Outros artigos deste número | Versão em inglês | Versão em Francês
Interpreting the passion narratives
Anthony J. Saldarini
The creedal statement that Jesus died to save humans from their sins has guaranteed that the story of Jesus’ execution on a cross will remain central to Christian worship, symbolism and sensibility. Though the resurrection may be the theological climax and vindication of Jesus’ work, the gospels contain no stories about the resurrection itself. Thus Christian imagination and interest have centered on Jesus’ suffering and death. As a result, books which seek to make sense of Jesus’ death and understand the Passion narratives in the gospels have continued to appear. A survey of several books published in North America in the 1990’s will reveal some of the contemporary trends.
Raymond E. BROWN, long respected for his commentary on the Gospel of John and his book on the infancy narratives (The Birth of the Messiah), has written a magisterial two volume, 1608 page study of the Passion narratives entitled The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave (Anchor Bible Reference Library; New York, London, etc.; Doubleday, 1994). With its 70 pages of bibliography and detailed analysis of the content, sources, historicity, theology, and social setting of the Passion narratives The Death of the Messiah is a book for study rather than casual reading. Brown rewards those who persevere with a thoroughly clear and comprehensive treatment of each scene in the Passion narrative. Detailed comments, coherent overviews and even-handed discussion of numerous problems illuminate all aspects of the gospel texts.
Brown does justice to the particular point of view in each gospel and at the same time accumulates a rich store of insights through continual comparison of the four gospels. He does not harmonize conflicting stories as do literal interpreters, but rather explores how traditions about Jesus were passed on, influenced one another and were finally put into writing. He insistently assesses the historical probabilities underlying each part of the Passion narrative and elicits the ancient meaning of the text within its first century context. His continual assessment of the historical probability of scenes, events and dialogues speaks to the modern concern for historical truth, but secure results are meager once we move beyond the most basic facts of Jesus’ execution during Pilate’s governorship. Brown does not engage the practitioners of the most recent trends in Biblical study: modern literary criticism, theologies of liberation and post-modern cultural criticism. Rather, he has gathered the best of traditional historical-critical scholarship and judiciously presented it in a “user-friendly” way. To read this book thoroughly, at leisure is to take a course in New Testament interpretation.
Those who seek to understand the theological meaning of the death of Jesus often wish to begin with the question and then to approach the Passion narratives to construct an appropriate answer. This approach is taken by Morna D. HOOKER in Not Ashamed of the Gospel: New Testament Interpretations of the Death of Christ (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1994; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), a book which was originally a series of lectures, and by John T. CARROLL and Joel B. GREEN (along with three co-authors) in a series of more lengthy chapters entitled The Death of Jesus in Early Christianity (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). Both books analyze the New Testament materials, especially the gospels and Passion narratives, for their diverse understandings of Jesus’ death and its implications for humanity. Hooker walks the reader through the books of the New Testament, tracing the development of early Christian thought about the death of Jesus. Carroll and Green supplement individual chapters on the gospels, Paul, etc. with synthetic chapters on the historicity of the Passion narratives, their anti-Jewish polemics and their use of scripture to explain Jesus’ death as well as chapters on the effects of Jesus’ death, the call to discipleship and atonement. Though neither book is exciting, they provide a useful entree into both the New Testament materials and the theology of the death of Jesus.
The nagging and dangerous problem of anti-Judaism in the Passion narratives and Christian theology has increasingly undermined the credibility and suitability of the traditional syntheses found in the books above. Each of them addresses it episodically, as do most treatments of the Passion today. The authors lament the anti-Semitism which has flowed from the New Testament and argue against the validity of such interpretations, but none admits the depth of the problem which has led to centuries of discrimination, oppression and death. A footnote here and a paragraph there will not restore the integrity of the Christian tradition after centuries of teaching contempt for Jews. The following two books address the treatment of Jews in the Passion narratives from the viewpoint of history, rhetoric and theology.
