Telling Fact from Fiction: A Test

[Jagella]

As many of you may be aware, real-Jesus apologists base their entire case for a historical Jesus on written stories. Scholars like Bart Ehrman, who says that a historical Jesus "almost certainly existed," is "almost certain" Jesus existed because he says he and his fellow Bible scholars can "tease out" fact from fiction in these stories using rigorous historical methods. Needless to say, many of the real-Jesus apologists in this forum agree that the stories of Jesus are, as one member here has said, "overwhelming" evidence that Jesus existed. Of course, not all of us are overwhelmed by these stories as evidence for a historical Jesus, and we appear to be at an impasse neither side proving their case.

So I have an idea: to see if people really can tell fact from fiction by reading and studying stories, I've decided to post four stories here. Please read and study these stories, and then tell me which are true stories with real people and which are fictional stories with made-up people:

• 1. Rick left Edinboro, Pennsylvania to return to his hometown of Pittsburgh. He earned a degree at a college in the Pittsburgh area and found work there.
  
  2. Clyde got bored on his family's horse farm in Kentucky and moved to Nashville to play guitar in a country-western band.
  
  3. Sandy met and married Josh, and the two of them started a successful tattoo parlor in Los Angeles.
  
  4. Joe became very ill when he came down with a case of pneumonia. He spent two months in a nursing home and was hospitalized twice.

Remember that the case for a historical Jesus stands or falls on the stories of Jesus being stories of a real person.

Question for Debate: Can you read and study these stories and use logic to tell if the persons in these stories are real or fictional?

[Jubal]

The NT writers claim that they are giving reliable testimony to historical events.

Really ?
Can you please quote those NT claims to be giving reliable testimony to historical events ?

Jubal

[Jagella]

...you talk about people "proving their case". It's not the first time you've said this. What kind of proof is in view here?

Obviously "proof" is a word that only means what it's intended to mean. It should be clear from the OP that "proving a case" means to convince others that Jesus existed or did not exist.

I should point out that one quick way in the context of this thread to post proof that you can know Jesus existed is to correctly identify which of the four stories in the OP are true and which are false. Just apply the same methodology you apply to the stories of Jesus, and by then demonstrating that that methodology determines truth and exposes falsehood, you will have demonstrated that you can determine that Jesus existed by applying that same methodology to the gospel.

Second, I don't believe your analogy is accurate. The NT writers claim that they are giving reliable testimony to historical events. We are free to accept or reject that claim, but either way we need to respond to it on its own terms. They don't say, "Some of these stories are true and some are false. Guess which ones."

I'm not sure how you're getting that I said that the New-Testament writers asked anybody to guess if what they were saying is true or not. Yes, you're free to believe them or not, but freedom to believe them is not the issue. The issue is can we know whether or not what they said is true. On this thread I've demonstrated that no apologist can correctly discern factual stories from fables, so they cannot tell if the gospel tale is true either.

In summary, the historical case for Jesus based on the stories about him has been demonstrated to be without foundation. It has failed the test!

[Hawkins]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

Your analogy is distracting. The only question is if an instance you listed is a truth, then what can be done for humans to reach such a truth!

You don't even need to list those instances. Just tell us who your grandpa (or his grandpa who is supposed to have passed away long ago), then tell us how we can distinguish whether it's a truth or it's your making up.


For an example, if you said that your grandpa is a tall guy. How can you back that up with evidence, he may well be a short guy while you making up to story or fiction to say that "he's a tall guy". If you show a photo (only modern humans have such a luxury), how can we tell that the guy in the photo is really your grandpa but not your making up by using someone else's photo.

[Overcomer]

peterk wrote:

The NT writers claim that they are giving reliable testimony to historical events.

Jubal responded:

Really ?
Can you please quote those NT claims to be giving reliable testimony to historical events ?

Jubal

Luke begin his gospel with this:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught (Luke 1:1-4).

He took pains to write historical details chapter 2, verses 1 and 2:

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.

Luke also wrote Acts which is full of historical information. See here:

http://apologetics315.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... ources.pdf

[Jagella]

For an example, if you said that your grandpa is a tall guy. How can you back that up with evidence, he may well be a short guy while you making up to story or fiction to say that "he's a tall guy". If you show a photo (only modern humans have such a luxury), how can we tell that the guy in the photo is really your grandpa but not your making up by using someone else's photo.

You're getting the point of the OP: stories don't prove much because in most cases you can't check them out. The stories of Jesus, which make up all the evidence we have, cannot be checked for truth. That's exactly why Bible scholars, some of whom don't believe there was a historical Jesus, argue over what "really happened."

So don't be quick to believe all the impressive talk about "critical historical method" that real-Jesus apologists are always going on about claiming they can check the gospel tale for truth. I tested their claims on this thread, and they cannot check stories for truth any better than anybody else can.

[bjs]

But if you disagree, then go ahead and apply that methodology to the stories in the OP.

Ok.

Medium: Internet debate forum. Vast amount of writing, easily recorded. Not something that requires considerable effort to record and spread.

Source: Jagella. Nom de Plume, which is not uncommon in literature. However, this source has been known to fabricate information and later claim he intended it to be “hypothetical.� Suggests unreliability.

Independent sources: None. No similar claims are made by any other writers.

Internal Evidence: Author suggests that at least some of the material recorded is fictional. Does not place a premium on only recording accurate information.

Context: None. One or two sentences with no context to help establish reliability.

Conclusion: This is not a trustworthy historical source. Individual claims may be true or false, but capable scholars would dismiss all claims unless they were backed by independent sources.

