There is a considerable manufactured controversy regarding the assertion that Jews were responsible for the crucifixion of Yeshua the Messiah (a.k.a. Jesus the Christ). According to this narrative, anyone who suggests Jews had a role is implicitly an anti-Semite, and comparisons to the Nazis and invocation of the Holocaust are seemingly obligatory in such arguments.
In a recent example, Stephen C. Webster writes in Raw Story that Glenn Beck, in saying that “the Jews murdered the biblical messiah Jesus Christ” was siding “with Nazi propaganda”. Webster argues that, “as the story goes, Jews did not kill Jesus. The Roman empire had him executed after Jewish religious leaders became worked into a frenzy over his ideas—or so the New Testament claims. Armed Roman guards allegedly beat and lashed him, then hung him on a cross until death.” He asserts that “claiming as fact that Jews killed Jesus” indicates one’s adoption of “a meme otherwise endemic to anti-Semitic thought and literature. The implication that Romans were stalwarts of law and reason who merely appeased the bloodthirsty Jewish mob was a vital component of Nazi propaganda.”
Arguments such as this, which deny that Jews had any responsibility for Yeshua’s death (beyond becoming “worked into a frenzy over his ideas”, that is), are common, and even appear from time to time in commentary in the mainstream media from time to time. Neocon pundit Charles Krauthammer, to cite another example, wrote, after the release of the film “The Passion of the Christ”, that it was necessary “to unteach the lesson” of 2000 years “that the Jews were Christ killers.”
Krauthammer similarly invoked Nazi persecution of the Jews in his argument, writing that “The blood libel that this story affixed upon the Jewish people had led to countless Christian massacres of Jews and prepared Europe for the ultimate massacre—6 million Jews systematically murdered in six years—in the heart, alas, of a Christian continent.” Krauthammer didn’t go as far as Webster in denying that, according to the Bible, “Jews did not kill Jesus”; he contented himself with suggesting that the Biblical account “lends itself to interpretation.”
But does it? It might perhaps be useful to examine for a moment what the New Testament actually has to say about it. For that, I’ll turn to David Stern’s Jewish New Testament translation, so that the charge of “anti-Semitism” is less likely to also be levied against the translator, or “anti-Semitic” against the translation.
See, the book of Matthew (Mattityahu) tells how “the head cohanim [priests] and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of Kayafa [Caiaphas] the cohen hagadol [high priest]. They made plans to arrest Yeshua surreptitiously and have him put to death” (26:3-4; emphasis added).
The book of Mark similarly also relates how “the head cohanim and the Torah-teachers were trying to find some way to arrest Yeshua surreptitiously and have him put to death” (14:1; emphasis added).
The book of Luke further explains how “the head cohanim and the Torah-teachers began trying to find some way to get rid of Yeshua, because they were afraid of the people”, and how Judas (Y’hudah) “approached the head cohanim and the Temple guard and discussed with them how he might turn Yeshua over to them. They were pleased and offered to pay him money. He agreed and began looking for a good opportunity to betray Yeshua without the people’s knowledge” (22:2, 4-5).
The book of John (Yochanan) additionally states that “the head cohanim and the P’rushim [Pharisees] called a meeting of the Sanhedrin [religious court; council] and said, ‘What are we going to do?—for this man is performing many miracles. If we let him keep going on this way, everyone will trust in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both the Temple and the nation.’ But one of them, Kayafa, who was cohen gadol that year, said to them, ‘You people don’t know anything! You don’t see that it’s better for you if one man dies on behalf of the people, so that the whole nation won’t be destroyed'” (11:47-50; emphasis added).
It is not clear which the Jewish religious leaders feared more: Yeshua’s rapidly growing following becoming a threat their own authority, or the risk of provoking the Romans into increasing their tyrannical grip on Judea. But what is perfectly clear from the Bible is that they wished Yeshua dead. And they didn’t just wish it—they acted upon their desires and actively saw to it that he was killed.
The Bible story continues, explaining how Y’hudah betrayed Yeshua with a kiss in Gethsamane (Luke 22:52-53), and how Yeshua was then taken before Kayafa and an illegal Sanhedrin, for the purpose of seeking false testimony against him in order to sentence him to death (on the illegality of this Sanhedrin, see Stern’s Jewish New Testament Commentary, p. 100).
Then the Sanhedrin brought Yeshua before Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judea, who initially answered their request for judgment by saying, “You take him and judge him according to your own law”. But not just any punishment would do. The Jews were out for blood, as demonstrated by their response that, “We don’t have the legal power to put anyone to death” (John 18:31).
As Stern explains, “although the Romans permitted the Judeans a measure of self-government, they did not allow the execution of a death sentence; capital punishment was reserved for Rome” (Commentary, p. 207). The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus also recorded how the Jewish leaders were obligated under Roman law to bring accused individuals to the Romans for the execution of a death sentence (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX, Chapter 9).
When Yeshua would not answer the charges the Sanhedrin laid against him, Pilate pulled him aside and asked him “‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ Yeshua answered, ‘Are you asking this on your own, or have other people told you about me?’ Pilate replied, ‘Am I a Jew? Your own nation and head cohanim have handed you over to me; what have you done?'” (John 18:33-35; emphasis added).
When Pilate returned with Yeshua before the Sanhedrin, he declared, “‘I find no fault in this Man.’ But they were the more fierce, saying, ‘He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee to this place.'” When Pilate heard that Yeshua was from Galilee, he sought to relieve himself of responsibility by saying Yeshua should be sent to Herod Antipas, who had jurisdiction there. But Herod, after he and his men had mocked and mistreated Yeshua, sent him back once more to Pilate.
Then Pilate again said to the Sanhedrin, “You brought this man before me on a charge of subverting the people. I examined him in your presence and did not find the man guilty of the crime you are accusing him of. And neither did Herod, because he sent him back to us. Clearly, he has not done anything that merits the death penalty” (Luke 23:13-16; emphasis added).
Shame on you, Jeremy Hammond. Shame! Shame on you for killing all those innocent Iraqi children and women, and the hundred thousand or so retreating Iraqi soldiers. Shame! Don’t try to say that you protested the war. By the logic in your essay on Jesus, you are guilty! You are American and everyone knows the Americans attacked Iraq. Therefore, you are guilty.
In the essay on Jesus, the quotations you cite make extremely clear that the High Priest was afraid to arrest Jesus openly, for fear of the people–the Jewish people. Let me remind you of what you quoted, and I’ll capitalize what you ignored.
: They made plans to arrest Yeshua SURREPTITIOUSLY and have him put to death” (26:3-4; emphasis added).
The book of Mark similarly also relates how “the head cohanim and the Torah-teachers were trying to find some way to arrest Yeshua SURREPTITIOUSLY and have him put to death” (14:1; emphasis added).
The book of Luke further explains how “the head cohanim and the Torah-teachers began trying to find some way to get rid of Yeshua, BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID OF THE PEOPLE”, and how Judas (Y’hudah) “approached the head cohanim and the Temple guard and discussed with them how he might turn Yeshua over to them. They were pleased and offered to pay him money. He agreed and began looking for a good opportunity to betray Yeshua WITHOUT THE PEOPLE’S KNOWLEDGE.” (22:2, 4-5).
