Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Dānu]

If you believe one religious text has stronger evidence for a human at the beginning and than the bible does for Jesus, and you say that human didn't exist but Jesus did, then absolutely you are special pleading.  There is no reason to make up an arbitrary rule like "religious texts= zero history, impossibility of a human being at the core of any of them."  Look at each one individually.

I don't think that's what is being argued, jerry, and if not, then that's a straw man.  Otherwise I think you are correct, if a charge of special pleading depends upon dismissing all accounts from history as evidence, then that is not a sound basis for the charge of special pleading.  This may be a case of the typical hyperbole that people display when they say there is no evidence for God, when, to be careful, they should say there is no good evidence for God.  If the person making the special pleading charge is saying that there is no good evidence for any of them, and therefore it is special pleading, rather than that there is no evidence period, then they have an argument.  But then the burden of proof falls upon you, namely to demonstrate that the accounts of Jesus provide good evidence for historical existence, when that of others do not.  Given that the argument is a comparative one, this would seem to follow necessarily.  What also would seem to follow is, that if you are not aware of the relevant evidence and the content of the accounts of Krishna, then you cannot make the standard argument against the charge of special pleading, as the standard argument depends upon a comparison of the two things, a comparison you can't make if you are ignorant of one of the two things.  I have taken it from your comments that you are in fact ignorant of the accounts of Krishna, and I will qualify my earlier comments to include those of both the child and the adult Krishna. Given that, assuming I haven't erred here, I have to ask on what basis and by what argument were you attempting to refute the charge of special pleading I outlined?  That's still something of a mystery to me.

Okay yes good points. I do not though agree that the burden of proof somehow shifts to me, and I suddenly have to do the heavy lifting. There are 30 pages here, some by me, most by Free, that explain why we think there is evidence for a (non-supernatural wandering apocalyptic prophet magic man) historical Jesus. You may not find the evidence persuasive, but there it is.

But to then just ejaculate: “Yeah but, Krishna.” Or: “Yeah but, Bhagavad Gita. Checkmate, atheist.” Okay, you obviously feel there is this second form of literature that is so identical to the bible that the obviousness of not thinking there was actually a human behind “Krishna” demands we equivilently cannot reasonably suspect there was a human behind “Jesus.” Well, that's you're assertion, you provide some evidence. Why is it my job to run to google and spend time learning about it? Give me something to work with here, you (and Chas) brought it up, give me some meat and potatoes to demonstrate your point. “They're both religious texts.” Is something like that all you're going to bring to the table? How about “They're both written by human beings on earth, in the past.”

I'm willing to learn, please, explain how similar these documents are and why to think one to have a human at the genesis and the other to not have one is special pleading. I find, (to borrow Minimalist's example) that the petulant causing of a disturbance in the Temple to be just the kind of thing that strikes me as realistic and evidence of grubby human fingerprints. Are there similar examples from Krishna?

I likely won't get to this for a day or two, but let me pencil in a thing or two.

First off, I'm not going to engage Free's evidence except insofar as you choose to bring it up, for two reasons, first, I'm not going to review and debate Free's evidence as a preliminary to you demonstrating that your claim that it is not special pleading as that would be unreasonable and not a requirement of any argument that I am making. I will freely admit that there is some evidence for a historical Jesus. But, so too is there evidence for a historical Krishna. I think you are getting somewhat confused here. The question is not whether there is historical evidence of a historical Jesus, I admit prima facie that there is. But that's not what you and I are arguing. We are arguing as to whether believing in a historical Jesus based upon the evidence is special pleading if you do not likewise believe there is a historical Krishna based upon qualitatively comparable evidence. The prior 30 pages, even if I were willing to read through and debate that dross, is not relevant because it does not address the argument that I have made.

