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?

[historia]

Rather, the claim that historians are making with regard to Jesus of Nazareth is that the hypothesis that he was an actual historical figure best explains all the available evidence, while competing hypotheses are considerably weaker in explanatory scope and power, and require more ad hoc assumptions.

Until we address the issue on those terms, I'm afraid we're just discussing epistemology rather than history.

People are staking their immortal souls on an hypothesis ...?!

No, we're discussing how historians approach this issue.

As I'm sure you're aware, many apologists are adopting a strategy of "speaking our language." That is, they want to come across as scientists and historians who are using the methodology of science and history to demonstrate that Jesus, the god of Christianity, existed just like Abraham Lincoln existed.

This is, of course, total nonsense. Even most atheist, agnostic, and other non-Christian scholars conclude that Jesus was an historical figure.

[StuartJ]

Rather, the claim that historians are making with regard to Jesus of Nazareth is that the hypothesis that he was an actual historical figure best explains all the available evidence, while competing hypotheses are considerably weaker in explanatory scope and power, and require more ad hoc assumptions.

Until we address the issue on those terms, I'm afraid we're just discussing epistemology rather than history.

People are staking their immortal souls on an hypothesis ...?!

No, we're discussing how historians approach this issue.

As I'm sure you're aware, many apologists are adopting a strategy of "speaking our language." That is, they want to come across as scientists and historians who are using the methodology of science and history to demonstrate that Jesus, the god of Christianity, existed just like Abraham Lincoln existed.

This is, of course, total nonsense. Even most atheist, agnostic, and other non-Christian scholars conclude that Jesus was an historical figure.

I thought professional historians were THE BEST source ...?

You know, with ordinary doctors and scientists and such not having the proper elite qualifications to understand that only one virgin-born god-man is real.

However, as members here have informed us recently, it seems that GENUINE Christians, with the INDWELLING HOLY SPIRIT receive knowledge directly from "God", and know, through this special process, that biblical things they CHOOSE to be real ARE real.

And you still haven't told us how professional experts determine the divinity of Jesus. You have been absent in those recent topics.

[historia]

Rather, the claim that historians are making with regard to Jesus of Nazareth is that the hypothesis that he was an actual historical figure best explains all the available evidence, while competing hypotheses are considerably weaker in explanatory scope and power, and require more ad hoc assumptions.

Until we address the issue on those terms, I'm afraid we're just discussing epistemology rather than history.

People are staking their immortal souls on an hypothesis ...?!

No, we're discussing how historians approach this issue.

As I'm sure you're aware, many apologists are adopting a strategy of "speaking our language." That is, they want to come across as scientists and historians who are using the methodology of science and history to demonstrate that Jesus, the god of Christianity, existed just like Abraham Lincoln existed.

This is, of course, total nonsense. Even most atheist, agnostic, and other non-Christian scholars conclude that Jesus was an historical figure.

I thought professional historians were THE BEST source ...?

They tend to be a better source than the uninformed opinion of Internet atheists.

You know, with ordinary doctors and scientists and such not having the proper elite qualifications to understand that only one virgin-born god-man is real.

However, as members here have informed us recently, it seems that GENUINE Christians, with the INDWELLING HOLY SPIRIT receive knowledge directly from "God", and know, through this special process, that biblical things they CHOOSE to be real ARE real.

You'll have to take that up with them.

And you still haven't told us how professional experts determine the divinity of Jesus. You have been absent in those recent topics.

I have neither the time nor the interest to participate in every thread on this site.

And, before you start complaining about others not respond your threads, you might first respond to the questions that have been posed to you directly multiple times that you are presently dodging.

[Jagella]

So we're even: some people think the stories about him indicate he was a real person, and I think that we simply cannot tell.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The mere fact that you hold a contravening opinion does not entail the conclusion that our positions are "even."

That's right, Hist! You're finally getting it. Opinions don't count for much. We all have them. Opinions are not evidence regardless of how impressive they might sound.

There's not enough information in the OP to establish any conclusions regarding these accounts one way or the other.

With additional information, however, we could make a more informed decision.

I could supply lots of additional detail to those stories--facts to the true stories and baloney to the false stories--and you'd still be completely unable to tell fact from fiction.

Let's assume, for example, that we know the name of the band that Clyde played in. In fact, the band still exists today, and has several early albums where Clyde is named as the principle founder of the group. Documents from rival blue-grass and hard-rock bands from around this time also mention that Clyde founded this particular band. Let's even assume that we have correspondence from a later member of the band who played with Clyde's brother, who took over the band after Clyde left the group.

