¹ For an excellent treatment of the Patristic interpretations of this passage along with introductory and concluding summaries of some of the major twentieth century positions, cf. Kampling, R., Das Blut Christi und die Juden: Mt 27,25 bei den lateinischsprachigen christlichen Autoren bis zu Leo dem Grossen (NTAbh, NF 16; Münster: Aschendorff, 1984).Google Scholar

² Meier, J. P., The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel (New York: Paulist, 1979) 199Google Scholar; Beare, F. W., The Gospel According to Matthew (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981) 531Google Scholar; even the generally more conservative Gundry, R. H. (Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982] 565) has adopted this stance.Google Scholar Quite recently, Crossan, J. D. (The Cross that Spoke. The Origins of the Passion Narrative [San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988] cf. xiiiGoogle Scholar) has argued that the ‘intra-canonical gospels’ as well as the Gospel of Peter are dependent upon an ‘Ur-Passion Narrative’ that he calls the ‘Cross Gospel’, and that more specifically the tradition examined here stems from that source (cf. 100 and 397–8).

³ Meier, , Vision, 200Google Scholar and Strecker, G., Der Weg der Gerichtigkeit, Untersuchung zur The-ologie des Matthäus (FRLANT 82; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1962) 116–17.Google ScholarMarguerat, D. (Le jugement dans l'évangile de Matthieu [Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981] 376–7Google Scholar) states, ‘Par ce cri, Israël s'est effacé lui-même de l'histoire du salut. … La dignité d'Israël – λαòς θεο – ne lui est pas déniée dans l'évangile, mais elle est réduite à néant par l'assassinat du Messie’ (emphasis his). For Sabourin, L. (L'Evangile selon saint Matthieu et ses principaux parallèles [Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978] 372Google Scholar) the continuing effect of the cry resides in the rejection of Christ by each succeeding generation. Sanders, W. (‘Das Blut Jesu und die Juden: Gedanken zu Matt 27, 25’, US 27 [1972] 170Google Scholar) argues that the author's view of the imminence of the Parousia prevented seeing the guilt being passed on beyond the next generation (the ‘and our children’ of the text).

⁴ Cf. Beare, , Matthew, 531Google Scholar; Bonnard, P., L'Evangile selon saint Matthieu (CNT 1; 2nd ed.; Neuchatel, Suisse: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1970) 398Google Scholar; Patte, D., The Gospel According to Matthew: A Structural Commentary on Matthew's Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 380Google Scholar; Plummer, A., An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953) 391Google Scholar; Sabourin, , Mattheiu, 372–3Google Scholar; Sanders, , ‘Das Blut’, 170Google Scholar; Schweizer, E., The Good News According to Matthew (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975) 508–9Google Scholar; and van Tilborg, S., The Jewish Leaders in Matthew (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972) 93–4Google Scholar. For Trilling, W. (Das Wahre Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Matthäus-Evangeliums [SANT 10; 3rd ed.; München: Kösel, 1964] 70Google Scholar), Pilate is only exonerated ‘um die religiöse Schuld oder Unschuld vor Gott, nicht urn eine bürgerlich-juristische Schuld’.

⁵ Gos. Pet. 1.1: 1–2 (James, M. R., ed., The Apocryphal New Testament [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1924] 90Google Scholar) reads:

But of the Jews no man washed his hands, neither (did) Herod nor any one of his judges: and whereas they would not wash, Pilate rose up. And then Herod the king commanded that the Lord should be taken (into their hands), saying unto them: ‘All that I commanded you to do unto him, do ye.’

Thus, by the time of the writing of the Gospel of Peter, Pilate was so completely exonerated that it is Herod who is portrayed as actually passing the sentence of crucifixion. Cf. also Acts Pil. 1.9.4 (James, Apocryphal NT, 103).

⁶ It must be asked if it is appropriate to single out Matthew as initiating this process since all four of the canonical gospels portray Pilate as trying to release Jesus against the protestations of the crowd. Carson, D. A. (‘The Jewish Leaders in Matthew's Gospel’, JETS 25 [1982] 173Google Scholar) notes the following in this regard: 1) Pilate sends Jesus to Herod (Luke); 2) he proposes paschal amnesty (all); 3) he proposes scourging as a compromise (Luke); 4) he returns the case to the Jewish authorities (John); 5) he offers a remonstrance before issuing the sentence (John); and 6) he symbolically washes his hands (Matthew).

