Since stahrwe and I aren't getting anywhere in our discussion on the Acts thread, and since it hasn't been that much about Acts, anyway, a different thread might be in order. I'd like to make the topic of this one: who was responsible for Jesus' death? Obviously, there are only two suspects, the Jewish authorities and the Romans. Traditionally, the view has been that the Jews (or at least the power structure) agitated for Jesus to die and the Romans did what that community was demanding. But this view isn't unchallenged, and the challenge appears to have grown with recent scholarship.
So how does the evidence look? Here is a look by a writer who leans to the side of "the Romans did it." Provide your own if you find a better one. Let's keep whatever we post no longer than a couple of pages worth of text.
Question 16.5: Did the Jews kill Jesus?
Official Christian doctrine no longer holds that Jews killed Jesus,
although it once spread that lie. Where did the notion come from? In
the "New Testament", Jews are held in part responsible for Jesus'
death. Some of this position comes from the fact that the disciples
were Jewish, and it was a disciple, Judas, who betrayed him to the
Roman authorities. Some Christian sources depict a scene in which "the
Jews," given the choice of saving Barrabas or Jesus from crucifixion,
chose Barrabas. However, the text doesn't tell us who :"the Jews"
were; further, assuming this took place (which is historically
unlikely given the Roman's behavior), they all couldn't have been
gathered in one place. So, again, there is only indirect
responsibility. Finally, politically, we know that some Jewish leaders
(who were appointed by Roman Government) may have seen Jesus as a
political threat. However, the threat was more to the Romans, and the
Jewish leaders may have been pressured to silence him. The final
decision lay with the Romans, who alone used crucifixion as a means of
killing criminals and who alone had authority to impose the death
The New Testament accounts do not agree on the story of who killed
Jesus. The Encylopedia Judaica summarizes this as follows. In the
first three books, the Pharisees are not mentioned in connection with
the trial, and in John, only once (18:3). Only Mark (14:53-65;
followed by Matt. 26:59-68) records a formal, Jewish, "night" trial
with accusations, witnesses, and a sentence. Luke records a morning
hearing before the Sanhedrin (Luke 22:66-71) without formal
sentencing, and John has separate appearances before Annas (at night)
and Caiaphas (in the morning) who conducts an interrogation (18:12-
24). In the entire book of Luke (not just in his description of the
Passion) there is no mention of the Sanhedrin's verdict against Jesus,
and John records nothing about an assembly of the Sanhedrin before
which Jesus appeared. Hence, it seems very probable that no session of
the Sanhedrin took place in the house of the high priest where Jesus
was in custody, and that the "chief priests and elders and scribes"
who assembled there were members of the Temple committee (see also
Luke 20:1): the elders were apparently the elders of the Temple and
the scribes were the Temple secretaries. The deliverance of Jesus into
the hands of the Romans was, it seems, the work of the Sadducean "high
priests," who are often mentioned alone in the story. A man suspected
of being a messianic pretender could be delivered to the Romans
without a verdict of the Jewish high court. In addition, the high
priests were interested in getting rid of Jesus, who had spoken
against them and had predicted the destruction of the Temple. Mark
offers some clues to the historical situation. The public reason given
in the placard on the cross (Mark 15:26), recorded in all four
Gospels, was that Jesus claimed to be a king, which for the Romans was
tantamount to sedition. Those crucified with Jesus are called
"revolutionary bandits". Jesus teaching on the kingdom, his
association with marginal groups in his society, and his attacks on
abuses associated with the Temple made him suspect to both Romans and
the Jerusalem aristocracy. Though some interrogation may have taken
place before Jewish authorities, the Romans bear the responsibility
for any formal trial. All the texts agree that the Roman prefect,
Pontius Pilate (a.d. 26- 36), ordered the execution (also attested by
the Roman historian Tacitus, Annals 15.44). The execution was in the
Roman way, by crucifixion. All the books indicate that on the third
day after the crucifixion Jesus' tomb was found empty. According to
Mark an angel announced that Jesus had risen, and the other books
state that Jesus appeared before his believers after his death.
Jewish laws on capital trials are found in texts almost two centuries
after the death of Jesus (M. Sanh. 4-11), so it is not known whether
they reflect first-century practice. By these norms the trial in Mark
is not legal, since according to the Mishnah capital trials could not
be held at night or on the eve of a Sabbath or feast day (M. Sanh.
4:1). The sentence of death could not be pronounced on the same day as
the trial (M. Sanh. 4:1); prior examination of witnesses, as well as
independent agreement of their testimony, was required (M. Sanh. 4:5;
cf. Deut. 19:15-18); the charge of blasphemy required the explicit
pronouncing of the divine name (M. Sanh. 7:5); and trials were to be
held in the official chamber, not in the house of the high priest (M.
Sanh. 11:2; cf. Mark 14:54). Also uncertain is whether the Sanhedrin
had the power to execute for capital offenses during Roman occupation
(see John 18:31). If so, Jesus should have been stoned, which was the
Jewish penalty for blasphemy.
We also know that the early Christians who wrote the story wanted to
make the Romans appear less guilty.
Another factor to consider: It was Jesus' resurrection that began
Christianity. If the Roman's hadn't killed Christ, he wouldn't have
had the opportunity to rise (if you hold with the resurrection). In
fact, in the texts, Jesus claims all responsibility, and is explicitly
the "willing Suffering Servant" Christian theology is that Jesus'
entire purpose was to come to die.http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/09 ... on-10.html