Luigi Cascioli, a retired agronomist and atheist, is taking the Roman Catholic Church to court for "abusing popular credibility" by teaching that Jesus existed. A Catholic priest, Father Enrico Righi, is the immediate defendant, but the precedent that the case could set is clear — if Father Righi is found guilty, the rest of the Catholic Church will also be guilty of breaking that same law.
From the Times of London:
[Cascioli] argued that all claims for the existence of Jesus from sources other than the Bible stem from authors who lived 'after the time of the hypothetical Jesus' and were therefore not reliable witnesses.Signor Cascioli maintains that early Christian writers confused Jesus with John of Gamala, an anti-Roman Jewish insurgent in 1st-century Palestine. Church authorities were therefore guilty of 'substitution of persons'.
Cascioli's arguments rely on a late dating of the Gospels that most scholars have rejected in recent years. But even without that point, the merits of the lawsuit are questionable.
Jesus was, until late in the first century, an obscure figure who was put to death at a young age in a backwater part of the Roman Empire. He certainly would not have attracted much Roman attention. Most people in Rome would not have heard of Christ until after 70 AD, when Jews driven from Jerusalem arrived in Rome. And even they wouldn't have necessarily talked about Jesus. They wanted a political savior, not a religious nut who got himself crucified. The fact that we know anything about Christ at all is unusual. The fact that no Roman historians of the period wrote much about him shouldn't surprise us at all.
Cascioli writes off Tacitus, who mentions followers of Christ in his Annals. (I won't talk about Josephus, because his most famous reference is of questionable authenticity, and his reliability as an historian is something that I personally question.) He ignores the fact that there were people, living within 100 years of Christ's death, who were willing to die for their belief in him.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Aaman
"It has served us well, this myth of Jesus"
(Possibly apocryphal) Pope Leo X
2 - Victor Lana
What did Voltaire say? If God didn't exist, we'd have to invent him.
Thought provoking to say the least.
3 - Warren
I'd never heard the Pope Leo quote, which actually shames me, since that's my time period. Of course, he was also a de Medici, and told his brother that "Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it." He's also the guy who drove Luther to post the 95 Theses. Not the best example of Christianity, but someone who might have fit in pretty well today, unfortunately.
I think the thing that struck me about this is that the guy is attacking the existance of Jesus of Nazareth, rather than the Deity of Christ. I'd think that the latter would be a better tack, since so many Christians don't seem to really believe it either, but the RCC still affirms it.
4 - Aaman
You're THAT old?
5 - Warren
Clean living, that's what did it. Clean living and a healthy fear of the Spanish Inquisition.
Didn't expect that Spanish Inquisition...
6 - Warren
{actually, it's the period I'm studying -- Medieval church history from the end of the Third Crusade to just before the Reformation}
7 - Aaman
What do you think of the Cathars. I've been reading a lot about the Unconsoled of late, etc.
8 - Warren
Found a source for the Leo X quote:
From a satire by John Bale (1495-1563), The Pageant of the Popes: "For on a time when a cardinall Bembus did move a question out of the Gospell, the Pope gave him a very contemptuouse aunswere saiying: All ages can testifie enough howe profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie."
9 - Aaman
In the realm of apocrypha then - no indication whether it's based on hearsay, fact, or poetic license.
Great researching, Warren
10 - gonzo marx
no ones expects the Spanish Inquisition...
Cardinal Fang...fetch the comfy chair!
cereally...Cathars eh? one can be of two minds about them
but this is NO time for Manichean dualism sub-refs
but i digress...
Excelsior!
11 - Warren
I'm assuming poetic license in this case.
Gonzo -- did you know that at one time Baptists claimed the Cathars as spiritual forebearers? Some still do -- they have no clue what a Cathar is or what they believe, but the Roman church persecuted them, and that's good enough! I'm reading a great book on them, actually -- The Yellow Cross : The Story of the Last Cathars' Rebellion Against the Inquisition, 1290-1329. So far, it's a fascinating book.
12 - Elvira Black
Leave it to a retired athiest with too much time on his hands to stir up this kind of trouble...lol...
And poor Father Righi gets caught holding the bag!
If there's any religion that's based on faith in the unseen, it's the Catholic Church. The belief in transubstantiation alone says it all. It's all about the mystery, not the history.
Great post.
13 - Warren
Aaman -- I think the Cathars were largely misunderstood in their time. I don't agree with their theology necessarilly, but I don't think they were guilty of much of what the Church condemned them for. I haven't read nearly as much about them as I need to.
14 - gonzo marx
Warren try "the Book of 5 Heresies" by the Bishop of Lyon, Iranaeus
was written just before he compiled the modern Bible ( about 180 AD), and sets the policy for the universal(catholic) church and how to deal with "heretical" christian sects whose gnosis contradicted what some of the early bishops wanted to establish for official church dogma
just a Thought ta share
and watch out for the soft pillows
Excelsior!
15 - Aaman
On the theme of the Cathars, very highly recommended - "Love In The Western World" (Rougemont,0691013934) and another book, "Talisman" (Hancock and Bauval,0007190360) - the second is somewhat conspiratorial, if still a good read,and you will find it on some B&N on the bargain tables
16 - Shark
"...Cascioli's arguments rely on a late dating of the Gospels that most scholars have rejected in recent years..."
WHA?
Not sure what you mean by this -- buy anyway, I think you're probably wrong. heh.
That the Synoptics are dated "late" -- ie. post-christ by a few decades -- is pretty much universally accepted among Biblical scholards -- including Yours Truly and the Great Gonzo Marx.
Please to clarify.
17 - Shark
"...And we can't prove that anyone existed at the time of Christ based on his requirements."
Um, this is really limp.
A few contemporary references that corroborate each other would suffice.
ie. Herod is not in question. Pontius Pilate is not in question.
Jesus is.
PS: Can't wait till the Amazing Randy testifies as to how JC actually got out of the tomb.
18 - Warren
Shark,
First -- of COURSE Herod and Pilate are not in question -- they were important enough to have been written about, to say nothing of what they wrote themselves. Jesus didn't write anything, and didn't gain notoriety until after his death. He was just another Messiah wanna-be to the folks of that time -- those were pretty much a dime a dozen.
And I'd love to see your credentials in ancient languages (especially Aramaic) to back up that Biblical scholar title. If you've read anything at all, you'd know that nothing is universally accepted by Biblical scholars. But late-dating the Gospels has been passe for at least a decade, except in the most liberal circles.
Gonzo -- I've got an electronic copy of Irenaeus somewhere on this computer. Have to read more of the Patristics. Should I be concerned about the comfy chair I got for Christmas?
19 - Shark
"...But late-dating the Gospels has been passe for at least a decade, except in the most liberal circles."
Whoo-boy. Here we go...
20 - Shark
re: Aramaic as an aid in the study of extent versions of the New Testament --
It's all Greek to me.
21 - Shark
Shark's Dates:
Mark = no earlier than 65
Matthew = 80ish
Luke = 80-95
The rest -- well, they don't really matter, now do they.
22 - Phillip Winn
Shark, Warren isn't claiming that *nobody* holds a late-date view, while you're claiming that essentially *nobody* holds the early-date view. Scholars are most definitely split, but I think you'll find that more recent papers are leaning back in favor of early dates. Check back in ten years, it'll probably be going the other way again.
23 - Shark
Phillip, I guess we can simplify this:
~So Warren, what are your dates for the Synoptics?
Thanks in advance,
S
24 - gonzo marx
Warren...very glad to hear you at least know whom i am speaking of...to get a feel of the beginning surrounding the "catholic" church...Iraneus is CRUCIAL...especially some of his correspondence wiht other like minded bishops in his day..
one of the most telling is him detailing how it is needed and accepted to Lie about Truth or Facts in order to further the cause of a "universal" church
this policy as a baseline for church dogma continued as policy up to Nicea/Constantine and since then has never even been Questioned
many of the gnostic scts and texts woudl not even be known of outside the Vatican Library, if it had not been fo the Coptic finds, Nag Hammadi texts, and even the only surviving(that i am aware of) Manichean Christians (who happen to reside in Iraq)
i do not claim to truly be a "biblical scholar", but can tell you that Shark IS one...my knowledge comes from almost insatiable readings, and comparative studies(especially topics surrounding gnostic sects...both christian flavors and "others")
these pursuits have granted me a wide range of Interests in such topics, and leave me always happy to engage in reasonable discussion
and thus i remain, apostate and heretic...
Excelsior!
25 - Shark
Gonzo, I'm really just an amateur/fanatic, but I've been doing research for almost 40 years. Hung out with one of the top biblical scholars in the US, was an associate member of The Jesus Seminar -- and spent a wonderful afternoon talking with Elaine Pagels ("The Gnostic Gospels" et. al) about the history of the early Church, etc.