Chapter Ten - Avalos - The Bible Is Dangerous

CHAPTER TEN

Avalos - The Bible Is Dangerous

HECTOR AVALOS DIDN’T start as a critic of religion.
He started as a child evangelist.

Born in Mexico and raised Pentecostal, Avalos began preaching at the age of seven. He was fluent in scripture, passionate in his faith, and committed to spreading the message of the Bible.

Then he started studying it more closely.

As he moved into academia, Avalos took a deep interest in the historical roots of scripture. He earned a doctorate in biblical studies and became a professor of religious studies at Iowa State University. But the deeper he went into the texts, the more concerned he became. Not just with their content, but with how they were used.

Avalos didn’t just walk away from belief.
He made the case that the Bible, as a cultural authority, should be left behind altogether.

In his book The End of Biblical Studies, Avalos argues that modern society has outgrown its need for the Bible. Not just in terms of belief, but in terms of relevance.

His argument is multi-layered.

1. Most people don’t read the Bible.
   And when they do, they tend to read selectively. Relying on filtered interpretations from clergy or tradition, rather than engaging with the full text.
2. Many biblical values conflict with modern ethics.
   The Bible contains support for slavery, patriarchal systems, ethnic violence, and purity laws that no longer align with contemporary human rights. Avalos believed that continuing to treat the Bible as a moral compass required either ignoring or reinterpreting large parts of it.
3. The Bible’s historical claims are unreliable.
   He pointed to discrepancies in the text, lack of external corroboration, and evidence that many stories were shaped or invented for theological purposes.

But his strongest point was about power.

Avalos believed that scripture’s lingering authority allowed it to be weaponized.
Not just by religious extremists, but by politicians, judges, and institutions that use the Bible to justify policies, even in secular governments.

He didn’t claim that all religion was dangerous.
But he did argue that placing the Bible at the center of public morality and law carried serious risks. Especially when the text itself contains deeply problematic material.

Avalos advocated for a move away from religious exceptionalism in scholarship.
He didn’t want the Bible erased from history, but removed from the pedestal of moral authority. In his view, it should be studied like any other ancient document, not worshiped.

His position was controversial, even among secular scholars.
But it was consistent.

He saw the Bible as a collection of human texts that were full of contradiction, shaped by tribal interests, and sustained by modern institutions that had little incentive to let it go.

Avalos wasn’t calling for censorship.
He was calling for closure.