Talk:Lewis's trilemma/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Establishing the Trilemma versus Resolving the Trilemma

This has gotten very convoluted and I think some clarifications need to be made. Lewis's trilemma is only established once all but the three possibilities it allows (Liar, Lunatic or Lord) have been eliminated. Then, it can be resolved in any one of those three ways. Establishing the Trilemma narrows the possible options for the identity of Jesus down to three, and resolving the Trilemma narrows the possibilities further down to one.

Lewis establishes the Trilemma by argument in the three paragraphs preceding the final paragraph of chapter 3 in his book quoted in the article, and does not resolve it by argument. I don't point this out as an objection to Lewis's position, (there's nothing wrong with just stating one's opinion) but only as a clarification of what the book in fact says.

"This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God."

He states his opinion of how he, personally, resolves it without even attempting to defend that opinion logically, leaving it up to his readers to resolve it in their own way, and he then moves on to another subject. Or one might interpret this to mean he's claiming that it is self-evident that Jesus was not a liar or a lunatic, though it doesn't seem self-evident to me at any rate.

Peter Kreeft's presentation of Lewis's trilemma in Between Heaven and Hell (novel), on the other hand, does attempt to resolve the trilemma. He spends a great deal of time both establishing it against the objections of "Christian pantheism" (the view that Jesus was essentially a guru) and resolving it against the objections that Christianity is simply false. (the view that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic) Establishing the trilemma addesses pantheism, while resolving it addresses atheism and non-Christian monotheism. It is important to distinguish between these two very different stages of this form of argument and not to confuse them together.

Kreeft's methodology of resolving the trilemma is not the only methodology possible. Besides taking the "lunatic" or "liar" route, there may be other, completely separate arguments that reach the "Lord" conclusion. Some may be logically coherent and some others might not be. But some of the objections I find against trilemma-based arguments fail to distinguish which stage of the argument they are criticizing (how it's established or how it's resolved?) and what exactly in the argument they're objecting to. (a false premise, an ambiguous term, a fallacious logical form or just based on their own irrational pigheadedness?) People often say this form of argument is no good, but can seldom explain why it's no good. I think only those objectors who can clearly explain which stage of the arguments they object to and on what grounds should be allowed to be cited in this article, and not just people expressing bile. Does that make sense? --BenMcLean (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

What Lewis said

• Purpose: "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying [a] really foolish thing".
• What others say: "People often say about Him: I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God." [Emphasis added.]
• Clarification: "That is the one thing we must not say." [Emphasis added.]
• Why it is foolish: "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher." [Emphasis added.]
• Unstated assumption: Lewis is charitable to those he criticises, assuming they have some rational ground for their assertion: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher". The assumption is that their rational grounds for the belief interact with the best extant records about Jesus, rather than, say: dreams, visions, wild guesses, or hearsay like "everyone knows Jesus was a great moral teacher".
• The Trilemma: "He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell." (or he was not "merely a man")
• The point: "You must make your choice."

Lewis is painfully explicit about precisely what he is arguing: no "fence-sitting", Jesus was worthless or he was God.

One does not provide a counter to Lewis' challenge to say either:

1. the New Testament is not a reliable description of the historical Jesus; nor
2. the New Testament does not include claims by Jesus to be God.

In the first case, one is expressing an agnostic position regarding the historical Jesus, not that one is "ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher". In the second case, Jesus' said many things that are completely loopy, blatantly arrogant or totally deceptive unless he was not "merely a man". Irrespecive of divinity claims, "the sort of things Jesus said" includes plenty to damn him if he was "merely a man".

On the contrary, Logic 101 says that these are totally devastating to Lewis' trilemma. His argument rests on the assumption that he is offering the only possible options. Even one other possibility destroys the argument. If Jesus didn't say everything the Bible claims he said, the argument collapses. If what he said is misinterpreted, the argument collapses. There are further fatal problems for the trilemma. Lewis' assumption that if Jesus belived himself to be God, but was not, he could not be a good moral teacher is an ad hominmen argument - just because someone is crazy doesn't mean they can't be a good moral teacher. And claiming that if he was lying he couldn't be a good moral teacher is also an ad hominem argument. Lewis is engaging in the fallacies of false dichotomy (actually false trichotomoy) and ad hominmen. His argument fails to rule out the possibilities of misquotation or misattribution. It fails to prove that he would be the equivalent of being a poached egg or the devil of hell, he merely asserts it. Supporters of the trilemma only support it because they like the conclusion, not because it is a good argument. It's a terrible argument, and Lewis knew it.--RLent (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No no, you're confusing the premise with the conclusion. In establishing the Trilemma, the three possible options are the conclusion. There are a whole series of premises supporting the conclusion that there are only three options. The premises are about various things Jesus said, Jesus' characteristics, the characteristics of a merely human "good moral teacher" and how these cannot be reconciled together.

