Bock,

We do in a bizarre way have an agreement on one point, but I want to clarify a few things first.

Evidence is being ignored, not weighted, by most scholars. The great majority do not discuss Acts 13:28. They simply ignore it. Raymond Brown and David Catchpole are two rare exceptions. They do admit that Acts 13:28 does create a problem, but one they think they can deal with. Scholars also ignore the Agapius Arabic version of Josephus. They ignore too Josephus' example of Jewish leaders refsuing to cooperate with Gessius Florus. Better than 90% of scholars do not give arguments where they take these things into consideration. They simply erase it. And that is a sign of prejudice.

There is one simple explanation for why Romans went after Jesus. He was preaching about the kingdom of God — i.e., a kingdom without the adjective Roman in front of it. Rome killed people for less. Jesus was a problem they wanted to nip in the bud, because his talk of a non-Roman kingdom was a potential problem for them.

Perhaps my use of the word blame caused some confusion. I certainly was not referring to putting total blame on Jewish leaders. I meant partial blame or some blame. Maybe involvement would make it clearer. The allegation that Josephus originally wrote something alleging some Jewish involvement in Jesus' death is improbable in the extreme. Agapius' Arabic version, which makes no mention of Jewish involvement, is a century older than the oldest Greek text we have. It is highly unlikely that a Christian such as Agapius or any other Christian cleric would have taken out Josephus' reference to Jewish leaders if Josephus had said such a thing. Also, Josephus would have made some comment on how unusual this was. All things considered, Josephus could not have written what we now have in the Greek.

There is deep prejudice in this field. I just checked books by John Crossan, Paula Fredriksen, and E.P. Wilson where they all discuss the testimony on Jesus by Josephus. Not one of them mentions the Agapius text. John Meier mentions it but does not quote it or relate what it says. Raymond Brown is the only one who has the decency to actually quote it in full. But better than 90% of scholars do not.

I am not trying to make a full argument here for the complete innocence of Jewish leaders. I do that in my book and proved my case beyond reasonable doubt. I am only arguing here that exonerating evidence for Jewish leaders should be allowed into the discussion. The majority of scholars fail to do that again and again. That is a hint that the case against Jewish leaders is not so good if they are afraid to discuss any exonerating evidence.

The execution of Jesus' brother is actually a point in favor of Jewish leaders in the case of Jesus. The most the death of Jacob/James (his name in Greek is Iacobos) proves is that the priests were capable of taking precipitous action on their own. It does not show they were capable of cooperating with Rome to get rid of a Jew, which is what is alleged in Jesus' case. In fact, some of the citizens (whom most scholars agree were Pharisees) complain not only to the Jewish king but also to the Roman governor, and they succeed in getting the high priest deposed. So the death of Jacob/James also proves that the priests could not get away with such a thing without a severe protest (and no protest is what is alleged happened with Jesus). We also have Pharisees coming to Peter's rescue in Acts 5 and then later for Paul in Acts 23.

What is alleged in Jesus' case that priests cooperated with Rome in his arrest and prosecution and were able to get away with it without a protest from Pharisees or anyone else does not fit the historical context at all. Josephus makes it very clear that Jewish leaders never worked with Rome like this. It is completely false to make Josephus say anything else. This too is generally erased by scholars.

What we do agree on is that there was no trial of Jesus. Jewish leaders held a very informal meeting. On that we agree. But you suggest that they did this to gather evidence against him and presented it to Rome in effect to help Rome make a case against him. I am saying that is impossible. Jewish leaders never behaved like this. They would not hold a hearing for what is a Roman case and they would not hold a hearing on their own and then decide that Rome should take care of it. There is absoluteluy nothing in the historical record like that.

The only possible purpose of an informal meeting would be to try to save Jesus from a Roman execution. I make the full argument in my book. It is the best explanation of all the evidence we have and would fit, or at least not contradict, what we know of the priests from Josephus. What I stand for here is that exonerating evidence cannot be erased or explained away. That is what scholars do. They do not give any of this weighted consideration.

Leon Zitzer