illegal. We read in Leviticus : " Thou shalt
not go up and down as a tale-bearer among thy people,
neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neigh
bour. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart.
Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge against
the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself." 23 Well, it is clear that Judas
hated his brother in his heart, even his Master whose
arrest be obtained and directed; it is clear also that he
stood against the blood of his neighbour by exposing
Jesus to the pain of death; it is clear that all this was
done through hate, since he could not have so acted
through difference of opinion or from horror of opinions
which he had hitherto shared with the other disciples;
finally, there is no doubt that he wreaked on Jesus a
base vengeance and displayed a deep rancour against
Him, whom the law enjoined him to love, even had He
not been, as He was, worthy of infinite love. Hence
the use that was made of the treacherous emissary could
not have been official, nor could the arrest have been
official, closely connected as it was with the betrayal.
Now the Master, betrayed, sold to His enemies, and
abandoned, is bound and led before Annas. The latter
was no longer high priest, but was father-in-law to
Caiaphas, the then holder of that office. Annas, son
of Seth, received the office of high priest from the legate
Quirinus in the year 7 of the Christian era, and was
deposed from it in the year 14 on the accession of
Tiberius. He still retained great influence by virtue
of intrigue, and whether solicited or not, intervened in
all the affairs of the high priesthood. For fifty years
the pontificate had remained in his family, which was

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 123
called the sacerdotal family, as if the high priesthood
had become an hereditary dynasty. Almost all the
great posts in the temple were held by him, and five
of his sons in succession held the pontificate.24
In the year 29 the pontificate was held by his son-
in-law, Joseph Caiaphas, nominated by Valerius Gratus,
since these nominations were always made by the
Roman procurators from the time of the Roman sway
being inaugurated at Jerusalem. Caiaphas entered
upon his office in the year 25, and only quitted it in the
year 36. His intellectual calibre was below mediocrity,
and the power that he wielded only nominal. The real
sacerdotal authority lay in the hands of his father-in-
law, who reserved for himself the direction of important
matters, while assuring the succession to the pontificate
to the members of his family by way of unlimited nepo
tism, a system not unknown in public offices in these days
among ourselves.25 Renan recognises the evils of this
system of succession to the pontificate, notwithstanding
the indulgence which he manifests towards the betrayers
of Jesus — as if the latter had not been declared by
Renan himself to be the best of men. He believes that
the idea of the arrest came from Annas.26 And this is
not unlikely, in view of the singular fact that it was
before himself, and not before his son-in-law, that Jesus
was brought in the first instance.27 This also again
leads us to believe that the arrest was arbitrarily and
not legally ordered, since it would otherwise be both in
explicable and inexcusable that the case of a person
arrested should be taken out of the regular course of
procedure in order to be subjected to the curiosity and
malice of an intruder. Probably this old intriguer ex
plained his unwarrantable interference on this occasion
on the ground that he also was an informer and an
accuser like Judas and the others who, armed with

124 THE TRIAL OF JESUS?
staves, and not with legal right, aided the seizure of
Jesus and His indictment before the supreme Roman
authority in Jerusalem.
The whole action of the Jews regarding the trial and
condemnation of the Nazarene cannot be considered
otherwise than under the juridical aspect of an accusa
tion based upon the reports of informers. Perhaps the
chief priests themselves, the elders, the scribes, Annas
and the others did not pretend to arrest Jesus on their
own authority, but only to get possession of His person
in order to send Him for judgment to the Roman pro
curator. The act of Nisan 14 was not an arrest made
in consequence of a regular information, nor, as our
own penal law expresses it, in consequence of public
clamour. Hence the priests, the elders, and the other
accomplices in the savage and fanatical vendetta could
not believe that Jesus was being legally tried when they
questioned and insulted Him before the Sanhedrin. At
most they could only simulate a sort of preparatory
indictment which they both desired and were compelled
to refer to the Pretorium.
Caiaphas lived under the same roof with his father-in-
law, but it was necessary to cross the courtyard in order
to pass from1 the residence of the one to that of the other.
S. Peter and S. John followed the Master thus far —
at a distance and cautiously. S. John was known at
the sacerdotal palace, although only a poor Galilean
fisherman — perhaps because his father Zebedee supplied
fish from the Jordan to the sacerdotal family 28 — and
was therefore allowed to enter. But S. Peter was
stopped at the door, so that S. John had to turn back
and ask the portress to let S. Peter in. The portress,
who was a young woman, said to Peter : " Art not thou
also one of this man's disciples?" He said: "I am
not," and in order to warm himself drew near a brazier

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 125
that had been ht by the servants and officers, the night
being cold, as often happens in Palestine even in April.
Annas meanwhile began to question Jesus, Caiaphas,
who had appeared shortly before, being present. Jesus
was asked concerning His disciples and His doctrine.
He replied : " I spoke openly to the world. I ever
taught in the synagogues and in the temple, whither all
the Jews come together, and in secret spake I nothing.
Why askest thou Me? Ask them which heard Me what
I have said unto them. Behold, they know what I said."
This reply was the only one that could be expected
by him who desired the death of the accused, and who
perhaps knew that he merited such an answer. It
appeared, however, so irreverent to one of the officers
who stood by, that he struck Jesus with the palm of
his hand, saying, " Answeresb Thou the high priest
so? " — another proceeding also testifying perhaps to
the perfect and legal order observed, according to
Renan, in the procedure against the accused of Naza
reth! Jesus gently said to the man who had struck
Him, " If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil,
but if well, why smitest thou Me ? "
The disciple who had just denied the Master, after
loudly declaring that he was ready to suffer imprison
ment and defy death for Him, now again approached
the brazier to warm himself. Betrayed by his Galilean
accent and pressed by questions, he again denied having
anything whatever to do with Jesus. And he repeated
his denial for the third time when questioned to the same
effect by a relative of Malchus, the high priest's servant
whom he had wounded in the Garden of Gethsemane.
This man had seen him in the garden with the other
disciples. The cock crew, and S. Peter, moved by his
sudden recollection of the Master's words, went out and
wept bitterly. At that moment Jesus, strongly bound,

126 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
passed through the courtyard and was taken from Annas
to Caiaphas, who intended to re-examine Him while the
members of the Sanhedrin were being summoned for
another meeting.29
And while they are being aroused from sleep, we shall
collect the proofs serving to show that the procedure
against Jesus was even more than a great injustice and
evident illegality.

Notes
1 S. Matthew xxvi. 47-56 ; S. Mark xiv. 43-50 ; S. Luke xxii.
47-53 ; S. John xviii. 3-12. Only this Evangehst here mentions
the incident of S. Peter and Malchus (verse 10). He also records
the query of Jesus, " Whom seek ye? " (verse 4 et seq.). The
Synoptic Gospels only mention the mild reproof of the Master
to Judas. One detail being reconcilable without difficulty with
the other, I have accepted them both. S. Mark adds to this
passage that " a certain young man followed with Him (Jesus),
having a linen cloth cast about him over his naked body, and
they lay hold on him; but he left the linen cloth and fled
naked." 2 The Hebrews reckoned their official day from sunset to sun
set of the natural day. Hence the arrest, the trial, the condem
nation and the execution of Jesus all occurred on Nisan 14, which
commenced at sunset of Thursday, April 6, according to the
calculation which follows below. According to our calendar
all the proceedings, therefore, took place between the evening of
Thursday, April 6, of the year 29 after Christ (783 A. U. C),
and the afternoon of Friday, April 7, though according to the
Hebrew reckoning all occurred within the space of a single day
— Nisan 14. For a clearer understanding of the facts and dates
which I shall have to mention farther on, I append the follow
ing synoptic division of the time in the last week of the life of
Jesus: —

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 127
April 2, Sunday  j Up to sunset. Nisan 9.
| After sunset. Nisan 10.
April 3, Monday  j Up to sunset. Nisan 10.
j After sunset. Nisan 11.
April 4, Tuesday  j Up to sunset. Nisan 11.
( After sunset. Nisan 12.
April 5, Wednesday  \ UP toi sunset. Nisan 12.
( After sunset. Nisan 13.
April 6, Thursday  ( Up to sunset. Nisan 13.
( After sunset. Nisan 14.
April 7, Friday  ( Up to sunset. Nisan 14.
( After sunset. Nisan 15.
April 8, Saturday  Up to sunset. Nisan 15.
Jesus entered Jerusalem attended by the acclaiming multitude
on Sunday, April 2 (Nisan 9). The Sanhedrin met to confirm
its project of seizing Jesus on Wednesday, April 5 (Nisan 12),
if the meeting took place in the day-time, or on Nisan 13 if at
night. After sunset on Thursday, April 6, when Nisan 14 had
already commenced, Jesus was arrested. Before sunset on
Friday, April 7 — that is, towards the end of the day Nisan 14 —
the trial, condemnation, and execution of Jesus had been ac
complished. From sunset on Friday, April 7, to sunset on Satur
day, 8, and all Nisan 15, was Easter time.
3 S. Matthew xxi. 45 ; S. Mark xiv. 10, 11; S. Luke xxii. 5, 6.
4 S. Matthew xxvi. 3-5 ; S. Mark xiv. 1, 2 ; cf. S. Luke xxii. 2.
5 Vie, ch. xxiii. Similarly Salvador, Histoire des institutions
de Moise, liv. iv. ch. iii.
6 S. Luke xx. 20.
7 Renan, I.e.
8 Castelh, La legge del popolo ebreo nel suo svolgimento storico,
Florence, Sansoni, 1884, cap. viii.
9 S. Matthew xxvi. 47; S. Mark xiv. 43.
10 S. Luke xxii. 47, 52.
11 S. John, xviii. 3, 12.
12 Strauss, Vie, torn. ii. ch. hi. par. 127. Cf. Liicke and Hase,
quoted in the same sense as Strauss.
13 It is true that in other passages of the New Testament the
words aireipa and x^-^PX05 are equivalent of the cohors and

128 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
tribunus of the Roman army (Acts x. 1, xxi. 31-3, 37, xxii. 24,
26-9, xxiii. 15-19, 22, xxiv. 7, 22, xxv. 23, xxvii. 1), and that the
same use of these two words occurs in Polybius, in Plutarch and
some other authors, but then it does not necessarily follow that
such must be the sense in which they were employed by S. John
in this passage, where logical reason overrides philological con
siderations, more particularly as S. John in his Gospel is gener
ally considered to be deficient in philological and historical clear
ness. Still, philologists may be right, in which case S. John
must be wrong. A. Loisy, although on other grounds, impugns
the statement that a cohort and a tribune were present at the
arrest of Jesus (Le quatrieme evangile, Paris, Picard, 1903).
14 xv. 16.
15 Livy, vii. 5, xhi. 31, xxiii. 14, xliv. 21; Festus, s. v. Ruffuli.
They are called, in fact, Ruffuli and Comitiati.
16 Cf., e.g., S. Matthew viii. 5-13, xxvii. 54 ; S. Mark xv. 39 ;
S. Luke vii. 1-10, xxiii. 47.
17 Cf., e.g., Didon, Jesus-Christ, ch. ix.
18 S. Matthew xxvi. 5 : " But they said not during the feast,
lest a tumult arise among the people."
19 xviii. 12 : " Cohors ergo et tribunus et ministri Judseorum
comprehenderunt Jesum et ligaverunt eum." This work of
manacling the prisoner is indeed too ignoble a part to assign to a
tribunus militum of Rome.
20 There is no article in the Mosaic law corresponding to the
" resistance " or to the " quahfied lesion " of the Italian Penal
Code (Arts. 190, 372, 373, in connection with Art. 365, n. 2),
nor even to the provisions, somewhat less specific, of the Lex
Julia de vi publica (Dig. xlviii. 6) and of the Lex de custodia et
exhibitione reorum (Dig. xlviii. 3). Nevertheless, there is no
lack in the Mosaic law of clear penal provisions — almost all
of the pecuniary order — against wounding, the punishment for
which was assessed according to the physical constitution of
the injured person or the kind of blow, the manner of wounding,
and even the social and pecuniary position of the sufferer — see,
e.g., Exodus xxi. 18-22, 24, 25-7; Leviticus xxiv. 17, 19, 20;
Deuteronomy xix. 21. Cf. Maimonides, Hahobel vehammezik
(Of Lesions and Injuries), ii. 10 ; Josephus, Antiq. iv. 8 ; Ewald,
Altherthiimer, p. 232 ; Castelli, La leg. del. pop. ebr. cap. v. On

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 129
this question of the illegality of the arrest, cf . Dupin the Elder,
Refutation du chapitre de M. Salvador intitule Jugement et con-
damnation de Jesus, par. iii. in the Gazette des Tribunaux, 9 die.
1828. The chapter of Salvador thus refuted is the third of
book iv. of the work Histoire des institutions de Moise et du peuple
hebreu. The rule laid down in the Talmud, that the assailant
should remain in prison until it was proved that the wound
which he had inflicted would not cause death, was therefore the
same as in our own law. Cf. Nechilta, Nezikim, par. 6 ; San
hedrin, 78.
21 Carrara, Lineamenti di practica legislativa, 2nd ed. p. 373.
22 Reuss, Die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften d. A. T. par.
292, quoted by Castelh, La leg. del. pop. ebr. cap. viii.
23 Leviticus xix. 16-18.
24 Josephus, Antiq. xxiii. 3-6, xx. 8-10. In this passage the
names of the high priests from the reign of Herod to the destruc
tion of Jerusalem are given as follows: — 1. Ananelus ; 2, Aristo-
bulus ; 3, Jesus son of Phabes ; 4, Simon son of Boethus ; 5, Mat
thias son of Theophilus ; 6, Joazarus son of Boethus ; 7, Eleazar son
of Boethus ; 8, Jesus son of Sia ; 9 Ananus son of Seth ; 10, Ismael
son of Phabes; 11, Eleazar son of Ananias; 12, Simon son of
Camitus; 13, Joseph Caiaphas son-in-law of Ananias; 14, Jon
athan son of Ananias ; 15, Theophilus son of Ananias ; 16, Simon
son of Boethus ; 17, Matthias son of Ananias ; 18, Elionoeus son
of Canthera ; 19, Josephus son of Camitus ; 20, Ananias son of
Nebedeus ; 21, Jonathan ; 22, Ismael son of Phabes ; 23, Josephus
Cabi son of Simon ; 24, Ananias son of Ananias ; 25, Jesus son of
Danneus ; 26, Jesus son of Gamaliel ; 27, Matthias son of The
ophilus ; 28, Phannias son of Samuel. There were therefore
twenty-eight high priests during a period of 160 years. " Some
of them," says Josephus, " under the reign of Herod and of his
son Archilaeus had a share in the government. After their death,
the government became aristocratic, and the leadership of the
nation remained with the high priests " (I.e. z). The govern
ment of Archilaeus was called aristocratic at the time of the war
solely because the descendants of Herod, except the two last
Agrippas, were not kings but tetrarchs, and the whole nation,
divided into several tetrarchates, had no common head but the
high priest.

130 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
25 Josephus, Antiq. xviii. iii. 2, vi. 1. A Hebrew writer, author
of a pamphlet upon the judicial execution of Jesus, argues that
this act was due to the Romans and not to the Jews, and tries to
maintain that the name of the high priest Caiaphas, who is only
mentioned by S. Matthew and S. John (and certainly he is not
mentioned by the other two Evangelists) is nov recorded in his
tory. He is, however, compelled to admit that Josephus clearly
states that the high priest Joseph, who held the sacerdotal dignity
from the procurator Gratus and was dismissed by Vitelhus after
the fall of Pilate, bore the surname of Caiaphas. Dr. L. Philipp-
son, Proc. condan. e supplizio di Gesii, Loescher,1881, p. 55 et seq. ;
contra, M. Rosati, SulV opusc. di L. D. Philippson tradotto dal te-
desco da M. Ehrenreich. Esame, Rome, Puccinelli, 1881.
26 Vie, ch. xxiv.
27 S.John xviii. 13.
28 Cf. Curci, II N. T., etc., in S. John i. 35 and xviii. 10, 16. It
was particularly in the southern reaches of the Jordan that fish
were most plentiful, since they generally went down-stream toward
the warmer water of the south. Among the Hebrews women were
generally employed as doorkeepers of houses. Cf . 2 Kings iv. 6 ;
Acts xii. 13 ; Josephus, Antiq. vii. ii. 1.
29 S. Matthew xxvi. 57-75 ; S. Mark xiv. 53-72 ; S. Luke xxii.
54-62 ; S. John xviii. 12-27.

CHAPTER X
The Political Constitution of Syria in Regard to Roman Law —
The Conquest of Syria by Pompey — The Reign of Herod the
Great, and the Territorial Division made Between Archelaus,
Phihp, and Herod Antipater — The Principahty of Archelaus
withdrawn from the Latter and transferred to the Governor
before the Trial of Jesus — Consequences of the Roman Con
quest in Financial and Police Matters, and in the Department
of Justice — Colonies, Municipahties, and Provinces — The
Office of Governor, and of the Procurators officiating as Vice-
Governors — The Jurisdiction of Vice-Governors in Cases
involving Capital Punishment — The General Opinion re
garding the Jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin refuted — Why the
Judgment of the Sanhedrin was an Abuse of Power — The
Action of Justice in Inverse Ratio to the progress of Humanity
— Why Judges Untrammelled by the Spirit and Interests of
Conservatism would not have condemned Jesus — Class Jus
tice and Pohtical Offences — The Sanhedrin usurped Roman
Jurisdiction in Order to defend Class Interests and Behefs —
Why the Vice-Governor, left Free in his Jurisdiction, should
have collected the Proofs, and conducted the Whole Trial
himself — The Arrest of the Person charged was also a Matter
within his Jurisdiction.
The country in which these events occurred was no
longer anything but a province subject to Rome. It
had been reduced to that condition by Pompey, who,
after despoiling the last king of the Seleucid dynasty,
took possession of the whole of Syria.1 The pohtical
dissensions and national differences existing in this coun
try rendered it unsuitable for a sole and uniform organ
isation, and so its conqueror divided it into two parts,
131

132 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
one consisting of free citizen districts, the other of small
principalities. A quarter of a century later, Judaea,
which formed part of Southern Syria, again became a
kingdom bestowed by Anthony and Octavian upon Herod
the Idumasan, called the Great solely from the fact of
his long tenure of the throne, which only ended with his
death after a reign of forty-four years.2
On the death of Herod, his kingdom was divided among
his three sons — Archelaus, Philip, and Herod Antipater.
But these provincial dynasties in conquered provinces
were regarded by the Romans as dependent in respect of
tributary administration — so much so, in fact, that they
were even called procuratorships.3 The northern and
poorest district was assigned to Philip, who held it until
his death in the year 34.4 Gahlee and Perea went to
Herod Antipater, who reigned there as tetrarch until
the year 39, when he was relegated by Caligula to Lug-
dunum. The principal district — that is to say, Judaea,
Samaria, and Idumasa — was assigned to Archelaus, who
reigned there until the year 6, when he was deposed by
Augustus, and transferred to Gaul.5
In that year the principality of Archelaus was taken
possession of by Publius Sulpicius Quirinus, who had
succeeded Quintilius Varus in the governorship of Syria,
and was taxed by him as forming part of the Roman
province. This is the celebrated assessment of Quirinus
which is made to coincide with the birth of Jesus. From
that time forward, monarchy was abolished in that
region, part of the country being placed under the im
mediate administration of Rome, while the internal gov
ernment of the remainder, so far as compatible with
Roman sway, was left to the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem.
The Roman administration was entrusted to a procura
tor cum jure gladii, who was subordinate to the Lieu
tenant-Governor of Syria, and this form of adminis-

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 133
tration lasted from the year 6 to the year 41 after Jesus,
during which period seven Roman officials succeeded each
other in the office.6 Hence in the year 29, in which the
trial of Jesus took place and the events occurred which
gave rise to it, Jerusalem, the principal city of Judaea,
belonged to a province of Rome dependent upon the
Lieutenant-Governor of Syria, that post being then
held by Flaccus Pomponius,7 one of the companions in
vice of Tiberius ; the actual government being exercised
in the name of Pomponius by a procurator named Pon
tius Pilate.
It is necessary to insist on this historic date, since it
forms the basis of every research and argument concern
ing the execution on the hill of Golgotha. The vulgar
do not understand this insistence, and it is thus we find
that, in every-day life, to describe any detail not re
garded as pertinent to the main question they have a
proverbial saying, " It comes in like Pilate in the
Creed." The Christian Church insists, it is true, upon
the detail that has given rise to this proverb, in deter
mining a principal article of faith — which is the pas
sion and death of Jesus occurring under Pontius Pilate
— but does not exactly take into account all the premises
and all the consequences connected with the historical
truth concerning the office of Pilate. For the last nine
teen centuries orthodox and heterodox critics have been
repeating that Jesus was tried and condemned with more
or less injustice by Hebrew judges according to the
Mosaic law, and that Pilate, with more or less coward
ice, gave effect to that sentence — as if, considering his
official position, he could, or ought, to have done other
wise than approve or disapprove it. But here appears
the old error which has induced even the most ardent
Catholics to believe that the capital sentence pronounced
against Jesus was unjust, but not illegal. A clear idea

134 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
of the juridical constitution of the Roman province,and
of its consequence in practical working will suffice to
explain the truth in this matter, which differs altogether
from the opinion commonly held. The civil institutions
of Rome are all framed in view of the exigencies of war.
The language itself reflects this fundamental element of
their structure : hostis is at the same time the enemy and
the foreigner, to whom no rights of any kind are ac
corded; imperium, which is a word expressing power in
its highest and completest form, is simply a military
expression; equites are citizens of a distinct order hav
ing their origin in a warlike function — i.e. in the
mounted military service ; stipendium is the perpetual
war tax paid to Rome by the province as pay due to
the victorious army ; quiritarium is called the do
minion from quiri, which also signifies asta. The very
principles of private right, although elaborated by the
great juridical Power that has made Rome the Mother
of Law, do not conceal the spirit of conquest and the
underlying idea of belligerent force. Occupation is the
best title to the acquisition of dominion; tradition is
the juridical means necessary for its transmission. Pro
prietorship conquered by arms cannot therefore be other
than full and legitimate, and the right of conquest must
produce the greatest and most indisputable results of
force converted into right.8 And so it is. The public
finances of Rome were all furnished by the proceeds of
war. To establish and increase them Rome during seven
centuries followed no other policy than that of making
war upon the world, and where she could not herself
exercise rights of conquest owing to the limited expan
sion of her own population, she did not, for that reason,
fail to render the conquered countries tributaries, and
reserved to herself the supreme direction of order and
law. Colonies, municipalities, and provinces are the in-

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 135
stitutions natural to her conquering genius. Her colo
nies did not arise, like those of the Greeks, from an
overflow of indigenous population, or from intestine
struggles compelling emigration: they were means to
conquer new lands and expropriate them. Rome left to
the populations of these lands the internal government,
the policing of the towns, and judicial power, but only
in minor cases, retaining for herself the power to make
laws and to apply them in cases of life and death. The
municipalities were cities enjoying Roman citizenship,
but otherwise they did not differ from the colonies, and
sometimes successfully sought to be placed on the same
footing as the latter.
The countries conquered outside Italy were governed
by a system of procurators.9 The province was a farm
of the Roman people, and provincial soil was regarded
as the property of Rome. The tribute paid to the
Roman State by dynasties or citizens as in Syria were
regarded as land revenues (vectigalia) due to the pro
prietor. Hence the governing idea of the provincial in
stitution was primarily financial in its object, and it
mattered little that all the provinces were not governed
in the same manner or subject to the same burdens. The
Romans, those positivists of antiquity, rejected in their
administrative system every idea of concentration or of
blind and symmetrical uniformity, and adapted their
regulations to the various conditions of civilisation, and
to the traditions, wealth, and even docility of the con
quered peoples. Sicily and Sardinia, accustomed to the
extortions of Carthage, were treated very badly, and
Judaea, with its troubled history, worse still, — so much
so that it had to pay a larger tribute than the other
Syrian subjects of Rome. These exactions were not,
however, made with unity of system, being in some places
collected by publicans and in others by the Roman agents

136 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
themselves.10 But the system of regarding the prov
inces chiefly from a revenue-producing point of view,
although involving on the part of the Roman State in
difference to their internal government, to the policing
of the towns, to the rights and duties of religion, and
even to judicial power in minor matters in the provinces,
in no way implied abdication or delegation of the su
preme exercise of public law, the first and most jeal
ously guarded function of which is the administration
of justice. It would have been acting senselessly from
a political and juridical point of view to conquer a peo
ple and relentlessly subject it to a war tax while at the
same time leaving it master of the most powerful means
of effecting a national redemption. Such contradictions
did not enter into the policy or legislation of the Romans,
who from the time of the Twelve Tables claimed the
exercise of perpetual authority as against the enemy and
the foreigner. " In hostem aeterna ' auctoritas este."
The right of life and death is the principal attribute of
their sovereignty and was never relinquished, in order
not to lessen their power; the rest they might neglect,
owing to the tendency of assured dominion to produce
easy tolerance. " Apud Romanos jus valet gladii,
caetera transmittuntur." u It is clear, then, that in
view of such general principles, it is not likely that a
Roman province like Syria, at the time of which we write,
should have the power to try capital offences and pro
nounce sentence of death, even if leaving the execution
of the sentence subject to the assent of the represen
tative of Rome.
It is neither probable nor true.
Were it otherwise, and had Rome only reserved to her
self fiscal power and the enjoyment of the war tax, but
as regards all the rest, and even in the highest functions
of justice, had only claimed a simple right of exequatur,

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 137
she would only have placed in the provinces mere rev
enue officials and procurators attached to the Imperial
treasury administration. Such officials were sent, it is
true, but Rome at the same time appointed to every
province a governor invested with ample powers and
charged with important duties, which could be exercised
by the procurators in virtue of explicit delegation (as
will be seen happened to Pilate) in the small provincial
districts where no governor resided.
Fuller knowledge of the power and function conferred
upon the governors, and procurators who acted in their
stead, is sufficient to show that the exercise of supreme
judicial power not only in its final executive phase, but
also in its fundamental and most important jurisdiction,
was reserved to those magistrates.
When Augustus divided with the people the provinces
of the Empire, the Senate nominated as governor of the
provinces assigned to the people its own representative,
who was the proconsul, and the Prince appointed to gov
ern his provinces citizens of the equestrian order, who
became governors, lieutenants, and legates. Hence the
distinction between consular provinces and presidial
provinces, but the title of president was common to every
governor, while that of proconsul was exclusive. In any
case the authority and the office of the legate of Caesar
and of the proconsul of the Senate were nearly equal.
The difference may perhaps have consisted, more than in
anything else, in certain ceremonious honours, such as
the fasces which were borne before proconsuls as part
of their insignia of office, and were at first twelve and
at a later period six in number, whereas the governors
never had more than five fasces. The former were
saluted as spectabiles, the latter only as carissimi.12 The
governor of the province, whether president or procon
sul, exercised his authority not over the provincials alone,

138 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
but also over foreigners guilty of any violence, his duty
being to purge the province of every evil without regard
to whence it came.13 He had the jus gladii, or the
right of capital punishment,14 and, says the Justinian
text, tried all the cases that in Rome fell under the ju
risdiction of the prefect of the city, the prefect of the
Pretorium, the consul, the praetors, and all the other
magistrates.15 Now it is certain that when Augustus
suppressed the ordinary jurisdiction — which embodied
the earliest and best results of popular judgment — and
replaced it by the imperial jurisdiction, the prefects of
the city and of the Pretorium, the consuls and the prae
tors, had jurisdiction in capital offences and matters of
lesser gravity which the other magistrates did not take
upon themselves to decide.16 It is clear, therefore, that
the president of the province possessed the exclusive and
inalienable power of trying capital offences.
In the year 19 Flaccus Pomponius, whose predecessor
was Lucius Vitellius, father of the future Emperor Aulus
Vitellius, was President of Syria. Pilate was only a
procurator or financial comptroller of the imperial ad
ministration in Judaea. It constantly occurred that a
procurator was sent with the president to the imperial
provinces, as the properties belonging to the prince were
very numerous and extensive. Hence when a procurator
accompanied the president, the former attended only to
the interests of the emperor, and this is shown by the
fact that he was sometimes called procurator of the pat
rimony (procurator patrimonii) or steward (magister)
or comptroller (rationalis) . But in the smaller provin
cial districts such as Judaea, only a procurator was sent
who was under the control of the president or governor,
residing elsewhere. The procurator acted as substitute
of the governor in all matters, including judicial cases,
with the rank and title of vice-president. The Justinian

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 139
text contains many references from which it is known
that the procurator could not exercise judicial functions,
and consequently was unable to pronounce capital sen
tences, unless holding the recognised rank of vice-presi
dent.17 The ancient commentators of the text agree in
firmly laying down this incontestable truth, and Cuiacius,
the most authoritative among them, happens to refer in
his commentary to the case of Pontius Pilate. " On the
procurator of Caesar," says the learned jurisconsult of
the sixteenth century, " is conferred jurisdiction in
pecuniary fiscal cases, but not in criminal cases, unless
when acting as vice-president — like Pontius Pilate, who
was Procurator of Caesar and Vice-President of Syria." 18
Thus the sole authority in Judea that could try Jesus,
arrest and examine Him, and render Him amenable to
the consequences of His alleged offence and of a con
demnation, was that of the Procurator and Vice-Presi
dent, Pontius Pilate, but certainly not Annas nor Caia
phas, nor the whole Sanhedrin nor any other Jewish
authority. The common opinion to the contrary —
which reduces the Roman authority, represented by the
Vice-President, to the mere granting or refusing assent
to the execution of capital sentences pronounced by Jew
ish judges — is opposed to historic truth and the pro
visions of the law.
Renan, without attempting to prove his assertions, says :
" The action which the chief priests had resolved to take
against Jesus was fully consonant with the existing law :
the procedure against the seducer (mesith) who sought
to tarnish the purity of religion is explained in the
Talmud with details of such an ingeniously impudent
character as to provoke a smile. The Roman law did
not apply to the Hebrews, who remained under the canon
law as recorded in the Talmud." 19
Salvador says : " The Jews retained the faculty of try-

140 THE TRIAL *OF JESUS
ing cases according to their own law, but it was only the
Roman procurator that had executive power. No cul
prit could be executed without his assent, in order that
the Senate might not have the means of striking at the
men who had sold themselves to the foreigner." 20
But on what rests the truth and reason of this conten
tion? Salvador does not say; and Renan, in stating it,
reveals his error, since the Talmud, which he quotes,
besides being a confused and uncertain authority regard
ing the traditional Mosaic law, refers to the hypothesis
of its free and full application, and not to the period
and limitations of the Roman conquest and domination.
On the contrary, the texts that have been appealed to in
justification of the opposite theory are clear, unequivocal,
irrefutable, and moreover agreeing with the constant
logic of the law. Is it admissible in fact that there
should be a division of one and the same judicial func
tion between the power of jurisdiction alleged to have
been retained by the Jews and the power of execution
that was only exercised by the Romans? There could
be no juridical reason for such a separation. The judi
cial power is a close union of justice and force in such
a manner that the one cannot be disjoined from the
other. In the political order there may be force with
out justice, but in the juridical order there cannot be
justice without force, and in this order knowledge is the
sole title to and reason of power.21 Such justice would
be a will without authority, a soul without a body. The
principles of Roman law, which were certainly not re
nounced when Pompey conquered Syria, determined the
nature and connection of these two inseparable terms,
force and justice, knowledge and power, jurisdiction and
dominion.22 In Rome the severance of jurisdiction from power was
only met with in some treason trials in which the kings,

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 141
like the consuls, nominated two extraordinary judges
(duumviri perduellionis) invested with jurisdiction and
not with power, and these trials, as has been ascertained
from a careful study of history and legend, were three
in number: that of Horatius in the Roman year 81,
that of Manlius Capitolinus in 170, and of Rabirius
Posthumus in 691.23 But in those cases the severance
happened in the judicial function of one State and not
between a dominant and a subject State.
If, therefore, the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem claimed to
exercise against Jesus legal criminal procedure involving
capital punishment, it usurped the jurisdiction wholly
reserved to the Roman president and committed an
abuse of power.24 Hence any judgment it might pro
nounce was unconstitutional, and could only be consid
ered as null and void. It was, in fact, an arbitrary and
violent act. Here some critic may exclaim, " But all
this is nothing but a mass of legal rigmarole. What
does it matter whether any abuse of power was com
mitted or not, if it were the most efficacious cause in
consummating the work of Jesus — a work so profitable
to the destinies of humanity? Moreover, was not the
real judge of the innocent Man, after all, the interpreter
of the Roman law and authority, who washed his hands
of the blood of Jesus when he might have protected
Him by disapproving the unjust condemnation pro
nounced by His enemies ? "
But this argument shows a fatalism before which
neither history nor right — and they are not merely the
creations of pedantic lawyers — would have any raison
d'etre. On the contrary, right would be on the side of
those fanatics, contemporaries of Tertullian and Irenaeus,
who offered praise and thanks to Judas, since by his
betrayal he had facilitated the sacrifice of the Master.
But whoever investigates the circumstances and considers

142 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
how deeply the arbitrary judgment of Jerusalem af
fected the destinies of humanity, cannot avoid medi
tating upon the singular fact that in human destiny
justice should at all periods, and among all people claim
ing to be civihsed, act the shameless and sinister part
of opposing every movement towards a higher and more
fruitful social regeneration and placing in the hands
of unlearned men and conservatives, weapons, which they
will use to their own advantage for defending the habits,
prejudices, and interests of their class.
The dishonour of Golgotha is the dishonour of justice.
And it has been a wise measure to remove the crucifix
from almost all the halls of justice among Christian
nations, since this sign frequently discredits the work
of the judges. The Pharisees who willed the great in
justice of the Cross were only blinded by respect for
tradition, made powerful by the sole art of hypocrisy.
The Sadducees who took precedence in sacerdotal vest
ments among the illegal judges were conservatives in
terested in the prestige and fortune of the temple, which
was made the central point of the wishes, sacrifices, and
expiring forces of a decaying nation. The scribes who
took part in the iniquitous work were only pedantic up
holders of the intangible law in favour of the cause
called national, but which was in reality nothing but the
cause of the leading men in the city, who confounded the
interest of the nation with that of religion, and both with
their own political and social interests. The justice de
livered by such judges could only be sectarian because
Pharisean, fanatical because sacerdotal, partisan because
conservative. Other judges not dominated by the same sentiments
and the same interests would have dealt differently
with the inoffensive and harmless bearer of the good
tidings, since the latter, though not corresponding to

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 143
their expectations, would not have been so much
opposed to their desires and objects. The Essenes,
the Therapeutae, the very Herodians, Pilate himself, if
left free to himself and free to exercise all his legiti
mate power, would not have condemned the innocent
Man. Pilate declared openly to the people, before de
grading his own conscience, his own spontaneous con
viction that he found no fault in Jesus. Even Herod
Antipater, called upon to exercise a supposed jurisdic
tion against the Galilean subject, refused to do so, and
proclaimed His innocence. But the useful and con
venient instrument of judgment is ever limited by direct
or indirect control, by normal or usurped jurisdiction in
the hands of pohtical power, which is animated in its
defence by a factious spirit of opposition to any reform
which it regards as a synonym for crime.
If the arbitrary spirit and the injustice to which
was immolated the inviolable innovator of Galilee
benefited the destinies of humanity, it must mean that
even in the year 29 and in the holy city the judicial
function and human perfection, as in every period and
with every people, progressed inversely among them,
seeing that the more beneficial the work of the founder
of truth among men was to the destiny of mankind, the
greater was the iniquity with which He was treated.
And humanity and justice will always move in this
inverse sense so long as the latter remains to the former
the clouded mirror of the lean and harsh figures of
the powers and interests of the State or of classes, of
majorities or factions, of school or cloister, of palace or
market-place, and so long also as the ministers of this
goddess of obscure and uncertain mythology shall
not be raised by force of law and the virtue of custom
above party motives as above the spirit of conservatism
and so long as they have the inveterate consciousness of

144 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
rendering a meritorious service to the country in provid
ing for its defence by the sanction of law, in such fashion
that judicial manifestations may always continue to rep
resent the last stage of sedentary repose and never the
synchronous movement of the freest and most unre
strained form of human aspiration.
I am not unaware that the justification put forward
for punishment is social defence — that is to say, that
the guardianship of the prevailing customs and opinions
of society relative to the absolute and non-absolute
discriminates between the permissible and the non-
permissible, the just and the unjust, the useful and
the harmful. But every society is changeable — there
must be ebb and flow. A fatal law, perhaps the same
which inexorably cries " Death " to man, says more
benignantly or deceptively to society, " Renew yourself
or perish." And, nevertheless, it should be the aim of
social defence, applied to facts of a pohtical character,
not to confine itself to the contingent and transitory
sphere of present customs and opinions, but to raise
itself to a higher sphere, more ideal, more constant,
capable of comprehending and legitimising vaster and
more remote opinions, and, therefore, even the aspira
tions of one man alone, in opposition to the aspirations
of a whole class, which may also represent the will and
the strength of a whole nation.
The defence of a society more advanced than the
Jewish cannot and should not rest upon the sole fact
of a majority in such a way that one must count the
number of rebels against a political and social order in
order to decide if they are guilty, and should be
punished.25 This is not justice, it is arithmetic; it is
not ars boni et aqui, but a bad way of governing. A
government is just if it follows the will of a majority,
it is liberal if it respects all the tendencies of minorities,

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 145
but justice is unequal to its ideal task if from the height
of a penetration absolute and not relative it does not rec
ognise and tolerate the revelation of even a single ten
dency, of even a single individual will, be it of the most
ardent character, be it, or appear it to be, visionary, such
as the great revealing work of Jesus might have ap
peared to His judges. Social defence may rigorously
conform to prevalent customs and opinions in judging
and regulating facts other than of the political order,
since such a state of opinion is rooted in the reasons,
often intuitive, and sometimes absolute, by which the
permissible is distinguished from the non-permissible;
and it is less subject to change. But the same rigorous
criterion of actuality cannot be applied in dealing with
political facts, the nature of which, by a necessary law
of evolution and progress, must inevitably be subject to
change. It is only a society unconscious or incapable of
evolution and progress that could provide for its defence
by otherwise understanding and administering justice,
and preparing by its judicial errors the glory and
triumph of its victims. No wound in battle, no sign
of martyrdom, no suffering from persecution, will ever
add so much to the nobleness and fame of the heroes
for whom history claims universal gratitude and imita
tion as the sacrifice made to justice, even when mani
fested by the application of existing laws to the heroes
sacrificed. The beautiful, immortal, beneficent faith, ac
customed to triumphs, and the great and undeniable
civilisation superposed upon it for the last nineteen cen
turies, have no other sign of glory than the vile instru
ment of the judicial martyrdom on Golgotha.
Israelite society still in the bonds of theocracy, and
yet believing in the immutable perfection of an earthly
kingdom of God, was convinced that in condemning
Jesus it was making a most energetic and victorious

146 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
defence, but before long it was destined to witness its
complete and irreparable ruin. The very Roman eagles
which invested the cross on Golgotha with a sad show
of authority were to fall despoiled of their plumage
amid the ruins of Israel.
Meanwhile, with the idea of repressing the immortal
work of the Nazarene, the heads of Jewish society felt
so much the need of a justice representing the interests
of their class that, not having the legal power to do as
they wished, they arbitrarily assumed it. This is the
evident motive of a demonstration which on the other
hand would possess even by itself all the importance at
tributable to the determination of one of the greatest
events in history.
Although, therefore, due regard may be paid to the
practical consequences of the abuse of power committed
by the Sanhedrin through its usurped jurisdiction, it
cannot be thought for a moment that the real judge of
Jesus was the interpreter of the Roman law who allowed
a sentence to pass that he might have still annulled.
Had Pilate himself received the proofs and arguments
of the charge; had he not found himself confronted by
a condemnation referred to him with a false statement
of motives — which was not even the statement on which
the charge was made, as will be demonstrated — had
his conviction of the innocence of the accused been the
epilogue of his judgment and had not conflicted with
the judgment already pronounced by the Sanhedrin — -
then he would not have sacrificed the life of the
innocent Man and would not have washed his hands of
Him. In fact, but for the usurpation by the Jews of
the jurisdiction — properly his — in a case involving
capital punishment, he might under the exercise of his
exclusive authority have had the whole proceedings of
the Sanhedrin revised, from the arrest of Jesus to His

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 147
condemnation. In that case the arrest would not have
been a measure pre-arranged with the deliberate idea
of making away with the accused, nor would the whole
proceedings have shown the existence of this precon
ceived idea, which prevented judges from acting either
freely or reasonably; the control of the proofs would
not have been limited to an attempt which completely
failed; the terms of the charges would not have been
arbitrarily changed; and the sentence might have been
the same as when, without a regular judgment of this
kind, the Vice-President fully acknowledged the inno
cence of the accused.
As regards the arrest made by the band armed with
swords and staves, it must be observed that this alone
constituted an abuse of power, even had it been possible
to substantiate the false and obstinate claim of the Jews
to jurisdiction in capital offences, since arrest is an act
of power and not of jurisdiction. None of the magis
tracies that exercise jurisdiction and not power can di
rectly order the arrest of an accused person: this is
a measure that can only be taken by authority armed
with power.26
Hence from every point of view, and for every
reason, the judgment wrested from the power of Pilate
was nothing but an act of usurpation and vengeance.

Notes.
1 64 B.C.
2 4 b.c. Mommsen, St. Rom. iii. 133 ; Le prov. Rom. da Ces. a
Diocl. cap. xi. p. 499 et seq. ; Appian, Syr. 50.
3 Hirtius, B. Alex. 65 : the author calls them dynastis provincial;
O. Bohn, Qua conditione juris reges socii populi Romani fuerint,
Berlin, 1876 ; Marquardt, L'amm. pubbl. ram. vol. i. p. ii. par.

