PBS's "Last Days of Jesus"

[Rachel Rachel]

I just watched part of "The Last Days of Jesus" on PBS. It was very interesting but also blasphemous, I think. It would be take forever to explain why. But one thing I can't stop thinking about was a comment Simcha Jacobovici made - that Yeshua's entry into Jerusalem couldn't have been in Spring because people wouldn't have had palm branches readily available - that that must have been at the time of Tabernacles when people would have palm branches cut for their sukkot.
True?

 

[estephan]

I just watched part of "The Last Days of Jesus" on PBS. It was very interesting but also blasphemous, I think. It would be take forever to explain why. But one thing I can't stop thinking about was a comment Simcha Jacobovici made - that Yeshua's entry into Jerusalem couldn't have been in Spring because people wouldn't have had palm branches readily available - that that must have been at the time of Tabernacles when people would have palm branches cut for their sukkot.
True?

I just watched part of "The Last Days of Jesus" on PBS. It was very interesting but also blasphemous, I think. It would be take forever to explain why. But one thing I can't stop thinking about was a comment Simcha Jacobovici made - that Yeshua's entry into Jerusalem couldn't have been in Spring because people wouldn't have had palm branches readily available - that that must have been at the time of Tabernacles when people would have palm branches cut for their sukkot.
True?

I just watched part of "The Last Days of Jesus" on PBS. It was very interesting but also blasphemous, I think. It would be take forever to explain why. But one thing I can't stop thinking about was a comment Simcha Jacobovici made - that Yeshua's entry into Jerusalem couldn't have been in Spring because people wouldn't have had palm branches readily available - that that must have been at the time of Tabernacles when people would have palm branches cut for their sukkot.
True?

 

[estephan]

I feel the same way. I feel this show was blasphemous. Much of it was speculation and theory by people who appear that can not accept that Jesus was the son of God. They are trying to prove that Jesus was just another prophet and not the son of God. The title Last Days of Jesus was misleading.

 

[estephan]

A better watch is AD: The Bible Continues.

 

[visionary]

I just watched part of "The Last Days of Jesus" on PBS. It was very interesting but also blasphemous, I think. It would be take forever to explain why. But one thing I can't stop thinking about was a comment Simcha Jacobovici made - that Yeshua's entry into Jerusalem couldn't have been in Spring because people wouldn't have had palm branches readily available - that that must have been at the time of Tabernacles when people would have palm branches cut for their sukkot.
True?

When the priests come back from Bethlehem with the chosen group of lambs for Passover, the people would line the road with palm branches to wave. Yeshua just took advantage of the occasion to ride in on the young colt. Expectations were high for Yeshua to be the Messiah, thus the participation of the crowd in that famous scene came to pass. How ironic that they are singing and call out praises for the arrival of Messiah ben David and Messiah ben Joseph is before them. They didn't make the connection between the choosing of the Lamb and they choosing Him.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Many of the documentaries about Christianity and Judaism attempt to explain miracles by changing the biblical narrative slightly to conform to their views on what is physically possible. People that do not believe in miracles ought stick to science documentaries rather than making up their own stories to explain how the Bible must have got it wrong.

 

[visionary]

Many of the documentaries about Christianity and Judaism attempt to explain miracles by changing the biblical narrative slightly to conform to their views on what is physically possible. People that do not believe in miracles ought stick to science documentaries rather than making up their own stories to explain how the Bible must have got it wrong.

Like science documentaries are not made up to explain what they want to believe....

 

[grasping the after wind]

Like science documentaries are not made up to explain what they want to believe....

But the belief system is consistent with the subject matter in that case.

 

[Wayne Strout]

I just watched part of "The Last Days of Jesus" on PBS. It was very interesting but also blasphemous, I think. It would be take forever to explain why. But one thing I can't stop thinking about was a comment Simcha Jacobovici made - that Yeshua's entry into Jerusalem couldn't have been in Spring because people wouldn't have had palm branches readily available - that that must have been at the time of Tabernacles when people would have palm branches cut for their sukkot.
True?

I see this film as a attack on Christianity. So full of innuendo in the same manner used by Satan in the Garden of Eden.

I agree that the comment about Jesus entered Jerusalem in the fall after Yom Kippur rather than the Spring before Passover was a clever way to plant the seed of "doubt"..but facts support that "branches" of Date Palm trees are "pruned" in the Spring..not in the Fall when the fruit is harvested.

Portraying The LORD as a political leader who inherited the "political" movement of John the Baptist and then was killed because his political ally in Rome (Sefanus) was removed from power is Satanic and Anti-Christian.

