The culmination of the gospel narrative is the trial of Jesus Christ and his execution on Mount Calvary. In addition to the spiritual edifying meaning, this story has a historical component. Even categorical skeptics admit that some real trial with global implications did take place in Palestine at the beginning of the 1st century. But what exactly were the charges brought against the defendant, and why was he executed with such indicative cruelty? Can these questions be answered without theological speculation?
In the 17th and 18th centuries, people began to wonder what the real historical background of the events described in the New Testament was. Even while remaining Christians, many could no longer accept the Bible as the ultimate truth, realizing that its texts are allegorical and filled with symbols. Since then, historians have made significant progress in figuring out what the historical Jesus Christ was and why his enemies took up arms against him.
Massacre of the innocents
According to the New Testament, the first danger lay in wait for Jesus while he was in the cradle. We are talking, of course, about the beating of infants, arranged by Herod the Great. And here, first of all, one should tell about the king of Judea himself, since there is no doubt about his historicity.
In the middle of the 1st century BC, Palestine lost its independence and became subject to Rome. Part of the local population tried to fight this, part - actively supported and welcomed. Herod's father Antipater was one of the latter, timely supporting Caesar. Due to this, he managed to become king of Judea and found a dynasty. He appointed the youngest son of Herod as tetrarch of Galilee.
However, another powerful empire, Parthia, claimed the Jewish lands.
In 40 BC, Herod was forced to flee from the Parthian invasion. When he reached Rome, he received the approval and support of Mark Antony and was "elected" (or rather, appointed by the Roman senators) as the new king of Judea. Subsequently, Mark Antony fell into disgrace and turned into an enemy of Rome. But Herod managed to orient himself in time and assure of his loyalty to the new ruler of the Eternal City - Octavian Augustus.
Promotional video:
In a word, it cost Herod enormous efforts to acquire power and keep it in his hands. Therefore, he was very sensitive to any, even imaginary threats. He did not trust even the closest relatives and endlessly suspected those around him of conspiracies. In the end, this led to the fact that, on the basis of a denunciation, he ordered the execution of two of his own sons - Alexander and Aristobulus. According to many historians, it was this event, which glorified Herod as a cruel madman throughout the ancient world, and became the historical basis for the legend of the beating of babies.
Only one of the four canonical Gospels, Matthew, tells about the order of King Herod. Also, this is discussed in several apocrypha. But the historical documents and chronicles remain completely silent. Although if, allegedly, 14 thousand babies were put to death (and sometimes this number increases to 64 thousand!), Then this simply could not go unnoticed. In addition, Bethlehem, in which the beating of babies allegedly took place, is then and now a rather small town. In the 1st century BC, no more than a thousand people lived there. Even taking into account the crowds of visitors who arrived there for the sake of the population census, it is difficult to imagine that among them there were so many children under two years old.
It is also noteworthy that according to the Roman historian Josephus Flavius, who left the most detailed description of those times, Herod the Great died in 2 or 1 BC, that is, before the birth of Christ in general. And sometimes his death is even attributed to 4 BC.
The Sanhedrin intrigue
Escaping danger in infancy, Jesus Christ traveled the path of his earthly life and about 33 years old found himself with his disciples in Jerusalem. It was here that one of the apostles - Judas - delivered the Savior into the hands of Roman soldiers. This story is quite mysterious and surrounded by many speculations.
From a theological point of view, everything is simple: Judas succumbed to the temptation of the devil, and also coveted the money that the Jewish high priests promised him (those same famous 30 pieces of silver). From a practical point of view, it is not entirely clear why this betrayal was needed at all and why the members of the Sanhedrin (the council of Jewish priests and the highest judicial body) could not at any moment seize Jesus and sentence him to punishment.
Against the background of numerous itinerant preachers and prophets, with whom Palestine was full of that time, Jesus stood out above all for the audacity of his actions, as well as for his colossal influence on the people. He directly, openly and publicly performed actions that, both according to the formal and informal rules of the time, could not be interpreted as anything other than blasphemy, or, in modern language, "insulting the feelings of believers." He constantly called himself the son of God, emphasizing this in every conversation. Violating the Sabbath rule, he healed people on a day when any activity was forbidden on pain of death. Finally, stories were passed from mouth to mouth about the miracles that he performed.
The Sanhedrin members had a difficult choice. Or to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, which would destroy the system of hierarchy that had been taking shape for centuries and would entail a restructuring of the entire way of life (and, therefore, would undermine the foundations of the power and might of the Sanhedrin itself). Or declare him a blasphemer, and the miracles he works - a warlock. And to execute according to the ancient Jewish custom, by stoning. And this would inevitably provoke popular unrest.
The suppression of the uprising, of course, would not have been done by the Sanhedrin, but by the Romans, who represented the real power in the region. And this scenario was fraught with several problems at once. First, in this way the Jewish authorities would demonstrate their inability to keep the people in subjection. The Romans might even have suspicions - was this a planned uprising against their administration? And is it not necessary to carry out reforms in Judea in this regard? Second, by pacifying the unrest, the Romans could "get carried away" and punish not only those who tried to stand up for Jesus, but just everyone. And this, in turn, could provoke a real revolution. Which would entail the most harsh answer.
It is worth noting that here the Jewish high priests were, in general, right. The events of 70, when the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed by Roman troops during the Jewish War, only confirm this.