148 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
4 It consisted of the districts of Trachonitis, Auranitis, Batanaea,
Gauloninis, and Iturea.
5 Josephus, Antiq. xxii. viii. 1, xviii. vii. 1; S. Luke iii. 1, 19;
Acts xii. 1 et seq.; Noris, De nummo Herodes Antipw in the Opp.
vol. ii. p. 647: there are coins of Herod Antipater commemorating
the forty-third year of his reign; Dion Cassius, 55, 25, 27.
6 The procurators were Coponius (a.d. 6), Ambirius (about the
year 10), Annius Rufus (year 13), Valerius Gratus (year 15-26),
Pontius Pilate (year 26-35), Marcellus (year 35), Morillus (year
38-41). Cf. Mommsen, Le prov. Rom. da Ces. a Diocl. cap. xi.
p. 500 ; ibid. Res gestaeDiviAugusti, p. 124 ; Josephus, Antiq. xvii.
xiii. 5, xviii. i. 1. For the tax levied by Quirinus, v. supra, cap. ii.
note 15.
7 Tacitus, Ann. ii. 66, vi. 27 ; Suetonius, Tiberius, 42 ; Liibker,
dexikon v. Pomponii.
8 Mommsen, Abriss des romischen Staatsrechts, Leipzig, 1893,
p. 71; Laurent, Hist, du droit des gens, torn, iii.; Fiore, Trait.
di dir. internaz. puhbl. i. cap. i. ; Cicotti, La guerra e la pace nel
mondo antico, Turin, Bocca, 1901, cap. v.
9 Stravius, Hist. iur. Rom. cap. i. par. 33 ; Guidus Pancirolus,
De magistr. municip. cap. iv. 8, 9, in Thes. Gravii, torn, iii.;
Forti, Istituz. civ. Florence, Vieusseux, 1840, vol. i. cap. iii. ;
De Ruggiero, Le colonie dei Romani, Spoleto, 1897.
10 Cicero, In Verr. ii. 2, 3, 7; Robertelli, De provinciis Rom.
in Thes. Grarvii, torn. iii. ; Mommsen, St. Rom. iii. 133; Forti,
1st. civ. i. 3 ; Marquardt, I.e.
11 Tacitus, Ann. Cf. Dupin, I.e.
12 L. 5, Cod. Ut omnes judices, i. 49.
13 L. 3, D. De officio prasidis, i. 18.
14 L. 6, par. 8. Cf . 1. 3, D. De jurisdict.
15 L. 10, D. De officio prasidis, i. 18.
16 L. 1, par. 4, D. De officio prmf. urb. i. 12 L. un pr. D. De
officio prmfecti pretorii. In these judicial precedents, cf. my
monograph, Sistema del processo penale Romano, cap. v. and vi.,
in Archivio giuridico, vol. xxxvi. fasc. 3-4, Bologna, 1885.
17 L. 3, Cod. Ubi causae fiscales, etc. iii. 26 ; L. 4, Cod. Ad legem
Fabiam de plagiariis, ix. 20 ; L. 2, Cod. De pcenis, ix. 43 ; L. 1,
Cod. De pedaneis judicibus, iii. 3.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 149
18 Cuiacius, Observationes, hb. xix. obs. 13. Cf. Gothofredus,
Notis. leg. 3, Cod. iii. 26 ; Accursius, Commentaria, Ad leg. 4, Cod.
Ad legem Fahianam, ix. 20 ; Roberto, hb. i. Animadv. 12 ; Mer-
catore, Notat. 22.
19 Vie, ch. xxiv.
20 Histoire des institutions de Moise, torn. iv. liv. 4, ch. iii. More
over, the opinion is commonly, even universally, accepted, be
cause repeated by all — almost by force of inertia. Mommsen
mentions, without any reference to Jesus, the common opinion,
but it may be perceived from the incidental and fugitive manner
in which he alludes to the subject that the great authority in Ger
man history has not sufficiently considered the point.
21 Carmignani, Teoria delle leggi della sicurezza sociale, torn. iv.
cap. iv.
22 According to the principle of the Roman law, the judicial fact
consisted of five distinct acts : the summons for trial, by which the
judge has the power to call before him the person to be tried ; the
minor coercion, which is the faculty to detain the accused person
and others implicated in the case ; the cognition, which is the right
and the duty of inquiring into the matter of the charges ; the judg
ment or the solution of the controversy ; and finally the execution,
which is the carrying out of the sentence. Of these five acts the
third and fourth (cognition and judgment) are operations of in
telligence and knowledge; the others, summons, coercion, and
execution — are operations of will and power — the first are justice,
the latter force. Cognition and judgment together create juris
diction, the summons and coercion together create power (1. 21,
D. iii. 5; 1. 1, par. 1, D. xvi. 2; 1. 1, par. 3; 1, 51, D. xxvi. 7; 1. 5,
D. xiii. 1; 1. 7, D. xlviii. 11; 1. 99, 131, par. ult. D.L. 16; 1. 26, C.
ix. 9). It was merum imperium with the appended jus gladii as
applied in the prosecution of criminals, imperium merum et mix-
turn which also comprised civil cases (cf. Averani, Interpret, jur.
hb. i. cap. iii. n. 6, 10). The simpler and more pacific principle
now prevailing in the judicial function of a State is that there can
be no jurisdiction without power nor power without jurisdiction.
The relation of these two inseparable terms may, however, some
times be established in diverse proportions, and in that case the
difference between the authorities becomes manifest, but is still

150 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
confined to one and the same State, in which the judicial function
therefore is neither mutilated nor destroyed, but is harmonised
and rendered compendious. This, however, is not possible be
tween a preponderant State and a dominated State, since the ju
dicial function of one and the other would then become imperfect
and divided. It occurs at the present day, for instance, with our
selves — for example, that the supreme Courts of Cassation exer
cise jurisdiction, but not power, so that the necessary execution
of their sentences is not in their province. But this magistracy is
grafted on the stem of one and the same judicial ordinance and
bound by close and immediate connection with the other magis
tracies, which are furnished with power in one and the same
State. Moreover, the exercise of power in regard to their sen
tences is restricted to a simple executive and not revising func
tion, which would be the character of the function which it
is maintained should be attributed to the Roman presidents in
regard to the sentences of the Jewish tribunals. Our Courts of
Cassation are above the tribunals to whom they send their
sentences for execution, but these should be always and faith
fully carried out without any other intervention than that of co
ercive action.
23 Livy i. 26, vi. 20 ; Dionysius, iii. 21 ; Festus, Sororium sigil-
lum; Cicero, Pro Rabirio; Dion Cassius, xxxviii. 27. Cf. mymon-
ograph quoted, cap. iii.
24 In the first case the judgment is illegal and null, but is never
theless regarded as having been delivered by a recognised although
incompetent judge, because prmtor quoque jus reddere dicitur etiam
cum inique decernit. In the second case the judgment is uncon
stitutional and arbitrary, and is regarded as a fact a non juclice,
because he who dehvered it nequiter utitur permissa sibi potestate
(1. 11, D. par. 1, De justitia et jure). In the Sanhedrin at Jeru
salem no recognition could be given to the jus reddere as regarded
Jesus, etiam cum inique decernit. He was denied every permissa
sibi potestas, and his condemnation must be regarded as having
been pronounced a non judice.
25 Cf. my book, Del domicilio coatto e dei delinquenti reddivi,
Florence, Bocca, 1900, cap. v. pp. 78-88, in which political of
fences are discussed.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 15l
26 Varro apud Gellium, Nod. att. hb. xiii. c. xii. Cf. Carmig-
nani, Teoria delle leggi, etc., hb. iv. chap. iv. p. 44 in note. For
the material of this chapter two works may be referred to which
have not been consulted by the author — Lemann, Valeur de I'as-
semblee qui prononca la peine de mort contre J.-C. Paris, 1876 ;
Innes, The Trial of J. C. : A legal monograph, Edinburgh,
1899.

CHAPTER XI
The Convening of the Sanhedrin — The Hour of the Meeting; —
Prohibition of the Mosaic Law against Procedure in Capital
Cases at Night — Divergence in the Synoptic Gospels — The
Exegetic Observations of D. F. Strauss — The Gospel Narra
tive of the Trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin — It is conclud°d
from it that all the Proceedings before the Sanhedrin in this
Matter were Nocturnal — Significance of this Irregularity in
View of the Rigorous Observance of Legal Forms by the He
brews — How the Trial terminated with another Irregularity,
inasmuch at the Sentence could not Legally be pronounced
on the Same Day as that on which the Trial closed.
The Sanhedrin has assembled, and Jesus is brought
before it. But the proceedings open with a manifest
irregularity — the members, in their haste to condemn,
meet at night-time, a proceeding openly violating the
Mosaic law which prohibits capital cases being tried at
night.1 As regards the hour of meeting, evident but
reconcilable divergencies are observable in the Synoptic
Gospels, and Strauss, whose work is based upon a con
tinuous and inexorable exegesis of the Gospel texts, has
rigorously noted these discrepancies. " According to
the two first Gospels " observes this author, " when Jesus
was brought to the palace of the high priest the doctors
of the law and the elders were already assembled and
tried Jesus at once during the night-time. The witnesses
were first heard, after which the high priest put the de
cisive question to the Accused, whose reply made the
assembly to declare Him to be worthy of death. In the
152

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 153
fourth Gospel the examination of Jesus also takes place
by night, but nothing is said in presence of the Grand
Council. According to the narrative in the third Gospel,
Jesus was only detained temporarily in the palace of the
high priest during the night and was maltreated there by
the servants. At break of day the Sanhedrin assembled,
and then without first hearing witnesses the high priest
hastened to put to the Accused the question already
mentioned." Now it appears unlikely that the members
of the Grand Council should have suddenly met during
the night to receive Jesus, while Judas with the guard
had gone to apprehend Him, and for this reason
preference is given to the narrative in the third Gospel
which relates that the Council assembled at the break
of day. But S. Luke does not derive any advantage
on this account when he says (as he alone does among
the Evangelists 2 ) that the chief priests and elders and
captains of the temple were present at the arrest of
Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, while according
to the other accounts their zeal led them to hold a sud
den sitting and take a prompt resolution. In S. Mat
thew, however, as in S. Mark, a singular fact is to be
noted. It is that, after relating the examination and
the decision taken, the two Evangelists add that early in
the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes
and the whole council held a consultation. It would ap
pear from this, therefore, that the Sanhedrin held a sec
ond meeting in the morning because it had first met dur
ing the night, and that it was only at the morning sitting
that a definitive resolution was taken against Jesus.3
Certainly the detail mentioned by S. Matthew and S.
Mark is curious, but the question can only be solved by
confirming the statement made by these two Evangelists
themselves — namely, that the sentence on Jesus was pro
nounced at night-time.

154 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
S. Mark, after having stated that the meeting of the
Sanhedrin and the sentence occurred before cockcrow,
mentions a fresh meeting : " And straightway in the
morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes
and the whole council, held a consultation and bound
Jesus and carried Him away and delivered Him up to
Pilate." 4 Now it is clear to any one who studies the
language of the text that at this stage there was no ques
tion whatever of the charges against Jesus, which the
Evangelist, moreover, relates had been already formally
stated, so that the chief priests and others merely met
for the second time in order to confer before sending
the condemned prisoner before the Roman procurator.
The motive of this conference cannot appear inex
plicable, when it is remembered that the council had to
find out the best means of inducing the procurator to
deal with the charge that was within his sole jurisdiction,
and that in any case had to be presented to him as just
and well founded. S. Matthew, after closing his narra
tive, which occupies the time between S. Peter's first
denial and the crowing of the cock, continues :
" Now, when morning was come, all the chief priests
and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to
put Him to death, and they bound Him, and led Him
away and delivered Him up to Pilate, the Governor." 5
In this second meeting, therefore, the council dis
cussed the means of compassing the death of Jesus,
and handing Him over to the Governor- — that is to
say, to put into execution the sentence supposed to
have been already passed during the night.6 There
was no question then of discussing or defining the
charges against Jesus, since that had already been done.
S. John repeats the same particulars and concludes :
" Peter denied again, and straightway the cock crew.
They led Jesus from Caiaphas into the palace, and it

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 155
was early." 7 It therefore appears permissible to con
clude that the transfer of Jesus to the Pretorium was
effected in the morning, but that the condemnation by
the Sanhedrin was pronounced at night.
S. Luke alone among the Evangelists affords any
ground for a contrary opinion. But in the first place,
the divergence of one testimony against three others
concerning the same fact would not be a sufficient reason
for preferring it to the unanimous attestation of the
three. Considered, however, with discretion, the divergence
does not seem to me to present an insuperable difficulty,
as it has appeared to do to the orthodox interpreters.
Meanwhile S. Luke agrees with the other Evangelists
in stating that the arrest of the Master and His being
immediately brought to the high priest's house occurred
in the evening.8 His narrative is also concordant with
theirs in stating that Jesus remained in the high priest's
house all night, and that the denials of S. Peter also oc
curred during the night in the same place. This episode
is mentioned particularly and with some descriptive
colour by S. Luke, who says that while S. Peter was
standing beside the glowing brazier warming himself, the
woman who recognised him as one of the followers of
Jesus looked at him steadfastly by the light of the flames
from the brazier — which means that it was dark at the
time. It is true that the Evangelist, while dwelling on
these matters, only mentions the meeting of the Sanhe
drin in premising that it was then already day, but if it
be considered how brief and hurried is the mention that
he makes of that meeting, it may be admitted without
difficulty that it could only have been the second meeting
which, according to the other Evangelists, was held after
the condemnation, and that the first meeting was not
noticed by S. Luke, as he thought it sufficient to record

156 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
the fact of Jesus having been sentenced to death in men
tioning the second conference of the Sanhedrin. In
fact, while the other Evangelists refer to two meetings,
S. Luke only speaks of one, so that he must certainly
have omitted to mention one of them. Therefore, unless
we are prepared to set aside the explicit testimony of
three witnesses, notwithstanding the evident omission
made by a fourth, the affirmation that the trial of Jesus
was held at night in violation of the express prohibition
of the Mosaic law must be fully maintained.
S. Luke says textually : " And as soon as it was day,
the assembly of the people was gathered together, both
chief priests and scribes ; and they led Him away into
their council, saying, If Thou art the Christ tell us. But
He said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe:
and if I ask you, ye will not answer. But from hence
forth shall the Son of Man be seated at the right hand
of the power of God. And they all said, Art Thou
the Son of God? And He said unto them, Ye say that
I am. And they said, What further need have we of wit
ness? for ourselves have heard from His own mouth.
And the whole company of them rose up and brought
Him before Pilate." 9
It is evident, in the first place, that the transfer from
the Sanhedrin to the Pretorium was immediate, and
that there is no ground therefore for supposing that a
third meeting of the Sanhedrin may have been held.
Hence it follows that the audience of which S. Luke
omitted to make mention was the first meeting, the one
at which Jesus was condemned, and not the subsequent
consultation for the purpose of delivering Him over to
Pilate. It is moreover equally evident that it is not
recorded in S. Luke's account that the Sanhedrin on
this occasion pronounced any condemnation — they met
simply to refer the case to Pilate. The particulars

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 157
narrated by S. Luke of the words then spoken by Jesus
and the replies given by members of the council are not
mentioned by the other Evangehsts, and are simply a
necessary addition made by S. Luke.
But this is not sufficient. Here, in S. Luke's account,
it is not Caiaphas who interrogates, whereas according
to the narration of the other Evangelists concerning the
first meeting of the council the examiner was the high
priest — as it should have been. We find from S. Luke
that all of those present at the second meeting asked
questions of Jesus on their own account, as, later on,
the same men mocked at Jesus on the cross, saying,
" He saved others ; Himself He cannot save. Let the
Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the
cross that we may see and believe." 10
Yet, again, S. Luke, neither in his account above
quoted, nor elsewhere in his Gospel, makes mention of
the two false witnesses who were also examined. He
simply says, always in the way of epilogue, that those
present asked what need was there of further witnesses,
which is worth remembering, showing as it does that
even according to S. Luke some witnesses must have
been heard by the Sanhedrin. It is further to be
observed that S. Luke mentions nothing of the adjura
tion addressed by the high priest to Jesus at His
examination before the Sanhedrin, nor the scene of the
high priest rending his garments, of which concordant
narrations are given by the other three Evangelists in
mentioning the trial.
Here is the full account from the moment of the arrest
of Jesus and the meeting of the Sanhedrin : " And
they seized Him and led Him away, and brought Him
unto the high priest's house. But Peter followed afar
off. And when they had kindled a fire in the midst
of the court, and had sat down together, Peter sat in

158 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
the midst of them. And a certain maid seeing him as
he sat in the light of the fire, and looking steadfastly
upon him, said, This man also was with Him. But
he denied, saying, Woman, I know Him not. And after
a little while another saw him and said, Thou also art
one of them. But Peter said, Man, I am not. And
after the space of about one hour another confidently
affirmed, Of a truth this man also was with Him, for
he is a Galilean. But Peter said, Man, I know not
what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spoke,
the cock crew. And the Lord turned and looked upon
Peter, and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how
that He had said unto him, Before the cock crow this
day thou shalt deny Me thrice. And he went out and
wept bitterly. And the men that held Jesus mocked
Him and beat Him. And they blindfolded Him and
asked Him, saying, Prophesy, who is he that struck
Thee? And many other things spake they against
Him, reviling Him. And as soon as it was day the
assembly of the elders of the people was gathered to
gether, both chief priests, and scribes, and they led Him
away into their council, saying, If Thou art the Christ,
tell us." xl
We see from the above that S. Luke adds to the ac
count of the meeting of the Sanhedrin. He does not
omit to mention the blows and other affronts suffered
by Jesus, but says nothing whatever of the procedure,
nor of the questions of Caiaphas, nor of his own im
pressions regarding the action of the Jews in suddenly
bringing a trumped-up charge against Jesus. Neither
does he say a word concerning the false witnesses, nor
of the pronouncement of condemnation; all this is com
pressed into a single meagre reference dealing with the
second and first meetings of the Sanhedrin, the latter
being held in the prohibited hours of the night.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 159
It is fitting that we should have dwelt upon this
irregularity of form, which would be of very small im
portance in itself were we not dealing with the judges
of Jerusalem, rigorists and superstitious to excess in
their pedantic deference towards every minutiae of form
imposed by the law, and all the more ready therefore
to compound for the violation of one of its most explicit
and severe provisions when, in exercising justice, they
desired to confound the rancour of private vengeance
with devotion to the national glory. To equitable and
merciful judges all may be forgiven; to judges of bad
faith, nothing. In the case of the latter, the inobserv
ance of form is not, as with the former, a matter of
extrinsic error not prejudicially affecting the judgment
to be delivered, which under whatever form would always
be the same, since the judges pronouncing it would be
guided by the sure rule of conscience ; it is violence which
overthrows and tramples upon the obstacles expressly
raised against arbitrary procedure. The judges of
Jesus illegally hastened His condemnation in order that
there might not be a demonstration of popular feeling
in His favour, but this motive is a revelation of the
arbitrary, factious, and unpopular sentence predeter
mined by these judges. Otherwise they would not have
feared and prevented, but would willingly have wel
comed and deferred to a spontaneous public manifesta
tion, whether favouring or opposing their own ideas on
the question of the trial. A few hours later these same
judges showed that they did not disdain popular mani
festations regarding their judicial proceedings when, in
the Pretorium, they incited the people against Jesus.
And then what an excellent counsellor is Time! How
much may not be rectified in the space even of one short
hour! How many phantoms treated as realities in the
darkness of night are not dissolved by the first rays of

160 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
the sun! How many decisions are not recognised as
unjust when there has been time for self-examination!
How many opinions that once appeared infallible and
eternal do not fall at the unforeseen and unexpected
shock of other views !
But as the trial commenced with one irregularity, so
it was destined to end with another.
The Mosaic law not only prohibited capital sentences
being pronounced at night, but forbade with the same
rigour and for the same reason that sentence should be
pronounced on the same day as that on which the trial
began.12 The judges of the Sanhedrin openly violated
this prohibition, and thus again made manifest how false
and mendacious was their ostentatious profession of
obedience to the law, wherein they showed themselves
to be intolerant and inexorable in denouncing illegal but
not immoral acts. It is true that the day following
was Easter, and that the proceedings could not there
fore have continued, but they might have been suspended,
instead of violating a rule of justice which prohibited
sentence being passed on the same day as the trial, in
order to respect a merely superstitious observance — that
of the sanctification of Easter.
But it was decided that Jesus should be dealt with
summarily, and this obstinate and cruel resolve was the
sole law that guided the most formal judges in history.
Now let us enter the nocturnal sitting of the Sanhedrin,
and so far as the darkness of night and of the nineteen
centuries that have since rolled by may permit, let us
see how that assembly was constituted.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 161

Notes
1 Sanhedrin, 32. In pecuniary cases the trial begins during
the daytime and may finish at night. In capital cases the trial
must commence and end in the course of the day (Mishna, n. 7).
Cf. I. J. M. Rabbinowicz, Legislation criminelle du Talmud,
Paris, 1876, p. 79.
2 xxvi. 52.
3 Vie, torn. ii. ch. iii. par. 125.
4 xv. 1.
5 S. Luke xxvii. 1, 2.
6 The idea of Strauss (I.e.), although only expressed as an
hypothesis, is not excluded. Strauss says: "Unless it is meant
to affirm that to the death sentence already pronounced was
joined, on the following morning, the decision to hand over
Jesus to Pilate — or in other words that the Sanhedrin, having
already pronounced sentence of death, deliberated upon the
means of executing it."
7 xviii. 27, 28.
8 xxii. 54.
9 xxii. 66-71, xxiii. 1.
10 S. Matthew xxvii. 41, 42; S. Mark xv. 31.
11 S. Luke xxii. 54-66.
12 Sanhedrin, 32. " In pecuniary cases a trial may end the
same day as it began. In capital cases acquittal may be pro
nounced the same day, but the pronouncing of sentence of death
must be deferred until the following day in the hope that some
argument may meanwhile be discovered in favor of the ac
cused " (Mishna, n. 8).

CHAPTER XII
The Constitution of the Sanhedrin — Historical Lacunes and
Conjectures — The Bibhcal Judges — The King and the
. Elders and Judges — The Institutions of David and Jehosh-
aphat — Mention in Deuteronomy of a Supreme Magistracy
at Jerusalem — Necessity of consulting the Talmud for deter
mining the Hebraic Judicial Organisation — Tribunals of
Three Grades — The Capital Jurisdiction of the Grand
Sanhedrin and its Particular Attributions — The Nasi, the
Scribes, the Shoterim — Suppression of the Greater Priv
ileges of the Sanhedrin in the Time of Jesus.
Theke are no historical data affording the means of
reconstructing the judicial organisation of the Hebrews
at the time of these events.
The legislator of Deuteronomy lays down the obliga
tion of instituting judges and executors of the law in
every city, and recommends them to administer justice
without respect for persons,1 but gives no directions con
cerning the manner of instituting and regulating the
order and functions of judges. Evidently Deuteron
omy must refer to some already existing institutions,
based on custom and tradition, which it was thought
unnecessary to mention. If the inquiry is extended to
all the laws of Scripture, it may be inferred that at
a period when all supreme power was exercised by the
heads of tribes, who bore the biblical title of judges, all
judicial power resided in them. But this is only an
induction, not a statement of fact. And rather less is
any conclusion to be arrived at upon the hypothesis that
162

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 163
under the government of the Kings the latter were the
judges of the Hebrew people. Certain facts in the hfe
of David, the celebrated judgment of King Solomon,
the request made by the people to Samuel that they
might have a king to judge them, and the appeal made
by a widow to King Jehoram for justice would seem
to furnish safe historical data in support of such an
hypothesis.2 But the fact that Jezebel in order to get
rid of Naboth was obliged to have recourse to the au
thority of the elders in order to obtain pronouncement
of an unjust sentence, would rather justify the suppo
sition that the judges depended upon a council of elders,3
and if the biblical chronicler is to be believed, King
David himself chose from among the Levites six thou
sand officers of justice, while King Jehoshaphat insti
tuted judges in all the cities of Judaea and a sort of
supreme tribunal at Jerusalem.4
The compiler of Deuteronomy, who, like all Levitical
legislators, does not follow a logical order but frequently
introduces among ordinances of the law, exhortations in
the nature of recommendations, or simply passages of
narrative, makes at one point, and this comes somewhat
in the nature of a surprise, the statement that at
Jerusalem there had arisen a supreme judicial power to
which all the tribunals of the other cities were required
to refer any civil and criminal cases which they were
incompetent to deal with.5 The compiler does not,
however, define this question of capacity, nor say what
was the constitution of the supreme judicial power.
In view of the silence and uncertainty of biblical
texts, the only course to follow is to admit, with the
doctors of the Talmud, that side by side with the writ
ten law there existed a traditional law founded upon
custom to which many Mosaic regulations referred.
The Talmudists have maintained that a traditional law

164 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
subsisted from the most ancient times, and that this
has been collated in their compilations. Some learned
inquirers contest the correctness of this affirmation, but
the divergence ceases at a certain point, since it is ad
mitted by the learned that the Talmudic compilations
do present the Mosaic law such as it had become in the
last days of the Jewish State; 6 and it was just at the
beginning of that period that the events of which we
treat occurred.
Now, according to the Talmud, the tribunals were of
three grades: The first was the Great Sanhedrin, which
was a senate of elders residing in Jerusalem and consist
ing of 71 magistrates. It exercised the highest au
thority, and was assisted, or rather replaced in cases of
small importance, by two other Sanhedrins, each con
sisting of 23 judges. A second order of tribunals was
that of the Minor Sanhedrins, distinct from the coadju
tors, also composed of 23 judges, instituted in populous
towns containing at least 120 adult male inhabitants.
The third order was that of the lower tribunals, formed
by three judges each.7
The Sanhedrins were composed of priests and lay
men, but might also consist of laymen alone. To be
elected to them it was necessary to be of good birth,
to have a physical appearance inspiring reverence, to
have children, and not to be of too advanced age.
Blind men, eunuchs, fowlers, dice-players, and those who
in the Sabbatic year had traded in merchandise 8 were
not eligible. Attached to nearly every Sanhedrin were
students divided into three classes and rising gradually
to higher grades. They acquired judicial practice and
applied themselves to the study of law. and procedure.
The magistracy of the Great Sanhedrin had the power
of promoting members to its own body and to the two
lesser Sanhedrins by seniority and by merit, and these

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 165
promotions were made by the rite of the imposition of
hands. The Great Sanhedrin also exercised a control
over the organisation and functions of the other San
hedrins.9 The Great Sanhedrin was directed by a president
(nasi) and a vice-president (ab beth din). The minor
Sanhedrins from time to time nominated as their presi
dent the judge whom they deemed most worthy. Two
scribes, doctors of the law, were present at each sitting
and compiled the minutes of the proceedings.10 No form
of defence was permitted, and this can be easily imagined
seeing that the religious despotism which was bound up
with the Jewish theocracy was founded on belief in the
direct action of God in all human affairs. The magis
trate who judged in the name and in the place of God
desired obedience, and did not suffer discussion.11 Hence
there were no advocates, there was no verbal eloquence
except that of the prophets, who were the sole orators
in Hebrew life, but who were never allowed to appear as
patrons of accused persons. Indeed, they were them
selves not unfrequently in the position of defendants.
The execution of sentences, and probably all the police
work of legal procedure, was entrusted to officers of
justice called shoterim.12 The men who arrested Jesus
were perhaps, at least in part, shoterim of the Sanhedrin.
The jurisdiction of this magistracy was concerned before
any other duty with the election of the king,13 in which,
however, it sometimes failed, as we read in the first book
of Samuel that the people, dissatisfied with the adminis
tration of the sons of that prophet, demanded a king,
which is as much as to say that for some time a king
had been wanting. And in such periods of interregnum
or vacancy the whole government was centred in the
Sanhedrin. It was therefore within its competency to
declare war, to enlarge the city of Jerusalem and the

166 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
courts of the temple, to submit women suspected of
adultery to the miraculous water test, to sentence to
extermination a tribe or city guilty of becoming converts
to another religion, to impeach the high priest or a
rebellious judge, and finally to sentence a false prophet
to death.14
Jesus, the prophet of truth, fell under this last-named
head of the competency of the Sanhedrin, but it must
be remembered that this supreme and unconditional
authority had been abolished by the fact of the Roman
conquest and had been transferred to the conquering
State. In the same manner and for the same cause the
Sanhedrin had lost all competency in the election of
a king, and in fact Herod the Great, was only nom
inated king in consequence of his humble solicitations
to Anthony and Octavian at Rome. Archelaus, who
was the last King of Judaea, added to Samaria and
Idumea, was not otherwise nominated on his father's
death, while his brothers Philip and Herod Antipater
were in like manner nominees of Rome. When Archelaus
was superseded by Publius Sulpicius Quirinus, to whom
was committed, as first Governor of Syria, the institu
tion of the new province, the Great Sanhedrin might as
a consolation recall its ancient privilege of electing the
kings, but this did not confer upon it the faculty of
nominating one, and this serves to prove once more how
greatly the new dominion had cut down the chief pre
rogatives of the Jewish authority. After the arrival
of the Roman eagles, the supreme magistracy of Jeru
salem might have immersed the woman suspected of
adultery in all the miraculous water the Jordan con
tained, it might have enlarged the holy city and the
Pharisean synagogue, it might have launched anathe
mas of extermination against a converted city, or it

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 167
might have condemned the blasphemies of a false prophet
and have denounced him to the Roman Governor as a
possible disturber of public order. But with all this it
could not hurt a hair of the head of the woman suspected
of adultery, even if found guilty by the water test, nor
could an impious city have been made to suffer so much
as one hour of hunger, nor could even one stone have been
cast at the false prophet. The definition and punish
ment of capital offences had passed to the Roman power,
sole possessor of the jus gladii, on which was based the
power over life and death.

Notes
1 Deuteronomy xvi. 18-20.
2 1 Samuel vii. 15-17, viii. 5 ; 2 Samuel xiv. 1-11, xv. 1, 6 ; 1 Kings
iii. 16-28 ; 2 Kings vi. 26-31.
3 1 Kings 1-13.
4 1 Chronicles xxiii. 6 ; 2 Chronicles xix. 5-11. Cf. Castelli, La
legge del pop. ebr. cap. viii.
5 Deuteronomy xvii. 8-12.
6 Cf. Castelli, I.e.
7 Sanhedrin, i. par. 6, x. par. 2, and 886, iii. par. 1. Cf. Momm
sen, Le prov. Rom. cap. xi. pp. 479, 503.
8 Sifre, ii. par. 153 ; Sanhedrin, f. 17a, 246, et seq., 27 et seq.,
366. 9 Sanhedrin, 136, 886.
10 Haghigha, 16; Sanhedrin, iii. par. 1; Sifre, f. 366; Mai
monides, De Synedriis, i. 3.
11 V. s. cap. i. Cf. Pierantoni, Gli avvocati di Roma antica,
Bologna, Zanichelli, 1900, cap. i. par. 3.
12 Saalschiitz, Das mosaische Recht, p. 58 ; Deuteronomy xx.
5-9. 13 Sanhedrin, i. 1.
14 Maimonides, De Synedriis, v. The competency of the San
hedrim of the second order in capital cases was restricted to

168 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
charges of conversion to other religions against tribes or cities,
and to charges against high priests, rebellious judges, and false
prophets. The minor tribunals dealt with all civil cases and
such penal matters as involved no other punishment than fining
or flogging. The constitution of these tribunals was excep
tionally modified when they had to demand the expiatory sacri
fice imposed by the law upon the inhabitants of any city nearest
to the place where the dead body had been found of a man who
had been killed, and had lain undiscovered; and when they had
to decide whether the thirteenth month should be intercalated
in order to restore the coincidence of the lunar with the solar
year. In the first case the minor tribunals had to be composed
of five judges, and in the second of seven (Maimonides, De
Synedriis, v ; Sanhedrin, i. 1).

CHAPTER XIII
The Minutes of the Audience of the Sanhedrin — The Pagan
Sources upon the Life and Trial of Jesus — Critical Con
clusions regarding the Form and Contents of the Gospels —
The Gospel Texts upon the Trial before the Sanhedrin — •
The Two Charges brought against Jesus: Sedition and
Blasphemy — How the Sanhedrin proceeded by Elimination,
abandoning the First Charge in Default of Proof and taking
the Second from the Confession of the Accused — Why the
Confession did not dispense the Judges from examining
Witnesses — Why the Confession would not in Itself con
stitute an Indictable Offence.
The two scribes who acted as clerks of the court at the
sitting of the Sanhedrin on Nisan 14 have not left us
the minutes of this nocturnal meeting. For information
concerning it we must therefore have recourse to other
sources. Those of Pagan origin are arid and dry in the extreme,
as is the case in every other period of the life of Jesus.
Josephus Flavius, the writer of antiquity who lived
nearest to His time, only dedicates to Him a brief men
tion : " At that time lived Jesus, a wise man — if He
should be caUed man. He did marvellous things and
was the master of those men who received the truth
with joy. He moreover brought over many Jews to
His side, as also many foreigners of the Greek coun
tries. This was the Christ. When on the accusation
of the most influential men among us Pilate sentenced
Him to death on the cross, His followers nevertheless
169

170 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
did not forsake Him. He appeared among them on
the third day because divine prophecies had foretold
of Him this and many other miracles. Up to the pres
ent the Christian sect, so-called after Him, has not
ceased to exist." 1 The passage which has already been
quoted from' Eusebius 2 was for some time regarded as
having been interpolated in the text of that author by
another hand, but there is now more disposition to treat
it as authentic.3 The passage in Tacitus which caused
surprise and emotion to the reader of the Annals, but was
looked upon with suspicion, is now also declared to be
perfectly authentic.4 It only amounts, however, to
attesting the existence of Christ, now incontestably estab
lished. " In order to quiet the report (caused by the
great fire in Rome) Nero accused and punished with the
most refined tortures those who with perverse obstinacy
caUed themselves Christians. The author of this name
was Christ, who under the reign of Tiberius was executed
by the Procurator Pontius Pilate." 5 Suetonius, Phny
the Younger, Lucian, and Epictetus incidentally men
tion, besides the personality of Christ, the religious motive
of the Christians.6
Only the Gospel sources therefore remain to us. The
most cautious criticism that has been applied to the Gos
pel record has rather denied the existence of Christianity
in its primitive form in present practice than its intrinsic
truth. The greatest critics hold that the work of the
Evangelists induces the supposition of a certain develop
ment of oral tradition created during the apostolic age
in the primitive movement of Christian life, and that this
oral tradition was bound to be succeeded by a written
tradition which would be preserved in the texts attributed
to the Apostles, or in other anterior texts on which the
former would have been elaborated. Some hold that
the most ancient portion of the canon of the New Testa-

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 171
ment consists of the Epistle of S. Paul and the
Apocalypse, where in truth the references to the life
and person of Jesus are few and not very precise.
Others maintain the contrary, while the majority be
lieve that the Acts of the Apostles can only have been
written by S. Luke, author of the third Gospel. Cer
tainly in the texts of the four Evangelists, even in that
of S. Luke, allusion is made to " many who have taken
in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those things
which have been fulfilled among us " and to those
" which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and min
isters of the word." 7 But setting aside questions of
detail in this matter, on which no two critics are ever
found in agreement, it is useful to take note of the
criticism which maintains that the Acts of the Apostles
were written before the Gospels: a profound difference,
observes this critic, separates the one from the other.
The luminous and creative words of the Master lose much
of their vivid force in the mouths of His successors. The
discourses of S. Peter, S. Stephen, and S. Philip do not
possess that lofty idealism, that great vitality, that fine
imagery, that profound impress of eternity, which mark
the words of Jesus. Hence if the Gospels really come
from the apostolic age or the period following it, we must
believe that the most living and spiritual portion of their
contents flowed from the primal source, and is therefore
a faithful testimony and sincere echo of the original
word of the Master.8 This is the conclusion of some
critics, but it is nevertheless a surrender. In this way
the terms of the chronology become inverted, and sub
sequent events become antecedent. The Gospels which
lead some critics to regard the Acts of the Apostles
as antecedent contain something incomparably more liv
ing and real than is to be found in the latter. And if
this be so, it matters little that the form in which we

172 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
now know the Gospels may not have been the original
form, which few orthodox critics now attribute to the
Evangelists themselves, since it is felt that the best
part of the work of the Gospel flows from the primal
source and is a faithful testimony and sincere echo of
the original word of Jesus. In another matter — that of
the vexed question of the period at which the four
Gospels appeared after the death of Jesus — the latest
critics agree in shortening this period to a notable
extent, and now assign S. Mark's Gospel to between
65 and 70 in the first century, S. Matthew's to between
70 and 75, S. Luke's to between 78 and 93, and S.
John's to between 80 and 110.9
Hence the acts of the life and the record of the trial
of Jesus can be read as in one sole faithful text in the
Gospels. Let us read it at the point which our argument has
now reached:
" Now the chief priests and the whole council sought
false witness against Jesus, that they might put him
to death; and they found it not, though many false
witnesses came. But afterward came two and said, This
man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and
to build it in three days; and the high priest stood up
and said unto Him, Answerest Thou nothing? What is
it which these witness against Thee? But Jesus held
His peace. And the high priest said unto Him, I
adjure Thee by the living God that Thou tell us whether
Thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto
him, Thou hast said : nevertheless, I say unto you, Hence
forth ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right
hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.
Then the high priest rent his garments, saying, He
hath spoken blasphemy. What further need have we of
witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy,

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 173
what think ye? They answered, and said, He is worthy
of death."10
Thus S. Matthew.
The narrative of S. Mark shows no divergence, and
summarises briefly the capital trial, the charges, pro
ceedings, and sentence. S. Mark does little more than
explain to us how the false witnesses either failed to
prove anything or were contradicted by others, and the
explanation is that the witnesses gave entirely discordant
testimony, whereas two of them at least should have
been in agreement to legitimise a condemnation.
" Now the chief priests and the whole council sought
witness against Jesus to put Him to death; and found
it not. For many bare falsa witness against Him, and
their witness agreed not together. And there stood
up certain and bare false witness against Him, saying,
We heard Him say, I will destroy this temple that is
made with hands, and in three days I will build another
made without hands. And not even so did their witness
agree together. And the high priest stood up in the
midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest Thou noth
ing ? What is it which these witness against Thee ? But
He held His peace, and answered nothing. Again the
high priest asked Him and saith unto Him, Art thou
Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am,
and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right
hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven.
And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What
further need have we of witnesses? Ye have heard
the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all con
demned Him to be worthy of death." n
Thus S. Mark.
S. Luke and S. John cannot be used for purposes of
comparison, since they omit any narrative of the trial,
and simply mention it in the way of epilogue at the

174 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
point where the Sanhedrin meets again in order to take
measures for the execution of the sentence; and I do
not understand how this omission should not have been
understood for what it is by Strauss, who sharpens his
exegetic criticism in order to confine himself to the dem
onstration that it is a lacune in the narratives of S. Luke
and S. John to have said nothing of what happened in
regard to the false witnesses, since it is quite likely that
Jesus had spoken of the destruction and rebuilding of
the temple with S. Mark and S. Matthew, and it was
therefore very natural that such an utterance should
have constituted a charge against Him before the trib
unal.12 Schleiermacher explains the omission in S.
Luke by saying that the compiler of that Gospel fol
lowed Jesus from the Garden of Gethsemane, but was
refused admission to the palace of the high priest,
together with the greater part of the other disciples,
and could not therefore narrate what occurred in the
palace.13 But the explanation is a lame one, since it
does not suffice to justify the Gospel of S. John, in which
the same omission occurs ; and yet S. John, admitted into
the house of Caiaphas, followed Jesus all through the
judicial proceedings and up to the moment of His death.
I have already mentioned it, but think it well to repeat
that S. John describes the arrest of Jesus and the sum
mary examination to which He was subjected by the
high priest independently of the meeting of the Sanhe
drin ; and that at that moment the servants and officers
of the high priest were gathered round the fire in the
courtyard to warm themselves, as it was cold.14 But of
all that formed the material of a mock trial, S. John
does not say one word, since from the last word men
tioned concerning the denial of Peter (which no doubt
occurred before the meeting of the Sanhedrin), he passes
to the last word there was to say concerning the trial

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 175
and condemnation, only referring to the transfer of Jesus
from Caiaphas to Pilate. " But Peter denied again for
the third time, and the cock crew. Jesus was then taken
from the house of Caiaphas to the Pretorium. And it
was morning." 15
Hence the account of the proceedings before the San
hedrin that night is only given by S. Mark and S.
Matthew. This Gospel account attests that the charges were two
in number, one sedition, the other blasphemy. In the
first place it was sought to prove by false and incon
clusive testimony that Jesus desired the destruction of
the temple, and up to this point the charge is one of
sedition. Afterwards, when proof of this charge was
seen to be impossible, owing to the disagreement between
the statements of the witnesses, the judges changed their
plan of attack and snatched from the mouth of the Ac
cused the declaration that He was Christ, the Son of God.
Then the charge became one of blasphemy.
It may be objected that in view of a penal law of
theistic basis the difference is not appreciable, since who
ever blasphemed the national monotheism undermined the
theocratic order. But here the difference is not in name,
but in fact. It is one thing to charge an accused per
son with having used subversive expressions that he may
or may not have uttered, and another to charge him
with being what he may or may not be, independently
of the fact whether he had or had not made any affirma
tion of the kind. The difference consists in the first
place in the material charge made in the matter of the
indictment, and then in a separate and almost contrary
direction given to the examination in pressing the charge.
So long as false and discordant testimony was brought
forward in support of the charge that the Accused had
declared that He could destroy the temple and rebuild

176 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
it in three days, the task of the prosecution was to dis
tinguish the false from the true in the testimony of the
witnesses, and to decide whether the Accused had or had
not uttered those words. When, therefore, the Accused,
replying to a simple question, admits being the person
charged, the prosecution begins a series of inquiries, of
confrontations, and arguments, the object of which
should have been to lead to a judgment establishing with
out bias or precipitancy whether the Accused was really
what He declared Himself to be. The first charge con
tains in itself a question of proof, the second of appre
ciation. Before the first the Accused may remain silent,
but the burden of proof rests entirely upon the judge;
nevertheless, the Accused may meet the second charge by
confession, but this is the admission of a fact and not of
a crime which has to be inquired into and defined by
the judge.
Instead of this the president of the Sanhedrin shifts
suddenly from one charge to the other. Feeling con
vinced that it was useless to vex innocence with a pre
tence of proof based upon false and discordant evidence,
he at once changes his inquisitorial system. He endeav
ours without success to obtain a confession on the first
charge from the Accused, who remains silent, and this
charge is then altogether abandoned ; and then from the
mouth that speaks the truth and does not admit culpa
bility he extorts an affirmation which is merely a reply
to be considered by the tribunal, but does not afford suffi
cient ground for a condemnation. Here follows the
comedy of the rending of the high priest's garments un
worthy even of an assistant scribe, and still less of a
president of the supreme tribunal. In fact, the law did
not even permit him to uncover his head.16 But he very
soon became calm and consoled himself by saying,
" What need have we of further witness ? " — as if the

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 177
witnesses the need for whom was at first felt had been
brought to support the charge of blasphemy, instead of
the first charge, that had already been abandoned !
Nevertheless, witnesses could not be dispensed with for
the second charge, although the Accused was supposed
to have admitted it, as according to the Mosaic law no
confession can dispense with the proof required from wit
nesses by the law. A single witness only does not suffice,
whatever may be the offence or crime with which an
accused may be charged. There must be two or three
witnesses.17 This is one of the clearest texts of the law.
Another text insisted not only on the concurrence, but on
the agreement of the two witnesses, it being reasonable
to consider that if one witness brought a charge and
the other did not, it could not be said that the charge
was proved by two witnesses as the law required. On
the concordant depositions of two or three witnesses the
accused found worthy of death must die. On the other
hand, no one can suffer capital punishment when only
one witness has testified against him.18 And this is a
rule of prudence and judicial wisdom that now obtains
in scarcely any modern legislation, which confides to the
unfettered discretion of the judge the full direction of
the trial. Provisions like those of the Mosaic law were
not, however, peculiar to the Hebrews alone, since a
similar regulation existed among the maj ority of ancient
peoples,19 the practical spirit of the fathers of the law
being convinced that there is no falsehood, however au
dacious it may be, which cannot find the support of some
one witness. In this way thought and wrote Pliny, who
was not, however, a jurisconsult.20 And the Italian law,
which does not contain in its penal code any such pre
caution, recognises and sanctions it in civil procedure,
not admitting that contracts representing more than 500
lire can be proved by means of witnesses — as if the inno-

