Is the Bible Full of Fairy Tales?

[QuietMan1980]

I have heard it said that the Bible should looked upon as a book of ancient fairy tales. However, I would like to make the following comparisons between fairy tales and the books of the Bible (King James Bible, for example).

Fairy tales are usually very vague about the times and places of the events that take place. For example, most begin with "Once Upon a Time in a far away land" and then proceed with the remainder of the story. Based on what we would find in a fairy tale, it would be difficult to corroborate the story with any historical event because there is no specific time in history or specific geographical location mentioned.

By contrast, with a few exceptions (like the first few chapters of the book of Genesis), the authors of the bible took time to detail things like geographical references (rivers, mountain ranges, etc.), genealogies, population counts, livestock inventories, and the names of local rulers and nearby kingdoms.

Comparing the two, it should be clear that the books of the Bible were, at least in the minds of their human authors, detailed accounts of real events that were meant to be taken seriously, while fairy tales were meant to be entertaining stories (perhaps with a moral lesson).

My questions are:
1. Given the clear differences in the way in which the two types of accounts were written, is it not reasonable to say that the Bible stories are not fairy tales (at least not in the literary sense)?
2. Given the quantity of references in the Bible to historical figures and geographical locations, if these references have been (or could be) verified with archaeological evidence, would that not be a reasonable basis for trusting the Bible as an account of actual events?

[McCulloch]

From a literary point of view, there is no such thing as The Bible. It was not written as a single unified work. It is a diverse collection of works, from a number of genres. Genesis chapters 1 and 2, Job and Jonah read much like fairy tales or mythology. Jeremiah, Acts and Romans do not. A fair bit is in between.

Yes, it is should be clear that some of the books of the Bible were intended to be taken as fact. However, much of it is myth, in the literary sense, as are the tales of Arthur Pendragon, the Trojan War and Robbin Hood.

Gone With the Wind makes accurate references to historical figures and geographical locations, is that a reasonable basis for trusting it as an account of actual events?

[Regens Küchl]

Genesis chapters 1 and 2, Job and Jonah read much like fairy tales or mythology. Jeremiah, Acts and Romans do not.

Read here
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/paul.htm

Mission Impossible
Viewed without the rose-tinted spectacles of Christian faith, the first voyage of Paul is as fanciful as the first voyage of Sinbad. Improbable, unlikely incidents are juxtaposed with the miraculous and the ridiculous. Faith can offer special pleas for every incongruity but logical thinking cannot.

[Cathar1950]

Full of propaganda might be better then fairytales and even the mythic parts of the Bible are propaganda.

Often something happens and they say the gods are either displeased or pleased and I don't think it is true of the gods any more then God.

[Question Everything]

Gone With the Wind makes accurate references to historical figures and geographical locations, is that a reasonable basis for trusting it as an account of actual events?

I think it was more like Huckleberry Finn, where you also have accurate references to historical figures and geographical locations, as well as a very powerful political message that the author was trying to get across. Did Tom Sawyer exist? No. Did the Mississippi river exist? Yes, and it still does. Did slavery exist? Yes, and it was accurately depicted in Mark Twain's books.

Imagine a religion thousands of years from now that said that everything Mark Twain wrote was absolute historical fact written by eyewitnesses. That is what we are stuck with today.

once you realize that the Gospel of Mark was not written as a foundational religious document at all, but that it was written as an allegorical story to portray the Judean Jews and the early Christian apostles as fools who brought destruction upon themselves, then the work makes perfect sense.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... l_mark.htm

[Goat]

My questions are:
1. Given the clear differences in the way in which the two types of accounts were written, is it not reasonable to say that the Bible stories are not fairy tales (at least not in the literary sense)?

That depends on how you look at the term 'fairy tale'. If it is just a story for entertainment, as it is being used in the modern sense, then no. However, if you say that a fairy tale is a precautionary tale used to teach, then, yes, much of the bible is fairy tale. Other parts are a very biased history... or legends based on history. For example, i suspect the story of Samson is similar to the story about George Washington and the cherry tree.

2. Given the quantity of references in the Bible to historical figures and geographical locations, if these references have been (or could be) verified with archaeological evidence, would that not be a reasonable basis for trusting the Bible as an account of actual events?

