One Jewish objection to Jesus is that he could not have inspired the authors of the New Testament because the New Testament promotes hatred of Jews. Jesus must instead be a rabbi whom the first Christians misunderstood.
What else could explain the New Testament’s alleged propensity, especially in the Gospel of John, to heap blame and scorn on “the Jews” who persecuted their Lord (7:1)? John’s Gospel uses the phrase “the Jews” in a negative sense more than any other Gospel, such as when it describes how “the Jews” cried out to Pilate for Christ’s crucifixion (19:14-16).
However, the authors of the New Testament, save the Gentile Luke but definitely including John, were faithful Jews that followed a Messiah who was “born under the law” (Gal. 4:4). Their rhetoric about “the Jews” has to be seen in the wider context of intra-Jewish relations during the time of the Second Temple in the region of Judea.
In the first century, debate about Jesus’ messianic identity was debate between Jews, and rival Jewish schools often used harsh language with one another. Evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls shows that they would call their fellow Jews “sons of darkness,” “sons of the pit,” and tools of Satan! Bible scholar Craig Evans says,
The polemic found in the writings of Qumran [where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found] surpasses in intensity that of the New Testament. In contrast to Qumran’s esoteric and exclusive posture, the early Church proclaimed its message and invited all believers to join its fellowship. Never does the New Testament enjoin Christians to curse unbelievers or opponents. Never does the New Testament petition God to damn the enemies of the Church. But Qumran did.
When John talks about “the Jews” (Greek: hoi Ioudaioi) he’s talking about specific Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, not every Jew at that time. One example that makes this clear involves the aftermath of Jesus’ healing of the man who had been blind since birth. John tells us, “The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight” (9:18).
They told them that their son was an adult and that they could ask him directly about the matter. John then reveals, “His parents said this because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue” (v. 22).
But this man’s parents were themselves Jewish, too. So “the Jews” clearly refers to specific Jews (including many of the Jewish leaders) who were opposed to Jesus’ mission (see John 7:13). This is similar to how a modern person might use terms like “the Americans” or “the Republicans” to refer to national or party leadership. So even though John says, “He came to his own home, and his own people received him not” (1:11), John is not saying that all Jews rejected Jesus. In the next verse, John declares, “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God.”
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 his death. 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 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).
The New Testament, including the Gospel of John, does not teach that Judaism is something Christians should vilify, nor that “the Jews” are enemies of Christians. Jesus himself affirmed that “salvation is from the Jews” (4:22), and St. Paul declares that God has not abandoned the Jewish people (Rom. 11:1)
Christians should share the Gospel with all people, including Jews who still wait for the Messiah. This evangelistic mission brings to fruition the desire of Paul, who hoped that, even though a part of Israel had rejected the Messiah, at some point, through God’s providential love for his chosen people, “all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26).