PILATE'S TRIAL AND GUILT OF THE JEWISH NATION

According to the four canonical Gospels, Christ was crucified on demand of the Jews in spite of Pilate's attempts to rescue Him. Ordinary believers usually have no idea what a beast they consider to be a rescuer of Christ in full contradiction to all historical data concerning this cruel and amoral person. However another thing is more interesting: In what a miraculous way a small crowd managed to put a guilt of Crucifixion on millions of Jews who knew nothing about Pilate's trial (maximum 100 persons could fit in the yard of praetorium, not to say that no TV or SMS informed the nation about the trial, to add – on the eve of Pesach). If every Jew had already heard about Y-shua and hated him, how was it possible that 50 days later there appeared about three thousands of His believers in Jerusalem only ? (Not to mention the country and the very center, Galilee itself – cf. Lithuania which was compelled to adopt Christianity in the 14th c. after territorial losses and due to emergence of clever Jogaila).

Does it not seem that it is simply an Anti-Semitic marasmus to consider a handful of people being able to make the whole nation guilty for centuries? Or was it a magic result of the outcry “His blood is upon us and our children!”, mentioned in Matthew 27:25? It was even Pope Benedict XVI who mentioned merciful forgiveness of G-d in this connection, although he also added a word of truth (see further) to this, sorry, nonsense obligatory to everybody accepting the whole tradition.

As for non-Catholics, they even regret that such a sentence supposedly led to global Anti-Semitism. Thus the sentence is clearly unacceptable to them, although they do not notice Anti-Semitic content of almost the whole Gospel of John ("Your father is devil" – the context of this saying has allowed Orthodox ascribing this to the whole Jewish nation, not only to spiritual leaders) and even not only of John (cf. Matthew 8:12: "The sons of the Kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth" – a so-called “theory of intercession” – etc., etc.). Nobody can expect comprehension from the side of the Protestants in this case. However the sense of Matthew 27:25 keeps to be preserved in old churches (see further).

Doubting or even partial denial of the text does not mean blasphemy providing one faces obvious absurdity as it is in the case of a small crowd laying terrible guilt on own nation for hundreds of years.

In fact, two layers in Gospels explain everything. These are an original Jewish layer of the Apostolic Church and a later Greek one belonging to supporters of Rome who, having suffered during Roman-Jewish wars (66–135), intercepted Christianity in Asia Minor.

The first one is Good News including the Sermon on the Mount with congruous sayings backed up by the Prophets.

The other one contains things impossible in frames of Abrahamic world, as e.g. drinking blood, not sprinkling it ( cf. Matthew 26:28 vs. Luke 22:20) about the Cup, which (bloody suffering) is cleared up to the sons of Zavday's ("Zebedee") mother (Matthew 20:20–23). Prohibition to drink blood was extremely incomprehensible to the Greeks, because the pagans of the entire non-Jewish world believed blood being healthy to drink, what then about the Blood of Christ himself! Or cf. clearly Greek longest parables as of a wise counterfeiter of debts receipts (Luke 16:1–9), or praising usury (Matthew 25:27). As long as Christians adhere to the mythology of the Greeks, this only profits "theologians" atheists to finally ruin remnants of Christianity.

Christianity successfully spread in Paul's time, when no Gospels were known. It was authentic as participation (Crucifixion together with Christ, Galatians 2:20) in Sacrificed Mystical Body of Christ, the Church, where everyone was totally rescued if acknowledged oneself due to sins being guilty of spilling Christ's Blood. Vice versa: who did not acknowledge oneself being guilty of this, on whom and on whose unhappy children there were no Christ's Blood, such one was lost for ever. This sense of Christianity already existed in Paul's times before all Church councils and dogmas.

The Greek share was in obscurng this comprehension by shifting the main guilt on Jewish “Deiciders”. Of course, Christ sacrificed Himself first for G-d-Chosen people which further had to spread onto the whole mankind, no matter with what name G-d-Chosen people be finally called.

Thus one sees how significant is the phrase “His Blood is upon us and our children”.

A sin is to doubt the Gospels in what is no ground to doubt.

There is no fact contradicting to Abrahamic reality in the Gospels in case of Pilate's trial as such, or in cases of Herod Antipas being in Jerusalem at that time, Christ's delivering to him, re-sending of Christ back to Pilate in mocking king's garments, of Judas who probably was not any pupil of Christ but a Roman informer, known to Caiaphas. As well as there is no ground to doubt Caiaphas words „It is expedient for us/you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not" – these are keywords of the whole history, one can say.

