by J. Eric Harrington (c) 2005.
I find it amazing that so much of Christian literature, both serious and crackpot, have this idea popping up so often: the C.S. Lewis "Trilemma." For those who haven't read "Mere Christianity," I'll give a summary. Dr. Lewis, who was a major voice in the popularization of Christianity in the last century, created what he hoped was an insoluble problem for us unbelievers. In looking at the Gospels (the first 4 books of the New Testament), it occurred to him that there were only three possible ways to look at Jesus. Either he was crazy, a charlatan, or exactly what the Bible says -- God taking on the form of a human. Often, you'll hear it called by Lewis' odd little catchphrase "Lord, Liar or Lunatic."
Of course, Lewis might be taken seriously on this concept if he had come at the issue in a logical manner. The trouble was, he didn't. He made unwarranted assumptions about the New Testament that helped him leap to his unfounded and obviously pre-determined conclusion. But, since he was an Oxford Don and about as educated as a man could possibly be, people don't have a problem with referring to him as an authority on religion. He wasn't, actually... he was a language and literature professor. And while he knew more than most folks about such things, he wasn't infallible. As they say, everyone is ignorant, only in different things.
The problem here stems from a critical mistake. He assumed for some reason that the Bible is a reasonably accurate record of historical events. This problem becomes fatal when dealing with Jesus, because even a cursory reading of the four documents in question reveals enough discrepancies that a closer examination is not only warranted, it is vital. Dr. Lewis did not carry out his duty as a scholar in this case. He didn't mention ever approaching that question in his book, which leads me to the conclusion that he wasn't much interested in a thorough, objective examination of his religion.
So if the historicity of the Gospels is thrown into question, what happens to the "Trilemma"? To be blunt, it falls to pieces. The inerrancy of the Bible is its foundation, and if that base is shaky, the structure is in danger. There are several viable scenarios involved in dealing with Jesus, once you take off the blinders of faith and view the issue dispassionately.
First, there's the possibility that Jesus was a man who in fact did go about the countryside, preaching love and peace, damnation and hellfire. He certainly wouldn't have been the only one in those days. This scenario would have him go to Jerusalem, run his mouth until he got run over by the religious/political machinery of the day. His few straggling followers could then have escaped the chaos of the fallout, made up some stories about what really happened while they were in the city, and legends grew out of that.
I know a few folks who would point out that many of Jesus' followers and early Christians died gruesome deaths rather than change their story, and this is "evidence" that what they said was true. Which is, of course, leaping to even more unwarranted conclusions. First off, we don't know which of the original "church fathers" were real people as opposed to idealized story characters. Second, we don't know how any of them really died, or whether they were executed willingly or not. The Catholic Church had a knack, after it gained absolute political power, of altering and creating historical records to "prove" its claims. Finally, imagine the number of "heretics" who died at the hands of Christian Inquisitors while refusing to change their beliefs to fit the Christian mold of the time. The idea of a Christian fanatic proving his truthfulness by being executed is as ridiculous as the idea of any other fanatic proving the same thing for whatever they are fanatic about.
So this scenario (Jesus as mere religious fanatic whose story grew in the telling) is entirely possible, and should therefore be seriously added to the "Trilemma." Suddenly, the water becomes a lot muddier, doesn't it? In the original "logic" it was a dead easy cinch to dismiss the Liar and Lunatic options. At least Dr. Lewis thought it was. But considering the propensities of humans to exaggerate their stories about their heroes, this new option isn't anywhere near as easy to dismiss, is it?
Second, there's the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth lived at all. This is an intriguing question, one that isn't the historical "no brainer" that nearly all Christians think it is. Consider: there are no contemporary records found so far that indicate that Jesus existed, or that many of the "historical events" surrounding his life as described in the Gospels ever happened. There was no hare-brained "census" to force Joseph and Mary to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem. There was no "slaughter of the innocents." These would without doubt have been recorded. In Matthew, we see the claim of other remarkable events that certainly should have made the history books: a 3-hour shut-down of the Sun, earthquake and the appearance of "zombies" in the city of Jerusalem.
The only record that comes even close to mentioning Jesus and that comes even close to being contemporary would be the Jewish historian Josephus. Unfortunately, the passages in his "Antiquities" that mention Jesus are easily seen as lame "pious frauds" -- items added long after the original manuscript was completed, by Christian copyists who thought they would "improve" the books they were supposed to be copying. Sure, John the Baptist and his religious cult (the Essenes of Dead Sea Scrolls fame) are mentioned, but it's pretty sure that Josephus never heard tell of Jesus. And the truly remarkable thing is that Josephus wrote his history of the Jews nearly a half-century after the supposed death and resurrection of Jesus. You'd think that he would have heard something about this Jesus person from Christians in the area where he lived, in Rome. Either he didn't hear, or he didn't see Jesus as being worth mentioning.
Many Christian apologists make a big deal about the historical accuracy of the descriptions of Jerusalem at the time, before Rome came in and destroyed it. That, of course, is hogwash. I refer you to Charles Dickens. His narratives describe London in great detail. "Barnaby Rudge" in fact describes London from around a half-century before Dickens' birth. Yet no one has any problem with understanding that the story is just a story. Also, consider the Iliad. Homer's work was used to locate the spot where Ilium (Troy) once stood. It purports to relate actual history, complete with the gods of Olympus getting involved in the fray. Anyone want to argue that the Iliad is 100% factual? If you do so for the Gospels, based on the accuracy of the milieu, you would have to do the same for the Iliad.
So in this view, what was Jesus? It is very possible that he was a story made up to act as a legend of the founder of the Christian religion. It is interesting to note that every event written about in the Gospels came directly from books the Jews held sacred in those days. Not a single word Jesus said, nor any of his ideas were unique or new. Everything in those books had been said and written by Jewish rabbis and Greek philosophers well before the first century.
We see this sort of thing in much of ancient Hebrew literature. The Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible) is almost nothing but just-so stories and legends made up to serve as a "noble history of God's chosen people." Archeologists are finding evidence all the time that supports this view. Abraham, Jacob, Moses and all that lot are about as much true historical figures as Romulus and Remus.
In any event, the whole argument regarding Lewis' "Trilemma" is not a serious concept. At least not to rational people who are interested in discovering objective truth. Anyone who can't accept the problems with the concept is working only by faith, in the face of facts that are deadly to it. Apologists should know this and leave it out of their materials, just to avoid embarrassment. Of course, I don't expect them to even consider that. Having the support of such a well-respected "authority" is hard to turn away from. Particularly when one's religion is built, as Christianity is, upon the vaporous foundation of faith and pious frauds.
