“God’s Propaganda” by Kipp Davis–An Extended Book Analysis (Part 7: A Sprint to the End)

Are we at Part 7 already? Hopefully, this will be my next to last post on Kipp Davis’ book, God’s Propaganda. By now, I think I’ve emphasized enough what lies at the root of my criticism of many of Davis’ claims. On a lot of specific observations, we agree, but where he and I radically disagree comes down to our fundamental approach to the biblical text. He (as well as McClellan and Stavrakopoulou) see that (A) much of the OT texts were compiled during the exile, (B) they clearly were written from a certain point of view (i.e. “bias,” if you will) and therefore were trying to convince readers of certain things (i.e. there was a clear purpose and “agenda”), and (C) they were clearly creatively shaped—THEREFORE, that must mean they are “propaganda” that cannot be historically reliable. And THEREFORE, Davis (and McClellan, and Stavrakopoulou) feel they are able to “look through” the text to “what really happened.” Not surprisingly, their conclusions are not only almost always polar opposite of what is claimed in the Old Testament, they also line up quite nicely with their own opinions and “agendas.” They read the biblical text, basically say, “Nu-uh,” cherry-pick passages and verses out of context (because the context is that later “propaganda”), and then supply their own, novel interpretations that have little or no actual evidentiary support, other than their vivid imaginations.

I, on the other hand, view the texts as prophetic interpretations of Israelite history that ask the fundamental question, “How did we end up in exile?” Therefore, although they were clearly compiled during the exile, although they clearly are written from a certain point of view, and although they clearly were creatively shaped, they still are communicating real history, albeit from that particular point of view. In fact, it is quite clear in the biblical texts we have that the authors of the texts had a particular point of view, and they made is clear a lot of people in Israel had a contrary, more pagan point of view. Therefore, whereas I conclude that there were BOTH groups in ancient Israel (i.e. polytheistic pagans and exclusive monotheistic worshippers of YHWH), Davis (and McClellan and Stavrakopoulou) claim that there were ONLY polytheistic pagans until Hezekiah and Josiah, who were despots who tried to force monotheism for the sake of power. Then later exilic scribes tried to completely cover-up the real history of Israel and forced, through their “propaganda” exclusive monotheism on the people for, you guessed it, the sake of power.

In his book, A Biblical History of Israel, Iain Provan discusses in his first five chapters this very issue among scholars regarding how to interpret biblical texts. I did a 12-post book analysis of it a few years back. Here is the first post. One of the points he makes, and I entirely agree with him, is that whenever scholars reject the biblical text and testimony as unreliable and attempt to “look past” the text to “what really happened,” they almost inevitably end up interpreting the text “in their own image.” This is what we see going in Davis’ book (as well as in the work of McClellan and Stavrakopoulou).

Therefore, instead of rehashing this point over and over again in the remaining chapters of Davis’ book, I’m just going to highlight instances of where this can be seen, with not a whole lot of my personal commentary, because it all comes back to what I just said above.

Chapter 13: Kings and Prophets

• The Succession Narrative in II Samuel is “royal propaganda” that is “an idealization that emerged out of the vacuum of Assyria’s conquest” (329). It largely is “a fiction” that “represents an important ideal in the Israelite ethos” (329)—namely, they were different and ethnically superior to the Canaanites. No one who reads II Samuel comes away thinking it is an “idealized view” of David. If that is “royal propaganda, it is horrible propaganda because David comes across as deeply flawed. Far from trying to “sanitize the reputation of the dynastic founder” [David], the Succession narrative highlights his very deep shortcomings.
• Davis quotes Joel Baden to suggest that David “probably made a deal with Absalom” (351) that if he killed Ammon, he’d get to be the next king. There is zero evidence for this. It is sheer fantasy, and it makes no sense, given the fact that Absalom later staged a coup to try to become king.
• Referring to Timo Veijola, Davis suggests that Solomon was not the son of David, but really of Uriah, and that the story of the death of the unnamed son of David and Bathsheba’s adulterous union was a pure fiction. Again, absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever. Pure fantasy.
• The story of Judah and Tamar in Genesis 38 is actually a prophetic “institutional critique” of David’s legitimacy that was “circulated among the loyalists to the House of Saul” (361). Davis’ “evidence” amounts to things like, the Canaanite woman Judah marries was the “daughter of Shua,” and that sounds like “Bathsheba.” Judah’s firstborn son was named “Er,” and that sounds like the Hebrew word for “city” (ir), which is probably a reference to the “city” of David. And, if spelled in reverse, sounds like “ra,” which is the word for “evil,” and what David did was “evil” in the eyes of YHWH. There’s more such “evidence,” but let’s just agree this is ridiculous. Again, no evidence. Pure fantasy (perhaps the result of a heavy night of drinking?).

Chapter 14: Where My Name Shall Dwell
This chapter focuses on the Temple in Jerusalem. Overall, just dry and boring. We don’t really know what Solomon’s Temple looked like because the biblical text is “propaganda” and “late wishful thinking.” Davis also speaks glowingly of Esther Hamori’s book, God’s Monsters (I did a 6-post analysis of it, starting here), in which he clearly approves of her description of the Ark of the Covenant as a “face-melting box of divine magic” (378). Someone needs to tell him that Raiders of the Lost Ark  is a fictional movie. The face-melting isn’t mentioned in the actual biblical text.

