Whatever you think of the logic of Gamaliel's argument as described in Acts 5 (leave the disciples alone and if the movement is not of God it will go away--but that sure hasn't worked for Islam!), it's interesting to apply it to first-century rabble rousers.
The origin of the Zealot movement, rightly or wrongly, is traditionally ascribed to Judas the Galilean who revolted in A.D. 6 and who was decisively squelched by the Romans. Gamaliel makes reference to him and also to a Theudas, a common name (more than a dozen appear in Josephus alone), so it's hard to be sure who to equate him with. Then there's the Egyptian assassin that Paul is mistaken for by the Roman guard when he is arrested in Jerusalem toward the end of his missionary career (Acts 21-22).
In fact, Josephus narrates, in various lengths, the accounts of a whole array rebels of various kinds throughout the first century, who all contributed in various ways to the growing Jewish discontent with Rome, the slowly organizing Zealot movement, and ultimately to the ill-fated Jewish war with Rome, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in A.D. 70.
If you want to read a good, in-depth investigation of these folks and their exploits, see Richard Horsley's Bandits, Prophets, Messiahs. I love the title. Several of these rebel leaders were little more than ancient would-be Robin Hood's but less consistently noble. Others believed they were Yahweh's prophets or even Messiahs. Some gathered large, reasonably organized followings and armies. Others garnered little more than other riff-raff, criminals and malcontents. The Judean hill country, like the caves at the base of the cliffs near the shores of Lake Galilee, always offered such groups the opportunity to hideout and try to surprise smaller Roman outposts here and there with nighttime attacks.
But there was one thing they all had in common. They all lost, sooner or later. No one ever succeeded in overthrowing the Romans in the first century, not in Israel, not anywhere in the empire. Indeed, Jewish guerilla warfare was "small peanuts" compared, say, to the ever-serious Parthian threat to the northeast of the borders of the Roman empire and their raids on and incursion into Roman territory that kept a fair number of Roman troops occupied in defense.
More importantly for historical Jesus research, when a Jewish rebel leader was killed, one of only two things ever happened. Either the movement died out, or the movement's adherents turned to a new leader, often a family member of the first one, especially a brother or son off the deceased man (a venerable tradition going all the way back to the Maccabean revolt and succession of Hasmonean leaders in the second century B.C).
What never happened, at least as far as we know from any records still in existence, is that the rebel leaders' followers continued to accept his claim about his identity, or the claims they had made for him. The concept of a dead messiahs was simply oxymoronic, if not flat out moronic! Even prophets, though they certainly could be killed (just read the Old Testament, to say nothing of subsequent Jewish tradition), shouldn't die in battle against the enemy if they had previously "prophesied" victory.
Suddenly, the first generation of Jesus' followers stands out in dramatic, unprecedented contrast. Facts no sensible historians will dispute (yes, I know there are a few of the other kind) include: 1) Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate for the charge of being a would-be king (Messiah) of the Jews. 2) The movement of his followers did not die out but grew. 3) They continued to hail him as some kind of king and Messiah. 4) They did not turn to one of his family members or to one of his disciples to be their next prospective Messiah. James, Jesus' half-brother and Peter, the leader of the twelve, played prominent roles but never replaced Jesus' unique roles from his lifetime. As far as I know, this quartet of facts is unparalleled in ancient Middle Eastern history from any era.
The question then becomes why this unprecedented and implausible chain of events occured. The traditional Christian answer sounds pretty strong even if one wears just a historian's hat (i.e., bracketing any religious faith or anti-religious bias for a moment). That answer is that the disciples saw Jesus alive again, not just in a visionary way--that had plenty of precedent (or alleged precedent) to demonstrate that his spirit lived on in some other world. Rather they believed they had seen him with a real human, though glorified body. Can anyone think of a more probable explanation of these four facts than this traditional Christian reply? I can't.
I owe the core of this argument to David Morlan, pastor of Fellowship Church, Denver, and Ph.D. candidate in New Testament studies in Cambridge, England, having heard it in one of his talks in a local coffehouse.
