In 1965 the Second Vatican Council produced a declaration on the relation of the Catholic church with non-Christian religions. In this document, \u201cNostra Aetate\u201d (In Our Age), the Catholic Church revolutionized its relations with Jews by saying Christ\u2019s death could not be attributed to Jews as a whole at the time or today.<\/p>\n
A forthcoming book by Pope Benedict XVI supports and furthers this doctrine. In the second volume of \u201cJesus of Nazareth\u201d, which will be released by Ignatius Press on March 10, the Pope explains that although scripture has the Jewish crowd shouting, \u201cLet his blood be on us and on our children,\u201d as they demand that Pilate execute Jesus, the crowd should be read to represent all humanity. News sources are hailing this excitedly with headlines like: \u201cPope Exonerates Jews\u2026<\/a>\u201d and \u201cPope Absolves Jews\u2026<\/a>\u201d For the interest of FPR readers, I am going to include a lengthy excerpt from the book, which has been released as a \u201ctrailer\u201d from the publishers. Pertinent information to this post is in bold type.<\/p>\n Jesus\u2019 interrogation before the Sanhedrin had concluded in the way Caiaphas had expected: Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy, for which the penalty was death. But since only the Romans could carry out the death sentence, the case now had to be brought before Pilate and the political dimension of the guilty verdict had to be emphasized. Jesus had declared himself to be the Messiah; hence he had laid claim to the dignity of kingship, albeit in a way peculiarly his own. The claim to Messianic kingship was a political offense, one that had to be punished by Roman justice. With cockcrow, daybreak had arrived. The Roman Governor used to hold court early in the morning.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So Jesus is now led by his accusers to the praetorium and is presented to Pilate as a criminal who deserves to die. It is the \u201cday of preparation\u201d for the Passover feast. The lambs are slaughtered in the afternoon for the evening meal. Hence cultic purity must be preserved; so the priestly accusers may not enter the Gentile praetorium, and they negotiate with the Roman Governor outside the building. John, who provides this detail (18:28\u201329), thereby highlights the contradiction between the scrupulous attitude to regulations for cultic purity and the question of real inner purity: it simply does not occur to Jesus\u2019 accusers that impurity does not come from entering a Gentile house, but rather from the inner disposition of the heart. At the same time the evangelist emphasizes that the Passover meal had not yet taken place and that the slaughter of the lambs was still to come.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In all essentials, the four Gospels harmonize with one another in their accounts of the progress of the trial. Only John reports the conversation between Jesus and Pilate, in which the question about Jesus\u2019 kingship, the reason for his death, is explored in depth (18:33\u201338). The historicity of this tradition is of course contested by exegetes. While Charles H. Dodd and Raymond E. Brown judge it positively, Charles K. Barrett is extremely critical: \u201cJohn\u2019s additions and alterations do not inspire confidence in his historical reliability\u201d (The Gospel according to Saint John, p. 530). Certainly no one would claim that John set out to provide anything resembling a transcript of the trial. Yet we may assume that he was able to explain with great precision the core question at issue and that he presents us with a true account of the trial. Barrett also says \u201cthat John has with keen insight picked out the key of the Passion narrative in the kingship of Jesus, and has made its meaning clearer, perhaps, than any other New Testament writer\u201d (ibid., p. 531).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now we must ask: Who exactly were Jesus\u2019 accusers? Who insisted that he be condemned to death? We must take note of the different answers that the Gospels give to this question. According to John it was simply \u201cthe Jews\u201d. But John\u2019s use of this expression does not in any way indicate\u2014as the modern reader might suppose\u2014the people of Israel in general, even less is it \u201cracist\u201d in character.<\/strong><\/em> After all, John himself was ethnically a Jew, as were Jesus and all his followers. The entire early Christian community was made up of Jews. In John\u2019s Gospel this word has a precise and clearly defined meaning: he is referring to the Temple aristocracy. So the circle of accusers who instigate Jesus\u2019 death is precisely indicated in the Fourth Gospel and clearly limited: it is the Temple aristocracy\u2014and not without certain exceptions, as the reference to Nicodemus (7:50\u201352) shows.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In Mark\u2019s Gospel, the circle of accusers is broadened in the context of the Passover amnesty (Barabbas or Jesus): the \u201cochlos\u201d enters the scene and opts for the release of Barabbas. \u201cOchlos\u201d in the first instance simply means a crowd of people, the \u201cmasses\u201d. The word frequently has a pejorative connotation, meaning \u201cmob\u201d. In any event, it does not refer to the Jewish people as such. <\/em><\/strong>In the case of the Passover amnesty (which admittedly is not attested in other sources, but even so need not be doubted), the people, as so often with such amnesties, have a right to put forward a proposal, expressed by way of \u201cacclamation\u201d. Popular acclamation in this case has juridical character (cf. Pesch, Markusevangelium II, p. 466). Effectively this \u201ccrowd\u201d is made up of the followers of Barabbas who have been mobilized to secure the amnesty for him: as a rebel against Roman power he could naturally count on a good number of supporters. So the Barabbas party, the \u201ccrowd\u201d, was conspicuous, while the followers of Jesus remained hidden out of fear; this meant that the vox populi<\/em>, on which Roman law was built, was represented one-sidedly. In Mark\u2019s account, then, in addition to \u201cthe Jews\u201d, that is to say the dominant priestly circle, the \u201cochlos\u201d comes into play, the circle of Barabbas\u2019 supporters, but not the Jewish people as such.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n An extension of Mark\u2019s \u201cochlos\u201d, with fateful consequences, is found in Matthew\u2019s account (27:25), which speaks of \u201call the people\u201d and attributes to them the demand for Jesus\u2019 crucifixion. Matthew is certainly not recounting historical fact here: How could the whole people have been present at this moment to clamor for Jesus\u2019 death? It seems obvious that the historical reality is correctly described in John\u2019s account and in Mark\u2019s. The real group of accusers are the current Temple authorities, joined in the context of the Passover amnesty by the \u201ccrowd\u201d of Barabbas\u2019 supporters. <\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here we may agree with Joachim Gnilka, who argues that Matthew, going beyond historical considerations, is attempting a theological etiology with which to account for the terrible fate of the people of Israel in the Jewish War, when land, city, and Temple were taken from them (Matth\u00e4usevangelium II, p. 459). Matthew is thinking here of Jesus\u2019 prophecy concerning the end of the Temple: \u201cO Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken . . .\u201d (Mt 23:37\u201338: cf. Gnilka, Matth\u00e4usevangelium), the whole of the section entitled \u201cGerichtsworte\u201d, II, pp. 295\u2013308).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n These words\u2014as argued earlier, in the chapter on Jesus\u2019 eschatological discourse\u2014remind us of the inner similarity between the Prophet Jeremiah\u2019s message and that of Jesus. Jeremiah\u2014against the blindness of the then dominant circles\u2014prophesied the destruction of the Temple and Israel\u2019s exile. But he also spoke of a \u201cnew covenant\u201d: punishment is not the last word; it leads to healing. In the same way Jesus prophesies the \u201cdeserted house\u201d and proceeds to offer the New Covenant \u201cin his blood\u201d: ultimately it is a question of healing, not of destruction and rejection.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n When in Matthew\u2019s account the \u201cwhole people\u201d say: \u201cHis blood be on us and on our children\u201d (27:25), the Christian will remember that Jesus\u2019 blood speaks a different language from the blood of Abel (Heb 12:24): it does not cry out for vengeance and punishment; it brings reconciliation. It is not poured out against anyone; it is poured out for many, for all. \u201cAll have sinned and fall short of the glory of God . . .God put [Jesus] forward as an expiation by his blood\u201d (Rom 3:23, 25). Just as Caiaphas\u2019 words about the need for Jesus\u2019 death have to be read in an entirely new light from the perspective of faith, the same applies to Matthew\u2019s reference to blood: read in the light of faith, it means that we all stand in need of the purifying power of love which is his blood. These words are not a curse, but rather redemption, salvation.<\/em><\/strong> Only when understood in terms of the theology of the Last Supper and the Cross, drawn from the whole of the New Testament, does this verse from Matthew\u2019s Gospel take on its correct meaning.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In this excerpt the Pope points out that it was the \u201cTemple aristocracy\u201d and a few supporters of the figure Barabbas who were responsible for Christ\u2019s death. He also reinterprets the watershed verse in Matthew to take the onus off the Jewish people and place it upon sinful humankind. You may be aware that within our LDS texts also appears a \u201cwatershed verse\u201d:<\/p>\n Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ\u2014for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name\u2014should come among the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him\u2014for thus it behooveth our God, and there is none other nation on earth that would crucify their God. (2 Ne 10:3<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n