178 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
cence, liberty, and honour of the men of Italy were held
at a lower estimate.21
The confession of the accused made no exception to the
rule, experience showing how a confession could be the
result of weakness, of folly, or of interest — yes, even
of interest. Some homicide on one occasion confessed
himself to be guilty of robbery or arson in order to
obtain proof of his innocence of some greater crime which
he had committed at the same time ; a husband persisted
in declaring himself guilty of outrage upon a woman
really committed by some unknown person in order that,
by being sentenced on this account, he might prove his
marital efficiency, which had been disputed by his wife,
who was contemplating steps to annul her marriage.
Some weak-minded people, unable to support the tor
ture of a harassing examination, and eager to regain
their liberty, make a full confession, accusing themselves
in order not to be indicted, like those persons who, cross
ing a river on a plank bridge, throw themselves through
nervousness into the rushing water in order not to fall
in. Fools, from want of responsibility or through a
boasting nature, accept, affirm, or confess everything of
which they know nothing. Had Jesus really been the
irresponsible fanatic which he appeared to be to Pilate
and Herod, He could only have deserved flogging or
the shame of the white tunic, and His confession would
have been part of His folly.
It was necessary, therefore, that the blasphemy should
be proved by at least two witnesses bearing concordant
testimony that the Prophet of Nazareth had affirmed
during His preaching that He was Christ, the Son of
God. This was required for the regularity of the trial
that was held in the Sanhedrin council chamber; it was
no less necessary in order to establish the truth of a
charge that was not legally proved.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 179
There are other valid reasons which will shortly lead us
to discuss the substance and not the form of the charge.
The utmost severity was observed in taking the evi
dence of witnesses against a person charged with blas
phemy — at least, so we are told by the compilers of the
Talmud. Whether they faithfully record tradition
upon this matter, we cannot be quite sure. The written
law is silent upon the point. In such cases, according
to the Talmudists, two witnesses were posted behind a
party wall. The accused was brought into the adjoin
ing room whence he could be overheard, without himself
seeing anybody; but two candles were lighted close to
him, so that he might be seen. He was made to repeat
the blasphemy, and was then requested to retract it. If
he did so, he was discharged; but if he persisted, the
witnesses who had overheard him led him before the San
hedrin, where he was stoned. The compilers of the
Talmud set so much faith upon this tradition, that they
insist that Jesus was proceeded against in precisely the
same manner. This is the historical oracle which caused
Renan to declare, with so much assurance, that the action
which the priests determined to bring against Jesus was
in complete conformity with contemporary law, and that
the procedure against the perverter who had attempted
to violate the purity of religion was fully set forth in
the Talmud. But even if this or some less ridiculous rite
was observed in obtaining the confirmation or retracta
tion of blasphemy, it could never have taken the place
of the exigencies of legal procedure, which were a mat
ter apart and of considerable importance, and which were
imposed by the written law, and could not be modified
by tradition — the necessity of proving, by means of
unanimous witnesses, that the Accused had publicly blas
phemed in the open comings and goings of everyday hfe ;
and in this consisted the crime, and not in any answers

180 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
to the judge, which constituted the defence but never the
guilt of the prisoner. Had it been otherwise, any poly
theistic foreigner coming to Jerusalem without having
had either the time or intention to profess an anti- Jehov
ist creed, might have been brought, merely on suspicion,
before the Sanhedrin; might have there been examined
as to his behef in another god who was not Jehovah, and
upon his spontaneous confession, vouched for by two
witnesses, he might have been condemned to death. The
confession of a prisoner might make his guilt manifest,
but it could never be the independent and exclusive occa
sion of his guilt.
But the condemnation had already been decided upon
before the trial: it was expedient that a man should die
for the sake of the State ; it was not proofs but pretexts
that were sought. Jesus knew it, and disdained to reply
to what was advanced in the first place because it was
false ; what was advanced in the second place He of His
own accord and freely admitted, because in its material
basis it was true. When a false and unjust charge was
brought against Him, He held His peace, and He
answered when no proof, not even a false one, constrained
Him to speak. Novel and subhme behaviour this,
indeed, on the part of a prisoner at the bar !
This conduct in itself should have sufficed to enlighten
the judges, should have enlightened them, more than the
farce of the candles and the witnesses, as to the nature
of the dilemma — namely, that the prisoner before them
was either a fanatic or should be acquitted as an apostle
to whom men should hearken.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 181

Notes
1 Antiq. jud. hb. xviii. cap. iv. par. 3.
2 Hist. eccl. i., ii., Demonstr. ev. 3, 7.
3 Miiller, among others, beheves this : Christus bei Josephus
Flavius, Stuttgart, 1890.
4 Arnold, Die Neronische Christenverfolgung, 1888. Its au
thenticity was denied, among others, by Hochart.
5 Ann. xv. 44.
6 On these sources, cf. Reville, Jesus de Nazareth, i. 266. An
allusion to Jesus is supposed to be made in Joshua, " homo pro-
batus a domino," which is spoken of in the Assumptio Mosis
(1, 6 ; 10, 15), which was written shortly after the destruction
of Jerusalem towards the end of the first century. Cf. Chiap
pelli, Nuove pagine sul Crist, antico, p. 16.
7 S. Luke i. 1-3.
8 Chiappelli, op. cit. p. 21. Concerning the reception given
by orthodox critics to these heterodox disquisitions, the observa
tions of Father Curci are worthy of note. He says: " Catholics
would be ill advised to take offence, seeing that the Church has
defined as inspired Scriptures aU the books contained in the
Vulgate (Cone. Trid. Sess. iv. Deer, de Script. Can.), but as
to the matters not affirmed in those books, such as some ques
tions of authorship and of time and place of origin, all that is
left to the study of the erudite and to the inventive vein of the
critics " (II Nuovo Testam. Preface to the second Epistle to
the Corinthians). But in these days even the Jesuit world
appears to be a timid conservative among orthodox critics, who
now concede much more. Moreover, I have scarcely touched
upon the very intricate critical and philological questions re
garding the text of the Evangehsts, since a fair though sum
mary exposition of them would fill a large volume. Among
the most recent works to be consulted on these questions are
that of Theodor Zahn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (2
vols. 2nd ed. Leipzig, 1900), and by the same author the ample
Commentary to the Gospel of S. Matthew, Leipzig (1903). Deal
ing with more strictly theological questions, there is the book

182 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
of Frederick Blass, Philology of the Gospels (London, 1898),
while for an excellent notice of all modern works on these sub
jects we have the book of E. Jacquier, Histoire des livres du
Nouveau Testament (Paris, 1903), but up to the present only
the first volume, dealing with the Epistles of S. Paul, has ap
peared. 9 These dates are defended by Harnack. Zahn differs but
slightly, except that he dates the present version of S. Matthew
from the year 85, and the primitive Aramaic S. Matthew from
about 62. The date of S. John's Gospel, which by a unanimous
consensus of opinion is the last, varies according to the critics
from 80 to 110.
10 xxvi. 59-66.
11 xiv. 55-64.
12 Vie, torn. ii. ch. iii. par. 125.
13 Cf. Strauss, I.e.
14 S. John xviii. 18.
15 xviii. 27, 28.
16 Leviticus x. 6 : " And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto
Eleazar, and unto Ithamar, his sons, Uncover not your heads
neither rend your clothes ; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon
all the people." Ibid. xxi. 10: " And he that is the high priest
among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was
poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall
not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes."
17 Deuteronomy xix. 15.
18 Deuteronomy xvii. 6. A perfect parallel of this command
occurs in the second Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians: " In
the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be estab
lished " (xiii. 1). In order that witnesses should feel the re
sponsibility of their charges, the law required them to be the
first to carry out the sentence (Deuteronomy xvii. 7).
19 It existed principally in the Roman law : L. 20, Dig. De quoss-
tionibus xlviii. 18 ; 1. 9, par. 1, Cod. De testibus, iv. 20. Cf. Cre-
mani, De jure criminali, lib. iii. cap. xxvi. par. 9, p. 650 ; Mon
tesquieu, Esprit des lois, 1. ii. ch. hi. torn, i ; Brugnoli, Della cer-
tezza e prova criminate, pars. 263, 272. As a matter of fact,
the basis of this question was viewed from a criterion of mere

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 183
symmetry, since it was held that between an accused person
who denies his guilt and a simple witness who affirmed it there
resulted an even balance. There must, therefore, be a third
witness, whose evidence should make the scale turn for con
viction, otherwise the presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused should prevail. This principle is just, because human,
and though it may not require formal confirmation, it should be
strongly and constantly recommended to the judges now free
to decide according to their own innermost conviction, but not
from chance motives.
20 Hist. not. hb. viii. cap. xxii: Nullum tarn impudens men-
dacium est quod teste careat.
21 Art. 1341, Cod. civ.

CHAPTER XIV
Wherein the two Charges are examined with Reference to their
Contents — It is shown that the Charge of Sedition was
False and that of Blasphemy Unjust — Confutation of the
Thesis of Renan that it was the First and not the Second
Charge which caused the Condemnation before the San
hedrin — How Jesus proclaims Himself the Messiah — Moral
and Historical Conception of the Messiah — How the Mes
siah was understood and awaited by the Contemporaries
of Jesus in Various Manners — How the Judges of the San
hedrin neglected their Duty in not raising the Problem of
Messianic Identity with Regard to their Prisoner — Con
temporary Judaism and Christianity successively prove
that this Problem ought not to have been set on one side
by a Foregone Conclusion — The Sanhedrin conducted a
Conspiracy, not a Trial.
Or the two charges, the first was untrue, the second was
unjust. This double assertion brings us to a question
of matter, whereas we have digressed into a discussion
upon procedure.
It was not true that Jesus had said : " I will destroy
this temple that is made with hands, and in three days
I will build another made without hands." This was a
malicious and false perversion on the part of the wit
nesses, who had been discovered and suborned by the
judges themselves with great difficulty. Salvador and
Renan remark that as an absolute matter of fact the two
witnesses whom S. Matthew and S. Mark call false did
nothing more than repeat a statement which S. John
later on asserted to be true. But S. John never did
184

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 185
attribute any statement of the kind to the Master. The
Evangelist reports the following words : " Destroy this
temple, and in three days I will raise it up." * Now S.
John beheved that Jesus spoke of the temple of His
body ; 2 but, setting aside this interpretation, the literal
meaning of the words is clear : the notion of the destruc
tion is hypothetical and the raising up is subordinate.
It is as if Jesus had said, " Destroy this temple " ;
or even " If you destroy this temple." The destruction
was supposed then as being brought about not by him,
but by his interlocutors, and merely as a hypothesis : the
building-up again would never have taken place had not
the destruction first been accomplished. The witnesses,
however, changed the words on which the charge was
founded, attributing to the accused the resolute declara
tion " I can destroy " (possum destruere) instead of the
hyperbolical supposition " Destroy ye the temple " (sol-
vite templum). This is why the first charge was un
true, and this is why the witnesses did not agree, com
pelled as they were to build upon false foundations.
The Accused did not pause to call their veracity in
question, when He was examined by Hanan.
" I have spoken openly to the world," He replied. " I
ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, where
all the Jews come together, and in secret spake I noth
ing. Why askest thou Me ? Ask them that have heard
Me, what I spake unto them." But He was smitten and
given no hearing. If they had had any faith in the
truth which they made semblance of searching out, they
might have heard as witnesses, certainly with the strict
est reservations inspired by caution and suspicion, yet
they might have heard the followers of the Accused, who
might also have confessed as the Master himself was to
confess in the case of the second charge. Moreover, S.
John was present, who was a familiar figure in the house

186 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
of Hanan. S. Peter stood there, one foot in court and
one on the threshold. It would not have been difficult
either to have taken the evidence of the creatures they
had set to dog the man they suspected and to draw him
into admissions : nor, considering the moral trend of the
proceedings which had been set in motion, would it have
been inopportune to call in witness the spy who had
offered and sold his intimate connection with the Master
in order to procure His arrest.
But " what further need have we of witness ? " In a
very short time, and quite openly, this was the cry of the
president of the Sanhedrin. And this, and not that of
the Accused, was a veritable confession.
It might also be remarked that the proposition when
restored to the textual form of the Evangelist, by whom
it is alone reported, is not the threat of any evil, but
the promise or boast of a benefit such as certainly would
have been the restoration of the temple, which the Jews
had taken six and forty years to build.
But in reality Jesus neither prophesied nor provoked
the fall of the temple : He merely made it a. supposition.
Thus it was impossible to consider Him a false prophet
endeavouring to lead astray believers in Jehovah, nor an
inventor of dreams, who gave Himself out for one of
those that can read the future, seeing that He never
professed to see in dreams aught that was contrary to
the " promise " and the common faith.
But it is useless to spend time upon a charge which was
inwardly abandoned before the Sanhedrin itself. And
it is therefore also useless to waste time in showing that
silence of the Accused could not be substituted to make
up for the want of proof, which rendered it necessary
to throw up the charge. No exponent of the Mosaic
law could ever have thought that such a substitution
would be efficacious. By the Mosaic law even an explicit

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 187
confession did not suffice unless the crime admitted were
first proved by means of witnesses. Afterwards, if
Pilate had had to give judgment in the case of a silent
prisoner, he would have declared with the text of the
Roman jurisconsult who had at that time already made
utterance : Qui tacet non utique fatetur? 3 Jesus was
silent when He might have defended Himself : He spoke
when He could inculpate Himself.
Nevertheless the Breton biographer persists in main
taining that it was the first charge and not the second
which brought about the condemnation of the Nazarene,
and this too owing to His silence. " To blaspheme the
temple of God," says Renan, " was, according to the
Judaic law, to blaspheme God Himself; Jesus stood in
silence and refused to explain the expression charged
against Him. If we are to believe one account, the chief
priest then adjured Him to say whether He was the
Messiah, and Jesus then confessed, proclaiming before
the assembly the approaching advent of the heavenly
kingdom. But as He was determined to die, the spirit
of Jesus did not call for this testimony. It is much more
likely that here too, even as before Hanan, He held His
peace. This was His rule of conduct in the last mo
ments." 4 But the art of probabilities, to which indeed
the writer, having already made up his mind, does not
even give support, gives way before the testimony of
history. S. Mark and S. Matthew supply us with the
very details of Jesus's final declaration that He was the
Messiah; and to theirs S. Luke also adds his report,
although he refers the statement to the second audience
before the Sanhedrin.5
There is no question then of giving credence to a mere
story, but to allegations which are not confuted by any
others. Renan imagines that he has discovered a con
futation in the account of the fourth Evangelist, who

188 THE TRIAL OF, JESUS!
does not indeed discuss the motives of Jesus's condemna
tion, but limits himself to recording the first words
spoken by Him to Caiaphas, without any allusion to His
Messianic declaration. But S. John is also silent as to
the first charge concerning the destruction of the temple ;
and one must also admit that to rely on him in order to
impugn what we are told by the others is practically
building in the air, or is at least to prefer one negative
to three positive data. But the three Synoptics are
unable to convince Renan because they were not present
at the trial before the Sanhedrin. Was, then, Renan
there ?
And amongst those at all events who can claim to have
been nearer to the event, who is there who furnishes us
with contrary evidence? Not S. John, for he says noth
ing. No other narrators, for such are unknown to us.
The Synoptics, then, alone remain.
The thesis of Renan is directed towards a very mani
fest object — the object, in fact, which is reflected
throughout the whole of this " extraordinary " work, as
the author himself describes it. His aim is to con
tradict all the Messianic resemblances of the Nazarene.
Every one knows whither the spirit and need of contra
diction lead. " Jesus," we read in the first pages of the
book, " never gave expression to the sacrilegious idea
that He was God." 6 As at this point the writer finds
himself confronted no longer with pliant resemblances or
with apostolic fictions, which may be confuted, as to the
Messianic character of the Master, but finds himself face
to face with an original and explicit affirmation, he dis
torts the data furnished by tradition, turns them upside
down, denies without confuting, asserts without proof,
and contradicts himself once again. All this is un
worthy even of an " extraordinary " book. Whosoever
admits his very remarkable genius and learning need not

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 189
feel the more discouraged by this recognition when he
reflects that a man truly distinguished, immortal per
haps, in attempting to back up the foregone conclusion
of a case to be defended may fall, whilst overwhelming
us with authorities and contradictions, lower than the
humblest commentator of a criminal case.
If the Treguier seminarist differed from such ascetics
as say, " Jesus was the Son of God because He Himself
declared it," he was not under any necessity to jeopard
ise his scientific dignity by employing his speculative
genius in puerile hair-splitting. He might have said, as
any bond-fide critic would say, and with proportionately
greater effect: If Jesus was not really the Son of God,
He might nevertheless have declared Himself to be so.
This does not in any way suffice to show that He was.
It was quite clear that the position of the ascetics which
had to be combated involved a petitio principii, and in
order to combat it there was no necessity whatever to
have recourse to logical errors a hundred times worse.
It was therefore not the first but the second charge which
decided the fate of the Accused.
It was unjust, as we shall show, but in its material
foundation it was true, for Jesus had really declared
Himself to be the Messiah. This truth should have been
proved by means of witnesses, notwithstanding the avowal
of the Accused. But this concerns the question of pro
cedure, which has been already treated, and does not rest
upon the merits of the case now under discussion. What
was imputed to Jesus in the second count of the accusa
tion was true, and we are right in repeating this. He
had declared Himself to be the Son of God, though all
the same such a declaration could not give rise to a con
demnation for blasphemy.
To the demand of the high priest, " Art Thou the
Christ, the Son of God," the Accused replied, according

190 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
to S. Matthew, " Thou hast said " ; according to S.
Mark, " I am." And according to the first he added,
" Nevertheless, I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see
the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and
coming on the clouds of heaven " ; according to the
second, " Ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the
right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of
heaven." There can be no doubt that the " thou hast
said" (tu dixisti) of S. Matthew is equivalent to the
"I am" (ego sum) of S. Mark, and the practically
identical words which both of them add, prove the
affirmative meaning of the reply. S. Luke, referring
constantly to the second audience before the Sanhedrin
and not to the first, which he omits, blends, as if on
purpose, the two answers into one : " And they all
said, Art Thou then the Son of God? And He said
unto them, Ye say that I am " ( Vos dicitis quia ego
sum).7 S. John is silent, because he condenses into
one the account of the whole trial from the examination
before Hanan as to the disciples and teaching of Jesus 8
down to the time when Hanan conducted Him to the
Praetorium, which event took place in the morning.9
" He hath spoken blasphemy," declared the high
priest, and he spoke no further word in support of
his decision. " He is worthy of death," said the whole
Sanhedrin passing sentence, and this, without any species
of justification, was the sentence of death.
In order that we may discover whether such a sentence
was just, or how far it was just, we must necessarily
learn what was the Hebrew notion regarding the Messiah,
and we must, above all, try and find out whether the
judges in Jerusalem had any reasonable justification for
excluding the possibility without any discussion of the
Messiah being Jesus Himself. It is in their predeter
mined, fanatical, and precipitate exclusion of this possi-

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 191
bility that lies the whole injustice of the second charge
and of the resulting condemnation of Jesus.
In the downward path of life towards death man
suffers, and in its own life of centuries humanity
accumulates and multiplies within itself these sufferings
of his. In answer to a supreme need for peace and
rest, good reveals itself to the suffering in continuous
and warring contrast with evil. Science, with proof
drawn from every-day experience, teaches us that in
this unequal fight the best victory is but the balancing
of the two forces, and that even in this difficult state
of equilibrium peace and repose are not attained. But
hope, which is the stimulus of the fight, furnishes each
day, each hour anew, the martyred but unvanquished
soul with fresh needs and fresh confidence, and in its
sense of inadaptability to pain it seeks and traces up
the inner secret of its boundless aspirations.
This secret has its own language made up of symbols
and metaphors ; and a people warred against, persecuted,
and exhausted, as is humanity taken all in all, speaks
the language which its own nature and its individual
history have given it, and invokes and shapes to itself
under the forms of symbol and metaphor a superhuman
deliverer from its long and restless sufferings, a deliv
erer who is none other than man himself victorious,
humanity itself which triumphs in hope and imagination.
In the case of the Hebrew people such a deliverer, so
conceived and so invoked, is the Messiah.
The Redeemer that is to arise in the land of Israel
is indeed a man, but so powerful as to make Himself
almost God: for the Christian world, on the contrary,
the Redeemer, already come down to earth, is a God,
but so compassionate that He makes Himself man. It
is the craving, long restrained, for national vengeance,
which causes the Hebrew people to deify its avenger:

192 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
it is the deep-felt longing for universal peace which
causes the Christian world to humanise its God. In
the latter case imagination is kindled by the recent
constitution of the Empire; that melancholy feeling
which fills men's minds, after a long trial of revolutions,
arouses limitless hopes. A new era of peace has
begun: tender, clear-sighted Virgil appears like a secret
echo of the second Isaiah; the birth of a man-child
stirs in him visions of universal palingenesis.10
But if it is needful to remark the deep abyss between
the Hebrew and the Christian beliefs concerning the
same subject of faith, this does not mean to say that,
at the time of the mock trial before the Sanhedrin,
broader and mutually different ideas as to the Messiah
were not already beginning to shape themselves — ideas
which lent themselves to the most free identification of
the Messiah. The coming of a deliverer, summoned
by the Eternal, was not expected by all after the same
manner or in the person of a single messenger or even
of two : so that the criterion of elimination became ever
more problematical and perilous. The most common
Messianic dogma was that of a national, political, and
religious deliverer, who should appear as a descendant
of the dynasty of King David, who should come to lead
back again to Palestine all the Jews scattered over the
surface of the earth, who should re-establish the king
dom of the Davidic line, build the temple anew and set
up his throne in the holy city, whence he should convert
all peoples to the religion of Jerusalem. There was,
nevertheless, not wanting in the Messianic conception
of the prophets and theologians of Hebrew literature
the mythical form of a Messiah who was to shed His
spirit over all flesh and inaugurate an era of perfect
peace and justice upon earth.11 With a Messiah of this
type Jesus of Nazareth might be fully identified. It

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 193
Was not necessary to think that such an identity was a
sacrilege and an audacious invention of Jesus Himself,
who was therefore to be held guilty of blasphemy.
As a matter of fact Nicodemus and other educated
Hebrews of that time believed firmly in such an
identity, and notwithstanding their perfect acquaintance
with the Messianic beliefs of their people, they recog
nised in Him the Son of God. The most ancient Chris
tian Churches, which began to profess this conviction,
did not found it elsewhere than in the Canon of that
Scripture which was the text of Hebrew meditation and
Hebrew faith. From the passage in Genesis which has
been called the Proto-Gospel, and in which God pro
claims to the Serpent, to the spirit of evil, his punish
ment, down to the Book of Daniel, in which the prophet
shows four great empires, depicted each with its dis
tinctive character ; from the Pentateuch to the Psalms ;
from the Psalms to the Prophets; from the Prophets
to the closing pages of Hebrew traditional literature,
in which are completed the initiatory signs of a Messiah,
son of Joseph, suffering, calumniated, crucified — Chris
tianity gathers the Messianic predictions from amidst
this intellectual and sentimental patrimony belonging
exclusively to the Hebrews. This is tantamount to say
ing that the identification of the Messiah should have
appeared to calm and unbiassed judges as a matter to be
discussed, if not to be decided in favour of the Accused,
who with His eyes fixed upon the Cross declared Him
self to be the Christ, the Son of Man. To have not
discussed it, to have denied it without debate, constitutes
the whole injustice of the second charge and of the
condemnation. It would be an easy thing to enter into a minute
exegesis of the Messianic data which can be drawn from
the biblical writings, but it would at the same time be

194 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
useless, because, however far-reaching such an investi
gation might be, it would be throughout necessary to
admit that the judges of Jerusalem might have come
to the conclusion that those data did not tally with the
character and mission of Jesus by a logical process of
appreciation and conviction which entirely depended
upon the impressionability and good faith of the judges.
The decision, although unfavourable to the Accused,
would have been in quite judicial form, if it had been
based on the result of the analysis and synthesis requi
site to a judgment.
On the other hand, any censure directed against this
decision merely because the evaluation of the points of
Messianic comparison might have led others (i.e. all
Christians believing in the supernatural character of the
Nazarene) to an opposite conclusion, would be injudi
cial. The error of the judge, when it is caused not by
any perversion of the facts of the case, but upon their
wrong evaluation, finds complete justification on the
score of human imperfection, which moreover is shared
also by him who judges the work of the judge.
But before the Sanhedrin the judgment was determined
neither by analysis nor synthesis even of the most per
functory kind. Who, amongst the judges, asked him
self who Jesus was, whence He came, and what was the
mission to which He was called? Not one. Who of
them, despite their behef in the supernatural, ever raised
the problem of the Accused's divinity ? Not one. Who
among them investigated the personal features of the
son of Joseph, born at Bethlehem, whence the majority
looked for the Messiah to come? Nobody ever ques
tioned the Accused. Who amongst them all subjected
even to superficial examination the evidence of those who
had occupied themselves with the Messianic qualities,
rightly or wrongly attributed to the Nazarene? No-

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 195
body mentioned them, much less made of them the sub
ject of examination or discussion. The question was
not even posed, which is equivalent to saying that the
trial was not even based on the essential elements of
investigation and elaboration, but that prejudice and
predetermined judgment reigned in their place.
The problem was one to be debated with an inclination
to believe and not to be rejected with a predetermined
contradiction. For if Jesus had appeared before non-
Hebrew judges of another day, judges who had not
looked for the coming of the Messiah according to the
varied and warring hypotheses of the Jewish faith, a
predetermined contradiction in a criminal trial might
have been palliated but not justified. But those mystic,
superstitious, sophistical judges, who expected a deliv
erer, were wrong in passing over, in so off-hand a man
ner, the fame and Messianic indications gathered about
the mystic person of the Nazarene. They were wrong,
unless we adhere to the conclusion already pointed out,
that it was no trial which was initiated before the San
hedrin but a destruction that was plotted. Well might
the Jews have awaited their Anointed, and well may
they do so to-day, if upon each one who announced
himself, and approximately at least revealed himself for
such, the judges of Jerusalem executed summary justice
as they did upon Jesus. Such justice is irrevocably con
demned by two contrary historical sources: on the one
hand by Scripture, tradition, and the varied belief of
the Judaism of the time, which at all events rendered
the Messianic identity of the prisoner of the Sanhedrin
matter for dispute and discussion ; on the other hand,
it is condemned by the spontaneous and almost imme
diate belief of Christianity, which for nineteen centuries
has uninterruptedly professed its faith that the Accused
was the Son of God, revealed by precisely those initia-

196 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
tory signs and outward indications which the Hebrews
have ascribed to the Messiah.
To-day the orthodox Jew and the Christian rationalist
may believe that Christianity has long deceived itself
in asserting this belief, and that the rejection by Juda
ism was founded upon the truth. But this inward
thought is of no account in justifying the judges of
the Sanhedrin. The orthodox Jew and the Christian
rationalist might not only pardon, but even approve
them, if they had condemned Jesus upon a recognised
principle, with due spontaneity and form of procedure,
but this is not what occurred, and no excuse is given.
They denied Jesus to be that which He declared Himself
to be, but they did not inquire who He was, they did
not examine whether the facts of His character and of
His mission corresponded with those upon which con
temporary superstition founded the Messianic identity.
They did not back their denial by proof either in the
nature of comparison or of elimination, although that
which they denied was what was generally and firmly
believed. And while they did not take even into sum
mary consideration the statement of the Accused, which
they set aside as a folly not meriting discussion, they
based upon it the proof and substantial fact of a crime
which should always be looked for in the free and spon
taneous tenour of a man's life, and not in the inviolable
exercise of his defence.
But for Jerusalem the destruction of a man was ex
pedient, and that is sufficient reason for pohtical justice.

Notes.
1 S. John ii. 19 : " Destroy this temple, and in three days I will
raise it up."
2 S.Johnii.21.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 197
3 1. 142, Dig. De regulis juris, L. 17.
4 Vie, ch. v.
5 xxii. 66.
6 Vie, ch. v. at beginning. Here we also encounter the adjec
tive bizarre applied by the author to his book.
7 xxii. 70.
8 xviii. 19.
9 xviii. 28.
10 Renan, Vie, ch. i. These visions (again remarks Renan)
were not rare, and composed a literature apart, which was known
under the name of the Sybillm; the Cumaum carmen in Eclogue
IV. was a species of Sybilline Apocalypse, which bore the imprint
of the philosophy familiar to the East (I.e.; cf. Servius, Ad carmina
sybillina; Suetonius, Aug.).
11 Sa 'adja (Emunoth Vede oih — Faith and Science) and Judah
Levita (Cuzari, i. 67) were among the most learned Hebrews who
have given us dissertations on the Messianic hypothesis. Mai
monides (Commentary on the Mishna Sanhedrin, cap. x. or xi.
according to other editions, par. 1), who in the twelfth century
reorganised Mosaism, and provided us with precise criteria of
Messianism; Chasdai Kreskas (Light of God) fiercely opposed
Maimonides in the fourteenth century and brought forward hy
potheses entirely contradicting him. Albo (Fundamental Dog
mas) in the fifteenth century simplified the Hebrew religion and
reduced all its dogmas to three; Akiba (T. B. Berachoth, 616)
under Emperor Hadrian was the author of the second Talmudic
phase, which tends to abandon aU the broader and more tolerant
principles professed by the more ancient rabbis, and especiaUy by
Hillel and his grandson, the elder Gamaliel. Cf. Abrabanel,
Rosh Amana, cap. ii ; Luzzatto, Lezioni di teologia dogmatica, p.
37 et seq. ; Castelli, II Messia secondo gli ebrei (Florence, Le Mon
nier, 1874) ; and Conti, II Messia, redentore vaticinato, uomo de'
dolori, re della gloria (Florence, Libr. Salesiana, 1903) — an ex
ceedingly senile " operetta " by the venerable philosopher, "quasi
viatico per V ultra vita." Castelli remarks authoritatively, syn-
thesising these numberless divergent hypotheses : " It is impos
sible to deduce from Hebrew theology any decided opinion as to
its dogmas, seeing that the most authoritative writers of treatises

198 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
are in disharmony amongst themselves and no authority superior
to them has so far arisen, nor could it arise, either to conciliate
them or to pronounce which opinions shall be accepted and which
rejected. However divergent and varying they may be, they are
equally accepted as orthodox within Judaism ; . . . the prevalence,
if not by right, at any rate in fact, will be with the opinion of Mai
monides and will stop any hberty of discussion, if not amongst the
learned, at any rate amongst the people. In that way all the im
mense labour done by Maimonides with regard to the reorganisa
tion of Judaism has ever since done more harm than good . . .
that contradiction, that disorder, that want of unity, formed, it is
true, a most confused chaos in Hebrew tradition; in opportune
time and conditions it will produce a genius which will create a
new cosmos. Dialectics and scholasticism, while pretending to
bring order into the chaos, have made it a necropolis. In lieu of a
broad interpretation of the rights and of the laws was substituted
a formalism, admirable indeed in its logic and order, but pre-
cisionist and full of minutiae, leaving not a trace of free decision.
Instead of a free discussion, opposing opinion to opinion, they
placed a conciliation, full of cavil, of the Hebrew rehgion with the
Aristotelianism of the Arabs. The free examination of each in
dividual was replaced by thirteen articles of faith, indetermined
in their minute precision and barren in their love of copious detail.
And that was the work of Maimonides, perhaps the greatest ge
nius of his times, worthy of comparison with the greatest of all ages,
the true Thomas Aquinas of Hebraism; but in whom the Arabian
philosophy and scholasticism, which was embraced by all intel
lects, created the behef that man had reached the Pillars of Her
cules of knowledge and that all human and divine science might
be gathered up by one man in one Summa in order to say to hu
manity; ' Lo, here is the perpetual norm or model of all faiths
and of all action.' In those times, perhaps, the work of such por
tentous men did not do much harm — at any rate, people might
have admired the variety and the dexterity of their genius, the
abundance and profundity of their knowledge. But since then
the centuries have proved that their work was not sufficient, and
the upheaval of the Reformation has rendered the Summw of scho
lasticism impossible in the Protestant Church. In Hebraism,

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 199
where no reformer has arisen to renovate or purify the atmos
phere, that Summa of Maimonides, which formerly might ser
iously appear as a body of admirable structure, has since become
not only obsolete and dead, but also so thoroughly morbid that the
whole of the atmosphere of Hebraism has been diseased by it "
(Introduzz. pp. 17-23).

CHAPTER XV
In which it is shown that the Sentence ascribed it the Sanhedrin
was not a Judicial Sentence — How in the Alleged Sentence
there is no Indication of the Kind of Punishment — How not
one of the Evangelists treats of a Real Sentence — Exposition
of the Mosaic Penal System in order to deduce what would
have been the Punishment applicable to Jesus — -The Various
Forms of Capital Punishment: Hanging, Stoning, Burning,
Decapitation — Preventive Imprisonment — Fine and Flagel
lation — The Crimes Punishable with Death — How for the
Crime of Blasphemy stoning was decreed — It is concluded
that had Jesus been condemned by the Sanhedrin He would
have been stoned.
The verdict was unanimous. The members of the San
hedrin who were secretly favourable to the Accused were
either absent or else they voted against Him. Nico
demus was amongst the absentees, or amongst those that
voted against Him. At all events he did not raise his
voice against the pronouncement expressed by accla
mation. But the condemnation made no mention of
any species of capital punishment. This in itself would
suffice to make clear the view which has already been
advanced — namely, that this pronouncement was no
regular verdict, but simply a charge which alone could
be deliberated upon by the Sanhedrin. According to
S. Matthew, those present confined themselves to cry
ing, subsequently to the remark of the high priest with
regard to the blasphemy attributed to Jesus, " He is
worthy of death." x According to S. Luke, they did
not even go so far as this. They remarked unjustly
200

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 201
that there was no further need of witnesses ; and there
upon " the whole company rose up, and brought Him
before Pilate, and they began to accuse Him." 2 In
S. John there is no indication of any pronouncement
whatsoever. Immediately after the denial by S. Peter
and the crowing of the cock, those assembled " led Jesus
. from Caiaphas into the palace." 3 S. Mark
alone declares that after the blasphemy " they all con
demned Him to be worthy of death." 4 But a solitary
remark of so vague a description does not suffice to cor
roborate the idea of a condemnation, except of an irreg
ular, merely moral kind, susceptible in its judicial sense
alone of being considered an accusation, especiaUy if
we reflect that there is a complete absence of any indica
tion as to the species of punishment.
It is true that Hebrew law in threatening death does
not always refer to the precise manner of the punishment.
This, however, is not so in the case of the crime of
blasphemy, which, as we shall come to see, was expressly
punished with stoning. This furnishes us with an occa
sion for discussing the penal system according to Mosaic
law. Scriptural law, as we know from the Pentateuch, em
braced three varieties of punishment : death, flagellation,
and fine. Imprisonment, which is mentioned in the Book
of Kings 5 and in Jeremiah,6 was not employed as a
penalty but merely as a means of custody. It is to in
carceration of this kind that S. Peter must have alluded
at the Master's Last Supper when he boasted that he
was ready to go to prison for Him,7 though he was to
shirk even this misfortune in the hour of peril.
The ergastulum, in which prisoners suffered life-long
detention of a most severe description, was rightly re
served for habitual criminals of the most obstinate type,
and is not to be met with in the Pentateuch,8 but only

202 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
among the novelties introduced by the compilers of the
Talmud, who were always on the look-out for any means
of circumscribing the death penalty.9
A form of capital punishment frequently employed
was hanging. It might even seem that this should be
considered the extreme penalty par excellence, and as
that which should be understood in every case where
the law, while threatening certain crimes with capital
punishment, did not indicate any particular mode of
death. A provision of Deuteronomy seems to bear this
out : " And if a man have committed a sin worthy of
death, and he be put to death, and thou hang him on
the tree; his body shall not remain all night upon the
tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day ;
(for he that is hanged is accursed of God) ; that thy
land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee
for an inheritance." 10 This passage has been viewed
by some interpreters in the sense that hanging was not
the first and essential form of capital punishment, but
that it was an act of despite done to the body of the
criminal who had already been put to death by some
other method of execution. And as a matter of fact
there would be no historical absurdity in this superflu
ous outrage upon a prisoner already dead. Such a
course has frequently been adopted with exquisite legis
lative ferocity for the purpose of causing the greatest
public terror and of making the punishment even more
exemplary.11 But an outrage of this character would
have been in obvious contradiction to the meticulous and
superstitious feelings with which the Jews were satu
rated regarding dead bodies, not only from ancient and
deep-rooted tradition, but also owing precisely to this
provision of the law. If it is here laid down that he
that is hanged is accursed of God, and that the expos
ure of his body during the night brings pollution on the

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 203
land of Jehovah, it cannot be supposed that hanging
would have been adopted as a superfluous mode of exe
cution over and beyond that strictly necessary to bring
about the death of the condemned. Outrage and respect
for a corpse would be contradictory terms in one and
the same legal provision. The superstitious ideas pre
vailing among the Hebrews concerning the defilement of
bodies were advanced as the reason why those could not
serve as priests of the sanctuary who had contracted
pollution through the death of their fellow-citizens, or
even of the prince. They were unclean if only they
had touched the body or even if they had merely fol
lowed its obsequies, or entered the house in which it
lay.12 When the body of a murdered man was found
and the author of the crime was not discovered, an
expiatory sacrifice in order to obtain impunity from this
pollution was required of the inhabitants of the city
nearest to the spot in which the corpse had been found.13
Moreover, if hanging was merely a posthumous and ac
cessory form of execution, what was the principal method
adopted for crimes for which the law prescribed only
the penalty of hanging?
Those learned in the Talmud, under the pretence of
gathering up a traditionary law supposed to have ex
isted side by side with the written law, have distorted
the most characteristic penal regulations. In main
taining the merely accessory employment of hanging,
they imagined that the principal method of execution
was by means of a process of strangulation.14
But the text of Deuteronomy alone, which we have
cited above, speaks of a process of strangulation, and
that too in reference to hanging. Of strangulation
pure and simple there is no mention here or elsewhere.
Posthumous hanging was therefore a mere piece of
imagination on the part of the Talmudists.

