Jewish deicide

Jewish deicide is the theological position and the antisemitic trope that as a people, the Jews are collectively responsible for the killing of Jesus, even through the successive generations following his death. The notion arose in early Christianity, and it features in the writings of Justin Martyr and Melito of Sardis as early as the 2nd century. The Biblical passage has been seen as giving voice to the charge of Jewish deicide as well.
The accusation that the Jews were Christ-killers fed Christian antisemitism and spurred on acts of violence against Jews such as pogroms, massacres of Jews during the Crusades, expulsions of the Jews from England, France, Spain, Portugal and other places, and torture during the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions.
In the catechism that was produced by the Council of Trent in the mid-16th century, the Catholic Church rejected the deicide charge and taught the belief that the collectivity of sinful humanity was responsible for the death of Jesus, with Christians having a special responsibility themselves. In the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church under Pope Paul VI issued the declaration Nostra aetate that repudiated the idea of a collective, multigenerational Jewish guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus. It declared that the accusation could not be made "against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today".
Most Protestant churches have never given a binding position on the matter; but some Christian denominations, such as the Episcopal Church in the US and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, have issued official declarations against the accusation.

Matthew 27:24–25

A justification for the charge of Jewish deicide has been sought in Matthew 27:24–25:
The verse which reads: "And all the people answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children! is also referred to as the blood curse. In an essay regarding antisemitism, biblical scholar Amy-Jill Levine argues that this passage has caused more suffering throughout Jewish history than any other passage in the New Testament.

John 5:16–18

Many also point to the Gospel of John as evidence of Christian charges of deicide. As Samuel Sandmel writes, "John is widely regarded as either the most anti-Semitic or at least the most overtly anti-Semitic of the gospels." Support for this claim comes in several places throughout John, such as in :
Some scholars describe this passage as irrefutably referencing and implicating the Jews in deicide, although many, such as scholar Robert Kysar, also argue that part of the severity of this charge comes more from those who read and understand the text than the text itself. John uses the term Ἰουδαῖοι, Ioudaioi, meaning "the Jews" or "the Judeans", as the subject of these sentences. However, the notion that the Jew is meant to represent all Jews is often disputed by scholars who argued that the phrase is to be taken specifically to refer to "Jewish leaders". While the New Testament is often more subtle or leveled in accusations of deicide, many scholars hold that these works cannot be held in isolation, and must be considered in the context of their interpretation by later Christian communities.

Historicity of Matthew 27:24–25

According to the gospel accounts, Jewish authorities in Roman Judea charged Jesus with blasphemy and sought his execution, but lacked the authority to have Jesus put to death, so they took Jesus to Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of the province, who authorized Jesus's execution. The Jesus Seminar's Scholars Version translation note for John 18:31 adds: "it's illegal for us: The accuracy of this claim is doubtful." It is noted, for example, that Jewish authorities were responsible for the stoning of Saint Stephen in Acts 7:54 and of James the Just in Antiquities of the Jews without the consent of the governor. Josephus however, notes that the execution of James happened while the newly appointed governor Lucceius Albinus "was but upon the road" to assume his office. Also Acts relates that the stoning happened in a lynching-like manner, in the course of Stephen's public criticism of Jews who refused to believe in Jesus.
It has also been suggested that the Gospel accounts may have downplayed the role of the Romans in Jesus's death during a time when Christianity was struggling to gain acceptance among the then pagan or polytheist Roman world. Matthew 27:24–25, quoted above, has no counterpart in the other Gospels and some scholars see it as probably related to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Swiss Protestant theologian Ulrich Luz described it in 2005 as "redactional fiction" invented by the author of the Gospel of Matthew. Some writers, viewing it as part of Matthew's anti-Jewish polemic, see in it the seeds of later Christian antisemitism.
In his 2011 book, Pope Benedict XVI, besides repudiating placing blame on the Jewish people, interprets the passage found in the Gospel of Matthew which has the "crowd" saying "Let his blood be upon us and upon our children" as not referring to the whole Jewish people, but only to the group of supporters of the rebel Barabbas present at the trial. The other group identified by the pope as standing behind Jesus's trial is the "Temple aristocracy", another clearly defined category.

