Chapter VI: The Crucifixion of Christ (1)

268

When did Jesus first foretell his passion?

Synoptics: Not until late in his ministry (Matt. xvi, 21; Mark viii, 31; Luke ix, 21-27).

According to John (ii, 19-22) he referred to it at the beginning of his ministry.

269

When did he announce his betrayal?

Matthew and Mark: At the Last Supper, while they were eating. "Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve. And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me" (Matt. xxvi, 20, 21; Mark xiv, 18).

Luke and John: Not until after supper (Luke xxii, 20, 21; John xiii, 2-21). John says that after supper he washed his disciples' feet and delivered a discourse to them, after which he said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me."

270

Did Jesus say who should betray him?

Matthew and John: He did (Matt. xxvi, 25; John xiii, 26).

Mark and Luke: He did not.

271

How did he disclose his betrayer?

Matthew: By an implied affirmative answer to Judas' question, "Is it I?" "Then Judas which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said" (xxvi, 25).

John: By giving Judas a sop. "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 Iscariot."

272

When did Satan enter into Judas?

Luke: Before the Last Supper (xxii, 3-7).

John: After the Last Supper (xiii, 1-27).

273

How did Judas betray Jesus?

Matthew and Mark: "Now he that betrayed him, gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; hold him fast. And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, Master, and kissed him" (Matt. xxvi, 48, 49; Mark xiv, 44, 45).

According to John, Judas did not betray him with a kiss.

274

What did Jesus say to Judas when he betrayed him?

"Friend, wherefore art thou come?" (Matthew xxvi, 50.)

"Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?" (Luke xxii, 48.)

275

What was Judas, and what office did he hold?

John: "He was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein" (xii, 6).

Judas was thus the first Christian treasurer. But why did Jesus, if omniscient, as claimed, select a thief for this office? Was he unable to conduct his ministry without the aid of one?

276

What did Judas receive for betraying his master?

Matthew: "And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver" (xxvi, 15).

"It is strange that a man who kept the purse, and knew what he would lose by the death of his chief, should abandon the profits of his office for so small a sum."--Renan.

277

What did he do with the money?

Matthew: "Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders.... And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed" (xxvii, 3-5).

Peter: "Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity" (Acts i, 18).

278

The purchase of the potter's field was in fulfillment of what prophecy?

Matthew: "That which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, ... and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me" (xxvii, 9, 10).

This was not spoken by Jeremiah, but by Zechariah. "And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prized at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord" (xi, 13).

It is evident that the account of the betrayal was inspired, not by a historical fact, but by a desire to "fulfill" a Messianic prophecy. Zechariah did not predict an event, but his words did suggest a fiction. This is the more probable from the fact that Matthew is the only Evangelist who mentions the thirty pieces of silver.

The story of Christ's last visit to Jerusalem and the story of his betrayal exclude each other. According to the Evangelists he was not arrested for any offense he had committed during this visit, but for offenses he had committed prior to this. Yet during this visit he is said to have appeared openly with his disciples, making a triumphal entry into the city, visiting the temple and teaching in public. In the face of this the story that the Jews were obliged to bribe one of his disciples in order to apprehend him is absurd. One of these stories must be false. Regarding them Lord Amberley observes: "The representation of the Gospels, that Jesus went on teaching in public to the very end of his career, and yet that Judas received a bribe for his betrayal, is self-contradictory" (Life of Jesus, p. 214).

To those who believe the accounts of the betrayal of Jesus to be historical, the ecclesiastical historian, Neander, in his "Life of Christ," advances a suggestion that is worthy of consideration. The betrayal of Jesus by Judas, it is suggested, was intended as a test of his Messiahship. If Jesus was the Messiah, Judas reasoned, he could save himself; if he was not the Messiah he was an impostor and deserved death.

279

What became of Judas?

Matthew: He "went and hanged himself" (xxvii, 5).

Peter: "Falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out" (Acts i, 18).

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, one of the chief Christian authorities of the second century, and who wrote before the books of Matthew and Acts were written, gives the following account of the fate of Judas:

"Judas walked about in the world a great example of impiety; for his body having swollen so that, on an occasion, when a wagon was moving on its way, he could not pass it, he was crushed by the chariot and his bowels gushed out."

The German commentator, Dr. Hase, attempts to reconcile his suicide, as related by Matthew, with his death by accident, as related by Peter, by supposing that he attempted to hang himself, but that the rope broke, causing him to fall with such force as to disembowel himself. This harmonist apparently forgets to note that Peter says he fell "headlong," which makes it necessary to suppose that he hung himself by the feet.

280

To whom did Peter deliver his speech describing the fate of Judas?

"Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples" (Acts i, 15).

Is it not reasonable to suppose that the alleged information conveyed in his speech was as familiar to the disciples whom he addressed as to himself? Regarding this De Wette aptly says: "In the composition of this speech the author has not considered historical decorum."

281

What did Peter say in regard to the name of the field?

