LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 GIFT OF 
 
 MRS. MARY WOLFSOHN 
 
 IN MEMORY OF 
 
 HENRY WOLFSOHN 
 
 IhrJll^lrM^^ 
 
 I 
 
The Martyrdom 
 
 OF 
 
 ESUS 
 
 NAZARETH 
 
 A HISTORIC-CRITICAL TREATISE ON THE LAST 
 CHAPTERS OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 BY DR. ISAAC M. WISE. 
 
 DEO nDN ~l 
 
 Only truth in the name of Jehovah." a Chronicles, xvii. 15. 
 
 OFFICE OF THE AMERICAN ISRAELITE, 
 
 CINCINNATI, OHIO. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 EEFACES are tedious, and I will be brief. I would 
 not write, if it was not for the term standpoint, about 
 which something must be said, to facilitate a correct un- 
 derstanding of this treatise. 
 
 I have dedicated this volume to the great Parisian 
 jurist and democratic patriot, ISAAC ADOLPH CREMIEUX, 
 not merely because I hold that illustrious gentleman in the 
 highest esteem, both as a scholar and a philanthropist ; but 
 also because in him the Jew of the nineteenth century is 
 personified. It is the standpoint of universal benevolence, 
 of broad and liberal principles, of pure and exalted hu- 
 manitarianism based upon profound and sublime principles 
 of ethical religion. I do not mean to say that all Jews 
 have arrived at this lofty standpoint; I merely maintain! 
 those who have kept pace with the progressive elements of 
 the century have reached that altitude of thought and 
 principle. 
 
 This Isaac Adolph Cremieux was born in France in the 
 beginning of this century. Like the author of this treatise, 
 when a poor boy, a little barefooter, he was mortified and 
 
scorned by petulent fellows, because he was the son of Jew- 
 ish parents. But in his upward march to glory, Cremieux 
 loft all of them in the background, stood twice at the head 
 of the French Eepublic as the high-priest of justice, and 
 is this day a prominent member of the National As- 
 sembly, always true to the democratic and humanitarian 
 principles, without showing in his long and eventful career 
 of usefulness any other than the loftiest and purest stand- 
 point of the man and the patriot. 
 
 This is the point the author wishes to define. On numer- 
 ous occasions he has been told that people are anxious to 
 read what he writes on subjects in the New Testament, 
 because they wish to learn what is said about them from 
 the Jewish standpoint. This is a mistake. The author 
 who now speaks to you is a Jew of the nineteenth century, 
 whose motto is, " The world is my country and love is my 
 religion;" whose people are all of God's children; and 
 whose standpoint in philosophy, science, and criticism is as 
 purely objective and as free of every prejudice or bias as 
 long years of reading, research, and traveling make a hu- 
 man being. He wears no sectarian shackels, stands under 
 no local bias, and obeys no mandates of any particular 
 school. Whatever he says or has said on subjects contain- 
 ed in the New Testament, in order to be understood cor- 
 rectly, must be examined from the only standpoint of reason. 
 
 The author takes the liberty to add that he claims orig- 
 inalty for the ideas presented in this treatise. He borrows 
 from none. All passages from the ancient rabbinical liter- 
 ature, quoted in this treatise, have been selected and trans- 
 lated from the originals by him, and for this volume, with- 
 out aid or support of any body. While Strauss, Eenan, 
 Wislicenus, and the English writers on kindred subjects 
 obtained their knowledge of ancient rabbinical literature 
 
from some translated abstracts, compiled under various 
 prejudicial circumstances, and in many cases teeming with 
 errors, the author has had full access to the originals, and 
 has made the best use of this privilege as far as his erudi- 
 tion reaches. This will explain the opinions advanced by 
 the author contrary to some of Strauss, Eenan, and the 
 others, whose information on that age and its spirit was 
 deficient and often erroneous. 
 
 In conclusion, he begs permission to say that his sole 
 object in writing is truth. He aims at no literary reputa- 
 tion, no income, no position in society; he has but this one 
 ambition, viz., to tell the truth to the best of his knowledge. 
 If he fails in this, in any particular point, it is on account 
 of his mental deficiencies, which God may forgive him; the 
 
 critic never will. 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGES. 
 
 INTRODUCTION 9 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 THE SECRET CONCLAVE. 
 
 1. The Conspirators, 15 
 
 2. The Time, - 18 
 
 3. The Situation, - 21 
 
 4. Political Necessity and Jewish Ethics, 25 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 THE LAST SUPPER. 
 
 1. The Two Accounts, 30 
 
 2. The Messengers and the Charge, - 32 
 
 3. The Opening of the Supper, 36 
 
 4. Judas Iscariot and the Situation, - 34 
 
 5. The Eucharist, - 49 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 THE CAPTURE OF JESUS. 
 
 1. The Preparation, - 52 
 
 2. The Place of Capture, - 54 
 
 3. The Captors, - - 54 
 
 4. Judas and the Kiss, ... 56 
 
 5. The Nightly Trial, - 58 
 
 6. The Arrest, ..... 60 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 THE TRIAL. 
 
 1. Two High-Priests, 61 
 
 2. The Place, 62 
 
 3. Peter denying his Master, - 63 
 
 4. The Maltreatment in the High-Priest's Palace, - 65 
 1 5. The Nightly Trial, 66 
 
 6. The Time of the Trial, 70 
 
 7. False Witnesses, 72 
 
 8. False Accusation, - 73 
 
 9. Blasphemy, 74 
 10. Luke's Trial, 78 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 JESUS BEFORE PlLATE. 
 
 1. The Time, 81 
 
 2. The Persons, - 83 
 
 3. The Queries, - 83 
 
 4. Luke's Version, - - 85 
 
 5. John's Version, - - 90 
 
 6. A Resume, - - 98 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE CRUCIFIXION. 
 
 1. The Symbol of the Cross, 100 
 
 2. Cause of the Story, - - 103 
 
 3. The Crucified King, 106 
 
 4. The Crucifixion contradicted, - 107 
 
 5. All Greek except Calvary, - 109 
 
 6. The Legend, - 113 
 
 7. Zachariah xiv., - - 115 
 
 8. Psalm xxii, - 117 
 
 9. Psalm Ixix, - 118 
 
 10. Isaiah liii, - 120 
 
 11. The Scriptural Argument, 123 
 - 12. The True Story, - 125 
 
 13. Vicarious Atonement, - - 126 
 
 14. The Jews did not crucify Jesus, - - 129 
 
 15. The Conclusion, - 131 
 APPENDIX. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 THERE is but one absolute truth, and this is God's,* 
 therefore truth is the only redeemer of man. Whoever 
 can not find peace and happiness in the divine realm of 
 truth, will in vain seek them in illusion and error. There 
 is religion in truth, and superstition in error. In re- 
 ligion, there is righteousness, charity, freedom, peace, 
 happiness, and enthusiasm ; fanaticism, hatred, persecu- 
 tion, oppression, and an enslaved mind are the offspring 
 of superstition. These are the criteria by which to dis- 
 tinguish religion from superstition. Those who do not 
 love truth must not read this treatise. It can do them 
 no good. The author claims to be a servant of truth. 
 
 Why publish it? is the question to which the reader is 
 entitled, and which the author has repeatedly asked him- 
 self. If God deigns to reveal certain truth or truths to 
 an humble individual, why must he publish them, if he 
 runs the risk of disturbing the religious convictions of 
 his fellow-men? But truth is not ours, it is God's. 
 Therefore, it is indomitable and irresistible. No man and 
 no body of men, neither the human family with all its 
 wisdom, ingenuity, and power, nor Nature itself, with all 
 the violence of her forces, can control or change truth. 
 Three times three are nine, independent of all that is, 
 was, or will be. By the cogitation of truth, man enters 
 the council of the Most High, and by the comprehension 
 thereof he is not merely made an ordained disciple ; he 
 is compelled to be its herald. Truth is sovereign, and 
 its disciples must obey. As in the cases of Moses, Jonah, 
 and Jeremiahf excuses are useless, and resistance is of- 
 fered in vain. By this peculiarity of truth and this trait 
 of the human character, truth was promulgated, and, in 
 numerous cases, to the detriment and painful injury of 
 its heralds. Therefore, all the answer the author can 
 make to the reader's question is contained in the follow- 
 ing words of Jeremiah : "And, I thought, I will not 
 
 *Rabbi Bun says (Talmud Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin, I. i.), "What is truth ? 
 That He is the God of life, and the King of the world." God alone is abso- 
 lute truth. 
 
 t Exodus iv.j Jonah i. 3 ; Jeremiah xxi. 9. 
 
10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 make mention of him (God), and I will not speak any 
 more. But it became in my heart as a burning fire in- 
 closed within my bones, and I was weary with enduring, 
 and I could not overcome it." Therefore, in the name of 
 God, truth ! 
 
 The author believes to have overcome the prejudices 
 which education and association impose, and to have 
 reached a purely objective standpoint with the ability of 
 impersonal judgment. He has undertaken this piece of 
 work, as he verily believes, without any prejudice or per- 
 sonal opinion to be imposed on the literary sources before 
 him. He claims to have diligently studied the Christian 
 Scriptures and their cotemporary literature. He has 
 written a number of essays and treatises on various chap- 
 ters of the New Testament, published in THE ISRAEL- 
 ITE in the years 1858, 1859, and 1863. He has trans- 
 lated that portion of Gustav Adolf Wislecenu's book, 
 Die Bibelfuer denkende Leser betrachtetj which relates to 
 the four Gospels, and published it in THE ISRAELITE, 
 in the year 1865. In the year 1867, he published in the 
 same journal a treatise on the Acts of the Apostles, which 
 was republished by Bloch & Co. (Cincinnati, 1868), and 
 called " The Origin of Christianity, and a commentary 
 to the Acts of the Apostles." In the year 1869, he 
 published in the same journal an essay, in ten chapters, 
 on the precepts of Jesus, called u Jesus Himself." Be- 
 sides he published in this and other journals, a number of 
 critical expositions on Bible passages, which have a spe- 
 cial bearing on Christianity, such as Genesis, xlix. 10 ; 
 Deuter., xviii.20; 2 Saml., vii.; Isaiah, vii, 14; ix. 5; 
 xi, 1 ; liii.; Psalms ii. and ex,, and similar passages. So 
 prepared, he wrote a course of three lectures on Jesus, 
 the Apostles, and Paul ( published last year), and delivered 
 them in the largest cities of the Union, to intelligent and 
 appreciative audiences, and under the most favorable 
 criticism of the public press. Therefore the author con- 
 siders himself sufficiently acquainted with the sources to 
 understand them correctly. 
 
 The author claims to have written this treatise in the 
 cau^e of religion. Whatever is productive of fanaticism, 
 haired, persecution, or oppression, is not, can not, and 
 dare not be a doctrine, precept, or dogma of any religion. 
 It produces effects contrary to those which religion, to be 
 genuine and divine, must produce. It degrades and 
 
INTRODUCTION. 1 1 
 
 brutalizes, and the mission of religion is to elevate and 
 humanize. It sows discord and sustains hostility ; and 
 the great objects of religion are peace, harmony, and love. 
 Of all the religious observances among Heathens, Jews, or 
 Turks, none has been the cause of more hatred, persecu- 
 tion, outrage, and bloodshed, than the eucharist. The 
 very word hostie or host is hostile. Christians persecut- 
 ed one another like relentless foes, and thousands of 
 Jews were slaughtered on account of the eucharist and 
 the host. If the doctrines underlying this observance 
 are religious, then the Hindoo*' Car of Juggernaut may 
 justly be called a religious institution. Yet, it is main- 
 tained, Jesus instituted it as one of the sacraments of the 
 Church. If this was true, then Jesus was not a preacher 
 of righteousness ; he was the author of a superstition 
 which bore its legitimate fruits of hatred, bloodshed, and 
 misery. Therefore, the author's attempt in this treatise 
 to prove that Jesus has not instituted the so-called Lord's 
 Supper as a sacrament of the Church, is made in defense 
 not only of religion, but also of Christianity and the 
 character of Jesus. 
 
 Again, among all the myths and tales ever told by 
 the Heathens, Jews, or Turks, to base religious doctrines 
 upon them, none has ever been so egregious and preg- 
 nant of horror and slaughter as the mythical base of the 
 doctrine of vicarious atonement. " The Jews crucified 
 Jesus ;" therefore any avaricious ruler, wicked priest, or 
 bloodthirsty mob found an excuse and absolution for 
 slaying thousands of innocent men, women, and children. 
 Therefore any narrow-minded miniature reasoner, even in 
 our days, will construct some sort of principle to justify 
 the barbarities of past generations, showing that the as- 
 sassins of the Jews were merely the innocent executioners 
 of a foaming and raging deity, whose son had ueen 
 abused. Therefore the prejudices against the Jew still 
 draw nutriment Irorn that old root, and the cause of re- 
 ligion and humanity are still defied on the strength of a 
 myth ; so tenacious is superstition. If the redemption 
 and salvation of mankind depended upon the martyrdom 
 of Jesus of Nazareth, and God at that particular time 
 had decreed to save the family of man by that peculiar 
 arrangement, then it was dire necessity that somebody 
 must kill Jesus. So one or more people had to become 
 criminals in order to save the human family; or, in other 
 
12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 words, God could not save His creatures otherwise except 
 by the condemnation of some. We will not inquire into 
 God's right or wisdom to make such an arrangement ; we 
 will merely say, that this precedent gives us the right to 
 seduce one portion of the human family to crime in order 
 to benefit the other. Every sound reasoner must reject 
 this doctrine as immoral ; yet it is maintained to be cor- 
 rect in religion ; or, in other words, God may be immoral, 
 man must be moral i. e>, man must be better than his 
 God. This being certainly an error, we must reject its 
 basis, and say, the crucifixion of Jesus was not decreed by 
 the Almighty, his martyrdom was not necessary for the 
 salvation of mankind, and the dogma of vicarious atone- 
 ment is immoral. Being immoral it is also irreligious. 
 But aside of this reasoning it is irreligious because it 
 was pregnant with horror, misery, and bloodshed to thou- 
 sands of innocent men, women, and children, and is still 
 the source of prejudice, discord, and hatred ; and the mis- 
 sion of religion is peace, charity, and love. It is eo ipso 
 a superstition. Whoever has the honest desire to be 
 truly religious and truly pious, must reject everything 
 which fanaticizes, wrongs anybody, or sows discord 
 among brethren. 
 
 Therefore, the author's attempt in this treatise, show- 
 ing that the Jews did not crucify Jesus, and that the 
 dogma of vicarious atonement has no foundation in the 
 Gospels, is a defense of religion in behalf of truth and 
 humanity. 
 
 It must be said here that Frederic Schleiermacher has 
 given up the doctrines of Christ's divinity, vicarious 
 atonement, and the fabric of redemption based there- 
 upon ; hence that all liberal Christians have erased 
 these doctrines from their creeds; but none, although the 
 Academy of France has decided the question, has ex- 
 pressed the fact that the Romans, and not the Jews, have 
 crucified Jesus, so that we are obliged to do it for them. 
 
 In order to be understood correctly, the reader is re- 
 quested to pay attention to the following canon of criti- 
 cisms : 
 
 First None of the Gospels now before us in the 
 Greek, was written in the first century. The Christian 
 Scriptures of the first century were epistles and apocalyp- 
 ses (of which John's is a pattern). The Gospel stories 
 and the precepts of Jesus were preserved traditionally in 
 
INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 the various churches, and must necessarily have under- 
 gone many changes and modifications before they were 
 reduced to writing. Whether the Gospel according to 
 the Hebrews, and theGospel according to the Egyptians, 
 mentioned by tke oldest historians of the Church (Cle- 
 mens, Origenes, and Eusebius), were older than those 
 l>ef'ore us, can not be proved any more, as we know noth- 
 ing of their authors, and next to nothing of their con- 
 tents. The first account of the existence of the four 
 Gospels is in the Muratori fragment which, according to 
 the best authorities on the subject, was written by an 
 Italian bishop, between the years 180 to 200 B. c. 
 
 Second The oldest of the Gospels is that of Mark.* 
 It is less legendary and more epic and chronological than 
 the others. It is Unitarian in doctrine, indorses nowhere 
 the miraculous origin of Jesus, represents the Holy Ghost 
 as a mere vision of Jesus (i, 10), has none of the anti- 
 pharisean speeches which are products of the second cen- 
 tury, and is most Jewish in principle. 
 
 The thirteenth chapter ot Mark, so much is evident 
 from the fruits of modern criticism, compiled by Dr. H. 
 Graetz,f must have been written during the persecution 
 of the Jews by the Emperor Hadrian, after the fall of 
 Bethar, when Jerusalem had been changed into a Pagan 
 city, to which facts Mark so clearly refers. The date of 
 these persecutions is, according to Graetz, 135 to 138 
 A. c. According to the Talmud, Bethar fell 122 A. c. The 
 persecutions outside of Bethar must have commenced be- 
 fore the fall of that city. It is certain, therefore, that 
 the oldest Gospel was written between 120 and 138 A. c. 
 
 This leads to almost a certain knowledge of Mark 
 himself. Dr. Mosheim informs us :J " When this emperor 
 (Hadrian) had, at length, razed Jerusalem, entirely de- 
 stroyed even its very foundations (which is unhistorical), 
 and enacted laws of the severest kind against the whole 
 body of the Jewish people, the greatest part of the 
 Christians who lived in Palestine, to prevent their being 
 confounded with the Jews, abandoned entirely the Mosaic 
 rites, and chose a bishop named Mark, a foreigner by 
 
 *Dr. F. A. Mueller's Briefe ueber die Christliche Religion. 
 
 tDr, H Graetz's Geschichte der JuJen, Vol. III., second edition eleventh 
 chapter, and Vol. IV., Note 19. 
 
 j Ecclesiastical History, II. Century, Chapter v. 
 
14 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 nation, and consequently an alien from the commonwealth 
 of Israel." This Mark and no other was the author of 
 the second and oldest gospel extant. He was head-mas- 
 ter of an academy in Alexandria, before he was elected 
 bishop. 
 
 It is also discernable why Mark wrote his gospel. Up 
 to that date the Christians read in their churches the 
 Jewish Bible only and exclusively. One of the edicts of 
 Hadrian prohibited under the penalty of death to possess, 
 read, expound, or teach the Jewish Bible, especially the 
 Pentateuch. So the Christians also had no Scriptures to 
 read in their churches. Therefore, Mark was obliged to 
 write a gospel to be read in the churches in lieu of the 
 Bible. He being the Bishop of the parent congregation, 
 his book soon became widely known among Christians, 
 whose traditions differed essentially from those of Mark 
 and his congregation. Therefore a number of gospels 
 were written shortly after Mark, so that Luke could say, 
 " For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth 
 in order a declaration of those things which are most 
 surely believed among us." It is evident that many 
 wrote gospels, and that in Syria, where Luke lived, no 
 Gospel had been written then ; it was only most surely 
 believed, what he committed to writing. Of all those 
 gospels, however, only that of Matthew has reached us. 
 
 Third The chronological order of the Gospels is 
 Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, written between 120 
 and 170 A. c. 
 
 Fourth All passages, in which the four Gospels or 
 the three synoptics literally concur, are taken from Mark. 
 
 Fifth All passages, which are in one Gospel and not 
 also in the other, were traditions of that church, for which 
 that evangelist wrote. 
 
 Sixth Every Gospel represents another set of doc- 
 trines; consequently the story is fitted to the doctrine. 
 
 Seventh Wherever it is said " that it be fulfilled," the 
 story is either legendary or it has been so changed as to 
 fit to certain Scriptural passages. 
 
 With this apparatus the author has unraveled the state- 
 ments of the Gospels, and has carefully compared them 
 with others of cotemporary literature, as found in the an- 
 cient rabbinical books and elsewhere. The resultants 
 thereof in regard to the martyrdom of Jesus, are laid 
 down in this treatise. 
 
THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE SECRET CONCLAVE. 
 
 
 I. THE CONSPIRATORS. 
 
 MARK ( xiv, 1) informs us, that two days before the 
 feast of passover, "the chief priests and the scribes 
 sought how they might take him (Jesus) by craft, and 
 put him to death, 11 The chief priests, under the iron rule 
 of Pilate and his wicked master, Sejan, were the tools of 
 the Roman soldiers who held Judea and Samaria in sub- 
 jection. The chief priests were the officers of the temple, 
 and the political agents. Like the high-priest, they were 
 appointed to and removed from office by the Roman gov- 
 ernor of the country, either directly or indirectly. They 
 purchased their commissions for high prices, and, like al- 
 most all Roman appointees, used them for mercenary pur- 
 poses. They were considered wicked men by the ancient 
 writers,* and must have stood very low in the estimation 
 of the people, over whom they tyrannized. The patriots 
 must have looked upon them as the hirelings of the for- 
 eign despot whose rule was abhorred. Although there 
 was, here and there, a good, pious, and patriotic man 
 among them, he was an exception. As a general thing, 
 and under the rule of Pilate, especially, they were the 
 corrupt tools of a military despotism which Rome im- 
 posfd upon enslaved Palestine.f 
 
 Josephus gives us to understand ( Antiqu., xx., ix. 1) 
 that most of the high priests of that period were Zaddu- 
 cees, as one must naturally expect. The Pharisees were 
 the democrats, who were most bitterly opposed to the 
 Roman despotism, as they had been to Herod and Arche- 
 laus, and had asked of Pompey already the restoration of 
 the democratic theocracy in Palestine. Ancient Hebrew 
 
 * Siphri, Phineas beginning ; Yerushalmi, Yoma, i. 1, and else- 
 where. See also the story of Martha, the wife of Joshua ben Ga- 
 mala, who purchased the high-priesthood for her husband, of 
 Agrippa II., for a pot full of gold. 
 
 t See I. Salvador's History of the Roman Dominion in Judea 
 (French), Vol. 1, Epoch iii., Chapter iii., and the corresponding 
 chapters in Jost's, Graetz's, and Raphall's History of the Jews. 
 
16 THE CONSPIRATORS. 
 
 writers corroborate this statement. They call one faction 
 of the Zadducees Boethites, and Boethus was the family 
 name of the priestly house, then in power. In Yerushal- 
 mi (Yoma, i. 5) the Zadducees are plainly called Boe- 
 thites. Some of those Boethite high-priests were un- 
 able to read the Hebrew Bible (Mishna, Yoma, i. 6 ) ; 
 hence, they certainly were ignorant in Jewish lore and 
 law. Therefore it was necessary for them to have in 
 their train learned counselors, scribes of the Pharisees or 
 Zadducees, to advise them, and to guard them against 
 blunders in law and custom. These learned counselors 
 are the Pharisees and Scribes which, throughout the Gos- 
 pels, appear in the train of the chief priests. They were 
 the hirelings of the chief priests, and with them the tools 
 of Rome. Some of these chief priests and these scribes 
 we know now who they were Mark informs us, sought 
 how they might take him (Jesus) by craft, and put him 
 to death. They were no representative men in Israel ; 
 they represented Rome, or rather Pontius Pilate, who 
 represented Sejan, the wicked minister of Tiberius, one 
 of Rome's bloodthirsty Csesars. They did not represent 
 the zealots ; for those zealots were the most violent and 
 most valiant democrats of that age, and the most im- 
 placable enemies of Rome ; while those priests and scribes 
 were Rome's hirelings. They did not represent the will 
 of the pilgrims and citizens assembled in Jerusalem, as is 
 evident from the testimony of the evangelists, to be re- 
 viewed hereafter. They represented themselves and their 
 Roman masters only and exclusively. A dozen or two 
 of leading politicians among the priests, it appears, con- 
 spired against the life of Jesus. Their motives will be 
 unraveled in this chapter. 
 
 If Mark's statement is reliable, then we have the main 
 key to the situation. Let us investigate. Matthew (xxvi. 
 3, 4) copies the words of Mark and enlarges on them. 
 His additions must be especially investigated. He says : 
 
 " Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, 
 and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high-priest, 
 who was called Caiaphas, and consulted that they might take Je- 
 sus by subtility, and kill him." 
 
 There are in this statement two additions : (1) " The 
 elders of the people;" and (2) That the meeting was in 
 the palace of rhe high-priest. We have the united tes- 
 
THE SECRET CONCLAVE. 17 
 
 timonv of the three other evangelists against these addi- 
 tion.- of Matthew. Mark did imt know them ; Luke and 
 .John, who must have seen them, must have discredited 
 thorn, ior none of them mentions eit her the elders of the 
 people or the palace of the high- priest. It must not be 
 maintained that Luke and John omitted these two 
 points, because Matthew had already written them. Nei- 
 ther of them intended to supplement either of their pre- 
 decessors. Kurh proposed to himself to write the whole 
 story. Tin-re is not one proof in the Gospels that any of 
 them intended to supplement another book, Luke says 
 it clearly enough in his introductory verses, that he wrote 
 the Gospel stories completely, without reference to any 
 other writer, " as they delivered them unto us;" and yet 
 lie omits those two points of Matthew. It could only 
 be because they were not delivered unto him, and he did 
 not accredit them on the authority of Matthew. John 
 did the same thing precisely. Therefore, we have three 
 testimonies for Mark's statement, and just as many against 
 Matthew's additions. There is a discrepancy in this 
 verse. For the Latin, Matthew omits " scribes ;" making 
 it evident that he changed arbitrarily Mark's " scribes" 
 into " elders." Luke changes it back into Mark's scribes, 
 and John makes of it the more definite Pharisees, as 
 scribes may be either Pharisees or Zadducees. 
 
 Another point must be taken into consideration in this 
 connection. The conspiracy of those enemies of Jesus 
 must have been strictly secret ; because tl e very resolve 
 of taking him by subtil it y and killing him, no less than 
 the execution thereof, was calculated to make that same 
 uproar among the people, which those conspirators meant 
 to frustrate. Besides, if not strictly secret, it would have 
 been useless entirely, as the friends of Jesus, discovering 
 it, could have crossed the scheme. If it was indeed strict- 
 ly secret, how could the evangelists obtain an account 
 thereof? and how could Matthew and John have known 
 the very particulars of the conspiracy, so that the tormer 
 reports where it was, and the latter adds what the high- 
 priest suggested on that occasion ? If any one of the con- 
 spirators had afterward betrayed the transaction, one at 
 least of the evangelists must have named the traitor to 
 substantiate the statement and to clear up the mystery 
 which renders it spurious. Therefore, we are forced to 
 
18 THE TIME. 
 
 the hypothesis that the statement was made retrospec- 
 tively. After the whole fact of the martrydom of Jesus 
 was before his disciples, and from the tenor of the per- 
 sons engaged in it, it was supposed the plot originated in 
 the conspiracy of some priests and scribes. So Mark and 
 Luke viewed the situation. Therefore Mark leaves the 
 high-priest out of the drama to the very last scene (xiv. 
 60), and Luke exonerates him altogether, and mentions 
 his name no more in connection with Jesus. Matthew 
 (xxvi. 59) and John (xviii. 19), who place the high-priest 
 at the head of the proceedings had against Jesus, must 
 naturally have supposed, retrospectively, of course, that 
 Caiaphas, the high-priest, was the principal figure also in 
 the primary conspiracy. Therefore Matthew states, it 
 was in the high-priest's palace, and John adds the very 
 words of that dignitary on that occasion. All this sug- 
 gests that in the early Church there were two different 
 traditions on the whole tenor of the martrydom of Je^us : 
 one in Judea, chronicled by Mark; and another outside 
 thereof, chronicled by Matthew. Luke and John made 
 attempts to harmonize both, as we shall have frequent 
 occasions to notice. The fact could have been but one ; 
 hence the two different traditions point to two different 
 retrospective views of the same fact. 
 
 II. THE TIME. 
 
 Both Mark and Matthew narrate in the same words 
 that the conspirators said, u not on the feast-day," their 
 designs against Jesus should be carried into effect, " lest 
 there be an uproar of (among) the people." This state- 
 ment is somewhat indefinite. It leaves it uncertain 
 whether the design was to be carried out before or after 
 the feast ; and whether the uproar of the people was ap- 
 prehended by the capture and execution of Jesus, or by 
 the contrary thereof, viz., to let him continue his work to 
 the feast-day. Before we can clear up this, obscurity, we 
 must correct an error. 
 
 Many commentators, so also Adam Clarke, suppose the 
 words, " Not on the feast-day," were put in by Mark and 
 repeated by Matthew ; because it was usual for the Jews 
 to punish criminals at the public festivals. In this case, 
 however, the conspirators wanted to make an exception, 
 because they apprehended an uproar of the people. This 
 is a mistake. It was law in Israel, in all cases of capital 
 
THE SECRET CONCLAVE. 19 
 
 punishment except one, that the execution followed the 
 ruulition of the sentence directly on the same, or the very 
 nrxt day, so that it was a standing formula, pJJ70 f'N 
 pin DX which signifies both: "Justice must not be 
 delayed;" and, also, "Justice must not be made cruel." 
 The time between the sentence and its execution was con- 
 sidered the most tormenting to the criminal, and was, 
 therefore, made as short as possible.* 
 
 It was prohibited not only to execute a criminal on 
 Sabbath, or a feast-day, but also to open his trial on 
 Friday, or the eve of a holy day; because, if found guil- 
 ty, he could not be executed the next day.f Only in one 
 case, the Zaken Mamrai, the law ordains his execution to 
 take place in Jerusalem, and so near one of the high 
 feasts, not on the feast, that all the pilgrims might hear 
 and see ; because, in his case, the Bible ordains ( Deuter. 
 xvii. 13), public proceedings to be made known to all the 
 people.l 
 
 A Zaken Mamrai, literally "the rebellious senator," is 
 an ordained judge and teacher, eligible into the Sanhedrin, 
 and entitled to plead before that body, who willfully de- 
 cides cases in law contrary to the laws made by the San- 
 hedrin. After he has been found guilty thereof the first 
 time, before the Sanhedrin, he is reprimanded and retain- 
 ed in his office. If he decides again contrary to the law 
 of the land, with rebellious intentions, he is tried and, if 
 found guilty, sent to the Sanhedrin, in Jerusalem, kept 
 there to the next holy day, and then put to death pub- 
 licly. 
 
 Jesus was no Zaken Mamrai. In the first place, he was 
 no ordained judge and teacher, in the sense of the law ; 
 and in the second place, he held no office as public judge 
 and teacher. But if both had been the case, he could not 
 have been condemned to death as such at the first trial. 
 Aside of all these considerations, it was not so easy to find 
 one guilty as Zaken Mamrai; for also the second time, .he 
 had to be tried first in the court of his own district and 
 Jesus was a Galilean and then, if found guilty, he was 
 sent to the Sanhedrin, in Jerusalem, where he had the 
 right of appeal. The last point to be considered is this : 
 
 * See Maimonides, Mishnah Thorah, Hilchoth Sanhedrin, xii. 
 4, and xiii. 1. 
 
 t Ibid. xi. 2, and sources quoted in loco cit. 
 I Ibid. Hilchoth Mamrim, iii. 8. 
 
20 THE TIME. 
 
 None but the high Sanhedrin could decree the execution 
 of the Zaken Mamrai ; and there was none in Jerusalem 
 from 30 to 40 A. c. But we discuss this point hereafter. 
 It is certain that Jesus could not have been tried and 
 condemned as a Zaken Mamrai', no other criminal was ex- 
 ecuted on any feast in Jerusalem ; hence the words of the 
 evangelists, " not on the feast-day," refer to no Jewish 
 law or custom. 
 
 There are other commentators, and among them also 
 David Frederic Strauss, who understand the evangelical 
 statement so : The conspirators resolved to dispose of Je- 
 sus in any manner, but not on the feast-day ; because they 
 feared an uproar among the numerous pilgrims in Jerus- 
 alem, among whom Jesus was very popular, some of them 
 believing he was a prophet. Therefore they resolved to 
 wait till after the feast, and then execute their evil designs. 
 We must presuppose, in order to justify this view, that 
 the pilgrims were friendlier disposed toward Jesus than 
 the citizens of Jerusalem, which is not supported by any 
 statement of the evangelists, or any other evidence. On 
 the contrary, Mark and Matthew let the reader believe 
 that those who made the demonstration, when Jesus en- 
 tered the city, were chiefly citizens of the capital ; and 
 John evidently thinks the people from Jerusalem came 
 out to see the Lazarus miracle, and many of them believ- 
 ed. Again, we must suppose that these conspirators did 
 not know that Jesus and his disciples also might have left 
 the city and the country during the seven days of the 
 feast, which would have frustrated their designs altogeth- 
 er. This view of the situation renders the whole proceed- 
 ings unintelligible. First, they resolved not to do it on 
 the feast-day, because they apprehended an uproar, and 
 then they did do it after all, and on the very day. It 
 must not be asserted that they changed resolves, because 
 after the meeting Judas Iscariot betrayed his master; for 
 his treachery had no influence on the people of whom an 
 uproar was apprehended. The situation remained un- 
 changed. Therefore, we are obliged to understand the 
 words, " not on the feast-day," to convey the conspira- 
 tors' resolution of executing their design before the feast- 
 day, as on that day particularly the danger of an uproar 
 threatened. Where was the particular danger just that 
 day ? Let us investigate. 
 
THE SECRET CONCLAVE. 21 
 
 III. THE SITUATION. 
 
 Luke fxxii. 1) understood the statements of Mark 
 and Matthew exactly as \vedo. He savs ; 
 
 "Now the tVast ,>f unleav,n(MH,rea<ldn-w nijr],, Nv hieh is called 
 
 1KlSS ',T7 : n i An<1 ' "' hlei pr "' StS ;m<1 8cri ^8 "Ul?l't how 
 they nn-ht kill him; for they feared the people." 
 
 It was not exaetly two days before the feast; the time 
 set by Mark and Matthew is too short for the transaction, 
 t was shortly before the feast. The danger apprehend.-d 
 was connected especially with the feast' of unleavened 
 bread Therefore the conspirators resolved to dispose ot 
 him before the feast. And why did they seek to kill 
 him ? "for they f oared the people." They did not merely 
 tear the people, in disposing of Jesus : they apprehended 
 also an uproar on the feast, if he was permitted continu- 
 ing his work among the people. So and not otherwise 
 we can understand Luke. 
 
 Of what nature could that apprehended danger be? 
 The conspirators could not have thought of the probabili- 
 ty of a quarrel leading to excesses among the people on 
 the feast; because the Synoptics give us to understand, 
 everywhere, that the people were in favor of Jesus. His 
 opponents were the high dignitaries, chief priests, scribes 
 tc., who could not be expected to make an uproar Or 
 was it all fanaticism on the part of the conspirators, as is 
 generally supposed? If there was any special cause in 
 the teachings of Jesus (which we can not discover) to i<r- 
 nite the fanaticism to bloodthirsty fury, then the question 
 ;es, Why were not the masses fanaticized? why just the 
 leading class? As a general thing, fanaticism is sought 
 nrst and foremost among the illiterate masses ; last and 
 least among the cultivated and refined ones. Besides 
 Caiapba*, with his chief priests and scribes, holding office 
 under the Roman authority, were certainly less religious 
 and patriotic more Latinized and Paganized than the 
 bulk of the people; hence, rather less zealous than others 
 111 matters of religion or national law. There is evidently 
 a mystery at the bottom of the priests' conduct ; a mysterV 
 winch the expounders of the Gospel have not attempted 
 to unravel. We think, however, its solution is plainly 
 given in the words of John, and in cotemporary history 
 and literature. Let us hear John first (xi. 45 to 50) 
 
22 THE SITUATION. 
 
 " Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a 
 council, and said, What do we ? for this man doeth many mira- 
 cles. If we left him thus a'orie, all men wi 1 believe on him; and 
 the Romans shall come and take away both our place and na- 
 tion And one of them, named Caiaphas being the high-priest 
 that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor con- 
 sider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the 
 people, and that the whole nation perish not." 
 
 Take away the marvelous embellishment and the ana- 
 chronism from this piece ; take also out of the account the 
 Sanhedrin, none of which existed from 30 to 40 A. c. , 
 and here we ha,ve the key to the mystery: "If we let 
 him thus go on, all will believe in him ; and the Romans 
 will come and take away both our place and our nation" 
 (land and people). There is no fanaticism in these sober 
 and political words. 
 
