Leon:

I will keep this short. The key point you did not address was the attack against the leadership by Jesus' temple act that forced them to react to his act in the sacred space the Romans allowed them to control and police. Your point might be seen as possible if Jesus had not acted against the temple. But the priests were responsible for its sanctity in their own view- and Jesus' act was against them (They would have seen it that way). They had to act. There is no rescue of Paul in Acts 23, only agreement about the resurrection. There is some rlief in Acts 5, but the case is not so much a rescue as the argument that if the movement is fo God it cannot be stopped. If it is not, it will die. So this is a practical theological argument, not a defense of the apostles. As for the Romans stepping in on their own simply because Jesus spoke of the kingdom without mentioning Rome. He had done that long before this final entry into Jerusalem, and they did not act then. No action against Jesus took place until he entered Jerusalem and acted in an area of special leadership jursidiction at the temple. This is why some responsibility by the leadership is likely and that the Greek version of Josphus is likely to be correct (not to mention that Josephus was originally in Greek). Finally why save Jesus from a meeting where no Romans were present? Moreover, you did not explain why Paul NEVER used this point in his speeches if this had been the official position. Paul's position was that Jesus died for claims that in fact were true, not that the leadership found him innocent.

dlb