Reddit reviews The End of Biblical Studies

Check out a book called The End of Biblical Studies. In it, the author suggest that biblical studies should largely be abandoned because the credibility of the Bible has been so thoroughly destroyed, and the only folks who are still arguing for the Bible's relevancy are the religious conservatives who really, really want it to be true.

Not all, but many. Read Hector Avalos's The End of Biblical Studies. There are several who don't, but even among those who do start with that position their public beliefs are often quite different from their academic beliefs.

Oh, I can't claim originality for this one. Someone pointed it out to me, and I think he got it from a book himself - maybe the source is "The end of biblical studies" by Hector Avalos.

There are other books on the same subject; for example, the archaeologists Finkelstein & Silberman wrote a book that details the anachronisms in the pentateuch (first five books of the bible), and they argue that this shows that most of these stories were put together many centuries after they supposedly happened.

It could be a fun discussion if we had the time. We could exchange books and papers to be read and talk for years. In the end I likely won't change your mind and you won't change mine. I'd say we leave it at that.

But just do adress a few points briefly:
Some of the Bible's content is factual, yes - but other parts are clearly not - including the gospels (to what extent is up for debate).
The gospel of John was written up to 90 years after the supposed events, the writer could not possibly have witnessed the supposed events himself.
Assuming the basic events described in the gospels actually happened, an empty tomb does not mean the body was resurrected. Many other explanations are more likely.
Just because you find accuracies in some parts of the Bible, that does not mean that every part is accurate. Let's assume there are 1000 accuracies, there are at least several hundred contradictions & "funny stuff" (demons, angels, talking animals) as well.


Anyway if you want to read about the opposite position:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1591025362
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Neither-God-Case-Mythical/dp/0968925928/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371753883&sr=1-1&keywords=jesus+neither+god+nor+man

as well as any books and talks on the topic by Robert Price, he's a brilliant guy.

You apparently think the case for the gospel & bible truth is quite strong, so please link me what you consider the best arguments for them. Don't forget, if you make the claim that the truth of the Bible is pretty obvious, you have to support the claim.

http://www.amazon.com/End-Biblical-Studies-Hector-Avalos/dp/1591025362/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2GRZ2I72J3D1B&colid=1TSEUWEURSQKF

H'm, Hector Avalos, who I didn't think was regarded as barking mad, calls himself an agnostic on the subject (this podcast starting at 47:30), and has a chapter "The Unhistorical Jesus" in his book "The End of Biblical Studies".

Here's a page that lists several scholarly theories of Jesus including some that suggest there was no flesh-and-blood person at the root of them.

As I mention below, I like Christopher Hitchens' point that the huge amount of fudging required to get Jesus of Nazareth born in Bethlehem to satisfy an OT prophesy suggests that whoever wrote it wasn't just making it up out of whole cloth, but had some awkward historical facts to explain away.

The real question is how much divergence from the gospels you are willing to accept in a "historical Jesus". That there was some dude wandering the area at that time preaching? I'll grant you that, simply because it doesn't matter.

> ask them to prove the existence of any particular person from the time of Jesus, who wasn't an Emperor or king.

The evidence for the existence of Pliny the Elder is pretty strong.

Amazon link to his book on the same subject:

The End of Biblical Studies by Hector Avalos

In this radical critique of his own academic specialty, biblical scholar Hector Avalos calls for an end to biblical studies as we know them. 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.

Dividing his study into two parts, Avalos first examines the principal subdisciplines of biblical studies (textual criticism, archaeology, historical criticism, literary criticism, biblical theology, and translations) in order to show how these fields are still influenced by religiously motivated agendas despite claims to independence from religious premises. In the second part, he focuses on the infrastructure that supports academic biblical studies to maintain the value of the profession and the Bible. This infrastructure includes academia (public and private universities and colleges), churches, the media-publishing complex, and professional organizations such as the Society of Biblical Literature.

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.

In history, especially as it applies to the Christian tradition, you should never go with what the majority says for many good reasons. You should check every bit of work you find and read it for yourself. The majority of biblical studies is a cess-pool of preconceived notions and bad scholarship.

More:

The End of Biblical Studies, Hector Avalos

Online: Ignatian Vexation, Richard Carrier

Proving History, Richard Carrier

One of the first Great examples of using historical methods on theological issues: The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined, David Friedrich Strauss (1860)