Here we come to the next two chapters in the second section of Kipp Davis’ God’s Propaganda: Pulling Back the Curtain on What the Bible Wants You to See. We will be looking at Chapter 7, “Cosmos” and Chapter 8, “Knowledge, Sex and Death.” Let’s jump in.
Chapter 7: Cosmos
Chapter 7 primarily deals with the creation account in Genesis 1. If you have been reading my blog for the past ten years, and especially if you have read my book The Heresy of Ham, you know that Genesis 1 is something I’m quite familiar with. And guess what? Davis even quotes me. There are just two problems with that, though.
Davis’ discussion of Genesis 1 begins with highlighting the “creation-evolution debate” over the past couple of centuries. Basically, scientific discoveries about the age of the universe, Darwin’s theory of evolution, and the rise of higher criticism regarding the biblical text caused people to rethink how to interpret certain passages in the Bible, particularly Genesis 1-11. That is true—that has happened over the past couple centuries. Because of these things, many have had to rethink Genesis 1-11 because many had assumed that Genesis 1-11 was doing straightforward science and history.
What I have argued for years, both in blog posts and The Heresy of Ham, is one can come to a proper understanding of Genesis 1-11 without any reference to modern science or evolution at all. No, Genesis 1-11 is not doing science or history. It has all the literary characteristics of ANE myth. That is its genre. You can come to that conclusion without any reference to science or evolution at all. In fact, I came to the conclusion that Genesis 1-11 belonged in the genre of ANE myth a full 12 years before I ever even started looking into the creation-evolution debate. That being said, at the same time, it is quite obvious that after Genesis 1-11, beginning in Genesis 12, the style and genre of writing changes. Once we get to the story of Abraham, we’re not dealing with myth. The literary genre is clearly different.
The theory of evolution never scared me because I already knew that Genesis 1-11 wasn’t doing science or history in the first place. In fact, I lost my teaching job at two different Christian schools over that very issue. Simply put, I know this issue full well. I have stood by my views and have suffered for it.
Davis’ take on this issue is odd. He immediately opens with an attack on Evangelicals. According to Davis, the science cannot be denied, but for Evangelicals, “the truth of scripture was never open to dispute” (176). Therefore, they came up with this idea of “historical narrative” in an attempt to “have their cake and eat it too.” Davis writes, “Because the first chapter of Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch so closely resembled a genre of history-writing, it was easier to also assume that these were straightforward reports of past events, revealed to Moses by God…” (177).
It is at this point where he quotes me! He doesn’t name me in the actual text but leaves me in a endnote, but hey it’s in the endnote! My name in print! I feel like I’m somebody now! This is the sort of publicity that makes people! The whole thing is quite funny, as you will see. He writes, “’Historical narrative’ is a term that is wielded like a bludgeon by apologists to assert the historicity of the events described in Genesis. The argument tends to work its way out as this blogger would put it [here’s his quote of me]:
‘The thing that made biblical literature so unique in the ancient world was that it was obsessed with history. The Jews were “…a people more obsessed with history than any other nation that has ever existed.” If I can put it this way, they were well-aware of the various ANE mythologies of their world, and even though we occasionally find the use of ANE mythological language and imagery within the OT, we would be utter fools to think that everything in Genesis-II Kings was just like ANE mythology. Anyone who knows how to read and has even the slightest modicum of literary competency will see the vast difference between what we find in the OT and what we find in other ANE mythology.’”
For context, this is from Part 3 of my book analysis of Francesca Stavrakopoulou’s book, God’s Anatomy. I was critiquing her claim that everything from Genesis 1 up through II Samuel was all pretty much “fable” and “fantasy.” I quoted OT scholar Meir Sternberg, who said the Jews were “a people more obsessed with history than any other nation that has ever existed.” Yes, obviously Genesis 1-11 was in the genre of ANE myth, but Genesis 12-II Samuel, for the most part, is presented as history. Yes, obviously, there is story-telling and literary artistry involved, but we need to try to understand the biblical texts within the genre they are presented. And, as anyone who has read me knows, something like II Samuel is not written in the same way as Genesis 1-11!
But Davis, within his presentation of Genesis 1 and the “creation-evolution debate,” is quoting something I said about all that stuff written after Genesis 11 and making it sound like I am one of those “Evangelical apologists” who is claiming Genesis 1 is historical narrative! One, I’m not an Evangelical; two, I’m not an apologist; three, given the fact that the thing I’m probably most known for is my book The Heresy of Ham and my insistence that Genesis 1-11 is ANE myth, his claim is the equivalent of saying Gandhi was a supporter of violence and colonialism; AND FOUR, to add to the comical nature of all this, Davis completely flubs his citation. His citation is of my fourth post on Stavrakopoulou’s book titled, “Trick or Treat, Wash My Feet,” but this quote is from my third post titled, “History, Myth, and Dissecting the Divine.”
In short, Davis’ take on me is as sloppy as it is comical.
But Wait! There’s More!
What makes Davis’ take even more bizarre is what he says immediately after his complete misunderstanding of my stance and sloppy citation of me. Write after that, he acknowledges that the “narratological style of Genesis and the rest of the Torah is indeed vastly different than most of the mythological literature of the ancient Near East” (177). THAT WAS MY POINT! THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN MY POINT! The only difference is that I insist that Genesis 1-11 isn’t all that different than other ANE mythological literature, whereas Genesis 12 onwards is clearly different. Shockingly, though, Davis can’t see the difference between Genesis 1-11 and Genesis 12 onwards. So, to be clear, when I said Genesis 12 onwards is historical narrative clearly different from Genesis 1-11 and other ANE mythological literature, Davis took that to mean I was an Evangelical apologist using “historical narrative” like a bludgeon to assert that everything in Genesis was straightforward history…and then he turns around and says that everything in the Torah (Genesis 1-11 included) is “vastly different” than ANE myth. He is claiming the very thing he is mischaracterizing me as claiming!
From there, he discusses Robert Alter and Shemaryahu Talmon (two very good scholars in the field of biblical narrative), both of whom insist that not only is Hebrew narrative vastly different from ANE myth and Epic, it is aimed at rebelling against pagan ideologies and worldview. That is absolutely correct. Now, I would argue that Davis’ portrayal of Alter is a bit off. Davis gives the impression that Alter says Hebrew narrative (and by that, he means all that stuff after Genesis 12) isn’t really history but is just reactionary artistry aimed against pagan ideologies. Alter, in fact, doesn’t go that far. In his book The Art of Biblical Narrative, he has a long discussion on the interplay between “history” and “fiction,” and contemplates whether to characterize such narratives as “fictionalized history” or “historicized fiction.” His point being both are work within Hebrew narrative, but what we have is the literature—the stories—and not some straightforward, objective historical account. We read and relate to biblical narrative on the level of the literature presented to us. At the same time, it is undeniable that these stories are presented as being about history.
Davis, though, doesn’t seem to get that. He takes what Alter and Talmon say, brings it back…to Genesis 1, and says it is really hard “to extract science from the myth” (178). I’m sorry, Genesis 1 isn’t doing science! It is ALL MYTH! Don’t take what Alter says about the actual historical narratives after Genesis 11 and apply them to Genesis 1-11…because ANE myth is a different genre than historical narrative.
In any case, when Davis gets around to going through each day of creation in Genesis 1 (179-190), he just basically recaps what happens and discusses things that any first year course would cover.
When it comes to talk of “the image of God,” though, Davis correctly emphasizes that we need to understand this language against the backdrop of ANE idolatry. Simply put, an “image” was understood to be an idol—a representation of the god. In the ANE, an idol of a god was believed to embody that god’s presence. Similarly, when a king would erect a monument of himself, that “image” would emphasize the king’s presence. Therefore, when Genesis 1 says man is “made in God’s image,” it is emphasizing that man is unique within God’s creation. Man is God’s representative within His creation to rule and take care of it. At least, that is the way I explain it.
Davis’ take of Genesis 1:28 saying that man is “made in God’s image” is slightly different. He claims it is “menace” and “propaganda.” Man is to exert his “supremacy.” Davis points out that the word “subdue” in 1:28 is also used for the “submission of a conquered people into humiliation and slavery” (195). Therefore, according to Davis, “God instructs the man to put the natural world in its place, on the heels of a resounding conquest which resulted in the order and structure of creation. It is a violent, rapacious picture of a domineering god lording his victory over a captive adversary” (195). To be clear, according to Davis, by bringing order to creation and exerting lordship over the forces of darkness and chaos, God proves Himself to be a “violent and domineering god,” while those forces of darkness and chaos are…the equivalent of an oppressed and humiliated people?
From there, Davis discusses OT passages like Psalm 74, Isaiah 27, and Job 38 that all use standard ANE mythological images of God defeating the forces of chaos (like Leviathan), and then correctly notes that such “cosmic battle” imagery is absent in Genesis 1. Still, he says, the “image of God” language in Genesis 1 still speaks to mankind’s role as God’s representative in creation. He writes, “It is an expression of plunder in God’s victory over chaos. It is a charge to civilization through which the untethered natural forces of the cosmos, which periodically seep into God’s created order, are mastered—brought to heel—by our own human ingenuity and innovation” (198). That’s not too bad of a way of saying it. Given Davis’ propensity to try to describe God and some domineering meanie, though, it loses some of its rhetorical effectiveness.
Conclusion
Well, it looks like I’m approaching my preferred word count limit. Chapter 8 will have to wait for the next post—but hey, “knowledge, sex, and death” sounds intriguing! Yes, it’s going to be all about Adam and Eve. I’m guessing that will take a blog post all by itself. Hopefully, though, I’ll be able to pick up the pace starting in Chapter 9 and get back to covering 2-3 chapters per post.
Once again, as we are dealing with outright myth, and by and large historical fiction does one scholar’s word choice/ terminology opposed to another’s really make a whole heap of difference?
Let’s be honest with each other here, we are dealing with gods and various facets of religious belief, the foundations of which are entirely supernatural/ficticious and have zero evidential basis, being rooted entirely in faith.
So as much as you take a (justifiable) somewhat perverse delight denouncing the likes of Ken Ham for his ridiculous YEC rantings, your own position which is wholly dependant on the belief the character Jesus of Nazareth ressurected from the dead to save you from your sins and reunite you with the Canaanite deity, Yahweh is no less ridiculous and risible.
You are aware of the term regarding those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, I presume?
In your case you may quite likely also be dancing on quicksand. With this in mind maybe you should have a rethink?
You have got to be the densest, thickest-head person on the face of the earth. We are talking about GENRE RECOGNITION and PROPER INTERPRETATION OF TEXTS. We are NOT talking about PERSONAL BELIEF. I don’t give a rat’s anus what you (or Kipp) believe–I care about the PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF THESE TEXTS. As a matter of OBJECTIVE FACT in terms of PROPER GENRE RECOGNITION, the material in Genesis 12-II Samuel is DIFFERENT than Genesis 1-12, and that difference should drive how one goes about interpreting. Davis is letting his own atheism and bitterness over his former man-crush MacArthur cloud and affect his basic understanding of the biblical text. MacArthur says Satan is the “bad guy” in Job 1-2, so Davis HAS to come up with a way to say Satan is a good guy and God is the bad guy. I criticized Stavrakopoulou for lumping Genesis 12 onwards in with Genesis 1-11 (a distinction most scholars acknowledge), and Davis is so offended that he ends up painting me as someone who is claiming Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative! It is laughably bad.
And all you can do is this same crap that you’ve been doing for over five years. I am criticizing Davis’ take on THE BIBLICAL TEXTS. The issue is PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE TEXTS. Get that through your thick skull. Genesis 12-II Samuel is HISTORICAL NARRATIVE, NOT MYTH. It makes a HUGE DIFFERENCE. My “position” on biblical interpretation is dependent on my ability to do PROPER GENRE RECOGNITION, regardless of my personal belief. Even if I wasn’t a Christian, I’d still acknowledge that Genesis 1-11 is ANE myth and Genesis 12-II Samuel is historical narrative.
For a proper understanding of the text it is crucial to acknowkedge the evidence, or lack thereof.
You have already rejected evidence and shown your hand by asserting you believe in Moses, the Exodus and the major themes this incorporates.
This colours your view, as from a Christian’s perspective, some would assert belief in this major OT theme is crucial to the belief in the major theme of the NT.
And I reiterate, as we are dealing with myth and historical fiction it often boils down to interpretation and when one’s faith hinges on interpretation justifying belief then personal bias will likely hold sway. When it doesn’t there is a very good chance a believer will deconvert.
The author of the book you are reviewing is a perfect example.
I’m not going to block you anymore Ark, because I am thoroughly convinced that your utterly asinine and ignorant bloviating will probably push some people closer to the Christian faith. They will see just how stupid your kind of hard-core atheism makes a person and will not want to end up that way.
That’s very gentlemanly of you. I appreciate your openness. Believe me this makes a pleasent change among the religious bloggers on WordPress.
So let’s discuss how your personal belief in the basic historicity of the Exodus will inevitably have a major bearing on your interpretation and how it will almost certainly lock horns with (probably) every secular / Jewish archaeogist and historian.
First question.
As the NT portrays the character Jesus of Nazareth fully believing in the historicity of Moses, the Captivity, Exodus and Conquest how do you square this away when the archaeological evidence shows no such event ever occurred?
I really do think you are every bit as thick-headed as you present yourself.
Well, that is a point of view, certainly, but in light of the topic I would say stubborn is more accurate. But irrespective, it doesn’t really make the slightest impression when it comes to discussing my question.
Therefore, even if all biblical scholars were able to reach agreement vis a vis myth, historical narrative, etc it still wouldn’t detract from the fact that the most influential and important text of the OT, the Exodus narrative(including Captivity and Conquest) is simply nothing but geopolitical foundation myth, something that is accepted by pretty much all serious scholars, historians and archaeologists across the board.
And this would include Rabbis and and a large portion of the Jewish population. Of course for them, accepting a secular perspective seems to be no big deal as their faith doesn’t really hinge on outright belief.
Christians on the other hand…. Well now.
Therefore, bearing these facts in mind how does investing so much time and effort in disputing whether Kip Davis’ interpretation, which differs from yours, makes any real difference to the aforementioned archaeological and historical evidence, and much more importantly, is the reason you invest so much in trying to justify belief in a man made Canaanite deity because of the obvious consequences of questioning/accepting the true origins/nature of the Canaanite deity? ?
Pig-headed is more like it. This book analysis is looking at his scholarly claims and how to read certain biblical texts. That is the focus. You simply keep repeating the same tired lines that I have addressed ad nauseum over the past five+ years. You are not a serious person. Yes, the archeological evidence shows that what we find in the OT didn’t happen “exactly the way the stories recount”–the historical narratives are not historical documentaries. They are narratives, literary creations. I’ve never claimed otherwise. Still, archeological evidence does NOT “prove none of it ever happened” as you are consistently claiming. There IS evidence that points to a historical core to all of it…hence HISTORICAL NARRATIVES. But you don’t care about that. You are going to continue belching out “geopolitical myth,” like a drunk parrot repeating the catch phrases of its master. “All serious scholars” do NOT agree with your assertions. The ones YOU LIKE that CONFIRM YOUR BIAS do…that’s why you like them. Please grow up.
“There IS evidence that points to a historical core to all of it…hence HISTORICAL NARRATIVES.”
Excellent! This is exactly what I have been asking you to provide.
Give me a few specific examples and where possible could you please cite the source.
Again, I wrote an ENTIRE BOOK ANALYSIS of Provan’s book in which he discusses it all. You summarily dismissed it all. I took the time to do that entire thing precisely because you asked me to “provide evidence.” That was five years ago, and you are still asking for the same things I provided. You are disingenuous and a troll.
And I have already responded to that post then and now and no, Provan did NOT provide a single piece of archaeological evidence to demonstrate the veracity of his claim or yours of an “historical core to all of it.”
The Israelites were never slaves in Egypt. This is simply factual and a point agreed upon by every secular Egyptologist and archaeologist I have ever come across/read /watched.
The Conquest model as described has, by and large been abandoned – any fighting is now considered to have been internal – and the 40 years between Captivity and Conquest is nothing but geopolictical myth.
Your faith based adherrancecto to Moses and the crossing of the Red Sea etc is just that… Faith based.
Friedman made an argument for the Levites,(don’t know if he still holds with this view) but has no archaeology to support it.
On the ground evidence informs us settlement was internal.
Noone (as far as I have read) denies Hazor was destroyed by fire.
Kenyon’s dating of Jericho has never been refuted and subsequent carbon dating merely reinforced this.
The Bible tales of Kadesh are simply fantasy and the archaeology does not even match the claims of when the Exodus supposedly took place.
And again, the entire area was under Egyptian control so how on earth would a band of fleeing Israelites reach Canaan undetected?
Therefore, I truly do not understand exactly what archaeological evidence you keep referring to as Provan did not provide any. And to date nether have you.
In fact, the only thing you keep doing is yell at me, call me pig headed and a troll.
The concensus asserts the Exodus tale was concocted either during the Babylonian Captivity or post Babylon after the return.
As you are adamant this is not the case then the least you could would be to bullet point the archaeological evidence that confirms your position.
How hard could this be?
I’ve looked through your book reviews and I cannot find one of Finkelstein and Silberman’s The Bible Unearthed.
Maybe I missed it?
Did you ever do a review of this book?
No
Is there a reason why you didn’t tackle it?
I found it boring. And I found Finkelstein’s reading and understanding of the Bible to be simplistic. He treats archaeology as the final and only “objective” arbiter of history. He doesn’t acknowledge that “archeology” doesn’t speak for itself. Archeologists inevitably interpret their findings. Archeology ultimately deals with the wreckage of the past. It only provides fragments. It is only part of the way we learn about the past. If you set that up above everything else, you’re going to have a distorted view of the past. If you want to learn about (in this case) biblical history, you have to consider a number of things, among them both archeological remains and the written texts we have. One shouldn’t throw out the text because one can’t find “archeological evidence” for every specific thing mentioned among the ruins of some archeological dig. Archeology is not the “high court” of historical research. Finkelstein treats it as such, and I didn’t want to waste my time.
While I can understand your feelings on this, seeing as you are a Christian, how do you square away the fact that what archaeological and scientific evidence (carbon dating etc) we do have does not line up with the bible claims – in context, the entire Exodus narrative – and ultimately your beliefs in such aspects as Moses and the flight from Egypt and the Red Sea crossing etc. for which there is zero corroborating evidence?
No, my being a Christian has nothing to do with it. You are trying to make archeology the “high court”–that is wrong to do. A responsible scholar takes that in, as well as any written texts, and tries to assess them all. You dont do that. Finkelstein doesn’t do that.
I am aware that Finklestein’s low chronology is not accepted across the board, and neither is his unified monarchy theory and view regarding David etc and his spats with Denver are well known, though they are probably as bad as each other in this regard.
However, I am specifically referring to the almost universal acceptance the Exodus narrative (including Captivity and Conquest) is nothing but geopolitical foundation myth, to the point Wolpe made his well documented speech all those years back announcing as such.
This is what I am talking about, and have been since the beginning, and it is this for which there is zero evidence, and yet you claim there is evidence, yet to date have failed to produce anything, and neither has the likes of Hoffmeir, Kitchen, Provan etc.
Therefore, what I am wondering is how you square away your adherence to Moses, the Red Sea Crossing etc (and belief in Yahweh) when there is zero evidence to support the Exodus narrative, and what evidence there is points to an internal settlement.
If your belief is simply faith based then I accept this as much as it may rankle.
And we’re back…”What’s your evidence?” Here, look at these scholars. “That’s not evidence! What’s your evidence?” No, that is evidence, you just don’t agree with it or accept it. “What’s your evidence?” Again, here’s the evidence they give. “That’s not evidence! What’s your evidence?” Just stop.
There is evidence of Semitic population living as slaves in Egypt, there is evidence of an immediate “exodus,” there is evidence of fighting and conquest in Canaan around timeline that the Bible lays out. There is a lot of things, but as is the case with most archeology, it is all limited and fragmentary. The explanations of these things are interpretations–that is inevitable. What you do is accept the interpretation of scholars like Finkelstein and dismiss the interpretation of others, not even acknowledging that they are dealing with actual evidence that begs interpretation. You just dismiss everything out of hand. The conclusions about all this are not so “cut-and-dry” as you foolishly make them out to be.
There is evidence of a Semitic population in Egypt that made its way to and eventually settled in Canaan, fighting with other Canaanites groups on the way. There is evidence that points to a basic, historical core to the stories we find in the OT. But again, for the millionth time, the stories in the OT are not historical documentaries. They come in the genre of creative, literary historical narrative. If you cannot understand that, you are lost.
The more you brush my requests aside and the more you go off on a bender without addressing the specific questions I ask the more it comes across that you are equivocating in an effort not to have to answer.
I am aware of Friedman’s take – the Levites, circumcision, the shekel price of slaves, the two gods into one( El &Yahweh)
I am aware many scholars /archaeologists accept there was movement from groups of people to and from Canaan, including the driving out of the Hyksos
None of this detracts from the fact there is no evidence of Israelites in Egypt as described, or any sort of Exodus.
No Egyptologist has EVER produced any evidence, textual or otherwise to support the claims.
I reiterate, the scientific dating of Jericho has never been refuted and Kenyon’s work stands.
So please, for goodness sake, what evidence do you have that supports your contention regarding Moses, the Exodus, Red Sea Crossing etc? What is this “historical core” you have been touting since this topic was first raised?
If all you have is your faith in the bible then please say so.
However, if you have ANY archaeological evidence – even a smidgen – to support your biblical Moses, Red Sea Crossing etc claim then simply post it, even if it amounts to no more than a sentence or two and a single citation.
“There is evidence of a Semitic population in Egypt that made its way to and eventually settled in Canaan, fighting with other Canaanites groups on the way.”
Citation for this, please.
I’ve done blog series on these things. For you to come on a thread about Davis’ book and “demand” evidence for things I’ve written about in numerous past posts is just irritating and tiresome. Go to THOSE posts and interact on THOSE posts. I’m not here to cater to your every request, especially given the fact that in the past I have gone out of my way to cater to your requests, and you’ve responded with the same old crap.
Which posts are you referring to specifically, please?
This crop of higher criticism influencers has me longing for the days of Historical Jesus yesteryear. Oh, Ehrman, perhaps I was too harsh with you.
In any case, I appreciate in your reviews how you recognize and credit where each critic, be it Dan, Kipp or Francesca, gets something right. Really underscores your lack of a vendetta. I don’t think the favor would be returned, but these reviews are well-reasoned nevertheless.
Oh, we can be harsh with Ehrman too! Lol…thanks for the encouragement.