Leon:

Now you can read my mind about what I wrote. What was "bungled" according to that sentence was not the gospel's comment but the testimony that was attempted to be gathered at the trial! That is why the temple charge was dropped by the leadership. (Just read Mark 14 carefully). Please read my sentence carefully as well (although it could have been clearer), the subject is the temple remarks that were being raised.

The temple altercation is mentioned again. It comes up in the question about the authority to do these things and is part of the issue about the temple.

On Josephus, we simply disagree. Josephus wrote in Greek, it is the language of his writing. No one disputes this. So we are dealing with translation in the Arabic version (and we know the Greek roots of those Greek manuscripts are older and we have testimony of their content from other sources- not just the Josephan mss).The Talmud, which you never mention, also notes the charge agaianst Jesus from a Jewish point of view.

I actually do not dismiss the idea that at times the Pharisees are happy with Paul's position on specific issues (namely, on resurrection). My commentary on Acts makes this clear. Now for Caiaphas' remark about Peter: it is not so much a defense of Peter as a call not to press this issue.  God will sort it out in the long term. This is just good wise, practical policy, because IF the movement was of God there was no sense in opposing it. By the time of Annas II apparently that option and advice was dropped.

Now your most amazing claim is that the temple act is not a challenge to the leadership.  This claim completely ignores the fact that Jesus entered the temple as one the leadership had already opposed and saw as a problem.

You can insist you have a good alternative and present a case for it. That is the nature of scholarly dialogue as you say, But facts in the debate are stubborn things for all to see. The fact is that nothing in our gospel sources about the march to the cross points to a good faith effort to help Jesus.  The best we get are that a few individuals disagreed with the verdict of the group (like Joseph of Arimathea), but Joseph is presented as very much a minority voice in the leadership. Your case is hardly as strong as you suggest.