Die Matthäus-Passion von Johann Sebastian Bach E-Book

Johann Michael Schmidt

• Herausgeber: Kohlhammer
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Deutsch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2014

Seitenzahl: 1189

Beschreibung

Seit den Anfängen der Kirche dienten die Passionsgeschichten der vier Evangelien auch dazu, die Entfremdung vom jüdischen Volk, alsbald Feindschaft, Verunglimpfung und Verfolgung "der" Juden zu begründen. Gleichzeitig wecken die Passionen Bachs mit ihrer wunderbaren Musik Eindrücke, die Gedanken an Judenverfolgung unerträglich machen, ja verhindern. Schmidt stellt die zunächst religiös, dann zunehmend politisch und rassistisch geprägte judenfeindliche Wahrnehmung und Wirkung der Matthäuspassion dar, und zwar seit ihrer Wiederaufführung 1829 bis zur Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts. Das schafft Raum für unterschiedliche Wahrnehmung und Wirkung der Matthäus-Passion auch in der Gegenwart und soll Verständigung darüber ermöglichen. In einem zweiten Teil kommen das Werk selbst, deren biblische Grundlagen und kirchen- und zeitgeschichtliche Hintergründe zur Sprache.

Leseprobe

Johann Michael Schmidt

Die Matthäus-Passion von Johann Sebastian Bach

Zur Geschichte ihrer religiösen und politischen Wahrnehmung und Wirkung Mit einem Geleitwort von Ithamar Gruenwald

2. Auflage

Verlag W. Kohlhammer

Dieses Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwendung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechts ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlags unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und für die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.

Umschlagbild: Ecclesia und Synagoga unter dem Kruzifix aus:

Biblia pauperum, Apokalypsis, Weimarer Handschrift um 1340–50, S. 54.

©: Klassik Stiftung Weimar, Herzogin Anna Amalia Bibliothek,

Platz der Demokratie 4, 99423 Weimar.

2. Auflage 2014

© 2014 W. Kohlhammer GmbH Stuttgart

Gesamtherstellung: W. Kohlhammer GmbH, Stuttgart

E-Book-Formate:

pdf:      ISBN 978-3-17-026367-3

epub:    ISBN 978-3-17-026368-0

mobi:    ISBN 978-3-17-026369-7

Inhaltsverzeichnis

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

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Vorwort

Einleitung

0. 1 Thema

0. 2 Begriffsklärung

0. 3 Wahrnehmung und Wirkung

0. 3. 1 Unterschiedliche Wahrnehmung

0. 3. 2 Anhaltspunkte

0. 4 Reaktionen auf das Thema

0. 5 Blick auf die Fachdiskussion

0. 6 Zweifel und Einwände

0. 7 Disposition der Arbeit

Erster Hauptteil. Judenfeindliche

Wahrnehmung

und

Wirkung

der Matthäuspassion seit ihrer Wiederaufführung (1829) bis 1950

Erstes Kapitel: Die »(Wieder)Entdeckung« der Matthäuspassion (1800 bis 1850)

1. »Die Geburtsstunde des ›Mythos Bach‹«

1. 1 Reaktionen auf die Wiederaufführung

1. 1. 1 Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy

1. 1. 2 Gustav Droysen

1. 1. 3 Heinrich Heine

1. 1. 4 Hector Berlioz

1. 2 Resümee

2. Die Vorgeschichte

2. 1 Die Bachbewegung zu Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts

2. 2 Gesellschaftlich-politische und geistesgeschichtliche Bedingungen

2. 2. 1 Das erwachende Nationalbewusstsein

2. 2. 2 Die Romantik

2. 2. 3 Wandlungen des Nationalismus

2. 2. 4 Religiös-kirchliche Kräfte

2. 2. 5 Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher

2. 2. 6 Die gesellschaftlich-politische Lage der Juden

2. 3 Felix Mendelssohn und seine Familie

2. 3. 1 Vom berühmten Großvater zum berühmten Enkel

2. 3. 2 Felix Mendelssohns Religiosität

3. Die Wiederaufführungen der Matthäuspassion

3. 1 Die Berliner Aufführung(en) unter F. Mendelssohn-Bartholdy

3. 1. 1 Mendelssohns Einrichtung

3. 1. 2 Verständnis der jüdischen Akteure

3. 1. 3 Die Oratorien(texte) Mendelssohns

3. 2 Weitere Aufführungen der Matthäuspassion

3. 2. 1 Frankfurt a. M.

