QUESTION: Don't the Gospels try to pin all the blame for the death of Yeshua on the Jews?

RESPONSE: "They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles, to be mocked and flogged and crucified" (Matt. 20:17). (Looks like Gentiles do the crucifying here!)

"They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him" (Mark 10:33-34). (Looks like the Gentiles are at work again!)

"He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him" (Luke 18:32). (Gentiles again...)

Is this why they report he said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do?" There is, in fact, no invective in the New Testament. There are no adjectives - there is no "wicked, evil Caiaphas", no "stealthy, crafty Annas", no "cowardly Pilate"; just straightforward renditions of what everyone did. If the authors of the New Testament had really wanted to, they could have done a much better job of "fantasizing" things, and of villainizing specific individuals.

Anyway, we're not talking about ALL of the people here, just the cabal of the leaders - who were generally toadies of the Romans. The Romans selected the high priests, and dismissed them at will. From the years 6-36 C.E. the high priest's garments were retained in the keeping of the governor. From the time of Herod to the fall of Jerusalem there were no less than 28 high priests. (See Josephus, Antiquities, XVIII 2.2). One governor shuffled four of them in his term, until he found one he liked: Caiaphas. Caiaphas then held office for the next 18 years, the longest of any. One can assume from this that he and the Romans got along well together - rather like the Vichy French and the Germans. However, after Pilate was recalled in 36 C.E., the governor of Syria, Vitellius, dismissed Caiaphas as well. (See Josephus, Antiquities, especially XVIII 2.2, 4.2; XIX 8.1). R. Judah b. Ilai was recorded as saying, "Since one gives money for the high priesthood, they change every 12 months". (Yoma 8b, Bavli).

...Ergo, one would deduce that such a 'ramrod' form of justice was possible; and that not all of the "just men" of the city would have agreed to it.

Another similar case is recorded by Josephus in his 'Wars' (VI 5.3). There a man (also named Yeshua, or Jesus) predicted the destruction of Jerusalem (and by implication, the Temple). The authorities arrested him and handed him over to the Roman governor, Albinus, for judgement. This Jesus was also whipped, until his bones were laid bare, but he refused to make any defense for himself, except to repeat, over and over, "Woe to Jerusalem". Albinus, considering him a madman, released him.

(We are, after all, looking back on these events from a perspective of 2000 years. We assume that Judaism then must be as Judaism now - a unified religion. But, remember that in those days Bet Hillel, for example, was only one opinion; members of Bet Hillel had even been subject to attacks, and murder, by members of Bet Shammai, the majority. There were also Temple factions (Sadducees), who were compromised with the political rulers, Essenes, etc. Which of these factions is it correct to explicitly label "the Jews", or "the Jewish leaders"?

QUESTION: The Sanhedrin would never have acted in such an illegal manner!

RESPONSE: Oh, right. And government always stays inside the lines of the constitution. And cops don't go bad, husbands don't beat their wives, clergy don't molest children, and judges always run honest courtrooms....

Christians have remarked on the highly irregular procedures recorded in the Gospels for centuries. But we assert their historical accuracy nevertheless. Those charging Yeshua were afraid of a riot if they conducted the trial in the normal, public manner.

That was the idea - to get it over with quickly, before an insurrection started, with Jerusalem filled with pilgrims for the Passover, and national feelings for freedom at a high pitch - just the time for a "messiah" to arrive. Ergo, snuff the movement out quickly, so that it is over with before anyone knows the difference. What sort of reaction the public - the real public, which had welcomed Yeshua into the city only a week before - do you think would have resulted if they had delayed and held lengthy open daylight trials, with, perhaps, another kind of mob waiting outdoors?

