We continue on in our look at Kipp Davis’ God’s Propaganda: Pulling Back the Curtain on What the Bible Wants You to See.
Chapter 8: Knowledge, Sex and Death
Chapter 8 is really all about Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-3. Davis characterizes these chapters, along with Genesis 1-11 as a whole, as an “anti-urban polemic” that pits “country folk” against “city folk.” You can see that to an extent, given that one starts in a garden and one ends with God scattering the people who tried to build a city a tower. Still, I think calling Genesis 1-11 an “anti-urban polemic” is a bit of an overstatement.
In this chapter, Davis correctly says that the creation stories here in Genesis are not reports about the actual, historical past. They are “timeless reflections on human life” (205)—that, I would argue, is one of the characteristics of ANE myth. He also sees that the figure of Adam represents all humankind—again, very true. He also correctly points out that whereas in Genesis 1, man is created to rule God’s creation as His image, in Chapter 2, man is depicted more like a servant-priest who cares for God’s creation—again, spot on. And he also is right to see the Hebrew wordplay going on in Genesis 2-3, where the man and woman are “naked” (arummim), but then we are told that the serpent is “clever” (arum).
Davis also tries to draw a parallel between Genesis 3 and a story in the Epic of Gilgamesh, where the primitive man Enkidu has sex with Shamhat the prostitute. The result is that he became wise and “like a god.” For Davis, the man and woman eating the fruit implies sexual desire and “knowledge” can mean sex. Therefore, in both stories, discovered sexuality brings forth wisdom and “becoming like a god.”
Although it is interesting to compare these two stories, I think Davis’ conclusions are a bit hasty. After all, we are told that Adam “knew” Eve in Genesis 4, after they ate from the tree and were banished from Eden. I don’t think their eating of the tree is meant to be seen in sexual terms. Much like how the general story of Noah’s flood is clearly similar to the flood story in Gilgamesh, but the differences are significant and affect how we understand the story as a whole, I think the same is going on here. With Enkidu, his sexual escapade leads him to becoming wise, like a god, and he goes to the city to meet Gilgamesh, and they eventually become best friends and have adventures together. In that story, there’s no implication that what Enkidu did was wrong. In Genesis 3, the man and woman are portrayed as innocent, they disobey, suffer the effects of their disobedience, are banished from the garden, and only then do they have sex, bear children, and lead a life of frustration and toil.
Speaking of life outside the garden, Davis (not surprisingly) has a different take on it. In the context of not only Genesis 1-11, but the entire Bible as a whole, being banished from the garden is mankind’s “fall.” It is a tragedy, because mankind loses that communion with God. By the time we get to the end of Revelation, John sees, in the New Jerusalem, the Tree of Life from the Garden of Eden—the curse is gone and, because of Christ’s victory over death, mankind has communion with God once again.
Davis, though, sees Adam and Eve’s banishment as a good thing: “The man and woman are banished, but they are also emancipated—free from slavery to the Garden. They become their own masters—slaves to their own destiny…. There is a nobility in the labor of keeping your family alive. The task of survival in the Hill Country, outside the decadent Canaanite cities can be unpleasant; it’s unforgiving; it’s work. But, at least the sons of Adam are free” (227). I read that and I can’t help but think of that sentiment that is not only a theme in the Bible, but also a theme throughout Western Literature, from Milton to the movie The Devil’s Advocate: “It’s better to rule in hell than serve in heaven.” Make no mistake, Davis’ take is not only contradictory to the actual intended message of Genesis 3, it reflects the very attitude of…the serpent.
PART 3: INSTITUTIONS
We now can move on to the third part in Davis’ book: Institutions. Chapter 9 is titled, “Generations.”
Chapter 9: Generations
Chapter 9’s main focus is on the institution of marriage in biblical times. By and large, it’s a rather dry, boring, and predictable chapter. The basic argument is this: misogyny and patriarchy! Women were just property! “Marriage” back then was nothing like marriage today! BIBLE BAD!
As an example, Davis brings up the troubling story of Shechem and Dinah in Genesis 34. Shechem takes Dinah, has sex with her, falls in love with her, and then he and is father go to Jacob’s sons and asks to marry her. In exchange, they agree that they and the entire town get circumcised, so they can all be one people. Jacob’s sons, though, go into the town and slaughter all the men right after they voluntarily get circumcised, because they were angry that Shechem had violated Dinah. Davis first claims that Shechem raped Dinah. Why? Because women were considered property and couldn’t consent. Second, Davis claims that Shechem is not portrayed as the bad guy. Therefore, the Bible is excusing Shechem’s rape of Dinah and condemning the way Jacob’s sons handled it. And then, Davis throws one more thing out there: Dinah is described as a na’arah—translated as “young woman,” or “girl,” or “young unmarried girl.” He then suggests that maybe Dinah was actually a very young, prepubescent girl: “A disturbing thought here, is that we simply have no idea how old Dinah is, but I think that is because for this writer, it just does not matter” (236).
There are a number of things problematic about Davis’ take: (1) although it is certainly possible that Shechem raped Dinah, that is not explicitly stated; (2) even if it was consensual, I fail to see how Shechem is not seen as not a bad guy regardless; (3) slaughtering an entire village, even for a rape, still is bad; (4) there is absolutely no evidence that Dinah was only a prepubescent girl—Davis even acknowledges he has nothing, but he puts it in anyway because his intent is not to enlighten us on the text, but rather to push a very specific agenda that says the Bible supports misogyny and patriarchy (you can almost hear a voice in his head screaming, “Take that, John MacArthur!”). In any case, I see the story of Dinah as a huge mess all around. Jacob is living among Canaanites who do bad things, and his sons do bad things as well. And yes, Dinah is caught in the middle of all that—but I don’t see tacit approval for any of those actions in Genesis 34.
From there, the rest of the chapter is just an overview of various different aspects of family units—for the most part, very dry. I don’t feel the need to really address most of it. Still, here is my overall reaction. Throughout the chapter, Davis takes great pains to argue that women back then in “Hebrew Bible times” were always subordinate to a man, and Davis clearly is angry over this fact. It echoes much of the same stuff as other scholars like Dan McClellan, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, and Jennifer Bird.