3. 2. 2 Breslau

3. 2. 3 Konzertsaal oder Kirche

4. Passionsmusiken der Zeit

4. 1 »Der Tod Jesu« von C.H. Graun

4. 2 »Des Heilands letzte Stunden« von L. Spohr

4. 3 »Der Einzug Christi in Jerusalem« von C.F. Rungenhagen

4. 4 »Das Sühnopfer des neuen Bundes« von C. Loewe

5. Resümee

Zweites Kapitel: »Der deutsche Bach« (1850 bis 1900)

1. Die Durchsetzung der Matthäuspassion im bürgerlichen Musikleben

1. 1 Der gesellschaftlich-politische Hintergrund

1. 2 Der Weg der evangelischen Kirche

1. 3 Bibelwissenschaftliche Entwicklungen

1. 3. 1 Konsequent geschichtliche Erforschung des Neuen Testaments

1. 3. 2 Die Leben-Jesu-Forschung

1. 3. 3 Resümee

1. 4 Aufkommen des Antisemitismus

1. 4. 1 Grundlegung

1. 4. 2 »Der Fall Richard Wagner«

1. 4. 3 »Die Grundlagen des 19. Jahrhunderts« von H.St. Chamberlain

1. 4. 4 Die weitere Verbreitung

2. Musikgeschichtliche Wege

2. 1 Wagners Schriften zur Musik

2. 1. 1 »Das Judentum in der Musik«

2. 1. 2 Musikästhetische Schriften und Werke

2. 2 Grundlinien der Bachverehrung und -pflege

2. 2. 1 Gründung der Bachgesellschaft

2. 2. 2 Populäre Schriften

2. 2. 3 »Mythos Bach«

2. 2. 4 Der »deutsche« Bach

3. Biographien

3. 1 Carl Ludwig Hilgenfeldt

3. 2 Carl Hermann Bitter

3. 3 Philipp Spitta

3. 4 Wilhelm Dilthey

4. Rückblick auf das 19. Jahrhundert

Drittes Kapitel: »Wohl das heiligste Kirchenwerk der Deutschen« (1900 bis 1950)

1. Geschichtliche Voraussetzungen

1. 1 Der Weg in die »Urkatastrophe des 20. Jahrhunderts«

1. 2 Nachkriegszeit und Weg ins Verderben

1. 3 Endgültige Durchsetzung des Antisemitismus

1. 4 Das Dritte Reich

1. 5 Die Nachkriegszeit

1. 6 Auswirkungen auf

Wahrnehmung

und

Wirkung

der Matthäuspassion

2. Kirchen- und theologiegeschichtlicher Hintergrund

2. 1 Die Zeit bis zum Ersten Weltkrieg

2. 1. 1 »Thron und Altar«

2. 1. 2 Adolf von Harnack

2. 2 »Die große Wende«. Der Erste Weltkrieg

2. 3 Reaktionen auf den Ausgang des Krieges

2. 3. 1 Der Weg der evangelischen Kirche

2. 3. 2 Der Weg der evangelischen Theologie

2. 4 Der Kirchenkampf (1933-1945)

2. 4. 1 Auf dem Weg ins Verderben

2. 4. 2 Im Schatten des totalen Krieges

2. 5 Ausblick auf die Zeit nach 1945

3. Bibelwissenschaftliche Markierungen

3. 1 Konsequent geschichtliche Perspektive

3. 2 Formgeschichtliche Erforschung der Evangelien

3. 3 Die Leben-Jesu-Forschung.

3. 4 Die Passionsgeschichte nach Matthäus

3. 5 Historische Fragen

4. Grundzüge der Bach-Rezeption

4. 1 Die Zeit bis zum Ersten Weltkrieg

4. 1. 1 Albert Schweitzer

4. 1. 2 André Pirro

4. 1. 3 Alfred Heuß

4. 1. 4 Philipp Wolfrum

4. 1. 5 Deutsch-nationaler Überschwang

4. 2 Neue Wege in den 20er Jahren

4. 2. 1 Kirchenmusikalische Erneuerung

4. 2. 2 Szenische Aufführungen

4. 3 Beiträge Einzelner

4. 3. 1 Arnold Schering

4. 3. 2 Friedrich Smend

4. 3. 3 Hermann Abert

4. 3. 4 Charles Stanford Terry

4. 4 Die Zeit des Dritten Reiches

4. 4. 1 Im Dienst der NS-Kulturpolitik

4. 4. 2 Einzelschicksale

4. 4. 3 Unter dem Einfluss des Rassenwahns

4. 4. 4 Die Bachfeste

4. 4. 5 Das Bach-Jahr 1935

4. 4. 6 Bach-Bücher

4. 4. 7 Mendelssohn oder Zelter?

