What do you think?
Rate this book
The Bible In History
The Jewish people's historical claims to a small area of land bordering the eastern Mediterranean are not only the foundation for the modern state of Israel, they are also at the very heart of Judeo-Christian belief. Yet in The Mythic Past, Thomas Thompson argues that such claims are grounded in literary myth, not history. In another book, the author delves into the "Messiah myth".
480 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1999
30 people are currently reading
277 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
August 17, 2012
Extremely interesting account of how much of the Bible is fabricated or doesn't reflect the historical and archeological record. Great mix of history, religion and science.
August 6, 2025
A LEADER OF THE “MINIMALIST” SCHOOL OF BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY SUMMARIZES HIS POSITION
Thomas L. Thompson (born 1939) is a biblical scholar who was professor of theology at the University of Copenhagen from 1993–2009; he is a leader of the so-called “Copenhagen School” (aka “biblical minimalism”) in biblical archaeology and history; he has also written 'The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past, Biblical Narrative' and 'Palestine's History: Changing Perspectives,' 'The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham,' 'The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David,' etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1999 book, “I cannot help thinking about the changes in our approach to the Bible and its relationship to archaeology that have come about over the past twenty-five years. Long past is the assumption that ancient history can be written by merely paraphrasing or correcting the stories of the Bible. It has rather become quite difficult to understand these stories as recounting events from their authors’ past. It would be ingenuous of me to pretend that this book on the subject is uncontroversial.” (Pg. xi) He later argues, “While the financial benefits of tying the Bible to archaeology have increased, historical and intellectual benefits have just as rapidly diminished.”(Pg. 37) His thesis is perhaps this: “biblical narrative is not historiographical.” (Pg. 55)
He suggests, “The extra-biblical evidence shows that the biblical role of prophets from Balaam to Samuel and from Amos to Jeremiah belongs to a long-established literary tradition of ancient Palestine. Balaam is Palestine’s earliest known example of this tale type.” (Pg. 11)
He asserts, “the difficulties of these [biblical] texts do not lie in our understanding of them. The texts are abundantly clear about what they are doing: they are clearly built from scattered shards of stories and are largely uninterested in events. The episodes have been collected, organized and ordered specifically as broken and lost tradition. They hardly have the coherence we associate with what we call literature. Nor do they render an account of an event. They are traditions collected to give echo to and to call up a past forgotten or lost. Before we try to make history of them, we must ask ourselves whether there are any grounds at all for assuming that the actual texts we have ever possessed concrete political, historical referents. Do these broken narratives as such… as tradition blocks, have what we might seriously identify as an originating context implied in them?” (Pg. 52)
He says, “When we start with Israel as we understand the term, the Israel we know from the Bible, we need to recognize that our understanding of Israel as a people and as a nation is unrelated to any known historical Israel. The Israel we know was created by this literature: an examination of its origins is forced to move in lock step with an examination of the development of the Bible’s tradition. Nor is this Israel open to independent historical research and judgement. The Bible is our starting-point.” (Pg. 67)
He adds, “The Bible’s language is not an historical language. It is a language of high literature, of story, of sermon and of song. It is a tool of philosophy and moral instruction. To argue that the Bible has it wrong is like alleging that Herman Melville has got his whale wrong! Literarily, one might quibble about whether Jonah has it right with his big fish, but not because the story could or could not have happened… the rescue of Jonah is but a journeyman’s device as far as plot resolutions go. But no false note is sounded in Jonah’s fig tree, in Yahweh’s speech from the whirlwind in the book of Job, or in Isaiah 40’s song of comfort.” (Pg. 99)
He contends, “There is no evidence of a United Monarchy, no evidence of a capital in Jerusalem or of any coherent, unified political force that dominated western Palestine, let alone an empire of the size the legends describe. We do not have evidence for the existence of kings named Saul, David, or Solomon; nor do we have evidence for any temple at Jerusalem in this early period. What we do know of Israel and Judah of the tenth century does not allow us to interpret this lack of evidence as a GAP in our knowledge and information about the past, a result merely of the accidental nature of archaeology. There is neither room nor context, no artifact or archive that points to such historical realities in Palestine’s tenth century.” (Pg. 164)
He summarizes, “When we separate the Bible from history we are not getting rid of the Bible. It is where it has always been: playing among its stories and legends. History is a modern interest that the Bible rarely shares. It does use occasional tidbits of history here and there. It often refers to places, great figures and even some of the things that occurred in the past, and it occasionally seems to understand something of these episodes.” (Pg. 228)
Thompson’s points are clearly and forcefully made. One might suggest that many of his OWN points (e.g., about how the biblical texts were supposedly composed) are rather speculative and interpretive in nature, and not grounded in any concrete evidence. Nevertheless, this book will be of keen interest to many or most students of biblical archaeology and the early history of Israel (whether or not one agrees with Thompson!).
