End of Biblical Studies

by Hector Avalos Iowa State University

In this radical critique of his own academic specialty, biblical scholar Hector Avalos calls for an end to biblical studies. He outlines two main arguments for this surprising conclusion. First, academic biblical scholarship has clearly succeeded in showing that the ancient civilization that produced the Bible held beliefs about the origin, nature, and purpose of the world and humanity that are fundamentally opposed to the views of modern society. The Bible is thus largely irrelevant to the needs and concerns of contemporary human beings. Second, Avalos criticizes his colleagues for applying a variety of flawed and specious techniques aimed at maintaining the illusion that the Bible is still relevant in today's world. In effect, he accuses his profession of being more concerned about its self-preservation than about giving an honest account of its own findings to the general public and faith communities. In a controversial conclusion, Avalos argues that our world is best served by leaving the Bible as a relic of an ancient civilization instead of the "living" document most religionist scholars believe it should be. He urges his colleagues to concentrate on educating the broader society to recognize the irrelevance and even violent effects of the Bible in modern life.

Genres: Religion, Atheism, Nonfiction, History, Theology

399 pages, Hardcover

First published July 12, 2007

Reviews

[Peter · Rating 5 out of 5]

he dismantles some of W L Craig's nonsense.

[Stephie Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book proposes to eliminate the academic study of the Bible. Hector Avalos sees this as necessary because of the hopelessness of research projects and the irrelevancy of the Bible itself. Towards this end he covers a wide range of evidence and arguments for his thesis. The book is divided into two parts. Part one concentrates on the state of research in such areas as textual criticism, history, and archeology. Part two focuses on the modern influences that keep biblical studies going.

In part one Avalos provides evidence that translations never reproduce the meaning of the original text, which according to him is out reach because it is unrecoverable anyway. Next he provides plenty of evidence for the historical unreliability of the overwhelming majority of the Bible. He also shows how problematic is the literary criticism of the Bible. Finally the hopeless task of the Bible providing any realistic theology based on what’s actually in the text of which the original has long departed (rest in hell).

Part two shows how various interests perpetuate biblical studies. These includes academia, The Society of Biblical Literature, and media/publishing interests.

The conclusion Avalos draws from his studies is that the only reason to continue biblical studies at the present time is to show the irrelevancy of it. Throughout the book he says that the Bible is irrelevant to today’s society and is only kept going through the self interest of scholars and those that would gain from their work. The only reason for continued biblical studies is to show it is not needed.

One point of interest outside of any specific criticism at location 1378 of the Kindle edition Avalos provides a more stringent criteria for knowledge claims. Knowledge should be restricted to what is gain from the “five senses and/or logic.” He also provides criteria for what is or is not a reasonable belief.

While I am with Avalos on the problems that plague biblical scholarship, I am not so sure he is as convincing on the irrelevancy of the Bible for today. I do agree that it really does not offer much in solving today’s problems, and anything that the bible does offer for today’s issues can be found out with out biblical studies, but his arguments for it are not as well done as for his criticism of biblical studies themselves. In addition it seems pretty pie in the sky thinking that the Bible or any other religious scriptures will disappear anytime soon. I find Sam Harris is in the same category of thinkers, accept that Avalos does not offer any woo woo solutions for people’s spiritual needs that I know of. Besides, I question if anybody really has any spiritual needs, since the spiritual cannot be investigate by means of naturalism, whether ontological or methodological, which I hold.

I also find that Avalos in the book looks as if he sees conspiracies all through the biblical industry. And if you apply the usefulness standard to other areas in academia, including some science, it would reduce the university population, which might or might not be good.

I enjoyed reading this book. For the most part it reinforces my previous experience of reading about various forms of biblical criticism. I found at certain points that Avalos should have qualified some of his statements, only to find out that shortly it appeared in the text. This is a sign of an honest writer.

I recommend this book for anyone interested in what I believe is the true state of biblical studies, and I feel it would be an eyeopener for anyone who considers the Bible as useful for anything much.

