Chapter 77 2

Was Desire of Ages Plagiarized?
A Comparative Literary Analysis of the Borrowing by Authors

in their Life of Christ on Jesus Trial Before Pilate
---
Chapter 77
---
2 Edition
nd
by
David J. Conklin
Dr. Jerry Moon
Kevin Morgan
2008-2011
"The truth shall set you free ..." Jesus
"No lie can live forever." Thomas Carlyle
"Truth, however disenchanting, is better than falsehood, however comforting." Albert
Schweitzer
"If you tell the truth, you have infinite power supporting you; but if not, you have infinite power
against you." Charles "Chinese " Gordon
"In a time of universal deceit... Telling the truth... is a revolutionary act." George Orwell
"The search for the truth is not for the faint-hearted." Detective Goren, Law and Order: Criminal
Intent
"At the end of the day, the truth is the only thing we have." Horatio Caine, CSI: Miami
"You cant find the truth if you dont look. So, we should always ask ourselves: What am I
looking for? You have to want to find the truth, in order to be able to find it." David J. Conklin
"There can be no liberty for a community which lacks the means by which to detect lies." Walter
Lippmann
Originality is undetected plagiarism. William Ralph Inge (while frequently stated as such on the
web, it is not a quote!)
"No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar." Abraham Lincoln
"It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." Mark Twain
The critics remind me of this quote: "They never open their mouths without subtracting from the
sum of human knowledge." Thomas Brackett Reed, Speaker of the House, on his political
opponents.
"The only people mad at you for speaking the TRUTH are those living a lie. Keep speaking it!"
Tony A. Gaskins Jr.
"A lie has speed but truth has endurance." Anon.
"Yell a lie a few times and the ignorant start believing it." Anon.
"Tell the truth and you never have to change your story." Anon.
"One falsehood leads easily to another." Anon.
"When a person who is honestly mistaken is confronted by fact, he either stops being mistaken
or he stops being honest." Anon.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface................................................................................................................................. Page -4-
Introduction. ........................................................................................................................ Page -5-
Kudos. ..................................................................................................................... Page -6-
Chapter 77. .......................................................................................................................... Page -7-
Abstract. .................................................................................................................. Page -7-
Introduction. ............................................................................................................ Page -7-
Table 1. Veltmans Dependency Values. .................................................. Page -10-
Table 2. Limitation of Veltmans Statistical Calculation. ........................ Page -11-
Literary Borrowing Conventions Before the Nineteenth Century. ....................... Page -12-
Purpose.................................................................................................................. Page -16-
Methodology. ........................................................................................................ Page -17-
Limitations. ........................................................................................................... Page -17-
Early Expectations. ............................................................................................... Page -20-
Authors Used in the Study. ................................................................................... Page -20-
Annotated Listing of the Most Significant Phrases of Literary Similarity............ Page -27-
Unique Cases of Borrowing:........................................................................................... Page -186-
Watson and Brown.............................................................................................. Page -186-
MClintock and Strongs Borrowing from Kitto and Plumptre. ......................... Page -190-
A Comparison of Chandler and DeLand............................................................. Page -227-
Tabular Analysis of Phrases............................................................................................ Page -254-
Table 3. Truncated Summary of Relationships................................................... Page -255-
Notes on Table 3. ................................................................................... Page -256-
Analysis of Table 3. ................................................................................ Page -257-
Plagiarism Now, Not Then. ............................................................................................ Page -259-
Farrar vs. Roscamp. ............................................................................................ Page -259-
Jacobus and His Use of Sources. ........................................................................ Page -294-
Two Examples of Self-Plagiarism. ................................................................................. Page -297-
John Cumming. ................................................................................................... Page -297-
William Hanna. ................................................................................................... Page -305-
Future Work. ................................................................................................................... Page -322-
Words Never Said. .......................................................................................................... Page -324-
Conclusions..................................................................................................................... Page -332-
Addendum: 302 Known Lies About Ellen G. White. ..................................................... Page -337-
Bibliography.................................................................................................................... Page -358-
Preface
This work is the result of long hours of quite boring and tedious work; that is why you
will never see any of the critics ever do this kind of study. All mirtakes are mine.
I owe a special thanks to Kathy Halgren, Library Director at the South St. Paul, MN
library for straightening me out about a misconception I had about WorldCat. Also due
recognition is required for the work done by MNLink for their work in facilitating the delivery
of books and journal articles through interlibrary loan. Google Books (http://books.google.com/)
also deserves thanks for scanning in countless books that were used in this study.
A very special thanks goes to Ulrike Unruh for being so gracious as to post some of my
earlier work on her website (http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/index.html).
Just as no man is an island unto himself, so no book can be credited to the work of one
person. A very special thanks is due to Dr. Jerry Moon for writing the article that was published
in 2008 issue of Plagiary and is included in this book. Without it this book would never have
been published. And again, a special thanks goes out to Pastor Kevin Morgan for the two years
he spent helping me to edit Dr. Moons article and for his insights on the examples that are found
in this book and on the plagiarism claim against Ellen G. White in general.
A very big Thank You! also needs to go to Bill Keith at LithoTech Graphic Services on
the Campus of Andrews University for your superb job in getting this document ready for
publication and producing this book.
This second edition fixes a number for formatting and typos that appeared in the 1
st
edition and adds a few more authors to the study.
David J. Conklin (Mar. 17, 2012)
Page -4-
Introduction
This study will present a case study of the type Dr. Veltman recommended back in 1988.
1
To the best of our knowledge this is the first and only study of this type.
2
The first study is a substantially expanded and edited version of what was sent to
Plagiary for publication in 2008. Because of space limitations, that article was unable to present
all of the available evidence. This study will present the rest of the evidence. Conklin also
expanded on the number of sources analyzed (from 47 to 226), fixed a few bugs here and there
and converted endnotes to footnotes, etc.. Another study of the same type that was done on
Ellen G. Whites Sketches from the Life of Paul will be presented in a future work.
PAP -- Pornography, Art, and Plagiarism
Pornography, art, and plagiarism are not objective concepts. Even experts in their
respective fields acknowledge that they cannot adequately define them. One student of the field
3
of plagiarism, Judy Anderson, noted, defining plagiarism becomes murky and foggy if one tries
to put exact boundaries on it. And yet this is where it gets most interesting! To the layman it
4
amounts to "I don't know what it is, but I'll know it when I see it." St. Onge, the last living expert
in the field, disagrees, as he noted in the title of his article: Plagiarism: You Know it When You
Implied in part in his remark: A writer can only be legitimately charged with plagiarism when that
1
writers literary methods contravene the established practices of the general community of writers producing works
of the same literary genre within a comparable cultural context (Veltman (Dec. 1990): 14.
Conklin has since replicated the same study on a couple of other chapters in Desire of Ages.
2
Flanagan, Anna. "Experts Agree Plagiarism Hard to Define, Hard to Stop." The Council Chronicle
3
(February 1994): 6 many believe that plagiarism is an ill-defined concept.
Ibid.
4
Page -5-
See it (Really?).
5
One of the hallmarks of science is that they have experiments which can be used to get
repeatable results. But, with PAP there is no experiment, formula or equation that can be applied
by everyone, and anyone, at anytime, and come up with the same results as those before. On
plagiarism, we can say, till now. With the tool and method demonstrated in this case study,
anyone, anywhere and at any time can apply them and arrive at very nearly the same results.
Kudos
This is going to sound a bit odd, but Id like to give thanks to the critics who made the
claim of plagiarismand not just plagiarism in general, but with overblown claims, like, 80-
90% (and possibly much more), or entire paragraphs were copied, word for word, etc. If they
had not made such outrageous claims, I might never have even started this study, even though
they made these claims without offering any supporting evidence.
We should, of course, give thanks to Walter Rea for writing his book and presenting in
one place all sorts of alleged examples of plagiarism. Unfortunately, I suspect that this amounts
to almost all that we will ever see. Secondly, in his examples he includes over a dozen cases
where Ellen G. White did give her source(s). So, this calls into question as to whether or not he
even understands the most basic nature of the concept. But, as we say in the business world:
The cutting edge is the bleeding edge. That is, when one is the first into a field you will step
on the landmines, you will make mistakes, because you do not know what to avoid yet. You
do not even know what to look for. You find out what to look for, by experience--which as one
wag noted, we gain by making mistakes!
"Plagiarism: You Know it When You See it (Really?)," found online at
5
http://hnn.us/articles/628.html.
Page -6-
A Method for Analyzing Alleged Plagiarism in Nineteenth-Century Literature
Using Ellen G. Whites The Desire of Ages, Chapter 77, as a Case Study
6
David J. Conklin, Jerry Moon, and Kevin Morgan
What is plagiarism? Among all the questions connected with literary
criticism there is, perhaps, none to which it is more difficult to give a satisfactory
answer (anon., Literary Coincidences, Chambers Journal of Popular
Literature, Science and Arts 19/973 (1882): p. 528).
Abstract
This paper proposes a method of determining whether the literary practice of a
nineteenth-century author exceeded the generally accepted norms of literary borrowing for that
same period. The method takes as its case study, one chapter from Ellen G. Whites Desire of
Ages, which, of all her works, has received the most extensive investigation regarding alleged
plagiarism, and compares it to the corresponding chapters of 226 other works of the same genre
7
and time frame, using a computerized literary tool, WCopyfind, to locate parallel phrases
between the various works. These parallels are then evaluated for strength and frequency. Study
results indicate that unattributed borrowing of phraseology was not uncommon, and even
considered to be more acceptable among the nineteenth-century authors of this genre than would
be acceptable in the late twentieth century. The minimal borrowing by Ellen G. White in this
chapter was found to be within the acceptable standards of that era.
Introduction
Among students of historical plagiarism it is well known that standards of appropriate
borrowing and documentation have evolved dramatically since the advent of copyright laws in
the sixteenth century (Plant, 1939). Both documentary and anecdotal evidence show that, as late
as the end of the nineteenth century, accepted conventions of literary borrowing were far more
relaxed than they would become in the late twentieth century. There tends to be an anachronistic
tendency to judge the literary practice of nineteenth-century writers by twentieth and twenty-first
This study is one of several, which Conklin has conducted, with quite similar results even allowing for
6
the inconsistency of the authors within their own work. None of those who make the claim of plagiarism against
Ellen G. White have yet conducted such a study. These facts, combined with those of Veltmans study raises serious
doubts on the validity of the claim of plagiarism against Ellen G. White.
By relaxing this particular constraint Conklin thought that he might be able to show that authors of LOC
7
borrowed material from dictionaries and encyclopediasand that those borrowed from each other.
Page -7-
century standards. This paper seeks to identify what was considered to be appropriate literary
8
borrowing in the nineteenth century, not by prescriptive methods based on twentieth and twenty-
first-century norms, but by descriptive analysis of actual nineteenth-century literary practice.
9
This study presents a tool, WCopyfind, and a method for quantifying the extent (and, by
implication, the accepted norms) of literary borrowing in a specific genre and during a specific
time frame. From this data, it should be possible to determine whether the actual practice of a
given author exceeded accepted norms. Presumably, deviations beyond accepted norms for the
era would have been considered plagiarism.
This case study focuses on the genre of lives of Christ in nineteenth-century literature
in English. Exceptions to this include Taylor [1613-1667] from the late seventeenth century and
Fleetwood from the eighteenth century, whose work was repeatedly reprinted throughout the
nineteenth century. These works have been included to show where they were potentially used
by nineteenth-century authors. Ellen Whites The Desire of Ages (1898/1940) was chosen as a
test subject because it has been alleged to include substantial unacknowledged literary borrowing
and because the works White is alleged to have borrowed from are available for comparison with
her work and then compare them with each other. This is called comparative analysis.
Ellen G. White (1827-1915) authored more than 5,000 articles and 40 books, and, with
translations in some 148 languages, is apparently the most extensively translated female author
in history. White acknowledged her indebtedness to other authors for historical facts and
10
narratives, but denied dependence on them, except in helping her to express her own concepts.
11
Mark Rose (2002) in his book review of Marilyn Randall's Pragmatic Plagiarism: Authorship, Profit, and
8
Power, notes that "All texts involve repetition of earlier texts.... Randal approaches plagiarism as a pragmatic rather
than absolute category--that is something that can only be studied in terms of actual practices" (page 270).
Goudy (1909) noted the difficulty of distinguishing between reasonable and justifiable borrowing and
9
wrongful appropriation (p. 302).
Whites works appear in 148 languages, compared to 104 for English mystery writer Agatha Christie,
10
although Christie far exceeds White in total copies sold (Roger Coon, Gift of Light, 2d ed. Hagerstown, MD: Review
and Herald, [1998], pp. 23-24; retrieved March 19, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_Christie).
The great events which have marked the progress of reform in past ages, are matters of history, well
11
known and universally acknowledged by the Protestant world; they are facts which none can gainsay. This history I
have presented briefly, in accordance with the scope of the book, and the brevity which must necessarily be
observed, the facts having been condensed into as little space as seemed consistent with a proper understanding of
their application. In some cases where a historian has so grouped together events as to afford, in brief, a
comprehensive view of the subject, or has summarized details in a convenient manner, his words have been quoted;
Page -8-
The first known public criticism of her alleged copying was Dudley M. Canrights
12
article in the October 8, 1887 issue of the Michigan Christian Advocate (Nichol, p. 417; see also
Graybill (1980) and especially Coon (1995, 3. Critical Charges). While Canright initiated the
13
plagiarism charge, there is no evidence that either he, or any other critic of that timeframe, made
any effort to inform the alleged victims of her alleged improper borrowing. Moreover, none of
Whites alleged sources ever brought charges--or even threatened to bring charges--of copyright
infringement (Nichol, 1951, p. 407). The plagiarism charge against White was repeated and
expanded by Walter Rea (Dart, 1980; Rea, 1982), who alleged that she produced most of her
writings by plagiarizing other authors.
Reas (1982) research, however, lacked scholarly rigor and objectivity. For example, to
make coincidental parallels look more like plagiarism, Rea left out dissimilar material and
changed capitalization and punctuation where he clipped the sentences without the appropriate
use of ellipses (pp. 227, 229, 230, 231; see the exhibits at Conklin, 2007). He also padded his
exhibits with many paragraphs that were similar in subject matter, but had little or no parallel
wording and included, as exhibits of plagiarism, citations for which White actually
documented her sources (pp. 231, 232, 234, 236 [twice], 240 [twice], 248 [twice]). Some of
Reas exhibits present texts from the Bible as if they were copied from secondary sources (pp.
229 [twice], 230, 233, 236, 237, 242, 245, 247). Rea (n.d.) even accuses White of copying from
J. N. Andrews History of the Sabbath (1912) in her 1911 edition of The Great Controversy
(Chapters 2 and 3 of Great Controversy, first table). However, the words Rea accuses White of
copying do not occur in the earlier editions of Andrews work, but only in the 1912 edition,
but except in a few instances no specific credit has been given, since they are not quoted for the purpose of citing
that writer as authority, but because his statement affords a ready and forcible presentation of the subject. In
narrating the experience and views of those carrying forward the work of reform in our own time, similar use has
occasionally been made of their published works (White, 1888, p. h).
The critics tend to use the terms copying and plagiarism interchangeably. They assume that they are
12
one and the same.
Graybill (1980) had placed it at 1889. Canrights criticism of her copying did not include the word
13
plagiary until Canrights first edition of Seventh-day Adventism Renounced in 1888: She gives no credit to these
authors but claims it all as a revelation from God! She is a literary thief. Webster says: Plagiary:A thief in
literature; one who purloins anothers writings and offers them to the public as his own (p. 44). In subsequent
editions of his work Canright drops the definition from Webster and the use of the word plagiary. But, then, in his
1919 Life of E. G. White he devotes an entire chapter (chap. 10, A Great Plagiarist) to the claim.
Page -9-
which was posthumously revised by L. R. Conradi. It is far more likely that Conradi borrowed
from White, with whose works he was well acquainted. Also, in a different case, Rea
interpolated Whites own words into a source she allegedly copied.
14
Following Reas work, in an attempt to provide thoroughly objective data on the issue of
Whites literary borrowing, Fred Veltman conducted a massive investigation of Whites life of
Christ, The Desire of Ages. He focused on that book because, of all Whites works, it was
reputed to contain the largest amount of unacknowledged borrowing. Veltman and a team of
researchers spent almost eight years on the project (1980-1988) finishing with a 2,222 page
report. Veltmans study was based on 15 randomly selected chapters of The Desire of Ages using
the sentence as the unit of comparison. The 15 chapters contained 2,624 sentences (Veltman,
1990 October, p. 5). Veltman established a scale of seven levels of literary dependency, from
strict verbatim to independence (see Table 1 for a short description).
Table 1. Veltmans Dependency Values in descending order from 7 to 0 (Veltman,
1988, 1, pp. 61-63; Moon, 2005, p. 55; Morgan, 2007, First instance of each other category of
dependent sentences, 3, 6, 9).
7. Strict Verbatim: exact duplication of an entire sentence. (There were none of these.)
6. Verbatim: slight modification of words or punctuation. (At least one of these can be
traced to the Bible: Mal. 3:1 (Veltman, 1988, Chapter 3, p. 12).)
5. Strict Paraphrase: as little as a phrase or two from a source with modification of
wording as long as the parallel means the same as the original source.
4. Simple Paraphrase: says basically the same thing as the source though containing
an additional thought. (This is the largest category of alleged parallels.)
3. Loose Paraphrase: expresses a very similar thought, though not always in the same
order or with verbatim word(s).
1
2. Source Bible: Scriptural phrase follows the secondary source, but is not a Scripture
that is usually associated with this story.
1. Partial Independence: part of the sentence shows strong parallelism, but a
significant part of the sentence shows clearly independent wording.
0. Strict Independence: no clear indication of literary dependency.
0. Bible Quotation: Ellen Whites text and source text are identical because both
depend on a Bible text that is integral to the story.
In an attempt to clarify Veltmans statement about the degree of dependency Olson
In quoting Wylie (2002 reprint), Rea interpolates, in a quotation of Wylie, a sentence from White
14
(1888/1911): So saying, he [John Wycliffe] withdrew from the assembly, and not one of his adversaries attempted
to prevent him (http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/rea/gc4.htm; see line labeled as (123)).
Page -10-
(1990) stated: In 31 percent of the sentences one word or more shows some degree of
dependency (p. 16; cf. Veltman, 1988, p. 941). However, this does not always mean a verbatim
word, for many of the alleged dependencies do not have a single verbatim word (excluding
articles, conjunctions, prepositions and proper names) that is identical to the alleged source (see,
e.g., Veltman, 1988, pp. 9, 25, 30, 72, 74, 83, 208, 271, 274, 279, 280, etc.). Table 2 shows
another weakness of the 31% figure in evaluating the text for dependency. Other parallels have
been found to be miscategorized. For example, Morgan (2007) has identified cases where the
alleged parallel had more to do with the greater similarity of The Desire of Ages to Scripture than
to the alleged source (all the verbatim sentences noted in Veltmans study are found in
chapters 3, 75, and 84).
Table 2. Limitation of Veltmans Statistical Calculation (Moon, 2005, p. 55).
In the diagram that follows, rows represent sentences, underlines represent individual
words, and Xs represent borrowed words. For example, the second row represents a sentence
of ten words in which the third word is borrowed from an earlier source.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ x _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ x _ _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ x _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
Ten lines of ten characters make each character 1% of the total. The diagram shows
how Veltmans finding of some level of dependency in 31% of the sentences could involve as
few as 3% of the words, thus demonstrating a statistical limitation of Veltmans terminology.
Because of the subjectivity involved in identifying paraphrased words, the total
number of borrowed words cannot be calculated precisely. However, words with a
dependency rating of verbatim or near verbatim can be counted. In Veltmans study, the
actual percentages for the 15 chapters varied. For instance, in chapter 3 the number of words
that were verbatim or near verbatim in the dependent sentences amounted to 203 out of 2,192
words, or 9.3%. In chapter ten, the percentage was only 1.7%79 out of 4,537 words.
Another weakness of the study done by Dr. Veltman lies in the assigning of paragraph(s)
as being dependent on multiple authors. As we will see, this is not the normal practice for those
authors who did borrow material.
Page -11-
Besides bringing greater objectivity to the estimates of the amount of Whites literary
borrowing, Veltmans study called attention to a related issue: the prevailing standards of
acceptable literary borrowing in nineteenth-century England and America. To set the context
15
for literary borrowing in the nineteenth century, it may be helpful to briefly review the
developments in the literary world leading up to that time.
Literary Borrowing Conventions Before the Nineteenth Century
Until the advent of moveable type in the fifteenth century, all books were written by
hand. Most books survived only to the extent that they were quoted or paraphrased by a later
author, and to have ones work copied was considered a compliment, not a crime (Plant, 1939,
pp. 98-101; Calcott, 1970, p. 136). The original purpose for citing ones sources was to enhance
the authority and credibility of ones work. A second purpose for documenting sources was to
acknowledge the contributions of ones predecessors. Neither of these purposes required
16
precise or detailed documentation.
A third purpose for documenting sources--that of facilitating further research by enabling
the reader to personally consult the cited authorities--would only be of value to people who had
the possibility of accessing the sources. Thus, the demand for precise, detailed, and thorough
documentation was a much later development, resulting from (1) rising levels of education, (2)
17
affluence that afforded time for reading and money for owning reference materials, and (3)
Veltman (1990 December) wrote: A writer can only be legitimately charged with plagiarism when that
15
writers literary methods contravene the established practices of the general community of writers producing works
of the same literary genre within a comparable cultural context. In the process of doing our research we found that
Ellen Whites sources had previously used each other in the same way that she later used them (Personal postscript,
p. 14).
Deems notes when listing his sources (pp. 724-6) that he has given them for those who might wish to
16
verify his quotations or for further study on the subject.
Compulsory school attendance in America began in Massachusetts in 1852 and was required in all states
17
by 1918 (State Compulsory School Attendence Laws, 2008). In 1860, the United States had only 40 public high
schools (http://www.answers.com/topic/1860). Maddison (2005, p. 37) reports that the average years of education
per person aged 15-64 in 1870 in the US was 3.92. By 1913 that had more than doubled to 7.86. This is reflected in
the number of newspapers in circulation. In 1850, the United States had 254 daily newspapers, up from 138 in 1840
(http://www.answers.com/topic/1909); this rose to 372 in 1860, but were generally too expensive for the average
man or woman (http://www.answers.com/topic/1860). By 1909 this had risen to 2,600
(http://www.answers.com/topic/1909).
Page -12-
public access to sources through the proliferation of publishers, libraries, and improved
transportation and communication technologies. Until communication media made authorship a
means of commercial gain, there was little need for legal protection of an authors rights through
copyright laws. While the first grant of copyright in England was given in 1518, it was not until
1886 that the first multinational copyright agreement was established by the Berne Convention
(Plant, 1936, pp. 101, 424). In 1909, the United States Copyright Law passed by Congress
March 4 tak[ing] effect July 1, protect[ed] U.S. authors, publishers (and composers) under terms
that [would] remain unchanged for 68 years (http://www.answers.com/topic/1909).
In the sixteenth century, Luthers works were printed and spread all over Europe by a
multitude of small printers without any copyright laws to hinder them. Although Luther may
have wished for royalties, his motivation was not monetary gain, but to get the message out.
In eighteenth-century England, John Wesley condensed and popularized many books
about the Bible for the benefit and spiritual growth of the Methodists. Explaining his lack of
documentation, he wrote:
It was a doubt with me for some time, whether I should not subjoin to every note I
received from them the name of the author from whom it was taken; especially
considering I had transcribed [copied word for word] some, and abridged many
more, almost in the words of the author. But upon further consideration, I
resolved to name none, that nothing might divert the mind of the reader from
keeping close to the point of view, and receiving what was spoke[n], only
according to its own intrinsic value.
18
Wesleys practice is particularly relevant to this study for two reasons. The first is that
19
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament, Preface, page iv, section 8, 11 Edition, Vol.
18 th
1. (London: John Mason, 1831; orig. 1754). On the previous page he noted that he had transcribed many of and
paraphrased many more of Bengels notes on the New Testament.
Albert C. Outler (1964), one of the foremost scholars of the twentieth century on John Wesley, described
19
Wesleys literary borrowing as follows: In 1774 Wesley published a tract entitled Thoughts Upon Slavery (Works,
XI, 59-79), which was reprinted and widely distributed in England and America. It was represented to be his own
production (cf. Letters, VIII, 6, 7, 276) -- and its vivid sentiments certainly are. Actually, however, it was an
abridgment of Some Historical Account of Guinea, which had been published in Philadelphia in 1771 by Anthony
Benezet, an American Quaker. In judging such a literary borrowing, it is useful to realize that Wesley and his
eighteenth-century colleagues generally understood this as a form of endorsement [italics Outlers]. When he
[Wesley] found something that said what he wanted to say, he felt free to make it available to those who might not
otherwise have seen it. This is the case, for example, with his Calm Address to Our American Colonies (1775),
borrowed from Samuel Johnson, Taxation No Tyranny; [Wesleys] A Treatise on Baptism (see below, p. 317 ff.),
and A Roman Catechism (1756), abridged from a treatise of a similar title by Bishop John Williams of Chichester
(1686), in Works, X, 86-128" (pp. 85-86).
Page -13-
he died in 1791, only thirty-six years before the birth of Ellen White. The second is that, growing
up as a Methodist, Ellen White was not only familiar with his writings, but she saw him as a
Reformer who had been used by God to initiate significant theological advances over Luther
and Calvin (White, 1911, pp. 253-264). Thus, she would naturally regard him as a worthy
example to emulate.
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), whose life span almost bridged the gap between the
death of Wesley (d. 1791) and the birth of White (b. 1827), reflected the same generous attitude
toward intellectual borrowing when he wrote:
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening
mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me
(Who owns the knowledge economy? 2000, 1).
Literary Borrowing Conventions in the Nineteenth Century
At the beginning of the nineteenth century, standards of literary borrowing and
documentation more closely resembled the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries than they did
the twentieth century (Moon, 2005, pp. 5-6). Despite the enacting of the first United States
copyright law in 1790 (History of Copyright, 2007), the early 1800s were characterized by a
lingering attitude of informality about literary borrowing and documentation. Calcotts History
in the United States 1800-1860 (1970) gives some striking examples:
The second major assault by modern scholars on the historians of the early
nineteenth century centered about plagiarism, the practice of using in their own
works the same phraseology as someone else had used. The early nineteenth-
century historian would have been dismayed by the attack, would have pleaded
nolo contendere, and would simply have pointed out that he had never pretended
to be original when he could find someone else who had satisfactorily said what
he had in mind.
One of the first to be attacked was William Gordon for using material from the
Annual Register without quotation marks. . . . After citing his sources, a typical
writer stated that he would here publicly acknowledge that he has often copied
their language as well as their facts, and has not been particular to disfigure his
page with quotation marks. Another glibly explained that his first five chapters
. . . are from the admirably written historical sketch in Martins Gazetteer.
Others openly stated that they had not scrupled to copy a well-written previous
study; that they used substantially anothers language; that they utilized the
Page -14-
work of others without introducing my authorities; that if a good source was
found they had adopted the phraseology of the author entire; and that they had
made use of them as public property.
The early nineteenth-century historian felt no need to argue for originality, and he
would not have understood why he should make a fetish of reworking material
when what he wanted to say already had been better said by another. . . .
Historians usually felt flattered rather than insulted when their words were used
by another. The period is remarkable for the lack of scholarly rivalry, and writers
who borrowed from each other remained on the warmest terms (pp. 134-136).
Religious writers in the same timeframe were less concerned about crediting secondary
quotations because they wanted the truth to be accepted on its merits alone and not on the
authority of secondary sources (see Wesley, 1948, quoted above). Ingram Cobbin (1863), author
of a Bible commentary, declared:
All the commentators have drawn largely from the fathers, especially from St.
Augustine; and most of them have made general property of Patrick, Lowth, and
Whitby. Poole has exhausted the old continental writers; Henry has made very
free with Bishop Hall and others; Scott and Benson have enriched their pages
abundantly from Henry; Gill has translated the spirit of Pooles Synopsis, but
he most generally gives his authorities; Adam Clarke and Davidson have been
much indebted to all the best critics, though the former does not always mention
his obligations, and the latter never; but his preface to his admirable Pocket
Commentary is an honest confession that he pretends to be no more than a
compiler (p. iv).
Introducing his work, The Prophets of the Bible, W. F. P. Noble (1873) opened with the
following frank disclaimer:
In preparing these sketches, the writer has freely used any material suited to his
object. He acknowledges his indebtedness to various writers who have touched
the same great theme in any of its parts. The works of many leading authors have
been before him, and used so far as they could be made available for his purpose.
It has been his effort to bring the substance of a number of books before a class of
readers to whom these authorities are not accessible; and with this end in view,
anything in other writers that seemed likely to impart additional interest to the
reading of the Scriptures has been incorporated, so far as space permitted. In
carrying out his plan, he has not thought it necessary to load the pages with foot-
notes, or the letter-press with quotation marks, but deems it sufficient to give this
general credit at the outset (preface).
After comparing thirty nineteenth-century commentaries on 1 Corinthians, Cottrell
Page -15-
(1979), was immediately struck by the extent to which these nineteenth-century writers, many
of them well known and respected, copied significant amounts of material from one another
without once giving credit, and concluded that nineteenth-century literary ethics, even among
the best writers, approved of, or at least did not seriously question, generous literary borrowing
without giving credit (p. 6). Roughly speaking, the same thing will be seen in this study that
covers the trial of Christ before Pilate.
Was this equally true of writers within the specific genre in which Ellen White wrote?
Only by a comparative study of nineteenth century life of Christ writings--the very thing
Veltman (1988) suggested as he published his findings--could this question be answered. A legal
authority in the field of copyright infringement, Vincent L. Ramik (1991) concluded that, given
the standards of the day, her minor use of the phrasing of other authors was within the
boundaries of fair use as defined by U.S. courts in other words, that she was not guilty of
20
copyright infringement. However, his study did not answer whether borrowing as she did was
customary at that time. Only a study of the kind as suggested by Veltman could furnish evidence
of whether authors of the same genre and era as Ellen White used material from one another in
the same way and sometimes to a much larger extent as Ellen White is alleged to have done
(Veltman, 1990 December, p. 14). To our knowledge, the present study is the first and only one
to follow up on Veltmans suggestion.
Purpose
The purpose of the present study is to examine the practice of literary borrowing among
works of the same genre as Whites The Desire of Ages, and, in so doing, to test a research
Fair use is the legal doctrine that distinguishes appropriate literary borrowing from plagiarism, see the
20
precedent setting cases of Simms v Stanton. On the relationship of fair use and copy right see Emerson v. Davies
(1845), the deciding opinion was written by Massachusetts Circuit Justice Story, who was recognized as the most
influential judge of copyright law in his era. He wrote that the true test of piracy (infringement of copyright) is
whether the defendants book is, quoad hoc, a servile or evasive imitation of the plaintiffs work, or a bona fide
original compilation from other common or independent sources (paragraph 12). Justice Story further ruled that the
author may have borrowed much of his materials from others, but if they are combined in a different manner from
what was in use before, and a fortiori [for a still stronger reason], if his plan and arrangements are real
improvements upon the existing modes, he is entitled to a copy-right in the book embodying such improvement
(paragraph 2). Attorney Vincent L. Ramik (1981), whose firm specializes in patent, trademark, and copyright cases,
made the same point: . . . so long as the materials were selected from a variety of sources and were arranged and
combined with certain passages of the text of the original work, and in a manner showing the exercise of discretion,
skill, learning, experience, and judgment, the use was fair.
Page -16-
method designed for that purpose. The analysis that follows is a comparison of one chapter of
The Desire of Ages with corresponding chapters of other works of the same genre, and of the
21
corresponding chapters with one another.
Methodology
The source chapters were first transcribed into text format and then compared with The
Desire of Ages, chapter 77, and with each other, using a computer program, WCopyfind, which
was specifically designed to scan text files for matching words in phrases of a specified
minimum length. When it finds two files that share enough words in those phrases, WCopyfind
generates html report files. These reports contain the document text with the matching phrases
underlined (2002, Software to detect plagiarism: WCopyfind). The six-word phrases that are
found are then analyzed. For reporting purposes, biblical material and innocuous wording was
ignored. In fact, however, how the authors handled the Bible is crucial.
Limitations
This study and its methodology have a number of specific limitations that need to be
understood in order to rightly interpret the results. The first of these is that the present study,
using the above-described methodology, covers only one chapter in one book, The Desire of
Ages. To determine whether Whites usage of phrasing from other sources in this chapter is
typical of her usage in other chapters or other works would require an analysis of a larger
number of chapters and a larger number of her books. Similarly, the present analysis of the
22
practice of other writers is based on a limited number of sources. These may be suggestive of the
general practice of borrowing among writers of this period, but certainty would require the
examination of a more exhaustive list of sources.
After publishing this work in Plagiary, Conklin relaxed this constraint. He suggests that it would be
21
highly possible that authors of an LOC could borrow material from other sources, such as, Bible dictionaries and
commentaries. He has also looked at a sermon and magazine article on the trial of Christ before Pilate.
Veltmans work on 15 randomly selected, statistically representative chapters from The Desire of Ages
22
supports the hypothesis that, within The Desire of Ages there is a general consistency among the chapters regarding
the methods of composition. It is well recognized that the extent of Whites literary borrowing varies rather widely
between chapters and from book to book. For a comparative list, see Nix, 2001, pp. 42-43.
Page -17-
A second limitation to the study is that it does not include all books on the life of Christ
from the era under consideration (cf. Ayres, 1906). Some are very rare and are available in only
one or a few libraries. Related problems include not being able to determine from the currently
available evidence how widely these works were circulated, or when they ceased to be available,
or how many other works like these were known in the nineteenth century, but are no longer
extant.
23
A third limitation is that the tabular analysis ignores the dissimilarities in the length of
phrases. This is most apparent in the comparison of the works of Neander vs. Kitto, and Craigin
vs. Farrar and Geikie, etc., which contain striking parallels vis--vis the other authors. Merely
counting the number of matching phrases is not enough. To properly evaluate the degree of
dependency it is vitally important that the length and content of the matching phrases be fully
considered.
A fourth limitation is that the computer program used in this study ignores the strength
or quality of the words in the matching phrases. Many of the words in the matching phrases
are rather common words, such as if, and, but, that, which, etc. To overcome this
weakness, the tabular summary of the results ignores identified phrases that were too ordinary to
have much, if any, significance.
A fifth limitation is that the tabular analysis gives no indication of the relative distance
between the parallel phrases in the texts. Two matching phrases may only be separated by a
biblical text and a connecting word of some sort, or they may be separated by several paragraphs
or pages.
The sixth limitation is that the computer program used to detect parallels cannot detect
paraphrasing. Unfortunately, even the experts cannot agree on whether or not paraphrasing has
occurred, and therefore, to date, no objective criteria have been developed for such a
determination. It is fascinating to note that while critics have repeatedly claimed that Ellen G.
White stole her material through the paraphrasing of sources, they have yet to produce a single
indisputable example of pure paraphrase. They also ignore the inconvenient fact that
Conklin found almost three dozen works from this era on the life of Christ that do not appear in Ayers
23
bibliography (1906). This is, in part, an indicator of how widely, or rather, how narrowly these books were circulated
and known during this period.
Page -18-
paraphrasing is a legitimate literary activity. The examples of alleged paraphrasing they have
produced often leaves one wondering whether she actually paraphrased the alleged source or
whether she was merely telling the same Bible story in similar words.
24
The seventh limitation is that this study usually presents only the specific sentences in
which the parallels occurred. Thus, the reader of this study can only guess at the significance of
25
the phrase within its larger context. In most cases, however, full sentences are presented. In a
very few cases, when extremely long sentences needed to be shortened, ellipses were used to
indicate where the break was made. Otherwise, an ellipsis indicates when a full paragraph has
not been included.
The reader should also be aware that, for simplicity of notation, the matching phrases
detected by the computer are listed as if they constitute actual borrowing. The deduction that
author B actually borrowed from author A depends on two fundamental assumptions. The first is
that each alleged copier had knowledge of, and access to, the alleged source(s) in question--an
unprovable assumption for most of these sources, as noted in the second limitation above.
However, Andrews, Geikie, Deems and Edersheim, etc. each provides a list of authorities they
consulted, so it is reasonably certain that parallels between their works and the sources they list
do constitute literary borrowing. For Ellen G. White, there is an inventory list of the books in her
home and office libraries at the time of her death (Johns, Poirier, & Graybill, 1983). Therefore,
striking parallels between her own writings and the books she was known to possess could
constitute reasonable evidence of intentional literary borrowing.
26
The second assumption is that the later author did not derive the similarity of phrasing
from either an intervening or a prior source. To illustrate, if a sentence in author C were found to
be identical with sentences in earlier authors B and A, there is usually insufficient evidence to
determine with certainty whether C borrowed from A, or whether C borrowed from B (who
In one attempted exhibit, Walter Rea (2005) only gives page references without producing any actual
24
examples. For an analysis of his claims, see Conklin (2007).
Conklin had intended to show full paragraphs of the alleged source and the alleged copier. But, since
25
some paragraphs ran over a page, or two, in length, this option had to be dropped.
Likewise, when it is alleged that she copied from a work of fiction that isnt even listed as being in one
26
of her libraries, we might reasonably assume that it didnt happen.
Page -19-
could have possibly borrowed from A). In some cases, it may appear that C borrowed from A,
because the intervening source B is no longer extant, or is unknown to the researcher. Therefore,
while matching phrases are listed as if they constitute evidence of dependence, in most cases
there remains a possibility that the parallel could have occurred in some other way.
Dr. Veltmans suggestion that we look at other authors in this genre (Life of Christ
(LOC)) assumes that the latter authors would only have borrowed from other earlier LOC
authors. But, they could just as easily have borrowed material from magazine and/or journal
articles, commentaries, Bible studies, sermons and Bible dictionaries. Expanding the study, as
we have done here, allows us to examine whether or not the above borrowing took place and to
see if the authors in these other genres borrowed from each other.
Early Expectations
It was initially assumed that given the average persons vocabulary of some 10-20,000
words, given a single topic (the life of Jesus Christ, further narrowed to specific events in His
life, in this case, the trial before Pilate and Herod), given the shared perspective of the authors
(Protestant vs. Catholic, believer vs. skeptic, etc.), and given the probability of any reader-author
being attracted to and therefore recalling and reusing a memorable turn of phrase, one could
therefore expect frequent repetition of phraseology among the various authors. Though there
were common expressions, such as Pilate being described as vacillating, Jesus being described
as a religious enthusiast, Jesus answering not a word, Herod and Pilates curiosity, Pilates
wifes warning; and Jesus being condemned as an innocent man, overall, this assumption
did not prove to be true. The variety of phraseology among authors writing on the same subject
proved to be far greater than initially expected.
Authors Used in the Study
The 226 sources used in this study are listed in chronological order of their publication.
Some of the books have two publication dates listed. The first is the date of the first known or
available edition, which is used for chronological order; the last is the date of the actual edition
cited in the study.
Page -20-
1. Jeremy Taylor ([1613-1667], 1794).
2. Samuel Clarke (1664/1801).
3. Nathaniel Lardner (1731/1815).
4. James Macknight (1756/1809).
5. William Craig (1767).
6. John Fleetwood (1767/1880s).
27
7. Catherine DOyly (1794).
8. E. Blomfield (1805/1809).
9. Paul Holbach (1813/1995).
10. Joseph Benson (1854; died in 1821).
28
11. J. R. Pitman (1822).
12. James Bennett (1828).
13. Bielby Porteus (1829).
14. William Norris (1830).
15. Joseph Salvador (1830).
16. Richard Watson (1831).
17. J. Newton Brown (1835).
18. A. Tholuck (1836).
19. J. Sadler (1836).
29
20. Henry Blunt (1837/1857).
21. James Foote (1838/1849).
30
22. M. Dupin (1839).
23. Hermann Olshausen (1839).
24. Henry Milman (1840/1881).
25. Henry Rutter (1844).
26. Henry Melvill (1845).
27. J. R. Beard (1846).
28. Charles D. Ginsburg (1846/1876).
Given the extremely high degree of similarity between Fleetwoods work (1767) and that of Paul
27
Wrights The New and Complete Life of our Blessed Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ . . .. (Tertius Dunning and
Walter W. Hyer, 1795, orig. 1760) it is highly probable that Fleetwood copied from Wright. However, given that
Fleetwoods work was re-printed with far greater frequency during this era than that of Wright, there is a greater
likelihood that Fleetwoods work was the source of any alleged similarities.
The Fleetwood edition that was used in this study was published sometime in the 1880's. For an idea of how
liberal printers were with the manuscripts, compare the various editions of Fleetwood that were published. As
compared with Gay Brothers, the edition done by Miller, Orton in 1857 is missing at least 3 chapters and one chapter
is missing over 30 paragraphs and two others are missing over 20 paragraphs, etc.. And, in some cases the Miller,
Orton printing has extra paragraphs.
According to his biography (
28
http://www.godrules.net/library/gorrie/147gorrie_b6.htm) this would have
been done by 1810.
Noted on the title page as being Compiled from Various Authorities.
29
Listed here in the table vs. 1838 because it is the 2 edition.
30 nd
Page -21-
29. Francis de Ligny (1846/1853).
30. Simon Greenleaf (1847).
31. Melancthon W. Jacobus (1848).
32. Augustus Neander (1848/1870).
33. Charles Dickens (1849).
34. Robert Turnbull (1849).
35. W. H. Furness (1850).
36. John Kitto (1850).
37. H. Hastings Weld (1850).
38. F. W. Robertson (1852).
39. Joseph Angus (1853).
40. Melancthon Jacobus (1853).
41. Rufus W. Clark (1855/1859).
42. John Cumming, Matthew (1855).
31
43. John M. Hiffernan (1855).
32
44. Joseph Holt Ingraham (1855).
45. Joshua T. Tucker (1855).
46. John Cumming, John (1856).
47. James Bastow (1859).
48. David S. Doggett (1859).
49. Fred W. Krummacher (1859).
50. Charles Ellicott (1860).
51. E. H. Plumptre (1860/1863).
52. J. C. Ryle (1860).
53. Samuel J. Andrews (1862/1891).
54. Barton Bouchier (1863).
55. William Hanna (1863).
33
56. J. A. Alexander (1864).
57. John P. Lange (1864/1872).
58. A. Veuillot (1864/1880).
59. E. De Pressens (1865/1879).
60. Heinrich Ewald (1865).
61. George Jones (1865).
62. John P. Lange (1865).
63. Daniel Schenkel (1866).
Most of the chapter was self-plagiarized a mere nine years later in his The Life and Lessons of Our Lord.
31
See Two Examples of Self-Plagiarism, on page 261.
Not a life of Christ and is more theological in nature. However, Conklin thought it might be possible that
32
a latter author of a life of Christ might borrow some of the wording in their telling of this incident.
Virtually the entire chapter was self-plagiarized from his previous work The Last Day of our Lords
33
Passion published the year before. See under Two Examples of Self-Plagiarism, on page 269. Given this fact, only
the second work is examined in the study.
Page -22-
64. D. D. Whedon (1866 & 1874).
34
65. Zachary Eddy (1867/1868).
66. James R. Gilmore (1867).
67. John MClintock (1867/1889).
68. Lyman Abbott (1868).
69. Charles F. Deems (1868).
70. Cunningham Geikie (1868/1913).
71. William Kelly (1868).
72. Alfred Nevin (1868).
73. Henry Ware, Jr. (1868/1873).
74. John H. Godwin (1869).
75. S. Greg (1869).
76. George W. Clark (1870).
77. Frederic W. Farrar (1870).
78. Eugene Stock (1870/1).
79. Howard Crosby (1871).
80. E. W. Hooker (1871).
81. John S. C. Abbott (1872/1883).
82. Thomas Scott (1872).
83. Franklin Johnson (1873).
84. Theodore Keim (1873/1883).
85. David Thomas (1873).
86. Louisa T. Craigin (1874/1886).
87. George Scratton (1874).
88. William M. Willett (1874).
89. Thomas Griffith (1875).
90. C. F. Chase (1876).
91. F. Godet (1876/1886).
92. Joseph P. Thompson (1876).
93. Alexander Taylor Innes (1877).
94. G. F. Maclear (1877/1883).
95. Charles C. Adams (1878).
96. A. Carr (1878/1881).
97. L. Abbott (1879).
98. Horatio Hackett (1879).
99. E. Bickersteth & J. R. Thomson (1880/1913).
100. Edward Clodd (1880/1889).
101. W. O. Clough (1880).
102. F. C. Cook (1880).
103. A. M. Fairbairn (1880/1904).
104. W. R. Nicoll (1880).
Whedons Commentary on the Gospels: Intended for Popular Use, published in the US in 1866, was re-
34
published in Britain as A Popular Commentary on the New Testament in 1874.
Page -23-
105. A. Plummer (1880(?)/1882).
106. James Stalker (1880/1891).
107. T. DeWitt Talmage (1880/1893).
108. Matthew Riddle (1881).
109. F. Weidner (1881).
110. Brooke Foss Westcott (1881/1908).
111. Henry James Coleridge (1882/1897).
112. Edward L. Cutts (1882/1894).
113. Jun de Valds (1882).
114. Addison Darre Crabtre (1883/4).
115. Alfred Edersheim (1883).
116. Joseph Parker (1883).
117. William Scrymgeour (1883).
118. Charlotte Bickersteth Wheeler (1883).
119. Richard Glover (1884).
120. H. A. W. Meyer (1884).
121. James Morison (1884/1902).
122. F. W. Farrar (1888).
123. B. Weiss (1884/1889).
124. Alvah Hovey (1885).
125. W. S. Lewis (1885).
126. Herbert Mortimer Luckock (1885/1890).
127. Frederick Maurice (1885/ 1888).
128. S. Watson (1885).
129. John A. Broadus (1886).
130. T. M. McConnell (1886).
131. Justin E. Twichell (1886).
132. J. F. Vallings (1887/1889).
133. George F. Pentecost (1888).
134. H. Reynolds (1888).
135. S. D. F. Salmond (1888).
136. A. B. Simpson (1888).
137. Thomas Whitelaw (1888).
138. H. D. M. Spence (1889).
139. Constant Fouard (1890).
140. John Monro Gibson (1890/1901).
141. L. Houghton (1890).
142. A. J. Maas (1890/1927).
143. Robert Bird (1891).
144. Henri Didon (1891/1893).
145. Alexander McKenzie (1891).
146. Francis W. Upham (1891).
147. George C. Lorimer (1892).
148. Edward Hatch (1893).
149. Henry Shaen Solly (1893).
Page -24-
150. C. H. Spurgeon (1893).
151. James Stalker (1894).
152. A. Lukyn Williams (1894).
153. Charles F. Schaeffer (1895/1911).
154. Bonaventure Hammer (1896).
155. Alfred Plummer (1896).
156. Robert E. Speer (1896).
157. Elizabeth Stuart Phelps (1897/1901).
158. Thomas J. Conaty (1898).
159. F. B. Meyer (1898).
160. Henry Barclay Swete (1898).
161. Norman L. Walker (1898).
162. Ellen G. White (1898).
163. Herbet Willett (1898).
164. Frank W. Gunsaulus (1899).
165. Alfred Plummer (1900).
166. J. Puiseux (1900).
167. John Watson (1900).
168. William Dawson (1901).
169. Walter Elliott (1901/1908).
170. Walter Nelson (1901).
171. Augustine Berthe (1902).
172. A. F. Hort (1902/1907).
173. John P. Kingsland (1902).
174. Charles W. Pearson (1902).
175. Rush Rhees (1902).
176. Robert G. Roscamp (1902).
177. Noah Davis (1903).
178. W. B. Godbey (1904).
179. Oskar Holtzmann (1904).
180. Giovani Rosadi (1905).
181. David Smith (1905).
182. E. T. Wellford (1905).
183. Septimus Buss (1906).
184. William Edgar Geil (1906).
35
185. Arno Neumann (1906).
186. A. C. Gaebelein (1907).
187. Alfred Garvie (1907).
188. Herbert Rix (1907).
189. Archibald Thomas Robertson (1907).
190. S. C. Bradley (1908).
191. M. Brodrick (1908).
This work will not be used in the study itself because the entire text is nothing but Bible texts.
35
Page -25-
192. Walter Chandler (1908).
193. Alexander Maclaren (1909).
194. George Salmon (1908).
195. Marion Taylor (1909/1910).
196. G. M. Peters (1911).
197. Samuel Hawkins Marshall Byers (1912).
198. William Byron Forbush (1912).
199. George Gilbert (1912).
200. Philip Vollmer (1912).
201. John Mullett (1913).
202. Wayne Whipple (1913)
36
203. Bouck White (1913).
204. Charles Edmund DeLand (1914).
205. J. W. McGarvey (1914).
206. John E. Richards (1914).
207. Joseph Gibson (1915).
208. Mary Austin (Hunter) (1915).
209. Jesse Lyman Hurlbut (1915).
210. Melancthon Jacobus (1915).
211. Charles R. Erdman (1916/1917).
212. Richard Wellington Husband (1916).
213. Edward Increase Bosworth (1917).
214. Harris Franklin Rall (1917).
215. Edwin Wilbur Rice (1917).
216. Alexander Bacon (1918).
217. Robert Eaton (1920).
37
218. Charles R. Erdman (1920/1921).
219. G. Robinson Lees (1920).
220. J. Paterson Smyth (1920).
221. George A. Barton (1922).
222. Alexander Irvine (1922).
223. Giovanni Papini (1923).
224. Wilton Rix (1924).
225. Richard Cookson (1925).
226. Emil Ludwig (1928).
227. Ward Russell (1928).
228. Walter Bowie (1929).
229. L. C. Fillion (1929).
230. Charles Fiske (1929).
This work will not be used in the study itself because the entire text is nothing but a set of quotes from
36
other authors and Bible texts.
The title page notes that it was compiled by Robert Eaton.
37
Page -26-
Annotated Listing of the Most Significant Phrases of Literary Similarity
Only the most significant and compelling literary parallels located by WCopyfind are
given in the examples below. Since Ellen White is the subject of this case study all of her
examples are listed. These illustrate the evidence upon which Table 3 is based. Quotations or
echoes of Scripture were not included because material taken from Scripture is not considered to
be plagiarism (cf. Table 1, dependency value 0).
Key to format of annotated list: In each example, parallel phrases, identified by their
author and date of publication, are presented with the earlier author (possible source) on the left
and the later author (possible borrower) on the right. The underlined words are exact literary
parallelisms that may indicate possible literary borrowing and dependence. The wavy underlined
words are similar words. In some cases, as noted on page 82, the format has been changed to
highlight only the words that have been changed.
The page number(s) of the sources may vary if you do not have the exact version
(printing) used in this study.
Taylor ([1613-1667]/1794, p. 148)
. . . And Jesus was sent back clothed in a
white and splendid garment, which tho'
possibly they intended in derision, yet it was
a token of innocence, condemned persons
being usually arrayed in black.
Holbach (1813, p. 248)
. . . To Pilate, therefore, be sent him back
clothed in a white robe by way of derision. . .
.
Taylor ([1613-1667]/1794, p. 146)
. . . Pilate, willing to decline the
business, bid them judge him according to
their own law; they replied, it was not lawful
for them to put any man to death, meaning
during the seven days of unleavened bread,
which then happened, as appears in the
instance of Herod, who detained Peter in
prison, intending after Easter to bring him
out to the people. . . .
Kitto (1853, p. 411)
. . . To this he answered with some
sternness, that (assuming it to be some trivial
offence) they might take and judge Him
according to their own law, without troubling
him with the case. They answered that they
had no power to put any one to death. . . .
Note: In this instance, both sources quote John 18:31a, with a simple change of
pronoun: Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your
law.
Page -27-
Taylor ([1613-1667]/1794, p. 148)
But Pilate offered that according to the
custom of the nation, Jesus should be released
for the honor of the present festival.
Andrews (1862, p. 544)
. . . (b) He prepares to release Jesus
according to the custom of the feast. . . .
Note: Andrewss phraseology doesnt quite follow Taylor and the words custom
and release in both sources come from the biblical text of John 18:39, But ye have a
custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release
unto you the King of the Jews?
Taylor ([1613-1667]/1794, pp. 147-8)
. . . Herod was glad, because he had
heard much of him, and desired to see him,
hoping to see some miracle done by him, of
whom he had heard so many; but the event
was, that Jesus did no miracle, and Herods
soldiers set him at naught, and mocked him;
and that day Herod was reconciled to Pilate.
Hanna (1863, pp. 677-8)
. . . Perhaps it was now that, for the first
time, he recognized that it was with Jesus of
Nazareth, of whom he had heard so much,
that he had to do.
Taylor ([1613-1667]/1794, pp. 147-8)
But hearing that he was a Galilean, and
of Herods jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod,
who was at Jerusalem at the feast--Herod was
glad, because he had heard much of him, and
desired to see him, hoping to see some
miracle done by him, of whom he had heard
so many; but the event was, that Jesus did no
miracle, and Herods soldiers set him at
naught, and mocked him; and that day Herod
was reconciled to Pilate. . . .
Geikie (1868, pp. 509)
The vassal king was caught in Pilates
snare. The flattery of referring a Galilan
case to him as the Galilan tetrarch, greatly
pleased him, and his light superficial nature
was no less gratified by having One brought
before him, of whom he had heard so much.
In his petty court, amidst all its affection of
grandeur and state, ennui hung like a drowsi-
ness over all. He had never seen a miracle,
and should like to be able to say he had. . . .
Page -28-
Taylor ([1613-1667]/1794, pp. 147-
148)
. . . Herod was glad, because he had
heard much of him, and desired to see him,
hoping to see some miracle done by him, of
whom he had heard so many; but the event
was, that Jesus did no miracle, and Herods
soldiers set him at naught, and mocked him;
and that day Herod was reconciled to Pilate. .
. .
Edersheim (1883, p. 572)
. . . Besides, Herod had long wished to
see Jesus, of Whom he had heard so many
things. . . .
b
(St. Luke ix. 7-9).
b
The specific phrase, of whom he had heard so many, may be evidence of literary
dependency, but other terms in both sources occur in the biblical text. Herod said, John have
I beheaded: but who is this, of whom I hear such things? And he desired to see him (Luke
9:9). And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a
long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some
miracle done by him (Luke 23:8).
Taylor ([1613-1667]/1794, p. 147)
. . . But hearing that he was a Galilean,
and of Herods jurisdiction, he sent him to
Herod, who was at Jerusalem at the feast. . . .
Lorimer (1892, p. 296)
. . . Hearing that he was a Galilean, and
that Herod, who ruled in that province, was
in Jerusalem, he handed Him over to his
jurisdiction. . . .
Page -29-
Taylor ([1613-1667]/1794, pp. 149-150)
And now was the holy lamb to bleed;
first therefore, Pilates soldiers array him in
royal robes, put a reed in his hand instead of a
scepter, plaited a crown of thorns on his head;
they bow the knee, and mock him, and
instead of tribute, pay him with blows and
spitting upon his holy head, and after the
most horrid abuses, they bind him to a pillar
and scourge him with whips, a punishment
inflicted on slaves; after which, Barabbas
being set free, Pilate delivered Jesus to be
crucified; the soldiers therefore having made
a cross sad and heavy, laid it upon Jesus's
shoulders, who like Isaac, bore the wood with
which himself was to be sacrificed, and drove
him out to crucifixion, who was scarce able to
stand under that load, and when he fainted,
they compelled Simon a Cyrenian, to help
him.
Fleetwood (1767, p. 382)
The soldiers having scourged Jesus, and
received orders to crucify him, carried him
into the pretorium, or common hall, where
they added the shame of disgrace to the
bitterness of his punishment; for, sore as he
was by reason of the stripes they had given
him, they dressed him in a purple robe, in
derision of his being King of the Jews.
Having dressed him in his robe of mock
majesty, they put a reed in his hand instead of
a scepter, and, after plaiting a wreath of
thorns, they put it on his head for a crown,
forcing it down in so rude a manner, that his
temples were torn, and his face besmeared
with his most precious blood. To the Son of
God, in this condition, the rude soldiers
bowed the knee, pretending to do it out of
respect; but at the same time gave him severe
blows on his head, which drove the prickles
of the wreath afresh into his temples, and then
spit on him, to express their highest contempt.
Note: Both Fleetwood and Taylor parallel Matt 27:29 (KJV) And when they had
platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and
they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! Since
this example seems to be a paraphrase of Scripture it will not be counted in Table 3.
Page -30-
Macknight (1756, pp. 745-746)
. . . At the great festivals, however, they
came up to prevent or suppress tumults, and
to administer justice; for the governors of
provinces frequently visited the principal
towns under their jurisdiction on this latter
account. Accordingly it is insinuated, John
xviii. 39 that Pilate was wont to give
judgment in Jerusalem at the passover: "Ye
have a custom that I should release unto you
one at the passover." Being come, therefore,
as usual, a while before the feast, Pilate,
heard of the stir that was among the rulers,
and was informed of the character of the
person on whose account it was made, Matt.
xxvii. 18. Mark xv. 10. It seems Nicodemus,
or Joseph of Alimathea or some other friend,
had told him of the affair; for he entertained a
just notion of it, "He knew that the chief
priests had delivered him for envy." He knew
the cause of their envy, was impressed with a
favourable opinion of Jesus, and wished by
all means to acquit him. . . .
. . . The Roman governors of Judea
generally resided at Caesarea; but at the great
feast they came up to Jerusalem, to prevent or
suppress tumults, and to administer justice; it
being a custom for the Roman governors of
provinces to visit the principal towns under
their jurisdiction, on this latter account. Pilate
being accordingly come to Jerusalem, some
time before the feast, had been informed of
the great ferment among the rulers, and the
true character of the person on whose account
it was raised, for he entertained a just notion
of it: "He knew that for envy they had
delivered him." He knew the cause of their
envy, was impressed with a favorable opinion
of Jesus, and wished, if possible, to deliver
him from his vile persecutors.
Macknight (1756, p. 745)
The priests and elders having condemned
Jesus for the pretended crime of blasphemy,
consulted together again, and resolved to
carry him before the governor; loaded with
chains, that he likewise might give sentence
against him. . . .
Blomfield (1809, p. 349)
The "priests and elders" Mt. 27:1 having
thus condemned Jesus, consulted together
again, and resolved to carry him before the
governor loaded with chains, that he,
likewise, might give sentence upon him.
Page -31-
. . . But the priests peremptorily refused
this proposal, because it condemned the
whole of their procedure, and told him that it
was not lawful for them to put any man to
death; by which they insinuated that the
prisoner was guilty of a capital crime, that he
deserved the highest punishment, and that
none but the governor himself could give
judgment in the cause. The Jews, therefore,
said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put
any man to death. The evangelist observes,
that the Jews were directed thus to speak and
act, that there might be an accomplishment of
the Divine counsels concerning the manner of
our Lord's death; of which counsels Jesus
himself had given frequent intimations in the
course of his ministry. . . .
But the priests peremptorily refused this
proposal, because it condemned the whole of
their procedure; and told him that it was "not
lawful for" John 18:31 them "to put any man
to death;" John 18:31 by which they
insinuated that the prisoner was guilty of a
capital crime, that he deserved the highest
punishment, and that none but the governor
himself could give judgment in the cause.
The evangelist observes, that the Jews were
directed thus to speak and act, that there
might be an accomplishment of the divine
counsels concerning the manner of our Lord's
death, of which counsels Jesus himself had
given frequent intimations in the course of his
ministry. . . .
. . . John tells us that our Lord added,
Dost thou ask this question of thine own
accord, because thou thinkest that I have
affected regal power; or dost thou ask it
according to the information of the priests,
who affirm that I have acknowledged myself
to be a king? John xviii. 34. . . .
. . . "Jesus answered him," John 18:34
dost thou ask this question of thy own accord,
because thou thinkest that I have affected
regal power or dost thou ask it according to
the information of the priests, who affirm that
I have acknowledged myself to be a king? . . .
Page -32-
Macknight (1756, pp. 752-3)
The priests, it seems, were not discon-
certed, or abashed by the public declaration
which the governor, in obedience to con-
science and truth, made of the prisoner's
innocence; for they persisted in their ac-
cusations with more vehemence than before,
affirming that he had attempted to raise a
sedition in Galilee. Luke xxiii. 5. And they
were the more fierce, saying He stirreth up
the people, teaching throughout all Jewry,
beginning from Galilee to this place. They
artfully mentioned Galilee to inflame Pilate,
who they knew was prejudiced against the
people of that country. See Luke xiii. l. To
this heavy charge Jesus made no answer at
all. Nay, he continued mute, notwithstanding
the governor expressly required him to speak
in his own defence. . . .
. . . Neither disconcerted nor abashed by
this declaration of Pilate, the priests persisted
in their accusations with more vehemence
than before, affirming that he had attempted
to raise a sedition in Galilee. They artfully
mentioned Galilee to inflame Pilate, who,
they knew, was prejudiced against the people
of that country. To this heavy charge Jesus
made no answer at all. Nay, he continued
mute, notwithstanding the governor expressly
required him to speak in his own defence. . . .
. . . But whatever was his motive, the
king, who had of a long time desired to see
Jesus, rejoiced at this opportunity; for he
hoped to have had the pleasure of seeing him
work some miracle or other. Nevertheless,
because Herod had apostatized from the
doctrine of John Baptist, to which he was
once a convert, and had put his teacher to
death, Jesus, liberal as he was of his miracles
to the poor and afflicted, would not work
them to gratify the curiosity of a tyrant, nor
so much as answer one of his questions,
though he proposed many to him. . . .
Blomfield (1809, pp. 350-1)
. . . The king, who had for a long time
desired to see Jesus, rejoiced at this
opportunity; for he hoped to have had the
pleasure of seeing him work some miracle or
other. Nevertheless, because Herod had
apostatized from the doctrine of John the
Baptist, and had put his teacher to death,
Jesus, liberal as he was of his miracles to the
poor, and afflicted, would not work them to
gratify the curiosity of a tyrant, nor so much
as answer one of his questions, though he
proposed many to him. . . .
. . . Herod finding himself thus
disappointed, ordered Christ to be clothed
with an old robe, in colour like those which
kings used to wear, and permitted his
attendants to insult him, perhaps with an
intention to provoke him to work a miracle,
though it should have been of a hurtful kind.
. . . Herod, finding himself thus
disappointed, ordered Christ to be clothed
with an old robe, in colour like those which
kings used to wear, and permitted his
attendants to insult him, and to ridicule his
pretensions to the dignity of Messiah. . . .
Page -33-
. . . While these things were doing, Pilate
received message from his wife, who
happened to be with him in Jerusalem, and
who had had a dream that morning about
Jesus, that gave her the utmost uneasiness. . .
.
. . . While these things were doing, the
governor received a message from his wife,
who happened to be with him in Jerusalem,
and who had had a dream that morning about
Jesus, which gave her so great uneasiness,
that she could have no rest till she sent an
account of it to her husband. . . .
. . . The people had not yet said whether
they would have Jesus or Barabbas released
to them. Therefore when Pilate received his
wife's message he called the chief priests and
the rulers together, and, in the hearing of the
multitude, made a speech to them, wherein he
gave an account of the examination which
Jesus had undergone at his tribunal, and at
Herod's, and declared that in both courts the
trial had turned out honourably for his
character. Wherefore he proposed to them
that he should be the object of the people's
favour. . . .
. . . Therefore, when Pilate received his
wife's message, he called the chief priests and
the rulers together: and, in the hearing of the
multitude, made a speech to them, wherein he
gave an account of the examination which
Jesus had undergone at his tribunal, and at
Herod's; and declared that, in both courts, the
trial had turned out honourably to his
character. Wherefore, he proposed to them
that he should be the object of the peoples'
favour, after having received some
chastisement, which might save his
prosecutors from the disgrace of having
conducted a frivolous and vexatious suit. . . .
. . . His blood be on us and on our
children: An imprecation the weight of which
lies heavy on the nation to this day! The
governor finding by the sound of the cry that
it was general, and that the people were fixed
in their choice, passed the sentence they
desired. . . .
. . . Whether this was done in conformity
to Jewish or heathen customs, it was a
striking appeal both to the senses and
consciences of the multitude; and they
acknowledged it to be such, by replying, "his
blood be" Matt. 27:25 upon "us and on our
children" Matt. 27:25 an imprecation, the
weight of which lies heavy on the Jewish
nation to this day, and has been awfully
fulfilled in a long succession of dreadful
calamities. The governor, finding by the
sound of the cry that it was general, and that
the people were fixed in their determination,
passed the sentence which they desired. . . .
Page -34-
The Romans usually scourged the
criminals whom they condemned to be
crucified. . . .
The soldiers having received orders to
crucify Jesus, carried him into the prtorium
after they had scourged him. Here they added
the shame of disgrace to the bitterness of his
punishment; for sore as he was by reason of
the stripes they had laid on him, they dressed
him as a fool, in an old purple robe, (Mark,
John) in derision of his being king of the
Jews. Then they put a reed into his hand
instead of a sceptre; and having made a
wreath of thorns, they put it on his head for a
crown, forcing it down in such a rude manner
that his temples were torn, and his face
besmeared with blood, To the Son of God, in
this condition, the rude soldiers bowed the
knee, pretending respect, but at the same time
gave him severe blows, which drove the
prickles of the wreath afresh into his temples,
then spit upon him, to express the highest
contempt of him. . . .
Blomfield (1809, pp. 351-2)
The Romans usually scourged the
criminals whom they condemned to be
crucified; with this custom Pilate complied,
and his orders were executed with rigour, and
probably in the presence of the Jews.
crucify Jesus, carried him into the praetorium
punishment; for, sore as he was, by reason of
him as a fool in an old purple robe, in
derision of his being king of the Jews. Then
they put a reed into his hand instead of a
sceptre; and, having made a wreath of thorns,
they put it on his head for a crown, forcing it
down in such a rude manner, that his temples
were torn, and his face besmeared with blood.
To the Son of God, in this condition, the rude
soldiers bowed the knee, pretending respect;
but, at the same time, gave him severe blows,
which drove the prickles of the wreath afresh
into his temples, then "spit upon him," Matt.
27:30 to express the highest contempt of him.
Page -35-
Macknight (1756, pp. 759-60)
. . . With this view, therefore, he resolved
to carry him out, a spectacle which might
have softened the most envenomed, obdurate,
enraged enemies. And that the impression
might be the stronger, he went out himself
and spake to them. John xix. 4. Pilate
therefore went forth again, and saith unto
them, Behold I bring him forth to you, that ye
may know that I find no fault in him. Though
I have sentenced him to die, and have
scourged him as one that is to be crucified, I
bring him forth to you this once, that I may
testify to you again, how fully I am persuaded
of his innocence; and that ye may yet have an
opportunity to save his life. Upon this Jesus
appeared on the pavement, having his face,
hair, and shoulders all clotted with blood, and
the purple robe bedawbed with spittle. 5.
Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of
thorns and the purple robe. But that the sight
of Jesus in this distress might make the
greater impression on the multitude, Pilate,
while he was coming forward, cried, Behold
the man! As if he had said, Will nothing
make you relent? have you no bowels, no
feelings of pity? can you bear to see the
innocent thus injured? Perhaps also the
soldiers were allowed to mock and buffet him
anew on the pavement, before the multitude.
For though the Jew would not take pity on
Jesus as a person unjustly condemned, yet
when they saw one of their countrymen
insulted by heathens, it was natural for the
governor to think that their national pride
being provoked, they would have demanded
his release out of spite. And Pilate saith unto
them, Behold the man. But all was to no
purpose. The priests, whose rage and malice
had extinguished not only the sentiments of
justice and feelings of pity natural to the
human heart, but that love which countrymen
bear to one another, no sooner saw Jesus than
they began to fear the fickle populace might
and spake to them. [John xix. 4.] Pilate,
therefore, went forth again, and saith unto
them, behold, I bring him forth to you that ye
may know that I find no fault in him. Though
I have sentenced him to die, and have
scourged him that is to be crucified, I bring
him forth to you this once, that I may testify
to you again how fully I am persuaded of his
innocence; and that ye may yet have an
opportunity to save his life. Upon this, Jesus
appeared upon the pavement, having his face,
hair, and shoulders, all covered with blood,
and the purple robe bedawbed with spittle.
But that the sight of Jesus in this distress
might make the greater impression upon the
multitude, Pilate, while he was coming
forward; cried, "Behold the man!" John 19:5
as if he said, will nothing make you relent?
have you no bowels, no feelings of pity? can
you bear to see the innocent thus injured?
Perhaps, also, the soldiers were allowed to
mock and buffet him anew on the pavement
before the multitude: for though the Jews
would not take pity on Jesus as a person
unjustly condemned, yet, when they saw one
of their countrymen insulted by heathens, it
was natural for the governor to think, that
their national pride being provoked, they
would have demanded his release out of spite.
But all was to no purpose. The priests, whose,
rage and malice had extinguished, not only
the sentiments of justice and feelings of pity
natural to the human heart, but that love
which countrymen bear to one another, no
sooner saw Jesus, than they began to fear the
fickle populace might relent. And, therefore,
laying decency aside, they led the way to the
mob, crying out with all their might, "crucify
Page -36-
relent. And therefore, laying decency aside,
they led the way to the mob, crying out with
all their might, Crucify him! crucify him!
John xix. 6. When the chief priests therefore
and officers saw him, they cried out, saying
Crucify him, crucify him. The governor,
vexed to find the grandees thus obstinately
bent on the destruction of a person from
whom they had nothing to fear that was
dangerous either to the church or the state,
fell into a passion, and told them plainly, that
if they would have him crucified, they must
do it themselves, because he would not suffer
his people to murder a man who was guilty of
no crime. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye
him, and crucify him; for I find no fault in
him. But they refused this also, thinking it
dishonourable to receive permission to punish
one who had been more than once publicly
declared innocent by his judge. Besides, they
considered with themselves, that the governor
afterwards might have called it sedition as the
permission had been extorted from him. . . .
him! crucify him!" Luke 23:21 The governor,
vexed to find the grandees thus obstinately
bent on the destruction of an innocent person,
fell into a passion, and told them plainly, that
if they would have him crucified, they must
do it themselves, because he would not suffer
his people to murder a man who was guilty of
no crime. But they refused this also, thinking
it dishonourable to receive permission to
punish one whom his judge considered as
undeservedly condemned; and perhaps,
thinking that Pilate might afterwards accuse
them of sedition, for executing a sentence
themselves which they had extorted from the
governor by the vehemence of their clamour.
. . .
Page -37-
. . . Being sensible that you are Cesar's
servant, and accountable to him for your
management, I forgive you any injury which,
contrary to your inclination, the popular fury
constrains you to do unto me. Thou hast thy
power from above; from the emperor: for
which cause the Jewish high-priest, who hath
put me into thy hands, and by pretending that
I am Cesar's enemy, obliges thee to condemn
me; or if thou refusest, will accuse thee as
negligent of the emperor's interest, he is more
to blame than thou. This sweet and modest
answer made such an impression on Pilate,
that he went out to the people, and declared
his resolution of releasing Jesus, whether they
would or no. . . . Finding by what the
governor said to them, that he was
determined to release Jesus, they told him
with an haughty menacing air, that if he
released his prisoner who had set himself up
for a king, and endeavoured to raise a
rebellion in the country, he was not faithful to
the emperor; by which they insinuated, that
they would accuse him to his master if he did
not do his duty. This argument was weighty,
and shook Pilate's resolution to the
foundation. He was frightened at the very
thought of being accused to Tiberius, who in
matters of government, as Tacitus and
Suetonius testify, was apt to suspect the
worst, and always punished the least crimes
relative thereto with death. 13. When Pilate
therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus
forth, and sat down in the judgment-seat in a
place that is called the Pavement, but in the
Hebrew, Gabbatha. 14. And it was the
preparation of the passover, and about the
sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold
your King. The governor being thus
constrained to yield, contrary to his
inclination, was angry with the priests for
stirring people to such a pitch of madness,
and resolved to affront them. He therefore
. . . Being sensible that you are Caesar's
power from above, from the emperor; for
which cause, the Jewish high-priest, who hath
delivered me into thy hands, and by
pretending that I am Caesar's enemy, obliged
thee to condemn me; or, if thou refusest, will
accuse thee as negligent of the emperor's
interest; he is more to blame than thou. This
sweet and modest answer made such an
impression on Pilate, that he went out to the
people, and declared his resolution of
releasing Jesus, whether they would or no.
Finding the governor's determination, they
told him, with a threatening air, that by thus
releasing one who had endeavoured to excite
rebellion; he would shew himself unfaithful
to the interests of Caesar, and therefore give
them an opportunity of accusing him at
Rome. This argument was weighty, and
shook the resolution of Pilate to the ground.
He was terrified at the very thought of being
accused to Tiberias, who, in matters of
government, always suspected the worst, and
was ready to punish every default with death.
Being thus constrained to yield, he was angry
with the priests for agitating the people, and
resolved to affront them. He, therefore,
brought forth Jesus a second time unto the
pavement, wearing the purple robe and crown
of thorns; and, pointing to him said, "Behold
your king!" John 19:14 either in ridicule of
the national expectation, or to shew how vain
the fears were which they pretended to
entertain about the emperor's authority in
Judea; the person who was the occasion of
them being wholly unambitious, and
suffering with the greatest resignation.
Page -38-
brought Jesus out a second time into the
Pavement, wearing the purple robe and crown
of thorns, with his hands manacled, and
pointing to him, said, Behold your King:
either in ridicule of the national expectation,
or, which is more probable, to shew the Jews
how vain the fears were which they pretended
to entertain about the emperor's authority in
Judea. The person who was the occasion of
them, shewing in the whole of his deportment
a temper of mind no ways consonant to the
ambition which they branded him with. . . .
The unwillingness which the governor
shewed all along to pass the sentence of death
upon Jesus, has something very remarkable in
it. For by the character which he bears in the
Roman history, he seems to have been far
from possessing any true principle of virtue.
To what then could it be owing, that so
wicked a man thus steadily adhered to the
cause of innocence, which he defended with
an uncommon bravery, till the threatenings of
the grandees vanquished him? And when he
did yield, taking from our Lord his life, how
came he to leave him his innocence?
Certainly this can be attributed to no cause
whatsoever, but to the secret powerful
direction of the providence of God, who
intended that at the same time his Son was
condemned and executed as a malefactor, his
innocence should be made to appear in the
most public manner, and by the most
authentic evidence; even by the testimony of
his judges Herod and Pilate, the latter of
whom frequently declared him innocent in
the course of his trial. . . .
The governor having now laid aside all
thoughts of saving Jesus, gave him up to the
will of his enemies, and commanded the
soldiers to prepare for his execution. . . .
The unwillingness of the governor to
pass sentence upon Jesus has something in it
very remarkable, as being totally opposite to
his general character. To what then could it
be owing, that so wicked a man thus steadily
adhered to the cause of justice, and defended
Christ with art uncommon bravery, till he was
vanquished by the threatening of the
grandees? And when he did yield, taking
from our Lord his life, how came he to leave
him his innocence? Certainly this can be
attributed to no meaner cause than the
direction of the providence of God, who
intended that; while his Son was condemned
and executed as a malefactor, his innocence
should be announced in the most public
manner, and vindicated by the most authentic
evidence.
The governor, having now laid aside all
thoughts of saving Jesus, gave him up to the
will of his enemies, and commanded the
soldiers to prepare, for his execution. . . .
Page -39-
The blessed Jesus being thus condemned
by the unanimous voice of the grand
assembly, it was resolved to carry him before
the governor, that he likewise might pass
sentence on him. . . .
The priests and elders having thus
condemned Jesus, consulted together again,
and resolved to carry him before the governor
loaded with chains, that he, likewise, might
give sentence upon him. . . .
See the table on page 30 comparing Macknight with Bloomfield.
Macknight (1756, p.
750)
. . . But the priests
peremptorily refused this
proposal, because it
condemned the whole of their
procedure, and told him that
it was not lawful for them to
put any man to death; by
which they insinuated that the
prisoner was guilty of a
capital crime, that he
deserved the highest
punishment, and that none
but the governor himself
could give judgment in the
cause.
Fleetwood (1767, p.
377)
. . . But this proposal of
the Roman governor was
absolutely refused by the
Jewish priests and elders,
because it condemned the
whole proceeding; and
therefore they answered, we
have no power to put any one
to death, as this man certainly
deserves, who has attempted
not only to make innovations
in our religion, but also to set
up himself for a king.
. . . But the priests
peremptorily refused this
proposal, because it
condemned the whole of their
procedure; and told him that
it was "not lawful for" John
18:31 them "to put any man
to death;" John 18:31 by
which they insinuated that the
prisoner was guilty of a
capital crime, that he
deserved the highest
punishment, and that none
but the governor himself
could give judgment in the
cause. . . .
The underlining in Macknight tells us that Blomfield borrowed those words from
him and not the few that are similar with Fleetwood. Given these two examples no
further examples of alleged plagiarism/borrowing by Bloomfield from Fleetwood will be
included in the study.
Page -40-
The generous declaration made by the
governor, of the innocence of our blessed
Saviour, had no effect on the superstitious
and bigoted Jews. They even persisted in their
accusations with more vehemence than
before, affirming that he attempted to raise a
sedition in Galilee: "He stirreth up," said
they, "the people, beginning from Galilee to
this place."
Jesus, however, made no answer at all to
this heavy charge. Nay, he continued silent,
notwithstanding the governor himself expres-
sly required him to speak in his own defence.
A conduct so extraordinary, in such circum-
stances, astonished Pilate exceedingly; for he
had great reason to be persuaded of the inno-
cence of our dear Redeemer. The truth is, he
was altogether ignorant of the divine counsel
by which the whole affair was directed.
Neither disconcerted nor abashed by this
declaration of Pilate, the priests persisted in
their accusations with more vehemence than
before, affirming that he had attempted to
raise a sedition in Galilee. They artfully
mentioned Galilee to inflame Pilate, who,
they knew, was prejudiced against the people
of that country. To this heavy charge Jesus
made no answer at all. Nay, he continued
mute, notwithstanding the governor expressly
required him to speak in his own defence. A
conduct so extraordinary in such circum-
stances astonished Pilate exceedingly; for he
was ignorant of the divine counsels, which
were then hastening to an accomplishment.
Fleetwood (1767, pp. 379-380)
But however that be, or whatever motive
induced Pilate to send our great Redeemer to
Herod, the latter greatly rejoiced at this
opportunity of seeing Jesus, hoping to have
the pleasure of beholding him perform some
great miracle.
In this he was, however, disappointed;
for, as Herod had apostatized from the
doctrine of John the Baptist, to which he was
once probably a convert, and had even put his
teacher to death, the blessed Jesus, however
liberal of his miracles to the sons and
daughters of affliction, would not work them
to gratify the curiosity of a tyrant, nor even
answer one of the many questions he
proposed to him.
Herod finding his expectations thus cut
off, ordered the blessed Saviour to be clothed
with an old robe, resembling in color those
worn by kings, and permitted his attendants to
insult him.
Blomfield (1809, pp. 350-351)
. . . The king, who had for a long time
desired to see Jesus, rejoiced at this oppor-
tunity; for he hoped to have had the pleasure
of seeing him work some miracle or other.
Nevertheless, because Herod had apostatized
from the doctrine of John the Baptist, Jesus,
liberal as he was of his miracles to the poor,
and afflicted, would not work them to gratify
the curiosity of a tyrant, nor so much as
answer one of his questions, though he
proposed many to him. Herod, finding
himself thus disappointed, ordered Christ to
be clothed with an old robe, in colour like
those which kings used to wear, and
permitted his attendants to insult him, and to
ridicule his pretensions to the dignity of
Messiah. He would not, however, condemn
him, being, perhaps, unwilling to increase the
remorse which he already felt on account of
the murder of the Baptist. "And the same day
Herod and Pilate were made friends together;
for before this they were at enmity between
themselves."
Page -41-
While these particulars were transacting,
Pilate received a message from his wife, then
with him at Jerusalem, and who had that
morning been greatly affected by a dream,
which gave her much uneasiness. The dream
had so great an effect on this Roman lady,
that she could not rest till she had sent an
account of it to her husband, who was then
sitting with the tribunal on the pavement, and
begged him to have no hand in the death of
the righteous person he was then judging.
The people had not yet determined
whether they would have Jesus or Barabbas
released to them; therefore, when Pilate
received the message from his wife, he called
the chief priests and rulers together, and, in
the hearing of the multitude, made a speech to
them, in which he gave them an account of
the examination which Jesus had undergone,
both at his own, and Herod's tribunal,
declaring that in both courts it had turned out
honorably to his character: for which reason
he proposed to them, that he should be the
object of the people's favor.
. . . Pilate is said to have done this,
because he had been informed by some of the
friends of our Lord that the "chief priests had
delivered him" from motives of "envy."
While these things were doing, the governor
received a message from his wife, who
happened to be with him in Jerusalem, and
who had had a dream that morning about
Jesus, which gave her so great uneasiness,
that she could have no rest till she sent an
account if it to her husband. The people had
not yet said whether they would have Jesus or
Barabbas released to them. Therefore, when
Pilate received his wife's message, he called
the chief priests and the rulers together: and,
in the hearing of the multitude, made a speech
to them, wherein he gave an account of the
examination which Jesus had undergone at
his tribunal, and at Herod's; and declared that,
in both courts, the trial had turned out
honourably to his character. Wherefore, he
proposed to them that he should be the object
of the peoples' favour, after having received
some chastisement, which might save his
prosecutors from the disgrace of having
conducted a frivolous and vexatious suit. . . .
Page -42-
The soldiers, having scourged Jesus, and
received orders to crucify him, carried him
into the Praetorium, or common hall, where
they added the shame of disgrace to the
bitterness of his punishment; for, sore as he
was by reason of the stripes they had given
him, they dressed him in a purple robe, in
derision of his being King of the Jews.
Having dressed him in his robe of mock
majesty, they put a reed in his hand instead of
a scepter, and, after plaiting a wreath of
thorns, they put it on his head for a crown,
forcing it down in so rude a manner, that his
temples were torn, and his face besmeared
with his most precious blood. To the Son of
God, in this condition, the rude soldiers
bowed the knee, pretending to do it out of
respect; but, at the same time, gave him
severe blows on the head, which drove the
points of the wreath afresh into his temples,
and then spit on him, to express their highest
contempt.
The governor, whose office obliged him
to be present at this shocking scene of
inhumanity, was ready to burst with grief.
The sight of an innocent and eminently holy
person, treated with such shocking barbarity,
raised in his breast the most painful
sensations of pity. And though he had given
sentence that it should be as the Jews desired,
and had delivered our dear Redeemer to the
soldiers to be crucified, he was in hopes that
if he showed him to the people in that
condition, they must relent, and earnestly
petition for him to be released.
Blomfield (1809, pp. 351-352)
crucify Jesus, carried him into the praetorium
punishment; for, sore as he was, by reason of
him as a fool in an old purple robe, in
derision of his being king of the Jews. Then
they put a reed into his hand instead of a
sceptre; and, having made a wreath of thorns,
they put it on his head for a crown, forcing it
down in such a rude manner, that his temples
were torn, and his face besmeared with blood.
To the Son of God, in this condition, the rude
soldiers bowed the knee, pretending respect;
but, at the same time, gave him severe blows,
which drove the prickles of the wreath afresh
into his temples, then spit upon him, to
express the highest contempt of him. The
sight of the sufferings of Jesus so far excited
the compassion of Pilate, that he determined
to make another effort to procure his
liberation. {contd in next table}
Page -43-
Fleetwood (1767, pp. 382-383)
Filled with this thought, he resolved to
carry him out, and exhibit to their view a
spectacle capable of softening the most
envenomed, obdurate, and enraged enemy:
and went out himself, and said unto them,
Though I have sentenced this man to die, and
have scourged him as one that is to be
crucified, yet I once more bring him before
you, that I may again testify how fully I am
persuaded of his innocence, and that ye may
yet have an opportunity of saving his life.
As soon as the governor had finished his
speech, Jesus appeared on the pavement, his
hair, his face, his shoulders all clotted with
blood, and the purple robe daubed with spittle
of the soldiers. And that the sight of Jesus in
this distress might make the greater
impression on the people, Pilate, while
coming forward, cried out, "Behold the man!"
As if he had said, will nothing make you
relent? Have ye lost all the feelings of
humanity, and bowels of compassion? Can
you bear to see the innocent, a son of
Abraham, thus injured?
and spake to them. "Pilate, therefore, went
forth again, and saith unto them, behold, I
bring him forth to you that ye may know that
I find no fault in him." Though I have
sentenced him to die, and have scourged him
that is to be crucified, I bring him forth to you
this once, that I may testify to you again how
fully I am persuaded of his innocence; and
that ye may yet have an opportunity to save
his life. Upon this, Jesus appeared upon the
pavement, having his face, hair, and
shoulders, all covered with blood, and the
purple robe bedawbed with spittle. But that
the sight of Jesus in this distress might make
the greater impression upon the multitude,
Pilate, while he was coming forward; cried,
Behold the man! as if he said, will nothing
make you relent? have you no bowels, no
feelings of pity? can you bear to see the
innocent thus injured? Perhaps, also, the
soldiers were allowed to mock and buffet him
anew on the pavement before the multitude:
for though the Jews would not take pity on
Jesus as a person unjustly condemned, yet,
when they saw one of their countrymen
insulted by heathens, it was natural for the
governor to think, that their national pride
being provoked, they would have demanded
his release out of spite. . . .
{contd below}
Page -44-
But all this was to no purpose; the
priests, whose rage and malice had exting-
uished not only the sentiments of justice and
feelings of pity natural to the human heart,
but also that love which countrymen bear for
each other, no sooner saw Jesus, than they
began to fear the fickle populace might relent;
and, therefore, laying decency aside, they led
the way to the multitude, crying out, with all
their might, Crucify him! crucify him!
Pilate, vexed to see the Jewish rulers thus
obstinately bent on the destruction of one
from whom they had nothing to fear that was
dangerous, either with regard to their church
or state, passionately told them, that if they
would have him crucified, they must do it
themselves; because he would not suffer his
people to murder a man who was guilty of no
crime. But this they also refused, thinking it
dishonorable to receive permission to punish
a person who had been more than once
publicly declared innocent by his judge.
. . . But all was to no purpose. The
priests, whose, rage and malice had exting-
uished, not only the sentiments of justice and
feelings of pity natural to the human heart,
but that love which countrymen bear to one
another, no sooner saw Jesus, than they began
to fear the fickle populace might relent. And,
therefore, laying decency aside, they led the
way to the mob, crying out with all their
might, "crucify him! crucify him!" The gov-
ernor, vexed to find the grandees thus obsti-
nately bent on the destruction of an innocent
person, fell into a passion, and told them
plainly, that if they would have him crucified,
they must do it themselves, because he would
not suffer his people to murder a man who
was guilty of no crime. But they refused this
also, thinking it dishonourable to receive
permission to punish one whom his judge
considered as undeservedly condemned; and
perhaps, thinking that Pilate might afterwards
accuse them of sedition, for executing a
sentence themselves which they had extorted
from the governor by the vehemence of their
clamor. Wherefore, they told him, that as
Jesus had spoken blasphemy in calling
"himself the Son of God," they had a law
handed down to them by their ancestors, and
originally received from, God, by which such
offenders were adjudged to death.
Page -45-
Fleetwood, (1767, p. 384)
. . . To which Jesus answered, I well
know that you are Caesar's servant, and
accountable to him for your conduct. I forgive
you any injury which, contrary to your
inclination, the popular fury constrains you to
do unto me. Thou hast thy power "from
above," from the emperor; for which cause,
the Jewish high priest, who hath put me into
thy hands, and, by pretending that I am
Caesar's enemy, forces thee to condemn me;
or, if thou refusest, will accuse thee as
negligent of the emperor's interest: he is more
guilty than thou. "He that delivered me unto
thee hath the greater sin."
This sweet and modest answer made such
an impression on Pilate, that he went out to
the people, and declared his intention of
releasing Jesus, whether they gave their
consent or not. Upon which, the chief priests
and rulers of Israel cried out, "If thou let this
man go, thou art not Caesar's friend:
whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh
against Caesar." If thou releasest the prisoner,
who hath set himself up for a king, and has
been accused of endeavoring to raise a
rebellion in the country, thou art unfaithful to
the interests of the emperor, thy master. This
argument was weighty, and shook Pilate's
resolution to the very basis. He was terrified
at the thought of being accused to the
emperor, who, in all affairs of government,
always suspected the worst, and punished the
most minute crimes relative thereto with
death. The governor being thus constrained to
yield, contrary to his inclination, was very
angry with the priests for stirring up the
people to such a pitch of madness, and
determined to affront them.
He therefore brought Jesus out, a second
time, into the pavement, wearing the purple
robe and crown of thorns, and, pointing to
him, said, "Behold your king!" ridiculing
their national expectation of a Messiah. . . .
Bloomfield (1809, p. 353)
. . . Being sensible that you are Caesar's
power from above, from the emperor; for
which cause, the Jewish high-priest, who hath
delivered me into thy hands, and by
pretending that I am Caesar's enemy, obliged
thee to condemn me; or, if thou refusest, will
accuse thee as negligent of the emperor's
interest; he is more to blame than thou. This
sweet and modest answer made such an
impression on Pilate, that he went out to the
people, and declared his resolution of
releasing Jesus, whether they would or no.
Finding the governor's determination, they
told him, with a threatening air, that by thus
releasing one who had endeavoured to excite
rebellion; he would shew himself unfaithful
to the interests of Caesar, and therefore give
them an opportunity of accusing him at
Rome. This argument was weighty, and
shook the resolution of Pilate to the ground.
He was terrified at the very thought of being
accused to Tiberias, who, in matters of
government, always suspected the worst, and
was ready to punish every default with death.
Being thus constrained to yield, he was angry
with the priests for agitating the people, and
resolved to affront them. He, therefore,
brought forth Jesus a second time unto the
pavement, wearing the purple robe and crown
of thorns; and, pointing to him said, Behold
your king! either in ridicule of the national
expectation, or to shew how vain the fears
were which they pretended to entertain about
the emperor's authority in Judea; the person
who was the occasion of them being wholly
unambitious, and suffering with the greatest
resignation. . . .
Page -46-
. . . They could not otherwise
accomplish their purpose; the power of life
and death being now taken out of their hands.
. . . {footnote:} Properly speaking, the
praetorium was that part of the palace where
the soldiers kept guard, Mark xv. 16.; but in
common language it was applied to the palace
in general.
Benson (1821, p. 650)
. . . Properly speaking, the pretorium was
that part of the palace where the soldiers kept
guard, Mark xv. 16; but in common language
it was applied to the palace in general. The
Jewish high-priests and elders sent Jesus
hither that he might be tried by the Roman
governor, Pilate, because they could not
otherwise accomplish their purpose, the
power of life and death being now taken out
of their hands. . . .
