Like Mark 15:1-15, Matthew 27:1-26 gives an account of Jesus' trial before Pilate, following on from the story of Peter's three denials. However, if we look closely at the text, we see that Matthew has not only made editorial changes which alter the slant of the Markan account, but he has also included other material which, interwoven with the material from Mark, affects the reader's interpretation. The combined effect of these changes is to offer the reader a distinctly new theological perspective.
The opening verse of Matthew 27 immediately reveals a change in emphasis from Mark. Whereas Mark has the chief priests holding a consultation "with the elders and scribes and the whole council" with the initiative resting largely on the 'chief priests' (Mk 15:1), Matthew has "all the chief priests and the elders of the people" conferring together "in order to bring about his death" (Mt 27:1). Here, the editorial changes serve to portray the conference as more conspiratorial, with the priests and elders equally involved. Further, the representational role of the elders as "elders of the people" moves to distribute responsibility for the forthcoming events from Jewish officials, as in Mark, to all Jewish people, whilst the other Matthean addition, "in order to bring about his death" highlights Matthew's perception of the malicious intent of the conference; a perception not expressly evident in the parallel Markan account.
The second verse, "They bound him, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate the governor," is, aside from the Matthean addition of "the governor", a verbatim repetition of Mark 15:1b. Matthew’s predilection for calling Pilate the governor has received attention from numerous scholars. Some suggest Matthew's author simply wanted to emphasise Pilate's military power. Others postulate that the narrative is intended to offer a model to Christians standing trial during times of persecution, thus the author preferred to use a generic title for Pilate.
Matthew then digresses from the Markan narrative to include a unique account of the death of Judas. The existence of another, albeit rather different, account of Judas’ death found in Acts 1:15-20 suggests that rather than composing this story , the author of Matthew drew upon an early, (probably oral) tradition, which he adapted and fashioned in his own style. The story bears all the hallmarks of the Matthean hand. It would appear that thin threads of the traditional tale have been fleshed out with material gleaned from the Hebrew Scriptures. Particularly, within this story, we find echoes of the suicide of David's friend, Ahithophel, who hanged himself after betraying David. (2 Samuel 17:23).
The insertion of the story of Judas' death is not a random interruption to Matthew's account of the trial before Pilate; rather, it has been carefully composed and placed to offer a new interpretative dimension to the trial. Judas, the betrayer of Jesus, demonstrates remorse, but, as we see, cannot escape Jesus' curse:
"But woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born." (Mt 26:24)The chief priests, however, show no remorse, yet, by acknowledging the silver as 'blood money', the priests condemn themselves. Thus, Matthew sets the scene to intimate that like Judas, they too shall fall under the curse.
In the Greek text, the complicity of the priests is made more even apparent through the word i>'paradidomi' here translated as 'handed over' (v2), which may also be interpreted as 'to betray'. Hence, the Matthean point is made: the "chief priests and the elders of the people" betrayed Jesus just as surely as Judas did.
Using editorial changes to bring us back to the trial before Pilate, Matthew then reverts to the Markan text, but prefers to refer to Pilate as "the governor". Pilate’s question and Jesus’ response (v11) are taken directly from Mark (Mk 15:2) with only stylistic changes. In verses 13-14, however, Matthew modifies Mark in such a way that he alters the overtones of the passage. Instead of just the chief priests accusing Jesus of many things, (Mk 15:3), Matthew includes the elders as well. Here, as in verses 1-2, Matthew insists that the chief priests are not alone in their guilt; the elders are full accomplices and thus, also under Jesus' curse.
The changes in the text, although apparently minor, also serve to portray Pilate more sympathetically. In Matthew, Jesus agrees to answer Pilate, but refuses to answer the priests and elders. Mark’s rendition of Pilate's questioning is a harsh, "Have you no answer? See how many charges they bring against you." (Mk 15:4) This is softened almost to a plea when Matthew has Pilate ask "Do you not hear how many accusations they make against you?" (v13). In addition, Jesus' refusal to respond is greatly emphasised in Matthew's formulation, "But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge" (v14a) as compared with Mark's rather tame, "But Jesus made no further reply."(Mk 15:5a) Accordingly, the 'amazement' of Pilate in Mk 15:5b becomes the governor’s 'great amazement' in Matthew. (v14b)
The custom of releasing a prisoner of the people's choice during the festival makes an interesting story, but the writings of Philo and Josephus in the first century suggest that such a custom is not historical. John Dominic Crossan strongly argues that the narrative is a Markan creation. If Crossan is correct, alterations to the tale in Matthew's version may be directly attributed to the Matthean author.
