MACHINATIONS OF THE ENEMIES OF JESUS.
Jesus passed the autumn and a part of the winter at Jerusalem. This
season is there rather cold. The portico of Solomon, with its covered
aisles, was the place where he habitually walked.[1] This portico
consisted of two galleries, formed by three rows of columns, and
covered by a ceiling of carved wood.[2] It commanded the valley of
Kedron, which was doubtless less covered with débris than it is at the
present time. The depth of the ravine could not be measured, from the
height of the portico; and it seemed, in consequence of the angle of
the slopes, as if an abyss opened immediately beneath the wall.[3] The
other side of the valley even at that time was adorned with sumptuous
tombs. Some of the monuments, which may be seen at the present day,
were perhaps those cenotaphs in honor of ancient prophets[4] which
Jesus pointed out, when, seated under the portico, he denounced the
official classes, who covered their hypocrisy or their vanity by these
colossal piles.[5]
[Footnote 1: John x. 23.]
[Footnote 2: Jos., _B.J._, V. v. 2. Comp. _Ant._, XV. xi. 5, XX. ix.
7.]
[Footnote 3: Jos., places cited.]
[Footnote 4: See ante, p. 316. I am led to suppose that the tombs
called those of Zachariah and of Absalom were monuments of this kind.
Cf. _Itin. a Burdig. Hierus._, p. 153 (edit. Schott.)]
[Footnote 5: Matt. xxiii. 29; Luke xi. 47.]
At the end of the month of December, he celebrated at Jerusalem the
feast established by Judas Maccabeus in memory of the purification of
the temple after the sacrileges of Antiochus Epiphanes.[1] It was
also called the "Feast of Lights," because, during the eight days of
the feast, lamps were kept lighted in the houses.[2] Jesus undertook
soon after a journey into Perea and to the banks of the Jordan--that
is to say, into the very country he had visited some years previously,
when he followed the school of John,[3] and in which he had himself
administered baptism. He seems to have reaped consolation from this
journey, especially at Jericho. This city, as the terminus of several
important routes, or, it may be, on account of its gardens of spices
and its rich cultivation,[4] was a customs station of importance. The
chief receiver, Zaccheus, a rich man, desired to see Jesus.[5] As he
was of small stature, he climbed a sycamore tree near the road which
the procession had to pass. Jesus was touched with this simplicity in
a person of consideration, and at the risk of giving offense, he
determined to stay with Zaccheus. There was much dissatisfaction at
his honoring the house of a sinner by this visit. In parting, Jesus
declared his host to be a good son of Abraham; and, as if to add to
the vexation of the orthodox, Zaccheus became a Christian; he gave, it
is said, the half of his goods to the poor, and restored fourfold to
those whom he might have wronged. But this was not the only pleasure
which Jesus experienced there. On leaving the town, the beggar
Bartimeus[6] pleased him much by persisting in calling him "son of
David," although he was told to be silent. The cycle of Galilean
miracles appeared for a time to recommence in this country, which was
in many respects similar to the provinces of the north. The delightful
oasis of Jericho, at that time well watered, must have been one of the
most beautiful places in Syria. Josephus speaks of it with the same
admiration as of Galilee, and calls it, like the latter province, a
"divine country."[7]
[Footnote 1: John x. 22. Comp. 1 Macc. iv. 52, and following; 2 Macc.
x. 6, and following.]
[Footnote 2: Jos., _Ant._, XII. vii. 7.]
[Footnote 3: John x. 40. Cf. Matt. xix. 1; Mark x. 1. This journey is
known to the synoptics. But they seem to think that Jesus made it by
coming from Galilee to Jerusalem through Perea.]
[Footnote 4: _Eccles._ xxiv. 18; Strabo, XVI. ii. 41; Justin., xxxvi.
3; Jos., _Ant._, IV. vi. 1, XIV. iv. 1, XV. iv. 2.]
[Footnote 5: Luke xix. 1, and following.]
[Footnote 6: Matt. xx. 29; Mark x. 46, and following; Luke xviii. 35.]
[Footnote 7: _B.J._, IV. viii. 3. Comp. _ibid._, I. vi. 6, I. xviii.
5, and _Antiq._, XV. iv. 2.]
After Jesus had completed this kind of pilgrimage to the scenes of his
earliest prophetic activity, he returned to his beloved abode in
Bethany, where a singular event occurred, which seems to have had a
powerful influence on the remaining days of his life.[1] Tired of the
cold reception which the kingdom of God found in the capital, the
friends of Jesus wished for a great miracle which should strike
powerfully the incredulity of the Hierosolymites. The resurrection of
a man known at Jerusalem appeared to them most likely to carry
conviction. We must bear in mind that the essential condition of true
criticism is to understand the diversity of times, and to rid
ourselves of the instinctive repugnances which are the fruit of a
purely rational education. We must also remember that in this dull and
impure city of Jerusalem, Jesus was no longer himself. Not by any
fault of his own, but by that of others, his conscience had lost
something of its original purity. Desperate, and driven to extremity,
he was no longer his own master. His mission overwhelmed him, and he
yielded to the torrent. As always happens in the lives of great and
inspired men, he suffered the miracles opinion demanded of him rather
than performed them. At this distance of time, and with only a single
text, bearing evident traces of artifices of composition, it is
impossible to decide whether in this instance the whole is fiction, or
whether a real fact which happened at Bethany has served as a basis to
the rumors which were spread about it. It must be acknowledged,
however, that the way John narrates the incident differs widely from
those descriptions of miracles, the offspring of the popular
imagination, which fill the synoptics. Let us add, that John is the
only evangelist who has a precise knowledge of the relations of Jesus
with the family of Bethany, and that it is impossible to believe that
a mere creation of the popular mind could exist in a collection of
remembrances so entirely personal. It is, then, probable that the
miracle in question was not one of those purely legendary ones for
which no one is responsible. In other words, we think that something
really happened at Bethany which was looked upon as a resurrection.
[Footnote 1: John xi. 1, and following.]
Fame already attributed to Jesus two or three works of this kind.[1]
The family of Bethany might be led, almost without suspecting it, into
taking part in the important act which was desired. Jesus was adored
by them. It seems that Lazarus was sick, and that in consequence of
receiving a message from the anxious sisters Jesus left Perea.[2] They
thought that the joy Lazarus would feel at his arrival might restore
him to life. Perhaps, also, the ardent desire of silencing those who
violently denied the divine mission of Jesus, carried his enthusiastic
friends beyond all bounds. It may be that Lazarus, still pallid with
disease, caused himself to be wrapped in bandages as if dead, and shut
up in the tomb of his family. These tombs were large vaults cut in
the rock, and were entered by a square opening, closed by an enormous
stone. Martha and Mary went to meet Jesus, and without allowing him to
enter Bethany, conducted him to the cave. The emotion which Jesus
experienced at the tomb of his friend, whom he believed to be dead,[3]
might be taken by those present for the agitation and trembling[4]
which accompanied miracles. Popular opinion required that the divine
virtue should manifest itself in man as an epileptic and convulsive
principle. Jesus (if we follow the above hypothesis) desired to see
once more him whom he had loved; and, the stone being removed, Lazarus
came forth in his bandages, his head covered with a winding-sheet.
This reappearance would naturally be regarded by every one as a
resurrection. Faith knows no other law than the interest of that which
it believes to be true. Regarding the object which it pursues as
absolutely holy, it makes no scruple of invoking bad arguments in
support of its thesis when good ones do not succeed. If such and such
a proof be not sound many others are! If such and such a wonder be not
real, many others have been! Being intimately persuaded that Jesus was
a thaumaturgus, Lazarus and his two sisters may have aided in the
execution of one of his miracles, just as many pious men who,
convinced of the truth of their religion, have sought to triumph over
the obstinacy of their opponents by means of whose weakness they were
well aware. The state of their conscience was that of the stigmatists,
of the convulsionists, of the possessed ones in convents, drawn, by
the influence of the world in which they live, and by their own
belief, into feigned acts. As to Jesus, he was no more able than St.
Bernard or St. Francis d'Assisi to moderate the avidity for the
marvellous, displayed by the multitude, and even by his own disciples.
Death, moreover, in a few days would restore him his divine liberty,
and release him from the fatal necessities of a position which each
day became more exacting, and more difficult to sustain.
[Footnote 1: Matt. ix. 18, and following; Mark v. 22, and following;
Luke vii. 11, and following, viii. 41, and following.]
[Footnote 2: John xi. 3, and following.]
