Chapter Seven:  The Alternatives 

1 

Before we look at the three logical alternative approaches we can take concerning Jesus’ claims, we must first note that his claim is based on the “resurrection from the dead.”  Jesus predicts it in several places, and its truth as an event is asserted time and time again – through the epistles, Acts, and the gospels themselves.  In Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, he ties the claim of divinity to the claim of resurrection so closely that they actually stand or fall together, as we shall see. 

The resurrection is the authentication of Jesus’ divinity.  It is a central point in the earliest Christian preaching, recorded in Acts by Luke.  In the very first Christian sermon, at Pentecost, at which 3,000 people are converted, Peter says “When he had been given up to you, by the deliberate will and plan of God, you used heathen men to crucify and kill him.  But God raised him to life again, setting him free from the pangs of death … The Jesus we speak of has been raised by God, as all bear witness.” (Acts 2) 

Again, at the healing of the lame man he declares “You begged as a favor the release of a murderer, and killed him who has led the way to life.  But God raised him from the dead; of that we are witnesses.” (Acts 3)  Right after this, before the Jewish leaders, he states “it was by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead; it is by his name that this man stands here before you fit and well … There is no salvation in anyone else at all, for there is no other name under heaven granted to men, by which we may receive salvation.” (Acts 4)  And in Peter’s first message to the Gentiles, he tells Cornelius “and we can bear witness to all that he did in the Jewish country-side and in Jerusalem.  He was put to death by hanging on a gibbet; but God raised him to life on the third day, and allowed him to appear, not to the whole people, but to witnesses whom God had chosen in advance – to us, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.” (Acts 10) 

Similarly, in Paul’s preaching, recorded also in Acts, the resurrection of Jesus is central.  At the synagogue in Antioch he proclaims “Though they failed to find grounds for the sentence of death, they asked Pilate to have him executed.  And when they had carried out all that the scriptures said about him, they took him down from the gibbet and laid him in a tomb.  But God raised him from the dead; and there was a period of many days during which he appeared to those who had come up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem.  They are now his witnesses before our nation.” (Acts 13)   

Before the Greeks in Athens he points to the authority of Jesus to judge all men:  “of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17)  And on trial himself for his preaching, he tells Herod Agrippa “I assert nothing beyond what was foretold by the prophets and by Moses:  that the new Messiah must suffer, and that he, the first to rise from the dead … I am not mad, your Excellency; what I am saying is sober truth.  The king is well versed in these matters, and to him I can speak freely.  I do not believe that he can be unaware of any of these facts, for this has been no hole-and-corner business.” (Acts 26) 

Paul’s Epistles are the earliest Christian documents.  The resurrection is as important in the earliest as in the latest.  To the church in Galatia (written c 50 A.D.) he refers to “God the Father who raised him from the dead” (Gal 1), and “if anyone, if we ourselves or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel at variance with the gospel we preached to you, he shall be held outcast.”   

And to other churches he preaches the resurrection consistently:  “… of his Son Jesus, whom he raised from the dead. … We believe that Jesus died and rose again; and so it will be for those who died as Christians; God will bring them to life with Jesus.” (1 Thes 1)  “Bearing the human likeness, revealed in human shape, he humbled himself, and in obedience accepted even death – death on a cross.  Therefore God raised him to the heights and bestowed on him the name above all names.” (Phil 2)  “He was declared Son of God by a mighty act in that he rose from the dead.” (Rom 1)  Each of the above quotes was written between 50 and 57 A.D. 

