HOME PAGE | PROEMIUM TO THE STUDY | PROFILE AND CONTACTS |
Languages |
 |
 |
John of Gàmala censored by Wikipedia
On Wikipedia historical data which certifies the identification of Jesus Christ with “John of Gamala” has been reported under the entry “John of Gamala”as from 2016. Such information, endorsed by seven experts of History of Christianity, was notified by Prof. Domenico Contartese in 2016 but eliminated by a censor hidden behind the pseudonym “Vituzzo”.
On 15 July 2015 another fan of History of Chrisianity, Mr. Roberto Giardino, reinseted onto Wikipedia the study which demonstrates that the myth of “Jesus Christ” was taken, over a century later, from the event dating back to the days of Passover of 36 A.D.: an event culminating in the crucifixion of John of Gamala, guilty oof having proclaimed himself King of the Jews as from the Feast of the Tabernacles of 35 A.D.
Giardino is good at using computers and he managed to “stamp” the study published (above can be found the icon where one can click and verify), study which another censor (perhaps the same from the year before but with another nickname) hidden behind the pseudonym “Mandalorian” removed in the middle of the night (12.38 a.m. sic!) and justifed himself (or herself) by giving the following explanation to Mr. Giardino:
“With regard to the contents inserted under the entry John of Gamala I commnicate to you that that I have removed them as they constitute a probable violation of paper source copyright laws” Mandalorian – Messages – 12.38 a.m., 15 July 2017 (CEST).
Mandalorian (or Vituzzo) is not only deceitful but he has proven to be an ignorant and opportunistic churchman. In fact there can be no “probable violation” of copyright laws as the entire analysis is based on the comparative study of ancient Codexes – dating back many centuries, written by Christian scribes and concerning first century A.D. Jewish events – and Historia Ecclesiastica by Eusebius of Caesarea (fourth century Bishop and historian), related to evangelical personalities and events. Ergo: there exists no millenary copyright.
On 12 December 2017 at 20.52, Mr. Roberto Giardino, published on Wikipedia the same study, translated into English, concerning John of Gamala and signed by seven researchers of History of Christianity, but, as expected, this too it has been eliminated by another churchy "guarantor" named "Chrissymad" with the identical motivations put forward by "Mandalorian" and "Vituzzo": "The content that violates all copyrights is canceled".
In fact, the "vaticanist referents" of Wikipedia are the same person, or at least ... they represent the same ideology aimed at erasing any evidence that defeats the myth of Jesus Christ based on the illusion of eternal life beyond death.
Here is the entire investigation on John of Gamala which the expert on Vatican affairs Wikipedia guarantor, aware of its bitter truthfulness, censored thus violating the institutional duty to publish the work in compliance with the right for knowledge to be free and available to all citizens.
Wikipedia
In literature
John of Gàmala was a character from the nineteenth century novel “For the Temple” by George Alfred Henty. The book depicts him as a heroic figure who fought the Romans, particularly when the latter decided to destroy the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. After this event John converted and became a disciple of Jesus. In the book's preface Henty clearly specifies that “John of Gàmala” is simply his literary creation. Even if in reality: «In Josephus there is a trace of a character by the name of “John of Gamala”, precisely in Chapter 8 Book VII of “The Jewish War”, from par. 252 to par. 274 (this trace was discovered by the expert Emilio Salsi, who speaks about this indepth and detailed manner in his book “Giovanni il Nazireo detto Gesù Cristo”)».
Luigi Cascioli, former seminarist and later atheist militant in the book “La favola di Cristo” affirms that the Church deliberately confused Jesus with John of Gamala (who therefore truly existed) and that the latter was a pretendent to the throne of Jerusalem being that he was the son of Judas the Galilean and grandson of the rabbi Hezekiah, direct descendant of the dynasty of the Hasmoneans, founded by Simon, son of Matthias, and ousted by the Herodian dynasty. According to Cascioli the sons of Judas were: John (the eldest), Simon, James the elder, Judas, James the minor, Menahem and Eleazar. [1]
The theory upheld by Cascioli has not become particularly widespread. In the academic world historians up to now have basically ignored his research.
Other authors have attempted to identify Jesus with the character John of Gamala, fruit of the literary fiction of Henty. In addition to fiction, the folowing scholars avail themselves of History and the Gospels.
Starting with Afanasij Ivanovic Bulgakov (father of Michail Bulgakov, author of the novel "The Master and Margarita") - professor of History of Religions at the Theological Academy in Kiev (Ukraine), expert of Greek and Semitic languages – who died in 1906. But before his death the theologist informed his son of having discovered that Gàmala, the homeland of anti-Roman Zealotry, was the true homeland of Jesus, and that the father of Christ was "Syrian"; in fact Gàmala was located in Gaulanitis, in the southernmost part of Syria. The reference (even if indirect) to Judas the Galilean as father of Jesus is clear. Michail Bulgakov remembered what his father had told him and later included this precise information in his novel, in chapter two dedicated to Pontius Pilate.
The first biblicist to identify John of Gàmala as the person who gave birth to the myth of Christ the Saviour was Daniel Massè. A Frenchman born in 1872 with a degree in Law who, after dedicating himself to the study of the historical Christ, wrote the book entitled "L'enigme de Jésus Christ" - Editions du Siecle - Paris 1926. Although he does not offer any concrete proof, the scholar, through the analyses of New Testament documents, arrived at the conclusion that the true identity of Jesus corresponded to that of one of the son of Judas of Galilee. The latter was the most famous first century A.D. Jewish revolutionary and was born in the city of Gàmala. In 6 A.D. he became the head of the national liberation movement (zealotry) aimed at freeing the nation from Roman rule; Massè indicated him as being the father of seven sons: John (Jesus), Simon (Peter), James the Greater, James the Minor, Judas, Philp, Menahem. In addition, according to the French biblicist, John, son of Judas the Galilean, was John the Baptist.
In history
The following text has been compiled and endorsed by seven experts who for many years have been involved in research on the history of Christianity.
“John of Gàmala” (Lat. Iohannes; Gr. Ιωάννης of Γάμαλα) was the Jewish revolutionary from the time of Christ upon whose life the Essene sect built the myth, a century after prophesizing his advent, of the “Son of God, whose kingdom will be an eternal dominion” (Qumran scroll 4Q246) with the precise objective of persuading men to resurrect after death and live for eternity.
The reconstruction of the true events which determined the myth of “Jesus Christ” was scientifically proven, for the first time, by Emilio Salsi who concludes his investigation by identifying “Jesus” (which means “savior”) with “John of Gàmala”.
These analyses can be consulted by anyone who wishes to carry out an in-depth study of the History of Christianity published on the “Gospels and History” website. At the same time, it is the duty of all Vatican exegetes to have a public debate with the expert so as to confute his precise historical arguments which devastate the credibility of the Gospels. The solicitations toward the Vatican exegetes with regard to the History of Christianity have been officialized through letters sent by registered mail and published in the seventeenth study of the above-mentioned website.
Before continuing the investigation concerning the existence of John of Gàmala, it is of utmost importance to inform readers that in 2010 a television debate was already held between Emilio Salsi and an important exegete of the Catholic clergy, Professor Gianluigi Pasquale, an authoritative priest of the Church, Dean of the “Studio Teologico Laurentianum” in Venice and lecturer at the Faculty of Sacred Teology of the “Pontificia Università Lateranense” in Rome and at the “Studium Generale Marcianum” in Venice. The discussion also dealt with John of Gàmala and can be found in the sixteenth study of the website “Gospels and History” (the version written in Italian).
During the debate it can be observed that the prelate was unable to reply to the precise arguments of the historian and therefore, aware of the negative repercussions on the reliability of the “holy texts”, all the ecclesiastics from the Vatican’s Centri Studi Biblici (Centre of Biblical Studies) have decided to avoid an sort of public debate with Salsi, despite realizing that the true existence of Christ and that of the Christian divinities is a topic of great interest for those citizens wishing to acquire in-depth knowledge of past events.
Salsi’s willingness to have a public debate regarding the true existence of Jesus Christ is the object of a public subscription on Change.org, recalled in the website “Gospels and History” (the version written in Italian).
The subsequent assertions are proven in detail through the original investigations published by the historian on this website; however, being that there are so many, we list only the main ones along with the method which he followed and that allowed him to identify Jesus Christ with “John of Gàmala”.
First of all, in the first study on the website, the historian demonstrates that the true name of Christ was “John”, while his four brothers, listed in the Gospels of Matthew (Mt 13,55) and Mark (Mk 6,3), were all Zealots, that is to say Jewish nationalistic revolutionaries who, of course, were enemies of the Romans. There is a revelation of John which can be found in the works of Josephus, in Chapter 8 of Book 7 of “The Jewish War” (par. 252 to par. 274), where it is said the Romans had him undergo atrocious torture “... up until the last moment of life”. This correspondence between “John” and “Jesus” was uncovered by Salsi, who deals with the matter in a detailed and in-depth manner both on his website and in a special analysis (not translated into English). This “John” (whose patronymic is intentionally censored by the editors of “The Jewish War” in “Codex san Gallen GR 627” dated to the tenth century), true protagonist of the remote event recalled in the memorial reported by the historian Josephus, is falsely passed off by believers as “John of Giscala, son of Levi”, an important figure in the 66/70 A.D. Jewish revolt. But, being that Josephus wrote “The Jewish War” by the year 79 A.D., on this date the true “John of Gìscala” was still alive as in 71 A.D. he was sentenced to life in prison by Emperor Vespasian. It is hereby demonstrated that this “John” of distant memory recalled by Josephus could not have been “John of Gìscala”, who, if he had died by the year 79, would have been mentioned by the historian being that he was a leader of the Jewish revolt, therefore famous for both the Jews and the Romans, and is even mentioned by Cornelius Tacitus in “Historiae”.
With regard to John of Gàmala, the difference - between the theories of the above-mentioned writers and the analyses of Emilio Salsi - is that the latter only avail themselves of direct historical sources, confirmed by archeology, which are then compared with ecclesiastical documentation which has reached us through the codexes drawn up by scribes. This is how the historian takes the reader “into” an authentic critical apparatus and arrives at “John of Gàmala” by means of a verification of ancient manuscripts which demonstrate the falsification of the Christian and non-Christian testimonies dating back to the first two centuries A.D. The same method is used to disavow the existence of “John” and “James the Minor”, by producing circumstantial evidence which no historian prior to him had ever done before. Salsi also belies the existence of another two of Christ’s relatives, “Simon” and “Judas Just” (son of James and brother of Christ, therefore nephew of Jesus) who, starting with his brother James, the Church installed as the first three Bishops of Jerusalem.
With regard to these enquiries, it is our duty to highlight the fact that the historian avails himself of the latest archeological finds ascertaining the groundlessness of the references to figures operating in the Roman Empire during the first two centuries A.D., famous men who, in the fourth century, were falsely blamed (by the historian Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea) for the martyrdom of inexistent Christians, passed off as saints with relics and all. The inexistence of Christian followers of Jesus in the Roman Empire of the first century A.D. is proven, in the twelfth study of this website, through the demonstration of the falsification of “Codex Laurentians Ms 68.2” (dating back to the eleventh century) carried out by scribes in the “Annales” (written by Cornelius Tacitus) who hypocritically had Emperor Nero be responsible for the massacre of an “ingens multitudo” (huge crowd) of Christians.
The analyst continues and with regard to the city where Jesus lived, Nazareth, basing himself on its orographic description and location, both of which indicated in the Gospels, demonstrates that its configuration, represented by the evangelist Luke as a “city”, unlike present-day Nazareth (inexistent in the first three centuries A.D.), corresponds exactly to ancient Gàmala, the only city in Palestine built on the edge of a mountain, close to a cliff and with a Synagogue, just like Luke (Lk 4,16) specified and as can still be seen today through its remains. Instead present-day Nazareth is not built on the edge of a mountain nor close to a cliff nor has it ever had a Synagogue. It is important to highlight that Gàmala is famous for being the Hasmonean stronghold of anti-Roman Zealotry, land of the most famous nationalistic revolutionary of Jesus’s time, “Judas the Galilean”, therefore also the land of Christ.
On the basis of this information, in the first study published on the “Gospels and History” website the historian highlights the Zealot roots of Jesus’s brothers; in ancient biblical codexes dating back to the ninth century he also discovers that among Mary’s sons, mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew (13,55), there is also “John”; this finds confirmation in the “Gospel of John” (Jh 19,26), in which the “favourite disciple”, John, is referred to as “son of Mary, Mother of Christ”. Having come to this conclusion, the expert verifies that the names of Christ’s brothers correspond to those of several "Apostles", but unlike the other Apostles’ names, those of his brothers are of Jewish extraction and described with extreme Zealot qualifications; instead the other Apostles are referred to with Greek names having no revolutionary qualification and therefore cannot be identified as Jesus’s brothers. Salsi demonstrates, for the first time, the inexistence of these Apostles thanks to studies based on archeology. In subsequent analyses, the historian arrives at the conclusion that “Jesus” (in Aramaic “Yeshùa, meaning “Saviour”) is not referred to by the evangelists with a typical Jewish appellative, but with divine qualification “Saviour” whose true name was “John”. If Jesus had been a typical Jewish name (corresponding to the English name “Joshua”), the Jewish High Priests in “Acts of the Apostles”, and his fellow Jewish countrymen in the Gospels, would have had no problem to call him “Jesus” in reference to the biblical “Joshua”; but being that, for the Christians, “Yeshùa” means the “Divine Saviour”, therefore not recognized as such by the Jews, the evangelical scribes adopted the lemma “this man” to replace the Aramaic name “Yeshùa”. In the Gospel this name is dictated by God as the divine qualification of “Jesus”: “Mary will give birth to a son and you (Saint Joseph) must name him Jesus, because he is the one who is to save his people from their sins” (Mt 1,21). Being that no Jew would have ever recognized such a “revelation”, the evangelists, aware of this impediment, when describing the Jews who made reference to Christ, used the term “this man” rather than “Yeshùa”, so as to avoid confusing him with the “Saviour”.