[Footnote 3: John xi. 35, and following.]
[Footnote 4: John xi. 33, 38.]
Everything, in fact, seems to lead us to believe that the miracle of
Bethany contributed sensibly to hasten the death of Jesus.[1] The
persons who had been witnesses of it, were dispersed throughout the
city, and spoke much about it. The disciples related the fact, with
details as to its performance, prepared in expectation of controversy.
The other miracles of Jesus were transitory acts, spontaneously
accepted by faith, exaggerated by popular fame, and were not again
referred to after they had once taken place. This was a real event,
held to be publicly notorious, and one by which it was hoped to
silence the Pharisees.[2] The enemies of Jesus were much irritated at
all this fame. They endeavored, it is said, to kill Lazarus.[3] It is
certain, that from that time a Council of the chief priests[4] was
assembled, and that in this council the question was clearly put: "Can
Jesus and Judaism exist together?" To raise the question was to
resolve it; and without being a prophet, as thought by the evangelist,
the high priest could easily pronounce his cruel axiom: "It is
expedient that one man should die for the people."
[Footnote 1: John xi. 40, and following, xii. 2, 9, and following, 17,
and following.]
[Footnote 2: John xii. 9, 10, 17, 18.]
[Footnote 3: John xii. 10.]
[Footnote 4: John xi. 47, and following.]
"The high priest of that same year," to use an expression of the
fourth Gospel, which well expresses the state of abasement to which
the sovereign pontificate was reduced, was Joseph Kaïapha, appointed
by Valerius Gratus, and entirely devoted to the Romans. From the time
that Jerusalem had been under the government of procurators, the
office of high priest had been a temporary one; changes in it took
place nearly every year.[1] Kaïapha, however, held it longer than any
one else. He had assumed his office in the year 25, and he did not
lose it till the year 36. His character is unknown to us, and many
circumstances lead to the belief that his power was only nominal. In
fact, another personage is always seen in conjunction with, and even
superior to him, who, at the decisive moment we have now reached,
seems to have exercised a preponderating power.
[Footnote 1: Jos., _Ant._, XV. iii. 1, XVIII. ii. 2, v. 3, XX. ix. 1,
4.]
This personage was Hanan or Annas,[1] son of Seth, and father-in-law
of Kaïapha. He was formerly the high priest, and had in reality
preserved amidst the numerous changes of the pontificate all the
authority of the office. He had received the high priesthood from the
legate Quirinius, in the year 7 of our era. He lost his office in the
year 14, on the accession of Tiberius; but he remained much respected.
He was still called "high priest," although he was out of office,[2]
and he was consulted upon all important matters. During fifty years
the pontificate continued in his family almost uninterruptedly; five
of his sons successively sustained this dignity,[3] besides Kaïapha,
who was his son-in-law. His was called the "priestly family," as if
the priesthood had become hereditary in it.[4] The chief offices of
the temple were almost all filled by them.[5] Another family, that of
Boëthus, alternated, it is true, with that of Hanan's in the
pontificate.[6] But the _Boëthusim_, whose fortunes were of not very
honorable origin, were much less esteemed by the pious middle class.
Hanan was then in reality the chief of the priestly party. Kaïapha did
nothing without him; it was customary to associate their names, and
that of Hanan was always put first.[7] It will be understood, in fact,
that under this _régime_ of an annual pontificate, changed according
to the caprice of the procurators, an old high priest, who had
preserved the secret of the traditions, who had seen many younger than
himself succeed each other, and who had retained sufficient influence
to get the office delegated to persons who were subordinate to him in
family rank, must have been a very important personage. Like all the
aristocracy of the temple,[8] he was a Sadducee, "a sect," says
Josephus, "particularly severe in its judgments." All his sons also
were violent persecutors.[9] One of them, named like his father,
Hanan, caused James, the brother of the Lord, to be stoned, under
circumstances not unlike those which surrounded the death of Jesus.
The spirit of the family was haughty, bold, and cruel;[10] it had that
particular kind of proud and sullen wickedness which characterizes
Jewish politicians. Therefore, upon this Hanan and his family must
rest the responsibility of all the acts which followed. It was Hanan
(or the party he represented) who killed Jesus. Hanan was the
principal actor in the terrible drama, and far more than Kaïapha, far
more than Pilate, ought to bear the weight of the maledictions of
mankind.
[Footnote 1: The _Ananus_ of Josephus. It is thus that the Hebrew name
_Johanan_ became in Greek _Joannes_ or _Joannas_.]
[Footnote 2: John xviii. 15-23; _Acts_ iv. 6.]
[Footnote 3: Jos., _Ant._, XX. ix. 1.]
[Footnote 4: Jos., _Ant._, XV. iii. 1; _B.J._, IV. v. 6 and 7; _Acts_
iv. 6.]
[Footnote 5: Jos., _Ant._, XX. ix. 3.]
[Footnote 6: Jos., _Ant._, XV. ix. 3, XIX. vi. 2, viii. 1.]
[Footnote 7: Luke iii. 2.]
[Footnote 8: _Acts_ v. 17.]
[Footnote 9: Jos., _Ant._, XX. ix. 1.]
[Footnote 10: Jos., _Ant._, XX. ix. 1.]
It is in the mouth of Kaïapha that the evangelist places the decisive
words which led to the death of Jesus.[1] It was supposed that the
high priest possessed a certain gift of prophecy; his declaration thus
became an oracle full of profound meaning to the Christian community.
But such an expression, whoever he might be that pronounced it, was
the feeling of the whole sacerdotal party. This party was much opposed
to popular seditions. It sought to put down religious enthusiasts,
rightly foreseeing that by their excited preachings they would lead to
the total ruin of the nation. Although the excitement created by Jesus
was in nowise temporal, the priests saw, as an ultimate consequence of
this agitation, an aggravation of the Roman yoke and the overturning
of the temple, the source of their riches and honors.[2] Certainly the
causes which, thirty-seven years after, were to effect the ruin of
Jerusalem, did not arise from infant Christianity. They arose in
Jerusalem itself, and not in Galilee. We cannot, however, say that the
motive alleged in this circumstance by the priests was so improbable
that we must necessarily regard it as insincere. In a general, sense,
Jesus, if he had succeeded, would have really effected the ruin of the
Jewish nation. According to the principles universally admitted by all
ancient polity, Hanan and Kaïapha were right in saying: "Better the
death of one man than the ruin of a people!" In our opinion this
reasoning is detestable. But it has been that of conservative parties
from the commencement of all human society. The "party of order" (I
use this expression in its mean and narrow sense) has ever been the
same. Deeming the highest duty of government to be the prevention of
popular disturbances, it believes it performs an act of patriotism in
preventing, by judicial murder, the tumultuous effusion of blood.
Little thoughtful of the future, it does not dream that in declaring
war against all innovations, it incurs the risk of crushing ideas
destined one day to triumph. The death of Jesus was one of the
thousand illustrations of this policy. The movement he directed was
entirely spiritual, but it was still a movement; hence the men of
order, persuaded that it was essential for humanity not to be
disturbed, felt themselves bound to prevent the new spirit from
extending itself. Never was seen a more striking example of how much
such a course of procedure defeats its own object. Left free, Jesus
would have exhausted himself in a desperate struggle with the
impossible. The unintelligent hate of his enemies decided the success
of his work, and sealed his divinity.
[Footnote 1: John xi. 49, 50. Cf. _ibid._, xviii. 14.]
[Footnote 2: John xi. 48.]
The death of Jesus was thus resolved upon from the month of February
or the beginning of March.[1] But he still escaped for a short time.
He withdrew to an obscure town called Ephraim or Ephron, in the
direction of Bethel, a short day's journey from Jerusalem.[2] He spent
a few days there with his disciples, letting the storm pass over. But
the order to arrest him the moment he appeared at Jerusalem was given.
The feast of the Passover was drawing nigh, and it was thought that
Jesus, according to his custom, would come to celebrate it at
Jerusalem.[3]
[Footnote 1: John xi. 53.]
[Footnote 2: John xi. 54. Cf. 2 _Chron._ xiii. 19; Jos., _B.J._, IV.
ix. 9; Eusebius and St. Jerome, _De situ et nom. loc. hebr._, at the
words [Greek: Ephrôn] and [Greek: Ephraim].]
[Footnote 3: John xi. 55, 56. For the order of the events, in all this
part we follow the system of John. The synoptics appear to have little
information as to the period of the life of Jesus which precedes the
Passion.]