É sério. Está no Times de Londres. Numa disputa entre um agrônomo aposentado ateu e o Pe. Enrico Righi, em Viterbo, ao norte de Roma, Itália, um juiz exigiu que o padre prove, perante a justiça, que Jesus existiu de fato… Veja:
The Times – January 03, 2006 Prove Christ exists, judge orders priestFrom Richard Owen in RomeAn italian judge has ordered a priest to appear in court this month to prove that Jesus Christ existed. The case against Father Enrico Righi has been brought in the town of Viterbo, north of Rome, by Luigi Cascioli, a retired agronomist who once studied for the priesthood but later became a militant atheist. Signor Cascioli, author of a book called The Fable of Christ, began legal proceedings against Father Righi three years ago after the priest denounced Signor Cascioli in the parish newsletter for questioning Christ’s historical existence. Yesterday Gaetano Mautone, a judge in Viterbo, set a preliminary hearing for the end of this month and ordered Father Righi to appear. The judge had earlier refused to take up the case, but was overruled last month by the Court of Appeal, which agreed that Signor Cascioli had a reasonable case for his accusation that Father Righi was “abusing popular credulity”. Signor Cascioli’s contention — echoed in numerous atheist books and internet sites — is that there was no reliable evidence that Jesus lived and died in 1st-century Palestine apart from the Gospel accounts, which Christians took on faith. There is therefore no basis for Christianity, he claims. Signor Cascioli’s one-man campaign came to a head at a court hearing last April when he lodged his accusations of “abuse of popular credulity” and “impersonation”, both offences under the Italian penal code. 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. 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”. The Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius mention a “Christus” or “Chrestus”, but were writing “well after the life of the purported Jesus” and were relying on hearsay. Father Righi said there was overwhelming testimony to Christ’s existence in religious and secular texts. Millions had in any case believed in Christ as both man and Son of God for 2,000 years. “If Cascioli does not see the sun in the sky at midday, he cannot sue me because I see it and he does not,” Father Righi said. Signor Cascioli said that the Gospels themselves were full of inconsistencies and did not agree on the names of the 12 apostles. He said that he would withdraw his legal action if Father Righi came up with irrefutable proof of Christ’s existence by the end of the month. The Vatican has so far declined to comment.
Não gostaria de estar no lugar do padre Enrico Righi. Embora bastante leigo em assunto teológico, e por pouco que resvalei em leituras amenas, sei que a controvérsia sobre se existiu verdadeiramente um Jesus histórico é tema bastante debatido.
Do que li da Bíblia e do que pude apurar do evangelho paulino e dos demais apóstolos, um Jesus histórico é prescindível. O que ressalta concreto e intemporal, o fundamento do evangelho, é o que ouvimos ler por “Jesus cósmico”, “Jesus espiritual”. (Gostaria da correção do caro Airton, se possível, do trato teológico adequado para essa divisão hermenêutica, com as denominações apropriadas).
Cristo, segundo Paulo em 1Coríntios, 1:24, é “poder e sabedoria de Deus”. Não é sem razão, por isso, que os que antecedem a vinda de Cristo não têm a verdade em si mesmos. Como o Reino de Deus é realização interna ao ser humano, como bem atestado em Lucas, 17:24, somente com o Cristo inaugura-se o estabelecimento na Verdade, no Verbo de Deus. Claro que assim comento sem enquadrar Cristo com posição de qualquer ordem/entidade histórica estabelecida. Esse assunto é deveras palpitante.
Agora é bem ridículo a solução do Signor Cascioli de que confundiram Cristo com John of Gamala. Se ele quis refutar um Cristo histórico, é um direito que lhe cabe, mas parece-me que a imaginação dele prefere engendrar soluções de gosto muito duvidoso.