 Jesus had been proclaimed the Messiah, the ruler of 
 the Jews, and the restorer of the kingdom of heaven. No 
 Roman ear could understand these pretensions, otherwise 
 than iu their rebellious sense. No Roman had ever dis- 
 tinguished between a spiritual and political kingdom of 
 heaven. The proclamations of the disciples, if supported 
 by the demonstrations of the multitude, could have been 
 called rebellion only by the Roman authorities. There 
 was the danger. Immediate precedences justified those 
 apprehensions. Because a Jewish vagabond in Rome, 
 with three men as his accomplices, obtained purple and 
 gold of Fluvia for the temple of Jerusalem, and turned it 
 to their own use, the emperor Tiberius drove all the Jews 
 out of Rome, took four thousand of them and sent them 
 as soldiers to the pestilential island of Sardinia, and 
 punished a greater number of them, who were unwilling 
 to become soldiers. (Joseph. Ant., xviii., iii. 5.) At that 
 particular time, this was justice in Rome at least justice 
 to the Jews. Not only this case, but another of the same 
 outrageous character, was fresh in the memory of those 
 men. A. religious enthusiast called the Samaritans to- 
 gether on their holy Mount Gerizzim, where he promised 
 to work miracles for them. Some people going there con- 
 gregrated at Tirathaba, where Pilate's men who had seized 
 the roads, attacked those pilgrims, killed many of them, 
 took many prisoners, the principal of which, and also the 
 most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be 
 slain (Joseph. Ant. xviii., iv. 1, and Luke xiii. 1). Shortly 
 before this, a large number of unarmed men were attacked 
 
THE SECRET CONCLAVE. 23 
 
 by Pilate's diso-msed soldiers and slain by the scores in 
 Jerusalem, because they complained in a public meeting 
 over 1 date's pillage of the temple treasury. (Joseph., #id 
 
 xvm.,111. >>.) S.vm-s of this nature were not seldom in 
 Jerusalem. ( )n the slightest pretense the Roman soldiers 
 massacred and pilla-ed. The avarice of the Roman officials 
 the bloodthirst of their hirelings, and the brutality of 
 their provincial policy, fully justified the apprehension of 
 those men, |'If we let him thus go on, all will believe on 
 him ; and the Romans shall come and take away both our 
 place and our nation." Although this was certainly writ- 
 ten after the destruction of Jerusalem, still in the main it 
 was correct also in the days of Pilate. The multitude 
 did not mind this danger, as enthusiastic masses never see 
 far l>eyond the memento of their enthusiasm But the 
 wealthy citizens of Jerusalem, the heads and politicians of 
 the people, who must have known the feelings and inten- 
 tions of Pilate, dreaded a demonstration in favor of the 
 proclaimed Messiah, which they knew must have ended in 
 a bloody carnage and general pillage, followed by execu- 
 tions and confiscations, to gratify the domineering avarice 
 and bloodthirsty barbarism. 
 
 Caiaphas, according to John, Caiaphas was the heartless 
 man (or probably did he utter the words with a bleedino- 
 neart- who knows ?) who uttered the fatal words politi- 
 cal necessity demands from our hands the life of that man- 
 : is expedient for us that one man should die for the 
 people, and that the whole nation perish not " Political 
 necessity is the horrible phrase which has cost the lives of- 
 ten thousands of the best and noblest of mankind The 
 mind shudders at the contemplation of all the executions 
 and assassinations in behalf of political necessity, recorded 
 i history. Think for a moment of the armies slaughtered 
 but lately on our continent, from political necessity Think 
 of the late victims in East India, in Poland, in Paris 
 uiywhere almost, and you will easily comprehend the 
 curse the bloody import of the phrase, political necessity 
 M .s Caiaphas a tool of Rome, and wished to please his 
 masters by the prevention of a great popular insurrection 
 ainonjr h,s jwople ? or was he a patriot who really dreaded' 
 prospective consequences? or did he know certainly what 
 was eomnur, and meant fully what he said? Our con- 
 science revolting against the shedding of innocent blood 
 rorn political necessity, is naturally against Caiaphas and 
 
24 THE SITUATION. 
 
 his coadjutors. Still we have no right to condemn where 
 we can not ascertain the motives. Only He who is om- 
 niscient is the competent judge in this case. 
 
 Thus the situation is explained. The teachings of 
 Jesus in Jerusalem had excited the closest attention of 
 the assembled multitudes, and challenged the vigilance 
 
 ' and jealousy of the Roman authorities. A great demon- 
 stration in his favor was expected during the feast, when 
 the number of pilgrims amounted to over two millions, 
 according to Josephus. The high-priest and the men 
 around him apprehended the pretext for carnage, pillage, 
 and national calamity, and resolved upon disposing of 
 Jesus in time, as a political necessity. But they dreaded 
 the ire and fury of the masses, and could not capture 
 Jesus in the temple. Outside thereof, he was so jealously 
 gunrded in his secret abodes, that they could not discover 
 him. In this dilemma Judas Iscariot came and offered 
 to betray the Master, and to deliver him into their hands 
 in the silence of night. The motives of Judas must be 
 ascertained elsewhere in this treatise. 
 
 Why was the uproar, or rather the popular demonstra- 
 tion, in favor of Jesus expected on the first day of the 
 feast ? Because the first day all pilgrims were in the city 
 and in the vicinity of the temple mount, and all the citi- 
 zens of Jerusalem were disengaged. The second day 
 many of the pilgrims left (Deuter., xvi. 7), and many of 
 the citizens of Jerusalem went about their usual business 
 (Levit., xxiii. 7, 8). Besides, for those who believed in a 
 Messiah to come, he had to make his appearance on the 
 Feast of Passover. It was believed "on this day they 
 (Israel) were redeemed, and on it they will be redeemed 
 hereafter,"* (Mechilta, Bo xiv.) 
 
 Therefore the first day of the Passover feast was selected 
 
 - for a public demonstration, to proclaim the Messiah and 
 the kingdom, by the assembled multitude, in strict con- 
 formity to the prejudices of those who believed, as the 
 \vholeMessianic scheme, from beginning to end, had been 
 conducted. It was this demonstration which the con- 
 spirators meant to frustrate, by disposing of Jesus before 
 the feast. 
 
 p-vnj? 
 
THK SF.CRKT CONCLAVE. 25 
 
 IV. POLITICAL NKCKSSITV AND JEWISH ETHICS. 
 The idea of vicarious atonement, in anv form, is con- 
 trary (o Jewish ethies. The Law ordains (l)eut., xxv. 16), 
 "A man shall he put to death ior his own sin," and not for 
 the sin or crime committed by any other person. Noran- 
 i should protect the murderer against the arm of jus- 
 . (Numbers, xxxv., 31 to 34.) The principle of equal 
 rights and equal responsibilities is fundamental in the 
 Law. If the Law of God and as such it was received 
 denounces the vicarious atonement, viz., to slaughter an 
 innocent person to atone for the crimes of others, then 
 (iod must abhor it. So the ancient Hebrews must have 
 reasoned. \Vhen Abraham was willing to sacrifice his 
 son Isaac, God taught him that He accepts no human vic- 
 tim. When Moses prayed lor Israel having made the 
 golden calf, he offered himself a vicarious atonement for 
 his people.* But God replied, "Whosoever hath sinned 
 against me, him will I blot out of my book." This says 
 at once and emphatically, God accepts no vicarious atone- 
 ment, and is in full consonance with the analogous prin- 
 ciple of the Law. Therefore, from the standpoint of 
 Israel's religion ^nd law, Caiaphas and his conspirators 
 had no right to sacrifice Jesus from motives of political 
 necessity. 
 
 Two cases, recorded in the Bible, appear contrary to 
 the above principle. The first is that of Achan, the" son 
 of Charmi (Joshua, vii. lG),f and the second is that of 
 Seba, the son of Bichri (2 Samuel xx). However, both of 
 them are supposed to be criminals : the former violated 
 martial law in time of war, and the latter headed a rebel- 
 lion against King David. Still the expounders of the law 
 considered both cases violations of first principles. They 
 criticised Joshua as mildly as they could, by maintaining, 
 Achan was admitted to eternal life and happiness. In the 
 of Seba, son of Bichri, they tell us the following 
 Story, very important in this connection : 
 
 'When Nebuchadnezzar came up to destroy Jerusalem, 
 he stopped at Daphne of Antioch. The great Sanhedrin 
 went there to meet him. They asked him, 'Has the time 
 come for this house to be destroyed?' He replied, 'No; 
 but Joachim has rebelled against me. Deliver him' up to 
 
 * Compare in Exodus xxxii., verses 31 and 32, to verse 10. 
 Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin vi. 3. 
 
26 POLITICAL NECESSITY AND JEWISH ETHICS. 
 
 me, and I will go.' The men came to Joachim and said, 
 'Nebuchadnezzar wants thee.' Then he said, 'Are you 
 dealing thus, abandoning one life for another, abandon- 
 ing my life to save yours ? Is it not written in the 
 Law, Thou shalt not deliver up a servant to his mas- 
 ter ?' They replied, 'Thy sire (David) has not heeded 
 this 1 in the case of Seba, son of Bichri.' As he would 
 not listen to them, they took him, bound him, de- 
 livered him up to the king, and he was killed with great 
 cruelty. Nebuchadnezzar appointed in place of Joachim, 
 his son Jechoniah. When he arrived at his home, all the 
 Babylonians went forth to salute him. They asked, ' What 
 liast thou done?' to which he replied, 'Joachim rebelled 
 against me, I slew him, and appointed Jechoniah in his 
 place.' But they said, 'The proverb is, Raise not the good 
 dog of a wicked breed, much less the wicked dog of a 
 wicked breed.' He took the advice and returned to 
 Daphne of Antioch. Again the great Sanhedrin came to 
 meet him, and asked, 'Has the time come for this house to 
 be destroyed ?' He said, 'No; give me him whom I have 
 made king, and I will leave.' They went to Jechoniah 
 and said, 'Nebuchadnezzar wants thee.' Hereupon Jecho- 
 niah took all the keys of the temple, went up to the top 
 of the roof, and said, 'O God, thou dost consider us 
 worthy no longer to be thy stewards. Hitherto we were 
 thy faithful husbandmen ; but now here are thy keys.' 
 Some maintain, a hand of fire came out of heaven and 
 received the keys. Others say, he threw them heaven- 
 ward, and they fell down no more. Then the young 
 men of Israel mounted their roofs and threw themselves 
 down. So Nebuchadnezzar came, took Jechoniah and put 
 him in a dungeon, and none of those captured with him 
 ever left their prison ; and he exiled Jechoniah and the 
 great Sanhedrin with him." 5 * 
 
 We have translated literally and all of it ; because it is 
 directly to the point at issue, so that one feels tempted to 
 believe it was written to illustrate the very case of Caia- 
 phas versus Jesus. We learn from this Yeruslialmi pass- 
 age, in the first place, that the conduct of David or his 
 
 * Yerushalmi Shekalim, vi. 3. This passage is entirely disfig- 
 ured by omissions, in the Krotoschin edition of 1866; although 
 it is complete in the large Ein Jacob, Furth, Part ii., No. 45 ; and 
 with additional glossaries in Leviticus Rabbah, chapter xvi., 
 toward the end. 
 
THE SECRET CONCLAVE. 27 
 
 captain toward Seba, son of IJirhri, was considered a crime. 
 David had set a precedence, tor which alter four centuries 
 his scion, Joachim, suffered, Caiaphas might have pointed 
 to the same precedence in regard to Jesus, if he had main- 
 tained to be a Davidian. But he never did. On the 
 contrary, he denied it in clear language.* It "'as main- 
 tained for him, after his death, in order to fit certain 
 IJible passages into his life and the Messianic drama. 
 
 In the next place, we learn from the above Yerushalmi 
 passage, that the conduct of the Sanhedrin toward King 
 Joachim also was considered a crime, notwithstanding the 
 precedence. For not only did the treachery do them no 
 good, os Nebuchadnezzar returns and after all punishes 
 them, but also their conduct on the second occasion proves 
 that they were wrong in the first act. The second time 
 they say, they would not save God's temple by treachery 
 and wickedness; the young men preferred suicide to trea- 
 son, and the great Sanhedrin went into exile with their 
 king, in preference to betraying him. The French mag- 
 nates have not done so to Napoleon L, after the battle of 
 Waterloo. These sacrifices, however, were not made, be- 
 cause Jechoniah was their king ; they were made because 
 it was a fundamental principle of the law, based upon 
 Deuteronomy, xxiii. 16: life must not be saved by sacrific- 
 ing any innocent man. Therefore any private citizen had 
 precisely the same right and the same claim to the na- 
 tion's protection, as King Jechoniah had; and the advice 
 of Caiaphas, concerning Jesus, was given in violation of 
 a fundamental principle of Jewish law. 
 
 In the third place, the passage before us suggests, that 
 the principle in question was considered so well estab- 
 lished and so old, that the tradition committed to writing 
 in the third century A. c., places it up into the sixth cen- 
 tury B. c., as well known and well understood then by no 
 less an authority than the great Sanhedrin, then the 
 highest one of the nation at that time. In common law, 
 traditions of this kind are of the utmost importance, and 
 so this was to the ancient expounders of Jewish law. On 
 proper occasions, it re-appears as an undisputed princi- 
 ple throughout the Mishna, Talmud, and Midrash. It 
 was cast into the formula C'sDJ OJD COj }T?n PK "No 
 human life must be abandoned on account of any 
 
 * Mark, xii. 35 to 37, and parallel passages. 
 
28 POLITICAL NECESSITY AND JEWISH ETHICS. 
 
 (other) life ;" or literally, " We abandon no person 
 on account of a person. " * Therefore, when in the 
 beginning of the second century A. c., the violent 
 persecutions, chiefly against the observation of Jewish 
 law and custom, rendered it necessary that the teachers 
 should advise the people to abandon every law and cus- 
 tom of Israel whenever necessary to save human life, and 
 it had been made a maxim, " Whoever saves one life in 
 Israel, has done as well as though he had observed all 
 the Law ; and whoever sacrifices one is as wicked as 
 though he had transgressed every provision of the Law;" 
 also then it was maintained, that all the laws and customs 
 may be set aside to save life, except these three viz., 
 IDOLATRY, INCEST, and MURDER. By either of these 
 crimes, none must save either his own life or that of 
 others. The Talmud comments on this last point thus : 
 "Who will tell that thy blood is redder (or sweeter)? per- 
 haps the blood of that (sacrificed) man is reder than 
 thine. 77 Glossaries have added thereto, " To suffer mar- 
 tyrdom is one sin, viz., the destruction of human life ; to 
 escape it by murder is a double sin, viz. murder to the 
 subject and destruction of human life to the object." The 
 principle under discussion was also applied in the law of 
 self-defense, but this is foreign to our purpose, although it 
 ought to be studied by some of our legislators and judges. 
 Only in case of a direct attack upon a person with the in- 
 tent to kill, and the attack can not be dodged or repelled 
 without murder, not even by the sacrifice of a limb, the 
 law acknowledges the maxim of Rabbi Akiba "T^H 
 *pDn nS D'EHlp : "Thy life has the precedence to 
 
 the life of thy neighbor," viz., in the Biblical passage, 
 " That thy brother live with thee." In all other cases the 
 law adheres to the principle under discussion, as exempli- 
 fied by Ben Petora : " If two travel in the wilderness, and 
 but one of them has left a bottle of water; if both drink 
 thereof, both must die before they can reach an inhabited 
 place, and if only one drinks thereof, he may live to reach 
 an inhabited place, and his neighbor dies how must he 
 do? They must divide the water, and die both."f 
 
 There can not be any reasonable doubt, that the Jewish 
 
 * Babli, Sanhedrin 72 6., and parallel passages. 
 t Saphra, Behar, Paresah v. ; Baba Mezia, 62 a. 
 
TIM-: SI:<M:I:T CONCLAVE. 29 
 
 law in the time of Jesus was based upon the principle of 
 .-olidarity, viz., (he State has the duty to protect with all its 
 power every one of its members, and has no right what- 
 ever to withdraw this protection from any one, however 
 Useful, beneficial, or prudent his death may appear to one, 
 more, or all persons, unless he be ti criminal convicted ac- 
 e.irdiuL:; t<> law, of a crime which the law punishes with 
 death. The moralists of those days went so far in this 
 point as to maintain, it was not merely the letter of the 
 law, but it was the deeply seated sentiment of the Hebrew 
 people. One of them said this: " Israel is a scattered 
 sheep (Hock), said the prophet Jeremiah (L. 17). It was 
 Nebuchadnezzar who compared Israel to a wounded 
 sheep. As a sheep wounded in one of its limbs feels it in 
 all of them, so Israel; if one of them is killed, all the 
 others feel it and feel the affliction. It is otherwise among 
 Heathens; if one of them is killed, all the others rejoice 
 over his downfall."* The rabbinical formula for the 
 principle of solidarity is: HD Ht 
 "All Israel are surety for one another.' 
 
 The Hebrew people had just set an example of their 
 fidelity to the laws, which Caiaphas might have imitated. 
 Josephus narrates (Antiq., xviii., iii.) when Pontius Pil- 
 ate removed his army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, he had 
 the intention to abolish the Jewish laws. He began with 
 having carried into the city the ensigns with Csesar's ef- 
 figy on them. Multitudes of Jews came to Cesarea to re- 
 monstrate against this violation of the law ; but Pilate 
 insisted upon it. Not being able to pacify the Jews or 
 to get them out of Cesarea, he gave orders to his soldiers 
 to surround the square of the judgment seat. When the 
 Jews came again, he ordered the soldiers to surround 
 them, and then he threatened the petitioners with instant 
 death, unless they would leave him forthwith and go 
 home. " But they threw themselves upon the ground, 
 and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their 
 death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their 
 laws should be transgressed." This moved Pilate to 
 countermand his orders and to have the images carried 
 back from Jerusalem. In the face of this fact, the high- 
 priest and his conspirators had no excuse for the violation 
 
 Mechilta, Mesichta, Debachodesh, II. 
 
30 THE TWO ACCOUNTS. 
 
 of the law. It was their duty to exercise their influence 
 upon the people, to keep the peace, to act prudently and 
 cautiously, or to send Jesus and his disciples to a foreign 
 country to stay there until the mania abated. 
 
 So we are led back to our starting-point in this chapter. 
 These chief priests and scribes, who conspired against Je- 
 sus, were no representative men in Israel. They were Is- 
 rael's despots and the tools of Roman masters. This doc- 
 trine of political necessity, first uttered by another Roman 
 hireling, Herod of Galilee,* was not of Jewish origin, 
 and received not the sanction of the Jews. It was 
 truly Roman ; so much so, that also the very first 
 Christian princes on Rome's throne, the sons of Con- 
 stantine the Great, assassinated their cousins from mo- 
 tives of political necessity, f In the Roman law 
 the State is the main object, for which the individual 
 must live and die, with or against his will. In Jewish 
 law, the person is the main object for which the State 
 must live and die; because the fundamental idea of the 
 Roman law is power, and the fundamental idea of Jewish 
 law is justice. Therefore Caiaphas and his conspirators 
 did not act from the Jewish standpoint. They repre- 
 sented Rome, her principles, interests, and barbarous ca- 
 prices. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 THE LAST SUPPER. 
 I. THE TWO ACCOUNTS. 
 
 A review of the " Last Supper " which Jesus took 
 with his select disciples, as reported by the evangelists, 
 will disclose another feature of the story, the very coun- 
 terpart of the one just exhibited. 
 
 The Synoptics agree that Jesus ate his last meal in the 
 city of Jerusalem, with his twelve select disciples, and 
 that meal was the Paschal supper, which all Hebrews in 
 the city, residents and pilgrims, ate with great solemnity, 
 after the lambs or kids had been slaughtered in the tem- 
 
 * Josephus, Antiqu. xvii., v. 2. 
 
 f Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, iv. century, 1, part 1, xi. 
 
THE LAST SUPPKR. 31 
 
 pic court, and the blood sprinkled MS the Law prescribes. 
 John also speaks of a last supper which Jesus ate with. 
 his chosen disciples ( John, xiii. 2, 4), but he says it was 
 hrl'orc Kastcr (verse 1), consequently it was not the 
 Paschal supper, especially as according to John the cru- 
 cifixion took place the d'ay before the feast (Ibid,, xix. 
 14>, Mini the Paschal lamb was slaughtered in the af.er- 
 noon oi'that very day, the fourteenth day of Nissan, to be 
 consumed that evening at the opening of the feast. This 
 was the law in Israel, as ordained in Exodus (xii., 1 to 28). 
 
 No doubt is left as to the time when the Paschal lamb 
 was killed and the flesh eaten with unleavened bread and 
 bitter herbs. The Law is explicit on this point. It ap- 
 points the fourteenth day of Nissan for this observance 
 (Exodus, xii. 6, and Numbers, ix., 1 to 5). It permits only 
 one exception to this rule, viz., for those who are unclean 
 or out on a long journey, who might make the Passa the 
 fourteenth day of the next month (Ibid., 9 to 14). In both 
 cases it stipulates the precise time, " between twilight," of 
 the fourteenth to the fifteenth day. So was the Passover 
 kept by Joshua (v. 10), by Hezekiah (2 Chron., xxx. 
 15), by Joshiah (Ibid., xxxviii. 1), and by Zerubabel 
 (Ezra, vi. 19). The Bible adheres strictly to the evening 
 of the fourteenth day of the first month, as the time of 
 the Paschal meal. 
 
 The next source before us, to ascertain this point, is 
 the Mishnah, and there (Pesachirn v.) the precise time is 
 stated. The slaughtering of the lambs began after the 
 evening sacrifice was finished, on the fourteenth day of 
 Nissan, and no other day, which was half past two 
 p. M., except on Friday, when it was done at half 
 past one P. M., on account of the approaching Sabbath. 
 So the slaughtering of the lambs began about three 
 p. M., or on Friday at two P. M. The approach of the 
 evening closed the slaughtering, the people left the temple 
 mount, roasted the lambs and ate the Paschal meal. Ex- 
 actly the same time is mentioned by Josephus (Wars, vi., 
 ix. 3): " From the ninth hour to the eleventh," which is 
 from three to five p. M. 
 
 There is no opportunity left to the harmonizers to 
 make one story of the two. According to John, Jesus ate 
 no Paschal meal, did not live to see that feast again, was 
 captured the evening before Passover, and was crucified 
 
32 THE MESSENGERS AND THE CHAEGE. 
 
 before the feast opened. According to the Synoptics, 
 Jesus partook of the Paschal supper, was captured the 
 first night of the feast, and executed on the first day 
 thereof, which was on a Friday. We must necessarily 
 drop one date.' If John's is true, that of the Synoptics is 
 not, or vice versa. Agreeably to our canon of criticism, 
 we must drop John's date. The Church did the same. 
 But at the same time it must be borne in mind that John, 
 rejecting the Paschal supper and the establishment of the 
 eucharistby Jesus which he intentionally replaces by an- 
 other solemn act, viz., the washing of the disciples' feet 
 either had strong dogmatical reasons for this change, or 
 he considered the accounts of the Synoptics unhistorical, 
 because he was in possession of other traditions. Adopt- 
 ing the first view leads to the conclusion, that the dogma 
 or the observance to be set forth, had more weight with 
 John than the historical fact. Adopting the second view 
 leads to the conclusion, that at the time when John's 
 gospel was written, it was by no means certain or gener- 
 ally believed by Christians, that Jesus ate the Paschal 
 meal, as his last supper, and then and there established 
 the eucharist, although Paul had said so. Following, as 
 we must, the story of the Synoptics, we will now review it 
 in detail. 
 
 II. THE MESSENGERS AND THE CHARGE. 
 
 Mark (xiv. 12) and Matthew (xxvi. 17) report that on 
 the fourteenth day of Nissan the disciples asked Jesus 
 where he wished to eat the Paschal lamb ; so that it ap- 
 pears, he did not think of it, had not the disciples sug- 
 gested it. There is a difference in the name which these 
 two evangelists give to that day. Matthew calls it the 
 first day of the feast of the unleavened bread, and Mark 
 calls it the first day of unleavened bread; nevertheless 
 both refer to the same day, which was a feast in Galilee, 
 no work being done that day, and was none in Judea, 
 where manual labor was suspended only in the afternoon ; 
 while in both provinces, no leavened bread was used that 
 dav after the fifth hour, so that it was properly called the 
 first day of unleavened bread. 
 
 But this merely proves, that Mark wrote from tradi- 
 tions current in Judea, and Matthew derived his from Gal- 
 ilee,* where this custom was observed also in the second 
 
 * Mishnah, Pesachim iv. 5. 
 
HIE LAST SUPPER. 33 
 
 century,* iind is one more evidence in our favor concern- 
 ing Mark. 
 
 Luke (xxii. 7) differs from his two predecessors in two 
 points. He does not say that, the diseiples reminded 
 Jesus, Imt lie on liis own account sent two of them to the 
 city to prepare the meal ; and states plainly it was not on 
 the fourteenth day of Nissan hut at least one day pre- 
 vious, as is evident from his expression, "Then came the 
 day of unleavened bread," so that it had not come yet. 
 Luke adds the names of those two disciples, Peter and 
 John. One might be led to believe, he had additional 
 and reliable sources and contradicts his colleagues, there- 
 fore, in the important moments of time, motive, and per- 
 sons if it was not so extremely easy to discover his 
 motives. Luke was the author of the Acts of the Apostles, 
 or at least a portion thereof. In that book, Peter and 
 John are represented as the heads of the Apostolic college, 
 after the death of Jesus. By what right did they occupy 
 that position? They were neither more learned nor more 
 inspired than the others. Luke looks ahead, and has them 
 appointed by Jesus as his messengers to prepare the Pass- 
 over for him. It was a rule among the ancient Hebrews, 
 "A man's messenger is like unto himself," i. e., he exercises 
 the same authority, in certain points, of course. This 
 rule was derived from the ancient custom prevailing in 
 preparing the Passover lamb, which, according to the 
 letter of the Law (Exodus, xii. 3), ought to be provided 
 and slaughtered by every Israelite for himself, but it was 
 held, it might be done by a messenger. f This was writ- 
 ten in the Mechilta of Rabbi Ishmael (Bo, chapters 
 iii. and v.), which Luke must have seen, as that rabbi 
 was au elder contemporary of Mark. Luke embraced 
 this favorable opportunity to have Peter and John ap- 
 pointed to exercise the authority of Jesus, most likely 
 with the intention of conciliation among Paul-Christians 
 and Peter-Christians, each of whom claimed direct ap- 
 pointment for their respective apostle. But we will not 
 ar^ue this point now, as we must chronicle several 
 other points in this chapter, in which Luke departs from 
 the statements of his predecessors. 
 
 Mark informs us next, that Jesus sent two of his dis- 
 
 * Ibid 6. 
 
 f inicD DIN sp inVw ncN 1*02 are the words in the Mechilta. 
 
34 THE MESSENGEKS AND THE CHARGE. 
 
 ciples to the city, and told them this : " Go ye into the 
 city, and there shall meet 3*011 a man bearing a pitcher of 
 water; follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say 
 ye to the good man of the house, the Master saith, Where 
 is the guest-chamber, where I shall eat the Passover with 
 my disciples ? And he will show you a large upper room, 
 furnished and prepared ; there make ready for us. And 
 his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found 
 as he had said unto them; and they made ready the Pass- 
 over." There are two miracles in this account. The 
 first is the man with the pitcher of water who should 
 guide the disciples to the right house, which is an imita- 
 tion of Rebecca guiding Elieser to the right place, when 
 he met her at the well (Genesis, xxiv.); and of the widow 
 at Zarephath, whom Elijah met somewhere near the well, 
 to lead him to her house (1 Kings, xvii. 8); only that in 
 Mark's account, the damsel and the widow are replaced 
 by a man. How did Mark come by this embellishment? 
 Idle imitated the old rabbinical story of the prophet Eli- 
 jah and that widow, whose son died suddenly, and that 
 son was no other personage, according to tradition, than 
 Jonah. The widow accused the prophet, her son had 
 died on account of his presence in her house. Then Eli- 
 jah prayed, " O Lord of the universe, is it not enough 
 that so many afflictions have passed over my head : why 
 must I also bear the accusation of this hapless woman ? 
 O teach coming generations that the dead will resurrect ; 
 give back the soul to this child. " God granted his pray- 
 er, and the rabbis learn from the event that the dead will 
 resurrect in reward of charity.* Mark begins here a 
 story, the end of which is the resurrection of Jesus. The 
 object of this resurrection was the same, as expressed in 
 Elijah's prayer, that coming generations (or the present 
 generation with Paul) may know that the dead will res- 
 urrect. Having this popular legend before him, Mark, 
 or somebody before him, was naturally led back to Elijah's 
 arrival at Zarephath the well, the pitcher of water, the 
 marvelous discovery of the right house in the two cases 
 mentioned; and he embellished his story accordingly. 
 
 The next miracle in Mark's narrative is, that a man in 
 Jerusalem should have vacant a furnished and prepared 
 upper room, when two millions of pilgrims sojourned in 
 
 * Pirke Rabbi Elieser, Chapter 33. 
 
Tin: LAST SUPPER. 35 
 
 and around the city. The man, it appears, was not <lis- 
 tiiiLrnUhed tor cither wealth or piety; tor his name is not 
 mentioned, lie \v is not present at the supper, and no fur- 
 ther reference is made to him. It rather appears Mark 
 thought of an ordinary man, \vho had a furnished room 
 to let tor such purposes, and Jesus knew it prophetically. 
 Mark had not far to travel to discover that room, only 
 from Elijah to his disciple Klisha, for whom that great 
 woman ofShonem, the Shunamith, had furnishe<l so rich- 
 ly an upper chamber (2 Kings, iv. 8). Why should 
 not somebody have also furnished an upper room for the 
 M< iah ? 
 
 Matthew, it appears, understood that these embellish- 
 ments were mere imitations, and therefore his account of 
 the affair runs thus: Jesus simply said to some of his 
 disciples the number is not given "Go into the city, to 
 such a man, and say unto him, the Master saith, My time 
 is at hand ; I will keep the Passover at thy house \vith mv 
 disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed 
 them." Xo pitcher, no man, no water, no miracle at all 
 is mentioned in this simple order and its execution. Mat- 
 thew would not even take for granted that just two of his 
 disciples went on that errand; two, more, or all of them 
 may have gone to the city, and Jesus met them at the ap- 
 pointed house and hour, as it actually appears from verse 
 20. 
 
 Imagine now the dilemma of Luke with these two con- 
 flicting accounts before him. The best he could do was, 
 to make use of both. In the eighth verse, he uses the 
 account of Matthew. In the ninth he introduces the 
 Dew question, "Where shall we prepare it?" to bring 
 in literally, in verse ten, etc., the account of Mark. It was 
 too much for Luke that Jesus should have waited to 
 the last day with the preparation for the Paschal meal, 
 and that then he had to be reminded of it by his disciples ; 
 therefore, in the first instance, he changed the accounts 
 of Matthew and Mark. He could not well omit Mark's 
 miracles in his account, being a welcome embellishment, 
 nor could he ignore Matthew's simple narrative of the af- 
 fair; and he contrived to unite them into one. Remark- 
 able, however, it might appear, that Matthew alone has 
 the words, "My time is at hand." But the thing is simple. 
 Mark and Luke having brought in the prophetical knowl- 
 
36 THE OPENING OF THE SUPPER, 
 
 edge of Jesus by the miracles mentioned, had no neces- 
 sity for the words of Matthew put in with the same in- 
 tention, because he rejected those miracles. 
 
 It is evident, however, that neither of these accounts 
 was taken from any original gospel; that none of the 
 evangelists cared particularly to report correctly the words 
 of Jesus; that Mark may have been the inventor of those 
 miracles, or he may have received them traditionally of 
 the congregation where he lived, while Matthew's con- 
 gregation did not have that tradition ; and that we do 
 not know what Jesus said on that occasion. The only fact 
 in which the Synoptics agree, is that Jesus sent some of 
 his disciples to the city, to make secret preparations to eat 
 together the Paschal meal ; and also this is doubtful, not 
 merely on account of the silence of John on all these 
 points, but on account of the miracles and prophetical 
 vision in this connection, and the outspoken object of each 
 evangelist in shaping the story as he did. 
 
 Important in this fact, if such it is, is the secrecy. 
 Jesus, or his disciples, must have known w r ell that he 
 was not safe anywhere in the city, except among the 
 crowd on the temple mount. The evangelists give us to 
 understand that he never remained in the city overnight; 
 while Luke expressly states (xxii. 39) that Jesus went the 
 last night to the Mount of Olives, "as he was wont," viz., 
 as he did every night. It appears even, that in the sub- 
 urbs also, he preferred the least occupied spots, in order 
 to evade discovery and surprise. Therefore the evangel- 
 ists agree that he took meals in the house of Simon the 
 leper, since the lepers' homes were shunned by every 
 Hebrew, as they are to-day in the same locality, by the 
 inhabitants not afflicted with that horrible disease. 
 
 III. THE OPENING OF THE SUPPER. 
 
 When it was evening, as Matthew says ; or in the 
 evening, as Mark has it the proper time was before the 
 approach of night Jesus sat down with twelve of his 
 disciples to eat the Paschal supper. According to Mark 
 and Matthew, the solemn rneal was opened without grace 
 or benediction. During the meal Jesus spoke of him 
 who would betray him. No ceremony was performed 
 until the meal was nearly over, when Jesus broke the 
 bread and spoke the benediction over the wine. If any 
 evidence is required that neither Mark nor Matthew had 
 
Tin: LAST sriM'Kii. 37 
 
 seen the Paschal meal, or described that of Jesus, it 
 is furnished ri-j;ht here. They do not mention any one 
 |)oi:it connected with the Paschal supper, the ceremonies 
 of which weiv < -i -iblis'.ed, as we shall describe below. 
 They mention only one ceremony, viz., the breaking of 
 the bread, and the cup of wine after the meal, which is 
 not only a mistake, but shows conclusively that cither 
 of them had seen the Paschal supper, after the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem, in some Jewish house, and the cere- 
 monies connected therewith, called the Seder. Therefore 
 no mention whatsoever is made of the main thing the 
 Paschal lamb and the bread is broken after the meal, 
 which was done by the Jews after closing the Paschal 
 meal, outside of Jerusalem, when the altar had been de- 
 stroyed; and no Paschal lamb was eaten. They called 
 that last piece of bread Aphikoman, and still call it so, to 
 take the place of the dessert after the meal. 
 
 The ceremonies at the Paschal meal in Jerusalem the 
 altar still in existence are minutely and precisely de- 
 scribed in the Mishnah (Pesachim x.) and elsewhere. The 
 proceedings were thus: All leaning upon the cushions 
 around the table, the first cup of wine was served, 1 and 
 grace pronounced over the same and the feast, in words 
 still preserved in every Hebrew prayer-book. This cup 
 of wine being disposed of, vegetables and sauce were 
 placed on the table, and the vegetables, dipped in the 
 sauce, were blessed and eaten. Next the unleavened bread, 
 the bitter herb, and a piquant sauce called Haroseth still 
 well known among Jews were served, and the bitter 
 herb, dipped in the Haroseth, was blessed and eaten. Then 
 the Paschal lamb was placed on the table with portions of 
 another sacrifice. One of the company asked the que-- 
 tion, why all this was done, during which the second cup 
 of wine was served. TLe head of the table explaining, 
 narrated the story of the exode, closed with a hymn, 
 sp >!< the second time grace over the wine, and all dis- 
 j)o-ed of the same. Now came the breaking of the bread 
 and the eating and drinking. This finished, the third 
 cup of wine was served, and grace after meal was pro- 
 nounced. Alter which the fourth cup was served, and the 
 ceremonies closed with hymns and psalms, and disposing 
 of the fourth cup of wine. 
 
 Luke was aware that Mark and Matthew had not given 
 
38 THE OPENING OF THE SUPPER. 
 
 a correct description of the Paschal supper, and attempt- 
 ed to improve the report. He begins the supper thus : 
 
 " And he said unto them : With desire I have desired to eat 
 this passover with you before I suffer : for I say unto you I will 
 not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of 
 God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said : lake 
 this, and divide it among yourselves: for I say unto you, 1 wi 
 not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God shall 
 ,-ome And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and 
 gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you ; 
 this do in remembrance of me." 
 