Paul summarizes the supreme importance of the resurrection for Christian belief in his letter to the church at Corinth (written about 57 A.D.): 

First and foremost, I handed on to you the facts which had been imparted to me:  that Christ died for our sins, in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised to life on the third day, according to the scriptures; and that he appeared to over five hundred of our brothers at once, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.  Then he appeared to James, and afterwards to all the apostles. … Now if this is what we proclaim, that Christ was raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?  If there be no resurrection, then Christ was not raised; and if Christ was not raised, your faith has nothing in it and you are still in your old state of sin.  It follows also that those who have died within Christ’s fellowship are utterly lost.  If it is for this life only that Christ has given us hope, we of all men are the most to be pitied.  But the truth is, Christ was raised to life – the first fruits of the harvest of the dead.  For since it was a man who brought death into the world, a man also brought resurrection of the dead. (1 Cor 15:3-7, 12-22) 

2 

Let us turn to the resurrection accounts of Jesus as provided in the gospels.  First, his death is described in detail.  His sufferings are enumerated.  At the Garden of Gethsemane he sweat drops of blood; he was flogged – not just the usual 39 lashes, but until the soldiers felt like quitting; he was beaten; and a crown of thorns was put on his head.  He was forced to carry his cross until he was no longer able, and fell repeatedly on the way to Golgotha.  Eusebius describes flogging:  “the sufferer’s veins were laid bare, and that the very muscles, sinews, and bowels of the victim were open to exposure.” [1] 

He was crucified by nails in his hands (wrists) and feet.  In this position the victim has to stand up on his pierced feet in order to breathe.  When they break his legs, he dies of suffocation.  The thirst is supposed to be one of the worst torments of crucifixion (particularly when the majority of blood has been lost through the flogging). 

The unnatural position made very movement painful; the lacerated veins and rushed tendons throbbed with incessant anguish; the wounds, inflamed by exposure, gradually gangrened; the arteries – especially at the head and stomach – became swollen and oppressed with surcharged blood and while each variety of misery went on gradually increasing, there was added to them the intolerable pang of a burning and raging thirst; and all these physical complications caused an internal excitement and anxiety, which made the prospect of death itself – of death, the unknown enemy, at whose approach man usually shudders most – bear the aspect of a delicious and exquisite release. [2] 

Although the Roman soldiers often broke the legs of their victims to ensure a speedy death, they didn’t break Jesus’ legs, for they saw that he was already dead.  So they lanced his side through the heart with a spear.  Out came blood and water, reports John the disciple.  This has a great deal of significance to one with medical knowledge: 

We are told on eyewitness authority that “blood and water” came out of the pierced side of Jesus.  The eyewitnesses clearly attached great importance to this.  Had Jesus been alive when the spear pierced his side, strong spouts of blood would have emerged with every heartbeat.  Instead, the observer noticed semi-solid dark red clot seeping out, distinct and separate from the accompanying watery serum.  This is evidence of massive clotting of the blood in the main arteries, and is exceptionally strong medical proof of death.  It is all the more impressive because the evangelist could not possibly have realized its significance to a pathologist.  The “blood and water” from the spear-thrust is proof positive that Jesus was already dead. [3] 

After Jesus had died, Joseph of Arimathea put Jesus’ body in his own tomb, after asking Pilate for it.  He wrapped him in grave-clothes and one hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes. 

In preparing a body for burial according to the Jewish custom, it was usually washed and straightened, and then bandaged tightly from the armpits to the ankles in strips of linen about a foot wide.  Aromatic spices often of a gummy consistency, were placed between the wrappings or folds.  They served partially as a preservative and partially as a cement to glue the cloth wrappings into a solid covering … John’s term “bound” is in perfect accord with the language of Luke 23:53, where the writer says that the body was wrapped … in linen … On the morning of the first day of the week the body of Jesus had vanished, but the grave-clothes were still there. [4] 

A great stone was set in front of the tomb. 

And so they laid Him to rest in the niche of the rock-hewn new tomb.  And as they went out, they rolled, as was the custom, a “great stone” – the “golel” – to close the entrance to the tomb, probably leaning against it for support, as was the practice, a smaller stone – the so-called “dopheg.”  It would be where the one stone was laid against the other, ten on the next day, the Sabbath though it was, the Jewish authorities would have affixed the seal, so that the slightest disturbance might become apparent. [5] 

The Jews asked Pilate for a guard over the tomb to prevent anyone from stealing the body.  This guard was probably a Roman one [6] whose disciple was well-known.  They weren’t likely to fall asleep on the job, or fail in their watch. 

