That's funny. I guess I grew up in some sort of cutting edge area because it seemed to me someone was always finding another historical "myth" to blow apart with "facts," and eventually I just got sick of it. It's really easy to miss and mis-interpret things hundreds of years later, as solid as they look, but a lot of people just present it as new, better information. It's different. It adds to our understanding. But I don't feel like we should immediately accept it as independently closer to the truth. It sounds like your book tries to balance multiple perspectives, which I appreciate. I'm just sort of ranting because I've developed a knee-jerk reaction. Between people getting ego-trips off ripping apart Christopher Columbus and a college professor who took way too much pleasure in calling Genesis a creation MYTH every time he could, I've turned into a vigilante "myth"-defender. (Funny how "I reject your reality and substitute my own" works both ways)