Thomas L. Thompson (born 1939) is a biblical scholar who was professor of theology at the University of Copenhagen from 1993–2009; he is a leader of the so-called “Copenhagen School” (aka “biblical minimalism”) in biblical archaeology and history; he has also written 'The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past, Biblical Narrative' and 'Palestine's History: Changing Perspectives,' 'The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham,' 'The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David,' etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1999 book, “I cannot help thinking about the changes in our approach to the Bible and its relationship to archaeology that have come about over the past twenty-five years. Long past is the assumption that ancient history can be written by merely paraphrasing or correcting the stories of the Bible. It has rather become quite difficult to understand these stories as recounting events from their authors’ past. It would be ingenuous of me to pretend that this book on the subject is uncontroversial.” (Pg. xi) He later argues, “While the financial benefits of tying the Bible to archaeology have increased, historical and intellectual benefits have just as rapidly diminished.”(Pg. 37) His thesis is perhaps this: “biblical narrative is not historiographical.” (Pg. 55)
He suggests, “The extra-biblical evidence shows that the biblical role of prophets from Balaam to Samuel and from Amos to Jeremiah belongs to a long-established literary tradition of ancient Palestine. Balaam is Palestine’s earliest known example of this tale type.” (Pg. 11)
He asserts, “the difficulties of these [biblical] texts do not lie in our understanding of them. The texts are abundantly clear about what they are doing: they are clearly built from scattered shards of stories and are largely uninterested in events. The episodes have been collected, organized and ordered specifically as broken and lost tradition. They hardly have the coherence we associate with what we call literature. Nor do they render an account of an event. They are traditions collected to give echo to and to call up a past forgotten or lost. Before we try to make history of them, we must ask ourselves whether there are any grounds at all for assuming that the actual texts we have ever possessed concrete political, historical referents. Do these broken narratives as such… as tradition blocks, have what we might seriously identify as an originating context implied in them?” (Pg. 52)
He says, “When we start with Israel as we understand the term, the Israel we know from the Bible, we need to recognize that our understanding of Israel as a people and as a nation is unrelated to any known historical Israel. The Israel we know was created by this literature: an examination of its origins is forced to move in lock step with an examination of the development of the Bible’s tradition. Nor is this Israel open to independent historical research and judgement. The Bible is our starting-point.” (Pg. 67)
He adds, “The Bible’s language is not an historical language. It is a language of high literature, of story, of sermon and of song. It is a tool of philosophy and moral instruction. To argue that the Bible has it wrong is like alleging that Herman Melville has got his whale wrong! Literarily, one might quibble about whether Jonah has it right with his big fish, but not because the story could or could not have happened… the rescue of Jonah is but a journeyman’s device as far as plot resolutions go. But no false note is sounded in Jonah’s fig tree, in Yahweh’s speech from the whirlwind in the book of Job, or in Isaiah 40’s song of comfort.” (Pg. 99)
He contends, “There is no evidence of a United Monarchy, no evidence of a capital in Jerusalem or of any coherent, unified political force that dominated western Palestine, let alone an empire of the size the legends describe. We do not have evidence for the existence of kings named Saul, David, or Solomon; nor do we have evidence for any temple at Jerusalem in this early period. What we do know of Israel and Judah of the tenth century does not allow us to interpret this lack of evidence as a GAP in our knowledge and information about the past, a result merely of the accidental nature of archaeology. There is neither room nor context, no artifact or archive that points to such historical realities in Palestine’s tenth century.” (Pg. 164)
He summarizes, “When we separate the Bible from history we are not getting rid of the Bible. It is where it has always been: playing among its stories and legends. History is a modern interest that the Bible rarely shares. It does use occasional tidbits of history here and there. It often refers to places, great figures and even some of the things that occurred in the past, and it occasionally seems to understand something of these episodes.” (Pg. 228)
Thompson’s points are clearly and forcefully made. One might suggest that many of his OWN points (e.g., about how the biblical texts were supposedly composed) are rather speculative and interpretive in nature, and not grounded in any concrete evidence. Nevertheless, this book will be of keen interest to many or most students of biblical archaeology and the early history of Israel (whether or not one agrees with Thompson!).
August 16, 2020
The book proves that what is narrated in the Bible is only myth.
The Author starts by giving a bleak picture of the status of the field of historical studies of the Bible for its lack of solid scientific methods. Theological prejudice that insists on adopting ‘the Bible’s view of the past’ has hindered the progress in biblical scholarship. The dependence on the Bible itself as a source of history resulted in the failure of separating myth from history.
The presence of evidence from extra-biblical texts does not necessarily confirm the historicity of the Bible’s stories. On the contrary, it confirms the Bible's own presentation of them as active tales of the past.
Thompson is not impressed by authors of the biblical texts that describe the myths of origin. It wasn’t the intention of authors of the Bible for it to be a book of history. This means the collapse of the paradigm: “the Bible as history”.
He believes that the Bible is a collection of stories, myths and traditions; it can’t be the source of serious theology. Even if the Bible contains some theology, this theology is obsolete; it is not suitable for modern times.
If the Bible is an obsolete document that can’t be relied upon as a source of history or theology, why there is still great interest in it? The Author believes the reason is because the Europeans identify themselves with Christianity and with the Bible as the Scripture of Christianity.
The Author starts by giving a bleak picture of the status of the field of historical studies of the Bible for its lack of solid scientific methods. Theological prejudice that insists on adopting ‘the Bible’s view of the past’ has hindered the progress in biblical scholarship. The dependence on the Bible itself as a source of history resulted in the failure of separating myth from history.
The presence of evidence from extra-biblical texts does not necessarily confirm the historicity of the Bible’s stories. On the contrary, it confirms the Bible's own presentation of them as active tales of the past.
Thompson is not impressed by authors of the biblical texts that describe the myths of origin. It wasn’t the intention of authors of the Bible for it to be a book of history. This means the collapse of the paradigm: “the Bible as history”.
He believes that the Bible is a collection of stories, myths and traditions; it can’t be the source of serious theology. Even if the Bible contains some theology, this theology is obsolete; it is not suitable for modern times.
If the Bible is an obsolete document that can’t be relied upon as a source of history or theology, why there is still great interest in it? The Author believes the reason is because the Europeans identify themselves with Christianity and with the Bible as the Scripture of Christianity.
September 14, 2014
It seems that Thompson presents very good evidence for the nonexistence of Israel before late 8th century BCE based on archaeologoical studies and some textual as well. That means no historical patriarchs, Moses, David and Solomon, plus the united kingdom. So according to him the use of the Bible for historical research is wrong or misleading at best.
What seems interesting to me is that he in no way talks of god's nonexistence. He sees the Bible as mainly theological. The Bible is a set of stories following various motifs speaking to the reality of god in their (the writers) traditions.
I found that the book was well put together, but dry in places. I would have given it 4 stars based on his arguments, which for the most part I found sound. The thing was it was not a gripping piece of writing.
What seems interesting to me is that he in no way talks of god's nonexistence. He sees the Bible as mainly theological. The Bible is a set of stories following various motifs speaking to the reality of god in their (the writers) traditions.
I found that the book was well put together, but dry in places. I would have given it 4 stars based on his arguments, which for the most part I found sound. The thing was it was not a gripping piece of writing.
Want to Read
August 7, 2011We are looking for the origins of Israel as we know it from the Bible, yet we are unable to confirm any biblical narrative as historical until we first have a separate, independent history with which we might compare the Bible's account. This books confirms that to date, there is no separate, independent history with which we might compare the Bible's account.
December 8, 2020
The past really is a foreign country. And the past had its own past to puzzle over. So approaching history is a multi-layered challenge (especially when dealing with a place as freighted with significance as ancient Palestine). It can also lead to a lot of silliness.
