This is a very problematic post, even if does represent an earnest, and one may assume commonly-held, argument.

I gather the following from it.

1. Christianity is not anti-Jewish, or at the very least not inherently anti-Jewish; that is, its tenets and scriptures contain nothing that expresses nor which could be construed as expressing anti-Jewish sentiment.

2. Any individual or group that does construe (or has construed) the Christian faith, its strictures and its scriptures as anti-Jewish is guilty of misconstruing (or at the very least misunderstanding) Christianity and its holy books.

3. If any person or group, Christian or non-Christian was (is) able to deduce anti-Jewish beliefs from Christianity, then those individuals or groups were (are) in error.

4. Christian anti-Jewishness is therefore an oxymoron, a logical impossibility.

5. It cannot be said therefore that Jews have suffered from Christian anti-Jewishness, since such a concept has been shown not to exist.

6. Thus any Jewish suffering that may have been caused by persons or societies considering themselves Christian has been caused not by Christianity but by (purported?) Christians who have misunderstood their religion's views and attitudes towards Jews.

7. Since Christianity is not anti-Jewish, any faithful rendering of its tenets and beliefs, e.g., Mel Gibson's film (and traditional passion plays?) cannot be remotely considered anti-Jewish and thus should in no way provoke anti-Jewish sentiment.

8. Should anti-Jewish sentiment, however, be provoked by said film, it is not the responsibility of either the film or Mel Gibson but by a faulty understanding of those who perceive the film as possessing an anti-Jewish message.

9. Moreover, Jews, and others, who warn about the potential anti-Jewish response of those viewing the film are not only responding counter-factually (since it has been proven that Christianity is not anti-Jewish) but with unjustified hysteria, and are therefore themselves guilty of misunderstanding and even besmirching Christianity; and may even be accused of "crying wolf", of not knowing whom their true friends are and of media incitement against an identifiable religious group.

Have I missed anything here?

Only that if given the choice between Christians abandoning the story of Christ or Jews accepting it, most of Christendom would seem likely to choose the latter and if Jews are proposing the former, there seems no reason that advocating the latter is unfair. Anti-anti-Semitism is essentially legitimizing anti-Semitism at this point. If you can rewrite my religion why can't I rewrite yours?

Barry - So far from missing anything, you've covered the case comprehensively and added some additional, less warranted assertions. I agree with 1,2,3,6,7, and 8, and most of 9.

Um, why not 4 and 5, etc.?

"CHRISTIANITY is incompatible with anti-Semitism."

Sadly not.

Barry:

Of course the article is offensive because it boldly asserts the untenable and the unhistorical, and appears to exculpate entirely. The only defence is that the author is responding to the Goldhagen/Caroll/Eager thesis and may be excused a little defiant frustration.

It is the "intrinsic" argument that many Christians find offensive and even more untenable and unhistorical. That means there is no room for change or exorcising the demon. Obviously there are all-too-many links between Christianity and anti-semitism, expecially (like 99%) in Europe over a period of about seven hundred years. But, as numerous posts here have shown, it is a mug's game to try and conclude inevitabilty or a causal connection with doctrine or even official teachings and papal acts. Yad Vashem has honoured too many pious Catholics for that to hold.

Orrin has shown many times that Europe is now almost completely secular in actions and beliefs. Yet, anti-semitism thrives. What do you conclude from that? The downside of Christianity is longer-lasting than the upside?

This is somewhat like the Zionism=Racism argument. The most tolerant, honest, pro-Palestinian Israeli will eventually explode in indignation if that is screamed at him enough, no?

A question, if you don't mind. How much of this comes from the Jewish perception that Christianity is essentially an unstable, mystical doctrine and you never know what those crazy Christians are going to believe or do next?
What I don't understand is how little impact almost three hundred years of Christian(doctrine and teachings) progressive rejection of anti-semitism has had and how Christianity is still at the Torquemada stage in many Jewish minds, despite the fact that the anti-religious secularists have raised anti-semitism to new and searingly horrific heights--and much more recently, too.

Barry - A Christian is one who follows and worships the Christian God; but no one grasps this God perfectly (as St. Paul says, we "see through a glass, darkly"); and thus a Christian must always wonder, am I following the true God, or an idol that I think is the true God?

Your 4 and 5 are a caricature because they depend for their validity on use of "Christian" to refer to someone who has a perfect grasp upon and a perfectly faithful following of the Christian God. Such sinless people do not exist. A Christian can act contrarily to Christian principles in particulars, but in general be oriented correctly toward the true God, and therefore be worthy of the label "Christian." Thus, though anti-Jewishness is contrary to Christianity, a Christian can be anti-Jewish and can inflict suffering on Jews. It is a shame when it happens, but Christians can sin and remain Christians, just as an accountant can make an addition mistake and remain an accountant.

It would seem then that Jews should eagerly look forward to the advent of Mel Gibson's film, which will portray, at last, in breathtaking cinematic splendor and pathos that although Jews were instrumental in bringing about the death of God, they were not---at least not the only ones---responsible for the deed.

What a relief.

(Since all of us are of course reasonable and honorable men....)

