Sixty years ago, most biblical scholars maintained that Israel's religion was unique---that it stood in marked contrast to the faiths of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. Nowadays, it is widely argued that Israel's religion mirrors that of other West Semitic societies. What accounts for this radical change, and what are its implications for our understanding of the Old Testament? Dr. John N. Oswalt says the root of this new attitude lies in Western society's hostility to the idea of revelation, which presupposes a reality that transcends the world of the senses, asserting the existence of a realm humans cannot control. While not advocating a 'the Bible says it, and I believe it, and that settles it' point of view, Oswalt asserts convincingly that while other ancient literatures all see reality in essentially the same terms, the Bible differs radically on all the main points. The Bible Among the Myths supplies a necessary corrective to those who reject the Old Testament's testimony about a transcendent God who breaks into time and space and reveals himself in and through human activity.
The Bible among the Myths
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
About the Author
Dr. John N. Oswalt (PhD, Brandeis University) is Visiting Distinguished Professor of Old Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He is the author of numerous articles and several books, including the two-volume commentary on Isaiah in the New International Commentary on the Old Testament series and Called to be Holy: A Biblical Perspective.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Dr. John N. Oswalt (PhD, Brandeis University) is Visiting Distinguished Professor of Old Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He is the author of numerous articles and several books, including the two-volume commentary on Isaiah in the New International Commentary on the Old Testament series and Called to be Holy: A Biblical Perspective.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
34 of 37 people found the following review helpful
By S. J. Bedard
Format:Paperback
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.
18 of 18 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
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.
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.
12 of 13 people found the following review helpful
By Daniel
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
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.
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.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
When is a myth NOT a myth
A great deal of nonsense is talked about the alleged "myths" in the Bible.
Professor Oswalt has produced an explanation of the real nature and purpose of the relevant... Read more
Professor Oswalt has produced an explanation of the real nature and purpose of the relevant... Read more
Published 3 hours ago by A. J. Bradbury
5.0 out of 5 stars
Warning: Deep Water!
John Oswalt has that kind of mind that takes difficult subjects and transforms them into palatable bites. Read more
Published 3 months ago by Jack Getz
2.0 out of 5 stars
Good resource, Terrible Writing
The majority of the reviews on this book are high with one review extremely low. I would venture to say that most of the high marks are from people trying to sound smart and the... Read more
Published 3 months ago by Jvalenti
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent. An invaluable resource!
Recently I have been reading a lot of books that have told me that the Bible's story of Adam and Eve plus the Exodus etc. are all myths that are extremely similar. Read more
Published 9 months ago by F. Gwin
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Bible Among the Myths
This book is the compilation of the lectures given by Dr Oswalt in his course "Myth and History" and is an excellent way to gain the wisdom and knowledge of this wonderful man of... Read more
Published 11 months ago by roanstephen
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent background and cultural study of the uniqueness of Biblical...
This book, while somewhat technical, is an excellent resource for understanding not only the uniqueness of Biblical revelation but also the underpinnings of why our culture seeks... Read more
Published 12 months ago by Gary E. Holdeman
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good Foundation
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. Read more
Published 15 months ago by Stevie Jake
1.0 out of 5 stars
Poor writing makes this book difficult to read
John Oswalt's writing and structure of this book is some of the worst that I have ever seen. His inability to follow simple grammatical rules make this a difficult read at best. Read more
Published 15 months ago by Frusturated
4.0 out of 5 stars
Biblical religion as unique
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... Read more
Published on May 2, 2011 by Anson Cassel Mills
5.0 out of 5 stars
Scholarly, Yet Accessible Study of the Bible's Uniqueness
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. Read more
Published on April 25, 2011 by OtherWorlds&Wisdom
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Listmania!
|
|
