Warning Stone from áÌÅéú äÇîÌÄ÷ÀãÌÈùÑ ñåÉøÅâ:
ΑΛΛΟΓΕΝΗΣ: No Closer—
(Museum Tschinili-Kirschk. Istanbul, Turkey.)
1st Century C.E.
© 1996-2011 Yirmeyahu Ben-David – Updated: 2011.04.13
One cannot come to grips with the development of Christianity as it was originally defined without first internalizing the religious-political caldron that orchestrated the reaction between the two principle, and immiscible, forces—Judaism versus Hellenism—to forge Christianity. At least as far back as B.C.E. 4, the conflict between these two immiscible forces was recognized by Gaius Octavius Καισαρας Augustus as the principle irresolvable incompatibility that, if forced to intermingle, would strike together like flint to ignite a catastrophic conflagration. The same forces have, ever since, produced the same misojudaism. To help keep track of these two immiscible forces, they will be color coded:
Hellenized, including originally Canaanite ⇒ Israeli Judaic ⇒ Hellenist (primarily Arab) Occupied geographical cities or areas
From the Roman expulsion of éÀäåÌãÄéí from "
Aelia Capitolina" in 135 C.E. through the 4th century C.E., Greek-speaking gentile Roman Hellenist redactors of the Διαθηκη Νεος were limited by their Greek language to rely solely on accounts told to them in Greek by Hellenizing Jews (even Paul had been dead since ca. 67 C.E.), ill-informed proselytes and–mostly–blatantly assimilated Hellenist apostates (like Ιωσηπος).
These Roman Hellenists never budged from their Hellenist position of rejecting úÌåÉøÈä, therefore declaring followers of the original ðÀöÈøÄéí ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí Jews (who had been taught by øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ) to be "under the law," "enemies of [their Hellenist perception of]
God and the Church" and "servants of Satan." Down through subsequent centuries, these pronouncements have been the cause of countless pogroms, the Inquisition, the Holocaust and still fuel persecution of Jews today.
Peering back 1-3 centuries into the 1st century Jewish community from outside, these Hellenist Roman gentiles perceived only what their gentile Hellenist lenses could process—of accounts passed down to them by Hellenist Jews and some Hellenist, primarily Arab, gentiles. Their knowledge of Judaism was less than gentiles today (after two additional millennia of study) know of the Orthodox Jewish community and Orthodox Judaism—blind ignorant and filled with misojudaic misconceptions. As a result, these 2nd-4th century, Greek-speaking Roman, primarily Arab, gentiles were unable to distinguish rival (Hebrew-speaking) Jewish factions, muddling them all into their composite stereotype of "the Jews"—as they redacted the final text of the Διαθηκη Νεος that the world has today.
Thankfully, the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q MMT in particular, has removed all doubt about what was always evident to objective readers of the descriptions of the 1st century Jewish community and Judaism in the Judaic literature (as contrasted against the Hellenist Greek literature—principally the Διαθηκη Νεος).
This Hellenized stereotype has glossed over the differences in language and culture between Judaism and Hellenism, which lay at the very core of the #1 argument among 1st-century Jews: the Oral Law of úÌåÉøÈä versus assimilation into Ελλην—Hellenism. This assumptive failure to distinguish between opposites of language, culture and religion—symptomatic of Christians and Jews each nursing extreme ignorance, bias and misconceptions of the other—is blindly memorized and, though these errors are beginning to be acknowledged (as knowledge of the DSS and archeological discoveries are disseminated), they still continue to be assumed, and unquestioningly regurgitated, by many Ph.D.s and Professors of History alike.
Relating to the 1st-century, historical dissonances between
requires developing the ability to distinguish between their cultures, religions and languages that, coupled with pressures for éÀäåÌãÄéí to assimilate into the Ελλην world of their Roman occupiers, created a schismatic cancer that would grow, divide, inflame and ultimately lead to pogroms, the Inquisition and the Holocaust.
This conflict-laden cancer can only be diagnosed by keeping the divisive differences they faced daily in the forefront of your study, precluding contra-historical assumptions of compatibility that allows the many oversights and impossible misconceptions that are widespread among today's students of 1st-century, Judeo-Roman and Christian history. The reader will quickly develop an appreciation of the persistent conflict, and its inexorable intractability, between the (usually Hebrew language) úÌåÉøÈä figures and concepts in blue (which includes the ðÀöÈøÄéí ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí) contrasted against the (usually Greek language) Ελλην figures and concepts in amber.
This apparatus permits the reader to see at a glance the general predominance within any screen of text as well as changes and trends when screening up or down.
Only by keeping these heterogenous players distinct can one recognize two primary and distinct iterations of increasingly Hellenist assimilation develop from this milieu into gentile (primarily Arab), Roman Christianity.
To help you cope, I've tried to limit the number of untransliterated Hebrew and Greek terms to two contrasting essential nuclei; plus, I've provided instant-English by simply hovering the cursor over any non-English word having an amber or blue background. Additionally, nearly all of these also have links that you can click for a more complete glossary definition.
Although it may at first seem daunting, there are only a handful of words; they are merely used over and over, making the page look far more complicated and difficult than it really is. Yet, if you haven't worked your way through this section in this website, then—be you Ph.D. or Professor in one of the most eminent universities in the world—you do not grasp the fundamental differences and conflicts in the 1st century C.E. enumerated above. Stop being part of the regurgitated ignorance being proliferated by the ignorant "assumers"—grinding their religious axe instead of exercising scientific method and scholarship.
If it was easy, everyone would already have done it. Apply yourself seriously, work your way through this and learn.
The rabbinic tradition of the transmission of úÌåÉøÈä, while helpful, is grossly oversimplified.
From the inception of the áÌÅéú ãÄéï äÇâÌÈãåÉì by Mosh•ëh′ (Shәm•ot′ 18.25-26; bә-Mi•dәbar′ 11.16-17), who was himself flanked by A•har•on′, Mosh•ëh′ anointed Yәho•shu′a Bën-Nun and (while the anointing ceremony itself is not mentioned) Ëlâzâr′ the ëÌÉäÅï.
This succession of pairs heading the áÌÅéú ãÄéï äÇâÌÈãåÉì continued through the Zәqan•im′ (Sho•phәt•im′) through the paired partnering of îÀìÈëÄéí (as ðÈùÒÄéà) and Nәviy•im′ (as àÇá áÌÅéú ãÄéï) until the last îÆìÆêÀ of éÀäåÌãÈä was vanquished in B.C.E. 586.
Not much is known about the leadership of the next link in the succession listed by the rabbis: àÇðÀùÑÅé ëÀðÆñÆú äÇâÌÀãåÉìÈä in the time of ; Ë′zәr•â (B.C.E. 409-359).
The àÇðÀùÑÅé ëÀðÆñÆú äÇâÌÀãåÉìÈä, Hellenized to γερουσια, was led by Nәkhëm•yâh′ Bën-Kha•kha•lәyâh′ (probably of the tribe of éÀäåÌãÈä, of áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã) as ðÈùÒÄéà, and Ë′zәr•â the ëÌÉäÅï áÌÆï-öÈãåÉ÷, as the àÇá áÌÅéú ãÄéï.
In this body, for the first time, learned laymen—the origin of the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí, who first appear ca. B.C.E. 135—joined with ëÌÉäÂðÄéí, Lewiy•im′ and áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã in authoritatively interpreting and adjudicating úÌåÉøÈä in case law (Tor•âh′ shë-bikh•tâv′). The result was a diluting of öÀãåÉ÷Äéí Hellenism and the Greek name, γερουσια consequently retreated to the Hebrew name áÌÅéú ãÄéï äÇâÌÈãåÉì.
This continued until B.C.E. 175.
In B.C.E. 175, the last ëÌÉäÅï äÇâÌÈãåÉì faithful to úÌåÉøÈä, Yәkhon•yâh′ Bën-Shim•on′ 2 áÌÆï-öÈãåÉ÷ äÇëÌÉäÅï, was ousted by his rabidly Hellenist brother, "Yәho•shu′a Bën-Shim•on′ 2 áÌÆï-öÈãåÉ÷ äÇëÌÉäÅï—who preferred the Hellenized name: "Ιασονας." That year, "Ιασονας" went to Syria and purchased from Αντιοχος the transferral of the position of ëÌÉäÅï äÇâÌÈãåÉì from Yәkhon•yâh′ to himself in return for a large sum of money and in return for his promise to Hellenize the Jews – and Judaism" (see Kha•nukh•âh′).
From B.C.E. 175, the schism between úÌåÉøÈä and Hellenist factions within the áÌÅéú ãÄéï äÇâÌÈãåÉì resulted in a schism between the anti-Hellenist ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí min and the Hellenizing pseudo-öÀãåÉ÷Äéí min (which had already split from the original priestly öÀãåÉ÷Äéí who would later become known as Essenes and Qum•rân′ öÀãåÉ÷Äéí).
The áÌÅéú ãÄéï äÇâÌÈãåÉì remained predominated and controlled by the Hellenizing pseudo-öÀãåÉ÷Äéí. By the time of the destruction of the áÌÅéú äÇîÌÄ÷ÀãÌÈùÑ in 70 C.E., it is clear that the áÌÅéú ãÄéï äÇâÌÈãåÉì had been controlled by the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí for 40 years (i.e., since 30 C.E., details and documentation below). It has always been disputed exactly when the balance of power tipped from the Hellenizing pseudo-öÀãåÉ÷Äéí to the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí.
According to the Encarta Encyclopedia, the Greeks of Asia Minor, Hellenists, identified
Mithra, the Persian sun- god, with Ηλιος. In many respects, Mithraism was the pattern later continued by these same Hellenists in forming Christianity; for example, in the ideals of humility and brotherly love, baptism, the rite of communion, the use of holy water, the adoration of the shepherds at Mithra's birth, the adoption of Sungodday [displacing Shab•ât′] and of December 25 ( Mithra's birthday) as holy days, and the belief in the immortality of the soul, the last judgment, and the resurrection. (" Mithraism," Encarta '95).
The most important, and revolutionizing, source document discovered in the past 2 millennia, providing spectacular and unparalleled insight into 1st-century Judaism that overturns "traditional" assumptions, without which no Ph.D. or Professor of History correctly grasps 1st-century Judaism, is 4Q MMT, by Prof. El•ish•a′ Qim•ron′, Chairman of the Department of Hebrew Language at Ben-Gurion University of the Nëg′ëv in éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì
According to Ιωσηπος, in B.C.E. 57, the Roman-Syrian (Arab) governor, Gabinus, divided the Holy Land into five Roman (primarily Arab) provinces, placing a Συνεδριον at the head of each. The Senate Assembly in éÀäåÌãÈä had been purchased from the Roman-Syrian Arab governor back in B.C.E. 175 and from ca. B.C.E. 57 it became known as the Συνεδριον rather than áÌÅéú ãÄéï äÇâÌÈãåÉì.
It seems likely that, during this period, the Hellenizing domination of the Συνεδριον by the Hellenist pseudo-öÀãåÉ÷Äéí included their arrogation of the position of ðÈùÒÄéà in addition to the àÇá áÌÅéú ãÄéï.
Although "Ηρωδης [the Great] considered himself the rightful king of [éÀäåÌãÈä], … [he] was severe with [éÀäåÌãÄéí] and tortured and put to death anyone suspected of disloyalty, [while being] lenient with the [Hellenist Arabs] who inhabited the cities ceded to him by Gaius Octavius Καισαρας Augustus." However, while his policy of placating [éÀäåÌãÄéí] while showing magnanimity toward the Hellenist Arabs kept him in control, "no matter how hard he tried to gain the good will of the [Hellenist Arabs] in his domain, he failed. They regarded him as a tyrant and looked upon him as one of the [éÀäåÌãÄéí], whose manners and ways of life differed greatly from theirs; they regarded [éÀäåÌãÄéí] as barbarians." (Zeitlin, p. 42).
By patronizing both sides, Hellenist Arabs and anti-Hellenist éÀäåÌãÄéí, in the end he was revered by neither. Only Gaius Octavius Καισαρας Augustus seems to have been his genuine friend. Yet, Ηρωδης's syncretism, superficially patronizing both Hellenism and Judaism, was certainly the inspiration for Paul to produce the theology, Christianity, that would appeal to "Hellenist Jews" and Arabs (i.e., gentiles) fooled into believing that these two immiscible opposites could be homogenized into one theology.
In B.C.E. 20-19, Ηρωδης the Great "ordered the people to take an oath of allegiance to himself and to Gaius Octavius Καισαρας Augustus. It is probable that at this time, too, daily sacrifices for the welfare of the emperor and Rome were instituted in the áÌÅéú äÇîÌÄ÷ÀãÌÈùÑ. Both were an expression of subjugation" (Zeitlin, p. 43).
Those who refused to take the oath of allegiance were severely punished or put to death. But he made some exceptions…" (Zeitlin, p. 43). These included Hi•leil′ (Greek Pollion) and Sha′mai (Greek Samias), the Essenes and a group, numbering about 6,000 members, of Apocalyptic ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí, who freely "prophesied" whatever would gain them political leverage (Zeitlin, p. 44-45). "They strongly opposed Ηρωδης [the Great], considering him a æÈø and not properly of the royal [Davidic] family. They resented subjugation to Rome in any form, believing that [àÁìÉäÄéí] by supernatural power, would free [éÀäåÌãÈä]… Ηρωδης [the Great] imposed a fine on them" (Zeitlin, p. 44-45).
"Ιωσηπος says that when Ηρωδης [the Great] completed the [enhancement], the people were filled with joy and gave thanks to [àÁìÉäÄéí]. Ηρωδης [the Great] himself offered hundreds of oxen to
God and others made similar offerings. It might seem that ShƏlom•oh′ ha-•Mël′ëkh and Zәru′-Bâ•vël′ had established the precedent in this regard. [However, unlike Ηρωδης the Great, they were not Εd•om•im′ "strangers."] Ιωσηπος does not mention, and rabbinic literature does not refer to, consecration or dedication on the completion of Ηρωδης [the Great]'s [enhancement], as was the case in connection with the earlier ruler's celebrations. Moreover, during the Second Commonwealth the sages did not favor the offering of sacrifices to [àÁìÉäÄéí], except such as were prescribed in [úÌåÉøÈä]. It is questionable whether the spiritual leaders and the rank and file of the [éÀäåÌãÄéí] were happy over the [enhancement] that Ηρωδης [the Great] built. They knew from the Bible that [even] ãÌÈåÄã äÇîÆìÆêÀ was not permitted to build a [áÌÅéú äÇîÌÄ÷ÀãÌÈùÑ] to [àÁìÉäÄéí] because he was a warrior and had shed blood. Ηρωδης [the Great]'s hands were bloody, not only from the death of the enemies of [éÀäåÌãÈä], but from many innocent [éÀäåÌãÄéí] as well. Thus, rabbinic literature makes reference to Ηρωδης [the Great]'s building, but never refers to it as a áÌÇéÄú. The Tal•mud′ speaks about the First áÌÇéÄú (of ShƏlom•oh′ ha-•Mël′ëkh) and the Second áÌÇéÄú (of Zәru′-Bâ•vël′) but never refers to a Third áÌÇéÄú—and this period is referred to only as the period of the Second áÌÇéÄú. Ηρωδης [the Great]'s [enhancement] was beautiful, but, because it was built by Ηρωδης [the Great], the sages ignored it" (Zeitlin, p. 52).
The local Diaspora éÀäåÌãÄéí complained against the majority Hellenist Turks, who were preventing them from keeping ùÑÇáÌÈú and from sending money to éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí for the áÌÅéú äÇîÌÄ÷ÀãÌÈùÑ… [King] Agrippa [I] confirmed the right of the [éÀäåÌãÄéí of the Turkish Diaspora] to live in accordance with the religious customs, and forbade the Hellenes (sic) to hinder the [éÀäåÌãÄéí] from sending money to éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí for the áÌÅéú äÇîÌÄ÷ÀãÌÈùÑ. While [King] Agrippa [I] was in Asia, he issued other decrees favoring the [éÀäåÌãÄéí] of the Diaspora" (Zeitlin, p. 53). However, this also aggravated and intensified misojudaic sentiments among the Hellenists Turks and Arabs.
