Why the Crucifixion? Part 2
How the Hellenist World Spun the Crucifixion Misojudaically
2011.12.29, 1430 – "Traditional" explanations of events explaining and leading up to the crucifixion are based on misojudaism of Hellenist Christian displacement agendas and Hellenist accounts, all alien to (and, consequently, entirely ignorant of, and misinformed about) úÌåÉøÈä / Judaism; so full of contradictions, inexplicable conundrums and paradoxes that most historians, quite correctly, regard them all as mere faulty "religious tradition" – in other words, silly superstition.
To understand how the crucifixion came about, one must first understand the politics of the period – especially the tensions between the Roman Hellenist-Syrian Magistrate of the Hellenist-Syrian Satellite Province of [Yᵊhud•âhꞋ], Pontius Pilate, and his rival, the Hellenist-Εd•om•iꞋ Herod Antipas of the Gâ•lilꞋ , with his capital in Tiberius.
Herod Antipas was the Roman Provincial Ruler (tetrarch) of the Galil: ""tetrarch" became familiar as the title of certain Hellenized rulers of petty dynasties in Syria and Palestine, whom the Roman [occupiers] allowed a measure of independent sovereignty. In this usage it lost its original precise sense and meant only the ruler of a divided kingdom or of a district too minor to justify a higher title." (www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/589118/tetrarch; accessed 2011.12.29).
Being the son of Herod the Great, who claimed to be "King of the Jews," Herod Antipas, as his brothers had previously, each claimed to be the successor "King of the Jews" – exhibiting a family paranoia tracing back to Herod the Great (The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•ti•tᵊyâhꞋu (NHM) 2.1-22).
"Herod divided [Yᵊhud•âhꞋ] into several districts, and in his last will ([ca. B.C.E. 4]) bequeathed to Antipas nothing but the tetrarchy of Galilee and Perea, which brought its ruler an income of 200 talents; giving to another son…, [Arkhelaus], the right to the title of "King of Judea[ns]" [i.e., "King of the Yᵊhud•imꞋ = Jews"] Antipas did not acquiesce in this new partition of his father's dominions. …It is, therefore, either as a general expression of authority and power, or in cognizance of the fact that the royal title was always borne by some member of the Herodian family ([Arkhelaus] was then no longer ruling), that the epithet "king" is used (only once) in the [Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) in speaking of Antipas (Mark, vi. 14). … he next reconstructed and enlarged his capital, Sepphoris [only 6 kilometers (3.7 mi.) north-northwest of Nâtz•ratꞋ ] … Antipas' crowning effort in this direction was the building (24-26 [C.E.]) of the town of Tiberias… As soon as its construction was completed Antipas moved his court thither; and Tiberias thereafter became the permanent capital of [the Gâ•lilꞋ ]… Antipas was continually intriguing against Pontius Pilate also. … Nor was Antipas popular among the [Yᵊhud•imꞋ]. It is true that, at least ostensibly, he complied with the more important ordinances of the Jewish faith, and that he went to Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim to celebrate the feasts [undoubtedly what is meant in NHM 1.22-23]. But the house of Herod had become an object of hate and suspicion; and Antipas himself had done nothing to counteract the spreading of these sentiments. On the contrary, he had adorned his palace walls with the figures of animals, even though there had been no effigies on the coins he minted; and, above all, he had violated the Mosaic law in marrying Herodias. [Yokhâ•nânꞋ 'ha-Ma•tᵊbilꞋ' Bën-Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ Bën-Tzâ•doqꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ ] denounced him publicly (Matt. xiv. 4; Mark, vi. 18); and even [RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa is alleged to have] called him "that fox" (Luke, xiii. 32).… In the history of the Messianic movement Antipas plays a most important part; for he is the Herod of the Gospels who slew [Yokhâ•nânꞋ 'ha-Ma•tᵊbilꞋ' Bën-Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ Bën-Tzâ•doqꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ ], and who was partly responsible for the execution of [RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa];… Antipas' part in the fate of [RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa] consisted in the preliminary hearing of the latter; for Pontius Pilate, to whom the accusations against [RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa] were brought, handed over the [RibꞋi] of [the Gâ•lilꞋ ] to the tetrarch of that district [namely, Herod, "King of the Jews," Antipas!!!], who was then sojourning in Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim." (www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1597-antipas-herod-antipas; accessed 2011.12.29)
Was Political Intrigue and A Conspiracy Deal Behind the Crucifixion?
