The Bible Among the Myths - Book Report/Review Example

?Introduction The introduction s that the idea of revelation is that there are some things in this world which are not explainable, and that there is a need for revelation from beyond to explain such things in the world. The very idea of revelation, however, is foreign to many in the world, who believe that each individual is in charge of his or her own destiny. Revelation is inimical to this thought, because it implies that there are some things over which we might have no control. After producing this basic definition of revelation, the introduction goes on to state the focus of the book itself. The crux of the book is whether the religion of the Old Testament is essentially similar to, or essentially different from, the religion of its neighbors, and whether the Old Testament resembles the myths of its neighbors or something else. The author also states that, in comparing the Old Testament and literatures of the ancient Near East is that there is a difference in how the medium by which the divine is known. Israel’s neighbors comes to know their divinity by nature, while in Israel, knowing their divinity relies upon human-historical experience. Since Israel comes to know their divinity by historical analysis, it therefore becomes important to understand if the historical facts presented in The Bible are true – did they really take place? There is increasingly a skepticism that these events did take place. This, in turn, presents a new conundrum – if the historical events are not true, then can we believe the word of God, as the medium through which he is understood is the historical analysis? The author thinks that this is not possible, that if the historical events are not true, then the word of God cannot be extricated and preserved. Chapter 1 The chapter begins by analyzing the symbiotic relationship between The Bible and Greek thought – the Bible provides a foundation for Greek thought, and Greek thought influences the logical narrative of historical realities found in the Bible. By Greek thought, the author notes that the philosophers, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, were in opposition to the prevailing religious culture, for these philosophers intuited that we lived in a universe, not a polyverse. These philosophers, in other words, did not accept that the world was ruled by multiple gods, as the predominant Greek culture thought at this time. It was therefore a battle between the rational minds - as illustrated by the philosophers, the Greek playwright Euripides, and others – and the irrational minds, which was the dominant Greek culture who believed in multiple deities. The author then states that, while the ancient Greek philosophers were struggling to explain their rationality, on the eastern end of the Mediterranean there were parallel events, taking place between 625 BC and 400 BC. This time, the prophets were the parallel to the Greek philosophers, as they were trying to present ideas which were antithetical to the culture around them. Like the Greek philosophers, they were espousing the idea that there is only one God, who was the creator of all. However, the outcome was different – monotheism won out in Israel over paganism. What occurred next was that Greek philosophy, with its logical consistency but inability to translate to real-life, was combined with the biblical worldview, which lacked logical consistency but was translated into real-life. However, according to the author, Enlightenment leaders attempted to make the Greek logic stand on their own, without the biblical underpinning, and the result is a world where the individual is more important than anything else. Chapter 2 This chapter attempts to address the concern that the Bible is myth, by looking at various definitions of the word “myth.” This is because, in contrast to earlier times, there has been increasing scholars who have stated that the Bible is myth, or it has mythical qualities. The author then goes through the various definition of the word “myth.” Etymological definitions emphasize that myths are falsehoods. Under this definition, those who state that the Bible is a myth would be saying, in essence, that the Bible is rooted in falsehoods. There are other etymological definitions of myth as well. One is that myths are stories of gods, which explain the natural world in supernatural terms. Another definition is that myth is a pre-science worldview – a way to explain the world during a period that did not have scientific definitions for the natural world occurrences. The final etymological definition of myth is that it is fanciful, as opposed to philosophical or speculative. Sociological-theological definitions are next. In this definition, myths are true, not false. In this case, the myth serves as a vehicle to explain one’s version of reality. Also, under this definition, myths are the central part of any religion which is regarded as true by the adherents of the religion. Literary definitions for mythology are next examined. The basic literary definition is that there is a narrative which is symbolic for another reality – such as Moby Dick’s whale is symbolic for the realities of human life. The basic premise of this chapter is that all the definitions of myth encompass the principle of continuity – that nature and humanity are continuous with one another. The author concludes that the Bible is not a myth. Chapter 3 This chapter picks up where the other chapter left off, which was that, in the end, myth relies upon continuity. This means that all things exist as a part of one another, and that there are not distinctions between humanity, nature and the divine. All coexist with one another. The author suggests that continuity is comforting and popular as a concept because it implies some degree of control – we can affect the other world by our actions. This is why there are rituals, because of the belief that we can do what the gods want us to do. What also occurs, according to the author, is that the individual believes him or herself to have divinity within him or herself. This is because, if one does not have divinity then life is uncontrollable and meaningless. Moreover, there is also the belief that God may be the invisible One, or he may be many (God as opposed to gods). The source states that he is One, but the manifestation implies that he is many. He created the heavens, therefore he is One. He is everywhere, therefore he is also many. The author then goes onto look at the common features of myths. Myths are based upon polytheism – many gods. Myths are also based upon gods as images, as the gods and goddesses of polytheists take human form. Myths also assume that the world came from chaotic matter, out of which came the first gods who