How Are bible stories different from Greek Mythology?

C.S. Lewis was a world-class literary critic. when reading the gospels, he noted: "I have been reading poems, romances, vision literature, legends, and myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know none of them are like this. Of this [gospel] text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage... or else, some unknown [ancient] writer... without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern novelistic, realistic narrative..."

Lewis meant that ancient fiction was nothing like modern fiction. Modern fiction is realistic. It contains details and dialogue and reads like an eyewitness account. This genre of fiction, however, only developed within the last three hundred years. In ancient times, romances, epics, or legends were high and remote, details were spare and only included if they promoted character development or drove the plot. that is why if you are reading 'Beowulf' or 'The Iliad' you don't see characters noticing the rain or falling asleep with a sigh. In modern novels, details are added to create the aura of realism, but that was never the case in ancient fiction.

the gospel accounts are not fiction. In Mark 4, we are told that Jesus was asleep on a cushion in the stern of a boat. In John 21 we are told that Peter was a hundred yards out in the water when he saw Jesus on the beach. He then jumped out of the boat and together the caught 153 fish. In John 8, as Jesus listened to the men who caught a women in adultery, we are told he doodled with his finger in the dust. We are never told what he was writing or why he did it. None of these details are relevant to the plot or character development at all. If you or I were making up an exciting story about Jesus, we would include such remarks just to fill out the story's realism. But that kind of fictional writing was unknown in the first century. The only explanation for why an ancient writer would mention the cushion, the 153 fish, and the doodling in the dust is because the details had been retained in the eyewitnesses' memory.

Richard Bauckham has compiled a great deal of research by psychologists on the remarks of re-collective memory. He looks at the marks of eyewitness accounts of events and how they differ from speculative or fictional accounts, or of composite historical reconstructions. Re-collective memory is selective, it fixes on unique and consequential events, it retains irrelevant detail a Lewis observes, it takes the limited vantage point of a participant rather than that of an omniscient narrator, and it shows signs of frequent rehearsal. Bauckham then shows these same marks in the gospel narratives. Vivid and important events can stay with you for decades if frequently rehearsed or retold. Factor in the fact that disciples in the ancient world were expected to memorize master's teachings, and that many of Jesus' statements are presented in a form that was actually designed for memorization, and you have every reason to trust the accounts.

Bauckham also looks to anthropology for evidence that the gospel writers did not feel free to embellish or fabricate words or events in the life of Jesus. Critical scholars from earlier in the twentieth century assumed the early Christians would have used relatively fluid process for transmitting popular folktales and that they would have felt free to change the tales from the past in order to correspond to their present realities and situation. Bauckham, however, cites Jan Vansina's study of oral traditions in primitive African cultures, in which fictional historical accounts are clearly distinguished from each other and much greater care is taken to preserve historical accounts accurately. This finding undermines a hundred years of critical gospel scholarship: "Gospel scholars, from the form critics onward, [believe] that early Christians in the transmission of Jesus traditions would not have made any distinction between the past time of the history of Jesus and their own present because oral societies do not make such distinctions. This is untrue."

There seems to be a flood of what David Van Biema of 'Time' magazine calls 'Biblical revisionism' following in the footsteps of Dan Brown and 'The Da Vinci Code.' He refers to the recent claim that Jesus' tomb has been found, and that he married Mary Magdalene and had children. Other scholars have published books claiming similar new insights from the Gnostic gospels. More seem sure to come. Van Biema quotes 'Publishers Weekly' senior religion editor Lynn Garrett, who speaks of what she calls 'the Da Vinci Code effect': "Speculative histories were out there before Dan Brown wrote," says Garrett. "But they didn't make the bestseller list and their authors didn't go on 'The Daily Show.'"

All these revisionist histories completely ignore the growing body of careful scholarship that shows there were a very large number of eyewitnesses to Jesus' life who lives on for years. As British scholar Vincent Taylor famously remarked, if the skeptics about the Bible are right, "the disciples must have been translated into heaven immediately after the resurrection.' That is the only way that legendary elements could have come into the story of Jesus by the time the gospels were written, but that did not happen. So, ironically, as popular media is promoting accounts of Jesus' life based on highly skeptical Biblical scholarship that arose a century ago, the actual foundations of that scholarship are eroding fast.

Great qustion, thank you. i think the other answers have it covered. i'd like to add that there were a dozen, or 2 dozen, or more (LOL) "religions" before the bible was written. i believe the last religion before the bible was called "mithraism" So many religions have had the savior figure, born to a virgin mother, who ultimately sacrifices himself, and yes it's always a man, the son of a father. ?? No heavenly mother? No earthly daughter? Now i'm a man and i have no problem looking at this. we live in a male dominated world, and that is a result of our beliefs. we, as humanity have been very unbalanced between the male and female energies. By the way, I learned much from greek mythology in an english class when i was 10 years old. more than i ever could have learned from the bible, no offense meant.

No, and for me, it was studying the Greek myths in sixth grade (at Catholic school no less) that started me down the road to being an atheist...Thank you Zeus!

And while the details differ between the two, the similar underlying purposes of both were pretty obvious even to me even as an eleven year old...

(and just exactly which Biblical predictions have proven any more accurate than the Greek myths? Name one...just one....)

greek mythology stories tried to explain natural appearances (like volcanoes)

bible stories don't, they tell about the history of christianity.

greek mythology has explanations to quests that are now already answered.

back then (the bible already existed) the bible didn't answer / try to answer those quests,

because that was coming.

the purposes are totally different.

The main difference is that some people actually still believe the bible fairy tales.

I take greek mythology over the bible anytime, its more exciting, with far more interesting characters

Bible is REAL to LIFE, Mythology is just that, a MYTH

the story of angels all came from greek mythology:

-gabriel, michael,..etc are the god's name in greek mythology.

when it came monotheism...they were downgraded to angels from gods.

The Bible predicts the future,and has been way beyond correct.

I suppose you also think there is no difference between the Civil War and Harry Potter.