The meaning of "mythic past"

Mythic, mythical, make-believe. The "Mythic past" would refer to not the real past based on gathered evidence, but the past as we have been told it was. What if the version of the past that we Christians and Jews have based our worldview and identity upon is a false, make-believe world? What if the real origins of Christianity and Judaism are completely different? Much of the western mindset, it's understanding of its religious/historical past, is based upon the Old Testament and the "history" that is seemingly recounted therein. If the Old Testament is wrong then our western sense of identity would then be based upon fable, almost on thin air. That would be an unpleasant discovery, to say the least.

The term "mythic" certainly implies make-believe and falseness.

Mythic/mythical:
1. Of or existing in myth: the mythical unicorn.
2. Imaginary; fictitious.

In his book The Mythic Past, Thompson basically says the Bible is not a historical document, and the Old Testament offers no historical evidence for the early history of Israel. Which strongly suggest that the past we accept as being largely true, the one told to us from kindergarten/Sunday school, is but a fiction, a story only, a myth. Thompson does make quite an effort, while proving what the Bible is not, to maintain our respect for the Bible by re-establishing what it really is: a wonderful and valuable literature.

One can't help but interject here: Is this a fair trade? ....Of course not!

But what is the alternative: should we choose willful ignorance and error about a subject we claim to care so much about? It seems to me that if we do care and if we truly believe that an accurate understanding of our own history is important, we ought to be ruthlessly demanding and consistent in having a desire to know the truth.

That's my opinion, anyway.

Personally, I consider truth and reality to be rather important. For example, I would rather be aware of information that my father was, let's say, the humble son of a long line of bricklayers, than maintain a stubborn, childish belief that he was a famous and wealthy grandson of Napoleon Bonaparte. Yes, one "past" is certainly more glamorous and interesting than the other. But the one is fantasy, and the other is reality. Reality can be hard, brutal, boring and even humbling, but facing up to it and dealing with it—being honest about who we really are—seems the sturdiest foundation for a decent and honest life. But believing in a life-story built upon fantasy, lies, and protecting it with more lies and continual denial, seems more like the behavior of an insecure, insufferable fool.

Not only is it foolish, it seems a good indication of a mental or emotional disturbance. [Well, this is probably far rudely said, and apologize if I insult anyone. But it does seem to me that a person can believe something in the face of much contradictive evidence only by being dishonest in a fundamental way with one's own self. And it is from such little seeds of this type of dishonesty which grows (or can grow) more damaging thought patterns and behavior.]