FastCounter by LinkExchange

The Catholic and Jewish communities of the world are right to be seriously concerned about the impact the Oberammergau Passion Play has had and will continue to have. There have been, and still are, many passion plays, but none have attained anything like the world-wide fame that Oberammergau has--over half a million are again expected to see it in 1984. But beyond those five hundred thousand people's impressions is the symbolic significance and the influence on other passion plays the Oberammergau Passion Play will have. In any case, we Catholics need to be extremely sensitive on this matter in view of the long history of the "anguish of the Jews" (as Father Edward Flannery titles his history of anti-Semitism: The Anguish of the Jews, New York, 1965) at our hands. Let us recall only a small number of our most saintly anti-Semites. 

Recall the words of the "golden-tongued" St. John Chrysostom (344 407 A.D.), which were uttered not among a small gathering of learned clerics, but were flung from the pulpit in Antioch for all Christians to hear, both there in that heavily Jewish city, and also reverberating through all the subsequent centuries of Christian antisemitic preaching. He thundered that Jews are the "most miserable of all men . . . . lustful, rapacious, greedy, perfidious bandits. . . . inveterate murderers, destroyers, men possessed by the devil. . . .whom debauchery and drunkenness have given them the manners of the pig and the lusty goat. They know only one thing, to satisfy their gullets, get drunk, to kill and maim one another. . . . they have surpassed the ferocity of wild beasts, for they murder their offspring and immolate them to the devil." As to Judaism, symbolized by the synagogue, it is "an assembly of criminals . . . a den of thieves . . . a cavern of devils, an abyss of perdition . . . . far from venerating the synagogue because of the books it contains, hold it in hatred and aversion for the same reason. . . . hate the synagogue precisely because it has the law and prophets. I hate the Jews also because they outrage the law" (Migne, PG, 38, 843-942). 

The early ninth century was the time of the Carolingian Renaissance in Western Christendom, but at the height of it we find St. Agobard (A.D.779-840), powerful Archbishop of Lyons, and known as "probably the most cultured man of his time." St. Agobard's words about the Jews sound as if he were standing in a St. John Chrysostom echo-chamber: Jews "are cursed and covered with malediction, as by a cloak. The malediction has penetrated them as water in their entrails and oil in their bones. They are cursed in the city and cursed in the country, cursed is their coming in and their going out. Cursed are the fruits of their loins, of their lands, of their flocks; cursed their cellars, their granaries, their shops, their food, and the crumbs of their tables" (Migne, PL, 104, 113). 

The official Church at the highest level also played out the same role of the antisemite. Recall the twelfth Ecumenical Council, Lateran IV (A.D. 1215), which visited a number of disabilities on all Jews, including enjoining them from appearing in public during Eastertime, barring them from holding public office, and declaring a moratorium on crusaders' debts to Jews. Father Edward Flannery, in his pioneer history of Christian anti-Semitism, remarks: "Thus far, there was nothing new in these enactments, which merely extended to the universal Church what earlier centuries had applied more locally. The unique and most extraordinary measure taken by the Council was the prescription of a distinctive dress for Jews and Saracens. [At a later date, heretics, prostitutes, and lepers were included]" -- Anguish of the Jews, p. 102. 

Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews (New York, 1961), pp. 5f., lists 22 conciliar or synodal decrees which were severely restrictive of Jews (from the fourth to the fifteenth centuries) and were paralleled by specific Nazi decrees. He states that the list of Church measures was taken in its entirety from J. E. Scherer, Die Rechtsverhältnisse der Juden in den deutschösterreichischen Ländern (Leipzig, 1901), pp. 39-49. The list is as follows (only the first date of each measure is listed): 

1. Prohibition of intermarriage and of sexual intercourse between Christians and Jews, Synod of Elvira, A.D. 306.
2. Jews and Christians not permitted to eat together, Synod of Elvira. 
3. Jews not allowed to hold public office, Synod of Clermont, A.D. 535.
4. Jews not allowed to employ Christian servants or possess Christian slaves, 3rd Synod of Orleans, A.D. 538.
5. Jews not permitted to show themselves in the streets during Passion Week, 3rd Synod of Orleans.
6. Burning of the Talmud and other books, 12th Synod of Toledo, A.D. 681.
7. Christians not permitted to patronize Jewish doctors, Trullanic Synod. A.D. 692.
8. Christians not permitted to live in Jewish homes, Synod of  Narbonne, A.D. 1050.
9. Jews obliged to pay taxes for support of the Church to the same extent as Christians, Synod of Gerona, A.D. 1078.
10. Prohibition of Sunday work by Jews, Synod of Szabolcs, A.D.1092.
11. Jews not permitted to be plaintiffs, or witnesses against Christians in the courts, 3rd Lateran Council, A.D. 1179, Canon 26.
12. Jews not permitted to withhold inheritance from descendants who had accepted Christianity, 3rd Lateran Council, Canon 26.
13. The marking of Jewish clothes with a badge, 4th Lateran Council, A.D. 1215, Canon 68 (copied from the legislation by Caliph Omar II, A.D. 643-44, who had decreed that Christians wear blue belts and Jews yellow belts).
14. Construction of new synagogues prohibited, Council of Oxford, A.D. 1222.
15. Christians not permitted to attend Jewish ceremonies, Synod of Vienna, A.D. 1267.
16. Jews not permitted to dispute with simple Christian people about the tenets of the Catholic religion, Synod of Vienna.
17. Compulsory ghettos, Synod of Breslau, A.D. 1227.
18. Christians not permitted to sell or rent real estate to Jews, Synod of Ofen, A.D. 1279.
19. Adoption by a Christian of the Jewish religion or return by a baptized Jew to the Jewish religion defined as heresy, Synod of Mainz, A.D. 1310.
20. Sale or transfer of Church articles to Jews prohibited, Synod of Lavour, A.D. 1368.
21. Jews not permitted to act as agents in the conclusion of contracts between Christians, especially marriage contracts, Council of Basel, A.D. 1432, Sessio XIX.
22. Jews not permitted to obtain academic degrees, Council of Basel, Sessio XIX.

On October 28, 1965, some twenty-five hundred Catholic bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, Pope Paul VI, signed and promulgated the "Declaration On the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions" (Nostra Aetate). A major portion of this document, and brief parts of other Vatican Il documents (e.g., Lumen Gentium, no. 16), dealt with the Catholic Church's relationship with Judaism and the Jewish people. 

This Declaration was such a watershed that at least portions of it should be recalled here: "As this Sacred Synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's stock. . . . God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues--such is the witness of the Apostle. In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and 'serve him shoulder to shoulder' (Zeph 3:9)" (Nostra Aetate, no. 4). 

