Did Pilate think by this display that he freed himself from responsibility?  Did he hope to turn aside the blow which threatened Jesus by conceding something to the hatred of the Jews,[1] and by substituting for the tragic denouement a grotesque termination, to make it appear that the affair merited no other issue?  If such were his idea, it was unsuccessful.  The tumult increased, and became an open riot.  The cry “Crucify him! crucify him!” resounded from all sides.  The priests becoming increasingly urgent, declared the law in peril if the corrupter were not punished with death.[2] Pilate saw clearly that to save Jesus he would have to put down a terrible disturbance.  He still tried, however, to gain time.  He returned to the judgment-hall, and ascertained from what country Jesus came, with the hope of finding a pretext for declaring his inability to adjudicate.[3] According to one tradition, he even sent Jesus to Antipas, who, it is said, was then at Jerusalem.[4] Jesus took no part in these well-meant efforts; he maintained, as he had done before Kaiapha, a grave and dignified silence, which astonished Pilate.  The cries from without became more and more menacing.  The people had already begun to denounce the lack of zeal in the functionary who protected an enemy of Caesar.  The greatest adversaries of the Roman rule were suddenly transformed into loyal subjects of Tiberius, that they might have the right of accusing the too tolerant procurator of treason.  “We have no king,” said they, “but Caesar.  If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend:  whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar."[5] The feeble Pilate yielded; he foresaw the report that his enemies would send to Rome, in which they would accuse him of having protected a rival of Tiberius.  Once before, in the matter of the votive escutcheons,[6] the Jews had written to the emperor, and had received satisfaction.  He feared for his office.  By a compliance, which was to deliver his name to the scorn of history, he yielded, throwing, it is said, upon the Jews all the responsibility of what was about to happen.  The latter, according to the Christians, fully accepted it, by exclaiming, “His blood be on us and on our children!"[7]

[Footnote 1:  Luke xxiii. 16, 22.]

[Footnote 2:  John xix. 7.]

[Footnote 3:  John xix. 9.  Cf.  Luke xxiii. 6, and following.]

[Footnote 4:  It is probable that this is a first attempt at a “Harmony of the Gospels.”  Luke must have had before him a narrative in which the death of Jesus was erroneously attributed to Herod.  In order not to sacrifice this version entirely he must have combined the two traditions.  What makes this more likely is, that he probably had a vague knowledge that Jesus (as John teaches us) appeared before three authorities.  In many other cases, Luke seems to have a remote idea of the facts which are peculiar to the narration of John.  Moreover, the third Gospel contains in its history of the Crucifixion a series of additions which the author appears to have drawn from a more recent document, and which had evidently been arranged with a special view to edification.]