⁷ In terms of the literary function of the story, it makes no difference whether historically the Jewish council had the legal authority to issue capital sentences or not. The events within the story world are simply that the council ‘delivers’ Jesus to Pilate and thus avoids formally issuing the sentence.

⁸ Kosmala, H., ‘“His Blood on Us and on Our Children” (The Background of Mat. 27,24–25)’, ASTI 7 (1968–1969) 113–14Google Scholar. Beare (Matthew, 531) maintains that the symbolism was unknown to the Romans.

⁹ Herodotus (Hist. 1.35) states ‘the Lydian method of purifying [the stain of blood] is very nearly the same as the Greek’, but does not specify either. Sophocles (Ajax, 654–655) speaks of ritual washing to ‘flee from the heavy anger of the goddess’. Virgil (Aeneid, 2.718–720) refers to a need to be cleansed in running water of the taint of battle. A negative view of the practice is contained in Ovid (Fasti, 2.45–46): ‘Fond fools alack! to fancy murder's gruesome stain by river water could be washed away.’

¹⁰ Carson (‘Jewish Leaders’, 173) argues that Pilate contemptuously uses a Jewish practice to demonstrate his innocence. But this point raises the issue of the historical difficulty of whether the ‘historical Pilate’ would actually have done what is reported. The concern of the present study is with the function of the account in the text, not its historical reliability.

¹¹ E.g. Schweizer, , Matthew, 503Google Scholar; and Plummer, , Matthew, 391Google Scholar. Plummer also cites Deut 21. 6 and Ant. 4.8.16, which simply rehearses the material of Deut 21. 1–9. Cf. also Crossan (Cross that Spoke, 96–8) who views the Psalms references as allusions to the ritual of Deut 21. 2–9.

¹² Patte, , Matthew, 380–1Google Scholar. Cf. Crossan's view (Cross that Spoke, 98) that in the ‘Cross Gospel Pilate is exculpated of any guilt through several allusions to sections from that tradition, from Deuteronomy through Psalms, and into Susanna.’

¹³ Baum, G., Is the New Testament Anti-Semitic? (New York: Paulist, 1965) 104.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ibid., 105. Cf. Kosmala's extended argument (‘His Blood’, 99–122) that the formula of the cry refers only to the issue of responsibility, not that of ‘blood-guilt’. ‘The cry of that crowd means: We will bear the responsibility for the execution and you will be innocent – no more and no less’ (118). (But in that Matthew considers Jesus innocent, by assuming the responsibility the crowd also assumes ‘blood-guilt’, regardless of what a ‘historical crowd’ would have thought. See the discussion of this issue below.) Sanders (‘Das Blut’, 169) also comes to the conclusion reached by Kosmala based on similar expressions in the OT, NT and Mishnah. Schweizer (Matthew, 509) cites Josh 2. 19 as a reference where the formula is used to relate legal responsibility.

¹⁵ So Strathmann, H., ‘λαός’, TDNT 4 (1967) 51Google Scholar; and Kosmala, , ‘His Blood’, 96–8Google Scholar. Kosmala states later (118) that the crowd does not represent the whole nation nor does it have the authority to speak in its name.

¹⁶ For a survey of the ‘Kontinuität und Diskontinuität im λαός-Begriff in the Gospel of Matthew, see H. Frankemölle, Jahwe-Bund und Kirche Christi: Studien zur Form- und Traditionsgeschichte des ‘Evangeliums’ nach Matthäus (NTAbh, NF 10; 2nd ed.; Münster: Aschendorff, 1984) 193–220.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘Anti-Semitism and the Cry of “All the People”’, TS 26 (1965) 669Google Scholar. He argues this to be the case in 11 of 14 occurrences. The exceptions cited are 4. 23, 26. 5 (parallel Mark 14. 2), and 27. 64. But Schweizer (Matthew, 509) is probably correct in seeing 27. 64 as also in keeping with the special Matthean usage since it speaks of the concern of the priests that a story about Jesus' resurrection might be circulated among the λαός should the disciples steal his body.