shape the present order. Moreover, the deities are not fully personal, but represent personalized forces. Another tenet of mythology is that their gods are held in a low view, seeking their own ends instead of caring for worshipers. Myths see conflict as the source of life – between forces of construction and chaos. Humanity is also held in low esteem in myths – choice is an illusion and humans are insignificant. Also, there is not a single ethical standard in myths. Chapter 4 This chapter covers the concept of transcendence. Specifically, the author describes how the Bible is radically different from the concepts of myths, at least how Greeks defined their myths. First of all, the Bible is based upon monotheism, not polytheism. The second major point is that God may not be represented in any created form. There cannot be a worship of idols, and God is not to be identified as being of this world. The third major point is that spirit is the first principle, not matter. In the Bible, the spirit is the basis of everything, not matter. The fourth major point is that the creation process was not borne out of conflict. Whereas, in Greek mythology, there is a constant war between the gods, in this case, there is only one God, and he created the world because he wanted to, not because there was a struggle of forces aligned against one another. The fifth major point is that the Bible takes a high view of humanity – humanity is made in the image of God, with freedom, nobility and personhood. The sixth major point is that God is reliable and consistent, which is unlike the gods of Greek mythology, who were sometimes capricious and cruel. The seventh major point is that God is neither male nor female – Greek gods were male and female, God is not. Because of this, and this is the eighth major point, sex is not sacred. Nothing happens to God or nature when a man or woman have sex. The ninth major point is that magic is prohibited in the Bible- God may not be manipulated by ritual. Therefore, since one cannot relate to him by ritual, there is a call to relate to him by ethical obedience, and this is the tenth major point. Therefore, in a nutshell, the difference between the Bible and myth can be summed up in the following manner. Myths rely on continuity – gods are not separate from humanity and nature. The Bible is reliant on transcendence – God is separated from humanity and nature. God is not a part of this world, although he is present in the world. Chapter 5 In this Chapter, the author compares and contrasts the Bible with non-biblical Near East (NBNE) religions on different realms of thought. For instance, there is a difference in ethics between these two thoughts. For the NBNE, the ethical misbehavior could be against the gods or against other humans, and the offenses against gods are cultish or magical. On the other hand, ethics are derived in the Bible through the covenant - that man will live by God’s principles. Moreover, in the one God Bible, there is a profound ethical standard. In NBNE religions, there is not one ethical standard, as the different gods are at war with one another, and pleasing one god would make another god angry. There are therefore different ethical principles in the NBNE religions, and it is best not to be obedient to any one principle. In contrast, in the Bible, there is one ethical principle – that one should be obedient to God, and the ethical behavior reflecting God’s character is the right behavior. That is the main difference – there are profound differences between ethics between the two thoughts. The author also states that there are similarities as well. For instance, both the Near East peoples have law codes, as do the Hebrews. Both have practiced sacrificial practices. The covenant structure of the Bible comes straight out of the Near Eastern world. However, the law code put inside the covenant with God results in uniform ethical behavior, and one’s treatment of others is more important than ritual. There are also similarities in expression and thought patterns. That said, there is not a struggle between light and darkness. God worked redemption for His people one time, as opposed to there being a constant struggle. Moreover, at least in Genesis, there is evidence of myth, but Israel broke away from this. Chapter 6 This is the first chapter which devotes an analysis of the Bible verses historical reality. That said, there is an issue with defining historical reality. The problem is that there is different versions of reality, and, since history is based upon reality, there is a problem defining history. The author then goes on to talk about the differences in how the ancients treated history. They did not see history as a way for self-knowledge or progress towards human improvement. Rather, they used the information gathered in different ways. They collected omen texts. In omen texts, there is not a review of human choices, just fate. King lists were also compiled by the ancients. This is just a list of kings, without evaluation. Date formulae is the third genre, which is also historical information without analysis. Therefore, the author states that there was not any real historical writing amongst the ancients, in part because, in the principle of continuity, the “now” is all that really matters. There is not a difference between the future, the past and the present. Moreover, the ancients were not objective – the only thing that mattered was how they, as an individual, were affected by some event. In contrast, the Bible treats humans as real individuals, not epic figures like Ulysses. Humans are not representative, but their lives are told faithfully. Their defeats and failures are made known, unlike the defeats and failures of epic heroes. Human choices are significant, unlike in ancient times. The most important thing about the two historical perspectives is that the Biblical history is the word of Yahweh, and Yahweh is teaching the humans about his word. On the other hand, because of the continuity issue, the Israel’s neighbors was not concerned about history, because the now is all that matters. Chapter 7 This chapter covers whether the Bible is truly historical, or, rather, is historical fiction. The problem is whether the Bible can be considered historical, as it relies upon revelation and God’s actions. Scholars who believe that the Bible is not historical state that the reason for this is because of divine intervention – that history can only chronicle man’s history, and, since divine intervention is such a part of the Bible, the Bible is not historical. One scholar states that historical writing has several concepts. There must be “1) Sin causing non-achievement of goals; 2) Denial or eternal entities; 3) Disinterested providence; 4) Outworking of divine purposes in history; 5) Apocalypse; 6) Periods; 7) Universalism” (Oswalt, 2009, p. 145). That said, the author states that all of these are characteristics of both the Old and the New Testaments. The author goes on to state that the Bible has a high degree of historical accuracy, because it is important to accurately record history and report what God said about the meaning of what happened. That said, the author does not say that the Bible gives accurate eyewitness accounts to events. Rather, the Bible is more concerned with the meaning of the individual experiences. The details of these events are therefore less important than the meaning of these experiences. The author states that there are two extremes in interpretation. One is that, if none of the Biblical experiences took place, or if they took place entirely differently than what was recorded, then the theological interpretations are inexplicable. The other extreme is that, unless we accept that the events happened exactly the way they were recorded, that the Biblical theology cannot be believed. The author believes in a happy medium – that the recorded events may not have happened exactly as they are described, but that it is the meaning of the events that is important. Chapter 8 In this chapter, the author asks if it matters whether or not the Bible is considered to be historical. The underlying question is whether biblical faith and biblical history are really inseparable. The author examines the philosophy of Rudolf Bultmann, who was an existentialist who believes that the self is not shaped by history and human nature, and that the experience of history does not mean anything concrete. History is a part of consciousness, but it not a determiner of one’s experiences. Bultmann also recognizes that history is not objective, as all narratives are dependent upon individual interpretation. Morever, in the Bible, there is some indication, through scholars, that many of the events did not occur, especially the metaphysical events. Bultmann’s solution was to separate the narrative from the events in the Bible. Bultmann stated that divinity is unhistorical, because history shows that humans are ultimately responsible for themselves and their world. Therefore, the Bible is interpreted as a series of parables. In the end, however, the author states that it is not possible to separate history from revelation in the Bible, because the two are intrinsically tied to one another. We get our revelations from the Biblical historical events – the historical event of Christ’s resurrection underpins our ideas that sins are forgiven and that our alienation from God may be repaired, giving us eternal life. The resurrection proves that Jesus was God, and that his sacrifice was for humanity. The event occurred, the interpretation of the event was divinely given. If the historical event did not occur, according to the author, the theology is illusory. Chapter 9 In this chapter, the author explores different voices of how Israel came to its biblical worldview. The first voice that the author looks at is that of John Van Seters. Van Seters saw the Bible as being a historical novel. That is, it is a work of fiction, much like the works of Thuscydies and Herodotus. Israel’s historical interests are in this same realm. Frank Cross is another scholar who the author looks at. He sees the Pentateuch as being the same as an epic poem, such as those composed by Homer. However, the author states that this analysis falls short, because the Bible does not have an epic which is similar to Homer’s epics, and that there is nothing that compares to Israel’s historical accounts which might be seen in 10 BC Greece. William Dever states that the Israel of the Bible never existed. He does not believe in the exodus, stating that there is not archaeological evidence of this. He also argues against the religious and spiritual explanations for Israel’s existence and nature. He states that the people in power – the white, Western, male, Christian Protestants who dominate biblical studies have ignored evidence that Israel’s dominant religion was not distinguishable from Canaanite religion until after their exile. That said, the author accuses Dever himself of bias in his interpretations. Mark Smith is the last person that the author examines. Smith argues that the Israelites’ faith was rooted in Canaanite polytheism. However, Yahweh became the dominant God because of the emphasis on family (Yahweh was seen as the benevolent but dominating head of the family), and because there was an emergence of a monarchy, so that it became acceptable to see just one figurehead as king. Therefore, as Israel’s culture changed, the Israelites themselves moved from polytheism to monotheism. Conclusion This is the chapter which wraps up the previous arguments. The main thing is that the Near East religions are based upon continuity, whereas the Bible is based upon transcendence. God is not of this world, while, in the Near East, the deities, nature and humanity are all interlinked with one another. There are three major religions which focus on the concept of transcendence – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – and each of these religions have one source, which is the Bible. The author goes on to state that there is the possibility that mythical thinking is root in ignorance or a primitive mentality, and states that there is a third possibility, that of choice. The ancients chose to look at their world and reality in certain ways. The author also implies that this way of thinking was attractive, because it gave the people some comfort that they had some control over their own lives. Since the deities, humanity and nature are all one, then humans might be able to influence nature and the deities, just as the deities and nature influence them. This is also why there is pagan temptation, even now – humans want control. This is also the basis for the popular view that the Bible is nothing more than mythology. That said, science is also in pursuit of control, and the author states that science fails without theology. While the author understands the need to control, he also states that it has led to individualism, which is going to be the death of mankind. Without God, we will lose our ethical compass, truth will be replaced with power, right and wrong will mean nothing, black magic will surge, there cannot be an attempt to control sexual freedom, individuals will be devalued, altruism will disappear, people will refuse to accept responsibility for one’s own behavior, the study of history will disappear, and people will no longer be able to genuinely transform their character. These are the common signs of continuity thinking, which implies control over one’s life, but ignores that there is a transcendent God. Read More