Although, as the Catholic bishops of France remarked in 1973, the Declaration Nostra Aetate marked "a turning point in Christian attitudes toward the Jews." (Statement by the French Bishops' Committee for Relations With Jews, April, 1973) it "should be considered a beginning rather than a final achievement." They went on to make a comment that is of paramount importance in our consideration of the impact of the Oberammergau Passionsspiel on its actors and viewers in relationship to Jews, Judaism and our own understanding of our Christian faith: "It is impossible, of course, to re-examine all at once the assertions and historical attitudes of the Church, maintained for many centuries. Christian conscience has initiated a process, however, to recall the Jewish roots of the Church. It is important that a beginning has been made, that all strata of the Christian people be reached, and that the course be pursued with honesty and energy" (emphasis added). 

It is precisely in reaching such a wide stratum of Christian people in dramatic, forceful fashion that the Oberammergau Passionsspiel has an extraordinary opportunity not only to avoid adding further distortion to many Christians' perception of Jews, Judaism and our Jewish-rooted Christian faith, but even to begin to inculcate a more positive Christian appreciation of the same. 

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of Vatican II's Nostra Aetate, issued a statement (November, 1975) which included the following remarks important to our consideration here: "We urge all in the Church who work in the area of education, whether in the seminary, the school or the pulpit, not only to avoid any presentation that might tend to disparage Jews or Judaism but also to emphasize those aspects of our faith which bear witness to our common patrimony and our spiritual ties with Jews . . . . one of the most helpful developments in our time, powerfully assisted by Nostra Aetate, has been the decline of the old anti-Judaism and the reformation of Christian theological expositions of Judaism along more constructive lines. 

"The first major step in this direction was the repudiation of the charge that Jews were and are collectively guilty of the death of Christ. Nostra Aetate and the new Guidelines have definitely laid to rest this myth which has caused so much suffering to the Jewish people. There remains however the continuing task of ensuring that nothing which in any way approaches the notion of Jewish collective guilt should be found in any Catholic medium of expression or communication. Correctly viewed, the disappearance of the charge of collective guilt of Jews pertains as much to the purity of the Catholic faith as it does to the defence of Judaism" (emphasis added). 

We find here stressed again the need for us Christians not only to eliminate our distorted and false understandings of and attitudes toward Jews and Judaism, but also to discern and propagate the Jewish-rootedness of our Christianity. 

The recommendations that follow address only the first half of that necessarily double project which the bishops of the world have been calling us Catholics to. In fact, these recommendations only provide an irreducible minimum of the negative task that needs to be accomplished in beginning to bring the Oberammergau Passionsspiel into line, not only with the mandates of the Pope and bishops, but also, and much more importantly, with the spirit of that Jew, Jesus of Nazareth, whom we Catholics proclaim "our Lord," and to whom is attributed the clear statement, "Salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:22). 

Eliminating the ''trouble spots" in the present text of the play is of course an important first step, but it is only a first step. It is to be hoped that those responsible for the Oberammergau Passionsspiel will be motivated to deal more profoundly with the problem and propose creative means for moving beyond the negative task of eliminating elements that could be seen as degrading to Jews and Judaism, hence also distorting of our Jewish-rooted Christian faith. They must at the same time begin the positive task of probing and promoting the Jewish heritage which pervades the foundation of Christianity. 

The U.S. Catholic bishops, among many other Catholic Church leaders and theologians, provide us with a beginning list of some of the Jewish elements in our Christian heritage: "Christians have not fully appreciated their Jewish roots. Early in Christian history a de-Judaizing process dulled our awareness of our Jewish beginnings. The Jewishness of Jesus, of his mother, his disciples, of the primitive Church, was lost from view. That Jesus was called Rabbi; that he was born, lived and died under the Law; that He and Peter and Paul worshipped in the Temple--these facts were blurred by the controversy that alienated Christians from the Synagogue" (emphasis added). 

It is these and other aspects of the Jewishness of Jesus and early Christianity that need to be pondered and drawn into the texts and very structures of the Passionsspiel. Such an undertaking would require serious and concerted efforts on the part, not only of the responsible persons from Oberammergau, but also able dramatists, poets, Catholic theologians (especially sensitive Scripture experts), and sensitive, sympathetic Jewish scholars of this period. (in the latter category two outstanding names immediately come to mind: Dr. Pinchas Lapide, now resident in Frankfort, and Dr. Shalom Ben-Chorin, a former resident of Germany who often lectures there. Both have published broadly, deeply, and sympathetically on Jewish-Christian matters in German.) 

It should be noted that, like the Oberammergau Passionsspiel which has become known the world over, the Catholic concern to turn away from our past negative attitude toward Jews and Judaism is also worldwide. Not only have the world's Catholic bishops spoken authoritatively on the matter at Vatican II, but in even deeper fashion so too have numerous national Catholic hierarchies, including the German Catholic Bishops of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1975: 

"Our country's recent political history is darkened by the systematic attempt to wipe out the Jewish people. . . . We turned our backs to this persecuted Jewish people and were silent about the crimes perpetrated on Jews and Judaism. Many became guilty from sheer fear for their lives. We feel particularly distressed about the fact that Christians even took an active part in these persecutions. The honesty of our intention to renew ourselves depends on the admission of this guilt, incurred by our country and our Church. . . . 

"We Germans, in particular, must not deny or over-simplify the redemptive link between the people of the Old Covenant and that of the New, as interpreted and acknowledged by the Apostle Paul. For it was in that sense, too, that we became debtors of the Jewish people. Our speaking of the 'God of hope' in the presence of the hopeless horrors of Auschwitz gains credibility only by the fact that innumerable persons, Jews and Christians, spoke of and called upon this God, even while living in that hell and after escaping from it. This is the task of our people, in view of the attitude of other nations and world public opinion vis-à-vis the Jewish people. We deem it the particular duty of the German Church within the Church as a whole to work toward a new relationship between Christians on the one hand, and Jews and their history of faith on the other" (emphasis added). 

The critiques leveled at the text of the play by friendly voices from across the sea are not those of Christians whose sole concern is the sensitivities of Jews. Those sensitivities are very important in light of two millennia of Christian history. Even more important, however, is the concern that Christian viewers should comprehend their own scriptures sufficiently to derive spiritual profit from them, and not depend in any sense on feelings of hostility for the furtherance of their religion. If the gospels are understood to be a different kind of writing than they are--and are widely represented in light of that misunderstanding--the translation into drama will fail of its intent. it can do the very opposite of nourishing by confirming in old patterns of ignorance, thereby confusing without hope of remedy. 