 Luke begins correctly, but makes a mistake in having 
 the bread broken right after the first cup of wine was 
 handed round, which was done so at every festive meal, 
 except at the one described, and has but two cups of wine 
 instead of four. So we know that Luke did not describe 
 what actually happened that evening. He had seen the 
 Jewish custom of opening the festive meals with grace 
 over the wine and bread, and made of it an introduction 
 to the last supper, without knowing that just that even- 
 ing the custom was changed. Knowing this, we also 
 know what to think of the words, which Luke only has 
 Jesus to say, "With desire I have desired to .eat this 
 passover with you." They are certainly Lukes, 
 found no mention in Mark and Matthew of the main 
 thino- the Passover lamb and must have known that on 
 account of the flesh of the lamb, Jesus, at the risk of his 
 life went to Jerusalem. Every other dish or meal he 
 might have enjoyed outside of the city, in his silent re- 
 treat, and in the undisturbed company of his friends, 
 without apprehension of being surprised by his enemies. 
 But the flesh of the Paschal lamb such was the law 
 (Dent xvi. 5) had to be eaten within the limits of the 
 citv of Jerusalem,- in a house or court, and not in the 
 street.i Therefore Jesus had to go to a room in Jerusa- 
 lem and went there even at the risk of his life. Never- 
 theless neither Matthew nor Mark makes the least men- 
 tion of the lamb itself or the eating thereof. I here- 
 fore Luke thought proper to write the above introductory 
 words. So we do not know what Jesus did or said before 
 eating that last supper. 
 
 * See Maimonides; H. Korban Pesach, i. 3, and the sources in 
 loco cit. 
 
 t Ibid., i. 5. 
 
TUT. LABI sm-PER. 39 
 
 IV. .in>.\s is< ARIOT AND THE SITUATION. 
 
 What did .JeMis say or do during the meal? Mark 
 (xiv. 18) replies thus: 
 
 "And as they sat and did eat, /lesus said. Verily I say unto you, 
 our <>f you w'hieh eateth with me shall betray me. And Uiey 
 beir.m to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one hy one, Is it I? 
 and another said. Is it I ? And lie answered and said unto them, 
 It is one of the twelve that dip)>eth with me in the dish. The 
 Son of man indeed iroeth, as it is written of him ; but woe to that 
 man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for thai, 
 man if he had never been born." 
 
 Matthew adds to this (xxvi. 25) that Judas asked Je- 
 sus, " Master, is it I ?" to which Jesus replied, " Thou 
 iiast said it." According to Mark, Jesus suspected one of 
 the twelve without naming him ; but according to Mat- 
 thew, the suspected one was Judas Iscariot, and Jesus said 
 so to his face. Luke informs us (xxii. 23) that the dis- 
 ciples inquired among themselves who of them might be 
 the traitor, and brings in a new conversation : " And there 
 was also a strife among them, which of them should be 
 accounted the greatest," which ends with the exoneration 
 of Peter, that he was not the traitor, and leaving one to 
 believe that the eleven remaining might all have been 
 the traitors in the estimation of Jesus. We have evi- 
 dently to deal here with two different narratives : one 
 that Jesus pointed out the traitor, and another that he did 
 not. This difference is very important. If Jesus indeed 
 pointed out, before all the disciples, Judas as the sus- 
 pected traitor, we can only understand it as an indirect 
 suggestion to go and to commit the treachery forthwith. 
 " Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly" 
 (John, xxiii. 27). The mortification of Judas at being 
 thus accused and exposed is sufficient to drive any man to 
 villainy if he has not a character of solid principles. The 
 only question in this point, is, whether Matthew's report 
 is correct : and this is decided by John in favor of Mat- 
 thew. Although John denies the Paschal supper, changes 
 the words of Jesus and the entire situation, and makes 
 use of this particular occasion to glorify Peter and John, 
 as Luke had done before ; still he confirms the statement 
 of Matthew, that Jesus pointed out Judas as the traitor, 
 induced him indirectly to do his work speedily, and giv- 
 ing him the signal by a sop handed to him, prompted 
 him to do the deed now and forthwith (John, xiii. 21 to 
 
40 JUDAS ISCAEIOT AND THE SITUATION. 
 
 30). It must he borne in mind that with Mark and John 
 Judas does not commit suicide. The differences in the 
 narratives of Matthew and Luke (in the Acts) concern- 
 ing this suicide, point distinctly to mythical traditions ; 
 and John (xviii. 5, 9), in his narrative of the capture of 
 Jesus, almost exonerates Judas; at any rate, he modifies 
 the crime very considerably. 
 
 Why did Jesus suggest to Judas, "That thou doest, do 
 quickly?" The matter appears very plain to us. Like 
 (Jaiaphas and his conspirators, Jesus must have been 
 aware of the state of political affairs. Like them, he 
 must have dreaded the popular demonstration, ripe among 
 his admirers, to burst forth the very next day. John (vi. 
 15) informs us plainly that Jesus would have been pro- 
 claimed King of Israel already in Galilee if he had not 
 retreated "into a mountain himself alone." That Pon- 
 tius Pilate certainly understood under the title, Messiah 
 the king (the political chief of the nation), is evident from 
 the superscription of the cross, " Jesus of Nazareth, King 
 of the Jews," which he did not remove in spite of all pro- 
 testations of the Jews. Like Caiaphas, Jesus also must 
 have been convinced that such a demonstration would 
 have cost thousands of lives, and would have been fraught 
 with dire calamities to the whole people, without any 
 hope of success, or even the slightest glimpse of good to 
 be derived from the bloody conflict. He must have 
 known that the combat, inevitably to follow that demon- 
 stration, first and foremost, would have cost the lives of 
 his disciples and friends, and the blood thus shed and 
 uselessly shed, too would naturally fall to his account 
 before the omniscient Judge. On the other hand, he was 
 in the hands of his disciples and friends, who protected 
 and guarded him faithfully and jealously, so that his se- 
 cret abode could not easily be discovered. Among them 
 there were certainly not a few patriotic enthusiasts who 
 acted with the agitated multitude, and waited impatient- 
 ly for the demonstration to see the Master proclaimed 
 King of Israel, who believed in the success of their pol- 
 icy, notwithstanding the huge power of Home/ Mad en- 
 terprises of this kind were not rare at that time among 
 the Hebrew people. Tens of thousands of patriotic men 
 and women lost their lives in such futile attempts, rely- 
 ing upon supernatural aid. In this dilemma, Jesus re- 
 solved magnanimously to sacrifice himself to save the 
 
THE LAST SUPPER. 41 
 
 lives ofhis disciples and friends, and to protect his people 
 MiTiinsl the carnage, pillage, and cahimil v which other- 
 wise would have been sun- to conic. A spi-edv realization 
 Of his rcs(,lntion was necessary; a lew hours later it 
 Blight have been too late. But he was in the hands of 
 liis disciples, from which then- was no ex-ape. Therefore 
 he forcibly suggested to Judas Iscariot to go and com- 
 plete his treachery as fist as possible. Let us follow the 
 matter up from the beginning. 
 
 Murk, Matthew, and John agree that Jesus and his 
 disciples enjoyed a sumptuous meal at the house of Simon 
 the Leper. .John adds (xii. 2), that Lazarus was one of the 
 guests, and Martha waited upon them. While at table, 
 so Mark informs us, "there came a woman having an 
 alabaster box of ointment of spikenard, very precious - 
 and she brake the box and poured it on his head/' So 
 also Matthew says, and omits only the breaking of the 
 box. John changes the unknown woman into Mary 
 omits the breaking of the box, has the feet of Jesus 
 instead of his head anointed, and adds the wipino- o f 
 feet with her hair, which he has taken from Luke 
 8). Mark then observes: "And there were some 
 that had indignation within themselves, and said Why 
 was this waste of ointment made?" Matthew confirms 
 tnrs, and adds that the "some" of Mark were "his (Jesus') 
 disciples." Strange, however. John denies that those who 
 t indignation were "some disciples/' but maintains it 
 was Judas Iscariot only. The three accounts agree that 
 Jesus took the part of the anointing woman, and said 
 she had anointed his body for the burial. Why was 
 tins costly box broken ? Why was the precious ointment 
 worth over three hundred pence, poured on his head? 
 VV hy the indignation ? Why does this incidence prompt 
 Judas to betray his master, in which ail accounts a-ree? 
 \\ iiv did John change the anecdote? The breaking of 
 the box shows that a holy ceremony, and not a profane 
 ct, was performed. "The vessel u,ed to holy purposes 
 nm.-t not be used again to profane purposes/' was an 
 dished usage among the ancient Hebrews ; therefore 
 m numerous instances, such vessels were broken The 
 i|"'"t"itf upon the head was intended to pour upon 
 ;>IH the s,gn and symbol of royalty. Meahah, the root 
 Meshiah, or Messiah, as the Galileans pronounced it 
 
42 JUDAS ISCARIOT AND THE SITUATION. 
 
 signifies, to anoint, and the Messiah is the anointed 
 one, the king. None of the kings of Israel was styled 
 the Messiah, unless he was anointed. According to the 
 opinion of some, not only every high-priest but also every 
 king of the house of David h.-.d to be anointed.* 
 
 The whole scene, as Mark and Matthew give it, bears 
 to striking a resemblance to the one described in the 
 second book of Kings (chap, ix), Jehu being anointed 
 king of Israel, that the intention of the story becomes 
 evident at once. In the case of Jehu, it is a lad, a pro- 
 phetical disciple of Elisha, sent by that prophet to Ramoth 
 Gilead, where he finds Jehu sitting among the other cap- 
 tains or princes of the host, exactly as Jesus is represented 
 to have sat among his disciples. Having led Jfthu alone 
 in a room, the lad poiirs the oil (or the ointment of spike- 
 nard) upon his head, and says : " Thus saith the Lord, the 
 God of Israel, I have anointed thee king over God's 
 people, over Israel.' 7 The lad disappears, and Jehu on 
 request communicates to the other princes what the lad 
 had done and said, upon which u they took every man 
 his garment, and put it under him on the top of the stairs, 
 and they blew the cornet, saying, "Jehu is king." This is 
 the beginning of a revolution in the kingdom of Israel. 
 The house of A hub is exterminated, and the Jehu dynasty 
 founded. It was the party of action among the admirers 
 of Jesus that had him anointed by a. woman (women take 
 the part of those lads of the prophets in the entire Gospel 
 story), in the expectation that his disciples w 7 ould do the 
 same as the princes did to Jehu proclaim him king of 
 Israel, and thus start the revolution at once. But there 
 were some among the disciples, Mark informs us, that 
 had indignation within themselves, and said, "Why was 
 this waste of the ointment made?" Those some, according 
 to Matthew all of the disciples, which is certainly doubt- 
 ful, like Jesus himself, were not willing to hurl the 
 people into a rebellion, in which success was impossible, 
 carnage and pillage certain. Therefore they murmured 
 against the woman, apparently because the money thus 
 squandered might have been given to the poor ; in reality, 
 however, they remonstrated against the plot. Jesus ob- 
 serving the dissension, quiets it at once, defending the 
 woman thus : " She had done what she could," (viz., 
 
 "'Talmud Babli Cherithoth, 5 b. 
 
THI-: LAST sriM'KK. 43 
 
 in the mission she had to fulfill); "she is come aford.and 
 to anoint my body to the burying," not to be king, but to 
 be buried, repudiating at once the idea of siding with the 
 partv of action, and giving them fully to understand that 
 they forced him to sacrifice himself in order to save the 
 lives ot many.* 
 
 Thus, and thus only, the conduct of Judas Iscariot be- 
 comes intelligible. Right after this happened, Mark tells 
 u>, " And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the 
 chief priests, to betray him unto them." So also Matthew 
 and John have it. Judas, like Jesus 'and Caiaphas, saw 
 the approach of the calamitous catastrophe, and must 
 have known the resolution of Jesus, rather to die than to 
 permit his disciples and his people to rush madly into the 
 abyss of certain death : therefore he went to the chief 
 priests to betray his secret abode, under the impression, 
 however, that Jesus would not be put to death (Matthew, 
 xxvii. 3). John alone changes this record of his pre- 
 decessors, and maintains it was Judas only who was of- 
 fended by the anointing scene, because he was a thief, and 
 tries to explain his treachery by mercenary motives. But 
 he does not succeed. The thirty silver-piecest are too small 
 an amount, especially for one who had the treasury of the 
 whole company of Jesus, to tempt him to so base an act. 
 Besides, he went to the chief priests before he knew they 
 would give him anything, and returned the money after 
 Jesus had been condemned to die. This does not look 
 like avarice. It is not in the plot of John's gospel to let 
 Jesus die for his own ; he must die because it was so fore- 
 ordained in the plan of Providence. Therefore he admits 
 not the real object of the anointing scene; says the woman 
 was Mary, who did it from gratitude and personal attach- 
 ment, and she did not anoint his head but his feet, which 
 i- no sign of royal anointment. Therefore he could do no 
 better than ascribe to Judas avarice as the motive of his 
 treachery. But the testimony of Mark and Matthew is 
 better than John's, in historical points. Besides, Luke, 
 who changes the whole story of the last supper, and on 
 the same ground which led John to change the story of 
 the meal in the house of Simon the leper, omits this alto- 
 
 me nine in Murk in evidently a later addition, as the word 
 Evangelion used there prov< 
 
 TThe thirty silver-pieces are not a t'act but an imitation of 
 Zachariah, xi. 12, 13, us is evident from Matthew, xxvii. 5. 
 
44 THE EUCHAKIST. 
 
 gcther ; still does not ascribe avarice to Judas, but says 
 in general terms (which John copied), " Then entered 
 Satan into Judas," etc., "and he went his way and com- 
 muned with the chief priests and captains, how he might 
 betray him unto them." 
 
 The treacherous intentions and covenanting with the 
 chief priests, being known to Jesus, it matters not by what 
 means, he suggested to Judas, at the last supper, to go and 
 accomplish his purpose at once. Luke gives as a partic- 
 ular reason for this urgency, the striie of the disciples, 
 which of them should be accounted the greatest. Al- 
 though Luke (ix. 46) gives to this strife a purely spir- 
 itual tenor, still the first source from which he took it, as 
 introduced at the last supper viz., Mark (x. 28) and 
 Matthew (xix. 27) speak distinctly of worldly power and 
 wealth, besides the promise of inheriting everlasting life. 
 We quote the passage from Matthew : 
 
 "Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have for- 
 saken all, and followed thee ; what shall we have therefor ? And 
 Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye which have 
 followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit 
 in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, 
 judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath for 
 saken houses or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, 
 or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hun- 
 dredfold and shall inherit everlasting life. But many that are 
 first shall be last, and the last shall be first." 
 
 This explains the situation fully. Many disciples of 
 Jesus had in view worldly power and wealth, as well as 
 eternal life. They wanted the revolution, and had anx- 
 iously anticipated the outbreak thereof on the first clay 
 of the feast. They had arranged the anointing scene at 
 the hou^e of Simon the leper. Jesus was in their hands, 
 and obliged either to stand at the head of a destructive 
 rebellion, with no prospect of any success, or to sacrifice 
 himself at once. He preferred the latter, and therefore 
 urged upon Judas Iscariot the speedy execution of his 
 designs. 
 
 V. THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 We have now arrived at the main point of the last 
 supper, the supposed institution of the euclmrist, which 
 gave so much trouble to theologians, expounders, and 
 harmonizers; and still more and worse affliction to millions 
 of innocent persons, who refused to believe the doctrines 
 connected with this outward observance, or the miraculous 
 
THH LAST sri'I'KK. 45 
 
 change and supernatural effect of the bread and wine, 
 because passing through the hands <>f ;i priest ; then all 
 those who were tortured and killed, because they had 
 given offense to a lnt, had profaned it, cut it, stabbed it, 
 and out came the blood, and such similar inventions of 
 benighted ignorance. 
 
 \Ve maintain, that never was a man's mission and 
 intention more misconstrued than those of .Jesus, by the 
 prie>ts, who instituted the sacrament of the eneharist, or 
 the communion, as something indispensably necessary to 
 a man's salvation. The same Jesus, it is supposed, who 
 objected to all the sanctimonious observances of the 
 Pharisees and priests, and looked upon outward piety, 
 the religion of performances, as conductive to no good 
 and productive of hypocrisy; who opposed the entire 
 Levitical laws and institutions; the same Jesus is sup- 
 posed to have instituted a new outward observance, and 
 made it a condition, sine qua non, to obtain salvation. 
 We furthermore believe to have a good right for main- 
 taining, that no words of Jesus were worse misrepresented 
 and misconstrued than those spoken at his last supper, 
 Let us investigate. 
 
 Mark narrates: "And as they (the disciples) did eat, 
 Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to 
 them, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he 
 took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it 
 to them : and they all drank of it. And he said unto 
 them, This is my blood of the new testament (the new 
 covenant) which is shed for many/' etc. Matthew has 
 the same description of the scene, the same brief words 
 at the breaking of the bread ; but at the wine he adds 
 the words "for the remission of sins," thus bringing in 
 an entirely new element, of which Mark has no knowl- 
 edge. With Luke, however, the whole scene is changed. 
 What Mark and Matthew have Jesus say after the wine 
 alter meal had been handed round, "I say unto you, I will 
 not drink of the fruit of the vine any more," etc., Luke 
 has him say at the first cup. At the breaking of the bread 
 Luke reports that Jesus said, "This is my body which is 
 given for you: this do in remembrance of me." In this 
 case, one party, evidently, reports not the words of Jesus ; 
 for the commandment added by Luke, "This do in 
 remembrance of me," according to all Christian theolo- 
 gians, is the main point to institute the sacrament. If 
 
46 THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 Jesus did enjoin this commandment on his disciples, how 
 could Mark and Matt hew -neglect to state it? The words 
 spoken on so solemn an occasion must certainly have 
 made a deep and lasting impression on the disciples. How 
 could it be, that the two elder evangelists should not 
 have known them; or, knowing them, should have neg- 
 lected to enjoin that new commandment, especially if it 
 has the importance attached to it by the Church ? 
 
 Besides, the additional words of Luke were void of 
 sense and signification to the disciples, then and there. 
 What should they do in remembrance of Jesus ? He did 
 not do or say anything on that occasion new or unusual 
 among Jews. To pronounce the benediction, break the 
 bread, and credence pieces thereof to the persons at table, 
 was, and is now, a common usage of the Hebrews. There 
 was nothing to be done specially in remembrance of Jesus. 
 It could not possibly refer to the doctrine of transubstan- 
 tiation, as Jesus was still alive among them, and so the 
 bread and wine could not possibly have been changed to 
 his flesh and blood. What idea did Luke mean to con- 
 vey with those additional words ? 
 
 It is important to know that those additional words 
 are taken literally from Paul (1 Corinthians, xi. 20). He 
 addressed that epistle to Gentile-Christians, or at least to 
 a body composed of Gentiles and Jews, the former ele- 
 ment preponderating, among whom the Essenean common 
 meal, as adopted by the apostles, had been introduced to 
 give them a proper substitute for the sacrificial meals of 
 riotous heathens, whose debauchery and excesses at those 
 public feasts are notorious. Jesus was the last sacrifice 
 superseding all others was the fundamental idea in this 
 respect. Therefore the Christians could meet at a sacri- 
 ficial meal without having slaughtered a victim. They 
 met at stated times, each bringing his victuals along, and 
 eating them as he or she pleased (without giving any- 
 thing to their neighbors : verse 21). These meals w< re 
 intended to be Jewish in form, viz., to pronounce the 
 benediction over the bread before the meal, and over the 
 wine after the meal, in order to accustom those late 
 heathens to thank God for meat and drink, and thus to 
 protect them against an excessive and riotous use of either. 
 But Paul did nothing on his own account ; he had learned 
 everything of Jesus, whom he had never seen. He ap- 
 
THK LAST Sfl'PER. 47 
 
 penred to Paul as a spirit, ghost, phantom, or so, and 
 taught him the (Jospel. Therefore Paul know (verse 
 'J') that Jesus, at his last supper, had commanded, as 
 he hell re meal spoke the benediction, broke the breul 
 and eivdeneed pieces thereof to each of the party, so nil 
 his followers should do, at least at the public: leasts : "Do 
 this iu remembrance of me/' Furthermore, as Jesus 
 alter his last supjvr pronounced the benediction over the 
 wine, and then eredenced it to each of the party, " So ye 
 shall do ^as often as ye drink) in remembrance of me." 
 He evidently intended to see this beautiful Jewish custom 
 introduced among the Gentiles. Had he recommended 
 it as a Jewish custom, the Gentiles would have thought 
 slightly ot it. Therefore, he said Jesus did the same 
 thing at his last supper, and commands you to do it in 
 remembrance of him. This gave weight and importance 
 to the ceremony. Now Paul knew very well what he 
 said, and to what particular purpose he did say so ; but 
 Luke copied his words in the wrong place, where they 
 have neither sense nor signification. Jesus could not have 
 commanded born Jews to do in remembrance of him 
 what they and every other religious Jew did and do to 
 this day. 
 
 The commentators of Luke felt that his additional 
 words are without intelligible signification. Therefore 
 they resorted to a passage in the Talmud,* maintaining, 
 as they say, that the Jews, in eating the Passover, did it 
 to represent the sufferings of the Messiah. Therefore 
 Jesus said, " This do in remembrance of me," being the 
 Messiah. If so, Jesus ought to have given to his disciples 
 pieces of the Passover lamb, which is supposed to rep- 
 resent the suffering of the Messiah, especially as it is 
 stated plainly in Scriptures what the unleavened bread 
 represents viz., the memorial of Israel's departure from 
 Egypt (Exodus, xiii. 8; Deut, xvi. 3). Aside of this, 
 however, the passage of the Talmud says a different thing 
 entirely. Nothing is said there of the Passover lamb ; 
 the subject under discussion is the great hymn, Halld 
 Haggadol, consisting: of Psalm 136, or of Psalms 120 to 
 1 :\(y, or of Ps. 135 to 136, or of 111 to 1 18. These are the 
 three opinions in the Talmud. Next the various opinions 
 
 * Pesachim, 118 a., and not 119, as Dr. Adam Clarke copies from 
 Schaetgen. 
 
48 THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 about the contents of the great hymn are stated, one of 
 which, dating evidently from the third or fourth century, 
 when the Jews had suffered long in exile one of which 
 is, that the great hymn contains references to the exode, 
 the dividing of the Red Sea, the promulgation of the 
 Law, the resurrection of the dead, and the sufferings of 
 the Messiah ; but this last point is contradicted right 
 there by quoting from two older authorities; and a third 
 one maintaining, the fifth point in the great hymn is the 
 reference to the rescue of the souls of the pious ones from 
 Gehinom, in the passage, " I beseech thee, O Lord, release 
 my soul. . . For thou hast delivered my soul from 
 death. . . I will walk before the Lord in the lands of 
 life" (Psalm cxvi). Therefore it was not a tradition or 
 belief to which the one or the other of the parties referred : 
 it is merely a piece of Babylonian exegese. But aside of 
 this, there is no mention and no reference in the passage 
 to the Passover lamb or to eating anything at any time, 
 and the commentators of Luke had resort to a mistake. 
 Aside of all this, however, the mistake of Schaetgen 
 and Adam Clark is also in this essential point, that they 
 
 translate the terms H^j ^^ l^DH in that passage of 
 the Talmud, " the suffering of the Messiah," while actually 
 they signify the sufferings of the Hebrew people before 
 the coming of 'the Messiah, viz., in the generation which 
 will see his coming. There is no idea of the Messiah's 
 suffering connected with these terms. We prove this by 
 the three oldest passages on record, in which these terms 
 occur; viz., in the Mishnah (ISotah, ix. 15) ; Pesikta, of 
 Rab Kahana (Edit. Lyck, p. 51) ; and Talmud Babli 
 (Sanhedrin, 97 a). A cursory inspection of the last 
 chapters of Sotah will show that they were written in the 
 third century. This is especially visible in the Messianic 
 passages under consideration, which in the other books 
 are ascribed to Rabbi Johanan and Rabbi Bo, authorities 
 of the third century. It appears, therefore, that the suf- 
 ferings of the Jews in the second and third centuries had 
 produced in them the idea that these sufferings would in- 
 crease and demoralization reach all classes of society, un- 
 til both should be intolerable, when the war of Gog- 
 Magog should follow, and at last the Messiah should 
 make his appearance and make an end to both. But there 
 is no hint in either of these passages to the sufferings of 
 
mi LAST SUPPER. 49 
 
 the Messiah himself. The rabbis, it appears, thought it 
 was imt very difficult to escape those sufferings, Ibroue of 
 them, JJar Kapra, maintained, " Whoever eats three 
 meals on Sabbath will be saved from three evils, viz., 
 from (ii'lmiom, the war of Gog- Magog, an <1 the sufferings 
 in the time of the Messiah" (Sabbath, 118 a). Bar 
 Kapra did not think very highly of the prophesied war 
 and sufferings, as many others did who maintained; "The 
 world will go on in its usual way." * 
 
 In one of the latest compilations of rabbinical tradi- 
 tions, called Midrash Samuel (chap. 19), from which it 
 was carried over to another and still later compilation, 
 Yalkut Shimoni (Isaiah, sec. 338), a Babylonian rabbi, 
 Hunna, of the fifth century, speaks of the sufferings of 
 the Messiah, in explanation of Isaiah, liii. 5, which, there 
 is no doubt in our mind, was taken from the Gospels. 
 The idea that a suffering Messiah had been imagined by 
 the ancient Hebrews in the time of Jesus, or in the next 
 centuries after his death, must be given up as being en- 
 tirely without foundation in the literature of the ancient 
 Hebrews. 
 
 It appears superfluous, however, to argue this point 
 against Luke and Paul, as the older sources, Mark and 
 Matthew, omit to state that Jesus commanded the obser- 
 vance of the eucharist ; and John not only omits it, but 
 places in its stead the washing of the disciples' feet, of 
 which the Synoptics had no knowledge, and it could not 
 possibly be forced into any part of their story of the last 
 supper. We have here three witnesses against Paul. 
 Therefore, we must reject Luke's additional words as 
 being Paul's, and not the words of Jesus. The sacrament 
 of the eucharist has no foundation in the Gospels ; and if 
 any words spoken at the last supper can be considered 
 historical, they certainly are those recorded by Mark, 
 " Take, eat, this is my body/' the signification of which 
 we discuss below, 
 
 Regarding the wine at the last supper, Mark says : 
 
 " And he took the cup. and when he had given thanks, he gave 
 it to them : and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, 
 This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many." 
 
 * See Babli Sabbath, 30 b., and parallel passages ; theDerashoth 
 of Rabbon Gamaliel, and the objections of a certain disciple 
 "There is nothing new under the sun.' ; 
 
50 THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 Matthew changes the passage considerably. He adds 
 a command of Jesus, " Drink ye all of it," which Jesus 
 hardly did say, as the custom was and is now among Jews 
 that all nip of the wine, over which the blessing was pro- 
 nounced. Then Matthew adds the significant words, 
 "For the remission of sins," while Mark shows no knowl- 
 edge that Jesus thought his blood was shed for the re- 
 mission of sins. Luke also follows Mark, and records as 
 the words of Jesus, "This cup is the new testament in 
 my blood, which is shed for you." Although these 
 words make no sense whatever, as the cup can not possi- 
 bly be made a new or old testament, nevertheless it is 
 plain that Luke intended to reproduce the word of Mark, 
 and to omit the addition of Matthew, which expresses 
 the dogma of vicarious atonement adopted after the death 
 of Jesus. 
 
 What does the "new testament" mean ? Testament 
 signifies a last will, to which the adjective new stands in 
 no logical connection. It is a mistake in the Latin trans- 
 lation, adopted in the English ; for the Greek terms must 
 be rendered " the new covenant." Jesus gave them the 
 wine to drink upon the new covenant to be made by 
 his blood, shed for many as Mark says, for the disciples 
 as Luke expounds. The nature of this new covenant is 
 described more at length by John. Although this last 
 evangelist denies the whole incident tlie eating of the 
 Paschal supper, and every thing connected with it still 
 his last speech of Jesus is a lengthy illustration of the 
 words of the Synoptics, said to have been spoken at the 
 last supper, to which John adds his share, to bring out 
 the Logos, the Sen of God, in his proper light on this 
 occasion. John, from xiii. 31, to xvii. 26, is a comment- 
 ary from his standpoint to the narrative of the Synoptics, 
 contradicting almost all the alleged facts, and present- 
 ing the spirit thereof. 
 
 We ask John, What is the new covenant which Jesus 
 made with his disciples? and he replies (xv. 9) : 
 
 " As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue 
 ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in 
 my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and 
 abide in his love. These things have I spoken unto you, that 
 my joy might remain in you. and that your joy might be full. 
 This is my commandment, that ye love one another, as I have 
 loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay 
 down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do what- 
 
THE LAST SUPPER. 51 
 
 soever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for 
 tin 1 servant knoWOth not what his lord docth ; hut I have culled 
 you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father 
 1 have made known unto y<u. Ye have not chosen me, hut I 
 have chosen yon, and ordained you, that ye should go and hring 
 forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain; that whatsoever 
 ye shall ask of the "Father in my name, he may jrive it you. 
 These- things I command you, that ye love one another." 
 
 Like a man parting forever from his friends ; like a 
 teacher bidding the last farewell to his disciples; like a 
 martyr who lays down his life for his beloved friends, 
 Jesus said, so John imagines, " My blood shed for you 
 shall unite you forever in love." This is the new covenant 
 which he established among his disciples. No thinking 
 man can find more in the words of the Gospels. On that 
 eve of the supper, Jesus announced to the apostles, not 
 only his firm resolution to die for his disciples and friends, 
 and to prevent the calamity which an insurrection in 
 his favor was sure to bring on his people, but also that 
 the end was nigh, and that the traitor would do his work 
 quickly. He speaks like one who has taken poison, sees 
 the approach of certain death, and bids his friends fare- 
 well. He breaks the bread, and the broken cake natur- 
 ally reminds him of his body which would thus be 
 broken in a short time, and says, "Take, eat, this is 
 my body," or rather, it is like what my body will be in 
 a short time. The wine naturally reminds him of his 
 blood to be shed for his friends, and he proposes to them 
 the new covenant of perpetual memory and love. All this 
 is as natural as it possibly could have been said, had not 
 some of the evangelists wrapped their peculiar doctrines 
 around the incident. With Matthew plain martyrdom 
 was insufficient, and he had to bring in remission of sins 
 by the blood of Jesus. With Luke, again, the parting 
 supper, as such, was not sublime enough : he must bring 
 in Paul's statement, that Jesus commanded them to do 
 this, God knows what, in remembrance of him. With 
 John it was noc respectable enough that the Logos, 
 the Son of God, should speak the words of a mortal 
 being going forth to meet his fate, and so he changes 
 the whole phase of the affair, and replaces it by elaborate 
 speeches, of which the Synoptics had no idea. Each had 
 his dogma to represent, and his peculiar traditions to 
 bring in and to justify. The plain fact is, that Jesus 
 sacrificed himself to save his friends, which, in after-times, 
 
52 THE PREPARATION. 
 
 was expounded into vicarious atonement, and imposed 
 upon the Gospel story. Eating the last meal with his 
 friends and disciples, he bade them farewell, and express- 
 ed the wish that his blood should unite them in love, 
 which was construed into the mysteries of the euchar- 
 ist. He spoke of his friends and disciples, and to them 
 only, without the remotest reference to others, or to un- 
 born generations ; but the expounders changed it into a 
 fabric of salvation for all the world, and, on their own 
 responsibility, made it a condition sine qua non of eter- 
 nal life and happiness. Simple facts were unskillful ly 
 wrought up into a divine drama, after the pattern of the 
 Pagan masteries, in defiance of the plain resultants of rea- 
 son and the simple teachings of the Bible. Unravel 
 the matter, and nothing is left except the resolution of a 
 man rather to die than let his friends rush madly into 
 the abyss of certain destruction. The resolution was as 
 magnanimous as the dogmas built upon it are childish, 
 and in perpetual warfare with reason's plainest paragraphs. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 THE CAPTURE OF JESUS. 
 
 I. THE PREPARATION. 
 
 After the supper, Jesus and his disciples left the city 
 to cross the Cedron. On the way, Mark and Matthew 
 report, a conversation with the apostles took place, and 
 especially with Peter, which Luke gives in another form 
 and place, and John omits altogether. The main point 
 of the conversation is, that Jesus prophesied Peter would 
 deny him that very night, before the cock crow thrice, 
 which Peter gainsaid emphatically. The four evangelists 
 narrate, that Peter did deny his Master when danger 
 threatened, and that Jesus prophesied it. We discuss the 
 merits thereof below. 
 
 Luke was obliged to change his predecessors' report, 
 because it is maintained therein, that Jesus said, "But 
 after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee." 
 Luke denies this (xxiv. 49), and maintains, neither Jesus 
 nor the apostles returned to Galilee ; he ascended to 
 
THE CAPTURE OF JESUS. 53 
 
 heaven from l>ethany, near Jerus -ilcin, and commanded 
 them to stay in the capital till they should have received 
 liie IIolv (ihost. .J->lm also expounds from his standpoint 
 the contents of this conversation in his last speech of Jesus, 
 without admitting the fact, that such u conversation took 
 place. Thus, according to Luke and John, this incident, 
 as reported l>y Mark and Matthew, is no fact. 
 
 This mutual contradiction of the evangelists in their 
 reports, increases as the story progresses. Next in the 
 narrative, the passion scene comes, which the three Synop- 
 tics narrate, each in his own way. Matthew copied it of 
 Mark, and Luke tells again an entirely different story. 
 He brings an angel from heaven to embellish the scene, 
 and adds that the sweat of Jesus was like drops of blood 
 falling upon the ground. Who saw it? Who reported 
 it? Jesus was alone, and the three disciples next to him 
 slept, according to all accounts. If an angel appeared to 
 Jesus in that trying moment, how is it that Mark and 
 Matthew did not know the important item ? There is 
 but one answer to these queries: they intended to report 
 one fact, and each embellished it according to the tradi- 
 tions of the church for which he wrote. They wished to 
 report, when the decisive moment approached, Jesus ex- 
 claimed, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death," 
 and he prayed, "Father, all things are possible unto thee ; 
 take away this cup from me, nevertheless not what I will, 
 but what thou wilt." It is so natural and human that 
 the martyr, however firm his determination, the decisive 
 moment approaching, feels the agony of that inevitable 
 struggle between the love of life and the terror of death, 
 that this report of the Synoptics can hardly be doubted.* 
 Still, John denies it. It was too human, too natural for 
 him, that the Logos, the Son of God, should dread the 
 moment of death, knowing that this was his mission and 
 destiny on eaith. Therefore John has his own lasl prayer 
 of Jesus (xvii. 1). Jesus prays to God. He should now 
 glorify him, take him back to heaven, his work on earth 
 being done. Then he prays for his disciples, and closes, 
 "And I have declared unto them, and will declare it, that 
 
 *]f we are to take Luke's notice of the two swords (xxii. 38) 
 as a fact, and the disciples understood Jesus right, then he al- 
 ready repented the step he had taken, and thou-ht -f self-defense. 
 It is quite natural that the mind in such a decisive moment wa- 
 vers, before it arrives at the last and final resolution. 
 
54 THE PLACE OF CAPTURE THE CAPTORS. 
 
 the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, 
 and I in them." Not only the place of this last prayer is 
 changed John has it at the last supper, and the Synoptics 
 outside of the city but the contents are entirely different. 
 With the Synoptics, the man and martyr, Jesus, in his 
 agony prays in a moment of bitter affliction and the strug- 
 gle of the soul against approaching death. With John 
 the Logos, the Son of God, prays the Father to make 
 now a speedy end of his career, and to glorify him at 
 once. If John had so little confidence in the statement 
 of his predecessors, it must not be expected of us, in the 
 year 1874, to believe them implicitly. 
 
 II. THE PLACE OF CAPTURE. 
 
 The place where Jesus was arrested, was not known to 
 the evangelists. Mark and Matthew state it was Geth- 
 semane. This place, with its garden, is in the valley, a 
 few steps beyond the Cedron, nt the loot of Olivet. Turn 
 over to Luke, and he tells you it was on the Mount of 
 Olives, hence not at Gethsemane. He maintains it was 
 the same place which Jesus frequented every night 
 (xxi. 37). John must have observed this difference of 
 statements, and attempting to follow both and none, he 
 himself not knowing the place, says Jesus with his dis- 
 ciples went over the brook of Cedron, and entered a 
 garden. This leaves it undecided whether that garden 
 was in the valley or on the mountain, as he might have 
 gone a mile or two beyond the Cedron, and entered any 
 of the gardens in that direction. 
 
 III. THE CAPTORS. 
 
 The evangelists differ widely on the question, by 
 whom or how Jesus was arrested, what was spoken, or 
 what occurred on that occasion. Mark says (xiv. 43) : 
 "And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one 
 of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with 
 swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes 
 and the elders." The words "one of the twelve," quali- 
 fying Judas, prove that this account was taken from a 
 source different from the above. The one who wrote the 
 above items, concerning Judas, would not have needed 
 this explanatory phrase, as he must have expected the 
 reader to know full well which Judas the traitor was. 
 The great multitude, with swords and staves, could only 
 have been a promiscuous crowd of civilians, a gang of 
 
THE CAPTURE OF JESUS. 55 
 
 ruffians picked up in a hurry, and sent out on this 
 errand ; because soldiers, guardsmen, and constables or 
 policemen were armed with swords, spears, bows and 
 arrow.-, etc., and not merely with swords or staves. This 
 
 Gmiscnous cn.Nvd of ruilians was sent by three distinct 
 i es the chief priests, the scribes, and the ciders. A 
 body of chief priests and a body of elders are known in 
 the Jewish institutions, but a body of scribes did not 
 exist. This renders the notice suspicious, as having been 
 written by one not acquainted with the Hebrew institu- 
 tions of that day. Therefore, while Matthew copied 
 literally the above account from Mark, he changes the 
 conclusion into "From the chief priests and elders of the 
 people," omitting the scribes altogether. Matthew 
 having thus amended the account, Luke omits altogether 
 the authorities sending the multitude and the arms borne, 
 and states (xxii. 47) : " And while he yet spake, behold a 
 multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the 
 twelve, went before them." While the peculiar phrase, 
 "one of the twelve," distinctly shows that Luke hud the 
 accounts of Mark and Matthew before him, the indefinite 
 expression, "behold a multitude," no less distinctly 
 shows that he did not wish to confirm who sent them or 
 how they were armed. So Luke leaves it uncertain who 
 arrested Jesus, and by what authority he was arrested. 
 John, perceiving this confusion of accounts, gives his own 
 version of it. He states (John, xviii. 3), Judas then 
 having received a band of men and officers from the 
 chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns 
 and torches and weapons. What they intended to do 
 with lanterns and torches in a moonlight night, nobody 
 has yet been able to explain. Fearing the people, as they 
 did, it is not likely that they went forth with torches and 
 lanterns to arrest Jesus. Besides, the Jews had no 
 lanterns. There is no word for it in the Hebrew or the 
 Palestine dialects. This merely shows that John's ac- 
 count is not taken from any Jewish source. He says 
 Judas received men and officers from the chief priests 
 and Pharisees, which means the priestly superiors, omit- 
 ting scribes and elders. And the men and officers re- 
 ceived, lie says (so the original reads), were a squad of 
 soldiers, and also some officers, constables, or guardsmen 
 from the chief priests. The verse should be translated 
 
56 JUDAS AND THE KISS. 
 
 thus ; "Judas, then, having received a band of soldiers, 
 and afeo officers from the chief priests/' etc. This is a 
 flat contradiction of Mark's and Matthew's statement. It 
 was not a promiscuous crowd of civilians which arrested 
 Jesus: soldiers and officers armed with "weapons" and riot 
 with "staves" did it. Who had soldiers under his com- 
 mand in Jerusalem ? None but the Roman authorities. 
 The people were disarmed. The invader held the mili- 
 tary power and the right over life and death. If we 
 take for granted that John adds the officers of the high- 
 priest, to account in part for the statement of the Synop- 
 tics for nobody can see what purpose those officers served 
 if Judas had been given a squad of soldiers we are in- 
 formed by him that Judas led a squad of Roman soldiers 
 to the spot to arrest Jesus. The fact that Mark took this 
 account from some unknown source, that Matthew 
 amended it, and Luke doubted it in the main, makes it 
 worthless. We must then maintain either John has the 
 correct account of the affair viz., that a squad of Roman 
 soldiers, led by Judas, arrested Jesus or we must admit 
 that neither of the four evangelists knew who arrested 
 him. We prefer John's statement to absolute uncer- 
 tainty, because it is most likely, fits best into the entire 
 situation, and John might have drawn it from Roman 
 accounts. 
 
 IV. JUDAS AND THE KISS. 
 
 How was Jesus arrested ? Mark narrates : "And he 
 that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, 
 Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he ; take him and 
 lead him away safely. And as soon as he was come, he 
 goes straightway to him and saith, Master, Master; and 
 kissed him. And they laid their hands on him and took 
 him," This kiss is the most satanic and unnatural that, 
 could possibly be invented. The traitor kisses his vic- 
 tim, and the victim is his teacher, friend, and master, 
 against whom he manifests no animosity, grudge, or even 
 disrespect on any previous occasion. Read this in any 
 other book and you will instantly doubt it, as being too 
 unnatural. So maliciously and hypocritically wicked 
 man can not be. Besides, there was no earthly cause for 
 that kiss. Judas might just as well have pointed out his 
 victim to the soldiers by words or motions as by a kiss. 
 Still, here is the statement of Mark, that the kiss was the 
 
THE CAPTURE OF JESUS. 57 
 
 traitor's token, and the treacherous kiss was given. What 
 riii'ht have we to gainsay an alleged fact by pfljchologi- 
 :-al speculation? P>nt let us see what the other evange- 
 lists report. Matthew copied the account of Mark with 
 one change and one addition. Judas said, "Master, Mas- 
 ter," says Mark ; lie said, " Hail, Master," says Matthew, 
 which is no Hebrew salutation, "Peace unto thee, is 
 the Hebrew ; hence, these words are Matthew's, and not 
 Judas's. Jesus said nothing to Judas according to Mark, 
 but according to Matthew he said, "Friend [companion], 
 wherefore art thou come ?" So Matthew took the liberty 
 of amending Mark's account. Luke has another version 
 of the affair. Judas "drew near unto Jesus to kiss him/' 
 without speaking a word. But Jesus knowing his inten- 
 tion said to him, "Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man 
 with a kiss?" Luke does not maintain, that Judas kissed 
 the Master, and has him say something entirely new. 
 These are the doubtful points in the account. Did Judas 
 kiss Jesus or did he not? If he did, why does Luke not 
 state it? Again, what did Judas say to Jesus, or Jesus to 
 Judas, as each of the Synoptics has other words for them? 
 This uncertainty caused John to give a version of the 
 affair entirely new. He says Judas did neither hail nor 
 kiss the Master, did neither point him out to the soldiers 
 nor even approach him. "Jesus, therefore, knowing all 
 things that should come upon him, went forth, and said 
 unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus 
 of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he ; and 
 Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them." (John 
 xviii. 4, 5). So it is not merely psychological speculation 
 which contradicts the traitor's kiss: it is John's plain 
 statement to that effect. Here again, the same case as 
 above, Matthew amends Mark, Luke doubts, and John 
 contradicts. We must either adopt John's version as a 
 fact, or admit that neither of them knew the story. It 
 appears, however, that John had a correct idea of the af- 
 fair. He continues: "As soon then as he had said unto 
 them, I am he, they went backward and fell to the ground. 
 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they 
 said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told 
 vou that I am he : if therefore you seek me, let these 
 their way : that the saying might be fulfilled, which 
 spake, Of them which thou gavest me, have I lost none. 
 
58 THE SERVANT'S EAR. 
 
 The scene is dramatical. The going backward and 
 falling to the ground, of course, is mere embellishment. 
 But the object of John is to state two points : that Jesus 
 voluntarily gave himself up to the soldiers, in order to 
 save his disciples ; and that he did not permit Judas to 
 complete his treachery, in order to be enabled to say, "I 
 have lost none." Both points fit exactly into the situa- 
 tion. He sacrificed himself to save his disciples, and 
 could not have considered Judas as base a traitor as the 
 evangelists did, since he was only instrumental in carry- 
 ing out the project and resolution of Jesus, from motives 
 which may have been patriotic. 
 
 v. THE SERVANT'S EAR. 
 
 The next point in the story is the ear of the high- 
 priest's servant. For according to the testimony of all 
 four evangelists, one of the companions of Jesus (John 
 says it was Peter) drew the sword in defense of the Mas- 
 ter, and cut off the ear of the high-priest's servant, 
 whose name was Malchus. The story looks very unlikely; 
 for if Peter or another man had offered resistance to a 
 band of armed soldiers and officers, they naturally must 
 have retaliated or at least arrested the perpetrator. It is 
 difficult to imagine that he should have escaped unpun- 
 ished. How do the evangelists get over this point ? 
 Mark says, Jesus offered an excuse : "Are ye come out, 
 as against a thief, with swords and staves to take me? I 
 was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took 
 me not; but the Scriptures must be fulfilled." We do 
 not know what particular passage of Scriptures was to be 
 fulfilled, either by this particular mode of arrest, or by 
 the chopped-off ear of the high- priest's servant, and to 
 this latter event it must have particular reference; still, 
 Mark suggests, that these words of Jesus and his refer- 
 ence to Scriptures sufficed to quiet the promiscuous mob, 
 not to retaliate instantly or at least to arrest the refractory 
 man. Matthew is not satisfied with Mark's explanation, 
 and adds another little speech of Jesus. He said to the 
 man with the sword, "Put up again thy sword in his 
 place, for all they that take the sword shall perish with 
 the sword (Genesis, ix. 6). Thinkest thou that I can not 
 now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me 
 more than twelve legions of angels? But how then 
 shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" 
 

 UNIV 
 
 THE CAPTURE OF JESUS. 59 
 
 After this additional speech, Matthew quotes Mark's ob- 
 servations on the subject. In the opinion of Matthew, 
 Jr.Mis (juelled a rebellion which threatened to break out 
 on the spot, by the armed and serious resistance of the 
 disciples, admonishing them to desist, and accusing the 
 soldiers and officers of imprudence in having come 
 against him, as though they were to arrest a thief, and 
 thus challenge armed resistance. This conduct of Jesua 
 saved the rash man. The soldiers and officers may have 
 had strict orders not to excite an insurrection, and may 
 have been glad to come off so easily. It is quite likely 
 that they were under such orders, since the insurrection 
 was dreaded by the high-priest and his subordinates, and 
 Jesus was arrested to prevent that emergency. Luke, 
 however, is not satisfied with this rational explanation. 
 He brings in a miracle. Jesus only said, "Suffer ye thus 
 far ;" then he touched the ear and healed the man at 
 once. This miracle, Luke must have imagined, so as- 
 tonished the armed multitude that they abstained from 
 retaliation. Unfortunately no other evangelist mentions 
 this important item, which they must have done had they 
 known of it ; and furthermore, had such an extraordinary 
 miracle been wrought in presence of that multitude, they 
 would have fled in dismay and terror, as it must certainly 
 have convinced them of the supernatural powers of Jesus. 
 Besides, it is evident that Luke was guided in this point 
 by traditions entirely unknown to the other evangelists ; 
 for the same little speech which, accord ing to Mark and 
 Matthew, Jesus addressed to the armed band, Luke says 
 he addressed to the chief priests and captains of the 
 temple, and the elders "which were come to him," evi- 
 dently presenting the absurdity that all those dignitaries 
 had turned out at midnight to arrest Jesus, as though 
 they couid not muster a band of men to do it for them. 
 John, with this double version of the story before him, 
 decides in favor of Matthew. He narrates: "Then said 
 JCMIS unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath : the 
 cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" 
 Jesus quelled the insurrection, ripe to break out on the 
 spot, and this saved the man's life who had drawn the 
 sword. That man was not Peter, and the wounded man 
 was not the high-priest's servant, or else Peter would 
 have been arrested in the high-priest's palace, whither he 
 
60 THE ARREST. 
 
 followed Jesus, and where no insurrection could break 
 out. Peter being afterward the head of the Jewish 
 Christians was put in front of insurrectionary disciples of 
 Jesus, who did not understand his mission, in the opinion 
 of John. Malchus may have been a notorious anti-chris- 
 tian man in aftertimes, therefore John placed him in this 
 connection. John could not know names unknown to 
 the Synoptics. 
 
 VI. THE ARREST. 
 
 Having peremptorily stopped armed resistance, all the 
 disciples and friends forsook Jesus and fled, Mark and 
 Matthew maintain, and in such hot haste that a certain 
 young man who followed Jesus with a linen cloth cast 
 about his naked body, being caught by one of the armed 
 men, left the linen cloth in his hands and fled naked; so 
 Mark narrates. Peter only, and John says also one dis- 
 ciple, John, followed at a distance, when Jesus was led to 
 the city by the band of soldiers. John only says Jesus 
 was bound; the Synop'ics know nothing of it, nor is it 
 likely that he was bound. 
 
 So the desperate step was taken, the insurrection was 
 frustrated, the lives of the disciples and friends and prob- 
 ably of thousands more were saved, a threatening calamity 
 was averted from the head of the nation. Jesus not 
 being able to surrender himself to the authorities on ac- 
 count of his disciples' zeal and love, had suggested to 
 Judas Iscariot the speedy accomplishment of his treachery, 
 and succeeded well in this point. But who will describe 
 the disappointment, the mortification, the bitter feelings 
 of the man who, so zealously and enthusiastically, so 
 cheerfully and hopefully, had embraced a cause, and now, 
 by the force of uncontrollable circumstances, is compelled 
 to lay down his life for his friends and disciples, without 
 having accomplished his object and without hope that it 
 ever would be accomplished. Again, who will describe 
 the sublime though melancholy satisfaction of the man 
 with the consciousness I die for my own, I die for my 
 friends, I die that they may live. The feelings in such a 
 situation can only be imagined, never perfectly felt or ex- 
 pressed by one who never was in that situation ; and 
 imagination is the mere shadow of reality. It is not the 
 hero's death on the field of battle, when the passions are 
 excited to the point of forgetting the agony of dissolution; 
 
I IIH TRIAL. 61 
 
 victory is expected and not death. It is much more. It 
 is the"(|iiiet martyr's calm and magnanimous resolution, 
 premeditated after a long struggle and hitter disappoint- 
 ment. It is the uTeat determination that life is not the 
 highest good of man ; that there are .duties holier and 
 gndlier than the duty of self-preservation : love and affec- 
 tions stronger than man's love of earthly existence. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE TRIAL. 
 
 I. TWO HIGH-PRIESTS. 
 
 The Synoptics narrate, Jesus was led directly into the 
 high-priest's or Caiaphas's palace. John, however, adds 
 (xviii. 13), he was brought first to the house of Annas, 
 the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who sent him bound to the 
 latter (ibid. 24). The cause of John's deviation from the 
 statement of the Synoptics can easily be discovered. 
 There was another tradition current among the early 
 Christians, that Annas was the high-priest, when Jesus 
 was crucified, as is evident from the Acts (iv, 6). There 
 was no Annas high-priest up to 48 A. c. (Joseph. Ant, 
 xx., v. 2), and Luke, who keeps the disciples in Jerusalem 
 after the death of Jesus, and builds up a congregation at 
 once, certainly thought that the arrest of Peter and John 
 took place shortly after the crucifixion, when Annas still 
 was high-priest. In order to account for both traditions, 
 John gives also to Annas a place in the story ; although 
 contrary to that tradition he maintains expressly, "And 
 Caiaphas was high-priest that year/' being under the im- 
 pression that the office was for one year only, which might 
 account for the mistake. But Caiaphas was high-priest 
 for many years, and remained in office till Pilate was re- 
 moved. The evangelists did not settle finally this doubt- 
 ful point, for the Gospel writers after them, especially 
 those whose productions are known as the Gospel of 
 Nicodemus and the Story of Joseph of Arimathea, were 
 still in doubt about it, and invariably place Annas before 
 Caiaphas, without deciding who was high-priest, leaving 
 the reader to believe, however, Annas occupied this dig- 
 
62 THE PLACE. 
 
 nity, and therefore he is named first. It is unimportant 
 whether Jesus was led first to Annas and then to Caiaphas, 
 or at once to the latter, or who was high-priest at the 
 time; but it is important to know that the early Chris- 
 tians, prior to the evangelical writers, differed on the sub- 
 ject, whether Caiaphas or Annas was high-priest when 
 Jesus was crucified, because it proves that the sources, 
 from which this part of the Gospel story was taken, were 
 very uncertain. 
 
 II. THE PLACE. 
 
 The next point of disagreement in the Gospel accounts 
 is the precise locality where, in the high-priest's palace, 
 Jesus was retained till morning. Here we have two dif- 
 ferent accounts which John again harmonizes to the best 
 of his abilities. Mark (xiv. 53) maintains, when Jesus 
 arrived in the high-priest's palace, ALL THE PRIESTS, 
 scribes, and elders met there ; Matthew says they had met 
 there before. Next he tells us that Peter followed Jesus 
 at a distance, right into the palace, where he took his seat 
 among the servants about the fire. Meanwhile a long 
 and tedious trial of Jesus took place before those author- 
 ities, which resulted in his condemnation and personal 
 maltreatment. Then Mark tells the story of Peter deny- 
 ing his Master ; and finally (xv. 1) he communicates, 
 that in the morning the chief priests, elders, and scribes, 
 as also the whole council, resolved to send Jesus bound to 
 Pilate. The conspicuous errors in Mark's account are, 
 first, that ALL THE PRIESTS were assembled in the palace, 
 of whom there could not have been less than two hundred 
 thousand of the age between 20 and 50, showing the wri- 
 ter's ignorance in this point ; and second, at the end of 
 this scene, Mark brings in the high- priest, with the elders 
 and scribes as a separate body, and the council as another. 
 The elders being counted in the first body, of what was 
 the second composed ? Matthew observes the same order 
 of the story precisely as Mark, only that he corrects the 
 errors just noticed, and states (xxvi. 57), that the scribes 
 and elders had met in the palace, omitting "all the priests ;" 
 and he concludes the scene (xxvii. 1) that the chief priests 
 and the elders sent Jesus bound to Pilate, omitting Mark's 
 "scribes and all the council." This leaves no doubt that 
 Matthew copied Mark's account and improved it in these 
 and some other particulars, i. e., he adopted it on the au- 
 
TIM: TRIAL, 63 
 
 thority of Mark, ami amended it on his own. According 
 to Mark's narrative Jrsus must have been in one of the 
 rooms in the palace, as the trial could not have come off 
 in the yard, where the soldiers and servants were seated 
 around the lire. We turn over to Luke, and there is an 
 entirely dilVerent account of the affair. He narrates, that 
 -I* '-us was led to the palace of the high-priest, Peter fol- 
 lowing at a distance (xxii. 54). A fire was built, around 
 which the whole crowd was seated "in the midst of the 
 yard" or court not in the hall, as the translators have it 
 and Jesus was sitting among them at the fire (ibid. 61) 
 until morning (ibid. 66). No priests, scribes, ciders, or 
 council appears, or meets in the palace, and no trial takes 
 place. "As soon as it was day, the elders of the people, 
 and the chief priests, and the scribes came together, and 
 led him into their council' 7 (ibid.). According to Mark, 
 Jesus spent his night before the council in a trial, hence 
 in a room or hall ; while according to Luke, no council 
 meets and no trial takes place in the night, and Jesus re- 
 mains with his captors nea'r the fire in the yard. With 
 these two conflicting accounts before him, John narrates 
 the affair in a manner undecided and uncertain. He says 
 (xviii. 18): "And the servants and officers stood there, 
 who had made a fire of coals ; for it was cold (in harvest- 
 time???) : and they warmed themselves : and Peter stood 
 with them and warmed himself. The high-priest then 
 asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine/' The 
 formal trial being left out and the informal questions of 
 the high-priest substituted, Jesus may have remained in 
 the yard near the fire, as Luke narrates, and still there 
 was some sort of an inquiry, if no trial, to pay some re- 
 spect at least to Mark's account. But Luke denies alto- 
 gether that Jesus conversed with or even saw the high- 
 pi iest any more. It is evident, however, that only one 
 account can be correct, either Mark's or Luke's. Either 
 a trial took place during the night, and Jesus was in the 
 hall, or no trial took place in the night, and Jesus re- 
 mained in the yard, near the fire, among his captors. This 
 is important to know ; but we must first allude to two 
 other points before we can decide. 
 
 III. PETER DENYING THE MASTER. 
 
 If the evangelists had written history from reliable 
 sources, one point in this narrative they ought to have 
 known fully and correctly, namely, Peter denying the 
 
64 PETER DENYING THE MASTER. 
 
 Master, which Peter himself must have communicated 
 with all the details thereof. But here again the conflict- 
 ing accounts are most remarkable. Mark (xi., xiv. 66) 
 maintains " one of the maids of the high-priest" said to 
 Peter, "Thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth ," which he 
 denied, went out into the porch, " and the cock crew." 
 Then another maid sees him and says, u This is one of 
 them/' which he again denies. Then some of the men 
 renew the accusation. "But he began to curse and to swear, 
 saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak. And the 
 second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the 
 word that Jesus said unto him : Before the cock crow twice, 
 thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought there- 
 on he wept." Here we have two maids and finally some 
 men addressing Peter. After the first query Peter with- 
 draws from the yard to the porch, the cock crows twice, 
 and Peter thinks of the words of Jesus without any fur- 
 ther sign or signal. All this occurred after the trial and 
 condemnation of Jesus, and after he had been maltreated. 
 Matthew copies Mark's account literally, with one excep- 
 tion, that he knew of the cock crowing but once, because, 
 according to his traditions, Jesus did not say, " Before 
 the cock crow twice thou shalt deny me thrice." He said, 
 " Before the cock crow [finish crowing] thou shalt deny 
 me thrice." So Matthew changes this feature of the 
 story, because he had another version of the prophecy. 
 This suggests at once that the story was written, not be- 
 cause it happened, but simply because a certain saying of 
 Jesus was traditionally preserved, only that the exact 
 words were not known. Luke corrects Mark's account ; 
 there are three questioners (the second person is no maid), 
 three answers ; but the cock crows but once, Peter does not 
 leave the yard, goes not unto the porch, nor would he 
 have thought of the prophecy if it had not been for one 
 point, of which all the other evangelists were ignorant: 
 " And the Lord (Jesus) turned and looked upon Peter. 
 And Peter remembered the words of the Lord, how he 
 had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny 
 me thrice." All this is done before Jesus was subjected 
 to any trial or maltreatment, so that Peter could not have 
 known anything about it. John says (xviii. 25) the story 
 happened after the high-priest had interrogated Jesus and 
 somebody had struck him (John needs Peter's testimony); 
 and the story was not as the Synoptics have it ; it was so: 
 
THE TRIAL. 65 
 
 "And Simon Peter Stood and Warmed himself. Thevsuid there- 
 fore unto him. Art not tlx>u also one ,,\ Jiis disciples V lie de- 
 nied it, and said, 1 am not. One of the servants of the hijjh- 
 jiriest, IMMIILT his kinsman \vli<e ear J'eter cut oil', saith, Did not 
 I 866 thee in the garden witli him? Peter then denied a,u r ain ; 
 
 and Immediately the cock crew." 
 
 ! was not asked thrice but by entirely different 
 persons and the cock crowed but once. He did not go out, 
 and did not weep. Jn this ease Mark has his own way, 
 Matthew and Luke each theirs, and John is independent of 
 either, so that it is plain it was not the story which they 
 knew : it was the supposed prophecy of Jesus which gave 
 rise to the story. This is not history written from authen- 
 tic sou re 
 
 IV. THE MALTREATMENT IN THE HIGH-PRIEST'S PALACE. 
 
 Precisely the same is the case with the maltreatment to 
 which Jesus was subjected. Mark communicates (xiv. 
 65), after Jesus had been condemned by the nocturnal 
 council, "And some began to spit on him, and to cover 
 bis lace, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy ; 
 and the servants did strike him with the palms of their 
 hands." The "some" of whom Mark thinks they have 
 committed those outrages, must have been members of the 
 council; so that all on a sudden all the chief priests, 
 elders, and scribes, the whole council, without regard to 
 their dignity, the solemnity of the occasion, the express 
 laws of their people, and the helplessness of the convict, 
 behaved like an excited mob, a band of lawless and heart- 
 less ruffians. This is hardly credible. Still Matthew 
 (xxiv. 67)^ adopts this account and adds to it, according 
 to the Latin version, " And some struck him with their 
 fists/' This appeared incredible even to Luke. He says 
 (xxii. 63) ; "Aiicl the men that held Jesus [the soldiers 
 and officers] mocked him and smote him. And when 
 they had blindfolded him they struck him on (he face, 
 and asked him, saying, Prophesy who is it that smote 
 thee? And many other things blasphemously spake they 
 against him." This looks somewhat more probable, as 
 rude warriors and hirelings might thus outrage the law 
 and humanity. Cases of this kind transpire in our age 
 of enlightenment. But Luke betrays his sources by the 
 phrases 'they struck him in the face/' etc., "saying, Pro- 
 phesy," showing distinctly that he has taken his version 
 
66 THE NIGHTLY TRIAL. 
 
 of the story from Mark's account, and having no nightly 
 trial, as Mark has, he transferred the scene from the hall 
 of judgment to the yard or court, and changed the actors 
 from the men of the council to the soldiers and hirelings 
 holding Jesus. Here again John had two conflicting ac- 
 counts to adjust. He denies that either the men of the 
 council or the soldiers and officers struck or mocked 
 Jesus ; and to give some satisfaction to Mark's account, 
 he reduces the whole outrage to one blow. Having adopt- 
 ed the high-priest's informal inquiry in place of Mark's 
 nightly trial, he winds up thus (xviii. 22) : "And when 
 he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by 
 struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answer- 
 est thou the high-priest so ?" This reduces the whole 
 scandal to one officer and one blow, and this looks like 
 being taken from the trial of Paul at Jerusalem. (Acts, 
 xxiii. 2.) It is impossible, to any fair critic, to discover 
 fact under these contradictory statements of improbabilities. 
 Either Mark, Luke, or John, or all three of them, stated 
 a falsehood ; the latter appears most likely, for neither 
 Mark's nightly trial, nor Luke's morning trial, nor John's 
 informal conversation, is based upon fact. 
 
 V. THE NIGHTLY TRIAL. 
 
 We have arrived now at the main point the nightly 
 trial which Mark reports and Matthew adopts. This 
 trial, denied by Luke and John, rests upon the exclusive 
 authority of Mark, confirmed by Matthew. The first 
 question naturally must be, Is Mark better authority than 
 Luke and John? We think Luke and John were so 
 much nearer to the time of Mark than we are, that their 
 mere denial should suffice all critical minds to reject the 
 nightly trial of Mark as a piece of fiction, especially as 
 we have seen in the former points that he writes no au- 
 thentic history. Still, in order to establish the point pos- 
 itively, we will investigate it separately. 
 
 The whole trial, from the beginning to the end, is con- 
 trary to Jewish law and custom as in force at the time of 
 Jesus. No court of justice with jurisdiction in penal 
 cases could or ever did hold its session in the place of 
 the high-priest. There were three legal bodies in Jerusa- 
 lem* to decide penal cases: the Great Sanhedrin of seven- 
 
 * Besides police court whose judges were called Dayanai Guezer- 
 oth, having jurisdiction merely in cases of violation of ordi- 
 nances. 
 
THE TRIAL. 67 
 
 ty-onc members, and two Minor Sanhedrin each of twenty- 
 three members. The court of priests n^inD 7&* J'l HO 
 had no penal jurisdietimi except in the affairs of the 
 temple service, and then over priests and Levites only. 
 The ( Jreat Sanhedrin held its sessions in a hall called 
 JAxhhath llttyyazith "the hall of hewn stone" adjoining 
 the temple near the altar of copper. There and there 
 only tlu ir ses.sions were legal in all causes of life and 
 death.* But this body did positively not exist at the time 
 when Jesus was crucified, having been dissolved 30 A. c. 
 In nowise then any passages of the gospels must be un- 
 derstood to refer to the Great Sanhedrin. Again, the two 
 Minor Sanhedrin had their legal places of sessions one at 
 the gate of the temple inclosure 'JT2n "1,1 HD3), and 
 the other at the gate of the temple court (ITU^n nD})- 
 There and nowhere else their sessions were lawful and 
 their judgments legal.f Another court having penal 
 jurisdiction did not exist in Jerusalem, nor were any other 
 places assigned to them. Therefore Luke states (xxii. 
 66), "they Jed him into their council/ 7 knowing 
 that no such court could hold sessions in the place of 
 the high-priest. Still Mark maintains, the nightly trial 
 took place in the palace of the high-priest. 
 
 Ko court of justice in Israel was permitted to open its 
 sessions at night, and in cases of capital crime no session 
 could be extended after the evening hour. (Mishnah San- 
 hedrin, iy, 1.) The legally-appointed time for the sessions 
 of the Minor Sanhedrin and lower courts was from 6 A. 
 M. to 12 M., and for the Great Sanhedrin from 6. A. M. to 
 3 P. M.J Therefore Luke maintains, the session of the 
 court took place "as soon as it was day." Still Mark 
 maintains, contrary to law and custom, the trial came off 
 at night. 
 
 Xo court of justice in Israel was permitted to hold ses- 
 sions on Sabbath or any of the seven Biblical holidays. 
 In cases of capital crime, no trial could be commenced on 
 Friday or the day previous to any holiday, because it was 
 aot lawful either to adjourn such cases longer than over 
 
 * Mishnah Sanhedrin, iii.; Talmud do., 886; Maimonides 
 Hilch. Sanhedrin, iii. 1. 
 
 t Mishnah Sanhedrin, ii. 2; Talmud do., 886; Maimonides, 
 J Talmud Sabbath, 10; Sanhedrin, 88 6; Maimonides, ibid. iii. 1. 
 
68 THE NIGHTLY TRIAL. 
 
 night, or to continue them on the Sabbath or holiday.* 
 Hence not only the least of Passover, but also the Friday, 
 is in the way of Mark's nightly trial. John gains noth- 
 ing by his date; for the night between the 13th of 14th 
 day of Nissan, according to Jewish computation of time, 
 counts to the 14th day, on which no trial of capital crime 
 could be opened. Therefore John has no formal trial what- 
 ever before any Jewish authorities. Still Mark has it in 
 the night of the Passover feast. 
 
 No criminal court among the ancient Hebrews tried 
 any case without the co-operation of two scribes to record 
 the proceedings. It was prohibited to write on Sabbath 
 and holidays ; still the Synoptics have the trial of Jesus 
 take place on the Passah feast. According to Jewish law, 
 a man whose life is jeopardized must have a trial last : ng 
 at least two days the first for the prosecution and the 
 second for the defense ;f but with Mark and Matthew, 
 the whole thing is done in a few hours, and with Luke in 
 an early morning hour. In fact, every step in the trials 
 described by the Synoptics, as we shall notice all alona:, 
 was contrary to Jewish law and custom. 
 
 If the trial of Jesus, as reported by the Synoptics, in 
 every detail violates Jewish law and custom, then it must 
 be assumed that Caiaphas and his conspirators acted con- 
 trary to the laws of Israel, because either they were afraid 
 of the people, and wished to dispose of Jesus before the 
 community could have been informed of his arrest, or be- 
 cause his destruction was preconcerted, and the whole pro- 
 cedure was a mere sham. In the first case, we must natural- 
 ly expect strict secrecy ; and in the second case, it is dif- 
 ficult to tell why any trial at all, genuine or sham, should 
 have taken place. Having preconcerted, in violation of 
 Jewish law, the destruction of Jesus, and the victim be- 
 ing in their hands, any and every form of law was super- 
 fluous. Therefore we must suppose that Caiaphas and 
 his conspirators were not only villains but also fools who 
 spent a whole night in going through a piece of mockery 
 without attaining any end whatsoever. The idea of a 
 sham trial must be abandoned. The Synoptics could 
 never have entertained it, as we shall see instantly ; but 
 
 * Mishnah Sanhedrin, iv. 1 ; Talmud do., 32 to 34 ; Maimonides, 
 ibid. iii. 3. 
 T Maimonides ; Sanhedrin, xii. 3. 
 
THE TRIAL. 69 
 
 we will first discuss the point of secrecy. According to 
 Luke, the trial was in the morning and in the regular 
 judgment hall, hence then 1 was no secrecy about it. Ac- 
 cording to Mark, the judges, in person or by messengers, 
 stirred up a large number of witnesses to testily against 
 dous. They must certainly have spoken to many before 
 they succeeded in finding so considerable a number of 
 witnesses. The judges themselves alarming the citizens at 
 midnight, they could not expect secrecy. It rather ap- 
 pears that Mark did not think of any secrecy. He must 
 have felt the weight of the question, If the trial was strict- 
 ly secret among those conspirators, how could Mark or 
 any body besides the conspirators know what was 
 done and what was spoken ? He reports not only 
 alleged facts but also the very words spoken on that oc- 
 casion. Therefore it was necessary to bring in some 
 honest outsiders, in the capacity of witnesses, to render 
 plausible the origin of the report; and bringing in honest 
 outsiders, the idea of secrecy is dispelled. 
 
 As unlikely as it appears that a body of conspirators 
 should alarm the community at midnight, going about in 
 search of witnesses, still in the case of Mark it proves 
 that he had no idea of a sham trial. In his ignorance of 
 Jewish law, he imagined the trial which he described 
 was lawful among Jews. He proves this, in the first 
 placo, by the very statement that witnesses were sought 
 and produced. A court convoked and acting in rebel- 
 lion 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. In the second place, 
 Mark tells us, not only was the testimony of some wit- 
 nesses considered insufficient to condemn Jesus (verse 56), 
 and rejected on that ground, but also the testimony of false 
 witnesses was rejected, so that Jesus was not condemned on 
 the testimony of any witness, all being rejected as insuffici- 
 ent. Those judges must have been foolish. They went about 
 at midnight in a populous city to produce false witnesses, 
 as Matthew asserts, and when they had them they proved 
 worthless. Why did they not instruct the witnesses 
 what they must say and how they must say it? Had 
 Mark intended to convey the idea of a sham trial, he 
 could not possibly have supposed the judges to have been 
 so scrupulously exact with the testimony. He certainly 
 
70 THE TIME OF THE TKIAL. 
 
 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 re- 
 flection the rejection thereof on account of insufficiency. 
 If those judges had lived in our days, in New York, 
 London, Paris, or elsewhere, they would certainly have 
 been more successful in the discovery of a number of false 
 witnesses, especially if the high dignitaries of any coun- 
 try should seek them. The citizens of Jerusalem, it ap- 
 pears, according to Mark and Matthew, were honest men. 
 
 VI. THE TIME OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 Not only the law and custom of the Hebrews, as stated 
 above, and the contradictions of Luke and John, prove 
 the fictitious character of Mark's nightly trial ; but also 
 the space of time which it is supposed to have occupied, 
 testifies against it. The eating of the Passover meal could 
 not have commenced before 6 to 7 p. M. Say with all the 
 speeches, conversations, hymns and ceremonies, it lasted 
 only three hours (with John's speeches and prayer it 
 must have lasted till midnight); no less time can be allot- 
 ted to it ; then Jesus left the house between 9 and 10 P. M. 
 Walking from the city out to Gethsernane takes one hour 
 at least, so he arrived there between 10 and 11 p. M. Now 
 comes the passion scene, the prayers, the returning three 
 times to the disciples, which must have lasted another 
 hour. This fixes the capture of Jesus'between 11 and 12. 
 The conversations at the capture and walking to the high- 
 priest's palace must have taken up time to about 1 A. M. 
 Another hour at least must have been occupied by the 
 judges in their search after witnesses, so that the trial 
 could not have commenced before 2 A. M. " Early in the 
 morning," as Mark says, or at daybreak, according to 
 Matthew; hence before 6 A. M. the trial was all over, so 
 that all had to be done in four hours, which, according to 
 Jewish law, is impossible. 
 
