The Case for the Historical Wizard of Oz

by Luke Muehlhauser on February 3, 2011 in Funny,Video

Previous post:

Next post:

{ 58 comments… read them below or add one }

Josh February 3, 2011 at 8:22 am

Pretty hilarious.

  (Quote)

Justfinethanks February 3, 2011 at 8:49 am

He forgot to mention that Oz according to Frank depicts Dorothy with “Silver” slippers while Oz according to Victor has Dorothy with “Ruby” slippers. To someone untrained in proper exegesis this might seem like a contradiction, but in reality it just means Dorothy wore slippers with silver covered rubies. Plus the fact that these authors provide different facts about the slippers lets us know that they weren’t simply pulled from the same source, and that means that Dorothy’s magic slippers are independently attested.

So if anything, contradictory accounts increase our assurance of its veracity.

  (Quote)

Hansen February 3, 2011 at 10:57 am

Gospel of Frank!

  (Quote)

mopey February 3, 2011 at 12:41 pm

You’ll find he is a whiz of a Wiz, if ever a Wiz there was!

  (Quote)

Ryan February 3, 2011 at 2:18 pm

Here’s a more scholarly approach to Oz:

Oz has early attestation in “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” which all Oz scholars agree is the first Oz book ever written.

Oz has multiple attestation: The land of Oz is mentioned not only in our earliest sources but also in “Rinkitink in Oz” “The Patchwork Girl of Oz” “The Emerald City of Oz” and “Glinda of Oz”.

As the guy in the video pointed out, much of what is written about Oz is eminently plausible given what we know about history. Further, many stories about Oz pass the criterion of embarrassment: The Cowardly Lion, for example, is portrayed as being very cowardly and the whole lot of Dorothy, the tin man, and the scarecrow are portrayed in various points of the story as being weak, which isn’t the sort of story that would simply be made up. Think about: If the Oz books were written by close companion of Dorothy, as most scholars believe, then why would Dorothy or the author simply invent stories that portrayed themselves in a bad light. It doesn’t make sense unless you believe in Oz.

  (Quote)

Reginald Selkirk February 3, 2011 at 3:19 pm

Plus the fact that these authors provide different facts about the slippers lets us know that they weren’t simply pulled from the same source..

OK, point conceded. They were pulled from different orifices.

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser February 3, 2011 at 3:25 pm

Ryan,

Also excellent points, yes. :)

  (Quote)

Rob February 3, 2011 at 4:02 pm

Some skeptics discount the Oz story due to their a priori anti-wizard and anti-witch bias. But there is just no reason to think that a tornado could not magically transport a girl and her dog to an enchanted land. To argue otherwise is just an argument from incredulity. Right cl?

In addition, it is entirely right, rational, reasonable, and proper to believe in The Wizard of Oz without any evidence or argument at all.

  (Quote)

Thomas February 3, 2011 at 4:21 pm

I´m a Christian bit I actually laughed at this one pretty much! Quite hilarious.

That said, can´t see how one can draw (seriously) any analogies from this to the historical Jesus. It´s just a parody – a really good one – but that´s kind of it.

(And no, I don´t expect anyone to agree with me on that one here… )

  (Quote)

Tony Hoffman February 3, 2011 at 4:30 pm

And thank you, Thomas, for playing the part in the parody where the Christian denies the validity of the analogy. This would have missed you otherwise.

  (Quote)

Jugglable February 3, 2011 at 4:55 pm

“Further, many stories about Oz pass the criterion of embarrassment”

Embarrassing to whom? They’re all fictional characters. But when Peter and Paul and James look bad in the gospels, these are real historical figures that even secular historians will talk about. Oz and the gospels belong to different genres. The parody doesn’t work because the Oz story isn’t meant to be historical, but whether or not you believe the gospels, they CLAIM to be historical. They are two fundamentally different genres.

“Think about: If the Oz books were written by close companion of Dorothy, as most scholars believe”

No scholars believe that. And if this video is meant to be anything OTHER THAN silly–if it’s actually meant to call the historicity of Jesus into question by pointing out parallels with something silly like Oz–here is precisely where it falls apart.

  (Quote)

Jackolop February 3, 2011 at 4:56 pm

For those of you who doubt the authenticity of the written accounts by the Cowardly Lion, Tin Man and Scarecrow, see the book Dorothy and the Eyewitnesses.