Following Salsi’s analyses, after having verified Christ’s brothers revolutionary intentions – will dictated by God, being that they were Zealots, as is evident from their respective evangelical qualifications – by means of further historical investigation, the motive of the rebellion, deriving from the Jews’ desire to free their homeland from Roman domination, is substantiated by the discovery of when the Jewish revolt in Jerusalem took place: event which saw John prevail over the the Roman forces stationed in Jerusalem. History teaches us that this occurred in 35 A.D., as a consequence of the war begun in 34 A.D. by the powerful Parthian King Artabanus III, who “took possession of Armenia and threatened to invade all the lands already in possession of Cyrus and Alexander”, including Palestine (Tacitus: Annales VI 31). A conflict similar to the one carried out by the King of the Parthians Barzaphran; in 40 b.C. Antigonus (son of Aristobulus), last of the Hasmonean Kings in power, took advantage of this conflict by seizing Jerusalem and crowning himself “King of the Jews” in place of Herod the Great.
In addition to this, a deadly famine was raging over Judea and reached its peak in 35 A.D. and its is to understand that the Zealots used this event as a detonator of the rebellion. This is confirmed by the fourth century Christian historian Eusebius of Caesarea, after viewing the scrolls containing the imperial chronicles of the first century. The Christian historians grasped the importance of this calamity, as it was devastating for a starving people who, as a result, rebelled against the establishment. Therefore, these historians falsified the dating of the tragedy by postdating it in “Acts of the Apostles” in order to throw off historians; by Eusebius made the naive mistake of referring to “Queen Helena” of Adiabene, correlated to the event described by Josephus. The chronological adulteration of this famine, of course, was also inserted by the scribes into the transcription of the historian’s “Jewish Antiquities”, starting with “Codex Ambrosianus Gr F128” (from the eleventh century), in which they foolishly inverted the names of the Emperors under which the famine took place: they said it occurred under “Claudius” rather than “Tiberius”. Proof of the falsification of the chronology, related to the events of the famine, carried out by the scribes in the ancient codexes is reported by Salsi in the tenth study of this website so as to allow the true events to be universally known.
The liberation of the Holy City from Roman domination – with the crowd’s acclamation of John as “Messiah King of the Jews” and their Saviour Yeshùa (not decreed by Tiberius) – lasted less than a year as a result of the defeat inflicted on Rome by the Parthians under Artabanus III, King of Kings, which marked the death of John, leader of the Zealots.
So as to avoid the destruction of Jerusalem, the crucifixion of the “Messiah John” was ordered, just before Passover in 36 A.D., by the Legatus Augusti pro Praetore Lucius Vitellius, given full powers by Tiberius over the East at war against Artabanus III, with whom John had allied himself. After the surrender of a starving Jerusalem and the execution outside the walls of the deposed “King of the Jews” John, Lucius Vitellius entered the city, communicated the exemption of foodstuffs from Roman taxation and asked the people to swear allegiance to Emperor Tiberius.
The historian Emilio Salsi concludes that the son of Judas the Galilean, having the same names as those of Mary, mother of Christ, were: John (Yeshùa), Simon, James, Judas and Joseph.
Finally, by means of a specific analysis respectful of historical findings, he demonstrates the correspondence between the names “Menahem” (Judas the Galilean’s youngest son) and “Joseph” (the youngest of Christ’s brothers). In 66 A.D. the latter, who by this time was elderly, took power through a coup and proclaimed himself "King of the Jews", but was eliminated by the priestly aristocracy just like “Jesus”, the eldest brother.
With regard to the censorship of the acts of John, son of Judas the Galilean, Salsi’s studies demonstrate that the copyists of the eleventh century “Codex Ambrosianus Gr F128” removed from Book XVIII of “Jewish Antiquities”, which spoke about the time of “Jesus”, the important historical reference concerning John made by Josephus in “The Jewish War” (copied two centuries earlier into “Codex Sangallen Gr 627”), when the followers of the anti-Roman National Liberation Movement …
“They Destroyed what remained of the political system and introduced total anarchy everywhere. In this atmosphere prospered utmost the Zealots, an association whose name was confirmed through their actions; they, in fact, imitated through their behavior any sort of wicked action and did not fail to emulate any sort of misdeed recorded by history” (Bellum VII 267/269).
But in Book XVIII of “Jewish Antiquities” transcribed into “Codex Ambrosianus F128”, due to censorship, we do not find “any sort of misdeed recorded by history” regarding such a grave revolutionary event and during which the Zealots “destroyed what remained of the political system” (the Constitution of the Roman governorship and of the aristocratic Sanhedrin was transformed into a “Christ King” totalitarian monarchy). There is clear evidence of the absolute necessity which forced Christian scribes to remove “John of Gàmala” from history, well-aware that he would have been identified with the historical Jesus.
Therefore (as already has taken place in this study dealt with by Wikipedia), rather than censor the references to Emilio Salsi’s studies, the prelates, just like the experts of Christology compared to history and subordinate to the clergy, must accept to take part in public debate with him and contradict him with precise factual information. Afterwards, it will be their right-duty to denounce his mistakes and prove wrong, once and for all, he who they consider to be “the most radical historical revisionist of Christ’s advent”. Wikipedia has no problem including the apologetical conclusions concerning the existence of Christ, the Madonna, Apostles and successors, Bishops and martyrs, reported by anonymous churchmen.
Starting with the falsification of the bizarre “evidence”* which “demonstrates” that the census carried out in 6 A.D. by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius by order of Emperor Augustus, as reported by Luke in the “nativity” of Christ, was initiated by the Consul when the Proconsul Gaius Sentius Saturninus was Governor of Syria and Herod the Great was King of the Jews.
* See the book entitled “Il problema cronologico della nascita di Gesù” (“The chronological problem concerning the birth of Jesus”) by Giulio Firpo, Professor of Roman History (and who did not read the History written by Josephus), and officialized by the Church on 29 May 1996 through an interview given by the current Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi published in the Italian newspaper “Corriere della Sera” during the papacy of John Paul II.
This means that Wikipedia uncritically accepts the absurd fact that Caesar Augustus waited twelve years before collecting taxes from the Syrians and the Jews and does so in order to “fix” the blunders made by the evangelists. In reality the Church historians lie and fully realize that they are lying for they pretend to be unaware of the fact that it was Caesar Augustus himself who appointed Herod the Great “Procurator of all Syria so that no procurator could act without his consent” (Bellum J. I 399 and Ant. XV 360) "with the duty to collect taxes in all the regions of this Province" (Bellum J. I 428).
Despite being legally and militarily subordinate to the Emperor’s Legate of Syria, Herod the Great was never subjected, administratively, to the Legate himself; and, due to his role, he was forced to use the tax revenues to build, in name of Caesar Augustus and his family, great works, including pagan Temples, even in cities outside his Kingdom (Bellum I 422/425).
As long as Herod the Great was alive, being that he was the “Procurator of all Syria”, there was no need for Rome to carry out a census in Syria or Judea: it was he who, as fiduciary of Augustus, was obliged to collect taxes and handle the Emperor’s revenues. It is important to highlight that “The Jewish War” was verified and approved by Roman historians under Vespasian and the relative document was deposited in the Imperial Archives.
By hiding behind anonymous censorship the specialists of the Clergy along with their epigones demonstrate that the Salsi’s research irrefutable. The prelates themselves demonstrate their weakness by refusing to confront the historian on the authentic “History of Christianity”, a didactic discipline substantiated by the latest archeological discoveries, proof that the powerful and famous Governors of the Roman Empire never martyrized Apostles, Bishops, apologetical Fathers and all other Christians.