[Ronhsoru · Rating 5 out of 5]

Avalos does a wonderful job of detailing the religionist agenda of what he calls the ecclesial-academic complex that seeks to maintain the privileged status of the bible through the large arm of its reach. This is accomplished through falsifying translations, the attempt to spread the apologetic notion that there is such a thing as an "original text" and that it is recoverable, and mass media, pedagogic, and publishing campaigns that whitewash and gloss over the absurdities and alien nature of the bible. Books, movies, and professional organizations fundamentally gloss over the fact that the values, social customs and beliefs of the societies that produced the bible are so alien and irrelevant to modern life and that 95% of the bible is not even used by the minority of Christians who even read the bible nowadays. This book is great for skeptics and atheists who have in Avalos one of their own well situated in what is largely a pro-religious academia. He definitely is not afraid to call a spade a spade and he is merciless at exposing the bias that pervades our culture. Theists will disagree with the pronouncements and conclusions on nearly every page, but if they seek to understand how an atheist scholar approaches the field of religious studies, they could do worse than to read this book.

[Charlie · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book starts off with a reasonable enough premise. Avalos argues that "biblical studies" is not a justifiable scholarly field because it is laden with "religionist" (religion-promoting) assumptions and institutions. To give a parallel, the field of biblical archaeology, which is obviously religionist in its otherwise unjustifiable preoccupation with particular places and events recorded in the Bible, was eventually (sort of) integrated into the field of archaeology proper. One could imagine a similarly helpful proposal for biblical studies. Secular institutions could integrate the study of biblical texts into classics, religion, or literature departments. Religious institutions might continue with a kind of biblical studies, but with the understanding that their work would not be considered scholarly in quite the same way.

So, one can imagine a world in which this book pointed out some areas of bias and insufficient scholarly objectivity, then gave suggestions about how to reorder the field more productively. Unfortunately, that is not this book. What actually goes on in the course of 300 pages is a bizarre grudge-match against particular persons and organizations that Avalos can't stand. Despite some useful information and arguments scattered throughout, the real takeaway from this book is: the Bible is bad, Christianity is bad, let's just throw it all in the trash.

Avalos it at his strongest when he simply surveys the field. It is disconcerting that the field of biblical studies is so heavily populated by people who believe that their goal is to show the beauty, majesty, and relevance of the Bible; rather than its ugliness or brutality. This is quite different than, say, the field of early modern philosophy, in which there is no expectation that the scholar will be favorably inclined toward all of the subject matter.

Avalos also raises some important questions about how much biblical scholarship is being driven by, well, scholarly aims rather than sectarian polemic or even mass consumption. How much has text criticism really advanced since Westcott-Hort? How much has historical Jesus research really advanced since Reimarus? What is keeping it alive? Some of these questions need to be addressed, but Avalos is rather inconsistent and even bizarre in these discussions. There can be many legitimate motives for research in the humanities; what determines scholarship is the methods. Also, I don't think that humanities disciplines ought to be ranked according to how much progress is made. Avalos' argumentation is further colored by the fact that he happens to be a historical minimalist; his criteria for verifying historical knowledge are so strict that it would be difficult for many disciplines in the humanities to demonstrate progress.

Some of Avalos' points are so extreme they self-destruct. One of his major objections to biblical studies is that it assumes that the Bible is a special text that deserves more attention than other ancient texts. Well, of course it does! And that has nothing to do with whether the Bible is good or bad. The Bible has been an immensely influential text on virtually every aspect of culture, and it continues to be a major cultural touchstone for billions of people in the world today. Even though I understand Avalos' frustration with some parochial scholarship, I cannot understand his tone-deafness to the history of consequences. Avalos has a deeper assumption that drives this. Several times he offers an objection along the lines of: even if we could learn something new about the Bible, what good would it do anyone? His justification for research is strictly utilitarian, and he defines utility in terms of improving material welfare. His basic objection, then, could be alleged against most humanities research. If medieval art historians had to argue for their discipline on the basis of its ability to lift the homeless of Philadelphia out of their poverty, I think we would see the end of art history.

To conclude, a book that should have pointed out some questionable scholarly practices in fact dissolves into a screed against biblical studies — the Bible is icky and what good is all this research anyway? Academic disciplines should cease to exist because they fail to match Avalos' priorities.

[Dave · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author was raised in a Pentecostal family and became a child evangelist in the 1960s. He decided to become a biblical scholar in order to fight for the truth of the Bible and more effectively oppose atheism and 'wrong' religions. He is now an associate professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University, however the journey from child evangelist to biblical academic persuaded him that biblical scholarship's primary motivation is the perpetuation of biblical scholarship and the only honest choice was atheism.

- Bible translators are more interested in shifting huge volumes of product than in exposing the "alien and more opprobrious concepts of biblical authors." (p 339)

- Textual critics know it's impossible to reconstruct an 'original' text, while Christians are taught the their Bibles contain what god intended.

- Biblical history and archaeology are not much more than the wishful thinking of apologists.

As the author concludes, "Why do we need an ancient book that endorses everything from genocide to slavery to be a prime authority of our public or private morality?"

[Jeffrey · Rating 1 out of 5]

So. Avalos's conclusions are bizarre. He thinks the solution is to "Retain biblical studies, but redefine its purpose so that it is tasked with eliminating completely the influence of the Bible in the modern world"

Not only is that just a completely unrealistic and impossible goal, but that sounds like the exact opposite of a scholarly discipline. Imagine if you replaced "Biblical" Studies with "Shakespearean Studies" or "Homeric Studies". It's just weird. Who would want to eliminate completely the influence of The Iliad in the modern world? Nobody.

Not once does he say he thinks this field of study should be interested in truth (if treated historically). And he argues vehemently against aesthetic (literary) studies because nobody can agree on what it means to be beautiful.

I... He... No.

He also has a strange view of academia as well, saying it's all top down dissemination of knowledge from a paternalistic professorship. But it really isn't. What happened to critical thinking? What happened to independent thought? I've always ALWAYS been encouraged to challenge my professors and not take them at their word.

[Book Shark · Rating 4 out of 5]

A solid book but as I recall it was very dry...a review forthcoming.

[Lynne Williamson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Analyzes the persistence of "religiosity" in biblical studies as attempts are made to perpetuate a need for university bible history/archeology departments. The author exposes the lack of a genuine baseline bible after multiple translations of translations and describes attempts to "protect" the faithful from the worst parts of the bible through judicious changes via translations.

[Dancingfoolvb · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very important look at the field of biblical studies.

[Noah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading this is a much better way to pass the time than watching Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens play their puerile, polemical games. More than any snide appeals to "common sense", "logic", or "reason", it is close engagement with the history of scholarship and theology surrounding religious texts which undermines their authority. A person of faith could witness the spectacle of Dawkins or Hitchens bullying some unknown apologist and dismiss them as crass and under-qualified but the same person could not read this book without having some serious doubts.

[Angela · Rating 4 out of 5]

Avalos' book seeks to bury biblical studies, not praise it, and he makes a convincing case. Avalos capably argues that, as the discipline is practiced now, biblical studies not only seeks to serve a primarily apologetic function that is at odds with its identity as an academic specialty but also that it has failed utterly in serving this religious purpose. This, the author concludes only somewhat hyperbolically, is reason enough to shut down the whole enterprise. Prof. Avalos is eminently qualified and presents his case with a wealth of good argument and expert research. Even where he moves away from his core competence and is on less sure footing, such as in his assays into epistemology and aesthetics in Chapters 3 and 5, respectively (areas in which I have more than a little expertise), his efforts are perhaps facile but not inept. Overall, an excellent single-volume overview of the state of (and problems with) contemporary biblical studies.

[Fred Kohn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an important critique of the current state of Biblical studies. Avalos bewails the fact that Biblical studies has as its main goal the support of a religious agenda (although exactly what this agenda is varies depending on the scholar or organization in question). Instead, he thinks that Biblical scholars should be "tasked with eliminating completely the influence of the Bible in the modern world." He believes that the world(s) of the Bible are so far in the distant past that they hold no relevance for Modern Humanity.

I find this a strange argument. Would he also apply this to, say, the works of Homer or Plato?

[Timothy Nelms · Rating 5 out of 5]

The end result of scholarly study.......supernatural ties broken......what have we left?
Not much to start anew along this path , as without God as author , the book is muddled , violent , archaic.......a progressive honest assessment......sincere and scholarly biblical studies is over......except to use as a warning.......