Jesus in front of Pilate

Jesus in front of Pilate
Jesus’ interrogation before the treason ended as Caiaphas expected: Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy for which he was punished by death. However, as capital rights were reserved by Pilate, the process had to be referred to Pilate, and with it, the political side of the accusation should have been brought to the forefront. Jesus declared himself the Messiah, thus claiming, although in an exceptional way, the rank of King. Claiming a messianic royal title was a political crime that had to be dealt with by Roman justice. The rooster’s singing began the day. And in the morning, the Roman governor used to sit on the bench. Therefore, they led Jesus to Pretoria and introduced him to Pilate as a worthy criminal. It is a “preparatory day” before Pasch’s feast. In the afternoon they will kill the lambs for an evening feast. To do this, it is necessary to keep ritually clean. Therefore, the accusers of priests are not allowed to enter the pagan Pretoria and The report (cf. Jn 18,28-29) thus points to the contradiction between the correct observance of the rules of ritual purity and the question of the inner purity of man: entering the house of the pagan defiles but not thinking of the inner state of the heart. The dinner had not yet taken place and that there was still waiting for the Jesus in front of Pilate  to be killed In all the essential details of the process, the four Gospels coincide. Only John, however, reports on the conversation between Jesus and Pilate, in which the question of the royal rank of Jesus and the reason for his death is fully revealed (cf. John 18,33-38). Of course, the problem of the historical value of this tradition is being discussed among exegetes. While Charles H. Dodd and Raymond E. Brown view it positively, Charles K. Barrett is extremely critical of her. 511 Nobodies assumes that John intended to make a protocol of the whole process, but we can admit that he could interpret with great precision the fundamental question that was going on, and thus to tell us the real truth about the process. After all, Barrett himself says: “From John it was very bright that he recognized in Jesus’ royal rank the key to the interpretation of whole passions. (p. 512)
But let us first ask: Who exactly were the plaintiffs? Who insisted that Jesus be condemned to death? In the answers of the various Gospels there are differences that we need to think about. According to John the Evangelist, it is simply “Jews.” The modern reader tends to interpret this term as “the nation of Israel.” This is not the case with John in any way, and by the end the word has no “racist” undertone to him. After all, John himself was a Jew, just like Jesus and all his disciples.from the Jews. The word “Jews” has a strictly limited meaning in John: He calls it temple aristocracy. Thus, in the fourth gospel, the circle of plaintiffs claiming Jesus’ death is rigorously described and clearly defined: it was the temple aristocracy – and not universally, As the note on Nicodemus (cf. Jonn 7> 5 ° -52) shows, in the context of the Easter amnesty (Barnabas or Jesus), the circle of plaintiffs is widening: there is a slackness that speaks for the release of Barabbas. Many people, the “crowd”. However, this word often has a negative connotation in the sense of “gathering”. Similarly to the practice of other amnesties, the Easter amnesty (which, by the way, we do not know anything from other sources, but we have no reason to doubt it), had the right to make its proposal, and acclamation came: cases of legal character (cf. Pesch, Markusevangelium II – Mark’s Gospel II, p. 466). In fact, this “crowd” was nothing but the many supporters of Barabbas who had mobilized the opportunity to obtain an amnesty for him. out of fear of hiding. The voice of the people on which Roman law was based was therefore represented in this case by only one party. For this reason, besides “Jews”, is high priestly circles, there is also,, oclos” the circle of supporters of Barabbas, but not the Jewish people as such.
The expansion of Mark’s will, which had fatal consequences, is found in Matthew’s Gospel (27:25). Instead of the “crowd,” it is referred to as “the whole people” and is credited with invoking Jesus’ crucifixion. Matthew certainly does not express historical fact. How could the whole nation be present at that moment and demand the death of Jesus? The historical reality is apparently correctly described by the evangelists John and Mark. The real group of plaintiffs is the church circles at the time, and the Easter crowd was joined by the “crowd” of Barabbas’s followers. in the Judeo-Roman War, when the nation, the city and the temple were taken from the nation (cf. Matthäusevangelium II – Matthew’s Gospel II, p. 459). You are killing prophets and stoning those who were sent to you, how many times I wanted to gather your children, as a hen gathers his chickens under the wings, and you did not!