"And it was known unto all the dwellers of Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood" (Acts i, 19).

Here Peter is represented as interpreting in Greek a Jewish word to his Jewish brethren.

282

Were there more than one of Jesus' disciples concerned in his betrayal?

John: There were. "For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were [of his disciples] that believed not, and who should betray him" (vi, 64).

283

When the Jewish council met to plan the arrest of Jesus, to what conclusion did they come?

Matthew and Mark: Not to arrest him on the feast day (Matt. xxvi, 3-5; Mark xiv, 1, 2).

Yet this was the very day on which Matthew and Mark declare that he was arrested.

284

Who arrested him?

Matthew and Mark: "A great multitude ... from the chief priests and elders of the people" (Matt. xxvi, 47; Mark xiv, 43).

Luke: "The chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders" themselves (xxii, 47-52).

285

Who does John say was sent to arrest him?

A "band of soldiers and officers" (xviii, 3, New Ver.).

This contradicts the Synoptics, who declare that it was a mob of civilians.

286

What is said regarding the multitude sent out to apprehend him?

Synoptics: They were armed "with swords and staves" (Matt. xxvi, 47; Mark xiv, 43; Luke xxii, 52).

Were the disciples armed?

All: They were, or one of them at least (Matt. xxvi, 51; Mark xiv, 47; Luke xxii, 38, 50; John xviii, 10).

This is incredible, for Jews were never allowed to carry arms on a holy day.

287

How did they go out to capture him?

John: "With lanterns and torches" (xviii, 3).

His enemies are represented as believing that his arrest could be secured only by strategy and stealth. Under these circumstances is it reasonable to suppose that the chief priests would send out a torchlight procession to apprehend him? Besides, as it was at the full of the moon, what need had they of lanterns and torches? Again, lanterns were unknown in Palestine.

288

When the band sent to capture him first came up to him what did they do?

Matthew and Mark: "They laid hands on him and took him" (Matt. xxvi, 47-50; Mark xiv, 43-46).

John: "They went backward and fell to the ground" (xviii, 3-6).

289

What did Peter do when Jesus was arrested?

John: "Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear" (xviii, 10).

Yet no efforts were made to arrest and punish Peter, notwithstanding he was recognized and pointed out by the kinsman of the wounded man. It may be urged that Jesus had healed the servant's ear. This, even if true, would not have removed the guilt of the militant disciple. Had Peter really committed the deed, it is not probable that he would have visited the house of the high priest and remained in the presence of his enemies.

290

When was Jesus bound?

John: When he was arrested (xviii, 12).

Matthew and Mark: Not until after his trial before the Sanhedrim when he was taken to Pilate (Matt. xxvii, 2; Mark xv, 1).

According to Luke he was not bound.

291

What did they do with Jesus when he was taken?

Matthew: "Led him away to Caiaphas" (xxvi, 57).

John: "Led him away to Annas first" (xviii, 13).

292

Did he have an examination before his trial?

John: He did (xviii, 13-23).

Our laws provide for what is known as a preliminary examination before a magistrate. This was forbidden by the Jewish law, and his alleged examination before a priest could not have taken place.

293

Before whom did his preliminary examination take place?

John: Before Annas (xviii, 13-23).

The Synoptics state that he was examined and tried before Caiaphas.

294

Repeat John xviii, 24.

"Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest" (Old Ver.).

"Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest" (New Ver.).

This verse follows the account of Jesus' preliminary examination and shows clearly that this examination took place before Annas, and that he was not sent to Caiaphas until its conclusion. The King James translators, in order to hide the discrepancy, prefixed the word "now" and changed the tense of the verb, substituting "had sent" for "sent," so that it might appear that Annas had sent him to Caiaphas before the examination commenced.

Concerning this corruption of the text, Scott says: "There is no conjunction 'now,' and an aorist cannot mark a definite time. If a hiatus is suspected, it may be indicated by an asterisk; but to insert words and alter the force of a tense in order to get over a grave historical difficulty is sheer dishonesty" (Life of Jesus, p. 289, note).

295

Matthew and John state that Caiaphas was high priest at this time. Who does the author of Acts state was high priest?

"And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem" (iv, 6).

Luke (iii, 2), who is declared to be the author of Acts, says that Annas and Caiaphas were both high priests.

Criticizing John's account of the examination before Annas, the author of "Supernatural Religion" says: "The Synoptics know nothing of the preliminary examination before Annas, and the reason given by the writer of the fourth Gospel why the soldiers first took Jesus to Annas: 'for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas who was first high priest that year,' is inadmissible. The assertion is a clear mistake, and it probably originated in a stranger writing of facts and institutions with which he was not well acquainted, being misled by an error equally committed by the author of the third Gospel, and of the Acts of the Apostles.... Such statements, erroneous in themselves and not understood by the author of the fourth Gospel, may have led to the confusion in the narrative. Annas had previously been high priest, as we know from Josephus, but nothing is more certain than the fact that the title was not continued after the office was resigned; and Ishmael, Eleazar, and Simon, who succeeded Annas and separated his term of office from that of Caiaphas, did not subsequently bear the title. The narrative is a mistake, and such an error could not have been committed by a native of Palestine, and much less by an acquaintance of the high priest" (p. 660).

