Hector Avalos
This article was origianlly way back in 08. It's not exactly new news. I was dealing with an issue about the use of Bayes in historiography and Avelos name came up. I remembered this article. His ideas still make me angry becuase of the anti-intellectual attitude and the smugness with which he despises the Bible and seeks to destroy the faith. It's still relevant.
Hector Avalos' The Ideology of the Society of Biblical Literature and the Demise of an Academic Profession
Published on the Society of Biblical Literature forum has set off a
firestorm of controversy in the Blioblogsphere.It seems that Avalos
believes that Biblical scholarship is a waste of time funded by those
who give their money to things they don't understand, and pursued by a
privileged elite. Avalos seems to think that Biblical scholars are
playing the
Glass Bead Game.
While his arguments are sound and his criticisms acute in many respects,
the author is trendy and chic in his post-leftist identity political
self loathing of the intellect and properly postmodern in his
denunciation of thought. He declares the greatest writer in the English
Languate to be of no intrisic value, but Shakespeare is still worth
reading because he enables one to get on with the ruling class and to
make connections.
Shakespeare's works, for
example, have no intrinsic value, but they function as cultural capital
insofar as "knowing Shakespeare" helps provide entry into elite educated
society. The academic study of literature, in general, functions to
maintain class distinctions rather than to help humanity in any
practical manner.
I certainly wouldn't want to
impune his expertise in this area. I'm sure he knows a great deal about
getting on with and sucking up to powerful people. He seems to be pretty
aware of the fact that people in his position are useless and elitist
and privileged. I would like to congratulate him on being the first
academic to voluntarily quite his job. I think we can follow with
interest as brother Avalos joins the peace corps so he can do something
useful. There is just one problem with his proposal that Biblical
studies be abandoned; he's not really part of the faith. I think he
would admit that. He teaches at a secular program and most people in
religious studies are dead set on destroying religion. The problem is,
we aren't ready to give it up. Those of us who know God exists, who
value the Bible, think it's our book and we want to study it. I think
most of us want our churches to fund those who do. It's actually none of
his business and as he is not a believer and is an enemy of faith it
not his place to make such a proposal to begin with.
I say
that not as a raving right winger who thinks scholars should be
believers and has never heard of objectivity. I say it as a graduate of a
major liberal seminary, the student of some of the most liberal
theologians in the United States. I am not not shocked by anything he
says, but I am mortified by his anti-intellectual attitude. Contempt is
not objectivity. Avalos is not objective, he is subjective because hate
is subjective. He hates religion, he is passionate about hating
Christianity. Passion is not scholarly caution.
I would
accuse him of benig anti-intellectual except that all postmodern
academics pretend to hate the world of letters and to find no value in
what they do. I have yet to meet one that has given up his/her job
voluntarily. Just jobs are extremely hard to come by and he should be
thanking God for his. But Those of us who actually have faith are going
to keep studying the Bible because we like it. We find that it has a lot
of value, as does Shakespeare.
Avalos puts it this way:
Similarly,
the Bible has no intrinsic value or merit. Its value is a social
construct, and the SBL is the agent of an elite class that wishes to
retain its own value and employment by fostering the idea that biblical
studies should matter.
The idea that the Bible should be studied
because of its influence or because "it does matter" overlooks repeated
statements, by scholars themselves, that the Bible's influence and
relevance might cease if it were not for the intervention of biblical
scholars and translators. Since the intervention, successful or not, is
selectively applied to the Bible (rather than to thousands of other
non-biblical texts of ancient cultures), such an intervention becomes an
ethnocentric and religiocentric mechanism by which biblical scholars
preserve their own relevance.
Of course he's taking
those quotes out of context (note he doesn't actually provide any).
Many great scholars have said this sort of thing, I don't know of any
who meant it they way Avalos takes it. It's more likely they mean it n
the sense that the average person can't go study Greek for several years
and go to monasteries and find the ms to argue about the synoptic
problem and so on. He tries to have it it both ways in slipping in his
identity politcal credentials as well as his Biblical Scholarship
credentials:
n the interest of self-disclosure, I
should say that I am a secular humanist and a Mexican immigrant. So, in
some ways I am on the margins of the marginalized in the Society of
Biblical Literature. Despite growing up in a relatively poor background,
I cannot deny that I am now part of a privileged and elite educated
class. I have experienced real poverty, and this is not it. I get paid
to do what I love, though my conscience is increasingly telling me to do
something more beneficial for humanity.