  (Quote)

Thomas February 3, 2011 at 4:59 pm

Oh, so the parody just didn´t assume then that the historical documents concerning Jesus have the status of a fairytale..? Just by assuming that certain documents concerning x are analogious to a fairytale, one can make parodies about anything. Maybe someone should make a parody about those silly historical Ceasar scholars … And if some “Ceaserian” would the “deny the validity of the analogy”, then we can all just laugh at the poor one.

But the video was still funny, I´m not denying that! Maybe equally funny is that you guys are confusing a joke with a convincing argument.

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser February 3, 2011 at 5:40 pm

Jackolop,

Good one.

  (Quote)

voodoosixxx February 3, 2011 at 5:57 pm

im glad people are finding this video funny, i shot this about 10mins after coming up with the idea…. it was inspired by someone on YT trying to use the bible as evidence that the events only found in the bible are true historical events.

  (Quote)

Tony Hoffman February 3, 2011 at 6:38 pm

Thomas pulling out the “then we must deny Caesar” trope. Even money says we get a trifecta.

  (Quote)

Rob February 3, 2011 at 6:49 pm

But when Peter and Paul and James look bad in the gospels, these are real historical figures that even secular historians will talk about.

Paul in the gospels? What bible you reading?

  (Quote)

Steven R. February 3, 2011 at 7:43 pm

First off, we need to realize that all of this is logically plausible. So what if we’ve never encountered magical silver boots or a tornado that transports you to a magical land? Both seem metaphysically possible and therefore, it is possible? that it is true. Now, skeptics say that it is a tale inspired by political motives and not factual events, but if this is true, why have so many lighthearted songs–most notably The Fifth Estates “Ding-Dong the Witch Is Dead”–made about it? If the song was political in nature and dealt with something as important as someone’s finances, then we would hardly expect pop and rock songs with a light-hearted mood to be made. On the other hand, this is PRECISELY what we would expect if the tale of a heroic young lady whose sense of adventure saves her was true.

Next, anyone who discounts walking tin men on the basis of never experiencing it or that it is highly unlikely to be true (or worse, under naturalism, a heartless being with such complexity cannot exist!) discounts the possible validity of this account. Suppose you heard that thousands of blackbirds all died at the same time. Highly unlikely. Yet taking the skeptical approach would lead you to believe that those things never happened. And you’d be wrong. Dead wrong. As such, it is much better to believe the Wizard of Oz to be very valid.

Lastly, it just feels like this story occurred. So many people have been touched by the story and been moved by Dorothy’s bravery that indicates to me that this story is true. Why else would generations after generation try to view the story as real? Perhaps because there’s hidden mental faculties that realize the validity of the tale? Of course, the Ozaist will deny this, but us Ozeists will continue to use such arguments because simply believing that the story is real makes living life so much easier. Life is pointless if you don’t believe that if you randomly get picked up by a tornado, you wont be able to escape.

@ Thomas:

We may make fun of stories like of how the Roman Empire came about, with two boys being raised by wolves. We don’t have to deny Caesar, but stories about Caesar talking to magical grapes and the like, even if 500 people from such an era were eyewitnesses.

  (Quote)

Steven R. February 3, 2011 at 7:51 pm

Both seem metaphysically possible and therefore, it is possible? that it is true.

Not sure how that terrible typo occured but it should read, “Both seem metaphysically possible and therefore, it is something that should be considered”

  (Quote)

almost.chris February 3, 2011 at 8:27 pm

If Oz does not exist, then the objective desire to have a brain, a heart, and courage do not exist. But these desire do exist, and deep down we all know it.

But more importantly, we can know Oz exists from our immediate personal experience, wholly apart from arguments. This was the way the people in Munchkinland knew Oz.. There is a danger that proofs for Oz can actually distract you from Oz himself. If you are sincerely seeking a heart, brain, or courage, Oz will make his existence evident to you. We must not be so distracted by the external proofs that we fail to hear Oz speak to our own hearts, brains, or courage.

In the end, if we follow Oz and he exists, we can gain the Emerald City, but if he does not exist, we have lost nothing.

  (Quote)

Silver Bullet February 3, 2011 at 9:22 pm

If Oz really does exist, then we can know that He does.

  (Quote)

Zak February 4, 2011 at 12:20 am

I think it is important to point out that while yes, the incredible events in the Oz story seem unlikely, they are ONLY unlikely if naturalism is true. However, a good case against it has been made here, which means that these events are not unlikely at all!

