Easter Triple Bill no 2 – Why was Jesus killed?

Well the usual answer to the question about the crucifixion is that Jesus died to save us all.  But why did he really die?  Let me run through some of the personalities and the events to throw up a few theories.

JESUS -   This charisma kid managed to get himself killed after less than a week in Jerusalem which is quite an achievement.  He was obviously annoying.  He so got on people’s nerve in his home town of Nazareth that they were going to throw him off a cliff but relented.  He then left (or was forced to leave) Nazareth to wander the Galilee.  So Jesus was clearly no saint.  Only Jesus could unite both the Nazarenes and the Romans by being so irritating that the two groups wanted to kill him which again is quite an achievement.  He then had a couple of years building up his following in the north of Israel urging reform of Judaism.  He seems bipolar from afar.  He spent 40 days depressed, alone and hallucinating about the devil in the desert and then bounced back hyper and as charismatic as ever.  He stole the Pharisee Hillel’s Golden rule.  He was one of many Messiahs and would be Messiahs of that era. He sounds like a bit of a prick but as you know, I’m a bit biased.

JUDAS – He was the real victim.  He and Peter were the 2ics of the little group from the north.  He was the organiser and the money holder.  Like any CFO, he urged financial restraint, particularly when Jesus wanted an expensive foot rub.  I believe he was set up by the Gospel writers for every story needs a hero and anti hero.  His death is mired in ambiguity.  One account says he hung himself in remorse but another says that he died of some abdominal issues.  Judas has become a victim of history and unfairly represents betrayal.  I respect Judas as a solid, no nonsense plain speaker.

PETER – He was called the “Rock” but was weak as water.  He chickened out at the crucifixion.  He then chickened out again at the Jerusalem Council with St Paul some 20 years later.  I suspect that he gained favour with Jesus because he was a bit of a “yes” man but that is supposition.  Clearly the gospels portrayed him well.

CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE – Jerusalem was a tourist centre and money changing was needed for both tourism and taxation.  I imagine that the money changers, whilst not taxation authorities themselves, were associated with the odium of taxation.  So attacking the money changers was not an unpopular strategy.  Jesus threw some sort of tantrum which was dangerous to do.  The Romans, nervous with the huge crowds of the Passover pilgrimage, valued stability over everything else.  Whatever the cause of this hissy fit, it was very risky.

PONTIUS PILATE – This man was a complete bastard whitewashed by the Gospels.  He was so cruel he attracted demonstrations at his palace in Caesarea on the coast.  He was sacked by the Romans for being too pitiless which is an extraordinary achievement.  The Gospel writers exonerated Pilate as reluctant and vacillating as they had to suck up to the Romans.  Every story needs a bad protagonist and this could not be the Romans.  There’s no point in making the Romans the baddies of the story for they looked like being permanently in power and so Pilate was redeemed.  We need some accurate historical revisionism on this bastard.

THE SANHEDRIN – This was the Jewish parliament that virtually never condemned a man to death.  That too is evidence of a Roman whitewash.

JOSEPH CAIAPHAS – the other JC of the story.  He was the High Priest of the Temple, a fashion tragic and maybe or maybe not a quisling.  This JC raises the question when collaboration is noble (such as the Anglo Saxon Robin Hood collaborating and supporting the Norman King Richard) or ignoble (Marshal Petain).  He is an interesting quandary and I believe Caiaphas to have been defamed by history.

In short, I believe that Jesus arrived in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday.  By Good Friday he was dead.  There is no way the Jewish Sanhedrin parliament condemned him as that was not their style.  However, cruelty was Pilate’s style and so Jesus was just another trouble maker bumped off by the Romans. The Romans have been saved by the Gospel writers and this scripture cannot be viewed in any other way than a lie.

What is your view?

Was Pilate the vacillator of history or the complete bastard we now know him to be?

Are the Gospels a Roman whitewash?

Why do you think Jesus was killed?

Over to you…