Assuming for a moment that there was a kind of radical rabbi around the time in question who would eventually be known as Jesus, not giving him any
particular divinity, the more I read the various texts, I get the feeling that any sort of crucifixion that happened had a lot less to do with
politics than it did with personal revenge and a need to suppress widespread sorcery and necromancy.
There are a number of disparate bits and pieces that leads me to think this way.
The personal revenge story is this. In a story in one of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Jesus magically kills a playmate of his, son of a man named
Annas. Later, in the Gospel of Luke a high priest named Annas, possibly the same person, is cited as pushing hardest for Jesus's death.
Annas is particularly interested in getting Jesus to admit the source of his power. At that time, soon after Lazarus had been raised from the dead,
Jesus was confronted by a number of fearful and angry townspeople and accused by them of using the demon Beelzebub to raise Lazarus. In a very
roundabout way, Jesus essentially admits to it, claiming that by doing so he "divides and conquers" the Devil's army of evil.
Jesus actually refers to himself as greater than Solomon, a noted sorcerer who according to the Testament of Solomon, used demons to build the First
Temple. Jesus's statement is made specifically within the context of sorcery and the casting out of demons.
Also, sorcery appears to be so rampant at the time that Jesus actually has a lot of competitors. The disciples are much more worried about it that
him, saying that other people are casting out demons and saying they're Jesus ("using his name"). Jesus replies that anyone who does their sorcery
in his name is doing good, although in this context, it seems he's basically saying that the imitators are good advertising for him and his work.
Maybe so, since the gospels leading up to the crucifixion are heavily weighted toward all kinds of sorcery and healing and necromancy.
All of this would certainly be worrisome to the priests of the Temple, particularly since the temple itself was built by demons under the command of
Solomon. The Temple is actually said to be held up on one corner by demons.
Suddenly you get somebody who claims to be more powerful than Solomon, and who seems to have the appropriate mojo, and who strolls into the Temple and
kicks the moneylenders out, now the Temple itself would be real in danger.
Add to all of this the specific mention of the death of Yshua in Sanhedrin 43A of the Talmud:
There is a tradition (in a Barraitha): They hanged
Yeshu on the Sabbath of the Passover. But for forty days before that a herald went in front of him (crying), "Yeshu is to be stoned because he
practiced sorcery and seduced Israel and lead them away from God. Anyone who can provide evidence on his behalf should come forward to defend him."
When, however, nothing favorable about him was found, he was hanged on the Sabbath of the Passover.
This puts a bit of a different spin on the whole execution of Jesus. It wasn't so much that Jesus had such a wonderful philosophy that it threatened
the status quo, it was because one high priest personally wanted him dead to avenge his son, and Jesus was a powerful sorcerer who was even more of a
direct threat to the Temple than the Romans.
Just some idle thoughts on the matter, what with Easter coming up and all.
[edit on 18-3-2008 by Nohup]