observations stemming from a truncated discussion elsewhere. the thread title clearly delineates this as a discussion about the texts themselves and not about the inherent, personal value of the texts.
un-redacting the arrest/conviction of Jesus...
All from Mark 14, starting right after the arrest at Gethsemane, noting all the participants in the drama were Jews, in Jerusalem, living under Jewish law...
|53 They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests and teachers of the law came together...
Sanhedrin was not allowed to convene at night.
Sanhedrin did not convene on Shabbat(!).
Sanhedrin most assuredly did not convene on Pesach.
|61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
no Jew then or now would associate "messiah" with divinity. a clear Constantinization as the question has no basis in Judasim and jesus's divinity was not orthodoxed until Nicea.
|62 "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the son of man sitting at the right hand of the mighty one and coming on the clouds of heaven."
63 The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked.
it was not then nor is it now a Judaic crime to declare oneself the Messiah. there have been so many self-proclaimed messiahs rabbi ben Zakkai is famously quoted as saying "If you should happen to be holding a sapling in your hand when they tell you that the Messiah has arrived, first plant the sapling and then go out and greet the Messiah."
|64 "You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" They all condemned him as worthy of death
in Judaism "blasphemy" has specific legal meaning related to defiling the ineffable name of G-d. what is recorded here is not blasphemy.
capital cases in particular were forbidden to be tried right before Shabbat or a holiday.
the sanhedrin was not allowed to return immediate guilty verdicts in capital cases: there was a mandatory 24 hour "cooling down" period.
Now in chapter 15...
|1 Very early in the morning, the chief priests, with the elders and the teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin reached a decision. They bound Jesus, led him away and turned him over to Pilate.
even assuming all the extreme irregularities actually took place and the reported verdict was accurate, there was no need to turn Jesus over to Pilate as Sanhedrin had the authority to execute people. Jesus would simply have been stoned - or possibly strangled - to death.
the story then proceeds to the Romans killing Jesus at the request of Jews.
whoever wrote this version/part of the story could not have had more than a passing familiarity with Judaism, that much is very clear. since all the apostles were Jewish, this part, at least, had to have been redacted at a later date.
we may never know for sure. the most compelling explanation for the redaction would be to flip the culpability: from "Jesus arrested by Jews for the Romans" - which is, indeed, something the Jewish leadership would quite possibly have done - to "Jesus executed by Romans for the Jews". this would have been necessitated by Constantine and Nicea. not coincidentally there are no surviving fragments corroborating the "accepted" version that predate Nicea.
ultimately this question won't be answered definitively until we find an older version of the Dead Sea Scrolls.