This ingenious theory is open to the most serious objections. Some of these have been stated by Mr. Andrew Lang in the very elaborate investiga- tion he gives in Magic and Religion. It is verj- diftictilt to make good the identiHcation of Purim witli the Sacnea even if Frazer's interpretation of the Sacfea cotild hold good, which is very dotibtful. It is also very imj)robable that a victim was actu- ally crucified in the cliaracter of Haman bj- the Jew s. There is not a shred of evidence to make such a suggestion jdausible. And when we come to applj' it to the Gospel history, the theory be- comes more improbable than ever. The licence allowed to 'the Beardless One' was such that he was permitted, if the shopkeepers did not give him wliat he wished during his ride tlirotigh the cit^*, to appropriate everj-thing they had in their shops. It is not easy to see any real parallel between this and the overturning of the money-changers' tables and driving out of their sheep and oxen from the Temple by Jesus. There is all the ditlerence be- tween a raid on the shopkeepers for personal plunder and the cleansing of the Temple from an intolerable abuse. Jesus would not have been asked by the authorities by what right He did these things, if it had been a perfectly legitimate exer- cise of a power He possessed as the representative of Haman. Moreover, Frazer's theory involves our rejection of the Johannine date for the cleans- ing of the Temple, although that date has much that can be said in its favotir. Apart from this, however, one instijierable difficulty remains. It is quite possible tliat Jesus shotild liave suft'ered in any character chosen for Him by those who com- passed His death. In that respect He was a pass- ive victim. But it is quite incredible that He sliotild have participated in tliese ceremonies of His own free will, or have given any colour what- ever to superstitions of that kind. It is accord- ingly out of tiie question to interpret the clean>ing of the Temjile as Frazer does, since that would imply that Jesus lent Himself to this festival. Moreover, unless the Gospel narratives are altogether mis- leading, Jesus was not in the han<ls of His enemies till the night before His death, and therefore His triumphal entrj- and His attack on the desecration of the Temple could have been no part of the pro- gramme of a Ptirim festival. There would have been no need for secrecy through the fear of the people, I or for the services of tlie traitor, if the mockery
198
MOT^TEY
MONEY
— -4B-
and death were but the last acts in a longer drama. Kor are the difficulties in the Gospel narratives really mitigated by this hypothesis. The ordinarj- explanation of Pilate's vacillation and surrender is perfectly adequate. The procurator was so un- ]>opular that he dared not risk the charge of treason that might have been launched against him before Tiberius if he had let a claimant to Messianic dig- nity go free. However convinced Pilate may have been that Jesus was harmless to Rome, nothing would have been easier than to bring a verj' dam- aging charge against him before the emperor. Nor is the title over the cross to be interpreted along Frazer's lines. To have let Jesus go would have constituted a much more valid basis of accusation than to write the title ' This is the king of the Jews " over His cross, for that meant ' This is the king of the Jews, and thus I serve pretenders to the throne.' It mocked Jesus and exasperated the Jews. To imagine that by one course Pilate Avould have escaped the charge of treason which he would iiave incurred bj' the other, is indeed to strain out the gnat and swallow the camel. If, as Frazer says, Pilate was obliged to give up a pri.soner, and all he could do was to choose him, he had others whom he might have chosen besides Jesus and Barabbas. It was a choice that was dictated by his position. He was in the grip of his past and of his dread of Tiberius. Another point that de- serves mention is that the mockery of Christ's prophetic claims is precisely parallel to the mock- erj^ of His royal claims. In the one case they bid Him prophesy, in the other they dress Him up as a mock king and pay Him a ribald homage. The parallelism shows us how unnecessary it is for us to seek for far-fetched reasons to explain the con- duct of the Roman soldiers. Nothing was more natural than that the supporters of an alien em- pire should mock royal claims put forward by one who belonged to the subject people, and no de- rision was more etiective than the dressing up of their victim as king. The sceptre served to beat Him, and the jest of the coronation was all the more piquant that the crown was studded with thorns. As Mr. Lang reminds us, ' AVallace was crowned at his trial with laurel' ; and Atlioll, who was a pretender to the crown, 'was tortured to death with a red-hot iron crown ' (Magic and Re- ligion, p. 203).
Lastly, it should be observed that the passage from Dio Chrysostom will not bear too much weight. There is a resemblance in the clothing with royal robes, in the stripping, the scourging, and the deatli, but there is no resemblance to the royal privileges accorded to the condemned prisoner, and it is also not clear that the victim was crucified. The Greek word used {eKpepLaaav) may mean simply that he was hanged, though the other view is more probable. No stress can be laid on tlie scourging in the case of Jesus, for it was the usual preliminary to cnicifixion, and crucifixion was unhappily among the Romans no exceptional form of execution.