I've always thought the "legend" horn was poorly named because it makes it sound like you're saying Jesus himself was a legend, as if you endorse mythicism or something. But the only part of Jesus's life that you need to say is legendary to completely escape the trilemma is his supposed claims to be God. I actually think it's pretty plausible to go 100% with that explanation: Just say, "Jesus never claimed to be God, and the idea that he was God was a later theological development."
Of course, you can also go partway with it and combine it with other explanations, e.g., "Jesus said something that was misinterpreted as claiming to be God, and others started claiming that he was God. He was either not honest enough to correct them, or he eventually started kind of thinking it might be true himself, or he did try to correct but they didn't listen," or, "Jesus didn't quite claim to be God, but he did claim some other theologically significant role like Messiah or Son of Man. He was either lying about this, or honestly mistaken. Or perhaps he wasn't really sure if he was the Messiah/Son of Man or not, but he projected a higher degree of confidence that he was.
And of course modern scholars generally agree on this already just by surveying doctrinal development over time. It's funny that Christians are constantly posing this question as though the "lord" answer is obviously correct, when a bunch of people who aren't even trying to avoid that conclusion land elsewhere.
King Arthur was another example I had in mind, where it's basically irrelevant by this point whether there ever was a 6th century warlord called something along those lines. It would just be a footnote, because it still wouldn't be The Actual Guy.
There's one thing I've always wondered about the question of Jesus' existence: to what extent is it even a meaningful question if, say, +95% of the biographical detail is embellished or invented? Even if there were some sort of preacher activist called Jesus (which I do grant), surely there comes a point where we basically aren't talking about the same person. There's no real difference between that and just making up a completely new guy, is there?
Yeah, it's a little like Santa Claus and St. Nicholas - one might be the genetic basis for the other concept, but at some point statements about Santa Claus stopped being about St. Nicholas. I'm actually working on a post right now where I take this sort of argument even further and apply it to God himself - if our popular conception of God is determined by contingent historical facts that are unrelated to his actual existence, then even if we did one day prove through pure reason that a tri-omni being existed, it's hard to know if that being would really be God (as opposed to a being who happened to just be a lot like God, who we did make up).
I've always thought the "legend" horn was poorly named because it makes it sound like you're saying Jesus himself was a legend, as if you endorse mythicism or something. But the only part of Jesus's life that you need to say is legendary to completely escape the trilemma is his supposed claims to be God. I actually think it's pretty plausible to go 100% with that explanation: Just say, "Jesus never claimed to be God, and the idea that he was God was a later theological development."
Of course, you can also go partway with it and combine it with other explanations, e.g., "Jesus said something that was misinterpreted as claiming to be God, and others started claiming that he was God. He was either not honest enough to correct them, or he eventually started kind of thinking it might be true himself, or he did try to correct but they didn't listen," or, "Jesus didn't quite claim to be God, but he did claim some other theologically significant role like Messiah or Son of Man. He was either lying about this, or honestly mistaken. Or perhaps he wasn't really sure if he was the Messiah/Son of Man or not, but he projected a higher degree of confidence that he was.
And of course modern scholars generally agree on this already just by surveying doctrinal development over time. It's funny that Christians are constantly posing this question as though the "lord" answer is obviously correct, when a bunch of people who aren't even trying to avoid that conclusion land elsewhere.
I look forward to reading it!
King Arthur was another example I had in mind, where it's basically irrelevant by this point whether there ever was a 6th century warlord called something along those lines. It would just be a footnote, because it still wouldn't be The Actual Guy.
Good stuff.
There's one thing I've always wondered about the question of Jesus' existence: to what extent is it even a meaningful question if, say, +95% of the biographical detail is embellished or invented? Even if there were some sort of preacher activist called Jesus (which I do grant), surely there comes a point where we basically aren't talking about the same person. There's no real difference between that and just making up a completely new guy, is there?
Yeah, it's a little like Santa Claus and St. Nicholas - one might be the genetic basis for the other concept, but at some point statements about Santa Claus stopped being about St. Nicholas. I'm actually working on a post right now where I take this sort of argument even further and apply it to God himself - if our popular conception of God is determined by contingent historical facts that are unrelated to his actual existence, then even if we did one day prove through pure reason that a tri-omni being existed, it's hard to know if that being would really be God (as opposed to a being who happened to just be a lot like God, who we did make up).