SLD

It seems odd to me that the supposedly most Jewish of the Gospels, Matthew, is the only one where the Jews state the Blood Curse: "His blood be upon us and on our children." It would seem to me that would be a phrase that would better fit in John, a gospel where Jesus calls Jews children of the devil.

So why would Matthew, the supposed Jewish source for the Gospels put this rather anti-Semitic statement in his narrative?

I wonder if there are any scholarly views on this issue.

SLD

Petergdi

It's not a blood curse in Matthew. It is the crowd's reaction to the sentencing. I never encountered the interpretation you describe until I was an adult. I don't see how "pas ho laos" can be reasonably interpreted as meaning "the Jewish nation" instead of the obvious "all the people there."

It does make an interesting contrast with the form of Pilate's sentence. Pilate pronounces the death sentence - "I am innocent of this blood - see to it." This seems to be a normal way for a Roman to pronounce a death sentence; it isn't really an abdication of responsibility except as a sort of formula for a judge to avoid thinking of himself as a murderer whenever he passes a death sentence. (For evidence of this having been a common Roman formula, see the Didascalia article in the Jewish Encyclopedia where there is a quote from the Midrash Tehillim.) The crowd, "all the people," reply to the formulaic "I am innocent of this blood" with their answer "His blood rest on us, and on our children." I don't think the crowd are cursing their children; I think the "and on our children" is just a way of being emphatic. The crowd are saying someting like "we really mean it - this man deserves death." The crowd are not worried about guilt - they know what needs to be done.

Peter.

Loomis

"Matthew" may have been the most knowledgeable about the Jewish Scripture, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he was Jewish in a religious sense.

“Matthew” was barrowing motifs from Psalm 26 ...

Psalm 26:5-6; LXX
I hate the company of evildoors, and I will not sit with the wicked. I wash my hands in innocence and go about your altar, O Lord

Compare ...

Matthew 27:24-25
So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing ... he took water and washed his hands before the crowd saying, 'I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves.' And the people answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children.'

And Deuteronomy 21 …

Deuteronomy 21:6-8; LXX
If someone is slain and the murder cannot be found, the elders and priests shall measure the distance to the nearest city and the elders of that city shall bring a heifer, and the priests shall break its neck. And all the elders of that city shall wash their hands over the heifer and they shall testify, 'Our hands did not shed this blood, neither did your eyes see it shed. Set not the guilt of innocent blood in the midst of your people Israel, but let the guilt of blood be forgiven them.

Compare …

Matthew 27:12, 20, 24
But when he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he did not respond...

But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus killed...

When Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but that instead a riot was starting, he took some water, washed his hands before the crowd and said, “I am innocent of this man’s blood”

And Leviticus 16 ...

Leviticus 16:5-8; LXX
And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin-offering, and one lamb for a whole-burnt-offering. And Aaron shall bring the calf for his own sin-offering, and shall make atonement for himself and for his house. And he shall take the two goats, and place them before the Lord by the door of the tabernacle of witness. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, one lot for the Lord, and the other for the scape-goat.

The two goats are the two Jesuses.

1. Jesus: son of the Father (aka Barabas)
   
   
2. Jesus: “who is called the Christ”

One is sacrificed for sins; the other goes free.

SLD

For over a millenia, Christians interpreted the blood curse as a curse against all jews. You grew up as a Christian in the modern post holocaust world where anti-semitism is suddenly taboo and verboten. It has only been since WWII that most churches, including the catholic church, have reinterpreted or at least minimized the blood curse. For over 15 millenia prior to that it was an excuse to kill jews, inciting pogroms after passion plays routinely. Thus your interpretation is actually a small minority - even if today it is a majority. It's amazing how christianity can reinvent itself every few decades.

So my question still stands. It seems out of place in Matthew.

SLD

SLD

Well, that's where Matthew gets the idea of Pilate washing his hands, I agree. But the blood curse I did not think actually had any parallels in the Old Testament. I've certainly never heard of any connection about specifically putting another's blood on oneself and on his descendants to come.

SLD

Loomis

Perhaps the part about the ‘descendants to come’ only exists in your imagination. Where is it in the text?


The goat sacrifice in Leviticus 16 is for children:

Leviticus 16:15-17; LXX
And he shall kill the goat for the sin-offering that is for the people, before the Lord; and he shall bring in of its blood within the veil, and shall do with its blood as he did with the blood of the calf, and shall sprinkle its blood on the mercy-seat, in front of the mercy-seat. and he shall make atonement for the sanctuary on account of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and for their trespasses in the matter of all their sins; and thus shall he do to the tabernacle of witness established among them in the midst of their uncleanness. And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of witness, when he goes in to make atonement in the holy place, until he shall have come out; and he shall make atonement for himself, and for his house, and for all the congregation of the children of Israel.

Btw – I updated post #3.

Loomis

It isn’t a curse. It’s a blessing. Just like the blood of the goat in Leviticus.

Petergdi

It was very commonly held, and people ought to have known better. Your question was about what Matthew wrote, not about how it can be msread. Your question assumes that the passage was intended to be anti-semitic - and I think that assumption is unwarranted. It is nowhere near the only place in the Bible where there has been a common interpretation that is just plain wrong.

I grew up in a home with Christian parents. I grew up not exactly a believer, but not exactly not a believer either. I was baptised in my late 30s.

If there was one good thing to come out of the great evil of the holocaust, it was that it purged the western world of any tolerance for anti-semitism, and eventually other forms of racism.

I've read quite a bit of Christian literature from the nineteenth and early 20th century from people of various denominations, and while I have heard of the "blood curse" idea, it doesn't seem to me to have been a dominant view. Going further back, it is hard to miss, and Luther is a serious embarrasment.

Only if you think that the idea of "the blood curse" is what Matthew actually meant. If it isn't then it isn't a problem with Matthew. It still is a big problem in the history of Christianity.

Peter.

Doug Shaver

That doesn't mean Matthew wanted it to be interpreted that way.

DCHindley

That has always bother me as well. We are repeatedly told that Christianity is a development of Judaism and that the writers of the NT gospels (at very least the author of Matthew) were Jews by birth. Yet in spite of undeniable extensive familiarity with Jewish scriptures, they seem to be from outside of it and even a level removed.

The trouble is that Christians have long ago decided that the Christian message was, ethically and morally, far superior to Judaism, just as Judaism's ethics and morality was far above that of paganism. Rather than see these anomalies as evidence for a gentile origin for Christianity (with heavy borrowing from Judaism) they prefer to see Jews who have "seen the light" and understood the bankruptcy of their traditional religion, restricted in benefit to them as an ethnic group only, in the face of this far far far superior interpretation of it which extended the benefits to everyone.

You could check for the phrase "His blood be upon us and on our children" on Google (include the quotes) and ignore all hits but scholarly articles.

DCH