Criticism of Christianity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Throughout the history of Christianity, both Christians and non-Christians have offered criticisms of Christianity, the Church, and Christians themselves. Some criticism specifically addresses Christian interpretations and dogma. Christians have responded to many of these criticisms, partially through the field of Christian apologetics.
Contents |
[edit] Compatibility with science
Some critics have argued that Christianity is fundamentally incompatible with modern science.
During the nineteenth century an interpretive model of the relationship between religion and science developed, according to which interaction between religion and science almost inevitably leads to open hostility, usually as a result of religion's aggressive challenges against new scientific ideas. A popular example was the misconception that people from the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat, and that only science, freed from religious dogma, had shown that it was spherical. Scholars today call this model the conflict thesis (or the warfare model, or the Draper-White thesis). This thesis was a popular historiographical approach during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but most contemporary historians of science now reject it.[1][2][3]
This notion of a war between science and religion (especially Christianity) remained common in the historiography of science during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.[4] Most of today's historians of science consider that the conflict thesis has been superseded by subsequent historical research[5]
However, the framing of the relationship between Christianity and science as being predominantly one of conflict is still prevalent in popular culture[6] Similar views have also been supported by many scientists. The astronomer Carl Sagan, for example, mentions the dispute between the astronomical systems of Ptolemy (who thought that the sun and planets revolved around the earth) and Copernicus (who thought the earth and planets revolved around the sun). He states in his A personal Voyage that Ptolemy's belief was "supported by the church through the Dark Ages...[It] effectively prevented the advance of astronomy for 1,500 years."[7] Sagan rebukes claims that religion and science did not have an antagonizing relationship in the Medieval era by explaining the axioms of Copernicus' discovery:
- This Copernican model worked at least as well as Ptolemy's crystal spheres, but it annoyed an awful lot of people. The Catholic Church later put Copernicus' work on its list of forbidden books, and Martin Luther described Copernicus in these words...
| “ | People give ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strives to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun or the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth. | ” |
Peters believes that Luther had only heard tales of Copernicus' new idea and didn't really have any serious engagements on this issue. Regarding Copernicus' thought, he is said to "have quipped that this would be comparable to somebody riding on a cart or in a ship and imagining that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving." Peters concludes that "spoken in jest, such items ought not to be interpreted as indicating any general opposition to science."[8]
France, early 15th century.
Moreover, many scientists through out history held strong Christian beliefs and strove to reconcile science and religion. Isaac Newton, for example, believed that gravity caused the planets to revolve about the Sun, and credited God with the design, yet his religious views are generally considered heretical. In the concluding General Scholium to the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, he wrote: "This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." Other famous founders of science as we know it who adhered to Christian beliefs included Galileo, Johannes Kepler, and Blaise Pascal.[9][10]
Historians of science such as J.L. Heilbron,[12] Alistair Cameron Crombie, David Lindberg,[13] Edward Grant, Thomas Goldstein,[14] and Ted Davis also have been revising the common notion — the product of black legends say some — that medieval Christianity has had a negative influence in the development of civilization. These historians believe that not only did the monks save and cultivate the remnants of ancient civilization during the barbarian invasions, but the medieval church promoted learning and science through its sponsorship of many universities which, under its leadership, grew rapidly in Europe in the 11th and 12th centuries, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church's "model theologian," not only argued that reason is in harmony with faith, he even recognized that reason can contribute to understanding revelation, and so encouraged intellectual development. He was not unlike other medieval theologians who sought out reason in the effort to defend his faith.[15] Also, some today's scholars, such as Stanley Jaki, have suggested that Christianity with its particular worldview was actually a crucial factor for the emergence of modern science.[16]
David C. Lindberg states that the widespread popular belief that the Middle Ages was a time of ignorance and superstition due to the Christian church is a "caricature". According to Lindberg, while there are some portions of the classical tradition which suggests this view but these were exceptional cases. It was common to tolerate and encourage critical thinking about the nature of the world. The relation between Christianity and science is complex, according to Lindberg.[17] Lindberg reports that "the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation wherever they led. There was no warfare between science and the church."[18] Ted Peters in Encyclopedia of Religion writes that although there is some truth in the "Galileo's condemnation" story but through exaggerations, it has now become "a modern myth perpetuated by those wishing to see warfare between science and religion who were allegedly persecuted by an atavistic and dogma-bound ecclesiastical authority."[19]
[edit] Ethics
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, condemnation of homosexuality, and support for the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments. 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] Slavery
Early Christianity variously opposed, accepted, or ignored slavery.[20] The early Christian perspectives of slavery were formed in the contexts of Christianity's roots in Judaism, and as part of the wider culture of the Roman Empire. Both the Old and New Testaments recognize the institution of slavery. Historically, passages in the Old Testament of the Bible have been used as justification of the keeping of slaves, and for guidance in how it should be done.[citation needed]
The earliest surviving Christian teachings about slavery are from Paul the Apostle, who frequently referred to himself as a "Slave of Christ." Paul did not renounce the institution of slavery; conversely, he taught that Christian slaves ought to serve their masters wholeheartedly (Ephesians 6:5-8). At the same time, he taught slave owners to treat their slaves fairly. The entire epistle of Philemon is devoted to Onesimus, a runaway slave and convert whom Paul returns to his master, to be seen as "not just a slave, but much more than a slave; he is a dear brother in Christ."(verse 16) Tradition describes Pope Pius I (term c. 158 - 167) and Pope Callixtus I (term c. 217 - 222) as former slaves. [21]
Since the Middle Ages, the Christian understanding of slavery has seen significant internal conflict and endured dramatic change. Nearly all Christian leaders before the late 17th century regarded slavery, within specific Biblical limitations, as consistent with Christian theology. In early Medieval times, the Church discouraged slavery throughout Europe, largely eliminating it.[22] That changed in 1452, when Pope Nicholas V instituted hereditary slavery of captured Muslims and pagans, which effectively meant Africans or Asians. As he read the Bible, God had instructed his faithful to make slaves of the neighboring heathens. Pope Paul III in the 1537 bull Sublimis Deus forbade the seizing of pagans as slaves, however various Christian groups have taught that Africans were the descendants of Ham, cursed with "the mark of Ham" (dark skin) to be servants to the descendants of Japheth (Europeans) and Shem (Asians).[20]
Rodney Stark makes the argument in For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery,[23] that Christianity helped to end slavery worldwide, as does Lamin Sanneh in Abolitionists Abroad.[24] These authors point out that Christians who viewed slavery as wrong on the basis of their religious convictions spearheaded abolitionism, and many of the early campaigners for the abolition of slavery were driven by their Christian faith and a desire to realize their view that all people are equal under God.[25] In the late 17th century, anabaptists began to criticize slavery. Criticisms from the Society of Friends, Mennonites, and the Amish followed suit. Prominent among these Christian abolitionists were William Wilberforce, and John Woolman. Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote her famous book, Uncle Tom's Cabin, according to her Christian beliefs in 1852. In Britain and America, Quakers were active in abolitionism. A group of Quakers founded the first English abolitionist organization , and a Quaker petition brought the issue before government that same year. The Quakers continued to be influential throughout the lifetime of the movement, in many ways leading the way for the campaign. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, was instrumental in starting abolitionism as a popular movement.[26]
Nearly all modern Christians are united in the condemnation of slavery as wrong and contrary to God's will. Only peripheral groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and other Christian hate groups on the racist fringes of the Christian Reconstructionist and Christian Identity movements advocate the reinstitution of slavery.[20] With these exceptions, all Christian faith groups now condemn slavery, and see the practice as incompatible with basic Christian principles.[20][22]
In addition to aiding abolitionism, many Christians made further efforts toward establishing racial equality, contributing to the Civil Rights Movement.[27] The African American Review notes the important role Christian revivalism in the black church played in the Civil Rights Movement.[28] Martin Luther King, Jr., an ordained Baptist minister, was a leader of the American Civil Rights Movement and president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a Christian Civil Rights organization.[29]
[edit] Christianity and women
- See also: Women in Christianity and Women in the Bible
Many feminists have accused notions such as a male God, male prophets, and the man-centred stories in the Bible of contributing to a patriarchy. [31] Though many women disciples and servants are recorded in the Pauline epistles, there have been occasions in which women have been denigrated and forced into a second-class status. Suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton said in the Woman's Bible that "the Bible in its teachings degrades Women from Genesis to Revelation"[32] Professor Elizabeth Clark cites early Christian writings by authors such as Augustine, Tertullian and John Chrysostom as being exemplary of the negative perception of women that has been perpetuated in church tradition.[33] Until the latter part of the twentieth century, only the names of very few women who contributed to the formation of Christianity in its earliest years were widely known: Mary, the mother of Jesus; Mary Magdalene, disciple of Jesus and the first witness to the resurrection; and Mary and Martha, the sisters who offered him hospitality in Bethany.[34]
Harvard scholar Karen King writes that more of the many women who contributed to the formation of Christianity in its earliest years are becoming known. Further, she concludes that for centuries in Western Christianity, Mary Magdalene has been wrongly identified the adulteress and repentant prostitute presented in John 8– a connection supposed by tradition but nowhere claimed in the New Testament.[citation needed] According to King, the Gospel of Mary shows that she was an influential figure, a prominent disciple and leader of one wing of the early Christian movement that promoted women's leadership.