I have a comment for you on a related topic, if I may:
The typical Christian believer today seems to think that he or she knows what Jesus said and what Jesus did over 19 centuries ago. In reality, no living mortal today knows (beyond a reasonable doubt) what Jesus said or did way back in the 1st century A.D. No one. Your thoughts?
It all depends on what one means by a reasonable doubt. If by a reasonable doubt, one means that a person can suggest sane, sensible reasons why a certain saying attributed to Jesus in the Bible is less likely to represent what he probably said (or did) than some other saying (or deed), then the answer is, of course, there can be such doubts. That's what the entire "historical Jesus" enterprise in scholarship is all about. But if one means that they think there are no good historical reasons for trusting the gist (skeleton, major contours, basic outline, however one cares to phrase it) of the New Testament Gospels, especially Matthew, Mark and Luke, and especially where they agree with each other, then historians would have to demur. There is an unbroken tradition of literature that has been preserved down through the centuries that makes understanding the historical Jesus, or the historical Alexander, or the historical Socrates, etc., a very doable task--within limits--in ways that is not the case when a historian tries to study a figure from the remote past that hasn't had the impact on civilization that characters like these have had.
All those Jewish movements had another thing in common. They were not persecuted by Jewish leaders. Jewish leaders never cooperated with the Romans in subduing such movements and did not help Romans arrest and prosecute any Jewish troublemakers. Josephus makes it prety clear that they would refuse such cooperation with the Romans.
And if you read the evidence in the NT very carefully, it is possible to see they did not cooperate in the execution of Jesus either, but rather opposed it. A lot of eivdence in the NT supports this and it fits the historical context.
Leon
Not sure what text you are reading in the NT, nor are you paying attention to Josephus in Antiquities 18.63-64. The NT (Where do I start? Mark 15, Matthew 27, Luke 23:1-25) and Josephus make it clear that in Jesus' case, the leadership did have a role in moving Pilate to exercise his unique right to authorize executions.
dlb
The Josephus passage on Jesus has been heavily altered as most scholars would acknowledge. We also have a version of this passage preserved by an Arabic writer (discovered in the 1970s by Shlomo Pines, I believe) which is a century older than our oldest Greek copies of the Josephean passage. In the Arabic version, Jewish leaders are not mentioned, only PIlate.
As for other info in Josephus, he gives an example of Jewish leaders refusing to turn over some Jewish troublemakers to the procurator Gessius Florus who demanded they be turned over. Florus threatened otherwise to take revenge and he did when Jewish leaders did not comply. Josephus also gives examples of Jewish leaders begging a Jewish mob to change their actions so that Rome would not take further reprisals. They never arrest any Jews and turn them over to Rome and they never even threaten to do such a thing. It simply does not fit the historical context that Jewish leaders would cooperate with Rome to have a Jew executed. Josephus is very clear about that.
As for the NT, we have Paul saying at Acts 13:28 that there was no Jewish death penalty against Jesus. Also, there is none in either Luke or John. John 18 also tells us that Annas, a retired high priest, questioned Jesus which suggests the possibility that this was a diplomatic affair (aimed at saving Jesus), not a hostile trial. Moreover, the details of the so-called trial scene in the Marcan/Matthean narrative do not fit what would a Jewish trial would be like. It is either an informal meeting or a lynching, and most scholars gave up making the charge of a lynching or judicial murder long ago. So if you try to maintain the traditional story of how Jesus died, there are many contradictions to that in the NT.
There is more than enough info in the NT to make you wonder whether they were not in fact preserving many accurate details from a very different story than the one we are used to. One sign that there really is something here is the fact that most scholars do not like discussing a lot of this evidence. You would be hard put to find anyone who will admit that Acts 13:28 even exists. (I know of only a couple.) Debate about all the evidence, not just some of it, has always been suppressed in this field. It is a fixed case against Jewish leaders (and Judas) not a well-reasoned one.
Leon Zitzer
Leon:
I know the Josephus passage is disputed. I have written on it and the various versions. Most scholars see a truncated form of the text (not the Pines version) that does mention Jewish opposition as authentic.
Acts 13:28: You did not read the entire verse: Despite finding no evidence against Jesus, they [the leadership] asked that he be put to death.
As for Jewish examples: one example does not a pattern make. The mob example you cite is not relevant. It is leaders appealing not to make a civil distrurbance so that Rome will react.