The book of John (Yochanan) additionally states that “the head cohanim and the P’rushim [Pharisees] called a meeting of the Sanhedrin [religious court; council] and said, ‘What are we going to do?—for this man is performing many miracles. If we let him keep going on this way, EVERYONE WILL TRUST IN HIM…
I’m afraid that you show a bit of anti-Semitism in ignoriing such clear evidence that the Jews loved Jesus, called him the Son of David, Messiah, and followed him everywhere by the thousands, and that the HIgh Priest therefore was afraid to arrest Jesus in daylight in front of the people. Indeed, we are told clearly in Matthew that “he (Pilate) knew it was out of envy that they (the High Priest and his Sanhedrin–minus Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, of course) had handed Jesus over to him. (Matt. 27.18) In other words, it was not “the Jews” who killed Jesus, as Paul falsely stated. The Jews loved Jesus and proclaimed him the Messiah. It was the jealous High Priest and his Sanhedrin who had Jesus killed because his truth was overcoming their falsity. He was teaching true, non-violent Judaism–not Paul’s “Christianity.”
Well, I guess you are absolved of killing the Iraqis. It was Bush and his lied-to Congress who did it. But the American people, most of whom accepted Bush’s lies, were much less innocent of the death of Iraqis than the Jews were of the death of Messiah Jesus. The High Priest had to hide his evil act from them by acting in darkness, for they loved Jesus and would have protected him. Bush acted in the cold light of day and television screens around the world revealed his despicable acts.
Peace and blessings, Ellen
Ellen, you’re employing a strawman and ad hominem argument. If you think there is evidence in my article to support your accusation that I “show some anti-Semitism”, you’re welcome to quote me on it. You’ll find you won’t be able to quote any evidence of anti-Semitism.
Looking at your logic, you say my “ignoring” “that the Jewish people loved Jesus” is an indication that I’m “anti-Semitic”. This is an asinine argument. As you correctly point out, it’s clear from the very passages I cite that many Jews loved Yeshua, as did the writers of the gospel accounts. That goes without saying. So what? Does that absolve the Jews who had Yeshua’s crucified of responsibility?
It’s also instructive that you don’t accuse me of being “anti-Gentile”. After all, I pointed out that Romans were also responsible for the crime. But this charge doesn’t serve as useful propaganda as the morally and intellectually cowardly charge of “anti-Semitism”, does it?
And how about David Stern, who writes that Jews and Gentiles alike are all responsible for Yeshua’s death? By your argument, he’s a “self-hating Jew”, which is instructive as to how completely asinine your comments are.
Shame on you for your moral and intellectual cowardice! Shame!
That you even bring this up – the very accusation that the Muslims are using in order to kill Jews today, and the very accusation that the Nazis used for the same thing – shows anti-Semitism.
Romans killed Jesus. Jews did not enforce the Roman laws, and were not allowed to either. Why don’t you check out some Jewish history to find out what was and was not allowed the Jews? You’ll find that the Sanhedrin is not even allowed to meet when the “New” testament said they were. These are books written by people under persecution by the Romans who were trying to distance themselves from those “stubborn” Jews.
I do not accept Jesus as God. That he was killed – along with 3.000 other Jews – was sad, but so was the death of the other 2,999. Many, many good and holy Jews were killed at that time, after that time, and during the Holocaust. Why everone is making a big to-do over one person’s death is beyond me. He wasn’t God – he was a decent person. The “miracles” he did were the same as others of the time were doing as well – but one never hears about that, do they?
Paula, try reading the article. Then we’ll talk.
Jesus’ fight was against the oligarchy. Who ran the oligarchy in Judea? The Jews. It made sense that he addressed “The Jews” because there were other people living there at the time, Samaritans, Greeks, Syrians, etc., and they were all being ruled over by the Jews – who were themselves ruled by the oligarchy of the cohanim. Jesus was killed by Jews – specific Jews who felt their hegemony threatened by a revolutionary conception, that all people are deserving of equal dignity, and that no one person has special access to God. Pointing that out does not make one an anti-semite, because only a psychotic would think that identifying the acts of specific individual Jews in the past is equivalent to blaming all Jews living today.
Thanks for the sensible breath of fresh air, eyebeam.
Jews ran Judea? The Romans were passive occupiers? Pontius Pilate – who was so cruel and bloody minded that the Romans called him back to Rome – just sat back and washed his hands? I think not.
Jesus was put to death by Romans. Who nailed him up? Who speared him? Who whipped him? Who stole his clothes? NOT JEWS!!
That some Jews in power didn’t like him and wished him dead? So what? Don’t some people wish particular politicians dead? Does that mean they’re guilty of the death if something – heaven forbid – does happen? No, it doesn’t.
Just to point it out, in Jewish history you will find entire nations that are “psychotic” enough to believe their Christian testament, take it as literal truth (which I do not), and go out and kill “christ-killers.” Last European one was Germany – current edition is the entire Muslim world.
You are totally ignorant of Jesus and his totally kosher Jewish beliefs. Jews have never had a problem with individual access to God. You find that in Christianity – the power of the Pope, priests, etc. You don’t find that in Judaism. Jesus claimed he was messiah, as did others. So what? At that time there were several claimants, and this goes on and on in just about every generation. Last person called the messiah was Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, who died in 1994 (I think). Jews don’t have a problem with someone saying they’re the Messiah. So what?
You need to learn what the political tensions were between the High Priest – put in place by the Romans – and the rabbis was. Check it out. You’ll find that the Jews most definitely did not kill Jesus, and certainly not for any reasons stated in the Christian writings.
They didn’t merely wish him dead; they acted on that desire and helped to ensure that he was, in fact, crucified. Yes, Romans nailed him up. Yes, Romans speared him. Yes, Romans whipped him. Yes, Romans stole his clothes. No, Jews didn’t do any of those things. Nevertheless, who had him arrested as a threat to the peace? Who lobbied Pilate to crucify him? Who chose Barrabas over Jesus when Pilate offered up one prisoner for release, as per custom? Who cried out that Jesus should be put to death, even as Pilate futilely washed his hands of the crime? NOT ROMANS!!
You are repeating Pilate’s vanity in thinking that he could absolve himself of responsibility for the crime by washing his hands. You commit the same error in attempting to absolve the Jews, who were also guilty of the crime, of their own responsibility.
Wow. It’s amazing the sort of self-aware, antisemitic trollop you can get published nowadays.
Gabe, kindly support your claim that the article is “antisemitic” with an argument.
I’m 100% confident you won’t be able to produce one, you moral and intellectual coward! What’s amazing is how so many people, instead of addressing facts and logic, instead resort to asinine ad hominem attacks to make their points.
How does one publish a self-aware, anti-semitic sexually promiscuous woman?
Isn’t it very likely that since the Nicean Council under the Emperoror Constantine wrote the “New” Testament, the original authorship and contents of the “gospels” being long since lost in the mists of time, these Romans who wrote the Bible would seek to present their ancestors in the most favorable light?
In any case, a handful of elite Jews under Roman occupation supposedly having asked the leading empire of the day to murder a man who may or may not have existed has precious little bearing on the crimes of Israeli colonialism today.
