Casey described himself as an independent scholar, who did not serve the interests of any religious faith or anti-religious group. He believed that Jesus really existed, but did not believe in his divinity. He criticized
Christian fundamentalists who accept incredible miracles (such as
Jesus walking on water), Christian churches that refuse to grasp the Jewishness of Jesus,
mythicists who reject everything about Jesus, and even some
liberal scholars, such as the
Jesus Seminar, who viewed Jesus as a kind of cynical philosopher, and gave credence to the earliest
apocryphal writings, such as the
Gospel of Thomas and the
Gospel of Peter. Casey believed that the documents on Jesus of greatest historical value are the
Gospel of Mark and the
Pauline epistles. According to Casey, Jesus would preach, heal people with psychosomatic disorders, and be crucified and buried, but would not be physically resurrected; the story of the empty tomb is, according to his views, a legend. After Jesus' death, his disciples and his brother
James would have some visions of him. Casey has criticized
Pope Benedict XVI for his books about Jesus (
Jesus of Nazareth,
Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives and
Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week), accusing the pontiff of using sources that are, in his views, unreliable, like the
Gospel of John. Casey also held some unconventional views about the New Testament: for example, he believed that the Gospel of Mark was written in c. 40 AD (while most scholars believe that it was written in c. 70 AD) and that the Gospel of John is completely deprived of historicity (whereas most scholars believe that at least some historical kernels can be found in that text as well). ==Works==