CNN on Bart Ehrman
CNN
May 18, 2009
What Was Jesus' Route During His Death?
CNN
April 10, 2009
Dead Sea Scrolls To Go Online in the Next Few Years
CNN
August 27, 2008
PrimeTimeJesus features leading Christian professors, writers and thinkers who have come together to engage the media and culture about the person and work of Jesus Christ. For more information about the contributors, please see the Authors page in the top menu bar. To schedule interviews and appearances please see the Contact page.
Bock,
You are doing what most scholars do. You are adopting as a first principle the idea that Jewish leaders were complicit in Jesus' death and then dismissing any evidence in their favor, while admitting only evidence (n matter how bad) to convict them. This is neither fair nor rational.
It is a dead certainty that the Josephean passage on Jesus was altered. We have too many varying quotations of what he said from ancient Christian writers (including Eusebius, Origen, Jerome, Michael the Syrian, and more). Given this, it is impossible to know what Josephus orignally said without any evidence. When scholars say that blaming Jewish leaders is authentic to Josephus, that is bald assertion based on nothing. What little evidence we have does not favor their position.
The Arabic version of Josephus does not blame Jewish leaders. Nor does the reference in Michael the Syrian. It is not likely that Jospehus did include Jewish leaders and some later Christian cleric took it out to give us these other two versions. It is more likely the Arabic version and Michael's are right.
Also, if Josephus had assigned blame to Jewish leaders, he would have reported two more things: a) he would have mentioned how unusual this is because he reports no other instance of Jewish leaders and Romans working together like this; and b) he would have reported the ensuing protests, whether from the Pharisees (who protested the death of Jesus' brother), or the people at large or the members of Jesus' own famliy. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that Josephus said anything about Jewish leaders here. Merely asserting that he did is not a reasoned argument.
Josephus gives at least 3 examples of Jewish leaders pleading with Jews to change their course of action. They take no further measures. In addition, there is the example of Jewish leaders refusing to comply with Florus' demand to turn over some Jewish troublemakers. That makes 4 examples Josephus gives of Jewish leaders taking no action against Jews, not even threatening to take such action. That's a pretty good pattern. Plus!!!!, Josephus gives not one stitch of evidence that Jewish leaders ever cooperated with Rome in the arrest and prosecution of Jews for a capital crime. It was simply never done. It is the worst kind of misrepresentation to make Josephus say otherwise.
You seem to be suggesting that Jewish leaders did not hold a trial for Jesus, but something like a hearing. There is no evidence that ancient Jewish culture had a concept of a hearing much less that they held any for a Roman problem. They held a judicial procedure to determine guilt or innocence on some matter, or they held no such procedure. The total evidence in Jesus' case suggests they did not. The Mishnah rules are definitely applicable. There is no evidence for any other kind of rules. Most scholars erase the Mishnah rules and invent the idea of other rules because they do not want anything to disturb the allegation against Jewish leaders, but they also do not want to allege a lynching anymore, so they just fabricate that some other kind of procedure was going on.
As for Acts 13:28, I think I did read the whole verse. And verse 27 too. It is a startling thing for Paul to say that there was no Jewish death penalty because it contradicts what Mark and Matthew seem to say. If it could be explained away as easily as you think it can, scholars would have done so. But they have not. They prefer to ignore it because they know it throws a kink in their case.
That is my basic point here: In a rational field, all the evidence gets discussed. Evidence would not be eliminated just because it contradicts your position and tends to exonerate the people you are trying to convict. But the great majority of scholars will not discuss Acts 13:28 or the Arabic version of Josephus or what Michael the Syrian says or Jewish leaders resuing to cooperate with Gessius Florus and more. They simply erase all this evidence. That is a pretty good sign of blatant prejudice. Until we face that, there will be no progress in historical Jesus studies.
Leon Zitzer