I couldn't resist...

Flipping through the Catholic Standard after mowing the lawn, I stumble across an article on Mel Gibson visiting the office of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, who have been going through the little but-someone-might-be-offended routine regarding Gibson's film about the Crucifixion. I read the article, which was cursory, but it mentioned the critique by Paula Frederiksen of The New Republic, who basically declared the film anti-Semitic.


I had an opportunity to see Ms. Frederiksen on Bill O'Reilly a few nights ago, and I was struck by her argument that Pontius Pilate would have felt no obligation to please the Sanhedrin by executing a man who had violated no Roman law. That is, it struck me as being incredibly naive. The ancient Jews were habitually hostile to the Roman occupation: they'd actually thrown out the Seluccid Greeks in 67 B.C., and here was this Jewish religious adventurer showing up in Jerusalem on the feast of passover: Pilate wouldn't have been concerned because...?


That aside, my purpose isn't really to argue the historical evidence but to make an analogy. There are a lot of people who seem to be upset that telling an unvarnished account (which is to say, the story as the Gospels put it) of the Passion of Christ might lead to something bad. And two thousand years ago, Both Pilate and the Sanhedrin believed that letting this redneck from Galilee speak his mind might lead to something bad. I'm not proposing that Mel Gibson = Jesus. I'm just interested to note that certain things never do seem to change.


Okay. I'm really leaving now. Bu-Bye.