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]

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.

You made that initial comment directly in reply to one of my responses. If you're saying that comment had nothing to do with anything I or anyone else here has said, and is therefore better described as a non sequitur rather than a straw man, I'll happily accept that correction.

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.

First, the fact that no one here is a professional historian is not an insult. And, second, in context, my comment was principally in reference to the people here who accept the historicity of Jesus!

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.

But notice I didn't call them "historical events." I'm talking here about "events" -- that is, events described in historical documents -- which can be analyzed as to whether they are likely historical or not.

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.

The gospels are historical evidence. We don't describe documents or evidence as "fringe" or "discredited." In the context of history, those adjectives only properly apply to theories.

Look, Jagella, our conversations would be a lot more interesting -- to say nothing of shorter -- if we could dial-down the rhetoric about three notches.

Instead of hurling ad homimen attacks at this boogeyman you've invented of the "real-Jesus apologist," while trying to narrowly parse everything I'm saying in order to either take offense or score minor rhetorical points, let's just focus on the issues.

In so far as I've traded barbs on all these points, I'm not helping the situation, obviously. But this is getting tedious. We can have a perfectly respectful and even productive conversation without all of this needless static.

[historia]

I like discussing what I posted in the OP: logically sound ways to tell fact from fiction.

Right, and in discussing that question, your own arguments have led us into a discussion about the epistemology of history. We can't have a productive discussion about the evidence for any historical question until we first establish what even constitutes historical knowledge or evidence in the first place.

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.

That seems problematic, as our knowledge of the world isn't derived solely from one kind of evidence.

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.

Sure, and we also have bones of ancient humans, which demonstrates that they also existed. If that's the level of detail you're interested in, then physical evidence is all you need.

But, obviously, the vast, vast majority of what individual humans say and do doesn't leave behind lasting physical evidence. So if we want to know what any one human, or even whole groups of humans, from the past said or did while they were alive that changed the course of human history, obviously we need more than just physical evidence.

This is why history (the discipline) necessarily entails critically analyzing written accounts. Without written accounts, we'd know very little about history.

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.

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.

Now we're making progress!

This is exactly why I said your arguments to date have amounted to nothing more than special pleading. That wasn't just some kind of cheap jab, it was an honest assessment of your argument.

By accepting the existence of other historical figures, like the Teacher of Righteousness, on similar or even less evidence than what we have for Jesus of Nazareth (even if you didn't previously realize that was the case), your argument was, at best, inconsistent.

This new argument is more consistent, but comes at a terrible cost. In order to maintain your criticism of the historicity of Jesus, you've now had to retreat into a hyper-skeptical position with regard to all written accounts, essentially discounting most of what we know about human history.

It also fundamentally undercuts the force of your argument. When you doubt the existence of the vast, vast majority of historical figures, your doubts about Jesus don't stand out in any way. It's like the person who thinks Star Wars is a terrible movie who you later found out hates all science fiction and fantasy movies. Their opinion says little about Star Wars in particular.

[Jagella]

That seems problematic, as our knowledge of the world isn't derived solely from one kind of evidence.

Well, my way of assessing truth is not problematic at all for me. It may be a tough nut to crack for other people, though.

...if we want to know what any one human, or even whole groups of humans, from the past said or did while they were alive that changed the course of human history, obviously we need more than just physical evidence.

In many such cases we probably don't know what happened in the past. We should be humble enough to admit we don't know and take care not to mislead others that our educated guesses are knowledge. I see that problem with the claims about the historical Jesus: educated guesses are misrepresented as knowledge.

This is why history (the discipline) necessarily entails critically analyzing written accounts.

My critical analysis of the written accounts of Jesus has led me to be unsure if he existed. Since you disagree with my uncertainty, do you recommend I retain my skepticism about the historicity of Jesus, or should I abandon my critical analysis as untrustworthy? Either way what you argue is in big trouble.

By accepting the existence of other historical figures, like the Teacher of Righteousness, on similar or even less evidence than what we have for Jesus of Nazareth (even if you didn't previously realize that was the case), your argument was, at best, inconsistent.

I have no argument for or against the historicity of the "teacher of righteousness." Three months ago I may have thought his existence seemed plausible, but now I realize I cannot tell if he existed.

So I am quite consistent in that I am unsure of the historicity of both this "teacher of righteousness" and of the Biblical Jesus for the same reasons.

Besides, even if I was special pleading, I'm not sure how my alleged fallacy gets you anywhere in arguing for a historical Christ. At best you would be able to say that in one instance I made a mistake in logic.

This new argument...

I'm not making an argument! I simply explained that I have changed my way of assessing historical evidence.

In order to maintain your criticism of the historicity of Jesus, you've now had to retreat into a hyper-skeptical position with regard to all written accounts, essentially discounting most of what we know about human history.

Calling my point of view "hyper-skeptical" doesn't make it wrong. I see it as critical thinking in which I take care not to think I know something when I don't know something.

It also fundamentally undercuts the force of your argument.

Where exactly is this argument? Next to physical evidence for Jesus, perhaps?

When you doubt the existence of the vast, vast majority of historical figures...

Who said that? I would need to look at the evidence for those figures to come to a judgment regarding their historicity.

In summary, I see that you jump to a lot of conclusions about me seeing arguments where there are none. You assume without justification that I accept other figures from antiquity as historical when I may not. You also commit the "smellier skunk" fallacy by concluding that if the evidence for other historical figures is presumably even worse than the evidence for Jesus, then that somehow makes the evidence for Jesus good enough. (No matter how smelly other skunks might be, your skunk still stinks.)