Ithamar Gruenwald Geleitwort Of What Am I Guilty? A Prelude to Matthew 27, 25

A

The Gospel of Matthew 27, 25 quotes words allegedly said by the people present on the scene. Urging Pontius Pilatus to crucify Jesus, they say »His Blood Be on Us and on Our Children«. Scholars have rightly observed that only the Gospel of Matthew quotes these words. They argue that Matthew must have added them, using an unknown source, or else his own fantasy. In any event, it is remarkable that in the eyes of many in the Christian world these words figure as a trustworthy source that puts the blame of the crucifixion of Jesus on the heads of the Jewish people of all times.

Whether these words record a historical situation or a legendary construct, two questions come to my mind in this connection. Do I, or should I, consider myself affected by, even included in, this accusation? How far-reaching, and all-inclusive, is it? I can easily dismiss the whole matter saying that their status comes, in the first place, from a theological position or imaginary allegation. Information of this kind has a long way to go before it passes its verbal setting to become historical truth. However, dubious as this allegation may sound, I shall try to show that it requires scholarly information and scrutiny before it can reach the stage of the scholarly test. The pages that follow will take upon themselves the task of dealing with this information.

B

The various modes of dramatizing the trial of Jesus, as they unfold in the Gospels, do not take the same position as the one found in Matthew. The music of Bach in his Matthäus Passion, quoting these words, does not soften their impact. On the contrary, the tone of the words, in their setting for two choirs, makes Bach music sound as amplifying the resonance of the words.

Bach’s text followed that of Christian Friedrich Henrici, also called Picander. Picander was no New Testament scholar. This is also true of Bach. Thus, with the writings of Luther at the background, Picander/Bach could not reach the kind of sensitivity, which the modern critical mind shows. Indeed, the dramatic flow of the events creates norms of listening that invites the music to enhance the impact, which the words create. Furthermore, Picander and Bach were not able to envision the negative influence of the text and the music on future generations. Indeed, both the words and the music have played a major role in amplifying the kind of threatening tones, which echoed so direfully in a world that otherwise claimed to be culturally enlightened. Even before Luther, the role, which the words played in stereotyping Christian-Jewish relationships, was by no means limited to theological issues. Waves of physical persecution upgraded their volume.

The present »Prelude«, as I call it, wishes to suggest a new discussion-environment, or approach, which will give a sense of proportion to what, in the eyes of many, is one of the most problematic statements in the New Testament. This will be in line with what Schmidt wishes to achieve in his book. He exposes materials, often of a disturbing nature, and adds culturally and intellectually enlightened assessments of the history of the reception of Bach’s St. Matthew Passion. His book raises issues that concern New Testament studies, church history, theology, research history, and above all cultural musicology. Ultimately, the words that form the core of the discussion of Schmidt’s book have had a unique history in shaping not only the separating factors between Christianity and Judaism, but also supplied stereotyped forms of justification for the disturbing history of hate-engendered persecutions of the Jews. In this respect, Schmidt’s book is an invaluable contribution, which deserves to find a wide-ranging scholarly interest and intellectual curiosity.

One may of course argue that, in any event, the various versions contained in the gospels, including, for that matter, those of Matthew and, needless to say, that of John too, should be viewed with a skeptical eye with regard to their respective historical verisimilitude. Consequently, what weighs in the mind of people is the cumulative impact of notions that crystallized as trustworthy information in their collective mind. If they do not exactly reflect a historical truth, they are still a noteworthy example of theologically minded statements that pertain to establish themselves in the singular position as historical verisimilitude. Recent scholarship has emphasized the fact that in the gospel tradition each Gospel owns a singular significance. Nothing can justify ignoring a piece of information in one of them just because the other ones omit it or contain a different version.

C

In the pages to come, I shall try to show that, in spite of their unique position, the words quoted from the Gospel of Matthew may be viewed as possessing some validity, particularly from a formally legal point of view. I shall try to show that one cannot simply relegate the relevant words to the domain of literary invention or uncontrolled fantasy. If, as some would say, the words have only symbolic significance, the present comments will try to show that considered in a wider context, they are likely to gain a certain historical magnitude. In fact, symbols can enhance hateful consequences, regardless of their historical verisimilitude. Ultimately, I expect the reader to realize that words do have a reality of their own, whatever their status in the historical discourse.

Admittedly, several details in the respective accounts about the trial and execution of Jesus lack the desired legal and evidential coherence we would like them to have. Arguably, more than making a historical point they intend to make a theological one. Thus, the question no longer is, whether the anti-Judaic insinuations, particularly the ones that declare that all Jews indiscriminately carry an indelible guilt, are a symbolic theological statement, as many Christian apologetic writers say, or convey some historical truth. Whatever the answer, the words serve as building stones that create the conceptual world, in which the Passion story receives its meaning, laying, to our great distress, layers upon layers of hateful consequences. Words ringing as a self-solicited admission on the part of the Jewish People, to the effect that they take upon themselves full responsibility for the death of Jesus have created a heavy burden on Christian-Jewish relationship. In Christian eyes, these words justified an attitude of estrangement translatable into terms of a prejudice leading to physical persecution.

Before we continue, I would like indicate that the words from Matthew 27, 25, which Johann Michael Schmidt chose as the problem-creating subject of his book and the reasons given to this choice, as specified in the opening sentences of the author’s »Einleitung«, put the sensitive reader on a contrapuntal track with a densely sounding texture of voices. In the enterprise undertaken by the author one finds relentless courage, humanistic commitment, and a sensitive call to order in matters relating to the intellectual and cultural integrity, which is deplorably lacking from a variety of writings on the text and music of St. Matthew Passion. In fact, Schmidt’s book is a learned study of the history of the scholarly, musical and political responses to the quoted words. In short, the discourse of the book operates on three converging levels: theological assessment, socio-political implications, and a culture-oriented music criticism.

I believe that the average reader should note that the point of convergence signals alarming positions. It depicts a point at which, against all reasonable expectations, a piece of musical genius finds itself enhancing theological prejudice. Schmidt shows that in the ears of many listeners Bach’s work added measures of hate and intellectual abuse. Indeed, several people admitted to me that the music aroused in them negative responses. Obviously, they well understood that what was at stake was the history of the Christian persecutions of the Jews. The reader will find in Schmidt’s book references to a variety of writings that were instrumental in building an atmosphere, which exposes the shameful dynamics without remorse or hesitation. The concluding section of the book even sharpens the cutting edges of the kind of human and humanistic alertness, which the book demands from its readers to show. I believe that the importance of Schmidt’s book lies in its ruthless exposure of deeply rooted forms of anti-Semitic, or anti-Judaic, habits of thinking and action prevailing in parts of the Christian world. These habits found a convenient shelter in a particular trend of scholarly studies of the Easter-Events and the ensuing Easter-Plays, in general, and in the aesthetic values of Bach’s music, in particular.

In short, Schmidt forces the sensitive reader to face uncomfortable moments, which show how prejudiced scholarly writing and intellectual positions can be. They take for granted a text, which they have never critically examined and amplify its resonance. In short, Schmidt convincingly shows that learned and scholarly assessments of a subject often use to embrace disturbing extensions of theological prejudices. There is an urgent need to change this state of affairs.

D

We have reached a point at which we have to discuss at some length the relevant sentences in the Gospel of Matthew 27, 20-27. We shall do so in the context of their synoptic parallels. The scene is the one in which Pontius Pilatus has to decide whether Jesus is guilty and what his offence is. All four Gospels agree that the priests,...