296

What is said regarding the tenure of Caiaphas' office?

John: He was "high priest that year" (xi, 49).

John's language implies that the high priest was appointed annually, whereas he held his office for life, or until removed. Caiaphas had been high priest for many years.

297

What had Caiaphas prophesied concerning Jesus?

John: "He prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad" (xi, 51, 52).

A high priest did not assume the role of prophet, much less would he have given utterance to the prophecy ascribed to Caiaphas. The Roman procurator might have expressed such a sentiment, for according to Roman law and ethics an individual could be sacrificed for the welfare of the state. The high priest, on the other hand, could not have uttered such a sentiment, because it was abhorrent to the Jewish mind. If all Israel could have been saved, and could have been saved only by the death of one of its innocent members, that member could not have been put to death, because, according to Jewish law, it would have made of every Jew concerned in it a murderer. It was a fundamental principle of the Jewish code that, "No human life must be abandoned on account of any other life."

298

Did Jesus have a trial before the Sanhedrim?

Synoptics: He had (Matt. xxvi, 57-75; Mark xiv, 53-72; Luke xxii, 54-71).

It was about this time (30 A. D.), that the Sanhedrim ceased to have jurisdiction over capital offenses. After its jurisdiction ceased Jesus could not have been tried before it; and before its jurisdiction ceased he would not have had a subsequent trial before Pilate.

299

Where was his trial held?

Matthew and Mark: At the palace of the high priest.

No trial was ever held at the residence of the high priest. All meetings of the Sanhedrim were held in the hall adjoining the temple. A trial at any other place would have been illegal.

300

What was the charge preferred against him?

All: Blasphemy.

Jesus, it was charged, had declared himself to be the son of God. This, if true, would not have constituted blasphemy. It was no offense against the law for a man to claim that he was the son of God. All men, and especially all good men, were recognized as the sons of God. Referring to Christ's claim, a Jewish writer says: "No law, no precedent, and no fictitious case in the Bible or the rabbinical literature, can be cited to make of this expression a case of blasphemy." And even if he had been proven guilty of blasphemy, he could not have been put to death, for blasphemy, at this time, had ceased to be a capital offense. And is it reasonable to suppose that the Romans would have condemned a man to death for an offense against a religion in which they did not themselves believe, but which they regarded as one of the vilest of superstitions? It may be urged that in his trial before Pilate the charge was changed to sedition. This charge was not sustained.

301

What is said regarding witnesses?

Matthew and Mark: "Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witnesses against Jesus, to put him to death; but found none; yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none" (Matt. xxvi, 59, 60; Mark xiv, 55, 56).

When every step thus far taken by the council had been illegal, why should it have been so particular in regard to the witnesses? The fact is the Evangelists were ignorant of Jewish laws. They believed that while the prosecution of Jesus was unjust it was yet conducted according to the established rules of Jewish courts. Referring to Mark, Dr. Wise says: "In his ignorance of Jewish law, he imagined the trial which he described was lawful among the Jews. He proves this, in the first place, by the very statement that witnesses were sought and produced. A court convoked and acting in rebellion to law and custom can be considered only a band of rebels. What use have such men of witnesses? Being lawless from the beginning, no legal restraint makes the presence of witnesses necessary.... He certainly thought of an honest, lawful trial, in the legal form; an honest and legal examination of witnesses, a fair consideration of the testimony, and after mature reflection the rejection thereof on account of insufficiency" (Martyrdom of Jesus, pp. 69, 70).

302

What did the so-called false witnesses that appeared against him testify that he had said?

"I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days" (Matthew xxvi, 61).

"I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands" (Mark xiv, 58).

303

What had Jesus said?

"Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" (John ii, 19).

Passing over the discrepancies of Matthew and Mark, if they have given the substance of these witnesses' testimony, then they were not false, but truthful witnesses; for Jesus, it is seen, had given utterance to such a declaration. If he referred to the temple of his body, as John affirms, and the Jews misunderstood him, the fault was his, not theirs.

Josephus gives an account of a so-called prophet who, a few years later, boasted of his supernatural powers in much the same manner that Jesus is said to have done:

"There came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem, one that said that he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said further, that he would show them from hence, how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down" (Antiquities, Book xx, chap. viii, sec. 6).

304

Was he questioned by the Sanhedrim?

Synoptics: He was. They tried to convict him by his own testimony (Matt. xxvi, 62-64; Mark xiv, 60-63; Luke xxii, 66-71).

A Jewish court did not question a prisoner. A prisoner could not even plead guilty.

305

To the priest's question, "Art thou the Christ?" what answer did he give?

Mark: "Jesus said, I am" (xiv, 61, 62).

Luke: "He said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe" (xxii, 67).

306

When did his trial before the Sanhedrim take place?

Matthew and Mark: During the night. After his arrest, which probably occurred not later than midnight, they at once "led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where ... the chief priests, and elders, and all the council [Sanhedrim]" had assembled, when his trial immediately began (Matt. xxvi, 57-68; Mark xiv, 58-65).

Luke: Not until the next morning. During the night he was held in custody at the house of the high priest. "As soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into the council" (xxii, 66).

This, according to Luke, was his first and only appearance before the Sanhedrim. Matthew and Mark, in addition to the night trial mentioned by them, also mention an adjourned session in the morning corresponding to the meeting of Luke.

307

Could this trial have been held in the night as stated by Matthew and Mark?

It could not. The Jewish law prohibited the opening of a trial at night. The Sanhedrim could not hold a session before 6 a. m. or after 3 p. m. Luke was seemingly acquainted with this law; Matthew and Mark were not.

308

During what religious festivities was his trial held?

Synoptics: During the feast of the Passover.

It could not have been held during the Passover, for no trials were held by the Jews during this feast.

309

On what day of the week was it held?

Synoptics: On Friday, the day preceding the Sabbath.

No trial for a capital offense was ever allowed to begin on the day preceding the Sabbath.

310

How long did this trial last?

All: But a few hours.

The Jewish law required at least two days for a capital trial--one for prosecution, and one for the defense.

311

Did he have a defender or counselor in the Sanhedrim?

Synoptics: He did not.

According to the Synoptics he had no counsel, and the Sanhedrim were unanimous in their condemnation of him. This was contrary to Jewish law. The Sanhedrim might be unanimous in their belief that he was guilty, but it was the duty of at least one of them to defend him. This was the law: "If none of the judges defend the culprit, i. e., all pronounce him guilty, having no defender in the court, the verdict of guilty was invalid and the sentence of death could not be executed" (Maimonides).

Dr. Geikie admits that the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrim, as related in the Gospels, was in nearly every particular contrary to Jewish law. He says:

"The accused was in all cases to be held innocent, till proved guilty. It was an axiom, that 'the Sanhedrim was to save, not to destroy life.' No one could be tried and condemned in his absence, and when a person accused was brought before the court, it was the duty of the president, at the outset, to admonish the witnesses to remember the value of human life, and to take care that they forgot nothing that would tell in the prisoner's favor. Nor was he left undefended; a Baal-Rib, or counsel, was appointed, to see that all possible was done for his acquittal. Whatever evidence tended to aid him was to be freely admitted, and no member of the court who had once spoken in favor of acquittal could afterwards vote for condemnation. The votes of the youngest of the judges were taken first, that they might not be influenced by their seniors. In capital charges, it required a majority of at least two to condemn, and while the verdict of acquittal could be given at once, that of guilty could only be pronounced the next day. Hence, capital trials could not begin on the day preceding a Sabbath, or public feast. No criminal trial could be carried through in the night; the judges who condemned any one to death had to fast all the day before, and no one could be executed on the same day on which the sentence was pronounced." (Life of Christ, vol. ii, p. 487.)

312

Had Jesus been tried, convicted and executed by the Jews would he have been crucified?

He would not. Crucifixion was a mode of punishment never employed by the Jews. Had the Jews executed him he would have been stoned.

It is impliedly stated in the Synoptics, and expressly stated in John, that the Sanhedrim's jurisdiction over capital crimes had ceased. "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death" (xviii, 31). The Sanhedrim's authority ceased in 30 A. D., and it is generally claimed by Christians that the crucifixion occurred from one to five years after this time.

313

What does Peter say in regard to the mode of punishment employed in his execution?

"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree" (Acts v, 30).

"And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom ye slew and hanged on a tree" (x, 39).

Concerning this, Mrs. Evans says: "With regard to his death, it was said that the Jews slew him and hanged him on a tree; and again that he was taken down from the tree; expressions which do not imply crucifixion, but rather the legal execution for such crimes as the one alleged, that is, stoning to death and the exposure of the dead body upon a stake, or a tree" (Christ Myth, p. 79).

314

How was he treated by the Sanhedrim?

Matthew and Mark: "They spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands" (Matt. xxvi, 67; Mark xiv, 65).

Every Jew, and every other person acquainted with the Jewish history of that age, knows that this is false. The Sanhedrim was composed of the wisest and the best men of that race. Superstitious, bigoted and fanatical some of them doubtless were, but in that august court law and dignity and decorum reigned.

These accounts of the trial of Christ before the Sanhedrim afford overwhelming proof that they were not written by apostles nor by residents of Palestine. They were written by Gentile Christians, or by Jewish converts living in foreign lands, and presumably the former, for even foreign Jews must have possessed a better knowledge of Jewish laws and customs than the Evangelists display.

315

During the trial Peter denied his master. What had Jesus predicted concerning his denial?