Let’s state for the record that yes, compared to the rights women have today in 21st century America, women back in biblical times had things much worse. The problem I have the work of these scholars on this topic, though, is that they are trying to make it seem that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the source of all misogyny and patriarchy. And, although this is an admittedly generalized statement, a lot of them have come from very strict, fundamentalist/Evangelical homes, and that clearly affects how they come to the biblical text. In their scholarship, they’re clearly fighting their own personal, past experiences. They scream, “The Bible is misogynistic! The Bible is patriarchal!” Well, sure, compared to modern America, those ancient cultures in biblical times are going to be seen that way. But all ancient cultures were that way. In fact, many societies and cultures even today are that way. So why are scholars like these only focusing on the Bible? Why aren’t they voicing their horror over the way the Canaanites, Babylonians, Taliban treat women?
The Bible isn’t “mandating” that women should be treated as property, as if God is just uttering declarations from on high that women should be treated as chattel. The Bible is showing how God is at work within a very messy, corrupt, and sinful humanity. If I can put it this way, the Bible is reflecting the reality of the times, and we see the struggle people who were trying to follow God had navigating through those times. I don’t know any Christian who reads the story of Shechem and Dinah and thinks, “Yeah! I wish we could get back to living in biblical times! What a perfect ideal! Go God!” Nobody thinks that.
The bottom line is this: Yes, in ANE times, ancient Israel included, family institutions and the role of women were considerably different. No, I don’t think anyone wants Christians to go back and live under those ancient institutions.
As a side note, I want to comment on something else Davis says, this time about Jacob. Davis says Jacob is “consistently depicted as clever and resourceful” and is “celebrated for trickery” throughout his story in Genesis. His “skill in manipulation” was a “survivalist virtue” in that harsh climate. Hence, he represents the “poor and marginalized” who occasionally “bested the powerful establishment” (240). I find that depiction of Jacob outright bizarre. I think the biblical account realistically portrays him as quite the conman and deceiver. He’s not “celebrated” and he isn’t really all that good most of the time. He’s a deeply flawed person. His deceptive nature eventually is passed down to his sons who are equally, if not more so, deceptive. There is a lot of dysfunction in that family! And that is the point: in the mess of history, within this very screwed-up family, God still is able to work through them to further His eventual salvation. Specifically with Jacob, God works through Jacob despite Jacob being Jacob. The story isn’t celebrating Jacob’s trickery—it reflects his flawed character, and God works through him anyway.
Chapter 10: The Sons of Israel
In Chapter 10, Davis speculates on exactly where northern Israelites and southern Judahites came from. Obviously, since he rejects that there is any history to the Exodus story (it’s all “propaganda” to him), he feels he needs to give his own “origin accounts” for where the people of Israel and Judah came from.
Davis asserts that the Northern Kingdom and people and the Southern Kingdom and people were two completely different people groups from the beginning who had competing traditions of their migration into the land. He writes: “The Northern Kingdom it seems, identified themselves as ‘Hebrews’ emancipated from oppression out of Egypt, and under the direction of prophets [like Elijah and Elisha] who worked signs and wonders of their god on their behalf. The Southern Kingdom drew their memories from a subsistence of pastoral nomads who wandered in the regions of Edom and the Transjordan, and following their tribal war god into the land” (276). Eventually (as we’ll see in the Davis’ next chapter), when Assyria came in around 722 BC and destroyed the Northern Kingdom, that created a mass migration to the Southern Kingdom, and then the “elites” in the Southern Kingdom essentially co-opted the Northern traditions into their own and voila! That’s how we get the “propaganda” that’s in our Bibles today that claims they were all originally one people who came out of Egypt, but then ten northern tribes broke away after Solomon, and that everyone needs to get back to the exclusive worship of YHWH.
Most of it is pure speculation, but Davis primarily roots his assertion in Hosea 12, where “Jacob” is called a “wandering Aramean” and “Ephraim” is said to have come out of bondage in Egypt by a prophet. He also claims that prophets and prophecy “tend to be closely connected to the Northern Kingdom.”
Just off the top of my head, I can see some problems: (1) While Elijah and Elisha were prophets, they were pretty insistent on condemning the Northern Kingdom for failing to worship YHWH; (2) Of all the classical prophets, only two were “northern”—Hosea and Amos…and even Amos lived in Judah and travelled into the north to condemn Israel. Basically, there is a lot more prophets and prophecy in the Southern Kingdom.
More importantly, we need to be honest, there literally is no evidence for what Davis claims. It is pure speculation. It amounts to a rejection of the biblical texts we have, dismissing them out of hand as “propaganda,” and then substituting a completely different “origin story” that doesn’t even have any solid texts to support it. Again, Davis thinks we need to “look through the words” of the biblical texts to get to the truth. Well, he is squinting really, really hard. And if you squint too much, your eyes are just closed.
All that said, at the end of the chapter, Davis discusses the “Song of Moses” in Exodus 15 that celebrates the destruction of Pharoah’s armies in the Red Sea (or “Reed Sea”). Obviously, Davis rejects this as not having any connection to history, but he does rightly highlight the clear echoes of ANE creation myths. He calls it a “mythical account of Israel’s origins” by which he means, “it provides a ‘meaningful structure of reality’ to the identity of Israel in history” (280). In a nutshell, Exodus 15 paints Israel’s crossing of the Red Sea (and the destruction of Pharoah’s armies in the sea) against the backdrop of YHWH’s victory over the sea of chaos, hinted at in Genesis 1, and celebrated in other poetic and prophetic texts.
That is absolutely correct. The crossing of the Red Sea is described using that kind of “creation language.” Why? Because it signaled the “creation” of the people of YHWH. Just as God caused “dry land” to come up from the sea so that human beings could dwell on it, the Hebrews passed through the sea on “dry land” and eventually came to the Promised Land to dwell with YHWH in His land (can anyone say, “echoes of Eden”?).
So, Davis clearly and correctly sees the literary artistry of a passage like Exodus 15 in it own “origin story” of the people of YHWH. I think that is a perfect example of what is going on in historical narrative. Exodus 15 is telling about an event in history (i.e. Hebrew slaves escaping from Egypt), but it is not giving us a photograph of it. Rather, it is “painting” that event with highly literary and mythological imagery. Davis, though, disagrees with that. For him, if an event is “painted” with literary artistry and mythological imagery, there can’t be any history about it. Bottom line, he correctly sees the literary artistry in the passage, but he dismisses the notion there is any history behind it.
Huh. I always thought the Bible stated outright that Shechem raped Dinah. Maybe my reading was colored by the Joseph movie with Ben Kingsley.
In my translation, I put it this way:
When Shechem ben-Hamor the Hivite, prince of the land, saw her, he took her, lied down with her, and humiliated her. His soul was joined to Dinah, the daughter of Jacob. He loved the girl and spoke from his heart to the girl. Then Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, and said, “Get this girl as a wife for me.”