Crazy people aren't good moral teachers, that's crazy. Lying isn't being a good moral teacher, that's also crazy. Surely you have more ethical sense than that. --BenMcLean (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The things I am saying are matters of Logic 101 and intermediate second language English comprehension. They will hardly have passed professional experts by. We misrepresent critics of the Trilemma if we press them to have been presenting blunders without any contextual waivers. We certainly misrepresent any advocates of the Trilemma if we do not quote what they must have said along the lines I've drafted above.

I think a big element of confusion arises because since the time Lewis first presented the Trilemma the number of people who would hold the position he was challenging has shrunk to almost nothingness. The Trilemma, as originally framed, is profoundly irrelevant to modern discourse because people either think Jesus (if he was historical at all) was indeed merely a man, and no great moral teacher, but rather a religious zealot with possibly more pros than cons, but a fundamentalist with a little too much in common with terrorists to be worthy of anything suggesting endorsement. He was explicitly racist, probably homophobic and it would be a miracle indeed if he wasn't a card-carrying member of the patriarchy. Despite being Jewish, he has even been accused of starting an anti-Semitic religion! ('His blood be upon us and upon our children.')

On the other hand, there are, of course, still people who accept Jesus as more than "merely a man", despite thereby damning themselves by association with the sorts of criticisms above.

Oddly, Lewis might have got exactly what he asked for! The world has, in large measure, moved on from tolerance and polite restraint regarding Christianity. At a guess, most would say, at best, well-intentioned idealist, but not great moral teacher, since a good deal of his "morality" would be considered archaic, restrictive, ignorant prejudice. The Jesus of the Bible needs rewriting to be made relevant, and some serious censorship if morality is to be even considered.

Don't get me wrong here. Although it's not my own personal view, I think people have a rational case to say Jesus is irrelevant or immoral. What's more to the point ... so did Lewis ... some time ago. His point: you can't call his teachings great morality without accepting the NT and those teachings that suggest his thoughts regarding personal divinity: lunacy, lies or "after eliminating the impossible whatever remains is the truth" (apologies to Conan Doyle).

What's wrong with the Trilemma? Imo, the word in bold above "often". People don't often say they accept Jesus' moral teachings ... any more. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Alastair, much as I am entertained by your contributions to this page, I have to remind you that (a) this is not a forum, and (b) they represent your opinions only. This is Wikipedia, not Alastairpedia (which I would be fascinated to read, btw).

I honestly wonder if you are being wilfully obtuse in some of the views you express. You insist that the view Lewis was dismissing has now 'shrunk to almost nothingness'. Do you have even the slightest evidence, other than your own opinions, to back this up? In 1957, a Gallup poll in the UK found that 9 per cent of the population thought Jesus was just a man; a survey of the UK population in 2001 found that 26 per cent of the population believed this. There is no evidence that I am aware of which would allow us to discover what proportion of either of those figures groups believed Jesus was a morally good man, but it hardly seems reasonable to suppose, without further investigation, that that figure has declined. If you can support your opinion with evidence, please do so.

I am astonished that you have difficulties accepting the simple point that a common and reasonable objection to Lewis' argument is that it is based on a broadly inerrant interpretation of the Gospels. Leave the public out of this - there is a long-established and widespread scholarly tradition that views the 'ethical' teachings of Jesus as authentic, and the 'divine' teachings (Messianic claims, eternal existence, forgiveness of sins) as either a misinterpretation or an invention of the Gospel writers [a simplification of the argument, but it will do]. It is not important whether you agree with this or not - the point is that Lewis' argument hinges on how accurate the Gospel record is. If you believe Jesus told his followers he had always existed, and that they should love their enemies, Lewis is right; if you believe the latter but not the former, then he is wrong. (And again, that's oversimplified to make the point) Please don't let's start a discussion about whether that view is historically sound; the point is that it is nothing logically wrong with believing it.

By the way, Lewis himself accepted this point as relevant: in God in the Dock, he specifically argues that his point can be made on the basis of the Synoptics alone - clearly indicating an awareness that scholars regard John as the least historically accurate of the Gospels. (Which, note to self, must add to the criticism section as a response). --Rbreen (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You're most welcome to have a dig at me, especially as you're so kind about the way you do it, and because I'm so very sure of my ground. Logic is never a matter of opinion, nor, in most cases is interpretation of one's native language. So you're not actually dealing with Alastair's opinion here, just Alastair's way of presenting information relevant to the overall structure of this entry. When last I checked, it is still the case that "a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down" (Walsh & DaGrady, 1964), so I feel bolstered by the opinion of the best experts to express myself according to such principles.

You appear to miss the point I was making, though, which is one that several writers cited against the trilemma make: they think the trilemma irrelevant, as it deals with a position that few hold any more. Here's another example, taken from a different Anglican theologian.

Given: "mimsy were the borogoves" (Rev Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, 1871).

Claim: all the borogoves are mimsy.

Prediction: if X is a borogove, X is mimsy.

Now we could debate backwards and forwards about whether borogoves are always mimsy, or just mostly mimsy, or whether there are exceptions, or whether it being brillig matters, or the presence of toves matters, or their gyring and gimbling is a significant factor. But the two important parallels here are that it can be reasonably objected that whatever arguments we put forward, however logical, are simply irrelevant because we are discussing nonsense.

It appears to me that the surveys you cite (and quick work and well done by the way), support precisely what I was saying in defence of opponents of the trilemma. Let us suppose the 9% of your study believed Jesus was not God in 1957, and that that has expanded to 26% in 2001—it seems to me that we are all making precisely the same point. Without going into details of which particular bits of evidence (if any) lie behind people's opinions, when offered the alternatives—(A) Jesus was God or (B) Jesus was not—option (B) has been advancing in popularity since Lewis published his trilemma.

Now, I'm happy to conceed I've exaggerated, and that the reality is that far more people believe Jesus is God than I suggested above (though figures for Australia are likely to tell a different story than those elsewhere). But the main point I was making was that it is the relevance, not the logic, of Lewis' trilemma that several critics challenge. And in establishing that, several factors are significant: as you do note, whether people believe the morality of Jesus' teaching was good or not is absolutely pertinent, but so is the basis for knowing what Jesus actually said, since there has been plenty of material discussing that over 2,000 years.

The bottom line is that all manner of circumstantial objections can be made to the trilemma: Lewis knew a great deal of Greek literature off by heart in the original, but not a lot of 19th century German theories about the composition of the biblical texts; he addressed himself to non-specialists, claiming no particular expertise himself; etc. However, unless one starts with the logical conjunction Lewis claims is self-defeating—Jesus was good, not God—one is dealing with some other argument, not Lewis' argument as he presented it. That's fine, of course, so long as others have put forward botched versions of Lewis, and indeed that seems possible.

Regarding the wider discourse, loosely based on Lewis' trilemma, I do think NT Wright's approach is close to ideal, and it's a version of that which informs the comments I've started making in the section below. The only difficulty with Wright's approach is one you noted in an edit summary—it's a fair bit of hard work to follow it, because it includes both a lot of history, and a lot of subtle theology. It is rewarding, if followed, because it explains how Jesus can be seen to have claimed to be God, without saying so in what we would consider to be plain language.

I think we're making progress here. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Lewis' logic was deeply flawed. His argument is valid, I will give it that. But it is not sound, which is more important than validity. The argument "All cats are fish, all fish are trees, therefore all cats are trees" is a valid argument, but unsound. The trilemma isn't used because it is good logic.--RLent (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Larry Hurtado says that the followers of Jesus, within a very short period after his crucifixion, had an exceedingly high level of devotional reverence to Jesus and they rejected the charge that they worshipped two deities, when they declared Jesus divine, while rejecting the view that Jesus made a claim to messiahship or divinity to his disciples during his life as 'naive and ahistorical'. and that the early Christians understanding of Jesus' nature developed from their interpretation of his actions and words. N. T. Wright says the 'trilemma' argument lacks historical context, oversimplifying first century Judaism's understanding of the nature of God's dealings with his people.