Considering that there’s no evidence for that suggestion from historical scholarship on the texts, no, I’d say it’s not “likely” that the story given of the Sanhedrin’s role in Yeshua’s crucifixion is a complete fabrication. Also, given the rather less-than-flattering portayal of the Romans that actually exists in the New Testament, I would also point out that this argument is absurd on its face. If the texts were so altered to paint Romans “in the most favorable light”, the fabricators sure didn’t do a very good job of it. You’ve also got Josephus acknowledging that role, and one certainly cannot say of him that he did so in order to portray the Romans in the best light.
As for the bearing on the crimes of Israel today, I believe the lesson is perfectly relevant, as I discussed in the article.
The Lubavitch Hasidim are franker in their Talmudic interpretations than other forms of Talmudic Judaism that seek to obfuscate what is actually taught. The Lubavitch emphasise that the Talmud teaches Jesus was indeed the bastard son of a Roman soldier and a whore, who used magic and is rotting in hell, having been righteously put to death by the heroic Sanhedrin. They teach that all non-Jewish religions must be eliminated and the goyim must – under pain of death – be subjected to a religion more suitable to the herd animals – the Noahide Laws, which, rather scroogily, would place the death penalty on celebrants of such evil rites as Christmas. While apologists such as the ADL and others claim that such notions are anti-Semitic delusions and malicious “forgeries” anyone can look up the Lubavicth teachings – in English – on the the Hasidic websites.
The relevance of such teachings is that, unlike white racist versions such as Aryan Nations – they have much influence in Israel and in the USA, the Lubavitch rebbe the late Schneerson, having been honoured by US Congress as a great educator. The Lubavitch are awaiting his reincarnation to return as the messiah to rule the world, with the global capital in Jerusalem – a rebuilt Temple where the Al Asqa mosque is now located… somewhat problematic for the rest of the world!
The Lubavitch teach that they are upholding the doctrines of the Pharisees. While the frankest and most public expression of Talmudism, the more cautious variations are responsible for such notions as Israel being Godly-ordained to embrace borders stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, meaning that there can be no genuine peace in the Middel East while these types hold such infleunce over Israel, USA and elsewhere.
The Pharisees of Jesus’ time herded and manipulated the Jewish masses,as did the Medfeval rabbis – according to Israel Shahak, and as do their present day spiritual heirs, the extremist factions of Zionists and rabbis.
In fact, there is a U.S. law on the books honoring Lubavitch that recognizes and endorses the Noahide Laws, the 1st amendment to the Constitution notwithstanding. I’ve forgotten the legislation’s number, but one might find it on Google.
So the Lubavitchers got some hateful writings from the Talmud and published them. You’ll find all kinds of arguments pro and con in the Talmud – you can’t just take it out of context. You’ll also find writings that Jesus didn’t really exist. The Talmud does not have a single approach to just about anything. Lubavitchers are racists and bigots. The goyim have their share of them, so why wouldn’t the Jews also have the same kinds of people? People are people, there is very little difference in nations and races when it comes to bad behavior.
However, blaming an entire nation ad infinitum for the faults of a few is just wrong. Always has been, always will be.
House Joint Resolution 582 (1986) designates April 20th “Education Day, USA” in honour of Rebbe Schneerson, referrign to “the rich tradition of the Seven Noahide Laws.”
Pres. George W Bush’s proclamation of 1991, Joint Resolution to designate March 26 as “Edcuation Day USA” was enacted with the invovlement of the American Friends of Chabad Lubavitch, “to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws.”
The Congressional Resolution claims that the Seven Noahide Laws have been the “bedrock of society since the dawn of civilization,” and pays tribute to Schneerson as a “great spiritual leader.”
Pres. Bush in 2002 issued a congressional medal in honour of Schneerson, making June 28th a “Day of International Tribute” (remember to mark that one on your callendar).
The Noahide Laws would replace the Ten Commandments for the goyim, and of course any reference to Jesus would be outlawed on pain of death, come the messianic dispensation.
Thanks, Kerry.
The writers of the original “gospels” intended to curry favor with the population of Rome and therefore emphasized that their main conflict was with Jews, not Rome. Further, It is “absurd” to think that the framers/writers of these “gospels”, Constantine and the Council of Nicea, would not have made sure that the responsibility of the Roman Empire (which they, too, served) for the killing of Jesus Christ was minimized.
The Bible (and the Torah and the Koran, etc.) says a great deal of things that are totally ludicrous and which only the most credulous mind could countenance.
In any case, whether or not Jesus existed, whether or not the Jewish priesthood of ancient Jerusalem played a more or less decisive role in his execution by Roman authorities, whether the “gospels”‘ depiction of the life of Jesus or the account given by Josephus are true or not has absolutely no bearing on real life today and explains today’s Israeli criminality not one iota. To bring “Christ-killer” mythology into anti-Zionism is stupid to say the least.
I recommend this article on who killed Jesus.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2011/who-killed-jesus
If they intended to “curry favor” with the Romans, they sure did a horrible job of it. Was Josephus also trying to “curry favor” with Romans when he noted the responsibility of the Jewish religious leadership in Yeshua’s crucifixion? There’s simply no evidence for this thesis.
It’s one thing to say the gospel accounts are not a depiction of real historical events (add Josephus’ work to that). But to suggest that the gospels give any other account than the one they do give is, well, just asinine, as I’m sure you’ll agree. I didn’t argue that the accounts given explain Israel’s criminality today. I merely observed the similar trend that continues of the futility of attempting to wash one’s hands of the consequences of one’s own actions. As for “Christ-killer” “mythology”, if you read the article, you’ll note that that “mythology” does not direct that characterization at Jews alone, but also at the Romans, and, for that matter, all of mankind — the people of Yeshua’s own tribe being no exception.
I would also observe that the article you linked to acknowledges that the Jewish religious leadership “decided that the best political move was to preserve the peace by arresting Jesus and having him executed.”
Of course, the assertion that this was done “to preserve the peace” is their own opinion, and contradicted by the gospel accounts from which they draw that conclusion.
The article concludes: “Assigning responsibility to an entire group of people, whether the Jews or the Romans, is stereotyping, oversimplifying, and false.”
I 100% agree. In fact, you’ll notice I emphasized that same exact point in my article.
I really think everyone has missed the point on this one …Do any of you know how much Yeshua / Jesus loves each of us. How about reading His own words below from John 10: 11-18! Stop blaming the Jews and the Romans and look in the mirror! The one you see is the reason He laid down his life.
“ I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. … I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.”
When people say “[the?] Jews killed Jesus”, they’re typically not prepared to answer two (sets of) questions:
1. what does it mean “to kill”, and who did it? The piercers and pounders? The conspirers? The facilitators? The silent complicitors?
2. do you mean “THE Jews”, or “SOME Jews”?
Bravo to you for addressing both questions by acknowledging that responsibility is a shaded/shared thing, with the burden usually falling on many shoulders to varying degrees. I wish you’d stopped there.
But then, observe your transition from specific to general to specific:
specific: “[some] Jews must take some responsibility for the death of Jesus” (this is explicit in your title)
general: “we must accept the burden of our responsibility”
specific: “[some] Jews must take some responsibility for crimes in Gaza etc.”
