Just some more good proof:
The Christians' responsibility in
anti-semitism.
According to the Christian "historical" version, the "praefectus Iudaeae Pontius
Pilatus" (the prefect of Judea, P. Pilate) was compelled to liberate an outlaw,
perhaps a revolutionary, as the Gospels depict him, instead of the preacher,
because the people preferred Barabbas to Jesus. He even tried to implore the
Jews, but they insisted crying: "Crucify him! Crucify him!" and were resolute in
their decision to liberate the outlaw (the Fourth Gospel says the "robber") and
to let Romans execute the man who is said to have cured blind people and
lepers. It is, of course, a topsy-turvy absurdity: reasonable persons would find it
much more logical for the robber to be executed, and a stay of execution
granted the preacher, instead of the other way around; also for an authoritarian
stance to have been taken by the procurator instead of by the suppliants; also
for the people to have desired to set the healer and the preacher free, rather
than the thief... Something fraudulent is hidden behind this presentation!
How many Christians have undertaken to study that historical period closely?
How many have asked themselves whether the presumed custom of liberating a
prisoner on the occasion of the Jewish holiday of Passover really existed or
not? How many have read the works of the Jewish authors Philo and Josephus
Flavius, Jesus' near contemporaries, or even know they exist? These two
authors, who describe in detail customs and events in ancient Palestine, never
mention such a custom and always depict Pilate as a cynical and hard
procurator who never asked permission of anybody and who, even less, ever
submitted himself to the popular will of the Jews but, on the contrary, always
ruled with a strong hand and atrocious cruelty. The Pilate of the Gospels, in
front of the shouting crowd, declares himself defeated and announces
blamelessly: "I'll wash my hands, you are responsible for this innocent blood,
not I!" and then sets free a man many theologians want to identify as a
revolutionary, one who fought the might of the Roman invaders.
At this point, into the mouth of the Jews there has been put a sentence
that is a real ideological manifesto: "...Then answered all the people, and
said: - His blood be on us and on our children..." (Matt. 27, 25). This is the
starting point of a two-thousand years old anti-Semitism. The Jews of
Jesus' days seem aware of their fate and, what is more curious, ready to accept
it: the terrible war against the Romans, the destruction of Jerusalem and the
Temple, the massacre of hundreds of thousands of them, the Diaspora, the
persecutions perpetrated by the Christians, the Inquisition, the infamous name
"perfidious Jews", two thousand years of oppression and extermination...
Well then, here is a dramatic confirmation; the authors who composed the four
Gospel texts called canonical by the Church (meaning they are the only ones
that evidence the truth) had without a doubt a fixed idea: they had to discredit
the Hebrew race and cover it with shame for having wanted the death of
the "son of God"; so sanctifying and excusing Christianity's historically
hostile attitude towards Judaism.
Racism was generated and nourished by this inexpedient affirmation of the
Gospel according to Matthew.
Nevertheless, if the infamy of having killed the Lord belongs to anyone, it is not
the Jews but the Romans, of that we can be sure. In fact they had invaded
Palestine, incorporated it into their empire, and made its inhabitants subjects of
the emperor; they painstakingly repressed every national-religious rising,
especially one in a country very difficult to subdue; a country where, for many
centuries, prophecies had spoken of a Messiah-king, son of David, who should
repeat the deeds of the ancient sovereign who had created the united kingdom
of the twelve tribes of Israel; a country where messianic movements (Essenes
and Zealots) had arisen and grown strong as never before.
6 - The awaited Messiah?
What on earth were the Gospel authors interested in hiding with their
adulteration of the historical truth? That is exactly what we are looking for. The
trouble is that the man Pilate's soldiers had arrested never wanted to
found a new non-Judaic religion; he never thought of considering the ancient
agreement between Yahweh and his people cancelled; nor did he ever preach
to the non- circumcised; there are different explicit occasions in the New
Testament in which Jesus speaks of his unequivocal resolve not to preach to
non-Jews, but only "...rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt 10, 6)
[see also: Mt 15, 21-28]; he was born and grew up a Hebrew, and as a
Hebrew he lived and died, absolutely determined to remain such.
"Christ" (Christos = anointed, a term that translates the Aramaic word Mashiha
= Messiah = anointed into Greek) has been made the Romans' butt on purpose,
and the Romans tried and executed one so named because one of the
messianic movements of Jesus' days (which were similar to the Essenic
ones, if not identical to those of the Essenes who were installed at Kirbeth
Qumran, the authors of the famous and comtroversial Dead Sea Scrolls)
identified in his person the fated one of whom the messianic prophecies
spoke: the chosen of God, the son of David, the anointed of Yahweh, who
was to return the house of Israel to its sons, taking it away from the
pagan usurpers, away from the hated family of the Herodian monarchs,
and away from the corrupt priestly caste of the Sadducees.
Such a man could not end his days but on the Roman gallows, the cross, with a
tri-lingual inscription on it: "Melek hay-Yehudim - Basileus ton Ioudaion - Rex
Iudaeorum (= King of the Jews)", whose meaning is more than evident:
sentenced to death because he was recognised guilty of rebellion against the
imperial authority, since he attempted to re-establish David's crown on the
throne of Israel.
In fact, one thousand years before, the first man to reign over the united twelve
tribes of Israel was David, and he also made Jerusalem his capital city,and there
he wanted to build a huge temple to the Lord (not that he brought this project
into being, but rather his son Solomon). David was the first Messiah (anointed
King) of Israel, and to the Jews the idea that the Messiah united spiritual with
political power causes no repugnance (exactly like to the Hindus the idea that
the Mahatma Ghandi united spiritual with political power causes no
repugnance); on the contrary, they have no problem accepting that he even be a
warrior who fights and defeats all the enemies of God's nation.
The term Messiah comes from the typical ceremony of regal investiture:
unction or anointing (Mashiha = anointed). The king of Israel had not only
political dignity, he was also to be the favourite of God, as he had particular
faith and devotion to the Lord of Israel; he received from the hands of the High
Priest the ointment of myrrh, sweet cinnamon, spikenard, cassia, and olive oil
(Exodus 30, 23-24) and with it he was declared "anointed of the Lord", that
means earthly representative of that sovereignty over the Jewish nation which is
due only to Yahweh. |