Καισαρεια would become the cancerous epicenter of Hellenist idolatry that would inexorably lead to the destruction of 70 C.E.
"[éÀäåÌãÈä] had but one port on the Mediterranean, [Yaph′o]… [which] became increasingly inadequate… Ηρωδης [the Great] therefore decided to build a new harbor… [for which] he chose the village of Straton's Tower… [about 16 km / 10 mi.] south of Dor. He had materials assembled in the year [B.C.E.] 22 and the work begun in the year [B.C.E.] 20… Straton's Tower, hitherto an obscure village, was rebuilt into a magnificent city… Ηρωδης [the Great] built a theater and a temple of Gaius Octavius Καισαρας Augustus, and in it he placed statues of Gaius Octavius Καισαρας Augustus and Rome. The statue of the emperor was a replica of the Pheidian
Zeus of Olympia… On the south side of the harbor he constructed an ampitheater for gladiatorial combats, [naked] athletic competitions and fights between wild beasts. [Ηρωδης the Great] renamed the city Καισαρεια in honor of Gaius Octavius Καισαρας Augustus. On its completion, in the year [B.C.E.] 10, it became one of the most important ports of the eastern Mediterranean coast and the economic welfare of éÀäåÌãÈä greatly prospered as a result." (Prof. Solomon Zeitlin), p. 40-41).
The dedication of the city was celebrated with great pomp and splendor. There were musical contests, [naked] athletic contests, horse racing and fights by gladiators with wild beasts… Everything was done on an elaborate scale on a par with what was to be seen in Rome. He arranged that Olympic Games be held at four-year intervals" (Zeitlin, p. 55).
"The celebration, with its pagan overtones, displeased the spiritual leaders of [éÀäåÌãÈä], causing them to declare that [Καισαρεια] was legally outside the land of [éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì], and that such gentile lands outside [éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì] were in a state of ritual uncleanness… Not long after the dedication of [Καισαρεια], Ηρωδης [the Great] completed the construction of the various buildings of the áÌÅéú äÇîÌÄ÷ÀãÌÈùÑ. He then had a large golden eagle placed over the entrance of äÇø äÇáÌÇéÄú" (Zeitlin, p. 56).
It is clear that Gaius Octavius Καισαρας Augustus recognized that, unless the two sides were mostly separated, the conflict between the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí and Hellenist (primarily Arab) gentiles would lead to a catastrophic clash, creating a weakness in the east of the empire that would invite invasion from the Parthians. Accordingly, in order to make the region of éÀäåÌãÈä more homogeneous (and, thus, easier to control and avert the disaster), "[Gaius Octavius] Καισαρας [Augustus] detached a few cities populated by Hellenist [Arabs], making them independent of éÀäåÌãÈä." However, [Εd•om′ (Idumea)] and [the ùÑåÉîÀøåÉï] remained within the Εθναρχια—including éÈôåÉ, [Καισαρεια] and [Σεβαστη]. He also dismissed Joazar grandson of Boethus from the high priesthood" (Zeitlin, p. 134).
éÀäåÌãÈä led an uprising against Rome, proclaiming that paying tribute to Rome was a sin, tantamount to slavery (Zeitlin, p. 140). The Romans crushed the uprising and crucified 2,000 Jews.
After complaints of cruelty from both éÀäåÌãÄéí and ùÑåÉîÀøåÉðÄéí, [Gaius Octavius Καισαρας Augustus] deposed and exiled Αρχελαος, declared éÀäåÌãÈä a Roman Province and named a Roman Knight, Coponius, as Procurator, responsible solely to Gaius Octavius Καισαρας Augustus (Zeitlin, p. 137).
Procurator Coponius, having no national army, was dependent upon auxiliary forces consisting of soldiers of [Σεβαστη] and [Καισαρεια] (Zeitlin, p. 138).
"While Rome eradicated all political authority, the Romans also made it a practice not to disturb religious authorities and allowed them to retain certain civil powers. The sacerdos provinciae, the high priest, was the head of the province, holding office for one year" (Zeitlin, p. 139).
There were 3 essentials of Roman rule: tax, conscription and Roman law. Due to religious requirements, éÀäåÌãÈä was exempted from both of the latter two (Zeitlin, p. 137) and éÀäåÌãÄéí balked at taxation. Understandably, from a gentile perspective, éÀäåÌãÄéí, even despite receiving special privileges over them, still remained anti-social and bellicose—the origin of misojudaism, at its very core, has always been úÌåÉøÈä.
"There were no serious disturbances in éÀäåÌãÈä during the time of Gratus" [14-26 C.E.] (Zeitlin, p. 141).
From B.C.E. mid-first century, the scenario that best fits the documented historical facts, including 4Q MMT and the Dead Sea Scrolls, seems to be (based on my Chronology of the Tan"kh from the 'Big Stretch-Apart'; ):
In contrast to Hi•leil′ the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄé, the Hellenist pseudo-öÀãåÉ÷Äéí saw Sha′mai the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄé as a political minority (and, therefore, controllable) representative of the ascending ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí min, who were gaining political ground (support among the populous).
Compounding the problems for each successive Hellenist ëÌÉäÅï äÇøÆùÑòÇ of the pseudo-öÀãåÉ÷Äéí, their aristocratic pandering to the rich continued to become increasingly unpopular and alienated the Jewish populace. The ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí parleyed all of this into the election, ca. 20 C.E., of âÌÇîÀìÄéàÅì as ðÈùÒÄéà and apparent control of the áÌÅéú ãÄéï äÇâÌÈãåÉì (aka Συνεδριον).