Are we to believe that it’s just coincidence that the Jews are your target in both specifics? You could’ve respecified to nearly *anything* else, or nothing else, and if you had, the takeaway would’ve been, “[some] Jews had an oft-denied role in the death of Jesus, and we should use this as a lesson to accept our individual responsibilities”.
Instead, the takeaway is: “Jews have a habit of ducking responsibility, and here are two examples bracketing two thousand years”. (And the “any more than could Pontius Pilate cleanse himself” and “nor can the American people wash off the blood” appear to be plausible-deniability escape hatches. I don’t buy them for an instant.)
At the very best, targeting the Jews on both ends comes off as boneheaded at best (“somehow I didn’t notice that I was doing that”), unspeakable at worst, and incredibly catty in the middle (“I’m p.o.’d about the Jewish-Israeli treatment of Gaza, so here’s dirt in the Jewish eye”).
1) “to kill”, as in “to be responsible for causing the death of”.
2) Literally, some Jews. Metaphorically, for the purposes of the New Testament’s spiritual teachings, all Jews and all Gentiles.
If that you disagree with any logical corollary of my article, you are welcome to point out any error in fact or logic I’ve made.
Jeremy R. Hammond, I have read everything in your article and your statements. All I can see is you hated morality deep within your heart, and you suggest everything said in the bright side as cowardice; therefore, I will not hold back anything against you at all.
You are making an ignorant and aggressive argument without adapting the deep understanding of situations for both sides. From what I have seen, you relied most of your information based on what bible said, and any external information you used to back up are really lame and does not fit for constuctive criticism. In other words, you are doing nothing but defaming and causing destruction to others.
You may say what you thinked about, but you have no rights to assume who they are and what they are doing, since you are not the part of the history.
It is true that many people stand high-class in religions had misuse their authorities over in order to protect their status, and the innocent ones are those who believe in morality and just follow with rules and instructions, as to adapt to the wisdom of life.
Let’s ignore the title of this article and hear my answer to everyone’s statement: “Power is everything”. Yes, those with power had every rights to change anything, regardless of how others think. Even in the world of Democrats, there is no way that everything can be fair and equal, there will always be someone to influence you actions and thoughts. Those with power wins, those do no lose.
“Strong is the beautiful, weak is the ugly”, my friends.
Revolutionist, if you meant me to glean some kind of meaning out of your comment, I must inform you that you were not successful.
I see from the splenetic and unsavory KR Bolton’s standard Jew-hatred rants above that he seems to have some objection to the Noahide Laws. Can’t imagine why, since Jesus himself would necessarily have endorsed them. Here they are, from Wikipedia:
Prohibition of Idolatry
Prohibition of Murder
Prohibition of Theft
Prohibition of Sexual immorality
Prohibition of Blasphemy
Prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive
Establishment of law courts
As KRB is said also to be, in bizarre combination, a Satanist and involved with Ordo Sinestra Vivendi and paganism, I can see his objection to the ones on blasphemy and idolatry and perhaps on eating flesh from a living animal. So he is a wacko, albeit a well-degreed one, and I’m interested that you are on first-name terms with him. Are you glad to be known by the company you keep?
Spare us your ignorant ad hominem and strawman arguments, Alan.
Jeremy: A very good subject and well written. Having studied Scripture for years and years this subject is not as simple as we might imagine. What you say is true “Every human being makes choices, both individually and as a society, and those choices have consequences—often bloody, with the deaths of innocents.” But according to Scripture there is a big difference between personal responsibility and state, corporate and community responsibility. This is made perfectly clear in the following passage of Scripture which would seem to contradict the sixth commandment. “”Then came Amalek and fought with Israel at Rephidim. And Moses said to Joshua, ‘Choose for us men, and go out, fight with Amalek; tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in my hand.’ So Joshua did as Moses told him, and fought with Amalek; and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. Whenever Moses held up his hand, Israel prevailed; and whenever he lowered his hand, Amalek prevailed. But Moses’ hands grew weary; so they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat upon it, and Aaron and Hur held up his hands, one on one side, and the other on the other side; so his hands were steady until the going down of the sun. And Joshua mowed down Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword.” (Exodus Ch 17)”
But it makes sense if you consider the following passages of Scripture:
They asked him, ‘Teacher, we know that you speak and teach rightly, and show no partiality, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?’ But he perceived their craftiness, and said to them, ‘Show me a coin. Whose likeness and inscription has it?’ They said, ’Caesars’ He said to them, ‘Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and to God the things that are Gods.’ (Luke Ch 20)
The things that are Caesar’s: It is clear that when God gave us dominion over Creation we are entitled to organise and control access to it for our benefit. However, even though Scripture deals comprehensively with individual responsibility, it scrupulously avoids the area of state, corporate and community responsibility even in relation to the Law of Moses except to say that power in this area comes directly from God. Pilate said to Jesus: “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?” Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.”(John Ch 19). The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?” ……. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” … But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest…” (John Ch 8).
The things that are God’s: God said “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” “…God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis Ch 1). “Know that the LORD is God! It is he that made us, and we are his; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.” (Psalm 100) Scripture therefore makes clear that from the beginning God retained ownership rights in respect of human beings for Himself alone. It follows that it is contrary to God’s Law to appropriate to ourselves ownership rights in respect of human beings or the process through which human beings are made or to deny that God made us male and female.
I think that while the Bible told you the Jews killed Jesus, the Bible told you wrong. The synoptic gospels, which I infer you and David Stern take as objective truth, are not reliable as history. They certainly don’t agree on the “facts” they allege. They are attempts to persuade and justify a theological position; are not contemporaneous with the events they descrie, nor original; they derive from a tradition where objective truth as we understand the concept is not so important; and they have been highly edited, such as for theological reconciliation. I’m sure you know this, even though you rely heavily on their validity for your points.
Your piece, however, utterly ignores the elephant in the room: This is the serious crime committed by Jesus in “cleansing the Temple” of the vendors and moneychangers. All three synoptics attest to this crime; John does also, but he dislocates it in time, and his narrative makes less sense as a result. The vendors and moneychangers had every legal right to be there, since the temple authorities set the rules. The vendors and moneychangers were there to facilitate the offerings system, to allow the “business” of the Temple to proceed smoothly, despite great crowds from everywhere, yet according to the strictures of Jewish law. At the time of these doings Jesus was just a preacher from the sticks of Galilee, one like many others — even his followers did not yet hail him as the “Mashiakh”, let alone as divine (except in John, the latest, most embellished, and most “evolved” of the four). Thus Jesus committed a serious crime just before Passover. He certainly wronged the vendors and the moneychangers, and we do not read of restitution for their evident losses. He wronged the pilgrims who were by his actions deprived of their opportunity to arrange Temple sacrifices at Passover – which is why they traveled to Jerusalem in the first place, incurring cost, etc. And he wronged the Temple authorities, because he messed up their legitimate business as well as their obligations to their adherents to provide this facility and to maintain the Temple as a holy place. Don’t believe me? Go cause a riot over the candle-selling at the Vatican and see what the Swiss Guards do to you, even today.
