Этот вопрос решался учеными мужами по-разному. Некоторые придерживаются мнения, что синедрион обладал властью выносить смертный приговор за преступления против религии, хотя и не за политические правонарушения; и что именно в связи с обвинением в государственной измене они сказали Пилате то, что только что было процитировано из св. Иоанна. Они говорят, что, хотя синедрион и признал Иисуса виновным в богохульстве, они не осмелились привести этот приговор в исполнение из страха перед народным мятежом, и поэтому коварно решили переложить на Пилата позор Его казни, обвинив Его в государственной измене; и отсюда после осуждения они провели дальнейшее совещание, как указано в Матф. XXVII. 1, 2 и Марк. XV. 1, о том, как осуществить этот замысел. Когда же Пилат не нашел в Нем никакой вины и велел им самим взять Его и распять, некоторые возразили: «У нас есть закон, и по закону нашему Он должен умереть» (Иоан. XIX. 7), чтобы дать понять Пилату, что Иисус повинен смерти также и по иудейскому закону, а не только по римскому, и что поэтому он не потеряет никакой популярности, осудив Его. См.: Zorrius, Hist. Fisci Judaici, ch. 2, § 2 (in Ugolini Thesaur. tom. 26, col. 1001-1003). Того же взгляда придерживается Дейлинг, De Judæorum Jure Gladii, § 10, 11, 12 (in Ugolin. Thesaur. tom. 29, col. 1189-1192). Однако он заключает, что по всем делам, караемым смертной казнью, существовала апелляция из синедриона к претору и что без одобрения последнего приговор синедриона не мог быть приведен в исполнение (Ibid. § 15, col. 1196). Молиней понимал иудейский закон точно так же; см. его Гармонию Евангелий, примеч. к Иоан. XVIII. 31 (C. Molinæi Opera, tom. 5. pp. 603, 604). Но это мнение опровергается тем, что сказано М. Дюпеном в Суде и т. д. (§ 8), и упомянутым выше Томазием. 356.See M. Dupin's Trial of Jesus, pp. 55-62. His authorities are Loiseau, Godefroy, and Cujas, the two latter of whom he cites as follows:—Procurator Cæsaris fungens vice præsidis potest cognoscere de causis criminalibus. Godefroy, in his note (letter S) upon the 3rd law of the code, Ibi causæ fiscales, &c. And he cites several others, which I have verified, and which are most precise to the same effect. See particularly the 4th law of the Code, Ad. leg. fab. de plag., and the 2nd law of the Code, De Pœnis.—Procuratoribus Cæsaris data est jurisdictio in causis fiscalibus pecuniariis, non in criminalibus, nisi quum fungebantur vice præsidum; ut Pontius Pilatus fuit procurator Cæsaris vice præsidis in Syria. Cujas, Observ. xix. 13.357.Luke xxiii. 2.358.John xviii. 38.359.Luke xxiii. 5.360.Luke xxiii. 10, 11.361.Luke xxiii. 13, 14, 15. I regard this judgement as conclusive evidence of the innocence of the accused. Pilate's strenuous endeavour to release him instead of Barabbas, and his solemn washing his own hands of the guilt of his blood, though they show the strength of his own convictions, yet add no legal force to the judgement itself.362.John xix. 12.363.Luke xxiii. 24.364.See M. Dupin's Trial of Jesus, pp. 82-84.365.Ibid. 7-15. Jahn's Bibl. Ant. § 246.366.Deut. xxii. 22, and xxiii. 2. Selden, De Synedriis, lib. 3, cap. 4, 5.367.Matt. i. 19, 20.368.Matt. xi. 20-24. Luke iv. &c.369.Matt. xxiii. per tot.370.Matt. xii. 11-46. John vii. 40.371.The expression son of God was in common use among the Jews, to designate a man of remarkable wisdom and piety. It was not in this sense that Jesus Christ used it; for in that case it would have occasioned no great sensation. Besides, if we should assume, in order to make it a subject of accusation against these Jews, that Jesus did not expressly declare himself to be God, we should be exposed to this rejoinder: Why then do you believe in him?372.See Deut. iv. 15, and xiii. per tot.373.John vi. 39-42. Matt. xiii. 55.374.This fact is clearly established as possible; and we must observe that till then there had been neither opposition nor enmity in the minds of this people, since they had listened to him with the greatest attention, and did not hesitate to acknowledge in him all that public law permitted them to do, viz., a prophet, a highly inspired man.375.John x. 30-33.376.Matt. x. 34. Mark x. 29.377.Matt. xvi. 1-4. John viii. 13-18.378.John vii. 43. Luke xxiii. 5.379.Matt. ix. 10. Mark ii. 15. Luke xv. 1.380.Matt. xix. 24.381.John x. 20.382.John vii. 12.383.John xi. 47-50.384.Matt. xxvi. 4. John xi. 53, 54.385.Matt. xxi. 23.386.It will be recollected, that the senate held its sessions in one of the porticos of the temple. At this time the high priest presided over the senate, so that the guards of the high priest, of the elders and the temple, were no other than the legal militia.387.John xviii. 10, 11.388.Mark xiv. 50. Matt. xxvi. 56.389.Matt. xxvi. 60, 61. And the last came two false witnesses, and said, this fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. Mark xiv. 57, 58. And there arose certain and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. John ii. 19, 21, 22. Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. But he spake of the temple of his body. When, therefore, he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.390.I repeat that the expression son of God, includes here the idea of God himself; the fact is already established, and all the subsequent events confirm it. Observe, also, that I quote the narrative of only one of the parties to this great proceeding.391.Deut. xxviii. 20. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.392.Matt. xxvii. 