Paven i ny bok: Det jødiske folk kan ikke bebreides for Jesu død

Bind to av pave Benedikts bok "Jesus fra Nasaret" presenteres i Vatikanet torsdag den 10. mars. Innholdsfortegnelsen viser at den har ni kapitler, samt en epilog.

Som vanlig lekkes det allikevel utdrag i god tid før den offisielle lanseringen. Gårsdagens store nyhet var at paven i kapittel syv tar for seg Jesu rettsprosess hos Pontius Pilatus, og skriver at domfellelsen over Kristus hadde komplekse politiske og religiøse årsaker, og derfor ikke kan belemres på hele det jødiske folk. Nå representerer dette allikevel ikke noe nytt og revolusjonerende, men i den kommende boken utdyper Benedikt sin personlige overbevisning, og setter dermed "sitt personlige stempel på en slik måte som gjør det uimotsigelig", i følge den amerikanske jesuitten fr. James Martin.

I Nostra Aetate paragraf fire står det:

"Selv om de jødiske myndigheter og deres håndlangere presset Kristi død igjennom, så kan ansvaret for det som ble begått under hans lidelse, allikevel ikke tillegges alle de jøder som levde den gang, og heller ikke jødene i vår egen tid".

Katekismens avsnitt 598 følger opp med:

"Kirken, både ifølge troens læreembede og etter de helliges vitnesbyrd, har aldri glemt at "synderne var selv opphav og redskap for alle de lidelser den guddommelige Frelser gjennomgikk". Siden våre synder sårer Kristus selv, nøler ikke Kirken med å legge det største ansvaret for Jesu pinsler ved de kristnes dør, et ansvar de bare så altfor ofte har lesset på jødene alene:

Vi må anse som skyldige i denne grufulle synd dem som fortsetter å falle tilbake i sine synder. Siden det var vår brøde som gjorde at vår Herre Jesus Kristus måtte underkaste seg korsets pine, er det sikkert og visst at de som kaster seg ut i et uordentlig og ondt liv, selv "er med på å spikre Guds sønn til korset og gjøre han til spott for alle" (Hebr 6, 6). Og vi må bare innse at i slike tilfeller er vår forbrytelse større enn jødenes. For, slik apostlen vitner, "hadde de kjent til det, da hadde de ikke korsfestet ham som er herlighetens Herre" (1 Kor 2, 8). Vi, derimot, påstår at vi kjenner Ham. Og når vi fornekter Ham ved våre gjerninger, er det som vi legger vår blodige hånd på Ham.

Og det var ikke demonene som korsfestet Ham; det var deg som sammen med dem korsfestet Ham og fremdeles korsfester Ham, når du velter deg i laster og synder"

 Katolsk.no trykker her det relevante utdraget fra pave Benedikts bok: Jesus fra Nasaret - fra inntoget i Jerusalem til oppstandelsen

Now we must ask: Who exactly were Jesus' accusers? Who insisted that he be condemned to death? We must take note of the different answers that the Gospels give to this question. According to John it was simply "the Jews". But John's use of this expression does not in any way indicate - as the modern reader might suppose - the people of Israel in general, even less is it "racist" in character. After all, John himself was ethnically a Jew, as were Jesus and all his followers. The entire early Christian community was made up of Jews. In John's Gospel this word has a precise and clearly defined meaning: he is referring to the Temple aristocracy. So the circle of accusers who instigate Jesus' death is precisely indicated in the Fourth Gospel and clearly limited: it is the Temple aristocracy - and not without certain exceptions, as the reference to Nicodemus (7:50-52) shows. In Mark's Gospel, the circle of accusers is broadened in the context of the Passover amnesty (Barabbas or Jesus): the "ochlos" enters the scene and opts for the release of Barabbas. "Ochlos" in the first instance simply means a crowd of people, the "masses". The word frequently has a pejorative connotation, meaning "mob". In any event, it does not refer to the Jewish people as such. In the case of the Passover amnesty (which admittedly is not attested in other sources, but even so need not be doubted), the people, as so often with such amnesties, have a right to put forward a proposal, expressed by way of "acclamation". Popular acclamation in this case has juridical character (cf. Pesch, Markusevangelium II, p. 466). Effectively this "crowd" is made up of the followers of Barabbas who have been mobilized to secure the amnesty for him: as a rebel against Roman power he could naturally count on a good number of supporters. So the Barabbas party, the "crowd", was conspicuous, while the followers of Jesus remained hidden out of fear; this meant that the vox populi, on which Roman law was built, was represented one-sidedly. In Mark's account, then, in addition to "the Jews", that is to say the dominant priestly circle, the ochlos comes into play, the circle of Barabbas' supporters, but not the Jewish people as such.

An extension of Mark's ochlos, with fateful consequences, is found in Matthew's account (27:25), which speaks of "all the people" and attributes to them the demand for Jesus' crucifixion. Matthew is certainly not recounting historical fact here: How could the whole people have been present at this moment to clamor for Jesus' death? It seems obvious that the historical reality is correctly described in John's account and in Mark's. The real group of accusers are the current Temple authorities, joined in the context of the Passover amnesty by the "crowd" of Barabbas' supporters.

Here we may agree with Joachim Gnilka, who argues that Matthew, going beyond historical considerations, is attempting a theological etiology with which to account for the terrible fate of the people of Israel in the Jewish War, when land, city, and Temple were taken from them (cf. Matthäusevangelium II, p. 459). Matthew is thinking here of Jesus' prophecy concerning the end of the Temple: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken . . ." (Mt 23:37-38: cf. Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, the whole of the section entitled "Gerichtsworte", II, pp. 295-308).

These words - as argued earlier, in the chapter on Jesus' eschatological discourse - remind us of the inner similarity between the Prophet Jeremiah's message and that of Jesus. Jeremiah - against the blindness of the then dominant circles - prophesied the destruction of the Temple and Israel's exile. But he also spoke of a "new covenant": punishment is not the last word; it leads to healing. In the same way Jesus prophesies the "deserted house" and proceeds to offer the New Covenant "in his blood": ultimately it is a question of healing, not of destruction and rejection.

When in Matthew's account the "whole people" say: "His blood be on us and on our children" (27:25), the Christian will remember that Jesus' blood speaks a different language from the blood of Abel (Heb 12:24): it does not cry out for vengeance and punishment; it brings reconciliation. It is not poured out against anyone; it is poured out for many, for all. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God . . . God put [Jesus] forward as an expiation by his blood" (Rom 3:23, 25). Just as Caiaphas' words about the need for Jesus' death have to be read in an entirely new light from the perspective of faith, the same applies to Matthew's reference to blood: read in the light of faith, it means that we all stand in need of the purifying power of love which is his blood. These words are not a curse, but rather redemption, salvation. Only when understood in terms of the theology of the Last Supper and the Cross, drawn from the whole of the New Testament, does this verse from Matthew's Gospel take on its correct meaning.

Her hjemme er det Luther forlag som sitter på rettighetene til serien. Forlaget bekrefter i dag at boken kommer på norsk innen august/september i år.