Who Killed Jesus?

At the end of the previous post, I promised a revelation, and so shall you have one.

"The Jews" DID NOT KILL JESUS, at least not if we take the account in the New Testament at face value.  They were not his enemies, but his allies.  Let's take a closer look.

The gospels recount that Jesus was arrested on Passover according to the synoptic gospels or the Eve of Passover according to John.  He was arrested by the "chief priests and scribes" taken to the palace of the High Priest and tried there, where witnesses were recruited in a late night trial on a Jewish holiday, but they could not get an agreement.  Then, the court baits him to say that he is the Messiah, but he dodges it.  "It is you who say that I am."  A Messianic claim would make him a rebel in the eyes of the Romans.  Then, he says that he will destroy the Temple and build another not made of physical material.  On that, they convict him for blaspheme.  Conceding that they cannot execute him, they turn him over to Rome.  The Romans are reluctant to execute him and only give in under pressure from the "Jews", who are further described as instigated by the "chief priests and scribes".  Thus, he is executed by crucifixion under charges of a Messianic claim that he may or may not have made.

So who are these "chief priests and scribes" who seem to be the trouble makers?  Let's first look at what happened.  They arrest him and try him on Passover or the Eve of Passover.  According to Jewish law, no capital case can be tried on these days.  Nor is it legal to try a capital case at night.  Then he is taken to the palace of the High Priest.  Yet the courts met at the gates of the Temple Mount, at the gates of the Temple and in the Chamber of Hewn Stone.  What court is meeting in the house of the High Priest?  Then he is baited to say that he is the Messiah.  Yet, it is not illegal to claim that you are the Messiah, not in a Jewish court.  Then he is convicted of blaspheme, cursing G-d, yet his statement that he will destroy the Temple does NOT CONSTITUTE BLASPHEME!  Unable to execute him, they hand him over to Rome.  Yet, handing over a defendant to be judged by a foreign court or power is one of the gravest sins a Jew can commit, according to Jewish law.  It is called "moser", and it undermines the authority of the court.  one must risk his own death rather than do so, unless the foreign power asks for him by name.  Here, clearly, they did not.  So whoever these "chief priests and scribes" are, they either do not know Jewish law, or do not respect it.  The entire arrest and trial is illegal from beginning to end.

However, understanding the politics of Judea in Temple times clarifies all matters.  The Jewish court was led by sages of the main Pharisee schools, recounted in the Talmud.  The New Testament does not even mention the names of these men, who would have been the most famous men in the land, Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, and many others,  the men who are featured throughout the mishna. They were not involved.  Rather, it was the nameless chief priests and one named High Priest, Caiaphus and, in John, his mentor Anias.  In the times of the Temple, the Bible requires that priests conduct the Temple service. The priesthood is determined by patrilineal descent.  That means that the greatest sages did not conduct the Temple service, but rather contingents of the priesthood.  The service was very complex and required a large body of expertise, gained only  by real world experience, such as could only be gained by priests.  Thus, the priest leaders, the descendents of Aaron the brother of Moses wielded great power.  During the second temple era, the Talmud records that some unscrupulous priest leaders wielded this power for personal gain, rejecting the authority of the court and all of its rulings.  They developed their own court system and their theology deviated from that of the Pharisee court.  They rejected belief in the Messiah and the world to come, invested all power in the Temple service, as it was the source of their power, and took an extremely fundamentalist approach to the Bible, often spitefully rejecting the courts rulings, even though they were proven thoroughly.  By the time of the first century the highest echelons of the priesthood followed the heretical views of their forebears, and the Saducees set up a priestly cult, using their special status to force the Jewish court into some level of tolerance.  However, the mainstream Pharisees considered the Saducees as heretics.  The Saducees, in turn, allied with Pharisee enemies, the Roman occupation, and secured the highest positions for itself, purchasing the high priesthood, a practically royal position in that time, and placing its own ambassadors with the Roman rulers and procurators of Judea.  The Saducees played the loyalist to Rome, opposing the Pharisee, who were an occupied enemy to be subjugated.

