Introduction
The
introduction begins with the author’s background with the area of Old Testament
criticism. Following this, the author discusses into the changes that have
occurred within this specific area of study. At the end, Oswalt explains his
proposal of study- the evidence that supports the Biblical claims be honestly
evaluated and that presuppositionally biased arguments against the Bible not be
given a serious review in the discussion.
Against
the backdrop of the author’s education at Asbury Theological Seminary and
graduate studies at Brandeis University, the author discusses the nearly
complete change of course that has occurred in the discussion on the literature
of the Ancient Near East. Some of the main reasons for this change were the two
world wars and the economic depression in America. The leader of this change,
according to Oswalt, was William Albright and his protege G. Ernest Wright to
name a few. Their argument, against the previous century’s higher criticism
model, was that Israel’s way of thought was so different from that of her
neighbors that there was no way Israel could have copied any portion and
amended it to their way of thought and life.
This
idea was short-lived, due to some new insights that came out in the 1960s and
1970s in America. While the archaeological data did not change, the ideas and
preconceptions did revolutionarily change. Following Karl Barth’s model,
revelation was downplayed as a reason for the unmistakable differences.
Following this denial of revelation, many began to see similarities instead of
differences as the key connection between Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern belief.
It is this point that Oswalt’s book seeks to discuss. Should revelation be
discounted as a reason for the differences and the similarities take
precedence, or should revelation be the primary reason for the differences, and
the similarities be treated as coincidental or polemic borrowing.
Chapter 1
Chapter
1 discusses the Bible in its world as it came to be. Greek mode of thought is
mentioned first, beginning with the philosophers’ radically different
understanding of their world as “a ‘universe’ and not a ‘polyverse’.”[1] A key
difference that Greek philosophers introduced was that causes and effects could
be understood through rational thinking and application. In the end, culture
prevailed against the philosophical idea and it drifted back towards a
polyverse with all the myths and pantheon of gods.
Much
like the Greek philosophers, Israelite ideology was unique in relation to the
surrounding cultures. This dogma came out of an era of crises, namely the Babylonian
and Assyrian conquests. Monotheistically based, Israelite theology placed a
high emphasis on the creation of man, which came from a set of books considered
authoritative and divinely inspired. Because of this inspiration, the survival
of Judaism was internally guaranteed.
A
distinctively unique religion came on the scene that blended these two
ideologies together- Christianity. Jesus’ unique teachings allowed the universe
in Greek thought to be understood in the light of Israelite theology, thus
allowing the Hebrew to understand the logical inferences of their monotheistic
religion.
Science
and logic could not stand together as once thought a hundred years ago. The
unique Christian thought of a transcendent, personal Creator allowed science
and logic to develop and grow in substantial leaps and bounds. However, this
logic as tried to break away from its religious underpinnings and stand on its
own once again through the Enlightenment. This drives the goal of the book- the
Old Testament is uniquely exclusivist and is truly divinely inspired.
Chapter 2
Oswalt
starts off by asking whether or not the Bible has a unique outlook on life and
reality. For many years, scholars argued that the Bible could not be considered
myth or a product thereof. Today, this is not the case. Several scholars argue
that the Bible is either complete myth, or the product of a local religious
cult that was reworked. For some years, scholars like Barth tried to blend the
two together; however, this process could not logically stand. According to
Oswalt, the change from unique revelation to borrowed myth came not from data
or archaeology, but from assumptions and preconceptions.
The
question is then asked: is it appropriate to classify the Bible as myth? After
surveying several definitions, as well as discussing the problem of defining
myth in its historical-philosophical and sociological-theological application,
Oswalt identifies a few key themes within myth. First and foremost is the
central continuity relationship within myth. The being and nature are within
each other, and the universe is within both as they are in the universe. While
common myth is seen through symbols, images, and a specific set of beliefs, its
most notable characterization is its approach to the world through continuity.
The problem with
continuity is the story and its relationship to the present. “Thus, when the
mythical story of creation is reenacted on the first day of the new annual
cycle, the triumph of order over disorder that is continually occurring in the
invisible world of the gods is actualized for this new year.”[2]
Oswalt follows Childs in explaining that myth, whether written or spoken,
expresses and actualizes the continuity between humanity, nature, and divinity
through an orderly function. Because of this understanding, the Bible then
cannot be myth because it has a completely different understanding of reality
and divinity.
Chapter 3
Oswalt
concluded last chapter by demonstrating that the Bible is not myth, and
therefore any similarity is superficial at best, ultimately agreeing with a
phenomenological understanding of myth because that definition studies myth
through its distinctive characteristics, not mere evaluation. This chapter
discusses the thought realm that brings myth about, whether written or oral.
This thought realm begins with continuity, which carries a number of
implications, which should lead believers to take a stand against identifying
the Bible as myth.
The
key behind continuity is two-fold: first, it tries to explain why things are
the way they are now; and second, maintaining the present state of affairs.
This springs from the human concept of chaos. Chaos is that which destroys
human security, one of the greatest needs that humans cannot control in a
continuity cycle. Because the human in myth only sees the outcome, the human
then realizes the action of the divine behind the outcome. Based on this
outcome drives the human to either continue to act a certain way, or to change
a certain behavior all together, thus keeping the cycle of continuity spinning.
Within
this myth contains some common qualities. Oswalt lists several such
commonalities: (1) polytheism, (2) images, (3) eternity of chaotic matter which
precedes the pantheon of gods, (4) matter is always animate, but not always
personal, (5) low view of the gods due to human actions and qualities, (6)
conflict between chaos and good is the source of life, (7) low view of
humanity, (8) no single standard of ethics due to the polytheistic theogony,
(9) cyclical concept of existence without progression, (10) obsession with
fertility and magic, and (11) a blurring of boundaries, source, and
manifestation. This is why the worldview of myth looks to the past only to see
the consistencies and try to repeat them in the future in the hopes of
receiving the same goodness that occurred during some previous season or era.
Chapter 4
Based
on the previous two chapters, Oswalt determines that the Bible is uniquely
different, and therefore not a myth. Oswalt’s source at this juncture is the
Old Testament as it currently stands in light of Ancient Near Eastern sources.
From Genesis to Malachi, several things stand out; Oswalt begins by pointing
out the self-consistent nature regarding the origin of reality.
This origin leads
to eleven facts Oswalt identifies within the Old Testament. (1) The Bible is
monotheistic, (2) iconoclastic theology, (3) the first principle is Spirit not
matter, (4) there is absence of conflict in the Creation process, (5) a high
view of humanity in creation, (6) God is reliable because He is not human-like,
(7) God is supra-sexual and sex is honored not debased, (8) sex is desacralized
because God is not motivated by sex, (9) prohibition of magic, (10) ethical
obedience as a religious response because God is holy, and (11) the importance
of human-historical activity. God is known through the human-historical world
of ethics, not through a polytheistic grappling with Chaos and other divine
entities.
The underlying
principle in all of these commonalities is transcendence. God is transcendent
in relation to the universe, not in continuity with the universe. This is why
the Israelites cannot be idolatrous, nor can they be polytheistic. Yet, Israel
failed at maintaining a truly transcendent understanding of God. The key is
that while the Bible points out the failures within Israel, it maintains a
complete opposition to the world around it. Some see a holistic cleansing of Israelite
religion after the return of the Babylonian exiles, but Oswalt states that that
view asks too much of the text because the text is completely lacking any
element of commonality with myth in any regard. Thus, the Bible cannot be
regarded as myth by internal analysis.
Chapter 5
The author’s goal
in this chapter is to demonstrate that similarity does not mean unity between
Israelite thought and the surrounding cultures, but rather Israelite thought
borrowed some terms to express an idea or teaching more clearly. The four areas
Oswalt compares and contrasts are: ethics, cultural practices, verbal and
written expression, and thought patterns.
Ethical decisions
in the Ancient Near East were based on two presuppositional understandings,
offenses against a god and offenses against another human. While offenses
against a god may seem similar, the key difference is that actions were not
always the result of the god being offended. Humans in the Bible offend God
because they have broken God’s covenant. Offenses against humans follow a code
of laws that were handed down to a specific human from a god; however, the
treatment of one human to another does not conclude in cosmic substance. In a
pantheon-based religion, there is no one set of laws, there are several due to
the fact that each god may have their own form of judiciary polity. In the
monotheistic Bible, human interaction is judged by one set of laws and their
actions do play an important part in how God transcends within society.
The key that
distinguishes the Hebrew cultural and religious practices from outside
religious influences “is the way in which the Israelites utilize these features
in a belief system that is radically different from anything around them.”[3]
Hebrew religious and cultural practice is based solely on a unique system of
ethical absolutes found nowhere else in the Ancient Near East. The same is said
for expression. While similarities occur, the striking difference is how they
are used. The Biblical authors merely used similar language to express a
radically different thought pattern and religious practice.
Chapter 6
Oswalt
now shifts from examining the Bible as separate from myth to properly defining
the term history in relationship to
the Old Testament. Following Collingwood’s definition, history is studied and
written for human self-comprehension. Furthermore, history writing by that
definition was primarily conducted in Western circles. Ancient Near Eastern
historical writings did not revolve around this self-comprehension, but rather
focused on a specific singular purpose.
There
are several reasons as to why the Ancient Near East did not record history
within this understanding. Central to the following list is the idea of
continuity expressed earlier. The writings did not focus on the now because of
the cyclical process of continuity. With continuity, there is no outward force
that creates a subjective orientation, which leaves the individual focused on
maintaining the cycle rather than discovery. The continuity cycle has a nearly
infinite multiplicity of causes, which leaves the human incapable of
understanding the events around him or her. This means that there are no real
choices, just illusions. Every choice is made not based on action, but on the
cycle that occurs. This is found in the Ancient Near Eastern preoccupation of
protection and repetitive cosmic order.
Contrary
to the Ancient Near Eastern writings, the Bible contains a matchless treatment
of the human-historical involvement. First and foremost, humans are treated as
actual finite beings that both succeed and fail in everyday life. Furthermore,
the Bible places significance on the choices and relationships that humans
make, while maintaining a sense of overall neutrality. Because of these literary
themes, relationships and choices are followed through from one point to
another because transcendence explains causation. This process allows God to
tell factual history to Israel through the prophets for Israel’s benefit.
Chapter 7
In
response to modern criticism that anything written that includes a divine
origin or action is not history, Oswalt argues that the Bible can be
historically accurate in its content including those miraculous events
recorded. Oswalt’s basis is that recorded event and understanding cannot be
separated from one another. Furthermore, Israel is not unique in ascribing
historical action to deity, but what is unique is how Israel comprehends the
idea of God’s interaction. For example, the Bible does not change from one
creator god to another; it maintains that there is only one Creator.
There
are five areas that are listed that separate the Bible from other Ancient Near
Eastern texts. First, the Old Testament is theological and edifying; whereas,
in other cultures, the writing was propagandistic. Second, the whole of
Israelite theology is found written within one canon of Scritpure containing a
singular purpose; nothing comparable exists in the surrounding cultures. Third,
because of transcendence, the Bible contains divine intervention in order to
achieve a premeditated goal; in the surrounding cultures, there is no plan
because of continuity. Fourth, human-historical experience is defined through
covenant and election. Fifth, many Ancient Near Eastern texts contain omens in
order to maintain a cyclical existence; however, the Bible contains no such
writing.
The issue then is
where did Israel gain this unique understanding of transcendence instead of the
norm of continuity. Oswalt explains that the only way this could have come
about was through divine revelation and not mere genius or scholarly rewriting.
This transcendent action of God in presenting His covenant is why Israel
recorded the continuous cycle of failures found within the Old Testament.
Furthermore, because of the actions of God within Israel, the accuracy of what
was written was paramount.
Chapter 8
While the last
chapter discussed the suggestion that history writing can include divine
revelation, this chapter discusses that historicity is vitally important to
Hebrew ideology. Oswalt denies the separation of Geschichte and Historie
because everything recorded comes from the understanding that it actually
occurred. Oswalt presents and critiques two older approaches that try to
comprehend the relationship between historicity and biblical faith, ultimately
denying both approaches.