In this pericope which tells of the customary release of a prisoner (vv15-23), Matthew's emphasis is on the choice to be made between "Jesus who is called the Messiah" and "Jesus Barabbas" (v17). The name "Jesus" for Barabbas does not appear on all manuscripts and is almost certainly a later addition made to emphasise the choice to be made. Even the name Barabbas, given by Mark, meaning "Son of the Father" suggests a theological rather than an historical origin. Mark describes Barabbas as one "in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection" (Mk 15:6). Matthew describes him merely as "a notorious prisoner". (v16)
In Matthew it is Pilate who takes the initiative and offers to release the prisoner chosen by the people (v17) whereas in Mark, the people are the first to call on Pilate to honour the 'custom'. (Mk 15:8). The Matthean twist lends further sympathy to the character of Pilate in Matthew's gospel.
Through Pilate's mouth, Matthew stresses the choice made by the people. Mark's account has Pilate ask, "Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?" (Mk 15:9) whereas in Matthew the question becomes "Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah?" (v17) Matthew elects to use the title 'Messiah' and there is a clear choice being offered to the people. They may choose the 'notorious prisoner' or the Messiah. "Jesus who is called the Messiah" appears to be a Matthean formulation (cf Mt 1:16) and is found again in v22.
Verse 18 indicates that Pilate's sympathies lie with Jesus, but the [informed] people make the wrong choice and reject their Messiah. Particularly potent in this verse is the seemingly minor change involving the use of a pronoun. In the original Markan account, Pilate offered to release Jesus to the crowd because "he realised that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests had handed him over." (Mk 15:10). Instead, Matthew has Pilate offer to release Jesus to the crowd because "he realised it was out of jealousy that they had handed him over." (v18). Here the word 'they' corresponds to the crowd, not the chief priests. By this subtle alteration Matthew effectively shifts the guilt [of jealousy and betrayal] from the chief priests and distributes it across the entire crowd.
Matthew's author then bolsters his position with another insertion. He tells a story of an intervention by Pilate's wife. Pilate's wife calls upon Pilate to "have nothing to do with that innocent man". Her verdict of Jesus' innocence presumably came to her in her "dream about him". (v19)
Dreams were regarded as a means by which God communicated with select people. In the infancy narratives an 'angel of the Lord' appeared to Joseph in a dream to foretell the birth of Jesus (1:20); to warn Joseph to flee to Egypt (2:14); to advise Joseph of Herod’s death (2:19) and to warn Joseph to avoid Judea (2:22). The magi were also warned in a dream (2:12). Thus the dream marks Pilate's wife as specially chosen by God and reinforces Jesus' innocence. In addition, the portrayal of a Gentile woman speaking up for Jesus while his own people are shown to reject him, serves to underline the guilt of the people.
Matthew then returns us to the scene of Pilate addressing the crowds. The editorial changes by Matthew in v20 are very similar to those in v1. To the 'chief priests' mentioned by Mark (Mk 15:11), Matthew adds 'and the elders', and in place of "stirring the crowd to have [Pilate] release Barabbas instead," Matthew again emphasises malicious intent by having the chief priests and the elders "persuade the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus killed." Matthew then has Pilate offer the crowd the choice of Jesus or Barabbas a second time, and the crowd decidedly choose Barabbas, thereby implicitly choosing to have Jesus killed. (v21)
As noted above, Matthew's preference is to use "Jesus who is called the Messiah" (v22) rather than Mark's "the man you call King of the Jews" (Mk 15:12) Matthew records the crowd's response in the passive form, "Let him be crucified," (vv22-23). What is most notable here, however, is the phrase "All of them" (v22) chosen by Matthew in place of the more generalised pronoun 'they' used by Mark to refer to the crowd. (Mk 15:13-14) Throughout the narrative Matthew continues to emphasise the complicity of all the people.