You're assuming you do in fact have enough knowledge to make a judgment about a story to assess its historicity. But you often don't have that knowledge. In the case of Jesus, like the characters in the stories in the OP, all we have are stories.

With that additional information, I think we could conclude that the story about Clyde is likely true, not just because we have multiple accounts all confirming Clyde played in this band, but the idea that the band just invested a mythical Clyde is highly unlikely.

We're back to posting opinions, I see. I just wish I could get across to real-Jesus apologists that they have no Jesus but only their opinions that he existed. Opinions aren't worth a hill of beans.

Even most atheist, agnostic, and other non-Christian scholars conclude that Jesus was an historical figure.

So what? Big deal! I don't care if Hare Krishna scholars conclude Jesus existed. Just because some scholars aren't Christians doesn't mean they're not swayed by Christianity. And as long as all you have are stories and opinions, you have no good evidence for a historical Jesus.

So if I may post again an earlier comparison I made. Real-Jesus apologists are like calculus students who boast that they are experts in that subject. But when they take a test, they flunk the test! That's essentially what's happened on this thread.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 63 by historia]

Do you believe rape should be illegal?

Still waiting, Stuart. Also:

Do you believe that first-term abortions should be legal?

Do you believe that marijuana should be legal?

Do you believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry?

So ...

These are what is important to you in a forum that debates Christianity ...

And addressing the absence of evidence for a Divine Jesus is not.

I don't have beliefs.

Please start debate topics on your important matters ...

And I will engage in them with you there.

They were WAY OFF-TOPIC where you posted them.

And frankly ...

Where and how you presented them would be distasteful and insulting to certain atheists.

[historia]

[Replying to post 65 by StuartJ]

I've responded to your reply back in the thread where I actually asked the questions.

[historia]

So we're even: some people think the stories about him indicate he was a real person, and I think that we simply cannot tell.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The mere fact that you hold a contravening opinion does not entail the conclusion that our positions are "even."

That's right, Hist! You're finally getting it. Opinions don't count for much. We all have them. Opinions are not evidence regardless of how impressive they might sound.

As no one here has said that opinions are evidence, we can safely put aside that straw man argument.

The point I was making is that not all positions are equal.

There's not enough information in the OP to establish any conclusions regarding these accounts one way or the other.

With additional information, however, we could make a more informed decision.

I could supply lots of additional detail to those stories--facts to the true stories and baloney to the false stories--and you'd still be completely unable to tell fact from fiction.

No, it would depend on the details.

If you include details that are confirmed by other sources or are likely given our background knowledge, then that increases the likelihood of that story being true. Conversely, if you include details that are contradicted by other sources or are unlikely given our background knowledge, then that decreases the likelihood of that story being true.

That's how historical analysis works. Historians don't have some kind of magic ability to divine true stories from false ones. That's silly. Rather, they critically analyze historical accounts in the light of other information. So having more details absolutely makes a difference.

Let's assume, for example, that we know the name of the band that Clyde played in. In fact, the band still exists today, and has several early albums where Clyde is named as the principle founder of the group. Documents from rival blue-grass and hard-rock bands from around this time also mention that Clyde founded this particular band. Let's even assume that we have correspondence from a later member of the band who played with Clyde's brother, who took over the band after Clyde left the group.

You're assuming you do in fact have enough knowledge to make a judgment about a story to assess its historicity. But you often don't have that knowledge.

I'm not assuming this, I'm pointing out that when we have this extra level of detail and additional sources we can make a more informed decision.

Your one-sentence stories lack this, and so are a poor analogy to the historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth.

In the case of Jesus, like the characters in the stories in the OP, all we have are stories.

The evidence we have for Jesus of Nazareth comes solely from written accounts, yes. That's also the case for the vast, vast majority of historical figures. Most of the time, all we have are written accounts. That's the norm.

And this is the basic problem with all of your arguments against the historicity of Jesus, Jagella. They amount to nothing more than special pleading.

With that additional information, I think we could conclude that the story about Clyde is likely true, not just because we have multiple accounts all confirming Clyde played in this band, but the idea that the band just invested a mythical Clyde is highly unlikely.

We're back to posting opinions, I see.

This is not merely an opinion, but rather a simple, straight-forward statement about probabilities. If multiple independent sources confirm the same historical event, that increases the likelihood of that event being true. This is a basic principle in history.

Even most atheist, agnostic, and other non-Christian scholars conclude that Jesus was an historical figure.

So what?

So, in context, the point I was making is that this is not a topic that actually touches on Christian apologetics, as such.

It's not as if there are Christians on one side of this issue and atheists on the other. Rather, when it comes to the historicity of Jesus, what we see is a small group of atheist advocates promoting a fringe, discredited historical theory on one side, and on the other side we have literally everyone else, including other atheists.

So, your ad hominem attack on Christian apologists above is completely misplaced.

Real-Jesus apologists are like calculus students who boast that they are experts in that subject. But when they take a test, they flunk the test! That's essentially what's happened on this thread.

If people who believe that Jesus was an historical figure are like Calculus students, then this thread is like someone standing in front of the class asking everyone to guess what number they are thinking of. That kind of "test" reveals more about that person's lack of understanding of Calculus than anything concerning the students.

And no one here is claiming to be an expert. Again, you are attacking straw man arguments.

[Jagella]

As no one here has said that opinions are evidence, we can safely put aside that straw man argument.

Here we have another example of of a false accusation of a straw man. Sorry, but I know for a fact that whenever Jesus skeptics ask for evidence for Jesus, all they get are opinions from supposed experts. There simply is no evidence for Jesus aside from stories, if stories even count as evidence. All I've gotten from you are opinions including the opinions in your latest post! And anybody reading this thread can just read it to see that I'm right and that there is no straw-man fallacy on my part.

The point I was making is that not all positions are equal.

Oh sure--opinions backed up by solid evidence trump opinions that aren't backed up by solid evidence, but of course there isn't a shred of solid evidence to back up the opinion that Jesus lived.

No, it would depend on the details.

If you include details that are confirmed by other sources or are likely given our background knowledge, then that increases the likelihood of that story being true. Conversely, if you include details that are contradicted by other sources or are unlikely given our background knowledge, then that decreases the likelihood of that story being true.

Yes--you can always read other stories about Jesus and accept them as true. But still all you have is stories. It's illogical to try to prove an unknown with an unknown, and an unproven story is not proved by other unproved stories. Besides, I'm not sure how a lot of stories written by different people demonstrates historicity. People in antiquity and even today tell a lot of stories about things like being abducted by UFOs. The way you assess history, we'd need to accept these UFO-abduction stories as historical. We have the same evidence for ET as we have for Jesus--different people telling similar stories.

That's how historical analysis works. Historians don't have some kind of magic ability to divine true stories from false ones. T

Oh really? In that case a story historians accept as true might be complete baloney, and they cannot tell.

Rather, they critically analyze historical accounts in the light of other information. So having more details absolutely makes a difference.

I want to see this "critical analysis" tested to see if it actually works. I do know that the critical analysis employed by apologists on this thread has failed completely to discern history from fiction.

...I'm pointing out that when we have this extra level of detail and additional sources we can make a more informed decision.

Your mistake here is assuming that additional detail is information while that additional detail could just as easily be misinformation.

Your one-sentence stories lack this, and so are a poor analogy to the historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth.

My stories in the OP may well be incomparable to the gospels. I know for a fact which of my stories are true while I don't have such knowledge regarding the gospels--nobody has that kind of knowledge about the truth of the gospels. If you want to believe in a historical Jesus, then your position rests on stories--stories written by a fanatical and superstitious religious cult with a stated agenda to increase the size and power of their religion.

The evidence we have for Jesus of Nazareth comes solely from written accounts, yes. That's also the case for the vast, vast majority of historical figures. Most of the time, all we have are written accounts. That's the norm.

Well--maybe those stories aren't true either! I'm not sure what any of the stories of other figures have to do with Jesus.

And this is the basic problem with all of your arguments against the historicity of Jesus, Jagella. They amount to nothing more than special pleading.

Wrong again! Anybody can go back and read all of my posts and never see one instance of my accepting the historicity of any person based on stories alone. There is no special pleading on my part.

If multiple independent sources confirm the same historical event, that increases the likelihood of that event being true.

You're begging the question here by assuming an event is historical. Also, you're merely asserting without evidence that more stories make a story more likely to be true. I see no reason why a false story cannot be told by many people. (See my example of the stories of ET above.)

So, in context, the point I was making is that this is not a topic that actually touches on Christian apologetics, as such.

That's not what Bible scholar Hector Avalos has written. He describes Bible studies as a "liberal Christian apologetic." He describes himself as an agnostic regarding the historicity of Jesus

But that's just his opinion, of course.

...when it comes to the historicity of Jesus, what we see is a small group of atheist advocates promoting a fringe, discredited historical theory on one side, and on the other side we have literally everyone else, including other atheists.

Well, I never discredited mythicism. Much of it seems to be well argued and in many cases much better argued than real-Jesus apologetics.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the gospel tale start out as a "fringe, discredited historical theory"? Isn't it amazing what catches on over time?

If people who believe that Jesus was an historical figure are like Calculus students, then this thread is like someone standing in front of the class asking everyone to guess what number they are thinking of. That kind of "test" reveals more about that person's lack of understanding of Calculus than anything concerning the students.

For a person who complains about straw-man arguments, you use them often enough. Anybody can go back and actually read the OP to see that I'm not asking anybody to guess anything. Here's the...

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?

In summary, I should stress that you employ very common apologists' tactics by misrepresenting your own opinions as somehow more believable than the opinions of doubters without a shred of evidence to back up your assertion.

[historia]

As no one here has said that opinions are evidence, we can safely put aside that straw man argument.

Here we have another example of of a false accusation of a straw man.

If this is a false accusation, then, by all means, show me who in this thread has said that opinions are evidence.

If you cannot, then this is a straw man argument.

All I've gotten from you are opinions including the opinions in your latest post! And anybody reading this thread can just read it to see that I'm right and that there is no straw-man fallacy on my part.

We aren't discussing the evidence for the historical Jesus. We're discussing various epistemological problems with your argument.

If you include details that are confirmed by other sources or are likely given our background knowledge, then that increases the likelihood of that story being true. Conversely, if you include details that are contradicted by other sources or are unlikely given our background knowledge, then that decreases the likelihood of that story being true.

Yes--you can always read other stories about Jesus and accept them as true. But still all you have is stories. It's illogical to try to prove an unknown with an unknown, and an unproven story is not proved by other unproved stories.

My stories in the OP may well be incomparable to the gospels. I know for a fact which of my stories are true while I don't have such knowledge regarding the gospels--nobody has that kind of knowledge about the truth of the gospels.

That's how historical analysis works. Historians don't have some kind of magic ability to divine true stories from false ones.

Oh really? In that case a story historians accept as true might be complete baloney, and they cannot tell.

As I've pointed out several times:

Historians never set out to "prove" what happened in the past.

Since we cannot recreate the past, we can never have certain knowledge about what happened. There is always a non-zero probability that we might be wrong.

This is true of all historical inquiry, and so these various epistemological concerns are not unique to the question of the historicity of Jesus.

Rather, they critically analyze historical accounts in the light of other information. So having more details absolutely makes a difference.

I want to see this "critical analysis" tested to see if it actually works. I do know that the critical analysis employed by apologists on this thread has failed completely to discern history from fiction.

No one here is a professional historian. And the data you've provided is insufficient for anyone to make a determination.

For those reasons, this "test" is meaningless.

I'm pointing out that when we have this extra level of detail and additional sources we can make a more informed decision.

Your mistake here is assuming that additional detail is information while that additional detail could just as easily be misinformation.

Not at all. We might ultimately determine that the additional information reveals the story to be false. It is nevertheless information.

The evidence we have for Jesus of Nazareth comes solely from written accounts, yes. That's also the case for the vast, vast majority of historical figures. Most of the time, all we have are written accounts. That's the norm.

Well--maybe those stories aren't true either! I'm not sure what any of the stories of other figures have to do with Jesus.

We have to be consistent when doing historical inquiry. You can't apply one standard to one historical person or event and then apply a completely different standard to a different historical person or event.

That is special pleading.

Wrong again! Anybody can go back and read all of my posts and never see one instance of my accepting the historicity of any person based on stories alone. There is no special pleading on my part.

Just a few months ago you claimed that the Teacher of Righteousness was probably a real person. We only have stories for the Teacher of Righteousness.

If multiple independent sources confirm the same historical event, that increases the likelihood of that event being true.

You're begging the question here by assuming an event is historical.

No, I'm not. I'm talking about the probability an event is historical.

Also, you're merely asserting without evidence that more stories make a story more likely to be true.

This is a principle of history. See the Wikipedia article on the Historical Method.

I see no reason why a false story cannot be told by many people. (See my example of the stories of ET above.)

It's not a question about whether it can be false. Again, we're talking about probability.

So, in context, the point I was making is that this is not a topic that actually touches on Christian apologetics, as such.

That's not what Bible scholar Hector Avalos has written. He describes Bible studies as a "liberal Christian apologetic." He describes himself as an agnostic regarding the historicity of Jesus

This is a non sequitur.

