Oberammergau Passion Play: “We must refocus on Jesus and his teachings” UPDATE 5-19

Yesterday, May 15th, the Oberammergau Passion Play opened its 2010 season. (See the NYT on it here.) Faithful to their vow, made in 1633 if they would be delivered from the plague, the villagers have faithfully performed the play every ten years. Out of 5,000 residents, this year 2,400 are involved in the production, 1,800 of them on the stage. The director since 1990 is native Christian Stückl, artistic director of Munich’s Volkstheater.

A passion play is a sort of devotion which grew out of the liturgy. In liturgical dramas of the 10th century, at the end of matins on Easter morning, three deacons played the role of the three Maries on. A short dialogue was sung (in Latin), beginning with “Whom do seek?” By the late Middle Ages, religious dramas had become long plays in vernacular, now performed in front of the church building or in a town square.

In an interview in yesterday’s Sueddeutsche Zeitung (“South German Newspaper”), Stückl explains why changes to the play have been made, over the objections of some religious traditionalists. Stückl notes that the changes were “completely approved by our theological advisor, Professor Ludwig Mödl, who appraised the text at the instruction of Munich Archbishop Marx, and with both churches, i.e., also the Protestant, in mind.” The first half hour of the play is entirely redone, with addition of scenes in which the teachings of Jesus are conveyed, above all, the Sermon on the Mount. “Traditionally, a Passion narrates only an account of his sufferings – right up to Mel Gibson, who took it to extremes in his film.”

In 1970, several Jewish organizations boycotted the Oberammergau play. Asked about the charges of anti-Semitism, Stückl explains that some changes were made in 1990 and 2000, but this time a more thorough examination of the text was done. “There are now many more scenes in which the historical situation of the Roman occupation is noted. We strongly emphasize the Jewish Jesus – ultimately, Jesus was a Jew. Thus, we show him with the Torah scroll, and at the Last Supper a menorah is placed on the table. … As Jesus breaks the bread, he speaks the blessing in Hebrew. 400 Oberammergauers sing the Schma Israel, the central confession of faith of the Jews.”

Stückl states, “Jesus was a Jew, that is a historical fact. He was circumcised like any other Jewish boy. … After his death, the later Christians were a sort of Jewish sect. Peter felt himself still obligated to all of Judaism, but Paul, the missionary apostle, carried the teaching out into the world. And then, in the 3rd [sic] century, Constantine’s mother, holy Helena, more or less convinced her son, the emperor in Rome, to make this faith the Roman faith. Suddenly it was no longer a Jewish faith, but a Roman state religion. And in the course of this, Pilate in the documents was washed pure of any fault. … At the moment that Christianity became a state religion, Jesus was made ever more into the Son of God and the Jews were made into ‘God’s murderer.’”

Stückl notes that Hitler extolled the Passion Play in 1934. It was useful to his campaign to show that the Jews are dangerous, but the Roman, Pilate, acted nobly. This was part of a long history of anti-Semitic passion plays. In the Baroque era there were 450 such passion plays. In the 12th-13th century in Frankfurt, pogroms broke out after passion plays. The play was a means of propaganda. The people left the play shouting “The Jews murdered our Savior.”

Since the 2000 Oberammergau play, the line from Matthew’s Gospel, “His blood be upon us and on our children,” has been stricken from the play. Stückl explains why the line had been retained in 1990: “Because of our theological advisor then, Professor Pesch, I had to retain the line. He insisted on it because it is a central statement of the Gospel and we can’t simply allow others to dictate that we strike central passages. Against this I repeatedly said, Excuse me, but we are presenting in any case a bible potpourri. We take out of all four gospels what we need for the play, so certainly we can eliminate something.”

The line “Ecco homo” (“Behold the man”), which Pilate says to the suffering Jesus, was stricken from the 2000 production. It was seen as an example of the praiseworthy compassion of Pilate, and thus part of the agenda to excuse Pilate and blame the Jews. But for the 2010 play the line reappears, now in different form. The context is made clearer that Jesus made himself King of the Jews, which was an act of high treason against Roman rule. Now Pilate says the line in a mocking, deriding tone. The meaning is that this is the sorry end of the one who rose up, as King of the Jews, against the Roman state. “In my view, now the line works,” says Stückl.