4. 5 Beiträge Einzelner

4. 5. 1 Gerhard Herz

4. 5. 2 Martin Jansen

4. 5. 3 Hans Besch

4. 5. 4 Arnold Schering

4. 6 Die weitere Entwicklung bis Kriegsende

4. 7 Rückblick auf die erste Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts

4. 8 Ausblick auf die Nachkriegszeit

4. 8. 1 Wiederauflagen

4. 8. 2 Neuerscheinungen

4. 8. 3 Das Bachjahr 1950

4. 8. 4 Fred Hamel

4. 9 Rückblick auf die Zeit nach 1945

Resümee zum Ersten Hauptteil

Zweiter Hauptteil. Das Werk und seine Textgrundlagen

Erstes Kapitel: Biblische Grundlagen

1. Biblische, d.h. alttestamentliche Figuren und Motive

2. Neutestamentliche Aussagen

2. 1 Formelüberlieferungen

2. 2 Aktuelle Aussagen in Briefen

2. 3 Die Passionsgeschichten der Evangelien

2. 4 Kurzfassungen der Passionsgeschichte

2. 5 Resümee

3. Zur Passionsgeschichte nach Matthäus

3. 1 Zum Matthäusevangelium insgesamt

3. 2 Die Passions(- und Oster)geschichte nach Matthäus

3. 2. 1 Eigenart

3. 2. 2 Synoptischer Vergleich

3. 2. 3 Zur »Selbstverfluchung« des ganzen Volkes 27,25

4. Zusammenfassung der neutestamentlichen Befunde

5. Zur historische Frage: Wer trägt die Schuld am Tod Jesu?

5. 1 Zur kirchlichen Sicht

5. 2 Zur fachwissenschaftliche Diskussion

5. 3 Ergebnis

6. Folgerungen

Zweites Kapitel: Kirchen- und theologiegeschichtliche Grundlagen

1. Martin Luther

1. 1 Bibeldidaktische Basis

1. 2 Musiktheologische Gedanken

1. 3 Judenfeindliche Kehrseite

1. 4 Passionsverständnis

1. 5 Auswertung

2. Johannes Bugenhagen

3. Passionsverständnis im 17. Jahrhundert

3. 1 Lutherische Orthodoxie

3. 2 Passionspredigten

3. 2. 1 Heinrich Müller

3. 2. 2 Johann Gerhard

3. 2. 3 Andere

3. 3 Neue Töne im Pietismus

3. 4 Passionslieder (-choräle).

3. 5 Rückblick auf das 17. Jahrhundert

4. Wandlungen im Verhältnis Christen und Juden

4. 1 Politische und gesellschaftliche Änderungen

4. 2 Neue Beschäftigung mit dem Judentum

4. 3 Judenfeindliche Reaktionen

5. Repräsentative Passionsdichtungen bzw. -libretti

5. 1 Hugo Grotius

5. 2 Christian Friedrich Hunold

5. 3 Barthold Hinrich Brockes

5. 4 Christian Friedrich Henrici (Picander)

5. 5 Die Johannespassion von J.S. Bach

6. »Zum Wandel des Passionsverständnisses im frühen 18. Jahrhundert«

7. Resümee

Drittes Kapitel: Die Matthäuspassion

1. Gattung und Textstruktur

2. Biblische Grundlagen

2. 1 Biblische, d.h. alttestamentliche Figuren und Motive

2. 2 Die neutestamentliche Textbasis Mt 26-27

3. Resümee

3. 1 Indirekt judenfeindliche Anhaltpunkte

3. 2 Direkt judenfeindliche Anhaltspunkte

3. 3 Gegengewichte?

3. 4 Fazit

Schluss

Literaturverzeichnis

Quellen

Literatur

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, variously mentioned earlier together with the elders, the scribes and the council of people, were the major players in the plot. Matthew refers to »the chief priests and the elders [who allegedly] persuaded the people …« (v. 20). Mark remarks that, »the chief priests stirred up the crowd« (15, 13). Luke refers to »the chief priests and rulers of the people« (23, 13), and John mentions »the chief priests and the officers« (19, 6). However, the detrimental exclamation, »And all the people answered, ›His blood be on us and on our children‹« are unique to Matthew. The fact that all the Gospels repeatedly mention the priests puts the major load on their shoulders. Allegedly, they organized the other groups, whoever they consisted of, to demand the execution of Jesus by crucifixion. To all likelihood, the priests were members of the temple-court, the Sanhedrin (Matt 26, 57; Mk 14, 53; Lk 22, 54; Jn 18, 14). Only Matthew and John mention the name of Caiaphas, the priest.

As indicated above, the words »His blood be on us and on our children« are unique to Matthew. However, the words which precede them, »And all the people answered«, spelled in the RSV with a small »p«, downgrades the impact of the Greek, pas ho laos. However, in English, the Greek laos requires a capital »P«. Since the words, »His blood be on us and our children« (v. 25) have created a shattering effect on the Christian attitude towards all the Jews, the difference between lower and upper case is of no small significance. The German translation has Das ganze Volk. We shall have more to say on this matter. One should note, though, that Matt 27, 20, refers to »the chief priests and the elders [who] persuaded the people«. This time, the Greek text uses to okhlos [in Luther’s translation: das Volk; the common German translation uses: die Menge]. Thus, the change in verse 25 to pas ho laos is indeed significant. Interesting is also the diversification in the translations.

