Stephen said
I’ve heard Prof Fredericksen speak locally on a book tour and I’ve read one of her books.  She is Jewish and focuses much of her work on the Jewish milieu of Jesus. My impression, which I would be happy to have someone confirm or contradict, is that she does not accept the historicity of Judas and the betrayal of Jesus.  The character of Judas would have developed perhaps as part of the attempt to shift blame from Rome to the Jews for the crucifixion.  My “pet theory” of course calls the existence of Judas into question as it does the historicity of the trial before the Sanhedrin.   

  

“Whether the night of the seder or the night before, Jesus would have been apprehended surreptitiously, perhaps by a mixed posse of Temple guards and Roman soldiers led to the place of ambush by a disaffected disciple.”  Jesus of Nazareth:  King of the Jews, pp. 257-258 (scriptural citations omitted).

This book is Dr. Fredricksen’s detailed analysis of how and why Jesus, and Jesus alone, was crucified by Pilate.  Under her analysis a betrayer makes sense from the desire of the authorities to take Jesus into custody out of sight of the crowds.  They would have needed someone to take them to him under cover of night, as it were.  She does not make any comment about the identity of the betrayer in this book. 

In From Jesus to Christ, which is more concerned about how Jesus became identified as the Christ, she also mentions a betrayer, and notes that Judas is identified as the betrayer in the gospels, but does not discuss the historicity of the identification.  Again, the betrayer appears in the context of a surreptitious arrest.  From Jesus to Christ, pp. 115-16 (2nd Ed., Yale University Press)

I hope that is somewhat helpful.

It’s a good question.  In her account Jesus had no extraordinary message, much less one that would have been problematic from a Jewish perspective of his time.  His message, like John the Baptist’s, was “Repent, the End is near!” She does think that John’s account of Jesus’ itinerary is more likely true than Mark’s.  Jesus had at least some followers in Jerusalem, and both Pilate and the priests were aware of him from his previous visits.

But Pilate’s concern is not Jesus himself.  Jesus has never held himself out in any way that was a threat to Rome, and his small band of disciples was small and unarmed.  Pilates’ concern was the Passover crowd in Jerusalem.  She posits that the crowd saw him as the Messiah and King of the Jews, even though he had never made those claims for himself, and really expected the End to come in that setting.  It is also possible the priests sensed that fervor in the crowd and communicated that to Pilate.

Pilate’s crucifixion of Jesus was intended to send a message to that crowd and defuse whatever tension was in the air.  You say this man is your Messiah and King?  Look what I have done to him.