Temple Riot
 

(Luke 13:1-2)  At that very time there were some present who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. {2} He asked them, "Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans?

Josephus gives two accounts of the incident under Cumanus, in the War 2.12.1. and again in the Antiquities:

Ant. 20.5.3

Now, while the Jewish affairs were under the administration of Cumanus, there happened a great tumult at the city of Jerusalem, and many of the Jews perished therein;... When that feast which is called the Passover was at hand,... and a great multitude was gathered together from all parts to that feast, Cumanus was afraid lest some attempt of innovation should be made by them; so he ordered one regiment of the army should take their arms, and stand in the temple cloisters, to repress any attempts at innovation,... but when he could not induce them to be quiet, for they still went on in their reproaches to him, he gave the order that the whole army should take their entire armour, and come to Antonia, which was a fortress, as we have said already, which overlooked the temple; but when the multitude saw the soldiers there, they were affrighted at them, and ran away hastily; but as the passages out were but narrow, and as they thought their enemies were following them, they were crowded together in their flight, and a great number were pressed to death in those narrow passages; nor indeed was the number fewer than twenty thousand that perished in this tumult. So instead of a festival they had at last a mournful day of it; and they all of them forgot their prayers and sacrifices, and betook themselves to lamentation and weeping;

There is another incident where the altar was sprinkled with the sacrificer’s blood. During the last year of the siege the various factions fought with one another. One faction held the temple, while the stronger faction held the city. The faction in the city had catapults and other weapon-throwers to attack the defenders in the temple. Some of these projectiles overshot the walls and landed on the priests sacrificing at the altar, mixing their own blood with their sacrifices.

War, 5.1.3, p. 547

...for those darts that were thrown by the engines came with such force, that they went over all the buildings, and the temple itself, and fell upon the priests, and those that were about the sacred offices;... [They] fell down before their own sacrifices themselves, and sprinkled the altar,... with their own blood;..

Jesus cleansed the temple of the money-changers. Who needed the money-changers? Foreigners, gentiles, not the native Jews. Could it be that Jesus was acting against the introduction of gentiles into the temple worship? The gospel of John differs from the synoptics not only in the timing of the incident but he has Jesus railing against the merchants not robbers. This is interpreted that Jesus thought that mercintile pursuits should not be pursued in the holy temple.

It seems from the context that the synoptics should be followed. Jesus caused a riot in the temple at the end of his mission according to the synoptics; not at the beginning as in John. It is logical for Jesus to have been executed for making a disturbance at the end of his mission. The synoptics have Jesus calling the ‘merchants’ ‘robbers’ or ‘insurrectionists’, in other words ‘innovators’ who allowed gentiles into the temple worship. The Court of the Gentiles had been built by Herod the Great in his over-riding interest to incorporate the values of Hellenism into Judaism, and vice versa. It seems Jesus objected to this dilution of true Jewish worship.

Not that I believe for one second that the Romans would have allowed such a disturbance in the temple, at such a sensitive time as at a great festival, to have happened; no less go un-punished. See the many examples elsewhere in this book on the Roman reaction to such disturbances.

When the Biblical Jesus ‘cleansed’ the temple of merchants he quoted the following from Jeremiah 7:11: Jeremiah was railing against foreign worship being introduced into the temple:

Do you take this temple that bears my name for a robber’s [lhsthz] den?

Was one of Josephus’ Jesuses thinking of the same quote when he saw that the Zealots had taken over the sanctuary?

War, 4.4.3, p. 531

Accordingly, Jesus, the eldest of the high priests next to Ananus, stood upon the tower that was against them, and said thus;... They are robbers [lhstai], who by their prodigious wickedness have profaned this most sacred floor, and who are to be now seen drinking themselves drunk in the sanctuary.

The Synoptics have another Jesus using the same quotation, in the temple:

Matt. 21:10-17, Mark 11:11, Luke 19:45-46

It is written, my house shall be called a house of prayer, but you make it a den of robbers [lhstwn].

All, from Jeremiah, through Josephus, to the Synoptics, use the Greek word lhstai for ‘robbers’ which applies particularly to ‘insurrectionists’ rather than thieves of the common sort.

