“God’s Propaganda” by Kipp Davis–An Extended Book Analysis (Part 6: Those Intolerant Religious Bigots, Hezekiah, Josiah, and Jeremiah…and Manasseh, the Cultured Diplomat)

Welcome back, boys and girls! We have now come to Part 6 in our look at Kipp Davis’ God’s Propaganda: Pulling Back the Curtain on What the Bible Wants You to See. In this post, we will try to bite off the next two chapters in Davis’ book.

Chapter 11: Propaganda
After giving his own “origin stories” of the Northern and Southern kingdoms in Chapter 10, Davis makes his claim here in Chapter 11 that the real “propaganda” we find in the Old Testament can be traced back primarily to the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah. Simply put, according to Davis, after Assyria destroyed the Northern Kingdom and refugees from Samaria poured into the Southern Kingdom of Judah with all their writings and religious traditions, Hezekiah (and later Josiah) took all that, melded them with the South’s own traditions, and produced their own “propaganda” in order to force the exclusive worship of YHWH onto the innocent, peace-loving pagan commoners of the land. And why would they do this, you ask? Simple: it was all about power!

Davis says that this influx of people from Samaria into the Southern Kingdom (circa AD 722) caused Hezekiah to have “visions of a single unified Kingdom like the fabled realm of the legendary dynastic founder, King David” (285). He says that it was at that time that the Samarian aristocracy sought protection in the Southern Kingdom and brought with them “the rich traditions of the North—the stories of the great sign prophets of YHWH, Elijah and Elisha, stories of the tribal chiefs and judges before them, and the epics of the Exodus from Egypt as remembered by the Prophet Hosea” (286).

He further speculates that within the prophecies of Isaiah (who was a contemporary of Hezekiah) we can possibly “see the beginning of the cult of YHWH in Jerusalem” and “the emergence of a new religion from the ruins of the old Canaanite myths and rituals…” (287). Thus, according to Davis, the worship of YHWH that had already existed in Samaria and Judah (but only as just one of many gods) was “taken to another level” during the reign of Hezekiah. He was the one who propagated “this new thing—official ‘Yahwism’” (295).

To support this claim, Davis cites II Kings 18:19-22, where Sennacherib’s officers are speaking to the people of Jerusalem as they are being besieged. He tells them they shouldn’t think Egypt is going to help them, and they are foolish to think YHWH is going to help them because Hezekiah had removed YHWH’s high places and altars throughout Judah and had insisted that the people worship YHWH only in Jerusalem. Davis admits it is somewhat speculative, but then expresses frustration that things can’t be clearer, precisely because the propagandistic efforts were so thorough: “…the picture we have is frustratingly shrouded by calculated and politically motivated efforts of power-brokers like Hezekiah to control Israelite religions. Within the [Hebrew Bible], Yahwism is most consistently expressed in its exclusivity. …Hezekiah is recorded as the first Jerusalem king to promote this programme of exclusivity…” (298).

According to Davis, while Hezekiah was a calculated powerbroker pushing the exclusive worship of YHWH onto the people, his son Manasseh was “accommodating and cosmopolitan” and “a diplomat” who curried favor with the more powerful empires of Assyria and Egypt for the sake of peace in Jerusalem. He got Judah and Jerusalem back on the right foot after “the disaster of Hezekiah’s great gamble” (299), where he rebelled against Sennacherib, who then invaded Judah, ravaged the countryside, but failed to take Jerusalem. Sure, II Kings 21:3-7 portray Manasseh as a “bloodthirsty and syncretistic monster,” and II Chronicles 33:11-17 says he repented of his treason against YHWH while imprisoned in Babylon and was restored—but all that is just propaganda. In reality, says Davis, if we “read between the lines,” Manasseh actually was a great king. Here, Davis quotes Francesca Stavrakopoulou, says, “Manasseh is perhaps better considered a ‘constructor’ of Judah, rather than its ‘destructor,’ as the Kings Writer claims” (301).

But then came Josiah. Despite the praise the writer of II Kings heaps on Josiah, Davis claims the reality is just the opposite. Josiah commenced on a brutal elimination of all the high places, standing stones, Asherah poles, among other things, and enforced the strict centralization of YHWH worship in Jerusalem. This “YHWH alone” movement was “extremely polemical against the participation of women” (303). After all, eliminating Asherah poles meant ending the types of religious ritual that gave women dignity. So, according to Davis, not only did Josiah’s “YHWH alone” movement crush women under men’s authority, it also further divided the poor peasant class, who just wanted to freely worship on the hills and at the Asherah poles, and the wealthy YHWH worshipping elites in Jerusalem who benefitted both politically and monetarily from Josiah’s YHWH program.

Davis even depicts Josiah’s removing the Asherah pole from the Jerusalem Temple, burning it in the Kidron Valley, then scattering the ashes on the graves of the common people, as a tyrannical move targeted the innocent, oppressed people of his kingdom: “Think about that—the wealthy, powerful king is desecrating the venerated, family cemeteries of poor people, who live outside of his city. What sort of message does that send?” (303). Sure, the writers of the Hebrew Bible may have tried to depict the actions of Hezekiah and Josiah as somehow great, but in reality, Davis claims, “because all of the writers of the Hebrew Bible were beholden to this royal ideology, their minority voice has become the exclusive voice of religion in ancient Israel” (304).

***Before I share my thoughts on Davis’ take, I want to first summarize Chapter 12. As you will see, these two chapters clearly share the same ideas.***

Chapter 12: Facts on the Ground
Davis begins Chapter 12 by asserting the Old Testament is “an idealized picture of the past written from perspectives hundreds of years removed, and coloured by later, deeply embedded political, religious and social agendas” (307)? Translation? The Old Testament is propaganda written by those exilic and post-exilic scribes who were pushing their own agendas and trying to hide the real history of Israel and Judah. If you read my book analysis of Francesca Stavrakopoulou’s God’s Anatomy a couple of years ago, Davis’ thesis pretty much echoes the thesis in Stavrakopoulou’s book.

Here in Chapter 12, though, Davis moves forward to the time of Jeremiah, right after Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem, sent the Jewish elite into exile, and left the poorer people in the land. To get right to the point, Davis focuses on the prophet Jeremiah, and in Davis’ eyes, Jeremiah is one misogynistic, religious bigot who really hates poor people! Here are the highlights:

• The words in the Hebrew Bible that categorize the pagan idols as “abomination,” “detestable thing,” and “horror” are just mean! They “are not useful for helping us to discover the elements of religious devotion in Iron Age Israel” (312).
• Asherah and the Asherah poles were just good, valid expressions of religious devotion in Israel. It wasn’t until religious bigots like Hezekiah and Josiah pushed exclusive worship of YHWH that Asherah became seen as an “abomination.”
• In a nod to Stavrakopoulou, Davis says that the giant bow that YHWH holds in some poetic passages really is about his “engorged penis.”
• After Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of Jerusalem, Jeremiah encouraged those remaining in the land to stay there because YHWH would take care of them. But when they decided to go down to Egypt, Jeremiah went on a “diatribe” and “screamed like a wounded animal.”
• In particular, he singled out women for “flaunting their independence” by not submitting to the Torah of YHWH and instead continuing to take part in Asherah worship. They had stature in the worship of Asherah. “The worship of Asherah was a ritual that celebrated the power of women” (322) and that religious, misogynist Jeremiah hated it!
• But before Josiah forced YHWH down everyone’s throat with his “draconian polices,” Manasseh’s pragmatic policies and religious pluralism had brought prosperity to Judah, so the poor people just wanted to continue their religious practices that brought those good times.
• But Jeremiah “sneers” at them and continues to force “the fanatical devotion of the Jerusalem priests, the royal house, and the aristocracy” (323) on these poor, innocent people who just wanted to exercise their religious freedom, not only worshipping YHWH, but Asherah (and other gods) as well.
• This “official Yahwism” was later used as a propaganda tool to “discriminate against groups of people. Not only the women who thrived in the cult of Asherah, but also the generally less visible members of society” (323).

Let’s Have a Little Chat About Propaganda
Now, some might read those claims and be horrified by such blasphemy. How dare Davis claim Hezekiah, Josiah, and Jeremiah are the “bad guys,” while Manasseh and the worshippers of Asherah are the “good guys”! I’m not interested in that. I’m interested in the way Davis characterizes things—is there any evidence for them? How does he come to such conclusions?

When it gets right down to it, the way he depicts the figures of Hezekiah, Manasseh, Josiah, and Jeremiah boils down to this: I’m going to take the polar opposite view of whatever the Bible says about them. Why? Because I already think the Hebrew Bible is “propaganda.” Not only do I not trust it, I have determined the writers of the Hebrew Bible had nefarious motivations for what they wrote. It’s not just that they were giving their view of the past—I believe they were intentionally distorting it.

Is that approach to the biblical text valid? I say no. Let’s look at Davis’ specific treatment of II Kings’ account of Hezekiah and the subsequent Sennacherib’s invasion. Davis rejects the account in II Kings 18-19 because, according to him, it is “royal propaganda” that is trying to make Hezekiah look good. He cites Sennacherib’s own account of his Judean campaign as reason to reject II Kings 18-19. So, what are the main points in II Kings 18-19?

• Hezekiah got rid of many pagan practices and items
• Hezekiah rebelled against Assyria; and later sent Sennacherib tribute
• Sennacherib mounted an invasion of Judah to the point where Hezekiah and the people of Jerusalem were besieged, with very little hope of survival
• The Assyrian officers mocked Hezekiah and told the people there was no hope because Hezekiah had removed the high places and altars to YHWH
• Hezekiah appealed to YHWH, asked Isaiah to pray for Jerusalem, and Isaiah prophesied that YHWH would protect the city and that Sennacherib would not set foot inside it
• An “angel of the Lord” decimated Sennacherib’s army; he never took Jerusalem; he went back to Assyria and was eventually murdered

Now, what specifics are we told from Sennacherib’s account?

• He took 46 cities in Judah and besieged Jerusalem, where Hezekiah was shut up in the city like “a caged bird”
• Later on, he increased Hezekiah’s tribute
• Then, in his palace in Nineveh, Sennacherib depicted the siege and taking of Lachish

When it comes to reading ancient texts, especially “royal accounts,” it should come as no surprise that there is a certain amount of “propaganda” at play. Generally speaking, kings are going to try to make themselves look good and downplay (or completely ignore) anything that makes them look bad. Given that, when we look at II Kings 18-19, is Hezekiah praised for getting rid of idolatrous items and practices? Yes. Does the account make Hezekiah look like an utter boss who kicks Sennacherib’s butt? Absolutely not. In fact, it emphasizes the dire straits Hezekiah put Judah and Jerusalem in. It actually tells us that Hezekiah basically admitted to Sennacherib he made a mistake in rebelling and then paying Sennacherib tribute. Still, it praises him for putting his trust in YHWH, and it highlights YHWH’s saving of Jerusalem. Here’s the point, in terms of “royal propaganda,” II Kings 18-19 gives a surprisingly realistic and certainly not idealistic picture of Hezekiah. He is a flawed king.

By contrast, Sennacherib’s account is quintessential “royal propaganda.” Everything in it praises him, with absolutely no negative connotations. In fact, even though he brags he holed up Hezekiah in Jerusalem, it is worth noting he says nothing about taking Jerusalem. Then, when one considers that he depicts the taking of Lachish, not Jerusalem, it is pretty clear that Sennacherib avoids that fact because it would make him look not as super-awesome as he wants to depict himself. Now, why would he do that? Simple, Sennacherib’s account is his own royal propaganda.

Here’s the irony. Davis rejects the II Kings 18-19 account, claiming it is “royal propaganda,” yet he whole-heartedly accepts Sennacherib’s account as “what really happened,” despite the fact that not only is Sennacherib’s account equally “royal propaganda,” it clearly is even more so. The II Kings account is more honest about the events, in that it clearly shows Hezekiah as being weak and admitting a mistake. The Sennacherib account, though, depicts Sennacherib in almost a god-like fashion. Yet that is the one Davis chooses to accept as more historically true.

That is what impels him to recharacterize Hezekiah as a tyrant, Manasseh as a multicultural diplomat, and Josiah as an even worse tyrant. Yet in II Chronicles, Manasseh’s faults as well as his repentance is highlighted; and in II Kings Josiah dies a tragic death. In short, even though the biblical accounts are clearly “pushing an agenda” (that YHWH worship is good and pagan worship is bad), their portrayal of that history is much more complexed and nuanced than Sennacherib’s “I AM SUPERMAN!” propaganda.

To the point, Davis’ choice to reject the biblical accounts and elevate Sennacherib’s account is highly questionable and problematic. Furthermore, the way he chooses to depict Hezekiah, Manasseh, Josiah, as well as Jeremiah, amounts to him pushing a very clear propagandist agenda all his own. His choice of adjectives to describe these figures is purposefully manipulative.

