Where I’ve come in regards to the Pharisees is that they were willing to make violent concessions for the sake of a tenuous status quo. Passover was often a flash point of rebellious activity in Jerusalem (which is why Pilate is there in the first place; to keep Jewish people suppressed and to put down any riots or revolutions from would-be messiahs). Violence was not infrequent at the time. And every time there was violence, Rome would take away more freedoms from Jews.
So the Pharisees are put in a position to see Jesus as a potential catalyst for Roman violence. So they figure that if they help hand over another would-be messiah then they can have a quiet Passover. But this mentality winds up being a sort of Leopards-eating-faces situation because Rome destroys Jerusalem a few years later anyway (due to a would-be messiah—just one that the Pharisees thought might be the real deal this time).
Where I’ve come in regards to the Pharisees is that they were willing to make violent concessions for the sake of a tenuous status quo. Passover was often a flash point of rebellious activity in Jerusalem (which is why Pilate is there in the first place; to keep Jewish people suppressed and to put down any riots or revolutions from would-be messiahs). Violence was not infrequent at the time. And every time there was violence, Rome would take away more freedoms from Jews.
So the Pharisees are put in a position to see Jesus as a potential catalyst for Roman violence. So they figure that if they help hand over another would-be messiah then they can have a quiet Passover. But this mentality winds up being a sort of Leopards-eating-faces situation because Rome destroys Jerusalem a few years later anyway (due to a would-be messiah—just one that the Pharisees thought might be the real deal this time).