Introduction Oswalt first learned about the issues in “The Bible Among the Myths” while taking a class taught by Dennis Kinlaw at Asbury Theological Seminary. His interest in the subject has grown since with graduate study and his own classes which he taught. William F. Albright, his students, and G. Ernest Wright led the rethinking of the evolutionary paradigm within the philosophy of Idealism. Although they believed the differences between the ways the Israelites thought and their neighbor’s thoughts of reality caused no evolutionary explanation to show, today it is found that Israelite faith can be explained by evolutionary change.
Scholars today say that it is no longer about the differences between the two, but more about the similarities. Oswalt believed this was due to previous theological and philosophical convictions and not a change in data. From the 1950’s on, this change became hard for people to accept because it meant that we did not have control of our lives, and could not fend for ourselves. Wright believed that the similarities between Israel and her neighbors are “accidentals”. He and others believed that while there were similarities, they were not important.
Oswalt gives the example of both groups worshiping in temples, but the Israelites not having idols in their temple. The major difference between the two is how the God or gods is identified. The surrounding areas of Israel know gods through nature, while Israel knows God through man and their experience with Him. The truthfulness of scripture is challenged today but skeptical people who present the question, “Did the things presented in the Old Testament really occur? ” If scripture is written by man, can we trust it to be true? This also raises the issue of how this theology came to be within the Israelites if it is false.
When asked this question, they say they did not make up this theology, but that it was given to them by God himself. He gave them the understanding of it. Oswalt wants to bring an understanding that just because there are things in scripture that does not make sense and cannot be explained, it does not need to automatically be denied without truly looking into the evidence surrounding it. The Bible in its World Greek philosophers in the BC felt as if we lived in a universe that contained only one unifying principle in the heavens.
Most of the world believed that there had to be more than one force at play in the universe for anything to happen. In a battle between philosophers and the world, the world won. Philosophers tried to integrate their way of thinking into the Greek culture, but it never would take hold. The Bacchae, a Greek play, is believed to be an example of the two thoughts battling against each other and one side winning. At the same time the battle for the Greeks was taking place, the Hebrews had their own problems. With the Assyrians and later the Babylonian empires coming to be, they dominated over the Israelites areas and questioned their faith.
Prophets were there to remind the Israelites the ideas about their faith. These ideas clashed with the ideas of the surrounding people groups. Even through the capture of the Israelites by both the Assyrians and the Babylonians, and the fall of Jerusalem, the Jewish faith remained. This proved the predictions the prophets made about these events. In these times, some people found it to be acceptable to live a pagan life while speaking about the biblical life. The people decided that if they wanted to avoid another punishment from God, they had to get real with their worship.
At the beginning of the Christian age, there were two world views, the biblical and Greek philosophy. When the Gospel was presented to the Greeks and Romans, these two world views combined to a Christian way. The Greeks began to show the Hebrews things in their way of thinking they otherwise overlooked. They saw that the world and God were not the same, but that God did care and deal with the needs of His world He created. Oswalt continues, saying that Logic and Science cannot stand on their own, and the attempt to let the two do so, has caused them to begin destroying themselves.
With this, we no longer can answer the important questions that ask “what” of our lives. We begin to care only about chasing after what we find pleasure or survival in. The Bible and Myth: A Problem of Definition The thought of the Bible being considered a myth has changes over the years. The though went from God and Bible not being able to be considered a myth, to mythical literature being at the center of the Israelites faith. The data has not changed, instead it is the perspective of scholars. This raises a question asked by younger scholars about accepting the Bible as truth if the history surrounding it is false.
The definition of myth has been broadened over recent years to include the Bible. Oswalt discusses how a myth cannot be whatever a person decides it can be. It also cannot not be too broad that it could really be very many different things. There are different types of definitions for the word myth. Etymological definitions concentrate on the subject at head being untrue. One of these definitions states the word myth is defined as a story about the gods that is false. Another type of definition is sociological-theological definitions.
In this definitions, the person telling the myth is only telling what is true to them. The story is not false in their mind. The truth is whatever the person thinks is true. Another type of Definition is the literary definitions. Symbolism is being used to tell the story is a major part of this definition. Oswalt uses Moby Dick as an example. The man, Ahab, and the whale are both seen as symbols of the story in this definition. The final type of definition is the phenomenological definition. In this definition, a common characteristic in the stories must be called a myth.
Another example of this definitions states that the story tries to connect the real thing or issue with the symbol. To sum up all these definitions together, they all have the idea that all things are connected. They are not merely physically or spiritually connected to something like a tree, but they are the tree. Continuity does not concentrate on the particulars. If it did, then we would not all be connected. I would not be connected to a male if my being a female were to be concentrated on. The gods are described has being everything a human is.
