Chapter XL: Section X: The Last Efforts Before Pilate (4)

355 Tacit. Annal. xv. 31. See M. Dupin’s Trial of Jesus, p. 57-59,
(Amer. Ed.) Chr. Thomasius, Dissertatio de injusto Pilati judicio, §
12, 60. The want of this power was admitted by the Jews, in their
reply to Pilate, when he required them to judge Jesus according to
their own law, and they replied, “It is not lawful for us to put any
man to death.” John xviii. 31.

This point has been held in different ways by learned men. Some are
of opinion that the Sanhedrim had power to inflict death for
offences touching religion, though not for political offences; and
that it was with reference to the charge of treason that they said
to Pilate what has just been cited from St. John. They say that,
though the Sanhedrim had convicted Jesus of blasphemy, yet they
dared not execute that sentence, for fear of a sedition of the
people:—that they therefore craftily determined to throw on Pilate
the odium of his destruction, by accusing him of treason; and hence,
after condemning him, they consulted further, as stated in Matt.
xxvii. 1, 2. Mark xv. 1, how to effect this design:—that when Pilate
found no fault in him, and directed them to take and crucify him,
some replied, “We have a law, and by our law he ought to die,” (John
xix. 7,) to intimate to Pilate that Jesus was guilty of death by the
Jewish law also, as well as the Roman, and that therefore he would
not lose any popularity by condemning him. See Zorrius, Hist. Fisci
Judaici, ch. 2, § 2, (in Ugolini Thesaur. tom. 26, col. 1001-1003.)
The same view is taken by Deylingius, De Judæorum Jure Gladii, § 10,
11, 12, (in Ugolin. Thesaur. tom. 29, col. 1189-1192.) But he
concludes that in all capital cases, there was an appeal from the
Sanhedrim to the Prætor; and that without the approval of the
latter, the sentence of the Sanhedrim could not be executed. Ibid. §
15, col. 1196. Molinæus understood the Jewish law in the same
manner. See his Harmony of the Gospels, note on John xviii. 31. C.
Molinæi Opera, tom. 5. pp. 603, 604. But this opinion is refuted by
what is said by M. Dupin, Trial, &c., § 8, and by Thomasius, above
cited.

356 See M. Dupin’s Trial of Jesus, pp. 55-62. His authorities are
Loiseau, Godefroy, and Cujas, the two latter of whom he cites as
follows:—Procurator Cæsaris _fungens vice præsidis_ potest
cognoscere _de causis criminalibus_. Godefroy, in his note (letter
S) upon the 3rd law of the code, _Ibi causæ fiscales_, &c. And he
cites several others, which I have verified, and which are most
precise to the same effect. See particularly the 4th law of the
Code, _Ad. leg. fab. de plag._, and the 2nd law of the Code, _De
Pœnis_.—Procuratoribus Cæsaris data est jurisdictio in causis
fiscalibus pecuniariis, non in criminalibus, nisi quum fungebantur
_vice præsidum_; ut Pontius Pilatus fuit procurator Cæsaris _vice
præsidis_ in Syria. Cujas, Observ. xix. 13.

357 Luke xxiii. 2.

358 John xviii. 38.

359 Luke xxiii. 5.

360 Luke xxiii. 10, 11.

361 Luke xxiii. 13, 14, 15. I regard this judgement as conclusive
evidence of the innocence of the accused. Pilate’s strenuous
endeavour to release him instead of Barabbas, and his solemn washing
his own hands of the guilt of his blood, though they show the
strength of his own convictions, yet add no legal force to the
judgement itself.

362 John xix. 12.

363 Luke xxiii. 24.

364 See M. Dupin’s Trial of Jesus, pp. 82-84.

365 Ibid. 7-15. Jahn’s Bibl. Ant. § 246.

366 Deut. xxii. 22, and xxiii. 2. Selden, De Synedriis, lib. 3, cap. 4,
5.

367 Matt. i. 19, 20.

368 Matt. xi. 20-24. Luke iv. &c.

369 Matt. xxiii. per tot.

370 Matt. xii. 11-46. John vii. 40.

371 The expression _son of God_ was in common use among the Jews, to
designate a man of remarkable wisdom and piety. It was not in this
sense that Jesus Christ used it; for in that case it would have
occasioned no great sensation. Besides, if we should assume, in
order to make it a subject of accusation against these Jews, that
Jesus did not expressly declare himself to be God, we should be
exposed to this rejoinder: Why then do you believe in him?