 According to Jewish law, it is every body's duty, in 
 criminal cases, to testify before court, also if he is not 
 summoned. Two witnesses who have seen the crime 
 committed, each of them having seen the entire deed, 
 their testimony concurring in the main and the leading 
 particulars, establish the fact to convict the criminal. 
 Direct and full testimony only is valid in cases of capital 
 
THE TRIAL. 71 
 
 crimes. Circumstantial evidence is insufficient. If for 
 instance one lias seen a man lying in wait, another has 
 Been him load a pistol, a third has heard the noise of a 
 shot coming from that tree where the man laid in wait, 
 and a fourth sees the victim shot dead ; their testimony 
 would not convict the murderer to subject him to the sen- 
 tence of death. Each witness must have seen the whole 
 deed. Therefore the examination and cross-examination 
 of the witnesM's was very strict and lengthy. In all crim- 
 inal cases each witness was examined by himself on the 
 principle expressed in Deuteronomy, xiii. 15, "Then shalt 
 thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently."* He 
 was first asked questions to ascertain that he was a lawful 
 witness in the case on trial, viz., concerning the person of 
 the witness, his name, character, place of residence, 
 etc., and then concerning the culprit, that he could identify 
 him, was no enemy, and no relative of his, etc. Next came 
 the admonition addressed to the witnessf that he state 
 nothing which he only heard others say ; that he should 
 be closdy examined and cross-examined ; that the blood 
 of the culprit, if unjustly condemned, falls upon the false 
 witness ; that God created only one man, therefore who- 
 ever causes the death of one innocent man, has commit- 
 ted a crime as monstrous as though he had destroyed a 
 whole world. I After this the seven main questions con- 
 cerning the crime were asked, six concerning the 
 time, and one the place, when and where the crime 
 was committed, and particular questions relating to 
 the nature of that particular crime. These questions being 
 answered and written down by a scribe of the court, cir- 
 cumstantial questions were asked, answered, and commit- 
 ted to writing. Nextcamethecross-examination.il The 
 twenty-three members of the court being the judges, jury 
 and lawyers in one body, every one of them was entitled 
 to cross-examine the witness. 
 
 The first witness being so examined, he was dismissed 
 and one or more witnesses were heard, each by himself 
 
 * Mishnuh, Sanhedrin, iv. 1. 
 t Mishnali, Sanhedrin, iv. 3 Talmud do., 37 a. 
 t Z. Frankcl, Der Gerichtliche Beweis nach mosaish-talmudi- 
 schem Ilechte. p. 191. 
 
 I Mishnah, Sanhedrin, iv. 2. 
 
 |] Tal. do., 32 6. inn nun pjn *poni? no apo 1 ? aipcD o n;n rm 
 
72 FALSE WITNESSES. 
 
 and precisely in the same manner. The concurrence of 
 their testimony in the main points established the fact. 
 The least deviation in time, place, or the crime itself, ren- 
 dered the testimony null and void, and might have ex- 
 posed the witnesses to the punishment of the law.* (Deut, 
 xix. 16.) 
 
 It is evident that the examination of but one set of 
 witnesses took longer than four hours. But Mark and 
 Matthew report many false witnesses to have appeared 
 against Jesus, whose testimony was taken and rejected as 
 insufficient ; and after them another set of witnesses ap- 
 pears who testified, "We heard him say, I will destroy 
 this temple that is made with hands, and within three 
 days I will build another made without hands. 77 Also 
 this set of witnesses was examined and their testimony re- 
 jected because their "witness did not agree together." It is 
 simply impossible to dispose legally of so many witnesses 
 in four hours or in one day. They must have occupied 
 the attention of a court acting under the above laws for 
 two or three days. 
 
 It is in vain to put in here the plea, these conspirators 
 made short work also of the witnesses. If they were all 
 villains, they stood now before some honest men, viz., the 
 witnesses who would not make any false statement. Is it 
 at all imaginable that fhe high-priest, together with the 
 highest dignitaries of a country, and the most celebrated 
 temple in the world, let them be the worst of villains, 
 will recklessly and shamelessly rebel against the law of 
 the nation, in presence of honest citizens and in a case of 
 a man's life being in jeopardy? The most licentious 
 hypocrites even, under these circumstances, must have re- 
 spected the form of law at least. Mark never supposes 
 otherwise. But then, it was impossible to dispose of the 
 case in four hours or in one day. 
 
 VII. FALSE WITNESSES. 
 
 Aside of all these points, Mark forgot the Jewish law 
 concerning false witnesses, which the Pentateuch enjoins 
 (Deuter., xix. 16), both Pharisees and Sadducees rigidly 
 enforced, the various statutes and discussions thereon 
 forming a very extensive portion of the Talmud. The law 
 is explicit on this point : " And the judges shall inquire 
 
 * Maimonides, Hil. Eduth i., ii., iii., iv. 
 
THE TRIAL. 73 
 
 diligently ; and lu>liol(], if the witness he a false witness, 
 lie has testified a falsehood against his brother; then shall 
 do unto him as he had purjmsed to do unto his broth- 
 er ; and tho'i Mialt put away the evil from the midst of 
 Ihcr." Maimomdes in his Mishnah Thorah (1/i/r/i Jiluth, 
 xvii.) has codified the laws concerning false witnesses, 
 and shows how rigidly this part of the laws was enibreed. 
 In their opposition to eapital punishment, the Pharisees 
 Mirrounded the procedure and evidence with so many 
 technical complications that it was very difficult to impose 
 this highest penalty of the law upon any culprit. One of 
 their means to this end was, they insisted, if the culprit 
 had not been forewarned of the magnitude of the crime 
 and its consequences before its commission (njOfii"P 
 capital punishment could not be inflicted on him. But 
 the false witnesses accusing one of a capital crime, were 
 excluded from this benefit. Therefore it could not have 
 been an easy task in Jerusalem to find false -yitnesses to 
 testily in a case of capital crime, as every person almost 
 must have known the inevitable consequences of that 
 crime. ^ If the judges, in the case of Jesus, actually suc- 
 ceeded in producing false witnesses, what was done with 
 them after their crime had become obvious ? The court 
 had not the shadow of a right to dismiss them, of which 
 Matthew, it appears, knew nothing. It must not be ad- 
 vanced that a court which seeks false witnesses to condemn 
 a man will not hold them responsible for their crimes; for 
 Mark evidently had the intention to report lawful proceed- 
 ings, only that he did not know the laws of the Jews in the 
 time of Jesus. Besides, if the judges as far as they were 
 concerned had even assured the false witnesses that they 
 should go unpunished, they still risked their lives, as any 
 other person present might at any time thereafter have 
 called them to account for the crime committed. 
 
 VIII. SELF-ACCUSATION. 
 
 The conduct of the high-priest, as described by Mark 
 was no less illegal than the whole trial. First, he asked 
 Jesus, "Answerest thou nothing? What is it which 
 these witness against thee ?" The high-priest must have 
 known that the law does not require the culprit to say 
 anything, unless he chooses to defend himself. There was 
 no reason for Jesus to do this, if the witnesses did not 
 
74 BLASPHEMY. 
 
 agree, and the question of the high- priest is a piece of 
 folly. But Mark did not know it. He evidently believed 
 the high-priest wanted to elicit a self-criminating conies- 
 sion of Jesus; for he goes on to report, when Jesus made 
 no reply to the above queries, the high-priest asked him, 
 "Art thou the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?" Jesus 
 answering in the affirmative, the high-priest renting his 
 clothes (which again was forbidden on Sabbath and holi- 
 days) said, "What need we any further witnesses? Ye 
 have heard the blasphemy" evidently supposing, as also 
 the judges are supposed to have done, the comession of 
 Jesus was sufficiently self-criminating to condemn him. 
 This is an impardonable blunder. Self-accusation con- 
 demns none in Jewish law. "No man incriminates him- 
 self "* was the legal maxim. The Jewish procedure be- 
 gins with the accusation (the inquisition is Roman), who 
 had to produce the corpus delicti, Then followed the tes- 
 timony of no less than two witnesses. Without either no 
 sentence of capital punishment could be rendered. Self- 
 accusation in cases of capital crime was worthless. For 
 if not guilty he accuses himself of a falsehood ; if guilty, 
 he is a wicked man, and no wicked man, according to 
 Jewish law, is permitted to testify, especially not in penal 
 cases. The high-priest must have known all that, but 
 Mark did not, and produces the high-priest in the role of 
 a grand inquisitor. 
 
 IX. BLASPHEMY. 
 
 The point at issue, according to Mark, was blasphemy. 
 Jesus admitting that he was the Messiah, the Son of the 
 Blessed, no further testimony was considered necessary: the 
 verdict of guilty and the sentence of death were at once and 
 unanimously pronounced by all thejudges. The mistakes in 
 this point are numerous and obvious. In the first place, 
 the law requires, in cases of capital crime, that the argu 
 ment be opened by the defense, " from the side," i. e., 
 by the least influential member of the court, to be fol- 
 lowed up to the most influential, till all who wish to de- 
 fend the culprit have spoken. Then the prosecution fol- 
 lows. If none of thejudges 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 
 
 * Sanhedrin 9 b, Kethubath 1] Yehamoth 24, and elsewhere. 
 
THE TRIAL, 75 
 
 death could not be executed.* But according to Mark all 
 the judges agreed and condemned Jesus, none defended 
 him. This is probably the worst blunder made by Mark. 
 For if it was a mere sham trial, a sham defense must 
 have been made to satisfy the law. 
 
 Again, had Jesus maintained before a body of Jew- 
 ish lawyers to be the Son of God, they could not have 
 found him guilty of blasphemy, because every Israelite 
 had a perfect right to call himself a sou of God, the law 
 (Deut., xiv. 1) stating in unmistakable words, " Ye are 
 sons of the Lord your God." When Rabbi Judah ad- 
 vanced the opinion, " If ye conduct yourselves like sons 
 of God, ye are ; if not, not," there was Rabbi Mair on 
 hand to contradict him : " In this or in that case, ye 
 are the sons of the Lord your God."f No law, no prec- 
 edent, and no fictitious case in the Bible or the rabbinical 
 literature can be cited to make of this expression a case 
 of blasphemy. 
 
 Had Jesus maintained before a Jewish court to be the 
 Son of God, in the trinitarian sense of the terms, viz., that 
 he was part, person, or incarnation of the Deity, he must 
 have said it in terms to be understood to that effect, as 
 ambiguous words amount to nothing. But if even clearly 
 understood, the court could only have found him insane, 
 but not guilty of any crime. John could write for Gen- 
 tile readers, that Jesus said of himself, " I am the path, 
 the truth, and the life ;" l( If ye have learned to know 
 me, ye have also learned to know rny Father ;" " Who- 
 ever seeth me, seeth the Father" (John, xiv.), because the 
 heathens had never risen above pantheism and anthropo- 
 morphism. With them the universe was Deity in con- 
 creto, and the Deity was the universe in abstrado, mani- 
 festing and accommodating himself to the human senses by 
 incarnation, the most perfect of which was the human 
 shape. With them the Father could be seen and known 
 by seeing and knowing the incarnation called Son. Had 
 anybody uttered the same ideas in Jerusalem, nobody 
 would have considered him guilty of blasphemy ; every 
 sensible Jew would have taken him to be insane. But 
 Jous is not reported to have said anything of tne kind in 
 
 * Maimonides, Sanhedrin, ix. 1 and xi. 7, and sources noticed 
 there. 
 
 r Siphri Re'eh, 96. 
 
76 BLASPHEMY. 
 
 the trial under consideration, and if he had said so, no 
 case of blasphemy could have been made of it. 
 
 Mark reports furthermore, that Jesus did not simply af- 
 firm the high-priest's question, but added : " And ye shall 
 see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, 
 and coming in the clouds of heaven." Jesus can not 
 have said these words. Our reasons are, they are not 
 true; none of the judges and witnesses present ever did 
 see him either sitting on the right hand of power or com- 
 ing in the clouds of heaven. These words could have 
 originated only after the death of Jesus, when the Jew- 
 ish Christians expected his immediate return as the Mes- 
 siah and restorer of the kingdom of heaven, so that those 
 very men could see him coming in the clouds of heaven. 
 Besides, Jesus, the Pharisean Jew, could not have enter- 
 tained the anthropomorphism that God had a right hand. 
 Again, this passage alludts to a supposed prophecy of 
 Daniel (vii. 13): " I looked on the nightly visions, and 
 behold, with the clouds of heaven came one like a son of 
 man" (like a human being). This "son of man," ac- 
 cording to Saadiah, refers to the Messiah, to come hereaf- 
 ter ; according to Ibn Ezra, it refers to the people of Is- 
 rael ; according to Mark, it refers to Jesus. Either of 
 the three opinions is a mere guess. It appears entirely 
 different to us. We think, after Daniel had predicted the 
 end of all crowns, thrones, sceptres, despots and rulers in 
 general, he declares that then man will regain his rights 
 and his dominion given him by the Almighty. " This 
 dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass 
 away, and his kingdom is one which shall never be de- 
 stroyed ;" humanity, liberty, and justice shall reign for- 
 ever under God's most benign scepter. Our opinion is as 
 good as any of the above, hence there are four of the rn, 
 and the reader has his choice. Jesus certainly had no 
 idea that he was that Bar JEnash, whose kingdom should 
 last forever, as he considered himself sent to the house of 
 Israel only, and saw his kingdom come to an end before 
 he had really established it. But there is another point 
 to be considered in this connection. The Jews did not 
 consider Daniel a prophet, and Maimonides plainly states* 
 
 * Moreh Nebuchim, ii., 45. 
 
 PBD pjo * * mnVrn onB> icNcn -pro viN^cr VJOJT pi 
 13 -m** Di^na ori3 IDNJ T^N njmoD no'jo 
 
THE TRIAL. 77 
 
 that Daniel's dreams must not be considered prophetical 
 in the sen>e of the Pentateuch, Therefore, his hook was 
 not accepted in the prophetical canon, and was placed in 
 the Iliography. It is very doubtful that this hitter col- 
 lee lion existed a< part of the Bible in the days of Jesus. 
 AVhy, then, should Jesus have referred to a passage of 
 doubtful authority and meaning, to establish bis dignity; 
 why not to an authentic prophetical passage? lie did 
 not make this statement, is the only answer we can see; 
 but if he had made it tuere was no blasphemy in it, ac- 
 cording to the Jewish law. 
 
 The blasphemy law is in Leviticus (xxiv. 15 to 20), 
 which ordains, u If any man shall curse his God [i. e., by 
 whatever name he- may call his God], he shall bear his 
 sin," but the law has nothing to do with it, dictates no 
 punishment, takes no cognizance thereof. " But he who 
 shall curse the name of Jehovah, he shall surely be put 
 to death," be the eurser native or alien. Another blas- 
 phemy la\v exists not in the Pentateuch. The an- 
 cient Hebrews expounded this law, that none is guilty of 
 blasphemy in the first degree, unless he curses God him- 
 self by the name of Jehovah ; or, as Maimonides main- 
 tains, by the name Adonai.* The penalty of death is 
 only threatened in the first degree. The Mishnah states 
 expressly as the general law, " The blasphemer is not 
 guilty, unless he (in cursing the Deity) has mentioned 
 the name itself" (of Jehovah or Adonai),f so that there 
 can be no doubt whatever that such was the law in Is- 
 rael. It is clear that the statements made by Mark, in 
 the name of Jesus, had nothing in the world to do with 
 the blasphemy laws of the Jews; that the renting of gar- 
 ments by the high-priest, as the balance of the proceed- 
 ings, can be fictitious only. But even if there had been 
 a case of blasphemy, self-accusation would not condemn 
 the culprit, without the accusation, trial, witness, etc., as 
 in other cases of capital crime. 
 
 Not one point in the whole trial agrees with Jewish 
 law and custom. It is impossible to save it. It must be 
 given up as a transparent and unskilled invention of a 
 Gentile Christian, of the second century, who knew noth- 
 
 * Maimonides, H. Akkum, ii. 7; Talmud Sanhedrin, 55 and 56 
 and elsewhere 
 j- ovn ttno'ip 17 a^n W 
 
78 LUKE'S TRIAL. 
 
 ing of Jewish law and custom, and was ignorant of 
 the state of civilization in Palestine, in the time of Jesus. 
 
 x. LUKE'S TRIAL. 
 
 Luke reports no trial to have taken place during the 
 night. He maintains Jesus remained all the time among 
 his captors near the fire. He looked on Peter when lie 
 had repeatedly denied him, and that must have been in 
 the morning after the crowing of the cock. But in the 
 morning, Luke maintains (xxii. 66), on the morning of 
 the Passover feast, " the elders of the people, and the 
 chief priests, and the scribes came together [where ?] and 
 led him into their council." To what purpose this stately 
 procession ? Who has ever heard of a whole court go- 
 ing to receive a culprit and escort him to the place of 
 trial ? In this case, especially, they being afraid of the 
 people, alarmed the community early in the morning by 
 a procession of the chief dignitaries of the nation, on so 
 unusual a day for legal business as the first day of the 
 Passover. This appears quite improbable. 
 
 Remarkable is the fact, that Luke exonerates Caiaphas 
 altogether. He never mentions his name or his presence 
 in the trial, or before Pilate, so that Jesus did not meet 
 the high-priest at all. He must have known from Jose- 
 phus (Antiquit., xviii., iv. 3) the importance attached to 
 the person of the high-priest, on the three feasts of the 
 Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacle, when he ap- 
 peared in the temple in the sacerdotal vestments, as pre- 
 scribed in the law of Moses. These official garments 
 were kept, since the days of John iiyrcan, in the castle 
 near the temple, which Herod rebuilt and called Antonia, 
 so sacred, indeed, that the Romans holding this castle and 
 vestments as a sort of hostage, kept them in a stone 
 chamber, under the seal of the priests, and of the keep- 
 ers of the temple, the captain of the guard lighting a 
 lamp there every day. Seven days before each of the 
 three festivals, the garments were delivered to the priests, 
 to be purified, and to be worn by the high-priests in the 
 temple during the festive services. The importance at- 
 tached to the garments naturally suggests, how much 
 more importance must have been attached to the person 
 wearing them. Therefore, Luke must necessarily have 
 supposed that the high-priest, during the feast, was not 
 
Tin: TRIAL. 79 
 
 to be seen anywhere outside of the temple or his palace. 
 
 The Mishnah (Yoma, i. 1) reports the ancient practice, 
 that seven days l>ciore the day of atonement, the high- 
 priest Ictt his residence, to stay in a lodge of the temple, 
 to the dose of divine service on that day. The Yeru- 
 slialmi adds (//>/</., i. 1), that the predecessor of Caiaphas, 
 Simon ben ( 1 oniithus (or Kimhith), on the day before the 
 day of atonement, went out of the temple to converse 
 with the king (Herod of Galilee?), who, in the conversa- 
 tion, spattered spittle on the high-priest's garments; ho 
 considered himself unclean, and unfit to preside next day 
 over the divine services. His brother Judah represented 
 him. Therefore, Luke takes just precaution not to have 
 the high-priest come in contact with anybody on the 
 evening and day of the feast, and leaves him altogether 
 out of the proceedings, There can be but little reasona- 
 ble doubt that the high-priest in person kept aloof of the 
 whole proceedings, and the brief conversation of Jesus 
 and the high-priest, reported by John, is spurious ; be- 
 cause the high-priest that evening, even if it was a day 
 before the feast, did certainly not go near unwashed Ro- 
 man soldiers, or others who did not observe the law of 
 Levitical cleanness, as the least contact with any of them 
 would have rendered him unfit to wear the sacred vest- 
 ments on the feast. 
 
 Luke supposed Caiaphas had his creatures to do the 
 work for him, in the elders of the people, the chief-priests, 
 and the scribes, all of whom are exonerated by John, so 
 that 1 his clause is evidently copied from Mark. What 
 did they do with Jesus in their council? No witnesses 
 and no false witnesses were examined; none were present; 
 no sort of a legal trial was attempted; they simply asked 
 him, " Art thou the Christ ?" To what purpose this 
 question ? Were there no witnesses in the city to testify 
 that Jesus had been proclaimed the Messiah king, and 
 that he acquiesced in this proclamation? But the sequel 
 shows that Luke merely tried to improve Mark's account, 
 in which he partially succeeded. When Jesus admitted 
 that he was the Messiah, those elders said, " What need 
 we any further witness, for we ourselves have heard of his 
 own mouth ? " These words are literally transposed from 
 Mark's nightly trial to Luke's morning trial. No sensi- 
 ble reader will suppose for a moment that the same ques- 
 
80 LUKE'S TRIAL. 
 
 tion and answer, literally the same, were made twice. 
 Therefore Luke must have copied this portion from Mark, 
 and is exposed to all the objections of the law as stated 
 above, so that neither Luke's nor Mark's trial can be re- 
 ceived as a fact. 
 
 This becomes still more evident from the reply of Jesus 
 as reported by Luke : " If I tell you, you will not believe ; 
 and if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. 
 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of 
 the power of God/' It is impossible to ascertain how 
 Luke came to know the first part of this reply, which 
 none of the other gospels has. He could only have imag- 
 ined, as he had no extra reporter in that council. But the 
 second part is an improvement on Mark. According to 
 Luke, Jesus says not, they will see him come in the clouds 
 and sit at God's right hand, because he knew it was not 
 true, and God has no right hand. He made of it " the 
 right hand of the power of God/' which phrase conveys 
 no meaning whatsoever, but it was the best he could make 
 of Mark's "right hand of power." The attempted im- 
 provement leaves no doubt that Luke copied from Mark, 
 that he transferred the nightly trial to the morning, left 
 out the high-priest altogether, changed the matter and 
 the words to come in part over Mark's errors. It is 
 again the same case as above. Mark wrote, Matthew 
 copied, Luke amended, and John denied both trials, 
 mentions none, because he knew of none. In the 
 face of all the internal and external arguments pro- 
 duced, no sensible reader will expect that those trials ac- 
 tually took place. We may consider this point settled. 
 The only question can be, When and why was this written? 
 which we can not expound here, as it was written at least 
 one century after the death of Jesus. The fact is, we 
 have no knowledge whatever of the fate of Jesus, from 
 the moment of his capture to his appearance before Pi- 
 late. There was no trial, no investigation, no conversa- 
 tion with the high-priest. The only point in which the 
 gospels agree is, that Jesus was retained till morning in 
 the court of the high-priest, under guard of his captors, 
 and even this we know on the authority of Mark only. 
 
 We hardly need say that the work of the harmonizers 
 is here in vain. If we drop our arguments and adopt 
 with them two trials, one in the night and another in the 
 
.U.S1S BEFORE PILATE. 81 
 
 morning, it makes the matter so much the worse. All 
 blunders against law and custom remain the same, and 
 the time too short lor one trial was certainly too short for 
 two. Mrsides, Luke's trial in the morning, which must 
 have taken sonn- time, is plainly contradicted l>y Mark, 
 who maintains Jesus was crucified at nine o'clock in the 
 morning. We discuss this point in the next chapter. 
 
 For nearly M>venteeu centuries Christians have taken 
 this conglomeration of contradictions and improbabilities 
 a> matter of fact, although if met within any other book 
 it would have been exposed a thousand times. So mighty 
 is uninquired faith, and so easily it is deceived and satis- 
 tied. Head with the critic's eye, and nothing is left of the 
 entire account, from the capture of Jesus to the morning 
 scene before Pilate, and this again is partly spurious, as 
 we shall see in the next chapter. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 JESUS BEFORE PILATE. 
 
 The next point in the gospel narrative is the trial of 
 Jesus before the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, and 
 the judgment given by that notorious dignitary of Tiber- 
 ins. The four gospels agree that early in the morning 
 Jesus was delivered over to Pilate; that he was accused 
 of high treason against Rome, having been proclaimed 
 king of the Jews ; and that in consequence thereof he was 
 condemned first to be scourged and then to be crucified, 
 all of which was done in hot haste. In all other points 
 the narrative of the four evangelists differ widely, and so 
 essentially that oue story can not be made of the four ac- 
 counts; nor can any particular points stand the test of 
 historical criticism and vindicate its substantiality as a 
 fact. Let us examine the points in logical succession. 
 
 I. THE TIME. 
 
 According to Mark and Matthew, the chief priests in 
 the morning held a secret council with the elders of the 
 people, and then delivered him up to Pilate. This secret 
 conclave and its transactions could not possibly have been 
 known to Mark or Matthew, and could not have taken 
 
^ THE TIME. 
 
 place according to Jewish law and custom. Therefore 
 John has no account of this secret conclave. It was the 
 first day of Passover, according to the Synoptics. The 
 divine service in the temple began " when the east was 
 all lit," i. e.j early in the morning,* when all officiating 
 priests were to be at their respective posts, and none of 
 them was permitted to leave before the close of the ser- 
 vice.f Nor is it any way probable that on the first day of 
 Passover, when the numerous pilgrims were present, any 
 of the chief priests would have deserted their respective 
 posts. 
 
 But omit these proceedings and take for granted with 
 John, that early in the morning Jesus was transported by 
 his captors from the palace of Caiaphas to that of the 
 governor. The Passover being about vernal equinox, and 
 Jerusalem near the 32d degree, north longitude, six in the 
 morning was certainly called early. Say Pilate was all 
 ready to receive and try Jesus at six o'clock in the morning, 
 and went to business at once. Then the whole trial, all 
 the conversations between Pilate and Jesus, Pilate and 
 his wife, Pilate and the priests, Pilate and the people, 
 the priests and the people, Jesus and Herod, the mocking 
 by Herod's servants, including the walk from Caiaphas 
 to Pilate, from Pilate to Herod and back, three 
 times dressing and undressing Jesus ; then the mock- 
 ing scene in the Prsetorium by the Roman sol- 
 diers, the scourging, and the walk to Golgotha all this 
 variety of scenes, walks, conversations, an<i acts took less 
 than three hours. " And it was the third hour, and they 
 crucified him" (Mark, xv. 25). The third hour means 
 nine in the morning. Is this possible? Is this history? 
 John understood this mistake ; and as he differs with the 
 Synoptics in the day, so also in the hour. He maintains 
 (xix. 14), Jesus was not crucified at nine o'clock in the 
 morning, but it was nearly twelve M. when Pilate closed 
 the trial scene at Gabbatha by pronouncing judgment over 
 Jesus. But the sixth hour, or twelve at noon, aside of the 
 statement 'of Mark, is also with Luke (xxiii. 44) and 
 with Matthew (xxvii. 45) long after the crucifixion. In 
 point of time, then, either John or the Synoptics have 
 chronicled an error. Jesus could not have been crucified 
 
 * Maimonr'es, Themidim, i. 2. 
 t Maimonides, Biath Hammikdash, ii. 15. 
 
JESUS BEFORE PILATE. 83 
 
 at 9 A. M., ami then again after twelve M. As little 
 as the harmoni/ers can press all those events and speeches 
 into the brief space of three hours, they call unite the 
 diilerent dates of the Synoptics and John. 
 
 II. THE PERSONS. 
 
 Mark narrates not who escorted Jesus on his way to 
 Pilate. In-fore Pilate, the chief priests aloneappear as the 
 adv-r.-aries (xv. 3, 11). The people assembling after- 
 ward before the palace, did not come up with Jesus or on 
 his account; the friends of Barabbas, whom they wished 
 to have released, form the crowd outside and do all the 
 clamoring. So the only 'persons appearing in this part of 
 the drama are Pilate and the chief priests inside, and the 
 friends of Barabbas outside. With Matthew, however, 
 the scene enlarges, as legends naturally grow; the elders 
 of the people (xxvii. 12) are added to the adversaries of 
 Jesus; a woman, the wife of Pilate, looms up in the rear 
 with a prophetical dream concerning that righteous man ; 
 Pilate performs a Jewish custom, the washing of 
 hands, for dramatic effect, and a mad mob clamors out- 
 side, " His blood be on us and on our children." Why 
 did Matthew add these embellishments to the scene ? All 
 these additional persons and points were evidently un- 
 known to Mark, and not accredited by either Luke or 
 John. We must investigate this point in its proper 
 place. Here we must call attention to the queries asked 
 and answered, which show that not only Matthew but 
 also Luke and John took their accounts from Mark. 
 
 III. THE QUERIES. 
 
 As far as Matthew and Mark agree, the trial before 
 Pilate was opened by the governor with the question, 
 u Art thou the king of the Jews ?" Jesus affirmed this 
 without any qualification. Pilate is represented as hav- 
 ing been fully informed of the claims of Jesus to the 
 royal dignity, as he must naturally have been by what had 
 transpired in Jerusalem. After Jesus had confessed his 
 pretensions, his trial was virtually closed and his doom 
 sealed. Still, after this the chief priests, and according to 
 Matthew also the elders, accuse him of other crimes not 
 specified in those gospels, to which Jesus made no reply. 
 This silence elicits Pilate's surprise or admiration, either 
 at the equanimity of the accused, or his unwillingness to 
 
84 THE PEBSONS THE QUERIES. 
 
 defend himself, and prompts him to save the life of Jesus. 
 While we can not see to what purpose any accusation was 
 advanced against Jesus, after his unqualified confession 
 which, before the Roman, did condemn him to the death 
 of a rebel, we can not comprehend how the silence of Je- 
 BUS could have changed the acknowledged fact or the ex- 
 isting law, or how it moved Pilate to compassion or ad- 
 miration, unless we suppose, to which the sources entitle 
 not, that Pilate took Jesus to be an insane fanatic. Luke 
 and John felt this point, and made the attempt to set it 
 aright, in which they failed entirely. We discuss these 
 points below. 
 
 Meanwhile, and accidentally, a crowd assembled out- 
 side (these two evangelists continue), for the avowed pur- 
 pose of releasing Barabbas (Mark, xv. 8). It is to them 
 that Pilate directs the question, " Will ye that I release 
 unto you the king of the Jews?" which Matthew ex- 
 plains to the effect that either Barabbas or Jesus should 
 be given them (xxvii. 17, 21). The people, persuaded by 
 the chief priests, and also by the elders, as Matthew 
 wants it, chose Barabbas. The suasion of the chief priests 
 is evidently superfluous in the account, as the crowd had 
 come for the very purpose of liberating Barabbas, whom 
 they knew as the leader of a popular rebellion in Jeru- 
 salem (Luke, xxiii. 19), while the evangelists leave it al- 
 together uncertain that any of them knew much of Jesus 
 or his teachings. It is quite natural that they should have 
 selected Barabbas, as only the choice between the two had 
 been left them. .Next come the two questions, " What 
 will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the king 
 of the Jews?" and when they replied, " Crucify him !" he 
 continues, "Why, what evil hath he done?" and they 
 clamor again, *' Crucify him!" This ends the scene, as 
 far as the two evangelists agree. These three questions 
 are rather peculiar. Pilate had heard of Jesus, that he 
 had been proclaimed the king of the Jews, and accusing 
 the people that they called him the king of the Jews, 
 still asks, " What evil hath he done?" The people of 
 New York proclaim James Brown king of New York, 
 and James Brown, placed before a court-martial, confesses 
 to be the king of New York, and there is none to deny 
 or gainsay it. Then the chief ot that court-martial asks, 
 What wrong has he done ? and maintains it is on account 
 

 -TF.SUS BEFORE PILATE. 85 
 
 of the envy of his enemies that James Brown is brought 
 to trial. There is too much self-contradiction in tins. 
 Because the people vociferated, " ( YiK-ily him!" if they 
 did so, therefore Pilate ought to have given up Jesn 
 an innocent fanatic, since none acknowledged his. royal 
 claims. Pilate was not under the power of the people ; 
 they groaned under his oppression. Why then ask them 
 why not ask himself what that man had done to deserve 
 death? The 1 situation is changed here altogether. The 
 tyrant becomes subject, and the subject the tyrant. The 
 bloodthirsty and reckless Pilate, all on a sudden, exper- 
 iences a spasmodic ieeling of righteousness and obliging 
 politeness to the victims of his bloody despotism; and the 
 victims of his villainous outrages are transformed into a 
 horde of ravenous wolves against one of their own kins- 
 men, contrary to the proverbial affections of the Hebrews 
 for their own. John attempts to account also for this 
 unnatural situation, but he is again unsuccessful, as we 
 shall see below. 
 
 iv. LUKE'S VERSION. 
 
 Luke, with these accounts before him, in the first place 
 drops out of the narrative the additions of Matthew, viz., 
 the wife of Pilate and her dream, his washing of the 
 hands, and the outsiders 7 vociferation. If the passage 
 had been in Matthew when Luke wrote, which is doubt- 
 ful, he had sufficient reason to drop it. A heathen wo-' 
 man has a prophetical dream, and thus stands in connec- 
 tion with the divine power. This would have been too im- 
 pious for Luke. He could not have accredited it, had he 
 seen it. The washing of the hands as a symbolic act, 
 to denote a person's innocence in the blood shed unjustly, 
 was exclusively Jewish, and is recorded in the Pentateuch 
 as a divine command on a certain occasion (Dcut., xxi). 
 Luke could not have believed that the heathen Roman, in 
 this particular case, should have observed a command- 
 ment of the Jews, and perform a ceremony which must 
 have appeared ridiculous to him. Therefore Luke must 
 have dropped this point, together with the remarks of 
 Pilate, and the vociferation of the people connected with 
 it. John did the same in these two points: he 
 omitted them. If those two evangelists did not accredit 
 the additional points of Matthew, it can certainly not be 
 
86 LUKE'S VERSION. 
 
 expected of any critic now to adopt them as facts. It 
 may have appeared to Luke that Matthew or his inform- 
 ant was mistaken in the wife of Pilate. He thought 
 of the wife of Felix, Drusill i, who was a Jewess by 
 birth, and had some notion to change her religion a second 
 time (Acts, xxiv. 24). This mistake accounts also for the 
 second. The husband of a Jewess, though heathenized, 
 may have entertained some respect for Jewish symbols ; 
 if it was not brought in ibr the express purpose of having 
 the Jews clamor after the blood of Jesus, to show 
 how magnanimous the Roman and how bloodthirsty the 
 Jew was, which is one of the most conspicuous objects in 
 the gospels and Acts. 
 
 Luke works the second point in this manner. He 
 adopts the stately procession of Matthew, escorting Jesus 
 to Pilate. The governor, however, knows nothing of Je- 
 sus, has not heard of his entry into the city, his deport- 
 ment in the temple, his influence upon the people, or the 
 threatening rebellion ; the chief priests and the scribes 
 must accuse him of " perverting the nation, and forbid- 
 ding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is 
 Christ, a king." The middle part of this accusation is 
 not true ; but it appears to be intended that the Jews 
 state a falsehood. Piiate, altogether ignorant of the prec- 
 edents of Jesus, has no confidence in the accusation and 
 asks Jesus, " Art thou the king of the Jews ?" to which 
 he replies, " Thou sayest it" Luke having found this 
 question and answer in Mark and Matthew, repeats them 
 literally; but less acquainted with the Hebrew idiom than 
 his predecessors, he understands tlv 1 phrase "Thou sayest 
 it," not as an unqualified affirmation, as it was actually 
 understood by the Jews ; he takes it literally, viz., li Thou 
 sayest, I am a king; I do not say so, and let Pilate de- 
 clare, I find no fault in this man." So he attempts an 
 explanation of the point, why did Pilate hold Jesus to be 
 innocent after his own confession of guilt, in the main 
 point. Had he, however, understood the reply of Jesus 
 correctly, he could not have imagined for a moment that 
 Pilate found no fault with a man who maintains to be the 
 king of a people subject to Rome. He could certainly 
 not have discovered the innocence of Jesus in his reply. 
 Having thus changed the spirit of the scene by a small 
 addition to the former account, and a little mistake in a 
 
IS I'.KFUKK IT LATE. 87 
 
 few words, he comes hack to his predecessors and, filling 
 up a vacuum, as it were, informs us of what Jesus was 
 especially accused by his adversaries. Mark and Mat- 
 thew did nt Mate so, still Luke adds, that the Jews then 
 said to Pilate, " He stirreth up the people, teaching 
 through all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place." 
 Like- the above also these are the words of Luke and not 
 of the persons represented, because they are not true. Je- 
 sus did not preach in Judea, except in Jerusalem. If he 
 did stir up any people, it was in Galilee; but not in Ju- 
 dea. Still the very object of Luke is, that the accusers 
 should say falsehoods. Their chief priests and elders, 
 the very representatives of that people, should approach 
 the governor with misrepresentations, although it was in 
 .his power and his duty to investigate and to judge prop- 
 erly, in order to place the innocence of Jesus and the 
 magnanimity of the Roman in the best possible light. 
 
 Next Luke describes an entirely new scene, to which 
 none of the other evangelists refer. Having learned that 
 Jesus was from Galilee, and Herod of Galilee being in the 
 city, he sent Jesus to that prince. On the first day of 
 Passover, during the hours of divine service in the tem- 
 ple, without notice, preparation or ceremony, Herod re- 
 ceives a criminal, as Jesus was accused to be, and sits in 
 judgment over him just for the fun of the thing : " Be- 
 cause he had heard many things of him, and he hoped to 
 have seen some miracle done by him," There is no mor- 
 al motive in the account, as though the life of a man was 
 nothing to Herod and his courtiers ; no political motive, 
 none but the childish desire to see some miracles per- 
 formed. Luke had no knowledge of the Herodian char- 
 acter. The Herodian princes were certainly the last to 
 care fora miracle. Again on the first day of Passover 
 and during the hours of divine service, the chief priests 
 and scribes, the heads oi the people, go to Herod to accuse 
 a criminal, while the myriads of Israel worship on 
 Mount Moriah. Instead of investigating the case with 
 any show of propriety or common decency, as one would 
 expect of a Hebrew prince educated at the imperial court 
 of Rome, the servants and the prince mock and insult the 
 prisoner, clothe him in purple and send him back to Pi- 
 late. Jesus, also, instead of showing any respect to the 
 prince of his people and the representatives of his breth- 
 
88 
 
 ren, as one is entitled to expect of everybody almost, is 
 silent as a rock, has nothing to say either of his inno- 
 cence or their wickedness, his faith or their unbelief. 
 Luke did certainly not expect that any Jewish reader 
 should believe a word of this anecdote. It was intended 
 for simple-minded heathens in the Syrian villages, who 
 had defective ideas of a prince and his courtiers, the 
 priests and representatives of a people, the sanctity of the 
 Passover among the Jews, the character and dignity of 
 man. He intended to tell them that Herod also acknowl- 
 edged the innocence of Jesus, although he was too wicked 
 ,to do him justice, and that the whole people with all its 
 chiefs were guilty of the death of Jesus; and brought forth 
 a farce which not even John or any of the apocryphal wri- 
 ters would accredit. They must have read it, still they 
 took no notice. 
 
 Jesus returning to Pilate, so Luke continues, the latter 
 convoked a meeting of the chief priests, the rulers, and 
 the people, and the large meeting was brought together 
 and organized by magic, as it were, all before nine in the 
 morning. It is not the people who had come to the gov- 
 ernor to ask the release of Barabbas, as Mark and Mat- 
 thew narrate. No, it is an extra meeting convened for the 
 purpose, of which nobody besides Luke knew anything. 
 Pilate, like a vulgar stump-speaker, harangues that whole 
 meeting and declares that neither he nor Herod found 
 Jesus guilty of any crime meriting the penalty of death. 
 He therefore proposed to chastise Jesus and let him go. 
 So he gets over the awkward question, Why was Jesus 
 scourged? After this whole intermezzo, all before nine 
 o'clock, of which Mark and Matthew were ignorant, Luke 
 returns to their account, but changes its entire character. 
 ^Noi the friends of Barabbas, who had come to release him, 
 but the enemies of Jesus, the whole crowd, priests, elders, 
 rulers, and people vociierate: not to give them Barabbas, 
 bui Lk Away with this man, but release unto us Barabbas/' 
 so mat the destruction of Jesus is the first thought in 
 their minds and the release of Barabbas the second. Next 
 he reproduces, by way of circumscription, the last two 
 questions and answers as chronicled by Mark and Mat- 
 thew, the vociferating always done, not by the friends of 
 Barabbas misled by the chief priests, but by the whole 
 crowd. 
 
JESUS BEFOKE PILATE. 89 
 
 None, -whatever his learning, skill, or sagacity may he, 
 will '-ver >ur. red in harmonizing this .st>ry of Luke with 
 that of Mark, in spirit, persons, and events; or in com- 
 prehending how all this could have taken place within 
 than three hours. If Mark is right, th- additions of 
 Matthew and Luke are arbitrary and erroneous, and the 
 spirit which the latter imposes on the story is malicious. 
 
 Without any additional sources before him, Luke at- 
 tempted to comment on Mark and Matthew, and to place 
 not merely the chief priests and rulers in the worst light, 
 but also the people congregated before the gubernatorial 
 residence. >o that the whole weight of the crime falls ujx>n 
 the Jews, /. c., those i'ew who were there; and Pilate is 
 entirely exonerated. The chief priests and the rulers 
 made the accusation, and in connection with the people as- 
 M-mhled did all the vociferation ; but Pilate resisted stead- 
 fastly from the beginning to the end, until he finally 
 yielded to the popular clamor, not to release Barabhas, 
 which is the main point of the people according to Mark 
 (xv. 15) and Matthew (xxvii. 26), but to crucify Jesus, 
 which is the main point with Luke (xxiii. 24, 25). 'J he 
 difference in the close of the scene is so strongly marked 
 that no attentive reader can be mistaken in the intention 
 of Luke, in changing the entire spirit of the narrative. 
 Notwithstanding his manifest desire to exonerate Pilate, 
 and intensify the guilt of Jesus, he did not accept Mat- 
 thew's addition of Pilate's wife and her dream, the wash- 
 ing of the hands, and the supposed vociferation of the 
 Jews, " His blood be on us, and on our children ;" al- 
 though both fitted exactly into the spirit of the narrative. 
 This forces us to the conclusion, that the two additional 
 points of Matthew were not in his gospel at the time 
 when Luke wrote, and were afterward interpolated from 
 the apocryphal gospel of Nicodem us, where those two pas- 
 sages are found, literally and exactly.* Therefore we be- 
 lieve to be entitled to the conclusion, that the additions of 
 Matthew resting on the authority of an apocryphal gospel, 
 written several centuries post fest.um in a country far away 
 from the locality where the affair transpired, known and 
 acknowledged a spurious production, and intended as a 
 pious fraud, deserve no credit, and can not be accepted 
 by any critical reader as possibly authentic. The passage, 
 
 * Gospel of Nicodemus, ii., 1, 2; vi., 20, 21. 
 
90 
 
 "His blood be on us and on our children," is an imita- 
 tion of David's curse pronounced on Joab after he had 
 killed Abner (2 Samuel, iii. 28, 29). 
 
 v. JOHN'S VERSION. 
 
 Both additions to Mark that of Matthew and Luke 
 are dropped by John in his presentation of the affair, 
 without affording the least opportunity to harmonizers to 
 press them in somewhere : as it was evidently his inten- 
 tion to give a full and accurate description of the entire 
 proceedings. Having before him the three versions of 
 the Synoptics, and no other sources, John, as much as 
 possible, attempts to expound them and to overcome the 
 difficulties they present. He begins (xviii. 28) with a de- 
 nial of the trials before the high-priest, chief priests, eld- 
 ers and scribes, their consultations and resolutions, be- 
 cause he must have seen the impossibility to save them ; 
 and had Jesus transported directly from Caiaphas to Pi- 
 late, right after the crowing of the cock. He omits Mat- 
 thew's stately procession, and informs us (xix. 6), that 
 "the Jews" present on the whole occasion, besides the 
 Roman soldiers, were the very persons who had captured 
 Jesus and some chief priests. " The chief priests and of- 
 ficers," he states expressly, did all the vociferation, and 
 these officers may have been priests, Levites or Israelites, 
 or other hirelings in the high-priest's employ. So there 
 was no crowd, no tumult, none of the people had any- 
 thing to do with it, no elders and no scribes, no Pharisees 
 and no Zadducees were present before Pilate's judgment- 
 hall. John at once exonerates all Jews, except a few 
 chief priests and servants, from participating in any shape 
 or form in the capture, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus. Ac- 
 cording to this evangelist's presentation of the story, Jesus 
 fell the victim of a supposed political necessity; hence he 
 was disposed of as early and as quietly as possible, with- 
 out any knowledge of his friends. 
 
 The first difficulty which John met with in the accounts 
 of the Synoptics, was naturally this : How could they 
 know what was spoken or done in the judgment-hall of 
 Pilate, where, beside him and his officers, only the adversa- 
 ries of Jesus were present? Either his adversaries must 
 have reported it, or official documents must have pre- 
 served it. In the first case, the report is unreliable, as it 
 
JESUS BEFORE PILATE. 91 
 
 must have appeared to the Synoptics, who changed it and 
 addetl to it, each in his own way. In the sccoud place, 
 the (piestion would have suggested itself, Where arc the 
 documents to control the evangelical .statements ? This was 
 xatious a (piestion to the primitive Christians, that 
 at the end of the third century a book on the subject was 
 forced on the name of Nicodemus, the friend of Jesus, 
 and called " The Acts of Pontius Pilate." The author of 
 that hook, now called "The Gospel of Nicodemus," main- 
 tains that ^Nicodemus, the friend and disciple of Jesus, 
 who was present at the whole affair, described it and 
 also the exploits of Christ in hell, his resurrect ion and 
 asc. nsion to heaven. This gospel, written in Hebrew, as 
 one added to it in the fourth century, was found by the 
 Emperor Theodosius, in Jerusalem, in the hall of Pontius 
 Pilate, among the 1 public records. The aulhor does not 
 say it was compiled from official records. Had any been 
 in existence, the forging of a book would have been un- 
 necessary ; he simply maintains that Nicodemus and other 
 Jews, 1'r ends of Jesus, witnessed the whole proceedings, 
 and the former described them in that gospel. It being 
 admitted on all hands that the gospel of Nicodemus was 
 a pious fraud, to silence opponents, it must also be admit- 
 ted that no documents of Pilate were known to the Chris- 
 tians, which would establish the facts of the trial and cru- 
 cifixi-m, and that no friends of Jesus were present in the 
 judgment-hall to report the proceedings. 
 
 John, in the face of these essential difficulties, has re- 
 sort to a new point. He says the Jews would not go into 
 the judgment-hall, "lest they should be defiled ; but that 
 they might eat the Passover/' Consequently Pilate was 
 obliged to go out to them. Outside of the hall every 
 bodv could have heard what was said, and have it report- 
 ed to the disciples. He leaves his readers, furthermore, 
 to su:jK)se that the conversation between Jesus and Pilate 
 in the judgment-hall, was reported to those outside, by 
 Pilate himself, when he informed them, "I find in him no 
 fau.t Lit all." But this brings him in conflict with the 
 Synoptics, who maintain the Passover had been eaten the 
 cvnin j before, and inform us that the accusers of Jesus 
 were inside and the crowd outside that hall. Besides, 
 John makes two mistakes in this point. In the first place, 
 the mere going into the judgment-hall did not make any 
 
92 JOHN'S VERSION. 
 
 body unclean at all, according to Jewish laws. And in the 
 second place, if any body should have considered himself 
 denied, a mere bath would have sufficed to overcome these 
 scruples. The law is very explicit on this point, although 
 John did nrt know it. Those only defiled by corporeal 
 impurities were not permitted to eat the Passover in due 
 season. Those defiled by contact with impure things, 
 also with a carcass or an unclean animal, alter a simple 
 bath were permitted to eat of this sacrificial meal.* Com- 
 mon sense will suggest to every sensible man, that the 
 numerous pilgrims from foreign countries could not have 
 reached Jerusalem without contact with heathens. We 
 must believe either the Synoptics or John was misinform- 
 ed in thi-3 point; either John or the chief priests did not 
 know the law. Therefore we can only look upon this 
 point as an unsuccessful attempt on the part of John to 
 account for the source of information from which he and 
 the Synoptics compiled this narrative. This abortive at- 
 tempt, however, shows that the evangelists had no better 
 sources at their command than tradiiions based on hear- 
 say, as enlarged and embellished in the century after the 
 event had transpired. 
 
 Next, John follows the lead of Luke, and has the 
 Jews accuse Jesus as a malefactor, which Pilate receives 
 with displeasure and suspicion. Both writing for Gentile 
 Christians, nothing could be more important to them than 
 the testimony of Pilate to the innocence of Jesus, and noth- 
 ing more welcome to. them than an opportunity to expose 
 the wickedness of the Jews. John adds to Luke's account, 
 that Pilate said to the Jews they should take and judge 
 him according to their laws ; to which they objected, "It 
 is not lawful for us to put any man to death/' This was 
 put in rather childishly. The governor must have known 
 well that the right over life and death had been taken 
 from the Hebrew people. John did not think of the turn 
 given to his words by Nieodemus's gospel (jv. 16, 17), that 
 it was intended to suggest to the Jews his opinion that 
 Jesus should not be put to death, but merely u whipped 
 and sent away," against which the Jews remonstrated ; 
 
 noon nx ^N 1 ? *?-o> WNB> "D "?a w roo 1 ? nmje DO in? ' 
 ;un s^x nnj ^pai ni-V?vi nn: nun DOT pja IPNPIB ^jsc 
 y^'r a-iy^i *?ni^B nnx vty pamEM VaiB v rn '/> ova pa NXVOI 
 Maimonides Korban Pesach Chapter vi. 1. noon TN 'JZJIN 
 
JESUS BEFORE PILATE. 93 
 
 for it is not the penalty itself, but the mode of the penal- 
 ty, which John thinks was changed by this refusal of the 
 Jews; that it be fulfilled, he states, what Je,-us had said, 
 "WHAT death he should die." The Jews could not have 
 crucified him, according to their laws, if they had inflicted 
 on him the highest penalty of the law, since crucifixion 
 was exclusively Roman. John omits Luke's specified ac- 
 cusations by the Jews, and puts in this new point, to in- 
 form us that, also against the will of Pilate, Jesus had to 
 be crucified, because he had prophesied what death he 
 should die. None of the ISynoptics has answered the 
 simple question, If the priests, elders, Pharisees, Jews, or 
 all of them wanted Jesus so badly out of the way, why 
 did they not have him quietly assassinated after he was in 
 their power, and be done at once ? John understood this 
 difficulty, and informs us, they could not kill him, because 
 he had prophesied what death he should die ; so he could die 
 no other. It was dire necessity, that the heathen symbol 
 of life and immortality the cross should be brought to 
 honor among the early Christians, and Jesus had to die 
 on the cross, in a position unknown to the ancient Rom- 
 ans, even if no Jew and no Roman had ever lived, accord- 
 ing to John, simply because it was so prophesied. Know- 
 ing the doctrinal object of John in making this new point, 
 there is not the slightest cause to suspect that he con- 
 sidered it a fact. 
 
 After this overture of his own, John returns to the 
 Synoptics, and Pilate asks Jesus, "Art thou the king of 
 the Jews?" In place of the simple answer recorded by 
 the Synoptics, "Thou sayest it," Jesus asks a question 
 in return, receives an answer, is asked again, and then 
 gives a theological definition of his kingdom of heaven in 
 the spiritual sense of Paul, until finally Pilate asks again 
 whether Jesus was a king, to which he replies, "Thou 
 sayest it: I am a king," which he further explains in the 
 sense of John, so that none will deny him the authorship 
 of the entire passage, down to the question of Pilate, 
 "What is truth?" We can well imagine why John add- 
 ed to the answer of Jesus, "Thou sayest it : I am a king." 
 Luke's mistake in this reply has been noticed. John's 
 addition is intended simply to correct Luke. But we can 
 not imagine where John learned the additional conver- 
 sation between Jesus and Pilate ; or how he came to the be- 
 
94 JOHN'S VERSION. 
 
 lief that the haughty and despotic favorite of Sejan would 
 permit a captive to catechize him. If, however, all this 
 could be imagined, nobody is able to see how Jesus could 
 have expounded his title and mission in the sense of Paul, 
 who was the author of -the Son-of-God doctrine and the 
 theological kingdom of heaven, as expressed in the words 
 "My kingdom is not of this world," Still, if we could 
 imagine all this, we could not see what good this de Cense 
 could have done Jesus before a Roman who had not the 
 remotest idea of a theological kingdom of heaven. And 
 yet, by this peculiar defense John intended to explain 
 why the first Synoptics say Pilate was in favor of Jesus 
 also, after he had confessed to be the king of the Jews. 
 To a defense of this kind Pilate would have replied, that 
 every agitator and pretender, failing in his revolutionary 
 attempts, might resort to the same plea exactly a plea not 
 recognized by the laws of Rome. He could have replied, 
 the servants of Jesus did not defend him, because it was 
 not in their power to resist successfully the government, 
 or because they were cowards, or because they were not 
 armed. Any of these replies would do, although none 
 was necessary, as neither the law of Rome nor any body 
 else at that time recognized a theological kingdom ot 
 heaven; a king without a land and a country without a 
 soil ; freedom and law in heaven, oppression and slavery 
 on earth ; misery and suffering here, to acquire bliss in 
 the next state of existence. Neither Jesus nor his im- 
 mediate apostles ever advanced anything like it. 
 
 The substance of John's addition to the Synoptics 7 nar- 
 rative in this point is the attempt to explain their peculiar 
 statement, viz., that Pilate was in favor of Jesus after he 
 had confessed to be the king of the Jews on dogmatical 
 grounds, which originated after the death of Jesus. Luke 
 overcame this difficulty by a mistake which John cor- 
 rected. It is, therefore, certain that Luke and John felt 
 the difficulty of the point in question, and had no means 
 to adjust it. 
 
 After John has introduced Barabbas, exactly in the 
 same spirit as Luke, and at variance with Mark and Mat- 
 thew, he informs us that Pilate had Jesus scourged, the 
 soldiers put a crown of thorns on his head, dressed him in 
 the purple robe, smote him with their hands, and said, 
 "Hail, king of the Jews !" With the Synoptics, this is 
 
jKsrs BKFOKK riLATi:. 95 
 
 the end of the painful scene. The walk to Golgotha fol- 
 lows it immediately. Not so with John. He narrates, 
 alter the scourging and mocking rei>eiited attemj)ts of 
 Pilate to save Jons. What was John's ohject with this 
 
 nd addition to the narrative of the Synoptics? If 
 it was to bring in the Son-of-God doctrine, and the fear 
 of Pilate on hearing it (xix. 7, 8), in order to convince 
 his readers that Pilate received it with a holy awe, while 
 ihe Jews rejected it, he might have done it before, with- 
 out contradicting the account of the Synoptics. Pilate 
 had Jesus scourged and mocked, and then in this humbled 
 and sullering condition exposed him to the chief priests, 
 in order to move them to pity, which those fanatic bar- 
 barians did not feel after all, and forced Pilate to crucify 
 their victim. It sounds strange, that among all the chief 
 priests and servants assembled, there was none, not one, 
 like Pilate, compassionate, whose heartless despotism is so 
 well known ; not one as humane as the Roman who had 
 massacred thousands in cold blood. This is about as 
 natural as the kiss of Judas, and as likely as the miracu- 
 lous conception. The strangest, probably, in this matter 
 is, that Luke, who evidently did all in his power to in- 
 tensify the guilt of the Jews and exonerate the Roman ; 
 and Matthew, whose last addition has the same object in 
 view, should not have known this second addition of John 
 fitting so exactly into the spirit of their respective stories; 
 if not, some readers should consider it strangest that the 
 author of the gospel of Nicodemns, who compiles all sorts 
 of accounts in this affair, and had also John's version be- 
 fore his eyes, makes no mention of this second addition of 
 John, not even that Jesus was scourged or mocked. This 
 amounts almost to positive evidence that the passage was 
 not in John's narrative when the gospel of Nicodemus 
 was written, or that being there it was discredited. Any- 
 how, before John, alter him, and outside of his gospel, 
 there exists no evidence that his second addition is a re- 
 cord of fact. 
 
 But whoever was the author of the passage, what 
 caused him to write it? There is another point in the 
 narrative of Mark and Matthew, ignored by Luke and 
 >ucodenius, which John had to bring in ; and this point 
 is the scourge which, the first evangelists affirm, was ap- 
 plied to Jesus before the crucifixion. This is contrary to 
 
Jewish law, which permits no two punishments to be in- 
 flicted on one person.* In the case of two crimes proved 
 on one convict, the punishment for the lesser crime must 
 be remitted by the infliction of the other.f None con- 
 demned to death could have been scourged after his con- 
 viction by Jewish law. The penalty of crucifixion, ac- 
 cording to Roman law and custom, was inflicted on slaves, 
 and in the provinces on rebels only. The highest penalty 
 of the law inflicted on slaves, was to be scourged first and 
 then crucified. J The label or inscription on the breast, 
 intimating the crime, was usual in Rome. 
 
 These facts suggest a few questions which Luke and 
 John could not have overlooked. If Pilate, indeed, be- 
 friended Jesus and really wished to save him, as Mark 
 advances, and the other evangelists down to Nicodemus 
 repeat, why did he not do it ? There is no precedent in 
 Jewish history that the people resorted to rebellion, or 
 preferred charges against any ruler, because he pardoned 
 a supposed or real criminal. In this case, especially, when 
 but yesterday, as it were, the multitude listened with de- 
 light to Jesus, and clamored "Hosannah !" which Pilate 
 could not help knowing, there was certainly no danger in 
 dismissing him or sending him away somewhere outside 
 of the reach of his adversaries. As regards the probability 
 of charges which might have been preferred by the Jew- 
 ish rulers, in case of disregarding their will, it is certain- 
 ly absurd to believe that a governor of a province should 
 dread the consequences of an act of humanity, if his re- 
 cord is as full ot blood and violence as that of Pilate, and 
 especially in this particular case, without any demonstra- 
 tion of violence or actual resistance having taken place. 
 No Roman governor of Judea was removed, reprimanded, 
 or any way molested for any act of humanity. The conduct 
 of Pilate, according to the gospel, is so entirely averse to 
 his character, as described by Josephus and Philo, that it 
 is incredible on this ground alone. 
 
 * The formula is o*?e>ni np^ mNf % N P D1 n P 1<? cnxpN "None 
 shall be scourged and put to death none shall be scourged 
 and pay." 
 
 t This formula reads -JD nava m 1 ? y*p "The lesser punish- 
 ment is set aside by the greater.'' 
 
 J Pliny, Epistle x. 40. "Sub furca caesi" "In crucem acti 
 sunt." 
 
 g Adam's Roman Antiquities Dean's 1842 edition, p. 181. 
 
IS HKKORE PILATE. 97 
 
 Tlu i next question is tin's. I f Pilate, contrary to his gen- 
 eral character, and in violation of his conviction.-, without 
 refcrencr to precedents and probabilities, was weak and 
 foolish enough (o yield to a clamoring crowd, and to sacri- 
 fice an innocent man to the momentary passions of a fac- 
 tion, in spite of another and certainly more numerous class, 
 why did he impose upon him the very worst and most 
 cruel punishment of the Roman law crucifixion, when it 
 was absolutely in his power to avoid it? The evangelists 
 attempt to come out of this dilemma by the assumed fact, 
 that the crowd vociferated, "Crucify him !" This may 
 have been put into the narrative; and, to our mind, there 
 is no doubt it has been put in for the very purpose of har- 
 monizing the two opposite allegations that Pilate be- 
 friended Jesus and still had him crucified. Was that 
 proud and heartless Roman such a slave of a clamoring 
 crowd, that he lacked the courage of deviating from 
 its dictation ? History has no precedent and DO parallel 
 to these proceedings. There was certainly no cause of ap- 
 prehension in the change of the punishment from crucifix- 
 ion to a more humane execution, especially as crucifixion, 
 contrary to Jewish law, must have been an abomination 
 to the Jews. This question falls with special weight on 
 Mark and Matthew, who have all the clamoring done, 
 not by the enemies of Jesus but by the friends of Barabbas. 
 It could certainly exercise no influence on Pilate, whether 
 they cried or cried not, "Crucify him !" The alternative 
 left in this case is, either Pilate did not befriend or 
 not crucify Jesus. 
 
 The third question is still more fatal to the evangelical 
 account. If Pilate, in obedience to the clamoring crowd 
 and in violation of his better convictions, ordered the cru- 
 cifixion of Jesus,why did he enforce upon him the sever- 
 est penalty of the law, inflicted in exceptional cases on 
 slaves only? Why did he, in defiance of the Jewish law, 
 have Jesus scourged before crucifixion, which the clamor- 
 ing crowd did not demand, and for which no imaginable 
 necessity existed? If Jesus was crucified at all, the 
 scourging preceding it must have been very barbarous, for 
 he died after a few hours on the cross (three, according to 
 John), while others were hanging sometimes for days be- 
 fore expiring. This was the most troublesome question 
 to Luke and John. Mark (xv. 15) and Matthew (xxvii. 
 
98 A RESUME. 
 
 26) state positively that, on command of Pilate, Jesus was 
 first scourged and then handed over to the soldiers for 
 crucifixion. Luke seeing the gross contradiction in the al- 
 leged friendship of Pilate and his treatment of Jesus, main- 
 tains that Pilate only proposed to scourge Jesus and set 
 him free (xxiii. 22); the Jews not being satisfied, Pilate 
 not only did not have Jesus scourged, but did not give 
 him over to the soldiers to be crucified : he merely aban- 
 doned him to the fury of the Jews (xxiii. 25). So Luke 
 has an entirely new story from the beginning to the 
 end, with the manifest objects in view, to overcome the 
 contradictions and inconsistencies of Mark and Matthew, 
 to intensify the crime of the Jews, to exonerate Piiate 
 entirely and consistently, to have the innocence of Jesus 
 acknowledged by both Pilate and Herod. 
 
 As Luke transcribed the story of his predecessors and 
 added his commentaries to suit his purposes, so John 
 again transcribed Luke's story and added his comment- 
 aries to it. But the scourging was too positively main- 
 tained by Mark and Matthew to be omitted. John ad- 
 mitting it, on a hint of Luke, used it to suit his purpose. 
 Luke merely says, Pilate proposed to scourge Jesus and 
 then let him free, to which the populace objected and the 
 scourging was not inflicted. John turns the proposition 
 into a fact, has Jesus scourged, then exposed to the peo- 
 ple, and Pilate appeals again for him and again in vain. 
 This is the object of John's second addition to the story 
 of the Synoptics. He attempted to harmonize the scourg- 
 ing of Jesus with the alleged friendship of Pilate. Who- 
 ever wrote that part of John's story, this and nothing 
 else could have been his object. 
 
 VI. A RESUME. 
 
 Recapitulating what has been developed in this chap- 
 ter we may safely assert the following points : 
 
 1. Mark contains the only source of this story, which 
 was literally copied by Matthew. 
 
 2. The additions in Matthew were not in that gospel 
 when Luke and John wrote theirs, and appear to have 
 been taken later from the gospel of JSicodemus. 
 
 3. The contradictions in the account of Mark and 
 Matthew are (a) that Pilate, after Jesus had confessed to be 
 the king of the Jews, should have attempted to save him ; 
 
RKFOIIK PIT. ATI-:. 99 
 
 (b) that he who was a noted and reckless despot should 
 have submitted to the clamors of a passionate multitude, 
 contrary to his better conviction ; (<) that the alleged fact 
 of Pilate's friendship lor .Jesus stands in uncompromis- 
 ing contradiction with the crucifixion, and especially with 
 the scourging of Jesus. 
 
 4. Luke, without being in possession of any new 
 sources, changed the story (a) to harmonize the above 
 contradictions; (b) to intensity the guilt of the Jews; (c) 
 to exonerate Pilate and the Roman soldiers; (d) to have 
 the innocence of Jesus established, not only by Pilate but 
 also by Herod. 
 
 5. "Luke's addition of sending Jesus also to Herod was 
 either not in that gospel when John and Nicodemus wrote 
 theirs, or it was there and considered spurious by them. 
 
 6. John like Luke was not in possession of any ad- 
 ditional sources. Commenting on Mark's record of the 
 event he adopted the spirit and method of Luke to the 
 same purpose, and added such commentaries of his own 
 as, in his opinion, would harmonize the contradictions in 
 Mark's accounts, and at the same time hint that the notices 
 could have been collected on the spot. 
 
 7. With the exception of two sentences (xviii. 31; 
 xix. 12) in John's additions, there is no proof on record 
 that they were known or believed before or after John 
 wrote, up to the end of the third century, when the gospel 
 of Nicodemus was written, and incorporated those two sen- 
 tences in part only (Nicodemus iii. 1 ; vi. 8) ; or that John 
 actually wrote them. 
 
 This leads us back to Mark with the result, either Jesus 
 was not scourged and crucified, or the alleged friendship of 
 Pilate and his attempt to save Jesus is not true. Both of 
 them, can not be true. If it is not true that Jesus was 
 scourged and crucified, then the whole story is a dogmatic 
 legend written for the purpose either of dramatic effect in 
 the religious mysteries, or of vilifying the Jews and flatter- 
 ing the Romans, on account of the political situation in 
 the time of Hadrian, a point which we must discuss in 
 the next chapter. If Jesus was scourged and crucified by 
 command of Pontius Pilate, then all after the first query, 
 "Art thou the king of the Jews ?" and the first reply, 
 " Thou sayest it/' is fictitious, and was invented for any 
 of the above purposes. But only in this latter case it is 
 
100 THE SYMBOL OF THE CROSS. 
 
 possible that the crucifixion took place at nine in the morn- 
 ing, as Mark says, and that Jesus expired on the cross 
 after a few hours, being nearly dead from scourging be- 
 fore he was crucified. The question must be thoroughly 
 investigated before we can arrive at a final decision. 
 Therefore we postpone it to our next chapter. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE CRUCIFIXION. 
 
 Outside of the New Testament there exists no evidence 
 whatever, in book, inscription, monument, or coin, that 
 Jesus was either scourged or crucified. Not even the 
 catacombs of Rome offer the slightest evidence to estab- 
 lish this fact. Tacitus states in a very dubious passage 
 that Jesus '"'suffered" under Pilate, but he says not what. 
 Crucifixion is not mentioned or even hinted at. Josephus, 
 Plinius, Philo, and all their cotemporaries never refer to 
 the fact of crucifixion or any belief thereof. In the Tal- 
 mud Jesus is not referred to as the crucified one, but as 
 
 the hanged one (>V?rO> while elsewhere it is narrated he 
 was stoned to death, so that it is evident they were igno- 
 rant of the manner of death which he suffered. Still 
 none maintains he was crucified. The fact that Paul 
 (1 Cor., xvii. 23) places such stress on his teaching "Christ 
 crucified," may be taken as a proof that the crucifixion 
 was denied by other teachers of the Gospel, as it actually 
 was by a sect in the apostolic age, 
 
 I. THE SYMBOL OF THE CROSS. 
 
 There are a number of arguments in favor of the alle- 
 gation that the early Christian teachers adopted the cross 
 and the crucifixion story on account of the cross, for dog- 
 matic purposes; and one of those arguments is the sym- 
 bolic signification of the cross in pre-christian times. It 
 is well known that the cross was the symbol of life and 
 eternity long before the Christian story transpired. The 
 oldest proof thereto is in Ezekiel (ix. 4, 6). In this 
 chapter, Ezekiel narrates a vision he had of the punish- 
 ment to be visited on the Hebrew worshipers of pagan 
 deities. Among the destroyers called to execute the will 
 
THE CRUCIFIXION. 101 
 
 of God, there is one scribe who is commanded to mark 
 
 the innocent and opprc.-.-ed in .Jerusalem by setting the 
 letter Ttiv upon their foreheads, and those thus marked 
 shall be saved, the <>th< rs .shall be slain. The words 
 
 ID rvinm J'<^M'''M" ra are rendered, u And thou shalt 
 set a sirn," but the verb without the noun Tar Minifies 
 the >ame (1 {Samuel, xxi. 14), so that the noun Tav is 
 added to show the peculiar sign to be made. Tav is the 
 last letter of the Hebrew alphabet. In the ancient He- 
 brew, as in use in the time of Ezekiel, the Tav was a 
 plain cross -|- or X, as in the original Egyptian hiero- 
 glyphics. From this upright cross of the Egyptians and 
 11( brews, the Greeks made T, which was Latinized.* 
 Here, then, we have the cross as the symbol of life and 
 eternity, about 600 B. c., popularly known. The goddess 
 Anuka, found in Egypt, Assyria, and in America, was 
 represented, as Layard informs us, on his Hophra- table 
 by the ansated cross f. 
 
 Robert Taylor, in his Diegesis (chapter xxix.), has 
 compiled the sources to prove which also Mr. Skelton, in 
 his Appeal to Common Sense, page 45, and many other 
 authorities have taken to oe fact thatthe symbol of the 
 cross was sacred among Indians, Egyptians, Pruenicians, 
 and Arabs, long before the origin of Christianity. Mi- 
 nucius Felix, in his Octavius,-\ written in the beginning 
 of the third century, hints broadly how crucifixion be- 
 came a Christian symbol. In his apology of the adora- 
 tion of the crosses, charged on Christians by the hea- 
 thens, he says to them : " What else 1 are your ensigns, flags, 
 and standards, but crosses gilt and beautified? Your 
 victorious trophies not only represent a simple cross, but 
 a cross with a man upon it. . . . When a pure worshiper 
 adores the true God, with hands extended, he makes the 
 same figure. 7 ' As soon as it had become customary 
 among the Romans in foreign countries to crucity their 
 rncmies, the man on the cross was natural among the vic- 
 torious trophies, to represent Rome's superiority over her 
 enemies. r J he church in Rome eimply adopted this Ro- 
 man symbol of victory over her enemies. All this is as 
 
 the coins of Simon, the Asmonean prince, in De.Saulcy ; 
 Dr. M. A. Levy's Jnedische Muenzen ; the alphabets in J.ajister's 
 Hebrew Lexicon and Grammar; the alphabet* iii Webster's Dic- 
 tionary. 
 t Reeves' " Apologies of the Fathers," Vol. I., page 139. 
 
102 THE SYMBOL OF THE CROSS. 
 
 likely and demonstrable as the allegation that Jesus was 
 crucified, for which there is no proof outside of the New 
 Testament. The matter was so uncertain, indeed, that 
 the various copies of the gospel of Nicodemus differ 
 widely on this point. In the first manuscript of the 
 Tischendorf collection* (chapter ix.), Pilate says in his 
 verdict to Jesus, *' I have declared that thou shalt first be 
 scourged after the custom of the pious kings, and then be 
 fastened upon the cross in the garden where thou wast 
 taken." Here Golgotha is omitted and the crucifixion is 
 supposed to have taken place at Gethsemane. In the 
 same gospel (chap, xvi.), Annas and Caiaphas narrate that 
 they had seen the soldiers put a crown of thorns on the 
 head of Jesus, that he was scourged and then crucified on 
 Calvary. In the second manuscript of the same gospel, 
 the sentence of Pilate is changed thus (chap, ix.) : " There- 
 lore I ordain that they first smite thee with a rod, forty 
 stripes, as the laws of the kings ordain ; and that they 
 mock thee ; and lastly, that they crucify thee." Here the 
 place ot crucifixion is omitted entirely, and the Roman 
 scourging is relapsed by the Jewish Malkoth. It appears 
 that among other reasons for forging this gospel, there 
 was also this, that Annas and Caiaphas testily that Jesus 
 had been scourged and crucified, because doubts existed 
 that either was the case. At any rate, it is a matter of 
 surprise that the author or authors of those various man- 
 uscripts should have differed so widely from the canoni- 
 cal gospels in this particular point, and the trial of .Jesus 
 before Pilate, if the matter as narrated in the gospels had 
 been considered historical. It is not a growing myth; 
 it is an entirely different story which the apocryphal gos- 
 pels narrate. Why should any man have changed facts 
 in a sacred story, unless they had been supposed legen- 
 dary ? 
 
 In connection with this wavering uncertainty, it must 
 be considered that the story as it is told on from book to 
 book, always more and more betrays the tendency and ob- 
 ject of its first narrator. In Mark, the Jews only claim 
 Barabbas, and all their wickedness consists, first, in not 
 claiming Jesus, and second in crying " Crucify him !" In 
 Matthew, by the last addition, the crime of the Jews be- 
 comes still worse by their crying, "His blood be on us," 
 
 B. Harris Cowper's Apocryphal Gospels. 
 
THE CUUCIFIXION. 103 
 
 etC.J so they declare the d smiction of Jesus no crime. 
 Still worse the matter ^rows in Luke. The Jews as a 
 body, together with their entire representatives, Herod 
 included, commit the whole crime the accusation con- 
 demnation, mocking, etc., and Pilate with his soldi era, 
 are entirelv exonerated. Worse than this is the story in 
 John, in which the Jews have no pity on Jesus when, 
 scourged and bleeding from many sears, he was expos* d 
 to their mercy. In Ricodemus, the Jews also do the 
 - -. .urging, replaced by the Malkuth ; and in the story of 
 Joseph of Armithea, the Romans have nothing at all to 
 do with the matter; the Jews do the whole. Turn the 
 pyramidal succession of the stories, and you have the 
 simple fact that the crucifixion story, like the symbol of 
 the crucifix itself, came from abroad, and was told with 
 the avowed intention of exonerating the Romans and in- 
 criminating the Jews. Mark writing among Jews, shyly 
 narrated it with all its gross contradictions ; but as the 
 story was told on, outside of the Jewish circles, it devel- 
 oped its original intent and purpose fully, to the very ex- 
 tent of self-destruction. 
 
