Who killed Jesus? and Why?
or rather, who most wanted him dead because he was a threat to them?
So, why must we assume Jesus had to be another deluded member of any such group, on a Holy Crusade to save "The Chosen People" from the Greek-Roman Menace trying to enslave or exterminate them?
Because that is what he was tried and sentenced to crucifixion for.
Maybe, sort of, but only in the sense that he was falsely accused and falsely convicted of this. There's no evidence of him being an anti-Roman insurrectionist/dissident, no reason to believe he was guilty of this or was on any such crusade. The militant anti-Roman rebel Jews were a tiny minority of the population. Most 1st-century Jews did not identify with the fanatic anti-Roman zealots or join their crusade against the Sons of Darkness. (Which doesn't mean they were pro-Roman. A very small minority were pro-Roman, most were neutral, against war.)
Just because the Apocalyptic and anti-Roman fanatics were loud and aggressive at imposing their superstitious ideas onto others, and partly succeeded at dominating and intimidating the silent majority, does not mean Jesus must have been one of them. Why couldn't he have been one of the 90% of Jews who were not anti-Gentile bigots? Why couldn't there have been some Jews, even many, who had a higher-level mentality than the petty nationalist xenophobe pseudopatriotic fanatic dogmatists (like the one who told Babylonians "Blessed is he who seizes your infants and smashes them against the rock!" (Psalm 137))?
We need to stop drinking the Bart Ehrman Kool-Aid which says all Jews had to be partakers of this bigoted Apocalyptic anti-Gentile Jihad Fantasy of the world coming to an end this Tuesday (or a week from Tuesday) when the Sons of Light (our side) is going to crush the Sons of Darkness (bad guys) and all those not in our cult will be cast into the Eternal Flames. Just stop it! Not all Jews believed such nuttiness, and we needn't believe Jesus was part of that mentality. The evidence shows he was something different than this.
The militant Jewish Apocalypticists were disunited
driven by conflicting messianic expectations.
The various Jewish dissidents and eschatologists typically opposed other Jews as the enemy, clashing with the other factions and even fighting and killing each other over which faction was truly obeying the program of Yahweh. Some of these militants, dogmatic, belligerent, needing an enemy to hate, were attracted to Jesus, not because he was preaching their message, but because he showed something that impressed them, i.e.,
POWER (the healing miracle acts) -- maybe his power could kill Yahweh's enemies in the Final Conflagration to come, maybe he's the conquering Son of Man. It's virtually certain that some of these Apocalyptic crusaders later put their words into his mouth, so that it's their ideas we're getting in many of the Apocalyptic excerpts in the Gospels.
Despite their hopes, there's no evidence that Jesus carried on an anti-Roman crusade or tried to organize anti-Roman insurrection activity. Rather, there's much indication of him opposing the Jerusalem priesthood or other Jews of influence or status, and this also drew the dissidents to him.
But meanwhile, those dissident militants who were executed on insurrection charges were those who organized rebels to take up arms to do battle against Rome. There's no evidence of Jesus doing such anti-Roman military activity, or inciting the crowds against Roman political domination. There is some militant language in the Gospels, about grabbing your sword and resisting the enemy to the death, but these are likely to be the words of the militant crusaders putting their words into his mouth. YET, EVEN if we assume Jesus said such things, there's never any
anti-Roman language.
Was Jesus a Jewish Jedi Freedom-Fighter against
the Roman Evil Empire?
Obi-Wan-Kenobi vs. The Dark Side? This theory of him as an anti-Roman political/military macho-warrior activist is not based on written accounts about him, but only on modern extrapolation from historical events of the time, i.e., by modern theorists superimposing onto him the 1st-century historical drama (Roman Evil Empire vs. Jewish Freedom-Fighters) to somehow explain how Jesus got mythologized from a normal human into a miracle resurrected Son-of-God Jewish Messiah hero/martyr. The evidence is not that he was militant, but that some of the militant crusaders were attracted to him, because of his miracle acts.
If he really was an anti-Roman Freedom-Fighter himself, like the others, why did he alone get transformed into a resurrected miracle-working Son of God, rather than any of the other anti-Roman Freedom-Fighters who did much better than he did in fighting against the Romans? in real battle against Rome? There are no facts in the written record then to justify this modern theory of why he was condemned. It's only conjecture, using other facts not directly about the historical Jesus.
And how do these theorists explain that there are no facts (about the historical Jesus) to support their theory that he was anti-Roman? They resort to Conspiracy Theories about the evidence being suppressed, censored, covered up by a wide Conspiracy of the Church or the Establishment. It's easy to dismiss the facts of history by saying these were all just made up by some Conspiracy-Elitist-Establishment. You can prove any cock-eyed theory by saying the evidence for it was all suppressed by some Vast Conspiracy Plot to cover up the truth.
So let's reconsider the motives for killing Jesus, using the known facts in place of the conjecture and conspiracy theories and coverup delusions.
Who hated Jesus more and wanted him dead?
"The Romans" or "The Jews"?
Those who arrested him were
not Romans, but the Temple Police sent by the Jewish Establishment in Jerusalem. Without this action by them there would have been no arrest and no charges brought against him. There's no evidence of Romans conducting a manhunt to seize Jesus for crimes against Rome.
Some dishonest scholars today pretend that the ones who arrested Jesus were Romans, or that Romans played a major part. This is false, or worse, it's a lie which some theorists are promoting, and they should cut it out, instead tell the truth, which is plain from the text.
All four Gospels make it clear that it was the Temple Authorities who sent the guards to arrest him. It's true that the John Gospel wording allows the possible interpretation of Roman soldiers being there, but even then, it was the Temple priests who sent the soldiers. And for Jewish officials to send
Roman troops, issuing ORDERS to Roman soldiers, is very unlikely.
So let's get our facts straight: it was the Jewish leaders who initiated the action against Jesus, ordering his arrest. So -- Why did these Jewish leaders want Jesus arrested and charged? This is where the motivation to condemn him begins. What was their motive? Was it obedience to a Roman demand that they take action to arrest him?
Was Jesus a militant anti-Roman threat?
There's no evidence of this and no reason to think they demanded that he be seized or arrested as a threat. There's no evidence that the Romans demanded arrest or seizure of loose trouble-maker prophets or preachers to be crucified as possibly dangerous. An analogy to the Jesus case would be John the Baptizer, who was high-profile, and anti-Establishment but not anti-Roman in any quotes or other evidence about him, and who was arrested and executed not by Romans but by Herod Antipas, who was not ordered by Romans to do this. Arguably, the Baptizer was a more dangerous figure than Jesus, as a potential trouble-maker, as Josephus describes Antipas reacting to John. So if you draw an analogy between these two cases, then it's clear that Jesus was NOT a threat to Rome, just as John obviously was not.
Herod Antipas feared John as a threat to his power, and the Jewish Establishment in Jerusalem feared Jesus as a threat to them, but in neither case was the accused one guilty of any anti-Roman crime.
All the evidence is that Jesus had done something which offended certain Jews, not something anti-Roman or seditious against Rome. To insist it was anti-Roman insurrection offenses that got him into trouble, you have to disregard all the evidence in the written accounts and rely on conspiracy theories to explain away this evidence and pretend that other evidence was covered up by some Christian Establishment clique somewhere who plotted to blame "the Jews" for killing Jesus and shift blame away from Pilate.
The Romans did not hunt down and crucify every Jewish preacher having messianic visions of some kind, or speaking a messianic or eschatological message. They arrested and executed the ones who had a high profile for some reason, and
who posed a real threat, like those who led a military campaign or in some other way came to their attention as a rebel military organizer or propagandist inciting insurrection against Roman power. There were many other prophets/preachers/rabbis in Palestine-Judea-Galilee who had a higher profile than Jesus, at that time, who were more conspicuous than he was, had more followers, attracted larger crowds, were more influential than he was. Just as the Romans did not order these others to be arrested, they did not order Jesus to be arrested.
When did Jesus claim to be "King of the Jews"?
The only evidence of anything anti-Roman about him is the inscription "King of the Jews" placed above him, which means there was some claim like this made about him. But he's never quoted claiming this about himself, and if he had said it there would be some such quote attributed to him, as many other sayings were put into his mouth, by earlier Jewish Apocalypticists who put words into his mouth just as later Christians did. And we do see some Apocalyptic words in the mouth of Jesus, but
never any anti-Roman words attributed to him. Why not? Probably because he never even came close to saying such things, whereas some of his words could be given an Apocalyptic twist by the original followers who thought he was preaching an End-of-the-World message they were familiar with, like from the Book of I Enoch or the Book of Daniel, etc. These were not anti-Roman sermons.
We have to ask how Jesus came to the attention of the Romans, so that they might decide to kill him as a menace. Once he was brought before them and accused, then they would make such a judgment. But not without someone first arresting Jesus and bringing him to the Roman authorities to be condemned.
What prompted Rome to execute Jewish rebels? What were the circumstances leading to it?
Not just
why did they kill them -- i.e., the legal charge -- of course they wanted to kill/crucify anyone suspected. But how did they come to suspect someone, and to arrest and kill them? Wasn't it the following 2 situations --
1) the rebels were turned over to the Romans by the Jewish authorities, or
2) they were directly taken captive in battle between Romans and militant rebels,
and then they were quickly condemned to death and executed. Was there any other way than these two?
