I've stayed out of the flap over the Gibson's The Passion for an extraordinarily simple reason: Nobody's seen it yet.

Is it anti-semitic? I'm withholding judgement until it's out. If you believe Christianity as a whole is a plot against Jews, then of course. But that's an absurb belief given its origins: most of it's source material were written by, and about, Jews. Paul? Peter? James? John? Jesus? Matthew? Mark? Jude? Mary? Martha? Lazarus? Barnabus? Jews. All except Luke.

But today I read an interesting comment from Ted Olsen, one I think bears repeating:

Let's be clear: The film does not depict Jesus' death (which Christians see as a good thing) as a kind of Christ vs. "the Jews" battle. The only people who are tying the film to anti-Semitism—the only people who are suggesting that "the Jews" were responsible for killing Jesus—are these Jewish protesters. If they'd just be quiet, any debate over the film would center on its biblical faithfulness, its historicity, and on Christian theological issues. But by making Jews vs. Jesus the center of the film, Passion critics may in fact be encouraging anti-Jewish feelings.

Indeed: Christianity, as I was taught it, was not about "the Jews" killing Jesus (another Jew!). If you asked me: "Who killed Jesus?" and waited for the exhaustive list, my answers, in order, would have been Pontius Pilate, the Jewish Authorities, and my own need for forgiveness. Or perhaps I would have put the last one first, depending on the day. It would not even have occured to me that the biblical story of the crucifixion would imply Jews were exclusively or even merely primarily at fault.

Of course there were Jewish mobs (stirred up perhaps or even hired by jealous rulers) out there saying "Let his blood be upon us", but there were also Jewish mobs welcoming him into Jerusalem, and an earlier Jewish mob who sought to make him king by force. When you're dealing with a story set in Israel, you're going to have to expect that a large part of the cast of characters, good or bad, mobs et al, will be, uh, Jewish.

Western Christians, generally ashamed of the ill treatment of Jews by the Catholic church during the dark ages, have been very adamant about not portraying the crucifixion as a Jews-vs-Jesus issue. And not for these reasons alone: theologically, this is an incorrect view. Jesus died -- of his own accord and decision, it is written -- for the sins of the whole world. To focus on one ethnic group, or recast it as some ethnic battle, is to miss the point about one's own sins entirely. The "meme" that Jews somehow bear a disproportionate responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus needs to be put to rest.

That being said, I'm concerned that taking actions to recast it in these terms again -- whether done by Rabbis or skinheads -- is as unproductive as the Catholic church's vocal disapproval of The Last Temptation of Christ. I can understand contacting Mr. Gibson himself, and voicing concerns. And to those ends, from what I understand, he has willingly made modifications to help alleviate any such implications.

But to keep up the endless drumbeat in the media of the idea that any biblical depiction of the events surrounding the crucifixion must be inherantly antisemitic is to say Christianity per se must be inherantly antisemitic. Which is what caused the falling out all those centuries ago, in the first place.

What are you talking about, Tim?

Anti-semitism is of pagan origins: Indeed, it was, and still is. As more pagans converted, including Romans, who long saw Palestine as troublesome, it became easy to co-opt select evidence and history to support this view, in much the same way Roman Catholicism is often blended with pagan beliefs in South America. And again, the correct Christian response is to reject pagan elements, including anything unloving towards Jews, or any other "neighbor", for that matter.

But there's another less-reported part of the story, which also bears repeating, and dates back even further.

Historically, Jewish followers of Jesus, and those who did not, lived together. Early Jewish believers did not see this new "way" as being exclusive or conflicting with their ethnicity, traditions, and faith. For example, James, the leader of the church in Jerusalem, was apparently so faultless in his devotion to Judaism that he put his critics to shame. Even Paul continued to follow and respect certain Jewish traditions, and laid down the guideline that each man was to stay "as he was" -- Jewish or not. The attitude one sees protrayed in the New Testament is one of tolerance in these areas: Gentile believers shouldn't be forced into the Jewish traditions, but neither were Jews forced away from them.

The split was initiated, rather, by a certain ruling contingent who actively persecuted those who believed in Yeshua. They beat them, forbade them from speaking "in this name", and killed those who disobeyed. Paul himself was originally part of this contingent, and helped organize and carry out such activities:

I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the saints in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. In my obsession against them, I even went to foreign cities to persecute them.

Years later, James was killed by these same authorities, who had him, a frail old man, thrown from the top of the temple during a convenient gap in Roman authority. Wave after wave of persection emanated from this group of individuals, depriving the freedom, property, and lives of Jews who professed the name of Yeshua; driving them from Jerusalem and the synagogues over which they had influence, culminating, as I understand it, in a final tremendous wave of persecution which occurred just before the Romans sacked Jerusalem.

Historically, then, it is this mindset which originated the idea that Judiasm and Jewishness are inherantly in conflict with following Yeshua. The persecuted believers saw no problem with it at all.

But of course, the converse must then also be true: If the teachings and biography of the biblical Jesus are inherantly anti-Jewish, then of course being Jewish must be inherantly anti-Jesus. You cannot state one without implying the other. And so, aware of this history, early pagan Roman converts adopted the beliefs of that segment of the Jewish authorities: Oh, I guess it's so: following Jesus must be incompatible with Jewishness -- their very authorities say it is! and used that idea as grist for continuing their old pagan animosities. Both parties embraced this idea.

And I reject both.

So, please, please, please let's not be starting this again. Let us please tolerate one another intellectually. If Mel Gibson wants to depict the death of Jesus, including the various roles Jews played, let it be possible without requiring charges of antisemitism. Since there's ample biblical and theological evidence that evidence that his death was volitional, that the Roman system was also instrumental, and that many Jews were believers, debate centered around historical and theological fidelity will automatically address the issue of any purported anti-Jewish bias.