According to Matthew (v. 19), Pilate »was sitting on the judgment seat [in Greek, ›bēma‹).« According to Jn 19, 13 the bēma was an outdoor judgment seat. As we shall see, John distinguishes between an indoor and outdoor procedure. According to John, Pilate held the indoor procedure in the Praetōrion, the indoor venue, from which he emerged from time to time to speak with the people who gathered outside and insisted on the execution of Jesus. In fact, John may give the impression that he was more familiar with the Roman legal procedures than the parallels in the Synoptic Gospels. The fact that the Gospel of John mentions the »praetōrion« several times clearly shows that it wishes to draw the legal attention to its side. Only Caesars and colonial governors had the right of sitting in the »praetōrion«. Nobody but privileged officials could enter the room. John says that Pilate kept Jesus there, and privately interrogated him in that place.

However, according to Matt 27, 27 and Mk 15, 16, the soldiers led Jesus into the praetōrion after Pilate had, somewhat vaguely expressed, »delivered him to be crucified«. It is a debated issue among scholars, whether Jews at the time had the right to execute people (see Jn 18, 31 in comparison to Bavli Sanhedrin 41a). According to John 18, 28, the priests, who handed Jesus over to Pilate, did not enter the »praetōrion«. The reason John gives is, »so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover«. However, no Judaic sources confirm this information about this kind of physical defilement and its ritual consequences in relation to the Passover sacrifice. It is quite likely that John wanted to impress his (Jewish?) readers with a kind of information, which he thought would enhance credibility. Scholars abide by a consensus, according to which the Gospels use to display a rather uneasy measure of imagination and historical fact. Indeed, a grain of fantasy may have found its way into what the Gospels held as historical, even verifiably legal, truth. Obviously, the writers believed that the theological ends justified all the means that enhanced the impact, which they wished their respective would to have.

Thus, the Gospel of John (19, 9) wishes us to distinguish between the place called »praetōrion« and the open-air location, »called in Hebrew Gabbatha« (19, 13). As mentioned above, the »praetōrion« was the place of the official, indoors, courtroom. We know that those convening there did so behind closed doors. John’s report indicates that the »bēma« (the judgment seat), mentioned also by Matthew (27, 19), was in the public »pavement«, or square. In other words, »all the people« could only refer to those present in the open-air ambience, which, as John makes us understand, lacked the officially legal status of the »praetōrion«. John says that the »Judgment Seat« was not in The Praetorion, the official courtroom, but in the public place (19, 13). Of course, the discussion and consideration of these details did not interest Picander. Consequently, Bach, too, paid no attention to them. Bach follows the text of Matthew, regardless of the degree of verisimilitude it contained. Matthew says, »They all said, ›Let him be crucified‹« and, »But they shouted all the more, saying, ›Let him be crucified‹« (v. in verses 22 and 23 respectively). There is no need to repeat the discussion of this matter here.

E

I think that by now we have gained sufficient information, which enables us to look more closely at the legal background of the problematic saying in the Gospel of Matthew and its various derivatives. As indicated above, the question of its potential verisimilitude should not concern us here, particularly because, in the main, the text underlying the music of Bach’s St. Matthew Passion occupies the focus of our attention. What matters, though, is that intellectual and moral implications have become such a noteworthy issue. As indicated above, Schmidt makes this point unequivocally clear. In the final resort, we should note the role that the words had in post-Luther history and in the religious culture that evolved and shaped later generations. In the collective mind, the guilt of the Jewish people found all the confirmation, which it was seeking. The Gospel of Matthew supplied it in so many words.

We shall now see that there are Jewish sources that can help us understand the special situation to which the words of Matthew could receive more precise meaning than is generally the case in their scholarly study. I believe that I can show that the words in Matthew are an echo of a Jewish legal procedure recorded in later Tannaitic sources. The people, who have allegedly said these words, did not invent an argument out of nothing. What did they want to say? In my view, they wanted to give a »word of honour«, namely, to confirm the charges against Jesus. Matthew’s report required this »word of honour«, since he emphatically reports, »Now the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin sought false testimony against Jesus« (26, 59; comp. Mk. 14, 55-57). In this connection, Deut 19, 16-19, is a vital reference:

If a malicious witness rises against any man to accuse him of wrongdoing … then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you.

Satzhinweis

Leerzeile nach Zitat von Template vorgegeben (hier und bei allen folgenden Zitaten), zu welchem Zweck ist mir nicht ersichtlich.

