Judge Orders Priest: “Prove Jesus Existed!”

A reader writes:

Here is a link to a news article that I recently came across. Is there such evidence that will unequivically prove this? (not that I’m doubting)

<extreme exertion of self-control>MUST . . . RESTRAIN . . . SELF . . . FROM . . . MAKING . . . FLIPPANT . . . COMMENT . . . ABOUT . . . ITALIAN . . . LEGAL . . . SYSTEM!</extreme exertion of self-control>

There is certainly evidence that would prove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth beyond reasonable doubt, which is the standard that (American) courts use in the toughest cases.

I don’t know what standard of proof the Italian court would expect, whether it is beyond reasonable doubt or something else. I suspect it might be something closer to the "preponderance of evidence"standard, which is much weaker than "beyond reasonable doubt."

However that may be, there’s evidence to prove it.

The question is whether one is willing to give proper weight to the evidence that exists.

For a start, the gospels themselves–and the other New Testament documents mentioning Christ–have a weight that cannot simply be written off just because they’re documents of faith as well as documents of history. You can’t write off the historical value of a document just because it was written by someone who is a believer.

I mean, I’m sure that Father Divine‘s immediate followers wrote about him (and if they didn’t, let’s suppose that they did). Just because they were believers in him doesn’t deprive their documents of all historical value. I mean, if I’m a detective trying to figure out if Father Divine existed and I’m looking at these documents, I’ll factor out the parts where they’re talking about Father Divine being God (something I don’t believe), but I’ll still give the documents weight when it comes to attesting to Father Divine’s historical existence.

Now some folks will concede that the New Testament documents would have similar weight if they were written by eye-witnesses or close associates of eye-witnesses, but they challenge the latter point.

Okay. We can fight that one out.

I think–and the VAST majority of Bible scholars (Christian AND non-Christian) agree with me–that the New Testament documents were (wholly or almost wholly) written in the first century. That means that they were written within seventy years of Jesus’ life, which was within the lifespans of many eye-witnesses and the associates of eye-witnesses.

Granting that, that means that they have historical weight that just can’t be written off. (Just as I couldn’t write off the weight of documents written by followers of Father Divine within seventy years of his life.)

I think that there is EXTREMELY good reason to date the books of Luke and Acts to c. A.D. 60, which is even closer (30 years) to Christ’s life, and if you buy the idea that Luke wrote based on Mark then that would put Mark even earlier.

But let’s suppose that you don’t buy these first century datings. Suppose that you think that the New Testament documents were written–say–in the second and third centuries.

Okay, even then the documents don’t seem to have all come out of one place. They seem to be responding to a widespread movement, and there’s significant evidence from secular sources that Christianity was a widespread movement in the second and third centuries.

For example, Pliny the Younger wrote a famous letter to the Emperor Trajan (reigned A.D. 98-117) about what he ought to do regarding the Christians in his provice of Bithynia. Commenting on the extent of Christianity in his province at this time, he writes that the emperor should pay attention to the Christian problem because:

[I]t appears to be a matter highly deserving your consideration, more especially as great numbers must be involved in the danger of these prosecutions, which have already extended, and are still likely to extend, to persons of all ranks and ages, and even of both sexes. In fact, this contagious superstition is not confined to the cities only, but has spread its infection among the neighbouring villages and country. Nevertheless, it still seems possible to restrain its progress. The temples, at least, which were once almost deserted, begin now to be frequented; and the sacred rites, after a long intermission, are again revived; while there is a general demand for the victims, which till lately found very few purchasers [SOURCE].

Pliny also mentions that some of the persons he interrogated said that they had been Christians at one time, but that was more than twenty years ago.

I don’t have a specific dating of this letter, but even if we assume that it was in the last year of Trajan’s reign (it may be posible to date it earlier, but for the sake of argument let’s go with that), it seems that Christianity was significantly widespread in Bithynia in the first quarter of the second century that it was seriously impacting pagan worship.

And Pliny is just ONE datapoint.

So I don’t see how one can reasonably claim that Christianity wasn’t a widespread movement in the second century.

But movements take time to grow, especially before the age of the Internet, and ESPECIALLY when there are costs of joining the movement, like getting in trouble with the state. (Trajan wrote back and said people are to be punished if they are found to be Christians.)

So how long did Christianity have to grow?

Here is where I think the New Testament (and other early Christian) documents can play a role, even from a skeptical perspective.

They are in agreement that the founder of their movement was Jesus of Nazareth, who was born no later than the last quarter of the first century B.C. (Really the last decade, but let’s leave that fuzzy.)

That’s important because if they had been able to plausibly claim that he had lived earlier then THEY WOULD HAVE DONE SO.

Antiquity counts in the religion business. People will take your religious movement a lot less seriously if it just started last week as opposed to being hundreds or thousands of years old. Youth puts religious movements at a tactical disadvantage, and so people want to claim as much antiquity for their movements as they can.

(Just look at the way some Baptists claim that their movement really went all the way to the first century instead of just to the 1600s.)

You can even see the early Christian apologists trying to do a variation of this by claiming that, even though–yes–Jesus HIMSELF was only born recently, Christianity is still really old because it’s the completion of Judaism and so it gets to claim Judaism’s antiquity for itself.

So even from a skeptical perspective we’re on pretty solid ground saying that the Christian movement did not exist–even in the person of its alleged founder–any earlier than the last quarter of the first century B.C.

So: Between the last quarter of the first century B.C. and the first quarter of the second century A.D. we have a movement that goes from NOTHING (no members) to being widespread enough to provoke serious imperial notice in different parts of the empire and, according to some accounts (Pliny’s), is big enough to make a sizable dent in pagan worship in some locations.

That’s not a lot of time.

Specifically: It’s not enough time for your movement to have retroactively created a mythical founder for itself and have belief in that founder spread throughout your movement.

That’s the kind of thing that can happen in hundreds of years, but not this kind of short timeframe.

Which is why the overwhelming majority of historians and biblical scholars–whatever their religious convictions–acknowledge that Jesus of Nazareth at least existed.

There are a few people who don’t. In fact, I recently met a very nice fellow of the Jesus Seminar (I’m not kidding; he’s been REALLY nice to me personally) who isn’t sure whether Jesus of Nazareth existed–a position I find so hard to argue that I bought his book to see how he argues it.

But the bottom line, if I may put it this way, is that there is so much Christian "smoke" in the second and third centuries that I don’t see how it could be successfully argued that there was no first century "fire" in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, kicking off the movement.

Even if someone is not a Christian and doesn’t believe any of the Christian religious claims, I don’t see how that much can be reasonably denied.

So whether one uses "preponderance of evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt," I think the Italian priest should (if he does his homework) be on safe ground in provind the existence of Jesus for the court.

But then we’re talking about the Italian legal system, so who knows.

(Sorry. Momentary lapse of self-control.)

Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

25 thoughts on “Judge Orders Priest: “Prove Jesus Existed!””

  2. Please, can any of my fellow lawyers translate this?
    Parece que el sacerdote es el acusado en este caso. Si es así ¿no debería el acusador demostrar su caso ante el juez? Si el juez impuso al acusado demostrar su inocencia, podemos saber que no estamos ante un juez imparcial.
    Thank you.

  3. I think an even better source than Pliny is Josephus, who was writing about 90 AD.
    Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
    Granted there is some dispute over the validity of the passage, but most modern scholars seem to now agree that Josephus wrote “something” about Jesus even if the actual text is now corrupt.
    –arthur

  4. Please, can any of my fellow lawyers translate this?
    Parece que el sacerdote es el acusado en este caso. Si es así ¿no debería el acusador demostrar su caso ante el juez? Si el juez impuso al acusado demostrar su inocencia, podemos saber que no estamos ante un juez imparcial.
    I’m not a lawyer, but . . .
    “It seems that the priest is the accused in this case. If he is thus, wouldn’t the prosecutor have to demonstrate his case before the judge? If the judge imposes on the accused the obligation to demonstrate his innocence, we can know that we are not before an impartial judge.”
    Or words to that effect.

  5. Jimmy,
    Have you ever thought about writing a book on this subject? This kind of presentation could do a lot of damage to what I’ve heard some atheists try to argue.

  8. I too would recommend Josephus and his “History of the Jews”
    I have not personally read it, but was a primary source on a very good book on the life of Christ.

  10. It seems that the priest is the accused in this case. If he is thus, wouldn’t the prosecutor have to demonstrate his case before the judge? If the judge imposes on the accused the obligation to demonstrate his innocence, we can know that we are not before an impartial judge.”
    In a legal system such as that in the US and Australia (accusatorial) the prosecution has to prove guilt but in an inquisitorial system such as operates in a lot of Europe the accused has to prove his innocence.
    I think that’s how it works.

  11. I’d like to see the judge PROVE that Napoleon existed.
    Do a google search on “HISTORIC DOUBTS RELATIVE TO NAPOLEON BUONAPARTE.” A little work by one Richard Whately.

  12. In a legal system such as that in the US and Australia (accusatorial) the prosecution has to prove guilt but in an inquisitorial system such as operates in a lot of Europe the accused has to prove his innocence.
    I think that’s how it works.
    In an inquisitorial system, neither guilt nor innocence is presumed. It is the purpose of the inquisitorial system to establish the truth.
    In theory, at least.

  13. Court: If Jesus didn’t exist, Church is breaking the law

    Court will decide if Jesus exists.
    An Italian court is tackling Jesus — and whether the Roman Catholic Church may be breaking the law by teaching that he existed 2,000 years ago.
    UPDATE: Jimmy Akin posts a (long) examination of evidence for Chri…

  15. It seems that the priest is the accused in this case. If he is thus, wouldn’t the prosecutor have to demonstrate his case before the judge? If the judge imposes on the accused the obligation to demonstrate his innocence, we can know that we are not before an impartial judge.”
    ———————————
    In a legal system such as that in the US and Australia (accusatorial) the prosecution has to prove guilt but in an inquisitorial system such as operates in a lot of Europe the accused has to prove his innocence.
    I think that’s how it works.
    No, the system is accusatorial here in Europe, just like it is overseas. Inquisitorial systems are a relic of the past, and a pretty shameful one at that.
    I’ve read about this case on other sites, and here’s what I understood:
    1) Cascioli (the accuser) is the author of a book in which he claims to prove, by any history standard, that Jesus is a fictional person, whose biography (ie the Gospels) was inspired by the life of another person, John of Gamala son of Judas, a 1st century Jew rebel son of Judas. Hence, he presents his book as proof against the priest.
    2) The crimes Cascioli accuses the Church of (and particularly his local priest – in Italy you must accuse one or more people, not just organizations, when penal law is involved) are two. The first is “Abuso di credulità popolare”, more or less “abuse of popular belief”, that is using your charisma and influence to make people believe in falsehoods: it is a law generally used against swindlers and mages (and especially swindler mages). The second is “Sostituzione di Persona”, ie impersonation, which law defines as “tricking others by claiming another’s name for oneself or for someone else, in order to gain an advantage”: Cascioli says the Church is “stealing” John of Gamala’s identity.
    3) The priest has replied with two documents (other than the obviously unreliable gospels) testifying Jesus’ existence, one by a Jew historian John Flavius and another by Tacitus. On his website, Cascioli counters them both: I haven’t read the one about Tacitus, but the one about Flavius seems interesting (the first objection is that author is an observant Jew, and yet in the document claims JC’s resurrection from the dead).
    IMO, while the first accusation (abuse of belief) has a slight chance of having value, the second (impersonation) is patently absurd – I’ve never even heard of that law being used against this kind of “historical” impersonation. Anyway, it doesn’t matter very much: no judge is taking the guy seriously (they are refuting all his requests, and intend to make him pay all the expenses), and Cascioli himself jokes about it (“it would take a miracle for me to win”), since it’s pretty obvious he sued just to get some publicity for his book. As a whole, if you want my opinion, just a funny news entry.

  16. I’m form a civil law legal system and I know the prosecution has to prove guilt. As Nihil notes this shouldn’t happen in Italy, but it seems that at least one judge is taking the guy seriously.

  17. I’ve read several articles on this case and it looks like the actual trial judge has been trying to dismiss it for quite sometime, but every time he tries Cascoli gets an appeals court to reinstate it on one technicality or another.
    –arthur

  18. Kosh,
    Arghhhhh! Now I will have to find the book. It is buried in a box in the garage. 🙂
    No, it is an English translation of a book written by an Italian priest, written around 1947. I’ll post the details, either tonight or tomorrow.

  19. Jesus was born of poor parents in an occupied country of the Roman Empire. During His lifetime He made no effort to become a Roman citizen, nor are their are records that He wrote anything. In fact the very fact he was crucified indicates that he wasn’t a Roman citizen for it was quite rare for the crucification to take place on a Roman citizen but was quite common for non-Roman “criminals” by Romans. It is not unsurprising that that there are no direct writings that indicate that he did exist. However, there are substantial indications that that movement of Christianity DID exist and that points back there had to be somebody to start this. This isn’t like the Holy Grail mythology which starts hundreds of years after the Arthurian legend starts.
    However the same crazed logic can say that nobody existed in Judea during Jesus’s lifetime since we have no records of these people. What the logic of this is:
    1. Take a ancient movement that has some historical records of a founder
    2. Discount that movements records saying to prove it without its records since they have to be biased
    3. Discount the movement by saying the founder must have not existed
    I once heard that many things in the ancient world that we take for granted only come from one source originally (many may have just used that source for their own records).
    Many atheists assume since the Romans were good historians that they took copious notes outside their own world. But beyond that of the Greeks what were the Romans really interested in?

  20. Richard Whately. . . . Is he any kin to the Dunwich Whateleys?
    Quite possibly … He was an Anglican Arch Bishop I believe? 😉

  22. Good heavens.
    From what I read on the case, the plaintiff says that you cannot include Josephus, etc. because they all wrote after Christ’s death. The plaintiff says that Christians have confused SOME OTHER GUY with Christ, so he doesn’t deny that there were early Christians, just that Jesus Christ existed. Almost like the “Who wrote Shakespeare’s plays” thing, only those people at least acknowledge that Shakespeare existed.
    I think the plaintiff, an ex-seminarian and author, is making good money off this goofy idea.
    And BTW, I imagine that many of the people Caesar’s “Gallic Wars” and other ancient writings aren’t mentioned anywhere else besides those writings.
    However, if “abusing people’s credulity” is the crime the priest is being accused of, can we accuse Dan Brown (The DaVinci Code) of the same thing? Please?

  23. Thank you, Sue, for stating exactly what I was thinking, both about the “Jesus was really John of Gamala” and Dan Brown’s “abusing people’s credulity”.
    Cold it be that there’s a double-standard at work? Since Dan Brown was, not just allowed to film his movie in Italy, but was also not arrested or indicted for this same crime (no facts to back up their case – just wanting to make money). In addition, certain churches were forced to allow him to film on their premises.
    No – that’s crazy talk… double-standards don’t exist when it comes to the treatment of Christians…

  24. I have failed to understand why people do not apply as much criticism and scrutiny when it comes to other historical figures as much as they do on Jesus. If Cascioli got himself to write down his convictions, challenging the existence of Jesus – Why does he have a problem with our convictions and our expressing it on paper too!!! No one ever questions existence of Prophet Mohammed — or at least it has never been an issue? This just tells us Jesus did exist and like it or not, He is no ordinary guy

  25. What ever happened with this thing.
    Judge Orders Priest: “Prove Jesus Existed!”

Comments are closed.