Since these crimes are attested by all three synoptics and the attestation does not reflect well on Jesus, we should take it as historically accurate. There can be no doubt that the wronged vendors complained to the Temple authorities and they in turn to the Romans about this rioter and destroyer of property. It’s remarkable that Jesus wasn’t killed on the spot by those he wronged. Again, taking the synoptics’ account as reasonably accurate, Jesus was arrested within a day or so, at night, by a valid posse; and at least one of Jesus’ associates was “armed and dangerous”. Whether it was a posse only of the Temple guards or of them and Roman soldiers, this seems a proper exercise of the police power of the government. The Temple authorities and ultimately Pilate himself were responsible for maintaining civil order, and Passover was one of the few times when Roman troops would have been in Jerusalem, to maintain order among the crowds of always-fractious Jews, not only locals but pilgrims from all over the known world. Riots would not have played well in Pilates’ reports to Rome.
The straightdope.com article cited above is quite good, but while it notes the property crime (and its potential for riot), it does not go beyond the mentioning and gives more weight to the political question of whether or not Jesus claimed to be king. Even though the synoptics agree on that political side, it is not necessary that it be true; it is sufficient grounds for Jesus’ arrest, trial, and execution that he committed the crimes against the property of the vendors and moneychangers, and against the civil order, by this riotous vandalism. Once he was dead, executed like a common criminal, his devastated followers needed a better story, and the preaching/miracles/antagonism-to-the-establishment as given in the gospels has served very well over the centuries. The writers simply hid the elephant with lots and lots of obfuscatory text, which made it easier to shift the scenario to a novel one, more flattering to Jesus and his believers, and more damning of “The Jews”. Even you and David Stern were taken in.
Whether one accords them with “objective truth” or not, Jews were responsible for Yeshua’s death according to the gospels. If you think they are not historically accurate, you are welcome to explain what historical evidence to the contrary you base your belief upon.
Cleansing the temple was not the crime. On the contrary, charging templegoers usury was the crime, a violation of the Torah.
You argue on one hand that the gospels aren’t historically accurate, with regard to Jews being responsible for Yeshua’s death. But then on the other hand you argue that if all three synoptic gospels attest to something, then it is historically accurate, with regard to Yeshua cleansing the temple. You can’t have it both ways, and your second argument defeats your first argument, since all three synoptic gospels attest to the Jews being responsible for having Yeshua put to death.
JRH: If you think they are not historically accurate, you are welcome to explain what historical evidence to the contrary you base your belief upon.
AS: There are real scholars who have demolished the historicity of these books, I am just an admirer of their breadth and insights, one who attempts to apply what he can absorb of their contributions. My quite meager skills are in other areas, tending to the quantitative. Consider the two synoptic “genealogies” of Jesus. They cannot both belong to the same human population, by odds of about 2 billion to one. At least one is false, invented. And it doesn’t matter which: if one is falsified, all is suspect for the same motive. Actually both certainly are, invented long post-hoc to “fulfill” the requirement that the Mashiakh be Davidic – you see the same sort of thing in Islam, where things attributed to Mohammed are “proven” by “listing” who heard it from whom. The time from David to Jesus is real and well-known: ~1000 years. Compute the average length of the generations in the two lists by simple arithmetic, and they differ by so much that they are not from the same universe of humans as proven by a simple statistical computation (I think I used the t-statistic). Assume a normal distribution, and pick any reasonable generational mean. A-historical, statistical impossibility, phonied up for theological purposes.
JRH: Cleansing the temple was not the crime. On the contrary, charging templegoers usury was the crime, a violation of the Torah.
AS: You simply do not know what you are talking about, you are flailing: the vendors, etc., were there legally, Jesus had no business interfering. What is your evidence of “usury”, and in what sense are you using the term? The Torah prohibitions on usury are against charging interest on loans, have nothing to do with sales of offerings or “cambio” transactions. Arguments over price, even if valid, do not justify wanton lawbreaking or interference with legitimate business (and legitimate ritual). Suspend your credulity for a few moments, put yourself in the position of any of the other actors in the play. Would you “attaboy” Jesus as he messes up all your stuff, the perfectly legitimate business you were conducting, during your busy season? If you are honest, you must acknowledge that many were wronged and would want his butt hanged (under the rougher justice of those days). As I suggested, go try and mess up the votive candles at the Vatican, and see if there is no crime alleged. Have you ever pissed off the Swiss Guards? I have, and they do not like it: threaten arrest, imply force, and use force.
JRH: But then on the other hand you argue that if all three synoptic gospels attest to something, then it is historically accurate, with regard to Yeshua cleansing the temple. You can’t have it both ways, and your second argument defeats your first argument, since all three synoptic gospels attest to the Jews being responsible for having Yeshua put to death.
AS: I’m just borrowing a technique I read in some of the critical texts by “real scholars”; clearly neither of us meets that high standard. That is, the credibility of something attributed to Jesus is greater if it is unfavorable as well as multiply attested. I think the property crimes meet that criterion, even when varnished (although relabeling or redefining things as Christians have done — “cleansing”, “usury” — can whitewash them to moral unrecognizability). The same cannot be said as readily about something that is perceived favorably and multiply attested (the political crimes). However, let’s agree that both have the same truth value. I will concede that the Temple Authorities wanted him convicted by the Romans for crimes alleged that had political content, if you will concede that he committed property crimes.
Seems I need to clarify my previous request [clarification in brackets]: If you think they [the gospels] are not historically accurate [with regard to the responsibility of the Jewish religious leadership in Yeshua’s crucifixion], you are welcome to explain what historical evidence to the contrary you base your belief upon.
Again, money-changers charging temple-goers usury to exchange coin for the temple tax was a clear violation of the Torah. “Do not charge your brother interest on money, food, or anything that can earn interest.” — Deuteronomy 23:19
I don’t need to concede anything, having already pointed out that by the same reasoning with which you argue that Jesus broke the law, you must also conclude that the Jews had him killed.
Thanks for posting my comment on KRB’s objection to the Noahide laws. I regret my overreaction to KRB. I have a couple of comments on points you made in reply to other posters.
Hammond: I’d say it’s not “likely” that the story given of the Sanhedrin’s role in Yeshua’s crucifixion is a complete fabrication.
On the evidence independent of the gospels it is likelier than not a complete fabrication. The Sanhedrin, Small or Great, could not have taken any of the actions ascribed to it (as noted in part by Paula in a post above). http://www.oztorah.com/2010/03/the-trial-of-jesus/ This article lays out the laws and practices governing the Sanhedrin, shows why and how the gospel stories about a Sanhedrin trial could not have been true. Tractate Sanhedrin is available in English for you to read.
Hammond: Was Josephus also trying to “curry favor” with Romans when he noted the responsibility of the Jewish religious leadership in Yeshua’s crucifixion? There’s simply no evidence for this thesis.
Not every text of Josephus has this ascription of responsibility to the Jewish leadership. According to Shlomo Pines, an old Arabic version of the Testimonium dating from the 10th C. reads: “At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.”
Given the history of the past two millennia, neither Muslim nor Christian copyists would have omitted this unfavorable reference implicating the Jewish leadership, so it is at least as reasonable to assume that the “responsibility” wording was interpolated as that it was original. Josephus, who was a currier of favor with the Romans, didn’t need to curry it by being nice to the extremely-not-nice Pilate, who was by the time Josephus wrote, discredited. In the gospels it’s the other way around: the gospels, especially John, utterly whitewash Pilate and make “The Jews” the unmitigated heavies – so who was currying?
