Why did the Jews plot against Jesus and had him crucified?

Answer 1

Answer 1

They didn't hand Him BACK, they handed Him OVER TO the Romans. An ad hoc militia from the Temple (John 18:3) were the first ones who arrested Jesus and took Him to a priest (John 18:13). The Romans wouldn't let foreign authorities execute people. They reserved that right to themselves. Roman execution of a foreigner meant crucifixion. The religious authorities wanted Jesus dead, but they couldn't execute Him, so they had to pressure the Roman authority (Pontius Pilate) to do it for them. The Bible tells about it quite elegantly.

John 18:28-32

28Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas [high priest]unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

29Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?

30They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. *

31Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:*

32That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.* [Meaning crucifixion]

*Emphasis added

Answer 2

The New Testament account is as portrayed in Answer 1. The Gospels paint Pontius Pilate as a man who seems fair and honest. Meanwhile, the rabid Jewish crowd demands Jesus' blood in a persistent and foul way. However, as the Gospels were written as polemics designed to convince people of Christianity's veracity, they should not be seen as an objective historical narrative. In this particular instance, they make assertions, such as the Jews giving Jesus over to be crucified, which are not historically valid and are particularly problematic as will be examined below.

Examining the New Testament Account

However, assuming that Jesus was a true historical figure, it seems far more likely in actuality that the reverse occurred. The Romans were probably intent on crucifying him and the Jews most likely begged for long-term imprisonment instead of execution. Of course, this would not be out of any love for what Jesus was preaching and many probably would have agreed that as heretic he should be silenced. However, there are only four acceptable implementations of capital punishment in Judaism that are strongly regulated: decapitation, quick strangulation, quick strangulation with internal burning, and stoning. There is complete rejection of any form of capital punishment that uses piercings to kill or leaves the criminal to suffer for hours on end. Crucifixion is in both categories and would be opposed on those grounds; it remains a uniquely Roman punishment.

It is interesting that Pontius Pilate is painted so dovishly in the Bible as concerns the debate on Jesus' death, but nearly every other Roman source paints him as a vile and cruel man. Such a man would have delighted in crucifying a man he perceived as a threat and Jesus was a serious threat to the Roman Empire. The Messiah of that period was understood the way that Jews still understand this concept: an Earthly King who would establish a Jewish Kingdom. Necessarily, therefore, Jesus was going to have to raise an army or commit some political intrigue to achieve this goal. The Romans were likely afraid that Jesus would try to lead a rebellion to free Judea from Roman occupation. This fear would prove justified when another Messianic Candidate, Bar Kochba, would actually lead a revolt against the Romans that ended disastrously for the Jews. In order to prevent Jesus from taking that power, the Romans pre-emptively sought him out and questioned if he was the King of Jews, i.e. someone actively trying to create a Jewish Kingdom in defiance of Rome. When Pontius Pilate received answers that troubled him, why would he spare the rod here when there was such an obvious threat?

The Church does not even hold to the line in Matthew 27:25 where Jews take upon themselves the bloodguilt for the Crucifixion. The recent Popes, and the Catholic Church in general, have made clear that the truth is that the Romans executed Christ in contravention to this verse. Many Protestant Churches (like the Lutheran and Episcopalian Churches) got there even sooner than the Catholics. Since Christian Leadership does not hold those lines in the Book of Matthew to be necessarily authentic or worth following, Christian Leadership does not even advocate for them. However, in the early days of the church, Paul and Peter could not sell Christianity to the Gentiles while claiming that the Roman people were responsible for the Death of the Savior, so Matthew 27:25, ascribing bloodguilt to the Jews, was added to avoid condemning the Romans for their act. The other Gospels, like John, reflect this deflection campaign. Jews, while not major fans of Jesus, are not responsible for his death.

Answer 2

Answer 1

It was actually a very small group of Jews who insisted that Jesus be crucified. The Sanhedrin felt threatened by the teachings of Christ. He rejected their authority and claimed his own authority. He was becoming immensely popular. Humans have a long history of doing terrible things when they are afraid. They sensed an opportunity to be rid of Him, and they manipulated the situation to their advantage. It was a horrible and evil plot, but I suspect such horrible things continue to happen in political arenas all over the world.

Answer 2

This is a Christian blood libel and perhaps the most central one. Is it true that Jews disagreed with Jesus? Yes, and quite fervently. The Related Question provides the reasons underlying the Jewish disagreements with Jesus and his activities and assertions. There is even a discussion in the Talmud on the issue of Jesus (although it is unclear if this is a later edit-job or part of the original text). The Rabbis come to conclusion that he is heretic and that he merits stoning.

However, the act of plotting to actually commit murder is far removed from these discussions and more serious. There are many debates in the Talmud concerning both historical individuals and alleged stories like the Oven of Achnai. This does not mean that those events actually happened, only that the thought experiment of "what would happen under these circumstances" was done. The New Testament makes a number of simple errors about Jewish jurisprudence on such matters. For example, it claims that the Sanhedrin convened on Passover to condemn Jesus. However, the leaders of the Sanhedrin followed the letter of the law to a fault (Jesus even reprimands them for it) and one of the laws is that the Sanhedrin can never meet on a holiday, especially one as central as Passover. Secondly, they allude to a connection between the High Priests and the Sanhedrin in agreeing on what actions to take on Jesus. There was an intense political fight between the High Priests and the Rabbis of the Sanhedrin as to the future direction of Judaism. The High Priests were more corrupt and elitist. The Rabbis were more earnest and populist. There is no reason that the High Priests would not wish to keep Jesus preaching if his populist approach would weaken the appeal of the Rabbis.

