The Bible among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature?

by John N. Oswalt

Sixty years ago, most biblical scholars maintained that Israel's religion was unique---that it stood in marked contrast to the faiths of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. Nowadays, it is widely argued that Israel's religion mirrors that of other West Semitic societies. What accounts for this radical change, and what are its implications for our understanding of the Old Testament? Dr. John N. Oswalt says the root of this new attitude lies in Western society's hostility to the idea of revelation, which presupposes a reality that transcends the world of the senses, asserting the existence of a realm humans cannot control. While not advocating a 'the Bible says it, and I believe it, and that settles it' point of view, Oswalt asserts convincingly that while other ancient literatures all see reality in essentially the same terms, the Bible differs radically on all the main points. The Bible Among the Myths supplies a necessary corrective to those who reject the Old Testament's testimony about a transcendent God who breaks into time and space and reveals himself in and through human activity.

Genres: Christian, Old Testament, Religion, Theology, History, Nonfiction, Biblical Studies

208 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2009

Reviews

[BJ Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this book, Oswalt seeks to prove that the Bible is unique from other religious texts and beliefs, particularly those of the ancient near east that would have been Israel's contemporary neighbors during the formation of scripture. While Oswalt agrees that there are similarities between Israel and its neighbors, Oswalt contends that these similarities are peripheral and that the essences are vastly different.

Oswalt's second premise is that the unique differences of the Bible could only have come about through divine intervention. Although I agree with both his premises, I believe he did an excellent job proving the first and a horrible job showing the second. I am very disappointed with how little time was spent dealing with the contemporary alternative theories of how Israel's religion evolved. You would think this would be a core issue and of primary concern for a book like this and worth more than a small portion of one chapter. In all, the book is worth reading but I would prefer to get my hands on a more thorough discussion of the topic.

[Chad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Helpfully disproves the assertion that the Bible is just another ancient myth (or collection of ancient myths), written by an expert in ancient Near Eastern mythology.

Oswalt explains that the primary difference between myth and the Bible is that the underlying principle of myth is continuity (the idea that the universe and the divine are indistinguishable), but the underlying principle of the Bible is that God is radically other than His creation (the universe). He also shows that in myth, the universe is purposeless and there are no overarching principles of behavior (ethics), so there can be no punishment for certain behaviors, but the Bible shows how ethics are grounded in God's character and commands.

Oswalt explains that though the Bible contains some mythological language, it uses that language in a self-aware way, for historical and literary purposes.

Notes
Note: ANE = ancient Near East

The Bible and Myth: A Problem of Definition

The Bible has a completely different understanding of existence and of the relations among the realms. … Its telling does not actualize continuous divine reality out of the real invisible world into this visible reflection of that reality. Rather, it is a rehearsal of the nonrepeatable acts of God in identifiable time and space in in concert with human beings.

Continuity: The Basis of Mythical Thinking
The defining characteristic of myth is continuity; the idea that all things are physically and spiritually part of each other, that there are no fundamental distinctions between the 3 realms: humanity, nature, divine. It's pantheism or pan-en-theism.

The only way to explain the particular characteristics of the visible world is to suppose that there is an invisible world of ultimate reality and that it takes the same shape as the visible one. The mythmaker reasons from the given to the divine. … If this world and the other world are continuous, then we can affect that other world by what we do here.

Common features of myths
• Polytheism
• Gods represented by images
• Eternity of chaotic matter
• Personality not essential to reality
• Low view of gods (untrustworthy, limited, not absolute, etc.)
• Conflict between forces of construction and chaos is source of life
• Low view of humanity
• No single standard of ethics
• Cyclical concept of existence

According to myth, "humans may discover ultimate reality by extrapolating from their own experience upon the assumption that their experience is identical with that reality."

Transcendence: Basis of Biblical Thinking
Worldview presented in Bible differs diametrically from mythological worldview.

Common characteristics of biblical thought
• Monotheism (different from all Israel's neighbors)
• Iconoclasm (belief that God may not be represented in any created form)
• Spirit, not matter, is basis of everything
• Absence of conflict in creation process (and understanding of creation being separate from Creator)
• High view of humanity (as image of God)
• Reliability of God
• God is supra-sexual (doesn't function in sexual ways)
• Sex is desacralized (human sex doesn't cause God or nature to do things)
• Prohibition of magic
• Ethical obedience as religious response (relating to God through obedience rather than sacrifice, rituals, etc.)
• Importance of human-historical activity (value of studying relations of humans to God)

Transcendance is underlying principle of biblical understanding of reality; that God is radically other than His creation. Continuity is underlying principle of myth; that god and cosmos are indistinguishable.

The Bible versus Myth
In mythical worldview, universe is purposeless and there are no overarching principles of behavior (ethics), so there can be no punishment for certain behaviors.

Biblical idea of God creating a covenant with His people, committing Himself to them, is foreign to mythical thinking.

We should not be at all surprised if the Israelite culture shows similarities with those around it. It would be much more shocking if there were no such similarities. The insistence that something must be absolutely different before we will admit a fundamental difference is unrealistic.

Although Israel had covenant and law code similar to other nations, they had the law code inside a covenant with a transcendent God, which was unique.

Though Bible uses language of myth (Job 41:1-11; Ps 74:12-17; Isa 51:9-10; Hab 3:8-11), it's "a self-conscious appropriation of the language of myth for historical and literary purposes, not mythical ones."

It's remarkable that Bible contains so few references to specific myths, since Israel was completely surrounded by mythical thinking. Also, they appear late in Israel's history, not early, where you'd expect them.

There's no evidence that Israel rewrote the OT after the return from exile, or after exodus, or after any other event.

Genesis doesn't contain key elements of myth (multiple gods, continual creation on primeval plane, conflict between good and evil or order and chaos, sexuality, low view of humanity, etc.).

Hebrews may have held the common ancient idea that the sky is a hard surface that sometimes opens to let water fall on the earth, but that view is different from the mythical view that the sky is the body of a dead chaos monster, and the lights in it are the gods.

Myth is more than fantasy; myth reflects a way of thinking about the world (the mythic worldview).

Though Bible uses language, concepts, practices of world around Hebrews, it does so allusively, illustratively, and sometimes pejoratively to say something radically different from surrounding world.

Is the Bible Truly Historical? The Problem of History (1)

That [history] was the only place [God] acted that had significance for human beings, that those actions were according to a consistent, long-term purpose, that he was using the details of human-historical behavior to reveal that purpose, and that he was just as capable of using enemies as he was friends to accomplish his good purposes—that, I maintain, is not found anywhere else in the world, ancient or modern, outside of the Bible and its direct derivatives.

Differences between Bible and other cultures in approach to history
• Bible's treatment of past is theological and didactic; ANE's is propagandistic.
• Biblical material is in single corpus with unified purpose; ANE has nothing similar.
• In Bible, divine intervention is toward established, consistent goal; in ANE, there's no overall plan.
• In Bible, concepts of election and covenant provide framework for understanding human-historical experience.
• Prevalence of omen texts in ANE shows belief that existence if cyclical; Bible doesn't present this.

In Christ it is made plain what the Old Testament had been saying all along: since we humans are incapable of going out of the world to find God, God has come to us … It was the logical continuation of what had been taking place since the beginning of the human race.

Hebrews came to radically different conclusions about nature of reality and human experience because of direct revelation from transcendent God.

It is not the Bible's intent to give us eyewitness accounts in most cases … We should interpret any text from the standpoint of its own genre and intentions … Clearly, when the Bible reports on and interprets a human-historical experience, its main concern is with the meaning of that experience … reproducing a complete picture is not of first interest. … there is good reason to believe that what is reported is fully accurate as far as it goes.

Conclusions
There are similarities between Bible and ANE literature and religions, because Israel participated in its world. But "if we look at the Bible as a whole … There is nothing like it."

Questions that matter
• Is there a God?
• Does He have a will for our lives?
• Has He made His will known to us in actions and speech we can understand?

If we answer any of these questions with 'no,' then the entire enterprise is bootless. We are simply playing with the pieces of a mental puzzle on our way into the dark. How we put the pieces together is of little importance. If, however, our answers are 'yes,' the question of what God's will is and how he has chosen to reveal it becomes one of absolutely ultimate significance.

[Joe Valenti · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book deals with the myths in the ancient Near East and compares them to the Bible. Critical scholars have often referred to the Old Testament as simply another myth, and Oswalt defends the Bible against this claim.

The content within the book is excellent, but the writing is terrible and the organization is equally confusing. It is a very difficult book to read, not because of it's scholarly nature, but because of poor writing/editing. For this reason I give this book only 2 stars.

[Todd Miles · Rating 5 out of 5]

For students of history, this is a great read. Oswalt makes a compelling case for the qualitative difference between the Old Testament and the ANE myths. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Much of what I read, his logic, arguments, and data, will make it into my theology and hermeneutics classes.

[Kendall Davis · Rating 2 out of 5]

Oswalt has several good points, namely about the OT’s uniqueness with respect to ANE thought. That being said, the book is plagued with so many strange ideas, dichotomies, and simplistic arguments. I was quite disappointed.

[Nelson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Oswalt's aims are to (1) establish Biblical religion as distinct from that of its neighbors, and (2) establish that only supernatural means could have made Israel distinct. In order to do so, he defines myth and history, rejects the former and accepts the latter as proper classifications of the Bible. He succeeds, to a degree, on (1). He did pretty well on (2), until it came to addressing alternative hypotheses, where he falls flat. This volume is basically a more polemical version of . Although Walton helped with this project, he differs from Walton on major facts.

I get bored arguing definitions so I'll skip that part. Oswalt argues that the Biblical world view is "transcendent;" God transcends the cosmos. The other ANE religions can be described as "continuous;" Humans, nature, and the gods are all continuous with each other. He lists the following differences between the Bible and the rest of the ANE: (1) The Bible is monotheistic (2) Bible's first principle is spirit, not matter (3) Bible is iconoclastic (4) Bible has a high view of humanity (5) Biblical God does not have sex and you can't feel God's presence by having sex (6) Bible prohibits magic (7) Biblical ethics is tied to a covenant relationship with the Creator, and (8)Superficial similarities and fundamental differences in the creation accounts of Genesis 1 and the Enuma Elish. (9) Psalms differs from the Baal cycle although both Yahweh and Baal are storm gods. (10) Bible is historical, and doesn't whitewash faults such as those of David and Solomon. I'll just address very quickly the points on which I believe he is wrong.

(1) He said that that no one but Yahweh can be called a God in the Bible. This is simply not true, as the word elohim is appropriated to Yahweh, sons of God in the divine council, angels, disembodied human dead, etc. Older portions have Yahweh as the Most High God, and even older portions have Yahweh as a junior deity.
(2) In the ANE (Bible included), matter is eternal. Read Walton's .
(precise citation available upon request)
(4) Walton also makes this case. That's because he, like Oswald, assumes the unity of the Bible and doesn't do any source criticism. I bought this argument until I read . The (P) writer has a high view of humanity (God made garden for man), but the earlier (J) writer has man slaving away for the gods just like the Babylonian account (Gen3.19-20).
(5) Yahweh isn't explicitly having sex (I'll get to this later) but I don't know man, I could have sworn, when I was a teenager, I read in a Catechism that you can draw close to God through sex (while I was at the library; I'm not Catholic).
(8) True, as Gen1 is a monotheistic polemic, but Oswalt did not address that actual act of creation in both accounts follow the same syntactic structure. That is why most scholars, Walton included, do not believe Gen1.1 teaches creatio ex nihilo.
(10) The Bible is more accurate historically than Mesopotamian or Egyptian accounts. However, Chronicles does indeed whitewash David's sins recorded in Kings.

Oswalt concludes that nothing but divine intervention could have set Israel from that of her neighbors. No cataclysmic event could have done it. Babylonian captivity could not have done it; the same thing happened to other West Semitic religions, and the result was the death of their religions when they realized their god was powerless. Well, Israel's situation differs because even before the exile they believed Yahweh was more powerful than the other gods. Oswalt may argue, that well, that just moves the question one step back; How did Israel believe in Yahweh's superiority when Israel's neighbors were polytheistic? Well, the fact is, even the old Canaanite religion is henotheistic. As Walton said, "In the Ugaritic literature the head of the pantheon is El. Here the gods of the assembly appear to be lesser gods, and the role played by El is more dominant than is evidenced by the head of the Pantheon in Mesopotamia" (ANE Thought & OT, 96). Well, then how did the Canaanites become that way?

Now down to his glib critique of JVC FMC, Dever, and Mark S. Smith, all of whom believed Israelite religion evolved. Why he only devotes 13 pp out of the entire book to addressing alternative hypotheses is perplexing.

Oswalt's main beef with Dever is with Dever's assertion that the later priestly caste expunged most of the indicators of Israel's pre-exilic polytheism but left some evidence in there. Oswalt's reply is, if they wanted to do that, why didn't they just go all the way and remove everything? Well, by way of ad hominem, since Oswalt believes the Bible is thoroughly monotheistic, wouldn't that be enough? Ad hominem aside, there are bountiful evidence for the evolution of Israelite religion. Why did he not address the evidence at all?I'll just list a couple here.

(1) Deut. 32:8
Dead Sea Scrolls (oldest) "sons of God."
LXX (intermediate) "angels of God"
Masoretic Text (most recent) "sons of Israel"

One can clearly see an evolution towards monotheism, as the divine council members were demoted.

(2) Recall Oswalt's assertion that Yahweh did not have sex. Well, explicitly, no, but it may have been
In any case, thought the book fails on several of its points, one would still come away convinced the Bible is unique.

[Justin Wilkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oswalt's description of the worldviews that are competing in the Ancient world as well as the modern world concerning the Bible is short, entirely readable, and incredibly contemporary. Absolutely necessary read for anyone who wants to read their Bible carefully!

[Ryan Lian · Rating 5 out of 5]

An amazing read - totally transforming for my view on whether the bible is history or not. Can’t recommend highly enough for OT studies.

[Joshua Pearsall · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a must read in apologetics for the OT. I myself have even started a new series on my own YouTube (Pracitcal Christian Lessons) going over this same topic.. It throughly proves that the OT is only explainable as divine revelation, and is so different from the ANE that saying it simply evolved out of the ANE is ridiculous. Addressing the radical shift in scholarship 60 years ago, despite no Biblical data actually changing. If anything the OT has become even more reliable since then in the face of Archeological discoveries! This book covers skeptical scholarship, their flaws, a comparitatuve analysis of Myths and the Biblical data, comparing the theology of the ancient world with that of the Bible.

[Kyle Grindberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a wonderful and helpful book. I'm so glad it exists.

[J.J. Richardson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was excellent. If you want to know how the Bible compares to the Greek, Roman and Eastern myths, this is a critical book for gaining a clear understanding.

[Bradley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Introduction

The Bible Among the Myths. by John N. Oswalt. Zondervan, 204 pp. $19.99 paper. Dr. John Oswalt currently serves as research professor of Old Testament at Wesley Biblical Seminary in Jackson, MS. He has also served on the faculty of Asbury Theological Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He earned his M.A. and Ph.D. from Brandeis University. He has written and contributed to numerous books, commentaries, and encyclopedias.

Synopsis

The book aims to respond to the recent trend within biblical studies of placing the Bible and the Hebrew religion of the Old Testament in the same category of the myths of the ancient world. It does this in two parts with two separate but connected streams of argument. The first part of the book compares the Bible with the myths and establishing what it is that sets the Bible apart from these myths. The second part of the book examines the Bible’s relationship with history in comparison to the relationship between history and myths as well as contrasting Hebrew historiography with the historiography of other ancient cultures.

The first chapter of the book argues the case that the Bible merges Hebrew and Greek thought patterns to create a worldview that is unique from any other culture in the past or present. This worldview is based on the concept that there is “one personal, transcendent, purposeful Creator” (p. 26). Understanding this worldview is essential to understanding the Bible as it presents its message.

The next chapter examines whether or not it is appropriate to describe the Bible as myth. As part of this examination, Dr. Oswalt surveys the various ways in which myth can be defined, including various historical-philosophical definitions, etymological definitions, literary definitions, and phenomenological definitions. He argues that myth should be defined by what is essential to it, not what is accidental to it. He then identifies the concept of the continuity of all things as the central and essential element of myth. With this essential element identified, he defines myth, following Brevard Childs, as “a form of expression, whether literary or oral, whereby the continuities among the human, natural, and divine realms are expressed and actualized. By reinforcing these continuities, it seeks to ensure the orderly functioning of both nature and human society” (pp. 45-56).

In the next chapter, Dr. Oswalt breaks down the origins and implications of continuity and examines the common features of myths. Then, in the following chapter, he identifies the essential element of biblical thinking as transcendence. He goes on to identify the common characteristics of biblical thought that flow from the concept of transcendence. In chapter five, he then contrasts the Bible and its foundational transcendence with myths and their foundational continuity.

In part two, Dr. Oswalt begins to deal with the relationship the Bible has with history. He defines history as “a narrative of a series of events revolving about human beings acting in time and space. Existing for the purpose of human self-knowledge, it purports to be an accurate account of all significant elements in the series and includes an attempt to evaluate the relative importance of these elements for the eventual outcome” (p 113). He then explains why the mythological concept of continuity makes the pursuit of history a non sequitur for those who hold to the worldview of myth.

In the next two chapters, he develops answers to two questions relating to the Bible and the problem of history. First, can the biblical accounts rightly be called history? Second, does it matter whether the biblical accounts are historical or not? He argues that the biblical narratives can in fact be considered historical. He states that in the view of the biblical writers, both the acts of God in time and space and the interpretation of those acts (history) are revelation from God. The answer to the second question flows from his answer to the first: yes, it matters whether or not the biblical accounts are historical. One cannot separate (à la Bultman and process theology) the unique thought patterns of the Hebrew people from the revelatory acts of God and their historical attestation.

The final chapter examines the alternatives to the Hebrews fiercely holding to the idea of transcendence while all of the cultures around them in space and history have held to the concept of continuity. Dr. Oswalt concludes that none of these alternative explanations are satisfactory and that the most logical conclusion is that the Hebrews received their concept of transcendence as revelation from God himself rather than as their own religious evolution.

Evaluation

In The Bible Among the Myths, Dr. Oswalt takes a robust philosophical approach to the issue of the place of the Bible among pagan religions and texts. This approach was unexpected for me coming from a career Old Testament Scholar. One might expect an Old Testament scholar to spend the bulk of his time comparing texts line by line for differences. Instead, he builds a philosophical case for the uniqueness of the worldview presented in the biblical literature and in the religion of the Hebrews. This big picture approach is both fresh and incredibly helpful.

While this is not the direct purpose of the book, it does provide a tremendous contextual foundation for understanding the religious of the ancient world as they are presented in the Bible. Dr. Oswalt’s identification of the concept of continuity as the undergirding philosophy of myth and ancient religion provides a fresh insight into some of the Old Testament passages that demonstrate the divergent approaches to God or gods. The story of Balaam and Balak (Numbers 22-24) is one example. Balak thinks that he can buy favors from God with opulent sacrifices because this is foundational to his worldview. It is how he practices his religion: manipulation of the gods and the cosmos to generate the greatest possible comfort and benefit for oneself. God’s answer to Balak is clear: “God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” (Numbers 23:19) Another example is the showdown between Elijah and the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel. The way in which the prophet of God approaches the true and transcendent God is wholly different from the way in which the prophets of Baal approach their false and continuous god. Dr. Oswalt’s presentation of the essential elements of biblical thought and mythic thought have helped me understand the context of scripture better.

This book also accomplishes its task of convincing the reader that the Bible and its worldview is essentially different from ancient myths/religions and their worldview. It is a helpful primer on ancient religions and what makes the Bible unique from them. It is an excellent resource for pastors, students, and apologists.

[Rick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tremendously informative. Analyzes the nature of myth, rooted as it is in a worldview of continuity, and demonstrates that the Bible (his nearly exclusive focus is the Old Testament), alone among the ancient literatures, is rooted in a worldview of transcendence. As such, the Bible not only does not exhibit the identifying aspects of myth, but actually exhibits diametrically opposite characteristics. He is very careful to show that a too broad definition of myth undermines the entire discussion of whether or not the Old Testament fits the category, and is therefore manifestly unhelpful. He argues that the worldview of transcendence leads to an attention to real history, a characteristic that markedly differentiates the Bible from myth. This connection between the ideas of myth and history is the reason for the two major divisions in his book. In the first half, he deals directly with the subject of myth, and whether or not the Bible falls into that category. In the second half of his book he deals with the subject of the Bible (Old Testament) as history. In doing so he interacts directly with the leading contemporary scholarly views on the subject. In drawing important distinctions between the Bible and other ancient literature, he is careful and emphatic that he is not arguing that there aren't significant similarities between these texts. But he points out the important philosophical difference between "accident" and "essence," or to put it another way, the difference between superficial similarities and essential dissimilarities. I'll be using this book in the future as a resource.

