Innocent Blood and Halakhic Disagreement: Contextualized Perspectives on Matthew 27:25

Transcription

1 Innocent Blood and Halakhic Disagreement: Contextualized Perspectives on Matthew 27:25 Rebecca Runesson Galilee Center for the Study Of Jewish Christian Relations 15/

2 Table of Contents Introduction How do we Approach Texts with Problematic Reception Histories?... 3 Innocent Blood in Matthew 27:25 and 23: Halakhic Disagreement and the Temple Blame Game... 8 How Should We Understand The Conflict Between the Matthean Jesus and the Pharisees Today?

3 Introduction How do we Approach Texts with Problematic Reception Histories? So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, I am innocent of this man s blood; [a] see to it yourselves. Then the people as a whole answered, His blood be on us and on our children! The words of Matthew 27:25 have shocked, enraged, and puzzled readers of the New Testament since its conception. Its bloody and conflict filled reception history has placed scholars in a very difficult position when trying to decode it: when reading the verse, one s mind is automatically filled with images of the violence perpetrated against Jews by Christians who believed that Matt 27:25 justified their perverse cause. With a history as violent as this, it can be difficult to read past the perceived hatred in the text. Even the renowned scholar David Flusser struggled with the text, arguing that it was actually a forged addition made by an editor with an anti-jewish bias. 1 Solutions like these, albeit easier in the face of a horrendous reception history, do not read the text on its own terms, in its own context. This essay wishes to re-examine Matt 27:25 in a way where the text is allowed to speak on its own terms, separated from its reception history. What happens when we put aside our pre-conceived notions and, as radical listeners, allow the text to speak to us from its own unique context? Is it possible that the meaning we attribute to the text today is perhaps more a result of its reception history than the actual intent of the author? These kinds of questions are not only interesting, but of the utmost importance if we want to reach to the core of this 1 David Flusser, Judaism of the Second Temple Period Volume Two, The Jewish Sages and Their Literature (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), pg The theory presented by Flusser can be put in perspective by analyzing the current research consensus on the authorship of Matthew (see: Anders Runesson, The Oxford Encyclopedia of The Books of the Bible Volume 2, s.v. Matthew, The Gospel According To. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011, pg ) 2 E.P Sanders believed that it was important to make the distinction between the Roman occupation and 3

4 problematic text. Perhaps if we analyse the text as the product of a context very different from our own, we can try to recapture the meaning which the text must have had for its first century listeners. If we succeed in recapturing this meaning, we can perhaps start the long process of repairing the damage it has caused to Jewish-Christian relations. The following historical analysis, attempting to view Matthew purely as Jewish text, shall begin with a discussion of innocent blood and halakhic disagreement, the results of which shall prompt a new interpretation of the text. After this, we shall turn our attention to why the reception history formed as it did, and the repercussions of it that can still be felt today. By radically listening to Matthew 27:25, we may perhaps learn how to implement this radical listening in Jewish-Christian dialogue today. Innocent Blood in Matthew 27:25 and 23:35-36 The fall of the Second Temple in 70 CE was a catastrophe for the Jewish people. Suddenly, they were faced with the task of rebuilding their religious identity without the temple cult. The destruction of the temple and the issue of reshaping Jewish religiosity cast a long shadow in Jewish literature: it saturates almost all Jewish texts produced in the centuries following. Processing the destruction of the temple as a collective tragedy with real ramifications for the people as a whole was of the utmost importance. Coming to terms with the Roman colonization 2 of the land and appropriation of the temple was also extremely relevant. These were questions that all Jewish groups were battling in the aftermath of 70 CE, and so it makes since that we find the same themes in the Gospel of Matthew. In fact, if we re-orient the more traditional perspectives on Matthew and choose to view the text fully as a part of its Jewish 2 E.P Sanders believed that it was important to make the distinction between the Roman occupation and colonization of Judea. 4

5 context, it would be illogical to not look for texts explaining or dealing with the fall of the Second Temple as a Jewish catastrophe rather than a Christian triumph. 3 This essay shall argue that Matthew 27:25 is one such text. The destruction of the Second Temple was a catastrophe craving an explanation. The time leading up to 70 CE had been a time filled with hope. A large number of messiah claimants had inspired and stirred up the people. These sentiments and aspirations of a re-established Israel were important contributing factors to the start of the Jewish Revolt in 66 CE. Messiah claimants inspired hope in the people of a new and autonomous Jewish state. 4 When one studies messiah claimants in the First Century, one gets a very clear perspective of the time leading up to 70 CE as a time of great expectation. For example, during the years CE, a man named Theudas collected a large group of followers and attempted to cross the Jordan River with them. According to Josephus, he promised his followers that he would split the waters of the Jordan, thus both labelling himself as a political liberator of Israel (with the reference to Joshua) and a religious liberator (with the reference to Moses). In addition, some scholars have asserted that Theudas also labelled himself as the one like a son of man from Daniel 7:13, making him the second known messiah claimant during the First Century also claiming to be the son of man (together with Jesus of Nazareth). 5 Another example is the anonymous Egyptian mentioned both in Josephus and Acts of the Apostles. 6 Around 56 CE, 3 Reception history: ex. Church fathers viewed the fall of the temple as a sign of the sin of the Jewish people and the triumph of Christianity as the new chosen people of God, ex Origen. 4 The traditional definition of a messiah is a king anointed by God to rule Israel (messiah means anointed one ). Traditionally, this figure was often identified as a Davidic king. However, as Daniel Boyarin has pointed out in his book The Jewish Gospels; The Story of the Jewish Christ, there is considerable evidence in both 4 Ezra and Enoch that by the First Century the concept of a Davidic king messiah had been amalgamated with the concept of a heavenly son of man (see Daniel 7:13). Thus, a messiah was not only a king who would reestablish Israel to its former glory; he was also in many cases a divine figure who would bring with him the kingdom of God. Because of this, messiah claimants inspired the people both politically and religiously, a scenario which makes more sense historically, since politics and religion were one and the same thing during this era. 5 Craig Evans, Ancient Texts For New Testament Studies, pg Craig Evans, Ancient Texts For New Testament Studies, pg

6 this Egyptian travelled to Jerusalem and promised his followers that he would break down the walls of the city and thus allow them to enter. He also summoned his followers to come with him into the wilderness (a clear sign of a Moses-like messianic prophet, compare John the Baptist and Jonathan the Refugee, among others). 7 From Josephus, we learn of many more messiah claimants during this period, as well as the period after 70 CE (for example Bar Kochba and Lukuas of Cyrene), indicating that this time was filled with hope of a reestablished Israel. In light of this, the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple must have come as a theological shock to many. Those who had believed that Israel s eschatological reestablishment was near were now forced to explain why the temple had fallen. The Matthean Jesus Movement was one of many Second Temple movements expecting the (re-)institution of divine rule (the Kingdom of Heaven; see Matt 25: 1-13; 22:1-14; ) and so they ultimately fall in the category of groups faced with the task of explaining the horrific consequences of the revolt. With this background in mind, we can begin to analyse Matthew 27:25 as a response or explanation to the fall of the temple. According to Jeremiah 7:1-17, there are a number of actions which, when carried out by the people as a whole and by the priests, can pollute the temple and render it ritually impure. These actions include not taking care of the widow and orphan, marginalizing foreigners, idolatry, and letting innocent blood flow on this place (Jeremiah 7:6). It is thus very interesting that the author of Matthew chooses to have the people say let his blood be on us and on our children, since this implies that Jesus blood, by theological necessity innocent, is placed on the hands of the people present at his crucifixion and their children. This is significant since exactly one generation passed between the death of Jesus and the destruction of the temple. What mainstream (non-jewish) 7 Craig Evans, Ancient Texts For New Testament Studies, pg

