Incidentally, one issue of importance here is how reference works. For the issue, in effect, is whether in using "Jesus" now, we are referring to an historical individual.
One theory of reference is the "fit" theory. You use "n" to refer to x if and only if there is an individual that uniquely fits (most of) your "n"-related beliefs. I refer a certain individual using the name "Socrates" just in case that individual uniquely fits (most of, many of) the beliefs I associate with "Socrates" (sch as that he was the master of Plato, etc.)
On this type of theory (Russell, Searle), someone is Jesus just in case they uniquely fit (most of) the beliefs/descriptions we associate with "Jesus".
Another theory is the causal theory (associated with Kripke). Someone is baptized "Jesus". The name gets passed on from one person to the next, and from one generation to the next, each using it with the intention it should refer to whoever they got the name from used it to refer to. A reference preserving causal chain can then maintain reference to that individual across the millenia, even if the beliefs we end up with about "Jesus" are mostly wrong.
There are other theories too. Clearly, which theory you go for may impact on the issue of whether there was an historical Jesus.
One theory of reference is the "fit" theory. You use "n" to refer to x if and only if there is an individual that uniquely fits (most of) your "n"-related beliefs. I refer a certain individual using the name "Socrates" just in case that individual uniquely fits (most of, many of) the beliefs I associate with "Socrates" (sch as that he was the master of Plato, etc.)
On this type of theory (Russell, Searle), someone is Jesus just in case they uniquely fit (most of) the beliefs/descriptions we associate with "Jesus".
Another theory is the causal theory (associated with Kripke). Someone is baptized "Jesus". The name gets passed on from one person to the next, and from one generation to the next, each using it with the intention it should refer to whoever they got the name from used it to refer to. A reference preserving causal chain can then maintain reference to that individual across the millenia, even if the beliefs we end up with about "Jesus" are mostly wrong.
There are other theories too. Clearly, which theory you go for may impact on the issue of whether there was an historical Jesus.
Comments
Are you sure that all this theorising is necessary? why not just require the sort of evidence experts on that period of history would look for regarding any historical figure ?
I can't seem to parse this either:
"The name gets passed on from one person to the next wth the intention it should refer to whoever they got the name used it to refer to."
Perhaps the apostrophes got to me?
I am using "just in case" to mean "if and only if" (I admit it's not elegant).
The 'fit' theory looks OK to me. The question then arises, are the beliefs/descriptions we associate with Jesus correct? Are they exaggerations, distortions, fabrications, obfuscations, dissimulations, creative or literary? Was there an original story different from that received? Was there some sort of conspiracy to create the extant texts, including much of the writing attributed to Josephus, for example? Josephus is described as a priest living in Judea, but there is no evidence that he ever practiced as a priest. In fact he seemed more interested in the prophets or Essenes. Were Josephus' writings and the New Testament reworked to give the appearance of at least some agreements between a number of apparent historical points?
Saying that you doubt the historical existence of Jesus is, in a way, meaningless. It is the existence of any person who could meet the above characteristics that matters. We say that no such person could have existed; they say that such a one did exist.
As they never have and never will be able to do this, the entire discussion is really rather pointless, like flogging a dead pantomime horse.
I think the historical Jesus is meaningful to christians insofar as that proposition (his existence) is the foundation of their religion (salvation through Jesus the person, not through the teachings) -- and obviously the stuff (miracles, etc.) that follow, couldn't have followed if he didn't exist in the first place.
That is precisely it. The horse was never alive -it is an artifact of cloth and papier machee. One you start beating it you start to allow that it had feelings.
It's interesting you bring up proper names in connection with this issue. Probably you remember what Wittgenstein says in paragraph 79 about Moses and the sentence "Moses does not exist." Maybe Wittgenstein could have even used the example "Jesus does not exist"...
I'm inclined to think that selecting some definition for 'Jesus' is misguided here. We know from Kripke's Godel-Schmidt example that a speaker can refer to an individual even if her beliefs about that individual are (mostly) false. After all, there's something screwy about making the question about whether Jesus existed or not logically equivalent to the question about whether Christian theism is true!
Actually, I want to ask you what you think about "experimental philosophy." Some philosophers have started doing systematic surveys of people's intuitions on important philosophical thought-experiments. I remember reading -- but please don't hold me to this very fuzzy memory -- that people from eastern cultures typically do not share Kripke's intuition about the Godel-Schmidt case. What implications do findings like that have? Should philosophers be more empirical in this way?
The historical literary milieu of the day was one of Flavian lies. The Pauline editor has Paul say on three different occasions, "I lie not", when in reality he sure as hell was.
I have been increasingly getting that screwy feeling about the various Christian positions. I think it seems to run in stages a bit like this:
i) After stripping out the stuff about conjouring, the NT indicates a plausible historic Jesus (traveling preacher,executed, approximately right dates).
ii) After his death a movement arose which spread widely and wrote about Jesus.Now they can't all have been deluded can they, so he must have been real.
iii) Once we admit the historical Jesus is plausible, the other bits become more plausible don't they?
This removal and re-establishment of the mythic element as reality is a slick move but totally invalid IMHO.
Christians in the main have staked too much on the "myth made real". Even our Archbishop who is comfortable with "poetic language" tries desperately to rescue the NT as literal.
My wife loves Ridley scotts "Gladiator" so much she tells me something like that must have happened. I know she is completely deluded but I love the film as well. Strength and Honour !
Well I'd certainly admit there was a case for him. (as indeed I would admit for a historic Jesus). That being said it might also be argued in view of Josephus paranoia that he was an archetype traitor myth. Natural enough he should betray the hero then.
If Sherlock Holmes was based on Dr. Joseph Bell, does this mean that Sherlock Holmes existed?
What does it mean to say that A existed, if A is a fictional representation of B, who did exist?