One of the most difficult issues to approach in this area is the historic anti-Semitism that has been unjustly derived from the Gospel accounts. Needless to say, Christianity has a great deal historically to answer for in this regard... no Christian could derive anti-Semitism from what are, after all, the most Jewish of the Gospels.

So we come down to this: Is the anti-Semitic view grounded in a correct reading of the NT, or is it merely the invention of those who wish to justify their own previously-held prejudices? Evidence indicates strongly that it is the latter. Both the content of Scripture, and its cultural context, demonstrate that justification for anti-Semitism is no more found in the NT generally or the trial accounts specifically, than is justification for racism or any other sin. Responsibility for the death of Jesus is placed upon, in order - a) the Jewish leadership; b) Jerusalemite Jews, in particular, the crowd before Pilate; c) Pilate and Herod.

> Matthew: When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!" All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" Then he released Barabbas to them.

At this point... Pilate may have indeed gotten a surprise of his own here. He found out just how far the priestly crowd was willing to go to get the job done. Still, he underscored his point further. Using a uniquely Jewish gesture (in part, perhaps, because some of the crowd would not have understood the language he spoke), he threw the whole issue back in their faces by washing his hands in front of them.

One of the most difficult issues to approach in this area is the historic anti-Semitism that has been unjustly derived from the Gospel accounts. Is the anti-Semitic view grounded in a correct reading of the NT, or is it merely the invention of those who wish to justify their own previously-held biases?

Evidence indicates strongly that it is the latter. Both the content of Scripture, and its cultural context, demonstrate that justification for anti-Semitism is no more found in the NT generally or the trial accounts specifically, than is justification for racism or any other sin. Responsibility for the death of Jesus is placed upon, in order - a) the Jewish leadership; b) Jerusalemite Jews, in particular, the crowd before Pilate; c) Pilate and Herod.

The term 'Jews' can refer to either the leadership (strictly) OR to the people (more generally). In John 1:19, 24, the Jews 'sent' the religious leaders to discover what was going on. A comparison of John 18:14 with 11:49 indicates that Jews referred to the Sanhedrin. When the term 'Jews' is used of the people, it is a good (or at least, neutral) term—indicating that it is not a 'racial/ethnic' slur, but a term used for specific identification (in context) of that ruling community that violently rejected their King.

When 'Jews' is used of the hostile aristocratic leadership, it is appropriate and truthful to ascribe the primary responsibility for His execution to them. To assert that John (and the wider Christian community) attributed the death of Jesus to the general populace known as 'Jews' is fundamentally mistaken. The Scriptures place no blame on Jews as a people for the execution of Jesus.

The phrase 'His blood be on us, and on our children' (Matthew 27:25) has been manipulated to indicate that the Jewish people accepted blood-guilt for the execution of Jesus. But evidence indicates that this is not that kind of statement at all. As Gerard Sloyan observes:

> The expression, far from being a self-inflicted curse, is a strong statement of innocence. It appears in later, mishnaic form in the Tractate Sanhedrin 37a, where in capital cases the witness uses the invocation as a proof of his innocence. If he is lying, he is willing to have the blood of the accused fall on himself and his offspring until the end of the world.

While this comes from a later source, it would be highly unusual if this phrase meant something exactly the opposite of what it did previously.