Criticism of the Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:Emblem-important.svg

This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. WikiProject Christianity may be able to help recruit one. If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly.

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2007)

Image:Emblem-important.svg

This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (September 2007)

Part of a series on The Bible Image:Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg

Biblical canon and books

Chapter & Verse Tanakh (Torah · Nevi'im · Ketuvim) Masoretic text Samaritan Pentateuch Old Testament · Hebrew Bible New Testament · New Covenant Deuterocanonicals Jewish apocrypha Old Testament apocrypha New Testament apocrypha Antilegomena

Development

Jewish Canon Old Testament canon New Testament canon

Authorship

Authors of the Bible Mosaic authorship Johannine works · Pauline epistles

Bible translations

Septuagint Targums · Peshitta Vetus Latina · Vulgate Gothic Bible · Luther Bible English translations

Biblical studies

Biblical criticism Dating the Bible Dead Sea scrolls Biblical manuscript NT textual categories Documentary hypothesis Synoptic problem The Bible and history‎ Biblical archaeology

Interpretation

Hermeneutics Pesher · Midrash · Pardes Allegorical · Literalism

Views

Biblical inerrancy · Biblical infallibility Criticism of the Bible Biblical law in Christianity Islamic view of the Bible Biblical narratives and the Qur'an Gnosticism and the New Testament Judaism and Christianity Bible prophecy This box: view • talk • edit

This article is about criticisms which are made against the Bible as a source of information or ethical guidance. This is not the same thing as Biblical Criticism, which is the academic treatment of the bible as a historical document. It is also not the same as Criticism of Christianity, which is the criticism of the Christian religion as a whole.

In modern times, the view that the Bible should be accepted as historically accurate and as a reliable guide to morality has been questioned by many mainstream academics in the field of Biblical Criticism, such as Israel Finkelstein and Richard Elliott Friedman. While the idea of Biblical inerrancy has consequently been discarded by some Christian and Jewish groups, or at least modified in such a way as to allow certain portions of the Bible to be reinterpreted, the modern movement of Christian Fundamentalism as well as much of Orthodox Judaism, strongly support the idea that the Bible is historically accurate and a fundamental source of moral guidance.

In addition to concerns about morality, inerrancy, or historicity, there is the question of which books should be included in the Bible. Jews discount the New Testament, all but Coptic Christianity discounts the Books of Enoch and of Jubilees, and most religions discount the remainder of the New Testament apocrypha.

Contents 1 Translation issues 2 Ethics in the Bible 3 Internal consistency 4 The Bible and history 5 Bible Prophecies 5.1 Unfulfilled prophecies 6 The Bible and science 7 See also 8 References 9 External links

[edit] Translation issues

Main article: Almah Controversy

See also: Criticism_of_Christianity#Mistranslation_and_textual_corruption

Translation has given rise to a number of issues, as the original languages are often quite different in grammar as well as word meaning. While the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states that inerrancy applies only to the original languages, some believers trust their own translation to be the accurate one. One such group of believers is known as the King-James-Only Movement. For readability, clarity, or other reasons, translators may choose different wording or sentence structure, and some translations may choose to paraphrase passages. Because some of the words in the original language have ambiguous or difficult to translate meanings, debates over the correct interpretation occur.

For instance, the word used in the masoretic text at Isaiah 7:14 to indicate the woman who would bear Emmanuel is alleged to mean a young, unmarried woman in Hebrew, while Matthew 1:23 follows the Septuagint version of the passage which uses the Greek word parthenos, translated virgin, and is used to support the Christian idea of virgin birth. Those who view the masoretic text, which forms the basis of most English translations of the Old Testament, as being more accurate than the Septuagint, and trust its usual translation, may see this as an inconsistency, whereas those who take the Septuagint to be accurate may not.

In the History of the English Bible, there have been many changes to the wording, leading to several competing versions. Many of these have contained Biblical errata - typographic errors, such as the phrases Is there no treacle in Gilead?, Printers have persecuted me without cause, and Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?, and even Thou shalt commit adultery.

More recently, several discoveries of ancient manuscripts such as the Dead Sea scrolls, and Codex Sinaiticus, have led to modern translations differing somewhat from the older ones, removing verses not present in the earliest manuscripts, some of which are acknowledged as frauds, such as the Comma Johanneum, others having several highly variant versions in very important places, such as the resurrection scene in Mark 16, and others still having a large degree of doubt under textual criticism such as John 21^{[citation needed]}. The King-James-Only Movement advocates reject these changes and uphold the King James Version as the most accurate.^[1]

[edit] Ethics in the Bible

Main article: Ethics in the Bible

Certain interpretations of the moral decisions in the Bible are considered ethically questionable by many modern groups. Some of the passages most commonly criticized include the subjugation of women, sexual acts like incest although it was told to be wrong after the events of Noah's flood ^[2] and sodomy, condemnation of homosexuality, support for the institution of slavery and the order to commit the genocide of the Canaanites and the Amalekites. While some religious groups support the Bible's decisions by reminding critics that they should be judged by the standards of the time, to which they measure much more closely, other religious groups, mostly conservatives and particularly Southern Baptists, see nothing wrong with the Bible's judgements. [1] Other critics of the Bible, such as Friedrich Nietzsche, have criticized the morality of the New Testament, regarding it as weak and conformist-oriented.

[edit] Internal consistency

Main article: Internal consistency and the Bible

There are many places in the Bible in which inconsistencies have been alleged by critics, presenting as difficulties the different numbers and names for the same feature, and different sequences for what is supposed to be the same event. Responses to these criticisms include the modern documentary hypothesis, two source hypothesis (in various guises), and allegations that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudonymous. Contrasting with these critical stances are positions supported by literalists, considering the texts to be consistent, with the Torah written by a single source, but the Gospels by four independent witnesses, and all of the Pauline Epistles, except maybe Hebrews, written by Paul.

[edit] The Bible and history

Main article: The Bible and history

The Biblical creation account, up to and including the Great Flood were generally discarded by scientists, as the scientific revolution and other paradigm shifts in science evolved. However, there is opposition to this stance by creationists who view the biblical account as factual, to varying degrees. The Genesis Patriarchs are considered by some historians to also be mythical syncretisms of various local foundation stories, though other historians and proponents of Biblical inerrancy dispute this.

The accounts of the exodus are thought by most critics to have some potential basis in fact. Depending on which pharaoh is identified as the pharaoh of the story, the Israelites are identified by historians as being the Hyksos or the Apir, both mentioned prominently in Egyptian records. The account of Joshua has more difficulty vis-a-vis the archaeological record, since Jericho and other settlements do not show signs of violent disruption in the time period required for the Israelite invasion^{[citation needed]} (However, the Bible tells of the rebuilding and population of Jericho, among others destroyed by the Israelites). Neither does there appear to be any systematic destruction of cities, but instead only independent events occurring at significantly different times, more in agreement with events presented in the Book of Judges.

It is however generally assumed, based on the archaeology of the period, that the Biblical account of the history of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, as presented in the Books of Kings, is historic, even if biased towards Judah. The earlier period of the United Monarchy on the other hand, is a matter of heated debate, and many mainstream academics and historians believe that the vast empire of King Solomon, the rebellion of Jeroboam, and sometimes even the United Monarchy itself, never existed but are instead a later fiction to justify Judah's political bias against, and territorial claims to, Israel, and the idea of a golden age^{[citation needed]}. However, recent discoveries, such as ruins similar to the palace of King David (arguably from a different time period) and the Tel Dan Stele (from the 9th century BCE or later, and with the meaning of the inscription disputed), may encourage academics to put some of the evidences back under examination.

Most of the remainder of the tanakh/Old Testament is seen as historically reliable, since it merely presents an uncontroversial account of the sayings of various people, their poetry, and an undramatic, and largely unsupernatural, account of the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. The Book of Daniel, however, is seen by critical scholars as dating from much later than is traditionally credited, as a result of the alleged prophecies, and symbolic relationship between the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation.

In the 2nd century, the gnostics often asserted that their form of Christianity was the first, in which Jesus was sometimes regarded as merely a teaching device, or as a docetic teacher, or allegory.^[3] Several examples of gnostic attitudes and religion are proposed to exist in the Pauline Epistles, even by well respected and mainstream scholars such as Elaine Pagels. Bart D. Ehrman and Raymond E. Brown note that some of the Pauline epistles are widely regarded by scholars as pseudonymous,^[4] and it is the view of Timothy Freke, and others, that this involved a forgery in an attempt by the Church to bring in Paul's gnostic supporters, and turn the arguments in the other Epistles on their head.

Some critics have maintained that Christianity isn't founded on an historical figure, but rather on a mythical creation.^[5] This view proposes that the idea of Jesus was the Jewish manifestation of a pan-Hellenic cult, known as Osiris-Dionysus, which acknowledged the non-historic nature of the figure, using it instead as a teaching device.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Bible Prophecies

The fulfillment of Bible prophecies is a popular argument used by Christian apologists to prove the divine inspiration of the Bible. In prophecy fulfillment, they see evidence of God's direct involvement in the writing of the Bible. However, critics argue that bible prophecies turn out to be prophecies only because Bible writers arbitrarily declared them to be prophecies or the fulfillments became fulfillments only because biased New Testament writers arbitrarily declared them to be fulfillments^[6]. An example is found Matthew 1:23 where it was claimed that an angel's announcement to Joseph that his betrothed wife Mary would give birth to a child conceived by the Holy Spirit was done to fulfill a prophecy spoken by Isaiah: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call his name Immanuel."^[7] In the original context, however, Isaiah made this statement as a sign to Ahaz, king of Judah, that an alliance recently formed against him by Rezin, the king of Syria, and Pekah, the king of Israel, would not succeed in defeating him. The Lord had sent Isaiah to reassure Ahaz that the alliance would not prevail. Isaiah begged Ahaz to ask for a sign that his prophecy was true. Finally, Isaiah said to him, "Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? Therefore Yahweh Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel"(Isaiah 7:13-14). Hence, the context clearly shows that this so-called prophecy was made not to foretell the birth of Jesus some 700 years later but the birth of a child to that time and that situation. Moreover, Jewish scholars point out, in Isaiah 7:14 the word Almah is part of the Hebrew phrase ha-almah hara, meaning “the almah is pregnant.” Since the present tense is used, it is clear that the young woman was already pregnant and hence not a virgin. This being the case, the verse cannot be cited as a prediction of the future.^[8][9] Critics also claim that many biblical prophecies were in fact written after the events supposedly predicted or that their text were modified after the event to fit the facts as they occurred. One of the most famous examples of an after-the-fact prophecy is the Little Apocalypse recorded in the Olivet Discourse of the Gospel of Mark. It predicts the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Jewish Temple at the hands of the Romans in 70 AD. Mainstream New Testament scholars concede this is an ex eventu, as are many of the prophecies in the Old Testament(e.g. Daniel 11).^[10]

[edit] Unfulfilled prophecies

The Bible also contains failed prophecies. For example, Joshua said that God would, without fail, drive out the Jebusites and Canaanites, among others (Joshua 3:9-10). But those tribes were not driven out(Joshua 15:63, 17:12-13). Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (Ezekiel 29:10-14), and Nebuchadrezzar would plunder it (Ezekiel 29:19-20). Neither happened. Ezekiel incorrectly predicts that the island of Tyre will be utterly destroyed and "made a bare rock" which will "never be rebuilt"(Ezekiel 26:1,7, 14,32). Ezekiel admits his error in Ezek 29:17(?). Isaiah spoke of a prophecy God made to Ahaz, the King of Judah that he would not be harmed by his enemies(Isaiah 7:1-7), yet according to II Chronicles, Syria and Pekah did conquer Judah(II Chronicles 28:1, 5-6). Jeremiah incorrectly predicts 70 years(Jeremiah 29:10) for the Babylonian exiles but they only lasted 59 years. Micah predicts the destruction of Jerusalem(Micah 3:12) (which at the time was about to be invaded by Sennacherib and seemed inevitable) blaming the destruction on the corruption of the priesthood of Judah. A century later Jeremiah quotes Micah and tries to excuse the failed prophecy by saying that "the Lord changed his mind" about that destruction(Jeremiah 26:18-19).^[11]. In predicting Jerusalem's fall to Babylon, Jeremiah prophesied that Zedekiah, the king of Judah, would "die in peace" (Jer. 34:2-5), however according to Jeremiah 52:9-11, he was put in prison till the day of his death. Likewise, prophetess Huldah prophesied that Josiah would die in peace(2 Kings 22:18-20), but rather than dying in peace, as the prophetess predicted, Josiah was killed at Megiddo in a battle with Egyptian forces (2 Chron. 35:20-24). ^[6] Amos 7:17 prophesied that Amaziah's sons will die by the sword, but according to 2 Chron. 26:1,21, Amaziah's son Uzziah died of leprosy. According to Gen. 15:18, Gen. 17:3,8 and Deut. 1:7-8, Abraham's descendants will own all the land between the Nile River and the Euphrates River, but it never happened: they never owned all that land. God broke his promise, as conceded in Acts 7:5 and Heb 11:13. According to Isa. 17:1, Damascus will be destroyed, but in fact Damascus is one of the few ancient cities that has never been destroyed. According to Jer. 42:17, Jews who choose to live in Egypt will all die and leave no remnant. But history shows that Jews continued to live there for centuries, later establishing a cultural center at Alexandria.^[12]