The Jesus of Josephus’ account is a friend of Josephus. When he was in trouble with his command in Galilee it was Jesus who informed Josephus of his impending problem.

My information reached me in a letter from my father, to whom the news was confided by Jesus, son of Gamalas, an intimate friend of mine, who had been present at the conference. [ Life, 41.]

The death of Jesus grieved Josephus more than any other, excepting that of his father and mother who died in prison during the siege. He was the one who, with Ananus, was murdered by the Zealots at the beginning of the war.

Jesus was also joined with him [Ananus]; and although he was inferior to him upon comparison, he was superior to the rest; and I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city. [ War, 4. 5. 2. p. 534]

Throughout his account of the war Josephus labels the Zealots and other nationalists lhstai, brigands or robbers. It was this element that brought the destruction upon the country, through their rebellious actions. That the gospels use the same term is more than a coincidence. They are following Josephus’ quotation from Jeremiah. Jesus is cursing at merchants, why should he call them insurrectionsts?
 

I Too Am Under Authority

The governor, Petronius, of all the Romans, was highly respected by the Jews for his action, at great risk to his own life, to preserve the sanctity of their temple. During the reign of the mad Caligula, who really thought he was a god, Petronius stalled in putting a statue of the emperor in the Jewish temple. He was fortunate that Caligula was assassinated before the order from the emperor for Petronius to commit suicide arrived.

War 2.10.4

Petronius replied, “And am not I also bound to keep the laws of my own lord?... for I am under command as well as you.”

The Centurion in the gospel story is highly respected by the local Jews for his contributions to their Synagogue.

Luke 7:6-9

{6} And Jesus went with them, but when he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to say to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; {7} therefore I did not presume to come to you. But only speak the word, and let my servant be healed. {8} For I also am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this,' and the slave does it." {9} When Jesus heard this he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, he said, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith."

The only Romans we meet in the gospels are friendly converts or kindly rulers!
Pilate who could find no wrong in Jesus. The centurion at the crucifixion who called Jesus ‘son of god’. Felix the governor who was so friendly to Saul/Paul.
 

Barabbas

Pontius Pilate, a particularly harsh Roman governor, would never have thought to release  a man who had been put into prison for ‘insurrection and murder’. Not on his life would he have released an enemy of Rome to a clamouring Jewish rabble.

Luke 23:18,19 & 25

“Release Barabbas for us!” (This was a man who had been put in prison for an insurrection that had taken place in the city, and for murder.)... {25}He [Pilate] released the man they asked for, the one who had been put in prison for insurrection and murder, and he handed Jesus over as they wished.

This impossible and senseless episode is the most unbelievable part of the whole New Testament. To entertain the thought of a Roman governor acting in this manner is to indulge in fantasy. However, Josephus records an incident where this did happen:

Ant. 20.9.3. p.424

But now the Sicarii went into the city by night, just before the festival, which was now at hand, and took the scribe belonging to the governor of the temple, whose name was Eleazar, who was the son of Ananias the high priest, and bound him, and carried him away with them; after which they sent to Ananias, and said that they would send the scribe to him, if he would persuade Albinus [the Roman Governor] to release ten of those prisoners which he had caught of their party; so Ananias was plainly forced to persuade Albinus, and gained his request of him.

These are the only two accounts in the literature of the period where a rebel or rebels from the Roman empire were freed, without a bribe. There is no independent reference to a practice of the Romans releasing a rebel for a Jewish, or any other, festival. There is another mention, in Josephus, of a Roman governor releasing minor offenders, for a bribe, at the end of his term of office; however, he executed all of the other prisoners held on serious charges. This certainly would not apply in the ‘Barabbas’ incident, as portrayed in the Synoptics. The Sicarii, on the other hand, were represented in Josephus as well disciplined extortionists. They managed to get their own assassins out of Roman custody. Remember, Jesus had a Sicarus as a disciple, Judas Iscariot, who met an obscure death.

It is the Sicarii who release the son of the high priest, ‘son of the father’, Barabbas, not the Romans, they released the Sicarii.
 

Crucifixion of three men and the survival of one.

The only person known in history to survive a Roman crucifixion is a friend whom Josephus saves after intervening with the Roman commander. Three are taken down but only one survives.

