CarolC, I'm well aware that once we question the historicity of one religious document, we invite questioning the historicity of all the others, and I don't see doing so as a problem. This thread was provoked by someone's question as to whether LotD is anti-semitic, and the historicity or otherwise of the narrative in the book of Exodus will not shed any light on that question. The gospel passages implicating Jewish groups in the death of Jesus are the only scriptural passages whose historicity is directly relevant to the question raised about LotD (although I suppose that if you could prove that Moses never existed, that would make it even easier to believe that Mark got his facts wrong).

Volgadon, I believe there are serious inconsistencies in the gospels. I'll get around to that. You mention Pilate's track record. It is not clear to me whether you are referring to his record of tyrannical brutality, a record which does not show through in the gospel accounts. And may I remind you that we do not have the writings of Jesus, only the writings of those who came along years after the events, and with their own circumstances and motivations.

Jack, my claim that the stanza expresses an antisemitic view does not hinge on antisemites believing that Jews are the holy people. Here's what I wrote earlier: "The song (the one stanza, anyway) says (on my reading) that the people who objected to the (perceived) desecration of the sabbath (and those people would have to be some or all of the Jews of the time) killed Jesus. That stanza presents an antisemitic belief, and the question of whether antisemites believe that the Jews are or were the holy people doesn't enter into it."

Concerning your other point, I hold that the gospel writers were making a compromise. They couldn't very well refrain from saying that Jesus was Messiah, Lord, and King as without saying that there'd be no reason to write a gospel at all. But they could try to get that central point across while minimizing offense to Roman sensibilities by shifting as much blame as possible from the Romans to the Jewish mob and authorities, and by attributing to Jesus the words that Volgadon quotes (Render unto Caesar, my kingdom is not of this world, ...).

As for censorship, that's a straw man. I have never, never, never, never, never, never, never aspired to have song or gospels censored. I have only expressed the hope that the day will come when the antisemitic aspects will be as clear to everyone else as they are to me; when that day comes, no one will talk about censoring the song, because no one will want to sing it.

CarolC, if you pass out literature in Kashmir, alleging atrocities committed by the Indian army; if you pass out literature in Darfur, alleging atrocities committed by Janjaweed militia; if you pass out literature in the West Bank, alleging atrocities by the Israeli authorities; do you think these activities would suppress rebellion against India, against the militia, against Israel, or incite it? Do you think the Indian, the Janjaweed, the Israeli leaders would welcome your efforts, or prefer to see you go away?

When you tell your people about the horrible things some other people are (allegedly) doing to you, it may scare them off, but I think it's at least as likely to harden their resolve to resist.

I'm having trouble understanding the rest of your argument. The Romans crucified Jesus because they saw him as a threat to their rule, and as with all punishment they hoped this would have a deterrent effect on others. The story spread on its own, as the Romans wanted. Contemporary accounts, if there were any, have not come down to us. Many years later, some people who weren't actually there at the time wrote up an account of what happened. Their write-up reflects the times in which they lived. If this doesn't seem responsive to your points, it's for want of understanding (on my part), not for want of trying.