>
My review of The Bible among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), by John Oswalt, has been published in Review of Biblical Literature.
The following is an excerpt from the review:
Evangelicals affirm that the Bible is a unique book because it is the result of divine
revelation and not merely the work of human authors. However, the discovery of several religious writings from other ancient Near Eastern cultures has led many biblical scholars to deny the claim that the Bible is the result of divine revelation. The issue Oswalt addresses in his book is whether the Bible is a unique revelation from God or just another literary product among the religious literature of the ancient Near East.Oswalt believes that the way Israel conceived and thought about its God and the way other cultures in the ancient Near East thought about their gods was so different that scholarly views that Israel adapted their religious ideas from the religions of their neighbors could not explain this difference. Was Israelite religion another religion comparable to other religions in the West Semitic world, or was the religion of the Bible unique because God revealed himself in the historical events narrated in the Bible?
Many people today do not accept the idea that the Bible, although written by human beings, is the product of divine revelation.
I believe that Oswalt is right on his assessment of the Bible. Modesty apart, I believe that you should read my review because what Oswalt writes is what evangelicals need to read.
To read the review, visit the Review of Biblical Literature website by clicking here.
You can buy the book at Amazon.com.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Tags: Hebrew Bible, Bible, Myth, John Oswalt
var addthis_pub = ‘claude mariottini’;
Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament 
>Good review Dr. Mariottini. That looks like an excellent book. Do you know Oswalt? Are you using that book for a class?-Chad
LikeLike
>Chad,I am glad you enjoyed the review. The book is a good read. I am not yet using the book in my classes but I may do so in the future.Claude Mariottini
LikeLike
>Claude, I don't normally interact here, but I saw the "review" in RBL today and had to say something. First of all, the SBL is not a theological society. So I am not even sure why a book that is making a normative judgment about unverifiable things like the Bible's revelatory uniqueness is being reviewed in the RBL. But that's the editors' decision. Not yours.Despite the book's orientation, I'd expect a critical review NOT a theologically-based review from a fellow member of the SBL. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what you gave us.I think I'd have to say that you don't really review the book at all. You summarize it and promote it. You deal in broad generalities without ever giving details that would flesh out some of the far-reaching statements. But you don't give any critical feedback about the book. There's plenty to criticize, of course. For example, the author's idea of "history" is antiquated and his definition(s) of "myth" seem(s) prefabricated to insure the Bible won't qualify. Moreover, the way you end the review seems to suggest that one's reaction to the book will be wholly based on one's religious presuppositions. I would hope some of your Evangelical colleagues are more sophisticated in their approach to myth and history than the author you're reviewing (at least, as he is represented in the review). And I would hope that Christians don't believe everything this book says just because they're Christians. In short, Claude, I think you've given us another example of how a theological agenda gets in the way of the critical work that is scholarship.I know my comments here are rather blunt. But I think too much is at stake to let things like this pass unanswered. I can't stomach the idea of SBL becoming (even more of) a place for theologians to advance their religionist agenda.
LikeLike
>Alan,The conclusion of my review of Oswalt’s book proves the point I was trying to make in my statement. People who believe that the Bible is the product of divine revelation will accept the premises of Oswalt’s book. Those who do not, like you, will reject his claims and conclude that the claims of the Bible is unverifiable.Oswalt’s argument was not very strong. I tried to present his arguments in my review and concluded that only people who believe the way he did could accept the claims of his book.Maybe I should have been more direct in my conclusions of his argument, but I thought that my conclusion would express my point.You have the right to reject Oswalt’s srgument and you also have the right to criticize my review. I say again that your criticism proves the point I made in my conclusion.Claude Mariottini
LikeLike