The question isn't whether Jews should look forward to it, but whether it's hypocritical or not for them to try to stop the portrayal of Christianity's central story on the grounds that it is unfavorable to Judaism's stories.

Unfavorable.

Orrin, you do have a way with words....

Barry - Look, Jesus was a Jew, and so were his followers. Over and above all the Jews were the Roman tyrants; and given the popular notion that the Messiah would be a worldly king who would overthrow the Romans, the rise of a Messiah threatened a bloodbath from the Romans, as ultimately occurred c. 70 AD. The Passion story is one in which this fear of Roman reprisals causes, one by one, every Jew to abandon Jesus, including the follower who loved him most, Peter, who denied Jesus three times. Jesus dies alone at the hands of the tyrants. The Jews, in other words, are weak heroes, and evil triumphs because of their weakness. But the resurrection then shows that God can triumph even in spite of the weakness of his human followers.

Now, I understand that Jews will have difficulty watching this movie and seeing the protagonist as a fellow Jew. But Christians will view it that way, and will see ourselves, like Peter and the Sanhedrin, in the role of the Jews. In the services leading up to Easter, we Christians take the role of the Jews, and ourselves call for Jesus's death in a re-enactment of the Passion. The liturgy puts us in this position precisely because the role of the Jews is the emblematic role of Christians. We, whenever we submit to evil and sin, crucify Christ again. The Passion is a story of fellowship among us fallen sinners, not one of scapegoating the Jews.

The theology is something I'm not equipped to talk about, alas.

While there can be no doubt that for many there's a majesty, a grandeur, an exquisite, if painful beauty, a passionate holiness involved and intertwined in manifold dimensions, what might be of concern is the potential fallout from the slippery slope that leads from Jewish interaction & instrumentality in the death of Jesus, to belief in Jewish causality & responsibility for his death, to belief in Jewish culpability for that death---a culpability further compounded (in the eyes of some? of many?) by continued Jewish rejection of the divinity of Christ (and therefore continual betrayal of God?).

(But then I keep forgetting that we're all reasonable and honorable men....)

If Christians wish to view themselves as Jews betraying Jesus, that is all very well; but why should what is meaningful, nay of the essence, nay the truth! to believing Christians place real-life Jews, believing or not, in a potential position of having to suffer (even if has been established, such suffering is not the fault of Christianity and is antithetical to Christian teaching)---since the idea of culpability in the death of God, once perceived (even if mistakenly, especially if mistakenly), is not easily discarded.

The above assumes that the slippery slope is a legitimate fear. If such concerns prove to be baseless, and those Jews (and others) who are venting their fears in the light of events of the distant and not so distant past are mistaken (which I fervently hope is the case), then it does seem rather interesting (though perfectly natural, of course) that Jews should suffer precisely because they have voiced such apprehensions.

Sounds, actually, like the latest installment of a rather traditional Jewish joke. Good old Jewish humor....

Barry:

I think you are missing the contemporary forest for the historical trees.

Barry - Jews are not going to suffer for voicing apprehensions about how "The Passion" may inspire sinners. (Unless, of course, you are suffering from our friendly disagreement.)

Also, once again, Christians do not "wish to view themselves as Jews betraying Jesus," but rather wish to acknowledge that we the Church abandoned God in His hour of need -- Judaism being the "Christian" Church, our church, of Jesus's time. And if our ancestors could do it then, it goes without saying that we could do it now, and quite likely would, if the occasion presented itself.

Orrin has posted recently on the abandonment of the Vietnamese thirty years ago and the likelihood that many Democrats would abandon the Iraqis; it's the same pathology, abandoning the innocent and weak to the vicious and powerful, as the abandonment of Jesus. Jesus's last command was to be willing to give up our lives to help that innocent and weak friend; and if the U.S. stands by Israel in its hour of need -- which we all know is coming -- it will be because Americans have chosen to be faithful to Jesus's command. Given that, is it not unfriendly for Jews to be objecting to films recounting Jesus's final day?

No not suffering, thanks (at least not on account of Mel Gibson; at least not yet...)!

And let us hope and pray that I'm very very wrong, that this film recounting Jesus's final day does not prove to be a Pandora's box, and that Jewish apprehension about the film's message and presentation is entirely baseless.

Barry:

The worries are not baseless and not wrong. I'm holding judgment here and not particularly looking forward to the film. But it needn't be one extreme or another here. A lot of it will have to do with taste and context.

I frankly have a very hard time believing that ordinary, tolerant, Christian Americans can be turned into fearsome anti-semites by a film. I have no trouble believing that liberal, secularist types could and would use such a film to fan anti-Christian sentiment to considerable effect. But we'll have to wait and see.

Barry:

You continue to miss the point. Jews are persecuting Mel Gibson quite publicly for his beliefs, raising the questiuon of why it isn't appropriate for them to be persecuted in turn. If Jews have the right to rewrite religious doctrines for Christians, why not vice versa?

Yes, it's certainly possible that I am missing the point entirely.

This is because I don't view the debate over Mel Gibson's film as an effort by Jews to either silence Gibson or oppress him for his religious views or to force him to repudiate those views.

If I did believe that Jews were trying to do this, then I would wholeheartedly agree that they be repudiated for trying to do so.

Rather, the debate, as it seems to me, is about using the volatile medium of film and the status of a mega-star to present an event that has been used in the past both to bash Jews (in all senses of the word) and to justify that bashing.

Nor will the film merely present the event: the fear is that it will do so to a global audience on a massive scale, such that theologically motivated antipathy to Jews will be promoted and encouraged. To be played and replayed whenever, wherever.

Thus the point of questioning the making of such a movie (which is promoted as true, i.e., not just any truth, but divine truth), is not to question the right of a person or group to believe that truth. The essence of the Christian faith cannot be and is not being assailed here; and people can believe what they wish, which is after all, the basis of freedom of religion (for which American Jews must be eternally grateful). I don't for a moment believe that Jews would object to Mel Gibson making a public, international, speaking tour to promote his religious beliefs in the manner of Billy Graham. Nonetheless, this movie is being questioned by those Jews who are questioning it because of their worry that the movie will result in increasing hatred and disparagement of Jews. (Others may question the authenticity of the film, but I don't want to address that aspect of it; for me, its authenticity or lack thereof is not the cardinal issue--though I can understand why it might be for others, or might not, as the case may be.)

And these Jews wonder why such an increase in Jew hatred is necessary, or desirable, at this point in time. The assumption that these Jews make, of course, is, that the film will fan anti-Jewish feeling, and that anti-Jewish feeling is not good for either Jews or society in general (though this may be presumptuous, and yes, self-interested, on their part).

They may further wonder why a faith that prides itself on promoting love for its fellow humans might countenance the potential fanning of hatred of Jews.

The questions are therefore:
- Is it right to make this film?
- Is it prudent to make this film?
- Is this film what humanity needs?

(I realize that in describing what I have in the way that I have done I may have caused grave insult to some, even though this has not been my intention. And/or I may have revealed myself as an utter fool; but then I'm no stranger to that....)

To continue, there are several ways to respond to these questions. Certainly, one may answer with a ringing affirmative, or one may indeed reject the questions entirely as non-sequiturs, as "totally missing the point." And there are several ways to respond to my other assertions. (I hope here to be able to cover most of them.)

1. Since Christian theology in no way promotes antipathy toward Jews, it is absurd to believe that such a film will motivate or fan antipathy towards Jews. So don't be idiotic. There's nothing to worry about.

2. However, if the film does somehow result in increasing antipathy towards Jews:
a. It is not the fault of the film, whose goal is to show the beauty, grace and salvation of the Christian message via the central, seminal event.
b. It is because the audience has misunderstood the true message of Christ.
c. It is because the Jews, by attacking the film, have themselves created the circumstances for their own disparagement. And certainly one can despise Jews for any number of reasons not remotely related to Mel Gibson or Christianity.

3. It may have been true in the past that Christians were led to disparage Jews, even though in doing so, they were thoroughly in error, theologically speaking. In the modern period, however, Christians (that is true Christians) do not hate Jews, but in fact, (often) embrace them; to believe otherwise is utterly wrong and not only deeply impugns Christians and Christianity, but may increase, and justifiably so, anti-Jewish feeling.

4. Because Jewish anxieties regarding the crucifixion of Jesus are in this day and age absurd vestiges of what may have once been of some concern; because Christian society has transcended Jew hatred, the making of Gibson's film is both right and prudent and a contribution to the good of society, generally. While the unease of Jews may be understandable in the light of past suffering, it is entirely unjustifiable given the current circumstances in the world and of the world's development; and Jews should not take advantage of past suffering to quell either the truth or freedom of expression. If they choose to do so, it will likely be at their own peril. And they will have no one but themselves to blame (and may even be said to be responsible for reverting humanity back into Medieval attitudes).

5. It is thoroughly presumptuous for Jews to believe that they know what is best for society in general, particularly Christian society. They cleverly couch their own concerns and self-interest in terms of the larger public interest, but no one should be fooled. And what gives them the right to hold that what's good for Jews is good for society as a whole, and what's potentially deleterious for Jews is bad for society as a whole?

6. The Christian message of the film is transcendant truth. The Jews should, in principle, have nothing to fear from truth (and what might make them think that they do?). Nor should truth be subject to the whims, prejudices and concerns of certain individuals or groups. If, for example, Jews do experience some suffering as a result of the truth, then it cannot be the fault of truth, but for some other reason. Deal with it.

7. Jews have absolutely nothing to fear. One can certainly understand their anxieties, but they must be reassured that such fears are due to their own misunderstanding and misapprehension of the nature of Christianity, of mankind, and of the film. They must have more faith in humanity and in goodness. At least, they should make the effort to be more understanding.

8. This whole thing has been blown way way out of proportion. It's just a film, albeit one on a most central topic. Watch it or don't watch it. But let the chips fall where they may. And grow up.

Barry:

There are about 6 billion people in the world but only 12 million Chosen and 2 billion Christians. Until the other 4 billion are Christianized the message must be shared.

Heck of a post, Barry. Thanks.