The punishment for quitting post was death, according to the laws (Dion. Hal, Antiq. Rom., VIII.79).  The most famous discourse on the strictness of camp discipline is that of Polybius VI.37-38, which indicates that the fear of punishments produced faultless attention to duty, especially in the night watches.  It carries weight from the prestige of the author, who was describing what he had an opportunity to see with his own eyes.  His statements are duplicated in a general way by others. [7] 

The guard put a seal on the stone. 

The idea is that they sealed the stone in the presence of the guard, and then left them to keep watch.  It would be important that the guard should witness the sealing.  The sealing was performed by stretching a cord across the stone and fastening it to the rock at either end by means of sealing clay.  Or, if the stone at the door happened to be fastened with a cross beam, the latter was sealed to the rock. [8] 

The gospel accounts are clear in the details of Jesus’ sufferings, crucifixion and death, burial, and protection of the body by a trained Roman guard.  There is no contradiction in either the gospel or epistle accounts.

3 

The accounts of Jesus’ resurrection, found mainly in the gospels, are given from a variety of sources, from a variety of viewpoints.  This has led some to assert the impossibility of their harmony.  Because one account mentions one aspect, and another account a different aspect, these superficial discrepancies must be shown to really contradict each other to qualify as “contradictions.”  There are those who have tried to put the gospel accounts together in a coherent framework. [9]  And when they are thus brought together, the superficial problems give way to a deeper unity, much like the coherence seen in historical or legal witness.  The nature of the witnesses, and the form of their testimony, must be taken into account. 

Take for example the battle of Waterloo.  If you read the many narratives of persons who were present at the battle you will find remarkable discrepancies between them.  To take an instance.  Not long ago there was a discussion in the papers on which of the days before Waterloo it was that the famous ball took place.  Yet no one doubts the reality of the ball.  Or take an event nearer our own time.  Most of us have talked to those who were in the battle of Jutland, yet how difficult it is to get a coherent and satisfactory account of that battle.  It appears to become more difficult the larger the number of eyewitnesses it is possible to consult.  Each person present has seen just one particular part and formed his own conception of the whole.  Yet no one doubts that the battle of Jutland was really fought … 

The necessity of harmonizing independent account does not take away from the truth of the event.  In fact, it is a condition of truth.  Supposing that all the narratives of the Resurrection in the four Gospels and in St. Paul’s exactly harmonized, it would be apparent that they all came from one source and they would have no independent value.  It is because there are different stories and accounts of events after the Resurrection, clearly independent of one another, but witnessing to the same fundamental conditions, but from different points of view, that we have grounds for a strong conviction of the truth that underlies all the narratives. [10] 

It seems, then, that the very “discrepancies” in the accounts – because they are indications of the independence of these accounts, and because they can be harmonized with a little study – are the greatest indication of the truthfulness and candor of these accounts. 

The notion of resurrection, like the notion of the “self-disclosure of the noumenon” mentioned previously, is unique in Jesus among the major religious leaders: 

Abraham, the father of Judaism, died somewhere about 1900 B.C., but no resurrection has even been claimed for Abraham.  In fact, his tomb has been most carefully preserved for almost four millennia, in Hebron, in southern Palestine, now covered with a Mohammedan mosque, recognized by almost all authorities on biblical history as being the genuine burial place of the great patriarch.  The original accounts of Buddha never ascribe to him any such thing as a resurrection; in fact, in the earliest accounts of his death, namely, the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, we read that when the Buddha died it was “with the utter passing away in which nothing whatever remains behind.”  One of the outstanding modern authorities on Buddhism, Professor Childers, says, “There is no trace in the Pali scriptures or commentaries (so far as I know in any Pali book) of Sakya Muni having existed after his death or appearing to his disciples.”  Mohammed died June 8, 632 A.D., at the age of sixty-one, at Medina, where his tomb is annually visited by thousands of devout Mohammedans.  All the millions and millions of Jews, Buddhists, and Mohammedans agree that their founders have never come up out of the dust of the earth in resurrection. [11]