204 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
A manner of putting to death more frequently re
sorted to in the case of various crimes was stoning.
This was carried out in two manners. The prisoner
was either buried among the stones, the witnesses by
whom he had been accused being compelled to throw
first, or else he was led to the summit of a high rock,
from which one of the two accusing witnesses cast him
down, while the other rolled over a huge stone upon
his body. After this, if he was not already killed,
stones were cast at him till he was quite dead. Both
of these executions were probably accompanied by the
forms recorded for us by the rabbin of the Talmud.
The condemned was led out of the city preceded by
an emissary of the Sanhedrin, holding in his hands a
pike from which fluttered a banner intended to call the
attention of anybody having anything to propose in
justification of the prisoner. If any one put himself
forward, the whole procession came to a standstill, and
the condemned was remanded to prison.
Another method of execution was by burning, which
was inflicted in cases of adultery with a mother-in-law
or wife's daughter, and of prostitution of a priest's
daughter.15 This punishment took the form of burning
on a fire, as we are told indeed by the Talmudists, who,
however, forget this information advanced by them
selves in order later to maintain that the prisoner was
compeUed to drink molten lead, so that his body might
be preserved.16
A more simple and dispassionate kind of death was
reserved for the city which rendered itself guilty of
apostacy in following polytheistic or idolatrous creeds.
All the inhabitants were to be put to the edge of the
sword and decapitated, while the city with all it con
tained, being given over to the flames,17 became an ever
lasting sepulchre in honour of Jehovah, and above all

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 205
for His appeasement. For the fundamental idea which
underlay Mosaic criminal law, and even more recent
schools, was the necessity for appeasing the Divinity,
directly offended by any crime which was viewed as sin.
It would appear that a special form of death was
reserved by the law for those guilty of certain species
of incest : " they shall be cut off in the sight of their
people." 18 In this " cutting off " Talmudists have been
anxious to discover the destruction of the soul (chareth),
or rather death by heavenly means, which is much the
same as saying an internal punishment entrusted to
providence and carried out by human justice with
scourging alone. But this interpretation is entirely
arbitrary, firstly because it is impossible to conceive an
inward heavenly punishment which could have been
carried out in the presence of the assembled people, and
secondly because the legal phrase, when intelligently
explained by means of comparisons, turns out to signify
the extreme penalty expressed in its generic form, and
therefore to be carried out by means of hanging.
The extreme punishments were therefore four in num
ber: hanging, stoning, burning, and decapitation.
Of the two minor penalties, fine and flagellation,
the first was enacted against certain fixed crimes, and
the second was reserved for non-capital offences not
punishable in any determined manner. In Deuter
onomy, in fact, the judges are instructed as follows:
" If the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, the judge
shah cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before
his face, according to his fault, by a certain number.
Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest
if he should exceed, and beat him above these with
many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto
thee." 19 And as if to give an example of the unspecified
misdemeanours punishable after this sort, the legislator

206 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
of Deuteronomy interpolates between these penal regu
lations and another connected with successions, the
prohibition " to muzzle the ox when he treadeth out
the corn " 20 on the threshing-floor, in order that the
animals which aid man in his labour may have some
share in the fruits of the common toil. The Talmudists,
persistent in their constant endeavour to mitigate all
regulations as to punishment, went so far as to reduce
the maximum number of strokes to thirty-nine, and
insisted that the culprit should have been warned of his
fault before his transgression, once at least, instead of
twice, as was required in capital offences.21 But, at
the same time as they mitigated the punishment in
itself, they extended it in its application even to the
king — an exceedingly just notion, but all the more
strange for its being irreconcilable with the status of
Hebrew monarchs, who reigned by divine right.
Fine was more especially inflicted upon those guilty
of trifling offences against the person. This punishment
was not regarded or measured as an obol to offended
Jehovah, according to that law which was purely of
religious origin and character, in the way that our fine
has been regulated with regard to the pagan divinity,
Justice, but was an indemnity proportionate to the
damage caused. It is written in Exodus : " And if men
strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or
with his fist, and he die not but keepeth his bed, if he
rise again and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he
that smote him be quit ; only he shall pay for the loss of
his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed." 22
I cannot say whether the Talmudists are right in in
terpreting the word in the text which means " staff "
in the sense of " health " and " strength," but they are
certainly right in understanding that the smiter was
quit of the customary penalty of death, in that he was

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 207
condemned to make good the damage. Perhaps they
may also be correct in supposing, though they have
not proved it by adducing texts, that the smiter was
held in custody until it was ascertained that the blow
would not result in loss of hfe. This would tally
entirely with the institution of imprisonment merely
as a means of preventive custody. At all events this
enactment is noteworthy in that it directs the reparation
of damage caused in cases of light wounds inflicted
with irregular weapons. It is linked, across countless
centuries, with one of the most just demands of the
scientific penal school in the matter of assault and
crimes of passion.
To these penalties were joined others of doubtful,
or at least rare, application. Such were those com
prehended in the system of retaliation (lex talionis), and
especially the punishment involving the cutting off of
the hand. It is impossible to deny that retaliatory
penalties, based upon an instinctive sense of proportion,
are inscribed in Hebrew law, as they are in that of all
other ancient peoples ; and it is impossible to under
stand how the Talmudists, and Diodati and Salvador with
them, can have denied this.23 " Eye for eye, tooth for
tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning,
wound for wound, stripe for stripe," is written in
Exodus.24 It is not impossible to suppose, as customs
grew milder, that the practice shaped itself by which,
on the agreement of the offended person, instead of the
retaliatory repetition of the same offence, compensation
was made by means of a fine determined upon between
the parties, and confirmed by the law-administering
power, as was the case among the Romans. The sup
position is nevertheless arbitrary, firstly because it
is not corroborated by any writing, and secondly
because where the law contemplated pecuniary ret-

208 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
ribution, it did so openly, as in the case of assault
and battery. I am rather inclined to believe that the
disposition was adopted in the interests of both the
prosecutor and the defendant, in the sense that it
sanctioned a perfect proportion between violence as op
posed to violence, in the exercise, more or less reasonable
and immediate, of the right of self-defence. This inter
pretation is supported by the principle of private
vengeance which Mosaic law did not deny to the offended
party. Indeed, the next of kin to a man slain could
put the slayer to death, and was called the revenger of
blood. It is written in Numbers : " But if he thrust
him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he
die ; or in enmity, smite him with his hand, that he die ;
he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he
is a murderer; the revenger of blood shall slay the mur
derer when he meeteth him. But if he thrust him sud
denly without enmity, or have cast upon him anything
without laying of wait, . . . neither sought his harm;
then the congregation shall judge between the slayer
and revenger of blood according to these judgments:
and the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the
hands of the revenger of blood." 25 Now it is obvious
that this enactment embodies a malignant form of re
taliation, consisting in the giving of death for death,
but it is also clear that the performance of this retalia
tion was entrusted to a private person, and that the
judge only intervenes to supersede it in the case when he
is solicited to bring the slayer before the kinsman of the
slain. The same rule must have had force in the retali
ation of eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, so that it must
have been the aggrieved party and not the judge who
had to exact the penalty, except when there was judicial
intervention in the case of unjust exercise of this private
right.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 209
For a certain particular act a woman was condemned
to have her hand cut off.26
All these punishments encountered an obstacle to
their being carried out, in the existence of the right of
sanctuary conferred upon six cities — three to the east
and three to the west of Jordan ; 27 but not in the
existence of pardon, which was quite incompatible with
the notion of a divine law which no man could neglect
or mitigate. If we are to credit the Talmudists, and
Maimonides in particular, the kings, while they were
deprived of the prerogative of mercy, possessed the
power of supplementing any deficiency in the law with
decrees of their own. They could send a culprit to his
death even when the full requirements necessary for
his judicial condemnation were not forthcoming.28 It
was important to make this particular of criminal law
quite clear, because when we hear the clamorous voices
of the Jewish mob acclaiming Barabbas, proposed to
them for mercy, there is no reason to think that this
merciful prerogative appertained either to the people or
to the ruling power of Judaea, when it appertained
neither to the one nor to the other.
Among the crimes visited with the utmost severity
of the law, those hold the first place which involved the
violation of religion. The false prophet who rises
amongst the people and maintains that he has seen
dreams and visions, and foretells some sign or wonder,
is liable in his life, though the variety of his death is
not specified.29 Death by stoning is the punishment
awarded to the blasphemer, who is not otherwise men
tioned or defined by the law. In this case all those who
have heard the blasphemy must lay their hands upon the
culprit and stone him.30 The selfsame punishment is
decreed against whosoever, without holding himself up
for a prophet, endeavours to draw others away towards

210 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
polytheistic and idolatrous forms of worship. In this
case the perverted man must be the first to raise his hand,
and he was followed by the whole people, the perverter
being killed beneath the hail of stones.31 An enactment
of equal severity is reserved for such as, without leading
away others from monotheism, profess their own belief
in the worship of foreign gods — that is, of gods unknown
to their fathers. The miserable ascetic was led without
the gates of the city and was forced to witness the build
ing of his own tomb of stones.32 In another portion of
the law, amidst numerous cruel examples of the applica
tion of this punishment, the less grievous instance is given
of the chastisement of those who worshipped the idol
Moloch by sacrificing their own children to him.33
Lastly, all such as proclaim themselves possessed of the
spirit of wizardry are punished by stoning, as being
guilty of an outrage upon monotheism ; 34 those cultivat
ing the art of divination, necromancers, magicians, seers,
and sorcerers are visited with death, but in what shape
is not indicated.35
The two charges brought by the Sanhedrin against
Jesus should be set in contrast with the two first capital
offences here set down.
The first is from Deuteronomy : " If there arise among
you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee
a sign or a wonder, . . . that prophet, or that dreamer of
dreams, shall be put to death ; because he hath spoken
to turn you away from the Lord your God, which
brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you
out of the house of bondage." 36 Jesus, who, according
to the first charge (which was false), was alleged to
have foretold the destruction of the temple and the
miracle of its building up again in three days, would
have come into collision with this enactment, which, as
it neglects to assign any particular variety of death,

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 211
entailed hanging. However, the false charge was aban
doned, and on this account this punishment would never
have been applied.
The other provision is from Leviticus : " Bring forth
him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all
that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let
all the congregation stone him. And thou shalt speak
unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth
his God shall bear his sin. And he that blasphemeth
the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death." 37
Jesus, if condemned in consequence of the charge of
blasphemy, however unjustly, would have therefore been
stoned. But was He stoned? We have but to raise our eyes
to the cross, the Christian emblem, in order to make
answer that the suffering which He was destined to
undergo was very different. Search as we may among
the penalties inflicted by Mosaic law — penalties which
we have here enumerated to this end — we shall not find
among them the cross, which was a punishment peculiar
to the law and custom of another people, as we shall
proceed to show. Meanwhile, we have this twofold
truth: that the Sanhedrin inflicted upon Jesus no pun
ishment, and that which He later underwent was not
amongst those which the Sanhedrin was able to apply.
This is enough to corroborate the fact that Hebrew
judges could not, and did not, condemn the prisoner from
Nazareth.

Notes
1 xxvi. 66.
2 xxii. 71, xxiii. 1. This is the textual passage between the
chapters xxii. and xxiii. of S. Luke : in this passage, which cor
responds exactly to the transfer of Jesus from the Sanhedrin to

212 THE TRIAL' OF JESUS
the Praetorium, it is said in plain irrefutable fashion, " Coeperunt
autem illud accusare " (Vulgate). This is equivalent to saying
that the whole task of the so-called judges of the Sanhedrin was
limited, down to the end, to bringing accusations.
3 xviii. 27, 28.
4 xiv. 64.
5 1 Kings xxii. 26, 27: " The King of Israel said, Take Micaiah,
and carry him back unto Amon the governor of the city, and to
Joash the king's son; And say, Thus saith the king, Put this
fellow into prison, and feed him with bread of affliction and with
water of afihction, until I come in peace." S. Jerome translates
this last phrase " give him httle bread and httle water " (2 Parol.
xviii. 26).
6 xxxii. 2, xxxvii. 4, 20. The prophet Jeremiah is in the prison
of Jerusalem where Zedekiah, King of Judah, has had him in
terred ; but even this confinement is only inflicted for his safe
keeping until the end of the siege which the King of Babylon
has laid to Jerusalem.
7 Luke xxii. 33. In fact, the disciple did not only speak of
prison, but said in career em et in mortem (Vulgate).
8 There is, however, mention of the ergastulum, but merely as
a place in which the slaves were guarded by night, as was the
practice with the Romans. Cf. Jeremiah xxxvii. 15.
9 As far as the death penalty was concerned, the Talmudists
were ardent and indefatigable abolitionists. The most learned
man of Israel, Rabbi Akiba, and his colleague Rabbi Triphon,
said: " If we had been members of the Sanhedrin, nobody should
have been condemned to death." The Mishna lays down the
following. The Sanhedrin which once in seven years condemns
to death is a bloody Sanhedrin. Rabbi Eliezer says even once in
seventy-seven years. Cf. Rabbinowicz, Legislation criminelle
du Talmud, p. 172. But they were not only abolitionists, but
also sentimentalists.
10 xxi. 22, 23.
11 The penalties of burning, breaking on the wheel, quartering,
drawing at a horse's tail, and torture with pincers were punish
ments introduced by a codex which bore the name of a woman:
Maria Theresa (Canst, crim. Theres. Art. 5, par. 2). Very many
other laws of various epochs, wrongly inspired by an erroneous

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 213
conception of punishment, prescribed tortures of the most ex
quisite description, such as suffocation in mud, drowning with a
stone about the neck, the prisoner being abandoned in a boat
which leaked (Const. Crim. Car. par. 131; cf. Pertile, Storia del
diritto Italiano, Un. Tip. ed. 1892, par. 182, p. 262), disem
bowelling (Clodov. cap. v. ; cf. Pauh, Recept. Sent. v. 17, 2),
poisoning (Arch. stor. it. ser. xi. i. p. 67), roasting (Verci, Trev.
xvi. 129), the boiling of the prisoner in water or in oil (Pertile,
op. cit. p. 264), impaling Const, crim. car. par. 192), the tearing
off of the flesh piecemeal, or of the skin in strips, or the tearing
out of the heart (Stat. Florent. iii. 61 ; Const, crim. Theres. formu
laries, par. 6, 13), the casting to wild beasts (Dahn, Die Kbnige
der German, i. 192), the walling up or burying ahve of the con
demned (Verci, Trev. ix. 107 ; Campori, Stat, di Modena, p. 126),
death from want of sleep, from dropping water, from hunger,
the rolling of the condemned inside a box studded with pointed
nails (cf. Pertile, op. cit. par. 182, pp. 264, 265). Galeazzo
H Visconti, by his famous Quaresima, codified the art of pro
tracting the victim's sufferings for forty days. Examples are
not wanting in history, tallying more closely with the case under
discussion — i.e. of superfluous, because posthumous punish
ments. Thus, after the prisoner had been buried ahve, the
plough was passed over him (Cibrario, Econ. i. 432), or the bodies
of the victims were torn into shreds and hung from the city gates
(Stat, di Lucca, 1539, iv. 71); sometimes they were cast as food
to the dogs and wolves (Verci, Trev. xiv. 203), at others they
were left unburied for ever (L. sal. 97, 2).
12 Leviticus xxi. 1, 4, 11.
13 Deuteronomy xxi. 1-9.
14 Mishna, 49, 52. Strangulation was spared to women out of
regard for their modesty, as if that sentiment had its natural
seat in the neck (Sanhedrin, 456).
15 Leviticus xx. 14, xxi. 9.
16 Sanhedrin, 52a ; cf. Miehaelis, Mosaisches Recht, par. 235,
and Saalschiitz, Das Mosaische Recht, pp. 457-60, quoted by
Castelli, op. cit. cap. viii.
17 Deuteronomy xiii. 12-17.
18 Leviticus xx. 17.
19 xxv. 2, 3.

214 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
20 xxv. 4.
21 Sifre, ii. par. 286 ; Macchoth, 13, 156, 22a ; Corin. xi. 24.
22 xxi. 18, 19.
23 Mechilta, Neziquin, par. 8 ; Baba Zamh, 836, 84a ; Diodati
in the commentary to Exodus xxi. 24, 25 ; Salvador, Lai de Moise,
Part I. hv. iv. chap. ii. par. 5.
24 xxi. 24, 25.
25 xxxv. 20-25.
26 Deuteronomy xxv. 11, 12.
27 Numbers xxxv. 10 et seq. ; Exodus xix. 1 et seq.
28 Maimonides, De Regibus, iii. 10.
29 Deuteronomy xiii. 1, 5.
30 Leviticus xxiv. 14-16.
31 Deuteronomy xiii. 6-11.
32 Deuteronomy xvii. 2-5. That by those of strangers we are
to understand those unknown to the fathers, is to be gathered
from the passage " diis alienis quos ignoras tu et patres tui "
(Vulgate), xiii. 6.
33 Leviticus xx. 2.
34 Leviticus xx. 27. The text (Vulgate) says, " in quibus py-
thonicus vel divinationis fuerit spiritus," from the title Pythius
given to Apollo on account of a serpent slain by him. Cf. Acts
xvi. 16 ; Deuteronomy xviii. 11.
35 Leviticus xix. 31, xx. 6 ; Exodus xxii. 18.
36 xiii. 1, 5.
37 xxiv. 14-16. This enactment was framed to meet a par
ticular act which is recounted in the same passage. A nameless
child of an Egyptian woman and of an Egyptian man had blas
phemed the name of Jehovah. He was denounced and brought
before Moses, who consulted the Word of God, which affixed
capital punishment to such a crime (Deuteronomy xxiv. 10-16).

CHAPTER XVI
Lucius Pontius Pilate — His Spanish Origin — At the Court of
Tiberius — How his Shameful Marriage caused his Nomina
tion as Procurator of Judaea — His wife Claudia joins him
in his Province — The Tenacious and Vehement Character
of Pilate contrasted with that Imagined by Tradition — His
Violent Treatment and Provocation of the Jews — End of his
Official Career caused by his final Deeds of Violence — An
Allusion of Dante.
On Friday morning He was brought before Pilate.
Pilate was the sixth Roman procurator of Judaea, where
no prefect was resident: he consequently performed the
duties of that office. He came from Seville, one of the
four cities of Baetic Spain which enjoyed the right of
Roman citizenship. His father, Marcus Pontius, dis
tinguished himself in the war of annihilation waged by
Agrippa against the Cantabrians, and he commanded
the troop of renegades who turned their arms against
their comrades in servitude, the Asturians. When Spain
had been subjected to Rome, Marcus Pontius obtained
the pilum (javelin) as a mark of distinction, and from
it the family took the name of Pilati.1 The son, Lucius
Pontius, joined the suite of Germanicus, who afterwards
perished in Syria by the orders of Tiberius, and with
him he fought through the German campaigns. After
the peace he came to Rome in the pursuit of pleasure;
and this pursuit did not bring him fair repute. But
his royal marriage with Claudia earned him the dignity
of procurator of Judaea. 215

216 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
Claudia was the youngest daughter of Julia, the
daughter of Augustus, who, after being married to
Tiberius as her third husband, was sent into exile by
her father on account of her dissolute life. In exile she
had borne Claudia to a Roman knight; and when the
girl had reached about thirteen, her mother sent her
to be brought up by her husband.
When she had passed her fifteenth or sixteenth year,
the Spaniard Pontius Pilate arrived in Rome; and
having cast a servile rather than a lustful eye on
Claudia, whose upbringing and habits he well knew,
and having found his way into the inner favour of
Tiberius, he asked her in marriage. Tiberius gave his
consent, but, says the story, when Claudia issued from
the temple as a bride, and when Lucius Pontius wanted
to follow her in the imperial litter, Tiberius, who was
one of the twelve witnesses required by the nuptial cere
mony, held him back, and drawing a paper from his
bosom, handed it to him and passed on.2
It was the order to proceed to Jerusalem and thence
to Caesarea, as procurator of Judaea. A war-bireme,
riding in the harbour, was already prepared to set sail
with him. From that day six years had passed; Julia
was dead. Pontius sent numerous despatches describing
the Jewish population as turbulent and rebellious in the
highest degree: not knowing how to be independent,
they could not resign themselves to remaining slaves.
Claudia asked and obtained Caesar's permission to join
her husband.
This was a most gracious concession, because in the
first place it was in no manner allowed that the pro
consuls should take their wives after them; later they
were merely recommended not to. A senatus consult,
published under the consulship of Cethegus and Varro
on the motion of Messalinus Cotta, and which is tran-

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 217
scribed in the Justinian text, declared that it was better
that the proconsul should go to his province without
wife, but that she may go with him, wherefore it is
recorded that the senate hath ordained that the pro
consuls be personally responsible and subject to penalty
for any transgression of their wives.3 The rule of
prohibition, or rather dissuasion, would have had no
weight with Caesar, had he not had his own particular
reasons (an exception in the case of Claudia, daughter
of Julia and foster-daughter of Tiberius. Nevertheless,
this was the lady to whom refers the kindly and ever
lasting mention in the pages of the New Testament,
as she who was troubled in sleep by the vision of the
Innocent that was in her husband's hands.
Lucius Pontius was the son of a renegade soldier; he
himself was a renegade husband. He inherited the
servility of his father, who had great ambitions at
the court of Rome. He was personally tainted by the
most shady court intrigues. Conscious as he was of
the low origin of his rank, he set about to keep it by
the most strict and unremitting observance of the sole
title of his intrigue-won fortunes — lavish subservience
to the will of Rome. Every act of his official life is
inspired by the necessary programme of adaptation,
and not by the spontaneous leanings of his own nature.
His character, it is true, was reft of every moral sense,
if we may judge it by its deeds, and was prepared for
any degree of base dissimulation if it advanced his
interests. But it contained nothing of that feeble
guardedness, nothing of that pusillanimous hesitancy
which has become part of most people's opinion of him,
and which in the apostolic tradition itself is called by
the Greek name anandria (avavSpla).4 Philo of Alex
andria and Flavius Josephus have left us indications of
his violent, cruel, and tenacious character, capable of

218 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
boundless hatred as well as of base intrigue. Philo
of Alexandria, in a disquisition which is in nowise akin
to our present one, calls him a man of " stubborn and
harsh quality," and assures us " that he could not bring
himself to do anything that might cause pleasure to the
Jews," and that " within the holy city in the palace of
Herod he had dedicated insignia of gold not so much
in honour of Tiberius as out of contempt for the
Jews." 5
Josephus relates precisely the same story about the
insignia in two passages of his works, and gives details
which go to show that his hatred towards the Jews
was as great as was his love for the Romans. Pilate,
after being despatched by Tiberius to Judaea as pro
curator, had the effigies of Caesar, which go by the
name of insignia, brought into Jerusalem under cover
of night. This put the Jews in a great ferment. Those
in the immediate neighbourhood were horrified at the
spectacle. They considered that their laws were being
trampled under foot, as they did not permit the erection,
in the city, of even a statue.
On the lamentation of the citizens a mass of people
flocked in from the country, and, hastening with one
accord before Pilate, who was then at Caesarea, they
entreated him to remove the insignia from Jerusalem
and to maintain their native laws intact. On Pilate
showing himself hardened against their supplications,
they flung themselves prostrate before him, and for
five days and as many nights remained motionless
in that position. The following day Pilate, having
taken his seat on the tribunal in the great circus, and
having called the people to him as if he wished to make
them some reply, gave a signal to the guards to fall
on them with cold steel. As the soldiers closed about
them in three lines, the Jews remained speechless at

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 219
the unexpected sight. Pilate, calling out to them that
he would put them to the sword unless they accepted
the effigies of Caesar, gave orders to his men to un
sheathe their swords. Thereupon the Jews, as if then
alone they had first understood, threw themselves upon
the ground, and baring their necks, cried that they
were ready to die rather than transgress the laws.
Thunderstruck at their unflinching faith, Pilate com
manded the removal of the insignia from Jerusalem.6
This timely and wise withdrawal on his part was
perhaps prompted by the recency of his nomination,
as it is certain that the affair of the insignia took place
at the moment of his entry into the province which it
was his duty to govern. Later he was unable to keep
his violence against the Jews, whom he detested, in
bounds. At the expense of the sacred treasury — and
this fact is also related by Josephus in two passages —
he brought to Jerusalem a conduit of water having its
source two hundred stadia distant. The Jews had no
love for a work of this nature; consequently, having
assembled to the number of several thousands, they
clamorously intimated to him that he should desist;
a few, as is the case in a mob, gave vent to insults.
Whereupon Pilate, without more ado, posted a great
mass of soldiers in the dress of ordinary citizens so that
they might the easier surround the discontented Jews:
each soldier carried a dagger beneath his clothes. The
Jews were then ordered to withdraw. They were already
beginning to shriek imprecations against him when Pilate
gave the preconcerted sign to the soldiers, and they laid
on with all the vehemence they could muster, striking
down alike both guilty and innocent. Neither did the
Jews abate in their insolence, so that the poor wretches,
taken without arms by men well equipped to destroy
them, were left dead for the most part on the spot, while

220 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
the others escaped by flight, but wounded. And thus
ended the tumult.7
Later on, by a fresh act of violence, Pilate was to
compromise and close for ever his official career. - There
broke out among the Samaritans a revolt, stirred up
by an impostor, who — no new feature in history — did
everything to suit the caprice of the mob. He wished
to gather the people together on Mount Gerizim, which
was held holy by the Samaritans, and promised that he
would unearth the sacred vessels there deposited by Moses.
The credulous people took arms and gathered in force
in order to scale the mountain. But Pilate was before
hand with them and had the road to the mountain held
by men on horse and foot. These forces scared off a
great number, and put the rest to flight, with the cap
ture of many prisoners. Pilate had the most notable
among these put to death. The Samaritans went to
complain to Vitellius of the destruction wrought among
their comrades, and put forward that they had no inten
tion of revolting from the Romans. The Governor of
Syria sent his friend Marcellus as vice-governor to Judaea
and ordered Pilate to leave for Rome in order to render
account to the Emperor of the charges brought against
him by the Jews. Pilate, after ruhng Judaea for ten
years, bowed his head to the behests of Vitellius, and,
having no excuse to offer, set out in the direction of
Rome. But before he arrived there Tiberius had passed
away.8 To the Spaniard 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
colourless nature of Palestine, much less in the humble,
mystic, out-at-elbows existence of its people. Their
superstition, which would have nothing of Roman idol
atry, which was their sole belief, their all, appeared to

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 221
him a reasonable explanation, and a legitimate one, of
their disdain and opposition. He therefore detested the
Jews, and his detestation was fully reciprocated. An
innovator of blameless hfe, one that chastised His fellow-
countrymen fearlessly and successfully, one who, in abso
lute contradistinction to all contemporary agitators, did
not found His efforts at innovation on earth amid the
pohtical relations between Jerusalem and Rome, one who
with calm and ready indifference left to Caesar that to
which Caesar laid claim — such a one should have touched
in Pilate a deep spring of kindly fellow-feeling. But to
Pilate, cold reasoner as he was, the work of Jesus was
far too lofty, far too immense, for him to feel himself
impressed by it. But was not Jesus hated by the major
ity of his fellow-countrymen? That in itself was suffi
cient reason that Pilate should sympathise with Him,
nay, love Him. For Pilate, without vent for the craving
of his violent character, demoralised by the necessities of
a position which he had won by illicit means and filled
with difficulty, found the reaction and the outlet which his
over-taxed patience required in using every opportunity
for showing his contempt for the Jews or exercising his
tyranny over them ; it was with him as with those beasts
of burthen which, though powerless, sometimes become
vicious. But as so often happens with those same animals, in
shaking off the load of man, which wearies and dis
tresses them, they fall into the abyss they have so
often skirted but escaped; so Pilate owed his ruin to
this final outburst of ill-restrained passion against the
Samaritans. In 36 a.d., two years after Lucius Vitellius, father of
the future Roman Emperor Aulus Vitellius, had suc
ceeded Pomponius Flaccus as Governor of Syria, the
procurator Pilate received instructions from the new

222 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
Governor to repair to Rome in order to prove before the
Emperor his innocence of dealing tyrannically with the
Samaritans.9 According to some, he was driven from
Rome into exile at Vena Gallica, where his restless hfe
was cut short.10
It is certain that for the part he played in suppressing
the Nazarene he cannot have undergone any punishment,
seeing that he remained in office several years after.
And it is equally certain that the news of the bloody
event must have found its way to the Court of Rome —
in fact, two letters in Greek to Tiberius and a longer
report to the Emperor are ascribed to Pilate.
These documents, currently known under the name of
the Acts of Pilate, undoubtedly belong to the series of
apocryphal writings of the New Testament, but they are
not devoid of a certain interest, because the existence of
such acts is evidenced by the oldest Fathers of the
Church.11 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 f ece per viltate il gran rifiuto ;
to him, the prototype of that long train of those who
were never quite ahve, who vainly sought glory in this
world, vainly dreaded infamy; who, ever wavering
betwixt good and evil, washed their hands ; who, hke the
neutral angels of the threshold, were neither faithful nor
rebellious ; who are equaUy despised by pity and justice;
who render themselves A Dio spiacenti ed ai nemici sui,12

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 223
And what man other than Pilate was ever placed so
typically, in such accordance with the idea of the poet,
between the Son of God and His enemies, between justice
and mercy, between right and wrong, between the Em
peror 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 what 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 abdicated 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. According to what has been
already shown in these pages, as to the true office of
Pilate, he did not merely refuse to veto an injustice, by
not making himself, since he was able, the executor
thereof, but he refused the act of justice itself, as he
ought to have made himself the judge, although he was
not. His refusal was then great — greater than the com
mentators ignorant of this historical detail can imagine,
since they continue to seek, amidst the things and per
sons present to the hatred and love of Dante, him who
made the " great refusal," as if the poet had not been a
soul more sublime than passionate, and they think of
Giano della Bella or even Vien di Cerchi. And even as
the refusal of Pilate was great, the greatest of all re-

224 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
fusals, so it was cowardly. He was convinced of the
innocence of Jesus ; he calls him righteous ; asks and asks
again of his accusers, " What evil hath he done to you ? "
he knows that it is out of envy that they set Him in his
hands ; he thinks and says, " I find no fault in Him " ;
he feels that it is right and reasonable to set Him free,
and yet he sends Him to the cross. Cowardice of
cowardice ! And it was displeasing, as it was bound to
be, both to the followers of Jesus and his enemies, both
to Caesar and the Jews.
Before such a man Jesus was brought bound.13

Notes
1 For the derivations of pilum, cf . Virgil, Mn. xii. 121 ; Martial,
Epigr. 1, xxxii.; Orelh and Henzen, Inscr. lat. 3574, 6852. For
the political condition of Hispalis (Seville), which obtained from
Caesar the name Colonia Julia Romola or Romulensium, cf.
Caesar, Bell. Civ. 2, 18, 20 ; Bell. Hisp. 27, 35, 42 ; Strabo, 3, 141.
Hispalis was also the seat of a Canventus Juridicus.
2 Cf . Petruccelli Della Gattina, Memorie di Giuda, vol. i. cap. ii.
3 L. 4, par. 2, D. De off. Procons. et Leg. 1, 16. Similar pro
visions, which we meet with in the same authority, ordained that
the proconsul (and the procurator was subject to the same regu
lations) should enter his province by the usual route, and should
not neglect to first set his foot in the accustomed city, as the pro
vincials assigned great importance to the usages and preroga
tives. Thus the proconsul of Asia was to arrive by sea and land
first at Ephesus. If he arrived in a populous city or chief-town,
he was to submit to the inhabitants rendering him honours and to
hearken with benignity to their compliments (1. 4, pars. 4 and 5 ;
i.7). 4 For the general opinion, see Didon, Jesus-Christ, ch. x.
5 Leg. ad Caj. ed Hoesch, p. 1034. Philo calls him pervicaci
duroque ingenio and attributes to him venditas sententias, rapinas,
clades, tormenta, crebras cades indemnatorum, crudelitatem savis-

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 225
6 De hello jud. lib. ii. cap. ix. The same story is repeated in
practically identical terms in the Antiq. jud. xvni. iv. 1.
7 Josephus, Antiq. xvni. iv. 2. It is given to be understood
that the opposition was directed against the employment of the
sacred treasure, called by the Hebrew word " corbona." Cf. De
hello jud. n. ix.
8 Josephus, Antiq. xvni. v. 2.
9 Cassiodorus, Chronic, ad. ann. Chr. 34 ; Orosius, Hist . lib.
vii. cap. vi. See in this chapter the account of his violence to the
Samaritans. For the coming of Lucius Vitellius, see cap. x. Cf.
Mommsen, Raman Provinces from Casar to Diocletian, chap. xi.
10 Cassiodorus and Orosius, loc. cit.; Eusebius, Hist, eccles. ii.
7. Eusebius refers to the suicide as " providential," and is there
fore open to suspicion ; he remarks that " it was impossible that
a minister of such impiety should remain unpunished."
11 Fabricius J. A. Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti (Ham
burg, 1719-1743), vol. i. pp. 237, 239, 298, vol. ii. p. 456 ; Tertul
lian, Apol. 5 ; Justin Martyr, Apol. i. pp. 76, 84 ; Chrysostom,
Homil. viii. in Pasch ; Altman, De epist. Pilati ad Tiberium ; Van
Dale, De oral. p. 609 ; Winer, Biblisches Realworterbuch, art.
Pilatus. Epistola i. : " Pontius Pilatus Clauido salutem. Nuper
accidit et quod ipse probavi Judseos per invidiam se suosque pos-
teros crudeli condemnatione punisse. Denique cum promissum
haberent Patres eorum quod illis Deus eorum mitteret de ccelo
sanctum suum qui eorum Rex merito diceretur, et hunc se promi-
serit per virginem missurum ad terras : istum itaque me Praeside
in Judaeam Deus Hebraeorum cum misisset, et vidissent eum coe-
cos illuminasse, leprosos mundasse, paralyticos curasse, dsemones
ab hominibus fugasse, mortuos etiam suscitasse, imperasse ventis,
ambulasse siccis pedibus super undas maris, et multa alia fecisse,
cum omnis populus Judaeorum eum filium Dei esse diceret, invid
iam contra eum passi sunt Principes Judaeorum, et tenuerunt
eum mihique tradiderunt, et alia pro aliis mihi de eo mentientes
dixerunt, asserentes istum Magum esse et contra legem eorum
agere. Ego autem credidi ita esse, et flagellatum tradidi ilium
arbitrio eorum. Illi autem crucifixerunt eum et sepulto custodes
adhibuerunt. Ille autem militibus meis custodientibus die tertio
resurrexit: in tantum autem exarsit nequitia Judseorum, ut darent
pecuniam custodibus et dicerent : Dicite, quia discipuli ejus cor-

226 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
pus ipsius rapuerunt. Sed cum accepissent pecuniam, quod fac
tum fuerat tacere non potuerunt. Nam et ilium surrexisse tes-
tati sunt se vidisse, et se a Judaeis pecuniam accepisse. Haec ideo
ingessi, ne quis aliter mentiatur, et aestimet credendum menda-
ciis Judaeorum." Epistola ii. : " Pilatus Tiberio Caesari salutem.
De Jesu Christo quern tibi plane postremis meis declaraveram,
nutu tandem populi, acerbum, me quasi invito et subticente, sup-
plicium sumptum est. Virum hercle ita pium ac sincerum nulla
unquam setas habuit, nee habitura est. Sed minis extitit ipsius
populi conatus omniumque scribarum et seniorum consensus,
suis Prophetis et more nostro Sybillis praemonentibus, hunc veri-
tatis legatum crucifixere, signis etiam super naturam apparenti-
bus, dum penderet, et orbi universo Philosophorum judicio lapsum
minantibus. Vigent illius discipuli, opere et vitae continentia
Magistrum non mentientes, imo in eius nomine beneficentissimi.
Nisi ego seditionem populi prope aestuantem pertimuissem, for-
tasse adhuc nobis ille Vir viveret. Etsi tuae magis dignitatis fide
compulsus quam voluntate mea adductus pro viribus non resti-
terim sanguinem justum totius accusationis immunem, verum
hominum malignitate inique in eorum famen ( ?), ut Scripturse
interpretantur, exitium pati et venundari. Vale. Quarto Nonas
Aprilis " (from Fabricius, op. cit. vol. i. pp. 298-301). "Pon-
tentissimo, Augustissimo et invicto Imperatori Tiberio Pilatus
Prsefectus orientis. Cogor hisce hteris tibi, Pontentissime Imper-
ator, significare metu fleet plenus ac terrore, quid nuperi temporis
impetus tulerit, et jam colhgo inde quid dienceps postea sit fu-
turum. In hujus cui praesideo provincial urbe Hierosolymis uni-
versa multitudo Judseorum mihi tradidit hominem cui nomen
Jesu, et multorum eum reum egit criminum, sed quae firmis ar-
gumentis probare non potuerunt. In hoc tamen conspirarunt
omnes, quod Jesus sabbato feriandum non esse docuisset. Nam
multos sanavit ilia die, ccecis visum restituit, claudis incedendi
facultatem ; mortuos suscitavit, mundavit leprosos, curavit par-
alyticos, qui plane debiles essent, neque vires ullas corporis aut
nervorum firmitatem haberent: his omnibus non modo vocis usum
et armoniae precipiendse, et facultatem ambulandi et currendi
reddidit solo verbo pracipiens infirmis, sed et aliud quid majus
effecit quod Dii nostri praestare non possunt. Quatriduanum
mortuun solo verbo et compellato tantum ejus nomine suscitavit,

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 227
illumque cujus sanies jam a vermibus corrumpebatur, et qui cards
instar fcetebat, videns in sepulchro positum jussit currere, nulla-
tenus amplius similem mortuo sed ex sepulchro velut ex thalamo
sponsi prodeuntem suaveolentissimum. Praeterea mente ahen-
atos et agitatos a daemoniis, inque desertis degentes bestiarum
instar ferarum et cum serpentibus enutritos, iterum mites placi-
dosque reddidit, soloque verbo ut urbes rursus incolerent et ad se
redirent effecit, adesse jussis hominibus mente et viribus integris
ac nobihbus qui cum illis comederent, et hostes jam illos ac debel-
latores perniciosorum a quibus vexati fuerant dasmonum viderent.
Fuit et arida homo manu, sive potius dimidia corporis parte veluti
in saxum mutata, qui prae macilentia vix hominis formam referret.
Hunc quoque solo verbo curavit et sanitati restituit. Tum mulier
sanguinis profluvio laborans exaustis sanguinis fluxu arteriis
venisque vix haerebat ossibus mortuae simiUima et destituta voce,
cui medici ilhus loci mederi neutiquam poterant. Haec clam,
cum prsetereunte forte Jesus ab ejus umbra vires cepisset, a tergo
vestis eius fimbriam tetigit, eademque hora repleta sanguinis et a
malo suo Iiberata fuit, quo facto, festinato gressu in civitatem
suam Capernaum accurrit, et sex dierum iter absolvere potuit.
Atque ista majora a Jesu quam a Diis quos nosmet colimus facta
miracula exposui, prout statim memoria cogitanti suggessit. Hunc
Herodes, Archelaus, Phihppus, Annas et Caiphas una cum toto
populo mihi tradidere, magno super ejus inquisitione facto ad
versus me tumulto. Jussi igitur prius flagellatum in crucem
agere, hcet nullam causam in eo maleficiorum criminumque reperi.
Simul autem crucifixus est, simul tenebrae universam terrain op-
plevere, sole per meridiem obscurato et astris comparentibus,
dum interim inter stellas desideraretur nee splenderet luna san
guine veluti suffusa atque deficiens : tunc ornatus omnis rerum
terrestrium sepultus erat, ita ut prae tenebrarum densitate nee
ipsum a Judaeis posset conspici quod ita vocant sanctuarium :
terrae vero dehiscentis chaos et dejectorum fuhninum strepitus
percipiebatur. Inter hunc ipsum terrorem e mortuis suscitati
videndos se praebuere, ut ipsi Judaei testes affirmarunt, in his
Abraamus, Isaacus, Jacobus, duodecim Patriarchae, Moyses et
Joannes, quorum pars ante ter mille et quingentos ut ajunt illi
annos diem obierunt. Et plurimi quos in vita etiamnum nover-
ant, jam vero plangentes bellum quod instet propter ipsorum im-

228 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
pietatem, Judaeorumque et legis ipsorum eversionem quiritantes.
Tremor ex terrse motu duravit a sexta hora diei parasceves usque
ad nonam. At die prima sabbatorum facto mane sonus de coelo
auditus est, coelumque lumine perfusum septuplo tanto quamtum
aliis solet diebus. Die tertia noctis sol visus est incomparabili
splendore prolucens, et quemadmodum fulgura in tempestate
subito promicant, sic viri lucida veste et gloria magna induti ap-
paruerunt cum innumerabih multitudine clamantium, et voce
magni tonitrui instar proloquente : Christus crucifixus resur-
rexit. Et qui sub terra apud inferos servitutem servierant, pro-
dierunt in vitam, hiatu terrse tanto ac si fundamenta nulla essent,
ita ut aquae ipsse subter abyssum apparerent, dum mortuis pluri-
mis resuscitatis obviam veniebant coelestes spiritus corpore prae-
diti. Qui vero suscitaverat mortuos omnes, et inferna vinculis
constrinxerat Jesus, Dicite discipulis, inquit, quod antecedet vos
in Galilseam, ibi eum visuri estis. Per totam porro noctem lumen
istud lucere neutiquam desiit. At Judaeorum non pauci voragine
terrae absorpti sunt, ut altera die desiderarentur multi Judaei ex iis
qui in Christum dixerant. Aliis qualia non quisquam nostrum
vidit Phasmata sese conspicienda obtulerunt. Neque una Judae
orum substitit Hierosolymis Synagoga, siquidem eversae sunt
omnes. Cseterum qui sepulchrum Jesu custodiebant milites a con-
spectu Angeh conterriti, metuque ac terrore maximo extra se pos-
iti abierunt. Hsec sunt quae prsesenti tempore gesta comperi et
ad Potestatem tuam referens, qusecumque cum Jesu Judaei eger-
unt, Numini tuo, Domine, misi " (from the same work: vol. ii p.
457 et seq.). Let us leave aside curiosity; the forgery could not
well be more frivolous or evident.
12 Inferno, iii. ; cf . Pascoh, Colui chi fece il gran rifiuto, in Mar-
zocci, ann. vii. no. 27. Pascoh identifies Pilate in the allusion
of Dante, not only by the arguments here given, but also by
others of a theological description. " Pilate was the instrument
of that Redemption by which the gift (of free will) was con
ferred again ; Pilate, who from the Redeemer might have known
quid est Veritas and waited not for an answer ; Pilate, who recog
nized in Jesus one that was just, the Son of God, the Christ, and
let Him be crucified ; Pilate . . . oh, thought of Dante
dizzily sublime, that there in the entry to the world of Death he
should see running, running, ever running behind the cross,

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 229
him who raised it. Who can be the prototype of those in vain
baptised in the Cross of Christ, if it is not he who more than any
other, half-way betwixt heathendom and Christendom, he that
was a pagan but knew Christ, he that was a Christian but let
Him be crucified ? "
13 Strauss (Vie, par. 131), not for a moment interrupting his
comparative exegesis of the Gospel texts, notes that, according
to S. Matthew, Jesus was bound when he was brought to the Prae-
torium, while according to S. John He was bound immediately
after His arrest. But as a fact, S. Matthew does not say that
Jesus was bound then; he says " bound," which is equivalent to
" having been bound " : " they led Him away and delivered Him
up to Pilate the governor " (et vinctum adduxerunt eum, xxvii. 2.
Vulgate). When and where he was bound is not mentioned,
Besides, as to the arrest, he does not speak very differently from
S. John: "Then they came and laid hands on Jesus, and took
Him " (xxvi. 50). Thus, if S. John tells us that the prisoner
was bound from the first, while S. Matthew describes Him as
still bound at the time of being brought to the Praetorium, this
constitutes no contradiction but rather a confirmation, indicating
the continuation of the same circumstance. Moreover, nothing
could be more probable or more consistent with the practice of
criminal procedure, than that Jesus should have been twice
bound, once at the time of arrest, and again when He went forth,
after having been unbound during His stay in the Sanhedrin.
The dignity of apparent freedom has often been remarked in
the prisoner. See Art. 273 of the Codex of Itahan Criminal
Procedure.

CHAPTER XVII
In which it is shown that the Reputed Judges of Jesus acted
as Prosecutors before Pilate — Scruples of Levitic Contam
ination close the Gate of the Prsetorium to them — Better
Determination of the Day upon which these Occurrences
took place — Pilate's Tribune — How an Accusation but not
a Condemnation upon the Part of the Jews is spoken of —
How the Charge of Blasphemy was not Maintained, but
the Already Abandoned Charge of Sedition was once more
pressed — The Examination of Jesus before Pilate — How
Pilate concluded that he found no Crime in Him.
Those that went with Him were His judges.1 In like
manner the humbler and more greedy of gain among the
craftsmen are they that bring their work for payment
as soon as it is done. At the gate of the Praetorium they
were compelled to halt, for within the walls of the Roman
procurator's palace they would have been polluted by
Levitic contamination. They who thrice, yea four
times, in a single night had violated the laws in their
loftiest and sternest essence scrupled to break a mere
ritual regulation.
This regulation consisted in the prohibition to eat fer
mented food on the first and on the seventh day of the
feast of the Passover — a prohibition which perhaps de
rived its origin from the recollection that the Hebrews
when driven out of Egypt, had no time to ferment their
dough, and therefore consumed it before it had been
leavened.2 This pious scruple on the part of those per-
fervid zealots that accompanied Jesus, and which is at-
230

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 231
tested by the fourth Evangelist,8 leads us to confirm the
opinion that the trial. and execution of Jesus took place
on the day preceding the Passover, on the day of prep
aration (-rapaa-Kcurj), instead of upon the Passover
itself, as the Synoptics would induce one to maintain.
The question as to the death of Jesus is a difficult one,
but one of no great importance in the present matter.
It is certain that S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke,
from what they say in reference to the Last Supper, and
not from their allusions to the actual day of death, make
that day coincide with the Passover:4' S. John, on the
contrary, makes clear reference to the preceding day,
not only in caUing attention to the scruple of the Jews
against entering the Praetorium, but also by an explicit
affirmation — " It was the preparation of the Passover." 5
And this affirmation must of necessity be preferred. On
the other hand, according to S. Luke the day on which
Joseph of Arimathaea presented himself before Pilate and
obtained from him the body of Jesus crucified, in order
to convey it away to the sepulchre hewn in the rock,
was the day of the preparation, and the Sabbath already
was dawning.6 Thus at break of day on the Sabbath
Jesus was already dead. According to S. Mark, the
priests and the scribes were already resolved two days
before the Passover to take Jesus with subtlety and kill
Him, but they said, " Not during the feast, lest haply
there shall be a tumult of the people." 7 Hence neither
the arrest nor the execution can have taken place on the
Passover. And in truth the whole array of facts con
cerning that memorable day points to the conclusion that
it was not a feast-day: for work is done and judgments
are given, loads are carried and help is given in the
carrying out of condemnations.
We may therefore with safety rest assured that the day
was the Friday preceding the Paschal Sabbath.8 Now

232 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
in that year the Sabbath fell, as S. Luke and S. John
attest, on Saturday, Nisan 15, lasting from sunset on
the 7th till sunset on the 8th of April. Thus Jesus was
arrested on the evening of the Thursday precedingApril
6, when, as the sun was already set, Nisan 14 had begun.
And since the Hebrew day lasted until sunset on the 7th,
thus not only the arrest, which took place on the begin
ning of Nisan 14 — that is to say, on the evening of April
6 — but also the second part of the process, the trial
before the Sanhedrin which was held after midnight, the
transfer before Pilate and the execution, took place on
April 7, corresponding always to Nisan 14.9
The accusers, therefore, from dread of Levitical con
tamination remained outside the Praetorium. Jesus,
however, was made to enter, according to the fourth
Evangelist ; so that Pilate in order to speak to the Jews
was forced from time to time to go outside and to come
in again to speak with the Accused.10 It would seem at
the first glance that, according to the Synoptics, Jesus,
Pilate, and the accusers were together in one place, in
the open air. But if one looks well into the context of
their account, it is impossible to deduce any such con
clusion. Because S. Matthew makes Pilate ask Jesus,
" Hearest thou not how many things they witness against
thee? " n and S. Mark, " Behold how many things they
accuse thee of," 12 these two expressions do not, in my
belief, exclude the supposition that Jesus could hear
within what was being cried without, or that Pilate
should have repeated from time to time the accusations,
as in fact S. John declares. S. Luke does not define the
matter at all, and it is after all of little consequence.
It does not appear to me of any use arguing as does
Strauss,13 in the face of so simple a reconciliation of
facts as is that here given, that S. Matthew insists upon
the placing of Jesus outside the Praetorium, relating, as

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 233
he does, that He was shortly afterwards taken inside ; 14
this detail took place, moreover, after Pilate, according
to the same Evangelist, had released Barabbas, had had
Jesus scourged, and had handed Him over to the Jews,15
whereas the flagellation at least must have been per
formed in the Praetorium. The further difficulty which
has been raised by the Louisbourg biographer does not
appear to me to have any great value. In his criticism
of S. John's version he remarks that if the examination
took place inside the Praetorium and the Jews remained
outside, it is not clear by whom the proceedings were
heard and reported.16 In the first place it is not said
that if the Jews remained strangers to the fact, therefore
all others who were attached to the person of the Gov
ernor remained strangers to it. Moreover, the suppo
sition is not excluded that the Governor himself may have
reported what occurred. It is generally admitted that
Pilate sent an account of the execution to Rome, as has
already been maintained.17 There is besides no reason
which can compel us to believe that Pilate observed
secrecy as to what passed between him and Jesus in the
Praetorium. This place, in the Latin tongue, signified the seat which
the Roman praetor assumed for the administration of
justice. In the Roman provinces, as in that of Judaea,
this name, which had passed into the Greek and even into
Syro-Chaldaic languages, denoted the palace of the Gov
ernor. Pilate occupied the palace of the Herods on the
hiU of Zion, which we know from Flavius Josephus had
been occupied by his predecessors, at least by Florus
Gessius, the successor of Albinus.18 Pilate's tribune (in
Greek Bijpa) was in the open air, on the spot called
Gabaatha (in Greek Aitfoo-TpcoTos ) from the kind of
pavement formed by the stratum of the soil.19 I do not
know how Lucke comes to doubt this fact, since Josephus

234 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
affirms it on two distinct occasions when Pilate mounts
his tribune, once at Caesarea and once actually in Jeru
salem.20 Moreover Roman trials were public; and it
was not considered possible to better preserve publicity
than by administering justice under the open sky.
The priests and elders of Jerusalem, to the confusion
of any who imagine that they came from the holding of
a regular trial, do not appear here before the Governor
in the light of judges merely craving the carrying out
of their sentence. From the first words which they ex
change with Pilate it may be gathered, it is true, that
they had some intention of gaining the ratification of a
deed already accomplished. But for all that they never
mention any sentence, and the Governor never mentions
aught but an accusation.
As they arrived without on the steps of the Gabaatha
he asked:
" What accusation bring ye against this man? " And
they answered:
" If this man were not an evil-doer, we should not have
delivered him up unto thee."
Never yet had they straightened their backs before
foreign authority, cringing subjects as they were. Evi
dently hatred had kindled within them a short-lived,
fatuous courage.
Pilate immediately crushed it.
" Take Him yourselves and judge Him according to
your law."
And the Jews:
" It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." 21
It would be quite erroneous to gather from Pilate's re
tort that the Governor recognised in the Jews that capi
tal jurisdiction which had hitherto been combated. Peo
ple interpret his retort after two fashions: either the
Governor granted them in this instance the faculty of

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 235
carrying out capital punishment, or else he proposed to
them one of the minor penalties of which they preserved
the right.22 The first interpretation is inadmissible,
because if the Jews had been able to understand that the
Governor conceded them the power of executing the
sentence they had already pronounced, they would have
taken him at his word, inasmuch, be it carefully noted,
as the disability, which they advanced, of being unable
to put to death, referred, and referred almost reproach
fully, to the power usurped by Rome and not to any
prohibition in the Mosaic law, which we have seen was
only too steeped in the blood of capital pains and penal
ties. On the other hand the second interpretation is
admissible because jurisdiction of capital offences had
been withdrawn from the Sanhedrin, but not that of
minor crimes.23 In any case the final reply of the Jews,
" It is not lawful for us to put any man to death," is a
clinching argument in refutation of the common error ;
for no one can believe that " put to death " (imterficere)
merely refers to the carrying out of the capital pun
ishment and not to the pronouncing of a sentence of
death. To me, unless I am very greatly mistaken, the retort
of Pilate appears in complete accordance with his false,
cynical soul, evilly disposed towards the Jews even to
the point of sarcasm, the soul which later disclosed
itself in his obstinate refusal to alter the inscription
affixed to the cross; and it is this that makes me believe
that Pilate wished in these words to heap ridicule on the
Jews, as if he invited them to exercise a prerogative of
which the Roman Empire, at that moment and at that
place represented by himself, had despoiled them. By
another train of argument Strauss arrives at the same
conclusion. He, however, entirely neglects the question
of a capital jurisdiction fallen into ruin, propounding

236 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
the following dilemma: either Pilate did not think of
an offence involving death, or else he wished to make
mock of the Jews.24
And if it is permissible to adduce the independent in
sight of a poet in support of a matter of purely historical
research, I would recall that Shakespeare, in his Mer
chant of Venice, has imagined a similar way of turning a
Jew to ridicule because he was impotent to carry the
law into execution. The Jew Shylock, in stipulating
a usurious loan, inserted the clause that if on falling due
the debt should not be paid, the debtor must allow a
pound of flesh to be cut from his body. On the ex
piration of the bond the debt was not discharged, and
Shylock then appeared before the Doge to claim the
fulfilment of the compact, the pound of human flesh.
But a girl, the friend of the debtor, Portia, donned the
habit and speech of a lawyer in his defence, and caUed
triumphantly to the Jew : " The bond allows thee a pound
of flesh but not a drop of blood. Avail thee of thy
law: take thy pound of flesh, but if in cutting it thou
spill one drop of Christian blood, by the law of Venice
thy lands and goods shall be confiscated to the enrichment
of the State." 25
As he in no way recognised the highest judicial power
in the case of the Jews, Pilate certainly did not intend
with respect to that jurisdiction to surrender it in neg
lecting, from the very moment that the Accused was
brought before him, the complete and regular course of
proceedings the responsibility for which must rest en
tirely with himself and be carried out from beginning
to end in accordance with the safeguards of legal forms
and requirements of evidence. On the other hand, the
Governor did not summon a single witness, did not verify
any evidence, did not set before himself any investiga
tion as to innocence or guilt, nay, as we shall see, he was

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 237
satisfied as to the innocence of the prisoner, and yet de
cided in favour of guilt and condemnation.
Meanwhile the so-called judges of the Sanhedrin were
continuing to play the part of prosecutors. After the
failure of the demand first hazarded, that the Governor
should approve of their reason for giving up the Ac
cused, they quickly fell to making charges, which are
in absolute contradiction with the supposed condem
nation, or rather with the real solemn accusation pro
nounced within the walls of the Sanhedrin.
They began by saying, " We found this man per
verting our nation and forbidding to give tribute to
Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Christ a King." 26
Two hes in four words. Because the instigation to refuse
the fiscal due to Caesar was as unfounded as the contrary
example given by Jesus was true. And if it was true
that He had called Himself Christ, it was false that He
perverted the nation and proclaimed Himself King.27
It is therefore noteworthy that in the short passage
from the Sanhedrin to the Praetorium the whole method
and language of the accusation changed. But a httle
time before, at the hearing before the Sanhedrin, the
allegation of sedition had been finally dismissed, as all
proof of the pretended destruction of the temple had
broken down and the guilt of Jesus had been declared
upon the charge of blasphemy alone, a charge purely
and exclusively of a religious character. Here, at the
entrance of the Praetorium, the charge of blasphemy was
abandoned and that of sedition taken up again. Evi
dently the Jews knew the weak side of Pilate's character
— sceptical towards their beliefs, timorous and cowardly
when it was a question of the wish or advantage of Rome.
But he did not feel that he was being cajoled or flattered
by this.
He asked Jesus rather out of astonishment than by

238 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
way of reproof : " Hearest Thou not how many things
they accuse Thee of," and again " Art Thou the King
of the Jews ? " " Sayest thou this thing of thyself,"
answered Jesus, " or did others tell thee of Me ? " 28
He was right in wishing first to know whether this
new charge was advanced by the Romans or the Jews,
in order that He might settle in what light He should
regard it, and in order that He might return a fitting
answer. For, as to being a king in the heathen sense,
His answer could only be a determined negative. But
on the other hand, " King of the Jews " could be con
strued either in a political or a religious sense, and con
sequently the answer depended on the quality of the per
son addressing the question. If addressed to him by the
Roman Governor, the question had a pohtical meaning.
If the question was provoked by the Jews, it could have
nothing but a religious signification, and in this case
Jesus could not reject the title of King without denying
His mission as Messiah.
Pilate appears to spurn the bold theory that the un
resisting prisoner before him, seemingly careless of His
position as a candidate for execution, could have deemed
Himself King as against the infinite power of Rome,
and He answers :
" Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests
delivered Thee unto me: what hast Thou done? "
Then 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 delivered to the Jews; but now is My
Kingdom not from hence." 29
This answer was the strongest, justest, and most safe
defence, since it could not be reduced to a gratuitous
rejoinder, but bore in it a claim that could not be re
jected, and at the same time a resolute defiance: it called

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 239
for some proof of the mundane aspirations of the inno
vator. And were the accusers courageous enough to
essay such a proof? The Governor did not even think
of demanding such a proof: too well he knew the mad
fevered passion of their superstitious fury.
He thought better to press his prisoner with questions.
"Art thou a King then?"
And the prisoner answered:
" Thou sayest that I am a King. To this end have
I been born, and to this end am I come into the world,
that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one
that is of the truth heareth My voice."
And the Governor remarked, for it was scarcely a
question :
"What is truth?"
Again he went outside and said to the Jews :
" I find no crime in Him." 30
The remark he had let fall, without awaiting a reply,
contained no desire to know the truth. It was but
the natural putting into words of that senseless, arrogant
scepticism which so often characterises the man in power,
and which appears to him practical and scientific, but
is in reality false and clumsy; the scepticism which ad
mits of no inner yearnings, no lofty inspirations soaring
above and beyond the vulgar circle of legality.
The accusers, when they saw the Governor reappear
upon the tribune, when they felt that the case for the
prosecution was on the point of collapsing in an acquit
tal, burst into fresh flames of fury and pressed forward
with new falsehoods:
" He stirreth up the people, preaching throughout all
Judaea, and beginning from Galilee." 31
This last word was as good as an inspiration to Pilate's
diplomatic cunning.

240 THE TRIAL OF JESUS

Notes
1 S. Matthew xxvii. 11, 12; S. Mark xv. 1; S. Luke xxiii. 1;
S. John xviii. 28.
2 Exodus xii. 14 et seq., 39. Castelli disagrees with this as being
the original meaning of the rule, but he furnishes no other ex
planation (La leg. del pop, Ebr. caps v. and ix. pp. 146 and 263).
The rites observed at the Jewish Passover were moreover two
in number: the first consisted in the sacrifice of a lamb, which
was immolated towards evening on the 14th day of the first
month of spring, and of which the roasted flesh was eaten to
gether with unleavened bread and bitter herbs ; the second was
the feast of seven days, whereby the first and seventh were to
be kept holy with the obligation to abstain from all fermented
food. 3 S. John xviii. 28 et seq.
4S. Matthew xxvi. 2, 17-19; S. Mark xiv. 12-17; S. Luke
xxii. 7-11.
5 S. John xix. 14.
6 S. Luke xxiii. 54. One cannot read the " tomb that was
hewn in stone " of this passage without recalling the area scavata
of Manzoni (Resurrez.) — a faithful and elegant rendering of the
great biblical idea, and which nevertheless elicited from the
last of the purists the pedantic remark, " Vedestu' mai un' area
non iscavata ? "
7 S. Mark xiv. 1, 2.
8 Cf. Farrar, Comment, to the Gospel of S. Luke; and Bonghi,
Vita, appendix vi.
9 See chap. ix. note 2.
10 S. John xviii. 28-40.
11 xxvii. 13.
12 xv. 4.
13 Par. 128.
14 xxvii. 27.
15 xxvii. 26.
16 Par. 128.
17 See chap. xvi. note 11.
18 De bello fudaico, ii. xiv. 7.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 241
19 S. John xix. 13 ; Strauss, Vie, par. 131 note ; Renan, Vie,
chap. xxiv.
20 De hello jud. n. ix. 2 and 3 ; cf . Liicke in Strauss, op. cit.
21 S. John xviii. 29-31. Didon, following the general opinion,
says: "These proud judges did not admit that their sentence
could be invahdated or disputed, and all they required of the
Governor was an immediate execution, because the case being
clear and decided by them, there was nothing for him to find
fault with " (Jesus-Chr. ch. x.). But what a sentence and what
an execution! The so-called judges demanded only that it should
not be beheved that they had brought an unfounded charge of
crime; and this is why they began by crying, " If this were not
an evil-doer," etc.
22 Jansenius, Comm. in Cane. cap. cxli.
23 See chap. x.
24 Vie, par. 131. The first of the two alternatives of the dilemma
coincides with the second hypothesis of Jansenius referred to
above. 25 Merchant of Venice, Act I. sc. iii., Act IV. sc. i. et seq. Thus
also Pilate said, " Take Him yourselves and judge Him accord
ing to your law."
26 S. Luke xxiii. 2.
27 See chap. v.
28 S. John xviii. 33, 34. One cannot understand the difficulty
of the commentators with regard to this sudden question ad
dressed, according to the fourth Evangelist, by Pilate to Jesus.
In S. John it is true the question is unexpected, sudden, and un
provoked; but it is not so according to the version of the other
Evangehsts, by whom S. John's account should be supplemented.
See e.g. S. Luke xxiii. 2.
29 Ibid, 35, 36.
30 S. John xviii. 37, 38.
31 S. Luke xxiii. 5.

CHAPTER XVIII
From Pilate to Herod — From Herod to Pilate — How the Te
trarch could not have had Jurisdiction over Jesus, although
a Galilean — Herod questions the Prisoner, who does not
answer — Meaning of His Silence — How the Scribes and
Priests repeated the Charges before Herod — Jesus is sent
back to Pilate in a White Garment — The Second Expedient
of a Simple Chastisement — Its Failure, and the Recourse of
the Governor to a Third Expedient.
" Galilee ? " must have thought Pilate. " If the
prisoner is a Galilean, I wash my hands of him hence
forth." And this was no mere airy thought on his part. There
happened to be at that moment in Jerusalem the Gov
ernor of the kingdom of Galilee and of Perea. This was
Herod Antipas. He was a crownless king entirely given
up to the licentious pleasures which had led him to have
S. John the Baptist put to death. It appears that as the
Passover came round he was wont to go up to Jerusalem,
no doubt in search of distraction, and certainly out of
no feeling of piety. The Governor, on the other hand,
had his official residence in Caesarea, the pohtical capital
of Judaea, and he was in the religious capital for the ful
filment of his duties. He there performed the custom
ary acts of devotion and preserved public order.
At the mention of Galilee, therefore, the Governor
asked the prisoner whether He were from that country,
and learning that He was, handed Him over to the
Tetrarch, who had criminal jurisdiction over his sub-
242

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 243
jects.1 This was the first of those unhappy subterfuges
which Pilate resorted to in his desperate attempt to avoid
the responsibilities of his office ; all of them were destined
to prove ineffectual. This particular evasion could not
well have been more clumsy or more unfortunate from
the point of view of either Mosaic or Roman law. In the
judicial organisation of the Jews there were tribunals,
as we have already said, of three degrees. The first was
the Grand Sanhedrin, resident at Jerusalem. It pos
sessed supreme competence. In the cities containing a
minimum of a hundred and twenty adult male inhabitants
were instituted the minor Sanhedrim. The third degree
consisted of inferior tribunals filled by three judges.2
Hence it is manifest that if Jesus could be tried by a
Hebrew tribunal, the sole tribunal competent to try Him
was the Grand Sanhedrin of Jerusalem. This court
judged Him for better or for worse, so that the trial
before Herod must have been the repetition of an abuse.
In virtue of what exception could there have been resort
to the Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, if those regions,
hke the whole of Syria, were under Roman hegemony?
In this case, to the defect of jurisdiction was joined the
want of competence, because, under the supposed but not
admissible jurisdiction of the Hebrew authorities, the
Grand Sanhedrin alone would have been competent to try
the case. Moreover, the improvised competence of Herod
would suppose a criminal jurisdiction which at the time
of these events was no longer conferred upon the kings.
Such a jurisdiction is doubtful and disputed. It was, at
all events, curtailed at the time of the government of the
kings. The biblical chronicler informs us, in fact, that
David himself elected from amongst the Levites six
thousand officers of justice, while King Jehoshaphat in
stituted judges in all the cities, and at the same time
a species of supreme tribunal at Jerusalem.3 Thus,

244 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
even if we set aside the question as to whether Herod
Antipas really was or was not a king with aU the
attributes of royal power, he had neither the jurisdiction
nor the competence necessary to judge the Galilean
Jesus. It would have been curious to see with what
forms of a regular tribunal, momentarily established at
Jerusalem, he could have carried out a criminal trial
or put a sentence of death into execution.
According to the system of Roman procedure, juris
diction resided in the Governor, not only by right of
conquest of war, but competence was also vested in him
on the ground of territoriality, always remembering the
character of the offence alleged against Jesus. His
prosecutors insisted tenaciously 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
recognise 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.4 Jesus had been ar
rested 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 continuous offences competence
was determined by the place in which the last acts going
to constitute the offence had been committed.5 Thus no
justification whatever existed for determining the court
with regard to the prisoner's origin. But this investiga
tion upon a point of Roman law is to all intents super
fluous, 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

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 245
and not to have busied himself with a conflict as to
cognisance 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 com
petence 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 ju
dicial hierarchy that a dispute as to territorial compe
tence can arise. Between magistrates of different States
there can only exist a contrast of power and jurisdiction.
The act of Pilate cannot then be interpreted as a scruple
of a constitutional character. It is but a miserable escape
for his irresolution, a mere endeavour to temporise ; there
may have been in it a touch of deference and adulation
towards the Tetrarch, with whom the restless Governor
had, up to then, been at enmity — perhaps on account of
his massacre of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had
mingled with the sacrifices.6 If this was not the object
of this clever move, it was at all events the result, for
from that day Herod and Pilate became friends.7 Herod
had long desired to see Jesus, of whom he had heard so
many stories. He was exceedingly rejoiced on seeing
Him led down from the tower of Antonia to the palace
of the Asmonean princes. He was inquisitive like a man
entirely given over to pleasure. He hoped to witness
the working of some miracle as he would have looked
on a new and marvellous court spectacle.
And he questioned Him in many words; but He an
swered him nothing.8
Strauss, who has the greatest difficulty in believing
the episode of the sending before Herod, merely because
it is vouched for by S. Luke and passed over by the re
maining Evangelists, is astonished at the prisoner's

246 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
silence. " How comes it," asked Strauss, " that Jesus,
not only the Jesus without sin of the orthodox school,
but also the Jesus who bowed to the constituted authori
ties, who says ' Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's ' —
how comes it that He refuses the answer due to Herod ? " 9
It might first of all be remarked that Herod is not Caesar,
but such an answer would be as sophistical as the objec
tion to which it replies is specious. In reality the atti
tude of Jesus towards the constituted authorities was not
one of subservience, but one of pure and simple indif
ference, as His earthly mission aimed neither at over
riding nor replacing them. Besides, the recognition of
an authority does not entail any cringing to the abuse
which is made of it. Moreover, Jesus injured Himself
and not the authority by refusing to answer. Who
knows what the questions were which the Tetrarch put
to the Galilean? His silence is easily explained by the
unseemly nature of the question, which according to
Strauss " displayed simple curiosity."
The authenticity of the incident is not impaired by
the fact that it is only recorded by S. Luke, while it
is neither denied nor excluded by the other Evangelists.
At the same time it is confirmed by old tradition and is
to be met with in Justin.10 Certain over-subtle critics
have discussed the question as to whether Pilate delivered
Jesus by a postern to those who escorted Him before
Herod, so that S. John, being unable to witness the occur
rence, did not report it.11 The matter is unimportant.
Such a supposition cannot stand in face of the doubt
whether the author of the Gospel known as S. John's
was really S. John or another apostle who happened to
be near the main gate of the Sanhedrin. It also fails
to answer the question why S. Matthew and S. Mark
do not mention the episode. Even if they were them
selves absent, they must have been informed about the

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 247
matter, which was of public knowledge and at which
the same prosecutors were present. The only explana
tion of the silence of the three Evangelists is that they
did not ascribe such importance to the event as to con
sider it requiring mention.
Before Herod it was still the scribes and priests who
repeated the charges pertinaciously. But Jesus held
His peace. Herod scoffed at Him for .the small train of
soldiers and courtiers which followed Him ; 12 clothed
Him, out of mockery, in a garment of white and sent
Him back to Pilate. Why the intention of ridicuhng
Jesus should have suggested a white garment to Herod,
it is impossible to decide. It cannot be admitted that he
wished to indicate that Jesus was mad ; as we are not
aware that there has ever been a colour assigned to mad
people. The white garment was the peculiar dress of
illustrious persons ; Tacitus even tells us that the tribunes
were thus attired when they went before the eagles into
battle. Perhaps the Tetrarch had in mind the irony of
this Roman custom; perhaps he was thinking of the
candidates at Rome itself, who wore the toga in com
peting for any high office.13 Led by spontaneous intui
tion, the common people believe willingly in the episode
narrated by S. Luke, as arousing keener pity, and they
reconstruct and picture the scene, vividly recalling a
heart-breaking comparison with the daily records of con
temporary judicial proceedings, which so often are con
ducted amid the same incertitudes and the same vicis
situdes. What hopeless steps a prisoner to-day has to
trace from court to prison, from prison to magistrate,
from magistrate to procurator-general, from these to
the judge ! How many delays, how many devious tracks,
await him before he can be tried! The thought of the
luckless wretch spontaneously reverts to the prisoner who
was led from Pilate to Herod, and from Herod to Pilate,

248 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
before it turns to find upon the height of Golgotha the
consoling example of a great and final injustice.
Pilate, on the return of Jesus, must have felt convinced
that not only had his first expedient proved an absolute
failure, but that his position had been thereby rendered
even more difficult. Herod had not met his offer by
a preliminary refusal to act, as he might have done
considering his manifest incompetence. He had, on the
contrary, delivered a judgment in uncompromising
favour of the Accused, in whom he found nothing
justifying a condemnation. The acquittal by the Te
trarch increased the hesitancy of the Governor.
Pilate again assembled the priests and elders, and
said: " Ye brought unto me this man, as one that perverteth
the people: and behold, I, having examined Him before
you, found no fault in this man touching the things
whereof ye accuse Him, no, nor yet Herod; for he sent
Him back unto us ; and behold, nothing worthy of death
hath been done by Him. I will therefore chastise Him
and release Him." 14
This promise was a second expedient not more legal
or more fortunate than the first. If the prisoner was
guilty, He deserved the punishment appropriate to His
crime, and this punishment could not be a mere chastise
ment. If He was innocent, it was not right that He
should be chastised at all. It appears that the people
were not satisfied with the proposal, and that they gave
vent to manifestations, which caused the Governor to
turn suddenly from this expedient to another.
And it was the third.15

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 249

Notes
1 S. Luke xxiii. 5-7: " He sent Him unto Herod, who himself
also was at Jerusalem in these days." The expression " himself
also " indicates the extraordinary nature of Pilate's presence at
Jerusalem, as well as of that of the Tetrarch. It is also to be
noted that the declaration here made of Jesus of being a Gali
lean confirms his origin, which was from Nazareth in Galilee,
and does not refer to his birth, which took place at Bethlehem
in Judsea. Olshausen also remarks that the examination before
Herod shows that Jesus was born at Bethlehem, not at Nazareth;
but his argument is forced. Strauss is well able to reply to Ols
hausen that the purely accidental birth in Judaea, as we know
from S. Luke, would not have sufficed to make Jesus a Jew,
since his parents had their dwelling before and after His birth in
Galilee (Vie, par. 131).
2 See chap. xii.
3 Ibid.
4 L. 1 and 2, Cod. Ubi de criminibus, 15, 3.
5 Cf. Art. 17, Cod. Proc. Pen. passim.
6 S. Luke xiii. 1.
7 S. Luke xxiii. 12.
8 S. Luke xxiii. 8, 9.
9 Vie, par. 131.
10 Dial, cum Tryphon. 103.
11 Schleiermacher, Ueber die Lukas, p. 291.
12 Wilk, Schenkl, and Rosenmiiller interpret the words cum
exercitu suo (Vulgate) differently: the most acceptable sense is
that of a kind of " military household " of the sovereign.
13 Tacitus, Hist. ii. 89.
14 S. Luke xxiii. 13-16.
15 S. Luke xxiii. 16, 17. The sudden passage from verses 16 to
17 is noteworthy ; in the first-mentioned the expedient of the
chastisement, in the second that of Barabbas, as if the first had
been rejected, and was not a mere momentary proposal.

CHAPTER XIX
The pardoning of Barabbas — What we know about him — It is
denied that this Pardon was founded on Mosaic Law — Its
Foundation is looked for in Roman Law — The Various Ex
tinctions of the Penal Sanction : Expiation, Death, Pardon,
Indulgence, Pubhc and Private Rescission — It is shown how
Pilate could have only set Barabbas Free by Virtue of a
Private Rescission — The Liberation of Barabbas should
have taken place in Consequence of a Demand from the
Prosecutors, and not at the Pleasure of the Judge.
Upon the day of the Passover it was customary for the
Governor to set at liberty a prisoner selected by the
people. This is what the Evangelists tell us.1 S. Luke
even asserts that the Governor was under an obligation
to do so.2 According to S. Mark and S. Luke, it was
the people themselves who recollected the custom and
asked that Jesus should be put to death and Barabbas
set free. According to S. Matthew and S. John, the
idea of the release was Pilate's own.
Barabbas was well known.3 S. John says he was a
robber * who had but of late been arrested for sedition
stirred up within the city and for a murder committed
on that occasion.6 Hence the people, suborned by the
priests and elders, clamoured for the freedom of the
murderer, rioter, and robber.
It has been debated amongst the interpreters of the
New Testament whether the custom which favoured
Barabbas was of Jewish or Roman origin. The
majority have inclined to the first opinion, and some
250

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 251
have gone so far as to perceive in the custom a symbol
of the liberty obtained by Israel on its issue out of
¦Egypt at the first Passover.6 The opinion is no less
erroneous than the conjecture is arbitrary. The ques
tion can only be resolved by reference to the fountain-
head of Mosaic and Roman law in order to know if
and how the usage was sanctioned by one law or the
other. We have already, in tracing the guiding spirit of
Mosaic penal legislation, demonstrated that any idea
involving condonation of a penalty was irreconcilable
with the principles and provisions of the law of Moses.
This law was regarded as something divine, and could
not admit either of limitations or merciful correctives
in its application. The kings themselves, in their day,
were deprived of the prerogative of mercy. But they
possessed the contrary power of supplementing, by
their decrees, the deficiencies of the law and of sending
to execution the guilty prisoner to procure whose judi
cial condemnation there were no sufficient judicial argu
ments.7 Moreover, search the Mosaic law as we will,
we find not a single provision revealing the institution
of mercy among the Jews. We must then seek in
Roman law for the juridical foundation of the preroga
tive which Pilate desired to exercise in favour of Jesus,
and which the people claimed for the benefit of Barabbas.
With the permission of those who persist in discover
ing so deep an imperfection in Roman law as to regard
it as a subject for historians and scholars exclusively
rather than for jurists, and insist upon understanding
by Roman law what in modern language is called civil
law 8 — with their permission we are bound to recognise
that Roman legislation embodied all the rules which have
been accepted by less imperfect systems of law with re
gard to the extinction of the penal sanction.

252 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
It is a fundamental principle that the law which pro
vides for the protection of society should have the double
sanction of prosecuting the crime and of carrying out
the punishment. But in every legislation there are ad
mitted ordinary and extraordinary causes of exception,
by which either the development of the action by which
the offence is prosecuted is cut short or the carrying
out of the penalty is stopped. Under the rule of a
logical and rigid pubhc defence, the principle should
allow of no exceptions: the Roman orator based his
conception and his confidence on the integrity of a law
which could not be overruled by the authority of the
senate or the will of the people.9 But he himself en
joyed the benefits of an exception, since to it he owed
the termination of the bitter days of exile. And the
conception is to be met with in a greater or less degree
in all legislations from the Roman downward.
The normal extinction of the punitive sanction was
the expiation of the penalty : 10 the natural extinction
was the death of the accused and convicted prisoner.
The principle of the personality of crime and punish
ment rendered any posthumous sanction impossible;
and it was only when this fundamental principle of
punishment was forgotten, like so many others, as when
private revenge was prevalent, that the death of the
offender did not deprive the injured party of the right
of exacting composition and weregeld.
Later, down to the beginning of the nineteenth cen
tury, the exchequer, in the same vindictive spirit, did
not hesitate to continue proceedings against the dead,
by dishonouring their memory, maltreating their corpses,
and confiscating their goods.11
An exceptional extinction of the punitive sanction was
the prescription of the action when a certain time had
elapsed after the offence was committed. Nowadays

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 253
the convenience of this system meets with approval, al
though it is contrary to the scientific conception of the
protection of society, implying as it does that with the
lapse of time there is less interest to punish; that the
indirect damage caused by the offence vanishes ; that
the proofs are lost and the guilty party has sufficiently
expiated his fault by the anxieties and hardships of
exile.12 Whoever reflects upon the undeserved and in
jurious good fortune of such cunning and resourceful
criminals as are able to ensure their escape, very
rightly cries out against the injustice and the fallacy of
presuming that in course of time the motives for pun
ishing grow less, that the proofs of guilt are lost, and
above all he cries out against the ingenuous illusion
that the criminal is amended, a supposition of which
his wandering unknown existence furnishes no proof;
he cries out at the contradiction which this kind of
impunity presents to the idea of classifying criminals 13
according to the degree to which they are to be feared.
Nevertheless, not only is prescription of the action
to-day in vigour amongst us, but even prescription of
the sentence.14 This latter form of prescription was
certainly unknown to Roman law, and is a mere French
importation. The prescription of the action itself was
only a late introduction into Roman law.15
Another exceptional extinction was pardon granted by
the injured party for certain offences, provided that
the pardon was not solicited and obtained by bribery : 16
a wise condition and worthy of all respect, though it
has not been planted at the base of our modern system,
which legitimises the most dishonourable traffickings
through the medium of plaints lodged and pursued with
the sole object and sole result of disgraceful money-
making. By virtue of this system long-complaisant
husbands who have tolerated conjugal dishonour raise

254 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
on a sudden their Janus-head, simulating anger and
disgust, and with the unwilling aid of the guardians of
the law, which blesses the indissoluble bond of matri
mony, extort from their benevolent betrayers fresh
though involuntary prodigalities, or from their profit
able wives fresh agreements of ruinous and unhappy
effect as regards their children and their property.
Similarly insolvent debtors, who have worn out the
reason and patience of a creditor, provoke from him
a word or act of anger, and so pay their debt in the
forced currency of a complaint to be withdrawn for a
judicious compensation; sometimes they reverse the po
sition and become creditors themselves. So, too, wily
robbers and embezzlers, who cannot be run to earth,
owing to difficulties of proof, pose as the aggrieved vic
tims of a false charge, and entrust the vindication of
their precious honour to a simple action with the object
of making a compromise, which in itself amounts to a
new robbery or malversation. Seductive ladies, again,
posing as seduced, and knowing how sensitive are the
rank and family connection of the man upon whom for
the purpose of the charge they fasten the name of
seducer, make just as much profit out of him with the
help of the law.
But the most exceptional of all modes of extinguish
ing the punitive sanction was that of the various forms
of indulgence. In one of these we must find the cus
tom of liberating a prisoner on the occasion of a public
solemnity, which the Evangelists assert to have been
adopted by the Roman Governor in the Judaic province.
If we are to bring our subject within the Emits of a
single modern idea, indulgence must be divided into
three distinct institutions possessing the power either
to impede or interrupt a penal action or else to annul,
mitigate, or commute the penalty : these institutions are

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 255
amnesty, general pardon, or act of grace. Amnesty,
which means in Greek " forgetfulness," is based upon
the opportunity for " forgetting " a certain class of
punishable deeds, prosecuted or to be prosecuted within
a certain space of time, and it takes the form of an act
of clemency on the part of the head of the State ex
pressed in a decree. It is in its essential nature general
and absolute, so that a whole class of offenders is ex
empted from punishment, whether the punishment has
or has not been applied to individuals. The general
pardon is equally general, but is not absolute, because
it does not cut short or impede the penal action, but
only condones entirely or commutes in part the punish
ment. The act of grace, on the other hand, is a singu
lar and personal measure condoning wholly or in part
or commuting the penalty already inflicted by way of
sentence on the condemned man.17
In the regal and republican period of Roman law we
meet with a more or less clear form of indulgence, which
was the restitution of the condemned (m integrum
restitutio or restitutio damnatorum) 18 by which, with
the aid of a law, citizens who had been condemned were
reborn to civil hfe. This restitution was general when
it was conceded to the entire body of condemned prison
ers ; special when it applied only to particular sentences.
If it was in integrum — that is, if it comprehended the
restitution of all rights, such as citizenship, fama, and
dignitas — it was parallel to our amnesty. When it was
restricted to certain rights expressed in the act of clem
ency, it was assimilated to our general pardon. Fa
mous above all is the restitutio in integrum granted to
the Plebs 19 on the occasion of the first secession. The
restitution was special when it was accorded, in virtue
of a custom become law, to the prisoner who on his way
to execution met by chance one of the vestal virgins,20

256 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
Under the Empire the merciful exception to the penal
sanction assumed two forms.21 The indulgence (mdul~
gentia and also venia) was the condonation of the whole
or part of the punishment; and it was general or com
mon when it was granted (also venia) not with respect
to certain persons, but with regard to certain penalties ;
it was special when it aimed at a definite person, as
is the case with our modern pardon.22 Rescission
(abolitio), which was already employed under the Re
public, became of more frequent application under the
Empire, and had the effect of extinguishing the penal
action with respect to a whole category of offences.23
It was granted upon the occasion of public festivals, as,
for example, upon the birthdays of the Emperor, and
upon the anniversaries of Rome ; 24 upon occasions of
public rejoicing and welfare, as upon a victory or when
a Roman Emperor visited a city for the first time, or
when a scion of the Imperial family was born ; 25 upon
the occasion of a pubhc thanksgiving, or upon the cele
bration of other acts of divine worship.26 Amongst
these latter cases, one became of constant and periodi
cal recurrence under the Christian Emperors, but not
before 367 a.d., this was the amnesty granted at Easter
in every year, just as amongst the Hebrews in Palestine.27
These varieties of amnesty belonged to public in con
tradistinction to private rescission, which latter was a
privilege reserved to the prosecutor.28 The prosecutor,
after having assumed the part of plaintiff in a case,
could not subsequently withdraw unless he requested and
obtained leave from the Prince or from the magistrate
before whom the trial was taking place.29
If therefore we recapitulate all the forms of exception
to the penal sanction according to Roman law which
we have here indicated, we can infer what must have
been the form and the title of the exception by which

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 257
Pilate proposed to spare the hfe of the prisoner of
Nazareth. It was not purgation of the capital sentence,
for which scourging could be substituted, because scourg
ing was not a punishment either appropriate or propor
tionate to the charge. It was no prescription of the
penal action, because nobody had indicated the date of
the acts which were to be punished, and because one of
these acts had been consummated during the previous
night before the Sanhedrin ; it was not remission granted
by the injured party, because the injured would have
been Jehovah, who in His omnipotence was incapable
of remitting a crime ; it was no restitution of condemned
persons, because for the granting of this a law would
have been required, and a governor was in no case a
legislator. To judge from first appearances it could
have been nothing but an indulgence and a rescission.
But it is necessary to know in whom these two preroga
tives resided in order that by a final process of elimina
tion, we may attain to a judgment permitting of no
alternative. We have already shown that restitution was granted
by means of a law; it is scarcely requisite to add that
these species of condonation belonged to the legislative
power alone. The restitution which was granted to a
condemned prisoner who accidentally met with a vestal
virgin must have been the consequence of a custom hav
ing the virtue of law.30 It is at all events certain that
the power of restitution was on no occasion allowed to
the magistrate.31
The same rule must have had force in the case of
indulgence and of public rescission; whilst private re
scission was regulated according to a different standard.
During the first days of the Empire, at which time the
people stood for nothing in the public life of the coun
try, and the senate was still the supreme consultative

258 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
and deliberative body of the State, rescission and indul
gence belonged at first to the Senate and Prince to
gether : 32 subsequently to the Prince alone.33 This
power could never be delegated by the Prince,34 so that
the governor of a province could in no way stop the
course of an action or of a sentence of punishment:
the documentary evidences of Roman law go even to
prove that he was expressly prohibited.35
It is therefore evident that the Governor Lucius Pon
tius Pilate was unable either to rescind a sentence which
had been passed by the Sanhedrin, or (and this is the
sole remaining hypothesis) to revoke a judicial action
which had taken place before him under riotous circum
stances. Neither the one prerogative nor the other was
granted him, either on the ground of indulgence or on
that of public rescission. There was, however, one other
road open to him, and which we must regard as that
which he actually intended to follow : the road of private
rescission. This was in fact the only exception to the
penal sanction which the prosecutor could request of
the magistrate pro tribunali, 36 who might grant it if
it appeared to him that the demand was prompted by
just motives and was without an unlawful object. There
were just motives, such as error, overhaste, or over-
heatedness on the part of him who had brought the
accusation, but from which he had afterwards desisted.37
Pilate must have thought that there was at least reason
to suspect an error on the part of Jesus' accusers, since
the haste with which they made their charge a State
affair was evident, and even more evident was the heat
with which they demanded the prisoner's death : he might
therefore very naturally think of the merciful provision
of his law, for which he could never have imagined a
more just or a more legitimate apphcation.
This is why, according to S. Matthew and S. John,

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 259
he took upon himself to propose to the people the lib
eration of a prisoner according to all the rules and
precedents of a private rescission. The populace, and
through and with it the Sanhedrin, was the prosecutor
of Jesus. The Governor, before whom the charge was
necessarily brought, was the judge. It was therefore
for the people to ask and for the Governor to grant a
prisoner's freedom. But Pilate, who was eager to try
the fortune of this final expedient, wished to discover
whether the people would be inchned to reconsider their
determination; he wished to draw them into exercising
the prerogative of which the initiative rested entirely
with them. He, therefore, did not merely propose the
release of Jesus, but the alternative between Jesus and
Barabbas. Even to-day, by a slight and praiseworthy exercise of
discrimination, the judge who has under consideration
a party dispute, which cannot be dismissed by him, but
by the complainant alone, is wont to take the initiative
of pardon by calling upon and urging the prosecutor
to abandon his charge, especially if that charge compels
the judge to pass a sentence of which he in any way
disapproves. Had the right of pardon — which the
Evangehsts, well acquainted with Roman law, referred
to a usage and prerogative of the Roman provincial
representative — had the right of pardon possibly con
sisted in a power of mercy less circumscribed by private
rescission, the Vice-Governor of Judaea would not have
been under the necessity of entirely submitting to others
a custom which he would so willingly have brought to
bear himself. With this compulsory interpretation an
other detail mentioned by the Evangelists agrees — how
at the feast the Governor was wont to release unto the
multitude one prisoner whom they would 38 — because
here the custom does not refer to an extra-legal practice,

260 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
but to a usage consisting precisely in the application
of a legal enactment upon a periodical occasion of pub
lic joy and thanksgiving to God, such as the Passover
was to the Jews.
We have no intention of shielding the moral guilt of
Lucius Pontius, weak-hearted and unfortunate hunter
after subterfuges. If he had not the prerogative of
opposing merciful exceptions to the accomplishment of
the penal sanction, he had the free and ready means,
nay it was his duty, to restore to Jesus His liberty, to
declare His innocence and to pronounce His acquittal
as his conviction prompted him, and as the practice of
the court over which he presided allowed. He was,
however, unwilling to assume the responsibility of a re
lease; and he therefore did not observe, as we shall see,
one of the rules regulating the court entrusted to him ;
he did not seek or discuss a single proof; he did not
judge, but sought in the law and hunted in its appli
cations for an expedient permitting him to cast the
responsibility of a release upon the people. Herein
lies the cowardice of his refusal to act.
Barabbas was no mere rioter, but a murderer too : and
assuredly there were among the multitude that raged
about the Praetorium those who had charged him with
sedition and murder. There was, therefore, no lack of
such as, under the accuser's garb, could legitimise in
favour of Barabbas, Jesus's rival, a prerogative which
should have been merciful, but which was only noxious.

