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?

[JehovahsWitness]

I have deliberatly ignored the "requirement" the implies that a scholar can only be taken seriously if he is in no way associated with any Christian belief. This is both breathtakingly ignorant and insulting to anyone with an academic background. That an academics body of work must first go through the filter of his personal beliefs and after having been "cleared" of any will be examined on the basis of its intellectual and academic merit is an insult to anyone but the most ignorant of armchair Wikipedia levying fundamentalists.

Until all scientists, historians and academics are asked to declare their personal beliefs before submitting peer reviewed work I will continue to ignore such a base and frankly preposterous view of study.

I believe that the request was made, not as an implication that Christian scholars are not to be taken seriously, but in order to remove bias. If, for example, you were reviewing the test results about the safety of drugs, would you want to see if any of the studies were done by researchers not in the pay of the big pharmaceutical firms? Not because the scientists working for big pharma are any less qualified, but you want to get an unbiased review. The same applies here. If the only scholars that support the historical validity of the biblical texts are those who are Christian, then that claim cannot be taken as being an unbiased consensus of the scholars in that field.

It is a weak and intellectually dishonest argument to propose that information in itself cannot be analysed independent of the colour, sex, religious or political persuasion of the GIVER of the information - if the picture is incomplete that is PART of the analysis of peer review. Its a worrying trend to say a profile of the informant must be provided BEFORE an honest analysis of the facts can be made. If Hitler himself provided information about the number of Jews killed during the holocaust, the information itself is either accurate or not. It is for the sociologists to take up the implications of the findings, the psycologists the state of mind of the informant and the politician to use it to his advantage but it is the harbour of the ignorant and the ill informed (no doubt influenced by the politicization of the sciences) that wants to put those particular carts before the horse. Keeping religion out of the sciences (and indeed the classroom) for the thinking person is ensuring that the religion (or lack therefof) of an academic has no more bearing on the analysis of the factual information he or she presents than his race or sexual orientation. In short, while an academics reputation and scholistic credentials may warrant mention, "what is the religion and political persuasion of the source?" should NEVER be a question posed by the academic when analysising factual information of this nature. Shame on anybody that defends the right to access accurate and true information to suggest otherwise.

[fredonly]

[Slopeshoulder]

I do think the bible is full of fairy tales, if reflecting a specific jewish style historical foundation in many cases. And I think that is wonderful!!

As it happens, I'm reading a collection of 19th century literary fairy tales. In the introduction we read that as fairy tales were making a comeback after being pushed aside by Locke, the empiricists and the elightenment, and after being rediscovered first by the french and germans, the theologian and poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge is quoted as saying that fairy tales first introduced his heart and mind "to the vast." And looking back at earlier time, Tolkein says that it is wrong to think that fairy tales are just about dwarves and elves, but about and sea, air, all of life, all of nature, whenever we are enchanted. A devout and conservative catholic, he writes like a panentheist.

So fairy tales are more than child's tales, moral lessons, or pre-scientific superstitions. To read them that way is to read them as a child. Rather at their best they are deeply romantic myths that enchant, that take our minds beyond ourselves to a sense of "the vast" that can only be called religious. And children are already there, so fairy tales speak to them, and encourage that sense Coleridge and Tolkein, and others, mentioned.

In this way, to call the bible full of fairy tales is to pay it a supreme compliment. It has all sorts of literary forms in it, but fairy tales are among the best.

And what we usually call fairy tales (Grimm etc) are really vestiges of pagan oral traditions that might have made up a scripture of their own. Much of it, especially these 19th century literary tales, is very beautiful. Not to forget hans christian andersen. Countless american christians take thier kids to disney versions, watch the grinch, etc etc. We love 'em.

I'm sort of on a fairy tale kick. First fantasy, now going back to fairy tales and other forms of 19th century aesthetic enchantment. Moves me deeply.

[WinePusher]

[JehovahsWitness]

[fredonly]