Witnesses should always consider themselves ostensibly warned against giving a false testimony. When they ignore this warning, they are likely to bring upon themselves the same kind of punishment, which they have contrived to inflict. In this respect, the passage from Deuteronomy supplies the first link in a chain that we shall now follow. Mishnah Tractate Sanhedrin 4, 5 [E.T., Danby, pp. 387-388]) supplies the second link. This is what the Mishnah says.

How did they [i. e., the judges of the Sanhedrin] admonish the witnesses [not to give false witness] in capital cases? They brought them [into the courtroom] and admonished them, [saying] … ›in non-capital cases a man may pay money and so make atonement, but in capital cases the witness is answerable for the blood of him [whom he wished to be put to death] and the blood of his posterity [that eventually would have been born to him] to the end of the world‹ (italics added).

To the best of my knowledge, most of the scholars writing on the trial of Jesus were not aware of this passage and its connection to the trial of Jesus. Mishnah postulates that in the case of capital punishment the judges have to forewarn the witnesses. They make clear to them the potentially mortal consequences of their accusation, if given in a false testimony. Allegedly, the blood of the executed person includes also the blood of the offspring of that person. To all likelihood, the offspring are the unborn ones. The dead person will no longer be able to procreate. Killing him deprives him from fulfilling God’s blessing »Be fruitful and multiply« (Gen 1, 28). However, only the witnesses, and not their future offspring, are morally answerable to this fact.

In short, Mishnah Sanhedrin raises the issue of the blood of future generations, but limits it to those of the executed person. However, Matthew refers to the blood of the future offspring of the accusing people. The difference is important, though, the issue of the future blood is common to both sources. Thus, with all the time difference in the date of composition, the information contained in Mishnah Sanhedrin may figure as a potential context, in which the words quoted by Matthew receive their meaning. Whether it is the blood of the accusing persons and their offspring (Matthew) or the blood of the accused person (Mishnah), future bloods are involved.

Another link is the one which Tosefta Sanhedrin 9, 5 [ed. Zuckermandel, p. 429) adds. It quotes the words of the judges at court referring to the possibility that the death penalty of a person about to be stoned may be the result of a wrong incrimination. In the words of the Tosefta, the judges, exonerate themselves, saying,

… His blood will be pending on the neck of his witnesses.

Once again, the blood of the accused person is the issue. No future bloods are involved. The Tosefta indirectly reminds us of the words of Pontius Pilatus who said, »I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourself« (Matthew 27, 24). Pilate’s words made the people react, saying, »His blood will be on us and on our children.« I believe that the references to which I have just referred create the non-Roman, and hence non-Christological, context, which the words in Matthew 27, 25 have.

Mishnah Makkoth 1, 6 [Danby, p. 402] adds another aspect. It quotes the debate over the question of the death penalty and its infliction on the false witnesses. The question at stake is: At what stage is the death penalty inflicted upon the witnesses, before or after the accused person has been executed?

False witnesses are put to death only after judgment has been given. For lo, the Sadducees used to say: Not until he [who was falsely accused] has been put to death, as it is written. ›Life for life‹ (Deut 19, 21). The Sages answered: Is it not written, ›Then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to do unto his brother‹? (Deut 21, 19) - thus his brother must be still alive. If so, why was it written, ›Life for life‹? Could it be that they were put to death so soon as their evidence was received [and found false]? - but Scripture says, ›Life for life‹, thus they are not put to death until judgment [of death] has been given [against him who was falsely accused].

We shall neither dwell here on the differences between the three stages mentioned in the Tosefta: the very act of execution, the giving of the evidence, and the decision of the court. Nor shall we enter the tantalizing discussion in the Babylonian Talmud Makkot 5/b, which makes these two distinctions: Is the death penalty inflicted on false witnesses only before the victim has undergone execution or also after the execution. In none of the cases is the indelible guilt removed, either from the victim or from the false witnesses. The question remains an open one: At what stage are the false witnesses likely to expect retribution?

Reportedly, Jesus had no biological children. In other words, there were no candidates to suffer from the consequences of his death. Thus, it makes some sense that Matthew inverts the argument and makes the Jewish people say that, if their testimony turns out to be false, the blood of Jesus could not but be on them and on their offspring. One should therefore note that, Matthew, who wants us to believe that he refers to a real legal situation, puts the self-accusing words in the mouth of the witnesses. Their consequences are on their own heads and on those of the offspring. However, the texts of the Mishnah, and particularly that of the Tosefta, refer to a general legal situation and not to a specific case. The difference between Mishnah and Tosefta is that Mishnah mentions the blood of the offspring of the executed person, while Tosefta does not refer to any offspring at all. However, Matthew marks a significant change. The incriminating people take upon themselves the whole responsibility and transfer it, in an unsolicited manner, to their offspring.

