We may reasonably suppose St. Matthew to have cited the Hebrew,—St. John the Greek,—and St. Mark the Latin, which was the shortest, and without mixture of foreign words. St. Mark is followed by St. Luke; only that he has brought down “THIS IS” from above, as having a common reference to what stood under it. Newcome.
Tacit. Annal. xv. 31. See M. Dupin's Trial of Jesus, p. 57-59, (Amer. Ed.) Chr. Thomasius, Dissertatio de injusto Pilati judicio, § 12, 60. The want of this power was admitted by the Jews, in their reply to Pilate, when he required them to judge Jesus according to their own law, and they replied, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” John xviii. 31.
This point has been held in different ways by learned men. Some are of opinion that the Sanhedrim had power to inflict death for offences touching religion, though not for political offences; and that it was with reference to the charge of treason that they said to Pilate what has just been cited from St. John. They say that, though the Sanhedrim had convicted Jesus of blasphemy, yet they dared not execute that sentence, for fear of a sedition of the people:—that they therefore craftily determined to throw on Pilate the odium of his destruction, by accusing him of treason; and hence, after condemning him, they consulted further, as stated in Matt. xxvii. 1, 2. Mark xv. 1, how to effect this design:—that when Pilate found no fault in him, and directed them to take and crucify him, some replied, “We have a law, and by our law he ought to die,” (John xix. 7,) to intimate to Pilate that Jesus was guilty of death by the Jewish law also, as well as the Roman, and that therefore he would not lose any popularity by condemning him. See Zorrius, Hist. Fisci Judaici, ch. 2, § 2, (in Ugolini Thesaur. tom. 26, col. 1001-1003.) The same view is taken by Deylingius, De Judæorum Jure Gladii, § 10, 11, 12, (in Ugolin. Thesaur. tom. 29, col. 1189-1192.) But he concludes that in all capital cases, there was an appeal from the Sanhedrim to the Prætor; and that without the approval of the latter, the sentence of the Sanhedrim could not be executed. Ibid. § 15, col. 1196. Molinæus understood the Jewish law in the same manner. See his Harmony of the Gospels, note on John xviii. 31. C. Molinæi Opera, tom. 5. pp. 603, 604. But this opinion is refuted by what is said by M. Dupin, Trial, &c., § 8, and by Thomasius, above cited.
We will cite here the words of one of the finest laws of the Romans: Vanæ voces populi non sunt audiendæ, quando aut noxium crimine absolvi, aut innocentum condemnari desiderant—The idle clamour of the populace is not to be regarded, when they call for a guilty man to be acquitted, or an innocent one to be condemned. Law 12, Code de Pœnis. Pilate might also have read in Horace: Justum et tenacem, &c.—
“The man in conscious virtue bold,
Who dares his secret purpose hold,
Unshaken hears the crowd's tumultuous cries,
And the impetuous tyrant's angry brow defies.”