This is from Asimov's Guide to the Bible:
Jerusalem was tumbling with excitement over a provincial preacher, who was rabble-rousing the populace to a dangerous pitch. In just a couple of days, the Passover was to be celebrated and pilgrims would be flocking into the city from all directions to worship at the Temple. Excitement would reach the fever point and, fortified by the certainty of Messianic help, someone would kill a Temple official or, worse still, attack a Roman soldier. Then all would be lost. There would be a rebellion and Judea would be crushed and wiped out. What Antiochus IV had failed to do, the Romans would succeed in doing.
Indeed, this point of view is made explicit in John where at this point of the story the following views of the priestly officials are quoted:
John 11:48. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and our nation.
John 11:49. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them...
John 11:50. ... it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
This last remark is often quoted as an example of appalling cynicism, but of course it is a principle that is used constantly by all nations both before and after the time of Caiaphas.
Nor can the high-priestly view be considered as overly pessimistic, since forty years later it all turned out as they had feared. The Romans did come and take away their place and their nation. It might even be argued that only because the authorities took action against Jesus were forty years of additional life given the nation.
Jesus offered moral advice that was advanced for its time but he wanted no part of what was expected of the Messiah. However, his followers thrust that role upon him anyway and it seems he was reluctant to turn them away, which may be what cost him his life.
= new reply since forum marked as read
