Bible as fiction (was Re: Re: Favorite books: (Was: New poll for HPFGU-OTChatter))

[Lee Kaiwen]

Geoff Bannister On 02/05/2008 14:36:

> (a) The Bible is not written as fiction.

I don't believe Carol was suggesting reading it as fiction, but rather 
as a cultural primer; after all, the biblical stories are some of the 
deepest and most fundamental cultural referents in Western civilization. 
Of course, the Bible has deeply influenced other areas as well -- from 
our legal systems to (some argue) being the catalyst for the birth of 
modern science.

The problem with calling the Bible "fiction" is that fiction is a 
relatively modern literary concept, tied to an age in which literal 
truth and objective history are considered valuable ends in themselves. 
But the biblical stories were passed down ('traductio', hence the modern 
word 'tradition'; cf. Math. 15.2, or 2nd Thess 3.6, where the same word 
is sometimes rendered "teaching") not out of any sense of obligation to 
literal truth, but as mythologies. They were dramatic encapsulations 
designed to teach and preserve cultural and religious -- not literal 
historical -- truths and values. That's not to say the biblical authors 
disbelieved (or that we must disbelieve) in, say, the literal existence 
of Adam and Eve; it's just to say that literal historical truth, even if 
(when) preserved in the biblical stories, was, at best, secondary to 
their pedagogical purpose.

We can see this even in the gospel records. Of all the teachings and 
stories about Christ ("which I suppose if written, the whole world could 
not contain the volumes") early Christians could have preserved, the 
stories they did pass down were chosen for their pedagogical, not 
literal historical, value. One can see this even in the form in which 
the stories were preserved -- as pericopae each with a moral or 
spiritual point. Again, that's not to say they don't also preserve 
objective historical fact, but simply to say that any reading that 
insists on reading them first and foremost *as* objective history -- or 
worse elevates belief in their literalness into a theological 
shiibboleth -- misunderstands their nature and purpose. A bit like 
accusing me of disbelieving in George Washington just because I deny the 
literal truth of the cherry tree story. But literal historicity isn't 
even the *point* of the story; it's a pedagogical pericope for teaching 
honesty, not historical fact. Even if it *were* literally true, its 
literal truth would be irrelevant.

> (b) It /is/ written as a primer of life as it should be lived.

Exactly.

CJ