How silly can it get? Well, consider the Tel Dan stele. In 1993 an archaeologist discovered a fragment of what appeared to be an ancient stele near Tel Dan in northern Israel. The next year, another fragment (presumed to be from the same stele) turned up. The stele may originally have been put in place sometime between 850 and 750 BCE by a king of Damascus, and it contained an inscription written in Aramaic. The stele was damaged, so much of the writing was missing. But attention soon centered on a few letters that could be transliterated as bytdwd. The byt part could be translated as "house." And dwd could be translated as David. News articles soon poured out, proclaiming that archaeologists had confirmed the historicity of the biblical House of David. Christian apologists piled on.
Despite the breathless coverage, many scholars were skeptical. Byt could mean house, but it could also connote temple. The "dwd" part of the inscription may actually have been dod. And dwd could mean several things in Aramaic, including "beloved" and "uncle." Some thought bytdwd didn't look like a dynastic name at all, but more like a place name (perhaps a place closer to Tel Dan rather than Judah to the south, where David supposedly made his capital). Some even noted suspicious chisel marks on the fragment and wondered if the stele was a forgery.
In response to the circus surrounding artifacts like the Tel Dan stele, some scholars (including the author of this book) proposed a more measured approach: Why not tell the public how little researchers actually know for sure about the world in which the Bible was written -- and distinguish that knowledge from speculation? Most Bible stories do not match up with the archaeological record, after all (there's no evidence of an exodus from Egypt or a conquest of Canaan, for example). Even names and events that have some basis in known fact don't necessarily line up with the scriptural telling.
So maybe Bible stories are what they look like: Mythology about a fabled past. It has been clear for a long time that the authors of the biblical books borrowed from earlier works in circulation throughout the ancient Near East, such as the Babylonian Enuma Elish. The infancy story of Moses looks like a rewrite of claims about Sargon of Akkad being set adrift in a basket of rushes. Some of the stories clearly have been influenced by ancient Greek writings too.
Speaking of which, it's interesting to compare how people react to archaeological finds related to the Bible as compared to other ancient texts, such as _The Iliad._ Archaeologists have discovered that there really was an ancient city of Troy -- and it did experience numerous wars (not surprising, given its strategic location on the coast of Anatolia). But no one seems ready to conclude that _The Iliad_ is therefore historically accurate. Hellenic apologists don't argue that the presence of Bronze Age artifacts means that Athena really did swoop down from Mt Olympus to restrain Achilles when he was brawling with Agamemnon.
The books of the Bible (both testaments) were literary works for a mostly illiterate age. So who was the intended audience? Probably the authors' (relatively few) literate peers. Most ancient people would have been exposed to these writings (if at all) through passages read aloud. The authors (whoever they were) had a different view of the universe from ours, and probably a different concept of divinity (it seems to have included a large element of what we would call fate). Many biblical texts read like woo-inflected folklore. And the brutality of the stories can be numbing, as when Yahweh instructs Saul in 1 Samuel 15: "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (Saul famously fell from grace because he was not mindlessly destructive enough. Attempts to explain this away for modern readers mostly serve to make theologians sound like sociopaths.)
BTW, this book may be hard to follow unless you've read the Bible all the way through. I re-read chunks of it while reading Thompson's book, trying to see the authors as they most likely were -- educated people of their time who were striving to make sense of their world. They lived in a relatively powerless land that depended on trade with richer neighbors. Their homeland existed in a constantly precarious state, enduring war and oppression at the hands of successive empires (Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Seleucids and Ptolemies, Romans), always surrounded (and often invaded) by competing cultures with competing gods. Their deity was often cruel and arbitrary, just like their world.
It can be hard to brush away centuries of biblical commentary and read the books of the Bible without filters. But before appropriating the authors' work for whatever modern theological or other purposes we may have in mind, we owe them that at least.
How silly can it get? Well, consider the Tel Dan stele. In 1993 an archaeologist discovered a fragment of what appeared to be an ancient stele near Tel Dan in northern Israel. The next year, another fragment (presumed to be from the same stele) turned up. The stele may originally have been put in place sometime between 850 and 750 BCE by a king of Damascus, and it contained an inscription written in Aramaic. The stele was damaged, so much of the writing was missing. But attention soon centered on a few letters that could be transliterated as bytdwd. The byt part could be translated as "house." And dwd could be translated as David. News articles soon poured out, proclaiming that archaeologists had confirmed the historicity of the biblical House of David. Christian apologists piled on.
Despite the breathless coverage, many scholars were skeptical. Byt could mean house, but it could also connote temple. The "dwd" part of the inscription may actually have been dod. And dwd could mean several things in Aramaic, including "beloved" and "uncle." Some thought bytdwd didn't look like a dynastic name at all, but more like a place name (perhaps a place closer to Tel Dan rather than Judah to the south, where David supposedly made his capital). Some even noted suspicious chisel marks on the fragment and wondered if the stele was a forgery.
In response to the circus surrounding artifacts like the Tel Dan stele, some scholars (including the author of this book) proposed a more measured approach: Why not tell the public how little researchers actually know for sure about the world in which the Bible was written -- and distinguish that knowledge from speculation? Most Bible stories do not match up with the archaeological record, after all (there's no evidence of an exodus from Egypt or a conquest of Canaan, for example). Even names and events that have some basis in known fact don't necessarily line up with the scriptural telling.
So maybe Bible stories are what they look like: Mythology about a fabled past. It has been clear for a long time that the authors of the biblical books borrowed from earlier works in circulation throughout the ancient Near East, such as the Babylonian Enuma Elish. The infancy story of Moses looks like a rewrite of claims about Sargon of Akkad being set adrift in a basket of rushes. Some of the stories clearly have been influenced by ancient Greek writings too.
Speaking of which, it's interesting to compare how people react to archaeological finds related to the Bible as compared to other ancient texts, such as _The Iliad._ Archaeologists have discovered that there really was an ancient city of Troy -- and it did experience numerous wars (not surprising, given its strategic location on the coast of Anatolia). But no one seems ready to conclude that _The Iliad_ is therefore historically accurate. Hellenic apologists don't argue that the presence of Bronze Age artifacts means that Athena really did swoop down from Mt Olympus to restrain Achilles when he was brawling with Agamemnon.
The books of the Bible (both testaments) were literary works for a mostly illiterate age. So who was the intended audience? Probably the authors' (relatively few) literate peers. Most ancient people would have been exposed to these writings (if at all) through passages read aloud. The authors (whoever they were) had a different view of the universe from ours, and probably a different concept of divinity (it seems to have included a large element of what we would call fate). Many biblical texts read like woo-inflected folklore. And the brutality of the stories can be numbing, as when Yahweh instructs Saul in 1 Samuel 15: "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (Saul famously fell from grace because he was not mindlessly destructive enough. Attempts to explain this away for modern readers mostly serve to make theologians sound like sociopaths.)
BTW, this book may be hard to follow unless you've read the Bible all the way through. I re-read chunks of it while reading Thompson's book, trying to see the authors as they most likely were -- educated people of their time who were striving to make sense of their world. They lived in a relatively powerless land that depended on trade with richer neighbors. Their homeland existed in a constantly precarious state, enduring war and oppression at the hands of successive empires (Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Seleucids and Ptolemies, Romans), always surrounded (and often invaded) by competing cultures with competing gods. Their deity was often cruel and arbitrary, just like their world.
It can be hard to brush away centuries of biblical commentary and read the books of the Bible without filters. But before appropriating the authors' work for whatever modern theological or other purposes we may have in mind, we owe them that at least.
January 6, 2022
It is not that Thompson's main thesis is wrong: far from that. Thompson represents what is for the most part the mainstream consensus in the scholarly study of the Bible, the position that claims that Biblical texts are not historical but theological, that they should not be seen and read as historical evidence, and so on. Thompson's chronology might be more radical than the broader consensus, but this in itself would not be a problem.
The problem is Thompson's absolute ignorance of anything that is *not* the Bible in the sense of the text and only text. If I had taken a better look at the table of contents to start with, I would have noticed that Thompson offers no bibliography at all, which in itself is reason enough no to even consider reading this book. He frequently misspells "Akkadian" as "Accadian", which is the orthograpy used perhaps during the 1890s - this is not a typo - and even then marginally. His interpretation of Assyrian deportation policy is so simplified as to be completely wrong, when it is not completely wrong. His interpretation of ancient law collections, such as the Laws of Hammurabi, is extremely outdated and simply wrong. When at 45% I read:
"The Assyrian ideology of democratic equality within the provinces was touted as a benefit of empire. This was not only propaganda but also policy."
I could only laugh. The Assyrian Empire was not a democracy. The equality existed only in the sense that the king had authority over the life and death of all his subjects, equally. Such profound ignorance and anachronistic thinking seem almost too absurd to be true.
Aramaic was most certainly NOT the official language of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires - it was explicitly the *un*official one. The official language was Akkadian - there is a royal letter from the Neo-Assyrian period in which the king explicitly forbids the addressee to send his missives in Aramaic. To claim the opposite is the height of folly - and again, how is it possible to have done any research at all and miss the most basic facts? It is almost like saying that the official language of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages was English, or similar rubbish.
I think there was also a passage somewhere claiming the Assyrians built schools in conquered territories: again, nothing could be further from the truth. Schooling in this period was carried out privately: school tablets are almost invariably found in the context of private housing, with the exception of occasional votive tablets in temples (these, however, are Babylonian and not Assyrian).
I could go on for pages, but in any case, if so much about Assyrians and Babylonians is so horribly wrong, I shudder to think what I have missed about topics that do not belong to my area of expertise. This book is simply a waste of time and I stronly discourage anybody from reading it.
The problem is Thompson's absolute ignorance of anything that is *not* the Bible in the sense of the text and only text. If I had taken a better look at the table of contents to start with, I would have noticed that Thompson offers no bibliography at all, which in itself is reason enough no to even consider reading this book. He frequently misspells "Akkadian" as "Accadian", which is the orthograpy used perhaps during the 1890s - this is not a typo - and even then marginally. His interpretation of Assyrian deportation policy is so simplified as to be completely wrong, when it is not completely wrong. His interpretation of ancient law collections, such as the Laws of Hammurabi, is extremely outdated and simply wrong. When at 45% I read:
"The Assyrian ideology of democratic equality within the provinces was touted as a benefit of empire. This was not only propaganda but also policy."
I could only laugh. The Assyrian Empire was not a democracy. The equality existed only in the sense that the king had authority over the life and death of all his subjects, equally. Such profound ignorance and anachronistic thinking seem almost too absurd to be true.
Aramaic was most certainly NOT the official language of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires - it was explicitly the *un*official one. The official language was Akkadian - there is a royal letter from the Neo-Assyrian period in which the king explicitly forbids the addressee to send his missives in Aramaic. To claim the opposite is the height of folly - and again, how is it possible to have done any research at all and miss the most basic facts? It is almost like saying that the official language of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages was English, or similar rubbish.
I think there was also a passage somewhere claiming the Assyrians built schools in conquered territories: again, nothing could be further from the truth. Schooling in this period was carried out privately: school tablets are almost invariably found in the context of private housing, with the exception of occasional votive tablets in temples (these, however, are Babylonian and not Assyrian).
I could go on for pages, but in any case, if so much about Assyrians and Babylonians is so horribly wrong, I shudder to think what I have missed about topics that do not belong to my area of expertise. This book is simply a waste of time and I stronly discourage anybody from reading it.
October 17, 2019
This book explores the idea of separating archaeology and history from the Bible and looking at the Bible only through a literary lens. I really liked that the author made a point to explain that the Old and New Testament are part of a consistent whole and had a whole section about how European our concept of the Bible has become because of Christianity and Medieval tradiations (especially because of Augustine). A lot of interesting things to think about, considering how very little we actually know about early Palestine.
September 27, 2019
well written and easy to read. the author does an excellant job supporting the central concept. basically debunks those who have attempted to use the bible as a history text. clearly demonstrates how archeology has proven beyond any doubt that the bible is actually a collection of non historical stories.
his thesis does not detract from the value of these stories but does place them in context and purpose.
his thesis does not detract from the value of these stories but does place them in context and purpose.