But, most important of all, it is important for readers to know that free Knowledge cannot be censored, as it allows us to judge to the society that we live in. The right to Knowledge must not be limited, it is an inalienable right, just like Freedom is. Rights which must not and cannot be influenced by personal interest or power nor by the Christian religion’s media recognition, despite the fact that it has been definitively verified that we are dealing with a creed based upon the worst lies ever seen in History.
This document has been endorsed by the following experts who for many years have conducted research on the History of Christianity.
Prof. Domenico Contartese
Dr. Giancarlo Tranfo
Dr. Ferruccio Rondinella
Prof. Fausto Tufano
Prof. Gaetano Tufano
Dr. Giuseppe Giralico
Attorney Andrea Gaetani
Premise
Attempting to reason with naive listeners about an unknown “John of Gamala” during a public debate on live TV is like explaining complex mathematics to elemenatary school students: almost no one would be capable of understanding and thus one would be viewed as a visionary.
It is much easier, but also right and proper, to criticize the famous Christian heroes of the Gospels and Ecclesiastic history (Nativity, Christ, Apostles, successors and martyrs) and demonstrate the deceitfulness of their “tradition”, invented from scratch by fourth century Christian scribes … as is the case for the “canonical” Gospels.
The studies contained in this website entitled “Gospels and History” constitute proof resulting from a comparative study of the New Testament with patristic documents, imperial historiography, Roman Law, archeology and Jewish toponymy (Jesus and the Apostles were Jewish): this was carried out through the sole use of direct sources taken from the Codexes copied by Christian scribes through the centuries, starting from the fourth century A.D.
Only after demonstrating once and for all the inexistence of Christ, the Apostles, their successors and relative martyrs (all of which are mentioned in the previous analyses) the keen reader manages to solve the “John-Jesus” problem only after reading and rereading (studied), from the very beginning, the specific historiological proof in order to assimilate all the necessary data – contained in the Gospels and in the Ecclesiastical history drawn up by the authentic Christian historians (from the fourth century onwards) – and compare it to the chronicles of the Jewish historian Josephus. Data which we list in brief so as to demonstrate:
It is much easier, but also right and proper, to criticize the famous Christian heroes of the Gospels and Ecclesiastic history (Nativity, Christ, Apostles, successors and martyrs) and demonstrate the deceitfulness of their “tradition”, invented from scratch by fourth century Christian scribes … as is the case for the “canonical” Gospels.
The studies contained in this website entitled “Gospels and History” constitute proof resulting from a comparative study of the New Testament with patristic documents, imperial historiography, Roman Law, archeology and Jewish toponymy (Jesus and the Apostles were Jewish): this was carried out through the sole use of direct sources taken from the Codexes copied by Christian scribes through the centuries, starting from the fourth century A.D.
Only after demonstrating once and for all the inexistence of Christ, the Apostles, their successors and relative martyrs (all of which are mentioned in the previous analyses) the keen reader manages to solve the “John-Jesus” problem only after reading and rereading (studied), from the very beginning, the specific historiological proof in order to assimilate all the necessary data – contained in the Gospels and in the Ecclesiastical history drawn up by the authentic Christian historians (from the fourth century onwards) – and compare it to the chronicles of the Jewish historian Josephus. Data which we list in brief so as to demonstrate:
1 - that Jesus’s name was John (the first study contains the biblical codexes which refer to him as the son of Mary), who, like his brothers, was an anti-Roman nationalist militant; they all had typical Jewish names in complete agreement with those of the Zealot Jewish Apostles but not with those having Greek names;
2 - that the historical and archeological proof cancels out the existence of the “Apostles” and the “Fathers” successors of Christ, fact which does not take place with regard to John’s (Yeshua) brothers;
3 - inevitably, the Zealot militancy of the brothers involved all of “Jesus’s” family in the fight against Roman domination so as to free the land of Israel from Pagan rule, along with the vast majority of the Jews;
4 - at this point the city of Gàmala – disguised in the Gospels as “Nazareth”, from which is derived the “Nazarene” so as not to associate him with the nationalist “Nazireo” – becomes the unavoidable link connecting Yeshuà (“Saviour”) and his brothers to their father “Judas the Galilean”. The overlapping of the description of Gamala with that of an inexistent (in the first three centuries) “Nazareth” is demonstrated in the seventh study;
5 - after verifying this data, the motive, imposed by the Jews’ wish to free their land from Roman domination, is validated by the discovery of the period in which the Jewish revolt in Jerusalem took place, event which saw John prevail over the Roman forces. History teaches us that the opportunity arose in 35 A.D. with the war carried out by Artabanus III against Rome. A conflict similar to the one begun by the King of the Parthians, Barzaphrane, war which Antigonus – the last of the Hasmonean monarchs – took advantage of in 40 A.D. in order to seize Jerusalem and crown himself “King of the Jews”. But the liberation of Jerusalem from pagan domination, with the proclamation (not decreed by Tiberius) of John as “King of the Jews”, lasted less than a year. The defeat, inflicted upon Rome by King Artabanus, Emperor of the Parthians, marked the end of John, head of the Zealots. Threatened with the destruction of the capital of the Jews, the crucifixion of the “Messiah John” was imposed, just before Easter in 36 A.D., by the Legatus Augusti pro Praetore, Lucius Vitellius, who was assigned full powers by Tiberius over the entire East at war with the Parthians led by Artabanus III, with whom John had previously allied himself (see tenth study);
6 - Moreover, a deadly famine was raging over Judea and reached its climax in 35 A.D., taking many victims among the indigenous population, therefore it is easy to understand that the Zealots availed themselves of the famine as a detonator of the rebellion;
7 - The confirmation of this fact is given to us by the fourth century Christian chronicler Eusebius of Caesarea, after examining the scrolls which speak about the imperial chronicles of the first century. It was then that the Christian historians grasped the importance of the famine, explosive for a famished people who rebelled against imperial power; thus they falsified the dating by postdating it in “Acts of the Apostles” in order to mislead historians, but Eusebius was so naive as to make reference to “Queen Helena of Adiabene”. The chronological adulteration of this famine, obviously, was also inserted by the scribes into the transcript of Jewish Antiquities by Josephus Flavius, starting from the eleventh century “Codex Ambrosianus F 128”. The grave inaccuracies committed by the Christian scribes have allowed us to demonstrate that the famine was set in the wrong period deceitfully in “Acts of the Apostles”, in “Historia Ecclesiastica” by Eusebius and in “Jewish Antiquities” by Josephus;
8 - In fact the biggest mistake made by the scribes of the codexes of “Jewish Antiquities” was when they decided to throw off the dating of the famine by inverting the name Emperor “Tiberius” with Emperor “Claudius”;
9 - Moreover, in the eleventh century the copyists of “Codex Ambrosianus Gr F128” eliminated from Book XVIII of “Jewish Antiquities”, which spoke about the time of Jesus, the important historical reference regarding “John” (whose patronymic had already been censored) made by Josephus in “The Jewish War” (whose text was copied by the scribes into "Codex Sangallen Gr 627") drawn up in the tenth century, when the followers of the anti-Roman National Liberation Movement…
2 - that the historical and archeological proof cancels out the existence of the “Apostles” and the “Fathers” successors of Christ, fact which does not take place with regard to John’s (Yeshua) brothers;
3 - inevitably, the Zealot militancy of the brothers involved all of “Jesus’s” family in the fight against Roman domination so as to free the land of Israel from Pagan rule, along with the vast majority of the Jews;
