The transference of Jesus to Herod (cf. vol. i. 722) is one of St. Luke's special contributions to the story of the Passion (23616, cf. Ac 4'-"). Whether taken from oral tradition (cf. Justin Martyr, Dial. 103) or from the Jewish Christian source (note the technical Jewish xpi'^'^''' i3a.inkia. = kmg Messiah, 23^) which some critics trace below his narrative, it goes back to the memories of the Christians who belonged to the Herodian entotirage (cf. 83 g-*), and ought never to have been suspected by a sane criticism. No satisfactorj' motive for its invention can be adduced.* St. Luke (13') was perfectly aware that, when it suited his purpose, Pilate had no hesitation in killing Galilaeans. The author rightly hints at other motives for his action now. The presence of the high priests and scribes at the interview (v.iO) is, at first sight, certainly a difficulty ; it might suggest that here, as perhaps at 22-52 (cf. 2266), the historian has gone too far in emphasizing the activity of the Jewish authorities. But it is just possible that they feared to let the prisoner out of their sight. Herod was not to be relied on. He might take it into his head to release Jesus out of spite or caprice, as Pilate had threatened to do, and with relentless t vigour some of the authorities may have kept on the track of their victim. The omission of 231012 jn the Sinaitic Syriac version is probably due to harmonizing tendencies. Certainly 2315 affords no adequate ground for excising it (so Wellhausen }) as a later gloss, for even if the inferior reading, ' I sent him (Jesus) to him (Herod),' be adopted, it does not necessarily Imply that the authorities were not present at Herod's examination. Pilate is not giving them fresh information. He is simply rehearsing the facts of the case in a semi-formal fashion.
St. Luke does not exaggerate the share of Herod in Christ's death, as does tiie later Gospel of Peter, which makes Antipas sentence tlie prisoner form- ally. The historian simply brings out the idle curiosity of the tetrarch. § The mockery of Jesus, in which he is said even to have participated him- self, was probably due to irritation at his failure to elicit any answer from the prisoner. Herod's wounded dignity and baffled curiosity Avere up in arms to take a petty vengeance (cf. vol. i. 4.54^), and both he and Pilate Avere consoled for their trouble and annoyance by getting their feud
* The ordinary- theory that Herod is made the representative of Judaism, to exculpate paganism (Pilate), contradicts 2315.
t There is a dramatic contrast between the two uses of this Lukan term sirsja? here and in Ac 1828.
J He deserts here his favourite D (i^«T!^^^J/<Jc v»p Cu-H; -t^o? u-Itciv). Compare, against him, Blass in The Philology of the Gospels, pp. 183-184.
§ Bengel's caustic comment on v. 8 is: ' Potentes minus obinnm habiiere Jesnni : et illi solent esse ultimi in cognos- cendis rebus regni del.'
patched up and their mutual jurisdiction recog- nized. Their treatment of Jesus gave each the opportunity of a politic and inexpensive generosity.
Pilate then, according to Luke, proposes a Aveak compromise (23'3"'*'). To appease the JeAvs he Avill scourge this harmless fanatic, Jesus, before re- leasing Him ; for release Him he must, as His guilt has not heen proven. The innocence of Jesus seems to be formally pronounced. Herod's refusal to convict Him gives Pilate the tardy courage to acquit the prisoner before His accusers, but it does not lend him courage to carry out the strict legal consequences of the decision. Utilitarian motives come into play.* Tiie governor realizes that he must try to conciliate the infuriated JeAvs. Since his offer to scourge Jesus is ignominiously rejected, some other compromise must be devised.
Here all the Gospels come into line, Avith an account of Pilate's next attempt to save Jesus, this time at the expense of Barabbas (see Barabbas and Insurrection), though St. Luke less happily omits all reference to the custom of releasing a prisoner, and makes the idea of Barabbas originate Avith the JeAvs (23^^), not Avith Pilate, Avhile St. MattheAv inserts a piece of very secondary tradition about Pilate's Avife (27'", cf. vol. i. p. 495) in order to explain the governor's hesitation, as Avell as to throAvthe malice of the Jcavs into relief. A further addition t of St. MattheAv is the dramatic incident of Pilate Avashing his hands before the people, and proclaiming his innocence of the judicial crime Avhich they Avere bent on perpetrating (27-''- -^).t The incident may be St. MattheAv's anecdotal Avaj' of depicting the idea of the JeAvs' real responsibility for the death of Jesus. In any case, once the people deliberately prefer Barabbas, Pilate plainly throAvs ott' all responsibility for all that folloAvs. Probably the revelation of Christ's unpopularity § removed the last scruple of conscience Avhich he felt. Why should he endanger his position and risk a tumult among the people for the sake of a Galilaean dreamer Avho had not a single adherent to stand by Him ? Pilate could aflord to thAvart the priests, perhai^s, but it Avas another matter Avhen the people asserted their Avishes.
In response to his half-perplexed, half-ironical inquiry as to Avhat, then, is to be done Avith Jesus the so-called Christ, the reply (unanimous, accord- ing to Mt 27-^) is, ' Crucify him.' Carlyle, in the sixth of his Latter-day Pam}Mcts, takes this to be an illustration of the absurdity of universal suftrage. ' Can it be proved that since the beginning of the Avorld there Avas ever given a universal vote in favour of the Avorthiest man or thing? I have ahvays understood that true Avorth in any department Avas difficult to recognize ; that the Avorthiest, if he appealed to universal suftrage, Avould have but a poor chance. . . . Alas, Jesus Christ asking the JeAvs Avhat He deserved, Avas not the ansAver, Death on the galloAvs ! ' But the jioint of the incident is not quite this. The Markan tradition, folloAved by MattheAv (27'* = Mk 15"), indicates the responsibility of the priests rather than of the people. The latter Avere in-