Introduction
The Bible among Myths by John N. Oswalt is among the best apologetics of the recent times. The book seeks to debunk the ideas, which secular scholars have been propagating in the recent years, that the Old Testament chapters of the bible are part of the Ancient Near East Mythology.
In essence, what Oswalt does in this book is to show that any arguments linking the Old Testament with the Ancient Near East Mythology are misguided. In so doing, Oswalt endeavors to make it plain to readers that literature from such scholars is misleading.
In a bid to achieve this goal, Oswalt chooses to approach the book from a polemical viewpoint to convey his point.
His introductory argument anchors on the assertion that in the last five decades much has not changed insofar as the content of the Old Testament is concerned, yet the perception of scholars has radically changed in the same duration (Oswalt 2009, 11-12).
Currently, most scholars have lost esteem for the Old Testament, and to them, it is just another Ancient Near East myth. Some scholars consider the Old Testament as ‘remarkably similar’ to Ancient Near East mythical literature associated with other Semitic religions that originated from the Ancient Near East.
Oswalt dispels this assumption by going to great depths to explain what a myth is in a bid to exclude the Old Testament from such definitions.
Oswalt accomplishes this task in the first section of the book, viz. the first five chapters, which explore the Old Testament alongside the Ancient Near Eastern myths to bring out the contrast between the two.
The second section of the book analyses the Old Testament from a historical perspective and eventually concludes that the bible is a historical account to a certain extent.
Chapter 1
The first chapter opens with an assertion that the bible is a key contributor to the Western world’s perception of reality.
The importance attached to the Bible’s contribution in this sense stems from the fact that it greatly influenced ancient Greek philosophy and it continues to influence the perception of the world to date. The influence of the Greek thought on contemporary world perception is explored.
The most illustrious aspects of ancient Greek thought that are inherent in the manner in which we perceive the world today are, according to Oswalt, the notion that human beings live in a universe and not a polyverse (Oswalt 2009, 21).
Oswalt endeavors to show how the Greek pattern of thinking fits in with the biblical perspective of the same. Therefore, he explores the Hebrew perspective of the same issue.
He notes that the Hebrew descendants were monotheists whose principal belief was that there is only one supreme God, who doubles as the creator of the universe.
God revealed himself and his will to humankind, and thus humanity is expected to obey the will and be rewarded or defy it and face punishment.
The notion of the integration of the Greek philosophy and biblical principles in today’s worldview manifests in the fact that the Greeks believe in the law of non-contradiction, which fits in well with the Jewish idea that God set himself apart from his creation (Oswalt 2009, 25-26).
Oswalt thus notes that logic or rational thinking, which the Greek are credited with as the originators, only came to be after humanity’s acknowledgement of God as the sole creator of the universe.
Oswalt refutes the emerging belief that logic and science can prosper without religion by arguing that the only thing that the two can deliver to humanity is destruction.
He notes that Hiroshima and the Buchenwald concentration camps are the best humanity can achieve through logic and science alone.
Chapter 2
In the second chapter of the book, Oswalt embarks on a mission to set the bible apart from myths by presenting different scholars’ definition of the term and trying to find the definition that suits the bible most.
He starts by pointing out the reductionist viewpoint, which has been assumed by scholars towards the bible since the 1960s. In an attempt to prove that the bible is unique and cannot be equated to Ancient Near Eastern myths, Oswalt examines different definitions of the term ‘myth’.
He carefully examines three definitions of the term and proceeds to show why the bible does not fit with each of the definitions. Specifically, the first definition claims that the most outstanding feature of a myth is the falsity of the narrated occurrence or deity in the narrative (Oswalt 2009, 33).
The distinctive feature of the second definition is that it notes that truth in a myth is relative so that if many people think the myth is true then it is truer than otherwise. In the third definition, events in myths are neither right nor wrong (Oswalt 2009, 38).
All the three perspectives of a myth espouse the idea of continuity, which claims that all matter in the universe is the same thing. The example employed in the book to explain this idea is that of a man and a tree being the same thing both physically and spiritually.
The fact that the underlying principle is the idea of continuity behind the myths leads Oswalt to define myth in his own way as ‘continuity’.
Oswalt thus notes, “Myth exists to actualize continuity” (Oswalt 2009, 45). From such a position, he is in a position to explicitly outline the intrinsic characteristics of the Christian and pagan perspectives of the world later in the book.
Chapter 3
The third chapter is dedicated to explaining the philosophy of continuity deeply to give clear concept of its assertions as well as Oswalt’s beliefs insofar as the idea is concerned.
All myths have, at their heart, the concept of continuity in which humanity, nature, and the divine are all part of one another.
There is an interconnectedness, which links the physical, the spiritual, and the divine such that their existence is a circular continuum. Continuity is thus a worldview whose essence is mythical thinking.
Oswalt analyses continuity with the intent of articulating its aspects in relation to religious thought. He notes that continuity, if approached from the perspective of a worldview, has numerous effects.
Chief among the effects is the idea of associating some natural signs with certain phenomena (Oswalt 2009, 50-56) that if a certain sign manifests in nature, it symbolizes the arrival or departure of some phenomena.
As an example, he tries to point the link between floods, plagues, and weather patterns among others with reality. Another good example that shows the effect of continuity is given by the use of magic to manipulate the universe in one way or another.
Oswalt gives several other effects of continuity, and in essence, his argument is that myth is nothing, but a way of looking at reality. He proceeds to delineate definitive features of myths. Among them, all, but a few myths, share the idea that there are numerous gods.
Chapter 4
In this chapter, attention shifts from examining the features of myths to examining the features of the bible. In essence, Oswalt moves from the continuity worldview to give a biblical worldview, which he calls transcendence.
The main idea behind transcendence is that God exists apart from the universe and there is no continuity between the physical and spiritual planes.
According to Oswalt, transcendence manifests in everything that the bible highlights about reality and he explains the distinctive features of the Old Testament such as monotheism, iconoclasm, and the value attached to humankind coupled with the origin of acceptable ethical standards (Oswalt 2009, 64).
A key feature of the bible that emerges from the description is that apart from the bible religion, viz. Christianity, all other religions are polytheistic except Judaism and Islam whose origin is accounted for in the bible.
Thus, the key feature of the Old Testament in this respect is that Yahweh is the one and only God. This feature also applies to the rest of the bible. A different key feature of the bible is that before the universe came to be, God already existed.
Thus, God created anything that exists in the universe out of nothing, which is a distinguishing feature of the bible. Another distinguishing feature of the bible in chapter four is that humanity is held in high esteem unlike in myth where humans are lowly creatures.
This assertion by Oswalt fits in with the idea that man was created in the image of God and he was given authority over all creation. Several other features of the bible are described, but all of them point to the idea that transcendence underpins every distinguishing feature of the bible.
Chapter 5
Oswalt proceeds with his argument on why the bible is not a myth. This pursuit compels him to explore the ethical standards demanded of humanity in an attempt to show that the Ancient Near East and other secular world perceptions.
Therefore, he expounds the concept of ethics from the perspective of the Ancient Near East and other secular worldviews. Oswalt notes that these worldviews held two distinct standards of ethics. Of these two, the first standard delineates how humankind should interact with its own.
Concisely, it defines what is expected of every individual insofar as relating with one another is concerned. The other standard of non-biblical ethics explained how humankind was supposed to relate with numerous gods, which myths claim to exist.
Every god had a particular way in which humanity was supposed to approach him/her and carry out his/her instructions. This aspect sets the bible apart from myth completely because in the bible, God set a single standard of ethics for humanity.
The standards that were expected of humankind when Christianity began are the same standards expected of humanity today because the God of today is the same God that existed even before he created anything (Oswalt 2009, 85-87).
The idea of same ethical standards for all humanity leads Oswalt to compare the similarities that exist between Israelites and non-Israelites.
He outlines a number of areas, which exhibit similarities between the two groups, but he is quick to point out that such similarities are a matter of coincidence.
He does not believe that such similarities were intended to exist between the two groups. His main point as he closes the first section is that the bible’s perspective is unique and distinct from other perspectives and thus it is not a myth.
Chapter 6
The second section of the book begins with this chapter. The gist of Oswalt’s argument in this section is the historicity of the Old Testament. He is keen to note that the widely accepted historical ideology came from the bible.
In a bid to prove this argument, he begins by examining the definition of history. Though there are several definitions, he examines them and coins his own, which he believes is the best.
The theme of his definition is that for a text qualifies as history, it has to focus on human activity in “time and space, exist for the purpose of human self-knowledge, attempt to be an accurate account, and include an attempt to evaluate” (Oswalt 2009, 113).
With this definition in place, he proceeds to examine other ancient pieces of writing. His intention is to point out that the writing may be insightful in giving an idea about ancient culture and other aspects of life, but clearly, they meet the criteria for qualification as history.
The different ancient forms of writing are listed and the purpose for each of them outlined, but all of them are found to fall short of qualifying as history because they distort the true account of events or they unnecessarily focus on particular individuals at the expense of many among other reasons.
Oswalt then proceeds to point out how the bible is different from other forms of ancient writing.
He endeavors to prove that the bible fits into the definition of history he coins because the bible, unlike other forms of ancient writings, depicts humans as fallible characters who have notable flaws inherent in the human nature (Oswalt 2009, 124-127).