4 - at this point the city of Gàmala – disguised in the Gospels as “Nazareth”, from which is derived the “Nazarene” so as not to associate him with the nationalist “Nazireo” – becomes the unavoidable link connecting Yeshuà (“Saviour”) and his brothers to their father “Judas the Galilean”. The overlapping of the description of Gamala with that of an inexistent (in the first three centuries) “Nazareth” is demonstrated in the seventh study;
5 - after verifying this data, the motive, imposed by the Jews’ wish to free their land from Roman domination, is validated by the discovery of the period in which the Jewish revolt in Jerusalem took place, event which saw John prevail over the Roman forces. History teaches us that the opportunity arose in 35 A.D. with the war carried out by Artabanus III against Rome. A conflict similar to the one begun by the King of the Parthians, Barzaphrane, war which Antigonus – the last of the Hasmonean monarchs – took advantage of in 40 A.D. in order to seize Jerusalem and crown himself “King of the Jews”. But the liberation of Jerusalem from pagan domination, with the proclamation (not decreed by Tiberius) of John as “King of the Jews”, lasted less than a year. The defeat, inflicted upon Rome by King Artabanus, Emperor of the Parthians, marked the end of John, head of the Zealots. Threatened with the destruction of the capital of the Jews, the crucifixion of the “Messiah John” was imposed, just before Easter in 36 A.D., by the Legatus Augusti pro Praetore, Lucius Vitellius, who was assigned full powers by Tiberius over the entire East at war with the Parthians led by Artabanus III, with whom John had previously allied himself (see tenth study);
6 - Moreover, a deadly famine was raging over Judea and reached its climax in 35 A.D., taking many victims among the indigenous population, therefore it is easy to understand that the Zealots availed themselves of the famine as a detonator of the rebellion;
7 - The confirmation of this fact is given to us by the fourth century Christian chronicler Eusebius of Caesarea, after examining the scrolls which speak about the imperial chronicles of the first century. It was then that the Christian historians grasped the importance of the famine, explosive for a famished people who rebelled against imperial power; thus they falsified the dating by postdating it in “Acts of the Apostles” in order to mislead historians, but Eusebius was so naive as to make reference to “Queen Helena of Adiabene”. The chronological adulteration of this famine, obviously, was also inserted by the scribes into the transcript of Jewish Antiquities by Josephus Flavius, starting from the eleventh century “Codex Ambrosianus F 128”. The grave inaccuracies committed by the Christian scribes have allowed us to demonstrate that the famine was set in the wrong period deceitfully in “Acts of the Apostles”, in “Historia Ecclesiastica” by Eusebius and in “Jewish Antiquities” by Josephus;
8 - In fact the biggest mistake made by the scribes of the codexes of “Jewish Antiquities” was when they decided to throw off the dating of the famine by inverting the name Emperor “Tiberius” with Emperor “Claudius”;
9 - Moreover, in the eleventh century the copyists of “Codex Ambrosianus Gr F128” eliminated from Book XVIII of “Jewish Antiquities”, which spoke about the time of Jesus, the important historical reference regarding “John” (whose patronymic had already been censored) made by Josephus in “The Jewish War” (whose text was copied by the scribes into "Codex Sangallen Gr 627") drawn up in the tenth century, when the followers of the anti-Roman National Liberation Movement…
"They destroyed what was left of the social system by introducing total anarchy everywhere. In such a situation the Zealots, an association whose actions confirmed their name, fully flourished; in fact through their deeds they imitated all evil actions and did not neglect to emulate any misdeed recorded in history" (Bellum VII 267/9);
But in Book XVIII of “Jewish Antiquities”, during the period of Christ (30-33 A.D.), as a result of censorship we do not find “any misdeed recorded in history” regarding such a serious revolutionary event during which the Zealots “destroyed what was left of the social system” (the Constitution of the Roman governorship and of the aristocratic Sanhedrin was transformed into an absolute Jewish monarchy “Christ King”;
10 - according to the four canonical Gospels, there are two evangelical authors with the same name: “John, the favourite disciple” and “John, also called Mark”. The second (Acts of the Apostles 12,12) is said to have been a Jew, son of a “Mary” residing in Jerusalem, who adopted with impunity a Roman patrician name, in contrast with the imperial law of the time, which prohibited the use of such a name on the part of those who did not possess a Diploma of Roman Citizenship; those who did so risked the death penalty through beheading. An absurdity which the fourth century Christian scribes stumbled upon when reading the primitive Essenic Gospel which described the salvific deeds of the son of God, “John, King of the Jews” (Christ King) from the royal Hasmonean line (see seventh study), obviously not written by “John Evangelist”. The aim of transforming the “protagonist” of the narrated events into an “evangelical author” was to prevent the true name of the “Universal Saviour, son of God” from being revealed: John;
11 - The preamble of the Gospel of John (Jn 1,6-11), taken from an original Gospel written by the Essenes, attests the name "John" as Messiah chosen by God:
But in Book XVIII of “Jewish Antiquities”, during the period of Christ (30-33 A.D.), as a result of censorship we do not find “any misdeed recorded in history” regarding such a serious revolutionary event during which the Zealots “destroyed what was left of the social system” (the Constitution of the Roman governorship and of the aristocratic Sanhedrin was transformed into an absolute Jewish monarchy “Christ King”;
10 - according to the four canonical Gospels, there are two evangelical authors with the same name: “John, the favourite disciple” and “John, also called Mark”. The second (Acts of the Apostles 12,12) is said to have been a Jew, son of a “Mary” residing in Jerusalem, who adopted with impunity a Roman patrician name, in contrast with the imperial law of the time, which prohibited the use of such a name on the part of those who did not possess a Diploma of Roman Citizenship; those who did so risked the death penalty through beheading. An absurdity which the fourth century Christian scribes stumbled upon when reading the primitive Essenic Gospel which described the salvific deeds of the son of God, “John, King of the Jews” (Christ King) from the royal Hasmonean line (see seventh study), obviously not written by “John Evangelist”. The aim of transforming the “protagonist” of the narrated events into an “evangelical author” was to prevent the true name of the “Universal Saviour, son of God” from being revealed: John;
11 - The preamble of the Gospel of John (Jn 1,6-11), taken from an original Gospel written by the Essenes, attests the name "John" as Messiah chosen by God:
"A man came, sent by God. His name was John ... He was in the world that had come into being through himand the world did not recognize him. He came to his own and his own people did not accept him" (Jh 1,6-11).
The churchy exegetes affirmed that this "John" refers to "John the Baptist, but in the ninth study of this website, thanks to the comparative reading holy texts and documented history, it is demonstrated that it is impossible to identify the Baptist as the protagonst of this biblical quotation, thus confirming all the circumstances listed above.
Only a few points are listed above in order to highlight the numerous examples of cross-referencing aimed at unveiling the true historical event which, a century later, gave birth to the Christian myth. All such evidence is published in published in the “Gospels and History” website.
Emilio Salsi
The Wikipedia censorship of historical data listed briefly, described in detail by seven scholars
On 15 July 2015 another fan of History of Chrisianity, Mr. Roberto Giardino, reinseted onto Wikipedia the study which demonstrates that the myth of “Jesus Christ” was taken, over a century later, from the event dating back to the days of Passover of 36 A.D.: an event culminating in the crucifixion of John of Gamala, guilty oof having proclaimed himself King of the Jews as from the Feast of the Tabernacles of 35 A.D.