Notes
1 S. Matthew xxvii. 15 ; S. Mark xv. 6 ; S. Luke xxiii. 17 ; S.
John xviii. 39.
2 xxiii. 17.
3 S. Matthew xxvii. 16. Renan claims the knowledge that Bar-

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 261
abbas or Bar Rabban was merely his surname, while his real
name was Jesus, and that this name has vanished in the majority
of the MSS., but that the reading is supported by the highest
authorities (Vie, ch. xxiv. in the note). Strauss remarks: " Ac
cording to one reading the man's complete name was 'Irjo-ovs
BapaBBas, which fact is noted only because Olshausen consid
ers it noteworthy. Barabbas signifies ' son of the father,' and
consequently Olshausen exclaims : ' All that was essential to the
Redeemer appears ridiculous in the assassin! ' and he deems ap
plicable the verse: ' Ludit in humanis divina potentia rebus.'
We can see nothing in Olshausen 's remark but a ludus humanw
impotentia " (Vie, par. 131).
4 xviii. 40.
5 S. Luke xxiii. 19.
6 A Lapide, h. t. Strauss is content with quoting Baur from
memory, " Sur la signification primitive de la fete de Paques "
(Vie, par. 131 note). Renan limits himself to repeating with the
Evangelists: " It was the custom that a prisoner should be re
leased at the feast of the Passover " (Vie, ch. xxiv).
7 Maimonides, De regibus, hi. 10 ; see chap. xv.
8 See Savigny, System des Rom. Rechts ; Arndts, Pandette, par. 1,
n. 3. On the other hand Garofalo rightly remarks : "it is strange
that while every portion of the civil law of the Romans is the object
of attentive study and of the most accurate and subtle commen
tation, the criminal laws of that great people are neglected and
despised. Nevertheless, a httle meditation upon these would
reveal that practical common sense in which the Romans were
never wanting. There is no need to stop at the surface and to
exclaim at their barbarity because a great number of crimes were
termed delicta privata, when as a matter of fact this involved only
a difference of procedure " (Riparazione alle vittime del diritto).
9 " Huic legi nee obrogari fas est neque derogari ex hac ahquid
licet neque tota abrogari potest ; nee vero per Senatum aut per
populum solvi possumus " (Cicero Rep. iii. 22, 33 ; Ap. Lactant.
vi. 8).
10 Dig. 48, 19, 33.
11 Pertile, Storia del Diritto, v. par. 176 ; Florian, Dei reati e delle
pene, cap. ix. " Non enim res sunt quae delinquunt sed qui res
possident " (Nov. 17, cap. xii.); cf. Nov. 134, cap. xiii. The

262 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
penal sanction was not even extinguished in the case of the pris
oner killing himself during the trial, suicide being considered proof
of guilt ; cf. Ferrini, II diritto penale Romano, cap. xi. Nowadays
it is legally held that the death of the condemned extinguishes his
condemnation as well as any pecuniary penalty which has not
been discharged, it being recognized that the penalty involving
the patrimony is no less personal than the others. The carrying
out of confiscations is, however, not impeded by death, confisca
tions in reahty involving things and not persons (Art. 85, Crim.
Code). Art. 86 of the Tuscan Penal Code and Art. 104 of the
1854 Criminal Code proceeded otherwise.
12 Helie, Traite de Vinstruction criminelle, tome i. n. 1341 ; Luc-
chini in the Rivista penale, xxxviii. p. 401.
13 Garofalo, Criminalogia, pt. iii. cap. iii. p. 448 et seq.; Ferri,
Sociologia crim. p. 742 ; Olivieri, Appunti al nuove cod. pen. p.
244 ; Zerboglio, Della prescrizione penale, p. 129 et seq.
14 Arts. 91-9 Cod. Pen.
15 The first law introducing it was the Lex Julia de adulteriis
of 18 B.C. It was only in the times of Diocletian and Maximian
that prescription became the general rule and was of twenty years
at the most. Cod. 9, 35, 5 ; 9, 22, 12 ; 4, 61, 2. Dig. 29, 5, 13 ;
48, 13, 7.
16 Dig. 3, 2, 5.
17 It would be out of place here to repeat the objections which
have been offered to these institutions, all of which are equally
arbitrary in foundation — objections especially offered nowadays
when the institutions are abused. Filangieri very rightly re
marks: " If the pardon is just, the law is unjust; if the law is just,
the pardon is a violation of the law: on the first supposition we
must abolish the law, on the second the pardon " (Scienza della
legislazione, lib. iii. pt. iv. cap. 57).
18 L. 24, Dig. Ad leg. Juliam de adult, xlviii. 5 ; 1. 3, par. 5, Dig.
De test. xxii. 5 ; 1. 2, Dig. De senat. i. 9 ; 1. 1, par. 9, Dig. De postul.
iii. 1. To this form some add the provocatio ad populum ; but in
reahty this institution did nothing more than sanction the right of
every condemned man to appeal from the sentence of the magis
trate to the judgment of the people. Cf. my Sistema del diritto
penale Romano, in the Archiv. giurid. vol. xxxvi. cap. iv. Bologna,
1885 ; Padelletti, Storia del dir. Rom. p. 150 ; Rocco, Amnistia,

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 263
indulto e grazia, in Riv. penal, vol. xlix. p. 20 ; Lucchini, II carcere
preventativo, part i. cap. i. par. 2 ; Landucci, Storia del dir. Rom.
vol. i. pt. iii. par. 402 note.
19 Livy, iii. 54. Cf. for other restitutions, Cicero, Ad Herenn.
ii. 28 ; Ad Attic, x. 4 ; Pro Sexto, xxxii. 69, xxxiii. 72 ; In
Pisanem, xv. 35 ; Aur. Vict. De vir. ill. 89 ; Plutarch, Casar,
37 ; Ant. 20 ; Csesar, De hello civili, iii. 1.
20 Plutarch, Numa. And, vice versa, whoever passed beneath
the htter in which a vestal was being carried incurred the penalty
of death (lvi.).
21 To the first of the emperors was entrusted a prerogative
which amounted to yet another exception. This was the Cal
culus Minerva, which consisted in a casting vote, which was al
lowed to Augustus in a condemnation, and which was thus equiv
alent to a right of mercy (Dio. Cass. 41, 19 ; Mommsen, Rom.
Staatsrecht. v. 246 ; Padelletti, Storia del diritto Romano, p. 479).
22 L. 3, par. 2, Dig. De mun. et. honor ; 1. 1, 2, 3, 4, Dig. De
sent. pass, xlviii. 23 ; 1. 1, 2, 6, Cod. De sent pass. ix. 51 ; 1. 3, Cod.
De his. qui adscrib. in test. ix. 23 ; 1. 3, Cod. Th. ix. 37 ; 1. 7, Cod.
Th. ix. 40. Cf . Landucci, Storia del diritto Ram. par. 402, n. 5 ;
Carnazza Rametta, Studio del dir. pen. dei Rom. par. gen. cap.
v. p. 70. In the Latin texts of the jurisconsults we meet with the
indulgentia, indicated in such a manner as to include the aholitio
and vice versa ; but the inversion and confusion of these two dis
tinct terms depend upon the broader or narrower sense in which
they were employed.
23 L. 3, 4, 8, Cod. Th. De indulg. ix. 38 ; Paulus, Sententia, hb.
v. tit. 17 ; Hermann, De abolitionibus criminum, Leipzig, 1834.
24 " Ob diem in insignem et publicam congratulationem." L.
8, Dig. Ad S. C. Turpillianum, xlviii. 16 ; 1. 6, Cod. De feriis, ii. 1.
25 " Ob rem prospere gestam." L. 9, 10, Dig. h. t.; 1. 26, Dig.
Ex quibus causis, iv. 4 ; 1. 1, Cod. Th. De indulg. ix. 38. Cf. Pol-
letto, Historia fori Romani, lib. iv. cap. 5 ; Rocco, op. cit. vii.
26 " Ob honorem domus divinse." L. 9, Dig. Ad S. C. Turpill.
xlviii. 16.
27 L. 3, 4, 8, Cod. Th. De indulg. ix. 38.
28 Thus the prosecutor, when once he had assumed the office
of prosecution in a process, could not retire without asking and
obtaining permission from the Prince or from the particular mag-

264 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
istrate before whom the trial was being conducted. L. 3, Cod.
Th. ix. 37 ; 1. 12, Dig. xlviii. 16 ; 1. 10, pr. Dig. xlviii. 19. Cf.
Livy v. 13. The right was subsequently reserved to another pros
ecutor of opening penal proceedings anew. L. 7, 10, 15, par. 6,
Dig. Ad. S. C. Turpill. xlviii. 16 ; 1. 1, Cod. De gen. abol. ix. 43 ;
1. 1, par. 7. Dig. xlviii. 19.
29 L. 3, Cod. Th. ix. 37 ; 1. 12, Dig. xlviii. 16 ; 1. 10. pr. Dig.
xlviii. 19 ; Livy, v. 13. This was a means which was allowed to
the prosecutor of avoiding the consequence of the Turpillian sena-
tus-consult by " si quis ab accusatione citra abolitionem desti-
terit punitur." L. 1, par. 7, Dig. xlviii. 19. The right was sub
sequently reserved to another prosecutor of opening penal pro
ceedings anew. L. 7, 10, 15, par. 6, Dig. Ad S. C. Turpill. xlviii.
16 ; 1. 1, Cod. De gen. abol. ix. 43.
30 Plutarch, v. s.
31 L. 4, 19, par. 11, Dig. De poenis, xlviii. 19 ; Voet, Comm. ad
Pandect, vol. vi. p. 346. Ulpian, commenting on the praetor's
edict deposing from the power of postulation anybody who had
been condemned and not restored, says : " De qua restitutione
praetor loquitur ? Utrum de ea quae a Senatu vel a Principe Pom
ponius quaerit et putat de ea restitutione sensum quam Princeps
vel Senatus indulsit, an autem et Praetor restituere possit, quse-
ritur ? Et mini videtur talia praetorum decreta non esse servanda "
(1. 1, par. 10, Dig. De post. iii. 1).
32 L. 12, Dig. Ad. S. C. Turpill. xlviii. 16 ; 1. 5, Dig. De leg.
corn, de fals. xlviii. 10.
33 L. 2, 4, Dig. De sent. pass, xlviii. 23 ; 1. 27, Dig. De panis,
xlviii. 19 ; 1. 1-3, 6, 7, 10-12, Cod. De sent. pass. ix. 51 ; 1. 7, Cod.
Th. ix. 40.
34 L. 45, par. 1, Dig. De re jud. xiii. 1 ; 1. 3, Cod. De his qui sibi
adsc. ix. 23 ; 1. 7, Cod. Th. ix. 40.
35 " Divi fratres Arruntio Siloni rescripserunt non solere pre
sides provinciarum ea quae pronuntiaverunt ipsos rescindere . . .
id dumtaxat a principibus fieri potest." L. 27, Dig. De poenis,
xlviii. 19, and again: " Pcenam sua dictam sententia prsesidi pro-
vinciae revocari non licet." L. 15, Cod. De panis, ix. 47.
36 L. 2, Cod. ix. 42. Paul speaks also of a person abandoning a
charge with the Emperor's permission (1. 15, pr. Dig. xlviii. 16);
but Constantine insists upon the rule that " abolitio . . . non a

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 265
principe sed a competenti judice postulari debet " (1. 2, Cod. ix.
42). The abolition was requested for each individual charge,
and for each accused person where there were several charges
and several accused persons (I. 1, par. 8, Cod. ix. 42, 1. 39, par. 6,
Dig. xlviii. 5).
37 L. 15, pr. Dig. xlviii. 16 ; 1. 15, pr. Dig. xlix. 14 ; 1. 2, Cod.
ix. 42.
38 S. Matthew xxvii. 15.

CHAPTER XX
How Barabbas was preferred to Jesus — The Message of the Wife
of Pilate — Her Prophetic Dream — Pilate insists on the Al
ternative : Christ or Barabbas ? — How the Mocking Spirit
of the Governor makes Jest of the King to be crucified, and
the Servile Character of the Jews who invoked the Friend
ship of the Emperor — The Unanimous Cry of " Crucify
Him " — How not even an Echo was heard of the late Ho-
sannas — The Reason of this is found in the Disappointment
of the People that looked for a Miracle — How the Identical
Popular Phenomenon was renewed at Florence with regard
to Fra Savonarola — The Phenomenon regarded from the
Positive Point of View of Collective Suggestion, and from
that of the Disorderly Crowd.
" Bakabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? "
Such were the terms of the choice. The Governor who
had laid them down had hoped that the preference of
the people would fall upon Christ. And in order to
strengthen him in this hope had come the touching mes
sage of his wife, who exhorted him not to mix himself
in the affairs of this righteous man, forasmuch as all
that day she had been troubled in dreams on His
account.1 The message may appear strange to whosoever remem
bers the origin and gentilician stigma of the woman,
but it cannot have been incomprehensible to the husband,
or to any one who thought of the singular, maybe hys
terical, nature of Pilate's wife, or to such as knew that
she had turned pious with leanings towards Judaism, as
is to be read in the apocryphal gospel of Nicodemus,2

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 267
or to such as were wilhng to believe that the dream re
lated by her was the spontaneous outcome of what she
may have known of Jesus, His teaching, His hfe, and
the peril which then hung over Him.3 Profane history
is not without knowledge of similar dreams, nor does
it always reject them as prophetic signs foretelling some
dread catastrophe. Roman history recounts the dream
of Caesar's wife on the night that preceded her hus
band's assassination.
" Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? "
The Governor repeated his offer, while the priests and
elders stirred up the people to answer according to their
will; and the people were willing to be convinced. Be
tween Jesus and Barabbas? The choice was not diffi
cult. Let Barabbas go free.
" What then shall I do unto Jesus which is called
Christ?" " Let Him be crucified."
Pilate found yet again in his mocking spirit the means
of insisting :
" Shall I crucify your King? "
And the priests and elders, with their false, cringing
character, made answer:
" We have no King but Caesar."
And on this idea they raised a more effectual menace,
perhaps that which decided the cowardly heart of the
Caesarian Procurator.
" If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar's friend,
for every one that maketh himself a king speaketh
against Caesar." 4
" Why, what evil hath He done ? " asked the Governor
yet again.
" Crucify Him ! " was the last, unanimous, most
piercing cry of the people, causing uproar in court.5
Not a single discordant voice was raised amidst the

268 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
multitudinous 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 towards the breaking dawn of truth and
regeneration ? Where were they, what thinking and why
silent? The bands of the humble and poor, of the
afflicted and outcast who had entrusted to His consoling
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 multitudes 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.
He that had looked, not only into the eyes of the mob
that thronged and roared about the Praetorium, but
even into the hearts' depth of those that were silent,
would have marked therein the same void, the same
desertion. Even in the souls of the eleven disciples
who had preserved their faith to the Master up to the
scene with the authorities at Gethsemane, the light of
faith had been darkened in the face of the latest occur
rences, which seemed, but were not, failure and ruin.
Although Jesus had always spoken of the Kingdom of
Heaven and not of that of this earth, nevertheless on

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 269
Him was laid the burden of the error of those shallow
souls by whom were applied to the man, who was but
the forerunner, the same contemporary preconception of
the Hebrew national Messiah.
Almost all His followers, believing Him to be the Mes
siah of the prophecy, expected from Him the restoration
of the kingdom of David with all its wealth and all its
glories. Even the Evangehsts in their accounts dis
close their supposition of a Messianic ideal according to
the prophetic and rabbinical traditions of their people.
But a few hours before the worldly defeat of the Master
they were striving among themselves as to the pre
eminence that they should have in the new kingdom —
so much so, indeed, that they were rebuked for it with
serious words.6 However, the followers of Jesus had
not, it is true, lost courage at the labors and at the
vexations which He Himself had foretold to them; but
they understood it all as something brief and transitory,
destined, by some miracle from heaven, to be followed
by a new and a glorious age on earth. But when they
saw Him defenceless and without miracles — above all,
without miracles — fallen into the power of the hated Ro
mans, with the driving out of whom the new kingdom
should, on the contrary, have begun, nay, on the point
of being brought by them to execution — then this des
perate position of affairs became in the hands of the
enemies of Jesus a fearful argument with the people,
enabling them to represent Him as a traitor to the na
tion, as a man possessed of the devil for the miracles
which He had worked, and as an impudent impostor for
those which He had been unable to accomplish. Once
these notions are insinuated among even an applauding
multitude, the hosannas cease and the mad cry of
" Crucify Him " will break forth. The more ardent
and universal were the hosannas, the more wild and

270 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
unanimous will be the cry of " Crucify Him." The
imagination of worldly goods, says a Catholic critic
with deep insight, struck the final blow at the earthly
prestige of Jesus.7 This is the reason of the lonehness
to which He was abandoned in the hour of His peril.
Fourteen centuries later, at the foot of another cross,
history recorded a similar instance of revulsion and
popular desertion. Fra Girolamo Savonarola, the first
to feel in the sixteenth century that a freer and wider
synthesis of the human race was filling men's minds and
awakening them into new life, had grasped in hand and
raised on high the banner of the New Birth — the pre
sentiment, as it were, and beginning of the civilisation
of modern times. The men of his day, urged by a force
mightier than their own, were sailing a chartless sea in
quest of a land unknown but divined. Christopher
Columbus personifies them all. At the moment when
Savonarola was being led to the stake, the explorer was
spreading sail. Both were feeling with their hands for
a new world, unable as yet to grasp its immensity.
The one was rewarded with bonds, the other with burn
ing. The world — says the famed historian of the great
monk — dreaded those men, who were heroes rather than
thinkers, and began by crushing them; afterwards it
worshipped their footsteps and used them as the track
of its own path.8 Determined to inaugurate the King
dom of Jesus in his land and to replace the sceptre by
the cross, Fra Girolamo intended to bring reason and
faith, religion and hberty, into harmony, and for that
reason he set himself to overthrow every species of li
cence and usurpation. His voice was a protest of the
Christian spirit against the infamy of Alexander VI.,
the debasement of the Italian nation, and the tyranny
of the wealthy middle class : three sources of death, des
tined to answer him with death. Around him had broken

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 271
out afresh the struggle between " fat folk " and the
" lean " : 9 the latter should have been, and were, all
for the man who wished to bring the repubhc back again
to the forms of Christian equality. His moving ser
mons in the Church of S. Mark were interrupted by the
sobbing of the crowd; the wealthy class had the drums
beaten to drown his voice, but succeeded only in rousing
a tumult ; the excommunication hurled against him by
the Borgias from amidst the debaucheries of the pon
tifical court did not intimidate even the most timorous
and most pious among his followers. But the people
had hope in the miracles of the great monk ; he reasoned
about a moral wonder: the people looked for a physical
miracle ; and to try him one of them laid upon him the
trial by fire. Fra Girolamo did not dare to say that it
Was a sin to tempt God; the multitude felt that it had
been duped, thought itself maybe set up to ridicule, and
swept in an hour from adoration to curses, just as the
friar had passed from inspiration to subtlety. And
when the people saw, after this last blow of misfortune,
the burning faggots consume the prophet to the very
bones, they were not appeased by his death, the truth
of which brought home the fearful comedy of the ordeal
by fire. For although in the midst of the flames the
victim raised his hand to bless them, the people jeered
and mocked his martyrdom. He who knows the details
of the execution that took place on the Square of the
Signory on May 23, 1498, under the Lord Otto, cannot
recognise that popular fickleness and frenzy do not af
ford us in this case a better example than that offered
on the height of Calvary on April 6, a.d. 29, under
Pontius Pilate.
On the square was erected the scaffold destined for
Fra Girolamo and his two companions, Domenico and
Silvestro. At the extremity of a raised platform con-

272 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
structed over against the Palace of the Pisani was
reared a huge stake crossed at the summit by a beam
forming a cross. Every endeavour had been made to
avoid this similarity by more than once shortening the
stake; but the unwelcome shape of the erection upon
Golgotha reappeared unchanged. From the arms of
the cross hung three thongs and three chains. Beneath
the stake was made ready a pile of combustible material,
and a vast concourse of people, primed with the most
inhuman feeling, pressed around. Amidst these, pris
oners who had been set free by the Signory solely on
account of the hatred which they pretended to bear
against Savonarola and his followers kept coming and
going.10 Fra Silvestro had made up his mind to speak
from the gibbet, but Fra Girolamo dissuaded him with
a timely reminder. " I know," he said, " that you wish
to maintain your innocence before the people; I charge
you to abandon any such thought and rather to follow
the example of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, even on the
cross, was unwilling to speak of His innocence." As the
three monks, stripped of all but their tunics, with feet
unshod and arms bound, stepped down the staircase of
the palace and drew near to the cross, the most unbridled
rabble overwhelmed them with shameful blasphemies, ob
scene cries, insulting gestures. It fell to Fra Silvestro
to mount the ladder first. The executioner, after hav
ing fastened one of the three thongs about his neck, and
dealt him the death-blow, bound his writhing limbs with
the chain. Immediately afterwards he hastened to the
other end of the scaffold, and performed the same offices
on the person of Fra Domenico, who had stepped up
even more lightly and fearlessly than the first victim.
It remained for Savonarola, who had witnessed the death
of his companions, to take the place between them which
had remained vacant.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 273
So lost was he in thoughts of another life, that he
almost seemed to have already taken leave of earth.
But as the historian tells us, when he was aloft upon
the cross he could not refrain from casting a glance
upon the multitude below. He saw that each one
among them was impatient to see him die. How
different were they from those who in bygone days
in the Church of Santa Maria del Fiore had hung upon
his lips in ecstasy ! At the foot of the cross he marked
some of the rabble with flaming torches in hand eager
to kindle the fire. Then on the instant he bowed his
head to the executioner. At that moment an awful
silence fell on every one, a shudder of horror seemed
to pass through the throng. It seemed as though the
very statues that stood around the square shivered.
Nevertheless a voice was raised crying, " Prophet, the
moment is come to work a miracle." Each incident of
that day seemed destined to remain stamped for ever
in human memory and to heighten that feeling of mys
terious awe which the passing of the prophet was to
leave for ever among the people of Florence.
The brutal executioner, thinking to win favour with
the excited rabble, began to act the buffoon towards
the still quivering body, and in so doing he nearly lost
his balance and fell. This loathsome spectacle filled the
hearts of all present with disgust and horror; so much
so that the magistrates sent and severely rebuked the
perpetrator. Upon which he proceeded to make great
haste, hoping then that the flames would begin to burn
the unhappy friar before he was completely dead. But
the chain fell from his hand, and while he was seeking
to readjust it Savonarola breathed his last. This was
at ten in the forenoon on May 23, 1498. The execu
tioner had not yet stepped down the ladder to light the
fire before the flames shot up, for a man who had been

274 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
standing for several hours with a burning torch in his
hand had immediately kindled the faggots, exclaiming:
" At last my opportunity is come to burn him who would
have burnt me."
Then of a sudden a wind arose that for a time blew
the flames away from the three corpses, while many
pressed back in terror and cried loudly, " A miracle ! a
miracle ! " But very soon the wind dropped and the
flames again crept nearer the bodies of the three friars,
and again the throng closed in. Meanwhile the ropes
that bound the arms of Savonarola had been consumed.
His hands moved under the action of the fire, and in
the eyes of the faithful it seemed as if he were lifting
them, amidst a cloud of flame, to bless the people who
burnt him. The Piagnoni communicated this vision one
to another. Many of them were so moved by it that,
heedless of the place and people, they fell sobbing on
their knees and adored him whom they had already sanc
tified in their hearts. The women wept convulsively.
The young men trembled when they thought of the un
happy pass to which they had come; whilst on one side
there was such excess of grief, on the other there was
joy. The Arrdbbiati who were near the gibbet encour
aged a screaming, capering horde of children to pelt
the three bodies with a hail of stones. From time to
time shreds dropped from the bodies and fell into the
fire beneath. " There was a rain of flesh and blood,
which," says the same historian, following a writer who
was himself present at this painful martyrdom, " in
creased the cries of joy on the one hand and redoubled
the vain lamentations and weeping on the other." n
The identity between the passion and feeling of these
two crowds, blinded by an enthusiasm converted into'
revengeful anger, is striking. One would hardly say
that fourteen centuries intervene between the two events,

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 275
and one might well imagine that those who flung insult
at the three innocent martyrs were Jews, and not Floren
tines. The marble statues in the Square of the Signory,
with all their luxurious splendour of art and beauty,
with all their magnificent show of civilisation, are no
less cold and dumb for the people of Florence, although
the emotional historian may speak of them shuddering,
than were the arid formless rocks of Golgotha for the
rabble of Jerusalem. There is no more reasoning, no
more humanity, in the Arrabbiati than there was in the
Pharisees; no more justice and liberty in the Signory
than there was in the Sanhedrin. Cardinal Romolino,
the representative of the Roman pontificate at the exe
cution of Girolamo, was as wicked and sacrilegious as
Caiaphas, the representative of the pontificate of Jeru
salem at the martyrdom of Jesus. And what is even
more noteworthy, at Florence, too, in 1498 it was the
common expectation of a visible miracle that stirred the
multitude with enthusiasm and faith: it was the mere
external failure that turned it to hatred and execration.
The people of Florence, too, after the death of their
prophet, rehabilitated him by their piety and in their
legends. Scarcely had the ashes of Savonarola been cast
into the Arno from the Ponte Vecchio, when the crowd
began to believe that the dust from his pyre gave sight
to the blind, and a holy woman of Viterbo told them the
soul of Fra Hieronymus had been carried by the angels
in the midst of his disciples to the heights of Paradise.12
This appropriate historical comparison might suffice
in itself to explain the abrupt passage from the blindest
adoration to the wildest persecution in the feelings of
the people towards the martyr of Calvary, so lately
worshipped, listened to, and acclaimed with triumphal
enthusiasm by the people up to the very gates of
Jerusalem. But the new positive philosophy as applied

276 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
to criminal science, when treating of the crowd, explains
popular phenomena of this nature on the anthropolog
ical lines of collective suggestion, which is capable of
driving a multitude until it arrives at a state of com
plete unconsciousness and irresponsibility. It is shown
that a crowd is an aggregate of men entirely hetero
geneous, composed of individuals of every age, of every
sex, of every class, of every sect, of every degree of
education, and in the crowd is active the sum of all the
influences which suggestion is wont to exercise in rela
tion to age, to sex, and to the moral and intellectual
conditions of the various beings composing that crowd.13
On the other hand, it must be observed that in facts of
a psychological order the conjunction of individuals
composing a crowd never produces a result equal to the
sum of all of these separately, and that in an aggrega
tion of persons of sound sense an assemblage may exist
without this quality, just as in chemistry the union of
two gases results in a liquid and not in a gas.14
The human soul, in fact, is no mere cypher which can
be subjected to the simple and elementary laws of the
science of numbers, but it is rather a pecuhar entity
obedient to the most complicated laws of chemistry, and
which by its union with similar entities gives rise to
those phenomena, often quite inexplicable, termed com
binations and fermentations. Consequently the result
ant of a union of men is never a sum, but always a
product of different individual psychical elements which
meet, blend, and neutralise.15
Solon used to say of the Athenians that each of them,
considered separately, was as cunning as a fox, but that
united they were obtuse-minded. Latin experience is
summarised in the phrase, " Senatores boni viri, senatus
autem mala bestia." " Combine," says an observer who
is frequently acute — " combine twenty or thirty Goethes,

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 277
Kants, Helmholtzes, Shakespeares, and submit the prac
tical questions of the day to their judgment. Their
discussions will perhaps be different from those of an
ordinary assembly, although nobody can guarantee even
this, but as far as their decisions are concerned it is quite
certain they would be in no wise different or better than
those of any other assembly whatsoever. And the rea
son of this is that over and above the originality which
makes him an excellent individual, each of the twenty
or thirty chosen members also possesses that patrimony
of quahties hereditary in the species which render him
similar not only to his neighbour in the assembly, but
also to all the ' unknown men in the street.' " le
Positive science insists upon our studying and defining
a phenomenon. The instinct of imitation, that species
of attraction that compels us to repeat unconsciously the
acts of which we are witnesses and which make an im
pression on our sense, produces moral contagion having
as its cause and means suggestion. As in the cerebral
function of man this reflection, as it were, of an impulse
received from without spreads from cell to cell, so in the
vast field of a collectivity the communication is from
person to person.17 In the midst of a multitude the cry
of a child, the word of a speaker, or an act of audacity
may carry away all those who hear that cry or that
word, or witness that act, and lead them like an un
reasoning flock even to reprehensible actions. Thus in
a crowd suggestion attains its maximum of effect, as
suming epidemic form, because the limit of time and
place, and the contact of diverse and dissimilar indi
viduals, carry contagion of the emotions to its extreme
limit and increase the phenomena of suggestion to the
highest degree. This happens also because, in a crowd,
those more susceptible of suggestion are the first to move
and are bolder than the rest.

278 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
In popular outbursts the vanguard is generally formed
by women and children, either naturally or artificially
impelled to evil-doing ; certainly they act unconsciously.
First they are carried away themselves and subsequently
they carry the whole multitude with them, till they
perpetrate the wildest excesses and vie one with another
in devastation and destruction. The most eloquent
page ever written concerning the " unconsciousness " of
a crowd is penned not by science, but by genius, which,
with the touch of art, has stamped on the human phe
nomenon the truth which is arrived at rather by intuition
than demonstration. Any one who has ever taken part
in a riot, remarks the genial author, comes back with
this question on his lips, " What is it that has hap
pened? " 18
In the multitude that thronged beneath the Praetorium
were blended the most discordant elements that go to
make up a population ; first and foremost among all
were such violent, impulsive, fanatical, criminaloid types
as belong to all ages. In this particular crisis sectaries
of every degree, conservative to revolutionary, were
particularly prominent and active. There were also
personal motives for anger and revenge. There was
the hatred of the elders and those they had suborned;
there was the bitterness and wrath of the simple and
of those that had misunderstood. The victim of such
a crowd recognised, as He hung upon the cross, its un
conscious irresponsible character, even as positive science
would to-day. He asked the Father to " forgive them,
for they know not what they do."
It was then inevitable, although unreasonable, that
the crowd should have wanted the crucifixion of Jesus
and the freedom of Barabbas.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 279

Notes
1 S. Matthew xxvii. 19.
2Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T.; Paulus, Exeget. Handb. vol. iii.
p. 640. By certain interpreters of the New Testament it is
asserted that Claudia was numbered by the Greeks among the
saints under the name of Procula or Proscula. But the facts are
due to an apocryphal Gospel. Cf . Calmet, ad h. I.
3 This hypothesis is the most spontaneous, and is also sup
ported by Paulus and Olshausen, quoted by Strauss. The latter
is, however, influenced by the consideration that " throughout
the New Testament and especially in the Gospel of S. Matthew
dreams are considered as coming from on high." Therefore
we may suppose that S. Matthew wished to make this dream
also depend upon the Divine will (Vie, par. 131). But his dis
trust in this case, is to say the least of it, captious, and is con
tradicted by the indifference with which the majority of ortho
dox interpreters receive this anecdotic incident in S. Matthew's
Gospel. " I cannot bring myself to beheve," says one of them,
" that these dreams were sent by God to Pilate's wife in order
that she should endeavour to restrain her husband from the
enormity he was about to commit. ... As for the reasons
which S. Matthew may have had for preserving the memory of
this incident, none can really be said to appear from the context."
Curci, II N. T. etc. i. p. 187, ad. h. I. And against this, S. Au
gustine, De tempore, Sermo cxxi.; Theophylactus, Enarr. in
Matth. xxvii. 19.
4 S. John xix. 12, 19.
5 S. Matthew xxvii. 15 et seq.; S. Mark xv. 9 et seq.; S. Luke
xxiii. 18 et seq. ; S. John xviii. 38 et seq.
6 S. Luke xxii. 24-7.
7 Curci, Lezioni esegetiche sui 4 Evangelii, lez, ci. vol. v. pp. 240-
47 ; ibid. II nuovo Testamento, vol. i. p. 188.
8 Villari, La storia di G. Savonarola e de' suoi tempi, vol. ii.
p. 217.
9 " He was made away with, as a suspect and heretic, by a
part of the Florentines — viz. by the Grossi " (the Patricians).

280 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
Diario Ferrarese, Rev. Ital. vol. xxiv. p. 352. Cf. Edg. Quinet,
Les Revolutions d'ltalie, 2nd ed. chap. iii.
10 Fra Benedetto, Cedrus Libani. Cf. Nardi, Burlamacchi,
Barsanti, Pico, quoted by Villari, bk. iv. ch. xi.
11 Villari, op. cit. bk. iv. ch. xi. The writer quoted by Villari
is Fra Benedetto (Cedrus Libani).
12 Pico della Mirandola himself imagined that he had suc
ceeded in fishing a piece of Savonarola's heart out of the Arno,
and declared that he had several times tested its miraculous
virtue in the cure of divers maladies, especially in the casting
out of evil spirits.
13 Ottolenghi, La suggestione e le facolta psichiche occulte
(Turin, 1900), part ii. chap. i.
14 Ferri, Nuovi orizzonti, p. 483.
15 Sighele, I delitti della folia (Turin, 1902), Introduction.
16 Nordau, Paradoxes, chap. ii. The author remarks: "We
may say that all normal men have quahties constituting a com
mon identical value, equal, let us suppose, to X, a value which
in superior individuals is augmented by another different quality
for each individual, say for example B,C,D. With this premise
it follows that in an assemblage composed of twenty men, all of
them of the highest genius, we shall have 20 X, but only 1 B, 1 C,
1 D ; the 20 X, would necessarily outweigh the isolated B, C, D —
that is to say, the general human essence would outweigh the
individual personahty, and the workman's cap would completely
cover the hat of the doctor and the philosopher," and better still,
although without aiming at scientific demonstration, remarked
Aristide Gabelfl: " It is said committees, commissions, and coun
cils — in a word, the many who exercise power together — are a
guarantee against abuse. It were first necessary to see whether
they are an aid to use. The end to which powers are conferred
is, as a matter of fact, this : that they should be employed ; when
the guarantees are such as to impede their use, the conferring
of them becomes useless. . . . If it is difficult to find genius
in all, it is yet more difficult to find resolution and steadfastness ;
as there is no personal responsibility, every one who can seeks to
protect himself . . . the forces of men united with one an
other and do not form a sum. So true is this that very frequently

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 281
a mediocre matter issues from an assembly every member of
which might, individually, have settled the matter much more
satisfactorily. ' Men,' said Gahleo, ' are not hke horses har
nessed to a cart, that all draw together, but hke separate horses
all racing, and whereof one wins the prize " (L'istruzione in
Italia, Bologna, Zanichelli, 1891, part i. pp. 9, 257).
17 Cf . Taine, Ribot, Espinas, Sergi, quoted by Sighele, op. cit.
chap. i.
18 Manzoni, / promessi sposi, chap. xii.

CHAPTER XXI
Pilate washes his Hands — Meaning of this Judicial Usage —
The Crowd insists Anew — The Last Stand of the Governor
— Ecce Homo — Jesus handed over to the Priest — This
Handing-Over was the Sole Form of Condemnation — The
Responsibility for the Death of Jesus falls upon the Gov
ernor — The Roman Soldiers come at this Point upon the
Scene for the First Time — The Scourging from a Juridical
Point of View — The Prisoner travestied — The Crown of
Thorns — The Order of Procedure in Roman Trials — Jesus'
Trial does not correspond to any Normal Form of Proceed
ing: It was a Pohtical Murder.
But there was nothing whatever which compelled Pilate
to bow to the will of an unconscious mob.
The Romans, whose procurator was, in duty bound
to embody the very soul of justice, set before themselves
so high an ideal of the judicial authority, that it was
impossible for them to tolerate its being overridden or
interfered with by the populace. It is set forth later
in the laws of Justinian how, on the occasion of a
popular uproar, the Emperors Diocletian and Maximian
published a warning that " the vain clamours of the
people are not to be heeded, seeing that it is in no wise
necessary to pay any attention to the cries of those
desiring the acquittal of the guilty or the condemnation
of the innocent." x
The procurator had within his reach the most ex
peditious means of escaping from his difficulty. It was
not for him to enter into discussions or to attempt to

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 283
parley with the crowd. It was not for him to rouse
suggestion by proposing the free pardon of one of two
prisoners. His duty as judge and arbiter of the accusa
tion was to freely exercise his power. It was for him
to determine upon a sentence, and not upon the sur
render of a prisoner. In acting otherwise, in renounc
ing his judicial power, in exciting the passions of the
multitude, hes the whole guilt and cowardice of his re
fusal to act.
Meanwhile, seeing that nothing availed, and that the
tumult was overleaping all barriers, he had water
brought, and washed his hands in the presence of the
people, saying, " I am innocent of the blood of this
righteous man. See ye to it." 2 But all the waters of
the sea had not sufficed to wash his hands clean from
the stain of blood, nay, rather the sea itself had been
incarnadined. To wash one's hands in order to attest one's innocence
of murder was a Jewish custom.3 It is on this fact that
Strauss took his stand in endeavouring to prove that
this detail was invented by somebody in whose interest
it was to better bring out the innocence of Jesus, i.e. by
the compiler of the Gospel attributed to S. Matthew.4
But in reality it is impossible to admit that any such
necessity existed for giving importance to a particular
which becomes superfluous in the face of the number
less quite open affirmations of innocence ascribed to
the Governor. There is no need to forget that at this
moment the roar of the populace had attained an acute
stage. S. Luke says that the Jews " were instant with
loud voices asking that He might be crucified, and their
voices prevailed." 5 According to S. Matthew a veri
table " tumult was arising." 6 The Governor set great
importance, as he found it impossible to be just, upon
being quite clear in what he had to say. But it was

284 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
difficult for him to make his words heard. Moreover,
many languages were spoken by the multitude. So
true was this that Pilate himself ordered the super
scription, later on affixed to the cross, to be drawn up
in three languages, to the end that it might be read
by the many.7 One can therefore well understand that
he should have had recourse to a symbolical mode of
expression in order to make himself understood by a
vociferous crowd, the greater part of which was familiar
with this outward sign.
According to the convenient conception of the Gov
ernor, this abdication of duty, thus expressed, might
apply to the initiative and exaction of the sacrifice of
which the Jews were certainly guilty, but it cannot free
him from the higher and ultimate responsibility of in
justice, which falls entirely upon him.
To the words accompanying the act of ablution the
crowd made answer :
" His blood be on us and on our children." 8
According to the fourth Evangelist the Governor had
recourse to one last expedient. After having Jesus
scourged, a course which he had already vainly pro
posed as an adequate punishment, he showed Him to
the crowd from the tribune, endeavouring by this
spectacle to excite their pity. The Nazarene had His
head surrounded with a crown of thorns. He wore a
purple cloak and bore on His person the marks of the
injuries and violence which had just been inflicted upon
him by the soldiers of the Pretorium in the course of
flagellation. Pilate stooped over the rail of the bema,
and stretching his arm towards the innocent prisoner,
cried, as if in sarcastic epilogue to the events of the
morning :
" Behold the man."
But his solemn sweeping gesture bore no good fruit.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 285
At the sight of the innocent victim, and at the words
of the Governor, all the hatred seething in the hearts
of the priests boiled over, and they burst out louder
and louder :
" Crucify Him. Crucify Him."
Pilate once more fell back on irony. Just as in the
beginning he had proposed to them to judge their
prisoner according to their own law, so now, in the
same spirit, he said:
" Take Him yourselves and crucify Him ; for I find
no crime in Him."
This time the Jews were ready to take him at
his word. Instead of replying, as at first, that it was
no longer given them to condemn to death, they
answered :
" We have a law, and by that law He ought to die,
because He made Himself the Son of God." 9
It was equivalent to saying, If we are unable to judge
Him legally, we will put Him to death as our law
demands. This alone can have been the meaning of their answer.
Certainly they could not have claimed that a Governor
should apply the Mosaic law, because the foreigner who
in a Roman province rendered himself guilty of a capital
offence was bound to be tried according to the laws of
Rome.10 It appears that at this reply Lucius Pontius became
more frightened, not to say alarmed. Once more he
went into the Prastorium with Jesus and said:
"Whence art Thou?"
He received no answer, and therefore insisted :
" Speakest Thou not unto me? Knowest Thou not
that I have power to release Thee, and have power
to crucify Thee? "
" Thou wouldst have no power against Me," an-

286 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
swered Jesus, " except it were given thee from above :
therefore he that dehvered Me unto thee hath greater
sin." The impatience of the priests reached its height. To
be more precise, it was at this moment, according to the
fourth Evangelist, that they cried :
" If thou release this man, thou art not Cassar's friend."
And also : " Every one that maketh himself a king
speaketh against Csesar."
Pilate resisted no more. For the last time he brought
the prisoner forth and gave Him into the hands of
His accusers. For condemnation he delivered Him up.
His sentence was a mere piece of sarcasm.
" Shall I crucify your King? " n
This was the last word of the judge administering
justice in the name of Rome, the mother of law. Not
one word more, not the faintest indication of the mo
tives of his answer, which was nothing but a capitula
tion. All that the Evangelists tell us is:
" That he released unto them Barabbas and delivered
Jesus to be crucified." 12
But not on this account, and not because the con
demnation passed by the Governor was an act of sur
render rather than an act of seizure — not on this account
does the dread responsibility of the death of the Naza
rene, which he vainly rejected, fall the less upon him.
The succeeding events make this abundantly clear.
Vainly did Pilate wash his hands, vainly did he deliver
up his innocent prisoner to foreign accusers instead of
to his own officials, vainly from the very first did he say
to the Jews, " See ye to it."
But as far as the scourging was concerned, as far as
the crown of thorns, the scoffing sentinel posted to
watch the execution, the superscription of his accusation^
the cruel instrument of the cross and even the delivery

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 287
of the body were concerned, he was compelled to look
to it himself.
By the two first Synoptics the flagellation is put down
as belonging to this final stage of the trial and as a
preliminary to the crucifixion.13 By the third Evangel
ist it is put farther back as a punishment twice pro
posed by the Governor and never carried out, as a sub
stitute for crucifixion.14 The fourth Evangelist makes
it an offer of the Governor afterwards carried out, but
as a substitute for and not as a preliminary to cruci
fixion.15 The divergency is thus remarkable but not
irreconcilable. S. Matthew and S. Mark simply assert
that Pilate delivered Jesus up to be crucified after caus
ing Him to be scourged, as was the custom before cruci
fixion. S. John anticipates the flagellation somewhat,
giving us to understand that Pilate intended it first
as a substitute for the cross, and that afterwards, when
the Jews insisted, he converted it into a preparatory
measure. S. Luke merely restricts himself to the
reiterated proposal of flagellation as a punishment com
plete in itself.16 What is quite certain is that the flagel
lation corresponded to the virgis cwdere, which accord
ing to Roman law preceded the securi percutere in the
generality of executions.17
It is at this juncture that Roman soldiers appear
for the first time. They it is who carry out the flagel
lation. Afterwards the entire cohort gathered round the
prisoner, and after having despoiled Him, clothed Him
fa a purple chlamys.ls This was the second but not the
last travesty to which the victim of truth was subjected
by way of mockery. Once Herod sent Him back to
Pilate arrayed in white apparel.19 A second time Pilate
presented Him to the Jews dressed in purple, and it was
in this garb that He was beaten with rods ; 20 and finally
he was clothed once more in His own garments when He

288 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
was sent to the cross.21 But this time when he was
cloaked in purple the blasphemous masquerade was com
plete. They plaited a crown of thorns and put it upon
His head, and a reed in His right hand in guise of a
sceptre. And they kneeled down before Him and mocked
Him, saying, " Hail ! King of the Jews." And they
smote His head with a reed and spat upon Him. Then
they put on His own garments again and led Him out
to crucify Him.22
And it was about midday.
Thus ended the trial before the Praetorium. But the
name of trial is ill-befitting to the chain of wild, savage,
and disorderly proceedings which followed one upon
another from early morning to midday on April 7.
Jesus was now condemned. That He was tried cannot
be said, for who were His judges and when did they
judge Him? Not they of the Sanhedrin, for they had
not the power, nor did they claim it. Not by the
Roman magistrate in the Praetorium, who heard no
single word of evidence, sought not a single proof,
weighed not a single pleading, observed not a single
form. Were one to forget the place of the proceeding —
a Roman tribunal — were one to forget the date, some
eight centuries after the foundation of the city of Rome,
that had no childhood- — Rome, the teacher of law to
civilised mankind— one might imagine that one was
present at some primitive trial taking place before the
curule throne of one of the first Roman kings without
the slightest guarantee of even the most grotesque ritual
forms. But at the time when these things took place, the
law-giving genius of Rome had reached, in the organisa
tion of its criminal tribunals, the highest pinnacle of
civilisation. It is sufficient to have a summary notion
of what Roman criminal trials were, in order to strike

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 289
a comparison between what actually took place and
what the trial before the Roman Governor on April 7
should have been.
The jurisdiction of the single sovereign judge, were
he king or were he consul, which lasted, as it was
weU fitted to last, through the two and a half centuries
of monarchy, was destined to come to an end in the
better days of the Republic. It yielded to institutions
which first modified it in part, and afterwards sup~
pressed it in entirety.23 A law proposed in 245 by the
Consul Publius Valerius, the successor of Collatinus,
prescribed that no magistrate should have power to
carry out sentence on a Roman citizen who had ap
pealed to the judgment of the people. It was their
famous Lex Valeria (De provocatione), which the Ro
mans always considered as the palladium of their civil
and political liberty, and it was with this law that the
popular jurisdiction of the comitia was inaugurated.24
It was natural that when once the right of appeal
was recognised, use should often be made of it. Great
use, indeed, was made of it, and it was to the en
deavours on the part of the dominant caste to restrain
the popular right that other laws of kindred character
came as rejoinders. One of these is noteworthy. In
stead of punishing its own violation, it declares such
an act to be improbe factum. It appears that for those
times such a declaration was sufficiently efficacious.
" Qui tum pudor hominum erat." 25 But those that
held power were unable long to tolerate this condition
of affairs, under which they constantly saw their ver
dicts impugned and their authority invalidated. This
led to their being forced to abandon the post of judges
and assume that of prosecutors, taking upon themselves
to establish those courts which had to be appointed
in the first and the last stage by the people assembled

