* Cf. H. Holtzmann, Das wessianische Bewusstsein Jesu (1907), pp. 29-31, as against Wrede's idea {Das Messfasfieheimnis, 74f.) that the phiase 'Son of God' must be taken in a meta- physical, not in a theocratic sense.
t Bengel, on Mt 26^, has one of his fine comments : 'In ad- versissimis quibusqiie rebvs suminos fines exitusque intueri, inaxitne jutiat filios dei.'
I As by W'ellhausen, who omits Mk 1461- 62 jn order to support this reading of the incident. But 1463 does not follow the silence of .Ii'sus very aptly ; the blasjihemy is more naturally con- nected with the straightforward utterance of Jesus than with the divergent reports of the witnesses, and Lk.'s oito rou <rT(j^«T«j «vToS is probablv a correct gloss.
§ Cf. Mk 27.
il Das Messinnische lieirrisstsein Jesu (1907), pp. 3.5-36, where the various views of recent critics on this point are adequately summarized. For the punishment of a false prophet, see Dt 131-5 i8'.!0-22.
754
TRIAL OF JESUS
TEIAL OF JESUS
be justified by the emergency which had trans- pired. The Evangelic tradition was naturally more concerned with the result than with the precise processes of the trial. In any case, how- ever, it is unmistakable that the priests had now got what they wanted. They had secured from Jesus a confession which was nominally equivalent to a blasphemous claim (on this see vol. i. pp. 209- 210), derogatory to the Divine Being. But we are in the dark as to how far the ordinary forms of jurisprudence were observed, whether the witnesses were cautioned before giving evidence, whether the case for the defence was first of all opened, and so forth. The outstanding point is that Jesus was condemned primarily for blasphemy. To convict Him of claiming to be Messiah, and charge Him Avith that, would not have appealed to the Saddu- cees. More was needed, and this was supplied by the fact of Jesus, a Galilsean peasant, with revolu- tionary views upon the cultus, daring to claim for Himself Messianic honours, and thus threatening to supersede the sacrosanct legal system of Judaism.
(b) Jesus before Pilate (Mk 15i-2'>=Mt 2V-^^ = Lk 231-25= Jn 1828-1916).— If the proceedings before the Jewish Council strained even the letter of justice, those before the Roman authorities show little or no attempt whatsoever to try the prisoner judicially. Jesus does not appear to have been legally tried before Pilate. The Roman governor, after the first turn in the case, seems to have been principally anxious to discover the most politic course of action, as well as to thwart the authorities. His sense of justice was overborne by considerations of personal advantage and civil prudence. But he was not driven to this end without reluctance, and the record of the proceedings, which took place in the open-air in front of his palace or tribunal, is of considerable psychological interest.
The first phase of the trial before Pilate is the procurator's dismissal of the grave charge of majestas brought against Jesus by His accusers,* who natur- ally fixed upon the political rather than the re- ligious side of the Messianic claim as the more likely to carry weight with the governor.
According to one tradition,t Pilate takes the initiative by asking Jesus if He is really the king of the Jews. The question breathes pity and con- tempt and wonder. This forlorn Galilsean peasant {ff^ emphatic) a claimant of royalty ! The quiet reply is, <n> Xiyeis (cf. vol. i. 93P). To the subse- quent outburst of accusation from the Jewish leaders, Jesus vouchsafes no reply ; nor will He even deign to interpret His silence to the astonished procurator. Plainly, this is a very abridged version of the actual facts, and we turn for fuller details to Luke. According to his account, the Jewish authorities push forward with their accusation before Pilate has time to speak, and the_j3harge is threefold -J He is accused of being a seditious agitator, of /forbidding the payment of tribute to the Roman emperor, and of claiming to be ' Christ, a king.y A political charge is thus cleverly foisted into the religious complaint, and the procurator, Avho would have nothing to do with a vague accusa- tion, naturally fixes on the third point, asking Jesus (as in the other tradition) if He is really the
* Their ritualistic scruple about entering the Prsetorium is noted by the Fourth Evangelist (1828) with deliberate meaning. In the light of the Christian interpretation, it acquired a sinister significance. ' Polluting their souls with blood, they dare not pollute their bodies by breach of outer etiquette. . . . Men must have some scrap of conscience left to hide them from themselves. Inward defilement, unprincipled action, are atoned for by outer decorum ' (Reith, Gospel of John, ii. 135).
t The Fourth Evangelist (1833), Uke St. Matthew (2711), here follows the condensed Markan tradition (152), leaving it un- explained how Pilate had come to hear of the accusation of royalty, but implying that Jesus had not heard the priests laying this information before the governor.
king of the Jews. Luke's account certainly gives a better sense here than the other, for it explains how Pilate came to put his question ; Avhereas, in the evidence of Mk 152= Mt 27", there is nothing to account for the governor seizing this point at all. That the charge of the Jews was astute but unjust needs no proof (cf. vol. i. p. 246'^). The Gospels show how scrupulously Jesus kept clear of abetting the fanatical hatred of Rome felt by many of His fellow-countrymen, and probably it was this refusal to side with them which secretly instigated their plan of attack. At any rate, as Renan observes, ' Conservative religious bodies do not generally shrink from calumny.' To refute the charge was superfluous in the eyes of Jesus. His silence did all that was necessary ; it repudiated the ac- cusation.