Some had wanted Stückl to eliminate the cry of the Jewish masses “Crucify him!” Stückl explains, “The scene is a difficult one. But I can neither eliminate it nor reduce it to only 20 people. As director, one is obligated to create a role for everyone from the town who wishes to participate. No one can be rejected. This time I had 300 more than ten years ago. This is the only large, popular scene. I ended up with 800 people on the stage.” (I’m sure readers of this blog will think of similar discussions around the practice, which one hopes is dying out, of having the congregation shout “Crucify him” during the Passion reading of Holy Week.)

The current crisis of the Catholic Church is much discussed these days in Bavaria, the homeland of Pope Benedict. The newspaper posed this question: “The Catholic Church finds itself in one of its worst crises since a long time. The faithful are leaving the church in droves. Even apart from this, we live in an increasingly nonreligious world, at least in the West. Haven’t passion plays outlived their usefulness?”

Stückl replies: “One of our angel characters, a quite shy 17-year-old boy, traveled with us to Israel in the preparation stage. It took three days before he thawed out, and then he never stopped asking questions. My point is, the distance from the Church is growing, but still, people seek after something like God, after a religious and ethical foothold to find meaning. This is not disappearing. As one can read amply in Matthew chapter 23, Jesus had enormous problems with the Temple hierarchy. And it is precisely this which the papacy has reinstituted. Ultimately, we must refocus on Jesus and his teachings, and then things will get interesting.”

UPDATE 5-19: Here is an AP story which fills in some interesting aspects of the story.

Translation of selected excerpts of the interview by awr.

Other Voices

Please leave a reply.

Comments

13 responses to “Oberammergau Passion Play: “We must refocus on Jesus and his teachings” UPDATE 5-19”

  1. Hmm–I gotta say, there’s a definite theological perspective at work here that I find disturbing. It starts with the Dan Brown-esque narrative of Christian origins that simplistically pits Paul against Jesus, makes Constantine the inventor of the Son of God, and ends with the classic liberal protestant notion that the Church (including the apostles who wandered around with the man) completely misunderstood Jesus down until this guy today.

    Oh well, one hopes he’s a better artistic director than a theologian…

    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      Hi Derek,
      Yes –I gulped when I read the line that “Jesus was made ever more into the Son of God,” and I double-checked his German to try to get my translation right. It’s a dangerous formulation. Let us hope he means that Jesus truly is the Son of God, but that got so overemphasized that his Jewishness got lost. I would agree with something like that.
      As for “liberal Protestant,” you raise a question I’ve been thinking much about lately. I’m sure that the label can mean many things, including your brief description of it. In that sense, I agree it’s a problem. But if we understand “liberal Protestant” in the sense of “critically examining the data of faith using all the resources of human reason,” then I think the Catholic tradition should affirm it – cf. “fides et ratio.”
      Best,
      awr

      1. Perhaps you’re right that I’m using the term too broadly, but if you trace the emergence of the driving ideologies of Historical Jesus research they have been laid down by liberal protestant scholars. Furthermore, the move to divorce Jesus from the historic teachings of the Church (Catholic or Protestant, actually) and from the texts of the gospels themselves is not only implicitly but sometimes explicitly done in an anti-Catholic and frequently anti-ecclesial mode.

        That’s not to say that ecclesially edifying Historical Jesus research can’t be done, but that it is rarely well done. I think Luke Timothy Johnson’s Real Jesus best explains what I mean produced by a superb scholar who embodies both sound scholarship and committed Catholicism.

  2. “and at the Last Supper a menorah is placed on the table.”

    Umm… totally different holidays. Hopefully he consulted with some Jewish advisors, but as a non-jew that would seem like not a particularly sensitive bit of staging.

    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      Samuel, good point. The original article (which I abbreviated) said it is the 7-branch menorah, i.e., the one of the Temple. The one for Hanukkah has 9 branches. Still – the Last Supper wasn’t in the Temple. Perhaps – I’m guessing – the menorah is used in the play simply as a universal symbol of Judaism, to underscore the context of (and the participants in) the Last Supper. I’d like to know if this is the case, and if so, what Jews think about such artistic license.
      awr

  3. Lynn Thomas

    Derek,
    Do keep in mind that we’re reading excerpts, and in translation. I mean no denigration of Fr. Ruff’s work in any way, but it’s likely that some relevant material was omitted. And, the director did mention some of the constraints that apply – he most definitely does NOT have unlimited artistic or theological freedom here.

    1. Well, Lynn, I’m a PhD in New Testament with a focus on the Gospels. You’re right–it is an excerpt, but it bears several of the hallmarks that I know quite well from having encountered this particular strain of thought far too many times in recent years…

      1. Lynn Thomas

        Derek,
        OK, your expertise in that field trumps mine by orders of magnitude. I’m not trying to suggest you’re wrong, only that there may be elements of the whole picture that ‘we’ don’t see. You see more of it than I do, for sure, although my thought about the artistic constraints may still be relevant….

  4. E Vianney

    Hmm… (Jesus was made ever more into the Son of God and the Jews were made into ‘God’s murderer) if we can just think of Jesus as a Jewish man only or simply a prophet as in Islam; and if we can convince people that the Church structure is man made (Suddenly it was no longer a Jewish faith, but a Roman state religion.); if we can remove certain verses from Scripture (“His blood be upon us and on our children,” has been stricken from the play); then we can remake the Church in our own image and all problems will simply disappear. (As one can read amply in Matthew chapter 23, Jesus had enormous problems with the Temple hierarchy. And it is precisely this which the papacy has reinstituted. Ultimately, we must refocus on Jesus and his teachings, and then things will get interesting.”) It all comes down to the desire of some to rebuild the Church and thus Christ, into their own image. How about if we as Catholic Christians live the Gospels, which the Church teaches, and rebuild ourselves in the image and likeness of Our Lord?

    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      Mr. Vianney, I think this is a bit out of line. You’re overstating and misstating some things, which isn’t fair to the director. This is a Passion Play – a devotion – not a creed or an officially approved liturgy. They’re free to alter it, to include some Scripture passages instead of others. Otherwise, one would have to object when John Paul II added the Luminous Mysteries to the Rosary or when he re-wrote the Stations of the Cross. Note that the reforms of this Passion Play were approved by the Bishop’s delegate. No Bishop in Germany has called for the play to remain untouched, nor would any Catholic Bishop support that.
      As I read Stückl, he’s saying that Jesus and his teachings are central and that the man-made elements of Church structure might need reforming according to the teachings of Jesus. Surely we don’t believe that everything in the monarchical structure of the Church is of divine institution! We all need to get over the idea that church structures are unchangeable, and that calls to reform them are contrary to the faith. If that were true, then Trent and every other reform council would be illegitimate.
      I have the impression that some people have unduly strong emotional attachments to current church structures as part of their own Christian image and identity. This makes their accusations ring hollow that others are allegedly trying to remake the church in their own image.
      Pax,
      awr

  5. I say more power to the liberal Protestant scholars. They can talk frankly about where the evidence seems to point without fear of losing their pastorates or teaching positions. We really need their voices.

  6. Rick Connor

    Just a layman’s question: what’s the concern behind the entire congregation saying, “Crucify Him! Crucify Him!” ?

  7. E Vianney

    Fr. Ruff,
    I never claimed that the director did not have the right to change the play. I took exception to his veiled attempt to take away Christ’s divinity which I run into fairly frequently, and unfortunately, in Catholic circles as well. How can you make Jesus “ever more into the Son of God”. He is who he claimed he was and cannot be made more than that.
    As for my statement about removing certain verses from Scripture, I see this more and more these days. Someone doesn’t like what the Bible says so they reinterpret it or ignore it, or in this case, take it out of a play because some are offended by it. Our Lord never offended anyone with his words? We don’t like what Jesus calls us to through his word, we don’t like what the Church teaches on some topics and we don’t like the “boring” Liturgy so we remake the words, teachings and Mass into what we want. I just left a parish like this after 7 years of charitably pointing out these problems to our priest who was also charitable in return.
    All councils are legitimate, in fact that is the way for reform and I am all for it. Including the reform of the reform. I am all for what Vatican II actually said.
    With that said, may I charitably say that your last paragraph is overstating and unfair. I am not unduly attached in an emotional way to current structures. I am fervently attached to Christ our Lord, his Church and the head of that Church, Pope Benedict XVI. My Christian identity flows from this.


Posted

in

by

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading