Who killed Jesus?

I watched History Channel's "Who Really Killed Jesus" again last night. Their historical critical study of Passion week sums up well the historical critic views on what really went on during Jesus's trial and execution. They seem to agree that Jesus was a real life character, that he was executed by the Romans, was tried by Pilate. All those things were often held as myths when I was in college years ago. But they concluded that the 4 gospels had embellished these facts with fiction about those involved. In other words, the dialog was made up.

That Jesus was real seems evidenced easily by the fact that so many people were willing to die as martyrs for believing in him, that his disciples spread his message far and wide. And the primary and original belief of these Christians was that Jesus had risen from the dead. People just don't behave that way unless they are inspired. But then the archeologists have found a structure called the Tiberium, some sort of shrine to the Emperor Tiberius at the time, that was built by the Roman Praefect Pontius Pilate. A Praefect is like a military governor. So there went all the arguments that there was no Pontius Pilate. In fact they now concede that he was the guy who ruled Palestine after 26 AD.

Then they argued that whereas Pilate ruled from Caesaria, he also had a residence in Jerusalem which he would occupy to keep order and that he no doubt went there to observe Passover and put his troops on alert. Living "up on the Hill" made him part of the neighborhood of the rich Sadducee Jews who ran the temple so no doubt he was the closest of buddies to them. Indeed they were in charge of bringing in the money and he was in charge of transmitting tribute to Rome. (I find this preposterous. People often live in the same neighborhood or have similar interests but have no affinity for each other.) Moreover, Pilate's name indicates he was from a southern Italian tribe that was a rogue province of Rome. Few from there achieved much authority and they were distrusted. Pilate may have been one of the most promoted of those people. And he got there by his probable service in Germany where the Romans conquered in some of the most brutal battles ever fought by Rome. Josephus writes that Pilate was violent, shrewd, and killed Jews for hardly any reason. But then Josephus was probably making an editorial point that Pilate had abused the Jews. Nonetheless, Palestine was a rebellious place that wouldn't pay the Roman tax, and Romans probably sent a harsh man to govern. Blood meant nothing to this guy.

Thus the assumption that Pilate killed Jesus and that the Jews have been hung with guilt by the Christian writers. And that all the dialog between Jesus and Pilate was probably trumped up. (May I make a point: the first gospels were written in the 60's AD when Christianity was just a sect of Jews, so there was not so much motive to skewer the Jews with guilt in Matthew and Mark at least.) And that Pilate was "not a wishy-washy man as portrayed in the gospels". By this time I'm amused. So where in the gospels is Pilate declared wishy-washy? I do seem to remember a woman who taught my second grade Sunday School class who thought he was that way, but if you closely look at the text, it portrays him as smart and shrewd character who seems to have his eyes squinted in disbelief at the Jewish motives. Those Jewish leaders, whose fathers ran an independent state, and who are prime suspects as hating the Roman presence, have brought a penniless holy man forward and charged him with bogus kingship. Yes, Pilate's first thought was probably "away with him," and his first question was to the point, "Are you the King of the Jews?" But he has to be thinking why the dickens did these powerful Jews feel so threatened by this Jesus guy? What the heck are they up to? As I read the text it seems that Pilate is gaming the Jews, trying to make them tell about their motivations. From his perspective, this is all about the head Jews, not Jesus.

Imagine you are a conservative and head of the CIA. All the guys who work under you are liberals however, former State Dept. guys who were transferred by Obama. One day the crew brings you a file on some elderly Arab-American grandmother who has lived in the United States for 60 years peacefully. They know that terrorism is a hot button issue with you and they claim she is a terrorist. They begin to describe her with racist vitriol against Arabs that they think might somehow resonate with you, since that is how they see conservatives. Would you be suspect of their motives? Would you wonder why such an unlikely terrorist was brought to your attention? That's how I see Pilate.

In the end, of course, Pilate games the Jewish leaders all the way to the point of washing his hands of the judgment and nailing a flagrant sign over Jesus "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews". He's testing them. And the Sadducees practically turn themselves inside out trying to prove their undying loyalty to Rome. (By the way, many Jews read the gospels and conclude that it is sad how people under submission will act toward their fellow man--as in the concentration camps where some snitches tried to curry Nazi favors)

Now here's the interesting thing about the historical critics. These otherwise smart folks hang their entire "disproof" on what they infer as a friendship between Pilate and Jewish leaders. (tenuous)They proudly pronounce that Pilate was portrayed as wishy-washy by the gospels, perhaps more a popular notion with some church-goers than a faithful reading of the text. And the whole theme is to exonerate the Jews.

Well, I have news. Pilate killed him, Romans killed him, Jews killed him, everyone who has ever committed a sin killed him. That's the gospel message. And that's who really killed Jesus.