 II. CAUSE OF THE STORY. 
 
 The question might be proposed, Why should Mark 
 have adopted these stories, so hostile to the Jews, if they 
 were not based on fact; and if pure inventions, why 
 should the Christians of Palestine have believed them? 
 It is not difficult to explain this matter. The Jewish 
 rabbi of Nazareth in Galilee, executed as a rebel by a 
 Roman governor, would have been a very poor orna- 
 ment on the heathen cross, in the estimation of any 
 Greek or Roman. They thought much more of their 
 law and the high dignitaries of Rome, than of a Jewish 
 rebel. Among the Syrians, the Jew and his law, ever 
 since the time of Maccabees, were objects of hatred and 
 prejudice, so that even Tacitus would credit the absurd 
 story coming from Syria, that the Jews worshiped an ass, 
 and kept one in the sanctum sanctorum.* The prefer- 
 ence and privileges which the Jews of Egypt enjoyed for 
 so many centuries, and their superiority in wealth and in- 
 telligence over the native Egyptian, as Hengstenberg, in 
 the appendix to his works on Egypt states, accounts for 
 
 * Tacitus : History, Book V, 
 
104 CAUSE OF THE STORY. 
 
 the scandals and the wrath of the Egyptians against the 
 Jews. The Romans especially, who hated the valor, pat- 
 riotism, and religious fidelity of the Jews, could not possi- 
 bly love them. Besides, the monotheistic Jew, who de- 
 clared all the creeds and rites of the heathens abomina- 
 tions, their gods gross fictions, and their priests i in pos- 
 ters, were naturally hated by the heathens, as they were 
 by the Christians in after-times, on account of denying the 
 Trinity, the gospel story, and the whole fabric of Chris- 
 tian salvation. Errors in religion were always connected 
 with fanaticism, hatred, and relentless persecution. The 
 Romans called the Jews atheists, because they would not 
 believe in the gods, and ridiculed them as a people of id- 
 lers, because they kept a Sabbath every seventh day. 
 
 This antagonism of the heathens against the Jews, 
 their laws and their religion, was connected with con- 
 tempt, after the Romans had politically annihilated them. 
 Vanquished nations, whatever their patriotism and he- 
 roism may have been, were always objects of contempt to 
 the conquerors, imbeciles, superstitious and thoughtless 
 masses. To all this there came the violent hatred of the 
 Romans against the unyielding and uncompromising 
 Jews, who for two successive centuries bade defiance to 
 Rome's huge power and reckless cunningness. This state 
 of feeling reached its climax in the years between 65 and 
 130 A. c., just when Christianity assumed the form which 
 is stereotyped in the gospels. This accounts in part for 
 the hostile spirit against the Jews manifested by the evan- 
 gelists. 
 
 Another fact is this. Just at that period of time when 
 misfortune and ruination befell the Jews most severely, 
 in the first post-apostolic generation, the Christians were 
 most active in making proselytes among Gentiles. To 
 have then preached that a crucified Jewish rabbi of Gal- 
 ilee was their savior, would have sounded supremely ri- 
 diculous to those heathens. To have added thereto, that 
 the said rabbi was crucified by the command of a Roman 
 governor, because he had been proclaimed king of the 
 Jews, would have been fatal to the whole scheme. In the 
 opinion of the vulgar heathen, where the Roman gover- 
 nor and the Jewish rabbi came in conflict, the former 
 must unquestionably be right, and the latter decidedly 
 wrong. To have preached a savior who was justly con- 
 
THP: CKITIFIXION. 105 
 
 drmned to die tin- death of a slave and villain, would 
 certainly have proved fatal to tho whole enterprise. There- 
 fore it was neces ary m exonerate Pilate and the Unmans 
 and to throw the whole burden upon the .lews, in order to 
 ablish the innocence and martyrdom of Jesus in the 
 heathen mind. 
 
 l>;ist, though certainly not least, it must be taken into 
 consideration that Mark's gospel, which is the m-iin 
 OUrce ot the others was written in the time of Hadrian 
 when all Jews were considered dan^-rous and incorrigible 
 rebels, and then- religion a capital crime against Rome 
 To have maintained then that the savior and founder of 
 Christianity was a Jewish patriot, who was proclaimed 
 km- of the Jews and was therefore crucified, was no Ion- 
 gcr mere folly ; it was exceedingly dangerous, and would 
 have exposed Christianity to the fiercest wrath ot the 
 bloodthirsty emperor. What more of a crime could a 
 body of persons comaiit, than uphold and worship a reb- 
 f,, who had been crucified as such ? Certainly none in 
 the estimation of a Koman. Therefore the whole tenor 
 tne gospel had to be changed, and the worst point 
 thereof the crucifixion, had to be circumvented, as Mark 
 did to have Pilate appear as the friend of Jesus, who 
 yielded reluctantly to the outside clamor of the Jews, and 
 against his will and conviction, ordained the crucifixion 
 oi Jesus, which, of course, he afterward repented, as the 
 apocryphal gospels narrate. Still Mark, writing in Ju- 
 d< .. although a century post festum, had to be careful not 
 :o justify the Roman more than was actually necessary to 
 avoid danger. But as the story travels on 'outside of Ju- 
 (lea, all considerations are dropped, and the crime of the 
 Jews increases in proportion with the innocence and jus- 
 tice of Pilate. The object Avas manifest, the necessity 
 dire, and pious fraud was not considered immoral at that 
 . Neither those writers, nor the readers then it ap- 
 -irs, saw how they tore the martyr's diadem from the 
 lead o: Jesus. If he was the mere victim of a furious 
 mob and a weak and vacillating despot, he may have 
 risked that step, knowing in advance that Pilate was in 
 i., favor, in order to place himself under Pilate's pro- 
 t'-'-'ion, and was only disappointed in his expectation, 
 because there was no escape out of those hands, 
 the best in his estimation, which he could do to 
 
106 THE CRUCIFIED KING. 
 
 come out of the dilemma in which he had unfortunately 
 been placed. But his last calculation also failed : Pilate 
 yielded to a mad mob, and Jesus was crucified. So the 
 story would appear, if the evangelical account was cor- 
 rect, but so it was not. 
 
 III. THE CRUCIFIED KING. 
 
 It might appear from the foregoing argument that the 
 crucifixion must anyhow be a historical fact. For, being 
 injurious to primitive Christianity among the heathens, 
 so that the whole story had to be perverted in order to 
 be less offensive, it might have been omitted altogether 
 if it had not been a fact. This, however, is only apparent : 
 it is no real argument. Christ crucified was preached to 
 the heathens by Paul before the existence of a church, 
 and the story was established in Christendom long before 
 it was written. But why should Paul or anybody else 
 have started the crucifixion story if it was not a fact ? 
 There is an answer to this query and we will state it. 
 
 There existed, in the. time of Paul, among the Roman- 
 Syrian heathens, a wide-spread and deep sympathy for 
 one crucified king of the Jews, as is evident from Dio 
 Cassius, Plutarch, Strubo, and Joseph us. It was the 
 youngest son of Aristobul, the heroic Maccabee. In the 
 long combat for the crown of Palestine by the brothers 
 Hyrcan and Aristobul, the latter at last succeeded in 
 gaining the sympathy of Julius Csesar for his cause, who 
 
 fave him two legions, and sent him to Syria to regain his 
 ingclom ; but while under way, men of Pornpey's party 
 destroyed him by poison. His body was embalmed in 
 honey, till Antony atterward sent it to Judea to be buried in 
 the royal sepulchre. About the same time Alexander, the 
 son of this Aristobul, who fought at home for his father's 
 cause, was captured by Scipio and beheaded at Antioch. 
 The death of these two valiant princes, whose cause had 
 been declared just by Julius Csesar, enlisted wide-spread 
 sympathy among Romans. There was one more son left 
 of this heroic family, Antigonus, who followed his mother 
 and sister to Chalcis, where the latter was queen. In the 
 year 43 B. c., however, we find Antigonus again in Pales- 
 tine claiming the crown. Allied with the Parthians, he 
 maintained himself in his royal position for six years 
 against Herod and Marc Antony. At last, after a heroic 
 
THE CRUCIFIXION. 107 
 
 life and reign, he fell in the hands of this Roman. "An- 
 tony now gave the kingdom to a certain Herod, and, hav- 
 ing stretched Aniinnus on a cross and scourged him, a 
 thing never done In-fore to any other king by the Romans, 
 he put him to death/'* 
 
 The fact that all prominent historians of those days 
 mention this extraordinary occurrence, and the manner 
 how they did it, show that it was considered one of Marc 
 Antony's worst crimes ; and that the sympathy with the 
 crucified king was wide-spread and profound. Here we 
 may well have the source of the crucifixion story. That 
 class of heathens, to whom the Gospel was originally 
 preached, knew no difference between David and the 
 Maccabees; both were then extinct dynasties. They 
 had heard of a crucified king of the Jews, who was 
 one of the last scions of a heroic family and a 
 hero himself, young, brave, and generous, whose fate 
 was regretted and whose fame was heralded. Paul, 
 who made use of everything useful, narrated the end 
 of Jesus to correspond with the end of Antigonus, both 
 stories appearing identical, to enlist the prevailing sym- 
 pathy ibr the hero of the Gospel story. Therefore he 
 preached "Christ crucified. " So the story was established 
 among the Paul-Christians. All the gospels were written 
 by Paul -Christians. John expounds Paul in the Alexan- 
 drian method. But, in the time of Hadrian, the story 
 had to be turned in favor of Rome and against the Jews, 
 as we have seen before; and so Mark did. So far, then, 
 there is not the least evidence, outside of Paul and Mark, 
 that Jesus was either scourged or crucified. Let us see, 
 now, how much fact can be elicited from the statements 
 of Mark and his three successors. 
 
 IV. THE CRUCIFIXION CONTRADICTED. 
 
 It is evident that the crucifixion was not commonly 
 believed among early Christians. It is contradicted three 
 times in the Acts of Apostles, and if we are to believe 
 the author of that book, it was Peter who contradicted it. 
 "Whom ye slew and hanged on a tree" (Acts, v. 30), says 
 Peter of Jesus. He states again (x. 39), "Whom they slew 
 
 * Dio Cassiiis, Book xlix., p. 465. Plutarch: Life of Antony. 
 John (iill: Notices of the JeWB, cti-. T. Salvador: The Romans in 
 Palestine. Josephus, Strabo, and others. 
 
108 THE CRUCIFIXION CONTRADICTED. 
 
 and hanged on a tree;" and repeats (xiii. 29), "They took 
 him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.'' 
 There is no cross and no crucifixion in these statements, 
 which prove, not that Peter said so but that the author oi' 
 the Acts believed to know traditionally from Peter that 
 Jesus was not crucified. He was slain and then hung to 
 a tree. 
 
 Mark also, it appears, was aware of the existing doubts 
 in this point. He informs us that one Simon, a Cyrenian, 
 who met the procession leading Jesus to Calvary, was 
 compelled to bear his cross. John (xix. 17) contradicts 
 this point, stating plainly that Jesus bore the cross. If it 
 had been an accredited fact that Simon bore the cross, 
 John would not have gainsaid it. If no fact, why did 
 Mark state it? He gives us his reason in the same verse, 
 although Matthew and Luke omit it. He says that Simon, 
 the Cyrenian, was the father of Alexander and Kufus. 
 Both these men were companions and friends of Paul,* 
 although the latter afterward turned against the Paul- 
 Christians. Mark wanted a witness who had seen the 
 crucifixion, and by whom the story might have reached 
 Paul. Therefore he impressed this Simon to bear the 
 cross, who must have narrated the affair to his sons, 
 Alexander and Rufus, of whom Paul might have heard 
 it. So he managed to overcome the existing doubts con- 
 cerning the crucifixion. Matthew and Luke omitted the 
 two sons of Simon, and John omits the father also, because 
 in his locality the crucifixion story was not doubted, or 
 perhaps he considered this testimony insufficient. He 
 had already stated that Jesus had to be crucified, because 
 he had prophesied it, consequently, believing as he did, 
 no testimony was necessary to establish the fact. So 
 Mark points back distinctly to the source of the crucifix- 
 ion story, viz., to Paul, on whose authority he accepted it, 
 without any other information to rely upon. 
 
 It is supposed that the sharp contention which broke 
 out between Paul and Barnabas, his companion, in conse- 
 quence of which they parted with one another (Acts, xv. 
 39), had its cause in the difference of opinion concerning 
 the Messiah, whom Paul preached to have been a son of 
 David ; and Barnabas maintained : "But because it might 
 hereafter be said that Christ was the son of David, there- 
 
 * Romans, xvi. 13; Acts, xix. 33; 1 Tim., i. 20; 2 Tim., iv. 14. 
 
Tin: cuuriFixioN. 109 
 
 fore l)avid fearing, :uul well knowing the errors of the 
 wicked, saith,Thc Lord saith unto my Lord, Sit tliou <>n 
 my right h;ind," etc.' lint it might be that this \\as not 
 the sole cause of their contention. There may have h. en 
 nnother. Tohnul in his \az<ircnuH (letter I., chapter 
 tiith) informs us that he had seen an Italian translation 
 ot a gospel of Barnabas, which Cramer sold to Prince 
 Kngenc, in which Barnabas states "Jesus was not cruci- 
 fied," and lie should not die to the very end of the world. 
 This was also the belief of the Basilidians ; and in this 
 form the (io.-pcl story became known to Mohammed. f 
 'This, we believe, leaves no reasonable doubt that the cru- 
 cifixion story was not generally believed among early 
 Christians. In reading the canonical Gospel, they must 
 have thought like Origenes (Comm. in Joan, vol. x. 4), 
 that every passage in Scripture has a spri ritual meaning, 
 but that every passage has not a literal meaning ; that 
 there is often a spiritual truth under a literal falsehood; 
 or, as he says elsewhere (Homil. 6, in Genesis Hi.), that the 
 Scriptures have incorporated into their history many 
 things which never took place. Mosheim says (vol. i., p. 
 382), "It was a maxim of the Church that it was an act 
 of virtue to deceive and lie, when by that means the 
 interest of the Church might be promoted," 
 
 V. ALL GREEK EXCEPT CALVARY. 
 
 The crucifixion story, as before us in the Synoptics, 
 was not written in Hebrew, or in the dialect spoken by 
 the Hebrews of Palestine. This is evident from the fol- 
 lowing particular points. Mark and Matthew call the 
 place of crucifixion Golgotha, to which Mark adds, 
 "Which is, being interpreted, the place of skull." Mat- 
 thew adds the same interpretation, which John copies 
 without the word Golgotha, and adds, it was a place near 
 Jerusalem. Luke and Nicodemus call the place of cru- 
 cifixion Calvary, which is the Latin Calvaria, viz., the 
 place of bare skulls. Therefore the name does not refer 
 to the form of the hill, but to the bare skulls upon it. 
 
 Mark and Matthew must translate the word Golgotha, 
 hence they did not write in the Hebrew dialect, or else 
 
 * Epistle of Barnabas, edit. London, 1820, in the apocryphal 
 New Testament, xi 1$. 
 t See Koran, Hi., v. 53 ; iv., v. 156. 
 
110 ALL GEEEK EXCEPT CALVARY. 
 
 the readers would have been supposed to understand it. 
 It might be suggested, the Greek translators of Mark and 
 Matthew added the definition which, however, is not the 
 case. They pass over many Hebrew names of persons 
 and places without any definition ; why should they have 
 made an exception just in this case ? Besides, it must be 
 remembered, there is no such word as Golgotha anywhere 
 in Jewish literature, and there is no such place mentioned 
 anywhere near Jerusalem or in Palestine by any writer ; 
 and in fact there was no such place, there could have been 
 none near Jerusalem. The Jews buried their (lead care- 
 fully. Also the executed convict had to be buried before 
 night. No bare skulls, bleaching in the sun, could be 
 found in Palestine, especially not near Jerusalem. It 
 was law, that a bare skull, the bare spinal column, or also 
 the imperfect skeleton of any human being, make man 
 unclean by contact, or also by having it in the house. 
 Man, thus made unclean, could not eat of any sacrificial 
 meal, or of the second tithe, before he had gone through the 
 ceremonies of purification; jmd whatever he touched was 
 also unclean.* Any impartial reader can see that the ob- 
 ject of this law was to prevent the barbarous practice of 
 heathens of having human skulls and skeletons lie about 
 exposed to the decomposing influences of the atmosphere, 
 as the Romans did in Palestine alter the fall of Bethar, 
 when for a long time they would give no permission to 
 bury the dead patriots. This law was certainly enforced 
 most rigidly in the vicinity of Jerusalem, of which they 
 maintained " Jerusalem is more holy than all other cities 
 surrounded with walls/ 7 so that it was not permitted to 
 keep a dead body over night in the city, or to transport 
 through it human bones. Jerusalem was the place for the 
 sacrificial meals and the consumption of the second tithe, 
 which was considered very holy ;f there, and in the sur- 
 roundings, skulls and skeletons were certainly never seen 
 on the surface of the earth, and consequently there was 
 no place called Golgotha, and there was no such word in 
 the Hebrew dialect. It is a word made by Mark to translate 
 the Latin term Calvaria, which, together with the cruci- 
 fixion story, came from Rome. But after the Syrian 
 word was made nobody understood it ; and Mark was 
 obliged to expound it. 
 
 * Maimonides, Hil. Tumath Meth., iii. 1. 
 t Maimonides, Hil. Beth Habchirah, vii. 14. 
 
THE CRUCIFIXION. Ill 
 
 This explains the strung 1 fact, that none of the early 
 Christians cither mention the spots when- Jons was cru- 
 cified or buried, or paid the least respect or attention to 
 either, so that none In-fore Knsebins (330 A. c.) reler to 
 them, and then some pointed to the northeast and others 
 to the west of Jerusalem to find Calvary. They did not 
 know it, because there was .no such place. So hundred 
 thousands of Christians kneel now spellbound before a 
 holy hole, which they call the holy sepulchre, none knows 
 why, as in former days a Calvary was made, none knows 
 by what authority. 
 
 The next point to be considered in this connection is 
 the exclamation of Jesus on the cross. Mark reports 
 that Jesus cried in the Palestine dialect, Elohij Elohi, 
 lamah shabaktani? which is a mistake, for it was intended 
 to be the Aramaic translation of "My God, my God, why 
 hast thou forsaken me?" It must be metul mah, instead of 
 lomahj which is Hebrew. Matthew, however, reports 
 Jesus exclaimed, Eli, Eli, lamah sabachthani? which is He- 
 brew, and signifies, "My God, my God, why hast thou 
 sacrificed me?" Still both of them add the same transla- 
 tion "Which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, 
 why hast thou forsaken me ?" This leads one to believe 
 that Mark did not know the Aramaic, and Matthew was 
 ignorant of the Hebrew. 
 
 From the orthodox Christian standpoint it sounds in- 
 credible that the Son of God, and himself God, should 
 pray in the words of David, "My God, my God, why 
 hast thou forsaken me?" Therefore Luke, who clings con- 
 sistently to Paul's Son-of-God dogma, denies this part of 
 the record and maintained Jesus exclaimed, "My Father, 
 into thy hands I recommend my spirit," This was not 
 enough for John, whose Logos was no spirit to be recom- 
 mended to God, and so he denies the statements of all his 
 predecessors and maintains, Jesus merely said, "It is ac- 
 complished." John also denies Luke's statement that 
 Jesus prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not 
 what they do," which is an imitation of Moses (Numbers, 
 xv. 26). It is characteristic that none had to record an 
 original word of the dying Jesus. It is unlikely that a 
 man in the agony of death should have nothing at all to 
 say, and murmur a few brief Bible passages then and there, 
 most likely known to the children in the street. This 
 
112 ALL GREEK EXCEPT CALVARY. 
 
 leads to one of the two suppositions, either Jesus was al- 
 ready half dead and unconscious by the scourging before 
 he was crucified, or the evangelists did not know any bet- 
 ter. They did not know what Jesus said, and did not un- 
 derstand to say anything important for him. It appears, 
 this was the reason of John in rejecting the statements of 
 his predecessors, and maintaining he said merely, " It is 
 accomplished/' and this is original, if nothing else. But 
 this is only one word in Hebrew, or in the Hebrew dialect, 
 Chala/i or Chfdatah. Who paid so much attention to the 
 dying man, that he heard that one word spoken upon the 
 cross? If he spoke only that one word and it was heard, 
 how could it possibly escape the memory of the Synoptics ? 
 One word and the last word of a dying martyr and teacher, 
 if it had really been uttered and heard, could not have 
 been forgotten or overlooked by his disciples. It must 
 have become a sort of watchword in the nascent church. 
 But (Father, forgive them!) they did not know what the 
 dying Jesus said, and invented for him words or phrases, 
 each to suit his dogmatic standpoint. 
 
 Mark and Matthew, translating into Greek the sup- 
 posed exclamation of Jesus, did certainly not write this 
 part of the story in any but the Greek language. It might 
 again be maintained, the Greek translators added the inter- 
 pretation of the Bible passage, if Mark's lamah for mctul 
 mah was not in the way, and if it was not for the follow- 
 ing important point. 
 
 Both Mark and Matthew report, when Jesus cried Eli, 
 Eli, or Elohi, Elohi, those who stood near understood him, 
 " He calleth Elias" the prophet to come and save him. 
 Among Hebrews, this mistake is impossible. For Eli is 
 pronounced Aili, the first syllable long, and Elias is pro- 
 nounced Eleeyahu, with the stress on the third syllable 
 yah, so that the two words have almost no similarity in 
 sound. In Greek, however, Eli is the first part of Elias, 
 both in letters and sound, so that there can be no doubt 
 whatever the writer of that little incident had the Greek 
 and not the Hebrew in his mind. The incident could not 
 possibly refer to Jews, with whom the niistake is impos- 
 sible ; it must refer to the Roman soldiers about the cross, 
 and must have been written in Greek. 
 
 Finally, attention must be called to the fact, that all 
 the Bible passages quoted in the crucifixion story are 
 
THE rurriFixiON. 113 
 
 taken, not from the Hebrew Bible, but from the Greek 
 Septua<jfmt, as \vc shall notice below. Here we quote but 
 one passage. Luke (xxiii. % 27) reports, that .Jesus, on his* 
 way to Calvary, made a little speech to the lamenting 
 women who followed him. '1 hey wen; daughters of .Je- 
 rusalem. Were they wives, daughters, or sisters of th- 
 who cried, u Crucify him ?" This little speech again is not 
 original. It is partly from Jeremiah (Luke, xxi. 23), and 
 winds up with a passage from Hosea, x. 8, copied literally 
 almost from the Septuagint. Luke has Jesus say, ' k Then 
 shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us, and to 
 the hills, Cover us." But in the Hebrew text the order is 
 reversed ; " And they shall say to the mountains, Cover us, 
 and to the hills, Fall on us."* 
 
 We do not think it necessary to adduce any more, proof 
 in support of the fact, that the crucifixion story was writ- 
 ten originally in the Greek. The object of Mark must 
 have been fof the Greeks to understand and know, that 
 his sect was not composed of Jews, and his savior was 
 abandoned by them, while the Romans took his part. It was 
 strictly legendary, i. e., to be read in public for certain 
 purposes. This also accounts for the fact, that the Jewish 
 sources have no notice of the crucifixion. The story was 
 Greek and read in the churches only. The Jews of Pal- 
 estine, in the time of Hadrian, and long after, were fanat- 
 icized against the Greek and Latin, and went to no Chris- 
 tian church. Toward the end of the second century, we 
 still find * that Rab went neither to the meetings of the 
 Xazarcnes nor of the Ebionites. Samuel went to the 
 meetings of the Ebionites but not of the Xazarenes. The 
 sect which left the mother congregation on the election of 
 Mark as bishop, retained the old name of Ebionites, and 
 the flock of Mark were Nazarenes. Therefore the Jews 
 knew nothing of the crucifixion story. 
 
 VI. THE LEGEND. 
 
 Readers acquainted with the homiletic literature (Mid- 
 rashim and Agadoth} of the ancient Hebrews, at the time 
 of the origin of Christianity, see at once the legendary 
 character, of the Synoptics especially. It was the uni- 
 versal custom of preachers and teachers, either to remodel 
 and shape events to illustrate or to fulfill scriptures, as is 
 
 * Talmud Babli, Sabbath, 116 6. 
 
114 THE LEGEND. 
 
 done to this very clay, or to imagine incidents in all forms 
 of poetry, in order to impress truths or superstitions on 
 uncultivated minds, by concrete symbols, fables or myths, 
 parables or personifications. In numerous cases, poster- 
 ity took those tropes for facts, and enlarged hugely on 
 them. The whole of the gospels are written in the same 
 method. A passage in the Bible is expounded either by 
 a parable, or by a brief illustration, or by an event 
 shaped to fulfill it, exactly as all the preachers and teach- 
 ers of those days did. This is the case especially in the 
 crucifixion story, from beginning to end. A number of 
 events, real or imaginary, are so adjusted that they fit and 
 fulfill certain Bible passages. No critical reader imag- 
 ines that consecutive events transpire exactly so that they 
 fulfill scriptures. This would do away at once with all 
 human freedom. He will certainly be led to think the 
 events are either invented, or so re-adjusted as may suit 
 the case. Legends of this description may be useful for 
 church purposes, or also private devotion and edification 
 but as histo:ieal sources they are spurious. 
 
 The legendary character of Mark's crucifixion story is 
 clearly betrayed in the time which he fixes for the particular 
 events. The Hebrews in the second century expected the 
 Kedeemer to come on Passover,* the day of Israel's redemp- 
 tion from Egypt. Hence Jesus had to accomplish the re- 
 demption task on the first day of Passover. Again, the 
 death of Jesus was looked upon by the primitive Christians 
 as the revelation of the new covenant. Therefore, the event 
 had to take place on a Friday, between the hours of 
 twelve and three; for, according to Hebrew traditions, 
 the revelation on Mount Sinai took place on a Fridayf, be- 
 tween the hours of twelve and three. J Starting from the 
 idea of a second redemption and a second revelation con- 
 nected in one event, it was necessary to embellish Cal- 
 vary somewhat Sinai-like. But the original picture of the 
 thunders and lightnings of Sinai was too grand for a dy- 
 ing demi-god, the poetry too sublime to be easily imitated. 
 The contrast would have been too obvious. There, a lofty 
 mountain in the wilderness, with an entire nation stand- 
 
 p-my 121 V?NJJ ta Mechilta, chapter xiv. 
 
 t^o im ^?K~\V"< rcy nap aip nniN DHJO N i Pirke Kabbi Eliezer, 
 chapter xli. 
 
 J an^riN^ n?n ova niyo ycroi nnann n VN-W V?ap ava rnj? twa 
 Ibid, chapter xlvi. 
 
THE CRUCIFIXION. ] 1 5 
 
 ing in awe at the foot thereof ; and here, a narrow strip of 
 land outside of the city, with a small mol>, a few rude 
 soldiers, and some lamenting women. There, a nation to 
 listen to the voice of the Almighty ; and here, barbarous 
 scorn, moans, and the recitation of a few popular passages 
 from the Hible. There, the center figure is the most sub- 
 lime which imagination can depict God coming down in 
 a flood of fire upon the dark clouds of Sinai ; and here, a 
 dead man on the cross. There, the decalogue is announced; 
 and here, nothing is given to man except probably the 
 one word, u It is done." It would have looked extremely 
 foolish to transfer the Sinai scenes to Calvary; and yet 
 it had to be embellished somewhat Sinai-like. Incapable 
 of producing original poetry, the evangelical authors re- 
 sorted to the .Bible, especially to Zachariah xiv., Psalms 
 xxii. and Ixix., and Isaiah liii., and made of it the entire 
 crucifixion scene, with all its details and embellishments. 
 Biblical tropes were changed into facts. This point must 
 be investigated more thoroughly. We begin with Zach- 
 ariah xiv. 
 
 VII. ZACHA3JIAH XIV. 
 
 !No unprejudiced reader, whatever his standpoint may be, 
 can believe that the author of Zachariah xiv. thought of 
 Jesus of Nazareth. He speaks of no person at all. It 
 is the combat about Jerusalem, and the victory of God's 
 people, which illumine his visions, and fructify his imag- 
 ination. In that final victory he prophesies especially 
 three things, which can not be related to Jesus and the 
 crucifixion. He says (verse 8) that then water would 
 spout forth from Jerusalem and flow in two perpetual 
 streams to two seas ; and Jerusalem is as dry to-day as it 
 ever was. He says (verse 9) that then God should be 
 king over all the earth, God should be one, and His name 
 one; but there were, and there are now, a host of kings 
 and gods besides the Eternal One, and not even the true 
 pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton is known to-day. 
 Then he prophesies (from verse 13, etc.) the glory of Je- 
 rusalem, its temple, and the feast of booths to follow that 
 final victory, none of which has transpired after the death 
 of Jesus. 
 
 And yet, the evangelists take part of this chapter, which 
 has no relation whatever to Jesus or crucifixion, and em- 
 bellish with it the Calvary scene, to make it somewhat Si- 
 
116 ZACHAKIAH XIV. 
 
 nai-like. God who comes, according to Zachariah, to 
 fight for Jerusalem, will stand upon Mount Olivet. 
 Therefore Jesus, during his fight against Pharisees, Zad- 
 ducees, and priests, had to make his principal home on 
 Mount Olivet. But he could not split that mountain, as 
 Zachariah imagined God would, and move one part north 
 and the other south ; therefore the curtain of the temple 
 had to be torn in twain when Jesus died, although none 
 has ever mentioned the fact. The curtain was there some 
 thirty-five years after the death of Jesus ; had it been 
 torn, somebody must have noticed it. The earthquake 
 mentioned by Zachariah (verse 5), of course was bor- 
 rowed to embellish Calvary ; it sounded somewhat Sinai- 
 like. But it was rather childish to follow Zachariah as 
 far as the resurrection of the saints. Why did the saints 
 resurrect? why not redeemed sinners, when Jesus was 
 crucified ? Why did God trouble those saints, whoever 
 they were, to leave their graves, go into the city, and 
 then die again ? They must have died again very short- 
 ly, for nobody in the world has heard any thing about 
 them. Because Zachariah states (verse 5) God coming to 
 Jerusalem, " And the Lord my God cometh, all the saints 
 with thee," therefore the saints and not the sinners had 
 to resurrect and visit the city on that particular day. But 
 in the fertile imagination of Zachariah, the day of that 
 terrible combat must be dark, very dark, and when the 
 victory is won, toward evening the light breaks forth 
 (verses 7 and 8). Also this darkness was transported 
 over to Calvary, to embellish the scene. If these mira- 
 cles had been wrought indeed, all Israel and many Gen- 
 tiles must have known it, and they must have reached Jo- 
 sephus, Philo, or Plinius, and they must have taken no- 
 tice thereof. Such extraordinary phenomena are not ig- 
 nored. Besides, the masses who were in favor of Jesus 
 must have been strengthened in their faith ; and yet, 
 there were but 120 Christians found a considerable time 
 after the death of Jesus. So these miracles were not 
 wrought, and the entire outer embellishment of Calvary 
 is taken from Zachariah ; not because it was believed this 
 prophecy referred to Jesus, but simply because the evan- 
 gelical writers were incompetent to invent original poetry. 
 
THE CRUCIFIXION. 117 
 
 t 
 VIII. PSALM XXII. 
 
 The twenty- second psalm was written probably in the 
 time of the Maccabean struggles. It contains several ex- 
 pressions pointing to that age ; and the ancient rabbis al- 
 ivady admitted that verse 5, etc., refers to Mordecai and 
 Esther, and that age of persecution.* It is no prophecy, 
 and its author never evinces the least intention of proph- 
 esying. It is the prayer of a man and leader in Israel, 
 in time of extreme distress, probably of Jonathan the 
 Asmonean, when on that eventful Friday night he swam 
 the Jordan with his 600 heroic patriots, to escape the 
 Syrian army ; and closes in a tone of cheer and encour- 
 agement, trusting in God and a good cause. And yet 
 tli is chapter was taken hy the evangelical writers to 
 embellish the crucifixion story. 
 
 The beginning is made by Mark in the exclamation of 
 "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? 7 ' which 
 is the first verse of Psalm xxii. Its author says of him- 
 self (verse, 6, etc.) ; "But I am a worm and no man ; a re- 
 proach of men, and despised of the people. All they 
 that see me, laugh me to scorn ; they shoot out the lip, 
 they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the Lord that 
 he would deliver him, seeing he delighted in him." This 
 was changed by Mark into the fact, "And they that 
 passed by railed on him [Jesus], wagging their heads, say- 
 ing," etc. " Likewise also the chief priests, mocking, said 
 among themselves, with the scribes, He saved others : him- 
 self he can not save." None can tell how Mark came to 
 know what those scribes said among themselves, as he was 
 no prophet and no son of a prophet. Nor could anybody 
 find a reason why he notices, particularly, the wagging of 
 their heads, if it was not plain, almost self-evident, that 
 he imitated the above passage of the psalm without ref- 
 erence to fact. Matthew and Luke copied this incident 
 with some changes, but John omitted it. 
 
 The Psalmist says (verse 15), " My strength is dried up 
 like a potsherd, and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws." 
 Tli is is the cause why Jesus had to be thirsty before he 
 expired, and to say so; although in regard to the drink 
 there is a confusion of accounts in the evangelical reports, 
 on account of another psalm passage, as we shall notice 
 below. 
 
 * Midrash Thilim, chapter xxii. 
 
118 
 
 The three nails are an imitation of verse seventeen of 
 
 the same psalm, where it says T) '"V *~1JO " Like a 
 lion [they break] my hand and feet." The same figure of 
 speech oceursin Isaiah, xxxviii. 13. King Hezekiah says of 
 himself, u Like a lion, so broke all my bones." The psalm 
 passage, is most likely an imitation thereof. Yet by a 
 mistake of the Septuagint the word Ka'ari " like a lion," 
 is changed into Kctaru "they pierced my hands and 
 feet," Therefore, and for no other reason, the nails were 
 driven through the hands and feet of Jesus ; although 
 there exists no rational ground whatever to believe while 
 others, like the two thieves, were merely tied to the cross, 
 that Jesus, by the particular friendship of Pilate, was 
 nailed to the cross. 
 
 Next (verse 18), the Psalmist says, "They part my 
 garments among them, and cast lots u'pon my vesture." 
 Mark changes this into the fact, " Ancl when they had 
 crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon 
 them, what every man should take." He carefully copies 
 the parallelism of the Psalmist : " parted "and then " cast 
 lots." So do Matthew and Luke. John, however, less 
 acquainted with the rule of Hebrew poetry, sees in the 
 psalm passage two kinds of clothes, " my garments" and 
 " my vesture," and he must have another story to com- 
 plete the above. He says the four soldiers who crucified 
 Jesus (xix. 23), divided his undergarments in four parts. 
 But there was also a coat without seam, woven in one 
 piece, and they cast lots who should have this peculiar 
 garment. So the Synoptics did not say the thing right, 
 and John had to correct them : " That the scripture might 
 be fulfilled, which sayeth, They parted my raiment among 
 them, and for my vesture they cast lots." So John tells 
 us why the whole incident was invented. 
 
 IX. PSALM LXIX. 
 
 That the sixty-ninth psalm has no reference to Jesus, 
 is evident from the horrid curses which that author throws 
 at his enemies. He says : 
 
 "Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not ; and make thei r 
 loins continually to shake. Pour out thine indignation upon 
 them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them. Let their 
 habitation he desolate ; and let none dwell in their tents. For 
 they persecute him whom thou hast smitten; and they talk to the 
 grief of those whom thou hast wounded. Add iniquity unto 
 
THE CKITCIFIXIOX. 119 
 
 their iniquity: and let them not o.mr into thy ri^ht- 
 Let them lie' hlotted (.lit oi llic hook ot tin- living, and not he 
 \vritten with the righteous. J'.ut 1 am poor and .sorrowiiil ; let thy 
 salvation, U (i<.<l, set me uj on high." 
 
 Curses like these could not be brought in connection 
 with Jesu-. They must have been uttered by some cap- 
 tive warrior in Uabylonia, who could hope, " I 1 or (iod will 
 save /ion, and will build up the cities of Judah, and they 
 will dwell there and inherit it." This again could have 
 no reference to Jesus. And yet, the twenty-second verse 
 of this psalm was the cause of the various drinks offered 
 to Jesus on the cross. 
 
