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 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).