King claims that every sect within early Christianity which had advocated women's prominence in ancient Christianity was eventually declared heretical, and evidence of women's early leadership roles was erased or suppressed.[34]
Although very unfavorable attitudes toward women prevailed in the world into which Jesus came,[citation needed] there is no recorded instance where Jesus disgraces, belittles, reproaches, or stereotypes a woman.[35] The treatment and attitude shown to these women is often considered to be evidence that Jesus treated women with great dignity and respect.[citation needed] Various theologians have concluded that the canonical examples of the manner of Jesus are instructive for inferring his attitudes toward women. They are seen as showing repeatedly and consistently how he liberated and affirmed women.[36] However, Schalom Ben-Chorin argues that Jesus's reply to his mother in John 2:4 during the wedding at Cana amounted to a blatant violation of the commandment to honor one's parent (Exodus 20:12).[37]
There are three major viewpoints within modern Christianity over the role of women. They are known respectively as Christian feminism, Christian Egalitarianism and Complementarianism.
- Christian Feminists take an actively feminist position from a Christian perspective.[38]
- Christian Egalitarians advocate ability-based, rather than gender-based, ministry of Christians of all ages, ethnicities and socio-economic classes.[39] Egalitarians support the ordination of women and equal roles in marriage, but are theologically and morally more conservative than Christian feminists and prefer to avoid the label "feminist." A limited notion of gender complementarity is held by some, known as "complementarity without hierarchy."[40]
- Complementarians support both equality and beneficial differences between men and women.[41] They believe the Bible teaches that men and women have distinct complementary roles in both marriage and in the church. They maintain that men have a responsibility to lead and women have a responsibility to submit to the leadership of men.
The majority of Christians[weasel words] stress the importance of the equality of men and women. Roman Catholics will be careful to point out the only sinless human being created by God (Jesus is God incarnate, begotten by God according to the Nicaean creed) was a woman; the Virgin Mary, mother of God.[42]
Some Christians argue that the idea of God as a man is based less on gender but rather on the dominant Patriarchal society of the time in which men acted as leaders and caretakers of the Family.[43] Thus, the idea of God being "The Father" is with regards to his relationship with what are "his children", Christians.
In 2000, the Southern Baptist Convention voted to revise its statement of faith, opposing women as pastors. While this decision is not binding and would not prevent women from serving as pastors, the revision itself has been criticized by some from within the convention.[44] In recent years, there has been a small revival in the role of deaconesses in the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. The Chaldean Catholic Church on the other hand continues to maintain a large number of deaconesses serving alongside male deacons during mass.[45]
[edit] Christianity and politics
- See also: Christian left, Christian right, and Religion and politics
Some leftists and libertarians use the term Christian fascism or Christofascism to describe what some see as an emerging proto-fascism and possible theocracy in the United States. [46]
Reverend Rich Lang of the Trinity United Methodist Church of Seattle gave a sermon titled "George Bush and the Rise of Christian Fascism, in which he said, "I want to flesh out the ideology of the Christian Fascism that Mr. Bush articulates. It is a form of Christianity that is the mirror opposite of what Jesus embodied."[47]
[edit] Christianity and violence
Many critics of Christianity (and other monotheistic religions) have cited the violent acts of Christianized nations as another reason to denounce the religion. For example, science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke said that he could not forgive religions for the atrocities and wars over time.[48] Richard Dawkins makes a similar case in his book, The God Delusion. In The Dawkins Delusion?, Alister McGrath responds to Dawkins by suggesting that far from endorsing "out-group hostility," Jesus commanded an ethic of "out-group affirmation." McGrath agrees that it is necessary to critique religion, but says that Dawkins seems unaware that it possesses internal means of reform and renewal. While Christians may certainly be accused of failing to live up to Jesus standard of acceptance, it is there at the heart of the Christian ethic. [49] Criticism of the violent acts of Christian societies is not limited to atheists and agnostics, as Christian pacifists would argue that Christianity had been co-opted by militant states to simply provide justification for political agendas; that is, violence is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus, and as such war and genocide are regarded as un-Christian acts.
