One of the largest misunderstandings in all of the New Testament, is how modern readers interpret who is responsible for the death of Jesus. This misunderstanding has even been the basis for many of the pogroms committed against Jews in medieval history, by putting the blame on them. And at first glance, this seems to be the case.
Asking The Right Questions.
The New Testament writings seem to place the blame of Jesus death squarely on the shoulders of the Jewish authorities of the day. Particularly John’s Gospel seems to imply that the Jewish authorities (and even the populous) wanted to kill Jesus themselves, but Rome stood in their way because “we are not permitted to put anyone to death.” (John 18:31) Matthews Gospel seems to share the same sentiment, putting blame on the whole people with them seeming to accept responsibility and relinquish any blame to Rome with the statement “His blood be on us and on our children.” (Matthew 27:25)
Couple these statements with the belief in the Trinity and what you have is a strong formula for Jewish persecution via the Christians on the charge of “killing God.”
However, most Christians today might tell you something like, "It was Rome that killed Jesus." So, which is it? Did Rome intentionally kill Jesus, despite what the Gospels seem to suggest? Or is this more of a technicality, where the Jewish authorities were responsible for his death but used Rome as a tool to carry out what they could not do themselves? Could this be a way to avoid the charge of anti-Semitism by shifting the blame to a people who no longer exist (Rome), unable to defend themselves? Or perhaps we are misreading the Gospels altogether? Are we missing something?
On top of all this, reading the Gospel accounts of Jesus' final hours before his resurrection raises more questions than answers when approached critically. The entire story feels strange, with details that don’t seem to add up. For example, why did Judas need to betray Jesus in the first place? Some say, "to identify Jesus," but realistically, you could have hired any number of people who had seen him before to point him out. By this time, Jesus had a large following, so finding him shouldn’t have been a challenge—certainly not one that required coercing one of his closest confidants to lead the authorities to him. That strategy seems like the least probable option for success. If it were up to me, I wouldn't choose that route when there were plenty of followers, or even former followers, who could have identified him with far less trouble.
Secondly, what was the point of the trial they put Jesus through? They clearly wanted him dead—so did they really need to go through this whole rigmarole just to hand him over to the Romans anyway? The Romans seemed more than willing to carry out the execution, regardless of the legal procedures of a small Jewish court system that primarily dealt with religious matters.
The more you examine, the more questions will arise, especially if you read the passages critically. Some questions may have simple answers, but others require a deeper look into the history of first-century Judaism and its many sects (Israeli Judaism being a rich tapestry of beliefs). We also need to consider the geopolitical environment that serves as the backdrop for the story. So, before we dive into dissecting the details of Jesus’ final hours leading to his death, I suggest we begin by outlining the key characters in the story—their backgrounds, motives, and the roles they play in what turns out to be a far more complex narrative than one might initially think.
Who’s Who in the Zoo?
Lets start with a brief coverage of each of the primary parties involved. In doing so, we will understand each point of view and potential motives that may be at play.
Jesus
Who better to start with than the main character? Though this may seem like an obvious point and waste of time to expound on, it’s important that we approach this story by leaving our presuppositions behind, while also bringing to the forefront the key details we must remain aware of for this particular story.
Let us focus only on the historical facts of this case, and not necessarily the theological. Jesus is a Rabbi, very likely a Pharisee, from a small town in the Galilee region (which was a Pharisee dominated area) known as Nazareth. In the last three years, this peculiar rabbi has managed to make a lot of noise and rattle a lot of cages. He appears to be incredibly well educated, with nearly all of his teachings and beliefs being in line with that of the Pharisees. Among the Pharisaic thoughts; resurrection of the dead, the coming of a messianic figure, the belief in a messianic era, the supremacy of scripture, the strict monotheism, a working knowledge of the oral traditions, and a general disapproval although passive attitude towards the occupation of Israel and Judea by the Romans.