Want to Read
November 13, 2019can someone remind me on what page Thompson writes " The bible is a language of high literature, of story, of sermon and of song. It is a tool of philosophy and moral instruction" please
November 12, 2021
Wczytując się w historię biblijną, czy raczej historię starożytnych Żydów (każde słowo to pułapka, więc świadomie upraszczam), postanowiłem też zapoznać się z przedstawicielem nurtu "minimalizmu biblijnego", czyli tezy, że to wszystko to późne, z czasów hellenistycznych, legendy.
Trudno mi książkę oceniać. W porównaniu z autorami mającymi bardziej historyczne cele, tu razi mnie nadmierne operowanie ogólnikami. Bo, że mamy w Biblii powtórki? Że opowieści tłumaczą fenomeny naturalne i nazwy miejscowe? Że łączą wątki mityczne? Ależ z tym już nikt się nie sprzecza. Przynajmniej nikt z poważnych autorów, bo w końcu temat mocno ideologiczny i, niestety, obecność fundamentalistów źle wpływa na dyskusję. Ci "nie-minimaliści" Biblijni różnią się właściwie tym, że przesuwają powstanie ksiąg o kilkaset lat wstecz, łącząc je z wydarzeniami historycznymi, a niektórym nawet przydając znaczenie pewnego dokumentu historycznego. Niby dużo sprzeczać się, czy Biblię ukształtowała niewola babilońska i okres perski, czy powstania Machabeuszów, ale w potocznym rozumieniu chodzi o historyczność Mojżesza, czy zdobycze Jozuego, a tu już obie strony w pełni się zgadzają. Spory dotyczą Salomona i Dawida, albo reform Jozjasza i dawności ksiąg prorockich.
Tak więc entuzjastą nie jestem, ale nie potrafiłbym ocenić, bo wszystko zależy od punktu odniesienia.
Trudno mi książkę oceniać. W porównaniu z autorami mającymi bardziej historyczne cele, tu razi mnie nadmierne operowanie ogólnikami. Bo, że mamy w Biblii powtórki? Że opowieści tłumaczą fenomeny naturalne i nazwy miejscowe? Że łączą wątki mityczne? Ależ z tym już nikt się nie sprzecza. Przynajmniej nikt z poważnych autorów, bo w końcu temat mocno ideologiczny i, niestety, obecność fundamentalistów źle wpływa na dyskusję. Ci "nie-minimaliści" Biblijni różnią się właściwie tym, że przesuwają powstanie ksiąg o kilkaset lat wstecz, łącząc je z wydarzeniami historycznymi, a niektórym nawet przydając znaczenie pewnego dokumentu historycznego. Niby dużo sprzeczać się, czy Biblię ukształtowała niewola babilońska i okres perski, czy powstania Machabeuszów, ale w potocznym rozumieniu chodzi o historyczność Mojżesza, czy zdobycze Jozuego, a tu już obie strony w pełni się zgadzają. Spory dotyczą Salomona i Dawida, albo reform Jozjasza i dawności ksiąg prorockich.
Tak więc entuzjastą nie jestem, ale nie potrafiłbym ocenić, bo wszystko zależy od punktu odniesienia.
August 5, 2014
Deep, dense, demanding, and difficult. The author has nothing against religion, but he demolishes (quite successfully) a literal reading of the Bible AND the "history" of Israel; he also destroys a liberal interpretation. He is like Alan Watts or Bishop John Shelby Spong on academic steroids. This book, along with Watts' Myth and Ritual in Christianity and Assmann's Egyptian Moses, reinforces the truth that God will not be contained be the covers of any book written by us.
Prepare to be challenged!
Prepare to be challenged!
October 22, 2012
A brilliant exegesis of the subject matter. However, the book overstresses the role of literary fabrication in the ancient world and leaves little if no room for actual history. Thus even when the biblical account (which, I agree, is for the most part an ideological construction) is corroborated by extra-biblical documentation, the latter is rechanneled into a discussion on recurrent literary themes and is rejected. Nevertheless, the overall thrust of the volume is convincing.
June 23, 2015
This book is educational, and in parts fascinating. However, it is a subject more near and dear to my spouses heart than my own and I struggled with long dull sections, which took too much time to drive a point home. But definitely offers a great perspective on biblical history.
April 10, 2016
A controversial book written by one of the leading minimalists, Thomas Thompson.
April 7, 2008
Read Dever instead
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews