Customer Reviews

The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology And The Myth Of Israel

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(13)

 

 

The book assembles a collection of arguments that compare the past portrayed by the Bible against historical fact, and in doing so reveals that it is misleading to view the Bible as history, or that its purpose was ever to be historical. The book convinced me that most of what I believed to be true was understood as mythological at the time of the Bible's writing. Even showing how the original mythical meaning of the garden story was changed during the Middle Ages to the one generally held today. And although the argument that the Bible was a late development seems rather pretentious, he also suggests that the traditions that the Bible drew upon understood events from the past, but that it is difficult to extract history from myth. Both the New and Old Testaments are discussed, including parallel metaphors in each. But the main message is that if the Bible is viewed as history, its true meaning is no longer understood from its symbolism, which is at the heart of understanding the Bible's theology. Although much more interesting at first, this book could have been 100 pages shorter without any real loss. Another book that tries to explain the source of the myths used to create the Bible is "The Bible Myth" by Gary Greenberg.

This all started with the publication in 1993 of Thompson's, "Early History of the Israelite People: ...," followed by a denial of tenure by Marquette University and his sacking by the institution. Although, Thompson's current resume shows him heading directly to the University of Copenhagen after leaving Marquette, Thompson alludes to a period of academic unemployment and house painting for a living. Some reviewers here feel he should have stuck with the house painting. I think that is mean spirited, but the entire discussion of history and the Bible has become rather uncivil of late. With the publication of this book in 1999, a war of words began between his detractors in and out of the academy and Thompson and his supporters.

Marquette is a Roman Catholic institution and had every right to deny tenure to Thompson and then fire him. A private sectarian institution has no obligation to maintain the employment of a party that does not subscribe to the basic doctrines of the employer when adherence to such doctrines is a term of employment. This was a bad situation for both the institution and the scholar. From Marquette's point of view, they are probably happy they concluded their relationship with Thompson expeditiously. One needs look no further than the example of Robert M. Price at Drew University to understand what happens when a scholar is allowed to operate outside the doctrinal boundaries of an institution for an extended period of time.

This work by Thompson is cranky in its own right as has been pointed out by others. He is dismissive of those who do not agree with him. However, to a large degree, his analysis has energized the discourse both scholarly and otherwise on the Bible and history. The four star rating by me of this work is based on its influence on this discussion. This is an argumentative essay as has been pointed out by a previous reviewer and should be judged as such. His scholarly output is immense and I find it of varied quality. His "The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: ..." is magisterial in my opinion while his latest work, "The Messiah Myth: ..." is not going to convince many which I have stated in my review of it here on Amazon. As to his analysis of the ills informing the interface of archaeology, history, and biblical literature as presented here, it has needed to be engaged by his detractors not merely dismissed. There are nuggets of truth in this work that will just not go away.

As to his detractors, they have gone way beyond cranky. Dever's assertions of anti-Semitic motivations on Thompson's part are reprehensible and unjustified. Others have said worse of this man and his work, and you can find it right here in the reviews of this book. The degree to which the archaeology of ancient Israel has become a football driven by the needs of religion is scandalous. Furthermore, it has a political dimension within the state of Israel. Recently a discovery of ruins in Jerusalem was announced as the palace of Solomon. As Israel Finkelstein put it, we should be ecstatic that these discoveries push back the date of Jerusalem's urban habitation without the gratuitous speculation as to their use in the past. In large measure Thompson and his work has become a "lightning rod" for the discontent of the orthodox with modern scholarship. If that was his intent, he has done his job well. Regardless of our own thoughts on this book, it is an important work in my opinion that deserves sober consideration.

The Old Testament is best understood as a complex composite literary creation. The Bible is best understood as literature, and not as a history of the ancient world. This is the major premise of The Mythic Past.

One of the major temptations in reading the Bible is to think that the ancient writers thought and wrote about events like modern historians, carefully checking their facts and qualifying their interpretations. It has been a slow process, but Biblical scholars and archaeologists have begun to realize that trying to dig to establish specific Biblical events is a futile enterprise.

It is important to understand what Thomson is saying and what he is not saying. Thomson is not saying that there was no historical Israel. He is not even saying that there was no David - only that there is no conclusive evidence for King David. In his words he is drawing a contrast between Israel and the Biblical Israel to emphasize a specific point.

It matters little whether the Bible was composed in part during pre-exilic or post-exilic times or earlier. When you read the Bible, you are reading stories and interpretations of stories. The main concern of the writers was the way these stories were told, modified and interpreted. Whether the stories had a kernel of accuracy was a secondary concern to them.

The Biblical writers collected these stories (including poems, songs, etc.) and shaped them into specific books and added chronological anachronisms to place them into a historical framework of the past. But the purpose of this was not to create an accurate history, but to debate and illustrate specific theological points.

It is not that the Biblical writers didn't believe in their God or that these events didn't occur; it is that their major concern was storytelling to illustrate best the different shades of meaning the story aimed to evoke. They weren't modern fundamentalists or literalists, concerned primarily with the literal details of miraculous events. They were conscious molders and shapers of inherited traditions, arguing with one another within the boundaries of those traditions.

I think of the Bible, like Shakespeare or Homer, a great epic whose stories can inspire and evoke shock, surprise and outrage depending on the particular narrative. Evoking a crass literalism to stories seems to me to destroy the meaning and looses the point. I predict that Mr. Thomson's approach will become ever more widespread over time, not only because of the inherent sensibility of it, but through archaeology and the ever increasing awareness that Biblical writers, lived composed in the same Hellenistic thought world of the Ancient Near East.

I'm sorry I have to write this, but I just got so fed up with the so many of the wacky "reviews" (I use that term sparingly) that I thought I had to say SOMETHING.

It's obvious that many of these reviewers don't keep up with the actual, ACADEMIC debates on the relationship between History, Archaeology, and the Bible. The "Copenhagen" school of which Thomson is a member is indeed controversial (to say the least), but NO ONE in the academy (not even "enemies" of Thompson, like William Dever) seriously disputes the scholarly QUALIFICATIONS of its members, only their arguments and theories. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE understand the DIFFERENCE!!

Thompson is a legitimate, highly respected biblical historian and archaeological scholar who has authored several influential books and essays in PEER REVIEWED Journals. How many of the "reviewers" can say the same? Obviously, this fact has slipped the minds of many of the reviewers, who thought Thompson was just "some guy with some really wierd ideas." Although few Biblical Archaeologists think of themselves as "minimalists" (Thompson HIMSELF doesn't like the term, because he thinks that "reducing" the Bible to a mere "history book" is the REAL minimizing), many of Thompson's "wacky" ideas are, in fact, fairly COMMONLY accepted in academic (but NOT "Fundamentalist" or "Evangelical") circles. And even where they aren't accepted, the disagreement is usually a matter of DEGREE, not KIND.

As I hinted in my title, This book is an ARGUMENT for how to understand the relationship between the Bible and History, written to be read by laypeople as well as scholars. It is NOT, I repeat, is NOT a "research" book (Thompson has written plenty of those, for anyone who's interested). As such, one should not EXPECT many (if any) "references" and "citations." These are usually used in academic writing to SUPPORT one's argument; but what if one's argument is SO controversial that there's very LITTLE academic support for it? Just WHO would you be expecting "references" from?

"Very little support" doesn't necessarily mean "wrong," however, another fact that many of the "reviewers" don't seem to understand. I won't bore you with a list of just how many originally "wacky" notions (like the crazy idea that diseases were caused by incredibly tiny organisms called "germs," not by "demons") have become MAINSTREAM as time goes on. Probably the best thing for me to do is just calm down and let Thompson speak for himself, addressing his critics in his usual thoughtful manner. I've pasted a posting of his below, which can be found in its orignal form at

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/copenhagen.htm

Agree or disagree with his arguments as you like, but please, let's stop with the silly, childish "name calling" and pseudo-introspective "critiques"!


"A view from Copenhagen: Israel and the History of Palestine"


By Thomas L. Thompson
Professor of Old Testament, University of Copenhagen

"The Bible in History: How Writers Create A Past" entered what had already been a quarter-century long debate, one which William Dalrymple could accurately describe as an "enjoyably ill-tempered exchange between fiercely hostile academic enemies." Archaeology and theology have never been among the academy's kindest fields of study. Nevertheless, the extraordinary criticism that my new book and the works of scholars who have expressed a similar perspective, have received, has been so ferocious that I fear discussions on the history of Israel, have moved well beyond the "intemperate" debates that Dalrymple had anticipated. Slander and libel have displaced the academic interests of history and theology with a purpose that is far from innocent and unreflective.

This unhappy conclusion was forced on me as I read a review of my book published on December 24th, 1999 in The Jerusalem Post by Magen Broshi, the former director of the Israel Department of Antiquities. As I had expected, the review was negative. However, the very last statement of the review caught my attention: "Is it possible he does not believe in anything? Apparently there is a certain book that he does take seriously. A mutual acquaintance told me that Thompson confided in him that he is a staunch believer in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." This open and unabashed accusation still takes my breath away. I do realize that it follows well-established rules of propaganda: The more outrageous the lie the better and, if repeated often enough, it becomes fact. The irony of such a writer creating a past is not lost on me.

Rumor and gossip, such as expressed in Gary Rendsburg's essay on McGill University's home page, had long since prepared the ground for The Jerusalem Post's Christmas message. Repetition now attempts to make it fact. I mention only a few of the most egregious that I myself have experienced, but there have been many, many more. At a conference in October, 1999 at Northwestern University, in which I participated, William Dever did not accuse me directly of anti-Semitism, but softened this judgement of my work with such adjectives as 'anti-Israel', 'anti-Bible' and 'nihilistic'. Dever charged that I and my colleagues "are no longer honest scholars." In early November, 1999, the internet's Miqra engaged in airing an accusation by Hershel Shanks, the editor of the magazine The Biblical Archaeology Review, of anti-Semitism against Ze'ev Herzog, Niels Peter Lemche and myself. At the same time, the newspaper Ha-Aretz, published Shank's attack on Ze'ev Herzog and like-minded scholars as "anti-Zionist," "anti-Bible" and "anti-Israel." "At the extreme, they can even be viewed as anti-Semitic." Over the past year, this form of criticism has proven very effective, as a recent cover story by Netty Gross in The Jerusalem Report on an Israeli-Palestinian archaeological conference indicates. Here, Israel Finkelstein and David Ussishkin, are accused of encouraging the arguments of the Palestinian Authority's director of antiquities, Moain Sadek, who, in his turn, is not only accused of using archaeology for political purposes, but, borrowing a biblical trope, is accused of "treading a path that the "Copenhagen school" walked in the early 1990s." These Copenhagen "claims, she asserts, have no scholarly basis," as they have been met by what she calls "mainstream scholarship" with "counter-accusations of anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and even intellectual dishonesty on the scale of holocaust denial". One recent example of such hysteria appears in the Biblical Archaeological Review, in which Frank Cross is quoted as broaching an issue that "is not talked about too much: they [the "minimalists"] are kept alive by anti-Semitism. It bothers me." Whether Cross meant to join Broshi in suggesting that I and my colleagues live by anti-Semitism or whether he meant that anti-Semitic interests support our work, Hershel Shanks, by quoting this venerable scholar, has succeeded once again in associating us with anti-Semitism. These examples seem to be fairly representative of remarks that have been made in a number of public forums dealing with history and archaeology in recent years, such as the forum on the Bible and archaeology held in May and June in Los Angeles. At one meeting, William Dever summarized what he described as 7 "tenets" of the Copenhagen school. Among these are three whose wording seems hardly to be explained by either mistake or misreading: that there was no pre-history of ancient Israel, no early Israelite states or capitals, including Jerusalem and that there was no Judaism as a religion before about 135 CE.

Who are we, who have been described on at least one occasion as "a danger to western civilization" and simultaneously as so wrong-headed that we "can be safely ignored"? In biblical archaeological circles, we are often described as a kind of "gang of four": Thompson, Lemche, Davies and Whitelam. However, this simplification is most misleading. As I suggest above, what Khaled Nashef of the Journal of Palestinian Archaeology calls "The Debate" began more than a quarter century ago. This debate has been frequently associated with the work of Bernd Diebner, John Van Seters, Gösta Ahlström and Henk Franken. Among the central core of contributors to such new perspectives on the history of this region, are not only archaeologists such as Ussishkin, Herzog and Finkelstein from Tel Aviv, but also Giovanni Garbini, Mario Liverani and Carlo Zaccagnini from the University of Rome. Among these scholars, the reader will find substantial common ground within a very large spectrum of issues and method. However, given the broad spectrum of perspectives represented by these scholars, one would be ill advised to confuse the arguments of any one with another. They have been active participants in a debate.

If one considers a wider range of scholarship, certainly the work of Pietro Fronzaroli and Axel Knauf in historical linguistics must also be mentioned, as must that of Robert Carroll and David Gunn in literary readings. Rainer Albertz, Etienne Nodet, Graham Auld and Herbert Niehr have all added immeasurably to our understanding of the history of religion and tradition-history, but the disagreement among all of the above mentioned are as equally as engaging as their agreement. What is happening in Copenhagen, Sheffield, Tel Aviv and Rome is hardly an isolated wing of malcontents. It reflects a wide ranging international discourse. The discussion has been engaged not only in opposition to the synthetic interpretations of biblical archaeological trends represented by William Albright, Benjamin Mazar, Kathleen Kenyon and Roland de Vaux, in favor of an analysis which examines our sources of historical evidence independently of classical historiographies, such as we find in Manetho, the Bible and Josephus. They have also taken their departure from an earlier biblical scholarship's tradition-history as represented by Martin Noth or from the "salvation history" of Gerhard von Rad, from the traditions of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule of Sigmund Mowinckel and Hermann Gunkel and from the source criticism of Julius Wellhausen and Otto Eissfeldt. Our side of this debate has been engaged with the received traditions of our own teachers: it reflects a generational shift: a quite ordinary process in scholarship.

Having listed the "22 princes of the sea coast" of my own generation, I should also draw attention to the "twelve princes of Hatti" who reflect more recent trends of scholarship, which have taken their point of departure from the debates of the 1970s and 1980s, rather than yet older theories and methods of the past. To avoid breaking the limits of a brief essay, I confine myself to a very small group of scholars from Scandinavia or who otherwise have been associated in one way or another with the work of the "Copenhagen school." Comparable lists, I am sure, can be made to illustrate the kind of scholarship carried out in Sheffield, Rome and Tel Aviv. The list hardly includes any single perspective or methodology. Fred Cryer has worked primarily in linguistics and sociology and Tilde Binger, Allan Rosengren and Hans Jørgen Lundager Jensen in the history of religion. In archaeology, I need mention Margreet Steiner and Terje Oestigaard, and in history Margit Sjeggestad, Diana Edelman and Flemming Nielsen. In biblical exegesis and the history of religion and what we used to call "intertestamental" literature, the work of Thomas Bolin, Ingrid Hjelm and Greg Doudna all reflect the questions of a new generation of scholars. None of the scholars listed are fairly described as "nihilists" or of the abuse of their office as is repeatedly claimed by Shanks and Dever. 'Nor do I assume that I have their approval for attributing a collusive association between any of them or with myself. Those familiar with the debates over the past three decades will recognize that the most productive academic side of this discussion has been largely due to the fact that many of these scholars listed have been engaged in often sharp disagreement with each other, far more than they have been with any imaginary mainstream of scholarship. I can not play a role as spokesman for this wide group of scholars as are today engaged in this debate.

The accusation of our being "anti-Semitic" and William Dever's charges in Los Angeles that we deny the existence of Israel as an historical and political reality or of early Judaism as a religious factor in Palestine's history, are obviously cases of intentional misprision. This also seems true of the many personal attacks on the integrity of our scholarship. Such assaults have been undertaken without evidence or critical judgment. Although they are patent nonsense to those who have read our work, there is, however, both function and strategy in such slander. Personal attacks, ridicule and dismissal are used to hide important issues which remain undiscussed; namely, the critical issues of writing the history of Palestine today. I will try to present some of the issues that I have raised in the debate over the past thirty years, beginning with my dissertation on the patriarchs in 1971: issues which I believe have not sufficiently been addressed or engaged. I have chosen the form of lists, not only to give this wide-ranging discourse an appearance of coherence, but also to reflect a modicum of objectivity that we all need to strive for if we are ever to resist the unfortunate attractions of personal slander. I present three lists of ten issues or theses about the history of Palestine and its interrelationship with the interpretation of the Bible. The list with which I wish to begin offer 10 specific historical conclusions that I have come to in the course of my work. Not all are necessarily original to my work. The other lists also present 10 issues about which we have established respectively agreement or disagreement. It should be noted that many of the issues of greatest disagreement have hardly been taken up in the history of the debate. These are the issues, I believe, which have been most encouraged the personal attacks. It will be recognized that exegetical issues have not been a significant part of my lists. Nor have the issues of Palestinian religion or biblical theology, however important they are in dividing us. This has been intentional on my part and reflects an effort to limit the discussion to historical issues. In an effort to support understanding, I have tried to formulate three principles related to my research which I think are directly related to what might describe as a difference of perspective between my work and those of some of my critics. My lists, moreover, are hardly complete. They are offered in an effort to renew discussion.

Guiding Principles:
1) I think that the first and most central principle in my understanding of the relationship between biblical interpretation and the writing of a history of pre-Hellenistic Palestine is the conclusion that I drew in my Historicity; namely, that these are two quite distinct tasks. A History of Palestine is based on direct evidence from archaeology and historical geography and is supported by analogies that are primarily drawn from anthropology, sociology and linguistics. Contemporary texts are often critical to such historical interpretation, but, nevertheless, must be weighted as much as by what they imply as by what they assert. Secondary literature, on the other hand, such as we find in the Bible, but also in the writings of Manetho, Josephus and other authors of especially the Hellenistic period, must involve an interpretation based on our access to the world of the author. We need to understand the authors' access to the past they discuss and assert. This, of course, requires that we be satisfied with a fragmented history of Palestine in line with the fragmented nature of our sources. However, it will be one that is both correctable and falsifiable on the basis of continuing research.

2) The Bible, I think, is neither historical nor historiographical, but a secondary collection of tradition. Our earliest extant form of biblical books come from the Dead Sea scrolls. Nevertheless, the secondary and collective nature of the traditions collected in biblical works allows us to speculate on earlier forms of these literary productions, and especially on the themes and ideologies which the texts comprise.
3) Historicity. The criterion of historicity belongs to historiography and the critical assessment of sources. It is rare that a literary or theologically oriented production can be attributed the historicity of more typical historical sources. As many of our written sources for the history of the ancient Near East are filled with both literary and theological tropes, I find it necessary to consider literary strategies in their interpretation prior to attempting to integrate them within an historical synthesis. This also has much to do with my long-standing interests in the potential of non-literary archaeological sources for the history of Palestine.

10 historical conclusions (without order of preference or importance).
1) The hypothesis about the origin of the Semitic languages in one or other form of Afro-Asiatic is not my own, but still seems plausible. The development of Semitic began, accordingly, subsequent to the closing of the Sahara. The theory privileges West Semitic and Egyptian as logically prior to Akkadian and Arabic and supports our understanding of the development of these languages based on datable inscriptions since the third millennium BCE.

2) Structurally fundamental to the history of Palestine is a Mediterranean economy and the interaction of herding, grain and vini-/horticulture. Internal trade is intrinsic to this economy, which is inadequately described simply as a subsistence economy.

3) There is considerable stability of toponomy in Palestine since the Middle Bronze Age.

4) The rule of the Hyksos is an indigenous historical development within Egypt, involving a dispute over the Delta's dominance over Thebes during the so-called "second intermediate period." The historical relationships to Palestine seem to have been secondary.

5) The balance between villages and towns dominated by agriculture and transhumant pastoralism in Palestine's Mediterranean culture is cyclical, whose dynamic is strongly influenced by climate, trade and demography on one hand and on the economic and political influence of empire on the other. Early Bronze II, Middle Bronze II and Iron II are periods of high prosperity and a relatively dense population in Palestine while the intermediary periods of Early Bronze IV, Iron I and the Persian periods are marked by a downturn of both factors.

6) The Late Bronze period inaugurates a period of stress on Palestine, eventually leading to a demographic breakdown effecting both trade and the centralization of the population in towns. Large areas of the central hill country, especially south of the Shechem area and much of Judea, are abandoned. Throughout Palestine, there is a marked rise in the proportion and number of hamlets and small villages beginning already in the Late Bronze period and continuing into the beginning of Iron II. Many of these settlements are in areas that had not known previous settlement. A contrasting prosperity is the mark of the Iron II period. The maintenance of the populations of the coast and the lowlands is strongly affected by Egyptian presence in the area.

7) Not only is the history of Palestine comprised by separate histories of different regions, but these regional histories have been strongly affected by the competing patronage societies dominant within those regions. The distinctiveness of such regionalism can be seen in the different types and history of settlement which have been found for the Jezreel valley, the Galillee; the highlands between Ramallah and Nablus and that in the Judean hills. The history of these four regions from the Late Bronze period to Iron II is best written from a perspective which holds them distinct.

8) The history of Palestine and of its peoples is very different from the Bible's narratives, whatever political claims to the contrary may be. An independent history of Judea during the Iron I and Iron II periods has little room for historicizing readings of the stories of I-II Samuel and I Kings.

9) The nature and development of separate and distinct populations in the regions of Iron Age Judah, Samaria and Galilee can not be integrated with assumptions of their having originated from a single people of "Israel". Moreover, our inability to identify the people of Judah and Jerusalem who went into exile after the destruction of Jerusalem with those who came from Mesopotamia and settled the area of Jerusalem in the Persian period or later is a central problem of today's historiography which hardly allows us to use the language of ethnicity for Palestine's population.

10) Already by the Persian period, Judaism is marked by multiplicity in social, religious and regional organization and the term should not be used as if identifying either a specific religion or people.

10 Methodological issues about which there is widespread close agreement:

1) The three disciplines of Palestinian archaeology, history and biblical exegesis are independent disciplines which should not be harmonized. Each of these disciplines have their own methods and integrity. Our discourse needs to be subject to all three.

2) The interpretation of the religion of Iron Age Palestine is a discipline whose sources and goals are not identical with biblical exegesis.

3) The literary texts of the Bible reflect a literary and intellectual world that renders for us an interpretive context that always needs to be considered before we can interpret these texts.

4) The history and development of the population groups of the highlands of Israel and Judea should be first interpreted with the dynamics of Palestinian settlement history.


5) The historicity of biblical narrative has not been established and should not be assumed. The potential relationship of biblical story to any historical events assumed of the world they present should follow an appropriate literary analysis of the texts.

6) The Bible is a theological interpretation of the past with its own motivations apart from the historical that need to be considered in every interpretation.

7) Biblical studies has need for a regionally based history of Palestine based on archaeology that is independent of the Bible's perspectives on the past.

8) The Bible comprises a literature that has close associations with ANE thought.

9) Biblical literature reflects the existence of forms of both "Late Biblical Hebrew" and "Classical Biblical Hebrew;" yet there still remains great uncertainty about their chronological separation.

10) The usefulness and importance of Iron Age inscriptions for the history of Palestine and the need to analyze these inscriptions within their own contexts before using them for historical syntheses is widely recognized.

10 Issues of disagreement or issues which have not adequately been discussed.

1) The importance of the literary qualities of "historical" inscriptions is rarely given its due. For example, the discussions of the Mesha stele, of the inscription(s) from Tel Dan and of the Israel stele have led to tendentious conclusions because of the failure to attend to the literary character of these materials.

2) The distinct regional settlement histories from LB to Iron II transition have generally been ignored in favor of harmonization with a biblically oriented synthesis. This has most seriously distorted our understanding of the Galilee and Judah, but also the early settlement histories of the Jezreel and of the southern coastal plain.

3) The recognized gaps in Jerusalem's and Judah's settlement history have not been integrated into our understanding of the past. This has particularly effected the periods from LB to Iron II.

4) The effects on Palestine's history of the many deportations and transfers of population have not been integrated except where it is seen to be in agreement with biblical interpretation. The effect on our interpretation of political propaganda in deportation texts seems inadequately recognized.

5) Scholars often reject the certain Hellenistic dating of the biblical texts we have in favor of a substantially earlier potential dating without historical warrant and independent of the texts we are dating.

6) The biblical theology of monotheism has roots in the ideology of empire.

7) The significant lack of an ad quem dating for classical biblical Hebrew and the questionable distinction of the CBH and LBH in Qumran Hebrew are not openly discussed.

8) The question of ethnicity is given apologetic treatment but rarely systematically analyzed.

9) The first principle of the comparative method: the separation of the analysis of data before synthesis, is ignored by archaeologists in their historical reconstruction.

10) The question of the genre of biblical literature and in particular some necessary distinctions between genres of historiography and other secondary antiquarian traditions on one hand and literary sources potentially offering direct historical evidence on the other, are systematically ignored.

Thomas L. Thompson is a distinguished Professor of the Old Testament at the University of Copenhagen

The emphasis is on what the author knows, Biblical scholarship. The "Old Testament" is examined meticulously, and the author points to the issues that archaeologists have with it. If anything strikes you as dubious, or interesting, you have the pointer to what to research.

Those savaging this book because the author is not an archaeologist need to face squarely the fact that the Judaeo-Christian history they believe in comes not at all from a consensus of archaeologists, but entirely from Biblical scholars like this author.

All three of the great faiths of the MidEast seem to have become openly hostile to science, history, and archaeology if it impinges on their chauvinism. Quite the irony, considering how Catholics (Roman and Orthodox), Jews and Moslems preserved the humanistic heritage that works like this are in the tradition of, through the Dark Ages.

The Mythic Past by Thomas L. Thompson is absolutely wonderful.

I cannot say enough about this terrific book. I have been studying the Bible since I was eight years old (I am now 43). The Mythic Past was worth every penny and every hour I spent on it. Although I agree with the reviewer who says that many scholars already view the Bible as literature and not as factual reporting, this idea has not been easily accessible to the general public. Very few folks will go slogging through a book or journal on academic Biblical scholarship or archaeology! (On the other hand, The Mythic Past is definitely not a quick read. I found myself lingering over every section and having to think)

Unlike some others who critically analyze the Bible, Mr. Thompson does not become cynical, leaving the reader with a desire to "trash" the whole Bible - after all, one might be tempted to ask, if the Bible isn't "true," what good is it? On the contrary, he finds enormous spiritual and philosophical value in these stories, reminding us that the Biblical storytellers were passing on to us the wisdom of the ages. Moreover, I very much admire Mr. Thompson for standing by his discoveries and convictions all these years. As someone who has studied the Bible nearly all her life and attempted to discuss it rationally with others, I can imagine the guts this author had to have had on his life's journey.

The Bible may be the most influential book in world history. In contemporary global society where often the only Jewish, Christian, and Islamic religious people who get attention are fundamentalists, The Mythic Past is a volume for the religious rest of us. For those of us who have read the Bible - perhaps even the whole Bible - and found its passages understandably perplexing, Thompson's book helps us to fit the pieces into the puzzle by illustrating how the ancients were so culturally different from ourselves - and yet so mentally similar. For those of us who want to gain a greater insight into the Bible's beauty, this book will give the reader even greater appreciation for its narrative and poetry and, also, for those brilliant and outspoken ancients who struggled with the enormous questions of existence.

Although this book was rich, I would like to see more of Mr. Thompson's expository on the Bible. Certainly, I will be one of the first to buy his next book.

Thompson's book is advertised as radical, but in many respects it is an old story. What is new is not the recognition that Bible history is fiction--scholars have known that for a very long time--but at most a new way of delivering the bad news. Thompson spends as many pages defending the importance of a body of writing that is literally false than he does in making the case that it is false.

Folks who dismiss Thompson's book tend to impunge his motives even though motives don't matter as far as truth is concerned. Ibn Warraq, compiler of The Quest for the Historical Muhammad, has been similarly vilified in Amazon reviews.

Fact is, all the great religious traditions are based on what are, by our standards, literary frauds. One is at liberty to claim that this fact doesn't make any difference to the faith, but blaiming the messenger doesn't change anything.

"A generation later, a whole new approach is visible. No one speaks of Genesis as representing history any more, certainly not the minimalists and not even the maximalists. Instead, the focus is on how these stories operate as literature." Dr. Gary A. Rendsburg



State of Biblical Studies:
Gary A. Rendsburg, professor of Jewish Studies, Rutgers University, summarized the 'Current State of Biblical Studies' as, "In a word, biblical studies has gone from consensus to crisis. ...The consensus was formed around three general issues: a) the history of ancient Israel, b) the sources of the Torah, and c) the biblical text. First, and most importantly, the history. The consensus believed that the Bible is a reliable guide to the history of ancient Israel. Everything from the Patriarchs to Ezra was real. So real in fact, that if something in the archaeological record did not quite mesh with the biblical record, then the former was accommodated to fit the latter. ..."

An Exquisite Summary:
Under the 'The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past, Yee wrote a most compelling book review, giving a state of the art summary:
Part one is an introduction to general historiographical issues: the problems of confusing stories with historical evidence, the ways in which the Bible talks about the past and the dangers of confusing that with modern notions of history, and the use of myths of origin and recurring motifs. Part two is a history of Palestine and the surrounding region, from the earliest human settlement down to the Hellenistic period, based on the latest archaeological and historical evidence. Against the background of long-term climate change, the origin of the Semitic languages, and broad patterns of cultural change and continuity, it covers agriculture, settlement patterns, trade networks, and political structures, from the relationship of towns with their hinterlands to the geopolitics of Egyptian and Assyrian imperialism.
Three chapters then address a broad range of theological themes. "How God began" finds the Bible's view of God constructed from pieces of earlier traditions and world-views of exclusive and inclusive monotheism. It considers the presentation of Yahweh in Genesis, patron-client relationships as a model, and how Yahweh became God. A final chapter steps back to take a broad historiographical view. It describes the appropriation of the Bible by Europe and the modern clash between bible studies and theology, then gives some examples of how profoundly different ancient philosophy was and how the meaning and interpretation of bible texts have changed over time.

Thompson claims:
"The claims by Professor Thompson, ... says the inevitable conclusion is that the Israelite exile in Egypt, the Exodus and Israelite conquest of the Promised Land never took place." One might also be aware of tradition history which became popular among Scandinavian scholars. In this view, the writings were later in Israelite history, but the oral traditions had been passed on for years, even centuries. Or one might be aware of the latter scholarship. Niels Peter Lemche (Copenhagen School) declared, "writing ran against many social norms in the ancient world. Only by the time of Hezekiah was Israel ready to accept the transition of oral traditions to written text." The Copenhagen School pushes for the Bible being written in either the Persian or the Hellenistic period. Thompson questions the historical basis of such biblical accounts as the stories of the patriarchs, the kingships of Saul, David, and the Babylonian exile. Although he admires the brilliant epic narratives and folklore tales, enjoys the magnificent Bible poetry, and great wisdom and moral writing reflecting on important philosophical questions about the meaning of life and the name of God: "it is only as history that the Bible does not make sense." ...

Archaeological Finds:
"Excavations have found no trace of a settled population around Judea and Jerusalem during the 10th century BC, when the Kingdom of David and Solomon was supposed to have flourished.
Then there is the issue of the Philistines. We hear of them in connection with Isaac's encounter with Abimelech, king of the Philistines, at the city of Gerar (Genesis 26:1). The Philistines, a group of migrants from the Aegean or eastern Mediterranean, had not established their settlements along the coastal plain of Canaan until sometime after 1200 BCE. Their cities prospered in the eleventh and tenth centuries and continued to dominate the area well into the Assyrian period. The mention of Gerar as a Philistine city in the narratives of Isaac and the mention of the city (without the Philistine attribution) in the stories of Abraham (Genesis 20:1) suggest that it had a special importance or at least was widely known at the time of the composition of the patriarchal narratives.
Were these incongruous details merely late insertions into early traditions or were they indications that both the details and the narrative were late?" Peter Myers

Archeology and politics:
Bitter scholarly controversies, fueled by religious belief, have raged for decades about the historical authenticity of such Hebrew Bible stories as the exodus from Egypt. These debates are misconceived, argues Thompson: much of the Bible was never intended to be read literally, or even to be understood as history as modern readers conceive it. The great Alexandrian school of biblical interpretation, developed and used Philo's allegorical interpretation methodology, which saved interpreters from facing such literal contradictions.
Thomas L. Thompson, "one of the world's leading Biblical archaeologists", branded an "Anti-Semite" for saying that the Bible is not History but Literature. The fact that such smears are made over Biblical Archaeology shows that the veracity of the Bible is at the core of the Zionist project. Commenting on negative review published in Israeli newspapers, Thompson admitted that, "Archaeology and theology have never been among the academy's kindest fields of study. Nevertheless, the extraordinary criticism that my new book and the works of scholars who have expressed a similar perspective, have received, has been so ferocious that I fear discussions on the history of Israel, have moved well beyond the 'intemperate' debates that Dalrymple had anticipated."