4 

The importance of the resurrection is in its concreteness.  There ARE AT Least four major elements to be noted in these appearances of Jesus.  First, Jesus appears in a real body:  Thomas touches him, inspecting his wounds.  Jesus eats, drinks, talks to his disciples, reassuring them that he is indeed not a ghost.  Second, his body is a “glorified” body.  He can appear at will; he can appear in a room without going through the door, perhaps “stepping into” another dimension rather than walking through walls.  Third, he appears in many situations; he says and does things characteristic of him, and looks like the Jesus they all knew.  He appears to many at a time – as many as five hundred! – or just a few (the women, the men on the way to Emmaus), or individually (Mary Magdalene, Peter, James).  And fourth, the appearances are always connected with the empty tomb.  The body, the physical body of Jesus is not in the burial place, despite his apparent death and interment, and the Roman guard placed over him. 

When we place the claims of Jesus to be God-in-the-flesh in conjunction with the resurrection-claim, we see they stand or fall together (as Paul states in 1 Corinthians).  Either it is true, or false.  Jesus’ body is not half-resurrected.  If it is out of the grave, then he had the power to pull it off; then he probably is the manifestation of God claimed in the documents.  But if he is still in the grave, no matter what is claimed by him, he can’t substantiate his claim.  The resurrection propels Jesus’ claims into the realm of concrete, objective history.  

What are the logical alternatives available to us, if Christian claim is not true?  There are only three. 

  1. If it can be shown that those accounts are in fact not apostolic, that is, that they were written by people not directly in touch with the facts, then the accounts of Jesus’ claims, of his death, and of his resurrection are not necessarily based on fact.  If the documents are not substantially eyewitness reportage, then their value as evidence is suspect.  We will call this possibility the “Legend Hypothesis”, for the majority of critics that hold non-apostolicity do so on the basis of the alleged legendary, or mythological, character of the accounts.
     
  2. The second alternative open to us, once we have established the eyewitness characteristic of the documents, is that the apostles who wrote them did so in a fraudulent manner.  That is to say, that – knowing the accounts were untrue – they may have developed the story themselves, for their own personal gain, prestige, etc.  Whatever motive, the idea that the disciples developed a plot to deceive their contemporaries and posterity will be called the “Plot Hypothesis.”
     
  3. The third alternative concedes that the documents are both apostolic and sincere.  This alternative would hold, then, that the disciples really believed their story, but were somehow misled by Jesus.  This alternative would indicate that they tried to relate Jesus’ statements and actions, and their own witness to his resurrection, but these statements were in reality untrue, and these events were somehow misinterpreted.  In order for the wealth of information available to us concerning Jesus’ self-conception, his death, and his resurrection to exist, it must have come from somewhere.  Therefore, the “misunderstanding” occasioned by living with Jesus for at least three years must have developed out of that relationship:  it certainly didn’t come out of thin air.  We will then call this theory the “Misled Hypothesis”, for Jesus must have either intentionally or unintentionally misled his followers for such a monstrous interpretation to have occurred.

We must examine the credibility of each hypothesis.  The first, the “Legend”, is the most popular among the critics.  There, we will devote chapters eight and nine solely to this one.  The present chapter will deal with the “Plot” and “Misled” theories. 

5 

There are at least six problems in holding the “Plot Hypothesis.” 

Problem 1 

The first problem is simply that no reputable scholar really holds. It.  Even, for example, Hugh Schonfield – who made “plot” a household byword with this his book The Passover Plot – doesn’t contend that the disciples themselves concocted a plan to fool the world.  Instead, he sees the plot as formed by Jesus himself and various peripheral characters of the gospels.  He says, “Christians are surely right in protesting that the Church could not have been established on the basis of a deliberate falsehood on the part of the apostles …” [12]  There is in fact no logical, evidential, and respected articulation of the Plot Theory. 

Problem 2 

If the disciples invented a new religion, with the cornerstones of Jesus’ deity and resurrection, then they couldn’t have picked a gospel better calculated to offend virtually all of their intended audience!  Consider this.  The Greeks openly mocked the all-too-physical announcement of Jesus’ resurrection; it contradicted the core belief that the soul/spirit was good and the body an impediment to spirituality.  The Jews, where Christianity was first openly preached (in Jerusalem), considered Jesus’ claim to deity to be blasphemy, punishable by stoning to death.  The Romans, who ruled the region, most certainly saw these claims to be direct challenges to the authority of Caesar, who alone was the “Son of God” and “Lord”, and they quickly punished such impudence.  If they had decided to make up a false story, surely they would have selected something that would have been more palatable to their hearers and thus had a chance to succeed. 

As a result of this situation, the disciples themselves were – almost to a man – imprisoned, often tortured, and brutally murdered for their declaration.  The early Christians were often in the same boat, in times and places where Christianity had become illegal.  Those who truly believed often held fast to their witness to their death.  Those who did not, recanted under this incredible pressure.  Notice that the disciples themselves did not recant, held fast to their witness.  They had not motive to invent this new religion:  they lost what they had; instead of “making a killing” with this shrewd maneuver, they were killed; they were persecuted and hounded; they sometimes lost their families and many friends; they were poor and despised.  This fact is often enough for people to shake their heads and give up the Plot Theory. 

But the objection arises, “Don’t you think Christianity is a good thing?  Then couldn’t this have been a ‘white lie’, motivated by the desire to give people something good to believe in?”  It has to be understood that the ethics of Christianity, hope for eternal life, and a spiritual understanding of life would have been entirely compatible with a gospel of Jesus as “Great Moral Teacher”, as prophet, as spiritual guru, supplemented with purely spiritual experiences of him as “with us”, “guiding us”, etc. – without the stark claims of deity and bodily resurrection.  That would have given people something “good to believe in.”  However, believers in the deity and resurrection put the believers totally at risk.  Thousands upon thousands of believers gave up their normal lives, interests, and careers only to embrace dramatic and lethal civil disobedience and religious blasphemy.  If the gospel was an intentional hoax, it was a cruel hoax – destined in its essentials to produce suffering.  As Paul himself said, if this thing doesn’t produce eternal value, Christians are of all people to be the most pitied. 

Problem 3 

The third difficulty is the practical problem of bringing outsiders into the plot.  Paul, for instance, was a bitter persecutor of Christians.  What turned him around?  Similarly, James the brother Jesus was not an original follower – he was not a believer in Jesus during his lifetime.  But something changed his mind, and he became a leader of this band of disciples.  What turned him around?  This has proven to be one of the strongest objections to both the plot and misled theories. [13] 

Problem 4 

The fourth problem is the New Testament itself.  It cannot have been the product of a conspiracy. 

  1. A great deal has been made about the differences in the four gospel accounts, and about differences between the gospels, Acts, and epistles.  They are called “alleged discrepancies” by some, and full-on “contradictions” by others.  Lawyers such as Simon Greenleaf have examined the differences and concluded that they are surface discrepancies that can be harmonized at a deeper level, indicative of eyewitness reportage.  But the fact remains that obvious differences exist, which opens the door to trouble.  Why were there four gospels and not just one?  Why couldn’t the deceivers get their stories straight?  The notion of collusion is simply out of the question.
     
  2. Similarly, the stark historicity of Luke’s Acts would give honest scholars every chance to locate errors, yet Luke confidently relates all the events described in his account to the secular events and locations appropriate to them.
     
  3. The “criterion of embarrassment” is certainly met in these documents.  This criterion says that material is especially likely to be genuine if it puts its authors and/or heroes in a bad light.  In the gospels, the disciples stupidity, obstinacy, cowardice, and sins are clearly shown.  It is inconceivable that the plotters would want to do this, especially since it was not necessary.

