In the presence of his judges, Socrates makes his own defense. One by one he meets the charges. Jesus refused, according to two of the evangelists, to open his mouth at his trial. This is dramatic, but it is not history. It is not conceivable that a real person accused as Jesus was, would have refused a great opportunity to disprove the charges against him. Socrates' defense of himself is one of the classics. Jesus' silence is a conundrum. "But he answered nothing," "But Jesus as yet answered nothing," "And he answered him never a word," is the report of two of his biographers. The other two evangelists, as is usual, contradict the former and produce the following dialogues between Jesus and his judges, which from beginning to end possess all the marks of unreality: _Pilate_.--"Art thou the King of the Jews?" _Jesus_.--"Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?" _Pilate_--"Art thou a King?" _Jesus_.--"Thou sayest that I am a King." Is it possible that a real man, not to say the Savior of the world, would give such unmeaning and evasive replies to straightforward questions? Does it not read like a page from fiction? In the presence of the priests of his own race Jesus is as indefinite and sophistical as he is before the Roman Pilate. _The Priests_--"Art thou the Christ--tell us?" _Jesus._--"If I tell you ye will not believe me." _The Priests_.--"Art thou the Son of God?" _Jesus_.--"Ye say that I am." In the first answer he refuses to reveal himself because he does not think he can command belief in himself; in his second answer he either blames them for saying he was the Son of God, or quotes their own testimony to prove that he is the Son of God. But if they believed he was God, would they try to kill him? Is it not unthinkable? He intimates that the priests believe he is the Son of God--"Ye say that I am." Surely, it is more probable that these dialogues were invented by his anonymous biographers than that they really represent an actual conversation between Jesus and his judges.