A prevailing theme laced within the gospels of Matthew, Luke-Acts, and John that frequently receives attention of modern audiences, is their negative portrayal of “the Jews.” With
each gospel the hostile rhetoric targeted at the Jews escalates; with Matthew being the softest, and John being by far the harshest. While such language is employed by all three writers, each one does so in defense of their own personal agenda which are not always the same. None the less, the use of this rhetoric has throughout the ages troubled contemporary readers and it has been argued that it has helped prop up and legitimize rampant anti-Semitism such as the Nazi brand of positive Christianity. However, contextual background is important in dealing with broad brushstrokes of this nature and simply declaring the gospel writers to be anti-Semitic is both simplistic and naïve.
Before truly diving into the textual examples of anti-Jewish language in the gospels, an important distinction should first be made. It is apparent that there are two different kinds of polemics present in Matthew (and it would seem reasonable that this would hold true in general, not just in Matthew). Anti-Semitism, as McKnight describes, is “irrational, personal, racial prejudice against Jews because they are Jews,” while he describes anti-Judaism as separate, being, “for the religious polemic exercised especially by early Christians.”1 (McKnight pg. 56)
Regarding Matthew, it makes little sense to characterize him as anti-Semitic because at the time, “Jewish Christianity” was not pronouncing itself to be a new religion, but another brand (the right brand) of Judaism. In this sense, Matthew is not opposing the Jews based on a racial prejudice as the Nazi’s did in the 1930’s, rather he is responding to critics and proclaiming to have the pure and true form of Judaism. In simplest terms, Matthew is arguing with other Jews who do not share his same theological views, and his gospel is essentially a persuasive essay in favor of his particular brand of Judaism. In fact, much, though certainly not all, of his criticism is of the Jewish leadership such as the scribes and Pharisees. Because Matthew believes he has the “right” version of Judaism, he of course feels that dissenting Jews, (those who do not share his view that Jesus is the messiah) are not the true Jews, and are the “false Israel.” In this sense
1 McKnight, Scot, “A Loyal Critic: Matthew’s Polemic with Judaism in Theological Perspective,” in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith, ed. Craig A. Evans and Donald A. Hagner (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993), 56.
Matthew is not so much anti-Semitic as he is simply arguing that he is right, and other Jews are wrong. For Matthew, the destruction of Jerusalem is a result of the Jews not accepting Jesus. This demonstrates what Fredrickson describes as “Jewish sectarian rhetoric” becoming “anti- Jewish rhetoric.” 2
Similarly, Luke also employs anti-Jewish language, particularly during his passion narrative. While Matthew makes clear, that the Jewish chief priests and scribes are at fault (see 20.18), Luke escalates this by going far out of his way to even absolve Pilate of any blame, thrice ascribing him statements of resistance in sentencing Jesus to death (Luke 23.4, 23.14, 23.22). One area where Luke differs from Matthew, is the addition of the Roman Empire as an entity in the narrative. While Matthew writing to Jews and arguing against “non-messianic” Judaism, Luke is writing for a largely gentile audience and is writing against the Jews as a means to legitimize his own movement. This is largely due to the notion that unless “Jewish Christians” could establish themselves as Jews, or even the “true” Jews, they would not be viewed as legitimate by the Romans. So, as Wilson notes, while Jews and Christians would attack each other, they were also, “vying for the attention of political authorities.” Wilson describes the dilemma for Christians as wanting to be viewed by the Romans as Jews in order to “avoid the charge of Judaizing, though not the sort of troublesome Jews that the Romans suspected them of being.” For Luke, the conflict was nothing more than an intra-Jewish pissing match, and that all the disturbances were completely “the Jews” fault.3 Thus there were both religious and political reasons for early Christians to attack the Jews in literature.
As far as anti-Judaism goes, John’s gospel takes the cake as the perceived, most anti- Semitic gospel. Perhaps the most famous occurrence of anti-Jewish sentiment, is in John 8.44 where he declares the Jews to be sons of the devil. As Kysar states, “one cannot read the passion story (in John) and escape the impression that the Jewish leaders alone are responsible for the […] death of Jesus.” In John 19.4-8 Pilate is depicted as being fearful of the Jewish chief priests and police and caving into their demands that Jesus be executed. Pilate declares multiple times that he finds no faults against Jesus, yet the Jewish leaders get more and more hostile and insist he be killed. While it can be noted that once again, many of John’s references to “the Jews,” and
2 Fredrickson, Paula. Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews, and Judaism. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010), 82
3 Wilson, Stephen G. Related Strangers: Jews and Christians. (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2004), 68- 70
“they” are specific to the Jewish leaders, and not necessarily all Jews in general (7.11-13, 30, 35) it is simply, “inescapable that the text of the narrative nurtures a negative mentality toward Jews and Judaism.”4 In John, “the Jews” along with the Pharisees, and the chief priests, are metaphors for the opposition to Jesus. Though in chapter 9 the terms “Pharisees,” and “the Jews” are alternated, further creating ambiguity and lumping the two together. John portrays Judaism as inferior to Christianity and Jesus’ message. For these theological reasons, as well as perhaps a reaction to expulsion from the synagogue, John’s anti-Jewish language is heightened.
Clearly, though each writer uses anti-Jewish language to varying degrees, each writer also has different contexts for doing such. In Matthew, his concern is with fellow Jews and asserting himself and his movement as the purest form of Judaism. Luke on the other hand, is battling Jews for attention and recognition of the Romans and seeking to legitimize his movement. John simply has strong Christological disputes with the Jews and sees them as the opposition to Jesus. While it is more than possible to read the scholarship on these matters and deduce that while there is certainly harsh rhetoric being used against the Jews, there are also contextual reasons that certainly make the rhetoric far more understandable. However, it must also be recognized that the average readers of Matthew for example, have not read the scholarship and are ignorant to these ‘revelations.’ What then can be said about these writers and their texts? How harshly can we judge their use of anti-Jewish language and how much blame can we place on them for anti-Semitism throughout history? While it would be easy to point to Matthew 27.5, or John 8.44 and simply scape-goat them for the Spanish inquisition, the publication of Martin Luther’s On Jews and Their Lies, or the Holocaust, it would be highly naïve to do so. When dealing with writings, and other forms of media, context is important. To say that a certain movie, or book, or song, is responsible for violent act x, is just ‘moral majority.’ Sure, the writers of Matthew, Luke, and John could have made their wording a little clearer, but they didn’t, and at the time, they probably didn’t need to. In terms of how these texts are perceived by readers today, it is unfortunate in many ways that religions have “holy” texts as it almost guarantees that they will be stripped of their historical purpose and context and will instead be given a literalist interpretation. As Kysar states on page 125, “its canonization as Holy Scripture means that the divine truth is spoken through its words regardless of the historical
4 Kysar, Robert, “Anti-Semitism and the Gospel of John,” in Voyages with John: Charting the Fourth Gospel. (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005), 116-117.
setting or time in which it is read. Again though it must be stressed that this should not be the fault of the author. Ultimately people are responsible for their own interpretations. People taking things out of context is not the fault of the author. Entertainment and art can’t be blamed for their misinterpretations. As Billy Loomis, the killer in Scream said, “Now Sid, don’t you blame the movies! Movies don’t create psychos, movies make psychos more creative!”
The Max Blog 