Yes in the
interest of self disclosure. Nothing is more chic and gives more
cultural capital than being marginalized. Of course he's still in the
elite after all. But he's a marginalized elitist, a true postmodern
dream. Now in the interest of self discourse let me say a bit about
myself. I am a middle class gringo. But I was a communist. I worked for
years in the Central America movement, went to Nicaragua and was spied
upon by the FBI as part of Dallas CISPES. I'm still pretty much of th
left. So nothing I say should be understood as right wing or
fundamentalist. That being said, I do not wish to get into a "lefter
than thou" discussion with Dr. Avalos. Let me move back in to the essay.
But now that he's primed the pump properly by waving his credentials about before he speaks, he gets down to business:
The
alien and irrelevant nature of biblical worldviews is admitted by many
academic scholars. James Barr notes, for example, that "the main impact
of historical criticism, as felt by the earlier twentieth century, has
been to emphasize the strangeness of the biblical world, its distance
from the world of modern rationality."[1] Likewise, the literary critic
Lynn M. Poland, in evaluating the work of Rudolf Bultmann, observed,
"Bultmann astutely perceived the central issues with which a
specifically modern program for biblical interpretation must wrestle:
the alien character of the world views represented in the biblical
writings for twentieth-century readers."[2]
Now
somehow this alien nature of the ancient world view worries Dr. Avalos;
and it seems odd to me. All the professors I had in graduate school
seemed to enjoy learning though they understood that the average person
didn't understand 90% of what they had to say. It was still worth
learning even though it was "strange." I don't understand, except that I
do understand, why is this scholar is afraid of learning? To fear
strange ideas is to fear learning, I think. The Philosophy of Dr. Avalos
the scholar seems oddly anti-intellectual. Except that this is what the
fashionable postmodern identity politics quasi liberal is into now
days. Of course since he quotes Barr one would expect Barr would also be
anti-intellectual. Of course the quote Avalos uses doesn't say the
Bible is rubbish let's forget it. It says it is strange to modern
people. But then why is he studying it? Rather than writings books about
the Bible because he wants to forget it, I rather think it's because he
wants to teach it. Thus one mist assume this statement is actually
saying, "yes the Biblical world view is strange to us, but its worth
learning and thus that's why we need professors like me to teach it."
This is very typical of identity politics, if the masses can't
understand it in the fields and factories without having to actually
learn something, it can't be depicted in a mural, then destroy it and
and lead a strike instead. Of course most actual labor action is beyond
these post new left types. This is just climate of opinion in what is
left of post modernism after Derrida. So Derridian to see no value in
Shakespeare. No better proof Post modernists don't know anything about
literature.
Now comes the bit about how terrible the Bible is.
Notice the postmodern politically correct identity politics buzzers and
buttons:
And one need not go far to see how
different biblical world views are from modern ones. Biblical authors,
usually elite male scribes, believed that the world was formed and ruled
by a god who is otherwise barely recognized in contemporary texts
outside of ancient Israel. Genocide was sometimes endorsed, commanded,
or tolerated. Slavery was often endorsed or tolerated. Patriarchalism
was pervasive. At least some same-sex activity was persecuted. Illness
was often attributed to supernatural causation, and illness could be
used to devalue human beings. The idea that the Bible bears "higher"
ethical or religious lessons to teach us, as compared to those found in
the texts of other ancient cultures, is part of an ethnocentric and
religiocentric mythos. Given such admitted irrelevance and "otherness"
of the Bible, the main sub-disciplines (e.g., archaeology, literary
criticism, textual criticism, translation) and hermeneutic approaches
(e.g., "reappropriation," "recontextualization") of biblical studies are
simply mechanisms by which the relevance and value of the Bible and
biblical scholars are maintained.
A lot goes on here in this paragraph. Let's try to capture it all.
(1) He's laid out a manifesto of his values and demonstrated that the Bible violates them.