Matthew, Luke and John: "Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice" (Matt. xxvi, 34; Luke xxii, 34; John xiii, 38).

Mark: "And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice" (xiv, 30).

316

Did Peter deny him three times before the cock crew?

Matthew, Luke and John: He did (Matt. xxvi, 69-75; Luke xxii, 54-62; John xviii, 15-27).

Mark: He did not; he had denied him but once when the cock crew (xiv, 66-68).

317

Where were they when Jesus foretold Peter's denial?

Matthew and Mark: At the Mount of Olives (Matt. xxvi, 30-35; Mark xiv, 26-30).

Luke: In Jerusalem, at supper, before they went out to the Mount of Olives (xxii, 7-39).

318

What did Peter do when he entered the palace?

Luke: "Peter sat down among them" (xxii, 55).

John: "Peter stood with them" (xviii, 18).

319

When was he first accused of being the friend of Jesus?

John: As he entered the room (xviii, 16, 17).

Mark and Luke: As he sat by the fire (Mark xiv, 66, 67; Luke xxii, 54-57).

320

When was he accused the second time?

John: In the house as he "stood and warmed himself" (xviii, 25).

Matthew: "When he was gone out into the porch" (xxvi, 71).

321

By whom was he accused the second time?

Matthew and Mark: By a "maid" (Matt. xxvi, 71; Mark xiv, 69).

Luke: By a "man" (xxii, 59, 60).

322

Who accused him the third time?

Matthew and Mark: "They that stood by" (Matt. xxvi, 73; Mark xiv, 70).

John: "One of the servants of the high priest" (xviii, 26).

323

Was Jesus present when Peter denied him?

Matthew and Mark: He was not.

Luke: He was. "The Lord turned and looked upon Peter" (xxii, 60, 61).

324

Where was Jesus next sent for trial?

Luke: To Herod, tetrarch of Galilee, who was attending the Passover at Jerusalem (xxiii, 6-11).

In the matter of trials the Evangelists, as in everything else, have overdone things. Notwithstanding no trial was ever held during the Passover they give him four trials in one day, and not finding courts enough in Judea for the purpose, they import one from Galilee.

There is nothing more improbable than this alleged examination of Jesus by Herod. Imagine the Governor General of Canada sitting in judgment on a criminal at Washington, because the criminal is a Canadian, or an Ohio court holding a session in New York because the prisoner arraigned once lived in Ohio. The offenses with which Jesus was charged were committed, not in Herod's province, Galilee, but in Pilate's province, Judea.

It is strange that John, who pretends to relate every important event connected with the trial of Jesus, should omit his trial before Herod. Concerning this Strauss says: "The conjecture, that it may probably have appeared to him [John] too unimportant, loses all foundation when it is considered that John does not scorn to mention the leading away to Annas, which nevertheless was equally indecisive; and in general, the narrative of these events in John is, as Schleiermacher himself confesses, so consecutive that it nowhere presents a break in which such an episode could be inserted. Hence even Schleiermacher at last takes refuge in the conjecture that possibly the sending to Herod may have escaped the notice of John, because it happened on an opposite side to that on which the disciple stood, through a back door; and that it came to the knowledge of Luke because his informant had an acquaintance in the household of Herod, as John had in that of Annas; the former conjecture, however, is figuratively as well as literally nothing more than a back door; the latter, a fiction which is but the effort of despair" (Leben Jesu, pp. 764, 765).

325

What was the result of Pilate's sending Jesus to Herod?

Luke: "And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together, for before they were at enmity between themselves" (xxiii, 12).

Pilate and Herod did not become friends. To the day of Pilate's recall they were enemies. Herod was continually plotting and striving to unite with his tetrarchy the province of Judea which belonged to his father's kingdom, and which his father had promised to give him.

326

Did Jesus's trial before Pilate take place in the presence of his accusers?

Luke: It did (xxiii, 1-4, 13, 14).

John: It did not (xviii, 28).

327

Did Pilate go out of the judgment hall to consult with those who were prosecuting Jesus?

Luke: He did not (xxiii, 1-25).

John: He did. "Pilate then went out unto them [the Jews], and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.... Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?" (xxiii, 29, 30, 33, 34.)

The prosecution and the defense are both declared to have returned insolent answers to the questions of Pilate. The Jewish priests were too wise for this, and Christians will be loath to admit that their Savior was so indiscreet and so impolite as to indulge in such insolence.

328

What was the result of his trial before Pilate?

All: Pilate declared him innocent and sentenced him to death.

"And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people; and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him.... And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.... He delivered Jesus to their will" (Luke xxiii, 13, 14, 24, 25).

"Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him; for I find no fault in him" (John xix, 6).

It is impossible to believe that the highest court of a country would pronounce a prisoner innocent and then condemn him to death. Judicial murders are sometimes committed, but the murderers do not confess their guilt.

It is declared that Pilate desired to release Jesus but could not. Who ruled Judea, Pilate or the Sanhedrim? According to the Evangelists, the Romans ruled Judea, while the Jews ruled the Romans.

Between the Pilate of the New Testament and the Pilate of history there is nothing in common. The Pilate of the New Testament is subservient to the Jews, acceding to their every wish, even to murdering an innocent prisoner. The Pilate of history is noted for his hatred of the Jews and his cruelties to them. It was these which provoked his recall.

329

When Pilate could not prevail upon the Jews to allow him to release Jesus, what did he do?

Matthew: "He took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person" (xxvii, 24).

Matthew does not appear to realize the absurdity of supposing that a Roman official would adopt a custom peculiar to a people whom he held in contempt.

"And all the elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man shall wash their hands ... and they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood" (Deuteronomy xx, 6, 7).

330

What indignities were heaped upon Jesus during his trial before Pilate?

John: "Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, and said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands. Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him. Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!" (xix, 1-5.)

These indignities Jesus is said to have suffered, not at the hands of a Jewish mob, but at the hands of a Roman court, from which the Jews had absented themselves and whose proceedings they could not witness nor directly influence. Every lawyer knows that for more than two thousand years the Roman court has been the world's model for dignity and fairness. That an innocent and defenseless prisoner was subjected to these insults and brutalities in a Roman court, presided over by a Roman governor, none but a slave of superstition can believe.

331

When was he scourged?

Matthew and Mark: Before he was executed. "And when he [Pilate] had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified" (Matt. xxvii, 26; Mark xv, 15).

John: Before the termination of his trial (xix, 1-16).

Scourging was frequently inflicted by the Romans before execution, but never before the prisoner was convicted and sentenced. The "Bible Dictionary" concedes the illegal and unusual character of the scourging mentioned by John. "In our Lord's case, however, this infliction seems neither to have been the legal scourging after sentence nor yet the examination by torture" (Acts xxii, 24).

332

What custom is said to have been observed at the Passover?

All: The release of a prisoner by the Roman governor (Matt. xxvii, 15; Mark xv, 6; Luke xxiii, 17; John xviii, 39).

"Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would."

There is no historical authority whatever for this alleged custom. It was a custom that the Roman government in Judea could not with safety adopt. The Jews were a subject people, waiting and hoping for an opportunity to throw off the Roman yoke. To release to them "whomsoever they desired" (Mark xv, 6) might be to release a political prisoner whose liberty would endanger the government itself. This story was probably suggested by a custom of the Roman emperors who released a prisoner at their birthday festivals.

333

They demanded and obtained the release of Barrabas. Who was Barrabas?

John: A robber. "Now Barrabas was a robber" (xviii, 40).

Mark and Luke: A murderer. "Barrabas (who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison)" (Luke xxiii, 18, 19; Mark xv, 7).

334

By whom was Jesus clad in mockery?

Matthew, Mark and John: By Pilate's soldiers (Matt. xxvii, 27, 28; Mark xv, 16, 17; John xix, 1, 2).

Luke: By Herod and his soldiers. "And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe" (xxiii, 11).

335

What was the color of the robe they put on him?

Matthew: "They stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe" (xxvii, 28).

Mark and John: "They put on him a purple robe" (John xix, 2; Mark xv, 17).

336

When did this occur?

John: During his trial (xix, 1, 2, 12-16).

Matthew and Mark: After Pilate had delivered him to be crucified (Matt. xxvii, 26-28; Mark xv, 15-17).

337

Describe the mocking of Jesus.

Matthew: "Then released he Barrabas unto them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand; and they bowed the knee before him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!" (xxvii, 26-29.)

The original of this account of the mocking of Jesus is to be found in Philo's "Adversus Flaccum," written more than one hundred years before the Gospels made their appearance. Herod Agrippa was on his way from Rome to Palestine to assume the government of that country. When he stopped at Alexandria his enemies, to annoy him, instituted a mock coronation, which Philo relates as follows:

"There was a certain poor wretch named Carrabas, who spent all his days and nights in the roads, the sport of idle children and wanton youths; and the multitude, having driven him as far as the public gymnasium, and having set him up there on high, that he might be seen of everybody, flattening out a papyrus leaf, put it on his head instead of a crown, and clothed the rest of his body with a common mat in place of a robe, and in lieu of a sceptre thrust into his hand a reed, which they found lying by the wayside. And when he had received all the insignia of royalty, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him in imitation of guards, while others came up, some as if to salute him, and others pretending to plead their causes before him" (Philo's Works, vol. iv, pp. 68, 69).

338

Who smote Jesus after his trial?

Mark: "The servants did strike him with the palms of their hands" (xiv, 65).

John: "One of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand" (xviii, 22).

The stories of these mockings, revilings, and brutal assaults cannot be accepted as historical. They are self-evidently false. Were they alleged to have been committed by an irresponsible Jewish or Roman mob they might be credited; but when they are declared to have been committed by, or while in the custody of the highest Jewish and Roman officials they must be rejected.

339

To whom did Pilate deliver him to be crucified?

Matthew and Mark: To the Roman soldiers. "And when he had scourged Jesus he delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus.... And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull, ... they crucified him" (Matt. xxvii, 26-35; Mark xv, 15-24).

John: He delivered him to the Jews. "And he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus and led him away. And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of the skulls, which is called in Hebrew Golgotha; where they crucified him" (xix, 14-18).

Matthew and Mark plainly state that Jesus was delivered to the Roman soldiers; John just as plainly states that he was delivered to the Jews. Matthew and Mark declare that he was crucified by the soldiers; John declares that he was crucified by the Jews. Were it not that John elsewhere (xix, 23) contradicts himself and states that the soldiers crucified him, the conclusion would be, after reading John, that he was crucified by the Jews.

Peter declares that the Jews executed him. Addressing the Sanhedrim, he says: "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree" (Acts v, 30).

340

Who was compelled to carry the cross?

Synoptics: "And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name; him they compelled to bear his cross" (Matt. xxvii, 32; Mark xv, 21; Luke xxiii, 26).

John: The cross was borne by Jesus himself (xix, 17).

341

Where was Simon when they compelled him to carry the cross?

Mark: "Coming out of the country" (xv, 21).

The correct reading of this is, "coming from the field," i. e., "coming from his work." This is improbable as they did not work on the Passover.

342

The Synoptics agree in stating that Simon was compelled to carry the cross. Is this probable?

It is not. In executions of this kind the criminal was always required to carry it himself as a mark of disgrace.

343

It is inferred from the Synoptics that the cross was too heavy for Jesus to bear, and Christian writings and paintings represent him bending with fatigue beneath the burden of the entire cross. What was the burden he was required to carry?

Simply the patibulum, or cross piece, which was not heavy. The upright portion of the cross was a permanent fixture.

344

On his way to execution he made a speech to the women of Jerusalem who bewailed his fate. Alluding, as is alleged, to the coming destruction of Jerusalem, what did he declare they would say?

"To the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us" (Luke xxiii, 30).

Luke attempts to put into the mouth of Jesus a quotation from Hosea, but his memory was defective. What the prophet said was as follows:

"To the mountains, Cover us; and to the hills, Fall on us" (Hosea x, 8).

Renan pronounces this speech spurious. He says: "The speech to the women of Jerusalem could scarcely have been conceived except after the siege of the year 70."

345

Where was he crucified?

Matthew and Mark: At "a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull" (Matt. xxvii, 33; Mark xv, 22).

Luke: At Calvary (xxiii, 33).

Calvary, like Golgotha, means a place of skulls in the vicinity of Jerusalem. The explanation given by Christian commentators is that "it was a spot where executions ordinarily took place, and therefore abounded in skulls." Fleetwood says it "was called Golgotha, or Place of Skulls, from the criminals' bones which lay scattered there" (Life of Christ, p. 416). Where Jewish customs prevailed--and it is admitted that they did prevail in Jerusalem and Judea at this time, and had for hundreds of years--a human skull or bone was not allowed to be exposed for even a moment.

346

What was the inscription on the cross?

Mark: "The King of the Jews" (xv, 26).

Luke: "This is the King of the Jews" (xxiii, 38).

Matthew: "This is Jesus the King of the Jews" (xxvii, 37).

John: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews" (xix, 19).

There was placed on the cross a certain inscription. According to Luke and John it appeared in Greek, Latin and Hebrew. Four divinely inspired historians attempt to report in Greek the exact words of this inscription. Yet no two of their reports agree.

347

Did the name of Jesus appear on the cross?

Matthew and John: It did.

Mark and Luke: It did not.

348

Did the word "Nazareth" appear in the inscription?

John: It did.

Synoptics: It did not.

349

What did they offer him to drink before crucifying him?

Matthew: "Vinegar mingled with gall" (xxvii, 34).

Mark: "Wine mingled with myrrh" (xv, 23).

Luke: "Vinegar" alone (xxiii, 36).

The draughts mentioned by Matthew and Mark refer to a Jewish mixture intended to produce stupefaction and lessen pain. Had the Romans crucified him it is not probable that they would have observed this Jewish custom.

350

How was he fastened on the cross?

Luke and John: His hands and feet were nailed to it (Luke xxiv, 39; John xx, 25, 27).

The Evangelists do not say that he was nailed to the cross; but it has been inferred from the texts mentioned in Luke and John that he was. In crucifixion the victim was usually bound to the cross. Nails were sometimes driven through the hands, but never through the feet. The allusions to the supposed wounds on his hands and feet were evidently inserted in the accounts for the purpose of establishing his identity after the resurrection. Great prominence has been given them by Christians in order to make Christ's crucifixion appear especially cruel and create sympathy for him.

351

At what hour of the day was he crucified?

Mark: "It was the third hour [nine o'clock in the morning]" (xv, 25).

Luke: "It was about the sixth hour [noon]" (xxiii, 44).

John: At the sixth hour he had not been sentenced and delivered to the executioners; hence he was not crucified until the afternoon (xix, 14-16).

Dr. Geikie admits that three hours may have elapsed between the termination of his trial and his crucifixion. Hence, according to John, the crucifixion may have occurred as late as three o'clock in the afternoon.

It has been attempted to explain the discrepancy between Mark and John by supposing that John used a different method of reckoning time. Concerning this, Prof. Sanday, one of England's highest orthodox authorities, says: "The writer of this was at one time inclined to look with favor on these attempts. If the premise could be proved, the data would work out satisfactorily.... But it must definitely be said that the major premise cannot be proved, and that the attempt to reconcile the two statements on this basis breaks down."

352

How did the soldiers divide the garments?

Matthew: "And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots" (xxvii, 35).

John: "Then the soldiers when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said, therefore, among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be; that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots" (xix, 23, 24).

According to Matthew they cast lots for all the garments; according to John they cast lots for the coat alone. John here makes the same error in regard to the garments that Matthew does in regard to the ass on which Jesus made his triumphal entry. In the verse cited from Psalms garments and vesture are the same thing--the clothing of the writer. One of the chief characteristics of Hebrew poetry, or much of it at least, is that each successive thought is stated twice, but in different words.

353

Who were crucified with Jesus?

Mark and Matthew: "And with him they crucify two thieves" (Mark xv, 27; Matt. xxvii, 38).

Thieves were not crucified. Crucifixion, or death in any form, for theft was contrary to both Jewish and Roman law. Theft was not a capital offense.

354

His crucifixion between two thieves fulfilled what prophecy?

Mark: "And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And he shall be numbered with the transgressors" (xv, 28).

"The same thing might be said of the thieves."--Paine.

This passage is not to be found in the earlier manuscripts of Mark, and Westcott declares it to be an interpolation.

355

How long did Jesus survive after being placed upon the cross?

Luke: About three hours (xxiii, 44).

A Jamaica negro slave, crucified in 1760, lived two hundred and ten hours.

Kitto says: "We may consider thirty-six hours to be the earliest period at which crucifixion would occasion death in a healthy adult" (Biblical Cyclopedia, Art. Crucifixion).

356

What were his last words?

Matthew: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani, that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (xxvii, 46).

Mark: "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani, which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (xv, 34.)

Luke: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (xxiii, 46).

John: "It is finished" (xix, 30).

With the Four Gospels before them, Christians do not know what his last words were. The two most popular English Lives of Christ are those of Dr. Farrar and Dr. Geikie. These writers were contemporaries and friends, and both were adherents of the same church. Both, with these Gospels for their authorities, attempt to portray the closing scene. I quote from each:

Dr. Farrar: "And now the end was come. Once more, in the words of the sweet Psalmist of Israel, but adding to them that title of trustful love which, through Him, is permitted to the use of all mankind, 'Father,' he said, 'into Thy hands I commend my spirit.' Then with one more great effort he uttered the last cry--the one victorious word, 'It is finished.'"

Dr. Geikie: "A moment more, and all was over. The cloud had passed as suddenly as it rose. Far and wide, over the vanquished throngs of his enemies, with a loud voice, as if uttering his shout of eternal victory before entering into his glory, he cried, 'It is finished!' Then, more gently, came the words, 'Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.'"

357

In what language were his last words uttered?

Matthew: In Hebrew.

Mark: In Aramaic and Hebrew.

The language spoken by Jesus and by the people of Palestine at this time was the Aramaic. Mark attempts to give the words of Jesus in this language. But while the first two words are Aramaic, the last two are Hebrew. The words Mark attempts to give are "Elohi, Elohi, metul mah shabaktani?" This Gospel was written by one ignorant of the language of Palestine.

358

Matthew interprets the Hebrew words quoted by him to mean, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Is this correct?

It is not. The words mean, "My God, my God, why hast thou sacrificed me?"

The Gospel of Matthew, it is claimed, originally appeared in Hebrew. But this shows that the author of Matthew did not understand the Hebrew language.

359

What are the words given by Matthew and Mark?

The first words of the 22d Psalm. In the words of Farrar, "He borrowed from David's utter agony the expression of his own."

Is it probable that a man in the agonies of a terrible death would devote his expiring breath to a recital of Hebrew poetry? When even the dying words of this Christ are borrowed, is it not evident that the whole story of his life is fabulous?

The accounts of the crucifixion given by the Evangelists are to a large extent reproductions of the 22d Psalm, even to the language itself, the poetical allusions of the psalmist being transformed into alleged historical facts. The devout Christian who is familiar with this Passion Psalm sees in the Evangelists' account of the crucifixion a wonderful fulfillment of prophecy. But the critic sees merely the borrowed embellishments of a legend.

360

What expression did his words, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani," provoke?

Matthew: "Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias" (xxvii, 47).