Shanks ends his article with the statement,
Just as it is unjustified to conclude that the Bible is literally true in every detail, so it is unjustified to throw it out as historically worthless....
In the original article, Herzog stated,
Most historians today agree that at best, the stay in Egypt and the exodus events occurred among a few families and that their private story was expanded and 'nationalized' to fit the needs of theological ideology.
It seems to me that Herzog and Shanks are both saying basically the same thing. They are both saying that there is some historical basis to the Biblical accounts but that the Biblical accounts have exaggerated the historical events.
In the debate, however, Shanks throws out a strawman argument. Herzog is claiming that Grandpa did not win the Battle of the Bulge all by himself as he claims he did. Shanks is accusing Herzog of claiming that World War II never occurred because Grandpa exaggerated his martial prowess.