It was much more profitable to have the Romans themselves pronounced the death sentence on Jesus. Then, even if unrest begins, then they will have no one to blame for this, except themselves. At the same time, the performances are unlikely to be too strong. Deliberately rebelling against armored legions is not the same thing as resenting the actions of your own high priests.
For the Romans, of course, accusations of blasphemy were hollow. Therefore, the Sanhedrin emphasized completely different actions of Jesus - in particular, the refusal to pay taxes and the fact that he called himself "the king of the Jews." This could already be interpreted as a revolt against the Roman government. After the decision to arrest was made, there was only
tell the legionnaires exactly whom to take. For this it took a kiss from Judas. After all, every Jew knew who Jesus was and what he looked like without any leads. But the Romans needed precise directions.
Pilate's trial
Pontius Pilate in the Gospel is a figure, without exaggeration, a tragic one. He works hard to let Jesus go. But all the same, in the end, he was forced to sentence him to death. There is practically no doubt about the historicity of this figure. He is mentioned by both Josephus and Tacitus. Although in reality he served not as a procurator, but as a prefect of Judea.
Pilate is famous for his tough character and inclination to solve all questions by force. Under him, tax oppression increased greatly, all the speeches of the dissatisfied were suppressed ruthlessly. At the same time, Pilate repeatedly demonstrated complete disregard for the religious beliefs and customs of the Jews. And the death penalty under him was sometimes carried out without trial or investigation. It is logical that by sending Jesus to be judged by such a man, the members of the Sanhedrin hoped for a quick, tough and completely satisfactory solution to the problem. But then she found a scythe on a stone.
Before getting to Pilate, Jesus had already attended the trial of the Sanhedrin, where he was condemned as a blasphemer and false prophet. However, the Roman prefect was not impressed. The only question that he insistently repeated several times in his conversation with the defendant was: "Are you the king of the Jews?" And this really was the only thing for which he was ready to send anyone to execution. Most likely, Pilate had suspicions that Jesus was the leader of some revolutionary group planning to put on the throne of Judea its own candidate, not approved by Rome. This, of course, could not be allowed.
However, instead of a revolutionary leader, the prefect of Judea saw in front of him a philosopher and a spiritual teacher who spoke about things “not of this world”. The strange answers that Jesus gave to direct questions only convinced Pilate that this was not a leader of resistance to Roman rule, but just another preacher. Of course, had he fallen under the hot hand - Pilate would not even have personally considered this matter, and Jesus would have gone to the cross to the greater joy of the high priests. But, by coincidence, the prefect found time to understand everything in detail. And he did not notice any obvious crimes behind Jesus.
To send him to the cross simply because the Sanhedrin wanted it was to show political weakness. Therefore, Pilate tried to brush aside the decision imposed on him, sending Jesus for further proceedings to the ruler of Galilee Herod Antipas. Say, let the Jewish authorities sort it out among themselves.
Secret deal
Herod Antipas is the son of Herod the Great. At one time he managed to survive the "purge" that the suspicious king arranged among his heirs. After the death of his father, he inherited Galileo.
As the Evangelist Luke describes, Herod was very happy when Jesus was brought to him, “for I had long wanted to see Him, because I had heard a lot about Him, and hoped to see some miracle from Him, and offered Him many questions, but He did not answer him. But the chief priests and scribes stood up and strongly accused Him”(Luke 23: 8-10). This is a pretty interesting point. It is unlikely that such behavior of the ruler of Galilee could please the Sanhedrin. After all, they hoped that Herod would confirm their accusations and give Pilate another reason for the death sentence.
Instead, Herod Antipas mocked Jesus, dressed up in light clothes, which were usually worn by candidates for some honorary positions. Thus, he seemed to emphasize all the ridiculousness of the claims of the "king of the Jews" and urged not to take them seriously. It is possible that by doing so, the ruler of Galilee did not miss the chance to once again annoy the Sanhedrin, whose power could irritate the power-hungry son of Herod.
Herod's decision only strengthened Pilate in his attitude towards Jesus as a harmless eccentric. After all, Herod was a Rome-approved tetrarch, and the members of the Sanhedrin were not entirely loyal Jewish priests. And he again tried to release the accused, limiting himself to scourging.
Nevertheless, Pilate's trial ended with a conviction. The gospel account points to the crowd shouting "Crucify!" As the main reason for this behavior of the prefect. But, knowing Pilate's character, it is quite obvious that the shouting crowd under the windows could have provoked only a punitive operation on the streets of Jerusalem, but not in any way a sentence favorable to the Sanhedrin.
Most likely, Pilate's true motives will remain forever unknown to us. They lie outside the pages of the Gospel. One can only assume that a deal was made between the prefect of Judea and the Sanhedrin. By showing steadfastness and not making a decision beneficial to the high priests under pressure, Pilate was able to get them to “buy” the sentence they needed in exchange for something the Roman administrator needed. What was it? Who knows.
The popular view that Pilate was imbued with the steadfastness of Jesus' spirit and fell under his influence does not seem to be too true. After all, the prefect's temper did not soften at all after the events described in the Gospel. It is known that in 36, he staged a terrible bloody massacre over the guilty people of the Samaritans. For this he was removed from office and recalled to Rome. His further fate is unknown.
Victor BANEV