Customer Reviews

The Bible among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature?

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I very much enjoyed John Oswalt's The Bible Among the Myths. It is common to see claims that the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, is of the same genre as other ancient myths. This seems possible as the Old Testament is filled with supernatural events, fantastic details and various themes familiar from ancient myths. Oswalt goes beyond the surface similarities by going into detail regarding the true nature of myth. Fantastic details are common to myths but myths are really defined by a worldview described as continuity. In contrast, the biblical worldview centers on transcendence. Oswalt is extremely balanced in that he does not deny similarities with mythology. Rather he demonstrates that the differences are based on foundational issues rather than the surface similarities. One of the interesting aspects of this book is Oswalt's investigation into the nature of history. Unlike ancient myths that have no interest in history, the Bible is filled with history. Oswalt confronts some of the critical scholars who have competing theories regarding the relationship between the Old Testament and history. Overall, this is a very good book for understanding the Old Testament in particular and the Bible in general, especially in its larger cultural and religious context.

In a brief book, Oswalt has done a good service for college and seminary students (and ministers) faced with the common assertion that the Bible is simply one other among the dozens of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) mythologies, whose only real difference is that it originated in Israel, and not in Babylon, Assyria, or Egypt.

In the first half of the book, "The Bible and Myth," Oswalt first addresses the issue of definition. If we're going to call something a myth, we have to know what a myth is. So Oswalt investigates the numerous competing definitions that have been offered, concluding that, when properly defined, the Bible is not myth. This is so because myth presupposes a particular view of the world and how it operates that the Bible does not share. He follows the chapter on definition with two chapters, one describing the worldview of myth, characterized by Oswalt as "continuity. The next chapter then describes the worldview of the Bible, which Oswalt characterizes as "transcendence." These two chapters alone are worth the price of the book. The first half of the book concludes with a comparison of the Bible and ANE myths, focusing on the similarities between the two literatures, and the significance of those similarities for the overall discussion.

In the second half of the book, "The Bible and History," Oswalt again deals with the initial problem as one of definition. As in the first part, Oswalt carefully examines various proposed definitions of history. At the risk of oversimplification, he concludes that the Bible is history, simply not modern secular history. He then considers the significance of the historicity of the Bible for the Christian faith, defending it against the existential treatment of the Bible put forth by Bultmann, and against the more modern treatment by process theology. The concluding chapters then deal with explaining the origin of the Bible as unique in world literature. He concludes that any explanation other than the one offered by the Bible itself (God revealed it) is inadequate to the task.

I heartily recommend the book, but I wish he had done two additional things. First, I wish he had made the simple point that, with all the attention being paid to ANE mythologies these days, it seems to have escaped the notice of most that these texts were buried in the dust of the Near East for better than two millennia and had no effect on the lives of people beyond, perhaps, their initial immediate audience. The Bible, in the same time span, has produced the most populous religious community in the world. If the Bible is really just another myth, that large fact needs to be explained.

The other thing I wish Oswalt had done is to have presented in an appendix the text of the Enuma Elish in parallel with the text of Genesis 1-11. The reason the Enuma Elish is so often referred to is that it is the only ANE "creation" myth that has reached us virtually intact. A simple presentation of the two texts in parallel would do almost as much as Oswalt's discussion to make it clear that what similarities the Bible may share with ANE myth, they are incomparably different forms of literature.

Short summary:

In this book J. Oswalt takes on the question of the subtitle. The book is divided in two parts: 1. The Bible and Myth and 2. The Bible and History. In the first part he looks at the context of the Bible and whether its proper to classify the Bible as myth. He argues that myths in the Ancient Near East (ANE) are characterized by "Continuity" thinking. Which at it root holds that there is no fundamental distinction between the divine, human and natural realm. He shows the implications of this and how this kind of thinking cannot be found in the Bible. He argues that the basis of Israelite religion was Transcendence and that this radically differed from Israel's neighbours, and even though they may have utilized some of the same forms as their neighbours they were essentially different. In a footnote he relates as an illustration that even though a dog may have two eyes, one nose and one mouth, similar to a human, when comparing them they remain essentially different.

In the second part he examines the question whether its possible to retain the theology of the Bible without its history. He argues that this is not the case. He examines Bultmann's approach to history as well as the one offered by Process theology. In the last chapter he takes a look at explanations for the origins of the Biblical worldview and reviews four scholars; John van Seters, Frank Cross, Mark Smith and William Dever. These all, in his opinion, fail to provide a coherent and compelling account of the origins of the Biblical worldview.

My thoughts:

I had an up and down relationship with this book. At times I liked it very much and other times I was frustrated at the apologetic parts that were contained in it. In all it was a good book. When reading other books its common to see scholars refer to parallels in texts of the ANE and having no first hand knowledge you just have to take their word for it that they know what they are talking about. Actually this problem is not overcome inasmuch as he does not really quote texts but still he tries to examine the basis of these texts and what they share with the Biblical Scriptures and where they differ. This I enjoyed even though I found him a bit conservative and would have enjoyed a more open approach.

Nevertheless on the whole I think he made a good argument and a timely one (for me). The way he distinguished between Continuity and Transcendence was helpful and the examples he gave quite convincing. I was a bit dissappointed to see that alot of the works he cited were kind of dated; ranging between the 60s and end 80s. I dont think scholarship stopped developing after that so in that sense it would have been interesting to hear more recent voices. Especially I would have been interested to read about how the idea of revelation has been dealt with by more recent philosophers that hold to the idea that the Bible is a unique divine revelation.

