Previously, I looked at Plutarch’s Parallel lives and how the dead crucified Jesus on the cross converting the Roman soldier seems to be derived from the dead crucified Cleomenes III converting onlookers in Plutarch.  There is much such parallelism in the bible, such as John the Baptist and Jesus imitating Elijah and Elisha, as well as Jesus as the new and greater Moses, Joshua, etc.

The trials of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark—before the Sanhedrin (Jewish high council) in Mark 14:53-65 and before Pontius Pilate in Mark 15:1-15—can also be interpreted as literary pairs or parallels. This is a common view among biblical scholars, who note structural and thematic similarities that serve narrative purposes, such as emphasizing Jesus’ identity and innocence while contrasting Jewish and Roman authority. For instance, both scenes involve direct questioning about Jesus’ messianic claims: The high priest asks, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mark 14:61), to which Jesus affirms, “I am.” Pilate similarly asks, “Are you the king of the Jews?” (Mark 15:2), with Jesus replying, “You say so.” This parallel highlights the irony of Jesus’ kingship being acknowledged even as he is condemned.

The trials mirror each other in progression: accusation, interrogation, false witnesses (explicit in the Sanhedrin scene, implied in Pilate’s), condemnation, and physical abuse (mockery and beating after each).  They function as a diptych, underscoring Mark’s theological themes like the “messianic secret” and the fulfillment of prophecy, without explaining why two trials are needed.   Other analyses point to broader synoptic parallels across Gospels, but Mark’s concise style accentuates this pairing for dramatic effect.

There is little history to be found in the satires of the two trials here, like a concerned Pilate trying to please the crowd and releasing Barabbas, a known killer of Romans.  Pontius Pilate is frequently depicted as cruel, corrupt, and inflexible in historical sources outside the New Testament.  Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (c. 37–100 CE), in Antiquities of the Jews and The Jewish War, describes Pilate as insensitive and violent. Examples include his introduction of Roman standards bearing Caesar’s image into Jerusalem, provoking Jewish protests that he quelled by threatening massacre; his use of sacred temple funds for an aqueduct, leading to a brutal suppression of riots where many were killed; and a later incident in Samaria where he ordered a slaughter of Samaritans, resulting in his recall to Rome around 36 CE for excessive cruelty.   Philosopher Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE–50 CE), in On the Embassy to Gaius, portrays Pilate as a vindictive and corrupt governor prone to bribery, insults, and gratuitous executions, emphasizing his “inflexible, stubborn, and cruel” nature in dealings with Jews.  Roman historian Tacitus (c. 56–120 CE) briefly mentions Pilate in Annals as the procurator who executed Jesus under Tiberius, without much detail on his character, but this aligns with the broader Roman administrative context where governors like Pilate maintained order through harsh measures.  Overall, the consensus from ancient sources leans toward viewing him as a harsh administrator who prioritized Roman interests over local sensitivities.

As for the Jewish trial of Jesus, Helen Bond argues that Mark views Jesus’ death as the reason the temple was destroyed in 70 CE.  Bond notes in Mark, Mark thinks the temple was destroyed in 70CE because of sin and the Jewish leadership killing Jesus, like the first temple fell to the Babylonians because of sin.  Many thought the Jewish elite of Jesus’ time were corrupt.  Josephus notes in a plausibly authentic section of the TF that Jesus was executed by Pilate because he was accused “by the leading men among us,” the Jewish elite.  Similarly, the Jewish elite enlisted the Romans to deal with the doomsday nuisance of Jesus ben Ananias (62 CE). We see, for instance, the extensive legal loopholes in Mark’s satire of the highly corrupt trial of Jesus in front of the Jewish high council. Jesus was sent by God to test mankind, resulting in, in Paul’s words, sin becoming sinful beyond measure. Because of this, the Jews were judged. Hamilton comments

(A)         However, the Synoptic chronology is not impossible, for as [Josef] Blinzler says, the prohibition of legal proceedings on feast days was less strictly enforced than that of holding courts on the Sabbath, ‘therefore it is quite thinkable that it did not seem to the Sanhedrists an infringement of an important rule to start a legal trial even on the night of the Pesach’. It is the argument of this article that all the Gospels witness to such a trial which, while viable in its date, contravened accepted practice as subsequently enshrined in the Mishnah at many points, as Blinzler shows. For example, the proceedings took place in the house of Caiaphas, not in the Temple, and though Jesus had not actually pronounced the Name of God, he was condemned as a blasphemer. He was not offered an advocate; the witnesses were not warned before being examined; nor were they called to account for false witness. The members of the Sanhedrin, although witnesses of the alleged blasphemy, took part in the passing of the sentence, though it was not legal for them to do so.

