The Annual Christmas Reflection
It is my wont, at this time of year, to post something about Christmas. Generally, I try and post something reflective, and something which attempts to walk the fine line between not downplaying my Christian faith and not force-feeding same to those of you who do not share it. Oh, and I try and shoehorn something vaguely Ultima-related in, as well. Because let’s face it…this is that kind of website.
This, as you can imagine, is not usually an easy task, although as an intellectual exercise it can be quite fun. But, I digress.
My wife and I had a discussion about a month ago, as we were pondering what manner of Christmas gift (if any) we should procure for Dragonlet #2. Being all of a 13.5 months old, it’s not like Dragonlet #2 really grasps the concept of Christmas as an exercise in gift-giving, let alone its deeper meaning and ultimate significance. Such things will come in time, of course. But, again, I digress.
So there we were, the Dragoness and I, musing over whether to get Dragonlet #2 a Christmas gift. One possibility that came up was to get her this playset, from the Fisher Price “Little People” series. We have a few other playsets from the series, and one can hardly navigate our house without coming close to stepping on at least one “Little People” figurine. But my wife was hesitant about purchasing this one: would it be all that appropriate, she wondered, for Baby Jesus or the Blessed Virgin to become a chew toy for a teething infant?
Within Ultima lore, Humility is, in an odd sort of way, the most important of the Eight Virtues. Within the philosophy of the Virtues, Humility exists more or less independently of the other Virtues and of the Three Principles, and in turn serves as the foundation for all of them (since Truth, Love, and Courage do not exist in Pride, which is Humility’s antithesis). Humility is the root of all the Virtues, though it would be loathe to admit as much.
As noted at the Codex of Ultima Wisdom, it’s difficult to precisely define Humility, but a reasonable explantion of it is as follows:
Humility is the opposite of Pride, and independent of the principles of Virtue, is about perceiving one’s place in the world, not according to one’s own accomplishments, but according to the intrinsic value of all individuals. It is the recognition of the worthiness of all beings, and the perception of one’s own place among them, regardless of one’s own personal accomplishments or mistakes in the world.
This explanation of Humility actually comports rather nicely with St. Bernard of Clairvaux’s explanation of Humility in a Christian context:
A virtue by which a man knowing himself as he truly is, abases himself.
St. Thomas Aquinas’ expansion upon this line of reasoning is also worth noting:
The virtue of humility…consists in keeping oneself within one’s own bounds, not reaching out to things above one, but submitting to [God].
Central to both the Britannian and Christian conceptions of Humility is the idea of knowing one’s own place and standing relative to others, in being honest with oneself about oneself and one’s place in the world. This, in turn, requires recognizing that all beings are on a similar journey, and hopefully are seeking similar awareness, and so requires realizing that you are simply a fellow-traveler therewith.
It’s arguably the case that the most difficult aspect of the Christmas story to digest is not its assertion that Christ was born of a virgin, but that in Christ, no less a being than Almighty God humbled Himself before mankind, and became not just like a man, but in fact became a man. As steps down in the order of things go, that’s essentially an infinite demotion; John Riccitiello could quit his current job in favour of a janitorial position at The Source in Whitehorse, Yukon and still not have stepped down in position one tenth as far.
This, in my obtuse manner of thinking, brings us back to Dragonlet #2 and the Little People Nativity playset. But bear with me; the connection will become clear in a moment.
Humility – perceiving one’s place in the world, recognizing the worthiness of all beings, and perceiving one’s own place among them. The Christian message asserts that God humbled Himself to become not just like us, but in fact to become one of us. Which is why, when my wife asked whether it would be appropriate for Dragonlet #2 to gnaw on a Baby Jesus figurine, I replied in the affirmative.
Babies chew things for several reasons, not the least of which is curiosity; it’s how they begin to learn about the world and the objects that fill it. Dragonlet #2, however, also chews on things because doing so helps alleviate the pain of teething, a discomfort which she is presently experiencing. A discomfort which, we can reasonably assume, Jesus likewise experienced, and in fact specifically chose and came to Earth to experience.
The Gospels contain several stories in which Jesus gave great importance and respect to young children. Somehow, I don’t imagine He’d be put out at the thought of a little one chewing on a stylized, cartoonish, plastic depiction of Him because it made her sore gums feel just a bit better at the moment. Sure, he’s seated at the right hand of Almighty God, is the Second Person of the Trinity, and is that through which all Creation was effected…but hey, there’s a kid in pain over there, and she’s found a thing to chew on which just happens to be His representation in a playset. Chew away, little one.
There’s a particularly beautiful example of Humility in that image, I think.
From all of us at Casa WtF!
Merry Christmas! 🙂
Merry Christmas WTF!
Merry Christmas!
(it seems as long as she has her shoes she won’t need Jesus)
In the end, we got her something else. The store had run out, I think, by the time my wife got back there.
But yes, she loves shoes as chewables. We’re not such big fans of that.
Merry Christmas folks!
Speaking of humility, it’s always been my least favourite. I guess there’s some exceptions. Have fun you guys!
Happy Yule to all & Waes Hael!
Humility is not so much my least favourite, as the hardest one to follow (at least according to Ultima standards). I find it clashes too much with honesty.
Interesting, but…how so?
(I suspect I know why, but I’d like to hear your explanation.)
People tend to equate humility with not saying you’re good at anything. If someone asks how good you are at something, for example, you’re meant to say that you’re “ok” at it, or something else similar. When you might be the best in the world at it. It makes very little sense.
Let’s say you’re having a conversation with Einstein and you ask how intelligent he is. He tells you he is a genius (which is actually even understating it). The person then thinks he is arrogant, when he is just being truthful (I prefer to hear the truth about things, otherwise my view of the world is skewed which I don’t like… I’m guessing Einstein would have been the same since it makes it harder to understand the world if you have false facts).
Or, let’s take Ultima as an example. Ultima 6 you need to find the most humble person on the island in order to save the world. Instead of actually being helpful and truthful and letting the Avatar know, the person in question actually makes the Avatar’s life harder by lying to him/her (of course, the rest of the people on the island don’t help things by being arrogant). Technically, that person is the most prideful, since their humility is so important to them that they can’t put it aside to help the Avatar.
People tend to think I’m arrogant, when I do actually try to underplay myself when talking about myself. The truth is, people think you are arrogant if you don’t lie to the point that you are telling them you aren’t better than them at whatever is being talked about. If you are Einstein and you say you are a smart to a smart person, then it probably isn’t going to matter. If you say it to someone who isn’t that smart, they’ll think you’re arrogant. Of course, if Einstein told his actual IQ to the first person, even the smart person would think he is arrogant. I find the whole thing to be stupid.
“A virtue by which a man knowing himself as he truly is, abases himself.”
I don’t agree with that, necessarily. Abasing yourself means lowering what you really are, which is lying, not being humble. Humility should be knowing who you are, and knowing your place in the world based on that. Humility is being Einstein and knowing that the guy that makes your furniture or cooks your food is as important in the grand scheme of things.
Granted, St. Bernard’s word is not infallible, but I think the term “abase” may not be the best translation from the French the good saint’s comment was likely delivered in.
That said:
…there is a kind of abasement that takes place there (though not in the most extreme sense) because of course the human tendency is to see differences in terms of level and hierarchy. Einstein, in other words, is tempted to see himself as better than those around him, especially those of average intelligence who fill roles society regards as menial.
And there is a kind of lowering of the self that takes place when we overcome that temptation and see both ourselves and others as we truly are; seeing ourselves in a truthful way often means deconstructing some of the mythos we have built up about ourselves.
That all said, I did suspect that you were going to talk about “false humility” (which, as you note without noting, Connor in U6 is essentially guilty of), and for the record I agree with you. We should not be prideful and overly boastful about the gifts we have been given, the skills we have cultivated, and the things at which we excel. But neither should we be falsely over-modest about them, to the point we can’t admit to them at all.
Britannian philosophy doesn’t capture this truth with its binary (pride/humility) understanding. St. Thomas Aquinas, however, did tend to understand virtue less as half of a binary set opposite one vice, and more as a kind of ideal mean between two or more opposing vices. Humility, then, is not pride’s strict opposite, but rests at the midpoint between pride and false over-modesty.
I actually don’t feel like Connor in Ultima VI is being dishonest – it always felt to me that he just doesn’t consider he could possibly be the most humble person on the island, so he is honest about this. This is what makes him the most humble because he is the only who doesn’t feel like he is the most humble.