  (Quote)

Steven Carr February 4, 2011 at 1:08 am

It is a poor parody.

Do we have people proclaiming within a few years that Dorothy was the agent through whom God had created the world, as Paul does about Jesus in 1 Corinthians 8:6?

Paul would never have thought of Jesus as being the agent through whom God had created the world if there had never been an obscure apocalyptic preacher of no interest to Roman historians, and whose entire mission was destroyed by Pilate in less than 24 hours, and who ended up dying as ignominious a fate as Mussolini’s body being hung upside down on meathooks.

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser February 4, 2011 at 1:10 am

The parody grows!

  (Quote)

mister k February 4, 2011 at 1:48 am

I’m not that amused by this to be honest. I think the christians in the thread are closer to the money. The Bible claims itself as a depiction of historical events, and Oz does not, which does make this break down. It made me smile slightly, but as an effective put down argument its not terribly impressive. It is much easier to take historical documents from other figures in history and point out the absurdities contained within

  (Quote)

Jugglable February 4, 2011 at 4:49 am

“it was inspired by someone on YT trying to use the bible as evidence that the events only found in the bible are true historical events.”

Well, in books that I’ve read written against the Christian faith, even atheists will use the Bible to establish certain historical events.

  (Quote)

ildi February 4, 2011 at 5:56 am

The Bible claims itself as a depiction of historical events, and Oz does not

Kansas is real, and while the movie describes Dorothy as having a dream or vision, this is clearly a misreading of the original text, as the books clearly explain this was no vision but an actual event, and that Oz (which is located in the desert) gets a shield of invisibility to hide it from view once the denizens realize that humans have discovered flight.

  (Quote)

Rob February 4, 2011 at 6:41 am

I never cease to be amazed by the dumbassness of some Christians.

The Wizard of Oz describes a magical land with magical folks going around doing magic. The universe we live in does not work like the universe described in The Wizard of Oz. Likewise, the bible describes a world that is not the world we actually live in. For the Christians to point out irrelevant points of dis-analogy just indicates their inability to see the big picture.

  (Quote)

Thomas February 4, 2011 at 7:12 am

Rob,

I expected better from you.

Maybe Christians aren´t blind to the big picture or “dumbasses”, maybe they just see that comments like yours and the whole “hey, let´s take the joke a bit too seriously and make it an argument against Christianity!” -attitude is just a huge exercise in begging the question. Look at this:

“The Wizard of Oz describes a magical land with magical folks going around doing magic. The universe we live in does not work like the universe described in The Wizard of Oz. Likewise, the bible describes a world that is not the world we actually live in.”

So Wizard of Oz is magic. But so is the bible. Therefore bible is magic. And anyone who cannot see the validity of this argument is a dumbass!

This is one of the greatest question-beggings that I have ever seen.

  (Quote)

Patrick February 4, 2011 at 7:23 am

“So Wizard of Oz is magic. But so is the bible. Therefore bible is magic. And anyone who cannot see the validity of this argument is a dumbass!”

Wut? The Bible IS magic. I mean, you can say what you want about it. You can say its real magic. But there’s no possible way you can say that the Bible isn’t a book about magical people doing magical things. That is the one unquestionably true statement about Christianity.

  (Quote)

Rob February 4, 2011 at 7:29 am

Thomas,

I have posted this little exercise before. Please respond.

My dog died a year ago and I buried him in the backyard. Just now he crawled out of the ground, shook himself off, and is gnawing on a bone at my feet.

Do you believe this story? If not, why not?

  (Quote)

ildi February 4, 2011 at 7:47 am

So Wizard of Oz is magic.

Ah, but you’re judging it through the filter of modern sensibilities. I prefer to focus on its timeless message that speaks to all humanity: “There’s no place like home!” Some of it you simply must accept with the faith of a child; for example, the mighty Oz: is he an itinerant tinker? A giant, roaring head covered in fiery clouds? The man behind the curtain? He is all three, and yet one… It’s a mystery you only fully understand once you go home again.

The rest is allegory. (Except for the witch melting, of course. If the witch didn’t melt, how is Oz any different from all the other fairy tales? Too many people witnessed the witch melting for that not to have happened.)

  (Quote)

Thomas February 4, 2011 at 8:00 am

Rob,

The prior probability of dogs raising from the grave is very low. So I need good evidence for believing such a claim (don´t know about “extraordinary”, but good.) Your comment isn´t very good evidence. So I don´t believe you.

What´s the difference in the case of Resurrection? The prior probability of that is very low also. But when we take the probability of theism in our background knowledge, as well as the initial plausibility of God revealing himself to the Jews, incarnation, the context in which Jesus lived, etc., the prior probability becomes higher. And then the explanatory power of the Resurrection is very good. Now the crucial things here is of course that are the facts that the Resurrection tries to explain real historical facts or mere stories like the wizard of oz? We can debate about this. But you can´t just assume that the facts about Jesus are analogous to the wizard of oz without begging the question. So if the facts are real events, then the explanatory power of the Resurrection can render it a high posterior probability. See the McGrews -article.

That said, I´m not sure about these arguments from miracles. I think they are interesting, but I wouldn´t use them at the moment. But you can´t just ignore them by asserting without an argument that the relevant documents are completely unreliable. Actually, the very negative attitude towards ancient history and historical Jesus is a small minority position among professinal historians. Almost non-existent. To me this radical skepticism about historical Jesus is a kind of young-earth-creationism of ancient history.

  (Quote)

Steven Carr February 4, 2011 at 8:10 am

‘ To me this radical skepticism about historical Jesus is a kind of young-earth-creationism of ancient history.’

Like, I said, Paul would never have thought of Jesus as being the agent through whom God had created the world if there had never been an obscure apocalyptic preacher of no interest to Roman historians, and whose entire mission was destroyed by Pilate in less than 24 hours, and who ended up dying as ignominious a fate as Mussolini’s body being hung upside down on meathooks.

Denying that is like denying that there are people who worship Mussolini as the agent through whom God created the world.

Unless Paul’s Jesus was some sort of being revealed through the scriptures, and of whom the Jews had never heard until Christians were sent to preach about him. (Romans 10)

  (Quote)

Vlastimil Vohánka February 4, 2011 at 8:19 am

Parodies can prove too much or cut both ways. Cf. Whately’s, Hudson’s, and Buel’s parodies of Hume’s “Of Miracles.” (All available at archive.org; references at plato.stanford.edu/entries/miracles). Or Hannam’s recent one, concerning the existence of Jesus (www.mandm.org.nz/2011/01/did-hannibal-of-carthage-exist.html).

  (Quote)

Rob February 4, 2011 at 8:30 am

Thomas,

You have better evidence for my dog resurrection story than you do for the resurrection of Jesus. I’m an eyewitness!

Hand waving at the context of the Jesus story is circular. Nice try though!

Apply the critical thinking skills that you applied to my dog story and to the Oz story to your own precious tall tale and see where that leads. If you have the balls.

  (Quote)

Garren February 4, 2011 at 8:49 am

The lesson of the parody is that assuming the details of a story are true is a great way to prove the main points of a story are true, even in obvious fiction.

Answering, “But Oz is obviously fiction” misses the point.

  (Quote)

ildi February 4, 2011 at 8:52 am

But when we take the probability of theism in our background knowledge, as well as the initial plausibility of God revealing himself to the Jews, incarnation, the context in which Jesus lived, etc., the prior probability becomes higher. And then the explanatory power of the Resurrection is very good.

By this logic, there were quite a few gods who picked that era to be resurrected…

Now the crucial things here is of course that are the facts that the Resurrection tries to explain real historical facts or mere stories like the wizard of oz?

You mean historical facts like their beloved leader was a failed messiah who was executed by the Romans? Which resurrection are we talking about? The spiritual resurrection vision of Paul, or the physical resurrection myth of the gospels?

Mere stories (sniff)… flying monkeys and ruby slippers just as good plot devices as a talking snake and a pomegranate… that resurrection thing was so B.C.E…

  (Quote)

Steven R. February 4, 2011 at 8:55 am

I’m not that amused by this to be honest. I think the christians in the thread are closer to the money. The Bible claims itself as a depiction of historical events, and Oz does not, which does make this break down.

Why should The Wizard of Oz proclaim itself as a depiction of historical events? You’re just being stubborn now. It couldn’t be more obvious–intuitively, of course–that the events are real and as such, those who recorded the miraculous events decided it would be redundant to say “this is a real historical event” because deep down, we all know it is. In fact, we can even know that it’s real based on the fact that it doesn’t say “this is a real historical fact” which would indicate that the author feels that the story is incredulous. What about it makes you think it isn’t a depiction of a historical event? If a book with stories about talking mules and women turning into pillars of salt is considered a historical book because it has real cities and even fictional ones that haven’t been found by archeologists, then why isn’t the Wizard of Oz, which has a REAL historical place called Kansas real?

This also goes to Juggable and Thomas.

  (Quote)

Patrick February 4, 2011 at 8:55 am

“But when we take the probability of theism in our background knowledge, as well as the initial plausibility of God revealing himself to the Jews, incarnation, the context in which Jesus lived, etc., the prior probability becomes higher.”

Heh. I consider those to all be good arguments against the resurrection rather than for.

  (Quote)

Steven R. February 4, 2011 at 8:56 am

Why should The Wizard of Oz proclaim itself as a depiction of historical events? You’re just being stubborn now. It couldn’t be more obvious–intuitively, of course–that the events are real and as such, those who recorded the miraculous events decided it would be redundant to say “this is a real historical event” because deep down, we all know it is. In fact, we can even know that it’s real based on the fact that it doesn’t say “this is a real historical fact” which would indicate that the author feels that the story is incredulous. What about it makes you think it isn’t a depiction of a historical event? If a book with stories about talking mules and women turning into pillars of salt is considered a historical book because it has real cities and even fictional ones that haven’t been found by archeologists, then why isn’t the Wizard of Oz, which has a REAL historical place called Kansas real?This also goes to Juggable and Thomas.  

…and I have no idea how my whole comment got turned into italics. Damn it, this is ruining my fun.

  (Quote)

ildi February 4, 2011 at 9:03 am

Maybe I didn’t turn my italics off properly…

  (Quote)

ildi February 4, 2011 at 9:07 am

Damn, it shows up ok in preview… maybe if I italicize in a comment?

  (Quote)

Rob February 4, 2011 at 9:15 am

Luke, we have got a problem.

  (Quote)

Thomas February 4, 2011 at 9:25 am

Rob,

when I said that “the explanatory power” of the Resurrection can render it a high posterior probability, I meant that R leads us to expect the occurance of all the relevant facts, while no other hypothesis does so. Now you can challenge this in three ways: (1) Deny that the relevant facts are historical (the parody did this; but without argumentation this is just begging the question); (2) argue that R actually doesn´t lead us to expect the data; or (3) argue that there is some alteranative to R, which has higher prior probability and as good explanatory power.

Now, I don´t have “better evidence” for dog resurrection, because, like (3) points put, there actually are good alternatives to it. I have many other hypotheses for explaining your claim, like the hypothesis that you lie so that you can make your point. So there are very good naturalistic explanations for this one. But according to the resurrection argument, there aren´t good alternative hypotheses for easter.

Maybe if you died as a martyr for your claim while insisting until the last moment that your dog really resurrected, and many other would do that also, then this evidence would be closer to the evidence for the Resurrection.

And it´s not circular, because you asked be why I don´t believe in your dog story. There´s nothing in my background knowledge that makes the dog resurrection plausible. But there are things there which make Jesus´s resurrection at least a bit plausible. So the lesson is that we should recognize the role of our background information while having this discussion. You are just assuming atheism and historical Jesus skepticism, and then you are wondering how some Christians can be such “dumbasses”. That won´t do.

Anyway, I can´t see how this discussion can go anywhere. My views are basically the same than Lydia McGrew´s (see the interview), althought I´m not as confident as she as about the argument from miracles. So this will do for me.

  (Quote)

Tony Hoffman February 4, 2011 at 10:00 am

Another thing that the Christians here have failed to notice: the prior probability of Oz being written, exactly as it is written, is 1 to the Majillion power. This makes it far, far more likely, under Ozism, that a creator for Oz exists than it does that Oz itself was simply created. Much follows from this fact.

  (Quote)

Tony Hoffman February 4, 2011 at 10:03 am

Thomas: “But you can´t just assume that the facts about Jesus are analogous to the wizard of oz without begging the question.”

What a dumbass thing to say. Nobody’s assuming that the facts are analogous, they’re observing that the facts are analogous. Do you even understand what “begging the question” means?

And the trifecta, btw. I say, let it roll…

  (Quote)

Rob February 4, 2011 at 10:10 am

like the hypothesis that you lie so that you can make your point

So are you saying that it is more likely that I lied about my dog coming back to life than that my dog actually came back to life?

You’re almost there Thomas.