If this is a sentence, its a rough one. I'd fix it but I couldn't parse it. Enfascination (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Reference to Trilemma in Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe?

Lewis includes a trilemma in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, when the Professor says of Lucy's claims to have visited Narnia that either she is lying, or mad, or telling the truth, and since she has always been honest, and does not seem mad, presumably she really has visited a magical country, as she claims.

Should this be included in the article?109.186.35.189 (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Lewis's quote about Jesus's claims being legend

In offering the trilemma, Lewis has no burden to prove the historicity of Jesus's claims to divinity. His point is to fence-sitters. A man that made the claims the Jesus as represented in the New Testament made would not be merely a "good man." Even one who truly believes Jesus never existed should agree with that claim. But even if an obtuse individual wants to press the issue, Lewis himself rejects legend--as he was qualified to do so. His expertise is beyond that of a regular NT scholar/critic as he spent his entire career reading and analyzing myth. Here's the quote:

"Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there is no conversation that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it." <http://www.christasus.com/Letters/CSLWhatAreWeToMakeOfJesusChrist.htm>

Lewis, himself qualified to speak on the subject, thought the "Legend" objection to be the silliest of them all, which seems to make the criticisms against the trilemma even dumber. Mr2b (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Lewis's very argument at the end there makes him unqualified to reject the 'legend' objection. Critical scholarship rejects his conclusion. Consider Mark was written no earlier than 70AD (references destruction of the Temple), and the other Gospels are almost universally considered to be derived from Mark, this makes it exceedingly unlikely that the writer knew Jesus personally. (Especially since the original language of all 4 gospels is greek rather than the expected Aramaic if the writer was a local). And its even been noted that Mark has a remarkable amount of similarities to Homer's Odyssey, and is extensively referencing old testament verses (likely the source of a lot of details). --69.209.59.214 (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of the article

I would object to calling the trilemma ALONE, separated from any other supporting material, a "proof of Jesus's divinity". After all, it's perfectly possible to call Jesus a liar or insane. And maybe well he was. All the trilemma does intend to do is crush any idea that Jesus is just "a good teacher". There is far too much tooting of Christ's own horn in the New Testament mixed in with the "good teachings" for him to be merely claiming to be like Master Kong or Lao Tzu or John Stuart Mill.

Take the Sermon on the Mount, for example. Very often Jesus says "You have heard it said... but I say to you...".

Who said "you shall not commit adultery"? If Jesus is speaking to the Jews, he will at least teach it is Moses, and certainly that it was God, who wrote the Ten Commandments with his own finger. (We may believe otherwise to-day, but I am speaking of Jesus's audience 2000 years ago, who were not so "educated" as we are to-day. IOW, Jesus said this to people who assumed as fact that God wrote the Decalogue.)

Who is this man, then, to append to or change the commands of God?

Or in the Evangelium Iohannis, good preaching (such as, for example, the stoning of the adulteress) is sandwiched between large sections of Jesus waxing eloquent about his relationship to the Father, or to Abraham. The most ancient sources for John lack not the parts about Jesus speaking about His divinity, but the story about the adulteress.

Neither the trilemma, nor this criticism, is a proof of Jesus's divinity. And it irritates me that you would take Peter Kreeft's quote out of context and makes it sound as if he uses this to prove Jesus must be divine(if not the others; I do not know them as well).

But I do not understand how one can cherry-pick the Gospels for what one likes and throw away the rest, unless one really does not care and makes up his own moral values based on his own personal preferences, not caring about reality or truth or history. 174.19.84.59 (talk) 07:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Lewis's trilemma → Lewis' trilemma – In the English possessive usually rather than having two Ss in a row (even if divided by apostrophe) we usually just affix the apostrophe after the S, so I think it would lead to a shorter and prettier article title more in line with efficient English if we did so here Ranze (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment how is it pronounced? "Lewises trilemma" or "lewiz trilemma"? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That probably varies from individual to individual, though only the former is unambiguous in speech. The latter would be indistinguishable from "Lewis trilemma." --BDD (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:RETAIN. The superfluous s is widely accepted, particularly in the UK (WP:ENGVAR). See apostrophe. —  AjaxSmack  03:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RETAIN, and really common usage as well. It may sound a little awkward, but this is simply how we denote a possessive for a singular noun that ends in an S. The proposed form could just as easily refer to a trilemma of multiple Lewi. --BDD (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The "s's" form is normal, certainly in British English, for a singular possessive and the "s'" form for a plural possessive. As someone whose name ends in "s" I can personally attest to this! Ironically, the article Ranze cites in favour of renaming even itself recommends this form! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the current version is already correct and efficient. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Criticism Reverters