It very well could have been rape. My point is simply that is not made explicit in the text. The fact that the text says he loved her and spoke from his heart to her is the added wrinkle that doesn’t exactly “fit” with the notion of rape. Still, possible…just not clear.
If there were evidence to support this historical core I would agree that Davis was misunderstanding the Exodus narrative.
However, there is no evidence and thus the tale is a foundation myth.
And this is the most baffling part, why you hold on to the myth and the veracity of the Red(Sea of Reeds) Sea Crossing.
Hi there. Hope you’re well.
I’m catching up on this review and I noticed you’re a frequent commenter. I’m curious: Why such a fixation on this singular point? What are you trying to get across? Maybe we can talk.
The Exodus is probably the single most important religious story ever told and it’s ramifications /political and religious are embedded into cultures that have spread across the globe via monotheism and are used to justify much of past law(slavery for example) and what is present in current law and culture.
My focus on the Exodus is because it is:
1. A piece of geopolitical foundation myth and
2. The fact this has ramifications on the major themes of the New Testament.
My primary gripe is the continual claim of evidence that supports the myth and the claim of historicity pertaining to Moses, the Red Sea Crossing and the Conquest model, for which there is not a single piece of archaeological evidence and the fact our host equivocates over this.
///It’s ramifications /political and religious are embedded into cultures that have spread across the globe via monotheism and are used to justify much of past law(slavery for example) and what is present in current law and culture.///
Do you think this was a universally bad thing?
///My focus on the Exodus is because it is:
1. A piece of geopolitical foundation myth///
I don’t know enough to comment much, just that the word “myth” has more than one meaning, and that there are a range of views about dating, the number of people involved, etc.
///2. The fact this has ramifications on the major themes of the New Testament.///
Okay, how?
(I work nights, i’ll reply when I can)
1 Overall, yes. The bad outweighs the good.
3. The character, Jesus of Nazareth is portrayed as being Yahweh incarnate and expresses belief the Exodus narrative is a genuine historical event.
You should realize, Jack, that Ark also (I’ll be kind) has very big doubts as to whether or not Jesus really existed. He’ll equivocate when put on the spot, but he has a soft-spot for mythicism.
The character as depicted in the gospels: the instant viticulturist, Lake Tiberius Pedestrian, Yahweh incarnate? Good grief, of course he did not exist. That portrayal is nothing but a narrative construct.
An itinerrant Rabbi who was crucified by the Romans for sedition?
Quite possible.
///1 Overall, yes. The bad outweighs the good.///
Not gonna ask your personal reasons for how or why. It’s a massive topic. What I will say is that, many followers of Christ have been abysmal human beings, which is not in keeping with his teachings.
///The character, Jesus of Nazareth is portrayed as being Yahweh incarnate and expresses belief the Exodus narrative is a genuine historical event.///
I looked them up. 2 of them are linked with the transfiguration account, there’s a mention or two of Law, and Marriage and Divorce. I leave open the strong possibility Jesus is using literature and tradition to make a deeper point. I don’t see why this is so fundamental?
As Jesus is claimed to be Yahweh incarnate a god would know the difference between myth and historical fact.
That he does not seem to recognise this, it therefore casts aspersions on his own historical credibility.
So, in your head, if Jesus was God, if He alluded to anything in the OT, then He must be affirming its historicty, right? For example, he makes a reference at Adam and Eve, so that must mean he thinks their historical, right?
Are you saying the bible character Jesus of Nazareth did Not consider they were actual people?
I’m just pushing you on your logic. When he tells the Pharisees that “Moses was right about you,” do you think that Jesus thought Moses was literally talking about Pharisees living 1500 years later?
Let’s look at it from another perspective. Do you think the Transfiguration actually took place?
This should identify whether we are discussing a mythological character or a real Moses.
No, why dont you directly answer my question?
As we are talking about a narrative construct I am sure such a character could say anything he liked and mean whatever he wanted. It would be wholly dependant on the author’s objective/imagination.
Do YOU think Jesus believed Moses was a real historical figure? In the way Jesus is portrayed in the gospels he certainly comes across as believing he was, and I have not read anything from scholars etc to suggest otherwise.
A lot of times, I might reference a movie, like “The Matrix.” Does merely referencing a movie or book entail an affirmation of its historicity?
In your case, no, of course not. And you believe Moses was a “real boy” and unlike the character Jesus of Nazareth you are not even claiming to be Yahweh!
(As Jesus is claimed to be Yahweh incarnate a god would know the difference between myth and historical fact. That he does not seem to recognise this, it therefore casts aspersions on his own historical credibility.)
Do you view this as a hard dichotomy? As in, there is no 3rd option? I can reference Aesop’s Fables to make a real point, with the point being made as MORE real than the reference. I don’t affirm pure ahistoricity of the Exodus event. Once we stop picturing it as a 1:1 of Charlton Heston’s film, various options become available.
And as a further comment, here is a quote that captures my thought process:
“In the gospels, Jesus takes Peter; James, son of Zebedee; and James’ brother John with him and goes up to a mountain, which is not named. Once on the mountain, Matthew 17:2 states that Jesus “was transfigured before them; his face shining as the sun, and his garments became white as the light.” At that point the prophet Elijah (representing the prophets) and Moses (representing the Law) appear and Jesus begins to talk to them. Luke states that they spoke of Jesus’ exodus (εξοδον) which he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem (Lk 9:31).”
While I don’t think the existence of Elijah is much doubted, Moses as a representation would be enough to get across the larger point Jesus was showing them.
I consider the character as portrayed in the gospels to be a narrative construct which ties in percerfectly with the fact he considers Old Testament characters such as Moses to be genuine historical figures
I just need to confirm that you are not seriously trying to make a case that Jericho was destroyed by invading hordes as described in Joshua?
(I consider the character as portrayed in the gospels to be a narrative construct which ties in percerfectly with the fact he considers Old Testament characters such as Moses to be genuine historical figures)
I mean this with all due respect: I’m not sure what to say to that. I tend to take a moderate stance on a lot of these surrounding topics. I don’t know what you believe or disbelieve but I get the feeling that we part ways on some deep issues. Not historicity of this or that person, but on a meta-level.
(I just need to confirm that you are not seriously trying to make a case that Jericho was destroyed by invading hordes as described in Joshua?)
Which Jericho? The city HAS been destroyed by fire and/or fallen walls in the past, more than once. It’s a very old city, with several destruction layers. So, if you’re asking if I think Jericho has been sieged, burned, and destroyed? It obviously has. If you’re also asking if I think the specifics in the book of Joshua happened? I don’t know.