(B)         As Blinzler says, one is not able ‘to spare the Sanhedrin the reproach of very serious infringement of the law’. The question is, why did they do this?‘ It will not do to suggest that the occasion was a sham—the proceedings were undoubtedly carried through before a competent bench of judges’. Nor can their contraventions of the Mishnaic code be simply dismissed by saying that it was not yet in force. It is true that it was not codified until about 200 AD, and reflects conditions which obtained then, but it certainly enshrines earlier practice to a considerable extent. For example, Segal says that in describing Temple ritual, it may be employed with confidence. May not the same apply to legal practice?… Before the Feast of the Passover Caiaphas is reported to have said in council: ‘It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish’ (Jn. 11:50). Expediency was the factor which determined his conduct. When the opportunity unexpectedly presented itself to secure Jesus’ death, he and the priests avidly took it. Spurred on by their hatred of him; persuaded that as he was a false teacher, his execution on a feast day would be appropriate; and pressurized by shortage of time, they held his trial on the paschal night. In this trial they contravened normal legal practice at many points. The fact that they could do this in the legal sphere makes it likely that they could, because of the exceptional circumstances, also contravene ritual practice. For the exigencies of the case demanded that they work through the night. Early next morning therefore, they still had not eaten their paschal meal [emphasis mine]. (Hamilton, 1992, pp. 335-336)

(C)         Certainly therefore, an execution would have been contrary to the sabbatical nature of the first paschal day. However, Deut. 17: 12-13 prescribes the death penalty for anyone who opposes the decisions of the priests, to be carried out so that ‘all the people shall hear and fear’, and the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 11:4) gives special instructions for the execution of a rebellious teacher: ‘He was kept in guard until one of the three feasts, and he was put to death on one of the three feasts’. This shows that in certain circumstances executions were permitted on feast days. Moreover, [Paul] Billerbeck says that where an example is required ‘to protect the Torah from wilfully severe transgressions, an execution may, as an exception, supersede a feast day’. (Hamilton, 1992, p. 335)

So there seems to be a connection between the death of Jesus and the sinfulness of the Jewish elite.  If we keep in mind the Jews being blamed for wrongfully killing Jesus with the destruction of the temple, this falls squarely within Jewish tradition.  There are numerous examples in the Bible where God is depicted as punishing the Israelites (the ancestors of the Jews) for various forms of sinfulness, such as disobedience, idolatry, complaining, rebellion, and moral failings. These punishments often served as consequences under the covenant outlined in books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy, where blessings followed obedience and curses (including plagues, exile, and oppression) followed sin:  

The Golden Calf Incident: After escaping Egypt, the Israelites turned to idolatry by worshiping a golden calf while Moses was on Mount Sinai. God sent a plague as punishment, and the Levites killed about 3,000 people under divine command. (Exodus 32)

Wandering in the Desert for 40 Years: Due to lack of faith and rebellion after spies reported on Canaan, God decreed that the entire generation (except Joshua and Caleb) would die in the wilderness without entering the Promised Land. This was a prolonged punishment for distrust and complaining against God’s plan. (Numbers 13-14)

Plague from Complaining about Food: The Israelites grumbled against God and Moses for lacking meat, rejecting the manna provided. God sent quail but struck them with a severe plague while they ate, causing many deaths. (Numbers 11:31-35)

Fiery Serpents for Grumbling: During their journey, the people complained about food and water, speaking against God. He sent venomous snakes that bit and killed many; repentance led to the bronze serpent as a means of healing. (Numbers 21:4-9)

Plague at Baal Peor: The Israelites engaged in sexual immorality and idolatry with Moabite women, worshiping Baal. God sent a plague that killed 24,000 people until Phinehas intervened. This example parallels Sodom and Gomorrah in involving sexual sin. (Numbers 25)