In the case of Jesus it was not 2) above, was it? Does anyone believe Jesus was commanding a platoon of rebel fighters, like the ones mentioned in Josephus? like Theudas, or The Egyptian, or Judas the Galilean? There's no evidence whatever of anything military undertaken by him, recruiting a fighting force, etc. Yes, there's mention of one who carried a sword, but the perceived enemy was always the Jewish authorities, not the Romans. And these militants were attracted to Jesus as a possible leader in their minds, maybe the Son of Man conqueror of the Prophet Daniel. None of his quoted words ever named Rome as an enemy. And probably most of the words were not his words anyway. Without contrary evidence, we have to believe he was involved in some conflict with Jewish elements, opposed by certain Jews who saw him as undermining Jewish practice or tradition.
So, without 1) above having happened -- i.e., Jesus was first seized by the Jewish authorities and turned over -- he would not have been condemned to death by the Romans. So, the reason he was crucified was not just that the Romans suspected he might be an anti-Roman rebel, but that he had done something conspicuous which made him stand out as anti-Jewish in some way, causing the Jewish authorities to fear him and turn him over, and thus causing the Romans to consider him a threat to be stamped out.
So you're not telling the whole truth to say only
that [he was on a crusade to save the Jews from the Romans] is what he was tried and sentenced to crucifixion for.
There had to be more than this or he would not have been condemned by the Romans. We have to know what particular act of his (or of someone), or what particular event, prompted the Jewish authorities to arrest him and turn him over to the Romans. Because without them doing this, the Romans would not have crucified him.
Rome did not do raids to round up Apocalyptic crusaders.
If it's just that he was an Apocalyptic preacher, why weren't others also arrested and crucified? What about the Qumran community -- did the Romans invade the Dead Sea caves region and drag off the monks to be crucified? These crusaders preached a soon-coming War between themselves and the Sons of Darkness -- why wasn't that also a threat to the Romans?
Except for the Jerusalem Establishment turning him over, he would not have been accused and condemned -- there's no evidence that the Romans were chasing him or other prophets around somewhere -- or that they were holding emergency sessions on the "Jesus problem" etc. There's no evidence that Pilate or other Romans knew of him except for this event of the Jewish authorities first arresting him and taking him to Pilate.
All the evidence, throughout the Gospel accounts, says there were Jews with whom he was in conflict, and these were the ones who took steps against him. And only from this did there develop an occasion for the Romans to take action against him. (Also, we can assume some of the clash with "scribes and pharisees" language is exaggerated, in the Gospels. But this is evidence of serious conflict with those Jewish factions.)
What anti-Roman or criminal acts did Jesus do?
There are 2 possible criminal acts he did, neither of them anti-Roman:
1)
pretending to be "the Messiah" riding into Jerusalem on a donkey; and
2)
inciting a riot at the temple, assaulting temple workers and destroying property.
Other than this there's nothing he did illegal which he should be punished for. Were these anti-Roman acts which Pilate would have him arrested for and crucified?
1) The Donkey Stunt: Even if Jesus really did perform this stunt, riding into Jerusalem like this, there's no reason to think the Romans cared about someone riding a donkey. How often did the Romans arrest someone for riding a donkey and saying "Look at me! I'm the Messiah 'cuz I'm riding a donkey!"?? Cut it out! It's silly to say the Romans were offended at this and would send commandos to put a stop to a donkey ride show.
It's hard to understand how this ludicrous scene really originated -- Not that we can dismiss it as fiction -- some such goofy stunt was done by someone, because this story is in all 4 accounts. But whatever it is, it makes no sense to say the Romans were alarmed at Jesus doing this stunt pretending to be important because some ancient prophet predicted something about riding a donkey. The Romans had more important things to do than running around arresting oddball Jewish eccentrics caught riding a donkey.
2) Assault on the Temple: It's unlikely Jesus really committed this crime, because if he had, he would have been arrested like the others were. Hopefully he's not the one who instigated the riot.
But let's assume he did what is described, assaulting the moneychangers. Even so, this was not an anti-Roman act. Rather, it expresses the sentiment of Jewish dissidents who hated the temple authorities and priesthood. It's also a cheap sensationalist outburst against those doing commercial activity or making a profit or investing, speculating, etc., an expression of vulgar prejudice against these interests who are seen as being greedy and causing others to be poor, even though they're not to blame for any such thing but are engaging in a legitimate business activity needed by the temple authorities.
It's easy to see how the vulgar apocalyptic messianic ideologues might have inspired a riot like this, scapegoating an innocent class of persons, for-profit operators, who have a negative public image. The victims of this violence, the moneychangers, were themselves of lower status, struggling to survive, serving where they were needed. There's no evidence they were crooked -- they were just scapegoats guilty of trying to eke out a profit or minimize their losses.
