You couldn't make it up no.18 - is this the most moronic judicial decision ever taken?

[fpb]

The Times January 03, 2006

Comments

[bufo_viridis]

Typical case of "stupidity of rational institution" in Weberian sense of the word :) The juge seems rational himself - he didn't want to take the case in first place.

He 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.

Actually he's right. Authors living <>before Jesus would be more reliable.

[fpb]

Such as Second Isaiah (Is.40-55), for instance?

The atheistic gentleman's arguments are pathetic. Both Tacitus and Josephus wrote within living memory of the historical Jesus, and Suetonius (if we accept that the "Chrestus" of his Life of Claudius is in fact Jesus) testifies to the presence of Christians in the metropolis of Rome as early as the reign of Claudius, which at any rate agrees with Acts' mention of Christian Jews expelled from Rome by the same emperor. His clinging to this sort of cultish, unscholarly nonsense shows clearly that he is an unbalanced fanatic. Alas, the courts notoriously have an attraction for such persons (http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/21/people.letterman.restraining.ap/).

[bufo_viridis]

I know - but in any case that's a matter for historians to dispute, not courts. Unfortunately, if there's a case, the court must hear etc.

[rfachir]

He must be a terribly frightened man - an agronomist should have mastered enough statistics to understand Pascal's wager. He must have tried hard to grasp it, to be a priest. Not understanding zero or infinity must be torture for a mathematician. "Hell on Earth" as it were.

[enelya_oronar]

OMG! *speechless*

[fpb]

Of course, you can find no "irrefutable proof" of any historical event. It is entirely open to anyone to declare, for instance, that Caesar invented the whole story of the siege of Alesia and that no such battle ever took place: after all, he is our sole primary source for it - and he claims to have won it, too. And then anyone who so wanted could sue a whole slew of historians and history teachers for "abuse of public credulity" because they build up their positions as historians on the reputation of this man and this battle. This is just about the kind of intellectual level we have here.

[ani_bester]

Umm you know, if I can take it on faith that "God" exists, I think I'm ok with taking it on faith that "Jesus" exists.

This reminds me of the Screwtape Letters bit about the dangers of relying too much on a "historical Jesus."

[fpb]

No, my friend, I take it on historical evidence. We have much better evidence for the life of Jesus - and I speak as a historian who specializes in the interpretation of ancient documents - than for almost any famous event before about 1300 (in Europe, I mean). It is now beyond argument that the whole New Testament, with the possible exception of IIPeter, was written before 90-100AD, that is within living memory of Christ. So was Josephus' History of the Jewish War. Tacitus' Annals are barely later. Suetonius' mention of Christ ("Chrestus") comes from archival sources from the reign of Claudius (41-54AD). In front of this array of evidence, the atheist gentleman's faith must clearly be of the kind described by the old joke: the capacity to believe what we know to be false. Whether Jesus rose again from the dead and whether he was God Incarnate are matters of faith; whether he existed in the times and places described is a matter of history, and very firmly established history too. It is not as a Christian, but as a historian

[patagonian]

Good Lord - my first inclination is to suggest that this man get himself a hobby or something. Although Mr Cascioli does remind me of one of the most adament atheists I've ever met. He talked about God more than anyone else I have ever known.