Welcome to Part 2 of my book analysis of Kipp Davis’ God’s Propaganda: Pulling Back the Curtain on What the Bible Wants You to See. Without further ado, let’s just jump into Part 1 of his book, The Known World, which consists of four chapters. First, a brief summary of each chapter.
Chapter 1: From the East, Light
In this chapter, Davis provides an overview of Israelite and Jewish history “in a nutshell,” which he, for all intents and purposes, begins with I Kings. When it comes to everything in Genesis-Deuteronomy, as well as Joshua, Judges, and 1-2 Samuel, Davis says, “All of these are most likely elaborate myth, told centuries later as a means for Israelites, and later Jews, to form their cultural identity” (26). They might provide a “kernel of truth” here and there, but overall, they are examples of “theological moralizing” and “temple propaganda.” I will address the way Davis understands “myth” at the end of this post.
The actual history Davis highlights is that of the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis (circa 730s BC) that culminated in Tiglath-Pileser’s destruction of the northern kingdom in 722 BC. At that time, there was a “massive migration” of northern Israelites to the southern kingdom of Judah during Hezekiah’s reign. Later on, when the Assyrian Empire crumbled in 627 BC, we have the reign of Josiah. Both Hezekiah and Josiah attempted to establish the exclusive worship of YHWH. Shortly after that came the rise of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, and the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC and the subsequent exile. Then in the late 6th century BC, the exiled Jews returned to the land, re-established a presence there. There was life under the Persians, then the Ptolemies and Seleucids, the Maccabean Revolt under Antiochus Epiphanies IV, the Hasmonean dynasty, and then the coming of Rome. All that history is covered on pages 26-29.
Davis then covers the typography of Israel/Palestine on pages 29-34: the Coastal Plain, the Hill Country of Judah, the Shephelah (lowlands), the Jordan Valley, and the Transjordanian Plateau. He then talks about the climate, days, weeks, and months, even showing how some months in the Jewish calendar correspond to the Babylonian calendar (pages 34-40). After that, he touches upon the major festivals: the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Ingathering (or Booths) (pages 40-45). Finally, he has a few pages on the major empires during “Old Testament times”: Egypt, Anatolia (Hittites), Babylon, and Assyria (45-48).
In reality, there isn’t much to comment on…so I won’t. Almost 50 pages of reading about climate, topography, etc., though, is a bit dry.
Chapter 2: From Ur(uk) to Canaan
The bulk of Chapter 2 consists of talk of ancient Near Eastern city-states. The Canaanite cities were “self-governing and primarily self-interested” (54). Also, there is a discussion of the composition of the family back then, the emphasis on the fact that the early Israelites were “country folk,” not “city folk.” There is an extended discussion of the concepts of house (as in family units), clans, and tribes (pages 55-60). There is even a description of literal houses on pages 60-63. We are told that “houses were constructed of mud bricks on stone foundations” (62).
The chapter ends with a discussion of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18-19. In Genesis 18, God shows up to Abraham’s tent and Abraham shows Him hospitality. It is at that time God tells Abraham that Sarah will have a child; Sarah laughs, God says, “Why did you laugh?”, she says, “I didn’t laugh,” and God says, “Yes you did.” That story in contrasted with what happens in Sodom in Genesis 19. Davis correctly points out that the “sin of Sodom” wasn’t so much “homosexuality” as it was how Sodom, instead of displaying hospitality to the strangers, sought to dominate and abuse them. As Davis says, “…an expression of power and dominance” (69). The sin was treating the visitors to the city “…like interlopers and criminals” (69).
Again, there isn’t much in this chapter to really comment on.
Chapter 3: Incised on a Rock Forever
Chapter 3 really focuses on the origins and sources of modern historical-critical scholarship, beginning with Baruch Spinoza. Spinoza rejected the internal claims of biblical authorship and “sought to show that the texts were windows into a more complicated and less spectacular—much more natural—world” (73).