Having purified themselves in order to
eat the passover; they would not enter the
palace which was the house of heathen, for
fear of contracting such defilement as might
have rendered them incapable of eating the
paschal supper. See Chronolog. Dissert. VI.
They stood, therefore, before the palace,
waiting for the governor, who an such
occasions came out to them.
Benson (1821, p. 650)
. . . Having purified themselves in order
to eat the passover, they would not enter into
the palace, which was the house of a heathen,
for fear of contracting such defilement as
might have rendered them incapable of eating
the paschal-supper. They stood, therefore,
before the palace, waiting for the governor,
who on such occasions came out to them.
. . . This was the most natural question
imaginable for a judge to ask on such an
occasion; nevertheless, the priests thought
themselves affronted by it. It seems they
knew this governor's sentiments concerning
the prisoner, and understood his question as
carrying an insinuation along with it, of their
having brought one to be condemned, against
whom they could find no accusation.
Benson (1821, pp. 650-1)
. . . This was the most natural question
imaginable for a judge to ask on such an
occasion; nevertheless the priests thought
themselves affronted by it. They answered,
haughtily, If he were not a malefactor--Greek,
[Greek], an evil-doer, a notorious offender;
we would not have delivered him up unto
thee--It seems they knew the governor's
sentiments concerning the prisoner, and
understood his question as carrying an
insinuation along with it, of their having
brought one to be condemned against whom
they could find no accusation.
Page -47-
Macknight (1756, pp. 749-50)
. . . By making this offer to them, the
governor told them plainly, that, in his
opinion, the crime which they laid to their
prisoner's charge was not of a capital nature;
and that such punishments as they were
permitted by Cesar to inflict, might be
adequate to any misdemeanor Jesus was
chargeable with. . . .
Benson (1821, p. 651)
. . . By making this offer to them, the
governor told them plainly, that in his opinion
the crime which they laid to the prisoner's
charge was not of a capital nature; and that
such punishment as they were permitted by
Cesar to inflict, might be adequate to any
misdemeanour Jesus was chargeable with. . . .
In this example I only marked the one word that was changed.
. . . But the priests peremptorily refused
this proposal, because it condemned the
whole of their procedure, and told him that it
was not lawful for them to put any man to
death; by which they insinuated that the
judgment in the cause. . . .
Benson (1821, p. 651)
. . . By which they signified, that the
judgment in the cause. . . .
. . . The evangelist observes, that the
Jews were directed thus to speak and act, that
there might be an accomplishment of the
Divine counsels concerning the manner of
our Lord's death; of which counsels Jesus
himself had given frequent intimations in the
course of his ministry. 32. That the saying of
Jesus might be fulfilled which he spoke,
signifying what death he should die. Thus
was the governor's first attempt to save Jesus
frustrated. He made four other efforts to the
same purpose, but was equally unsuccessful
in them all. This good effect, however, has
flowed from them: they serve to testify how
strongly Pilate was impressed with the
conviction of our Lord's innocence, and at the
same time they shew to what a height the
malice and wickedness of the Jewish great
men were risen.
Benson (1821, p. 651)
. . . That is, in consequence of this
procedure of the Jews, there was an
accomplishment of the divine counsels
concerning the manner of our Lord's death, of
which Jesus had given frequent intimations in
the course of his ministry. Signifying what
death he should die--For crucifixion was not a
Jewish, but a Roman punishment. So that had
he not been condemned by the Roman
governor, he could not have been crucified.
Thus was the governor's first attempt to save
Jesus frustrated. He made four other efforts to
the same purpose, but was equally
unsuccessful in them all. This good effect,
however, has flowed from them; they serve to
testify how strongly Pilate was impressed
with the conviction of our Lord's innocence,
and at the same time they show to what a
height of malice and wickedness the Jewish
great men were now risen.
Page -48-
. . . Nevertheless, to account for Pilate's
asking our Lord, whether he assumed the title
of the King of the Jews, we must suppose,
that the priests explained their accusation by
telling him, that Jesus had travelled
incessantly through the country, and every
where gave himself out for Messiah; and that
even during his trial before them, he had been
so presumptuous as to assume that dignity in
open court. Without some information of this
kind, the governor would hardly have put the
question to Jesus, no prisoner being obliged
to accuse himself. John xviii. 33. Then Pilate
entered into the judgment-hall again, and
called Jesus. Matt. xxvii. 11. And Jesus stood
before the governor, and the governor asked
him, saying, Art thou the king of the Jews?
And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest; that is,
according to the Hebrew idiom, "It is as thou
sayest." John tells us that our Lord added,
affected regal power; or dost thou ask it
to be a king?
Benson (1821, p. 229)
. . . And the governor asked him, Art
thou the king of the Jews?---From Pilate's
asking our Lord this question, we must
suppose that the priests explained their
accusation by telling him that Jesus had
travelled continually through the country, and
everywhere had given himself out for the
Messiah; and that even during his trial before
them, he had been so presumptuous as to
assume that dignity in open court. Without
some information of this kind, the governor
would hardly have put such a question to
Jesus, no prisoner being obliged to accuse
himself. And Jesus said unto him, Thou
sayest--That is, according to the Hebrew
idiom, It is as thou sayest. John tells us that
our Lord added, Sayest thou this thing of
thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? that is,
affected regal power, or, dost thou ask it
to be a king?
Page -49-
. . . No doubt Jesus knew what had hap-
pened; but he spake to the governor after this
manner, because being in the palace when the
priests accused him he had not heard what
they said. 35. Pilate answered, Am I a Jew?
Dost thou think that I am acquainted with the
religious opinions, expectations, and disputes
of the Jews? Thine own nation, and the chief
priests have delivered thee unto me, as a
seditious person, one that assumes the title of
king: what hast thou done to merit the charge
of sedition? 35. Jesus answered, Though I
have acknowledged to you that I am a king, I
am no raiser of sedition, for My kingdom is
not of this world: if my kingdom were of this
world, then would my servants fight, that I
should not be delivered to the Jews: I would
have endeavoured to establish myself on the
throne by force of arms, and would have
fought against the Jews when they came to
apprehend me. But as I have done neither; on
the contrary, as I have hindered one of
disciples from fighting, who sought to rescue
me, it is evident that the kingdom which I
claim is not of this world: but now is my
kingdom not from hence.
Benson (1821, p. 651)
. . . No doubt Jesus knew what had hap-
pened; but he spake to the governor after this
manner, because, being in the palace when
the priests accused him, he had not heard
what they said. Pilate answered, Am I a Jew?-
-Dost thou think that I am acquainted with the
religious opinions, expectations, and disputes
of the Jews? Thine own nation, &c., have
delivered thee unto me--As a seditious
person, one that assumes the title of a king:
What hast thou done--To merit the charge of
sedition? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not
of this world--Not a temporal, but a spiritual
kingdom, which does not at all interfere with
the dominion of Cesar, or of which any prince
has reason to be jealous. If my kingdom were
of this world--Were of an external or
temporal nature; then would my servants
fight--Or rather, would have fought, would
have endeavoured to establish me on the
throne by force of arms, and would have
fought against the Jews when they came to
apprehend me. But as I have done nothing of
this, but readily put myself into their hands, it
is evident my kingdom is not from hence . . .
Page -50-
. . . Every one that is of the truth heareth
my voice: I came into the world for this end,
that by explaining and proving the truth, I
might impress it upon mens consciences, and
make them obedient to its laws. In this
consisteth my kingdom, and all the lovers of
truth obey me, and are my subjects. This is
what Paul calls the good confession, which he
tells Timothy, 1 Epist. vi. 13. Jesus witnessed
before Pontius Pilate. And justly does the
apostle term it so. For our Lord did not deny
the truth to save his own life, but gave all his
followers an example highly worthy of their
imitation. It is remarkable that Christ's
assuming the title of King did not offend the
governor in the least, though it was the
principal crime laid to his charge. Probably
the account he gave of his kingdom and
subjects, led Pilate to take him for some stoic
philosopher, who pleased himself with the
chimerical royalty attributed by his sect to the
sapiens or wise men. See Hor. lib. i. sat. 3.
fine.
Benson (1821, p. 652)
. . . That by explaining and proving the
truth, I might impress it upon men's
consciences, and make them obedient to its
laws. In this consisteth my kingdom, and all
the lovers of truth obey me, and are my
subjects. This is what Paul calls the good
confession, which he tells Timothy, (1 Epist.
vi. 13,) Jesus witnessed before Pontius Pilate.
And justly does the apostle term it so. For our
Lord did not deny the truth to save his own
life, but gave all his followers an example
highly worthy of imitation. It is remarkable,
that Christ's assuming the title of king did not
offend the governor in the least, though it was
the principal crime laid to his charge.
Probably the account which he gave of his
kingdom and subjects, led Pilate to take him
for some Stoic philosopher, who pleased
himself with the chimerical royalty attributed
by his sect to those they termed wise men.
See Horace, Lib. I. Sat. iii.
. . . Accordingly he desired him to
explain what he meant by truth? then going
out to the multitude, he told them that he
found no fault in Jesus, no opinion
inconsistent with the good of society, neither
any action nor pretension that was criminal in
the least degree. . . .
Benson (1821, p. 652)
. . . Accordingly he desired him to
explain what he meant by truth. Pilate saith,
What is truth?--That is, the truth to which
thou referrest, and speakest of as thy business
to attest. Or perhaps he meant, What signifies
truth? Is that a thing worth hazarding thy life
for? So he left him presently, to plead with
the Jews for him; looking upon him, it is
probable, as an innocent but weak man. He
went out again unto the Jews, and saith--To
those that were assembled about the
judgment-hall, namely, chief priests and
others: find in him no fault at all--No opinion
inconsistent with the good of society, neither
any action or pretension criminal in the least
degree. . . .
Page -51-
. . . The priests, it seems, were not
disconcerted, or abashed by the public
declaration which the governor, in obedience
to conscience and truth, made of the
prisoner's innocence; for they persisted in
raise a sedition in Galilee. Luke xxiii. 5. . . .
Benson (1821, p. 229)
. . . Pilate was inclined to acquit Jesus,
declaring he found in him no fault at all; but
the priests were not disconcerted, nor abashed
by the public declaration which the governor,
in obedience to conscience and truth, made of
the prisoner's innocence; for they persisted in
raise a sedition in Galilee; see Luke xxiii. 5. .
. .
Page -52-
Fleetwood (1767, pp. 297-298)
Pilate examined Jesus; and finding he
had not been guilty either of rebellion or
sedition, but that he was accused of partic-
ulars relating to the religion and customs of
the Jews, grew angry, and said, What are
these things to me? Take him yourselves, and
judge him according to your own law. Plainly
insinuating, that, in his opinion, the crime
they had laid to the prisoners charge was not
of a capital nature: and that such punishments
as they were permitted by Csar to inflict,
were adequate to any misdemeanor that Jesus
was charged with. But this proposal of the
Roman governor was absolutely refused by
the Jewish priests and elders, because it
condemned the whole proceeding; and
therefore they answered, We have no power
to put any one to death, as this man certainly
deserves, who has attempted not only to make
innovations in our religion, but also to set up
himself for a king.
Kitto (1853, p. 411)
. . . That Jesus had been taken prisoner,
he must also have known, from having per-
mitted them to take a number of the soldiers
to aid in His apprehension. Upon the whole,
therefore, he was at least impartial, with
favorable leanings, if any, rather to the
prisoner than the accusers, when he took his
place on the judgment-seat. They seemed at
first to expect that he would sanction their
proceedings without inquiry, and were
therefore annoyed that he evinced a disposi-
tion to go thoroughly into the case. When,
therefore, he asked the nature of their accu-
sation, they answered sharply, that he ought
to conclude they would not bring any one
there who was not a grievous offender. To
this he answered with some sternness, that
(assuming it to be some trivial offence) they
might take and judge Him according to their
own law, without troubling him with the case.
They answered that they had no power to put
any one to death. . . .
Note: John 18:31, Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him
according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put
any man to death. This will not be counted in Table 3.
Page -53-
The Roman governor, in order to acquire
popular applause, used generally, at the feast
of the passover, to release a prisoner
nominated by the people. At this feast there
was one in prison, named Barabbas, who, at
the head of a number of rebels, had made an
insurrection in the city, and committed
murder during the confusion.
Clark (1855, p. 272)
It was usual at the feast of the Passover,
for the Roman governor to release to the
people any one prisoner whom they might
desire, whatever might be the crime charged
against him. . . .
{See the paragraph above.}
Clark (1855, p. 272)
. . . It appears that they had in custody a
notable prisoner, named Barabbas, which lay
bound with them, who had made insurrection
in the city, and who had committed murder in
the insurrection. . . .
Note: Several of the words in Clark parallel the biblical texts, but the word order
follows Fleetwood rather than the texts. See Mark 15:7 (Barabbas, which lay bound
with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the
insurrection), and Luke 23:19 (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for
murder, was cast into prison). Not counted in Table 3.
But Pilate recollecting what the chief
priests had said with regard to a sedition in
Galilee, asked, If Jesus came out of that
country? and on being informed he did, he
immediately ordered him to be carried to
Herod, who was also then at Jerusalem.
Andrews (1862, p. 514)
. . . The Jews renewing their accusations,
to which Jesus makes no reply, and
mentioning Galilee, Pilate sends Him to
Herod, who was then at Jerusalem; but Jesus
refuses to answer his questions, and is sent
back to Pilate. . . .
Note: Andrews resembles Fleetwood, but both may simply be paraphrasing Luke
23:7: And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to
Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time. This highlights one of the
difficulties in determining dependency. Not counted in Table 3.
Page -54-
. . . But this proposal of the Roman gov-
ernor was absolutely refused by the Jewish
priests and elders, because it condemned the
whole proceeding; and therefore they an-
swered, we have no power to put any one to
death, as this man certainly deserves, who has
attempted not only to make innovations in our
religion, but also to set up himself for a king.
Andrews (1862, p. 518)
. . . This answer forces them to confess
that they have no power to put Him to death;
and shows them that, if they would
accomplish their purpose, they must bring
some direct and definite charge, and one of
which Pilate would take cognizance. . . .
Note: Andrews precise phraseology here parallels Fleetwood, but also could be a
simple conflation of John 19:10 (Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto
me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release
thee?) and John 18:31 (Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him
according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put
any man to death). Note counted in Table 3.
. . . At this feast there was one in prison,
named Barabbas, who, at the head of a
number of rebels, had made an insurrection in
the city, and committed murder during the
confusion.
Andrews (1862, p. 521)
. . . In company with others, he had
stirred up an insurrection in the city, and had
committed murder, (Mark xv. 7; Luke xxiii.
19.)
Note: Several of the words in Andrews parallel the biblical texts, but the word order
follows Fleetwood rather than the texts. See Mark 15:7 (Barabbas, which lay bound
with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the
insurrection), and Luke 23:19 (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for
murder, was cast into prison). Given the closeness to the biblical texts this will not be
included in Table 3.
When Pilate heard that Jesus called
himself the Son of God, his fear was
increased. . . .
Andrews (1862, pp. 526-527)
. . . This mention of the fact that Jesus
made Himself the Son of God, had a power
over Pilate who now heard of it for the first
time, which the Jews little anticipated. . . .
Page -55-
He therefore brought Jesus out, a second
time, into the pavement, wearing the purple
robe and crown of thorns, and, pointing to
him, said, "Behold your king!" ridiculing
their national expectation of a Messiah.
Hanna (1863, p. 697)
. . . He goes forth, with Jesus following,
and says to the multitude, "Behold, I bring
him forth to you, that ye may know that I find
no fault in him;" then, turning and pointing to
Jesus, as he stood wearing still the purple
robe and the crown of thorns, bearing on his
face and person the marks of all the sufferings
and indignities of the guardhouse, Pilate says,
Behold the man! . . .
Note: Several of Hannas key words, parallel John 19:5 (wearing the crown of
thorns, and the purple robe), though the word order is that of Fleetwood. (wearing still
the purple robe and the crown of thorns). Hannas phrase Behold the Man! quotes
John 19:5, while Fleetwoods Behold your king! quotes John 19:14.
While these particulars were transacting,
Pilate received a message from his wife, then
with him at Jerusalem, and who had that
morning been informed of something in a
dream which gave her great uneasiness. . . .
Eddy (1867, p. 712)
. . . Meanwhile he received a startling
message from his wife, whose name as
preserved by tradition, was Procla or Procula:
Have thou nothing to do with that just Man;
for I have suffered many things this day in a
dream because of Him. . . .
. . . The priests had kept at a distance, for
some time, but drew near when they under-
stood that Jesus was in their power; for they
were proof against all conviction, being
obstinately bent on putting him to death. And
the disciples, when they saw their Master in
the hands of his enemies, forsook him, and
fled, according to his prediction; notwith-
standing they might have followed him
without any danger, as the priests had no
design against them. . . .
Geikie (1868, p. 488)
. . . To gain a brief respite, they were
bent on putting Him to death, though His
lofty purity of life and morals far transcended
the highest ideals hitherto known, and His
Divine goodness was altogether unique. . . .
Page -56-
{See the above paragraph}
Geikie (1868, p. 482)
The disciples, after the first impulsive
thought, had abandoned all idea of resistance;
and as any attempt to rescue Jesus was clearly
hopeless, since He did not put forth His
supernatural power on His own behalf, and
would not let them do anything; and as they
themselves seemed in danger, through the
impetuosity of Peter; all took to flight as soon
as they saw their Master fairly in the hands of
His enemies.
Not counted in the table Conklins analysis of the available evidence has uncovered
many similar cases of similar words being used in differing contexts. To conserve space
in the article only some such cases are shown in this study. Another ground for not
including this in the study is that both are in reference to the Jewish trial and not the
ones before Pilate and Herod.
Before this tribunal the great Redeemer
of mankind was brought, and the priests and
elders having taken their places round the
pavement, the governor ascended the judg-
ment-seat, and asked them what accusation
they had to bring against the prisoner? . . .
Geikie (1868, p. 503)
Pilate having taken his seat, began the
proceedings by formally asking Caiaphas and
his colleagues what accusation they had
against the prisoner.
. . . But Pilate recollecting what the chief
priests had said with regard to a sedition in
Galilee, asked, If Jesus came out of that
country? and on being informed he did, he
immediately ordered him to be carried to
Herod, who was also then at Jerusalem. . . .
Geikie (1868, p. 508)
. . . He no sooner, therefore, heard that
Jesus was a Galilan, than he ordered Him to
be transferred to Antipas, that he might judge
Him.
The Roman governor, in order to acquire
popular applause, used generally, at the feast
of the passover, to release a prisoner
nominated by the people. At this feast there
was one in prison, named Barabbas, who, at
the head of a number of rebels, had made an
insurrection in the city, and committed
murder during the confusion.
Geikie (1868, p. 511)
Meanwhile a cry, destined to have
momentous results, arose in the crowd. It was
the custom to carry out capital sentences at
the Feast times, that the people at large might
get a lesson; but it was also the practice of the
procurators, in compliment to the deliverance
of Israel from the slavery of Egypt,
commemorated by the Passover, to release
any prisoner condemned to death, whom the
multitude might name in the Passover week.
Page -57-
Pilate marveled greatly at his silence, and
said unto Jesus, Why dost thou refuse to
answer me? You can not be ignorant that I am
invested with absolute power, either to
release or crucify you. . . .
Adams (1878, p. 320)
. . . This was to put the burden of defence
on Christ, and was illegal; and He made no
reply, and Pilate marveled at His patient
silence. . . .
Note: The word marveled and the phrase marveled greatly occur respectively in
Mark 15:5 and Matthew 27:14.
When Pilate heard that Jesus called
himself the Son of God, his fear was
increased. . . .
Carr (1878, p. 305)
(2) hearing that Jesus called Himself the
"Son of God," he "was the more afraid.
Pilate, vexed to see the Jewish rulers thus
obstinately bent on the destruction of one
from whom they had nothing to fear that was
dangerous, either with regard to their church
or state, passionately told them, that if they
would have him crucified, they must do it
themselves: because he would not suffer his
people to murder a man who was guilty of no
crime.
Weiss (1884, p. 349)
After this it was evident to the governor
that he had before him an amiable enthusiast
who was guilty of no crime that fell to be
judged at his judgment-seat (John xviii. 38). .
. .
DOyly (1794, pp. 624-625)
. . . This, however, would have totally
defeated their revengeful purposes; and the
chief priests and elders; therefore, persuaded
the multitude to choose Barabbas, a notorious
robber and murderer, as the object of their
clemency, in preference to him whom but a
few days before they had ushered into
Jerusalem, with the utmost acclamations of
joy and reverence, as the king of the Jews. . . .
Plumptre (1860, p. 2528)
. . . Pilate therefore offered the people
their choice between two, the murderer
Barabbas, and the prophet who a few days
before they had hailed as the Messiah. . . .
Page -58-
DOyly (1794, pp. 636-637)
. . . His character seems to have been a
strange mixture of good and evil: the
principles of natural justice and humanity
held a struggle in his mind with those of fear
and self-interest; unfortunately for him, the
latter prevailed, and made, him a partaker of
that guilt which, by his power, he might and
ought to have prevented; and, rather than risk
the displeasure of the Jews--the exciting a
tumult amongst them, or furnishing them with
a plausible ground of complaint against him
to Caesar, he determined to sacrifice a person
of whose innocence be was convinced, but
who, being a stranger of net rank or conse-
quence in the world, he set no account by.
Coleridge (1882, p. 428)
Pilate's character seems to have been a
mixture, not seldom to be met with, of
weakness and cruelty. . . .
Porteus (1829, p. 296)
. . . Pilate thinking it impossible that the
people could carry their malignant rage
against Jesus so far as to desire the pardon of
a murderer rather than of him, said unto them,
"Whom will ye that I release unto you, Bar-
abbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?" . . .
Neander (1848, p. 416)
. . . They clamoured for the pardon of a
murderer rather than of the false prophet (as
they held him) who had deceived their hopes.
Porteus (1829, p. 296)
. . . It was the custom at the great feast of
the passover for the Roman governor to
gratify the Jewish people, by pardoning and
releasing to them any prisoner whom they
chose to select out of those that were
condemned to death. . . .
Dickens (1849, p. 101)
. . . As it was the custom at the feast of
the Passover to give some prisoner his liberty,
Pilate endeavoured to persuade the people to
ask for the release of Jesus. . . .
Porteus (1829, p. 296)
. . . It was the custom at the great feast of
Kitto (1853, pp. 413-414)
. . . It was usual, out of compliment to the
Jews and their Passover, for the Roman
governor to grant a free pardon to any one
prisoner whom the people might name. . .
Page -59-
Porteus (1829, p. 292)
. . . Their next care was how to get this
sentence confirmed and carried into
execution; for under the Roman government
they had not at this time the power of the
sword, the power of life and death; they could
not execute a criminal, though they might try
and condemn him, without a warrant from the
Roman governor; they determined therefore
to carry him before Pilate, the Roman
procurator of Judea at that time. . . .
Kitto (1853, p. 409)
The Sanhedrim had pronounced sentence
of death against Jesus; but the power of life
and death having been taken from them, the
sentence they had given could not be
executed without the sanction of the Roman
governor. . . .
Porteus (1829, p. 296)
. . . Pilate, not yet discouraged, had
recourse to another expedient, which he
hoped might still preserve a plainly guiltless
man. It was the custom at the great feast of
Clark (1855, p. 273)
. . . But, as the excitement and opposition
continued without abatement, Pilate resorted
to another expedient by which he might
formally recognize the validity of the
sentence pronounced by the Sanhedrin, and
yet save the innocent sufferer from death.
against him. . . .
Porteus (1829, p. 298)
Here let us pause a moment, and look
back to the scene we have been contempla-
ting, and the reflections that arise from it.
Krummacher (1859, p. 294)
Let us then rejoice that such is the case,
and indelibly impress upon our memories the
striking features of the scene we have been
contemplating. . . .
Porteus (1829, p. 294)
. . . For this purpose they found it
expedient to change their ground, for they had
condemned him for blasphemy; but this they
knew would have little weight with a pagan
governor, who, like Gallio, would "care for
none of those things" which related solely to
religion. . . .
Andrews (1862, p. 517)
. . . They had condemned Him for
blasphemy, but Pilate would not put Him to
death--probably would not entertain the case
at all; and as they knew not what other crime
to lay to His charge, they present Him as a
malefactor. . . .
Page -60-
Porteus (1829, p. 294)
. . . For this purpose they found it
expedient to change their ground, for they had
condemned him for blasphemy; but this they
knew would have little weight with a pagan
governor, who, like Gallio, would "care for
none of those things" which related solely to
religion. . . .
Stalker (1880, p. 188)
. . . In the Sanhedrim they had
condemned Him for blasphemy; but such a
charge would have been treated by Pilate, as
they well knew, in the same way as it was
afterwards treated by the Roman governor
Gallio, when preferred against Paul by the
Jews of Corinth. . . .
Note also that both have linked this event with the one with Gallio.
Porteus (1829, p. 292)
. . . Their next care was how to get this
sentence confirmed and carried into
execution; for under the Roman government
they had not at this time the power of the
sword, the power of life and death; they could
not execute a criminal, though they might try
and condemn him, without a warrant from the
Roman governor; they determined therefore
to carry him before Pilate, the Roman
procurator of Judea at that time. . . .
Watson (1900, p. 541)
. . . Unto each people was granted the use
of their own religion and their own laws, with
only this condition in the matter of religion--
that they should not interfere with any other;
and this restriction in law--that the power of
life and death should remain with the Roman
official. . . .
Did both Kitto and Watson copy from Porteus? Or, did Kitto copy from Porteus and
Watson copy from Kitto? Or, no one copied at all? This will not be counted in Table 3.
Page -61-
Salvador (1830, pp. 525-528)
But Jesus, in presenting new theories,
and in giving new forms to those already
promulgated, speaks of himself as God; his
disciples repeat it; and the subsequent events
prove in the most satisfactory manner, that
they thus understood him. This was shocking
blasphemy in the eyes of the citizens: the law
commands them to follow Jehovah alone, the
only true God; not to believe in gods of flesh
and bone, resembling men or women; neither
to spare nor listen to a prophet who, even
doing miracles, should proclaim a new god, a
god whom neither they nor their fathers had
known.
. . .
The question already raised among the
people was this: Has Jesus become God? But
the senate having adjudged that Jesus, son of
Joseph, born at Bethlehem, had profaned the
name of God by usurping it to himself, a
mere citizen, applied to him the law of
blasphemy, and the law in the 13th chapter of
Deuteronomy, and the 20th verse in chapter
18, according to which every prophet, even
he who works miracles, must be punished,
when he speaks of a god unknown to the Jews
and their fathers: the capital sentence was
pronounced. . . .
Andrews (1862, p. 515)
. . . A Jewish writer, Salvador, in his
"Histoire des Institutions de Moise,"
commenting upon the trial of Jesus, attempts
to show that He was tried fairly, and
condemned legally. He spoke of Himself,
says this writer, as God, and His disciples
repeated it. This was shocking blasphemy in
the eyes of the citizens. It was this, not His
prophetic claims, which excited the people
against Him. The law permitted them to
acknowledge prophets, but nothing more. In
answer to Caiaphas, He admits that He is the
Son of God, this expression including the
idea of God Himself. "The Sanhedrin
deliberates. The question already raised
among the people was this: Has Jesus become
God? But the senate having adjudged that
Jesus had profaned the name of God by
usurping it to Himself, a mere citizen, applied
to Him the law of blasphemy (Deut. xiii., and
xviii. 20)**, according to which every
prophet, even he who works miracles, must
be punished when he speaks of a God
unknown to the Jews and their fathers; and
the capital sentence was pronounced."
Note that Andrews puts the material (edited from Salvadors work) in quotes and
tells you where it came from. But, he doesnt tell that he also borrowed the previous
material from Salvador.
** Salvador actually had: and the law in the 13th chapter of Deuteronomy, and the
20th verse in chapter 18,. So, in effect Andrews has misinterpreted what Salvador said.
Page -62-
Tholuck (1836, p. 428)
. . . The Jewish scourging, one of the
Synagogue punishments, was more mild than
that of the Roman, in that the former was
never permitted to extend beyond forty
strokes; nor did it deprive any one of civil
honours, and it was even inflicted upon
priests. But the Roman scourging on the
contrary was never applied to a Roman
citizen; it was inflicted upon slaves alone.
The scourge was formed of thongs twisted
together; and sometimes, in order to increase
the severity of the lash, small cubic pieces of
bone were woven into it, [Greek]. . . .
Kitto (1850, p. 415)
. . . The scourging was far more harsh
than that in use among the Jews--which also
inflicted no disgrace--but that of the Romans
was only inflicted upon slaves and foreigners.
The scourge was formed of thongs twisted
together, and in order to increase the severity
of the lash, small pieces of bone were
sometimes woven into it; and the strokes
were so severe as to tear and lacerate the
flesh.
Sadler (1836, p. 358)
Our Lord, being, condemned to death by
the council; was hurried by the chief-priests,
to the palace of Pontius Pilate, the roman
governor; the priests refusing to enter the
residence of a heathen, lest they should be
denied, and rendered unfit for the solemnities
of the Passover. Pilate therefore came out to
them, demanding what accusation they had
against Jesus? . . .
Clough (1880, p. 29)
It was the custom of the procurators to
reside at Jerusalem during the great feasts, to
preserve order; and, accordingly, at the time
of our Lord's last passover, Pilate was
occupying his official residence in Herod's
palace; and to the gates of this palace,
therefore, Jesus, condemned on the charge of
blasphemy, was brought early in the morning
by the chief priests and officers of the
Sanhedrim, who were unable to enter the
residence of a Gentile, lest they should be
defiled and unfit to eat the passover. Pilate,
therefore, came out to learn their purpose and
demanded the nature of the charge. . . .
Sadler (1836, p. 360)
. . . The governor hearing of Galilee, and
understanding He was from thence,
consequently belonging to Herod's
jurisdiction, sent Him to be judged by Herod,
who was then in Jerusalem. . . .
Maas (1890, p. 520)
. . . And Pilate hearing of Galilee, asked,
if the man were a Galilean. And when he had
understood that He belonged to Herod's
jurisdiction, he sent Him away to Herod, who
himself was also at Jerusalem in those days.
Page -63-
Blunt (1837, p. 343)
. . . Behold him as he then was; in the
very depth of his humiliation, the reedy
sceptre of imaginary monarchy, the purple
robe of mockery, the crown of cruelty; and
then remember, that this was all for you, as
much individually for you, if you are among
the number of his believing people, as if no
other soul than yours had needed cleansing,
no other human being but yourself required a
pardon. . . .
Hiffernan (1855, pp. 210-211)
. . . Behold Him arrayed in the purple
robe of mockery, the scepter of derision in
His hand; the blood streaming down His
sacred face from His thorny crown!--apt
emblems all of the avenue to His
kingdom;--buffeted, reviled, spat upon; the
fiercest yells of unprovoked vengeance,
"Crucify him, crucify him," unnaturally
mingled with the scoffs and laughter of cruel
mockings and malicious mirth, "Hail, King of
the Jews!"--and all this repelled but by the
calm dignity of unmoved patience, or the
emotion of tender commiseration. . . .
Note Ellen G. Whites use of the same phrase (1898, p. 736):
. . . He [Pilate] questioned whether it might not be a divine being that stood before
him, clad in the purple robe of mockery, and crowned with thorns.
Blunt (1837, p. 337)
By the first inquiry which Pilate made of
our Lord, "Art thou the King of the Jews?"
one thing is obvious, that all Pilate's fears
were the fears of a politician; he looked at our
Lord as a pretender to the throne; he thought
of the reckoning to which he might himself be
called at Rome if such a man escaped; and his
chief anxiety was to determine this one point.
Weiss (1884, p. 347)
. . . But since the punishment which the
priests had in view was that of death, they
were now compelled to bring forward the
political side of the Messianic kingdom, and
to accuse Jesus of high treason, as a pretender
to the throne (John xviii. 29-31). . . .
Blunt (1837, p. 340)
. . . The fact is, for we see it through
every feature and lineament of Pilate's
character, that he would have been the friend
of Christ if he could have been at no sacrifice
of popularity, or self-interest; he would have
liberated him, for his conscience told him that
he ought to do so, but he feared the people,
and therefore hoped by taking a middle
course, to satisfy his conscience, to please the
people, and to save Jesus. . . .
Smyth (1920, p. 457)
What shall Pilate do with this Jesus
which is called Christ? He wants to stand by
Him. His conscience tells him he ought. But
before his mind's eye is that fierce old
Tiberius, cruel, irritable, suspicious. He is
conscious of the implied threat in that
challenge of the Jews: If thou let this man go
thou art not Caesar's friend. What shall he
do? . . .
Page -64-
Dupin (1839, pp. 55-60)
To the governor (prses) peculiarly
belonged the right of taking cognizance of
capital cases. The procurator, on the contrary,
had, for his principal duty, nothing but the
collection of the revenue, and the trial of
revenue causes. But the right of taking
cognizance of capital cases did, in some
instances, belong to certain procurators, who
were sent into small provinces to fill the
places of governors (vice-prsides), as
appears clearly from the Roman laws. Such
was Pilate at Jerusalem.
The Jews, placed in this political posi-
tion--notwithstanding they were left in the
enjoyment of their civil laws, the public
exercise of their religion, and many things
merely relating to their police and municipal
regulations--the Jews, I say, had not the
power of life and death; this was a principal
attribute of sovereignty: which the Romans
always took great care to reserve to
themselves, even if they neglected other
things. [Latin] TACIT.
. . . [page 58] . . .
But that law, although it had not
undergone any alteration as to the affairs of
religion, had no longer any coercive power as
to the external or civil regulations of society.
In vain would they have undertaken to
pronounce sentence of death under the
circumstances of the case of Jesus; the
council of the Jews had not the power to pass
a sentence of death; it only would have had
power to make an accusation against him
before the governor, or his deputy, and then
deliver him over to be tried by him.
. . . [page 59] . . .
{contd on the next page}
Greenleaf (1847, pp. 518-519)
The great object of exciting the people
against Jesus being thus successfully accom-
plished, the next step was to obtain legal
authority to put him to death. For though the
Sanhedrim had condemned him, they had not
the power to pass a capital sentence; this
being a right which had passed from the Jews
by the conquest of their country, and now
belonged to the Romans alone. They were
merely citizens of a Roman province; they
were left in the enjoyment of their civil laws,
the public exercise of their religion, and many
other things relating to their police and
municipal regulations; but they had not the
power of life and death. This was a principal
attribute of sovereignty, which the Romans
always took care to reserve to them-selves in
order to be able to reach those individuals
who might become impatient of the yoke,
whatever else might be neglected. [Latin] The
jurisdiction of capital cases belonged
ordinarily to the governor general or Prses
of a province, the Procurator having for his
principal duty only the charge of the revenue
and the cognizance of revenue causes. But the
right of taking cognizance of capital crimes
was, in some cases, given to certain
Procurators, who were sent into small
provinces, to fill the places of governors,
(Vice Prsides,) as clearly appears from the
Roman laws. The government of all Syria
was at this time under a governor general, or
Pses; of which Judea was one of the lesser
dependencies, under the charge of Pilate as
Vice Prses, with capital jurisdiction.
Page -65-
No; the Jews had not reserved the right
of passing sentence of death. This right had
been transferred to the Romans by the very
act of conquest; and this was not merely that
the senate should not have the means of
reaching persons who were sold to foreign
countries; but it was done, in order that the
conqueror might be able to reach those
individuals who should become impatient of
the yoke; it was, in short, for the equal
protection of all, as all had become Roman
subjects; and to Rome alone belonged the
highest judicial power, which is the principal
attribute of sovereignty. . . .
Dupin (1839, p. 82)
There was among the Romans a custom,
which we borrowed from their jurisprudence,
and which is still followed, of placing over
the head of a condemned criminal a writing
containing an extract front his sentence, in
order that the public might know for what
crime he was condemned.
Greenleaf (1847, pp. 521-522)
. . . That Jesus was executed under the
pretence of treason, and that alone, is mani-
fest from the tenor of the writing placed over
his head, stating that he was king of the Jews;
such being the invariable custom among the
Romans, in order that the public might know
for what crime the party had been
condemned. The remaining act in this tragedy
is sufficiently known.
Olshausen (1839, pp. 144-145)
Now Pilate led Jesus quickly forward,
placed himself upon the judgment seat, and
after he had called out, Behold your King,
less probably in order to raise compassion,
than to deride the people, who so cruelly
compelled him to act against his conscience,
he pronounced the sentence, and gave the
Saviour up to them for crucifixion.
Kitto (1852, p. 417)
. . . Once more he ascended the
judgment-seat, and caused Jesus to be again
brought forth from the palace. "Behold your
king!" he cried as Jesus appeared. Again the
cry to crucify Him arose. "Shall I crucify your
king?" asked Pilate, with bitter sarcasm, of
those who were driving him to act against his
conscience. . . .
Page -66-
Olshausen (1839, p. 125)
. . . As terrible as this kind of punishment
is, it yet does not destroy or dismember the
bodily organization, like stoning and other
capital punishments. The Divine Wisdom
permitted that the Son of God should die in
this way, in order to save his holy body from
mutilation.
Johnson (1873, p. 151)
. . . Olshausen: "Dreadful as was this
mode of execution, yet it destroyed not the
bodily organization, nor altered it like stoning
and other death punishments. Hence divine
wisdom allowed that the Son of God should
be perfected even in this way, in order to
preserve his sacred body from any species of
mutilation." It also seems to have been
necessary, in order to our salvation, that Jesus
should die the most hitter and ignominious
death.
The differences in the quote between the two could be due to translation. Note that
all the credit Johnson felt Olshausen deserved for the two complete sentences was his
name and the quote marks--no book title, no place of publication, no publisher, no date,
no page.
Olshausen (1839, p. 124)
. . . It has already been remarked, that
Josephus and the Rabbins unanimously
declare, that the Jews, forty years before the
destruction of Jerusalem, were deprived of
the power of inflicting capital punishment. . .
.
Chase (1876, p. 83)
II. But the Jews, having their purpose in
view, refuse this offer. They insist, that as the
Romans had deprived them of the power of
inflicting capital punishment, so Pilate should
in this case put in exercise his own power for
them. . . .
Milman (1840, pp. 340-341)
. . . The life of one man, however
blameless, was not for an instant to be
considered, when his own advancement, his
personal safety, were in peril: his sterner
nature resumed the ascendant; he mounted the
tribunal, which was erected on a tessellated
pavement near the Prtorium, and passed the
solemn, the irrevocable sentence. . . .
Plumptre (1860, p. 2528)
. . . To receive their decision he ascended
the ([Greek], a portable tribunal which was
carried about with a Roman magistrate to be
placed wherever he might direct, and which
in the present case was erected on a
tessellated pavement [Greek] in front of the
palace, and called in Hebrew Gabbatha,
probably from being laid down on a slight
elevation ([Heb.], "to be high"). . . .
Clough (1885, p. 32) and MClintock (1889, p. 201) use the same phrase.
Page -67-
Milman (1840, pp. 334-335)
. . . This incidental mention of Galilee,
made perhaps with an invidious design of
awakening in the mind of the governor the
remembrance of the turbulent character of
that people, suggested to Pilate a course by
which he might rid himself of the
embarrassment and responsibility of this
strange transaction. . . .
Chase (1876, p. 93)
. . . This was to deliver back Christ to His
infuriated enemies; but Pilate cared not, so
that he might rid himself of the matter. The
same kind of thing now appears. For "when
Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the
man were a Galilan. And as soon as he
knew that He belonged unto Herod's
jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod, who
himself also was at Jerusalem at that time."--
(Luke xxiii. 6, 7.)
Milman (1840, p. 334)
. . . He abruptly left Jesus, and went out
again to the Jewish deputation at the gate
(now perhaps increased by a greater number
of the Sanhedrin), and declared his conviction
of the innocence of Jesus.
Deems (1868, p. 657)
. . . Taking Jesus, thorn-crowned,
covered about with the old robe that
burlesqued royalty, faint, worn, haggard, as
he must have been after the night and
morning of agony and torture, he placed the
prisoner once more before the people,
reasserting his conviction of the innocence of
Jesus. . . .
Milman (1840, p. 336)
. . . There was a custom, that in honor of
the great festival, the Passover, a prisoner
should be set at liberty at the request of the
people. The multitude had already become
clamorous for their annual privilege. . . .
. . . He would rather grant our Lord's
release at the request of the people than on his
own responsibility. And he was not at all
loath to try to set the people against the
priests, whose jealousy against our Lord was
founded on the fact of His great popularity. . .
.
Milman (1840, p. 336)
The refusal of Herod to take cognizance
of the charge renewed the embarrassment of
Pilate; but a way yet seemed open to extricate
himself from his difficulty. There was a
custom, that in honor of the great festival, the
Passover, a prisoner should be set at liberty at
the request of the people. The multitude had
already become clamorous for their annual
privilege. . . .
Simpson (1888, p. 276)
. . . Pilate next attempts another device to
save his conscience, and his prisoner. It was
customary at the great feasts to show the
royal clemency of the Roman conquerors, by
releasing a prominent criminal at the request
of the people. Pilate resolves to take
advantage of this. . . .
Page -68-
Rutter (1844, p. 433)
. . . But Herod with his guard despised
him," judging from his silence, that he was
unable to answer for himself: and to show
that the idea which he formed of his royalty
was more the subject of laughter than of any
serious apprehension, "he with scorn clothed
him in a white garment, and sent him back to
Pilate," the people deriding and hooting at
him as he passed along, according to that of
the thirty-first Psalm, verse 8, "All they that
saw me have laughed me to scorn: they have
spoken with the lips, and wagged the head. . .
.
Ligny (1846, p. 519)
. . . Vexation at seeing his curiosity foiled
made him add derision and insult to
contempt. "Putting on him a white garment,
he sent him back to Pilate" in this apparel,
indicative of a fool, or a visionary, or perhaps
a theatrical king. . . .
Since the underlined material in both books is in quotes it wont be counted in Table
3. However, the question then is, who are they quoting? Neither author tells us.
Rutter (1844, pp. 433-434)
"Now upon the solemn day" of the
Passover, "the governor was accustomed, and
was obliged to set at liberty one prisoner,
whom they should desire to have," in memory
of their being delivered on that day from the
slavery of Egypt, and the sword of the
destroying angel: "and he had then a
notorious prisoner that was called Barabbas, a
robber, who was put in prison with some
seditious men, who in the sedition had
committed murder. . . .
Ligny (1846, p. 521)
. . . This custom had been added to
ceremonies which the law prescribed, in order
to celebrate the deliverance from the captivity
of Egypt, and from the sword of the
destroying angel. . . .
Rutter (1844, p. 462)
Pilate, however, under this agitation and
perplexity of mind, went so far as to make
one more effort to save the life of Jesus,
which yet proved equally unsuccessful with
the former. . . .
Clark (1855, p. 273)
Pilate, though a pagan, made one more
effort to save the life of Jesus. As a last resort,
with the hope of appeasing the rage of the
infuriated mob, he ordered Christ to be
scourged. . . .
Page -69-
Rutter (1844, p. 463)
. . . However, his repeated endeavors to
rescue Jesus were not entirely useless; for
though they did not serve to exculpate Pilate
in the sight of God, they evinced at least the
innocence of Jesus, and placed it in so clear a
light, that even his subsequent condemnation
rendered it the more conspicuous. . . .
. . . One might have expected after all
that had passed, by which the innocence of
Jesus was placed in so clear a light, that his
mediating proposition would have been
responded to. . . .
Rutter (1844, p. 462)
Pilate, however, under this agitation and
perplexity of mind, went so far as to make
one more effort to save the life of Jesus,
which yet proved equally unsuccessful with
the former. . . .
Geikie (1868, p. 518)
Pilate had, apparently, retired into the
palace for a time, but now re-appeared; urged,
perhaps, by his wife Procla, to make one
more effort to save Jesus. . . .
Did Geikie get his wording from Rutter, Clark or neither?
Beard (1846, p. 546)
That the conduct of Pilate was, however,
highly criminal, cannot be denied. But his
guilt was light in comparison of the criminal
depravity of the Jews, especially the priests.
His was the guilt of weakness and fear, theirs
the guilt of settled and deliberate malice. His
state of mind prompted him to attempt the
release of an accused person in opposition to
the clamours of a misguided mob; theirs
urged them to compass the ruin of an
acquitted person by instigating the populace,
calumniating the prisoner, and terrifying the
judge. . . .
. . . On the whole, then, viewing the
entire conduct of Pilate, his previous
iniquities as well as his bearing on the
condemnation of Jesus; viewing his own
actual position and the malignity of the Jews;
we cannot, we confess, give our vote with
those who have passed the severest
condemnation on this weak and guilty
governor.
Clough (1880, p. 38)
. . . That the conduct of Pilate was highly
criminal can not be denied. But his guilt was
light in comparison with the atrocious
His was the guilt of weakness and fear; theirs
was the guilt of settled and deliberate malice.
His state of mind prompted him to attempt the
release of an accused person in opposition to
the clamors of a misguided mob; theirs urged
them to compass the ruin of an acquitted
person by instigating the populace,
calumniating the prisoner and terrifying the
judge. Viewing the entire conduct of Pilate,
his previous iniquities as well as his bearing
on the condemnation of Jesus, viewing his
own actual position and the malignity of the
Jews, we can not give our vote with those
who have passed the severest condemnation
on this weak and guilty governor.
Clough identifies the source simply as and others at the end of this section of the
chapter.
Page -70-
Beard (1846, p. 546)
That the conduct of Pilate was, however,
highly criminal, cannot be denied. But his
guilt was light in comparison of the criminal
the guilt of settled and deliberate malice.
Crabtre, (1883, p. 501)
"That the conduct of Pilate was highly
criminal, cannot be denied. But his guilt was
light (John 19:11) in comparison! of the
criminal depravity of the Jews, especially the
priests. His was the guilt of weakness and
fear, theirs the guilt of settled and deliberate
malice."--Kitto.
Notice that Crabtre puts the quote (with some modifications) in quotes and names
Kitto as the source (Beard wrote the article on Pilate in Kittos Cyclopedia), but with no
book title, no page, no date, etc..
Ligny (1846, p. 513)
. . . The priests could only, according to
the law, condemn Jesus to be stoned, and they
wished him to be crucified; the hatred which
they bore him could only be satiated by the
most infamous and the most painful of all
punishments. . . .
Jones (1865, p. 377)
They were going far beyond their own
law, which ordered stoning to death, as the
severest punishment for the greatest crime
known among them, namely, blasphemy: but
this did not satisfy them now. They demanded
the most cruel and the most painful of all
Roman punishments, one exciting such horror
among the Romans themselves, that Cicero
says of it, [Latin] it should be banished from
eyes and ears, and even from the very
thoughts of men:--so ignominious also, that it
was inflicted, as the last mark of detestation,
on the vilest of people,--was the punishment
of robbers and murderers, provided that they
were slaves; but it was thought too infamous
a punishment for freemen, let their crimes be
what they might.
Ligny (1846, p. 512)
The Romans had deprived them of the
right of so doing, and by this avowal of the
fact they acknowledged that the sceptre, in
whatever way it be understood, had at last
passed away from the house of Juda. . . .
Chase (1876, p. 83)
II. But the Jews, having their purpose in
view, refuse this offer. They insist, that as the
Romans had deprived them of the power of
inflicting capital punishment, so Pilate should
in this case put in exercise his own power for
them. . . .
Page -71-
Ligny (1846, p. 518)
The murderer of Saint John the Baptist
might easily become the murderer of Jesus;
and he who had sacrificed a prophet to the
resentment of a woman, was but too capable
of immolating another to the hatred of the
chief men of the nation. . . .
Didon (1891, p. 339)
. . . In the presence of the murderer of
John the Baptist he remained silent. . . .
The similarity isnt close enough to warrant inclusion in Table 3.
Neander (1848, p. 415)
. . . This was, at the same time, a
summons to the conscience of Pilate himself.
But the procurator--a type of the educated
Roman world, especially of its higher classes,
lost in worldly-mindedness, and conscious of
no higher wants than those of this life--had no
such sense for truth. "What is truth?" was his
mocking question. "Truth is an empty name,"
he meant to say.
286. Jesus sent to Herod.
Pilate now looked upon Jesus simply as a
religious enthusiast, innocent of all political
crimes, and told the deputies that he "could
find no fault in him at all." They then replied
(Luke, xxiii., 5) that his teaching had stirred
up the people every where, from Galilee to
Jerusalem. As soon as Pilate heard that Jesus
was of Galilee, it occurred to him to lay the
case before Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee
and Judea, who had just then come to the
feast at Jerusalem.
Kitto (1850, p. 412)
. . . There was here a sort of appeal to the
conscience of Pilate himself, but there was no
response from within. The procurator, a type
of the educated Roman world, especially of
its higher classes, lost in worldly-mindedness,
and conscious of no higher wants than those
of this life, had no such sense for truth. "What
is truth?" was his mocking question. "Truth is
but an empty name," he meant to say.*
He then went out, confirmed in his first
impression that Jesus was simply a well-
meaning religious enthusiast, innocent of any
political offence; and accordingly he declared
to his accusers that he could "find no fault in
Him at all." A ferocious growl was the
response; and they told him that this man had
set the whole country in an uproar, from
Judea even unto Galilee.
[*At this point, Kitto has a footnote which simply says Neander. Kitto did not
quotation-mark Neanders words, neither in this paragraph or in the material that
follows, nor is there any other reference to Neander.
Only the 66 words (not counting the words from Scripture) after the footnote are
counted for Table 3.]
Note that some of the similar words echo Scripture: John 18:38: Pilate saith unto
him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and
saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
Page -72-
Neander (1848, p. 415)
Herod had for long wished to see Jesus.
The fame of the miracles inspired him with
curiosity to see what Christ could do. But it
was no part of the Saviour's calling to satisfy
an idle curiosity. To describe his doctrine
fully to a man so utterly worldly, would have
been, in his own language, to "cast pearls
before swine." He, therefore, answered none
of Herod's questions. The disappointed king,
having arrayed the Saviour, in mockery, in a
gorgeous purple robe, and exposed him to the
cruel sport and derision of the soldiers, sent
him back to the procurator. Doubtless the
latter was confirmed in his own views by the
word which Herod sent him.
Kitto (1850, p. 412)
We know that the Tetrarch had long
desired to see Him, in the hope of witnessing
the performance of some wonder by one so
renowned for his miracles. But it was no part
of our Lord's calling to gratify an idle
curiosity; nor could any object be gained by
declaring his doctrine to one so utterly
worldly. He therefore performed no miracle,
and was silent to all the questions put to Him.
Herod was acute enough to see, however, that
Jesus was not really open to any capital
charge, and after the odium he had incurred
on account of John the Baptist, he was not
willing to add the death of Jesus to the
number of his crimes. Yet being exasperated
at the dignified passiveness of Jesus, he
caused Him to be arrayed in a gorgeous
purple robe (doubtless one of his own) in
derision of his Messianic dignity, and having
abandoned Him to the brutal mockeries of his
soldiers, sent Him back to Pilate.
Note: Part of the parallel above is a quotation from Luke 23:11 And Herod with his
men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and
sent him again to Pilate.
White (1898, p. 730), has a very slight parallel both Neander and Kitto, above:
The mission of Christ in this world was not to gratify idle curiosity. He came to heal
the brokenhearted. Could He have spoken any word to heal the bruises of sin-sick souls,
He would not have kept silent. But He had no words for those who would but trample the
truth under their unholy feet.
Page -73-
Neander (1848, pp. 415-416)
. . . So he who but a moment before had
mockingly asked Christ, "What is truth?"
went now, in a sudden access of superstitious
fear, and inquired, "Whence art thou?" As the
question was prompted by superstition and
curiosity, and as the questioner was incapable
of apprehending Jesus as the Son of God in
the only sense in which he wished to be
acknowledged as such, the Saviour made no
reply. . . .
Plumptre (1860, p. 2529)
. . . But this title [Greek] augmented
Pilate's superstitious fears, already aroused by
his wife's dream [Greek], John xiv. 7); he
feared that Jesus might be one of the heroes
or demigods of his own mythology; he took
Him again into the palace, and inquired
anxiously into his descent ("Whence art
thou?") and his claims, but, as the question
was only prompted by fear or curiosity, Jesus
made no reply. . . .
Neander (1848, p. 415)
such sense for truth.
Plumptre (1860, p. 2530)
The character of Pilate may be
sufficiently inferred from the sketch given
above of his conduct at our Lord's trial. He
was a type of the rich and corrupt Romans of
his age; a worldly-minded statesman,
conscious of no higher wants than those of
this life, yet by no means unmoved by
feelings of justice and mercy.
Neander (1848, p. 415)
such sense for truth. "What is truth?" was his
mocking question. "Truth is an empty name,"
he meant to say.
MClintock (1867, p. 202)
. . . He was a type of the rich and corrupt
Romans of his age; a worldly-minded
statesman, conscious of no higher wants than
those of this life yet by no means unmoved by
feelings of justice and mercy. . . .
Page -74-
Neander (1848, pp. 415-416)
The transition is easy from infidelity,
springing from worldliness and frivolity, to
sudden emotions of superstition. So he who
but a moment before had mockingly asked
Christ, "What is truth?" went now, in a sud-
den access of superstitious fear, and inquired,
"Whence art thou?" As the question was
prompted by superstition and curiosity, and
as the questioner was incapable of apprehend-
ing Jesus as the Son of God in the only sense
in which he wished to be acknowledged as
such, the Saviour made no reply. . . .
But this title [Greek] augmented Pilate's
superstitious fears already aroused by his
wife's dream ([Greek], John xix. 7); he feared
that Jesus might be one of the heroes or
demigods of his own mythology; he took him
again into the palace, and inquired anxiously
into his descent (Whence art thou?") and his
claims, but, as the question was only
prompted by fear or curiosity, Jesus made no
reply.
Neander (1848, p. 415)
. . . The disappointed king, having
arrayed the Saviour, in mockery, in a
him back to the procurator. . . .
Geikie (1868, p. 510)
. . . Having, therefore, put a white
robe--the Jewish royal colour--on Jesus, as if
to show his contempt for such a king, he sent
Him back to the procurator.
Neander (1848, p. 415)
. . . The disappointed king, having
arrayed the Saviour, in mockery, in a
him back to the procurator. . . .
Farrar (1870, vol. 2, p. 373)
. . . Mocking His innocence and His
misery in a festal and shining robe, the empty
and wicked prince sent Him back to the
Procurator, to whom he now became half-
reconciled after a long-standing enmity. . . .
Neander (1848, p. 412)
It must be borne in mind that at that time
the Sanhedrim had only subordinate authority
to assign penalties for violations of the
religious law; it could not lawfully pronounce
sentence of death without the authority of the
Roman governor. . . .
Bickersteth (1880, p. 303)
. . . "It is not lawful for us," they say
(John xviii. 31) "to put any man to death;"
that is to say, they could not put to death
without the authority of the governor. . . .
Page -75-
Neander (1848, p. 415)
. . . But the procurator--a type of the
educated Roman world, especially of its
higher classes, lost in worldly-mindedness,
of this life--had no such sense for truth. . . .
Clough (1880, p. 37)
. . . He was a type of the rich and corrupt
Romans of his age; a worldly-minded
statesman, conscious of no higher wants than
those of this life, yet by no means unmoved
by feelings of justice and mercy. . . .
Given the example on the previous page, from whom did Clough get his words:
Neander or Plumptre?
Neander (1848, p. 415)
Herod had for long wished to see Jesus.
The fame of the miracles inspired him with
curiosity to see what Christ could do. But it
was no part of the Saviour's calling to satisfy
an idle curiosity. . . .
Besides, Herod had long wished to see
Jesus, of Whom he had heard so many things.
(St. Luke ix. 7-9).
[Note: This parallel was also used
above with Taylor, showing the ambiguity
of Edersheims source.]
Furness (1850, p. 253)
. . . Calling to them to look at the man,
while he affirmed that he found no fault in
him, he trusted either that their hearts would
be softened at the sight, or that they would be
shamed out of the folly of regarding such a
person as dangerous.
Angus (1853, p. 258)
. . . Pilate questioned Him, and affirmed
that he found no fault in Him. . . .
Furness (1850, p. 249)
Pilate was by no means devoid of
humanity, but he was evidently a weak man. .
. .
Elliott (1908, p. 677)
. . . Meantime, though he had while gov-
ernor caused several bloody massacres, it was
for real or fancied reasons of state; there is no
evidence to show that this miserable man was
naturally blood-thirsty, and his dealing with
the case of Jesus shows that he was by no
means devoid of a sense of justice. . . .
The literary similarity isnt great enough to conclude that the phrase was copied.
Page -76-
Kitto (1850, pp. 412-413)
He then went out, confirmed in his first
impression that Jesus was simply a
well-meaning religious enthusiast, innocent
of any political offence; and accordingly he
declared to his accusers that he could "find no
fault in Him at all." A ferocious growl was
the response; and they told him that this man
had set the whole country in an uproar, from
Judea even unto Galilee. As they expected,
Pilate caught at the name of Galilee, which
had lately supplied more than one dangerous
demagogue, and having ascertained that He
belonged to the territory of Herod, he
concluded to get rid of this troublesome affair
by sending the accused to the Tetrarch, whose
immediate subject He was, and whom he
might suppose better qualified than himself to
judge in this case; nor did it escape him that
he would be thus enabled to show a gratifying
mark of attention to Herod, with whom he
had lately been on ill terms. Jesus was
accordingly sent to Herod, who had come to
Jerusalem at the Passover. We know that the
Tetrarch had long desired to see Him, in the
hope of witnessing the performance of some
wonder by one so renowned for his miracles.
But it was no part of our Lord's calling to
gratify an idle curiosity; nor could any object
be gained by declaring his doctrine to one so
utterly worldly. He therefore performed no
miracle, and was silent to all the questions
put to Him. Herod was acute enough to see,
however, that Jesus was not really open to
any capital charge, and after the odium he had
incurred on account of John the Baptist, he
was not willing to add the death of Jesus to
the number of his crimes. Yet being
exasperated at the dignified passiveness of
Jesus, he caused Him to be arrayed in a
gorgeous purple robe (doubtless one of his
own) in derision of his Messianic dignity, and
{contd below}
Nevin (1868, pp. 651-652)
As Pilate, under the impression that Jesus
was simply a well-meaning religious
enthusiast, innocent of any political offence,
had declared to His accusers that he could
find no fault in Him, a ferocious growl was
the response from them. Were the more
fiercegrew more desperate, more violent,
more urgent. Since now they see that their
last charge of the assumption of royal dignity
finds no acceptance with the judge, they
come with so much the stronger emphasis
back to the firstnamely, that He is
perverting the people; and told Pilate that this
man had set the whole country in an uproar
from Judea even unto Galilee.
. . .
As they expected, Pilate caught at the
name of Galilee, which had lately supplied
more than one dangerous demagogue; and
having ascertained that Jesus belonged to the
territory of Herod, see ch. iii. 1, he concluded
to get rid of this troublesome affair by
sending the accused to the tetrarch, whose
immediate subject He was, and whom he
might suppose better qualified than himself to
judge in this case; nor did it escape him that
he would be thus enabled to show a gratifying
mark of attention to Herod, with whom he
had lately been on ill terms. Jesus was
accordingly sent to Herod, who had come to
Jerusalem at the Passovera practice by
which he was accustomed to conciliate the
Jews. Sent, rather transferredthe regular
practice of the Roman law, though they had
the right of trying all offences within their
own provinces. How many Christians are
there who, like Pilate, make Christ
subservient to their temporal affairs and
designs!
Page -77-
having abandoned Him to the brutal
mockeries of his soldiers, sent Him back to
Pilate.
Pilate was distressed to find the case turned
back upon his hands; and his perplexity was
increased by his having meanwhile received a
message from his wife, begging him to have
nothing to do with "that just person," for she
had in the night suffered much in a dream
concerning Him. . . .
. . .
Exceeding glad . . . . desirous to see . . . .
heard many things, &c. The expressions in
this verse are very remarkable. They bring
before us the fearful history of Herod's sins,
and throw light on the power of conscience.
Herod had not forgotten John the Baptist and
his testimony. Moreover, he had probably
heard much about our Lord from his steward
Chuza, whose wife Joanna was one of our
Lord's disciples. Luke viii. 3. He had long
desired to see Him, in the hope of witnessing
the performance of some wonder by one so
renowned for His miracles. Many of the
world {page 652} learn the truths of
Christianity with a joy arising only from
curiosity, and not from any desire of being
instructed in them, and of putting them in
practice.
. . .
In many words. It was an extended
examination, conducted probably before the
tetrarch's courtiers, with many a
cross-question and device to draw out the
wonder-worker. Answered him nothing. It
was no part of our Lord's calling to gratify an
idle curiosity, nor could any object be gained
by declaring His doctrine to one so utterly
A respectful silence is an instruction for
some, and a refuge against others. That
person says a great deal who speaks by his
modesty, humility, and patience.
. . .
The chief priests and Scribes. It is clear
that these bitter enemies of our Lord followed
Him from place to place, and from court to
{contd below}
Page -78-
court, with their accusations. Vehemently
amused him. They saw very well that their
interest required them to paint Him to Herod
in colors as black as was any way possible,
and accuse Him; therefore, they did so, with
visible emphasis, (comp. Acts xviii. 28,) as if
they feared that even Herod himself, per-
chance, might be too equitable with their
victim, seizing, as it would seem, the fav-
orable moment when the chagrin of Herod
disposed him to listen. An affected modera-
tion would have rendered those accusers less
suspected, their accusations more probable,
and their envy less visible, than this vehem-
ence; but envy seldom or never consults
prudence.
. . .
Herod was acute enough to see that Jesus
was not really open to any capital charge, and
after the odium he had incurred on account of
John the Baptist, he was not willing to add
the death of Jesus to the number of his
crimes. Yet, being exasperated at the
dignified passiveness of Jesus, he, with his
guards, treated Him as though He was
nobody, a nothing, then scoffed at Him, then
purple robe, (doubtless one of his own, and
probably the same robe which was afterwards
used by the soldiers of Pilate,) in derision of
His Messianic dignity, then, not wishing to be
outdone in a complimentary act by Pilate, he
waived his claim of jurisdiction over Jesus,
and sent Him back to the Roman governor, at
whose tribunal He had first been arraigned.
. . .
Pilate was doubtless embarrassed to find
the case turned back upon his hands.
Page -79-
Weld (1850, p. 227)
Then came Jesus forth, wearing the
crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And
Pilate said unto them, "Behold the man!" See
the crown of thorns--the visage marred more
than any man's--the back ploughed with long
furrows--the strength spent with scourgings
and bitter sufferings--the spirit faint with
agony--the whole aspect that of meek,
forgiving endurance. Look upon the person
whom you charge with perversion of the
people--with resistance against Csar--with a
design to lead a rebellion against a throne
which all the world acknowledges. See in him
the living example and teacher of a religion
which commands its followers, when one
cheek is smitten to turn the other--to render
good for evil, blessing for cursing, prayer for
despiteful usage. Behold the man who has
endured blows; and scourging and
contempt--whom your servants have spit
upon, and my soldiers have derided, and who,
under all this did not strive or cry. BEHOLD
THE MAN!
[Note in Hovey the simple reference to
Westcott (came from Cook, 1880, p. 269)
and Meyer as the source for the quotes.]
Hovey (1885, p. 371)
5. Then came Jesus forth, wearing the
crown of thorns, and the purple robe. At the
call of Pilate, Jesus came out of the castle into
the open court before the people. No
ignominy was too great for him to bear. The
crown of thorns and the purple garment
testified plainly of the mockery to which he
had been subjected Were there any that
beheld him with reverence and love? We may
presume that "the disciple whom Jesus loved"
was within sight of his Master. But how many
others were there, whose love to the Christ
was true and steadfast, we cannot even
conjecture. Nor is it possible for any one to
say, that, if there were any true hearts in that
agitated throng, they were comforted or
moved by a glance of recognition from the
patient sufferer. But, as Jesus appeared, with
the badges of mock royalty upon him, and
signs of terrible suffering in his countenance
and bearing, Pilate saith unto them, Behold
the man! Behold, is not a verb, but an
interjection--Ecce Homo! Lo, the man! The
man, whom you have asked me to crucify; the
man, scourged, mocked, abused, yet gentle,
silent, enduring! Lo, there he stands, an
object of pity, rather than of fear." "These
words of half-contemptuous pity were
designed to change the fierceness of the
spectators into compassion."-- Westcott. "A
man who allows himself to be treated thus,
is surely a harmless fanatic, whom there is no
reason for killing."--Meyer. "See this man
who submits to and has suffered these
indignities--how can he ever stir up the
people, or set himself up for king? . . .
Page -80-
Robertson (1852, p. XX)
2d. Falseness to his own convictions.
Pilate had a conviction that Jesus was
innocent. Instead of acting at once on that, he
went and parleyed. He argued and debated till
the practical force of the conviction was
unsettled.
Hanna (1863, p. 700)
1. He was false to his own convictions;
he was satisfied that Christ was innocent.
Instead of acting at once and decidedly upon
that conviction, he dallied and he parleyed
with it; sought to find some way by which he
might get rid of that clear and imperative duty
which it laid upon him; and by so doing he
weakened and unsettled this conviction, and
prepared for its being overborne.
Angus (1853, p. 258)
. . . But hearing that He had been in
Galilee, under Herod's jurisdiction, and that
Herod was then in Jerusalem, he sent Him to
that king-an act of courtesy against Christ,
which healed old feuds and made the two
governors friends.
Adams (1878, p. 322)
. . . But, meanwhile, recollecting that He
had been spoken of as a Galilean--which
Province was under Herod's jurisdiction, and
He was then in Jerusalem, hoping to escape
the responsibility of either releasing or
condemning Him--he sent Him to Herod, who
had long wished to see Him, and hoped to
witness some miracle done by Him; the Chief
Priests and Scribes went also, and violently
accused Him. . . .
Angus (1853, p. 258)
. . . But hearing that He had been in
Galilee, under Herod's jurisdiction, and that
Herod was then in Jerusalem, he sent Him to
that king--an act of courtesy against Christ,
which healed old feuds and made the two
governors friends.
Lorimer (1892, p. 296)
. . . Hearing that he was a Galilean, and
that Herod, who ruled in that province, was in
Jerusalem, he handed Him over to his
jurisdiction. . . .
Kitto (1853, pp. 413-414)
prisoner whom the people might name. . . .
Clark (1855, p. 272)
against him. . . .
Page -81-
Kitto (1853, p. 410)
. . . There was, however, an elevated
tessellated pavement in front of the palace,
where the governor often set his judgment-
seat when such cases occurred. . . .
Plumptre (1860, p. 2528)
the [Greek], a portable tribunal which was
Kitto (1853, p. 410)
. . . The procurator, a type of the
educated Roman world, especially of its
higher classes, lost in worldly-mindedness,
of this life, had no such sense for truth. "What
is truth?" was his mocking question. . . .
Plumptre (1860, p. 2530)
The character of Pilate may be
sufficiently inferred from the sketch given
above of his conduct at our Lord's trial. He
was a type of the rich and corrupt Romans of
his age; a worldly-minded statesman,
conscious of no higher wants than those of
this life, yet by no means unmoved by
feelings of justice and mercy. . . .
Kitto (1853, p. 410)
. . . There was, however, an elevated
where the governor often set his
judgment-seat when such cases occurred. . . .
Deems (1868, p. 659)
Jesus was brought forth and placed in the
judgment-seat, in what was called the
Pavement, from the tessellated pavement in
front of the judge, and in Hebrew Gabbatha,
the etymology of which is not quite clear. . . .
Kitto (1853, pp. 412-413)
. . . Convinced, however, that it could
have no really solid foundation, he went into
the interior judgment-hall, and calling Jesus
thither, plainly asked Him the question, "Art
thou the King of the Jews." . . .
. . . Jesus was accordingly sent to Herod,
who had come to Jerusalem at the Passover. .
. .
Deems (1868, pp. 658, 651)
What definite idea this last phrase
conveyed to the mind of pagan Pilate we
cannot tell, but the whole statement made his
soul afraid. He was growing weaker and more
superstitious. He went back into the
judgment-hall and sent for Jesus and said to
him: "Whence are you?" . . .
Now the Galilan king had come up to
Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover. . . .
Page -82-
Kitto (1853, p. 412)
. . . Pilate replied with some heat, but
plainly enough, that he was not a Jew, and
could not enter into Jewish questions; and
having thus avowed that he looked merely to
the political side of the question, our Lord
admitted that He had a kingdom, but declared
that it was one not of this world. . . .
Geikie (1868, p. 506)
. . . He had thrice claimed a Kingdom,
and thrice told Pilate that it was not of this
world.
Kitto (1853, p. 410)
. . . They could not enter the house of the
heathen governor, lest they should be defiled,
and thereby rendered unfit for the further
celebration of the Passover. There was,
however, an elevated tessellated pavement in
front of the palace, where the governor often
set his judgment-seat when such cases
occurred. . . .
Ware (1868, pp. 235-236)
. . . Jesus was led into the presence of
Pilate; but his accusers remained without; for
they could not enter the house of a Gentile
without danger of contracting a pollution
which would unfit them for participating in
the festival. They could do a great injustice,
but they would not endure a small defilement.
So much stronger was their superstition than
their principle. Accordingly they remained at
the tribunal in front of the palace. . . .
Kitto (1853, p. 413)
. . . As they expected, Pilate caught at the
more than one dangerous demagogue, and
having ascertained that He belonged to the
territory of Herod, he concluded to get rid of
this troublesome affair by sending the
accused to the Tetrarch, whose immediate
subject He was, and whom he might suppose
better qualified than himself to judge in this
case; nor did it escape him that he would be
thus enabled to show a gratifying mark of
attention to Herod, with whom he had lately
been on ill terms. . . .
Farrar (1870, vol. 2, p. 371)
Amid these confused and passionate
exclamations the practised ear of Pilate
caught the name of "Galilee," and he
understood that Galilee had been the chief
scene of the ministry of Jesus. . . .
Kitto (1853, p. 409)
The Sanhedrim had pronounced sentence
of death against Jesus; but the power of life
and death having been taken from them, the
sentence they had given could not be
executed without the sanction of the Roman
governor. . . .
J. Abbott (1872, p. 127)
The morning had now dawned. The chief
priests and elders took counsel how they
might put Jesus to death. This could not be
done without the consent of the Roman
governor. . . .
Page -83-
Kitto (1853, p. 410)
The usual abode of the Roman governor
was at Csarea Palstina, but he usually
came over to Jerusalem at the time of the
Passover, with a large body of soldiers to
keep the multitude in awe at that season. . . .
Clodd (1880, pp. 161-162)
. . . So he was marched to the
"prtorium," the famous palace of Herod, a
gloomy building without, but all gaiety and
luxury within, and now occupied by the
Roman procurator, Pontius Pilate, who,
according to his duty, had come from his
favourite seat, Csarea, with a body of
soldiers to maintain order and suppress any
tumults that might arise among the excited
Jews during the great feast.
Kitto (1853, p. 410)
Arrived here, the Sanhedrists found
another difficulty. They could not enter the
house of the heathen governor, lest they
should be defiled, and thereby rendered unfit
for the further celebration of the Passover.
There was, however, an elevated tessellated
pavement in front of the palace, where the
governor often set his judgment-seat when
such cases occurred. . . .
Clough (1880, pp. 32-33)
Pilate, therefore, offered the people their
choice between two, the murderer Barabbas
and the prophet, whom a few days before
they had hailed as the Messiah. To receive
their decision, he ascended the bema, a
portable tribunal which was carried about
with a Roman magistrate, to be placed
wherever he might direct, and which in the
present instance was erected on a tessellated
pavement in front of the palace, and called in
Hebrew Gabbatha, probably from being laid
down on a slight elevation. . . .
Note that Clough actually borrowed virtually the entire paragraph from Plumptre
(see page 85).
Kitto (1853, p. 416)
. . . This silence, however, annoyed the
Roman, who endeavored to elicit an answer
for our Lord by reminding Him of his power
over Him. . . .
Weiss, (1889, p. 358)
. . . Pilate seemed to resent this silence,
and endeavoured to alarm Jesus by reminding
Him of his power over life and death. . . .
Page -84-
Kitto (1853, p. 411)
. . . Upon the whole, therefore, he was at
least impartial, with favorable leanings, if
any, rather to the prisoner than the accusers,
when he took his place on the judgment-seat.
. . .
White (1898, p. 737)
Pilate then took his place on the
judgment seat, and again presented Jesus to
the people, saying, "Behold your King!" . . .
This could be a paraphrase of the biblical text, John 19:13, which says When Pilate
therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in
a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. Since this would
leave just took his place on as being unique it will not be counted in Table 3. See also
Matt. 27:19a When he was set down on the judgment seat, . . ..
Kitto (1853, pp. 413-414)
prisoner whom the people might name. . . .
White (1898, p. 733)
. . . It was customary at this feast to
release some one prisoner whom the people
might choose. . . .
The parallel wording is a paraphrase of both Mark 15:6, Now at that feast he
released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired, and of Matt. 27:15 Now at
that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they
would. This will not be counted in Table 3.
Kitto (1853, p. 413)
. . . As they expected, Pilate caught at the
more than one dangerous demagogue, and
having ascertained that He belonged to the
territory of Herod, he concluded to get rid of
this troublesome affair by sending the
accused to the Tetrarch, whose immediate
subject He was, and whom he might suppose
better qualified than himself to judge in this
case; nor did it escape him that he would be
thus enabled to show a gratifying mark of
attention to Herod, with whom he had lately
been on ill terms. . . .
Kingsland (1902, p. 166)
The mention of Galilee suggested to
Pilate a way of getting rid of this troublesome
business, and of shifting the responsibility of
coming to a decision on to the shoulders of
some one else.
[Note the same use of some unique
words. But it isnt likely that we can say
that Kingsland copied them from Kitto.]
Page -85-
Jacobus (1853, p. 202)
. . . "These words are the central point of
the history--the great testimony to Himself, of
which the subsequent miracle is the proof." . .
.
Cumming (1855, p. 213)
These words, as Stier observes, are the
central point of the historythe great
testimony to himself, of which the subsequent
miracle is the proof. . . .
Most likely both authors borrowed the same material from Stier.
Clark (1855, p. 273)
Pilate, though a pagan, made one more
effort to save the life of Jesus.
Deems (1868, p. 657)
. . . Pilate determined to make one more
effort to save the life of this wonderful
sufferer.
See also the example from Rutter (1844) on page 54.
Clark (1855, p. 268)
The next important scene opens before
the judgment hall of Pontius Pilate, the
governor. . . .
White (1898, p. 723)
In the judgment hall of Pilate, the Roman
governor, Christ stands bound as a prisoner. .
. .
The words judgment hall, and Pilate, can be found in John 18:33; the image of
Jesus standing before the governor can be seen in Matt. 27:11.
Ingraham (1855, p. 381)
. . . I then sent you with him to Herod,
and lo! the Tetrarch of Galilee, one of your
own nation, finds nought in him worthy of
death! . . .
White (1898, p. 731)
. . . He had sent Jesus to Herod, the
tetrarch of Galilee, and one of their own
nation, but he also had found in Him nothing
worthy of death. . . .
The words he . . . sent . . . to Herod occur in Luke 23:7; tetrarch of Galilee
occurs in Luke 3:1; and worthy of death occurs in Luke 23:15. Others words of White
are shown (below) to parallel both Hanna (1863, p. 691) and Farrar (1870, vol. 2, pp.
373-374).
CummingM (1855, p. 365)
. . . Men have said that the voice of the
people is the voice of God. Would that it were
so. It will be so in the age to come, but it is
not so yet.
. . . He now meets us as the offscouring
and refuse of the same people, who shortly
before strewed palms and wreathed chaplets
for him! Such is the world's favor, and so
little truth is there in the saying, "The voice of
the people is the voice of God."
Since it is a saying it will not be counted in Table 3.
Page -86-
CummingM (1855, p. 366)
. . . In the case of Pilate's wife, the dream
told her that Jesus was holy. She remonstrated
with her husband, and urged him to have
nothing to do with what she felt to be a great
crime; and very plainly, the result of that was,
that he endeavored in every way that he could
to let Jesus go free;. . .
Deems (1868, p. 655)
. . . Pilate's wife,--whose name as Claudia
Procla, and whose fame as a woman of
devout habits, leaning kindly to the religion
of the people whom her husband ruled,
tradition has preserved,--moved by a morning
dream, sent a messenger to her husband
beseeching him to have nothing to do against
Jesus, who, she was persuaded, was a good
man. . . .
While the majority of the phrase is from the biblical text (Matthew 27:19 . . . Have
thou nothing to do with that just man: . . .) the structure seems to suggest that Deems
might have borrowed it from Cumming.
CummingJ (1856, p. 350)
. . . Now what a pity he did not wait for
an answer! But how many persons are guilty
of a plagiarism from Pontius Pilate; they ask,
"What is truth?" but do not search to find it,
or wait for a reply that will satisfy their
curiosity. . . .
Jones (1865, p. 374)
He did not wait for an answer to this
question, but went out before the expectant
crowds, who were eager for his return. The
Sanhedrin had felt that there was good reason
to dread such an interview; and they stood
now, with ill-disguised anxiety on their faces,
and in alarm. . . .
CummingJ (1856, p. 348)
. . . Now, if he had been a ruler worthy of
the name, he would have done his duty, and
let the innocent go at all hazards. But he was
one of those rulers who have no fixed
principles; men that first feel the pulse of
their superiors, then they feel the pulse of the
crowd. . . .
Didon (1891, p. 337)
. . . Had he only had a due regard for
justice he would have done his duty at once,
and have let Jesus go free. But Pilate was one
of those men who place their own interests
above every other consideration, and are quite
ready to sacrifice the right if their interests
should require it. . . .
Page -87-
CummingJ (1856, p. 352)
. . . We saw, in the course of the exposi-
tion of the previous chapter, that Pilate seem-
ed to have a latent conviction that Jesus was
what he professed to be; that he was betrayed
by the bitterness of his foes; and must be
condemned not in justice for his alleged
crimes, but in compliance with the demand of
a bigoted and a furious populace. . . .
Spurgeon (1893, p. 487)
. . . Those who say that Christ was a good
man virtually admit his deity, for he claimed
to be the Son of God. If he was not what he
professed to be, he was an impostor. . . .
Because of the differing contexts it isnt likely that Spurgeon copied the similar
wording from Cumming. This is also the sole example of similarity between the two in
this chapter.
CummingJ (1856, p. 350)
. . . Now what a pity he did not wait for
an answer! But how many persons are guilty
of a plagiarism from Pontius Pilate; they ask,
"What is truth?" but do not search to find it,
or wait for a reply that will satisfy their
curiosity. . . .
White (1898, p. 727)
. . . "What is truth?" he inquired. But he
did not wait for an answer. . . .
An exciting scene! This renewed judicial
testimony to the innocence of our great High
Priest, is to us very satisfactory. . . .
Lange (1864, p. 458)
. . . We hear also once more a renewed
testimony to the innocence of Jesus from the
mouth of Pilate.
. . . The whole Sanhedrim has risen up to
conduct a delinquent, whom they have
condemned to death, in solemn procession to
the Roman authorities, in order to wrest from
the latter the confirmation of their sentence. .
. .
L. Abbott (1869, p. 458)
At the same time, some of the priests,
undertaking to create a public sentiment
against Jesus, if it should be necessary in
order to wrest from the Roman government a
ratification of the death-sentence, went out to
mingle with the rabble, and circulate among
them the priestly representation of the events
of the trial and the conduct of the prisoner.
Page -88-
. . . "And so Pilate, willing to content the
people, gave sentence that it should be as they
required, and released unto them Barabbas,
who for sedition and murder was cast into
prison, whom they had desired, but he
delivered Jesus to their will that he should be
scourged."
Thomas (1873, p. 529)
Secondly: Sacrificing truth for
popularity. "He, willing to content the people,
gave sentence that it should be as they
required." . . .
This is an example of the merging of several verses from Scripture: Mark 15:15
(willing to content the people), Luke 23: 24 (gave sentence that it should be as they
required), Luke 23:25 (sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had
desired, but he delivered Jesus to their will). It will not be counted in Table 3.
After the deposition and removal of the
Tetrarch Archelaus, Pontius Pilate, six years
after the birth of Christ, was made the sixth
governor of Judea. . . .
Deems (1868, p. 644)
It is to be remembered that Palestine was
a conquered province, regularly governed by
the conquerors. Six years after the birth of
Jesus, Archelaus, son of Herod, had been
deposed, and Juda and Samaria annexed to
the province of Syria, the Prses or governor
of which was the highest representative of
Roman imperialism. . . .
Pilate having uttered his inmost
conviction of the innocence of Jesus, the chief
priests, not a little enraged at their defeat,
foam out fresh accusations against the
Righteous One. . . .
Deems (1868, p. 657)
Taking Jesus, thorn-crowned, covered
about with the old robe that burlesqued
royalty, faint, worn, haggard, as he must have
been after the night and morning of agony
and torture, he placed the prisoner once more
before the people, reasserting his conviction
of the innocence of Jesus. . . .
. . . To these, procurators or governors
were added for each province, whose office it
was to collect the revenues, and to give the
final decision in all judicial affairs. . . .
Maas (1890, p. 516)
. . . The office held by the governors was
that of Roman procurator, whose chief
business it was to collect the revenues, and in
certain cases to administer justice. . . .
Page -89-
. . . With Satanic insolence, they place
themselves before their ill-treated captive,
make the most horrible grimaces at him, even
spit in his face, and in order to fill up the
measure of their cruelty, they snatch the reed
out of his hands, and repeatedly smite him
with it on the head, so that the thorns of the
horrible wreath pierce deeply into the skull,
while streams of blood flow down the face of
the gracious friend of sinners. . . .
Talmage (1880, pp. 596-597)
. . . So deriding Him as did the mob
before Herod, the soldiers placed a reed in
His hand as a mock symbol of authority and
then a crown of thorns, woven with the thorns
pointing inward, was pressed down upon His
temples until they lacerated the flesh of His
brow and caused streams of blood to flow
down His face. . . .
Ellicott (1860, p. 343)
The sinful man before whom our Lord
now was brought, had, we are told by St.
Luke, long desired to see Him, and is now
rejoiced to have the wonder-worker before
him. . . .
Andrews (1862, p. 519)
By Herod the Lord was gladly received,
as he had long desired to see Him, and hoped
that He would now work some miracle before
him. . . .
The literary similarity might be due to both writers paraphrasing the antique
English of the King James Version of Luke 23:8: When Herod saw Jesus, he was
exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season. This will not be counted
in Table 3.
Ellicott (1860, pp. 338-339)
. . . Meanwhile the confused court was
again ressembled, and, after some
consultation how their sentence could most
hopefully be carried into effect, they again
bind our Lord, and lead Him to Pontius Pilate,
who was now in his official residence in
Herod's palace, and had, as usual, come to
Jerusalem to preserve order during the great
yearly festival.
Farrar (1870, vol. 2, p. 371)
. . . Eager for a chance of dismissing a
business of which he was best pleased to be
free, he proposed, by a master-stroke of astute
policy, to get rid of an embarrassing prisoner,
to save himself from a disagreeable decision,
and to do an unexpected complaisance to the
unfriendly Galilan tetrarch, who, as usual,
had come to Jerusalem--nominally to keep the
Passover, really to please his subjects, and to
enjoy the sensations and festivities offered at
that season by the densely-crowded capital.
The context of this paragraph in Ellicott is the change in venue from the Sanhedrin
to Pilate, but in Farrar the similarity in wording occurs when Jesus is taken to Herod;
note also the differing motives. It will not be counted in the table.
Page -90-
Ellicott (1860, pp. 350-351)
. . . Instinctive sense of justice,
convictions, prepossessions, apprehensions,
were all swallowed up in an instant, when he
heard himself denounced before the
multitude, before the Sanhedrin, and before
his own soldiers as "no friend to Caesar" if he
let go one who by His assumptions had
practically spoken against that dreaded name.
"No friend to Caesar!" Already in
imagination (John xix. 12) the wretched man
saw himself in the presence of his gloomy
and suspicious master, informed against,
condemned, degraded, banished. . . .
Luckock (1885, vol. 2, p. 278)
. . . That name of Caesar acted like a
potent spell, and made a slave of one "to
whom political success was as the breath of
life." The craven fear of imperial displeasure
compelled him to bow to the will he had so
long resisted. "Already in imagination the
wretched man saw himself in the presence of
his gloomy and suspicious master, informed
against, condemned, degraded, banished."
Notice that while Luckock apparently felt the need to put the borrowed material
within quotation marks he did not feel the need to reference the source. The first quoted
phrase to whom political success was as the breath of life may have come either from
Plumptre, (1860), p. 2529 (noted below on page 86), or from Gesta Pilati . . . by W. O.
Clough (Indianapolis: Robert Douglass, 1880), p. 35: . . . and Pilate, to whom political
success was as the breath of life, again ascended the tribunal, and finally pronounced the
desired condemnation.
Note the possible paraphrase by Samuel Ware Fisher in his Sermons on the Life of
Christ (Cincinnatti: R. Clarke and Co., 1877): He lived on the breath of political favor;
to lose that favor was to him political damnation (p. 396).
Ellicott (1860, p. 341; 1863, p. 308)
. . . With satanically prompted cunning
they carefully suppress the real grounds on
which they had condemned the Saviour, and
heap up charges of a purely political nature;
chief among which were specified, in all their
familiar sequence to the procurator's ear,
seditious agitation, attempted prohibition of
the payment of the tribute-money, and
assumption of the mixed civil and religious
title of King of the Jews. . .
Maas (1890, p. 344)
. . . Now, seeing that Pilate will not
blindly accede to their own decision, nor
condemn Jesus on general statements of His
guilt, they begin to accuse Him on three
points, entirely distinct from the grounds on
which they had condemned Him: 1. He stirs
up the nation. 2. He forbids to give tribute to
Caesar. Both assertions they knew to be false.
3. He makes Himself king; in this they
substitute their own idea of the Messias for
that of the true Messias. . . .
Page -91-
Ellicott (1860, p. 341; 1863, p. 308)
. . . It seems, however, clear that from the
very first the sharp-sighted Roman perceived
that it was no case for his tribunal,-- that it
was wholly a matter of religious differences
and religious hate, and that the meek prisoner
who stood before him was at least innocent of
the political crimes that had been laid to His
charge with such an unwonted and suspicious
zeal. . . .
Didon (1893, p. 344)
When Pilate heard the words, "Son of
God," a vague fear seized him. The prisoner
who stood before him was no ordinary,
perhaps he was a divine being. On the other
hand, the fantasies of the Jews increased his
embarrassment. . . .
Note that in Ellicott the similar word occurs when Jesus is first brought to Pilate;
whereas, in Didon the wording occurs near the every end of the trials. Since these are
widely differing contexts it will not be counted in the table.
Plumptre (1860, p. 2527)
. . . and the sixth, Pontius Pilatus (Joseph.
Ant. xviii. 2, 2), who was appointed A. D.
25-26, in the twelfth year of Tiberius. One of
his first acts was to remove the headquarters
of the army from Csarea to Jerusalem. The
soldiers of course took with them their
standards, bearing the image of the emperor,
into the Holy City. No previous governor had
ventured on such an outrage. Pilate had been
obliged to send them in the night, and there
were no bounds to the rage of the people, in
discovering what had thus been done. They
poured down in crowds upon Csarea where
the procurator was then residing, and
besought him to remove the images. After
five days of discussion, he gave the signal to
some concealed soldiers to surround the
petitioners, and put them to death, unless they
ceased to trouble him; but this only
strengthened their determination, and they
declared themselves ready rather to submit to
death than forego their resistance to an
idolatrous innovation. Pilate then yielded, and
the standards were by his orders, brought
down to Csarea (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 3, 1,
2, B. J. ii. 9, 2-4). On two other occasions
he nearly drove the Jews to insurrection; the
first when, in spite of this warning about the
Eddy (1867, pp. 705-706)
The procurator of Judea, in the time of
our Lord, was Pontius Pilate. Of his history
little is known, but that little warrants the
belief that he was a Roman officer of average
capacity, deeply imbued with the pride and
prejudices of his class, and resolute,
sometimes cruel, in asserting the rights of his
imperial master, and in maintaining his
personal authority. Appointed procurator in
the twelfth year of Tiberius, (A. D. 25-6) by
one of his first acts, he outraged, through
ignorance or contempt, the deepest
convictions and prejudices of the Jewish
heart. In removing his head-quarters from
Caesarea to Jerusalem, he permitted if he did
not order his soldiers to carry their standards,
bearing the image of the emperor, into the
Holy City. As soon as the sacrilege--so the
Jews regarded it--was known, the people
flocked in crowds to Caesarea, and besought
Pilate to remove the images. After resisting
their importunity five days, during which he
seems to have seriously meditated the general
massacre with which he threatened them, he
yielded, and ordered the standards back to
Caesarea. At another time he nearly drove the
Jews to insurrection by suspending in his
palace at Jerusalem, some gilt shields
Page -92-
images, he hung up in his palace at Jerusalem
some gilt shields inscribed with the names of
deities, which were only removed by an order
from Tiberius (Philo, ad Caium, 38, ii.
589); the second when he appropriated the
revenue arising from the redemption of vows
(Corban; comp. Mark vii. 11) to the construc-
tion of an aqueduct. This order led to a riot,
which he suppressed by sending among the
crowd soldiers with concealed daggers, who
massacred a great number, not only rioters,
but of casual spectators (Joseph. B. J. ii. 9,
4). To these specimens of his administration,
which rest on the testimony of profane
authors, we must add the slaughter of certain
Galileans, which was told to our Lord as a
piece of news ([Greek], Luke xiii. 1), and on
which He founded some remarks on the con-
nection between sin and calamity. It must
have occurred at some feast at Jerusalem, in
the outer court of the Temple, since the blood
of the worshipers was mingled with their
sacrifices; but the silence of Josephus about it
seems to show that riots and massacres, on
such occasions were so frequent that it was
needless to recount them all.
inscribed with the names of Roman gods.
These were removed by the command of
Tiberius himself. At the time of a riot, caused
by his diverting the sacred revenue arising
from the redemption of vows, to a secular
purpose, he sent among the multitude many
soldiers armed with concealed daggers, who
killed a great number, not only of the rioters
but of casual spectators. To this must be
added the slaughter of the "Galileans whose
blood Pilate had mingled with their
sacrifices." (Luke xiii. 1.) . . .
