Here are some thoughts that the first group of presenters were a catalyst for in my thinking:

In the 2nd temple period generally and more specifically around the time of Jesus, many thought the Jewish elite were corrupt.  Corruption among the Jewish elite—particularly the priestly aristocracy (Sadducees and high priests) and some Pharisee leaders—was a widespread accusation in the Second Temple period (c. 516 BCE–70 CE), intensifying in the decades around Jesus’ supposed lifetime (c. 4 BCE–30 CE). This view appears in multiple independent sources across Jewish, Roman, and early Christian texts, reflecting both popular resentment and elite infighting.

In the Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumran community, c. 200 BCE–68 CE)  the sectarian texts (e.g., Damascus Document, Pesher Habakkuk) repeatedly condemn the Jerusalem priesthood as the “Wicked Priest” who:  Stole wealth from the poor (1QpHab 8–12); Violated purity laws and collaborated with foreign rulers; Perverted Torah for personal gain.  These Essene-like authors saw the Hasmonean and later Herodian high priests as illegitimate usurpers of the Zadokite line.

Josephus (Jewish historian, writing 70–100 CE about events 175 BCE–70 CE) in Jewish Antiquities and Jewish War describe:  High priests like Ananus II (62 CE) executing opponents illegally (Ant. 20.197–203); Simon son of Boethus (high priest under Herod) accused of nepotism. The lower priesthood complaining that chief priests withheld their tithes, leaving them starving (Ant. 20.206–207); Josephus himself admits systemic corruption but blames it on “innovators” and Roman interference.

In the New Testament Gospels (reflecting 20s–30s CE traditions)  Jesus’ temple cleansing (Mark 11:15–17; John 2:13–16) accuses the priesthood of turning the temple into a “den of robbers” via exploitative money-changing and animal sales; Woes against scribes/Pharisees (Matt 23; Luke 11) charge hypocrisy, burdening the poor with legal minutiae while neglecting justice; Caiaphas’ political maneuvering to protect elite power (“better one man die,” John 11:50) is portrayed as self-serving.

Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE–50 CE) in On the Special Laws and embassy to Caligula, he criticizes corrupt governors but also implies priestly complicity in Roman exploitation.

The First Jewish Revolt (66–70 CE) began with lower priests and laity burning debt records and assassinating High Priest Ananus II—acts justified as resistance to elite collaboration with Rome. 

“Fourth Philosophy” (Judas the Galilean, 6 CE) denounced paying Roman taxes as slavery, implicitly attacking Sadducean accommodation.

Tithes, temple tax (half-shekel), and Herodian/Roman tribute triple-taxed peasants; elites skimmed profits.  There were views of political illegitimacy: Hasmoneans (140–63 BCE) combined kingship and high priesthood (against Deuteronomy 17); Herod (37–4 BCE) appointed foreign Idumean and diaspora priests.  Essenes and Pharisees competed over who defined “true” Judaism; elites were seen as compromising with Hellenism/Rome.

Accusations of Jewish elite corruption were not fringe—they appear in Essene, Pharisaic, Zealot, and early Christian writings, and even in Josephus’ historiography. The charge centered on wealth extraction, political collaboration, and ritual hypocrisy, peaking under Roman procurators (6–66 CE). While some elites were pious reformers, the perception of systemic corruption fueled messianic expectations and ultimately the 66–70 CE revolt.

The destruction of the temple in 70 CE and the later booting of the Jews from the land after Bar Kokhba in the 130s (if this is what such imagery as the abomination of desolation in Mark 13 refer to as such scholars as Detering and Price think) were viewed as God’s punishment for Jewish sinfulness, much like the destruction of the first temple was viewed.  It was viewed “as though” God had sent his especially beloved (agapetos) messenger (angelos) Jesus to restore the Davidic throne for all time, and the Jewish elite and bloodthirsty crowd orchestrated an analogous but worse death for him than the arch enemy of the Jews Haman.  Paul in 1 Thessalonians and Matthew in his gospel specifically put the blame for Jesus’ death on the Jews, as Paul specialist Benjamin White noted at a previous NINT conference.  The apparent end time event had happened with the destruction of the temple and the expulsion of the Jews from their land, but God had not created a new eschatological divine temple as prophesied, so the Davidic promise theology had to be rethought.

We thus see the fictional satire of the trial of Jesus in front of the Jewish high council with rampant multiple transgressing of Jewish tradition and law (e.g., the Jewish high council meeting on Passover Eve), but always with crafty loopholes found to give the trial the appearance of propriety.  This reflects Satan’s manipulation of God’s words in the temptation in Matthew. On the Roman side, we see the fictional satire of Jesus executed without Pilate getting a confession for political insurgency (King of the Jews), with the absurdity that Jesus was not executed with his followers as was normal practice for political threats from charismatic leaders and their followers,, which the synoptics lampoon by having Jesus crucified between two insurgence (not robbers, as Fredriksen notes with the Greek), but not “his” insurgent followers! Fredriksen tries to rescue the historicity of the execution by speculating John’s chronology is right that Jesus taught in Jerusalem multiple times and was known to be teaching God bringing in the new age, not political insurgents. She supposes it is in the triumphal entry that Jesus was declared King by a boisterous crowd, and so he needed to be arrested by stealth. Pilate knew Jesus wasn’t a political threat because of his history of teaching in Jerusalem. Fredriksen’s interpretation seems clever harmonizing but ultimately wrong because if Jesus was executed as king of the Jews, what message would be sent to onlookers (which was the point of Roman crucifixion) if his followers were not executed too? Moreover, if Jesus was so well known in Jerusalem that even Pilate was familiar with his teaching, why was Judas needed to identify who Jesus was to the arresting Jewish crowd (as in Mark) or arresting temple police and Roman soldiers (as in John)? The arresting party would just have taken the whole lot of them. Mark adds the satirical idea they all fled, but then winks at the reader that this detail is derived from scripture – is ahistorical.

If we reimagine with Livesey and Price the Pauline letters as late, we have the idea of the early lost Q source where a Q1 collection of Jewish/Cynic wisdom/sayings were fictively attributed to a Jesus/Joshua figure (as happened with Diogenes), Joshua being the figure in the Old Testament divinely filled with Wisdom.  Jesus’s name means Joshua, and messianic claimants around the time of Jesus were trying to reboot Joshua’s legacy. While not as dominant as Davidic or Mosaic models, Joshua was part of the messianic imagination, especially in military and land-restoration contexts.

For example of connecting second temple messianic claimants to Joshua, we have Menahem ben Judah with entry into Jerusalem, royal acclamation, conquest imagery (Josephus + Targum). There was Simon bar Giora with Military liberation of the land, and Messiah ben Joseph with Joshua as a warrior precursor. Jesus was thus the new and greater Joshua, just as he was also seen as the new and greater Moses. For example, Hebrews 4:8: “If Joshua had given them rest…” → Jesus gives true rest. Name: Jesus = Yeshua = Joshua. Typology: Joshua leads into Canaan → Jesus leads into God’s kingdom. Church fathers like Origen and Justin Martyr saw Joshua as a type of Christ. In Origen’s Homilies on Joshua, he interprets Joshua’s leadership, especially his crossing of the Jordan (Joshua 3), as prefiguring Jesus’ baptism and leadership into the spiritual Promised Land. Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 113) notes the name similarity, arguing that Joshua foreshadows Jesus as the true savior. Joshua’s role in conquering enemies parallels Christ’s victory over sin and death, a common typological theme in patristic writings.

Joshua: His Hebrew name, Yehoshua (or Yeshua in its shorter form), means “Yahweh is salvation.” Jesus: His name, Yeshua (Greek: Iēsous), shares the same Hebrew root, also meaning “Yahweh is salvation.” The shared name underscores a theological link in Christian thought, emphasizing salvation through their respective missions. Both Jesus and Joshua are leaders chosen by God to bring their people into a promised inheritance—physical land for Joshua, spiritual salvation for Jesus. Both exemplify complete devotion to God’s mission, serving as models of faithfulness (e.g., the Gethsemane prayer). Both had divine empowerment. Joshua, filled with the “spirit of wisdom” through Moses’ laying on of hands (Deuteronomy 34:9, Numbers 27:18), enabling him to lead effectively. Jesus is empowered by the Holy Spirit, evident at his baptism (Matthew 3:16–17) and throughout his ministry (Luke 4:1, 14). In Christian theology, Jesus is uniquely filled with the Spirit as the divine Son of God. Joshua led military victories over Canaanite nations (e.g., Jericho, Joshua 6), securing the land as God’s promise to Israel. Jesus conquers sin, death, and Satan through his death and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:54–57, Colossians 2:15). His victory is spiritual rather than militaristic.

Price notes the Q1 sayings just have the same cynical tang, and need not come from one sage, let alone the historical Jesus. What is notable about the Q source, the content of which reflects mid-level administrators shaping and transmitting the text (as opposed to the sophistication of the gospels), is that Q does not have a salvific cross/resurrection.  What seems to have happened is someone picked up on the Q saying about picking up and carrying your cross to reflect enduring hardship of discipleship and created a salvific cross and resurrection story out of it, somewhat analogous to how Crossan in “The Power of Parable” supposes fictions spoke by Jesus became stories starring Jesus. However, the “bear his own cross” clause in Q 14:27 is identical to Mark 8:34, and many think it is not original to the earliest layer of Q but is an insertion from Mark. Most Q scholars (e.g., Kloppenborg, Catchpole, Tuckett) agree Luke inserted Mark 8:34 into the Q context at Luke 14:27. Matthew did the same at Matthew 10:38 (also Markan, not Q). Luke seems to have had the Q source as well as Matthew as he usually preserves a more primitive version of Q than Matthew. But just the same, we can see how the hardships of discipleship in the Q tradition of homelessness, family rupture, and urgency floating around very early evolved into the “take up your cross” motif and ultimately the crucifixion of Jesus, if Paul is late.

The crucifixion also fits naturally as an allegorizing of the Q saying to love enemies.