In a recent Zondervan publication, John Oswalt, long-time Old Testament scholar and author of the two-volume commentary on Isaiah in the NICOT series, discusses The Bible among the Myths. In light of recent controversial books by writers such as Peter Enns or Kenton Sparks, Oswalt tackles an important question: How is the Bible (actually, the Old Testament) similar or different from other ancient (Near Eastern) literature? Is it, to quote the subtitle, “Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature”?
In essence, Oswalt argues that while there are doubtless numerous surface similarities between the Old Testament and other ancient literature, on the larger level of the underlying worldview, the difference is vast: only the Old Testament lodges a robust claim of divine revelation, and as a result, only the three religions that take their cue from the Bible—Christianity, Judaism, and Islam—hold to divine revelation as a foundational components of their worldview. This simple, yet profound finding brings much-needed clarity to the debate.
One of my favorite sections in this book is Chapter 9, “Origins of the Biblical Worldview: Alternatives.” The respective headings tell the story: “John Van Seters: Israel’s Understanding of Reality Arose as a Late Creative Fiction”; “Frank Cross: Israel’s Understanding Arose in a Prose Rewriting of an Earlier Epic Poem”; “William Dever: Israel’s Understanding Is an Imposition of a Small Elite”; “Mark Smith: Israel’s Understanding Is a Natural Development from West Semitic Religion.” Understanding alternative views is very helpful especially for students.
Overall, Oswalt’s book excels in clarity of analysis and presentation. It is well written and argues and defends an exceedingly important thesis: that on a worldview level, Christianity and Judaism, with their claim of divine revelation, are unique. Perhaps my only criticism is that references to the above-mentioned Peter Enns or Kenton Sparks are conspicuously absent. This may be because Oswalt is narrowly focused on worldview rather than hermeneutical issues or because his volume was conceived prior to the publication of these other scholars’ works.
In any case, I highly recommend this volume as a supplementary text for courses in Old Testament survey or even in apologetics courses. This is a very welcome contribution to both fields, and I am sure Oswalt’s book will find a devoted following and many grateful readers.
The self-claim of divine revelation (coupled with the support of the internal test of prophetic works for the explicit prophetic writing) is an important observation.
From an untrained student of the Bible, there are so many other distinctions as well. The historical writings differ from typical extrabibilical accounts in a couple other important aspects.
One is the relative integration of the history of the writing of the OT (and the NT as well) with the vast history it contains. I observe that other religious writings are of a relatively narrow historical scope with which to reference theological claims.
The other is something I noticed recently in observing some of the historical accounts of various kings writen on artifacts found at the British Museum. Kings would order favorable accounts of their activities etched into lasting mateirals to leave as a legacy of their “godlike” reign. However, the historical accounts found in the OT are often anything but favorable with regard to the reigns of various kings. Even today rulers and government leaders desire to create written histories that reflect favorably on their governance. However, the historical account of the OT reads almost as a tabloid account of the REAL story behind the kings. Today this tends to be sensationalistic, but in those days such accounts had no other purpose than to preserve truth for future generations. Where most peoples had their patron gods, often embodied in their kings, the God of Israel was decidedly NOT embodied in the kings and the history written by recognized prophets often blatantly critical of the kings where they strayed from the law established by God through Moses before there was a king. Such a biblical history remained amazingly ideologicaly homogenous where one would expect disparate ideologies from one king to the next if the historical writings were compiled merely of political criticism of the current king.
It’s a striking distinction that lends credibility to the divine claims of the OT writings rather than to simply write the historical accounts off as mere myth.
Thanks for your review. I have been looking for a book like this.