[Brian Collins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oswalt argues that the recent trend to classify parts of the Bible as myth is not due to new evidence that has arisen over the past several decades. He maintains that despite surface similarities (e.g., tripartite temples or similar laws) a great difference in worldview separates Israel from the surrounding cultures. Oswalt finds the surface similarities expected. Cultures of particular times and places will share features. He finds the worldview differences striking because Israel's worldview of transcendence has only appeared in the world in the religions that have some connection to the Bible: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. All other worldviews are worldviews of immanence. Oswalt concludes the book with defenses of the Bible's historicity (and the importance of its historicity) against critics such as Bultmann and William Dever.

[John Otte · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very thorough analysis of equating the Biblical record with mythology. I found every word fascinating, if sometimes a bit over my head. Definitely worth the read!

[Bret James Stewart · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oswalt's book provides a history of the views of the Bible in relation to Ancient Near Eastern, promoting the contrasts between the two sources. He examines the ideas/concepts of myth and history and the problems these terms evoke, especially changing and or pliability in meaning. His thesis is that the Bible depicts a sovereign God generally distinct from the pagan gods around Him. Of course, all religious texts, to qualify to the moniker, are going to have some similarities, and he deals with these in the text.

This book is well done and easy to read. There are indices for subject matter and authors.

I highly recommend this book to all who are interested in the concepts of myth and history throughout history. Those who are intrigued by the comparison/contrast of the Bible and the religious literature of the Ancient Near East would do well to read this book. A similar work by John Currid, Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament, can be read also to provide a broader view of the subject. Both men argue for a strong distinction between biblical and other ANE works, but they each have unique views worth investigating.

[Anson Cassel Mills · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Oswalt argues that current hypotheses about the origin of Hebrew monotheism are misguided because scholars have assumed that Israelite religion simply evolved from west Semitic polytheism. Oswalt begins by disputing the scholarly definition of the word “myth” and then (more profitably) illustrates the striking contrasts in worldview between Hebrew monotheism and ancient Near Eastern mythology. The most salient difference, Oswalt argues, is the distinction between pagan “continuity” (the notion that creation and creator are roughly interchangeable) and the “transcendence” emphasized in the biblical religion. Oswalt admits some similarities between the Hebrew and neighboring religious practice but (rightly in my view) dismisses these similarities as incidental rather than essential.

Oswalt summarizes well. Some of the most profitable parts of the book for me were Oswalt’s list of features common to mythology and his careful critique of the views of modern scholars John Van Seters, Frank Cross, William Dever, and Mark Smith. As Oswalt notes, their unsatisfying hypotheses about the formation of Hebrew monotheism are speculations ultimately grounded on an a priori rejection of revelation.

[Brad Bigam · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm reading this for the second time and getting even more than the first time. I've had many classes and lectures by Dr. Oswalt, and he is first rate in scholarship.
One of the things that really hit me about what he is discussing-continuity vs. transcendence-is how current this book is for today.
Continuity is the philosophy of all religions except for Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It means that all things are inter-connected, there is nothing outside of this world. I am you, you are the tree, any gods are part of us. We have no choices except what is fated to us. This is what we see in the debates going in today. Science means nothing in today's debate. DNA, etc. are not considered when looking at gender. Evolution is part of this whole idea as is atheism. Evolution now looks to the multiverse theory rather than science since science has failed it.
We have come full circle, back to the pagan religions of the ancient near east, Greece, Rome, etc. It has a new cover but is the same old anti-god theology.

[Yaakov · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was told this book would be a circumspect and honest review of the Old Testament from a scholarly perspective. Instead, I found readings of the texts that clearly came from a religious interpretation that departs radically from the actual text . For example, in chapter 4 the author reads "satan" into the eden story when anyone with a passing familiarity with the text knows that there is no such reference and the insertion of satan is a pure interpretation . He immediately goes on to, without evidence, claim that the biblical phrase "image of god" is a reflection of "freedom of choice" - which is additionally unsourced in the text, dismissive of the incredibly widespread debate about how to interpret the phrase, and clearly a philosophical/religious reading of the text. This is amidst suspicious and mostly unsourced generalizations about biblical theology and the beliefs of ancient peoples.