Ard you a Christian?
(Are you a Christian?)
Broadly Eastern Orthodox. Yes. Why?
@Jack
The question whether you are Christian along with the one about belief that Joshua destroyed Jericho was directed at KarNak. Sorry about that, Jack. This thread is already a bit disjointed.
If you want to weigh in on the subject of Jericho, feel free. Do YOU accept the biblical tale?
@Ark
I’m hitting the only reply button I can find, so maybe things are out of order. It’s possible you didn’t see my above comments (if they even APPEAR above us). Where was the last place you directly responded to me? I answered about my feelings on Jericho in my comment posted at 3:03 AM (EST)
He’s asking if you’re a Christian so he can summarily dismiss everything you say, lol.
@Jack.
Yes, saw it. Thanks.
If you “don’t know.” (whether or not the tale of Joshua is historical fact) how do you view the the Exodus tale (including Captivity and Conquest) overall? Do you reject the archaeological and historical concensus it is simply a geopolitical foundation myth?
Don’t trust anything this Ark dude says, he is a pest and a liar. To quote from Manfred Bietak (egyptologist and archaeologist, director of excavations at Tell el-Dab’a (Avaris)), responding to “Do most egyptologists believe in some form of historical Exodus like you”, Manfred Bietak said: “I think so, yes.”
(Manfred Bietak, NT Podcast, EXODOI: How Multiple Exoduses Shaped the Biblical Story, 1:02:47)
@KarNak.
I do not lie. I have no need.
“Nuh uh, uh, uh uh uh, trust me brotha”
– Ark.
@KarNak
When an interlocutor uses terms such as “dude” and “bruh” it is a giveaway and suggests a level of immaturity.
Still waiting for you to quote me regarding your assertion about “calling me out”.
Your reference to Egyptologists believing the Exodus tale is unsupported.
Denial is the first stage of a fundamentalist. Behold, “Ark”.
Denial? You merely help confirm my previous comment.
There is a specific type that uses the word “dude”.
Now, let’s see you provide the quote regarding what you allegedly “called me out” for.
You quoted Finkelstein and Silberman to support yourself about Jericho not being occupied in the LBA, and yet, you failed. You are actually pretty ridiculous. Aren’t you ashamed of being so ignorant?
Failed?
“Archaeological Findings
Inhabitation Gap:
According to scholarly consensus, Jericho was uninhabited and without a major city or significant fortifications during the Late Bronze Age, which includes 1230 BC.”
And again, you fail xD. Nigro post-dates this all. You lost, man.
Again with an immature “you lost man”
Did you run out of dudes? Are you 12 years old? Good grief, grow up.
Yes, Nigro’s prelimary report does suggest Jericho was occupied.
I concede this.
I do not know if his findings have been accepted by the broader archaeogical community but it is fascinating nonetheless.
Correct me if I have missunderstood, he speculates some sort of citadel/palace for an Egyptian governor?
This would indicate the area was under Egyptian control?
It does not suggest it, it proves it. Yes, the Middle building, which replaces the monumental palaces of the Middle Bronze Age, and walls W.2303 and W.2313, and floor L.2312 belong to it. It did not have an Egyptian in control, but rather a local governor, vassal to the Egyptian hegemony, basically, what in the Ancient Near East was called a “king” or “city-king,” (what is described in Joshua) the leader of the city.
Canaan, during the reign of Ramesses II and even more so under Merneptah, was not subordinated to Egyptian hegemony (no longer an empire), but the Egyptians had lost control. It was later, for example under Ramesses III, that more garrisons were established. Likewise, almost all the Egyptian garrisons were on the coastal plain, that is, far from where the Israelites entered the West Bank (from east of the Jordan, as indicated by the Merneptah Stele). Egypt was militarily inactive in the Levant after year 5 of Merneptah until Ramesses III and there’s no evidence that it maintained administrative control of the region during this period. That is precisely why we don’t have much information regarding this, during the reign of Ramesses II he began to lose control of Canaan, and by the reign of Merneptah, he (Merneptah) couldn’t even stop the Libyans from invading Egypt itself and reaching the Nile Valley, nor could he prevent rebellions in Nubia and Canaan, all of which is a clear sign of Egyptian weakness.
I thought it pertinant to add this… Just in case.
“Nigro says that the idea that the Biblical account should have a literal archaeological correspondence is erroneous, and “any attempt to seriously identify something on the ground with biblical personages and their acts” is hazardous.[11]”
True, here is what Nigro said specifically:
“The ruins of Tell es-Sultan are much older than the supposed date of Joshua’s conquest. […] It is clear how risky any attempt is to seriously identify features on the ground with biblical figures and their deeds.”
(Nigro, 2020, p.204).
Nigro is referring to the destruction (ruins) of Tell es-Sultan from MB IIc/III, not those of LBA IIB. His most recent work (2021-) has proved and confirmed the claims of Kenyon and Garstang regarding the destruction of LBA IIB at Jericho.
Just to clarify. Nigro, as with almost every historian and archaeologist rejects the notion the city was destroyed as described in the Bible which is recognised as part of the larger geopolitical foundation myth.
Not true. Nigro, in fact, probably accepts how the Bible describes the walls falling by probably an earthquake and the city being destroyed. This is because, unlike the cyclopean walls of the MBA Tell es-Sultan/Jericho, those of the LBA were casemate walls (which is why Joshua says that Rahab literally lived IN the wall) and had disappeared by the EIA I, with no signs of destruction in the walled city nor any evidence of human force, unlike the cyclopean walls destroyed in the MB IIC/III destruction.
Fair enough. Maybe a slightly poor word choice. However,
like almost every other archaeologist, historian and anyone who is not a wide-eyed somewhat credulous follower of the Bible, Nigro does NOT accept the biblical tale of the Exodus narrative, which remains a geopolitical foundation myth.
Are we done?
Want to move onto Moses now?
When I say “in the walled city” I mean “in the walls, the fortifications”, idk why I typed it that way.
Okay. No problem. But I take it that while you as a Christian may hold with the biblical view the destruction and the ensuing Conquest model is simply geopolitical foundation myth.
It is fascinating that although this myth is a large part of Judaism and their claim to the land (especially under the current political climate) how so many (most?) Jewish people accept the reality of the tale for what it is and simply move on.
Even Rabbis seem to have come to terms with it.
As a Christian, why do you think so many believers refuse to accept the evidence and cling to the bible story?
When you continue to misuse the term “myth” you just scream, “Don’t take me seriously!”
