Is the Bible mere fiction?

Most of my blog postings have just been articles collected here and there about Opus Dei in the press. Since I occasionally answer the emails that get sent to our information office, I thought you might like an example of the kind of remark that the Da Vinci Code has provoked, and the answer I gave. Yesterday we got this email from someone:

Dear Sir. I have just started to read your article , printed on the web today. Your opening statement is to the effect that readers of 'The Da Vinci Code' should remember that it is a work of fiction, not substantiated by fact. I respectfully would like to point out that the same can be truthfully said of the Bible, in all its' forms. Very Respectfully,

signed (name)

The emailer was refering to a press release put out by the Information office on February 14th, which can be accessed
here.To which I respectfully responded:

Dear Sir:

Thank you for your comment on your assumption that the Gospels are not historical. The Da Vinci Code has indeed been the occasion of a great podium to discuss such important matters. I am happy to give you the beginning of a response.

As you can imagine, to suggest that the Old Testament, and even more, the Gospels are fictional, would immediately turn the entire system of Christianity into a farce. It is like saying millions upon millions of people over the ages having been deluded by one document. To refuse to accept some of the tenants of Christianity, or doubt the historicity of certain statements of Christ is one thing, but to say that Christ never walked the earth or that the story of his life was invented by someone, is quite another, and indeed very few people have actually sustained it. So if you believe that, very many people throughout history would disagree with you. At least no serious scholars hold this view.

I have tried to understand why the Da Vinci Code phenomena has brought about such a rejection in certain sectors of basic historic events, and especially the validity of the Gospels as historical documents. It is true that the Bible is not a historical document in the same way as a book on the history of Canada might be. The purpose of the Bible is religious, but the basis of any affirmations in the Gospels is that they actually took place in time, and Jesus specifically came “in the fullness of time”.
Bearing in mind that Dan Brown does not quote the Bible once in his novel, I think part of the answer is that it is an new form of anti-Catholicism. There has been anti-Catholicism in the past, centered in Europe through forms of secularism that sought to undo any influence of the Church in society. They were rabidly anti-clerical and heaped abuse on all forms of Catholic authority. The Dan Brown phenomenon is a bit different. It is a north American phenomenon of anti-Catholicism which uses a literary style we might call the "conspiratorial style", and manages to reduce history and its complexity to two or three conspiracies. This is nothing new, and probably started in the 19th century. The conspirators used to be the Jesuits, then there were the Illuminati, now it is Opus Dei. Behind all these conspiracies is also the "arch conspirator", the Vatican, the badest of all the badies. This tradition has the advantage (especially during times of cultural crisis) of simplifying history enormously, or giving simplistic explanations to history. So a guy riding the metro can be reading the Da Vinci Code and think that he has come to understand all history on the basis of these conspiracies. It makes life kind of easy to understand and it can be attractive for those with little real exposure to the Gospels and their meaning.

I suppose I could ramble on defending the historicity of the Gospels. I imagine you would want evidence. I have selected a bit of the following from this site, mainly about the New Testament, but I'd be happy to provide you with more:
The world invisible

I did a quick selection below of some of the texts that address your question.

Thanks for your interest, and feel free to ask any other questions about your readings. I'll try to find the time to answer. You can also browse some of these sites about Opus Dei.

God bless,

Fr. Eric Nicolai
Opus Dei Information Office in Canada

Here is a selection from that website about the Gospels:
The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians.

The Christian Gospel is not primarily a code of ethics or a metaphysical system; it is first and foremost good news, and as such it was proclaimed by its earliest preachers. True, they called Christianity 'The Way' and 'The Life'; but Christianity as a way of life depends upon the acceptance of Christianity as good news. And this good news is intimately bound up with the historical order, for it tells how for the world's redemption God entered into history, the eternal came into time, the kingdom of heaven invaded the realm of earth, in the great events of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. The first recorded words of our Lord's public preaching in Galilee are: 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has drawn near; repent and believe the good news."

That Christianity has its roots in history is emphasised in the Church's earliest creeds, which fix the supreme revelation of God at a particular point in time, when 'Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord . . . suffered under Pontius Pilate'. This historical 'onceforallness' of Christianity, which distinguishes it from those religious and philosophical systems which are not specially related to any particular time, makes the reliability of the writings which purport to record this revelation a question of first rate importance.