 The drink offered to Jesus, according to Mark, was 
 first wine mixed with myrrh, and then vinegar. The bev- 
 erage made of wine and myrrh was referred to Jewish 
 custom, to give a certain lotion to the culprit before jthe 
 execution, to produce stupor.* There are, however, two 
 mistakes in this supposition. In the first place, the Jews, 
 according to Mark, had nothing to do with the crucifixion, 
 and the Romans knew nothing of this custom. In the 
 second place, myrrh is one thing, and olibanum or liba- 
 num, called by the Hebrews libanah, is another. The 
 myrrh makes the wine bitter, and produces no stupor; but 
 the olibanum, of which the Jewish sources in this case 
 speak, produces stupor. Mark speaks of myrrh and not of 
 olibanum ; hence he thought of bitter wine and not of stu- 
 por. He thought of the twenty-first verse in the sixty- 
 ninth psalm, " They gave me gall in rny meat [refresh- 
 ment]; and in my thirst they gave vinegar to drink." 
 Therefore, and for no other reason, the bitter wine and 
 the vinegar were introduced. Matthew 7 understood this 
 well, and changed the myrrh into gall, because he thought 
 tt'JO signifies gall and not myrrh, Luke and John drop 
 both myrrh and gall, because they understood 'DV13D lit- 
 erally, '* in my iood," and could not see how one could be 
 fed on gall or myrrh. Still, out of respect for their pre- 
 decessors, they retained the vinegar, because vinegar and 
 water was a common beverage among the Roman soldiers. 
 There is not the least cause of suspicion, that those various 
 drinks about which there is so much confusion in the evan- 
 gelical account, are various presentations of the fact. The 
 whole incident was simply made from those psalm pas- 
 
 * Maiinonides Sauhedrin, xvi. 2. 
 
120 ISAIAH LIII. 
 
 sages, and introduced as an embellishment of the story. 
 It is not history ; it is legend. 
 
 X, ISAIAH LIII. 
 
 The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is one of the causes 
 that Jesus was crucified, and had so much to suffer, the 
 orthodox trinitarians maintain. If that Isaiah had not 
 prophesied so horrible a fate for the Messiah, Jesus might 
 iiave escaped all the tribulation and suffering. But being 
 prophesied, it had to" be fulfilled, and so Jesus had to sut- 
 ler. So it was either God's or the prophet's fault ; one of 
 the two must have fixed the fate of Jesus centuries before 
 he lived, and those who executed it were mere tools in 
 the hands of an irresistible force. We maintain, on the 
 contrary, the crucifixion story was made to correspond, in 
 part at least, with the fifty -third chapter of Isuiah, as it 
 was with the chapters reviewed before. , We will take two 
 instances in evidence of our assertion. 
 
 Luke maintains, Jesus prayed, " Father, forgive them/' 
 etc., which is not mentioned by Mark or Matthew, and is 
 omitted by John. Had Jesus, indeed, made tnat prayer 
 in his dying hour, having said so very little, it could not 
 possibly have been forgotten, and Mark or Matthew must 
 have known it and noticed it. It is too brief to escape 
 the memory, and too generous to pass unnoticed. Again, 
 had John believed it a fact, he must have brought it into 
 his narrative. Therefore we are certain that the prayer 
 was made by Luke. Why did Luke make it ? Simply 
 
 because Isaiah Ixiii. closes with the words PUD' D\J7^D^ 
 " And he will make intercession for the transgressors." 
 These words, admitting of a different construction, close 
 the chapter, and with Luke, this prayer closes the life of 
 Jesus ; so that no doubt can be left of Luke's intention 
 to describe the end of Jesus exactly as the chapter ends. 
 Thus we know the intentions of this evangelist. 
 
 Again, all the evangelists notice repeatedly, and with 
 particular care, the consistent silence of Jesus in his trial 
 beibre the Jews and Pilate, and also before lierod, accord- 
 ing to Luke. We have noticed above, that if those 
 trials had actually taken place, the disciples had no means 
 whatever to know what was said or not said there. Hence 
 the silence of Jesus is no historical iact, nor was it put 
 for moral effect. It was put in because it is stated twice 
 
TIM; CRUCIFIXION. 121 
 
 in Isaiah, liii. 7 : " And lie will not open his mouth." The 
 story had to tally with the prophecy. 
 
 The intention of the evangelists is expressed by Mark 
 in regard to the two thieves. Two thieves, Mark narrates, 
 were crucified with Jesus," theoneon his right hand, and 
 the other on his left ;" whieh with some change is repeated 
 by the other evangelists. Mark tells us, this had to be 
 done in order to fulfill the Scriptures, u And he was num- 
 bered with the transgressors." Isaiah uses here the term 
 rU-J "he was numbered," in the past tense, and speaks of 
 one who was numbered with transgressors, and not of one 
 who should hereafter be so numbered ; hence he could not 
 have thought of Jesus. But the evangelists were no gram- 
 marians, and did not care about such niceties. Still the oc- 
 currence looks suspicious. It appears those two poor iel- 
 lows had to die on the cross then and there, by an inevit- 
 able decree of Providence ; because God was bound to 
 make good His word spoken by Jsaiah. They were bound 
 to be thieves, in order to be crucified then and there. This 
 is fatalism in its worst form. 
 
 Our suspicion grows, if we turn over to Luke. Mark 
 and Matthew tell us, the two thieves also mocked Jesus. 
 They had an eye upon Psalm xxii. 7 : " All they that see 
 me laugh me to scorn." Luke, however, has another ver- 
 sion of the affair. He says only one of the thieves in- 
 sulted Jesus, but the other was a pious thief, who rebuked 
 his comrade like a moralizing preacher. He made a hand- 
 some gallow speech, confessed his guilt, and acknowledged 
 the innocence of Jesus. How did he know it ? Did he 
 in his prison communicate with the Holy Ghost ? The pious 
 thief upon the cross rises in his emphasis to the elf max in 
 his prayer, " Ilemember me when thou comest into thy 
 kingdom." This is certainly strange and marvelous. The 
 thief knew more and believed more than the disciples, 
 who for a long time after waited for the return of Jesus 
 to establish his kingdom in Palestine, and not somewhere 
 in heaven. If there is any doubt that this thief, his 
 speech and prayer, are fictitious, the answer of Jesus, ac- 
 cording to Luke, dispels it. Jesus, says Luke, replied, 
 " To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." These 
 words are from 1 Samuel, xxviii. 19 
 
 " Moreover the Lord will also deliver Israel with thee into the 
 band of the Philistines ; and to-morrow shalt thou and thy sons 
 be with me: the Lord also shall deliver the host of Israel into 
 the hand of the Philistines'' 
 
122 ISAIAH LIU. 
 
 With the exception of the Greek paradise. Here we have 
 no longer the simple Son of man, the martyr in his last 
 agony ; here we have the Jesus of the second centur} 7 , who 
 takes out the souls from hell, as Nicodemus narrates, for- 
 gives sins, and does such other commission business for 
 the Almighty. But as though that was not enough to es- 
 tablish the authorship of Luke, there comes yet the word 
 u paradise." The Jews called the future happiness " life 
 eternal," or Chelek Volam habba. The word paradise oc- 
 curs in the Talmud only, and also there it bears an en- 
 tirely different signification. Also in the !New Testament, 
 it only occurs in 2 Corinthians, xii. 4, and Romans, ii. 7 
 Paul speaking to Greeks. In Jerusalem, at that time, 
 none used the word paradise. This is certainly an anach- 
 ronism, and establishes, beyond a doubt, that the pious 
 thief, with all about him, is Luke's ingenious invention, 
 which John did not believe and would not adopt. Luke 
 needed the incident to fulfill Scriptures. The closing pas- 
 sage of Isaiah liii. has three members, the middle of which 
 was not fulfilled : "And he bare the sin of many," which, 
 according to the Septuagint, must be rendered, "And he 
 bare great sin." So Jesus had to take away the great sin 
 of the thief and secure to him the paradise all that the 
 fifty-third chapter of Isaiah be applied literally to Jesus. 
 
 Had Luke believed the story of the two thieves, he 
 could not have the audacity to add his fictitious incident. 
 But knowing that the thieves were there in the crucifixion 
 story, because Isaiah was understood to suggest it, he 
 could add another story on the same ground. 
 
 It is strange that none of the critics ever discussed the 
 question, Why were these thieves crucified ? They were 
 thieves (Listis), and no robbers or democratic guerrilleroes, 
 as Barabbas was; so the evangelists state. Well, then, 
 why were they crucified ? The Jewish law (Exodus, xxi. 
 37 ; xxii. 1-3) punishes no thief with death. It could 
 not have been a later law among the Jews to punish 
 thieves so severely ; tor it was a settled principle in He- 
 brew legislation that capital punishment could be inflicted 
 only where the Bible dictates it,* and history oilers no 
 precedence to the contrary. The Roman law concerning 
 theft and robbery, borrowed from the Athenians, was in 
 
 * onoio ns-V?? nrpD DVPTI p*o n.-nn ao^n mn n:n Vy Siphri, 
 Shophtim, 154. 
 
THE CRUCIFIXION. J23 
 
 spirit the same as the Jewish law. Therefore none can 
 tell why thieves were crucified. 
 
 We know only of one intimation in Herodotus (Euterpe 
 121) that certain thieves in Egypt suffered the penalty of 
 death. Mark, who came from Egypt, may have mistaken 
 this for a Roman law, and thought two thieves might have 
 lurn crucified also in Jerusalem. To the best of our 
 knowledge, no such case is recorded anywhere ; and there 
 is not the slightest ground to believe that the two persons 
 were crucified with Jesus. It was necessary for Mark to 
 make out a case similar to that of Isaiah's servant of the 
 Lord, and he ornamented his imaginary Golgotha with 
 two more crosses. 
 
 XI. THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 
 
 We know* now that the crucifixion story, postfestum, was 
 so shaped and represented that superficial and ungram- 
 matical readers of the Bible might have been led to be- 
 lieve it had been done so and not otherwise, because it 
 was prophesied ; and Jesus being the suffering person as 
 prophesied, must have been the Messiah. It must always 
 be borne in mind that the gospels were not written for 
 Jews ; for when the first was written, the separation of 
 Jew and Christian, whatever name this or that sect bore, 
 was an accomplished fact, and fanaticism kept them far 
 apart. The evangelists wrote chiefly for Gentiles, whose 
 knowledge of the Bible was limited and derived from 
 translations not always correct. 
 
 The causes which prompted the disciples, and after 
 them the evangelists, to accommodate the gospel story to 
 biblical events and tropes are easily discovered. In the 
 first place, it was the primary intention of the apostles 
 to preach Judaism, which became, with Paul, denational- 
 ized Judaism, which had its numerous admirers among 
 the Gentiles in Rome, and throughout the empire. The 
 Bible had become known to the Gentiles as a holy book 
 long before the apostles. Therefore, Paul argues chiefly 
 from the Jewish Bible, always presupposing it as well 
 known to his readers or hearers as a holy book. In or- 
 der to have effect with those devout Gentiles, the Jesus 
 story had necessarily to be propped upon the Jewish Bi- 
 ble. Take away this underlying authority, and, for all re- 
 ligious purposes, the whole story shrinks to a common and 
 
124 THE SCRIPfURAL AEGUMENT. 
 
 poetically adorned biographical sketch, overloaded with 
 ghost stories and incredible miracles. 
 
 In the second place, the death of Jesus was certainly a 
 source of scorn and derision to his surviving admirers. 
 The conquered, captured, and executed Messiah was too 
 impotent a figure to the oriental imagination, and the Jew- 
 ish ideal of a redeemer, not to excite derision and scorn. 
 The disciples who believed that Jesus was the Messiah, in- 
 deed, and that he had laid down his life for theirs, could 
 not imagine that this was not a particular arrangement of 
 Providence for the common good ; and being such, pious 
 Jews as they were, they believed it must be foreshadowed 
 in the Bible. Illiterate, as they were, and in frequent 
 communication with Grecian and Syrian heathens in Pal- 
 estine, the idea of the sacrificed Prometheus, Thamuz or 
 Crishna, was easily identified with the person and fate of 
 Jesus ; and by a novel method of expounding Scriptures 
 the suffering Messiah was discovered in, or rather uncon- 
 sciously imposed upon, the Bible. So the disciples over- 
 came, among themselves at least, tLe vexation growing 
 out of the sufferings and death of Jesus. The door once 
 opened to an exegese independent of grammar and the kin- 
 dred sciences, it was extremely easy to find types and 
 tropes in Scriptures applicable to Jesus. The Psalms and 
 Prophets are full of plaintive effusions which might be ap- 
 plied to any unfortunate man as well as to Jesus. The 
 whole history of Israel is one long tragedy in the world's 
 drama. Every unsuccessful philanthropist and every 
 martyr has his prototype in Hebrew Scriptures. This 
 system, initiated by the disciples and continued by Paul, 
 became the standing exegese of the Church. So, grad- 
 ually, events from the life of Jesus were expounded to 
 fulfill Scriptures, and scriptural tropes were changed into 
 events and added to the life of .Jesus. So, colored and 
 enlarged, the story reached the evangelists in the sec- 
 ond century, who wrote it, eac-h from his own standpoint 
 and in the sense of his respective church. 
 
 These same scriptural passages, if analyzed by the light 
 of criticism, as was done by Ibn Ezra, Kimchi, Gesenius, 
 Ewald, Hitzig, and other eminent scholars, bear not the 
 least relation to Jesus and his fate ; and those critics 
 did undoubtedly understand the Bible better than the 
 fishermen of Galilee did, who had not the remotest idea 
 of grammar, philology, history, or archeology. The fifty- 
 
Tin: n;r< IFIXION. 125 
 
 third chapter of Isaiah, for instanee, which was writ- 
 ten about ;VJ.~) p.. c., and is an address <>i' consolation to 
 the then suffering people of Israel under ( 'amhyses, or 
 pseudo SmA'dis, has not the lea>t relation to .Ji-us and 
 his fate. It merely announces what kin^s in after-times, 
 will say of downtrodden Israel, when at last truth, jus- 
 ti e, and freedom will triumph by Israel's consistency and 
 adherence to God's truth, under painful sufferings. But 
 aside of all this, Israel, the nation of the Book, who suf- 
 fered thousand-fold martyrdom for the Bible, of whose 
 mind it was produced, and to whose reason it was ad- 
 dressed, ought to understand that book. This might be 
 palely admitted. But Israel unanimously declare*, there 
 is no reference in the Bible to Jesus or his fate. There 
 is no trace in Scriptures of any suffering Messiah. 
 
 We believe to have succeeded in showing, anyhow, that 
 all those scriptural passages admit of another construc- 
 tion. Hence two things must be proved, viz., that the 
 evangelical construction is correct, and that the events ac- 
 tually transpired, exactly as the evangelists maintain they 
 did ; neither of which has ever been done, and in our 
 estimation it can not be done. Therefore the scriptural 
 argument has not the least weight with the critical reader, 
 who can see in the crucifixion story no more than a piece 
 of sacred poetry in prose, composed with the avowed in- 
 tention of imitating biblical tropes and changing them 
 into alleged facts. 
 
 XII. THE TRUE STORY. 
 
 In the face of the arguments produced, the crucifixion 
 story can not be upheld as a historical fact. There exists, 
 certainly, no rational ground whatever for the belief that 
 the affair took place in the manner as the evangelists de- 
 scribed it. All that can be saved of the whole story is, 
 that after Jesus had answered the first question before 
 Pilate, viz., " Art thou the king of the Jews?" which it 
 is natural to suppose he was asked, and also this can be 
 supposition only, he was given over to the Roman sol- 
 diers to be disposed of as fast as possible, before his ad- 
 mirers and followers could come to his rescue, or any de- 
 monstration in his favor could have been made. He was 
 captured in the night as quietly as possible, was guarded 
 in some place, probably in the high-priest's court, com- 
 pletely secluded from the eyes of the populace, and early 
 
126 THE TRUE STORY. 
 
 in the morning he was brought before Pilate as cautiously 
 and as quietly as it could be done, and on his command, 
 disposed of by the soldiers as fast as practicable, and in 
 a manner not known to the people. All this was done 
 most likely while the multitude worshiped on Mount Mo- 
 riah, and nobody had an omen of the tragical end of the 
 man of Nazareth. There may havn and there may not 
 have been before the gubernatorial palace a crowd to de- 
 mand the release of Barabbas, since neither that name 
 nor that custom is known in Jewish history ; but they 
 had certainly nothing to do with Jesus or his fate. It is 
 possible enough that in the afternoon the dead body of 
 Jesus, on a tree or a cross, or otherwise, was exposed to 
 the gaze of the multitude, to mortify the Jews who were 
 ready to accept him as the Messiah ; to deride the others 
 by the label, " Jesus of Nazareth, Ki> g of the Jews ;" and 
 to make sure against every possible outbreak and demon- 
 stration in his behalf; but we have no documents before 
 us to establish this as an unquestionable fact. The disci- 
 ples who fled so confusedly when Jesus was arrested, were 
 certainly not present when he was tried, condemned, and 
 executed. There could have been very few persons present at 
 those scenes, as secrecy was dictated by prudence. There- 
 fore, right at the start the stories of his end may have 
 been variously reported and told retrospectively by dif- 
 ferent parties as they thought the events might have oc- 
 curred. Some said he was crucified; others thought he 
 was hung to a tree ; and others again said he did not die 
 at all. Gradually, the voice of Paul established the 
 crucifixion, and the Bible passages were applied to dress 
 up a new story, as wanted for the Gentile and especially 
 the Roman ear. 
 
 XIII. VICARIOUS ATONEMENT. 
 
 But be all this as it may, Jesus had carried out his res- 
 olution. He had laid down his life for the lives of his 
 disciples and all the other people who might have been mas- 
 sacred in the contemplated demonstration in his favor. 
 He was a martyr, although not in the sense as Christian 
 dogmatics construe it ; yet he was a martyr who elicits 
 admiration. Unable to carry out the original plan the 
 restoration of the kingdom of heaven in Israel and see- 
 ing his followers and admirers rushing heedlessly into a 
 wad scheme of rebellion, he laid down his life heroically 
 
THE CRUCIFIXION. 127 
 
 for his friends and countrymen. His immediate disciples 
 and followers never speak of Jesus' martyrdom otherwise 
 than " He who hath laid down his life for us;" or '* He 
 \vhodied for us;" or" He who mi tiered lor us." They 
 never extend the signification of his suffering and death 
 beyond the immediate circle of his diseiples, for whose 
 Me he had laid down his own. Peter, according to the 
 genuinely orthodox doctrine of the Pharisees, admonished 
 his brethren to repentance of sin, because the righteous 
 man was so suddenly snatched away from their midst, 
 and in order to hasten the approach of the kingdom of 
 heaven which, he surely expected, Jesus would establish 
 yet, and to this end return from the realm of death, But 
 he had not the remotest idea of vicarious atonement. 
 
 Paul preached denationalized Judaism, and turned his- 
 torical events into religious topics. 80 David, Solomon, 
 and other kings of Judah became saints, and the king of 
 the Jews the Messiah, the Son of God. Jesus, the pro- 
 claimed Messiah, was turned into a son of David for Jews, 
 and a son of God for Gentiles, The political fabric of the 
 Hebrew people, called in the theocratic style the kingdom 
 of heaven, was changed into a theological tiction under 
 the rule of the dead Jesus. The spiritual resurrection of 
 Jesus, which the original apostles taught, was transformed 
 into a bodily resurrection for the benefit of heathens with 
 gross conceptions of spirit and God. The last supper of 
 Jesus became a sacrament. So also the martyrdom of 
 Jesus was turned to general use. He had died for all 
 who did or will believe in him, Paul maintained; his 
 death is an atonement for the sins of all, also the uncon- 
 verted relatives of those who believed in him. It was a 
 theological exposition of the event on the part of Paul, 
 of which nobody else had any knowledge. Christendom 
 has accepted the dogma on the wisdom and integrity of 
 Paul. Jesus and his immediate disciples had no knowledge 
 of vicarious atonement. All that can be discovered in 
 the sources is that Jesus has laid down his life for the 
 lives of his immediate disciples, friends, and countrymen, 
 without any reference to other people, to any future life 
 or happiness, to any new doctrine or dogma. By the in- 
 fluence of Paul, the vicarious atonement was imposed 
 upon the Gospel. It was a considerable step in advance on 
 the heathen conceptions and institutions of atonement, 
 much more rational and humane than theirs ; but it was 
 
128 VICARIOUS ATONEMENT. 
 
 a mere substitute, far behind the rational doctrine of the 
 prophet (Isaiah, Iv. 6, 7) : 
 
 Seek ye the Lord while he may be found ; call ye upon him 
 while he is near. 
 
 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his 
 thoughts : and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have 
 mercy upon him ; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 
 
 Paul was a wise man, no doubt. He dealt with Pa- 
 gans according to their mental or moral abilities. He 
 took away, he gave, he reformed and remodeled existing 
 elements to the best of his ability, in order to impress 
 them with the religious idea. To him, the Son of God 
 was no more than the incarnate symbol of the religious 
 idea. Since the Pagans could not reach the Father (mono- 
 theism) in his absolute spirituality, he led them to the Fa- 
 ther through the Son, viz., the incarnate and accommodated 
 religious idea. Therefore, it gave him no particular trou- 
 ble to change and amend stories and incidents, as he could 
 best use them for his higher aims. Still, he made one 
 great mistake. He thought all would be redeemed by the 
 Son, or the religious idea ; and when all was accomplished 
 the Son would return the government to the Father, and 
 God be again all in all. In our modern and sober phras- 
 eology this signifies, the religious idea should redeem the 
 human family from all prevailing siufulness and misery, 
 and restore the dominion of truth and righteousness. 
 But we, who have eighteen centuries of history behind us, 
 know that this is a mistake. The human family has not 
 been redeemed by the Son. The religious idea is one fac- 
 tor in the world's history, and the Daughter, Sophia, Wis- 
 dom, the progress of learning, science, philosophy, inven- 
 tion, and culture, is another and very powerful factor of 
 history, a redeeming agency, against which Paul and his 
 compatriots declared war. This was his mistake. There- 
 fore the Christian story, with the dogmatism based upon 
 it, held out so long. All dominion was given to the Son 
 and none to the Daughter. So the Son was degraded to 
 superstition and fanaticism, and Minerva occupies a hos- 
 tile position toward Adonis. The next reformatory step 
 must be to overcome that hostility by, doing away with 
 gods and goddesses, symbols and dogmas, incarnation and 
 accommodation, to exhibit clearly and logically the unity 
 of the religious and philosophical ideas as one truth, 
 which is the redeemer of man. Many stories, legends, myths, 
 
THE CEIICIFIXION. J 2 g 
 
 |al,l,s ami minri,, ,,,,,,, I,, I,,', I,,.,,;,,,,. Uk) . , 
 
 tfan si,,,,., they ,,,, 1,,. saved . lll( . v ,., J 
 
 " MT all(1 """' <-l"lllil<- generations. Many dootoina 
 dogmas 8u-8titions, and pnjndic,, will baveto beS 
 come. Like Christology, thev hav,, >,, andean the 
 
 '>mv,n -I Brow,,,,; philosophy. But th, ,-,,,, I 
 iberated n ^.ms !,,,, in unison ami harmony wit I 
 I..-I.I.V ami l,-M.h. u-,)l redeem the human fa.nilv Tl is 
 I'-'f'l.y tl. ,n,,st oxal(c,l faith and the most iv! ' s " 
 sta,,,l,,o, n t n.t.Ih^u men. The vicarious atonem ',t 
 f aul 8y,,,lH,l,x. tlmt sins are overcome and 
 
 XIV. THE JEWS DID NOT CRUCIFY JESUS. 
 
 One of the falsehoods to be erased from the memory of 
 hristendom f the gake flf tfuth fcW 
 
 r U t hl - the ^ws crucifie 
 
 I. What hell could invent of fiendish torments and 
 diabolic scorns was employed in Christendom o m a" e 
 the Jew miserable with Christian love. Every a " 
 imbecile, or robber assumed the right to trample d 
 jpit upon the Jew. Every crazy priest has a doTr in< 
 hand to justify those barbarous outrages as tX 
 work of Providence. Every smooth-faced hypcS" 
 sorrowful, bigot in our days has something hffi?hiS 
 heart against the Jew who killed Christ ; af thoSh th, 
 few persons described in the New Testament ill be?n 
 th Hebrew people, or it was anybody's fault now tha 
 a man was killed eighteen centuries ago. So tenlcioi 
 however, and unreasoning is fanaticism, that it must be 
 burnt out of the soul to be overcome. As Ion. as that 
 -MU-CC of hatred exists in Christendom, Christianity is 
 
 ' S of' n a misfort ' ine for wee P in "SSJ? 
 
 A.-.d-of all our arguments, the Academy of France 
 
 as fully en , tied to do as was done, viz., to declared 
 
 the Jews did not crucify Jesus; for the evangelists ay 
 
 plainly, the Roman soldiers crucified him. Jffor ar ^ y 
 
 ment's sake we admit Jesus was crucified, which none fan 
 
130 THE JEWS DID SOT CRUCIFY JESUS. 
 
 establish satisfactorily, we can only maintain it on the au- 
 thority of Mark, and Mark narrates the Romans and not 
 the Jews crucified Jesus. We open the gospel of Mark 
 and read from the fifteenth chapter this: 
 
 " And the soldiers led him away into the hall called Pretorium ; 
 and they called together the whole band. And they clothed him 
 with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it about his 
 head, and began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews ! And 
 they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, 
 and bowing their knees worshiped him. And when they had 
 mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own 
 clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him. And they compel 
 one Simon, a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the coun- 
 try, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross. And 
 they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpre- 
 ted* The place of a skull. And they gave him to drink wine 
 mingled with myrrh : but he received it not. And when they had 
 crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them 
 what every man should take. And it was the third hour, and 
 they crucified him." 
 
 No sane reader finds in these words a Jew. The Ro- 
 man soldiers on command of Pilate accomplish the whole 
 feat. Matthew (xxvii. 27) tells the same story precisely, 
 also exonerating the Jews entirely. It appears, from a 
 close inspection of Luke, that he also did mean to say as 
 his predecessors, the Romans and not the Jews crucified 
 .Jesus. He narrates (xxiii. 27), " And as they led him 
 away," etc., which leaves it undecided who led him away, 
 Jews or Romans. But he goes on in the narrative and 
 always uses the infinite " they," for the same band of per- 
 sons who crucified Jesus and the two thieves, and divided 
 among themselves the clothes of Jesus. These were evi- 
 dently no Jews ; for, if they from sheer fanaticism had 
 degraded themselves to the bloody executioners of Rome, 
 in crucifying Jesus, they certainly would not have cruci- 
 fied the two thieves, who, if really executed, were mur- 
 dered in defiance of law, and against the popular will. 
 Besides, the same persons who crucified Jesus also divid- 
 ed his garments among themselves ; and turning over to 
 John (xix. 23), we are told plainly, " Then the soldiers, 
 when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments and 
 made four parts, to every soldier a part ; and also his 
 coat," etc., informing us plainly not only that those who 
 divided the garments among themselves, but also those 
 who crucified Jesus, were four Roman soldiers. He also 
 informs us that the priests protested against the super- 
 
TIM-; OBUCIFES [OK. l;;i 
 
 sc.-iption, ".IcsusMfXa/nvth. King of the Jews,-" bm Pi- 
 late answered, " What J have written, I have writti 
 (John, x,x. 22). If Jews badorucified Jesus, this suDer- 
 iption, which was intended to their chagrin, Would cer- 
 tainly n,,t have been fhstencd tO the cross. Therefore the 
 
 direct statements of the gospels are, the Romans crucified 
 
 Lhe park of howling fanatics who still cry at the 
 iK-elsot the Jew, "Christ Killer,- have yet to learn to 
 read and understand the gospels correctly. (';. 
 wickedness and furious fanaticism, for centuries Of ghostlV 
 darkness, raised the bloody cry, the Jews crucified Jesus- 
 blind ignorance and servile obedience re-echoed the un- 
 reasoning howl at carnivals of madness, to oppress exile 
 persecute-, plunder and slaughter. Shame, burning shame' 
 on priests and mobs of the past who used this barbarous 
 war-cry in defiance of humanity; thousandfold shame on 
 modern priests and preachers who still unblushing pro- 
 claim this infamous lie, not only in d.efknce of the Gos- 
 pel, but also of truth, humanity, and religion. They ou-nt 
 be dnven from the pulpits of every civilized commun- 
 ity, and sent to savages whose conceptions of religion are 
 as narrow as their own. 
 
 THE CONCLUSION. 
 
 The martyrdom of Jesus of Nazareth has been grate- 
 fully acknowledged bv his disciples whose lives he Led 
 by he sacrifice of his own, and by their friends who 
 won d have fallen by the score had he not prevented tie 
 rebellion ripe at Jerusalem. Posterity infatuated with Pa- 
 gan apotheosis made of that simple martyrdom a big bub- 
 >.e colored with the myths of resurrection and ascension 
 to that very heaven which the telescope has t o 
 jnan's way. The simple fact has been Lade tht f ol da- 
 nnof a novel myth : to suit the gross conceptions ot e - 
 H-atlens. Modern theology understanding well enough 
 that the myth can not be saved, seeks refugl in tl e ^ 
 ness and self-denial of the man who die<f W , \^ " s " 
 tl;ou,h ,e,us had been the only man who dwft^ 
 i-a. Fhousands, tens of thousands of Jews ChristTanl 
 Mohannne<lans, and Heathens, have died iu id ! 1 
 
 i;:; n .;;; d! ; ( ' in n (Te y^ ^.*~&ai 
 
 Heil ? v ^ ad yaced anything new to die for 
 
 He was not accused of saying or teaching anything or 
 
132 THE CONCLUSION. 
 
 nal. Nobody has ever been able to discover anything 
 new and original in the gospels. He died to save the 
 lives of his friends, and this is much more meritorious in 
 our estimation than if he had died for a questionable idea. 
 But then the whole fabric of vicarious atonement is de- 
 molished, which reason does anyhow, and modern theol- 
 ogy can not get over the absurdity that the Almighty 
 Lord of the universe, the infinite and eternal Cause of all 
 causes, had to kill some innocent fellow in order to be rec- 
 onciled to the human beings. However abstractly they 
 speculate arid subtilize, there is always an undigested 
 bone of man -god, god-man, and vicarious atonement in 
 the theological stomach. Therefore theology appears so 
 ridiculous in the eyes of modern philosophy. The theo- 
 logical speculation can not go far enough to hold pace 
 with modern astronomy. However nicely the idea may 
 be dressed, the great God of the immense universe looks 
 too small upon the cross of Calvary ; and the human 
 family is too large, has too numerous virtues and vices, to 
 be perfectly represented by, and dependent on, one rabbi 
 of Galilee. Speculate as they may, one way or another, 
 they must connect the Eternal and the fate of the human 
 family with the person and fate of Jesus. That is the 
 very thing which deprives Jesus of his crown of martyr- 
 dom, and brings religion in perpetual conflict with philos- 
 ophy. It is not the religious idea which was crucified in 
 Jesus and resurrected with him as with all its martyrs ; 
 although his belief in immortality may have strengthened 
 him in the agony of death. It was the idea of duty to his 
 disciples and friends which led him to the realms of 
 death. This deserves admiration, but no more. It dem- 
 onstrates the nobility of human nature, but proves noth- 
 ing in regard to providence, or the providential scheme 
 of government. 
 
 The Christian story, as the gospels narrate it, is a. big 
 bubble. You approach it critically and it bursts. Dog- 
 matic Christology built upon it is a paper balloon kept 
 afloat by gas. All so-called lives of Christ, or biogra- 
 phies of Jesus, are works of fiction, erected by imagina- 
 tion on the shifting foundation of meager and unreliable 
 records. There are very lew passages in the gospels 
 which can stand the rigid application of honest criticism. 
 Therefore, Schleiermachcr's " Keligion of Christ/' or 
 rather the religion based upon the life of Jesus, is no less 
 
Tin-: riaviFixioN. 133 
 
 the work of phantasy than tho orthodox dogmatism. 
 Philosophy and science have oven-nine the latter, and 
 criticism has made impossible the 1 nner. In modern 
 
 science and philosophy, orthodox ( bristology is out of 
 
 (liiestion. Nobody attempts any longer to save a mere 
 shade thereof. The ghost lias returned to Hades. In mod- 
 ern criticism, :;s this our last and probahly nl>o h-a>t con- 
 tribution shows, the Gospel sources became so utterly 
 worthless and unreliable that it takes more than ordinary 
 faith to believe that any portion thereof is at all true. 
 The eueharist was not established by Jesus, and can not 
 be called a sacrament. The trials of Jesus are positively 
 not true : they are pure inventions. The crucifixion story 
 as narrated is certainly not true, and it is extremely dif- 
 ficult to save the bare fact that Jesus was crucified. What 
 can the critic do with books in which a few facts must be 
 ingeniously guessed from under the mountain of ghost- 
 stories, childish miracles, and dogmatic tendencies? It is 
 absurd to expect of him to regard them as sources of re- 
 ligious instruction, in preference of any other mytholo- 
 gies and legends. All the religious precepts expressed in 
 the gospels, and a good many more, are derived from the 
 Old Testament, and systematically compiled in the au- 
 thor's " Judaism : its Doctrines and Duties/' without any 
 {Satan, ghost- stories, miracles, and improbabilities. Hence, 
 we have a perfect right to expect of all readers the ac- 
 knowledgment that our book is superior to the gospels ; 
 nevertheless we do not expect to be considered a superior 
 mortal. We challenge all orthodoxy to produce from the 
 gospels any sound, humane, and universal doctrine not 
 contained in our "Judaism," etc.; still we know that we 
 are no special son of God. What good will books with 
 Satan, ghost-stories, miracles, and improbabilities do us, 
 iroiii the religious standpoint, if an ordinary mortal like 
 this author can write a better book on religion without 
 i hat incumbrance on reason '! That is the point where 
 modern critics arrived, therefore the gospels have become 
 books for the museum and the archaeologist, for students 
 of mythology and ancient literature. The spirit of dog- 
 matic Christology hovers still over a portion of eivili/ed 
 society, in antic organizations, disciplines, and hereditary 
 forms of faith and worship; in science and philosophy, 
 and in the realm of criticism, its day is past. The univer- 
 
134 THE CONCLUSION. 
 
 sal, religious, and ethical element of Christianity has no 
 connection whatever with Jesus or his apostles, with the 
 Gospel or the Gospel story ; it exists independent of any 
 person or story. Therefore it needs neither the Gospel 
 story nor its heroes. In the common acceptation of the 
 terms, one can be a good Christian without the slightest 
 belief in Jesus or the gospels. It is useless for us, who 
 are men and thinkers, to deceive ourselves and others 
 nay, it is immoral to do it. In this third quarter of the 
 nineteenth century the intelligence believes no longer in 
 Jesus or the gospels, although faint shadows thereof still 
 hover .on the imagination of unclear and undecided think- 
 ers. As it was at the end of Roman Paganism, so it is 
 now; the masses are deceived and fooled, or do it for 
 themselves, and persons of vivacious phantasies prefer 
 the masquerade of delusion to the simple sublimity of ma- 
 jestic but naked truth. Therefore fanaticism is in the mi- 
 nority and without energy, so that the Church is subjected 
 to the State, in Berlin and in Rome. The decline of the 
 Church as a political power proves beyond a doubt the de- 
 cline of Christian faith. The conflicts of Church and 
 State all over the European continent, and the hostility 
 between intelligence and dogmatic Christianity, demon- 
 strate the deaih of Christology in the consciousness of 
 modern culture. It is useless to shut our eyes to these 
 facts. Like rabbinical Judaism, dogmatic Christianity 
 was the product of ages without typography, telescopes, 
 microscopes, telegraphs, and the power of' steam. These 
 right arms of intelligence have fought the titanic battles, 
 conquered and demolished the ancient castles, and remove 
 now the debris, preparing the ground upon which there 
 shall be reared the gorgeous temple of humanity, one uni- 
 versal republic, one universal religion of intelligence, 
 and one great universal brotherhood. This is the new 
 covenant, the gospel of humanity and reason. 
 
RETURN CIRCULATION ^DEPARTMENT 
 
 202 Main Librar 
 
 LOAN PERIOD 1 
 
 HOME USE 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 ALL BOOKb IVIMT DC H.CV. 
 
 Renewals and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date 
 
 Books may be Renewed by calling 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 FORM NO. DD6 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 
 BERKELEY, CA 94720 
 
 s