For me personally this book does not seal the deal but is more a motivation to take a look at those myths myself and see whether his approach of distinguishing between the underlying paradigms (Continuity vs. Transcendence) works.

Grade:

7.5 out of 10

Creative and worthy attempt to counter the prevailing mood of those who treat the Bible as myth and those that try to so that while saving its theology.

John Oswalt does a terrific job of distinguishing the biblical writings from the ancient myths of surrounding cultures. He shows that the Bible is a unique revelation of the Israelite God to the world. The book gets more interesting as you read, and it will feed your faith.

John Oswalt argues that current hypotheses about the origin of Hebrew monotheism are misguided because scholars have assumed that Israelite religion simply evolved from west Semitic polytheism. Oswalt begins by disputing the scholarly definition of the word "myth" and then (more profitably) illustrates the striking contrasts in worldview between Hebrew monotheism and ancient Near Eastern mythology. The most salient difference, Oswalt argues, is the distinction between pagan "continuity" (the notion that creation and creator are roughly interchangeable) and the "transcendence" emphasized in the biblical religion. Oswalt admits some similarities between the Hebrew and neighboring religious practice but (rightly in my view) dismisses these similarities as incidental rather than essential.

Oswalt summarizes well. Some of the most profitable parts of the book for me were Oswalt's list of features common to mythology and his careful critique of the views of modern scholars John Van Seters, Frank Cross, William Dever, and Mark Smith. As Oswalt notes, their unsatisfying hypotheses about the formation of Hebrew monotheism are speculations ultimately grounded on an a priori rejection of revelation.

Admittedly, I am still in the middle of this book, but so far I have found it extremely helpful and insightful. I appreciate the distinctions he draws between a Biblical world-view and that of other world cultures and religions (both ancient and modern). I just finished a masters degree in Biblical History and Geography where this is a hot topic and where a more conservative view is often easily abandoned because liberal scholarship presents it as untenable. This book makes viewing the Bible as God-inspired literature a valid position.

The book represents a clear and concise analysis of the Biblical worldview in comparison to the other worldviews in the Ancient Near East contemporaneous with the development of the Bible. This is done by an in-depth analysis of the underlying beliefs inherent in mythology and the Biblical text. Of primary significance is the author's portrayal of the Biblical insistence on monotheism and divine transcendence compared to the polytheistic underpinnings of mythology. Further, the author compares the ethically based Biblical view of the divine/human relationship with the ritualistic and magical view of that relationship found in mythology. With these and other comparisons (and with due consideration given to the various similarities between Israel and her neighbors), the author gives an excellent overview of the subject matter of the thought world of the Biblical era. Highly recommended.

The author does a great job laying out his research of other cultures and other myths to examine the specifications of what makes a myth. He produces a well thought out case that whatever the Bible is, it cannot be a myth. Great addition to the academic library.

One thing you'll discover about Biblical critics, is that they have a difficult time explaining where Israel's unique understanding of the world came from. They tend to throw around obscure words like "evolve". This is where Oswalt's book comes in. In The Bible Among the Myths, he takes the conversation further by illuminating the fact that Israel's faith couldnt have simply evolved out of nowhere.

Oswalt shows that the surrounding Ancient Near East cultures had a worldview known as Continuity. This worldview maintained that all things that exist are apart of each other(such as the gods, nature, and humanity), the existence of polytheism, that the gods could be manipulated through nature and natural artifacts(which was the point of idol worship), the significance of magic, the obsession with fertility which led to sexual imitation rituals, and that the gods were formed from chaotic matter. He then explains Israel's worldview which was in direct opposition to their neighboring cultures. Israel believed that there was one God, that God transcends nature and cannot be physically manifest in nature, cannot be manipulated through nature, that God forbade sexual imitation rituals, that God forbade the use of magic, and that God formed the world and was not formed from chaotic matter. So Oswalt asks where this unique understanding came from. This book isnt that long, and I wouldve appreciated if Oswalt would've elaborated on these chapters. However, his point is still delivered and it resonated with me nonetheless.

Towards the end of the book Oswalt deals with competing hypotheses about Israel's unique understanding. The scholars he deals with are Frank Cross, Mark Smith and William Dever. This is the part of the book that let me down. Oswalt attempts to dismantle their hypotheses in only a few pages. These scholars have written many books attempting to show that Israel wasnt really that unique after all. Thus, I think the amount of space utilized to refute these scholars wasnt enough. I wish Oswalt would've gone into more depth when conversing with them.

Overall, this book definitely strengthened my faith. I think Oswalt did an adequate job of demonstrating that Israel had a unique understanding of the world, and that its extremely difficult to account for this understanding apart from some type of revelation.

Bible revisionists, skeptics, pagans and others seek to rewrite the history of the Bible to make people believe it was stolen, borrowed or copied from other sources. These claims make good headlines and maybe even compelling arguments assuming that's all you read. But if you do test those claims and compare them against a book like this, the Bible attackers and fantastic-pseudohistory shows suddenly lose their appeal in the face of sound scholarship. The author here takes a very even-handed approach and is not out to convince anyone of anything other than the Bible's radical difference from other ancient works. A great balance to the substandard works that pass as scholarship. See also The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?, The Case for the Real Jesus: A Journalist Investigates Current Attacks on the Identity of Christ & The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant?.