Consider a hypothetical modern parallel example: a popular leader arises in an occupied country, say, a Lech Walesa in Poland. He grows so popular that everyone fears an anti-Russian, anti-communist revolt will break out. But, with memories of Hungary and 1956 in their minds, the leaders of the Church (who are the real representatives and custodians of Polish national feelings) decide that it would be best for Poland to be rid of Walesa. However, they lack the power to do this. So they go to the civil government. But the government is afraid things will go bad, anyway, and that will get them in trouble with Moscow. They finally assent, but only if the Church leaders take responsibility for everything. If there is any popular reaction, it must be directed at them.

The execution proceeds apace. The Church leaders say, "We had to do it to save Poland". The government announces loudly, "WE had nothing to do with it". And Walesa is remembered ever after as a great martyr who sacrificed his life for Poland.

Politicians being now, as then, what they are, what is so improbable and ludicrous about this?

QUESTION: But weren't the gospel accounts written long after the events? So of course they are inaccurate!

RESPONSE: So? The Torah was written long after many of the events depicted in it, too (especially the events in Genesis). Is it inaccurate?

Actually, the documents detailing how the Sanhedrin was run were put down on paper long after the Gospels. The Mishnah was probably put into written form at least a century (and probably a century and a half) later. Don't you think something might have become "idealized" by then? Just as our own constitution might, in a similar instance, be remembered as it was written - but not as it was always practiced? (Remember Watergate?)

QUESTION: Anyway, there's no contemporary evidence that Yeshua even existed!

RESPONSE: And there's no evidence for the Exodus, either. Nobody has ever found the chariots of Pharaoh, no one has ever found a piece of manna, and so on....

QUESTION: Don't the Gospels try and whitewash Pilate?

RESPONSE: The Gospels don't paint a pretty picture of Pilate. He hates the Jews, so he is suspicious of them and reluctant to agree to their demands. He "washes his hands" of the affair as if to refuse. But in the end he sees no reason not to kill this one Jew. He does take the occasion to make a political statement: an insult to the Jews who demand this man's death. The crime board nailed to the cross proclaims him "King of the Jews".

So why don't they go even further? Pilate vacillates. He has Yeshua scourged. Why not delete this? Why show the Roman soldiers mocking Yeshua? Why have any criticism of Pilate at all? Why not have him, like Albinus, be enraged and angry? Praising Roman justice? A few sentences like this here and there could have been inserted to that effect. Why not? If, as is claimed, they were making the whole thing up anyway?

QUESTION: What about, "His blood be on us, and our children?"

RESPONSE: Just before this, Pilate washes his hands. This is apparently in imitation of the Jewish custom (Deut. 20:6-8), in which the elders of a city declare themselves innocent of a murder. After this, they pray, "...do not hold your people guilty of the blood of an innocent man". The crowd, familiar with this, and knowing the usual response, and having been worked into a frenzy, simply shouts back, as a mob will, the reverse of this - in effect, "yes, we are guilty; put his blood upon us!". They aren't in the least fear about this, and they do not consider Yeshua to be the messiah. (Compare, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do".)

The intent of the author of Matthew is to portray Yeshua as the lamb of Passover. When the Angel of Destruction saw the blood on the doorposts of the houses of the people of Israel, he passed over them. In this "second" Passover, all the principals, from the High Priest on, play their expected roles. Yeshua dies exactly at the right moment during the sacrifice of the unblemished lamb in the Temple. And the people cried out, "His blood be on (or over) us"; i.e., the blood of the lamb of Passover be over us. This is the only possible intended meaning given the setting of the rest of the narrative. Again, ripped out of its Jewish context, the passage looses its meaning and can be (as it has been) misinterpreted by anyone to suit their own purposes. (But anti-semites should not be allowed to force their interpretation of scripture onto the rest of the world.)

QUESTION: The actions of everyone in the story are too improbable to be believed!

....It is extremely implausible that people behold the majesty and power of G-d in a pillar of cloud and a pillar of fire (hardly natural phenomena) and yet want to go back to Egypt. It is extremely implausible that people witness to the descent of G-d upon Mt. Sinai with thunder and darkness and cloud; hear a voice from heaven speak to them - and in particular tell them "You shall not make any graven images" - and then go off and make a graven image. G-d parts the waters and destroys the Egyptian army - yet the people have no confidence in the ability of G-d to deliver the promised land to them. Yet all these things happened.

QUESTION: You only accept these accounts because you have to; they are part of your religion, and it would collapse if you didn't.

RESPONSE: And you have to reject the account of the resurrection - because if the resurrection occurred (and it did), then Christianity is exactly what it claims to be. You have to reject the clear interpretation of Isaiah 53, for the same reason. And you have to reject the account of the trial of Yeshua, because you cannot accept the idea that the Temple leaders would do something of this magnitude.

Assume, for a moment, that the resurrection actually happened. Can your world-view accept this? The answer, of course, is "No" - you cannot. Therefore, the resurrection must be false - not on the basis of history, but on the basis of what you feel you must believe.

QUESTION: So who did cause "that man" to be put to death?

RESPONSE: G-d.

QUESTION: How can you be sure what your Christian scriptures say? There are MANY versions of the New Testament which have survived from ancient times, and they differ from one another; whereas, the Tenach has been handed down without error.

RESPONSE: Yes, there ARE many versions of the New Testament books, but then, there are many thousands of New Testament manuscripts remaining from the first few centuries. And, when compared with one another, it is not too difficult, in most cases, to arrive at what was more or less the "common" version. Only about one-half of one percent of the NT has variant readings (and that out of thousands of manuscripts); many of these are simply spelling/stylistic variants. And in NO case is there a doctrinal issue at stake.

The Tenach, on the other hand, has come down to us from a single copy, inscribed about 1008 C.E. But weren't there variants before this time? The Masorites, who put together (or maybe "ratified" is a better word) our present version were, of course, masters of the language, and they selected which manuscript versions would be kept. However, it is never claimed that THEY were divinely inspired, or infallible. Thus, here and there, when they compared manuscripts, they might have made an erroneous selection of vowels with which to mark the words, or, when faced with a difficult choice between words, have selected the wrong one. And can it be that they, like all of us, might have been influenced, even if subconsciously, by their own beliefs and theology as to which rendering OUGHT to be correct?

For example, we know that in various places the word "Adonai", and elsewhere perhaps "elohim", was sometimes substituted for the Divine Name. (See the work of Dr. C. D. Ginsburg on the Massorah notes for this.) It is also noticeable that the present text of Jeremiah is about one-seventh longer than the text of Jeremiah in the Septuagint, and that the material is in a slightly different order. (Thus, the early translators of the Septuagint may have been working from a different text than that selected by the Masorites.) And the Dead Sea Scrolls have demonstrated that, indeed, there were variants of the Tenach which existed at that time. In the book of Isaiah, for instance, the 53rd chapter, the tenth verse, the Great Isaiah scroll text reads "But the L-rd wanted him crushed, and He pierced him (to death)". The present version has, "Yet it pleased the L-rd to crush him", or "to crush him by disease". In verse 11, a word appears to have been left out of our present text. Two Hebrew future tense verbs occur back-to-back. This is unusual. In the Great Isaiah scroll, the word "light" is inserted between them. Thus, the text of the Masorites reads "He shall see and he shall be satisfied"; whereas the Dead Sea Scroll reads "He shall see light and shall be satisfied". (See Catherine Geever, Margaret and Preston Heinle, "Messianic Prophecies From a Dead Sea Scroll".)

There are hints in the Talmud that occasionally "corrections" to the text might have been made. For example, Men. 35a (Shab. 13b, Hag. 13a), asserts that Hananiah ben Hezekiah spent some time (and 300 barrels of lamp oil!) working on "correcting" the book of Ezekiel.

Thus, while we can all believe that the original text of the scriptures was given to us perfectly, and is inerrant, we cannot always be certain that the text we currently have is the same as that text.

QUESTION: But how can you be sure you really have any of Yeshua's own words? He didn't write anything himself - everything you have was written down later, and could have been altered by his followers.

RESPONSE: The same could be said of the Torah. G-d never "wrote" it. It was written by His followers. In fact, there is more "scientific evidence" for the New Testament stating Yeshua's words (cf. the historians of Yeshua's day) than for the Tanakh stating G-d's words. Does this make us believe it is less true? No way!

QUESTION: Listen, missionaries prey on the weak and the uneducated, and those who feel unsatisfied with their lives.

RESPONSE: Same as a doctor especially looks for those who are sick.

QUESTION: Missionaries will always try and take a verse out of context; and if you call them on it, they'll switch to another verse. They'll try and drown you in information, but they won't answer your questions.

RESPONSE: The Tanakh contains so much Messianic wealth that it would be idiotic and downright deceitful for a believer to try and get your mind off the verse in question. In fact, he wouldn't be a true follower of the Truth, whose name is Yeshua.

Apply the same touchstone to the words and actions of anybody you question, priest, pastor, or rabbi. Keep on your guard so that you are not deceived, and pray that G-d will reveal Himself to you. It's always warm and comfortable to believe what you are told. It takes guts to stand up and say, "Enough! I'm getting two opposing opinions! One is wrong and I'm going to find out for myself which it is!" Ignorance in life-affecting matters is not bliss. Admit it when you are ignorant of a matter, and then go and check the Tanakh to see what G-d (not some rabbi/pastor) says on the matter. Ultimately the decision is between you and G-d. Make sure you consult Him in the process.

QUESTION: Christian Jews are apostates. Don't let them turn you away from your own people.

RESPONSE: Yeshua and Saul/Paul were unequivocal in contradicting you on that point. That's again your opinion. Have you ever asked a Messianic Jew whether he's "turned away" from his own people?

There is a Jewish ethnic people, who originate(d) in the Middle East, members of which belong to various religions. There are Buddhist Jews, Zen Jews, Atheist Jews, and even Hare Krishna Jews. None of these are called "Jewish" by religion. However, all of them still remain ethnically Jewish. (After all, they haven't become Chinese.) And all of them are quite welcome to return home to their ethnic homeland, without any interference at all.

However, there is ONE group, and ONLY one group, which is not welcomed home, and whose participation in things ethnically Jewish is disputed. This doesn't seem logical. There are even efforts made occasionally to deport members of this group if they have managed to return home. Now, deporting criminals who have immigrated with a bad criminal record would be logical, but what is the "crime" of these people? Is it really a "crime" to belong to this group, if you are in Israel?

Thus, an ethnic "Jew" is someone born of Jewish parents (or at least, a Jewish mother). If we are going to start sorting out the "righteous" among them from the "unrighteous", and accepting in our definition only those whom we label "righteous", then we are going to be pre-supposing the conclusions which will be made only on the Day of Judgment; and also, presuming a little bit too much ability on our part.

If you are so anxious for these people to return to Judaism, why don't you welcome them in the synagogues, instead of driving them away? (Afraid they'll proselytize? But wouldn't there be a rabbi present? No potential missionary "prey" would have to be caught alone, or would be subjected to "love-bombing", or "cult-like tactics". This means there would only be an open discussion - now who could be convinced by anything like that? In other words: you'd have nothing to be afraid of, right?)

QUESTION: If Hitler had repented at the last minute in the bunker, do you think he would have been forgiven?

RESPONSE: Judaism also makes a great deal out of repentance. What does Judaism have to say about this?

What this question really deals with, is, can there ever be anyone who is SO bad that he can NEVER be forgiven. And, to turn it around, is there ever anyone who is SO good that he can MERIT paradise and the world to come? Of course, believers in Yeshua would assert that the answer to the second question is NO, that no man is ever perfect enough, and can never become so. And since G-d is perfection, and holiness, there must always then be this separation between man and G-d. That is why the cleansing of the sacrifices, or what the sacrifices represent (Yeshua's death) were necessary.