372 See Deut. iv. 15, and xiii. per tot.

373 John vi. 39-42. Matt. xiii. 55.

374 This fact is clearly established as possible; and we must observe
that till then there had been neither opposition nor enmity in the
minds of this people, since they had listened to him with the
greatest attention, and did not hesitate to acknowledge in him all
that public law permitted them to do, viz., a prophet, a highly
inspired man.

375 John x. 30-33.

376 Matt. x. 34. Mark x. 29.

377 Matt. xvi. 1-4. John viii. 13-18.

378 John vii. 43. Luke xxiii. 5.

379 Matt. ix. 10. Mark ii. 15. Luke xv. 1.

380 Matt. xix. 24.

381 John x. 20.

382 John vii. 12.

383 John xi. 47-50.

384 Matt. xxvi. 4. John xi. 53, 54.

385 Matt. xxi. 23.

386 It will be recollected, that the senate held its sessions in one of
the porticos of the temple. At this time the high priest presided
over the senate, so that the guards of the high priest, of the
elders and the temple, were no other than the legal militia.

387 John xviii. 10, 11.

388 Mark xiv. 50. Matt. xxvi. 56.

389 Matt. xxvi. 60, 61. And the last came two false witnesses, and said,
this fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to
build it in three days. Mark xiv. 57, 58. And there arose certain
and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will
destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I
will build another made without hands. John ii. 19, 21, 22. Jesus
answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days
I will raise it up. But he spake of the temple of his body. When,
therefore, he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that
he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the
word which Jesus had said.

390 I repeat that the expression _son of God_, includes here the idea of
God himself; the fact is already established, and all the subsequent
events confirm it. Observe, also, that I quote the narrative of only
one of the parties to this great proceeding.

391 Deut. xxviii. 20. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a
word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that
shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

392 Matt. xxvii. 1. Mark xv. 1.

393 The duties of Pilate were to inform himself whether the sentences
given did or did not affect the interests of Rome; there his part
ended. Thus it is not astonishing that this procurator, doubtless
little acquainted with the Jewish laws, signed the decree for the
arrest of Jesus, although he did not find him guilty. We shall see
hereafter that there were then many parties among the Jews, among
whom were the Herodians or serviles, partisans of the house of
Herod, and devoted to the foreign interests. These are they who
speak continually of Cæsar, of rendering to Cæsar the tribute due to
Cæsar; they also insist that Jesus called himself _king of the
Jews_, but this charge was reckoned as nothing before the senate,
and was not of a nature alone to merit capital punishment.

394 See Matt. xxvii. 27. Mark xv. 16. John xix. 2.

395 John xix. 7.

396 The sending back of Jesus to Herod, which, according to the Gospel
of St. Luke, Pilate would have done, is not stated by the other
Evangelists, and does not at all change the judicial question.
Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, and of Perea, had no authority
in Jerusalem. Upon his visit to this city, Pilate, according to St.
Luke, would, out of respect, have caused Jesus to appear before this
ally of the Romans, because Jesus was surnamed the Galilean, though
originally from Judea. But to whatever tribe he belonged, the
nature of the accusation would still have required, according to the
Hebrew law, that he should be judged by the senate of Jerusalem.

397 Matt. xvii. 42, 43.

398 This Analysis first appeared in the _Gazette des Tribunaux_.

399 Joshua vii. 19, &c.

400 By this, says Father Lamy, we may understand what the mixture of
wine and myrrh was, which they presented to Jesus on the cross, and
which he would not drink. _Introd. to the reading of the Holy
Scriptures_, chap. vi. (_Note of Mr. Salvador_, Book iv. ch. 2.)

