A highly imaginative novel, which initially draws the reader into it's reality, and then reveals the larger picture. It is told from the perspective of 2 main characters, and moves gracefully between their worlds, and world knowledge. Good, solid, sf with a moral imperative.

This book moved me greatly; a story of society's deformed children in their innocent world and the clash when two of them realize there is more "out there." If you have the opportunity to read this book, don't miss it!

I rated the book 4 stars, not 5, because some parts were poorly organized. It took a couple of readings before I figured out what happened regarding the rivalry between DeBaker and Cooley (who, incredibly, are both still alive and both practicing medicine - although not surgery - at ripe old ages). As a pharmacist and amateur medical historian, I found the list of transplant patients (171 at the book's writing) especially fascinating. In subsequent reading, I have discovered the fates of some of the 29 survivors. Today, tens of thousands of people live quality lives with hearts they were not born with.

Organ transplantation is still a tricky, dangerous, inexact science, but we are improving to this day.

Also, my brother lived in Houston a few years ago, and I asked him about certain landmarks and cultural traditions. He said not much has changed in three decades. Amazing.

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.

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.

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.

This is a disappointing and tedious book. This book markets itself as an expose that there was no real link between the history of Israel and the "historical account" of the Old Testament.

The author asserts that archeology suggests that it is not possible to prove if there was a King David of Israel, if Saul or Solomon existed. Further it would seem that there were no such people as the Philistines, and that Palestine was never invaded by a desert people as would be consistent with the story of Joshua and the return to the Holy Land. It should be noted that these assertions are not footnoted and one is left wondering the basis for the suggestion.

The author of this book goes on to say that the bible stories are not meant to tell history but rather they are sorts of aphorisms or wordplays. Thus Abraham is a word which means father of nations. He was not a real person but a literary device. David means beloved and he was a concept rather than a real person.

To illustrate this theory by one of the stories discussed in this book. In the Bible David and Saul have a falling out. Saul leads an army to capture David. At one point David is hiding in a cave and Saul enters. David could have killed Saul but instead secretly cuts a small piece of cloth from his robe. Later he tells Saul that he could have killed him and gives him a piece of the robe. All is forgiven and David later ascends the throne. The author however sees this story in a different light. The word for a small piece of robe is similar to that of penis. What the story suggests is that David has castrated Saul or that the story has been invented as a pun rather than describing an incident. Nowadays some comedians' routines are based on making jokes about farting or other bodily functions. To suggest that the writers of the bible were comedians writing ancient penis jokes is not credible. It is far easier to see the story as illustrating David as a heroic and cunning warrior.

This sort of attack on the bible is not going to convince anyone. It is effectively a post-modernist look at the bible. That is a series of endless word games rather than an examination of issues of substance. If one looks at the book it has no bibliography and the author only cites biblical texts rather than other archeological or historical works. The suggestions about archeology are not attributed.

Religious believers will be infuriated by this book non-believers will be irritated. It is the sort of "academic" work that led to criticism of that genre. Not worth the money.

In brief this is a kind of interpretation of the bible, a different interpretation based on bible + external documents + a VERY WIDE knowledge on multitude of matters [including weather, social history, economical schemes ... in old times]. This interpretation collect most of what 'non-biblical' school of interpretation has reached and propose them, with new ideas, to come out with some results: This is never a history. We are in theology domains.

Thompson dares to decide, and he is right, how scholars in this domain have changed the dimensions and the facts of Palestine/Israel; how external documents have been manipulated to create list of positive comparison between BIBLE/ External lineages of kingdoms. All scholars were in one side some 30 years ago and now things are not the same. They were forming history on bible size and now they find no bible inside history[ for a lot of them]

He also describes briefly the methodology in use for biblical studies and later corrective results [applied on these methods] caused by Limkeh, Fenkelshtein, Shiffield University magazine etc..

He believes this has resulted in a non-reversible path, close to an exact science. In his inside [He does not say it] only an ignorant or a fanatic might still think history occurred as described in the bible. Not even close to it.

The target of the author is to work on Who and Why and How the writers of the did it. Since the start he never hides his tendencies.

