Bible among the Myths Written by John Oswalt - Research Paper Example

THE BIBLE AMONG MYTHS due: THE BIBLE AMONG MYTHS Introduction The Bible Among the Myths is written by John Oswalt and consists of two sections. The first section talks about the Bible and myths related to it; and the second one talks about the history of the Bible. This paper will summarize all chapters and provide the postscripts in the book. Chapter 1: The Bible in its world In this chapter, John Oswalt asserts that the Western worldview reality in a particular perspective. He argues that the Bible influences the way people think which is evident from its application in Greek and Hebrew philosophy. The Greek play named The Bacchae revealed that as much as people wanted to diminish worship into dead theorems and concepts, it was not possible, and the ancient way of worship was followed. There is only one God who is the creator of the universe is the Hebrew’s belief. In addition, they believed that God disclosed himself to people during their distinct encounters. Moreover, they presumed that God punishes and rewards mankind on the basis of obedience to his will in human conduct. Their faith came into question when the first Babylonian and Assyrian empires dominated the biggest part of Israel. The Israelites’ did not abandon their faith because they viewed the Babylonian and Assyrian conquest as a way of God’s punishment due to their unbelief. The Greeks differed from the Israelites because they believed that there is a connection between cause and effect. On the other hand, the Israelites were of the opinion that God plays a role in the events that happen physically. The author concludes by stating that science and logic are developed after individuals realize that the world is not God, and neither is God the world. He argues that logic and science cannot support themselves because they are not self-evident. God’s presence as a creator is experienced in the universe during the distinct occurrences in history of men that give the foundation for the idea of historical authority.1 Chapter 2: The Bible and myth: a problem of definition In this chapter, the author seeks to find an appropriate meaning of the term myth. He is purposed to look for a correct answer if the Bible can refer to a myth or not. He asserts that the definition of the word myth can determine its application. John Oswalt says that it is crucial to comprehend why it is necessary to force the Bible into the group of myth in modern time. The author suggests that there are three definitions that can describe myth. To begin, the etymological definition of myth emphasize on the untruthfulness of the object being outlined. The meaning is on the basis of the word mythos that is interpreted in Greek as ‘a false legend of gods’. From this perspective to call the Bible a myth would imply that the events that are recorded and grounded on falsehood. The second is sociological-theological definition where a thing is believed to be true if others see it that way and the truth as comparable. In this category, an individual is allowed to make a decision of what is true or false. In this case considering the Bible as a myth, would leave people in a dilemma because different religious frameworks have various accords. Lastly, is the literary definition that describes a myth as a narrative that consists of in-depth utilization of symbolism to communicate intense actuality. The author concludes by dismissing the three definitions and proposing that the correct meaning of myth is an expression of continuity. According to these definitions, things in existence are associated and form each other in some way. An example is a person being ‘one with the tree’ where the individual part of the tree’s nature, as well as the tree, is in the person’s nature.2 Chapter 3: Continuity: The basis of mythical thinking This chapter is about continuity where all things are part of one another in some form. The author uses the concept of ‘continuity’ as the core of his thoughts on this issue as his idea is centered on the difference between the world view of the ancient Near East and the Bible. There are three forces that interact with each other to enable continuity that include the divine, humanity and nature. The myth of continuity declares that the world is a divine, everybody is divine and no difference is visible between spiritual and physical realities. According to John Oswalt, the people felt secure because they could control nature through carrying out some rituals to gods or idols. In addition, the mode, of thinking in metaphysical, resulted from taking what is clear in life and harnessing it in all reality that involve metaphysical. In the world, continuity is manifested through various means, for example, the efforts by individuals to describe reality from plagues, floods, weather patterns and fire. In addition, the impact of continuity consists of the individual’s fixation on fertility and employing magic to affect the cosmos. All in all, the author feels that myths have similar aspects. He argues that all myths share the belief that there is a large number of gods. In addition, they rely on the utilization of icons and symbols to connect with the divine and nature. The author assesses the biblical teachings to seek factors that are present in the Bible. In case, the elements are not present in the Bible and cannot be grouped with the ancient near east myths.3 Chapter 4: Transcendence: Basis of Biblical Thinking Here, the author constructs on the closing statement of chapter three by looking at various aspects of the worldview that is in the Bible and contrast them with mythologies of the ancient near east. John Oswalt declares that the basic comprehension of the world that differentiates them is transcendence. Transcendence is the biblical worldview that proposes that God is complete and oppose to continuity between spiritual and physical standards. Transcendence is the assumption that nature, humanity and the Bible – God are unrelated while continuity that is ancient near-east mythology are all in one. The author states that the Bible has different characteristics, for instance, monotheism. Monotheism is the knowledge of God in the Bible. In reference to the Bible and the Old Testament, God existed alone, and there are no other gods. On the other hand, iconoclasm is the outlaw of representing God in a form of material things such as statues. The concept of transcendence states that the people are answerable to God for the decisions made and whether the condition allows a conduct or not. In conclusion, in transcendence, life is not all about a person but about the supreme personal being who is the creator. Transcendence bans the practice of magic and lays out the ethical code in which God expects individuals to obey. The difference that arises from the mythologies of the ancient near east is that it concentrates on the ‘individual’ being allowed to do anything regardless of the moral effects on other people. Transcendence is the basic principle of the biblical thought4. Chapter 5: The Bible verses Myth The author in this chapter is against the Bible being classified as myth and gives details of the concern of ethics in regard to the two world views. He says that the foundations of the world are in conflict. He suggests that the similarities are unimportant because the critical issue is the opposing basis. He uses books in the Bible to show the world view of the ancient near-east mythologies. For example, the book of Habakkuk, Genesis, Isaiah and Psalms are used to reflect on these mythologies. Another characteristic that differentiates biblical thought from other myths is the aspect of humanity. In Genesis 1:27, it is clear that God created man in his likeness. God gave human authority over all of his creation showing that man was very valuable in God’s creation. In addition, in the Bible it is evident that God existed before the formation of anything else. The difference between the Bible and another myth is that God created the universe out of nothing. Because in other creation myths, the Supreme Being influence matter in a particular arrangement to create the world as it is. In conclusion, John Oswalt does not contradict that there are similarities or that they are totally unimportant. Instead he claims that they are proof that the Israelites tried to convey their individual worldview to others in ideas and language that was associated with a ‘cultural apologetics’. It is clear that despite the similarities to the worldviews and the ancient near east, the Bible is unique in a world5. Chapter 6: The Bible and History: A Problem of Definition John Oswalt expounds history as compared to the myth. He states that history describe in various forms by different people and is not used widely compared to a myth. The type of history that is paramount in recognizing if the Bible or the early mythology are histories is the assessment of the past human occurrences and recordings. These are put forward with the aim of finding errors and correcting a conduct to avoid reoccurrence. The author notes that the events recorded only indicated of the victories of their kings in war, attainments and not the failures. Therefore there is nothing to scrutinize for change in the future. For this reason, the author argues that the early mythology concentrates on the current, does not permit for a change in the future and does not define evil, purpose and good. It confirms that there is no history in early near east records on culture of past happenings. Thus, it is contrary to the Bible because the transcendence permits the past human choice that is associated with a particular case, not to reoccur if it was not good. In conclusion, the author states that the Bible educates that God has a reason for creating mankind and the universe. It suggests that any plan that is devised against God’s purpose is evil, and individuals possess a free will that assists in choosing to act according to God’s intention. The Bible provides the worldview that is easy to analyze and gives the mechanism and reason of acting on the outcomes to avoid repetition of the same mistake. 6 Chapter 7: Is the Bible Truly Historical? The Problem of History (1) The author states that possessing the basis of history is not sufficient. The Bible should contain a historical content that the author wonders if it exists. John Oswalt presents proof through arguments to show that it does. To start with, if God disclosed himself through occurrences that will not reoccur, then it is paramount for those events to be precise for the next generations because they will not encounter them. Secondly, if the worldview of Hebrew consist of that God is the judge of all people, including the register keepers of the occurrences, then they will be judged if the records are not true. In addition, he argues that the interpretation of the events proof that they actually took place. In the event they never happened, there would be no need. In addition, he states that the reason, the events were written in Israel, was to convey information about God and hence the crucial details were in the text. He concludes by stating the fact that all information was not significant in expounding how the happenings were in relation to God. However, the insufficient data cannot be utilized to make the interpretation incompetent. Likewise, the interpretation does not permit an accurate description of the event, and this is due to the method of data collection. The techniques used in early days cannot be in comparison with modern technology. As a matter of fact, the evidence recorded is very strong and is precise of the historical assertion of the Bible. The fact that the Bible does not satisfy the expected degree of accuracy of historical records cannot defeat the evidence.7 Chapter 8: Does it matter whether the bible is historical? The problem of history (2) Some individuals find that the Bible does not have accurate records of the past events.8 Due to these various theories are developed. The theology theory is used to differentiate the interpretation of events and the records of those events in the Bible, in the endeavor to maintain cognitive adoption of the concept in case the records are not precise. Rudolph Bultmann, a theorist, tries to attain this by deleting two distinctions; object and subject, interpretation, and the event. According to the theorist, it is difficult to tell what transpired in the past because one can encounter history but not know it. From this perspective, the interpretation is independent of the real event, therefore, no need to question the accuracy of the records. However, John Oswalt asserts that such differentiations are impossible. Secondly, the process theology states that God is not transcendent but the process of history. The process of theology makes God equal to the evolving events. From this point of view, God is not transcendent, and therefore, no need to assess the advance of human occurrences towards the objective. To sum this up, the theory does not display the teaching of the Bible about God, and this is not a feasible alternative. To this effect, the author concludes that the precise of the written down events and the interpretations given in the Bible cannot be put separate.9 Chapter 9: Origins of the biblical worldview: alternatives The Bible Among the Myths reveals that the world view of the Bible is very different from the early near east. For this reason, there is no reasonable thought relation that could come from the transcendence of the Bible to the continuity of mythology. It is not attained through the content of the Bible but by recognizing that Israel had a worldview of continuity that developed into a worldview of transcendence. The author looks at the four criticisms by William Dever, who was of the opinion that Israel’s belief systems were similar to Canaanite beliefs. The Mark Smith suggests that Israel’s beliefs originated from the Canaanite’s polytheistic beliefs. In addition, the author looked at criticism from Frank Cross that proposes that the Bible was an epic poem that transformed to the current Old Testament. Also, the author considered the disapproval by John Van Seters and his remark that Jewish priests corrected the Bible after the Babylonian exile. The author concludes that the four models created by scholars do not support with proof as much as the description of the worldview of transcendence in Israel that is seen in the Bible. In addition, the author proposes that Genesis talks about creation while the scholars relate to the surface of the universe from pre-existing disorganized event. This chapter proves that there is no sound direction for continuity to develop into transcendence. Therefore, the Israel believes in transcendence today just like before, and the Bible teaches transcendence as before. There is no possible way to connect mythology with the Bible. The Biblical perspective is grounded in the transcendence and the non-biblical opinion is grounded n continuity10. Chapter 10: conclusion This chapter concludes the work of John Oswalt. He emphasizes that his objective was to expound the concept that the Bible is distinct from the setting of early near eastern writings. The main objective is to comprehend the difference between continuity and transcendence. He asserts that the Bible is not fictitious neither is it mythical. Many scholars have developed theories for contradicting the theological element of the Old Testament, but the author is firm on the basis that God intervened through historical events and prophets to influence humanity. One can argue that continuity belongs to an ancient culture, but the reality is that contemporary philosophers and writers follow the same design. From this perspective, John Oswalt writes that the Israelites’ could not begin with a continuity religion and then change it into transcendence. The problem is that transcendence eliminates control from the universe and humanity. For this reason, continuity and transcendence cannot survive together. The author concludes by noting that for a person to explain the distinctiveness of the Bible and its exclusive knowledge of reality, it must be divinely and uniquely inspired. If a person contradicts the supernatural, then he/she cannot explain the worldview in the Old Testament. On the other hand, if an individual acknowledges the supernatural disclosure and historic of the Old Testament, then the question of what is the will of God and how he will reveal it becomes an outright final.11 Bibliography Apologetics 315. Book Review: The Bible Among the Myths - Apologetics 315. Book Review: The Bible Among the Myths - Apologetics 315. October 11, 2014. Accessed January 29, 2015. http://www.apologetics315.com/2014/10/book-review-bible-among-myths.html. Anderson, Bernhard W. The Problem of Old Testament History by Bernhard W. Anderson. The Problem of Old Testament History by Bernhard W. Anderson. February 1, 2006. Accessed January 29, 2015. http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_history_anderson.html. BIBLICAL STUDIES. The Bible Among the Myths - Part 5. THE GATHERING. April 10, 2014. Accessed January 29, 2015. https://taylorterzek.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/the-bible-among-the-myths-part-5/. Bible.org. 9. What Is the Meaning of History? Bible.org. January 1, 2015. Accessed January 29, 2015. https://bible.org/seriespage/what-meaning-history. Barrick, William. TMS - Journal - Book Review - The Bible Among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature? January 1, 2015. Accessed January 29, 2015. http://www.tms.edu/JournalBookReview.aspx?ID=686. Evans, Paul S. [MJTM 11 (2009–2010) R25–R29]. Http://www.mcmaster.ca/. Accessed January 28, 2015. http://www.mcmaster.ca/mjtm/pdfs/vol11/reviews/ReviewEvansonOswaltR25-29.pdf. Faulconer, James E. Transcendence in Philosophy and Religion. Bloomington, Ind: Indiana University Press, 2003. Horine, Steven C. The Bible Among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature? By John N. Oswalt. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009, 195 Pp.,. March 1, 2010. Accessed January 29, 2015. http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/53/53-1/JETS_53-1_151-210_BookReviews.pdf. John N. Oswalt. Review of The Bible Among The Myths by John N. Oswalt. January 1, 2009. Accessed January 29, 2015. http://www.telosministries.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Review-of-The-Bible-Among-The-Myths-by-John-N.pdf. Oswalt, John N. The Bible Among the Myths: Unique Revelation Or Just Ancient Literature?. Zondervan, 2009. Reasons to Believe. Reasons To Believe : The Worldview of Continuity. October 31, 2011. Accessed January 29, 2015. http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-worldview-of-continuity. Read More