A truly objective scholar and historian who wants to get a clearer picture as to “what really happened” would look at both the biblical account and Sennacherib’s account (as well as Manasseh’s reaction) and conclude the following:

• Sennacherib’s invasion resulted in a devastation of many Judean towns.
• Sennacherib still failed to take the prize of Jerusalem itself.
• SOMETHING HAPPENED that prevented him from doing so. The biblical accounts attributed it to an act of YHWH on behalf of Hezekiah and Jerusalem. There are other indications that some kind of plague might have ripped through the Assyrian camp.
• As a result of all that, those in Judah who were YHWH worshippers interpreted those events as a vindication of Hezekiah as a faithful king and Isaiah as a true prophet.
• The pagans in the land, though, probably interpreted those events as a result of Hezekiah getting rid of all the pagan items and worship sites. Manasseh clearly was in this camp, and that is why he immediately brought all that back when he took the throne.
• Later, Josiah aligned more with his grandfather Hezekiah and sought to reestablish exclusive YHWH worship.

Simply put, the actual historical picture was probably pretty messy, with people’s opinions and views being largely determined on their own religious convictions. Monotheistic YHWH worshippers interpreted it one way, while polytheistic pagans interpreted it another.

Davis’ take, though, is clearly slanted and biased towards one view. Whatever the biblical account claims, Davis is taking the opposite stance. He isn’t doing that because “the facts are on his side,” because “the facts” show a very big mess. Instead, he is throwing his interpretive lot in with Sennacherib’s royal propaganda, all the while insisting that the biblical accounts can’t be trusted because they are propaganda, and you can’t trust propaganda…so I’ll take my cue from Sennacherib—he clearly doesn’t have his own agenda to push!

Let’s Not Forget the Women and the Poor!
At the risk of making this post even longer, let’s briefly look at Davis’ take on Jeremiah. There’s no other way to say it—that is not an even-handed, objective look at Jeremiah. The language Davis uses is purposefully manipulative. Davis’ claims are also logically incoherent. Let’s start with how he apparently thinks the worship of Asherah (and other gods) was the equivalent of just different denominations within Protestantism.

Using just one example, he fails to mention that one of the “staples” in many of those pagan, fertility cults involved cult prostitution. In Hosea 4, for example, YHWH says He will punish the men of Israel for forcing their daughters into prostitution. Many of the condemnations of these pagan fertility cults involved the condemnation of that very thing. Throughout the Old Testament, pagan idolatry was linked to adultery—why? Because cult prostitution was a staple of pagan fertility cults. Now, even up to this day, what is the most common form of slavery throughout humanity? That’s right, sex slavery. The worship of Asherah was a fertility cult that most certainly involved some form of cult prostitution. There may have been women in “positions of power” within Asherah worship, but Asherah worship preyed on the exploitation of women and girls as sex slaves. There is a reason why Jeremiah (and the rest of the OT) condemned pagan fertility cults like Asherah worship.

But Davis apparently wants you to think that that issue back then was really no different than the modern issue today in some churches regarding whether or not women can teach or preach in church. Therefore, the Asherah cult was just like a more progressive church that allows women pastors, and that means Jeremiah was just as much of a sexist bigot like…John MacArthur! Sorry, no. If we want to make a modern comparison, perhaps we should think of something more like Jeffery Epstein and Ghiselle Maxwell. Yes, Ghiselle was a woman in a position of power…but she was part of a horrific sex trafficking ring that preyed upon young girls. Davis excoriating Jeremiah would be like someone telling a Christian pastor to shut up about Epstein, because women like Maxwell were given a chance to be in a position of influence and power.

And don’t forget those innocent poor religious pluralists who just want “Jeremiah MacArthur” to leave them alone and worship in peace! No doubt, “Jeremiah MacArthur” was probably MAGA! (Never mind the fact that Jeremiah was routinely imprisoned and beaten by the royal house and aristocracy who were promoting the very kind of pagan practices the commoners wanted. Make no mistake, according to Davis, Jeremiah was a bigoted oppressor of the poor, despite the fact that Jeremiah was the poor, oppressed outcast most of his life).

I’m being a bit cheeky here, but here’s my point. Even though Davis claims he can “see through” the biblical text (because it is propaganda and can’t be trusted), and even though he claims to be telling the historical truth about “what really happened,” IN ACTUAL TRUTH, he is doing two things: (1) uncritically imbibing and regurgitating other people’s “royal propaganda,” and (2) reading back into that history his own particular modern progressive issues and agendas. And that is why I find his comments about Hezekiah, Manasseh, Josiah, and Jeremiah to be, not so much shocking or offensive, but rather, well, lame, uncritical, and shallow…and riddled with his own biases. The title of the book may be God’s Propaganda, but perhaps a better title would be Kipp’s Propaganda.