¹⁸ The phrase πᾶ ό λαός is also identified with the whole nation of Israel by Beare (Matthew, 531), Crossan (Cross that Spoke, 262–3), Patte (Matthew, 380) and Trilling (Wahre Israel, 72).Google Scholar

¹⁹ An additional reference to the innocence of Jesus might also be found in Pilate's assertion as he washes his hands. The present edition of UBSGNT at Matt 27. 24b reads: ‘'Aθος είμι άπò το αἵματος τούτου.’ However, a large number of manuscripts (including ) evidence some reading with δίκαιος in conjunction with the demonstrative pronoun τούτου. The evidence for the shorter reading includes geographical distribution too diverse to readily permit describing it as some type of scribal error such as homoeoteleuton. The internal evidence for the longer reading, however, is fairly strong. The word δίκαιος is found fairly frequently within the text of Matthew and betrays the author's style: of the 17 occurrences in the primary text of Matthew in UBSGNT, the word is ‘inserted’ by Matthew into material paralleled by another synoptist 9 times, found within material unique to Matthew 7 times, and only once stands within both the Matthean text and its parallels. In the end, slight preference must be given to the shorter reading in that it is more difficult to explain the omission than the addition, since the addition can be seen as an attempt to strengthen Pilate's statement regarding Jesus' innocence (cf. B. Metzger, TCGNT 68).

²⁰ Cf. Sabourin, , Matthieu, 372Google Scholar; and Plummer, , Matthew, 391Google Scholar. Van Tilborg, (Leaders, 94)Google Scholar argues that ‘[a]ccording to Mt the fate of Judas is the prototype of the fate awaiting the people. The history of the Jewish people has already been prefigured in the story about the blood-money.’ Gundry (Matthew, 565) states the expression ‘heaps blame on the Jews’.

²¹ Patte, , Matthew, 380.Google Scholar

²² Cf. the remark of Carson (‘Jewish Leaders’, 173) that the parallel implies that Pilate is still viewed as guilty by the narrator.

²³ Although the vocabulary is the same for both Matt 26. 2 and 27. 26, it is not a precise verbal parallel. The purpose clause of Matt 26. 2 uses an infinitival construction (παρα-δίδοται είς τò σταυρωθῆναι), whereas 27. 26 uses ἵνα plus the subjunctive (παρέδωκεν ἵνσ αταυρωθ).

²⁴ Carson, , ‘Jewish Leaders’, 173–4.Google Scholar

²⁵ Patte, , Matthew, 380.Google Scholar

²⁶ Cf. the discussion of Sanders, ‘Das Blut’, 168–9.Google Scholar

²⁷ Bonnard, , Matthieu, 398Google Scholar. Cf. also the references given above in note 2. This interpretation has a very long history. T. Levi 16:3–4 also exhibits a similar tone:

A man who by the power of the Most High renews the Law you name ‘Deceiver’, and finally you shall plot to kill him, not discerning his eminence; by your wickedness you take innocent blood on your heads. I tell you, on account of him your holy places shall be razed to the ground.

Kee, H. C. (‘The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs’, OTP 1:794 n. 16aGoogle Scholar) states that though the text is not an interpolation, it is a ‘reworking by a Christian editor in light of the gospel tradition …’. The extent to which it influenced, or was influenced by (which seems more likely), Matthew is difficult to reconstruct.

²⁸ Both Bonnard (Matthieu, 398) and Sanders (‘Das Blut’, 170–1) have recognized the possibility of a sacrificial meaning for the cry ‘His blood be upon us and upon our children’, though Bonnard finally rejects it and Sanders argues that it is only a possible understanding for modern readers, not for the author of the Gospel of Matthew himself.

²⁹ Booth, W. C., A Rhetoric of Irony (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974) 5–6.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ibid., 6.

³¹ Meier, , Vision, 199.Google Scholar

³² Booth, , Irony, 63.Google Scholar

³³ Frankemölle (Jahwe-Bund, 204–20) also noted a connection between Matt 1. 21 and 27. 25, arguing that 1. 21 is speaking about ‘das neue Gottesvolk’ as opposed to the Jewish nation associated with its leaders as ‘kollektiv vorgestellte Repräsentanten des ungläubigen Judentums’ in 27. 25 (cf. especially his summary comments on 218–20).