Of course, Hitler represents a kind of Amalek. Amalek tried to destroy Israel before they even arrived at Mt. Sinai. Haman, who was a descendant of Amalek, tried to wipe out the Jewish people and thus thwart G-d's plan. So, too, Hitler tried to destroy the Jewish people on their second journey to the promised land (and to what future spiritual blessings? We cannot yet know). But he was thwarted, and a remnant escaped. It may be suggested that by that point Hitler, like Pharaoh, may have had his heart hardened, so that he could not repent; and instead was destined only for judgment.

Yeshu was a false god. We shouldn't even pronounce his name!

Why do you call him "Yeshu" - "May his name be blotted out"? Jews don't normally try to hide the insanity of Hitler and the Nazis; they expose them for what they were. We are instructed to "never forget". Never forget what? A piece of Nazi propaganda? No!!! We are never to forget the historical TRUTH! It seems strange, therefore, that you refuse to call One by His historical name and that you want to hide Him from our people!

It seems odd that you can pronounce "Haman". You can say "Amalek". You can say "Hitler". You can even say, "Satan". But there is ONE name which you cannot say - you have to replace it with "that man", or "Yeshu", etc. Do you really consider that Yeshua was worse than Satan? Worse than Amalek? What is the source of this unreasonable taking of offense, this hatred without a cause directed at the person of Yeshua?

QUESTION: In Judaism, we believe that repentence and good works are all that is required; not "being born again", or "sacrificed for" by anyone's death.

RESPONSE: You see, that's the problem. You think that some people are actually better than others. You think that there are some people who actually merit heaven (yourself included?). You are forced to ignore, or explain away, clear scriptures to the contrary.

Did G-d command Adam to exercise dominion over this world? Yes. Did Adam fall and fall so hard that man can no longer carry out that command? Yes. In fact, did Adam make such a mess of things that it would require the direct intervention of G-d to straighten it out? Yes.

Judaism is a religion, like every other religion which postulates the existence of a Supreme Being, whereby man makes himself presentable to G-d. Whether through obedience to Torah, adherence to 8-fold way, or just by being a "good person" (as opposed to the obviously "really bad" people) - they all have this theme in common. And this is a shame, because the Tanakh is full of examples of the way things really work - G-d reaching down to man.

• You didn't have the Torah--He gave you the Torah.
  
  
• You didn't have food - He gave you manna.
  
  
• You didn't have water - He gave you water from the rock.
  
  
• You didn't have a leader - He gave you Moses.
  
  
• You were stuck in slavery - He brought you out.
  
  
• You were scattered because of your disobedience - He will bring you back, not because of anything you do, but because of His promise to Abraham.

Whether it's Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or anything else, it's all the "hamster wheel that leads to heaven", the endless circle of effort but never any progress.

G-d wants to lift you out of the hamster cage and clasp you to Himself. Except that there is still the small matter of sin. You need righteousness. Given G-d's track record (as above), how do you think He will accomplish this?

The question is not, "What is the Jewish view?", or "What is the Christian view?", but rather, what does Tanakh say? (See Isaiah 57:12, "I will declare your righteousness and your works; they will not help you.")

Repentance alone was not enough when:

• Adam was not permitted to remain in the garden;
  
  
• Esau was not permitted to repent and retain his birthright;
  
  
• Moses was not permitted to repent and enter the promised land;
  
  
• Aachan was not permitted to repent;
  
  
• David was not permitted to repent and build the Temple.

Something more is needed.

Are Torah scholars "better" than other men because they study? "Improvement-through-study" is a nice Platonic concept - it originated among the Greeks, so maybe it is a Hellenistic transplant. However, the prophets of Israel didn't say, "Go and study". They said, "Go and repent".