I have a written an entire monograph on the trial scene and shown it does fit Jewish practice (and is not a lynch scene, but more like a gatheiring of evidence to take to Rome, closer to your informal meeting category (so Mishnaic rules for a capital trial do not apply). This was published in a well known European series (WUNT). How did Jesus get to Pilate? You never answer that question. Surely he had no interest in a Galilean religious teacher with no army. Someone brought him to Pilate's attention.
dlb
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
Leon:
So Josephus wrote a version like we have in Arabic with no mention of Jewish invovlement. But you did not answer the key question. Why would Rome care about a Galilean religious teacher who had no army? Your claim of no evidence ignores the text we do possess and how it correlates with what the gospels tell is. Yes, Josephus has been altered but a reference to the so called Christ later (Ant 20.200) tells us he said something. Evidence ot the contrary is not dismissed but weighed.
Now you argue that Josephus did not assign blame to the Jewish leaders. That is too strong for what is being argued. He notes they contributed to the judgment, not that they were the sole cause (Acts 4:24ffagrees with this). Our texts explain why. Jesus threatened the temple authorities in his challenge at the temple against them, and they worried about the consequences with Rome if they did not act. Most Jewish challenges were directly to Rome (so the Jewish authorities did not bother to press blame or give support to Rome-after all for the most part they did not like having the Romans in Judea), but here Jesus' challenge is directly agaisnt how they, the leadership, ran the temple. That is a big difference from the other scenarios Josephsu treats.
Your claim of no evidence for a hearing again ignores the texts that raise it. They question Jesus and then take him to Rome for a decision only Rome can make. The Mishanic rules we discussed are for a trial where death can be the verdict. That is not what can be happening here. There is no inventing of other rules here. It is simply a case of this meeting not being that kind of trial as the text shows. (No one suggests a lynching option here for Jesus). As for Paul in Acts 13, he argues Jesus had done nothing worthy of death. He is not saying they found Jesus innocent. The early church never held that position. Certainly Paul would have made much more of such an argument in his preachign and defense of Jesus in the synagogues had it been the case. After all he had been among those opposed to the movement. He woudl have known that. So you see evidence is weighed, not ignored. It is all discussed. By the way, no one is trying to "convict" anyone here. We are simply trying to trace the historical oots of the disagreement.
In addition, there IS an example of the Jewish leadership acting against a Jew (How do you think James died?). So this too is a pattern for response that looks credible (not to mention how Paul dealt with the church before his conversion). The difference with Jesus is that Rome is asked to make the call here because of the Messiah-kingship issue- and in the end Rome acts. No prejudice, just dealing with the texts.
One thing we do agree on. Jesus is not appreciated for how Jewish he was. Most miss on this entirely and do treat Second Temple Judaism and its spirtuality very onesidedly (being only critical of it).
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
Leon:
I will keep this short. The key point you did not address was the attack against the leadership by Jesus' temple act that forced them to react to his act in the sacred space the Romans allowed them to control and police. Your point might be seen as possible if Jesus had not acted against the temple. But the priests were responsible for its sanctity in their own view- and Jesus' act was against them (They would have seen it that way). They had to act. There is no rescue of Paul in Acts 23, only agreement about the resurrection. There is some rlief in Acts 5, but the case is not so much a rescue as the argument that if the movement is fo God it cannot be stopped. If it is not, it will die. So this is a practical theological argument, not a defense of the apostles. As for the Romans stepping in on their own simply because Jesus spoke of the kingdom without mentioning Rome. He had done that long before this final entry into Jerusalem, and they did not act then. No action against Jesus took place until he entered Jerusalem and acted in an area of special leadership jursidiction at the temple. This is why some responsibility by the leadership is likely and that the Greek version of Josphus is likely to be correct (not to mention that Josephus was originally in Greek). Finally why save Jesus from a meeting where no Romans were present? Moreover, you did not explain why Paul NEVER used this point in his speeches if this had been the official position. Paul's position was that Jesus died for claims that in fact were true, not that the leadership found him innocent.
dlb
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
Leon:
Your reading of the gospels is entertaining but off the mark. 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 temple incident is the starting point for the controversies of the last week. So it does come up again. Jesus' respect for the temple is the reason he complains about how the temple is operated. The complaint is not against the temple but the leadership's handling of it. (on Jesuse respect for the temple, you are right). The commerical activity you describe as on the edge of the temple is likely in the portico area on the mount.
