The Bible is NOT Fiction

An essay by - Heather Spoonheim

All too often I hear fellow Atheists say, “Using the Bible as proof of God is like using a comic book as proof of Superman.” I always find this statement offensive because it shows a very malicious irreverence for a book that I greatly revere. I would like to encourage Atheists that are in the habit of using the above remark to consider saying, instead, “Using the Bible as proof of God is like using the Iliad as proof of the Greek Pantheon.”

I ask for this rephrasing not only because of my personal reverence for the Bible, but because it is a much more accurate comparison. The Bible, like the Iliad, is an important historical document that opens a window into the minds of antiquity. When I use the phrase, “historical document”, please do not falsely infer that I am implying that the bible accurately documents historical events by modern standards; I am simply stating that the Bible is a document of ancient origin which provides us with an invaluable glimpse into history. This glimpse offers astounding insight into the development of a mythology that has shaped the western world and an understanding of the very processes that generated the myth itself.

Comic books are entertaining and intended fictions that are known to be fictions by their contemporary readers. Comics are an integral part of contemporary society, and perhaps it might even be argued that they cast light on the way we view the world around us; it must be noted, however, that we have libraries full of literary works that reflect contemporary thought but access to the literature of antiquity is much more restricted and should therefore be much more highly regarded.

The repugnancy with which many Atheists view the Bible is unwarranted and only ever rationalized by those who are unable to dissociate the document from the institutions that assert the mythology to be literal. If these same institutions had determined to assert the literality of The Iliad instead, The Iliad would now be the book of western Atheist scorn. From an historical perspective, however, both of these books are truly a treasure and both should be equally cherished.

The Iliad mythologizes some ancient legends by documenting them in a very poetic form. The bible, on they other hand, not only mythologizes ancient legends, but then goes on to include roughly a millennium of reactions and extensions to that mythology. The bible is more than just a book; it’s a compact library of the works of authors whose lives spanned a thousand years. Few, if any, of the books in that library are works of fiction.

Some of the earliest authors collaborated over centuries to produce a wonderful collection of legends that some early Semites used to imagine their origins back to the first human beings. While these legends in and of themselves are mostly fabricated, it is likely that many of them have seeds in actual events. Those that were purely imagined weren’t likely intended as fictions but rather as proposed explanations for the origins of man and his world.

Some authors documented how early kings declared their lineages to tie directly into the earliest legends. This is not an uncommon practice in monarchies and there are monarchs today whose lineages do not stand up to much scrutiny. Such documentation is an astounding example of how far back this sort of practice goes.

There are excellent examples of ancient prophecy that use prophetic language that humbles modern prophets. Good prophecy is not fiction at all, for it is a poetic reflection of the mindset of an age. Good prophecy promises justice in times of injustice, peace in times of war, and war in times of monotonous peace. A lot of truth about the present can be found in prophecy, just not in the future that the prophecy predicts.

There are books of law, colourful descriptions of battles, and early observations of nature that are all painted in the context of supernatural beings interacting directly with the physical realm. This supernatural context is not added as a tool of fiction but represents, in fact, the way in which Bronze Age authors viewed the world around them. To this very day we paint our narratives of war as battles between good and evil, although nowadays we more frequently use the terms freedom and fascism. Acts of nature still fill us and our descriptions with supernatural imagery.

My point is that we would all be rather insulted if the sum body of all of our writings were viewed in a thousand years as amounting to nothing more than pulp fiction. The literature of an age reflects its zeitgeist. Reexamination of history often shows us just how much colour was added by our grandparents and reveals details that they could have never imagined. I can’t imagine how my grandfathers would have felt had they lived to learn the true nuclear capabilities of the Soviets.

The bible is much more than fiction. It ties all the hallmarks of good mythology together with historical events as they were known and understood at the time. It reflects the way in which Judaism defined itself and its pride. It illustrates the elation and the horror with which a culture might greet the fulfillment of one of its most hallowed prophecies. It tangibly illustrates the passion with which mankind seeks to escape his own mortality. So compelling is its promise of eternal life and happiness that it has been able to inspire or absolve all of the atrocities ever committed by those who knew it.

So elastic is this mythology that it can be simultaneously inclusive and exclusive. It can be reshaped to provide absolution to anyone and eternal damnation to everyone else. It can even continue to shape minds that have become fully cognizant of the myth so that they will persist in clinging to the central notion that there is a god and a purpose behind everything. In consideration of all of this I resubmit that this astounding Bronze Age library of mythology blended with history deserves more reverence than a comic book.

