Llyricist

It's pretty clear in the story that the reason he was crucified was envy, the excuse the sanhedrin tried was blasphemy, and the excuse Pilate used was sedition.

aa5874

Pilate did not use the excuse of sedition at all. It is clear that it was Pilate himself who thought that Jesus was brought to him because of ENVY.

And further, the chief priests made multiple accusations against Jesus when he was before Pilate. All the accusations against Jesus were eventually dismissed in order to fulfill a predictable outcome . An innocent man was crucified because of the Jews.

Solo

That would be my thinking. The historical kernel though might be little larger.

I think most of us here would agree hypothetically on a historical proximity of the disturbance in the Temple, Jesus' capture by the Temple guard (probably inside the walls), his interrogation by the Sanhendrin (in which Jesus defied the priests) and the handing of Jesus over to Pilate, who had him killed without much ceremony, if any ceremony at all.

That would be the spark that ignited Christianity. The Jacobite messianists would have been outraged by the "lawlessness" of the Sanhendrin handing over a man of God to the Gentile dogs. Jesus' martyrdom would have become a rallying point and he would have been connected in a midrash to the vision of Zechariah 3. James the Just would have sent for his companions ("the pillars") and invited them to spread the word of Jesus as the martyr of the last days, rehabilitated by God and intercessor for the coming of messiah. That much, it seems to me, is warranted by the earliest NT documents, or at least, it does not - insofar as I know - contradict them. By contrast, the belief that Jesus was a Messiah for the Jacobites (i.e. that they were the first Christians) clashes with the notion of Jesus as the high priest (after the order of Melchizedek) proclaimed by the epistle to the Hebrews.

Paul's letters make it clear that Paul, as a traditional Pharisee believer, was outraged by the Jacobite propaganda featuring an executed criminal. Paul's political sympathy would have been with the Sanhendrin. Though Sadducee dominated, Paul would have trusted its authority in condemning Jesus and would have considered it sacreligious to present Jesus as a blameless man (to say nothing of his being an apostle of God).

Then something happened inside Paul that changed Paul's mind. He became ecstatic and as a way of graduating in theology he got what you might call a hot line to God on Jesus and his role in the end of days. Paul interpreted his revelations and began spreading his theory among the ecstatics of the larger cities, where they congregated - as intellectuals of all ages tend to do. He developped a following and tried to get his gospel ratified by the saints of James. He did not succeed to gain audience. Instead, he was referred to the missionaries ("the pillars") which Paul considered insulting to his dignity. Nonetheless, he accepted to collect money for the saints in hope that the material proceeds from his followers would convince the Jerusalem inner circle that he indeed saw Jesus as the Lord.

Jiri

storytime

Why were the Jewish leaders envious of Jesus? They said to one another that Jesus was drawing all the Jewish people to himself. Did the Jewish leaders then fear losing their place of authority at Jerusalem should Caesar catch wind of the popularity of Jesus? Might Caesar replace the Pharisees and Sadducees with Jesus as 'king of the Jews'? Did these men in power keep the truth of scriptures from the Jewish people? If so, what truth? Why were so many Jews believing Jesus?

The Jewish crowd declared "we have a law". Meaning what law? The law against blasphemy(speaking against God) which carried the death penalty?

The Jewish crowd declared "we have no king but Caesar". Meaning what? Were the Jews simply pacifying the reality in knowing they were subject to Caesars power and therewith showing loyalty to Rome?

Jesus evidently interpreted his Jewish scriptures differently than the existing Jewish leadership. The interpretation of Jesus would have the Pharisees(sons of the devil) cast out
and the legitimate(as Jesus saw it) re-established.

aa5874

But, Pilate dismissed all the accusations, even ENVY, as soon as it was declared that he found no fault in Jesus.

Speculations about the reason for ENVY is irrelevant once Pilate did not find Jesus guilty of any wrongdoing.

The accusations against Jesus were, in effect, all false.

bacht

John the Baptist was supposedly executed by Herod Antipas (Mark ch 6). If there's any truth in the Jesus story the leaders in Jerusalem would have feared either an insurrection or punishment from Rome for harboring a dangerous man. The idea that Jesus threatened the existing power structure is a fanciful gloss.

There was no "hidden truth" from the rank and file. The temple leaders didn't have a monopoly on scripture: there were variations in Qumran as well as the widely circulated Septuagint, not to mention the different schools of thought represented by the Pharisees and Sadducees. Also the diaspora covered a huge area stretching from the Persian Gulf to Gibraltar. Judean artistocrats could only dream of controlling such a numerous and diverse people.

Diogenes the Cynic

If Jesus was crucified, it was for some perceived crime against the Roman state. That's the only reason the Romans used crucifixion in the provinces. Mark's account is irrelevant, as is his apology for Pilate. He made it up. The trial before the Sanhedrin is fictional. Not only is it riddled with factual and procedural errors, Mark has Jesus being convicted for blasphemy for saying something that was not blasphemous under Jewish law. It was not blasphemy to say you were the Messiah. The Messiah wasn't God in Jewish expectation, and it was no Jewish crime to think or say it was you.

The Romans also didn't give two shits about whether someone had committed Jewish blasphemy and certainly didn't crucify people for it.

The ironic thing is that, while claiming to be the "king of the Jews" (i.e. the Messiah) was no crime under Jewish law, it could have easily been construed as a crime by the Romans, not because of any religious implications, but because it was a challenge to Roman authority.

It's more likely, though, that if Jesus was crucified, it was for stirring up shit at the Termple during Passover, and making himself a potential threat to the peace. The Romans were especially paranoid about riots during Passover -- a time when all the bumpkins flooded into Jerusalem from the country and the Romans were hugely outnumbered -- so they didn't fuck around if somebody looked like they were even thinking about lighting the powder keg.

Clivedurdle

I am confused.

In 19 BCE Herod in Roman Jerusalem builds the largest temple on the planet. Is that not evidence of very good relationships with Rome?

66 CE Jewish wars start.

Were the Romans hated before then? Or is this all reading back stuff? What was Jerusalem like in the 30s? If one governor was heavy handed, is that enough, or is that also made up to create a reason for the Jewish wars?

Yes taliban like groups may have hated Rome - Death to America stuff. But the reality?

Amaleq13

A conviction by Jewish authorities that would have resulted in stoning and, therefore, cannot be the reason for his crucifixion doesn't help your position.

The author makes it clear why Jesus was crucified but you are free to continue to pretend otherwise for whatever "reason". :wave:

Amaleq13

It sure is. That's why I find it baffling that anyone could deny it. :huh: