Analysis of The Bible among the Myths - Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature - Book Report/Review Example

The Bible among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1 Chapter 1 2 Chapter 2 3 Chapter 3 4 Chapter 4 5 Chapter 5 6 Chapter 6 7 Chapter 7 8 Chapter 8 9 Chapter 9 10 Chapter 10 10 Conclusion 11 Reference 12 Introduction Oswalt has written this book as a result of the sea change that has happened during the status of the religion of Israelites as compared to other Semitic religions. This is in line with the unique features of the Old Testament and its view of reality which are thought to be explicable on the basis of evolutionary change.1 The Old Testament shows the undoubted differences between the literature, the culture of Israel, their literatures as well as the cultures of their neighbors. This shows that some similarities of their culture are vital, showing that Israelite religion is not essentially different from the religions of their neighbors. The Old Testament looks at the similarities, some of which are considered essentials, and differences which are merely accidentals. For instance, Israel’s worship of gods is essential just like the West Semitic religion did. The Old Testament from beginning to the end insists that there is only one being worthy to be called God and the other so called ‘gods’ are accidentals.2 Chapter 1 The Western world has been found to look at reality in a certain way. At the time Greek philosophers were struggling with the expression of their point of view, there was a parallel chain of series of events happening at the eastern end of the Mediterranean3. The Israelites went through a crisis of their faith between 625 BC and 400 BC. Scholars have continued to argue about the specific historical details of the crisis. The crisis was sparked by the rise of Assyrian and Babylonian empires. The Israelites’ faith was called into question by the two groups’ struggle to achieve military and political dominance over large parts of the Near East.4 Prophets have previously articulated an understanding of reality that was different from that of the peoples around them. Their ideas showed that there is only one God; who is the sole Creator of all that is in heaven and on earth. God has revealed himself to humans. God has continued to communicate his will on how human behavior should be in the world. God also rewards and punishes at his own will.5 The capturing of Israel by Assyrians and Babylonians resulted in a crisis of faith. This resulted in Israelites realization that the two different understanding of reality could not coexist. 6 Chapter 2 God’s work of punishing his unbelievable people is seen in the history of Assyrian and Babylonian conquests. The conquest and the exile were also a prediction of the return of Israel from exile which had never occurred. When the exile occurs as predicted, the Israelites came to believe the correctness of the prediction, something which was indicative of the triumph of God using the pagan nations as his tools.7 The survival of the Israelite was an authoritative collection of books in accordance with the worldview. The return of priest Ezra from Babylon with the authority to teach the Torah of his God was the primary aspect of the collection.8 The platonic cast of much of early Christian thought probably hindered more than it helped the development of human-historical experience. The recovery of Aristotle that resulted from various interactions with Islam saw full implications begin to work out. It was at this time that logic and science began to be worked out in detail. Logic and science had an understanding of the metaphysical reality that was fully consistent with both logic and science. It was at this time that the Christendom of the Dark Ages was called back from the bifurcation between heaven and earth.9 As Oswalt comes to the end of this chapter, he concludes that the Bible is not a myth. He is in agreement that the Bible is superficial while the differences are important. Through analysis of various definitions for myth, he concludes that there are some definitions called phenomenological since they seek to define the phenomenon through studying its distinctive characteristics rather than through evaluation.10 Chapter 3 In this chapter, Oswalt goes on to explain continuity, as a basis of mythical thinking. He analyzes the thought of the world of myth. He views continuity as the ruling concept of myth. Continuity is the idea that all existing things are part of each other. The ruling idea of the worldview gives myth its distinctive character which is the continuity. This means there are no fundamental distinctions between the three realms of humanity, nature, and the divine.11 There also exists a community of essence among the various elements, which are the gods, nature, and humanity. The lack of distinction between the elements can be stated as denial of the subject-object distinction. The subject is the person while the object is something else apart from the person, but can be contemplated by the person. All science is based on this particular distinction. The contemplation is, therefore, related to science because science believes that there is a reality that exists between an individual. That reality is whether the person likes it or not, and is ultimately in the best interest of the individual to discover what it is so that he can relate to it in a correct way. For mythmakers, however, the distinction makes no sense. If there is something discontinuous with the person, then it is meaningless.12 The author concludes the chapter with the story of Aaron and the people, who did not consider themselves to be doing anything heretical. This is all religion as they had observed it for several years in Egypt. As the source, God is One, and superior over all his creation. He, however, manifests himself as many and a part of creation. The mythmaker sees no contradiction in this. Moses however understood that God was revealing himself to the Israelites in a way that was somehow distinct other than creation. In this case, no blurring of God and creation would be allowed to exist. Permitting it to exist would be to deny the nature of reality as Yahweh was revealing it to his people.13 Chapter 4 In this chapter, Oswalt describes transcendence as the basis of Biblical thinking. He examines several attributes of the worldview, presented in the Bible and contrasts them with how the world views the ancient near east. Transcendence is what gives the distinction of the Bible, humanity, and the nature. Continuity, on the other hand, gives an ancient near-east mythology as being one. The implications of transcendence in the Bible are many. For instance, monotheism, which is the understanding of God as explained in the Bible. Iconoclasm, on the other hand, is the prohibition of representation of God in material objects such as statues. Spirit is also another aspect of transcendence, and basically pertains to everything else including creation. Creation in this regard is out of conflict, and took place by the will of God, but not as an accident of a divine domestic dispute.14 Humanity was a result of God’s creation in his image. The creation by God makes him superior to all other gods. The humankind are a valuable property of God and should, therefore, respect him and depend only on him. This is because God does not lie. God is separate from his creation. That is why an attempt to manipulate God through actions of nature is impossible. Transcendence also takes morality beyond the commands of the state.15 This, however, makes people accountable to the supreme, personal Being for all the choices they make. The peoples’ respect towards God should be regardless of whether the states allow them or not. They should remember they are God’s special creation, and no other being should come in between God and his special creation. Transcendence, therefore, gives the message that life is about God the Creator, and not about an individual.16 Chapter 5 This chapter focuses on the Bible versus Myth. Oswalt uses a more direct approach to contrast the worldviews of the Bible versus myth. He argues that, even though, there are similarities between how the world views the two expressions, they cannot be used to say that the worldviews are the same. This is because the worldviews are the same because the same foundations of the worldviews are in direct conflict. A number of skeptics have argued that the similarities in expression are powerful evidence that the worldviews are the same.17 However, Oswalt notes that there are two contradicting foundations. The similarities are just trivial, but the differences are very important. Oswalt looks at the differences existing between the ethics within the two worldviews. He, however, uses most of the chapter speaking of the similarities because of their popularity. The popularity is mainly in the skeptic circles trying to explain the worldview of the Bible. He particularly addresses some common arguments supporting the ideas that are reflected in the passages of Genesis, Psalms, Isaiah, and Habakkuk. The passages primarily reflect the worldview of the ancient near-east mythologies. He agrees with the fact that there are similarities existing between myths and Bible, but the similarities are insignificant. He however, notes that the similarities are evidences that the Israelite people were trying to communicate their unique worldview to their neighbors.18 Their language of communication and the concepts used were a kind of cultural apologetics. The chapter shows that it is important to focus on both the similarities and differences of the Bible and myths for a clear understanding.19 Chapter 6 This is a chapter falling in the second half of the book. The author focuses on the Bible and history. Turning his attention to history, Oswalt notes that unlike myths, history does not have as many applications. The recording and analysis of past human activities are used to gain an understanding of history which identifies the ancient mythology or the Bible. The analysis of past human events also serves to discover mistakes and alter the behavior or prevent them in the future. Oswalt describes various writings from the ancient near east that record the past human events.20 Oswalt, however, notes that the focus was based only on the kings’ victories in battles and accomplishment of missions. There, however, exists no mechanism for a reliable analysis, and there is no way of taking action on the analysis. Based on this, the lack of history in the ancient near eastern cultures records of past events should not be a surprise.21 The Bible vividly gives the description of the worldview of transcendence. This allows for past human choices that can easily be traced back to a specific event, and such an event should not occur again if it is not desirable. Oswalt explains that the Bible provides a teaching that God created every creature in the universe and the universe itself for a purpose. That is why any decision made against God’s decision should be regarded as evil and should be avoided by all means. Man has the free will to continuously choose his course of action, which should be in accordance with the purposes of God. The chapter concludes by noting that the Bible has a worldview of a mechanism for analysis, in addition to having a reason to act and mechanism for taking action on the analysis.22 Chapter 7 The chapter focuses on the problem of history, by answering the question whether the Bible is truly historical or not. Oswalt presents a number of evidences of argumentation to conclude that the Bible contains a historical content. For instance, God has revealed himself in the Bible through several events in history. The Hebrew worldview showed that God is the judge of all, including those who recorded the various events of the Bible. This means if the recorders added some false information, they would also be judged.23The interpretations of any event of the Bible is dependent on the facticity of the event or the observation. Oswalt is, however, careful to point out that the recording of the past events in Israel cannot be compared to today’s standards, simply because the purposes are different. For instance, the sole purpose of recording the events in Israel was to enhance communication of information about God. This means only the necessary information was recorded. Not every detail was included in the recording.24 The lack of detail cannot, however, be used to reject the interpretation, but the interpretation does not always allow for a precise reconstruction of the event. The credibility of the details recorded is important, but the uncertainty of the unrecorded details is not. This evidence points towards the accuracy of the various historical claims of the Bible, and the unavailability of today’s expected level of specificity of historical records, which are insufficient in overcoming the evidence.25 Chapter 8 This chapter seeks to investigate the problem of the history of the Bible. In an effort to preserve the intellectual acceptance of theology, some theories have been proposed for separation of the records of the past events in the Bible. For instance, Bultmann removed two distinctions from the Bible, the subject and object, and the event and its interpretation. He maintained his position that one cannot know what happened, in the past, and therefore, all history is not known. This would allow the interpretation, as given by the individual, to be separated from any dependence on that actual event. Oswalt, however, explains how such distinctions are impossible.26 The second important aspect of this chapter is the process of theology. This is the process history. Pantheism makes God equal to the creation, and the process of theology makes him equal to the unfolding of events. Based on this aspect, God is not transcendent there is no need for evaluation of the progress of human events towards a particular goal. This is not what the Bible teaches and should not therefore, be a viable alternative. Oswalt concludes the chapter by noting that the accuracy of the recorded events and their interpretations as presented in the Bible are not separable.27 Chapter 9 This chapter looks at some origins of the Biblical worldview and their alternatives. There is a difference between worldview of the Bible and that of the ancient near east, such that there is no logical thought connection leading from the continuity of mythology to the transcendence of the Bible. Many critiques would believe that they can tie Israel to the ancient near east mythology. This is not, however, accomplished by way of the content of the Bible. 28It is, however, attempted by noting that Israel had a worldview of continuity which evolved over time to become what is known as a worldview of transcendence. Oswalt, however, explains and challenges four models presented by scholars. He concludes by noting that none of the models is supported by any evidence. This chapter shows there is no logical pathway for continuity to evolve into transcendence. Oswalt suggests that if Israel believes in transcendence today, they believed then. If the Bible teaches transcendence today, it did then. Following the argument, Oswalt concludes the chapter by noting that there exist no connection between the Bible and mythology.29 Chapter 10 In this chapter, Oswalt offers a sermonic ending explaining how the downturn in morality in the West is a result of embrace of the worldview of continuity and an abandonment of biblical transcendence. His cultural critique highlights some useful differences between mythological thinking and that of popular thought today.30 In a conclusion of the book, the author gives a summary of predictions about the future state of culture. The culture rejects the idea that the Bible is history. Some of these predictions are being realized today, while others are yet to be realized even though they have the potential to be.31 Conclusion In his conclusion, Oswalt, states that biblical literature is historical. It is objective, and not biased towards the powerful, neither does it tell a fictional recreation of the past. However, his omission of Genesis 1-11, is striking since the majority of those who would use the word myth to refer to the Bible would primarily depend on these chapters. There is also another major omission; in the discussion of Chronicles. Oswalt also seems to reject opinions of some scholars such as John Van Seters, Frank Moore Cross, William Dever, and Mark Smith, who give arguments opposed to his own. At times, however, he draws some unnecessary conclusions from the views expressed by these scholars. For instance, he notes that the Cross gives a human explanation of the view of reality that produced the distinctive Israelite literature, and, therefore, rejects his work. Reference Oswalt, John N. The Bible Among the Myths: Unique Revelation Or Just Ancient Literature?. Zondervan, 2009. Read More