[peterk]

Obviously "proof" is a word that only means what it's intended to mean. It should be clear from the OP that "proving a case" means to convince others that Jesus existed or did not exist.

Well it's not clear to me. Which is why I asked the question.

In summary, the historical case for Jesus based on the stories about him has been demonstrated to be without foundation. It has failed the test!

That conclusion is not clear to me either.

I have no doubt, Jagella, that you are passionate and thoughtful about your beliefs, and you are convinced that your conclusions make sense. But then I'm in the same position. Your reasoning is not persuasive to me, and I am quite happy to try and explain my thinking honestly if you want to listen. Do you?

For example, my understanding of "proof" is different from yours. So if we are to make progress together, we need to respectfully listen to each other.

Again, if you want to dialogue with me you need to think about the reliability of your analogy. I don't believe you are comparing apples with apples. True, you didn't say in those exact words that "the New-Testament writers asked anybody to guess if what they were saying is true or not." But to me that's the clear force of your analogy. You've given us four narrative sentences. You've said that two are true and two are fictional. And you've asked me to pick which is which. To me that's not scholarship, it's a guessing game.

I'm happy to answer your question directly: I have no idea which sentences are true and which are false. But I would immediately go on to the next level: I am happy to take at face value your testimony that two are true and two are false. Theoretically you could be lying about the whole matter. But I think there are sensible reasons for believing you. The most obvious being that it is in your interests to set up an example which has that true/false balance. And that for me is the real analogy. I weigh your testimony and for better or worse I consider it to be true. In the same way I have weighed the testimony of the New Testament material and for better or worse I consider it to be true. I'm happy to discuss details, but if we can't first agree on the nature of the analogy, there's probably no point.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

So, how to tell a factual from a fictional account? Many considerations come into play, such as (but not limited to) independent corroboration, internal consistency, and general plausibility.

I 'believe' Jesus was a 'real' person for three main reasons; the fact that the gospels corroborate each other, (except in some minor matters of fine detail), the fact that the same character comes shining through all the gospels, and the fact that I once prayed:

'If in that Syrian garden, ages slain,
You sleep, and know not you are dead in vain,
Nor even in dreams behold how dark and bright
Ascends in smoke and fire by day and night
The hate you died to quench and could but fan,
Sleep well and see no morning, son of man.

'But if, the grave rent and stone rolled by,
At the right hand of majesty on high,
You sit, and sitting so remember yet,
Your tears, your agony, and bloody sweat,
Your cross and passion and the life you gave,
Bow hither, out of heaven, and see and save.'*

And my prayer was answered. Not by some divine intervention to save the world, unfortunately, which was my desire, but by the invasion of my heart by the Holy Spirit, the love of God, (not His for me, but His for all of humanity), such that I became a rather better person, with a rather less jaundiced view of Christianity. So, maybe God was telling me, in that way, that it is my job to save the world, not His.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*A E Housman, (1936) An Easter Hymn, More Poems.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 20 by Jagella]

Like any religion or political or social movement, the early Christians worked in concert as their faith grew.

This though, I have to disagree with. Even according to the Bible, the earliest Christians were divided. Paul and Peter didn't exactly see eye to eye, and there is a passage where Jesus asks what do the people say about him, and is told that the people think he's one of any number of prophets. Then there's how details about his death, crucifixion and resurrection are different between each gospel.

[Jagella]

Medium: Internet debate forum. Vast amount of writing, easily recorded. Not something that requires considerable effort to record and spread.

No medium; whether it is stone, papyrus, paper, radio, the internet, or even smoke signals guarantees the accuracy of the message. So the medium used to communicate a story or message is irrelevant to the truth of that message or story. The gospel tale is no different in that the the papyri it was written on makes no difference to the truth of its stories.

Source: Jagella. Nom de Plume, which is not uncommon in literature. However, this source has been known to fabricate information and later claim he intended it to be “hypothetical.� Suggests unreliability.

I see you're wrong right off the bat here: Jagella is my real name. So I see your methodology is not to be relied on regarding even the name of a work's author.

As far as "fabricating" information is concerned, none of the Christians on my A Truly Historical Gospel thread were able to recognize that the gospel in the OP was hypothetical until I told them. Even after my repeatedly explaining that that gospel is not meant to be taken at face value, they continue to complain that I deliberately deceived them.

This error on the part of some of the Christians here is significant in that many of the stories about Jesus may not have been meant to be taken at face value but are allegorical. Allegory is common in religion, and if we cannot tell if a story was meant to be allegory, then we may misinterpret it as literal history.

Independent sources: None. No similar claims are made by any other writers.

In many cases we cannot know if different sources are independent. Different people can easily spread the same story because they are influenced by the other story tellers. Stories spread this way can be true or false. So the number of writers is no guarantee that their story is true.

Internal Evidence: Author suggests that at least some of the material recorded is fictional. Does not place a premium on only recording accurate information.

People spreading fables may or may not confess their fabrications, so a lack of such confession is no guarantee that a story is true or false. Joseph Smith never admitted that he fabricated his story about the golden tablets, yet almost nobody believes his story aside from Mormons.

Context: None. One or two sentences with no context to help establish reliability.

A work of fiction can have loads of sentences. War and Peace, for example, has 587,287 words, and if we assume ten words per sentence, then it has about 58,729 sentences. Yet all those sentences may not tell us whether or not War and Peace is fact or fiction. So the length of a story is irrelevant to its truth. Both true stories and fabricated stories can be of any length.

So again, all of your criteria you use to discern history based on reading stories does not work as advertised.