1 member likes this

Comment by Ken Hughes on March 22, 2011 at 8:41am: Who cares? It's still the most ridiculous tome ever compiled by people who were not present at the events described therein, so it's all hearsay at its very foundation.

Comment by Darren Cohen on March 22, 2011 at 9:43am: My point in brining up the early church leaders is that there seems to have always been an 'ends justify the means' mentality among religious leaders. Religious leaders are usually just politicians in disguise and religion is a means to control the masses. Ideas like integrity just don't enter into it. So why wouldn't they lie? Just look at the new improved, modern American Jesus contradicts virtually everything about how he is portrayed in the media. Nowadays Jesus hates the poor and loves guns if we're to believe the 'religious' leaders.

Copying a gospel just seems like a way to steal some legitimacy for your own gospel.

I'm sorry, but it's your statements that are unfounded. Mine are based on the research of scholars.

I do mind the book no matter whose hands it is in. But I'm fine with people having a belief in god or a belief in their bible. I am not fine with people who use the bible as an excuse to foment hate or to tell me that I have to be like them. I believe in live and let live. The moment you try to tell me how to live though, we are going to have problems. My wife is a Christian. Almost all of my friends identify as Christian. But none of them try to change me. I am very angry at those Christians who attack science and want their god in my government.

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on March 22, 2011 at 10:12am: Your only result in bringing up early church leaders has been to illustrate your confusion between the authors of the books and those who bound them together. If, as you claim, any scholars have ever claimed that any of the early church fathers ever wrote a single passage that is in the recognized canon of the Bible, then I would be greatly interested in a citation of such a claim. On the other hand, if no such citation exists, then perhaps you would consider apologizing for insulting this forum with a fraudulent claim that you tersely fabricated to support your previous, unfounded claim.

To speak about the modern American Jesus only serves to validate my original assertion that hatred of the Bible itself is only ever rationalized by those who cannot discern between the book and those who assert its literality.

I'm glad that you are so open minded as to be non-judgemental of those who cling to unfounded superstitions such as deities - I hope one day I can be so tolerant. I'm not sure how the rest of that last paragraph fits into this discussion.

Comment by atheistrising on March 22, 2011 at 11:08am

Bible may have some historical lessons but it also used so much by religious people to propagate bad things like

Denying rights for homosexuals
Denying women to be priests
Taking womens right to have abortion
Forcing the religious ideas on people who dont believe
Stopping embryonic stem cell research etc

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on March 22, 2011 at 11:16am: I'm certainly not advocating the use of the Bible as any sort of moral compass.

Comment by JD Stockman on March 22, 2011 at 1:02pm: I prefer the term "...may be based on actual events but which in certain cases incidents, characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes."

Comment by Femia Cools on March 22, 2011 at 1:52pm: The bible is a collection of books and stories. It is a collection of translations, hearsay, opportunistic interpretations and misinterpretations, dictated by the ruling leaders (kings and popes) through the ages. The story of jesus is a symblolic tale, that stems from the old knowledge of stars, celestial bodies and eons (we are living the Fish eon). This tale was written thousands of years ago. Long before Jesus and all similar figures in different religions were born.

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on March 22, 2011 at 2:10pm: @Femia Cools: Yes, the bible documents the extension of this mythology around the Jesus figure, thus illustrating my point about the value of the book in studying the process by which myths are developed. Thank you for pointing that out.

Comment by Femia Cools on March 22, 2011 at 2:41pm: Thank you. (English is not my first language, so my wording may be a bit "foreign")

I have no difficulty with believes and myths. Even if they are morphed by powerlusty leaders. Myths are an example of what the human mind is capable of.

It is a problem that most believers can not, or do not, make a distinction between myth and reality.

Comment by Gregor Basić on March 22, 2011 at 6:21pm: I love to read bible, I read it again few months ago during the winter time. Well, I don't read every single thing, I skip a lot (boring parts like books of chronicles), but every time I notice something new, awful and strange I examine the anthropological, ethical and mythological background.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

‹ Previous
1
…
6
7
8
9
10
11
Next ›

RSS

Welcome to
Think Atheist

Get Started Now
or Sign In

Or sign in with:

What's new today

1	Bill Nye Boo'd In Texas For Saying The Moon Reflects The Sun
2	Why do atheists ask for so much proof to believe in God?
3	What is not believing in God like?
4	It's little companies who are destroying the middle class
5	An Atheist's Creed
6	The Racists Really Won't Like This!
7	Are people stupid?
8	What would be required to prove the existence of a "god"?