At many points, readers of these criticisms may wonder what principles lie behind them. Sometimes the text of one evangelist will be preferred to that of another in parallel places. Or again, Mark will be sustained while John will be rejected. And so on. It may appear that anything that offends Jewish sensibilities has to be removed, while disregarding the dogma of faith that the Holy Spirit is the author of the gospels in all their parts. Expediency may seem to prevail over the faith of the Church. 

In fact, two matters are in question--even at odds--here. What these matters are and how they impinge on each other must be quite clear 'if revisions of a venerable text are to be sought fruitfully. One is the actual history of events of Jesus' day that led to his condemnation and death. The other is the * construction put upon those events by the evangelists who wrote about them in dramatic form. Notice, we do not say "recorded them." The writers were almost exclusively concerned with the religious significance of the historical happenings. Their interest in what we might call mere facts was minimal. The modern temper is to ask what happened, then give as much (or as little) attention to significance as the facts may seem to warrant. Two different outlooks are represented here that can be in conflict. It is not a conflict easily resolved. one cannot simply say, "The world of the New Testament was interested in interpretation. The modern world is interested in facts," then settle the difference between the two ages of history by going in search of the facts. From a faith standpoint the modern period is presumably also interested in interpretation, i.e., the significance of the history of Jesus' last days for human salvation. 

The problem posed by a drama constructed on the basis of the gospels comes from their giving the appearance of being history when they are not history. They are based on history and set in history, but they are not history in any modern sense of that word. Frequently the things described as happening to Jesus come directly from the psalms or some other biblical place. They are in the order of literary symbol, specifically type-fulfillment, not history. At other times they are polemical in intent from the time of the writing and bear no provable relation to what happened to Jesus in his final days. Mark will write up a traditional reminiscence, let us say, and in doing so develop a type-fulfillment from a psalm. Often the elaboration of the biblical material is so predominant that it is impossible to be sure that an actual historical reminiscence lay behind the passage. Then Matthew will alter the verse in light of his continuing struggle with the rabbis of his day, whom he consistently terms "scribes and Pharisees." John presents a struggle between Jesus and "the world," represented by Pilate, which is a literary construct from start to finish. It is not for a moment an actual description of an exchange among Pilate, Jesus, and the crowd. This is a little drama about such an exchange meant to portray a mentality, a state of mind. It bears little resemblance to the conduct of the Roman prefect who served in Palestine from 26 to 36, especially as his character is portrayed by Josephus. 

The gospels could be presented in the play exactly as they are written if it were clear to all viewers that they represent fairly both an emerging faith and heated religious argument from the late first century. Since this is a fact known to very few, this option cannot be availed of. Homilists in the course of the liturgy have the opportunity to distinguish carefully among the kinds of writing found in the gospels as they make their presentation. Dramatists must be more careful, not so much for reasons deriving from the gospels but from the ignorance of contemporaries about the kind of writing the gospels are. The contemporaries of the evangelists knew what they had before them. From their perspective Jesus was right in matters of religious faith and his opponents were wrong. The hearers' emotions were being played upon and they knew it. They were being invited to appreciate a roman à clef in which the key to the romance was already in their possession. Just as modern people living under a dictatorship do not need much guidance in understanding protest literature, however veiled the references, so the Christians of the evangelists' day appreciated the story of Jesus as it was being told in their milieu. It had as much to do with them and their lives--perhaps more--than with him and his life. Christian existence was the chief point of reference, not the actual events of Jesus' life and death. 

These ideas are commonplaces in the world of modern critical thought. They are the subject of extended development in theological seminaries, in universities and pedagogic higher faculties, even in academically oriented high schools. This is not the same as saying that all those who attend the Oberammergau play are familiar with these ideas of literary genre in detail. They are not. But the viewers have the same rights as others to be led along a right path in history, even while they are being given a marvelous opportunity in drama. 

The gospels are closer to the dramatic medium than to the historical. It would be a betrayal of both the gospels and the medium of drama to convert them into jejune historical tracts. Aside from being impossible for lack of data, the exercise would destroy a treasure of the Church. The gospels must be presented for what they are, dramatic writing that hopes to foster faith. But the corrective of authentic history must be supplied, where it is available--if only to decree omissions--at those points at which an evangelist's unvarnished narrative could lead the viewer seriously astray. The playwrights of Oberammergau's past did not hesitate to elaborate on the gospels, for dramatic purposes, in a spirit of fidelity to history as they perceived it. Now that familiarity with the history of the times of gospel composition--often in contrast to Jesus' times--is widespread, the Oberammergau players must take the lead once again. 

The director and players are peculiarly circumstanced to bring to popular consciousness much that is known with relative certainty about the gospels from the last two centuries of study. The gospels remain transcendent works of faith and human genius. Pedantry cannot dim their luster. Serious scholarship, however, can remove the patina of centuries of false interpretation--and even the grime of the period of composition. This is a matter of anti-Judaic sentiments and of many other historical confusions besides. The play and its players can be a beacon of right interpretation of the gospels and the faith of which they are the handmaid. 

Although there are a number of line by line changes to be suggested below, clearly three major areas need changes which will help to eliminate the stereotyping which can lead to anti-Judaism. In one case Jews are negatively stereotyped; in a second, Jesus and his supporters are stereotyped as being other than Jews; in the third, the tyrannical Roman Pilate is stereotyped in a positive manner sympathetic to Jesus, thereby by contrast deepening the negative stereotype of the opponents of Jesus, the Jews. These three major sorts of stereotyping must be eliminated. An outline follows, then below it some specific suggestions. 

Certain characters in the 1980 text as amended in 1984 need to have their names changed since the negative quality of each of the characters involved is unwarrantedly projected onto Jews and Judaism by the names given to these particular characters. The simple device of changing the characters' names without having to change the lines they recite would eliminate the problem. 

The Jewishness of Jesus and his followers and supporters and the related fact that the struggle around Jesus was a struggle internal to Judaism, not a struggle between Jews and Christians, needs to be communicated effectively. 

Pontius Pilate needs to be presented as the self-centered, brutal tyrant he in fact was, rather than as a "good" foil over against the "evil" Jews. This can be done while preserving portions of the exchange in Jn 18 and 19 but it will make a much briefer scene. 

As pointed out in the Commentary, Report, and Recommendations (all three are published in Leonard Swidler and Gerard Sloyan, The Oberammergau Passionsspiel 1984, Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, 1980), the giving to unattractive characters who are exclusively opponents of Jesus prominent Hebrew Bible, or "Old Testament" names automatically sets up in the minds of the audience an opposition between the "Old" and the "New" Testaments. It was recommended before that those "negative" characters in the Passion Play have their names changed to eliminate this problem. One such name change, it was noted, was made in the 1980 Revision. The alteration of names must be extended to include all the prominent Hebrew Scripture names. Many Jews of the time had Greek names. These could be used freely; not, however, those we know of from the New Testament (e.g., Mark, Stephen) since this could confuse the issue; but neutral, unfamiliar names like Demetrios, Alexander, Bacchides. (Albion is one such, Act I, Scene 2.) 