"Aphorisms or Wordplays" or as he calls them " Lego of Copenhagen pieces" is what Thompson think that the writers of the bible used as a tool. But of course they had something to say; they were building.

In fact he gave lot of un-refutable examples. I will write here one of these examples:

A personality inside Num (22-24): Bel3am Ben Bi3our [ 3= Hebrew Ain ]

This same name is also found in an external document known to experts in archeology [between 700 and 750 BC]

One can dress table of common properties for this figure [Bel3am] taken from 2 documents: [Divine man , speaker with VOICE OF GOD ,messenger of a GOD ] . Still the personality Bel3am has also different properties [Prophet in Syria or in MOAB, Prophet of YAHWAH or a GOD called ShJR/Shedai Divinity,]

The proof is clear and all experts in this matter know both documents. Of course the external document of the 8th century BC does not prove the historicity of Bel3am but how this person was used in different documents playing similar roles. The need of the narrator to tell the story has introduced him. In the bible the narrator has used him to show how much GOD was the people. As if we were in a figure used in a series of story. How can different places assign to same figure multitude of roles and events.

For people who know some traditions of the Middle East this is never strange. STILL till now people transmit stories of old names, different stories, in different places.

Still these same figures might or might not have existed but for sure this figure did not do all these things. Abu Zaid - Al-Hilali and Balkis and Solomon [ yes, the same ] are figures to whom we assign stories transmitted up till now in an area covering YEMEN [ Indian ocean] till southern Turkey.

End of the example.

Besides his interpretation of the bible - he also describes all the needed situation parameters and environments accompanying the history of Palestine. He even starts with tens of thousands of years BC. He made some focus on reviewing ancient world prehistory and historical elements and evidences, he correct some of them in the light of new discoveries.

For sure, those who want to look for history and force God's hands in making the future will not like his book. They will be deceived, as one other reviewer has said.

For those who truly study bible and want to know how the writers have done it and what did they want? Were they writing history ? Or preaching ? or what? This book explains a lot for them.

Thompson has wrote a master piece in this science.

Maybe this man was wrong in some of his interpretations [maybe !] but - I think - he was right in the global understanding. I think he infiltrated the mind of the writers and the compilers.

If Thompson participated to ASHOURA of IRAQ in the first 40 starting days of the HIJRI year he would have understood better these things. Amazingly; this art of narrator still exist till now; before the Islamic Revolution of Iran [1978] there were a very old art inside Iranian villages [covering IRAN - KURDISTAN - and TURKEY]. In these villages Narrators were telling stories and using figures in multitude of matters and fairy tales about ALEXANDRE and OLD PERSIAN KINGS and ROMAN too.]. We are facing the same techniques exactly. Even more exact than the example of ASHOURA season. These narrators might be illiterates. Still they give lot of new roles each year for their heroes. Might they have introduced other figures from another time in one of their stories? Now electricity and gas are all over Iran so villagers use Satellite dishes to see other stories. This art was used in modern times to propose entertainment of the villagers and maybe one day was it the official tool for the governors to spread political ideas. In Thompson case it has been used to build a conspiracy between a people and a god and a land.

My advice: "if u want to learn great things about the bible, READ IT."

...

Thomas Sullivan attempts to cover a broad array of social problems confronting American society. He addresses race, drugs, crime, social inequality, gender, and many other relevant issues. I found his assessment of these issues superficial often misapplying or incorrectly citing material referenced. His ideology is readily apparent, and throughout most of the book influences his discussion of the issues. Instead of taking an objective and critical look at our social problems, he embarked on a one-sided journey of his personal opinion. Unfortunately, I was required to use this book in a course on Social Issues. I am hopeful that anyone considering this book in the future will see this review and avoid it at all costs.

While Sullivan has some limitations, he does provide a broad paradigmatic presentation of social problems in the U.S. Even though many chapters cover topics in an abbreviated fashion, this text is a good tool for starting discussions on social problems. Given this arrangement, instructors can construct discussions either enhancing the material or taking a counter perspective.