John Oswalt

John Oswalt's 2009 The Bible Among the Myths was a fascinating book to read on its own merits. And I highly recommend it.

But finishing it and reading it's final conclusion on this anniversary of the Capital Insurrection was striking.

Oswalt bases his discussion on a distinction between those systems of thought based around continuity and those around transcendence. That is, systems where the spiritual/divine exists as part of, or continuous with, the rest of the cosmos, and systems where it show more exists outside of, or transcends, the rest of the cosmos.

It is this distinction in Oswalt's view that is the basis for the infamous linear historicity of the biblical religions (versus the generally acknowledged circularity common to others), which in turn leads to the various generally acknowledge differences between the biblical and nonbiblical systems (in terms of practice, ethics, etc.).

What I found particularly poignant tonight was Oswalt's intimation that one can do as Joseph Campbell suggested -- and use the language and outer-rhetorical garb of the Bible, to think and approach the world in a manner fundamentally similar to the rest of the world (ie, as the particular set of symbols in a fundamentally continuous mindset). And that as our society shifted to do just this, and to in many respects keep the rhetorical garb of "western christendom," while abandoning the fundamental structure behind it, we should expect to see certain, fairly specific shifts in behavior and societal norms.

Shifts, that yes, we've seen on the far end of the spectrum which makes no bones about abandoning the biblical system -- but shifts that we've also clearly seen among those who are happily cladding a biblical veneer to a nonbiblical structure.

(2022 Book 1) show less

The difference between the Bible and ancient near eastern myths is that the Bible teaches a God that is not part of the universe (transcendent) while the myths portray gods that are part of the universe (continuous). That may be so, but it gets a bit confusing after that. Oswalt later admits that the Egyptians and Sumerians had concepts similar to transcendence.

The myths rest on ideas that are philosophically developed from nature. That's why there are so many similar myths from all around show more the world. There are similarities between the Bible and the myths, but the Bible's ideas depend on the accuracy of its historical events. Oswalt redefines myth, history and accuracy to match his ideas.

This is a fascinating subject, but I find Oswalt's ideas contradictory and confusing. I dislike ideas that rest heavily on the redefining of words. show less

This is an excellent commentary on Isaiah that argues strongly for the book to be read as a theological whole and to be read as predictive prophecy. I found it more engaging than Edward Youngs classic commentary. If you want a more "current" multi-author treatment you need to look elsewhere, but if you do I would recommend this commentary for balance. I look forward to starting volume 2 tomorrow.

This long-anticipated work completes John Oswalt's two-volume commentary on the book of Isaiah. After opening with a valuable discussion on the state of Isaiah studies today, Oswalt provides an insightful verse-by-verse explanation of Isaiah 40-66, giving special attention to the message of the prophet not only for his own time but also for modern readers.,This long-anticipated work completes John Oswalt's two-volume commentary on the book of Isaiah. After opening with a valuable discussion show more on the state of Isaiah studies today, Oswalt provides an insightful verse-by-verse explanation of Isaiah 40-66, giving special attention to the message of the prophet not only for his own time but also for modern readers. show less