As indicated, the question of their ultimate verisimilitude should be of no concern to us, since what in the final resort matters is the role the words played in Christian history, including, for that matter, in shaping the text of Picander and the music of Bach. The extent to which either Picander and/or Bach gave much thought to the legal proceedings that ultimately led to the persecution of the Jews is a question to which a negative answer is most likely. Furthermore, the accountability of the Roman legal procedure is of interest to jurists. Theologically speaking, it does not matter much. Regardless of their legal and historical credibility, the words attributed to »all the people« (Matthew 27, 25) who were demanding the crucifixion of Jesus, did indeed generate unprecedented literary and theological commotion.

To Christian ears, these words sounded as sufficient reason to enact violence against Jews. The guilt of the Jewish people needed no further confirmation. However, as we have seen, the meaning and purpose of the words could lie in a completely different context than the one usually attributed to them in their reception history. In that reception history, the music of Bach, in which two choirs simultaneously make the point, added fuel to an already blazing fire.

F

Still, there are deeper levels of meaning that we need to take into consideration to understand the foregoing discussion. To begin with, the fact that the fate of a person also involves his future, potentially existing offspring, is not new to Christian believers. On the one end of the axis, we find Paul who argues that all humanity suffers death because of the sin of one man, Adam. This is the essence of the Pauline notion of the »original sin«. On the other end of the axis, we find the notion that one man, Jesus, was destined to redeem all those, who believed in him, from that sin and its lethal consequences. Since Paul’s readers were acquainted with this line of argumentation, the words of Matthew fitted well into an already existing pattern. The responsibility for an evil deed may spread over, whether individually or collectively, to future generations. Similarly, the sacrificial deed of one man, Jesus, could offer universal redemption even to those who did not in reality share the sin. No wonder, then, that people found in the passage in Matthew a sufficient cause to draw fatal consequences.

Whether Matthew was aware of the gruesome and universal implications of his version of the Passion story, or not, is a question, which requires a short discussion. We have already noted the difficulty involved in the expression »all the people«. One would have expected Matthew to add a few qualifying words, like »all the people present on the scene« or any statement to a similar effect. He did not do so, a fault that helped enhancing the universal impact of the words he cited. Furthermore, the words enforce the suspicion that he or his editors attempted to fit them into the context of prejudiced opinions, those that could spread legal stains beyond their realistic limits. »All-the-[Jewish]-people« of all times could not have been there. Thus, the unsolicited notion of spreading the guilt of spilling the blood of Jesus on the (even unborn) offspring of the witnesses must cause consternation in the minds of the enlightened reader. In any event, words said or written create their own universe of meaning. When meaning finds its way into the alleged reality of any historical process, ideological justification stands readily by to offer its services. Christians and Jews alike are well aware of the effect these words in Matthew have, though, of course, from different angles and opposite directions.

In other words, the dialectic thrust implied in the idea of penal retribution as outlined in Scripture finds tight modes of expression, and leaves no chance to those who would prefer to ignore it. Thus, the biblical context, as referred to above, and the text of the Mishnah in Tractate Sanhedrin add a new dimension to the quote from the Gospel of Matthew. It substantially differs from the one conceived by Christian readers and interpreters. In my view, it places the anti-Jewish, or anti-Judaic, interpretation on a different level of information. When ignored, prejudice and abuse grow.

G

To sum up, the book written by Johann Michael Schmidt exposes the misleading signals, which misinformation has projected on a number of levels. Many students of theology, scholars, and lovers of music may look to us as being either naïve or deaf. Neither do they hear the warning signals nor do they see the abyss that the musical masterpiece so ingeniously covers. Obviously, Johann Sebastian Bach was unfamiliar with the Jewish sources quoted above. He simply followed the text of Picander. The only question that one may ask with regard to Bach is how informed he was of the difficulties that the quote from Matthew causes. Bach shows religious fascination with the impact of the Easter Events, which the Matthäus Passion so powerfully commemorates. To all likelihood, the Lutheran tradition had its share in highlighting the text and in configuring the tone of the music. Living under the spell of Christological traditions, Picander and Bach were exempt of the need to heed scholarly sophistication. An intellectual urge to make his music sound skeptical or critical of certain aspects of the text simply evaded him.

There is hardly a music lover who does not recognize the genial talents of Bach’s »The Passion According to St. Matthew«. One cannot deny the presence of the rich palette of human feelings and emotions found in the »Passion«. For example, the music relating to Judas Iscariot, who allegedly betrayed Jesus, shows Bach at the peak of dramatic expression. His music engages moments of derision, ridicule, hate, and distrust. There is one lesson, which we can learn: When it comes to religious devotion, people often lose the checks and balances that moral judgment should enforce. They become disturbingly selective in applying their modes of hearing. They are not able to sit back and reflect critically, thus getting a chance to employ the humanistic demands of an enlightened approach to the linguistic music. When the music naively follows the words, which should have required a critical comment, the sources of inspiration create the trap into which many listeners often fall.