No, not at all. The various parts are different books and different stories. Some are quasi-historical, and might even be reasonably historical.. but other parts are teaching stories, and not literal at all.

[Slopeshoulder]

I agree with Goat.
I'd add that they are neither fairy tales, fables, fibs, nor historical accounts. The truth is more complex and more revealing.
In graduate school christian biblical studies I know that the phrase "salvation history" is used to denote the manner in which the judeo-christian tradition places God in action, in this world, in human lives, immanent yet sovereign, unknowable but in relation and covenant, in history. So our myths (instructive poetic, suggestive, classic) have a historical dimension to them. Indeed, they are record of a people's journey to come to know and trust their god in history. That is their characteristic, perhaps their genius.
This is NOT to say that they are literal history, some parts are flat out tall tales, where other parts are history interpreted through the eyes of a theological perspective and agenda. This is from genesis to revelation, with the gospels in between. All created in an age very different from our own.
So your question is good, but your logic is flawed. A good college level textbook can be helpful. For the old testament, from a christian perspective, I used this one back in '84 and found it useful and pretty standard undergrad stuff but quite good:

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Ol ... 589&sr=1-1

[fredonly]

1. Given the clear differences in the way in which the two types of accounts were written, is it not reasonable to say that the Bible stories are not fairy tales (at least not in the literary sense)?

You are using the term "fairy tale" as a straw-man, and making far too much of it. Sure, the Bible doesn't contain "fairy tales" per se. When people use the term, they are using it loosely to convey the fact that Bible contains far-fetched elements, like feats of magic.

2. Given the quantity of references in the Bible to historical figures and geographical locations, if these references have been (or could be) verified with archaeological evidence, would that not be a reasonable basis for trusting the Bible as an account of actual events?

No, the presence of some accurate historical content is certainly not reason to accept all the fantastic elements in the Bible. In fact, I'd argue that the presence of internal contradictory information and of information that conflicts with history is a good reason to mistrust everything in it. The Bible provides a source of data, data that could have some historical basis - but nothing should be taken at face value.

[sarabellum]

At my house the bible is in the science fiction/fantasy section of my library...

For me this does not mean that the bible is not an amazing book....

It only means that I consider it to be fiction...

[QuietMan1980]

From a literary point of view, there is no such thing as The Bible. It was not written as a single unified work. It is a diverse collection of works, from a number of genres.

I certainly agree that the books of the Bible were written by a number of different authors over a long period of time. The writing style (and level of detail) can be very different from book to book. Also, I agree that the Bible is not the same, from a literary point of view, as, for instance, Tolstoy's "War and Peace". Also, I acknowledge that the Bible has existed in varying forms over history, varying from a collection of scrolls/documents to the current, one-volume collection used by Christians.

To me as a Christian, I simply understand it to mean that God chose different authors throughout history to reveal different truths to humanity. The variety of literary styles used adds diversity and in some cases serves a practical purpose. When reading it, I of course need to be aware that some parts are meant to be taken as an account of actual events while other parts contain symbols that require interpretation (such as the prophesies of Ezekiel or Isaiah).

Gone With the Wind makes accurate references to historical figures and geographical locations, is that a reasonable basis for trusting it as an account of actual events?

Gone With the Wind was a novel that was understood by the readers to be a fictional account. Margaret Mitchell never claimed to have authored a true narrative of actual events.

The question is, "How could a curious or skeptical person find out whether the accounts of miraculous and supernatural events in the Bible are plausible?" Obviously there were no cameras rolling in ancient times, so we have to go with other sources of evidence. However, we have other means to determine the facts, such as archaeological findings, extra-biblical accounts, and our knowledge of human history and human nature.

The archaeological evidence can help us to confirm or deny the non-supernatural aspects of the Biblical accounts (such as descriptions of wars, temples, monuments, cities, rulers, and so forth). If the archaeological evidence comes out in favor of the Biblical accounts, this lends some credibility to the notion that the miraculous aspects did actually occur. Conversely, if the Bible accounts were deemed false on the basis of the archaeological evidence, it further supports skepticism.

Of course, if one were to deny that miraculous events could ever occur (the anti-supernatuarlism stance), then no amount of corroborating evidence would be convincing because there already exists a philosophical bias against miracles. I don't mean to indicate that you have subscribed to that stance because you have not explicitly said so here. However, it is a subject for discussion in and of itself