Lewis's Trilemma - split from Matthew topic

[Spud]

I understand that there is a bit in the NT where Jesus allegedly does a series of 'Blessed are the' statements

Two versions, in Matthew and Luke; the latter copied the former, which means that he considered it authentic.

[Gordon]

Two versions, in Matthew and Luke; the latter copied the former, which means that he considered it authentic.

Might he be wrong? Might he be overly gullible? Might be be peddling propaganda for Jesus?

I'd say the above were all reasonable questions that, unless dealt with, make the story too risky to be taken seriously as historical fact. Even then, it reads as rambling generalisation, so not that important really. 

[jeremyp]

Two versions, in Matthew and Luke; the latter copied the former, which means that he considered it authentic.

Or both copied another written source, which is the majority (although not exclusive) opinion within the field of NT criticism.

The above doesn't really alter your point though: Luke considered it authentic or he wouldn't have put it in his gospel. That doesn't mean it was authentic though.

[jeremyp]

Not really: it seems to me that Lewis was using the 'mad or bad' (lunatic or liar) as possible labels to describe the character of Jesus as portrayed in the NT, both of which he rejects presumably because he has already fallen for the 'lord' option hook, line and sinker. The problem is though that the texts he bases his assumptions on lack credibility because their provenance is unknown, hence the risks of mistakes or lies cannot be ignored.

Every time someone, say a cleric, says along the lines of 'Jesus taught/tells us whatever' they are merely reciting an anecdote that is not confirmed as being true or accurate: they have no way of checking, so they are at best overreaching or at worst peddling possible untruths as being historical facts.

It's worth remembering that Lewis was writing for an audience that had a more reverential outlook with respect to Jesus. He's actually relying on the shock value that would be attached to somebody saying Jesus was a liar or a lunatic. Even now we tend to shy away from those two options, preferring instead, to point out that Jesus could have been mistaken or lied about by others.

I think we should all embrace the dishonesty of the Trilemma and and choose "liar". How would Lewis (or Vlad) respond to that? I think the argument collapses completely if Lewis is forced to confront somebody who is prepared to accept one of the distasteful (to him) options.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's worth remembering that Lewis was writing for an audience that had a more reverential outlook with respect to Jesus. He's actually relying on the shock value that would be attached to somebody saying Jesus was a liar or a lunatic. Even now we tend to shy away from those two options, preferring instead, to point out that Jesus could have been mistaken or lied about by others.

Correct - and that is one of the most disingenuous/dishonest aspects of the trilemma. Effectively only to provide options which require you to shift to one extreme (bad, mad) or the other (god). And to do so under cultural circumstances where the one extreme options (mad, bad) would have been culturally and societally challenging.

However once you add in the numerous 'middle ground' options - e.g. mistranslated, misinterpreted, mistaken, simply wrong, exaggerated over time etc etc, so are not forced into the extremes - so we are comfortably able to conclude that, based on the evidence, we cannot plump for mad, bad or god.

I think we should all embrace the dishonesty of the Trilemma and and choose "liar". How would Lewis (or Vlad) respond to that? I think the argument collapses completely if Lewis is forced to confront somebody who is prepared to accept one of the distasteful (to him) options.

Hmm, not so sure as this simply plays back into Lewis dishonest narrowing of options. Realistically you, me and basically everyone cannot conclude that Jesus was a liar any more than we can conclude that Jesus was god. Why, well because there is woefully insufficient evident to make either of the conclusions. All we have are writers from decades later (and the actual text we have is from centuries later) claiming that Jesus made certain claims. That is only evidence we have is that those later writers made those claim (as to what Jesus said), not that he actually said any of those things. And what we do know is that the later writers are inconsistent one with another, partial in that they had an agenda and also that there are many, many variations in early copies of those texts. So the evidence (the very limited that we have) points towards conclusions that aren't mad, bad or god.

[Spud]

Or both copied another written source, which is the majority (although not exclusive) opinion within the field of NT criticism.

The above doesn't really alter your point though: Luke considered it authentic or he wouldn't have put it in his gospel. That doesn't mean it was authentic though.

According to Harold Riley, the sermon on the mount in Matthew has a distinct structure, which shows signs of later editing. His theory is that Luke has preserved the original form and wording of Matthew's beatitudes, which his copy of Matthew contained. Riley thinks this because he sees general signs that Luke has used Matthew's sermon as the basis for his version in Luke 6 (eg they both continue with the centurion's servant).