Giardino is good at using computers and he managed to “stamp” the study published (above can be found the icon where one can click and verify), study which another censor (perhaps the same from the year before but with another nickname) hidden behind the pseudonym “Mandalorian” removed in the middle of the night (12.38 a.m. sic!) and justifed himself (or herself) by giving the following explanation to Mr. Giardino:
“With regard to the contents inserted under the entry John of Gamala I commnicate to you that that I have removed them as they constitute a probable violation of paper source copyright laws” Mandalorian – Messages – 12.38 a.m., 15 July 2017 (CEST).
Mandalorian (or Vituzzo) is not only deceitful but he has proven to be an ignorant and opportunistic churchman. In fact there can be no “probable violation” of copyright laws as the entire analysis is based on the comparative study of ancient Codexes – dating back many centuries, written by Christian scribes and concerning first century A.D. Jewish events – and Historia Ecclesiastica by Eusebius of Caesarea (fourth century Bishop and historian), related to evangelical personalities and events. Ergo: there exists no millenary copyright.
On 12 December 2017 at 20.52, Mr. Roberto Giardino, published on Wikipedia the same study, translated into English, concerning John of Gamala and signed by seven researchers of History of Christianity, but, as expected, this too it has been eliminated by another churchy "guarantor" named "Chrissymad" with the identical motivations put forward by "Mandalorian" and "Vituzzo": "The content that violates all copyrights is canceled".
In fact, the "vaticanist referents" of Wikipedia are the same person, or at least ... they represent the same ideology aimed at erasing any evidence that defeats the myth of Jesus Christ based on the illusion of eternal life beyond death.
Here is the entire investigation on John of Gamala which the expert on Vatican affairs Wikipedia guarantor, aware of its bitter truthfulness, censored thus violating the institutional duty to publish the work in compliance with the right for knowledge to be free and available to all citizens.
Wikipedia
In literature
John of Gàmala was a character from the nineteenth century novel “For the Temple” by George Alfred Henty. The book depicts him as a heroic figure who fought the Romans, particularly when the latter decided to destroy the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. After this event John converted and became a disciple of Jesus. In the book's preface Henty clearly specifies that “John of Gàmala” is simply his literary creation. Even if in reality: «In Josephus there is a trace of a character by the name of “John of Gamala”, precisely in Chapter 8 Book VII of “The Jewish War”, from par. 252 to par. 274 (this trace was discovered by the expert Emilio Salsi, who speaks about this indepth and detailed manner in his book “Giovanni il Nazireo detto Gesù Cristo”)».
Luigi Cascioli, former seminarist and later atheist militant in the book “La favola di Cristo” affirms that the Church deliberately confused Jesus with John of Gamala (who therefore truly existed) and that the latter was a pretendent to the throne of Jerusalem being that he was the son of Judas the Galilean and grandson of the rabbi Hezekiah, direct descendant of the dynasty of the Hasmoneans, founded by Simon, son of Matthias, and ousted by the Herodian dynasty. According to Cascioli the sons of Judas were: John (the eldest), Simon, James the elder, Judas, James the minor, Menahem and Eleazar. [1]
The theory upheld by Cascioli has not become particularly widespread. In the academic world historians up to now have basically ignored his research.
Other authors have attempted to identify Jesus with the character John of Gamala, fruit of the literary fiction of Henty. In addition to fiction, the folowing scholars avail themselves of History and the Gospels.
Starting with Afanasij Ivanovic Bulgakov (father of Michail Bulgakov, author of the novel "The Master and Margarita") - professor of History of Religions at the Theological Academy in Kiev (Ukraine), expert of Greek and Semitic languages – who died in 1906. But before his death the theologist informed his son of having discovered that Gàmala, the homeland of anti-Roman Zealotry, was the true homeland of Jesus, and that the father of Christ was "Syrian"; in fact Gàmala was located in Gaulanitis, in the southernmost part of Syria. The reference (even if indirect) to Judas the Galilean as father of Jesus is clear. Michail Bulgakov remembered what his father had told him and later included this precise information in his novel, in chapter two dedicated to Pontius Pilate.
The first biblicist to identify John of Gàmala as the person who gave birth to the myth of Christ the Saviour was Daniel Massè. A Frenchman born in 1872 with a degree in Law who, after dedicating himself to the study of the historical Christ, wrote the book entitled "L'enigme de Jésus Christ" - Editions du Siecle - Paris 1926. Although he does not offer any concrete proof, the scholar, through the analyses of New Testament documents, arrived at the conclusion that the true identity of Jesus corresponded to that of one of the son of Judas of Galilee. The latter was the most famous first century A.D. Jewish revolutionary and was born in the city of Gàmala. In 6 A.D. he became the head of the national liberation movement (zealotry) aimed at freeing the nation from Roman rule; Massè indicated him as being the father of seven sons: John (Jesus), Simon (Peter), James the Greater, James the Minor, Judas, Philp, Menahem. In addition, according to the French biblicist, John, son of Judas the Galilean, was John the Baptist.
In history
The following text has been compiled and endorsed by seven experts who for many years have been involved in research on the history of Christianity.
“John of Gàmala” (Lat. Iohannes; Gr. Ιωάννης of Γάμαλα) was the Jewish revolutionary from the time of Christ upon whose life the Essene sect built the myth, a century after prophesizing his advent, of the “Son of God, whose kingdom will be an eternal dominion” (Qumran scroll 4Q246) with the precise objective of persuading men to resurrect after death and live for eternity.
The reconstruction of the true events which determined the myth of “Jesus Christ” was scientifically proven, for the first time, by Emilio Salsi who concludes his investigation by identifying “Jesus” (which means “savior”) with “John of Gàmala”.
These analyses can be consulted by anyone who wishes to carry out an in-depth study of the History of Christianity published on the “Gospels and History” website. At the same time, it is the duty of all Vatican exegetes to have a public debate with the expert so as to confute his precise historical arguments which devastate the credibility of the Gospels. The solicitations toward the Vatican exegetes with regard to the History of Christianity have been officialized through letters sent by registered mail and published in the seventeenth study of the above-mentioned website.
Before continuing the investigation concerning the existence of John of Gàmala, it is of utmost importance to inform readers that in 2010 a television debate was already held between Emilio Salsi and an important exegete of the Catholic clergy, Professor Gianluigi Pasquale, an authoritative priest of the Church, Dean of the “Studio Teologico Laurentianum” in Venice and lecturer at the Faculty of Sacred Teology of the “Pontificia Università Lateranense” in Rome and at the “Studium Generale Marcianum” in Venice. The discussion also dealt with John of Gàmala and can be found in the sixteenth study of the website “Gospels and History” (the version written in Italian).
During the debate it can be observed that the prelate was unable to reply to the precise arguments of the historian and therefore, aware of the negative repercussions on the reliability of the “holy texts”, all the ecclesiastics from the Vatican’s Centri Studi Biblici (Centre of Biblical Studies) have decided to avoid an sort of public debate with Salsi, despite realizing that the true existence of Christ and that of the Christian divinities is a topic of great interest for those citizens wishing to acquire in-depth knowledge of past events.
Salsi’s willingness to have a public debate regarding the true existence of Jesus Christ is the object of a public subscription on Change.org, recalled in the website “Gospels and History” (the version written in Italian).
The subsequent assertions are proven in detail through the original investigations published by the historian on this website; however, being that there are so many, we list only the main ones along with the method which he followed and that allowed him to identify Jesus Christ with “John of Gàmala”.
First of all, in the first study on the website, the historian demonstrates that the true name of Christ was “John”, while his four brothers, listed in the Gospels of Matthew (Mt 13,55) and Mark (Mk 6,3), were all Zealots, that is to say Jewish nationalistic revolutionaries who, of course, were enemies of the Romans. There is a revelation of John which can be found in the works of Josephus, in Chapter 8 of Book 7 of “The Jewish War” (par. 252 to par. 274), where it is said the Romans had him undergo atrocious torture “... up until the last moment of life”. This correspondence between “John” and “Jesus” was uncovered by Salsi, who deals with the matter in a detailed and in-depth manner both on his website and in a special analysis (not translated into English). This “John” (whose patronymic is intentionally censored by the editors of “The Jewish War” in “Codex san Gallen GR 627” dated to the tenth century), true protagonist of the remote event recalled in the memorial reported by the historian Josephus, is falsely passed off by believers as “John of Giscala, son of Levi”, an important figure in the 66/70 A.D. Jewish revolt. But, being that Josephus wrote “The Jewish War” by the year 79 A.D., on this date the true “John of Gìscala” was still alive as in 71 A.D. he was sentenced to life in prison by Emperor Vespasian. It is hereby demonstrated that this “John” of distant memory recalled by Josephus could not have been “John of Gìscala”, who, if he had died by the year 79, would have been mentioned by the historian being that he was a leader of the Jewish revolt, therefore famous for both the Jews and the Romans, and is even mentioned by Cornelius Tacitus in “Historiae”.
With regard to John of Gàmala, the difference - between the theories of the above-mentioned writers and the analyses of Emilio Salsi - is that the latter only avail themselves of direct historical sources, confirmed by archeology, which are then compared with ecclesiastical documentation which has reached us through the codexes drawn up by scribes. This is how the historian takes the reader “into” an authentic critical apparatus and arrives at “John of Gàmala” by means of a verification of ancient manuscripts which demonstrate the falsification of the Christian and non-Christian testimonies dating back to the first two centuries A.D. The same method is used to disavow the existence of “John” and “James the Minor”, by producing circumstantial evidence which no historian prior to him had ever done before. Salsi also belies the existence of another two of Christ’s relatives, “Simon” and “Judas Just” (son of James and brother of Christ, therefore nephew of Jesus) who, starting with his brother James, the Church installed as the first three Bishops of Jerusalem.
With regard to these enquiries, it is our duty to highlight the fact that the historian avails himself of the latest archeological finds ascertaining the groundlessness of the references to figures operating in the Roman Empire during the first two centuries A.D., famous men who, in the fourth century, were falsely blamed (by the historian Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea) for the martyrdom of inexistent Christians, passed off as saints with relics and all. The inexistence of Christian followers of Jesus in the Roman Empire of the first century A.D. is proven, in the twelfth study of this website, through the demonstration of the falsification of “Codex Laurentians Ms 68.2” (dating back to the eleventh century) carried out by scribes in the “Annales” (written by Cornelius Tacitus) who hypocritically had Emperor Nero be responsible for the massacre of an “ingens multitudo” (huge crowd) of Christians.
The analyst continues and with regard to the city where Jesus lived, Nazareth, basing himself on its orographic description and location, both of which indicated in the Gospels, demonstrates that its configuration, represented by the evangelist Luke as a “city”, unlike present-day Nazareth (inexistent in the first three centuries A.D.), corresponds exactly to ancient Gàmala, the only city in Palestine built on the edge of a mountain, close to a cliff and with a Synagogue, just like Luke (Lk 4,16) specified and as can still be seen today through its remains. Instead present-day Nazareth is not built on the edge of a mountain nor close to a cliff nor has it ever had a Synagogue. It is important to highlight that Gàmala is famous for being the Hasmonean stronghold of anti-Roman Zealotry, land of the most famous nationalistic revolutionary of Jesus’s time, “Judas the Galilean”, therefore also the land of Christ.
On the basis of this information, in the first study published on the “Gospels and History” website the historian highlights the Zealot roots of Jesus’s brothers; in ancient biblical codexes dating back to the ninth century he also discovers that among Mary’s sons, mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew (13,55), there is also “John”; this finds confirmation in the “Gospel of John” (Jh 19,26), in which the “favourite disciple”, John, is referred to as “son of Mary, Mother of Christ”. Having come to this conclusion, the expert verifies that the names of Christ’s brothers correspond to those of several "Apostles", but unlike the other Apostles’ names, those of his brothers are of Jewish extraction and described with extreme Zealot qualifications; instead the other Apostles are referred to with Greek names having no revolutionary qualification and therefore cannot be identified as Jesus’s brothers. Salsi demonstrates, for the first time, the inexistence of these Apostles thanks to studies based on archeology. In subsequent analyses, the historian arrives at the conclusion that “Jesus” (in Aramaic “Yeshùa, meaning “Saviour”) is not referred to by the evangelists with a typical Jewish appellative, but with divine qualification “Saviour” whose true name was “John”. If Jesus had been a typical Jewish name (corresponding to the English name “Joshua”), the Jewish High Priests in “Acts of the Apostles”, and his fellow Jewish countrymen in the Gospels, would have had no problem to call him “Jesus” in reference to the biblical “Joshua”; but being that, for the Christians, “Yeshùa” means the “Divine Saviour”, therefore not recognized as such by the Jews, the evangelical scribes adopted the lemma “this man” to replace the Aramaic name “Yeshùa”. In the Gospel this name is dictated by God as the divine qualification of “Jesus”: “Mary will give birth to a son and you (Saint Joseph) must name him Jesus, because he is the one who is to save his people from their sins” (Mt 1,21). Being that no Jew would have ever recognized such a “revelation”, the evangelists, aware of this impediment, when describing the Jews who made reference to Christ, used the term “this man” rather than “Yeshùa”, so as to avoid confusing him with the “Saviour”.
Following Salsi’s analyses, after having verified Christ’s brothers revolutionary intentions – will dictated by God, being that they were Zealots, as is evident from their respective evangelical qualifications – by means of further historical investigation, the motive of the rebellion, deriving from the Jews’ desire to free their homeland from Roman domination, is substantiated by the discovery of when the Jewish revolt in Jerusalem took place: event which saw John prevail over the the Roman forces stationed in Jerusalem. History teaches us that this occurred in 35 A.D., as a consequence of the war begun in 34 A.D. by the powerful Parthian King Artabanus III, who “took possession of Armenia and threatened to invade all the lands already in possession of Cyrus and Alexander”, including Palestine (Tacitus: Annales VI 31). A conflict similar to the one carried out by the King of the Parthians Barzaphran; in 40 b.C. Antigonus (son of Aristobulus), last of the Hasmonean Kings in power, took advantage of this conflict by seizing Jerusalem and crowning himself “King of the Jews” in place of Herod the Great.
