Does Jesus represent Jews (or just Sadducees) & the Temple; & Pilate = Romans?

[MrMacSon]

Could Jesus represent Jerusalem, or more widely Jews, or even just a Jewish sect such as the Sadducees? With his death representing the fall of the Second Temple in 70 ad? And does Pilate represent the Romans who destroyed Second-Temple Jewish culture and destroyed the Temple?

The Sadducees fulfilled various administrative, political, social, and religious roles, including representing the Jewish state.

They saw the written Torah as the sole source of divine authority.

They maintained the Temple, with their priests being responsible for performing sacrifices at the Temple*, up until the fall of the Temple, of course.

Perhaps the sacrifice of Jesus is a metaphor for sacrifice of the Temple?

They did not believe in resurrection of the dead, the existence of spirits, and the obligation of oral tradition; and those are things that became emphasised after the fall of the temple, albeit with emphasis of oral tradition part of the development of post Second Temple Judaism and the Tosefta and the Mishna, while belief in resurrection of the dead, and the existence of spirits became part of Christianity.

According to Josephus, the Sadducees believed that God does not commit evil, and Man has free will; "man has the free choice of good or evil".

[MrMacSon]

Other scenarios are possible, and not just instead of those^. The could be dual reasons, including those proposed by Joseph D. L. -

After the 70 CE, the Jewish Christians invented the story that the Jews crucified directly Jesus.

After 70 AD/CE? Try after bar Kochba. You speak as if Christianity in any form was active in the first century, when everything came as a response to Hadrian and the Kitos revolt.

Both Lukuas and Simon bar Kochba were killed by Romans; Yeshu ben Stada was killed by Jews. At no point was there an attempt to place blame on the other parties. Thus your entire premise is predicated on a completely arbitrary distinction between gentiles and a Jews, and is circular.
.

[Joseph D. L.]

My own opinion on the matter is that the dichotomy between Pilate=gentiles/Mob=Jews was not an issue for the original traditions, because regardless of who was responsible for killing Jesus, he HAD to die. Paul and Gospel of John, and even apocryphal works like Gospel of Judas, make this point clear enough. Jesus's death was preordained from the beginning--his trial and crucifixion were just a formality.

Giuseppe doesn't realize that his argument necessitates a historical Jesus, who's death could have been prevented or overturned by the Roman led court. Such an issue doesn't exist with an allegorical story.

[Joseph D. L.]

I think the Temple=Logos was a separate, earlier tradition. Revelation ch. six, and Tractate Baba Bathra bare witness to this theology, and Johannine Christianity may be a continuation, albeit redirected, of this. (Jesus comparing his own death and resurrection to that of the Temple, which is more pronounced in John than the Synoptics, tends to lead away from Jesus representing the Sadducees).

[MrMacSon]

Cheers Joseph D.L. Re-ordering the passages in your post -

... Jesus's death was preordained from the beginning ... Paul and Gospel of John, and even apocryphal works like Gospel of Judas, make this point clear enough .. -- his trial and crucifixion were just a formality.

I agree most or all of it is very likely to be allegorical. I wasn't thinking of a "'dichotomy between Pilate=gentiles / Mob=Jews" at all. I would imagine not all gentiles would have been Romans.

I hadn't thought of the Temple = Logos as a separate, earlier tradition. But that would stand to reason, and it's good that "Revelation ch. six, and Tractate Baba Bathra bare witness to [that] theology", and it's interesting and appreciated you point out that Johannine Christianity may be a continuation, albeit redirected, of this.

Being allegorical, maybe 'Jesus comparing his own death and resurrection to that of the Temple (which is more pronounced in John than the Synoptics)' was designed to lead one/us away from thinking that Jesus may have represent the Sadducees (?)

[MrMacSon]

This is interesting for some of my proposition/s -

Again and again I think that Herod and Pilate were introduced only to propagate the typical proto-Catholic universalism.

So Tertullian:

The Lord himself is come into judgement¹ with the ancients and the princes of his people¹, as Isaiah has it. From then onwards he fulfilled all that is written of his passion².

The heathen thereupon raged, and the peoples imagined vain things³: the kings of the earth stood up, and their rulers gathered together into one⁴, against the Lord⁴ and against his Christ⁴.

The heathen, the Romans who were with Pilate; the peoples, the tribes of Israel: the kings, in Herod: the rulers, in the high priests⁵.
.

1. The'deciders' [of the narrative] are deciding?
   .
2. From then on all that his written of his passion ...
   .
3. people were imagining, but needed controlling(?)
   .
4. the 'decider-rulers' gathered to decided how they would portray the Lord Christ ...
   .
5. the 'deciders' [of the narrative] ruled as the arms-length high priests