[ProfessorDavey]

According to Harold Riley, the sermon on the mount in Matthew has a distinct structure, which shows signs of later editing. His theory is that Luke has preserved the original form and wording of Matthew's beatitudes, which his copy of Matthew contained. Riley thinks this because he sees general signs that Luke has used Matthew's sermon as the basis for his version in Luke 6 (eg they both continue with the centurion's servant).

And what is the dating of the actual text on which this theory is based. By that I mean an actual copy rather than a long-lost original (which we do not and cannot know what it said, unless we happen to stumble upon it).

[Gordon]

According to Harold Riley, the sermon on the mount in Matthew has a distinct structure, which shows signs of later editing. His theory is that Luke has preserved the original form and wording of Matthew's beatitudes, which his copy of Matthew contained. Riley thinks this because he sees general signs that Luke has used Matthew's sermon as the basis for his version in Luke 6 (eg they both continue with the centurion's servant).

Spud

I don't think we need to wander in the direction of this particular bit of text (you can start a thread if it interests you). I raised this as an example of why, in relation to the Trilemma proposal, the NT text doesn't lend support to Lewis because he conveniently ignores the potential risks by taking the NT text seriously, where the 'Blessed are' bits are just an example.

[Spud]

And what is the dating of the actual text on which this theory is based. By that I mean an actual copy rather than a long-lost original (which we do not and cannot know what it said, unless we happen to stumble upon it).

Roughly three centuries after the events. But don't let that put you off, it's about the same time gap as that for Alexander the great.

[ProfessorDavey]

Roughly three centuries after the events. But don't let that put you off, it's about the same time gap as that for Alexander the great.

True - and also true for many other ancient texts where we only have later versions so cannot be sure what was in the original.

But there are two important differences between Jesus and Alexander the Great. First, there is contemporary archeological evidence to corroborate aspects of Alexander's life, including coins, statues, inscriptions etc. There are zero equivalent contemporaneous artefacts for Jesus. But perhaps more importantly writings about Alexander are not posited as evidence for him being divine (or certainly no-one today would be claiming as such). So realistically we are not being asked to change our lives, worship Alexander as a god etc etc. so it largely is merely of academic interest whether or not the writings about Alexander reflect what was originally written or not. The same isn't true for Jesus, where we are asked to accept a series of implausible claims about him on the basis of writings that were written decades after the events and where we don't have anything close to the original and where we know that early versions contain numerous inconsistencies and in many cases show clear evidence of later (not late 1stC to early 2ndC, but 4/5thC to 3rdC) additions.

So what we actually have is carefully curated 4thC versions which may bear little resemblance to what might have been written in the late 1stC. And yet we are asked to unquestioningly accept these as evidence for totally implausible claims.

[Gordon]

Therefore, the trilemma proposed by Lewis is spurious nonsense given his proposal is no more than unjustified assertion based on unreliable sources, where his preferred conclusion of 'God' is unjustified by any  evidence and since it's magical thinking on his part in concluding that the historically uncertain figure called 'Jesus' was some kind of supernatural agent.

[Spud]

Therefore, the trilemma proposed by Lewis is spurious nonsense given his proposal is no more than unjustified assertion based on unreliable sources, where his preferred conclusion of 'God' is unjustified by any  evidence and since it's magical thinking on his part in concluding that the historically uncertain figure called 'Jesus' was some kind of supernatural agent.

Would it be better to apply it to the New Testament writers? ie, they were mad, bad or right?

[Gordon]

Would it be better to apply it to the New Testament writers? ie, they were mad, bad or right?

Who knows? Who cares? Who can check their stories?

It's indistinguishable from fiction, especially given the ridiculous supernatural claims, so best to not take the NT seriously. That is why the trilemma is idiocy: it has no substance, and silly metaphysical nonsense aplenty.

[jeremyp]

Realistically you, me and basically everyone cannot conclude that Jesus was a liar any more than we can conclude that Jesus was god.

Really? I think it is vastly more likely that Jesus was a liar than he actually was a god. The former is a real possibility whereas the latter is just fantasy.

[jeremyp]

According to Harold Riley, the sermon on the mount in Matthew has a distinct structure, which shows signs of later editing.

Certainly plausible. It's also plausible that he had a source that had a distinct structure and Luke had a version of the same source that showed signs of later editing, or even that Luke was the one who did the editing.

His theory is that Luke has preserved the original form and wording of Matthew's beatitudes, which his copy of Matthew contained. Riley thinks this because he sees general signs that Luke has used Matthew's sermon as the basis for his version in Luke 6 (eg they both continue with the centurion's servant).

I'm not saying he is wrong. Mark Goodacre would definitely agree that Luke used Matthew and edited it himself. However, that is not the view of the majority of mainstream scholars. That's all I'm saying.

[jeremyp]

Would it be better to apply it to the New Testament writers? ie, they were mad, bad or right?

Or mistaken or misled by their sources, or ...

[Spud]

Or mistaken or misled by their sources, or ...

I think that is part of the 'mad' category?

[Spud]

It's indistinguishable from fiction, especially given the ridiculous supernatural claims

Just to clarify, would you still say it is indistinguishable from fiction if the supernatural elements were not there?

[Gordon]

Just to clarify, would you still say it is indistinguishable from fiction if the supernatural elements were not there?

Yes - since there is a lack of provenance.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think that is part of the 'mad' category?

No it isn't. Being wrong on a matter doesn't necessarily make you either mad or bad, it may be that you are genuinely mistaken.

So were those people who thought that the sun went round the earth mad? Nope in most cases they were just genuinely mistaken, believing what they'd been told despite the fact that it wasn't true.

Spud, you don't come across to me as either mad or bad even if I think you are wrong in thinking that god exists. To claim that there are only three options - you are mad, you are bad, or that god exists is clearly non-sense. You could simply be wrong.

[ProfessorDavey]

Really? I think it is vastly more likely that Jesus was a liar than he actually was a god.

So do, I but we aren't talking about the options of 'bad' (i.e liar) or god. Given that we have no credible evidence that he ever claimed that he was god then we can add in the notion that later writers exaggerated, misinterpreted or mistranslated what he actually said. This seems obviously more plausible than him being god but also at least as plausible (I'd argue way more so) than concluding that he lied. Realistically it is pretty implausible that oral conversations between Jesus and others (sometimes just one other) could have been accurately recorded verbatim and retained/passed on with perfect fidelity over many decades. 

The former is a real possibility whereas the latter is just fantasy.

True but that he never actually said what was claimed or that his words were misinterpreted, mistranslated etc seems to be an even more likely possibility.

[jeremyp]

So do, I but we aren't talking about the options of 'bad' (i.e liar) or god. Given that we have no credible evidence that he ever claimed that he was god then we can add in the notion that later writers exaggerated, misinterpreted or mistranslated what he actually said. This seems obviously more plausible than him being god but also at least as plausible (I'd argue way more so) than concluding that he lied. Realistically it is pretty implausible that oral conversations between Jesus and others (sometimes just one other) could have been accurately recorded verbatim and retained/passed on with perfect fidelity over many decades. 
True but that he never actually said what was claimed or that his words were misinterpreted, mistranslated etc seems to be an even more likely possibility.

Actually, I think there is a high probability that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic or some combination thereof. We know he was a cult leader and we have direct evidence of other cult leaders and it seems to me that deception and delusion are frequent character traits.

[ProfessorDavey]

Actually, I think there is a high probability that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic or some combination thereof. We know he was a cult leader and we have direct evidence of other cult leaders and it seems to me that deception and delusion are frequent character traits.

Possibly, but there is a difference between lying, which I consider to be saying things that you know to be untrue, and being genuinely mistaken (in other words you say something that you consider to be true but actually isn't). So to consider someone to be a liar we would first of all need to be sure what they claimed and then you'd need to determine whether or not they knew the thing they claimed was not true. In the case of Jesus realistically we have no idea what he actually claimed (rather than what later writers claimed that he ... err ... claimed) and we even less know whether or not he knew the things he was claiming were, or were not, true.

So he might have been a liar but it is frankly impossible for us to know based on the paucity of evidence we have. So realistically ascribing attributes to Jesus is a fool's game as we know next to nothing genuinely about him. We might ascribe attributes to those later writers who wrote about him as we have (to an extent) writing from them, plus also we know a little about the development of the early church and the writing we have was clearly carefully curated by those early church leaders.

[Spud]

Yes - since there is a lack of provenance.

I would disagree. I am certain, for example, that they were written within a generation after the events, and thus would have been exposed as fiction soon afterwards had they been so (you did ask, Who can check their stories?)

Your frequent phrase, "mistakes or lies" seems to summarise the trilemma, with respect to the authors, by the way.

[Gordon]

I would disagree. I am certain, for example, that they were written within a generation after the events, and thus would have been exposed as fiction soon afterwards had they been so (you did ask, Who can check their stories?)

Your frequent phrase, "mistakes or lies" seems to summarise the trilemma, with respect to the authors, by the way.

If you are going to make fantastical claims based on the text of the NT then you'd need address the risks of mistakes or lies, and if you can't (and you can't) then you should consider the NT as being too unreliable to take seriously.

You seem reluctant to consider that the mysterious 'authors' of the NT might be either ignorant, gullible or devious: just like some people are today.