Jesus Christ Controversy: Mancuso’s Doubts and Claims

Settimana News previously published a response⁣ on december 1, 2025, by Andrea Grillo (link) to Vito Mancuso’s​ bestseller, Jesus and Christ (Garzanti 2025). this article, by theologian ​Marco Vergottini (titled by the author⁢ as ⁢«Jesus is, or is not, the Christ. A choice of trust and freedom»), offers a more formal and methodological analysis of the text.

Vito Mancuso excels at crafting titles.His books bear names that ⁤feel like definitive statements (Me and God), compelling formulas (The passion principle), ⁤or even life⁤ advice‍ (This life, You never lack joy). ⁢ Jesus and⁢ Christ (Garzanti, 2025) follows⁣ this pattern, suggesting to the reader: «Here you will find the‍ answer».

In this latest work, the renowned⁢ scholar aims ‍to counter an apologetic tendency: the notion that one can ⁤logically progress‍ from the ‌”past jesus” to the​ “christ of dogma” via the resurrection.

***

This intention is understandable. Faith loses its significance when presented as proof, and Easter​ risks becoming merely a ‍link in⁢ a causal‌ chain, ⁣as if ‌the central event of ⁢Christianity⁢ could be verified ‍through experimentation. The ⁣resurrection – and this bears repeating – is not a ​repeatable event, nor a laboratory finding. It⁣ is an event that occurs within history ​yet transcends it,‌ leaving traces (testimony, change, the formation of communities) but​ requiring interpretation and a leap of faith.

However, the book ​falters here, as the critique of “pro-faith” automatism appears⁤ to be replaced by an inverse automatism. To avoid “deducing” the Christ of the Church from history, ‍Mancuso imposes a selective criterion on ⁣the historical Jesus, ultimately‌ suggesting a basic divide between Jesus and Christ.

The distinction – legitimate and necessary – between history and faith⁣ is thus transformed into opposition:​ no longer ​two realms‌ in dialog, but two distinct‍ figures, and effectively, two different religions. In opposing a dogmatic apologia, the author constructs an equally dogmatic counter-apologia, claiming to​ definitively establish what, ⁣by its very nature, remains a matter of belief.

instead,we must defend -⁣ for both believers and non-believers alike – the true space of faith,which is​ neither irrationality nor deduction. A believer cannot⁣ “prove” the divinity of Christ.