Plumptre (1860, p. 2527)
. . . One of his first acts was to remove
the headquarters of the army from Cesarea to
Jerusalem. The soldiers of course took with
them their standards, bearing the image of the
emperor, into the Holy City. . . .
Johnson (1873, p. 148)
. . . One of his first acts was to order the
Roman standards, bearing the image of the
Emperor, into the holy city, a movement
which the bold remonstrances of the Jews
induced him to reverse. . . .
Page -93-
Plumptre (1860, p. 2527)
. . . On two other occasions he nearly
drove the Jews to insurrection; the first when
in spite of this warning about the images, he
hung up in his palace at Jerusalem some gilt
shields inscribed with the names of deities,
which were only removed by an order from
Tiberius (Philo, and Caium, 38, ii. 589): the
second when he appropriated the revenue
arising from the redemption of vows (Corban;
comp. Mark vii. 11) to the construction of an
aqueduct. This order led to a riot, which he
suppressed by sending among the crowd
soldiers with concealed daggers, who massa-
cred a great number, not only of rioters, but
of casual spectators (Joseph. B. J. ii. 9, 4).
Johnson (1873, p. 148)
. . . On another occasion he nearly drove
the Jews to insurrection by hanging up in his
palace in Jerusalem some shields inscribed
with the names of heathen deities; in this
instance also he was forced to yield and
remove the obnoxious objects. Later, he
provoked a serious riot by appropriating the
sacred tax of the Corban, Mark 7 : 11, to the
construction of an aqueduct. He suppressed
this riot by sending among the crowd soldiers
with concealed weapons, who killed a great
number, not only of the rioters, but of casual
spectators.
Plumptre (1860, p. 2528)
. . . It was the custom for the Roman
governor to grant every year, in honor of the
Passover, pardon to one condemned criminal.
The origin of the practice is unknown,
through we may connect it with the fact
mentioned by Livy (v. 13) that at a
Lectisternium "[Latin]." . . .
Johnson (1873, p. 149)
Was wont. It was his custom. The origin
of the practice is unknown; it is mentioned
only in the Gospels. Probably it was based
upon the Roman and Greek custom of
releasing prisoners on occasions of public
rejoicing, such as the birthdays of emperors
and the celebrations of victories, a custom
still perpetuated in the occasional general
amnesties proclaimed by the sovereigns of
Europe.
Plumptre (1860, p. 2529)
We learn from Justin Martyr (Apol. I.
pp. 76, 84), Tertullian (Apol. E. 21), Eusebius
(H. E. ii. 2), and others, that Pilate made an
official report to Tiberius of our Lord's trial
and condemnation; and in a homily ascribed
to Chrysostom, though marked as spurious by
his Benedictine editors (Hom. viii. in Pash.
Vol. viii. P. 968, D), certain ([Greek] (Acta,
or Commentarii Pilati) are spoken of as well-
known documents in common circulation. . . .
Johnson (1873, p. 148)
. . . Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius
and other early writers say that Pilate made an
official report to the Emperor of our Lord's
trial and condemnation. . . .
Page -94-
Plumptre (1860, p. 2529)
. . . The Samaritans complained to
Vitellius, now president of Syria, and he sent
Pilate to Rome to answer their accusations
before the emperor (Greek. 2). When he
reached it, he found Tiberius dead and Caius
(Caligula) on the throne, A. D. 36. Eusebius
adds (H. E. ii. 7) that soon afterwards,
"wearied with misfortunes" he killed himself.
As to the scene of his death there are
various traditions. One is, that he was
banished to Vienna Allobrogum (Vienne on
the Rhone), where a singular monument, a
pyramid on a quadrangular base, 52 feet high,
is called Pontius Pilate's tomb (Dictionary of
Geography, art "Vienna). Another is that he
sought to hide his sorrows on the mountain by
the lake of Lucerne, now called Mount
Pilatus; and there, after spending years in its
recesses, in remorse and despair rather than
penitence, plunged into the dismal lake which
occupies its summit. . . .
Johnson (1873, p. 148)
. . . His anxiety to avoid the censure of
Caesar led him to acquiesce in the crucifixion
of Jesus; and it is remarkable that he met the
very misfortune he thus sought to avoid; for
on the complaint of the Samaritans, many of
whom he had slaughtered, he was ordered to
Rome to be tried before the Emperor. The
exact sentence we do not know; but it is
certain that he lost his office. Eusebius says
that soon after, "wearied with misfortunes,"
he killed himself. One tradition asserts that he
was banished to Vienne, on the Rhone, where
he committed suicide; another that he sought
to hide his sorrows in Switzerland on the
mountain now known as Mount Pilatus; and
that after years of remorse he drowned
himself in the dismal lake which occupies its
summit. . . .
Page -95-
Plumptre (1860, pp. 2526-2527)
([Greek], Tiach., 8th ed.): Pontius
Pilatus, his praenomen being unknown). The
name indicates that he was connected, by
descent or adoption, with the gens of the
Pontii, first conspicuous in Roman history in
the person of C. Pontius Telesinus, the great
Samnite general. . . .
a
The cognomen Pilatus has received two
a
explanations. (1.) As armed with the pilum or
javelin; comp. "pilata agmina," Virg. En. xii.
121. (2.) As contracted from pileatus. The
fact that the pileus or cap was the badge of
manumitted slaves (Comp. Suetonlus, Nero,
c. 57, Tiber. C. 4) makes it probable that the
epithet marked him out as a libertus, or as
descended from one.
Of the early history of Pilate we know
b
nothing; but a German legend fills up the gap
strangely enough. Pilate is the bastard son of
Tyrus, king of Mayence. His father sends him
to Rome as a hostage. There he is guilty of a
murder; but being sent to Pontus, rises into
notice as subduing the barbarous tribes there,
receives in consequence the new name of
Pontius, and is sent to Juda. It has been
suggested that the twenty-second legion,
which was in Palestine at the time of the
destruction of Jerusalem, and was afterwards
stationed at Mayence, may have been in this
case either the bearers of the tradition or the
inventors of the fable. (Comp. Vilmar's
Deutsch. Nations. Liter. I. 217.)
Clough (1880, pp. 25-26)
The praenomen of Pontius Pilate is
unknown. The name indicates that he was
connected, by decent or adoption, with the
gens Pontii, first conspicuous in Roman
history in the person of C. Pontius Telesinus,
the great Samnite general. The cognomen
Pilatus has received two explanations: (1.) As
armed with the pilum or javelin; compare
"pilata agmina." [Virgil's Eneid, xii. 121.] (2.)
As contracted from pileatus. The fact that the
pileus or cap was the badge of manumitted
slaves, makes it probable that the epithet
marked him out as a liberties or the
descendant of one. Of the early history of
Pilate we know nothing; but a German legend
fills up the gap strangely enough. Pilate is the
bastard son of Tyrus, King of Mayence. His
father sends him to Rome as a hostage. There
he is guilty of a murder; but being sent to
Pontus, rises into notice as subduing the
barbarous tribes there, receives in
consequence the name of Pontius and is sent
to Judea. It has been thought that the twenty-
second legion, which was in Palestine at the
time of the destruction of Jerusalem and was
afterwards stationed at Mayence, may have
been in this case the bearer of this tradition.
[Note that Clough moved material
from Plumptres footnotes up into his text.]
Page -96-
Plumptre (1860, p. 2527)
He was the sixth Roman procurator of
Juda, and under him our Lord worked,
suffered, and died, as we learn, not only from
the obvious Scriptural authorities, but from
Tacitus (Ann. xv. 44, "[Latin]"). A procur-
ator ([Greek], Philo, Leg. Ad Caium, and
Joseph. B. J. ii. 9, 2; but less correctly
[Greek], Matt. xxvii. 2; and Joseph. Ant.
xviii. 3, 1) was generally a Roman knight,
appointed to act under the governor of a prov-
ince as collector of the revenue, and judge in
causes connected with it. Strictly speaking,
procuratores Cstris were only required in
the imperial provinces, I. e. those which, ac-
cording to the constitution of Augustus, were
reserved for the special administration of the
emperor, without the intervention of the
senate and people, and governed by his
legate. In the senatorian provinces, governed
by proconsuls, the corresponding duties were
discharged by qustors. Yet it appears that
sometimes procuratores were appointed in
those provinces also, to collect certain dues of
the fiscus (the emperor's special revenue), as
distinguished from those of the rarium (the
revenue administered by the senate). Some-
times in a small territory, especially in one
contiguous to a larger province, and depen-
dent upon it, the procurator was head of the
administration, and had full military and
judicial authority, though he was responsible
to the governor of the neighboring province.
Thus Juda was attached to Syria upon
the deposition of Archelaus (A. D. 6), and a
procurator appointed to govern it, with
Csarea for its capital. Already, during a
temporary absence of Archelaus, it had been
in charge of the procurator Sabinus; then,
after the ethnarch's banishment, came
Coponius; the third procurator was M.
Ambivius; the fourth, Annius Rufus; the fifth
Valerius Gratus; . . .
Clough (1880, pp. 26-27)
Pontius Pilate was the sixth Roman
procurator of Judea, and under him our Lord
worked, suffered and died, as we learn, not
only from the obvious Scripture allusions, but
from Tacitus. A procurator was generally a
Roman knight, appointed to act under a
governor of a province as collector of the
revenue and judge in cases connected with it.
Strictly speaking, procurators of Csar
were only required in the imperial provinces;
that is, in those which, according to the
constitution of Augustus, were reserved for
the especial administration of the emperor,
without the intervention of the Senate and
people, and governed by his legate. In the
senatorian provinces, governed by
proconsuls, the corresponding duties were
discharged by qustors. Yet, it appears, that
sometimes procurators were appointed in
these provinces also to collect certain dues of
the fiscus (the emperor's special revenue) as
distinguished from those of the rarium (the
revenue administered by the Senate).
Sometimes in a small territory, especially in
one contiguous to a larger province, and
dependent upon it, the procurator was head of
the administration and had military and
Thus, Judea was attached to Syria upon the
deposition of Archelaus, A. D. 6, and a
Csarea for its capital. Already, during a
in charge of the procurator Sabinus; then,
after that ethnarch's banishment, came
Coponius; the third procurator was M.
Ambivus; the fourth, Annius Rufus; the fifth,
Valerius Gratus; . . .
Page -97-
In the following tables because there is so little that isnt similar and to call more
attention to the changes only the latter will be noted by bolding.
Plumptre (1860, p. 2527)
. . . and the sixth, Pontius Pilatus
(Joseph. Ant. xviii. 2, 2), who was
appointed A. D. 25-26, in the twelfth year of
Tiberius. One of his first acts was to remove
the headquarters of the army from Cesarea to
Jerusalem. The soldiers of course took with
them their standards, bearing the image of the
emperor, into the Holy City. No previous
governor had ventured on such an outrage.
Pilate had been obliged to send them in the
night, and there were no bounds to the rage of
the people, in discovering what had thus
been done. They poured down in crowds
upon Csarea where the procurator was then
residing, and besought him to remove the
images. After five days of discussion, he gave
the signal to some concealed soldiers to
surround the petitioners, and put them to
death, unless they ceased to trouble him; but
this only strengthened their determination,
and they declared themselves ready rather to
submit to death than forego their resistance
to an idolatrous innovation.
Clough (1880, pp. 27-28)
. . . and the sixth, Pontius Pilatus, who
was appointed A. D. 25-26, in the twelfth
year of Tiberius. One of his first acts was to
remove the headquarters of the army from
Caesarea to Jerusalem. The soldiers, of
course, took with them their standards
holy city. No previous governor had ventured
on such an outrage. Pilate had been obliged to
send them in the night, and there were no
bounds, to the rage of the people, in
discovering what had been thus done. They
poured down in crowds upon Cesarea, where
the procurator was residing, and besought
him to remove the images. After five days of
discussion he gave the signal to some
concealed soldiers to surround the petitioners
and put them to death, unless they ceased to
trouble him; but this only strengthened their
determination, and they declared themselves
ready rather to die than forego their resistance
to an idolatrous innovation.
Notice that in the above Clough dropped the references to the sources in Smith and
the very minor changes in the wording--the changes to the punctuation are not noted.
Page -98-
Plumptre (1860, p. 2527)
Pilate then yielded, and the standards
were by his orders, brought down to Cesarea
(Joseph. Ant. xviii. 3, 1, 2, B. J. ii. 9,
2-4). On two other occasions he nearly drove
the Jews to insurrection; the first when, in
spite of this warning about the images, he
Tiberius (Philo, ad Caium, 38, ii. 589); the
second when he appropriated the revenue
arising from the redemption of vows (Cor-
ban; comp. Mark vii. 11) to the construc-
massacred a great number, not only rioters,
which He founded some remarks on the
connection between sin and calamity. It must
seems to show that riots and massacres, on
Clough (1880, pp. 28-29)
Pilate then yielded, and the standards
were then, by his orders, brought down to
Cesarea. On two other occasions he nearly
drove the Jews to insurrection; the first, when
in spite of this warning about the images, he
Tiberius; the second, when he appropriated
the revenue arising from the redemption of
vows to the construction of an aqueduct. This
order led to a riot, which he suppressed by
sending among the crowd soldiers, with con-
cealed daggers, who massacred a great num-
ber, not only rioters, but of casual spectators.
To these specimens of his administration,
piece of news, and on which he founded some
remarks on the connection between sin and
calamity. It must have occurred at some feast
at Jerusalem in the outer court of the Temple,
since the blood of the worshipers was
mingled with their sacrifices; but the silence
of Josephus about it seems to show that riots
and massacres, on such occasions, were so
frequent that it was needless to recount them
at all.
Page -99-
Plumptre (1860, pp. 2527-2528)
It was the custom for the procurators to
preserve order, and accordingly, at the time of
our Lord's last Passover, Pilate was occupy-
ing his official residence in Herod's palace;
and to the gates of this palace Jesus, condem-
ned on the charge of blasphemy, was brought
early in the morning by the chief priests and
officers of the Sanhedrin, who were unable to
enter the residence of a Gentile, lest they
should be defiled and unfit to eat the Passover
(John xviii. 28). Pilate therefore came out to
learn their purpose, and demanded the nature
of the charge. At first they seem to have
expected that he would have carried out their
wishes without further inquiry, and therefore
merely described our Lord as a [Greek]
(disturber of the public peace), but as a
Roman procurator had too much respect for
justice, or at least understood his business to
well to consent to such a condemnation, and
as they knew that he would not enter into
theological questions, any more than Gallio
afterwards did on a somewhat similar
occasion (Acts xviii. 14), they were obliged
to devise a new charge, and therefore
interpreted our Lord's claims in a political
sense, accusing him of assuming the royal
title, perverting the nation, and forbidding the
payment of tribute to Rome . . .
Clough (1880, pp. 29-30)
Sanhedrin, who were unable to enter the
defiled and unfit to eat the passover. Pilate,
therefore, came out to learn their purpose and
demanded the nature of the charge. At first
they seem to have expected that he would
carry out their wishes without further inquiry;
and, therefore, merely described our Lord as a
disturber of the peace; but as a Roman
procurator had too much respect for justice,
or at least understood his business too well to
consent to such a condemnation, and as they
knew he would not enter into theological
questions any more than Gallio did on a
somewhat similar occasion, they were obliged
to devise a new charge, and, therefore,
interpreted our Lord's claims in a political
sense, accusing him of assuming the royal
title, perverting the nation, and forbidding the
paying of tribute to Rome.
Plumptre (1860, p. 2628)
It is plain that from this moment Pilate
was distracted between two conflicting
feelings; a fear of offending the Jews, who
had already grounds of accusation against
him, which would be greatly strengthened by
any show of lukewarmness in punishing an
offense against the imperial government, and
a conscious conviction that Jesus was
innocent. Since it was absurd to suppose that
a desire to free the nation from Roman
authority was criminal in the eyes of the
Clough (1880, pp. 30-31)
It is plain that from this moment Pilate
was distracted between the two conflicting
feelings; a fear of offending the Jews, who
had already grounds of accusation against
him, which would be greatly strengthened by
any show of lukewarmness in punishing an
offense against the imperial government, and
a conscious conviction that Jesus was
innocent. Since it was absurd to suppose that
a desire to free the nation from Roman
authority was criminal in the eyes of the
Page -100-
Sanhedrin. Moreover, this last feeling was
strengthened by his own hatred of the Jews,
whose religious scruples had caused him
frequent trouble, and by a growing respect for
the calm dignity and meekness of the sufferer.
First he examined our Lord privately, and
asked Him whether He was a King? The
question which He in return put to his judge,
"Sayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell
it thee of me?" seems to imply that there was
in Pilate's own mind a suspicion that the
prisoner really was what He was charged with
being: a suspicion which shows itself again in
the later question, "Whence art thou?" (John
xix. 9), in the increasing desire to release Him
(12), and in the refusal to alter the inscription
on the cross (22). . . .
Sanhedrin. Moreover, this latter feeling was
strengthened by his own hatred of the Jews,
frequent trouble, and by a growing respect for
the calm dignity and meekness of the sufferer.
First he examined our Lord privately, and
asked him whether he was a King? The
question which he in turn, put to his judge,
"Sayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell
it thee of me?" seems to imply that there was
in Pilate's own mind a suspicion that the
prisoner really was what He was charged with
being: a suspicion which shows itself again in
the later question, "Whence art thou?" (John
xix. 9), in the increasing desire to release Him
(12), and in the refusal to alter the inscription
on the cross. . . .
Plumptre (1860, p. 2528)
. . . In any case Pilate accepted as
satisfactory Christ's assurance that his
kingdom was not of this world, that it was to
be established by bearing witness to the truth.
His famous reply, "What is truth?" was the
question of a worldly-minded politician,
skeptical because he was indifferent; one who
thought truth an empty name, or at least could
not see any connection between [Greek] and
[Greek], truth and policy: (Dr. C.
Wordsworth, Comm. in loco). With this
question he brought the interview to a close,
and came out to the Jews and declared the
prisoner innocent. To this they replied that his
teaching had stirred up all the people from
Galilee to Jerusalem. The mention of Galilee
suggested to Pilate a new way of escaping
from his dilemma, by sending on the case to
Herod Antipas, tetrarch of that country, who
had come up to Jerusalem to the feast, while
at the same time this gave him an opportunity
for making overtures of reconciliation to
Herod, with whose jurisdiction he had
probably in some recent instance interfered.
But Herod, though propitiated by this act of
Clough (1880, pp. 31-32)
. . . In any case Pilate accepted, as
satisfactory, Christ's assurance that his
kingdom was not of this world, that is, not
worldly in its nature or objects, and
therefore, not to be founded by this world's
weapons, though he could not understand
the assertion that it was to be established by
bearing witness to the truth. His famous
reply, "What is truth?" was the question of a
worldly-minded politician; skeptical, because
he was indifferent; one who thought truth an
empty name, or at least could not see "any
connection between truth and policy." With
this question he brought the interview to a
close, and came out to the Jews and declared
the prisoner innocent. To this they replied that
his teaching had stirred up all the people from
Galilee to Jerusalem. The mention of Galilee
suggested to Pilate a new way of escaping
from his dilemma, by sending on the case to
Herod Antipas, tetrarch of that country, who
had come up to Jerusalem to the feast, while
at the same time it gave him an opportunity
of making overtures of reconciliation to
Herod, with whose jurisdiction he had
Page -101-
courtesy, declined to enter into the matter,
and merely sent Jesus back to Pilate dressed
in a shining kingly robe [Greek], Luke xxiii.
11), to express his ridicule of such
pretensions, and contempt for the whole
business. So Pilate was compelled to come to
a decision, and first having assembled the
chief priest and also the people, whom he
probably summoned in the expectation that
they would be favorable to Jesus, he
announced to them that the accused had done
nothing worthy of death, but at the same time,
in hopes of pacifying the Sanhedrin, he
proposed to scourge Him before he released
Him. But as the accusers were resolved to
have his blood, they rejected this concession,
and therefore Pilate had recourse to a fresh
expedient. It was the custom for the Roman
governor to grant every year, in honor of the
Passover, pardon to one condemned criminal.
The origin of the practice is unknown,
through we may connect it with the fact
mentioned by Livy (v. 13) that at a
Lectisternium "[Latin]." . . .
probably in some recent instance interfered.
But Herod, though propitiated by this act of
courtesy, declined to enter into the matter,
and merely sent Jesus back to Pilate dressed
in shining, kingly robes, to express his
ridicule of such pretensions, and contempt for
the whole business. So Pilate was compelled
to come to a decision, and, first having
assembled the chief priests and also the
people, whom he probably summoned in the
expectation that they would be favorable to
Jesus, he announced to them all that the
accused had done nothing worthy of death,
but at the same time in hopes of pacifying the
Sanhedrin, he proposed to scourge him before
he released him. But as the accusers were
resolved to have his blood, they rejected this
concession, and, therefore, Pilate had
recourse to a fresh expedient. It was the
custom for the Roman governor to grant
every year, in honor of the Passover, pardon
to one condemned criminal. The origin of the
practice is unknown, though we may mention
it with the fact mentioned by Livy that at a
Lectisternium "[Latin]"
Plumptre (1860, p. 2528)
Barabbas, and the prophet who a few days
before they had hailed as the Messiah. To
receive their decision he ascended the
[Greek], a portable tribunal which was carried
about with a Roman magistrate to be placed
present case was erected on a tessellated
pavement [Greek] in front of the palace, and
called in Hebrew Gabbatha, probably from
being laid down on a slight elevation ([Heb.],
"to be high"). As soon as Pilate had taken
his seat, he received a mysterious message
from his wife, according to tradition a
proselyte of the gate [Greek], named Procla
or [Greek] Procula (Evang. Nicod. ii.) who
Clough (1880, pp. 32-33)
down on a slight elevation. As soon as Pilate
had taken his seat, he received a mysterious
message from his wife--according to
tradition, a proselyte of the gate, named
Procla, or Procula, "who had suffered many
things in a dream," which impelled her to
Page -102-
had "suffered many things in a dream," which
impelled her to intreat her husband not to
condemn the just one. But he had no longer
any choice in the matter, for the rabble, insti-
gated of course by the priests, chose Barabbas
for pardon, and clamored for the death of
Jesus; insurrection seemed imminent, and
Pilate reluctantly yielded. But before issuing
the fatal order, he washed his hands before
the multitude, as a sign that he was innocent
of the crime. In imitation probably of the
ceremony enjoined in Deut. xxi., where it is
ordered that when the perpetrator of a murder
is not discovered, the elders of the city in
which it occurs shall wash their hands, with
the declaration, "Our hands have not shed this
blood, neither have our eyes seen it". . . .
entreat her husband not to condemn the Just
One. But he had no longer any choice in the
matter, for the rabble, instigated of course by
the priests, chose Barabbas for pardon, and
clamored for the death of Jesus; insurrection
seemed imminent, and Pilate reluctantly
yielded. But before issuing the fatal order,
Pilate washed his hands before the multitude
as a sign that he was innocent of the crime, in
imitation, probably, of the ceremony enjoined
in Deut. xxi., where it is ordered that when
the perpetrator of a murder is not discovered,
the elders of the city in which it occurs shall
wash their hands, with the declaration, "Our
hands have not shed this blood, neither have
our eyes seen it."
Plumptre (1860, pp. 2528-2529)
. . . Such a practice might naturally be
adopted even by a Roman, as intelligible to
the Jewish multitude around him. As in the
present case it produced no effect, Pilate
ordered his soldiers to inflict the scourging
preparatory to execution; but the sight of
unjust suffering so patiently borne seems
again to have troubled his conscience, and
prompted a new effort in favor of the victim.
He brought Him out bleeding from the savage
punishment, and decked in the scarlet robe
and crown of thorns which the soldiers had
put on Him in derision, and said to the
people, "Behold the man!" hoping that such a
spectacle would rouse them to shame and
compassion. But the priests only renewed
their clamors for his death and fearing that the
political charge of treason might be
considered insufficient, returned to their first
accusation of blasphemy, and quoting the law
of Moses (Lev. xxiv. 16), which punished
blasphemy with atoning, declared that He
must die "because He made himself the Son
of God." But this title [Greek] augmented
Pilate's superstitious fears, already aroused by
Clough (1880, pp. 33-34)
Such a practice might be adopted even by
a Roman, as intelligible to the Jewish
multitude around him. As in the present case
it produced no effect, Pilate ordered his
soldiers to inflict the scourging preparatory to
execution; but the sight of unjust suffering so
patiently borne, seems again to have troubled
his conscience and prompted a new effort in
favor of the victim. He brought him out
bleeding from the savage punishment, and
decked in the scarlet robe and crown of
thorns, which the soldiers had put on him in
derision, and said to the people, "Behold the
man!" hoping that such a spectacle would
rouse them to shame and compassion. But the
priests only renewed their clamors for his
death, and fearing that, the political charge of
treason might be insufficient, returned to their
first accusation of blasphemy, and, quoting
the law of Moses, which punished blasphemy
with stoning, declared that he must die,
"because he made himself the Son of God."
But this title, Son of God, augmented Pilate's
superstitious fears, already aroused by his
wife's dream; he feared that Jesus might be
Page -103-
his wife's dream ([Greek], John xiv. 7); he
feared that Jesus might be one of the heroes
or demigods of his own mythology; he took
Him again into the palace, and inquired
anxiously into his descent ("Whence art
thou?") and his claims, but, as the question
was only prompted by fear or curiosity, Jesus
made no reply. When Pilate reminded Him of
his own absolute power over Him, He closed
this last conversation with the irresolute gov-
ernor by the mournful remark, "thou couldst
have no power at all against me, except it
were given thee from above; therefore he that
delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." .
. .
one of the heroes or demigods of his own
mythology; he took him again to the palace,
and inquired anxiously into his descent and
his claims, and as the question was prompted
by fear or curiosity, Jesus made no reply.
When Pilate reminded him of his own
absolute power over him, he closed this last
conversation with the irresolute governor by
the mournful remark, "Thou couldst have no
power at all against me, except it were given
from above; therefore, he that delivered me
unto these hath the greater sin." . . .
Plumptre (1860, p. 2529)
. . . God had given to Pilate power over
Him, and power only, but to those who
delivered Him up God had given the means of
judging of His claims; and, therefore Pilate's
sin in merely exercising this power, was less
than theirs who, being God's own priests,
with the Scriptures before them, and the word
of prophecy still alive among them (John xi.
50, xviii. 14), had deliberately conspired for
his death. The result of this interview was one
last effort to save Jesus by a fresh appeal to
the multitude; but now arose the formidable
cry, "If thou let this man go, thou art not
Csar's friend," and Pilate, to whom political
success was as the breath of life, again
ascended the tribunal, and finally pronounced
the desired condemnation.
So ended Pilate's share in the greatest
crime which has been committed since the
world began. That he did not immediately
lose his feelings of anger against the Jews
who had thus compelled his acquiescence,
and of compassion and awe for the sufferer
whom he had unrighteously sentenced, is
plain from his curt and angry refusal to alter
the inscription which he had prepared for the
cross [Greek], his ready acquiescence in the
Clough (1880, pp. 35-36)
. . . God had given to Pilate power over
him, and power only; but to those who
delivered him up God had given the means of
judging of his claims; and, therefore, Pilate's
sin in merely exercising his power was less
than theirs, who, being God's own priests,
with the Scriptures before them, and the word
of prophecy still alive among them, had
deliberately conspired for his death. The
result of this interview was one last effort to
save Jesus by a fresh appeal to save* the
multitude; but now arose the formidable cry,
"If thou let this man go, thou art not Csar's
friend," and Pilate, to whom political success
was as the breath of life, again ascended the
tribunal, and finally pronounced the desired
condemnation. So ended Pilate's share in the
greatest crime which has been committed
since the world began. That he did not
immediately lose his feelings of anger against
the Jews, who had thus compelled his
acquiescence, and of compassion and awe for
the sufferer, whom he had unrighteously
sentenced, is plain from his curt and angry
refusal to alter the inscription which he had
prepared for the cross, his ready acquiescence
in the request made by Joseph of Arimatha
Page -104-
request made by Joseph of Arimatha that
the Lord's body might be given up to him
rather than consigned to the common
sepulchre reserved for those who had suffered
capital punishment, and his sullen answer to
the demand of the Sanhedrin that the
sepulchre should be guarded. And here, as
far as Scripture is concerned, our knowledge
of Pilates life ends. But we learn from
Josephus (Ant. xviii. 4, 1) that his anxiety
to avoid giving offense to Caesar did not save
him from political disaster. The Samaritans
were unquiet and rebellious. A leader of their
own race had promised to disclose to them
the sacred treasures which Moses was
reported to have concealed in Mount Gerizim.
Pilate led his troops against them, and
defeated them easily enough.
that the Lord's body might be given up to him
rather than consigned to the common sepul-
chre reserved for those who had suffered
capital punishment, and his sullen answer to
the demand of the Sanhedrin that the sepul-
chre should be guarded. So far as Scripture is
concerned, our knowledge of Pilate ends
here. But we learn from Josephus that his
anxiety to avoid giving offense to Caesar did
not save him from political disaster. The
Samaritans were unquiet and rebellious. A
leader of their own race had promised to
disclose to them the sacred treasures which
Moses was reported to have concealed in
Mount Gerizim. Pilate led his troops against
them, and defeated them easily enough.
[* Probably a typesetting error.]
Plumptre (1860, p. 2529)
. . . The Samaritans complained to
before the emperor (Greek. 2). When he
(Caligula) on the throne, A. D. 36. Eusbeius
"wearied with misfortunes" he killed himself.
As to the scene of his death there are various
traditions. One is, that he was banished to
Vienna Allobrogum (Vienne on the Rhone),
where a singular monument, a pyramid on a
quadrangular base, 52 feet high, is called
Pontius Pilate's tomb (Dictionary of
Geography, art "Vienna). Another is that he
occupies its summit. According to the popular
belief, "a form is often seen to emerge from
the gloomy waters, and go through the action
of one washing his hands; and when he does
Clough (1880, pp. 36-37)
The Samaritans complained to Vitellius,
now president of Syria, and he sent Pilate to
Rome to answer their accusations before the
emperor. When he reached Rome he found
Tiberius dead, and Caius (Caligula) on the
throne, A. D. 36. Eusebius adds that soon
afterwards, "wearied with misfortunes," he
killed himself. As to the scene of his death
there are various traditions. One is that he
was banished to Vienna Allobrogum, where a
singular monument, a pyramid on a
quadrangular base 52 feet high, is called
Pontius Pilate's tomb. Another is that he
sought to hide his sorrow on the mountain by
occupies its summit.
Page -105-
so, dark clouds of mist gather first round the
bosom of the Infernal lake (such it has been
styled of old), and then, wrapping the whole
upper part of the mountain in darkness,
presage a tempest or hurricane, which is sure
to follow in a short space." (Scoot, Anne of
Geierstein, ch. I.) (see below)
Plumptre (1860, p. 2530)
The character of Pilate may be suffic-
iently inferred from the sketch given above of
his conduct at our Lord's trial. He was a type
of the rich and corrupt Romans of his age; a
worldly-minded statesman, conscious of no
higher wants than those of this life, yet by no
means unmoved by feelings of justice and
mercy. His conduct to the Jews, in the in-
stances quoted from Josephus, though
severe, was not thoughtlessly cruel or tyran-
nical, considering the general practice of
Roman governors, and the difficulties of
dealing with a nation so arrogant and per-
verse. Certainly there is nothing in the facts
recorded by profane authors inconsistent with
his desire, obvious from the Gospel
narrative, to save our Lord. But all his better
feelings were overpowered by a selfish regard
for his own security. He would not encounter
the least hazard of personal annoyance in
behalf of innocence and justice; the
unrighteous condemnation of a good man was
a trifle in comparison with the fear of the
emperor's frown and the loss of place and
power. While we do not differ from
Chrysostom's opinion that he was [Greek]
(Chrys. I. 802, adv. Judos, vi.), or that
recorded in the Apostolical Constitutions
(v. 14), that he was [Greek], we yet see
abundant reason for our Lord's merciful
judgment, "He that delivered me unto thee
hath the greater sin." At the same time his
history furnishes a proof that worldliness
and want of principle are sources of crimes
no less awful than those which spring from
Clough (1880, pp. 37-38)
The character of Pilate may he suffic-
iently inferred from the foregoing sketch of
his conduct at our Lord's trial. He was a type
of the rich and corrupt Romans of his age; a
worldly-minded statesman, conscious of no
higher wants than those of this life, yet by no
means unmoved by feelings of justice and
mercy. His conduct to the Jews in the
instances given by Josephus, though severe,
was not thoughtlessly cruel or tyrannical,
considering the general practice of Roman
governors, and the difficulties of dealing with
a nation so arrogant and perverse. Certainly
there is nothing in the facts recorded by
profane authors inconsistent with his desire to
save our Lord. But all his better feelings were
overpowered by a selfish regard for his own
security. He would not encounter the least
hazard of personal annoyance in behalf of
innocence and justice; the unrighteous
condemnation of a good man was a trifle in
comparison with the fear of the emperor's
frown and the loss of place and power. The
unhappy notoriety given to his name by its
place in the two universal creeds of Christen-
dom is due, not to any desire to singling him
out for shame, but to the need of fixing the
date of our Lord's death, and so bearing
witness to the claims of Christianity to rest on
a historical basis. That the conduct of Pilate
was highly criminal can not be denied. But
his guilt was light in comparison with the
atrocious depravity of the Jews, especially
the priests. His was the guilt of weakness
and fear; theirs was the guilt of settled and
Page -106-
deliberate and reckless wickedness. The
unhappy notoriety given to his name by its
place in the two universal creeds of
Christendom is due, not to any desire of
singling him out for shame, but to the need of
fixing the date of our Lord's death, and so
bearing witness to the claims of Christianity
to rest on a historical basis (August. De Fide
et Symb. c.v. vol. vi. p. 156; Pearson, On
the Creed, pp. 239, 240, ed. Burt, and the
authorities quoted in note c). The number
of dissertations on Pilate's character and
all the circumstances connected with him,
his "facinora," his "Christum servandli
stundium;" his wife's dream, his supposed
letters to Tiberius. Which have been
published during the last and present
centuries, is quite overwhelming. The
student may consult with advantage Dean
Alford's Commentary; Ellicott, Historical
Lectures on the life of our Lord, sect. vii.;
Neander's life of Christ, 285 (Bohn);
Winer, Reahcortebuch, art "Pilatus;"
Ewald, Geschichte, v. 30. &c.
deliberate malice. His state of mind
prompted him to attempt the release of an
accused person in opposition to the
clamors of a misguided mob; theirs urged
them to compass the ruin of an acquitted
person by instigating the populace,
calumniating the prisoner and terrifying
the judge. Viewing the entire conduct of
Pilate, his previous iniquities as well as his
bearing on the condemnation of Jesus,
viewing his own actual position and the
malignity of the Jews, we can not give our
vote with those who have passed the
severest condemnation on this weak and
guilty governor.
Note.In this account we have largely availed
ourselves of the article in Smiths Dict. of the
Bible, with additions from McClintock &
Strong, and others.
[This is what counts for giving credit for
the volume of material that was edited and
borrowed.]
Plumptre (1860, p. 2528)
the (Greek, a portable tribunal which was
Cutts (1882, p. 410)
. . . Probably the portable official chair,--
"the judgment seat,"--which was carried
about with a Roman magistrate, was brought
out, and he sat down in it on the marble
pavement of the portico, thus elevated by its
steps above the level of the crowd. . . .
Page -107-
Plumptre (1860, p. 2529)
. . . The result of this interview was one
last effort to save Jesus by a fresh appeal to
the multitude; but now arose the formidable
cry, "If thou let this man go, thou art not
Csar's friend," and Pilate, to whom political
success was as the breath of life, again
ascended the tribunal, and finally pronounced
the desired condemnation.
Luckock (1885, p. 359)
. . . But Pilate would not relent; we are
even told that he took steps to release Him,
and then their last device was tried--the
desperate effort reserved till all else had
failed: "If thou let this Man go, thou art not
Caesar's friend." And he yielded at once. That
name of Caesar acted like a potent spell, and
made a slave of one "to whom political
success was as the breath of life."
Plumptre (1860, p. 2529)
But we learn from Josephus (Ant. xviii.
4, 1) that his anxiety to avoid giving offence
to Caesar did not save him from political
disaster. The Samaritans were unquiet and
rebellious. A leader of their own race had
promised to disclose to them the sacred
treasures which Moses was reported to have
concealed in Mount Gerizim. Pilate led his
troops against them, and defeated them easily
enough. The Samaritans complained to
before the emperor (Ibid. 2). When he
(Caligula) on the throne, A. D. 36. Eusebius
wearied with misfortunes, he killed
himself. As to the scene of his death there are
various traditions. One is, that he was
banished to Vienna Allbrogum (Vienne on
the Rhone), where a singular monument, a
pyramid on a quadrangular base, 52 feet high,
is called Pontius Pilate's tomb (Dictionary of
Geography, art. Vienna). Another is, that he
recesses, in remorse and despair rather than in
occupies its summit. . . .
Maas (1890, p. 517)
. . . Pilate's anxiety to give no offence to
the Emperor, did not save him from final
disaster. He led his troops against the
Samaritans who were rebellious, and defeated
them without difficulty. But the Samaritans
complained to Vitellius, President of Syria,
and he sent Pilate to Rome to answer their
complaints before the Emperor. When he
reached Rome, Tiberius was dead, and Caius
Caligula reigned in his place (A. D. 36).
Eusebius says that soon after, Pilate killed
himself, wearied with misfortunes.* Some
place the scene of his death in Vienne on the
Rhone, whither he had been banished. A
pyramid on a quadrangular base, fifty-two
feet high, is called Pontius Pilate's tomb.
Others say that Pilate sought to forget his
sorrows on Mount Pilatus, near the lake of
Lucerne, and after spending years in its
recesses, in remorse and despair rather than in
penitence, plunged into the lake on its
summit. . . .
* According to other sources the last
three words came from Eusebius.
Page -108-
Plumptre (1860, pp. 2526-2527)
. . . The name indicates that he was
connected, by descent or adoption, with the
gens of the Pontii, first conspicuous in Roman
history in the person of C. Pontius Telesinus,
the great Samnite general. . . . One of his first
acts was to remove the headquarters of the
army from Csarea to Jerusalem. The
soldiers of course took with them their
standards, bearing the image of the emperor,
into the Holy City. . . . They poured down in
crowds to Csarea where the procurator was
then residing, and besought him to remove
the images. After five days of discussion, he
gave the signal to some concealed soldiers to
surround the petitioners, and put them to
death unless they ceased to trouble him; but
this only strengthened their determination,
and they declared themselves ready rather to
submit to death than forego their resistance to
an idolatrous innovation. Pilate then yielded,
and the standards were by his orders brought
down to Caesarea (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 3, 1,
2, B. J. ii. 9, 2-4). On two other occasions
he nearly drove the Jews to insurrection; the
first when in spite of this warning about the
images, he hung up in his palace at Jerusalem
some gilt shields inscribed with the names of
from Tiberius (Philo, and Caium, 38, ii.
589): the second when he appropriated the
revenue arising from the redemption of vows
(Corban; comp. Mark vii. 11) to the construc-
massacred a great number, not only of rioters,
Maas (1890, pp. 516-517)
. . . His name indicates that he belonged
to the clan of the Pontii, first conspicuous
through C. Pontius Telesinus, the great
Samnite general. He obtained his appointment
in the twelfth year of Tiberius (A. D. 25), and
soon exasperated the Jews by several
imprudent measures: 1. On his accession, he
removed the headquarters of the Roman army
from Csarea to Jerusalem. The soldiers
taking their standards with them, carried the
image of the Roman emperor into the holy
city. The Jews poured out in crowds to
Csarea and besought Pilate to remove the
images. After five days of discussion he gave
surround the petitioners and put them to
death, unless they ceased to trouble him. But
the Jews declared themselves ready to die
rather than to submit to idolatrous
innovations. Pilate then yielded, and had the
images brought back to Cesarea. 2. Pilate also
hung up in his palace at Jerusalem several gilt
shields inscribed with the names of deities.
They were removed on
request of the Jews by order of the
Emperor Tiberius. 3. On another occasion,
Pilate appropriated the revenue from the
redemption of vows (Corban) to the
construction of an aqueduct. This led to a riot,
crowd, soldiers with concealed daggers, who
massacred a great number, not only of the
rioters, but also of casual spectators. 4. To
these instances of Pilate's cruelty and tyranny,
cited from profane authors, we may add
another from the Gospel (Luke xiii. 1). He
slaughtered a number of Galileans who had
come up to celebrate a festival in Jerusalem;
the slaughter probably took place in the outer
court of the Temple. . . .
Page -109-
which He founded some remarks on the
connection between sin and calamity. It must
seems to show that riots and massacres on
Plumptre (1860, p. 2529)
We learn from Justin Martyr (Apol. I. pp.
76, 84), Tertullian (Apol. c. 21), Eusebius (H.
E. ii. 2), and others, that Pilate made an
official report to Tiberius of our Lord's trial
and condemnation; and in a homily ascribed
to Chrysostom, though marked as spurious by
his Benedictine editors (Hom. viii. in Pasch.
vol. viii. p. 968, D) certain [Greek] (Acta, or
Commentarii Pilati) are spoken of as well-
known documents in common circulation.
Maas (1890, p. 517)
Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius, etc.,
maintain that Pilate sent an official report of
Our Lord's death to Tiberius; at the time of
St. Chrysostom, certain memoranda of Pilate
seem to have been well known, and to have
been in common circulation (Smith).
Note that in the last two examples that there was a large amount of editing and yet
the section is noted as having come from Smith (Plumptre wrote the article). And, like
Clough, Mass dropped all of the references.
Andrews (1862, p. 519)
. . . The incidental mention of Galilee
suggests to the governor that he might relieve
himself from responsibility by sending Him
to Herod Antipas, who was then in the city,
and unto whose jurisdiction, as a Galilan,
Jesus rightfully belonged. . . .
Eddy (1867, p. 710)
. . . Hearing them mention Galilee Pilate
inquired whether Jesus were a Galilean, and
when told that He was, determined to send
Him immediately to Herod Antipas, who was
then in Jerusalem attending the Passover. . . .
Page -110-
Andrews (1862, p. 526)
. . . The Jews now perceived that Pilate,
knowing that the charge of sedition was
baseless, and deeply sympathizing with Jesus,
would not put Him to death; and were
compelled to return to the original charge of
blasphemy upon which he was condemned.
"We have a law and by our law He ought to
die, because He made Himself the Son of
God." This gives a new turn to the
accusation; they had charged Him with
saying that He was Christ a King, but here is
far more (Godet).
Eddy (1867, p. 708)
. . . Compelled at last to present definite
charges, they carefully conceal the charge of
blasphemy on which they had convicted Him,
and bring forward a totally different
indictment: "We found this fellow perverting
the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to
Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ, a
King." . . .
Note the informality of the reference; Andrews acknowledges Godet, but the
specific material used is neither quotation-marked nor is it documented by title and page
number.
The material in italics (not italicized in the original) appears in the 1891 and 1909
versions of Andrews bookthe 1862 versions do not have it.
Andrews (1862, p. 517)
. . . But, however this may have been, it
is plain that he was by no means disposed to
be a mere tool in the hands of the priests and
elders to execute their revengeful plans. . . .
L. Abbott (1869, p. 463)
Pilate's part in the execution of Jesus was
that of a tool in the hands of stronger natures.
Several circumstances conspired to make him
a reluctant tool.
Andrews (1862, p. 529)
The traditional site in the Via Dolorosa
of the place where Pilate presented Jesus to
the people, or the Arch of the Ecce Homo,
has been recently defended by Saulcy, (ii.
291.) who says that this arched gate was
connected with a wall of Pilate's palace, and
answered the purpose of a gallery or tribune
when the governor wished to address the
people. (See Rob, iii. 171, 220.)
J. Abbott (1872, p. 130)
. . . Pilate presented Jesus to the Jews,
saying scornfully, "Behold your King!"
Page -111-
Andrews (1862, p. 519)
By Herod the Lord was gladly received,
as he had long desired to see Him, and hoped
that He would now work some miracle before
him. But to all the king's questions He
answered nothing, nor did He reply to the
accusations of His enemies. . . .
Adams (1878, p. 322)
. . . But, meanwhile, recollecting that He
had been spoken of as a Galilean--which
Province was under Herod's jurisdiction, and
He was then in Jerusalem, hoping to escape
the responsibility of either releasing or
condemning Him--he sent Him to Herod, who
had long wished to see Him, and hoped to
witness some miracle done by Him; the Chief
Priests and Scribes went also, and violently
accused Him. . . .
Note: Adamss phraseology follows Andrews with the exception of one synonymous
verb, but that verb and another are clearly derived from the biblical text (Luke 23:8:
And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a
long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some
miracle done by him). This will not be counted in Table 3.
Andrews (1862, p. 525)
. . . And why, if this were his purpose,
should Jesus be taken into the common hall,
or Pretorium, and subjected to the insults and
mockery of the soldiers? . . .
Deems (1868, p. 656)
Then the soldiers of Pilate took Jesus
away into the common hall, called the
Prtorium, probably in the castle of Antonia,
and gathered, the whole company of the
guard, which usually numbered about 400
men. . . .
Andrews (1862, p. 517)
. . . By the use of this general term they
conceal the nature of His offence, which was
purely ecclesiastical. They had condemned
Him for blasphemy, but for this Pilate would
not put Him to death--probably would not
entertain the case at all; and as they knew not
what other crime to lay to His charge, they
present Him as a malefactor. . . .
Stalker (1880, p. 133)
. . . In the Sanhedrin they had condemned
Him for blasphemy; but such a charge would
have been treated by Pilate, as they well
knew, in the same way as it was afterwards
treated by the Roman governor Gallio, when
preferred against Paul by the Jews of Corinth.
. . .
Andrews (1862, p. 519)
. . . So when on inquiry he found that our
Lord was a Galilan, he sent Him off at once
to Herod, who was then in Jerusalem. . . .
Page -112-
Andrews (1862, p. 518)
Up to this time the accusers of Jesus and
Pilate had been standing without the
Prtorium. . . .
Crabtre (1883, p. 493)
Up to this moment, Pilate had been
standing without the palace, with Jesus near
him, and His clamoring accusers beyond.
Now, calling Jesus, Pilate went with Him into
the Pretorium.--John.
. . . The effect of this conversation upon
Pilate was very great. He saw at once that
Jesus was no vulgar inciter of sedition, no
ambitious demagogue or fanatical zealot, and
that the kingdom of which He avowed
Himself to be the king, was one of truth and
not of force. . . .
"The effect of this conversation upon
Pilate was very great. He saw at once that
Jesus was no vulgar exciter of sedition, no
ambitious demagogue, no fanatical zealot,
and that the kingdom of which He avowed
Himself to be the king was one of truth, and
not of force."--Andrews.
Note that Crabtre does cite his source (but without a page reference) for the second
example where he uses a whole sentence (with one minor word change (bolded)), but not
in the first example where he is only using a fragment of a sentence.
Andrews (1862, pp. 520-521)
. . . Ascending the tribunal, he formally
declares that, having examined Jesus, he had
found no fault in Him, neither had Herod, to
whom he had sent Him; and after chastising
Him, he will therefore release Him. . . .
But when the Governor, hoping to enlist
some popular sympathy, put this alternative
to themnay, urged it, on the ground that
neither he nor Herod yet had found any fault
in Him, and would even have appeased their
thirst for vengeance by offering to submit
Jesus to the cruel punishment of scourging, it
was in vain. . . .
Note: The phraseology of both writers tracks closely on biblical passages such as
Luke 23:14, 15: I, having examined [him] before you, have found no fault in this man
touching those things whereof ye accuse him: No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him;
and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.
Andrews (1862, p. 518)
Weiss (1884, p. 350)
. . . Hearing this, he thought himself
entitled to refer the matter to the tetrarch
Herod Antipas, who was then in Jerusalem in
attendance on the feast (Luke xxiii. 6 f.). . . .
The name Antipas is not present in the 1862 editions of Andrews.
Page -113-
Andrews (1862, p. 517)
. . . But, however this may have been, it
is plain that he was by no means disposed to
be a mere tool in the hands of the priests and
elders to execute their revengeful plans. . . .
Luckock (1885, p. 350)
. . . But he had no idea of accepting such
a position as that, and submitting to be a mere
tool in the hands of the Sanhedrin. . . .
Andrews (1862 p. 515)
. . . This Pavement is supposed to have
been between the fortress Antonia and the
western portico of the temple, identifying it
with one mentioned by Josephus. . . .
Fouard (1890, p. 301)
. . . We shall not try to follow the Saviour
over this portion of His sorrowful journey;
but it is hardly probable that his guards would
have forced him to descend the steep side of
Moriah and then reascend the Hill of Sion,
when by crossing from the western portico of
the Temple and over the bridge of Tyropon,
they could at once reach the Princes palace.
Andrews (1862, p. 519)
. . . By Herod the Lord was gladly
received, as he had long desired to see Him,
and hoped that He would now work some
miracle before him. . . .
Bird (1891, p. 440)
. . . When Pilates message was given to
him he was pleased that the Prisoner was
Jesus, for he had long wished to see Him, and
expected He would work some wonder before
him. . . .
Most likely both authors are paraphrasing Scripture.
Andrews (1862, p. 518)
. . . At worst, He was only a religious
enthusiast, from whose pretensions Csar
could have nothing to fear; and he determines
to save Him, if possible, from the hands of
His enemies. . . .
Watson (1900, p. 543)
. . . If the Procurator of Juda had
obeyed his own conscience, and vindicated
the majesty of Roman law, if he had declared
Jesus innocent from his judgment-seat, with
authority, and rescued Him from the hands of
His enemies, then he had gained unto himself
everlasting renown. . . .
Bouchier (1863, pp. 450-451)
. . . Because Pilate in all probability
would have driven them from his tribunal: he
might have said, as Gallio another Roman
deputy or governor did say not long
afterwards "If it be a question of words and
names, and of your law, look ye to it, for I
will be no judge of such matters."
Farrar (1870, p. 630)
. . . If he could have dared to show his
real instincts, he would have driven them
from his tribunal with all the haughty
insouciance of a Gallio. . . .
[Note that both authors also mention
Gallio.]
Page -114-
Hanna (1863, p. 677-8)
that he had to do. . . .
De Pressens (1865, p. 464)
. . . Up to this day those who have come
before him have been all courtiers or men of
faction; now for the first time he meets with a
living conscience; he is confronted with that
moral power against which Rome, the city of
might, has made no provision, and which will
snatch from her the world which she thinks
she has enchained for ever. . . .
Hanna (1863, pp. 677-678)
that he had to do. . . .
Geikie (1868, p. 509)
. . . The flattery of [Pilates] referring a
Galilan case to him [Herod] as the Galilan
tetrarch, greatly pleased him, and his light
superficial nature was no less gratified by
having One brought before him, of whom he
had heard so much. . . .
Paraphrase of a portion of Luke 23:8 . . . because he had heard many things of him
. . .
Hanna (1863, p. 700)
might get rid of that clear and imperative duty
which it laid upon him; and by so doing he
weakened and unsettled this conviction, and
prepared for its being overborne.
Ware (1868, p. 238)
. . . The governor was entirely satisfied
that Jesus was innocent of the charges urged
against him, and perfectly aware that they had
been made maliciously. . . .
Hanna (1863, p. 699)
. . . Pilate knew that already he stood
upon uncertain ground with the imperial
authorities; he knew that a fresh report of
anything like unfaithfulness to Csar would
cost him his office. . . .
J. Abbott (1872, p. 130)
Pilate was not on very good terms with
the imperial government. He knew that any
report that he was unfaithful to Csar might
cost him his office.
Page -115-
Hanna (1863, p. 692)
. . . He recollected at the same time that
there was a notable prisoner, who then lay
bound at Jerusalem, one Barabbas, who for
sedition and murder had been cast into prison;
and the idea occurred to Pilate that if--instead
either of asking them broadly and generally
who it was that they wished him to release, or
whether they would let him choose for them
and release Jesus--he narrowed in this
instance the choice, and presented to them the
alternative of taking Barabbas or Jesus, they
could scarcely fail to choose the latter. . . .
Craigin (1874, p. 527)
Then Pilate, wishing to content the
multitude, released unto them Bar-Abbas,
who, for murder and sedition, had been cast
into prison. But Jesus he ordered to be
scourged, according to the Roman custom of
scourging criminals before they should be
crucified; as crucifixion was a horrible death,
inflicted only on the worst criminals, or the
most persistent rebels.
For both authors this is a paraphrase of a portion of either Luke 23:19 or verse 25:
. . . for sedition and murder was cast into prison . . .
Hanna (1863, p. 673)
. . . At Jerusalem, these reserved cases
were brought up for adjudication at the time
of the great festivals, when the Roman
procurator, who resided ordinarily at
Caesarea, visited the capital. For the last six
years, Pontius Pilate had held this office in
Judea, and he was now in the city on occasion
of this passover. . . .
Didon (1893, pp. 334-335)
. . . Pilate, the governor, lived at
Caesarea, but came to Jerusalem on the
occasion of the national festivals, his
presence being rendered necessary by the
great concourse of Jews by which they were
frequented. . . .
Hanna (1863, p. 673)
. . . It is a house which the Gentile has
occupied and polluted; a house from which
the leaven has not been cast out; a house to
cross whose threshold at such a time as this-
-on the very eve of the passover--was to
disqualify the entrant from all participation in
the holy rite. . . .
Didon (1893, p. 335)
. . . They were about to celebrate the
Paschal Feast that same evening, and by
entering into a Gentile abode they would have
received defilement which would have
excluded them from participation in the
sacred festival. . . .
Hanna (1863, p. 694)
. . . "When Pilate saw that he could
prevail nothing, but rather that a tumult was
made, he took water and washed his hands
before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of
the blood this just person: see ye to it. Then
answered all the people, and said, His blood
be on us, and on our children."And he
delivered Jesus to their will.
Didon (1893, p. 343)
After having protested his innocence, the
governor yielded. They asked for the release
of Barabbas; he released unto them the rebel,
the murderer, the robber, and delivered Jesus
to their will.
[From Luke 23:25not counted.]
Page -116-
Hanna (1863, pp. 122-123)
. . . Pilate called, therefore, now afresh
together the Chief Priests, and the Rulers, and
the people--the latter particularly mentioned,
as Pilate had now begun to think that his best
chance of gaining the end upon which his
heart was set,--the deliverance of Christ out
of the hands of his enemies,--would be by
appealing, over the heads of their rulers, to
the humanity of the common people. When
all, then, were again assembled, he made a
short speech to them, reiterating his own
conviction of Christ's innocence, confirming
it by the testimony of Herod, and closing by a
proposal that he hoped would be at once
accepted,--I will therefore chastise him, and
release him. . . .
Meyer (1898, p. 232)
. . . He, therefore, summoned around him
the chief priests and rulers of the people. The
latter are particularly mentioned, as though
Pilate thought that his best method of saving
Jesus would be by appealing over the heads
of the priests to the humanity of the common
people. When all were again assembled he
made, as Luke tells us, a short speech to
them, reiterating his conviction of His
innocence, corroborating his own opinion by
Herod's, and closing by a proposal which he
hoped would meet the whole case. "I will
therefore chastise Him and release Him." . . .
Hanna (1863, p. 691)
You will remember that when first he
heard, among the other accusations which the
high priest lodge against him, that Jesus had
said that he himself was Christ a Kingstruck
at once with the singularity of the pretension,
and with the appearance of the man who
made it, Pilate called on Christ to follow him
into the inner hall of his residence; that there,
when alone with him, omitting all reference
to any other charge, he asked him particular-
ly about this one; that Christ fully satisfied
him as to there being nothing politically
dangerous or offensive in the claim to a
kingdom which he had put forth; that, bring-
ing Christ out along with him to the Jews, he
had said at once and decidedly, "I find no
fault in this man;" and then, taking advantage
of a reference to Galilee, he had sent Jesus off
to Herod, to see what that Galilean king and
judge might think and do.
White (1898, p. 731)
Pilate was disappointed and much
displeased. When the Jews returned with their
prisoner, he asked impatiently what they
would have him do. He reminded them that
he had already examined Jesus, and found no
fault in Him; he told them that they had
brought complaints against Him, but they had
not been able to prove a single charge. He had
sent Jesus to Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee,
and one of their own nation, but he also had
found in Him nothing worthy of death.
[Note: This could be a paraphrase of Luke 23:7 . . . he sent him to Herod. Note
also the difference in context. In Hanna the similar wording is when Pilate sends Jesus
off to Herod; whereas, in White the wording is after He is brought back. This is not
counted in Table 3, but is listed here for illustrative purposes.]
Page -117-
Hanna (1863, p. 692-3)
Pilate's wife was not a Jew, nor did she
mix much with the common people of the
land.
White (1898, p. 732)
. . . Pilate's wife was not a Jew, but as she
looked upon Jesus in her dream, she had no
doubt of His character or mission. . . .
Hanna (1863, p. 691)
high priest lodge against him, that Jesus had
said that he himself was Christ a King--struck
at once with the singularity of the pretension,
and with the appearance of the man who
made it, Pilate called on Christ to follow him
into the inner hall of his residence; that there,
when alone with him, omitting all reference
to any other charge, he asked him particular-
ly about this one; that Christ fully satisfied
him as to their being nothing politically
dangerous or offensive in the claim to a king-
dom which he had put forth; that, bringing
Christ out along with him to the Jews, he had
said at once and decidedly, "I find no fault in
this man;" and then, taking advantage of a
reference to Galilee, he had sent Jesus off to
Herod, to see what that Galilean king and
judge might think and do.
Gunsaulus (1899, p. 610)
Now the capital charge is formulated, so
that it must strike Pilate. He is interested, not
in anything Jesus may have said about His
ruling men's hearts by love, or Sabbath-work;
but he is taken at once by the statement that
Jesus said that He Himself was Christ, a
King. Besides, they have now dragged the
name of Caesar in and told him that Jesus
forbade to give tribute to the Emperor. There
stands Jesus, and the guards are still about
Him. Pilate is determined to observe and save
truth, justice, and mercy, Kome [sic, Rome],
Pilate. "Thou art the King of the Jews?"--
Matt. xxvii, 11--he says inquiringly. Who can
tell how wonder and bitterness struggled in
his voice? Did he put the emphasis on the
word King, with his cynicism, or on the word
Jews, with his contempt? We do not know,
but we look at Jesus. . . .
Lange (1864, p. 511)
. . . The Greek Church has canonized her.
. . . The Greek Church has canonized her.
. . .
Lange (1864, p. 511)
Ver. 19. When he was set down on the
judgment-seat.--The people had a moment for
consideration, and Pilate regards the issue as
one of such certainty, that he ascends the seat
of judgment to receive the decision of the
people, and to pronounce judgment
accordingly. . . .
Geikie (1868, p. 512)
To add to the governor's perplexity, he
had scarcely ascended the judge's seat to
receive the decision of the people, and give
his sentence in accord with it, when a
message came to him from his wife, from the
palace behind, which, under the
circumstances, must have greatly impressed
him. . . .
Page -118-
Lange (1864, p. 510)
. . . The events, according to the
Evangelist, occurred in the following order:
At first Pilate wished to hand Jesus over to
the Jewish court that is to receive a simple
ecclesiastical censure. Then he sent Jesus to
Herod, to get rid of the difficulty. Thereupon
occurred the presentation of Christ along with
Barabbas, and after the failure of that device,
the significant hand-washing. Then, the
presentation of Jesus to the people, after He
had been scourged ([German]). . . .
Johnson (1873, p. 147)
The events of this examination occurred
in the following order. At first Pilate desired
to remand Jesus to the Sanhedrin to receive
such punishment as it was lawful for the
ecclesiastical court to inflict, John 18:81.
Then he endeavored to evade the
responsibility by sending Jesus to Herod,
Luke 23: 5-15. Jesus was returned to Pilate,
whose next device was the effort to induce
the populace to demand the release of Jesus
instead of Barabbas. Then followed the
significant hand-washing, the presentation of
Jesus to the people after the scourging, John
19:1-5, the abuse of the soldiery, and the
sentence of crucifixion.
Lange (1864, p. 510)
After He had, according to John xviii. 37,
declared that He was the Messiah, and in
what sense, He made no answer to the most
diverse accusations and questions and spake
not till Pilate cast in His teeth the taunt
"Knowest thou not that I have power to
crucify thee and have power to release thee?"
John xix. 10. The accusations were by His
silence stamped as groundless, and this
majesty of silence filled Pilate with wonder
and amazement.
Johnson (1873, p. 148)
. . . Lange: "After he had declared that he
was the Messiah, and in what sense, he made
no answer to the most diverse accusations and
questions, and spoke not till Pilate cast in his
teeth the taunt, 'Knowest thou not that I have
power to release thee and have power to
crucify thee?' John 19:10. The accusations
were by his silence stamped as groundless;
and this majesty of silence filled Pilate with
wonder and amazement." . . .
Note how Johnson has edited the quote. Not counted in Table 3.
Lange (1864, p. 510)
. . . The antiquity of this custom is un-
known. The Talmud makes no allusion to it;
but that is in all likelihood an intentional
oversight. Grotius says, this custom was
introduced by the Romans for the purpose of
flattering the Jews. Braume: "The Roman and
Greek custom of releasing prisoners upon the
birthdays and festive seasons of the emperors,
and upon days of public rejoicing had been
undoubtedly introduced among the Jews
before the time of Pilate, to soften the Roman
yoke.
Johnson (1873, p. 149)
. . . The origin of the practice is
unknown; it is mentioned only in the Gospels.
Probably it was based upon the Roman and
Greek custom of releasing prisoners on
occasions of public rejoicing, such as the
birthdays of emperors and the celebrations of
victories, a custom still perpetuated in the
occasional general amnesties proclaimed by
the sovereigns of Europe.
Page -119-
Lange (1864, p. 511)
. . . Besides he appears to have waited
cunningly till the people had reassembled in
very large numbers before his palace on the
Antonia after having gone and returned with
the train which conducted Jesus to Herod. . . .
Johnson (1873, p. 149)
. . . Lange: "Pilate appears to have waited
cunningly till the people had reassembled in
very large numbers before his palace, after
they had gone and returned with the train
which conducted Jesus to Herod."
Note how Johnson has edited the quote. Not counted in Table 3.
Lange (1865, p. 511)
. . . The judge was required to pronounce
judgment from a lofty seat of authority, from
his chair of office. . . .
Johnson (1873, p. 150)
. . . Lange: "The judge was required to
pronounce sentence from a lofty seat of
authority, from his chair of office." . . .
Lange (1865, pp. 511-512)
It is a remarkable fact that a woman, and
she a heathen, should be the only human
being who had the courage to plead the cause
of our Saviour during these dreadful hours
when His own disciples forsook Him, and
when the fanatical multitude cried out:
Crucify Him, crucify Him! It is equally
remarkable that she should call Him [Gk.],
that just man, and thus remind one of the
most memorable unconscious prophecy of
heathenism, viz., Plato's description of the
perfect [Gk.], who, "without doing any
wrong, may assume the appearance of the
grossest injustice (Gk.);" yea, who "shall be
scourged, tortured, fettered, deprived of his
eyes, and, after having endured all possible
sufferings, fastened to a post, must restore
again the beginning and prototype of
righteousness" (see Plato, Politia, vol. iv.
P.74 sqq.; ed. Ast, p. 880 sq., ed. Bip., and
my History of the Apostolic Church, p. 433
sq.). Aristotle, too, says of the perfectly just
man, "that he stands so far above the political
order and constitution as it exists, that he
must break it, wherever he appears." The
prophecies of Greek wisdom and the majesty
of the Roman law here unite in a Roman lady,
the wife of the imperial representative in
Jerusalem, to testify to the innocence and
Johnson (1873, p. 150)
. . . Schaff: "It is a remarkable fact that a
woman, and she a heathen, should be the only
human being who had the courage to plead
the cause of our Saviour during those
dreadful hours when his own disciples
forsook him. It is equally remarkable that she
should call him that just man, and thus
remind one of the most memorable
unconscious prophecy of heathenism, viz.,
Plato's description of the perfect just man,
'who shall be scourged, tortured, fettered,
deprived of his eyes, and, after having
endured all possible sufferings, fastened to a
post, and must restore again the beginning
and prototype of righteousness.' It is very
likely that the wife of Pilate was one of those
God-fearing heathen women who, without
embracing the Jewish religion, were longing
and groping in the dark after the unknown
God."
Page -120-
mission of Christ. It is very likely that the
wife of Pilate was one of those God-fearing
heathen women, who, without embracing the
Jewish religion, were longing and groping in
the dark for the "unknown the God."--P.S.]
Note how Johnson has added and deleted material to the quote from Schaff, without
telling the reader that he has done either.
Lange (1864, p. 512)
. . . They might have asked simply that
he would confirm the condemnation for
blasphemy and sentence Jesus to the Jewish
mode of execution by stoning; but they go
further and demand his active cooperation in
the judgment. They wished Jesus to be
executed as an insurrectionists, and hence to
be crucified according to the Roman custom.
They sought by this extreme penalty and this
deepest disgrace to annihilate the memory of
Jesus, and to stake the Roman might against
faith in Him. . . .
Johnson (1873, p. 151)
. . . The multitude might have demanded
that Jesus should be stoned, which was the
Jewish penalty for blasphemy; or they might
have demanded merely that he be put to
death, without specifying the mode; but the
hatred of the rulers, who influenced the
clamor, would be satisfied with nothing less
than the most painful and ignominious death.
Lange: "They sought by this extreme penalty,
and this deepest disgrace, to annihilate the
memory of Jesus, and to stake the Roman
might against faith in him." . . .
Lange (1864, p. 512)
. . . A symbolical set of Jewish custom
(consult Deut. xxi. 6; Sota, 8, 6 by which one
frees oneself solemnly from guilt. Pilate
adopted a Jewish custom, to make himself
from their own stand-point fully understood,
and probably also to make a final attempt to
dissuade them from the course they were
pursuing. "The heathen practice of cleansing
the hands to clear them from the guilt of
murder after it had been committed might
from its analogy has led to the adoption of the
Jewish custom." Meyer. The matter however,
was important enough to call for a peculiar
symbolic expression. [Pilate washed his
hands, but not his heart and in delivering up
Christ whom he pronounced innocent he
condemned himself. Senses of guilt made him
a coward.]
Johnson (1873, p. 151)
. . . He adopted a Jewish custom, Deut.
21:6, so as to be well understood. Meyer:
"The heathen custom of washing the hands to
clear them from the guilt of murder after it
had been committed, might, from its analogy,
have led to the adoption of the Jewish
custom." He had not merely the intention of
moving the people; but the obscure
conviction that in case the clamor should
continue till he yielded to it, this solemn act
would render his participation in crime more
free from blame. But a judge cannot thus free
himself from the responsibility of his station.
Schaff: "Pilate washed his hands, but not his
heart; and in delivering up Christ, whom he
pronounced innocent, he condemned himself.
Sense of guilt made him a coward."
Note the minimum credit given to Lange, Meyer and Schaff as the source.
Page -121-
Lange (1864, pp. 512-513)
. . . The Roman scourging of which
mention is here made, was much more severe
than the Jewish. According to the latter, only
the upper part of the body was barred;
according to the former the entire body. The
Jews numbered the lashes (2 Cor. xi. 24); The
Romans laid them on without number of
mercy besides, the Roman scourge was more
excruciating. [extensive ellipsing] Those who
were flogged were tied to a pillar; generally
they were bound in a stooping posture to a
low block, and so the skin of the naked back
was stretched tight, and fully exposed to the
fearful lashes. The whips were either rods or
thongs, to the ends of which lead or bones
were attached, to increase the tension of the
lash, and render the blow the more fearful.
The backs of the prisoners were completely
flayed by this process. They frequently
fainted, and sometimes died. The soldiers
would not inflict the punishment mildly for
they were the cruel ones who mocked Him
afterward. It was moreover, the policy of
Pilate that Jesus should be perfectly
disfigured.
Johnson (1873, p. 152)
. . . The Romans always scourged the
criminal before his crucifixion; and Pilate
administered this preliminary part of the sen-
tence, hoping, nevertheless, that the Jews
would be satisfied with it. The Roman
scourging was much more severe than the
Jewish; for the former the whole body was
bared, but for the latter only the upper part; in
the former the number of stripes was limited
by the caprice of those who inflicted them; in
the latter the number was limited to forty.
The Roman lash was more terrible, being
weighted, probably, with bones and bits of
iron and leaden balls, to increase the tension
of the lash, to render the blow heavier, and to
lacerate the flesh. The prisoner was tied in a
stooping posture, so that the skin of the back
was stretched and fully exposed to the fearful
blows. The victims frequently fainted and
sometimes died under the cruel infliction.
The scourging of Jesus was probably attended
with the extremist suffering; for it was
administered by the Roman soldiers, whose
cruelty was exhibited in the subsequent
mockeries to which they subjected him and
the desire of Pilate to move the multitudes to
pity by exhibiting to them the victim of in-
justice, bleeding, faint, and disfigured, would
prevent his interference with the torture.
Page -122-
Lange (1864, p. 514)
. . . They would say Jesus had been
condemned by the orthodox court. Barabbas
was on the contrary a champion of freedom;
that Pilate wished to overthrow their right of
choice their civil rights their spiritual
authority to persecute the friend of the people
etc. . . .
Riddle (1881, pp. 216-217)
. . . The leaders would say: 'Jesus had
been condemned by the orthodox court.
Barabbas was, on the contrary a champion of
freedom; that Pilate wished to overthrow their
right of choice, their civil rights, their
spiritual authority, to persecute the friend of
the people,' etc. . . .
Note that Riddle has Langes material in single quote marks (he does this
throughout his commentary) and with no reference. Oddly, Riddle does cite Lange as a
source for a quote on page 219Langes commentary on Mark; but, these quotes are
from his commentary on Matthew.
Lange (1864, p. 513)
. . . Those who were flogged were tied to
a pillar; generally they were bound in a
stooping posture to a low block, so the skin of
the naked back was stretched tight, and fully
exposed to the fearful lashes. The whips were
either rods or throngs to the ends of which
lead or bones were attached to increase the
tension of the lash and the render the blow the
more fearful. The backs of the prisoners were
completely flayed by this process. They
frequently fainted, and sometimes died. The
soldiers would not inflict the punishment
mildly for they were the cruel ones who
mocked Him afterward. . . .
Riddle (1881, p. 218)
. . . The prisoner was usually bound in a
stooping posture so that the skin of the back
was stretched tightly; as their backs were
flayed by the process, they frequently fainted,
and sometimes died. The soldiers who
afterwards mocked Him, were not likely to be
mild in this case. . . .
Lange (1864, p. 513note by Schaff)
[By delivering Jesus to the Sanhedrin
Pilate sacrificed his lofty and independent
position as a secular judge and representative
of the Roman law to the religious fanaticism
of the Jewish hierarchy. The state became a
tool in the hands of an apostate and blood-
thirsty church. . . .
Riddle (1881, p. 218)
. . . Thus Pilate sacrificed his
independent position as a representative of
the Roman law, to the fanaticism of the
Jewish hierarchy. The State became a tool in
the hands of an apostate and bloodthirsty
Church. . . .
Page -123-
Lange (1864, p. 514)
. . . Perhaps they may have first put on
again the white dress in which Herod had
caused Him to be clothed to mark Him out as
a candidate for royal honors and then taken it
off in order to invest Him with the scarlet
robe, the sign of His having arraigned to
kingly dignity. . . .
Riddle (1881, p. 219)
. . . His clothing was replaced after the
scourging, and probably also the robe which
Herod had put on Him to mock Him (Luke
23: 11), usually supposed to have been white,
marking Him as a candidate for royal honors.
This robe was removed, and instead they put
on Him a scarlet or purple robe, as the sign of
His having attained royal honors. . . .
Lange (1864, p. 510)
. . . Grotius says, this custom was
introduced by the Romans for the purpose of
flattering the Jews. . . .
McConnell (1886, p. 159)
. . . The origin of this custom is
unknown, but it was probably established by
the Romans for the purpose of conciliating
their Jewish subjects. . . .
Lange (1864, p. 513)
. . . At one moment it seemed as though
he would himself take the initiative in the
crucifixion; again as though he would craftily
overmaster the Jews.It was usually lictors
that scourged; but Pilate being only sub-
governor had no command over lictors, and
so handed Jesus over to the soldiers. Hence it
is probable that Jesus was not beaten with
rods, but scourged with twisted thongs
leather." Friedlieb, p. 115. Those who were
flogged were tied to a pillar; generally they
were bound in a stooping posture to a low
block, so the skin of the naked back was
stretched tight, and fully exposed to the
fearful lashes. The whips were either rods or
throngs to the ends of which lead or bones
were attached to increase the tension of the
lash and the render the blow the more fearful.
The backs of the prisoners were completely
flayed by this process. They frequently
fainted, and sometimes died. . . .
Maas (1890, p. 526)
. . . The Roman scourge was made of
rods, such as lictors carried before the chief-
magistrates. Sometimes it was made of chains
and leathern-thongs, studded with bits of
metal or bone. It was used especially on
slaves and criminals from the lowest castes.
The punishment these instruments of torture
inflicted was exceedingly cruel. The entire
body was bared, and the number of lashes
was unlimited. Scourging was the usual
punishment of slaves. Roman citizens were
exempt. The soldiers scourged Jesus, for
Pilate had no lictors, being only a lower
magistrate. Hence, the whips were thongs
with bones and lead attached. The prisoner
was generally bound in a stooping position;
thus the skin of the back was stretched
tightly. The sufferer frequently fainted, and
sometimes died under the flaying. . . .
Note that some of the material Maas borrowed came from a quote from Friedlieb.
Page -124-
Lange (1864, p. 514)
. . . Perhaps they may have first put on
again the white dress in which Herod had
caused Him to be clothed to mark Him out as
a candidate for royal honors and then taken it
off in order to invest Him with the scarlet
robe, the sign of His having arraigned to
kingly dignity. . . .
Maas (1890, p. 527)
Scarlet cloak.--After scourging Jesus the
soldiers replaced His clothing, including
probably the white robe put on Him by
Herod, marking Him as a candidate for royal
honors. This is now removed and the scarlet
cloak substituted in its stead, a sign that Jesus
has reached the honors of His royalty. . . .
. . . The people, at the instigation of their
religious leaders, clamour for the release of a
vile murderer named Barabbas, and exclaim
in one voice against Jesus, " Crucify Him,
crucify Him!" . . .
Ewald (1865, p. 321)
Meanwhile Pilate had repeatedly assured
the complainants and the rest of the people,
who at the instigation of the chief-priests
assembled about the court-house, that he
could discover no guilt, but also he thought in
the worst case he could lay before them a
choice, which, as he shrewdly calculated,
would necessarily lead to the discharge of the
accused. . . .
Who copied from whom? Or, was there any copying at all?
. . . The Caesar of his day was that
Tiberius, under whom, according to Tacitus,
the accusation of treason was almost always
fatal. . . .
Nicoll (1880, p. 282)
. . . Was he to be accused before that man
with whom the accusation of treason was
almost certain death who at that time, full of
ulcers and fevers and leprosy, maddened by
the treason of his only friend, was waiting for
opportunities for new infamies? . . .
. . . Jesus gives no reply to the questions
put to Him in idle curiosity by this vile tyrant,
stained with the blood of the Baptist Herod
having in vain sought to see some miracle
done by Him, delivers Him to the soldiers. . .
.
White (1898, p. 729)
. . . This Herod was he whose hands were
stained with the blood of John the Baptist. . . .
This work by De Pressens was not present in any of the Ellen G. White libraries.
This illustrates the difficulty of assuming that any and all literary similarity is the result
of copying.
Page -125-
De Pressens (1865, pp. 465-466)
. . . He is impressed, however, by the
simple majesty of Jesus; and his wife at the
same moment sends him a warning message,
that she has suffered many things in a dream
because of the Galilean. . . .
Smith (1905, p. 489)
At their first interview, when Jesus spoke
of His unearthly Kingdom and His mission to
testify to the Truth, Pilate had sneered; but in
the interval he had perceived the majesty of
Jesus, and his soul bowed before the thorn-
crowned Man. . . .
Although unique to these two authors, the differing context of the words and the
fragmentary nature of the phrase suggests that it was not copied.
Ewald (1865, pp. 321-322)
. . . And as Jesus now returned from the
Tetrarch, Pilate first tried the course indicated
to him by the Tetrarch; had him scourged by
the soldiers and otherwise ill-treated, put in
derision a crown of thorns upon his head and
a purple robe about his shoulders, and
introduced Him to the people thus chastised
and mocked as king, in hope they would be
touched with compassion for Him. . . .
Weiss (1884, pp. 355-356)
. . . After the scourging was over, instead
of clothing Him with His own garments, they
put an old purple robe about His shoulders,
and taking some twigs from a thorn bush
growing in the walls of the court, formed
them into a wreath whose appearance
suggested a regal diadem, and then
mockingly greeted this puppet king as King
of the Jews. . . .
Jones (1865, p. 376)
. . . There was in prison a notorious felon,
Barabbas by name, put there for robbery and
murder, and attempt at sedition; and from
those crowds--probably many of them of a
base sort, such as could sympathize with that
culprit--after a while, arose a demand:
J. Abbott (1872, p. 128)
There was then in prison a noted robber
and murder [sic, murderer] by the name of
Barabbas. With one accord these Jewish
rulers cried out, "Not this man, but
Barabbas!"
Although the biblical text is the ultimate source of the fact for both writers, Abbotts
specific words (in prison, rather than the KJV bound) and their order are clearly
closer to Jones than to the biblical text. See Mark 15:7: And there was one named
Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had
committed murder in the insurrection; and John 18:40b: Now Barabbas was a
robber.
Jones (1865, p. 374)
He did not wait for an answer to this
question, but went out before the expectant
crowds, who were eager for his return. . . .
White (1898, p. 727)
. . . But he did not wait for an answer.
The tumult outside recalled him to the
interests of the hour; for the priests were
clamorous for immediate action. . . .
Page -126-
Whedon (1866, p. 206)
1. The whole multitude--Not of the
people, who were not as yet turned against
Jesus, but of the parties mentioned in verse
66 of the last chapter, namely, the ruling
classes.
Nevin (1868, p. 649)
The whole multitude. Not of the people,
who were not as yet turned against Jesus, but
of the parties mentioned in verse 66 of the
last chapter, namely, the ruling classes. . . .
Whedon (1866, p. 207)
4. I find no fault--How he came to the
conclusion that a claim to be a king is no fault
in this man, we might never be able to know
from either of the first evangelists. But John,
in the parallel passage, gives the details
which the present narrative requires. He
shows that Jesus satisfied Pilate that his
kingship was no way dangerous to the
imperial power. He was king in the realm of
truth where Csar was no rival.
Nevin (1868, pp. 650-651)
How Pilate came to the conclusion that a
claim to be a king is no fault in this man, we
learn from John xviii. 88, 87, where it is
shown that Jesus satisfied Pilate that His
kingdom was no way dangerous to the
imperial power. He was king in the realm of
truth, where Csar was no rival. It is
something indeed, for a judge not to suppress
and stifle the knowledge which he has of
innocence, but he becomes the more guilty
upon this account, if he abandons the defence
of it, and delivers it up to its enemies.
Whedon (1866, p. 207)
In many words--It was an extended
tetrarch's courtiers, with many a cross
question and device to draw out the wonder-
worker. . . .
[Compare this example with the
middle example from Nevin on page 63.]
Nevin (1868, p. 652)
In many words. It was an extended
tetrarch's courtiers, with many a cross-
question and device to draw out the wonder-
worker. Answered him nothing. It was no part
of our Lord's calling to gratify an idle
curiosity, nor could any object be gained by
declaring His doctrine to one so utterly
A respectful silence is an instruction for
some, and a refuge against others. That
person says a great deal who speaks by his
modesty, humility, and patience.
Page -127-
Whedon (1866, p. 208)
. . . Seizing, apparently, the favorable
moment when the chagrin of Herod disposed
him to listen.
Nevin (1868, p. 652)
. . . They saw very well that their interest
required them to paint Him to Herod in colors
as black as was any way possible, and accuse
Him; therefore, they did so, with visible
emphasis, (comp. Acts xviii. 28,) as if they
feared that even Herod himself, perchance,
might be too equitable with their victim,
seizing, as it would seem, the favorable
moment when the chagrin of Herod disposed
him to listen. . . .
Whedon (1866, p. 208)
. . . In a gorgeous robe--Clearly, as a
mock symbol of his royalty; this was the
purple; and probably that same robe which
was afterwards used by the soldiers of Pilate.
Nevin (1868, p. 652)
. . .Yet, being exasperated at the
dignified passiveness of Jesus, he, with his
guards, treated Him as though He was
nobody, a nothing, then scoffed at Him, then
purple robe, (doubtless one of his own, and
probably the same robe which was afterwards
used by the soldiers of Pilate,) in derision of
His Messianic dignity, then, not wishing to be
outdone in a complimentary act by Pilate, he
waived his claim of jurisdiction over Jesus,
and sent Him back to the Roman governor, at
whose tribunal He had first been arraigned.
Whedon (1866, p. 208)
15. Nothing worthy of death--As a
representative man, this Gentile stands before
the Jew and pronounces Jesus innocent. But
while he thus confessed him innocent he did
not make himself so. He shed innocent blood.
So the Gentile nations pronounce Jesus
innocent; yet it is their sin that ever crucifies
him afresh.
Nevin (1868, p. 654)
. . . Nothing worthy of death. As a
representative man, this Gentile stands before
the Jew, and pronounces Jesus innocent. But
while he thus confessed Him innocent, he did
not make himself so. He shed innocent blood.
So the Gentile nations pronounce Jesus
innocent, yet it is their sin that ever crucifies
Him afresh.
Page -128-
Whedon (1866, p. 397)
. . . The victim was bound to a low pillar,
in order that, stooping forward, he might
curve his bare back to receive the full fair
stroke. It was customarily inflicted before
crucifixion, and no limit was fixed by Roman
law to the number of the blows. It has been
questioned whether Pilate intended this to be
the scourging preceding crucifixion, or
whether it was intended as a sole punishment;
whether as a compromise, according to Luke
xxiii, 16, or whether he hoped, by presenting
Jesus under the cruel effects of the scourge
before their eyes, he might melt them to pity.
But it appears by Luke xxiii, 25 that, at the
close of the affair by their choice of
Barabbas, he delivered Jesus to their will; so
that this is probably the scourging preparatory
to crucifixion. The presenting Jesus therefore
so scourged, to induce their pity, was
doubtless an afterthought.
Nevin (1868, p. 654)
. . . The victim was bound to a low pillar,
in order that, stooping forward, he might
curve his bare back to receive the full, fair
stroke. It has been questioned whether Pilate
intended this to be the scourging preceding
the crucifixion, or whether it was intended as
a sole punishment, whether as a compromise,
or whether he hoped, by presenting Jesus
under the cruel effects of the scourge before
their eyes, he might melt them to pity. But as
it is stated, ver. 25, that he delivered Jesus to
their will, this was probably the scourging
preparatory to crucifixion. The presenting
Jesus, therefore, so scourged, to induce their
pity, was doubtless an afterthought.
Gilmore (1867, p. 274)
Now, at that festival it was customary for
the governor to release to the people a
prisoner, - whoever they would. . . .
Ware (1868, p. 238)
. . . It was customary for the governor to
honor the feast by granting pardon to some
criminal. . . .
Page -129-
Gilmore (1867, pp. 271-272)
Then the whole Sanhedrim rose, and
when they had again bound Jesus, led him
away to the hall of judgment, and delivered
him to Pontius Pilate, governor; and it was
early in the morning. They did not enter the
judgment hall, lest they should be defiled, and
prevented from eating the Passover; but Pilate
came out to them, . . .
Mass (1890, pp. 516-517)
Good Friday morning, 33 A. D. Then
they bound Jesus, and led Jesus to the
Governor's hall, and delivered Him to Pilate.
And it was morning, and they went not into
the hall, that they might not be defiled, but
that they might eat the Pasch. Pilate,
therefore, went out to them . . .
Compare with the biblical texts:
John 18:28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was
early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled;
but that they might eat the passover.
Mark 15:1 And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with
the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away,
and delivered him to Pilate.
Since the similarities are mostly from the biblical texts this will not be counted in
Table 3.
Eddy (1867, p. 712)
. . . It was the custom with the Roman
governors, derived probably from the Jews
themselves, to release a prisoner at the
Passover,--a custom, perhaps, originally
intended to commemorate the deliverance of
the nation from Egyptian bondage. . . .
Geikie (1868, p. 511)
. . . It was the custom to carry out capital
sentences at the Feast times, that the people at
large might get a lesson; but it was also the
practice of the procurators, in compliment to
the deliverance of Israel from the slavery of
Egypt, commemorated by the Passover, to
release any prisoner condemned to death,
whom the multitude might name in the
Passover week.
Page -130-
Eddy (1867 p. 707)
. . . He must, one would think, have been
surprised when he saw what sort of prisoner
they had brought to his tribunal. . . .
[Note the difference in context. In
Eddy the similarity in wording occurs at
the very beginning of the trail before
Pilate. In Farrar the literary similarity
occurs near the end of the trial. Therefore,
this will not counted in the table.]
Farrar (1870, vol. 2, pp. 373-374 )
. . . He came out once more, and seating
himself on a stately bema--perhaps the golden
throne of Archelaus, which was placed on the
elevated pavement of many-coloured
marblesummoned the Priests, the
Sanhedrists, and the people before him, and
seriously told them that they had brought
Jesus to his tribunal as a leader of sedition
and turbulence; that after full and fair inquiry
he, their Roman Governor, had found their
prisoner absolutely guiltless of these charges.
. . .
Eddy (1867, p. 712)
. . . It was the custom with the Roman
governors, derived probably from the Jews
themselves, to release a prisoner at the
Passover,--a custom, perhaps, originally
intended to commemorate the deliverance of
the nation from Egyptian bondage. . . .
Deems (1868, p. 654)
. . . A parallel between a malefactor and
the goat slain on atonement-day may have
inclined the Israelites to execute great
criminals on festivals, and their disposition to
release a prisoner at the feast might be
referred to the goat which was let go free into
the desert.
Eddy (1867, p. 712)
.. . Having caused his judgment-seat to
be set up on the pavement in front of the
palace, Pilate now sat down to await the
decision of the people. . . .
Deems (1868, p. 659)
Jesus was brought forth and placed in the
judgment-seat, in what was called the
Pavement, from the tessellated pavement in
front of the judge, and in Hebrew Gabbatha,
the etymology of which is not quite clear. . . .
Eddy (1867, p. 712)
. . . Having caused his judgment-seat to
be set up on the pavement in front of the
palace, Pilate now sat down to await the
decision of the people. . . .
Stalker (1880, p. 132)
. . . The court was held in the open air, on
a mosaic pavement in front of that portion of
the palace which united its two colossal
wings.
Eddy (1867, p. 708)
. . . "Is it so indeed? Am I merely to
confirm your sentence, without being allowed
to decide on the merits of the case? . . .
Stalker (1880, p. 132)
177. The Jewish authorities had hoped
that Pilate would accept their decision as his
own, and without going into the merits of the
case, pass the sentence they desired. . . .
Eddy (1867, p. 711)
. . . Though he asked many questions,
Jesus answered him not a word. . . .
Stalker (1880, pp. 139-140)
. . . But Jesus answered him not one
word. . . .
Page -131-
Eddy (1867, p. 710)
. . . So when on inquiry he found that our
Eddy (1867, pp. 706-707)
. . . It was the custom of the procurator,
during the great festivals, to reside at
Jerusalem, with a military force sufficient to
overawe the turbulent multitude and promptly
repress any riotous or insurrectionary
outbreak. . . .
Cutts (1882, pp. 409-410)
Pontius Pilate, the Roman Procurator, or
Governor, of Judea, ordinarily resided at the
new city of Caesarea, which Herod the Great
had founded by the sea, but it was the custom
of the Governors to come up to Jerusalem at
the great feasts with a considerable military
force as an addition to the garrison, in order
to prevent any outbreak among the multitudes
of pilgrims assembled there, excited by
religious enthusiasm. . . .
Eddy (1867, p. 710)
Weiss (1884, p. 350)
Eddy (1867, pp. 709-710)
. . . And as Pilate looked at Jesus,
standing there silent and bound, he probably
did not regard Him as a dangerous rival to
Caesar. . . .
Weiss (1884, p. 356)
. . . The fact of his bringing Him out
again, instead of allowing the execution to
take its course, was intended to show that
although he had ordered crucifixion he did
not regard Him as a dangerous character, and
was desirous that they should be contented
with this satisfaction of their thirst for
revenge. . . .
In the last example the literary similarity is pretty good in and of itself. But, in its
respective contexts it is not very telling. This shows the difficulty in assuming that
literary similarity equals copying. It will not be counted in Table 3.
Page -132-
Eddy (1867, pp. 705-706)
. . . In removing his head-quarters from
Caesarea to Jerusalem, he permitted if he did
flocked in crowds to Caesarea, and besought
Cesarea. At another time he nearly drove the
but of casual spectators. To this must be
added the slaughter of the "Galileans whose
blood Pilate had mingled with their
sacrifices."* . . .
*Luke xiii. 1.
Maas (1890, p. 517)
. . . moved the headquarters of the
Roman army from Caesarea to Jerusalem.
The soldiers taking their standards with them,
carried the image of the Roman emperor into
the holy city. The Jews poured out in crowds
to Caesarea and besought Pilate to remove the
images. . . . 2. Pilate also hung up in his
palace at Jerusalem several gilt shields
inscribed with the names of deities. They
were removed on request of the Jews by order
of the Emperor Tiberius. 3. On another
occasion, Pilate appropriated the revenue
from the redemption of vows (Corban) to the
construction of an aqueduct. This led to a riot,
crowd, soldiers with concealed daggers, who
massacred a great number, not only of the
rioters, but also of casual spectators. 4. To
these instances of Pilate's cruelty and tyranny,
cited from profane authors, we may add
another from the Gospel (Luke xiii. 1). . . .
[See page 93 for a more likely
possibility as to the source.]
Page -133-
. . . One of Pilate's first acts was to
remove the headquarters of the army from
Csarea to Jerusalem. The soldiers of course
took with them their standards, bearing the
image of the emperor, into the Holy City.
Pilate had been obliged to send them in by
night, and there were no bounds to the rage of
the people on discovering what had thus been
done. They poured down in crowds to
Csarea, where the procurator was then
residing, and besought him to remove the
images. After five days of discussion he gave
surround the petitioners and put them to death
unless they ceased to trouble him; but this
only strengthened their determination, and
they declared themselves ready rather to
submit to death than forego their resistance to
and idolatrous innovation. Pilate then yielded,
and the standards were by his orders brought
down to Csarea (Josephus, Ant. xviii, 3, 12;
War ii, 9, 2-4). . . .