It is the last point about the Romans that is most important. Couple this with the belief in the messianic era, or the coming Kingdom of Heaven, and keep these particular facets of Jesus’ life and reputation in mind as we move forward.
Judas Iscariot
Famous for his betrayal of Jesus for the price of 30 silver coins, Judas was the money carrier for the group of the twelve disciples. Most pious Jewish men did not carry money if they could help it, since the coins themselves had an idol printed on them (Caesar declared himself to be divine), and so many groups would elect a person to carry the money on their behalf, only swapping out people every so often to give the primary money handler a break from having to be the guy to shoulder the idolatry.
Judas likely got his name “Iscariot” from the small zionist militia group called “the Sicarii” named after the sickle dagger “sicae.” In latin the singular form is “sicarius” meaning something like “dagger-man” or “knife-guy.”[1]
The Sicarii are known for their strong stance against the Romans, and believed in Israeli independence via a strong military victory, utilizing guerrilla tactics and insurrection. Before the failed Jewish rebellion of 70CE the Sicarii were known for things like “terror-kidnapping, extortion, robbery, and murder of both Romans and Jews” who they viewed to be complicit.[2] The NIV goes so far as to render the word in greek (sikarios) as “terrorists” in Acts 21:38, which is probably a more accurate depiction for our modern vernacular and understanding of such “extremist” activities.
The Pharisees
Much can be said about the Pharisee’s unfair treatment in the New Testament writings and their subsequent hate by the Christians for generations thereafter. Though this is not the time nor place to discuss the particulars, it is important to note moving forward how the Pharisees were viewed by the populous, and their actual stances on relevant topics to this story.
The Pharisees were well loved by the common people. Pharisees were typically that of a “middle class” people, who were very well educated and therefore usually elected by the common people to be put into a position of authority for the community. Pharisees would one day eventually come to be known as “Rabbis” and the Orthodox Judaism today is a direct descendent of the Pharisees. Most Pharisees were seen as gentle, caring, and most importantly lenient when it came to Torah law, despite what Christians would have you believe today.
There were two dominating schools of Pharisaism in Jesus day, the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai (often you see these two schools in their Hebrew vernacular Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai). These two schools of thought had two various and sometimes opposing philosophies. Jesus in particular seems to have aligned himself with the teaching of Beit Hillel, while also openly confronting the leaders and teachers of Beit Shammai.
Durring the days of Jesus ministry the Beit Shammai had gained control as the dominating school of thought among Pharisees, with Shammai himself leading the way as the minority leader of the Sanhedrin. (Pharisees represented the minority in the Sanhedrin, while the Sadducees were in the majority; More about them later.)
The most important details to keep in mind for this story is their stance on the Messiah, and on Rome. The Pharisees believed in a coming messiah, and that such a messiah would lead the way to victory against Rome, to reestablish Israel as a free and independent kingdom. They in turn also held a very passive attitude towards the Roman occupation, electing to do their best to work along side Rome and have a more diplomatic approach to freedom and independence. They largely dissociated with zealot groups for being too extreme, the thinking being that it was the not their job but the Messiah’s job to restore Israel, and in the mean time they will work to maintain whatever peaceful relations possible until then.
The Sadducees
One group that perhaps doesn’t receive enough criticism is the Sadducees. In Jesus' day, the Sadducees were largely made up of the aristocratic class, and many also held positions in the priesthood. The Sadducees were essentially in Rome's pocket, agreeing to act largely on Rome’s behalf. The Romans installed the Sadducees, believing that allowing locals to govern would reduce the likelihood of revolts, while still maintaining control without appearing overly involved. Rome ensured this by appointing loyal Sadducees to the majority of the Sanhedrin seats, including the High Priest, who, though he technically held no real legal power, wielded significant political influence over the general population.