So
the Bible doesn't reflect his values, therefore its' worthless. But why
would anyone think that a modern person seeking social justice, or even
a decent set of moral values, would not want to understand where
humanity has been? How can the fact that the Bible is an incredible
record of the history of ancient near east, the struggles of people, the
drama of human tragedy, how can this escape the son of the soil, the
marginalized elitist scholar of the people?
(2) The Bible is elitist and patriarchal and it's opposed to gayness.
in
other words its opposed to all of his political ideologies, and right
or wrong, better or worse, Avalos would not have the credentials he has
if he did not also benefit form some of these things. Then why does he
not call for the banning of Universities? If we should walk away and
forget the Bible because it's from a by gone era, then why not do away
with all earning, books themselves. Books are filled outmoded ideas, and
someday all books available now will be part of a strange and outmoded
way of thinking. why don't we forget the whole education thing and
become illiterate? It would be a lot easier than actually to teach
people about the ancient world. Avalos is contributing to Marcue's
one-dimenstional man, by helping to close the realm of discourse to
prevent any unsactioned ideas from beyond the realm of neo-facism
disguised as political correctness.
(3) typical game of the
postmoderns. The played it at Perkins all the time. You are discussing
something and you mention a work the other person hasn't read. Instead
of assuming "O I am not as well read because I didn't know about that"
they say "you are excluding me by saying things I don't know about." So
if you have knowledge they don't have you are wrong, you are violating a
rule, you are to be shunned and you are putting them ill at ease. Thus
one is penalized for knowledge and taught not to learn and not to
excel. Unless of course a feminist does it. they mention texts no one
has heard of of and that makes them bright girls who are on top of
everything because they are so superior to males. This is the same
game. Denude the church of what little knowledge it has. "hey you don't'
wont learn all that boring stuff. wouldn't you really father work in a
factory and go dancing?" So this way the postmoderns take control of the
sources of knowledge and any other sort of knowledge is anathema. this
is what Avalos is trying to do with biblical scholarship. It's bad it's
evil it's ancient it has all kinds of outmoded values. But aren't there
some other texts with those same values from those same milieu that he
wants read? Let's look further.
At this point he begins to move into some actual criticisms of biblical scholarship:
(e.g.,
archaeology, literary criticism, textual criticism, translation) and
hermeneutic approaches (e.g., "reappropriation," "recontextualization")
of biblical studies are simply mechanisms by which the relevance and
value of the Bible and biblical scholars are maintained.
Scholarship
is just a means for the elite to promote their world view. But wait, he
just got through promoting his values by decrying the values the
disvalues in the Bible. He's a scholar so he's doing the thing he
criticizes scholars for, and he's also using those same scholars to
decry the outmoded nature of the Biblical world view.
Most
findings, few of which are truly novel, remain locked up in journals
and books most people will never read or understand. Most findings, few
of which are truly novel, remain locked up in journals and books
Lack
of a God forbid that people should ever have learn about anything they
don't know about. that's not what education is for is it? Universities
are there to destroy learning right? Most people will never understand
brain surgery should we do away with rain surgery? Most people will
never understand higher math,should we just forget higher math. I'm sure
that Avalos will defend these reductionist hobbies on the grounds that
they are useful. Only useful things can be allowed. Despite their useful
nature, such esoteric pursuits will always be beyond the realm of the
average peasant in the third world. We don't really need a space race if
we the corps don't' fail. Why bother with learning at all? Of course
those who actually enjoy learning know that there's more to it than just
the intimidate utility of a text. this is what is strange to me, a
professor who cant' understand the values of learning about the past.
Whatever
new knowledge is applied (e.g., new readings from the Dead Sea
Scrolls), it is usually for the benefit of faith communities who read
the Bible. The fact is that biblical studies is still functioning as a
handmaiden to theology and faith communities rather than as a discipline
relevant to those outside of faith communities (something unlike law,
medicine, or even philosophy, which is also being marginalized). Let us
not forget he's actually begging the question to assert that the Bible
endorses slavery an genocide. We might also bring up the fact that he
has not discussed the canon. He asserts that Scholars make the canon. ON
this point I think the professor needs to do some reading because it
bishops who made the Christian canon. He has not actually discussed
this. We cannot discuss the attitudes of God in the OT until we talk
about the nature of OT authority and the nature of the canon. But Avalos
chooses not to get into anything specific in this essay.