As for swatting away evidence, I will let others judge on that one. You still have not answered a few key points, such as Paul's argumentation not pointing to official innocence. Nor can you explain the continued opposition that the Annas clan had against the new movement if they really tried to help Jesus. It is clear from the sources, at all levels, thatt he leadership was very uncompfortable with Jesus. These are the very factors that make the sifted Greek version of Josephus as the more likely reading coming from him.
dlb
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
Leon:
It is hard to have a discussion with someone who summarizes the argument of others by misrepresenting it. Nowhere did I say the gospels bungled the presentation of the temple charge. In fact, I am arguing they have carefully recorded what took place by noting that the case was pursued on the temple and then dropped for lack of consistency in the case. The Jewish leadership was sharp enough to know if they had a good case to take to Pilate. In addition, I have noted that the Arabic text is late (10 the century) and that what Josephus is said to have claimed has corroborative parallels in what our other sources from the gospels also say. That does constitute two good arguments about the Josephan text. (Remember arguemtns are weighed, not merely counted). I also raised the argument that your appeal to Florus (which postdates the time of Jesus and so hardly trumps the situation) ignores the fact taht Jesus' temple act challenges Jewish officials and their authority in a way most activity by others aimed exclusively at Rome did not (yet another solidly grounded historical observation). Finally, at no point in official Jewish materials or in the debates with Jews we possess is there any indication they tried to exonerate Jesus before Rome. Even the Talmud mentions in two locales that Jesus was charged with being a sorcerer, a charge the gospels also echoe in the claim that Jesus does miracles from Beelzebul. Finally, in the temple incident we are not dealing with Jesus' critique of the temple as a verbal exercise as is the case with the examples you raise, but as an act in the sacred precincts, a locale where the leadership was charged to keep the peace. That is a horse of a different color. So you may continue to characterize the issues I put forward as irrelevant or as dismissive of evidence, even though they are relevant factors to consider, but many of the charges you make actually have a look of the pot calling the kettle black. Let's just put it this way. I am not persuaded by what you bring forward and the same is true in reverse for your assessment of what I have raised. Others can judge who maks the case, not an exercise of power, but one of rational argument.
dlb
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
Leon:
Now you can read my mind about what I wrote. What was "bungled" according to that sentence was not the gospel's comment but the testimony that was attempted to be gathered at the trial! That is why the temple charge was dropped by the leadership. (Just read Mark 14 carefully). Please read my sentence carefully as well (although it could have been clearer), the subject is the temple remarks that were being raised.
The temple altercation is mentioned again. It comes up in the question about the authority to do these things and is part of the issue about the temple.
On Josephus, we simply disagree. Josephus wrote in Greek, it is the language of his writing. No one disputes this. So we are dealing with translation in the Arabic version (and we know the Greek roots of those Greek manuscripts are older and we have testimony of their content from other sources- not just the Josephan mss).The Talmud, which you never mention, also notes the charge agaianst Jesus from a Jewish point of view.
I actually do not dismiss the idea that at times the Pharisees are happy with Paul's position on specific issues (namely, on resurrection). My commentary on Acts makes this clear. Now for Caiaphas' remark about Peter: it is not so much a defense of Peter as a call not to press this issue. God will sort it out in the long term. This is just good wise, practical policy, because IF the movement was of God there was no sense in opposing it. By the time of Annas II apparently that option and advice was dropped.
Now your most amazing claim is that the temple act is not a challenge to the leadership. This claim completely ignores the fact that Jesus entered the temple as one the leadership had already opposed and saw as a problem.
You can insist you have a good alternative and present a case for it. That is the nature of scholarly dialogue as you say, But facts in the debate are stubborn things for all to see. The fact is that nothing in our gospel sources about the march to the cross points to a good faith effort to help Jesus. The best we get are that a few individuals disagreed with the verdict of the group (like Joseph of Arimathea), but Joseph is presented as very much a minority voice in the leadership. Your case is hardly as strong as you suggest.
