Talk:Oberammergau Passion Play

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


What in sweet Christ does the Oberammergau Passion Play have to do with anti-Semitism?

The play explicity claims that Jesus was murdered by the Jews. RickK 06:03, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A fuller answer to your question can be found in Oberammergau : The Troubling Story of the World's Most Famous Passion Play [1] which I finished reading just last night. The review by Ingrid Shafer at Amazon is worth reading as an introduction to the book. OneVoice 14:34, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There are a number of people who add "Critics say that XXX is anti-semitic" to anything that discusses the death of Jesus. It appears they want all references to the Jewish authorities being in any way connected with Jesus death removed from the records. DJ Clayworth 20:41, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth: Why did you remove:

Critics charge that the play is explicitly anti-Semitic, in that it blames the Jews for the "murder" of Jesus Christ. The text of the play has been editted repeatedly over the centuries. The most recent performances have had reduced amounts of anti-semitic content.

If you read the text of the play, or the book cited above about the play and the modifications to the play prior to its 2000 proformance, they above is clear, perhaps even understated. The "Critics charge that" is unnecessary. OneVoice 21:28, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The reason I removed this, and why I don't like what is there now, is that you wrote: "...explicitly anti-Semitic, in that it blames the Jews for the "murder" of Jesus Christ.". Now the texts on which the play is based, which are certainly the best records we have of the events, clearly state that the Jewish leaders of the time were, at least partly, involved in the death of Jesus. Would you have the play ignore that?

As for what you write now, you say the play "is anti-semitic" and follow this with a long description of ways the authors have revised the play to make it less anti-semitic. You need to either say how it is anti-semitic now, or say it was anti-semitic. DJ Clayworth 15:11, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would not have the play ignore the Gospel texts. Nor would I have it ignore that the Jewish leaders may have had some responsibility. The execution was a Roman execution carried out by Roman soldiers under orders of the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate. Cruxifixion is not a Jewish method of execution (of which there are four). Neither would I have the play ignore the charge of treason against the emperor and the death penalty that results. There are no unbiased sources regarding these events (as far as I know). This is difficult as some regard the Gospels as truth revealed, others regard them as historical documents, others yet regard them as heavily modified texts that have been changed to meet the theological needs of those times. Should wikipedia be written to accord with the religious views of Christians? Is so which Christian denomination? And what do we do the majority of the world that is not Christian? Separating belief from fact is difficult and in some areas not possible due to the lack of additional documents. The lack of additional documents does not increase the reliability of existing documents. Some questions may not be answerable in a satisfactory manner due to the paucity of records or discrepancies in accounts. Even a matter as "simple" as the US presidential election in Florida is fraught with difficulties...and the rewards/motivations there are far less than the rewards/motivations of the authors of the Gospels. Unless wikipedia is to accept the Gospels as Gospel truth. In which case the same veracity should be accorded to all other religious texts.

The play is currently anti-semitic as can be seen reading the text. The play is less anti-semitic than it was. The collective guilt, deicide, and eternal condemnation of Jews has been reduced but some remains. This is why I wrote that the play is anti-semitic and examples of how the level of anti-semitism as been reduced. The page should recognized of the progress made and recognize the work yet to be done. Your thoughts, please. OneVoice 15:38, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What you write here is better than what you wrote in the article. I've written a proposed new section which I think captures the essence of what you are saying (including why it might be considered anti-semitic). Please remember that most people who read the article will be wanting to know about the play, not about what some critics say about it. DJ Clayworth 16:22, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth, thank you for working with me to improve this article. I have added more material to both sections of the articles....the tableaux vivants, what they are, what they are stated within the play to mean, their role in anti-semitism. Please let me know your opinion.

The words "Some critics have charged that" in the opening line of the section on anti-semitism still bothers me...these critics include both the Catholic Church and Jewish groups. The "some critics" has a hint of denigrating the critic's view and leaves open the question of what other critics say. (Perhaps its critics as in reviewers of the performance rather than the content.) OneVoice 16:59, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I wrote "Some critics..." because the original said "Critics...", and it clearly isn't all critics (in either the sense of 'theatre reviewers' or 'those who make criticisms'. It would be much better to be specific. I suggest "Some Jewish and Catholic organisations charge..." ("Many..." if that would be more accurate), provided, of course, that that is who is making the charges. Alternatively "The Catholic Church and some Jewish organisations charge..." if that would be more accurate. You've got more facts than me here. I'll leave it to you. DJ Clayworth 18:05, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I posted the original question--thanks for providing more detail on this! Cpk1971

the 1940's[edit]


Let me guess, a WORLD WAR maybe? Philwelch 06:41, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alleged Anti-Semitism Removed Due To Violation of Wiki Rules[edit]

This section was deleted for multiple infractions of Wikipedia rules. The section on "Alleged Anti-Semitism" represents opinion and point of view, which is specifically prohibited in the neutral point of view section WP:YESPOV. Whether someone liked or disliked the Oberammergau Passion Play or found its content objectionable is irrelevant in this forum WP:NOT#OPINION. Wikipedia is not a soap box WP:SOAP.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftshore (talkcontribs) 17:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't all have been removed. It seems to be fact that the play has been changed over the years to reflect public opinion and viewpoints. There's absolutely no point-of-view in stating that. • Anakin (contribscomplaints) 18:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point I hadn't considered. Can you write something up to reflect the change without getting into the "religious opinion goo"?--Leftshore (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary[edit]

Can anyone add a plot summary? Also, it would be good to describe how the plot differs from the biblical passages. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary has been added. It could be refined. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

German Wikipedia version[edit]

The German Wikipedia version of this article has additional information that could be translated and added here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One per 1000[edit]

"The death rate among adults rose from one person per 1000 per year in October 1632 ..." No it didn't. If out of each 1000 adults, one died each year, then it would take 1000 years for all of them to die (actually longer, because when there were only 500 survivors, the rate should be down to once every two years), and by now the village would have lots of people over 383 years old. One per 1000 of all young adults maybe, but not all adults including the oldest; that's impossible. Art LaPella (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


"In 2010 it had a running time of 5 hours, beginning at 2:30 pm and ending at 10:00 pm, with a meal break. It was staged a total of 102 days and ran from May 15 until October 3 that year"

I'm a little confused. The article states that the play is staged in one day. So every other year (that it occurred) it ran once but in 2010 they performed it over a hundred times? Enigmamsg 03:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]