On pages 26, 38-40 of the 1984 text and elsewhere Dathan, one of the merchants who is driven out of the Temple by Jesus early in the Passion Play, takes his revenge by being the link between the chief priests and Judas, and in general by vituperating Jesus. The problem here is not the name "Dathan" nor the lines and actions of Dathan in either the Temple cleansing scene or the later revenge scenes, but in the linking of the two of them by making one of the merchants, Dathan, a stereotype of the greedy, vengeful merchant Jew--as found, for example, in the caricature of Julius Streicher's Der Stürmer in the 1920s and 1930s. This problem could easily be solved by making Dathan the merchant of the Temple cleansing scene and Dathan of the later scenes two separate characters with different names, and by eliminating the one line of Dathan of page 39 where he says, "Dathan, one of the merchants in the Temple." 

Undertaking this simple change will also meet the criticism voiced by the American Jewish Committee: "In view of the argument that Passion plays must adhere to the Gospel accounts, it deserves to be pointed out that one important strand in the Oberammergau drama has no biblical foundation at all: the affair of the Temple traders. 

"In the Gospels, the traders are summarily driven from the Temple courtyard by Jesus, and are not mentioned thereafter. In the Passion play, however, they inveigle Judas into offering to betray Jesus and serve as intermediaries between him and the Jewish establishment. All this is freely invented; in the Gospels, Judas approaches the priests directly and on his own initiative and with his offer of betrayal. 

"The traders' role and their vengeful outcries, prominent in earlier versions of the play, have been considerably reduced in the current revision. But cutting proves to be no substitute for rethinking. The traders still figure as initiators of Jesus' betrayal and as an incarnation of 'Jewish greed'" (Judith Hershcopf Banki, What Viewers Should Know About the Oberammergau Passion Play, 1980, American Jewish Committee, Spring, 1980, pp. 15-16). 

In the 1978 Commentary it was strongly recommended that the dialogue of the character named "Rabbi" be given to someone else and that the character "Rabbi" be completely eliminated. It was even more strongly urged that this step be taken for 1984 as this is one of the remaining glaring problems, and especially since it would entail no significant effort on the part of the text revision committee. The reasons for making this change are more than adequately outlined in the Commentary and the 1979 Report. Briefly they amount to noting that in Jesus' time the word "Rabbi" was only a form of address (as Jesus, for example, was addressed as "Rabbi") but not a title (a person could not then have been said to be a rabbi). More importantly, because rabbis today are associated exclusively with Judaism all the negative attributes of the Passion Play character "Rabbi" will automatically be associated with Judaism by contemporary audiences. For these reasons the character "Rabbi" must be eliminated and his lines given to another character. 

The importance of portraying Jesus clearly as a Jew in every respect has been stressed many times in the Commentary, the Report, by many contemporary Catholic and other scholars, and in official statements by the Vatican and Catholic bishops. By underscoring the Jewishness of the "founder" of Christianity and that of all the first "Christians," a giant step toward the elimination of Christian anti-Semitism will have been taken. One significant way to do this is to have Jesus addressed by his followers as "Rabbi," which was the case in the gospel narratives. This can be accomplished very simply by having all the times in the Passion Play Jesus is addressed as 'Master" changed to "Rabbi," since "Didaskale," in the Vulgate "Magister," renders "Rabbi," "my teacher" (literally, "great one.") It is difficult to overestimate the positive impact this simple change would have in moving the former anti-Semitic tone of the Passion Play to a philo-Semitic one. It is most strongly recommended! 

The son of Mary of Nazareth was never addressed as "Christ," nor was he even addressed by the Hebrew word of which Christ is a Greek translation: Messiah, or Meshiach. Therefore, he should not be historically inaccurately listed in the dramatis personae as "Christ." Furthermore, he in fact was not address or referred to as "Jesus," which is the Latin spelling of a Greek word, but as Yeshua, a Semitic name. Hence, for the sake of historical accuracy and in order to emphasize the Jewishness of Jesus (Yeshua), it is likewise most strongly recommended that in the Passion Play wherever the Greek words Christ or Jesus occur that they be replaced by the true Semitic name "Yeshua. " This simple change, along with the one about having Yeshua addressed as "Rabbi," would constitute a major contribution to the calling of the Passion Play audiences' attention to the fact that at the foundation of their Christian religion is a devout Jew who was addressed as "Rabbi Yeshua." 

Another simple, but extremely effective, device for stressing the Jewishness of Yeshua and his supporters is to have them occasionally use Hebrew phrases. This of course would also heighten the play's character of historical authenticity. (It is already done on the middle of page 113 of the 1984 Play text.) For example: 

a) Yeshua and his followers could occasionally greet each other thus: "Schalom aleichem! Friede sei mit euch! Aleichem schalom! Und Friede sei mit dir!" (as Yeshua is recorded saying to his disciples in John 20:19--see Hebrew New Testament). For example, on page 30 of the 1984 text Yeshua, Simon, Lazarus, Magdalena and Martha could greet each other thus in various forms. On the top of page 31 Yeshua now says: "Friede sei diesem Hause!" He could well say it first in Hebrew: "Schalom al baytecha! Friede sei diesem Hause!" 

b) On page 44 of the 1984 text when Yeshua blesses the bread and wine he could first recite it in Hebrew, then in German: "Baruch ata Adonai elohenu melech ha-olam ha-motzi lechem min ha-aretz. Gepriesen bist du unser Gott, König der Welt, der du die Frucht der Erde erschaffen hast." Similarly on the top of page 45 with the blessing of the wine: "Baruch ata Adonai elohenu melech ha-olam boray pri ha-gasen. Gelobet seist du, unser Gott, König der Welt, der du die Frucht des Weinstockes erschaffen hast." 

c) On page 47 of the 1984 text where Yeshua and his disciples recite the thanksgiving psalm, they could recite it in Hebrew--as Yeshua and the disciples doubtless did--and then in German: 

Hallelu et Adonai kol goyim 
Shabchuhu kol ha-umim. 
Ki gavar alenu chasdo 
V'emet Adonai l'olam,halleluja. 