That being said in any case, the basic Virtue concept of Ultima as outlined by the Virtue questions is about dilemas about Virtue so I wouldn’t even see an issue making is “dishonest”. I mean there isn’t a proper or better or more virtuous I feel, and that’s the point of the Virtues in Ultima I think.
I agree with Sergorn on Connor based on what I saw in U6P at least.
He was the most humble on the island because he didn’t think he was all that humble and in fact wasn’t consciously pushing for being more humble than anybody else. He was just going about his life rather than trying to be better than others.
Connor in U6P is a little more sympathetic; in the original he is much more disingenuous about himself.
Chiming in:
Being a Christian Agnostic of sorts, my religious focus isn’t so much on Christ’s forgoing his godly nature to become human, but rather on Christ’s message of radical equality. He was all about telling the prestigious, the spiritual elite and the wealthy that they were no better than the unwashed, the criminal, and the impoverished.
For me, Humility is about seeing others as being essentially the same type of spiritual entity as yourself with the same intrinsic value, even if they are less intelligent, or less well off, or less able to accomplish things…*even* if they are committed to beliefs you find morally repugnant and feel you must oppose. One should always be Just and Honest in your assessment of others and their actions, but you should never let yourself fall into the trap of believing that you are above the frailties that have led others to err.
I don’t think Humility should ever be about denying one’s skills or positive attributes, so much as it should be about never trying to use them to unnecessarily elevate oneself above others. The whole notion of “Most Humble person in New Magincia” is a bit of a paradox in my book, as the truly humble won’t see their humility as something that can be held up by the community like a trophy.
Also, Ultima humility gives you nothing. I don’t like leveling up and getting no reward for it.
I like that Einstein example. Imagine if Einstein was a huge humility fan. So much so that he felt his work wouldn’t be able to stand up to others and he never published anything.
Or if you come up with an idea, or do some important work and someone else takes the credit for it. Yet you are too humble to step forward and claim the spotlight.
WTF I think you put it best when you say,
“Britannian philosophy doesn’t capture this truth with its binary (pride/humility) understanding. St. Thomas Aquinas, however, did tend to understand virtue less as half of a binary set opposite one vice, and more as a kind of ideal mean between two or more opposing vices. Humility, then, is not pride’s strict opposite, but rests at the midpoint between pride and false over-modesty.”
Humility is only good to a certain point.
Since I always have the transcripts of the Ultima games handy for my remakes, this is his actual quote:
“You seek to find the humblest in New Magincia? That’s a difficult task. I’d hate to commend one of my neighbors to you and fail to do justice to the others. The one thing I can tell you for certain is that it isn’t me you’re looking for.”
I see two ways to take that:
1. He knows he is the most humble, and in his humility he lies to be “humble”. Which seems prideful to me.
2. He doesn’t actually know he is humble, which means he doesn’t really understand himself and therefore cannot be humble about who he is (since he actually thinks low of himself).
Either way, it is good to know that some here agree with my thoughts.
Accusing Conor of lying or being disingenious is just silly. He clearly does not believe he is the humblest person on the island, whereas the others go out of their way to proclaim their own humility – even Katrina. There’s a vast difference between knowing that you try to be humble and announcing that you are the humblest among your peers.
Conor gave up his life as a Silver Serpent to become a fisherman in Magincia; he’s not interested in being lauded for that humble choice or his past as a knight – he simply wants to be what he is right now – a fisherman. Calling him dishonest is uncalled for and rather out-of-the-blue, don’t you think?
“Humility, then, is not pride’s strict opposite, but rests at the midpoint between pride and false over-modesty.”
I kind of figured that arrogance and over-modesty were on opposite sides of the spectrum of Pride. Humility, if taken to be the antithesis of Pride, cannot incorporate those within its spectrum, and thus cannot be in the middle of pride and over-modesty i.e. arrogance and over-modesty being both disingenuous therefore belonging to Pride’s spectrum and not Humility’s. Humility’s spectrum (if based upon Brittanian Virtues) would include all the other virtues with Spirituality being at the middle of it, in my opinion.
I strongly agree with Warder Dragon’s post concerning Conor.
