Historical Jesus, Hysterical Church

Much ink has been spilled (and many more pixels have been rearranged) over the chocolate Jesus sculpture. What's wrong with it? Zuzu explains:

"So. I looked at this photo, and I couldn’t see what was wrong. It’s not defaced. It’s not a caricature. It doesn’t have elephant dung on it, and it’s not immersed in urine. Chocolate is an unusual choice of materials, sure, but if God created the cacao bean, I don’t see the problem. In fact, it wouldn’t look out of place hanging above the altar of your average Catholic church.

Well, except for one little thing, which is apparently the thing that has Donohue in such a lather:

He’s naked."

Uh-oh. I was shocked! Shocked!

Then I remember what my friend Jam might call a minor detail: nudity was part of how the Romans did crucifixion. Romans, and if you read some of Terence you will know this, had a really, really crude streak. To crucify someone naked would be nothing for the Romans, they wanted to humiliate the criminals they were killing. In that regard, aside from a curious selection of materials, the artist who created this piece was more historically accurate than the church's now-sullied golden boy, Mel Gibson.

Of course instead of using this as a time to reflect on what the humiliation of crucifixion meant or - even better - simply get on with the work of helping the suffering, many church groups have instead chosen to react with hysteria to a piece of art they do not understand. In the meantime, cheer up: