Jesus lived in a time and place where a few central urban centers were beginning to incorporate the surrounding rural centers, and Myles begins to ask the Marxist question of how such conditions and dynamics were ripe circumstances to birth the Jesus movement.  In regard to such class conflict, Myles points to:

The basic outline of this economic situation should be familiar to most biblical scholars: within an agrarian society, the smaller propertied class, by virtue of its control of the means of production, appropriated surplus off the larger class group made up of those who worked the land and water. Exploitation usually took its form in unfree labor (including slavery, medieval serfdom, and debt bondage), as well as in the form of taxes and tribute, and, more typical for first-century CE Palestine, the letting of land and house property to leasehold tenants in return for rent paid either in money, kind, or services…Even Josephus’s account of the building of Tiberias does not shy away from class dimensions and, specifically, from the forced and violent displacements that took place as a consequence. Josephus explains that in the founding of Tiberias the new settlers, many of whom were Galilean and poor, were “by compulsion and with violent force” relocated to this new city to be its inhabitants. This compulsion was in part necessary because, according to Josephus, Tiberias had been built on the site of tombs (A.J. 18.36–38). It is curious that scholars advocating the picture of a relatively harmonious and agreeable Galilee under Antipas have largely overlooked this gruesome Josephan entry point into a world of class conflict as a consequence of urbanization, even when directly citing this passage… The case for a relatively prosperous Galilee in which ordinary people necessarily shared in all the spoils of a moderate increase in productivity under Antipas has been greatly exaggerated…In proper dialectical fashion, then, Jensen’s suggestion should be turned on its head: if we were to start from an overall picture of moderate growth and stability in Galilee, how do we account for the prominent ideas, perceptions, and activities of the Jesus movement? Indeed, as Rosemary Luff has recently and correctly framed the contradiction: “Although the archaeological evidence indicates a prosperous and thriving Galilee in the early first century CE, the Gospel texts suggest a society under stress and one where the rich were flourishing at the expense of the poor.” This apparent contradiction needs to be critically interrogated rather than explained away. It may require reviewing previously held assumptions and giving more weight to previously neglected data such as Josephus’s account of the upheaval surrounding the foundation of Tiberias…Antipas’s urbanization projects marked a significant change, even if at the level of ideological construction of the world. Such changes unlocked inherited tensions and anxieties and arguably propelled various social and religious movements, such as the early Jesus movement, into existence. Discontent with the present world order, including condemnation of the rich and powerful deemed to be largely responsible for these material and ideological changes, appears to be a significant and well-attested theme through the gospels.

To apply Myle’s insights, certainly the corrupt nature of the Jewish ruling class was a major point of emphasis for the Jesus movement from the horrific and humiliating account of the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist (which may be fictitious for emphasis as it contradicts the account in Josephus), to the highly illegal trial of Jesus by the Jewish supreme council on Passover eve of all things!  Certainly, as Hamilton has shown, each of the apparently illegal circumstances can be explained away by sophisticated appeal to Jewish law and tradition, but the sheer number of issues cannot be historical but rather dystopian satire of God sending his specially beloved and favored messenger into the world, and the crafty Jewish elite figure out a way through manipulating their laws and traditions to bring “surface respectability/legitimacy” to the horror that they brought God’s agapetos Jesus to a more horrific and humiliating end, though analogous to, the arch enemy of the Jews Haman. Wise Jesus and the brilliant, opportunistic Jewish elite were basically a Jewish incarnation of the classic dichotomy between the moral philosopher and the immoral sophists in ancient Greece. In this regard, in my “B” Walsh essay, I write:

Some scholars try to rescue the historicity of the account of Jesus’s trial in a manner that seems highly dubious. For instance, from John Hamilton we read:

• However, the Synoptic chronology is not impossible, for as [Josef] Blinzler says, the prohibition of legal proceedings on feast days was less strictly enforced than that of holding courts on the Sabbath, ‘therefore it is quite thinkable that it did not seem to the Sanhedrists an infringement of an important rule to start a legal trial even on the night of the Pesach’. It is the argument of this article that all the Gospels witness to such a trial which, while viable in its date, contravened accepted practice as subsequently enshrined in the Mishnah at many points, as Blinzler shows. For example, the proceedings took place in the house of Caiaphas, not in the Temple, and though Jesus had not actually pronounced the Name of God, he was condemned as a blasphemer. He was not offered an advocate; the witnesses were not warned before being examined; nor were they called to account for false witness. The members of the Sanhedrin, although witnesses of the alleged blasphemy, took part in the passing of the sentence, though it was not legal for them to do so. As Blinzler says, one is not able ‘to spare the Sanhedrin the reproach of very serious infringement of the law’. The question is, why did they do this?‘ It will not do to suggest that the occasion was a sham—the proceedings were undoubtedly carried through before a competent bench of judges’. Nor can their contraventions of the Mishnaic code be simply dismissed by saying that it was not yet in force. It is true that it was not codified until about 200 AD, and reflects conditions which obtained then, but it certainly enshrines earlier practice to a considerable extent. For example, Segal says that in describing Temple ritual, it may be employed with confidence. May not the same apply to legal practice?… Before the Feast of the Passover Caiaphas is reported to have said in council: ‘It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish’ (Jn. 11:50). Expediency was the factor which determined his conduct. When the opportunity unexpectedly presented itself to secure Jesus’ death, he and the priests avidly took it. Spurred on by their hatred of him; persuaded that as he was a false teacher, his execution on a feast day would be appropriate; and pressurized by shortage of time, they held his trial on the paschal night. In this trial they contravened normal legal practice at many points. The fact that they could do this in the legal sphere makes it likely that they could, because of the exceptional circumstances, also contravene ritual practice. For the exigencies of the case demanded that they work through the night. Early next morning therefore, they still had not eaten their paschal meal [emphasis mine]. (Hamilton, 1992, pp. 335-336)

We can certainly explain away the apparent impropriety with “maybe if we look at it this way” and “maybe that,” if we assume that the narrative is historical. But it seems just as likely that the writers were emphasizing and augmenting the wrongs being done to Jesus, who they felt was wrongly executed to make a point about the world turning on God’s specially beloved agapetos. Is the most parsimonious explanation really that in the case of a multitude of apparent illegalities, there are a multitude of loopholes that happened historically? Or are the gospel writers making the point that the Jewish leaders were manipulating God’s words while they knew that they were going against His will in getting Jesus killed (e.g., John 18:31), and so they tricked the Romans into executing Jesus akin to how Darius’ officials conspired against Daniel by tricking King Darius into throwing Daniel into the lion’s den in Daniel 6? Is the true meaning of blasphemy cursing God, or rather is it knowingly twisting God’s words to serve one’s own agenda? The Jewish trial of Jesus in the Gospels is obviously ahistorical, a narrative simply invented as an example of Paul’s thoughts about the world versus the Christian approach that “We have renounced the shameful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to falsify God’s word…” (2 Corinthians 4:2). Hamilton seems to be hanging a lot of his argument on John 11:50 when, as Hugo Méndez argues, John presents himself as a lens through which to view the synoptics even if the coloring changes the original meaning and intent of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The simpler reason seems to be that John saw something that he wanted to fix in the traditional narrative and so altered it. Once again, just as the extensive use of Jewish (e.g., Jesus as the New and greater Moses) and Greco-Roman (Jesus as the new and greater Dionysus) typology was noted in the first article, so too we have with Jesus’ “trial” a fiction made out of a sophisticated understanding and manipulation of Jewish law and tradition to create satire that screams at an elite educated writer, not the oral traditions of an illiterate community.

Moreover, Hamilton says:

• Certainly therefore, an execution would have been contrary to the sabbatical nature of the first paschal day. However, Deut. 17: 12-13 prescribes the death penalty for anyone who opposes the decisions of the priests, to be carried out so that ‘all the people shall hear and fear’, and the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 11:4) gives special instructions for the execution of a rebellious teacher: ‘He was kept in guard until one of the three feasts, and he was put to death on one of the three feasts’. This shows that in certain circumstances executions were permitted on feast days. Moreover, [Paul] Billerbeck says that where an example is required ‘to protect the Torah from wilfully severe transgressions, an execution may, as an exception, supersede a feast day’. (Hamilton, 1992, p. 335)

Again, this seems to make perfect literary sense. Just as Mark’s narrative of the crucifixion is haggadic midrash recapitulating Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, perhaps Deuteronomy 17:12-13 is the literary origin of the story. Just as we have a very sophisticated use of the Hebrew scriptures using haggadic midrash, so too we see a sophisticated use by the Jewish tradition with the crafting of the satirical trial of Jesus by the wily Jewish leaders.

As Matthew shows Satan is not ignorant of God’s word, but manipulates and distorts it in a way contrary to God’s intention for his own means:

5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 saying to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written,

‘He will command his angels concerning you,’
and ‘On their hands they will bear you up,
so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.’ ”

7 Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’ (Matthew 4:5-7))”

Bibliography

Hamilton, John. (1992). “The Chronology of the Crucifixion and the Passover.” Churchman Vol. 106, No. 4: 323-338.

Myles, Robert.  Class Conflict in Crossley, James; Keith, Chris. The Next Quest for the Historical Jesus (p. 457-475)). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Kindle Edition (2024).