In
archaeology, new inscriptions, even the most fragmentary and the barely
comprehensible, are announced with great fanfare when there is a remote
connection to the Bible. Meanwhile, thousands of more complete texts of
other cultures still lie untranslated. Euroamerican perceptions of what
is important still dominate the entire Society, as witnessed by
repeated full attendance at sessions on archaeological "artifacts"
versus sparser attendance in sessions on more "humane" aspects of
biblical studies, such as disability studies or non-Euroamerican
understandings of scriptures.
Here he has a splendid
point. but there's one problem. It's opposed to the values he just
stated. To study these forgotten, strange, unknown texts, which the
average West Texas farmer or the average peasant int he third world
would know noting about, is a complete back peddle on everything he just
said. Is the Bible the only ancient world document with a strange view?
He has a good point about neglected aspect of the field and they will
certainly stay neglected if we follow his way of thinking. He has a
strange way of getting people to care more about neglected
"marginalized" aspects of the Bible, by forgetting about it and not
studying it.
He drags gender inclusion translations through the
mud as hidden mechanisms of patriarchy. He identifies the existence of
such translations as proof of the Bible's backward nature. This is
something that really confused me at Perkins. All these Feminist
theologians such as Joette Basler and Danna Fellwell who were opposed to
Egalitarian scholarship. They didn't even know about the major figures
in the egal movement (such as Bushnell and Gilbert Bilezikian) but they
pooh poohed every egalitarian translation I brought up. Why? Because
they have a vested interest in showing that the Bible is backward and
evil. They hate the bible they hate religion they don't want to give it a
break. They have no interest in really translating the work. Of course
I'm sure Dr. Avalos would not stop to this kind of manipulation after
accusing his opponents in the other camp of being that way. That's why
he's lobbying against the Bible since it speaks against this value
system. Apparently that's how he knows so well the scholarly games of
manipulation, because he plays them so much.
Now we don't see
that kind of manipulation on Avalos' part in his appraoch to Robert
Alter's attempts to make the Bible relevant:
Robert
Alter, as he attempts to reconcile his personal enjoyment of biblical
artistry with some serious purpose: "but the paradoxical truth of the
matter may well be that by learning to enjoy biblical stories more fully
as stories, we shall also come to see more clearly what they mean to
tell us about God, man and the perilously momentous realm of
history."[5]
This is no this is not the kind of manipulation he speaks of above, this is a different kind.
Alter's
judgment is a subjective one, and we can just as easily argue that the
Bible is no more beautiful nor has any better lessons to teach than many
other texts. One could just as easily make the subjective judgment that
at least some biblical texts are ugly, not to mention horrifically
unethical, but we don't have many books touting that. That would be bad
for business. Here he is castigating this believer for enjoying the
text, as though this some sort of anathema. No other ancient world text
was barbaric. The Greeks never oppressed anyone or valued slavery did
they? Only the Jews. The enjoyment is subjective that's his argument.
It's only subjective. One might think that enjoyment would be a valid
reason to read a text, but not in the Spartan world of Dr. Avalos. Now
of course he plugs the reading of other ancient world books, which I am
willing to bet my pay are not accepted by the masses, not known to the
public and just as "strange" and ancient in their view point but somehow
we are supposed to accept hem as valid candidates to survive and be
studied but not the Bible. I'm sure those other guys had slaves, killed
people, did all the things Don Avalos hates in the Bible, but somehow
its ok in the other books. I would hate a world in which only science
and engineering books were allowed. But even that would at least be
consistent.
Then he rounds out his essay by accusing the early
SBL founders of being religious. What a shame that the major
organization in America that deals with Bible study is flavored with a
large element of religion! While I agree that Bible scholars are often
too ideologically motivated, that many of the major reference works ar
shamelessly doctrinally biased, and that there is not enough
objectivity, Avalos in this article offers us nothing in the way of
objectivity. His arguments have been extremely ideolgoical and
subjective. What would have been helpful would have been if he had dealt
with the progress made. Had he talked about things that actually
benchmark our current understanding of the ancient world view, that
would have actually contributed something to learning. But he did not
and perhaps its just as well. I'm sure that he will be getting out of
the field soon, since it is such a waste of time. We will all miss this
keen analytical mind and all those insights he's giving us.
