This is definitely more of a question for the religious studies field, because they deal precisely with the question "what is religion?" Whereas history in general is the study of the past, of which religion is a facet, if they choose to define it at all. (There's a tendency to fall into the definition trap of "I'll know it when I see it," but all that does is tend to make a particular religion the norm from which all others are based on, i.e. "how close are these rituals to Christianity?" The more close, the more it "counts" as a religion, the further away, the less, etc.)

I can tell you right off the bat, from a religious studies angle, it can be argued there is no difference. In fact, one of my colleagues is working on a project that examines the religious undertones in Harry Potter, a lot of which is highlighted in a podcast called "Harry Potter and the Sacred Text," which seeks to treat the novels as a text capable of spiritual insight, with loyal followers who believe in its message, regardless of whether they believe the world those novels depict is "real" or not.

Now you might ask, what's the difference between sacred, spiritual, or religious? To which I'd answer: EXCELLENT QUESTION (with no clear answer). Because in the end, we get back to the beginning. What IS religion? And must our definitions of religion be so hewed to Christian monotheism as our base line?

This is also why religious studies is so big into discourse analysis. Because in the end, the ability to determine what gets to count as a "religion" is equally interesting because it says something about those who seek to define it.

So, what's the difference between a religious belief and stories for entertainment, between the past and the present?

You tell me. Or, I can tell you. Or, neither of us can chose to believe the answer of the other, or we can both come to an agreement. We'll surely be fighting about it long enough to keep religious studies an active academic field.

Many if not most societies make a distinction that separates stories told as entertainment and stories told to be believed. Folklorists use the term 'folktale' for lengthy, multi-episodic stories told as fiction - the novels of the folk. The word 'legends' is used for a wide array of stories told to be believed. Both folktales and legends can incorporate aspects of belief: elves, ghosts, saints and even God can figure in a folktale, but the story was accepted as something told for entertainment.

It would be great if these categories behaved themselves and remained separate, but in reality, there is a lot of bleeding between the two groups, so the terms must be used with that understanding. Still, the difference is useful to when approaching oral tradition and historical documents, and it speaks directly to your question.

Under the umbrella of 'legend' there are many different types of narrative, not all of which reinforce articles of faith within a belief system. Some stories describe culture heroes or semi-historical events. Supernatural powers frequently manifest in these stories, but that doesn't mean the stories are told as a means of giving direct expression and reinforcement of the belief system.

That's the framework a folklorist would use to help 'historians tell the difference between religious beliefs and things that were just stories for entertainment' - as you ask. The answer to your question is difficult because we can't always be sure what amount of belief is behind a given story. Did the author believe it and record it as an article of faith? Did most people in his/her society feel the same way toward the story? Then there is also the problem of historical drift: for example, was there a difference in how people thought of a given narrative in the several centuries that constitute Hellenic and Classical Greece (not to mention Homeric society)?

Let's consider the story of Jason and the Argonauts. Folklorists have long recognized that this Classical Greek story is an expression of a common European folktale: ATU 313. When told in pre-modern times, this is a narrative told as entertainment, not to be believed, although it can include supernatural beings that the storyteller and his audience believed to exist. But what was going on in an ancient context? The story includes supernatural entities that many people believed to exist, but did they believe that the story was describing an actual historical event? It appears that this story, typically a folktale in more modern contexts, had manifested in the story of Jason as a historical legend: these were narratives told to be believed about past times; they were not necessarily articles of faith even though they gave expressions in elements from the belief system that were held dearly in their belief system. At the same time, the story spoke directly to what it meant to be virtuous in Greek society. This wasn't a matter of religious belief, but it was a matter of societal/cultural reinforcement. The Jason story is a blending of attributes: entertaining, reinforcing societal values, and borrowing from the belief system to give expression of articles of faith. Even if the listener did not necessarily believe that Jason existed, that person could find guidance and inspiration in the story.