Vorwort

Meine jahrelange Beschäftigung mit dem Thema »religiöse und politische, d.h. im Ergebnis judenfeindliche Wahrnehmung und Wirkung der Matthäuspassion« hat zwei Gründe: Die Liebe zu Bachs Matthäuspassion und das Erkennen des ganzen Ausmaßes der systematischen Judenverfolgung und -vernichtung.

Wie konnte in einem an Kultur so reichen Land so Unvorstellbares geschehen? Die Frage setzt voraus, dass das Eine mit dem Anderen unvereinbar sei. Diese Voraussetzung wurde mir mit der Zeit immer fraglicher: Das Ausmaß des Schreckens zwang dazu, nach Zusammenhängen zu suchen, und machte es mir unmöglich, auch nur einen Lebensbereich, auch nur ein Kunstwerk, sei es bildende Kunst, Literatur oder Musik, aus der Suche auszusparen.

Die Passionen Bachs in die Suche einzubeziehen, liegt nahe; denn Passion und Kreuzigung Jesu begründen seit den Anfängen der Kirche zuerst ihre Entfremdung vom weiterlebenden jüdischen Volk, alsbald Feindschaft, Verunglimpfung und Verfolgung.

Dagegen weckt die wunderbare Musik der Bachschen Passionen Empfindungen, die Gedanken an Judenfeindschaft unerträglich machen.

Während meines Theologiestudiums in den 50er Jahren beruhigte mich die damals übliche Trennung zwischen rassistischer Judenfeindschaft (Antisemitismus) und theologisch begründeter Judenfeindschaft (Antijudaismus): Jene wurde scharf verworfen, diese galt als unverzichtbar - um der »christlichen Wahrheit« willen. Die Trennung hielt zugleich die Passionen Bachs von jenen Fragen fern und verschaffte ihnen einen Freiraum.

Der Wechsel ins Rheinland 1970 leitete ein Umdenken ein, befördert durch Begegnungen mit Menschen in der rheinischen Kirche, die sich auf den Weg zu »Umkehr und Erneuerung des Verhältnisses von Christen und Juden« gemacht hatten; unter ihnen waren auch Juden; sie trugen entscheidend zum Fortkommen auf dem Weg bei. In die gleiche Zeit fiel der Beginn der Freundschaft mit einer Familie in Jerusalem.

Anfang der 80er Jahre datiert der Anstoß, in mein Denken über »Umkehr und Erneuerung« die Bachschen Passionen einzubeziehen. Ich erlebte die Probenarbeit junger Musiker an der Mt.Passion; ihr beharrliches Bemühen um musikalische Feinheiten führte zu Fragen nach den verschiedenen Texten. Ich erklärte ihnen die zeitbedingte, tendenziöse Darstellung der Passionsgeschichte aus dem Mt.Evangelium, entstanden ca. 50 Jahre nach den Geschehnissen, und deckte darin Gründe für ihre judenfeindliche Wahrnehmung und Wirkung auf: die verallgemeinernde Rede von »den Juden« - Kennzeichen aller Spielarten von Judenfeindschaft -, die verzerrende Darstellung der jüdischen Akteure und die einseitige Schuldzuweisung an »die Juden« bei gleichzeitiger Entlastung des Pilatus. Ich machte sie aufmerksam auf die exklusiv christlichen Deutungen der Passion Jesu in den Chorälen und sog. freien Stücken und fragte sie, wie die krassen Gegensätze zwischen den Vertonungen der »Judenchöre« aus dem Bibeltext und den Chorälen sowie freien Stücken auf sie wirkten.

Seitdem habe ich oft Einführungen zu den Passionen Bachs gehalten; jedes Mal erlebte ich gegensätzliche Reaktionen: Mehrfach löste allein die Frage nach judenfeindlichen Tönen darin heftige Abwehr aus; etliche Zuhörer reagierten aber auch mit Einsicht und Nachdenklichkeit, einige sogar mit Erleichterung und Befreiung.

Einsicht, Nachdenklichkeit und Bereitschaft, sich auf die angedeuteten Fragen einzulassen, sind möglich: Dem dient als erster Schritt die Durchsicht der Geschichte judenfeindlicher Wahrnehmung und Wirkung der Mt.Passion seit ihrer »(Wieder)Entdeckung« durch Mendelssohn i.J. 1829. Im nächsten Schritt werden die Gründe für diese Geschichte im Werk selbst, seinen verschiedenen Texten und ihren Verwurzelungen in einer langen judenfeindlichen Tradition offengelegt. Dazu gehören die zugrunde liegende biblische Passionsgeschichte mit den oft drastisch klingenden »Judenchören«, die kirchliche und theologische Tradition, die in den Chorälen und den freien Stücken (Rezitative und Arien) zum Klingen kommt, und nicht zuletzt das geistige und gesellschaftliche Klima, in dem das Werk entstanden ist, aufgeführt, wahrgenommen wurde und gewirkt hat. Wenn überhaupt, lassen sich so auch Wege finden, die Mt.Passion aus ihrer belasteten Geschichte herauszulösen und sie mit anderen Ohren zu hören.