"Lobet den Herrn, alle Völker! 
Preist ihn, alle Nationen! 
Denn mächtig waltet über uns seine Huld; 
Die Treue des Herrn währt in Ewigkeit! Halleluja!"

e) On page 61 in Yeshua's prayer the following might be inserted: "Abba! Mein Vater! . . .--Abba!  Vater!  . . . Abba! Mein Vater! . . . (Mark 14:36 records the Hebrew and translation precisely this way: "Abba, mein Vater!"). 

f) On page 111 when the Rabbi, who will be designated otherwise, reads the sign on the cross of Yeshua, he might read it first as it was in fact written in Hebrew (see John 19:20), and then in German: "Jeschua ha-natsri melech ha-jehudim! Jeschua von Nazareth, König der Juden! " 

g) On the top of page 113, Yeshua could say: verzeihe . . . ." 

h) On page 119 the angel might instead of "Jesus von Nazareth," say, "Jeschua ha'natsri, Jeschua von Nazareth, den Gekreuzigten. 

In the Passion Play Jewish society at the time of Yeshua comes across in a much too simplistic, monolithic fashion, thereby making it logical for the audience to assume that almost all Jews of the time opposed Yeshua and approved his execution. But this is, historically, a massive error (the vast majority of Jews of the time had never heard of Yeshua). If some sense of the radically differing groups in that Jewish society were communicated to the audience they would be less likely to be led into the oversimplified dichotomy of thinking of most Jews as being against Yeshua and a few for him. This sense of differentiation within Jewish society and the fact that Yeshua also had a significant number of Jewish supporters (otherwise why a fear great enough to have him killed?) can be partially communicated in at least the three following ways: 

a) In the Play when Jews are discussing an issue--any issue--there should be inserted some differing opinions which would reflect the opposing views stemming from the Sadducees on the one hand and Pharisees, Essenes, or Zealots on the other. Matters dealing with the proper fulfillment of the Law, Temple matters, nationalism and relations with Rome--all of which now occur in the Play--were topics about which the above four Jewish groups historically had radically differing views. Let these be shown in the characters and dialogue of the Play. Let Jews dispute with Jews about Judaism, not just about Yeshua. 

b) In the Play as it now stands there are almost no instances where a division among the Jews for and against Yeshua is reflected. The end of Act I, Scene 2 and the brief Scene 3 and Act V, Scene 3 are the only small exceptions. It should not be at all difficult to compose an additional scene wherein some teaching, e.g., paying taxes or fasting or dealing with one's enemies, or divorce, etc. would be disputed among a group of Jews, some espousing the position of Yeshua, some disagreeing with it, and some simply taking another approach. Such a scene could easily be inserted after Act I, Scene 3 or after Scene 4. It could even simply replace the first part of Scene 2, the Temple cleansing scene. Then one of the opponents of Yeshua in that substitute scene could be called "Dathan" and could provide the link later in the Play (Act 1, Scene 5) between Caiaphas and Judas without the problem of the greedy, vengeful merchant stereotype discussed above. A further advantage of such a scene's replacing entirely the Temple cleansing scene is that the complaint of the American Jewish Committee quoted above would be met with complete generosity. 

c) A more intensified example of a scene including both supporters and opponents of Yeshua could be the crowd scene at the condemnation of Yeshua (Act XI, Scene 2). A creative step in this direction was already taken in the 1980-84 Revision and productions; expansion of it to full potential would have extremely positive results, visually destroying the myth that all Jews wanted and were guilty of the death of Yeshua. This suggestion is discussed in further detail below in Recommendation 8 within the context of rewriting the scenes dealing with Pontius Pilate. Again, this change is most strongly recommended. 

The several scenes focusing on Pontius Pilate, pages 85-103 of the 1984 Revision, need to be rewritten in a major way. Criticism was made earlier in the Commentary that Pilate was depicted in far too upright and noble a manner, that this image was a gross distortion of our historical knowledge of Chat tyrant, and that the ennobling of the Roman dramatically cast the Jewish opponents in the role of the only evildoers in the death of Yeshua. This flies in the face of all documentary evidence on Plate's character and modern scholarship on the Johannine construct. As a result of this criticism, the super-righteous character of Pilate was somewhat lessened in the 1980 and 1984 revisions. However, the image of Pilate is still far too righteous, outdoing even John in the way it was played. He could deliver the gospel lines curtly, contemptuously, mockingly, but not as a defender of the right as he was portrayed. This remains one of the major justified complaints against the 1980-84 revisions. Hence, these pages need to be fundamentally recast so that the ambivalence and intermixture of the several Jewish and Roman forces at work come to light in the Play. 

In re-writing these scenes the following general principles should be borne in mind: 

a) We know that throughout his political career Pilate looked out for his own advancement, at times survival--resulting in the shedding of much innocent blood. 

b) The high priests exercised power at the sufferance of the Romans and were not greatly loved by the people. 

c) Yeshua had supporters in Jerusalem, as is evidenced in Mark's (14:2) and Matthew's (26:5) remark that the chief priests hesitated to seize Yeshua "lest there be a disturbance of the people," and Luke's statement that right after Yeshua's condemnation by Pilate "a large crowd of people and women (poly plethos tou laou kaì gynaikon) followed him" (23:27). 

d) The gospels were written when the Roman Empire was a massive, pervasive political power and Judaism was in a state of almost constant civil war against it (66-70, 112-115, 132-135 C.E.). Hostility between the Jewish followers of the Way (hódos) of Yeshua (later called the Christian Church) and the Jewish followers of the Way (halacha) of Yochanan ben Zakkai (later called the Rabbinical Synagogue) was greatly intensifying during the period of development and composition. Hence, the polemic attitude toward Pharisees and "Jews" and the irenic attitude toward Romans reflected in the gospels must be kept in mind and adjustment must be made for it. 

It follows from a) that in rewriting these scenes it would be plausible to make Pilate very cautious in first discerning in which direction his own personal advantage lay. In view of c) it would also be plausible for the supporters of Yeshua likewise to try to bring pressure to bear to save him. In fact, as noted above in Recommendation 3, the 1980 Revision took a bold step in this direction by having a small group of Yeshua supporters present before Pilate and the size of the group appeared to be somewhat increased in 1984. As mentioned, it would make a great deal of sense to develop this creative move much more, that is, to make the crowd of Yeshua supporters much larger (perhaps 33% of the entire crowd) and much more vocal. This would provide the possibility of a dramatic struggle on stage (and reflect the important fact that the whole struggle over the life and death of Yeshua was an inner-Jewish struggle into which the Romans were dragged because they were the occupying force). It would also allow for the gradual discernment by Pilate where the greatest power and advantage for him lay, so that in the end he could move coldly in that direction. On pages 97-103 of the 1984 text the crowd (Volksmenge) opposed to Yeshua have 34 speeches and his supporters (Einige) have 2. The disproportion must be drastically altered. 