On the other hand, Christians have been and continue to be persecuted in fascist and communist countries.[50][51][52][53][54][55] and the term "Christofascism" is often used by members of the far left to refer to right-wing Christian organizations.[56][57][58][59]
[edit] Doctrine
[edit] Incarnation
The earliest objections to incarnation come from Celsus and Porphyry. Celsus found it hard to reconcile Christian human God who was born and matured with his Jewish God who was supposed to be one and unchanging. He asked "if God wanted to reform humanity, why did he choose to descend and live on earth? how his brief presence in Jerusalem could benefit all the millions of people who lived elsewhere in the world or who had lived and died before his incarnation?" [60]
One classical response is Lewis's trilemma, a syllogism popularised by C. S. Lewis that intended to demonstrate the logical inconsistency of both holding Jesus of Nazareth to be a "great moral teacher" while also denying his divinity.
[edit] Hell and damnation
- See also: Problem of Hell
Christianity has been criticized as seeking to persuade people into accepting its authority through simple fear of punishment or, conversely, through hope of reward after death, rather than through rational argumentation or empirical evidence.[61] Traditional Christian doctrine assumes that, without faith in Jesus Christ, one is subject to eternal punishment in hell.[62]
Critics regard the eternal punishment of those who fail to adopt Christian faith as morally objectionable, and consider it an abhorrent picture of the nature of the world. On a similar theme objections are made against the perceived injustice of punishing a person for all eternity for a temporal crime. Some Christians agree (see Annihilationism and Trinitarian Universalism). These beliefs have been considered especially repugnant[63] when the claimed omnipotent God makes, or allows a person to come into existence, with a nature that desires that which God finds objectionable.[64]
In the Abrahamic religions, Hell has traditionally been regarded as a punishment for wrong-doing or sin in this life, as a manifestation of divine justice. As in the problem of evil, some apologists argue that the torments of Hell are attributable not to a defect in God's benevolence, but in human free will. Although a benevolent God would prefer to see everyone saved, he would also allow humans to control their own destinies. This view opens the possibility of seeing Hell not as retributive punishment, but rather as an option that God allows, so that people who do not wish to be with God are not forced to be. C. S. Lewis most famously proposed this view in his book The Great Divorce, saying: "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'"
Hell is not seen as strictly a matter of retributive justice even by the more traditionalist churches. For example, the Eastern Orthodox see it as a condition brought about by, and the natural consequence of, free rejection of God's love.[65] The Roman Catholic Church teaches that hell is a place of punishment[66] brought about by a person's self exclusion from communion with God.[67] In some ancient Eastern Orthodox traditions, Hell and Heaven are distinguished not spatially, but by the relation of a person to God's love.
I also maintain that those who are punished in Gehenna, are scourged by the scourge of love. Nay, what is so bitter and vehement as the torment of love?...It would be improper for a man to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God...it torments sinners...Thus I say that this is the torment of Gehenna: bitter regret. —St. Isaac of Syria, Ascetical Homilies 28, Page 141[68]
Some modern critics of the doctrine of Hell (such as Marilyn McCord Adams) claim that, even if Hell is seen as a choice rather than as punishment, it would be unreasonable for God to give such flawed and ignorant creatures as ourselves the awesome responsibility of our eternal destinies.[69] Jonathan Kvanvig, in his book, The Problem of Hell, agrees that God would not allow one to be eternally damned by a decision made under the wrong circumstances.[70] One should not always honor the choices of human beings, even when they are full adults, if, for instance, the choice is made while depressed or careless. On Kvanvig's view, God will abandon no person until they have made a settled, final decision, under favorable circumstances, to reject God, but God will respect a choice made under the right circumstances. Once a person finally and competently chooses to reject God, out of respect for the person's autonomy, God allows them to be annihilated.
In the twentieth century, a belief in Christian universalism reappeared among many Protestant thinkers, and the notion that Hell might be empty was even espoused by the noted Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar. Balthasar was careful to describe his opinion that Hell might be empty as merely a hope, but even this claim was rejected by most conservative Catholics, including Cardinal Avery Dulles.
[edit] Limbo
 |
This article may be inaccurate or unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (June 2008) |
The Catholic Church teaches that baptism is a necessity. In the fifth century, St. Augustine concluded that infants who die without baptism were consigned to hell.[71] By the 13th century, theologians referred to the "limbo of infants" as a place where unbaptized babies were deprived of the vision of God, but did not suffer because they did not know what they were deprived of. A Catholic burial can be denied to babies who are stillborn[citation needed]. The 1983 Code of Canon Law (1183 §2) specifies that "Children whose parents had intended to have them baptized but who died before baptism, may be allowed church funeral rites by the local ordinary".[72] In 2007, the 30-member International Theological Commission revisited the concept of limbo.[73][74] However, the commission also stated that
| “ | The commission said hopefulness was not the same as certainty about the destiny of such infants. | ” |
The concept of limbo is not accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church or by Protestants.[75]
[edit] Atonement
The idea of atonement for sin is criticized by Richard Dawkins on the grounds that the image of God as requiring the suffering and death of Jesus to effect reconciliation with humankind is immoral. The view is summarized by Dawkins: "if God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them? Who is God trying to impress?"[76] Oxford theologian Alister McGrath maintains that Dawkins is "ignorant" of Christian theology, and therefore unable to engage religion and faith intelligently. He goes on to say that the atonement was necessary because of our flawed human nature, which made it impossible for us to save ourselves, and that it expresses God's love for us by removing the sin that stands in the way of our reconciliation with God.[77] Responding to the criticism that he is "ignorant" of theology, Dawkins asks "do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?,"[78] and "[y]es, I have, of course, met this point before. It sounds superficially fair. But it presupposes that there is something in Christian theology to be ignorant about. The entire thrust of my position is that Christian theology is a non-subject."[79] Dinesh D'Souza says that Dawkins criticism "only makes sense if you assume Christians made the whole thing up." He goes on to say that Christians view it as a beautiful sacrifice, and that "through the extremity of Golgotha, Christ reconciles divine justice and divine mercy."[80] Andrew Wilson argues that Dawkins misses the point of the atonement, which has nothing to do with masochism, but is based on the concepts of holiness, sin and grace.[81]
Robert Green Ingersoll suggests that the concept of the atonement is simply an extension of the Mosaic tradition of blood sacrifice and "is the enemy of morality".[82] The death of Jesus Christ represents the blood sacrifice to end all blood sacrifices; the resulting mechanism of atonement by proxy through that final sacrifice has appeal as a more convenient and much less costly approach to redemption than repeated animal sacrifice – a common sense solution to the problem of reinterpreting ancient religious approaches based on sacrifice.
Prominent Christian apologist, Josh McDowell, in More Than A Carpenter, addresses the issue through an analogy of a real-life judge in California who was forced to fine his daughter $100 for speeding, but then came down, took off his robe, and paid the fine for her from his billfold.[83]
[edit] The Second Coming
 |
This article or section contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. |
A fundamental belief of Christianity is that Christ will return to the earth to conquer evil and rule over the faithful - a simplified definition of the Second Coming. Since the first century until modern times, some Christian leaders and their followers have prophesied that this would happen, usually during the lifetime of the person making the prophecy, and frequently within the next 20 years after the prophecy. This practice seems to contradict a fundamental Christian principle that says that no one knows when Christ will come (Mark 13:32). The failure of even one of these many prophecies to come true often has the effect of trivializing Christian teachings and making the church seem unreliable.