290 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
in the comitia. This is how an ordinary popular juris
diction came to be instituted in which the magistrate
was the prosecutor and the people the judges.26
The Republic grew, and with it the number of crimes,
so that it became difficult to convoke the comitia, and
the necessity was felt for a reform which, when it was
carried out, led to the institution of permanent tribunals
(quastiones perpetuce). In these the examination of
certain fixed classes of prosecution was entrusted to
citizens, chosen annually by the urban praetor from
amongst the various orders of burgesses and the various
limits of age. These tribunals acted under a praetor,
who constituted and directed them, and who was aided
in his duties and was replaced when absent by a special
magistrate (iudex qucestionis) . One of these two, at the
opening of any case, threw the name of the citizens
inscribed on white tablets into an urn (album iudicum),
and then drew out from these a certain number. Both
prosecutor and defendant, however, were able to reject
some of these, who were replaced by others taken anew
from the urn.27
To fail to recognise the analogy between this system
and that of our own popular courts, and to attribute
the origin of these to an imitation of English legisla
tion,28 is much the same as denying the relationship
of a flower to the mother plant which has borne it
after a long period of sterility. The example of the
English courts, which are undoubtedly most closely
related to our own, gave occasion for the foundation
of these, but are not the original, which is obviously
Roman. On the contrary, the modern popular courts mark
the resurrection of social powers and open a new path
to the sovereignty of the people; the Roman perpetual
courts, on the contrary, were the last traces of a decay-

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 291
ing burgess power, and mark the close of the first cycle
of popular sovereignty deliberating and giving judg
ments in the comitia. So long as dying liberty claimed
its liberties against rising despotism, the trial by the
people was not abohshed, the first tyrants of the Empire
were forced to respect this ancient bulwark of liberty ;
but when the contrasts between worth and ambition grew
weak in the doltishness of sleep and sensual pleasure,
then was the last torch quenched and the free courts
were turned thenceforth into something far different.
One of the first acts of imperial despotism consum
mated by Augustus was the abolition of the jurisdiction
of the comitia, which had so far continued to exist side
by side with that of the permanent tribunals, having
cognisance of eight different kinds of crime. He ex
tended this cognisance so as to include twelve kinds of
crime, and transferred the jurisdiction in all other cases
to the senate. The latter, however, as its nature grad
ually changed owing to the new pohtical constitution of
the Empire, encroached upon the jurisdiction not prop
erly its own, and the permanent tribunals went on declin
ing stage by stage until they finally collapsed in the
third century of the Christian era.29
From that time forward ordinary jurisdiction was
entirely absorbed by the imperial authorities— the pre
fect of the city,30 of the watch,31 of the coin distribu
tion,32 the vicarius,33 the praetor of the Plebs,34 the de
fender of the city,35 the prefect of the Praetorium,36 and,
of all the most remarkable, the governor or proconsul
of the provinces : 37 all these magistrates, at various
epochs and in various degrees, possessed the privilege
of administering justice.
Lucius Pontius Pilate was, therefore, within the limits
of his office, provided with the same judicial power
as the senate, not only for this reason, but also on ac-

292 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
count of the historical and civilised source from which
his power derived; it is evident that this could not have
been construed to override the rules assuring to a capital
trial the dignity and safeguards proper to the most
supreme function of a decadent, but nevertheless civil
ised, people.
According to the rules of procedure in the comitia,
the magistrates themselves prosecuted. The prosecutor
mounted the rostra, and after having called the people
together by the voice of a crier, made declaration that
upon such and such a day and for such and such an
offence he would accuse such and such a citizen, whom
he thereby called upon to come forward to listen to
the charges. The defendant thereupon either offered
sureties for his appearance or was thrown into prison.
Upon the appointed day the prosecutor again mounted
the rostra, and after summoning the accused by a her
ald, he brought evidence, documentary and otherwise,
against him; the prosecution included three orations,
one per diem. Those Romans were worthy forerunners
of our late Latin lawyers. The prosecution had to
be confirmed in writing and was published in the Forum
on three market-days. On the third day the prosecutor
yielded the right of speech to the defence. The accused
and his patron mounted the rostra and proceeded to dis
pose of the prosecution, bringing up their evidence,
documentary and otherwise. The plaintiff then an
nounced the day on which he would repeal the plea,
already made pubhc. And upon that day he called
upon the people to consider it and give their votes.
Originally voting was carried on by voice; but sub
sequently by means of a tablet bearing one of the two
letters V. (uti rogas) or A. (absolvo) .38
According to the procedure in force in the permanent
tribunals, the prosecutor was compelled to summon

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 293
the defendant according to the rules applicable in a
civil trial.39 Upon the day appointed both plaintiff
and defendant put in an appearance before the judge,
who administered the oath to the plaintiff and denounced
the name of the accused. The names of the two
parties, the day of their appearance, the deed which
gave rise to the charge, and the provisions of the law
transgressed were all entered in the UbeUus inscriptionis.
The magistrate presiding over the tribunal subjected the
charge to a preliminary examination, and quashed it
in any case where the UbeUus was irregular. He ordered
the prosecutor to provide security and to declare anew
that his denunciation was true and not calumnious.
The date of the trial was then determined, and in the
meantime the defendant discarded his ordinary apparel
and put on shabby ragged dress, made preparations
for his defence, and hunted up patroni. On the day
appointed the court was constituted, the judges were
elected, the plaintiff produced his documents and
evidence, the patroni did likewise and delivered also
the speech for the defence. The judges recorded their
vote in one of the three tablets bearing initials C.
(condemno), A. (absolvo), N.L. (non liquet). The
praetor presiding over the tribunal pronounced sentence
in one of the three formulae corresponding to one of
the three phrases (videtur fecisse; non videtur; amplius
esse cognoscendum) .40
In criminal trials under the new law some of the
forms of procedure here described fell into desuetude.
The principal among them, however, remained intact,
especially those having regard to the manner of bringing
a charge and of maintaining the same by documentary
and other evidence.41 It is also certain that in the prov
inces the same order was observed in criminal cases as
was observed in cases tried at Rome.42

294 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
It is sufficient to compare with these data the sense
of disorderly and riotous occurrences which took place
before the Praetorium in order to be satisfied that not
one of the simple and rational forms of the Roman
trial was observed in condemning a prisoner to death.
There was neither inscription nor even definition of
the charge; the crime was not formally declared; no
appropriate legal enactment was applied; there was
no hearing of witnesses ; there was no proof of a criminal
act; there was nothing said in justification or explana
tion of the sentence. There was in fact no sentence;
the prisoner was merely handed over by a motion of
the hand of His accusers, in open contrast to the
proclamation of the judge who had declared the inno
cence of the Accused and had then washed his hands of
the matter.
Jesus of Nazareth was not condemned, but He was
slain. His martyrdom was no miscarriage of justice,
it was a murder.

Notes
1 L. 12, Cod. De panis, ix. 47: " Vanae voces populi non sunt
audiendae, nee enim vocibus eorum credi oportet quando aut
noxium crimine absolvi aut innocentem condemnari desiderant."
2 S. Matthew xxvii. 24.
3 Deuteronomy xxi. 6, 7. Cf. Sota, 8, 6.
4 Vie, par. 131.
5 xxiii. 23.
6 xxvii. 24.
7 S. John xix. 20.
8 S. Matthew xxvii. 25, 26.
9 S. John xix. 1 et seq. The tragic scene " Ecce Homo " is the
subject of the beautiful painting by Antonio Aseri, here reduced
to form a frontispiece to this volume by his son Francesco.
10 L. 3, Dig. De officio prasidis, i. 18, 3: " Habet (praeses) in-

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 295
terdum imperium et adversus extraneos homines si quid manu
commiserint ; nam et in mandatis principum est, ut curet is, qui
provincial prseest, malis hominibus provinciam purgare, nee dis-
tinguitur unde sint." Cf . Capobianco, II diritto penale di Roma
(Florence, 1894), part ii. cap. i. p. 128.
11 S. John xix. 1-16.
12 The decisive part of Pilate's action is thus textually recorded
by the four Evangehsts : — S. Matthew xxvii. 26 : " Then released
he unto them Barabbas, but Jesus he scourged and delivered to
be crucified " ; S. Mark xv. 15 : " And Pilate, wishing to content
the multitude, released unto them Barabbas and dehvered Jesus,
when he had scourged Him, to be crucified "; S. Luke xxiii. 24,
25 : " And Pilate gave sentence that what he asked for should be
done. And he released him that for insurrection and murder had
been cast into prison, whom they asked for ; but Jesus he dehvered
up to their will " ; S. John xix. 16 : " Then therefore he dehvered
Him unto them to be crucified."
13 S. Matthew xxvii. 26 ; S. Mark xv. 15.
14 S. Luke xxii. 16, 22.
15 S. John xix. 1.
16 This Evangelist indeed does not speak of any scourging at the
moment when Jesus was handed over into the power of the Jews
(xxiii. 25). Cf. Paulus, Exeget. Handb. 3, 6, p. 647.
17 Cf. Pothier, Pandect, hb. xlviii. tit. 19, p. 5.
18 S. Matthew xxvii. 27, 28 ; S. Mark xv. 16, 17.
19 S. Luke xxiii. 11 : " Et illusit indutum veste alba" (Vulgate).
20 S. Matthew xxvii. 28 ; S. Mark xv. 17 ; S. John xix. 5. The
fourth Evangelist, in speaking of a purpureum vestimentum (Vul
gate), must refer to the same garment alluded to by S. Matthew
(ibid.) as a chlamydem coccineam and by S. Mark (ibid.) under
the phrase induunt eum purpura. S. Mark anticipates this second
travesty, which, according to the other two Evangelists, took place
at the moment of the scourging. That there was yet another
travesty cannot be admitted, despite the fact that the garment,
which was always of purple, is referred to as a chlamys coccinea.
The chlamys was the cloak worn among the Greeks by personages
of distinction, and among the Romans the garb peculiar to sol
diers ; it was reddish or coccinea, a colour which is declared by
Pliny (Hist. not. xxii. 7), and by the Scholiast to Juvenal (Ad

296 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
satir. lib. iii.), equivalent to purple. That on the other hand
there was only one travesty, that reported by the Evangelists, re
sults from the unvarying concomitant circumstance of the crown
of thorns. S. Luke, who alone vouches for the episode of the
sending to Herod, and consequently of the white garment (xxiii.
11), speaks of no travesty at the moment when Jesus was dehvered
up to the Jews, and was crucified (xxiii. 25 et seq.). Philo also
notes the travestying of a man out of derision (In Flaccum.)
21 S. Matthew xxvii. 31 ; S. Mark xv. 20 ; Wetstein, p. 533.
22 S. Matthew xxvii. 29 et seq. ; S. Mark xv. 17 et seq. ; S. John
xviii. 5 et seq. It was inevitable that there should arise a discus
sion as to the species of plant out of which the crown was plaited.
The text says ii d^avScov (ex spinis) ; but Gretzer (De cruce, lib.
i. 11) arrives by various conjectures at the conclusion that it must
have been of iuncus marinus. Sieber (Viaggi, pp. 143-5) thinks
it was of rhamnus. Upon this subject, when treating of the flagel
lation, Giacomo Leopardi, a young cleric aged fifteen, recited one
of his disquisitions in the Church of S. Vito before the Compagnia
dei Nobili at Recanati on March 19, 1814. This disquisition,
mentioned by Giuseppe Cugnoni (Opere inedite di G. Leopardi,
Halle, 1878), has been published from the autograph text by F.
Ferri Mancini (Due ragianamenti inedite di G. Leopardi, Reca
nati, 1885), together with a kindred dissertation entitled the Cro-
cifissione e morte di Cristo, dehvered upon a similar occasion in
1813. These are not the only juvenile writings of Leopardi with
regard to Christ. In the library of the family at Recanati are
preserved La Nativita di Gesu, La Coronazione di Spine, L' Ado-
razione del Bambino, II Viaggio del Redentore al Calvario, La
Morte di G. C, II Trionfo delta Croce (cf . Cugnoni and Ferri, op.
cit.). But all these compositions are of but little moment and are
valuable only as showing the evolution gone through by Leopardi,
in an inverse sense to that gone through by Manzoni, from belief
to disbelief ; this evolution must in his case have taken place more
or less slowly if the thought which we read in his Zibaldone is true :
" It is no sign of great talent to always and at once, habitually,
determine not to beheve " (ii. 50). In his Zibaldone we come
across thoughts exceedingly hostile to Christianity (cf. i. 191, 215,
235, 296, 345, 399, 411 ; ii. 91, 374 ; iii. 173, 174 ; iv. 403 ; v. 89,
211 ; vii. 153). Labanca believes that if Leopardi had not become

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 297
a great poet, he would have been a great historian of ancient re
ligions and of early Christian times ; this he deduces from the
writings here mentioned and from others, such as the Vita di Plo-
tino per Porfirio, I Frammenti de' primi Padri della Chiesa, Gli
Errori popolari degli antichi (Labanca, Gesu Cristo nella lette-
ratura cantemporanea, cap. iv. pp. 93, 270).
23 Cf. my Sistema del. dir. pen. Rom. in Arch. Giur. Bologna,
1885, caps. ii. and iii.
24 L. 2, par. 16, Dig. De orig. iur. i. 2 ; Cicero, De repub. ii. 31 ;
Livy, x. 9.
25 Livy, h. I. This law, which would to-day appear the acme
of ingenious legislation, was proposed by the Consul Marcus
Valerius in 454.
26 Cf. my Sistema quoted above ; Laboulaye, Flares iur.
antejustin ; Lucchini, II carcere preventative, part i. cap. i.
par. 2.
27 Cicero, Pro Cluentio, 54, 158 ; Cujacius, Observationes, ix. 23.
Sigonius, De judiciis, ii. 4 ; Tomasius, Dissert, de orig. process.
inquis. p. 30 ; Filangieri, Scienza della legislazione, lib. iii. cap.
xvi.; Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chap. xliv. ; Bruns, Fontes iur.
Ram. antiq. 50 ; Geib, Criminalprozess. 413.
28 Aignan, Histoire de jurispr. p. 80 ; Pisanelli, Dell' istit. dei
giurati, p. 102.
29 Suetonius, August. 11, 32 ; Dion Cassius, lvi. 40 ; cf. my
Sistema, cap. v.
30 L. 1, pr. D. De off. praf. urb. 1, 12 ; L. 2, pr. Cod. Th. 2, 16 ;
1. 13, Cod. Th. 9, 1; 1. 12, Cod. Th. 9, 40 ; Juvenal, Satires, xiii.
31 L. 3, par. 1, D. De off. praf. vigil, 1, 15 ; 1. 15, D. De condict.
causa data, 12, 4 ; 1. 56, D. De furlis, 47, 2 ; 1. 2, D. De effract. 47,
18 ; 1. un. Cod. De praf. vig.
32 L. 13, D. De accusal. 48, 2 ; 1. 3, par. 2, D. De lege Jul. de
annona, 48, 12.
33 L. 36, Cod. Th. 11, 30.
34 Nov. xiii. cap. i. par. 1.
35 Nov. xv. cap. vi. par. 1.
36 L. un. pr. D. De off. praf. prat. 1, 11; I. 3, Cod. De off. prcef.
prat. 1, 26.
37 L. 8, 9, D. De off. pras. 1, 16 ; 1. 1, 3, 13, 21, D. De off. pras.
1, 18.

298 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
38 Cicero, Pro domo, 45 ; 1. 5, Dig. De accus. et inscript. ; Pothier,
Pandect, xlviii. 2, 36, 38.
39 L. 3, 18, Dig. De accus. et inscript. Cf. Buonamici, La storia
della procedura civile Romana (Pisa, Nistri, 1886), hb. i. pp. 261,
268, 284, 333.
40 L. 3, Dig. De accus. et inscript. ; 1. 35, par. 1, Dig. Ad legem
Juliam de adult. ; 1. 7, par. 1, Dig. De accus. et inscript. ; 1. 3, Cod.
De his qui accus. non poss.; 1. 18, par. 9, Dig. De quasi.; 1. 12,
Dig. De accusal. Exceedingly wise was the system of non liquet,
as the occasional disagreement between jurymen nowadays shows.
41 L. 7, Dig. De accus. et inscript.
42 V.s. Cf . Pothier, Pandect, xlviii. 2, n. 28.

CHAPTER XXII
The Cross — The Procession towards Calvary — How the Three
Prisoners carried the Implements of their own Punishment
— Simon of Cyrene — The Two Thieves — The Women who
followed Jesus and His Mother — Golgotha — The Cross as a
Penalty of Roman and not of Mosaic Law — The Superscrip
tion of the Offence written above the Cross — Crucifixion of
Jesus — The Beverage — How the Garments of the Executed
passed by Right of Law to the Executioners — -The break
ing of the Bones of the Crucified Prisoners — The Last Words
of Jesus — His Death.
The Path of Suffering hurries us on towards the epi
logue of those events which were to bring the Man of
Sorrows to His end.
It was mid-day when the mixed and sad procession set
forth from the threshold of the Praetorium. Amongst
those that followed it were Hebrew priests, citizens from
every class in the holy city, strangers from distant re
gions, Levites and scribes of the Temple, guards of the
Sanhedrin, Roman soldiers under the command of a cen
turion, and women of various ages and various demean
our. In contrast to them all went three men of very
different aspect, bending beneath the weight of two
beams fastened together in the form of a fork. Slowly
and silently they passed out of the city by the gate of
Ephraim in the direction of a neighbouring altitude,
bare of trees and in the form of a skull.
When they had passed a little way, the weakest and
most feeble of the three gave way beneath the crushing
299

300 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
burden that was laid upon Him. At this juncture a
wayfarer from Cyrene, on the way back from the coun
try, fell in with the procession. He was requisitioned
by the soldiers and compelled to carry the cross of Him
who was sinking.1 It was Jesus who had succumbed.
The mournful burden which had been laid upon Him
tells us that which Pontius Pilate had not spoken, when
he uttered over Him the inarticulate command which
was to have the fatal power of a condemnation: it tells
us that the guiltless Victim had been sentenced to the
extreme penalty of the cross.
Those who were condemned to this punishment were
themselves compelled to carry the fearful instrument of
their destruction.2 The two beams of wood composing
it were fixed together at the place of execution. So
long as they were carried by the condemned they were
simply bound together cross-wise. Jesus, not only be
cause He was weak and slender, but also because He
was enfeebled by the cruel martyrdom which in itself
frequently proved fatal — by the flagellation which had
been spared the others — was unable to withstand this
fresh trial. Therefore the Cyrenean Simon was com
pelled to undertake the bitter toil, which must have
caused him deep grief, if it is true that, together with
his wife and his sons Rufus and Alexander, he had be
come the faithful disciple of the Nazarene.3 The other
prisoners who had set forth upon the same journey, and
who bore their own crosses undaunted, were two thieves.4
Perhaps the mocking Governor had assigned these two
companions in ignominy to Him who had been accused
of proclaiming Himself King of the Jews, in order to
insult these last rather than Him.
Jesus, thus relieved of the heavy burden, had to be
dragged up the weary ascent — it can hardly be said that
He walked. The women could no longer contain their

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 301
tears, but beat their breasts and uttered piercing sobs.
They were Mary Magdalene, Mary, and also Salome,
mother of S. John the Evangelist, Joanna, the wife of
Chuza, and others who from the beginning had fol
lowed the steps of the Nazarene in Gahlee, and incom
parable among them all for her boundless grief, sublime
in her calm and sweet demeanour, the mother of Jesus
herself.5 To these women tradition adds yet another,
not mentioned by the Evangelists, but who has received
especial reverence in the memory and piety of Christian
families. This is Veronica. As she saw Jesus pass be
fore her house, His brow covered with dust and blood,
she hastened after Him in pity at the indignities they
heaped upon Him, and wiped His suffering countenance
with her veil. Thus, with Simon of Libya, she offers
us the example of those who have courage to show com
passion and devotion to those who are abandoned in the
hour of their peril.6
Between mother and Son there passed a rapid glance.7
To the other women Jesus turned, saying :
" Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for Me, but weep
for yourselves, and for your children. For, behold, the
days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed are
the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the
breasts that never gave suck. Then shall they begin
to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills,
Cover us. For if tbey do these things in the green
tree, what shall be done in the dry? " 8
The procession arrived at the place of punishment.
This was the summit of a rounded convex hill, like
in appearance to a skull, so that in the Latin it had
been called Calvary, and in the Syro-Chaldaic dialect
Golgotha.9 Here the three crosses were erected.
This cruel and terrible contrivance, as it has been
called by the great orator,10 was a form of punishment

302 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
entirely unknown to Jewish law and tradition. In the
whole course of Hebrew history we only once meet with
a cross, in the case of one of the last Asmonean princes,
and this in an outburst of especial hatred.11 On the
other hand, it was common to other ancient peoples:
the Egyptians,12 the Persians,13 the Phoenicians and
Carthaginians, the Greeks and the Romans.14 These
last, in Syria especially, employed it upon a vast and
most inhuman scale.15 Roman law derived its punish
ments from private revenge, as the ground and measure
of retribution,16 and laid the foundation of our actual
theory of punishment in the two connected principles
of amendment17 and intimidation.18 But intimida
tion must necessarily have the greater weight as a re
pellent influence, the penalty being always regarded as
opposed to an attractive influence, such as the crime is
in accordance with every hypothesis. The safeguard
ing of public order, which was the governing idea of
Roman penal justice,19 found its efficacy and its success
in the result which was yielded by the balancing of the
two opposing forces of attraction and repulsion, and
this amounts to the lex talionis (lo contrapasso), as
Dante was told by his genius ; 20 and consequently the
Roman legislator always aimed at the exemplary and
terrifying nature of the punishment as the means of
causing greater intimidation. " That nobody shall ven
ture to commit a similar act with these examples before
his eyes : " 21 so the legislator remarks in assigning the
penalties, proceeding at the same time, as he himself
says, to select and establish the most terrible, the most
refined, and the most exquisite. Among such clearly
ranks the cross as one of those punishments which in
flict the most lingering and painful death, and which
unite disgrace with cruelty.
It derived its origin from the ancient practice of fast-

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 303
ening criminals to a tree, which was termed " accursed "
(arbor infelix),22 so that the term " cross " was applied
to every form of capital punishment,23 and every male
factor worthy of death was called cruciarius.2* Occa
sionally these same trees were employed in the construc
tion of crosses.25 To the original use of the arbor
infelix succeeded that of the furca, which was also
termed patibulum.2e Later on, when Constantine abol
ished the cross, there was a return to the use of the
furca.27 The penalty of the cross was regarded as the
most serious of all on account of the longer duration
of the sufferings of the condemned.28 Not merely was
it attended with infamia, but it was considered to involve
such ignominy that at first it was only inflicted on
slaves.29 In later days Cicero complained that Labienus
had ordered a cross to be planted in the Campus Mar-
tius for the punishment of citizens,30 and it became, in
fact, one of the ordinary penalties of Roman law.31
The sufferings of the victim were long drawn out. For
one, two, or even three days, he was exposed naked to
the inclemency of the weather and the cruelties of man.
His limbs were nailed and stretched upon the wood. The
wounds in his hands were torn by the weight of his own
body. His cramped position caused him torment, and
as he hung there motionless, devoured by fever and
burning thirst, there was no respite to his agony. The
clear and complete consciousness of his sufferings, which
passed away only with the passing of hfe, increased
his anguish.
The cruel instrument was constructed in divers fash
ions. Sometimes one beam was morticed into another
horizontally. A cross of this kind was termed immissa
or capitata. At other times the horizontal beam was
fixed to the extremity of the vertical one, in the form
of a T. This was the crux summissa or commissa.

304 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
Occasionally the two beams were let one into another
and made a figure X ; this cross was styled decussata. A
single beam or stake was sometimes employed alone, and
along this the victim was bound or nailed. His arms
were drawn up above his head. In this case the con
struction was called simplex. The most common cross
in use among the Romans, and the one therefore with
which the name is directly associated, was that described
here first. In all probability it was a cross of this kind
which was allotted to Jesus. From the account which
we shall here give it may be inferred that a document
was affixed above His head, on which there was an in
scription, repeated three times.32
To some crosses, about half-way down the vertical
beam, was fixed a wooden block which was able to give
support to the prisoner, whose sufferings were conse
quently lessened but prolonged.33 Justin names this
block cornus, and Tertullian calls it a staticulum or
sedilis excessus.si This detail has been almost con
stantly rejected by art, and the experience of anato
mists does not insist upon it as being absolutely essential
for the support of a normal crucified victim, or for the
avoidance of the tearing of the palmary tissue of the
hands. Certain Latin texts, however, which describe
how the condemned were placed upon the cross, confirm
the use of the block.36 It must certainly have been em
ployed whenever the victim was bound to the cross after
having been nailed to it. The wedge-shaped support
which has been imagined as placed beneath the prisoner's
feet, is foreign, so far as I am aware, to ancient litera
ture and iconography.38
The cross was sometimes placed upright after the con
demned prisoner had been fixed to it ; at other times the
order of proceeding was reversed. We are unable to
say which method was followed in the case of Jesus. It

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 305
is clear that one or other manner must have been selected
in accordance with the physical condition of the victim
and the dimensions of the cross. It was the need for
making an example which determined whether this in
strument of exemplary punishment should be more or
less lofty, or whether it should be erected in one place
rather than another. Suetonius informs us that Galba,
wishing to add greater infamy to the punishment of a
guardian who had poisoned his ward, had the cross which
had already been assigned him changed for one of greater
height, and that this new cross was painted white.37
Cicero and Quintilian assert that crosses were erected
even along the most frequented highways, as, for ex
ample, along the Via Pompeia, in order that many peo
ple might see them.38 The Roman laws never entered
into minute details. They were not overcharged with
regulations, appendices, and illustrative additions, as is
the case with our splendid and opulent legislation. It
is therefore useless to seek for infinitesimal particulars
in this direction.
The Evangehsts do not furnish us with the slightest
information as to the actual manner of crucifixion in
the case of Jesus. They confine themselves to the state
ment that He was crucified upon Golgotha, and that
subsequently two malefactors were crucified, one on either
side.39 Such Fathers of the Church, however, as lived
before Constantine, and may themselves have witnessed
Roman crucifixions, are urgent in insisting that the
hands and feet of Jesus must have been nailed.40 Ortho
dox writers have subsequently laid much stress upon de
fending this detail for the sole reason that heterodox
writers have been equally set upon denying it.41 In the
piercing of the hands and feet the former noted the
fulfilment of a Messianic prophecy which the latter were
anxious to confute. Plautus, who is unbiassed in the

306 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
matter under dispute, apparently confirms the orthodox
writers.42 According to a usage which applies not only to this,
but to every other case of Roman capital punishment, a
superscription stating the reason of His condemnation
was written at the summit of the cross above the head
of Jesus.43 As a matter of fact, custom required that a
document of this kind should be carried by the con
demned prisoner himself. Suetonius relates that Calig
ula handed over to the executioner a slave who during
a banquet had purloined a silver knife. The slave's
hands were cut off and hung about his neck, and he was
led round all the tables, while before him was carried a
placard stating his crime. Suetonius also tells us that
Domitian had a father of a family, who had spoken of a
gladiator without due admiration, led down the steps
into the arena and cast to the dogs, with the writing, " A
palm-bearer irreverent to his ruler." 44 In the same way,
Jesus on leaving the Praetorium must either have carried
the statement of his sentence hung about His neck,
or this must have been borne by Simon of Cyrene or
some one else in the procession.45 The placarding of
the cross was perhaps meant to make up for negligence
in this respect.
The superscription ran : " JESUS OF NAZARETH
KING OF THE JEWS." 46 It was couched in three
languages — Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.47 Hebrew was
the national idiom ; Greek was the universal tongue,
spoken all over the then civilised world; Latin was the
official language of the judicial and executive power, and
was in this case employed expressly by reason of the
official character of the event, and not in order to give
the inscription wider publicity.48 Nobody outside the
suite of the Roman Governor can have been acquainted
with Latin. It was by the Governor that the inscription

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 307
was dictated, and it embodied a final stroke of sarcasm
against the detested Jews. He harps upon the constant
theme of rex vester, which he had already employed
when asking them whether he must really crucify their
King. They understood the irony, and they asked the
Governor that he should not write " King of the Jews,"
but " He said, ' I am King of the Jews.' " But Pilate
stood firm to his insulting sarcasm, and answered in tones
of weariness and disdain, " What I have written, I have
written." 49
The sequence of these last events again proves that
the martyrdom of Jesus was, as of necessity it must
have been, a judicial action exclusively of Roman
authority. Crucifixion was one of the ornaments and
treasures of Roman and not of Mosaic law; to the
power of Rome and not of Judaea belonged the tender
and merciful executioners ; the superscription recording
the just and wise condemnation originated with the
Caesarian procurator and not with the Jewish Sanhedrin.
If a sentence had been passed by the Jews in the San
hedrin, instead of a mere accusation, it would have had
blasphemy, not sedition, as its ground. The charge of
sedition was debated but finally rejected by the San
hedrin, which unanimously and exclusively reverted to
the first charge, declaring Jesus worthy of death solely
because He had blasphemed in proclaiming Himself
not the King of the Jews — but the Son of God. In
this superscription, for all its irony and scorn, there
is obviously contained the declaration of a crime of sedi
tion. This declaration was not made by Pontius Pilate, but
he made no other. Yet he delivered Jesus up to be
crucified. He must, therefore, have mentaUy and defi
nitely supposed some offence as a foundation, however
unjust, for his delivery of Jesus. This offence is pre-

308 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
cisely that which he himself had fixed, in his laconic style,
at the head of the cross. If, instead of giving play to
irony up to the very last, he had thought out the motives
of the delivery, which was equivalent to a sentence, he
would have pronounced a condemnation for sedition or
lese majeste. This was the only possible description
which, according to the Roman law, could be applied
to the crime of which Jesus was vociferously accused,
but which Pilate would not believe. Although beyond
the confines of the Empire,50 it was Roman law which
Pilate was bound to administer, and necessarily did ad
minister. In its regard for the safety of the State,
which is the dominating idea of the political constitution
of Rome, the law was particularly severe against crimes
of this character. Every usurpation of the privileges
pertaining to the sovereign power was punished with
death ; and a like penalty was meted out to all actions
imperilling the integrity or the security of the nation.
To the death penalty was joined confiscation of goods
and the condemnation of the prisoner's memory.51 Thus,
if it was desired to consummate an act of injustice against
Jesus, it would not have been difficult to cloak it in legal
form. Meanwhile the guiltless Victim had been fastened to
the wood of the cross and was beginning to taste of all
the bitterness of martyrdom.
It was customary among the Jews to prepare an aro
matic beverage for the condemned in order to alleviate
their suffering and benumb their intelligence.52 And
from the beginning such comfort was offered to Jesus.
But He refused it. According to one of the Evangel
ists, it consisted of wine mixed with myrrh; according
to another, it was vinegar and gall.53 It was certainly
not the Roman executioners who had recourse to this
merciful custom. Perhaps it was the pious women who

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 309
wept near the cross who thought of the act of pity,
peculiar to their people, although on this occasion the
execution was foreign in initiative and in nature. How
ever, from the mention made of it by the Evangelists,
it may be inferred that this beverage was nothing but
the drink which the soldiers had with them. If this was
the case, all that the women did was to beg leave of the
Roman guard to moisten the lips of Jesus.54
Jesus had been stripped of his garments.55 The
executioners claimed the right of dividing them among
themselves. The spoils of prisoners condemned to death
(pannicularia)56 belonged always to the executioners, in
virtue of a right sanctioned by an explicit provision of
Roman law. In the particular case of Jesus, the clothes
were probably the taleth, a cloak, a shirt, a girdle, and
shoes. The men entrusted with the carrying out of the
sentence were four in number. After dividing the gar
ments into a corresponding number of parts, they cast
lots for the possession of them.57 Plaving done this,
they took up their places close to the three crosses in
order to keep watch.
The crowd looked on with that complacent curiosity
with which a mass of people is wont to contemplate the
most heartrending details of a catastrophe, be it a ter
rible conflagration or an unusual form of death. Some
of the passers-by shook their heads and railed at the
one of the three dying men who at least should have
excited the greatest pity. First one gibe was flung at
him, and then another. And they said:
" Ha ! Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest
it in three days, save Thyself and come down from the
cross." The priests, elders, and scribes could find no happier
sarcasm than that of the crowd :
" He saved others ; Himself tie cannot save. Let the

310 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the
cross, that we may see and believe."
The executioners themselves, although they had little
care for the reason of punishment, read the Latin words
upon the superscription, and from the imitative instinct
of brutahty repeated:
" If Thou art the King of the Jews, save Thyself."
Even one of the two malefactors who had been cruci
fied with Him turned his head towards Him amidst his
agony, and said:
" Art not Thou the Christ? Save Thyself and us."
A miracle was what they wanted and what they
awaited; a visible, real miracle. And this, in the very
end, is the explanation of the delusion and contempt
of the people. One man alone — and he indeed was one
of the two sharers in this infamy — had the wisdom at
all events in his utter anguish to conceive the possibility
of some intangible miracle not of this world.
First he rebuked his companion :
" Dost thou not even fear God, seeing thou art in the
same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we re
ceive the due reward of our deeds : but this man hath
done nothing amiss." And then, turning towards Jesus,
he said:
" Jesus, remember me when Thou comest into Thy
Kingdom." 58
The sweetness, the serenity, the prayer for pardon ut
tered to the Father, must have touched the unhappy
evil-doer ; for Jesus in His first words spoken from the
cross had said :
" Father, forgive them, for they know not what they
do " 59 — a sublime utterance which raises the purity and
the dignity of the sacrifice far above the irresponsibility
and brutality of might taking the place of right.
Other words which He let fall were taken up by the

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 311
crowd in evident derision, although with pretended un
derstanding. He said:
" Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani ? " These words were in
the Aramaic language, spoken by Jesus and the major
ity of the spectators. They meant : " My God, My God,
why hast Thou forsaken Me? " 60
But the people made play upon the sound of the words.
Thej' pretended to understand that He called upon Elias,
and they cried:
" Let be ; let us see whether Elias cometh to take Him
down." The fever of martyrdom gave Him yet other words :
"I thirst."
But this time it was not the aromatic and comforting
drink made by Jewish women, but the bitter liquor of
the Roman soldiery, that was given Him in mockery.
One of the soldiers dipped a sponge in a vessel, fixed
it on the end of a reed, and thrust it towards Jesus who
murmured :
" It is finished." 61
And what indeed remained for the Man of Sorrows
to endure? He had drunk the cup of bitterness to the
dregs, and in the calm utterance of His anguish He
might repeat the words of the Psalm foreshadowing the
tragedy. Unless indeed in their relation of His dying
words the Evangelists remembered David rather than
Jesus, He repeated the lines of the Psalmist almost word
for word : 62
" My God, my God, look upon me ; why hast Thou
forsaken me ; and art so far from my health, and from
the words of my complaint?
" I am ... a very scorn of men, and the outcast
of the people.
" All they that see me laugh me to scorn ; they shoot
out their lips, and shake their heads.

312 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
" I am poured out like water, and all my bones are
out of joint: my heart also in the midst of my body is
even like melting wax.
" My strength is dried up like a potsherd . . .
and Thou shalt bring me into the dust of death.
" For many dogs are come about me, and the council
of the wicked layeth siege against me.
" They pierced my hands and my feet ; I may tell all
my bones : they stand staring and looking upon me.
" They part my garments among them, and cast lots
upon my vesture.
" But be not Thou far from me, O Lord ; Thou art
my succour; haste Thee to help me."
The Romans were in the habit of hastening the death
of the crucified by breaking their legs with blows from
a mace or mallet (crurifragium). It is not quite cer
tain, but it may be conjectured that the same end was
attained more thoroughly by running the prisoners
through the breast.63 Crucifixion only killed slowly.
The loss of blood from the hands and feet was very soon
arrested, and rarely proved fatal. The cause of death
was the forced tension of the limbs, which produced
rigour of the whole body, and led to a fatal derange
ment of the circulation. Some prisoners taken down
from the cross and attended to betimes, returned to
life.64 Others remained for three or four days on the
gibbet.65 Many of hardy constitution perished from
hunger.66 The coup de grace was thus useful, some
times even necessary. In the particular case of the
three of Golgotha, the Jews had double reason for re
questing that death should be hastened. In the first
place, their custom did not allow of a corpse being left
hanging from the gallows beyond the evening.67 Sec
ondly, the holy Sabbath could not be disturbed by such
a spectacle.68 On these accounts they went and begged

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 313
Pilate to give assent to the breaking of the legs of the
crucified. The soldiers proceeded to carry out this oper
ation upon the two malefactors. When they arrived at
Jesus, He was already dead.69 After three hours of
agony, calm and serene He had closed His brief years of
life, and brought His task of untold centuries to an end.
Mid-day of April 7 70 was three hours past when Jesus
lifted His thought to the Father to commend to Him
the soul that was breaking free from the martyred body.
And to this thought He devoted His last word.
And He bowed His head and gave up His Spirit. All
of Him that was human was finished.
The cross of His martyrdom will stand fixed for ever
upon the crowning summit of injustice, cupidity, and
civil falsehood, a symbol of eternal reprobation and of
regeneration without limit. So much so, that in com
parison with the imperishable wood of the cross, fire and
iron will become worthless trash.
The world of His day was bent on sights of wanton
ness and blood in other quarters. It marked not that
which befell Him in an unknown corner of the East ;
but before long it grew conscious of a new law counting
up the deeds and destinies of man. It saw that truths
drawn from the fount of Nazareth were watering the
earth, and that the tree which had borne no good fruit
was rooted up.
Vainly through nineteen centuries have panic-smitten
legislators, or innovators overbold, striven to write or to
invoke a law which shall be equal to that inscribed in
blood upon the cross. When the Martyr of Golgotha
gave man this precept, " Love thy neighbour as thyself,
and do not unto others that which thou wouldst not
they should do unto thee," He did not only point to
and illumine the inscrutable ways of Heaven, but He
grasped and ennobled the most savage and powerful

314 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
law of earth — that is to say, selfishness — and exalted it
to a virtue and indefeasible rule of solidarity and social
justice. And when to men bound together by the
cords of such justice, without limits in its power and
its scope, He announced the " Kingdom of God is in
you," He founded a divine kingdom upon earth, which
has neither sovereigns nor subjects, neither victims nor
rebels, neither barriers nor boundaries, which has a
single sceptre in every will that is master of its own
purposes, which has a throne in every soul capable of its
own destinies ; a kingdom perfect and secure, if not
happy and blessed ; in which swords will be transformed
into ploughshares, and lances into sickles, and the
sovereignty of man will be inaugurated, free and un-
restrainable by any authority and any discipline, in
accordance with the incalculable value of its own nature
and the infinite progress of its perfection.
Nineteen centuries will not again go by before either
the cross of Golgotha shall become once and for ever the
emblem of victory, or man, born to strife, shall sihk,
vanquished eternally in the secular struggle for his
redemption.