 

[Heber Book List]

The words of the people were praise, but also - and crucially - they were cries for help. Lots of people think that 'hosanna' is an expression of praise; hymns / songs have been written including that word as a term of praise! It isn't. It is a plea to 'save us,' or 'deliver us', and so the famous hymn with the line 'hosanna in the highest' doesn't actually make any sense.

 

[BeStill&Know]

They are Great magicians, distract with one hand as you deceive with the other. Distract from truth and deceive with your opinions, sound important while you are doing it.

 

[Kerensa]

This documentary was also shown in the UK (where I live) over the Easter weekend. I had heard what it was about and suspected I wouldn't be impressed, but watched it for myself in the interests of being able to judge fairly. I can only conclude that the theories put forward in it are not to be taken seriously — even from the standpoint of responsible historical research, let alone anything theological.

Firstly, it was obvious from the start that the whole programme was a vehicle for these particular theories, put together by their supporters and no-one else. Everything they suggested was very tangential with no actual historical evidence to back it up, yet it was all presented as if it's (nearly) certain fact, with absolutely no input from other scholars who might dispute those claims. That in itself says a lot.

What's more (even more tellingly) two of the main presenters featured, Simcha Jacobovici and Barrie Wilson, are revisionists who recently published a book claiming that an obscure non-canonical text, "Joseph and Aseneth", about the patriarch Joseph and his wife, is actually all a secret coded revelation that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. That's NOT how you do reputable historical research — Biblical or otherwise.

Along with those two, all the other presenters as well were obviously working from the standpoint that Jesus was merely a political and religious radical who wanted humanly to bring about "regime change", not the Son of God whose kingdom was and is "not of this world" (notions that supposedly were written into the story by die-hard followers after his shameful death). But if he were just another failed revolutionary as this documentary assumes, why did more and more and more people flock to follow him after his death? Why were his disciples, who'd deserted him during his trial and crucifixion, suddenly transformed into courageous and outspoken men willing to suffer and even die for their conviction that he was risen from the dead and they were to continue his mission? What about the healings and other marvels that continued to be done in his name? The "Jesus was just a political preacher" theory, on which this whole documentary was built, simply does not account for how and why he changed the world.

There's more I'd like to say on some of the specific claims put forth in this show, but I'll do it in another post so this won't go on too long — hope no-one minds.

 

[Kerensa]

There were really two main theories put forward in this documentary. One was that the reason Jesus wasn't arrested immediately after riding into Jerusalem, being acclaimed as the Messiah, and throwing the money-changers out of the temple was that he had the support of the Roman Emperor's second-in-command, Sejanus, so he was allowed to get away with what he did. Sejanus himself was arrested and executed for treason soon after and his name was ordered to be erased from history, which is supposedly why he's not mentioned in the Bible even though (we're told) it was his influence that furthered Jesus' career.

This was all declared with great confidence, yet there wasn't the slightest scrap of evidence shown that Sejanus had any knowledge of or interest in Jesus. Wikipedia (which isn't always the most reliable source, but a good place to start) doesn't make any connection, even tenuous, between Sejanus and Jesus, except to remark: "Pontius Pilate was a nominee of Sejanus and implicated in the latter's anti-Jewish policies; this encouraged the inclusion of Sejanus in novels depicting Jesus Christ's crucifixion."

Well, if Sejanus was known for his anti-Jewish policies, why on earth would he have given any backing to a Jewish radical who was purportedly planning to overthrow the Roman government?? It simply doesn't make sense.

One point made in the documentary was historically accurate — among those Jews who expected a Messiah (as my good old NT Greek teacher used to remind us, not all Jews of the time believed in such a thing), there were some who claimed there would be two Messiahs: a "Son of David" who would restore the kingship to Israel and a "Son of Levi" who would purify the Temple priesthood. But the documentary goes on to claim that Herod Antipas wanted to be recognised as the king-Messiah and he forged an alliance with Jesus in order to further that ambition while Jesus in turn would become the priest-Messiah, which was supposedly where Sejanus, through his contact with Herod, heard of Jesus.

Ummm... Jesus wanting to become the new high priest of the Temple himself, let alone knowingly collaborating with Herod Antipas and the Romans to get himself there while Herod made a bid to be the Messianic king? Can anyone see that happening?? And again, no evidence for any of this, just circumstantial it-sounds-good-and-it-supports-our-theory-so-it-must-be-true.

 

[Kerensa]

The other big point made in this show was that Jesus' entry into Jerusalem must have been not at Passover in spring, but during the Feast of Tabernacles in autumn, as that's the celebration for which palm branches were harvested en masse. Then, supposedly, after Jesus was arrested (because his purported backer Sejanus had been executed), he was kept in prison for up to six months and then crucified at Passover, which explains why the crowd turned against him apparently so soon after his triumphal entry — his execution was six months after "Palm Sunday", not a few days, and so by then he'd been rejected by the people as just another false Messiah.

As a couple of others here have indicated, palm branches could very well have been cut and waved on other occasions. There's a good website here that disputes the claim that the palm branches mean it must have been the Feast of Tabernacles and not Passover: "In the lifetime of Jesus, waving palm fronds had become an instantly recognized Jewish national symbol." So it makes perfect sense that the crowd would have cut them and waved them to honour the Messiah, regardless of the time of year.

It's interesting to note that only John's Gospel specifies that the crowd "took branches of palm trees" (John 12:13 — Matthew and Mark simply say "cut down branches from the trees" (Matthew 21:8, Mark 11:8); Luke's account doesn't mention branches). But more tellingly, John is the only Gospel writer who describes Jesus visiting Jerusalem several times during his ministry, and most of those times, he specifies which festival it was for. In John 7:2 we're told plainly "the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand" (to which Jesus goes secretly). John obviously knew very well when the Feast of Tabernacles was and when Passover was. So it doesn't make any sense that he would describe Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, with the crowd waving palm branches, as being at Passover if it had been Tabernacles!

The other part of this theory is even more of a stretch to believe — that Jesus was kept in prison for up to six months before being executed. Leaving aside the fact that if Peter and Paul and the other apostles could all walk out of prisons free (Acts 5:17-20; Acts 12:1-11; Acts 16:22-26), their Lord and Master most definitely could have... if Jesus had been imprisoned for several months at the height of his popularity, why on earth would absolutely no-one remember that and pass it on when the Gospels were being written?? Again, it's a theory without a skerrick of evidence for it and rather a lot against it.

Hope no-one minds me doing such long posts here... I just felt it was worth sharing some straightforward rebuttals to The Last Days of Jesus, since inevitably there'll be people who've watched it and assumed "Oh, it's all from serious scholars, so it must be true..." However slickly presented it all was, those theories are actually full of holes you could ride a camel through.

 

[Heber Book List]

The other big point made in this show was that Jesus' entry into Jerusalem must have been not at Passover in spring, but during the Feast of Tabernacles in autumn, as that's the celebration for which palm branches were harvested en masse. Then, supposedly, after Jesus was arrested (because his purported backer Sejanus had been executed), he was kept in prison for up to six months and then crucified at Passover, which explains why the crowd turned against him apparently so soon after his triumphal entry — his execution was six months after "Palm Sunday", not a few days, and so by then he'd been rejected by the people as just another false Messiah.

As a couple of others here have indicated, palm branches could very well have been cut and waved on other occasions. There's a good website here that disputes the claim that the palm branches mean it must have been the Feast of Tabernacles and not Passover: "In the lifetime of Jesus, waving palm fronds had become an instantly recognized Jewish national symbol." So it makes perfect sense that the crowd would have cut them and waved them to honour the Messiah, regardless of the time of year.

It's interesting to note that only John's Gospel specifies that the crowd "took branches of palm trees" (John 12:13 — Matthew and Mark simply say "cut down branches from the trees" (Matt. 21:8, Mark 11:8); Luke's account doesn't mention branches). But more tellingly, John is the only Gospel writer who describes Jesus visiting Jerusalem several times during his ministry, and most of those times, he specifies which festival it was for. In John 7:2 we're told plainly "the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand" (to which Jesus goes secretly). John obviously knew very well when the Feast of Tabernacles was and when Passover was. So it doesn't make any sense that he would describe Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, with the crowd waving palm branches, as being at Passover if it had been Tabernacles!

The other part of this theory is even more of a stretch to believe — that Jesus was kept in prison for up to six months before being executed. Leaving aside the fact that if Peter and Paul and the other apostles could all walk out of prisons free (Acts 5:17-20; Acts 12:1-11; Acts 16:22-26), their Lord and Master most definitely could have... if Jesus had been imprisoned for several months at the height of his popularity, why on earth would absolutely no-one remember that and pass it on when the Gospels were being written?? Again, it's a theory without a skerrick of evidence for it and rather a lot against it.