Several verses in the New Testament appear to contain Jesus' predictions that the Second Coming would take place within a century following his death. Most notably, Matthew 10:22-23, 16:27-28, 23:36, 24:29-34, 26:62-64; Mark 9:1, Mark 14:24-30, 14:60-62; and Luke 9:27. Jesus appears to promise for his followers the second coming to happen before the generation he is preaching to vanishes. This is seen as a essential failure in the teachings of Christ by many critics such as Bertrand Russell.[84]
[edit] Inconsistency with Old Testament conception of the afterlife
- See also: Afterlife#Christianity
Most Christian traditions teach belief in life after death as a central and indispensable tenet of their faith. Critics argue that the Christian conception of the afterlife is inconsistent with that described in the Old Testament. George E. Mendenhall believes there is no concept of immortality or life after death in the Old Testament.[85] The presumption is that the deceased are inert, lifeless, and engaging in no activity.[85]
The idea of Sheol ("שׁאול") or a state of nothingness was shared among Babylonian and Israelite beliefs. "Sheol, as it was called by the ancient Israelites, is the land of no return, lying below the cosmic ocean, to which all, the mighty and the weak, travel in the ghostly form they assume after death, known as Raphraim. There the dead have no experience of either joy or pain, perceiving no light, feeling no movement."[86] Professor Obayshi alludes that the Israelites were satisfied with such a shadowy realm of afterlife because they were more deeply concerned with survival.[86]
This theme of prosperity via unity is very much portrayed in the Book of Joshua. The descendants of Moses, led from Egypt, follow Joshua into Canaan where they capture much of the land, the book ascribes this to their religious piety. The famed walls of Jericho even fall when Priests encircle the walls and blow ram horns. This theme of unity resonates in the next stanza where Joshua suffers a setback at the easily conquerable town of Ai. God lets the Israelites lose in battle because a man stole booty from the victory prior, this exemplifies the Old Testament's logic of salvation via collective survival.[citation needed][original research?] Recent Archaeology has revealed that the town of Ai was destroyed 1,000 years before the story took place, 500 years before the fall of Jericho.[87]
Some critics charge that the belief in an afterlife is an innovation of Christianity, perhaps by admixture with Greek philosophy; however, by the first century such a belief was already prevalent in Jewish thinking[88] amongst the Pharisees[89][90] and Essenes.[91] The themes of unity and sheol which largely shaped the ancient tradition of Judaism had been undermined when only the most pious of Jews were being massacred during the Maccabean revolt.
- The suffering during the Maccabean period became the most serious challenge to the old Israelite thinking. This time it was not the shared suffering of all the Jews, but only those who remained loyal to the Torah who suffered and died. Thus the ancient belief of Sheol, the underworld, which summarized the common fate of all the Jews, proved no longer satisfactory. The logic of salvation that focused only on corporate or collective survival was no longer sufficient. The fate of the individual who perished for the faith had to be addressed. It was through this situation that the idea of resurrection, which Robert Goldenberg calls "the most individualistic of all religious conceptions," was introduced into Judaism... Resurrection and apocalypticism were the Judaic answer to changing times.[92]
[edit] Scripture
- See also: Criticism of the Bible
[edit] Alleged errors and inconsistencies
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 not been adopted by many Christian groups, or has been understood 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.
There are many places in the Bible in which inconsistencies have been alleged by critics,[93] 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,[94][95] but the Gospels by four independent witnesses,[96] and all of the Pauline Epistles, except maybe Hebrews, written by Paul.
While consideration of the context is necessary when studying the Bible, some find the accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus within the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, difficult to reconcile. E.P. Sanders concludes that the inconsistencies make the possibility of a deliberate fraud unlikely: "A plot to foster belief in the Resurrection would probably have resulted in a more consistent story. Instead, there seems to have been a competition: 'I saw him,' 'So did I,' 'The women saw him first,' 'No, I did; they didn't see him at all,' and so on."[97]
Harold Lindsell points out that it is a "gross distortion" to state that people who believe in Biblical inerrancy suppose every statement made in the Bible is true (opposed to accurate).[98] He indicates there are expressly false statements in the Bible which are reported accurately[98] (for example, Satan is a liar whose lies are accurately reported as to what he actually said).[98] Proponents of biblical inerrancy generally do not teach that the Bible was dictated directly by God, but that God used the "distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers" of scripture and that God's inspiration guided them to flawlessly project his message through their own language and personality.[99]
Many who believe in the inspiration of scripture teach that it is infallible but not inerrant. Those who subscribe to infallibility believe that what the scriptures say regarding matters of faith and Christian practice are wholly useful and true. Some denominations that teach infallibility hold that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors. [100]
Infallibility and inerrancy refer to the original texts of the Bible. And while conservative scholars acknowledge the potential for human error in transmission and translation, modern translations are considered to "faithfully represent the originals".[101]
[edit] Unfulfilled Prophecy
Hundreds of years before the time of Jesus, Jewish prophets promised that a messiah would come. Judaism (with the exception of Messianic Judaism) claims that Jesus did not fulfill these prophecies. Other skeptics usually claim that the prophecies are either vague or unfulfilled,[102] or that the Old Testament writings influenced the composition of New Testament narratives.[103] Christian apologists claim that Jesus fulfilled these prophecies, which they argue are nearly impossible to fulfill by chance.[104] Many Christians anticipate the Second Coming of Jesus, when he will fulfill the rest of Messianic prophecy, such as the Last Judgement, the general resurrection, establishment of the Kingdom of God, and the Messianic Age (see the article on Preterism for contrasting Christian views).
The Hebrew Bible, referred to by Christians as the Old Testament, is a history of the land of Israel. God gave Abraham unconditional promises entailing multitudinous progeny, nationhood, royal leaders, and land possession. The Hebrew Bible's prophetic literature ends waiting for Judah to be restored via a new monarch, one who will restore the Davidic kingdom and possibly create universal peace. The New Testament traces Jesus' line to that of David; however according to Professor Stephen L. Harris:
- Jesus did not accomplish what Israel's prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do: He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf Isa. 9:6-7; 11:7-12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God's ancient promises - for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing - Jesus died a "shameful" death (Deut. 21:24), defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome. Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel's savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles (John 7:12,27,31,40-44), making Jesus' crucifixion a "stumbling block" to scripturally literate Jews (1 Cor. 1:23).[105]
On the other hand, Blaise Pascal believed that "[t]he prophecies are the strongest proof of Jesus Christ." He wrote that Jesus was foretold, and that the prophecies came from a succession of people over a span of four thousand years.[106] Apologist Josh McDowell defends the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy as supporting Christianity, arguing that prophecies fulfilled by Christ include ones relating to his ancestral line, birthplace, virgin birth, miracles, manner of death, and resurrection. He says that even the timing of the Messiah in years and in relation to events is predicted, and that the Jewish Talmud (not accepting Jesus as the Messiah) laments that the Messiah had not appeared despite the scepter being taken away from Judah.[107]
[edit] Selective interpretation
- See also: Expounding of the Law and Biblical law in Christianity
Critics argue that the selective invocation of portions of the Old Testament is hypocritical, particularly when those portions endorse hostility towards women and homosexuals, when other portions are considered obsolete. The website www.fallwell.com draws attention to several commands contained in the Old Testament which are not observed by Christians, to argue that conservative Christians who oppose homosexual lifestyles quote the Bible selectively.[108][unreliable source?] Many of the Old Testament laws are specifically abrogated by the New Testament, such as circumcision.[109] The entire Mosaic Law is described in Galatians 3:24-25 as a tutor which is no longer necessary. The counter argument is that the specific principles invoked by Christians are endorsed or renewed in the New Testament.[110]
Matthew 5:17-19 can be taken to imply that the Old Testament laws remain in place in the New Testament, while Matthew 5:38-39 can be viewed as contradicting those earlier passages.[original research?]
[edit] Textual corruption
- See also: Biblical criticism and Textual criticism
In his book Misquoting Jesus, Bart D. Ehrman claims that the original text of New Testament has been changed. In Chapter 7 of the book, he discusses theologically motivated alterations of the text. He argues, for example, that scribes added Luke 22:43-44 in an attempt to counter the arguments that Jesus was not fully human and did not have a body. In Chapter 8, he argues that texts were changed in order to minimize the role of women and counter the Jews and pagans. Ehrman's conclusions have been challenged by conservative reviewers, including Daniel B. Wallace, Craig Blomberg and Thomas Howe.[111][112][113]
Newly discovered ancient manuscripts of the Bible, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and Codex Sinaiticus, suggest that passages such as the Pericope Adulteræ, and Mark 16 and Comma Johanneum originally took other forms than are present in older translations such as the King James Version, or were even absent. There is also the question of whether the masoretic text, which forms the basis of most modern English translations of the Old Testament, is the more accurate or whether one of the translations which pre-dates the masoretic text, such as the Septuagint, Syriac Peshitta, and Samaritan Pentateuch is more accurate.
In attempting to determine the original text of the New Testament books, some modern textual critics have identified sections as probably not original. In modern translations of the Bible, the results of textual criticism have led to certain verses being left out or marked as not original. Previously, translations of the New Testament had mostly been based on Erasmus's redaction of the New Testament in Greek, the Textus Receptus from the 1500s.
These possible later additions include the following:[114][115]
- the ending of Mark, see Mark 16.
- Jesus sweating blood in Luke (Luke 22:43-44).
- the story in John of the woman taken in adultery, the Pericope Adulterae.
- an explicit reference to the Trinity in 1 John, the Comma Johanneum.
Other passages are also disputed. Opinions are divided on whether Jesus is referred to as "unique Son" or "unique God", in John 1:18.[115] In 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, some scholars regard the instruction for women to be silent in churches as a later, non-Pauline addition to the Letter, more in keeping with the viewpoint of the Pastoral Epistles (see 1 Tim 2.11-12; Titus 2.5) than of the certainly Pauline Epistles. A few manuscripts place these verses after 40.[116]
Most Bibles have footnotes to indicate areas which have disputed source documents. Bible Commentaries also discuss these, sometimes in great detail.
In "The Text Of The New Testament", Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland compare the total number of variant-free verses, and the number of variants per page (excluding orthographic errors), among the seven major editions of the Greek NT (Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover and Nestle-Aland) concluding 62.9%, or 4999/7947, agreement.[117] They concluded, "Thus in nearly two-thirds of the New Testament text, the seven editions of the Greek New Testament which we have reviewed are in complete accord, with no differences other than in orthographical details (e.g., the spelling of names, etc.). Verses in which any one of the seven editions differs by a single word are not counted. This result is quite amazing, demonstrating a far greater agreement among the Greek texts of the New Testament during the past century than textual scholars would have suspected... In the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation the agreement is less, while in the letters it is much greater"[117]
[edit] Mistranslation
- See also: Bible errata, Bible translations, and English translations of the Bible
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.
Criticisms are also sometimes raised because of contradictions arising between different English translations of the Hebrew or Greek text. Some Christian interpretations are criticized by non-Christians (and sometimes particularly by Jews)[citation needed] as being based on mistranslations, or on readings found in only some manuscripts of the Bible, or in particular English translations of the Bible.
Jewish scholars accuse Christians of translating the Bible in a dishonest way to make the text reflect Christian doctrine.[118][119]
Translation of Almah as Virgin : Matthew 1:22-1:23 reads: "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel' — which means, 'God with us.' " From the earliest days of Christianity, Jewish critics have argued that Christians were mistaken in their reading of the word almah ("עלמה") in Isaiah 7:14.[120] Jewish translations of the verse from Isaiah read: "Behold, the young woman is with child and will bear a son and she will call his name Immanuel." Moreover, it is claimed that Christians have taken this verse out of context (see Immanuel for further information).[118]
The Greek text of Matthew 1:23 uses the term "parthenos," which is the usual Greek word for virgin:
- "[...] ιδου η παρθενος εν γαστρι εξει και τεξεται υιον και καλεσουσιν το ονομα αυτου εμμανουηλ ο εστιν μεθερμηνευομενον μεθ ημων ο θεος". (Matthew 1:23 1881 Westcott-Hort)[121]
However, the Hebrew text at Isaiah 7:14 uses the word almah:
- יד לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל. 14
- Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.[122]
The Jewish translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek that was in use during the first century, the Septuagint, uses the word "parthenos" ("virgin") in Isaiah 7:14 rather than the usual Greek word "neanis" for "young woman".[123] The Septuagint's Greek term παρθένος (parthenos) is considered by many to be an inexact rendering of the Hebrew word `almah in the text of Isaiah.[124]
The use of the Hebrew word "almah" in the Hebrew Masoretic Text of Isaiah has stirred debate among translators and has resulted in variations between Bible translations, with some translations using "young woman" as does the New English Translation or NET Bible:
- “For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14)
The text from the Luther Bible uses the German word "Jungfrau", which is composed literally of the words "young" and "woman", although it is common to use this word for "virgin". This ambiguity results in a similar reading to the original Hebrew in the text of Jesaja (Isaiah) 7:14. "Darum wird euch der HERR selbst ein Zeichen geben: Siehe, eine Jungfrau ist schwanger und wird einen Sohn gebären, den wird sie nennen Immanuel."[7] in English: "For this reason, the LORD himself will give to you(plural) a sign: See, a virgin/young woman is pregnant and will bear a son, whom she will name Immanuel."
Some scholars contend that debates over the precise meaning of bethulah ("בתולה" - virgin) and almah (young woman) are misguided because no Hebrew word encapsulates the idea of certain virginity.[125] Martin Luther also argued that the debate was irrelevant, not because the words do not clearly mean virgin, but because almah and bethulah were functional synonyms.[126]
(For more information, see the articles on the Virgin birth of Jesus and