From the other side, it was already in 1949 when in the Journal for Biblical literature there appeared the first conclusion that Yeshua Bar-Abba, i.e. Son of the Father, Barabba of the Gospels, is “doubled” Christ, further ousted to “Jews” as a murder to be chosen by “them” INSTEAD of Christ. The Church removed his name Yeshua from the text, but it was impossible to remove it from manuscripts! Everything is seen today.

Similarly, not a very popular pupil of Christ with common name Yehuda (John 14:22) could be “doubled” into betrayer Judas, because this name means a Judean = a Jew, what befitted for associating all Jews with perfidy. There is no ground to doubt that a real Judas (Roman inormer Yehuda) really got his 30 pieces of silver (although further history of land, ostensibly bought for this money, differs in Gospels and in Acts showing admittable folklore tradition of the Judas plot).

We see that it is not but possible to reconstruct true events of Pilate's trial.

Y-shua was certainly proclaimed King by the multitude with whom He entered the Temple and imposed His order there, while the guard did not dare to intervene against the mighty of mobs. Caiaphas fell into panic thinking that the multitude having proclaimed the King, he would become responsible for this, his leadership would come over to the Romans, while he himself possibly put to death. He therefore hastened to send Yehuda, a Roman informer, to Pilate with “a repentance for rebels in his Temple” and an ask to give Yehuda half of a cohort (a maniple) to arrest the rebels. Yehuda received 30 pieces of silver from Caiaphas for this task.

As a result, Christ was taken to Pilate together with His twelve pupils, but not any military unit of awaited rebells.

Pilate having inquired about weapons, the soldiers showed him Peter's sword, with which slave's ear had been cut. When asked about the ear, they answered that rebels' leader healed it.

Such “rebels” made Pilate to laugh and he asked Christ about His soldiers. Having heard about the Kingdom of Heaven, Pilate became even more cheerful, released the disciples, and sent Christ to Herod.

This narrative all the more does not give grounds for doubts.

After the return of Christ in king's clothes, Pilate was already convinced that all this was a local Jewish controversy. He said that he would release the Father's Son (Bar-Abba) finding no danger to the Roman governance. Seeing that the his plan was failing and that he would not even get rid of Y-shua, Caiaphas and his people cried that Y-shua should die according to the Jewish law. At the same time, the followers of Christ began to cry “Release Father's Son! Father's Son!”

Then Pilate said to Caiaphas, “If you so wish, punish him for yourself!” With these words he allowed the Jews to execute a capital punishment, what was reserved to the Romans only. Not wishing to lose, and fearing to be involved in violating Roman rules, the Caiaphas party alluded they would complain of Pilate to Rome, as not behaving according to Roman rules and even indulging a man proclaiming himself a king. Perhaps then the phrase „[This is not your (Pilate's) trouble, because] HIS BLOOD IS ON US AND OUR CHILDREN!” was said.

This argument worked because Pilate had been already notorious for unlawful behavior and bribery, but the Jews had been experienced in complaining to Rome. Having chosen better to give in, Pilate poured out his contempt for the Jews, and Caiaphas personally, telling to put a title on the cross “The King of the Jews”.

Such version of Pilate's trial does not distort the sense of the Golgotha Sacrifice but eliminates apparent Anti-Semitic marasmus, when a small group of persons ostensibly lays a guit on the whole nation for centuries.

 

CONCLUSION
There are no grounds to explain Crucifixion of Christ as any expression of wish of the Jewish nation. On the contrary, 50 days after the Crucifixion thousands of Jews joined His Church even in Yerushalayim. Local and Asian Greeks joined later, however the Romans were very few on early stage. Growth rate of the Church among the Jews was not lower than anywhere outside Palestine on this stage. Nevertheless the lie about “Jews who killed Jesus” became an organic part of traditional Christianity to such a degree that the Nicene Creed in fact means:

Necatus a Judeis in cruce sub Pontio Pilato - Murdered by the Jews on Cross under Pontius Pilate

This is why the Jews were turned away from Y-shua by “Christians” during 2000 years. This is why traditional Christianity and its produced world civilisation is Anti-Semitic in the basics what inevitably lead to genocide, Hitler and Auschwitz.