Ein Zeichen der Hoffnung, dass das möglich ist, sehe ich darin, dass unser Freund, Ithamar Gruenwald aus Jerusalem, zu dem Buch ein Geleitwort geschrieben hat. Ich bin ihm dafür sehr dankbar.

Vielen habe ich zu danken, die über Jahre hinweg meine Arbeit gefördert haben: Teilnehmern an Einführungen und Vorträgen durch ihre Reaktionen und Fragen, Mitarbeitern verschiedener Bibliotheken und studentischen Hilfskräften für das Beschaffen von Literatur.

Die Kollegen Peter von der Osten-Sacken und Rüdiger Liwak haben sofort die Veröffentlichung empfohlen und die Arbeit in die »Studien zu Kirche und Israel« aufgenommen, während mehrere Verlage sie ablehnten. Beide Kollegen ließen sich nicht abschrecken von der verstörenden Thematik; vielmehr sahen sie, dass die Arbeit dem gleichen Ziel dient, dem ihr Institut verpflichtet ist, nämlich die Geschichte von Christen und Juden aufzuarbeiten und darin neue Seiten aufzuschlagen. Ebenso danke ich dem Kohlhammer Verlag, der mit einem Teil seiner Publikationen das gleiche Ziel verfolgt, und dem zuständigen Lektor, Herrn Jürgen Schneider, der die Kooperation mit dem Berliner Institut leitete. Für das Institut haben mehrere Mitarbeiter mit viel Mühe die Druckvorlage erstellt; ich danke namentlich Frau Mareike Witt und Herrn Dr. Andreas Bedenbender sehr dafür.

Zum Schluss, aber eigentlich von Anfang an, danke ich meiner Frau: Sie hat meine Arbeit über die langen Jahre verfolgt, mitbewegt, am Ende mit Ausdauer und Geduld Korrektur gelesen und den Text oft lesbarer gemacht.

Meerbusch-Osterath, im November 2010

Einleitung

0. 1 Thema

»Wohl das heiligste Kirchenwerk der Deutschen«1, dieses im Superlativ formulierte Werturteil über die Matthäuspassion trifft die Thematik meiner Arbeit. Es stammt von A. Schering, einem der bedeutendsten Bachforscher seiner Zeit. Die Begriffe »heiligstes Kirchenwerk« und »der Deutschen« erfassen die religiös-kirchlichen und gesellschaftlich-politischen Kräfte, die die »(Wieder)Entdeckung«2 der Mt.Passion unter Mendelssohn 1829 ermöglicht und die ihren Siegeszug durch die Konzertsäle (und Kirchen) seit der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jh.s beflügelt haben. Der Begriff »heilig(st)« verbindet beide Seiten: Seit der Zeit des erwachenden deutschen Nationalbewusstseins Anfang des 19. Jh.s werden Deutschland oder das deutsche Vaterland als »heilig« überhöht und haben einen (pseudo)religiösen Nimbus; bis dahin war »heilig« dem römischen Reich vorbehalten.

Titelzitate anderer Arbeiten zur Mt.Passion3 deuten auf deren heilvolle Klänge; Scherings Formulierung signalisiert die Ambivalenz des Werkes, seine verschiedenen Wahrnehmungen und Wirkungen. In ihrer Vielfalt gibt es eine Konstante: Judenfeindschaft. Das ist insofern verständlich, als die biblische Passionsgeschichte ihr zentrales Thema ist: Seit den Anfängen des Christentums ist sie judenfeindlich wahrgenommen, d.h. gehört, ausgelegt, verkündigt und benutzt worden und hat entsprechend gewirkt.

Die judenfeindlichen Töne der Passionsgeschichte nach Mt haben ihre Spitze in dem - nur von Mt - dem »ganzen Volk« in den Mund gelegten Ausruf: »Sein Blut komme über uns und unsere Kinder« (27,25); damit habe das »ganze Volk« die alleinige Verantwortung und Schuld für die Hinrichtung Jesu auf sich genommen. Die Verallgemeinerung - »das ganze Volk« - »die Juden«- und die Geltung für immer und ewig bilden das Hauptmerkmal zuerst der religiös-kirchlich begründeten Judenfeindschaft (Antijudaismus) und seit der 2. Hälfte des 19. Jh.s der hinzugekommenen rassistischen (Antisemitismus).