Now for the controversial bit. Since reading this piece, I’ve had these nagging questions which I debated with myself on whether this was the place to ask/comment, whether I was trolling, or why this became important to me to address. Now, I don’t want to disrespect anyone’s beliefs, so please don’t take this as an attack (its just that I’ve never been given satisfactory answers from Christian friends or some ministers with whom I have conversed):
1) I do not and cannot understand the concept of Original Sin or how one can be born with the sin of another or take responsibility of another’s guilt. If A does harm to B, why should C be burdened with A’s guilt. It’s A’s responsibility to make amends to B or not.
2) Why would God need to humble Itself to Humankind? If God is infallible and perfect, and Its Will was to slap Original Sin upon Humankind, then why would It change Its mind and go through this whole masochistic drama of living as an imperfect being, subjecting Itself to the abuse of Its creation, and finally martyred? Shouldn’t Its decision making be called into question since It didn’t make the right one in the first place? Does that not make It less than perfect?
3) Was Original Sin really taken off the table for all or was it conditional? If it’s conditional, why does believing in the existence of the human incarnation of the God trump the belief in a God? Why is it that believing in a God, trying to do good works (quietly and humbly) in one’s lifetime, being grateful and worshipful of the God equate to damnation if one does not believe that God and Jesus Christ are consubstantial or father and son or whatever Christian mythology espouses?
I apologize for going off track, but if I were to believe in a God, I certainly wouldn’t try to tack on human virtues or vices to that which is not human, i.e. perfect, omniscient,and omnipotent. It boggles my mind to think that a God would need to abase Itself in order to proffer a VIP pass to Heaven by replacing one guilt with another (“Jesus died for YOUR sins”). The concept angers me, in fact, that so many would offer and buy into the image of such a manipulative being as a deity and claim it was indeed good.
Kindbud: Hardly trolling; this is not the usual fare for the site, and while in the past it hasn’t typically elicited oceanic-depth discussions, I do welcome all questions. As noted in the post, I don’t make a point to downplay my Christian faith, although obviously that’s not what the site is usually about. This post, however, is about that sort of thing, so I do welcome questions…even if I’m not entirely prepared to answer them.
But first, a small digression: I think you’re rather correct in your critique of my spectrum-based (let’s call it) look at humility, because I picked the incorrect opposite vice to pride. The correct opposite vice to cite would have been something like…I’m not sure what to call it…morbid self-deprecation, perhaps? The complete denial that one is capable of anything worthy of note, even something so mundane as good dental health or regular breathing. For a comparison, consider how in the Aquinian conception, the virtue of chastity rests at the midpoint between the vice of unbridled lust and the vice of irrational frigidity.
But anyhow, on to your questions:
It’s worth noting that within Catholic theology, at least, it is understood that original sin is a concept which can’t be understood save in light of the death and resurrection of Jesus. And, indeed, it’s hard to comprehend that sin is “an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another” from outside of the context of Christian faith as well.
I’m putting this up front in case I have to leverage the concept of sin elsewhere in my explanations, and because it is an acknowledgement on my part that what I’m about to say may sound foreign (for lack of a better word) to some of you. I also want to preface this by saying that what answers I will give here will be woefully inadequate. These are very much the deep mysteries of the universe that we are getting into, and proper answers thereto would both run to tens of thousands of words and touch on every aspect of reality. Since I’m the only healthy, non-vomiting adult in a house in which 50% of the occupants are sick and have vomited at least once in the last 24 hours, I will not be able to give these answers anywhere near that level of treatment.
Anyhow, on to what answers I can offer.
As you may have noticed, the idea of original sin does not exactly comport with the definition given above, which implies an elective act. How can something we are apparently born with be an elective act, right? Is my arm an elective component of my body, which I could just as easily have chosen to be born without? Obviously not.
And as it turns out, Catholic doctrine does not actually assert that we are each formally guilty of Adam’s actual sin. The Catholic understanding of original sin is that it constitutes a kind of…tendency. One of the terms I have seen used is “moral deformity”, though the term I prefer is “concupiscence”. Whatever the term, though, it all boils down to an understanding that original sin is ultimately a vulnerability to temptation to knowingly commit acts of evil. It’s not a formal sin according to the definition above, but the innate tendency in all human beings to flirt with the temptation to, at various times, commit formal sins.
Again, this isn’t a question I can do justice to with the time I have to give an answer in. “Why was the Incarnation necessary?” is a massive question, just truly massive. But for a moment, let’s assume that evil exists and that sin, in keeping with the definition given above, constitutes the knowing commission of evil (or allowing the commission of evil by means of a calculated inaction). And let’s further assume that there are — or will be — both temporal and eternal ramifications for the sins we commit, and that a just expiation will be demanded of us for the sins we have committed.