Did Herod, "King of the Jews," Antipas find out about a Roman-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ deal, in collaboration with his rival Pontius Pilate, to offer to a true Royal Prince of Beit-Dâ•widꞋ , RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, which would have replaced Herod "King of the Jews" Antipas with a coalition of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, heading the Pᵊrush•imꞋ, with the Ko•heinꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa (the Ko•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dolꞋ leading the Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ, both under Roman Syrian-Hellenist Magistrate, Pontius Pilate? Even rumors of a conspiracy deal gone bad, reaching the ears of "King of the Jews" Antipas, would explain Antipas' determination to manipulate the Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ to drive the crucifixion to its conclusion. This would likewise explain both the fury of the Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ Ko•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dolꞋ and other Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ as well as the Herodian "Pharisees" (meaning "separatists" – Herodian non-priests who were, in fact, religiously Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ); considered by the Pᵊrush•imꞋ to be goy•imꞋ (NHM note 4.1.1). It would further explain why Pilate washed his hands of any prosecution of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and, sensing the "jig's up" need for reconciliation with Antipas, delivered RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa to him.
For the first time since 135 C.E., the riddle is solved and all of the pieces fit perfectly… except for the conundrum-riddled miso-Judaic "traditions" – to the consternation (and sure-to-be loud and irrational objections) of miso-Judaicbb Hellenist (Roman-origin) Christians.
Documentation of the Conspiracy Deal
I've published the background information since the mid-1970s in NHM.
NHM Note 4.1.0 – "Whether fleeing, or [by invitation or summon], RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa went into the hills of Yᵊhud•âhꞋ as a result of someone, a human, who was labeled a sâ•tânꞋ (q.v. NHM note 4.1.1). The historical context and the Qum•rânꞋ scrolls both indicate that the sâ•tânꞋ was each in the succession of Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ "Ko•heinꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa" (Ko•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dolꞋ in the Hellenized/corrupted Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ each of whom since Yᵊho•shuꞋa ("Jason") Bën-Shim•onꞋ 2 Bën-Tza•doqꞋ were known by the rest of the Jewish community as the Ko•heinꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa."
NHM Note 4.1.1 – medieval Christian and Qa•bâl•âhꞋ magic superstitions aside, "sâ•tânꞋ " refers to a human-person adversary. In NHM 4, the account explicitly states that this individual had the power – authority – to negotiate a religious deal agreeable to – i.e. on behalf of – the Greco-Roman, Herodian / Boethusian Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ (see NHM note 3.7.2) and Hellenist Roman occupiers. This necessarily implies a Boethusian (cf. NHM notes 3.7.1, 3.7.2 & ‘Herodian’ NHM note 22.16.1), almost certainly the Hellenist-Tzәdoq•imꞋ Ko•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dolꞋ who was an appointee of the Roman occupiers, probably still favoring the House of Shim•onꞋ Bën-Boethus. The patriarch of the Hellenist Boethusian ‘Herodians’ was appointed by Herod the Great in B.C.E. 24 (cf also NHM notes 22.16.1, 3.7.1 & 3.7.2).
NHM Note 4.1.1 (cont.) "The Hellenist Boethusians were loyal to the Hellenist Herodians[, both in collaboration with the Roman occupiers, all of whom were opposed to, and by, the Pᵊrush•imꞋ]. It is they who are apparently referred to in the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) as Herodians ([Ky-Mr.] 3:16; 12:13). The Boethusians were regarded in Ta•lᵊmudꞋ as cynical and materialistic [apostate/wicked Hellenizing Ko•han•imꞋ]. They hired false witnesses to delude the [rabbinic-Pᵊrush•imꞋ] about the new moon (Ma•sëkꞋët Rosh ha-Shân•âhꞋ 22b; Ta•lᵊmudꞋ Yᵊru•shâ•lᵊm•iꞋ, Ma•sëkꞋët Rosh ha-Shân•âhꞋ 57d; To•sëphꞋᵊtâ, Ma•sëkꞋët Rosh ha-Shân•âhꞋ 1:15)… In terms of the [ùÑÇáÌÈú] ritual, they were not even considered as Jews (Ma•sëkꞋët Ei•ruv•inꞋ 68b). The high priestly ‘House of Boethus’ is criticized in the Ta•lᵊmudꞋ for its oppression, ‘Woe is me because of the House of Boethus, woe is me because of their staves’ (with which they beat the people – Ma•sëkꞋët Pᵊsâkh•imꞋ 57a; cf. To•sëphꞋᵊtâ, Ma•sëkꞋët Mᵊnâkh•otꞋ 13:21)."
