[Dan D]

Comment on the side-topic: "Jesus trial"
After the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, several Christian theologians filed petitions to the High Court in Jerusalem to reopen the criminal proceeding against Jesus.
It was argued that only now the Jewish people had their own sovereign jurisdiction again, so that it was time for a revision of the proceeding.
The High Court delved into the petitions and rejected them, arguing that all process-related documents are missing and that the only available records, the Gospels (Mark. 15, 53-15. Matthew. 26, 57-27, 30, Luke. 22, 66-23; John 18, 12-19,14) are tendentious.

The records say that Jesus after his arrestment was first handed over to the Jewish court.
That court decided to hand Jesus over to the Roman Governor Pilate:
“Very early in the morning, the chief priests, with the elders, the teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin, reached a decision. They bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate.” (Mark. 15,1).
The Jews did not have the right of penal jurisdiction (“It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death”- John18,31).
But above all, Jesus was handed over so that Pilate would not have pretence to engage against the Jewish people because of the “agitator” Jesus:
“Now it was Caiaphas who advised the Jews that it was expedient that one man should perish for the people “(John 18, 37-38).
The charges against Jesus were:
1) temple desecration
„Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.”
(Mark. 14,57-58)
2) defraudation of tax to the imperial regnancy
“And they began to accuse him, saying, "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king."
(Luke 23,2)
3) presumption of royal dignity
“Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God. -"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied”(Mathew 26, 63-64).
For the Roman Governor Pilate the presumption of royal dignity was the most significant point. Strangely enough, he did not deal with tax defraudation.
Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” He answered, “So you say.” (Mark 15,2).
Pilate therefore said to him, “Are you a king then?”
Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I have been born, and for this reason I have come into the world, that I should testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” (John 18,37-38).
According to Roman law the presumption of royal dignity meant a lèse-majesté of the Roman Emperor for which the Lex Julia provided the death penalty.
“So then Pilate took Jesus and flogged him “. (John 19,1).
Jesus was sentenced to death under Roman law and executed by Roman authorities.
Of course there was also the Barrabas incident, according to the records.
Pilate: “But you have a custom, that I should release someone to you at the Passover. Therefore do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?” Then they all shouted again, saying, “Not this man, but Barrabas” (John 18, 39-40).

I wonder what would have happened if the audience had shouted instead: “Yes, release to us the “King of the Jews” (which they thought was untrue anyway).
I guess if Jesus “King of Jews” then would have continued to walk about and preach love, forgiveness and what some people call temple desecration and tax defraudation and causing uproar, Pilate sooner or later would have sent out his troops against Jesus and the Jews.
Looks like a lose-lose situation for the Jews to me.