...when it comes to the historicity of Jesus, what we see is a small group of atheist advocates promoting a fringe, discredited historical theory on one side, and on the other side we have literally everyone else, including other atheists.

Well, I never discredited mythicism.

You're not an historian.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the gospel tale start out as a "fringe, discredited historical theory"?

No, the gospels are not a historical theory.

If people who believe that Jesus was an historical figure are like Calculus students, then this thread is like someone standing in front of the class asking everyone to guess what number they are thinking of. That kind of "test" reveals more about that person's lack of understanding of Calculus than anything concerning the students.

For a person who complains about straw-man arguments, you use them often enough. Anybody can go back and actually read the OP to see that I'm not asking anybody to guess anything.

It's an analogy.

[Jagella]

If this is a false accusation, then, by all means, show me who in this thread has said that opinions are evidence.

And show me where I posted that some members here have said that their opinions are evidence. What I am saying is that opinions are about all I get when I look into the historicity of Jesus.

We aren't discussing the evidence for the historical Jesus. We're discussing various epistemological problems with your argument.

Well, I suppose we can discuss anything! I like discussing what I posted in the OP: logically sound ways to tell fact from fiction.

But hey--if you wish to try to demonstrate that what I'm arguing is not logically sound, then go ahead. You won't be getting anywhere telling fact from fiction, but you may get some Christians to dismiss what I am saying.

As I've pointed out several times:

Historians never set out to "prove" what happened in the past.

Well I am trying to prove what happened in the past. If historians have no proof, then that's their problem.

Since we cannot recreate the past, we can never have certain knowledge about what happened. There is always a non-zero probability that we might be wrong.

Well, I'm not looking for complete certainty; that's not what I mean by "proof." By proof I mean evidence for a historical claim that's like the evidence for anything else I accept as true. For example, I have no problem accepting as true the past-existence of dinosaurs. I can literally see their fossils or at least see photos of those fossils. So for me those fossils constitute proof for the existence of dinosaurs.

This is true of all historical inquiry, and so these various epistemological concerns are not unique to the question of the historicity of Jesus.

I'm well aware of the problems with historical studies. Those problems demonstrate that any truth claim based in history--including the claims of the historicity of Jesus--rest on very shaky ground.

No one here is a professional historian.

I have seen that it is very common for real-Jesus apologists to insult the intelligence of laypersons. They argue that such "amateurs" just cannot come to sensible conclusions about the historicity of Jesus. One thing real-Jesus apologists don't do is use this argument against nonprofessionals who believe that there was a historical Jesus.

And the data you've provided is insufficient for anyone to make a determination.

Right--and the same goes for the stories about Jesus! We cannot fact-check the stories about Jesus because we don't have those facts. If we did have such facts, then the issue of the historicity of Jesus based on stories would be moot because we wouldn't need those stories to demonstrate his historicity.

We might ultimately determine that the additional information reveals the story to be false.

Oh sure, you might have information that stories are false, but in many cases you don't have that information.

So what information do you have that the stories about Jesus are false? If you don't have that information, then we still have made little progress in determining if those stories are true which is the crux of the matter as far as I'm concerned.

Just a few months ago you claimed that the Teacher of Righteousness was probably a real person. We only have stories for the Teacher of Righteousness.

But I didn't say the "Teacher of Righteousness" was probably historical based on stories alone. If all we have for him are stories, then I cannot tell if he was historical.

So what is your point here? Actually, you are right that I have accepted some people as historical based on stories alone. I got over it! I no longer hold that position. I change my mind according to what new evidence and reasoning I become aware of.

No, I'm not. I'm talking about the probability an event is historical.

Sorry, but if you refer to an event you wish to demonstrate as historical as a "historical event," then you are assuming what you are trying to prove. Question begging like this is very common among real-Jesus apologists.

This is a principle of history.

Is it OK if I'm not convinced that more stories make a story more likely to be true? If that "principle of history" was credible, then we'd need to accept the Greek and Egyptian stories of their gods as historical. They have tons of stories!

This is a non sequitur.

But I thought you relied upon what Bible scholars have to say for information. Based on what I've seen from real-Jesus apologists, Jesus historicity sure looks like an apologetic to me. That's why I've concluded that Hector Avalos is right about Biblical studies being a "liberal Christian apologetic."

You're not an historian.

Which might be an advantage for me! I do have a brain, and it comes in handy whenever I wish to try to tell truth from fiction.

No, the gospels are not a historical theory.

Maybe, but I see you do not deny that they are "fringe" and "discredited." So it seems very foolish to rely on the gospel tale as information about history.