As an analogy, we can consider the Biblical story of Noah. Some people take this as literal truth, an exact description of faith, a story to be believed, that reinforces and speaks directly to their religious beliefs. Other Christians regard the story as fictional, more of a metaphor, an entertaining narrative that nevertheless serves to reinforce belief because of what it reveals about the Divinity and His relationship with humanity. What would or should twenty-fifth-century historians say about the Noah story told in 2019? Could - or should - the historian tell the difference as to whether it was told as an expression of religious belief - as dogma - or as a meaningful story told for entertainment. The lines can blur very quickly.

As historians engage in the very important question that you pose, it is important to understand that different people approached these stories differently. A good religious story is also entertaining. An entertaining fictional story can reinforce religious belief in its own way.

Then there is the final element of your question, namely, could any aspect of earlier documents represent the sort of fantastic imagining presented by The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien incorporated many supernatural entities that people believed to exist in pre-modern culture. If he had stuck with those, his narratives might have confused future historians, but he incorporated so many other things that were alien to the folk mind, that this would be our first tip that this story was intended to be purely fictional. For the most part, we do not encounter these types of fantastic writings in the pre-modern world. Even the fictional narratives hugged closer to what was believed. Folktales could be truly fantastic, but they did not introduce entities or concepts that were completely alien to the contemporary belief system. Folktales can feature fairies, giants, dragons, saints, and God, but they will not speak of hobbits, ents, orcs, or Cthulhu.

Hello! This is a great question. The first comment is correct, this is definitely a Religious Studies question. I did my Masters in Religious Studies analysing the similarities between Harry Potter and Sufism so questions like these are my favourite.

Basically, it's entirely possible that fiction series might be seen as religious texts when they are excavated by future civilizations. The way we consume them bears similarities to the way religious texts are consumed in several ways. But historically, they have been able to tell the difference between religion in fiction so it could be theorized that the same could be said here. But it can be argued either way, as I will get into.

But firstly, I would like to say that this question brings up the biggest and most infuriatingly unanswerable question in the Religious Studies field: what exactly is religion?

There are countless schools of thought about this, each which brings in a different important aspect of religion such as ritual or spirituality. But each of these theories has flaws or misses something which is what ultimately makes the question unanswerable in under 20 pages.

What I would say, however, is that the answer to your question can be argued either way. (not really an answer, I know, but this brings up so many big questions of the RS field that there are hundreds of arguments on either side)

On one hand, we consume fiction series like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings in a similar fashion to the way we consume religious texts. They are shared as a society, they are loved, people adore and revere the characters, and there are rituals surrounding their consumption. For example, it has been argued that Harry Potter in particular has elevated to more of a cultural phenomenon than a piece of fiction. Mainly because of the popularity of the series and the way people ritualize their connection it. Like how people would line up for the release of each book and film for hours dressed as their favourite character. Examples like this draw the series closer to a religion, purely based on the devotion of the fans. This point could be used to make a solid argument for how future historians could mistake these series for an organized religion.

On the other hand, historically they have been able to tell the difference between religion and fiction. (Though, you could argue that they havent really, we just think they have because thats the history we know. But for the purposes of this argument lets assume they have). Historians were able to tell the difference between a religious text and a work of fiction based on the context in which it was found. Likely, the Lord of the Rings series won't be discovered in temple or alter type areas. It would likely be found in personal homes or libraries surrounded by other books. So this would tell future historians that it was a work of fiction, not a religion.

So the short answer to your question is not yes or no, it would be maybe. Each argument for is just as compelling and well supported as its counter argument. Additionally, both sides of this argument have countless side arguments that could be made to validate and discredit them. As I said, this question really hits at some of the core questions of the Religious Studies field which makes it impossible to give a definitive answer to. But that's the most fun part about the field so questions like this are great. Some of my sources are listed below if you're interested in learning more about these theories!

Feldt, Laura. 2016. “Harry Potter and Contemporary Magic: Fantasy Literature, Popular Culture, and the Representation of Religion” in the Journal of Contemporary Religion, 31 (1), 101-114. Routledge

Heilman, E. (Ed.). 2009. Critical Perspectives on Harry Potter. New York: Routledge.