On two other occasions Pilate nearly
drove the Jews to insurrection; the first when,
in his spite of this warming about the images,
he hung up in his palace at Jerusalem some
gilt shields inscribed with the names of
from Tiberius (Philo, Ad Caium, 38, ii, 589);
the second when he appropriated the revenue
arising from the redemption of vows (Corban:
comp. Mark vii, 11) to the construction of an
aqueduct. This order led to a riot, which he
suppressed by sending among the crowd
soldiers with concealed daggers, who massa-
cred a great number, not only of rioters, but
of casual spectators (Josephus, War, ii, 9, 4).
Eddy (1867, p. 705-6)
. . . In removing his head-quarters from
Cesarea to Jerusalem, he permitted if he did
flocked in crowds to Cesarea, and besought
Cesarea. At another time he nearly drove the
but of casual spectators. . . .
[Or, did Eddy use Plumptre as his
source? Most likely yes; see pages 92-93.
This illustrates the difficulty in assigning
the source of the material.]
Page -134-
That the conduct of Pilate was highly
criminal cannot be denied. But his guilt was
the guilt of settled and deliberate malice. . . .
Clough (1880, p. 38)
Neither author puts this material quotes, nor notes that most of it (with the sole
exception of the use of the word atrocious) is a quote from Beards article on Pilate in
Kittos Cyclopdia. These 43 words are also counted with Beard as the source.
MClintock (1867, pp. 199-201).
II. His office,--Pilate was the sixth
Roman procurator of Juda (Matt. xxvii, 2;
Mark xv, 1; Luke iii, 1; John xviii, xix), under
whom our Lord taught, suffered, and died
(Acts iii, 13; iv, 27; xiii, 28; 1 Tim. vi,
13).The testimony of Tacitus on this point is
no less clear than it is important; for it fixes
beyond a doubt the time when the
foundations of our religion were laid. "The
author of that name (Christian) or sect was
Christ, who was capitally punished in the
reign of Tiberius by Pontius Pilate" ([Latin]).
A procurator ([Greek], Philo Leg. ad
Caium, and Josephus, War, ii, 9, 2; but less
correctly [Greek], Matt. xxxvii, 2; and
Josephus, Ant. xviii, 3, 1) was generally a
Roman knight, appointed to act under the
governor of a province as collector of the
revenue, and judge in causes connected with
it. Strictly speaking, procuratores Csaris
were only required in the imperial provinces,
I. e. those which, according to the
constitution of Augustus, were reserved for
the special administration of the emperor,
without the intervention of the senate and
people, and governed by his legate. In the
senatorial provinces, governed by proconsuls,
the corresponding duties were discharged by
Weidner, (1881, pp. 280-281)
"To Pilate." That he might sentence him
to death (John 18: 31). The name of this man,
who was so closely connected with the
greatest crime which has been committed
since the world began, was Pontius Pilate. He
was called Pontius, because he was connected
by descent or adoption with the Roman
family of the Pontii. He was the sixth Roman
procurator of Juda, appointed A. D. 25-26,
in the twelfth year of Tiberius. His
head-quarters were at Caesarea,--but it was
his custom to reside at Jerusalem during the
great feasts, to preserve order, and
accordingly, at the time of our Lord's last
passover, Pilate was occupying his official
residence in Herod's palace; and it was to the
gates of this palace that the chief priests and
officers of the Sanhedrin brought Jesus early
on this memorable Friday morning.
Page -135-
qustors. Yet it appears that sometimes
procuratores were appointed in those prov-
inces also, to collect certain dues of the fiscus
(The emperor's special revenue), as
distinguished from those of the aerarium (the
revenue administered by the senate).
Sometimes in a small territory, especially in
one contiguous to a larger province, and
dependent upon it, the procurator was head of
the administration, and had full military and
Thus Juda was attached to Syria upon the
deposition of Archelaus (A. D. 6), and a
Caesarea for its capital. Already, during a
in charge of the procurator Sabinus; then after
the ethnarch's banishment, came Coponius;
the third procurator was M. Ambivius; the
fourth Annius Rufus; the fifth Valerius
Gratus; and the sixth Pontius Pilate
(Josephus, Ant. xviii, 2, 2), who was
appointed A. D. 25-6, in the twelfth year of
Tiberius. He held his office for a period of ten
years (Josephus, Ant. xviii, 10, 2). The
agreement on this point between the accounts
in the New Testament and those supplied by
Josephus is entire and satisfactory. It has been
exhibited in detail by the learned, accurate,
and candid Lardner (I, 150-389, Lond. 1827).
These procurators had their headquarters at
Csarea, which is called by Tacitus Juda
caput; but they took up their temporary abode
at Jerusalem on occasion of the great feasts,
as a measure of precaution against any
popular outbreak. See Procurator.
. . .
[page 200]
. . .
Page -136-
(2) His special Connection with Jesus.It was
the custom for the procurators to reside at
Jerusalem during the great feasts, to preserve
order, and accordingly, at the time of our
Lord's last Passover, Pilate was occupying his
official residence in Herod's palace and to the
gates of this palace Jesus, condemned on the
charge of blasphemy, was brought early in
the morning by the chief priest and officers of
the Sanhedrin, who were unable to enter the
defiled, and unfit to eat the Passover (John
xviii. 28).
. . .
[page 201]
. . .
So ended Pilate's share in the greatest crime
which has been committed since the world
began. . . .
M'Clintock (1867, p. 200)
(2) His special Connection with Jesus.--It
was the custom for the procurators to reside
at Jerusalem during the great feasts, to
preserve order, and accordingly, at the time
of our Lord's last Passover, Pilate was
palace and to the gates of this palace Jesus,
condemned on the charge of blasphemy, was
brought early in the morning by the chief
priest and officers of the Sanhedrim, who
were unable to enter the residence of a
Gentile, lest they should be defiled, and unfit
to eat the Passover (John xviii. 28). . . .
Twichell (1886, pp. 354-355)
During the great feasts Pilate had his
residence in Jerusalem, for the sake of
preserving order there when such a mixed
multitude were gathered. His home and office
were in Herod's palace. This is the judgment
hall where Jesus, condemned on the charge of
blasphemy, is brought early in the morning,
by the officers of the Sanhedrim.
Page -137-
(contd from above) . . . Moreover, this
last feeling was strengthened by his own
hatred of the Jews, whose religious scruples
had caused him frequent trouble, and by a
growing respect for the calm dignity and
meekness of the sufferer. . . .
Twichell (1886, p. 357)
. . . On one side he had fear of the Jews,
frequent trouble, and whom he dreaded as
well as hated. On the other side he could not
but admire the meekness and calm dignity of
Jesus, and had no thought of his being the
criminal they claimed. . . .
Barabbas, and the prophet whom a few days
before they had hailed as the Messiah. To
receive their decision he ascended the
([Greek], a portable tribunal which was
in the resent case was erected on a tessellated
pavement [Greek] in front of the palace, and
called in Hebrew Gabbatha, probably from
being laid down on a slight elevation ([Heb.],
"to be high"). As soon as Pilate had taken his
seat, he received a mysterious message from
his wife, according to tradition a proselyte to
the gate [Greek], named Procla or Claudia
Procula (Evang. Nicod. ii), who had "suffered
many things in a dream," which impelled her
to entreat her husband not to condemn the
Just One. But he had no longer any choice in
the matter, for the rabble, instigated of course
by the priests, chose Barabbas for pardon, and
clamored for the death of Jesus; insurrection
seemed imminent, and Pilate reluctantly
yielded. . . .
Twichell (1886, p. 360)
. . . He was anxious to release Jesus;
there can be no question of this,and he
hoped, we may believe supposed, that if the
choice was given between these two, they
would call for Jesus, whom but a few days
before they had hailed as the Messiah. But the
crowd, urged on by the priests, choose
Barabbas for pardon, and clamor for the death
of Jesus.
Page -138-
. . . But all his better feelings were
overpowered by a selfish regard for his own
security. He would not encounter the least
hazard of personal annoyance in behalf of
innocence and justice; the unrighteous
condemnation of a good man was a trifle in
comparison with the fear of the emperor's
frown and the loss of place and power. . . .
Twichell (1886, pp. 361-362)
. . . But his own comfort and security
seemed thereby imperiled. He was too selfish
to risk anything. "The unrighteous
condemnation of a good man was a trifle with
him in comparison with the fear of the
emperor's frown and the loss of power.
Note the opening quote mark in Twichellno closing quote mark, no source.
Deems (1868, p. 656)
. . . The Roman scourging surpassed the
Hebrew in all the particulars of severity. In
the latter only the shoulders were bared; in
the former the whole person: in the latter the
stripes were limited to forty, save one; in the
former there was no limit. It was the punish-
ment given to a slave. The stripes of the lash
were loaded with bones and metallic frag-
ments. The scourging of those who were to be
crucified was so frightful that the condemned
frequently escaped the cross by dying under
the thongs.
. . . This was the terrible Roman
punishment of scourging, a far more severe
punishment than the "forty stripes save one"
to which the Jewish custom limited such
inflictions. It was usual to scourge those who
were to be crucified, but the scourging itself
was almost enough to take away life. . . .
Deems (1868, p. 649)
. . . It was the kingdom of truth, and not
of physical power, in which he claimed to be
supreme. . . .

Simpson (1888, p. 275)
. . . The Lord dispels all cause of
suspicion about treason and sedition, by
telling Him plainly that His kingdom is
spiritual, the kingdom of truth, and need not
interfere with loyalty to Csar, or any other
authority.
Page -139-
Deems (1868, p. 654)
. . . It had formerly been forbidden the
governors of conquered provinces to carry
their wives with them to the provincial
capitals. . . .
Maas (1890, p. 523)
. . . After the times of Augustus the
Roman governors were allowed to take their
wives with them to their provinces. Formerly
it had been forbidden. . . .
Deems (1868, p. 647)
. . . Jesus had aspired to no temporal rule,
and had done nothing to make himself a rival
of Csar, but had simply claimed to be the
Messiah, a claim in which the representative
of the Roman Emperor could have no official,
and scarcely any personal, interest.
Spurgeon (1893, pp. 484-485)
What a marvelous providence it was that
moved Pilate's pen! The representative of the
Roman emperor was little likely to concede
kingship to any man; yet he deliberately
wrote, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE
JEWS, and nothing would induce him to alter
what he had written. . . .
Given the differing contexts it isnt likely that Spurgeon copied it.
Deems (1868, p. 655)
. . . He may have had no clear theological
opinions, no fixed religious convictions, but
all the peoples among whom he had traveled
believed in gods, and there was something in
this prisoner which strangely influenced him;
perhaps he was a god, and perhaps the gods
gave warning in dreams. . . .
White (1898, p. 725)
But there was something in the prisoner
that held Pilate back from this. He dared not
do it. He read the purposes of the priests. He
remembered how, not long before, Jesus had
raised Lazarus, a man that had been dead four
days; and he determined to know, before
signing the sentence of condemnation, what
were the charges against Him, and whether
they could be proved.
Deems uses this wording in a different context from White. Hanna (1863, p. 675)
uses the same phrase in an earlier context, . . . there was something in the very first
impression that our Lords appearance made upon Pilate.
Page -140-
Geikie (1868, vol. 2, p. 487)
. . . In capital charges, it required a
majority of at least two to condemn, and
while the verdict of acquittal could be given
at once, that of guilty could only be
pronounced the next day. Hence, capital trials
could not begin on the day preceding a
Sabbath, or public feast. No criminal trial
could be carried through in the night; the
judges who condemned any one to death had
to fast all the day before, and no one could be
executed on the same day on which the
sentence was pronounced.
Maclear (1877, p. 194)
. . . It was enacted (I) that a majority of at
least two must be secured before
condemnation; (ii) that while a verdict of
acquittal could be given on the same day, one
of guilty must be reserved for the following
day; (iii) that no criminal trial could be
carried through in the night; (iv) that the
judges who condemned a criminal to death
must fast all day; (v) that the sentence itself
could be revised; and that (vi) if even on the
way to execution the criminal reflected that
he had something fresh to adduce in his
favour, he might be led back and have the
validity of his statement examined. See
Ginsburg's Article on The Sanhedrin; in
Kitto's Biblical Cyclopdia, iii. 767.
Note the higher quality of bibliographic information that Maclear provides.
Geikie (1868, p. 516)
. . . Instead of His plain abba of linen,
therefore, they threw over His shoulders a
scarlet sagum or soldier's cloak, as a rough
burlesque of the long and fine purple one
worn only by the Emperor. . . .
Maclear (1877, p. 198)
. . . It was probably a warcloak, such as
princes, generals, and soldiers wore, dyed
with purple; "probably a cast-off robe of state
out of the prtorian wardrobe," a burlesque
of the long and fine purple robe worn only by
the Emperor. Lange, iv. 357.
Geikie (1868, p. 508)
. . . If Jesus were a Galilan, it would be
a graceful courtesy to send Him to be tried, as
a Galilan, before his own prince . . . .
Deems (1868, p. 651)
. . . It would be a graceful recognition of
Herod's jurisdiction, and a compliment, to
send this distinguished prisoner to him for
trial, and it would free Pilate from further
proceedings. . . .
Geikie (1868, p. 518)
Pilate had, apparently, retired into the
palace for a time, but now re-appeared; urged,
perhaps, by his wife Procla, to make one
more effort to save Jesus. . . .
Deems (1868, p. 657)
. . . Some other basis than loyalty to
Rome lay under this extraordinary zeal of the
priests. Pilate determined to make one more
effort to save the life of this wonderful
sufferer.
Page -141-
Geikie (1868, p. 505)
. . . It was, besides, essential to know if
he spoke as a Roman, with a political use of
the title "king," or repeated it in the Jewish
sense, as equivalent to "the Messiah."
Crabtre (1883, p. 493)
. . . It was essential to know, says Geikie,
whether Pilate spoke as a Roman, with a
political use of the title "king," or repeated it
in a Jewish sense, as equivalent to the
"Messiah."
Note that Crabtre tells you where he is getting his wording from, but not what he is
borrowing.
Geikie (1868, p. 508)
The old palace of the Asmoneans, in
which Antipas lodged, was not far from
Pilate's splendid official residence. It lay a
few streets off, to the north-east, within the
same old city wall, on the slope of Zion, the
leveled crest of which was occupied by the
vast palace of Herod, now the Roman
headquarters. . . .
Crabtre (1883, p. 494)
The palace of the Asmoneans, in which
Herod Antipas probably made his home while
in Jerusalem, was situated on the south side
of the hill next north of Zion, and due west
from the northwest corner of the temple, and
on the west side of the Tyropean valley.
Geikie (1868, p. 502)
. . . Pilate, therefore, caused his official
seat to be set down on a spot known in
Jerusalem as Gabbatha, "the high place,"
from its being raised above the crowd, and as
"The Pavement," because, as was the custom
with the spot on which Roman judges sat, it
was laid with a mosaic of coloured stones. It
was, very possibly, a permanent erection,
square, or of crescent shape, of costly marble,
in keeping with the splendour so dear to
Herod, its builder, and seems to have been
raised in front of the "Judgment Hall," a
doorway connecting the two. It was a maxim
of Roman law that criminal trials should be
held on a raised tribunal, that all might see
and be seen.
Crabtre (1883, p. 496)
. . . Necessarily Pilate "sat" above the
crowd in the yard, it being a maxim of the
Roman law that all criminal trials should be
held in a raised tribunal, that all might see and
be seen.--Winer.
===========================
Richards (1914, p. 367)
. . . The tribunal was thus raised in
conformity with a maxim of the Roman law
that all criminal trials should be conducted
from a raised tribunal. . . .
[Note the date and Richards was
Associate Justice of the First District Court
of Appeals of California.]
Crabtre cites his source as Winer; but, he is not listed as one of the authors cited in
his work on pages 15-8, nor did he put the material in quotes. The second thing we
should note is that in Geikie, Winer is one of four sources footnoted for the paragraph,
with no quote marks around any of the material. From this example, and others like it,
some would make the illogical conclusion that by today's literary standards, or practices,
even professional scholars in the Victorian era were plagiarists.
Page -142-
Geikie (1868, p. 519)
. . . He has claimed to be the Son of
God--the Messiah--which He is not, and for
that, by our law, which thou hast sworn to
uphold, He has been sentenced to death--by
stoning, in any case; by the cross, if thou
allowest it. . . .
. . . Once more Pilate appealed to them,
when, unwittingly and unwillingly, it elicited
this from the people, that Jesus had claimed
to be the Son of God.
Geikie (1868, p. 512)
. . . It was a dexterous stroke, for
Barabbas had been condemned for an offence
which made him a martyr in the eyes of the
people. . . .
Weiss (1884, p. 353)
. . . On the other hand, it was of the
greatest importance for the hierarchy that a
manner of execution distinctly Roman, and
usually employed in the case of rebels, should
be made use of in this case; it would enable
the priests to throw the whole odium of this
murder upon the Romans who had condemn-
ed Him on account of sedition, and Jesus
would be for ever stigmatized in the eyes of
the people by the shameful death He met
with.
The commonness of the phrase and the differing contexts preclude the possibility
that it was copied.
Geikie (1868, p. 507)
. . . In their fierce bigotry and
unmeasured hatred, they had not scrupled to
speak of a purely religious movement as a
dark political plot, and now they were bold
enough even to adduce proofs of this treason.
"He has perverted women and children, and
has systematically stirred up the whole nation
against Caesar; from Galilee to Jerusalem
there is not a town or village in the land
where He has not won over some, and filled
them with wild expectations. . . .
Luckock (1885, p. 351)
. . . Not even a direct appeal from himself
could induce Jesus to break silence; and again
the charges were reiterated: "He stirs up the
nation; He rebels against Caesar; He tells us
that we ought not to pay the Imperial taxes;
there is not a town or village from Dan to
Beersheba, from Galilee to Jerusalem, where
He has not preached His seditious doctrines."
. . .
Geikie (1868, p. 510)
. . . Let them trick Him out as a king, and
play at homage to Him, and see how He
would bear His shadowy dignities! . . .
Luckock (1885, p. 353)
. . . Let them give Him in mockery the
Royalty He claimed, and see how He would
bear His royal honours. . . .
Page -143-
Geikie (1868, p. 521)
Caiaphas and Hannas, and the group
round them, were however more than a match
for him. . . .
Luckock (1885, p. 357)
. . . But the priests were more than a
match for him. . . .
However this phrase is used in differing contexts. Geikie uses the phrase for when
they say that they have no king but Csar and Luckock in reference to choosing
Barabbas over Jesus.
Geikie (1868, p. 503)
. . . He had learned that He avoided all
appeals to force; that His discourses had
nothing whatever political in them, and that
His zeal was mainly directed against the
corruptions of the Jewish priesthood and
public teachers, whom the Romans
themselves despised for the same cause. . . .
The prisoner was perhaps not entirely
unknown to Pilate, who had doubtless heard
of his miracles and his teachings; but from
investigations he had already made he felt
assured that there was nothing of a political
character in his teachings and nothing of en-
mity against the government, and so nothing
to be feared from the inoffensive teacher. He
knew also that his teachings were directed
against the corruptions of the Jewish nation,
and so he rightly judged that envy and malice
prompted their present proceedings. . . .
Geikie (1868, pp. 515-516)
. . . Jesus was now seized by some of the
soldiers standing, near, and after being
stripped to the waist, was bound in a stooping
posture, His hands behind His back, to a post,
or block, near the tribunal. He was then
beaten at the pleasure of the soldiers, with
knots of rope, or plaited leather thongs,
armed at the ends with acorn-shaped drops of
lead, or small, sharp-pointed bones. In many
cases not only was the back of the person
scourged cut open in all directions; even the
eyes, the face, and the breast, were torn, and
the teeth not seldom knocked out. The judge
stood by, to stimulate the sinewy
executioners by cries of "Give it him"--but
we may trust that Pilate, though his office
required him to be present, spared himself
this crime.
Under the fury of the countless stripes,
the victims sometimes sank--amidst screams,
McConnell (1886, pp. 167-168)
Even this act of cruelty was not omitted,
for at the command of Pilate Jesus was
seized, and bound in a stooping posture, his
hands behind his back, to a post or low pillar
near the tribunal. He was then beaten with the
terrible scourge, or Roman "scorpion," until
the soldiers chose to stop. In many cases not
only was the back of the person scourged, cut
open in all directions, but even the eyes, the
face, and the breast were torn and cut, and the
teeth often knocked out. Under the fury of the
countless stripes the victims sometimes sunk,
amid screams, convulsive leaps, and
distortions, into a senseless heap; sometimes
died on the spot; sometimes were taken away
an unrecognizable mass of bleeding flesh, to
find deliverance in death from the
inflammation and fever, sickness and shame.
The scourging of Jesus was of the
severest kind, because as a hated Jew the
soldiers delighted to see him suffer; and so,
Page -144-
convulsive leaps, and distortions--into a
senseless heap; sometimes died on the spot;
sometimes were taken away an
unrecognisable mass of bleeding flesh, to find
deliverance in death, from the inflammation
and fever, sickness and shame.
The scourging of Jesus was of the
severest; for the soldiers, employed as lictors
in the absence of these special officials, who
were not allowed to procurators, only too
gladly vented on any Jew the grudge they
bore the nation, and they would, doubtless,
try if they could not force out the confession
which His silence had denied to the governor.
after he was thus cruelly scourged, Pilate,
wearied with his fruitless efforts to release
the prisoner, "delivered him to the will" of his
enemies, who, eager to make sport of their
helpless victim, "led him away into the hall
called pretorium," because it was the
residence of the pretor, or governor.
Geikie (1868, pp. 501-502)
Knowing the people with whom he had
to do, Pilate made no attempt to overcome
their scruples. Trials in the open air were
common, for Roman law courted publicity.
Roman governors, and the half Roman Herod
and his sons, erected their tribunals,
indifferently, before the palace, in the
marketplace, in the theatre, in the circus, or
even in the highways.
Pilate, therefore, caused his official seat
to be set down on a spot known in Jerusalem
as Gabbatha, "the high place," from its being
raised above the crowd, and as "The
Pavement," because, as was the custom with
the spot on which Roman judges sat, it was
laid with a mosaic of coloured stones. It was,
very possibly, a permanent erection, square,
or of crescent shape, of costly marble, in
keeping with the splendour so dear to Herod,
its builder, and seems to have been raised in
front of the "Judgment Hall," a doorway
connecting the two. It was a maxim of Roman
law that criminal trials should be held on a
raised tribunal, that all might see and be seen.
The ivory curule chair of the procurator--
his seat of state and sign of office--or,
Craigin (1874, pp. 521-522)
In deference to this feeling, a part of the
court-yard itself was used as a judgment hall,
tribunals of various sorts, when needed, were
established in the market-place, the theatre,
the circus, or even in the highways. Pilate had
caused his official seat, the ivory curule chair
of the procurator, to be set down on a spot
known in Jerusalem as "Gabbatha," the high
place, because raised above the crowd. It was
of costly marble, inlaid with rich mosaics,
and sufficiently elevated for all to see and
hear. The platform projected from the front of
the judgment hall of the palace, and was
easily reached from within by a doorway.
Certain officers of the court, known as
assessors Roman citizens, sat beside Pilate;
while on lower elevations, according to rank,
sat others, either officers or friends. The
priests and elders led Jesus through the court-
yard up the steps of the tribunal, and stood
him before Pilate.
. . .
Page -145-
perhaps, the old golden seat of Archelaus,
was set down on the tesselated floor of the
tribunal, which was large enough to allow the
assessors of the court--Roman citizens--who
acted as nominal members of the judicial
bench, to sit beside Pilate, for Roman law
required their presence. On lower elevations,
sat the officers of the court, friends of the
procurator, and others whom he chose to
honour.
The priests and elders who appeared
against Jesus, now led Him up the steps of the
tribunal, to the procurator, and placed Him
before him. . . .
Jesus was standing at Pilate's side. Rising
from his chair, and ordering Him to be
brought after him, he retired into the palace,
and calling Jesus before him, asked Him, "Art
Thou the King of the Jews?
Jesus was standing near Pilate. Rising
from his chair, and ordering the prisoner to be
brought after him, Pilate entered into the
palace. Calling Jesus before him, he said,
"Art thou the King of the Jews?"
[This is the only paragraph with
material from Geikie like this in the entire
chapter.
Note also that this example alone
exceeds all of the similarities in Ellen G.
White for her entire chapter.]
Geikie (1868, p. 517)
. . . He was a Jew; He had claimed to be a
king, in opposition, as they fancied, to the
Emperor, and He was about to be crucified.
Simpson (1888, p. 273-4)
. . . They attempt to prove Him guilty of
sedition, through His claiming to be a king in
opposition to Csar. . . .
While similar in wording, the they in Geikie refers to the soldiers who beat and
mocked Jesus as king; while in Simpson the they refers to His accusers at the
beginning of His trial before Pilate.
Geikie (1868, p. 521)
Turning to Jesus, still wearing the crown
of thorns and the scarlet cloak, in a burst of
unconcealed contempt against the Jews, as
impolitic as it was useless, he cried, "Behold
your King!" . . .
Bird (1891, p. 448)
"See," said Pilate, "I have brought Him
out to you, that you may know that I find no
fault in Him," and he pointed to Jesus, who
was brought forward between two soldiers,
faint and stooping, with the crown of thorns
and the scarlet robe still on. "Look at the
Man!" . . .
Page -146-
Geikie (1868, p. 507)
. . . They were demanding His death on
the pretext that He had threatened to use force
to establish His Kingdom, when the truth
was, His real offence, in their eyes, was that
He would not use force!
Smyth (1920, p. 455)
. . . The real offense of Jesus in their eyes
was that He had not been in insurrection as
they had hoped. . . .
While there is literary similarity the context shows that Geikie is referring to the
mob who chose Barabbas, while Smyth is talking about the priests and Rabbis.
Kelly (1868, p. 391)
. . . Our Evangelist wrote with express
view to the Jews, and hence it was of the
greatest importance to convince them that
God had accomplished the promises in the
sending of the Messiah, whom Israel's
unbelief had refused and crucified by Gentile
hands on the tree. . . .
Weiss (1884, p. 353)
. . . On the other hand, it was of the
greatest importance for the hierarchy that a
manner of execution distinctly Roman, and
usually employed in the case of rebels, should
be made use of in this case; it would enable
the priests to throw the whole odium of this
murder upon the Romans who had
condemned Him on account of sedition, and
Jesus would be for ever stigmatized in the
eyes of the people by the shameful death He
met with.
The commonness of the phrase and the differing contexts precludes it from being
copied.
L. Abbott (1868, p. 462)
. . . If it had been preferred by a Roman
centurion, it might have been worthy of
examination. But when was it ever known
that the Jewish priesthood complained to their
Gentile government of one who sought the
political, emancipation of the nation? None
knew better than Pilate how restive were the
people under the Roman yoke. The voices of
the mob before the judgment-seat crying out
for Jesus's blood were unwitting witnesses of
his innocence. . . .
L. Abbott (1879, p. 218)
. . . "If it had been preferred by a Roman
centurion, it would have been worthy of
examination. But when was it ever known
that the Jewish priesthood complained of one
who sought the political emancipation of the
nation? None knew better than Pilate how
uneasy were the people under the Roman
yoke. The voices of the mob before the
judgment-seat crying out for Jesus' blood
were unwitting witnesses of his
innocence."(Lyman Abbott's Jesus of
Nazareth.) . . .
Note how Lyman Abbott has edited his own quote and yet presets it to the reader (by
our standards) as a word-for-word quote.
Page -147-
L. Abbott (1868, p. 454)
. . . Judea was a province of the Csars,
and a military governor who bore the very
general title of procurator occupied the throne
made vacant by the death of Herod the Great
and the deposition of Archelaus, his son. . . .
Dawson (1901, p. 411)
. . . In the course of the trial we see Him
brought into close contact with the entire
priestly hierarchy, with a King, and with a
military Governor who represents all the
might of Rome. . . .
L. Abbott (1868, p. 465)
. . . To the angry accusations of the
priests, to the angrier clamor of the people, to
the rude jests of Herod, to the cruel scorn of
the Roman soldiery, he interposed only an
impressive silence. . . .
Dawson (1901, p. 402)
. . . The very form of the question
indicates his hesitation to receive as evidence
the angry accusations of the priests. . . .
Ware (1868, p. 238)
. . . It could not have occupied a great
deal of time, especially if Herod and Pilate
resided, as some have supposed, in different
apartments of the great palace built by Herod
the Great. . . .
Geikie (1868, p. 471)
Pilate, also, had arrived from Csarea, to
secure, in person, the preservation of order in
the dangerous days of the feast His quarters
were in the new palace, built by Herod the
Great on Zion. . . .
Since they both wrote in the same year and it is a historical fact it will not be counted
in Table 3.
Ware (1868, p. 238)
. . . The governor was entirely satisfied
that Jesus was innocent of the charges urged
against him, and perfectly aware that they had
been made maliciously. . . .
Dawson (1901, p. 411)
Thus ended the trial of Jesus Christ. It
was from first to last a travesty of justice. Not
one of the charges urged against Him was
proved. . . .
Ware (1868, p. 240)
. . . Pilate was still willing to make one
more attempt to save him. . . .
Dawson (1901, p. 408)
. . . But he finds it hard to believe that his
diplomacy has failed He will make yet one
more attempt to save a prisoner whom he
greatly prefers to release, if release be
possible. . . .
Page -148-
Greg (1869, p. 275)
Jesus was condemned to die. The
sentence of death, however, was one which
the Jews were not allowed to put into
execution against any person without the
sanction of the Roman authorities. . . .
Gibson (1915, p. 455)
When Jesus was convicted of blasphemy
by the Jewish sanhedrin he would have been
stoned to death if the Jews had been a free
people; for death by stoning was the penalty
for blasphemy by the Mosaic law (Lev. 24:
16), but Judea was a Roman province, and it
was not lawful for the Jews to put any man to
death without the sanction of the Roman
governor; therefore, early in the morning,
members of council, priests and mob
conducted Jesus, his hands bound and a cord
about his neck, from the hall where the
council met to the judgment hall of Pilate.
Clark (1870, p. 380)
At this point Matthew says, the governor
asked him, rather, questioned him, the verb
here expressing formal judicial questioning.
Art thou the King? etc. It is implied that this
charge had been preferred against him.
Accordingly Luke (23:2) informs us that they
charged him with seditious agitation,
forbidding to pay the tribute money, and
proclaiming himself Christ, a king. Before
answering, Jesus brought out clearly before
Pilate's mind the distinction between a civil
and a spiritual kingdom, declaring that his
was the latter, John 18:32-36. And then he
answered, Thou sayest; a strong affirmative
answer. See on ch. 26:25.
Johnson (1873, p. 148)
Questioned. The original verb is the
word used for a formal judicial questioning.
The Common Version says "asked him,"
which conceals the judicial character of the
examination.
Art thou the king of the Jews? These
words imply that the charge of pretension to
the royal dignity had already been made. We
learn from Luke 23:2 that such was indeed
the case. In his answer Jesus asks whether
Pilate uses the expression "king of the Jews "
in the Roman or the Jewish sense, and
carefully distinguishes between a worldly and
a spiritual kingdom, and acknowledges that
he is a king in the realm of religious truth,
John 18:32-37.
Thou sayest it. A common form of a
strong affirmative answer. See on ch. 26:64.
Page -149-
Clark (1870, p. 381)
15. At that feast. At every Passover. Was
wont to release. The origin of this practice is
unknown; it is not mentioned in history. The
custom was probably established by the
Romans to conciliate the Jews, since persons
would often be in prison whom the Jews
would desire to liberate from Roman law. On
the strength of this custom, Pilate tries to save
Jesus without offending the Jews. Instead of
boldly doing what he knew to be right, he
weakly resorts to an expedient.
Johnson (1873, p. 149)
Was wont. It was his custom. The origin
of the practice is unknown; it is mentioned
only in the Gospels. Probably it was based
upon the Roman and Greek custom of
releasing prisoners on occasions of public
rejoicing, such as the birthdays of emperors
and the celebrations of victories, a custom
still perpetuated in the occasional general
amnesties proclaimed by the sovereigns of
Europe.
The passover was the great season of
national rejoicing, and might well be marked
by such a practice, designed by the Romans
to conciliate the Jews, many of whose
favorite leaders might be imprisoned for acts
which did but express the Jewish hatred of
the foreign power to which Palestine was
subject. The expedient of Pilate to shift to
Herod the responsibility which properly
belonged to himself having failed, he now
availed himself of this custom in the
endeavor to save Jesus without offending his
persecutors.
Page -150-
Clark (1870, p. 381)
Barabbas. The name means Son of his
father. Some think he was son of a rabbi. A
few ancient versions and later manuscripts
have Jesus Barabbas. Hence some regard him
as a false Messiah, and see a striking
providence in having a false Jesus, Savior,
put against the true Jesus; a false son of the
Father against the true and real Son of God.
All this, however, is very doubtful. The
contrast in verse 20 seems to be decidedly
against the supposition that Barabbas was
also called Jesus. We learn from the Gospels
that he was a most atrocious criminal, a
robber (John 18:40); a raiser of sedition in
Jerusalem and a murderer; and that he was
bound with his companions in sedition, Mark
15:7; Luke 23:19.
Johnson (1873, p. 149)
Barabbas. The name means son of his
father. Barabbas has been the subject of many
idle conjectures, and the Gospels furnish us
all the information concerning him that we
possess. The only conjecture worth
mentioning is that he was a false Messiah,
and had been imprisoned for the endeavor to
establish himself in the throne. A few ancient
versions and some later manuscripts give his
name as Jesus Barabbas; and some have seen
a striking providence in the presentation to
the Jews, for their choice, of a false Son of
the Father, and a true Son of God, a false
Jesus or Saviour and a true Jesus, a false
Messiah, and the Messiah indeed. But the
theory must be rejected, for the following
reasons: 1. The best ancient copies know
nothing of a Jesus Barabbas. 2. In vers. 20
and 21, where the people express their choice,
and where, if there were a contrast intended
between a true and a false Jesus, it should
appear, all the manuscripts and versions have
simply Barabbas. 3. If Barabbas had been
imprisoned for insurrection against the power
of Rome, he would have been endeared to the
people: but the stratagem of Pilate proceeds
on the supposition that he was detested.
Accordingly, we learn that he was a robber,
John 18:40, the author of sedition in
Jerusalem, and a murderer, bound with his
companions in sedition, Mark 15:7; Luke
23:19. It is possible, however, that his
robberies had been accompanied by
Messianic or prophetic pretentious of such an
absurd character as to incense rather than to
delude the people. See on ch. 27:44.
Page -151-
Clark (1870, p. 382)
His wife. Her name is said to have been
Claudia Procula. This incident is related only
by Matthew, and it shows his accuracy; for
the Roman governors had but recently been
permitted by the Roman senate to take their
wives along with them. . . .
Johnson (1873, p. 151)
. . . G. W. Clark: "This incident is related
only by Matthew; and it show his accuracy;
for the Roman governors had but recently
been permitted by the Roman senate to take
their wives along with them."
Clark (1870, p. 383)
Let him be crucified. That they all thus
cried out shows how successful the rulers had
been in stirring up the people. They might
have asked, Let him be stoned, which was the
Jewish mode of execution and their penalty
for blasphemy; or they might have simply
said, Let him be put to death; but they
demand crucifixion, the Roman punishment
for sedition. They thus also gratify their
hatred against Jesus. As they demanded the
release of Barabbas, who would, doubtless,
have been crucified for his crimes, so they
ask for Jesus the punishment which Barabbas
would have received. Thus is Barabbas
preferred to Jesus. Yet in this were the
Scriptures and the predictions of Jesus being
fulfilled, John 18:32. He dies an ignominious
death, his body is unmutilated and not a bone
broken, and he is made a curse by hanging on
the tree.
Johnson (1873, p. 151)
They all say to him, Let him be crucified.
By this time the rulers have brought the
multitude to unanimity, they all say. Pilate is
still farther surprised that those with whom he
supposed Jesus to be a favorite should make
such a bloodthirsty demand. The multitude
might have demanded that Jesus should be
stoned, which was the Jewish penalty for
blasphemy; or they might have demanded
merely that he be put to death, without
specifying the mode; but the hatred of the
rulers, who influenced the clamor, would be
satisfied with nothing less than the most
painful and ignominious death. Lange: "They
sought by this extreme penalty, and this
deepest disgrace, to annihilate the memory of
Jesus, and to stake the Roman might against
faith in him." They persisted in treating Jesus
as an insurrectionist and traitor, and in
demanding that he be punished as the
Romans punished those who were guilty of
insurrection and treason. . . .
Page -152-
Clark (1870, p. 384)
26. And when he had scourged Jesus. But
Jesus, having caused to be scourged. It was a
Roman custom to scourge a criminal before
crucifixion. Roman scourging was more
severe than Jewish. The number of lashes was
not limited to forty. The whips were armed
with bones or lead, to render the blow the
more fearful, and to lacerate the flesh. The
criminal was generally bound to a low block,
in a stooping posture, and received the fearful
blows upon the naked back. The scourging
before crucifixion was generally exceedingly
cruel, and criminals frequently died under it.
Jesus was probably scourged by soldiers
appointed by Pilate for the purpose. It took
place outside of the governor's house, and
was a fulfillment of a prediction of Jesus, ch.
20:19; and of prophecy, Isa. 50:6; 53:5. Pilate
seems to have been affected by the cruel
scourging, and, thinking that what touched
his head might affect the hearts of others, he
determines to make one more appeal to the
Jewish people by showing him lacerated and
bleeding, arrayed in a garb of mockery. But
in vain. See John 19:1-16.
Johnson (1873, p. 152)
Having scourged him. The Romans
always scourged the criminal before his
crucifixion; and Pilate administered this
preliminary part of the sentence, hoping,
nevertheless, that the Jews would be satisfied
with it. The Roman scourging was much
more severe than the Jewish; for the former
the whole body was bared, but for the latter
only the upper part; in the former the number
of stripes was limited by the caprice of those
who inflicted them; in the latter the number
was limited to forty. The Roman lash was
more terrible, being weighted, probably, with
bones and bits of iron and leaden balls, to
increase the tension of the lash, to render the
blow heavier, and to lacerate the flesh. The
prisoner was tied in a stooping posture, so
that the skin of the back was stretched and
fully exposed to the fearful blows. The
victims frequently fainted and sometimes
died under the cruel infliction. The scourging
of Jesus was probably attended with the
extremest suffering; for it was administered
by the Roman soldiers, whose cruelty was
exhibited in the subsequent mockeries to
which they subjected him and the desire of
Pilate to move the multitudes to pity by
exhibiting to them the victim of injustice,
bleeding, faint, and disfigured, would prevent
his interference with the torture.
Clark (1870, p. 384)
28. Stripped him, of his outer garment, or
mantle. Scarlet robe. Crimson military cloak
of a Roman officer. Mark and John speak of
it as purple, or purple-red, a color worn by
emperors. The colors intermingled, and the
names were often indefinitely applied, and, in
popular language, interchanged. The cloak
was put upon him in derision of his kingly
dignity, and in accordance with the charge the
Jews brought against him. Compare Ps.
85:15, 16.
Johnson (1873, p. 152)
Scarlet robe. Mark and John speak of it
as purple. The names of colors were often
used somewhat indefinitely, as they are still
with us. The robe was probably the usual
cloak of a military officer. It was worn by
kings and emperors, also, as the kings and
emperors of modern Europe often wear a
military uniform. It was put on our Lord in
derision of the kingly claims with which he
was charged. Comp. Ps. 85:15, 16.
Page -153-
Clark (1870, p. 385)
. . . The latter plant is the more probable
one. It is possible that this crown remained on
his head during his crucifixion, since
Matthew and Mark mention the removal of
the purple robe, but not the crown.
Johnson (1873, p. 153)
. . . Matthew and Mark mention the
removal of the robe, but not that of the
crown; and hence some have inferred that the
latter remained on the head of Jesus during
the crucifixion.
Farrar (1870, vol. 2, p. 385)
. . . All that remained in him of human
and of noble
"Felt how awful Goodness is, and
Virtue, In her shape how lovely;
felt and mourned His fall."
All of his soul that was not eaten away
by pride and cruelty thrilled back an
unwonted echo to these few calm words of
the Son of God.
Geikie (1868, p. 506)
. . . Hardened, cold, worldly, he felt how
awful goodness is, and would fain have
dismissed One so strangely different from
other menan enthusiast, willing to die to
make men better!
[Note: Did Geikie get the wording
from Farrar or did he get it directly from
John Miltons Paradise Lost, Book IV, lines
847-848? Either way, note that neither
author tells the reader that he is quoting
Milton.]
Of Geikie, Pals (p. 94) says: Having seen the Life of Christ, Geikie seemed in a way
to be writing the very same book. That his book and Farrars were similar was evident
even on a superficial comparison (p. 94). As we can see by the above example that
conclusion is not warranted.
Farrar (1870, vol. 2, p. 370)
. . . He wholly set aside the floating idea
of an unearthly royalty; he saw in the prisoner
before his tribunal an innocent and high-
souled dreamer, nothing more. And so,
leaving Jesus there, he went out again to the
Jews, and pronounced his first emphatic and
unhesitating acquittal: "I FIND IN HIM NO
FAULT AT ALL."
Adams (1878 p. 322)
Pilate then went again to the Jews, and
said, "You have brought this Man unto me, as
one Who perverteth the people, and behold I
have examined Him before you, and find no
fault in Him, touching those things whereof
ye accuse Him; no, nor yet Herod, for I sent
you to him; and lo, nothing worthy of death is
done unto Him. I will, therefore, chastise and
release Him."
In Farrar the wording appears before Jesus is sent to Herod, while in Adams
afterwards. This will not be counted in Table 3.
Page -154-
Farrar (1870, vol. 2, pp. 361 & 370)
. . . Scarcely had he been well installed as
Procurator, when, allowing his soldiers to
bring with them by night the silver eagles and
other insignia of the legions from Csarea to
the Holy City, he excited a furious outburst of
Jewish feeling against an act which they
regarded as idolatrous profanation. For five
days and nights--often lying prostrate on the
bare ground--they surrounded and almost
stormed his residence at Csarea with
tumultuous and threatening entreaties, and
could not be made to desist on the sixth, even
by the peril of immediate and indiscriminate
massacre at the hands of the soldiers whom
he sent to surround them. He had then
sullenly given way, and this foretaste of the
undaunted and fanatical resolution of the
people with whom he had to deal, went far to
embitter his whole administration with a
sense of overpowering disgust.
. . . He wholly set aside the floating idea
of an unearthly royalty; he saw in the prisoner
before his tribunal an innocent and high-
souled dreamer, nothing more. And so,
FAULT AT ALL."
Nicoll (1880, p. 276)
. . . At the very beginning of his career as
procurator, he allowed his soldiers to bring
with them the silver eagles, and other insignia
of the legions, from Cesarea to the Holy City.
This excited a tumult of rebellion, to which
he had to give way. . . .
. . . He was an innocent and high-souled
dreamer nothing more. So Pilate went out to
the Jews, and emphatically acquitted Him: "I
find in Him no fault at all."
[Note: There are 44 identical and
similar words in these two paragraphs.
Nicoll refers in his 1899 edition to
other books on the life of Christ in general,
but never specifically lists Farrar. In the
back of the book are two pages of notes in
which he refers to a review of Farrars Life
of Christ, regarding the baptism of Christ,
however, the above parallels are in the
chapter, "The Trial of Christ, for which
he lists NO credits.]
Farrar (1870, p. 623)
1. It was probably about seven in the
morning that, thinking to overawe the
Procurator by their numbers and their dignity,
the imposing procession of the Sanhedrists
and Priests, headed, no doubt, by Caiaphas
himself, conducted Jesus, with a cord round
His neck, from their Hall of Meeting over the
lofty bridge which spanned the Valley of the
Tyropon, in presence of all the city, with the
bound hands of a sentenced criminal, a
spectacle to angels and to men.
Luckock (1885, p. 350)
The Governor, with some political tact,
deferred to their religious scruples, and went
out himself to meet them in the courtyard.
They hoped to settle the matter with little
delay; so pointing, no doubt, to the Prisoner,
Who stood in their midst with His hands
bound, and, if tradition be true, with a cord
fastened round His neck, they told him that
He had been tried and condemned to suffer
the extreme penalty of the law.
Note the differing contexts.
Page -155-
Farrar (1870, p. 639)
. . . Stripped of his Procuratorship very
shortly afterwards, on the very charges he had
tried by a wicked concession to avoid, Pilate,
wearied out with misfortunes,* died in
suicide and banishment, leaving behind him
an execrated name. . . .
* This phrase came from Eusebius.
S. Watson (1885, p. 414)
Surely a sadder story than that of Pontius
Pilate has never been recorded--a story of
cowardly compromise and unworthy betrayal
of conscience, followed by a vain attempt to
deny just responsibility. His concession was
all in vain, for not long afterwards he was
deprived of his office on the very charges he
had tried to stave off by this yielding to
popular feeling. Wearied out by misfortune,*
he finally perished by his own hand in
banishment.
Farrar (1870, pp. 364 & 366)
. . . Between its colossal wings of white
marble--called respectively Csareum and
Agrippeum, in the usual spirit of Herodian
flattery to the Imperial house--was an open
space commanding a noble view of
Jerusalem, adorned with sculptured porticos
and columns of many-coloured marble, paved
with rich mosaics, varied with fountains and
reservoirs, and green promenades which
furnished a delightful asylum to flocks of
doves. . . .
Tyropon, in presence of all the city, with the
bound hands of a sentenced criminal, a
Craigin (1874, p. 521)
Early in the morning, probably about
seven o'clock, after the excited meeting in the
council-chamber, the imposing procession of
priests and elders, headed doubtless by
Caiaphas, himself, conducted Jesus, with a
cord fastened around his neck, from their hall
of meeting, over the lofty bridge across the
valley of the Tyropon which connected the
Temple with the upper city. Reaching the
palace, they entered the open court between
the colossal wings of white marble, adorned
with sculptured porticos, and columns of
many-colored marble. The pavement was of
richest mosaics, fountains sparkled and
rippled, the green walks were bright with
flowers, and the morning air musical with
birds.
[Note that this example alone exceeds
all of the similarities in Ellen G. White for
the entire chapter.]
Page -156-
Farrar (1870, vol. 2, pp. 639-640)
And now mark, for one moment, the
revenges of History. Has not His blood been
on them, and on their children? Has it not
fallen most of all on those most nearly
concerned in that deep tragedy? Before the
dread sacrifice was consummated, Judas died
in the horrors of a loathsome suicide.
Caiaphas was deposed the year following.
Herod died in infamy and exile. Stripped of
his Procuratorship very shortly afterwards, on
the very charges he had tried by a wicked
concession to avoid, Pilate, wearied out with
misfortunes, died in suicide and banishment,
leaving behind him an execrated name. The
house of Annas was destroyed a generation
later by an infuriated mob, and his son was
dragged through the streets, and scourged and
beaten to his place of murder. Some of those
who shared in and witnessed the scenes of
that day--and thousands of their children--
also shared in and witnessed the long horrors
of that siege of Jerusalem which stands
unparalleled in history for its unutterable
fearfulness. . . .
Houghton (1890, pp. 266-267)
In vain did Pilate appeal to their better
sense by the solemn symbolic act of washing
his hands before them, to signify his
repudiation of the act to which they forced
him. "His blood be on us and on our
children!" they cried--awful words, to be
most awfully fulfilled in the long tragedy of
nearly two thousand years. Caiaphas deposed
within a year, Herod dying in exile and
disgrace, the house of Annas sacked by just
such a mob as this, his son dragged through
the streets, scourged, and murdered, the
lingering horrors of the siege of Jerusalem--
when death in every form of hideous cruelty
was inflicted upon countless numbers of men
and women, thousands upon thousands being
crucified until there was no more wood for
crosses and no more room to set them up--the
utter destruction of their nationality, the
wanton, nameless outrages which for
generations were heaped upon the Jews, the
disadvantages under which even yet, in the
most civilized lands, they find themselves, all
have been the answer to their own prayer,
"His blood be upon us and upon our
children!" . . .
Did Houghton borrow the wording from Farrar, or is she recounting some of the
same historical facts? While we should note that these are the only two authors (so far)
to mention the same facts, it is not likely that she borrowed Farrars wording.
Farrar (1870, vol. 2, p. 372)
. . . He harangued and questioned Him in
many words, but gained not so much as one
syllable in reply.
White (1898, p. 729)
Herod questioned Christ in many words,
but throughout the Saviour maintained a
profound silence. . . .
Most of the parallels here are the words that both have in common with the biblical
text of Luke 23:9 he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him
nothing. This will not be counted in Table 3.
Page -157-
Farrar (1870, vol. 2, pp. 373-374)
. . . He came out once more, and seating
himself on a stately bema--perhaps the golden
throne of Archelaus, which was placed on the
elevated pavement of many-coloured
marble-summoned the Priests, the
Sanhedrists, and the people before him, and
seriously told them that they had brought
prisoner absolutely guiltless of these charges;
that he had then sent Him to Herod, their
native king, and that he also had come to the
conclusion that Jesus had committed no crime
which deserved the punishment of death. . . .
White (1898, p. 731)
Pilate was disappointed and much
displeased. When the Jews returned with their
prisoner, he asked impatiently what they
would have him do. He reminded them that
he had already examined Jesus, and found no
fault in Him; he told them that they had
brought complaints against Him, but they had
not been able to prove a single charge. He had
sent Jesus to Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee,
and one of their own nation, but he also had
found in Him nothing worthy of death. I will
therefore chasitise Him, Pilate said, and
release Him.
Luke 23:7 has the words, he sent him to Herod; Luke 23:15 has the words,
nothing worthy of death used by White. This will not be counted in Table 3.
E. W. Hooker (1871, pp. 549-550)
. . . A distinguished archaeologist has stated that among the Jews "the witnesses were
sworn, and in capital cases the parties concerned. Two witnesses were required, beside the
accuser; the witnesses were examined separately, in the presence of the accused."
This example is here to show what was considered, at the time, to be adequate
sourcing.
J. Abbott (1872 p. 128)
Then Pilate, though he had already
declared Jesus to be innocent, infamously
ordered him to be scourged, that he might
conciliate the favor of the Jews. . . .
White (1898, pp. 731-732)
Here Pilate showed his weakness. He had
declared that Jesus was innocent, yet he was
willing for Him to be scourged to pacify His
accusers. . . .
Page -158-
Johnson (1873, pp. 152-153)
. . . Alford: "The acanthus, with its large
succulent leaves, is singularly unfit for such a
purpose; as is the plant with very long sharp
thorns commonly known as spina Christi,
being a brittle acacia, and the very length of
the thorns, which would meet in the middle if
it were bent, precluding it. Hasselquist, a
Swedish naturalist, supposes a very common
plant, the naba or nubka of the Arabs, with
soft, round, and pliant branches, and leaves
much resembling ivy, of a very deep green, as
if in designed mockery of a victor's wreath." .
. .
Maas (1890, p. 528)
. . . The crown of thorns was made,
according to some, of branches of the
"Lycium spinosum," called "Shaukun" by the
Arabs, according to others of "Paliurus spinae
Christi," a very common plant full of small
sharp spines. Its branches were soft, round
and pliant; its leaves much resembled ivy,
being of a very deep green, as if designed to
mock the victor's crown. . . .
Alfords book is The New Testament for English Readers (1808).
Keim (1873, p. 84)
. . . Hence we find that the Roman
procurators at Jerusalem and Csarea, the
pro-consul of Achaia at Corinth, the city
magistrates in Macedonia and Asia Minor,
even the Jewish-Roman king Herod, his sons
and grandsons, administered justice before
the palace, on the market-place, in the theatre,
at the race-course, or even upon the highway.
. . .
Craigin (1874, pp. 521-522)
In deference to this feeling, a part of the
court-yard itself was used as a judgment hall,
tribunals of various sorts, when needed, were
established in the market-place, the theatre,
the circus, or even in the highways. . . .
Keim lists several sources from Josephus and Acts. It is unlikely that Craigin did the
research and likely that she copied the phrase from him.
Page -159-
Godet (1876, p. 367)
. . . [Greek], therefore: in consequence of
the fact that the Jews were unwilling to enter
into his palace.
The answer of the Jews to Pilate (ver. 30)
is skilful; it is dictated by two reasons: on the
one hand, they endeavor to keep the largest
possible share of their ancient autonomy, by
continuing in the main the judges, and
leaving to Pilate the part of executioner; and,
on the other hand, they undoubtedly are also
apprehensive of not succeeding before him
with their political and religious grievances. .
.
Hovey (1885, pp. 364-365)
29. Pilate then (or therefore)--that is,
because the Jews were unwilling to enter the
prtorium, went out unto them. . . .
. . .
. . . Hence the answer of the Jews to
Pilate was an important link in the chain of
events by which the prediction of Jesus as to
the manner of his death was fulfilled.
Godet (1876, p. 379)
. . . According to John, the sentence of
Jesus was pronounced about the sixth
hourthat is, about noon, at least if we do
not adopt the method of reckoning according
to which John would make the day begin at
midnight, in accordance with the custom of
the Roman courts. It is certainly difficult to
bring this hour of noon into harmony with the
account of Matthew, according to which at
that hour Jesus had been already for some
time suspended on the cross, and still more
difficult to reconcile it with Mark xv. 25,
where it is said that it was at the third
hourthat is, at nine o'clock, that Christ was
crucified. . . .
Hovey (1885, p. 377)
Dr. Robinson (with Alford, and others)
supposes a corruption of the text. "The third
hour of Mark, as the hour of crucifixion, is
sustained by the whole course of the
transaction and circumstances; as also by the
fact stated by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that
the darkness commenced at the sixth hour,
after Jesus had already for some time hung
upon the cross. . . .
Page -160-
Godet (1876, p. 373)
. . . He evidently hopes, by giving this
satisfaction to the enemies of Jesus, to
awaken the pity of the more moderate ones
among them, as well as the compassion of the
multitude and the zeal of His friends, and
thus to succeed in averting the extreme
punishment. Scourging, as it was practised
among the Romans, was a punishment so
cruel that the condemned person very often
succumbed to it. The scourge was made of
rods or thongs armed at the extremity with
pieces of bone or lead. The condemned
person received the blows while fastened to a
small post so as to have the back bent and the
skin stretched. With the first blows, the back
became raw and the blood spurted out. . . .
McGarvey (1914, p. 713)
. . . But Pilate hoped that scourging
would suffice. He believed that the more
moderate would take pity upon Jesus when
they viewed his scourged body, for scourging
was so cruel a punishment that the
condemned person often died under its
infliction. The scourge was made of thongs
loaded at the extremity with pieces of bone or
metal. The condemned person was stripped
and fastened to a low post, thus bending the
back so as to stretch the skin. Blood spurted
at the first blow. . . .
Innes (1877, p. 2)
. . . And whenever these two famous and
diverse systems happen for a moment to
intersect each other, the investigation, from a
legal point of view, of the transaction in
which they meet is necessarily interesting.
But when the two systems meet in the most
striking and influential event that has ever
happened, its investigation at once becomes
not only interesting, but important. It
becomes, undoubtedly, the most interesting
isolated problem which historical
jurisprudence can present.
Buss (1906, p. 123)
But we have discussed these world-
stirring events from the forensic point of view
alone; and, seen in that light, this trial
presents itself, as Mr. Innes remarks, as "the
most interesting isolated problem which
historical jurisprudence can present," as
bringing together into one narrative the two
most striking systems of law that the world
has ever seen--the most venerable and
peculiar, in that of the Jewish
Commonwealth, and the most August and
influential, in that of ancient Rome.
Looking back over the path we have
trodden, we recognize four distinct stages,
each with its own characteristic quality, of
which the first and the third afford firm
support to our feet from a legal point of view,
while the second and fourth, from the same
aspect, should have been regarded as
forbidden ground to all who took part.
Note that only the first quote is placed in quotes (only the latter is counted in Table
3) and that although Buss indicates that the quote is coming from Innes the rest of the
bibliographic info is missing.
Page -161-
Innes (1877, p. 814)
Had they no right to pass such a
sentence? or, having the right to pass it, had
they merely no power to execute it How far
did the authority of the governor trench upon,
or supersede, the authority of the Sanhedrin?
Which of them had the [Latin]? What was the
relation of the two powers, the Jewish and the
Roman, to each Other at this time This broad
historical question lies at the root of the views
which may be taken of the legal point--views
which have sometimes been extremely
contrasted. In the controversy between
Salvador and Dupin, the former (true in this
to the sad claim of some of his nation of old,
"His blood be on us") urged that the
Sanhedrin had full authority to try even for
capital crimes, and that their sentence of
death required only the countersign or
endorsement of the Roman governor. His
opponent held that the Jewish court had no
right to try for grave, or at least capital,
crimes at all; that their whole procedure was a
usurpation; and that the only real or
competent trial was that which we are about
to consider. I have no intention of going into
the great mass of historical investigation
which has been undertaken on this
confessedly difficult point. There seems no
one consideration which is quite conclusive
upon it. . . .
Chandler (1908, pp. 12-13)
The difficulty in determining the exact
political status of the Jews at the time of
Christ has given birth to the radically
different views concerning the number and
nature of the trials of Jesus. The most learned
critics are in direct antagonism on the point.
More than forty years ago Salvador and
Dupin debated the question in France. The
former contended that the Sanhedrin retained
complete authority after the Roman conquest
to try even capital crimes, and that sentence
of death pronounced by the supreme tribunal
of the Jews required only the countersign or
approval of the Roman procurator. On the
other hand, it was argued by Dupin that the
Sanhedrin had no right whatever to try cases
of a capital nature; that their whole procedure
was a usurpation; and that the only competent
and legitimate trial of Christ was the one
conducted by Pilate. How difficult the
problem is of solution will be apparent when
we reflect that both these disputants were
able, learned, conscientious men who, with
the facts of history in front of them, arrived at
entirely different conclusions. Amidst the
general confusion and uncertainty, the reader
must rely upon himself, and appeal to the
facts and philosophy of history for light and
guidance.
This is an interesting example because elsewhere Chandler uses large chunks of
material from Innes, it is placed in quotes (but no source is givenhe is listed in the
bibliography at the end of the book).
Innes (1877, p. 818)
. . . A Jewish provincial had of course no
such protection. He stood before the
Procurator of the Csar, with no defence
against the summary exercise of absolute
power but the plea of justice.
Chandler (1908, p. 29)
. . . It is also historically true that the
inhabitants of the purely subject states of a
province, who were not themselves Roman
citizens, when accused of crime, stood before
a Roman governor with no protection except
the plea of justice against the summary
exercise of absolute power. . . .
Page -162-
Maclear (1877, pp. 194-195)
. . . His headquarters were at Csarea
(Acts xxiii. 23); he had assessors to assist him
in council (Acts xxv. 12); wore the military
dress; was attended by a cohort as a body-
guard (Matt. xxvii. 27); and at the great
festivals came up to Jerusalem to keep order.
When presiding as judge he would sit on a
Bema or portable tribunal erected on a
tesselated pavement, called in Hebrew
Gabbatha (John xix. 13), and was invested
with the power of life and death (Matt. xxvii.
26). (iii) In character he was not insensible to
the claims of mercy and justice, but he was
weak and vacillating, and incapable of
compromising his own safety in obedience to
the dictates of his conscience. As a governor
he had shewn himself cruel and unscrupulous
(Luke xiii. 1, 2), and cared little for the
religious susceptibilities of a people whom he
despised and could not understand.
2. [Gk.]. This was a private investigation
within the pr- {page 195} torium, after the
Jews, carefully suppressing the religious
grounds on which they had condemned our
Lord, had advanced against Him a triple
accusation of (i) seditious agitation, (ii)
prohibition of the payment of the tribute
money, and (iii) the assumption of the
suspicious title of "King of the Jews."
Eaton (1920, pp. 170-171)
. . . His chief residence was at Caesarea
(Acts xxiii. 23), but at the greater festivals, he
came to Jerusalem to keep order. His wife's
name was Claudia Procula. As Governor, he
had shown himself cruel and unscrupulous
(Lk. xiii. 1, 2), and cared little for the
religious susceptibilities of the Jews, whom
he despised, and could not understand. When
presiding as judge, he would sit on a bema, or
portable tribunal erected on a tesselated
pavement, called in Hebrew "gabbatha" (Jn.
xix. I3).Delivered him to Pilate. St. John is
careful to tell us (xviii. 28-40) that the Jews
found Pilate at the Praetorium, or Tower of
Antonia, at the north-west corner of the
Temple enclosure, and that "they went not
into the hall, that they might not be defiled,
but that they might eat the pasch." So Pilate
interviewed our Lord privatelyi.e., apart
from the Jews, going out occasionally to refer
to them. The Jews now suppressed the
religious charge on which they had
condemned our Lord (namely, that of
claiming {page 171} to be the Son of Goda
charge which would not interest Pilate in the
least), and trumped up charges which they
felt sure would be serious in Pilate 's
eyesnamely, of being a malefactor, of
perverting the nation, of forbidding tribute to
be given to Caesar, and of saying that he is
Christ the King. . . .
Maclear (1877, p. 196)
. . . "It was probably at this juncture that
he received the message from his wife
imploring him to have nothing to do with
"that just person" (Matt. xxvii. 19) standing
before him. . . .
Eaton (1920, p. 173)
. . . It was probably at this juncture that
Pilate received the urgent message from his
wife (Mt. xxvii. 19), imploring him "to have
nothing to do with that just man." . . .
Note that Maclear starts the sentence with a quote mark, but doesnt end it with one.
Page -163-
Maclear (1877, p. 197)
. . . Generally the scourging before
crucifixion was inflicted by lictors (Livy,
xxxiii. 36; Jos. Bell. Jud. II. 14. 9; v. 11. 1).
But Pilate, as sub-governor, had no lictors at
his disposal, and therefore the punishment
was inflicted by soldiers. Lange, xv. 356 n.
The Roman scourging was horribly severe.
Drops of lead and small sharp-pointed bones
were often plaited into the scourges, and the
sufferers not unfrequently died under the
infliction. . . .
Eaton (1920, p. 174)
. . . "A Roman scourging with the
horrible flagellum, as Horace calls it, was
shockingly cruel, and the victims often died
under such punishment. It ought to be
inflicted by lictors, one of the public officers
who attended on the chief Roman
magistrates, but Pilate, being only sub-
Governor, had no lictors at his disposal, and
therefore our Lord was scourged by soldiers.
Pieces of lead and sharp-pointed bone were
often plaited into the scourges, and the
victim's hands were tied to a low column, so
that the bared back might be nearly
horizontal."
Note that Eaton has the sentences within quotes, but without giving a source is given.
Adams (1878, p. 313)
. . . The Rulers of the Jews, in their rage
and haste, assembled a midnight Council, and
made themselves unimpeachable witnesses
for Christ; and were doing His will in
hastening His trial, that He might also be
arraigned before the Roman Governor, to
have their sentence confirmed, and His
crucifixion accomplished--so that He would
die at the exact hour when the last Paschal
Lamb was killed, and forever abolish the
Passover.
D. Smith (1905, p. 480)
. . . They had already tried the prisoner
and brought in a capital verdict; and they had
come to have their sentence confirmed and a
death-warrant granted. . . .
Carr (1878, p. 217)
St. John, at still greater length, narrates
the struggle in Pilate's mind between his
sense of justice and his respect for Jesus on
the one hand, and on the other his double fear
of the Jews and of Caesar. . . .
Luckock (1885, p. 359)
. . . His sense of justice and his strongest
convictions all were swept away in an instant
as by a whirlwind; and for the pride of world-
ly station and the favour of an earthly king he
has gained the execration of Christendom,
and eternal shame before God and man.
Page -164-
Carr (1878, p. 216)
15. The governor was wont to release
unto the people a prisoner] The origin of this
custom is quite unknown; St. Mark, "as he
had ever done unto them," as if the custom
originated with Pilate; St. Luke has, "of
necessity he must release;" St. John, "Ye have
custom."
. . . The origin of this custom is
unknown, but it was probably established by
the Romans for the purpose of conciliating
their Jewish subjects. . . .
Carr (1878, p. 216)
His wife] Claudia Procula or Procla:
traditions state that she was a proselyte of the
gate, which is by no means unlikely, as many
of the Jewish proselytes were women. . . .
Maas (1890, p. 523)
. . . The name of Pilate's wife was
Claudia Procula or Procla, and the
Apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus says that
she was a proselyte of the gate. Tradition has
it that she became a Christian afterwards. . . .
Carr (1878, p. 216)
His wife] Claudia Procula or Procla:
traditions state that she was a proselyte of the
gate, which is by no means unlikely, as many
of the Jewish proselytes were women. . . .
Fouard (1890, p. 228)
. . . Tradition tells us that her name was
Claudia Procula, and that she was a pious
lady, one of the "proselytes of the gate," so
numerous just then in the ranks of the Roman
nobility; a divine light had shown her that the
doctrine of Jesus was still perfecter than the
Law of Jehovah. . . .
Carr (1878, p. 217)
21. Whether of the twain will ye that I
release unto you?] Once more the question is
put to the people (see v. 17). His wife's mess-
age had made Pilate anxious to acquit Jesus.
But the very form of the question implied
condemnation. Jesus was classed with Barab-
bas in the category of condemned prisoners.
Dawson (1901, p. 402)
. . . He desires a plain answer to a plain
question: "What hast Thou done?" The very
form of the question indicates his hesitation
to receive as evidence the angry accusations
of the priests. . . .
The differing contexts suggests that the phrase was not copied.
Page -165-
L. Abbott (1879, p. 220)
. . . Christ "kept silent, in fine, because he knew as well when to hold his peace as when to
speak, and no word that be ever uttered was fuller of inspiration than that silence; no, not even
does that lofty declaration to Pilate, 'Yes, I am a King, and every true man is my subject,'
show a more regal dignity of mind. From every feature, from his whole person, it
spokespoke of a world of power in him, power to rise above all personal considerations,
and, under the most terrible circumstances, to find entire serenity in the perfect possession of
himself."(Furness.)
Furness was the translator of a German commentary by Schenkel.
Bickersteth (1880, p. 303)
. . . Juda now was added to the province
of Syria, and governed by procurators, of
whom Pontius Pilate was the fifth.* . . .
Stalker (1880, p. 127)
. . . Juda, as has been already explained,
was directly subject to the Roman empire,
forming a part of the province of Syria, and
being governed by a Roman officer, who
resided at Csarea. . . .
While it is theoretically possible for one of them to have been published earlier in the
year than the other and thus was copied from, we should ask if it was likely. Or, did they
both get the wording from Eddy (1868, p. 705): Judea was at this time a subordinate
division of the great province of Syria, and was governed by a procurator who was
responsible to the proconsul. . . . Or, is this another case of seeing borrowing where
none existed? This is not counted in Table 3.
* Stock p. 256 says that he was the sixth.
Clough (1880, pp. 32-33)
down on a slight elevation. . . .
Cutts (1882, p. 410)
Thither then, at the very early hour at
which, in those Eastern countries, the
business of the day begins, the Jewish
magnates brought Jesus, and stopping in the
portico of the palace, because they could not
enter into a Gentile house without incurring
that amount of ceremonial defilement which
would have prevented them from sharing in
the solemnities of the Festival, they sent word
to Pilate, who came out to them. Probably the
portable official chair,--"the judgment seat,"--
which was carried about with a Roman
magistrate, was brought out, and he sat down
in it on the marble pavement of the portico,
thus elevated by its steps above the level of
the crowd. . . .
Page -166-
Clough (1880, p. 38)
. . .
Crabtre (1883, p. 501)
"That the conduct of Pilate was highly
criminal, cannot be denied. But his guilt was
light (John 19:11) in comparison! of the
criminal depravity of the Jews, especially the
priests. His was the guilt of weakness and
fear, theirs the guilt of settled and deliberate
malice."--Kitto.
Note that Crabtree, writing a mere three years after Clough, put the quote in quotes
and named the source (Actually it was Beard who wrote the article on Pilate in Kittos
Cyclopedia see page 53). Clough had simply a remark about borrowing material from
Smith's Dict. of the Bible, with additions from McClintock & Strong, and others. Note
also that Crabtre didnt say in which book the remark can be found, nor the page, nor
the date, etc.. Beard also did not have the parenthetical cite for John, nor the
exclamation point.
Clough (1880, p. 29; pp. 32-33)
Sanhedrim, who were unable to enter the
defiled and unfit to eat the passover. . . .
To receive their decision, he ascended
the bema, a portable tribunal which was
carried about with a Roman magistrate, to be
in the present instance was erected on a
and called in Hebrew Gabbatha, probably
from being laid down on a slight elevation. . .
.
As they would have been made
ceremonially unclean--and consequently
would have been unable to eat the
Passover--if they had entered the residence of
a Gentile, they halted at the paved court in
front of the palace, and sent a message to
Pilate.
Page -167-
Clough (1880, p. 31)
. . . The mention of Galilee suggested to
Pilate a new way of escaping from his
dilemma, by sending on the case to Herod
Antipas, tetrarch of that country, who had
come up to Jerusalem to the feast, while at
the same time it gave him an opportunity of
making overtures of reconciliation to Herod,
with whose jurisdiction he had probably in
some recent instance interfered.
The mention of Galilee suggested to
Pilate a way of getting rid of this troublesome
business, and of shifting the responsibility of
coming to a decision on to the shoulders of
some one else.
Cook (1880, p. 260)
. . . "Thine own nation"
([Greek]), and no Roman
informer, "and the chief
priests, the natural leaders of
the people, delivered (om.
have) thee unto me; what hast
thou done? or, more exactly,
what didst thou do," that is,
to turn those who would
naturally favour such as thee
into relentless enemies?
Westcott (1882, p. ) Hovey (1885, p. )
Fairbairn (1880, p. 304)
. . . And Pilate, anxious to reach what
was for him the root of the matter, asks, "Art
Thou a king, then?" . . .
Dawson (1901, p. 402)
. . . He goes at once to the root of the
matter, and asks Jesus if He really claims to
be the King of the Jews; for it would seem
that in the hasty charge of treason invented by
the priests it had been alleged that He had
received homage as a King.
Nicoll (1880, p. 276)
. . . At the very beginning of his career as
procurator, he allowed his soldiers to bring
with them the silver eagles, and other insignia
of the legions, from Cesarea to the Holy City.
. . .
Weiss (1889, p. 346)
. . . At the very beginning of his entrance
upon office he found that he had opposed to
him forces before which even a Roman might
be compelled to give way. The innovation he
introduced in regard to the standards (comp.
p. 180), he was compelled to recede from. . . .
Page -168-
Nicoll (1880, p. 278)
. . . They dropped the charge of
blasphemy, which would have availed them
nothing before Pilate, and urged that Jesus
had perverted the nation, forbidding to give
tribute to Csar, and saying that He Himself
was the Christ the King. . . .
Dawson (1901, p. 399)
. . . They also knew that the charge of
blasphemy would have no weight with Pilate.
. . .
Stalker (1880, p. 132)
. . . When he did visit it, he stayed in the
magnificent palace of Herod the Great; it
being common for the officers sent by Rome
into conquered countries to occupy the
palaces of the displaced sovereigns. . . .
. . . But in Jerusalem there were two such
quarters: the fortress Antonia, and the
magnificent Palace of Herod at the
north-western angle of the Upper City. . . .
Stalker (1880, p. 138)
185. At last, having glutted their cruelty,
they led Him back to the tribunal, wearing the
crown of thorns and the purple robe. The
crowds raised shouts of mad laughter at the
soldiers' joke; and, with a sneer on his face,
Pilate thrust Him forward, so as to meet the
gaze of all, and cried, "Behold the man!" . . .
Bird (1891, p. 448)
"See," said Pilate, "I have brought Him
out to you, that you may know that I find no
fault in Him," and he pointed to Jesus, who
was brought forward between two soldiers,
faint and stooping, with the crown of thorns
and the scarlet robe still on. "Look at the
Man!" . . .
Stalker (1880, p. 139-40)
. . . But Jesus answered him not one
word. . . .
Didon (1893, p. 338)
Jesus answered him not a word. . . .
Note: Evidence for literary dependence is ambiguous. Both authors could be
independently following the biblical text. The phrase, answered . . . not a word, is a
familiar one in the KJV (see 1 Kings 18:21; 2 Kings 18:36; Isaiah 36:21; Matthew 15:23),
and in this context also paraphrases John 19:9, But Jesus gave him no answer. Given
these factors it is not counted in the table.
Stalker (1880, p. 130)
. . . Yet He who had kept silence when he
might have spoken now spoke when He might
have been silent. . . .
Speer (1896, p. 229)
. . . He was silent when He might have
spoken before Caiaphas; but when the high
priest, finding that no testimony was available
for His condemnation, asked Him point-
blank, "Art Thou the Christ?" He spoke when
He might have been silent. . . .
Page -169-
Riddle (1881, p. 214)
. . . The office held by Pilate was that of
Roman 'procurator,' whose chief business it
was to collect the revenues, and in certain
cases to administer justice. Palestine had been
thus governed since the banishment of
Archelaus (A. D. 6), and Pilate was the sixth
procurator, holding the office for ten years
under the Emperor Tiberius (probably from
A. D. 27-36).
Maas (1890, p. 516)
. . . The office held by the governors was
that of Roman procurator, whose chief
business it was to collect the revenues, and in
certain cases to administer justice. It was only
after the banishment of Archelaus, that
Palestine was thus governed (A. D. G).
Pilate--was the sixth procurator of
Palestine, and held his office for ten years
under the emperor Tiberius (A. D. 27-36). . . .
Riddle (1881, p. 218)
. . . The word prtorium was applied first
to the general's tent in the Roman camp, then
to the residence of the provincial governors,
who were usually generals. . . .
Maas (1890, p. 527)
. . . The word "praetorium" used for
Pilate's palace, was applied first to the
general's tent in the Roman camp, then to the
residence of provincial governors, who
usually were generals. . . .
Riddle (1881, p. 219)
. . . His clothing was replaced after the
scourging, and probably also the robe which
Herod had put on Him to mock Him (Luke
23: 11), usually supposed to have been white,
marking Him as a candidate for royal honors.
This robe was removed, and instead they put
on Him a scarlet or purple robe, as the sign of
His having attained royal honors. It was
probably an ordinary military cloak. Both
Mark and John speak of it as purple; but
imperial or royal purple is more scarlet than
blue. . . .
Maas (1890, p. 527)
. . . After scourging Jesus the soldiers
replaced His clothing, including probably the
white robe put on Him by Herod, marking
Him as a candidate for royal honors. This is
now removed and the scarlet cloak
substituted in its stead, a sign that Jesus has
reached the honors of His royalty. The cloak
was probably an ordinary military cloak. Sts.
John and Mark speak of it as purple, but
imperial purple is more scarlet than blue. . . .
Page -170-
Riddle (1881, p. 219)
. . . Alford says 'Hasselquist, a Swedish
naturalist, supposes a very common plant,
naba or nubka of the Arabs, with many small
and sharp spines; soft, round, and pliant
branches; leaves much resembling ivy, of a
very deep green, as if designed in mockery of
a victor's wreath.'
Maas (1890, p. 527)
. . . The crown of thorns was made,
according to some, of branches of the
"Lycium spinosum," called "Shaukun" by the
Arabs, according to others of "Paliurus spinae
Christi," a very common plant full of small
sharp spines. Its branches were soft, round
and pliant; its leaves much resembled ivy,
being of a very deep green, as if designed to
mock the victor's crown.
Westcott (1881, pp.
297-299)
Recent investigations at
Jerusalem have disclosed
what may have been the
scene of the punishment. In
a subterranean chamber,
discovered by Captain
Warren, on what Mr.
Fergusson holds to be the
site of Antonia--Pilate's
Prtorium--"stands a
truncated column, no part of
the construction, for the
chamber is vaulted above the
pillar, but just such a pillar as
criminals would be tied to to
be scourged." The chamber
"cannot be later than the time
of Herod" (Fergusson, The
Temples of the Jews, p. 176;
comp. p. 242).
Hovey (1888, p. 370)
. . . Wescott says, that
"recent investigations at
Jerusalem have disclosed
what may have been the
scene of the punishment. In
a subterranean chamber,
discovered by Captain
Warren, on what Mr.
Ferguson holds to be the
site of Antonia--Pilate's
prtorium--stands a
truncated column, no part of
the construction; for the
be scourged."
Whitelaw (1888, p. 392)
. . . In a subterranean
chamber on the supposed site
of Pilate's prtorium stands
"a truncated column, no part
of the construction, for the
be scourged" (Ferguson, The
Temples of the Jews, p. 178;
quoted by Westcott).
Page -171-
Coleridge (1882, pp. 435-436)
. . . And then, after all that humiliation
and pain, the soldiers invented the cruel
mockery, more brutal in its way than even the
insults in the palace of Caiphas, of setting
Him on a mock throne, with a crown of
thorns on His Head, a purple rag round His
shoulders, and a reed in His hand, and then of
coming to Him and offering Him derisive
homage as the King of the Jews, ending by
striking Him on the face and head.
Clodd (1889, pp. 164-165)
So Jesus was delivered to the soldiers to
be stripped and scourged with leathern thongs
tipped with bone or metal, according to the
brutal custom adopted towards the
condemned, and to this terrible pain
succeeded mocking tortures; a reed being
thrust into his hand as sceptre, prickly twigs
wound into a crown and forced upon his head,
and an old scarlet cloak thrown over him,
while the unpitying ruffians saluted him in
jeering homage as "king of the Jews."
The minimal similarity and differing contexts suggests that there was no borrowing.
. . . This was the terrible Roman
punishment of scourging, a far more severe
punishment than the "forty stripes save one"
to which the Jewish custom limited such
inflictions. . . .
Weiss (1889, p. 347)
. . . They intended Pilate to perceive from
the fact of their delivering this man up that
He was deserving of a more severe
punishment than they durst decree, and they
hoped that he would simply confirm their
sentence. . . .
So when on inquiry he found that our
Weiss (1889, p. 350)
Compare with Luke 23:7 And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's
jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time.
Crabtre (1883, p. 504-505)
While preparations were being made for
the crucifixion, Jesus was left in the hands of
the Roman soldiers, in the guard-room of the
palace, who again robed Him in the scarlet
gown, and plaiting a rude crown of thorn-
twigs they placed it upon His head, mocking-
ly crying:
Weiss (1889, p. 355)
. . . While preparations were being made
for the crucifixion, Jesus was given in charge
of the Roman soldiers; they at once proceed-
ed to make the alleged King of the Jews the
target for their rude sport, indeed the whole
cohort was called together from the barracks
to amuse themselves at His expense. . . .
Page -172-
Indeed, Pilate seems to have hoped that
the horrors of the scourging might still move
the people to desist from the ferocious cry for
the Cross.
Craigin (1874, p. 526)
Pilate seems to have hoped that this
proposal would end the matter.
But in Jerusalem there were two such
quarters: the fortress Antonia, and the mag-
nificent Palace of Herod at the north-western
angle of the Upper City. Although it is impos-
sible to speak with certainty, the balance of
probability is entirely in favour of the view
that, when Pilate was in Jerusalem with his
wife, he occupied the truly royal abode of
Herod, and not the fortified barracks of
Antonia.
Vallings (1889, p. 179)
The scene changes from palace to palace,
from judge to judge. Whether Pilate occupied
the palace of Herod at the north-western
angle of the upper city, or the barracks of the
castle at Antonia, is a question still in debate;
but the balance of opinion favours the former
locality. . . .
With this cry Judaism was, in the person
of its representatives guilty of denial of God,
of blasphemy, of apostasy. It committed
suicide; and, ever since, has its dead body
been carried in show from land to land, and
from century, to century; to be dead, and to
remain dead, till He come a second time,
Who is the Resurrection and the Life!
White (1898, p. 739)
Terribly was it realized in the destruction
of Jerusalem. Terribly has it been manifested
in the condition of the Jewish nation for
eighteen hundred years,--a branch severed
from the vine, a dead, fruitless branch, to be
gathered up and burned. From land to land
throughout the world, from century to
century, dead, dead in trespasses and sins!
While counted in Table 3, White has adapted Edersheims words to express her own
thought. Edersheim also used the same verbatim phrases (in reverse order) on page 578.
The concept of a fruitless branch can be seen as an allusion to Jesus teaching in John
15:1-5.
Page -173-
. . . It was, that Jesus had said, He
Himself was Christ a King.
. . . He is interested, not in anything Jesus
may have said about His ruling men's hearts
by love, or Sabbath-work; but he is taken at
once by the statement that Jesus said that He
Himself was Christ, a King. . . .
The evidence for literary dependency is ambiguous, but possible, based on the word
order and the tense of the verb was Christ a King. Both sources resemble Luke 23:2,
We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar,
saying that he himself is Christ a King. The degree of probability is open to question
the degree of probability is lowered even further when we realize we also can trace the
same wording to Hanna.
But when the Governor, hoping to enlist
some popular sympathy, put this alternative
to them, nay, urged it, on the ground that
neither he nor yet Herod had found any crime
in Him, and would even have appeased their
thirst for vengeance by offering to submit
Jesus to the cruel punishment of scourging, it
was in vain.
. . . He is not rid of the impression
received from the moral splendor of Jesus,
and he ventures to say to the authorities, to
whom he repeats their own charge against
Jesus, in a manner bringing out its falsehood,
that neither he, nor Herod, has found any
crime in the Galilean peasant. . . .
They prefaced it by this, that He pervert-
ed the nation and forbade to give tribute to
Caesar. The latter charge was so grossly
unfounded, that we can only regard it as in
their mind a necessary inference from the
premise that He claimed to be King.
Dawson (1901, p. 399)
. . . They accused Jesus of perverting the
nation and of forbidding the people to pay
tribute to Caesar. The charge was absolutely
false, as they well knew. . . .
Note the close similarity between the two with the biblical text: Luke 23:2 And they
began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding
to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King. This illustrates the
problem of assuming that any and all literary similarity is the result of direct copying
from the previous author--Dawson copied alright, but not from Edersheim.
Page -174-
Weiss (1884, p. 356)
. . . The thought therefore occurred to
him to rouse the sympathy of the people, and
proceeding on that pity to make a last attempt
at rescue. . . .
Maas (1890, p. 528)
. . . The Jews now see that they have lost
the support of the multitude and of Pilate.
They must, therefore, regain the sympathy of
the people, and bring forward some additional
accusation. . . .
In Weiss the he refers to Pilate, while in Maas the they refers to the leaders.
This will not be counted in Table 3.
Weiss (1884, p. 353)
. . . On the other hand, it was of the great-
est importance for the hierarchy that a manner
of execution distinctly Roman, and usually
employed in the case of rebels, should be
made use of in this case; it would enable the
priests to throw the whole odium of this mur-
der upon the Romans who had condemned
Him on account of sedition, and Jesus would
be for ever stigmatized in the eyes of the
people by the shameful death He met with.
Maas (1890, p. 523)
. . . Here is the second mistake of Pilate:
He may really desire the freedom of Jesus,
but he places Him before the rabble on the
same level with Barabbas, and they choose
against his expectations; there remains only
one alternative in the eyes of the people; the
innocent Jesus must die in place of the
robber.
Weiss (1884, p. 356)
. . . He had yielded, and yet something
within him seemed still to struggle against
such submission. The thought therefore
occurred to him to rouse the sympathy of the
people, and proceeding on that pity to make a
last attempt at rescue. . . .
Maas (1890, p. 528)
. . . They must, therefore, regain the
sympathy of the people, and bring forward
some additional accusation. . . .
The commonness of the phrases and differing contexts precludes us from positively
concluding that these were copied.
Weiss (1884, p. 356)
. . . Pilate had neither confirmed their
sentence, nor himself condemned Jesus to
death; in giving way to the violent demands
of the people, he had only declared himself
willing to permit the crucifixion (comp. Luke
xxiii. 24). . . .
White (1898, p. 736)
. . . He had abused the high office of
judge by yielding his principles and authority
to the demands of the mob. . . .
Page -175-
Luckock (1885, p. 358)
. . . Seeing the awful plight in which the
frightful lash had left Him, clothed with the
mock symbols of royalty, all smeared with
blood and shameful spitting, he determined to
make a final effort to move the sympathies of
the people. . . .
Fouard (1890, p. 230)
The Gospels record this whipping
without entering into its details; but the
silence of Jesus, which acted as a savage spur
to the fury of the executioners, Pilates plan
to move the sympathies of the Jews by the
spectacle of their Victim, the condition to
which the Savior was reduced, so that He
could not afterwards sustain His Cross, all
the facts, indeed, make us conjure up a sense
of prolonged agony. . . .
McConnell (1886, pp. 162-163)
. . . As the governor hesitates in his
surprise and disappointment, his perplexity
and anxiety are still further increased by a
message from his wife warning him against
condemning the prisoner, of whose innocence
she had been supernaturally apprised. . . .
Houghton (1890, p. 266)
Pilate was for the moment called away
by a message from his wife warning him
against condemning a man who, she had
learned from a dream, was a just man; and the
Jews took this opportunity to go among the
people and persuade them to ask for the
release of another prisoner, one Barabbas,
who was actually under condemnation for the
very crime of sedition of which they had
falsely accused Jesus. . . .
Vallings (1887, p. 181)
In the old palace of the Asmonans Jesus
confronted Herod and his men of war. . . .
D. Smith (1905, p. 483)
. . . It chanced opportunely that Antipas
had come up to keep the Feast and was at that
moment at Jerusalem in the old Palace of the
Asmonans; and Pilate, anxious to extricate
himself from a difficult position, remitted the
case to him.
Page -176-
Reynolds (1888, p. 415)
I. Jesus in his treatment of Pilate's
question. To Pilate the question was simple
enough. He meant, of course, a king in the
ordinary acceptation of the term. . . .
Whitelaw (1888, p. 386)
. . . The fact that these had offered no
resistance to his apprehension was proof that
He did not aspire to be a king in the ordinary
acceptation of the term. . . .
Using Google Book Search, Conklin was able to find that most of the phrase had
been used in other contexts at least as early as 1823. Note that this is a 9-word string.
Reynolds (1888, p. 402)
. . . He ought at once to have dismissed
Jesus from his bar. . . .
Whitelaw (1888, p. 387)
. . . Had he been faithful to personal
convictions or official obligations he ought at
once to have dismissed the case and liberated
Christ; but Pilate was afraid of the Jews,
although he hated them. . . .
Fouard (1890, pp. 295-296)
The Captive was alone; His accusers,
despite their animosity, could not venture to
cross the threshold of the Pretorium.
Didon (1893, p. 335)
They gave up Jesus, who entered the
Praetorium, but they themselves refused to
cross the threshold of the palace.
Fouard (1890, p. 301)
For a long time he had been kept
informed of all the reports concerning the
Christ, and he was only too anxious to be an
eye-witness of some of His prodigies.
Didon (1893, p. 339)
. . . For a long time he had wished to see
him. He was a weak and superstitious man,
and, having heard much concerning the
Prophet of Galilee, he was reckoning upon
seeing some prodigy. . . .
Maas (1890, p. 517)
. . . After five days of discussion he gave
surround the petitioners and put them to
death, unless they ceased to trouble him. But
the Jews declared themselves ready to die
rather than to submit to idolatrous
innovations. . . .
D. Smith (1905, p. 478)
. . . On the sixth day he convened them in
the race-course, and on their renewing their
appeal he gave a signal, and a company of
soldiers whom he had set in ambush, sprang
forward and, surrounding the defenceless
suppliants, threatened them with instant death
unless they desisted from their clamour and
returned peaceably home. He thought to
intimidate them, but to his amazement they
flung themselves on their faces and, baring
their necks, declared themselves ready to die
rather than endure the violation of their laws.
. . .
Page -177-
Andrews (1862/1891, p. 544)
3. (a) On His return, Pilate calls together
the chief priests and rulers and the people that
he may declare Him innocent; but they are
more vehement against Him. (b) He prepares
to release Jesus according to the custom of
the feast. The multitude chose Barabbas and
cry, Crucify Jesus. (c) Message of his wife.
(d) He orders Jesus to be scourged and
presents Him to the people: "Behold the
man," hoping to awaken their compassion.
Hurlbut (1915, p. 448)
This was not what Pilate had looked for.
He had thought that according to the custom
of the feast he might set Jesus free and still
please the people. He said to the crowd:
"What then shall I do with Jesus, the man
whom they call Christ?"
"Send him to the cross! Let him die on
the cross!" they roared with all their might.
Talmage (1880, p. 597)
. . . This gave Pilate hope, for between
Jesus and a man named Barabbas, who was
under sentence of death for killing a Roman
soldier in an emeute, he believed that the
people would certainly ask the release of
Jesus.
White (1898, p. 733)
. . . The Roman authorities at this time
held a prisoner named Barabbas, who was
under sentence of death. . . .
Geikie (p. 495) uses the phrase under sentence of death, but in a different context.
Bird (1891, pp. 446, 440)
It was the Roman law that every one who
was to be crucified should first be scourged.
The prisoner, stripped to the waist, was tied to
a post in a stooping position while a soldier
scourged him, striking where he pleased, on
head or body, with such force that many
fainted and some died under the scourging.
The scourge was made of strips of leather
tipped with bits of lead or ragged bone. . . .
. . . They followed Him to the old palace
of the Maccabans, which was not far away,
also on Zion hill, and there they saw Him
taken into the courtyard, and the priests, His
accusers, this time went in also, for it was the
palace of a Jew. . . .
Talmage (1880, pp. 371, 373)
So Governor Pilate, to compromise the
matter, proposes the whipping of Christ
instead of his assassination. He was tied to a
pillar near the ground, and on His bent and
bare back come the thongs of leather, with
chunks of lead and bone intertwined to
augment the force and horror of the stroke . . .
.
Before execution of the sentence Pilate,
hoping that some means might yet be devised
to save Jesus, sent him to Herod for judgment
as a Galilean, for as such he was not properly
under Pilate's jurisdiction. Jesus was
accordingly taken to the old palace of the
Asmoneans, where Antipas lived . . . .
Page -178-
Bird (1891, p. 445)
. . . Should he order his soldiers to drive
this wild mob out of his sight at the point of
their long spears, Pilate thought? That would
mean bloodshed, and would be reported to the
Emperor Caesar at Rome. . . .
Dawson (1901, p. 403)
. . . A hundred men-at-arms might easily
have swept the rabble from the Pretorium; but
Pilate knows well that such a display of force
would be duly reported to the Emperor as an
outrage and a massacre, with every kind of
exaggeration which malice could invent or
falsehood support. . . .
Didon (1891, p. 339)
. . . He knew that He stood in the
presence of the murderer of John, and He
knew that with such a man all sincere
appreciation of religion was impossible. . . .