1. Mark xv. 1.393.The duties of Pilate were to inform himself whether the sentences given did or did not affect the interests of Rome; there his part ended. Thus it is not astonishing that this procurator, doubtless little acquainted with the Jewish laws, signed the decree for the arrest of Jesus, although he did not find him guilty. We shall see hereafter that there were then many parties among the Jews, among whom were the Herodians or serviles, partisans of the house of Herod, and devoted to the foreign interests. These are they who speak continually of Cæsar, of rendering to Cæsar the tribute due to Cæsar; they also insist that Jesus called himself king of the Jews, but this charge was reckoned as nothing before the senate, and was not of a nature alone to merit capital punishment.394.See Matt. xxvii. 27. Mark xv. 16. John xix. 2.395.John xix. 7.396.The sending back of Jesus to Herod, which, according to the Gospel of St. Luke, Pilate would have done, is not stated by the other Evangelists, and does not at all change the judicial question. Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, and of Perea, had no authority in Jerusalem. Upon his visit to this city, Pilate, according to St. Luke, would, out of respect, have caused Jesus to appear before this ally of the Romans, because Jesus was surnamed the Galilean, though originally from Judea. But to whatever tribe he belonged, the nature of the accusation would still have required, according to the Hebrew law, that he should be judged by the senate of Jerusalem.397.Matt. xvii. 42, 43.398.This Analysis first appeared in the Gazette des Tribunaux.399.Joshua vii. 19, &c.400.By this, says Father Lamy, we may understand what the mixture of wine and myrrh was, which they presented to Jesus on the cross, and which he would not drink. Introd. to the reading of the Holy Scriptures, chap. vi. (Note of Mr. Salvador, Book iv. ch. 2.)401.As was that of Stephen, whom the same priests caused to be massacred by the populace, without a previous sentence of the law. Occidere: Non occides, thou shalt not kill. Deut. v. 17. Veneno homines occidere. Cic. pro Roscio, 61. Virginiam filiam sua manu occidit Virginius. Cic. de Finib. 107. Non hominem occidi. Horat. I. Epist. 17, 10. Inermem occidere. Ovid. ii. Fast. 139. Interficere: Feras interficere. Lucret. lib. v. 251. Interfectus in acie. Cic. de Finib. 103. Cæsaris interfectores. Brutus Ciceroni, 16, 8. Interfectorem Gracchi. Cic. de Claris Orrato. 66.402.Will it be believed, that Tertullian and St. Irenæus were obliged to refute seriously some writers of their day, who considered the conduct of Judas not only excusable, but worthy of admiration and highly meritorious, “because (as they said) of the immense service which he had rendered to the human race by preparing their redemption!” In the same manner, at a certain period, we have seen plunderers of the public money make a merit of their conduct, because in that way they had weakened the usurpation and prepared the way for the triumph of legitimacy.403.See, as to these two grounds of nullity, the Jewish authors cited by Prost de Royer, tome 2, p. 205, verbo Accusation.404.Mr. Salvador admits this: “Caiaphas,” says he, “made himself his accuser.” p. 85.405.Ananias, a chief priest, having given orders to strike Paul upon the face, Paul said to him: “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall; for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten, contrary to the law!” Acts xxiii. 3.406.Mr. Salvador, in his note to p. 82, admits, that “the expression Son of God was in common use among the Hebrews, to signify a man of great wisdom, or of deep piety.” But he adds, “It was not in this sense, that it was used by Jesus Christ; it would not have caused so strong a sensation.” Thus, then, by construction, and changing the words from their usual meaning, an article of accusation is formed against Jesus.407.That is, he usurped the functions of a judge; for we shall see, in the next section, that the Council of the Jews had not jurisdiction of capital cases.408.Antiq. Judaic. lib. 18, cap. 3 & 6.409.Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest's palace, and went in and sat with the servants to see the end. Matt. xxvi. 58. So also the young man spoken of by St. Mark, xiv. 51: And there followed him a certain young man, &c.410.De Crimine præsidis cognitio est. Cujas, xix. Observ. 13.411.Procurator Cæsaris fungens vice præsidis potest cognoscere de causis criminalibus. Godefroy, in his note (letter S) upon the 3rd law of the Code, Ubi causæ fiscales, &c. And he cites several others, which I have verified, and which are most precise to the same effect. See particularly the 4th law of the Code, Ad leg. fab. de plag., and the 2nd law of the Code, De Pœnis.412.Procuratoribus Cæsaris data est jurisdictio in causis fiscalibus pecuniariis, non in criminalibus, nisi quum fungebantur vice præsidum; ut Pontius Pilatus fuit procurator Cæsaris vice præsidis in Syria. Cujas, Observ. xix. 13.413.“To carry one from Caiaphas to Pilate” has since become a proverb.414.Lysias thus wrote to Felix the Governor, in relation to Paul: Whom I perceived to be accused of questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or bonds. Acts xxiii. 29.415.Gerhard makes the following unanswerable dilemma upon this point. “Be consistent with thyself, Pilate; for, if Christ is innocent, why dost thou not send him away acquitted? And if thou believest him deserving of chastisement with rods, why dost thou proclaim him to be innocent?” Gerh. Harm. ch. 193, p. 1889.416.Мы процитируем здесь слова одного из прекраснейших законов римлян: Vanæ voces populi non sunt audiendæ, quando aut noxium crimine absolvi, aut innocentum condemnari desiderant — Праздные крики толпы не должны приниматься во внимание, когда они требуют оправдания виновного или осуждения невиновного (Закон 12, Кодекс о наказаниях). Пилат мог также прочитать у Горация: Justum et tenacem…
«Муж правый, твердый в замыслах своих, / Который смело держит путь благий, / Не внемлет воплям буйной черни / И гневный лик тирана презрит».