Again, your argument defeats itself. You can’t cherry-pick what you like that supports your belief from the Bible and discard what you don’t like that is contrary to your belief. See my previous comment.
Yes, you are correct, there is no evidence that Josephus was trying to “curry favor” with the Romans. I already made that point myself above. Glad we agree.
As for Pines, from Wikipedia: “However, Pines’ theory, that Agapius’ text largely reflects what Josephus wrote, has not been widely accepted. The fact that even the title of Josephus’s work is inaccurate suggests that Agapius is paraphrasing his source, which may explain the discrepancies with the Greek version.[27] Agapius explicitly claims that he used a lost, older Syriac chronicle by Theophilus of Edessa (d. 785) to write his chronicle. This suggests that his Testimonium is also a paraphrase of a Syriac version of the Testimonium.[28]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Jeremy of course is right. As I said in my comment above “Pilate said to Jesus: “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?” Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.”(John Ch 19).
If you believe Scripture then the greater sin was apportioned to the Jews who handd Jesus over to Pilate.
JRH: … If you think they [the gospels] are not historically accurate [with regard to the responsibility of the Jewish religious leadership in Yeshua’s crucifixion], you are welcome to explain what historical evidence to the contrary you base your belief upon.
AS: Thank you for the clarification. Without it I would have had to cite the “census” and the “requirement” that Joseph go to Bethlehem, both of which are fiction used along with the phony genealogies to reconcile the Nazareth birth of Jesus with the Davidic requirements of the Mashiakh; or the massacre of the children by Herod, equally fiction and all of them proof of the historical inaccuracy of the gospels. Relieved of that need, I reiterate that the independent historical document, the Talmud, and in particular Tractate Sanhedrin, shows the fabrication of the story you are concerned with, the impossibility of the scenario there described, hence its historical inaccuracy. Again I commend its reading to you, it is available in hardcopy and probably online as well.
JRH: As for Pines, from Wikipedia: “However, Pines’ theory, that Agapius’ text largely reflects what Josephus wrote, has not been widely accepted. The fact that even the title of Josephus’s work is inaccurate suggests that Agapius is paraphrasing his source, which may explain the discrepancies with the Greek version.[27] Agapius explicitly claims that he used a lost, older Syriac chronicle by Theophilus of Edessa (d. 785) to write his chronicle. This suggests that his Testimonium is also a paraphrase of a Syriac version of the Testimonium.[28]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
AS: A principle I said I was following included the greater presumptive validity of retained adverse text. Agapius was a Christian bishop of the 10th C. Theophilus, Agapius’ source, was a Maronite Christian of the 8th C who did translations from Greek. Those dates, by which Christology was long settled and “heretical” views expunged, would certainly be quite late to have paraphrased out of a document every Christian theological element by a Christian bishop, without comment, dontcha think? “May explain the discrepancies”…? Most implausible. The more reasonable conclusion is that they were not there at all in the Syriac version he translated or even the Greek one Theophilus relied on to create the Syriac. Once again, your desire to believe at all costs appears to have clouded your intellect, your critical faculties.
JRH: Again, money-changers charging temple-goers usury to exchange coin for the temple tax was a clear violation of the Torah. I fail to see how you can deny that.
AS: I do deny that and will show you how: First, I asked you for what you mean by “usury”, you have not replied. The word does not appear in the Temple ruckus stories of Mark, Matt, Luke, or John, therefore it was not alleged by them and there is no basis for you to raise it. It requires contortion of the mind to apply “usury” to any of the (cash) transactions involved. The word “usury” does appear in one anecdote unrelated to the Temple fracas, in Matt 25, and in that anecdote the conventional definition, charging excessive interest (or maybe any interest at all) on a loan, the sense in which it is used in the Torah, seems to apply. You seem to be twisting the meaning of the word, mis-using it exactly for the purpose I have suggested: to whitewash over the truth of the genuine property crimes committed by Jesus, to obfuscate by clever mis-application of words – in other words, by sophistry. If anyone but you were doing it, I’d judge that to be propaganda of the worst sort.
JRH: I don’t need to concede anything, having already pointed out the fallacy of your argument. Again, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t just cherry-pick what you like to support one belief while dismissing what you don’t like that contradicts another belief you hold.
AS: Please read my explanation again: It’s not cherrypicking, I am applying the methods used by competent modern scholars. One situation, the Temple fracas, is made more plausible by its inclusion despite its potentially adverse implication (which I have drawn distinctly), but the other is not made more plausible for its inclusion, because it fits the scenario of the playwrights – John for a most telling example does not need the “cleansing”, nor does he use it, in conjunction with his rendering of the activities that led to the arrest of Jesus. That is, for the Christological story of the Big Bad Jews, the temple riot is not necessary. So, to include it runs a risk, and the risk if that a non-credulous reader (moi, e.g.) will realize that the property crime was sufficient to explain all of the arrest, trial, and execution; the Big Bad Jews story is unnecessary. This is not to say that there might also have been annoyance of some authority or other at the preaching of Jesus – but in the climate of the time, they did not necessarily rise to more than irritation, nor did they necessarily require a response as riot, scrambling the funds of the moneychangers, disruption of the ritual business of the Temple, etc., would definitely have done.
At the risk of opening yet another point of discussion with you: For you to accuse me of cherry-picking is to project 2000 years of regular Christian practice onto this unworthy Jew; but I’m honored to be so numbered among the true masters. The very fundamental basis of Christianity, the “virgin birth”, rests heavily on the mis-translation of Isaiah 7:14 – first the cherry was plucked out of its context, as any sensible reading of all of Isaiah 7 in the original Hebrew shows, and then the word “almah” cannot mean “bio-virgin”, as any careful study will show of all of the translations of “almah” (and its male counterpart, “elem”) and “betulah” (for which there is of course no male Hebrew equivalent). Also, the “man of sorrows” parts of Isaiah 52 are likewise misconstrued, misused, and mistranslated by plucking that cherry from the context. So, I am honored to be ranked by you among the august cherrypickers.
Look, Alan, I don’t know how to make this any clearer. Your argument defeats itself for its logical inconsistency. You argue on one hand that since the account of Yeshua cleansing the temple is in all three synoptic gospels, therefore, it is historically accurate. Yet you argue on the other hand that the account of how the Jewish religious leadership plotted to have Yeshua killed is a historical fabrication. And yet, by your own logic, since it is in all three synoptic gospels, it is accurate. That is the definition of cherry-picking.
The temple tax was due in Tyrian coin and not Roman coin with its heathen markings. The money changers were just like foreign exchange bankers today: they charged interest (usury) to change the coins for temple goers. This is logically obvious: hence “den of thieves”. If they hadn’t been charging usury, they wouldn’t have been regarded by Yeshua as “thieves”.
JRH: Cherrypicking.
AS: Read my distinction again: What I say is that the Temple ruckus is likelier historical for the repetition because it is open to reflecting badly on Jesus’ behavior; it does not fit. The Big Bad Jews story is no likelier historical for the repetition because it is part of the Christology myth; it fits. Occam’s razor says the simpler explanation of all the facts is the likelier, and my take is far, far simpler and does not violate the Talmudic evidence.
JRH: The temple tax was due in Tyrian coin and not Roman coin with its heathen markings. The money changers were just like foreign exchange bankers today: they charged interest (usury) to change the coins for temple goers. This is logically obvious: hence “den of thieves”. If they hadn’t been charging usury, they wouldn’t have been regarded by Yeshua as “thieves”.
AS: 1. A) If by the “temple tax” you mean the half-shekel, this was due and payable by the first of Nisan, so it would have played no role in this scenario, which occurred in mid-Nisan. The Temple tax was due in half-shekels. Reference is Tractate Shekalim Chapter 1, Mishna (a) Footnote in the Jewish Virtual Library edition. Whatever the moneychangers did on 12 or 13 Nisan, it was not collecting the Temple tax, and seems likely was related to the Temple offerings, a big business.
B) The same Tractate also provides insight in to the large scale of the business of offerings, which did play a role in the Temple ruckus by Jesus. There arose a rabbinical dispute over who, the Temple treasury or the contractor, bears the cost of spoilage of the birds contracted to be supplied for offerings. One side said contractors, if forced to absorb the cost, would have refused to furnish birds for offerings, because there were very many birds used, and it was burdensome to properly care for them. The alternative view seems to have said they should account for the loss in their bids and absorb the damages, and mitigate them by sale for other purposes (sounds very market-oriented). Thus it may be seen that for Jesus to have disrupted the trade, it was no trivial matter; indeed, it was a crime, it affected the contractual relations between the bird-suppliers (wholesalers?), the vendors (retailers?), and the Temple treasury. Who paid for the birds damaged or lost in the riot?
2. Bankers do not charge interest to convert currencies, rather they charge fees; but I am sure you know this, so am puzzled why you insistently misuse the word. The definition of “interest” inherently involves the time-value of money, and usury involves excessive interest – or maybe any charge of interest — on a loan of money for a period of time. The transactions involved in the Temple scenario did not, so far as the gospels indicate, involve payments over time, nor any loans, but were straightforward cash transactions, either in the exchange of currencies or the sale of offerings. I am sure you know this also. Interest or excessive interest on debt, and only that, is the meaning of the word “usury” as used in the Torah. Are you, like the caterpillar in Alice, able to have words mean whatever you want.
So, there is a rate of exchange, assuming we are dealing with foreign currencies and not something else altogether, and a fee atop that based (I think) on the size of the transaction plus whatever else the damned cambio can extract from the hapless traveler, which is too often me. The various Roman, Greek, Persian, and many other types of coins in circulation had some sort of relative value to one another, and there must have been some relationship to the shekel, albeit perhaps a dynamic one. The moneychanger or cambio operator must charge a fee above the nominal exchange rate, or he is going to starve himself and his family to death and not be able to pay the rent for his space – business requires profit. Prices for anything may change with economic conditions or with the season – Passover was “high season”– and I know you are not so sheltered as to think otherwise.
I certainly empathize with Jesus’ unhappiness with the rates offered by the moneychangers; I am generally, as he was, unhappy with the rate offered at airport cambios, and I then try my luck at another one or a bank ATM. I don’t know what his option was back then, alas no ATMs. But exacting a fee to change money from one currency to another is certainly not usury; your usage is entirely wrong, then as now, and it is at variance with the gospels themselves, none of which allege usury.
For Jesus to be so angry with the moneychangers (and with the dovesellers – how does a doveseller do “usury”?) as to call them nasty names is nothing; but to mess up their tables and cause monetary and business-interruption damages is a crime. Anger management was called for, but I don’t think those courses had been invented yet. Jesus failed to control his anger, rioted, and was arrested for it, etc. At that point, of course, nobody “knew” he “was God”; he was at very best, a Master Preacher and something of a miracle worker, if you believe that sort of stuff. But not yet “God”. So, what business did he have doing what he did? Answer: none. And there was no usury. You should consider avoiding such an inflammatory choice of words, since one possible purpose that can be imputed to your choice is to invoke the ”Shylock” image. But that would fall into the trap you started your article with, so I won’t.
In conclusion, you appear to be confusing or conflating the concepts of “profit” with “usury”. I’m sure you understand the difference, but you seem not to be willing to make this valid distinction.
1) Alan, your first argument, that anything existing in all three synoptic gospels is historically accurate, defeated itself, since all three record the Jews as being responsible for Yeshua’s death. Now you have revised that argument, effectively saying that anything from the gospels that supports the notion that there was an attempt to misleadingly fabricate a “Big Bad Jews” story is historically correct while anything that contradicts it is a historical fabrication, is the fallacy of petitio principii. You are begging the question, assuming as fact the proposition to be proven. There is certainly a fabrication here: it’s your notion that the authors of the gospels set out to fabricate a “Big Bad Jews” story. What nonsense.
2) Call it what you like. David Stern: “Pilgrims in Jerusalem turned to merchants for the animals and pigeons they needed for sacrifices; and they had recourse to foreign-exchange dealers because the Temple tax … was payable in Tyrian rather than Roman coin, since the latter had heathen markings…. Yeshua is fully aware of this but objects to the use of the Temple grounds for these purposes; the Talmud includes curses on the Sadducean priests for their greed. The restrictions placed on business in the Temple area created monopolistic profits for the merchants and revenue for the authorities.”
JRH: 1) [Y]our first argument, that anything existing in all three synoptic gospels is historically accurate …
AS: I apologize for the length of my responses. It takes more words to argue a position than to dismiss the opposition. I certainly never intended to say that the mere threefold repetition proves historicity ipso facto. As you felt the need to clarify, so did I; but you still seem not to have read it carefully, for if you did I’m sure you would not simply be repeating your incorrect assertion that I am “cherrypicking”. Please read my distinction yet again: Four times is the story of the Temple fracas repeated (thrice almost identically, once separated in time from the context of the others’ for that author’s own purposes). Because the story is interpretable adversely to Jesus, therefore it is likelier to be more-or-less historically accurate, since there is no percentage in repeating the story otherwise, nor even to including it at all. Matt, Mark, and Luke could have totally ignored it and started their story as John did, with the BBJs. Moreover, because the Temple ruckus is entirely sufficient to explain the whole story of arrest, trial, and execution as common criminal without twisting the Talmud or external history (Pilate’s true character, not the gospel whitewash), or common sense, it satisfies the Occam’s razor test of likelihood. I do need to thank you for your insistence, because it forced me to read Shekalim and Megillah (I’d already read Sanhedrin), and John much more closely; but all these have only strengthened my conviction.
You, however, rather than respond to my reasonable, reasoned, and documented discussion, dismiss it as nonsense and question-begging, and never really address such sensible points as the reasonably likely reactions of the wronged merchants. Your non-responses are merely smokescreens for your own unwillingness to address the Occam’s razor solution to the “mystery”. I begged no question – really it is you who does the waltzing-around. So, instead of calling my position “nonsense”, that the BBJ story (on which the authors cannot agree nearly as closely as they do on the Temple fracas) is unsupported by the Talmud and the known character of Pilate, perhaps you could explain this: Why would there have been no objection from the Temple authorities nor from the merchants to the ruckus caused by Jesus, to which ruckus there is no lack of internally consistent attestation? And why there would have been no reaction whatever by the cruel Pilate, who would normally brook no such breach of the civil order among his fractious subjects? And why instead would there have been a stilted, highly contrived scenario involving a “crime” that was not even a capital crime to the Jews, let alone to the Romans, but one that has all sorts of literal quotations and facets, despite that none of the storytellers was witness and could possibly have known of them absent a stenographic record disclosed under FOIA?
