The Gospels do not support what you are saying about Jesus and the Temple. First, they give many examples of his love and veneration for the Temple, at least 7 by my count. E.g., swearing by the Temple is like swearing by God's name (Matt 23:16-21); after curing a leper, Jesus sends him to the Temple (Mark 1:40-45); reconcile yourself to your brother and then go offer a gift at the altar (Matt 5:23-24); and more. I am sure you will have some clever way of dismissing all this.

Even the prophecy of destruction is a sign of Jesus' love for the Temple. In Jewish prophecy, the point is to prevent the disaster of a beloved institution; the prediction is supposed to have the effect of turning the people around so that the catastrophe will not come to pass. Not one Jew of Jesus' time, not even the priests, would have heard his prohecy as a threat. They would have heard it as love for the Temple. To interpret this otherwise is to impose later Christian theology on Jewish history.

Same goes for the altercation with the Temple vendors. The Gospels depict as a small, trivial event which is what ti was. It has nothing to do with an attack against the priests. It is an attack on something about the commercial activity and in defense of the sanctity of the Temple. That commercial activity took place on the periphery of the Temple and was peripheral to what the Temple was about. It was not of central importance to the functions of the Temple. It was not a deep assault on the Temple or priestly power.

There were Pharisees and rabbis who made far more serious and profound attacks on certain priestly practices, yet none of them were ever persecuted for it. Even the Gospels drop the vendor altercation once it is over. They never refer to it again and it is never brought up against Jesus at either of the so-called trials. There is just nothing to substantiate that this was a threat to the priests. That is just overinterpretation. A few scholars may finally be coming around to seeing this.

In comments above, I gave three strong reasons why the Agapius Arabic version of Josephus' testimony on Jesus is more authentic. Here is a 4th: Almost all scholars admit that the Greek text has been tampered with at a few points by later Christian clerics. It so happens that the Agapius version is missing all these Christian emendations. That is another sign that it is more authentic.

It is interesting the way you try to swat away any potentially exonerating evidence for Jewish leaders. If you or anyone had a really strong argument that Jewish leaders were involved in Jesus' death, you would not mind admitting that there is a potentially exonerating piece of evidence here or there. But to admit even one, no matter how powerful or good the argument, makes so many people nervous. That is a sign that your own case is not such a self-confident case.

The case against Jewish leaders is based on prejudice, on emotions, on the power to enforce this idea, but not on reason. No one has ever given a rational argument for it, based on a solid pattern of evidence. This is good news for Christianity. I wish more people could approach this without fear. Jesus' real relationship to Jewish leaders is not a threat to anyone.

Leon Zitzer