John Dominic CROSSAN is a prominent Biblical scholar, who treats the New Testament and Jewish sources with great skill and a questioning, skeptical eye. He has written extensively concerning the historical Jesus, arguing the controversial thesis that Jesus was mainly a wisdom teacher associated with Galilean peasants, not an apocalyptic preacher of the end of the world. His book, Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1995), attacks Raymond Brown’s cautious but substantial historical reconstruction of the events leading to Jesus’ death. Against Brown, who cautiously seeks to determine the historical kernel in the stories and encounters between Jesus and his opponents, Crossan argues that the Passion stories are unhistorical constructions based on the prophecies in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and/or they are so polemical that they obscure any historical kernel. Crossan criticizes Brown for constantly theorizing about the existence of earlier sources and oral traditions without being able to reach secure conclusions about them. Crossan also objects to Brown’s historical orientation for an ethical reason. The stories about Jesus’ death have fed anti-Semitism, even if that was not the goal of their authors. Thus Christians must do more than see how they function within the gospels and assess their historicity. They must thoroughly criticize the Passion narratives (in both negative and positive senses) in order to defuse their dangerous and destructive potential.
Crosssan’s challenge to do more is cogent and appropriate. However, his own historical reconstruction of the early Passion narrative from the Gospel of Peter, summarized in this book, has been controversial and not met wide acceptance. His thesis that the stories in the Passion narrative are all later literary creations based on early Christian interpretations of prophets fall far short of proof. Certainly Scripture influenced the composition of the Passion narratives and the authors of the gospels arranged stories and sayings to achieve their own purposes, including an explanation of the embarrassing fact of Jesus’ execution and of God’s purpose in allowing Jesus’ death. Though many particulars in Crossan’s case are debatable, his insistence on a complete, responsible interpretation of the Passion narratives which addresses their reception and misuse in Christian history recommends itself as a primary goal of contemporary exegesis.
In Christian Theology After the Shoah (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1993) James F. MOORE interprets the Passion narratives in the light of the Christian failure to stand up institutionally, nationally and communally to Hitler. Because the traditional, Christian, anti-Jewish interpretations of the gospels prepared the way for the Holocaust, contemporary exegesis and theology cannot innocently carry on the Christian theological tradition as though the Holocaust were a momentary aberration.
Moore employs a hermeneutics of suspicion which frankly admits that Christian theology and New Testament interpretation failed its mission and must be radically renewed. To confess Christian sinfulness and then resolve to do better will not suffice. The theological system must be changed at the root. In the Passion narratives Peter failed Jesus by being a bystander and Judas betrayed him by being a collaborator. Christians have acted in the same way toward Jesus’ own people, the Jews. The solution to this failure can be found in the Passion narratives where Jesus resisted evil, even unto death and God rescued Jesus by raising him from the dead. These two courses of action, resistance and rescue, rather than standing by and collaborating, point the way to true discipleship and a more effective and moral Christian theology. A true Christian theology cannot simply rejoice in Jesus’ salvation of humanity through his death and resurrection, but must encourage Christians to undertake the roles of resistance to evil and rescue of the oppressed. Historically, this applies in a special way to the Christian relationships with the Jewish community.
Horrified by the polemical rhetoric against the Jews in the Passion narratives and the Christian tradition of anti-Semitism, many people have called for changes in anti-Jewish Scriptural texts or their removal from the lectionary. But sacred books do not change. More careful and sensitive translation will ameliorate the situation somewhat. But in the end the Passion story must be read during Holy Week and interpreted for the Christian community. Each of these books makes a contribution to the ongoing task of reading and teaching the Bible responsibly and correcting the all too human faults and limitations of Christian theological thinking.
Anthony J. Saldarini is professor of theology at Boston College, specializing in Biblical studies and Judaism. He is associate editor of the Catholic Biblical Quarterly. His books include Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach; Jesus and Passover; and Scholastic Rabbinism.