And yes, I realize that’s asking a fair bit, as assumptions go. In my defence, I did warn (above) that some of what I was about to say would probably seem foreign.
Anyhow…assuming all the above, what was accomplished in the Incarnation? Why was it necessary for our salvation?
It comes back to expiation, to the atonement we must all pay for our sins. Because let’s face it: most of us commit more than our fair share of morally questionable actions in life. We may pay certain temporal consequences for our sins (e.g. getting caught in a lie and suffering a break-up as a result), and per the assumption above we likewise face the prospect of paying a consequence in eternity for those same sins.
None of us could survive that.
Hence, the need for the Incarnation. The whole point of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection was that God stepped in, not just in our place but as one of us, to pay the eternal price that should rightly be demanded from us. No human soul could endure that expiation, but Christ — being God — could, and did.
God’s being humbled as part of that process had to do with the fact that Christ was human, and experienced every aspect of the human condition except sin.
I kind of answered the first part above, so if there’s additional need for clarification, let me know. As to why belief in Christ is necessary and works are insufficient, that (again) is question with a massive answer which I again do not have time to properly treat. You could maybe think of it in terms of different orders of magnitude; our good works contribute in ones and tens toward a debt expressed in millions and billions. But that’s a bit of a bit of a paltry answer.
In the end, if we accept that Christ was God the Son, Second Person of the Trinity, etc., then we have His own word that belief in Him as “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” is paramount. It’s worth noting, though, that even in the Gospels, there are examples given of righteous persons who, by some interpretations, are ignorant of Jesus and/or who He is. This is why the Catholic Church, at least, teaches that while the surest way to salvation is through orthodox faith in Christ, it cannot be said for certain that persons outside the Church are assuredly condemned; such things are left to God’s mercy, which not even the Church claims to fully comprehend.
One analogy I could make is to a piece of unfamiliar terrain, for which a map exists. You have the option of taking the map, or you have the option of attempting to navigate your own course. It may be that, in taking the latter option, you still arrive at the place you wish to arrive at, but it will be substantially more difficult. (For what it’s worth, though, it’s also true — and you’ll find lessons to this effect in the Gospels — that simply having the map doesn’t ensure that you’ll arrive at the desired destination either.)
I don’t know what sorts of Christian witness you’ve been exposed to, but I’ll be the first to grant that there is some gratingly bad stuff out there. So as a result, I don’t know what kind of God you’ve been told about in the past…but I’m pretty sure it isn’t the God in whom I believe. The God in whom I believe isn’t so much a manipulative charlatan as an oft-maligned, oft-ignored authority figure who, despite my near-constant rebellion against Him, still thinks it might be nice to have me around forever and is willing to go to great lengths to ensure that it’s possible for me to be in that number. This is a God who, rather than demand (rightly) that I pay the tab for my sins unto eternity, instead just went ahead and covered the tab for me in the most complete manner possible…if, that is, I want Him to do so.
Because it’s never something forced. It’s an offered gift, which I choose to accept and can just as easily choose to reject. Not that I’d be able to pay the tab if it were left to me, but…you know…I could still make that decision, and at one point almost did.
Yeah I’ve always had issue with the “Origin Sin” concept or a similar vein the whole “Sins of our fathers” aspect in which we should be held responsible for what our fathers or ancestors did. Judge on my sins and mine alone and I’m okay with it, but I refuse to be held reponsible for things people did before I was even born. I feel indeed that in the history of mankind and even today, a lot of pain could have been avoided if it wasn’t for that “sins of your fathers” mentality. I don’t feel sins and faults is something that passes through blood, and in the end we are all responsible for our own decisions and sins.
And indeed, I agree about Warder’s comment on Connor – he never striked me as having false modesty – I actually feel in Ultima games, the Avatar tends to be the most culprit in that account 😛
“And indeed, I agree about Warder’s comment on Connor – he never striked me as having false modesty – I actually feel in Ultima games, the Avatar tends to be the most culprit in that account”
That’s kinda the point though. Had the Avatar been like Conor, Britannia would have been destroyed long ago. Had Einstein been like him, science would be decades behind. I can understand that Conor’s behaviour might be what some call “Humility”, but I don’t find it to be a virtue. My own thoughts on Humility are based on knowing oneself, which should actually help you to improve your life and others.
