Who Killed Jesus?

At the end of the previous post, I promised a revelation, and so shall you have one.

"The Jews" DID NOT KILL JESUS, at least not if we take the account in the New Testament at face value.  They were not his enemies, but his allies.  Let's take a closer look.

The gospels recount that Jesus was arrested on Passover according to the synoptic gospels or the Eve of Passover according to John.  He was arrested by the "chief priests and scribes" taken to the palace of the High Priest and tried there, where witnesses were recruited in a late night trial on a Jewish holiday, but they could not get an agreement.  Then, the court baits him to say that he is the Messiah, but he dodges it.  "It is you who say that I am."  A Messianic claim would make him a rebel in the eyes of the Romans.  Then, he says that he will destroy the Temple and build another not made of physical material.  On that, they convict him for blaspheme.  Conceding that they cannot execute him, they turn him over to Rome.  The Romans are reluctant to execute him and only give in under pressure from the "Jews", who are further described as instigated by the "chief priests and scribes".  Thus, he is executed by crucifixion under charges of a Messianic claim that he may or may not have made.

So who are these "chief priests and scribes" who seem to be the trouble makers?  Let's first look at what happened.  They arrest him and try him on Passover or the Eve of Passover.  According to Jewish law, no capital case can be tried on these days.  Nor is it legal to try a capital case at night.  Then he is taken to the palace of the High Priest.  Yet the courts met at the gates of the Temple Mount, at the gates of the Temple and in the Chamber of Hewn Stone.  What court is meeting in the house of the High Priest?  Then he is baited to say that he is the Messiah.  Yet, it is not illegal to claim that you are the Messiah, not in a Jewish court.  Then he is convicted of blaspheme, cursing G-d, yet his statement that he will destroy the Temple does NOT CONSTITUTE BLASPHEME!  Unable to execute him, they hand him over to Rome.  Yet, handing over a defendant to be judged by a foreign court or power is one of the gravest sins a Jew can commit, according to Jewish law.  It is called "moser", and it undermines the authority of the court.  one must risk his own death rather than do so, unless the foreign power asks for him by name.  Here, clearly, they did not.  So whoever these "chief priests and scribes" are, they either do not know Jewish law, or do not respect it.  The entire arrest and trial is illegal from beginning to end.

However, understanding the politics of Judea in Temple times clarifies all matters.  The Jewish court was led by sages of the main Pharisee schools, recounted in the Talmud.  The New Testament does not even mention the names of these men, who would have been the most famous men in the land, Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, and many others,  the men who are featured throughout the mishna. They were not involved.  Rather, it was the nameless chief priests and one named High Priest, Caiaphus and, in John, his mentor Anias.  In the times of the Temple, the Bible requires that priests conduct the Temple service. The priesthood is determined by patrilineal descent.  That means that the greatest sages did not conduct the Temple service, but rather contingents of the priesthood.  The service was very complex and required a large body of expertise, gained only  by real world experience, such as could only be gained by priests.  Thus, the priest leaders, the descendents of Aaron the brother of Moses wielded great power.  During the second temple era, the Talmud records that some unscrupulous priest leaders wielded this power for personal gain, rejecting the authority of the court and all of its rulings.  They developed their own court system and their theology deviated from that of the Pharisee court.  They rejected belief in the Messiah and the world to come, invested all power in the Temple service, as it was the source of their power, and took an extremely fundamentalist approach to the Bible, often spitefully rejecting the courts rulings, even though they were proven thoroughly.  By the time of the first century the highest echelons of the priesthood followed the heretical views of their forebears, and the Saducees set up a priestly cult, using their special status to force the Jewish court into some level of tolerance.  However, the mainstream Pharisees considered the Saducees as heretics.  The Saducees, in turn, allied with Pharisee enemies, the Roman occupation, and secured the highest positions for itself, purchasing the high priesthood, a practically royal position in that time, and placing its own ambassadors with the Roman rulers and procurators of Judea.  The Saducees played the loyalist to Rome, opposing the Pharisee, who were an occupied enemy to be subjugated.

This is not to say that all Pharisees were united.  Certainly, their were zealot schools aligned with the Pharisees, like the "biryunim, whom the Talmud ultimately blames for the defeat in the final battle with Rome and the destruction of the Temple.  The Talmud relates that they burned the stores of Jerusalem, forcing the Jews to fight the surrounding Roman army to escape the city or die of starvation inside.  The zealot final stand at Masada, a famous piece of history that is used to illustrate steadfastness and bravery, is not even mentioned in the Talmud.  The mainstream Pharisees did not consider the biryunim worthy of notice in this regard and the story beginning in Mes. Gitttin 57 clarifies why. 

So, now read the story of the arrest and trial of Jesus and you can see how the sides align.  The Saducees are the ones plotting against Jesus. The Pharisees merely argue with him.  The "chief priests", i.e. the Saducees, are the ones who arrest and try him in their own court.  The Jewish court was not involved, even in John, who has some Pharisee groups allying with the Saducees.   They then turn him over to their allies, the Romans, to avoid the political fall out.  This story is still obvious in the words of the versions before us today.in all four versions of the story.  The only person mentioned by name, the High Priest Caiaphus, was Yosef ben Kaphah, a well-known Saducee, even mentioned in the contemporary history of Josephus!!  Anias may be the same Saducee High Priest mentioned in the Mishnah, who rebelled against the water libation of the Rabbis.  However, as I said, no mainstream Pharisee would have given any credence to the heretics, and therefore, the Pharisees in John must be biryunim and fringe elements. Of course there are many proofs of this explanation, but we are summarizing presently to understand how the fundamental reader must understand the New Testament. No fanciful interpretations, just what is written on the pages.

Blaming the "Jews" for killing Jesus is like blaming the Americans for the Weather Underground attacks of the sixties.  Surely, the WU were "Americans", but just as certainly, the American leadership and the vast majority of people did not consider them anything but dangerous enemies.  On the other hand, Joseph of Arimethea and others that help Jesus are allied with the mainstream Pharisees, and would share his political views and his opposition to Rome.  Indeed, Jesus quotes many Pharisee sayings, just as we have them in the Talmud to this day.

So just why then do Jews not accept Jesus and convert to Christianity?  In fact, many groups that focus on converting Jews make this observation and pose this question.  And the answer is very simple.  In Jewish history and experience, especially of that time, there is nothing particularly special or unique about him.  More about that as you read on.