Dawson (1901, p. 405)
. . . In the presence of the murderer of
John the Baptist he remained silent. . . .
McKenzie (1891, p. 47)
Pilate had hung upon the wall of Herod's
palace at Jerusalem certain gilded shields
inscribed with the names of pagan deities and
dedicated to the emperor. . . .
Peters (1911, p. 391)
. . . Not only that, but he hung up in the
tower of Antonia, almost within sight of the
worshippers at the Temple, shields inscribed
with the names of heathen deities and
dedicated to their worship." . . .
Hammer (1896, p. 217)
What were the reasons which induced
Our Lord to remain silent in the presence of
Herod? . . .
Conaty (1898, p. 220)
599. Why was Christ silent in the
presence of Herod?
Swete (1898, p. 347)
. . . The answer is given more fully by Jo.
([Greek]), who narrates the whole
conversation between Jesus and Pilate.
[Greek] neither affirms nor denies (cf. xiv.
61, note; Thpht.: [Greek]), but leaves the
matter to Pilate's judgement; acc. to Jo.,
however, the Lord proceeded to reveal the
sense in which He claimed kingship
([Greek]). The contrast between His reply to
Pilate and that to Caiaphas (xiv. 62) is of
great interest; in dealing with Pilate He
appeals to conscience only, and makes no
reference to the Messianic hopes raised by
the O.T.
Eaton (1920, p. 171)
. . . Our Lord's answer is given more
fully by Jn. (xviii. 33-37). The contrast
between our Lord's reply to Pilate and his
reply to Caiaphas (xiv. 62) is most striking.
With Pilate he appeals to conscience alone;
with Caiaphas he made reference to the hopes
concerning the Messiah established by the
O.T., and hence appealed to him in his office
as priest.
Page -179-
Swete (1898, p. 348)
. . . Of the custom (Mt. [Greek], Jo.
[Greek]) there seems to be no other evidence
than that which the Gospels furnish; Mc.'s
[Greek] (cf. [Greek] v. 8) does not compel us
to look farther back than Pilate's own term of
office for the origin of the custom; a
precedent of the kind would ripen into a
claim almost at once. . . .
Eaton (1920, p. 172)
. . . There is no other evidence than that
which the Gospels furnish for this custom.
Quite likely it was instituted by Pilate
himself, and such a precedent would quickly
ripen into a claim. . . .
Swete (1898, p. 350)
. . . The full form of the question is given
by Mt. . . .
Eaton (1920, p. 172)
. . . The full and alternative form of the
question is given by Mt. (xxvii. 17). . . .
Swete (1898, p. 353)
. . . The word praetorium (as Lightfoot
has shown, Philippians, p. 97) may mean (1)
headquarters in a camp, or (2) the residence
of a governor, or other mansion. In the
Gospels and Acts it bears the second sense,
cf. Acts xxiii. 35 [Greek], i.e. the palace built
by Herod the great at Caesarea, which was
used by the Procurators as their official
residence. . . .
Eaton (1920, p. 174)
. . . The word "praetorium" may mean (a)
headquarters in a camp, or the residence of a
governor. In the Gospels and Acts it always
bears the second meaning. (Cp. Acts xxiii.
35.) . . .
Swete (1898, p. 353)
. . . The cohort had been concerned in the
arrest (Jo. xviii. 3, 12), and were therefore
interested in the trial and its issue. . . .
Eaton (1920, p. 174)
. . . i.e., the cohort which had been
instrumental in our Lord's arrest, and who
therefore would be interested in the trial and
its issue. . . .
Swete (1898, p. 354)
. . . i.e. composed of twigs broken off
from some thorny plant which grew on waste
ground hard by (iv. 7), not improbably the
Zizyphus spina-Christi or nubk tree, of which
"the thorns are long, sharp and recurved, and
often create a festering wound" (Tristram
N.H., p. 430, adding "I have noticed dwarf
bushes of the Z. growing outside the walls of
Jerusalem").
Eaton (1920, p. 175)
. . . The plant was probably the nubh of
the Arabs, the thorns of which are sharp and
plentiful, and often create a festering wound.
It still grows on dwarf bushes outside the
walls of Jerusalem.
Page -180-
White (1898, p. 725)
. . . They must not allow it to appear that
Christ had been arrested on religious grounds.
Were this put forward as a reason, their
proceedings would have no weight with
Pilate. . . .
Dawson (1901, p. 399)
. . . They also knew that the charge of
blasphemy would have no weight with Pilate.
. . .
Did Dawson borrowing his wording from Nicoll or White?
White (1898, p. 735)
There stood the Son of God, wearing the
robe of mockery and the crown of thorns.
Stripped to the waist, His back showed the
long, cruel stripes, from which the blood
flowed freely. His face was stained with
blood, and bore the marks of exhaustion and
pain; but never had it appeared more beautiful
than now. . . .
Hurlbut (1915, p. 449)
Then they brought Jesus out on the steps
of the palace. His face was stained with
blood; on his head was the wreath of thorns;
and on his shoulders was the scarlet cloak.
And Pilate said to the crowd:
Berthe (1902, p. 390)
. . . Proud and covetous, glorying even to
insolence in his title of Roman, he despised
the Jews, their religion and their institutions,
and profited by every occasion to manifest
his contempt for them. . . .
Cookson (1925, p. 253)
. . . He despised the Jews, their religion
and its rigorous formalities so much so that,
in their exasperation and bitterness, they had
even petitioned the Emperor to remove him. .
. .
Berthe (1902, p. 391)
. . . The crowd remained in the
court-yard at the entrance, in order not to be
defiled by passing over the threshold of a
pagan dwelling, for this would have disabled
them from partaking of the Paschal feast. . . .
Cookson (1925, p. 253)
. . . In his palace there was a hall, in
which all trials were generally conducted, but
as the Jewish authorities did not wish to incur
defilement by passing over the threshold of a
Gentile during the Paschal Feast, and thus be
unable to take part in the solemnities, "Pilate,
therefore, went out to them."
Page -181-
Berthe (1902, p. 399)
It was a very ancient Jewish custom to
set a prisoner free during the Passover
festival. The joy of the unhappy man restored
to freedom was a reminder of the joy of their
forefathers, when freed from Egyptian
bondage.
Cookson (1925, pp. 255-256)
There was a time-honored Jewish custom
to set a prisoner free during the paschal
festivities, and this ancient procedure at once
suggested to the Governor the desirability of
granting pardon to the accused Galilean. How
and when this act of clemency at the Pasch
became customary, is not known, but some
have regarded it as a reminiscence and record
of the joy of their forefathers, when the
Israelites were freed from the Egyptian
bondage. . . .
Rosadi (1905, pp. 288-289)
But at the time when these things took
place, the law-giving genius of Rome had
reached, in the organisation of its criminal
tribunals, the highest pinnacle of civilisation.
. . .
Chandler (1908, pp. 29-30)
. . . The lawgiving genius of Rome had
then reached maturity and approximate
perfection in the organization of its criminal
tribunals. . . .
Rosadi (1905, p. 289)
The jurisdiction of the single sovereign
judge, were he king or were he consul, which
lasted, as it was well fitted to last, through the
two and a half centuries of monarchy, was
destined to come to an end in the better days
of the Republic. It yielded to institutions
which first modified it in part, and afterwards
suppressed it in entirety. A law proposed in
245 by the Consul Publius Valerius, the
successor of Collatinus, prescribed that no
magistrate should have power to carry out
sentence on a Roman citizen who had
appealed to the judgment of the people. It was
their famous Lex Valeria (De provocatione),
which the Romans always considered as the
palladium of their civil and political liberty,
and it was with this law that the popular
jurisdiction of the comitia was inaugurated.
But the criminal jurisdiction of the
magistrates who replaced the king at the
downfall of the monarchy was abridged and
almost destroyed by the famous lex Valeria
(de provocatione). This law was proposed
509 B.C. by Publius Valerius, one of the first
consuls of Rome, and provided that no
magistrate should have power to execute a
sentence of death against a Roman citizen
who had appealed to the judgment of the
people in their public assembly. This lex was
the magna charta of the Romans and was
justly regarded by them as the great
palladium of their civil liberty. And it was
this law that inaugurated the popular
jurisdiction of the comitia. . . .
Page -182-
Rosadi (1905, p. 290)
. . . These tribunals acted under a prtor,
who constituted and directed them, and who
was aided in his duties and was replaced
when absent by a special magistrate (iudex
qustionis). One of these two, at the opening
of any case, threw the name of the citizens
inscribed on white tablets into an urn
([Latin]), and then drew out from these a
certain number. Both prosecutor and
defendant, however, were able to reject some
of these, who were replaced by others taken
anew from the urn. . . .
Chandler (1908, pp. 49-50)
Seventh Stage (impaneling the
judges).--But if the prosecutor appeared in
due time, the trial formally began by the
impaneling of the judges. This was usually
done by the prtor or iudex qustionis who,
at the beginning of the trial, placed the names
of the complete panel of jurors, inscribed on
white tablets, into an urn, and then drew out a
certain number. Both prosecutor and accused
had the right to challenge a limited number,
as the names were being drawn. The number
of challenges allowed varied from time to
time.
Rosadi (1905, p. 291)
One of the first acts of imperial
despotism consummated by Augustus was the
abolition of the jurisdiction of the comitia,
which had so far continued to exist side by
side with that of the permanent tribunals,
having cognisance of eight different kinds of
crime. He extended this cognisance so as to
include twelve kinds of crime, and transferred
the jurisdiction in all other cases to the
senate. The latter, however, as its nature
gradually changed owing to the new political
constitution of the Empire, encroached upon
the jurisdiction not properly its own, and the
permanent tribunals went on declining stage
by stage until they finally collapsed in the
third century of the Christian era.
It should be observed, at this point, that
the period of Roman jurisprudence just
referred to was in the closing years of the
republic; and that certain changes in the
organization of the tribunals as well as in the
forms of procedure were effected by the
legislation of Augustus. But we have it upon
the authority of Rosadi that these changes
were not radical in the case of the criminal
courts and that the rules and regulations that
governed procedure in them during the
republic remained substantially unchanged
under the empire. The same writer tells us
that the permanent tribunals for the trial of
capital cases did not go out of existence until
the third century of the Christian era.*
* At this point Chandler provides a reference to The Trial of Jesus pp. 291-293 as
the source. Note the lack of quote marks.
Page -183-
Rosadi (1905, p. 292)
According to the rules of procedure in
the comitia, the magistrates themselves
prosecuted. The prosecutor mounted the
rostra, and after having called the people
together by the voice of a crier, made
declaration that upon such and such a day and
for such and such an offence he would accuse
such and such a citizen, whom he thereby
called upon to come forward to listen to the
charges. The defendant thereupon either
offered sureties for his appearance or was
thrown into prison. Upon the appointed day
the prosecutor again mounted the rostra, and
after summoning the accused by a herald, he
brought evidence, documentary and
otherwise, against him; the prosecution
included three orations, one per diem. Those
Romans were worthy forerunners of our late
Latin lawyers. The prosecution had to be
confirmed in writing and was published in the
Forum on three market-days. On the third day
the prosecutor yielded the right of speech to
the defence. The accused and his patron
mounted the rostra and proceeded to dispose
of the prosecution, bringing up their
evidence, documentary and otherwise. The
plaintiff then announced the day on which he
would repeal the plea, already made public.
And upon that day he called upon the people
to consider it and give their votes. Originally
voting was carried on by voice; but
subsequently by means of a tablet bearing one
of the two letters V. ([Latin]) or A. (absolvo).
Chandler (1908, pp. 37-38)
Mode of Trial in the Comitia, or Public
Assembly.--On a certain day, the prosecuting
magistrate, who had himself pronounced the
preliminary sentence against an accused
person who had appealed to the people in
their public assembly, mounted the rostra,
and called the people together by the voice of
a herald.
He then made a proclamation that on a
certain day he would bring an accusation
against a certain person upon a given charge.
At the same time, he called upon this person
to come forward and hear the charges against
him. The defendant then presented himself,
listened to the accusation, and immediately
furnished bond for his appearance, or in
default of bail, was thrown into prison. Upon
the day announced at the opening of the trial,
the prosecuting magistrate again mounted the
rostra, and summoned the accused by a
herald, if he was at large, or had him brought
forth if he was in prison. The prosecutor then
produced evidence, oral and documentary,
against the prisoner. The indictment had to be
in writing, and was published on three market
days in the Forum. The prosecution came to
an end on the third day, and the accused then
began his defense by mounting the rostra with
his patron and presenting evidence in his own
behalf. The prosecutor then announced that
on a certain day he would ask the people to
render judgment by their votes. In the early
years of the republic, the people voted by
shouting their approval or disapproval of the
charges made; but later a tablet bearing one
of the two letters V. (uti rogas) or A.
(absolvo) was used as a ballot.
Page -184-
Peters (1911, p. 391)
. . . Not only that, but he hung up in the
tower of Antonia, almost within sight of the
worshippers at the Temple, shields inscribed
with the names of heathen deities and
dedicated to their worship." . . .
Gibson (1915, pp. 455-456)
. . . The first was caused by his soldiers
bringing their standards, bearing the image of
the Roman emperor, into the Holy City; the
second by his hanging some gilt shields,
inscribed with the names of heathen deities,
in his palace at Jerusalem, and the third by his
taking temple offerings to provide a better
water supply. . . .
Peters (1911, p. 405)
The Nazarene was ordered to be
scourged. This was not always done before
crucifixion, but usually; and it would appear
that Pilate hoped in this way to appease the
Jews and to save the more terrible infliction
of the cross. . . .
Gibson (1915, p. 464)
The exact order of events at this point is
uncertain; but, inasmuch as John was an eye
witness, and gives the most detailed account,
we follow his narrative. The message from
Pilate's wife, reported only by Matthew,
would cause some delay and stimulate Pilate
to devise some other method of escaping
responsibility for sentencing Jesus, but he
still moved forward to the consummation of
his great judicial crime, and he ordered Jesus
to be scourged. This was a preparation for the
crucifixion; but Pilate may have thought that
the terrible sufferings from this scourging
would satisfy the multitude and that the
crucifixion might not be necessary.
Page -185-
Unique Cases of Borrowing:
Watson and Brown
In this section we will look at three unique cases of borrowing which are quite
astounding!
This is a singular, unique case in which a later author (and by only a couple of years!)
borrowed 100% of a previous writers work!
Richard Watson (1831)
PILATE. It is not known of what country
or family Pontius Pilate was, but it is believed
that he was of Rome, or, at least, of Italy. He
was sent to govern Judea in the room of
Gratus, A.D. 26, or 27. He presided over this
province for ten years, from the twelfth or
thirteenth year of Tiberius, to the
twenty-second of the same emperor. He is
represented, both by Philo and Josephus, as a
man of an impetuous and obstinate temper,
and, as a judge, one who used to sell Justice,
and, for money, to pronounce any sentence
that was desired. The same authors make
mention of his rapines, his injuries, his
murders, the torments that he inflicted upon
the innocent, and the persons he put to death
without any form of process. Philo, in
particular, describes him as a man that
exercised an excessive cruelty during the
whole time of his government; who disturbed
the repose of Judea; and was the occasion of
the troubles and revolt that followed. St. Luke
acquaints us, that Pilate had mingled the
blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices;
and that the matter, having been related to
Jesus Christ, he introduced the subject into
his discourse, Luke xiii. The reason why
Pilate treated them in this manner, while
sacrificing in the temple, is not known. At the
time of our Saviour's passion, Pilate made
some attempts to deliver him out of the hands
Brown (1835)
PILATE. It is not known of what country
or family Pontius Pilate was, but it is believed
that he was of Rome, or, at least, of Italy. He
was sent to govern Judea in the room of
Gratus, A. D. 26, or 27. He presided over this
province for ten years, from the twelfth or
thirteenth year of Tiberius, to the
twenty-second of the same emperor.
He is represented, both by Philo and
Josephus, as a man of an impetuous and
obstinate temper, and, as a judge, one who
used to sell justice, and, for money, to
pronounce any sentence that was desired. The
same authors make mention of his rapines,
his injuries, his murders, the torments that he
inflicted upon the innocent, and the persons
he put to death without any form of process.
Philo, in particular, describes him as a man
that exercised an excessive cruelty during the
whole time of his government; who disturbed
the repose of Judea; and was the occasion of
the troubles and revolt that followed.
St. Luke acquaints us, that Pilate had
mingled the blood of the Galileans with their
sacrifices; and that the matter having been
related to Jesus Christ, he introduced the
subject into his discourse, Luke 13. The
reason why Pilate treated them in this
manner, while sacrificing in the temple, is not
Page -186-
of the Jews. He knew the reasons of their
enmity against him, Matt. xxvii. 18. His wife
also, having had a dream that alarmed her,
requested he would not stain his hands with
the blood of that just person, verse 19. He
therefore attempted to appease the wrath of
the Jews by scourging Jesus, John xix. 1;
Matt. 26; and also tried to take him out of
their hands by proposing to deliver him or
Barabbas, on the day of the passover. Lastly,
he thought to discharge himself from
pronouncing judgment against him, by
sending him to Herod, king of Galilee, Luke
7, 8. When he saw all this would not satisfy
the Jews, and that they even threatened him in
some manner, saying, he could be no friend
to the emperor if he suffered Jesus to be set at
liberty, John xix. 12-15, he caused water to be
brought, and washed his hands before all the
people, and publicly declared himself
innocent of the blood of that just person,
Matt. xxvii. 23, 24. Yet at the same time he
delivered him to his soldiers that they might
crucify him. This was enough to justify Jesus
Christ, as Calmet observes, and to prove that
he held him as innocent; but it was not
enough to vindicate the conscience and
integrity of a judge, whose duty it was as well
to assert the cause of oppressed innocence, as
to punish the guilty. He ordered the
inscription to be placed over the head of our
Saviour, John xix. 19; and when requested by
the Jews to alter it, peremptorily refused. He
also gave leave for the removal of our Lord's
body, and to place a guard over the sepulchre,
Matt. xxvii. 65. These are all the particulars
that we learn concerning Pilate from the
writers of the Gospels.
The extreme reluctance of Pilate to
condemn Christ, considering his merciless
character, is signally remarkable, and still
more his repeated protestations of the
innocence of his prisoner, although, on
known. At the time of our Savior's passion,
Pilate made some attempts to deliver him out
of the hands of the Jews. He knew the reasons
of their enmity against him, Matt. 27:18. His
wife also, having had a dream that alarmed
her, requested he would not stain his hands
with the blood of that just person, verse 19.
He therefore attempted to appease the wrath
of the Jews by scourging Jesus; (John 19:1.
Matt.27: 26.) and also tried to take him out of
their hands by proposing to deliver him or
Barabbas, on the day of the passover. Lastly,
he thought to discharge himself from
pronouncing judgment against him, by
sending him to Herod, king of Galilee, Luke
23: 7, 8. When he saw all this would not
satisfy the Jews, and that they even
threatened him in some manner, saying, he
could be no friend to the emperor if he
suffered Jesus to be set at liberty, (John 19:
12-15.) he caused water to be brought, and
washed his hands before all the people, and
publicly declared himself innocent of the
blood of that just person, Matt. 27: 23, 24.
Yet at the same time he delivered him to his
soldiers, that they might crucify him.
This was enough to justify Jesus Christ,
as Calmet observes, and to prove that he held
him as innocent; but it was not enough to
vindicate the conscience and integrity of a
judge, whose duty it was as well to assert the
cause of oppressed innocence, as to punish
the guilty. He ordered the inscription to be
placed over the head of our Savior, (John 10:
19.) and when requested by the Jews to alter
it, peremptorily refused. He also gave leave
for the removal of our Lord's body, and to
place a guard over the sepulchre, Matt. 27:
65. These are all the particulars that we learn
concerning Pilate from the writers of the
gospels.
The extreme reluctance of Pilate to
Page -187-
occasions of massacre, he made no scruple of
confounding the innocent with the guilty. But
he was unquestionably influenced by the
overruling providence of God, to make the
righteousness of his Son appear as clear as
the noon-day, even when condemned and
executed as a malefactor, by the fullest, the
most authentic, and the most public evidence:
1. By the testimony even of his judges, Pilate
and Herod, after examination of evidence. 2.
By the message of Pilate's wife, delivered to
him on the tribunal. 3. By the testimony of
the traitor Judas, who hanged himself in
despair, for betraying the innocent blood. By
the testimony of the Roman centurion and
guard, at his crucifixion, to his divinity and
righteousness. And, 5. Of his fellow sufferer
on the cross. Never was innocence so attested
as His innocence.
Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius, and
after them several others, both ancient and
modern, assure us that it was formerly the
custom for Roman magistrates to prepare
copies of all verbal processes and judicial
acts, which they passed in their several
provinces, and to send them to the emperor.
And Pilate, in compliance with the custom,
having sent word to Tiberius of what had
passed relating to Jesus Christ, the emperor;
wrote an account of it to the senate, in a
manner that gave reason to judge that he
thought favourably of the religion of Jesus
Christ, and showed that he should be willing
for them to confer divine honours upon him;
but the senate was not of the same opinion;
and so the matter dropped. It appears by what
Justin says of these acts, that the miracles of
Christ were mentioned there, and even that
the soldiers had divided his garments among
them. Eusebius insinuates that they spoke of
his resurrection and ascension. Tertullian and
Justin refer to these acts with so much
confidence, as would make one believe they
condemn Christ, considering his merciless
character, is signally remarkable, and still
more his repeated protestations of the
innocence of his prisoner; although, on
occasions of massacre, he made no scruple of
confounding the innocent with the guilty. But
he was unquestionably influenced by the
overruling providence of God, to make the
righteousness of his Son appear as clear as
the noonday, even when condemned and
executed as a malefactor, by the fullest, the
most authentic, and the most public evidence:
1. By the testimony even of his judges, Pilate
and Herod, after examination of evidence. 2.
By the message of Pilate's wife, delivered to
him on the tribunal. 3. By the testimony of
the traitor Judas, who hanged himself in
despair, for betraying the innocent blood. 4.
By the testimony of the Roman centurion and
guard, at his crucifixion, to his divinity and
righteousness. And, 5. Of his fellow-sufferer
on the cross. Never was innocence so attested
as his innocence.
Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius, and
after them several others, both ancient and
modern, assure us that it was formerly the
custom for Roman magistrates to prepare
copies of all verbal processes and judicial
acts, which they passed in their several
provinces, and to send them to the emperor.
And Pilate, in compliance with the custom,
having sent word to Tiberius of what had
passed relating to Jesus Christ, the emperor
wrote an account of it to the senate, in a
manner that gave reason to judge that he
thought favorably of the religion of Jesus
Christ, and showed that he should be willing
for them to confer divine honors upon him;
but the senate was not of the same opinion,
and so the matter dropped. It appears by what
Justin says of these acts, that the miracles of
Christ were mentioned there, and even that
the soldiers had divided his garments among
Page -188-
had read and handled them. However, neither
Eusebius nor Jerom, who were both
inquisitive and understanding persons, nor
any other author who wrote afterwards, seems
to have seen them, at least not the true and
original acts. For as to what we have now in
great number, they are not authentic, being
neither ancient nor uniform. There are also
some pretended letters of Pilate to Tiberius,
giving a history of our Saviour; but they are
universally allowed to be spurious. Pilate
being a man who, by his excessive cruelties
and rapine, had disturbed the repose of Judea,
during the whole time of his government, was
at length deposed by Vitellius, the proconsul
of Syria, A. D. 36, and sent to Rome to give
an account of his conduct to the emperor.
But, though Tiberius died before Pilate
arrived at Rome, yet his successor Caligula
banished him to Vienne in Gaul, where he
was reduced to such extremity that he laid
violent hands upon himself. The evangelists
call him governor, though in reality he was
nothing more than procurator of Judea, not
only because governor was a name of general
use, but because Pilate, in effect, acted as
one, by taking upon him to judge in criminal
matters, as his predecessors had done, and as
other procurators in the small provinces of
the empire, where there was no proconsul,
constantly did.
them. Eusebius insinuates that they spoke of
his resurrection and ascension. Tertullian and
Justin refer to these acts with so much
confidence, as would make one believe they
had read and handled them.
However, neither Eusebius nor Jerome,
who were both inquisitive and understanding
persons, nor any other author who wrote
afterwards, seems to have seen them, at least
not the true and original acts. For as to what
we have now in great number, they are not
authentic, being neither ancient nor uniform.
There are also some pretended letters of
Pilate to Tiberius, giving a history of our
Savior; but they are universally allowed to be
spurious.
Pilate being a man who, by his excessive
cruelties and rapine, had disturbed the repose
of Judea, during the whole time of his
government, was at length deposed by
Vitellius, the proconsul of Syria, A. D. 36,
and sent to Rome, to give an account of his
conduct to the emperor. But, though Tiberius
died before Pilate arrived at Rome, yet his
successor Caligula banished him to Vienne in
Gaul, where he was reduced to such
extremity that he laid violent hands upon
himself. The evangelists call him governor,
though in reality he was nothing more than
procurator of Judea, not only because
governor was a name of general use, but
because Pilate, in effect, acted as one, by
taking upon him to judge in criminal matters,
as his predecessors had done, and as other
procurators in the small provinces of the
empire, where there was no proconsul,
constantly did--Watson.
Page -189-
MClintock and Strongs Borrowing from Kitto and Plumptre
Because of the massive amount of borrowing by MClintock and Strong in their entry on
Pilate from John Kittos Cyclopaedia and from William Smiths Dictionary Conklin has chosen
to present the evidence here in three parallel columns. In some cases MClintock moved text
from Smiths footnotes up into their text itself.
This study shows that MClintock and Strong borrowed about 90% of the material on
Pilate from Kitto and Smith. And yet they declare in the preface that only a general reference to
Smith (accounted for about 65% of the whole) is all they ought to give.
Kitto (1846) Plumptre (1860) MClintock (1867)
([Greek], Tiach., 8th
ed.): Pontius Pilatus, his
prnomen being unknown).
The name indicates that he
was connected, by descent or
adoption, with
[contd below]
Pilate, Pontius ([Greek],
Grcized from the Latin
Pontius Pilatus), the Roman
procurator or resident as
governor of Juda during the
period of our Lord's public
ministry and passion, and
chiefly known in history from
his connection with the
Crucifixion (In the following
account we largely avail
ourselves of the article in
Smith's Dict. of the Bible,
with additions from other
sources.)
I. His name.--His
prnomen or first name in
unknown. His nomen or
family-name indicates that he
was connected, by descent or
adoption, with the gens of the
Pontii, first conspicuous in
Roman history in the person
of C. Pontius Telesinus, the
great Samnite general. The
Page -190-
[Note that both Kitto
and MClintock give textual
references, while Smith
does not.]
PILATE, PONTIUS, was
the sixth Roman Procurator
of Juda (Matt. xxvii. 2;
Mark xv. ii; Luke iii. I; John
xviii. xix.), under whom our
Lord taught, suffered, and
died (Acts iii. 13; iv. 27; xiii.
28; 1 Tim. vi. 13; Tacit.
Annal. xv. 44). The testimony
of Tacitus on this point is no
less clear than it is important;
for it fixes beyond a doubt
the time when the
foundations of our religion
were laid. The words of the
great historian are: [Latin]--
'The author of that name
(Christian) or sect was Christ,
who was capitally punished
in the reign of Tiberius by
Pontius Pilate.'
[footnote:] The cognomen
Pilatus has received two
explanations. (1.) As armed
with the pilum or javelin.);
comp. "pilate agmina," Virg.
n. xii. 121. (2.) As
contracted from pileatus. The
fact that the pileus or cap was
the badge of manumitted
slaves (Comp. Suetonius,
Nero, c. 57, Tiber. C. 4)
makes it probable that the
epithet marked him out as a
libertus, or as descended
from one.
the gens of the Pontii, first
conspicuous in Roman
history in the person of C.
Pontius Telesinus, the great
Samnite general. He was the
sixth Roman procurator of
Juda, and under him our
Lord worked, suffered, and
died, as we learn, not only
from the obvious Scriptural
authorities, but from Tacitus
(Ann. xv. 44, "[Latin]").
A procurator ([Greek],
Philo, Leg. Ad Caium, and
Joseph. B. J. ii. 9, 2; but
less correctly [Greek], Matt.
xxvii. 2; and Joseph. Ant.
xviii. 3, 1) was generally a
Roman knight, appointed to
act under the governor of a
province as collector of the
cognomen Pilatus has
received two explanations
(1.) As armed with the pilum
or javelin (comp. "pilata
agmina," Virg. n. xii, 121);
(2.) As contracted from
pileatus. The fact that the
pileus or cap was the badge
of manumitted slaves (comp.
Suetonius. Nero, c. 57; Tiber.
C. 4), makes it probable that
the epithet marked him out as
a libertus, or as descended
from one.
II. His office,--Pilate was
the sixth Roman procurator
of Juda (Matt. xxvii, 2;
Mark xv, 1; Luke iii, 1; John
xviii, xix), under whom our
Lord taught, suffered, and
died (Acts iii, 13; iv, 27; xiii,
28; 1 Tim. vi, 13).The
testimony of Tacitus on this
point is no less clear than it is
important; for it fixes beyond
a doubt the time when the
foundations of our religion
were laid. "The author of that
name (Christian) or sect was
Christ, who was capitally
punished in the reign of
Tiberius by Pontius Pilate"
([Latin]).
A procurator ([Greek],
Philo Leg. ad Caium, and
Josephus, War, ii, 9, 2; but
less correctly [Greek], Matt.
xxxvii, 2; and Josephus, Ant.
xviii, 3, 1) was generally a
Roman knight, appointed to
act under the governor of a
province as collector of the
Page -191-
revenue, and judge in causes
connected with it. Strictly
speaking, procuratores
Csris were only required in
the imperial provinces, I. e.
those which, according to the
constitution of Augustus,
were reserved for the special
administration of the emper-
or, without the intervention
of the senate and people, and
governed by his legate. In the
senatorian provinces,
governed by proconsuls, the
corresponding duties were
discharged by qustors. Yet
it appears that sometimes
procuratores were appointed
in those provinces also, to
collect certain dues of the
fiscus (the emperor's special
revenue), as distinguished
from those of the rarium
(the revenue administered by
the senate). Sometimes in a
small territory, especially in
one contiguous to a larger
province, and dependent
upon it, the procurator was
head of the administration,
and had full military and
judicial authority, though he
was responsible to the gover-
nor of the neighboring prov-
ince. Thus Juda was attach-
ed to Syria upon the deposi-
tion of Archelaus (A. D. 6),
and a procurator appointed to
govern it, with Csarea for
its capital. Already, during a
temporary absence of
Archelaus, it had been in
charge of the procurator
revenue, and judge in causes
connected with it. Strictly
speaking, procuratores
Csris were only required in
the imperial provinces, I. e.
those which, according to the
constitution of Augustus,
were reserved for the special
administration of the emper-
or, without the intervention
of the senate and people, and
governed by his legate. In the
senatorial provinces,
governed by proconsuls, the
corresponding duties were
discharged by qustors. Yet
it appears that sometimes
procuratores were appointed
in those provinces also, to
collect certain dues of the
fiscus (The emperor's special
revenue), as distinguished
from those of the rarium
(the revenue administered by
the senate). Sometimes in a
small territory, especially in
one contiguous to a larger
province, and dependent
upon it, the procurator was
head of the administration,
and had full military and
judicial authority, though he
was responsible to the
governor of the neighboring
province. Thus Juda was
attached to Syria upon the
deposition of Archelaus (A.
D. 6), and a procurator
appointed to govern it, with
Csarea for its capital.
Already, during a temporary
absence of Archelaus, it had
been in charge of the proc-
Page -192-
Pilate was the successor
of Valerius Grattus, and
governed Juda, as we have
seen, in the reign of Tiberius.
He held his office for a
period of ten years. The
agreement on this point
between the accounts in the
N. T. and those supplied by
Josephus is entire and
satisfactory. It has been
exhibited in detail by the
learned, accurate, and candid
Lardner (vol. 150-389, Lond.
1827).
Sabinus; then, after the
ethnarch's banishment, came
Coponius; the third
procurator was M. Ambivius;
the fourth, Annius Rufus; the
fifth Valerius Gratus; and the
sixth Pontius Pilate (Joseph.
Ant. xviii. 2, 2), who was
appointed A. D. 25-26, in the
twelfth year of Tiberius.
[footnote:] Of the early
history of Pilate we know
nothing; but a German legend
fills up the gap strangely
enough. Pilate is the bastard
son of Tyrus, king of
Mayence. His father sends
him to Rome as a hostage.
There he is guilty of a mur-
der; but being sent to Pontus,
rises into notice as subduing
the barbarous tribes there,
urator Sabinus; then after the
ethnarch's banishment, came
Coponius; the third
procurator was M. Ambivius;
the fourth Annius Rufus; the
fifth Valerius Gratus; and the
sixth Pontius Pilate
(Josephus, Ant. xviii, 2, 2),
who was appointed A. D.
25-6, in the twelfth year of
Tiberius. He held his office
for a period of ten years
(Josephus, Ant. xviii, 10, 2).
The agreement on this point
between the accounts in the
New Testament and those
supplied by Josephus is entire
and satisfactory. It has been
exhibited in detail by the
learned, accurate, and candid
Lardner (I, 150-389, Lond.
1827). These procurators had
their headquarters at
Csarea, which is called by
Tacitus Juda caput; but they
took up their temporary
abode at Jerusalem on
occasion of the great feasts,
as a measure of precaution
against any popular outbreak.
See Procurator.
III. His Life.--1. Of the
early history of Pilate we
know nothing; but a German
legend fills up the gap
strangely enough. Pilate is
the bastard son of Tyrus, king
of Mayence. His father sends
him to Rome as a hostage.
There he is guilty of a
murder; but being sent to
Pontus, rises into notice as
subduing the barbarous tribes
Page -193-
Pilate's conduct in his
office was in many respects
highly culpable. Josephus has
recorded two instances in
which Pilate acted very
tyrannically (Antiq. xviii. 3.
1; comp. De Bell. Jud. ii. 9. 2,
seq.) in regard to the Jews.
'But now Pilate, the
Procurator of Juda,
removed the army from
Csarea to Jerusalem, to take
their winter quarters there, in
order to abolish the Jewish
laws. So he introduced
Csar's effigies, which were
upon the ensigns, and brought
them into the city; whereas
our law forbids us the very
making of images; on which
account the former
procurators were wont to
make their entry into the city
with such ensigns as had not
those ornaments. Pilate was
the first which brought those
images to Jerusalem, and set
them up there: which was
done without the knowledge
of the people, because it was
done in the night-time; but, as
soon as they knew it, they
came in multitudes to
Csarea, and interceded with
Pilate many days, that he
would remove the images;
and when he would not grant
their requests, because this
would tend to the injury of
Csar, while they yet
persevered in their request,
on the sixth day he ordered
his soldiers to have their
receives in consequence the
new name of Pontius, and is
sent to Juda. It has been
suggested that the twenty-
second legion, which was in
Palestine at the time of the
destruction of Jerusalem, and
was afterwards stationed at
Mayence, may have been in
this case either the bearers of
the tradition or the inventors
of the fable. (Comp. Vilmar's
Deutsch. Nations. Liter. I.
217.)
One of his first acts was
to remove the headquarters of
the army from Csarea to
Jerusalem. The soldiers of
course took with them their
standards, bearing the image
of the emperor, into the Holy
City. No previous governor
had ventured on such an
outrage. Pilate had been
obliged to send them in by
night, and there were no
bounds to the rage of the
people on discovering what
had thus been done. They
poured down in crowds to
Csarea where the procurator
was then residing, and
besought him to remove the
images. After five days of
discussion, he gave the signal
to some concealed soldiers to
there, receives in conse-
quence the new name of
Pontius, and is sent to Juda.
It has been suggested that the
twenty-second legion, which
was in Palestine at the time of
the destruction of Jerusalem,
and was afterwards stationed
at Mayence, may have been
in this case either the bearers
of the tradition or the
inventors of the fable (comp.
Vilmar, Deutsche
Nationalliteratur, I, 217).
2. His Official
Career.--(1.) His
Administration in General.--
One of Pilate's first acts was
to remove the headquarters of
the army from Csarea to
Jerusalem. The soldiers of
course took with them their
standards, bearing the image
of the emperor, into the Holy
City. Pilate had been obliged
to send them in by night, and
there were no bounds to the
rage of the people on
discovering what had thus
been done. They poured
down in crowds to Csarea,
where the procurator was
then residing, and besought
him to remove the images.
After five days of
Page -194-
weapons privately, while he
came and sat upon his
judgment-seat; which seat
was so prepared in the open
place of the city, that it
concealed the army that lay
ready to oppress them: and
when the Jews petitioned him
again, he gave a signal to the
soldiers to encompass them
round, and threatened that
their punishment should be
no less than immediate death,
unless they would leave off
disturbing him, and go their
ways home. But they threw
themselves on 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; upon
which Pilate was deeply
affected with their resolution
to keep their laws inviolable,
and presently commanded the
images to be carried back
from Jerusalem to Csarea.'
'But Pilate undertook to
bring a current of water to
Jerusalem, and did it with the
sacred money, and derived
the origin of the stream from
a distance of 200 furlongs.
However, the Jews were not
pleased with what had been
done about this water; and
many ten thousands of the
people got together, and
made a clamour against him,
and insisted that he should
leave off that design. Some of
them also used reproaches,
surround the petitioners, and
put them to death unless they
ceased to trouble him; but
this only strengthened their
determination, and they
declared themselves ready
rather to submit to death than
forego their resistance to an
idolatrous innovation. Pilate
then yielded, and the
standards were by his orders
brought down to Csarea
(Joseph. Ant. xviii. 3, 1, 2,
B. J. ii. 9, 2-4).
[footnote:] Herod the Great,
it is true, had placed the
Roman eagle on one of his
new buildings; but this had
been followed by a violent
outbreak, and the attempt had
not been repeated (Ewald,
Geschichte, iv. 509). The
extent to which the scruples
of the Jews on this point were
respected by the Roman
governors, is shown by the
fact that no effigy of either
god or emperor is found on
the money coined by them in
Juda before the war under
Nero (Ibid. v. 33, referring to
De Saulcy Recherches sur la
Numismatique Judaaiqe, pl.
viii. ix.) Assuming this, the
denarius with Csar's image
and superscription of Matt.
xxiii. must have been a coin
from the Roman mint, or that
of some other province. The
discussion he gave the signal
to some concealed soldiers to
surround the petitioners and
put them to death unless they
ceased to trouble him; but
this only strengthened their
determination, and they
declared themselves ready
rather to submit to death than
forego their resistance to an
idolatrous innovation. Pilate
then yielded, and the
standards were by his orders
brought down to Csarea
(Josephus, Ant. xviii, 3, 12;
War ii, 9, 2-4). No previous
governor had ventured on
such an outrage. Herod the
great, it is true, had placed
the Roman eagle on one of
his new buildings; but this
had been followed by a
violent outbreak, and the
attempt had not been repeated
(Ewald, Geschichte, iv, 509).
The extent to which the
scruples of the Jews on this
point were respected by the
Roman governors is shown
by the fact that no effigy of
either god or emperor is
found on the money coined
by them in Juda before the
war under Nero (ibid. v. 33,
referring to De Saulcy,
Recherches sur la
Numismatique judaique, pt.
viii, ix). Assuming this, the
denarius with Csar's image
and superscription of Matt.
xxiii. must have been a coin
from the Roman mint, or that
of some other province. The
Page -195-
and abused the man, as
crowds of such people
usually do. So he habited a
great number of his soldiers
in their habit, who carried
daggers under their garments,
and sent them to a place
where they might surround
them. He bid the Jews
himself go away; but they
boldly casting reproaches
upon him, he gave the
soldiers that signal which had
been beforehand agreed on,
who laid upon them much
greater blows than Pilate had
commanded them, and
equally punished those that
were tumultuous and those
that were not; nor did they
spare them in the least; and
since the people were
unarmed, and were caught by
men prepared for what they
were about, there were a
great number of them slain
by this means, and others of
them ran away wounded. And
thus an end was put to this
sedition.'
letter was probably current
for the common purposes of
life. The shekel alone was
received as a Temple-
offering. On two other
occasions he nearly drove the
Jews to insurrection; the first
when in spite of this warning
about the images, he hung up
in his palace at Jerusalem
some gilt shields inscribed
with the names of deities,
which were only removed by
an order from Tiberius
(Philo, ad Caium, 38, ii.
589); the second when he
appropriated the revenue
arising from the redemption
of vows (Corban; comp.
Mark vii. 11) to the
construction of an aqueduct.
This order led to a riot, which
he suppressed by sending
among the crowd soldiers
with concealed daggers, who
massacred a great number,
not only of rioters, but of
casual spectators (Joseph. B.
J. ii. 9, 4).
[footnote:] Ewald suggests
that the Tower of Siloam may
have been part of the same
works, and this was the
reason why its fall was
looked on as a judgment
(Geschichie, vi. 40; Luke
xiii.4). The Pharisaic
reverence for whatever was
set apart for the Corban
(Mark vii. 11), and their
scruples as to admitting into
it anything that had an
impure origin (Matt. xxvii.
latter was probably current
for the common purposes of
life. The shekel alone was
received as a Temple-
offering. See Abomination of
Desolation.
On two other occasions
Pilate nearly drove the Jews
to insurrection; the first
when, in his spite of this
warming about the images,
he hung up in his palace at
Jerusalem some gilt shields
inscribed with the names of
deities, which were only
removed by an order from
Tiberius (Philo, Ad Caium,
38, ii, 589); the second when
he appropriated the revenue
arising from the redemption
of vows (Corban: comp.
Mark vii, 11) to the construc-
tion of an aqueduct. This
order led to a riot, which he
suppressed by sending among
the crowd soldiers with
concealed daggers, who
massacred a great number,
not only of rioters, but of
casual spectators (Josephus,
War, ii, 9, 4). Ewald suggests
that the Tower of Siloam
(Luke xiii, 4) may have been
part of the same works, and
that this was the reason why
its fall was looked upon as a
judgment (Gesch. vi, 40). The
Pharisaic reverence for
whatever was set apart for the
Corban (Mark vii, 11), and
their scruples as to admitting
into it anything that had an
Page -196-
'We have,' says Lardner,
'another attempt of Pilate's of
the same nature, mentioned
in the letter which Agrippa
the elder sent to Caligula, as
this letter is given us by
Philo. In some particulars it
has a great resemblance with
the story Josephus has told of
Pilate's bringing the ensigns
into Jerusalem, and in others
it is very differ-ent from it;
which has given occasion to
some learned men to suppose
that Philo has been mistaken.
For my own part, as I make
no doubt but Josephus's
account of the ensigns is true,
so I think that Philo may also
be relied on for the truth of a
fact he has mentioned, as
happening in his own time in
Juda, and, consequently, I
judge them to be two
different facts.'
Agrippa, reckoning up to
Caligula the several favours
conferred on the Jews by the
imperial family, says: 'Pilate
was Procurator of Juda. He,
not so much out of respect to
Tiberius as a malicious
intention to vex the people,
dedicates gilt shields, and
places them in Herod's palace
within the holy city. There
was no figure upon them, nor
anything else which is
forbidden, except an
inscription, which expressed
these two things--the name of
the person who dedicated
6), may be regarded, perhaps,
as outgrowths of the same
feeling.
To these specimens of
his administration, which rest
on the testimony of profane
authors, we must add the
slaughter of certain Galileans,
which was told to our Lord as
a piece of news ([Greek],
Luke xiii. 1), and on which
He founded some remarks on
the connection between sin
and calamity. It must have
occurred at some feast at
Jerusalem, in the outer court
of the Temple, since the
blood of the worshippers was
mingled with their sacri-
fices; but the silence of
Josephus about it seems to
show that riots and massacres
on such occasions were so
frequent that it was needless
to recount them all.
[footnote:] Comp.
Barabbas. Ewald suggests
that the insurrection of which
St. Mark speaks must have
been that connected with the
appropriation of the Corban
(supra). And that this
explains the eagerness with
which the people demand-ed
his release. He infers further,
from his name, that he was
the son of a Rabbi (Abba was
a Rabbinic title of honor) and
thus accounts for the part
taken in his favor by the
impure origin (Matt. xxvii,
6), may be regarded, perhaps,
as outgrowths of the same
feeling. See Corban.
To these specimens of
this administration, which
rest on the testimony of
profane authors, we must add
the slaughter of certain
Galileans, which was told to
our Lord as a piece of news
([Greek], Luke xiii, 1), and
on which he founded some
remarks on the connection
between sin and calamity. It
must have occurred at some
feast at Jerusalem, in the
outer court of the Temple,
since the blood of the
worshippers was mingled
with their sacrifices; but the
silence of Josephus about it
seems to show that riots and
massacres on such occasions
were so frequent that it was
needless, to recount them all.
Ewald suggests that the
insurrection of which Mark
speaks (xv, 7) must have
been that connected with the
appropriation of the Corban
(supra) and that this explains
the eagerness with which the
people demanded Barabbas's
release. He infers further
from Barabbas's name, that
he was the son of a rabbi
(Abba was a rabbinic title of
honor), and thus accounts for
the part taken in his favor by
the members of
Page -197-
them, and of him to whom
they were dedicated. When
the people perceived what
had been done, they desired
that this innovation of the
shields might be rectified;
that their ancient customs,
which had been preserved
through so many ages, and
had hitherto been untouched
by kings and emperors, might
not now be violated. He re-
fused their demands with
roughness, such was his
temper, fierce and untract-
able. They then cried out, Do
not you raise a sedition
yourself? do not you disturb
the peace by your illegal
practices? It is not Tiberius's
pleasure that any of our laws
should be broken in upon. If
you have received any edict
or letter from the emperor to
this purpose, produce it, that
we may leave you, and
depute an embassy to him,
and entreat him to revoke his
orders. This put him out of all
temper; for he was afraid that
if they should send an em-
bassy they might discover the
many mal-administrations of
his government, his extor-
tions, his unjust decrees, his
inhuman cruelties. This
reduced him to the utmost
perplexity. On the one hand,
he was afraid to remove
things that had been once
dedicated, and was also
unwilling to do a favour to
men that were his subjects;
and, on the other hand, he
members of the Sanhedrim. the Sanhedrim. See Barabbas.
Page -198-
knew very well the inflexible
severity of Tiberius. The
chief men of the nation ob-
serving this, and perceiving
that he repented of what he
had done, though he endeav-
oured to conceal it, wrote a
most humble and submissive
letter to Tiberius. It is need-
less to say how he was pro-
voked when he read the
account of Pilate's speeches
and threatenings, the event
showing it sufficiently. For
he soon sent a letter to Pilate,
reprimanding him for so
audacious a proceeding; re-
quiring, also, that the shields
should be removed. And,
accordingly, they were
carried from the metropolis to
Csarea by the sea-side,
called Sebaste, from your
great-grandfather that they
might be placed in the temple
there consecrated to him, and
there they were reposited.'
To the Samaritans, also,
Pilate conducted himself un-
justly and cruelly. His own
misconduct led the Samari-
tans to take a step which in
itself does not appear sedi-
tious or revolutionary, when
Pilate seized the opportunity
to slay many of the people,
not only in the fight which
ensued, but also in cold blood
after they had given them-
selves up. 'But when this
tumult was appeased, the
Samaritan senate sent an
embassy to Vitellius, now
Page -199-
president of Syria, and
accused Pilate of the murder
of those who had been slain.
So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a
friend of his, to take care of
the affairs of Juda, and
ordered Pilate to go to Rome
to answer before the emperor
to the accusations of the
Jews. Pilate, when he had
tarried ten years in Juda,
made haste to Rome, and this
in obedience to the orders of
Vitellius, which he durst not
contradict; but, before he
could get to Rome, Tiberius
was dead' (Joseph. Antiq.
xviii. 4. 2). This removal took
place before the Passover in
A.D. 36, probably about
September or October A.D.
35; Pilate must, therefore, as
he spent ten years in Juda,
have entered on his govern-
ment about October A. D. 25,
or at least before the Passover
A.D. 26, in the twelfth year
of Tibetius's sole empire
(compare Lardner, I. 391,
seq.; Winer, Real-worterb.)
To be put out of his
government by Vitellius, on
the complaints of the people
of his province, must have
been a very grievous
mortification to Pilate; and
though the emperor was dead
before be reached Rome, he
did not long enjoy such
impunity as guilt permits; for,
as Eusebius (Chron., p. 78)
states, he shortly afterwards
made away with himself out
Page -200-
of vexation for his many
misfortunes ([Greek]).
It is a matter of
considerable importance in
regard to the exposition of
the N. T., to define accurately
what relation the Jews stood
in during the ministry of
Christ in particular to their
Roman masters. Lardner has
discussed the question with a
learning and ability which
have exhausted the subject,
and he concludes that the
Jews, while they retained for
the most part their laws and
customs, both civil and
religious, untouched, did not
possess the power of life and
death, which was in the hands
of the Roman governor, and
was specifically held by
Pilate. Pilate, indeed, bore the
title of procurator, and the
procurator, as being a fiscal
officer, had not generally the
power of life and death. 'But,'
says Lardner (I. comp. pp.
83-164), 'Pilate, though he
had the title of procurator,
had the power of a president.
The evangelists usually give
Pilate, Felix, and Festus the
title of governor, a general
word, and very proper,
according to the usage of the
best writers, and of Josephus
Page -201-
in particular, in many places.'
According to the evangelists,
the Jewish council having, as
they pretended, convicted
Jesus of blasphemy, and
judged him guilty of death,
led him away to Pilate, and
seem to have expected that he
should confirm their
sentence, and sign an order
that Jesus should be punished
accordingly. Indeed, the
accounts found in the
Gospels and in other
authorities, touching the civil
condition of the Jews at this
time, are in strict agreement.
We proceed to mention
another instance of
accordance, which is still
more forcible, as being on a
very minute point.
It was the custom for the
procurators to reside at
Jerusalem during the great
feasts, to preserve order, and
accordingly, at the time of
our Lord's last Passover,
Pilate was occupying his
official residence in Herod's
palace; and to the gates of
this palace Jesus, condemned
on the charge of blasphemy,
was brought early in the
morning by the chief priests
and officers of the
Sanhedrim, who were unable
to enter the residence of a
Gentile, lest they should be
defiled and unfit to eat the
Passover (John xviii. 28).
Pilate therefore came out to
learn their purpose, and de-
manded the nature of the
charge. At first they seem to
have expected that he would
have carried out their wishes
without further inquiry, and
therefore merely described
our Lord as a [Greek] (dis-
turber of the public peace),
but as a Roman procurator
had too much respect for
justice, or at least understood
his business to well to con-
sent to such a condemnation,
and as they knew that he
would not enter into theo-
logical questions, any more
than Gallio afterwards did on
a somewhat similar occasion
(Acts xviii. 14), they were
obliged to devise a new
charge, and therefore inter-
preted our Lord's claims in a
political sense, accusing him
(2) His special
Connection with Jesus.--It
was the custom for the
procurators to reside at
Jerusalem during the great
feasts, to preserve order, and
accordingly, at the time of
our Lord's last Passover,
Pilate was occupying his
official residence in Herod's
palace and to the gates of this
palace Jesus, condemned on
the charge of blasphemy, was
brought early in the morning
by the chief priest and
officers of the Sanhedrim,
who were unable to enter the
residence of a Gentile, lest
they should be defiled, and
unfit to eat the Passover
(John xviii, 28). Pilate there-
fore came out to learn their
purpose, and demanded the
nature of the charge. At first
they seem to have expected
that he would have carried
out their wishes without
further inquiry, and therefore
merely described our Lord as
a [Greek] (disturber of the
public peace); but as a
Roman procurator had too
much respect for justice, or at
least understood his business
to well to consent to such a
condemnation, and as they
knew that he would not enter
into theological questions,
any more than Gallio after-
wards did on a somewhat
similar occasion (Acts xviii,
14), they were obliged to
devise a new charge, and
therefore interpreted our
Page -202-
of assuming the royal title,
perverting the nation, and
forbidding the payment of
tribute to Rome (Luke xxiii.
3; an account plainly presup-
posed in John xviii.33). It is
plain that from this moment
Pilate was distracted between
two conflicting feelings; a
fear of offending the Jews,
who had already grounds of
accusation against him,
which would be greatly
strengthened by any show of
lukewarmness in punishing
an offense against the im-
perial government, and a
conscious conviction that
Jesus was innocent. Since it
was absurd to suppose that a
desire to free the nation from
Roman authority was crimi-
nal in the eyes of the Sanhed-
rim. Moreover, this last feel-
ing was strengthened by his
own hatred of the Jews,
whose religious scruples had
caused him frequent trouble,
and by a growing respect for
the calm dignity and meek-
ness of the sufferer. First he
examined our Lord privately,
and asked Him whether He
was a King? The question
which He in return put to his
judge, "Sayest thou this of
thyself, or did others tell it
thee of me?" [John 18:34]
seems to imply that there was
in Pilate's own mind a sus-
picion that the prisoner really
was what He was charged
with being; a suspicion which
shows itself again in the later
Lord's claims in a political
sense, accusing him of
assuming the royal title,
perverting the nation, and
forbidding the payment of
tribute to Rome (Luke xxiii.
8; an account plainly presup-
posed in John xviii. 33). It is
evident that from this
moment Pilate was distracted
between two conflicting
feelings: a fear of offending
the Jews, who had already
grounds of accusation against
him, which would be greatly
strengthened by any show of
lukewarmness in punishing
an offense against the im-
perial government, and a
conscious conviction that
Jesus was innocent, since it
was absurd to suppose that a
desire to free the nation from
Roman authority was crimi-
nal in the eyes of the San-
hedrim. Moreover, this last
feeling was strengthened by
his own hatred of the Jews,
whose religious scruples had
caused him frequent trouble,
and by a growing respect for
the calm dignity and meek-
ness of the sufferer. First he
examined our Lord privately,
and asked him whether he
were a king. The question
which he in return put to his
judge, "Sayest thou this of
thyself, or did others tell it
thee of me?" [John 18:34]
seems to imply that there was
in Pilate's own mind a sus-
picion that the prisoner really
was what he was charged
Page -203-
question, "Whence art thou?"
(John xix. 9), in the
increasing desire to release
Him (12), and in the refusal
to alter the inscription on the
cross (22). In any case Pilate
accepted as satisfactory
Christ's assurance that his
kingdom was not of this
world, that is, not worldly in
its nature or objects, and
therefore not to be founded
by this world's weapons, that
it was to be established by
bearing witness to the truth.
His famous reply, "What is
truth?" was the question of a
worldly-minded politician,
skeptical because he was
indifferent; one who thought
truth an empty name, or at
least could not see any
connection between [Greek]
and [Greek], truth and policy:
(Dr. C. Wordsworth, Comm.
in loco). With this question
he brought the interview to a
close, and came out to the
Jews and declared the
prisoner innocent. To this
they replied that his teaching
had stirred up all the people
from Galilee to Jerusalem.
[Luke 23:5] The mention of
Galilee suggested to Pilate a
new way of escaping from his
dilemma, by sending on the
case to Herod Antipas,
tetrarch of that country, who
had come up to Jerusalem to
the feast, while at the same
time this gave
with being; a suspicion which
shows itself again in the later
question, "whence art thou?"
(John xiv. 8) in the increasing
desire to release him (ver.
12), and in the refusal to alter
the inscription on the cross
(ver. 22.) In any case Pilate
accepted as satisfactory
Christ's assurance that his
kingdom was not of this
world, that is, not worldly in
its nature or objects, and
therefore not to be founded
by this world's weapons,
though he could not
understand the assertion that
it was to be established by
bearing witness to the truth.
His famous reply, "What is
truth?" was the question of a
worldly-minded politician,
skeptical because he was
indifferent, one who thought
truth an empty name, or at
least could not see "any
connection between [Greek]
and [Greek], truth and
policy" (Dr. C. Wordsworth,
Comm. ad loc.). With this
question he brought the
interview to a close, and
came out to the Jews and
declared the prisoner
innocent. To this they replied
that his teaching had stirred
up all the people from Galilee
to Jerusalem. [Luke 23:5]
The mention of Galilee
suggested to Pilate a new way
of escaping from his
dilemma, by sending on the
case to Herod Antipas,
tetrarch of that country, who
Page -204-
him an opportunity for
making overtures of
reconciliation to Herod, with
whose jurisdiction he had
probably in some recent
instance interfered. But
Herod, though propitiated by
this act of courtesy, declined
to enter into the matter, and
merely sent Jesus back to
Pilate dressed in a shining
kingly robe [Greek], Luke
xxiii. 11), to express his
ridicule of such pretensions,
and contempt for the whole
business. So Pilate was
compelled to come to a
decision, and first having
assembled the chief priest
and also the people, whom he
probably summoned in the
expectation that they would
be favorable to Jesus, he
announced to them that the
accused had done nothing
worthy of death, but at the
same time, in hopes of
pacifying the Sanhedrim, he
proposed to scourge Him
before he released Him. But
as the accusers were resolved
to have his blood, they
rejected this concession, and
therefore Pilate had recourse
to a fresh expedient. It was
the custom for the Roman
governor to grant every year,
in honor of the Passover,
pardon to one condemned
criminal. The origin of the
practice is unknown, through
we may connect it with the
fact mentioned by Livy (v.
13) that at a Lectisternium
had come up to Jerusalem to
the feast, while at the same
time this gave him an
opportunity for making
overtures of reconciliation to
Herod, with whose
jurisdiction he had probably
in some recent instance
interfered. But Herod, though
propitiated by this act of
courtesy, declined to enter
into the matter, and merely
sent Jesus back to Pilate
dressed in a shining kingly
robe ([Greek], Luke xxiii,
11), to express his ridicule of
such pretensions, and
contempt for the whole
business. So Pilate was
compelled to come to a
decision, and first having
assembled the chief priests
and also the people, whom he
probably summoned in the
expectation that they would
be favorable to Jesus, he
announced to them that the
accused had done nothing
worthy of death, but at the
same time, in hopes of
pacifying the Sanhedrim, he
proposed to scourge Him
before he released Him. But
as the accusers were resolved
to have his blood, they
rejected this concession, and
therefore Pilate had recourse
to a fresh expedient. It was
the custom for the Roman
governor to grant every year,
in honor of the Passover,
pardon to one condemned
criminal. The origin of the
practice is unknown, though
Page -205-
"[Latin]." Pilate therefore
offered the people their
choice between two, the
murderer Barabbas, and the
prophet whom a few days
before they had hailed as the
Messiah. To receive their
decision he ascended the
([Greek], a portable tribunal
which was carried about with
a Roman magistrate to be
placed wherever he might
direct, and which in the
present case was erected on a
tessellated pavement [Greek]
in front of the palace, and
called in Hebrew Gabbatha,
probably from being laid
down on a slight elevation
([Heb.], "to be high"). As
soon as Pilate had taken his
seat, he received a mysterious
message from his wife,
according to tradition a
proselyte of the gate [Greek],
named Procla or [Greek]
Procula (Evang. Nicod. ii.)
who had "suffered many
things in a dream," which
impelled her to intreat her
husband not to condemn the
just one. But he had no longer
any choice in the matter, for
the rabble, instigated of
course by the priests, chose
Barabbas for pardon, and
clamored for the death of
Jesus; insurrection seemed
imminent, and Pilate
reluctantly yielded. But
before issuing the fatal order,
he washed his hands before
the multitude,
we may connect it with the
fact mentioned by Livy (v,
18) that at a Lectisternium
"[Latin]." Pilate therefore
offered the people their
choice between two, the
murderer Barabbas, and the
prophet whom a few days
before they had hailed as the
Messiah. To receive their
decision he ascended the
([Greek], a portable tribunal
which was carried about with
a Roman magistrate to be
placed wherever he might
direct, and which in the
resent case was erected on a
tessellated pavement [Greek]
in front of the palace, and
called in Hebrew Gabbatha,
probably from being laid
down on a slight elevation
([Heb.], "to be high"). As
soon as Pilate had taken his
seat, he received a mysterious
message from his wife,
according to tradition a
proselyte to the gate [Greek],
named Procla or Claudia
Procula (Evang. Nicod. ii),
who had "suffered many
things in a dream," which
impelled her to entreat her
husband not to condemn the
Just One. But he had no
longer any choice in the
matter, for the rabble,
instigated of course by the
priests, chose Barabbas for
pardon, and clamored for the
death of Jesus; insurrection
seemed imminent, and Pilate
reluctantly yielded. But
before issuing the fatal order
Page -206-
as a sign that he was innocent
of the crime. In imitation
probably of the ceremony
enjoined in Deut. xxi., where
it is ordered that when the
perpetrator of a murder is not
discovered, the elders of the
city in which it occurs shall
wash their hands, with the
declaration, "Our hands have
not shed this blood, neither
have our eyes seen it." [Deut.
21:7] Such a practice might
naturally be adopted even by
a Roman, as intelligible to the
Jewish multitude around him.
As in the present case it
produced no effect, Pilate
ordered his soldiers to inflict
the scourging preparatory to
execution; but the sight of
unjust suffering so patiently
borne seems again to have
troubled his conscience, and
prompted a new effort in
favor of the victim. He
brought Him out bleeding
from the savage punishment,
and decked in the scarlet robe
and crown of thorns which
the soldiers had put on Him
in derision, and said to the
people, "Behold the man!"
[John 19:5] hoping that such
a spectacle would rouse them
to shame and compassion.
But the priests only renewed
their clamors for his death
and fearing that the political
charge of treason might be
considered insufficient,
returned to their first
accusation of blasphemy, and
he washed his hands before
the multitude, as a sign that
he was innocent of the crime,
in imitation probably of the
ceremony enjoined in Deut.
xxi, where it is ordered that
when the perpetrator of a
murder is not discovered, the
elders of the city in which it
occurs shall wash their hands,
with the declaration, "Our
hands have not shed this
blood, neither have our eyes
seen it." [Deut. 21:7] Such a
practice might naturally be
adopted even by a Roman, as
intelligible to the Jewish
multitude around him. As in
the present case it produced
no effect, Pilate ordered his
soldiers to inflict the scourg-
ing preparatory to execution;
but the sight of unjust suffer-
ing so patiently borne seems
again to have troubled his
conscience, and prompted a
new effort in favor of the
victim. He brought him out
bleeding from the savage
punishment, and decked in
the scarlet robe and crown of
thorns which the soldiers had
put on him in derision, and
said to the people, "Behold
the man!" [John 19:5]
hoping that such a spectacle
would rouse them to shame
and compassion. But the
priests only renewed their
clamors for his death, and,
fearing that the political
charge of the treason might
be considered insufficient,
returned to their first
Page -207-
quoting the law of Moses
(Lev. xxiv. 16), which
punished blasphemy with
stoning, declared that He
must die "because He made
himself the Son of God."
[John 19:7] But this title
[Greek] augmented Pilate's
superstitious fears, already
aroused by his wife's dream
([Greek], John xiv. 7); he
feared that Jesus might be
one of the heroes or
demigods of his own
mythology; he took Him
again into the palace, and
inquired anxiously into his
descent ("Whence art thou?"
[John 19:9]) and his claims,
but, as the question was only
prompted by fear or curiosity,
Jesus made no reply. When
Pilate reminded Him of his
own absolute power over
Him, He closed this last
conversation with the
irresolute governor by the
mournful remark, "thou
couldst have no power at all
against me, except it were
given thee from above;
therefore he that delivered me
unto thee hath the greater
sin." [John 19:11] God had
given to Pilate power over
Him, and power only, but to
those who delivered Him up
God had given the means of
judging of His claims; and
therefore Pilate's sin in
merely exercising his power,
was less than theirs who,
being God's own priests, with
the Scriptures before them,
accusation of blasphemy, and
quoting the law of Moses
(Lev. xxiv, 16), which
punished blasphemy with
stoning, declared that he must
die "because he made himself
the Son of God." [John 19:7]
But this title [Greek]
augmented Pilate's
superstitious fears, already
aroused by his wife's dream
([Greek], John xix. 7); he
feared that Jesus might be
one of the heroes or
demigods of his own
mythology; he took him
again into the palace, and
inquired anxiously into his
descent ("Whence art thou?"
[John 19:9]) and his claims,
but, as the question was only
prompted by fear or curiosity,
Jesus made no reply. When
Pilate reminded him of his
own absolute power over
him, he closed this last
conversation with the
irresolute governor by the
mournful remark: "Thou
couldst have no power at all
against me, except it were
give thee from above;
therefore he that delivered me
unto thee hath the greater
sin." [John 19:11] God had
given to Pilate power over
him, and power only, but to
those who delivered him up
God had given the means of
judging of his claims; and
therefore Pilate's sin, in
merely exercising this power,
was less than theirs who,
being God's own priests, with
Page -208-
and the word of prophecy
still alive among them (John
xi. 50, xviii. 14), had
deliberately conspired for his
death. The result of this
interview was one last effort
to save Jesus by a fresh
appeal to the multitude; but
now arose the formidable cry,
"If thou let this man go, thou
art not Csar's friend," [John
19:12] and Pilate, to whom
political success was as the
breath of life, again ascended
the tribunal, and finally
pronounced the desired
condemnation.
[footnote:] The proceedings
of Pilate in our Lord's trial
supply many interesting
illustrations of the accuracy
of the Evangelists, from the
accordance of their narrative
with the known customs of
the time. Thus Pilate, being
only a procurator, had no
qustor to conduct the trial,
and therefore examined the
prisoner himself. Again, in
early times Roman
magistrates had not been
allowed to take their wives
with them into the provinces,
but this prohibition had fallen
into neglect, and latterly a
proposal made by Ccina to
enforce it had been rejected
(Tac. Ann. iii. 33, 34).
Grotius points out that the
word [Greek], used when
Pilate sends our Lord to
Herod (Luke xxiii. 7) is
the Scriptures before them,
and the word of prophecy
still alive among them (John
xi, 50; xviii, 14), had
deliberately conspired for his
death. The result of this
interview was one last effort
to save Jesus by a fresh
appeal to the multitude; but
now arose the formidable cry,
"If thou let this man go, thou
art no Csar's friend," [John
19:12] and Pilate, to whom
political success was as the
breath of life, again ascended
the tribunal, and finally
pronounced the desired
condemnation.
The proceedings of
Pilate in our Lord's trial
supply many interesting
illustrations of the accuracy
of the evangelists, from the
accordance of their narrative
with the known customs of
the time. Thus Pilate, being
only a procurator, had no
quaestor to conduct the trial,
and therefore examined the
prisoner himself. Again, in
early times Roman
magistrates had not been
allowed to take their wives
with them into the provinces,
but this prohibition had fallen
into neglect, and latterly a
proposal made by Ccina to
enforce it had been rejected
(Tacit. Ann. iii, 33-34).
Grotius points out that the
word [Greek], used when
Pilate sends our Lord to
Herod (Luke xxiii. 7), is
Page -209-
"[Latin]" (see Alford, in
loco). The tessellated
pavement([Greek]) was so
necessary to the forms of
justice, as well as the
[Greek], that Julius Csar
carried one about with him
on his expeditions (Suet. Jul.
c. 46). The power of life and
death was taken from the
Jews when Juda became a
province (Joseph. Ant. xx. 9,
, 1). Scourging before
execution was a well-known
Roman practice.
So ended Pilate's share in
the greatest crime which has
been committed since the
world began. That he did not
immediately lose his feelings
of anger against the Jews
who had thus compelled his
acquiescence, and of
compassion and awe for the
sufferer whom he had
unrighteously sentenced, is
plain from his curt and angry
refusal to alter the inscription
which he had prepared for the
cross [Greek], his ready
acquiescence in the request
made by Joseph of
Arimatha that the Lord's
body might be given up to
him rather than consigned to
the common sepulchre
reserved for those who had
suffered capital punishment,
and his sullen answer to the
demand of the Sanhedrim
that the sepulchre should be
guarded.
[paragraph broken]
"[Latin]" (see Alford, ad
loc.). The tessellated
pavement [Greek] was so
necessary to the forms of
justice, as well as the
[Greek], that Julius Csar
carried one about with him
on his expeditions) (Sueton.
Jul. c. 46). The power of life
and death was taken from the
Jews when Juda became a
province (Josephus, Ant. xx,
9, 1). Scourging before
execution was a well-known
Roman practice.
So ended Pilate's share in
the greatest crime which has
been committed since the
world began. That he did not
immediately lose his feelings
of anger against the Jews
who had thus compelled his
acquiescence, and of
compassion and awe for the
Sufferer whom he had
unrighteously sentenced, is
plain from his curt and angry
refusal to alter the inscription
which he had prepared for the
cross ([Greek], [Greek]), his
ready acquiescence in the
request made by Joseph of
Arimatha that the Lord's
body might be given up to
him rather than consigned to
the common sepulcher
reserved for those who had
suffered capital punishment,
and his sullen answer to the
demand of the Sanhedrim
that the sepulcher should be
guarded.
Page -210-
[footnote:] Matt. xxvii.65,
[Greek]. Ellicott would
translate this "Take the
guard," on the ground that the
watchers were Roman
soldiers, who were not under
the command of the priests.
But some might have been
placed at their disposal
during the feast, and we
should rather expect [Greek]
if the sentence were
imperative.
[paragraph resumed] And
here, as far as Scripture is
concerned, our knowledge of
Pilate's life ends. But we
learn from Josephus (Ant.
xviii. 4, 1) that his anxiety
to avoid giving offense to
Csar did not save him from
political disaster. The
Samaritans were unquiet and
rebellious. A leader of their
own race had promised to
disclose to them the sacred
treasures which Moses was
reported to have concealed in
Mount Gerizim. Pilate led his
troops against them, and
The Samaritans complained
to Vitellius, now president of
Syria, and he sent Pilate to
Rome to answer their
accusations before the
emperor (Greek. 2). When
he reached it, he found
Tiberius dead and Caius
(Caligula) on the throne, A.
D. 36. Eusebius adds (H. E.
ii. 7) that soon afterwards,
"wearied with misfortunes"
(Matt. xxvii, 65, [Greek].
Ellicott would translate this,
"Take a guard," on the
ground that the watchers
were Roman soldiers, who
were not under the command
of the priests. But some
might have been placed at
their disposal during the
feast, and we should rather
expect [Greek] if the
sentence were imperative.)
(3.) His Eventual Fate.--Here,
as far as Scripture is
concerned, our knowledge of
Pilate's life ends. But we
learn from Josephus (Ant.
xviii, 4, 1) that his anxiety to
avoid giving offence to
Csar did not save him from
political disaster. The
Samaritans were unquiet and
rebellious. A leader of their
own race had promised to
disclose to them the sacred
treasures which Moses was
reported to have concealed in
Mount Gerizim. Pilate led his
troops against them, and
The Samaritans complained
to Vitellius, now president of
Syria, and he sent Pilate to
Rome to answer their
accusations before the
emperor (ibid. 2). When he
reached Rome he found
Tiberius dead and Caius
(Caligula) on the throne, A.
D. 36. Eusebius adds (Hist.
Page -211-
he killed himself. As to the
scene of his death there are
various traditions. One is,
that he was banished to
Vienna Allobrogum (Vienne
on the Rhone), where a
singular monument, a
pyramid on a quadrangular
base, 52 feet high, is called
Pontius Pilate's tomb
(Dictionary of Geography,
art. "Vienna). Another is that
he sought to hide his sorrows
on the mountain by the lake
of Lucerne, now called
Mount Pilatus; and there,
after spending years in its
recesses, in remorse and
despair rather than penitence,
plunged into the dismal lake
which occupies its summit.
According to the popular
belief, "a form is often seen
to emerge from the gloomy
waters, and go through the
action of one washing his
hands; and when he does so,
dark clouds of mist gather
first round the bosom of the
Infernal lake (such it has
been styled of old), and then,
wrapping the whole upper
part of the mountain in
darkness, presage a tempest
or hurricane, which is sure to
follow in a short space."
(Scott, Anne of Geierstein,
ch. I.) (see below.)
[from page 2531:] Pilate's
wife is also, as might be
expected, prominent in these
traditions. Her name is given
himself. As to the scene of
his death there are various
traditions. One is that he was
banished to Vienna
Allobrogum (Vienne on the
Rhone), where a singular
monument, a pyramid on a
quadrangular base, fifty-two
feet high, is called Pontius
Pilate's tomb (Smith, Dict. of
Class. Geog. Art. Vienna).
Another is that he sought to
hide his sorrows on the
mountain by the lake of
Lucerne, now called Mount
Pilatus; and there, after
spending years in its recesses,
in remorse and despair rather
than penitence, plunged into
the dismal lake which
occupies its summit.
According to the popular
belief, "a form is often seen
to emerge from the gloomy
waters, and go through the
action of one washing his
hands; and when he does so
dark clouds of mist gather
first round the bosom of the
Infernal lake (such it has
been styled of old), and then,
wrapping the whole upper
part of the mountain in
darkness, presage a tempest
or hurricane, which is sure to
follow in a short space"
(Scott, Anne of Geierstein,
ch. I). (See below.)
Pilate's wife is also, as
might be expected, prominent
in these traditions. Her name
is given as Claudia Procula
Page -212-
From Matt. xxvii. 19, it
appears that Pilate had his
wife (named probably Procla,
or Claudia Procula) with him.
A partial knowledge of
Roman history might lead the
reader to question the historic
credibility of Matthew in this
particular. In the earlier
periods, and, indeed, so long
as the Commonwealth
subsisted, it was very unusual
for the governors of
provinces to take their wives
with them (Senec. De
Controv. 25), and in the strict
regulations which Augustus
introduced he did not allow
the favour, except in peculiar
and specified circumstances
as Claudia Procula (Niceph.
H. E. I. 30). She had been a
proselyte to Judaism before
the Crucifixion (Evang.
Nicod. C. 2). Nothing certain
is known as to her history,
but the tradition that she
became a Christian is as old
as the time of Origen (Hom.
in Matt. xxxv). The system of
administration under the
republic forbade the
governors of provinces to
take their wives with them,
but the practice that gained
ground under the Empire, and
Tactitus (Ana. iii. 33) records
the failure of an attempt to
reinforce the old regulation.
(Niceph. Hist. Eccl. I, 30).
She had been a proselyte to
Judaism before the
crucifixion (Evang. Nicod. c.
2). Nothing certain is known
as to her history, but the
tradition that she became a
Christian is as old as the time
of Origen (Hom. in Matt.
xxxv). The Greek Church has
canonized her. The dream has
been interpreted by some as a
divine interposition; by
others as a suggestion of the
devil, who wished to prevent
the Saviour's death; others as
the unconscious reflection of
her interest in the reports
which had reached her
regarding Jesus. The
description of Jesus as "that
just man" ([Greek]), it is
remarked by Schaff, recalls
the celebrated unconscious
prophecy of Plato, in his
Republic, as to [Greek] who
was, after enduring all poss-
ible sufferings, to restore
righteousness. In the earlier
periods, and indeed so long
as the commonwealth
subsisted, it was very unusual
for the governors of prov-
inces to take their wives with
them (Senec. De Controv.
25), and in the strict
regulations which Augustus
introduced he did not allow
the favor, except in peculiar
and specified circumstances
(Seuton.
Page -213-
(Sueton. Aug. 24). The
practice, however, grew to be
more and more prevalent, and
was (says Winer, Real-wrt.
in 'Pilate') customary in
Pilate's time. It is evident
from Tacitus, that at the time
of the death of Augustus,
Germanicus had his wife
Agrippina with him in
Germany (Anna., I. 40, 41;
comp.. iii. 33-59, Joseph.
Antiq. xx. 10. I; Ulpian, iv.
2). Indeed, in the beginning
of the reign of Tiberius,
Germanicus took his wife
with him into the East. Piso,
the prefect of Syria, took his
wife also along with him at
the same time (Tacit. Annal.,
ii. 54, 55). 'But,' says Lardner
(I. 145), 'nothing can render
this (the practice in question)
more apparent than a motion
made in the Roman Senate by
Severus Ccina, in the fourth
consulship of Tiberius, and
second of Drusus Csar
(A.D. 21), that no magistrate
to whom any province was
assigned should be
accompanied by his wife,
except the Senate's rejecting
it, and that with some
indignation' (Tacit., Annal.,
iii. 33, 34). The fact
mentioned incidentally, or
rather implied, in Matthew,
being thus confirmed by full
and unquestionable evidence,
cannot fail to serve as a
Aug. 24). The practice
however, grew to be more
and more prevalent, and was
customary in Pilate's time. It
is evident from Tacitus that at
the time of the death of
Augustus, Germanicus had
his wife Agrippina with him
in Germany (Annal. I, 40, 41;
comp. iii., 33-59; Josephus,
Ant. xx, 10, 1; Ulpian, iv, 2).
Indeed, in the beginning of
the reign of Tiberius,
Germanicus took his wife
with him into the East. Piso,
the prfect of Syria, took his
wife also along with him at
the same time (Tacit, Annal.
ii, 54, 55). "But," says
Lardner (I, 152), "nothing
can render this (the practice
in question) more apparent
than a motion made in the
Roman senate by Serverus
Csina, in the fourth
consulship of Tiberius, and
second of Drusus Csar (A.
D. 21), that no magistrate to
whom any province was
assigned should be
accompanied by his wife,
except the senate's rejecting
it, and that with some
indignation" (Tacit. Annal.
iii, 33, 34). The fact
mentioned incidentally, or
rather implied, in Matthew,
being thus confirmed by full
and unquestionable evidence,
cannot fail to serve as a
corroboration of the
evangelical history. (Comp.
Paulus, Comm. iii, 723;
Kuinol, in loc. Mat.;
Page -214-
corroboration of the
evangelical history.
Owing to the atrocity of
the deed in which Pilate took
a principal part, and to the
wounded feelings of piety
with which that deed has
been naturally regarded by
Christians, a very dark idea
has been formed of the
character of this Roman
governor. That character was
undoubtedly bad; but moral
depravity has its degrees, and
the cause of religion is too
sacred to admit any spurious
aid from exaggeration. It is
therefore desirable to form a
just conception of the
character of Pilate, and to
learn specifically what were
the vices under which he
laboured. For this purpose a
brief outline of the
evangelical account seems
necessary. The narratives on
which the following
statement is founded may be
found in John xviii. xix.;
Matt. xxvii.; Mark xv.; Luke
xxiii.
Jesus, having been
betrayed, apprehended, and
found guilty of blasphemy by
the Jewish Sanhedrim is
delivered to Pilate in order to
undergo the punishment of
death, according to the law in
that case provided. This
tradition of Jesus to Pilate
was rendered necessary by
the fact that the Jews did not
The character of Pilate
may be sufficiently inferred
from the sketch given above
of his conduct at our Lord's
trial.
He was a type of the rich
and corrupt Romans of his
age; a worldly-minded
statesman, conscious of no
higher wants than those of
this life, yet by no means
unmoved by feelings of
justice and mercy. His
conduct to the Jews, in the
instances quoted from
Josephus, though severe, was
not thoughtlessly cruel or
tyrannical, considering the
general practice of Roman
governors, and the
difficulties of dealing with a
nation so arrogant and
Gotter, De Conjugis Pilati
Somnio, Jena 1704; Kluge,
De Somino Uxoris Pil. Hal.
1720; Herbart, Examen
Somnii Uxoris Pil. Oldenb.
1735.)
IV. His Character.--The
character of Pilate may be
sufficiently inferred from the
sketch given above of his
conduct at our Lord's trial.
By some he has been
depicted as one of the worst.
Of tyrants; by others, who
have passed to the opposite
extreme, his faults have been
unduly palliated or denied.
Tertullian speaks of him as
virtually a Christian at heart
("[Latin]," Apol. c. 21); and
the Ethiopian Church has
even made him a saint. We
have no reason to suppose
that, so far as his general
administration went, it
differed greatly from that of
the other Roman governors
of Juda. He was a type of
the rich and corrupt Romans
of his age; a worldly-minded
statesman, conscious of no
higher wants than those of
this life yet by no means un-
moved by feelings of justice
and mercy. His conduct to
Jews, in the instances quoted
from Josephus, though
severe, was not thoughtlessly
cruel or tyrannical, consid-
ering the general practice of
Roman governors, and the
difficulties of dealing with a
nation so arrogant and
Page -215-
at that time possess on their
own authority the power of
life and death. Pilate could
not have been ignorant of
Jesus and his pretensions. He
might, had he chosen, have
immediately ordered Jesus to
be executed, for he had been
tried and condemned to death
by the laws of the land; but
he had an alternative. As the
execution of the laws, in the
case at least of capital
punishments, was in the
hands of the Roman
procurator, so, without any
violent straining, might his
tribunal be converted into a
court of appeal in the last
instance. At any rate,
remonstrance against an
unjust verdict was easy and
proper on the part of a high
officer, who, as having to
inflict the punishment, was in
a measure responsible for its
character. And remonstrance
might easily lead to a
revision of the grounds on
which the verdict had been
given, and thus a cause might
virtually be brought, de novo,
before the procurator: this
took place in the case of our
Lord. Pilate gave him the
benefit of a new trial, and
pronounced him innocent.
perverse.
Certainly there is nothing
in the facts recorded by
profane authors inconsistent
with his desire, obvious from
the Gospel narrative, to save
our Lord. But all his better
feelings were overpowered
by a selfish regard for his
own security. He would not
encounter the least hazard of
personal annoyance in behalf
of innocence and justice; the
unrighteous condemnation of
a good man was a trifle in
comparison with the fear of
the emperor's frown and the
loss of place and power.
While we do not differ from
Chrysostom's opinion that he
was [Greek] (Chrys. I. 802,
adv. Judos, vi.), or that
recorded in the Apostolical
Constitutions (v. 14), that he
was [Greek], we yet see
abundant reason for our
Lord's merciful judgment,
"He that delivered me unto
[John 19:11] At the same
time his history furnishes a
proof that worldliness and
want of principle are sources
of crimes no less awful than
those which spring from de-
liberate and reckless wicked-
ness. The unhappy notoriety
given to his name by its place
in the two universal creeds of
Christen-dom is due, not to
any desire of singling him out
for shame, but to the need of
perverse. Certainly there is
nothing in the facts recorded
by profane authors
inconsistent with his desire,
obvious from the Gospel
narrative, to save our Lord.
But all his better feelings
were overpowered by a
selfish regard for his own
security. He would not
encounter the least hazard of
personal annoyance in behalf
of innocence and justice; the
unrighteous condemnation of
a good man was a trifle in
comparison with the fear of
the emperor's frown and the
loss of place and power.
While we do not differ from
Chrysostom's opinion that he
was [Greek] (Chrysost. I,
802, Adv. Judos, vi), or that
recorded in the Apostolical
Constitutions (v, 14), that he
was [Greek], we yet see
abundant reason for our
Lord's merciful judgment,
"He that delivered me unto
[John 19:11] At the same
time his history furnishes a
proof that worldliness and
want of principle are sources
of crimes no less awful than
those which spring from
deliberate and reckless
wickedness. The unhappy
notoriety given to his name
by its place in two universal
creeds of Christendom is due,
not to any desire of singling
him our for shame, but to the
need of
Page -216-
This review of the case was
the alternative that lay before
Pilate, the adoption of which
speaks undoubtedly in his
favour, and may justify us in
declaring that his guilt was
not of the deepest dye.
That the conduct of
Pilate was, however, highly
criminal, cannot be denied.
But his guilt was light in
comparison of the criminal
depravity of the Jews,
especially the priests. His
was the guilt of weakness and
fear, theirs the guilt of settled
and deliberate malice. His
state of mind prompted him
to attempt the release of an
accused person in opposition
to the clamours of a
misguided mob; theirs urged
them to compass the ruin of
an acquitted person by
instigating the populace,
calumniating the prisoner,
and terrifying the judge. lf
Pilate yielded against his
judgment under the fear of
personal danger, and so took
part in an act of unparalleled
injustice, the priests and their
ready tools originated the
false accusation, sustained it
by subornation of perjury,
and when it was declared
invalid, enforced their own
unfounded sentence by
fixing the date of our Lord's
death, and so bearing witness
to the claims of Christianity
to rest on a historical basis
(August. De Fide et Symb. c.
v. vol. vi. p. 156; Pearson, On
the Creed, pp. 239, 240, ed.
Burt, and the authorities
quoted in note c).
[paragraph cont below]
fixing the date of our Lord's
death and so bearing witness
to the claims of Christianity
as resting on a historical basis
(August. De Fide et Symb. c.
v. vol. vi, p. 156; Pearson, On
the Creed, p. 239, 240, ed.
Burt, and the authorities
quoted in note c).
That the conduct of
Pilate was highly criminal
cannot be denied. But his
guilt was light in comparison
with the atrocious depravity
of the Jews, especially the
priests. His was the guilt of
weakness and fear, theirs the
guilt of settled and deliberate
malice. His state of mind
prompted him to attempt the
release of an accused person
in opposition to the clamors
of a misguided mob; theirs
urged them to compass the
ruin of an acquitted person by
instigating the populace,
calumniating the prisoner,
and terrifying the judge. If
Pilate yielded against his
judgment under the fear of
personal danger, and so took
part in an act of unparalleled
injustice, the priests and their
ready tools originated the
false accusation sustained it
by subornation of perjury,
and when it was declared
invalid enforced their own
unfounded sentence by
appealing to the lowest pass-
ions. Pilate, it is clear, was
utterly destitute of principle.
He was willing, indeed, to do
Page -217-
appealing to the lowest
passions. Pilate, it is clear,
was utterly destitute of
principle. He was willing,
indeed, to do right, if he
could do right without
personal disadvantage. Of
gratuitous wickedness he was
perhaps incapable; certainly,
in the condemnation of Jesus,
he has the merit of being for
a time on the side of
innocence. But he yielded to
violence, and so committed
an awful crime. In his hands
was the life of the prisoner.
Convinced of his innocence,
he ought to have set him at
liberty, thus doing right
regardless of consequences.
But this is an act of high
virtue which we hardly
require at the hands of a
Roman governor of Juda;
and though Pilate must bear
the reproach of acting
contrary to his own declared
convictions, yet he may
equally claim some credit for
the apparently sincere efforts
which he made in order to
defeat the malice of the Jews,
and procure the liberation of
Jesus.
If now we wish to form a
judgment of Pilate's character
we easily see that he was one
of that large class of men
who aspire to public offices,
not from a pure and lofty
desire of benefiting the public
and advancing the good of
right, if he could do right
without personal
disadvantage. Of gratuitous
wickedness he was perhaps
incapable, certainly in the
condemnation of Jesus he has
the merit of being for a time
on the side of innocence. But
he yielded to violence, and so
committed an awful crime. In
his hands was the life of the
prisoner. Convinced of his
innocence, he ought to have
set him at liberty, thus doing
right regardless of
consequences. But this is an
act of high virtue which we
hardly require at the hands of
a Roman governor of Juda;
and though Pilate must bear
the reproach of acting
contrary to his own declared
convictions, yet he may
equally claim some credit for
the apparently sincere efforts
which he made in order to
defeat the malice of the Jews
and procure the liberation of
Jesus.
If now we wish to sum
up the judgment of Pilate's
character, we easily see that
he was one of that large class
of men who aspire to public
offices, not from a pure and
lofty desire of benefiting the
public and advancing the
good of the world, but from
Page -218-
the world, but from selfish
and personal considerations,
from a love of distinction,
from a love of power, from a
love of self-indulgence; being
destitute of any fixed prin-
ciples, and having no aim but
office and influence, they act
right only by chance and
when convenient, and are
wholly incapable of pursuing
a consistent course, or of
acting with firmness and
self-denial in cases in which
the preservation of integrity
requires the exercise of these
qualities. Pilate was obvious-
ly a man of weak, and there-
fore, with his temptations, of
corrupt character. The view
given in the Apostolical
Constitutions (v. 14) where
unmanliness ([Greek]) is
ascribed to him, we take to be
correct. This want of strength
will readily account for his
failing to rescue Jesus from
the rage of his enemies, and
also for the acts of injustice
and cruelty which he prac-
tised in his government--acts
which, considered in them-
selves, wear a deeper dye
than does the conduct which
he observed in surrendering
Jesus to the malice of the
Jews. And this same
weakness may serve to
explain to the reader how
much influence would be
exerted on this unjust judge,
not only by the stern bigotry
and persecuting wrath of the
Jewish priesthood, but
selfish and personal
considerations, from a love of
distinction, from a love of
power, from a love of
self-indulgence; being
destitute of any fixed prin-
ciples, and having no aim but
office and influence, they act
right only by chance and
when convenient, and are
wholly incapable of pursuing
a consistent course, or of
acting with firmness and
self-denial in cases in which
the preservation of integrity
requires the exercise of these
qualities. Pilate was obvious-
ly a man of weak, and there-
fore with his temptations, of
corrupt character. The view
given in the Apostolical
Constitutions (v. 14), where
unmanliness [Greek] is
ascribed to him, we take to be
correct. This want of strength
will readily account for his
failing to rescue Jesus from
the rage of his enemies and
also for the acts of injustice
and cruelty which he prac-
ticed in his government--acts
which, considered in them-
selves, wear a deeper dye
than does the conduct which
he observed in surrendering
Jesus to the malice of the
Jews. This same weakness
may serve to explain to the
reader how much influence
would be exerted on this un-
just judge, not only by the
stern bigotry and persecuting
wrath of the Jewish priest-
hood, but especially by the
Page -219-
specially by the not
concealed intimations which
they threw out against Pilate,
that if he liberated Jesus he
was no friend of Tiberius,
and must expect to have to
give an account of his
conduct at Rome. And that
this was no idle threat,
nothing beyond the limits of
probability, Pilate's
subsequent deposition by
Vitellius shows very plainly;
nor could the procurator have
been ignorant either of the
stern determination of the
Jewish character, or of the
offence he had by his acts
given to the heads of the
nation, or of the insecurity, at
that very hour, when the
contest between him and the
priests was proceeding
regarding the innocent victim
whom they lusted to destroy,
of his own position in the
office which he held, and
which, of course, he desired
to retain. On the whole, then,
viewing the entire conduct of
Pilate, his previous iniquities
as well as his bearing on the
condemnation of Jesus;
viewing his own actual
position and the malignity of
the Jews; we cannot, we
confess, give our vote with
those who have passed the
severest condemnation on
this weak and guilty
governor.
The number of
dissertations on Pilate's
character and all the
not concealed intimations
which they threw out against
Pilate that, if he liberated
Jesus, he was no friend of
Tiberius and must expect to
have to give an account of his
conduct at Rome. That this
was no idle threat, nothing
beyond the limits of
probability, Pilate's
subsequent deposition by
Vitellius shows very plainly;
nor could the procurator have
been ignorant either of the
stern determination of the
Jewish character, or of the
offence he had by his acts
given to the heads of the
nation, or of the insecurity, at
that very hour, when the
contest between him and the
priests was proceeding
regarding the innocent victim
whom they lusted to destroy,
of his own position in the
office which he held, and
which of course, he desired to
retain. On the whole, then,
viewing the entire conduct of
Pilate, his previous iniquities
as well as his bearing on the
condemnation of Jesus
viewing his own actual
position and the malignity of
the Jews--we cannot, we
confess, give our vote with
those who have passed the
severest condemnation on
this weak and guilty
governor.
The number of
dissertations on Pilate's
character and all the
Page -220-
That Pilate made an
official report to Tiberius of
the condemnation and
punish-ment of Jesus Christ
is likely in itself, and
becomes the more likely if
circumstances connected with
him, his "facinora," his
"[Latin];" his wife's dream,
his supposed letters to
Tiberius, which have been
published during the last and
present centuries, is quite
overwhelming. The student
may consult with advantage
Dean Alford's Commentary;
Ellicott, Historical Lectures
on the life of our Lord, sect.
vii.; Neander's life of Christ,
285 (Bohn); Winer,
Reahcortebuch, art "Pilatus;"
Ewald, Geschichte, v. 30. &c.
We learn from Justin
Martyr (Apol. I. pp. 76, 84),
Tertullian (Apol. c. 21),
Eusebius (H. E. ii. 2), and
others, that Pilate made an
official report to Tiberius of
our Lord's trial and
condemnation; and in a
homily ascribed to
Chrysostom, though marked
circumstances connected with
him, his "facinora," his
"[Latin]," his wife's dream,
his supposed letters to
Tiberius, which have been
published during the last and
present centuries, is quite
overwhelming. On this point
the student may consult with
advantage dean Alford's
Commentary; Ellicott,
Historical Lectures on the
Life of our Lord, sect. vii;
Neander's Life of Christ,
285 (Bohn); Ewald,
Geschichte, v, 30, etc. See
also Muller, De enixiss. Pil.
Christ. Servant. Stud. (Hamb.
1751); Tobler, in Eichborn's
Biblioth. D. bibl. Lit. x, 823;
Olshausen, in answer to
Tholuck's low valuation of
Pilate, Comment ii, 504 sq.
The reader will find a
discriminating analysis in
Seier, Redem Jesus, vi,
318-332 (ii, 619 sq. of the
American translation), and in
Dr. Hanna's Last Day of Our
Lord's Passion, p. 77-148.
See also the Zeitschr. F.
(Greek. Theol. 1871, vol. iv.
V. Apocryphal
Accounts.--We learn from
Justin Martyr (Apol. I. 76,
84), Tertullian (Apol. c. 21),
Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. ii. 2),
and others, that Pilate made
an official report to Tiberius
of our Lord's trial and
condemnation; and in a
homily ascribed to
Chrysostom, though marked
Page -221-
the view we have given of
Pilate's character is
substantially correct, for then
the governor did not regard
the case of Jesus as an
ordinary, and therefore
inconsiderable one, but must
have felt its importance alike
in connection with the
administration of justice, the
civil and religious character
of the Jews, and therefore
with the tenure of the Roman
power. The voice of antiquity
intimates that Pilate did make
such a report; the words of
Justin Martyr are: 'That these
things were so done you may
know from the Acts made in
the time of Pontius Pilate'
(Apol. I. 76). A similar
passage is found a little
further on in the same work.
Now, when it is considered
that Justin's Apology was a
set defence of Christianity, in
the shape of an appeal to the
heathen world through the
persons of its highest
functionaries, it must seem
very unlikely that the words
would have been used had no
such document existed; and
nearly as improbable that
those Acts would have been
referred to had they not been
genuine. Tertullian also uses
language equally decisive
(Apol. v. 21). Eusebius gives
a still fuller account (Hirt.
Eccles. ii. 2). These
important passages may be
found in Lardner (vi.6o6,
seq.) See also Ord's Acta
as spurious by his
Benedictine editors (Hom.
viii. in Pash. Vol. viii. P. 968,
D), certain ([Greek] (Acta, or
Commentarii Pilati) are
spoken of as well-known
documents in common
circulation. That he made
such a report is highly
probable, and it may have
been in existence in
Chrysostom's time; but the
Acta Pilati now extant in
Greek, and two Latin epistles
from him to the emperor
(Fabric. Cod. Apocr. N. T. 1.
237, 298, iii. 456), are
certainly spurious. (for
further particulars see below.)
[pg. 2530, new section] Acta
Pilati.--The number of extant
Acta Pilati, in various forms,
is so large as to show that
very early the demand
created a supply of docu-
ments manifestly spurious,
and we have no reason for
looking on any one of those
that remain as more authentic
than the others. The taunt of
Celsus that the Christians
circulated spurious or
distorted narratives under this
title (Orig. c. Cels.),a and the
complaint of Eusebius (H. E.
ix. 5) that the heathens made
them the vehicle of blas-
phemous calumnies, show
how largely the machinery of
falsification was used on
either side. Such of these
documents as are extant are
found in the collection of
as spurious by his
Benedictine editors (Hom.
viii, in Pash. viii, D), certain
[Greek] (Acta, or
Commentarii Pilati) are
spoken of as well known
documents in common
circulation. That he made
such a report is highly
probable, and it may have
been in existence in Chrysos-
tom's time; but the Acta Pilati
now extant in Greek, and two
Latin epistles from him to the
emperor (Fabric. Apocr. I,
237, 298; iii, 111, 456), are
certainly spurious. The num-
ber of extant "Acta Pilati," in
various forms, is so large as
to show that very early the
demand created a supply of
documents manifestly spur-
ious, and we have no reason
for looking on any one of
those that remain as more
authentic than the others. The
taunt of Celsus that the
Christians circulated spurious
or distorted narratives under
this title (Origen, c. Cels.),
and the complaint of
Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. ix, 5)
that the heathens made them
the vehicle of blasphemous
calumnies, show how largely
the machinery of falsification
was used on either side. Such
of these documents as are ex-
tant are found in the collec-
tions of Fabricius, Thilo, and
Tischendorf. Some of the are
but weak paraphrases of the
Gospel history. The most
extravagant are perhaps the
Page -222-
Pilati, or Pilate's Report (vii.
4), long circulated in the
early church, being received
without a suspicion
(Chrysost. Hom, viii. in
Pasch.; Epiphan. Hr. L. I;
Euseb. I. 9 and 11; 9, 5, and
7). There can be little doubt
that the documents were
genuine (Hencke, Opusc.
Acad., p. 201, seq.) Such is
the opinion of Winer
(Real-worterb.) Lardner, who
has fully discussed the
subject, decides, that 'it must
be allowed by all that Pontius
Pilate composed some
memoirs concerning our
Saviour, and sent them to the
emperor' (vi. 610). Winer
adds, 'What we now have in
Greek under this title (Pilate's
Report), see Fabricii Apocr.,
I. 237, 239; iii- 456, as well
an the two letters of Pilate to
Tiberius, are fabrications of a
later age. So Lardner: 'The
Acts of Pontius Pilate, and
his letter to Tiberius, which
we now have, are not
genuine, but manifestly
spurious.' We have not space
here to review the arguments
which have adduced in
favour of and against these
documents; but we must add,
that we attach some
importance to them, thinking
it by no means unlikely that,
if they are fabrications, they
are fabricated in some
keeping with the genuine
pieces, which were in some
way lost, and the loss of
Fabricius, Thilo, and
Tischendorf. Some of them
are but weak paraphrases of
the Gospel history. The most
extravagant are perhaps the
most interesting, as indicating
the existence of modes of
thought at variance with the
prevalent traditions. Of these
anomalies the most striking is
that known as the Paradosis
Pilati (Tischendorf, Evang.
Apoc. p. 426). The emperor
Tiberius, started at the
universal darkness that had
fallen on the Roman Empire
on the day of the Crucifixion,
summons Pilate to answer for
having caused it. He is
condemned to death, but
before his execution he prays
to the Lord Jesus that he may
not be destroyed with the
wicked Hebrews, and pleads
his ignorance as an excuse.
The prayer is answered by a
voice from heaven, assuring
him that all generations shall
call him blessed, and that he
shall be a witness for Christ
at his second coming to judge
the twelve tribes of Israel. An
angel receives his head, and
his wife dies filled with joy,
and is buried with him.
Startling as this imaginary
history may be it has its
counterpart in the traditional
customs of the Abyssinian
Church in which Pilate is
recognized as a saint and
martyr, and takes his place in
the calendar on the 25th of
June (Stanley, Eastern
most interesting, as indicating
the existence of modes of
thought at variance with the
prevalent traditions. Of these
anomalies the most striking is
that known as the Paradosis
Pilati (Tischendorf, Evang.
Apoc. p. 426). The emperor
Tiberius, startled at the
universal darkness that had
fallen on the Roman Empire
on the day of the crucifixion,
summons Pilate to answer for
having caused it. He is
condemned to death, but
before his execution he prays
to the Lord Jesus that he may
not be destroyed with the
wicked Hebrews, and pleads
his ignorance as an excuse.
The prayer is answered by a
voice from heaven, assuring
him that all generations shall
call him blessed, and that he
shall be a witness for Christ
at his second coming to judge
the twelve tribes of Israel. An
angel receives his head, and
his wife dies filled with joy,
and is buried with him.
Startling as this imaginary
history may be, it has its
counterpart in the traditional
customs of the Abyssinian
Church in which Pilate is
recognised as a saint and
martyr, and takes his place in
the calendar on the 25th of
June (Stanley, Eastern
Church, p. 13; Neale, Eastern
Church, I, 806). The words of
Tertullian, describing him as
"[Latin] (Apol. c. 21),
indicate a like feeling, and we
Page -223-
which the composers of our
actual pieces sought as well
as they could to repair. If this
view can be sustained, then
the documents we have may
serve to help us, in the use of
discretion, to the substance of
the original Acts. At all
events, it seems certain that
an official report was made
by Pilate; and thus we gain
another proof that these
things were not done in a
corner.' Those who wish to
enter into this subject should
first consult Lardner (ut
supra), and the valuable
references he gives. See also
[various sources]--J. R. B.
Church, p.13; Neale, Easter
Church, I. 806). The words of
Tertullian, describing him as
"[Latin]" (Apol. c. 21),
indicate a like feeling, and we
find traces of it also in the
Apocryphal Gospel, which
speaks of him as
"uncircumcised in flesh, but
circumcised in heart" (Evang.
Nicod. I. 12, in Tischendorf,
Evang. Apoc. p. 236).
According to another
legend (Mors Pilati, in
Tischendorf's Evang. Apoc.
p. 432), Tiberius, hearing of
the wonderful works of
healing that had been
wrought in Judea, writes to
Pilate, bidding him to send to
Rome the man that had this
divine power. Pilate has to
confess that he has crucified
him; but the messenger meets
Veronica, who gives him the
cloth which had received the
impress of the divine
features, and by this the
emperor is healed. Pilate is
summoned to take his trial,
and presents himself wearing
the holy and seamless tunic.
This acts as a spell upon the
emperor, and he forgets his
wonted severity. After a time
Pilate is thrown into prison,
and there commits suicide.
His body is cast into the
Tiber, but as storms and
tempests followed, the
Romans take it up and send it
to Vienne. It is thrown into
the Rhone; but the same
find traces of it also in the
Apocryphal Gospel, which
speaks of him as of him as
"uncircumcised in flesh, but
circumcised in heart" (Evang.
Nicod. I, 12, in Tischendorf,
Evang. Apoc. P. 236).
According to another
legend (Mors Pilati, in
Tischendorf's Evang. Apoc.
p. 432), Tiberius, hearing of
the wonderful works of
healing that had been
wrought in Juda, writes to
Pilate, bidding him to send to
Rome the man that had this
divine power. Pilate had to
confess that he has crucified
him; but the messenger meets
Veronica, who gives him the
cloth which had received the
impress of the divine
features, and by this the
emperor is healed. Pilate is
summoned to take his trial,
and presents himself wearing
the holy and seamless tunic.
This acts as a spell upon the
emperor, and he forgets his
wonted severity. After a time
Pilate is thrown into person,
and there commits suicide.
His body is cast into the
Tiber, but as storms and
tempests followed the Roman
take it up and send it to
Vienne. It is thrown into the
Rhone; but the same disasters
Page -224-
disasters follow, and it is sent
on to Losania (Lucerne or
Lausanne?). There it is sunk
in a pool, fenced round by
mountains, and even there the
waters boil or bubble
strangely. The interest of this
story obviously lies in its
presenting an early form (the
existing text is of the 14th
century) of the local
traditions which connect the
name of the procurator of
Juda with the Mount Pilatus
that overlooks the lake of
Lucerne. The received
explanation (Ruskin, Modern
Painters v. 128) of the
legend, as originating in a
distortion of the descriptive
name Mons Pileatus (the
"cloud-capped"), supplies a
curious instance of the
genesis of a mythus from a
false etymology; but it may
be questioned whether it rests
on sufficient grounds, and is
not rather the product of a
pseudo-criticism, finding in a
name the starting-point, not
the embodiment of a legend.
Have we any evidence that
the mountain was known as
"Pilaeatus" before the
legend? Have we not, in the
apocryphal story just cited,
the legend independently of
the name? (comp. Vilmnar,
Deutsch. Nation. Liter. I.
217).
[footnote a, pg. 2531:] The
extent to which the terror
connected with the belief
Lausanne?). There it is sunk
in a pool, fenced round by
mountains, and even there the
waters boil or bubble
strangely. The interest of this
story obviously lies in its
presenting an early form (the
existing text is of the 14th
century) of the local
traditions which connect the
name of the procurator of
Juda with the Mount Pilatus
that overlooks the lake of
Lucerne. The received
explanation (Ruskin, Modern
Painters, v. 128) of the
legends, as originating in a
distortion of the descriptive
name Mons Pileatus (the
"cloud-capped"), supplies a
curious instance of the
genesis of a myth from a
false etymology; but it may
be questioned whether it rests
on sufficient grounds, and is
not rather the product of a
pseudo-criticism, finding in a
name the starting-point, not
the embodiment of a legend.
Have we any evidence that
the mountain was known as
"Pileatus" before the legend?
Have we not, in the
apocryphal story just cited,
the legend independently of
the name? (comp. Vilmar,
Deutsche Nationalliteratur, I,
217). The extent to which the
terror connected with the
belief formerly prevailed is
somewhat startling. If a stone
were thrown into the lake, a
violent storm would follow.
No one was allowed to visit it
Page -225-
formerly prevailed is
somewhat startling.
If a stone were thrown
into the lake, a violent storm
would follow. No one was
allowed to visit it without a
special permission from the
authorities of Lucerne. The
neighboring shepherds were
bound by a solemn oath,
renewed annually, never to
guide a stranger to it
(Gessner, Descript. Mont.
Pilat. p. 40, Zurich. 1555).
The spell was broken in 1584
by Johannes Muller, cur of
Lucerne, who was bold
enough to throw stones and
abide the consequences.
(Golbery, Univers
Pittoresque de Suisse, p.
327.) It is striking that
traditions of Pilate attach
themselves to several
localities in the South of
France (comp. Murray's
Handbook of France, Route
125).
without a special permission
from the authorities of
Lucerne. The neighboring
shepherds were bound by a
solemn oath, renewed
annually, never to guide a
stranger to it (Gessner,
Descript. Mont. Pilat.
[Zurich, 1555], p. 40). The
spell was broken in 1584 by
Johannes Muller, cur of
Lucerne, who was bold
enough to throw stones and
abide the consequences
(Golbery, Univers pittoresque
de la Suisse, p. 327). It is
striking that traditions of
Pilate attach themselves to
several localities in the south
of France (comp. Murray's
Hand-book for France, Route
125).
Page -226-
A Comparison of Chandler and DeLand
38
This study compares two works and shows how DeLand handled his borrowing and
citing of material from Chandler and how Chandler handled the same from his sources. The
importance is that it appears that sometime between 1908 and 1914 expectations of crediting
ones sources changed.
Chandler (1908) DeLand (1914)
Page 13
The peculiar character of Judea as a
fragment of the mighty Roman Empire
should also be kept clearly in mind. Roman
conquest, from first to last, resulted in three
distinct types of political communities more
or less strongly bound by ties of interest to
Rome. These classes were: (1) Free states; (2)
allied states; and (3) subject states. The
communities of Italy were in the main, free
and allied, and were members of a great
military confederacy. The provinces beyond
Italy were, in the main, subject states and
dependent upon the good will and mercy of
Rome. The free states received from Rome a
charter of privileges (lex data) which,
however, the Roman senate might at any time
revoke. The allied cities were bound by a
sworn treaty (fdus), a breach of which was a
cause of war. In either case, whether of
charter or treaty, the grant of privileges raised
the state or people on whom it was conferred
to the level of the Italian communes and
Chandler, while recognizing that either
Roman or Hebrew law might be applied by
Pilate in ordinary cases, "and where the crime
was an offense against both the province and
the empire, as in the case of murder," is of
opinion that "in the case of treason with
which Jesus was charged he would apply the
law of Rome under the forms of Roman
procedure." However, even as regards
5
treason (considered in this discussion as
involved in the charge of sedition), we
apprehend that, the charge being regarded as
having arisen in this case under the Hebraic
law, the issue could be determined under
Roman procedure and punishment thereby
inflicted. And Greenidge is cited as asserting
that the Roman edict, by reason of its
generality and expansivness [sic], admitted
"of an application of Roman forms to the
substantive law of any particular city." *
6
[* Note that Deland footnotes his
source for the quote from Greenidge. What
he is not telling you is that he also
borrowed the words its generality,
expansiveness, and admitted from
Greenidge.]
Walter M. Chandler, The Trial of Jesus: From a Lawyers Standpoint. Vol. 2, The Roman Trial (New
38
York City: The Empire Publishing Co., 1908) and Charles Edmund DeLand, The Mis-Trials of Jesus. (Boston:
Richard G. Badger, 1914).
Page -227-
Page 14
secured to its inhabitants absolute control of
their own finances, free and full possession of
their land, which exempted them from the
payment of tribute, and, above all, allowed
them entire freedom in the administration of
their local laws. The subject states were ruled
by Roman governors who administered the
so-called law of the province (lex provinci).
This law was peculiar to each province and
was framed to meet all the exigencies of
provincial life. It was sometimes the work of
a conquering general, assisted by a
commission of ten men appointed by the
senate. At other times, its character was
determined by the decrees of the emperor and
the senate, as well as by the edicts of the
prtor and procurator. In any case, the law of
the province (lex provinci) was the sum
total of the local provincial law which Rome
saw fit to allow the people of the conquered
state to retain, with Roman decrees and
regulations superadded. These added decrees
and regulations were always determined by
local provincial conditions. The Romans were
no sticklers for consistency and uniformity in
provincial administration. Adaptability and
expediency were the main traits of the
lawgiving and government-imposing genius
of Rome. The payment of taxes and the
furnishing of auxiliary troops were the chief
exactions imposed upon conquered states. An
enlightened public policy prompted the
Romans to grant to subject communities the
greatest amount of freedom consistent with
Roman sovereignty. Two main reasons
formed the basis of this policy. One was the
economy of time and labor, for the Roman
official staff was not large enough to
successfully perform those official duties
which were usually incumbent upon the local
In other words, under the imperial system, the
subject states were ruled by Roman governors
who

Page 174
administered the body of laws known as the
law of the province (lex provinciae), which
was peculiar to each province. This was made
up of such parts of the local laws of the
conquered state as Rome permitted to remain
in force; reinforced by imperial decrees and
edicts of the praeters and procurators. In this
arrangement, Roman statecraft did not reject
the wisdom of ages, which made clear and
commendable the policy of promotion of
loyalty and tranquility through retention of
local laws, and thereby rendering
administration less burdensome and more
stable. And to such extent was this policy
carried, that the rights of subject provinces
were little short of those enjoyed by
confederate states in Italy itself. Mommsen
observes on this head: "In regard to the extent
of application, the jurisdiction of the native
courts and judicatories among subject
communities can scarcely have been much
more restricted than among the confederated
communities; while in administration and
civil jurisdiction we find the same principles
operative as in legal procedure and criminal
laws." Within the limits above indicated, the
7
arbitrary will of Rome could be exercised
against provincial subjects, while in the free
or confederated states charter rights, limiting
that will, existed; while Roman citizens
resident in the provinces "had their own law
and their own judicatories."
8
Page -228-
courts. Racial and religious differences alone
would have impeded and prevented a
successful administration of local government
by Roman diplomats and officers.
Page 15
Another reason for Roman
noninterference in local provincial affairs was
that loyalty was created and peace promoted
among the provincials by the enjoyment of
their own laws and religions. To such an
extent was this policy carried by the Romans
that it is asserted by the best historians that
there was little real difference in practice
between the rights exercised by free and those
enjoyed by subject states. On this point,
Mommsen says: "In regard to the extent of
application, the jurisdiction of the native
courts and judicatories among subject
communities can scarcely have been much
more restricted than among the federated
communities; while in administration and in
civil jurisdiction we find the same principles
operative as in legal procedure and criminal
laws." The difference between the rights
1
enjoyed by subject and those exercised by
free states was that the former were subject to
the whims and caprices of Rome, while the
latter were protected by a written charter. A
second difference was that Roman citizens
residing within the boundaries of subject
states had their own law and their own
judicatories. The general result was that the
citizens of subject states were left free to
govern themselves subject to the two great
obligations of taxation and military service.
The Roman authorities, however, could and
did interfere in legislation and in adminis-
tration whenever Roman interests required.
Now, in the light of the facts and
principles just stated, what was the exact
political status of the Jews at the time of
Page -229-
Page 16
Christ? Judea was a subject state. Did the
general laws of Roman provincial
administration apply to this province? Or
were peculiar rights and privileges granted to
the strange people who inhabited it? A great
German writer answers in the affirmative.
Geib says: "Only one province . . . namely
Judea, at least in the earlier days of the
empire, formed an exception to all the
arrangements hitherto described. Whereas in
the other provinces the whole criminal
jurisdiction was in the hands of the governor,
and only in the most important cases had the
supreme imperial courts to decide--just as in
the least important matters the municipal
courts did--the principle that applied in Judea
was that at least in regard to questions of
religious offenses the high priest with the
Sanhedrin could pronounce even death
sentences, for the carrying out of which,
however, the confirmation of the procurator
was required."
Page 19
We accordingly proceed to observe that,
inasmuch as the Roman system of provincial
government was not strictly carried out in the
case of Judea, as the simple fact of its being
administered by means of a procurator plainly
shows, the Sanhedrin was still left in the
enjoyment of a comparatively high degree of
independence. Not only did it exercise civil
jurisdiction, and that according to Jewish law
(which was only a matter of course, as
otherwise a Jewish court of justice would
have been simply inconceivable), but it also
enjoyed a considerable amount of criminal
jurisdiction as well. It had an independent
authority in regard to political affairs, and
consequently possessed the right of ordering
Under the Roman provincial
administration as applied to Judea, did the
general rule under the imperial system give
way to exceptions as to individual rights? We
have seen that great authorities in history and
law hold the affirmative. In addition to
Page 175
others already mentioned, we cite Geib, the
eminent German writer, who says: "Only one
province * * namely, Judea, at least in the
earlier days of the empire, formed an
exception to all the arrangements hitherto
described. Whereas in the other provinces the
whole criminal jurisdiction was in the hands
of the governor, and only in the most
important cases had the supreme imperial
courts to decide--just as in the least important
matters the municipal courts did--the
principle that applied in Judea was that at
least in regard to questions of religious
offenses the high priest with the Sanhedrin
could pronounce even death sentences, for the
carrying out of which, however, the
confirmation of the procurator was
required."
10
Page -230-
arrests to be made by its own officers (Matt.
xxvi. 47; Mark xiv. 43; Acts iv. 3; v. 17, 18).
It had also the power of finally disposing, on
its own authority, of such cases as did not
involve sentence of death (Acts iv. 5-23; v.
21-40). It was only in cases in which such
sentence of death was pronounced that the
judgment required to be ratified by the
authority of the procurator."
1
The Jews contend, and, indeed, the
Talmud states that "forty years before the
destruction of the temple the judgment of
capital cases was taken away from Israel."
Again, we learn from Josephus that the
Jews had lost the power to inflict capital
punishment from the day of the deposition of
Archelaus, A.D. 6, when Judea became a
Roman province and was placed under the
control of Roman procurators. The great
Jewish his-
. . .
Page 235
Schurer, in referring to execution of
Sanhedrist capital sentence by Roman courts,
says "the judgment required to be ratified by
the authority of the Procurator." The
11
pertinency of the word "ratify" in this
connection seems doubtful, since it
presupposes a void act made valid by the
Procurator; while a Sanhedrist judgment of
death was, upon the theory on which we have
all along proceeded, valid--its execution only
being beyond Jewish competency. But how
could he ratify such judgment without
himself investigating the issue of fact, upon
evidence? Ratification itself rests upon
knowledge of the premises under which the
act ratified was done.
Geib says "the confirmation of the
Procurator was required." Black's Law
Dictionary thus defines "confirm:" To
12
complete or establish that which was
imperfect or uncertain; to ratify what has
been done without authority or insufficiently.
From all of which it would appear that
the Sanhedrist condemnation was either
imperfect, insufficient, or void. If that theory
is adopted, then such supposed defects could
not be investigated and determined upon
without looking into the evidences which led
up to it--either by a re-examination of the
self-same witnesses used before the
Sanhedrin, or by adducing new testimony.
But Pilate tried the case--however
imperfectly or inadequately--as is believed to
have been shown.
Page -231-
Page 21
In the light of all the authorities cited and
discussed in this chapter, we feel justified in
asserting that the Sanhedrin was competent to
take the initiative in the arrest and trial of
Jesus on the charge of blasphemy, this being
a religious offense of the most awful gravity;
that this court was competent not only to try
but to pass sentence of death upon the Christ;
but that its proceedings had to be retried or at
least reviewed before the sentence could be
executed. Thus two trials were necessary. The
Hebrew trial was necessary, because a
religious offense was involved with which
Rome refused to meddle, and of which she
refused to take cognizance in the first
instance. The Roman trial was necessary,
because, instead of an acquittal which would
have rendered Roman interference
unnecessary, a conviction involving the death
sentence had to be reviewed in the name of
Roman sovereignty.
Pages 22-3
A possible solution is to be found in the
nature of the charge preferred against Jesus. It
is reasonable to suppose that in the conflict of
jurisdiction between Jewish and Roman
authority the character of the crime would be
a determining factor. In the case of ordinary
offenses it is probable that neither Jews nor
Romans were particular about the question of
jurisdiction. It is more than probable that the
Roman governor would assert his right to try
the case de novo, where the offense charged
either directly or remotely involved the safety
and sovereignty of the Roman state. It is
entirely reasonable to suppose that the Jews
would insist on a final determination by
themselves of the merits of all offenses of a
religious nature; and that they would insist
that the Roman governor should limit his
Page 233
In assuming that the Roman court could
try Hebrew religious offenses, we also
necessarily dissent from Chandler's further
postulate that "the Hebrew trial was
necessary, because a religious offense was
involved with which Rome refused to
meddle, and of which she refused to take
cognizance in the first instance." Such
3
presumed refusals would not, in the light of
the law and authorities giving her
jurisdiction, alter the right of Rome to try
those offenses.
Page -232-
action to a mere countersign of their decree.
It is believed that ordinarily these principles
would apply. But the trial of Jesus presents a
peculiar feature which makes the case entire-
ly exceptional. And this peculiarity, it is felt,
contains a correct answer to the questions
asked above. Jesus was tried before the
Sanhedrin on the charge of blasphemy. This
was a religious offense of the most serious
nature. But when the Christ was led before
Pilate, this charge was abandoned and that of
high treason against Rome was substituted.
Now, it is certain that a Roman governor
would not have allowed a Jewish tribunal to
try an offense involving high treason against
Csar. This was a matter exclusively under
his control. It is thus certain that Pilate did
not merely review a sentence which had
been passed by the Sanhedrin after a regular
trial, but that he tried ab initio a charge that
had not been presented before the Jewish
tribunal at the night session in the palace of
Caiaphas.
Pages 232-3
In this connection, the position taken by
Chandler, that "it is certain that a Roman
governor would not have allowed a Jewish
tribunal to try an offense involving high
treason against Caesar", which "was a matter
exclusively under his control" --the very
2
ground on which he concludes that there were
two trials,--is respectfully dissented from;
partly because it does not meet the point as to
what the Jews actually did prior to taking
Jesus before Pilate, and partly because his
proposition, regarded as assuming that the
Procurator, in supposedly denying
jurisdiction to the Sanhedrin, stood upon
tenable ground, is believed to be erroneous.
What the Jews actually assumed or pretended
to do determines whether it amounted to a
trial in itself apart from the after proceedings
before Pilate, in the sense in which the
proceedings are now under consideration.
What Pilate would or would not have allowed
the Sanhedrists to do does not, it is submitted,
determine that question.
[The bolded material in Chandler is
exactly similar to a phrase found in
Schurer to whom DeLand gives credit (the
material is found on page 241 in DeLand).]
Pages 29-30
. . . The lawgiving genius of Rome had
then reached maturity and approximate
perfection in the organization of its criminal
tribunals. . . .
Page 259
. . . And as if to show the greater marvel
in this miscarriage, he goes on: "But at the
time when these things took place, the
law-giving genius of Rome had reached, in
the organization of its criminal tribunals, the
highest pinnacle of civilization. . . .
[DeLand notes his source as being Rosadi.]
Page -233-
Pages 30-1
(1) That Pilate was empowered to apply
either Roman law or the local law in the trial
of any case where the crime was an offense
against both the province and the empire, as
in the crime of murder; but that in the case of
treason with which Jesus was charged he
would apply the law of Rome under forms of
Roman procedure. It has been denied that
Pilate had a right to apply Jewish law in the
government of his province; but this denial is
contrary to authority. Innes says: "The
Roman governor sanctioned, or even himself
administered, the old law of the region."
1
Schrer says: "It may be assumed that the
administration of the civil law was wholly in
the hands of the Sanhedrin and native or local
magistrates: Jewish courts decided according
to Jewish law. But even in the criminal law
this was almost invariably the case, only with
this exception, that death sentences required
to be confirmed by the Roman procurator. In
such cases, the procurator decided, if he
pleased, according to Jewish law."
1
Greenidge says: "Even the first clause of the
Sicilian lex, if it contained no reference to
jurisdiction by the local magistrate, left the
interpretation of the native law wholly to
Roman proprtors." It is thus clearly evident
2
that Roman procurators might apply either
Roman or local laws in ordinary cases.
(2) That Roman governors were
empowered to apply the adjective law of
Rome to the substantive law of the province.
In support of this contention, Greenidge says:
"The edict of the proprtor or pro-consul, . . .
clearly could not express the native law of
Pages 172-3
It would be entirely in keeping with
usual administrative practice of conquering
powers, for their judicial arm to recognize
and enforce the existing municipal laws of
the conquered province, or to continue in
power native courts having such jurisdiction.
Innes, in "The Trial of Jesus," says: "The
2
Roman governor sanctioned, or even himself
administered, the old law of the region." And
Schurer states: "It may be assumed that the
administration of the civil law was wholly in
the hands of the Sanhedrin and native or local
magistrates: Jewish courts decided according
to Jewish law. But even in the criminal law
this was almost invariably the case, only with
this exception, that death sentences required
to be confirmed by the Roman procurator. In
such cases, the procurator decided, if he
pleased, according to Jewish law."
3
Greenidge declares: "Even the first clause of
the Sicilian lex if it contained no reference to
jurisdiction by the local magistrate, left the
interpretation of the native law wholly to
Roman propretors."
4
Chandler, while recognizing that either
Roman or Hebrew law might be applied by
Pilate in ordinary cases, "and where the crime
was an offense against both the province and
the empire, as in the case of murder," is of
opinion that "in the case of treason with
which Jesus was charged he would apply the
law of Rome under the forms of Roman
procedure." However, even as regards
5
treason (considered in this discussion as
involved in the charge of sedition), we
apprehend that, the charge being regarded as
having arisen in this case under the Hebraic
law, the issue could be determined under
Roman procedure and punishment thereby
inflicted. And Greenidge is cited as asserting
that the Roman edict, by reason of its
Page -234-
each particular state under its jurisdiction; but
its generality and its expansiveness admitted,
as we shall see, of an application of Roman
forms to the substantive law of any particular
city."
3
generality and expansivness [sic], admitted
"of an application of Roman forms to the
substantive law of any particular city." *
6
*[At this point Deland has a footnote
to Greenidge. However, he doesnt tell you
that he also borrowed the words its
generality, expansiveness, and
admitted.]
(3) That the criminal procedure
employed by Pilate in the trial of Jesus should
have been the criminal procedure of a capital
case tried at Rome, during the reign of
Tiberius Csar. This fact is very evident from
the authorities. The trial of capital cases at
Rome furnished models for similar trials in
the provinces. In the exercise of the unlimited
jurisdiction of the military imperium, Roman
governors might disregard these models. But,
ordinarily, custom compelled them to follow
the criminal precedents of the Capital
Page 32
of the empire. The following authorities
support this contention.
Page 179
That the means displayed by Pilate in the
trial of Jesus should have been the criminal
procedure of a capital case tried at Rome,
during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, says
Chandler, is evident from the authorities.
While governors might disregard these
models, "ordinarily, custom compelled them
to follow the criminal precedents of the
Capital of the empire."
[Note that not all of the material
borrowed by DeLand is not in quotes.]
Page 194
Rosadi adds some features of the Roman
criminal prosecution, and differs somewhat
from the foregoing, as to some details: The
prosecutor declared from the rostra that he
would on a certain day accuse a certain
citizen for a specified offense, and called
upon him to listen. On the trial there seem to
have been three pleas by the prosecutor,
called orations,--one per diem. On the third
day the prosecutor yielded the right of speech
to the defense. After defendant's case was
Page -235-
Rosadi says: "It is also certain that in the
provinces the same order was observed in
criminal cases as was observed in cases tried
at Rome." This eminent Italian writer cites, in
proof of this statement, Pothier, Pandect.
XLVIII. 21 n. 28.
[One of the two seems to have edited
the quote from Rosadi. DeLand seems to
be referring to remarks made by Rosadi
from the beginning of the paragraphbut,
without actually quoting him. DeLand also
used the same quote by Rosadi 15 pages
earlier as will be seen in the next example.]
submitted, the prosecutor announced the day
when he would "repeal the plea," already
published, and he on that day called upon the
people to consider it and give their votes. In
instituting prosecution, in the permanent
tribunals, defendant was summoned to appear
according to the rules in civil trials; both
parties appearing before the magistrate, who
swore the plaintiff and denounced
(proclaimed) the accused's name. The names
of the parties, day of appearance, the charge,
and the law transgressed, were entered in the
libellus inscriptionis. The charge was
examined preliminarily, and quashed by the
magistrate if irregular. The prosecutor was
required to give security, and to declare anew
the truth of his charge and that it was not
calumnious. In criminal
Page 195
trials under the new law, some of these forms
were disused, but the principal ones
remained. He declares also, that it is certain
that in Roman provinces the same order was
observed as at Rome."
Page 32
Greenidge says: "Yet, in spite of this
absence of legal checks, the criminal
procedure of the provinces was, in the
protection of the citizen as in other respects,
closely modelled on that of Rome."
To the same effect, but more clearly and
pointedly expressed, is Geib, who says: "It is
nevertheless true that the knowledge which
we have, imperfect though it may be, leaves
no doubt that the courts of the Italian
municipalities and provinces had, in all
essential elements, the permanent tribunals
(qustiones perpetu) as models; so that, in
fact, a description of the proceedings in the
Rosadi likewise observes: "It is also
certain that
Page 180
in the provinces the same order was observed
in criminal cases as was observed in cases
tried at Rome." Greenidge is cited to the same
effect. And Geib "It is nevertheless true that
the knowledge which we have, imperfect
though it be, leaves no doubt that the courts
of the Italian municipalities and provinces
had, in all essential elements, the permanent
tribunals (questiones perpetue) as models; so
that, in fact, a description of the proceedings
in the permanent tribunals is, at the same
time, to be regarded as a description of the
Page -236-
permanent tribunals is, at the same time, to be
regarded as a description of the proceedings
in the provincial courts."
proceedings in the provincial courts."
[Note that DeLand uses the same quote by
Rosadi as was shown in the previous
example.]
It should be observed, at this point, that
the period of Roman jurisprudence just
referred to was in the closing years of the
republic; and that certain changes in the
organization of the tribunals as well as in the
forms of procedure were effected by the
legislation of Augustus. But we have it upon
the authority of Rosadi that these changes
were not radical in the case of the criminal
courts and that the rules and regulations that
governed procedure in them during the
republic remained substantially unchanged
under the empire. The same writer tells us
that the permanent tribunals for the trial of
capital cases did not go out of existence until
the third century of the Christian era.
And while this period of Roman
jurisprudence was in the closing years of the
republic, and certain changes in organization
of tribunals and forms of procedure were
effected by Augustus' legislation, it is stated
on the authority of Rosadi that no radical
changes were made as to criminal courts, and
that "the rules and regulations that governed
procedure in them during the republic
remained substantially unchanged under the
empire." It was not until the third century, A.
D., says that writer, that the permanent
tribunals for trial of capital cases ceased to
exist.
[Again, DeLand puts some of the
borrowed material in quotes and the rest is
re-arranged.]
Page 34
The reader should keep clearly and
constantly in mind the purpose of this
chapter: to describe the mode of trial in
capital cases at Rome during the reign of
Tiberius Csar; and thus to furnish a model
of criminal procedure which Pilate should
have imitated in the trial of Jesus at
Jerusalem. In the last chapter, we saw that the
proceedings of the permanent tribunals
(qustiones perpetu) at Rome furnished
models for the trial of criminal cases in the
provinces. It is now only necessary to
determine what the procedure of the
permanent tribunals at the time of Christ was,
in order to understand what Pilate should
have done in the trial of Jesus. But the
There were, says Chandler, two periods
of criminal procedure under Roman laws,
before the organization of the permanent
tribunals about the beginning of the last
century of the republic; period of the kings,
and period of the early republic. Early in
Page 181
the regal period there existed a sacred
and military monarchy, with the king at the
head of both, "and supreme judge in civil and
criminal matters" over lives and property;
these embracing the imperium. The king
might sit alone and judge cases and impose
sentence, the trial being a personal
investigation aided by chosen judges from the
Senate or pontifical college.
Page -237-
character of the qustiones perpetu, as well
as the rules and regulations that governed
their proceedings, cannot well be understood
without reference to the criminal tribunals
and modes of trial in criminal cases that
preceded them. Roman history discloses two
distinct periods of criminal procedure before
the organization of the permanent tribunals
Page 35
about the beginning of the last century of the
Republic: (1) The period of the kings and (2)
the period of the early republic. Each of these
will be here briefly considered.
The Regal Period.--The earliest glimpses
of Roman political life reveal the existence of
a sacred and military monarchy in which the
king is generalissimo of the army, chief
pontiff of the national religion, and supreme
judge in civil and criminal matters over the
lives and property of the citizens. These
various powers and attributes are wrapped up
in the imperium. By virtue of the imperium,
the king issued commands to the army and
also exercised the highest judicial functions
over the lives and fortunes of his
fellow-citizens. The kings were thus military
commanders and judges in one person, as the
consuls were after them. The monarch might
sit alone and judge cases and impose
sentences; but the trial was usually a personal
investigation undertaken by him with the
advice and aid of a chosen body of judges
from the senate or the pontifical college.
According to Dionysius, Romulus ordered
that all crimes of a serious nature should be
tried by the king, but that all lighter offenses
should be judged by the senate. Little
confidence can be reposed in this statement,
since the age and deeds of Romulus are
exceedingly legendary
[This example seems to show that
DeLand is synthesizing and abbreviating
what Chandler presents.]
Page -238-
and mythical. But it is historically true that in
the regal period of Rome the kings were the
supreme judges in all civil and criminal
matters.
The abolition of
Page 36
the monarchy and the establishment of the
republic witnessed the distribution of the
powers of government formerly exercised by
the king among a number of magistrates and
public officers. Consuls, tribunes, prtors,
diles, both curule and plebeian, exercised,
under the republic, judicial functions in
criminal matters.
The consuls were supreme criminal
judges at the beginning of the republic, and
were clothed with unlimited power in matters
of life and death. This is shown by the
condemnation and execution of the sons of
Brutus and their fellow-conspirators.
Associated with the consuls were, at first, two
annually appointed qustors whom they
nominated. The functions of the qustors
were as unlimited as those of their superiors,
the consuls; but their jurisdiction was
confined chiefly to criminal matters and
finance.
The tribunes, sacred and inviolable in
their persons as representatives of the plebs
and as their protectors against patrician
oppression, exercised at first merely a
negative control over the regular magistracies
of the community. But, finally, they became
the chief public prosecutors of political
criminals.
The prtors, whose chief jurisdiction
was in civil matters, were potentially as fully
criminal judges as the consuls, and there may
Under the republic, magistrates and
officers exercised the powers of government
formerly exercised by the king. Consuls were
supreme criminal judges; some writers say
with, others (Colquhoon among them)
without unlimited power of life and death.
Two quaestors, nominees of the consuls, were
associated with them, holding like powers,
whose functions were limited to criminal and
financial matters. Tribunes, who represented
the plebeians and defended
Page 182
them against patrician oppression, by
negative control over regular magistrates
through the veto, later became chief public
prosecutors of political prisoners. The
praetors' jurisdiction was chiefly civil; but
they at one time may have had competency in
criminal proceedings. In the later republic
they presided over the permanent criminal
tribunals known as questiones perpetue.
Aediles had criminal jurisdiction, but their
special duties related to games, markets, and
archives.
Page -239-
have been a time when a portion of criminal
jurisdiction was actually in their hands. In the
later republic, they presided over the
qustiones perpetu, permanent criminal
tribunals.
The diles are found in Roman history
exercising
Page 37
functions of criminal jurisdiction, although
their general powers were confined to the
special duties of caring for the games, the
market, and the archives.
But the criminal jurisdiction of the
magistrates who replaced the king at the
downfall of the monarchy was abridged and
almost destroyed by the famous lex Valeria
(de provocatione). This law was proposed
509 B.C. by Publius Valerius, one of the first
consuls of Rome, and provided that no
magistrate should have power to execute a
sentence of death against a Roman citizen
who had appealed to the judgment of the
people in their public assembly. {contd
below}
But the dangerous power of judgment by
single sovereign judge in king or consul
became modified in future times in favor of
trial in criminal cases before the people.
Rosadi affirms that that arbitrary power
"yielded to institutions which first modified it
in part, and afterwards suppressed it entirely."
Colquhoon states that the two consuls who
succeeded the kingship, "at first agreed to
govern alternately by months; an inclination
was soon, however, shown to exceed the
legitimate authority, which caused the
enactment of the Lex Valeria, 249 A. U. C.,
giving
Page 183
a power of appeal from the magistrate to the
people." According to Rosadi, this law was
proposed in the Year of Rome 245 (B. C.
509). It prohibited execution of capital, or
severe corporal, sentence against Roman
citizens who had appealed therefrom to the
judgment of the people.
This lex was the magna charta of the Romans
and was justly regarded by them as the great
palladium of their civil liberty. And it was
this law that inaugurated the popular
jurisdiction of the comitia. The result was that
for more than three hundred years the final
determination of the question of life or death
was in the hands of the people themselves.
From the passage of the Valerian law the
function of the magistrates was limited to the
duty of convincing the people of the guilt of
an alleged criminal against whom they
themselves had already pronounced a
preliminary sentence. The magistrates were,
therefore, not so much judges as prosecutors;
the people were the final judges in the case.
. . .
Page 185
. . . Chandler observes: "The result was
that for more than three hundred years the
final determination of the question of life or
death was in the hands of the people
themselves. From the passage of the Valerian
law the function of the magistrates was
limited to the duty of convincing the people
of the guilt of an alleged criminal against
whom they themselves had already
pronounced a preliminary sentence. The
magistrates were, therefore, not so much
judges as prosecutors; the people were the
Page -240-
Mode of Trial in the Comitia, or Public
Assembly.--On a certain day, the prosecuting
magistrate, who had himself pronounced the
preliminary sentence against an accused
person who had appealed to the people in
their public assembly, mounted the rostra,
and called the people together by the voice of
a herald.
Page 37
He then made a proclamation that on a
certain day he would bring an accusation
against a certain person upon a given charge.
At the same time, he called upon this person
to come forward and hear the charges against
him. The defendant then presented himself,
listened to the accusation, and immediately
furnished bond for his appearance, or in
default of bail, was thrown into prison. Upon
the day announced at the opening of the trial,
the prosecuting magistrate again mounted the
rostra, and summoned the accused by a
herald, if he was at large, or had him brought
forth if he was in prison. The prosecutor then
produced evidence, oral and documentary,
against the prisoner. The indictment had to be
in writing, and was published on three market
days in the Forum. The prosecution came to
an end on the third day, and the accused then
began his defense by mounting the rostra with
his patron and presenting evidence in his own
behalf. The prosecutor then announced that
on a certain day he would ask the people to
render judgment by their votes. In the early
years of the republic, the people voted by
shouting their approval or disapproval of the
charges made; but later a tablet bearing one
of the two letters V. (uti rogas) or A.
(absolvo) was used as a ballot.
final judges in the case."
Now, this prosecuting magistrate, who
had pronounced a preliminary sentence
against the accused who had appealed to the
people in public assembly, was the official
who mounted the rostra and called the people
together "by the voice of a herald," and who
on the return day, similarly summoned the
accused, and produced evidence against the
prisoner. "The indictment (says Chandler)
had to be in writing, and was published on
three market days in the Forum. The
prosecution came to an end on the third day,
and the accused began his defense by
mounting the rostra with his patron and
presenting evidence in his own behalf. The
prosecutor then announced that on a certain
day he would ask the people to render
judgment by their votes. In the early years of
the republic, the people voted by shouting
their approval or disapproval of the charges
made; but later a tablet bearing one of the two
letters V (uti rogas) or A. (absolvo) was used
as a ballot."
Page -241-
The effect of popular jurisdiction in
criminal processes at Rome was in the nature
of a two-edged sword that cut both ways. It
was beneficial in the limitations it imposed
upon the conduct of single magistrates who
were too often capricious and despotic. But
this benefit was purchased at the price of a
Page 39
kind of popular despotism not less dangerous
in its way. It has always been characteristic of
popular assemblies that their decisions have
been more the outcome of passion and
prejudice than the result of calm wisdom and
absolute justice. The trouble at Rome was
that the people were both legislators and
judges in their public assemblies; and it
nearly always happened that the lawmakers
rose above and trampled upon the very laws
which they themselves had made. The natural
offspring of this state of things is either
anarchy or despotism; and it was only the
marvelous vitality of the Roman
Commonwealth that enabled it to survive.
The reports of the great criminal trials
before the comitia reveal the inherent
weakness of a system of popular jurisdiction
in criminal matters. Personal and political
considerations foreign to the merits of the
case were allowed to take the place of
competent evidence; and issues of right and
expediency were too frequently mixed up.
The accused, at times, trusted not so much in
the righteousness of his cause as in the
feelings of compassion and prejudice that
moved the people as popular judges. And to
excite these feelings the most ludicrous and
undignified steps were sometimes taken. The
defendant nearly always* appeared at the trial
in mourning garb, frequently let his hair and
beard grow long, and often exhibited the
scars and wounds received in battle whilst
Page 186
Under this "popular jurisdiction," while
the process limited the conduct of
magistrates, it also rendered the power of the
people despotic and dangerous, since it gave
play to passion and prejudice--an ancient
characteristic of democratic assemblies
charged with responsibility. And says
Chandler: "The trouble at Rome was that the
people were both legislators and judges in
their popular assemblies; and it nearly always
happened that the lawmakers rose above and
trampled upon the very laws which they
themselves had made."
The inherent weakness of that system is
shown by reports of great criminal trials,
wherein "personal and political
considerations foreign to the merits of the
case were allowed to take the place of
competent evidence"; and issues of right and
of expediency were too frequently mingled.
The accused trusted not so much in the
righteousness of his cause as in the feelings
of compassion and prejudice that moved the
people as popular judges. A defendant would
sometimes* appear in mourning, exhibiting
scars of battle, and offering prayer to
immortal gods, weeping bitterly, etc.; again,
his children would appear weeping, etc. "It
thus happened that many of the great criminal
causes of Rome were mere farcical
Page -242-
fighting for his country. He sometimes
offered prayers to the immortal gods and
wept bitterly; at other times he caused his
children and other relatives to appear at the
trial,
Page 40
wailing, and tearing their clothes. Not content
with presenting all the pathetic features of his
own life, he left nothing undone to expose his
opponents to hatred and contempt. It thus
happened that many of the great criminal
causes of Rome were mere farcical
proceedings. A few instances may be cited.
proceedings."
[* Is it nearly always per Chandler
or sometimes as DeLand says?]
Page 44
Second Stage (divinatio).--It often
happened that more than one accuser desired
to prosecute a single offense; but more than
one prosecutor was not permitted by Roman
law unless there was more than one crime
charged. Then, in case of a concurrence of
would-be accusers, a preliminary trial was
had to determine which one of these was best
fitted to bring the accusation. This initial
hearing was known in Roman law as the
divinatio. It was indeed more than a mere
hearing; it was a regular trial in which the
question of the fitness of the different
candidates for the position of delator was
argued before the president and the jury. This
jury was in many cases distinct from the one
that finally tried the case on the merits. The
purpose of the whole proceeding known as
the divinatio was to secure a prosecutor who
was at once both able and sincere; and both
these qualities were generally very
strenuously urged by all those who desired to
assume the role of accuser. Indeed all
personal qualifications involving the mental
and moral attributes of the would-be
prosecutors were pointedly urged. At the
Page 188
The second stage (divinatio), determined
who of two or more was best fitted to
prosecute; this only when more than one
charge was made. This divinatio, says
Chandler, "was more than a mere hearing; it
was a regular trial in which the fitness of the
different candidates for the position of delator
was argued before the president and the jury.
This jury was in many cases distinct from the
one that finally tried the case on the merits.
The purpose of the whole proceeding known
as the divinatio was to secure a prosecutor
who was at once both able and sincere; and
both these qualities were generally very
strenuously urged by all those who desired to
assume the role of accusor. * * The details of
the evidence affecting the merits of the
charge were not considered at this
preliminary trial."
Page -243-
hearing, the different candidates frequently
became animated and even bitter opponents
of each other. Crimination and recrimination
then followed as a natural consequence. An
applicant might show that he was thoroughly
familiar with the affairs of a province, as a
special fitness in the prosecution of
Page 45
a public official for extortion in that province.
An opponent, on the other hand, might show
that said applicant had been associated with
said official in the government of the
province and had been, and was now, on the
friendliest terms with him. After the
meritorious qualifications of all the claimants
had been presented, the president and jury
rendered their decision. The details of the
evidence affecting the merits of the charge
were not considered at this preliminary trial.
Only such facts were considered as affected
the personal qualifications of the different
candidates for the place of accuser. When
these qualifications were about equally
balanced in point of merit between two
applicants, the abler speaker was generally
chosen.
Third Stage (nominis delatio).--It
frequently happened that the postulatio, the
request to prosecute, was not followed by the
divinatio, the preliminary hearing on the
merits of different applicants, because there
was only one would-be accuser; and his
qualifications were beyond dispute. In such a
case, when a request to bring a criminal
charge against a certain person had been
presented by a citizen to the prtor, there
followed, after a certain interval of time, a
private hearing before the president of the
court for the purpose of gaining fuller and
more definite information concerning the
charge. This private proceeding was styled
The third stage of the proceeding
(Nominis delatio) occurred after the request
to prosecute; and consisted of a private
hearing, after an interval of time,--before the
president of the court, to secure further
information concerning the charge--the
criminis delatio; whose object was to note a
specification of the personality of the
accused, as well as of the charges against
him. The presence of the accused was
necessary, unless a valid excuse was given. If
he appeared, the prosecutor questioned him at
length concerning the facts of the crime; this
interrogatio being to satisfy the magistrate
that there was a prima facie case "to carry
Page -244-
the nominis or criminis delatio, and took
place before the president alone. Its main
object was to secure a specification of the
personality of the accused as well as of the
charges brought against him. At this stage
Page 46
of the trial the presence of the accused person
was necessary, unless he was absent under
valid excuse. The lex Memmia, passed in the
year 114 B.C., permitted a delinquent to
plead that he was absent from Rome on
public business, as an excuse for not
appearing at the nominis delatio. In the year
58 B.C., the tribune L. Antistius impeached
Julius Csar. But the colleagues of Antistius
excused Csar from personal attendance
because he was absent in the service of the
state in Gaul. But, if the accused appeared at
the nominis delatio, the prosecutor
interrogated him at length concerning the
facts of the crime. The purpose of this
interrogation (interrogatio) was to satisfy the
president that there was a prima facie case to
carry before the regular tribunal in open trial.
The proceedings of the nominis delatio were
thus in the nature of a modern Grand Jury
investigation, instituted to determine if a
serious prosecution should be had.
Fourth Stage (inscriptio).--If the
interrogation convinced the president that the
prosecutor had a prima facie case to take
before the permanent tribunal, he framed a
form of indictment called the inscriptio. This
indictment was signed by the chief prosecutor
and also by a number of witnesses against the
accused called subscriptores. The charge was
now definitely fixed; and, from this moment,
it was the only offense that could be
prosecuted at the trial. The drawing up of this
charge by the president was similar to the
framing of an indictment by a modern Grand
before the regular tri-
Page 189
bunal in open trial." This step was in the
nature of a grand jury.
The fourth stage (inscriptio) involved the
indictment, framed by the president, and
signed by the prosecutor, and by witnesses
against the accused; called subscriptores. This
charge specified the only offense triable, and
was drawn up by the president.
Page -245-
Jury.
Fifth Stage (nominis receptio).--After the
indictment or inscription had been framed, it
was formally
Page 47
received by the president This act was
styled the nominis receptio and corresponds,
in a general way, with the presentment of an
indictment by a modern Grand Jury. When
the nominis receptio was complete, the case
was said to be in judicio, and the accused was
said to be in reatu. The president then fixed a
day certain for the appearance of the accused
and the beginning of the trial. The time fixed
was usually ten days from the nominis
receptio. However, a longer time was allowed
if evidence had to be secured from beyond the
sea. Thirty days were allowed the accusers in
the prosecution of Scaurus. Cicero was given
one hundred and ten days to secure evidence
against Verres; but he actually employed only
sixty. The time granted the prosecutor was
also required by the law to be utilized by the
defendant in preparing his case.
The preliminary steps in the prosecution
were now complete, and the accused awaited
the day of trial. In the meantime, he was
allowed to go at large, even when charged
with a grave offense like murder.
Imprisonment to prevent escape had almost
ceased at the time of which we write. If the
evidence against the accused* was weak, it
was felt that he would certainly appear at the
trial. If the evidence against him was very
strong, it was thought that he would seek to
escape a sentence of death in voluntary exile,
a step which Romans always encouraged, as
they were averse, at all times, to putting a
Roman citizen to death.
The fifth stage (nominis receptio), was
the normal reception by the president, of the
indictment. The case was then said to be in
judicio, the accused in reatu. A day certain
was then fixed by the president for
appearance of the accused, and for the
trial--usually ten days from nominis receptio;
during which interim the defendant was
required to prepare for trial. He was allowed
to be at large during the interim.
"Imprisonment to prevent escape had almost
ceased" at the time in question, according to
Chandler. If the defense* was weak, he would
ap-
Page 190
pear, if strong, he would probably go into
exile--this was the theory of the state; and
exile was encouraged, Romans being averse
to putting a citizen to death.
[* In editing DeLand has flipped things. He
should have said If the evidence for the
prosecution was weak.]
Page -246-
Sixth Stage (citatio).--At the expiration
of the time
Page 48
designated by the president for the beginning
of the trial, the proceedings before the judges
began. All the necessary parties, including the
judges or jurors, were summoned by a herald
to appear. This procedure was termed the
citatio. Strange to say, if the accused failed to
appear the case could proceed without him.
The reason for the requirement of his
presence at the nominis delatio, but not at the
trial is not clear; especially when viewed in
the light of a modern trial in which the
defendant must be present at every important
step in the proceedings. Under Roman
procedure, the presence of the defendant was
not necessary, whether he was in voluntary
exile, or was obstinately absent. In 52 B.C.,
Milo was condemned in his absence; and we
read in Plutarch that the assassins of Csar
were tried in their absence, 43 B.C.
The sixth stage (citatio): On the day of
trial all necessary parties, including judges or
jurors, were summoned by herald, to appear.
If the accused failed to appear, trial could
proceed in his absence. Chandler thinks it not
clear why he must appear at the nominis
delatio but need not at the trial. But his
appearance at the former stage was for
purposes of identification. Colquhoon says, as
to appearances on day of trial: "If the
prosecutor were absent, the name of the
defendant was erased from the register of the
court; but if the defendant were not
forthcoming, he was condemned in default *
* and his property confiscated"; that under the
milder practice of the emperors, defendant's
presence was required, he was cited by edict,
and on expiration of a year, his property
confiscated, "but he was not sentenced."
Chandler declares that the defendant's
presence was unnecessary, whether he was in
voluntary exile, "or was obstinately absent."
Excusable absence, however, necessitated
adjournment.
Page -247-
The absence of the accused did not
prevent the prosecution of the case, but the
nonappearance of the prosecutor on the day
fixed for the beginning of the trial usually
terminated the proceedings at once. The fact
that the case had to be dismissed if the
accuser failed to appear only serves to
illustrate how dependent the state was on the
sincerity of the citizen who undertook the
prosecution. The obligations of the prosecutor
honestly and vigorously to follow up a suit
which he had set in motion were felt to be so
serious a matter
Page 49
by the Romans that special laws were passed
to hold him in the line of duty. The lex Rem-
mia provided that if any citizen knowingly
accused another citizen falsely of a crime, the
accuser should be prosecuted for calumny
(calumnia). It further provided that, in case of
conviction, the letter K should be branded on
the forehead of the condemned. Such laws
were found necessary to protect the good
name of Roman citizens against bad men who
desired to use the legal machinery of the state
to gratify private malevolence against their
enemies. It may thus be seen that the system
which permitted public prosecutions on the
motion of private citizens was attended by
both good and bad results. Cicero regarded
such a system as a positive benefit to the
state. Its undoubted effect was to place a
check upon corruption in public office by
subjecting the acts of public officials to the
scrutiny and, if need be, to the censure of
every man in the nation. On the other hand,
accusers in public prosecutions came finally
to be identified, in the public mind, with
coarse and vulgar informers whose only
motive in making public accusations was to
create private gain. . . .
The Lex Remmia provided that "if any
prosecutor knowingly accused another citizen
falsely of a
Page 191
crime, the accuser should be prosecuted for
calumny (calumnia);["] in case of his
conviction he was branded on the forehead.
The effect of this law was to check corruption
in office, but "accusers" in public
prosecutions came finally to be identified, in
the public mind, "with coarse and vulgar
informers whose only motive in making
public accusations was to create private gain."
Page -248-
Seventh Stage (impaneling the
judges).--But if
Page 50
the prosecutor appeared in due time, the trial
formally began by the impaneling of the
judges. This was usually done by the prtor
or iudex qustionis who, at the beginning of
the trial, placed the names of the complete
panel of jurors, inscribed on white tablets,
into an urn, and then drew out a certain
number. Both prosecutor and accused had the
right to challenge a limited number, as the
names were being drawn. The number of
challenges allowed varied from time to time.
The seventh stage of the Roman
prosecution, was the empanneling of the
judices. Here the trial formally began. The
praetor placed in an urn the names of the
panel of jurors, inscribed on white tablets,
then drew out a certain number. Both
prosecutor and defendant could challenge a
limited number, as the names were being
drawn--this number varying at different
periods.
Eighth Stage (beginning of the trial).--
When the judges had been impaneled, the
regular proceedings began. The place of trial
was the Forum. The curule chair of the prtor
and the benches of the judges, constituting the
tribunal, were here placed. On the ground in
front of the raised platform upon which the
prtor and judges sat, were arranged the
benches of the parties, their advocates and
witnesses. Like the ancient Hebrew law,
Roman law required that criminal cases
should be tried only by daylight, that is,
between daybreak and one hour before
sunset. At the opening of the trial, the
prosecutor, backed by the subscriptores, and
the accused, supported by his patrons and
advocates, appeared before the tribunal.
Page 192
With the eighth stage the trial began, in
the Forum. "On the ground in front of the
raised platform upon which the praetor and
judges sat, were arranged the benches of the
parties, their advocates and witnesses." The
trial must be had during the day, "between
daybreak and one hour before sunset,"--as
was required by the Hebrew law. The
prosecutor and state witnesses, the defendant
"supported by his patrons and advocates,"
being present.
Page -249-
Page 51
Under the Roman system of trial in
criminal cases, the order was reversed. The
regular speeches containing argument,
characterization, and illustration, as well as a
statement of the facts proposed to be proved,
were made in the very beginning. Evidence
was then introduced to show that the orators
had told the truth in their speeches.
The Roman system of criminal procedure
reversed the modern rule, and the regular
speeches containing argument, characteriza-
tion and illustration, and statement of fact
proposed to be proved, were made at the
beginning of the trial.* Evidence followed, to
substantiate the speeches and statements. The
prosecutor's speech was the peroratio. The
defense was in like form and under similar
rules. After this came "a short altercatio," by
question and answer, to bring out salient
points on both sides, says Colquhoon.
[* Interesting that DeLand has a
footnote for the source of most of the
wording of the sentence, but didnt use
quote marks.]
Ninth Stage (voting of the judges).--The
judges voted by ballot, and a majority of
votes decided the verdict. The balloting was
done with tablets containing the letters A.
(absolvo), C. (condemno) and N. L. (non
liquet). When the votes had been cast, the
tablets were then counted by the president of
the tribunal. If the result indicated a
condemnation, he pronounced the word
fecisse; if an acquittal, the phrase, non fecisse
videtur; if a doubtful verdict (non liquet), the
words amplius esse cognoscendum. The
result of a doubtful (non liquet) verdict was a
retrial of the case at some future time.
In the ninth stage of the trial: The judges
(Roman jurors) voted by ballot, a majority
deciding the verdict; the tablets marked A.
(absolvo), C. (condemno) and N. L. (non
liquet); which be-
Page 193
ing cast, were counted by the president. The
non liquet was an expression of doubt,
requiring a retrial at a future day. Judgment
followed the verdict.
Page -250-
Page 55
Crucifixion was practiced by the ancient
Egyptians, Carthaginians, Persians, Germans,
Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans. The Romans
employed this form of punishment on a
colossal scale. The Roman general Varus
crucified 2,000 Jews in one day at the gates of
Jerusalem. The close of the war with
Spartacus, the gladiator, witnessed the
crucifixion of 10,000 slaves between Capua
and Rome.
Crucifixion, as a form of punishment,
was unknown to the ancient Hebrews. The
penalty of death was enforced among them by
burning, strangling, decapitation, and stoning.
The "hanging" of criminals "on a tree,"
mentioned in Deut. xxi. 227 was a
posthumous indignity offered the body of the
criminal after death by stoning, and struck
horror to the soul of every pious Israelite who
beheld it. Among the Romans also
degradation was a part of the infliction, since
crucifixion was peculiarly a supplicium
servile. Only the vilest criminals, among free
men, such as were guilty of robbery, piracy,
assassination, perjury, sedition, treason, and
desertion from the army, met death in this
way. The jus civitatis protected Roman
citizens against this punishment.
Mode of Crucifixion.--A sentence of
death having been pronounced by a Roman
magistrate or tribunal, scourging became a
preliminary to execution. This was done with
the terrible flagellum into which the soldiers
frequently stuck nails, pieces of bone, and
other hard substances to heighten the pain
which was often so intense as to produce
death. The victim was generally bound to a
column to be scourged. It was
Crucifixion, as an execution of capital
sentence, was practiced by Romans on a
colossal scale. Degradation was part of this
infliction, since it was peculiarly a supplicium
servile, says Chandler.* Only the most
degraded criminals met death in this manner;
and Roman citizens were exempt from this
[* At this point DeLand has a footnote
pointing the reader to pages 55-57note the
lack of quote marks; but the material up to
that point was only drawn from page 55. It
is the next paragraph that draws material
from pages 57-58.]
Page 194
punishment. Scourging became a preliminary
to crucifixion; this usually after being bound
to a column; the terrible flagellum itself
sometimes producing death. Then the
condemned was led outside the city, to some
Page -251-
Page 56
claimed by Jerome, Prudentius, Gregory of
Tours, and others that they had seen the one
to which Jesus was bound before His
scourging began. After the flagellation, the
prisoner was conducted to the place of
execution. This was outside the city, often in
some public road, or other conspicuous place
like the Campus Martius at Rome. The
criminal was compelled to carry his own
cross; and when he had arrived at the place of
crucifixion, he was compelled to watch the
preparations for his torture. Before his eyes
and in his presence, the cross was driven into
the ground; and, after having been stripped
naked, he was lifted upon and nailed to it. It
sometimes happened that he was stretched
upon it first and then lifted with it from the
ground. The former method was the more
common, however, as it was desired to strike
terror into the victim by the sight of the
erection of the cross. The body was fastened
to the cross by nails driven into the hands and
sometimes into the feet; more frequently,
however, the feet were merely bound by
cords.
. . .
Crucifixion was conducted, under Roman
auspices,
Page 57
by a carnifex, or hangman, assisted by a band
of soldiers. At Rome, execution was done
under the supervision of the Triumviri
Capitales. The duty of the soldiers was not
only to erect the cross and nail the victim to
it, but also to watch him until he was dead.
This was a necessary precaution to prevent
friends and relatives from taking the criminal
down and from carrying him away, since he
conspicuous place, for crucifixion; being
obliged to bear his own cross. A carnifex, or
hangman, assisted by a band of soldiers,
executed the convict, under Roman law The
victim was watched until dead, to prevent
friends or relatives from taking him away.
The custom was to allow the body to rot on
the cross, or be devoured by beasts or birds of
prey. Sepulture was generally forbidden by
law; but there were exceptions.
Page -252-
sometimes continued to live upon the cross
during several days. . . .
. . .
Page 58
It was the general custom to allow the
body to remain and rot upon the cross, or to
be devoured by wild beasts and birds of prey.
"Distracted relatives and friends saw the birds
of prey attack the very faces of those whom
they loved; and piety often took pains to scare
away the birds by day and the beasts by night,
or to outwit the guards that watched the
dead."
Conclusion
It appears that sometime after 1908 a significant change had occurred in literary
conventions. This caused writers such as DeLand to be more careful, but not wholly, in citing his
sources. For example, where Chandler never cites Shrer as one of his sources, DeLand does.
And yet DeLand doesnt give full credit to Chandler for using his material. On the whole,
DeLands work appears to be along the lines of a Readers Digest condensed version of
Chandlers work, with minimal credit being given to Chandler.
Page -253-
Tabular Analysis of Phrases
Due to space considerations, Table 3 presents a truncated tabular analysis of the above
39
phrases, showing the frequency of connection between the alleged sources and alleged
borrowers. The first column lists the alleged sources in chronological order. The subsequent
columns list each following author (again in chronological order) with the number words that
seem to be literarily similar to the alleged source.
The full table measures 8 foot by 4 foot.
39
Page -254-
Table 3. Truncated Summary of Relationships
i
y
L
g
n
B
o
w
r
n
o
e
l
B
l
o
m
f
i
d
l
C
a
r
k
K
t
i
t
o
G
n
e
r
e
e
l
a
f
a
n
H
n
a
u
p
e
P
l
m
t
r
K
m
c
e
r
r
u
m
a
h
e
i
N
v
n
C
i
t
o
k
M
l
n
c
y
E
d
d
a
g
C
r
i
i
n
n
o
J
o
h
n
s
W
a
r
e
c
l
N
i
o
l
D
e
m
e
s
o
h
C
l
u
g
r
C
b
r
e
a
t
W
e
i
e
d
n
r
R
d
l
i
d
e
a
M
a
s
a
l
n
g
V
l
s
i
M
c
C
o
e
l
n
n
l
.
W
h
e
E

G
.

i
t
e
e
M
y
r
d
D
i
o
n
e
t
r
P
e
s d
l
C
h
a
n
e
r
i
h
S
t
m
C
k
s
o
o
o
n
D
L
d
e
a
n
Fleetwood 939 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Porteus - 0 0 0 23 21 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Watson - 1120a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sadler - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dupin - - 0 129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Olshausen - - 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rutter - - 23 0 0 10 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Beard - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 180 0 0 0 0 44c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Neander - - - - 85 0 0 30 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 16d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kitto - - - - - 14 0 24 0 0 1074 306 13 0 0 137 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Robertson - - - - - 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ingraham - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0
CummingJ - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Plumptre - - - - - - - - 0 90 4443 0 0 126 0 2751 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hanna - - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 6 0 0 0 0 0
De Pressens -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 00 0
Lange - - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 100f 0 0 0 0 115 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Whedon - - - - - - - - - 0 0 273 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Eddy - - - - - - - - - - 71g 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 77h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gilmore - - - - - - - - - - - 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MClintock - - - - - - - - - 71g - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Geikie - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 99 0 14 0 0 0 62 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Farrar - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 60 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0
Johnson - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Innes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0
Clough - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Riddle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Edersheim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 19 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0
Maas - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0
McKenzie - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0
Berthe - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 38
Rosadi - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 152 0 0 0
Chandler - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 764 0
Total 939 1120 23 129 116 45 19 54 15 161g 5588 579 26 277 159 3069 64 50 115 70 79 140 19 533 14 50 50 17 207 12 764 38
Page -255-
Notes on Table 3
* We should note that Table 3 does not include the massive borrowing by Deland from
Chandler. See pages 207-232 for the evidence.
a 100% of Watson article is copied into Browns work and the only credit given is his name at
the endno book title or date is given. The evidence is shown on pages 164-167.
b Johnson used two complete sentences from Olshausen, placed them in quote marks and
named the author (no book title, no page, no date, no publisher). See page 51.
c Crabtre identified the source as Kitto, when actually it was Beard who wrote the article. He
did not provide a book title, publisher, publication date or page. See page 55.
d This is a special case Clough may have borrowed his wording from either Neander or
Plumptre. See page 60.
e The 2,751 words of Clough came from Plumptres article (see pages 80-91) with the note at
the end saying: we have largely availed ourselves of the article in Smiths Dict. Of the
Bible ... with no quote marks in the text marking it off from the rest.
f See the examples on pages 103-106. Also note on the pages examples where Johnson gives
only the last name of the author as the credit for his source.
g These two examples are included here in the table to show the difficulty is simply assuming
that literary similarity between two documents means that one copied from the other. In
these cases it is more likely that both borrowed from Plumptre. *For MClintock
borrowing of over 5,400 words, see pages 168-204.
h More likely this material was taken from Plumptre. See pages 93.
Page -256-
Analysis of Table 3
Given the lack of earlier sources the farther to the top and to the left on Table 3, the less
reliable and meaningful the data is. To discover what older sources (if any), from which
Fleetwood, Neander, Angus, Kitto, etc. may have borrowed, the study would need to be
extended backward well into the eighteenth century. It is suggested at this time that the data is
too limited to be conclusive for names above and to the left of Lyman Abbott (LA).
The farther down and to the right on the table, it is expected that higher numbers would
be seen as each subsequent author has more sources within the scope of this study from which to
borrow. For names below and to the right of Lyman Abbott (LA), it is suggested that there is
enough data to be a representative sample concerning the extent of these authors borrowing
from earlier authors.
Reading across the table, a lot of authors appears, by the liberal standards of the critics of
Ellen G. White, to have been used to some extent by those who followed.
In general, the amount and quality of literary similarity that is seen in the phrases
discussed above, leads one to seriously question whether inappropriate literary dependence is
shown by any of the borrowing authors. For the nineteenth-century criteria on which this
evaluation is based see endnote 11.
The zeroes in most cells only shows that no evidence of direct literary borrowing was
found between the two authors. This does not mean that the later author did not use the earlier in
the sense of being influenced by that work. Gunsaulus (1899) wrote: . . . he who was seriously
determined to make any account of Jesus Christ must have previously acquainted himself with
the results of the exploration, exegetical inquiry, thinking and faith of many of the ablest men
who have ever toiled with the greatest of subjects (preface).
Page -257-
However, given the limited print numbers for eighteenth- and nineteenth-century book
publishers (about 1,000 for each run), the limited nature of the distribution networks, slow and
unreliable transportation, and the fact that the publishers were as far separated from their
customers as America, England, and Scotland were from each other, some of the earlier authors
were probably unknown to some of the later ones. The numbers in the table can be seen as being
a kind of fingerprint of the distribution of and readership of the various books were and thus
what sources the authors may have read.
Outside of the table and the evidence that has been presented above one should also note
how the various writers handled the various biblical texts that support the story they are trying to
tell. In broad general terms, the earlier the writer the closer in wording was their writing to the
biblical text, so much so that there was little that the writer has added to the story. Though later
authors added more and more material, there is still very little wording that separated their text
from the biblical text. Also, the very idea that the biblical text should be put in quotation marks
and that the source should be documented developed slowly and unevenly. For an example of
such unevenness, Didon (1891, p. 345) uses the words from John 19:12, If thou let this man go,
thou art not Caesar's friend, without referencing the source or using quotation marks. Yet,
elsewhere in his text, there are instances in which he does put the biblical material in quotation
marks--though always without reference as to where it came from. How the writers handled the
material they borrowed from the Bible serves as an indicator of how they would reference
material they borrowed from other authors.
Page -258-
Plagiarism Now, Not Then
Farrar vs. Roscamp
This portion of the study reveals previously unknown examples of literary borrowing
which shows what was considered, at the time, an acceptable amount of borrowing, but what
would be considered plagiarism today.
The first two works that are examined are Frederic W. Farrars 1874 work The Life of
Christ and Roscamps 1902 The Life of Jesus Christ.
Unless otherwise stated all ellipses are either portions of a paragraph or a single
paragraph.
Nothing from Farrar was found in Roscamp for chapters 1, 2, 8-12, 14, 16, 17, 21-23.
Farrar, Chapter 5. (1874)
And that little town is En Nzirah,
Nazareth, where the Son of God, the Saviour
of mankind, spent nearly thirty years of His
mortal life. It was, in fact, His home, His
native village for all but three or four years of
His life on earth; the village which lent its
then ignominious name to the scornful title
written upon His cross; the village from
which he did not disdain to draw His
appellation when he spake in vision to the
persecuting Saul. And along the narrow
mountain-path which I have described, His
feet must have often trod, for it is the only
approach by which, in returning northwards
from Jerusalem, He could have reached the
home of his infancy, youth, and manhood.
What was His manner of life during
Roscamp, Chapter 3. (1902)
Its picturesque streets were terraces on
the hill-slopes, which overlooked the fertile
plains and flowery vales beneath. It was a
mountain village, with pure air and sunshine
free. It was in this little town of Nazareth,
where the Son of Man and the Son of
God,--the Saviour of Mankind, spent nearly
thirty years of His earthly life. It was, in fact,
His home, His native village for all but three
years of His life on earth; the village which
lent its then ignominious name to the scornful
title written upon His Cross; the village from
which He did not disdain to draw His
appellation when He spake in vision to the
persecuting Saul:
. . . {skipping over 3 paragraphs}
Page -259-
those thirty years? It is a question which the
Christian cannot help asking in deep
reverence, and with yearning love; but the
words in which the Gospels answer it are
very calm and very few.
Of the four Evangelists, St. John, the
beloved disciple, and St. Mark, the friend and
"son" of St. Peter, pass over these thirty years
in absolute, unbroken silence. St. Matthew
devotes one chapter to the visit of the Magi
and the Flight into Egypt, and then proceeds
to the preaching of the Baptist. St. Luke
alone, after describing the incidents which
marked the presentation in the Temple,
preserves for us one inestimable anecdote of
the Saviour's boyhood, and one inestimable
verse descriptive of His growth till He was
twelve years old. And that verse contains
nothing for the gratification of our curiosity;
it furnishes us with no details of life, no
incidents of adventure; it tells us only how, in
a sweet and holy childhood, "the child grew
and waxed strong in spirit, filled with
wisdom, and the grace of God was upon
Him." To this period of His life, too, we may
apply the subsequent verse, "And Jesus
increased in wisdom and stature, and in
favour with God and man." His development
was a strictly human development. He did not
come into the world endowed with infinite
knowledge, but, as St. Luke tells us, "He
gradually advanced in wisdom." He was not
clothed with infinite power, but experienced
the weaknesses and imperfections of human
infancy. He grew as other children grew, only
in a childhood of stainless and sinless beauty-
-"as the flower of roses in the spring of the
year, and as lilies by the waters."
[Ecclesiasticus 50:8]
There is, then, for the most part a deep
silence in the Evangelists respecting this
period; but what eloquence in their silence!
As to the manner of life during those
thirty years, history is almost barren of
recorded facts, and must, therefore, be largely
conjectural. The Gospels simply say that "He
grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with
wisdom, and the grace of God was upon
Him." He grew as other children grew, only
in a childhood of stainless and sinless
beauty--"as the flower of roses in the spring
of the year, and as lilies by the waters."
There is, then, for the most part a deep
silence in the Evangelists respecting this
period; but what eloquence in their silence?
Page -260-
May we not find in their very reticence a
wisdom and an instruction more profound
than if they had filled many volumes with
minor details?
The nature of St. John the Baptist was
full of impetuosity and fire. The long struggle
which had given him so powerful a mastery
over himself--which had made him content
with self-obliteration before the presence of
his Lord--which had inspired him with
fearlessness in the face of danger, and
humility in the midst of applause--had left its
traces in the stern character, and aspect, and
teaching of the man. If he had won peace in
the long prayer and penitence of his life in the
wilderness, it was not the spontaneous peace
of a placid and holy soul. The victory he had
won was still encumbered with traces of the
battle; the calm he had attained still echoed
with the distant mutter of the storm. His very
teaching reflected the imagery of the
wilderness--the rock, the serpent, the barren
tree. "In his manifestation and agency," it has
been said, "he was like a burning torch; his
public life was quite an earthquake--the
whole man was a sermon; he might well call
himself a voice--the voice of one crying in
the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the
Lord." {Lange, ii., p. 11, E. Tr.}
The true preacher is the vox
clamoris--"Prepare! Look out! Attention!"
The nature of John the Baptist was full of
impetuosity and fire. In his manifestation and
agency, it is said that "he was like a burning
torch"; his public life was like an
earthquake--the whole man was a sermon.
He might well call himself "A voice--the
voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare
ye the way of the Lord."
Page -261-
It was a temptation to the senses--an
appeal to the appetites--an impulse given to
that lower nature which man shares with all
the animal creation. . . .
Victorious over that concentrated
temptation, safe from the fiery ordeal, the
Saviour left the wilderness and returned to
the fords of Jordan.
The same things presented to Christ were
presented to our first parents in Eden. The
first temptation was to the senses, an appeal
to the appetites, an impulse given to that
lower nature which man shares with all the
animal creation. "If thou be the Son of God,
command that these stones be made bread."
"If thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself
down," and put God to the test.
Victorious over the concentrated
temptation, triumphant in the fiery ordeal, the
Saviour left the wilderness and returned to
the fords of Jordan; and now begins His
wonderful, busy, public life.
Farrar, Chapter 10, contd. (1874)
Nathanael seems to have felt the contrast.
He caught at the local designation. It may be,
as legend says, that he was a man of higher
position than the rest of the Apostles. It has
been usually considered that his answer was
proverbial; but perhaps it was a passing
allusion to the word nazora, "despicable;" or
it may merely have implied "Nazareth, that
obscure and ill-reputed town in its little
untrodden valley--can anything good come
from thence?" The answer is in the same
words which our Lord had addressed to John
and Andrew. Philip was an apt scholar, and
he too said, "Come and see."
To-day, too, that question--"Can any
good thing come out of Nazareth?"--is often
repeated, and the one sufficient answer--
almost the only possible answer--is now, as it
then was, "Come and see." Then it meant,
come and see One who speaks as never man
Every act displayed His infinite
goodness. When Nathaniel was invited by
Philip to "Come and see" the Saviour, we
heard Him expressing a prejudice against a
place--"Can any good thing come out of
Nazareth?" Philip was an apt scholar, and he
said: "Come and see." That question of
Nathaniel's is often repeated in this age, and
the one sufficient answer--almost the only
possible answer is now, as it was then, "Come
and see." That it meant "Come and see One
Who speaks as never man spoke; come and
see One Who, though He be but a carpenter's
son of Nazareth, yet He is the greatest of all
Page -262-
spake; come and see One who, though he be
but the Carpenter of Nazareth, yet overawes
the souls of all who approach him--seeming
by His mere presence to reveal the secrets of
all hearts, yet drawing to him even the most
sinful with a sense of yearning love; come
and see One from whom there seems to
breathe forth the irresistible charm of a
sinless purity, the unapproachable beauty of a
Divine life. "Come and see," said Philip,
convinced in his simple faithful heart that to
see Jesus was to know Him, and to know was
to love, and to love was to adore. In this
sense, indeed, we can say "come and see" no
longer; for since the blue heavens closed on
the visions which were vouchsafed to St.
Stephen and St. Paul, His earthly form has
been visible no more. But there is another
sense, no less powerful for conviction, in
which it still suffices to say, in answer to all
doubts, "Come and see." Come and see a
dying world revivified, a decrepit world
regenerated, an aged world rejuvenescent;
come and see the darkness illuminated, the
despair dispelled; come and see tenderness
brought into the cell of the imprisoned felon,
and liberty to the fettered slave; come and see
the poor, and the ignorant, and the many,
emancipated for ever from the intolerable
thraldom of the rich, the learned, and the few;
come and see hospitals and orphanages rising
in their permanent mercy beside the
crumbling ruins of colossal amphitheatres
which once reeked with human blood; come
and see the obscene symbols of an universal
degradation obliterated indignantly from the
purified abodes; come and see the dens of lust
and tyranny transformed into sweet and
happy homes, defiant atheists into believing
Christians, rebels into children, and pagans
into saints. Ay, come and see the majestic
acts of one great drama continued through
nineteen Christian centuries; and as you see
them all tending to one great development,
men who have ever appeared in the earth."
"Come and see One from Whom there
seems to breathe forth the irresistible charm
of a sinless purity, the unapproachable beauty
of a divine life." "Come and see," said Philip,
convinced in his simple, faithful heart that to
see Jesus was to know Him, and to adore
Him. In this sense, indeed, we can say "Come
and see" no longer, for since the blue heavens
closed on the visions which were given to
Paul, and Stephen, Philip and Nathaniel, His
earthly form has been visible no more.
But there is another sense, no less
powerful for conviction, in which it still
suffices to say, "Come and see."
Come and see a dying world revivified, a
decrepit world regenerated, and an aged
world rejuvenescent. Come and see the
darkness illuminated, the despair dispelled.
Come and see tenderness brought into the cell
of the imprisoned felon, and liberty to the
fettered slave. Come and see hospitals and
orphanages rising in their permanent mercy
beside the crumbling ruins of colossal
amphitheatres which once reeked with human
blood. Come and see the dens of evil and
tyranny transformed into sweet and happy
homes. Come and see defiant atheists turned
into believing Christians, and rebels into
obedient children.
Ay, "Come and see " the majestic acts of
one great drama continued through nineteen
centuries, and as you see them all tending to
one great development--as you hear the voice
Page -263-
long predetermined in the Council of the
Divine Will--as you learn in reverent humility
that even apparent Chance is in reality the
daughter of Forethought, as well as, for those
who thus recognise her nature, the sister of
Order and Persuasion--as you hear the voice
of your Saviour searching, with the loving
accents of a compassion which will neither
strive nor cry, your very reins and heart--it
may be that you too will unlearn the misery
of doubt, and exclaim in calm and happy
confidence, with the pure and candid
Nathanael, "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God,
thou art the King of Israel!"
The fastidious reluctance of Nathanael
was very soon dispelled. Jesus, as He saw
him coming, recognised that the seal of God
was upon his forehead, and said of him,
"Behold a true Israelite, in whom guile is
not." "Whence dost thou recognise me?"
asked Nathanael and then came that
heart-searching answer, "Before that Philip
called thee, whilst thou wert under the
fig-tree, I saw thee."
We scarcely hear of Nathanael again. His
seems to have been one of those calm,
retiring, contemplative souls, whose whole
sphere of existence lies not here, but--
"Where, beyond these voices, there is
peace." [Tennyson, Idylls of the King,
(1859-1885)]
of the Saviour calling "Follow Me," you join
the pure and candid Nathaniel in saying:
"Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God. Thou
art the King of Israel."
Jesus, as He saw Nathaniel coming to
Him, recognized that the seal of God was
upon His forehead, and said unto him,
"Behold a true Israelite, in whom guile is
not."
We scarcely hear of Nathaniel again. He
seems to have been one of those calm,
retiring, contemplative souls, whose sphere of
existence lies not here, but "where beyond
these voices, there is peace."
Page -264-
A caste or a sect may consist for the most
part of haughty fanatics and obstinate bigots,
but it will be strange indeed if there are to be
found among them no exceptions to the
general characteristics; strange if honesty,
candour, sensibility, are utterly dead among
them all. Even among rulers, scribes,
Pharisees, and wealthy members of the
Sanhedrin, Christ found believers and
followers. The earliest and most remarkable
of those was Nicodemus, a rich man, a ruler,
a Pharisee, and a member of the Sanhedrin.
A constitutional timidity is, however,
observable in all which the Gospels tell us
about Nicodemus; a timidity which could not
be wholly overcome even by his honest desire
to befriend and acknowledge One whom he
knew to be a Prophet, even if he did not at
once recognise in Him the promised Messiah.
Thus the few words which he interposed to
check the rash injustice of his colleagues are
cautiously rested on a general principle, and
betray no indication of his personal faith in
the Galilan whom his sect despised. And
even when the power of Christ's love,
manifested on the cross, had made the most
timid disciples bold, Nicodemus does not
come forward with his splendid gifts of
affection until the example had been set by
one of his own wealth, and rank, and station
in society.
Such was the Rabbi who, with that
mingled candour and fear of man which
characterise all that we know of him, came
indeed to Jesus, but came cautiously by night.
He was anxious to know more of this young
Galilan prophet whom he was too honest
not to recognise as a teacher come from God;
but he thought himself too eminent a person
among his sect to compromise his dignity,
Nicodemus is an interesting character,
and he impresses us favorably at every point.
Among the rulers, scribes, Pharisees and
wealthy members of the Sanhedrin, Christ
found believers and followers. The earliest
and most remarkable of these was
Nicodemus, a rich man, a ruler, a Pharisee,
and a member of the Sanhedrin. There is a
certain timidity observable in all which the
Gospels tells us about Nicodemus; a timidity
which could not be wholly overcome even by
his honest desire to befriend and
acknowledge One whom he knew to be a
Prophet, even if he did not at once recognize
in Him the promised Messiah.
Such was the rabbi who, with that
mingled candor and fear of man which
characterize all that we know of him, came
indeed to Jesus, but came cautiously by night.
He was anxious to know more of this young
Galilean prophet whom he was too honest not
to recognize as a Teacher come from God;
but he thought himself too prominent a
person among his sect to compromise his
dignity, and possibly his safety by visiting
Page -265-
and possibly even his safety, by visiting him
in public.
Although He is alluded to in only a few
touches, because of that high teaching which
Jesus vouchsafed to him, yet the impression
left upon us by his individuality is inimitably
distinct, and wholly beyond the range of
invention. His very first remark shows the
indirect character of his mind--his way of
suggesting rather than stating what he
wished--the half-patronising desire to ask, yet
the half-shrinking reluctance to frame his
question--the admission that Jesus had come
"from God," yet the hesitating implication
that it was only as "a teacher," and the
suppressed inquiry, "What must I do?"
Our Lord saw deep into his heart, and
avoiding all formalities or discussion of
preliminaries, startles him at once with the
solemn uncompromising address,
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a
man be born again (or 'from above'), he
cannot see the kingdom of God." My disciple
must be mine in heart and soul, or he is no
disciple at all; the question is not of doing or
not doing but of being.
That answer startled Nicodemus into
deep earnestness; but like the Jews in the last
chapter (ii. 20), he either could not, or would
not, grasp its full significance. He prefers to
play, with a kind of querulous surprise, about
the mere literal meaning of the words which
he chooses to interpret in the most physical
and unintelligible sense. Mere logomachy
like this Jesus did not pause to notice; He
only sheds a fresh ray of light on the
reiteration of his former warning. He spoke,
not of the fleshly birth, but of that spiritual
Him in public.
Although he is alluded to in only a few
touches, because of that high teaching which
Jesus vouchsafed to him, yet the impression
left upon us by his individuality is inimitably
distinct, and wholly beyond the range of
invention.
His very first remark shows the indirect
character of his mind--his way of suggesting
rather than stating what he wished--the
half-patronizing desire to ask, yet the
half-shrinking reluctance to frame his
question--the admission that Jesus had come
"from God," yet the hesitating implication
that it was only as "a teacher," and the
suppressed inquiry, "What must I do?"
Our Lord saw deep into his heart, and
avoided all formalities or discussion of
preliminaries, startles him at one with the
solemn, uncompromising address, "Verily,
verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born
again (or from above) he cannot see the
Kingdom of God."
"My disciple must be Mine in heart and
soul, or he is not a disciple at all; the question
is not of doing or not doing, but of being."
That answer startled Nicodemus into deep
earnestness; but like the Jews, he either could
not, or would not, grasp its full significance.
He prefers to play, with a kind of querulous
surprise, about the mere literal meaning of the
words which he chooses to interpret in the
first physical and unintelligible sense.
Mere shifting like this, Jesus did not
pause to notice; He only sheds a fresh ray of
light on the reiteration of his former warning.
He spoke, not of the fleshly birth, but of
Page -266-
regeneration of which no man could predict
the course or method, any more than they
could tell the course of the night breeze that
rose and fell and whispered fitfully outside
the little tabernacle where they sat, but which
must be a birth by water and by the Spirit--a
purification, that is, and a renewal--an
outward symbol and an inward grace--a death
unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness.
Nicodemus could only answer by an
expression of incredulous amazement. A
Gentile might need, as it were, a new birth
when admitted into the Jewish communion;
but he--a son of Abraham, a Rabbi, a zealous
keeper of the Law--could he need that new
birth? How could such things be?
"Art thou the teacher ( didskalos) of
Israel," asked our Lord, "and knowest not
these things?" Art thou the third member of
the Sanhedrin, the chkm or wise man, and
yet knowest not the earliest, simplest lesson
of the initiation into the kingdom of heaven?