Problem 5 

The last, and probably the most startling, problem is with the person of Jesus himself.  Arguably most of the people in the world who do not accept Jesus’ claims still regard him as a “Great Moral Teacher” (GMT).  But if the Plot Theory is true, then he couldn’t have been a great moral teacher.  Remember that this was not a benign plot, but intentionally exposed believers to the horrors of hardship and persecution.   

  1. If Jesus prompted this plot, then he was a liar, a deceiver, a false teacher and an evil man.
     
  2. If Jesus was not part of the plot, then he was a dupe, used as a figure-head by the disciples.  In that view, he was an ineffective moral teacher.  If he was a “good man”, he was only good in a sort of weak, pathetic way – fundamentally flawed and unworthy of respect.

So, on either account, Jesus was a bad moral teacher and a poor excuse of a man.  

Summary 

People will perhaps feel they can get over one of the problems or other, but the cumulative effect is daunting.  I know that if I were placed in a debate with real stakes on the line, I certainly would not want to defend this position.  But perhaps this is merely a “formal possibility” rather than a live option.  Let’s see what the other options are. 

6 

The next major alternative to be considered is the “Misled Theory.”  Perhaps, since we see that it is extremely unlikely that the disciples intentionally invented Jesus’ claims, that they honestly believed them.  Surely, they might even die for something they earnestly thought was true. 

There two separate aspects of this that must be considered:  (1) problems concerning the resurrection of Jesus, and (2) problems relating to the person of Jesus himself, especially as they pertain to his claims.

Empty Tomb

There are two aspects of the resurrection to be understood:  (a) the empty tomb, and (b) the resurrection appearances. 

If we are to defend the Misled Theory, we must account for the disappearance of the body.  The first thing is to note that – according to this theory – the disciples themselves didn’t take the body, for that would be part of a plot, not a misunderstanding.  There is no reason to think that it was removed legitimately by Joseph Arimathea, for (1) there is no evidence to indicate that he did; (2) the guard was watching the tomb; and (3) Joseph was a member of Jesus’ following, he was a disciple, even if not one of the twelve. [14] 

The Jews could not have taken the body, for they would surely have produced it at the first signs of the disciples’ announcement that Jesus had risen from the grave.  Similarly, the Romans had every reason to want the body to stay in the tomb, which was being guarded, and could have produced the body at will.  They certainly wanted to destroy Christianity. 

Some have theorized that the women went to the wrong tomb, and that this confusion was sufficient to fool the rest of the disciples, and all of Jerusalem as well.  Wilbur Smith comments on this notion: 

… we read that when these women ran back to the city and reported what they had experienced to the disciples, Peter and John, hurrying back to the burying place, also found the tomb empty.  Is it to be argued that not only these tear-blinded women, but Peter and John also went to the wrong tomb?  … The whole idea is so utterly fantastic that Professor A.E.J. Rawlinson, no conservative, in his epochal commentary on St. Mark’s Gospel, felt compelled to say of Lake’s suggestion “that the women went by mistake to the wrong tomb, and that the attempt of a bystander to direct them to the right one was misunderstood, is a rationalization which is utterly foreign to the spirit of the narrative.” [15] 

Again, even if all the disciples and followers of Jesus lost track of the tomb, the Jews and Romans would certainly know where it was, and would then be able to produce the body at will, thus erasing Christianity in a stroke. 

We see, then, that to support the Misled Theory is tantamount to saying that “X” stole the body, for all of the interested parties – the Romans, Jews, and the disciples – are logically ruled out. 

Resurrection Appearances 

The empty tomb must be put in conjunction with the appearances to Jesus’ disciples.  In order for the misled theory to explain these appearances, it must essentially propose a brand-new theory of hallucination, for the mass hallucination required cannot fit into the traditional notions. [17] 

How do we know whether we are dreaming, hallucinating, or experiencing reality?  I would submit that the points listed above are part of the criteria we use to judge the reality of our experiences.  To deny the resurrection appearances tends to undermine these well-established principles. 

To put the two together – the empty tomb and appearances – there is no real evidence to sustain the notion of collective hallucination, and none of the interested parties could have made off with the body. 

7 

The second area to consider in proposing the misled hypothesis is the person of Jesus.  As noted earlier, the disciples – under this theory – couldn’t have invented the idea that Jesus was the unique Son of God, and rose from the dead, because of two things:  (1) they, being his immediate followers, had the opportunity to hear his sayings first-hand for over three years, and had the opportunity to judge the notion of his resurrection; (2) they are, here, honestly trying to relate the pertinent events and sayings accurately.  Therefore, if Jesus said and did half the things related about him, he must have taught them he was indeed the Son of God. 

If this is true, there are now two possibilities before us:  either Jesus honestly believed he was the Son of God, or he didn’t.  

Liar   

If Jesus knew he wasn’t the Son of God, but claimed that he was, then he was simply a fraud, a false prophet and false religious teacher:  a Liar.  Some might try to say that Jesus was a “nice” liar, thinking that he wanted to give posterity something to believe in, but they don’t take into account the results which inevitably followed from this “white lie.”  As we noted in our treatment of the Plot Theory, Paul pointed out that if these claims are false, then Christians are indeed the most miserable of all men.  What happened to Jesus best friends? – crucified upside down, sawn in two, etc.  What happened to the early Christians, Jesus’ posterity?  They were persecuted, thrown to the lions, burned at the stake (such as Polycarp), and so forth.  If Jesus were merely fooling these people, his lie was by no means a “white” one:  he really deserved to be crucified.  As the Jewish claimed, he would then be one who “led astray” God’s people. 

The idea of Jesus as a charlatan – as an intentional deceiver who claimed to be something He knew He was not – has never had much appeal, even among fanatical anti-religionists.  Jesus’ high ethical teachings and noble personal character have made such an interpretation improbable in the extreme. [18] 

Lunatic  

If Jesus honestly thought he was the Creator of the universe, come down in human flesh, the Ultimate Judge of every human, personally sinless, authorized by his Nature to forgive sins, then he makes the megalomania of Hitler and Stalin appear as humility in comparison.  If he really thought he was uniquely more than human, then his grasp on reality was deficient.  The Wikipedia definition seems very appropriate here: 

A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, genius, or omnipotence – often generally terms as delusions of grandeur.  The word is a collaboration of the word “mania” meaning madness and the Greek “megalo” meaning an obsession with grandiosity and extravagance, a common symptom of megalomania.  It is sometimes symptomatic of manic or paranoid disorders. 

This alternative, that Jesus was a lunatic, is particularly difficult to defend.  And, as Chesterton so graphically points out, the man who claims to be the self-disclosure of the noumenon as we have shown – and in fact is not – must be a lunatic indeed: 

Normally speaking, the greater a man is, the less likely he is to make the very greatest claim.  Outside the unique case we are considering, the only kind of man who ever does make that kind of claim is a very small man; a secretive or self-centered monomaniac.  Nobody can imagine Aristotle claiming to be the father of gods and men, come down from the sky; though we might imagine some insane Roman Emperor like Caligula claiming it for him, or more probably for himself.  Nobody can imaging Shakespeare talking as if he were literally divine; though we might imagine some crazy American crank finding it as a cryptogram in Shakespeare’s works, or preferably in his own works.  If it possible to find here and there human beings who make this supremely superhuman claim.  It is possible to find them in lunatic asylums; in padded cells; possibly in strait waistcoats. [19] 

There are a variety of indications common to schizophrenics, culminating in the withdrawal from reality.  It is often noted that – while the schizophrenic seems to be illogical – he operates within his own logical framework.  The common traits of the schizoid personality are noted in Appendix K.  Does Jesus fit into this pattern?  Chesterton doesn’t think so: 

It is by rather an unlucky metaphor that we talk of a madman as cracked; for in a sense he is not cracked enough.  He is cramped rather than cracked; there are not enough holes in his head to ventilate it.  This impossibility of letting in daylight on a delusion does sometimes cover and conceal a delusion of divinity.  It can be found, not among prophets and sages and founders of religions, but only among a low set of lunatics.  But this is exactly where the argument proves too much.  For nobody supposes that Jesus of Nazareth was that sort of person.   No modern critic in his five wits thinks that the preacher of the Sermon on the Mount was a horrible half-witted imbecile that might be scrawling stars on the walls of a cell.  No atheist or blasphemer believes that the author of the Parable of the Prodigal Son was a monster with one mad idea like a Cyclops with one eye.  Upon any possible historical criticism, he must be put higher in the scale of human beings than that.  Yet by all analogy we have really to put him there or else in the highest place of all. … 

If Christ was simply a human character, he really was a highly complex and contradictory human character.  For he combined exactly the two things that lie at the two extremes of human variation.  He was exactly what the man with a delusion never is; he was wise; he was a good judge. [20] 

And so, once again, note that in this scenario Jesus cannot be seen as a “Great Moral Teacher” (GMT).  One cannot be considered a true GMT if he simply spouts platitudes but fails to live by them; especially if he is deceptive at his core!  He is a bad man. 

If he is a lunatic, he could be a “nice” lunatic, but he clearly deficient as a human being.  Even if malice is lacking, we would have to admit that humility and wisdom (perspective) are not to be found in him!  We must say that he is a “bad man” in at least that sense. 

Summary  

We now see that one major problem with the Misled Theory goes like this:  It grants the writers of the New Testament the position of apostolicity, and therefore the dignity of eyewitness status to the things of which they speak.  Once this is acknowledged, and Jesus’ claims understood, the paradox is obvious.  They got the idea from him.  If he believed it, he was insane; if he didn’t believe it, he was a fraud.  Neither interpretation fits the picture at all, and any reasonable person is reluctant to draw this conclusion. 

Furthermore, we have seen the problems in explaining the resurrection (the body was stolen by “X”, the appearances were not hallucinations nor ghostly experiences) are severe.   

The combination of these two problems presents a massive obstacle.  Again, if I were assigned this position to defend in a debate, I would find myself hard-pressed to do it.  This position, it seems to me, is even worse than the Plot Theory! 

8 

At this point, I want to press home the startling conclusion about Jesus that follows from this discussion.  We can now say that if Jesus’ claims do indeed go all the way back to his disciples, and if these claims are not true, then Jesus cannot be a “Great Moral Teacher”, and in fact is defective as a human being and not worthy of respect, much less adoration.  To recap: 

  1. If he instituted the Plot, he was a Liar.
  2. If he was a dupe of the Plot, he was a failed teacher.
  3. If he claimed to be the Son of God and knew he wasn’t, he was a Liar.
  4. If he made that claim and believed it, he was a Lunatic.

This boils down to the famous “Lord, Liar, Lunatic” trilemma, or “God Man or Bad Man.”  It is simply not a logical option to say that Jesus was a “Great Moral Teacher.”  

Let’s look back.  Why are these hypotheses untenable?  Because, once they grant the eyewitness character of the New Testament, the case falls apart.  This is because of three things:  (1) the claims are clear; (2) Jesus’ character is clear; (3) the disciples’ own sacrifice and unimpeached character are universally accepted.  Therefore, to think that they developed a plot, or that Jesus was somehow a lunatic or liar, are unthinkable.  The practical problems of the body, the appearances, the nature of the accounts, etc. are merely icing on the cake:  further evidence that we are barking up the wrong tree. 

The third possibility is still open:  that the accounts are not those of eyewitnesses, but are in fact the development of legendary material around Jesus to such an extent that the real historical facts are obscured.  And this is precisely the claim that is generally made by the critics.  They bypass the obviously unsupported plot or misled theories by questioning the authenticity of the accounts themselves.  

We will therefore examine the “Legend Hypothesis” by see if it can fit the facts better than the other two.  If it can, then well and good.  If it can’t, and the eyewitness character of the accounts can be shown according to sound historiographic procedure and tests, then we will have exhausted all three logical alternatives to the claim being true.