The Dangerous Game of Reading Pop History

I recently read for my 20th Century Russian History class a book by historian Margret MacMillan called "Dangerous Games: The Uses and Abuses of History."

I have just started into my second semester of graduate school for a Masters in International Studies at Texas State University. I've been trying to get back into the rigors of academic grind. So, when I found out I had a book report and 20 minute presentation shortly after the semester began, I was none too thrilled. I got off easy compared to other students who had 500+ pages to read for their book reports. MacMillan's work is a simple 172 pages and it reads like a novel. Not too shabby of an assignment for a girl's whose last name comes at the beginning of the alphabet which inevitably means beginning of the semester presentations.


Then I read the book. First off, MacMillan has her credentials. She's presently employed by Oxford University and prior to that, was at the University of Toronto. You can find many reviews of the book online, as its academic literature that's mandated reading in courses taught in many schools including Harvard University. Secondly, the lady is great with her style of writing. She doesn't spend a whole chapter on one political event, but takes you all over history with a concise use of words to prove her various points.


My gripe was that a brilliant historian made two errors. First, she allowed bias to shape her opinion in a way that was so evident as to be nonacademic. Secondly, she didn't back up that bias with citations proving it.








She writes on page 172:

"When archaeological excavations called into question many key components of the Old Testament and its whole chronology, many fundamentalist Christians and Israelis refused to believe the findings or simply remained indifferent. Many ancient historians and archaeologists have come to believe that the Israelites may never have been in Egypt. If there was an exodus, it may have been only a small affair with a few families. The Israelites may not have conquered the land of the Canaanites, and Jericho probably didn't have walls to fall down at the blast of a trumpet. The great kingdom of Solomon and David, which was said to stretch from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, was more likely to have been a small chiefdom. Remains from the time indicate that Jerusalem was a small city, not the magnificent one of the Bible. So why, asked Ze'ev Herzog in the respected Israeli newspaper Haaretz, has what is a major change in views about the biblical past not provoked a reaction, even from secular Israelis? His conclusion is that they find it too painful to contemplate. "The blow to the mythical foundations of the Israeli identity is apparently too threatening, and it is more convenient to turn a blind eye."

Her rant continues on, as she explains how a Palestinian professor came under attack for suggesting that Israelis use the faulty archeology to stake their political claim of Israeli land. In the back of the book there is a recommended reading list where you can find the persecuted Palestinian professor's book. Oddly, I didn't see any pro-Israeli book featured on her list.

The author floors me with her own abuse of the facts of history. The subject of archaeology is controversial and cannot be given any depth in her short analysis of it. The book "The Stones Cry Out: what Archaeology Reveals about the Truth of the Bible," cites evidence from Jericho that fits the Biblical account. The author Dr. Randall Price has his credentials as well, TH.M. Old Testament and Semitic Languages from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. in Middle Eastern Studies, from the University of Texas at Austin. He has also done graduate studies work at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and has taught on Biblical archaeology at the University of Texas. I wish Dr. MacMillan would cite some of his work!


There is certainly a bias against Judaism and Christianity evidenced in today's scholarship. I've talked to two professors about this book. One said while he couldn't criticize his colleagues book assignment, he wouldn't put much stock in a book that doesn't cite it sources. He further stated that it's difficult to know if the author gets it right or wrong unless you come to read the book already possessing a working knowledge of history. Here's where the danger is. The temptation is to agree with MacMillan that the Bible is simply out dating current politics and is in fact mythology today. But a more careful look into academic thought on the matter reveals it still is a reasonable position to take the God of Scriptures at His Word. To his credit, my professor who assigned the work requested that I talk to the class about what I am critical of in her work. I am prepared to do so.