It is the correct term in this case and the narrative is recognised as geopolitical foundation myth. Why on earth do you cling to the notion there is any factual historicity to the Exodus narrative as described when even someone such as David Wolpe is on record stating the tale is a fiction?
You are are a damn scholar for goodness’ sake!
No one but the wilfully ignorant consider there is truth to all the Moses, Red Sea Crossing, 40 year wandering etc nonsense you believe.
Truly, it is beneath you and it’s about time you embraced reality.
Yes, I am a scholar with the education to back it up. And you are lecturing me. Lol
Well, you are noted for vehemently disagreeing with any number of highly qualified scholars, Kip Davis bring the latest, so I see no problem with correcting your misinterpretation when the term foundation myth is acknowledged by the general scholarly concensus.
I realize this does not align with your Christian orientated worldview of the subject matter but this is your problem, not mine.
Yeah, right… lol. You still can’t get basic genre terms right and you still are unable to understand my approach to how to read biblical texts. After 5+ years you remain steadfast in your own ignorance.
And after all this time you still parade your Dunning Kruger attitude toward me and almost every author of every book you have reviewed where the conclusion/opinion differs from your pen. And yet you still cling to the notion Moses was a genuine historical figure who crossed the Red Sea and went walkabout in the desert for 40 years.
It is a foundation myth. An embedded cultural memory, likely constructed during the Babylonian Captivity or some time post exilic.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias where individuals with low ability in a specific area overestimate their skills and knowledge. This occurs because they lack the self-awareness to accurately assess their own competence, often leading to inflated self-assessments.
Now look in a mirror.
I know precisely what the term means which is why I used it.
I am fully aware of my limitations in this field which is why I try to follow expert concensus and avoid like the plague the heavily biased opinions of those whose world view hinges on a faith-based worldview.
So, once again, can you provide a scholarly reference that supports your view of a foundation myth?
I dont think you are aware of your limitations.
Well, based on your attitude over the years toward me and a number of others you most certainly aren’t.
So, are you able to cite a professional scholarly source that supports your opinion on the subject of foundation myth or are you truly expecting me to simply accept your opinion which is underpinned by your faith based worldview?
“The Exodus (Hebrew: יציאת מצרים, romanized: Yəṣīʾat Mīṣrayīm, lit. ’Departure from Egypt'[a]) is the founding myth[b] of the Israelites….”
Wiki.
Ohhh!!!! Wiki! I stand corrected!
It is usually the first one to pop up and includes citations if this really upsets you?
Perhaps you would like to cite a reference that clearly demonstrates why your particular interpretation is correct while every other relevent scholar and site I have come across explains this is precisely what a cultural/foundation myth is.
I’ll read whatever you’ve got to offer.
I’m just mocking you. Please just go away.
I’m just trying to correct you. At least provide a proper scholarly source that defends your opinion. Seriously, how hard could that be?
Again, I’ve done it for years. I’ve gone above and beyond trying to provide you with those things. And every time, you summarily dismiss them and say, “Provide evidence!” Just stop.
I am asking you to provide a professional scholarly source that supports your view of what is a foundation myth and more pertinantly why every source I have consulted to date agrees the Exodus narrative fits the pattern of such a foundation myth.
Again, surely you must have someone you can cite other than yourself? How hard can that be?
Alright, this is the last message I am writing addressed to you, since I see that you are incapable of understanding what I am saying either out of ineptitude or simply because you are being dishonest. First of all, Nigro has never dealt with the topic of the Exodus in any of his papers and he is NOT a subject matter expert on the Exodus—egyptologists are. Second, the destruction of Jericho is most probably caused by the Israelites, because among several other reasons:
1. It would make no sense for it to have been abandoned for a period after the destruction if it were an internal revolt. If they won the battle, why did they abandon it? 0 sense.
2. Clearly it is not the result of an Egyptian intervention. It does not fit Egyptian destruction at all (apart from the fact that there is no Egyptian evidence—or any kind of evidence—that they attacked Jericho, not only in LB IIB but at no point during the entire LBA). Recall what Kreimerman writes:
“Hasel (1998) conducted a study of the Egyptian literary sources dating from ca. 1300 to 1185 BCE that describe Egyptian military activity. He demonstrated, convincingly, that the Egyptians were interested in the long term, and mostly in economic benefits. Thus, the accounts contain detailed lists of plunder and prisoners, the imposition of taxes, the destruction of fortifications, specifically the gates […] One thing that was never mentioned was the burning of a whole city by the Egyptians. In two cases, where the use of fire was mentioned, it was in relation to the destruction of tent encampments (Hasel 1998: 84-90) […] as we know from the literary sources, the Egyptians did not burn the cities. Taking all of these considerations together, a Type 3 destruction is probably associated with Egyptian intervention” (Kreimerman 2017: 190-191).
3. Clearly it was not the Sea Peoples either; there is no evidence of them in the later strata of EIA I, nor did they ever reach such a geographical area.
4. We have a text that attributes and describes exactly what happened in Jericho in LB IIB—the record of Joshua’s conquest.
5. It aligns temporally, contemporaneously, with other destructions we know for a fact to be Israelite, such as Hormah, Bethel (also attributed to the Israelites by Finkelstein), Hazor, Hebron, Lachish, Madon…
The burden of proof falls on you to explain the destruction of Jericho if you want to avoid connecting it to the Israelites (for whatever reason your inner fundie has), who faithfully describe in the Book of Joshua what happened to Tell es-Sultan–Jericho City V at the end of the LB.
This is the last time I waste my time answering you—because debating with someone who hides behind red herrings when faced with evidence is like arguing with a smoke machine: noisy, pointless, and full of hot air.
So, you cling to the myth of Captivity, Exodus and Conquest, a stance only fundamentalist leaning Christians (and their similarly fundamentalist brothers and sisters in the other two Abrahamic faiths) adhere to.
No problem.
Shalom and all that stuff.
Sure you don’t want to tackle Moses and the 40 year desert sojourn?
I forgot to add, which Egyptologists adhere to the biblical tale of the Exodus narrative?
Please don’t cite Kitchen.
Re:Bethel….
“Israel Finkelstein and David Singer-Avitz suggest that Bethel was destroyed around the Late Bronze Age collapse (c. 1200 BCE) by the Babylonians or Persians, rather than the Israelite conquest, and was re-established later as the capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. “
(We’ll go with the number system in my replies to my quotes of you. It keeps things from getting lost)
///All this from someone who holds a doctorate, while at the same time adheres to Biblical woo- woo yet expects to be taken seriously.
