The problem is that at least for Mark and possibly for Matthew it is difficult to say that a clear differentiation existed in the minds of the early christians between them and the jews. Jewish and christian self-identity in the early years of the church is a nebulous and complex thing. For one thing, being jewish, apart from the ethnic/nationalistic component, varied from town to town, even apart from various sects. The earliest christians seemed to have believed that they were the "true judaism" although that term (judaism) didn't have the meaning we give it. In fact, to even use the word "Jew" is problematic as a descriptive term for pre-rabbinic followrs of YHWH.
Only I'm arguing something quite different. We have very few clues as to why Theudus was actually executed, there was something odd about the crowd that made it not simply a group of listeners or observers, namely that the crowd analabonta tas ktesies.
Following alone didn't result in execution. Their were plenty master/disciples groups in Judaism and in Greco-roman culture.
I'm sure that got the attention of the jewish priesthood, and, as a number of scholars believe, I think this was perhaps the single action which must definitely resulted in Jesus' death.
However, we are talking about a Jewish temple, which the roman authority was at best neutral, and often hostile, to. I find it hard to believe they would care if Jesus the Jew went into a Jewish temple and upset the jewish priesthood.
Going back to what I said at the start of this post:
While I agree that the gospels inaccurately portray Pilate's attitude (and therefore roman attitude in general) towards Jesus and his followers, and attempt to spread the "guilt" for Jesus arrest wider among the Jews than is accurate, I think the reason for this has more to do with the tension between what began as a jewish sect and what was begining to be a seperate religion.
