Maybe some Bible scholars can help me with this. The Gospel of Matthew was obviously written to a Jewish audience - it’s full of references to things in the Jewish Bible, like the slaughter of the innocents of the Moses tale, how they named the baby Emmanuel, the virgin birth thing (a mistranslation of the Hebrew into Greek), casting lots over Jesus’s torn garments, and the riding into Jerusalem on both an ass and a colt. I could keep going, but it’s obvious that the writer of Matthew scoured the Septuagint for anything he could find that he could link with Jesus, and expected his audience would already be familiar with the references.
So how come Matthew has Pilate telling the Jewish crowd that he (Pilate) is innocent of putting Jesus to death, and the Jewish crowd saying “His blood be on us, and our children”?
Seems like if you’re wanting to win over the Jews with your great story, you don’t make the Jews be the bad guys and murder your hero.
Because the Evangelions were written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70, under the regime of Rome. Accusing the Romans of killing God would’ve gone over much worse in terms of convert.
In fact most converts were non-Jews, and this caused a lot of background to be lost when the question of circumcision (= introduction into the Jewish culture) was decided against: only baptism was necessary to become a Christian, not becoming a Jew. So the whole line linking Jewish knowledge to the new Church was broken and not picked up until the late 19th century, when Bible science itself was invented.
Matthew, like later Paul, cited the Hebrew Bible as proof that Jesus was Messiah not only because of winning Jewish converts, but because he himself was a devout Jew and was using this as proof that he hadn’t turned away from his father’s religion.
A lot of what were inter-church rivalries at the time the gospels were written - the whole anti-Pharisee stick - were put into Jesus mouth at a time when they likely didn’t happen to score points in the discussions of the time 70-110 AD.
In addition, although the Charge “Christ-killers” was used against the Jews for centuries, theologically it doesn’t make any sense to accuse anybody, because Christ had to die to fulfill scripture and be the sacrificial lamb. If he had been let go by Pilate because the crowd had called for him, the whole argument would’ve collapsed.
In reality, Christ-killers was just a handy excuse of many to beat a minority with. The early christians, eating Eucharist, were accused of the Romans of eating babies (this is my flesh … this is my blood = OMG, they are CANNIBALS!); later, Christians accused the Jews of stealing, murdering and eating babies. Prejudice doesn’t care about logic or truth.
I don’t know how widely accepted it is among Bible scholars, or whether it was interpreted this way at the time, but I have heard the interpretation that there’s a double meaning to “His blood be on us.” As used literally in that passage, it is clearly accepting any guilt for the killing… but elsewhere, Christ’s blood is the method through which forgiveness of sin is possible.
Yeah, but you’re assuming the Gospels were written for the benefit of the Jews.
BUT. If you’re talking to non-Jews, it makes sense. You’re separating yourself from the Taboo Joos.
If you’re talking to Jews, you’re warning them. Works eitherway.
Straight Dope moment:
Paul preceded Matthew.
Paul and Matthew each quoted the Septuagint–the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible–not the Hebrew bible, itself.
(The “young woman” vs “virgin” problem actually arose in the Septuagint that was completed around 150 years prior to the time of Jesus.)