JESUS and CHRIST is a recent publication by Vito Mancuso that has enjoyed a certain success. The author, formerly a priest who later abandoned both the cassock and the Catholic faith, contrasts in it the figure of Jesus, understood as a historical person, with Christ, understood as a religious reworking that lasted many centuries. He acknowledges the historical Jesus as a spiritual teacher of all humanity, alongside Socrates, Buddha, and Confucius, but considers his supernatural dimension to be entirely invented.

He maintains, for example, that Jesus was born in Nazareth, Christ in Bethlehem; Jesus was the son of Joseph, Christ the Son of God; Jesus had brothers and sisters, Christ was an only son, and so on.

We will not enter here into an examination of his thought: everyone is free to tino what they wish, and about Christ everything and its opposite has been said. We want instead to highlight just one element that seems to us fundamental: how can one trace back to the historical Jesus? From which sources can the reconstruction of his thought and the events concerning him be made?

The only reliable sources from that period are the Gospels and, in reference to them, the Acts and the Letters of the Apostles, all contained in what is known as the New Testament. In addition, we have various historical confirmations, which are nevertheless problematic and which historiography and archaeology have been investigating for centuries. We have no other reliable sources, of any kind and in any case.

Nevertheless, regarding Jesus and his work we have a practically infinite number of accounts written over two thousand years, with very different functions and meanings.

These are, however, always works of imagination, none of which is based on any historical evidence, even indirect, and which therefore certainly cannot reveal things that the canonical Gospels would not have wished or been able to reveal, or that would later have been subject to censorship by the Church.

To clarify the problem, let us make a comparison with the legend of Roland, paladin of France. The only historical source that speaks of him is Einhard, who mentions him as one of those who fell in an attack on the rearguard of the Franks in the gorges of the Pyrenees, at Roncesvalles.

Subsequently, however, infinite stories and poems arose around his figure: from the medieval Chanson de Roland, a literary monument of French culture, to the Renaissance Orlando Innamorato, a masterpiece by Ariosto, up to the still-performed Sicilian puppet plays, in which Roland is the main protagonist.

We may even doubt the reliability of Einhard; we may think that he remembered the episode poorly, or even that he invented it for some reason; but certainly in no case, in no way, can we think that the modern Sicilian puppet plays, or the Renaissance Ariosto, or the medieval Roland can give us indications for reconstructing the real historical episode of Roland: that would be an evident absurdity.

Similarly, since the only historical sources that deal with Jesus are the canonical ones, we may even choose not to believe them, to think that they distorted or perhaps, at the limit, entirely invented his story—indeed, during positivism there were some who outright denied his very existence. But we cannot in any case think that legends and accounts that arose later, with Jesus as their protagonist, can make us know the historical figure of Jesus himself.

Certainly, accounts, legends, and literary works of every kind always have a meaning; they do not arise from nothing. But what they represent is not the historical character; rather, they represent ideals, aspirations, beliefs—in short, the spiritual world of those who composed them.

Thus the Chanson de Roland expresses the epic spirit of crusade of the Middle Ages; Orlando Innamorato expresses the composed and serene Renaissance vision of Ariosto; the Sicilian puppet plays focus on a claim of value, courage, and honesty against the power of money (Roland is portrayed as poor but valiant). But all these things have nothing to do with the historical Roland.

The same occurs with accounts that have Jesus as their subject.

We thus have the apocryphal Gospels, which express philosophical visions common to the time (generically defined as Gnostic); we have still other apocrypha that simply wish to satisfy curiosity about the life of Jesus that the canonical Gospels, too concise, do not report (for example: what Jesus did before his preaching, during childhood and adolescence).

Other legends then appear in the Middle Ages to represent this or that religious belief or ethical principle, sometimes in agreement with the Church, sometimes in a heretical key.

At times recourse is made to stories to justify the particular religious value of a place or a relic.

Even in the modern world, writers have often resorted to representations of Jesus: for example, sometimes the return of Jesus to earth is staged.

In none of these cases, however, can one think that such accounts can add anything to the historical knowledge we have of the Gospel events: for those events, the only historical sources are the canonical ones. It cannot be said that they are historical sources because they were chosen by the Church; on the contrary, they were indicated by the Church because they are historical sources.

We recall the famous novel, and later film, The Da Vinci Code, which some years ago proposed to the general public a fictionalized story that even contemplated a romantic relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene (incredibly), and which nevertheless achieved great success; but in that case certainly no one doubts that it is pure invention.

In the case, however, of the work under examination, there is a claim to reveal a historical truth.

We can say that in JESUS and CHRIST the idea is presented that, even apart from the religious aspect, the preaching of Jesus has great ethical value for all humanity. On this point not only every believer, but also the great majority of non-believers, can agree.