I think I would lay off the little white pills for a while. They seem to be making you a little edgy.
Matthew 27:25 (written by a Jewish tax collector of course) reports merely that "And all the people said, 'His blood shall be on us and on our children!'"
Now you say,"[Matthew] goes out of [his] way, quite preposterously, to make it out that the elders of the Sanhedren, the pharasees, and the jewish crowds practically forced the reluctant and conscious-ridden Pontius Pilate into crucifying [C]hrist."
A couple of points about the passage and your comment.
1. Matthew's account doesn't 'go out of its way' and is certainly not 'quite preposterous'. He merely reports what was said by the Jews when Pilate attempted to distance himself from the forthcoming execution. Remembering that only Pilate could order the execution, the Jews quite naturally would be afraid that, having said, "I am innocent of this Man's blood; see to that yourselves," Pilate might be losing heart for the enterprise. They were in the position of supplicants to Pilate for the use of his power and they clearly did not want the 'opportunity' to slip away. Nothing preposterous about that; just the normal response of people set upon a goal.
2. Nothing in the statement supports the concept that Pilate was 'forced' into the execution. It was clearly His discretionary power to use or not. The Jews were rather clearly trying to persuade him, but they clearly weren't and couldn't 'force' him.
3. What is your evidence that Matthew's account was 'quoted at every Lent sermon for hundreds of years?' I doubt it, but surely if it was, it was in the context of the whole report of Matthew.
4. Certainly, you agree that Matthew himself did not have the goal of "help re-enforce the epithet of christ-killers, and to inspire good christians to go to their local ghettos and enjoy a fine, bracing after-church jewslaughtering." [Matthew and all his friends -- as well as of course His Lord -- were Jews.] The importance of this is that Matthew clearly did not give his report of the occurrences of that day the same impact or intent that you do. Whom should we better believe as to the intent of a passage -- the author or you?
5. As to your assertion that the passage of Matthew's report was read with the specific intent to encourage "jewslaughtering." To say this is a harsh charge is an understatement. I think there is a little too much victimology there. The vast majority of Christians do not differentiate between the unsaved; they have concern for all of them (Jews, Moslems, and just plain ol' American pagans included). Certain dispensationist evangelicals, because of their peculiar interpretation of the Scriptures, are confident that all Jews will be treated specially by God and will eventually come to Jesus as Savior (which would be wonderful if true, but is, in my view, unlikely).
Be that as it may, no Christian I have ever known of or heard of has engaged in "jewslaughtering." You seem to harbor some deep-seated problems with the Gospel. Just read it with an open mind and it will make all the difference.
Than you are abysmally ignorant of points covered in every high school textbook. Look up "pogrom" or "First Crusade" when you get a chance.
You seem to harbor some deep-seated problems with the Gospel.
Duh.
Than you are abysmally ignorant of points covered in every high school textbook. Look up "pogrom" or "First Crusade" when you get a chance.
You seem to harbor some deep-seated problems with the Gospel.
Duh.
At least I am not trying to read Matthew's mind as to his "intent". Nor am I trying to use legalistic hyper-parsing to try to suggest that what is plainly says isn't what it was "intended" to say. He wrote what he wrote, as did John, infused from stem to stern with anti-jewish remarks, and in support of a story that is, by it's celebrated essence, a condemnation of jews for betraying jesus.
As to your assertion that the passage of Matthew's report was read with the specific intent to encourage "jewslaughtering." To say this is a harsh charge is an understatement.
Ask the catholic church loc. cit.--they've owned up to it, unlike their protestent bretheren who are busy trying jam blinders down over their eyes as hard as they can.
So, let me get this straight now. You concur that, according to the Gospels, the "priests and scribes" betrayed jesus to the roman proconsul. You concur that the Jewish mob was screaming for Jesus's head on a platter--as totally unjustified, either in history, or from the context of the story, as this contention is. And you concur that PP was being portrayed as a kindly, sympathetic and reluctant executor, which is, of course, transparent nonsense.
So...how, exactly is it, that you are making a case for yourself that the gospels are not a heavily anti-jewish tract, as most historians think they were intended to be?