The Sadducees held many theological differences from the Pharisees, chief among them their views on the afterlife and oral traditions. The Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife, nor did they accept the validity of oral traditions. They were one of the first known sects to adhere to a "Sola Scriptura" (scripture alone) approach, but only recognized the Torah, rejecting the Prophets and Writings found in the rest of the Bible. As a result, they did not believe in a Messianic Era or the prophesied redemption of Israel through a Messiah.
Little else is known about the Sadducees. Their usefulness to the Romans ended with the first Jewish revolt in 66 CE, and they perished during the siege of Jerusalem when Titus destroyed the Temple in 70 CE. They left behind no surviving writings of their own, and much of what we know about them comes from later accounts written by the Pharisees.
The Sanhedrin
Put simply: the supreme court. Made up of 70 elders plus one, usually elected to their seat by the various communities in Israel. The plus one was considered the chosen “president” (‘Nasi’ in Hebrew) of the Sanhedrin, and the minority party leader would be chosen to serve as a sort of “vice president” role called the “Av Beit Din” (lit. Father of the Courthouse- Chief of Justice), which is the position Shammai held at the time.
However, of course, as stated above, the Sanhedrin’s roles would change during Roman control, with the high priest seeming to interject as the president in some cases to ensure the outcome is in keeping with the Roman intent. During this time period the Sadducees were the majority party, while the Pharisees were the minority party. This would change after the failed first Jewish revolt, and the Sanhedrin would move to Yavneh and then again in Galilee with a primarily Pharisee control (you can find more information about the Sanhedrin in Josephus' Antiquities chapter 14).
Additionally, it is important to note that the Sanhedrin was removed from the chamber of hewn stone sometime around ~30 CE and they were not able to rule on capital punishments while outside of the chamber of hewn stone (such as Jesus' trial in ~30-33 CE). Any Sanhedrin formed for a capital case would have been illegitimate.
Who Actually Wanted Jesus Dead?
Believe it or not, it was not the Pharisees who wanted Jesus to be killed, although this viewpoint depends entirely on the translation one is using. Matthew 12:14 according to the NIV reads:
“But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.”
You can find very similar renderings in translations like the NLT, CSB, and other translations that tend to utilize the dynamic equivalence translational philosophy.
However, the greek word translated as “kill” in this verse is “apollymi”[3] which literally means “to destroy.” The same is used in Mark 3:6, again speaking of Pharisees plans. This word can very easily be used to refer to a reputational destruction and not a physical one. Which according to the Gospels, they proceeded to test Jesus in many ways to see if he is “legit” so to speak. They ask him various questions and give scenarios to test his knowledge and see just how observant he is and that he teaches others to do the same. This is actually their job.
Pharisees do this quite often, and they usually don’t mean any real physical harm by it. Heated peer to peer debates and challenges are the norm for the Pharisees, and the part that is lost in transmission of these debates is how none of it is taken personally. This, what we in the modern west perceive as a very heated and full of hatred argument, is not viewed this way in the ancient Judaism of Jesus’ day. There is nothing personal about this, they do this for two reasons. For one it prevents complacency, keeping every rabbi sharp and on his toes, ready for any challenge that may come his way from any source, be it within the community or from without. Secondly, it's seen as a form of worship to HaShem, constantly engaged in G-d’s word and always seeking Him, seeking self improvement, and growing closer to G-d. But if the challenge is not a “real” challenge then it’s no challenge at all, it is an echo chamber.
But even if the Pharisees Jesus addresses did take it personally, the Gospel’s use of the word “destroy” is indicative of rhetorical intentions, not physical harm. The gospels always used this word “destroy” when referring to the plan of the Pharisees, but uses the very plain word “kill” when speaking of the Priests and Sadducees.
“Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, who was called Ca'iaphas,and took counsel together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him.” -Matthew 26:3-4 RSV (Emphasis mine)
That word in Greek is “apokteino”[4] and unlike it’s Matthew 12:14 counterpart, this word overtly means “to kill” and some translations even render this word as “assassinate” because of its strong connection to malicious intent to kill. And as stated before, this word is always used in connection with the Sadducees’ plans to kill Jesus, and never the more ambiguous word “destroy.” This particular word for “kill” is found also in Mark 14:1. Another unambiguous word used in connection to the Sadducees plans are found in Matthew 26:59 and 27:1 where the Priests (Sadducees) seek “to put him to death.”[5]
Meanwhile it seems to be Pharisees who try to warn Jesus of the deadly plans for his demise, asking him to flee for his life.
“At that very hour some Pharisees came, and said to him, “Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.”” -Luke 13:31RSV
Notice here also that it’s “Herod” they blame for wanting Jesus dead. This is because in the political climate of that day, the Sadducees are the arm of the Romans and therefore Herod, who is their regional king appointed by Rome.
Even if the Pharisees took their encounters with Jesus personally, even if they hated him, they didn’t want him dead. Pharisees are very cautious and careful with their rulings on the death penalty. The Mishnah records the Pharisees’ stance on capital punishment in a few areas, usually to say that dishing out the death penalty was incredibly rare. It was said that “a Sanhedrin that put to death one man in seven years is called a murderous one.”[6] Very often instead the Pharisees tried their best to be lenient on these rulings in judgment. They would attempt to dismiss witnesses as invalid if they could find any fault with them, so as to avoid sentencing the death penalty.[7] Pharisees preferred to leave the judgement of death in G-d’s hands, believing that if a person was acquitted but died within a year of some other natural cause, that indicates he may have been guilty and his judgement came upon him from Heaven.
Unfortunately, the Pharisees were not in control of the Sanhedrin at this point in time, and the Sadducees held no such convictions about the death penalty.
Reading The Story Like We Don’t Know It.
Claiming to be G-d?
So we know now that it was the Sadducees that wanted to actually kill Jesus, but now we have other questions that arise or we have yet to address: Why exactly did they want him dead? Why did they need somebody to betray Jesus if only to point him out in a crowd? What new information could Judas possibly bring to the authorities that would be beneficial to them for an arrest?
The reason these questions are needed is because contrary to popular Christian belief, Jesus never claimed to be G-d and he was not killed because “he was claiming to be G-d.” If we read the story as though we do not know how it ends, and without any theological presuppositions, you will find that the account in the gospels tells a different story than the common Christian rhetoric tells.
For example, if Jesus claimed to be G-d, well then that’s the end of that. He would be brought before the court immediately with witnesses telling the story of his self proclaimed divinity. There would be no need for a betrayer in Judas. Now I know, I just opened a whole other can of worms for many of you, and unfortunately I do not intend to address every bible verse Christians claim as proof that Jesus himself claimed to be G-d in this article. That will be for another article entirely.
For now I think it satisfactory to simply point out that at no point during the trial of Jesus do we see anybody bring forth the charge “he claimed to be G-d.” We do see many false witnesses coming forth with many different charges, none of which seem to stick due to a lack of legitimacy. If Jesus had indeed claimed divinity this should be an open and shut case for the prosecutors. Claiming to be G-d is in fact actual blasphemy and would be arguably grounds for a death penalty.
So what happens instead? If They didn’t charge him with claiming to be G-d, what did they charge Jesus with? Well, let’s have a careful look at the account.
A Kangaroo Court
In Matthew 26:57-68 we have the account of the trial of Jesus at the Sanhedrin with the high priest Caiaphas present and leading the court.
As mentioned before, we see no indication of a claim to deity here, just a bunch of false witnesses attempting to trump up charges in order to get a guilty verdict. But nothing seems to stick. The Sanhedrin needs at least two credible witnesses to render any judgement, and to that end at least this kangaroo court seems to be getting at least some resemblance of legitimacy, so they can technically say the judgement was “done by the book.”
However, without two legitimate witnesses nothing can be done at all. Finally they find two witnesses who’s stories match up. They tell the court about the time Jesus spoke of the Temple’s destruction and rebuilding it in three days, which of course was a parable and not a statement of fact as these witnesses seem to suggest. Nevertheless, finally the court has what they’re looking for; A reason to prosecute. What happens next is the most important details of this narrative.
At first Jesus says nothing about the current charge concerning the Temple. And since this charge really holds no significance, not enough to warrant a death penalty anyway, they finally shift gears and accuse him of what they really are hoping Jesus will admit to. “Tell us if you are the Messiah, the son of G-d!” Now this is the real charge they hopped to get Jesus on, and with this charge they can issue a death penalty which can only be issued by Rome at this time.
Rome is unconcerned with religious affairs unless it involved sedition.[14] And the claim to be The Messiah is, in Rome’s eyes, exactly that. It is seen as a call to revolt against the Roman authorities. And Rome has good reason to believe this, every such messianic claimant up to this point has started an uprising against Rome. There have been several Messianic claimants before Jesus and there were several after him as well, each starting an uprising. Usually they were small and mostly insignificant, but occasionally they were big enough to be a real threat.
One such real threat was the second Jewish revolt in 132CE, where Simon Bar Kokhba was regarded as the Messiah and lead the revolt. Ultimately though, the revolt would be the single worst failure in Jewish history, and would be the last Jewish revolt to ever take place, Rome made absolutely sure of that with an extra measure of brutality. A brutality that echos even to this very day.[8]
The important thing to note here is that claiming to be Messiah or being thought of as The Messiah are not themselves sins in Judaism. Many claimed to be the Messiah, and Judaism never killed any of them for it, you just simply had to prove it. Either you were, or you were not. This was not a big deal in Judaism. But to Rome, claiming to be the Messiah is treason.
The Messiah in Judaism is the King of the Jewish people and of Israel as a nation. The Jewish people expected The King Messiah to come and thwart the Roman rule and reinstate the Nation of Israel and rule over it as King David once did. You can see how this would be a problem for Rome.
So Rome therefore would execute and suppress any and all messianic claimants in order to keep these uprising from happening, and attempt to maintain order and peace within their eastern edge of the kingdom. So if Jesus claims to be the Messiah, well that makes him an enemy of the state, and will be dealt with accordingly.
The problem is, up to now Jesus never claimed to be Messiah either, at least not openly. Throughout the Gospels we see him skirting the issue and deflecting away from the title in public. “Who made me a judge over you?” he would say.[15] The only time we see him admit to being messiah are on two occasions. Once is here in the trial, but the other time was privately to his disciples.
The Need for a Betrayal
In Matthew 16:13-20 an interesting conversation happens between Peter and Jesus with the other disciples around in a private conversation. Jesus asked his disciples who people say the “Son of Man” (a messianic title) is? They list a few notable individuals, but then he asked “who do you same I am?” And Peter answered “you are The Messiah, the son of the living G-d!”
Notice how even here he technically didn’t claim it himself, but let Peter say it for him. After blessing Peter for his faith and declaring him to be the rock upon which his congregation will be built, verse 20 spells it out for us in plain language.
“And he gave the disciples orders to tell no one that he was the Messiah.” -Matthew 16:20 HCSB
This is the great betrayal! He kept his messianic titles under wraps this whole time, never saying anything publicly, likely to avoid drawing too much attention from the Romans. Therefore the courts were looking for something like this so they could take him to the Romans to have him executed for treason. Judas did not simply identify to them who Jesus was in a lineup. No, Judas told the authorities who he was claiming to be behind closed doors. The Messiah.
Why would Judas do such a thing, knowing he would be handed to the Romans to be killed? I propose he did it because he wanted Jesus to start the revolution already. Judas was a zealot of the Sicarii variety, as stated above. He likely was rather upset that Jesus, whom he probably did truly believe to be the Messiah, wasn’t doing what the Messiah was supposed to do, and rise up and kill all of the Roman occupiers, and return Israel to her former glory, ushering in the 1000 year reign of the Messianic era.
Exactly why Judas decided to betray Jesus is a mystery to us that Judas took with him to his grave shortly after doing it. But I would like to propose that I believe it’s possible he hoped this would jump-start the revolution. I believe he really did think Jesus was the Conquering King Messiah, and that his betrayal would not lead to his death but instead speed up the revolution, forcing Jesus’ hand in self defense to reveal himself fully and usher in the long awaited Messianic Era.
I think this is supported by the fact that Judas was so overcome with grief that he would commit suicide. He couldn’t live with his decision, because he never meant for it to end so brutally and violently resulting in the death of his beloved King Messiah. He maybe thought he had single-handedly caused the biggest failure in Jewish History and ended all hopes of the coming Kingdom of Heaven.
Unfortunately, because of the group Judas likely was part of, he would be forever known as the “back stabber” that the Sicarii were also famous for. History would remember Judas cruelly and probably undeservedly so.
What is Blasphemy?
This next part is important because one of the most curious details about this story is that the high priest accuses Jesus of blasphemy, however, no blaspheme has occurred. Let us continue the story:
After he is finally asked the question they really want to hear the answer to, “are you the Messiah?” Jesus answers, “you have said it” (once again seeming to not answer in the direct affirmative while also not denying it). But now Jesus says something that really ruffles their feathers.
“But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” -Matthew 26:64 ESV
To the ears of a Sadducee, loyal to Rome, not believing in an afterlife, or a Messianic Kingdom, this is unambiguously claiming to be the Caesar. This is treason in the highest order! Did he just threaten the Sadducees and the Roman emperor? He clearly claimed to be the rightful King!
Upon hearing this, the high priest looses his bearings entirely, out of pure shock probably, at the audacity of this man Jesus. He screams “he has blasphemed!” while tearing his holiest of robes. Arguably an act far more blasphemous than the non-blaspheme of claiming to be the Messiah.
Blaspheme is a very serious charge in the Sanhedrin, and it comes with specific definitions as to what constitutes such a judgment. For one, the word itself “blasphemy” is just the greek word for “slander.”[9] It’s Hebrew equivalent in the Torah is “Naqav”[10] which means something like “to pierce” but is always used in the way of expression, like a “piercing insult” or a “curse.”
It’s use in the Torah, however, as a serious crime for which warrants the death penalty is limited to “slandering G-d.” The first case of this which becomes the example and standard to be set for all cases of blaspheme is found in Leviticus 24:11, where an Israelite man “spoke G-d’s name and cursed.” Implying that he cursed at G-d. The Hebrew literally reads “And he cursed…the name and cursed.”
From this the rabbis concluded a couple of things. For one there are two different words used for “cursed” in the same sentence, so it must mean two things. First it means to slander G-d, but to be charged with the crime of blaspheme legally to warrant the death penalty, one must also have slandered G-d along with saying G-d’s Holy Name (the Tetragrammaton). Other charges of “lesser” blasphemes (without the use of the Holy Name) would warrant lashes instead.[11]
Eventually this ruling would go on also to include pronouncing the name at all, Based on the verse Leviticus 24:16. Which the JPS plainly translates as “and one who pronounces the name (HaShem) shall be put to death.” This ruling was likely already in effect by Jesus day, which is a discussion for another time, but for our purposes here it will suffice to say that Jesus uttered no legal blasphemy in his trial.
That is of course if we continue to treat this “trial” as at all legitimate. All the Sadducees really needed was a messianic confession to take him to the Roman officials to have him executed for sedition. And so for a Sadducee, claiming to be the King over the Caesar is basically blasphemy to them.
The Sadducees are operating outside of the normal Sanhedrin in many ways. Nearly every law concerning capital cases for the Sanhedrin are broken. Here is just a short list of some of the major ones:
Illegal timing
Trials must take place during the day time.[12] They must take place after the morning offerings had been performed at the Temple. Trials were not allowed to proceed on the eve of a Sabbath or feast day. A trial cannot conclude on the first day unless it was acquittal, so a guilty verdict is not allowed to be issued until at least the second day.
Illegal Location
All major trials (such as capital punishment) must meet and convene in the Chamber of Hewn Stone (on the Temple Mount Complex),[13] Jesus trial would take place in the home of Caiaphas.
Lack of a Charge
A charge must first be issued before the trial begins. Yet in this “trial”, Jesus is interrogated, with the Sadducees looking for a charge. He was guilty before he arrived. Guilty of what? Their goal was to find out ‘what’ to charge him with after already deciding he should be guilty.
Full Sanhedrin Not Present
This is perhaps the biggest issue of them all. It appears that there were no Pharisees present at this case. If there was, they were so few in number that they practically weren’t there at all. Lukes Gospel clearly implies this by listing “the chief priests and the scribes convened” (Luke 22:66). And in fact the Pharisees are not mentioned by name even once in any of the Gospels about the trial. It’s more than likely that the Pharisees were not invited to this interrogation. The sadducees know if they had been they would have pushed against this court, offered counter witnesses, offered Jesus a chance to defend himself properly or just simply spoke up at all in some resistance to delay the trial as it should be, in the location it should be.
Nevertheless, the Sadducees have what they need. Rome puts insurrectionists to death, and they have here a man who has admitted to being king over Caesar. King over the Caesar they serve. It may not be blasphemy for the Sanhedrin’s standards, but this is no legitimate Sanhedrin at all, it’s blasphemy to them to threaten their Caesar. And so Jesus is falsely charged, an innocent man, and his fate is now sealed. He will be taken to Pilate as soon as possible for the false charge of treason.
King of the Jews
“And they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him over to Pilate. And Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And he answered him, “You have said so.” And the chief priests accused him of many things. And Pilate again asked him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate was amazed.” Mark 15:2-5 ESV
Note here again the charge brought before Pilate concerning Jesus. “King of the Jews.” Treason, not blasphemy, and not for claiming to be G-d incarnate.
Jesus once again answers very carefully, still having never publicly admitted to being the Messiah.
What we know about Pilate historically is that he held no qualms about executing people, he was incredibly brutal and heartless. This account of him in the Gospels is actually very much out of character for Pilate, and scholars have since proposed that this is likely the Gospels “softening the blow” to avoid directly accusing Rome (who is in control and doesn’t take criticism lightly) of killing an innocent man.[16][17] Pilate will go on to do things like wash his hands clean “innocent of this mans blood” (basically speaking on behalf of Rome), something that probably did not happen historically but was written so as to not upset the authorities against the Christian sect for passing around letters of slander against the empire.[18]
But make no mistake, this is Rome’s doing. Every historical source attests that Rome is responsible, some going so far as to accuse Pilate in a way that suggests he acted nearly alone and directly colluded with the Sadducees prior to Jesus arrest.[19] Rome has ordered the death of all messianic claimants and employed the Sadducees help them get it done. Rome always sends extra armed support during the Jewish holidays for exactly this reason, since uprisings are more likely to occur during these times of mass gatherings, they plan ahead to reenforce the garrison and violently squelch any messianic uprisings to deter further rioting.
Puting the blame for Jesus' death on the Jews was done by the ever increasingly anti-semitic Church Fathers, who were largly themselves Roman citizens also. The Church would go on to continue to perpetuate this lie and they also worked to make the new religion "less Jewish" with each passing year, constantly creating contradistinctions against Judaism and further separating itself from the Jewish roots from which it came [20]. Most of this happening durring the "parting of ways" (around 132CE durring the Bar Kokhba Revolt) after Jews became "enemies of the state" to Rome, and Christians (mostly Roman citizens now) would take measures to separate themselves from any associations with "the enemy" by any means possible.
Which brings me to another point often brought up by anti-semites; The verse “His blood be on us and on our children.” (Matthew 27:25) As you may well know by now, however, this is not the Jewish people as a whole. It’s not even a crowd which includes the Pharisees, this is a crowd of Sadducees and the Priests. And this would turn out to be a self fulfilled prophesy, since just one generation after this event (40 years) the Temple would be destroyed and the Sadducees would cease to exist, the whole sect being killed in the process.
Conclusion
It was the Romans who mocked, flogged, spat on and crowned Jesus with the thorns. It was the Roman loyalist Sadducees who set him up, under the cover of darkness, so quickly and on the edge of a major holiday so that nobody would have time to stop it or raise objection.
It was under the direction of Rome that the Sadducees put this whole thing together. They would undercut the whole Sanhedrin by purposefully doing what they could to skew this in their favor. Holding the “trial” at the high priest’s house, in the middle of the night, on the eve of a major holiday, making sure as few (if any at all) Pharisees as possible are present to raise objections, and charged him with a false charge of blasphemy, with the full intentions to have him put to death by the Romans for sedition. There was almost nothing “Jewish” about this process at all. It is solely due to the fact that the Sadducees are technically “Jews” by ethnicity alone that any Jewish person was involved at all. But they are traitors to Judaism in and of themselves, and by no means represent Judaism as a whole at all for any point in time of Jewish history.
Those responsible for the death of the innocent man Jesus did in fact receive their comeuppance, and there are exactly zero religious sects or affiliations alive today that are directly related to those responsible. Orthodox Judaism today is the descendant of the Judaism that would have prevented his death or made serious attempts to do so.
To call any Jew today a “Christ killer” is not only anti-semitic, but entirely false in every conceivable way. This rhetoric is indicative of the ignorance of history and the facts of the New Testament writings. Unfortunately in the sad wake of October 7th 2023, this bigoted rally cry has resurfaced, and so once again needs to be held up to the sunlight and shown to be the vampire that it is and let it burn away in the sunlight of truth.
Footnotes
[1] Josephus; Jewish War. Ch 7.
[2] Douglas, J.D.; Tenny, M.C.; Silva, M. (2011). Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Zondervan. p. 1549. ISBN 978-0-310-49235-1
[3] Strongs G622
[4] Strongs G615
[5] Strongs G2289 “Thanatoo” -To put to death
[6] Mishnah Makkot 1:10
[7] Hilkhot Edut
[8] The Romans would instate a permanent ban on all Jews from ever entering the land of Israel, and they named the region “Syria-Palestina” after the Philistines (Palestina is the greek word for Philistines, from which the modern word “Palestine” originates), who were the ancient but now extinct enemies of the Jews, as an added insult to deter Jews from returning to the land.
[9] Strongs G989 “to speak evil, to revile, abusive language or slander.”
[10] Strongs H5344
[11] See Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:5
[12] Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:1
[13] Mishnah Sanhedrin 11:2
[14] Mantel, Hugo. (1972) "Sanhedrin." in Encyclopaedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Macmillan. 14, p. 836
[15] Luke 12:14
[16] McGing, Brian C. (1991). "Pontius Pilate and the Sources." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 53. p. 417. (Additionally, Josephus in "Antiquities" 18:3.3 indicates that Pilate alone condemned Jesus to the cross.)
[17] Winter, Paul (1974). "On the Trial of Jesus." Berlin/New York: de Gruyter p. 85-86.
[18] Brown, Raymond E. (2008). "The Death of the Messiah." Yale University Press. p 753, 833.
[19] Bond, Helen K. (1998) "Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation." Cambridge University Press. p. 197
[20] Ehrman, Bart D. (2003) "Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew." Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. p. 20-21.
great article