“God’s Propaganda” by Kipp Davis–An Extended Book Analysis (Part 8: This is the End!)

As Jim Morrison famously sang, “This is the end!” Over these past two weeks, I have taken a tour through Kipp Davis’ recent book, God’s Propaganda. I’ve tried to acknowledge points with which I agree, and although I have been obviously snarky and sarcastic at times over some of his claims that I find simply ludicrous, at the heart of it all is a very serious disagreement as to how to go about reading and interpret the Bible.

As far as I’m concerned, regardless of whether or not you are a Christian, or whether you come to the Bible with any notions of “inspiration” or “infallibility” or not at all, your primary concern should be to read and understand any given biblical text in the way it is intended and presented. That should be the case with any work of history or literature you read—what is the intended meaning?

When it comes to the issue of ancient, Old Testament Israel, we have to acknowledge that the Old Testament is the primary “window” through which we can see that time. Yes, there might be a few texts here and there that can corroborate certain specific events in the Old Testament, but the Old Testament is the only “big window” to that past.  What about archeology? Many modern scholars elevate it to a veritable “high court” that can determine whether or not things in the Old Testament are historically reliable. The truth is, though, archeology, only deals with the wreckage and ruin of history, and is in and of itself, fragmentary. And even with the archeological fragments that are found, they don’t speak for themselves. Scholars are always interpreting them and trying to craft their own narratives. As Hershel Shanks said, “archeology is not a science. It is an art. And sometimes it is not even a very good art.”

For me, when I come to any given biblical text that purports to be about historical events and people, I trust that the writer is trying to communicate something about historical events and people. Of course, the writer is presenting it with a certain purpose and “agenda,” if you will. Of course, the writer is shaping his story often in a creative way. But I trust the writer is still conveying something about actual history. Furthermore, I do not think the writer is “trying to be deceptive.” Yes, he is conveying his point of view, but that is far different than “trying to cover up what really happened.”

What I’m talking about has nothing to do with “inspiration” or “inerrancy,” or “infallibility.” It simply has to do with trying to come to the text honestly. And, like I said, the biblical text is pretty much the only “window” to the ancient world of biblical Israel. There’s no getting around that.

The problem I have with scholars like Davis (and McClellan, and Stavrakopoulou, and others) is that he  sees the biblical text essentially as a propagandist con-job. He views the text as an impediment to getting at the “real history.” And he thinks that if he just squints his eyes enough, he’ll be able to “see through” the text and back to “what really happened.” Of course, when you squint too much, your eyes are just closed by your own doing, and the only things you think you see are the images in your own imagination.

Now, some say that the work of scholars like Davis, McClellan, and Stavrakopoulou aren’t, in fact, “fringe,” but really are accepted as “mainstream” in academy these days. I have gone back to teaching English in high school, so I can’t say I am 100% up to date on recent trends in the Biblical Studies world, but I do know their work does seem to have a broad appeal. If their work, though, really is “mainstream,” that is a powerful indictment on the state of the Biblical Studies academy these days.

Onwards…
In his “postscript,” Davis tells a little bit more about his background. Once a confessing Christian, he now is a sceptic, “but one who remains completely fascinated by the Bible, its origins and development, its transmission and reception over the course of centuries in the ancient Mediterranean world” (461). But then he just can’t resist the urge to sound edgy and “cool” and provocative, and he declares, “I fucking love the Bible” (462). He reiterates that sentiment one more time on the last page, because he really means, dude…F YEAH!

In the rest of his postscript, he notes the different ways people like Martin Luther King Jr. and…George W. Bush used biblical imagery and biblical texts. Of course, while Davis speaks approvingly of MLK (as anyone should), it is clear he holds contempt for Bush, using words like “divinization of America,” “nationalistic fervor,” “idolatry,” etc. Still, the fact remains that both MLK and George W. used the Bible for propagandistic purposes because…as Davis states…the Bible is propaganda. He then writes, “It was first written to promote rulers, ideologies, and realms; its repurpose continues to be the cudgel of narrow thinking…” (465). He then says, “This collection of texts continues to endure, because we are all seeing ourselves in it” (465). I find much irony in that statement. Davis certainly does see himself and his own biases in the biblical texts. No, wait a minute, that’s wrong! He sees himself and his own biases as he squints really, really hard in his attempt to “see through” the biblical texts.

In addition, his very take on what the Bible is, is just fundamentally wrong.

First off, a considerable “chunk” of the Old Testament are the prophets. Anyone who has read them knows full well that the prophets were, by and large, certainly not promoting rulers! If anything, they were constantly chastising the ruling establishment…and suffered considerably for doing just that.

Second, when it comes to the “Deuteronomistic History” (Joshua-II Kings), those books were compiled during the exile, and the overarching question they were addressing was, “How did we, as the people of YHWH, end up in exile?” The answer are those books. In the Hebrew Bible, they fall under the category of the Former Prophets, and that should tell you something. These books are prophetic interpretations of Israel’s past. And the answer they give to that question, “Why did we end up in exile?” is simple: “BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SCREW UPS!” Anyone who thinks Joshua-II Kings is “propaganda” that tries to make the people of Israel and the kings of Israel look good has never read Joshua-II Kings.

Finally, here’s my third point: the writers of the Old (and New) Testament were not the powerful, ruling elites. The prophets weren’t. The apostles weren’t. And those who compiled the Deuteronomistic History were exiles in a foreign land. What we have in the Bible isn’t something written by powerful elites. Quite the opposite.

For that reason, Davis’ fundamental claim regarding the Bible as “God’s propaganda” is, I’ll be kind, extremely problematic and flawed. It is speculation on my part, but I think his understanding of the Bible is more shaped by postmodern “oppressor vs. oppressed” narratives. It shows up in far too many of his interpretations of various biblical texts.

But even more fundamentally than that, I think his take on the Bible holds a lot in common with other very vocal and zealous “ex-Evangelicals” and atheists who came from very conservative/fundamentalist backgrounds. To reference something from my previous post, when Davis imagines that Job wasn’t showing contrition, but really was just saying, “Fuck you, YHWH,” Job really wasn’t saying that. Kipp Davis was saying that—it is his way of giving a giant middle finger to his conservative Christian upbringing. He’s saying that to the image of God that his own upbringing presented to him. And that, quite honestly, is sad to see.

In a final ironic twist, Davis ends his book by saying that everyone should read the Bible “with our eyes wide open—knowing good and bad” (466). I wonder if he realizes he is echoing the sentiment of the serpent in Genesis 3? Maybe he knowingly is. After all, for Davis, God is clearly the bad guy.

In the upcoming weeks, I will be starting a new series on the second century Church Father Irenaeus and his book, Against Heresies. I’ll be coming out with my own condensed paraphrase of the book and want to share my thoughts through a blog series.