There are some accents in Mark's story that distinguish him from the other evangelists. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus reacts to Judas' kiss as follows: "And Jesus said to him, 'Friend, why have you come?' (Matthew 26:50). And in the Gospel of Luke as follows: "And Jesus said to him, 'Judas! Do you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?" (Luke 22:48). There is nothing of the kind in the Gospel of Mark. Jesus has no reaction to the kiss. A student's usual meeting with his Teacher is shown: Judas, "having come, immediately came up to Him, and said, 'Rabbi! Rabbi! and kissed Him." And in the original, he did not just "kiss", but kissed firmly, as if from the bottom of his heart. Yes, the treacherous sign was not just a formal kiss of respectful greeting - it was a strong kiss of a loving person. And this is a very dark moment in the Gospel. Jesus does not push Judas away, nor does he turn away from him, nor does he utter a word of reproach. One can only speculate about the meaning of this subtle feature in the Gospel of Mark.

In contrast to Luke and John, Mark reduces Jesus' imprisonment not to the work of Satan, but to the will of God. In the Evangelist Luke, Jesus Christ says: "Now is your time and the power of darkness" (Luke 22:53). Mark is quite different: "Let the Scriptures be fulfilled," is Jesus' reaction to His arrest.

But none of His disciples understood this. Their nerves gave out. They were unprepared for this turn of events and feared that they too would have to share Jesus' fate. Therefore, everyone fled, and Jesus was abandoned by everyone at the very end of His earthly journey; "Then, leaving Him, they all fled." True, we are told about a certain young man, whom it is impossible to identify with anyone from the text itself: "A certain young man, wrapped on his naked body in a veil, followed Him; and the soldiers seized him. But he, leaving the veil, fled naked from them." At first glance, this episode seems completely out of place here. After all, he does not add anything to what has been said. But there must have been some reason why Mark gave this strange story here. Neither Matthew nor Luke mention this episode. Therefore, the tradition formed the opinion that the young man was Mark himself, who announced himself, modestly keeping silent about his name. You never can tell. Perhaps it was just a curious person, accidentally involved in what was happening. Or maybe this young man symbolizes a disciple who would like to follow Jesus – but... And he did not succeed in doing so. We don't know.

4. Trial and sentence.

Christians in the early centuries were concerned with slightly different problems than we do today when we think about the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross. We are interested in all the legal circumstances that led to Jesus' death. Countless studies, reflections, scientific and non-scientific discussions, numerous novels, as well as feature films and documentaries are devoted to this issue. We all want to know: Who, after all, is responsible for the death of our Savior? Who should we direct our anger at? The early Christians were interested in another question. They asked themselves: How to explain to people that it is the One Who experienced a shameful death who is the Son of God and the Savior of the world? Questions of a historical and legal nature did not really interest them. Let us recall at least the entire series of great epistles of the Apostle Paul. Is there a single word in them about the legal procedures for Jesus' trial and condemnation? Not a single word! But what they have are painful and fruitful reflections on the meaning of the Cross, on this Divine paradoxical miracle – salvation through death on the cross! "There's nothing to be done. Today, shredded thought strains the mosquitoes of historical details, rarely paying attention to the entire rocks and cliffs of the meaning of salvation in Christ.

And since history did not occupy the thoughts of the ancient Christians so much, it is not surprising that we have only fragmentary information about the trial of Jesus, and there are many open questions about this matter. Here are just some of the difficulties that the historian faces:

1. The enemies of Jesus came mainly from the ranks of the Sadducees, who were responsible for law and order in the country until the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. Therefore, it was they, the Sadducees, who determined what was right. Since, after the destruction of Jerusalem, the Sadducees disappeared from the public life of Judaism, the "Sadducean law", according to which in the time of Jesus Christ the Supreme Council, the Sanhedrin, passed sentences, also ceased to exist. That is why we do not know in detail what the laws that determined the trial of Jesus sounded.

For this reason, we cannot say with certainty whether Jesus was formally sentenced to death by the Sanhedrin on the same night (which was forbidden by "Pharisaic law"), or whether the Sanhedrin only brought charges against Jesus during the night for trial before Pilate. It is also debatable whether the Jews of the time of Jesus Christ had the right to pronounce death sentences at all, or whether the occupying Roman authorities were not too principled in their right to do so.

2. Further, it is not clear whether Pilate released on each Passover one prisoner for whom the Jewish people asked him. As Mark writes: "And at every feast he released to them one prisoner for whom they asked" (15:6). The fact is that historians have no other evidence of such a custom. Perhaps the case with Barabbas was an isolated one.

a) Jesus before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin.