There is no doubt that the Christian writers who “invented” the Jesus crucifixion story were Roman sympathizers, proved among other details of the trial, that those who wrote the Gospels were totally ignorant of the Jewish but also of the Roman jurisdiction, customs and laws, indirectly affirming that the Gospels were written, or compiled, or re-written in Rome. Besides, it was at the Synod of Rome that a complete list of the biblical books was canonized in 382 CE as well as at the end of the 5th century also the apocrypha.
I have referred to my previous posts the attitude of some authors to exonerate the Roman involvement and to blame the “bad Jews” for Jesus condemnation and crucifixion (or hanging on a tree according to the Acts), namely mentioning an apocryphon Christian work, a Coptic-Sahidic manuscript of a homily on the Life and Passion of Christ which is ascribed to Cyril of Jerusalem who claimed that Pontius Pilate who was a cruel Jew hater, offered his only son to be sacrificed for a Jewish rebel, replacing Jesus on the cross. However, in the OT, it is clear enough that according to the Yahweh’s commandments, the Israelites had to put to death any impostor that claimed of being a messiah, since Yahweh was the only “messiah” and that he would send a “prophet” instead. Then, how the Christians neglected these commandments and blamed the Jews of having killed their messiah, since the latter obeyed as they ought to have done to their god’s orders?
Further on, we read of some absurd for the Roman jurisdiction system and verdicts, that while Jesus was found “innocent” by the Roman court, he was nevertheless condemned to die. In John 19:6 we read “Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him; for I find no fault in him”. I wonder, who actually ruled Palestine, the Romans or the Jews?
John who is the only one to describe some alleged indignities Jesus is said to have suffered, further on says that Jesus suffered not at the hands of the Jews, but at the hands of a Roman court, from which the Jews were absent and had no influence whatsoever on the verdict. However, the Roman court has been the world’s model for dignity and fairness from the remote antiquity, but in the biblical accounts, it (the court) seems to be discriminatory.
More proofs on the writer of the Gospels that he was a Roman sympathizer, are the verses of Luke 23:47 “Certainly this was a righteous man” and of Matthew 27:54 “Truly this was the Son of God”, that the centurion is supposed to had said. A “Roman heathen” acknowledged a Jewish rebel as a Jewish god’s son? Does it make any sense?
It is noteworthy that Matthew and Mark say that Jesus was arrested and crucified by the Romans, John says that the Jews arrested, put in trial, condemned him in three hours (instead of two days according to the Jewish law and customs) and asked from the Romans to crucify him, something that is strictly forbidden by the Jewish law instead of stoning to death and certainly NOT DURING PASSOVER.
Do you still believe that the crucifixion story isn’t it a RCC’s fairy-tale as pope Leo X said?
Δεσμώτης
Article URL : https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46986/46986-h/46986-h.htm