NHM Note 4.1.1 (cont.) Who was in the position to offer the realms of the world? The Roman occupiers, and their vassals – the corrupt Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ Ko•han•imꞋ, particularly the Boethusian-Herodian family which also included Pᵊrush•imꞋ elements (22.16.1).
NHM Note 4.1.1 (cont.) It is here, in [the person of] this sâ•tânꞋ , that we find the original, perhaps Στέφανος-style, proto-Christian, the original Hellenized image of Jesus. If RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa had been willing to subordinate himself (bow down), Romanizing (Hellenizing) and syncretizing úÌåÉøÈä-observance – i.e. selectively, then, as a partner to the Roman occupiers, the entire civilized world would indeed have been at his feet. But here, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa declined the position of the Hellenist-Judaic syncretized heir to the Romans' Zeus : Jesus "Christ."
NHM Note 4.1.1 (cont.) The Roman occupiers and Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ, who were predominantly Ko•han•imꞋ and filled the positions of Ko•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dolꞋ, would then have been pulling his strings and he would have been, as indeed, after his death and without his cooperation, they smeared-over his visage unrecognizably (see Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ 3) to the image of their developing idol based on syncretizing new Judaic concepts into their native Egyptian-Hellenist mythology: Jesus "Christ." The original proposal, which RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa rejected three times, is then very likely linked to the Ko•heinꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa of the Dead Sea Scrolls."
NHM4.5.1 – "Then the sâ•tânꞋ took him and brought him up into the high place of the Hei•khâlꞋ in the Holy City"
NHM4..8.2 – "and another time the sâ•tânꞋ took [RibꞋi] Yᵊho•shuꞋa into a very high, steep har and said to him, See the whole eon, and its kingship, and government, and all of the good things in it…"
NHM 4.9.1 – "it is mine, and if you will kneel down and pay obeisance to me one obeisance I will give it to you… Whether or not this was a Christian-speculated maneuver of the "devil" to corrupt the Mâ•shiꞋakh and assert his own supremacy, the event plays out through people. This was not a private match between "the devil" and a divine man-god "Jesus." Think about it. How did Ma•titᵊyâhꞋu ha-Lei•wiꞋ learn of it to record it?
The ta•lᵊmid•imꞋ are called (eye-) witness followers of a Pᵊrush•iꞋ RibꞋi, not the 2nd-4th century (post-135 C.E.) Hellenist Roman goy•imꞋ hearers of stories. More likely, this was a negotiating session between the Ko•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dolꞋ of the Greco-Roman Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ and / or Hellenist Boethusian ‘Herodians’ sect (as these overlapped) and RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, witnessed by advisers and ta•lᵊmid•imꞋ. This "bow" certainly referred to a public – Hellenist – ceremony [think Queen Elizabeth knighting a subject, not Judaic anointing] to take place in Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim, in which all of the world would see that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa subordinated himself to the Hellenist Ko•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dolꞋ as his religious superior and authority – which would have elevated the Hellenist Ko•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dolꞋ to the position of the first Hellenist (Christian) ἐπίσκοπος – something that, due to RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa's rejection of the deal, the Hellenist Jews – Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ – didn't achieve until after 135 C.E.!
NHM 4.9.1 (cont.) "In this light, the discussion is consistent with the Ko•heinꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa referenced by the Qum•rânꞋ sect and what is known about the Greco-Roman Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ sect, their interest in power and influence, their Hellenist-Roman tendencies, and their vassal relationship with the Roman occupiers."
© 1996-present by Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David,
Google+ registered author & publisher