Oppression in the Time of Judges: In a recurring cycle, the Israelites repeatedly turned to idolatry and evil, leading God to allow foreign nations (e.g., Philistines, Midianites) to oppress and conquer them as punishment. Repentance brought deliverers like Gideon or Samson. (Judges 2:11-15; entire Book of Judges)

Assyrian Conquest and Exile of the Northern Kingdom: Due to persistent idolatry, fearing other gods, and following pagan practices, God allowed the Assyrians to conquer Israel (the northern tribes) and scatter them in exile. (2 Kings 17:7-18)

Babylonian Exile and Destruction of Jerusalem: For sins including idolatry, shedding innocent blood, and breaking the covenant, God sent the Babylonians to destroy the Temple, burn Jerusalem, and exile the people of Judah. This is one of the most severe collective punishments, akin to the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. (2 Kings 24-25; Jeremiah 32:30)

These instances often emphasize themes of covenant unfaithfulness, with prophets like Amos and Jeremiah warning of such judgments (e.g., Amos 9:8; Isaiah 24). In many cases, punishment was followed by opportunities for repentance and restoration.  As I said, key were the angels being sent to test Sodom and Gomorrah as this appears to be the purpose Paul sees with Jesus, identifying him as an angel. The Jewish high council and bloodthirsty crowd failed the test and condemned God’s especially beloved Jesus to torture and death.

The Old Testament implies an increase or accumulation of sinfulness reaching a peak before end-times events. In Daniel 8:23, it states: “And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.” This verse is part of a prophetic vision about the “latter time” (often interpreted eschatologically), where the rise of an oppressive king (historically Antiochus Epiphanes, but sometimes seen as a type of the Antichrist) occurs once transgressions have reached their “full measure.”

Biblical commentaries commonly explain “transgressors are come to the full” as referring to the Jewish people’s apostasy and wickedness escalating to a critical height—through idolatry, temple profanation, and adopting pagan practices—triggering divine judgment.  Paul thinking the apocalypse and final judgment was actually underway thus makes sense if the society was viewed as particularly sinful (both with transgression and Satan clouding people’s minds as Paul says in Romans) and the Jewish elite conspired to kill God’s especially beloved Jesus (Paul blaming the Jews in 1 Thessalonians, as Matthew does with Jesus’ blood being on the Jews).

This motif echoes broader OT themes where judgment follows when iniquity overflows (e.g., Genesis 15:16 regarding the Amorites), but Daniel 8:23 ties it specifically to latter-day events.  While the New Testament more explicitly describes escalating lawlessness in the last days (e.g., Matthew 24:12, 2 Timothy 3:1-5), prophetic books like Daniel emphasize moral decline leading to the Day of the Lord or messianic era.

The death of Jesus is seen in the gospels as the reason for God’s wrath resulting in the destruction of the temple.  Jesus in Paul was the messianic claimant of the Davidic line (“of the seed of David”), especially beloved (agapetos) and favored by God, which is why his death was so egregious. Clearly, then, contra the Christ Myth Theory, Jesus did live on earth, since the whole story is predicated on putting Jesus’ death at the hands of the Jewish elite. A significant portion of first-century Jews, from ascetic sects (Essenes) to urban poor, rural peasants, and proto-revolutionary groups, viewed the Jerusalem elite as corrupt, exploitative, and theologically compromised. This perception fueled both spiritual withdrawal (Qumran) and violent resistance (Zealots) and contributed to the social volatility that erupted in the First Jewish Revolt (66–70 CE).

PS

Paul in 1 Thessalonians identifying the Jewish elite/crowd as responsible for the most blasphemous thing possible, torturing and killing God’s especially beloved Jesus which triggered the apocalypse (Paul calling the resurrected Jesus the first fruits of the now begun end time harvest of souls), gives us good evidence as to why Paul/Saul was persecuting the Christians before he converted, and to what Peter/James/John thought about the metaphysics of the crucified resurrected Jesus since Paul knew the Jerusalem bunch and incorporated their highly developed view of the death and resurrection as outlined in the Pre-Pauline Corinthian Creed/Poetry. This also explains why Mark wrote, since as I said the destruction of the temple which was blamed on the Jews killing Jesus and so incurring God’s wrath would further the argument that the end-time process was underway.