Hope no-one minds me doing such long posts here... I just felt it was worth sharing some straightforward rebuttals to The Last Days of Jesus, since inevitably there'll be people who've watched it and assumed "Oh, it's all from serious scholars, so it must be true..." However slickly presented it all was, those theories are actually full of holes you could ride a camel through.

Good review of a totally rubbish programme. I couldn't believe that some of these so called 'scholars' had not the foggiest idea of some of the simple, basic facts of scripture or history, or just plain common sense! They twisted every truth to fit their own anti-Christian views. I was reminded of the rubbish I was taught in College, and why I was not a favourite of the Senate, always arguing against the 'required' teaching!

 

[Rachel Rachel]

The other big point made in this show was that Jesus' entry into Jerusalem must have been not at Passover in spring, but during the Feast of Tabernacles in autumn, as that's the celebration for which palm branches were harvested en masse. Then, supposedly, after Jesus was arrested (because his purported backer Sejanus had been executed), he was kept in prison for up to six months and then crucified at Passover, which explains why the crowd turned against him apparently so soon after his triumphal entry — his execution was six months after "Palm Sunday", not a few days, and so by then he'd been rejected by the people as just another false Messiah.

As a couple of others here have indicated, palm branches could very well have been cut and waved on other occasions. There's a good website here that disputes the claim that the palm branches mean it must have been the Feast of Tabernacles and not Passover: "In the lifetime of Jesus, waving palm fronds had become an instantly recognized Jewish national symbol." So it makes perfect sense that the crowd would have cut them and waved them to honour the Messiah, regardless of the time of year.

It's interesting to note that only John's Gospel specifies that the crowd "took branches of palm trees" (John 12:13 — Matthew and Mark simply say "cut down branches from the trees" (Matthew 21:8, Mark 11:8); Luke's account doesn't mention branches). But more tellingly, John is the only Gospel writer who describes Jesus visiting Jerusalem several times during his ministry, and most of those times, he specifies which festival it was for. In John 7:2 we're told plainly "the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand" (to which Jesus goes secretly). John obviously knew very well when the Feast of Tabernacles was and when Passover was. So it doesn't make any sense that he would describe Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, with the crowd waving palm branches, as being at Passover if it had been Tabernacles!

The other part of this theory is even more of a stretch to believe — that Jesus was kept in prison for up to six months before being executed. Leaving aside the fact that if Peter and Paul and the other apostles could all walk out of prisons free (Acts 5:17-20; Acts 12:1-11; Acts 16:22-26), their Lord and Master most definitely could have... if Jesus had been imprisoned for several months at the height of his popularity, why on earth would absolutely no-one remember that and pass it on when the Gospels were being written?? Again, it's a theory without a skerrick of evidence for it and rather a lot against it.

Hope no-one minds me doing such long posts here... I just felt it was worth sharing some straightforward rebuttals to The Last Days of Jesus, since inevitably there'll be people who've watched it and assumed "Oh, it's all from serious scholars, so it must be true..." However slickly presented it all was, those theories are actually full of holes you could ride a camel through.

Kerensa, your summary has been excellent and very enjoyable.
It's also worth noting that Simcha Jacobivici is the sensationalist who claimed Yeshua's bones had been found.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yeshua just took advantage of the occasion to ride in on the young colt.

I believe Yeshua always did exactly as the Father told Him to...
The Father did not give Him an option
either for any advantage, nor for any other day, as far as I can see through all of what Yeshua said, and all of Scripture...

Does Messianic view differ from this ?

 

[visionary]

I believe Yeshua always did exactly as the Father told Him to...
The Father did not give Him an option
either for any advantage, nor for any other day, as far as I can see through all of what Yeshua said, and all of Scripture...

Does Messianic view differ from this ?

Yeshua you did exactly as His Father wanted, but that doesn't change what I said about taking advantage of the occasion. God the Father set it up, unbeknownst by man, so that Yeshua can fulfill.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yeshua you did exactly as His Father wanted, but that doesn't change what I said about taking advantage of the occasion. God the Father set it up, unbeknownst by man, so that Yeshua can fulfill.

It changes the motive of the Messiah.

From all I can read and see, Jesus never did anything of Himself, nor for advantage.

 

[visionary]

It changes the motive of the Messiah.

From all I can read and see, Jesus never did anything of Himself, nor for advantage.

So it is the term advantage that bothers you. Was it to the Lord's advantage for Yeshua to go through the arrest, conviction, condemnation, and crucifixion since He could have just laid down His life. Or did God take advantage of sins, traditions, circumstances, to fulfill His Will?