# Matthew and John--Anti-Semitic? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 20, 2012, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-and-john-anti-semitic/635338 "2012-09-20T23:56:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Che\_G.Anonymous\_Capitalist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Che\_G.Anonymous\_Capitalist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Che_G.Anonymous_Capitalist)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2012, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-and-john-anti-semitic/635338/1 "2012-09-20T23:56:40Z")
Are the gospels of Matthew and John anti-semitic? > **[Antisemitism and the New Testament | Gospel of Matthew](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_and_the_New_Testament#Gospel_of_Matthew)** > > The Gospel of Matthew is often evaluated as the most Jewish of the canonical gospels, and yet it is sometimes argued that it is anti-Judaic or antisemitic. > The Gospel of Matthew has given readers the impression his hostility to Jews increases as his narrative progresses, until it culminates in chapter 23. In chapter 21, the parable of the vineyard, which is strikingly similar to Isaiah 5:1-30, is followed by the great "stone" text, an early Christological interpretation of Psalm 118: "The stone ... - Please do not discuss whether anti-simitic is a proper term for prejudice against Jews. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-and-john-anti-semitic/635338/2 "2012-09-21T00:09:49Z")
Unless I’m mistaken, Matthew 27:25 was essentially written to shift blame to the Jews from the Roman government. A government which put a monster like Pilate into power in the first place, and which early Christians wanted to placate. 27:25 is designed to foist racial guilt upon the Jews, in perpetuity. That sure seems to fit the definition of anti-Semitism. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-and-john-anti-semitic/635338/3 "2012-09-21T01:09:43Z")
Matthew appears to have been written as an appeal to Jews to accept Christianity. As such, it employed many references to prophecies that Matthew perceived in the Hebrew Scriptures, (even if no educated Jew would have perceived the same prophecies in the same texts). He also attempted to explain why the Jewish people had not embraced Jesus of Nazareth in terms of them simply missing the “Truth.” As part of that story line, he portrays a scene in which the Jewish people, (represented without democratic elections by the mob outside the Roman court), rejected Jesus, tying that in with the consequences of the rebellion of 68 and the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. His point was that the calamity that befell Judaea was the result of rejecting Jesus. John, writing even later, at a time when Christians and Jews had already developed an unhealthy antipathy, probably was trying to deflect blame from the Roman authorities, not so much in a effort to stigmatize the Jewish people, _per se_, (although that was certianly the _de facto_ result), but to ensure that any Roman official looking over his work would not perceive it as a rant against Roman authority. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-and-john-anti-semitic/635338/4 "2012-09-21T01:14:38Z")
What oddness. Matthew is antisemitic because of one verse and the condemnation of the Pharisees? Yeah, it’s saying that the rejection of Jesus caused the downfall of Israel. And the Pharisees were mostly condemned for being hypocrites, not for being Jews. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-and-john-anti-semitic/635338/5 "2012-09-21T01:20:18Z")
Failed to add: If Israel rejecting God’s plan and being punished is antisemitic, then a large portion of the Hebrew Scriptures is also antisemitic. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-and-john-anti-semitic/635338/6 "2012-09-21T01:31:05Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > What oddness. Matthew is antisemitic because of one verse One verse about Jews being personal, willing Blood Guilt in perpetuity for killing Jesus. > [@tomndebb](#): > > His point was that the calamity that befell Judaea was the result of rejecting Jesus. Do you have a citation for that? My understanding is that while that was a factor, the issue of Blood Guilt was deliberately used for centuries to demonize Jews. No? Is that issue that you’re saying the writer of Matthew didn’t intend that but it was put to anti-Semitic uses? ---
**Author:** ![Che\_G.Anonymous\_Capitalist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Che\_G.Anonymous\_Capitalist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Che_G.Anonymous_Capitalist)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-and-john-anti-semitic/635338/7 "2012-09-21T01:34:18Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Failed to add: > If Israel rejecting God’s plan and being punished is antisemitic, then a large portion of the Hebrew Scriptures is also antisemitic. That assumes that there is a God, and that the NT accurately reflects his plan and Jew’s tense to it. Further, the view of the Pharisees is not historically accurate. Their social position is not depicted accurately–they did not hold such a significant positron until after the Romans crushed the revolt. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-and-john-anti-semitic/635338/8 "2012-09-21T01:43:51Z")
> [@Che\_G.Anonymous\_Capitalist](#): > > That assumes that there is a God, and that the NT accurately reflects his plan and Jew’s tense to it. A lot of people don’t know what “if” means. You are one of them. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-and-john-anti-semitic/635338/9 "2012-09-21T01:46:58Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > […] [ > [@](#): > > Throughout the centuries and still today a literal interpretation has produced a view of the Jewish leaders as scheming liars who knowingly deceived the Roman prefect in order to bring about Jesus’ death. Matthew’s and John’s use of the generalizing description of these opponents of Jesus as “Jews” has too often been heard as referring to Jews of later centuries. That was not at all the intention of Matthew or John. > > This misreading, which has contributed to ongoing hate, has now been firmly rejected in Roman Catholicism, whether or not all Catholics know it. In 1964 the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission taught authoritatively that the Gospels are the product of considerable development—narrative, organizational and theological development. They are not simply literal accounts of the ministry of Jesus. The next year Vatican Council II explicitly condemned an outlook that would blame the Passion without distinction on all the Jews then living or on the Jews today. ]([http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0397.asp](http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0397.asp)) [ > [@](#): > > Second, as you say, the question is politically sensitive, to say the least. The accusation of “Christ-killer” was used as justification for isolating, robbing, torturing, and murdering Jews. It’s only in recent times–the last fifty years, perhaps not that long–that leading Christian authorities have reviewed the circumstances and acknowledged the injustices of the past 2,000 years. > [snip] > . Therefore, John’s Gospel often refers to those who were involved with the death of Jesus as simply “the Jews”–an expression that was to have tragic consequences as later Christians took that phrase as “gospel” and began to refer to Jews as “Christ-killers.” > [snip] > Joseph C. Hough, Jr., a Christian theologian, writing in the June 2002 issue of Bible Review, comments, “By the end of the second century, anti-Judaism and the Christ-killer myth had become prominent in the teachings of church leaders. The early church fathers perpetuated [this] . . . with even greater vehemence than John did in his gospel. By the fourth century, Augustine and John Chrysostom were among those who gave credence to the awful depiction of Jews as the enemies of God who crucified Christ. Although a long series of papal pronouncements tried to protect Jews against overt violence, the power of the ‘Christ-killer’ myth created a cultural climate in which hatred and killing of Jews occurred with impunity. What emerged was a relentless and continuing persecution of Jews . . .” ]([Who killed Jesus? - The Straight Dope](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2011/who-killed-jesus)) [ > [@](#): > > Recalling past centuries, however, invites a sobering evaluation of our progress and warns against becoming over-confident about an early end to remaining problems. Those were centuries replete with alienation, misunderstanding and hostility between Jews and Christians. While we rejoice that there are signs that anti-Semitism is declining in our country, conscience compels us to confront with candor the unhappy record of Jewish suffering both past and present. We make our own the statement of Nostra Aetate, “…for the sake of her common patrimony with the Jews, the Church decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism staged against Jews at whatever time in history and by whomsoever” and we reaffirm with the new Vatican Guidelines that “the spiritual bonds and historical links binding the Church to Judaism condemn (as opposed to the very spirit of Christianity) all forms of anti-Semitism…” We urge all in the Church who work in the area of education, whether in the seminary, the school or the pulpit, not only to avoid any presentation that might tend to disparage Jews or Judaism but also to emphasize those aspects of our faith which bear witness to our common patrimony and our spiritual ties with Jews. > > Much of the alienation between Christian and Jew found its origins in a certain anti-Judaic theology which over the centuries has led not only to social friction with Jews but often to their oppression. one of the most hopeful developments in our time, powerfully assisted by Nostra Aetate, has been the decline of the old anti-Judaism and the reformation of Christian theological expositions of Judaism along more constructive lines. > > The first major step in this direction was the repudiation of the charge that Jews were and are collectively guilty of the death of Christ. Nostra Aetate and the new Guidelines have definitely laid to rest this myth which has caused so much suffering to the Jewish people. There remains however the continuing task of ensuring that nothing which in any way approaches the notion of Jewish collective guilt should be found in any Catholic medium of expression or communication. Correctly viewed, the disappearance of the charge of collective guilt of Jews pertains as much to the purity of the Catholic faith as it does to the defense of Judaism. > > The Council’s rejection of this charge against Jews has been interpreted by some commentators as an “exoneration” of the Jewish people. Such a view of the matter still persists. The truth is that the Council acknowledged that the Jewish people never were, nor are they now, guilty of the death of Christ. ]([http://www.sacredheart.edu/pages/12672\_us\_catholic\_bishops\_statement\_on\_catholic\_jewish\_relations\_november\_1975\_.cfm](http://www.sacredheart.edu/pages/12672_us_catholic_bishops_statement_on_catholic_jewish_relations_november_1975_.cfm)) Am I misunderstanding your argument? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-and-john-anti-semitic/635338/10 "2012-09-21T02:38:29Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Do you have a citation for that? My understanding is that while that was a factor, the issue of Blood Guilt was deliberately used for centuries to demonize Jews. No? Is that issue that you’re saying the writer of Matthew didn’t intend that but it was put to anti-Semitic uses? Yes. I am saying that Matthew’s message suffered from the Law of Unintended Consequences. That the Gospel of Matthew was directed toward a Jewish audience has been recognized from the earliest days. (Around 150, the heretic Marcion–Christianity’s first open anti-semite–explicitly excluded Matthew’s Gospel as one of the works that was too “Jewish” for inclusion in his selection of Scripture.) He makes the most use of references to the Hebrew Scriptures as predicting and justifying the life and actions of Jesus, (shaping many of them for his own needs, of course), and he employs the most language that is directly based on Jewish terms, sometimes taken from the Greek-speaking diaspora and sometimes his own translations of Judaean phrases from the Aramaic. Once his scene at the trial of Jesus was in circulation, of course, it was ready ammunition for those who chose to scorn the Jews for future generations. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-and-john-anti-semitic/635338/11 "2012-09-21T02:49:18Z")
So, then, quasi philo-Semitic sorta kinda maybe, but the anti-Semitic implications were a consequence of how people used it? So the bit about Blood Guilt was solely intended to be a ‘prophecy’ about the fall of Jerusalem, in terms of the original text’s intention? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-and-john-anti-semitic/635338/12 "2012-09-21T03:26:32Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > So, then, quasi philo-Semitic sorta kinda maybe, but the anti-Semitic implications were a consequence of how people used it? So the bit about Blood Guilt was solely intended to be a ‘prophecy’ about the fall of Jerusalem, in terms of the original text’s intention? That is pretty much the accepted interpretation. There is too much pro-Jewish effort (and Jewish directed effort) in the overall gospel for Matthew to have simply decided to tell his audience that they were monsters who deserved damnation. John’s Gospel comes closer to taking an actual anti-Jewish stance, with his constant references to “the Jews” while rarely distinguishing among the Pharisees and Sadducees or the Sanhedrin and the priests or any specific leaders or opponents. I am not sure that he intended to stir up hatred, so much as that he apparently lived in a time and place where the antipathy had already developed and he simply used the “characters” in his story with whom he was familiar, (with an eye to not offending the Romans). While Christianity started out as a rather tiny Jewish heresy, its expansion into Syria and Asia Minor–originally among Jewish communities–led to hard feelings on both sides. There are a number of near curses against Christians associated with the synagogue services from Asia Minor and expulsions from synagogues were well recorded. Of course, the Christians were heretics, but they still did not enjoy being expelled or cursed. (Of course, later Christians would also take those out of context and say, “See how those Jews have always persecuted us!” but it sets a scenario that more easily explains the attitude of the author of John.) ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2012, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-and-john-anti-semitic/635338/13 "2012-09-21T03:38:59Z")
Cool, thanks for clearing up my ignorance.