In addition to this, a deadly famine was raging over Judea and reached its peak in 35 A.D. and its is to understand that the Zealots used this event as a detonator of the rebellion. This is confirmed by the fourth century Christian historian Eusebius of Caesarea, after viewing the scrolls containing the imperial chronicles of the first century. The Christian historians grasped the importance of this calamity, as it was devastating for a starving people who, as a result, rebelled against the establishment. Therefore, these historians falsified the dating of the tragedy by postdating it in “Acts of the Apostles” in order to throw off historians; by Eusebius made the naive mistake of referring to “Queen Helena” of Adiabene, correlated to the event described by Josephus. The chronological adulteration of this famine, of course, was also inserted by the scribes into the transcription of the historian’s “Jewish Antiquities”, starting with “Codex Ambrosianus Gr F128” (from the eleventh century), in which they foolishly inverted the names of the Emperors under which the famine took place: they said it occurred under “Claudius” rather than “Tiberius”. Proof of the falsification of the chronology, related to the events of the famine, carried out by the scribes in the ancient codexes is reported by Salsi in the tenth study of this website so as to allow the true events to be universally known.
The liberation of the Holy City from Roman domination – with the crowd’s acclamation of John as “Messiah King of the Jews” and their Saviour Yeshùa (not decreed by Tiberius) – lasted less than a year as a result of the defeat inflicted on Rome by the Parthians under Artabanus III, King of Kings, which marked the death of John, leader of the Zealots.
So as to avoid the destruction of Jerusalem, the crucifixion of the “Messiah John” was ordered, just before Passover in 36 A.D., by the Legatus Augusti pro Praetore Lucius Vitellius, given full powers by Tiberius over the East at war against Artabanus III, with whom John had allied himself. After the surrender of a starving Jerusalem and the execution outside the walls of the deposed “King of the Jews” John, Lucius Vitellius entered the city, communicated the exemption of foodstuffs from Roman taxation and asked the people to swear allegiance to Emperor Tiberius.
The historian Emilio Salsi concludes that the son of Judas the Galilean, having the same names as those of Mary, mother of Christ, were: John (Yeshùa), Simon, James, Judas and Joseph.
Finally, by means of a specific analysis respectful of historical findings, he demonstrates the correspondence between the names “Menahem” (Judas the Galilean’s youngest son) and “Joseph” (the youngest of Christ’s brothers). In 66 A.D. the latter, who by this time was elderly, took power through a coup and proclaimed himself "King of the Jews", but was eliminated by the priestly aristocracy just like “Jesus”, the eldest brother.
With regard to the censorship of the acts of John, son of Judas the Galilean, Salsi’s studies demonstrate that the copyists of the eleventh century “Codex Ambrosianus Gr F128” removed from Book XVIII of “Jewish Antiquities”, which spoke about the time of “Jesus”, the important historical reference concerning John made by Josephus in “The Jewish War” (copied two centuries earlier into “Codex Sangallen Gr 627”), when the followers of the anti-Roman National Liberation Movement …
“They Destroyed what remained of the political system and introduced total anarchy everywhere. In this atmosphere prospered utmost the Zealots, an association whose name was confirmed through their actions; they, in fact, imitated through their behavior any sort of wicked action and did not fail to emulate any sort of misdeed recorded by history” (Bellum VII 267/269).
But in Book XVIII of “Jewish Antiquities” transcribed into “Codex Ambrosianus F128”, due to censorship, we do not find “any sort of misdeed recorded by history” regarding such a grave revolutionary event and during which the Zealots “destroyed what remained of the political system” (the Constitution of the Roman governorship and of the aristocratic Sanhedrin was transformed into a “Christ King” totalitarian monarchy). There is clear evidence of the absolute necessity which forced Christian scribes to remove “John of Gàmala” from history, well-aware that he would have been identified with the historical Jesus.
Therefore (as already has taken place in this study dealt with by Wikipedia), rather than censor the references to Emilio Salsi’s studies, the prelates, just like the experts of Christology compared to history and subordinate to the clergy, must accept to take part in public debate with him and contradict him with precise factual information. Afterwards, it will be their right-duty to denounce his mistakes and prove wrong, once and for all, he who they consider to be “the most radical historical revisionist of Christ’s advent”. Wikipedia has no problem including the apologetical conclusions concerning the existence of Christ, the Madonna, Apostles and successors, Bishops and martyrs, reported by anonymous churchmen.
Starting with the falsification of the bizarre “evidence”* which “demonstrates” that the census carried out in 6 A.D. by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius by order of Emperor Augustus, as reported by Luke in the “nativity” of Christ, was initiated by the Consul when the Proconsul Gaius Sentius Saturninus was Governor of Syria and Herod the Great was King of the Jews.
* See the book entitled “Il problema cronologico della nascita di Gesù” (“The chronological problem concerning the birth of Jesus”) by Giulio Firpo, Professor of Roman History (and who did not read the History written by Josephus), and officialized by the Church on 29 May 1996 through an interview given by the current Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi published in the Italian newspaper “Corriere della Sera” during the papacy of John Paul II.
This means that Wikipedia uncritically accepts the absurd fact that Caesar Augustus waited twelve years before collecting taxes from the Syrians and the Jews and does so in order to “fix” the blunders made by the evangelists. In reality the Church historians lie and fully realize that they are lying for they pretend to be unaware of the fact that it was Caesar Augustus himself who appointed Herod the Great “Procurator of all Syria so that no procurator could act without his consent” (Bellum J. I 399 and Ant. XV 360) "with the duty to collect taxes in all the regions of this Province" (Bellum J. I 428).
Despite being legally and militarily subordinate to the Emperor’s Legate of Syria, Herod the Great was never subjected, administratively, to the Legate himself; and, due to his role, he was forced to use the tax revenues to build, in name of Caesar Augustus and his family, great works, including pagan Temples, even in cities outside his Kingdom (Bellum I 422/425).
As long as Herod the Great was alive, being that he was the “Procurator of all Syria”, there was no need for Rome to carry out a census in Syria or Judea: it was he who, as fiduciary of Augustus, was obliged to collect taxes and handle the Emperor’s revenues. It is important to highlight that “The Jewish War” was verified and approved by Roman historians under Vespasian and the relative document was deposited in the Imperial Archives.
By hiding behind anonymous censorship the specialists of the Clergy along with their epigones demonstrate that the Salsi’s research irrefutable. The prelates themselves demonstrate their weakness by refusing to confront the historian on the authentic “History of Christianity”, a didactic discipline substantiated by the latest archeological discoveries, proof that the powerful and famous Governors of the Roman Empire never martyrized Apostles, Bishops, apologetical Fathers and all other Christians.
But, most important of all, it is important for readers to know that free Knowledge cannot be censored, as it allows us to judge to the society that we live in. The right to Knowledge must not be limited, it is an inalienable right, just like Freedom is. Rights which must not and cannot be influenced by personal interest or power nor by the Christian religion’s media recognition, despite the fact that it has been definitively verified that we are dealing with a creed based upon the worst lies ever seen in History.
This document has been endorsed by the following experts who for many years have conducted research on the History of Christianity.
Prof. Domenico Contartese
Dr. Giancarlo Tranfo
Dr. Ferruccio Rondinella
Prof. Fausto Tufano
Prof. Gaetano Tufano
Dr. Giuseppe Giralico
Attorney Andrea Gaetani
[ go back ]