I am sure this is a fine book if you want to learn about how christians read the bible, and I may yet finish it for that reason, but this is in not a scholarly work.

[Troy Nevitt · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was excellent in putting forth the thesis of the title. Oswalt does not get off track when trying to answer the question: "Is the Bible just another myth?"

Though Oswalt does not (initially) argue for the validity of the Bible as opposed to myths, he does distinguish it against myths. His main premise is that, regardless of if it is true or not, the Bible is not a myth. It does not fit the categories of what myths focus upon. He does this by defining what a myth is (which is too broad in the modern context) and defining what history is.

You could walk away disagreeing with the validity of the Bible, but there would be little reason that one would walk away after reading this believing that the Bible is just another myth in the annals of history.

[Jordan Reichert · Rating 5 out of 5]

While granting surface-level similarities, Oswalt makes a succinct and compelling case for the uniqueness of the Old Testament over and against Israel's contemporary surrounding ancient near eastern neighbors. It becomes quite clear that the Old Testament would not have just naturally evolved (as some say) as a human product surrounded by the neighboring belief structures that Oswalt explores. Also a highlight was Oswalt's "prophesying" moment in the conclusion where he makes a series of what would/will happen to society as it increasingly regresses into the religious tendencies and assumptions of ancient near eastern cultures and away from the Judeo-Christian biblical background.

[Sharon Kline · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this book, John Oswalt compares and contrasts the Bible and Judaism with ancient paganism, as well as the new paganism of today, showing that the two religions are based on two world views, namely, "Transcendence," and "Continuity." When explained through these lenses, the similarities between the Biblical narrative and pagan myths that some modern scholars use to prove that they are essentially the same, are seen to be much less important than the differences. The author's knowledge of this subject is impressive and took me on a compelling journey of discovery in what was to me a previously unknown realm. I hope to revisit this book soon.

[Brice Bigham · Rating 3 out of 5]

Oswalt introduces a helpful summary of the main religious distinctions between Old Testament Israel and her ancient near eastern neighbors. He asks an important question of a generation of scholars seeking to over-emphasize superficial similarities between them: from whence comes Israel’s most unique religion, so categorically distinct from her contemporaries? He concludes that no narrative of human origin could account for such development.

[Gwilym Davies · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this. Oswalt makes the case that the biblical understanding of a transcendent Creator (with all that implies about the world) is unique, and can only plausibly be explained as the result of God's self-revelation. At times it's slightly hard to see who he's writing for: it has moments that really feel like an evangelistic/apologetic tract... But I can't imagine all that many non-christians would read it. But it'd be good if they did!

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a fascinating book! A great walk-through of what a myth even is (who knew there were so many definitions?) and then a layout of how the Bible does not fit the paradigm of myth. Rather, it is wholly other in the worldview it lays out because it is transcendent in nature. Oswalt interacts fairly with the critics, even acknowledging where they make good points and where the Bible has similarities with ancient myths. Even so, he stays true to his thesis and demonstrates it effectively.

[Doug Adamson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oswalt's basic argument is that the worldview of Israel (based on transcendance) was fundamentally different from that of the nations and cultures around it (based on continuity), so that while there were some elements of similarity between Israel and the nations (the Bible and the myths), ultimately they are irreconcilably different. What explains this fundamental difference? God's interaction in history in the exodus.

[Matt Crawford · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Bible among the myths is a nice little survey about the ANE and the world in which the Old Testament was written. It takes some of the arguments that the nation of Israel was part of a larger Canaanite religion and ours them to rest. It is easy enough but what oswalt does well is avoid the straw man arguments. He does repeat himself some and I wish he had gone further in depth.

[Nathan Seale · Rating 4 out of 5]

A quick but helpful read on the literary elements of the Bible and their relationship to the ANE works of the day. Is the Bible simply a myth or unique revelation.

Oswalt does a good job of point to this literature as transcendent to the culture and not simply in continuity with it.

[John Price · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an amazing book that really opened my eyes to the cultural and spiritual context that ancient Israelites lives in and how revolutionary monotheism was during this time. Definitely a great read that helps you understand the ground breaking nature of the Old Testament.

[Rachel Schoenberger · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good information, but a little dry and boring. I was expecting more archaeology to be involved.