Leon:

So Josephus wrote a version like we have in Arabic with no mention of Jewish invovlement. But you did not answer the key question. Why would Rome care about a Galilean religious teacher who had no army? Your claim of no evidence ignores the text we do possess and how it correlates with what the gospels tell is. Yes, Josephus has been altered but a reference to the so called Christ later (Ant 20.200) tells us he said something. Evidence ot the contrary is not dismissed but weighed. 

Now you argue that Josephus did not assign blame to the Jewish leaders. That is too strong for what is being argued. He notes they contributed to the judgment, not that they were the sole cause (Acts 4:24ffagrees with this). Our texts explain why. Jesus threatened the temple authorities in his challenge at the temple against them, and they worried about the consequences with Rome if they did not act. Most Jewish challenges were directly to Rome (so the Jewish authorities did not bother to press blame or give support to Rome-after all for the most part they did not like having the Romans in Judea), but here Jesus' challenge is directly agaisnt how they, the leadership, ran the temple. That is a big difference from the other scenarios Josephsu treats.

Your claim of no evidence for a hearing again ignores the texts that raise it. They question Jesus and then take him to Rome for a decision only Rome can make. The Mishanic rules we discussed are for a trial where death can be the verdict. That is not what can be happening here. There is no inventing of other rules here. It is simply a case of this meeting not being that kind of trial as the text shows. (No one suggests a lynching option here for Jesus). As for Paul in Acts 13, he argues Jesus had done nothing worthy of death. He is not saying they found Jesus innocent. The early church never held that position. Certainly Paul would have made much more of such an argument in his preachign and defense of Jesus in the synagogues had it been the case. After all he had been among those opposed to the movement. He woudl have known that. So you see evidence is weighed, not ignored. It is all discussed. By the way, no one is trying to "convict" anyone here. We are simply trying to trace the historical oots of the disagreement.

In addition, there IS an example of the Jewish leadership acting against a Jew (How do you think James died?). So this too is a pattern for response that looks credible (not to mention how Paul dealt with the church before his conversion). The difference with Jesus is that Rome is asked to make the call here because of the Messiah-kingship issue- and in the end Rome acts. No prejudice, just dealing with the texts.

One thing we do agree on. Jesus is not appreciated for how Jewish he was. Most miss on this entirely and do treat Second Temple Judaism and its spirtuality very onesidedly (being only critical of it).