What prompted me to purchase a copy of The End of Biblical Studies is my frustration over what I saw as poor logic and weak evidence offered on the part of Bible scholars. Such scholars in particular seemed unable to make a good case for a historical Jesus although they often crowed about what “overwhelming” evidence they had for him. Much of their evidence for Jesus amounted to their saying that “the New Testament says he existed!” What is odd about this “logic” is that it is essentially the same reasoning Christian apologists employ to argue that Jesus was a real, historical person. When scholars aren't arguing for Jesus that way, they spend a lot of time telling people that they have a consensus that agrees Jesus existed. In other words, that great majority of Bible scholars is unlikely to be wrong. But is that consensus to be trusted?
Hector Avalos argues in The End of Biblical Studies that Bible scholars are often less than trustworthy. Their careers mean more to them than getting the unvarnished truth about the Bible to the public. Avalos documents how the different translations of the Bible white-wash contradictions in the text and conceal anti-Semitism. So what we may read in “the Bible” is not so much what was originally written in those documents (the original texts are lost and unrecoverable) but what Bible scholars have in effect created.
So what is tainting the discipline of Biblical studies? Avalos tells us that the problem is “religionism” which is to say that religious individuals, primarily liberal Protestants, are making sure their beliefs are upheld in Biblical studies. So anything a Biblical scholar might tell us is grounded in that liberal Christian theology rather than in sound scholarly methodology.
Even Biblical archaeology has been distorted by this religionism. Avalos documents how archaeological “discoveries” about Israel and Biblical characters like Solomon have been distorted to make those discoveries seem to be evidence for Biblical history when they are no such thing. For example, some archaeological findings can be as easily attributed to Canaan as they can to Israel, but we are told that those discoveries pertain to Israel.
Avalos goes into more detail scrutinizing the weaknesses in claiming that the Bible has at least literary value when it does not and that it can be employed for social movements when it really doesn't support such causes, but his main criticism of modern Biblical studies that it lacks “relevance.” Biblical scholars know that Biblical cosmology and values are not relevant to the modern world, yet scholars still maintain the illusion that the Bible is relevant. Such an illusion is maintained by an infrastructure made up of universities, a media-publishing complex, churches, and professional organizations.
So what can we do to “correct” this problem? Among other options Avalos mentions, he prefers that we “retain Biblical studies, but redefine its purpose so that it is tasked with eliminating completely the influence of the Bible in the modern world.” (Page 341) Avalos sees this option as the most honest and logical thing to do with Biblical studies.
So I must strongly agree with Avalos that Biblical studies as they have been practiced should end. The public is being misled by Bible scholars who pretend to have evidence for many of the public's cherished beliefs when there is no such evidence. So if you want the low-down on some low-down work from Bible scholars, then I strongly recommend The End of Biblical Studies.
You may also wish to consider any of the books written by Robert Price to learn more about what Bible scholars have been telling us that may not be true.
- Amazon Business : For business-only pricing, quantity discounts and FREE Shipping. Register a free business account