As for exacting the death penalty, even if the events leading up Jesus' execution were as the New Testament records them, no Jew would sanction an execution by crucifixion. There are only four acceptable implementations of capital punishment in Judaism that are strongly regulated: decapitation, quick strangulation, quick strangulation with internal burning, and stoning. There is complete rejection of any form of capital punishment that uses piercings to kill or leaves the criminal to suffer for hours on end. Crucifixion is in both categories and was a uniquely Roman punishment.

The claim that the Romans plotted against Jesus and had him crucified is much stronger. The Messiah of that period was understood the way that Jews still understand this concept: an Earthly King who would establish a Jewish Kingdom. Necessarily, therefore, Jesus was going to have to raise an army or commit some political intrigue to achieve this goal. The Romans were likely afraid that Jesus would try to lead a rebellion to free Judea from Roman occupation. This fear would prove justified when another Messianic Candidate, Bar Kochba, would actually lead a revolt against the Romans that ended disastrously for the Jews. In order to prevent Jesus from taking that power, the Romans pre-emptively sought him out and questioned if he was the King of Jews, i.e. someone actively trying to create a Jewish Kingdom in defiance of Rome. When they received answers that troubled them, they chose to execute him in the traditional Roman manner of execution. Pontius Pilate is mentioned in several sources outside of The Bible. In each, he is considered a cruel and vicious man who delighted in executions. Why would he spare the rod here when there was such an obvious threat?

As Rome was the dominant world power during the period of the early Church and Judaism was seen as the "adversary" of early Christianity for rejecting Jesus' Messianic Nature, the Church transferred what should have been hatred for the Roman Leadership into hatred of the Jews and worked assiduously to create a narrative that would paint the Romans as weak and powerless to stop Jewish tyranny when it was Jews as a population who were unable to stop Roman tyranny.

Answer 3

Answer 1

Why does anyone plot against anyone else? At best, this can only be answered with speculation. It can be argued that those who plotted against Christ were jealous of his growing popularity among the people. Other arguments can be made that Christ was violating Jewish law by claiming himself as the Messiah, or as the Son of God. Good argument can be made that Christ had embarrassed Jewish community and religious leaders. Humans really need little else to plot and plan against another than embarrassment.

Answer 2

This is a Christian blood libel and perhaps the most central one. Is it true that Jews disagreed with Jesus? Yes, and quite fervently. The Related Question provides the reasons underlying the Jewish disagreements with Jesus and his activities and assertions. There is even a discussion in the Talmud on the issue of Jesus (although it is unclear if this is a later edit-job or part of the original text). The Rabbis come to conclusion that he is heretic and that he merits stoning.

However, the act of plotting to actually commit murder is far removed from these discussions and more serious. There are many debates in the Talmud concerning both historical individuals and alleged stories like the Oven of Achnai. This does not mean that those events actually happened, only that the thought experiment of "what would happen under these circumstances" was done. The New Testament makes a number of simple errors about Jewish jurisprudence on such matters. For example, it claims that the Sanhedrin convened on Passover to condemn Jesus. However, the leaders of the Sanhedrin followed the letter of the law to a fault (Jesus even reprimands them for it) and one of the laws is that the Sanhedrin can never meet on a holiday, especially one as central as Passover. Secondly, they allude to a connection between the High Priests and the Sanhedrin in agreeing on what actions to take on Jesus. There was an intense political fight between the High Priests and the Rabbis of the Sanhedrin as to the future direction of Judaism. The High Priests were more corrupt and elitist. The Rabbis were more earnest and populist. There is no reason that the High Priests would not wish to keep Jesus preaching if his populist approach would weaken the appeal of the Rabbis.

As for exacting the death penalty, even if the events leading up Jesus' execution were as the New Testament records them, no Jew would sanction an execution by crucifixion. There are only four acceptable implementations of capital punishment in Judaism that are strongly regulated: decapitation, quick strangulation, quick strangulation with internal burning, and stoning. There is complete rejection of any form of capital punishment that uses piercings to kill or leaves the criminal to suffer for hours on end. Crucifixion is in both categories and was a uniquely Roman punishment.

The claim that the Romans plotted against Jesus and had him crucified is much stronger. The Messiah of that period was understood the way that Jews still understand this concept: an Earthly King who would establish a Jewish Kingdom. Necessarily, therefore, Jesus was going to have to raise an army or commit some political intrigue to achieve this goal. The Romans were likely afraid that Jesus would try to lead a rebellion to free Judea from Roman occupation. This fear would prove justified when another Messianic Candidate, Bar Kochba, would actually lead a revolt against the Romans that ended disastrously for the Jews. In order to prevent Jesus from taking that power, the Romans pre-emptively sought him out and questioned if he was the King of Jews, i.e. someone actively trying to create a Jewish Kingdom in defiance of Rome. When they received answers that troubled them, they chose to execute him in the traditional Roman manner of execution. Pontius Pilate is mentioned in several sources outside of the Bible. In each, he is considered a cruel and vicious man who delighted in executions. Why would he spare the rod here when there was such an obvious threat?

As Rome was the dominant world power during the period of the early Church and Judaism was seen as the "adversary" of early Christianity for rejecting Jesus' Messianic Nature, the Church transferred what should have been hatred for the Roman Leadership into hatred of the Jews and worked assiduously to create a narrative that would paint the Romans as weak and powerless to stop Jewish tyranny when it was Jews as a population who were unable to stop Roman tyranny.