401 As was that of Stephen, whom the same priests caused to be massacred
by the populace, without a previous sentence of the law. OCCIDERE:
Non occides, thou shalt not kill. _Deut_. v. 17. Veneno homines
occidere. Cic. pro Roscio, 61. Virginiam filiam sua manu occidit
Virginius. Cic. de Finib. 107. Non hominem occidi. Horat. I. Epist.
17, 10. Inermem occidere. Ovid. ii. Fast. 139. INTERFICERE: Feras
interficere. Lucret. lib. v. 251. Interfectus in acie. Cic. de
Finib. 103. Cæsaris interfectores. Brutus Ciceroni, 16, 8.
Interfectorem Gracchi. Cic. de Claris Orrato. 66.

402 Will it be believed, that Tertullian and St. Irenæus were obliged to
refute seriously some writers of their day, who considered the
conduct of Judas not only excusable, but worthy of admiration and
highly meritorious, “because (as they said) of the immense service
which he had rendered to the human race by _preparing their
redemption!_” In the same manner, at a certain period, we have seen
plunderers of the public money make a merit of their conduct,
because in that way they had weakened the usurpation and prepared
the way for the triumph of legitimacy.

403 See, as to these two grounds of nullity, the Jewish authors cited by
Prost de Royer, tome 2, p. 205, _verbo_ ACCUSATION.

404 Mr. Salvador admits this: “Caiaphas,” says he, “made himself his
accuser.” p. 85.

405 Ananias, a chief priest, having given orders to strike Paul upon the
face, Paul said to him: “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall; for
sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be
smitten, _contrary to the law_!” Acts xxiii. 3.

406 Mr. Salvador, in his note to p. 82, admits, that “the expression
_Son of God_ was in common use among the Hebrews, to signify a man
of great wisdom, or of deep piety.” But he adds, “_It was not in
this sense_, that it was used by Jesus Christ; it would not have
caused so strong a sensation.” Thus, then, by _construction_, and
changing the words from their usual meaning, an article of
accusation is formed against Jesus.

407 That is, he usurped the functions of a judge; for we shall see, in
the next section, that the _Council_ of the Jews had not
jurisdiction of capital cases.

408 Antiq. Judaic. lib. 18, cap. 3 & 6.

409 Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest’s palace, and went
in and sat with the servants to see the end. Matt. xxvi. 58. So also
the young man spoken of by St. Mark, xiv. 51: And there followed him
a certain young man, &c.

_ 410 De Crimine_ præsidis cognitio est. Cujas, xix. Observ. 13.

411 Procurator Cæsaris _fungens vice præsidis potest cognoscere de
causis criminalibus_. Godefroy, in his note (letter S) upon the 3rd
law of the Code, _Ubi causæ fiscales_, &c. And he cites several
others, which I have verified, and which are most precise to the
same effect. See particularly the 4th law of the Code, _Ad leg. fab.
de plag._, and the 2nd law of the Code, _De Pœnis_.

412 Procuratoribus Cæsaris data est jurisdictio in causis fiscalibus
pecuniariis, non in criminalibus, nisi quum fungebantur _vice
præsidum_; ut Pontius Pilatus fuit procurator Cæsaris _vice
præsidis_ in Syria. Cujas, Observ. xix. 13.

413 “To carry one from Caiaphas to Pilate” has since become a proverb.

414 Lysias thus wrote to Felix the Governor, in relation to Paul: Whom I
perceived to be accused of questions of their law, but to have
nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or bonds. Acts xxiii. 29.

415 Gerhard makes the following unanswerable dilemma upon this point.
“Be consistent with thyself, Pilate; for, if Christ is innocent, why
dost thou not send him away acquitted? And if thou believest him
deserving of chastisement with rods, why dost thou proclaim him to
be innocent?” _Gerh. Harm._ ch. 193, p. 1889.

416 We will cite here the words of one of the finest laws of the Romans:
Vanæ voces populi non sunt audiendæ, quando aut noxium crimine
absolvi, aut innocentum condemnari desiderant—The idle clamour of
the populace is not to be regarded, when they call for a guilty man
to be acquitted, or an innocent one to be condemned. _Law 12, Code
de Pœnis_. Pilate might also have read in Horace: Justum et tenacem,
&c.—

“The man in conscious virtue bold,
Who dares his secret purpose hold,
Unshaken hears the crowd’s tumultuous cries,
And the impetuous _tyrant’s_ angry brow defies.”

<pre id="pg-footer">