Matthew 27:25: a self-blaming lynch mob?

[lpetrich]

Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to release for the people any one prisoner whom they wanted. At that time they were holding a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas. So when the people gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?” For he knew that because of envy they had handed Him over.

While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent him a message, saying, “Have nothing to do with that righteous Man; for last night I suffered greatly in a dream because of Him.” But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to put Jesus to death. But the governor said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” Pilate *said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all *said, “Crucify Him!” And he said, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they kept shouting all the more, saying, “Crucify Him!”

When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; see to that yourselves.” And all the people said, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!” Then he released Barabbas for them; but after having Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified.

(Matthew 27:15-26, NASB)

Matthew 27:25:

And all the people said, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!”

That seems like a very strange thing for a lynch mob to say. Most lynch mobs I've ever heard of have been the opposite, convinced not of their guilt but that their targets deserved their fates. US lynchers sometimes took pictures of their handiwork, and some US politicians tried to protect them, blocking efforts at Federal anti-lynching laws. When Muammar Khadafy was lynched by some militiamen, a militia commander said about that "What are we supposed to do? Kiss his head?" In fairness, some of them drew the line at how one militiaman broke the news to his daughter Aisha who had called him on his cellphone: "It's over. Ol' Fuzzhead (Abu Shafshufa) is dead". They considered it rude and disrespectful.

Even worse, if they were willing to accept blame for executing Jesus Christ, then why should their descendants also have that blame? Their descendants had not been involved, and the only problem with them is if they defend those Jesus-crucifying ancestors of theirs.

[toejam]

Yep. This is one of the most disgusting verses in the New Testament. An obvious outright lie IMO.

[Blood]

Why would eyewitnesses lie?

It's a myth. We don't need to examine it rationally vis-a-vis the sociology of lynch mobs. It never happened.

[toejam]

^It's not my view that the gospels were written by eye-witnesses...

[Solo]

Even worse, if they were willing to accept blame for executing Jesus Christ, then why should their descendants also have that blame? Their descendants had not been involved, and the only problem with them is if they defend those Jesus-crucifying ancestors of theirs.

Matthew wrote with an eye on his own time. If the dating, cca 80-90 CE holds, this was a time of great upheaval and discord in the Jewish diaspora. This was the first generation after the destruction of the central symbol of identity of Jewish identity, the Temple. Communities and sects blamed each other for the great mayhem of the 66-73 war. Some Jewish messianists found in Paul's theology of the cross the perfect answer to the question: 'Why would God want to do this to his people'. The answer went, 'Because they killed the Messiah and the prophets he sent'.

Best,
Jiri

[Blood]

Isn't it strange that the only people for whom that "logic" resonated were Gentiles?

[Stephan Huller]

The answer went, 'Because they killed the Messiah and the prophets he sent'.

But when you look closely at the original narrative it can't be that Jesus was meant to be the awaited messiah. This can't have been the original narrative. The myth-maker isn't even trying to make a plausible case for Jesus being 'like David.' Jesus is nothing like David. The question then was what was Jesus supposed to be? The answer has to be an angel. There is no other explanation.

[RecoveringScot]

The answer went, 'Because they killed the Messiah and the prophets he sent'.

But when you look closely at the original narrative it can't be that Jesus was meant to be the awaited messiah. This can't have been the original narrative. The myth-maker isn't even trying to make a plausible case for Jesus being 'like David.' Jesus is nothing like David. The question then was what was Jesus supposed to be? The answer has to be an angel. There is no other explanation.

Yes, and an angel called 'Savior'. And what does Paul think is the content of this 'salvation'? That people 'in Christ' will be 'resurrected' through him. Nothing overtly political at all. Paul is almost obsessive about the 'resurrection' and considers everything else in that light. The difference between the 'proto-orthodox' belief and the Pauline is not whether Jesus was or wasn't on earth, it seems to me, but the nature of the resurrection at the last day: 'spiritual' or 'physical'. The question then becomes "Why were the 'proto-orthodox' so determined to claim a 'physical' resurrection?" This is the nub of the problem for me.

[perseusomega9]

The difference between the 'proto-orthodox' belief and the Pauline is not whether Jesus was or wasn't on earth, it seems to me, but the nature of the resurrection at the last day: 'spiritual' or 'physical'. The question then becomes "Why were the 'proto-orthodox' so determined to claim a 'physical' resurrection?" This is the nub of the problem for me.

I would guess it came about between the conflict of those whose high god(Father) was the stranger/alien/unknown god and those for who it was the jewish god of israel. Those pushing spiritual ressurrection seemed to have a matter is dirty attitude, and the demiurge was the creator of matter, and also the jewish god. Those pushing a physical resurrection, with a new heavens and a new earth where those who believed the jewish god was high god.

[Stephan Huller]

Yes, and an angel called 'Savior'.

Sorry but this is not true. The names יהושע Yehoshua’ (Samaritan pronunciation Yê’ûsha) and its shortened form ישוע Yeshua and the name הרשע Hoshea’ (anglice Hosea) all mean “the Lords saves” or “the Lord is salvation”, and allude to the last verses of Deuteronomy33. It might be argued that this is the passage Jesus had in mind when he is said to have stated to the Samaritan woman in John 4 “Ye venerate what ye do not know (i.e. are not familiar with by direct acquaintance, since the Sanctuary vanished in the time of the High Priest ‘Azzi, when the Râ’ûta (Favour) ended and the Fânûta (Turning away [of the face of God] started. We venerate what we know. THE Salvation (see Deuteronomy) is from the (tribe of ) Judah (not Levi, not Ephraim)”. But 'Jesus' as such does not mean 'Savior' (except to poorly informed early Church writers).

The af’el participle mesha’ מישע and the Hebrew hif’il participle מושיע both mean “one who saves” or “saviour”, from the root ישע in both cases. This was used as a name as the rabbinic commentators note on R. Meier's original name.

All of which in my mind makes certain (as I have noted many times) that for traditions that understood Jesus to be a god or an angel ΙΣ (assuming it was original to the MS of the gospel) COULD NOT = 'Jesus.' There are other logic reasons for this doubt. The name might well have been pronounced as Greeks, Syrians etc all pronounce his name = Eesu. But Eesu did not originally = Yehoshua’