TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION OF JESUS.--HIS PUNISHMENT AND DEATH.
When the enemies of Jesus saw him in their hands, they were not less
embarrassed than before. From the time the Romans had subdued the Jewish
nation, they had no longer the power of the sword. To punish those who
had sinned against religion, it was sufficient at any former period,
that the high priest pronounced sentence on the culprit. The Romans,
more tolerant, rarely punished with death; and, besides, to take away
life, they required decisive proofs against the accused. Annanias,
father-in-law of the high priest Caiphas, was known among the Jews for a
very subtle man. It was to Annanias' house, therefore, that they first
conducted Jesus. We are ignorant of what passed in this first scene of
the bloody tragedy. It is to be presumed, that the prisoner underwent an
examination which proved no way favorable to him.
From the house of Annanias they conducted Jesus to that of Caiphas. He
was the man most interested by his office in the ruin of every innovator
in matters of religion; yet we do not find this pontiff speaking with
anger: he conducted himself according to law, and as a man who
understood his profession. "Who," said he to Jesus, "are your disciples,
their number and names?" Jesus made no answer. "But at least," continued
Caiphas, "explain to me your doctrine. What end does it propose? You
must have a system. Tell us then what it is." At last the messiah
condescended to say, "I spoke openly to the world; it is not I, but
those who have heard me, that ought to be interrogated." Here one of the
officers of the high priest gave Jesus a blow on the ear, saying,
"Answerest thou the high priest so!" The reprimand was harsh, but it
must be owned, that the answer of Jesus was disrespectful to a man
invested with authority, and with the right of putting questions, in
order to discover the truth from the mouth of the accused. Jesus ought
to have been better acquainted with his own doctrine than the peasants
of Galilee or Judea, before whom he had through preference affected to
preach in an unintelligible manner. It was therefore just and natural to
suppose, that Jesus could give a better account of his sentiments and
parables, than an ignorant multitude who had listened without being able
to comprehend him. He alone could be supposed to possess the secret of
forming into a system the scattered and unconnected principles of his
heavenly doctrine.
Caiphas, unable to draw any thing from the accused, waited till next
morning, when the council would assemble in order to continue the
inquest. Jesus appeared before the Sanhedrim, the most respectable
tribunal in the nation. The gospel represents the priests and chiefs of
the Jews occupied during the whole night that Jesus was arrested, in
searching for and suborning _false witnesses_ against him. They produced
two persons, on whom they very unjustly bestowed this epithet. These
witnesses deposed to a fact verified by the gospel itself.--"We heard
him say that he would destroy the temple, and rebuild it in three days."
It is certain that Jesus had uttered these words, "Destroy this temple,
and in three days I will raise it up." But the poor witnesses knew not
that he then spoke in his figurative style. Their mistake was
pardonable, for, according to the gospel, the apostles themselves did
not discover the true sense of these words till after the resurrection
of their master.
This evidence was not sufficient to condemn Jesus. The Jews, however
iniquitous we may suppose them to have been, did not sentence fools to
die; and these words of their prisoner must have appeared to them the
effect of delirium. Accordingly the high priest contented himself with
asking what he had to answer? and as the accused refused to speak, he
did not further insist on that point. He proceeded to questions more
serious: "Are you the Christ?" said he to Jesus. How did the messiah
answer this question? "If I tell it, you will not believe me, nor suffer
me to depart. But hereafter the Son of man shall sit on the right hand
of God." "You are then the Son of God?" continued the priest.--"You have
said it," replied the accused. "But it is not sufficient that we should
say it; it is you who are to answer: once more, are you the Christ? I
conjure you by the living God tell us if you are his Son?"--"You have
said it," answered Jesus: "the Son of man shall one day come in the
clouds of heaven." Notwithstanding these perplexing answers, the judges
imagined they understood the meaning of his words: they plainly
perceived that he wished to give himself out for _the Son of God_. "He
hath spoken blasphemy," said they; and immediately concluded that he
deserved death--a judgment which was valid according to the law of the
Jews, and which must also appear so to Christians whose sanguinary laws
punish capitally those whom the clergy accuse of blasphemy. They have,
therefore, no right to blame the conduct of the Jews, so often imitated
by ecclesiastical and secular tribunals.
On the other hand, if it was necessary that Jesus should die; if he
wished it; if the reprobation of the Jews was resolved on, he acted very
properly in keeping them in error. But if this was the intention of
providence, why preach to them? Why perform miracles before a whole
people whilst a small number were only to profit by it? Did Jesus wish
to save them? In that case why not convince the whole Sanhedrim of his
power? Why did he not burst his bonds? Why did he not by a single word
change their obstinate hearts? Did he wish to destroy them? Why not then
strike them dead? Why not instantly precipitate them into hell?
The judges could not comprehend why the accused, who could not extricate
himself from their hands, could be the Son of God. They accordingly
declared him worthy of death; but not definitely, as it was requisite
that the sentence should be approved of and executed by the Romans,
sovereigns of the nation. During these transactions, Jesus was treated
in the cruelest manner by the Jews, whom, as well as Christians, their
zeal permitted, or rather enjoined, to be savage.
It is during this night, and the morning of the following day, so fatal
to the Saviour of the world, that we must place the three denials of
Peter, the chief of the apostles. His master had prayed for him. His
comrades, seized with dismay, had dispersed themselves in Jerusalem and
its neighborhood. Several among them would have acted like Peter if they
had found themselves in a similar situation. He had at least the merit
of keeping near his master; he abjured him, it is true; but would it
have been of more avail if, by acknowledging him openly, he should have
entangled himself in a very awkward affair, without being able to
relieve the Saviour.
The Sanhedrim repaired to the palace of Pilate the Roman governor, in
order to get the sentence confirmed. Jesus was conducted thither. Pilate
instantly perceived that it was an affair in which fanaticism and folly
had the greatest share. Filled with contempt for so ridiculous a motive,
he was at first unwilling to interfere. _Judge him yourselves_, said he
to the magistrates. On this the latter became false witnesses. Zeal, no
doubt, made them imagine that every thing was allowable against an enemy
of religion. They interested the sovereign power in their quarrel--They
accused Jesus of wishing "to make himself king of the Jews," and of
having maintained, that "they ought not to pay tribute to Casar." We
recognize here the genius of the clergy, who, to ruin their enemies, are
never very fastidious in the choice of means. They especially strive to
render the latter suspected by the temporal power, in order to engage
it, through motives of self-interest, to satiate their revenge.
Pilate could not avoid paying attention to accusations of so serious a
nature. Unable to persuade himself that the man he beheld could have
conceived projects so ridiculous, he interrogated him:--"Are you the
king of the Jews?" On which Jesus demanded of Pilate--"Say you this of
yourself, or have others told it you?"--"Of what consequence is it to
me," returned Pilate, "that you pretend to be the king of the Jews? You
do not appear a man much to be dreaded by the Emperor my master--I am
not of your nation; I concern myself very little with your silly
quarrels. Your priests are your accusers--I have my own opinion of
them--but they accuse you; they deliver you into my hands--Tell me then,
what have you done?" Jesus might very easily have got off; but in his
distress his judgment failed; and, far from penetrating the favorable
disposition of Pilate, who wished to save him, he replied, "that his
kingdom was not of this world--that he was the truth," &c. On this the
Governor asked him "What is the truth?" But the Saviour made no reply,
though the question well deserved a categorical answer.
Pilate, a little alarmed on account of Jesus, declared, that he "found
nothing in him worthy of death." But this redoubled the cries of his
enemies. Having learned that the accused was a Galilean, he, to get quit
of the ridiculous business, seized the opportunity to send him to Herod,
to whose tetrarchate Jesus originally belonged. We have said elsewhere,
that this prince had desired to see our hero, and his desire was now
gratified. But on perceiving his obstinacy and constant refusal to
answer the questions put to him, he conceived a sovereign contempt for
him. To Pilate therefore he sent him back clothed in a white robe by way
of derision. The governor, however, saw no capital crime in Jesus, and
wished to save him; besides, his superstitious wife had a dream, that
interested her in favor of our missionary. Pilate then said to the Jews,
that he could find nothing in the man which rendered him worthy of
death. But the people misled, and wishing him to be crucified, cried out
_Tolle, Tolle_; away, away with him. The Governor now devised another
plan to save him. "I release," said he, "every year a criminal;
supposing that Jesus may be culpable, I am going to set him free." The
cries were redoubled, and the Jews demanded, that a robber called
Barabbas should profit of this mercy in preference to Jesus, whose
punishment they persisted to urge.
The Romans, desirous to calm the rage of a fanatical people, caused
Jesus to be whipped; dressed him in a ridiculous manner, crowned him
with thorns, and made him hold a reed instead of a sceptre. Thus
decorated, Pilate showed him to the people, saying, "Behold your king!
are you not yet satisfied? See how to please you I have bedecked him. Be
then less cruel: do not carry your indignation further; he ought no
longer to give you umbrage."
The priests, whose maxim it is "never to forgive," were not moved by
this spectacle; nothing short of the death of their enemy could satisfy
them. They changed their ground, and, to intimidate the governor, told
him that by suffering the accused to live he betrayed the interests of
his master. It was then that Pilate, fearing the effects of the malice
of the clergy, consigned Jesus to the Jews, that they might satiate
their rage on him; declaring, however, that "he washed his hands of it,"
and that it was against his opinion if they put him to death. We cannot
well conceive how a Roman governor, who exercised sovereign power in
Judea, could yield so easily to the wishes of the Jews: but we cannot
more easily conceive how God permitted this honest governor to become an
accomplice in the death of his dear Son.
Jesus, abandoned to the rage of devotees, again suffered the cruellest
treatment. Pilate, to humble those barbarians, wished the label affixed
to the upper part of the cross to bear, that he was their king; and
nothing could induce him to recede from this resolution. "What is
written is written," said he to those who requested him to alter an
inscription dishonorable to their nation. It is also proper to observe,
that this inscription is differently expressed by the four evangelists.
The Jews treated Jesus as a dethroned king, and made him experience the
most bloody outrages. Though he had said that he could make _legions of
angels_ come to his protection, yet the Jews, notwithstanding their
natural credulity, paid no credit to his assertion, and nothing could
stop their religious cruelty, excited by the priests. They made him take
the road to Calvary. He sunk under the weight of his cross, but they
loaded Simon with it, who was more vigorous. The unfortunate Jesus must
have been indeed much enfeebled by what he had suffered during both the
night and the morning. At last he was placed on the cross, the usual
punishment of slaves. He did not suffer long under the agonies of
crucifixion: after invoking his Father, and lamenting his being so
shamefully abandoned, he expired, it is said, between two thieves. It is
said that Jesus when dying exclaimed, "_Eli! Eli! lamma sabbactani!_"
(My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken me!) This complaint was very
ridiculous in the mouth of Jesus, if, as is pretended, the part he acted
was agreed on with his father from all eternity. Matthew and Mark tells
us, that _both_ the thieves insulted him with abusive language; while
Luke assures us, that _one_ only of the two abused the Saviour, and that
the other reprimanded his comrade for his insolence, and besought Jesus
"to remember him when he should come to his kingdom." But our
interpreters have a thousand ways of proving that the Holy Spirit never
contradicts himself, even when he speaks in the most contradictory
manner. Those who have faith are satisfied with their arguments, but
they do not so powerfully impress freethinkers, who have the misfortune
to reason.
The remorse of Judas soon revenged Jesus on this traitor. He restored to
the priests the thirty pieces he had received from them, and went
forthwith to _hang_ himself. This is what Matthew says, in opposition to
the writer of the Acts of the Apostles, (Luke) who tells us, that Judas
"purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong he
burst asunder in the midst." Mark and John are silent respecting this
memorable event. According to Matthew, the selling of Jesus for thirty
pieces had been foretold by Jeremiah. The prediction, however, does not
appear in the writings of this prophet, which would create a suspicion
that the evangelists, little satisfied with applying to Jesus some
prophecies, such as are extant in the Old Testament, have drawn from
their own store, or forged them when in need. But our able interpreters
are not at all embarrassed with this; and a holy blindness will always
prevent these trifles from being perceived.
The gospel informs us, that at the death of Jesus all Nature seemed to
take part in the grand event. At the moment he expired there was a total
eclipse; a frightful shaking of the earth was felt, and several holy
personages came out of their tombs to take a walk on the streets of
Jerusalem. The Jews alone had the misfortune to see nothing of all this;
it appears, that these wonders were performed only in the fancy of the
disciples of Jesus. As for the eclipse, it was, doubtless, an
inconceivable prodigy which could not have taken place without a total
derangement in the machine of the world. A total eclipse of the sun
during full moon, the time at which the celebration of the passover was
fixed by the Jews, is of all miracles the most impossible. No
contemporary author has mentioned it, though this phenomenon well
merited to be transmitted to posterity. The incredulous therefore
maintain, that there was no other eclipse on this occasion but of the
common sense of those who saw all these marvels, or of the good faith of
the writers who have attested them. With respect to the shaking of the
earth, they suspect that the apostles of Jesus, agitated with fear at
the sight of their divine master's fate, were the only persons who felt
it. In this way indeed the thing becomes very probable. If the
punishment of Jesus is proved by the gospel, some circumstances may
create a doubt whether he died immediately. We are told, that they did
not, according to custom, break his legs. His friends had the liberty of
taking away his body, and they might dress his wounds on finding that he
was not dead, and in this manner bring him back to life, at least for
some time.
When Jesus was dead, or believed to be so after an incision had been
made in his side, from which came blood and a whitish fluid, which they
took for water, his body was embalmed and deposited in a new tomb. This
was done on Friday evening. He had several times intimated that he would
rise again the third day; that is, at the end of three days and three
nights. Yet on the Sunday following, early in the morning, the tomb
wherein he had been laid was found empty. The Jews, always opiniative,
did not admit that he was risen again. They held it more natural to
believe that he had failed in his word; or to suppose that his disciples
had carried him off. This could easily have been executed by force; by
bribing the guards, whom the priests and Pharisees had placed around his
sepulchre; or by cunning. As Pilate felt but little interest in the
matter, he appears not to have punished the guards for neglecting to
take care of what he had confided to them. The idolatrous governor,
little acquainted with the resources or designs of the apostles, never
suspected they could persuade any person, that a man, whose death was
well attested, could return to life. It is not surprising that a Pagan
should doubt the resurrection of Jesus; from the first day of the
church, several Christians have not believed it, perceiving the
incongruity of supposing that the Son of God could die. They have
therefore denied the death of their divine master. The followers of
Basilides affirmed that Jesus at the time of his passion assumed the
appearance of Simon the Cyrenean, and transferred to him his own, under
which the said Simon was crucified in his stead, while Jesus, who beheld
this without being himself seen, laughed at their mistake. The
Cerinthians, or disciples of Cerinthus, who was contemporary with the
apostles; and the Carpocratians likewise denied that Jesus could have
been actually crucified. Some have maintained, that the traitor Judas
was punished in place of his master. These sectaries regarded Jesus as a
mere man, and not as a god. Thus we find Christians contemporary with
the apostles believing in Jesus and yet doubting his death. It was,
however, on this marvellous notion, as we shall see, that a sect was
afterwards founded, powerful enough to subject by degrees the Roman
empire and a considerable portion of the globe.
The punishment of our hero must have produced very little sensation in
the world, and his adventures must have been strangely unknown, since we
do not find that any historian, with the exception of the evangelists,
makes mention of them. In the year 1263, a conference was held in
presence of Don Jaques king of Arragon, and the queen his wife, between
the Rabbin Zechial, and the Dominician, Friar Paul, called Cyraic. This
conference is very memorable. The two champions were well versed in the
Hebrew and in antiquity. The _Talmud_, the _Targum_, the archives of the
Sanhedrim were on the table. The contested passages were explained into
Spanish. Zechiel maintained, that Jesus had been condemned under the
king Alexander Jannaeus, (and not under Herod the Tetrarch,) agreeably
to what is related in the _Toldos Jaschut_, and in the _Talmud_. "Your
gospels," said he, "were not written till towards the beginning of your
second century, and are not authentic like our _Talmud_. We could not
crucify him you speak of in the time of Herod the Tetrarch, since we had
not the power of life and death in our hands. We could not have
crucified him, because that manner of punishment was not in use among
us. Our _Talmud_ has it, that he who perished in the time of Jannaeus
was condemned to be _stoned_ to death. We can no more believe your
gospels than those pretended _Letters of Pilate_, which you have
forged."--_Letters on Eminent Writers_, p. 123. The illustrious and
profound _Freret_, perpetual Secretary to the Academy of Belles Lettres
at Paris, had no hesitation in avowing, that, after the closest
investigation he was clearly of opinion, the account given in the
_Talmud_ respecting Jesus, was the correct one. This opinion he
supported by showing, that the gospels were not written till upwards of
40 years after the period fixed for the death of Jesus; that they were
composed in foreign languages, at places distant from Jerusalem, which
were full of the disciples of John, called Therapeutae; of Judaites, and
of Galileans, all of whom had their gospels differing from each other,
which they insisted were genuine; that the four gospels now held
canonical, were the last written; that there is incontestible proof of
this fact arising from the circumstance, that the first fathers of the
church often quote passages which are to be found only in the gospel of
the Egyptians or in that of St. James; and that Justin is the first who
expressly quoted the received gospels. Justin was not born till a
century after the commencement of our vulgar era.