Jehoiakim prophecies

The prophet Daniel incorrectly states that in the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar will conquer Judah(Daniel 1:1-2). The third year of Jehoiakim’s reign was 606 BCE, at which time Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon. It was in 597 BCE that Nebuchadnezzar takes Jerusalem, by then Jehoiakim had died. Jeremiah prophesied that the body of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, would be desecrated after his death(Jer. 22:18-19, 36:30-31), however his death was recorded in 2 Kings 24:6, where it says that "Jehoiakim slept with his fathers." This is a familiar Bible expression that was used to denote a peaceful death and respectful burial. David slept with his fathers (1 Kings 2:10), and so did Solomon (1 Kings 11:43). On the other hand, 2 Chronicles 36:5-6 states that Nebuchadnezzar came against Jehoiakim, bound him in fetters, and carried him to Babylon. Judging from the treatment Zedekiah was accorded when the Babylonians bound him and carried him away to Babylon, one might justifiably argue that his body probably was desecrated after his death. Jeremiah, however, predicted that Jehoiakim's own people would be his desecraters, that his own people would not accord him lamentations appropriate for a king, that his own people would cast his body "out beyond the gates of Jerusalem." Part of the desecration prophecy was that Jehoiakim would "have no one to sit upon the throne of David" (36:30), but this too was proven false. Upon Jehoiakim's death, his son Jehoiachin "reigned in his stead" for a period of three months and ten days (2 Chron. 36:8,9; 2 Kings 24:6-8). Even more devastating than that are the biblical genealogies that show Jehoiakim to be a direct ancestor of Jesus (1 Chron. 3:16-17; Matt. 1:12).^[6]

The imminence of the second coming

See also: Second coming

Jesus falsely prophesied that the second coming would occur during the lifetime of his followers.

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Matt 16:27-28

But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. Matthew 10:23 (see also Matt 24:29-35, Mark 13:30-31, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27, John 21:22, Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62)

The inaccuracy of the prophecy is also exhibited in the Revelation of Jesus to John.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. Rev 1:1,7

Behold, I(Jesus) come quickly, blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book. And, behold, I(Jesus) come quickly and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I(Jesus) come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.Rev 22:7,12,20

Despite the strongly repeated promises, Jesus has not come quickly or shortly.

Apostle Paul also falsely predicted that the second coming would be within his own lifetime.

"Then we who are alive, who are left, shall be taken up together with them in the clouds to meet Christ, into the air, and so shall we always be with the Lord" 1 Thessalonians 4:16, (see also 1 Corinthians 7:29-31, Romans 13:12, I Corinthians 15:51-54)

Messianic Prophecies

See also: Judaism's view of Jesus and Jewish messianism

See also: Jewish Messiah claimants

According to many Christians, the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies in the mission, death, and resurrection of Jesus proves the accuracy of the Bible and that Jesus is the Son of God, however according to common beliefs of Judaism, Christian claims that Jesus is the textual messiah of the Hebrew Bible are based on mistranslations^[13][14][15] and Jesus did not fulfill the qualifications for Jewish Messiah.

[edit] The Bible and science

Main article: Science and the Bible

The laws of Kosher food are not universally agreed to be healthy by modern scientists. Other information is clearly corroborated by modern science, such as the wisdom of taking a day of rest, ecological advice to leave trees and birds alone in certain circumstances, public hygiene, and certain medical advice. While supporters of foresight believe these evidence divine revelations of knowledge not otherwise available at the time, their opponents consider many instances of these to be obvious, or evidenced elsewhere, such as the extensive (though not always accurate) Egyptian knowledge of medicine, dating back to at least 3000 BC and Imhotep.

Some consider that the biblical cleanliness passages reflect cultural constructs rather than knowledge of medicine, science or technology. Rules regarding extensive purification following nocturnal emission seem superfluous and superstitious, considering that infectious disease has never been associated with the phenomenon. Likewise, there is no known scientific reason for a woman who has just given birth to avoid attending a religious institution for seven days.

Additionally, critics may argue that even if a beneficial habit were undertaken for purely superstitious reasons and the science behind why a habit is beneficial is not known, the rule can still persist, spread, and be passed on via mechanisms similar to natural selection. (See Memetics.)

[edit] See also

• Bible errata
• Biblical inerrancy
• Criticism of Christianity
• Biblical Criticism
• Criticism of the Qur'an
• Criticism of Islam

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Bible Origins - A secular inquiry into Bible Origins
• Bible Research - The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy
• Skeptic's Annotated Bible - Bible with refutation and commentary
• Evil Bible - A website critical of the Bible and its ethics
• Biblical Nonsense - Free online book debunking the Bible
• Jesus Never Existed - A site debunking the historicity of Jesus and the New Testament Bible
• Introduction to the Bible and Biblical Problems
• Why won't God heal amputees? - A critical look at Christianity and the Bible by Marshall Brain
• Bible stories - A critical, historical perspective.
• "Difficult Texts" by Bonna Devora Haberman. How do we study difficult Jewish texts without apologizing for, justifying, or historicizing them?
• Daniel in Debunker's Den - articles debunking the Bible
• A Muslim view of how the Bible was corrupted
• OutreachJudaism - Jewish articles debunking the New Testamentde:Kontroversen um die Bibel

hu:Bibliakritika zh:聖經的內部矛盾