Notes
1 S. Matthew xxvii. 31 et seq.; S. Mark xv. 20 et seq.; S. Luke
xxiii. 25 et seq.; S. John xix. 16 et seq.
2 The road which led to Calvary was practically the same
which goes to-day by the name of Via dolorosa (cf. Serao, Nel
paese di Gesic, Naples, 1902, p. 128 et seq.). This road runs
through the whole of the lower city or Acra, crosses the Low
Street, which Josephus calls the Valley of the Tyropeon, and
which separates Acra from Gareb, and mounts by a fairly rapid
slope to the gate of Ephraim (Didon, Jesus-Christ, ch. xi.).
Plutarch, De sera num. vind. 19; Artemidorus, Onirocf. cap
ii. 56.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 315
3 S. Mark xv. 21. This Evangelist alone (but his text is per
haps, as is now-a-days believed, the most ancient and most au
thoritative) names Alexander and Rufus as sons of Simon.
From the manner and context in which they are mentioned, it
is argued that they must have been fairly well known to the
first Christians. Of a Rufus, perhaps the same, there is men
tion in the Epistle to the Romans (xvi. 13), and an Alexander,
perhaps the brother of Rufus, is spoken of in the Acts of the
Apostles (xix. 33). The subsequent tradition with regard to
Simon and his wife comes only from the Fathers of the Church
(Maldonatus, Ad. h. I.). Didon follows this tradition, but at
the same time consigns to a note the passage: "If a Roman
soldier lay upon thee some heavier service, resist not, nor mur
mur; if thou dost, thou shalt be beaten " (J.-C. ch. ii.). This
would also mean that Simon was to make virtue of a necessity.
The ancient geographers (Strabo, xvii ; Pliny, Hist. not. v. 5 ;
Pomponius Mela) name three Cyrenes, one in Libya, another
in Palestine, and a third in Cyprus. It is generaUy held that
Simon belonged to Libya.
4 S. Matthew calls them " robbers " (Vulgate latrones : i.e.
highwaymen), xxvii. 38. Thus also S. Mark (xv. 22). S. John
merely mentions " two others " (xix. 18). S. Luke speaks once
of " two other " (xxiii. 32), and once of " robbers " (xxiii. 39).
The names Gisma and Disma, also Moab and Zabdi, assigned
to these two malefactors, are not in the Gospels, and are derived
only from fanciful tradition.
5 S. Matthew xxvii. 55, 56, 61; S. Mark xv. 40, 41, 47, xvi. 1;
S. Luke xxiii. 27, 28, 49; xxiv. 10; S. John xix. 25.
6 Didon, Jesus-Christ, ch. ii.
7 S. John xix. 26, 27. The Evangelist mentions here also the
commendation to him by the Master of His mother.
8 S. Luke xxiii. 28-31.
9 S. Matthew: " Golgotha, that is to say the place of a skull "
(xxvii. 33); also S. Mark (xv. 22); and S. Luke (xxiii. 33).
S. John: "And he went out . . . unto the place called the
place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew Golgotha " (xix. 17).
Cf. Gesenius, Lex. etc. p. 190. There are some who suppose
that the name of the place was derived from the use to which it
was put, and from the skulls and skeletons of executed prisoners

316 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
there to be seen (Winer, Bibl. Realwbrterhuch, art. Golgotha :
Paulus and Fritzsche, quoted by Strauss, Vie, par. 132). An
etymology of this kind appears to me in contradiction to the
rigorous care which the Jews devoted to the burying of human
remains, which were sources of pollution; so that such remains
could hardly have been visible, as the commentators quoted
believe. Eusebius, Sozomenus, and S. Jerome say that a temple
to Venus was built upon Golgotha by Hadrian. For a modern
guide to Calvary, cf. Serao, Nel paese di Gesii (Naples, 1902),
p. 128 et seq. The place was within twenty steps of the city wall,
which at this point formed a re-entrant angle, and within this
triangular area the execution must have been carried out. Close
by passed the road to Samaria through the midst of ohve plan
tations, among which the rich families had their tombs exca
vated. 10 Cicero, Verr. v. 64: " Crudelissimum teterrimumque."
11 Josephus, De hello judaico, hb. i. cap. iv. n. 6. The deed
is attributed to Alexander, one of the Asmoneans, who perhaps
crucified eight hundred prisoners. Eight hundred appears
really too many. And so must have thought Josephus, who
guards his statement with a " perhaps."
12 Genesis xl. 19 : " Pharaoh shall lift up thy head from off
thee, and shall hang thee on a tree, and the birds shall eat thy
flesh from off thee." As is clear from this text, crucifixion must
in this case have been a posthumous punishment of the corpses
of prisoners who had already been beheaded, and not a mode
of death. Cf. Jerem. Thr. v. 12; 1 Kings xxxi. 10.
13 Esther vii. 10 : " So they hanged Haman on the gallows
that he had prepared for Mordecai." Here the cross is a mode
of execution by itself. And that the hanging prepared by Haman
for Mordecai and applied by Mordecai to Haman was cruci
fixion proper, follows from the succeeding passage in the same
book (viii. 7).
14 Plautus, Mostellaria, ii. 1, 13; Lucan, Pharsalia, vi. 543, 547;
Xenophon of Ephesus, Ephesiaca, iv. 2; Juvenal, 6, 5; Valerius
Maximus, 2, 7, 12; Quintilian, Declam. 275; Lucian, Jud. voc.
12; Justin, Dial, cum Tryph. 97; Tertullian, Adv. Marcianem,
iii. 19.
15 Josephus, De hello jud. v. ii. 1, 2; Antiq. jud. xx. vi. 2.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 317
16 Paul, Sent. 5, 3, 1: " Extra ordinem vindicatur." Ibid. 5, 4,
par. 1: " Nostra interest vindicare." Ibid. par. 4, par. 7: "Furis
inruentis consilium vindicetur." Gai. 3, 217: " Damnum in-
iuria vindicatur." 1. 131, pr. Dig. L. 16: " Poena est noxse vin-
dicta." 1. 1, Cod. i. 1: " Divina primum vindicta, post etiam
motus animi nostri, quem ex cselesti arbitrio sumpserimus ultione
plectendis." Ibid. 1. 9, ii. 11: "Temerarie commissa congrua
ultione plectantur." Ibid. 9, ii. 11: " Ob ultionem publicam ob-
noxius legibus fiat." The good thief himself, who was crucified
by the side of Jesus, appears to refer to the principle of just ret
ribution when he says: " And we indeed justly, for we receive
the due reward of our deeds " (S. Luke xxiii. 41).
17 Dig. 48, 19, 20: " Poena constituitur in emendationem hom-
inum." Nov. 8, 8; Nov. 12, 1; Nov. 17, 5; Nov. 25, 2; Nov.
30, 11 ; Collatio 1, 11, 2 : "Ut ceteri eiusdem aetatis iuvenes emen-
darentur." 18 Cod. ix. 27, 1: " Unius poena metus possit esse multorum."
Ibid. i. 11, 7: " Ut hac legis nostrae severitate perterriti metu
pcenae desinant sacrificia interdicta celebrare." The magnum
competens exemplum is the marking feature of all chastisement.
Dig. 49, 16, 8, par. 3: " Propter exemplum capite puniendus est."
Nov. Maior, ix: " Ut competenti luxuria castigata ab expugna-
tione pudicitiae." Nov. Theod. xviii; Coll. 51, 7, 1 ; 1. 17, par. 10,
Dig. xlviii. 19.
19 Paul, Sent. 5, la, par. 6: "Alterum utilitas privatorum, al
teram vigor publicse disciplinae postulat." Ibid. 5, 6, par. 15:
" Interest pubhcae disciplinae opinionen uniuscuiusque a turpis
canninis infamia vindicare." Cod. ix. 2, 10: " Contra discipli-
nam publicam." Cod. ix. 30, 1; Dig. 1, 11, 1 pr.; Nov. 2; C.
Th. iv. 33, 1; xvi. 8, 21.
20 Inferno, xxviii. 142.
21 Nov. 8, 8; see note 18.
22 Livy, i. 26; Cicero, Pro Rabirio, 4. The Latins properly
called arbores infelices trees abominated by rehgion, such as are
not sown and yield no fruit — the poplar and elm, for instance
(Pliny, Hist. not. lib. xxvi.) The punishment which went by
this name was preceded by scourging.
23 Cicero, Pro Rabirio, 3; Terence, Eunuchus, 2, 3, 91; Plau-
tus, Aulularia, 3, 5, 46 ; Columella, in Gesen. Lex. 1, 7.

318 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
24 Apuleius, Metam. 10; Ammianus, in Gesen. Lex. 9, 2.
25 Tertullian, Ap. viii. 16.
26 Cicero, De div. i. 26; Plautus Miles glor. 2, 4, 7; Tacitus,
Ann. 14, 33.
27 Cf. Pothier, xlviii. ; xix. 4.
28 Isidorus, Orig. v. 27.
29 Lipsius, De cruce 1, 3.
30 Pro Rabirio, 4, 10.
31 Paul, Sent. hb. v. tit. 14, par. 19 : " Summa supphcia sunt
Crux, Crematio, Decollatio." To lessen the ignominy it was
sometimes carried out in prison. Cf. Valerius Maxim us, viii.
4, 2.
32 Irenseus, among the writers least removed in point of time
from the crucifixion of Jesus, declares that the cross had four ex
tremities (Advers. haret. ii. 24, 4). In a magnificent picture of
the quattro- cento attributed to Pesellino, which is to be seen (but
who indeed sees the real miracles of art ?) in the church of S. Don-
nino at Brozzi near Florence, there is depicted a cross; the super
scription is fixed above the transverse beam by means of a httle
staff planted in the extremity. This is an involuntary but taste
ful objection to the presumed form of the cross inferred from the
placing of the superscription upon the upper portion of the vertical
beam. If the courageous old painter of the " httle staff," forgotten
though he is, were made the object of polemics, he might rightly
rejoin that the immissa or capitata variety of the cross might very
well be assumed in the case of Jesus, as we have records that
it was Roman. In order to lessen the ignominy, the early Chris
tian adopted various symbolic signs for the cross (infamis stipes),
viz. the trident, an upright hammer, the Greek or Latin T, or
sometimes the Greek gamma, T. Isidoro Carini, in his work on
the Passione di Cristo, describes the main phases of Christian art
with respect to the worship of the cross and of Christ. He begins
with the symbolic period when the cross is dissimulated under the
various forms above mentioned. Next comes the period of the
" bare cross " accompanied by the symbol of the sacrificed lamb.
And finally we reach the cross with the name of Christ by itself
and with Christ nailed upon it. At the beginning Christ is
clothed in a long tunic, called the colobium ; the tunic is then short
ened, and finally it is replaced by the cloth about the loins called

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 319
by the Greek term perizoma. Cf. Vignon, Le linceul du Christ:
etude scientifique, Paris, 1902 ; Garrucci, Storia dell' arte Cris-
tiana, vol. i., Prato, 1881 ; Gatti, Album G. B. De Rossi, Rome,
1902. In this last work, written in honour of the seventieth birth
day of G. B. De Rossi, the famous leader of Christian archaeo
logical studies, are gathered together papers by Waal, Kraus,
Batiffol, Eudres, ArmeUini, Marucchi, Scaghori, and others, all of
them with relation to ancient Christian art.
33 Irenaeus, Adv. haret, ii. 42.
34 Justin, Dial, cum Tryph. 91 ; Tertullian, Ad. not. i. 12.
35 Seneca, Ep. 101 : " Hanc (vitam) mihi, vel acuta si sedeam
cruce, sustine."
36 The fancy of certain people led necessarily to discussions as
to the variety of wood out of which the cross of Jesus was made.
Calvin remarked that the wood itself had so multiphed that were
it united there would be enough to load a ship. S. Bernard said
that it was of four kinds, Cyprus, cedar, olive, and palm (in Cant.
vii. 8). On the other hand, Decaisne and Savi declare that they
have examined under the microscope certain particles of the sup
posed relics of the cross which are in the Cathedral of Pisa, the
Duomo at Florence, Notre Dame de Paris, and in the Basilica of
the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, and they have discovered that they
all belong to the same species of wood, viz. pine.
37 Galba, 9.
38 Cicero, Verr. v. 66 : " More atque instituto suo crucem
(Mamertini) fixerunt ... in via Pompeia." Quintilian, De-
clam. 275: " Quotiens noxios crucifigimus, celeberrimse eliguntur
vise, ubi plurimi intueri, plurimi commoveri hoc metu possint."
39 S. Matthew xxvii. 35, 38; S. Mark xv. 24, 25, 27; S. Luke
xxiii. 33; S. John xix. 18. A book with an ahuring title but of no
authority is La Mart de Jesus: Revelations historiques sur le veri
table genre de mart de Jesus, traduit du latin d'apres le manuscrit
d'un frere de Vardre sacre des Esseniens, contemporain de Jesus,
par D. Ramee (Paris, Dentu, 1863).
40 Justin, Dial, cum Tryph. 97; Tertullian, Adv. Marcionem,
3,19. 41 Psalm xxi. 16: " And they pierced my hands and feet." Cf.
Strauss, Vie, par. 132.
42 MosteUaria, 2, 1 : "Affigantur bis pedes, bis brachia." Nat-

320 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
uraUy fancy has also fixed upon the number of nails employed
by the crucifiers of the Nazarene. Latin tradition supposes it to
have been three, assigning one only to the feet; Greek tradition
and S. Gregory of Tours would have that there were four. Oth
ers put more, according to the amount they have.
43 S. Mark declares explicitly that the writing was the super
scription of accusation (xv. 26). S. Matthew calls it his " accu
sation written " (xxvii. 32). S. Luke speaks merely of a super
scription (xxiii. 38), S. John of a " title " (xix. 19).
44 Caligula, 32 : " Praecedente titulo qui causam poenae indi-
caret." Domitian, 10: " Cum hoc titulo; impie locutus parmu-
larius." 45 Bonghi rightly adopts the fact, but whence he takes it I do
not know, that the titulus was carried by Jesus, Simon, or some
one else (Vita di Gesu, p. 286).
46 Thus in S. John, " Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews "
(xix. 19). Cf. S. Matthew, " This is Jesus the King of the Jews "
(xxvii. 37); S. Mark, " King of the Jews " (xv. 26); S. Luke,
" This is the King of the Jews " (xxiii. 38).
47 S. Luke xxiii. 38; S. John xix. 20.
48 S. John xix. 19 : " And Pilate wrote a title also and put it on
the cross."
49 S.John xix. 21, 22.
50 For the necessity of such an application in a Roman province,
see chap. x. note 13, and chap. xxi. note 10.
51 Cf . upon the Crimen maiestatis and Seditio, Ferrini, Dir. pen.
Rom. chap. xi. p. 252 et seq.
52 Babyl. Sanhedrin, f. 43, 1 : Dixit, R. Chaja, f. 3. Ascher,
dixisse R. Chasdam: " Exeunti, ut capite plectatur, dant biben-
dum granum turis in poculo vini, ut alienetur mens ejus, sec. d.
Prov. 31, 6: Date siceram pereunti et vinum amarissimum."
53 S. Matthew xxvii. 34 : " They gave Him wine to drink min
gled with gall." S. Mark xv. 23; " And they offered Him wine
mingled with myrrh." Certain authors indeed, among whom
is Langen quoted by Didon, relate that the ancient naturalists
Dioscorides and Galen attributed a calming effect to incense
and myrrh (J. -Christ, ch. ii.). The other two Evangelists do not
speak of any drink at this point. They speak of such later on,
and in agreement with the two first, when Jesus said, " I thirst."

THE TRIAL OF JESUS 321
54 Spartianus, Hadrian. 10; Vulcarius, Ovid. 5 ; Plautus, M iles
glor. 3, 2, 23; Ibid. Trucul. 2, 7, 48.
55 Artemidorus, Onirocr. ii. 53.
56 L. 6, Dig. De bonis damnatorum, xlvii. 20.
57 S. Matthew xxvii. 35; S. Mark xv. 24; S. Luke xxiii. 34;
S. John xix. 23, 24. The detail as to the number of the soldiers
(perhaps he refers expressly to those charged with the execution)
is given only by S. John; and by him also alone is given the de
tail that the tunic was cast lots for and not divided among the
soldiers. 58 S. Luke xxiii. 39, 43. This episode is suppressed by the
other three Evangehsts. S. Matthew (xxvii. 14) and S. Mark
(xv. 32) say that the two malefactors also reviled Jesus; S. John
does not mention this, although he does not neglect the presence
of the " two others " at the crucifixion (xix. 18).
59 S. Luke xxiii. 33. The other Evangehsts pass over these
words, hkely enough in the mouth of Jesus.
60 S. Matthew xxvii. 45-8; S. Mark xv. 34-6. S. Luke and
S. John pass over this particular, which bears the impress of one,
unlike others of Messianic foundation, which has been really
felt and not part of a trumped-up story. Didon believes se
riously that there was a misunderstanding, and deduces evidence
therefor, showing that among the pilgrims gathered at Jerusa
lem for the Passover there must have been Greek and Roman
strangers, who understood neither Hebrew, Armenian, nor Syro-
Chaldaic (J. -Christ, ch. ii.). In reality, if these words were ut
tered in Aramaic, the great majority of those present should have
understood them.
61 The last words of Jesus are usually gathered together from
the context of the Gospels ; each one of these, taken by itself,
is incomplete and even contradictory with regard to the others
in certain details. For example, S. John puts into Jesus' mouth
the words " I thirst," which are passed over by the Synoptics;
these place the second drinking incident at the point of the ex
clamation " Eloi, Eloi," whereas S. John omits this exclamation,
but places the incident of the beverage at the time of the words
" I thirst."
62 Psalm xxii. 1, 6, 7, 14-19. Cf. the fine unpubhshed trans
lation from the Hebrew, quoted by Didon (J. -Christ, ch. ii.) of

322 THE TRIAL OF JESUS
which the author is P. Scheil. Here the Prayer-book version is
given, and the passages only in which the Evangelists show the
Messianic coincidence contained in the prophecy of this Psalm,
and not only the last words, but also the last events of the Passion
of Jesus.
63 Seneca, De ira, iii. 32; Suetonius, Octav. 67; Lactantius,
Instit.; Lipsius, De cruce, hb. ii. c. 14, hb. iii. c. 14; Plautus,
Panulus, 4, 2, 64. Renan cites the passage from Ibn-Hischam
translated in the Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes i. 99
(Vie, ch. xxvi.).
64 Herodotus, vii. 194; Josephus, Vita, 65.
65 Petronius, Sat. cxi; Origen, In Matt. Comment, series, 140.
66 Eusebius, Hist, eccles. viii. 8; cf. Renan, Vie, ch. xxv.
67 Joshua, viii. 29, x. 26; Mishna, Sanhedrin, vi. 5. Renan
says that this prohibition had its origin in the law; but in the
Pentateuch any such provision is wanting, and the passage of
Joshua only mentions a special enactment. The Sanhedrin is
the work of the Talmudists, and therefore not contemporary with
Jesus. 68 S. John xix. 31 ; Philo, In Flaccum, par. 10.
69 S. John xix. 31-3.
70 S. Matthew xxvii. 45, 46, 50; S. Mark xv. 25, 33, 34, 37; S.
Luke xix. 13, 14. The divergence between the passages of the
Gospel with regard to the hour of death of Jesus is evident and
irreconcilable. The most acceptable hypothesis seems to be
that of the ninth hour of the Hebrews, which answers to our
3 p.m.

INDEX

Ab BETH DIN, 165
Abel, murder of, 68
Aholitio, 256, 263, 264
Absolvo, 292, 293
Aceldama, field of, 100
Acts of Pilate, the, 222, 245-8
Acts of the Apostles, and S.
Luke, 171
Adulteress, the, and Jesus,
86, 87, 90-4, 83, 84, 87-91
Adultery and the Mosaic code,
87-91, 166, 167, 204, 205
Akiba and the Messiah, 197
Albo and the Messiah, 197
Album iudicum, 290
Alexander and Jesus, 300, 315
Alexander VI. and Savona
rola, 270
Alexandria, Jews at, 6
 and miracles, 94, 95
Almsgiving, 25, 99
Amnesty, 255
Anarchy and Christianity, 29,
55,56
Annas, legal position of, 139,
146, 147
 and Caiaphas, 122
 and Jesus's arrest, 122-6
 and Pilate, 224
Anthony and Syria, 132, 166
Antigon of Soco, 6
Antipater, v. Herod

Apocalypse, 171
Apostles, mission of the, 78,
79, 82, 86
 the Twelve, 64, 72
 v. also Disciples
Arbor infelix, 303
Archelaus and Judcea, 132,
166, 226
Arrabbiati, the, and Savona
rola, 275
Arrest of Jesus, 113, 114, 153
 (date), 127
its illegality, 112-22, 146,

147

¦ v. also Sanhedrin, Trial

of Jesus
Asmonean princess, the, 302
Augustus and the census, 18
 and Judaea, 43
 and Rome, 138, 291
Babylon, wealth of, 3
Baptism and John the Bap
tist, 13, 22
Barabbas, character of, 260
 release of, 233, 250, 261,
267, 286
Bentham and Hobbes, 121
Bethany, Jesus at, 92, 93,
100, 103
Bethsaida, annexation of, to
Syria, 80

323

324

INDEX

Bethsaida, Jesus at, 80
Betrayal of Jesus, 113, 114,
121-23
 v. also Judas
Blasphemy and the Mosaic
law, 166, 167, 178, 179, 209,
214
 Jesus charged with, 166,
172, 175-80, 184-91, 227, 307
Borgias, the, and Savonarola,
271
Bovio, Giovanni, 88, 89
Burning, 204, 212
CjBsar (tribute) and Jesus,
2, 53, 54
Caesar Augustus, v. Augustus,
etc.
Caesarea and Pilate, 233, 234
 and Herod, 242, 243
Caiaphas, character of, 123
 legal position of, 139 sqq.
 and Jesus, 93, 125, 126,
157, 158
 and Pilate, 228
 and Romolino, 275
— and St. John, 174
- v. also Arrest, Trial of

Jesus, etc.
Calculus Minerva, 263
Calendar, the Jewish, 127
Caligula (punishment), 306,
320
Calvin and the cross, 319
Canaan and land distribution,
24
Capernaum, Jesus at, 64
Capital punishment, 135, 136,
137, 149, 150, 160, 161, 166,
167, 212, 213, 234
Carissimi, 137
Carthaginians and Crucifixion,
302

Cassation, Courts of, 149, 150
Castelli and the Messiah, 197,
198
Celestine and Pilate, 223
Celibacy in the early Church,
34, 35
Centurion, the, 119
Charcot and psychical influ
ences, 106, 107
Chareth, 205
Chasdai Kreskas and the Mes
siah, 197
XtMapxos, 117, 127
Chlamys, 287, 295
Christ, the, 84, 172, 175, 176,
237, 238.
Christianity and courage, 56,
57
 and individualism, 40,
54-6
 and paganism, 26, 27
 and Rome, 170
— — and sociahsm, 40
Chronology, 18
Cicero and crucifixion, 303,
305
Civitas, 55
Claudia and Pilate, 216, 217,
266, 267
Claudius and Pilate, 225, 226
Colonies of Greece and Rome,
135
Columbus and Savonarola,
270
Comitia, procedure, 289, 293
Communism, 30
Constantine and Sylvester, 26
 and the cross, 303
Coponius and the Zealots, 8
Cordaro, Carlo, 90
Cornus, 304
Courage of Christianity, 57
Covenant, the, 44, 45

INDEX

325

Criminal procedure and the
Mosaic law, 152
 at Rome, 289-94
 v. also Capital Punish
ment
Criticism, the Higher, 181
Cross, the, 301-6, 316-20
Crowds, psychology of, 275-
78, 280, 281
Crown of thorns, the, 288,
296
Cruciarius, 303
Crucifixion, psychological ex
planation of the, 275-8
 in antiquity, 302-4, 316-
19
 of Jesus, 299-314
"Crucify Him" and "Ho
sanna," 269-81
Crurifragium, 312, 322
Cuiacius and Pilate, 139
Daniel and the Messiah, 193
Dante and Pilate, 223, 228
David, judges of King, 163, 243
 and the Messiah, 192
Death penalty, the, 204, 205,
212
 sentence and the San
hedrin, 166, 167
 v. also Capital Punish
ment
Decapitation, 204, 205
Decapohs, Jesus in, 81, 82
Dedication, the feast of, 87
Defilement, 202, 203, 230
Democratic ideas and the
Jews, 35, 36
Denial of S. Peter, 174
Deuteronomy and the San
hedrin, 162, 163, 164
Didon and the Sanhedrin, 241
Dignitas, 255

Diocletian and Pilate, 223
 and popular opinion, 282
Diodati and talio, 207
Disciples, call of the, 64
 their loss of faith, 268,
269

 v. also Apostles
Dives and Lazarus, 24
Divine right of kings, 206
Domenico and Savonarola,
271-4
Domitian (punishment), 305
Dreams, 266, 267, 279
Easter amnesty, 256
Ebionism, 36
Economic conditions of anti
quity, 23, 24
Egyptians and crucifixion, 301,
302
Eh, miracles of, 95
Elias and Jesus, 311, 321
 and John the Baptist, 71
Ehsha and Gehazi, 86
 miracles of, 95
Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani,
311, 321
Enghsh and Itahan courts,
290
ivovra, ra, 25, 26, 38, 39
Ephraim, Jesus at, 99
Epictetus and the Christians,
170
Equites, 134
Ergastulum, 201
Esau and Pilate, 223
Essenes, the, 6, 7, 10
 and Jesus, 16, 143
 and John the Baptist, 13
Eusebius and Jesus, 170
Excessus sedilis, 304
Executive and judiciary, 139-
41

326

INDEX

False prophets and the San
hedrin, 165, 166, 167
False witnesses, v. Blasphemy,
Sedition
Fama, 255
Family ties and Jesus' teach
ing, 35, 40, 41
Fathers, the Christian, and
wealth, 32, 33, 34
Fines, 204-7
Flaccus Pomponius and Syria,
132, 133, 138, 139
Flagellation, 201, 205, 206
Florence and Savonarola,
270-5
Furca, 303
Gabaatha, 234
Gahlee, Jesus in, 82, 83
 rehgious sects, 63, 64
 and Herod, 132, 242
Gaulonites, the, 10
Gazophylacium, 86, 87
Genesis and the Messiah, 193
Gennesaret, Jesus at, 64, 79,
80
Gerizim, Mount, 51, 220
Germanicus and Pilate, 215
Gethsemane, Jesus arrested at,
1, 113, 114, 153
Giano della Bella, 223
Gnosticism and the Pharisees,
5, 6
Golgotha, 142, 301, 315, 316
Gospel accounts, divergences,
v. Trial of Jesus, etc.
Gospels, authority of the,
170-2
 the (dates), 172
Grace, act of, 255
Graf, Arturo, 90
Greece, art of, 7
 colonies of, 134, 135

Greece, and crucifixion; 301;
302
 and miracles, 94, 95
Hanan and St. John, 185, 186
Hanging, 202, 203, 205
Harnack and industry, 58, 62
Hebrews, v. Jews
Herod the Great, 132
Herod Antipater and An
thony, 166
Herod and Archelaus, 166
 and Jesus, 70, 72, 78, 80,
81, 142, 143, 178, 242-8
 and John Baptist, 14,
70-2
 and Judaea, 131, 132
 and Pilate, 228, 229
 at Jerusalem, 242, 249
Herodian dynasty, 7, 233, 234
Herodians and trial of Jesus,
142, 143
Herodias and John the Baptist,
70-2
High priests, hst of the, 129
Hillel, 7
 and the Sabbath, 98
Hippocrates and miracles, 94,
95, 96
Hobbes and Bentham, 121
Holy land, the, 75, 76
Horatius, trial of, 140, 141
"Hosanna" and "Crucify
Him," 266-78
Hostis, 134
Humanity and justice, 143-5
Hypocrisy, evil effects of, 67
Idolatry and the Mosaic
code, 8, 204, 205, 209
Idumaea and Judaea, 132, 166
Imperium, 134, 149

INDEX

327

Imprisonment and the Mosaic
code, 201, 202, 211, 212
Individualism and Chris
tianity, 29, 39, 54-6
Indulgentia, 256, 263
Infamia, 303
Informer, the, 120, 121, 122
Inscriptionis UbeUus, 293
Irenaeus and Jesus' mission, 15
Itahan law and witnesses, 178
Italian and English Courts,
290
Itahan City States and Com
munism, 30
Jehoshaphat, judges of King,
163, 243, 244
Jehovah and Israel, 5, 45, 145,
146
Jerusalem, Herod at, 242, 249
 and Pomponius, 132, 133
 and Jesus, 1, 5, 16, C2-5,
100, 101 sqq.
 and Pilate, 132, 133
 and Renan, 7
 and the Sanhedrin, v.
Sanhedrin
Jesuits and the Higher Criti
cism, 182
Jesus, son of Sirach, 7
Jesus, acquitted by Herod, 248
 arrest of, v. Arrest
 artistic treatment of, 73-6,
89, 90
 baptism of, 16
 betrayal of, 103, 113, 114
— birth of, 15, 18, 19
¦ charged with blas

phemy, v. Blasphemy
- — charged with sedition, v.
Sedition ¦ charges against, 210, 211,

306, 307

Jesus, the Christ, 84, 85, 173,
175, 176, 237-9
 condemnation of, 286
 crucifixion of, 299, 314,
322

— economic teaching, 23,
24, 33-5, 37, 38
— education of, 14-16
— illegal arrest and trial
(q. v.), 16, 114-16, 122-6,
13S-47
— immunity of, 3, 9, 10, 11
— invective and irony of,
65-9 "King of the Jews," 61,

238, 267, 306, 307, 320
— legitimacy of, 15, 20
— life of (authorities), 169-
72, 225-8
¦the Messiah, 49, 187-96,

238, 269
— miracles of, 94-7, 225-8
— mockery of, 287, 288
— mode of life, 64, 65
— personal charm of, 73-6
— pohtical teaching of, 52-61
— propaganda of, 66
— proposed release of, 250,
256, 257, 258
— religious teaching of, 9,
42-50
— resurrection of, 225-8
• scourging of, 248, 284,

285, 287
— teaching of, 2, 9, 10, 27-
30, 52-61, 65
 trial of, v. Trial
 triumphal entry of, 100-3
vestments of, 287, 295,

309

— work of, 313, 314
— and almsgiving, 25, 26;
99, 100

328

INDEX

Jesus and anarchy, 56
 and the civil power, 3
 and family ties, 21, 35,
36, 41
¦and forgiveness, 27, 28,

310

— and hypocrisy, 81
— and individualism, 29,
54-6 •and the Last Supper,

103, 111
— • and the mission of the
Apostles, 78, 79, 82, 83
¦ a,nd the Mosaic tradition,

46, 47, 59, 60, 84
•and pubhc opinion, 84,

85
— • and resignation, 56-8
— and ritual, 80, 81
— • and the Sabbath, 97-9
— and the Sanhedrin, v.
Sanhedrin
— and socialism, 29-31, 36
— and solitude, 81, 82
¦ and the superscription,

306, 307, 320
— and the tribute, 53, 54
•Barabbas, etc., v. Names

Jews, calendar of the, 126, 127
 conservatism of the, 36,
59, 60
 development of the, 3
 economic conditions of

the, 23, 24
— idealism of the, 7, 8
— law of the, v. Mosaic
Law
— responsibility of the, 284
¦ theocracy of the, 43, 44
- tribunals of the, 242, 245

Jews, the, and the Messiah,
13, 191-9
 and miracles, 94, 95

Jews and Pilate, 220, 221, 238,
239
 and Rome, 3, 4, 44
Jezebel and Herodias, 70, 71
 and Naboth, 163
Joanna and Jesus, 64, 301
Job and labour, 36
John the Baptist, 12-16
 and Herod, 70-2
 and Jesus, 16, 65, 79, 80
Jonas, sign of, 96
Jordan, the, and John the
Baptist, 12
 and Jesus, 85
Joseph of Arimathaea, 25, 231
 and Mary, 15, 19
 death of, 16, 22
Josephus and Jesus, 169, 170
 and miracles, 96
 and Pilate, 218, 234
Judaea, Jesus in, 82, 83
 and Archelaus, 132
 and Herod, 132
 and Pilate, 138, 139,
216-22
 and Rome, 135, 136, 166,
167
Judah of Gamala, 9
Judah of Gaulon, 9
Judah, son of Sariphaeus, 8
Judah Levita and the Messiah,
19
Judas, call of, 64
 character of, 88, 89, 100,
110

— treachery of, 103, 117,
122, 141, 142
¦ and almsgiving, 99, 100

Judicature, functions of, 149,
150
 ideal system of, 108, 109
 and the Mosaic law, 163-8
Judiciary and executive, 139-41

INDEX

329

Julius Csesar, assassination of,
267
Jus gladii, 138, 149, 167
Justice, betrayal of, 141-4
 and humanity, 143-5
 administration of, v. San
hedrin, Mosaic Law, Roman
Law, Talmud
Justin and the trial of Jesus,
246
King, chosen by Israel, 163-7
"King of the Jews," 61, 238,
267, 306, 320
Kings, divine right of, 206
La Samaritaine, 90
Land tenure, 25, 36
Lapidation, 83, 84, 86-90
Last Supper, the, 103, 110, 111
Law, character of, 53, 54
Lazarus and Dives, 25
 and Jesus, 92, 93, 99
Levites, the, 43
 and the Prsetorium, 230-2
Leviticus and land tenure, 36
 and treachery, 122
Lihellus inscriptionis, 293
Livia and Judaea, 43
Lucian and the Christians, 170
 and miracles, 95
Lucifer and Pilate, 223
Luxury, v. Wealth
Machero, John imprisoned at,
70
Magister, 138
Maimonides and the Messiah,
197, 198
Majorities, rights of, 144
Malchus and S. Peter, 113,
114, 120, 121

Manlius, trial of, 140, 141
Marconi and the miraculous,
107
Martha and Jesus, 92, 93, 99
Mary and Joseph, 15, 20
 and the Crucifixion, 300,
301
Mary (Bethany) and Jesus,
92, 93, 99
Mary, relation of Cleopas, and
Jesus, 21, 301
Mary Magdalene and Jesus,
64, 301
Matthew, son of Margaloth, 8
Maximian and popular opin
ion, 282
Mazzini and Christianity, 48
Mercy, prerogative of, 251-9
Messiah, the, 13, 49, 50, 187,
197, 198, 238, 269
Meunier and Christian social
ism, 40
Minerva, Calcidus, 263
Minorities, rights of, 144, 145
Miracle demanded by the
crowd, 96, 97, 269, 274, 310
Miracles, 94-7, 104-8, 274, 275,
280
Mission of the Apostles, 78, 79,
82,83
Mockery of Jesus, 287, 288
Moliere, irony of, 69
Moloch worship, 210
Monotheism in Judaea, 5, 43,
44, 145
Mosaic and Roman law, 83
Mosaic law, the, 84, 87-90, 128,
251
 minutiae of the, 158-60
 punishments of the, 201;
212, 213
 and criminal precedure,
152, 160, 161

330

INDEX

Mosaic law and Jesus, 46, 47,
59, 60, 84
 and Judas's treachery,
121, 122
 and pardon, 251-9
 and witnesses, 177-80
Mosaic law, v. also San
hedrin
Moses, miracles of, 94, 95
 and the covenant, 5, 44,
45
 and Zealots, 8
Naboth and Jezebel, 163
 and John the Baptist, 71
Nasi, the, 165
Nazarenes, the, and John the
Baptist, 14
Nazareth, Jesus at, 16, 63, 64
 and Joseph, 15
 and the Syrian type, 18
Nero and the Christians, 170
New Testament, authority of
the, 170-2
Nicodemus and Jesus, 48, 70
 and the Messiah, 193
 and the Sanhedrin, 200
Non liquet, 293, 298
Octavian and Syria, 131, 132,
166, 167
Old Testament, the, and wealth
36-8
 and the Messiah, 193
Olives, Mount of, Jesus on the,
100, 101, 102, 103, 112
Otto, Lord, and Savonarola,
271
Paganism and Christianity, 26
Pannicularia, 309
TrapcurKfvr), 231
Pardon, the prayer for, 310

Pardon, prerogative of, 209,
248-59
Passover, ritual of the, 235-7,
245, 257, 258, 264, 269
Patibulum, 303
Patroni, the, 293
Penal sanction, extinction of
the, 251-8, 261, 262
Pentateuch, the, and the Mes
siah, 193
Perduellio, 141
Perea and Herod, 132
Persians and crucifixion, 301,
302
Pharisee, the, and the publi
can, 68, 69
Pharisees, the, 5-7, 10, 67, 68,
69, 76
 and the Arrabbiati, 274
 and Gahlee, 63, 64
 and Jesus, 2, 42, 65, 69,
80, 81, 93, 102, 114-16, 142
 and John the Baptist, 12
Philip and Archelaus, 166
 and Judaea, 132
 and Pilate, 228
Philo and Pilate, 217, 218
Philostratus and miracles, 94,
95, 96
Phoenicia, Jesus in, 81, 82
Phoenicians, the, and the Cru
cifixion, 302
Piagnoni, the, and Savonarola;
274
Pilate, Acts of, 222, 225-9
 career of, 215-224
 character of, 217, 218,
235, 236
judicial powers of, 291,

292

palace of, 233
• proposes pardon, 250,

256-8

INDEX

331

Pilate, responsibility of, 146,
147, 243, 244, 245, 286, 307,
308
 suicide of, 221, 222, 225
 washes his hands, 283,
284

— • and the insignia, 218, 219
 and Jerusalem, 133
 and Jesus, 116, 119, 120,
130, 133, 134, 142, 143, 146,
147, 169, 170, 180, 201, 221,
228-39, 250, 256-60, 266-8,
271, 272, 278, 282-8, 306,
307
— and Judaea, 138, 139
 and the superscription,
306, 307
¦ and the Zealots, 8

Pirke Abothe, the, 65
Pisani, palace of the, 271, 272
Plato and communism, 30
Plautus and crucifixion, 305
Plotinus and miracles, 95
Phny and the Christians, 169,
170
Pollution, 202, 203, 230
Polytheism, 204, 209, 210
Pompey and Syria, 131, 132
Ponte Vecchio and Savona
rola, 275
Pontius Pilate, v. Pilate
Portia and Shylock, 236
Praetorium, the, 138
 Jesus at the, v. Pilate
 the, and the Levites,
230-3
Prescription of the penal sanc
tion, 252, 253, 262
Priesthood and the national
io.P3, 4^ 46
Procurator, the, 132, 133, 135,
136, 224
Procurator patrimonii, 138

Pro-consul, the, 216, 217, 224
Property, rights of, 29, 36, 37
Prophets, the, 4, 5, 193
Prostitution and burning, 204
Province, v. Rome
Provocatio, 262, 264, 289
Psalms, the, and the Messiah,
193
Psychology of crowds, 275-8,
280
Publicans, the, and Jesus, 65
Publius Sulpicius and Syria,
132, 166
Punishment, theory of, 144,
145
Punishments of Mosaic code,
201-11, 212-14
Pythagoras and the Thera
peutics, 6
Quwstiones perpetua, 290
Quintilian and crucifixion, 305
Quintilius Varus and Syria,
132
Quirinus, assessment of, 132
Quiritarium, 134
Rabbis, the, 6, 7
Rabirius, trial of, 141
Radium and the miraculous,
108
Rationalis, 138
Reichstag, the, and socialism,
31
Reimarus and Jesus, triumphal
entry, 102
Rehgion, crimes against, 209
Renan, causes of Jesus' suc
cess, 73-6
 thesis of 187, 188, 197
 and arrest of Jesus, 123
 and Barabbas, 260, 261

332

INDEX

Renan and the charges agamst
Jesus, 179, 187, 188
 and the false witnesses,
184, 185
¦ and the irony of Jesus,

69, 70
¦ and the methods of Jesus,

66
 and the trial of Jesus,
115, 139
Rescission, 26, 256-9
Resignation and Jesus' teach
ing, 56-8
Restitutio in integrum, 255, 257
Resurrection, the, 225-9
Retaliation, 207-9, 302
Reynolds and psychical in
fluences, 106
Ritual, 80, 85, 230-2
Rome, colonies of, 134, 135
 and Augustus, 137, 138
 and criminal trials, 135,
136, 251-8, 261, 262, 288-94
¦and crucifixion, 301, 302
• and Jewish theocracy,

43, 44
— and Judaea, 7, 45, 46,
135, 136, 139, 166, 167
— and miracles, 94, 95
• and the Mosaic law, 83,

234, 235
Rome and the municipalities,
134, 135
 and the prerogative of
pardon, 251-8
¦ and provincial govern

ment, 133-41
— and Sicily, 135
• and tribute, 134, 135

Romolino and Caiaphas, 274,
275
Rontgen Rays and the mirac
ulous, 107

Rostand, Edmond, 90
Rufus and Jesus, 300, 315
Sa 'adja and the Messiah, 197
Sabbath, the, 97-9, 231, 232
Sadducees, the, 6, 7, 142
 and John the Baptist, 12
S. Ambrose and wealth, 34
S. Augustine and wealth, 34
 and the miraculous, 108
S. Basihus and wealth, 33
S. Bernard and the cross, 319
S. Chrysostom and wealth, 33
S. Gregory and wealth, 33
S. Jerome and wealth, 33
S. John, call of, 64
 Gospel of (date), 172
 and the betrayal, 103
 and Caiaphas, 174
S. Luke and the Acts of the
Apostles, 171
 Gospel of (date), 172
S. Maria del Fiore and Savona
rola, 273
S. Mark, church of, and
Savonarola, 271
 Gospel of (date), 172
S. Matthew, Gospel of (date),
172
S. Michael and Pilate, 223
S. Paul, Epistles of (date),
171
S. Peter, denial of, 124-6, 155,
157, 158, 174, 175
 discourses of, 171
 and the Betrayal, 103
and Malchus, 113, 120,

121

¦ and the trial, 186

S. Philip, discourses of, 171
S. Stephen, discourses of, 171
S. Thomas, 112
S. Veronica and Jesus, 301

INDEX

333

Salome, daughter of Herodias,
70, 71
Salome, mother of James, and
Jesus, 64, 301
Salvador and the false wit
nesses, 184, 185
 and the Jewish constitu
tion, 139, 140
• and talio, 207

Samaria, Jesus in, 48
 and Archelaus, 132
 and Judaea, 166
Samaritan, the Good, 49
Samaritan woman, the, 48,
50, 51
Samaritans, the, and Vitellius,
220
Samuel and Saul, 163
Sanctuary, cities of, 209
 importance of the, 45, 46
Sanhedrin, constitution of the,
87-91, 141, 162-7, 201, 204,
234, 235, 243
 Jesus before the, 152-8,
169, 173-80, 184-96, 200
 legal position of the,
139 sqq.
 the, and adultery, 87-91,
165-7, 204
 and the arrest, 114-16,
146, 147
 and blasphemy, 166, 167
 and Jesus, 47, 50, 93, 99,
124-6, 146, 147, 166, 307
Sanhedrin and the Signory,
275
Sanhedrins, the, 132, 133, 164,
165, 167, 243
Sardinia and Rome, 135
Sariphaeus, school of, 8, 10
Savonarola, 270-5
Schammai and the Sabbath,
98

Scholastics, the, 198, 199
Scourging of Jesus, 284
Scribes, the, and Jesus, 42, 65,
67, 68, 80, 81, 116, 142, 247
Sedilis excessus, 304
Sedition, Jesus charged with,
175-7, 184-91, 237, 239, 307
Seleucid dynasty, the, 131
Senate, the, and restitutio,
257, 258
Shakespeare (Shylock), 236
 and the miraculous, 107,
108
Shoterim, the, 165
Shylock, as Jewish type, 236
Sichar and Sichem, 51
Sichem, the vale of, 48, 49, 51;
90
Sicily and Rome, 135
Signory, the, and the Sanhe
drin, 275
Signory, Square of the, and
Savonarola, 271, 272
Silvestro and Savonarola,
271-5
Simon the leper and Jesus,
92, 93
Simon of Cyrene and Jesus,
299, 300, 306, 315
Simon of Samaria, 95
Simon Peter, v. S. Peter
Socialism and Christianity, 40
Socrates, irony of, 69
Solomon, judgment of, 163
Solomon's porch, 83
Solon and the Athenian, 276
Sorcery, 210
Spain and Pilate, 215
Sparta and communism, 30
tnrelpa, 117, 127
Spettabili, 137
Staticulum, 304
Stipendium, 134

334

INDEX

Stoning, 204, 209
Strangulation, 204
Strauss and Jesus' triumphal
entry, 101, 102
•  and the Sanhedrin, 152
Suetonius and the Christians,
170
 and miracles, 94, 95
Superscription, the, 306, 307,
320, 321
Sylvester and Constantine, 26
Synoptics, v. Gospels
Syria, governors of, 138, 139,
166
 pohtical constitution, 131-
33
Tabernacles, the feast of,
87
Tacitus and Jesus, 170
Taleth, the, 309
Talio, v. Retaliation
Talmud, the, 65, 139, 140
 punishments of the, 201,
212, 213
 and the administration of

justice, 162-7
 and witnesses, 179, 180
 v. also Mosaic Law
Temple, the (allegorical), 172,
173, 176, 184-6
 Jesus in the, 16, 42, 46,
70, 83, 97
Tertullian and wealth, 34
Thaumaturgy, 95, 96, 105, 108
Theocracy, 5, 44, 145
Therapeutics, the, 6, 7, 143
Thieves, the two, 300, 310, 315
Thomas Aquinas, 198
Thorns, the crown of, 288,
296
Tiberius and Flaccus, 133
 and Pilate, 222, 225-8

Torture, methods of, 212, 213
Treachery and the Mosaic law,
122
Trial of Jesus, 114 sqq.
 (chronology), 126, 127,
230-2
 before the Sanhedrin,

152-96; v. also Sanhedrin
— before Pilate, 228-88; v.
also Pilate
¦its injustice, 138-47, 152-

60, 189, 190, 193-6, 287, 288,
294
Tribuni militum, the, 117, 118
Tribute, the, 8, 9, 135, 136
Tyre, Jesus at, 81, 82
 wealth of, 3
Usury (Old Testament), 37
Uti rogas, 292
Valeria lex, 289
Vectigalia, 135, 136
Vena Gallica and Pilate, 221,
222
Venia, 256
Vergil and the Messiah, 192
Vespasian and miracles, 95
Vestments of Jesus, 309
Vien di Cerchi, 223
Vitellius and the Samaritans,
220

Wealth, attitude of Jesus to,
23, 33-5, 37, 38
 and the Christian Fa
thers, 33, 34
¦and the Old Testament,

36, 37
Weregeld, 252
Wizardry, 210

INDEX

335

Witnesses and legal codes,
177, 178, 183
 the false, v. Blasphemy,
Sedition
Xenophon and communism, 30

Zacharias, son of Barachias;
68
Zadok and the tribute, 8
Zealots, the, 8, 9
Zebedee, 113, 124
Zoroaster and the Essenes, 6