This is not to say that all Pharisees were united.  Certainly, their were zealot schools aligned with the Pharisees, like the "biryunim, whom the Talmud ultimately blames for the defeat in the final battle with Rome and the destruction of the Temple.  The Talmud relates that they burned the stores of Jerusalem, forcing the Jews to fight the surrounding Roman army to escape the city or die of starvation inside.  The zealot final stand at Masada, a famous piece of history that is used to illustrate steadfastness and bravery, is not even mentioned in the Talmud.  The mainstream Pharisees did not consider the biryunim worthy of notice in this regard and the story beginning in Mes. Gitttin 57 clarifies why. 

So, now read the story of the arrest and trial of Jesus and you can see how the sides align.  The Saducees are the ones plotting against Jesus. The Pharisees merely argue with him.  The "chief priests", i.e. the Saducees, are the ones who arrest and try him in their own court.  The Jewish court was not involved, even in John, who has some Pharisee groups allying with the Saducees.   They then turn him over to their allies, the Romans, to avoid the political fall out.  This story is still obvious in the words of the versions before us today.in all four versions of the story.  The only person mentioned by name, the High Priest Caiaphus, was Yosef ben Kaphah, a well-known Saducee, even mentioned in the contemporary history of Josephus!!  Anias may be the same Saducee High Priest mentioned in the Mishnah, who rebelled against the water libation of the Rabbis.  However, as I said, no mainstream Pharisee would have given any credence to the heretics, and therefore, the Pharisees in John must be biryunim and fringe elements. Of course there are many proofs of this explanation, but we are summarizing presently to understand how the fundamental reader must understand the New Testament. No fanciful interpretations, just what is written on the pages.

Blaming the "Jews" for killing Jesus is like blaming the Americans for the Weather Underground attacks of the sixties.  Surely, the WU were "Americans", but just as certainly, the American leadership and the vast majority of people did not consider them anything but dangerous enemies.  On the other hand, Joseph of Arimethea and others that help Jesus are allied with the mainstream Pharisees, and would share his political views and his opposition to Rome.  Indeed, Jesus quotes many Pharisee sayings, just as we have them in the Talmud to this day.

So just why then do Jews not accept Jesus and convert to Christianity?  In fact, many groups that focus on converting Jews make this observation and pose this question.  And the answer is very simple.  In Jewish history and experience, especially of that time, there is nothing particularly special or unique about him.  More about that as you read on.

In What Language were the Gospels Written?

So many candidates have been proposed, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, even Latin, but none of these are logical.   This is not to say that parts may not have been written in this or that, but Matthew and Mark definitely retain idioms and even transliterated words and mistranslations from the editors that reveal the truth underlying.  In the process, we will reveal the simple meaning behind some cryptic verses which are usually passed over and conceded to the realm of mystery in Bible study, or else given some fanciful interpretation.  The words themselves, in context, are pretty clear.

It is important to understand that the vast majority of the teachings in the gospel did not originate there.  They are the Jewish parables and teachings of that time, often in the same wording and context as they are brought forth in the Talmud.  We will discuss the history of the Talmud, what it is and how it came to be written, and why it is so important.

And the language of the Talmud is, in fact, the language of the gospels.  The Talmud was written in its own vernacular, known as Talmud language or "Gemara Lashon".  It is mostly Aramaic mixed with Hebrew, but it has its own expressions, idioms, and borrow words from many other languages, like Greek and Latin.  The result is a dialect that can explain Biblical phrases in a modern frame of reference, while not losing anything to unnecessary translation.  In our own times, Jews who lived in Germany developed almost precisely the same type of language, using German with Hebrew as a base, with a liberal mix of Russian, Polish and others.  This language is known as "Jewish" or "Judisch" (pronounced "Yiddish"), and it is truly distinct from German, just as Gemara Lashon is distinct from Aramaic.  Similarly, in Spain, they adopted a Spanish Jewish dialect, called Ladino, which is still used in the Arabic world, where the Spanish Jews fled during the Crusades and Middle Ages.