I would suggest one could not make this stuff up, but clearly this is not the case.///
1) Truth is not a numbers game sure, but I caution against trying to frame this as some kind of dichotomy. I think we’re touching on a deeper issue with what i’ll quote below. You’re talking about something that goes beyond a single historical claim.
///Face it, at some point in any Christian’s life cognitive dissonance is inevitable.///
2) Well i’m a Christian and I accept reality as I find it. Like accepting Evolution and Deep Time, the Standard Model etc etc. I’ve not run into much friction with my theological views. It’s all just motion and change, not a big deal. I don’t believe in the supernatural.
///It only gets worse when an individual has some serious studying and qualifications behind them. At that point they will often take one of two directions. Be brutally honest, accept what the evidence is telling them and walk away/deconvert or…///
3) I….wow. You honestly just implied that going through bible college HAS to strip someone of their faith if they are honest with themselves. That’s….I have to give you credit, few are that blunt about having that opinion. I respect it. I don’t agree, and examples abound of people where that did not happen, but still I have to admire the confidence. You sound like you think that we’re all evangelical fundamentalists dude…
///Deep dive into their faith and veer toward an apologetic type framework of interpretation that allows for the “God works in mysterious ways” scenario.
Anyone who follows the latter path where the bible is considered divinely inspired, regards themselves as as sinner in need of salvation, where miracles underpin their overall worldview can never approach any religious topic without exposing this aspect of their belief.///
4) I half agree. There IS a difference between being an “apologist”, and being a scholar who happens to be religious. Religious scholars can do perfectly fine critical work. But that is the other side of the point: Modern secularism is *NOT* epistemologically neutral. Both sides are often guilty of the same thing in different ways. It’s not about this or that biblical story, it’s about an ontological and axiomatic divide. NONE of this happened in a philosophical vacuum.
///In the same way you probably view the claims of a Jehovah Witness, LDS, Muslim, or Scientologist, I consider the claims of a Christian.///
5) I’m a Perennialist to a degree. I don’t dismiss spiritual experiences from others just because they might not share my views. I’m also not against the gods of other faiths being real.
@Ark
Ark?
Huh, my reply might have gotten lost.
Nope…I finally blocked him. Sorry. I was getting a number of complaints, and he was annoying me to boot.
///Yes, saw it. Thanks.
If you “don’t know.” (whether or not the tale of Joshua is historical fact) how do you view the the Exodus tale (including Captivity and Conquest) overall? Do you reject the archaeological and historical concensus it is simply a geopolitical foundation myth?///
@Ark
I currently don’t have a strong opinion either way. If you strip away the theophanic elements of the story, you’re left with a semitic population of laborers in the Egyptian Delta at some point in the Bronze Age (we are not told when), who, due to a weakening of egyptian power, were galvanized and able to make a run for it taking their traditions with them.
Nothing on the face of that is improbable. It may well be a “foundation myth” but that does not mean there is nothing to it. History is not that simple.
The entire area is/was full of Semitic people which as you know refers to a language group rather than race.
But no evidence suggests anything as described in the Bible and archaeology informs us of the internal settlement pattern and not some wholesale flight from Egypt.
To assert otherwise simply demonstrates a refusal to acknowledge the archaeological evidence.
While Jews have by and large tacitly seemed to accept this, for many Christians it is obviously a major problem as evidenced by examples on this thread.
The hoops apologists are forced to jump through to try to find a way to harmonize their faith based belief and the reality of the history would suggest a large degree of wilfull ignorance if not outright disingenuity.
///But no evidence suggests anything as described in the Bible and archaeology informs us of the internal settlement pattern and not some wholesale flight from Egypt.///
Do you take the Bible literally in the modern sense? I don’t because, aside from copyist errors and anachronistic updates, it’s also full of ancient exaggeration language that was common at the time, as well as not operating in the exact same genres that we today use. I absolutely don’t believe that ~2,000,000 Hebrews booked it out of the Delta, but a group of some thousands isn’t out of the question. Like I said: I am agnostic on the conquest question (also containing a good amount of exaggeration language) because I have not read enough.
I also (and this is important) do not know WHEN I would even try to place any of this.
///The hoops apologists are forced to jump through to try to find a way to harmonize their faith based belief and the reality of the history would suggest a large degree of wilfull ignorance if not outright disingenuity.///
1) I am asking you, man to man: PLEASE drop the scornful tone.
2) You’re aware that a good number of believers, scholars and lay people alike, take the stance on the Exodus-Conquest that you do, and are still devout, yes? They do not struggle with this.
1.The entire Exodus narrative is a geopolitical foundation myth. Period
2. We are on a blog hosted by someone who believes Moses was the genuine article, who led around 20,000 slaves out of Egypt who somehow crossed the Red Sea( divine intervention or some long lost sunken land bridge Yahweh manifested ?) went up a mountain and received the Ten Commandments and then at some time invaded Canaan and routed/ slaughtered the inhabitants ‘cos Yahweh told’ em to based upon absolutely zero evidence of course.
All this from someone who holds a doctorate, while at the same time adheres to Biblical woo- woo yet expects to be taken seriously.
I would suggest one could not make this stuff up, but clearly this is not the case.
The same individual who is convinced of his own scholarly position yet routinely slags off any writer/author be they Christian or otherwise, from the likes of Provan, Peter Enns to Francesca Stavrakapoulos, Bart Ehrman to Kip Davis and even considers Finkelstein “boring”.
In fact anyone who would have the temerity to disagree with his personal take on whichever Bible Text he is currently focused on.
Face it, at some point in any Christian’s life cognitive dissonance is inevitable.
It only gets worse when an individual has some serious studying and qualifications behind them. At that point they will often take one of two directions. Be brutally honest, accept what the evidence is telling them and walk away/deconvert or…
Deep dive into their faith and veer toward an apologetic type framework of interpretation that allows for the “God works in mysterious ways” scenario.
Anyone who follows the latter path where the bible is considered divinely inspired, regards themselves as as sinner in need of salvation, where miracles underpin their overall worldview can never approach any religious topic without exposing this aspect of their belief.
In the same way you probably view the claims of a Jehovah Witness, LDS, Muslim, or Scientologist, I consider the claims of a Christian.
You and Davis seem to have almost as many point of overlap as you do difference. The issue being that you disagree on the “important” stuff lol. This might be a long comment.