You know very well that I was not attempting to read your mind. The sentence, as you note, is not as clear as it could be. However, no matter. The point is that the Gospels never explicitly bring up the altercation again. You claim that any further references to the Temple are to that event. But that is you reading it into the text. It would have been so easy for someone to say "Hey we don't like what Jesus did overturning the tables." No one says this or is reported as saying this. You are assuming that it must have been about this, but the Gospels do not say it.
You are also missing the context. When someone questions Jesus about his authority to say or do these things, that is the same question that priests and Sadducees posed to all Pharisees and rabbis. The Pharisees and rabbis did not just verbally criticize the priests. They launched a deep assault on their power and won. The dictated to priests how to behave in the Holy of Holies. One rabbi issued a new ruling on sacrifices for the explicit purpose of driving down the price of doves (so that poor women could afford it). His action had a deeper and more lasing effect than Jesus' action. Yet no one persecuted Pharisees for such things. And no one would persecute Jesus for his relatively milder action.
Jesus does not enter the Temple, as you say above. The vendor activity is not a part of the sacred space. The Pharisees challenged the priests in their sacred space much more.
The Greek text of Josephus is not at all a powerful argument for its authenticity. It comes later than the Agapius Arabic version. Also, it is absolutely certain that the Greek text was altered because we have statements from Origen, Jerome, and other ancient writers about what Josephus said and their remarks are at variance from the Greek text but they are not at variance from the Arabic text.
If you presented the argument about the Arabic and Greek texts and which is more likely authentic to any historian or scientist from any other field —be it American history or French history or biology or nuclear physics or any rational field — the Arabic version would win hands down. There is no contest. The great weight of strong sensible argument is on the side of the Arabic version. Your assertions and assumption of some Jewish guilt in this is not reasoning.
Origen also mentions another thing that Josephus said which is not in our Greek text, and this too is a slight piece of evidence in favor of Jewish leaders in Jesus' case. I am sure you would find a way to dismiss it. At least Raymond Brown was more honest than most about this. He actually said that any interpretation of the evidence that would favor Jewish leaders must be ruled out of the discussion. I love his honesty.
As for the Talmud, the evidence there about Jesus is not helpful. The rabbis were just repeating what they heard from Christians. They had no independent evidence. And that is a serious problem with so many sources. If one source tells a lie and many more sources repeat it, that constant repetition does not prove the lie was true.
I am not trying to convince you. I have learned over and over that it is impossible to cure prejudice through the use of reason. You are assuming your conclusions and dismissing any and all evidence that contradicts these conclusions. No matter how complete a case I present, you will declare in one way or another that exonerating evidence for Jewish leaders is inadmissible. I just believe that the voice of reason must be allowed to be heard. Scholars in any other field will ultimately agree that I have the more rational case.
Leon Zitzer
I'll will make this short because it is pointless. You ignore the context of the question about authority following the temple incident. The temple incident was on the mount. That is the point. It did challenge temple authority as they had responsibility for the peace of the entire complex. You dismiss the Talmudic evidence because it is so clearly against you, even though it comes from the Jewish tradition you attempt to defend (And ignore the corroborative evidence in the Jewish-Christian debates of the second century and beyond). You claim that the Jews had no independent evidence about Jesus. That is special pleading; they did interact with him and certainly had a position as my notes about Annas II and James shows. We agree to disagree. Speak for reason all you wish and engage in as much selfelevating rhetoric you wish. These points still stand.
dlb
Here is the report of Eusebius that predates the mss we debated.
When Pilate, on the accusation of our principal men, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him in the beginning did not cease loving him.
This mirrors the longer Josephus Greek version, helping to show its age.
Jerome's version is similar:
And when by the envy of our principal men, Pilate had condemned him to
the cross, yet notwithstanding those who had loved him at first
persevered, for he appeared to them alive on the third day, as the
oracles of the prophets had foretold many of these and other wonderful
things concerning him: and the sect of Christians so named from him are
not extinct to this day.
All of this predates the Arabic version and points to a kind of distribution for the age of this reading that inlcudes mention of Jewish involvement.
Post new comment