What to make of 1 Thess 2:14-16?

I keep having to return to the Crucifixion, because we Christians insist on it. Too many of us insist on Jews being culpable; OnePeterFive took the questionable-timing of Torba's comments to attack Ben Shapiro, which is now explicit. I'd tried saying that Christianity doesn't need to accuse Jews of this particular crime, to exist; I also left on the table, updating the text. If we with Mark accuse the Sanhedrin instead of blasphemy, that might count as attempted deicide.

But now we cross into the territory of tafsir, not of matn.

I don't have all the links on me right now; but from what I recall of Saint Paul, his creed on Jesus' Last Supper evokes paradosis - a term from the second Isaiah. For Paul, Christ was "handed over", implicitly in the process of crucifixion. The "Egerton" scraps use this term too; we don't have their thus-foreshadowed Passion but we can suspect crucifixion. The "Barnabas" tract meanwhile was arguing that Israel - all twelve tribes, not just Jews - bound Jesus, had him suffer, and cast lots for his clothes. When Christ returns, his crucifiers shall see him. But - who are they? The Crucifixion is passive-voice. On the assumption of no rapture, Barnabas implicates Christians too in the crime. (You do recall that Christians consider ourselves the true Israel... right?)

Saint Mark offers the first full narrative. He presents something like the Spanish Inquisition: the religious authorities find blasphemy, then pass the blasphemer to the saecular authorities. The former authorities do not do the deed themselves. For Mark, the high priest... couldn't; the priests weren't running the joint. So Mark has Pilate do it - which meant Pilate needed to charge him under Roman law, here of brigandage.

We on the Catholic and Orthodox side hold that the Eucharist is central. We don't deviate from Paul; and although admittedly we don't have Egerton anymore and consider "Barnabas" postapostolic, we did (barely) keep Mark. More to the point we accept Mark's Passion - as did Matthew, with a couple insertions about the Jewish mob.

Given this textual backdrop, we may reread 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16. Here is said that the Jews (not Israel) killed Christ themselves. That couplet skips the paradosis and the crucifixion. For such reasons and many more, I dispute this as Paul...

... but the sentiment is early. "Barnabas" is already halfway there. And then we have the Parable of the Wicked Tenants. Mark has Jesus teach this as one of his last discourses, whilst he is in Jerusalem. A version is also in Hermas' Shepherd.

Although Paul did not say 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, we must consider it an early footnote to 1 Thessalonians. And not Marcion either (he cared little for Jewish prophets). Looks more like Mark's party.

Should we consider this God's footnote?