As for original sin and Jesus and such, you can’t apply logic to the bible. If you do, the New Testament and the Old Testament will clash. Old tends to involve an omnipotent god who sends his people across the world killing others for their land as it is promised to them, not to mention killing any of their own that stray from the path.
The New brings in the son of this god to change things, which makes no sense if God himself was omnipotent (as he should have known this would happen). All races and religions suddenly deserve respect and life. And to get into heaven, all you need to do is believe in Jesus.
I used to just read the Old Testament when I was younger. The New one was boring. I liked all the war and death and mayhem. It was exciting. Human behaviour interests me probably a little more than it should. I even liked the part where David (one of the greatest, shining examples of Christianity) sent his best friend off to die so he could get his girl (not “liked” as in “that is so cool”, but more just ’cause it is interesting).
That said, these days I consider Jesus to be the most awesome person ever (I’m agnostic). Whether you believe in God or not, there is enough evidence that Jesus was based on a real person (not necessarily that he did all that he did in the bible, of course). But here we are talking about a man, whether he meant to or not (or actually did anything or not), that changed a warlike religion into one that is supposed to be based on peace. That’s pretty huge in my opinion.
Quick comment about Conor. Is it possible he may not know he is the most humble? He’s apparently a fisherman, he could be so busy with his job he doesn’t quite know who is the most humble.
Also, pride isn’t always a bad thing. Arrogance is what’s bad. Insofar as, if I work my ass off to buy x(like buy a house, a new car, or a doctor that saves a life), should I not be proud of my accomplishment? I mean, going around acting like a braggart, and rubbing in how good you are is arrogant. You may lose some friends or make others feel incompetent.
And hooray! I love talking religions! Specially Christianity!
I’m not going to touch on my full beliefs of Christianity, or original sin. Definitely not the place for it, and even if Kindbud isn’t seen as a troll. I’m sure my views would be, since they may be a little extreme for most. Also it’s Christmas time and I don’t want to spoil anyone’s holiday.
I just had a question about the existence of Jesus Christ, direct at Thepal, but I’m welcome to anyone’s answer. I’m unaware of any documentation of the existence of Jesus Christ outside of the Bible. I’m aware a lot of dudes were named Jesus during that time period. I’ve never seen any documentation outside of the bible to suggest there was a prophet or individual similar to Jesus outside of the Bible.
Was Jesus of the Bible a super peaceful dude? Did he bring peace to a waring people’s? I know that, that’s the general perception of Jesus, but I came across this passage some time ago that suggests otherwise.
King James Version 10:34.
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man’s foes [shall be] they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
Micromagic: I’m no Biblical scholar, but the context of those verses is during a speech Jesus is giving to his disciples concerning his desire for them to spread the message of salvation. He says in Matthew 10:22 (before your quoted verses in the same speech) – “And you shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endures to the end shall be saved.” Essentially, go spread my message, some men will hate you for it (and cause strife in the world/households/etc between those who believe and those who don’t), but God loves you and will save your soul for doing his work.
I don’t see this as a literal desire for warlike force conversion by the sword, but rather a call for courage and faith in God when others despise the disciples (or kill them, as stated in verse 39), an emphasis that the message of salvation is more important than worldly things, and an acknowledgement that not all will believe in God, potentially causing strife within families.
In summation, I still think Jesus taught a peaceful message — turn the other cheek, pray for and love your enemies, love thy neighbor, treat the poor and the least of your brethren as you would me, and so on.
As a separate note, the Bible itself is a collection of writings by many different authors at different dates (though all claimed to be divinely inspired), so it kind of serves as a collection of documented evidence of Jesus’ existence alone. That being said, I can’t point you to anything off the top of my head, but I know other sources concerning Jesus likely can be found in what is called the apocrypha. These were writings and gospels not normally included in the Bible when the first councils were establishing biblical canon in the early years of the faith, and some forms of Christianity accept some books or writings while others do not (Catholics and Protestants have different books in their Bibles, for example).
Micromagic: It’s almost certainly the case with Conor, but it goes one step further – he likely doesn’t CARE who is the humblest, since he knows it’s not a competition. The same cannot be said for the other people on the island.