7 Christianity has interpreted throughout most of its history as an eternal curse on the Jewish people may have instead been intended as a way to explain why the temple had to be destroyed. A temple that has been polluted or defiled by innocent blood is no longer fit for God s presence, therefore forcing God to leave Jerusalem. The absence of the divine then opens up for its destruction. 8 By placing the blame for the temple s fall on the sins of the people, Matthew is following a long Jewish theological tradition. 9 Therefore, it becomes problematic to use Matt 27:25 as a polemic tool against Judaism since it was a text written by Jews attempting to use classic Jewish theology to explain a great communal tragedy. There are a number of other verses in the Matthean gospel which suggests the validity of the previously stated thesis. In Matt 23, The Matthean Jesus attacks the Pharisees and the Scribes, calling them vipers and hypocrites 10, and accusing them of a variety of things, including misleading the people (Matt 23:3-4) and ignoring the central tenants of the law (that is, the Matthean Jesus opinions of what constitutes the law s central tenants see Matt 23:23-28). 11 The attack on the Pharisees and Scribes culminates in Jesus holding them responsible for all the innocent blood shed in the Hebrew Bible: And so upon you comes all the righteous blood that has been shed on Earth, from the blood of the righteous Abel to the blood of Zachariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation. (Matt 23:35-36). Abel is the first man to be killed in the Hebrew Bible and Zachariah is the last. There are two aspects of this text that makes it a parallel of Matt 27:25. First, a group of people are being held responsible for the shedding of 8 With this in mind, it may perhaps be of some significance to note that in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is quoted as saying eloi, eloi lama sabachtani? (my God why have you forsaken me?), since this would indicate that God s spirit had left him before he died, thus suggesting that the synoptic evangelists applied the same rules to Jesus as applied to the temple. 9 See Jeremiah 7, where it is clearly indicated that Shiloh was destroyed due to the sins of the people, sins including the shedding of innocent blood. 10 Vipers are impure animals, adding another dimension of ritual purity to this insult. 11 For more insight on Jesus interpretation of the Law, or halakha, compare Matt 19, Matt 5:21-48, and Matt 22:34-40 (which shows the influence of Hillel on Jesus halakha). 7

8 innocent blood, in this case the Pharisees and Scribes. Second, the consequences of the shedding of this innocent blood will come within a specific time frame: this generation and us and our children both create a firm timeline for when the consequences of this shed blood will come on the group in question. This timeline corresponds with the destruction of the Second Temple, as mentioned previously. In addition, a number of texts from the Hebrew Bible make it clear that shedding innocent blood pollutes the land and the temple, and that this defilement will eventually lead to the temple s destruction. 12 Thus, at this point in the analysis, we have attempted to establish that Matt 27:25 and Matt 23:35-36 are not anti- Jewish polemical tools, but rather constitute part of a classically Jewish method of explaining the fall of the Second Temple. However, many questions still remain, such as the issue of which groups are actually to be held responsible for the fall of the Temple, since Matt 27:25 and 23:35-36 deal with two different groups of people. We shall presently delve deeper into this issue. Halakhic Disagreement and the Temple Blame Game In Matt 23: 35-36, the Matthean Jesus is placing the guilt of innocent blood on a specific group of people: the Scribes and Pharisees. However, in Matt 27:25, the group of people who agree to take the blame for innocent blood is not categorized as belonging to any specific affiliation. All we can say with some degree of certainty is that they were Jerusalemites. The fact that they were Jerusalemites may be of some importance, since the tensions between Galilee and Jerusalem is rather outspoken in the gospel of Matthew. Does the fact that the group in Matt 27:25 is not comprised of Pharisees and Scribes mean that the responsibility for the fall of the temple rests on the shoulders of the people as a whole? Although this statement 12 See Jeremiah 7 and Malachi 4 among others. 8

9 can be supported if one compares Matt 23:35-36 and 27:25 with texts in the Hebrew Bible that deal with the fall of the first temple, there is also considerable evidence in Matthew that points to this not being the case. In the outdrawn attack against the Scribes and Pharisees in Matt 23, there is one aspect that keeps coming back in the polemic rhetoric: that the Scribes and Pharisees have misled the people with their faulty interpretation of the Law, or halakha. There are many places in Matthew that indicate that it is the halakha of the Pharisees that causes the Matthean Jesus to so explicitly attack them as a group. The most obvious verse that suggests this is Matt 23:1-3, where Jesus says that the Pharisees are sitting on the throne of Moses and should therefore be obeyed, but that the people should not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. Thus, Jesus is telling his audience to listen when the Pharisees and Scribes proclaim the Law, but that they should not imitate the Pharisee s actions, since the Pharisees do not practice the Law in the correct way ( they do not practice what they preach, and they are preaching the Law). In other words, the practice of the Pharisees and Scribes represents their halakha. If one looks closer at why the Matthean Jesus finds fault with the Pharisaic halakha, several aspects emerge which may be of some importance to the present discussion. In Matt 23:27-28, Jesus accuses the Scribes and Pharisees of being clean on the outside, yet impure like a grave on the inside. This gives us a hint as to the major disagreement between the halakha of the Matthean Jesus and the Pharisaic halakha: like the Qumran sect, the Matthean Jesus believed that moral impurity could cause ritual impurity, whereas the Pharisees did not subscribe to this belief. Thus, he accuses the Scribes and Pharisees of being morally impure (unclean on the inside) in such a way that the purity laws they obey (outer purity) are negated by their moral sins. There are many examples that suggest that the Matthean Jesus believed moral impurity affected ritual purity. For example, according to the 9

10 Law, it was a sin to commit adultery (thus, committing adultery caused impurity which is why adulterers were to be stoned, so they would not pollute the land). However, Jesus argues in Matt 5:27-30 that by simply looking at a woman with desire, one has broken her marriage and thus made oneself guilty of sin. 13 Thus, the Matthean Jesus interpreted the Law differently from the Scribes and Pharisees in such a way that he believed them to be made impure by their interpretation. Therefore, if Jesus blames the Scribes and Pharisees of misleading the people, he is also blaming them of causing the people to sin to be made impure, since their halakha causes moral impurity. If the faulty halakha of the Pharisees caused the people to sin, the sins of the people must by definition be unintentional, since they were misled into believing their actions were correct in the eyes of God. If the Matthean Jesus believed that Pharisaic halakha caused the people to sin unintentionally, we can begin to make sense of why the blame of innocent blood is put on the group of people in Mat 27:25, who are not explicitly described as Scribes or Pharisees. According to the Law, both intentional and unintentional sin must be punished. Sin cannot go unpunished since it pollutes the land, and thus both intentional and unintentional (or unknown) sin must be atoned for. 14 The halakha of the Pharisees has caused the people as a whole to sin (unintentionally), and therefore the people as a whole must also be punished. Therefore, the innocent blood that the Scribes and Pharisees are guilty of also ends up coming on the people as a whole even though the people as a whole are not actively guilty of it; the guilt has been transferred via a halakha that causes moral impurity. In Matt 24: , it even 13 See Matt 5:21-37 for further examples of this trend. Matt 5:22-24 is especially significant since it indicates that the Matthean Jesus believed moral impurity could render sacrifices impure. 14 See Lev The prophet Daniel spoke about the hated thing that destroys. Someday you will see it standing in the holy place. The reader should understand this. The those who are in Judea should escape to the mountains. No one on the roof should go down into his house to take anything out. No one in the field should go back to get his coat. How awful it will be in those days for pregnant women! How awful for nursing mothers! Pray that you will not escape in winter or on the Sabbath days. It will be worse than any other from the beginning of the world until 10

11 becomes clear that Jesus followers, or the chosen as Matthew refers to them, shall also suffer during the fall of the temple, indicating that the people as whole must be punished in order to cleanse the land, regardless of affiliation. Because of this, the fact that the group of people in 27:25 are not explicitly described as Pharisees or Scribes does not make the text anti-jewish, since the consequences of the shedding of innocent blood (the fall of the temple) will come on the people as a whole, even Jesus own disciples will suffer because of it. Obviously Matthew does not mean to say by this that Jesus disciples are also guilty of shedding innocent blood and neither is he saying that the people as a whole are guilty, since they are being punished because of unintentional sin. The Scribes and Pharisees however, are sitting on Moses throne and should have known better, and they emerge as the guilty part. Therefore, the group of people who take the blame of innocent blood on themselves and their children in Matt 27:25 are not the ones guilty of the blood. Rather, they were misled by the Scribes and Pharisees into sinning, and must thus atone for their unintentional sin by suffering the consequences. Just as giving birth makes a woman unclean without being a sin, unintentional sinners must be punished along with the guilty party, so that the divine can be reborn into the world. The thought that faulty halakha could mislead the population and cause the land to be polluted was not a theology unique to the author of Matthew. The same ideas can be found in the sectarian literature of the Qumran sect. The Essene sect at Qumran was critical towards the temple cult in Jerusalem, believing the temple to be polluted. This may explain their rejection of the halakha of other Jewish groups that still condoned the temple cult. Because both the Qumran sect and the Matthean Jesus were concerned with moral purity, their arguments now. And there will never be anything like it again. If time had not been cut short, no one would live. But because of God s chosen people, it will be shortened. The text indicates that Jesus followers will be affected by the tragedy, since Jesus is replying to their questions (about the eschaton) during this speech. Thus the subject in the sentence pray that you will not escape in winter or on the Sabbath days are the disciples, suggesting they too will have to flee. 11

12 against pharisaic halakha are similar on several occasions. The most noteworthy of these is perhaps the great similarity between Matt 23 and 1QHa (the Thanksgiving Hymn, part of sectarian literature). In the text, the Qumran sect accuse teachers of lies of having misled the people: Teachers of lies [have smoothed] Thy people [with words] and they, teachers of lies and seers of falsehood, have schemed against me a devilish scheme, to exchange the Law engraved on my heart by Thee for the smooth things (which they speak) to Thy people. And they withhold from the thirsty the drink of knowledge, and assuage their thirst with vinegar, that they may gaze on their straying, on their folly concerning the feast-days, and their fall into their snares. 16 Here, as in Matt 23:1-3, the teachers of lies are accused on changing or exchanging the Mosaic Law, and then misleading the people. The pattern is strikingly similar. David Flusser has even convincingly argued that the term teachers of lies actually refers to the Pharisees. 17 If this is true, we are faced with two independent Jewish texts from the Second Temple Period that both attribute the impurity of the land to the faulty halakha of the Pharisees. This could mean a number of things. First, it could be an indicator for us that the Matthean community was linked to the Essene community. Second, it could indicate that more conservative Jewish groups disliked the halakha of the Pharisees, deeming it too liberal. Due to lack of any evidence suggesting a concrete link between the Matthean community and the Essene community of Judea, we must assume that the Matthean community and the Qumran sect simply shared a negative view of Pharisaic halakha. This would not be surprising, since both 16 Geza Vermes, transl., The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin Books, 2011), pg David Flusser, Judaism of the Second Temple Period Volume 1; Qumran and Apocalypticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2007), 12

13 communities adhered to more conservative interpretations of the Law, and Pharisaic halakha was a new innovation in comparison. Many New Testament scholars are more comfortable with the view that Jesus was a radical Jew, but if one analyses the Matthean Jesus, one becomes increasingly aware of his conservative standing. Jesus was not radical in the sense that he introduced something new; he was radical in that he re-introduced the old in a time increasingly marked by the new and smooth innovations of the Pharisees and other groups. Like the Qumran sect, the Matthean Jesus wants to return to the basics of the Law, without smoothing over the commandments and thus misleading the people. Thus, through the comparison of these independent texts, a picture is painted where the new halakha of the Pharisees experiences a backlash amongst the more conservative groups in the land, such as the Essene and Matthean communities. With this in mind, the fact that the Matthean community blames the fall of the Temple on the halakha of the Pharisees becomes increasingly plausible, as it mimics other conservative groups in the land. Matt 27:25 therefore becomes an expression of Jewish conservatism, rather than an anti-jewish polemic. How Should We Understand The Conflict Between the Matthean Jesus and the Pharisees Today? As early as Origen (circa CE), (non-jewish) Christians have used Matt 27:25, 23:35-36, and other passages where the Matthean Jesus criticizes Scribes and Pharisees, as a way of devaluing the Jewish religion as a whole, as well as the Jewish people. In fact, Origen used Matt 27:25 to support his replacement theology. 18 The fact that the inner-jewish conflict in Matthew became fodder for Christian anti-jewish doctrines is not surprising when one considers the fact that those interpreting the texts were not Jewish, and thus could not be 18 Origen, Comm. ser. Matt.124 as quoted in Anders Runesson, Judging the Theological Tree By Its Fruit: The Use of the Gospel of Mark and Matthew in Official Church Documents on Jewish-Christian Relations in Mark and Matthew II, Comparative Readings: Receptions History, Cultural Hermeneutics, and Theology (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), pg

14 expected to understand the internal conflict. 19 So how should Christians understand the Matthean conflict today? To recognize that the text is a Jewish text addressing Jewish conflicts is the first and perhaps most important step. When one recognizes this fact, one can begin the process of separating the aim and method of the author behind the text. The aim of the gospel is clearly the save the Jewish people, since Jesus halakhah (and self sacrifice) provide salvation. However, this aim is presented via a method of binary opposites: Jesus halakhah is compared to the halakhah of other groups, in particular the Pharisees, who are then consistently found wanting. The gospel legitimizes Jesus halakhah by de-legitimizing Pharisaic halakhah. For Christian readers of the gospel today, the aim remains relevant, whereas the method becomes problematic since most Christ-believers are no longer Jews, and thus cannot measure their doctrines against those of the Jewish faith in a binary manner. Thus, what readers are left with is Matthew s aim: the divine protection of the Jewish people, which can potentially be very useful for (non-jewish) Christian theological hermeneutics today. Such hermeneutics should, arguably, focus on protecting the integrity of the Jewish people and Judaism, without encroaching on Jewish religious integrity through missionary activity, since such mission would clash with key passages on Jewish-Christian relations, such as Romans 9-11.When Christians accept that the Matthean Jesus polemics against the Scribes and Pharisees does not represent a timeless attack on Judaism or the Jewish people, we can begin to move past the history of violence and persecution surrounding the reception of Matt 27:25, and start building bridges instead of barriers. 19 This becomes evident when one considers the fact that many of the Church Fathers referred to Rabbinic Judaism as Pharasaism, thus indicating that they equated the term Pharisee with Judaism as a whole (See Daniel Boyarin s discussion of Jerome in The Jewish Gospel: The Story of the Jewish Christ [New York: The New Press, 2012], pg.15-19). Thus, the criticism against Pharisees in Matthew was interpreted as an attack on the Jewish people rather than on a specific interpretation of Judaism. 14

15 Bibliography Primary Sources Vermes, Geza, transl. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, London: Penguin Classics, The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books. New Revised Standard Version. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Secondary Sources Becker, Eva-Marie, Runesson, Anders, ed., Mark and Matthew II, Comparative Readings: Receptions History, Cultural Hermeneutics, and Theology (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013) Boyarin, Daniel, The Jewish Gospel: The Story of the Jewish Christ, New York: The New Press, Craig Evans, Ancient Texts For New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing, 2005 Flusser, David, Judaism of the Second Temple Period Volume Two, The Jewish Sages and Their Literature, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., Flusser, David, Judaism of the Second Temple Period Volume One, Qumran and Apocalypticism, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., Mark Allan Powell, Do and Keep What Moses Says (Matthew ) in Journal of Biblical Literature, 114/3, 1995, pg Noland, John, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Runesson, Anders, The Oxford Encyclopedia of The Books of the Bible Volume 2, s.v. Matthew, The Gospel According To. New York: Oxford University Press,