///For him, if an event is “painted” with literary artistry and mythological imagery, there can’t be any history about it. Bottom line, he correctly sees the literary artistry in the passage, but he dismisses the notion there is any history behind it.///
I know you like to poke fun and snark a bit, but i’m not sure if Davis would own that characterization. In my opinion, one of the big questions about all of this is how ancient people “did history” vs the way we moderns “do history”. Should we expect the same kind of historiography? Were they trying to say the same kinds of things? Ought we to judge one on the basis of the other? It’s a meta-question that I don’t see discussed enough, because the modern “thrust” of history seems to assume that secular history is alone true. That does not mean it’s wrong, just that it has axioms that color its worldview. We all do that.
///Davis begins Chapter 5 by talking a little bit about himself. He went to Bible college and was planning on becoming a church pastor. During that time, he became a hard-core Calvinist and was a big fan of John MacArthur.///
Then good for him for leaving that bullshit behind. I’m 100% serious. I’d probably be a theistic satanist before I’d go the Calavinist route. He’s better off as a non-believer.
///And, although this is an admittedly generalized statement, a lot of them have come from very strict, fundamentalist/Evangelical homes, and that clearly affects how they come to the biblical text.///
That’s not wrong I don’t think (you at least see it a lot online) and weirdly I think I get it *because* i’ve never been through it first hand. Let me explain: I was never a Protestant. I was raised Catholic and had a long period of Agnosticism before slowly finding my way back. I now generally feel at home in the Eastern Christian community. But here’s the thing, the faith that I was taught and HOW I was taught it, always emphasized something dynamic. Of course you see developments in Hebraic thought, of course you see a lack of absolute unity in the texts, of course the religion circumvents itself in various spots, that’s the POINT! It’s supposed to. The covenant with Christ is supposed to be the zenith, everything else is, as Hebrews calls it, “shadows”. The biblical text was presented as tradition, depicting deeper truths than just the words on the page. It was not historically worthless, but it WAS a reflection of an ancient people trying to wrap their heads around/deal with their incomprehensible God, and that kind of thing gets messy. I was never a literalist, and it was stressed that proper contextualization did not allow for such a thing anyway.
Yes, on many of the particulars, I do agree with him. The problem, however, is in his conclusions and applications. I still hold that there is a basic history to the OT stories. I see them both as testimony about history and literary creations. He sees them as literary creations and propaganda by later scribes that try to hide true history.
And yet you provide zero evidence to back up your assertions. You simply disagree, much as you did when reviewing Enns work on the Conquest model.
You simply refuse to touch the subject of archaeology and what it tells us.
You have avoided discussing the the data from Jericho and the conclusions from this.
You dismiss Finkelstein as “boring” but won’t consider the findings at Kadesh and what carbon dating reveals.
And yet you cling to the notion of somr Egyptian captivity, Moses and the Red Sea Crossing based on what… your Christian beliefs?
Do you even know what you are talking about? You don’t seem to have a clue about the archaeology of Jericho. It has been proven that Jericho existed as an important political center in LB II, as well that it lasted until the end of LB IIB c.1200, when it ended in a conflagration, a destruction.
Yes, of course, and Kenyon’s dating has never been refuted, and subsequent carbon dating has affirmed this, so I am minded to ask if you know what you are talking about or if you are simply missundesting the point?
Ok, yes, it’s confirmed, you are absolutely clueless about the archaeology of Tell es-Sultan.
> “Yes, of course, and Kenyon’s dating has never been refuted, and subsequent carbon dating has affirmed this […]”
When did I say Kenyon’s dating has been refuted? The only dating of Kenyon that has been refuted is the destruction of the Jericho LB City, which she dated to the end of the 14th century, but Nigro has proved that the city lasted until the end of LB IIB, and he has placed the destruction precisely there.
> “…so I am minded to ask if you know what you are talking about or if you are simply missundesting the point?
And I am minded to ask if you’re even capable of understanding any point at all, given the level of nonsense you keep spouting.
Again, your sarc is wasted on me.
Let me start over.
1.Are you a Christian. A straighforward yes or no will suffice.
@KarNak.
I just need to confirm that you are not seriously trying to make a case that Jericho was destroyed by invading hordes as described in Joshua?
No, of course not, Jericho was obviously destroyed by flying robots. I must have missed the part in Joshua about the advanced AI siege engines. Thanks for keeping me honest!
I don’t do well with outright sarc.
Are saying you believe Jericho was destroyed by Joshua and the Israelites, yes or no?
Yes, it is the most probable answer to the LB IIB destruction of Tell es-Sultan, as well as for Tel Hazor and Beitin, among others.
Then it is you who would appear clueless.
Are you a fan of Bryant Wood, Hoffmeir, Kitchen etc perhaps?
And of so this probably answers my other question regarding if you are Christian.
Once again, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge on the subject. You are literally citing Finkelstein and Silberman in 2002! Moreover, Kenyon and Garstang had already evidenced remains from the Late Bronze Age. All of this has been known since 1907! The consensus was wrong.
“Nonetheless, some evidence of the Late Bronze Age city was recognized by the four expeditions that worked on the site from 1907 to the present.” (Nigro 2023, pp.600–601).
“…the analysis of the archaeological remains associated with the Late Bronze Age suggests that the site of Tell es-Sultan/Jericho was still a thriving city during the domination of the Egyptian Empire [hegemony].” (Nigro 2023, p.612).
“The discovery of Jericho as an important political center contrasts with the almost complete absence of any reference to Jericho in the Amarna letters, which, combined with the lack of Mycenaean pottery, led Garstang to the erroneous conclusion that the city had been abandoned in the Late Bronze Age IIA (1400–1300 BCE). Nonetheless, the archaeological evidence shows that occupation continued during the following Late Bronze Age IIB stage (1300–1200 BCE).” (Nigro 2023, p.602)
So, if your plan was to impress me with a citation from 2002 while ignoring more than a century of prior research… congratulations, you’ve successfully proven my point.
Impress you? Nah… Not in the least. Just trying to establish if you believe the drivel of the the biblical tale. I think we have established the answer to this question. Nuff said, I reckon, don’t you?
How are you on resurrection tales?
Interesting, but your attempts to switch the topic change nothing about the archaeological evidence. The facts don’t care about your religious traumas, Jericho’s Late Bronze Age occupation, fortifications, and destruction speak for themselves. Perhaps it’s time to grow up a little and stop carrying that chip on your shoulder from your fundie-turned-atheist-but-still-fundie days.
Feel free to respond with more red herrings without engaging with the evidence, but just know that every word you type now will only underline how thoroughly outmatched you are. I’ll be here quietly enjoying the show while you scramble for a clue, it’s almost cute how desperately you’re trying to look informed, little champ.
