Madam, - Philip Bridge misquotes me (March 13th) in writing that "the notion that the New Testament is anti-Semitic (is) ridiculous". I never said this. What I wrote was that the original level of text, at some stage in the century between 70 AD and 170 AD, had had interpolated into it a certain amount of anti-Semitic material. If one studies the textual evidence carefully and objectively, this is not a matter of doubt.
Mr Bridge's theory that "when the Jews said 'His blood be upon us', they were saying this as representatives of every one of us" is the most far-fetched and fanciful apologetics. In text-critical terms Paul's version of the idea ("His blood be upon you" at Acts 18.6) is primary: one wishes an idea on others before they assume it for themselves. And the context of Acts 18.6 makes abundantly clear that Paul is (apparently) speaking specifically against Jews, and wishing them ill.
I say "apparently", because the real Paul never uttered this remark, the sole purpose of which is scornful dismissal of the Jews.
The Rev S.T. Bloomfield, in his masterly 1843 New Testament commentary, put the matter exceptionally well: "By 'blood' is here meant destruction. This manner of speaking was common to the Hebrews (see 2 Sam. 1.16, Ezek. 33.4). Elsner and Wetstein rightly derive it from the very ancient custom of putting hands on the heads of victims for sacrifice, and imprecating on them the evils which impended".
Let there be no doubt, therefore, that in Acts 18.6 "canonical Paul" imprecates on the News - as Jews, and not as representatives of all - the dire consequences of the death of Jesus. No wonder Jews since have felt aggrieved, and Mr Bridge's apologetics do not begin to answer their valid grievance. - Yours, etc.,
Dr MARTIN PULBROOK, New Meeting House, Prince's Street, Cork.