Opinion Did ‘the Jews’ Kill Jesus? - As the Catechism says, 'the historical complexity of Jesus' trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts.'

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
L | A
By Trent Horn

On May 2, 2024, the House of Representatives passed the “Antisemitism Awareness Act,” partly in response to an uptick in antisemitic displays at U.S. college campuses in recent years. The act could help students file civil complaints if they feel they have been victims of antisemitic discrimination.

The Catholic Church condemns all unjust discrimination, and Pope Francis even said this past February that the Church “rejects every form of anti-Judaism and antisemitism, unequivocally condemning manifestations of hatred towards Jews and Judaism as a sin against God.”

Some critics are concerned that the bill’s definition of antisemitism, which is drawn from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, is too broad and would make basic Catholic doctrine antisemitic. They focus on one part that says it is antisemitic to “[use] the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.” In response, they say that the Bible and many Church Fathers speak about “the Jews” killing Jesus.

So is it accurate to say “the Jews killed Jesus”? Is it antisemitic?

The Second Vatican Council taught that “the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in his passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today” (Nostra Aetate 4). Some Catholics, however, argue that all the unconverted Jews in the time of Christ (thus exempting the Blessed Virgin and the apostles) were responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion. Some even claim that all unconverted Jews in history since the Crucifixion carry a unique guilt for Christ’s death that other sinners do not share.

It is obviously false that all non-Christian Jews at the time of Christ’s death were responsible for his crucifixion, for the simple reason that not all of them were consulted! Only a tiny portion of the Jewish population called for his death. Further, many Jews who did not formally become Christian still had a positive attitude toward Jesus and his movement (see Acts 2:47) and almost certainly would not have approved of Jesus’ death.

When it comes to later Jews being responsible, this idea comes from an interpretation of Matthew’s Gospel, which describes Pilate washing his hands, saying, “I am innocent of this righteous man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” Matthew then says the crowd answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” (27:25).

What do we make of this “blood curse”? To start, the biblical text never says God honored it. Nor would such a curse, even if it was honored, apply to every future Jew, since nearly all of them are not descended from the small crowd present at Jesus’ sentencing.

In the second volume of his work Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict XVI writes:
When in Matthew’s account the “whole people” say, “His blood be upon us and on our children” (27:25), the Christian will remember that Jesus’ 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. . . . 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 (187).
For another interpretation, the crowd’s exclamation in Matthew 27:25 may refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 as being part of a divinely appointed punishment upon those who rejected Jesus. It was not uncommon in Israel’s history for future generations to be afflicted because of the sinful actions of Israel’s rulers, such as Solomon’s idolatry (1 Kings 11) being the catalyst for the division of the kingdom and the Jews’ subsequent exile into Babylon.

Historically, some Catholics, including through medieval regional councils and in papal documents, did argue that Jewish hardships throughout history represented a similar kind of punishment for Jewish involvement in the Crucifixion. However, these assertions did not rise to the level of definitive magisterial teaching. In fact, the sixteenth-century Catechism of the Council of Trent rejects the idea that Jews bear more guilt for Jesus’ crucifixion than non-Jews:
In this guilt are involved all those who fall frequently into sin; for, as our sins consigned Christ the Lord to the death of the cross, most certainly those who wallow in sin and iniquity crucify to themselves again the Son of God, as far as in them lies, and make a mockery of him.
This guilt seems more enormous in us than in the Jews, since according to the testimony of the same apostle: If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory; while we, on the contrary, professing to know him, yet denying him by our actions, seem in some sort to lay violent hands on him.
But even if Jews throughout history are not uniquely responsible for the death of Jesus, what about “the Jews” of Jesus’ time?

The Catechism of the Council of Trent refers to “the Jews” killing Jesus, and several Scripture passages (John 5:18, Acts 10:39) use similar language. In 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15, St. Paul says, “For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men.”

Paul’s phrase “the Jews” is a reference not to all Jews, but to a particular group of Jews in Palestine who were persecuting the Church. Other scholars have proposed that the Greek word Ioudaiōn in the New Testament can also be translated Judeans and that in some verses, this context makes more sense than the broader term “Jews.”

John 7:1 says, “After this Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him.” But there were plenty of Jews in Galilee, so what is meant in this passage is not “Jews”—i.e., non-Christian followers of Yahweh—but rather Judeans, and specifically the Jews loyal to political leadership in Jerusalem. This interpretation also makes sense of Paul’s exhortation to imitate the Christians in Judea who withstood persecution at the hands of the persecutors in that area, the Judeans (a role Paul once held before his conversion).

The Catechism also gives this insight into how we ought to understand Jewish responsibility for Christ’s death:
The historical complexity of Jesus’ trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles’ calls to conversion after Pentecost. Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders (597).
It is inaccurate to say, as some critical scholars might allege, that the Romans were completely responsible for Christ’s crucifixion. Scripture clearly teaches that some members of the Jewish leadership saw Jesus as being such a grave threat to the social order that he needed to be killed (John 11:50). However, as we saw in the teaching of the Second Vatican Council quoted earlier, this guilt cannot be laid upon all unconverted Jews at that time, and much less so on Jewish people throughout history. Indeed, we must remember humanity’s collective involvement, through our sins, in Christ’s death on the cross. This is why the Catechism states that
in her magisterial teaching of the Faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that “sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured.” Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself, the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone (598).
 
You say free will is an illusion, but then you also give an example of a choice that would require free will to make before saying it is? Bizarre logic at play here.
It's an illusion we are incapable of escaping. We have no choice but to behave as if free will exists even though it doesn't, we are trapped by consciousness. Not that I'm claiming to have all the answers, I don't fully understand it myself - consciousness isn't mechanistic, our thoughts can be influenced but do seem to originate within us. The first paragraph I quoted of Mewtwo_Rain below is similar to how I see it, but I worry that that's just because I can't escape consciousness.
To a degree, but I wouldn't say it's an illusion more than risk assessment, your stomach can rumble that doesn't mean you instantly eat. May seem silly but presents how I see free will I can eat as it grumbles or I can wait operating on choice, I can't go without food or I'll die altogether though I guess I could chose to starve...

In regards to Peter my mere point is it seems that God in this metric didn't control him otherwise Peter wouldn't have learned any humbleness from something that wasn't his fault. It's like this if Jesus says you'll trip, then he forces your body to trip, it wasn't because you lack poise or equilibrium, it wasn't human error in essence. Same reason Jesus spoke of his army of angels at his beckon to some not as a threat but to put in perspective he could undo any of the events at any time should he so chose.

If Jesus or God took control of the situation, then the affected parties can't be blamed for those aspects, they aren't in control. If they do have free will then it would make sense why responsibility is foisted upon them.

In regards to the last part I agree, though I'd say it's more there are mechanisms of certain aspects that are more complex than face value in the bible that aren't directly stated, I agree it does lead to argumentation though on those aspects and how they operate.
Ah actually we agree on more than I thought. Also I can see how it looks like I'm absolving them completely, but I didn't mean to. Both Judas and the Jews deserve some blame, as does Pilate (whether he believed Jesus was the son of God or not), but I don't think they should be demonised for it. We can't help but sin, but if we have a good heart Jesus will accept us anyway.
 
The Blanket Statement: "The Jews killed Jesus" is certainly misleading. Most of Jesus's earlier followers, including his twelve disciples, were Jewish. Indeed not even all of the Pharisees were for the crucifixion, one of them, Nicodemus, had met with Jesus in secret in John 3 and would later be the one to have him buried after he was crucified, "And Nicodemus, who at first came to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury". -John 13:19-20.

However a lot of the top level Pharisees were in favor of Crucifying Christ, he was of course tried by the High Priest Caiaphas in front of the Sanhedrin (a top level Jewish Judicial Body) before ultimately being crucified. Of course Jesus being rejected had been prophesied by the prophet Isaiah to happen nearly seven hundred years prior, "Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed". -Isaiah 53:1-5 (~700 BC)

Interestingly Caiaphas may have become a Christian later in life, it is worth noting that Luke 1 begins with an opening addressing, Theophilius, which is also brother in law of Caiaphas, before detailing the life of Jesus. The opening seems to indicate Luke had been in correspondence about Jesus with Theophilius for a while for a while and wanted to get the full story down for him. Caiaphas's Ossuary was discovered in 1990 and revealed he had named one of his son's Jesus, this is of course of a common name but still it's interesting to think about.

The oldest contemporary Jewish sources from the Talmud seem to confirm that their higher ups had crucified Jesus, "And a crier went out before him for forty days, publicly proclaiming: Jesus the Nazarene is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited people to idol worship, and led the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knows of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf. And the court did not find a reason to acquit him, and so they stoned him and hung his corpse on Passover eve".- Sanhedrin 43a, The Talmud (~200AD)

And to that end we do have contemporary, non-Christian, first century sources highlighting the Jewish leaders involvement in the crucifixion (despite what Euphoric Atheists might say). Writing sometime between 70 and 100AD, stoic philosopher Mara bar Serapion wrote, "What else can we say, when the wise are forcibly dragged off by tyrants, their wisdom is captured by insults, and their minds are oppressed and without defense? What advantage did the Athenians gain from murdering Socrates? Famine and plague came upon them as a punishment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished".- Mara Bar Serapion (~85AD)

Of course the decision to crucify Jesus was ultimately done by the Roman Authorities we do have contemporary records confirming this, writing about eighty years after the fact the Roman Pagan Historian, Tacitus, placed the decision solely on the Roman Authority, writing: "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular". -Tacitus, The Annals, Book 15 Chapter 44 (116AD).


Tl;dr some high up Jews tried and handed Jesus over to be executed, this was not a universal decision, even among the Pharisees.
 
Last edited:
You know what really bugs me? That the Jews mad at this don't do it because they feel unfairly wronged or insulted or because they think killing Jesus would have been wrong. They are mad because they know that if American Christians acknowledge this, they're losing their support for Israel. If they could, they'd be openly bragging in the same way they mistakenly believe that they "defeated" Rome and are proud of it.

Christianity is the rejection of Judaism and vice versa. Jews are still waiting for their messiah, while Jesus is the Messiah they didn't like because he refused to do what they expected him to do. The Pharisees got him murdered because they knew he was threatening their power and they didn't want that. And with that, they condemned themselves and their own people. Blaming every single modern Jew for this is moronic. We Christians can't go around hating Jews, but it's still historically correct to say Jews did it and then decided to not follow the Messiah they were expecting out of pride and greed.
 
The Second Vatican Council taught that “the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in his passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today” (Nostra Aetate 4).
The Catholic Church had a very different attitude toward Jews prior to Vatican II. Something like the Stations of the Cross used to have wording in it about something like "perfidious Jews." Of course given the dogshit nature of websearch nowadays I can't find the exact wording of the old ceremony.
 
I can counter this. First off omniscience =/= omnipotence.
Second off, during the Israelite flight from Egypt God blatantly and outright kills the entirety of the Egyptian calvary, so thousands of people.

I would argue that God isn't truly omnipotent as Christians will say, because killing them (along with that whole plague thing) was necessary to guarantee the Israelites escape. If he was omnipotent there would be no need to interfere to the extent that he did.
No, no, God is omnipotent, that's the dogma, if you think he's not, you're either wrong or talking about some other God. Killing the egyptian cavalry was a calculated decision on his part, just like causing the great flood and destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. You may think this was needlessly cruel and wrong, but again God is perfect and never makes mistakes, so you're the one who's wrong here.
 
No, no, God is omnipotent, that's the dogma, if you think he's not, you're either wrong or talking about some other God. Killing the egyptian cavalry was a calculated decision on his part, just like causing the great flood and destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. You may think this was needlessly cruel and wrong, but again God is perfect and never makes mistakes, so you're the one who's wrong here.
Look, I get that you're trying to avoid it with fedoraposting, but when you die you'll still be suffering eternally. It is what it is.
 
Xtianity is so retarded. What a waste of time and resources. Arguing over this nonsense for centuries. Imagine paying faggot nerd monks who are too afraid to talk to women for hundreds of years to hide out in mountains and spend all day arguing about fairy tales and writing letters back and forth. All for the privilege of being threatened with eternal torture if you don't worship the foreskin slurping jew god correctly.
You have to be 18 or older to be posting in this forum.
 
The Catholic Church had a very different attitude toward Jews prior to Vatican II. Something like the Stations of the Cross used to have wording in it about something like "perfidious Jews." Of course given the dogshit nature of websearch nowadays I can't find the exact wording of the old ceremony.
The change was that some pope, don't know which, officially declared that perfidus in context of Jews meant faithless and not treacherous (it can mean both in Latin IIRC)
 
God doesn't have limits in the way that He's incapable of doing something out of a lack of strenght, but He has limits in the way that they go contrary to His nature, or the nature of the laws that He has set for the universe, as that would be illogical. For example, God can't be evil because that isn't part of His nature, and God can't be sinful because His nature is sinless, God can't make a square circle because that is nonsense, and God can't make a rock too heavy for Him to lift because that's an inherent contradiction to His omnipotence.
Do you get all this from the fandom wiki or is it headcanon?
Look, I get that you're trying to avoid it with fedoraposting, but when you die you'll still be suffering eternally. It is what it is.
Remember this is what xtians fantasize about when you say you don't worship a dead jew as a god. What a twisted worldview.
 
Do you get all this from the fandom wiki or is it headcanon?
I get this from prominent Christian thinkers like C.S. Lewis or Doctors of theChurch like Agustine of Hippo, but you don't even care about the subject matter, so better zip it. Twitter is that way and to the left
 
Remember this is what xtians fantasize about when you say you don't worship a dead jew as a god. What a twisted worldview.
Speaking as a non christian, they generally believe that their God loves them so much that he sent down his own Son to die for the sins of humanity. That's incredibly powerful and while I do not agree with christians on much, reducing that sacrifice to "worshipping a dead Jew" is stupid.
 
Don't mind him, he thinks an ideology that ran a nation up for 6 years before economically imploding and then falling to invasive pressure in 6 years after that somehow holds more value than a religion that allowed nations to stand for centuries.
And thank G-d that millions of our bravest Xtian young men were willing to sacrifice their gentile lives to make sure that jewish international finance and the USSR could prevail. Hail FDR and hail Churchill!
 
By all accounts, Pilate wanted nothing to do with the whole affair. The Romans would normally have just crucified him to maintain peace but Pilate's wife had a bad feeling about it and he wanted to be done with it. Pilate himself wanted out of it after speaking to Jesus and the Jews fucking implied he was a traitor to Caesar as though they'd try to get him fucked with for that.
John 19-
19 Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.

2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,

3 And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.

4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.

5 Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!

6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

8 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;

9 And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.

10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?

11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
 
Back
Top Bottom