Criticism of the Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
 This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

WikiProject Christianity or the Christianity Portal may be able to help recruit one.
If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly.
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
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)
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
Biblical canon
Bible translations
Research
Views


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 This is not the same thing as Biblical Criticism, which is the academic treatment of the bible as a historical document.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

[edit] 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[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 [2] and sodomy, condemnation of homosexuality, support for the institution of slavery, the orders to kill any disobedient children, 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. 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] 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

[edit] References

  1. ^ Eric Pement, Gimme the Bible that Paul used: A look at the King James Only debate, online.
  2. ^ Genesis 19:30-36
  3. ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2003). Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. New York: Oxford, p.122-123, 185. ISBN 0-19-514183-0. 
  4. ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford, p.372-3. ISBN 0-19-515462-2. 
    Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible, p.621, 639, 654. ISBN 0-385-24767-2. 
    Scholars who hold to Pauline authorship include Wohlenberg, Lock, Meinertz, Thornell, Schlatter, Spicq, Jeremais, Simpson, Kelly, and Fee. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, p. 622.


[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible"
Personal tools
Languages