Criticism of the Bible

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 people view the Bible as a 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.

Translation issues

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. The King-James-Only Movement advocates reject these changes and uphold the King James Version as the most accurate.^[1]

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, religious intolerance, sexual acts like incest although it was told to be wrong after the events of Noah's flood ^[2], condemnation of homosexuality, support for the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments, obligatory religious wars 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.^[3] Other critics of the Bible, such as Friedrich Nietzsche, have criticized the morality of the New Testament, regarding it as weak and conformist-oriented.

Internal consistency

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.

Deliberate falsifications

Notable among those who concluded that the Bible contained deliberate falsehoods was Thomas Jefferson. He considered much of the New Testament of the Bible to be lies. He edited his own version of the bible and omitted what he considered to be these falsehoods. He described these as "so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture". He described the "roguery of others of His disciples", and called them a "band of dupes and impostors", and described Paul as the "first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus", and wrote of "palpable interpolations and falsifications". He also described the Book of Revelation to be "merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams". ^[4]

The Bible and history

The Hebrew bible (Christian Old Testament) contains texts in many different genres, including what appears on the surface to be a history of mankind, focusing on the Israelites and eventually on the people of Judah, from the creation of the world to the return of the Jewish exiles to Jerusalem in the fifth century BC. This history is divided into three parts: the Torah, dealing with the period from the Creation to the death of Moses; the Deuteronomistic history (the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings), dealing with the conquest of Canaan and the later history of the kings of Israel and Judah down to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 586 BC; and the Chronicler's History, consisting of the books of Nehemiah and Ezra and dealing with the return to Jeruslaem of the Jewish exiles.

While some biblical scholars postulate that the five books of the Torah do not describe real history, there is debate over just when and why they were composed.^{citation needed} The dominant explanation in the first half of the 20th century was that they were originally four texts, each telling a complete but slightly different story from Creation to the death of Moses, composed at various times between c.950 BC and 550BC and combined into their present form around 450BC.^{citation needed} This theory - the Documentary Hypothesis - is not longer so widely held, and has been challenged by other theories which would place the composition of the Torah later (in the post-586BC period), and see many more sources behind it.^{citation needed}

The Deuteronomistic History and the Choniclers History are also considered of dubious historical value. The Deuteronomistic History was composed around 600BC from previously-existing records, and that while it may be accurate for events around that time and a little later, its account of earlier history is largely legendary. The Chroniclers History was composed somewhat later, following the return from the Exile in Babylon. There is a growing realisation that these histories were never intended to be an accurate and dispassionate account of events, but reflected the political and theological aims of their authors.

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.^[5] 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,^[6] 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.^[7] This view proposes that the idea of Jesus was the Jewish manifestation of a pan-Hellenic cult, known as Osiris-Dionysus^[8], which acknowledged the non-historic nature of the figure, using it instead as a teaching device.

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^[9].

One 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." 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). Jewish scholars argue that the prophecy was made not to foretell the birth of Jesus some 700 years later but the birth of a child to that time^[10] and also point out, in Isaiah 7:14 that 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.^[11]^[12]

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 alleged 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. Most mainstream New Testament scholars concede this is an ex eventu, as are many of the prophecies in the Old Testament(e.g. Daniel 11).^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20]

Unfulfilled prophecies

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

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

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

Christian apologist C.S. Lewis calls it the "most embarrassing verse in the Bible". In his book "The World's Last Night", C.S. Lewis wrote:^[24],

The Bible and science

Contents