If you or anyone had a really strong argument for some Jewish complicity in Jesus' death, you would not mind saying the following: "We believe that Jewish leaders conspired to have Jesus killed and we think we have the evidence to prove that, but we have to admit that there is nothing in Josephus to support this and Josephus even tells us some things, like Jewish leaders refusing to cooperate with Gessius Florus, that contradict our position." But you, and most scholars, seem to be very frightened to admit even one piece of exonerating evidence for Jewish leaders. Your fear that even a tiny such piece will put a crack in the edifice that will bring it all down tells us that you do not have a really strong case. A strong case would not mind admitting there is some information to contradict your postion.

You keep committing the classic error of certain arguments. You assume your conclusion and then argue there is no other way to see it. Guilt for Jewish authorities is your a priori belief. Thus, I have given 4 extremely compelling signs why the Agapius Arabic version of Josephus is the authentic account. No one can give 4 strong reasons for accepting the Greek on this. There are not even 2 such reasons. You just keep asserting that we know Jewish leaders had some involvement, therefore the Greek is better. It is just your a priori belief, not an argument.

Same goes for the Temple. There is no evidence anywhere in the Gospels that the altercation at the Temple was a big deal and that Jesus was charged with this. Your statement that the Gospel bungled it is an admission that I am right. To say that Jesus was charged with this is just a lie. It is not there in the Gospels. You also cannot explain how Jesus' relatively mild action compared to the far more serious critiques made by other Pharisees and rabbis could have gotten him into trouble, when no one got into trouble for criticizing the priests. You are completely erasing the historical context.

You have made it clear that evidence is irrelevant to you. You will just make things up or erase things. I could answer your questions about Paul but you have ruled almost all evidence out of the discussion. I will just note that if I am right that the best explanation of all the evidence is that Jewish leaders were trying to save Jesus from a Roman execution, then it is clear why the priests persecuted Jesus' followers afterwards: They were upset at the libel that they had helped Rome to kill Jesus. Is there any evidence for this in the NT? Yes, but you have made all such evidence irrelevant. Also, Josephus makes it clear that the Sadducees believed that libel deserved the death penalty while Pharisees protested this harshness. This helps to explain some important things too.

Arguing with you is like arguing before an unfair judge. "If it please the court, I would like to introduce some evidence on behalf of my client, the ancient Jewish leaders." The judge: "It's inadmissible." "But why?" I ask. "Because it would tend to exonerate your client and we only allow incriminating evidence here." That is your idea of a fair and rational procedure. It's not mine. But your way will triumph for several more generations. That's power. I just have a little bit of truth on my side, no access to power at all

Leon Zitzer