And I will briefly make an additional remark upon the arguments that I have made so far. Your reply initially was that we have evidence that Jewish rabbis of Jesus' "type" existed (presumably from the literature). In the first place, my position is that one cannot conclude that the case for special pleading does not hold "based on the story alone." Corroborating the possible historical existence of Jesus on the theory that there were personages "like" Jesus at the time, that the likelihood of a historical Jesus is enhanced is not an argument based on the stories alone. That is going beyond the story alone and considering additional types of evidence for a difference between the Jesus and Krishna figures. Now I certainly forgive you for that oversight, and am more than willing to expand the discussion likewise, but your original reply was something of a strawman. Now, confining ourselves to the existence of preaching rabbis alone, ignoring for the moment additional forms, types, and examples of corroboration beyond the story, the question is whether this is qualitatively different evidence than we have for Krishna. I won't go into detail in this outline, but I don't think it's a reasonable assertion that we have examples of Christ prototypes for Jesus but that there likely were not similar figures in the mold of a Krishna in the Bhagavad-gita. For one, we have that example to begin with, as well as the tales of the rishi in classic Hindu literature, and a long history of such figures in the area. For reasons just stated and others, the idea that the one is well attested and the other not just appears to be simply false.

You briefly asked, and I don't have the names and references handy, but to your question as to whether there are comparable examples of Krishna displaying the same qualities that Jesus does with the money lenders, I would first have to know what qualities you think that demonstrates. Firstly, Jesus' cleansing of the temple is by most traditional accounts a heroic act, demonstrating both the superior ethical character as well as his authority as God. You seem to be painting this as an embarrassing human moment for jesus, when by many traditional accounts it is not. You seem to be attaching your own spin to it solely for the sake of your argument. But beyond that, even if I were to accept your argument on its face, there are qualitatively similar aspects of Krishna as well. His childhood is rife with them. Again, I don't know specifically what qualities you have in mind, but the account of Krishna, despite having promised not to insert himself into the battle in the Bhagavad-gita, and despite him being a God who is supposedly above such things, losing it and trying to insert himself into the battle anyway at the urging of his emotions seems like a qualitatively comparable episode for Krishna. Again, if you are making the traditional argument against special pleading, your ignorance of the literature, as well as likely the culture and the history of the region, can't help but put you at an enormous disadvantage. I must confess to some hesitation in the beginning because I am not particularly knowledgeable in those areas myself, but you seem to have shown up at a sword fight without your sword.

First, as to the burden of proof, it has been asserted that believing in a historical personage behind the Jesus of the bible is special pleading. If you wish to assert that it is not special pleading, and that claim is based upon the conventional argument that upon comparison of the two sets of literature, that of Jesus and that of Krishna, that there are differences between the evidence for a historical Jesus and that of a historical Krishna, then you are making a positive assertion about the contents of both legends/myths/stories. You've made the claim that such qualitative differences exist. It's up to you to support that claim, or else your claim that it is not special pleading can be dismissed with prejudice. Now, if you are making some other argument than the conventional argument, you need to alert me to that fact, as so far I haven't seen any evidence otherwise. I don't even know what alternative arguments exist, if any.

And, as an addition, rereading your latest reply, you describe my position as being that we cannot ascribe the existence of a historical Jesus because we do not ascribe the existence of a historical Krishna. I have made no statements about whether there is or is not a historical Jesus, only that there is qualitatively comparable evidence for a historical Krishna, therefore believing in the historicity of one and not the other is special pleading. You have misrepresented my argument, and show strong signs of confusing the argument for special pleading with the argument for the mythicist position. They are two entirely separate arguments, and I am making the one and not the other.

As to the question of the story of Jesus being unique, it certainly is, but then so is Krishna. As they both are unique, the relative criteria is not are they unique, nor are they equal, but rather, is the evidence for a historical personage between the two qualitatively comparable or not. You keep pointing to things that strike you about the Jesus account, ignoring that that alone will not get you to the destination if you are making a comparative argument.

Now, I hadn't intended to reply tonight, but seeing as I more or less did anyway, I'll leave it at that. I jumped around in my own reply, and the paragraphs are somewhat long, so I haven't accomplished what I set out to in terms of improving my posting, but I think it's readable and reasonably complete. If I identify any gaps or lapses in my reply, or you do, I will attempt to fill those in at a later date.