How much of scripture is fiction?

[polonius]

Vatican II in 1964 claimed “The books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures� (Dei Verbum, no. 11).:

Catholics usually aren’t told that some other things need not be true, a major difference! The trick is to recognize this difference.

The Christian writer Oregon claimed we should “also considered levels of inspiration and the possibility of error in both Testaments owing to the Origen noted the authors’ humanity�. Errors in the text, it should be said, would not contradict our present understanding that there is no error in “the truth which God . . . wished to see confided� there for the sake of our salvation.

“ Acknowledging such historical or prescientific errors is a far cry from saying the Bible is “God breathed.� Much can actually just be legend or fiction for believers to accept.

For example, I think Catholics can safely conclude that Jesus wasn't really born twice (Compare Matthew and Luke)

[brianbbs67]

Scripture is an English invention. Greek says writings.

[marco]

The Christian writer Oregon claimed we should “also considered levels of inspiration and the possibility of error in both Testaments owing to the Origen noted the authors’ humanity�. Errors in the text .......

Perhaps you intended to give a demonstration of "error", Polonius. Do you mean Origen? And I have no idea what you claim he claimed. Humanum est errare, of course.


Yes, there are also errors in the Bible.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius]

How much of scripture is fiction?

None, according to Jesus.

John 10:35

If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be set aside-

[Difflugia]

How much of scripture is fiction?

If we take "scripture" here to mean the whole of the Protestant canon, here's my (educated?) guess:

Genesis 1 through about 1 Samuel 6 is pure, unadulterated fiction. Any resemblance to any persons living or dead is purely coincidental.

From there through about 2 Kings 8 or 9 is legend, but the characters may or may not have existed. The modern equivalent would range from stories about King Arthur to novels that speculate about the love life of Queen Elizabeth I.

The second half of 2 Kings is probably the only bit of the Bible that could reasonably be considered to be historical non-fiction in terms of genre and was likely written by a contemporary of the events described.

1-2 Chronicles are mostly retellings of 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings with theological modifications. Some parts of 2 Chronicles may be historically accurate by virtue of mirroring 2 Kings, but at no point are the Chronicles less fictional than any of the books that they parallel.

Ezra-Nehemiah probably reflects events of a longer time period condensed to fit into the time frame of the historical characters Ezra and Nehemiah. There has been a serious contention, though, that Ezra-Nehemiah is fiction created by the Persians to provide a plausible background for a colonial population (Thomas L. Thompson).

Esther is the retelling of a Babylonian myth reframed as historical fiction.

Job through Song of Solomon is poetry and probably not properly "fiction" in terms of genre, but to the extent that any of those books describe events or characters, those descriptions and characters are fictitious.

The prophet Daniel probably wasn't a real person. Jonah might have been real, but the book with his name had nothing to do with him. Isaiah was probably real and may have had something to do with some of the book. The rest were probably real and the books probably more-or-less accurately describe their conduct and prophecies. The books themselves are almost purely theological and not history as such, but some historical facts might be gleaned from them.

The Gospels are fiction, whether or not there was a real Jesus.

The autobiographical details of Romans and Galatians were probably written by Paul and only he knew if they were fiction or not. The rest of the Pauline epistles either pure theology or weren't written by him.

James, the Peters, the Johns and Jude were probably not written by the Apostles. They certainly can't have been written by the characters of the Gospels with the same names, but I think an intriguing possibility is that the educated, Greek-speaking, diaspora Jews that wrote the epistles were the real original Apostles and the characters said to be fishermen living in Palestine were fictitious reimaginings of them.

Revelation is absolutely accurate and historical, including the bits about demon frogs and giant, stinging locusts with human faces.

[marco]

If we take "scripture" here to mean the whole of the Protestant canon, here's my (educated?) guess:...........


Revelation is absolutely accurate and historical, including the bits about demon frogs and giant, stinging locusts with human faces.

Entertaining. It is possibly rather harsh to dismiss the authenticity of Adam, who was undoubtedly our first predecessor, even though he never left his surname, which some believe might have been Ahmed, nicely alliterative.


When we steady ourselves for belief in talking squirrels and flying preachers we cannot, in all honesty, declare any of the Bible is fiction, apart from Revelation which, even in jest, must not be called factual.

[marco]

How much of scripture is fiction?

None, according to Jesus.

The trouble with taking the word of Jesus is he wondered who he was. If he had doubts about his identity in an age where psychiatrists were absent, what are we to make of his pronouncements?

[Checkpoint]

To the contrary.

How much of scripture is fiction?

None, according to Jesus.

The trouble with taking the word of Jesus is he wondered who he was. If he had doubts about his identity in an age where psychiatrists were absent, what are we to make of his pronouncements?

Not at all.

He did not wonder about who he was, or have doubts about his own identity.

He knew who he was and often told others.

His explanation at age 12 of what he was then doing makes that very clear.

Many doubted his statements from then on, and many still do in our day.

His question did not stem from doubt, but from settled confidence.

Grace and peace to you.

[JehovahsWitness]

How much of scripture is fiction?

In my opinion.. none of the bible is fiction. It contains parables, illustrations, poems and songs, visions** and dreams but outside of these, all the characters, places and events are imho, historical. Should the bible be described as "Historical Fiction"? No, because nothing in the bible can be proven to be fictional*. So calling the bible "historical fiction" would be like calling a sandwich "A ham sandwich" when it doesn't contain any ham.

* Fictional as in refering to imaginary (invented) events and people.

** Revelation for example is not presented as historical fact but rather as a series of prophetic visions albeit experienced by a real person (who identifies himself as a John, a follower of Christ), within a historical the context .


JW



RELATED POSTS


Is there any archaeolgical evidence that supports biblical detail?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 576#823576

Go to other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , HERMENEUTICS* and ... BEST TRANSLATION

* bible interpretation[/quote]

[JehovahsWitness]

James, the Peters, the Johns and Jude were probably not written by the Apostles. They certainly can't have been written by the characters of the Gospels with the same names...

Are you suggesting there is something that would render this impossible? If so, what?