He uses the outstanding example of King David who is hailed as the greatest king in the bible, but he committed adultery and murder of a woman’s husband.
Chapter 7
In this section, since the author has already concluded that the bible is history, he sets out to dispel the arguments leveled against the historical nature of the bible.
He notes that some of the issues that have cast doubt on the bible’s historicity include revelations and supernatural events, which were associated with the Israelites. Oswalt proceeds to note that God was keen on ensuring that Israelites recorded true accounts of their experiences.
The main point that comes out here is that the bible points out clearly that God has made everything that is known to humans known via human-historical experience. Oswalt is keen to point out to the reader that the bible is an accurate account of the past.
The idea of accuracy and history features in his definition of history earlier in the book. According to him, accuracy is one of the key yardsticks for determining what is historical and what is not.
Thus, in the case of the bible, God preternaturally manifested his being to the Jews to make sure that whatever they chronicled was a true record of what they had seen and heard.
This aspect, according to Oswalt, qualifies the bible as historical despite the criticisms leveled against it. He is also careful not to touch on biblical passages, which would discredit his argument on the historicity of the bible.
Chapter 8
In chapter eight, Oswalt continues to argue his case about the accuracy of the bible, which makes it historical.
Therefore, chapter seven and chapter eight are somewhat like a single section for they address the problems associated with history in an effort to distance the bible from such problems and prove beyond doubt that it is indeed historical.
Like in the previous chapter, his energy is directed towards proving that the bible is a historically accurate document. With this knowledge, he urges the reader to note that the entire bible is historical because books included therein give accounts of real people and their patterns of life.
An important element of the accounts is that it does not attempt to hide their flaws, which typically picture them as ordinary humans. Oswalt goes a little bit deeper to bring out what the term history really means.
In so doing, he uses the German and Norwegian versions of the term Geschichte and Historie respectively. He shows how the translation of the term into different languages could distort the underlying meaning.
He notes that the German version refers to a narrative while the Norwegian version refers to an actual event (Oswalt 2009, 157).
In concluding this section, Oswalt notes that the bible is historical and that its historical nature cannot be isolated from theology because the essence of theology is history and to crown all these arguments, he quotes Apostle Paul who wrote that faith could not exist if people do not believe in Jesus Christ’s resurrection, which is a historical event.
Chapter 9
This section is the penultimate chapter of the book. Oswalt thus begins to lay the ground for his conclusion. He does this identifying a few scholars who have given alternative viewpoints on the bible.
Among those he identifies are “John Van Seters, Frank Moore Cross, William Dever, and Mark Smith” (Oswalt 2009, 172). What Oswalt does at this point is to debunk the viewpoints of all these scholars by identifying a key idea in their work and pointing out how it is misguided and thus false.
He begins by critiquing Van Seters’ claim that Jewish priests tampered with the bible after the Babylonian exile so that according to this scholar, the bible is not in its originally intended form (Oswalt 2009, 172).
Oswalt refutes this assertion and points out that it is false. He also refutes Cross’ claim that the bible was an epic poem before being changed to what it is today (Oswalt 2009, 175).
In the two instances, Oswalt position is that the bible has never undergone any alteration or changes save for translation into different languages.
Oswalt proceeds to debunk other viewpoints from scholars such as William Dever who firmly believes that the Judaic belief system was similar to the Canaanite belief system, yet the similarities were ignored by scholars thus pitching the Israelite belief system as unique when it actually was not.
Oswalt rejects this perspective as misguided and false, as to him, this kind of literature misleads its readers. Oswalt also rejects Mark Smith’s argument, which claims that the Israelite system of belief traces its roots to the Canaanite polytheistic belief system (Oswalt 2009, 181).
This argument undermines the accounts of the bible, which it records that only one God existed before creation and he created everything that exists in the universe. In essence, it undermines the concept of transcendence as elaborated by Oswalt in chapter four. Thus, it cannot hold as true.
Chapter 10
This chapter is the concluding section of the book whereby Oswalt sums up all his key arguments, which allows him to take a strong stand that the bible is a unique and special writing and is thus not a myth.
The major ideas he conveys are the disparity between the biblical worldview or biblical perception of reality and the secular or non-biblical perceptions of the world.
He is keen to point out that the biblical perspective finds its essence in the concept of transcendence while the non-biblical perspective has its essence in the concept of continuity.
In a bid to make his point on the superiority of the bible over Ancient Near East literature and other non-biblical writings, he points out that the Western world has embraced the worldview of continuity, hence the downturn in morality that is witnessed in its societies.
Here, he further propagates the idea that nothing good can come out of humanity if the influence of God is missing. Therefore, the bible cannot fall within the precepts of the definition of a myth.
Reference
Oswalt, John. 2009. The Bible among the myths: Unique revelation or just ancient literature? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.