When it comes to understanding the biblical text better, Davis emphasizes three assumptions. First, reading any given text within its historical context. As an example, he references Isaiah 9:3-6, a passage often used in Christmas Eve services, seemingly about Christ. When read within its historical context of mid-8th century BC Judah, though, it is more likely that passage is a reference to Hezekiah. Davis is correct here.
Second, there is the concept of historical analogy—the assumption that natural laws govern the world, so anytime there is a claim of divine intervention or anything supernatural, we should look for more “natural” explanations. Davis refers to the event in II Kings 3, where a coalition of Israel and Judah fight against Moab. That event is also recorded in the Mesha Stele. Both accounts interpret the war through the lens of the actions of their own gods (YHWH, Chemosh). Davis emphasizes that both accounts are simply “royal propaganda which embellish their own accomplishments, and the extent of their enemy’s defeat” (77).
Finally, Davis talks about historical criticism and the use of Cartesian doubt when reading the biblical text. After saying that there is “widespread skepticism even about [David’s] existence among scholars” (78), Davis references the story of King David’s taking of Jerusalem in II Samuel 5, where he and his men sneak into the city through the watercourse. Davis doesn’t believe it happened because he doesn’t see how David’s men could have snuck into the city and maintained an element of surprise.
From there, in pages 79-96, Davis lists 11 different genres in the ANE which also are often found in the Bible: (1) myths, (2) epics, (3) ritual, incantation, and divination texts, (4) royal inscriptions, (5) annals and chronicles, (6) treaties, (7) laws, (8) hymns and prayers, (9) wisdom literature, (10) prophecies and oracles, and (11) apocalyptic literature. With all these genres, Davis supplies a few examples from both the biblical text and other ANE texts.
Again, not much worth commenting on.
Chapter 4: The Map is the Place
Davis begins Chapter 4 by talking about the movie, Life of Pi, where a young boy on a ship survives a tragedy at sea, with him and a tiger being the only survivors. By the end of the story, though, there is the question as to whether there really was a tiger with him through his ordeal, or whether he made the story of the tiger up in order to cope with the tragedy he endured. Davis equates this story with the Hebrew Bible. On one hand, the Hebrew Bible is the best resource we have for understanding the history of ancient Israel, but on the other hand, “the biblical texts are an idealized lens through which we see mostly distortions. The Bible is propaganda” (106). Therefore, according to Davis, the Hebrew Bible, just like Life of Pi, is “a coping mechanism to help him [and by extension, the Jews] grapple with a tragic reality” (107).
From there, Davis talks about how the Hebrew Bible was “aggressively rewritten” over time. He points to the supposed two flood accounts in Genesis 6-8, the “priestly account” and the “Yahwist account.” He notes the differences between the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint when it comes to Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles (29:10-14 MT; 36:10-14 LXX). His point is simple: since these texts were edited and rewritten over time, there is no way to verify their historical veracity. Therefore, to understand the Bible, scholars need to try to pay attention to the original context of a passage, namely (1) who is the speaker and what was his intent? and (2) What did the audience receive?
Part of that task is to make sure one properly identifies the particular genre of any given text. Davis lays out three genres (he also calls them typologies): (1) Myth, (2) Ritual, and (3) Law. When it comes to the genre of myth, Davis correctly states that for many Evangelical Christians, “myth” is seen as a dirty word and is equated with something being “untrue.” He even mentions the YECist Ken Ham as an example of this. For Ham, Genesis 1-11 (and everything in the Bible) is strict, distortion free history, most definitely not myth. For Ham, that is what it means to “take the Bible seriously.” Kudos to Davis for pointing out Ken Ham interpretive and exegetical shortcomings. (As with both Davis and I both attending the same graduate school, we both agree on how Ken Ham is wrong in his interpretation of the Bible).
The problem with Davis’ take, though, is his understanding of what “myth” is and how he applies it to the Bible. Remember, Davis has already basically suggested that most of the Hebrew Bible, from Genesis to II Samuel is “myth” in some fashion or another. Here in Chapter 4, while acknowledging that “much of the [Hebrew Bible] is presented as historical narrative,” (118), he rejects that and says that designation actually clouds our perspectives of the text. He insists that they be understood as myth. Here’s how he defines “myth”: “The purpose of myth is to convey ‘history’—that is, a recollection of the events of the past, but within the ancient world, the purpose of these recollections is to communicate a MEANINGFUL structure of reality. It is not so much about ‘what happened’ as it is about why things happened and what they mean” (118).
Myth and History
Over the years, I’ve written quite a lot about proper genre recognition in the Bible. In particular, I’ve argued that Genesis 1-11 has all the literary characteristics of ancient Near Eastern Myth. At the same time, the style of writing from Genesis 12 onward is significantly different. One of the defining characteristics of “myth” is that it deals with the actions and realms of “the gods” and is largely ahistorical. Even with something like the stories of The Iliad and The Odyssey, although scholars acknowledge there might have been some kind of historical root to the Trojan War, there is virtually nothing in the stories themselves that root them within any historical context. Simply put, the stories themselves are not presented as actual history. That is why they are classified as mythology.
By contrast, as Davis acknowledges, most of the Hebrew Bible is, in fact, presented as historical narrative. That is the genre in which many of the stories and accounts come—and that is a vastly different genre than that of “myth.” Simply put, Davis is just plain wrong when he claims that “the purpose of myth is to convey history.” No, it’s not. In addition, if Davis is going to define any “recollection of past events” that try to communicate the meaning and purpose of those events as “myth,” he is going to have to define all historical accounts as “myth” because all recollections of historical past events are trying to make sense of those events.
The end result of that mistaken definition of myth is that it conveniently gives Davis justification for dismissing most of the historical claims in the Hebrew Bible (at least those up through II Samuel). The irony is that Davis himself acknowledges that much of the Hebrew Bible is presented as historical narrative. Yet, at the beginning of Chapter 4, he states that part of the scholar’s (or anyone’s) job when it comes to properly interpreting the Bible is to insist on understanding the original intent of the author/speaker of any given text. Therefore, if a biblical text is being presented as historical narrative, then that would suggest the author is intending to present the text as…a historical narrative. And therefore, when it comes to much in the Hebrew Bible, Davis is not “practicing what he preaches,” because he is rejecting the genre in which various texts are presented.
Now, of course texts like the patriarch narratives, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, I/II Samuel are crafting their stories to highlight a certain theological perspective. Of course, they are being creative in the telling of those stories. Of course, they are using literary artistry and artistic license—but they still are presenting these stories as historical narratives—and that is the genre, not “myth.” By contrast, as I’ve argued for almost 30 years, Genesis 1-11 is being presented as myth.
Ultimately, Davis is guilty of the same thing of which Ken Ham is guilty. Ham fails to see the distinction between myth and historical narrative and ends up insisting Genesis 1-11 is history, not myth, and is no different than, let’s say, the historical narrative of King Saul. Davis too fails to see the distinction between myth and historical narrative and while he correctly identifies Genesis 1-11 as myth, he still insists that it really is no different than anything else from Genesis 12-II Samuel, because, according to his faulty definition, all of it is myth.
Proper genre recognition is a fundamental key when it comes to proper interpretation and exegesis. If you can’t tell the difference between the genre of myth and the genre of historical narrative, you’re going to run into problems. As we will see, that failure on Davis’ part is at the root of my criticisms of the book, as we will see in later posts.
///Now, of course texts like the patriarch narratives, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, I/II Samuel are crafting their stories to highlight a certain theological perspective. Of course, they are being creative in the telling of those stories. Of course, they are using literary artistry and artistic license—but they still are presenting these stories as historical narratives—and that is the genre, not “myth.” By contrast, as I’ve argued for almost 30 years, Genesis 1-11 is being presented as myth.///
Then wouldn’t the point be I suppose, from Davis’ perspective, that those events are largely ahistorical? That’s the usual skeptical answer right? What claims to be history, simply is not. What more do they NEED to say?
///When it comes to understanding the biblical text better, Davis emphasizes three assumptions. First is historical context. Second, there is the concept of historical analogy—the assumption that natural laws govern the world, so anytime there is a claim of divine intervention or anything supernatural, we should look for more “natural” explanations. Finally, Davis talks about historical criticism and the use of Cartesian doubt when reading the biblical text. After saying that there is “widespread skepticism even about [David’s] existence among scholars” 2 Samuel 5: Davis doesn’t believe it happened because he doesn’t see how David’s men could have snuck into the city and maintained an element of surprise.///
Please clarify for me, are you saying that Davis claims that scholarship needs to (or maybe does) *start* with, skepticism of the supernatural, and the hermeneutic of suspicion?
If so…how does anyone come away with different answers than he does?
I’m honestly confused, because (ignoring the historical claims for a moment) the ancient world didn’t make the kinds of distinctions we do. There was no “supernatural” for them in the same way we think of the term, reality was much more holistic in their eyes. Of course the bible is going to seem deeply at odds with our modern axiomatic starting points. In our worldview, how could it be anything OTHER than wrong? Points two and three basically demand it.
But those are *philosophical* points. We (moderns) did that. We made those, possibly arbitrary, distinctions. Of course that’s going to limit the types of conclusions someone can draw…
Hi Jack,
First, my criticism with Davis’ take on most everything through II Samuel is that he seems to categorize it all as “myth.” My argument is that Genesis 1-11 is certainly ANE myth, but the historical narratives through II Samuel are just that–historical narratives. They are not in the genre of “myth.” But yes, from his perspective, if a text is “pushing an agenda” (i.e. propaganda) or implies something “supernatural,” that automatically means it isn’t historical. I think that is faulty reasoning on many levels. On the “propaganda” thing alone, most everything ever written about historical events is done from some kind of “agenda” or “bias.” If we were to apply Davis’ criteria across the board, we’d have to discard most writing about history as non-historical. When I look at the material up through II Samuel, I start with the genre it is presented as–historical narrative. That tells me it is, in fact, about history. At the same time, it is written in the form of a story–i.e. narrative/literature. You can have both. Just because they are creatively shaped does not automatically negate them as being about actual history.
Second, I take what Davis is saying is REAL scholars dismiss all supernatural claims as false from the jump. Therefore, if a text claims that, it can’t really be historically reliable. I would characterize his approach to the Bible as more “hyper-skepticism” than just your typical “hermeneutic of suspicion.”
And your point about the difference between the ancient and modern world’s perspective is true. Ever since the Enlightenment, we’ve tended to “split” reality between the natural world and the “supernatural” world. And that has now morphed into, “The natural world is reality, and the ‘supernatural’ world is fantasy and not true.” Scholars like Davis read the Bible through that Enlightenment lens. And that’s why, as you say, Davis is very limited in the conclusions he draws. I think that Enlightenment worldview is extremely flawed on a number of levels. It starts with the assumption that “reality” is limited to the natural world alone, and it eventually denies the existence of God or of anything “supernatural” on the basis that it cannot be “proven” in natural terms.
Iain Provan really dives into this more philosophical issue regarding how to read the Biblical texts in his book “A Biblical History of Israel.” I actually did a book analysis of it a few years ago. Just look up Iain Provan in the search bar. They should come up.
So exactly which parts do you consider historical and which parts are simply myth?
Example. According to evidence the Exodus narrative has no factual, archaeological basis.
In your view, how does this render the character Moses?
It isn’t about “what I consider.” It is about acknowledging the genre that is presented. Exodus is a combination of historical narrative and law. Genesis 1-11 is myth. As a matter of basic genre recognition, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel is not myth. Those books are historical narrative.
The Exodus/Conquest narrative is regarded as geopolitical foundation myth. There is zero evidence to support the tale (as far as I am aware) so I am at a loss to understand what you mean when you use the phrase “historical narrative”?
Which parts of the Exodus/Conquest tale do you regard as historical (factual) and what evidence supports such a view?
We’ve gone over this so many times. You are not understanding the basic definition of “myth.” The Exodus/Conquest is PRESENTED as historical narrative. That is the intention of the author(s).
Aah, apologies. Yes, the Exodus narrative is presented as history, when in fact it is geopolictical foundation myth.
In light of this, how do you reconcile the fact Moses is a mythological character l, the Ten Commandment episode and more pertinantly the fact the character Jesus of Nazareth seems to consider Moses is a genuine historical figure?
He’s not a mythological character. Again, you fail to understand what “myth” is.
Well, all critical biblical scholarship I am aware of posits he IS mythological, and thus would include others such as Rabbis.
As the Israelites were never in Egypt and were not slaves either and the Conquest narrative has also been abandoned by critical scholarship and archaeogy what evidence do you have that asserts Moses was a genuine historal figure?
No, “all critical scholarship” does not.
Then let’s say he was a legendary figure? However, as the Exodus narrative is a geopolitical foundation myth and the Conquest model has been abandoned by critical scholars and archaeologists where does this leave the character Moses, and the character Jesus of Nazareth, who appears to regard Moses and the Exodus as historical fact?
Continuing to say Exodus is “myth” isn’t going to make it so.
Not me. Evidence from archaeology and the examination of history through critical scholarship.
But I am open to evidence that confirms otherwise.
What evidence do you have that flies in the face of the archaeological evidence and scholarly consensus?
We are talking about proper genre recognition. Exodus is not “myth.” It is historical narrative.
Again, it is regarded as geopolitical foundation myth by archaeology and critical scholarship. This is the concensus view. It is my understanding only (primarily religious) maximalists regard it as otherwise. But I really don’t care what term you wish to use I am only interested in evidence. So, once again, what EVIDENCE do you have/ can you point to that supports your assertion?
Wow you’re being pretty nice to him, all things considered. I wonder if he’ll be as nice when he sees this.
Lol… I’m not through the book yet. There are some doozies later in the book. The fact is, the first four chapters are just mostly very dry and boring.
I think more should be made about Davis’ philosophical assumptions (and they are assumptions.) If historical analogy and Cartesian skepticism are false, then his zealous adherence to historo-critical methodology is misplaced.
I completely agree. That will come out in later posts.
@Joel
“One of the defining characteristics of “myth” is that it deals with the actions and realms of “the gods” and is largely ahistorical.”
So, being Yahweh(God) in the flesh I presume you also apply this to the character Jesus of Nazareth?
It is quite clear in the NT (and OT) that God entered into history. That is the unique thing about the Bible. If you cant see the difference between myths of Zeus, or Baal, and what we find in the Gospels, I cant help you.
So what is the precise difference between a Greek god such as Zeus and a Canaanite god such as Yahweh?
YHWH is involved in actual human history. For example, II Kings 18-19 is about YHWH’s active involvement during Sennacherib’s invasion–actual history. You dont get that with Greek myths. Zeus isn’t speaking to Leonides during the battle of Thermopolye.
But Yahweh is still a make believe Canaanite deity who is simply inserted into history. There is no more evidence he is real than there is for Zeus.
Yes, Ark says so, so it must be true.
Not me, for goodness’sake!
Relevant historians/ scholars and archaeologists!
You are now coming across like a fundamsntalist: “Yahweh is in the bible so it must be true!”
Good grief, Joel, this sort of approach is even beneath you.
No, as always, you are refusing to understand my point. (1) Exodus-II Samuel is not in the genre of myth. (2) Not “all relevant historians/scholars” think that. What you mean to say is, “All historians/scholars I like think that; all the others who don’t aren’t “relevant” to me, because they conflict with what I want to believe.”
There is no point trying to get you to understand. I’ve tried for over 5 years, and you refuse to even get it.
Then, fir goodness’sake, Joel, present the archaeological EVIDENCE that supports your assertion.
I did, countless times, in my book analysis of Provan’s book.
What ARCHAEOLOGICAL evidence have you EVER cited/presented that demonstrates the veracity of your claims re:Moses/Exodus/Conquest?
Go back and read.
I did…I didn’t read any the first time and I read nothing this time around.
However, ifcyou consider Provan provided archaeological evidence that backs your assertion there is veracity for Moses, the Exodus/Conquest narrative then I must gave missed it and you will have to be a lot more specific!
The most relevant post was 6b and this closing paragraph below from you.
As I noted then and now, no archaeological evidence to demonstrate the veracity of your claims. None . In fact, what archaeological evidence there is flatly refutes your sweeping unscholarly. “I think..” rhetoric.
“I, for one, think Moses was a historical person. I think the Hebrews really were able to cross through the Red Sea somehow. I think there was a real Mount Sinai and that they spent a good, long time as nomads in the desert before eventually going back to Canaan. The crafting of the Exodus story does not negate the basic historicity of the events in question.”
Most scholars acknowledge there is some historical core to the Exodus story and that probably there was some kind of group of slaves that came up out of Egypt and settled in Canaan. Right there, that precludes Exodus being “myth.” It is rooted in history. And there is some historical evidence, as mentioned in Provan’s book. Not for every detail, but enough to show that “something” happened. And that is the point–the account isn’t myth.
It is ahistorical. Or probably historical fiction would be closer to the truth.
Not once did I read mention of the fact Egypt controlled the area during the supposed Exodus period.
Nor was there any mention of the fact there is no record of Hebrew slaves in Egypt.
Neither was there mention of the complete absence of archaeological or epigraphic evidence from any of the tribes/nations mentioned in the Exodus tale.
The “I think” paragraph of rhetoric I highlighted, which you reiterated to some extent in your final post on Provan’s book perfectly demonstrates that you have no real desire or intention to uncover the hard core archaeological facts but are committed to add/include your Christian spin. To do /behave otherwise would ostensibly betray your faith-based worldview and how it impacts in the character Jesus of Nazareth.
Why would you consider divine intervention when the archaeological evidence is right there and thus refutes the Exodus narrative!
As for source… You could do far worse than Israel Finkelstein and William Denver.
While they may disagree over certain details they represent pretty much the general archaeological consensus.
You can start with Israel Finkelstein and work from there…
Oh, I forgot to add. What evidence is there to demonstrate the veracity of your assertion regarding the Moses/ Exodus /Conquest etc NOT being ahistorical / geopolitical foundation myth?
I did an entire book analysis years back to respond to your questions. You summarily dismissed it all and just kept on saying, “What’s your evidence? That’s not evidence. What’s your evidence?” Ad nasuem… You will never get what I’m saying because you dont want to get it.
Again, what you claim is evidence to demonstrate the veracity of your claims re:Moses and specifically Exodus and Conquest has largely been refuted by hard on the ground evidence.
I truly cannot fathom why you continue to push this erroneous, outdated belief when all around you (bar the evangelical crowd) have moved on. It simply doesn’t make any sense, especially as you are fully on board slating Ken Ham and YEC and biblical literalism. It makes no sense and does not add up.
Furthermore, as previously noted the Conquest model has been abandoned by every mainstream archaeologist I am aware of and pretty much all scholarship other than those with an evangelical leaning.
So, when even Rabbis acknowledge the reality of their history why on earth do you cling to this approach when it is so obviously ahistorical and simply geopolictical foundation myth?
In all seriousness, please explain?
Ark could help himself out by citing a person and not the idea of a broad consensus. And a better question at this point would seem to be what evidence outside of direct divine intervention would convince you that a claim made from one of the historical-genre books of the Bible is correct? Perhaps your answer is some other deity-worshiping king from a different country who lived over 2,000 years ago and who only writes down facts that are meant to make his own position look better would need to corroborate. Not sure what objective facts about civilization you’re hoping to have written on some papyrus that survived at least 2 millennium and is not corrupted by one of the idiots who thought there was a higher power at play in the world. Seems you have a bit of a confirmation bias, man.