alace of Herod in Jerus., on each of which was inscribed the name of the donor and of him in whose honour the shield was dedicated. But even this aroused the fury of the Jews. Their chief men, including four sons of Herod, besought him to remove the objects of offence; and, when he refused, they wrote to Tiberius, who ordered the procurator to take the shields to Cwsarea. Philo makes Agrippa describe Pilate as ‘inflexible, merci- less, and obstinate.’ He says that the Jews’ threat tocommunicate with Tiberius ‘exasperated Pilate in the greatest possible degree, as he feared lest they might go on an embassy to the emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government — his corruptions, his acts of insolence, his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, his cruelty, and his continual murders Οἱ people untried and uncondemned, and his never- ending, gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity.’ This is doubtless a ὁπδ ἰδεῖ representation. In the Gospels Pilate manifests a strong desire to do justice, and he was not more arbitrary or cruel than many other Roman officials. But he also appears in the Gospels, as in Philo, passionate and fierce, uniting obstinacy with weakness, seeking his ends by unworthy devices, and restrained in his desire to do justice by dread both of his turbulent subjects and of the effect of an appeal from them to the emperor. All accounts agree in testifying to the hearty dislike which existed between him and the Jews.
Pilate’s share in the trial of Jesus is related briefly in Mt and Mk, but somewhat more fully in Lk; while Jn records further details which explain and confirm the Synoptic accounts. The governor evi- dently had some previous knowledge of Jesus, as his wife also probably had (Mt 2719). The Lord’s ministry indeed had been mainly in Galilee, so that probably He had only within a short period before his arrest come under Pilate’s notice. But it is incredible, in view of the interest lately aroused by Jesus in Judea, and the necessary watchful- ness of the government, that His presence had not been reported to the procurator ; and at the trial it is expressly stated that Pilate ‘knew that for envy
PILATE
they had delivered him unto him’ (Mt 27%). But when, early in the morning, the representatives of the Sanhedrin, which had already condemned Jesus to death for blasphemy, brought Him to Pilate for permission to have Him put to death, and re- fused to enter the governor's residence lest they should be defiled (Jn 18%), Pilate went out * to them and demanded what charge they brought against the prisoner. They seem to have expected him to con their sentence without inquiry, a fact which illustrates the large authority conceded by the Romans to the native court. But Pilate refused to act without reasons. When they sadder cried, ‘If this man were not an evil-doer, we shoul not have delivered him up unto thee’ (Jn 18%), he contemptuously remarked, ‘ Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law,’ thus forcing them to admit thst tie pani nof secure fete urpose except throu im. His position y De antel this Matte expression of eutnonity 3 but he was probably actuated in this instance by the desire to do justice, or at least to prevent the injustice which they intended (Mt 2718. The Jews therefore, being forced to present charges, and knowing the uselessness of bringing the charge of blasphemy, made three accusations, viz. perverting the nation, forbidding to give tribute to Cesar, and claiming to be Christ, a king (Lk 237). The latter two, and perhaps the first, were matters with which the civil authority would naturally deal. Pilate therefore asked Jesus, ‘ Art thou the king of the Jews?’ Jesus replied in the affirmative, but to the accusing cries of the Jews He was silent. The governor was impressed by His demeanour, though acknowledging so grave a charge, as that of no ordinary prisoner. So he led Jesus within the palace, and privately ex- amined Him (Jn 1855: In this interview the dis- sition and character of Pilate specially appear.
esus ively answered his questions, and explained MA
the entirely unworldly nature of His kingdom. He dealt with the Roman throughout as with one notactuated by malice, but placed in circumstances where he could escape pale only by courageously obeying the truth (cf. alsoJn 19"). For this, how- ever, Pilate was not prepared. His ejaculation, ‘What is truth ?’ (Jn 18°) was the utterance of a worldly mind, entirely sceptical of the worth of real religious and moral principles. But he was convinced that Jesus was politically harmless, and ought not to be sacrificed to Jewish malice and fanaticism. So he resolved to save Him. Yet he was afraid peremptorily to release Him: a fear which is perfectly intelligible in view of the evident determination of the chief priests, the serious charges they had presented, the large tolerance always shown to Jewish Prelices, as well as of the suspicious character of Tiberius and the excellent grounds of complaint which the Jews already had against the governor. ‘Therefore Pilate began the series of feeble devices, which the Synoptists record, to secure the release of Jesus by a popular verdict, or at least to free himself from participation in His death. He first brought Him forth, and declared that he found no fault in Him (Jn 18"), But this unexpected announcement evoked from the priests and bystanders the cry, ‘He stirreth up the people, agra? throughout all Judea, and beginning from Galilee even unto this place’ (Lk 23°), Hearing that Jesus was from Galilee, and impressed by the fury of their desire, Pilate thought to rid himself of the case by trans- ferring it to Herod Antipas, who was then in Jerusalem. He was the more willing to do this