A few years ago some historians and theologians dropped out of the woodwork praising the "gospel according to Thomas," claiming for it equal authority with the canonical Gospels. Fact is, from the late-100s on, the Apostolic Fathers regularly dismissed "Thomas" as an incoherent forgery crammed with Gnostic lies.

These same historians and theologians now condemn "The Passion of the Christ" for its "too literal" rendering of the Gospels. Huh? They love the sham "Thomas" and slam the authentic Gospels?

Their major concern has centered on the depiction of a thoughtful Pilate trying to free Christ, being at odds with the pitiless oppressor described by Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus. A Pilate with scruples is a pious fabrication, they caution, invented by Christians seeking to curry favor with Roman leaders.

Laughably, newspaper columnists, television commentators and talk show hosts back them up, hectoring readers and viewers to beware reading the Gospels as actual history. As if they knew anything about Philo or Josephus.

Vatican II states the Catholic position in its dogmatic constitution, Dei Verbum:

"Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels … whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation…" (n. 19).

Astonishingly, teachers in too many Catholic schools, colleges and even seminaries today reject this infallible statement while loudly professing to be "in the spirit of Vatican II."

Well, my parents sacrificed too much putting me through 12 years of Catholic schooling in Los Angeles, where too many nuns and friars spent too many hours knocking Scripture and history into my head for me to accept this hypocrisy.

Let's see if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John really contradict Philo and Josephus….

Tiberius Cæsar moved to Capri permanently in A.D. 26, leaving the ambitious Ælius Sejanus in Rome to run the Empire. Sejanus appointed Pontius Pilate to the prefecture of Judæa that same year.

Philo writes that Sejanus hated Jews, encouraging their harassment through provincial governors. Mirroring his policy Pilate, a patrician-knight, erected shields in Jerusalem's Fortress Antonia facing the Temple of God upon his arrival. Philo and Josephus disagree whether inscriptions to Tiberius or his image were on the shields. When the Jews' protest reached Tiberius, he thanked Pilate for his devotion --- but ordered the shields removed.

Later, Pilate began construction on an aqueduct to bring much needed water to Jerusalem. When the Sanhedrin, the Jewish legislature, refused financial backing, Pilate confiscated part of the Temple treasure. Again the Jews protested. Again, Tiberius answered, reprimanding Pilate for his highhandedness --- while allowing the aqueduct to continue.

In both cases the Jews' grievances were redressed on appeal to the Emperor. Hardly the mark of an entirely repressive regime.

True, Pilate showed no hesitation in keeping the Pax Romana, ruthlessly stifling resistance. His job was to keep tax money flowing uninterruptedly into Imperial coffers. Understandably the Jews resented subjugation but consider: a prefect's usual term was 18-36 months. Pilate remained ten years. This enforced peace brought an era of prosperity and stability to Israel unknown since the time of Solomon. Tiberius was satisfied.

Now, would Pilate try to free Christ? In a heartbeat, if he paid any attention to the unrest in Galilee dogging Herod Antipas, who idiotically ignited a powder-keg of turmoil by executing John the Baptist:

"Herod [Antipas] himself took John and bound him in prison, be-cause of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, whom he had married. For John had said to Herod, 'It is not lawful for thee to have your brother's wife.' …. Herod feared John, knowing he was a just and holy man" (Mark 6:17, 18, 20).

Josephus agrees, noting the outcome of war between Antipas and Aretas, king of Persia: "Some Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, a just punishment for Herod's slaying John, called the Baptist, a good man who commanded Jews to exercise virtue" (Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 5).

Historians thinking Pilate would ignore John's murder make him a cardboard character living in a vacuum tube.

Back to Sejanus. In A.D. 31, he was denounced for treason and executed amid a bloodbath of family and friends in Rome. The next year Tiberius rescinded all anti-Jewish policies. Writes Philo: "Therefore everyone everywhere, even if he was not naturally well disposed toward the Jews, was afraid.…"

Under suspicion as Sejanus' appointee, Pilate was walking on eggs in A.D. 33 when Jesus of Nazareth came to trial.

Could the Jewish rulers bully Pilate? Definitely. For High Priest Caiphas and the Sanhedrin, a Messiah would upset the applecart, ending the era of prosperity. As a collaborationist aware of the Empire's might, Caiphas was in no hurry to have an ethnic king.

To Pilate, remembering John, Jesus was only an impractical visionary. But Jesus had overthrown the Temple concessions, all owned by Caiphas' father-in-law, Annas, whose chicanery Josephus denounces bitterly. Let off with scourging, Jesus, a wildly popular leader, might continue to foment unrest against Annas' greed so, "Crucify him!" cried the rabble, instigated by Sanhedrin members.

"Ecce Homo! (Look at the man!)," Pilate responded. Could the bloody, thorn-crowned Jesus be a threat? Caiphas was ready, perfectly aware of Pilate's connection to Sejanus.

"If you release this man, you are no 'Friend of Cæsar'; for everyone who makes himself a king sets himself against Cæsar" (John 19: 12).

"Friend of Cæsar" --- Amicus Cæsaris --- was no mere honorific. The Prefect wore a ring recognized by officials throughout the Empire, identifying him as a member of an exclusive circle of select senators, knights and administrators favored by the Emperor. With his patron dead and disgraced, Pilate was stopped cold. Still, he made a final, albeit sarcastic, appeal: "Shall I crucify your king?"

Caiphas played his ace: "We have no king but Caesar!"

Pilate's bluff was called. He folded his cards. Jesus was led to the cross.

Intent on saving face, Pilate specified the crime for which Jesus was dying on the titulus damnationis displayed atop the cross: JESUS OF NAZARETH, KING OF THE JEWS.

The truth of this sardonic message enflamed the Sanhedrin's patriotism. Caiphas couldn't let Jesus be executed as the Davidic Messiah. "Not 'King of the Jews' but, 'He said, I am King of the Jews,'" Caiphas insisted. "What I have written, I have written," the Prefect retorted. It was a petty victory.

Pilate had saved his job, but at what cost? Billions of Christians over thousands of years intoning the affirmation, "For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate."

The Gospels square with the chronicles of Philo and Josephus. Regard contrary opinions of any historian or theologian with a healthy dose of skepticism. The Gospels are real --- accept no substitutes.

Sean Wright presents lectures to parishes and schools concerning the politics surrounding the trial of Jesus. He is a member of Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church in Santa Clarita, and can be reached at FriarTuk49@AOL.com.