Historicity of Barabbas

Some biblical scholars, including Benjamin Urrutia and Hyam Maccoby, go a step further by not only doubting the historicity of the blood curse statement in Matthew but also the existence of Barabbas. This theory is based on the fact that Barabbas's full name was given in early writings as Jesus Barabbas, meaning literally Jesus, son of the father. The theory is that this name originally referred to Jesus himself, and that when the crowd asked Pilate to release "Jesus, son of the father" they were referring to Jesus himself, as suggested also by Peter Cresswell. The theory suggests that further details around Barabbas are historical fiction based on a misunderstanding. The theory is disputed by other scholars.

Paul's First Letter to the Thessalonians

The First Epistle to the Thessalonians also contains accusations of Jewish deicide:
According to Jeremy Cohen:
Some scholars believe these verses are a later interpolation not present in the original text. They note how this excerpt contradicts various other statements from Paul's letters, such as his belief that God's promise to the Jews still applies and they will ultimately be saved, as well as his repeated self-identification as a Jew. Furthermore, mention of Jews already having experienced divine wrath is seemingly a reference to the destruction of the Second Temple: if true, this would mean that the excerpt was added no earlier than 70 AD, after Paul's death.

2nd century

The identification of the death of Jesus as the killing of God is first stated in "God is murdered" as early as AD 167, in a tract bearing the title Peri Pascha that may have been designed to bolster a minor Christian sect's presence in Sardis, where Jews had a thriving community with excellent relations with Greeks, and which is attributed to a Quartodeciman, Melito of Sardis, a statement is made that appears to have transformed the charge that Jews had killed their own Messiah into the charge that the Jews had killed God himself.
If so, the author would be the first writer in the Lukan-Pauline tradition to raise unambiguously the accusation of deicide against Jews. This text blames the Jews for allowing King Herod and Caiaphas to execute Jesus, despite their calling as God's people. It says "you did not know, O Israel, that this one was the firstborn of God". The author does not attribute particular blame to Pontius Pilate, but only mentions that Pilate washed his hands of guilt.

4th century

was an important Early Church Father who served as archbishop of Constantinople and is known for his fanatical antisemitism, collected in his homilies, such as Adversus Judaeos. The charge of Jewish deicide was the cornerstone of his theology, and he was the first to use the term deicide and the first Christian preacher to apply the word deicide to Jews collectively. He held that for this putative 'deicide', there was no expiation, pardon or indulgence possible. The first occurrence of the Latin word deicida occurs in a Latin sermon by Peter Chrysologus. In the Latin version he wrote: Iudaeos ... fecit esse deicidas, i.e., " made the Jews deicides".

Recent discussions

The accuracy of the Gospel accounts' portrayal of Jewish complicity in Jesus's death has been vigorously debated in recent decades, with views which range from a denial of Jewish responsibility to a belief in extensive Jewish culpability. According to the Jesuit scholar Daniel Harrington, the consensus of Jewish and Christian scholars is that there is some Jewish responsibility, regarding not the Jewish people, but regarding only the probable involvement of the high priests in Jerusalem at the time and their allies. Many scholars read the story of the passion as an attempt to take the blame off Pilate and place it on the Jews, one which might have been at the time politically motivated. It is thought possible that Pilate ordered the crucifixion to avoid a riot, for example.

Talmud and Maimonides

Some scholars hold that the synoptic account is compatible with traditions in the Babylonian Talmud.
The writings of Moses Maimonides mentioned the hanging of a certain Jesus on the eve of Passover. Maimonides considered Jesus as a Jewish renegade in revolt against Judaism; religion commanded the death of Jesus and his students; and Christianity was a religion attached to his name in a later period. In a passage widely censored in pre-modern editions for fear of the way it might feed into very real antisemitic attitudes, Maimonides wrote of "Jesus of Nazareth, who imagined that he was the Messiah, and was put to death by the court" Maimonides' position was defended in modern times by Israeli rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, who asserted Jewish responsibility and dismissed those who denied it as sycophants.