Criticism of the Bible

Template:Totally disputed

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 This is not the same thing as Biblical Criticism, which is the academic treatment of the bible as an historical document. It is also not the same as Criticism of Christianity, which is the criticism of the whole Christian religion

In modern times, the Bible has come under attack from feminists, gay rights groups, and skeptics in general, as well as from a large group of 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 to be wrong, Christian Fundamentalism as well as much of Orthodox Judaism strongly refutes attacks on the factuality and morality of the Bible.

Besides any major concern about morality, inerrancy, or historicity, there are many factors that make investigation of these concerns difficult, and ambiguous. As there is not complete agreement among believers as to which books form the Biblical canon, some issues will simply not exist for some observers, as they do not consider the particular books containing them as belonging to scripture. Jews discount the New Testament, all but Coptic Christianity discounts the Books of Enoch and of Jubilees, and almost everyone discounts the remainder of the New Testament apocrypha.

Translation issues

Problems of translation can cause issues - while the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states that inerrancy applies only to the original languages, many believers simply trust their own translation to be the accurate one. Most famously, one historic American politician opposed the teaching of foreign languages on the basis that if English was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for [him]. Similarly, for whatever reason, translators may choose to add their own words, some translations even paraphrasing to produce their opinion of what it means, and others inserting words that are awkward. For example, Isaiah, mentions lilitu, which the King James Version translates as Screach Owl rather than as the more obvious Lilith mentioned in the Midrash.

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 simply young woman in Hebrew, while Matthew 1:23 follows the Septuagint version of the passage which uses the Greek word parthenos meaning virgin, thus slightly changing the meaning, and appears to support the Christian idea of virgin birth. If you 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, this becomes an inconsistency, whereas if you take the Septuagint to be accurate, it does 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 lead to modern translations differing somewhat from the older ones, removing passages not present in the earliest texts, some of which are acknowledged as frauds, such as the Pericope Adulteræ, 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. In reaction to this, rather than adjust their own perception of what the bible actually said, the King-James-Only Movement advocates rejecting these modern changes and upholding the King James Version as the most accurate.

Ethics in the Bible

Many of the ethical decisions in the Bible are considered morally questionable by many modern groups, and often do not match up to modern expectations. Some of the more dubious assertions it makes include the subjugation of women, condemnation of (perhaps only some forms 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. 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 several places in the Bible in which it seems to contradict itself, apparently presenting, amongst other difficulties, different numbers and names for the same feature, and different sequences for what is supposed to be the same event. Solutions to these issues supported by the majority of scholars include the modern documentary hypothesis, two source hypothesis (in various guises), and allegations that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudonymous. On the other side, contrasting with these critical stances, are positions supported by literalists such as creationists, 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.

The Bible vs. History

The Biblical creation story, up to and including the Great Flood is generally regarded as pure myth both by most scientists and most religious followers. However, there is considerable opposition to this stance by creationists who view this account as factual, to varying degrees. The Patriarchs are also held generally to be myths, syncretisms of various local foundation stories, and, although supporters of Biblical inerrancy dispute this, it is very unlikely that evidence will surface of early first or second millennium BC individuals who, in their own time, were not nationally significant, whether or not they genuinely existed.

The accounts of the exodus are, on the other hand, 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 show signs of violent disruption in the time period required for the Israelite invasion. 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. However, the recent discovery of ruins similar to the palace of King David will force academics to put the evidence 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 hellenic mysticism creeping in to Jewish thought.

As for the New Testament, some critics have maintained that Christianity isn't even founded on an historical figure whatsoever, but rather on a mythical creation. This radical position is disputed and rejected by most conservative scholars and historians, as well as by the vast majority of Christians, and more generally by popular society. Although critics are quick to concede this point, they also note that the dispute has yet to turn up any counter-argument. In particular, there are less than seven known non-biblical witnesses to the existence of Jesus, and all of these are regarded as dubious, if not downright fraudulent by the majority of academics. 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.

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. 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. Many of the Pauline Epistles are believed to be have been forged by over two thirds of modern scholars, and it is the view of Timothy Freke, and others, that this forgery was an attempt by the Church to bring in Paul's gnostic supporters, and turn the arguments in the other Epistles on their head.

The Bible vs. Science

Perhaps the largest set of statements in the Bible affecting scientific thought concern health and animal behaviour. The bible appears to make several statements contradicting modern common knowledge, such as lions killing via strangulation, buildings being able to catch plagues of leprosy, and lions at some point becoming herbivores, and eating straw. While supporters of Biblical scientific foresight view the idea of buildings catching leprosy as a problem, and resolve it by suggesting that the Hebrew word used (Tzaraath) should instead be translated mould, they believe that there is a body of evidence supporting their position that lions kill via strangulation, as well as instances of feline herbivority.

There are many other instances of statements, such as the laws of Kosher food and circumcision, which are corroborated as wise by some groups in modern science but not by others, and remain controversial. 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 known, their opponents consider many instances of these to be blindingly obvious, or evidenced elsewhere, such as the extremely extensive (though not always accurate) Egyptian knowledge of medicine, dating back to at least 3000BC 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.

External links

http://www.bible-researcher.com/links12.html Bible Research] The Gender-Neutral (Feminist) Bible Controversy
Skeptic's Annotated Bible
Bible stories - A critical, historical perspective.