As to the BBJ story you (and everyone else, I must admit) focuses on either in assertion or in rebuttal, I have told you very clearly why the BBJ story does not wash, since it does not square at all with the independent, roughly contemporaneous text of the Talmud tractates Sanhedrin, Shekalim, and Megillot. The Jews, after all, are a legalistic, even law-ridden bunch, from which Christianity has liberated David Stern and you. So they must have followed those laws as written in the Talmud, and not ignored dozens of them as required in the BBJ story, is that not right? Kindly explain to me why, in your opinion, BBJ does hang together, despite the internal inconsistencies and the outright contradiction with external sources, better than the property-and-risk-of-riot crime which has none of those flaws.
JRH: 2) Call it what you like. David Stern: “Pilgrims in Jerusalem turned to merchants for the animals and pigeons they needed for sacrifices; and they had recourse to foreign-exchange dealers because the Temple tax … was payable in Tyrian rather than Roman coin, since the latter had heathen markings….
AS: First, who is David Stern that he should be relied upon to the degree that you must throw away your own reading, reason, and good sense? He is, after all, in the bu$iness of being a “Messianic Jew”, one who crosses the theological red line and believes in the deity of Jesus. {That ain’t Jewish, and it ain’t what Jesus’ original followers believed. It is of course quite permissible to believe that Jesus was the Moshiakh, but the Moshiakh according to the Jewish inventors of the concept, was not to be divine (only Caesar was divine). This Wikipedia article lists about 41 Moshikhim https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants. You didn’t even have to be Jewish (Vespasian!). So why would you give David Stern any credence?} As I said to you, according to the Talmud the Temple tax was due and payable by 1 Nisan, and was collected in the countryside and in all cities, apparently even foreign ones, and sent to Jerusalem. What is Stern’s source for his assertion that it could be paid mid-month, on the Temple grounds? I’m not saying it could not be done, I’m only saying I see no room for that in the Talmud tractates I read.
JRH: (2, Stern quote continued) “… Yeshua is fully aware of this but objects to the use of the Temple grounds for these purposes; …”
AS: Even in those times, it was OK to have a difference of opinion, to “object to the use of the Temple grounds…”. Some of the debates of the main Pharisaic rabbinical schools, of Hillel and Shammai, on such matters are preserved. What was not OK was to commit crimes. By acting-out in this uncontrolled manner, Jesus committed crimes against the moneychangers and the offerings-sellers, and against the Temple, and he created or risked a riot.
JRH: (2, Stern quote continued) “… the Talmud includes curses on the Sadducean priests for their greed. The restrictions placed on business in the Temple area created monopolistic profits for the merchants and revenue for the authorities.”
AS: First, the Talmud, which consists of a codification of the Oral Law and commentaries thereon, was written by the Pharisees. The Sadducees believed only the Written Law, i.e., the Torah, was valid. Would you expect the Pharisaic view of the Sadducees, as expressed in a Pharisaic document, to be favorable? It’s the Jewish version of the BBJ story, and shows how useless such stories really are when the context is not understood and accounted-for.
Second, neither Stern nor Jesus, clearly, was an economist or a businessman, nor does Stern seem to be much of a historian (or Talmud scholar). Let’s make a simple analogy. Have you ever gone to a sports stadium or to an airport, and bought anything to eat or drink? Did you pay anything extra for them, above what you’d probably have paid outside? Ever want to overturn their tables? Ever think the sellers are greedy?
These are examples today of what we call “franchises” in the case of the sports arenas or “concessions” in the case of the food vendors. The Temple then, and the airport and sports stadia today, are equally franchises, exercising some monopoly rights that are perfectly legal. In many countries the natural resources are similarly “franchises” owned by the State. Concessions are granted to selected entities to operate within the franchise for various purposes – extraction of oil or minerals, or selling hot dogs and beer, or selling birds and other offerings. The cost of buying from these concessionaires always includes a fee to the franchisor, as well as the normal (or abnormal) profits for the concessionaire. You or I or Jesus or Stern may not like it, but as in the case of oil from the ground or birds for the offerings, you have no choice but to pay what’s asked, or pick a cheaper mode of transport or sacrifice. So, next time you go to Yankee Stadium and have an urge to bust up the hot dog stand over their $8 franks, just ask “What would Jesus do?”, and then you can feel justified about breaking up the place, even as they haul your butt off to the slammer.
I don’t know what that is supposed to mean.
Again, I don’t know what you mean.
Don’t know what you mean.
I don’t know what you mean, but from what I can comprehend of what I think you are trying to say, the logic is grossly fallacious.
Why, citing Stern doesn’t in any way, shape, or form require my throwing away my own reading, reason, and good sense!
Because he is a knowledgeable scholar.
Well, that’s an interesting opinion. I certainly disagree with that interpretation.
the only comment I read was from the dizzy cunt at the top, Ellen, her last name alone tells you she is a jew, Rosser is a stolen German name. That is all the jews are truly capable of is theft, they have no other industry, all else is secondary. And no one had better say Hollywood, because it is the talent and imagination of non-jews that makes Hollywood put out anything worth watching. First of all, your argument that the high priest had to arrest Jesus in the dark of night shows EXACTLY that the high priest had no true authority under God. A Godly man operates openly, honestly and with all authority and forthrightness. Nor would he fear the wrath of the people if he was a Godly man, for who’s wrath upon him would be the greater for his iniquity, the wrath of the people or the wrath of God? Did you even know that the Pharisees and Sadduccess and Sanhedrin made a deal with the Romans so that they could collect the Roman poll tax, applying a hefty fee against their own people ON TOP OF what they were extorting for their “masters”? There are your Godly men. This is not fiction, it is history according to the Roman account. Would Godly men extort a fee from their own enslaved people for living under tyranny? Secondly, you DIZZY CUNT, the Palestinian people are A SEMITIC RACE, so you can shove your “anti-semitic” shame tactics right up your fat ass. As Jesus said, “a house divided against itself cannot stand”-therefore; how can ANYONE play the anti-semitic card against people whom support the Palestinians in their current plight? How can someone that supports the Palestinians, a SEMITIC RACE, be an anti-semite? Typical jew psycho-babble, you had better take a whiff of what you are shovelling, because it is fucking RIPE and more importantly, it stinks to high heaven and GOD IS NOT AMUSED WITH THE JEWS OF TODAY OR YESTERDAY – you stupid jewess whore of Satan, STFU and REPENT. Understand this people – JEWS AND HEBREWS ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
frankly i dont know what the big deal is. all religions follow the bible. the bible said the jewish rabbis and the jewist people gathered with them would accept nothing short of jesus murder. step up and be men. accept responcabily as the jewih for jesus murder and move on…….