But maybe if they study even more can they come to "merit" the good gifts of G-d (including Gan Eden)? Just remember that not even Moses - who surely knew what Torah was - was permitted to enter the promised land - he was tainted by disobedience (sin) despite a lifetime of serving G-d. The "good deeds" and "years of obedience" weren't placed in a scale and balanced against his one act of "disobedience"; he had been imperfect, that was all there was to it.

The theme that you can improve yourself enough to "merit" anything in G-d's eyes is not found in Tanach. Instead, all of the good things of G-d are given freely, even to those who don't deserve them (such as Jacob, who is chosen over his brother).

QUESTION: Psalm 22 doesn't refer to the messiah; it refers to David; or to any righteous sufferer.

RESPONSE: Compare these verses:

But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people; all who see me mock me; hey hurl insults, shaking their heads: "He trusts in the L-rd; let the L-rd rescue him, if He delights in him!' (Psalm 22: 6-8)

Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads....In the same way the chief Cohenim and Torah teachers and the elders mocked him. "He saved others", they said, "but he cannot save himself....He trusts in G-d. Let G-d rescue him now if He wants him...." (Matthew 27:39; 41-43)

I am poured out like water, All my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; It has melted within me. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And my tongue cleaves to the roof of my mouth....

Dogs have surrounded me; A band of evil men has encircled me, They have pierced my hands and feet. I can count all my bones; People stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them And cast lots for my clothing. (Psalm 22:14-18)

When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots. (Matthew 27:35)

When the soldiers crucified Yeshua, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom. "Let us not tear it", they said to one another. "Let us decide by lot who will get it." (John 19:23,24)

Who else suffered in this manner? Who else suffered in ALL these ways?

QUESTION: But again, this is only your Christian interpretation.

RESPONSE: "The patriarchs of the world will arise in the month of Nisan (the month of Pesach - and, by the way, also the same time as the crucifixion) and will say to him: Ephraim, our Messiah! Even though we are your forefathers, you are greater than we, because you have suffered on account of the sins of our children, and cruel chastisements has come over you...and you were held up to ridicule, and scorned...and you sat in darkness and your eyes beheld no light, and your skin stuck to your bones, and your body dried up and became like wood, and your eyes grew dim from fasting, and your strength was like a potsherd." - Pesikta Rabbati

While this is perhaps intended to be allegorical, it does show that Jewish thought sometimes considered Psalm 22 as being descriptive of the type of suffering the messiah would have to undergo, either in this world, or possibly in paradise before his descent to earth.

QUESTION: But Psalm 22:16 doesn't say "they pierced my hands and feet". It says, "Like a lion, they were at my hands and feet"!

RESPONSE: The psalm says, "(something) my hands and feet". The word here in the parenthesis is not found elsewhere in Hebrew, so we have to guess at its meaning. The three earliest translations of this passage, the Syriac, the Septuagint, and the Vulgate, all saw this word as a VERB,and translated it as "they pierced". (And the Septuagint was completed over a century before the birth of Yeshua.) Modern Jewish translations prefer to consider that this word is a NOUN, or an adjective, "like a lion". It is possible to attain this reading if you use different vowel points. However, this would still leave the phrase without a verb, since then it would say, "like a lion my hands and feet".

Attempts have been made by some scholars to assume that, perhaps, a word has been left out, and the phrase should read, "like a lion, they (something) my hands and feet". Suggestions here range from "they tear at my hands and feet", "they maul", or perhaps "they tore (kaaru) like a lion (kaari) my hands and feet".

If the word is, indeed, a verb, it would then be synonymous with a very similar verb for "to bore through". (Arabic in fact possesses a similar set of verbs.) In any case, however, whatever verb is used here, is indicative of wounding of the hands and feet, which is what took place at the crucifixion.

It doesn't mention a crown of thorns, or scourging, or a spear in the side, either. This is NOT proof that the reference is not to Yeshua. It's not even a reasonable disqualification. The important thing is that what IS mentioned is entirely symmetrical with Yeshua's suffering and death.