The Bible is all but a myth. God is not everything a human is. He does things we cannot repeat. Continuity: The Basis of Mythical Thinking The similarities between the Bible and other literature are not important, but the differences are. With continuity, the realms of humanity, deity, and nature are all connected and a part of each other. They are each equally the other in nature, but each have their own distinct role. It also means that symbol and reality are the same. Myths have two main focuses that are directly connected to the human fear of chaos.
It wants to explain why things are as they are, and keep them that way. Humans want security and the first step to getting that is explaining why something is the way it is. Humans cannot accept it if we are controlled by the gods and have no true self-control in our lives. But continuity says that as humans, we can do things in our world that will affect what the gods do in their world. The past, nor the future concerns the person making a myth. All that matters is the now. When things do not happen in the order they should, we try to explain it.
The example that Oswalt uses is about the heaven and earth have sexual relations to produce plant and animal life. The rain is the fertilizer. So when the rains do not come as they should, a ritual must be done. Also, the death and rebirth of plants is connected to the death and rebirth of the gods. If the mythmaker can find a connection and tell the connection in a way that satisfies what they want it to, that’s all that matters. Myths blur the source and manifestation on a regular basis. An example of this, would be to say that something is one thing but not one thing at the same time.
In other cultures, such as India and Egypt, the manifestation for influencing reality is much more important than the source in which it comes from. Science believes that a reality exists apart from humans, whether they like it or not. A mythmaker believes otherwise. They believe that if something exists apart from a human, it is not a reality for that person. The blurring of the source and manifestation can be seen in the story of the golden calf in Exodus. Moses worshipped God, the source who could not be seen, while the Israelites made them a manifestation of God they could see.
Gods were always shown to be natural or social forces. This is because those were forces that need to be explained. This is a direct connection to continuity. Magic is also part of continuity. It is a central concept in myths. Myths are also obsessed with fertility and potency. This can be seen in the dying and rising of gods. The connection between the dying of the fertility god or the god of vegetation and autumn helps see this. It is believed that each year this god dies and is later restored to life. If continuity is to be as it should, there cannot be any boundaries between the realms of humanity, deity, and nature.
Common features in myths include: polytheism (many gods or forces), images (idols), eternity of chaos (matter has and always will exist), personality is not essential to reality (matter is not personal), conflict is a source of life, low view of humanity (humans serve the gods), no single standard of ethics (many gods with difference standards), and cyclical concept of existence (series of cycles). Transcendence: Basis of Biblical Thinking When the concepts presented in chapter 3 are compared to the Bible, there are major differences. The Bible is monotheistic.
It believes there is only one God. Also, the Bible is iconoclasm. God is not to be personified in any form. Contrary to continuity, God is not the world and cannot be represented as anything in the world. God can be in the world at any time, but is not the world. Another characteristic that differs is that the Old Testament says, “God Created…” Nothing existed other than God in the spirit. There was no matter or chaos in the beginning. The heavens and earth were created simply because God wanted them to be, not because of chaos of matter. The Old Testament gives a high view of humanity.
Humans were made in the image of God. We are given freedom to make our own choices in life. God is also reliable and consistent. He is not a God who says he will do something and then does not do it. He will always do what He promises to do. He blesses people even when it does not benefit him. Another difference between the Bible and other myths is that God does not have a partner who He had sex with to have children of any kind. When the spirit came upon Mary and she became pregnant, her baby was not a semi divine child of God. Instead, He was God in human flesh.
Also, anything we do does not affect God, who He is, or what happens to him. The Bible forbids ritual prostitution, incest, homosexual practice, bestiality, and prostitution in any way. God sets boundaries for humans and prohibits magic of any kind. Instead of doing some kind of magic spell to get their needs met by God, they must rely on faith and trust that God will give them what they need. Instead of connecting to God in magical ways, the Israelites must connect with Him through ethical obedience. This would be seen in how parents, neighbors, children, and strangers are treated.
They are asked to live what they say they believe. God created the heavens and earth on purpose. He is discovered in the ethical obedience and unique decisions humans display in history. The things we humans do cannot manipulate God or anything He does. God is not said to be anything other than one being. Scripture says He is the one true God. He is not many. The Bible Versus Myth When looking at the ethics of nonbiblical ancient Near East, there are two types of offences. First, there are offences to the gods by violated a magical taboo or something of the sort.