Mark's final verse in his account of Jesus' trial before Pilate has Pilate "wishing to please the crowd" and demonstrating apparent indifference to Jesus' plight when he releases Barabbas, flogs Jesus and hands him over to be crucified. (Mk 15:15). Matthew, as we have seen, wishes to paint Pilate more sympathetically. In the Matthean account, Pilate is backed into a corner. His empathy lies with Jesus "but he saw he could do nothing". Pilate then washes his hands before the crowd saying "I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves." (v24) Scholars suggest that this is not a Roman custom; instead Matthew has used a ritual found in Deuteronomy, to be employed when an innocent man is slain. The purpose of the hand washing ritual in Deuteronomy was to declare non-participation in the death of the victim and to ask to be absolved of any guilt (Dt 21:1-9). In this ritual, "one's innocence is declared orally and displayed symbolically." God is asked, "Absolve, O Lord, your people of Israel, whom you redeemed; do not let the guilt of innocent blood remain in the midst of your people Israel." (Dt 21:8)
The phrase 'innocent blood' occurs frequently throughout the Hebrew Scriptures but within the Apostolic Writings it is found only in Matthew where it is discovered coming from the mouth of Judas: "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood."” (v4a) By this earlier use of the phrase 'innocent blood' for Jesus, along with the inadvertent acknowledgement by the chief priests that Judas' silver was 'blood money', the protestations of both Pilate and his wife attesting to Jesus' innocence, and finally the allusion to the damnation associated with the spilling of innocent blood in the Old Testament, Matthew has skillfully set the scene for the climax of the trial.
Indeed, Pilate's action provides a stark backdrop to Matthew's climactic composition, "Then the people as a whole answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!"" (v25) Here Matthew moves from 'the crowd' to the entire people. The verse transposes Deuteronomy 21:6 which was so clearly alluded to in the previous verse by Pilate's washing of his hands. In the Deuteronomic text, God is asked not to let the guilt of innocent blood remain in the midst of his people, Israel. Here, in Matthew, Pilate symbolically asks that the guilt of Jesus' innocent blood not remain with him, whilst the people of Israel willingly call for the guilt of innocent blood to be cast upon them.
Verse 26 is almost an epilogue. Following the dramatic climax of the trial, Pilate's release of Barabbas and flogging of Jesus before handing him over to be crucified is, for Pilate, an unavoidable tragedy. Rather than wanting to please the crowd as in Mark, Matthew's Pilate has no choice. 'All the people' must carry the responsibility for Jesus' death.
Matthew's rendition of Mark in this chapter has had a long and ignoble history that led all the way to Auschwitz. The Matthean insertion, "His blood be on us and on our children!" (27:25) has been held by many scholars to be directly responsible for the antisemitic label "Christ-killer" and, historically, has been used to justify many atrocities against Jewish people.
In recent years biblical scholars have turned their attention to reinterpreting the New Testament writings with an eye to purging them of their antisemitic content. Some scholars contend that the gospel of Matthew was written in response to the council of Jamnia, where, it has been suggested, the Birkhat ha-Minim found its way into the eighteen benedictions. The Birkhat ha-Minim is a curse against heretics, and proponents of this theory argue that the curse was directed against Christians (Jewish heretics) and its inclusion marks the separation of church and synagogue. Hence, the suggestion is that the anti-Jewish fervour of the Matthean text is a polemic relevant to the time of authorship, and not intended as a definitive position.
Similarly, Anthony Saldarini has argued that by "all the people" Matthew did not mean the entire nation, rather his polemic was against the Jews living in Jerusalem at the time, and the cry, "His blood be on us and on our children!" was simply the foreshadow of the destruction of Jerusalem; an event that Matthew has interpreted as punishment to those particular Jews and their children of that time. Saldarini contends that Christian antisemitism extends not from the New Testament itself, but from the vitriolic writings of later generations of Christians who misinterpreted Matthew (and other texts) with dire results.
Other scholars , however, are less convinced. They believe anti-Jewish sentiments are at the very core of New Testament preaching. Rosemary Radford Ruether goes so far as to question whether "anti-Judaism is too deeply embedded in the foundations of Christianity to be rooted out entirely without destroying the whole structure."
In this paper I have deliberately elected to focus on the apparently antisemitic nature of Matthew's editorial changes to Mark. The debates tying the origins of Christian antisemitism to the New Testament, and more specifically, to the Matthean account of Jesus' passion, are long and complex and lie beyond the scope of this paper. Whatever prompted the author of Matthew to make such changes and what his full intentions were may never be known, but the very existence of these debates clearly points out that the Matthean treatment of Mark is significantly more than a mere 'replay'. Instead, Mark provides a narrative frame on which Matthew hangs his own theology with potent, and sometimes virulent, effect.
Bibliography
Meier, John P Matthew Dublin: Veritas Publications, 1980
Gundry, Robert Matthew: A Commentary on his literary and Theological Art Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982
Patte, Daniel The Gospel According to Matthew Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1987
Crossan, John Dominic Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1995
Crossan, John Dominic Who killed Jesus? San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1995
Senior, Donald The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1985
Saldarini, Anthony J Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994
Ruether, Rosemary Faith and Fratricide New York: Crossroads, 1975
Escape to the Homepage by clicking on the GSD