Many phrases in the gospels are uniquely Talmud Language.  "If one calls his friend "Raca" (a Talmud Language pejorative) ... "Talitha kumi" (Girl, arise!, One word being Aramaic, the other Hebrew, but both standard in Talmud Language.)  "Let the dead bury their own dead."  And how can the dead bury their own dead?  Rather, the context makes clear that similar terms "m'thei" (people of the city) and "maithai" (the dead) were confused.  he means that if one's father died, rather than delay his ministry even for this important commitment of burying his father, his priority should rather be to pursue his ministry and leave it to the people of the city to bury his father, as they are obligated to any who has no one to bury him.  I.e. Let the people of the city bury their dead.  The word confusion only works in Talmud language.

Throughout the gospels, it is clear that this is the primary language used.  As such, it is easy to understand words like "holy spirit", "son of man", "son of G-d", "Satan", and so many others, as they already have well established meanings.

So without further ado, we attack the next subject.  It will interest you to know that the Jews did NOT, I repeat did NOT kill Jesus, nor were they accessory to killing him, nor were they his enemies.  You need to absorb that before you read on, since it may run counter to a lifetime of learning.  That misconception was based on the over generalization in John, i.e. "the Jews", however it is clear from the other gospels and from John as well who the culprits were. Nor will this next point require creative blame shifting or anything else, only a fundamental understanding of the words of the gospels before us.  The culture and politics of "the Jews" at that time is not well understood among Christian clergy. nor among modern Jews, even learned Rabbis since it is so different that what we have today.  The empowered court, the Temple culture, the Roman occupation are all factors that are foreign to us today.  The facts that I will bring you are all right there, staring you in the face for the last 1500 years.

Why this Blog?

This blog could only be written by an Orthodox Jew, conversant in the wide array of Talmud and Jewish law, as well as Jewish history of the 1st century.  So many misconceptions abound, and yet, even in the words of the four versions of the "gospel" that survived, some basic facts shine out that cannot be ignored.  The purpose of this blog is not to disprove Christianity, that is first and foremost.  I freely admit from the start that I am not a believer in Christianity.  I am not looking to start a debate with the ethereal legend of Jesus nor to argue the historical value of the New Testament.  That is a fool's game.  Rather, taking the fundamental New Testament, as it is canonized and translated before us, I hope to enlighten the reader on certain facts that cannot be denied, understanding Jewish culture and Jewish history.  Many of these facts will run counter to what you have learned, perhaps all of your life.  However, if you are a believer in Jesus, I hope this will only support your will and resolve to study more about your faith in G-d, and strengthen that faith.

In the course of this journey, I hope to show you as clearly as possible the true meaning of the terms used in the New Testament, demonstrate some nuances of the language in which it was written, and introduce you to the person that the writers of the gospel intended for you to meet, the founder of your faith.

As we cannot prove the existence or non-existence of Jesus directly, there being no corroborating contemporary history, I will rely on the four gospels to tell us their story, presuming its characters and events are true and real, except where we question them against some historical data that we have.  Again, these questions are jsut going to be presented so that you know they exist.  They are not intended as "debunking" nor are they of that strength.. 

You probably know that Jesus was a Jew, living in first century Galilee.  We will discuss the culture of that place and time, and how Jesus fits into it.  Namely, we will learn about the main groups of Jews, the Pharisee yeshivos, the Pharisee zealots, the Saducees and the insular gnostic groups, and their relationship to the "Jews:", as they are labeled in John.  We will discuss where many of the common misconceptions enter and why they are most certainly misconceptions.  In the process we will discover what Jesus was trying to do, and what he really believed.

We'll begin with language.