Second, there are offences against other humans by breaking of the laws or certain customs among humans. God uses a political treaty type agreement with people in the Old Testament. He says what He will do and what He expects his people to do. The people’s behavior is shown as either obedience or disobedience to God. God implies many things using his covenant with Israel. First, how people treat other people means more to God than ceremonial cleanness. Second, there is a single standard used to judge everything else. Third, there is a visible connection of cause and effect.
Forth, there is the freedom humans have to make choices. There are similarities between the Hebrews and their neighbor’s practices. Both the Hebrews and Mesopotamians have law codes. The Hebrews made sacrifices and show did people around them. Temples are designed alike. Although there are similarities, they do not play a role in defining the Hebrew faith. The differences are the main focus defining the Hebrew faith. The Bible does not discard the thought world of myth, because it actually mentions by name some of the myths in literature. One example of this is the chaos monster, also called Rahab, mentioned in scripture.
Oswalt argues that if everyone, including Israel, began with a worldview of continuity, then people other than just the Israelites would have chosen to break away as well, but Israel was the only one. Something kept the Israelites from either sticking with the worldview of continuity or kept them from joining in. The Israelites had their way of thinking long before their exile, so it could not be used to explain how the Israelites came to think this way. If it was not the exile, then the Bible would have to either be written after the event or rewritten to include their way of thinking.
Genesis shows very little support or evidence of the Old Testament being myth at one time. Psalm 29 is thought to be the Canaanite Psalm. The verse compares God to a storm, and also the Baal, a Canaanite. The psalmist never says that God is the storm which be true in continuity and not in transcendence. The Bible and History: A Problem of Definition The Old Testament shows God working outside the realm of time and space. Oswalt argues that history is a mixture of both Greek and Biblical thought. History can be defined in several ways. It can be a something that happened to someone in specific time or place.
It can be a branch of knowledge. R. G Collingsworth defines history as a science that helps to discover what people did in the past and to understand their drive of human knowledge. Certain things need to be remembered while writing about history. First, humans are free to make their own decisions, and are responsible for those decisions. Next, the cause and effects of a time and space are connected and can be traced. Third, a writer depicting false data or creating a false conclusion is hurtful and worthless to understanding. Fourth, human experience must be believed to be goal-oriented.
Fifth, relationships between people, objects, ideas, and more are significant. Sixth, there is a standard used to judge the behavior of things. Until recently, history writing was primarily a modern Western occurrence. Ancients were possibly more interested in human improvement more than self-knowledge. The history and information in the in the ancient Near Eastern writings can be one of six categories. First, omens use what happened in history to explain nonhistorical things. An omen or sign can be from sacrificing an animal, watching the stars, weather conditions, and dreams.
For example, a king’s reign will end soon because the teeth of a sacrificed animal stick out. The second is a kings list, which lists out the name and time of reign for each king. Although these lists have good information about things, this fails to evaluate historical fact of the situation. Third, we have data formulae. In a data formulae, a title, usually from significant accomplishment for the year, is given to each year of the king’s reign. Epic is the fourth category. They are usually a narrative of specific events in a hero’s life. These epics are not known to be definite to be historical in nature, but it is a possibility.
Fifth, royal annals or records record specific details about certain event during a king’s reign. The records do not contain defeats or failures of a king, because it is to bring glory to the king. The final genre is the chronicle. Although it is much like the annals, chronicles contain defeats and victories. This too is a collection of historical data, but is not considered data. The reason there is no historical writings in the ancient Near East is possible because of their focus on continuity or the now of things. Now is all that matters because of the cycle of existence. Also, subjective orientation plays a roll.
Since reality is about me, the outside prospective present in history cannot happen. Multiplicity of causes is also a reason. These thought of something in the past explaining why something happened in the future is considered foolishness. Determinism or the illusion of having choices in life is another cause. If our choices are actually decided by outer forces, then there is no reason to worry about what happened in the past. Lastly, preoccupation of order and security is shown in continuity. All is dependent on the success of a continual order. In the Bible, humans are seen at individuals.
The truth is found when an individual transcends the norms. Scripture also depicts the failures and victories of the individual, but do not bring glory to the individual. Instead, their failures and victories bring glory to God. Showing the significance of the relationship of things and people, is also done in scripture. Human choices are depicted throughout scripture. The person either follows God’s will, or does not. The result of their obedience or disobedience is a direct connection to their choice. The comparison of one generation to the next is seen in the Bible as well.
Instead of just concentrating on the now and what is happening in a certain person’s life, that life is compared to past generations. Our connection to the divine realm is an intrapersonal and rational one. This can only be explained through transcendence. One suggestion of transcendence is being able to view certain events from an outer view by looking in other parts of scripture. Also, God cannot be manipulated or fooled into doing what a person wants Him to do. In the writing of history, even if someone depicts that something happened a certain way, God knows what truly happens because he lives outside of time and space.
Transcendence also brings understanding of causation. Everything is either a result of obedience or disobedience of God and His will. God chose to enter into our lives through speech as a way to accomplish His purpose in our lives. Any other means would have violated the all that was stated before that makes the Bible unique. Is the Bible Truly Historical? The Problem of History (I) It has become normal to for people say the Bible is “history-like”. The question being answered in this chapter is if the Bible can fairly be called history.
Fifty years ago, the Bible was not greatly objected to being history. Scholars say this is because God was the Lord of history. Although the events and facts in the Bible are interpretations of humans, God’s fingerprints or characteristics can be seen. James Barr disagreed with this thought. If there is no split or distinction, the acts of God disappear. If the access to the acts of God is through human witness, then the facts cannot be trusted. Barr believed that the Bible was a religious theory for the Hebrew faith. Oswalt counters Barr’s remarks by saying that he interpretations by people of God intervening in Israel’s life and showing himself to them are just as much revelation as the event itself. Bertil Albrektson wondered if the thought that God was discovered by his interactions with human history was even very unique. Scripture is not the only place where gods intervene in history. The Bible does not claim to be unique, but it is unique in how he reveals his purpose for life using both friends and enemies. This cannot be found in any other people group beliefs. The Israelites put together ideas that led them to a different conclusion than any other group.
R. G. Collingworth decided that the Bible did not have any historical writing, but when he created a list of what he believed had to be contained to create historical writing, they all appeared in the New Testament. He does not see that there are just as many concepts in the Old Testament. The first thing needed is the concept of sin causing non-achievement of goals. This sets the standard to decide what is right and wrong. Second, the denial of eternal entities. This means the denial that there are other forces, good and bad, controlling life instead of human choices.
Next we have disinterested providence, or not having favorites. There must be standards for the hero that he can fail at. Fourth, we come to the overworking of divine purposes in history. This means that someone can see that there is more to the stories and history of the scripture than might be mentioned. The fifth concept needed for historical writing is an apocalypse. This means that time is moving toward a definite ending. Collingworth adds periods as the sixth concept. This concept is connected directly to the thought of the apocalypse. The concept includes stages that lead to that definite end.
The seventh and final concept is universalism, which shows that everything that happens in our world can be explained by a set of standards given to the world. God reveals Himself in history so He may be known to us. If God revealed himself in the large everyday events, then the things would not need to be carefully recorded as they are. As it is though, He is revealed in the most unique of ways. There are many similarities between the Israelites and their neighbor’s opinion of human experience. When each group incorporates these views, differences are revealed.
Biblical writers believe that God is found in the Human experiences. God came to us because we could not leave and go to him. He chose to give us the events and reality to show who He is. The Israelites did not come to the conclusion they did because they are geniuses. The Sumerians and Egyptians had the upper hand on that concept. They instead came to the conclusion they did because they began somewhere different than everyone else. The Israelites ran from God and tried to get away from Him, but God kept showing them who He was through spiritual revelation.
The Bible was written with great care by the scribes. They took extra care to ensure they wrote exactly what God wanted them to write. While people see different details about each event, they main details are always the same. Two people can read something and imagine it looking differently, but the important details are recorded in scripture. To say that the events in the Bible did not happen or that our faith lies in the fact that they happened exactly as explained, would be too extreme. Does it Matter Whether the Bible is Historical? The Problem of History (2)
James Barr remarked that if our faith is too closely connected to the historical facts of the Bible, that the facts are likely to disappear in our view altogether. To defend this remark, Oswalt says that the Bible will not let us split faith and facts. The Bible is an interpretation of historical happenings. The books of the Bible are grouped in a way that shows that the Israelites believed that history is not able to truly be understood without what the prophets say. The scripture claim for belief is to say that people should believe it because the event in the scripture truly did happen.
A person who chooses to exist makes history a part of their consciousness rather than the deciding factor of their experiences. History in the Bible is a testimonial of our faith. Some scholars believe that the miracles that happened in the Bible did not truly happen, or if they did happen, they Bible does not mean what we believe it means. The Bible cannot be passed up, because it is so different from any other book. Critics say the Bible is false, yet it speaks with great authority to us. Historie is defined as the event while geschichte is defined as the narrative in the scriptures.
Rudolf Bultmann sought to answer the question of how to maintain the validity of scripture. A person can trap the Divine in the historie. This would fail to show that people are responsible for their own choices. A historic account of Jesus would show that he was free and responsible for obedience to God and the he accepted that responsibility. Historically, it is shown that anyone who follows Jesus choose to no longer be trapped by sin and to beat death through Jesus. Historie has become the center of misconception of the difference between subject and object. This makes God a thing to be manipulated.
God is not the object, but instead the subject. Bultmann’s theory removes God from reality and causes the question of if God exists to appear. This causes us to forget the subject-object distinction and define reality by our own thinking. This led to the “God is Dead” movement in the 1970s. Bultmann is also mistaken in is thought of history. Bultmann believes that the now is all that matters. The choices made will not have any bearing on the future and the choices of the past do not have any bearing on the now. He fails to truly keep the validity of the Bible while separating the two.
With Bultmann’s thoughts, God was only discovered in our inner-personal encounters. Process thought states that God is available to us at all levels of our life. In this thought, God becomes greater when we choose to do the right thing, and diminished when we choose to be selfish. Also, evil becomes a negative force against of love. Process thinking has it issues. It identifies God as with the world, but God is not the world. God is also thought of as a force. This force has two sides: life-affirming, and destruction. In this thought we are not made in the image of God, but instead we are the image of God.
Process thought is false hope. It looks to connect with biblical thought more closely but fails to truly do the job. We cannot save the theology of the Bible and deny the historical witness to the experiences. Origins of the Biblical Worldview: Alternatives Through all the changes of Old Testament Studies, it can still be concluded that biblical ideas developed from Near Eastern thoughts. This means they are much the same except for superficial differences. If we automatically rule out that the accounts in scripture are not true then we end the discussion.
In this chapter, Oswalt reviews 4 scholar’s arguments about this topic: John Van Seters, Frank Cross, William Dever, and Mark Smith. Several documents that laid behind the Pentateuch proposed by Wellhausen ruled supreme. Van Seters suggested that one of these document, JE, was actually an historical novel created by an anonymous person. Another scholar went even further to say it was all written by a single person who drew inspiration from Israelite folklores. He dates materials by the latest reference made in the documents, but they could have been written earlier then later edited.
Frank Cross argued style of the Pentateuch is a result of the editing the document to a prose form. He uses both Russian and Spanish examples to show that they even went in the direction of prose. It is believed that through the editing of these items, the editors preserved the old epic roots. Unfortunately, this theory does not pan out because there is no evidence of this being done in Israelite’s own time. William Dever is an archaeologist, concentrating on recovering artifacts from biblical times. Extremists called nihilists by Dever argue that Israel depicted in the Bible never existed.
Dever argues otherwise that there is a sufficient amount of archaeological evidence confirming its existence. He also argues that there is not enough archaeology evidence to say there was an exodus. According to Dever, there is clear evidence in the Bible that is ignored showing that Israelite religion was indistinguishable from the ordinary Canaanite religion. Mark Smith argues that the Israelite faith originated from Canaanite polytheism. He digs very deep in an attempt to find evidence in scripture to support his argument. Oswalt states that with each of his arguments, there is another explanation.
Smith also suggests that Yahweh is seen as the head and center of a family. He is also defined as being a king. He is seen as the one king. He argues that the deity the Israelites worship could have evolved from the Ugarit religion. Conclusions The Bibles view (transcendence) differs greatly from that of the other worldviews (continuity). There is such a significant difference between the two that there are only three religions today that believe in it and receive their convictions from one source, the Bible: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
There are several arguments for why people believed in mythical thinking. It is argued today that people have a simple way of thinking and do not think scientifically because it is beyond their mind’s capacity. It is thought that societies in the past personified the forces of nature because they didn’t know any better. Another possible reason is that they chose to think in this way. Auguste Comte had a philosophy called positivism and argued for materialistic understanding of reality. He believed that there was no spiritual world and that people found happiness from materialistic things.
Mircea Eliade argued that historiography was a form of myth and if you told the gospel, you would be participating in the myth. Oswalt argues that if historiography is a form of myth, then myth making is a form of history writing. He also argues that in order to communicate with each other, there has to be a way to distinguish between things and if everything is the same with in the thought of continuity, this is not possible. Joseph Campbell argues that all the symbols in the world are indistinguishable from the realities of the world.
In the end, transcendence is too hard and painful because it means humans have to give up control of the universe. We have to give up trust, faith, and obey the one power controlling it all. Many outcomes become clear after the research in this book. Oswalt believes ethics will become meaningless, truth will be replaced with power, right and wrong will cease to be useful terms, black magic will be used to get what a person wants, attempt to control sexual freedom will be seen as hate-mongering, and the list goes on.