It is not possible, nor appropriate, in this analysis to present a rewriting of these eighteen pages. However, since responsible persons for whatever rewriting of them is done may wish to retain as much of the present text as is usable, the following critical comments on certain lines in those pages may be of help in avoiding an unknowing use of problematic materials. All page numbers refer to the 1984 revised German text. 

Page 87. In Pilate's speech beginning, "Am I then a Jew?" cut the words "Your people and. . . ." They are not found in the synoptic gospels, but only in the dramatically elaborated John 18:35. But, as the "Vatican Guidelines For the Implementation of Nostra Aetate, No. 4 of Vatican II" point out, for John the evangelist the term "Jews" was a symbol for the opponents of Yeshua. In the polemic atmosphere of A.D. 90-100 this phrase was used by John in a polemic manner, much as the synoptics used the redundant "scribes and Pharisees." Unfortunately, as we Catholics since Vatican II now recognize far too late, both usages have contributed significantly to Christian anti-Semitism. Hence, these words should be cut from the Passion Play text, for the Play does not purport to be a verbatim quotation of the gospels (though the gospels should not be contradicted by the Play text). 

Page 97. The second-last speech is given to The People (Volk). It should be the Crowd (Volksmenge), as everywhere else in this section of the play. 

Page 104. The first line of the Prologue of Act XII says, "the forced condemnation." In view of the above recommendations, this needs to be changed to something like: "the desired condemnation." 

Page 88. In the final speech of Pilate in Scene 5 Pilate sounds unbelievably righteous in his attitude toward Yeshua. 

Page 95. In the last stanza of the Prologue the 'words "until, unwilling, the judge" need to be changed for all the reasons presented above. They might be replaced with something like "then the self-seeking judge." 

Page 96. In the Alto solo first line the words "of the Old Covenant" should be changed to something like: "of the primordial Covenant." As pointed out in the Commentary, the term "Old Testament" or "Old Covenant" is derogatory, that it suggests that the validity of God's covenant with the Jewish people is passed, is "old"--which notion is opposed by Paul in his Epistle to the Romans and by Vatican II (even though the phrase "new covenant" is his in 2 Cor 3:6). Hence, it is better to avoid using the term "Old Covenant." 

Page 101. In the last speech of Pilate on the bottom of the page Pilate says he is acting only under pressure. This is incredible for the reasons given above. In any case, he would not want it to appear so publicly, for that would lessen his power over the Jews--and Pilate was politically clever enough to realize that. Also, in the Play he says he is washing his hands of the blood "of this just man." In Matthew's Gospel he simply says "of this man" (toutou--27:24). The "just" is from the dream of Pilate's wife (v.19). Do not make this unwarranted conflation. He rejects her counsel. 

Page 101. At the bottom of this page the priests and crowd say once, "His blood come upon us and our children." This is a vast improvement over the 1970 text, where the statement was repeated more than four times. The outcry has the documentary support of Matthew's Gospel. However, as was argued at length in the Commentary, there is no need to reproduce any particular Gospel account here rather than another. Neither Mark, Luke nor John have such a statement. Hence, it would be just as authentically "documented" to reproduce one of their accounts of Pilate's condemnation--none of which contain such a statement. Moreover, there are many good reasons why Matthew's account should not be preferred in this case. 

This problem is closely bound up with the notion of collective guilt. Although there are times when that concept is legitimately applied, one must be extremely cautious in its employment. For instance, the attribution of collective guilt to all Germans for the Holocaust of the six million Jews and five million non-Jews executed by the German Nazis and their underlings would be objectionable. As pointed out by the Vatican II Fathers, the laying of such collective guilt on the Jewish people for the death of Jesus is likewise illegitimate. 

This reflection leads to a consideration of the problematic language of the text found on page 101 concerning guilt for Jesus' death being "on us and on our children." All four Gospels treat of the scene of Pilate and Jesus before the manipulated Jewish mob, but only Matthew, the most Jewish-appearing and at the same time the most anti-Jewish of the four Gospels, records that the mob shouted, "his blood be on us and on our children" (27:25). The Christian-Jewish Coordinating Committee of Vienna issued a Memorandum (which served as the basis for the 1968 Vienna Archdiocesan Synodal Statement on the Jews--Christlich-Pädagogische Blätter, 1968, 2, Vienna), containing the following pertinent remarks: "We can correctly interpret the harsh anti-Jewish passages in the New Testament only when we understand their literary style. Our reasoning would cease to be within the meaning of the Scriptures, were we to see such statements as having absolute value instead of setting them against the polemical situation in which they were uttered . . . . 

"Similarly, according to Nostra Aetate, Mt 27:25 must not be interpreted as if Jews everywhere and of all times were responsible for the condemnation of Jesus. Matthew's polemical tendency, caused by his anger over the rejection by most Jews of his faith in Christ, cannot be binding as having significance beyond the concrete situation. Mt 27:25 is paradigmatic for a situation in which the Church--as was done in Nostra Aetate -- must intervene to separate what is important for our faith from what is a mere by-product of contemporary controversies. 

"Isolating Mt 27:25 from its New Testament context as a whole, would contradict the words of St. Peter in Acts 3:17 where it says that the Jews and their leaders acted in ignorance, hence without malice; such a splitting off would also totally contradict Lk 23:34 and I Cor 15:3. " 

Furthermore, we now know that the phrase "his blood be on us and on our children" is a kind of technical juridical term meaning that the group involved is giving its approval for the legal judgment just stated. In Jewish custom it was obviously meant metaphorically. We Christians have in self-serving fashion tended over the centuries to take it half metaphorically and half literally. Clearly the statement did not mean that someone's blood was to be poured on the group of swearing persons. Equally clearly the "blood," i.e., the responsibility for the death of a person, could not be projected on children not present or not yet born (in any case, the children involved would only be those of that manipulated, as to percentage minuscule Jewish rabble, not of all the Jewish people then living--which would have included the children of Jesus' apostles and disciples!--and up to the present). Vatican II explicitly rejects such a notion: "Neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his passion" (Nostra Aetate, no. 4). 

Because the technical and metaphorical qualities of this phrase will never be grasped by the viewers of the Passionsspiel, and because that phrase over the centuries has become so heavy with the blood of Jews killed by Christians under its aegis, it is mandatory that it be eliminated entirely. 

Page 102. In Pilate's second speech he says that the two murderers to be crucified with Yeshua deserved death "much more than the accused." This is simply unwarranted because out of character for Pilate as argued above, hence should be cut. 

In the statement by Aurelius the words "under pressure" should be replaced with something like "with the agreement" and the words "of the people of Jerusalem" should be replaced with something like "here in the Pretorium," for the reasons given above. 

Page 103. In the statement by the crowd the words "enemy of Moses" should be replaced with something like "enemy of the priests," and the words "who despises the Law" should be replaced with something like "who despises their will," for that was the historical reality. Such new wording would not stress an opposition between Yeshua and the Law which did not exist, as was discussed above. 

Page 104. in the first line of the Prologue to the XII act the word "forced" should be replaced with something like "terrible," to match the above changes. 

Page 106. In the first speech by Johannes the last sentence should be rewritten so as to reflect Pilate's reputation of ruthless self-seeking. 

It should be repeated that these comments on a few lines of the Pilate scenes cannot be taken as providing an adequate revision. They must be significantly rewritten so as to bring out Pilate's self-centered character and the various forces struggling for and against the life of Yeshua. 

The 1980-84 revisions were carefully reviewed, particularly keeping in mind various criticisms that had been expressed by Christians and Jews, in an attempt to eliminate all vestiges of anti-Judaic elements. That line-by-line analysis resulted in the following additional recommendations. 

The Prelude of the play and its opening tableau are matters of great importance. They set the tone. Clearly the drama wishes to convict all humanity of sin, the viewers not least, so as to move all to repentance and faith. Guilt for sin is universal. The need for sorrow is likewise universal and is portrayed as such in the drama. The conviction of the pastor, Father Josef Forstmayr, in his Preface is clearer on this point, however, than the text itself. This should not be the case. The text needs to be clearest of all. Many viewers will not read the Preface, whereas they are likelier to follow with their eyes the text of these early sung portions than any subsequent material. 

All Christians have the conviction that the obedient sacrifice of Jesus on the cross atoned perfectly for the sins of all humanity. This conviction is found most fully expressed in the epistles of St. Paul. Even there, however, no complete and consistent soteriology is to be found (i.e., a theology of salvation or redemption). In the gospels such a soteriology is even more elusive. The evangelists content themselves with phrases like, "to give his life as a ransom for the many," "the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world," and "this is my blood of the covenant to be poured out for the many for the forgiveness of sins." At no time does any of the four set his narrative of Jesus' sufferings and death in a context of the purpose of that death. Phrases like those above, which fall outside the arrest and crucifixion accounts, represent as much reflection on the mystery as the evangelists allow themselves. Consequently, the play does well to present scenes intended to excite the viewers' sympathy for the suffering just one (for that is what the evangelists did); but it needs to be very careful about the theology of redemption it supplies from a later time. 

Unfortunately, the Prelude and first tableau feature a syncopated interpretation of the whole Bible that was given to the West by Augustine and made popular by the catechisms of the next fifteen hundred years. This literalist theology of redemption is not nearly as rich as Paul's, not to mention the soteriologies that might speak directly to our age. The one that has been selected features the divine anger, the divine curse, the sin in Eden as the chief cause of God's wrath, and the "blasphemous defying of commandments "-- the essence of sin. St. Paul, who gave the Church the Adam-Christ parallel, did no such thing. He did not in any way feature the particulars of the sin of disobedience, only the fact. Jesus in his recorded teaching never mentioned Adam. Modern Jewish tradition does not look to the garden story as the account of the origins of all human sin, even if certain Jewish apocryphal writings once did so (cf. "the rich spiritual heritage which is common to both Christians and Jews," Forstmayr 1980 preface). This is a Western Christian theological development and not an especially good one. The more so is this the case as the Eden-to-Calvary reading strains modern credulity with its imperfect grasp of two powerful biblical mythoi. 

The New Testament mythos is Paul's work as he tries to set one eon in the world's history against another. His starting point is not the Bible but his faith in God's deed in Christ. With Christ there come beginning, newness, and life. The eon that went before has to be launched by Adam, sin, and death. An opposition is set up between two sets of cosmic entities in the mythos: sin and righteousness, death and life, darkness and light. To historicize the members of the opposition is to destroy it. To make the disobedient act of the pair in the garden the symbol of evil over countless millennia (the reality of cosmic evil being Paul's interest, who gave us a "sinful Adam") is to put an immense burden on a fragile tale. It is a marvelous tale of human weakness, rationalization, and disobedience of a divine command. To convey it as literal truth rather than as the parable it is -- as the tableaux do -- is to distort it beyond recognition. 

It may be said in response that the Genesis author put this immense burden on it (cf. the ejection of Adam and Eve by cherubim with a flaming sword) and that Christendom, going back to the third century, had no difficulty with the non-biblical myth created by its Church Fathers from elements of the Bible. The fact is, however, that the various New Testament soteriologies--including those of Hebrews and Revelation--are all superior to the historicization of myth that derives from Augustine and his immediate predecessors. Adam as sinner is indeed a powerful figure, but with the power of Paul's eon-typology, not with a literalized reading of the tree of life. Viewers of the Oberammergau drama no longer look upon the Bible with the eyes of their patristic or medieval--even renaissance-- forebears. They are still quite capable, however, of taking in the Pauline symbolism, the more so as it is conveyed with the help of contemporary commonplaces like alienation, rootlessness, and dread. The need for redemption is as old as sin, which in turn is as old as humanity. Our age has a language with which to understand it but it is not the language of the Prelude or the lyrics that accompany the tableaux. 

The latter are not without their power, calling as they do on great images from the biblical past. Still, it is recommended strongly that these lyrics in particular be the subject of serious scrutiny and rewriting after 1984. Thus, the Prologue to Part Three, Act XIII is a sustained meditation on the meaning of human redemption on Calvary. It is in some sense the theological high point of the drama. Yet it does not rise beyond an appeal to the viewer to consider the love of Jesus that had led to the endurance of this pain. That endurance is a fact-but not one that the evangelists or Paul attended to. (In fact, Hebrews 12:1-4 does.) The New Testament writers situated the greatness of our redemption on the cross elsewhere. Great poets in Germany--of whom there are not a few in Bavaria--need to plumb the depths of the New Testament books and extract from them the mystery of cross and resurrection, then portray both in the language familiar to our age. The cruel paradox is that the language of the Christian centuries that handled this mystery with ease is no longer a familiar tongue. Used as if it were, it says little to the viewers from all over the world. If the people of Oberammergau are part of the modern world, as they are, it even says little to them. 

Page 25. The last four lines of Nathanael's speech should be cut because they suggest there really was an opposition by Yeshua to the Law, Sabbath, priests and sacrifices--some of which is sustained by the gospels. It would be better to emphasize the second speech by Caiaphas. Perhaps then a speech should be added in Yeshua's favor to reflect the split among the Jews about Yeshua and to heighten the dramatic tension. 

In the last speech by Rabbi, insert after the words "violations of the Law?" the following: "He discovered our plots and always showed our charges to be false." This sentence, or something like it, would under line the historical fact that Yeshua is not recorded as having rejected or violated the Torah. 

Page 37. Replace the first speech by Crispus (Yeshua), "See . . . . upon another," with the following: "How of ten have I wished to gather your children as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken" (Mt 23:37-38). 

The reason for suggesting the substitution of this Scripture passage for the one now in the Play is that the Mt 23:37-38 passage makes a similar point, but in a way that emphasizes Yeshua's love for Jerusalem and its people, thereby stressing the fundamental Jewishness of Yeshua rather than presenting a possible tension between Yeshua and Jerusalem and its people, as does the quotation now in the Play. Moreover, contemporary scholars are almost unanimously agreed that the prediction about the destruction of Jerusalem is a post-70 A.D. statement retrojected back to Yeshua's time. Hence, for historical accuracy's sake, it would be better not used here. 

Page 49. In the last verse, sung by the choir, make the following changes: line 3: change "have you" to "have we"; line 4: change "your" to "our"; line 6: change "you curse" to "we curse"; line 7: change "you take your" to "we take our." All humanity, the Play audience included, is supposed to identify with Judas' sinfulness. Therefore that point will be made clearer (and any implication that the Jewish people are meant will be avoided) by using the first person plural rather than the third person plural. It will also fit better with the first two lines of the stanza, where the first person plural is in fact used. 

Page 50. In the speech of Nathanael the last part, "there a . . . of silver," should be replaced by something like the following: "The loss of a slave is to be compensated for by the payment of thirty pieces of silver." This more accurately reflects the Torah passage presumably referred to, namely, Exodus 21:32. The present line of the Play suggests that the Torah values human life less than is actually the case. It therefore should be changed to reflect historical reality. Further, such a change meets a request expressed by the American Jewish Committee in "The Oberammergau Passion Play. The Revised 1980 Text. Progress and Problems," by Judith Hershcopf Banki, p. 8. 

Page 54. In Caiaphas' first speech cut the last sentence: "That he gives himself out to be God, although he is only a man." It is anachronistic since it comes from the charge in John that such is his claim--a reflection of late first-century resistance to the Johannine christology. Nowhere in the New Testament does Yeshua claim to be God. He is of ten said to be the son of God. The latter was understood by Yeshua and his fellow Jews quite differently from the former. As Father John McKenzie remarks, "Son of God is not a messianic title in Judaism. The title becomes a means by which the early Church expressed its faith in the absolutely unique character of Jesus. The use of the term reflects the developed faith of Easter and Pentecost" (Dictionary of the Bible, Milwaukee, 1965, p. 830). Hence, this statement in the Play is an unhistorical faith retrojection and should be eliminated on historical grounds; also, because it suggests that Yeshua's Jewish opponents might have been knowingly guilty of deicide--a gross historical inaccuracy and the basis for much Christian anti-Semitism. 

Page 72. The long speech by Caiaphas in the middle of the page should have the references to disobeying the Law and the teaching of the Fathers eliminated. The New Testament does have certain opponents of Yeshua making such charges, but as these are clearly the terms of late first-century polemic the inclusion here tends to foster the idea of an opposition on the part of Yeshua to the Law, which is untrue. 

Pages 73-74. In the speech of Caiaphas at the bottom of page 73 cut the last sentence and the first three statements on page 74 and the statement of the High Council in the middle of page 74. Much of the harsher legislation of the earliest strata of Torah had lapsed completely, and for centuries by New Testament times. The Jewish Law is made by the present text to appear much harsher than was the case, a fact which will generate contemporary hostility toward Judaism. 

In the end, what the audience sees on the stage will often be as important as what they hear--and in the case of the hundreds of thousands of the non-German speakers, probably even more so. Hence, it is vital that all of the above-discussed principles be as creatively reflected in the staging and costumes as possible. These include preeminently the principle that Yeshua and his followers should clearly appear to be Jews, as much so as his opponents, and conversely that his opponents not simultaneously be made to look evil and more "Jewish" than Yeshua. (The hats that the Jewish leaders now wear do in fact make them look very "evil," even ridiculous. However, there is no historical basis whatsoever for these "horned" hats. They are a medieval Christian misunderstanding of the Exodus description of the "rays"--not the "Horns "--coming from the head of Moses. They should be eliminated.) Thirdly, it should be made visually clear that Yeshua had many--Jewish, natural ly--supporters, and that his trial and execution came about by the manipulation of a minority of Roman-appointed Jewish leaders who were able to play upon the self-indulgent fears of the brutish Pilate. In other words, it should not appear visually that Yeshua's demise came from the opposition of the Jewish people, but just the opposite, that it came because Yeshua stirred up such enthusiasm (e.g., "Palm Sunday") among the Jewish people that some Jewish "Quislings" connived with the Roman occupying forces to destroy Yeshua. The audience should see this. 

The foregoing twenty-four Recommendations are the minimum that would be required to make the Oberammergau Passion Play adequately acceptable in terms of eliminating all anti-Judaic elements. They would also constitute a significant step toward the shaping of a philo-Semitic Passion Play, as was urged in the Commentary and Report, and more important, as is demanded by the fact that Yeshua, Mary, Joseph, the Apostles, Paul and all the first Christians were devout Jews all their lives. Most of the above Recommendations entail very little work, mainly the changing of names or titles or a few words. However, in the case of the Recommendations dealing with the re-writing of the Pontius Pilate scenes and the addition of a scene, or scenes, reflecting varying opinions and an inner struggle over Yeshua within Judaism, will require some additional writing. 

However, it is hoped that the Oberammergau authorities will not be satisfied with the above minimum, but in carrying them out and in going beyond them will engage whatever resources and talents are necessary to make all subsequent Passion Play productions not only first-rate religiously, dramatically and musically, and that will be totally free from anti-Judaic elements, but also that will show forth the Jewishness of Yeshua and his followers and exhibit a sensitivity to and love for the Judaism that was the life-long religion of Yeshua and all his followers, and thereby foster love, not hate, between Jews and Christians. 

Cardinal Döpfner pointed in a similar direction in his 1970 sermon. His words still need to be heeded: 

"We are all agreed that the text of the Passion Play was in need of a new version (Neufassung) even today. There has not been a lack of effort in this regard. Since, however, no solution which was satisfactory to all concerned was found, the Daisenberger text of the previous century, with certain changes, was again used as the foundation. it must be the concern of the responsible authorities to work for a new version."