@KarNak
Your attempt to paint me as a former traumatized fundie is truly hilarious but it seems this is so often the only avenue from Christians when their Bible worldview is threatened.
Ftr, aside from the usual cultural affiliation as a child, I have never been a believer. The mere thought is risible.
However, your apparent tendency to come across as a foot stomper when challenged makes me wonder what YOUR traumatic story is that caused you to look for salvation from Jesus, Hmmm?
Or were you simply raised in the faith at the knee of family and local pastor?
Every Christian I have ever engaged will leap on anything that offers a glimmer of hope their religious fantasies are true, and this includes the Exodus and it’s associated nonsense.
But as I figured, you, as a Christian, clinging to the biblical narrative is par for the course.
But that ‘s okay… You do you.
Wow, a whole novel about my “traumatic story”, yet somehow still managing to avoid the actual archaeological evidence. Let’s be clear: you’ve made outright false claims about Jericho’s Late Bronze Age occupation and destruction.
Instead of engaging with the evidence, you pivot to personal questions, assumptions, and condescending commentary, classic behavior of a twelve-year-old trying to feel clever. If you want to discuss Jericho seriously, stick to the facts. Otherwise, this circus act just makes it obvious how little you actually know 😉
Now don’t get all uppity and your knickers on a know for goodness’ sake.
While there is a certain amount of disagreement regarding dating, the facts that are accepted by the consensus of archaeoligists and historians is that the bible tale of the Exodus as well as the associated religious nonsense, including the destruction of Jericho by Joshua and his marauding horde is nothing but a geopolitical foundation myth.
As far as I am aware Nigro does not reckon your bible version holds any water either.
To pursue this line you are taking simply makes you come across as credulous or worse, religiously indoctrinated.
But as I mentioned previously… You do you.
That said, seeing as this is a quiet Monday for me, this is lots of fun.
Shall we discuss Moses?
😊
Your deflections are noted, but none of this changes the fact that you made false claims about Jericho’s Late Bronze Age occupation and destruction. I’ve already shown the evidence that refutes you, evidence you still haven’t engaged with.
Whether or not you want to wander off into Exodus, Moses, or whatever red herring you fancy next, the reality remains: you misrepresented the archaeology of Jericho, you got called out on it, and now you’re dodging like a schoolboy caught out. Every word you add is just more noise.
By all means, keep tossing out red herrings if it makes you feel better, just understand that each one only highlights how completely out of your depth you are here.
That’s not my problem — it’s yours.
Refresh my failing memory… What exactly did you call me out on?
And while we’re at it, show me the evidence that Jericho was conquered by Joshua and the archaeologists, historians and the evidence that support this conclusion.
Ah, now comes the “refresh my memory” routine. Cute. You were called out on your false claim that Jericho lacked Late Bronze Age occupation, a claim directly refuted by the excavation reports of Kenyon, Garstang, and more recently Nigro (2019-2025). You were shown textual and archaeological evidence that the city was fortified, inhabited, and destroyed in LB IIB. That’s the record.
The fact you’re pretending not to remember only underlines how cornered you are. If you truly need a refresher, you might start by reading the excavation reports, instead of asking me to do your homework for you.
And let’s be clear: the very fact you behave this way, hopping like a rabbit from one topic to another, never acknowledging your own falsehoods, is nothing but a reflection of your character, steeped in intellectual dishonesty. Frankly, I don’t have time to educate little schoolboys who think debate means running from evidence and hoping no one notices — and I don’t want to xD — you are not that important. You are angry, envious, bitter and… entirely irrelevant.
You can respond, really, I’ll even grant you the last word so you can satisfy your need to proclaim your false “victory” (just remember you will be proving my point 👏🕺). I genuinely don’t care in the slightest. You and I both know what you’re saying is false, and that’s enough for me, because it makes clear that you’re lying even to yourself.
Class is dismissed. You may shuffle off now, clutching your red herrings and pretending they’re arguments, the evidence isn’t going to chase you down, but I hope one day you catch up to it.
“You were called out on your false claim that Jericho lacked Late Bronze Age occupation, a claim directly refuted by the excavation reports of Kenyon,….”
Really? Quote me!
Par for the course with Ark.
@Joel
As mentioned before, I tend to respond in kind.
I’ve got five years worth of condescending comments initiated by you that says otherwise.
And evidence will indicate you matched or bettered this in your responses to me… Including equivocation, outright ridicule and insults and subsequent banning.
And the most important aspect: Your refusal to provide a single piece of verified archeological evidence for any claim related to your faith based assertions.
Ahhh there it is! Predictable Ark: “Oh, you’re a Christian! I can now just demean and ignore!”
@Joel.
When I am being slagged I tend to respond in kind.
Any Christian will lean towards an explanation that aligns with their foundational faith-based bible beliefs.
You exemplify this and based on his belief Joshua and his horde were responsible for the destruction of Jericho, KarNak appears to be no different in this score.
Ark always switches topics and moves the goalposts. And the “Are you a Christian?” this is huge for his rhetorical gerbilwheel. If you say you are a Christian, that gives him an excuse to completely avoid everything you say. He’s been doing this on and off here on my blog for five years.
Five years of moving goalposts, it’s not debate, it’s pure theatrics.
@KarNak
Basing one’s worldview on unsubstantiated bible tales is worse that theatrics… It is delusional.
@Joel
Asking if an interlocutor is a Christian and to which brand /sect of Christianity they adhere usually lays out the foundation where any particular discussion may head and what bias will will likely hold.
Yes, of course that is what you’re doing. Let’s call it for what it is: you searching for a justification to dismiss the person when he proves you wrong.
@Joel.
Well, first of all you have to prove me wrong.
Once you do this then maybe you will have a case.
I have done that for five years. You just plug your ears and scream “Christian! delusional! Sky daddy!” Blah blah blah… i wake up this morning and find you’ve bombed this post about Davis’ book with upwards of 20 comments about something not even addressed in the post. Whose being delusional?
@Joel
I have simply responded to the comments addressed to me by Jack and KarNak.
You should probably take up any gripes you have about delusion or unrelated topic matter with them.
Besides, this post about the OT so all subject matter is relevant.
This may clear things up for you.
“The current, prevailing view amongst modern archaeologists regarding Jericho is that the narrative in the book of Joshua about the destruction of the walled city is a “romantic mirage,” which contradicts the archaeological findings, and that “there was no trace of a settlement” around 1230 BC, “the suggested date of the conquest” (Finkelstein and Silberman 2002, pp. 76, 81–82; “