If thy knowledge be thus carnal, thus limited-
-if thus thou stumblest on the threshold, how
canst thou understand those deeper truths
which He only who came down from heaven
can make known? The question was half
sorrowful, half reproachful; but He proceeded
to reveal to this Master in Israel things greater
and stranger than these; even the salvation of
man rendered possible by the sufferings and
exaltation of the Son of Man; the love of God
manifested in sending His only-begotten Son,
not to judge, but to save; the deliverance for
all through faith in Him; the condemnation
which must fall on those who wilfully reject
the truths He came to teach.
These were indeed the mysteries of the
kingdom of heaven--truths once undreamed
of, but now fully revealed. And although they
that spiritual regeneration of which no man
could predict the course or method, any more
than they could tell the course of the night
breeze that rose and fell and whispered
fitfully outside the little tabernacle where
they sat, but which must be a birth by water
and by the spirit--a purification, that is, and a
renewal--an outward symbol and an inward
grace--a death unto sin and ft new birth unto
righteousness.
Nicodemus could only answer by an
expression of incredulous amazement. A
Gentile might need, as it were, a new birth
when admitted into the Jewish communion;
but he--a son of Abraham, a rabbi, a zealous
keeper of the law--could he need that new
birth? How could it be?
"Art thou the teacher of Israel?" asked
Our Lord, "and knowest not these things?"
Art thou the third member of the Sanhedrin,
the wise men, and yet knowest not the
earliest, simplest lesson of the initiation into
the kingdom of heaven? If thy knowledge be
thus carnal, thus limited--if thou stumblest on
the threshold, how canst thou understand
those deeper truths which He only who came
down from heaven can make known?
The question was half sorowful [sic],
half reproachful; but He proceeded to reveal
to this Master in Israel things greater and
stranger than these; even the salvation of man
rendered possible by the sufferings and
exaltation of the Son of Man; the love of God
manifested in sending His only begotten son,
not to judge, but to save; the deliverance of
all through faith in Him; the condemnation
which must fall on those who wilfully reject
the truths He came to teach. These were the
mysteries of the kingdom of heaven--truths
once undreamed of, but fully revealed.
Page -267-
violated every prejudice, and overthrew every
immediate hope of this aged inquirer--though
to learn them he must unlearn the entire
intellectual habits of his life and training--yet
we know from the sequel that they must have
sunk into his inmost soul. Doubtless in the
further discussion of them the night deepened
around them; and in the memorable words
about the light and the darkness with which
the interview was closed, Jesus gently
rebuked the fear of man which led this great
Rabbi to seek the shelter of midnight for a
deed which was not a deed of darkness
needing to be concealed, but which was
indeed a coming to the true and only Light.
This chapter was interesting in that Roscamp borrowed heavily from Farrar for the
first half of the chapter, but nothing for the rest.
Page -268-
None of the Evangelists tell us about the
week which followed this memorable event.
They tell us only that "after six days" He took
with Him the three dearest and most
enlightened of His disciples, and went with
them--the expression implies a certain
solemnity of expectation--up a lofty
mountain, or, as St. Luke calls it, simply "the
mountain."
The supposition that the mountain
intended was Mount Tabor has been
engrained for centuries in the tradition of the
Christian Church; and three churches and a
monastery erected before the close of the
sixth century attest the unhesitating
acceptance of this belief. . . .
. . . It was the evening hour when He
ascended, and as He climbed the hill-slope
with those three chosen witnesses--"the Sons
of Thunder and the Man of Rock"--doubtless
a solemn gladness dilated His whole soul; a
sense not only of the heavenly calm which
that solitary communion with His Heavenly
Father would breathe upon the spirit, but still
more than this, a sense that He would be
supported for the coming hour by
ministrations not of earth, and illuminated
with a light which needed no aid from sun or
moon or stars. He went up to be prepared for
death, and He took His three Apostles with
Him that, haply, having seen His glory--the
glory of the only Begotten of the Father, full
of grace and truth--their hearts might be
fortified, their faith strengthened, to gaze
unshaken on the shameful insults and
unspeakable humiliation of the cross.
There, then, He knelt and prayed, and as
He prayed He was elevated far above the toil
and misery of the world which had rejected
Roscamp Chapter 15. (1902)
The Evangelists tells us that after six
days He took with Him the three dearest and
most enlightened of His disciples, and went
with them up a lofty mountain, or, as St. Luke
calls it, simply "the mountain." The
supposition that the mountain intended was
Mount Tabor has been engrained for
centuries in the tradition of the Christian
Church. Others again have contended that it
was Mount Hermon, the mount of Jewish
poetry. St. Luke simply says: "the mountain,"
and, whichever it was, it has received the
sacred name of "The Holy Mountain."
It was the evening hour when He
ascended, and as He climbed the hill-slope
with those three chosen witnesses, "the Sons
of Thunder and the Man of Rock," doubtless
a solemn gladness dilated his whole soul,
sustained of the heavenly calm which that
solitary communion with His Heavenly
Father would afford Him.
There in that mountain solitude He knelt
and prayed, and as He prayed He was
elevated far above the toil and the misery of
the world which had rejected Him. "He was
transfigured before them, and His
Page -269-
Him. He was transfigured before them, and
His countenance shone as the sun, and His
garments became white as the dazzling
snow-fields above them. He was enwrapped
in such an aureole of glistering brilliance--His
whole presence breathed so divine a radiance-
-that the light, the snow, the lightning are the
only things to which the Evangelist can
compare that celestial lustre. And, lo! two
figures were by his side. "When, in the desert,
He was girding Himself for the work of life,
angels of life came and ministered unto Him;
now, in the fair world, when He is girding
Himself for the work of death, the ministrants
come to Him from the grave--but from the
grave conquered--one from that tomb under
Abarim, which His own hand had sealed long
ago; the other from the rest into which He had
entered without seeing corruption. There
stood by Him Moses and Elias, and spake of
His decease. And when the prayer is ended,
the task accepted, then first since the star
paused over Him at Bethlehem, the full glory
falls upon Him from heaven, and the
testimony is borne to His everlasting sonship
and power--'Hear ye Him.'" [John Ruskin,
1856]
. . .
In the darkness of the night, shedding an
intense gleam over the mountain herbage,
shone the glorified form of their Lord. Beside
Him, in the same flood of golden glory, were
two awful shapes, which they knew or heard
to be Moses and Elijah. And the Three spake
together, in the stillness, of that coming
decease at Jerusalem, about which they had
just been forewarned by Christ.
countenance shone as the sun," and His
garments became white as the dazzling
snow-fields above them. He was wrapped in
such an aureole of glistening brilliance; His
whole presence breathed so divine a radiance,
that the light, the snow, the lightning, are the
only things to which the Evangelist can
compare that celestial lustre. And, lo! Two
figures were by his side.
While He prayed the fashion of His
countenance is changed. The inner radiance
shines through the serge and sackcloth of His
incarnate life, and for once they, "See Him as
He is,--the brightness of the Father's glory
and the express image of His person," and
they wondered at the awful grandeur of the
divinity which the Man of Sorrows possessed,
but which He had veiled even from their
vision until now. But, behold! There are two
forms appearing, whom, by some instinct or
instruction, they know to be Moses and Elias;
the one disembodied spirit, clothed for a time
in some material vehicle; the other yet
wearing the body of which he had cheated
death, and who had "put on immortality" in
the spirit world. There stood Moses and Elias
talking with Jesus concerning "His decease at
Jerusalem." And when the prayer is ended,
the task accepted, then the full glory of
heaven falls upon Him, and the testimony is
borne to His everlasting Sonship and
power--"Hear ye Him."
In the darkness of the night, shedding an
intense gleam over the mountain herbage,
shone the gloried form of the Lord Jesus.
Beside Him, in the flood of golden glory,
were two well known men, and their
conversation was audible and distinct.
. . .
Page -270-
And as the splendid vision began to fade-
-as the majestic visitants were about to be
separated from their Lord, as their Lord
Himself passed with them into the
overshadowing brightness--Peter, anxious to
delay their presence, amazed, startled,
transported, not knowing what he said--not
knowing that Calvary would be a spectacle
infinitely more transcendent than Hermon--
not knowing that the Law and the Prophets
were now fulfilled--not fully knowing that his
Lord was unspeakably greater than the
Prophet of Sinai and the Avenger of Carmel--
exclaimed, "Rabbi, it is best for us to be here;
and let us make three tabernacles, one for
thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias."
Jesus might have smiled at the naive proposal
of the eager Apostle, that they six should
dwell for ever in little succth of wattled
boughs on the slopes of Hermon. But it was
not for Peter to construct the universe for his
personal satisfaction. He had to learn the
meaning of Calvary no less than that of
Hermon. Not in cloud of glory or chariot of
fire was Jesus to pass away from them, but
with arms outstretched in agony upon the
accursed tree; not between Moses and Elias,
but between two thieves, who "were crucified
with Him, on either side one."
No answer was vouchsafed to his wild
and dreamy words; but, even as he spake, a
cloud--not a cloud of thick darkness as at
Sinai, but a cloud of light, a Shechnah of
radiance--overshadowed them, and a voice
from out of it uttered, "This is my beloved
Son; hear Him." They fell prostrate, and hid
their faces on the grass. And as--awaking
from the overwhelming shock of that awful
voice, of that enfolding Light--they raised
their eyes and gazed suddenly all around
them, they found that all was over. The bright
cloud had vanished. The lightning-like
gleams of shining countenances and dazzling
And as the splendid vision began to fade,
as the majestic visitants were about to be
separated from their Lord, as their Lord
Himself passed with them into the
overshadowing brightness, Peter, anxious to
delay their presence, amazed, startled,
transported, not knowing what he said--not
knowing that Calvary would be a spectacle
infinitely more transcendent than Hermon,
not knowing that the law and the prophets
were now fulfilled, not fully knowing that his
Lord was unspeakably greater than the
Prophet of Sinai and the avenger of Carmel,
exclaimed, "Rabbi, it is best for us to be here;
and let us make Three Tabernacles, one for
Thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias."
Jesus might have smiled at the naive proposal
of the eager apostle, but it was not for Peter
to construct the universe for his personal
satisfaction. He had to learn the meaning of
Calvary no less than that of Hermon.
Not in cloud of glory or chariot of fire
was Jesus to pass away from them, but with
arms outstretched in agony upon the
"accursed tree; not between Moses and Elias,
but between two thieves, who were crucified
with Him on either side one."
No answer was vouchsafed to Peter's
words, but even as he spake, a cloud--not a
cloud of thick darkness as at Sinai--but a
cloud of light, a Shechinah of radiance,
overshadowed them, and a voice from out of
it uttered, "This is My beloved Son; hear
Him."
They fell prostrate and hid their faces on
the grass. And as, awaking from the
overwhelming shock of that awful voice, they
raised their eyes and gazed suddenly all
around them, they found that all was over.
The bright cloud had vanished. The light-
Page -271-
robes had passed away; they were alone with
Jesus, and only the stars rained their quiet
lustre on the mountain slopes.
At first they were afraid to rise or stir,
but Jesus, their Master--as they had seen Him
before He knelt in prayer, came to them,
touched them--said, "Arise, and be not
afraid."
ning-like gleams of shining countenances and
dazzling robes had passed away; they were
alone with Jesus, and only the stars rained
their quiet lustre on the mountain slopes.
At first they were afraid to rise or stir,
but Jesus, their Master, as they had seen Him
before He knelt in prayer, came to them,
touched them, said: "Arise, and be not
afraid."
And yet how exquisitely and freshly
simple is the actual language of Christ
compared with all other teaching that has
ever gained the ear of the world! There is no
science in it, no art, no pomp of
demonstration, no carefulness of toil, no trick
of rhetoricians, no wisdom of the schools.
Straight as an arrow to the mark His precepts
pierce to the very depths of the soul and
spirit. All is short, clear, precise, full of
holiness, full of the common images of daily
life. There is scarcely a scene or object
familiar to the Galilee of that day, which
Jesus did not use as a moral illustration of
some glorious promise or moral law. He
spoke of green fields, and springing flowers,
and the budding of the vernal trees; of the red
or lowering sky; of sunrise and sunset; of
wind and rain; of night and storm; of clouds
and lightning; of stream and river; of stars
and lamps; of honey and salt; of quivering
bulrushes and burning weeds; of rent
garments and bursting wine-skins; of eggs
and serpents; of pearls and pieces of money;
of nets and fish. Wine and wheat, corn and
oil, stewards and gardeners, labourers and
employers, kings and shepherds, travellers
and fathers of families, courtiers in soft
There is scarcely a scene or object
familiar to the Galilee of that day, which
Jesus did not use as an illustration of some
great moral truth. He spoke of green fields,
and springing flowers, and the building of the
vernal trees, of the red or lowering sky, of the
sunrise and sunset, of wind and rain, of night
and day, of clouds and lightning, of stream
and river, of stars and lamps, of honey and
salt, of wine and wheat, and corn and oil. He
spoke of stewards, and gardeners, laborers
and employers, of kings and shepherds, of
courtiers in soft clothing, and brides in
nuptial robes. All these are found in his
discourses.
He knew all life and gazed on it with a
kindly as well as a kingly glance. A method
which in its unapproachable beauty and finish
Page -272-
clothing and brides in nuptial robes--all these
are found in His discourses. He knew all life,
and had gazed on it with a kindly as well as a
kingly glance. He could sympathise with its
joys no less than He could heal its sorrows,
and the eyes that were so often suffused with
tears as they saw the sufferings of earth's
mourners beside the bed of death, had shone
also with a kindlier glow as they watched the
games of earth's happy little ones in the green
fields and busy streets.
A method of instruction so rare, so
stimulating, so full of interest--a method
which, in its unapproachable beauty and
finish, stands unrivalled in the annals of
human speech--would doubtless tend to
increase beyond measure the crowds that
thronged to listen. . . .
stands unrivalled in the annals of human
speech, and shall continue to give comfort
and strength to the children of men as long as
the world stands.
Their way led them through one of the
city gates--probably that which then
corresponded to the present gate of St.
Stephen--down the steep sides of the ravine,
across the wady of the Kidron, which lay a
hundred feet below, and up the green and
quiet slope beyond it. To one who has visited
the scene at that very season of the year and
at that very hour of the night--who has felt
the solemn hush of the silence even at this
short distance from the city wall--who has
seen the deep shadows flung by the great
boles of the ancient olive-trees, and the
chequering of light that falls on the sward
through their moonlight-silvered leaves, it is
more easy to realise the awe which crept over
those few Galilans, as in almost unbroken
Their way led them through one of the
city gates, down the steep sides of the ravine,
across the stream Kedron, and up the green
slope beyond it. We are told but of one
incident in that last and memorable walk
through the midnight to the familiar garden of
dark Gethsemane. It was a last warning to the
disciples in general, to St. Peter in particular.
It may be that the dimness, the silence, the
desertion of their position, the dull echo of
their footsteps, the agonizing sense that
treachery was even now at work, was
beginning already to make them afraid; sadly
did Jesus turn and say to them that on that
very night they should all be offended in
Him, and the old prophecy should be
fulfilled, "I will smite the shepherd, and the
Page -273-
silence, with something perhaps of secrecy,
and with a weight of mysterious dread
brooding over their spirits, they followed
Him, who with bowed head and sorrowing
heart walked before them to His willing
doom.
We are told but of one incident in that
last and memorable walk through the
midnight to the familiar Garden of
Gethsemane. It was a last warning to the
disciples in general, to St. Peter in particular.
It may be that the dimness, the silence, the
desertion of their position, the dull echo of
their footsteps, the stealthy aspect which their
movements wore, the agonising sense that
treachery was even now at work, was
beginning already to produce an icy chill of
cowardice in their hearts; sadly did Jesus turn
and say to them that on that very night they
should all be offended in Him--all find their
connection with Him a stumbling-block in
their path--and the old prophecy should be
fulfilled, "I will smite the shepherd, and the
sheep shall be scattered abroad." And yet, in
spite of all, as a shepherd would he go before
them, leading the way to Galilee? They all
repudiated the possibility of such an
abandonment of their Lord, and Peter,
touched already by this apparent distrust of
His stability, haunted perhaps by some dread
lest Jesus felt any doubt of him, was loudest
and most emphatic in his denial. Even if all
should be offended, yet never would he be
offended. Was it a secret misgiving in his
own heart which made his asseveration so
prominent and so strong? Not even the
repetition of the former warning, that, ere the
cock should crow, he would thrice have
denied his Lord, could shake him from his
positive assertion that even the necessity of
death itself should never drive him to such a
sin. And Jesus only listened in mournful
silence to vows which should so soon be
sheep shall be scattered abroad." And yet, in
spite of all, as a shepherd would He go before
them leading the way to Galilee.
They all declared their love and loyalty
to Him, but Peter was loudest and most
sympathetic in his loyalty. Even if all should
be offended, yet never would he be offended.
And Jesus only listened in mournful
silence to vows which should so soon be
scattered into air.
"Jesus goes into Gethsemane." So they
Page -274-
scattered into air.
So they came to Gethsemane, which is
about half a mile from the city walls. . . .
The question was not objectless. It was
asked, as St. John points out (John xviii. 8), to
secure His Apostles from all molestation; and
we may suppose also that it served to make
all who were present the witnesses of His
arrest, and so to prevent the possibility of any
secret assassination or foul play.
. . . While they stood cowering and
struggling there, He again asked them,
"Whom are ye seeking?" . . .
came to Gethsemane, which is about half a
mile from the city walls.
. . . The question was not without an
object. It was asked, as John points out, to
secure His apostles from molestation; and we
may suppose also that it served to make all
who were present the witnesses of His arrest.
. . . While they stood cowering and
struggling there, He again asked them,
"Whom are ye seeking?" . . .
Page -275-
. . . Guilt often breaks into excuses where
perfect innocence is dumb. He simply
suffered His false accusers and their false
listeners to entangle themselves in the
hideous coil of their own malignant lies, and
the silence of the innocent Jesus atoned for
the excuses of the guilty Adam.
But that majestic silence troubled,
thwarted, confounded, maddened them. It
weighed them down for the moment, with an
incubus of intolerable self-condemnation.
They felt, before that silence, as if they were
the culprits, He the judge. And as every
poisoned arrow of their carefully-provided
perjuries fell harmless at His feet, as though
blunted on the diamond shield of His white
Innocence, they began to fear lest, after all,
their thirst for His blood would go unslaked,
and their whole plot fail. Were they thus to be
conquered by the feebleness of their own
weapons, without His stirring a finger, or
uttering a word? Was this Prophet of
Nazareth to prevail against them, merely for
lack of a few consistent lies? Was His life
charmed even against calumny confirmed by
oaths? It was intolerable.
Then Caiaphas was overcome with a
paroxysm of fear and anger. Starting up from
his judgment-seat, and striding into the midst-
-with what a voice, with what an attitude we
may well imagine!--"Answerest Thou
NOTHING?" he exclaimed. "What is it that
these witness against Thee?" Had not Jesus
been aware that these His judges were
wilfully feeding on ashes, and seeking lies,
He might have answered; but now His awful
silence remained unbroken.
Then, reduced to utter despair and fury,
this false High Priest--with marvellous
He simply suffered His false accusers
and their false listeners to entangle
themselves in the coil of their own lies, and
the silence of the innocent Jesus atoned for
the excuses of the guilty Adam. But that
majestic silence troubled, thwarted,
confounded, and maddened them. They felt,
before that silence, as if they were the
culprits, He the Judge. And as every poisoned
arrow of their perjuries and lies fell harmless
at His feet, as though blunted on the diamond
shield of His white innocence, they began to
fear lest, after all, their thirst for His blood
would go unslayed, and their whole plot fail.
Were they thus to be conquered by the
feebleness of their own weapons, without His
stirring a finger, or uttering a word?
Then Caiaphas was overcome with fear
and anger. Starting up from his judgment
seat, and moving in their midst with a voice
and an attitude we may well imagine!
. . .
Then, reduced to utter despair and fury,
the false high priest, still standing as it were
with a threatening attitude over his prisoner,
exclaimed, "I adjure Thee by the living God
Page -276-
inconsistency, with disgraceful illegality--still
standing as it were with a threatening attitude
over his prisoner, exclaimed, "I adjure Thee
by the living God to tell us"--what? whether
Thou art a malefactor? whether Thou hast
secretly taught sedition? whether Thou hast
openly uttered blasphemy?--no, but (and
surely the question showed the dread
misgiving which lay under all their deadly
conspiracy against Him)--"WHETHER
THOU ART THE CHRIST, THE SON OF
GOD?"
Strange question to a bound, defenceless,
condemned criminal; and strange question
from such a questioner--a High Priest of His
people! Strange question from the judge who
was hounding on his false witnesses against
the prisoner! Yet so adjured, and to such a
question, Jesus could not be silent; on such a
point He could not leave Himself open to
misinterpretation. In the days of His happier
ministry, when they would have taken Him
by force to make Him a King--in the days
when to claim the Messiahship in their sense
would have been to meet all their passionate
prejudices half way, and to place Himself
upon the topmost pinnacle of their adoring
homage--in those days He had kept His title
of Messiah utterly in the background: but
now, at this awful decisive moment, when
death was near--when, humanly speaking,
nothing could be gained, everything must be
lost, by the avowal--there thrilled through all
the ages--thrilled through that Eternity, which
is the synchronism of all the future, and all
the present, and all the past--the solemn
answer--"I AM; and ye shall see the Son of
Man sitting on the right hand of power, and
coming with the clouds of heaven." In that
answer the thunder rolled--a thunder louder
than at Sinai, though the ears of the cynic and
the Sadducee heard it not then, nor hear it
now. In overacted and ill-omened horror, the
to tell us." What? Whether Thou are a sinner?
Whether Thou hast secretly taught sedition?
Whether Thou hast openly uttered
blasphemy? No, but "Whether Thou art the
Christ, the Son of God?"
This was a strange question to a bound,
defenseless, condemned prisoner; and a
strange question from such a questioner, a
high priest of the people! To such a question
Jesus could not be silent; on such a question
He could not leave Himself open to
misinterpretation. In the earlier days of His
ministry He had kept the Messiahship in the
background, but now, at this awful, decisive
moment, when death was near, when
humanly speaking, nothing could be gained,
everything must be lost, by the avowal, there
thrilled through all the ages, through all the
present, and all the past, the solemn answer,
"I am; and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting
on the right hand of power, and coming with
the clouds of heaven." In that answer the
thunder rolled, a thunder louder than at Sinai,
though the ears of the Cynic and the
Sadducee heard it not then, nor hear it now.
. . .
Page -277-
unjust judge who had thus supplemented the
failure of the perjuries which he had vainly
sought--the false High Priest rending his linen
robes before the True--demanded of the
assembly His instant condemnation.
"BLASPHEMY!" he exclaimed; "what
further need have we of witnesses? See, now
ye heard his blasphemy! What is your
decision?" And with the confused tumultuous
cry, "He is ish maveth," "A man of death,"
"Guilty of death," the dark conclave was
broken up, and the second stage of the trial of
Jesus was over.
And the confused multitude cried out,
"He is a man guilty of death;" and the second
stage of the trial of Jesus was over. Then the
priests, and other members of the council,
seem to have gone home, leaving Jesus to the
mockery and insults of the servants.
Page -278-
In that kingly palace--such as in His days
of freedom He had never trod--began, in three
distinct acts, the fourth stage of that agitating
scene which preceded the final agonies of
Christ. It was unlike the idle inquisition of
Annas--the extorted confession of
Caiaphas--the illegal decision of the
Sanhedrin; for here His judge was in His
favour, and with all the strength of a feeble
pride, and all the daring of a guilty
cowardice, and all the pity of which a
bloodstained nature was capable, did strive to
deliver Him. This last trial is full of passion
and movement: it involves a threefold change
of scene, a threefold accusation, a threefold
acquittal by the Romans, a threefold rejection
by the Jews, a threefold warning to Pilate,
and a threefold effort on his part, made with
ever-increasing energy and ever-deepening
agitation, to baffle the accusers and to set the
victim free.
Tyropon, in presence of all the city, with
the bound hands of a sentenced criminal, a
Disturbed at this early hour, and
probably prepared for some Paschal
disturbance more serious than usual, Pilate
entered the Hall of Judgment, whither Jesus
had been led, in company (as seems clear)
with a certain number of His accusers and of
those most deeply interested in His case. But
the great Jewish hierarchs, shrinking from
Roscamp, Chapter 19, contd. (1902)
"Jesus before Pilate." This was unlike the
idle inquisition of Annas, the extorted
confession, the illegal decision of the
Sanhedrin; for here His judge was in His
favor, who made an effort to deliver Him.
This last trial is full of passion and
movement. It involves a threefold change of
scene, a threefold accusation, a threefold
acquittal by the Romans, a threefold rejection
by the Jews, a threefold warning to Pilate,
and a threefold effort on his part to baffle the
accusers, and set the victim free. It was
probably about seven o'clock in the morning
that the imposing procession, consisting of
Caiaphas and the members of the Sanhedrin
conducted Jesus, with a cord round His neck,
from the hall, in the presence of all the
people, with hands bound, a spectacle to
angels and to men.
Page -279-
ceremonial pollution, though not from moral
guilt-afraid of leaven, though not afraid of
innocent blood-refused to enter the Gentile's
hall, lest they should be polluted, and should
consequently be unable that night to eat the
Passover. In no good humour, but in haughty
and half-necessary condescension to what he
would regard as the despicable superstitions
of an inferior race, Pilate goes out to them
under the burning early sunlight of an Eastern
spring. One haughty glance takes in the
pompous assemblage of priestly notables, and
the turbulent mob of this singular people,
equally distasteful to him as a Roman and as
a ruler; and observing in that one glance the
fierce passions of the accusers, as he had
already noted the meek ineffable grandeur of
their victim, his question is sternly brief:
"What accusation bring ye against this man?"
The question took them by surprise, and
showed them that they must be prepared for
an unconcealed antagonism to all their
purposes. Pilate evidently intended a judicial
inquiry; they had expected only a licence to
kill, and to kill, not by a Jewish method of
execution, but by one which they regarded as
more horrible and accursed (Deut. xxi. 22,
23). "If He were not a malefactor," is their
indefinite and surly answer, "we would not
have delivered Him up unto thee." But
Pilate's Roman knowledge of law, his Roman
instinct of justice, his Roman contempt for
their murderous fanaticism, made him not
choose to act upon a charge so entirely vague,
nor give the sanction of his tribunal to their
dark disorderly decrees. He would not deign
to be an executioner where he had not been a
judge. "Very well," he answered, with a
superb contempt, "take ye Him and judge
Him according to your law." But now they
are forced to the humiliating confession that,
having been deprived of the jus gladii, they
cannot inflict the death which alone will
satisfy them; for indeed it stood written in the
Pilate goes out to meet them, and,
beholding the fierce passions of the accusers,
and noting the meek ineffable grandeur of
their victim, his question is sternly brief:
"What accusation bring ye against this Man?"
The question took them by surprise.
They answered, "If He were not a malefactor
we would not have delivered Him up unto
thee."
"Very well," Pilate said, "take ye Him
and judge Him according to your law." But
this did not suit their purpose, and they said
unto Pilate, "It is not lawful for us to put any
man to death."
Page -280-
eternal councils that Christ was to die, not by
Jewish stoning or strangulation, but by that
Roman form of execution which inspired the
Jews with a nameless horror, even by
crucifixion; that He was to reign from His
cross--to die by that most fearfully significant
and typical of deaths-public, slow, conscious,
accursed, agonising--worse even than
burning--the worst type of all possible deaths,
and the worst result of that curse which He
was to remove for ever. Dropping, therefore,
for the present, the charge of blasphemy,
which did not suit their purpose, they burst
into a storm of invectives against Him, in
which are discernible the triple accusations,
that He perverted the nation, that He forbade
to give tribute, that He called Himself a king.
All three charges were flagrantly false, and
the third all the more so because it included a
grain of truth. But since they had not
confronted Jesus with any proofs or
witnesses, Pilate, in whose whole bearing and
language is manifest the disgust embittered
by fear with which the Jews inspired him--
deigns to notice the third charge alone, and
proceeds to discover whether the confession
of the prisoner--always held desirable by
Roman institutions--would enable him to take
any cognizance of it. Leaving the impatient
Sanhedrin and the raging crowd, he retired
into the Judgment Hall. St. John alone
preserves for us the memorable scene. Jesus,
though not "in soft clothing," though not a
denizen of kings' houses, had been led up the
noble flight of stairs, over the floors of agate
and lazuli, under the gilded roofs, ceiled with
cedar and painted with vermilion, which
adorned but one abandoned palace of a great
king of the Jews. There, amid those
voluptuous splendours, Pilate--already
interested, already feeling in this prisoner
before him some nobleness which touched his
Roman nature--asked Him in pitying wonder,
"Art thou the King of the Jews?"--thou poor,
It was written that Christ should die, not
by Jewish stoning or strangulation, but by
that Roman form of execution--crucifixion.
"That the saying of Jesus might be
fulfilled, which He spake, signifying what
death He should die." The accusers dropped
the present charge of blasphemy, which did
not suit their purpose, they burst into a storm
of invectives against Him, in which is seen
the triple accusations, that He perverted the
nation, forbade to give tribute, and that He
called Himself King.
All of those charges were false, and the
third all the more so because it included a
grain of truth. Pilate leaves the impatient
Sanhedrin and the raging crowd, and takes
Jesus into the judgment hall to make inquiry
upon the third charge only.
St. John alone preserves for us the
memorable scene. Jesus, though not "in soft
clothing," though not a denizen of king's
houses, had been led up the imposing
stair-way, over the floors of marble, under
gilded roofs, ceiled with cedar, and painted
with gold. There amid such splendor, Pilate
asking Jesus in pitying tones, "Art Thou the
King of the Jews? Thou poor, worn,
tearstained outcast, in Thy peasant garments,
with Thy hands bound, and marks of violence
on Thy face, art Thou the King of the Jews?"
Page -281-
worn, tear-stained outcast in this hour of thy
bitter need--oh, pale, lonely, friendless,
wasted man, in thy poor peasant garments,
with thy tied hands, and the foul traces of the
insults of thine enemies on thy face, and on
thy robes--thou, so unlike the fierce
magnificent Herod, whom this multitude
which thirsts for thy blood acknowledged as
their sovereign--art thou the King of the
Jews? There is a royalty which Pilate, and
men like Pilate, cannot understand-a royalty
of holiness, a supremacy of self-sacrifice. To
say "No" would have been to belie the truth;
to say "Yes" would have been to mislead the
questioner. Sayest thou this of thyself?" He
answered with gentle dignity, "or did others
tell it thee of me?" "Am I a Jew?" is the
disdainful answer. "Thy own nation and the
chief priests delivered thee unto me. What
hast thou done?" Done?--works of wonder,
and mercy, and power, and innocence, and
these alone. But Jesus reverts to the first
question, now that He has prepared Pilate to
understand the answer: "Yes, He is a king;
but not of this world; not from hence; not one
for whom His servants would fight." "Thou
art a king, then?" said Pilate to Him in
astonishment. Yes! but a king not in this
region of falsities and shadows, but one born
to bear witness unto the truth, and one whom
all who were of the truth should hear.
"Truth," said Pilate impatiently, "what is
truth?" What had he--a busy, practical Roman
governor--to do with such dim abstractions?
what bearing had they on the question of life
and death? what impractical hallucination,
what fairyland of dreaming phantasy was
this? Yet, though he contemptuously put the
discussion aside, he was touched and moved.
A judicial mind, a forensic training,
familiarity with human nature which had
given him some insight into the characters of
men, showed him that Jesus was not only
wholly innocent, but infinitely nobler and
"Sayest Thou this of Thyself?" he
answered with gentle dignity, "or did others
tell it thee of Me?" Pilate said, "Am I a Jew?"
"Thine own nation and the chief priests
delivered Thee unto me. What hast Thou
done?" "Done?" He might might have
answered, "I have done works of wonder, and
mercy, and power, and innocence, and these
alone." Pilate still presses the question, "Art
Thou a King then?" Jesus answered, "Thou
sayest that I am a King, to this end was I
born, and for this cause came I into the world,
that I should bear witness unto the truth.
Every one that is of the truth heareth My
voice." Pilate impatiently asked, "What is
truth?"
And when he had said this, he went out
again to the Jews, and saith unto them, "I find
in Him no fault at all."
Page -282-
better than His raving sanctimonious
accusers. He wholly set aside the floating
idea of an unearthly royalty; he saw in the
prisoner before his tribunal an innocent and
high-souled dreamer, nothing more. And so,
FAULT AT ALL."
2. But this public decided acquittal only
kindled the fury of His enemies into yet
fiercer flame. After all that they had
hazarded, after all that they had inflicted,
after the sleepless night of their plots,
adjurations, insults, was their purpose to be
foiled after all by the intervention of the very
Gentiles on whom they had relied for its
bitter consummation? Should this victim
whom they had thus clutched in their deadly
grasp, be rescued from High Priests and
rulers by the contempt or the pity of an
insolent heathen? It was too intolerable! Their
voices rose in wilder tumult. "He was a
mesth; He had upset the people with His
teaching through the length and breadth of the
land, beginning from Galilee, even as far as
here."
Amid these confused and passionate
exclamations the practised ear of Pilate
caught the name of "Galilee," and he
understood that Galilee had been the chief
scene of the ministry of Jesus. Eager for a
chance of dismissing a business of which he
was best pleased to be free, he proposed, by a
master-stroke of astute policy, to get rid of an
embarrassing prisoner, to save himself from a
disagreeable decision, and to do an unexpect-
ed complaisance to the unfriendly Galilan
tetrarch, who, as usual, had come to Jerusa-
lem--nominally to keep the Passover, really
to please his subjects, and to enjoy the sensa-
tions and festivities offered at that season by
Amid much confusion and passionate
exclamation the ear of Pilate caught the name
"Galilee," and he understood that Galilee had
been the chief scene of the ministry of Jesus.
Page -283-
the densely-crowded capital. Accordingly,
Pilate, secretly glad to wash his hands of a
detestable responsibility, sent Jesus to Herod
Antipas, who was probably occupying the old
Asmonan palace, which had been the royal
residence at Jerusalem until it had been
surpassed by the more splendid one which the
prodigal tyrant, his father, had built. And so,
through the thronged and narrow streets, amid
the jeering, raging multitudes, the weary
Sufferer was dragged once more.
We have caught glimpses of this Herod
Antipas before, and I do not know that all
History, in its gallery of portraits, contains a
much more despicable figure than this
wretched, dissolute Iduman Sadducee--this
petty princeling drowned in debauchery and
blood. To him was addressed the sole purely
contemptuous expression that Jesus is ever
recorded to have used (Luke xiii. 32).
Superstition and incredulity usually go
together; avowed atheists have yet believed in
augury, and men who do not believe in God
will believe in ghosts. Antipas was rejoiced
beyond all things to see Jesus. He had long
been wanting to see Him because of the
rumours he had heard; and this murderer of
the prophets hoped that Jesus would, in
compliment to royalty, amuse by some
miracle his gaping curiosity. He harangued
and questioned Him in many words, but
gained not so much as one syllable in reply.
Our Lord confronted all his ribald questions
with the majesty of silence. To such a man,
who even changed scorn into a virtue, speech
would clearly have been a profanation. Then
all the savage vulgarity of the man came out
through the thin veneer of a superficial
cultivation. For the second time Jesus is
derided--derided this time as Priest and
Prophet. Herod and his corrupt hybrid
myrmidons "set Him at nought"--treated Him
with the insolence of a studied contempt.
Pilate seized the opportunity, and sent
Jesus to Herod Antipas. And through the
thronged and narrow streets, amid the jeering,
raging multitude, the weary Sufferer was
dragged once more.
"Herod Antipas" was rejoiced beyond all
things to see Jesus. He had heard much about
Him, and he hoped to see some miracle
performed by Him. Herod propounded many
questions to Jesus, but gained not so much as
one syllable in reply. Our Lord confronted all
his questions with the majesty of silence. For
the second time Jesus is derided, derided this
time as Priest and Prophet.
Page -284-
Mocking His innocence and His misery in a
festal and shining robe, the empty and wicked
prince sent Him back to the Procurator, to
whom he now became half-reconciled after a
long-standing enmity. But he contented
himself with these cruel insults. He resigned
to the forum apprehension is all further
responsibility as to the issue of the trial.
Though the Chief Priests and Scribes stood
about his throne unanimously instigating him
to a fresh and more heinous act of murder by
their intense accusations, he practically
showed that he thought their accusations
frivolous, by treating them as a jest. It was
the fifth trial of Jesus; it was His second
public distinct acquittal.
3. And now, as He stood once more
before the perplexed and wavering Governor,
began the sixth, the last, the most agitating
and agonising phase of this terrible
inquisition. Now was the time for Pilate to
have acted on a clear and right conviction,
and saved himself for ever from the guilt of
innocent blood. He came out once more, and
seating himself on a stately bema--perhaps
the golden throne of Archelaus, which was
placed on the elevated pavement of
many-coloured marble-summoned the Priests,
the Sanhedrists, and the people before him,
and seriously told them that they had brought
prisoner absolutely guiltless of these charges;
that he had then sent Him to Herod, their
native king, and that he also had come to the
conclusion that Jesus had committed no crime
which deserved the punishment of death. And
now came the golden opportunity for him to
vindicate the grandeur of his country's
imperial justice, and, as he had pronounced
Him absolutely innocent, to set Him
absolutely free. But exactly at that point he
Mocking His innocence and His misery,
the wicked Herod sent Him back to Pilate.
And now began the sixth and last, the most
agonizing part of this terrible inquisition.
Now was the time for Pilate to have
acted in a clear and just manner, and saved
himself for ever from the guilt of innocent
blood. Pilate summoned the priests, the
Sanhedrin, and the people before him, and
told them that he had come to the conclusion
that Jesus had committed no crime which
deserved the punishment of death. And now
came the golden opportunity for him to
vindicate the grandeur of his country's
imperial justice, and, as he had pronounced
Him absolutely innocent, to set Him
absolutely free.
Page -285-
wavered and temporised. The dread of
another insurrection haunted him like a
nightmare. He was willing to go half way to
please these dangerous sectaries. To justify
them, as it were, in their accusation, he would
chastise Jesus--scourge Him publicly, as
though to render His pretensions ridiculous--
disgrace and ruin Him--"make Him seem vile
in their eyes"--and then set Him free. And
this notion of setting Him free suggested to
him another resource of tortuous policy. Both
he and the people almost simultaneously
bethought themselves that it had always been
a Paschal boon to liberate at the feast some
condemned prisoner. He offered, therefore, to
make the acquittal of Jesus an act not of
imperious justice, but of artificial grace.
. . . {skipped 3 paragraphs}
It may be that Bar-Abbas had been
brought forth, and that thus Jesus the
scowling murderer and Jesus the innocent
Redeemer stood together on that high tribunal
side by side. The people, persuaded by their
priests, clamoured for the liberation of the
rebel and the robber. To him every hand was
pointed; for him every voice was raised. For
the Holy, the Harmless, the Undefiled--for
Him whom a thousand Hosannas had greeted
but five days before--no word of pity or of
pleading found an utterance. "He was
despised and rejected of men."
Deliberately putting the question to
them, Pilate heard with scornful indignation
their deliberate choice; and then, venting his
bitter disdain and anger in taunts, which did
but irritate them more, without serving any
good purpose, "What then," he scornfully
asked "do ye wish me to do with the King of
the Jews?" Then first broke out the mad
scream, "Crucify! crucify him!" In vain,
again and again, in the pauses of the tumult,
But at exactly that point he wavered and
temporized. "Whom shall I release unto you,
this man, or Barabbas?" said Pilate. The
people persuaded by their priests clamored
for the liberation of the robber, Barabbas. To
him every hand was pointed; for him every
voice was raised. For the holy, the harmless,
the undefiled, for Him Whom a thousand
hosannas had greeted but five days before, no
word of pity or pleading found an utterance.
"He was despised and rejected of men."
Pilate then said: "What then shall I do with
Jesus?" The infuriated cry went out, "Crucify
Page -286-
Pilate insisted, obstinately indeed, but with
more and more feebleness of purpose--for
none but a man more innocent than Pilate,
even if he were a Roman governor, could
have listened without quailing to the frantic
ravings of an Oriental mob--"Why, what evil
hath He done?" "I found no cause of death in
Him." "I will chastise Him and let Him go."
Such half-willed opposition was wholly
unavailing. It only betrayed to the Jews the
inward fears of their Procurator, and
practically made them masters of the
situation. Again and again, with wilder and
wilder vehemence, they rent the air with
those hideous yells--"Are toton. Apoluson
hemn Barabbn. Staroson, staroson--
"Away with this man." "Loose unto us
Bar-Abbas." "Crucify! crucify!"
For a moment Pilate seemed utterly to
yield to the storm. He let Bar-Abbas free; he
delivered Jesus over to be scourged. The
word used for the scourging (flagellsas)
implies that it was done, not with rods
(virgae), for Pilate had no lictors, but with
what Horace calls the "horrible flagellum," of
which the Russian knout is the only modern
representative. This scourging was the
ordinary preliminary to crucifixion and other
forms of capital punishment. It was a
punishment so truly horrible, that the mind
revolts at it; and it has long been abolished by
that compassion of mankind which has been
so greatly intensified, and in some degree
even created, by the gradual comprehension
of Christian truth. The unhappy sufferer was
publicly stripped, was tied by the hands in a
bent position to a pillar, and then, on the
tense quivering nerves of the naked back, the
blows were inflicted with leathern thongs,
weighted with jagged edges of bone and lead;
sometimes even the blows fell by accident--
sometimes, with terrible barbarity, were
purposely struck--on the face and eyes. It was
Him! Crucify Him!" In vain did Pilate plead
when he exclaimed, "Why, what evil hath He
done?" "I found no cause worthy of death in
Him." But Pilate finally yielded to the frantic
ravings of an Oriental mob, and said: "I will
chastise Him, and let Him go." Such
half-willed opposition was wholly unavailing.
Again and again, with wilder and wilder
vehemence they rent the air with their cries:
"Away with this Man. Crucify Him! Crucify
Him! Loose unto us Barabbas!" Then Pilate
delivered Jesus to be scourged. This
scourging was the ordinary preliminary to
crucifixion.
It was a punishment so truly horrible,
that the mind revolts at it; and it has long
been abolished by the compassion of
mankind, by the gradual comprehension of
Christian truth.
The unhappy Sufferer was publicly
stripped, was tied by the hands, fastened with
his face to a pillar, and then, on the tense
quivering nerves of the naked back, the blows
Page -287-
a punishment so hideous that, under its
lacerating agony, the victim generally fainted,
often died; still more frequently a man was
sent away to perish under the mortification
and nervous exhaustion which ensued. And
this awful cruelty, on which we dare not
dwell--this cruelty which makes the heart
shudder and grow cold--was followed
immediately by the third and bitterest
derision--the derision of Christ as King.
In civilised nations all is done that can
be done to spare every needless suffering to a
man condemned to death; but among the
Romans insult and derision were the
customary preliminaries to the last agony.
The "et pereuntibus addita ludibria" of
Tacitus might stand for their general practice.
Such a custom furnished a specimen of that
worst and lowest form of human wickedness
which delights to inflict pain, which feels an
inhuman pleasure in gloating over the agonies
of another, even when he has done no wrong.
The mere spectacle of agony is agreeable to
the degraded soul. The low vile soldiery of
the Prtorium--not Romans, who might have
had more sense of the inborn dignity of the
silent sufferer, but mostly the mere
mercenary scum and dregs of the provinces--
led Him into their barrack-room, and there
mocked, in their savage hatred, the King
whom they had tortured. It added keenness to
their enjoyment to have in their power One
who was of Jewish birth, of innocent life, of
noblest bearing. The opportunity broke so
agreeably the coarse monotony of their life,
that they summoned all of the cohort who
were disengaged to witness their brutal sport.
In sight of these hardened ruffians they went
through the whole heartless ceremony of a
mock coronation, a mock investiture, a mock
homage. Around the brows of Jesus, in
wanton mimicry of the Emperor's laurel, they
twisted a green wreath of thorny leaves; in
were inflicted with leathern thongs, tipped
with bone or lead, and uplifted with such
terrible barbarity, that the victim would sink
faint and exhausted to the ground. And this
awful cruelty was followed immediately by
the third and bitterest derision the derision of
Christ as King.
In the presence of this maddened mob
Page -288-
His tied and trembling hands they placed a
reed for sceptre; from His torn and bleeding
shoulders they stripped the white robe with
which Herod had mocked Him-which must
now have been all soaked with blood-and
flung on Him an old scarlet paludament--
some cast-off war cloak, with its purple
laticlave, from the Prtorian wardrobe. This,
with feigned solemnity, they buckled over
His right shoulder, with its glittering fibula;
and then--each with his derisive homage of
bended knee--each with his infamous
spitting--each with the blow over the head
from the reed sceptre, which His bound hands
could not hold-they kept passing before Him
with their mock salutation of "Hail, King of
the Jews!"
Even now, even yet, Pilate wished,
hoped, even strove to save Him. He might
represent this frightful scourging, not as the
preliminary to crucifixion, but as an inquiry
by torture, which had failed to elicit any
further confession. And as Jesus came forth--
as He stood beside him with that martyr-form
on the beautiful mosaic of the tribunal-the
spots of blood upon His green wreath of
torture, the mark of blows and spitting on His
countenance, the weariness of His deathful
agony upon the sleepless eyes, the sagum of
faded scarlet, darkened by the weals of His
lacerated back, and dropping, it may be, its
stains of crimson upon the tesselated floor--
even then, even so, in that hour of His
extremest humiliation--yet, as He stood in the
grandeur of His holy calm on that lofty
tribunal above the yelling crowd, there shone
all over Him so Godlike a pre-eminence, so
divine a nobleness, that Pilate broke forth
with that involuntary exclamation which has
thrilled with emotion so many million
hearts--"BEHOLD THE MAN!"
But his appeal only woke a fierce
they went through the heartless ceremony of a
mock coronation, a mock investiture, a mock
homage. And they saluted Him with, "Hail,
King of the Jews!"
Even now, at that stage of the
proceedings, Pilate wished and hoped to save
Him. And as Jesus came forth and stood
before him with that martyr-form, with the
marks of the sufing [sic] upon Him, there was
a holy calm, a strange pre-eminence, a sacred
nobleness, that Pilate broke forth with that
involuntary exclamation which has thrilled
with emotion millions of hearts, "Behold the
Man!"
Page -289-
outbreak of the scream, "Crucify! crucify!"
The mere sight of Him, even in this His
unspeakable shame and sorrow, seemed to
add fresh fuel to their hate. In vain the
heathen soldier appeals for humanity to the
Jewish priest; no heart throbbed with
responsive pity; no voice of compassion
broke that monotonous yell of "Crucify!"--the
howling refrain of their wild "liturgy of
death." The Roman who had shed blood like
water, on the field of battle, in open
massacre, in secret assassination, might well
be supposed to have an icy and a stony heart;
but yet icier and stonier was the heart of those
scrupulous hypocrites and worldly priests.
"Take ye Him, and crucify Him," said Pilate,
in utter disgust, "for I find no fault in Him."
What an admission from a Roman judge! "So
far as I can see, He is wholly innocent; yet if
you must crucify Him, take Him and crucify.
I cannot approve of, but I will readily connive
at, your violation of the law." But even this
wretched guilty subterfuge is not permitted
him. Satan will have from his servants the
full tale of their crimes, and the sign-manual
of their own willing assent at last. What the
Jews want--what the Jews will have--is not
tacit connivance, but absolute sanction. They
see their power. They see that this
blood-stained Governor dares not hold out
against them; they know that the Roman
statecraft is tolerant of concessions to local
superstition. Boldly, therefore, they fling to
the winds all question of a political offence,
and with all their hypocritical pretences
calcined by the heat of their passion, they
shout, "We have a law, and by our law He
ought to die, because He made Himself a Son
of God."
A Son of God! The notion was far less
strange and repulsive to a heathen than to a
Jew; and this word, unheard before, startled
Pilate with the third omen, which made him
But the mob still cried out, "Crucify
Him! Crucify Him!" Then Pilate in utter
disgust said, "Take ye Him, and crucify Him,
for I find no fault in Him." Strange admission
from a Roman judge! Once more Pilate
leaves the assemblage, and takes Jesus with
him into the quiet judgment hall, and asks
Him again, "Whence art Thou?" Alas! It was
too late to answer now. Pilate had committed
himself to injustice; and Jesus gave him no
answer.
And Pilate spake again, "Dost Thou not
speak even to me? Dost Thou not know that I
have power to set Thee free, and have power
to crucify Thee?" Power! How so? Was
justice nothing? Was truth nothing?
Innocence nothing? Conscience nothing?
Page -290-
tremble at the crime into which he was being
dragged by guilt and fear. Once more, leaving
the yelling multitude without, he takes Jesus
with him into the quiet Judgment Hall,
and-"jam pro su conscienti Christianus," as
Tertullian so finely observes--asks Him in
awe-struck accents, "Whence art thou?" Alas!
it was too late to answer now. Pilate was too
deeply committed to his gross cruelty and
injustice; for him Jesus had spoken enough
already; for the wild beasts who raged
without, He had no more to say. He did not
answer. Then, almost angrily, Pilate broke out
with the exclamation, "Dost thou not speak
even to me? Dost Thou not know that I have
power to set Thee free, and have power to
crucify Thee?" Power--how so? Was justice
nothing, then? truth nothing? innocence
nothing? conscience nothing? In the reality of
things Pilate had no such power; even in the
arbitrary sense of the tyrant it was an idle
boast, for at this very moment he was letting
"I dare not" wait upon "I would." And Jesus
pitied the hopeless bewilderment of this man,
whom guilt had changed from a ruler into a
slave. Not taunting, not confuting him--nay,
even extenuating rather than aggravating his
sin--Jesus gently answered, "Thou hast no
power against Me whatever, had it not been
given thee from above; therefore he that
betrayed me to thee hath the greater sin."
Thou art indeed committing a great crime;
but Judas, Annas, Caiaphas, these priests and
Jews, are more to blame than thou. Thus, with
infinite dignity, and yet with infinite
tenderness, did Jesus judge His judge. In the
very depths of his inmost soul Pilate felt the
truth of the words--silently acknowledged the
superiority of his bound and lacerated victim.
All that remained in him of human and of
noble-
"Felt how awful Goodness is, and Virtue,
In her shape how lovely; felt and
In fact, Pilate had no such power. And
Jesus pitied the hopeless bewilderment of this
man. and gently answered him, "Thou hast no
power against Me whatever, had it not been
given thee from above; therefore, he that
betrayed Me to thee hath the greater sin."
Pilate in the depths of his soul felt the
truth of the words, and silently acknowledged
Page -291-
mourned
His fall."
All of his soul that was not eaten
away by pride and cruelty thrilled back an
unwonted echo to these few calm words of
the Son of God. Jesus had condemned his sin,
and so far from being offended, the judgment
only deepened his awe of this mysterious
Being, whose utter impotence seemed
grander and more awful than the loftiest
power. From that time Pilate was even yet
more anxious to save Him. With all his
conscience in a tumult, for the third and last
time he mounted his tribunal, and made one
more desperate effort. He led Jesus forth, and
looking at Him, as He stood silent and in
agony, but calm, on that shining Gabbatha,
above the brutal agitations of the multitude,
he said to those frantic rioters, as with a flash
of genuine conviction, "BEHOLD YOUR
KING!" . . .
the superiority of his bound and lacerated
victim. Then Pilate led Jesus forth, and
looking at Him, as He stood silent and in
agony, but calm and dignified, he said:
"Behold your King?" "Shall I crucify
your King?" And the people responded, "We
have no King but Csar. And if thou let this
Man go, thou art not Csar's friend."
At that name Csar, Pilate trembled.
This completely mastered him. Then Pilate
gave Jesus up to be crucified.
Page -292-
. . . The time required for the necessary
preparation would not be very long, and
during this brief pause the soldiers, whose
duty it was to see that the sentence was
carried out, stripped Jesus of the scarlet
war-cloak, now dyed with the yet deeper
stains of blood, and clad Him again in His
own garments. When the cross had been
prepared they laid it--or possibly only one of
the beams of it--upon His shoulders, and led
Him to the place of punishment. The nearness
of the great feast, the myriads who were
present in Jerusalem, made it desirable to
seize the opportunity for striking terror into
all Jewish malefactors. Two were therefore
selected for execution at the same time with
Jesus--two brigands and rebels of the lowest
stamp. Their crosses were laid upon them, a
maniple of soldiers in full armour were
marshalled under the command of their
centurion, and, amid thousands of spectators,
coldly inquisitive or furiously hostile, the
procession started on its way.
. . . {skipping 5 paragraphs}
It was probably at this moment of
inconceivable horror that the voice of the Son
of Man was heard uplifted, not in a scream of
natural agony at that fearful torture, but
calmly praying in Divine compassion for His
brutal and pitiless murderers--aye, and for all
who in their sinful ignorance crucify Him
afresh for ever--"FATHER, FORGIVE
THEM, FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT
THEY DO."
The soldiers stripped the scarlet robe,
stained with innocent blood, from the royal
Redeemer, and they clothed Him in His own
artless apparel. They prepared the huge cross,
and laid it, in part at least, upon His
shuddering shoulder. The centurion marched
the Paschal Lamb out, in company with two
malefactors, amid myriads of spectators,
coldly inquisitive, or furiously hostile, and
the sad procession moved on towards the
place of a skull.
. . . {skipping 11 paragraphs}
It was probably at this moment of
inconceivable horror that the voice of the Son
of Man was heard, calmly praying in divine
compassion for His brutal and pitiless
murderers, and for all who in their sinful
ignorance crucify Him afresh, "Father,
forgive them, for they know not what they
do."
Roscamps book has 43,775 words (minus duplicates).
Page -293-
Jacobus and His Use of Sources
In his 1853 commentary, Notes on the Gospels, Critical and Explanatory, Melancthon W.
Jacobus, Professor of Biblical Literature at Western Theological Seminary, states his indebtness
to various sources:
The literature of this Gospel has been greatly enriched of late: and has been
carefully applied, during the last few years, to this volume.
Besides the works of Lampe, Tittman, and Dicke, which are so well known,
Professor Tholuck has issued a Sixth Edition of his Commentary, quite rewritten.
It is now in course of translation by the Rev. C. P Brauth, of Pittsburgh.
Of the recent helps, "Alford's Commentary" on the Greek text, (Vols. I. and II.
issued)Webster and Wilkinson's New Testament, (Vol. I. just issued) and
"Plain Commentary on the Gospels," are valuable expositions from the Church of
England.
Brown's "Discourses and Sayings of our Lord"Stier's "Words of Jesus"
Quesnel on the Gospels, (Boardman's Edition)-Olshausen's Commentary, and
Meyer's and Hutcheson's, with Bengel and Calvin, are but a few of the prominent
authorities at hand, on this portion of Scripture.Francis Trench on "The Life
and Character of John," is highly interesting.
It is interesting to note that his use of Richard Chenevix Trenchs Notes on the Miracles
of Our Lord is not noted. The question is why? Perhaps the evidence would give us the answer?
Page -294-
Trench (1850, p. 321)
. . . For it is the bitterest drop in their
whole cup of anguish, that all this might have
been otherwise: had this sickness befallen at
another moment, when Christ was nearer, had
he been able to hasten to their aid so soon as
he was summoned, all might have been
averted, they might have been rejoicing in a
living, instead of mourning over a dead,
brother. . . .
Jacobus (1853, p. 201)
. . . "It is the bitterest drop in their whole
cup of anguish, that all this might have been
otherwise: had this sickness befallen him at
any other moment, when Christ was nearer:
or had He been able to hasten to their aid so
soon as He was summoned, all might have
been averted, and they might have been
rejoicing in a living brother, instead of
mourning over his corpse."--Mary also met
our Lord with the same exclamation. vs. 32. .
. .
Note that Jacobus has edited the quote and yet still puts the whole in quotes.
Trench, p. 321 (same as above)
. . . High thoughts and poor thoughts of
Christ mingle here together;--high thoughts,
in that she sees him as one whose effectual
fervent prayers will greatly prevail--poor
thoughts, in that she thinks of him as
obtaining by prayer what indeed he has by the
oneness of his nature with God. . . .
Jacobus, p. 321
. . . High thoughts and poor thoughts of
Christ these might seem to be. . . .
Trench, p. 324
. . . Some good thing too, it may be, she
expects from his high and mysterious words,
though she knows not precisely what: a ray of
comfort has found its way into her heart, and
she would fain make her sister a sharer in
this. . . .
Jacobus, p. 204
. . . "A ray of comfort has found its way
into her head, and she would fain make her
sister a sharer in this." . . .
Page -295-
Trench, p. 327
Meanwhile they reach the place where
the tomb was, though not without another
access of that indignant horror, another of
those mighty shudderings that shook the
frame of the Lord of life,--so dreadful did
death seem to him who, looking through all
its natural causes, at which we often stop
short, saw it purely as the seal and token of
sin, so unnatural its usurpation over a race
made for immortality. . . .
Jacobus, p. 208
. . . "Another of those mighty
shudderings that shook the frame of the Lord
of Life, so dreadful did death seem to Him,
who, looking through all its natural causes, at
which we often stop short, saw it purely as
the seal and token of sin."--Trench. . . .
Interesting that here Jacobus has clipped the quote and attributes the quote Trench,
where he has not done so before.
Trench, p. 331
. . . For them it was wholesome: they
should thus understand that he claimed his
power from above, and not from beneath; that
there was no magic, no necromancy here. . . .
Jacobus, p. 210
. . . "They should see that He claimed
His power from above, not from beneath, that
there was no magic--no necromancy here."
Page -296-
Two Examples of Self-Plagiarism
John Cumming:
Sabbath Evening Readings on the New
Testament, St. Matthew. (1855)
The Life and Lessons of Our Lord. (1864)
One of the saddest instances of policy
overbearing principle, and ending in the most
awful crime, is found in Pontius Pilate. His
conscience told him Jesus was innocent. But
he feared he should lose his situation if he
resisted the clamours of the mob, and did
what was his duty as a ruler and a judge. His
history is a most painful yet instructive
episode in the Life and Lessons of our Lord.
Not the least humiliating spectacle
presented in the Bible is that of Pilate; one
who had all the dignity, the duty, and the
responsibility of royalty, but had neither the
candour nor the courage to carry it out in the
most trying circumstances. One can easily
discover that his inner conviction was that
Jesus was an innocent man; nay, more, that
He was more than man; for there seems to
have been about Pilate a terrible and sensitive
shrinking from the awful tragedy into which
he was precipitated, as well as a desire at all
hazards, if he could retain his sovereignty, his
crown, and his duty to his Master at Rome, to
get rid of this painful business. When Pilate
entered into the judgment hall, and asked
Jesus, "Art thou the King of the Jews?" Jesus
answered him, "Sayest thou this thing of
thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?" Pilate
answered, "Am I a Jew? Thine own nation
and the chief priests have delivered thee unto
me; what hast thou done?" Jesus answered,
"My kingdom is not of this world." Pilate
then said,
Page 451
"Art thou a King then?" Jesus answered,
"Thou sayest that I am a King. To this end
was I born." And then He said, "Every one
Page -297-
that is of the truth heareth my voice." Pilate
saith unto Him, "What is truth?" an ancient
question, still repeated in modern times; but
too many, like Pilate, ask the question, "What
is truth?" and like Pilate, they go away
regardless of the answer that may be given.
He then said to the Jews," Ye have a custom,
that I should release unto you one at the
passover; will ye, therefore, that I release
unto you the King of the Jews?" And what an
awful and monstrous response! When the
Gentile prince offered to release the Lord of
Glory, the degraded Church, the Jewish
Church, that had a true succession--not a
sham succession, but a true succession, every
priest of which could trace his genealogy
demonstrably up to Aaron; a Church cradled
amid miracles, a Church that had prophecies
from heaven to teach it, had become so
apostate that it cried with scarcely a
protesting voice, "Not this man, but
Barabbas"! How simply is it added, with a
quiet and sublime dignity that indicates the
inspiration of the historian, "Now Barabbas
was a robber"!
Pilate, unable to get rid of this
responsibility, took Jesus and scourged Him.
If He was innocent, why scourge Him? If He
was not innocent, why hesitate to give Him
up to be crucified? He thought that by this
piece of cruelty he might propitiate the Jews'
wrath so far, and be able thus to let his victim
escape with life. They then put on Him a
purple robe and a crown of thorns; and they
said, "Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote
Him with their hands." And yet that crown of
thorns was more beautiful than the Olympian
coronet or the diadem of all the Caesars: and
that robe thrown upon Him in mockery was
resplendent with glory. It was our shame, not
His; it was our degradation, not His. It was
His shame that He suffered; it was His glory
that the suffering was not for Himself, but for
us.
Page -298-
Page 452
He then brought Him forth, and Pilate
owned that he could find no fault in Him.
What a testimony! Satan could find nothing
in Him; the Jews falsely accused Him; Pilate,
that had examined Him in every way, could
find no fault in Him. Heaven, earth, and hell
attested the innocence of that Holy One of
God. We would ask any man who doubts the
reality of the atonement, this important
question, How does it happen that the only
innocent being that ever appeared upon the
earth--confessedly innocent, heaven, earth,
and hell attesting that He was so--was the
greatest sufferer that ever appeared upon
earth? God's law is, that perfect innocence is
perfect happiness; but here is, apparently, a
violation of that law; for here was perfect
innocence with the intensest misery and
suffering. Why? There is no explanation but
one: it would be as great injustice on the part
of God to let an innocent being suffer, as it
would be to let a guilty being be happy. Yet,
this innocent being--confessedly innocent--
was the greatest sufferer. The only solution of
the apparent difficulty is, He suffered, but not
for Himself; He lived and died an atoning
victim.
"Pilate, therefore, when he heard that
saying"--that Jesus had called Himself the
Son of God--"was the more afraid." Why was
he the more afraid? What meaning is there in
this? Why should he be afraid? The reason is,
every Jew understood the name Son of God to
imply equality with God. It was expressly
charged against Him that He blasphemed,
because He made Himself the Son of God.
Pilate had in the depth of his own heart strong
suspicions that he was higher than human.
His wife, with that sensitive perception of
what is true which is peculiar to woman, and
far keener than in the bosom of man, saw
through the assaults of the priests, and
recognised in Him, whose countenance was
Page -299-
so marred, the majesty of God; and, therefore,
she gave her husband advice, that he would
have done well to have taken, to have nothing
to do with that innocent Man. He evidently
felt the force of this; but he was one {page
453} of those unhappy characters found in
every nation, invested with political and
social power, whose life it a constant struggle
between what is expedient and what is duty.
His conscience will not let him give full
swing to his passions, his passions will not let
him obey his conscience; and he has all the
misery therefore of a sinner, without the least
of the comfort of a saint. The life of such a
one is a perpetual warfare, something like that
of the borderers between England and
Scotland in ancient days; when the two
nations quarrelled, it was the borderers that
were always first and last in the war, and the
greatest sufferers from its effects. Those men
that are borderers, if I may so call them,--who
are constantly trying to keep their conscience
and their passions in friendship, or at peace
with each other, which is impossible,--have
the greatest misery, ceaseless disquiet, and all
they do ends only in calamity and disaster.
The highest and holiest principle is always
the truest expediency. Right principle is
always expedient; what seems expedient, if it
be not based on principle, never is so. The
nearest way to any given point is a straight
line; but most people have a notion in morals,
which they would repudiate in mathematics,
that a zigzag line, or a semicircle, is the
nearest route from one point to another.
Jesus told Pilate that he could have no
power except it was given by those that are
above, and, therefore, he that betrayed Him,
and the Jews, had the greater sin. And see
how shocking was the hypocrisy of the Jews;
they tried to make it out that Jesus admitted
Caesar's supremacy whilst they were the
greatest opponents of it--when it suited their
purpose, you would have thought these Jews
Page -300-
We read then that "Jesus stood before the
governor, and the governor asked him,
saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And
Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest. And when
he was accused of the chief priests and elders,
he answered nothing." And Pilate, startled by
his silence, asked him--Hearest thou not how
many things they witness against thee?" But
Jesus was still silent. Sometimes silence is
our duty; at other times we ought to speak
forth. A sound judgment and conscious
innocence must determine when it becomes
us to exhibit the one, and when to give
utterance to the other.
Pilate told them that at this great festival of
the Passover, it was the habit of the country to
release a criminal. Just as at coronations, and
at the recent marriage of the Emperor of the
French, and at other great festivals celebrated
in other kingdoms, it is the custom to release
state prisoners, it was then a high or great day
were the most devoted adherents of Caesar.
They really hated the supremacy of Caesar;
but they were High Churchmen, insisting on
the supremacy of their church, when this was
convenient; and they became high Erastians,
insisting on the supremacy of Caesar, when
on another occasion it suited their purpose.
They had no conscience, no principle; they
were determined that the disturber of the
{page 454} people should be got rid of at all
hazards; and they were prepared to forswear
themselves, to make false charges, if they
could only get rid of Jesus of Nazareth. Pilate
yielded; Jesus was taken and crucified, an
inscription, the inscription that was literal
truth, was written on the cross, "Jesus of
Nazareth, the King of the Jews:" and that this
might be understood by everybody, it was in
Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. So truth ought to
be conveyed in the language of every reader.
In other words, everybody ought to hear the
Gospel, and have the Bible in the tongue
wherein he was born.
When "Jesus stood before the governor,
the governor asked Him, saying, Art thou the
King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him,
Thou sayest. And when He was accused of
the chief priests and elders, He answered
nothing." And Pilate, startled by his silence,
asked Him, "Hearest Thou not how many
things they witness against thee?" But Jesus
was still silent. Sometimes silence is our
duty; at other times we ought to speak forth.
A sound judgment and conscious innocence
must determine when it becomes us to exhibit
the one, and when to give utterance to the
other.
Pilate still reluctant, told them that at this
great festival of the Passover, it was the habit
of the country to release a criminal. Just as at
coronations, and at other great festivals
celebrated in other kingdoms, it is the custom
to release state prisoners, it was then a high or
great day among the Jews, and it was their
Page -301-
among the Jews, and it was their custom to
release, in token of gladness and joy, some
criminal whom the people might select for
that purpose. And what an awful choice was
here! Men have said that the voice of the
people is the voice of God. Would that it were
so. It will be so in the age to come, but it is
not so yet. When all shall be righteous, then
every utterance shall be truth, and every song
shall be praise; but at present the voice of the
people has been often the very opposite to the
voice of God; and on this, the most solemn
occasion on which that aphorism was ever
tested, when a robber and the holy, spotless
Lamb of God were the two, one of whom was
to be released, the voice of the people, the
democracy, chose Barabbas the robber, and
said--"Let the {page 366} Son of God be
crucified." My dear friends, both the autocrat
upon the throne and the mob in the agora,
have alternately done wickedly, and voted
wrong. Trust not in prince, trust not in people;
but pray that the time may come when, by
God's grace, prince and people shall be the
manifested sons of God; and then they shall
praise with one heart and one voice Him
whom their fathers crucified and refused.
An incident occurs, and it is a very natural
and a very beautiful one. The wife of Pilate
dreamed a dream, and she said to her
husband--"Have thou nothing to do with that
just man;" and evidently that remonstrance of
his wife made a deep impression upon Pilate.
I have no doubt that dream was from God; for
I can see no reason to doubt that God may
speak to people by dreams. Only we are to
bring our dreams to the test of Scripture,
never the Scripture to the test of our dreams.
If God speak to us thus (and surely, the
Eternal may speak to man's mind in any way
that he thinks best), if the dream suggest
duties that are obviously good, we should
accept it as a memento from on high; but
should the dream suggest what is condemned
custom to release, in token of gladness and
joy, some criminal whom the people might
select for that purpose. And what an awful
choice was here! Men have said that the voice
of the people is the voice of God. Would that
it were so. It will be so in the age to come, but
it is not so now. When all shall be righteous,
then every utterance shall be truth, and every
song shall be praise; but at present the voice
of the people has been often the very opposite
of the voice of God; and on this, the most
solemn occasion on which {page 455} that
aphorism was ever tested, when a robber and
the holy, spotless Lamb of God were the two,
one of whom was to be released, the voice of
the people, the decision of the democracy,
chose Barabbas the robber, and said, "Let the
Son of God be crucified." Both the autocrat
upon the throne and the mob in the agora,
have alternately done wickedly, and voted
wrong. Trust not in prince, trust not in people;
but pray that the time may come when, by
God's grace, prince and people shall be the
manifested sons of God; and then they shall
praise with one heart and one voice Him
whom their fathers crucified and refused.
An incident occurs--a very natural and a
very beautiful one. The wife of Pilate
dreamed a dream, and she said to her
husband--"Have thou nothing to do with that
just man;" and evidently that remonstrance of
his wife made a deep impression upon Pilate.
I have no doubt that dream was from God; for
I can see no reason to doubt that God may
speak to people by dreams. Only we are to
bring our dreams to the test of Scripture,
never the Scripture to the test of our dreams.
If God speak to us thus (and surely, the
Eternal may speak to man's mind in any way
that He thinks best), if the dream suggest
duties that are obviously good, we should
accept it as a memento from on high; but
should the dream suggest what is condemned
Page -302-
in Scripture, we are to regard it, not as an
inspiration from above, but as a suggestion or
device from beneath. In the case of Pilate's
wife, the dream told her that Jesus was holy.
She remonstrated with her husband, and
urged him to have nothing to do with what
she felt to be a great crime; and very plainly,
the result of that was, that he endeavored in
every way that he could to let Jesus go free;
for he said--"Whether of the twain will ye
that I release unto you?" and again, evidently
his conscience prompting the very opposite
course to that which he was to pursue--"What
shall I do with Jesus which is called Christ?
They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
And the governor said, Why, what evil hath
he done? But they cried out the more, saying,
Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he
could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult
was made, he took {page 367} water, and
washed his hands before the multitude,"
according to a ceremony prescribed in
Deuteronomy, and he said, "I am innocent of
the blood of this just person: see ye to it."
How unworthy of his lofty office! He ought
to have followed his convictions at all
hazards. If a man is satisfied that a particular
path is that of duty, let him not ask how many
agree with him, or how many oppose him, or
what may be the consequence of persistent
obedience to his principles; and never let him
suppose for a single moment that a
ceremonial cleansing of the hands can ever
exculpate the guilt that cleaves to the
conscience. But how often is it, that a person
guilty of a moral offence, will have recourse
to a ceremonial rite in order to stupefy the
conscience, or to be a sort of semblance of
propitiation for the offence that he has
committed!
Then the people answered, as if to encourage
Pilate in his course, "His blood be on us and
on our children." There seems to have been a
perfect popular frenzy, a demoniac
in Scripture, we are to regard it, not as an
inspiration from above, but as a suggestion or
device from beneath. In the case of Pilate's
wife, the dream told her that Jesus was holy.
She remonstrated with her husband, and
urged him to have nothing to do with what
she felt to be a great crime; and very plainly,
the result of that was, that he endeavoured in
every way that he could to let Jesus go free;
for he said --"Whether of the twain will ye
that I release unto you?" and again, evidently
his conscience prompting the very opposite
course to that which he was to pursue --
"What shall I do with Jesus which is called
Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be
crucified. And the governor said, Why, what
evil {page 456} hath He done? But they cried
out the more, saying, Let Him be crucified.
When Pilate saw that he could prevail
nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he
took water, and washed his hands before the
multitude," according to a ceremony
prescribed in Deuteronomy, and he said, "I
am innocent of the blood of this just person:
see ye to it." How unworthy of His lofty
office! He ought to have followed his
convictions at all hazards. If a man is satisfied
that a particular path is that of duty, let him
not ask how many agree with him, or how
many oppose him, or what may be the
consequence of persistent obedience to
principle, and never let him suppose for a
single moment that a ceremonial cleansing of
the hands can ever expiate the guilt that
cleaves to the conscience. But how often will
a person guilty of a moral offence have
recourse to a ceremonial rite in order to
stupify the conscience, or to be a sort of
semblance of propitiation for the offence that
he has committed!
Then the people answered, as if to
encourage Pilate in his course, "His blood be
on us and on our children." There seems to
have been a perfect popular frenzy--a
Page -303-
inspiration, in the hearts of the people. "His
blood he on us;" and thanks be to God it was
upon them, but not on them to condemn them,
but on them to forgive them; for to these very
people, who cried criminally and ignorantly,
"His blood he on us," the glorious Gospel was
preached. "Repent, and be converted, and be
baptized, every one of you;" and to the Jews
first at Jerusalem was the gospel of
forgiveness preached through the blood of
Jesus. God's ways truly are not our ways, nor
his thoughts our thoughts.
We then read of the mockery of Jesus. The
soldiers arrayed him in the symbols of
majesty in mockery and insult, in order that
they might grieve him, and enjoy themselves
by making sport of one whom they believed
to be a great criminal. "They bowed the knee
before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail,
King of the Jews!" Just think for one moment
who this was.
demoniac inspiration in the hearts of the
people. "His blood be on us;" and thanks be
to God it was upon them, but not on them to
condemn them, but on them to forgive them;
for to these very people, who cried criminally
and ignorantly, "His blood be on us," the
glorious Gospel was preached, "Repent, and
be converted, and be baptized, every one of
you;" and to the Jews first at Jerusalem was
the gospel of forgiveness preached through
the blood of Jesus. God's ways truly are not
our ways, nor his thoughts our thoughts.
The soldiers arrayed Him in the symbols
of majesty in mockery and insult, in order
that they might grieve Him, and enjoy
themselves by making sport of one whom
they believed to be a great criminal. "They
bowed the knee before Him, and mocked
Him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!" Just
think for one moment who this was. The Lord
who made the heavens and the earth; the
{page 459} King of Glory, who had but to
speak and legions of angels would be his
cohorts, and all the armies of the skies would
obey his behests. Yet He voluntarily
submitted to shame, that He might expiate our
transgressions. He endured the cross, that we
might wear a blood-purchased, but a glorious
and unfading crown.
Page -304-
William Hanna
In this case, since the complete changes in the wording are so few, it will be marked by
bolding; where the wording has been re-arranged it will be italicized. Changes in punctuation
and spelling will be ignored.
The Last Day of Our Lords Passion.
(1862)
The Life of Christ. (1863)
"This child," said good old Simeon, as he
took up the infant Jesus into his arms to bless
him--"this child is set for the fall and rising
again of many in Israel; and for a sign that
shall be spoken against; that the thoughts of
many hearts may be revealed." Never were
those words more strikingly fulfilled than in
these closing scenes of the Saviour's life
which we are now engaged in tracing. Then
many fell,--those forsaking, despairing
disciples of Jesus,--but fell to rise again; then
was that sign set up, against which so many
shafts of so many kinds were launched; and
then were the thoughts of many hearts
revealed--among others those of Judas, and
Peter, and Caiaphas, and Herod, and Pilate--
{page 121} revealed by the very closeness of
their contact with Christ, by the peculiarity of
those relationships to him into which they
were then thrown. Last Sunday our attention
was concentrated upon Herod; to-day let us
fix our eyes on Pilate, and, taking him up at
that stage where we left him, let us try to
understand and to follow the working of his
thoughts and feelings during those two hours
of their earthly lives in which he and Jesus
had to do with one another--he in the
character of the judge, Jesus in the character
of one accused and condemned by the
Sanhedrim.
heard, among the other accusations that the
High Priests lodged against him, that Jesus
had said that he himself was Christ a King,--
"THIS child," said good old Simeon, as he
took up the infant Jesus into his arms to bless
him--"this child is set for the fall and rising
again of many in Israel; and for a sign that
shall be spoken against; that the thoughts of
many hearts may be revealed." Never were
those words more strikingly fulfilled than in
these closing scenes of the Saviour's life
which we are now engaged in tracing. Then
many fell--those forsaking, despairing
disciples of Jesus--but fell to rise again; then
was that sign set up, against which so many
shafts of so many kinds were launched; and
then were the thoughts of many hearts
revealed--among others those of Judas, and
Peter, and Caiaphas, and Herod, and Pilate--
revealed by the very closeness of their {page
691} contact with Christ, by the peculiarity of
those relationships to him into which they
were then thrown. Just now our attention was
concentrated upon Herod; to-day let us fix
our eyes on Pilate, and, taking him up at that
stage where we left him, let us try to
understand and to follow the working of his
thoughts and feelings during those two hours
of their earthly lives in which he and Jesus
had to do with one another--he in the
character of judge, Jesus in the character of
one accused and condemned by the
Sanhedrim.
high priests lodged against him, that Jesus
had said that he himself was Christ a King--
Page -305-
struck at once with the singularity of the
pretension, and with the appearance of the
man who made it, Pilate called on Christ to
follow him into the inner hall of his
residence; that there, when alone with him,
omitting all. reference to any other charge, he
asked him particularly about this one; that
Christ fully satisfied him as to there being
nothing politically dangerous or offensive in
the claim to kingship he {page 122} had put
forth; that, bringing Christ out along with him
to the Jews, he said at once and decidedly, "I
find no fault in this man;" and that then,
taking advantage of a reference to Galilee, he
had sent Jesus off to Herod, to see what that
Galilean king and judge might think and do.
In this way he hoped to be relieved from the
painful and embarrassing position in which he
felt himself to be placed.
He was disappointed in this hope. Jesus
was sent back to him by Herod; sent back
without any judgment having been
pronounced; sent back in such a way as to
indicate that Herod as well as he made light
of this poor Galilean's pretension to be a
king,--thought it, in fact, more a matter for
mockery and ridicule than for serious judicial
entertainment Although a considerable body
of the High Priests and of the people had
accompanied Jesus to and from the bar of
Herod, yet in that interval there had been to
some extent a scattering of the crowd. Pilate
called, therefore, now afresh together the
Chief Priests, and the Rulers, and the people--
the latter particularly mentioned, as Pilate had
now begun {page 123} to think that his best
chance of gaining the end upon which his
heart was set,--the deliverance of Christ out
of the hands of his enemies,--would be by
appealing, over the heads of their rulers, to
the humanity of the common people. When
all, then, were again assembled, he made a
short speech to them, reiterating his own
conviction of Christ's innocence, confirming
struck at once with the singularity of the
pretension, and with the appearance of the
man who made it, Pilate called on Christ to
follow him into the inner hall of his
residence; that there, when alone with him,
omitting all reference to any other charge, he
asked him particularly about this one; that
Christ fully satisfied him as to there being
nothing politically dangerous or offensive in
the claim to a kingdom which he had put
forth; that, bringing Christ out along with him
to the Jews, he had said at once and
decidedly, "I find no fault in this man;" and
that then, taking advantage of a reference to
Galilee, he had sent Jesus off to Herod, to see
what that Galilean king and judge might think
and do. In this way he hoped to be relieved
from the painful and embarrassing position in
which he felt himself to be placed.
He was disappointed in this hope. Jesus
was sent back to him by Herod; sent back
without any judgment having been
pronounced; sent back in such a way as to
indicate that Herod as well as he made light
of this poor Galilean's pretension to be a
king--thought it, in fact, more a matter for
mockery and ridicule than for serious judicial
entertainment. Although a considerable body
of the high priests and of the people had
accompanied Jesus to and from the bar of
Herod, yet in that interval there had been to
some extent a scattering of the crowd. Pilate,
therefore, called together afresh the chief
priests, and the rulers, and the people-the
latter particularly mentioned, as Pilate had
now begun to think that his best chance of
gaining the end upon which his heart was set-
-the deliverance of Christ out of the hands of
his enemies--would be by appealing, over the
heads of their rulers, to the humanity of the
common people. When all, then, were again
assembled, he made a short speech to them,
reiterating his own conviction of Christ's
innocence, confirming it by the testimony of
Page -306-
it by the testimony of Herod, and closing by a
proposal that he hoped would be at once
accepted,--I will therefore chastise him, and
release him. But why, if he were innocent,
chastise him at all? Why not at once acquit
the culprit, and send him away absolved from
the bar of Roman judgment? It was a weak
and unworthy concession, the first falter of
Pilate's footstep. He cannot but say that he
has found nothing worthy of death in this
man; he is himself thoroughly satisfied that
there is nothing worthy of any punishment in
him; but it will please his accusers, it will
conciliate the people, it may open the way to
their readier acquiescence in his after
dismissal, to inflict some punishment upon
him; a proposal not dictated by any spirit of
cruelty, springing rather from the wish to
protect {page 124} Jesus from the greater
penalty, by inflicting on him the less; yet one
that weakened his position, that made those
sharp-sighted Jews at once perceive that he
could be moved, that he was not ready to take
up and stand firmly and fixedly upon the
ground of Christ's innocence. In deference to
them, he has gone so far against his own
convictions; he may go farther. He has
yielded the inch, they may force him to yield
the ell. The proposal, therefore, of chastising
Jesus and letting him go, is rejected, and
rejected so as to throw Pilate back upon some
other, some new device.
He recollected that at this time of the
Passover it was a customary thing, in
compliment to the great assembly of the Jews
in their metropolis, for the Procurator to
arrest in a single instance the ordinary course
of justice, and to release whatever prisoner
the people might ask to be given up. He
recollected at the same time that there was a
notable prisoner, who then lay bound at
Jerusalem, one Barabbas, who for sedition
and murder had been cast into prison, and the
idea occurred to Pilate that if, instead either
Herod, and closing by a proposal that he
hoped would be at once accepted--"I will
therefore chastise him, and release him." But
why, if he were innocent, chastise him at all?
Why not {page 692} at once acquit the
culprit, and send him away absolved from the
bar of Roman judgment? It was a weak and
unworthy concession, the first faltering of
Pilate's footstep. He cannot but say that he
has found nothing worthy of death in this
man; he is himself thoroughly satisfied that
there is nothing in him worthy of any
punishment; but it will please his accusers, it
will conciliate the people, it may open the
way to their readier acquiescence in his after-
dismissal, to inflict on him some punishment,
a proposal not dictated by any spirit of
cruelty, springing rather from the wish to
protect Jesus from the greater penalty, by
inflicting on him the less; yet one that
weakened his position, that made those sharp-
sighted Jews at once perceive that he could be
moved, that he was not ready to take up and
stand firmly and fixedly upon the ground of
Christ's innocence. In deference to them, he
has gone so far against his own convictions;
he may go farther. He has yielded the inch;
they may force him to yield the ell. The
proposal, therefore, of chastising Jesus, and
letting him go, is rejected, and rejected so as
to throw Pilate back upon some other, some
new device.
He recollected that at this time of the
passover it was a customary thing, in
compliment to the great assembly of the Jews
in their metropolis, for the procurator to arrest
in a single instance the ordinary course of
justice, and to release whatever prisoner the
people might ask to be given up. He
recollected at the same time that there was a
notable prisoner, who then lay bound at
Jerusalem, one Barabbas, who for sedition
and murder had been cast into prison; and the
idea occurred to Pilate that if--instead either
Page -307-
of asking them broadly and generally who it
was that {page 125} they wished him to
release, or whether they would let him choose
for them and release Jesus,--if he narrowed in
this instance the choice, and presented to
them the alternative of taking Barabbas or
Jesus, they could scarcely fail to choose the
latter. To give the greater effect to this
proposition, Pilate ascended the moveable
rostrum or judgment-seat, which stood upon
the tesselated pavement that ran before the
vestibule of the Palace, and addressing
himself to the multitude, said to them,
"Whom will ye that I release unto you,
Barabbas or Jesus which is called Christ?"
While waiting their answer, a message
was brought to him, the messenger having
been instructed to deliver it immediately,
wherever he was, and however he might be
engaged. It came from his wife; was distinct
and somewhat authoritative,--"Have thou
nothing to do with that just man, for I have
suffered many things this day in a dream
because of him." Pilate's wife was not a Jew,
nor did she mix much with the common
people of the land. That she should have
heard so much of Jesus, have learned to
think and speak of him as that just man,
should {page 126} have been so much
concerned when she heard that her husband
had been asked to try him, that she took this
uncommon step of sending a warning to him
on the judgment-seat, may be taken as a proof
how wide-spread and how deep the
impression was that Christ had made.
The time occupied by the hearing and
thinking about this message,--whose
warning knell rung in strange harmony with
the alarm that was already pealing in Pilate's
spirit,--gave to the Chief Priests and the rulers
the opportunity they were so quick to seize, to
prompt the crowd as to the answer they were
to give to the proposal which Pilate had
submitted. We do not know what kind of
of asking them broadly and generally who it
was that they wished him to release, or
whether they would let him choose for them
and release Jesus--he narrowed in this
instance the choice, and presented to them the
alternative of taking Barabbas or Jesus, they
could scarcely fail to choose the latter. To
give the greater effect to this proposal Pilate
ascended the movable rostrum or judgment-
seat, which stood upon the tesselated
pavement that ran before the vestibule of the
palace, and addressing himself to the
multitude, said to them, "Whom will ye that I
release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is
called Christ?"
While waiting their answer, a message
was brought to him, the messenger having
been instructed to deliver it immediately,
wherever he was, and however he might be
engaged. It came from his wife; was distinct
and somewhat authoritative, "Have thou
nothing to do with that just man, for I have
suffered many things this day in a dream
because of him." Pilate's wife was not a Jew,
nor did she {page 693} mix much with the
common people of the land. That she should
have learned so much of Jesus as to think
and speak of him as "that just man"--that she
should have been so much concerned when
she heard that her husband had been asked to
try him, as to take this uncommon step of
sending a warning to him on the judgment-
seat--may be regarded as a proof how
widespread and how deep the impression was
that Christ had made.
The time occupied by the hearing and
considering this message--whose warning
knell rung in strange harmony with the alarm
that was already pealing in Pilate's spirit--
gave to the chief priests and the rulers the
opportunity they were so quick to seize, to
prompt the crowd as to the answer they
should give to Pilate's proposal. We do not
know what kind of stimulants were employed
Page -308-
stimulants were employed upon this occasion;
but we all do know what a flexible,
impressible, excitable a thing a city mob is,
when composed, as this one mainly was, of
the lowest of the people; and we can at least
easily conjecture what the firebrands were
which the expert hands of the priesthood
threw in among that mob, inflaming its
passions to the highest pitch, and giving the
burning mass into their hands, to be directed
as they desired. Recovered a {page 127} little
from the disturbance which his wife's
message cost him, Pilate turns again to the
people, and says to them, "Which of the two,
then, will ye that I release unto you?" They
say, "Barabbas." Surprised and annoyed at the
reply, almost willing to believe there has been
some mistake, he puts it to them in another
form: "Will ye that I release unto you the
King of the Jews?" using the epithet, in the
belief that they, as well as he, will look upon
its claimant more as an object of pity than of
condemnation. But now they leave him in no
doubt as to what their will and pleasure is:
"Away with this man," they all cry out at
once, "and release unto us Barabbas." "What
shall I then do with Jesus, which is called
Christ?" This weak and almost pitiful asking
of them what it was that he should do, ends,
as all such yielding to popular prejudices,
cringeing to popular passions, ever does; it
makes the multitude more confident, more
imperious. The Governor has put himself into
their hands, and they will make him do their
will. "What shall I do, then, with Jesus?" Let
him be crucified, they say.
Page 128
Crucified! it is the first time the word has
been named in Pilate's hearing, the first time
they tell him articulately what it is they desire
to have done with Jesus. Crucify him!--give
up to that worst and most ignominious of all
deaths this meek and gentle man, who he is
sure has done no wrong; whom he sees well
upon this occasion, but we all do know what a
flexible, impressible, excitable thing a city
mob is, when composed, as this one mainly
was, of the lowest of the people; and we can
at least easily conjecture what the firebrands
were which the expert hands of the priesthood
threw in among that mob, inflaming its
passions to the highest pitch, and giving the
burning mass into their hands, to be directed
as they desired. Recovered a little from the
disturbance which his wife's message cost
him, Pilate turns again to the people, and says
to them, "Which of the two, then, will ye that
I release unto you?" They say, "Barabbas."
Surprised and annoyed at the reply, almost
willing to believe there has been some
mistake, he puts it to them in another form:
"Will ye that I release unto you the King of
the Jews?" using the epithet, in the belief that
they, as well as he, will look upon its
claimant more as an object of pity than of
condemnation. But now they leave him in no
doubt as to what their will and pleasure is:
"Away with this man," they all cry out at
once, "and release unto us Barabbas!" "What
shall I then do with Jesus, which is called
Christ?" This weak and almost pitiful asking
of them what he should do, ends, as all such
yielding to popular prejudices, cringing to
popular passions, ever does; it makes the
multitude more confident, more imperious.
The governor has put himself into their hands,
and they will make him do their will. "What
shall I do, then, with Jesus?" "Let him be
crucified!" they say. Crucified! It is the first
time the word has been named in Pilate's
hearing, the first time they tell him
articulately what it is they desire to have done
with Jesus. Crucify him--give up to that worst
and most ignominious of all deaths this meek
and gentle man, who he is sure has done no
wrong; whom he sees well enough that the
chief priests seek to get rid of from some
religious antipathy that they have taken
Page -309-
enough that the Chief Priests seek to get rid
of from some religious antipathy that they
have taken against him:--can the people mean
it? He had fancied, whatever the Chief Priests
thought, that they had a different feeling
towards him. "Why," in his surprise, he says
to them, "what evil hath he done?" But this
now excited and uproarious crowd is far past
the point of answering or arguing with the
Governor. Its one and only cry is, "Let him be
crucified!" Twice Pilate asks them to tell him
what crime he had committed, that they
should doom him to a felon's death. He gets
but that cry repeated, with louder, angrier
voice. Yet a third time,--clinging to the hope
that he may still succeed in extricating Jesus
from their grasp, without putting himself
entirely wrong with them,--he puts {page
129} the query,--"Why, what evil hath he
done?" and gathering up a little strength, as if
he were determined to take his own way, and
act upon the suggestion that he had thrown
out a few moments before, he adds, "I have
found no cause of death in him. I will
therefore chastise him, and let him go." The
very mention of letting him go stirs the crowd
to a tenfold frenzy, and now the voices of the
Chief Priests themselves are heard swelling
and intensifying the cry, "Crucify him!
crucify him!" Before a storm like this who
can stand? He has done--so Pilate thinks--the
most he can. If he go further, he will raise
another city tumult which it will cost many
lives to quell, and the quelling of which by
force may expose him to the very same
charges of tyranny and cruelty which, upon
more than one occasion of the kind before,
had actually been transmitted to Rome against
him, and drawn down upon him the rebuke
and displeasure of the Emperor. The yielding
is but the sacrifice of a single life, which may
be made without involving the Governor in
any danger. But the resisting; who can tell in
{page 130} what that might land? Still,
against him: can the people {page 694} mean
it? He had fancied, whatever the chief priests
thought, that they had a different feeling
towards him. "Why," in his surprise he says
to them, "what evil hath he done?" But this
now excited and uproarious crowd is far past
the point of answering or arguing with the
governor. Its one and only cry is, "Let him be
crucified!" Twice Pilate asks them to tell him
what crime he had committed, that they
should doom him to a felon's death. He gets
but that cry repeated, with louder, angrier
voice. Yet a third time-clinging to the hope
that he may still succeed in extricating Jesus
from their grasp, without putting himself
entirely wrong with them--he puts the query,
"Why, what evil hath he done?" and gathering
up a little strength, as if he were determined
to take his own way, and act upon the
suggestion that he had thrown out a few
moments before, he adds, "I have found no
cause of death in him. I will therefore chastise
him, and let him go." The very mention of
letting him go stirs the crowd to a tenfold
frenzy, and now the voices of the chief priests
themselves are heard swelling and
intensifying the cry, "Crucify him! crucify
him!"