There remained in the áÌÅéú ãÄéï äÇâÌÈãåÉì, however, a powerful undercurrent of underhanded and corrupt, opposition in the form of each successive Hellenist ëÌÉäÅï äÇøÆùÑòÇ of the pseudo-öÀãåÉ÷Äéí—who were zealous to stop at nothing to wield power and protect their wealth and positions as sycophants of their patron Hellenist Roman occupiers.
Discovered in Yâm Ki•nër′ët, this Gâ•lil′-boat's length is 8.2 m., its width 2.3 m. and its depth 1.2 m. Apparently a fishing boat, the vessel was large enough to carry 15 people, including a crew of five. Carbon-14 tests confirmed that the boat was constructed and used between B.C.E. 100 and 70 C.E. (mfa.gov.il).
In the jumble of Hellenist (Greek) versus rabbinic (ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí Hebrew) sources during this period, little confidence can be derived from these sources indicating which office was won by the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí at this time. The consistent hints from the inception of the áÌÅéú ãÄéï äÇâÌÈãåÉì, however, suggest that the position won by the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí during this time was the office of ðÈùÒÄéà—and traditionally held by a descendant of áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã. This has significant implications for the emerging ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí øÄéáÌÄé of áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã at this time: øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ!
"The new procurator was portrayed by his contemporary, Φιλων, and later by Ιωσηπος, as a man of greed, venality and cruelty, utterly lacking in human compassion. He resorted to robbery and oppression. Hence there were frequent clashes between the éÀäåÌãÄéí and Ποντιος Πιλατος" (Zeitlin, p. 142). These clashes resulted from a ham-fisted determination to impose his Hellenism on the éÀäåÌãÄéí.
Ποντιος Πιλατος began the construction of an aquaduct to bring a greater water supply to éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí, which suffered periodic water shortages. To pay for this construction, he seized the funds from the sacred treasury… The éÀäåÌãÄéí protested strongly against this sacrilege… [Ποντιος Πιλατος] ordered his soldiers to garb themselves as civilians with their swords concealed under their clothing. When the éÀäåÌãÄéí persisted in their protestations, he signaled his army to attack them. A fearful slaughter ensued…" (Zeitlin, p. 143).
This was the setting in 27 C.E. when øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ was becoming famous as the foremost ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄé øÄéáÌÄé (for which, see The Nәtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM).
Even the Διαθηκη Νεος corroborates that, at the trial of øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ in 30 C.E., a Συνεδριον (certainly not the "Great Συνεδριον) was predominated by Hellenizing pseudo-öÀãåÉ÷Äéí—whose leaders, Ανανιας and his son-in-law (also of the House of çÂðÇðÀéÈä) Καιαφας, were Hellenizing pseudo-öÀãåÉ÷Äéí.
The very name, Συνεδριον, a Hellenist Greek term, testifies to the Hellenization of the body by the Hellenizing pseudo-öÀãåÉ÷Äéí in contrast to the intensely anti-Hellenist ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí. Yet, as noted above, the áÌÅéú ãÄéï äÇâÌÈãåÉì was predominated by the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí since 20 C.E. Clearly, the Συνεδριον conducting the trial against øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ—which convened at night and during a Khag (both prohibited by Ha•lâkh•âh′)—was a lower Συνεδριον.
Tal•mud′ (Ma•sëk′ët pәsâkh•im′ 57a) included this priestly house in its list of ëÌÉäÅï äÇøÆùÑòÇ families: "Woe is me because of the house of çÈðÄéï [which included his son-in-law, Καιαφας], woe is me because of their whisperings."
"Roman power appointed the [Hellenist ëÌÉäÅï äÇøÆùÑòÇ of the pseudo-öÀãåÉ÷Äéí] who was in charge of the religious sites of [Judea]. And [the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ, like the Essene öÀãåÉ÷Äéí "îÉàøÄé öÆãÆ÷" before him,] openly denounced these [Hellenist Σαδδουκαιοι ëÌÉäÅï äÇøÆùÑòÇ] priests, so much is known. This indirect threat to Roman power, together with the Roman perception that øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ was claiming to be the 'King of the Jews', was the reason for his condemnation.).
Death-penalty cases had to be tried in daylight;
Conviction required confirmation at least one day later, giving the council time to sleep on the matter;
Capital case were supposed to begin introducing the reasons for acquittal, not with reasons for conviction.
While some scholars have asserted that Jews could not carry out the death penalty, the death penalty for blasphemy was stoning. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment for political crimes. Moreover, Jews most certainly could, and did, carry out the death penalty for blasphemy: witness the stoning of
Στεφανος only about 4 years later!!! Even during his own lifetime, øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ intervened in a stoning of an alleged adulteress.