Among the Minimalists:
Within the academic community, the main discussion revolves around how much weight to give the text of the Bible against counter-evidence or lack of evidence. Generally those giving more weight to the text of the Bible, assuming its correctness unless proven otherwise, and tending to interpret it literally, are called Biblical maximalists, while the opposing view is Biblical minimalism.(Wikipedia)
Even if Dr. Thompson was classified as a minimalist of the Copenhagen school, an attitude initiated by comparative religion studies by Professor H. Lange, J. Breasted inspirer, earlier in 1925.
Dr. Ph. Davies Of Sheffield University, wrote, "Let's begin with the word itself. Like its equivalents 'revisionist,' 'nihilist,' and 'skeptic,' it was coined by its opponents and is not supposed to be flattering. ... From what I have read and heard, the scholars most frequently identified with 'minimalism' are Thomas Thompson, Keith Whitelam, Niels Peter Lemche, and myself (Philip Davies). That all four now work in either Copenhagen or Sheffield may indeed suggest to superficial observers a 'school.' However, Thompson moved to Copenhagen only after his book Early History of the Israelite People was published (Brill 1992); he wrote it in Milwaukee."

An Unbiased Review:
"... is a study of how the Bible fits into history -- the way in which it deals with the past, the history of the period it is traditionally supposed to describe, and the history of the period in which it was written. Ranging from theological exegesis and textual criticism to drought cycles and settlement studies, it is solid but rewarding." Danny Yee
The remarkable story of 'how the Bible came to be,' understanding of the Bible's history, and its survival, was taken for granted as the faithful struggle to preserve an accurate, authentic version of revelation. The development of Holy Writ from oral lit, against human error and falsification, often downplayed the power of modern biblical study tools, archeological discoveries, in an integrated view of influential social, economic and political forces, which Thompson, to emphasize his views has taken to an extreme.

"The Mythic Past" is one of the best books on how to read the Bible I have yet encountered. The style is dense, but consistently insightful. I realized the Bible made no literal or historical sense back when I was 14. Since then, I have struggled to understand its continued cultural importance and its potential personal usefulness. Thompson addresses both of these in a startling way, by dismissing the Bible as history, and examining it as literature in the context of archeology and the broader, more verifiable history of the Middle East from non-Biblical sources. He places the Bible's composition at a much later date than most scholars, to the post-exilic, Persian and, perhaps most importantly, Hellenistic periods, and he relates it to the intellectual world of the time. I found the book to be a thought-provoking, door-opening and stimulating intellectual experience. His view might be considered minimalist, but for me, it contains more possibilty and usefulness than literal interpretations of Biblical history.

I cannot overestimate the importance of this book in its influence on my appreciation and understanding of the Bible. My growing dissatisfaction with the biblical training I had received in seminary was finally resolved by Thompson's sinking, once and for all, my understanding of the Bible as history. What Thompson proposes is a classic paradigm shift, ala Thomas Kuhn. It can be difficult and traumatic to see--hence, the numerous negative reviews here. Adopting Thompson's perspective was for me, however, enormously liberating. It enabled the Bible to come alive again in my personal reading and in my preaching and teaching.

It has saddened me to see the attacks Thompson has endured in many different places but I am sure he anticipated them. Like a Galileo or Darwin he has performed a great service in bravely going public with such unpopular ideas. Thompson's assertions are not important just for squabbling biblical scholars, or for liberal and conservative antagonists within Christianity. As he himself recognizes, the belief in a historical Bible has poisoned relations between Christians, Jews, and Muslims for centuries and is an essential component of the turmoil in the Middle East.

The Mythic Past is by no means just for academics. That said, it must be admitted that it is not easy reading. As some have critically said, this is due partly to Thompson's style. Much more, however, it is simply the result of reading genuinely new ideas contradicting deeply ingrained assumptions. I have found this is a book I can go back to multiple times and still learn something new. If the Bible is of any interest to you, and you are open to someone with a genuinely new perspective on it, I strongly encourage you to make the effort to read this book. You will not see the Bible or the world's religions the same ever again--and that will be a good thing.