Josephus, Life, 75, p. 20 of Whiston’s Translation

... as I [Joseph Bar Mathias] came back, I saw many captives crucified; and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.

The gospels have a mysterious Joseph of Arimathea appear and go to the Roman commander and ask for Jesus to be taken down from among the three crucified. Jesus lives and the other two presumably die.

Mark 15:42-46

When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, {43} Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. {44} Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. {45} When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. {46} Then Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking down the body, wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.

See also Matthew 27:57-60, Luke 23:50-53 & John 19:38-41

The Gospel of Barnabas has the incident of Joseph, but, his name is Abarimathia not Arimathea.

Barnabas 217, 8.

... but by means of Nicodemus and Joseph of Abarimathia they obtained from the governor the body... to bury it.

I propose that since none of the evangelists could have witnessed the scene, or even known the number of men crucified with Jesus, the story was made up from details found in Josephus. How do we know there were two others with Jesus to make up the number three? Where does this dramatic entrance of the previously unknown Joseph have its source? Three were crucified and one lived!

Josephus to the rescue. We have the desired incident, the right number and the amazing survival of the one. As noted earlier this incident is the only example in our histories of a man surviving crucifixion, and he is taken down from the cross upon the request of Joseph. Not Joseph of Arimathea but Joseph bar Mathia is the man.

This is not to say that Jesus was not executed by the Romans, but merely that we cannot know the true details from the gospels. The story was written many years after the event and, as usual, for dramatic effect the synoptic writers turned to Josephus for a good story.

Why ‘three’ crucified? I have nowhere read that the Romans needed a quorum of three to make up a crucifixion. Any old number, and the more the better, would do for an execution. Well, the number three was much used by ‘inspired’ writers to make up a superlative.

But, it did not stop there, in Luke there is a ‘bad’ thief and a ‘good’ thief. The bad thief curses and taunts Jesus on the cross. The good thief recognizes Jesus as the Christ and Jesus promises him paradise:

(Luke 23:39-43)  One of the criminals who were hanged there kept deriding him and saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!" {40} But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? {41} And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong." {42} Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." {43} He replied, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

A charming scene, but, not probable. Later traditions, from the fourth to the sixth centuries even supply the names of the thieves; Drysas or Demas and Gestas. Drysas is the good thief and Gestas the bad. [James, M.R., Apocryphal New Testament, p. 161-165.]

The story gets better as time goes on. In the later, Arabic, Infancy Gospel, there are two thieves who held up Joseph and Mary, with the infant Jesus, on their way to Egypt when they were fleeing Herod. The bad thief would rob and murder the holy family. But, the good thief recognized the baby Jesus as being born of God and let them go free. In the Arabic gospel the good thief asks the infant Jesus not to forget his kindness saying:
O most blessed of children, if ever there come a time for having mercy on me, then remember me and forget not this hour. [ James, p. 81.]

Guess who the thieves on the two crosses were? Yes, the same two from the Infancy Gospel! The good one recognizes Jesus by the same signs he recognized him as the Infant. It is then that he reminds Jesus and is consequently saved into paradise.

So the story goes; the infant Jesus and his family are saved by a good thief from the bad, and it is they as it turns out who are the other two of the trio crucified. Jesus saves the good one and, presumably, lets the other go to hell.

This is an example of the embellishment of a story over the ages. But, which story? The gospel writers, Mark and Matthew, needed some details of the crucifixion, and they being unknown made up the story out of Josephus’ three men, one a survivor. Luke makes the addition of the conversation between Jesus and the thieves on their respective crosses. By the third to fourth century the Infancy gospels were out and about with the story of the flight to Egypt and the incident on the road. Then the Acts of Pilate, which recounts the crucifixion, identifies the thieves with the incident on the road to Egypt. Jesus rewards the good thief with paradise.

The pious imagination is unbounded either by fact or consistency.
 

The Resurrection

“He descended into the cave. So, for two days he continued in hiding. On the third, his secret was revealed by a woman who had been with them. The death of J. was found to be a fiction, it became known that he was alive.”
 

But, finding every spot guarded on his account and no means of eluding detection, he descended again into the cave. So, for two days he continued in hiding. On the third, his secret was betrayed by a woman who had been with them. [War 3. 8. 1.]
 

But when time revealed the truth and all that had really happened at Jotapata, when the death of Josephus was found to be a fiction, it became known that he was alive and in Roman hands... the demonstrations of wrath at his still being alive were as loud as the former expressions of affection when he was believed to be dead.” [War 3. 9. 6.]

Portents of the destruction of the Temple. “Woe to ...” passages.

According to Eusebius Josephus and others believed that the destruction of Judea was in divine retribution for the stoning of James the Just, the brother of someone called Jesus. The early church fathers, such as Origen, saw the destruction of the temple as retribution for the crucifixion of Jesus. The synoptic writers put the prophecies of this destruction into the mouth of Jesus, some thirty, or more, years before the event. Josephus describes what happened, as an eyewitness:

(War 7.1.1)

Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple... There was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to by the madness of those that were for innovations; a city of otherwise magnificence, and mighty fame among all mankind.

The three synoptics describe it thus:
(Luke 21:5-6. Also Matthew 24:1-2 & Mark 13:1-2)

When some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and gifts dedicated to God, he said, {6} "As for these things that you see, the days will come when not one stone will be left upon another; all will be thrown down."

But, Luke describes the siege of Jerusalem in graphic detail:
(Luke 19:41-44)

As he came near and saw the city, he wept over it, {42} saying, "If you, even you, had only recognized on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. {43} Indeed, the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up ramparts around you and surround you, and hem you in on every side. {44} They will crush you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave within you one stone upon another; because you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God."

The source known as ‘Q’ also knows of the destruction of the temple, Luke 13:34-35 and Matthew 23:37-38.

(Matthew 23:37-38)  "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! {38} See, your house is left to you, desolate."

(Luke 13:34-35)  Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! {35} See, your house is left to you. And I tell you, you will not see me until the time comes when you say, 'Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.'"

We have seen in the example above that Mark is aware of the temple’s destruction.

(Mark 13:1-2)  As he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!" {2} Then Jesus asked him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down."

In Matthew 26:61-2 and Mark 14:37-8 Jesus is even charged for threatening to do what the Romans actually did. Jesus is tried for his life before the Jewish Sanhedrin for saying he that was going to destroy the temple.

(Matthew 26:61-62) "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.'" {62} The high priest stood up and said, "Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?"

(Mark 14:57-58)  Some stood up and gave false testimony against him, saying, {58} "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'"

In Luke’s Acts Stephen is also charged with this offence before he was stoned to death:

(Acts 6:14)  for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses handed on to us."

Prior to 70 CE nobody could have expected the Romans would destroy the temple. It had already been captured by them three times previously, and plundered, but not destroyed. Pompey captured Jerusalem in 63 BCE. Crassus plundered the temple treasures shortly before his ill-fated Parthian campaign in 53 BCE. The Roman general Sosius assisted Herod the Great by capturing Jerusalem for him in 38 BCE. The temple was always spared; probably as a source for future plunder. This places all of the gospels and their ‘Q’ source as post 70s, and certainly written after Josephus’ Jewish War.

Josephus, with more than a hint of pathos and anger, describes the destruction of the city and temple as an official policy commanded by the Emperor himself. The Synoptics, again, are prophecies after the event. Luke gives a summary of the events of the siege described by Josephus in his Jewish War. However, Josephus can also write like the Synoptics by describing the temple in the Present Tense well after its destruction:

We have but one temple for the one God (for like ever loveth like), common to all as God is common to all. The priests are continually engaged in His worship, under the leadership of him who for the time is head of the line. With his colleagues he will sacrifice to God, safeguard the laws, adjudicate in cases of dispute, punish those convicted of crime. Any who disobey him will pay the penalty as for impiety towards God Himself. Our sacrifices are not occasions for drunken self-indulgence - such practices are abhorrent to God - but for sobriety. At these sacrifices prayers for the welfare of the community must take precedence of those for ourselves. [Contra Apion II, 23. L.C.L.]

This was written more than twenty-five years after the destruction of the temple, by an eyewitness to, and, indeed a participant in, its destruction? The writers of the gospels are committing exactly the same anachronism as Josephus.
 
 [Introduction]  [Gospels:Page 1]  [Gospels:Page 2] [Acts] [Home]