Chapter 15: A Pleasing Odour
In this chapter, Davis talks about ANE sacrificial systems. In the ANE, sacrifices were seen as a way to appease angry gods and to provide food for the gods. That is true. Within Israel, the sacrificial system was down with the context of this idea of “the covenant.” Again, this is true. Still…

• Davis talks about the meaning of the word herem (or “devoting things to the ban”). He defines herem as “indiscriminate killing” (390). John Walton talks quite a lot about herem in his book The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest (full book analysis beginning here). Herem does not mean “indiscriminate killing.” It means “removing things from common use.” It can involve killing, but not always. And it certainly doesn’t imply wild, indiscriminate killing.
• Davis translates Deuteronomy 5:9-10—specifically the beginning that says, “I, YHWH, your God, am a jealous God…”—as “I, YHWH, am your god—a fanatically envious god…” Scholars generally agree that “jealous” here has to do with YHWH’s devotion and love for His people within their covenant relationship, and that it does not mean some sort of petty, weak “jealousy.” Not surprisingly, Davis chooses the latter and even inserts the extra adjective “fanatically” to paint YHWH as some psychotic, jealous figure. Later on, Davis also describes YHWH as a “tantruming deity” (394).
• Davis argues that child sacrifice was prominent within YHWH worship. He argues that when a passage like Exodus 34:19-20 emphasizes a provision to substitute for any sacrifice of a firstborn child (whereas the firstborn of animals is sacrificed), Davis asks, “But, why does such a provision even need to be made in the first place?” (400).  And later, when he talks about Jeremiah’s claim in 7:31 that though the people had sacrificed children, YHWH never commanded it or wanted it, that that was what Jeremiah wants you to believe, but in reality, child sacrifice really was part of YHWH worship. He even claims that in Micah 6:6-8 that child sacrifice was seen as the ultimate sacrifice: “People probably never sacrificed their own children out of malice, anger, or sadism—they did so because they were convinced that they had no other option” (404). Besides, says Davis, Christians see the crucifixion as a “child sacrifice made by God himself”—“the torture and slaughter of Jesus worked” (404).

What can we say to this claim? Well…let me try by making just a few points:

• Biblical texts clearly admit that there were ancient Israelites were treated YHWH just like any other god and did sacrifice children to Him, as well as to other gods. Still, they also clearly insist that such practices were not what YHWH wanted. This goes back to my point at the beginning of this post. Either one believes that in ancient Israel there were essentially two groups (pagans who treated YHWH like any other god, and monotheistic worshippers of YHWH who objected to and condemned pagan forms of worship), or one believes there was only one group in ancient Israel (pagans who treated YHWH like any other god), and that it wasn’t until later that those monotheistic worshippers of YHWH appeared, forced it on everyone, and propagandized the crap out of their writings. If you choose the later, you’ll have a hard time explaining all those pre-exilic prophets (in both northern Israel and southern Judah) who clearly were exclusive monotheistic worshippers of YHWH, long before Hezekiah, Josiah, and the exile.
• Micah 6:8 clearly is rejecting the notion of child sacrifice and insists that the only thing YHWH wants is for people to do justice, love faithfulness, and walk humbly with your God.
• The New Testament writers are explaining the significance of Jesus’ crucifixion by using the language of the Temple sacrificial system. The Apostle Paul also refers to Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac as he discusses the significance of faith, and Christ’s death and resurrection. There is no hint anywhere that Christ’s crucifixion was a literal “child sacrifice” that “worked.” If you’re going to interpret with a full, wooden literalism, it still doesn’t work, because Jesus wasn’t a child! Bottom line, this is all ridiculous.

Chapter 16: Making Many Books Without End
This chapter deals with some of the Wisdom Literature in the Old Testament. Most of it, quite frankly, was just boring. There is one thing I need to mention. It comes in Davis’ discussion of Job’s reaction in Job 42:2-6, after YHWH has shown up and put Job in his place by telling Job that He (YHWH) doesn’t “owe” Job an explanation, and that until Job can command nature and reel Leviathan in on a fish hook, that he isn’t on God’s level and is in no position to demand anything from Him. Davis first depicts YHWH’s speech as “a series of petulant diatribes” (427). Then, Davis looks at Job’s response, namely his silence, resignation, and saying “By my own ear I have surely heard you. But now, my eye has seen you. So I give up and repent in dirt and ash.” Davis doesn’t see this as Job’s righteous acceptance of God’s sovereignty. Rather, he writes, “I prefer to see in Job’s words defiance—a final faux-contrition before YHWH performed through clenched teeth of tongue-in-cheek resentment: the best way to shut-up a blustering tyrant is to say whatever it takes to make him stop talking. Just shut the fuck up, YHWH” (428).

Now, I’m sure that might offend people. There is no doubt in my mind that Davis purposely said that in order to shock people. It doesn’t offend me. It comes across as juvenile and petty, like a bitter 16-year-old goth kid yelling “fuck you!” to his parents because they won’t give him the keys to the car. The interpretation of Job 42:2-6 itself is so ridiculous that it can be summarily dismissed. If Davis’ interpretation was correct, then the ending of Job makes no sense. Again, it would be like after the goth kid cusses out his parents, not only do they give him the keys, but they buy him a brand new Rolls Royce because he’s such a great kid. As it stands, my only real reaction to Davis’ interpretation is a simple, “Oh, grow up.”

Chapter 17: Empire of the Walking Dead
The final chapter in God’s Propaganda focuses on Apocalyptic Literature. Although Davis does give some generic, general descriptions of what Apocalyptic Literature is, the majority of the chapter is dedicated to watching what I’m assuming is his favorite TV show of all time: The Walking Dead. I’ll be honest, I know about the show, but I’ve never watched it. Therefore, the vast majority of this chapter was incomprehensible to me—and believe me, Davis talks A LOT about The Walking Dead in this chapter. In fact, there is probably more talk about The Walking Dead in this chapter than about the actual apocalyptic texts in the Bible.

So, I’m sorry, I’ve got nothing.

Tomorrow, I’m going to write a short, concluding post to this book analysis series.