Liar, lunatic, or lord?

I’m sure you’re familiar with C.S. Lewis’ trichotomy about Jesus: liar, lunatic, or lord. Let’s break that down then see if we can’t come up with another option.

Liar
The basic plot here is something along the lines of Mary was engaged to Joseph when she was raped by a Roman soldier, but Joseph felt sorry for her and married her anyway. The story they told everyone is that Jesus was the son of God, since that would be less embarrassing than raped by a despicable Roman. Jesus could have not even known it was a lie, but just grew up believing it and wasn’t smart enough to figure out the truth.

Of course maybe he knew his mother was raped by a Roman soldier (or had sex with any other man, whether it was consensual or not) and made up the story that he was the son of God to save his mother’s honor as well as his own. He then just took things too far. All in all, this is quite possible. Or maybe he knew Joseph was his father but also knew that wouldn’t make a compelling story to attract followers so he came up with the virgin birth line.

Lunatic
Jesus was nothing but a madman. Of course, how could he have done everything written about him if he was crazy?

That’s really a stupid question because we all know that plenty of lunatics have managed to say nutty things, attract followers, and then get themselves killed. This too seems possible.

Lord
As far as sexual ethics go it’s wrong for someone with a sizable power advantage to sexually take advantage of a subordinate. It’s also unethical for a mature individual to take advantage of a very young person. For example, and just to keep it legal in the modern context, it would be highly unethical for a state governor to seduce an 18 year old high school senior for the sake of impregnating her.

Let’s bring the Jesus story into the mix. God, the ruler of the universe, told a 14 or 15 year old girl that he wanted to knocker her up, given the power imbalance she would have had no choice but to agree. Even if she really wanted to, that’s not legitimate consent. So according to this story God is an unethical douche bag at the least and a rapist at the most.

Then to complicate things even more, God raped a teenage girl to impregnate her with himself, so that he could kill himself, to satisfy his own wrath, only to then resurrect himself, thus negating the the satisfaction of what every penalty the sacrifice was for, then declare himself blameless and worthy of praise, only to be reunited with himself.

Which is more likely?
Liar and lunatic are both plausible while lord is not. So if I had to choose between the three I would probably go with lunatic. However, this is a false trichotomy, there are other options.

Legend
Just for the sake of argument let’s assume that there was an historical Jesus (despite the lack of evidence for such a claim). Legends develop quite rapidly. Relatively recently legends developed around George Washington and Paul Revere within years or maybe a few decades. Within similar time frames Alexander the Great was elevated from being an historical great to a legendary figure with Zeus being his father and having miraculous powers. By the time the first Jesus narratives were written, more than enough time had passed to establish legendary exaggerations, besides there’s no reasons those writers themselves didn’t exercise some creativity and make up a few details themselves.

Divine paternity and miraculous powers, whether assigned to historical figures or not, sure sound like nothing more than a legend, especially when those details first appear a few decades after the legendary figure to whom they are assigned is said to have lived.

Liar, lunatic, lord, or legend? I’ll go with legend.

12 Comments


  1. Oh nice, thanks for share!


  2. Myth, or legend as you put it, seems the most plausible. The Jesus of the bible is largely fictional. Even if there was a real man called Jesus wandering around at that time, we know next to nothing about him, as he didn't write anything down himself. Everything "known" about Jesus is hearsay (or written-say, you know what I mean) and is passed down by people who almost certainly lived well after the time of his death (if he even existed in the first place). 

    You're right to point out that C.S Lewis was wrong: A largely (or totally) fictional character doesn't have to fit into the "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" categories because he didn't lie if he didn't exist or if people made up stuff about him after he died. 

    I would also venture a fourth category: Unknown. Neither Liar, Lunatic or Lord, he is unknown because we know next to nothing about him, other than the accounts written of him by other people who couldn't even get their own stories straight. 

    The Liar, Lunatic or Lord "dilemma" only ever applies to those who believe the biblical accounts, and there's no reason to believe them.



  3. I agree that everything written about Jesus is written by other people.

    Do you realize that most of these writers were later murdered for their “faith” in Jesus? Why would so many of the early church suffer and die for their “faith” when they could say, “Actually, we made the whole thing up” and live?


    1. The only thing that the willingness of the adherents of a cult to die for their beliefs is evidence for is the veracity of their belief. If it were anything more, then David Koresh must have been the messiah.


  4. If I started a cult, and I was center stage at the Colosseum for belief in this cult, and then given the choice between renouncing the cult I knew was false because I helped invent it – and live! – or hold onto the lie and die? I think I would chose life.


    1. The Christians who were at the Colosseum were not the ones started it all. Besides, people can genuinely believe their own delusions.


  5. the early Christians who were around with Jesus were murdered for their faith


  6. That’s based on traditions that are as unsubstantiated as Jesus’ life.


  7. from wikipedia:

    “Persecution of Christians can be traced both historically and in the current century. Early Christians were persecuted for their faith, at the hands of both Jews from whose religion Christianity arose, and the Roman Empire which controlled much of the land early Christianity was distributed across. This continued from the 1st century until the early 4th”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians


  8. The earliest verifiable independent sources about Christianity are from the Second Century CE. You should take a look at Mythraism and some of the other cults that rose around that time in the first few centuries CE in the Roman Empire. The only thing that makes Christianity unique is that it was the one that Constantine favored and thus it’s the one that survived.

Comments are closed.