I'm up to three users who have chosen to revert one sentence: "From an orthodox Christian perspective all of these criticisms rely on denying the authority of Scripture (see Biblical inerrancy and Biblical_inspiration#Views), by questioning or rejecting the Biblical accounts." The first one, Flyer22, was polite about requiring references, I added in references to basic entries on Biblical Inerrancy and Inspiration because I realized that it was possible that other readers might be ignorant of the basics of orthodox Christian beliefs and this would allow them to do further research and perhaps even spot the biased writing puffing up the rest of the "Criticism section" (Hint: if you cannot spot it, do a bit of research). Since then,Thebadger33 (unsourced personal opinion) and Paul August (no reliable sources) have decided to kill the edit for the incorrect reasons listed since it was sourced in the first place and if Paul August thinks the supporting articles are "unreliable", then he needs to direct his attention there. Given the "unbiased" and "quality" of the rest of the Criticism section, I expect more reverts for no good or apparent or even false reasons. I'll continue to log them here as a public record.Kamatu (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What you need here is a reliable source which reviews the criticisms given in the article and asserts that all "these criticisms rely on denying the authority of Scripture". You haven't done that. All you have done is point to two Wikipedia articles (neither of which say anything about Lewis's trilemma, let alone the criticisms concerning it) and in any case Wikipedia articles do not qualify as "reliable sources " for the purpose of article citation, please see WP:Reliable Sources. Paul August ☎ 19:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

As it seems that no source is forthcoming, I've removed the passage. Paul August ☎ 01:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Top 3 Reasons this is an argument for the Incarnation

There is a fairly widespread belief that this is not an argument for the Incarnation of Jesus, but simply an assertion that the claims of Jesus should be taken seriously, in contrast to the assumption that he was simply a 'good teacher'. That's true - this certainly is what Lewis was saying about Jesus, and probably with justice - but to stop there is completely to miss the point. The first part of the argument is that Jesus is not simply a 'good teacher'. The second point, however, is equally important - which is that Jesus is not only not simply human but is the Incarnation of God.

There are at least three pieces of evidence that show this.

The first is that this is how it has traditionally been used. Charles Liddon used it in this way in 1866 in his lectures on the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ ('si non Deus non bonus'); Charles Gore used it in this way in The Incarnation of the Son of God in 1890 ('aut Deus aut malus homo'). Others have used it in this way since. It would be very strange if Lewis were the only one not to.

The second is, what is the point of the argument otherwise? Lewis says there are only three options and he clearly neither wants nor expects his listeners to accept the other two. What he is saying, therefore, is that the only real possibility is that Jesus is really God.

The third is that he explicitly tells us that is what he is trying to do. In God in the Dock there is the text of a speech he gave to youth leaders and priests in Wales in 1944, in which he advises them on preaching to working class people and explains that when it comes to the Incarnation, many think Jesus was just a good teacher, so he recommends the 'aut deus aut homo non bonus' - clearly a reference to this argument in the formulation used by Gore, whom he had read. --Rbreen (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"Largely ignored by theologians and biblical scholars, who do not view Jesus as having claimed to be God."

"This argument is very popular with Christian apologists, but largely ignored by theologians and biblical scholars, who do not view Jesus as having claimed to be God. Some argue that he identified himself as a divine agent, with a unique relationship to Israel's God .[2] Others see him as wanting to direct attention to the divine kingdom he proclaimed. [3] The current majority opinion among Biblical scholars is that the proclamation of the divinity of Jesus was a product of the Christian communities in the years after his death.[4]"

I don't know the proper WP conventions to list when taking issue with this statement, but it's errant nonsense and only true of very liberal theologians who do -not- 'largely' represent anyone but themselves. Citing a 2-page opinion piece by an author [4] is not evidence that the author's claims are true, nor, even if peer reviewed, is it evidence that other scholars in his field back up his statement. He himself gives no substantial evidence or research to back up such a broad sweeping claim. This makes it 'opinion'.

Does WP actually make allowances for such poorly supported claims?

I don't actually think you could quantify the entire group of "theologians and biblical scholars" and their opinions on this issue even if you were able to first a) ascertain who qualifies as a "theologian or bible scholar", and then b) individually poll each and every one of them. I think it would likely be impossible to poll a representative sample, most especially because a) itself is pretty well impossible. I know people who hold no degree who know far more of the Bible and supporting texts and histories than most Masters of Divinity or Theology scholars.

I do know one group who as a whole supports this point of view... Jehovah's Witnesses. I somehow doubt the Watchtower is a) representative of Christian scholarship and b) is suitable criticism of Lewis.

Thank you. Thistledowne (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This issue continues as several users have attempted to remove the questionable text, only to be reverted by Rbreem.

My primary issue is that one scholar's article is used to make this claim of "majority opinion". Yet, in perusing the source, it clear this "majority opinion" is based on the opinion of Gerd Lüdemann, not any research he has conducted. I would argue it's confirmation bias on Gerd's part as he himself takes this tack as does an assumed high majority of HIS peers. Gerd takes a very low view of scripture an makes several claims in this terse article, but nothing that is substantiated at all. Ergo, this is a poor citation and should not be allowed. And the majority of Wikipedia editors in this matter agree with me.

If this source is invalid, then what else supports the claim, "The current majority opinion among Biblical scholars is that the proclamation of the divinity of Jesus was a product of the Christian communities in the years after his death."? Indeed, it is very hard, bordering on impossible, to support such a claim (see Thistledown's argument above).

In order to remain neutral on the subject, we cannot take such a hardline view to say that liberal theologians are more correct than conservative, orthodox theologians. By allowing Gerd's tainted view of "the majority" we do just that and insinuate that orthodox theologians are somehow myopic.

Cpflieger (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

That this is the majority opinion is well supported by the citations in the article. Luedemann is a respected scholar and he is certainly not presenting this view as his alone, but as the consensus of modern scholarship. He is in a position to know and his assertion is certainly a better basis of evidence than 'the majority of Wikipedia editors' (which is not supported by anything other than one editor's opinion (and subject to ... confirmation bias).

I really don't want to get involved in a document dump, but it doesn't seem to be avoidable here:

"such evidence as there is has led the historians of the period to conclude, with an impressive degree of unanimity, that Jesus did not claim to be God incarnate. This is so generally agreed today that a few representative quotations, drawn from writers who themselves affirm an orthodox christology, will suffice for our present purpose. Thus the late Archbishop Michael Ramsey, who was himself a New Testament scholar, wrote that 'Jesus did not claim deity for himself (Michael Ramsay, Jesus and the Living Past (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980) 39).. His contemporary, the New Testament scholar C.F.D. Moule, said thai 'Any case for a "high" Christology that depended on the authenticity of the alleged claims of Jesus about himself, especially in the Fourth Gospel, would indeed be precarious' (Moulc 1977, 136). In a major study of the originsof the doctrine of the incarnation James Dunn concludes that 'there was no real evidence in the earliest Jesus tradition of what could fairly be called a consciousness of divinity' (Christology in the Making, SCM Press (1980), page 60). Again, Brian Hebblethwaite, a staunch upholder of the traditional Nicene-Chalcedonian christology, acknowledges that 'it is no longer possible to defend the divinity of Jesus by reference to the claims of Jesus' (Hebblethwaite, Brian 1987: The Incarnation (Cambridge University Press), 74). Yet again. David Brown, another staunch upholder of Chalcedon, says that 'there is good evidence to suggest that [Jesus] never saw himself as a suitable object of worship' and that it is 'impossible to base any claim for Christ's divinity on his consciousness once we abandon the traditional portrait as reflected in a literal understanding of St. John's Gospel' (David Brown The Divine Trinity Open Court 1985, 108). These quotations (which could be multiplied) reflect a remarkable transformation resulting from the modern historico-critical study of the New Testament. Until about a hundred years ago (as still very widely today in unlearned circles) belief in Jesus as God incarnate was assumed to rest securely upon his own explicit teaching: 'I and the Father are one', 'He that hath seen me hath seen the Father', and so on. Now, however, to quote one of the most recent defenders of a Chalcedonian christology, Adrian Thatcher, "there is scarcely a single competent New Testament scholar who is prepared to defend the view that the four instances of the absolute use of "I am" in John, or indeed most of the other uses, can be historically attributed to Jesus' (Thatcher 1990,77).'" John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age (Westminster John Knox Press, 2006) pages 27-28.

"As to why and how Jesus came to be held and treated as messianic and a divine figure among early Christians, two major approaches can be mentioned as par- ticularly influential, with both of which I take issue. Among Christians of more naive orientation (this can include otherwise sophisticated people who have simply not been made aware of the issues) and among some anticritical Chris- tian apologists, there is often the view that Jesus was regarded as divine simply because he was in fact the Messiah and divine Son of God and made both his messiahship and his divinity clear to his disciples during his ministry. Conse- quently, in this view, there is no historical process to investigate and nothing particularly difficult to understand historically about Christ-devotion in the early period. The early Christian claims about Jesus may be difficult for non- believers to accept for various reasons, but the explanation of how and why early Christians promoted such high views of Jesus as are attested in the New Testament and other early Christian writings is thought to be simple: the truth of Jesus' messiahship and divinity was revealed by Jesus himself, and so natu- rally was taken up from the beginning in Christian beliefs and religious prac- tice. In effect, in this view it is either puzzling or downright inappropriate (es- pecially in the view of anticritical apologists) to apply historical analysis to the Christ-devotion of early Christianity and seek to explain how it developed. In the anticritical expressions of this viewpoint, it is held that the theological and religious validity of traditional Christian devotion to Christ would be called into question if it were really treated as a historical phenomenon. The other influential approach arose in large part in reaction against this naive and ahistorical view. " Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity By Larry W. Hurtado, page 5.

If any editor can find a reputable citation for an alternative view, it would be welcome. But it would need to be from a substantial scholar.

Rbreen (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Your argument about Gerd Luedemann seems to fall under, "he speaks for everyone, because he says he speaks for everyone."

As far as other citations, and your tone in general, it smacks of elitism. I can only infer that you would only accept a theologian as "a substantial scholar" if they are agnostic. Cpflieger (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does focus on scholarly academic sources, which I suppose can appear as elitist to some, but it's the only way to ensure sound and reasonably neutral content. In the case of Luedemann we have a world renowned scholar who speaks for the academy and ought to be a reliable source for scholarly views. His view is clearly supported by the other sources. A substantial scholar in this case would be a well-known and widely published and well respected source. Their individual religious views are irrelevant - Hurtado, for instance, who is a highly respected expert on this era, is certainly not an agnostic.Rbreen (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I've made a change that I hope you'll find ameliorative. I've changed the sentence in question to read "many of whom do not view Jesus..." From pure sentential logic, I think the original sentence was fine, but it's easy to see how a casual reader would find it objectionable, reading it as saying that ALL theologians/scholars hold this view, when of course we could come up with at least one counter-example to that. I hope the "many of whom" maintains the original intent while removing some of the worries mentioned above.Tdw92 (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Even the rather tame changes by TDW92 to express that there is a difference of opinion on this subject were deleted quickly. I have restored a recent change, that make note that, yes, despite the opinions of some, there are those that hold a differing opinion. I believe is wrong that this article cannot be allowed to show that there is diversity of opinion and that, no, the liberal point of view is not exclusive. In an effort to maintain a NPOV, I urge you all to set your biases aside and allow for this change to remain. Cpflieger (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

However "tame" you think the changes may be, they come with no supporting sources, so I've had to revert again. To change what the article says you need to supply an appropriate source which supports those changes. Paul August ☎ 17:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

R. A. Knox

The argument is developed at length by Monsignor Ronald Knox in his 1927 book The Belief of Catholics, an important work of Catholic apologetics in its time. It's only speculation on my part, but I wouldn't be surprised if Lewis was familiar with this and influenced by it. Metamagician3000 (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the Wikipedia article on Knox, I see that there is actually a book of the two of them (Knox and Lewis) in conversation, with a title that suggests they were friends, so perhaps it would be useful to track this down and see whether it sheds any light. Metamagician3000 (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)