  (Quote)

Steven Carr February 4, 2011 at 10:22 am

Thomas
Maybe if you died as a martyr for your claim while insisting until the last moment that your dog really resurrected, ….

CARR
Oh dear.We have more myths.It seems this Wizard of Oz thing is catching. Everybody thinks he can write fiction.

Name one eyewitness who was killed for preaching a resurrection.

The idea that Christians would escape the (non-existent) criminal charge of preaching a resurrection is bogus, by denying it, even apart from the obvious fact that it was never a crime to say somebody had risen from the dead.

I guess Bernie Madoff must have been genuine, because why would he go to jail for fraud, when all he had to do was say that he had defrauded everybody, and he could have walked out of court a free man.

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser February 4, 2011 at 10:48 am

Rob,

I keep trying different ‘edit comments’ plugins but they don’t work on my blog…

  (Quote)

Rob February 4, 2011 at 11:08 am

But when we take the probability of theism in our background knowledge, as well as the initial plausibility of God revealing himself to the Jews . . .

But when we take the probability of magic in our background knowledge, as well as the initial plausibility of tornadoes transporting girls and dogs to the Oz . . .

Circular reasoning is like dividing by zero . . . anything follows from it.

  (Quote)

Silas February 4, 2011 at 11:15 am

Maybe if you died as a martyr for your claim while insisting until the last moment that your dog really resurrected, and many other would do that also, then this evidence would be closer to the evidence for the Resurrection.

Would you believe the dog resurrection story if one hundred people died as martyrs today, while insisting that the dog did resurrect? (They would have many independent camera crews there, they would conduct numerous interviews, write thousands of pages professing their beliefs, and so on). They could all be Robs, trying to make their point but being slightly nuts. That isn’t totally outrageous. But I guess you would prefer the supernatural explanation, am I right? Maybe not. People have killed themselves for much more retarded reasons than that.

Would you become a dogist if this actually happened today?

  (Quote)

Rob February 4, 2011 at 12:19 pm

The number of alleged eyewitnesses who were martyred* is exactly zero. The “no one would die for a lie” meme is just another lie Christians add to their long list of lies. Thomas dragging it out in this context is pretty desperate.

*We have no reliable historical evidence than anyone claiming to have seen the risen Jesus willingly died for that claim.

  (Quote)

Jugglable February 4, 2011 at 1:42 pm

“Why should The Wizard of Oz proclaim itself as a depiction of historical events? ”

At this point you cease to be sincere. If you do not think that the gospels and the wizard of Oz even belong to different GENRES, well, I give up.

  (Quote)

mojo.rhythm February 4, 2011 at 5:11 pm

Apparently Price watched this and laughed his ass off.

Hilarious!

  (Quote)

Tommykey February 4, 2011 at 5:29 pm

I know the Wizard of Oz is true because I saw the actual ruby slippers at the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C. when I was 13 years old.

  (Quote)

Tony Hoffman February 5, 2011 at 9:06 am

At this point you cease to be sincere. If you do not think that the gospels and the wizard of Oz even belong to different GENRES, well, I give up.

Genres are largely  determined by readers. Holden Caufield tells us what “really” happened to him, but that doesn’t stop booksellers from placing the Catcher in the Rye in the fiction section. Hollywood tells us that that the story we are about to see is based on real events. Is  the story of Ulysses historical, allegorical, legendary, or just plain-old fashioned story telling? In all of these cases,  it is the reader, not the author, who determines in what genre the work belongs.

With incomplete, contradictory, evolved, and interpolated works by anonymous authors, we have no good way to determine how it is they intended their works to be interpreted, and even if we did we have no good reason to take them at their word; scientology is based on the imagination of a man, but the author of that religion fomented the misapprehension that it was based on something more real.

Poor heuristics in determining to what genre a work should be assigned is exactly the  point  of the video. It’s not  surprising that a Christian would entirely miss that salient  fact.

  (Quote)

Tony Hoffman February 5, 2011 at 9:40 am

Jugglable, also, see: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/millionlittle/facts.html

Please notice how far this book made it — past editors, millions of readers, a publicity blitz, before it was almost accidentally discovered that the author had fabricated many portions of his story.

Now imagine how much more difficult it would be to do this decades and centuries after the fact, with none of the forensics which made Frey’s fabrications discoverable, without even Frey’s identity available.

Now try and tell us that the Gospels clearly belong to a certain genre, and why.

  (Quote)

Leave a Comment