You certainly did say the Gospel bungled presenting the charge about Jesus' altercation at the Temple. Here is your exact quote from your post just before your last one (I just copied and pasted it): "The temple discussion does come up in Mark 14 as the starting point for interrogation, although the remarks are so bungled that they do not proceed on this basis." The real point is that the Temple altercation is never mentioned again after it happens. That is just a plain fact. You cannot quote anything from Mark 14 or anywhere else where the priests say Jesus is charged with causing this distrubance because it is simply not there.

Your comment that the Arabic source is late (10th century) does not help because the oldest Greek text of Josephus' Book 18 of Antiquities is later still from the 11th century. So the Arabic is actually older. And there are three more powerful points to make about the Agapius Arabic version which I made above. It is not even a contest. The Arabic is much more probably the authentic Josephus. The fact that it does not have any of the later Christian emendations is a particularly powerful point. It is an excellent sign that it is closer to the original Josephus. That gets a very strong weight, as you might put it. Your assertions cannot outweigh something that powerful.

Jesus' act was not a threat to the Temple precincts. The Gospels make no such claim. And no one of that time would have seen it that way. It does not even come close to being a threat to the inner sanctum of the priests or any sacred part of the Temple. The Pharisaic and rabbinic criticisms are far more severe and actually threaten some of the power of the priests. No one was persecuted for these debates and critiques. It is in that context that people of the time would have seen Jesus' action.

Of all the things you said above, I think the one that shocked me the most was the way you dismissed what the NT reports about Pharisees coming to the aid of Peter and then Paul in Acts. There is the NT telling you how good the Pharisees were and you could not accept it.

My point about the informal meeting that Jewish leaders had with Jesus is that this was their way to find something they could use to defend Jesus from the Roman charges. I am not going to make my argument for this here, as I do it completely in my book. My point here is very different. In any legitimate scientific field, there is debate about various possibilities. There is more than enough good evidence to present a case in favor of the Jewish leaders (and Judas too, I might add). Even if I were ultimately proven wrong (which is not going to happen because my overall case is far too strong), in a valid scholarly discipline, there would be a lively discussion of plausible alternatives. But not in historical Jesus scholarship. Scholars just relentlessly assert the partial guilt of Jewish leaders and shut down all debate. They won't even allow the presentation of one or two pieces of exonerating evidence. That is so wrong.

Leon Zitzer