The first approach
is Bultmann’s existential philosophy. Within this existential movement, the
idea that action in the present may have no bearing on the past, nor bearing on
the future, makes history a matter of personal conscience rather than the formative factor in one’s life. Here Bultmann
separates Geschichte and Historie because at the fundamental
level humans are responsible for what occurs, not God. Ultimately, this
approach removes the necessity of historical validity within the Biblical text.
Bultmann fails to explain the relationship between a transcendent God recorded
in the Bible with the biblical understanding of actuality.
The second
approach is known as process thought. Process thought sees God as the
foundation of the beginning, the essence behind present occurrences, and the
end goal of everything. Whereas Bultmann removes God, within this view, God is
seen as the process that occurs. He is not transcendent, merely continuous in history.
Ultimately, history explains God and not God Himself.
Ultimately, Oswalt
sees both of these approaches as limiting God. The historical accuracy of the
Bible exists because God transcended into this realm, by creating it, in order
to have a direct impact in the human-historical narrative. If this is not the
case, then the completely unique understanding of Israelite theology is founded
upon a falsity.
Chapter 9
Oswalt asks that
the reader not come to this section with the presupposition that divine revelation
is impossibility; to do so would render the chapter, and the book as a whole,
as meaningless and furthermore disqualifies the Bible itself due to its
internal claims. Now, Oswalt examines and critiques four newer schools of
thought pertaining to the historicity and theological veracity of the Old
Testament. The four scholars are John Van Seters, Frank Cross, William Dever,
and Mark Smith.
Following the JEDP
document hypothesis of Wellhausen, Van Seters sees a writer creating a work of
historical fiction that is now understood as the Old Testament, denying the
exclusivity it demands. Cross, seeking a similar literary origin, argues that
sections of the historical books as well as the Pentateuch are part of an
earlier epic created during one of Israel’s past kingships as early as David or
Solomon.
Dever shifts away
from a literary origin and purports that an elitist group of returning refugees
rewrote the Old Testament in order to influence their fellow refugees and
survivors. Prior to the captivity period, Dever argues that Israel mainly
followed Canaanite religion worshipping El. Smith similarly argues for a
borrowing of Canaanite religion. Many of the changes in the religion occurred
due to circumstances and political pressures both within and outside of Israel.
Smith argues that Yahweh was originally a family cult that transitioned into a
state religion due to the fall of the Northern Kingdom.
The goal of this
chapter was to present four newer approaches that have been used to explain the
origins of Israelite religion and identity while denying God’s hand. Here,
Oswalt points out that all four have failed to stand up to careful analysis.
Oswalt concludes that the Bible alone explains the origin of Israel in its
proper human-historical narration.
Conclusion
Oswalt
restates that his goal was to present the idea that the Bible is unique against
the background of Ancient Near Eastern texts. Central to this variance is the
understanding of transcendence verses continuity. The Bible is neither
mythical, nor fictitious. While many authors have sought out reasons for
denying the theological aspect of the Old Testament, Oswalt remains firmly
grounded on the foundation that God did in fact, through prophets and
historical events, intervene in order to impact humanity.
While many argue
that continuity merely belongs to primitive cultures, several modern writers
and philosophers follow similar patterns. Because of this, Oswalt argues that
Israel could not have begun with a religion of continuity such as Baal worship
and then transform it into a transcendent monotheistic worship that is found
today. The issue is that transcendence removes control from man and the
universe and places it outside of all that is finite. Transcendence and
continuity cannot exist together.
If that is the
case, why are there similarities between Israel and the Ancient Near East? Some
similarities between Israel and the surrounding cultures exist because Israel
was involved in international relations; however, similarity does not express
unity in thought or function. This is what separates the Bible. So, how does
one account for the uniqueness of the Bible and its exclusive understanding of
reality? Either the Bible is the product of a genius Hebrew writer, or group,
or the Bible is uniquely and divinely inspired. If one denies the supernatural,
than one cannot account for the worldview found within the Old Testament. If
one accepts the supernatural revelation and historicity of the Old Testament,
“the question of what God’s will is and how he has chosen to reveal it becomes
one of absolutely ultimate significance.”[4]
No comments:
Post a Comment