The entire premise that
Jesus saved goy•im′ rather than Jews was predicated on the first-order quintessential Christian doctrine that " God" had rejected the Jews—because the Jews had first rejected " God," in the person (man- god) of the Lord Jesus" and, consequently, God had "chosen" the goy•im′ to replace "the rejected Jews"—"the Jews" thereby having "made themselves enemies of God" and, therefore, "servants of Satan and enemies of the Church"—Christians thereby exclusively inheriting "the covenant," replacing the rejected Jews as the "True Chosen Israel." Only then does it follow that the salvation of Jesus was, as a result, given to Christian goy•im′ instead. Thus, blaming the "the Jews" for "rejecting the Lord Jesus" was absolutely essential to Christian salvation and theology: without "the Jews" rejecting Jesus, there could be no transferral of Judaic ëÌÄôÌåÌø to the Hellenist goy•im′ "personal salvation"! This unavoidable fabricated thread from which ALL Christianity, and the "pesonal salvation" of EVERY Christian dangles, is what, despite all attempts to make nice-nice, always, relentlessly, brings Christianity back to its existential misojudaisc root: the Displacement Theology without which Christianity is patently invalid. Displacement Theology can be glossed over but never renounced without invalidating Christianity. Thus, Christian Displacement Theology, with its unavoidable misojudaism, is irremediable without invalidating Christianity at its very core. Reconciliation between Christianity and Judaism is mathematically impossible because Judaism, unless it is declared false (as Christianity holds), invalidates Christianity (transferral of covenant and salvation)—and false Judaism is clearly the enemy of God, therefore…
(No nice words from any pope, seminarian or evangelist can alter these dynamics. That wishful thinking is pure Jewish self-delusion. The only alternative for Jews is to show that Christianity IS false and invalid.)
the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí áÌÅéú ãÄéï äÇâÌÈãåÉì opposition to the Συνεδριον that continued to persecute the original ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí Jewish ðÀöÈøÄéí followers of øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ—Hellenists persecuting ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí that Christians turn on its head to claim that this was Jews persecuting Christians!!!
ALL contradicted, and militate against, the post-135 C.E. gentile, primarily Italian and Arab, Hellenist Roman Christian premise that "the Jews" had rejected øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ (and vice-versa). The ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí had not rejected their own ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ. These inconvenient facts constituted existential contradictions of Christianity and the Church, which had to be redacted out of their Διαθηκη Νεος—erased from Christian history. But the Judaic literatureretains the evidence to piece it back together.
Rejection of the illegitimate Συνεδριον of the ëÌÉäÅï äÇøÆùÑòÇ of the Hellenist pseudo-öÀãåÉ÷Äéí by ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí—Israel/Jews—who were demonstrating sympathy to øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ incontrovertibly contradicted and invalidated the Christian claim that "the Jews" had rejected him! Jews sympathetic to øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ, proving the Church's lie, was unacceptable to the Church. Thus, the event had to be erased—redacted—from Christian-controlled history.
As a result, the trial of øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ also presents us with the most likely reason for the shattering schism in the Συνεδριον precisely at the time—and, obviously, as a result—of this conviction, by the Hellenizing pseudo-öÀãåÉ÷Äéí, of a ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄé øÄéáÌÄé, carried out behind the backs of the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí and, thereby, betraying the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí in a political power play designed to enable the Hellenizing pseudo-öÀãåÉ÷Äéí to crush and dominate the ascendant ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí and end the threat of a Jewish revolt against their Hellenist Roman, primarily Arab, patrons. Thus, the Hellenizing pseudo-öÀãåÉ÷Äéí were desperate, since a successful revolt against their Italian and ArabRoman occupier patrons would unseat them, accompanied by the demise of their Hellenized áÌÅéú äÇîÌÄ÷ÀãÌÈùÑ–their raison d'être–in 30 C.E. Nevertheless, by 67 C.E. they could no longer forestall the rebellion.
(ca. 30 C.E.)
Any suggestion that the internal break-up of the Συνεδριον occurred the same year as, yet was unrelated to, the greatest event ever to shape history, is laughably absurd. The only intelligent question is what that connection was.
In his Mish′neih Tor′âh (Sanhedrin 14.13), Ramba''m observed (translation follows):
éá áúçéìä ëùðáðä äî÷ãù, äéå áéú ãéï äâãåì éåùáéï áìùëú äâæéú ùäééúä áòæøú éùøàì; åäî÷åí ùäéå éåùáéï áå çåì äéä, ùàéï éùéáä áòæøä àìà ìîìëé áéú ãåéã. åëùðú÷ì÷ìä äùåøä, âìå îî÷åí ìî÷åí. åìòùøä î÷åîåú âìå, åñåôï ìèáøéä; åîùí ìà òîã áéú ãéï âãåì, òã òúä. å÷áìä äéà ùáèáøéä òúéãéï ìçæåø úçéìä, åîùí ðòú÷éï ìî÷ãù.
(12 In the beginning, when the áÌÅéú äÇîÌÄ÷ÀãÌÈùÑ was built, the áÌÅéú ãÄéï äÇâÌÈãåÉì would convene in the ìÄùÑÀëÌÇú äÇâÌÈæÄéú that was in the òÆæøÇú éÄùÒøÈàÅì. And the place in which they convened was khol, for there is no convening in this court except for the Royalty of áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã.
And when the succession broke down, they exiled themselves from place to place. They exiled themselves to ten places, the last of them being Τιβεριας. From then on, the áÌÅéú ãÄéï äÇâÌÈãåÉì ceased to convene until now. It is accepted that they are destined to return first to Τιβεριας and from there they will relocate to the áÌÅéú äÇîÌÄ÷ÀãÌÈùÑ.)
éâ àøáòéí ùðä ÷åãí çøáï áéú ùðé áèìå ãéðé ðôùåú îéùøàì, àó òì ôé ùäéä äî÷ãù ÷ééí, îôðé ùâìå äñðäãøéï, åìà äéå áî÷åîï ùí áî÷ãù.
(13. Forty years before the destruction of the second áÌÅéú äÇîÌÄ÷ÀãÌÈùÑ (Note: exactly 30 C.E.!!!), adjudications of capital punishment cases ceased from Israel, even though the áÌÅéú äÇîÌÄ÷ÀãÌÈùÑ still existed, because the Συνεδριον exiled themselves, and none [convened] in their place there in the áÌÅéú äÇîÌÄ÷ÀãÌÈùÑ.)
éã áæîï ùãðéï ãéðé ðôùåú áàøõ éùøàì, ãðéï ãéðé ðôùåú ëï áçåöä ìàøõ--åäåà ùéäéå äñðäãøéï ñîåëéï áàøõ éùøàì, ëîå ùáéàøðå: ùäñðäãøéï ðåäâú áàøõ, åáçåöä ìàøõ.
(14 While capital punishment cases are adjudicated in éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì, similarly, capital punishment cases are adjudicated the same way outside of éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì -- viz., the Συνεδριον will be based in éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì, as we have explained: the Συνεδριον directs [both] in hâ-Âr′ëtz and outside of hâ-Âr′ëtz.)
Ramba''m properly reasoned his conclusions from Tal•mud′:
Ma•sëk′ ët Sunedrion 41a:
àøáòéí ùðä ÷åãí çåøáï äáéú âìúä ñðäãøé åéùáä ìä áçðåú
(Forty years preceding the ruin of the House [Note: exactly 30 C.E.!], the Sanhedri (sic) exiled herself and convened herself in the çÂðåÌú.
(Forty years before the House was destroyed [70 C.E. - 40 = 30 C.E.!], the Sanhedrin exiled herself from [the House] and convened herself in the çÂðåÌú
Ma•sëk′ët Shab•ât′ 15a:
àøáòéí ùðä òã ùìà çøá äáéú - âìúä ìä ñðäãøéï åéùáä ìä áçðåéåú
How did the original meaning morph from "gracious room" to today's meaning of a commercial "store" or "shop" of business? The connotation of "store" is more easily seen, since a store (storage area) can be either charitable or commercial. We seem to find here, during the lifetime of øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ, the first documented usage (coining) of the term çÂðåÌú to refer to the commercialization, by the shady-dealing, money-oriented, profiteering first-century C.E. çÂðÇðÀéÈä (Ανανιας) family of Hellenist ëÌÉäÅï äÇøÆùÑòÇ of the pseudo-öÀãåÉ÷Äéí, having turned their "gracious chamber"—çÂðåÌú—which was where the Συνεδριον convened following their exile from the áÌÅéú äÇîÌÄ÷ÀãÌÈùÑ, into a commercial store or shop. This was also likely a significant element of that to which øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ objected: turning the áÌÅéú äÇîÌÄ÷ÀãÌÈùÑ into a çÂðåÌú of business and a den of thieves. çÂðåÌú thereafter stuck as meaning a commercial shop or store.
Tal•mud′ Ma•sëk′ët Rosh ha-Shân•âh′ 31a-b (English translation follows):
àîø øá éäåãä áø àéãé à"ø éåçðï òùø îñòåú ðñòä ùëéðä î÷øàé åëðâãï âìúä ñðäãøéï îâîøà òùø îñòåú ðñòä ùëéðä î÷øàé îëôøú ìëøåá åîëøåá ìëøåá åîëøåá ìîôúï åîîôúï ìçöø åîçöø ìîæáç åîîæáç ìââ åîââ ìçåîä åîçåîä ìòéø åîòéø ìäø åîäø ìîãáø åîîãáø òìúä åéùáä áî÷åîä ùðàîø (äåùò ä) àìê àùåáä àì î÷åîé
îëôåøú ìëøåá îëøåá ìëøåá åîëøåá ìîôúï ãëúéá (ùîåú ëä) åðåòãúé [ìê ùí åãáøúé] àúê îòì äëôåøú
åëúéá (ùîåàì á ëá) åéøëá òì ëøåá åéòó
åëúéá (éçæ÷àì è) åëáåã àìäé éùøàì ðòìä îòì äëøåá àùø äéä òìéå àì îôúï äáéú åîîôúï ìçöø
ãëúéá (éçæ÷àì é) åéîìà äáéú àú äòðï åäçöø îìàä àú ðâä ëáåã ä' îçöø ìîæáç
ãëúéá (òîåñ è) øàéúé àú ä' ðöá òì äîæáç
åîîæáç ìââ ãëúéá (îùìé ëà) èåá ìùáú òì ôðú ââ
îââ ìçåîä ãëúéá (òîåñ æ) åäðä ä' ðöá òì çåîú àðê
îçåîä ìòéø ãëúéá (îéëä å) ÷åì ä' ìòéø é÷øà
åîòéø ìäø ãëúéá (éçæ÷àì éà) åéòì ëáåã ä' îòì úåê äòéø åéòîã òì ääø àùø î÷ãí ìòéø
åîäø ìîãáø ãëúéá (îùìé ëà) èåá ùáú áàøõ îãáø
åîîãáø òìúä åéùáä áî÷åîä ãëúéá (äåùò ä) àìê àùåáä àì î÷åîé åâå'
à"ø éåçðï ùùä çãùéí ðúòëáä ùëéðä ìéùøàì áîãáø ùîà éçæøå áúùåáä ëéåï ùìà çæøå àîø úéôç òöîï ùðàîø (àéåá éà) åòéðé øùòéí úëìéðä åîðåñ àáã îðäí åú÷åúí îôç ðôù
åëðâãï âìúä ñðäãøéï îâîøà îìùëú äâæéú ìçðåú åîçðåú ìéøåùìéí åîéøåùìéí ìéáðä [ãó ìà, á] âîøà åîéáðä ìàåùà åîàåùà ìéáðä åîéáðä ìàåùà åîàåùà ìùôøòí åîùôøòí ìáéú ùòøéí åîáéú ùòøéí ìöôåøé åîöôåøé ìèáøéà åèáøéà òîå÷ä îëåìï ùðàîø (éùòéäå ëè) åùôìú îàøõ úãáøé
Â•mar′ Rav Yәhud•âh′ Bar-Idi, a[mar]"R[av] Yokhanan, by ten journeys journeyed the Biblical Shәkhin•âh′ and, correspondingly, the Συνεδριον exiled herself. From the Gәmâr•â′, the Biblical Shәkhin•âh′ journeyed ten journeys:
from the threshold to the [inner] Court [of éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì],
from the wall to the City [of éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí],
from the City [of éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí] to the Mount [of Olives],
And it is written (Yәkhëz•qeil′ 9[.3]), "Then the kâ•vod′ of the Ël•oh•im′ of éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì went up from over the Kәruv, where it had been over [the Kәruv], to the threshold of the House, and from the threshold to the [inner] Court [of éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì]."
And from the Miz•bei′akh to the roof, as it is written (Mi•shәl•ei′ Shәlom′oh 21[.9]), "Better to dwell on a corner of a roof…" [than with a contentious woman, that woman being contentious éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì].
And from the City to the Mount [of Olives] as it is written (Yәkhëz•qeil′ 11[.23]), "Then the Kâ•vod′ é--ä ascended from over the midst of the City, and stood over the Mount which is east of the City."
Then from the Mount [of Olives] to the mi•dәbar′ as it is written (Mi•shәl•ei′ Shәlom•oh′ 21[.19]), "Better to dwell in mi•dәbar′ land…" [than with a contentious woman, that contentious woman being éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì].
Â•mar′ R[av] Yokhâ•nân′, six months the Shәkhin•âh′ tarried for éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì in the mi•dәbar′ in the hope that they would return [tәshuv•âh′]. When they did not return [tәshuv•âh′], He said, úÌÄéôÌÇç òÂöÀîÇï. As it is written (I•yov′ 11[.20]), "Then the eyes of the wicked ones shall be finished and escape shall be lost from them; and their hope [shall become] îÇôÌÇç-ðÈôÆù.
from éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí to Yav′nëh,
from Yav′nëh to Usha,
from Usha returned to Yav′nëh,
from Yav′nëh returned to Usha,
from Usha to Shәphar•im′,
from Shәphar•im′ to Beit Shәar•im′,
from Beit Shәar•im′ to Tzi•por•i′ (Sepphoris)
from Tzi•por•i′ to Τιβεριας;
and Τιβεριας is the lowest [both topographically low and spiritually Hellenized] of all of them. As it says (Yәsha•yâh′u 29[.4]): "Then you will sink to the bottom and speak from the land…"
Primarily under the influence of the 2nd century C.E. Tan•â′ øÇáÌÈï ùÑÄîÀòåÉï áÌÇø éåÉçÇàé, this ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí áÌÅéú ãÄéï äÇâÌÈãåÉì fixed the principles of rabbinic Judaism, preserved until today by the Tei•mân•im′. (The Tei•mân•im′ chant a song commemorating Bar Yo•khai′ each evening during the counting of the O′mër. As a point of information, however, neither Ramba''m nor the Tei•mân•im′ in his time, accepted the specious claim of Kabbalists that Bar Yo•khai′ authored the Zo•har′, an apostasy that was never even conceived until the 14th century C.E., or had any connection to Qa•bâl•âh′—which wasn't even conceived until more than a millennium after his death.
The earliest εκκλησια historian was a post-135 C.E. gentile Roman Hellenist (i.e., Catholic) named Ηγησιππος, who certainly regarded ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-éÉåñÅó as the original and authentic Jewish ôÌÈ÷Äéã ðÀöÈøÄéí (not a Roman gentile επισκοπος) – and headquartered in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí, not Ρωμη (H.J. Lawlor, 'Eusebiana, Essays on the Hypomnemata of Hegesippus,' ca. 120-180 C.E., p. 16-17).
According to Ηγησιππος (whose writings are no longer extant, but as reported by the earliest extant εκκλησια historian, Ευσεβιος), "And after ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-éÉåñÅó[ had testified [i.e., served as ôÌÈ÷Äéã]… ôÌÈ÷Äéã ùÑÄîÀòåÉï, "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-çÆìÆó, was appointed ôÌÈ÷Äéã because he was a cousin of the κυριος.
Through this [time] they called the congregation virgin: for it was wasn't yet corrupted by heresies. (According to Ιωσηπος, ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-éÉåñÅó was murdered in 62 C.E. (Ant. xx, ix, 1 and Bellarmino Bagatti, The Church from the Circumcision éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí: Franciscan Printing Press 1971, p. 6-7).
Thus, the earliest extant Χριστιανος historian, Ηγησιππος, verified that ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-éÉåñÅó and the ðÀöÈøÄéí were the only, undisputed, authentic, and original followers of historical øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ; and that they retained their pristineness until 62 C.E.—exactly the time that the Σαδδουκαιοι ëÌÉäÅï äÇøÆùÑòÇ, Ανανιας, murdered ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" and the ðÀöÈøÄéí and other ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí began to be apostatized by Hellenists—who attempted to discredit the original ðÀöÈøÄéí.
Unsurprisingly, εκκλησια historians refuse to record anything overtly Judaic about the ðÀöÈøÄéí ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí during the supposed transition from the
Στεφανος and Παυλος that culminated in the forcible ouster and expulsion, in 135 C.E., of the
|30-99 C.E. – Go To Page|