Friday, October 1.—Among the interesting relics of antiquity which have been brought to light in these days, is the following sentence from the Courier des Etats Unis:
Sentence Rendered by Pontius Pilate, Acting Governor of Lower Galilee, Stating that Jesus of Nazareth shall Suffer Death on the Cross.
In the year seventeen of the Emperor Tiberius Caesar, and the 25th day of March, the city of the Holy Jerusalem, Anna and Caiaphas being priests, sacrificators of the people of God, Pontius Pilate, governor of Lower Galilee, sitting on the presidential chair of the Praetory, condemns Jesus of Nazareth to die on the cross between two thieves—the great and notorious evidence of the people saying—1. Jesus is a seducer. 2. He is seditious. 3. He is an enemy of the law. 4. He calls himself falsely the Son of God. 5. He calls himself falsely the King of Israel. 6. He entered into the temple, followed by a multitude bearing palm branches in their hands. Order the first centurion, Quills Cornelius, to lead him to the place of execution. Forbid to any person whomsoever, either poor or rich, to oppose the death of Jesus.
The witnesses who signed the condemnation of Jesus are, viz.—1. Daniel Robani. 2. Raphel Robani. 3. Capet, a citizen. Jesus shall go out of the city of Jerusalem by the gate of Struenus.
The above sentence is engraved on a copper plate; on one side are written these words—"A similar plate is sent to each tribe." It was found in an antique vase of white marble, while excavating in the ancient city of Aquilla, in the kingdom of Naples, in the year 1820, and was discovered by the Commissaries of Arts attached to the French armies. At the expedition of Naples, it was found enclosed in a box of ebony, in the Sacristy of the Chartrem. The vase in the Chapel of Caserta. The French translation was made by the members of the Commission of Arts. The original is in the Hebrew language. The Chartrem requested earnestly that the plate should not be taken away from them. The request was granted as a reward for the sacrifice they had made for the army. M. Denon, one of the Savans, caused a plate to be made of the same model, on which he had engraved the above sentence. At the sale of his collection of antiquities, &c., it was bought by Lord Howard for 2,890 francs. Its intrinsic value and interest are much greater.
A few years ago, there was found at Catskill, in New York, a shekel of Israel, of the time of our Savior. On one side was the representation of a palm leaf, on the other a picture of the temple, with the words underneath, "Holy Jerusalem," in the Hebrew tongue.
Relics like these, properly authenticated, have about them an inexpressible sacredness.[[2]]
Footnotes:
[1]. Edward Hunter was the second son and seventh child of Edward and Hannah Hunter. He was born in Newtown Township, Delaware county, Pennsylvania. June 22, 1793. His paternal ancestors were from the north of England, and on his mother's side he was of Welsh extraction. John Hunter, his great-grandfather, passed over to Ireland some time in the seventeenth century and served as a lieutenant of cavalry under William of Orange at the battle of the Boyne, where he was wounded. He afterwards came to America and settled in Delaware county, Pennsylvania, about twelve miles from Philadelphia. Edward Hunter, Esq., the Bishop's father, was justice of the peace in Delaware county for forty years. On his mother's side three generations back was Robert Owen of North Wales, a man of wealth and character, a firm sympathizer with Cromwell and the Protectorate, who on the restoration of Charles the Second, refused to take the oath of allegiance, and was imprisoned for five years. After his release he emigrated to America and purchased property near the "City of Brotherly Love." Like the founder of that city, Robert Owen was a Quaker. His son George sat in the state legislature and held various positions of public trust (Whitney).
Edward Hunter finally settled in Chester county, Pennsylvania, where he purchased an extensive farm, and married Ann Standley, daughter of Jacob and Martha Standley. Here Mormonism found him in 1839, through the preaching of some of the Elders laboring in that vicinity, and Mr. Hunter extended to them the hospitality of his home. En route from Washington to Nauvoo, in the winter of 1839-40, the Prophet Joseph visited him, and for several days preached in the vicinity of the Hunter homestead. Other prominent Elders of the Church also visited the Hunter home, among them the Prophet's brother, Hyrum. Finally on the 8th of October, 1841, Edward Hunter was baptized by Elder Orson Hyde, then on his way to Jerusalem. This brings the biography of the future Bishop of the Church up to the time of his first appearance in Nauvoo, on the 13th of September, 1841, and henceforth the events of his life will be closely interwoven in the history of the Church.
[2]. To the sentiment here expressed by the Prophet, no one will withhold his assent, but he will need to emphasize the phrase "properly authenticated," because it is unquestionably the case that many alleged early Christian documents of the character of the above are spurious: and whether the above alleged formal sentence was really rendered by Pontius Pilate or not, may not be determined. As remarked by nearly all authorities upon this subject, it is probable that Pilate made an official report to Tiberius of both the condemnation and punishment of Jesus Christ. Rev. J. R. Beard, D. D., member of the Historico-Theological society of Liepzig, and author of the article "Pilate," in Kitto's Biblical Literature, says: "The voice of antiquity intimates that Pilate did make such a report; the words of Justin Martyr are: [second century] 'That these things were so done you may know from the 'Acts' made in the time of Pontius Pilate.' A similar passage is found a little further on in the same work [i. e. Justin's apology]. Now when it is considered that Justin's Apology was a set defense 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 these 'Acts' [of Pilate] would have been referred to had they not been genuine." Dr. Lardner, who has, perhaps, more fully discussed the subject than any other writer upon it, decides that, "It must be allowed by all that Pontius Pilate composed some memoirs concerning our Savior, and sent them to the emperor." (See Lardner, Vol. vi, p. 610.) And yet this very author says that the Acts of Pontius Pilate, "and his letter to Tiberius which we now have, are not genuine, but manifestly spurious."
In Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, it is stated that "We learn from Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius and others, that Pilate made an official report to Tiberius of our Lord's trial and condemnation, and in a homily ascribed to, though marked as spurious by his Benedictine editors, certain 'acts' or 'comments' of Pilate, are spoken of as well known documents in common circulation." (Article Pilate.) Then the author of this article on Pilate—Rev. Henry Wright Phillott, student of Christ Church, Oxford, adds: "That he, (Pilate) made such a report is highly probable, and it may have been in existence in Chrysostom's time; but the 'Acts of Pilate,' (Acta Pilati,) now extant in Greek, and two Latin epistles from him to the emperor, are certainly spurious;" and it is further said, "The number of extant 'Acta Pilati,' in various forms, is so large as to show that very early the demand created a supply of documents manifestly spurious, and we have no reason for looking on any one of those that remain as more authentic than the others."
Whether or not the above document in the text, purported to be Pilate's formal sentence of death upon Jesus is among the early Christian documents that are spurious, I am not able to determine by any works at my command, and the modification in the sentence of the Prophet above, which states, that "relics like these, property authenticated, have about them an inexpressible sacredness," would rather indicate the existence of doubt in his own mind as to the absolute certainty of the above document being genuine; and I by no means consider that he commits himself to the genuineness of the document by publishing it in the annals of the Church. Such documents are only inexpressibly sacred if the authentication is beyond question; and he does not here discuss that question.