But even if Jesus did commit this crime, it would not be for this that Romans wanted Jesus dead. This sensationalist attack on the temple was a crime against the Jewish Establishment, not Rome. Since all 4 accounts report the incident, we have to assume it happened, and Jesus got blamed as the instigator.
Did Jesus freak out?
Even assuming the worst -- maybe Jesus suddenly went bonkers and assaulted people and kicked over some tables, etc. -- the Romans would never have cared if the Jewish authorities had not then seized Jesus and taken him before Pilate to be executed as an anti-Roman rebel. So this means he was condemned for committing this criminal act, which was an anti-Jewish act, targeted at the Jewish Establishment, not the Romans. And so it's still incorrect to say Jesus was condemned as a result of being an anti-Roman dissident -- even if this was the official charge. And the Jewish Establishment in Jerusalem was the main source of the action against him, by persuading Pilate that he was anti-Roman.
But, why did they do this rather than just executing Jesus themselves?
death penalty very rare in Jewish law
The Jewish authorities in Jerusalem had the power to execute Jesus themselves, by stoning or beheading -- nothing in Roman law prevented this. John the Baptizer had been executed earlier by Herod Antipas. So why not also the same being done to Jesus in Jerusalem? The difference is that the death penalty under Jewish law (in Jerusalem) was very difficult to carry out, even though it was legal. The reality is that Jewish law made it so difficult that it would have required too long, or maybe would have been impossible or impractical. It would have turned the Jesus case into a high-profile publicized event which would have dragged on for many days or weeks. Much more desirable was to have him eliminated quickly with the least amount of fanfare. This could be done by accusing him of something anti-Roman and taking him before Pilate, who had no restriction to prevent him from issuing the order immediately and getting it over.
So this is probably what happened, even if we assume that Jesus was fully guilty of the crime against the Temple, assaulting the moneychangers. Even then there is still no evidence of anything anti-Roman per se in this crime he may have committed. If he did have anti-Roman sentiments, there's no evidence of it -- it's pure conjecture only.
Was the Temple riot the real reason, or
only a PRETEXT for arresting Jesus?
BUT, is this attack on the Temple really the reason the Jewish Establishment wanted Jesus dead? Was there another reason? or other reasons?
There's reason to suspect the Temple authorities had a different motive than legal retaliation against Jesus for inciting a riot. An indication is the Barabbas character who was arrested as a participant in the riot which was probably the same scene where Jesus assaulted the moneychangers -- And this rioter was charged with murder and yet was released, according to all 4 accounts.
We have to ask: If this riot was such a serious crime that Jesus would be executed for inciting it, why would Barabbas be released even though he was guilty of murder while participating in this riot? There's clearly something wrong in this Barabbas story -- something missing, and yet it cannot be dismissed as total fiction (unless you just say the evidence doesn't matter because your prejudice is more important than the facts). Almost certainly Barabbas was guilty and yet was released, even though we lack the whole explanation of what this was about. (Efforts to render the Barabbas story into a literary symbol or metaphor are ludicrous, laughable. No poet needing a symbol to communicate would make up a story like this, and there's no way such a metaphor would find its way into all the accounts of the event.)
So a guilty man was set free, according to the evidence, while an innocent man was condemned, as the accounts all agree -- such things do happen -- sometimes justice is thwarted, the innocent are blamed while the guilty go free, because of something underhanded taking place.
We don't need to know the full explanation in order to recognize the basic fact that a guilty person was released. There are many ways it could have happened -- maybe a deal was struck: the Jewish authorities wanted Jesus arrested and removed, for some reason, while Barabbas by comparison was insignificant, and they could release him as someone much less threatening to them. Since Barabbas was in custody while Jesus was loose out there, they could make a deal with someone sympathetic to Barabbas, to do a trade -- "Turn Jesus over to us, and we'll release Barabbas in return."
Here's an article suggesting maybe Judas Iscariot was an anti-Roman dissident who had hoped Jesus would lead an insurrection against Rome and/or the Jerusalem Establishment, and when Jesus failed to fulfill this expectation and Barabbas got arrested at the riot, Judas became disenchanted with Jesus and went to the Priests to make a deal:
*Terry Eagleton* sifts through the texts of the Gospels and comes up with some ambiguous answers.
newint.org
Regardless what the details were, all 4 accounts say Barabbas was released even though he was guilty of murder. Which casts serious doubt on the charge against Jesus -- those priests probably had some other motive for wanting Jesus snuffed out.
It was too difficult under Jewish law for the Jerusalem Establishment to simply condemn Jesus to death, in their own court, but they knew it was easy to get a conviction under Roman law, and so an appeal to the Roman Governor would likely succeed and a quick sentence of death could be carried out, to put a quick end to the Jesus problem.
But what was this Jesus problem they wanted to put an end to?
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
Donald Trump