Before a storm like this who can stand?
He has done--so Pilate thinks--the most he
can. If he go farther, he will raise another
city tumult which it will cost many lives to
quell, and the quelling of which by force may
expose him to the very same charges of
tyranny and cruelty which, upon more than
one occasion of the kind before, had actually
been transmitted to Rome against him, and
drawn down upon him the rebuke and
displeasure of the emperor. The yielding is
but the sacrifice of a single life, which may be
made without involving the governor in any
danger. But the resisting; who can tell in what
Page -310-
however, he is not at ease. He scarce knows
himself the reason why; but, somehow, he
never saw the man whose blood he would like
so ill to have resting upon him as the blood of
Jesus. The private interview they had together
in the Hall had raised some strange
misgivings in Pilate's heart. What is it about
this man that has given him so strong a hold
upon Pilate, and makes him struggle so hard
to get him released? Pilate himself could not
have told; but even now, though he has at last
resolved to give him up, he will not, cannot
do it without trying in some way to throw the
responsibility of his death off his shoulders.
"When Pilate saw that he could prevail
nothing, but rather that a tumult was made, he
took water and washed his hands before the
multitude, saying, 'I am innocent of the blood
of this just person; see ye to it' Then answered
all the people and said, 'His blood be on us,
and on our children.' And he delivered Jesus
to their will."
Now, let us pause a moment here in the
narra- {page 131} tive to mark the inner
workings of conscience and of humanity in
the heart of Pilate. It seemed an ingenious
device the presenting this choice to the
people. It was resorted to from a desire on his
part to rescue Jesus. It would gain, as it first
seemed to him, a double object; it would
prevent the Jews from saying that he had
screened a seditious man, and yet it would
rescue an innocent one from death; but to
what did it amount? It proceeded on the
assumption that Christ was guilty; it asked
that as one righteously condemned, he might,
by an act of grace or favour, be released.
There lay one fatal flaw in the proposition.
But, still worse, it put the matter out of
Pilate's hands into those of the people. It was
a virtual renunciation, on Pilate's part, of the
rights and prerogatives of the judge. And by
this denuding of himself of his own proper
official position, Pilate put himself at the
that might land? Still, however, he is not at
ease. He himself scarce knows the reason
why; but somehow he never saw the man
whose blood he would like so ill to have
resting upon him as the blood of Jesus. The
private interview they had together in the hall
had raised some strange misgivings in Pilate's
heart. What is it about this man that has given
him so strong a hold upon Pilate, and makes
him struggle so hard to get him released?
Pilate himself could not have told; but even
now, though he has at last resolved to give
him up, he will not, cannot do it without
trying in some way to throw off his shoulders
the responsibility of his death. "When Pilate
saw that he could prevail nothing, but rather
that a tumult was made, he took water and
washed his hands before the multitude,
saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just
person: see ye to it Then answered all the
people, and said, His blood be on us, and on
our children." And he delivered Jesus to their
will.
Page 695
Now, let us pause a moment here in the
narrative to mark the inner workings of
conscience and of humanity in the heart of
Pilate. It seemed an ingenious device to give
the people their choice. It was resorted to
from a desire on his part to rescue Jesus. It
would gain, as it first seemed to him, a double
object--it would prevent the Jews from saying
that he had screened a seditious man, and yet
it would rescue an innocent one from death.
But to what did it amount? It proceeded on
the assumption that Christ was guilty; it asked
that as one righteously condemned, he might
by an act of grace be released. There lay one
fatal flaw in the proposition. But, still worse,
it put the matter out of Pilate's hands into
those of the people. It was a virtual
renunciation on Pilate's part, of the rights and
prerogatives of the judge. And by thus
denuding himself of his own proper official
Page -311-
mercy of a fickle and infuriated populace, and
gave them that hold and power over him
which they so mercilessly employed.
This crying out--"Crucify, crucify him!"
as {page 132} contrasted with the hosannas
that a few days before had greeted Christ's
entrance into Jerusalem, has been often
quoted to prove how rapid the changes in
popular sentiment often are, how little a
multitude can be trusted. But was it the same
crowd which raised the hosannas of the one
day, that uttered the "Crucify him, crucify
him" of the other? I rather think that had we
been present upon both occasions, and
intimately acquainted with the inhabitants of
Jerusalem, we should have seen that the
crowds upon the two occasions were
differently constituted; and that however true
it may be that tides of public feeling take
often very sudden and sometimes opposite
directions, this can scarcely be quoted as an
instance exactly in point.
But very curious is it to mark the
expedient to which Pilate had recourse, in that
public washing of his hands. He delivers
Jesus up to be crucified. Therein lay his guilt;
he might, and should have refused to become
a party to his crucifixion. Believing Jesus to
be innocent, to give him up to death, was to
take a large share of the criminality upon
himself. And yet he {page 133} thinks that
when he gets the Jews to take it upon them
that he has relieved himself, if not entirely,
yet in great measure, of the responsibility. He
regards himself as one coerced by others, and
when these others are quite willing to take on
themselves the entire weight of the deed, he
imagines that this will go a great length in
clearing him. And if ever we are placed under
strong compulsion from without, if others
urge us on to a certain course of conduct
which in our conscience we disapprove, and
we yield, and in yielding take comfort to
ourselves by getting our compellers to
position, Pilate put himself at the mercy of a
fickle and infuriated populace, and gave them
that hold and power over him which they so
mercilessly employed.
This crying out, "Crucify, crucify him!"
as contrasted with the hosannas that a few
days before had greeted Christ's entrance into
Jerusalem, has been often quoted to prove
how rapid the changes in popular sentiment
sometimes are, how little a multitude can be
trusted. But was it the same crowd which
raised the hosannas of the one day, that
uttered the "Crucify him, crucify him!" of the
other? I rather think that had we been present
upon both occasions, and intimately
acquainted with the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
we should have seen that the two crowds
were differently constituted; and that,
however true it may be that tides of public
feeling often take suddenly opposite
directions, this can scarcely be quoted as an
instance exactly in point.
But very curious is it to mark the
expedient to which Pilate had recourse, in that
public washing of his hands. He delivers
Jesus up to be crucified. Therein lay his guilt;
he might and should have refused to become
a party to his crucifixion. Believing Jesus to
be innocent, to give him up to death was to
take a large share of the criminality upon
himself. And yet he thinks that when he gets
the Jews to take it upon them, he has relieved
himself, if not entirely, yet in great measure,
of the responsibility. He regards himself as
one coerced by others; and when these others
are quite willing to take on themselves the
entire weight of the deed, he imagines that
this will go a great length in clearing him.
And if ever placed under strong compulsion
from without, urged on to a certain course of
conduct which in our conscience we
disapprove, we yield, and in yielding take
comfort to ourselves from others saying that
they are quite {page 696} ready to incur the
Page -312-
declare that they are quite ready to incur the
whole responsibility of the affair, then let us
remember, that we are acting over again the
part of Pilate, and that just as little as that
outward washing of his hands did anything to
clear him of the stain he was contracting, as
little can we hope that the guilt contracted by
our being a consenting and co-operating party
in any deed of injustice or dishonour, may
thus be mitigated or wiped away.
Pilate has given up Jesus to the will of
the multitude; given him up to be crucified.
The {page 134} judge's work is done; there
remains only the work of the executioner.
Over that it is no part of the Procurator's
office to preside. Why, then, does Pilate not
withdraw? We might have thought that,
wearied with that conflict with the rabble,
and oppressed with painful feelings as to its
issue, he would have been but too glad to
retire--but he cannot: a singular fascination
still binds him to the spot,--perhaps the
lingering hope that he may yet succeed in
rescuing the victim from his bloodthirsty
enemies. He hands Christ over to his soldiers,
to have that scourging inflicted which was the
ordinary precursor and preliminary to
crucifixion. It might not be difficult from the
narratives of eye-witnesses to give you some
idea of what a military scourging was, what
kind of instrument they used in it, what kind
of wounds that instrument made, what terrible
torture was inflicted, to what length that
torture was often carried, but we would rather
have a veil drawn over the purely physical
sufferings of our Saviour, than have them
pressed prominently upon our eye. We recoil
from the attempts so often made to excite a
sympathetic horror by vivid de- {page 135}
tails of our Lord's corporeal endurances. We
feel as if it were degrading him to present him
in that character, in which so many, equal nay
superior in their claims upon our sympathy,
might be put beside him.
whole responsibility of the affair, then let us
remember that we are acting over again the
part of Pilate; and that just as little as that
outward washing of his hands did anything to
clear him of the stain he was contracting, so
little can we hope that the guilt contracted by
our being a consenting and cooperating party
in any deed of injustice or dishonor, may be
thus mitigated or wiped away.
Pilate has given up Jesus to the will of
the multitude: given him up to be crucified.
The judge's work is done; there remains only
the work of the executioner. Over that it is no
part of the procurator's office to preside.
Why, then, does Pilate not withdraw? We
might have thought that, wearied with his
conflict with the rabble, and oppressed with
painful feelings as to its issue, he would have
been only too glad to retire--but he cannot; a
singular fascination still binds him, to the
spot--perhaps the lingering hope that he may
yet succeed in rescuing the victim from his
bloodthirsty enemies. He hands Christ over to
his soldiers, to have that scourging inflicted
which was the ordinary precursor and
preliminary to crucifixion. It might not be
difficult from the narratives of eye-witnesses
to give you some idea of what a military
scourging was, what kind of instrument they
used in it, what kind of wounds that
instrument made, what terrible torture was
inflicted, to what length that torture was often
carried; but we would rather have a veil
drawn over the purely physical sufferings of
our Saviour, than have them pressed
prominently upon our eye. We recoil from the
attempts so often made to excite a
sympathetic horror by vivid details of our
Lord's bodily sufferings. We feel as if it were
degrading him to present him in that
character, in which so many, equal nay
superior in their claims upon our sympathy,
might be put beside him.
Page -313-
But the scourging did not satisfy the rude
and brutal soldiers who had got Christ into
their hands. As Romans, these men knew
little, cared little about any kingship that
Christ might claim. With them it could not be,
as with the Jews, a subject of religious hate or
scorn. It was a topic alone of ribald mirth, of
Gentile mockery. This Roman cohort takes
the hint that Herod's men of war had given
them; who had thrown a white robe over
Jesus, clothing him with something like the
garment that their own kings wore, that they
might set at naught his vain pretensions to be
a king. And now, when the scourging is over,
these Roman soldiers will outdo their Jewish
comrades; they will make a more perfect
pantomime of this poor Galilean's royalty.
They take some old military cloak, of the
same colour with the robes that their
emperors wear; they throw it over his bloody
shoulders; they plait a crown of {page 136}
thorns, and put it on his head; they thrust a
reed, as a mock sceptre, into his right hand;
and then, when they have got him robed, and
crowned, and sceptred thus, they bow the
knee, and hail him as a king. But they cannot
sustain even that mock homage; the demon
spirit that is in them inspires the merriment
with a savage cruelty; and so, as if ashamed
even of that kind of homage they had
rendered, they snatch impatiently the reed out
of his hand, and smite with it the crown of
thorns, and drive it down upon his pierced
and bleeding brow, and spit upon him, and
smite him with their hands. All this is done in
an inner court or guardroom, out of sight of
the crowd that is still waiting on without.
Pilate sees it all; makes no attempt to mitigate
the suffering or the mockery; is absorbed in
wonder as he gazes upon Jesus--such a
picture of silent, gentle, meek, unmurmuring,
uncomplaining patience!--standing there, and
taking all that treatment as though no strange
thing were happening, as if he had expected
But the scourging did not satisfy the rude
and brutal soldiers who had got Christ into
their hands. As Romans, these men knew
little, cared little about any kingship that
Christ might claim. With them it could not be,
as with the Jews, a subject of religious hate or
scorn. It was a topic alone of ribald mirth, of
Gentile mockery. This Roman cohort takes
the hint that Herod's men of war had given
them; who had thrown a white robe over
Jesus, clothing him with something like the
garment that their own kings wore, that they
might set at naught his vain pretensions to be
a king. And now, when the scourging is over,
these Roman soldiers will outdo their Jewish
comrades; they will make a more perfect
pantomime of this poor Galilean's royalty.
They take some old military cloak, of the
same color with the robes of their emperors;
they throw it over his {page 697} bloody
shoulders; they plait a crown of thorns, and
put it on his head they thrust a reed, as a
mock sceptre into his right hand; and then,
when they have got him robed, and crowned,
and sceptred thus, they bow the knee, and hail
him as a king. But they tire even of that mock
homage; the demon spirit that is in them
inspires the merriment with a savage cruelty;
and so, as if ashamed even of that kind of
homage they had rendered, they snatch
impatiently the reed out of his hand, and
smite with it the crown of thorns, and drive it
down upon his pierced and bleeding brow,
and spit upon him, and smite him with their
hands.
All this is done in an inner court or
guard-room, out of sight of the crowd that is
still waiting without. Pilate sees it all; makes
no attempt to mitigate the suffering or the
mockery; is absorbed in wonder as he gazes
upon Jesus--such a picture of silent, gentle,
meek, unmurmuring, uncomplaining
patience! standing there, and taking all that
treatment as though no strange thing were
Page -314-
all, were prepared for all, found no difficulty
in submitting to all. But there is no weakness
in that patience; but a strength, a power, a
dignity. The {page 137} sight moves Pilate's
heart: it would move any heart, he thinks;
may it not move even the hearts of those
people without? may it not satiate their thirst
for vengeance to see the suffering Jesus
reduced to such a pitiable plight as this? He
will try at least what the sight can do in the
way of stirring such sympathy. He goes forth,
with Jesus following, and says to the
multitude, "Behold, I bring him forth to you,
that ye may know that I find no fault in him;"
then, turning and pointing to Jesus, as he
stood wearing still the purple robe and the
crown of thorns, bearing on his face and
person the marks of all the sufferings and
indignities of the guardhouse, Pilate says,
"Behold the man!"--behold and pity, behold,
and be satisfied,--behold, and suffer me, now
that I have thus chastised him, to let him go!
Alas! he knew not the intensity of such
fanatic hatred as that which those High
Priests and rulers cherished, and had, for the
time, infused into the obedient crowd; how it
quenches every impulse of kindliness in the
human heart, and nerves the human hand for
deeds of utmost cruelty. That sight to which
he points, instead {page 138} of moving any
pity, only evokes fresh outbreaks of ferocious
violence; with unabated breath, the same wild
cry from every side salutes the ear of the
Governor--"Crucify him, crucify him!" It not
only disappoints, it provokes Pilate to be
baffled thus again, and baffled by such a
display of immovable and unappeasable
malignity. "Take ye him and crucify him," he
says; 'crucify him as best you can, but do not
expect that I shall countenance the deed by
any countersigning of your sentence in
condemning the man, as if I thought he
deserved to die--take ye him' and crucify him,
for I find no fault in him.'
happening, as if he had expected all, were
prepared for all, found no difficulty in
submitting to all. There is no weakness in that
patience; but a strength, a power, a dignity.
The sight moves Pilate's heart: it would move
any heart, he thinks; may it not move even the
hearts of those people without? may it not
satisfy their thirst for vengeance to see the
suffering Jesus reduced to such a pitiable
plight as this? He will try at least what the
sight can do in the way of stirring such
sympathy. He goes forth, with Jesus
following, and says to the multitude, "Behold,
I bring him forth to you, that ye may know
that I find no fault in him;" then, turning and
pointing to Jesus, as he stood wearing still the
purple robe and the crown of thorns, bearing
on his face and person the marks of all the
sufferings and indignities of the guardhouse,
Pilate says, "Behold the man" 'behold and
pity, behold and be satisfied--behold, and
suffer me, now that I have thus chastised him,
to let him go! Alas! he knew not the intensity
of such fanatic hatred as that which those
high priests and rulers cherished,, and had, for
the time, infused into the obedient crowd;
how it quenches every impulse of kindliness
in the human heart, and nerves the human
hand for deeds of utmost cruelty. That sight
to which he points, instead of moving any
pity, only evokes fresh outbreaks of ferocious
violence; with unabated breath, the same wild
cry from every side salutes the ear of the
governor, "Crucify him, crucify him!" It not
only disappoints, it provokes Pilate to be
baffled thus again, and baffled by such a
display of immovable and unappeasable
malignity. "Take ye him and crucify him," he
says;'crucify him as best you can, but do not
expect that I shall counte- {page 698} nance
the deed by any countersigning of your
sentence in condemning the man, as if I
thought he deserved to die--take ye him and
crucify him, for I find no fault in him.'
Page -315-
But the yielding Governor is not in this
way to slip out of their hands; he, too, must
be a party; and now, at last, they tell him what
hitherto they had concealed--to show him that
theirs was not such a groundless sentence as
he imagined it to be--"We have a law," they
said, "and by our law he ought to die, because
he made himself the Son of God." It is
impossible to say what ideas that phrase, "the
Son of God," excited in the mind of Pilate. He
was familiar with all the legends of the
heathen {page 139} mythologies, which told
of gods and demigods descending and living
upon the earth. Like so many of the educated
Romans of his day, he had thrown off all faith
in their divinity, and yet somehow there still
lingered within, a faith in something higher
than humanity, some beings superior to our
race. And what if this Jesus were one of
them! never in all his intercourse with men,
had he met one the least like this, one who
looked so kinglike, so Godlike; Kinglike,
Godlike, even there as now he stands with a
robe of faded purple and a crown of plaited
thorns. Never in kingly garments, never
beneath imperial crown, did he see a
sceptered sovereign stand so serene, so
dignified, so far above the men that stood
round him. "Whatever the ideas were which
passed through Pilate's mind when he heard
that Jesus had made himself the Son of God,
they deepened that awe which from the first
had been creeping in upon and taking
possession of his spirit:--he was the more
afraid. Once again, therefore, he takes Christ
apart, and says to him, "Whence art thou?" 'In
that first interview, you told me that your
kingdom was not of this world, {page 140}
but whence art thou thyself? art thou of this
earth, I mean like the rest of us, or art thou
other than thou seemest,--comest thou indeed
from heaven?' But Jesus gave him no answer.
Of all the silences of our Lord that day, of
which this in number was the fifth, it seems
But the yielding governor is not in this
way to slip out of their hands; he, too, must
be a party; and now, at last, they tell him what
hitherto they had concealed--to show him that
theirs was not such a groundless sentence as
he imagined it to be--"We have a law," they
said, "and by our law he ought to die, because
he made himself the Son of God." It is
impossible to say what ideas that phrase, "the
Son of God," excited in the mind of Pilate. He
was familiar with all the legends of the
heathen mythologies, which told of gods and
demigods descending and living upon the
earth. Like so many of the educated Romans
of his day, he had thrown off all faith in their
divinity, and yet somehow there still lingered
within, a faith in something higher than
humanity, some beings superior to our race.
And what if this Jesus were one of these!
never in all his intercourse with men had he
met one the least like this, one who looked so
kinglike, so Godlike: kinglike, Godlike, even
there as he now stands with a robe of faded
purple and a crown of plaited thorns. Never in
kingly garments, never beneath imperial
crown, did he see a sceptred sovereign stand
so serene, so dignified, so far above the men
that stood round him. Whatever the ideas
were which passed through Pilate's mind
when he heard that Jesus had made himself
the Son of God, they deepened that awe
which from the first had been creeping in
upon and taking possession of his spirit; he
was the more afraid. Once again, therefore, he
takes Christ apart, and says to him, "Whence
art thou?" 'In that first interview, you told me
that your kingdom was not of this world, but
whence art thou thyself? art thou of this earth,
I mean like the rest of us, or art thou other
than thou seemest--comest thou indeed from
heaven?' But Jesus gave him no answer. Of
all the silences of our Lord that day, of which
this in number was the fifth, it seems the most
difficult to understand. Was it that Pilate, by
Page -316-
the most difficult to understand. Was it that
Pilate, by the way in which he had then put
the question, "What is truth?" without
pausing for a reply, had forfeited his right to
an answer now? Was it that Pilate was wholly
unprepared to receive the answer; that it
would have been a casting of pearls before
swine to have told him whence Jesus was?
Was it that the information, had it been given,
while ineffectual to stop his course, might
have aggravated Pilate's guilt, and therefore,
in mercy, was withheld? We cannot tell; but
we can perceive that the very silence was in
itself an answer; for, supposing Jesus had
been a mere man, had come into this world
even as we all come, would he, had he been
sincere and upright, have hesitated to say
whence he came? would he have allowed
Pilate to remain in doubt? would he have
suffered him, as his question evidently
implied, to {page 141} cherish the impres-
sion that he was something more than
human? We can scarcely think he would. By
his very silence, therefore, our Lord would
throw Pilate back upon that incipient
impression of his Divine origin, that it might
be confirmed and strengthened in his breast.
But here again, even as in the first interview,
the haughtiness of the man comes in to
quench all deeper thought Annoyed by this
silence, this calmness, this apparent
indifference of Jesus, Pilate, in all the pride of
office, says, "Speakest thou not to me;
knowest thou not that I have power to crucify
thee, and power to release thee?"--a very idle
attempt to work upon the mere selfish fears of
Christ;--a question that brings a speedy
answer, one in which rebuke and sympathy
are singularly blended: "Thou couldst have no
power against me, except it were given thee
from above." 'That power of thine, to crucify
me or release, which I do not dispute, which
thou mayest exercise as thou pleasest,--do not
think that it is a power original, underived,
the way in which he had then put the
question, "What is truth?" without pausing for
a reply, had forfeited his right to an answer
now? Was it that Pilate was wholly
unprepared to receive the answer; that it
would have been a casting of pearls before
swine to have told him whence Jesus was?
Was it that the information, had it been given,
while ineffectual to stop his course, might
have aggravated Pilate's guilt, and therefore,
in mercy, was withheld? We cannot tell; but
we can perceive that the very silence was in
itself an answer; for, supposing Jesus had
been a mere man, had come into this world
even as we all come, would he, had he been
sin- {page 699} cere and upright, have
hesitated to say whence he came? would he
have allowed Pilate to remain in doubt?
would he have suffered him, as his question
evidently implied, to cherish the impression
that he was some-thing more than human?
We can scarcely think he would. By his very
silence, therefore, our Lord would throw
Pilate back upon that incipient impression of
his Divine origin, that it might be confirmed
and strengthened in his breast.
But here again, even as in the first
interview, the haughtiness of the man comes
in to quench all deeper thought. Annoyed by
this silence, this calmness, this apparent
indifference of Jesus, Pilate, in all the pride of
office, says, "Speakest thou not to me;
knowest thou not that I have power to crucify
thee, and power to release thee?" a very idle
attempt to work upon the mere selfish fears of
Christ;--a question that brings a speedy
answer, one in which rebuke and sympathy,
are singularly blended: "Thou couldest have
no power against me, except it were given
thee from above."'That power of thine, to
crucify me or release, which I do not dispute,
which thou mayest exercise as thou pleasest--
do not think that it is a power original,
Page -317-
independent. Thou hast it, thou exercisest it
but as Heaven permits; thou little knowest,
indeed, {page 142} what thou doest; it is as a
mere holder of the power that thou art acting,
acting at others' bidding; therefore, that
Jewish Judge, who knowing far better at least
than thou what it was he did, and who it was
that he was giving up to death,--"therefore he
that delivered me unto thee hath the greater
sin." There is something surely very
impressive here; that, sunk as Jesus was
beneath the weight of his own sufferings--
sufferings so acute, that they well might have
engrossed his thoughts and feelings,--he yet
so calmly weighs in the judicial balance the
comparative guilt of the actors in this sad
scene, and excuses, as far as he is able, the
actings of Pilate. It had something of its
proper effect upon the Procurator. Instead of
diminishing, it but increased the desire he
already had to deliver him. He tried again;
tried with still greater earnestness to effect his
object. But again he failed, for now the last
arrow in that quiver of his adversaries is shot
at him--"If thou let this man go, thou art not
Caesar's friend; whosoever maketh himself a
king, speaketh against Caesar." Pilate knew
that already he stood upon uncertain ground
with the imperial autho- {page 143} rities; he
knew that a fresh report of anything like
unfaithfulness to Caesar would cost him the
loss of his office. The risk of losing all that by
occupying that office he had hoped to gain,
he was not prepared to face, and so, yielding
to that last pressure, he gives way, and
delivers up Jesus to be crucified.
Now, let us look a moment at the faults
and at the virtues of this man. The fact that it
fell to his lot to be Governor of Judea at this
time; and to consign the Saviour to the cross,
inclines us to form exaggerated notions of his
criminality. He was not, let us believe, a
worse governor than many who preceded and
who followed him in that office. We know
underived, independent. Thou hast it, thou
exercisest it but as Heaven permits; thou little
knowest, indeed, what thou doest; it is as a
mere holder of the power that thou art acting,
acting at others' bidding; therefore, that
Jewish judge, who knowing far better at least
than thou what it was he did, and who it was
that he was giving up to death'--"therefore he
that delivered me unto thee hath the greater
sin." There is something surely very
impressive here; that, sunk as Jesus was
beneath the weight of his own sufferings--
sufferings so acute that they well might have
engrossed his thoughts and feelings, he yet so
calmly weighs in the judicial balance the
comparative guilt of the actors in this sad
scene, and excuses, as far as he is able, the
actings of Pilate. It had something of its
proper effect upon the procurator. Instead of
diminishing, it but increased the desire he
already had to deliver him. He tried again;
tried with still greater earnestness to effect his
object. But again he failed, for now the last
arrow in that quiver of his adversaries is shot
at him: "If thou let this man go, thou art not
Caesar's friend; whosoever maketh himself a
king, speaketh against Caesar." Pilate knew
that already he stood upon uncertain ground
with the imperial authorities; he knew that a
fresh report of anything like unfaithfulness to
Caesar would cost him his office. The risk of
losing all that by occupying that office he had
hoped to gain, he was not prepared to face,
and so, yielding to this last pressure, he gives
way, and delivers up Jesus to be crucified.
Page 700
Now, let us look a moment at the faults
and at the virtues of this man. The fact that it
fell to his lot to be governor of Judea at this
time, and to consign the Saviour to the cross,
inclines us to form exaggerated notions of his
criminality. He was not, let us believe, a
worse governor than many who preceded and
who followed him in that office. We know
Page -318-
from other sources that he frequently showed
but little regard to human life--recklessly,
indeed, shed human blood, when the shedding
of it ministered to the objects of his ambition;
but we have no reason to believe that he was
a wantonly cruel man, or a particularly
oppressive and tyrannical governor, as
governors then went His treatment of Christ
was marked by anything but a contempt for
justice and an absence of all human feeling.
He {page 144} showed a respect, a pity, a
tenderness to Jesus Christ that, considering
the little that he knew of him, excites our
wonder. He struggled hard to evade the
conclusion to which, with such unrelenting
malignity, the Jewish leaders drove him No
other king, no other ruler, with whom Christ
or his Apostles had to do, acted half as
conscientiously or half as tenderly as Pilate
did. Herod, Felix, Agrippa,--compare their
conduct in like circumstances with that of
Pilate, and does he not rise in your estimate
superior to them all? There is something in
the compunctions, the relentings, the
hesitations, the embarrassments of Pilate--
those reiterated attempts of his to find a way
of escape for himself and for Christ, that
takes a strong hold upon our sympathy. We
cannot but pity, even while forced to
condemn. Condemn, indeed, we must; for--
he was satisfied that Christ was innocent
could get rid of that clear and imperative duty
which it laid upon him; and {page 145} by so
doing he weakened and unsettled this
conviction, and prepared for its being
overborne.
2. He exhibited a sad degree of
vacillation, inconsistency, indecision. Now he
throws all blame upon the Priests: "I am
innocent of his blood; see ye to it." Again, he
from other sources that he frequently showed
but little regard to human life-recklessly,
indeed, shed human blood, when the shedding
of it ministered to the objects of his ambition;
but we have no reason to believe that he was
a wantonly cruel man, or a particularly
oppressive and tyrannical governor, as
governors then went. His treatment of Christ
was marked by anything but a contempt for
justice and an absence of all human feeling.
He showed a respect, a pity, a tenderness to
Jesus Christ that, considering the little that he
knew of him, excites our wonder. He
struggled hard to evade the conclusion to
which, with such unrelenting malignity, the
Jewish leaders drove him. No other king, no
other ruler with whom Christ or his apostles
had to do, acted half as conscientiously or
half as tenderly as Pilate did. Herod, Felix,
Agrippa compare their conduct in like
circumstances with that of Pilate, and does he
not in your estimate rise superior to them all?
There is something in the compunctions, the
relentings, the hesitations, the
embarrassments of Pilate-those reiterated
attempts of his to find a way of escape for
himself and for Christ, that takes a strong
hold upon our sympathy. We cannot but pity,
even while forced to condemn. Condemn,
indeed, we must; for
might get rid of that clear and imperative
duty which it laid upon him; and by so doing
he weakened and unsettled this conviction,
and prepared for its being overborne.
2. He exhibited a sad degree of
vacillation, inconsistency, indecision. Now he
throws all blame upon the priests: "I am
innocent of his blood: see ye to it." Again he
Page -319-
takes the entire responsibility upon himself: "
Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify
thee, and power to release?" Now he
pronounces Jesus innocent, yet with the same
breath proposes to have him punished as
guilty: now he gives him up, and then he has
recourse to every kind of expedient to rescue.
Unstable as water, he does not, he cannot
succeed.
3. He allowed others to dictate to him.
Carelessly and inconsiderately he submits
that to their judgment which he should have
kept wholly within his own hold. He becomes
thus as a wave of the sea, as a feather in the
air, which every breeze of heaven bloweth
about as it listeth.
4. He allowed worldly interest to
predominate over the sense of duty. Such was
the plain and simple issue to which it came at
last: Do the thing he knew was right--acquit
the Saviour-- {page 146} do that, and run all
risks; or do the thing he knew was wrong--do
that, and escape all danger. Such was the
alternative which was at last presented to him.
Alas for Pilate! he chose the latter. But let
each of us now ask himself, Had I been
placed exactly in his position, with those
lights only to guide me that he then had,
should I have acted a better and bolder part?
We may think and hope we should; but, in
thinking so and hoping so, let us remember
how often, when conscience and duty pointed
in the one direction, and passion and self-
interest pointed in the other, we have acted
over and over again the very part of Pilate;
hesitated and wavered, and argued and
debated, and opened our ears to what others
told us, or allowed ourselves to be borne
away by some strong tide that was running in
the wrong direction. Nay more, how often
have we, knowing as we do, or profess to do,
who Christ was, whence he came, what he did
for us, and whither he has gone,--how often
have we given him up into unfriendly hands,
takes the entire responsibility upon himself:
"Knowest thou not that I have power to
crucify thee, and power to release?" Now he
pronounces Jesus innocent, yet with the same
breath proposes to have him punished as
guilty: now he gives him up, and then he has
recourse to every kind of expedient to rescue.
Unstable as water, he does not, he cannot
succeed.
3. He allowed others to dictate to him.
Carelessly and inconsiderately he submits
that to their judgment which he should have
kept wholly within his own hold. He becomes
thus as a wave of the sea, {page 701} as a
feather in the air, which every breeze of
heaven bloweth about as it listeth.
4. He allowed worldly interest to
predominate over the sense of duty. Such was
the plain and simple issue to which it came at
last: Do the thing he knew was right--acquit
the Saviour--do that, and run all risks; or do
the thing he knew was wrong--do that, and
escape all danger. Such was the alternative
which was at last presented to him. Alas for
Pilate! he chose the latter. But let each of us
now ask himself, Had I been placed exactly in
his position, with those lights only to guide
me that he then had, should I have acted a
better and bolder part? We may think and
hope we should; but in thinking so and
hoping so, let us remember how often, when
conscience and duty pointed in the one
direction, and passion and self interest
pointed in the other, we have acted over and
over again the very part of Pilate; hesitated
and wavered, and argued and debated, and
opened our ears to what others told us, or
allowed ourselves to be borne away by some
strong tide that was running in the wrong
direction. Nay more, how often have we,
knowing as we do, or profess to do, who
Christ was, whence he came, what he did for
us, and whither he has gone--how often have
we given him up into unfriendly hands, to do
Page -320-
to do with him what they would,--without
even the washing of our hands, or the saying
what we thought of him?
with him what they would, without even the
washing of our own hands, or the saying what
we thought of him.
A third case should be mentioned in passing. Edward Increase Bosworth wrote Thirty
Studies About Jesus. (NY: Association Press, 1922; orig. 1917). Later he wrote another work
entitled The Life and Teaching Jesus. (The Macmillan Company, 1924). This is an expanded
version of the previous book. But, in the chapter on Christ before Pilate all 976 words came from
the previous work.
Page -321-
Future Work
In his ground-breaking work on the history of scientific revolutions Kuhn (1970) noted
that works became paradigms because, in part, they were "sufficiently open-ended to leave all
sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to resolve" (p.10). In that vein, this
study raises enough questions to stimulate further investigation:
1. Would adding more sources from this time frame materially change the results?
2. Would adding more chapters from the life of Christ substantially alter the results?
(Preliminary work suggests that it would not; see footnote 33.).
3. If other genres within the overall genre of religion were examined, would the results be
similar?
4. How far into the twentieth century would a similar study have to go to get differing
results? (A cursory review of several works indicates that even as late as 1950 authors were still
not marking the words of others with quotation marks and/or indicating their literary sources.
One could also inquire as to when the major styles (Harvard, Chicago/Turabian, APA and
MLA) were first created--the Chicago style was first published in 1906. Perhaps, this would
serve as an indicator.)
5. If other genres (outside of religion) during the nineteenth century were examined,
would the results be different? If not, then how far into the twentieth century would one have to
go to find a significant change in practice? Conklin guesses that a significant change to the
current practices for referencing sources would occur sometime around the mid-1950s.
6. A more robust statistical analysis of the evidence should shed more detailed light on
what was going on in this timeframe. It does not tells us, for example, what percentage of the
Page -322-
entire chapter that would be similar. To use one example and exaggerate: assume that in using
816 words from Fleetwood, that Bloomfield wrote say, 9,000 words in his chapter. Simple
statistics tells us that the amount of borrowing would be less than 10% (or fair use of his source).
Now, lets assume that another author for some unknown reason has only 7 words in his entire
chapter on this subject and that 6 can be found in a previously published work. Now, who, if
either, is the plagiarist?
More work for the future! Conklin has noted that how the authors handled the borrowing
of material from the Bible is also a key to understanding how they would handle the borrowing
of material from other authors. Roughly speaking the use of the biblical material can be seen in
four phases: 1) merge the biblical material into the text with no quote marks or reference, 2) only
put material that is a dialogue in quote marksbut without reference as to where it came from, 3)
put all biblical material in quote marks sans referencing the source, 4) all biblical material is in
quote marks with the source being given. Thesephases are not mutually exclusive. One can,
for instance, find all four in Ellen White. One could go through all of the sources noting which
phase is being used and then see if there is a clear definitive line as to when certain practices
ceased. Likewise with poetryhow the authors handled that is another key to their attitude
towards borrowing material from others.
Page -323-
Words Never Said
Some authors during this timeframe would give a quote that turned to not be a quote after
all. For example, Ryle writes: "That single fact goes far to prove the truth of Edwards'
remark,--"unconverted men would kill God, if they could get at Him."" The problem is that
Edwards never said it! There is something from Edwards that is very similar in his "Natural Men
Are God's Enemies":
"They are mortal enemies to God, i. e., they have that enmity in
their hearts that strikes at the life of God. A man may be no friend
to another, and may have an ill spirit towards him, and yet not be
his mortal enemy: his enmity will be satisfied and glutted with
something short of the death of the person. But it is not so with
natural men with respect to God, they are mortal enemies. Indeed
natural men cannot kill God. They have no hope of it and so make
no attempts...Natural men are enemies to the dominion of God;
and their nature shows their good will to pull him down out of
heaven, and dethrone him if they could! Yea, they are enemies to
the being of God, and would be glad if there was no God, and
therefore it necessarily follows, that they would kill him, and cause
that there should be none, if they could."
40
Some might be tempted to conclude that artificial quotes such as we have seen in the
evidence is a thing of the past. But we would be sadly mistaken as the following examples
show.
Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
In the days after Osama bin Laden's death, a quote attributed to Martin Luther King Jr.
went viral, posted and tweeted by millions of people who were relieved that the terrorist had
been eliminated but appalled by the idea of celebrating. The quote summed up their feelings
well: "I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one,
not even an enemy."
It's a great quote. The problem is, the Rev. King never actually said it.
Found in The Works of Jonathan Edwards. "Men Naturally Are God's Enemies." (NY: Daniel Appleton,
40
1835): page 132. So, what Ryle gives asa quote is actually the gist of about a dozen lines from Edwards.
Page -324-
After a bit of sleuthing, Megan McArdle, a blogger at The Atlantic, discovered that the
quote was from Jessica Dovey, a 24-year-old English teacher in Kobe, Japan. Dovey had posted
the sentiment on Facebook, along with an actual quote from a speech that King gave at the
Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1957. Her entire Facebook status
read: I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of
one, not even an enemy. "Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a
night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate
cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." MLK Jr.
Somewhere along the line, though, the quote marks were removed, the entire statement
was attributed to King, and then the paragraph was shortened, leaving Dovey's thought
connected to King's name.
41
It is an axiom of misquotation that famous lines need to have famous authors attached to
them (paraphrasing a bit from Ralph Keyes).
===
Mahatma Gandhi
The misquote: "Be the change you wish to see in the world."
The actual quote: "If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also
change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him.
... We need not wait to see what others do."
===
Sarah Palin
The misquote: "I can see Russia from my house!"
The actual quote, from a September 2008 interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson:
"They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska,
from an island in Alaska." (The misquote should be attributed to Tina Fey and her parody of
Palin on "Saturday Night Live," The Christian Science Monitor reported.)
===
Henry David Thoreau
Found online at
41
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/life/great-misquotations-the-famous-things-they-never-actually-said-2543520/#photo
Viewer=1; last accessed Sept. 7, 2011.
Page -325-
The misquote: "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams! Live the life youve
imagined."
The actual quote (from "Walden"): "I learned this, at least, by my experiment: that if one
advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has
imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours."
===
Nelson Mandela
The misquote: "Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we
are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask
ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to
be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. ... As we are liberated
from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."
The quote is actually from self-help guru Marianne Williamson, The New York Times
points out.
===
Mark Twain
The misquote: "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great
pleasure"
The actual quote, which is from Clarence Darrow, not Twain: "Everybody is a potential
murderer. Ive never killed any one, but I frequently get satisfaction reading the obituary
notices."
===
Niccolo Machiavelli
The misquote: "The ends justify the means."
The actual quote: "One must consider the final result."
==
Karl Marx
The misquote: "Religion is the opiate of the masses."
Page -326-
The actual quote: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless
world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
===
Chief Seattle
The misquote, often said to be the opening and closing lines of a speech given in 1854:
"How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The end of living and the beginning
of survival."
The quote is actually from a speech written by screenwriter Ted Perry for "Home," an
ecological movie that came out in 1972, about 115 years after Chief Seattle died.
===
Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The misquote, carved into the base of a new Washington, D.C., monument celebrating
the civil rights leader: "I was a drum major for justice, peace and righteousness."
The actual quote, from a sermon delivered at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta in
1960: "Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice.
Say that I was a drum major for peace. I was a drum major for righteousness. And all the other
shallow things will not matter."
===
Barack Obama
The misquote: "This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for. I have become a
symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."
The actual quote:"It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the
crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I
have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."
===
Abraham Lincoln
The misquote: "Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage
morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged."
Page -327-
The quote is really by J. Michael Waller, from a December 2003 piece he wrote for
Insight magazine. Waller later told Factcheck.org that the "supposed quote in question is not a
quote at all, and I never intended it to be construed as one," The Washington Post reported.
===
Voltaire
The misquote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it."
The actual quote, from Voltaire's "Essay on Tolerance": "Think for yourselves and let
others enjoy the privilege to do so too." According to Listverse, the misquote should be
attributed to Evelyn Beatrice Hall, author of the 1907 book "Friends of Voltaire."
===
Bible nonquote: "Cleanliness is next to Godliness."
===
Sherlock Holmes never uttered the words "Elementary, dear Watson."
===
Did Woody Allen say:
"The lion may lie down with the lamb, but the lamb wouldn't get any sleep."
Or, did he say: "The lion and the calf shall lie down together but the calf won't get much
sleep."
Or, did he say: "The lion will lay down with the lamb, but the lamb won't get much
sleep"
Or, did he say: "the Lion may lay down with the Lamb, but only one will get back up"
Its possible that he said various variations of the same thing at different times.
Page -328-
===
Ralph Waldo Emerson
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." came from
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and
philosophers and divines.
===
Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21 1864 "I see in the near future a crisis approaching;
corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the
money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of
the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
He never said it; see http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp. More information on
the forger can be found at
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1956/02/25/1956_02_25_038_TNY_CARDS_000248517?c
urrentPage=all.
===
Who said: "all it takes for evil to win is for enough good men to do nothing?"
Edmund Burke. The actual quote is: "The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is
for good men to do nothing."
From
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_said_all_it_takes_for_evil_to_win_is_for_enough_good_men_t
o_do_nothing
The "actual quote" cannot be found. While it is attributed to Burke, there is not evidence
that he ever actually spoke or wrote it, and Burke was a prolific writer and speaker.
There have been countless attempts to tie it to a specific piece of writing, and some of
these are laudable. One of the most likely sources of this particular bit of wisdom could be:
When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied
sacrifice in a contemptible struggle. It was born in Burke's speech of 23 April 1770, "Thoughts
on the Cause of the Present Discontents," delivered to the House of Commons.
The quote as it is in the question appears in at least eleven (now twelve!) different
permutations on the internet:
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Page -329-
All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men to do
nothing.
All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
In order for 'evil' to prevail, all that need happen is for 'good' people to do nothing.
All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
The surest way for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
All it will take for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.
All that is necessary for the forces of evil to take root in the world is for enough good
men to do nothing.
All that is needed for the forces of evil to succeed is for enough good men to remain
silent.
All it takes for Evil to prevail in this world is for enough good men to do nothing.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
===
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that
way." FDR? Nope. No evidence he ever said such a thing.
Bogus quote from Thoimas Jefferson:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency,
first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them
will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent
their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties
than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the
people, to whom it properly belongs."
Refuted at http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/private-banks-quotation
===
The following unverified quotation has been attributed to Tytler, most notably as part of
a longer piece which began circulating on the Internet shortly after the 2000 U.S. Presidential
Election.[12]
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent
form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover
that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the
majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,
with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is
always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has
been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the
following sequence:
Page -330-
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.
There is no reliable record of Alexander Tytler's having made the statement.[12] In fact,
this passage actually comprises two quotations, which didn't begin to appear together until the
1970s. The first portion (italicized above) first appeared on December 9, 1951,[13] as part of
what appears to be an op-ed piece in The Daily Oklahoman under the byline Elmer T.
Peterson.[14] The original version from Peterson's op-ed is as follows:
Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound
observation: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist
until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the
majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the
democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a
dictatorship, then a monarchy."
The list beginning "From bondage to spiritual faith" is commonly known as the "Tytler
Cycle" or the "Fatal Sequence". Its first known appearance is in a 1943 speech "Industrial
Management in a Republic"[15] by H. W. Prentis, president of the Armstrong Cork Company
and former president of the National Association of Manufacturers, and appears to be original to
him.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler
Page -331-
Conclusions
A number of conclusions can be drawn from the above study. First, given the limited
amount of clear literary dependency among the above authors, one cannot conclude that any of
the above authors actually plagiarized from those who preceded them. Even Kitto, Craigin,
Maas, Luckock, and Nicoll would not have been considered guilty of plagiarism by the literary
and legal standards of nineteenth-century America (see Emerson v. Davies and Robert
Macfarlanes Original Copy: Plagiarism and Originality in Nineteenth-Century Literature
(Oxford, 2007)). Moreover, the extended verbatim copying seen in Kittos use of Neander is not
typical of all of Kitto's writing. If it were, it is doubtful that even nineteenth-century readers
would have found it acceptable. It would seem, however, that neither he nor his nineteenth-
century readers considered occasional verbatim copying as a violation of the literary standards
of the day. The same can be said of Craigins use of Farrar and Geikie, the minimal use of Eddy
by Maas and of Farrar by Nicoll. In the nineteenth century, copying verbatim an entire paragraph
without quotation marks would doubtless have been called plagiarism. But what is seen with
Kitto, Craigin, Maas, and Nicoll is a skillful re-arrangement of pre-existing material.
Second, if the above examples were to be judged solely by an arbitrary standard, it might
lead to the false conclusion that all of the literary similarities seen are the result of deliberate,
conscious borrowing. However, with the exception of Kittos, Craigins, Maass, Luckocks, and
Nicolls use of outside sources, the degree of literary similarity seen in the authors surveyed above
could result from a number of other causes besides direct, deliberate borrowing. Aside from
coincidental verbal paraphrasing of biblical passages, one possible source of similarity might have
been accidental copying, otherwise known as cryptomnesia (Brown & Halliday, 1991; Brown &
Page -332-
Murphy, 1989). During the time frame of the authors under consideration, this phenomenon was
called natural assimilation (The charge of plagiarism. 1885, p. 11), unconscious plagiarism (see
examples in Harrington (1900, p. BR10), Burke (1900, p. BR10), Sexton (1901, p. BR12),
unconscious plagiarism (1904, p. BR566), and Salzman (1931, p. 28)), or double consciousness
(Greenleaf, 1907, p. BR720). In accidental copying, or cryptomnesia, writers inadvertently use the
wording of an author they have read without remembering where the phrasing originated. The
phrase sounds right because good wording is more memorable. Of course, as noted above, this
explanation requires that the alleged borrower actually have access to the alleged source. It should
be noted that this phenomena has been noted in the writings of Nietzsche, Helen Keller, Freud, B.
F. Skinner, Jung, and others (see Brown & Murphy, 1989; Brown & Halliday, 1991)--in some cases
from their own previously published work(s)!
Third, this study lends some support to the argument of St. Onge (1993) that with any
borrowing of less than a full sentence, simple parallelism does not in and of itself prove with
certainty the commission of conscious plagiarism. St. Onge suggests that short phrases can slip into
ones consciousness and thus into ones writing without the writer being aware of it. However,
considering the variety of possible lengths of a sentence, we may well search for clearer standard(s),
which can give more consistent and definite results.
A study by McIver and Carroll (2002) on the Synoptic Gospels led them to conclude that a
sequence of exactly the same 16 or more words . . . is almost certain to have been copied from a
written document (p. 680). Similarly, Totten (1999) concluded that a continuous sequence of 100
42
or more letters and spaces which is identical to a previous work was certainly plagiarized
This seems to ignore the memory capabilities of people who live in an oral culture. Note the studies done
42
by Bailey in this regard.
Page -333-
(Conclusions: Scientific and religious, 4). But, any purely mathematical definition is inadequate
because it does not take into account the historical and cultural context. Totten, McIver, and
43
Carroll, however, make a valid point that unless the assumed borrowing meets the minimum criteria
they have established, there is no 100% certainty, only a probability, that it has actually been
borrowed.
Fourth, the above evidence allows us to draw certain conclusions about the level of Ellen
Whites borrowing. Literary borrowing is to be evaluated on the basis of a progressive degree of
similarity that is sufficient to establish that, not only is there literary dependency on an earlier text,
but that the dependency is of sufficient scope to establish that plagiarism has occurred. With regards
to Ellen G. White, a number of individuals have accumulated examples of literary similarity and
have then assumed that this similarity equals plagiarism. The question that should be asked is
whether these examples of similarity are even examples of literary dependency at all.
Dependency is a descriptive term that the similarity between two sources is too close to
be coincidental. The mathematical rules of Totten, McIver and Carroll tell us when we can be
positively sure of dependency. Once we have demonstrated examples of literary dependency, we
can then determine if there is sufficient dependency to constitute plagiarism. Plagiarism is a value
judgment of improper literary dependency. It is the inappropriate or dishonest or knowing violation
of the standards of documentation prevailing at the time of writing. Proper literary dependency is
just the opposite. It consists in an author using earlier sources appropriately, honestly, and in
conformity to the documentation standards of the time, to the extent that the author was aware of
These kinds of rules will not work when applied in predominantly oral societies where they memorize
43
huge chunks of material and are able to regurgitate it on demand. The nineteenth century was an age of transition
from primarily oral to that of the literary world.
Page -334-
those standards. Some of the authors in the present study show clear literary dependence, but not
contrary to nineteenth-century standards.
Kevin Morgan suggested that the incorporation of language from another author without
making a specific quotation is apparently allowable in the early twentieth century.
This is one of those times when Conklin gets to say "Yes and no!" If we wanted to make it
rule, then, as long as the material is less than a full sentence you can use the wording of another and
not give any sort of credit. If you use a full sentence or more, then, one was "expected" to give at
least the last name of the author--you still don't know which book, etc. that it came from. Also, we
should change the dating. The above rule only kicks in during the latter half of the 19th century
through till maybe around the 1950's. Prior to that it was like all bets were off.
Comparing the columns of the other authors in Table 3 to that of Ellen White, it is logical
to conclude that her minimal use of language from other sources was within the accepted practice
of her times, and that the majority of parallels between The Desire of Ages and earlier works
represent inconsequential similarity of phrasing. Measured by nineteenth-century standards, Ellen
Whites minor use of the phrasing of other authors did not constitute plagiarism.
It should be noted that, while this study, in and of itself, is not absolutely conclusive, it does
44
provide evidence to invalidate the claim that the literary dependency in Ellen Whites The Desire
of Ages was plagiarism, --a claim that was made without the benefit of a study of this kind.
45
It appears that for most of those who make and repeat the plagiarism claims against Ellen G. White no
44
amount or type of evidence could ever be conclusive because their opinion was formed and is maintained without
even looking at the evidence that has been found see the evidence at Conklin (2007). Those who have examined it
have concluded (without having seen this study) that Conklin has already demonstrate[d] that there is no proof of
Ellen White's plagiarism" (Robinson, 2008, Writings of Ellen White).
This study is one of several, which Conklin has conducted, with quite similar results even allowing for
45
the inconsistency of the authors within their own work. None of those who make the claim of plagiarism against
Ellen G. White have yet conducted such a study. These facts, combined with those of Veltmans study raises serious
doubts on the validity of the claim of plagiarism against Ellen G. White.
Page -335-
This study further brings to light a related question that has never been asked: to what extent
did Ellen G. White, or any other writer of the era, know what the literary standards of that day were?
Those who claimed Ellen G. White plagiarized do so under the assumption that she knew she could
not borrow without having to give credit. Since there was no written standard that she, or anyone
else, could consult, how would she/they, know that?
This case study then demonstrates the utility of WCopyfind and the power and value of this
method in determining plagiarism in literature by establishing what was the established norm of
acceptable literary borrowing in nineteenth century lives of Christ writings.
Page -336-
Addendum: 302 Known Lies About Ellen G. White
Truth will do well enough if left to shift for herself. She seldom has received much aid
from the power of great men to whom she is rarely known & seldom welcome. She has no need
of force to procure entrance into the minds of men. Error indeed has often prevailed by the
assistance of power or force. Truth is the proper & sufficient antagonist to error.
46
With respect to the claim that Ellen G. White was a plagiarist it should be noted that her
critics do not stop with merely that general claim.
1. That Ellen White was a plagiarist.
47
2. That she plagiarized by paraphrasing.
48
3. That she was a millionaire.
4. That she was accumulating property while telling everyone else not to.
5. That Fannie Bolton wrote Steps to Christ.
6. That Ellen White engaged in "wholesale plagiarism" of Conybeare and Howson.
7. That she was threatened with a lawsuit over her alleged plagiarism.
8. That she took a dozen servants with her to Australia.
9. That she plagiarized 80-90% ("and possibly more" according to some web sites).
10. That she predicted the San Francisco earthquake after it happened.
11. That she said only vegetarians will be saved.
12. That she said only Sabbatarians will be saved.
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Religion (October 1776), published in The Writings of
46
Thomas Jefferson : 1816-1826 (1899) edited by Paul Leicester Ford, v. 2, p. 102.
This claim was made during the lifetime of Ellen G. White and yet we should note three very interesting
47
facts: 1) there is no evidence that the critics ever informed her alleged victims (this makes the critics accessories
after the fact), 2) there is no evidence that any of the critics took their evidence to any of the major newspapers of
the day. The New York Times ran over 1,000 articles on plagiarism, plagiarists and relevant lawsuits during her
lifetime, and yet not a single one of them is on her. 3) there is no documented evidence that she was ever even
threatened with a lawsuit for her alleged plagiarisms.
One critic attempted to rescue the claim by defining paraphrasing like this:
48
1. Writer may choose to substitute some words from the original with different vocabulary, rearrange words, or
rearrange the whole paragraph. In this way, he or she presents stolen information expressing it with his or her own
words.
2. Writer may try to use exactly the same vocabulary and stylistic constructions and use them with respect to another
context.
Page -337-
13. That the Library of Congress wouldn't allow EGW's book The Great Controversy into
the library because of the plagiarisms involved.
14. That an entire chapter of Sketches from the Life of Paul was "taken entirely" from a
sermon by Melvill.
15. That the claim that "there is no point in the entire chapter that had not already come
to Mevill before" her.
16. That she saw people on Jupiter.
17. That she made repeated claims that Jesus was coming in specific years.
18. That she asked Washburn and Crisler to undertake a research of the Life of Christ and
then she appropriated it and published it as Desire of Ages.
19. That she contradicted Scripture (53, or 75, or "much more than 75") times.
20. That she contradicted herself.
21. That she predicted that England would enter into the American Civil War.
22. That she copied her first vision from Foy. See also #298.
23. or, did she copy it from Joseph Smith?
24. or did she copy it from Joseph Turner?
25. That she predicted that someone would be healed (and yet he died).
26. That SDA's "worship" Ellen White.
27. That Dr. Veltman proved she plagiarized.
28. That her visions were the result of a head injury during childhood.
29. That she was a follower of Joseph Smith.
30. That she wrote that "The Civil War is a sign that Jesus is about to return."
31. That she called Jesus "Michael the Archangel" (Desire of Ages pp. 99, 379; Spiritual
Gifts Vol. 1, p. 158; Prophets & Kings p. 572.
32. "Not to mention the Mason Illuminati influence on EGW toilet paper teachings!!"
Page -338-
33. "But from her own mouth, she was a racist."
34. Alleged quote from EGW: {EGW: Lazarus, leads the donkey at the triumphal entry
into Jerusalem. The healed dumb shouted the loudest, healed blind led the way and the healed
cripples broke the most branches."}
35. Another alleged material from EGW: {EGW: THE SISTER OF MARTHA AND
LAZARUS, WAS MARY MAGDALENE, AND SHE WAS LED INTO SIN BY SIMON. DA,
p. 566,568.}
36. "SHE WAS AN OCCULTIST FACT!"
37. "SHE WAS INVOLVED IN THE OCCULT THE ILLUMINATI!"
38. EGW copied her health ideas from Jackson. (No examples were given, despite
repeated requests and then when pressed further said that they were in the book by Numbers not
there either.)
39. That she copied other people's ideas. Can't prove that words were copied and yet they
can prove that ideas were?!?
40. That she didn't believe in the Trinity, or did she?
41. a) One critic accused her of necromancy (communicating with the dead) because she
said that she had talked with Enoch.
b) Another critic claimed she practiced necromancy in talking to her husband after he
had died.
42. Mrs. White also says of pork that it is nourishing and strengthening food:
Testimonies, Volume 1, p.206
43. "What prophetess would say that God made a mistake, just to cover her own errors
and failed prophecies?"
44. A Solemn Appeal (1870), p. 173 "Let's see now, youth are worthless, and Christians
are animals. What a wonderful outlook on humanity!"
45. "even some SDA researchers have concluded that she offered very little that was
new"
46. "she was trying to point you all toward Christ instead you worship her;"
47. "she copied extensively from this book (Wylie's History of Protestantism) and
claimed it was a revelation from God!" (10/17/2009)[ea claimed that she followed it right along
paragraph by paragraph (when you check you find out that he flipped the order of Wylie's
paragraphs) and page and by page--the evidence he shows you,shows that that claim is false.]
Page -339-
48. "Then she blamed the errors in the 1843 charts on GOD, for "hiding HER mistakes"
49. "5. JESUS' BROTHERS WERE OLDER THAN HE AND THEY WERE THE
SONS OF JOSEPH AND SIDED WITH THE RABBIS.
EGW YES: "All this displeased His brothers. Being older than Jesus, they felt that He
should be under their dictation. His brothers, as the sons of Joseph were called, sided with the
rabbis. They insisted that the traditions must be heeded, as if they were the requirements of
God." (Desire of Ages, p.86,87).
Note: Not Biblical. ... How can Adventists claim that the Bible is the source of their faith
and accept this as the truth, and do it with a straight face? The Bible clearly states that Jesus was
the firstborn of Mary.(And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he
called his name JESUS.) How can the firstborn have older brothers?(Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7)."
[Where's the proof that Joseph didn't have sons before marrying Mary?]
50. She in THE ONLY PROPHET GIVEN WINGS WHILE IN VISION.
>EGW YES: "The Lord has given me a view of other worlds. Wings were given me, and
an angel attended me from the city to a place that was bright and glorious." (Early Writings p.
39).
[Note that she didn't say that she was the only prophet to be given wings. What does that
tell you when they lie like that? Hoping you wouldn't catch their lie? Did they think that you
were too stupid to catch them?]
51. Is she the SDA Virgin mary? There seems to be a Catholic like reverence for her by
SDA's.
52. "why is that only Ellen's words are memorialized and protected in a museum?"
53. "This is where early Advent and JW theology merged, not only here but in many
ways, including co-authoring books of false doctrines. The title of _the_ book was "Plan of
Redemption, Nelson Barbour and Charles T. Russell ... and Barbour was a Millerite who went
through the 1844 failure with other Adventists and was in fact an Adventist alongside Miller ..."
[There's no evidence that Barbour ever knew or associated with Miller--he was an Advent
Christian and had started his own group [not SDA]--see Wiki
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Barbour)]
54. Ellen White's visions were because she was drunk on vinegar.
55. "I would never join a church that teaches piano tuners go insane a lot."
56. EGW said that "The salvation of GOD is for SDA ONLY!"
57. "Ellen White which is needed for salvation as the gift of prophecy."
58. "EGW SAID ALL CHILDREN BORN AFTER 1844 ARE CONTROLED BY
SATAN!"
Page -340-
59. "She also said the door of Salvation is FOREVER CLOSED AFTER 22ND OCT
1844!"
60. "EGW forbade you to invite Jesus into your heart until AFTER you have stopped
sinning on your own"
61. "Much of what she wrote about health was copied from other authors. It's been
proven that she copied Dr. James Caleb Jackson's health work.
... She copied much of her health writings."
62. "This same attitude is manifest (refusal to take blame) when Ellen White blamed God
for the errors in the Millerites' 1843 charts."
63. "She prophesied that Europe would never united."
64. Phony quote attributed to EGW: "EGW: "I was shown that Brother and Sister Van
Horn had departed from God's counsel in bringing into this world children --- the enemy came in
and his counsel was followed, and the cause of God was robbed --- the bringing of children into
the world is more an occasion of grief than joy. The very atmosphere is polluted. SATAN
CONTROLS THESE CHILDRENS, and the LORD HAS BUT LITTLE TO DO WITH THEM.
We shall need a voice like John the Baptist, to show my people their transgressions, and the
house of Israel their sins." (God's Love Nagel, p. 68+69 Testimony DF97c.)"
65. "Why did EGW mislead many faithfull believers their jesus was coming to EARTH
in 1844...?"
66. "...we do not need any extra prophets like Joseph Smith or Ellen White. They simply
confuse people with their own private interpretations."
67. "E. G. White prophesied the world would end in 1843, 1844, 1845 & 1851: "Now
time is almost finished,(1851) and what we have been 6 years in learning they will have to learn
in months." EARLY WRITINGS p. 57 [This is a bogus quote.]
68. "YOU LOVE THE LIE OF YOUR WICKED god EGW!!"

69-70. "EGW prophesied the destruction of the denomination she started,"
71. "EGW said that non-adventists cannot be saved."
72. "EGW said SALVATION WAS CLOSED IN 1844"
73. "EGW was on SDA PAY ROLL LIKE PASTORS!!"
74. "she said if you leave you are lost."
Page -341-
75. "I will show the evidence that EGW god told her [EGW] William Miller chart was
correct!"
76. "When you have done the above you will be able to understand EGW on her BIG lie/
false prophecy on jesus second coming in 1844!"
77. "CHRIST will place all these sins upon Satan,... so Satan,... will at last suffer the
FULL PENALTY OF SIN" (Great Controversy, p. 422, 485, 486)."
78. "Did you know Ellen ate oysters well after telling her flock about unclean foods?"
79. "YOU WILL NOTICE SHE SAID SALVATION IS NOT FOR THE SLAVES!!"
EGW: "God cannot take the slave to heaven" (GC 193)
80. "If you believe EGW was raised to be a prophet of the remnant church, that she had
visions from late teens onward & talked to Jesus & Angels in vision, don't ya kinda think He
would have told her...BTW... I am NOT created a notch above an Angel...I'm Eternal God, so
please inform the SDA church that this Arian heresy has to go before I get really ticked off. No
she believed and taught Biblical heresy for more than four decades."
81-2. "The EGW Estate militantly guards access to her unpublished works under the
guise of confidentiality even from high level GC officers who must bow to their rules."
83. "EGW says: Adam was deceived (GC, p.352, 1885 ed.)."
84. "She made too many plagiarized visions which she says she saw things which were
copies from other people's visions." [Wheres the proof that the other authors she supposedly
copied from had visions? If she plagiarized their visions, then who is responsible for the content
of those visions?]
85. "Do Adventists ignore sharing the Gospel with slaves seeing EGW taught that slaves
cannot be saved?"
86-90. "Ellen White also ate squirrel, possum and wild ducks that her son Willie shot.
That is not a critics claim."
91-3. "Read Paradise Lost written by John Milton in 1667. For 25 years he studied
every book he could find about the Biblical Creation. He wrote his epic poem Paradise Lost as
a result of those 25 years of study, no vision. Now read all that Ellen wrote about Adam and Eve
in the Garden. Odd how it is almost exactly the same story. sometimes whole sentences of John
Miltons are used."
94. "EGW says: The blood of Christ doesn't cancel our sins (P&P, p. 357)."
95. "My husband was an SDA pastor and he was taught (in college and seminary) to put
EGW in every sermon....every sermon."
Page -342-
96. "Because they teach salvation OUTSIDE of Jesus. Mostly Jesus PLUS SDA
membership PLUS Sabbath keeping PLUS acceptance and belief in EGW."
97. "Let's just say it: EGW was a racist. She did live in another century after all."
98. "she has plagiarized from many authors and taken entire paragraphs almost word for
word."
99. "She and her silly god confirmed Jesus would arrive here on EARTH in OCT 1844."
100. "She is the one who taught that God's blood contaminated heaven." Repeated as
"What then do you make of a woman "prophetess" who claims Jesus blood defiled heaven?"
101. Have you had an appointment with SATAN like EGW did??
102. Another ploy is to rip a quote out of its context: "The man Christ Jesus was not the
Lord God Almighty(ms 150, SDA Commentary V, p.1129)"
103. "The problem is that Ellen White copied ERRORS while she said" an angel showed
me"!!"
104. "She forbids the use of wedding bands."
105. "SDA's read the Bible through Ellen White"
106. "Negroes should not urge that blacks be placed on an equal basis with white folks."
107. "A false prophet is not only one whose prediction did not come to pass, but also one
who lies, saying God showed them such and such when in fact, it was their vain imagination.
Ellen White almost confessed one day, but she was too timid to say outright that she was
not being 100% honest all along."
108. "EGW also says he was in his apartment till 22nd OCT 1844!?"
109. "I believe the false prophetess White participated in both time setting in 1844 ..."
110. "Mrs. White sent letters to five prominent Adventist leaders asking them to write to
her and honestly share any reservations which they had about her prophetic gift. She said that
she would answer any questions which they asked. When two of the men did as she asked,
Willie White published their letters in the Review and Herald and the men were forced out of
the church. Mrs. White never wrote back to any of these men with any answers to their
questions."
111. Manipulated quote: Through a rift in the clouds, there beams a star whose
brilliancy is increased fourfold in contrast with the darkness. It speaks of hope and joy to the
faithful but severity and wrath to the transgressors of Gods law. Too late they see that the
Sabbath of the fourth commandment is the seal of the living God.The voice of God is heard
from heaven, declaring the day and hour of Jesus coming and delivering the everlasting
covenant to His people (The Great Controversy, pp. 638, 640).
Page -343-
112. "removing all her incoherent, absurd and erroneous ideas"
113. "She did got sued but resolved OUT OF COURT."
114. "Dr. Veltman pointed out that EGW also copied the vision of SDA walking on
mountain slope from Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon."
115. "What's the big fuss about Ellen, who's 17 literary assistants and shadow writers
wrote and copied 17 TIMES MORE than the Bible!"
116. "We are very upset that your prophetess copied the vision of which there is a
painting at your Headquarters from our prophet, the honorable Joseph Smith. Please apologize
for this gross act of plagiarism."
117. "They say they believe in the Holy Ghost yet they wait for reproof and correction of
EGW a false prophet not the Holy Ghost! They have replaced Holy Ghost with EGW and put her
in the same authority as the bible..."
118-122. "Because of Ellen White, the name of God is blasphemed continually among
the "Gentiles". All her visions are worthless, all her dreams but lies and her impressions the
product of things she heard among men. He NEVER sent her and those who follow her are
marked for BITTER DISAPPOINTMENT."
123. "She likes to have visions to help keep control of her sheep.
124. "ELLEN WHITE WAS NO PROPHET SHE PUTS LEAVEN WITH THE BLOOD
...SHE WAS A BAD BAD GIRL TO DO THAT ...OH YES SYMBOLIC ... YES FREE
MASONRY ...SYMBOLIC ...YEH YEH"
125. "SHE CONTRADICTED HERSELF IN NEARLY EVERY STATEMENT SHE
EVER MADE..."
126. "THE church was to be sued bu Dr. Jackson whom she stole his Health book from ,
BUT SETTLED THE MATTER"
127. "blacks and Indians were amalgamations of animals and humans"
128. "She made up rules as she went along."
129. "Why do SDA think that salvation is dependent on believing in Ellen White?
130. "She introduced and rubber stamped most of the false doctrines, eg the Investigative
Judgment."
131. The critics attack with phony quotes: ... for at last I know that the pope is antichrist,
and that his throne is that of Satan himself.... Ellen White, The Spirit of Prophecy Volume Four,
p 277
Page -344-
132. "It is very clear to me that little Ellen was very
cleaver indeed. She read Floy's very storybook style of writing . As you
can see Ellen copied his style of writing. Her writing reads just like Floys. What a little
sneak.
Anyone with half a brain can see that she was greatly
influenced by Floy, and wanted to be like him. She
wanted to be revered like Floy so she simply rearrange
the wording, but the silly child like writing is just
like Floys. Everyone fell for it. ..." [With the original spelling and formatting.]
133. " Each time EGW said "I was shown" to give the impression that God was speaking
through her, she was in reality copying other people's thoughts and impressions, often word for
word, without giving credit to her human sources."
134. "Why do you seek to cast aspersion on a biblical prophet in order to make EGW
look good in her "food for the worms" false prophecy?"
135. "EGW is infallible in the SDA cult members minds. She is their god."
136. "[T]here's one passage from DA, Chapter 9, where it tells of the angel that called the
Son of God from the dead and grave, virtually IDENTICAL with Jacob Lorber's 'New
Revelation of John'."
137. "READ THE LETTER BATES WROTE TO THE WHITES CLAIMING ELLEN
STOLE THE SHUT DOOR THEOLOGY FROM Joseph Turner"
138. "According to SDA, Ellen White was more holy than Jesus Christ. She NEVER, I
repeat, NEVER sinned."
139. "She combined her own ideas with these other authors. "
140. ". . . Ellen is no queen."
141. "Ellen G White taught that the SABBATH is the Savior for SDA Cult members . . ."
142. "Ellen White did not write that quote. She copied it. She copied all of the Desire of
Ages."
143. ". . . they believe that FAITH IN EGW is essential to be part of the "remnant
church" and to be saved."
144 ". . . according to false prophet EGW and SDA, Jesus must still be bleeding in the
sanctuary to wash away their sins!"
145. Another of EGW's fabricated myths: "the story of how Lucifer sought to be like the
Most High and was ultimately booted out of heaven with 1/3 of the angels."
Page -345-
146. "She clearly added a different story of judgment that is so different from what God
said." [1 year and 11 months later they still hadnt explained what had been claimed.]
147. Do you think it was just coincidence that God revealed to Ellen White the exact
words in Hasting's book?
148. It is foolish for people to defend a woman who is as sinful as we all are to be
treated differently as if she were God.
149. Don't get caught up in this web of deceit by a false prophet White and false prophet
JW Rusell. They were friends that has much to do with the date setting ... [emphasis added]
150-7. "EGW got caught stealing. She copied her
peer writings and that is moraly wrong. SHe copied
Steps to Christ, Desire of Ages and Great Controversey as well as
health messages.
Does masturbation cause diabetes or hair loss or
deformity at birth. Think about what EGW is revealing about herself.
Are there giants on Saturn?? Is enoch on Jupitor??
What does this say about the founder of your church."
158. "She obviously tried very hard to gain the acceptance of her followers by inventing
stories, . . ."
159. "How many times EGW bragged about her visions? I saw this, I saw that, I had
a vision here, I had a vision there, I was taken in a trip to heaven, even into the Holiest
place, I saw angels here, I saw angels there, the heavenly intelligences talked to me, I
visited the planets, etc, etc"
160. "Same happened when the White Estate hired an independent unbiased researched
into Ellen White's writtings and he found out she did plagiarized . . ."
161. "She had a good accountant like Jacko [Michael Jackson] He owes Millions and still
managed to come out with Millions for his family!! Thats what CON people do!! EGW conned
her followers!!"
162. "She teaches the sabbath is the seal of the Christian."
163. "She teaches the Christian is to keep the Israeli Sabbath Covenant"
164. "If She didn't steal it is because she couldn't find it."
165. "No showers EGW said so."
Page -346-
166. Mostly phony quote: "Paul must receive instruction in the Christian faith and move
accordingly. Christ sends him to His very disciples whom he had been so bitterly persecuting, to
learn of them. N//ow Paul was in a condition to learn of those whom God had ordained to teach
the truth. Christ directs Paul to His chosen servants, thus placing him in connection with His
church. The very men whom Paul was purposing to destroy were to be his instructors in the very
religion that he had despised and persecuted." (Testimonies, Vol. 3, p.430).
167-9. "Many a SDA beliver thinks that EGW symbolizes a saint...and that they can
obtain unobtainable salvation by appeasement of or through her teaching."
170. "Civil war with England!!!"
171. "In the very bosom of Ellen White, there was deception and a willingness to lie for
the sake of fame and fortune."
172. Read her history, she was ALWAYS sick, ALWAYS means EVERY SINGLE
DAY AFTER THE ACCIDENT."
173. "She took many images already published and plagiarized them onto her work
changing even the owners signatures!"
174. "Ellen White said that Satan, who was already previously kicked out of heaven
based on EGW writtings, went back with total disrespect toward God and sneaked into Jesus
apartment !!!"
175. "In the past witch doctors in Africa did the same act as Ellen's. They went into a
altered state of mind."
176. "PROPHECY: England will attack the U.S. during the Civil War (TC, vol. 1,
p.259)."
177. "PROPHECY: The earth will be depopulated soon after 1864 (TC, vol. 8, p.94)."
see previous
178. "EGW says: We are reconciled to God through obedience to the Law (TC, vol. 4,
p.294)." see #169.
179-180. "In the founding of the movement, during the years of 1830-40, Ellen White
and her husband played a very prominent part, ..." (Walter Rea; quoted by Kevin Morgan)
181. "... James and Ellen White, along with other early leaders of the SDA movement
were freemasons."
182. "she never told anyone she copied until she got caught,then she quickly copvers her
self and says well God told me to copy".
Page -347-
183. "why do SDA follow a false prophet condemned by Jesus Christ himself".
184. "They must bow to her no matter is all the facts are against what they want to
believe."
185. "EGW said Christ would return in 1844."
186. "But you and EGW believe both in legalism. You both are saved by WORKS!"
187-9. "no 1000 years
no ten commandments in ark
no soul sleep as the they are already inside the gates to welcome them home
no common sense as they have made three vision from this one and stretched it out over
twelve months BUT THE EVIDENCE IS PLAIN DEC 1845 ELLEN WROTE IT OUT AND IT
WAS PUBLISHED.".
190. "The concept of the United States allying itself with the Vatican to force Sunday
worship upon the world is downright ludicrous. This is one of EGW's most flagrant false
prophecies."
191. "DID YOU KNOW, that Mrs White proclaimed about the First Day of the week,
that it should be a day for all the creation of God to be "REMEMBERED"? That the First Day of
the week should be a day of joy and celebration?"
192. "Mrs. White teaches that a believer's sins are not yet blotted out or forgiven: they are
merely pardoned. She teaches that one's eternal destiny will be ultimately determined by a
weighing of a believer's good works and bad works when their name comes up in the
Investigative Judgment."
193. "All date setters have been proven wrong so far in HIstory and so has EGW".
194. "The woman was no shown by God what to write."
195. "**** BUT IF YOU ALREADY READ EGW's COPY THEN YOU ALREADY
READ IT [referring to Hastings work]!****"
196. "She teaches Jesus was walking around in a sinful nature, the same as defiled man, a
sinner, . . ."
197. "She teaches the sabbath is the seal of God for the Christian" (see #189).
198. "Your prophet is not questioned she is your own personal pope although even some
RCs question the pope."
Page -348-
199. "If she copied one word from someone else or every inch of some else writtings, she
is not the truth."
200. "wigs causes dementia"
201. "ellen be your guide and deliver, because if she is Jesus Christ cant be."
202-3. "Lets see Uriah Smith and Andrews (already noted as #47) and Crosier basicaly
wrote the Great Controversey which EGW helped herself to."
204. EGW supposedly said that forest fires caused the Dark Day. Despite repeated
requests the poster could never come up with a source. "You have repeatedly ask me for proof
of the fact that EGW claimed "that the smoke from the forest fires caused the dark day" and have
used this as a diversion tactic to answer anything I have provided. Technically speaking Mr.
Conklin she may not have specifically said forest fire smoke and if you would like to add that to
your list of lies I would be proud to be 195 or 196 or whatever number you want to assign to it."
205. "Egw was way out of line to dictate that a couple should have sex once a month..".
206. "Ellen copied someone who had written on the Victorian view point in the 1800's on
sex."
207. "Its interesting how her own Adventist physicians felt she was a mental patient
also."
I then noted:
As our preachers went into Parkville, Michigan, some thirty miles southwest of Battle
Creek, in 1860, and held evangelistic meetings, the people were told, among other things, about
the visions given to Mrs. White. A spiritualist physician lived there, a certain Dr. Brown. He had
boasted that he could explain it all in terms of spiritualism. He asserted that the visions that were
given to Ellen White were just a form of spirit-mediumship, and that if he should ever be present
when she was in a vision, he could bring her out of it in just one minute. That's all the time he
would need.
An Adventist church building was erected in Parkville in 1860 and was dedicated on
Sabbath, January 12, 1861. Elder and Mrs. White, Elder J. N. Loughborough, Elder Uriah Smith,
and some others went down from Battle Creek to be present for the service. In connection with
the afternoon meeting, Ellen White was taken off in vision. Elder White always gave ample
opportunity for any who wished
[81]
to examine Ellen White while in vision to do so, and this time was no exception. He
asked whether there was a physician who could be called who could examine Mrs. White while
in vision and report to the people as to her condition. Remembering his boast, the people urged
Dr. Brown, who happened to be present, to respond and conduct the examination.
Dr. Brown began to examine Ellen White but soon turned deathly pale and began to
shake all over. Elder White asked,Will the physician please report to the congregation
concerning his findings?
Page -349-
Oh, he said,she does not breathe, and he started for the door. When he got near the
door, the brethren blocked it and said,Go back and do like you said you would. You said you
could stop the vision in one minute.Oh no, he replied.Well, what is it? they asked.God
only knows, he replied.Let me out of this house. He jerked the door open and ran.
More on http://www.whiteestate.org/books/egww/EGWWc03.html.
"Such an obvious setup for drama and everyone to ohh & ahh.".
208. "Ellen White's LOVES Abortion!".
209. "Adventists are very firm in their belief that Jesus is Michael the Archangel." [I'd
like to see the study that proved that.] "They must take this position because this is what their
prophetess, Ellen G. White taught." (Facebook post--thread was shut down to avoid rebuttal).
210. "Having only a third grade education, Ellen White said for years she was unable to
read, bolstering the claim that her beautiful prose was inspired by God." (Facebook post--thread
was shut down to avoid rebuttal).
211. "E. G. White even taught that the 144,000, which she said she would be a part of,
...".
212. "do you understand how egw twisted the scriptures".
213. "several dozen editions of "The Desire of Ages"".
214. "her now well-known fraulent dreams."
215-6. "She lied about all her other visions being that she got caught coping her peers
work . . ."
217. "EGW knew not about the Sabbath till a Sabbath keeping Baptist church pastor
show her the truth, NOT GOD!!!"
218. "She even admitted and it is historical fact that a pastor show her the Sabbath, not
God!" (see previous)
219. ". . . she was easily impressed, typical Temporal Lope Epilepsy symptom, . . ."
220. "In many cases it appears the doctrine originated with her teachings and was then
adopted by the church."
221-2. "Mrs white condemned pastors who eat meat snd members who cooked
onSabbath. Also sin to mix eith other Christians"
223. "Ellen White did not believe in the trinity until it was convenient for her to do so!"
Page -350-
224. "She was a legalist who believed sinners would be judged in the IJ according to their
works-contribution to their salvation."
225. "Ellen White conceived in her heart to conspire with James TO RULE THE
WORLD, I mean, the world of their "little monsters"."
226. "Here is a little of what the great Prophetess Ellen G White revealed as God's
messenger : Sleeping on feather beds and pillows will lead to masturbation then insanity and
death."
227. A manufactured quote: "Page 9,10 she says; Lascivious day dreams often cause
premature disease and death"
228. A manufactured quote: "A Solemn Appeal" . Page 22, 97 - After Indulging in this
habit ( solitary vice) for a time, the child loses it's bright and happy look; it becomes pale with a
greenish tint" (several web sites; Calhoun, George R., Report of the Consulting Surgeon on
Spermatorrhoea, or Seminal Weakness, Impotence, the Vice of Onanism, Masturbation, or Self
-Abuse, and Other Diseases of the Sexual Organs. (Philadelphia: Howard Association, 1858), p.
5.; see also J. E. Ryan, "Sexual Excesses," Chicago Medical Times, (1885), page 346).
230. "Ellen said you can not have sex on Sat,."
231. "She lied saying, "I was shown, I was shown, I was shown ..." when in fact, she had
overhead James talking about the matter with Joseph Bates or some other.
232. "She obliviously knew the cause [of the Dark Day--the poster claimed that EGW
said it was caused by forest fires.] some 70+ yrs later since she grew up in the area and claimed
to have a hot line to heaven."
233. "CAN EX-SDA'S BE SAVED? EGW SAID NO !!!!"
234. "Obviously, her [shut-door] doctrine (substantiated by HER vision she
manufactured to support HER doctrine) ..."
235. "She claimed to have seen in a vision that the day of salvation for sinners was past."
236-240."If she didn't write about it is because she couldn't find where to steal it from.
Your goddess EGW is a legalistic, a liar, a plagiarist, a babbler, in summary I don't care what
else she could be. To believe in her is not a requirement to be saved."
241. "How do you harmonize Ellen White's use of sources with her statements to the
contrary?"
242-244. "SDA researcher McAdams stated, "if every paragraph in The Great
Controversy were footnoted in accordance with proper procedure, almost every paragraph would
Page -351-
be footnoted." The White Lie, p. 85, Rae quoted from, Glendale Committee, "Ellen G. White and
Her Sources," (tapes 28-29, January 1980), McAdams remarks."
245. "They hang to her "not breathing" a subjective observation to prove her divinity,
everything else had failed flat on their face!!!"
246. "The 144,000 are gays!!!
Ellen White said so!!!
They are male that had never touched woman!!!
How wrong she was!!!"
247. "Will Ellen White be one of the 144,000?
She said she will!!!"
248. "I think that EGW had the vision but plagiarized the description."
249. "EGW thought Jesus was coming in her day."
250. "the audacity to claim prophethood like she did."
251. "she wasn't ahead of her time in health. She copied new material from other health
Doctors [who are never named] ..."
252. "Satanist White", also given as "Ellen White was a Satan Worshipper and a Satanist,
and demon possessed, and is currently burning in Hades."
253. "Ask an Adventist, she did not copied she just "borrowed" ideas and words and in
some cases complete books!"
254. "Now you got caught like EGW got caught"
255. "Mabey God has done this, if she is a real prophet to punish your church for putting
her on par with the bible?"
256. "Ellen White protested loudly that she saw blue people on Jupiter."
257. "EGW said her writings were for those who do not read the BIBLE!!"
258. "Ellen White says that you have to remember EVERY SIN you have ever
committed, otherwise "ZIP!", there goes your salvation; just like that. "
259. "Now As I said the vital force issuse is a concept in which she read about probably
from Mr. Kellog "
Page -352-
260. "she got it fom Jackson and was connected to the science of Phrenology and she also
paraphased L. B Coles writings on vital force as well"
261. "Ellen believed in phrenology as a science"
262. "... unlike Ellen White who secretly hired a battalion of writers, in a contemptible
attempt to palm off her deficiency as inspiration."
263. "BESIDES her being a FALSE PROPHET has been proven by HISTORY long ago
when she continually prophesied the return of CHRIST in 1844 1844 1845 1851 1856 etc."
264. "If you reject Ellen White you are committing the unpardonable sin !!!"
265. "You MUST accept Ellen White before you are baptized an SDA."
266. "In conclusion, I'd like to say that Ellen White has replaced the Pope among SDA."
267. "She taught you that non sabbath keepers would not enter the kingdom of heaven"
268. "I'd like to say that the doctrine of an investigative judgment is not only non-biblical
but wholly the imagination of a gullible girl who was ambitious enough to discern the stupidity
of the men about her: viz. Ellen G. White nee Harmon."
269. "Robes, you know you believe EGW was a prophet, don't you? Nevertheless, I tell
you the truth, ambition was driving her imagination."
270. "And ALL her prophecies came true! "THEY" say."
271? "But Ellen White CHEAPENS the grace of God by making it available by our own
works ..."
272. "Ellen's White said we should not condemn the innocent who are tring to bring
world peace."
273. "Nevertheless, I tell you the truth, ambition was driving her imagination."
274. "Ellen White was a Plagiarist and this has been accepted by the SDA church."
275. "As for Ellen White's plagiarism being covered by fair use, she didn't credit her
sources or even use quotation marks, so it was clearly plagiarism and not merely fair use of an
other writer."
276. "Even if Ellen White's Plagiarism was in short enough sections to be considered fair
use to prevent her being sued, it was still plagiarism, and something a prophet of God would
never do."
Page -353-
277. "Then, DID YOU KNOW, that Mrs White proclaimed about the First Day of the
week, that it should be a day for all the creation of God to be "REMEMBERED"? That the First
Day of the week should be a day of joy and celebration?"
278. "EGW had a vision that some races of men are a mixture of man and beast."
279. "Ellen White ... copied nearly any sentence with more then seven words in it and
word bigger than six letters" (Tim on 1/24/2013 @
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/seventh-day-adventist/TOMCP3D68T7251L8J/p6, Post
#110).
280. "... at the end of her life she had at least 3 different estates all over the world with
butlers and assistants) ..."
281. "Do they know that she was arrested and many others with her, when neighbours
were calling police because Ellen G. White and first pioneers were gathering in the house for
days locked in the bedrooms and they were "kissing each other" with brotherly love."
282. ""Then it was that the synagogue of Satan fallen Adventists, who had given up
1844 as a mistake, and the nominal churches knew that God loved us who could...salute the
brethren with a holy kiss, and they worshipped at our feet." (Curiously, the highlighted words
were omitted from the sixth edition of Spiritual Gifts 2.) Ellen G. White".
283. "Ellen White, in keeping with her Arian co-founders rebuked the belief of the
Trinity publically in their many publications ..."
284. "She said black people were a cross between man and beast."
285. "EGW recommended to use natural means for abortion."
286. "No wonder the Adventists church who follows that Ellen White (alias Jezebel) who
call herself a prophetess, ..."
287. "Elen also advocated Freedmans churches for Freed slaves"
288. "Colored men are inclined to think That they are fitted to labour with white people,
when they should devote themeselves to do missionary work among colored people. manuscript
realeases vol4 p 18. Selected messages book 2 p342" [Bogus quote]
289. "there should be no marriages between white and the colored race. The colored
people should not urge that they be placed on an equality with white people.manuscript releases
volume 4 p23 paragraph 2".
Page -354-
290. "there should be no marriages between white and the colored race. The colored
people should not urge that they be placed on an equality with white people.manuscript releases
volume 4 p23 paragraph 2" (same as previous).
291. "And yes the writers of the scriptures were human, but their writings are included in
the Bible. EGW's are not, and are totally unnecessary and extremely misleading. "
292. "She even said that God's Feasts were replaced by GC meetings!!!"
293. "EGW says the SDA PASTORS will take the SDA MEMBER into SUNDAY
KEEPING."
294. "EGW dared to usurp the role of Jesus Christ."
295. "And they [SDA] hide statements where she [EGW] claims to be the voice of God."
296. "she had a spirit Guide whom "channelled" information whom make up one of the
72 demonic command"
297. "Because she and all the rest of the clan were nothing more than opportunistic
frauds."
298. "why does miss Harmons first recorded vision have all the cut and paste from James
Whites previous articles?" See #22-24.
299. "She said that the prayers of the saints were ascending to Satan who had moved into
the first apartment after Jesus had moved into the second in the condominium of heaven, a kind
of musical chairs."
300. "EGW also said that the GC is GOD's HIGHEST Authority on EARTH! But when a
black man became a member in the GC she changed her tune!"
301. "What made EGW reject THE GC as GOD's highest authority on EARTH?"
302. "Ellen G. White was a Masonic Lodge Occult member along with her? husband, and
all leadership of the SDA?"
Another phony quote? ""The time is and has been for years, that the bringing of children
into the world is more an occasion of grief than joy..... SATAN CONTROLS THESE
CHILDRENS, and the Lord has but little to do with them. The time has come when, in one
sense, that they that have wives be as though they had none." -- MS 34, 1885" (Supposedly this
MS was "quoted" by Wille White and D.E. Robinson in DF-360A which was published by the
White Estate on July 15, 1934.)
Page -355-
With as little as 5 minutes of work on each you can prove that some of the above claims
are false. The critics, however, will never spend that 5 minutes and will never admit that any of
the above are false (even if they never made the claims themselves!). And they show that they
havent thought things through; for example, if Ellen White did in fact plagiarize 80-90% (and
possibly much more) as they claim, then the alleged contradictions (#125) arent hers, but of
her alleged sources! And sometimes they show that they dont know what they are talking about
within their own claims (see 41a for example; according to Scripture, Enoch never died, so how
can Ellen White be accused of talking with the dead?).
About a decade ago Conklin was dealing with some Bible critics and they pointed him to
long lists of alleged errors and contradictions in the Bible. He realized that it would take him
forever to deal with all of them. That taught him that he didnt have to do all that workall he
had to do was look at the easiest and simplest ones that he could find and see how well they
were put together. In about an hours worth of work he proved that they were wrong on four
points. From this experience he learned a couple of things (the critics of Ellen G. White are
guilty of the same things): 1) that the critics hadnt done even the most basic of research, 2) they
operate on a number of unwritten assumptions, and 3) when they are so wrong on such simple
things why should anyone trust them on the more complex issues and questions? Or, when the
critics have been found to be so wrong, so often, why should anyone listen to anything that they
have to say?
All these examples leave us with the question: if the cause of the critics is so true and so
right, then why do they have to lie so much? This is one place where the study gets interesting.
In dealing with some of todays critics of Ellen White, Conklin has found that most are simply
repeating what they have been told, or read somewhere (mostly from the Web). The claim
Page -356-
sounded good to them, because that was what they wanted to hear--this is called confirmation
bias. They did not do any sort of research or thinking on the subject. They didnt know what to
say or what kinds of questions to ask, like, Show me the proof, wheres the evidence? Because
they know so little about this field they didnt even know what constitutes as evidence. They
didnt know that mere literary similarity isnt proof of copying or even dependency. They quite
simply dont know that they dont know. And they have no idea of where to even start. Given
that then, what does that tell you about the claim that some ex-Adventists make: I studied my
way out of the SDA church!?
One of the interesting things that happens when dealing with the critics is that they help
to shot themselves in the foot. One critic wrote: Just another lie by one professing to be
telling the truth [with no evidence being presented that Conklin had lied]. 1 or 148 - a lie is a lie
is a lie.
Page -357-
Bibliography
49
One critic (Rea?) sent me two very short bibliographies (which contained a total of 24 sources (11 of
49
which are available in one source--see the second Arthur White item. This yields an actual total of 13 items.)) and in
one the "bibliographies" claimed that "to prepare a complete bibliographic listing is time consuming." First of all,
who said it had to be "complete"? Second, how would one even decide which bibliography was "complete"? Third,
how long does it really take to create a bibliography? It really doesn't take all that much time to enter an item into a
bibliography. If a professor at a university heard a student making such a claim the professor would be thinking "He
is actually saying "I'm too lazy!"." Finally, the fact that his bibliographies tended to be superficial should really raise
one's eyebrows!
Page -358-

Chapter 77 2

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Chapter 77 2

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Was Desire of Ages Plagiarized?

A Comparative Literary Analysis of the Borrowing by Authors

Potrebbero piacerti anche